The Things that Make for Peace: Jesus and Eschatological Violence 311070241X, 9783110702415

Table of contents :
Contents
Preface & Acknowledgements
Chapter 1 Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus
Chapter 2 Violence in Second Temple Jewish Eschatological Writings
Chapter 3 Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish History
Chapter 4 Jesus and Revolutionary Violence
Chapter 5 Jesus’s Rejection of Eschatological Violence In the Synoptic Gospels
Chapter 6 Jesus and Eschatological Conflict
Chapter 7 Conclusion
Bibliography
Index of Ancient Sources
Subject Index

Citation preview

Jesse P. Nickel The Things that Make for Peace

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Edited by Matthias Konradt, Judith Lieu, Laura Nasrallah, Jens Schröter and Gregory E. Sterling

Volume 244

Jesse P. Nickel

The Things that Make for Peace

Jesus and Eschatological Violence

ISBN 978-3-11-070241-5 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-070377-1 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-070387-0 ISSN 0171-6441 Library of Congress Control Number: 2020946765 Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; Detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

For Liana

Come, O children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord. Which of you desires life, and covets many days to enjoy good? Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit. Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it. Psalm 34:11– 14 Then justice will dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness abide in the fruitful field. The effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust forever. Isaiah 32:16 – 17 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. Matthew 5:9

Contents Preface & Acknowledgements

XV

1 Chapter 1 Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus . Introduction 1 .. The Status Quaestionis and Identification of the Problem 3 7 .. The Intentions of this Study . Methodology: a “Historical Jesus” or “Synoptic” Study? 8 8 .. The Methodological Challenge .. Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus”: A Way Forward? 9 ... Historical Jesus Scholarship and the “Interpreted” Jesus of the 12 Gospels 14 .. The Approach of the Present Study ... Two Necessary Clarifications 16 . History of Research 18 19 .. The Roots of the Problem ... Hermann Samuel Reimarus 19 19 ... Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer ... Rudolf Bultmann 21 ... S. G. F. Brandon 22 24 ... Responses to Brandon .. Violence and Eschatology in the “Third Quest” 25 26 ... E. P. Sanders ... Richard Horsley 27 ... Walter Wink 28 29 ... The Jesus Seminar .... John Dominic Crossan 30 .... Marcus J. Borg 31 32 ... Dale C. Allison, Jr. 34 ... The Lingering Presence of the Schweitzerian Paradigm .. Summary 35 . Definitions of Important Terms 36 36 .. Eschatology .. The Kingdom of God 38 .. Violence 41 .. Eschatological Violence 47 . Outline of the Present Study 49

X

Contents

Chapter 2 Violence in Second Temple Jewish Eschatological Writings 52 . Introduction 52 53 . The Book of Daniel 54 .. Passages of Particular Significance .. Violence in the Book of Daniel 56 59 .. The Role of God’s People 63 . 1 Enoch .. The “Animal Apocalypse” (1En. 85 – 90) 64 67 .. The “Apocalypse of Weeks” (1En. 93:1 – 10; 91:11 – 17) . The War Scroll (1QM) 70 .. The Violence of the Eschatological Culmination in 1QM 73 74 .. The Synergistic Eschatological Violence of 1QM .. The Eschatological Enemy in 1QM 77 . Summary and Conclusions 79 Chapter 3 Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish 81 History . Introduction 81 . The Maccabean Revolt 82 84 .. The Outbreak and Initial Goals of the Maccabean Revolt .. Language of Eschatological Deliverance in 1 and 85 2 Maccabees .. The Synergistic Violence of the Maccabean Success 87 . The Jewish-Roman War 89 91 .. Josephus as Historical Source .. Josephus’s Depiction of the Revolutionary Jews 94 .. Josephus on Jewish Motivations for Revolt 99 104 . The Bar Kokhba Revolt .. Factors that Led to Revolt 106 107 .. Ideological Insight from Numismatics .. The Eschatological Significance of Bar Kokhba, ‫נסיא יסראל‬ 110 . Summary and Conclusions 113 Chapter 4 Jesus and Revolutionary Violence 116 116 . Introduction 118 . Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae .. “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt 10:34) ... The Seditious Reading 118 ... Critique of the Seditious Reading 119 ... Matthew 10:34 and Eschatological Conflict 121

118

Contents

.. ... ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... ... .

XI

The “Triumphal Entry” into Jerusalem (Mark 11:1 – 11 // Matt 21:1 – 11 // Luke 19:29 – 39) 122 123 The Seditious Reading 123 Critique of the Seditious Reading The Messianic Implications of Jesus’s Arrival at Jerusalem 124 The Temple Act (Mark 11:15 – 19 // Matt 21:12 – 17 // 127 Luke 19:45 – 48) The Seditious Reading 128 130 Critique of the Seditious Reading An Enacted Prophetic Condemnation 131 The Tribute Question (Mark 12:13 – 17 // Matt 22:15 – 22 // 136 Luke 20:20 – 26) The Significance of the Tribute Question 137 Contrasting Interpretations 138 141 The Eschatological Implications of the Tribute Question The Two Swords (Luke 22:35 – 38) 142 142 The Seditious Reading Critique of the Seditious Reading 144 Counted Among the “Lawless” 144 The Arrest in Gethsemane (Mark 14:43 – 50 // Matt 26:47 – 56 // 148 Luke 22:47 – 53) 148 The Seditious Reading Critique of the Seditious Reading 149 Tried and Crucified as a λῃστής 150 150 The Seditious Implications of the Crucifixion The Synoptic Jesus and the λῃσταί 154 Competing Eschatological Visions 157 159 Summary and Conclusions

Chapter 5 Jesus’s Rejection of Eschatological Violence In the Synoptic Gospels 161 . Introduction 161 162 . Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae .. Τhe Kingdom of Heaven βιάζεται (Matt 11:12) 162 163 ... Literary Context and Interpretative Issues 165 ... Matthew 11:12 and the SJH ... Perceiving τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ 166 .. “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:1 – 5) 169 ... Identifying the Historical Incident Behind Luke 13:1 – 5 169

XII

... .. ... ... ... .. .

Contents

The Motivation Behind the Report 170 “Love your enemies” (Matt 5:38 – 48 // Luke 6:27 – 36) 177 179 “Love your enemies”—A “Straightforward” Reading 180 “Love your enemies” and the SJH Love of Enemies and the People of the Kingdom of God 183 The Arrest in Gethsemane (Mark 14:43 – 50 // Matt 26:47 – 56 // 185 Luke 22:50) Summary and Conclusions 189

Chapter 6 Jesus and Eschatological Conflict 191 . Introduction 191 192 . Demons, Exorcism, and Jesus’s Ministry .. Demonology in Second Temple Judaism 193 .. Exorcism in Second Temple Judaism and the Synoptic Portrayal of 196 Jesus .. Exorcism as Eschatological Conflict 199 200 . The Synoptic Exorcisms as Eschatological Conflicts .. The Beelzebul Controversy (Mark 3:22 – 27 // Matt 12:22 – 30 // Luke 11:14 – 23) 201 207 .. Exorcism in the Synoptic Gospels ... A πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτος in the Capernaum Synagogue 207 (Mark 1:21 – 28 // Luke 4:31 – 37) ... The Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1 – 20 // Matt 8:28 – 34 // Luke 8:26 – 39) 211 ... The Syrophoenician Woman’s Daughter (Mark 7:24 – 30 // Matt 15:21 – 28) 216 ... The Possessed Boy and His Father (Mark 9:14 – 29 // 218 Matt 17:14 – 20 // Luke 9:37 – 43) ... Concluding Observations 221 221 . Jesus and Expectations of Eschatological Violence .. The Wilderness Temptation: the ἐξουσία and δόξα of Two Kingdoms (Mark 1:12 – 13 // Matt 4:1 – 11 // Luke 4:1 – 13) 222 .. The “Things of God” or the “Things of Humanity”? (Mark 8:27 – 33 // Matt 16:13 – 16, 20 – 23 // 225 Luke 9:18 – 22) 229 . Summary and Conclusions Chapter 7 Conclusion 231 . Summary of the Study 231 .. Identifying the Problem and its Results

231

Contents

.. .. .. . .. .. ..

Identifying and Describing Eschatological Violence in Second Temple Judaism 232 The “Seditious Jesus Hypothesis,” Eschatological Violence, and 233 Jesus The Victorious Eschatological Conflict of Jesus 234 235 Prospects for Future Research 235 Eschatological Violence and the Cross Eschatological Violence and the Gospel of John 236 236 Eschatological Violence and Early Christianity

Bibliography

238

Index of Ancient Sources Subject Index

307

288

XIII

Preface & Acknowledgements This book consists of a revised version of my PhD thesis, completed at the University of St Andrews, Scotland, between September 2012 and June 2016, under the supervision of Professor N. T. Wright. After defending the thesis in October 2016, some minor revisions were made prior to its final completion in January 2017. Further revisions to prepare it for publication were undertaken after that point. However, none of this work has included consultation of any scholarship published since the end of 2016. I am keenly aware that several such sources merit my attention, for the ways they have contributed to the subject matter of this study. Unfortunately, however, work and family responsibilities have precluded my ability to consult and engage with them. The only more recent work referenced in what follows is my own article, “Jesus and the Lēstai: Competing Kingdom Visions,” which was published in the 2018 issue of Ex Auditu. My apologies to the authors of studies whose work I have overlooked; I hope that the opportunity for collegial dialogue and insightful engagement might not have been lost. There are, of course, many people who have contributed to the completion of this work in a variety of different ways, and to each of them I owe a great deal of gratitude. This includes the two scholars who have had the most formative impact upon me, both in terms of my own thinking, as well as my identity as a biblical scholar and Christ follower. First, Tom Wright, who was a tireless, encouraging supervisor of my doctoral work. Tom generously and gently offered words of scholarly wisdom and insight, including the occasional need for me to get away from the stacks of books and articles and join him on the links. He continues to mentor me in what it looks like to combine academic excellence with faithful discipleship of Jesus. Second, Rikk Watts, who taught me that at its heart, biblical exegesis should be life-giving—this stuff matters!—and embodied the difference this makes to teaching it. Rikk’s love of Jesus is overflowing and contagious. I am also thankful to my fellow students and the faculty of St Mary’s College at the University of St Andrews, for creating such a vibrant research community. I am particularly grateful to Garrick Allen, Chris Brewer, Jen Gilbertson, Andrew Marin, Raymond Morehouse, and Steve Watts, for their friendship, support, and thoughtful engagement with my work. Since moving back to Canada in the summer of 2016, I have been fortunate to work alongside a group of wonderful colleagues at Columbia Bible College. They have offered me patience and encouragement as I have grown into my role as part of the biblical studies faculty, and their support as I have sought https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703771-001

XVI

Preface & Acknowledgements

to carve out bits of space to work towards the publication of this book. I am particularly grateful in this regard to Doug Berg, Gil Dueck, Ken Esau, Jerry Pauls, and Michael Szuk. For careful reading, insightful critique, and helpful feedback on various parts of this work, I am thankful to Chris Keith, Justin Meggitt, and Elizabeth Shively. For support and guidance through the publication process, I am thankful to Alice Meroz, Sabina Dabrowski, and the rest of the team at de Gruyter. Huge thanks also to Andrea Allen, for providing such top-notch indexing service. Many friendships over the years have also been—and continue to be—very meaningful to me; for conversation, challenge, laughter, and shared memories with such great people, I am thankful. I have also been privileged to share life together with some pretty incredible communities of people at Peace Mennonite Church, Cornerstone Church, and Level Ground Mennonite Church, and I am thankful for the many ways in which the steadfast love of God has been manifested to me through them. Thank you. Throughout my life, I have been faithfully and lovingly supported by my family, and things were no different when it came to the lengthy process of researching and writing this book. This includes my mom, Sue, and dad, Dieter; my sister, Jenna, and brother-in-law, Keith; my parents-in-law, Laura and Gerry; and my brother- and sister-in-law, Aaron and Diedre. In particular, mom and dad, thanks for always being interested, asking such great questions, and being so unfailing in your expressions of love and encouragement. And to my kids, Annelise and James: you bring me so much joy, and I love you so much—even if you never get around to reading this book! Finally, last in these acknowledgements, but first in every other way: Liana— where can I even begin? Through all the ups and downs of the past years, I have known your faithful, patient, tireless encouragement, and your selfless, loving support. I could not have done any of this without you. I hope that you know the heartfelt truth of those words, and in case you need reminding, I’m dedicating this book to you in recognition of that fact. Jesse Nickel Columbia Bible College, Abbotsford, BC 5 August 2020

Chapter 1 Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus 1.1 Introduction Within the vast historical, literary, and theological scholarship of which Jesus of Nazareth has been the focal point, a subject of sustained interest has been the question of Jesus’s relationship to violence. Scholars of different backgrounds and perspectives have explored the matter, utilising diverse methodologies. Many have been struck by the Gospels’¹ presentation of Jesus’s nonviolence, a distinct attribute of his teaching reflected in oft-quoted passages such as his command to “Love your enemies” (Matt 5:44 // Luke 6:27). Other scholars, however, have questioned the historical veracity of this aspect of the evangelists’ portrayal of Jesus, arguing that the evidence instead suggests that Jesus was sympathetic to, if not himself a participant in, the revolutionary violence that was frequent in the world of Second Temple Judaism. Although this has been a minority opinion within Jesus scholarship, the hypothesis has proved tenacious, and, whenever articulated anew, has managed to capture public attention. For example, in 2013, Reza Aslan, a scholar of sociology and religious studies, published Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, a pseudo-historical examination of Jesus aimed at a popular-level audience.² In this work, Aslan painted a

 By “the Gospels,” I am referring to the four gospels of the New Testament canon: the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  Reza Aslan, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth (London: The Westbourne Press, 2013). Reviews of Aslan’s book were almost unanimously negative: see, for example, Elizabeth Castelli, “Reza Aslan––historian?,” The Nation, 9 August 2013, http://www.thenation.com/ar ticle/reza-aslan-historian/; Craig A. Evans, “Reza Aslan Tells an Old Story About Jesus,” Christianity Today, 9 August 2013, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/august-web-only/zealotreza-aslan-tells-same-old-story-about-jesus.html; Simon J. Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah: Jesus, Q, and the Enochic Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), 34– 35; Anthony Le Donne, “A Usually Happy Fellow Reviews Aslan’s Zealot,” The Jesus Blog, 31 July 2013, http://histor icaljesusresearch.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/a-usually-happy-fellow-reviews-aslans.html; Dale B. Martin, “Still a Firebrand, 2,000 Years Later: ‘Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth’,” The New York Times, 5 August 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/books/reza-aslanszealot-the-life-and-times-of-jesus-of-nazareth.html?_r=0; Allan Nadler, “What Jesus Wasn’t: Zealot” Jewish Review of Books, 11 Asugust 2013, http://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/449/ reza-aslan-what-jesus-wasnt/; Stephen Prothero, “Book Review: ‘Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth’ By Reza Aslan” The Washington Post, 2 August 2013, https://www.wash https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703771-002

2

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

picture of Jesus as a religious revolutionary freedom fighter—a “Zealot.” The book entered The New York Times’ Best Seller list at number two, and was for a time the top seller on Amazon.com.³ This is but one example of the way that this subject continues to intrigue both scholars and laypeople alike.⁴ As scholarship has come to understand better the sociopolitical context of first-century Palestinian Judaism, this has enabled a deeper appreciation of the ways that Jesus’s perspective upon violence, demonstrated in word as well as deed, was both similar to and distinct from other perspectives prevalent among his contemporaries. This topic has been examined from a variety of different angles; however, one significant aspect of the discussion that remains underrepresented in scholarship concerns the place and role of eschatology in relation to violence. As a distinct topic, “Jesus and eschatology” has, if anything, been discussed at even greater length than “Jesus and violence,” as scholars have sought to understand Jesus’s beliefs about “the end,” and the impact these had on his teaching and action. Intriguingly, however, only very rarely have these two topics been examined together; that is, in terms of their relationship to one another. According to the Gospels’ portrayal, how did Jesus’s eschatological expectations inform his decisions regarding the role of violence in his own life and ministry? How does this compare to what we know of the eschatological expectations and vio-

ingtonpost.com/opinions/book-review-zealot-the-life-and-times-of-jesus-of-nazareth-by-rezaaslan/2013/08/02/029f6088-f087-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html.  Connor Simpson, “Why the Fox News Scandal is Good News for Reza Aslan,” The Atlantic, 28 July 2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2013/07/why-fox-news-scandal-goodnews-reza-aslan/312800/; Hector Tobar, “Reza Aslan’s Jesus Book a No. 1 Bestseller, Thanks to Fox News,” Los Angeles Times, 29 July 2013, http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-etjc-reza-aslans-jesus-book-bestseller-fox-news-20130729-story.html. This was at least partially the result of a televised interview with Aslan on Fox News in which the interviewer took issue with Aslan—himself a Muslim—writing a book about Jesus, which went “viral” online. See Andrew Kaczynski, “Is This the Most Embarrassing Interview Fox News Has Ever Done?,” Buzzfeed, 28 July 2013, http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/is-this-the-most-embarrassing-inter view-fox-news-has-ever-do#.qaN3DR66q.  See further Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance: A Reassessment of the Arguments,” JSHJ 12 (2014): 1– 105; Laura L. Brenneman and Brad D. Schantz, eds., Struggles for Shalom: Peace and Violence Across the Testaments, SPS 12 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014); John Dominic Crossan, Jesus and the Violence of Scripture: How to Read the Bible and Still be a Christian (London: SPCK, 2015); Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah; David Lertis Matson, “Pacifist Jesus? The (Mis)translation of Ἐᾶτε Ἕωσ Τούτο in Luke 22:51,” JBL 134 (2015): 157– 76; David J. Neville, A Peaceable Hope: Contesting Violent Eschatology in New Testament Narratives (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 2017.

1.1 Introduction

3

lent actions of Jesus’s contemporaries? Such questions are at the heart of the present study. The underlying inquiry of this study, therefore, is this: how does understanding eschatology and violence together—that is, in terms of the significant connections between them in the diverse world of Second Temple Judaism—enable us to make better sense of the presence and/or absence of violence in Jesus’s life and ministry?

1.1.1 The Status Quaestionis and Identification of the Problem It is my contention that previous scholarship has not adequately considered the significance of the close connections between eschatology and violence in Second Temple Judaism for understanding certain components of the Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus’s life and ministry, and that this oversight has had problematic repercussions. Those specifically to be addressed in this study are demonstrated by two recent publications. First, in a lengthy article in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, entitled “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance: A Reassessment of the Arguments,”⁵ the Spanish scholar Fernando Bermejo-Rubio argues that “Jesus the Galilean was involved in anti-Roman, rebellious thinking and activity.”⁶ To support this claim, he contends that “there is … a great amount of material which points precisely in the direction of a seditious Jesus, that this material configures a recurrent pattern, and that this pattern enjoys the highest probability of historicity.”⁷ Most importantly, Bermejo-Rubio repeatedly emphasises his belief that

 Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance.” The article is 105 pages long.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 1. Bermejo-Rubio here revisits more thoroughly an argument he previously made in Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “(Why) Was Jesus the Galilean Crucified Alone? Solving a False Conundrum,” JSNT 36 (2013): 127– 54; Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “Has the Hypothesis of a Seditionist Jesus Been Dealt a Fatal Blow? A Systematic Answer to the Doubters,” Bandue: Revista de la Sociedad Española de Ciencias de las Religiones 7 (2013): 19 – 58; Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “Why is the Hypothesis That Jesus Was an AntiRoman Rebel Alive and Well?” The Bible and Interpretation, April 2013, http://www.bible interp.com/articles/2013/ber378008.shtml; see further Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus as a Seditionist: The Intertwining of Politics and Religion in His Teaching and Deeds,” in Teaching the Historical Jesus: Issues and Exegesis, ed. Zev Garber (London: Routledge, 2015), 232– 43.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 1; see further 18 – 27, where he speaks about the “puzzling, awkward nature of much crucial material in the Gospels” (26), and claims that “these passages do not make real sense as they now stand” (24); cf. 53, 56, 60, 61, 63, 64, 85, 91, 94, 103.

4

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

the “seditious Jesus” makes the most sense of otherwise incomprehensible elements of the Jesus tradition.⁸ Second, in an article in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament entitled “Jesus in Jerusalem: Armed and Not Dangerous,”⁹ Dale Martin argues that the direct cause of Jesus’s crucifixion was the fact that he and his disciples were (illegally) carrying swords within the city of Jerusalem, and that their armament was due to the fact that Jesus led them there expecting that they would “participate in a heavenly-earthly battle to overthrow the Romans and their high-priestly client rulers of Judea.”¹⁰ Martin, citing the War Scroll (1QM) as evidence for such beliefs, thus argues that Jesus expected an apocalyptic conflict between the cosmic and earthly forces of good and evil, in which he and his followers would fight on the side of the angelic heavenly hosts. Like Bermejo-Rubio, he claims that this makes sense of otherwise conflicting and confusing Gospel texts.¹¹ Both of these articles demonstrate elements of the problematic, misguided or insufficient approaches to the questions of Jesus, violence, and eschatology that are at the heart of the present study. As noted above, Bermejo-Rubio’s hypothesis is rooted in his belief that the Gospels as they now stand make no sense, and that—to quote another of his publications—“a reconstruction of Jesus in which the aspect of anti-Roman resistance is seriously and consistently

 Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 1.  Dale B. Martin, “Jesus in Jerusalem: Armed and Not Dangerous,” JSNT 37 (2014): 3 – 24. Marrtin’s article was responded to by both Paula Fredriksen (“Arms and the Man: A Response to Dale Martin’s ‘Jesus in Jerusalem: Armed and Not Dangerous’,” JSNT 37 [2015]: 312– 25) and F. Gerald Downing (“Dale Martin’s Swords for Jesus: Shaky Evidence?,” JSNT 37 [2015]: 326 – 33) in a later issue of JSNT (which also published Martin’s response: “Response to Downing and Fredriksen,” JSNT 37 [2015]: 334– 45); and—in addition to being the focus of an article in Newsweek (Douglas Main, “Jesus Was Crucified Because Disciples Were Armed, Bible Analysis Suggests,” Newsweek, 28 September 2014, https://www.newsweek.com/2014/10/17/jesuswas-crucified-because-disciples-were-armed-bible-analysis-suggests-271436.html)-was discussed quite thoroughly in the “blogosphere”; see James Crossley, “Jesus the ‘Revolutionary’ …?,” The Jesus Blog, 29 Sept 2014, http://historicaljesusresearch.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/jesus-revo lutionary.html; Simon J. Joseph, “Armed and Dangerous?,” Simon J. Joseph, 23 Sept 2014, http:// simonjjoseph.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/armed-and-dangerous.html; Anthony Le Donne, “Dale on Dale: Allison Reflects on Martin’s Essay,” The Jesus Blog, 1 Oct 2014, http://histor icaljesusresearch.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/dale-on-dale-allison-reflects-on.html; and S. Brian Pounds, “A Reply to Dale Martin’s JSNT Essay (Part 1),” The Jesus Blog, 23 Sept 2014, http:// historicaljesusresearch.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/a-reply-to-dale-martins-jsnt-essay-part.html (see also part 2, 24 Sept 2014, http://historicaljesusresearch.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/a-response-todale-martins-jsnt-essay.html).  Martin, “Jesus in Jerusalem,” 3.  Martin, “Jesus in Jerusalem,” 6, 7, 19 – 20.

1.1 Introduction

5

contemplated is the most plausible—in fact the only plausible—view of the Galilean preacher.”¹² In this, Bermejo-Rubio’s JSHJ article represents the most thorough, recent articulation of the “seditious Jesus hypothesis” (SJH). The SJH, often associated with the work of English scholar S. G. F. Brandon,¹³ is based on three fundamental claims: (i) the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus as a nonviolent proclaimer of the “eschatological” (understood as “other-worldly”) kingdom of God is a fabrication, developed by the early church on the basis of its theological commitments and apologetic needs; (ii) the truly historical Jesus—whose identity the evangelists sought to conceal—was a politically seditious, and potentially violent Jewish revolutionary; and finally, (iii) the fabricated portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels is incoherent, since the texts themselves contain elements betraying hints of Jesus’s “true” nature, which are inconsistent with the apolitical, nonviolent Jesus they depict elsewhere. One of the main problems with Bermejo-Rubio’s reading of the Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus is the almost complete lack of attention paid in the article to the eschatological character of Jesus’s ministry. As will be argued more thoroughly in what follows, I suggest that this is caused in part by the long-standing conception of eschatology as “other-worldly,” which generates the assumption that it is irrelevant to “this-worldly” matters. Although much scholarship of the past few decades has demonstrated the inaccuracy of conceiving of Second Temple Jewish eschatology in such terms, this approach remains prevalent in the work of numerous scholars, Bermejo-Rubio among them. As a result, he considers neither the possibility that the revolutionary violence with which he seeks to associate Jesus might have itself been eschatologically-motivated, nor the ways in which this might suggest a means by which to investigate its relationship to Jesus’s ministry—which, as will be argued, was inherently eschatological in nature. Martin’s JSNT article also represents the SJH, but in a different and less explicit manner. To Martin’s credit, he acknowledges that eschatological expectations could (i) influence decisions and actions, and (ii) be conceptually associated with violence. Nevertheless, his approach to the intersection of violence and eschatology in Jesus’s ministry is problematic, largely by virtue of its limitation. By making reference only to one expression of Second Temple Jewish eschatological expectations among many (that found in 1QM), Martin implies that if Jesus were to have acted on the basis of such expectations, then an “apocalyp Bermejo-Rubio, “Why is the Hypothesis.”  S. G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967). See §§ 1.3.1.4, 5. Cf. Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 34, commenting on Aslan 2013.

6

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

tic” heavenly/earthly battle would have been its necessary result. However, although this may indeed explain why Jesus’s followers carried μάχαιραι, Martin does not thoroughly consider the implications of the fact that his claim that Jesus himself held such an eschatological vision runs deeply counter to the consistent disassociation between Jesus and violence elsewhere in the Gospels. In other words, Martin does not adequately address the fact that his hypothesis runs counter to the eschatological vision that, according to the evangelists, Jesus proclaimed and enacted throughout his entire ministry. If his hypothesis is correct, how do we explain the fact that our earliest and best sources present a figure who far more frequently spoke and acted in very different ways? Therefore, behind the arguments made by both Bermejo-Rubio and Martin lies the assumption that the Gospels present an inconsistent portrayal of Jesus. Both scholars claim that (i) certain passages suggest that Jesus expected —perhaps even eagerly anticipated—that violent conflict would attend the climax of his ministry, and (ii) such passages contradict other texts which portray Jesus as one who taught his followers to love their enemies and to be peacemakers. Both scholars offer solutions to this alleged inconsistency that (i) endorse the suggestion that the Jesus of history engaged (or expected at some point to engage) in violence against the Romans and their collaborators; and thus (ii) suggest the illegitimacy of Gospel texts that depict Jesus’s rejection of such action. In both cases, therefore, we end up having to admit that the Gospels are ultimately unreliable, presenting an incoherent and inconsistent portrayal of this historical figure. As I have briefly argued above, and will demonstrate more fully as this study progresses, the arguments of both Bermejo-Rubio and Martin fail sufficiently to consider the significance of the interconnectedness of violence and eschatology in the diverse world of Second Temple Judaism: Bermejo-Rubio largely ignores the role eschatology plays in the violence with which he seeks to associate Jesus, while Martin’s approach is limited by its consideration of the source material. Therefore, these two recent articles demonstrate the problem to be addressed in this study: previous scholarship has not adequately considered how the close connection between eschatology and violence within the worldview of Second Temple Judaism can inform our understanding of Jesus’s life and ministry. This has contributed to the belief that, particularly on the topic of his approach to violence, the Gospels present an inconsistent and therefore historically-unreliable portrayal of Jesus.

1.1 Introduction

7

1.1.2 The Intentions of this Study In this study I will address this lacuna in scholarship on Jesus and the Gospels. I will argue that when we understand the important ways in which violence and eschatology were connected within the worldview of Second Temple Judaism, we can see that the question of their association—specifically regarding the use of violence to achieve eschatological goals—is consistently the focus of key passages in the three Synoptic portrayals of Jesus’s life and ministry.¹⁴ First, I will demonstrate that certain elements of Jewish eschatology, bound up with God’s promises to defeat evil, judge the wicked, and deliver his people, inherently involved violence; and that such expectations played a motivational role in the revolutionary violence that was frequent during the Second Temple period. I will argue that such incidents can, therefore, accurately be described as “eschatological violence.” Second, I will explore the impact that an awareness of the existence of such “eschatological violence” has upon our understanding of the depiction of Jesus and his ministry in the Synoptic Gospels. Against BermejoRubio’s claim that “there is simply no convincing way of making sense of much Gospel evidence if the hypothesis of a seditious Jesus is ruled out,”¹⁵ I will argue that understanding the inherent associations of violence with Second Temple Jewish eschatological expectations enables us to see such allegedly-problematic passages as part of a coherent and consistent narrative, in which Jesus consistently disassociates eschatological violence from his inauguration of the kingdom of God and his identification of its people. A significant outcome of this argument will, therefore, be the refutation of the SJH on precisely these grounds. My thesis is this: I will argue that by understanding the fundamental connections between eschatology and violence within the world of Second Temple Judaism, we can more fully understand Jesus’s nonviolence—expressed both in his own practice, and in his commands to his followers—in terms of his rejection of eschatological violence, a central and consistent aspect of the Synoptic presentations of his life and ministry. The study will thus demonstrate the divergence between (on the one hand) the eschatological vision inherent within Second Temple Jewish revolutionary violence and (on the other hand) the teaching and practice of Jesus, thereby refuting the SJH on precisely these grounds.

 The reasons for focusing on the portrayal of Jesus found in the three Synoptic Gospels and excluding that of the Gospel of John are twofold: the first is the fact that this is the overwhelming tendency of the scholarship on Jesus with which this study will be most directly interacting; the second derives from the comments I will make in § 1.2 on the much-debated question of the historical reliability of the Gospels’ witness.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 85.

8

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

1.2 Methodology: a “Historical Jesus” or “Synoptic” Study? 1.2.1 The Methodological Challenge Since the rise of the so-called “New Quest” in the 1950s, many of those who have sought to explore the identity and/or teaching of the so-called “Historical Jesus” have adopted the methodology developed by (among others) Ernst Käsemann.¹⁶ This involves the utilisation of “criteria of authenticity” to identify the “authentic” Jesus tradition contained within the Gospels; in other words, to discover the “historical Jesus” behind the literary creations of the evangelists.¹⁷ Alternatively, scholars have discussed the “Markan,” “Matthean,” “Lukan,” or “Johannine” Jesus; that is, they have engaged in analysis of Jesus as he is portrayed by the authors of the canonical Gospels, as a literary figure, a “character” of the evangelists’ narratives, without making implicit claims about this figure’s historicity.¹⁸ The present study does not fit neatly into either of these frameworks, which presents a methodological challenge. As I made clear in the preceding section, it is my intention to examine the significance of eschatology and violence together within the Synoptic Gospels’ portrayals of Jesus’s life and ministry, thereby addressing the problematic way in which these texts are utilised by those who ad-

 See Ernst Käsemann, “The Problem of the Historical Jesus,” in Essays on New Testament Themes, SBT 41 (London: SPCK, 1964), 45 – 47; cf. Russell Morton, “Quest of the Historical Jesus,” in The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, ed. Craig A. Evans (New York: Routledge, 2010), 475 – 476. For thorough and helpful overviews of the development of Historical Jesus studies, see Helen K. Bond, The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: Bloomsbury, 2012); and C. Brown, “Quest of the Historical Jesus,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 718 – 56. For greater detail, an exhaustive collection of essays on this subgenre/subdiscipline of scholarship can be found in Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter, eds., Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, 4 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2011); see also Jens Schröter and Ralph Brucker, eds., Der Historische Jesus: Tendenzen Und Perspektiven Der Gegenwärtigen Forschungen, BZNW 114 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), which contains several important contributions; and Craig A. Evans, ed., The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus (New York: Routledge, 2010).  For a relatively concise yet thorough overview of these criteria, see John P. Meier, “Basic Methodology in the Quest for the Historical Jesus,” in How to Study the Historical Jesus, ed. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter, vol. 1 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 307– 330.  This dualistic characterisation is, of course, an over-simplification of a broad and diverse area of study. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the point I am trying to make, it effectively represents two categories into which the majority of scholarship on Jesus and the Gospels can be divided.

1.2 Methodology: a “Historical Jesus” or “Synoptic” Study?

9

vocate the SJH—which is itself one particular construct of the Historical Jesus. The central questions upon which this study will focus thus involve both the historical world of Second Temple Judaism, and the Gospels’ accounts of Jesus’s words and deeds as a part of that world. The concerns of the following chapters—both the questions that will be raised, and the responses I will offer— are, therefore, both historical and literary.

1.2.2 Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus”: A Way Forward? In a recent JNTS article entitled “The Narratives of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus: Current Debates, Prior Debates and the Goal of Historical Jesus Research,” Chris Keith provides helpful insight into the tension between the “Jesus of history” and the “Jesus of the Gospels,” and indicates an approach to this issue that, I will argue, suggests a methodological way forward for the present study.¹⁹ Keith divides Historical Jesus scholarship into two groups, on the basis of their approaches to the Gospel narratives. The first, based on the criteria-driven methodology developed by the post-Bultmannians of the 1950s and 1960s and influenced by the Form Critical work of Bultmann himself, operates essentially in the manner described above, effectively viewing the Gospels as hindrances to accessing the “actual” Jesus of history, who exists “behind” the texts.²⁰ The

 Chris Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus: Current Debates, Prior Debates and the Goal of Historical Jesus Research,” JSNT 38 (2016): 426 – 55.  Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels,” 12– 16, focuses in particular on Käsemann, Bornkamm, and Hahn, but also identifies several contemporary scholars who have attempted (in his view unsuccessfully) to “rehabilitate the criteria of authenticity” (3), including Paul Foster, “Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel: Three Dead-Ends in Historical Jesus Research,” JSHJ 10 (2012): 191– 227, Paul Foster, “Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel: An Ongoing Conversation With Stan Porter and Hughson T. Ong,” JSHJ 12 (2014): 165 – 83; Tobias Hägerland, “The Future of Criteria in Historical Jesus Research,” JSHJ 13 (2015): 43 – 65; Anthony Le Donne, The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009); Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria, trans. M. Eugene Boring (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002); and N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996). Keith (6 n. 8) distinguishes these scholars from others who, in his view, simply assume that the use of criteria of authenticity is the (only) way to go about historical Jesus research, namely: Jürgen Becker, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. James E. Crouch (New York: de Gruyter, 1998); Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009); John P. Meier, The Roots of the Problem and the Person, vol. 1 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking

10

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

second, influenced by recent studies on historiography and memory theory, instead views the Gospels as necessary aids to hypothesizing the Historical Jesus.²¹

the Historical Jesus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991); Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, NTL (London: SCM Press, 1967), Norman Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism? (London: SPCK, 1970); and Udo Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament, trans. M. Eugene Boring (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009).  Aside from Keith himself (see Chris Keith, “Memory and Authenticity: Jesus Tradition and What Really Happened,” ZNW 102 [2011]: 155 – 77), versions of this model are advocated by Dale C. Allison, Jr., Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010); Helen K. Bond, “Dating the Death of Jesus: Memory and the Religious Imagination,” NTS 59 (2013): 461– 75; James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) (cf. James D. G. Dunn, “Remembering Jesus: How the Quest of the Historical Jesus Lost Its Way,” in How to Study the Historical Jesus, ed. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter, vol. 1 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [Leiden: Brill, 2011], 183 – 205); Tom Holmén, “Jesus in Continuum From Early Judaism to Early Christianity: Practical-Methodological Reflections on a Missed Perspective,” in Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 201– 12 (cf. Tom Holmén, ed., Jesus in Continuum WUNT 289 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012]); Le Donne, The Historiographical Jesus, 248– 257; Anthony Le Donne, Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 120 – 132; Anthony Le Donne, “Memory, Commemoration and History in John 2:19 – 22: A Critique and Application of Social Memory,” in The Fourth Gospel in First-Century Media Culture, ed. Anthony Le Donne and Tom Thatcher, European Studies on Christian Origins/LNTS 426 (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 186 – 204; Rafael Rodríguez, Structuring Early Christian Memory: Jesus in Traditions, Performance and Text, LNTS 407 (London: T&T Clark, 2010), Jens Schröter, “The Historical Jesus and the Sayings Tradition: Comments on Current Research,” Neot 30 (1996): 151– 68; Jens Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas, WMANT 76 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997); Jens Schröter, “Von der Historizität der Evangelien: Ein Beitrag zur gegenwärtigen Diskussion um den historischen Jesus,” in Der historische Jesus, ed. Jens Schröter and Ralph Brucker, BZNW 114 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 163 – 212; Jens Schröter, “Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft jenseits des Historismus,” TLZ 128 (2003): 855 – 66; Jens Schröter, “Jesus and the Canon: The Early Jesus Traditions in the Context of the Origins of the New Testament Canon,” in Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory and Mark, ed. Richard A. Horsley, Jonathan A. Draper, and John Miles Foley (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2006), 104– 46; Jens Schröter, “Jesus im Context: Die hermeneutische Relevanz der Frage nach dem historischen Jesus in der gegenwärtigen Diskussion,” TLZ 134 (2009): 905 – 28; Jens Schröter, “Jesus of Galilee: The Role of Location in Understanding Jesus,” in Jesus Research: An International Perspective, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorný (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 36 – 40; Jens Schröter, Jesus von Nazaret: Jude aus Galiläa – Retter der Welt, 3rd ed., Biblische Gestalten 15 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlag, 2010), 14– 36; Jens Schröter, From Jesus to the New Testament: Early Christian Theology and the Origin of the New Testament Canon, trans. Wayne Coppins, Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2013), 28, 30, 42, 76, 110 – 111; and Michael J. Thate, Remembrance of Things Past?, WUNT 2/351 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 247– 289 (for several of the entries on this list

1.2 Methodology: a “Historical Jesus” or “Synoptic” Study?

11

For Keith, therefore, the key differentiation between the two models lies in their evaluation of the place and role of the “kerygmatic” Gospels in the search for the Jesus of history.²² Moreover, this methodological distinction is connected to an epistemological one. As demonstrated by its search for objectively verifiable data, the first approach operates with the implicit assumption that an uninterpreted Jesus can eventually be attained. The second approach, however, categorically denies this possibility.²³ Keith, who locates his own work within the latter group, makes a firm argument that “only through narrative interpretation is a link between the past and the present possible.”²⁴ Keith thus argues that behind much of the most prevalent Historical Jesus scholarship lies an outdated epistemological assumption that “objective” historical “facts” can somehow be accessed. Rejecting this, he nevertheless affirms the value of the Gospels to historical research, as interpreted accounts of events that were both individually and corporately formative, written by the earliest followers of Jesus.²⁵ Keith endorses scholarship that attempts to understand why the authors of the Gospels portrayed Jesus in the ways they did, and what this might tell us about the figure remembered through their narratives. The scholar may conclude that the evangelist is likely to have remembered Jesus accurately or inaccurately; what is important for Keith is that the historical task necessitates explaining why Jesus was remembered one way, and not another. Therefore, rather than analysing individual units of tradition in order to determine which are more “authentic” than others, Keith argues that the more important task of Historical Jesus studies is understanding the significance of the

I am indebted to Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels,” 18 – 20; see also Chris Keith, “Social Memory Theory and Gospels Research: The First Decade (Part One),” EC 6 [2015]: 354– 76; Chris Keith, “Social Memory Theory and Gospels Research: The First Decade (Part Two),” EC 6 [2015]: 517– 42).  Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels,” 2. It is important to clarify that by “the ‘kerygmatic’ Gospels,” Keith means the narrative frameworks of the Gospels; i. e., the interpretative work of the Gospel writers themselves.  Or in Keith’s own words: “A search for the historical Jesus that utilizes the gospel narratives as a means of hypothesizing the historical Jesus is epistemologically and methodologically distinct from a search for the historical Jesus that dismisses the gospel narratives in order to reach an uninterpreted historical Jesus” (Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels,” 21).  Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels,” 18. On “critical history” and Historical Jesus studies, see B. F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM, 1979), 76 – 94.  See Eric Eve, “The Miracles of an Eschatological Prophet,” JSHJ 13 (2016), 27– 28, on applying Assmann’s language of the “formative” and “normative” functions of texts in the formation of cultural memory to the Gospels (cf. Jan Assmann, Religion and Cultural Memory, Cultural Memory in the Present [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006], 38, 104).

12

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

broad claims made by the Gospel authors.²⁶ As the earliest “interpretations” of Jesus, the Gospel accounts should not be viewed as hindrances to accessing the “real” Jesus, but as the primary historical sources available to us.²⁷ Scholars should not seek to escape the historical interpretations of the evangelists, but account for and work with them, as “receptions … of a past reality.”²⁸

1.2.2.1 Historical Jesus Scholarship and the “Interpreted” Jesus of the Gospels Keith is by no means alone in arguing against the use of individual sayings (evaluated on the basis of “criteria of authenticity”) to reconstruct historically-valid Jesus tradition, and for the primary historical importance of the Synoptic narratives as coherent wholes.²⁹ Although in his own work, he focuses in particular on the use of social memory theory for understanding the Historical Jesus, Keith notes a number of diverse approaches developed by other scholars who “share an undergirding conviction that historical Jesus scholarship does not fundamentally need to escape the interpretive work of the Gospel authors but rather work with it and ‘account for it sensibly’.”³⁰ This includes the work of Dale Allison, who identifies with insightful precision that which is problematic about a search for the Historical Jesus that brackets out a majority of the Synoptic material:

 Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels,” 16.  Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels,” 25.  Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels,” 2, 19; cf. Allison, Constructing Jesus, 21.  For further critique of the standard use of “criteria of authenticity” in Historical Jesus research, see the essays in Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne, eds., Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity (London: T&T Clark, 2012); cf. Dale C. Allison, Jr., “How to Marginalize the Traditional Criteria of Authenticity,” in How to Study the Historical Jesus, ed. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter, vol. 1 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 3 – 30; Eric Eve, Behind the Gospels: Understanding the Oral Tradition (London: SPCK, 2013), 181– 183; Rafael Rodríguez, “Authenticating Criteria: The Use and Misuse of a Critical Method,” JSHJ 7 (2009): 152– 67; E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM, 1985), 133.  Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels,” 19; quoting Allison, Constructing Jesus, 21; Keith also references Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 99 – 136; 2013, 267– 289; Christopher M. Hays, “Theological Hermeneutics and the Historical Jesus: A Critical Evaluation of Gadamerian Approaches and a New Methodological Proposal,” in The Quest for the Real Jesus: Radboud Prestige Lectures by Prof. Dr. Michael Wolter, ed. Jan van der Watt, BibInt 120 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 129 – 57; Holmén, “Jesus in Continuum”; and Thate, Remembrance, 238; cf. Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels,” 19. Not mentioned by Keith, but worth noting, are Eve, Behind the Gospels; Eric Eve, “Memory, Orality and the Synoptic Problem,” EC 6 (2015), 311– 33; Eric Eve, Writing the Gospels: Composition and Memory (London: SPCK, 2016); Rodríguez, Structuring Early Christian Memory.

1.2 Methodology: a “Historical Jesus” or “Synoptic” Study?

13

It goes against universal human experience to suppose that early Christians … accurately reported many of Jesus’ words—they may well have—but somehow came away with false general impressions of him. If the tradents got the bigger picture of the larger patterns wrong then they also got the details—that is, the sentences—wrong. It is precarious to urge that we can find the truth about Jesus on the basis of a few dozen sayings deemed to be authentic if those sayings are interpreted contrary to the general impressions conveyed by the early tradition in its entirety.³¹

Eric Eve, likewise, emphasises the implausibility of the suggestion that bits and pieces of “authentic” historical data might be embedded in a literary context that is, on the whole, misleading and “inauthentic.”³² Eve’s thorough investigation of recent studies on memory and historiography demonstrates that information is always remembered in contexts—whether narrative, social, or otherwise.³³ Therefore, the attempt to separate out the “real” Jesus hidden behind the Gospels’ presentation of him (whether through the use of criteria or otherwise) is fundamentally flawed: “the Gospels are not ragbag databases of potential facts.”³⁴ Individual pieces of tradition are not either “authentic” (i. e. historical, not dependent upon church tradition) or “inauthentic” (i. e. unhistorical and “kerygmatic”)³⁵; in Allison’s words, “everything is … a mixed product, that is, a product of Jesus and the church.”³⁶ A similar point is made by James Dunn,

 Allison, “How to Marginalize,” 21; cf. 25.  As part of his discussion of the implications for Historical Jesus research that Eve identifies his study on memory as having: Eve, Behind the Gospels, 181– 183; cf. Eve, Writing the Gospels, 150 – 151.  See Eve, Behind the Gospels, 130; see further Rodríguez, Structuring Early Christian Memory, esp. 213 – 225; cf. Eve, Writing the Gospels, 44– 51.  Eve, Writing the Gospels, 150; cf. 44; so also Eve, Behind the Gospels, 181.  Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels,” 20 – 23, makes the interesting observation that Gunther Bornkamm (in Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1960]) and (to an even greater extent) Ferdinand Hahn (in “Methodological Reflections on the Historical Investigation of Jesus,” in Historical Investigation and New Testament Faith, ed. Edgar Krentz, trans. Robert Maddox [Philadelphia: Fortress,1983], 35 – 105) made similar suggestions that the search for the Historical Jesus must take into consideration tradition which, on the basis of the criteria, had been deemed “inauthentic” because of its association with the early church. Instructive in this regard are the comments of Eve, Behind the Gospels, 182, on rethinking “the very concepts of authentic and inauthentic material.”  Allison, “How to Marginalize,” 13. Morna Hooker made much the same observation almost forty years earlier: “All the material comes to us via the Church, and is likely to have been coloured by the beliefs of those who have handed it on” (Morna Hooker, “On Using the Wrong Tool,” Theology 75 [1972], 580, emphasis original). I am indebted to Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels,” 23 n. 37, for the reference. Much the same point is affirmed by Rafael Rodríguez

14

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

who argues that since the only Jesus we have access to is Jesus as he was remembered by his first followers, you cannot separate Jesus from their faith.³⁷ While the methodologies of each of these scholars are, in their particularities, distinct from one another, they are unified in (i) their focus on (to borrow Dunn’s words) the “characteristic emphases and motifs of the Jesus tradition,” which, Dunn argues, “give us a broad, clear and compelling picture of the characteristic Jesus”³⁸; and (ii) their conviction that (to borrow Allison’s words) “the Synoptics as they stand … are our best sources for the historical Jesus because they contain the most memories of him.”³⁹

1.2.3 The Approach of the Present Study How, then, does all this relate to the present study? First, as previously stated, the focus of this study is on the Synoptic Gospels’ portrayal of the life and ministry of Jesus. On the basis of Keith’s defence of the value and importance of the Gospel narratives as “receptions … of a past reality,”⁴⁰ alongside the similar arguments of the scholars just discussed, we can see that the Jesus found in the in “Jesus as his Friends Remembered Him: A Review of Dale Allison’s Constructing Jesus,” JSHJ 12 (2014): 224– 244.  Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 126 – 127. I am indebted to Eve, Behind the Gospels, 109, for the reference.  Dunn, “Remembering Jesus,” 204. Cf. Eve, Behind the Gospels, 114, who calls Dunn’s methodology “eminently sensible,” and draws a link to his own work in Eric Eve, The Healer of Nazareth: Jesus’ Miracles in Historical Context (London: SPCK, 2009), 118 – 119 (cf. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 327– 336).  Allison, Constructing Jesus, 157; cf. Richard A. Horsley, The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel: Moving Beyond a Diversionary Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 71: “The Gospels, as stories and speeches, are our principal historical sources for the historical Jesus.” Other scholars who share similar views on this issue include James G. Crossley, Jesus and the Chaos of History: Redirecting the Life of the Historical Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015); Schröter, From Jesus to the New Testament; Jens Schröter, Jesus of Nazareth: Jew From Galilee, Saviour of the World, trans. Wayne Coppins and S. Brian Pounds (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014); Jens Schröter, “Jesus and Memory: The Memory Approach in Current Jesus Research,” EC 6 (2015): 277– 84. Keith is, however, concerned to emphasise that neither he nor any of the scholars to whom he positively refers would suggest that the Gospels’ presentations of Jesus should simply be conflated with the the Historical Jesus. We should neither naïvely claim that the Gospels give us “uninterpreted” access to Jesus’s words and deeds (since all history is interpreted history), nor deny that they nevertheless contain some accurate impressions of him. So Eve, Behind the Gospels, 178: “the proper approach to the Jesus tradition should lie somewhere between the extremes of credulity and scepticism”; cf. Eve, Writing the Gospels, 123, 150.  Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels,” 2.

1.2 Methodology: a “Historical Jesus” or “Synoptic” Study?

15

Synoptic Gospels must be central to any attempt to understand the Jesus of history. Second, Keith sees the historian’s task “as proposing a historical narrative that explains how early Christians came to conceptualise Jesus in the ways that they did and generates theories of the historical Jesus on the basis of that process.”⁴¹ My intentions in the present study may be put in such terms with the following: I will propose a historical narrative that makes clear the integral connection between eschatology and violence in Second Temple Judaism, the prevalence of eschatological violence in first-century Palestine, and the resulting significance of Jesus’s rejection of this mindset upon his words and deeds. This historical narrative will offer a firm basis for understanding why the Synoptic evangelists came to conceptualise Jesus in the ways they did, with regard to this particular component of their portrayal of his ministry: namely, his rejection of violence. This, then, will generate the theory of the historical Jesus implicitly set forth by this study: namely, that the SJH must be firmly rejected. I will argue that all three Synoptic Gospels clearly present Jesus teaching and enacting a vision of the kingdom of God that completely disassociated “eschatological violence” both from its inauguration and the identification of its people. Therefore, as noted above, a significant outcome of this study will be the refutation of the SJH, by means of challenging the ways its advocates utilise (or not, as the case may be) the Synoptic Gospels, particularly with regard to the historical phenomenon of “eschatological violence.” The methodological and epistemological basis for Historical Jesus scholarship advocated by Keith aids this endeavour by enabling us to acknowledge that the SJH falls entirely within the first of the two models of Historical Jesus scholarship he identifies; namely, that which rejects the “kerygmatic narratives” of the Gospels and attempts to separate out “authentic” pieces of Jesus tradition from the later, misleading interpretations of the evangelists. For advocates of the SJH, this “authentic” material comprises anything which indicates Jesus’s sympathetic posture towards or identification with revolutionary Judaism. Therefore, these scholars view the Synoptic presentation of Jesus as inconsistent and, oftentimes, incoherent, and therefore call its historical reliability into serious question. The fundamentally problematic nature of such methodology is made clear by the scholarship reviewed above. Keith, Allison, Eve, and Dunn all argue that if the evangelists got their overall portrayal of the character and identity of both Jesus and his mission wrong, then we must set them aside altogether as repositories of historical material. In other words, it is methodologically un-

 Keith, “The Narratives of the Gospels,” 25.

16

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

sound to claim that the overall Synoptic picture of Jesus is unhelpful, and then to use various bits and pieces of their data—unsupported by anything outside the Synoptic tradition—as the basis for a “historical” reconstruction of this figure. In contrast, I will argue that when we accurately understand the interconnections between eschatology and violence in Second Temple Judaism, we can see that with regard to this issue, the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus’s words and deeds is not only distinct, describing a figure who articulates and enacts a much different vision than many of his contemporaries, but consistent. As such, it contributes precisely to the interconnected nature of the Synoptic Gospels’ presentation of Jesus that makes them our “best,” “principal” historical sources.⁴² Therefore, this study is not primarily intended to articulate an alternative construction of the Historical Jesus to stand over against that of the SJH, but to make an argument about one significant aspect of the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus, and to consider how this might impact our historical reconstructions of Jesus on the basis of their witness.⁴³ If it can be demonstrated that Jesus’s rejection of so-called eschatological violence represents a consistent theme or motif across the sources, then I would argue that the goal of this study has been met: the suggestion that indications of Jesus’s revolutionary identity remain “hidden” behind a much more prevalent and consistent portrayal of one who rejected such revolutionary violence is historically implausible and, indeed, incoherent.

1.2.3.1 Two Necessary Clarifications Before going any further, two clarifications regarding this study’s approach to and interaction with the Synoptic Gospels are necessary. First of all, my purpose is not to suggest a conflation of or equation between the “Historical Jesus” and the “Synoptic Jesus.” In no way do I consider the two to be synonymous with one another.⁴⁴ Rather, this study will (i) examine whether the Synoptic portrayal of

 See n. 39 above.  That said, its claims are not thereby entirely restricted to the literary realm. On the basis of the Historical Jesus methodology envisioned by Keith (and others), I contend that in making this argument, this study does, in fact, make an important contribution to our understanding of the Historical Jesus, insofar as it (i) sheds light on a central element of the Jesus portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels, and explores why this aspect of his words and deeds would have been significant within the world of Second Temple Judaism; and (ii) conclusively refutes the SJH, in terms of both its reading of several key Synoptic texts, as well as its suggestion that a Jesus so starkly distinct from the figure portrayed in their narratives has the stronger claim to being “historical.”  Once again, see n. 39 above.

1.2 Methodology: a “Historical Jesus” or “Synoptic” Study?

17

Jesus’s position on “eschatological violence” is coherent and consistent, and (ii) argue that it is, and thus should be acknowledged as one of the “characteristic emphases and motifs of the Jesus tradition.”⁴⁵ Insofar as the most thorough and coherent presentation of Jesus is that contained in these “kerygmatic” narratives, the Synoptic evangelists’ portrayal of Jesus (specifically, their portrayal of his rejection of “eschatological violence”) makes an important contribution to our understanding of and knowledge about this historical figure. To be clear, then: (i) the study is focused primarily on the Synoptic presentation of Jesus; (ii) the Synoptic Gospels present a “remembered” Jesus; (iii) as such, they do not present an (ultimately unobtainable) “objective” historical figure; yet (iv) there is nevertheless good reason to consider the Synoptic Gospels of considerable value as historical sources, and to take their portrayals of Jesus seriously in such terms. Second—as evident from the above point—the study will make repeated claims about the “consistent” portrayal of Jesus found in the Synoptic Gospels. However, this should not be understood to suggest that there are no differences between the portrayal of Jesus and his ministry found in each individual Gospel —as if the Matthean or Lukan Jesuses are simply carbon-copy re-presentations of the Jesus of Mark. Although the study will not itself engage in any thorough redactional-critical work, it is not my intention either to ignore or downplay the value and significant insight offered by such scholarship. Mark, Matthew, and Luke were individual authors, each of whom had their own literary tendencies and thematic concerns, and composed their Gospels with these in mind. Nevertheless, they are described corporately as “Synoptic” for good reason: their narratives are linked by significant similarities of both plot and content. Most important to the concerns of the present study is the fact that one of the foremost elements unifying the first three Gospels is the announcement and inauguration of the “kingdom of God (/heaven).” This is the central focus of the ministry of the Markan, Matthean, and Lukan Jesus (see Mark 1:14– 15; Matt 4:12– 17; cf. Luke 4:42– 44). I will argue that the “kingdom of God” is an inherently eschatological concept, and that therefore, this shared Synoptic theme is of direct relevance to this study’s analysis of Jesus’s understanding of “eschatological violence.”⁴⁶ Of course, as three independent sources, the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke place different emphases on various as-

 Dunn, “Remembering Jesus,” 204.  See § 1.4.2; cf. Dale C. Allison, Jr., “Kingdom of God,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 860 – 61.

18

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

pects of Jesus’s proclamation of this kingdom.⁴⁷ Nevertheless, in this regard too, there is much more that binds the Synoptic Gospels together than anything that could be claimed to drive them apart. Their presentation of Jesus’s kingdom-focused words and deeds, though individually-nuanced, is consistent, and certainly not contradictory. Therefore, when this study refers to “the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus,” this should not be understood to conflate the unique elements of the depiction of Jesus made by each individual evangelist, but to speak of those abundant and central features of the Jesus tradition that Matthew, Mark, and Luke share in common.

1.3 History of Research As previously noted, this study seeks to address the insufficient consideration within Jesus scholarship of how eschatology and violence were related to one another in Second Temple Judaism. This presents a challenge to the task of writing a Forschungsgeschichte, since, rather than joining an ongoing scholarly discussion, the present study seeks to bring two of them—Jesus and violence, Jesus and eschatology—together into fruitful dialogue. In what follows, I will address this task in two steps. First, I will show how the earliest considerations of the roles of violence and eschatology in Jesus’s ministry led to their misguided disassociation in much of subsequent scholarship. Second, I will discuss some important developments in the analysis of these two themes, resulting from the Third Quest’s emphasis on situating Jesus in his first-century Jewish context.⁴⁸

 On the characteristics of each of the Synoptic presentations of the kingdom of God, see Joel B. Green, “Kingdom of God/Heaven,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 473 – 479.  The phrase “Third Quest” was coined by N. T. Wright; see Stephen Neill and N. T. Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861 – 1986, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 397– 398; Wright, “Jesus, Quest for the Historical,” ABD 3:796 – 802. For an overview of the main scholars and themes associated with the Third Quest, see Brown, “Quest of the Historical Jesus.” For further bibliography, see Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 3 – 4, nn. 1– 4.

1.3 History of Research

19

1.3.1 The Roots of the Problem This first subsection outlines some of the most significant scholarship on the roles of violence and eschatology in the ministry of Jesus prior to the “Third Quest.” The long-standing disassociation between them is due—at least in part —to two factors that can be traced back to the beginnings of modern critical scholarship on Jesus: first, the (limited) association of violence only with “earthly” and/or “political” realities; and second, the (misleading) understanding of what it meant for Jesus to be “eschatological.”

1.3.1.1 Hermann Samuel Reimarus In “Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger” (published posthumously in 1778), Reimarus argued that in the preaching of Jesus, the “Kingdom of Heaven” referred to the long-awaited, nationalistic kingdom of the Messiah.⁴⁹ Jesus meant nothing more by this phrase than that which all Jews who heard it would have understood: “that an anointed messiah, i. e. a king, should come who would save them from all these hardships and establish a glorious kingdom among them.”⁵⁰ Jesus, in other words, intended to overthrow Rome. For Reimarus, Jesus’s ministry lacked any transcendent significance, theological innovation, or “other-worldly” associations—it was strictly earthly and political.⁵¹ In response to the failure of this mission, the disciples “fabricated” a “new doctrine” intended to secure their own “secular exaltation and advantages.”⁵² Reimarus’s work thus foreshadowed problematic elements of later Jesus scholarship: the political/earthly intentions of Jesus were understood in contrast to the Gospels’ (fabricated) description of his goals.

1.3.1.2 Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer⁵³ Arguing against the nineteenth-century liberal theologians, who believed that the kingdom of God was an ethical ideal, embodied in the universal, timeless

 Hermann Samuel Reimarus, The Goal of Jesus and His Disciples, trans. George Wesley Buchanan (Leiden: Brill, 1970 [1778]), 37– 38.  Reimarus, The Goal of Jesus, 77, 78.  Reimarus, The Goal of Jesus, 80.  Reimarus, The Goal of Jesus, 126.  For the following summary of the work of Weiss and Schweitzer, I am indebted to the work of Dale C. Allison, Jr., “The Eschatology of Jesus,” in The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity, ed. John J. Collins, vol. 1 of The Encylopedia of Apocalypticism, ed. Bernard McGinn,

20

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

moral teachings of Jesus, Weiss argued in Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (1892) that Jesus proclaimed the kingdom as “a radically super-worldly entity which stands in diametric opposition to this world.”⁵⁴ This future kingdom would be brought about only through an act of divine intervention, and was thoroughly distinct from present experience. Schweitzer, in Von Reimarus zu Wrede: eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (1906), took Weiss’s emphases even further, arguing that Jesus held a “thoroughgoing eschatology” which determined every aspect of his life.⁵⁵ This eschatology consisted of Jesus’s belief in an imminent, catastrophic end to history and the arrival of the wholly-other, supernatural kingdom of God, which had nothing to do with this-worldly, natural, time-bound existence. Furthermore, Schweitzer argued that Jesus was entirely focused on and committed to his task of bringing about the climax of history. This understanding of eschatology, and Schweitzer’s emphasis on Jesus’s fixation on such other-worldly matters, bears a significant weight of responsibility for the long-standing disassociation between what were understood as the “eschatological” components of Jesus’s mindset, and his teaching on this-worldly matters—including, most notably, violence. The nonviolence of Schweizer’s Jesus was not an ethical principle to be followed, but resulted from his absolute fixation on the “world to come.” Present reality, with its social and political conflict, was of no significance—Jesus’s words were “the expression of a mind for which the contemporary world with its historical and social circumstances no longer had any existence.”⁵⁶ In other words, Jesus’s konsequente Eschatologie rendered him a timeless, unknowable, and unrelatable figure.⁵⁷ By the early twentieth century, therefore, the roots of the problematic disassociation between eschatology and violence can already be detected: in Reimarus, we find the claim

John J. Collins, and Stephen J. Stein (New York: Continuum, 2000), 267– 268, and Robert J. Miller, “Introduction,” in The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate, ed. Robert J. Miller (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2001), 6 – 10; cf. F. Crawford Burkitt, “Johannes Weiss: In Memoriam,” HTR 8 (1915): 291– 97.  Johannes Weiss, Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God, trans. and ed. by Richard H. Hiers and D. Larrimore Holland (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971 [1892]), 114; quotation noted by Paul Avis, “Ecclesiology,” in Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia, ed. Leslie Houlden (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2003), 1:210.  See Allison, “The Eschatology of Jesus,” 268.  Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, trans. W. Montgomery (Mineola, NY: Dover, 2005 [1906]), 402; quoted by John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994), 52.  Note the famous closing words of Schweitzer’s Von Reimarus zu Wrede: “Jesus of Nazareth will not suffer himself to be modernized as an historical figure … He comes to us as One unknown” (Schweitzer, The Quest, 401). Cf. Bond, The Historical Jesus, 12.

1.3 History of Research

21

that the historical Jesus harboured potentially violent political aims, and that his later portrayal by the evangelists is meant to cover this up; in Schweizer, we find the basis of the disassociation of eschatology from “this-worldly” realities.

1.3.1.3 Rudolf Bultmann Bultmann, perceiving the historical force of Schweizer’s argument, determinately neutralised it, developing Schweitzerian eschatology in “existential” terms.⁵⁸ Bultmann argued that Jesus’s expectation of the imminent end of the world—expressed by his claim that “Jesus’ message is connected with the hope … which awaits salvation … from a cosmic catastrophe which will do away with all conditions of the present world as it is,”⁵⁹ and his description of the kingdom of God as “wholly supernatural,” the “eschatological deliverance which ends everything earthly”⁶⁰—was part of the mythological mindset of the Jesus of history. In order to make it relevant to “modern man,” therefore, Bultmann “existentialised” it: just as for Jesus, God’s future wholly determined his present, so (as Caird explains), “For the modern Christian the teaching of Jesus is eschatological in so far as it reaches out from the past and impels him to an existential decision and thus to an encounter with God.”⁶¹ Nevertheless, behind Bultmann’s existential eschatology, the Schweitzerian conception remained strong: to affirm the eschatological focus of Jesus’s ministry was to affirm that Jesus expected the climactic end of history in the immediate future, with the arrival of the otherworldly, supernatural kingdom of God. A Jesus consumed with such thoughts had little to say to his contemporaries regarding their sociopolitical circumstances, and even less to say to the modern reader. This understanding of Jesus’s eschatology would prove very influential, remaining (with variations) the consensus view for much of the twentieth century.⁶²

 See Rudolf Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology,” in Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate, ed. Hans Werner Bartsch, trans. Reginald H. Fuller (London: SPCK, 1953), 3.  Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel (London: SCM, 1952), 1:4.  Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, trans. Louise Pettibone Smith and Erminie Huntress (London: Ivor Nicholson & Watson, 1935), 37, 36.  George B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London: Duckworth, 1980), 254.  Horsley, The Prophet Jesus, 9 – 14; note Bart D. Ehrman, “Brian and the Apocalyptic Jesus: Parody as a Historical Method,” in Jesus and Brian: Exploring the Historical Jesus and his Times via Monty Python’s Life of Brian, ed. Joan E. Taylor (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 142 n. 1, who claims that such a view is the consensus even today. Steven M. Bryan, “Jesus and Israel’s Eschatological Constitution,” in The Historical Jesus, ed. Tom Holmén and

22

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

1.3.1.4 S. G. F. Brandon Violence returned to centre stage in Jesus scholarship with the work of S. G. F. Brandon.⁶³ In Jesus and the Zealots (1967), Brandon emphasised the this-worldly, political aims of Jesus’s ministry, and—like Reimarus before him—claimed that the Gospels presented a fabricated account which concealed Jesus’s true historical identity.⁶⁴ Although he did not argue that Jesus himself was a Zealot, Bran-

Stanley E. Porter, vol. 3 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 2835 n. 2, identifies what he terms a “futurist” understanding of Jesus’s eschatology in Dale C. Allison, Jr., Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 417– 30, C. C. Caragounis, “Kingdom of God, Son of Man and Jesus’ Self-Understanding,” TynBul 40 (1989): 3 – 23, 223, Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews (New York: Alfred I. Knopf, 1999), and Erich Gräßer, Die Naherwartung Jesu, SBS (Stuttgart: KBW Verlag, 1973).  Brandon was not the only scholar to argue that the Historical Jesus was best understood as a politically-motivated, revolutionary sympathiser (see, e. g. Joel Carmichael, The Death of Jesus [London: Gollancz, 1963]; Charles Christian Hennel, An Inquiry Concerning the Origin of Christianity, Cambridge Library Collection [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010 (1838)]; Karl Kautsky, Der Ursprung des Christentums. Eine historische Untersuchung [Stuttgart: Verlag von J. H. W. Dietz Nachf., 1908]; Hyam Maccoby, “Jesus and Barabbas,” NTS 16 [1969]: 55 – 60; Hyam Maccoby, Revolution in Judaea: Jesus and the Jewish Resistance, 2nd ed. [New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1980 (1973)]; see the history of such scholarship offered by E. Bammel, “The Revolution Theory From Reimarus to Brandon,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984], 11– 68); however, Brandon’s work is arguably the best known. Walter Wink, “Jesus and Revolution: Reflections on S. G. F. Brandon’s Jesus and the Zealots,” USQR 25 (1969), 58 – 59, observes that this has as much to do with the timing of Brandon’s work (the late 1960s) as its content; cf. Martin Hengel, “Review of S. G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity,” JSS 14 (1969), 231.  Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots; see also S. G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of the Jewish Overthrow of A.D. 70 on Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1951); S. G. F. Brandon, The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth (London: Batsford, 1968). Brandon drew heavily upon the work of Robert Eisler, ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣΑΣ: Die messianische Unabhängigkeitsbewegung vom Auftreten Johannes des Täufers bis zum Untergang Jakobs des Gerechten, nach der neuerschlossenen Eroberung von Jerusalem des Flavius Josephus und der christlichen Quellen (Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1929) (abridged ET: Robert Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist, trans. Alexander Haggerty Krappe [London: Methuen & Co, 1931]). Eisler argued for a Jesus who embraced the ideology of the Jewish Zealots, using as his primary evidence a Slavonic text of Josephus’s Jewish War, which identified John the Baptist and Jesus as revolutionaries (see Per Bilde, The Originality of Jesus: A Critical Discussion and a Comparative Attempt, Studia Aarhusiana Neotestamentica 1 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013], 111). It should be noted that other Gospels scholars contemporary with Brandon perceived the political implications of Jesus’s kingdom message in much different terms, more analogous to those for which I will argue in this study (e. g. George B. Caird,

1.3 History of Research

23

don suggested that Jesus was sympathetic to the Zealots’ ideology,⁶⁵ that there was no conflict between Jesus’s mission and theirs, and that Jesus supported the use of revolutionary tactics (i. e. militant violence) to achieve that for which all Jews of the time hoped: deliverance from Rome.⁶⁶ At the centre of Brandon’s argument was his claim that the author of Mark, composing his Gospel post-70 CE, fabricated a pacifistic Jesus out of apologetic concern, in order to disassociate Christianity from revolutionary Judaism.⁶⁷ In so doing, he articulated a Jesus who was the polar opposite of the figure described by Schweitzer. Whereas the Schweitzerian Jesus’s focus on “eschatological” matters made him ambivalent to “the contemporary world with its historical and social circumstances,”⁶⁸ Brandon’s Jesus was entirely focused on the sociopolitical realities of his day. He argued that everything that distorts this depiction of Jesus as a political revolutionary—including, most notably, Jesus’s focus on “eschatological” (understood in Schweitzerian terms) matters—was the result of the early church (through the evangelists) falsely imposing “theological considerations” upon the real Jesus of history.⁶⁹ Brandon strongly resists this idea of a Jesus “insulated from the political unrest which was so profoundly agitating contemporary Jewish society.”⁷⁰ Thus, Brandon draws a sharp distinction between Jesus understood as a historical figure, concerned with the real-world sociopolitical issues of his time, and Jesus as a literary figure, seen through the distorting theological lenses of the early church. Eschatology only factors into the latter; violence is inherently part of the former.

Jesus and the Jewish Nation [London: Athlone Press, 1965]). For an overview of Brandon’s thesis complementary to that presented here, see Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 622– 624.  See Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 63 – 64, for his view on the “Zealots.”  See Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 42– 44, 244– 245 for his argument that “Simon the Cananaean” (Σίμωνα τὸν Καναναῖον) (Mark 3:18 // Matt 10:4; cf. Luke 6:15: καὶ Σίμωνα τὸν καλούμενον ζηλωτὴν) was a zealot/revolutionary.  Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 245, see further 221– 283. This portrait was then developed by Matthew and Luke (see Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 27, 283 – 321).  Schweitzer, The Quest, 402.  Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 320; cf. Maccoby, Revolution in Judaea, 187; but note the comment of Wink, “Jesus and Revolution,” 54.  Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 17, 78.

24

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

1.3.1.5 Responses to Brandon Brandon’s hypothesis received extensive responses. Martin Hengel, who had written a thorough study of the “Zealot” movement in Second Temple Judaism,⁷¹ strongly critiqued Brandon, particularly his characterisation of Jewish resistance movements and the credibility of Jesus’s sympathy for such ideologies, goals, and means.⁷² Hengel believed that the concept of associating Jesus with violent revolution was, simply, implausible. He claimed that Brandon’s historical case was disastrously one-sided, purposefully ignored evidence that contradicted him, relied on arguments from silence, and elevated hypothetical possibilities to the level of certainty.⁷³ Nor was Hengel the only one unconvinced by Brandon.⁷⁴ Oscar Cullmann’s own exploration of the “Zealot movement” and its consequences for understanding Jesus led him to argue that Brandon’s conclusions “not only must not be drawn, but cannot be drawn.”⁷⁵ Although Walter Wink acknowledged the “enormous erudition” and “profound historical insight” of Brandon’s work,⁷⁶ praising it as “one of the more important achievements of this decade,”⁷⁷ he also saw its problems, accusing Brandon of repeatedly “moving from general considerations of the background to presumably necessary inferences about the chief protago-

 Martin Hengel, Die Zeloten: Untersuchungen zur Jüdischen Freiheitsbewegung in der Zeit von Herodes I. bis 70 n. Chr, AGSU 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1961) (ET of the second German edition [1976]: Martin Hengel, The Zealots: Investigations Into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period From Herod I Until 70 A.D., trans. David Smith [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989]). Interestingly, although Hengel placed significant emphasis on the eschatological aspects of the “Zealot” movement (1989, 229 – 312), he did not make this a focal point of his critique of Brandon’s attempts to associate Jesus with it.  See Hengel, “Review of S. G. F. Brandon”; Martin Hengel, War Jesus Revolutionär? (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1970) (ET: Martin Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist?, trans. William Klassen [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971]); and Martin Hengel, Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit: Zur “politischen Theologie” in neutestamentlicher Zeit (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1971) (ET: Martin Hengel, Victory Over Violence: Jesus and the Revolutionists [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973]).  Hengel, “Review of S. G. F. Brandon,” 235 – 237.  See Daniel R. Schwartz, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, WUNT 60 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 138 – 139 (esp. notes 24 and 25), for a list of scholars who reject Brandon’s hypothesis. See S. G. F. Brandon, “Jesus and the Zealots: Aftermath,” BJRL 54 (1971): 47– 66, for Brandon’s response to his critics.  Oscar Cullmann, Jesus and the Revolutionaries, trans. Gareth Putnam (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), x – xi. See Oscar Cullmann, The State in the New Testament (New York: Scribner, 1956); see further Schwartz, Studies, 137– 138.  Wink, “Jesus and Revolution,” 38.  Wink, “Jesus and Revolution,” 53.

1.3 History of Research

25

nist.”⁷⁸ The most comprehensive critical response came with the publication of Jesus and the Politics of His Day (1984),⁷⁹ edited by Ernst Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. The volume’s contributors systematically responded to and refuted each component of Brandon’s argument. It appeared that Brandon’s hypothesis had been put to rest for good: whatever else the historical Jesus might have been, he was not a violent revolutionary.⁸⁰ However, noteworthy by its absence in this volume was any challenge to Brandon’s dismissal of the “eschatological” components of the Gospels, and any consideration of how this might have impacted Brandon’s thesis. This reflects the fact that at this point, the Schweitzerian paradigm for understanding Jesus’s eschatology was still operative: an “other-worldly” eschatology simply had nothing to do with Jesus’s historical significance within his sociopolitical context.

1.3.2 Violence and Eschatology in the “Third Quest” In the late 1970s and early 1980s, many scholars of the historical Jesus began to move away from the false positivism of the “New Quest” and its use of criteria, focusing their efforts instead on understanding Jesus in the context of the firstcentury Jewish world.⁸¹ The acknowledgment that this scholarship shared certain areas of focus led to its being grouped together as the so-called “Third Quest of the Historical Jesus.”⁸² The emphasis on understanding Jesus as a first-century Jew came alongside an increasing awareness of the great diversity of Judaism(s) in this period, resulting in debates about how Jesus fitted into it.

 Wink, “Jesus and Revolution,” 53, 59; cf. William Klassen, “Jesus and the Zealot Option,” CJT 16 (1970): 12– 21, 17, 15. See also George R. Edwards, Jesus and the Politics of Violence (New York: Harper & Row, 1972).  E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule, eds., Jesus and the Politics of His Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).  Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 229 n. 70, claims that the work dealt the seditious hypothesis “a fatal blow.”  See the review and critique of previous “quests” for the Historical Jesus in Meyer, The Aims, 25 – 59.  On the “Third Quest,” see n. 48 above; see also Tom Holmén, “The Jewishness of Jesus in the ‘Third Quest’,” in Jesus, Mark and Q: The Teaching of Jesus and its Earliest Records, ed. Tom Holmén, JSNTSup 214 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 143 – 62; Amanda Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist: His Exorcisms in Social and Political Context, LNTS 459 (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 6.

26

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

Significantly for our purposes, this led to a renewed interest in understanding the importance of eschatology within the worldview(s) of Jesus and his contemporaries.⁸³

1.3.2.1 E. P. Sanders Sanders’s Jesus and Judaism (1985) was one of the most important works of this period. Sanders observed that the hope for eschatological restoration was a significant component of first-century Judaism, and argued that Jesus, sharing this hope with his contemporaries, saw his own ministry as its catalyst.⁸⁴ Thus, Sanders’s Jesus was a “prophet of Jewish restoration.”⁸⁵ Like Schweitzer, therefore, he believed that Jesus was driven by his belief in an imminent eschatological “climax”; however, Sanders understood the constituent events of this climax more specifically in terms of their portrayal within prophetic Jewish texts.⁸⁶ Problematically, however, Sanders remained heavily influenced by the Schweitzerian paradigm of eschatology, arguing that we can be sure that neither Jesus nor his disciples harboured violent intentions because of the “apolitical nature” of his work—the fact that the kingdom he was trying to establish was “on a different plane.”⁸⁷ Unlike the “Zealots,” who sought a political, this-worldly kingdom, Sanders saw Jesus’s ambition as involving an element of “otherworldliness.”⁸⁸ Therefore, violence was simply not a factor: it was an inappropriate means to achieve the eschatological goals for which Jesus worked. Thus, although Sanders sought to return a biblically-informed eschatological hope to the heart of Jesus’s ministry, he implicitly retained the disassociation between the earthly/political goals and violent means of the “Zealots,” and the “other-worldly” kingdom of God of Jesus’s concern.

 See N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 215 – 243, 280 – 338.  Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 125.  Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 222; see also E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993).  Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 153. See also 232, 235. For an intriguing exploration of Sanders’ conception of Jesus’s eschatology vis-à-vis that of his contemporaries, see Bryan, “Jesus and Israel’s.”  Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 231. See further Neill and Wright, The Interpretation, 395; cf. Edwards, Jesus, 89.  Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 231.

1.3 History of Research

27

1.3.2.2 Richard Horsley Horsley, on the other hand, sought to interpret Jesus’s proclamation of the “kingdom of God” strictly in terms of the social, political, and economic realities of his historical context. In Jesus and the Spiral of Violence (1987), Horsley presented Jesus as a social revolutionary, a “prophet of renewal” who confronted the power structures at work in the world of first-century Palestinian Judaism.⁸⁹ He argued that the Roman presence had, in effect, created a colonial situation in which a powerful ruling elite exploited a peasant majority, leading to social upheaval and violent revolt.⁹⁰ The intention of Jesus’s ministry, then, was to overcome this inequality and injustice; to reform Palestinian society, bringing oppression to an end and thereby breaking the “cycle of violence.” Horsley thus understood the “kingdom” proclaimed by Jesus primarily as a socioeconomic phenomenon; a transformation of the Palestinian Jewish community that was presently underway in Jesus’s work.⁹¹ Horsley helpfully countered the suggestion that the kingdom Jesus proclaimed was entirely “other-worldly” or “supernatural.”⁹² However, he took this corrective measure to the opposite extreme, focusing almost entirely on the present social and economic implications of the kingdom, ignoring or denying its “transcendent”/“spiritual” and theological characteristics and rootedness, and thus, in a sense, removing its climactic nature.⁹³ As a result, there re-

 Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993 [1987]). Horsley’s earlier work, which analysed revolutionary movements in Second Temple Judaism, is also significant for this study. See most notably Richard A. Horsley and John S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs: Popular Movements At the Time of Jesus (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1985); see also Richard A. Horsley, “Josephus and the Bandits,” JSJ 10 (1979): 37– 63, Richard A. Horsley, “The Sicarii: Ancient Jewish ‘Terrorists’,” JR 59 (1979): 435 – 58, Richard A. Horsley, “Ancient Jewish Banditry and the Revolt Against Rome, A.D. 66 – 70,” CBQ 43 (1981): 409 – 32, Richard A. Horsley, “Popular Messianic Movements Around the Time of Jesus,” CBQ 46 (1984): 471– 95, Richard A. Horsley, “Menahem in Jerusalem: A Brief Messianic Episode Among the Sicarii—Not ‘Zealot Messianism’,” NovT 27 (1985): 334– 48, Richard A. Horsley, “The Zealots: Their Origin, Relationships and Importance in the Jewish Revolt,” NovT 28 (1986): 159 – 92. For the language of “prophet of renewal” see Horsley, The Prophet Jesus.  Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 22– 23; in so doing, Horsely builds on the three-stage “spiral of violence” described in Helder Camara, Spiral of Violence, trans. Della Couling (London: Sheed and Ward, 1975).  Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 178; see also Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997 [1995]), 146.  Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 159.  Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 168. Cf. Richard A. Horsley, “‘Like One of the Prophets of Old’: Two Types of Popular Prophets At the Time of Jesus,” CBQ 47 (1985): 435 – 63, 435: the “issue for

28

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

mains little if any sense that what was occurring in and through Jesus’s ministry was associated with the long-awaited fulfillment of the Jewish eschatological hope.⁹⁴ Moreover, Horsley’s articulation of Jesus’s position on violence is less than clear, at times even coming across as inconsistent. Horsley makes much of his belief that there was no “organised” group known as the “Zealots” in Jesus’s day, and that such a group has been created by modern scholars as a foil against which to describe the pacifist Jesus.⁹⁵ Thus, although Jesus sought to break the “spiral of violence,” and “actively opposed violence,” as a “social revolutionary” he was certainly not a pacifist, and “we have no evidence that he ever directly or explicitly addressed the issue of violence.”⁹⁶ According to Horsley, all of Jesus’s teaching related to the topic must—like everything else—be subsumed and relativised within the (non-eschatological) kingdom Jesus sought to inaugurate through his social revolution.

1.3.2.3 Walter Wink Like Horsley, Wink focused on Jesus’s opposition to the systems of “domination” present in the world around him.⁹⁷ Unlike Horsley’s “social revolutionary,” how-

Jesus’ contemporaries was apparently less one of theological ideas or eschatological expectations … than one of concrete social-historical phenomena.”  Even though Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 172, 177, does acknowledge that contemporary “apocalyptic” texts give insight into expectations for God’s forthcoming deliverance and restoration of his people. Cf. Richard A. Horsley, ed., Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul, SemeiaSt 48 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004); Horsley, The Prophet Jesus, 38 – 52. On reading apocalyptic texts such as Daniel and the “Animal Apocalypse” of 1 Enoch as “resistance literature,” see Anathea E. PortierYoung, Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), who builds on the work of James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001).  Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, x – xi, 149 – 150; cf. Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, xviii–xx, 256 – 259; cf. Morton Smith, “Zealots and Sicarii: Their Origins and Relations,” HTR 64 (1971): 1– 19.  Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 319, 318. Emphasis added. The inconsistency of Horsley’s description of Jesus’s position on violence is also picked up by Bermejo-Rubio, “Why is the Hypothesis,” n. 13. Cf. Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 43.  See Walter Wink, Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament, The Powers 1 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); Walter Wink, Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Forces That Determine Human Existence, The Powers 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination, The Powers 3 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); also Walter Wink, “The Third Way: Reclaiming Jesus’ Nonviolent Alterna-

1.3 History of Research

29

ever, Wink’s Jesus actively advocated nonviolence. In particular, Wink argued that Jesus advocated a “third way” of nonviolent resistance to the powers,⁹⁸ intended to expose systematic domination and rob it of its power.⁹⁹ For Wink, therefore, Jesus embraced nonviolence as a more effective means of overcoming the socioeconomic and political issues of first-century Palestine. Wink thus makes a significant contribution to our historical appreciation of how the nonviolence advocated by Jesus (esp. in Matt 5:38 – 48 // Luke 6:27– 36) would have fitted into his sociopolitical context; however, he does not engage with Jesus’s eschatology to any significant degree, nor considers how this impacts the formation of the “third way,” or how this distinguished Jesus’s presentation of the kingdom’s inauguration from that of his contemporaries who advocated the use of revolutionary violence.

1.3.2.4 The Jesus Seminar Although the work of the Jesus Seminar should not properly be considered part of the “Third Quest,”¹⁰⁰ because of (i) how influential the work of several of its

tive,” Sojourners 15.11 (1986): 28 – 33; Walter Wink, “Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus’ Nonviolent Way,” RevExp 89 (1992): 197– 214.  Helpfully presented in Walter Wink, Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003); see Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 44.  See the dialogue between Wink and Horsley in Willard M. Swartley, ed. The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament, SPS 3 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992): Richard A. Horsley, “Ethics and Exegesis: ‘Love Your Enemy’ and the Doctrine of Nonviolence,” in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament, ed. Willard M. Swartley, SPS 3 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 72– 101; Richard A. Horsley, “Response to Walter Wink,” in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament, ed. Willard M. Swartley, SPS 3 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 126 – 32; Walter Wink, “Counterresponse to Richard Horsley,” in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament, ed. Willard M. Swartley, SPS 3 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 133 – 36; Walter Wink, “Neither Passivity Nor Violence: Jesus’ Third Way (Matt. 5:38 – 48 Par.),” in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament, ed. Willard M. Swartley, SPS 3 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 102– 25.  Robert Funk, for example, spoke of his own work in terms of a “Renewed Quest”; see further Witherington III, The Jesus Quest, 42– 57; N. T. Wright, “Five Gospels But No Gospel: Jesus and the Seminar,” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, ed. Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans, NTTS 28.2 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 83 – 120; cf. Dale C. Allison, Jr., Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 2 n. 5; Robert J. Miller, The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 1999). Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996), 4, is thus quite misguided in claiming that, “The Jesus Seminar thinks of itself as the vanguard of the Third Quest.”

30

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

members has been over the past twenty-five years, and (ii) the fact that one of its primary focuses has been on the correct understanding of Jesus’s eschatology,¹⁰¹ I will very briefly consider the work of two of its most noteworthy members: John Dominic Crossan and Marcus J. Borg.

1.3.2.4.1 John Dominic Crossan In The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (1991), Crossan interprets Jesus’s ministry as the attempt to inaugurate the “brokerless kingdom of God” through his work of “magic and meal.”¹⁰² Therefore, for Crossan, Jesus’s

 One of the central claims made in the first collaborative publication by the Seminar (Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar, eds., The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus [New York: Macmillan, 1993]) was that Jesus was not an “apocalyptic” prophet. They argued that “apocalyptic” elements of the Jesus tradition—namely, those that reflected the Schweitzerian eschatological paradigm of an imminent end to history and arrival of a supernatural kingdom—were “inauthentic” later additions. See Robert W. Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 164; cf. Marcus J. Borg, Jesus, a New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and the Life of Discipleship (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987); Marcus J. Borg, “Jesus and Eschatology: A Reassessment,” in Images of Jesus Today, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Walter P. Weaver (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994), 42– 67; Marcus J. Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994), x; Stephen J. Patterson, “The End of the Apocalypse: Rethinking the Eschatological Jesus,” Theology Today 52 [1995]: 29 – 48). Against this, they argued that the “real” Jesus was guided by sapiential traditions and proclaimed a present kingdom. For further discussion of the alleged dichotomy between Jewish “wisdom/sapiential” and “apocalyptic” traditions described by the Seminar, see Horsley, The Prophet Jesus; Gerd Theissen, “L’eschatologie de Jésus – expression d’un monothéisme radical?” RHPR 92 (2012): 555 – 71; cf. Eve, The Healer of Nazareth, 133; Seán Freyne, Jesus, a Jewish Galilean: A New Reading of the Jesus-Story (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), 136 – 141; Miller, “Introduction”; N. T. Wright, “Jesus,” in Early Christian Thought in its Jewish Context, ed. John Barclay and John Sweet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 47– 52; N. T. Wright, Paul and His Recent Interpreters: Some Contemporary Debates (London: SPCK, 2015), 140, 142– 143.  “Brokerless Kingdom” being the title of part three of the book, and “Magic and Meal” the title of chapter 13. Cf. John Dominic Crossan, “Eschatology, Apocalypticism, and the Historical Jesus,” in Jesus Then and Now: Images of Jesus in History and Christology, ed. Marvin Meyer and Charles Hughes (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001), 110. Crossan has since filled out his portrayal of Jesus in several other publications, including Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography; John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998); John Dominic Crossan, God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2007); John Dominic Crossan, The Essential Jesus: Original Sayings and Earliest Images (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008).

1.3 History of Research

31

kingdom ministry was fundamentally sociological: “Jesus’ invocation of the kingdom of God” was not “an apocalyptic event in the immediate future, but … a mode of life in the immediate present.”¹⁰³ At the heart of this movement was “commensality … a shared egalitarianism of spiritual and material resources.”¹⁰⁴ This led Crossan to reject the suggestion that Jesus’s eschatology was “apocalyptic” and to argue instead that it was an “ethical” eschatology.¹⁰⁵ Furthermore, Crossan rejected certain elements of the Gospel tradition—most notably, those that speak of eschatological judgment—on the basis of his own ethical commitments, claiming that “our very humanity demands that we reject definitively the lure of a violent ultimacy, a violent transcendence, or a violent God.”¹⁰⁶

1.3.2.4.2 Marcus J. Borg Borg, meanwhile, described his “paradigm” of Jesus in terms of five “strokes,” enabling him to incorporate and explain a broad spectrum of Jesus tradition: Jesus was (i) a “Spirit person” / “Jewish mystic”; (ii) a healer and exorcist; (iii) an enlightened Jewish wisdom teacher; (iv) a social prophet; and (v) a movement initiator.¹⁰⁷ In his early work, Borg focused on Jesus’s conflict with his contemporaries regarding the “holiness paradigm” in temple-centred first-century Judaism and its implications for the future of Israel, describing Jesus as a prophet of

 John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperOne, 1991), 304.  Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 341.  Crossan lays out his approach to “eschatology” and “apocalyptic” at length in Crossan, The Birth of Christianity, 257– 289, see esp. 259; cf. Dale C. Allison, Jr., et al., “Assessing the Arguments,” in The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate, ed. Robert J. Miller (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2001), 109 – 27, 119. Allison, Constructing Jesus, 132, defines Crossan’s “ethical eschatology” as a “utopian hope that nonviolently resists structural evils.”  Crossan, “Eschatology, Apocalypticism,” 97– 98. This line of reasoning is explored at greater length in Crossan, Jesus and the Violence of Scripture; cf. Dale C. Allison, Jr., et al., “The Historical Jesus and Contemporary Faith,” in The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate, ed. Robert J. Miller (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2001), 158 – 159.  See the lengthier description of these five “strokes” given in Marcus J. Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and Stephen J. Patterson, “Con: Jesus Was Not an Apocalyptic Prophet,” in The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate, ed. Robert J. Miller (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2001), 35. Borg’s work on Jesus includes Marcus J. Borg, Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998 [1984]); Marcus J. Borg, Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1994); Borg, Meeting Jesus Again; Marcus J. Borg, Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary (New York: HarperOne, 2006).

32

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

renewal calling for repentance.¹⁰⁸ Elsewhere in this same work, however, Borg described Jesus as a “holy person” and “subversive sage,” and claimed that Jesus used the phrase “kingdom of God” to designate “the primordial beneficent power of the other realm, an energy which can become active in ordinary reality.”¹⁰⁹ This latter depiction, within which the kingdom was “a symbol for the power and presence of God as known in mystical experience,”¹¹⁰ a present reality that empowered Jesus, became the predominant focus of Borg’s scholarship on Jesus. Several significant historical and exegetical issues with Crossan’s and Borg’s systems of thought have been picked up on by their critics.¹¹¹ Perhaps most problematic is the lack of discernibly Jewish language or themes in their descriptions of Jesus’s identity and the content of his ministry.¹¹² Both scholars end up with an ostensibly “eschatological” Jesus whose proclamation of the kingdom of God is almost entirely irrelevant to the fulfillment of the eschatological hopes expressed in the Jewish scriptures and other Second Temple texts. In other words, the “peasant Jewish cynic” or “holy man/mystic/sage” speaks to his contemporaries in unrecognizable terms about concepts unfamiliar to them.

1.3.2.5 Dale C. Allison, Jr. In contrast to Crossan and Borg, who emphasised the mystical and wisdombased roots of Jesus’s proclamation of the present kingdom, Allison has continued to argue that Jesus was an “apocalyptic prophet,” who held a clearly-identifiable “apocalyptic eschatology.” Allison defines this with the following: The words are convenient shorthand for a cluster of themes well attested in postexilic Jewish literature, themes that were prominent in a then-popular account of the world that ran, in brief, as follows. Although God created a good world, evil spirits have filled it with wickedness, so that it is in disarray and full of injustice. A day is coming, however, when God will repair the broken creation and restore scattered Israel. Before that time, the struggle between good and evil will come to a climax, and a period of great tribulation and unmatched woe will descend upon the world. After that period, God will, perhaps through

 Borg, Conflict, 88 – 134. Cf. Witherington III, The Jesus Quest, 100.  Borg, Conflict, 261; see further Borg, Jesus, a New Vision, and Borg, Meeting Jesus Again.  Borg, Conflict, 262.  See e. g. Eve, The Healer of Nazareth, 132– 134.  See B. F. Meyer, review of The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, by John Dominic Crossan, CBQ 55 (1993), 576; Witherington III, The Jesus Quest, 74; cf. Wright, Jesus, 44– 65. Note Borg, Meeting Jesus Again, 27, where he admits the non-Jewish background of some of this material. See also Horsley, The Prophet Jesus, 72.

1.3 History of Research

33

one or more messianic figures, reward the just and requite the unjust, both living and dead, and then establish divine rule forever. In my view, if Jesus publicly promoted some version of this story, which makes for profound discontinuity between the present and the future, and if that story was integral to his message and self-conception, and if, furthermore, he hoped that its denouement was near, then we may fairly label his eschatology “apocalyptic.”¹¹³

Allison argues that this cluster of beliefs led to the widespread expectation within first-century Judaism that “God’s kingdom would replace the Roman kingdom,” and that much of Jesus’s teaching—including the kingdom of God, suffering/persecution for the saints, and victory over evil powers—can be understood in this context.¹¹⁴ According to Allison, if we deny the historicity of these pervasive themes, we place ourselves in danger of calling into question the credibility of the Jesus tradition as a whole.¹¹⁵ To his credit, Allison carefully interacts with Second Temple texts and strives to anchor his understanding of apocalypticism and eschatology in their Jewish context.¹¹⁶ Doing so leads him to observe that conflict between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan (broadly conceived of) was an important component of such expectations.¹¹⁷ Moreover, Allison accounts for Jesus’s nonviolence (his “passive political stance”) as an aspect of his identity as a “millenarian

 Allison, Constructing Jesus, 32; see further 31– 220; also Dale C. Allison, Jr., The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); Dale C. Allison, Jr., “A Plea for Thoroughgoing Eschatology,” JBL 113 (1994): 651– 58; Allison, Jesus of Nazareth; Allison, “The Eschatology of Jesus”; Allison, Resurrecting Jesus; Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). Other scholars who make similar arguments include Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, and Arland J. Hultgren, “Eschatology in the New Testament: The Current Debate,” in The Last Things: Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Eschatology, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 67– 89. For further exploration of the topic of Jesus and apocalypticism, see Crispin Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus and Apocalypticism,” in The Historical Jesus, ed. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter, vol. 3 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 2877– 909.  Dale C. Allison, Jr., “Pro: Jesus Was an Apocalyptic Prophet,” in The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate, ed. Robert J. Miller (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2001), 23; see also Allison, et al., “Assessing the Arguments,” 109; Allison, Constructing Jesus, 77, 85.  Allison, Constructing Jesus, 46 – 47; cf. Allison, “Pro: Jesus,” 29.  See Allison, “Pro: Jesus,” 29; also Allison, Constructing Jesus, 78. However, note his considerable attention to a cross-cultural study of millenarian movements around the world in Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, 1– 94, esp. 78 – 94.  Allison, Constructing Jesus, 40; see 47 n. 71 for a presentation of the textual evidence; also see 112– 113.

34

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

prophet,” who expected a “divinely wrought deliverance.”¹¹⁸ Allison thus recognises the inherent connections between violence and eschatology in apocalyptic Jewish traditions, and acknowledges that this is significant to Jesus’s proclamation/inauguration of the kingdom of God, especially with regard to the distinct differences between Jesus’s teaching on the topic and the expectations of many of his contemporaries.¹¹⁹ There is, however, one central component of Allison’s presentation of Jesus that presents a significant interpretative challenge. As an “apocalyptic” / “millenarian” prophet who expected the imminent climax of history, Allison’s Jesus is—like Schweitzer’s—ultimately shown to have been wrong.¹²⁰ This raises serious questions concerning the lasting significance of Jesus’s eschatological teaching for his followers, as well as the overall coherence of the Gospel narrative.

1.3.2.6 The Lingering Presence of the Schweitzerian Paradigm Therefore, over the past thirty years of Jesus scholarship, any discussion of the connections between violence and eschatology has in large part continued to be determined by the Schweitzerian paradigm, in which eschatology has fundamentally to do with the “end of the world.” At the risk of over-simplification, it can be seen that scholars have either (i) assumed that the kingdom which Jesus proclaimed and expected was, in some sense, “other-worldly” (though this term itself is understood in diverse ways) and would represent a radical break from “this-worldly” existence (Sanders, Allison); or (ii) rejected the suggestion that “apocalyptic eschatology” (i. e., eschatology understood in Schweitzerian terms) determined the ministry of the historical Jesus, who instead proclaimed a present kingdom defined by ethical/egalitarian/mystical qualities (Crossan, Borg).¹²¹ Recently, Horsley has critiqued this dichotomous discussion, arguing that this debate is based on a misunderstanding of Second Temple Jew-

 Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, 63.  Dale C. Allison, Jr., “A Response,” in The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate, ed. Robert J. Miller (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2001), 99 – 100; cf. Allison, Constructing Jesus. 157. Allison articulates much of this in direct conversation with (and refutation of) Crossan’s claim that “apocalyptic eschatology” of necessity involves “transcendental violence”; see Allison, Constructing Jesus, 132– 133.  Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, 218, acknowledges this. Cf. Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 88, and further 71– 89.  The distinction between these two positions—the so-called “Apocalyptic Jesus” debate—is laid out in detail in Miller, “Introduction.”

1.3 History of Research

35

ish apocalyptic texts, the sociopolitical circumstances which led to their production, and their function within such contexts.¹²² While I agree with this critique, Horsley’s alternative presentation of Jesus as “social revolutionary” or “prophet of renewal” is representative of a third trend in recent scholarship, which understands Jesus’s proclamation of the kingdom through predominantly sociological lenses and suggests that the primary intention of Jesus’s ministry was to overcome socioeconomic inequality and injustice (see also Wink). The shortcoming of this approach, as discussed above, is its insufficient consideration of the scripturally-based, theologically-climactic emphasis so prominent within the Synoptic Gospels’ presentation of Jesus’s life and ministry. At the heart of these various approaches remains the Schweitzerian assumption that “eschatological” is equivalent to “other-worldly.” There is therefore little consideration of what Jesus’s eschatology might have to say about his teaching on violence, because the two (it is assumed) belong to fundamentally different categories: one belongs to conceptions of a Jesus who looks forward, to a transcendent future existence; the other belongs to conceptions of a Jesus concerned entirely with present, this-worldly (and therefore not spiritual, theological, etc.) conditions, one who potentially endorses or denies violence on the basis of pragmatic and/or ethical considerations. Among its other problematic repercussions, this continuing disassociation has enabled some scholars to continue to advocate the SJH. Furthermore, neither of these conceptions manages to reflect the full spectrum of the Synoptic presentation of Jesus’s life and ministry, which is both (i) eschatological—that is, focused on the inauguration of the “kingdom of God,” in the sense defined below; and (ii) nonviolent—that is, engaging with, rejecting, and presenting a unique alternative to the revolutionary violence prevalent among his contemporaries. It is only when we properly understand how eschatology and violence relate to one another as eschatological violence that we can perceive its significance as a central theme within the Synoptic Gospels.

1.3.3 Summary The above survey has, in broad strokes, outlined the development of scholarship on the roles of violence and eschatology in the life and ministry of Jesus. It is my contention that misguided understandings of the terms and anachronistic applications of modern interpretative lenses or methodological presuppositions have

 Horsley, The Prophet Jesus.

36

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

prevented both a proper appreciation of how eschatology was a foundational motivational factor for revolutionary violence in Second Temple Judaism, and sufficient consideration of how this is reflected in the Synoptic presentation of Jesus’s life and ministry. It is the goal of the present study to address these two shortcomings of previous scholarship.

1.4 Definitions of Important Terms In the scholarship reviewed above, several terms central to the issues discussed in this study are used in diverse ways. This suggests the necessity of their precise definition, in order that their meaning within the chapters to follow might be as clear as possible.

1.4.1 Eschatology Etymologically, the term “eschatology” is quite straightforward. Formed from the Greek adjective meaning “last” or “end” (ἔσχατος) and the noun for “discourse” (λόγια), “eschatology” refers to “discourse about the end.” In biblical terms, this “end” is the fulfillment of God’s intentions for his creation. However, a lack of agreement on the precise nature, character, and timing of this “end” has led to “eschatology” being used in a bewildering multiplicity of ways within biblical and theological studies. This has resulted in no small amount of confusion with regard to the term, to the point that in an article entitled “Les Dangers de L’Eschatologie” (1971), Jean Carmignac concluded a thorough survey of the development of its use by wondering, “Puisque ce terme est une source de confusion, pourquoi ne pas l’abandonner?”¹²³ Most scholars have not been as willing to set aside the term completely. One of the most significant efforts to clarify its meaning and rehabilitate its functionality within biblical studies was made by G. B. Caird, in the concluding chapter of The Language and Imagery of the Bible (1980).¹²⁴ Perhaps the most important contribution Caird makes is found in the distinction he draws between what he labels “EschatologyI (Individual)” and “EschatologyH (Historical).” The former  J. Carmignac, “Les dangers de l’eschatologie,” NTS 17 (1971), 390.  Caird, The Language, 243 – 271; see his earlier discussions of eschatology in George B. Caird, “Les eschatologies du Nouveau Testament,” RHPR 49 (1969): 217– 27; George B. Caird, “Eschatology and Politics: Some Misconceptions,” in Biblical Studies: Essays in Honor of William Barclay, ed. Johnston R. McKay and James F. Miller (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 72– 86.

1.4 Definitions of Important Terms

37

identifies uses of “eschatology” which refer primarily to the fate of the individual after death (and the associated topics of judgment, heaven, hell, etc.); the latter applies to uses of “eschatology” that are more directly derived from the Jewish scriptures, concerned with the telos of history and the future both of God’s people and of all creation.¹²⁵ This leads Caird to argue for two distinct features of a scripturally-based understanding of “eschatology.” First, “eschatology” is not solely concerned with the individual, but with that individual as part of the people of God, and with the people of God as part of God’s purposes for his whole creation.¹²⁶ Second, although Caird affirms that just as the biblical writers believed that the world had a definite beginning in the past, they also expected that it would have a definite end in the future,¹²⁷ he cautions against a simplistic conception of the nature of that “end”: One characteristic form of Jewish eschatology is the belief in two ages: the present evil age will give place to the coming age of justice and peace, so that the end of the one is the beginning of the other; and in many, if not all, forms of this belief the coming age was conceived as a new and ideal epoch of world history.¹²⁸

Thus, when using words like “last,” “final,” and “end” in the context of Jewish beliefs about the future, precision and specificity is necessary. In many or even most eschatological texts—including significant passages from the prophets and later Second Temple writings—it was not the “end” of the space-time continuum that was conceived of, but the “end” of one age and the beginning of another. Therefore, as Leander Keck states, Although the Greek eschatos means last in a sequence (as in Mk 12:22) or rank (as in Mk 10:31), in theological discourse the ‘eschatological’ refers not to termination (as in “the end of the world”) but to telos, the goal or consummation of God’s purposes and activities. ¹²⁹

 Caird, The Language, 244, quotes Kohler from the Jewish Encyclopedia: “the main concern of Hebrew legislator, prophet, and apocalyptic writer [is] Israel as the people of God and the victory of his truth and justice on earth.” (Caird quotes the 1903 edition; the 1906 edition of the article is now available online at http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5849-eschatol ogy.)  See further Caird, The Language, 245 – 247.  See Caird, The Language, 244.  Caird, The Language, 244.  Leander E. Keck, Who is Jesus? History in Perfect Tense (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2000), 70. Emphasis added.

38

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

Any definition of “eschatology” that derives from the development of the concept in the Jewish scriptures, therefore, must affirm that the anticipated “end” is neither ahistorical, otherworldly, or ethereal; rather, it is directly bound up with God’s promises for the renewal and restoration of humanity and creation. Caird’s definition of “EschatologyH” is determinative for the use of the term in the present study. The “end” with which Second Temple Jewish eschatological expectations were concerned was the culmination of history in its God-ordained purpose, as this was envisioned in the scriptures. “Eschatology,” then, refers to the multivalent conglomeration of hopes and expectations associated with the belief that God’s promises for the end of all evil, and the redemption, restoration, renewal, and blessing of his people—and through them, all creation— would be fulfilled. Therefore, to claim that, according to the Synoptic Gospels’ accounts, the ministry of Jesus was eschatological, is to claim that it was concerned with and oriented towards these events.

1.4.2 The Kingdom of God The “kingdom of God” (ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ) is an eschatological concept associated particularly with the Synoptic Gospels.¹³⁰ The “kingdom” is the central focus of the Synoptic Jesus’s ministry of word and deed. Mark, for example, offers the following summary of the “good news of God” proclaimed by Jesus: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near (ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ); repent, and believe in the good news” (1:15).¹³¹ Understanding the precise meaning and significance of the “kingdom of God” in Second Temple Judaism is no simple task.¹³² Although the exact phrase is uncommon in the Jewish scriptures,¹³³ earlier claims that the idea is therefore a novum in New Testament texts have been overcome by more recent work that

 Green, “Kingdom of God/Heaven,” 468, notes that βασιλεία is found 55x in Matthew, 20x in Mark, and 46x in Luke, but only 5x in John. While the full phrase ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ is more frequent in both Mark and Luke, Matthew prefers ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. See Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 265 – 302; Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 167– 208, for examples of non-eschatological interpretations of the “kingdom of God”; see Eve, The Healer of Nazareth, 131.  Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, 120 – 121, argues against those who would dismiss the significance of Mark 1:15 to our understanding of Jesus’s ministry.  Green, “Kingdom of God/Heaven,” reviews the main challenges involved in this task. For an overview of the “kingdom of God” in Second Temple Judaism, see Allison, “Kingdom of God”; also helpful is Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 387– 396.  It is found only twice, in 1Chron 28:5 (‫ מלכות יהוה‬/ βασιλείας κυρίου) and 2Chron 13:8 (‫ממלכת‬ ‫ יהוה‬/ βασιλείας κυρίου).

1.4 Definitions of Important Terms

39

demonstrates how thoroughly the concept of God as “king” permeates the biblical texts. Susan Pigott, for example, notes that YHWH bears the title “king” (approximately 45x), reigns as king (13x), rules (8x), and sits on a throne (20x).¹³⁴ The scriptural evidence is abundant. The deliverance from slavery in Egypt is celebrated in the Song of Moses (Exod 15:1– 18) with the words, “YHWH will reign (‫ )ימלך‬forever and ever” (15:18).¹³⁵ The prophet Isaiah looks forward to a peaceful future with the proclamation that, “YHWH is our judge, YHWH is our ruler (‫)יהוה מחקקנו‬, YHWH is our king (‫)יהוה מלכנו‬, he will save us” (Isa 33:22). Later, in anticipation of the end of exile and Israel’s restoration, Isaiah foresees the herald proclaiming to Zion not only peace, good news, and salvation, but also, “Your God reigns! (‫( ”)מלך אלהיך‬52:7).¹³⁶ The book of Daniel is particularly focused on YHWH’s power over all earthly dominion (e. g. 2:21, 47; 4:33 – 35; 6:26).¹³⁷ Furthermore, the Psalms are replete with descriptions of God’s reign: “Who is this King of glory? YHWH of hosts, he is the King of glory (‫מלך‬ ‫( ”)הכבוד‬Ps 24:10; cf. v. 8); “YHWH sits enthroned as king (‫ )מלך‬for ever” (29:10); “YHWH, the Most High, is awesome, a great King (‫ )מלך גדול‬over all the earth” (47:2); “For YHWH is a great God, and a great King (‫ )מלך גדול‬above all gods” (95:3). These examples could be multiplied.¹³⁸ The conception of God as Israel’s true king persisted into the Second Temple period, during which it underwent significant development, largely in response to the sociopolitical circumstances in which the Jewish people lived.¹³⁹ Although centuries of oppression under foreign rule made the concept of God’s present reign difficult to understand, the concept was steadfastly affirmed—“Lord, you are our king forevermore” (Pss. Sol. 17:1)¹⁴⁰—and the Jews longed for the day

 Susan M. Pigott, “The Kingdom of the Warrior God: The Old Testament and the Kingdom of Yahweh,” SwJT 40 (1988), 5 – 6; cited by Green, “Kingdom of God/Heaven,” 470. See also G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 17– 19.  Cf. Num 23:21.  See further Isa 44:1– 6. Green, “Kingdom of God/Heaven,” 471. Other prophetic expressions of the theme include Obad 21; Zech 14:9.  See Craig A. Evans, “Exorcisms and the Kingdom: Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb, WUNT 247 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 155 – 157.  See Green, “Kingdom of God/Heaven,” 471, who points also to Pss 68, 93, and 114. See further J. L. Mays, “The Language of the Reign of God,” Int 47 (1993).  Green, “Kingdom of God/Heaven,” 470 – 471.  Allison, “Kingdom of God,” 861, points also to 4Q246, 4Q521, and 1QSb IV, 25 – 26 as evidence of such thought. See further 1QM XII, 7; 4Q491 XI, ii 17; 4Q252 1 V, 3 – 4; see Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 198.

40

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

of its revelation.¹⁴¹ Green claims that this led to an emphasis on “the already-present reign of God that would in the future be revealed universally, when God would vindicate his people and establish justice and peace in the cosmos.”¹⁴² Thus, over the course of the Second Temple period, the concept of YHWH’s “kingship” became increasingly eschatological. To speak of the “kingdom of God” was to speak of the end of Gentile dominion over Israel; it was to express the longing for the future day when God’s rule over all creation would once more be revealed—when God’s kingdom would come ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς (Matt 6:10).¹⁴³ When God would “become king” in this sense, the world would be set right. The desire to see this eschatological hope fulfilled motivated many Jews to take actions of various kinds to hasten that day. This will be examined in greater detail in the following two chapters, but we note here the striking example provided by Josephus’s description of the Jewish “fourth philosophy,” whose defining feature was their passionate commitment to God alone as “ruler and lord” (ἡγεμὼν καὶ δεσπότης) and their willingness to give their lives to make this a reality (Ant. 18.23). The inherently political ramifications of the “kingdom of God” thus become clear: insofar as the desire was that God’s reign—his “rule” and “lordship”—would be manifested on earth, this concept presented a challenge to any other kingdom that claimed dominion over the people and land of Israel. All of this forms the background to understanding the Synoptic βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. The phrase refers to the realm within which the eschatological hope of Israel has been fulfilled; it is that over which YHWH rules. The Synoptic evangelists portray Jesus’s ministry as focused not only upon the proclamation of the “kingdom of God,” but also upon its inauguration: through Jesus, the kingdom’s “sphere of influence” expanded.¹⁴⁴ When Jesus announced that ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, and called people to μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, he was summoning them to respond to his proclamation of the kingdom’s “nearness” in both physical and temporal terms, and to do so by submitting to God’s kingship—in other words, to “enter” the “realm” of YHWH’s rule. Likewise, in his mighty deeds, Jesus acted with the power of God to expand God’s dominion over creation that had been in bondage to the enemy.¹⁴⁵ In and through the life,

 Allison, “Kingdom of God,” 860 – 61.  Green, “Kingdom of God/Heaven,” 472.  Allison, “Kingdom of God,” 861.  The “kingdom” is therefore not a physical place/territory, but a sphere of “influence, activity, and or operation” (Green, “Kingdom of God/Heaven,” 468).  See further chapter 6, esp. § 6.3.

1.4 Definitions of Important Terms

41

death, and resurrection of Jesus, the Synoptic Gospels claim, the realm within which God’s eschatological promises began to be fulfilled expanded powerfully. This leads, finally, to perhaps the most puzzling aspect of the Synoptic “kingdom of God”: the question of its timing. The texts appear to attest divergent and competing traditions, some of which suggest the presence of the kingdom now, others of which suggest that it is only a future reality. This topic is far too complex to be dealt with comprehensively here.¹⁴⁶ For our purposes, it must suffice to acknowledge that the Synoptic Gospels speak of the “kingdom” as both present, in the words and actions of Jesus’s ministry, and still to come, in the fullness of its manifestation.

1.4.3 Violence Defining “violence” presents a challenge because of the diverse ways in which the term has been used by scholars across several disciplines.¹⁴⁷ The primary definition given by the Oxford English Dictionary reads, “The deliberate exercise of physical force against a person, property, etc.; physically violent behaviour or treatment.”¹⁴⁸ In contrast, we find the following in the introduction to a recent collection of essays on the topic: Violence can never be understood solely in terms of its physicality—force, assault, or the infliction of pain—alone. Violence also includes assaults on the personhood, dignity,

 Major discussions representing a diversity of opinions on this topic can be found in Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom; Caragounis, “Kingdom of God”; C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (Glasgow: Collins, 1978); J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1972); W. G. Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus, trans. D. M. Barton, 2nd ed. (London: SCM, 1961); G. E. Ladd, The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (London: SPCK, 1974); and Barry D. Smith, Jesus’ Twofold Teaching About the Kingdom of God, NTM 24 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009).  Important more recent theoretical work on violence includes that found in Hannah Arendt, On Violence (San Diego: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1970); Robert McAfee Brown, Religion and Violence, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987); Bruce B. Lawrence and Aisha Karim, eds., On Violence: A Reader (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007); Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe I. Bourgois, eds., Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology, Blackwell Readers in Anthropology 5 (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004); Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny (New York: W. W. Norton, 2006); and Slavoj Žižek, Violence: Six Sideways Reflections (London: Profile Books, 2009); cf. Brian Keith Axel, “The Diasporic Imaginary,” Public Culture 14 (2002): 411– 28.  Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed., 2014, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/223638?rskey= aHmDau&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid.

42

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

sense of worth or value of the victim. The social and cultural dimensions of violence are what give violence its power and meaning.¹⁴⁹

This last sentence is echoed by Kloppenborg, who further complicates attempts to define the term by observing that “violence is always socially constructed. What in one society or in one social register is regarded as the justifiable application of force in the pursuit of some legitimate end might in another society or social register be viewed as unwarranted violence.”¹⁵⁰ Whereas the OED definition focuses on the inherent association of “violence” with physical force, Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois suggest that this does not adequately represent the semantic range of the term, while Kloppenborg notes the importance of distinguishing violence from the legitimate use of force, and the difficulty of identifying precisely where such boundaries lie.¹⁵¹ The complexity of the term thus acknowledged, in the present study, “violence” will be used to refer to actions of physical and destructive force, usually perceived as negative in character. The decision to limit our discussion in this way has been made for four reasons. First of all, since this study is concerned with what Second Temple Jews expected with regard to the physical fulfillment of their eschatological hopes and the physical manifestation of the kingdom of God, our inquiry into how violence fits into such expectations should follow suit.¹⁵² We will therefore focus on physical manifestations of violence (i. e., violent events with physical repercussions [death, injury, destruction, etc.] for its victims) that are associated in some way with eschatological fulfillment. Secondly, by doing so, we can avoid the confusion that has resulted from the polyvalent use of the term in modern/postmodern scholarship. An overview of Thomas Yoder Neufeld’s efforts to define “violence” in the introduction to Killing Enmity: Violence and the New Testament (2011) will demonstrate just how complex the task has become.

 Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe Bourgois, “Introduction: Making Sense of Violence,” in Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology, ed. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe I. Bourgois, Blackwell Readers in Anthropology 5 (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 1.  John S. Kloppenborg, “The Representation of Violence in Synoptic Parables,” in Mark and Matthew I. Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their First-Century Settings, ed. Eve-Marie Becker and Anders Runesson (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 323.  Cf. John J. Collins, “The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence,” JBL 122 (2003), 4. Note also the OED’s focus on intentionality; cf. Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 24.  For an overview of the place of violence in Second Temple Judaism, see Steven Weitzman, “Violence,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1326 – 27.

1.4 Definitions of Important Terms

43

Yoder Neufeld first acknowledges the basic understanding of “violence” as “intentional physical harm or injury,” and then discusses the ways in which the term has become more complex.¹⁵³ He references Robert McAfee Brown’s seminal work Religion and Violence (1972), in which Brown claimed that: Whatever “violates” another, in the sense of infringing upon or disregarding or abusing or denying that other, whether physical harm is involved or not, can be understood as an act of violence. The basic overall definition of violence would then become violation of personhood.¹⁵⁴

Brown thus clearly expands the definition of “violence” beyond mere physicality.¹⁵⁵ Yoder Neufeld then notes the contributions of Johan Galtung, who coined the terms “structural” and “cultural violence,” and described political and economic means by which “whole peoples and classes” can be “violated,”¹⁵⁶ and Jacques Ellul, who developed similar ideas about repressive institutional violence.¹⁵⁷ Yoder Neufeld thereby uses broad strokes to demonstrate that conceptions of what was considered “violence” expanded exponentially over the course of the

 Thomas R. Yoder Neufeld, Killing Enmity: Violence and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 1.  Brown, Religion and Violence, 7; quoted by Yoder Neufeld, Killing Enmity, 2. More recent examinations of connections between violence and religion include David A. Bernat and Jonathan Klawans, eds., Religion and Violence: The Biblical Heritage (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007); J. Harold Ellens, ed., Sacred Scriptures, Ideology, and Violence, vol. 1 of The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004); William W. Emilsen and John T. Squires, eds., Validating Violence – Violating Faith? Religion, Scripture, and Violence (Adelaide: ATF, 2008); René Girard, Violence and the Sacred (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1977); Mark Juergensmeyer, Margo Kitts, and Michael Jerryson, “Introduction: The Enduring Relationship of Religion and Violence,” in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence, ed. Mark Juergensmeyer, Margo Kitts, and Michael Jerryson (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 1– 12; and Ramon Martínez de Pisón, From Violence to Peace: Dismantling the Manipulation of Religion, Conflict, Ethics, and Spirituality 1 (Leuven: Peeters, 2013). For further bibliography, see Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 51 n. 2.  See Brown, Religion and Violence, 8; cf. Michel Desjardins, Peace, Violence, and the New Testament (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 12.  Yoder Neufeld, Killing Enmity, 2; pointing to Johan Galtung, “Violence, Peace and Peace Research,” Journal of Peace Research 6 (1969): 167– 91; Johan Galtung, “Cultural Violence,” Journal of Peace Research 27 (1990): 291– 305; cf. Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 24.  Yoder Neufeld, Killing Enmity, 2, quotes Jacques Ellul, Violence: Reflections From a Christian Perspective, trans. Cecelia Gaul Kings (London: Mowbrays, 1978 [1969]), 87, on such “institutional violence.”

44

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

twentieth century. “Violence” could be physical or psychological, individual or institutional. In his words, “Violence” has come to be identified not only as deliberate physical harm or injury but also harm done to the environment, through economic inequalities, persistent gender inequalities, racial, sexual and class discrimination, and marginalization and intolerance in general, whether buttressed by state power, culture or religion, more specifically, sacred texts.¹⁵⁸

The final statement of this quote is of particular significance to the present study. Scholarship of the past few decades has paid considerable attention to connections between religion and violence, and especially to the ways that sacred texts can participate in the “exercise and maintenance of power.”¹⁵⁹ As Yoder Neufeld observes, not only the content of a sacred text, but the text itself—in terms of its role in a social or religious community, and its association with notions of authority, revelation, and claims to “universal validity”—can “fall under the suspicion of purveying violence, broadly conceived.”¹⁶⁰ In Yoder Neufeld’s opinion, this broad diversity in the use, interpretation, and application of “violence” to texts is problematic. Ultimately, he claims that such an expansive and multivalent understanding of the term “means giving up the possibility of arriving at a specific understanding of ‘violence’ that is

 Yoder Neufeld, Killing Enmity, 3.  Yoder Neufeld, Killing Enmity, 4. The bibliography here is extensive; some significant works include: Ra’anan S. Boustan, Alex P. Jassen, and Calvin J. Roetzel, eds., Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2010); Brenneman and Schantz, Struggles for Shalom; Collins, “The Zeal of Phinehas”; John J. Collins, Does the Bible Justify Violence? (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004); Jerome F. D. Creach, Violence in Scripture, Interpretation: Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2013); Dereck Daschke and D. Andrew Kille, eds., A Cry Instead of Justice: The Bible and Cultures of Violence in Psychological Perspective, LHBOTS 499 (New York: T&T Clark, 2010); Desjardins, Peace, Violence; Robert Eisen, The Peace and Violence of Judaism: From the Bible to Modern Zionism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); Jan Willem van Henten, “Religion, Bible and Violence,” in Coping with Violence in the New Testament, ed. Pieter G. R. de Villiers and Jan Willem van Henten, STAR 16 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 3 – 21; Shelly Matthews and E. Leigh Gibson, eds., Violence in the New Testament (New York: T&T Clark, 1988); Eric A. Seibert, The Violence of Scripture: Overcoming the Old Testament’s Troubling Legacy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012); Willard M. Swartley, “War and Peace in the New Testament,” ANRW 26.3: 779 – 848; Philip L. Tite, Conceiving Peace and Violence: A New Testament Legacy (Dallas: University Press of America, 2004); Pieter G. R. de Villiers and Jan Willem van Henten, eds., Coping With Violence in the New Testament, STAR 16 (Leiden: Brill, 2012); and J. Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013).  Yoder Neufeld, Killing Enmity, 4.

1.4 Definitions of Important Terms

45

shared by all.”¹⁶¹ Nor is this his judgment alone. A similar pattern can be discerned in the work of Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois: an affirmation of the physical nature of “violence” at its most fundamental level, followed by increasing complexity as the term is interpreted within philosophical, sociological, and other methodologically-driven frameworks. Although these scholars affirm the polyvalent understanding of “violence,” even they cannot deny that the resulting complexity creates serious problems of comprehension: Despite our work in putting together this … anthology, in the end we cannot say that we now “know” exactly what violence is. “It” cannot be readily objectified and quantified so that a “check list” can be drawn up with positive criteria for defining any particular act as violent or not. … Violence itself … defies easy categorization. It can be everything and nothing; legitimate or illegitimate; visible or invisible; necessary or useless; senseless and gratuitous or utterly rational and strategic.¹⁶²

Similarly, the editors of the Oxford Handbook to Religion and Violence (2013) claim: Immediate bodily harm, verbal assault, social manipulations, cultural destruction, injurious magic, political oppression—the range of ways of thinking about violence is enormous. From whose perspective and from what point is an act to be deemed violent? What act cannot be construed as violent in some way?¹⁶³

At a certain point we must question the usefulness of such definitions: if “violence” has become so broad that “it can be everything and nothing,” is it really anything anymore? Therefore, in order to avoid such confusing complexity, in this study “violence” will be considered a phenomenon of physical—that is, enacted—and destructive force. My intention is not thereby to deny the significance or legitimacy of other expressions of the term, nor to intentionally choose naive simplicity in order to avoid the hard work of dealing with its complexity, but to facilitate the appropriate focus, specificity, and clarity necessary for the discussion.¹⁶⁴

 Yoder Neufeld, Killing Enmity, 8, quoting Desjardins, Peace, Violence, 12. Yoder Neufeld (8 n. 23) points also to Tite, Conceiving Peace and Violence, 1– 42, who discusses a wide range of conceptions of violence, and also to John Howard Yoder, “A Theological Critique of Violence,” in The War of the Lamb: The Ethics of Nonviolence and Peacemaking, ed. Glen Stassen, Mark Thiessen Nation, and Matt Hamsher (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009), 27– 41.  Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois, “Introduction,” 2. Emphasis added.  Juergensmeyer, Kitts, and Jerryson, “Introduction,” 3. Emphasis added.  See Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 53 – 54, on how our understanding of violence impacts our reading of the biblical texts. See further Jeremy Gabrielson, “Paul’s Non-Violent Gospel: The

46

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

The third reason for focusing on the OED’s primary definition of “violence” derives from the historical concerns of the study. As previous scholars have noted, physical violence was an almost-unavoidable part of the first-century world.¹⁶⁵ However, there is good cause to question the idea that in the ancient mindset, “violence” would have been primarily conceived of outside of such physical embodiment.¹⁶⁶ In order to avoid anachronistically speaking of conceptual aspects of “violence” that have only been developed by scholars in the past several decades, I will restrict my discussion to the physical phenomenon with which the world of Second Temple Judaism was, indisputably, very familiar. Fourth and finally, the decision to limit my consideration of “violence” to the destructive and harmful use of physical force derives from the main purpose of this study, which is to demonstrate that Jesus’s rejection of eschatologically-motivated revolutionary violence is a central component of the Gospels’ portrayal of

Theological Politics of Peace in Paul’s Life and Letters,” (PhD diss., University of St Andrews, 2011), 12– 14. For an example of what it might look like to approach the Gospels with a much broader understanding of what constitutes violence, see George Aichele, “Jesus’ Violence,” in Violence, Utopia and the Kingdom of God: Fantasy and Ideology in the Bible, ed. George Aichele and Tina Pippin (London: Routledge, 1998), 72– 91, who makes statements such as, “Each of the synoptic gospels portrays Jesus as a violent man, one who contests violently with others” (75), and “Jesus’ actions were sometimes violent … The violence of the character’s actions serves also to emphasize the violence of his words” (82). A similar perspective on Jesus is found in Ellens 2004b.  See, e. g., Richard A. Horsley, “‘By the Finger of God’: Jesus and Imperial Violence,” in Violence in the New Testament, ed. Shelly Matthews and E. Leigh Gibson (New York: T&T Clark, 1988), 51– 80, Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 28 – 29; Kloppenborg, “The Representation of Violence,” 324, who claims that the use of force was “ubiquitous in ancient society”; cf. Garrett G. Fagan, “Violence in Roman Social Relations,” in The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World, ed. Michael Peachin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 467– 95, who disputes the universality of such a statement with regard to the Roman world, in which (he claims) the upper class of society were able to live a relatively peaceful existence.  Though discussions of such topics as “violent” emotions and speech do exist; see, for example, Seneca, De Ira; Virgil, The Aeneid 12. I am indebted to Dr. Justin Meggitt for these references. For further discussions of conceptions of violence in the Greek and Roman worlds, see Ari Z. Bryen, Violence in Roman Egypt: A Study in Legal Interpretation, Empire and After (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013); H. A. Drake, ed., Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Practices (London: Routledge, 2016); Tonio Hölscher, “Images of War in Greece and Rome: Between Military Practice, Public Memory, and Cultural Symbolism,” JRS 93 (2003): 1– 17, Brent D. Shaw, Sacred Violence: African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), and Jerzy Styka, ed., Violence and Aggression in the Ancient World, Classica Cracoviensia 10 (Kraków: Ksiegarnia Akademicka, 2006).

1.4 Definitions of Important Terms

47

his ministry. Insofar as this phenomenon primarily involved physical acts of violence, it is this instantiation of the term that is of primary concern.¹⁶⁷

1.4.4 Eschatological Violence Finally, since it is at the very heart of this study, we must clarify what is meant by “eschatological violence.”¹⁶⁸ Simply put, I will use the phrase to refer to violence that is in some way associated with eschatological events. More specifically, in keeping with the definitions given above, it refers to “violence” (intentional physical harm) associated with the “eschatology” (the conglomeration of scripturally-based hopes and expectations associated with the climax of the present age of evil and inauguration of the coming age of God’s reign) of Second Temple Judaism. For our purposes, “eschatological violence” denotes not primarily the components of those expectations that involved the physical harm and/or destruction of various people/groups/objects/places; but rather the violent historical incidents that were (at least in part) motivated by such eschatological expectations. “Eschatological violence” thus encapsulates the important and inherent connections between “violence” and “eschatology” in Second Temple Judaism, the proper awareness of which, I suggest, is integral to fully understanding the Synoptic presentation of Jesus’s life and ministry. Thus understood, “eschatological violence” is at the very centre of the argument set forth in this study. It is necessary to comment briefly on one aspect of the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’s ministry which it might appear that this study has overlooked. One implication of the decision to focus on Jesus’s rejection of such “eschatological violence” (understood as eschatologically-motivated revolutionary violence) is that the so-called “apocalyptic judgment traditions” that are a prominent feature of Jesus’s teaching will not be discussed.¹⁶⁹ Although it will be necessary to dis This is not to deny the presence of violence in some of Jesus’s teaching; for further on this, see the comments made in § 1.4.4.  This will be much more thoroughly developed in chapters two and three.  Passages which often are included within this categorisation include: Mark 6:11 // Matt 10:14 // Luke 9:5; Mark 8:38 // Matt 10:32– 33 // Luke 12:8 – 9; Mark 9:42– 47 // Matt 18:6 – 9 (cf. 5:29 – 30) // Luke 17:1– 2; Mark 14:21 // Matt 26:24 // Luke 22:22; Matt 7:16 – 20; Matt 7:24– 27 // Luke 6:46 – 49; Matt 8:11– 12 // Luke 13:28 – 29; Matt 10:15 // Luke 10:12; Matt 11:21– 24 // Luke 10:12– 15; Matt 12:41– 42 // Luke 11:31– 32; Matt 13:40 – 43, 47– 50; 16:27; 18:23 – 32; Matt 19:28 // Luke 22:28 – 30; Matt 21:43 – 44; 22:1– 14; Matt 23:29 – 36 // Luke 11:47– 51; Matt 24:45 – 51 // Luke 12:42– 46; Matt 25:14– 46; Luke 16:19 – 31; 19:11– 27 (cf. Gos. Thom. 41). This list is adapted from Brian Han Gregg, The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment

48

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

cuss the “conceptual” literary expressions of expectations for eschatological violence in Second Temple Judaism in chapter two, in order to establish my argument that such expectations (i) were prevalent, and (ii) motivated revolutionary violence, the primary purpose of this study is not to compare the “apocalyptic judgment” found in texts like 1 Enoch and The War Scroll to various Synoptic passages, but to compare the physical actions such expectations motivated. Thus, the decision not to discuss these Gospel texts is not intended to suggest that they do not involve “violence” of various kinds¹⁷⁰; rather, it results from the study’s focus on the active implications of such eschatological expectations, not the expectations themselves. Whatever Jesus’s expectations were for the final consummation of God’s eschatological acts of redemption and judgment—and there does, broadly speaking, seem to be a certain level of conceptual overlap between Jesus and his contemporaries, to the extent that both believed that the righteous would be rewarded and the wicked would be condemned—the eschatologically-motivated physical actions that he is remembered to have taken in his present, to inaugurate this reality (or at least to begin to do so), looked very different from those taken by many of his contemporaries. Therefore, the main purpose of this study—to demonstrate the Synoptic Gospels’ presentation of Jesus’s rejection of revolutionary violence, understood as the use of physical violence to accomplish eschatologically-motivated goals—legitimates not only the limitation of my consideration of “violence” to its physical enactment, but also my decision not to discuss the Synoptic “apocalyptic judgment” texts. Were this study to be taken further in the direction in which it points Sayings in Q, WUNT 2/207 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 1; my thanks to Dr. Justin Meggitt for the reference. See also Allison, “The Eschatology of Jesus”; David C. Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew, SNTSMS 88 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); cf. the intriguing discussion of the use of γέεννα in Matt 23:15, 33 with reference to Jeremiah’s condemnation of Israel’s trust in its own military ability in Michael F. Bird, “Matthew 23.15—the Case of the Proselytizing Pharisees?” JSHJ 2 (2004): 117– 37. For further discussion of associations between apocalypticism and violence more broadly, see Mark S. Hamm, “Apocalyptic Violence: The Seduction of Terrorist Subcultures,” Theoretical Criminology 8 (2004): 323 – 39, Matthias Riedl, “Apocalyptic Violence and Revolutionary Action: Thomas Müntzer’s Sermon to the Princes,” in A Companion to the Premodern Apocalypse, ed. Michael A. Ryan, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 64 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 260 – 96, and Jamel Velji, “Apocalyptic Religion and Violence,” in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence, ed. Mark Juergensmeyer, Margo Kitts, and Michael Jerryson (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 250 – 59.  On the “violence” present in some of Jesus’s teaching (most notably in his parables), see Kloppenborg, “The Representation of Violence”; Barbara E. Reid, “Violent Endings in Matthew’s Parables and Christian Nonviolence,” CBQ 66 (2004): 237– 55, and Barbara R. Rossing, “Apocalyptic Violence and Politics: End-Time Fiction for Jews and Christians,” in Contesting Texts, ed. Melody D. Knowles, et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 67– 77.

1.5 Outline of the Present Study

49

—that is, to explore more fully the alternative eschatological vision upon which Jesus’s kingdom ministry is based—then such “apocalyptic judgment” passages would necessitate greater consideration,¹⁷¹ as would questions about the particular significance of the violence inherent in the crucifixion.¹⁷²

1.5 Outline of the Present Study The last task of this opening chapter is briefly to outline how this study will progress. Having analysed the connections between violence and eschatology in Second Temple Judaism in chapters two and three, I will then demonstrate the significance of these connections to our understanding of the Synoptic Gospels’ portrayals of Jesus and his ministry in chapters four, five, and six. My first task will be to identify and describe “eschatological violence” in Second Temple Judaism. Therefore, in chapter two I will examine the nature and role of the violence attested in four of the most significant examples of eschatological writing from this period: the book of Daniel, the “Animal Apocalypse” and “Apocalypse of Weeks” from 1 Enoch, and the Qumran War Scroll  Neville, A Peaceable Hope engages directly with the violence of such texts, perceiving them as problematic; inconsistent with the nonviolence of Jesus’s teaching and action found elsewhere in the Gospels (my thoughts on the success of this study can be found in J. P. Nickel, review of A Peaceable Hope: Contesting Violent Eschatology in New Testament Narratives, by David J. Neville, TJ 35 [2014]: 156 – 9. See also David J. Neville, “Toward a Teleology of Peace: Contesting Matthew’s Violent Eschatology,” JSNT 30 (2007): 131– 61, David J. Neville, “Moral Vision and Eschatology in Mark’s Gospel: Coherence or Conflict?,” JBL 127 (2008): 359 – 84, David J. Neville, “Violating Faith Via Eschatological Violence: Reviewing Matthew’s Eschatology,” in Validating Violence – Validating Faith? Religion, Scripture and Violence, ed. William W. Emilsen and John T. Squires, The PACT Series 4 (Adelaide: ATF, 2008), 95 – 110, and David J. Neville, “Faithful, True, and Violent? Christology and ‘Divine Vengeance’ in the Revelation to John,” in Compassionate Eschatology: The Future as Friend, ed. Ted Grimsrud and Michael Hardin (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011), 56 – 84.  This would necessitate consideration of the work of René Girard, esp. Girard, Violence. Helpful discussions of the significance of Girard’s work for understanding violence and peace in the New Testament can be found in Willard M. Swartley, ed., Violence Renounced: René Girard, Biblical Studies, and Peacemaking (Telford, PA: Pandora Press U.S., 2000); see also Gil Bailie, Violence Unveiled: Humanity At the Crossroads (New York: Crossroad, 1995); Raymund Schwager, Must There be Scapegoats? Violence and Redemption in the Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987). On the particular significance of the violence of the crucifixion, and how that violence impacts early Christian memories of the event, see Alan Kirk, “The Memory of Violence and the Death of Jesus in Q,” in Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, ed. Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher, SemeiaSt 52 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 191– 206.

50

Chapter 1. Violence, Eschatology, and the Life and Ministry of Jesus

(1QM). It will be demonstrated that, although there was considerable diversity in certain important aspects of its portrayal, violence was inherently associated with key components of Jewish expectations for eschatological fulfillment— most notably, the defeat, destruction, and/or judgment of the enemies of God, his kingdom, and its people. The goal of chapter three will then be to explore whether such eschatological expectation, with its inherently violent components, played a motivational and/or ideological role in Jewish revolutionary violence during the Second Temple period. This will be undertaken by examination of the main historical sources for the three most significant such events: the Maccabean Revolt (ca. 167– 160 BCE), the Jewish-Roman War (66 – 70 CE), and the Bar Kokhba Revolt (ca. 132– 135 CE). It will be demonstrated that prominent elements of these sources directly associate eschatological motifs with various aspects of these conflicts, suggesting that eschatology had a central role both in motivating the Jews to take up the sword, and in providing a lens through which such revolutionary violence was perceived. In chapters two and three I will thus demonstrate that eschatological violence—violence motivated by the belief that the righteous would participate in the eschatological defeat of God’s/their enemies, and thereby identify themselves as God’s people—was an important component of the sociopolitical and theological world of Second Temple Judaism. Having established this significant relationship between violence and eschatology, I will then turn to the Synoptic Gospels, to explore how this affects our understanding of their portrayal of Jesus’s life and ministry. Against the claims of advocates of the SJH—that, as a result of the evangelists’ efforts to conceal Jesus’s “true” revolutionary identity, the Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus is inconsistent and therefore historically unreliable—I will argue that once we properly appreciate the eschatological significance of revolutionary violence, we can see Jesus’s rejection of it as a central, consistent element of the coherent Synoptic narrative. Therefore, in chapter four I will examine the Synoptic pericopae to which the advocates of the SJH frequently point as evidence of Jesus’s revolutionary identity. Not only will I demonstrate the shortcomings of the seditious reading of these texts, I will argue that these passages can be understood coherently within the Synoptic presentation of Jesus’s life and ministry. These pericopae demonstrate that the question of what role violence would play in the eschatological fulfillment of God’s promises was of utmost significance to Jesus and his contemporaries, and that Jesus consistently engaged with this question in ways that contrasted with prevalent expectations. Next, in chapter five I will turn my attention to four additional Synoptic pericopae, in which Jesus disassociates eschatological violence from his ministry. I will argue that these texts make it clear that the central place of nonviolence within the words and deeds of Jesus was the di-

1.5 Outline of the Present Study

51

rect result of his beliefs that (i) the widespread desire among his contemporaries to take up the sword against Rome was a problematic eschatological issue; and (ii) such violence had nothing to do with how the kingdom of God would be inaugurated, or what would identify those who belonged to it. Finally, in chapter six I will address a significant question that arises from all of this: if, as I have argued, the Synoptic Gospels describe Jesus as one who rejected eschatological violence, then how did he envision (and accomplish) the defeat of the enemies of the kingdom of God? I will argue that such eschatological conflict is at least partially embodied in a prominent, unique component of the Synoptic portrayals of Jesus’s ministry: his exorcistic activity. The Synoptic Gospels suggest that in his encounters with “demons” and “unclean/evil spirits,” Jesus was confronting the true enemy of the kingdom of God: the s/Satan. By exploring the particular characteristics of this central component of the Synoptic presentation of Jesus’s ministry, I will make two further contributions to the argument against the SJH. First, it is shown to be insufficient with regard to its ability to handle the Synoptic data, since its advocates cannot offer a convincing explanation for the prominence of Jesus’s exorcistic activity. Second, inasmuch as the Synoptic accounts portray the outcome of Jesus’s exorcisms as (i) deliverance for those who are oppressed, and (ii) Jesus’s own authoritative and powerful victory over adversaries, they thereby suggest that in these encounters, Jesus began to accomplish the goals which many of his contemporaries expected to be accomplished through revolutionary violence. In other words, Jesus’s exorcistic activity points suggestively towards the alternative, nonviolent eschatological vision that was the driving force of his ministry. By carefully attending to the connections between Second Temple Jewish eschatology and violence, this study will thus offer fresh insight into the relationship between these two significant themes in the Synoptic Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus’s life and ministry.

Chapter 2 Violence in Second Temple Jewish Eschatological Writings 2.1 Introduction In this chapter, I will explore the attestation of violence in a selection of Jewish writings from the Second Temple period representative of contemporary eschatological expectations: the book of Daniel, the “Animal Apocalypse” and “Apocalypse of Weeks” from 1 Enoch, and, from Qumran, the War Scroll (1QM).¹ These texts express the belief that God would deliver his people from their enemies and establish his dominion over all creation, inaugurating a new era of blessing and righteousness. Although the means of this forthcoming deliverance is variously portrayed, these texts unanimously attest the expectation that all who opposed the eschatological fulfillment of God’s promises to his people (both human kingdoms and the cosmic forces that stood behind them) would be defeated. The aim of the chapter, therefore, is to demonstrate the central conceptual features of Second Temple Jewish eschatological violence. To that end, three characteristics of these texts, and the violence they envisage, will be focused upon. First, the eschatological expectations expressed are directly connected to the probable sociohistorical circumstances of the texts’ production. The texts portray the fulfillment of the Jewish hopes for deliverance from oppression and the judgment of the wicked within history. Second, observing the unanimous attestation of violence in various forms, I will argue that its primary function is to bring about the end (in the form of judgment, punishment, or destruction) which, it is promised, will come upon all that stands in opposition to God’s reign. Third, I will argue that the final—often violent—end that is thereby brought upon these enemies of God/his people is ultimately attributed to God himself, through his direct action or his enabling agency. The eschatological victory does not occur apart from God’s participation.

 Other Second Temple texts describing eschatological violence (including Jub. 23:9 – 32 [esp. 23.30]; T. Mos. 10:1– 10; Pss. Sol. 17 [esp. 17:22– 25]; 4Ezra 11:1– 12:3, 10 – 29; 13:1– 13, 21– 56; 2Bar. 27:1– 30:5; 36:1– 40:4; 53:1– 76:5; and Sib. Or. 3:669 – 701; 4:40 – 48) will be noted where appropriate. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703771-003

2.2 The Book of Daniel

53

Much of what I discuss in this chapter has been the focus of previous scholarship, and should not be controversial.² It is not my intention to offer original interpretations of these texts, but to gather together pertinent observations regarding the violence present therein. In this way, the chapter will provide a foundation for the subsequent discussion of the historical phenomenon of eschatological violence, by demonstrating the central place of violence within prominent literary portrayals of eschatology in Second Temple Judaism.

2.2 The Book of Daniel We begin with the book of Daniel because of its significant impact upon subsequent Second Temple eschatological expectations.³ The stories and visions of  See, for example, the reading of these texts in Elizabeth E. Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination in the Gospel of Mark: The Literary and Theological Role of Mark 3:22–30, BZNW 189 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), 84– 147.  Its influence is especially prevalent among the DSS (e. g. 4Q174 I – III, ii 3 – 4sup; 11Q13 II, 18), and can also be seen in the Similitudes of 1 Enoch (chs. 37– 71), 4 Ezra, and several books of the NT. For commentary on these connections, see Philip S. Alexander, “The Evil Empire: The Qumran Eschatological War Cycle and the Origins of Jewish Opposition to Rome,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. Shalom M. Paul, et al., VTSup 94 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 17– 31, esp. 18; G. K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984); Gabriele Boccaccini, ed., Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005); F. F. Bruce, “The Book of Daniel and the Qumran Community,” in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, ed. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1969), 221– 35; John J. Collins, “The Mythology of Holy War in Daniel and the Qumran War Scroll: A Point of Transition in Jewish Apocalyptic,” VT 25 (1975): 596 – 612; John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia 27 (Grand Rapids: Fortress, 1993), 58; Lorenzo DiTommaso, “Book of Daniel,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 515 – 516; Craig A. Evans, “Daniel in the New Testament: Visions of God’s Kingdom,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, VTSup 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 2:490 – 527; Peter W. Flint, “The Daniel Tradition At Qumran,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, VTSup 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 2:329 – 67; Matthias Henze, “Enoch’s Dream Visions and the Visions of Daniel Reconsidered,” in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 17– 22; Simon J. Joseph, “Was Daniel 7.13’s ‘Son of Man’ Modeled After the ‘New Adam’ of the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 90)? A Comparative Study,” JSP 22 (2013): 269 – 94; H. S. Kvanvig, “Throne Visions and Monsters: The Encounter Between Danielic and Enochic Traditions,” ZAW 117 (2005): 249 – 72; Stephen Breck Reid, Enoch and Daniel: A Form Critical and Sociological Study of the Historical Apocalypses (Berkeley: BIBAL, 1989); Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Daniel and Early Enoch Traditions in the Dead Sea

54

Chapter 2. Violence in Second Temple Jewish Eschatological Writings

Daniel focus on events leading up to the climax of history and the arrival of the “time of the end,”⁴ and demonstrate the conviction that all of history is under the control of Israel’s God. The Danielic history culminates in judgment upon earthly kingdoms and the arrival of “a kingdom that shall never be destroyed,” established “not by [human] hands,”⁵ which shall “stand forever”⁶ and be given to the “holy ones of the Most High.”⁷ The book of Daniel as a whole can therefore be considered eschatological.⁸

2.2.1 Passages of Particular Significance There are, however, several Danielic texts that are particularly significant to the present study as explicit descriptions of the violence associated with eschatological fulfillment. First, three passages describe what will happen at the “end of [the] days” or “the time of the end”⁹: King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and its in-

Scrolls,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, VTSup 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 2:368 – 86; and Eugene Ulrich, “The Text of Daniel in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, VTSup 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 2:573 – 85.  Dan 8:17, 19; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9; cf. 9:26; 11:27; 12:13.  Dan 2:34; cf. 8:25.  Dan 2:44; cf. 6:26; 7:14, 18, 27.  Dan 7:18; cf. 2:44; 7:14, 21, 27.  Significant studies of eschatology in Daniel include: Craig A. Blaising, “The Day of the Lord and the Seventieth Week of Daniel,” BSac 169 (2012): 131– 42; Paul Buehler, “Daniel and Akkadian Prophecy: Exploring the Origins of Apocalyptic Eschatology,” Journal of Theta Alpha Kappa 32 (2008): 1– 24; Collins, “The Mythology of Holy War”; John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel, HSM 16 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977); John J. Collins, “Apocalyptic Genre and Mythic Allusions in Daniel,” JSOT 21 (1981): 83 – 100; John J. Collins, “The Meaning of ‘the End’ in the Book of Daniel,” in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism and Christian Origins, ed. H. W. Attridge, J. J. Collins, and T. Tobin (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990), 91– 98; Philip R. Davies, “Eschatology in the Book of Daniel,” JSOT 17 (1980): 33 – 53; LeAnn Snow Flesher, “Daniel 9:24– 27 and the Tribulation,” RevExp 109 (2012): 583 – 91; Henze, “Enoch’s Dream Visions”; Reinhard Gregor Kratz, “Reich Gottes und Gesetz im Danielbuch und im werdenden Judentum,” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. van der Woude (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), 435 – 79; Marvin A. Sweeney, “The End of Eschatology in Daniel? Theological and Socio-Political Ramifications of the Changing Contexts of Interpretation,” BibInt 9 (2001): 123 – 40; and David Wenham, “The Kingdom of God and Daniel,” ExpTim 98 (1987): 132– 34.  ‫( יומיא אחרית‬2:28); ‫( הימים אחרית‬10:14); ‫( הימין קץ‬12:13); ‫( קץ עת‬8:17; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9); ‫קץ מועד‬ (8:19); cf. also ‫( רבים ימים‬8:26). Such language is familiar from elsewhere in the Jewish scriptures; see, e. g., Deut 4:30; 31:29; Isa 2:2; Jer 23:20; 30:24; 48:47; 49:39; Ezek 38:16; Hos 3:5; Mic 4:1. See

2.2 The Book of Daniel

55

terpretation by Daniel (2:25 – 45); Daniel’s vision of the ram and the goat, and its interpretation by Gabriel (8:1– 26); and Daniel’s vision of the conflict between the kings of the north and the south (10:1– 12:13).¹⁰ Second, Daniel’s dream-vision of the four beasts (7:1– 28) speaks of the “everlasting dominion that shall not pass away” and the “kingship … that shall never be destroyed” of the “one like a human being,” and of the “holy ones of the Most High” receiving the kingdom “forever—for ever and ever” (7:13, 14, 18). The passage thus contrasts this eternal kingdom with the transient temporality of the earthly kingdoms, envisioning the day when the “holy ones” will no longer be subject to such bestial rule. Third, in a brief passage (9:20 – 27) following the prayer of Daniel (9:4– 19),¹¹ Gabriel offers Daniel “wisdom and understanding” about the “seventy years” spoken of by the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 25:8 – 14).¹² This explicit reference to a prophetic oracle in which YHWH declares judgment upon his faithless people, yet promises to redeem them from their exile and to bring judgment upon their oppressors, makes this Danielic passage particularly relevant to the interests of the present study.¹³ In what follows, therefore, I will focus on the nature of the violence in Daniel 2:25 – 45; 7:1– 28; 8:1– 26; 9:24– 27; and 10:1– 12:13. This discussion is unlikely to be controversial within the discipline; however, it is a strand that, while not normally highlighted,¹⁴ is of considerable significance to the present study.

Michael B. Shepherd, “Daniel 7:13 and the New Testament Son of Man,” WTJ 68 (2006), 104, on the particular eschatological significance of the phrase “end of days” in the Jewish Scriptures.  Note Alexander, “The Evil Empire,” 21, who argues that Dan 11:1– 12:3 was the “key text” (incorporating elements of Ezek 38 – 39 and Isa 10:24– 11:10) behind the depictions of eschatological war in the DSS (on this see also J. P. M. van der Ploeg, Le rouleau de la Guerre traduit et annoté, STDJ 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1959), 11– 22), Pss. Sol, 1En., 4Ezra, 2Bar., Sib. Or., Ass. Mos., and Rev. The visions of Dan 10 – 12 are widely believed by scholars to be the result of vaticinia ex eventu, retrospectively portraying the series of conflicts between the Hellenistic kingdoms of Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria in the 3rd–2nd centuries BCE. As the biblical text describes them from the perspective of Daniel, an exile in Babylon, these events are in the future; however, most scholars argue that the degree of coherence between the narrative of chapter 11 and the historical events of this period is far too high to be coincidental. See, e. g., Collins, Daniel, 61– 70; DiTommaso, “Book of Daniel,” 514– 515.  See Gabriele Boccaccini, “The Covenantal Theology of the Apocalyptic Book of Daniel,” in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 39 – 44 on the significance of this prayer to Daniel’s visions.  Cf. Jer 29:10. Note that Daniel’s “seventy weeks” (Dan 9:24) correspond to Jeremiah’s “seventy years” (Jer 25:12); cf. 1En. 89:59.  See particularly the discussion of War 6.312– 313a in § 3.3.3.  Though see P. M. Venter, “Violence and Non-Violence in Daniel,” OTE 14 (2001): 311– 29; also note the relative prevalence of references to Daniel in discussions of “resistance literature,” e. g.

56

Chapter 2. Violence in Second Temple Jewish Eschatological Writings

2.2.2 Violence in the Book of Daniel Two attributes of the violence found in these Danielic passages are particularly noteworthy. First, the violence is almost exclusively attributed to the enemies of God, his kingdom, and his “holy ones.” The fourth kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision, represented by the legs of iron, will “crush and shatter” the others (2:40). Likewise, the fourth beast of Daniel’s dream “had great iron teeth and was devouring, breaking in pieces, and stamping what was left with its feet” (7:7).¹⁵ The “little horn,” which grows from the head of this beast (7:8, 20 – 21), makes war with the holy ones and “prevails over them” for some time (7:21).¹⁶ In the vision of the ram and the goat, the “little horn” grows powerful enough that

Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 223 – 279; cf. Gordon Zerbe, “‘Pacifism’ and ‘Passive Resistance’ in Apocalyptic Writings: A Critical Evaluation,” in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Craig A. Evans (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 66 – 75.  Cf. Dan 7:19, 23.  The vast majority of scholars understand the “little horn” to represent the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes; see, e. g., Adela Yarbro Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism, JSJSup 50 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 126; Anne E. Gardner, “The ‘Little Horn’ of Dan 7,8: Malevolent or Benign?,” Bib 93 (2012): 209 – 26; Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 178 – 179. See William Horbury, Jewish War Under Trajan and Hadrian (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 142– 146, on the interpretation of Daniel’s four kingdoms in 66 – 135 CE. For further commentary on the sociopolitical setting of the book of Daniel, see Rainier Albertz, “The Social Setting of the Aramaic and Hebrew Book of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, VTSup 83 (Boston: Brill, 2001), 1:171– 204; Stefan Beyerle, “The Book of Daniel and Its Social Setting,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, VTSup 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1:205 – 28; A. Blasius, “Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Ptolemaic Triad: The Three Uprooted Horns in Dan 7:8, 20 and 24 Rseconsidered,” JSJ 37 (2006): 521– 47; André Lacocque, “The Socio-Spiritual Formative Milieu of the Daniel Apocalypse,” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. van der Woude (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), 315 – 43; Carol A. Newsom, “Political Theology in the Book of Daniel: An Internal Debate,” RevExp 109 (2012): 557– 68; Donald C. Polaski, “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin: Writing and Resistance in Daniel 5 and 6,” JBL 123 (2004): 649 – 69; Reid, Enoch and Daniel; Christopher Rowland, “The Book of Daniel and the Radical Critique of Empire. An Essay in Apocalyptic Hermeneutics,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, VTSup 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 2:447– 67; Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, “Prayers and Dreams: Power and Diaspora Identities in the Social Setting of the Daniel Tales,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, VTSup 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1:266 – 90; Patrick A. Tiller, “The Sociological Context of the Dream Visions of Daniel and 1 Enoch,” in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 23 – 26; and Anthony J. Tomasino, “Daniel and the Revolutionaries: The Use of Daniel Tradition By Jewish Resistance Movements of Late Second-Temple Palestine” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1995).

2.2 The Book of Daniel

57

its violent actions have cosmic effect (8:9 – 10). Gabriel tells Daniel that the “king of bold countenance” will “cause fearful destruction” and “destroy the powerful and the people of the holy ones” (8:24– 25). Similar events are again prophesied at the end of chapter nine (vv. 26 – 27). The violent suffering faced by the “holy ones of the Most High” culminates in chapters 10 – 12. As the series of conflicts between the “king of the north” and the “king of the south” continue (11:5 – 40), the power of the former increases, with horrific repercussions for the Jews under his dominion. The heavenly messenger names this the “period of wrath” (11:36; cf. 8:19), a “time of anguish such as has never occurred since nations came into existence” (12:1).¹⁷ Thus, the bestial violence of earthly kings (and the concomitant suffering of God’s people) plays a prominent role in Daniel’s description of the “time of the end.” However, the second noteworthy attribute of these texts is the dramatic turn of events that consistently follows this violence: the temporary kingdoms of the world are overthrown by the eternal kingdom of God.¹⁸ The violence of the wicked is penultimate—each of the visions culminates, instead, with their destruction: the stone smashes the feet of the statue (2:34– 35, 44 – 45), the beast is put to death and destroyed with fire (7:11, 22, 26), the “king of bold countenance” is broken (8:25), the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator (9:27), and, Daniel is told, the king of the north “shall come to his end” (11:45).¹⁹ These descriptions of this climactic event are clearly distinct from one another, not least in terms of how explicitly each refers to the violence involved, and the agent responsible for it. In the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, the stone utterly destroys the statue, “striking” and “breaking” its feet into pieces (2:34). Though it is clear that God “cuts out” (‫ )גזר‬the stone (i. e. sets up the kingdom), that which is directly responsible for the statute’s destruction is less apparent. When Daniel first recounts the dream, the two events—the cutting out of the stone, and its striking the statue—are practically coterminous (2:34), which suggests the same agent (God) behind both. However, in the interpretation, Daniel seems to distinguish between the two: “the God of heaven will set up a kingdom” but “it” (i. e. the kingdom) “shall crush all these kingdoms and bring them to an

 See Blaising, “The Day of the Lord,” 131, 133; Buehler, “Daniel and Akkadian Prophecy,” 6; John J. Collins, “Temporality and Politics in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” in Apocalyptic in History and Tradition, ed. Christopher Rowland and John M. T. Barton, JSPSup 43 (London: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 40 – 41. Cf. the function of the ὀργὴ τοῦ παντοκράτορος in 2Macc 5:20; 7:38; cf. 1Macc 1:64; 2Macc 8:5.  Collins, “Temporality and Politics,” 30; cf. Collins, Daniel, 45.  See Donald E. Gowan, Eschatology in the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 54.

58

Chapter 2. Violence in Second Temple Jewish Eschatological Writings

end” (2:44). This seems to imply that the stone-kingdom itself is the agent of eschatological violence, or at least that God (as agent) uses the stone-kingdom (as means) of the statue’s destruction. Likewise, the destruction of the fourth beast and the “little horn” on its head is undoubtedly violent—the beast is “put to death,” its body “destroyed and given over to be burned with fire” (7:11; cf. 7:22)—yet the agent of these actions is not explicitly identified. The fact that the annihilation of the beast and its horn (7:26) immediately follows the judgment of the heavenly court (7:10), presided over by the “Ancient of Days”²⁰ (7:9, 22), suggests a link between these two events. Unlike chapter two, where the stone (representative not only of the eternal kingdom of God in an abstract sense, but also those who live under its sovereignty) is (in)directly associated with the destruction of the statue, in chapter seven the “holy ones” are completely disassociated from the downfall of the beast. The fate of the wicked king in chapters 8, 9, and 10 – 12 is portrayed in strikingly abrupt—though just as definitive—terms. Gabriel concludes his description of the terrifying and destructive reign of the “king of bold countenance” (8:19 – 25b) by simply stating that “he shall be broken, and not by human hands” (8:25c). This echoes the twofold description of the formation of the stone-kingdom (2:34, 45), thus implying that the king’s end will result from divine action.²¹ The same combination of features—the sudden end of the last king, ambiguity regarding the events surrounding his downfall, yet certainty that it will occur— is found in chapters nine and twelve. The “decreed end” will be “poured out on the desolator” (9:27). Just as the king of the north reaches the peak of his power, going forth “with great fury to bring ruin and complete destruction to many” (11:44), Daniel is assured that “he shall come to his end” (11:45). In neither case is anything further stated about the event, beyond the fact that the violence exerted by this figure will be temporary.²² However, reading these verses side by side with comparable Danielic passages suggests that whatever precise form this climactic event takes, God himself will be its ultimate agent. The only other violence in the book of Daniel is found in the description of events occurring in the heavenly/cosmic realm. The conflict on earth is mirrored by warfare between angelic figures and their opponents, who represent the na I depart here from the NRSV, which renders the Aramaic ‫( עתיק יומין‬7:9)/‫( עתיק יומיא‬7:22) of the MT (cf. παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν [OG/LXX]) with “the Ancient One,” in favour of a more literal translation.  ‫( בידין די־לא אבן התגזרת‬2:34; cf. 2:45); ‫( יד ובאפס‬8:25).  Venter, “Violence,” 317– 318.

2.2 The Book of Daniel

59

tional enemies of Israel.²³ This is most clearly expressed in chapter ten. A heavenly figure tells Daniel about the “prince of the kingdom of Persia … taking his stand against me” (10:13), and informs him that one of the “chief princes,” Michael, has taken up this conflict, until the speaker returns (10:20 – 21).²⁴ Again, at the climax of the last vision, Daniel is told that “Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise” (12:1a). Although a time of great anguish will ensue, the deliverance of the faithful will follow (12:1b). Therefore, Michael’s “arising” or “taking his stand” (‫—)עמד‬though not an explicitly violent action²⁵—contributes directly to the final downfall of the wicked human king.

2.2.3 The Role of God’s People The preceding analysis leaves largely unaddressed the question of what role the people of God would play in the eschatological events. The book of Daniel clearly envisions the “time of the end” prior to God’s intervention as a period of great anguish under the violent persecution of wicked kings (e. g. 8:24– 25; 12:1). What, then, does Daniel have to say about the appropriate response to these circumstances? Scholarly discussions of this question have often focused on the thematic significance of wisdom throughout the book. The first reference to Daniel describes him as “versed in every branch of wisdom, endowed with knowledge and insight” (1:4); thereafter, wisdom is consistently associated with the righteous and the faithful.²⁶ Their wisdom is directly connected to their knowledge about YHWH; specifically, knowledge of his power over history.²⁷ Those who are led by this knowledge to act in faithful loyalty to YHWH ultimately receive deliverance from his hand.

 This reflects the cosmology of Deut 32:8 – 9.  Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision, 207, argues that Daniel thus takes “traditions of holy war” and sees them operative on the “mythical level” between the “patron angels” of the nations. For more on this conflict and the roles of these figures, see Collins, “The Mythology of Holy War,” 600; John J. Collins, “From Prophecy to Apocalypticism: The Expectation of the End,” in The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity, ed. John J. Collins, vol. 1 of The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, ed. Bernard McGinn, John J. Collins, and Stephen J. Stein (New York: Continuum, 2000), 143.  ‫ עמד‬is used elsewhere in the Jewish scriptures in close association with warfare, e. g. Josh 21:44; 23:9; Judg 2:14; 1Sam 17:3.  E. g. 1:17; 9:22, 25.  See 2:20 – 23; 4:25, 34– 35; 5:18 – 23.

60

Chapter 2. Violence in Second Temple Jewish Eschatological Writings

The faithful wisdom that thus identifies Daniel (and his companions) in the first six chapters of the book is personified by the “wise [ones]” (‫ )משכילים‬in the vision of chapters 10 – 12.²⁸ Towards the climax of this passage, the king of the north “takes action against the holy covenant” (11:30), abolishing the burnt-offering and setting up the “abomination that makes desolate” (11:31). In response, some of the Jews forsake the covenant (11:30, 32a). In contrast, however, we read that: The people who know* their God shall stand firm (‫ )יחזקו‬and take action (‫)ועשו‬. The wise among the people (‫ )ומשכילי עם‬shall give understanding to many; for some days, however, they shall fall by sword and flame, and suffer captivity and plunder. When they fall victim, they shall receive a little help, and many shall join them insincerely. (Dan 11:32b–34)²⁹

Although the “wise,” those who “know their God,” suffer in terrible ways, they nevertheless “stand firm” and “take action” against the wicked king. Their ability to do so derives from their wisdom: knowing God’s sovereignty and assured of his victory, they are enabled to “stand firm,” and “give understanding to many.” Though they fall, at the “time of the end” (11:35) they receive glorification from God’s hand: “‫ המשכלים‬shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever” (12:3). The ‫ משכילים‬are thus held up as models of righteousness and faithful action in the midst of eschatological suffering. Questions, however, surround the precise meaning of the combined use of the verbal roots ‫“( חזק‬to be/grow firm/strong”) and ‫“( עשה‬to do/make”) in

 Many scholars have attempted to associate the ‫ משכילים‬with a specific historical Jewish group: Albertz, “The Social Setting,” 1:197– 198, for example, argues that the ‫ משכילים‬were a group active in the early days of the Antiochene persecution, which split once the Maccabean resistance began: one half was militant, advocating violent tactics for eschatological goals (Albertz connects these to the ᾿Aσιδαίος of 1Macc 2:42), while the other was “quietistic” and focused on teaching. See also Collins, Daniel, 66 – 67; John J. Collins, “Current Issues in the Study of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, VTSup 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1:10; Philip R. Davies, “The Scribal School of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, VTSup 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1:247– 65.  I have rendered ‫ ועם ידעי‬of the MT (cf. ὁ δῆμος ὁ γινώσκων [OG/LXX]) as “the people who know” rather than the NRSV’s “the people who are loyal,” since “to know” is a more literal translation of ‫ידע‬/γινώσκω, and this more clearly brings out the wisdom/knowledge theme present throughout the book of Daniel. See Collins, Daniel, 385; cf. John E. Goldingay, Daniel, WBC 30 (Dallas: Word Books, 1987), 302, who renders the phrase “the people who acknowledges its God” and takes it to refer to “those who insist on still expressing their commitment to Yahweh in the ways specified by the Torah”; namely—in line with Albertz—the ḥasidim of 1Macc 2:42.

2.2 The Book of Daniel

61

11:32b.³⁰ It must be emphasised that the ‫ משכילים‬do not respond passively to persecution—they “stand firm and take action.”³¹ Some have argued that this suggests that Daniel advocated active violent resistance against Antiochus, since similar language of “strength” and “action” is used in militaristic contexts elsewhere in the book.³² However, it is clear that the “action” of the ‫ משכילים‬does not take the form of violent resistance. Rather, their wisdom enables them to “stand firm” and “take action,” in part, simply by waiting ‫ עד־עת קץ‬for God to act (11:35).³³ Though the tribulations will be terrible, they will culminate with God’s eschatological victory (11:45 – 12:1).³⁴ The strength (‫ )חזק‬of the ‫משכילים‬ thus derives from knowing God’s faithfulness, trusting in his promises to deliver his people, and believing in his power to accomplish them. It is on this basis that they act (‫)עשה‬.³⁵ This action also includes “giving understanding to many” (11:33); that is, sharing their knowledge about God’s sovereign power, and instructing others in faithful obedience. As Portier-Young argues, these actions, too, can function as methods of “resistance.”³⁶

 ‫ חזק‬and ‫ עשה‬are frequently closely associated with one another in terms of literary context, especially in the Exodus narrative (describing God’s “mighty hand” and the “hardening” of Pharaoh’s heart), e. g. Exod 4:21; 6:1; 11:10; 14:4; Deut 4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 34:12) and in Joshua’s commands to the people to “be strong and courageous” and “to act” according to the law of Moses (Josh 1:7; 23:6; cf. 10:25). However, the particular combined verbal usage of Dan 11:32 is not found elsewhere.  Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology contrasts the Danielic sense of “passivity” with that found in other Second Temple texts (e. g. T. Mos.); cf. Zerbe, “‘Pacifism’,” 66 – 80. See on this verse Louis F. Hartman and Alexander Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, AB 23 (Garden City: Doubleday, 2005), 299.  Joshua Efron, Studies on the Hasmonean Period, SJLA 39 (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 37– 38. See Dan 8:4, 12, 24; 11:3, 5 – 7, 16, 24, 29; cf. 1Macc 2:19 – 68: Zerbe, “‘Pacifism’,” 73 n. 37, n. 38; cf. Collins, Daniel, 385, who says it is “not clear” if the terms suggest support for the Maccabean Revolt; Goldingay, Daniel, 302– 303.  Zerbe, “‘Pacifism’,” 73 – 74, makes an insightful connection between the response of the ‫ משכילים‬to violent oppression, and Isa 30, esp. vv. 15 – 18. See further Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 265, who connects the “active waiting” of the ‫ משכילים‬with Isa 64:4– 5.  See further Buehler, “Daniel and Akkadian Prophecy,” 5 – 6.  Cf. Isa 30:18; Zerbe, “‘Pacifism’,” 73 – 74.  Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 236; see further 235 – 242; cf. Katell Berthelot, “L’idéologie maccabéenne entre idéologie de la résistance armée et idéologie du martyre,” REJ 165 (2006), 102, who similarly argues that two “formes de résistance” to Seleucid oppression, having several key points in common (including “l’exigence de fidélité à la Loi, l’héroïsme, la disposition au sacrifice de soi”), were available to the Jews: armed resistance or martyrdom. Though I agree with Berthelot’s point, I contend that she has overlooked a third “resistance” option, represented by the ‫ משכילים‬of Daniel.

62

Chapter 2. Violence in Second Temple Jewish Eschatological Writings

The actions of the ‫ משכילים‬thus reflect the emphasis found throughout the book of Daniel: the final defeat of the enemies of God, his kingdom, and his people is “not by human hands” (2:34, 44; 8:25).³⁷ Those held up as models of faithfulness to YHWH are those who trust in his sovereign power—not by taking up the sword, but by standing firm in faith.³⁸ Even should they die, they are assured of God’s deliverance—though it might not be for “many days from now” (8:26; cf. 11:35).³⁹ Daniel’s readers, suffering under the oppression of Antiochus IV, are assured that God controls history,⁴⁰ and that that control will, eventually, be unmistakably manifested. The eschatological expectations of the book of Daniel can be summed up with the following: the period immediately preceding the “time of the end” will be dominated by a wicked king, who will persecute and oppress those under his rule. This “time of anguish” (12:1) will see the temple profaned and the Law abandoned, for the king’s heart “shall be set against the holy covenant” (11:28). Violence will be suffered by the faithful, and many shall be destroyed (8:25). This tribulation, however, will not last forever: as a result of God’s action, the king shall be broken (8:25); his dominion shall come to its end (11:45). Those who stand firm—not with violent resistance, but with steadfast faith rooted in  As Yarbro Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology, 202, observes, if we date the book of Daniel to the Maccabean period, then the “polemical ring” of texts like Dan 8:25 could be read as an indication of opposition to the revolutionary response to Antiochus Epiphanes’ rule. Cf. the frequent interpretation of Dan 11:34a—“When they [the wise] fall victim, they shall receive a little help”—as a derogatory statement about the Maccabean resistance (see Collins, Daniel, 386; Goldingay, Daniel, 303; Hartman and Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, 300; James Alan Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, ICC [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1927], 458 – 459). Thus, according to Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision, 208, “The mythical symbolism of the visions of Daniel is designed to inspire active but non-militant resistance” (emphasis added).  John Barton, “Theological Ethics in Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, VTSup 83 (Boston: Brill, 2001), 2:666, claims that the “theological ethic” of the book of Daniel is “submission to God.” Elsewhere, Barton claims that God’s control over all things is “endemic to apocalypticism” (John Barton, Understanding Old Testament Ethics: Approaches and Explorations [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003], 159); cf. Davies, “Eschatology in,” 47. Note the powerful example of this mindset reflected in Dan 3:17– 18.  See Davies, “Eschatology in,” 39; Paul D. Hanson, “War and Peace in the Hebrew Bible,” Int 38 (1984), 30; cf. Venter, “Violence,” 323.  Collins, “From Prophecy to Apocalypticism,” 142; cf. Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 242, 260; Zerbe, “‘Pacifism’,” 68. Bill T. Arnold, “Old Testament Eschatology and the Rise of Apocalypticism,” in The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology, ed. Jerry L. Walls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 23, states this effectively: “God’s role in Israel’s history and the promises of that history … converged to give Israel an eschatological hope.” On the integral role of “apocalyptic” language to the book of Daniel, see Collins, Daniel.

2.3 1 Enoch

63

wisdom and knowledge—will be delivered. They will awake to “everlasting life” (12:2) and will “shine like the brightness of the sky” (12:3); the holy ones of the Most High will receive “the kingship and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven” (7:27). Violence is unmistakably bound up with these events. Most notably, it characterises the human kingdoms which precede the eternal reign of God, as well as the end to which these kingdoms come, at God’s own hand. Nowhere, however, does the book of Daniel suggest that in order to bring about their own eschatological deliverance and/or the inauguration of God’s kingdom, his faithful people must take up the sword. As Portier-Young states, “God, not human hands or power, would initiate and complete the action.”⁴¹ While eschatological violence is, therefore, present in the book of Daniel, it is not associated with those who inherit the blessings of God’s eternal kingdom.

2.3 1 Enoch 1 Enoch (or the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch) gathers together five originally independent texts dating from the third century BCE to the first century CE.⁴² This

 Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 263; cf. Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, 243; Paul L. Redditt, “The Community Behind the Book of Daniel: Challenges, Hopes, Values, and Its View of God,” PRSt 36 (2009): 321– 39, 339.  In terms of chronological composition, the earliest sections of 1 Enoch are the Book of the Watchers (chs. 1– 36) and the Astronomical Book or Book of the Luminaries (chs. 82– 92), while the latest is the Similitudes or Book of Parables (37– 71). For further information regarding the dating and content of each constituent part of 1 Enoch, see George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation Based on the Hermeneia Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 1– 17; cf. Ephraim Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Volume One: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1983), 6 – 8; Michael A. Knibb, “Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37– 71),” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 585 – 87; George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1 – 36, 81 – 108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 1– 124; George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 37 – 82, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 1– 13; Ryan E. Stokes, “Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1– 36),” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1332– 34; Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Epistle of Enoch (1 Enoch 91– 105),” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 583 – 84; James C. VanderKam, “Astronomical Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 72– 82),” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 581– 83.

64

Chapter 2. Violence in Second Temple Jewish Eschatological Writings

composite text is concerned with the widespread prevalence of evil on the earth, and the need for God to act in judgment to eradicate wickedness, redeem his people, and restore his creation.⁴³ Therefore, numerous selections from all five sections potentially could be significant to the interests of this study. However, I have chosen to discuss two passages which, because of their focus on the eschatological defeat of evil and deliverance of the faithful people, are especially relevant to our concerns.

2.3.1 The “Animal Apocalypse” (1En. 85 – 90) The fourth section of 1 Enoch, the Book of Dreams (1En. 83 – 90), contains two visions.⁴⁴ The first (chs. 83 – 84) describes God’s punishment of the sinful world through the flood, and the second (chs. 85 – 90) allegorically portrays the history of humanity and of Israel, from its beginning to the Maccabean period. The latter’s depiction of the human participants as beasts of various kinds has led to its identification as the “Animal Apocalypse” (hereafter AA).⁴⁵ Largely on the basis of a perceived allusion to Judas Maccabeus, scholars have dated the composition of this text to 165 – 160 BCE; that is, during the height of the Macca-

 Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 1; cf. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 9.  For introduction to the Book of Dreams, see Daniel Assefa, “Book of Dreams (1 Enoch 83 – 90),” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 552– 53.  Introduction to and commentary on the “Animal Apocalypse” can be found in Daniel Assefa, L’Apocalypse des animaux (1 Hen 85 – 90): une propagande militaire? Approches narrative, historico-critique, perspectives théologiques, JSJSup 120 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 13 – 236; Assefa, “Book of Dreams,” 552– 553; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 354– 363; and Patrick A. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch, SBLEJL 4 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993). Other important scholarship includes Devorah Dimant, “History According to the Vision of the Animals (Ethiopic Enoch 85 – 90),” ‫ מחקרי ירושלים במחשבח ישראל‬2 (1982): 18 – 37; Devorah Dimant, “Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (Ethiopic Enoch 85 – 90) in the Light of the Ideology of the Dead Sea Sect,” Shenaton 5 – 6 (1982): 177– 93; Lydia Gore-Jones, “Animals, Humans, Angels and God: Animal Symbolism in the Historiography of the ‘Animal Apocalypse’ of 1 Enoch,” JSP 24 (2015): 268 – 87; Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “‘Reading the Present’ in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85 – 90),” in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations, ed. K. de Troyer and A. Lange, SBLSymS 30 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 91– 102; and James C. VanderKam, “Open and Closed Eyes in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85 – 90),” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, ed. Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman, JSJSup 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 279 – 92.

2.3 1 Enoch

65

bean Revolt.⁴⁶ Events are revealed to Enoch which, from his antediluvian perspective, are in the distant future.⁴⁷ These culminate in the author’s present, which, judging from the events narrated, is the period of Jewish revolution under Maccabean leadership. Enoch’s vision then transforms from an allegorical interpretation of history into a portrayal of eschatological expectations. Thus, the author of the AA appears to have believed that the events taking place in his own age were of such momentous occasion that they would result in the inauguration of the age to come.⁴⁸ How, then, does the AA describe these events? We pick up Enoch’s description of his vision in 90:8, at which point the situation facing the “sheep”⁴⁹ (God’s faithful people) is grim: “all the birds of heaven”⁵⁰ (wicked pagan oppressors) have begun to eat the sheep, who are helpless to defend themselves (90:2– 5). This continues until “a great horn sprouted on one of those sheep” (90:9). This ram, usually understood to represent Judas Maccabeus,⁵¹ cries out to the other sheep, rallying them to battle (90:10). Although the birds renew the attack with savage ferocity, “tearing the sheep in pieces and flying upon them and devouring them” (90:11), they cannot defeat the great-horned one (90:12). However, despite his strength, the ram is not able to overcome its bestial adversaries, either; therefore, it “cried out that its help might come” (90:13; cf. 89:16).⁵² In re-

 Assefa, “Book of Dreams,” 552; see further Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 360 – 361; Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 347– 352. Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 9 – 10, argue that certain sections of the AA may date as early as 200 BCE; cf. Assefa, L’Apocalypse des animaux, who argues that 1En. 90:13 – 15, 31, and 38b are later additions to what is otherwise a pre-Maccabean (and non-violent) composition.  On the AA and vaticinia ex eventu, see James C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, CBQMS 16 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984), 142.  VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth, 142. See also James R. Davila, “The Animal Apocalypse and Daniel,” in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 35, who claims that the AA “takes the Maccabees to be central to the eschatological redemption.” Similarly, Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 10, attribute the authorship of the Book of Dreams to a group of people “who understood themselves to be the eschatological community of the righteous.” In this way, the AA is comparable to Dan 8 – 12. See the essays in Boccaccini, Enoch and Qumran Origins, 17– 72; esp. Davila, “The Animal Apocalypse”; Henze, “Enoch’s Dream Visions”; Tiller, “The Sociological Context”; see also Joseph, “Was Daniel 7.13’s ‘Son of Man’”.  The first sheep is Jacob (1En. 89:12).  All quotations of 1 Enoch are taken from Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch.  Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 373, 376 – 381.  Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 375 – 376, observes connections between the AA and the Exodus, on the basis of the motif of God’s people “crying out” to him for help, and

66

Chapter 2. Violence in Second Temple Jewish Eschatological Writings

sponse, first comes a sort of heavenly scribe who gives the ram knowledge, “showing it everything” (90:14). Then, climactically, the “Lord of the sheep” descends, defeating the birds and beasts who have gathered for the final battle (90:15 – 16). Enoch reports: And I saw until the Lord of the sheep came to them and took in his hand the staff of his wrath and struck the earth, and the earth was split, and all the beasts and all the birds of heaven fell (away) from among those sheep and sank in the earth, and it covered over them. And I saw until a large sword was given to those sheep, and the sheep went out against all the wild beasts to kill them, and all the beasts and the birds of heaven fled before them. (1En. 90:18 – 19)⁵³

The rest of Enoch’s vision describes the last judgment, in which sinners are condemned and cast into an abyss of fire (90:20 – 27); the removal of the “old house” and erection of a “new house,” into which the sheep enter (90:28 – 29); and the transformative renewal of the sheep themselves (90:30 – 36). Only at this point do the sheep lay down the “large sword” (90:34). Violence, therefore, is clearly bound up with the climactic events of the AA, as it envisions an eschatological battle between the righteous and the wicked preceding the final judgment. Two aspects of these events are of particular significance to our interests. First, even after the sheep grow horns and follow the ram, they are unable to defeat the beasts. Only after the ram “cries out” and the Lord of the sheep intervenes is victory possible.⁵⁴ In other words, the AA claims that the wicked oppressors of the faithful will only be defeated when God himself takes action (90:18).⁵⁵ However, second, it is clear that the sheep themselves play an active, militaristic role in these events. Once the Lord of the sheep “comes upon [the beasts and birds] in wrath” (90:16), their end is assured; but it occurs in several stages. This includes the sheep receiving a sword, with which they go “out against all the wild beasts to kill them” (90:19).⁵⁶ God responding with salvific deliverance (see Exod 2:23; cf. Josh 24:7; 1Sam 12:8; 1Kgs 8:51– 53; Neh 9:9).  Cf. Jer 25:16 – 38 on God “sending a sword” to bring judgment on the nations; see VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth, 166.  Collins, “Temporality and Politics,” 38.  Dependence on God’s action is also reflected in 90:20 – 36. Cf. John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 56.  The close association between the AA and the Maccabean uprising raises important questions about the perceived eschatological significance of these events in the mind of the author of the apocalypse. For discussion of this question and the function of the AA as resistance lit-

2.3 1 Enoch

67

Since the judgment described in 90:20 – 36 seems clearly to be climactic, the key question concerns the precise relationship between the violence of the sheep, described in 90:19, and all that occurs thereafter. The fact that the sheep do not relinquish the sword until 90:34 suggests that their militant function persists throughout the intervening events. It plays a role in the inauguration of the age to come, and only ceases once that age is established. Thus, despite its complex nature, the AA clearly envisions an eschatological scenario in which faithful human beings are equipped as active agents in the violent destruction of the wicked. The final judgment belongs to God alone, but the militaristic victory which precedes it involves—perhaps even necessitates—the participation of his people.⁵⁷ In contrast to the book of Daniel, when faced with the violent persecution of a bestial king, the faithful are given a sword to enact God’s violent retribution against their oppressors.

2.3.2 The “Apocalypse of Weeks” (1En. 93:1 – 10; 91:11 – 17⁵⁸) The “Apocalypse of Weeks” (henceforth AW) is found in the fifth section of 1 Enoch, the Epistle of Enoch (chs. 91– 105).⁵⁹ It records a “vision of heaven”

erature, see Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 346 – 353, 363 – 381; cf. Collins, “The Zeal of Phinehas,” 15. See also § 3.2.  Cf. Deut 20:4. See Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire; 374; cf. Collins, “Temporality and Politics,” 38.  The two sections of the AW have been reversed in the composite Ethiopic text of Enoch: weeks 1– 7 are presented in 93:1– 10, and weeks 8 – 10 in 91:12– 17. An Aramaic fragment from Qumran (4QEng [= 4Q212] 1 IV, 13 – 26) preserves the weeks in order: Josef T. Milik, ed., The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 48, 245 – 272. For further bibliography, see Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 313 n. 1.  For introduction and commentary on the AW, see Milik, The Books of Enoch, 47– 49, 51; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 438 – 450; Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 10 – 12; Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91 – 108, CEJL (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 49 – 152; Stuckenbruck, “Epistle of Enoch,” 583 – 584; and VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth, 141– 160. Other important studies of the AW include James C. VanderKam, “Studies in the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 Enoch 93:1– 10; 91:11– 17),” CBQ 46 (1984): 511– 23; Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 313 – 345; and the essays found in Boccaccini, Enoch and Qumran Origins, 185 – 248; esp. Matthias Henze, “The Apocalypse of Weeks and the Architecture of the End Time,” in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 207– 9; Klaus Koch, “History as a Battlefield of Two Antagonistic Powers in the Apocalypse of Weeks and in the Rule of the Community,” in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 185 – 99; George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Response: Context, Text, and Social Setting of the Apocalypse of

68

Chapter 2. Violence in Second Temple Jewish Eschatological Writings

(93:2) that chronicles the past, present, and future of all humanity. This history is divided into ten “weeks,” at the conclusion of which come “many weeks without number forever,” an eternal period of “piety and righteousness” in which “sin will never again be mentioned” (91:17). Like the AA, vaticinia ex eventu appears to have played a role in the composition of the AW: although Enoch claims to have been born “the seventh in the first week” (93:3), most scholars believe the author of the text to have lived towards the conclusion of the seventh week (91:11), which is presented as the climactic moment of history.⁶⁰ Weeks 8 – 10 (91:12– 16), therefore, represent an eschatological vision of the judgment of the wicked, the disappearance of sinful deeds from the earth, and the appearance of a new heaven. The transition between the seventh and eighth weeks (93:9 – 10; 91:11– 13) marks the turning point of the ages. In the seventh week, a “perverse generation” arises to commit many wicked deeds (93:9). Following this, “the chosen will be chosen, as witnesses of righteousness,” and to this end are given “sevenfold wisdom and knowledge” (93:10).⁶¹ Enoch declares that this group “will uproot the foundations of violence, and the structure of deceit within it, to execute judgment” (91:11).⁶² Next, “an eighth week of righteousness” begins, in which “a sword will be given to all the righteous, to execute righteous judgment on all the wicked, and they will be delivered into their hands” (91:12). This initial, apparently violent judgment is supplemented by the events which follow: in week nine, “all the deeds of wickedness will vanish from the whole earth and descend to the everlasting pit” (91:14); in week ten, the “everlasting judgment” is executed upon “the watchers of the eternal heaven” (91:15). Humanity then lives in everlasting obedience to the “righteous law” (91:14), and the first heaven is replaced with one which “will shine forever with sevenfold (brightness)” of sinless righteousness (91:16 – 17). For our purposes, the crucial verse is 91:12, which depicts “the righteous” receiving “a sword … to execute righteous judgment on all the wicked.” Like the Weeks,” in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 234– 41.  Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 11. Most scholars date the AW to the period immediately preceding the Maccabean Revolt (ca. 175 – 170 BCE); see Stuckenbruck, “Epistle of Enoch,” 584; cf. Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 314– 319, who dates it to 167 BCE.  Note the connection to the AA, which also focuses on the knowledge/wisdom of the faithful people by describing the sheep as beginning “to open their eyes” (90:6; note also 90:14). See VanderKam, “Open and Closed Eyes.” As discussed above (§ 2.2.3), this is also an important Danielic theme.  Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 328 – 337, interprets 91:11 as an expression of a particular program of resistance against the oppressive rule of Antiochus IV.

2.3 1 Enoch

69

AA, the AW seems clearly to depict the people of God participating in eschatological violence upon their adversaries.⁶³ Although God is not a named participant in the text,⁶⁴ most scholars assume the use of the “divine passive” here: it is God who gives the sword to the righteous, and who delivers the wicked into their hands.⁶⁵ However, there is an important distinction between the portrayal of this component of eschatological expectation in the AA and the AW. Whereas the AA explicitly describes violent conflict, the AW does not. Moreover, the claim that “the chosen” “uproot the foundations of violence” (91:11) could even be interpreted as identifying them with fundamental opposition to such action.⁶⁶ Much appears to hinge on the symbolic significance of the “sword” given to the righteous. Though most interpreters read this as a reference to eschatological conflict,⁶⁷ the text itself identifies the sword not with battle, but with “righteous judgment.”⁶⁸ Portier-Young observes three contexts from the Jewish scriptures in which the image of a sword is combined with the language of “giving into the hands of”: (i) warfare, especially that portrayed in the conquest narratives; (ii) legal situations, especially those associated with capital punishment; and (iii) judgment, most notably against Israel itself, when YHWH raises up foreign nations against them as a result of their idolatry.⁶⁹ She argues that the AW resonates most clearly with texts in (ii) or (iii): thus, the wicked will be “handed over” to the sword of the righteous either for execution (following judicial proceed-

 See John J. Collins, “Pseudepigraphy and Group Formation in Second Temple Judaism,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12 – 14 January, 1997, ed. Esther G. Chazon, Michael E. Stone, and Avital Pinnick, STDJ 31 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 45; cf. Collins, “Temporality and Politics,” 38.  Aside from the reference to the temple of the “Great One” (91:13); see Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 73 n. f2.  Koch, “History as a Battlefield,” 190; Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 315, 337. Elsewhere in the Epistle of Enoch, God is the primary agent of eschatological events (see 94:10 – 11; 95:3; 99:16; 100:4– 5).  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 448, claims that “‫ קשׁטא‬as righteousness and truth will destroy its counterparts, violence and deceit”; cf. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91 – 108, 128 – 130.  E. g. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth, 149.  See 4QEng ar (= 4Q212) IV, 16 which reads ‫—דין קשוט }דינא{ למעבד‬a purpose clause connecting the sword with judgment. See Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 345; Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91 – 108, 130.  Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 337– 339. For scriptural references see 338 n. 105, 339 n. 110; cf. Jub. 23:23 – 25. Portier-Young also notes (345) the frequent use of “the sword” as an image of divine judgment, e. g. Ps 76.

70

Chapter 2. Violence in Second Temple Jewish Eschatological Writings

ings), or to suffer divine judgment through battle, which brings their deserved punishment down upon them.⁷⁰ Therefore, although an explicit description of militaristic conflict is absent from the AW, the “sword” is nevertheless inherently bound up with violence. The “chosen” do not simply await deliverance, they participate in meting out God’s eschatological “righteous justice” upon the wicked.⁷¹ Sinners are handed over to the righteous, who are given authority to destroy them.⁷² Through their action, God’s justice and righteousness are established, so that “all the deeds of wickedness” vanish from the earth forever (91:14), and an eternal age of righteousness is established (91:17).⁷³ Therefore, the eschatological events portrayed in both the AA and the AW of 1 Enoch involve violent action exerted by the righteous against the wicked. Whereas the AA depicts the sheep waging eschatological battle against the birds and beasts (90:19), which is then followed by the final judgment (90:20 – 27), the AW describes the righteous chosen ones participating in the judgment itself (91:12). In both cases, the people of God are given “a sword” to enact violent retribution upon the wicked. The eschatological violence of these two Enochic apocalypses is thus directly associated with human action: God, as the ultimate agent of these events, equips his faithful people to participate in the eschatological defeat and/or judgment of his/their enemies.

2.4 The War Scroll (1QM) We have so far seen two distinct expectations for the connection between the faithful people of God and eschatological violence. Whereas in Daniel, God’s people are called to “stand firm” and “take action” on the basis of their knowledge of God’s control of history and their trust in his promises for their deliverance, in 1 Enoch the oppressed faithful are armed by God, equipped to be his agents of eschatological retribution and judgment. We turn our attention, lastly, to the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), and their depiction of a particularly synergistic form of eschatological violence.

 Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 340.  Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 322– 323.  We see this element of eschatological reversal repeated elsewhere in the Epistle, e. g. 98:12; see also 95:3; 96:1; 99:11– 16; 100:1– 4, 7– 9; 103:15. See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 485 – 486; Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91 – 108, 133 – 136. On eschatological reversal, see George W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Apocalyptic Message of 1 Enoch 92– 105,” CBQ 39 (1977), 312, 323.  Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 337.

2.4 The War Scroll (1QM)

71

Among the many insights to be gleaned from studying the Qumran corpus, the clear eschatological focus of many of these texts makes them particularly significant to our interests.⁷⁴ Narrowing our focus to the question of eschatological violence, one document stands out: 1QMilḥamah (1QM), otherwise known as the War Scroll.⁷⁵ Although depictions of violence appear elsewhere in eschatological

 The eschatology of the DSS has been the subject of several important studies, e. g.: John J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Routledge, 1997); Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint, eds., Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997); Albert L. A. Hogeterp, Expectations of the End: A Comparative Tradition-Historical Study of Eschatological, Apocalyptic and Messianic Ideas in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, STDJ 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2009); and Lawrence H. Schiffman, The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls, SBLSMS 38 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989). Michael A. Knibb, “Eschatology and Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Essays on the Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions, SVTP 22 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 328 – 329, finds “eschatological” content in 1QM, 1QS, 1QSa, 1QSb, 4QEschatological Midrash (4Q174 and 177), 4Q175, 4Q246, 4Q521, 4Q540 – 41, 4Q543 – 48, 4QMMT, 4QSapiential Work A, CD, 11QT, 11QMelchizedek, and the Pesharim.  Scholarship on 1QM abounds; for the interests of this study, significant work includes: Christophe Batsch, “Priests in Warfare in Second Temple Judaism: 1QM, or the Anti-Phinehas,” in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Lljubljana, ed. Daniel K. Falk et al., STDJ 91 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 165 – 78; Alexander Bolotnikov, “The Theme of Apocalyptic War in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” AUSS 43 (2005): 261– 66; J. Carmignac, “Les citations de l’Ancien Testament, dans la Guerre des Fils de lumière contre les Fils de Ténèbres,” RB 63 (1956): 234– 60, 375; James H. Charlesworth, ed., Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995); Collins, “The Mythology of Holy War”; John J. Collins, “The Expectation of the End in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 74– 90; Philip R. Davies, 1QM. The War Scroll From Qumran: Its Structure and History (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1977); Philip R. Davies, “Dualism and Eschatology in the Qumran War Scroll,” VT 28 (1978): 28 – 36; Philip R. Davies, “Eschatology at Qumran,” JBL 104 (1985): 39 – 55; Philip R. Davies, “The Biblical and Qumranic Concept of War,” in The Hebrew Bible and Qumran, ed. James H. Charlesworth (N. Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 2000), 275 – 305; Philip R. Davies, “War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James VanderKam (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 965 – 68; Philip R. Davies, “Dualism in Qumran War Texts,” in Dualism in Qumran, ed. Géza G. Xeravits (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 8 – 19; Jean Duhaime, “War Scroll,” in Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, PTSDSSP 2 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 80 – 203; Jean Duhaime, “‘Le temps des guerres de tes mains’: Étude intertextuelle de 1QM xi 1– 12,” in En ce temps-là. Conceptions et expériences bibliques du temps, ed. M. Gourgues and M. Talbot, Sciences bibliques 10 (Montréal: Médiaspaul, 2002), 67– 87; Jean Duhaime, The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts, CQS 6 (London: T&T Clark, 2004); Jean Duhaime, “La Règle de la Guerre (1QM) et la construction de l’identité sectaire,” in Defining Identitie: We,

72

Chapter 2. Violence in Second Temple Jewish Eschatological Writings

You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. F. Garcia Martínez and M. Popović, STDJ 70 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 131– 45; Jean Duhaime, “War Scroll (1QM),” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1329 – 30; Ted M. Ehro, “The Motif of the Eschatological Battle in the War Scroll (1QM),” in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection, ed. Peter W. Flint, Jean Duhaime, and Kyung S. Baek, EJL 30 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 359 – 74; Hanan Eshel, “The Kittim in the War Scroll and in the Pesharim,” in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. David Goodblatt, Avital Pinnick, and Daniel R. Schwartz (Leiden: Brill, 2001); David Flusser, “Apocalyptic Elements in the War Scroll,” in Judaism of the Second Temple Period, Volume 1: Qumran and Apocalypticism, ed. David Flusser, trans. A. Yadin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 140 – 58; Russell Gmirkin, “The War Scroll, the Hasidim, and the Maccabean Conflict,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress 1997, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman et al. (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in Cooperation with The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), 486 – 96; Hogeterp, Expectations of the End; Sharon Lea Mattila, “Two Contrasting Eschatologies At Qumran (4Q246 vs 1QM),” Bib 75 (1994): 518 – 38; Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Law of Conscription in the War Scroll,” in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Lljubljana, ed. Daniel K. Falk et al., STDJ 91 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 179 – 92; Brian Schultz, Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered, STDJ 76 (Leiden: Brill, 2009); Brian Schultz, “Compositional Layers in the War Scroll (1QM),” in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Llubljana, ed. Daniel K. Falk et al., STDJ 91 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 153 – 64; Brian Schultz, “Not Greeks But Romans: Changing Expectations for the Eschatological War in the War Texts From Qumran,” in The Jewish Revolt Against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Mladen Popović, JSJSup 154 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 107– 27; Raija Sollamo, “War and Violence in the Ideology of the Qumran Community,” in Verbum et Calamus, ed. H. Juusola, J. Laulainen, and H. Palva (Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 2004), 341– 52; Annette Steudel, “The Eternal Reign of the People of God—Collective Expectations in Qumran Texts (4Q246 and 1QM),” RevQ 17 (1996); Marvin A. Sweeney, “Davidic Typology in the Forty Year War Between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness,” in Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 16 – 24, 1989. Division A. The Bible and Its World, ed. D. Assaf (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1990), 213 – 20; Steven Weitzman, “Warring Against Terror: The War Scroll and the Mobilization of Emotion,” JSJ 40 (2009): 213 – 41; Dean O. Wenthe, “The Use of the Hebrew Scriptures in 1QM,” DSD 5 (1998): 290 – 319; Géza G. Xeravits, King, Priest, Prophet: Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Qumran Library (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Yigael Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, trans. Batya Rabin and Chaim Rabin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962); Rony Yishai, “The Model for the Eschatological War Descriptions in Qumran Literature,” Meghillot 4 (2006): 121– 34. On the other “war texts” from Qumran, see Alexander, “The Evil Empire”; Duhaime, The War Texts; Florentino García Martínez, “The War Scroll and Related Literature: War and Peace in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Visions of Peace and Tales of War, ed. Jan Liesen and Pancratius Cornelis Beentjes, DCLY 2010 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 303 – 34; Schultz, “Not Greeks But Romans”; Brian Schultz, “Re-Imagining the Eschatological War—4Q285/11Q14,” in ‘Go Out and Study the Land’ (Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical, and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel, ed. A. M. Maeir, Jodi Magness, and Lawrence Schiffman, JSJSup 148 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 197– 212. Alexander, “The Evil Empire,” 23 – 31, is particu-

2.4 The War Scroll (1QM)

73

contexts from Qumran, this subject matter is focused on most directly and at greatest length in 1QM.⁷⁶

2.4.1 The Violence of the Eschatological Culmination in 1QM The War Scroll documents the eschatological conflict of the archangel Michael, the heavenly armies, and the human “sons of light,” against the forces of evil, led by Belial, and the human “sons of darkness.”⁷⁷ It thus makes it clear that

larly helpful for distinguishing between what he sees as the two main recensions of the Serekh ha–Yaḥad (4Q285 and 1QM).  Examples of other depictions of violence in eschatological DSS texts include: CD VII, 19 – 21; 1QS III, 13–IV, 26 (cf. 4QSapiential Work A); 1QHa XI, 19 – 36; XIV, 29 – 30; 1Q28b, V, 24– 25, 27 (cf. 4Q285 frag. 6); and 4Q161 frags. 8 – 10; 4Q171 II, 14– 15, 18 – 19; 4Q174 I, 18 – 19; 4Q426, 4Q471a, 4Q562. See Allison, The End, 123; Collins, Apocalypticism, 91. Hogeterp, Expectations of the End, 374, points out that these presentations of eschatological conflict are considerably diverse; so too John J. Collins, “Patterns of Eschatology At Qumran,” in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith, ed. Baruch Halpern (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 351. See also the list given by Alexander, “The Evil Empire,” 19 – 20.  Although the majority of scholars agree that 1QM portrays the climactic eschatological conflict, some urge caution about too quickly assuming this to be the case; see, e. g., Hogeterp, Expectations of the End, 372. In connection with this, the question of whether 1QM was an actual military treatise or a purely “theological” document has also been widely discussed. In favour of the former option is the technical precision of columns 2– 9, and the extent to which this reflects late Hellenistic/early Roman-era military tactics/equipment (see Collins, Apocalypticism, 108; Duhaime, The War Texts, 61; Sollamo, “War and Violence,” 342). In favour of the latter are its theological overtones, its priestly focus, and the predominance of biblical “holy war” language (e. g. Deut 20:1– 20) (see Willis S. Barnstone, The Other Bible [New York: Harper San Francisco, 1984], 235 – 236; Collins, “The Mythology of Holy War”; Collins, Apocalypticism, 99; Daniel J. Harrington, “‘Holy War’ Texts Among the Qumran Scrolls,” in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich, ed. Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov, and James VanderKam, VTSup 101 [Boston: Brill, 2006], 175 – 83; Gwilym H. Jones, “The Concept of Holy War,” in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, ed. R. E. Clements [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989], 299 – 321; Helmer Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran: Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls, trans. Emilie T. Sander [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963], 18 – 19; Benedict T. Viviano, “The Kingdom of God in the Qumran Literature,” in The Kingdom of God in 20th-Century Interpretation, ed. Wendell Willis [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987], 97– 107, 103; James Whitton, “The Hebrew Tradition of ‘Holy War’ With Special Reference to the Qumran Battle Scroll,” [Ph.D. diss., University of St Andrews, 1979]). Most scholars seem to take a via media, arguing that 1QM does reflect the eschatological expectations of the Yaḥad, using biblically-shaped language to do so; see Davies, “War of the Sons,” 300 – 301; Harrington, “‘Holy War’ Texts,” 177– 178; and Loren L. Johns, “Identity and Resistance: The Varieties of Competing Models in Early Judaism,” in Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions, ed. Michael Tho-

74

Chapter 2. Violence in Second Temple Jewish Eschatological Writings

the Yaḥad, believing itself to be the truly righteous community of God (the “sons of light”), expected to participate in battle against their foes in the eschatological culmination.⁷⁸ Their own deliverance would be effected through a large-scale conflict involving both heavenly and earthly participants.⁷⁹ The abundant violence of this event is beyond dispute. 1QM depicts the eschatological victory of God and his people in clearly militaristic terms: it will involve “savage destruction before the God of Israel, for this will be the day determined by him since ancient times for the war of extermination against the sons of darkness” (I, 9 – 10).⁸⁰ The armies of the sons of light “shed the blood” of the wicked (VI, 17), and it is anticipated that God will “sharpen his weapons and will not tire until all the wicked nations are destroyed” (XVII, 1⁸¹). Elsewhere, God is implored to “place your hand on the neck of your enemies and your foot on the piles of slain! Strike the peoples, your foes, and may your sword consume guilty flesh!” (XII, 11– 12; cf. XIX, 3 – 4). The War Scroll thus describes the forthcoming destruction of Belial and the “sons of darkness” in graphically violent language.⁸²

2.4.2 The Synergistic Eschatological Violence of 1QM The primary agent of the eschatological victory depicted in 1QM is God himself: the standards carried by the sons of light declare that both the war (‫מלחמה אל‬, IV, 12) and the victory (‫נצה אל‬, IV, 13) belong ultimately to God.⁸³ The conflict between the opposing human and heavenly forces is only decided with God’s intermas Davis, and Brent A. Strawn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 275 – 276. Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 87, describes 1QM as “an idealized depiction of an eschatological war,” referencing Collins, Apocalypticism, 127. See Alexander, “The Evil Empire,” 22– 23, who distinguishes between Qumran war texts that are (i) “serakhim” (rules), and (ii) “scenarios.”  On 1QM as evidence for militancy at Qumran, see Duhaime, “War Scroll,” 84; Lester L. Grabbe, “Warfare,” in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James C. VanderKam and Lawrence H. Schiffman (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2:965. See Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 87 n. 104, where he cites these sources in making his own argument against reading 1QM in this way. My identification of the sectarian Qumran group as the “Yaḥad” is based on the use of ‫ אנשי היחד‬in 1QS V, 1 and elsewhere.  Davies, “The Biblical,” 301.  Unless otherwise noted, all translations will be taken from Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1997).  Translation of Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, rev. ed. (London: Penguin, 2011).  For further examples see III, 8; VIII, 8 – 9, 16 – 18; IX, 1– 2; XVI, 7, 9; XVII, 12– 13.  Collins, “The Expectation of the End,” 87; cf. Collins, “The Mythology of Holy War,” 598.

2.4 The War Scroll (1QM)

75

vention: “in the seventh lot, God’s great hand will subdue [Belial, and al]l the angels of his dominion and all the men of [his lot]” (I, 14– 15).⁸⁴ The Yaḥad thus confidently expected God’s decisive assistance. Duhaime argues that this was based predominantly on scriptural precedent: “[God] provided irrefutable demonstrations of his power in the past, and … foretold long ago, through the prophets, the final war of extermination.”⁸⁵ Since the battle belonged to God, victory would be assured. In conjunction with its emphasis on divine agency, however, 1QM places near-equivalent importance on the participation of the people of God in the eschatological conflict. This is evident from its opening lines: “The first attack by the sons of light will be launched against the lot of the sons of darkness, against the army of Belial” (I, 1; cf. I, 2). The column goes on to describe a series of terrible conflicts between these two forces (I, 10 – 13), before God himself decisively intervenes (I, 14– 16). The obedient “sons of light” will be the instruments wielded by God’s hand to bring about the downfall of their enemies and an end to wickedness. In this way, “the rule of the Kittim” would “come to an end,” and “[God’s] exalted greatness” would “shine for all the et[ernal] times, for peace, blessing, glory and joy” (I, 6, 8 – 9).⁸⁶ The War Scroll thus exhorts the Yaḥad to be ready to commit itself to engage in eschatological battle at the time determined by God.⁸⁷

 Cf. XV, 13 – 14; XVIII, 1.  Duhaime, The War Texts, 114; cf. Johns, “Identity and Resistance,” 267 n. 35, who observes the preeminence of God’s help over human action in Deut 1:30; 3:22; 32:30; Josh 10:42; 23:10; 2 Chr 32:7– 8; and Ps 144:1– 2. This confidence that future events are preordained and in God’s hands reflects Josephus’s description of the beliefs of the Essenes (Ant. 13.172; 18.18); see David M. Rhoads, Israel in Revolution: 6 – 74 C.E. A Political History Based on the Writings of Josephus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 44. Further expressions of the belief that God’s eschatological victory was foretold by the prophets are found in XI, 11– 12; see Moshe J. Bernstein, “Scriptures: Quotation and Use,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James VanderKam (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 839 – 72; Bilha Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry, trans. Jonathan Chipman, STDJ 12 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 98 n. 32. On the application of prophetic passages to future events in the DSS, see Michael Fishbane, “Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra At Qumran,” in Mikra: Texts, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin J. Mulder and Harry Sysling (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), 339 – 77; cf. Schultz, Conquering the World, 274; Geza Vermes, “Biblical Proof-Texts in Qumran Literature,” JSS 34 (1989): 494– 508, 496.  Cf. 1QM XII, 16; 4Q246 II, 4, 5 – 9. Steudel, “The Eternal Reign,” 517, see further 517– 524.  This motif is attested elsewhere in the DSS, e. g.: 1QpHab V, 4: “in the hand of his chosen ones God will place the judgment over all his peoples”; cf. 1QS VIII, 6 – 7, 10; IX, 23; 1QHa VI, 29 – 30; XIV, 29 – 32; 1QpHab V, 3. See Duhaime, The War Texts, 41; Gordon Zerbe, Non-Retaliation

76

Chapter 2. Violence in Second Temple Jewish Eschatological Writings

This synergistic balance, which requires God’s faithful people both to depend on him for evil’s ultimate defeat and to participate in the conflict themselves, is the most noteworthy characteristic of the eschatological violence of 1QM. It is exemplified in column XI, which begins with a series of examples of God’s deliverance, interspersed with the refrain, “The battle is yours!” (‫לכה‬ ‫ ;המלחמה‬XI, 1, 2, 4).⁸⁸ God’s active provision of salvation for his people is made clear by reference to several key moments in Israel’s past, including the Exodus (Exod 15:4; cf. 14:1– 31; see 1QM XI, 9 – 10), David’s defeat of Goliath (1Sam 17; see 1QM XI, 1– 2), and the deliverance of Jerusalem during the siege of Sennacherib (Isa 31:8; cf. 2Kgs 18:13 – 19:37; see 1QM XI, 11– 12).⁸⁹ Again and again, God’s agency is made clear—“you delivered … you saved us many times … thanks to your mercy … by your great strength and by your mighty deeds” (XI, 2– 5)—and the glory for the victory is given to him. Because of God’s mighty deeds on Israel’s behalf in the past, the “sons of light” may depend upon divine salvation in the future (cf. VI, 5 – 6; VII, 6 – 7; XII, 7– 9; XIII, 14; XIX, 1).⁹⁰ King David, who “trusted in [God’s] powerful name and not in sword or spear” (XI, 2), exemplifies this mindset; his defeat of Goliath epitomises a victory won not on the basis of human strength, but through divine favour.⁹¹ Simultaneously, however, this passage maintains an emphasis on human participation in these events, proclaiming that “by the hand of the poor, those you saved,” God would “fell the hordes of Belial” (XI, 8 – 9). Numbers 24:17– 19 is cited (XI, 5 – 7), in such a form as to culminate with the proclamation that, “Israel will perform feats” (‫חיל עשה וישראל‬, XI, 7; cf. Num 24:18b), thereby emphasising the human role in the fulfillment of God’s promise to defeat the enemy.⁹² It is worth noting that this same emphasis is present in the opening ref-

in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts, JSPSup 13 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 122.  Yadin, The Scroll of the War, 309, observes that this phrase echoes most closely 1Sam 17:47 (‫ ;)כי ליהוה המלחמה ונתן אתכם בידנו‬cf. 1 Chr 5:22; 2 Chr 20:15; cf. Steudel, “The Eternal Reign,” 522.  As well as David’s numerous victories over the Philistines (e. g. 1Sam 23:1– 5; 2Sam 5:17– 25; 8:1– 14; see 1QM XI, 2– 3), and other victories during the monarchy (1 and 2Kgs; see 1QM XI, 3 – 4).  Russell Gmirkin, “Historical Allusions in the War Scroll,” DSD 5 (1998): 172– 214, 180 – 85, claims that this use of chronological resonances of the past in the present is a “common literary device” (180) of Jewish eschatological literature.  See 1Sam 17:47. Duhaime, “War Scroll,” 86 – 87; Steudel, “The Eternal Reign,” 522.  On the text form of this citation and its significance, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament,” NTS 7 (1960), 323 – 324; Schultz, Conquering the World, 274; Steudel, “The Eternal Reign,” 523; Wenthe, “The Use of the Hebrew Scriptures,” 308; Yadin, The Scroll of the War, 310. On the significance of

2.4 The War Scroll (1QM)

77

erences to Israel’s past: God is ultimately responsible for Goliath’s downfall, but it was David who, in faith, flung the stone from the sling (XI, 1– 2).⁹³ Two prophetic proclamations press the point further, emphasising the particularly synergistic nature of this anticipated victory: first, the citation of Isaiah 31:8 (XI, 11– 12) continues the emphasis on God’s role by making it clear that the future war will not be won by human effort: “Ashur will fall by the sword of not a man, the sword of not a human being will devour it” (XI, 11– 12).⁹⁴ Second, alluding to Zechariah 12:6, the author proclaims that God will “set aflame” the “stricken of spirit … like a torch of fire in the straw, devouring wickedness” (XI, 10).⁹⁵ Divine and human activity are thus combined (XI, 13 – 14; cf. XIII, 14; XIV, 4– 15). 1QM thus expresses the Yaḥad’s confidence that God will “fight with them from heaven” (XI, 17– 19),⁹⁶ and their belief that although the responsibility for eschatological victory belongs to God, it would come about through the willing participation of his people, who act in faith that is based on knowledge of God’s actions in the past.

2.4.3 The Eschatological Enemy in 1QM One final significant observation to be drawn from the War Scroll concerns the identity of the eschatological enemies of God and his holy people. This group is most frequently identified as either the “sons of darkness” (‫ )בני חושך‬or the “Kittim” (‫)כתיים‬.⁹⁷ Broadly speaking, the latter term is associated with the national/ethnic enemies of Israel, while the former is more general, used to identify all who belong to the “army of Belial.” In the Jewish scriptures, ‫ כתי‬is often used to refer to the hostile ethnic groups which surrounded Israel (e. g. the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines,

Num 24:17– 19, and in particular the use of ‫ שבט‬and ‫ כיכב‬in the Scrolls, see Xeravits, King, Priest, Prophet, 77– 78 and 159 – 161.  Note the synergistic agency expressed in David’s battle-line challenge to Goliath: “This day the LORD will deliver you into my hands, and I will strike you down” (1Sam 17:46). On 1QM XI, 1– 4, see Duhaime, “War Scroll,” 88; Fishbane, “Use, Authority,” 346 – 347.  Cf. the stone cut out “not by human hands” in Dan 2:34, 45 (discussed in § 2.2.2 above).  Cf. Isa 9:16. Yadin, The Scroll of the War, 312.  Cf. XIII, 14; XIV, 4– 15. David Flusser, “The Magnificat, the Benedictus, and the War Scroll,” in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, ed. David Flusser (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 142; cf. Xeravits, King, Priest, Prophet, 160 – 161.  Both terms are found frequently in 1QM, e. g. I, 1– 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15 – 16; II, 10 – 14; III, 6, 9; XI, 11; XIII, 16; XIV, 17; XVI, 11. See Hengel, The Zealots, 279 n. 275.

78

Chapter 2. Violence in Second Temple Jewish Eschatological Writings

and Assyrians).⁹⁸ The identity of the ‫ כתיים‬in 1QM, however, has been the focus of much scholarly debate, largely concerning whether to identify them as Seleucids or Romans.⁹⁹ Whether or not a definitive identification of the ‫ כתיים‬is possible, 1QM makes it clear that in the eschatological age, God would raise his mighty hand against them, bringing their oppression to an end (I, 6). The phrase ‫ בני חושך‬is broader, used to refer to all who do not belong to the Yaḥad—Gentile or Jew. The complex question of the relationship between the Yaḥad and their Jewish contemporaries is beyond the limits of this study; but in short, several of the sectarian texts make it clear that the people behind their production understood themselves to be “true Israel,” the eschatological people of God.¹⁰⁰ Therefore, when 1QM declares “a time of salvation for the nation of God” (the “sons of light”) and “of everlasting destruction for all the lot of Belial” (the “sons of darkness”) (I, 5), it divides humanity into two groups: (i) the Yaḥad, and (ii) everyone else.¹⁰¹ Those who keep the covenant are blessed; those outside, whether Jew or Gentile, face punishment and destruction. Therefore, 1QM proclaims that eschatological violence—in which the Yaḥad expected to participate—would fall upon all who, by not keeping the “rule of the congregation,”¹⁰² placed themselves on the side of “darkness,” in the “lot of Belial.”¹⁰³ The War Scroll, therefore, describes the violent eschatological judgment upon and destruction of the enemies of God and his people. Ultimately, this is attributed to God, but it is clearly expected that the “sons of light” will play

 See, e. g., Num 24:24; Isa 23:1, 12; Jer 2:10; Ezek 27:6; Dan 11:30. Cf. Davies, “The Biblical,” 292.  The debate is tied directly to the date of the text’s composition. Yadin, The Scroll of the War, made an influential argument identifying the Kittim as the Romans. This was later overturned, based on arguments that 1QM was composed before the Roman presence in Judea (see Eshel, “The Kittim,” 41). More recently, Schultz, “Not Greeks But Romans,” has made a renewed attempt to argue in favour of Roman identity. See also Jean Duhaime, “The War Scroll From Qumran and the Greco-Roman Tactical Treatises,” RQ 13 (1988): 133 – 51; Russell Gmirkin, “The War Scroll and Roman Weaponry Reconsidered,” DSD 3 (1996): 89 – 129; Gmirkin, “Historical Allusions”; Gmirkin, “The War Scroll.”  E. g. 1QSa (= 1Q28a), which is introduced as “the rule of all the congregation of Israel (‫כול‬ ‫ )עדת ישראל‬in the final days” (I, 1).  On the motif of dualism in 1QM, see Davies, “Dualism in Qumran”; Peter von der OstenSacken, Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran, SUNT 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969). See also the exchange of articles between P. R. Davies and J. J. Collins: Davies, “Dualism and Eschatology”; John J. Collins, “Dualism and Eschatology in 1QM: A Reply to P. R. Davies,” VT 29 (1979): 212– 15; Philip R. Davies, “Dualism and Eschatology in 1QM: A Rejoinder,” VT 30 (1980): 93 – 97.  See 1QSa [= 1Q28a] I, 1.  See Alex Jassen, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Violence: Sectarian Formation and Eschatological Imagination,” BibInt 17 (2009): 12– 44, 13; cf. Collins, Apocalypticism, 108.

2.5 Summary and Conclusions

79

an active, militaristic role in these events. This eschatological violence effects three outcomes, summed up in 1QM I, 5 – 10: (i) the complete destruction of evil and all those under its dominion; (ii) the salvation of the holy community of God’s people; and (iii) the inauguration of the age in which the “exalted greatness” of God “will shine for all the et[ernal] times, for peace and blessing, glory and joy” (1QM I, 9) and “Israel [will] reign for ever” (XIX, 8).¹⁰⁴ This sectarian text thus gives voice to the expectation that the “sons of light” would participate alongside God in eschatological violence, thereby demonstrating their identification as the true eschatological community of God’s people.¹⁰⁵

2.5 Summary and Conclusions Each of the four texts discussed in this chapter envisions the coming eschatological fulfillment of God’s promises, when his faithful people would be delivered from their oppressors, who, along with all forces of earthly and cosmic evil, would be destroyed. This chapter, therefore, has demonstrated the consistent (albeit diverse) association of violence with the eschatological expectations expressed in each of these Second Temple texts. Violence was primarily associated with two components of eschatological fulfillment: (i) the judgment/destruction of the wicked, and (ii) the deliverance of God’s faithful people. This—whether taking the form of persecution suffered by the faithful, battle between the armies of light and darkness, or judgment upon the wicked—was anticipated as a physical, earthly phenomenon. This is demonstrated by the clear connections between the sociopolitical circumstances within which the book of Daniel, the AA, and the AW took final shape, and the impact of these historical realities on the literary depictions of eschatological expectation and the violence associated with it. I have also demonstrated, however, that there is significant diversity within this unanimously-attested eschatological violence, most notably with regard to its association with the people of God. Whereas in the apocalypses of 1 Enoch, the righteous are given a sword, and directly participate in violent judgment upon the wicked, and in 1QM the sons of light demonstrate this identity by going to war against Belial and the sons of darkness, trusting that the battle belongs to God, in the book of Daniel those who receive eschatological deliverance

 Cf. 1QM XVII, 7– 8. Hengel, The Zealots, 280.  This point is emphasised particularly effectively by Alexander, “The Evil Empire,” 28 – 29.

80

Chapter 2. Violence in Second Temple Jewish Eschatological Writings

and glorification are those who stand firm in the knowledge of God’s sovereign control of history, without violently resisting their oppressors. Finally, I demonstrated that the ultimate agent of the eschatological events as a whole, including those associated with violence, is God himself. Even when his faithful people take up the sword, the battle is not won without God’s assistance. Thus, at the heart of all four texts is an inherent emphasis on trusting in God to deliver those who are faithful to him. It becomes, then, a question of what form this faithfulness takes. That question is at the heart of the next chapter. Having established the inherent place of violence within prominent literary expressions of Second Temple eschatological expectations, we turn our attention to history, to explore the possibility that eschatology played a motivating factor in Jewish revolutionary violence of the period.

Chapter 3 Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish History 3.1 Introduction Having demonstrated in the previous chapter the main characteristics of the violence inherent in prominent examples of Second Temple eschatological writing, in the present chapter I turn my attention to the ways in which such expectations impacted the history of the Jewish people during 167 BCE–135 CE. A recurrent theme of this era was a tendency towards violent revolution. In what follows, I will argue that eschatology functioned as a motivational and ideological factor in such violence—that those Jews who took up the sword against their Gentile oppressors did so, at least in part, because of their beliefs about how the age to come would be inaugurated. Although outbreaks of revolutionary violence were frequent throughout these centuries, three were of particularly large scale and significance: the Maccabean Revolt (167– 164 BCE), the Jewish-Roman War (66 – 70 CE), and the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132– 135 CE). In this chapter I will discuss each of these conflicts in turn, demonstrating the ways in which the historical record suggests that these violent incidents were imbued with eschatological significance. In other words, whereas chapter two demonstrated that Jewish eschatological writing included violent elements, chapter three will demonstrate that historical instances of Jewish revolutionary violence had eschatological elements. I will argue that Jewish revolutionary action was based on a belief that human violence was integral to the eschatological defeat of God’s enemies and the deliverance of his people, who would themselves be marked out by their willingness to take up the sword. By the end of the chapter I will have demonstrated the existence of eschatological violence as a historical phenomenon in Second Temple Judaism. This will enable us, in the chapters that follow, to explore its significance in the Synoptic Gospels’ presentation of Jesus’s life and ministry.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703771-004

82

Chapter 3. Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish History

3.2 The Maccabean Revolt We must not underestimate the exceptional nature of the Maccabean Revolt (167– 164 BCE¹), in which a small group of pious Jews took up the sword against the superior military power of their pagan oppressors—and were victorious.² The incredible Maccabean success had political and ideological repercussions for the development of Judaism well into the second century CE. Most significantly, the particular “zeal” of the Maccabeans—embodied not only in their willingness to die before transgressing Torah, but to kill all (Gentile or Jew) who offended against it—would come to epitomise Jewish revolutionary nationalism.³ Our purpose here is not to review the events of the Maccabean Revolt in detail, but to focus on the contribution that prominent eschatological expectations may have made to this revolutionary violence.⁴ Did the Maccabeans themselves, or those who took up the sword alongside them, act with eschatological goals or believe themselves to be participating in the climactic events of history?⁵

 Precise dates for the beginning and end of the Revolt are difficult to determine. 167 BCE marks the year Antiochus IV desecrated the temple and began his persecution of the Jews, and Mattathias initiated armed resistance; 164 BCE marks the year of the temple’s rededication and Antiochus’ death. For a full list of important dates, see Daniel J. Harrington, “Maccabean Revolt,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 900.  Jonathan Goldstein, “How the Authors of 1 and 2 Maccabees Treated the ‘Messianic’ Promises,” in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, ed. Jacob Neusner, William S. Green, and Ernest Frerichs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 71, calls the events of the 170s – 134 BCE “epoch-making;” cf. Wright, The New Testament, 158.  Hengel, The Zealots, 149 – 173; cf. W. R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus: An Inquiry Into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956), esp. 104– 105, 109, 150.  Some of the more recent scholarship on the Maccabean Revolt includes: Katell Berthelot, “The Biblical Conquest of the Promised Land and the Hasmonean Wars According to 1 and 2 Maccabees,” in The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology. Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanoncial Books. Pápa, Hungary, 9 – 11 June, 2005, ed. Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 45 – 60; Harrington, “Maccabean Revolt”; Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 49 – 216; and Israel Shatzman, “Jews and Gentiles From Judas Maccabaeus to John Hyrcanus According to Contemporary Jewish Sources,” in Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism, ed. Shaye J. D. Cohen and Joshua J. Schwartz, AJEC 67 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 237– 70.  Studies which discuss the role of eschatology in the Maccabean Revolt and/or 1 and 2 Maccabees include: Berthelot, “L’idéologie maccabéenne”; John J. Collins, “Messianism in the Maccabean Period,” in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, ed. Jacob Neusner, William S. Green, and Ernest Frerichs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 97– 109; Robert Doran, Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees, CBQMS 12 (Wash-

3.2 The Maccabean Revolt

83

Before we go any further, however, we must acknowledge the literary constraints of the historical inquiry we are here making. Although our aim is to analyse the goals and motivations of the Maccabean revolutionaries themselves, this discussion will of necessity be constrained by the data presented to us by the authors of our primary historical sources: 1 and 2 Maccabees.⁶ Both books are retrospective, written well into the Hasmonean era.⁷ Their authors are, therefore, aware of more than just the revolt’s glorious beginnings; they had also seen how this coalesced into the Hasmonean dynasty, and “zeal for YHWH” faded in the face of the realpolitik of maintaining power in the tumultuous world of the eastern Mediterranean. As a result, neither book associates the Maccabean suc-

ington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981); A. Enermalm, “Prayers in War Time: Thematic Tensions in 1 Maccabees,” ST 49 (1995): 272– 86; Gmirkin, “The War Scroll”; Goldstein, “How the Authors”;H. W. M. van Grol, “Three Hasidisms and Their Militant Ideologies: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Psalms 144 and 149,” in Between Evidence and Ideology: Essays on the History of Ancient Israel Read at the Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and the Oud Testamentisch Wekgezelschap, Lincoln, July 2009, ed. Bob Becking and Lester L. Grabbe, OTS 59 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 93 – 115; W. J. Heard, “The Maccabean Martyrs’ Contribution to Holy War,” EvQ 58 (1986): 291– 318; Jan Willem van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees, JSJSup 57 (Leiden: Brill, 1997); Thomas Hieke, “The Role of ‘Scripture’ in the Last Words of Matthathias (1 Macc 2:49 – 70),” in The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology. Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books. Pápa, Hungary, 9 – 11 June, 2005, ed. Geza Xeravits and József Zsengellér (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 61– 74; Arie van der Kooij, “The Claim of Maccabean Leadership and the Use of Scripture,” in Jewish Identity and Politics between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba: Groups, Normativity and Rituals, ed. Benedikt Eckhardt, JSJSup 155 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 29 – 49; Gerbern S. Oegema, The Anointed and His People: Messianic Expectations From the Maccabees to Bar Kokhba, JSPSup 27 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998); and Daniel R. Schwartz, “Divine Punishment in Second Maccabees: Vengeance, Abandonment or Loving Discipline?,” in Der Mensch vor Gott. Forschungen zum Menschenbild in Bibl, antikem Judentum und Koran. Festschrift für Hermann Lichtenberger zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Ulrike Mittmann-Richert, Friedrich Avemarie, and Gerbern S. Oegema (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 109 – 16.  Some of the more recent scholarship on the Maccabean Revolt includes: John R. Bartlett, 1 Maccabees, Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998); Maria Brutti, “War in 1 Maccabees,” in Visions of Peace and Tales of War, ed. Jan Liesen and Pancratius Cornelis Beentjes, DCLY 2010 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 147– 72; John G. Nordling, Religion and Resistance in Early Judaism: Readings in 1 Maccabees and Josephus (St. Louis: CPH, 2010); Daniel R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, CEJL (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008); and Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér, eds., The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology. Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books. Papa, Hungary, 9 – 11 June, 2005 (Leiden: Brill, 2007).  For discussion of the dating of 1 and 2 Maccabees, see Jonathan Goldstein, 1 Maccabees: A New Translation, With Introduction and Commentary, AB 41 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), 62– 64; Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 3 – 16.

84

Chapter 3. Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish History

cess with the complete fulfillment of Israel’s eschatological hopes.⁸ Although the revolutionaries won many great victories, and the kingdom they established could even be described with “golden age” language (see 1Macc 14), it did not last. Both 1 and 2 Maccabees are clear that the Jewish people still awaited God’s redemption in a yet fuller sense: though the rule of one pagan empire had been thrown off, the “age of wrath” continued.⁹ However, the views of the authors on these matters were almost certainly distinct from the views of the participants themselves. Therefore, in what follows I will attempt carefully to utilise 1 and 2 Maccabees to determine what can be said about the initial reasons for the outbreak of violence, and the eschatological themes which may (however temporarily) have been associated with it.

3.2.1 The Outbreak and Initial Goals of the Maccabean Revolt In 167 BCE, the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes issued an edict which effectively prohibited several practices that marked out the Jewish people from the Hellenistic culture surrounding them (e. g. circumcision and Sabbath observance), and forced upon them others which were expressly forbidden by the Torah (1Macc 1:41– 42).¹⁰ Those who refused to abide by the edict were persecuted terribly (1:60 – 64).¹¹ As a result, many Jews gave in (1:43); others, however, resisted, choosing “to die rather than to be defiled by food or to profane the holy covenant” (1:63). The latter group included a priest named Mattathias, of the Hasmonean family (2:1– 14). When Antiochus’ officers began to enforce adherence to the edict (2:15), Mattathias, witnessing one of his countrymen capitulate, responded: [Mattathias] burned with zeal and his heart was stirred. He gave vent to righteous anger; he ran and killed him on the altar. At the same time he killed the king’s officer who was forcing them to sacrifice, and he tore down the altar. Thus he burned with zeal for the law, just as Phinehas did against Zimri son of Salu. Then Mattathias cried out in the town with a loud voice, saying: “Let every one who is zealous for the law and supports the covenant come out with me!” (1Macc 2:24– 27)

 See Goldstein, “How the Authors”; cf. Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision, 204.  See 2Macc 2:17– 28; cf. the prayer of Nehemiah in 1:24– 29; on the latter see Goldstein, “How the Authors”, 73 – 74, 85; Wright, The New Testament, 270 n. 108, with references to further explorations of this theme.  For thorough analysis of Antiochus’ decree, see Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 176 – 216.  “Harsh and utterly grievous was the onslaught of evil” (2Macc 6:3 – 11, here v. 3).

3.2 The Maccabean Revolt

85

The revolution had begun. Mattathias and his sons fled to the hills and were joined by “many who were seeking righteousness and justice” (2:29);¹² together, they began to wage war against the Seleucid armies and the “Hellenised” Jews who had succumbed to Antiochus’ edict, seeking to restore Israel to obedience to Torah—willingly or by force (2:44– 48). Initially, therefore, the motivation for the uprising was directly connected to the threat posed to the Jewish way of life.¹³ Mattathias, his sons, and their followers “burned with zeal” (2:24, 26), taking up the sword to defend Torah, preserve the covenant, and protect the temple and those who worshipped there.¹⁴ However, by the time we reach the end of 1 Maccabees 2, the revolt initiated by Mattathias had been drawn into the narrative of Abraham, Phinehas, Joshua, David and others (vv. 51– 60), suggesting that this revolutionary violence had a part to play in moving Israel’s history towards its eschatological conclusion.

3.2.2 Language of Eschatological Deliverance in 1 and 2 Maccabees Several passages from both 1 and 2 Maccabees are of particular significance for their clear use of language that evokes eschatological hopes, suggesting that those who took up the sword were not immune to this deeply ingrained element of the Jewish worldview. First, the author of 1 Maccabees claims that through the Maccabeans, σωτηρία came to Israel (5:62).¹⁵ This σωτηρία was the reward for their exemplary embodiment of piety, zeal, and faith.¹⁶ In the Jewish Greek scriptural tradition (OG/ LXX), σωτηρία regularly renders ‫ ישועה‬or ‫תשועה‬, often in contexts which speak of

 This included “a company of Hasideans, mighty warriors of Israel” (2:42; cf. 7:13; 2Macc 14:6). On the potential significance of the “Hasideans” to the book of Daniel, see John Kampen, The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism: A Study in 1 and 2 Maccabees, SCS 24 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); cf. Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision, 201– 205; Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire, 229 – 230.  For further discussion of the circumstances that led to the revolt, see John J. Collins, “Cult and Culture: The Limits of Hellenization in Judea,” in Hellenism in the Land of Israel, ed. John J. Collins and Greg Sterling (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001), 38 – 61.  See 1Macc 3:58 – 59; 2Macc 13:14; 15:17; see Roger Tomes, “Heroism in 1 and 2 Maccabees,” BibInt 15 (2007): 171– 99, 185.  See John J. Collins, Daniel, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees, OTM 16 (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1981), 151; Collins, “Messianism,” 103 – 104; cf. Goldstein, “How the Authors,” 80, who connects this to 2Sam 3:18.  Hieke, “The Role,” 65, connects this to Mattathias’ list of individuals from Israel’s past who were rewarded for their faithfulness (1Macc 2:51– 61).

86

Chapter 3. Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish History

YHWH rescuing Israel from her enemies.¹⁷ In particular, many prophetic passages associate σωτηρία with God’s future action on behalf of his people.¹⁸ The author of 1 Maccabees claims that “σωτηρία prospered by the hand” of Judas (3:6).¹⁹ This is set in the context of a longer passage (3:3 – 9) extolling Judas’ deeds, which included destroying the “ungodly,” “gathering in” those perishing, and turning away wrath from Israel (3:8 – 9)—all familiar components of Jewish eschatological hope.²⁰ A second significant passage is 1 Maccabees 14:4– 15, which eulogises the rule of Simon. Idealistic language is used to describe conditions after the “yoke of the Gentiles was removed from Israel” (1Macc 13:41²¹): the land is abundant and fertile (14:8, 10, 12), the people live without fear and in peace (14:11– 13), and the glory of the temple continues to increase (14:15). The land is, therefore, rich with God’s blessings—specifically, blessings which were expected to attend the post-exilic restoration of Israel.²² The passage thus suggests that, although the Maccabean kingdom may not have embodied the complete inauguration of

 E. g. Exod 14:13; 15:2; 1Sam 2:1; Isa 12:2; 25:9; 26:18; 33:2; 33:6; 49:6; 49:8; 52:7; 52:10; and 59:11 (‫ ;)ישועה‬Judg 15:18; 1Sam 11:9, 13; Isa 45:17; 46:13; and Jer 3:23 (‫)תשועה‬. Note also the use of σωτηρία for ‫ ישע‬in 2Sam 22:3, 36, and 47.  E. g. (among many others) Isa 52:10: “The LORD has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.” Therefore Wright, The New Testament, 300, claims that “‘salvation’ encapsulates the entire future hope.”  Cf. 1Macc 2:47; 14:36; see Jan Willem van Henten, “Royal Ideology: 1 and 2 Maccabees and Egypt,” in Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers, ed. Tessa Rajak, et al. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 265 – 82, 272.  E. g. Deut 30:3; Isa 11:2; 35:10; 40:11; 43:5; 49:5; Jer 31:8, 10; 32:27; Ezek 11: 17; 28:25; 34:13; 37:21; 39:27; cf. Tob 13:5. The motif of the people of God being “gathered in” is a significant component of the Maccabean σωτηρία as it is portrayed in 2 Maccabees (see 2:7, 18). On this, see Doran, Temple Propaganda, 113.  1Macc 13:41 dates this to “the one hundred and seventieth year,” i. e. 142 BCE.  See Konrad Schmid and Odil Hannes Steck, “Restoration Expectations in the Prophetic Tradition of the Old Testament,” in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, ed. James M. Scott, JSJSup 72 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 41– 82. George W. E. Nickelsburg, “1 and 2 Maccabees—Same Story Different Meaning,” CTM 42 (1971): 515 – 26, 521, claims that this passage is “virtually a pastiche of Biblical allusions,” particularly to the Davidic/Solomonic age; Wright, The New Testament, 429 n. 33, points specifically to 1Kgs 4:25; Isa 17:2; 36:16; Mic 4:4; and Zech 3:10. See John R. Bartlett, The First and Second Books of the Maccabees, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 189 – 191; Collins, Daniel, First Maccabees, 238 – 241; Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 490 – 492; Uriel Rappaport, “A Note on the Use of the Bible in 1 Maccabees,” in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12 – 14 May, 1996, ed. Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon, STDJ 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 175 – 79.

3.2 The Maccabean Revolt

87

the eschatological age, the author of 1 Maccabees associated it with prophetic depictions of the post-exilic restoration.²³ Third, both 1 and 2 Maccabees strongly emphasise God’s responsibility for the revolt’s success.²⁴ This, too, can be considered an eschatological motif, since one of the central themes of the texts discussed in chapter two was the ultimate agency of God in the eschatological deliverance of his people and judgment of the wicked. Both are accomplished through the Maccabean victories. This is made especially clear by the author of 2 Maccabees, who describes God as the “ally and leader” (2Macc 12:36) of the armies of Israel, and the “defender” (8:36) of the people. God’s assistance and protection rendered the Maccabean armies “invincible” (11:13)—because of their faithfulness to Torah, God kept them “invulnerable” (8:36).²⁵ Furthermore, we find a series of theophanies dispersed throughout the narrative of 2 Maccabees (3:22– 28; 10:29 – 30; 11:8; 15:12– 16). These visions of heavenly forces fighting alongside the Jewish revolutionaries make clear God’s involvement in these events, and the “sovereign power” (3:28) by means of which his people were delivered. The Maccabean victory was thus seen as the victory of God.²⁶

3.2.3 The Synergistic Violence of the Maccabean Success However, we cannot overlook the central place of the violence of God’s faithful people in the Maccabean Revolt, and the lasting impression this made upon the Jewish mindset. Both 1 and 2 Maccabees are clear that a fundamental aspect of the Maccabean success was the willingness of God’s people to take up the sword —their readiness to kill or be killed in defence of his name. They did not expect God to deliver them from the oppression they suffered if they remained inactive (1Macc 2:40).²⁷ The deliverance of the people of God was directly dependent on their own willingness to resort to violent resistance.

 Nickelsburg, “1 and 2 Maccabees,” 521; cf. Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision, 197.  See, e. g. 1Macc 3:19, 22, 53; 4:10, 11, 25, 33; 5:50; 7:41– 43; 9:46; 2Macc 2:17– 18; 5:20; 8:2– 5, 18, 24, 27, 36; 9:5; 10:1, 16, 28, 38; 11:10, 13; 12:11, 16, 28; 13:17; 15:7, 21– 24, 27, 34– 35. See Sam Janse, “A Little Help or a Great Help? Jesus and His Time Against the Background of 1, 2 Maccabees and Daniel,” Scriptura 101 (2009): 397– 403, 398.  Berthelot, “The Biblical Conquest,” 52, suggests connections here to Deut 7:17– 24 and 20:1– 4; see also Janse, “A Little Help,” 398 – 399.  Judas uses θεοῦ νίκης as a password for his army (2Macc 13:15).  See Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision, 196.

88

Chapter 3. Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish History

The depiction of the battle against Nicanor, with which 2 Maccabees reaches its climax (15:6 – 37), encapsulates many of the distinctive attributes of Maccabean violence. The passage begins with Judas reminding his troops of God’s assistance in past conflicts (15:8, 9), exhorting them to have courage and to “look for the victory that the Almighty would give them” (15:8). Judas then tells them of a vision he had, in which the prophet Jeremiah handed him a “golden sword” from God (15:11– 16).²⁸ Thus emboldened, the army takes up its battle formations. Judas raises his hands and calls upon God, “the Lord who works wonders,” knowing that “it is not by arms, but as the Lord decides, that he gains the victory for those who deserve it” (15:21). He recalls the defeat of Sennacherib (15:22),²⁹ asks God to send an angel to spread terror in Nicanor’s army (15:23), and expresses the hope that the “blasphemers who come against your holy people” would be struck down by “the might of your arm” (15:24).³⁰ Finally, the troops enter into combat “fighting with their hands and praying to God in their hearts,” (15:27), and win an overwhelming victory. In the ensuing celebration, the army rejoices at “God’s manifestation” (15:27), praising and thanking him for the victory (15:29) and acknowledging his assistance (15:34). The corpse of Nicanor, the “vile,” “profane,” and “ungodly” man (15:32– 33), is defiled: his arm “which had been boastfully stretched out against the holy house of the Almighty” (15:32) is displayed, his tongue is cut out to be fed to the birds (15:33), and his head is hung from the citadel, “a clear and conspicuous sign to everyone of the help of the Lord” (15:35).³¹ This account is strongly reminiscent of the “holy war” of Israel’s formative history: God’s people are called not to fear, but to go forth trusting that God would fight on their behalf in this righteous cause.³² The wicked who had defiled God’s temple, profaned the Law, and threatened the existence of Israel would be destroyed. This is accomplished by God’s people taking up the sword against

 Note the connections here to the AA and the AW of 1 Enoch, both of which speak of God providing a sword for the righteous in the eschatological age (1En. 90:19; 91:12); see § 2.3 above.  Cf. 1Macc 7:41; 2Macc 8:19. On the significance of the story of Sennacherib’s defeat to 1 and 2 Maccabees, see Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots, 98.  Nickelsburg, “1 and 2 Maccabees,” 519, notes the repeated motif of Judas entering into battle with prayer in 1Macc 3:47– 57; 4:30 – 33; 5:33; 7:40 – 42.  Doran, Temple Propaganda, 74– 75, discusses the elements of a theomacy in this passage; see also Shatzman, “Jews and Gentiles,” 254.  On the Maccabean conflict as “holy war,” see especially Doran, Temple Propaganda, 71– 72; cf. Janse, “A Little Help,” 398; Shatzman, “Jews and Gentiles,” 252.

3.3 The Jewish-Roman War

89

their oppressors, and following the leader God raised up for them. In this way, they participate in the synergistic defeat of the wicked.³³ Therefore, even if the Maccabean Revolt did not result in the complete fulfillment of God’s eschatological promises to defeat his enemies, deliver his people, and establish his eternal reign, aspects of the language with which the authors of 1 and 2 Maccabees described these events resonated with contemporary expectations for that future event. This demonstrates the considerable significance of the Maccabean Revolt within the world of Second Temple Judaism: it became paradigmatic. It demonstrated how the yoke of Gentile oppression could—and, it was hoped, would again—be thrown off.³⁴ Insofar as this was a central and necessary component of eschatological fulfillment (the defeat of the enemies of God and his people), the Maccabean example of zeal-based revolution—and the violence of the faithful which was inseparable from it—was their most enduring ideological legacy.

3.3 The Jewish-Roman War Two hundred and thirty years after the Maccabean revolutionaries rededicated the temple, large-scale conflict again broke out between the Jewish people and the Gentile kingdom ruling over them—this time, the Roman Empire. The revolutionary violence that began in 66 CE would last for over eight years (until 73 – 74 CE³⁵), and result in not only the death of tens of thousands of Jews, but also the sacking of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple. The impact of these events can hardly be overstated: the Jewish-Roman War³⁶ became

 On this I disagree with Berthelot, “L’idéologie maccabéenne,” who argues that “une certaine tensione polémique” exists between 1 and 2 Maccabees: “Alors que 2 Maccabées valorise la voie du martyre, 1 Maccabées défend plutôt celle de la résistance armée” (99). Although she recognises that the two books have much in common, Berthelot distinguishes between these two “idéologies maccabéennes.” It seems to me very difficult to make the argument that 2 Maccabees represents a fundamental opposition to armed resistance, given the incredible success of the warfare led by Judas in the second half of the book.  See Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision, 196 – 197; Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots, 109.  Though Jerusalem was sacked and the temple destroyed in 70 CE, the last vestige of resistance held out on the hilltop fortress of Masada until 73 – 74 CE; see Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 35), rev. and ed. Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973), 1:511– 512; cf. Horbury, Jewish War, 101– 102.  Sometimes also referred to as the “First Jewish Revolt,” in contrast to the “Second” (that led by Bar Kokhba seventy years later). See Jonathan J. Price, “Revolt, First Jewish,” in The Eerd-

90

Chapter 3. Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish History

a watershed moment of tragedy, destruction, and, ultimately, judgment.³⁷ Once again, it is worth noting that in what follows, my purpose is not to recount the events of this conflict in detail, but to explore the role eschatology played in motivating the Jewish participants to take up the sword.³⁸

EXCURSUS: 164 BCE–66 CE Before going any further, I note the fact that the present study will not be discussing incidents which occurred between 164 BCE–66 CE. This should not be understood to suggest their insignificance to our interests. The events of these years—the rise and fall of the Hasmonean dynasty, the increase of Roman power, the rule of Herod the Great, etcetera—all contributed directly to the sociopolitical circumstances leading to the outbreak of violent revolution

mans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1146 – 49.  For a variety of perspectives on 70 CE as a “watershed” in the development of Judaism, see Daniel R. Schwartz and Zeev Weiss, eds., Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History?: On Jews and Judaism Before and After the Destruction of the Second Temple, AJEC 78 (Leiden: Brill, 2012).  Studies which discuss the role of eschatology in this conflict and in the work of Josephus include: Per Bilde, “Josephus and Jewish Apocalypticism,” in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, ed. Steve Mason, JSPSup 32 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 35 – 61; F. F. Bruce, “Josephus and Daniel,” ASTI 4 (1965), 148 – 62; Kylie Crabbe, “Being Found Fighting Against God: Luke’s Gamaliel and Josephus on Human Responses to Divine Providence,” ZNW 106 (2015). 21– 39; Craig A. Evans, “Josephus on John the Baptist and Other Jewish Prophets of Deliverance,” in The Historical Jesus in Context, ed. Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison, Jr., and John Dominic Crossan, Princeton Readings in Religions (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 55 – 63; Louis H. Feldman, “The Concept of Exile in Josephus,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, ed. James M. Scott (Leiden: Brill, 1997), Louis H. Feldman, “Restoration in Josephus,” in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, ed. James M. Scott, JSJSup 56 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 145 – 72; Lester L. Grabbe, “Eschatology in Philo and Josephus,” in Death, Life-after-death, Resurrection and the Worldto-come in the Judaisms of Antiquity, ed. A. J. Avery-Peck and J. Neusner, HdO I/49 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 163 – 85; Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence From Josephus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); Peter Höffken, Josephus Flavius und das prophetische Erbe Israels, Lüneburger theologische Beiträge 4 (Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2006); Marinus de Jonge, “Josephus und die Zukunftserwartungen seines Volkes,” in JosephusStudien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament: Otto Mechel z 70sten Geburstag gewidmet, ed. Otto Betz, Klaus Haacker, and Martin Hengel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 205 – 19; T. Rajak, “Jewish Millenarian Expectations,” in The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology, ed. Andrea M. Berlin and J. Andrew Overman (London: Routledge, 2002), 164– 88; and Geza Vermes, “Josephus’ Treatment of the Book of Daniel,” JJS 42 (1991), 149 – 66.

3.3 The Jewish-Roman War

91

in 66 CE.³⁹ Moreover, revolutionary violence was a relatively frequent occurrence following the imposition of Roman power after 63 BCE; even more so once Judea came under direct provincial control in 6 CE.⁴⁰ Many of the revolutionary groups that participated in the Jewish-Roman War came into being and were active in the decades which preceded it. Nevertheless, my purpose in this chapter is to explore the eschatological motivations at work specifically in the three largest-scale incidents of Second Temple Jewish revolutionary violence. Just as, in the previous chapter, several noteworthy literary portrayals of eschatological violence were not discussed, so here I have had to forego a comprehensive treatment of every incident of Second Temple revolutionary violence in the interests of dealing with the selected events in an appropriately thorough manner.

3.3.1 Josephus as Historical Source The works of Titus Flavius Josephus, especially his Bellum Judaicum (Jewish War, henceforth War), are indisputably the most significant historical sources for the Jewish-Roman War.⁴¹ As such, the identity and history of Josephus himself fac-

 For a thorough historical overview of these years, see Schürer, The History, 1:243 – 483; cf. Horbury, Jewish War, 102– 109.  Note Josephus, War 6.329; Ant. 14.77. See James S. McLaren, “Resistance Movements,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1135 – 40. On the origins of Jewish opposition to the Roman empire, see Alexander, “The Evil Empire.” Alexander argues that the period of about 60 – 30 BCE was “decisive in shaping subsequent Jewish attitudes towards Rome” (18). Cf. Horbury, Jewish War, 108 – 109; Benjamin Isaac, The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 78 – 83. Tacitus’ claim that “sub Tiberio quies” (Hist. 5.9) should not be read to suggest the complete absence of revolutionary activity during Tiberius’ reign, but rather the lack of any major conflict: see Wright, The New Testament, 172; against Paul W. Barnett, “Under Tiberius All Was Quiet,” NTS 21 (1975): 564– 71; cf. Michael F. Bird, “Jesus and the Revolutionaries: Did Jesus Call Israel to Repent of Nationalistic Ambitions?,” Colloq 38 (2006): 127– 39, 129.  Important sources on the Jewish-Roman War and Josephus’s portrayal of it include: Andrea M. Berlin and J. Andrew Overman, eds., The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology (London: Routledge, 2002); Per Bilde, “The Causes of the Jewish War According to Josephus,” JSJ 10 (1979): 179 – 202; Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots; Tucker S. Ferda, “Jeremiah 7 and Flavius Josephus on the First Jewish War,” JSJ 44 (2013): 158 – 73; Horsley, “Josephus”; Otto Kaiser, “‘Our Forefathers Never Triumphed by Arms.’ The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Addresses of Flavius Josephus to the Besieged Jerusalemites in Bell. Jud. V. 456 – 426,” in History and Identity: How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed its Earlier History, ed. Núria Calduch-Benages and Jan Liesen, DCLY 2006 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 239 – 64; H. Lindner, Die Geschichtsauffas-

92

Chapter 3. Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish History

tors into our knowledge of the war’s events.⁴² Josephus’s participation in the revolt and its outcome, his perspective upon providence and fate, and the purposes for which/audience for whom he composed his works—all of these influence his written account, yet can only be discerned from a careful reading of the sour-

sung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum: Gleichzeitig ein Beitrag zur Quellenfrage (Leiden: Brill, 1972); Steve Mason, “Figured Speech and Irony in T. Flavius Josephus,” in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, ed. Jonathan Edmondson, Steve Mason, and James Rives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 244– 48, Steve Mason, “Of Audience and Meaning: Reading Josephus’ Bellum Judaicum in the Context of a Flavian Audience,” in Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond, ed. Joseph Sievers and Gaia Lembi, JSJSup 104 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 71– 100, Steve Mason, “What is History? Using Josephus for the Judaean-Roman War,” in The Jewish Revolt Against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Mladen Popović, JSJSup 154 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 155 – 240; Steve Mason, “Why Did Judaeans Go to War With Rome in 66 – 67 CE? Realist-Regional Perspectives,” in Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries: How to Write Their History, ed. Peter J. Tomson and Joshua Schwartz, CRINT 13 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 126 – 206; Steve Mason, A History of the Jewish War: A.D. 66 – 74 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016); James S. McLaren, Turbulent Times? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century, JSPSup 29 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998); James S. McLaren, “A Reluctant Provincial: Josephus and the Roman Empire in Jewish War,” in The Gospel of Matthew in Its Roman Imperial Context, ed. J. Riches and D. C. Sim, JSNTSup 276 (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 34– 48; Valentin Nikiprowetzky, “Josephus and the Revolutionary Parties,” in Josephus, the Bible, and History, ed. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1988), 216 – 36; Nordling, Religion and Resistance; Jonathan J. Price, “The Failure of Rhetoric in Josephus’ Bellum Judaicum,” Ramus 36 (2008): 6 – 24; T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (London: Duckworth, 1983); T. Rajak, “Friends, Romans, Subjects: Agrippa II’s Speech in Josephus’ Jewish War,” in Images of Empire, ed. Loveday Alexander, JSOTSup 122 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 122 – 34; Rhoads, Israel in Revolution; Daniel R. Schwartz, “Rome and the Jews: Josephus on ‘Freedom’ and ‘Autonomy’,” in Representations of Empire: Rome and the Mediterranean World, ed. Alan K. Bowman, et al., Proceedings of the British Academy 114 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 65 – 81; Seth Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, CSCT 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1990); Shatzman, Maccabees, Zealots”; and Manuel Vogel, “Tales of War By Josephus, Bellum Judaicum,” in Visions of Peace and Tales of War, ed. Jan Liesen and Pancratius Cornelis Beentjes, DCLY 2010 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 335 – 52. On Josephus’s significance as an historical source, see Horbury, Jewish War, 39 – 40. On the background, composition, and content of the War, see James S. McLaren, “Jewish War (Josephus),” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 838 – 40. More detailed historical treatment is found in Jonathan J. Price, Jerusalem Under Siege: The Collapse of the Jewish State, 66 – 70 CE (Leiden: Brill, 1992); cf. James S. McLaren, Power and Politics in Palestine: The Jews and the Governing of Their Land 100 BC– AD 70, JSNTSup 63 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 158 – 187; Schürer, The History, 1:484– 513.  For a helpful overview of Josephus, his life, and his works, see Steve Mason, “Josephus,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 828 – 32.

3.3 The Jewish-Roman War

93

ces themselves. Much has been written on the critical challenge this presents, and its effect upon our knowledge of this period of Jewish history.⁴³ While these matters are too complex to discuss thoroughly here, we must acknowledge the need critically to consider how Josephus’s background and literary provenance impinges upon our reception of his works as historical “fact.” As a Jew, Josephus’s care for his ancestral people is consistently evident.⁴⁴ However, the Flavian patronage Josephus received, first from Vespasian and then from Titus, and the subsequent Roman provenance of his writing, also influenced his composition. At times, these two factors result in significant tensions in Josephus’s work.⁴⁵ Barclay thus speaks of the “constraints of empire” upon Josephus: the inevitable effect his context had upon the elements of his history that he chose to omit, include or emphasise.⁴⁶ Of particular significance for this study is the effect this had upon Josephus’s description of those responsible for the war itself. Although this ground has been well covered in previous scholarship, an overview of Josephus’s treatment of rev-

 Steve Mason in particular has discussed the question of reading Josephus’s works as history in a number of publications; see Steve Mason, “Contradiction or Counterpoint? Josephus and Historical Method,” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 6 (2003): 145 – 88; Mason, “Of Audience and Meaning”; Mason, “Josephus”; Steve Mason, “Being Earnest, Being Playful: Speech and Speeches in Josephus and Acts,” Sapientia Logos 3 (2011): 1– 82; Mason, “Why Did Judaeans”; likewise James S. McLaren, “Theocracy, Temple and Tax: Ingredients for the Jewish-Roman War of 66 – 70 CE” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the New England Region of the SBL, Atlanta, GA, 21 November 2004), 2– 3, cautions against using Josephus as the standard against which all other sources of historical information about the war must be held up; cf. McLaren, Turbulent Times?, 179 – 218.  For example, John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 BCE) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 352, notes how Josephus “deeply mourns [the temple’s] loss,” and “is unable (or unwilling) to hide his emotion on this subject (e. g. War 1.9 – 12; 6.111).” See also John Barclay, “The Empire Writes Back: Josephan Rhetoric in Flavian Rome,” in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, ed. Jonathan Edmondson, Steve Mason, and James Rives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 315 – 32; Jonge, “Josephus.”  See the essays collected in part IV of John M. G. Barclay, ed., Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews, WUNT 275 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011); cf. Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 8 – 9.  John M. G. Barclay, Against Apion (Leiden: Brill, 2007), xxxvi – xliv; see also Barclay, Jews, 346 – 351; Barclay, “The Empire Writes Back”; cf. Jonathan Edmondson, Steve Mason, and James Rives, eds., Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); Mason, “Of Audience and Meaning”; McLaren, “A Reluctant Provincial”; Jonathan J. Price, “The Provincial Historian in Rome,” in Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond, ed. J. Sievers and G. Lembi (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 101– 18; and Paul Spilsbury, “Reading the Bible in Rome: Josephus and the Constraints of Empire,” in Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond, ed. Joseph Sievers and Gaia Lembi, JSJSup 104 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 209 – 27.

94

Chapter 3. Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish History

olutionary Judaism will provide a necessary foundation for our attempt to discern the possibly eschatological motivations behind their actions.

3.3.2 Josephus’s Depiction of the Revolutionary Jews Josephus lays a great deal of the responsibility for the war’s disastrous outcome at the feet of several groups, including οἱ ζηλωταί, οἱ σικάριοι, and οἱ λῃσταί, as well as the followers of certain individual leaders, including John of Gischala and Simon bar Giora.⁴⁷ Although the competing ambitions and differing ideals of these groups often resulted in conflict between them, they were united by their willingness to take up the sword against their Roman oppressors and all who supported them.⁴⁸ Josephus’s polemical opinion of these revolutionaries is marked by deep animosity and hostility: they were a dissolute group of false Jews, “the dregs of society and the bastard scum of the nation” (War 5.443;⁴⁹ see further 442– 445), driven to pursue independence from Rome by im-

 On the question of the unity or disunity of these various groups, as well as an overview of their distinctive features, see McLaren, “Resistance Movements”; cf. Bilde, “The Causes”; Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Second Temple and the Arts of Resistance,” in From Judaism to Christianity: Tradition and Transition, ed. Patricia Walters, NovTSup 136 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 115 – 29; David Goodblatt, Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 89 – 107; Hengel, The Zealots; Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, 48 – 259; Benjamin Isaac, “Bandits in Judaea and Arabia,” HSCP 88 (1984): 171– 203; Nikiprowetzky, “Josephus”; Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 94– 149; Brent D. Shaw, “Bandits in the Roman Empire,” Past and Present 105 (1984), 3 – 52; and Wright, The New Testament, 176 – 181.  Mason, “Of Audience and Meaning,” 97, notes that Josephus’s account of the war portrays it as much as a Judean civil war as a unified conflict against Rome; cf. Price, “Revolt,” 1146 – 1147; Julia Walker, “‘God is With Italy Now’: Pro-Roman Jews and the Jewish Revolt,” in Jewish Identity and Politics between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba: Groups, Normativity and Rituals, ed. Benedikt Eckhardt, JSJSup 155 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 157– 87, 184. See Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 96, for a list of inter-revolutionary conflicts in Josephus’s account.  Josephus is here referring specifically to Simon bar Giora and John of Gischala. All quotations from Josephus’s works, unless noted otherwise, are from the LCL translations: Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Volume II: Books 4 – 6, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray and Ralph Marcus, LCL 490 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930); Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Volume III: Books 7 – 8, trans. Ralph Marcus, LCL 281 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934); Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Volume VIII: Books 18 – 19, trans. Louis H. Feldman, LCL 433 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965); Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Volume IX: Book 20, trans. Louis H. Feldman, LCL 456 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965); Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, Volume I: Books 1 – 2, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL 203 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927); Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, Volume II: Books 3 – 4, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL 487 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

3.3 The Jewish-Roman War

95

piety and greed.⁵⁰ Josephus thus places the entire blame for the conflict on these στασιάζοντες, who acted as τύραννοι in compelling the unwilling Jewish populace to join them.⁵¹ The atrocities they committed—most notably, their transgression of the Law (2.517– 518) and defilement of the temple (4.157, 323; 5.402, 412)— brought God’s punishment upon the whole nation.⁵² Of particular significance to the present study is Josephus’s suggestion that a genealogical (and possibly ideological) connection existed between the revolutionary groups active in the 60s CE and a movement which began several decades earlier. In 6 CE, shortly after Judea had come under direct provincial Roman control, the governor Quirinius instituted a census. In response, a group of Jews, under the leadership of Judas the Galilean and Saddok the Pharisee, revolted. The movement that resulted is identified by Josephus as a “fourth philosophy” of Judaism: Judas and Saddok started among us an intrusive fourth school of philosophy; and when they had won an abundance of devotees, they filled the body politic immediately with tumult, also planting the seeds of those troubles which subsequently overtook it, all because of the novelty of this hitherto unknown philosophy … My reason for giving this brief account of it is chiefly that the zeal which Judas and Saddok inspired in the younger element meant the ruin of our cause.

1927); Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, Volume III: Books 5 – 7, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL 210 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928).  Hengel, The Zealots, 16, see further 183 – 186; cf. Bilde, “The Causes.”  Στασιάζοντες, see War 1.27; 2.266, 274, 324, 422; 4.362; 5.30, 33; τύραννοι, see War 1.10 – 11; 2.84, 88, 208; 5.5, 11, 439; 6.98, 129, 143, and frequently elsewhere. See Steve Mason, “Josephus, Daniel, and the Flavian House,” in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. Fausto Parente and Joseph Severs, StPB 41 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 180; Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 12.  Although these various groups undoubtedly played an important role in both the initiation of the uprising and its continuation, it seems highly unlikely that Josephus is correct in attributing the entire responsibility for the revolt to such individuals. Martin Goodman offers an alternative thesis (Martin Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt Against Rome, A.D. 66 – 70 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987], Martin Goodman, “The Origins of the Great Revolt,” in Greece and Rome in Eretz-Israel: Collected Studies, ed. A. Kasher, U. Rappaport, and G. Fuks [Jerusalem: Yad ben Zvi and Israel Exploration Society, 1990], 39 – 53), claiming that the primary responsibility for the war belonged not to various revolutionary groups, but to the priestly aristocracy—the Jewish social stratum to which Josephus himself belonged. Connected with this is the observation of McLaren, “Resistance Movements,” 1138 – 1139, that Josephus was reluctant to identify any priestly involvement in the initial resistance, instead depicting the priests as advocates of peace (War 2.301, 316, 320 – 324, 410 – 411, 422). Note, however, that the cessation of daily sacrifices for the emperor—which “laid the foundation of the war with the Romans” (War 2.409)—was a priestly decision, though Josephus claims that it was opposed by “the chief priests and the notables” (2.410).

96

Chapter 3. Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish History

This school agrees in all other respects with the opinions of the Pharisees, except that they have a passion for liberty that is almost unconquerable, since they are convinced that God alone is their leader and master (δυσνίκητος δὲ τοῦ ἐλευθέρου ἔρως ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς μόνον ἡγεμόνα καὶ δεσπότην τὸν θεὸν ὑπειληφόσιν). They think little of submitting to death in unusual forms and permitting vengeance to fall on kinsmen and friends if only they may avoid calling any man master. (Ant. 18.9 – 10, 23)⁵³

Two fundamental ideals set this “fourth philosophy” apart: (i) “a passion for liberty that is almost unconquerable,” and (ii) the belief that “God alone is their leader and master” (18.23). Each resonates with eschatological overtones. First, the belief that God alone was ἡγεμών and δεσπότης recalls scriptural portrayals of God’s kingship, and expectations that God’s reign would be manifested anew in the eschatological age.⁵⁴ The longing that God would rule over Israel, and that a pagan king—whether the Roman emperor, or his local representatives —would not, was one with which most Second Temple Jews would have identified. Those who belonged to the “fourth philosophy” were willing to kill or be killed for the cause of its realisation (18.24).⁵⁵ The second ideal, the “difficult to conquer love of freedom” (δυσνίκητος … τοῦ ἐλευθέρου ἔρως), can be better understood by examining the place of ἐλευθερία elsewhere in Josephus’s works.⁵⁶ Ἐλευθερία was connected to the ability of

 Cf. War 2.118. Note that the parallel passage in the War differs in two ways: there, Josephus (i) attributes the establishment of the fourth philosophy only to Judas; and (ii) describes the “sect” (αἵρεσις) as having “nothing in common with the others.” See Matthew Black, “Judas of Galilee and Josephus’s ‘Fourth Philosophy’,” in Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament: Otto Mechel z 70sten Geburstag gewidmet, ed. Otto Betz, Klaus Haacker, and Martin Hengel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 45 – 54; James S. McLaren, “Constructing Judaean History in the Diaspora: Josephus’s Accounts of Judas,” in Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire, ed. John M. G. Barclay (London: Clark, 2004), 90 – 108; McLaren, “Resistance Movements,” 1136 – 1137.  See § 1.4.2; see Wright, The New Testament, 302– 307.  See War 7.254– 255: Horbury, Jewish War, 327 n. 170.  On ἐλευθερία in Josephus, see Hengel, The Zealots, 110 – 115; cf. Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrayal of the Hasmoneans Compared With 1 Maccabees,” in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. Fausto Parente and Joseph Severs, StPB 41 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 46; Isaiah M. Gafni, “Josephus and 1 Maccabees,” in Josephus, the Bible, and History, ed. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1988), 123; E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE—66 CE (London: SCM, 1992), 36; Schwartz, “Rome and the Jews.” On the significance of ἐλευθερία to the revolt and the revolutionaries more broadly, see Horbury, Jewish War, 136 – 142, 146 – 149; cf. McLaren, “Theocracy, Temple,” 21: “The rebel cause was primarily a fight for eleutheria.” Cf. James S. McLaren, “Going to War Against Rome: The Motivation of the Jewish Rebels,” in The Jewish Revolt Against

3.3 The Jewish-Roman War

97

the Jewish people to worship God properly; that is, to live according to the laws and customs of their fathers (Ant. 12.303). As such, it was the key concept for which the Maccabees fought and died (13.198),⁵⁷ and was identified by Herod Agrippa II as the main reason the Jews revolted against Rome (War 2.346).⁵⁸ However, Josephus makes clear his own belief that ἐλευθερία is entirely under God’s control, to be dispersed to those who deserve it.⁵⁹ The prophet Samuel therefore encourages the Israelites “not to be content to yearn for ἐλευθερία,” but to “do also the deeds whereby ye may attain it” (Ant. 6.20), which are given as the following: Be ye righteous and, casting out wickedness from your souls and purging them, turn with all your hearts to the Deity and persevere in honouring Him. Do ye but so and there will come prosperity, deliverance from bondage and victory over your foes, blessings which are to be won neither by arms nor by personal prowess nor by a host of combatants; for it is not for these that God promises to bestow these blessings, but for lives of virtue and righteousness. (Ant. 6.21)

The blessings associated here with ἐλευθερία (ἥξει τὰ ἀγαθά, δουλείας ἀπαλλαγὴ καὶ νίκη πολεμίων) are elsewhere associated with Jewish eschatological hope.⁶⁰ Thus, the combined emphasis on ἐλευθερία and God’s kingship strongly suggests that eschatology played a primary role in motivating the actions of the “fourth philosophy.” There is a wide range of scholarly opinion regarding the possibility of connections (ideological, hereditary/dynastic, or organisational) between the “fourth philosophy” and Jewish revolutionary groups active in the mid-first cenRome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Mladen Popović, JSJSup 154 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 129 – 53, 137– 143.  Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrayal,” 62; Gafni, “Josephus,” 123.  Cf. Josephus, Ant. 14.77. McLaren, “Going to War,” 138. This recurs throughout Herod’s speech (2.348, 349, 355, 358, 361, 365, 368, 370, 373, 374); cf. 3.480; 4.177; and the speech of Eleazar ben Ya’ir (7.323 – 336, 341– 88). McLaren, “Theocracy, Temple,” 21– 22; cf. Schwartz, “Rome and the Jews,” 72.  This is a repeated theme in Josephus’s speech before Jerusalem in War 5.362– 419; see esp. 5.365, 389, 396, 408. See McLaren, “Going to War,” 140.  See § 1.4.1. Intriguingly, Josephus is clear that this will not be gained by warfare, which seems contradictory, given the close association he elsewhere makes between ἐλευθερία and the Maccabean revolutionaries. The key to understanding this distinction is found in the last line of the above quote: God has promised these eschatological blessings τῷ δ᾽αγαθοὺς εἶναι καὶ δικαίους. While this accurately describes Josephus’s portrayal of the Maccabees, the revolutionaries who took up the sword against Rome are, in Josephus’s eyes, the exact opposite. On Josephus and the (il)legitimacy of Jewish armed resistance, see Kaiser, “‘Our Forefathers Never Triumphed By Arms.’”

98

Chapter 3. Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish History

tury CE.⁶¹ Some have argued that the “fourth philosophy” developed into a distinct, carefully organised resistance movement, which continued under the hereditary leadership of the family of Judas throughout the first century.⁶² Others, however, have denied any suggestion of an “official” resistance movement (or movements) within Judaism.⁶³ Although it seems quite plausible that certain ideological connections existed between the movement begun by Judas and Saddok and subsequent revolutionary groups, the evidence does not permit us to state this with any certainty.⁶⁴ Therefore, McLaren is likely correct in urging caution about the extent to which we allow Josephus’s description of the “fourth

 For a summary of this debate, see McLaren, “Resistance Movements,” 1137. Josephus mentions several of Judas’ descendants being active in revolutionary leadership: his sons, James and Simon (Ant. 20.102); his son or grandson, Menahem (War 2.433; 7.253); and another relative, Eleazar ben Ya’ir (War 2.447; 7.252– 253).  This includes most notably Hengel, who argued for the existence of the “Zealots” as a distinct “sect” within Judaism. See Hengel, The Zealots, 5; cf. Hengel, Victory Over Violence; Martin Hengel, “Zeloten und Sikarier: zur Frage der Einheit und Vielfalt der jüdischen Befreiungsbewegung 6 – 74 n.Chr.,” in Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament: Otto Mechel z 70sten Geburstag gewidmet, ed. Otto Betz, Klaus Haacker, and Martin Hengel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 175 – 96.  Hengel was opposed most directly by Horsley (see Horsley, “Josephus”; Horsley, “The Zealots”); along the same lines was Smith, “Zealots and Sicarii”; though this goes back all the way to Kirsopp Lake, “The Zealots,” in The Beginnings of Christianity, Vol. 1: The Acts of the Apostles, ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake (London: Macmillan, 1920), 421– 425. Cf. Morton Smith, “The Troublemakers,” in The Early Roman Period, ed. William Horbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy, vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 501– 68; also Marcus J. Borg, “The Currency of the Term ‘Zealot’,” JTS 22 (1971): 504– 12; Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets; Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, x – xi; Richard A. Horsley, “Power Vacuum and Power Struggle in 66 – 7 C.E.,” in The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology, ed. Andrea M. Berlin and J. Andrew Overman (London: Routledge, 2002), 87– 109; Valentin Nikiprowetzky, “Sicaires et Zélotes –– une réconsidération,” Sem 23 (1973), 51– 64. See McLaren, “Resistance Movements,” 1139. For critique of Smith and Horsley, see William Klassen, “Jesus and the Zealot Option,” in The Wisdom of the Cross: Essays in Honor of John Howard Yoder, ed. Stanley Hauerwas et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 131– 49; John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994 [1972]), 57 n. 70 (where he responds to Horsley’s critique of his own work).  Josephus suggests direct connections between the “fourth philosophy” and the σικάριοι through Eleazar ben Ya’ir (War 2.252– 253; also 2.447) (McLaren, “Resistance Movements,” 1137; cf. Price, “Revolt,” 1146); other groups, however, seem only to have come together after the revolt’s outbreak. War 4.160 – 161, for example, describes the formation of the ζηλωταί in 67– 68 CE (cf. War 2.651; 7.268 – 274). See Horbury, Jewish War, 108; McLaren, “Resistance Movements,” 1139; cf. Shimon Applebaum, “The Zealots: The Case for Revaluation,” JRS 61 (1971), 155 – 70.

3.3 The Jewish-Roman War

99

philosophy” to determine our understanding of first-century revolutionary Judaism.⁶⁵ In sum, Josephus’s characterisation of the revolutionary groups who participated in the Jewish-Roman War must be read with critical awareness of how his own perspective—shaped by his personal background, present agenda and the revolt’s catastrophic results—was at work.⁶⁶ Despite the polemical tone with which he describes these individuals, certain elements suggest that they were motivated not solely by greed and lawlessness, but also by the desire—shared with their Maccabean forefathers, whose “zeal” they sought to emulate⁶⁷—to inaugurate God’s promised eschatological deliverance of his faithful people.⁶⁸ As Schreiber notes, given Josephus’s apologetically-driven desire to disassociate these impious revolutionaries from the true identity of Judaism, the fact that “eine religiöse Motivation der Aufständlischen” still comes through—even if only “in Andeutungen”—makes such hints appear “umso bezeichnender.”⁶⁹

3.3.3 Josephus on Jewish Motivations for Revolt Josephus makes few direct comments about the reasons for the revolt.⁷⁰ Most of the factors to which he does refer are economic or political, and associated with

 McLaren, “Resistance Movements,” 1137, 1139 – 1140. McLaren argues that the idea that there was a “philosophy” entirely devoted to ideologically opposing Roman rule derives from Josephus’s desire to “exonerate most Jews” from responsibility for the war (1137); see McLaren, “Constructing Judaean History.”  McLaren, “Going to War,” 151. Klassen, “Jesus and the Zealot Option” (1999), 145, critiques both Smith and Horsley for being overly reliant on Josephus in making their argument.  On ζῆλος at work among the revolutionary Jews, see War 2.230; 3.9; 5.21, 100; 6.79; 7.270, 389; see also David Bernat, “Josephus’s Portrayal of Phinehas,” JSP 13 (2002): 137– 49. On the centrality of “zeal” to first-century Jewish revolutionary movements, see Hengel, The Zealots, 146 – 228; Klassen, “Jesus and the Zealot Option” (1999), 136, 145 – 146.  The particular significance of “religious” motivation for the Jewish revolutionaries was emphasised by both Hengel, The Zealots; and Cecil Roth, “The Zealots in the War of 66 – 73,” JSS 4 (1959): 332– 55; cf. Cecil Roth, The Historical Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958), 5 – 6.  Stefan Schreiber, “Am Rande des Krieges: Gewalt und Gewaltverzicht bei Jesus von Nazaret,” BN 145 (2010): 91– 112, 94.  Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 167– 170, gives a list of six causes mentioned by Josephus. Further commentary on the Jewish motivations for war can be found in Mason, “Why Did Judaeans.”

100

Chapter 3. Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish History

a certain level of ineptitude, brutality, and cultural insensitivity displayed by the Roman leadership.⁷¹ James McLaren has discussed such factors at length, arguing against the assumption that the rebellion’s outbreak was somehow inevitable, noting the significance of the Jewish decision to revolt at this point (and not earlier), and emphasising that this was a definitive choice, made with the intention of attaining freedom from Roman rule.⁷² McLaren claims that the most important factors at work were associated with Roman taxation and the unique significance of the temple to the Jewish people. He points in particular to the governor Florus’ attempt to seize funds from the temple treasury in response to a dispute over taxation.⁷³ In so doing, Florus “crossed a line in the sand,” causing the Jews to take the significant step of ending the daily sacrifices for the emperor (War 2.409), signifying that they “no longer accepted their status as subjects of Rome.”⁷⁴ Thus,

 War 2.223 – 231, 289 – 308; cf. Ant. 18.25. On the ineptitude of Roman leadership in this period, see McLaren, “Going to War”; Sanders, Judaism, 5, 35 – 40; M. Stern, “The Herodian Dynasty and the Province of Judaea At the End of the Period of the Second Temple,” in The Herodian Period, ed. M. Avi-Yonah, vol. 7 of The World History of the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1975), 124– 78; cf. Barclay, Jews, 352; Shaye J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian, Studies in the Classical Tradition 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 234; Martin Goodman, “The First Jewish Revolt: Social Conflict and the Problem of Debt,” JJS 33 (1982): 417– 27; Hengel, The Zealots, 329; Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 92– 93.  McLaren, “Theocracy, Temple,” 5 – 6; McLaren, “Going to War,” 135 – 137, where he lists ten actions found in Josephus’s works that “represent the decisions of people committed to a clear strategy: the deliberate and open rejection of Roman hegemony that was part of establishing their own independent state” (137); see also 150.  Also significant is the fact that those funds had been determined by the census carried out by Cestius Gallus (War 6.422). See McLaren, “Theocracy, Temple,” 8 – 17.  McLaren, “Theocracy, Temple,” 16, 18. McLaren also emphasises that equal consideration should be given to historical sources other than Josephus (Jewish coinage, Roman accounts of the war, ostraca from Masada, dated letters from Wadi Murabba’at), in order to enable a more accurate understanding of the revolt’s causes and ideological focus (3; see further McLaren, “Going to War,” 129). On the various documents from the Judean wilderness that date to the years of the revolt, see Hanan Eshel, “Documents of the First Jewish Revolt From the Judean Desert,” in The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology, ed. Andrea M. Berlin and J. Andrew Overman (London: Routledge, 2002), 157– 63. McLaren places particular emphasis on the significance of numismatic evidence; see McLaren, “Theocracy, Temple,” 19 – 20, 23 – 24; also James S. McLaren, “The Coinage of the First Year as a Point of Reference for the Jewish Revolt (66 – 70 Ce),” Scripta Classica Israelica 22 (2003): 135 – 52; McLaren, “Going to War,” 144– 149. Cf. Donald T. Ariel, “Identifying the Mints, Minters and Meanings of the First Jewish Revolt Coins,” in The Jewish Revolt Against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Mladen Popović, JSJSup 154 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 373 – 97; L. Kadman, The Coins of the Jewish War of 66 – 73 CE (Jerusalem: Schocken Publishing House, 1960); Ya’akov Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins

3.3 The Jewish-Roman War

101

in McLaren’s judgment, there were legitimate social, economic, and political motivations for the Jews to take up the sword against Rome.⁷⁵ He argues that we need not suggest “distinctive factors, such as extremist ideologies or radical aspirations or hopes of divine assistance” in order to explain the beginning of the revolt.⁷⁶ Notwithstanding McLaren’s claims, several passages from Josephus’s account seem to suggest that Jewish eschatological expectations were central to the outbreak of violence in 66 CE. Of particular relevance is Josephus’s statement that: What more than all else incited [the Jews] to the war was an ambiguous oracle (χρησμὸς ἀμφίβολος), likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it. (War 6.312– 313a)⁷⁷

Josephus here claims that a prophetic passage from the Jewish scriptures (the χρησμὸς ἀμφίβολος) was the primary factor leading to violent revolution against Rome. In other words, Josephus refers to the scripturally-based eschatological expectation that a worldwide kingdom, ruled from Israel, would soon be inaugurated. The fact that Josephus identifies this belief as the foremost motivation (τὸ δ᾿ ἐπᾶραν αὐτοὺς μάλιστα πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον) for the (violent) revolt makes this passage directly significant to the present study’s exploration of eschatological violence.⁷⁸ From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2001); Ya’akov Meshorer, Coins of the Holy Land: The Abraham and Marian Sofaer Collection At the American Numismatic Society and the Israel Museum, 2 vols. (New York: The American Numismatic Society, 2013). Many of the same features are found on coins produced during the Bar Kokhba Revolt; see § 3.4.2.  For further on the economic causes of the revolt, see Shimon Applebaum, “Josephus and the Economic Causes of the Jewish War,” in Josephus, the Bible, and History, ed. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), 237– 64.  McLaren, “Going to War,” 153. McLaren argues that it was in Josephus’s interests to explain the conflict with such “convenient” alternatives (151). Against this position, Anthony J. Tomasino, “Oracles of Insurrection: The Prophetic Catalyst of the Great Revolt,” JJS 59 (2008): 86 – 111, 87, argues that it would have been in Josephus’s interests to downplay religious ideological factors.  Both Tacitus (Hist. 5.13) and Suetonius (Vesp. 4.5) mention a similar prophecy in their report of these events. For bibliography of discussions of the connections between these passages and the Josephan text, see Hengel, The Zealots, 238 n. 46; see also Grabbe, “Eschatology,” 177– 181.  However, note Tomasino, “Oracles,” 88, who observes that this is a rhetorical device used by Josephus on several occasions; cf. Nikiprowetzky, “Josephus,” 220. For a thorough presentation of the eschatological background of revolutionary Judaism, see Hengel, The Zealots, 229 – 312.

102

Chapter 3. Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish History

There has been much discussion about the referent of the χρησμὸς ἀμφίβολος, with several options receiving scholarly support.⁷⁹ Tomasino has put forward a compelling argument for its primary identification as Daniel 9:24– 27, a passage around which much eschatological chronological speculation was focused.⁸⁰ The Danielic prophecy of the seventy weeks is a likely candidate for several reasons: it anticipated deliverance following a period of great desolation, and its eschatological interpretation is attested elsewhere (most notably, in numerous texts from Qumran).⁸¹ Furthermore, Daniel 9:24– 27, like the χρησμὸς ἀμφίβολος, emphasises chronology.⁸² Moreover, Daniel had been regarded as a useful text “for inspiring messianic speculation and revolutionary fervour” since ancient times.⁸³ It is, however, somewhat more difficult to understand the intended function of this prophecy within Josephus’s history. Josephus himself claims to have recognised that the oracle applied not to a Jewish messiah who would cast off the Roman yoke, but to Vespasian (6.313b).⁸⁴ This fits the Josephan literary context of

 Texts include: Isa 10:33 – 34 (Azriel Shochat, “On ‘the Ambiguous Oracle’ in the Words of Josephus,” in Sefer Yosef Shiloh, ed. Michael Händel [Tel Aviv: 1960], 163 – 65); Num 24:17 (Hengel, The Zealots, 238 – 240); and Dan 7 (Mason, “Josephus, Daniel”; Rudolf Meyer, Der Prophet aus Galiläa [Leipzig: J. C. Heinrich’sche Buchhandlung, 1940], 52– 58; E. Norden, “Josephus und Tacitus über Jesus Christus und eine messianische Prophetie,” NJahrb 31 [1913]: 637– 66); A. Schalit, “Die Erhebung Vespasians nach Flavius Josephus, Talmud und Midrasch. Zur Geschichte einer messianischen Prophetie,” ANRW 2.2:208 – 327, 214– 218, points to the Sibylline Oracles (cf. Collins, Daniel, 85 – 86); while John Gwyn Griffiths, “Tacitus Hist. 5. 13. 2 and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 113 (1970): 363 – 68, argues for its connection to the DSS. For these references, see Tomasino, “Oracles,” 92– 94.  Tomasino, “Oracles,” 96 – 97; cf. Roger T. Beckwith, “Daniel 9 and the Date of the Messiah’s Coming in Essene, Hellenistic, Pharisaic, Zealot, and Early Christian Computation,” RQ 10 (1979): 512– 42, 533 – 536; Bruce, “Josephus and Daniel,” 157– 158; Lester L. Grabbe, “Chronography in Hellenistic Jewish Historiography,” in SBL Seminar Papers, 1979, ed. Paul J. Achtemeier (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1979), 2:57– 58; I. Hahn, “Josephus und die Eschatologie von Qumran,” Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften 42 (1963): 167– 72; W. J. Heard and K. Yamazaki-Ransom, “Revolutionary Movements,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 792; and Wright, The New Testament, 312– 314. For discussion of the interpretation of Dan 9:24– 27 both before and after the revolt, see Tomasino 2008, 97– 104; cf. Horbury, Jewish War, 286 – 287 n. 32.  See Tomasino, “Oracles,” 96 – 102, for discussion, with thorough references.  As Josephus notes elsewhere (Ant. 10.267), Daniel’s chronological precision set him above other prophets: Tomasino, “Oracles,” 95 – 96.  Tomasino, “Oracles,” 95; see further Tomasino, “Daniel and the Revolutionaries.”  Cf. War 3.399 – 408, where Josephus tells the story of himself prophesying to Vespasian that he would become emperor. On the plausibility of Josephus’s referring the oracle to Vespasian, see Tomasino, “Oracles,” 108 – 109; cf. Beckwith, “Daniel 9”; Bruce, “Josephus and Daniel”.

3.3 The Jewish-Roman War

103

the passage: his mention of the oracle comes at the end of a list of omens predicting the coming destruction of Jerusalem—“manifest portents that foretold the coming desolation” (6.288, see 6.289 – 311).⁸⁵ Thus, many Jews mistakenly saw this as a sign of their coming deliverance (6.313a), “until the ruin of their country and their own destruction convicted them of their folly” (6.315). For our purposes, the primary importance of Josephus’s emphasis on the motivational significance of this prophetic text is the unmistakable evidence it provides that eschatological expectations played an important role in the outbreak of revolt. This is demonstrated further by Josephus’s repeated references to prophetic or messianic figures who took their followers out into the wilderness, claiming “that they would show them unmistakable marvels and signs that would be wrought in harmony with God’s design” (Ant. 20.168).⁸⁶ Josephus—not surprisingly—has nothing but contempt for this group of “impostors and deceivers,” “false prophets,” “villains” and “charlatans,” who, “under the pretence of divine inspiration fostering revolutionary changes … persuaded the multitude to act like madmen.”⁸⁷ For the most part, these groups do not appear to have held any intentions of taking up arms, but instead expected σημεῖα ἐλευθερίας (War 2.259) to herald the beginning of Rome’s downfall. However, Josephus does note one point at which some of these figures joined forces with the revolutionaries: The impostors (γόητες) and brigands (λῃστρικοί), banding together, incited numbers to revolt, exhorting them to assert their independence (πρὸς ἐλευθερίαν παρεκρότουν), and threatening to kill any who submitted to Roman domination and forcibly to suppress those who voluntarily accepted servitude. (War 2.264)⁸⁸

See also Horbury, Jewish War, 112, on the rabbinic legend of Johanan ben Zaccai greeting Vespasian as the future emperor.  Tomasino, “Oracles,” 88; contra Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 172– 173.  For further on such figures, see Paul W. Barnett, “The Jewish Sign Prophets—A.D. 40 – 70: Their Intentions and Origin,” NTS 27 (1981): 679 – 97; Paul W. Barnett, “The Jewish Sign Prophets,” in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research, ed. James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 444– 62; Gray, Prophetic Figures, 112– 144; Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, 135– 189; Sanders, Judaism, 285 – 288; on their significance, Horbury, Jewish War, 147– 148; Tomasino, “Oracles,” 87; cf. Horsley, “‘Like One of the Prophets of Old’.”  In order, the quotations are from Ant. 20.167, War 2.261, 258, 261, 259 (cf. Ant. 20.97). See further War 2.258 – 265; 6.286 – 288; Ant. 20.97– 99, 167– 172.  See Tomasino, “Oracles,” 87. Josephus also notes how, during the siege of Jerusalem, the revolutionary leaders used these prophetic figures to prevent the populace from deserting, by convincing them to await God’s coming deliverance (War 6.286). This follows Josephus’s report that six thousand Jews, who had been convinced by a “false prophet” that they would receive “tokens of their deliverance” in the temple, were killed when the Romans set it aflame (War 6.285, see

104

Chapter 3. Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish History

This passage explicitly brings together pseudo-prophetic figures and revolutionaries, uniting them in their shared desire that Jewish ἐλευθερία would be attained through violence. From all this, it appears that during the initial period of the Jewish-Roman War, much of the subject populace expected that the God-ordained moment of their deliverance had come. The benefit of hindsight, coupled with his own apologetic intentions, led Josephus to portray this aspect of the revolt in a negative light. Nevertheless, his account provides abundant evidence that eschatological expectations for God’s deliverance of his people and destruction of their enemies contributed directly to the outbreak of revolt and the continuation of hostilities. Josephus’s emphasis on the distinctive features of the “fourth philosophy” and its enduring significance, the motivational role played by the “ambiguous oracle,” and the prevalence of prophetic/messianic movements together make it clear that eschatology was closely associated with the violence of the JewishRoman War.

3.4 The Bar Kokhba Revolt Finally, we turn our attention to the Bar Kokhba Revolt of 132– 135 CE, the last large-scale Jewish uprising against Roman rule in Palestine,⁸⁹ which Cassius Dio described as “a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration,” which left “nearly the whole of Judea … desolate” (Hist. 69.12.1, 2).⁹⁰ Our knowledge of this conflict is incomplete, since no firsthand historical account has survived;

283 – 284). See Tomasino, “Oracles,” 105 – 106; cf. Heard and Yamazaki-Ransom, “Revolutionary Movements,” 793.  Important sources chronicling the events of the Bar Kokhba Revolt include most recently Horbury, Jewish War, who treats it in connection with the diaspora uprisings in 115 – 117 CE (as does E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule, From Pompey to Diocletian: A Study in Political Relations, 2nd ed. [Leiden: Brill, 1981 (1976)]); see also Hanan Eshel, “Bar Kokhba Revolt,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 421– 25; Peter Schäfer, Der Bar Kokhba Aufstand. Studien zum Zweiten Jüdischen Krieg gegen Rom, TSAJ 1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981); Schürer, The History, 1:534– 557.  Citations are from the LCL translation (Dio Cassius, Roman History, Volume VIII: Books 61 – 70, trans. Earnest Cary and Herbert B. Foster, LCL 176 [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925]); see also Aelius Spartianus, Historia Augusta, Volume I: Hadrian. Aelius. Antoninus Pius. Marcus Aurelius. L. Verus. Avidius Cassius. Commodus. Pertinax. Didius Julianus. Septimius Severus. Pescennius Niger. Clodius Albinus., trans. David Magie, LCL 139 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921).

3.4 The Bar Kokhba Revolt

105

however, the rebellion is mentioned in two Roman works (the Roman History of Cassius Dio, and Vita Hadriani of Aelius Spartianus) as well as the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius.⁹¹ All three sources, however, were composed more than a century after the events, and Dio’s account, though the most comprehensive of the three, nevertheless lacks detail.⁹² Beyond the textual data, material remains have provided the most significant contributions to our knowledge. These include hundreds of coins minted during Bar Kokhba’s leadership, and written documents dating to the years of conflict, including letters that appear to have been dictated by Bar Kokhba himself.⁹³ Such objects have yielded considerable insight into the ideology of the revolt. However, the inherently limited nature of these resources means that the Bar Kokhba revolt has remained shrouded in mystery. Scholarly attempts to reconstruct it in detail are, in the words of Isaac and Oppenheimer, “inevitably speculative.”⁹⁴ Nevertheless, certain elements from this small pool of historical data seem clearly to suggest that those Jews who once again took up the sword against Rome were motivated to do so—at least in part—by their eschatological expectations.⁹⁵

 Dio Cassius, Roman History 69.12– 14; Aelius Spartianus, Vita Hadriani 14.2; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.6.1– 4. See W. Eck, “The Bar Kokhba Revolt: The Roman Point of View,” JRS 89 (1999): 76 – 89; M. Gichon, “New Insight Into the Bar Kokhba War and a Reappraisal of Dio Cassius 69.12– 13,” JQR 77 (1986): 15 – 43; Martin Goodman, “Trajan and the Origins of the Bar Kochba War,” in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, ed. Peter Schäfer, TSAJ 100 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 23 – 29; Horbury, Jewish War, 15 – 22; and Benjamin Isaac, “Cassius Dio on the Revolt of Bar Kokhba,” in The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers, ed. Benjamin Isaac, Mnemosyne, Supplements 177 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 211– 19. These and other possible historical sources for the Bar Kokhba Revolt are thoroughly discussed by Horbury, Jewish War, 287– 294.  Most notably, it does not mention Bar Kokhba even once. Furthermore, the account is only preserved in the epitome of the eleventh-century monk Xiphilinus: Eshel, “Bar Kokhba Revolt,” 421.  Archaeological excavations began in 1952. Thirty-five caves have been explored to date, nine of which have yielded material remains. For an overview, see Hanan Eshel, “Bar Kokhba Caves,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 417– 18; see further Michael O. Wise, “Bar Kokhba Letters,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 418 – 21.  Benjamin Isaac and Aharon Oppenheimer, “The Revolt of Bar Kokhba: Ideology and Modern Scholarship,” JJS 36 (1985): 33 – 60, 53. See Eshel, “Bar Kokhba Revolt,” 421, on the major issues surrounding the revolt that are still debated.  It should be noted that both 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch appear to have been composed in response to the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, and thus give insight into late first-century/early second-century Jewish eschatological expectations in the wake of this “watershed” event. There-

106

Chapter 3. Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish History

3.4.1 Factors that Led to Revolt The historical sources offer very little information regarding the causes of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.⁹⁶ Dio’s account makes reference to Hadrian’s decision to found a new city (Aelia Capitolina) on the ruins of Jerusalem,⁹⁷ and to build a temple to Jupiter on the former site of the temple (69.12.1); Aelius, on the other hand, notes Hadrian’s imposition of an empire-wide ban on circumcision (14.2).⁹⁸ Both issues would have struck directly at the heart of Jewish identity, in a manner similar to Antiochus’ edict of 167 BCE.⁹⁹ Moreover, many of the same socioeconomic issues

fore, these texts may offer further insight into the theological/eschatological background of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. See Gabriele Boccaccini and Jason M. Zurawski, eds., Interpreting 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: International Studies, LSTS 87 (London: Bloomsbury, 2014); Daniel M. Gurtner, “On the Other Side of Disaster: Soteriology in 2 Baruch,” in This World and the World to Come: Soteriology in Early Judaism, ed. Daniel M. Gurtner, LSTS 74 (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 114– 26; Matthias Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel: Reading Second Baruch in Context (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011); Matthias Henze and Gabriele Boccaccini, eds., Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction After the Fall, JSJSup 164 (Leiden: Brill, 2013); Oegema, The Anointed, 216 – 226; Michael E. Stone and Matthias Henze, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Translations, Introductions, and Notes (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013); Tom W. Willet, Eschatology in the Theodicies of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, JSPSup 4 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989); cf. Heard and Yamazaki-Ransom, “Revolutionary Movements,” 793 – 794.  The possible causes of the revolt are discussed at length in Horbury, Jewish War, 294– 317; cf. Giovanni Battista Bazzana, “The Bar Kochba Revolt and Hadrian’s Religious Policy,” in Hadrian and the Christians, ed. Marco Rizzi, Millennium-Studien 30 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 85 – 109 (discussed by Seán Freyne, The Jesus Movement and Its Expansion: Meaning and Mission [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014], 328); H. Mantel, “The Causes of the Bar Kokhba Revolt,” JQR 58 (1968): 224– 242, 274– 296; Schäfer, Der Bar Kokhba, 29 – 50; Smallwood, The Jews, 428 – 438.  Cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.6. Some of the coins minted during Bar Kokhba’s leadership were struck over Roman coins marked with “Aelia Capitolina,” suggesting that the city had been founded before the outbreak of hostilities. See Lester L. Grabbe, Judaism From Cyrus to Hadrian. Volume Two: The Roman Period (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 572; cf. Meshorer, A Treasury, 136.  Horbury, Jewish War, 297, mentions a third possible cause, attested in Gen. Rab. 64:10: that the Jewish populace “turned rebellious on learning that a Roman order for the rebuilding of their temple would be … withdrawn.”  Schürer, The History, 1:540. Further discussion of Hadrian’s religious policy and its connections to the Bar Kokhba revolt can be found in Bazzana, “The Bar Kochba”; W. Eck, “Hadrian, the Bar Kochba Revolt, and the Epigraphic Transmission,” in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, ed. Peter Schäfer, TSAJ 100 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 153– 70; Benjamin Isaac, “Roman Religious Policy and the Bar Kokhba War,” in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, ed. Peter Schäfer, TSAJ 100 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 37– 54; and Peter Schäfer, “Hadrian’s Policy in Judaea and the Bar Kokhba Revolt: A Reassessment,” in A Tribute

3.4 The Bar Kokhba Revolt

107

associated with Roman rule which contributed to the outbreak of revolt in 66 CE were still prevalent.¹⁰⁰ In such circumstances, either of the issues mentioned by the Roman historians could have constituted an affront of sufficient calibre that many Jews felt compelled once again to take up the sword.¹⁰¹

3.4.2 Ideological Insight from Numismatics Within the first year of the conflict, the Jewish revolutionaries had enough initial success that they began to mint coins for use within the territory they controlled.¹⁰² As items which circulated widely and were in daily use, coins were the earliest mass medium, and provided a rich propagandistic opportunity. The symbolic imagery and language portrayed on these coins provide the only extant evidence of contemporary proclamations of the ideology and intentions of the revolutionaries who followed Bar Kokhba.¹⁰³ For example, by choosing to re-strike Roman coins, rather than mint new ones, the text and images of Bar Kokhba and Israel physically replaced those of Hadrian and Rome. Ya’akov Meshorer deems this a “small act of vengeance and a clear political declaration,” expressing “the to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, ed. Philip R. Davies and Richard T. White, JSOTSup 100 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990), 281– 303.  Grabbe, Judaism, 574.  Eshel, “Bar Kokhba Revolt,” 421; see further Goodman, “Trajan”; Isaac, “Roman Religious Policy”; and A. Oppenheimer, “The Ban of Circumcision as a Cause of the Revolt: A Reconsideration,” in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, ed. Peter Schäfer, TSAJ 100 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 55 – 69. For a more comprehensive list of possible causes, see Isaac and Oppenheimer, “The Revolt,” 45; Mantel, “The Causes”; Peter Schäfer, “The Causes of the Bar Kokhba Revolt,” in Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann, ed. J. Petuchowski and E. Fleischer (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981), 74– 94.  The geographical extent of the Bar Kokhba Revolt is widely disputed, see Amos Kloner and Boaz Zissu, “Hiding Complexes in Judaea: An Archaeological and Geographical Update on the Area of the Bar Kochba Revolt,” in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, ed. Peter Schäfer, TSAJ 100 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 181– 216; Menahem Mor, “The Geographical Scope of the Bar Kokhba Revolt,” in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, ed. Peter Schäfer, TSAJ 100 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 107– 31.  Two of the most important scholars of the numismatics of this period are Ya’akov Meshorer (Meshorer, A Treasury, 135– 165; Meshorer, Coins) and Leo Mildenberg (L. Mildenberg, “Bar Kokba Coins and Documents,” HSCP 84 [1980]: 311– 35; L. Mildenberg, The Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War [Aarau: Sauerlinder, 1984]; L. Mildenberg, “Der Bar-Kochba-Krieg im Lichte der Münzprägungen,” in Palästina in griechisch-römischer Zeit, ed. H.-P. Kuhnen, HdA 2.2 [Munich: Beck, 1990], 357– 366).

108

Chapter 3. Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish History

purport of the revolt: to get rid of the Roman emperor, his culture, and his religion.”¹⁰⁴ The clearest contribution these coins make to our exploration of the eschatological motivations for the Bar Kokhba Revolt comes through the words with which they are inscribed. The earliest coins read, “Year one of Israel’s redemption” (‫)שנת אחת לגאלת יסראל‬. In the second year, this is replaced with, “Year two of Israel’s freedom” (‫ ;)יסראל ]ות[ב לחר ]נה[ש‬and in the third, simply with, “Of Jerusalem’s freedom” (‫)לחרות ירושלם‬.¹⁰⁵ We first note the significance of the numbering of the years. The beginning of Bar Kokhba’s rule is “Year One,” clearly identifying this as the beginning of a new era and distinguishing it from what had come before.¹⁰⁶ Second, the use of “Israel” both connects this new era to the biblical past of the Jews (and the prophetic promises for God’s restoration and deliverance associated with it), and disassociates the territory from the Roman name with which it had been identified more recently.¹⁰⁷ Third and finally, the terms “redemption” and “freedom” both resonate with rich eschatological overtones. We have already discussed the significance of the concept of “freedom” to the Jewish revolutionaries in the years 66 – 70 CE.¹⁰⁸ Reference to the “redemption” of the land God had promised his people and, in particular, the city of Jer-

 Meshorer, A Treasury, 137; see Eshel, “Bar Kokhba Revolt,” 422.  Meshorer, A Treasury, 140; cf. Ya’akov Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage (2 vols. Dix Hills, NY: Amphora Books, 1982), 2:135– 136, 150 – 152. Also significant is the use of the paleo-Hebrew script, also found on coins produced during the war of 66 – 70 CE (see McLaren, “The Coinage”). Choosing to use Hebrew rather than Aramaic suggests an intentional decision to distinguish clearly between insiders and outsiders to this new kingdom of “Israel” under Bar Kokhba’s leadership, as well as the desire to draw connections to the glorious past of Israel’s monarchy. Eshel, “Documents,” 160; Peter Schäfer, “Bar Kochba and the Rabbis,” in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, ed. Peter Schäfer, TSAJ 100 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 20.  Schürer, The History, 1:546. This is also reflected in the dating of the Bar Kokhba documents. For further on the significance of these dates, see Hanan Eshel, “The Dates Used During the Bar Kokhba Revolt,” in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, ed. Peter Schäfer, TSAJ 100 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 93 – 105.  On the significance of “Israel” as a territorial name, see Horbury, Jewish War, 362– 364.  See § 3.3.2 above. This connection is also observed by Horbury, Jewish War, 1– 2, who references (in n. 3) among others Martin Goodman, “Coinage and Identity: The Jewish Evidence,” in Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces, ed. Christopher Howgego, Volker Heuchert, and Andrew Burnett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 163 – 166, and William Horbury, “Liberty in the Coin-Legends of the Jewish Revolts,” in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies, ed. J. K. Aitken, K. J. Dell, and B. A. Mastin, BZAW 420 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 139 – 52. For further discussion of the significance of these phrases, see Horbury, Jewish War, 138 – 142, 146 – 149.

3.4 The Bar Kokhba Revolt

109

usalem therein, makes the association with prophetic expectations for the inauguration of the age to come even more clear.¹⁰⁹ The inscriptions on the coins thus proclaim that the new era, in which these hopes were being fulfilled, had begun.¹¹⁰ The numismatic prominence of Jerusalem warrants further comment. Many of the coins are simply inscribed with ‫ ירושלם‬on one side.¹¹¹ Closely associated with the desire to reestablish the city came the hope of rebuilding the temple. This is represented on the coins by portrayals of the temple facade, as well as imagery associated with temple worship and the celebration of major festivals.¹¹² The imagery and language found on these coins thus offers significant insight into the worldview of those who produced them. Bar Kokhba and his followers proclaimed the beginning of a new era, the restoration of Israel, the reestablishment of Jerusalem, and the rebuilding of the temple, where YHWH would once again be worshipped, and his holy people would once again celebrate festivals of deliverance. They proclaimed, in other words, that by taking up the sword in violent revolution against Rome, several of the central elements of God’s eschatological promises to his people were being fulfilled. The reign of

 On the important connections between “freedom” and “redemption,” and their ideological significance to Jewish revolutionary activity in the first and second centuries CE, see Horbury, Jewish War, 137– 142, 146 – 149.  Meshorer, A Treasury, 40; cf. Wright, The New Testament, 166. The inscriptions also testify to the central role Bar Kokhba himself played in all this, since his name features prominently: earlier coins read “Simon, Prince of Israel,” and later ones simply “Simon.” On this, see Eshel, “Bar Kokhba Revolt,” 421. On the significance of Bar Kokhba’s title, ‫נשיא‬/‫נסיא‬, see § 3.4.3.  Meshorer, A Treasury, 143, claims that this inscription is “of the greatest significance”; cf. Isaac and Oppenheimer, “The Revolt,” 47. Meshorer, A Treasury, 143, 152, also notes certain bronze coins upon which the word “Jerusalem” is surrounded by a wreath—in effect, crowing the city with a diadem; on the significance of this imagery; cf. Eshel, “Bar Kokhba Revolt,” 421– 423; Grabbe, Judaism, 578.  For thorough discussion of the various symbols (including vines, wreaths, and utensils used in worship), see Meshorer, A Treasury, 143 – 151; see also H. Lapin, “Palm Fronds and Citrons: Notes on Two Letters From Bar Kosiba’s Administration,” HUCA 44 (1993): 11– 135; Schäfer, “Bar Kochba,” 20; Yigael Yadin, Bar-Kokhba: The Rediscovery of the Legendary Hero of the Second Jewish Revolt Against Rome (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), 27. The grapevines are of potential further significance as symbols of the fruitfulness of the messianic era: Allison, Constructing Jesus, 111. Also intriguing is the inscription “Eleazar the Priest” found on some coins from the first year. Though nothing further is known about Eleazar’s identity or his role in the revolt, the inscription attests the central significance of a priestly figure to its early ideology. See Horbury, Jewish War, 356– 357; Schäfer, “Bar Kochba,” 20; Schürer, The History, 1:544; cf. Meshorer, A Treasury, 142– 143.

110

Chapter 3. Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish History

God’s messiah had begun, even if the age to come had not been fully inaugurated.¹¹³

3.4.3 The Eschatological Significance of Bar Kokhba, ‫נסיא יסראל‬ The final factor which suggests the eschatological significance of these events is Bar Kokhba himself, and the question of his “messianic” identity.¹¹⁴ Very little is known about the leader of the revolt.¹¹⁵ It is only from the relatively recent discovery of documents in caves in the Israelite desert that we know his name was Simeon bar Kosiba.¹¹⁶ Some scholars have attempted to extract from these documents insight into the character of this enigmatic man: Reinhartz, for example, engaging in some historical speculation, claims that they reveal a “stern, practical ruler and commander,” whose concerns were “above all with discipline and unfaltering obedience.”¹¹⁷ Multiple lines of evidence, however, suggest that Bar Kosiba was understood messianically by his contemporaries. First of all, Rabbinic sources record that Rabbi Akiba, the most prominent Jewish leader during the “period of Yavneh” (73 – 132 CE), declared Bar Kosiba to be the anointed one. In the Jerusalem Talmud, we read:

 Allison, Constructing Jesus, 111– 112.  The question of Bar Kokhba’s messianic identity has been discussed by Y. Devir, Bar Kokhba, the Man and Messiah in the Light of Talmudic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1964); Craig A. Evans, “Was Simon Ben Kosiba Recognized as Messiah?,” in Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies, AGJU 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 183 – 212; Horbury, Jewish War, 378 – 389; Matthew Novenson, “Why Does R. Akiba Acclaim Bar Kokhba as Messiah?,” JSJ 40 (2009): 551– 72. For discussion of messianic conceptions in this period, see Martin Goodman, “Messianism and Politics in the Land of Israel, 66 – 135 C.E.,” in Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity, ed. Markus Bockmuehl and James Carleton Paget (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 149 – 57; Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel: From Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah, trans. W. F. Stinespring, Hebrew 3rd ed. (London: Allen & Unwin, 1956), 394– 402; and Oegema, The Anointed, 196 – 234.  Eusebius describes him as φονικὸς καὶ ληστρικός τις ἀνήρ (Hist. eccl. 4.6.2), but this should certainly not be understood to represent the perspective of Bar Kokhba’s Jewish contemporaries: Horbury, Jewish War, 317.  Eshel, “Bar Kokhba Revolt,” 421; Horbury, Jewish War, 1; see P. Benoit, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, eds., Les Grottes De Murabba’ât, DJD 2 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 122 – 134.  Adele Reinhartz, “Rabbinic Perceptions of Simeon Bar Kosiba,” JSJ 20 (1989): 171– 94, 190; cf. Eshel, “Bar Kokhba Revolt,” 421: “a demanding leader, a stickler for detail.”

3.4 The Bar Kokhba Revolt

111

R. Simeon b. Yohai taught, “My teacher Aqiva used to expound, ‘There shall step forth a star out of Jacob (Num 24:17)—thus Koziva steps forth out of Jacob!’ When R. Aqiva beheld Bar Koziva, he exclaimed, ‘This is the king Messiah.’ R. Yohanan b. Torta retorted, ‘Aqiva, grass will grow between your cheeks and he still will not have come.’” (y. Ta‘an. 4:8, 68d)¹¹⁸

A messianic reading of Balaam’s prophecy from Numbers 24:17 (“a star [‫]כוכב‬ shall come out of Jacob”) thus appears to have led Akiba to bestow upon Bar Kosiba the Aramaic nickname “Bar Kokhba,” meaning “son of the star.” Although relying on rabbinic texts for historical information is notoriously problematic,¹¹⁹ we should not ignore the fact that these same sources—viewing the revolt in the light of its failure—also denigrate Bar Kokhba as a false messiah, referring to him as “Bar Koziba,” “son of the lie.”¹²⁰ As Reinhartz points out, in order to be declared a false messiah, one first has to be considered a legitimate one.¹²¹ Other evidence supporting the suggestion that Bar Kosiba was associated with a messianic reading of Numbers 24:17 within his own lifetime includes: (i) the presence of a star inscribed above the temple on some of the Bar Kokhba coins;¹²² and (ii) the unlikelihood of Bar Kosiba being associated with this messianic text after his defeat and death.¹²³ If, then, as seems quite likely, Simeon bar Kosiba was given the scriptural sobriquet “son of the star” during his lifetime, the plentiful evidence that Numbers 24:17 was read with messianic signifi-

 Grabbe, Judaism, 579; quoting the translation of Peter Schäfer, “Aqiva and Bar Kokhba,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, ed. W. S. Green, BJS 9 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1980), 2:117; cf. Eshel, “Bar Kokhba Revolt,” 421; for discussion of this text and parallels see Schäfer 1981a, 168 – 169; 2003a, 2– 5 (Horbury 2014, 380 n. 387). Other references to Bar Kokhba being hailed as Messiah are found in Justin, 1 Apol. 31.6; and b. Sanh. 93b.  On this, see Isaac and Oppenheimer, “The Revolt,” 37; Reinhartz, “Rabbinic Perceptions,” 172; on methodological approaches to Rabbinic texts, see Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. Markus Bockmuehl, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 45 – 55. Further discussion of the rabbinic witnesses to Bar Kokhba are discussed in Horbury, Jewish War, 22– 31.  See Lam. Rab. 2:4 on Lam 2:2. On this passage, see Schäfer, “Bar Kochba,” 3; cf. Horbury, Jewish War, 1; Meshorer, A Treasury, 152– 153; cf. Grabbe, Judaism, 603.  Reinhartz, “Rabbinic Perceptions,” 177; see Allison, Constructing Jesus, 258 n. 150.  See Antti Laato, A Star is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations, International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism (University of South Florida) 5 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1997), 371; though Mildenberg, The Coinage, 44– 45, disputes the messianic significance of the image; cf. Reinhartz, “Rabbinic Perceptions,” 173. See Allison, Constructing Jesus, 111.  Schäfer, “Bar Kochba,” 4, though doubting that the association between Bar Kokhba and Num 24:17 originated with Akiba, argues that “it must have originated during the Bar Kokhba revolt”; see also Reinhartz, “Rabbinic Perceptions,” 175 – 176; Allison, Constructing Jesus, 258 – 259 n. 150.

112

Chapter 3. Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish History

cance in the Second Temple period strongly suggests that many of his followers believed Bar Kokhba to be the Messiah.¹²⁴ Second, as noted above, material evidence reveals that once the revolt began, Bar Kosiba took the title “prince” (‫נשיא‬/‫)נסיא‬.¹²⁵ This title appears to have had specifically eschatological connotations.¹²⁶ First, ‫ נשיא‬is used by Ezekiel to identify the leader of the people of God, in the context of the prophet’s description of the eschatological temple and the division of the land (Ezek 44– 46).¹²⁷ Second, the ‫ נסיא‬appears to have been particularly significant within the eschatological expectations of the Qumran community.¹²⁸ For example, in CD VIII, 18 – 21 we find an interpretation of Numbers 24:17 that identifies the “scepter [which] arises out of Israel” as the “prince of the whole congregation” who will “destroy all the sons of Seth” (VII, 19 – 21), functioning alongside the “star” as the future rulers of the Community. The link between the “prince” and the “scepter” is also found in 1Q28b: To bless the prince of the congregation (‫ … )לברך את נשיא העדה‬he will renew the covenant of the [Com]munity for him, to establish the kingdom of his people foreve[r, to judge the poor with justice,] to reproach the [hu]mble of the earth with upri[ghtness] … [May] the Lord

 Allison, Constructing Jesus, 111 n. 356 points to OG/LXX Num 24:17; CD VII, 18 – 21; 4Q175; T. Levi 18:3; T. Jud. 24:1; and the targumim on Num 24:17. See also 1QM XI, 6 – 7. See further John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 71– 73.  The title is found frequently on coinage from the first year of the revolt, as well as on the documents discovered in the Judean desert: Schäfer, “Bar Kochba,” 15. See further on this Horbury, Jewish War, 358 – 362; Oegema, The Anointed, 229 – 230.  On this see Peter Schäfer, The History of the Jews in the Greco-Roman World (London: Routledge, 2003), 151– 154; cf. Evans, “Was Simon,” 201– 202.  Schäfer, “Bar Kochba,” 15, who also notes the use of ‫ נשיא‬in Ezek 37:25 (“My servant David shall be their ‫ נשיא‬forever”); cf. Reinhartz, “Rabbinic Perceptions,” 173. Meshorer, A Treasury, 141, notes that ‫ נסיא‬is also used to describe the heads of the tribes during the forty years of wandering in the wilderness, and is the title given to Sheshbazzar in Ezra 1:8—in each case, it is a title “held by men who led the nation during periods of redemption.” This connection, Meshorer argues, is strengthened by the use of ‫“( גאולה‬redemption”) in conjunction with ‫ נסיא‬on several Bar Kokhba coins.  On the question of the specifically messianic (in contrast to more general “eschatological”) significance of ‫ )נסיא( נשיא‬at Qumran, see Martin G. Abegg and Craig A. Evans, “Messianic Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 194– 197; C. D. Elledge, “The Prince of the Congregation: Qumran ‘Messianism’ in the Context of Milḥāmâ,” in Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions, ed. Michael Thomas Davis and Brent A. Strawn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 178 – 207.

3.5 Summary and Conclusions

113

rai[se y]ou to an everlasting height, like a forti[fied] tower upon a raised rampart. May you be […] with the power of your [mouth]. With your sceptre may you lay waste the earth. With the breath of your lips may you kill the wicked. May he give [you a spirit of coun]sel and of everlasting fortitude, a spirit of knowledge and of fear of God. May justice be the belt of [your loins, and loyalt]y the belt of your hips. May he make your horns of iron and your hoofs of bronze. May you gore like a bu[ll … and may you trample the nation]s like mud of the streets. For God has raised you to a sceptre (‫ )כיא אל הקימכה לשבט‬for the rulers be[fore you … all the na]tions will serve you, and he will make you strong by his holy Name, so that you will be like a li[on …] (1Q28b V, 20 – 22, 23b–29)¹²⁹

The text presents the ‫ נסיא‬as an eschatological warrior-prince, who is expected to defeat the enemies of the people of God in the final battle, and to establish “the kingdom of his people forever.”¹³⁰ Though we cannot conclusively state that Bar Kokhba intended to draw upon himself the full range of expectations associated with the Qumranic ‫נסיא‬, it is nevertheless clear that the title was rich with eschatological connotations. As such, Bar Kokhba’s self-identification as ‫נסיא יסראל‬ suggests an intentional framing of his own actions, placing both the revolt and its results in an eschatological context. Therefore, despite the limited nature of the historical evidence, it is nevertheless clear that the eschatological expectations at work in the Maccabean Revolt and the Jewish-Roman War continued to play a significant role in motivating those who participated in the Bar Kokhba Revolt to take up the sword against their Gentile oppressors.

3.5 Summary and Conclusions The Maccabean Revolt, the Jewish-Roman War, and the Bar Kokhba Revolt each constitute an instance of violent Jewish revolution against their Gentile rulers. The immediate presenting causes of these conflicts appear to have been either (i) threats to significant elements of Jewish praxis (e. g. the edict of Antiochus IV, Hadrian’s ban on circumcision); or (ii) offences against central components of the Jewish worldview (e. g. the destruction of the Torah scroll under Cumanus’s leadership, Hadrian’s plan to found Aelia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem). The evidence reviewed above suggests that many Jews believed that the proper response to such threats or offences was to take up the sword against those re-

 See also 1QM XI, 6.  See Schäfer, “Bar Kochba,” 16 – 20, who makes further observations on the priestly associations of the ‫ נסיא‬and suggests possible connections to the “Branch” of Zech 6:9 – 15.

114

Chapter 3. Eschatologically-Motivated Violence in Second Temple Jewish History

sponsible. Burning with zeal, they went forth to preserve their way of life and protect the holy name of YHWH, believing that God would protect them and vindicate this display of righteous piety. More significantly, in examining the motivation behind these actions, it becomes clear how deeply eschatology was ingrained within each of these events. The expectation that, in the days to come, YHWH would fulfill his promises to deliver his people from the hand of their enemies, to judge the wicked, and to inaugurate the eternal age of blessing was a central component of the lens through which they viewed the world. In this chapter, I have demonstrated that such expectations were directly connected to the reasons for which many Jews engaged in these instances of violent revolution. The evidence for this is sometimes difficult to assess, since the majority of the historical sources are retrospective, looking back at these events with the knowledge that the Hasmonean dynasty ultimately failed, and the revolts against Rome were ruthlessly wiped out. Nevertheless, I argued that conspicuous elements of these sources attest the significance of eschatology, insofar as it provided a lens through which these events were perceived at the time of their occurrence. These elements include the language of σωτηρία coming about through the Maccabean victories, and the blessedness of the land under Simon’s rule (1Macc 14); the “fourth philosophy” and its passion for ἐλευθερία and the sole rule of God, Josephus’s identification of the χρησμὸς ἀμφίβολος as the foremost cause of the revolt against Rome, and the various passages in which he refers to the people’s expectation of “signs of deliverance” from God; and the variety of evidence that Bar Kokhba was hailed as Messiah. Moreover, the material remains dating from the actual years of these events give the same impression: numismatic evidence from both 66 – 70 and 132– 135 CE attests the centrality of “freedom” and “redemption” to the revolutionary ideology, and the association of the title ‫ נסיא‬with Bar Kokhba suggests that he was acclaimed as the eschatological “prince” who would defeat the enemies of God’s people and usher in the age to come. Therefore, the evidence suggests that the Second Temple Jews who took up the sword against their Gentile oppressors did so for more than simply “political” or “nationalistic” reasons. In the Jewish worldview, politics and nationalism were inseparable from the understanding of God, his relationship with his people, and God’s promises for the days to come—that is, from eschatology. Although it is difficult to make more precise claims about the perceived connections between revolutionary violence and eschatological expectations, I contend that the evidence available to us convincingly demonstrates that the eschatological beliefs of Second Temple Judaism were central to both (i) the mo-

3.5 Summary and Conclusions

115

tivation which led many to participate in these instances of violent uprising; and (ii) the ways in which these events were perceived at the time of their enactment. The literary and historical evidence presented in chapters two and three thus leads me to argue for the presence of what I have termed eschatological violence in Second Temple Judaism. Eschatological violence was violent action motivated by eschatological expectations and/or oriented towards eschatological goals. I have argued that the Jews who took up the sword against their Gentile overlords did so because they hoped that, in so doing, they would (i) participate in the foretold eschatological judgment upon and destruction of the wicked, thus contributing to the inauguration of the age to come; and (ii) mark themselves out as the holy, faithful, and righteous people of God who would be vindicated and receive God’s eschatological blessing. Eschatological violence resulted from the belief that human violent action was inherently bound up with the defeat of God’s enemies and the deliverance of his people, and therefore integral to the fulfillment of God’s eschatological promises. This belief was prominent in the world of Second Temple Judaism, and directly contributed to the revolutionary violence that occurred throughout this period. Eschatological violence was, therefore, a significant element of Jesus’s world, and must be given appropriate consideration in the attempt to understand the Synoptic presentation of his life and ministry. To this we turn our attention in the following chapters.

Chapter 4 Jesus and Revolutionary Violence 4.1 Introduction In the preceding two chapters, I have argued that the revolutionary violence of Second Temple Judaism should be understood as eschatological violence; that is, as violence motivated by eschatological expectations and oriented towards eschatological goals. Having demonstrated this important connection between eschatology and violence within the world of first-century Palestinian Judaism, we turn our attention to the Synoptic Gospels’ presentation of Jesus’s life and ministry, and the interrelated presence of these themes therein. As I demonstrated in the opening chapter, much of previous scholarship on the historical Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels has not adequately accounted for the significant connections between eschatology and violence. As a result, several recent publications attest the resurgence of the hypothesis associated most notably with S. G. F. Brandon—namely, that the portrait of Jesus with the greatest claim to historical probability is that which views him as sympathetic to violent, revolutionary means of achieving his goals—what Fernando Bermejo-Rubio has termed the “seditious Jesus hypothesis” (henceforth SJH).¹ As has already been noted, but bears repetition, the advocates of the SJH argue that: (i) the Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus as the nonviolent proclaimer of the “eschatological” (understood as “other-worldly”) kingdom of God is a fabrication, developed by the early church on the basis of its theological commitments and apologetic needs; (ii) the “truly” historical Jesus—whose identity the Synoptic evangelists sought to conceal—was a politically-minded, seditious, and potentially violent Jewish revolutionary; and therefore, (iii) the fabricated portrayal of Jesus found in the Gospels is incoherent, since the texts themselves contain

 Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 1, and frequently thereafter throughout the article. Other recent publications advocating similar positions include Aslan, Zealot; Bermejo-Rubio, “(Why) Was Jesus”; Bermejo-Rubio, “Has the Hypothesis”; Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus as a Seditionist”; Zev Garber, “The Jewish Jesus: A Partisan’s Imagination,” in The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection, Reclamation, ed. Zev Garber, Shofar Supplements in Jewish Studies (Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2011), 13 – 19; Josep Montserrat, El galileo armado: Historia laica de Jesús (Madrid: Edaf, 2007); cf. Martin, “Jesus in Jerusalem.” https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703771-005

4.1 Introduction

117

elements betraying hints of Jesus’s “true” nature, which are inconsistent with the apolitical, pacifistic Jesus they depict elsewhere.² In what follows, I will refute the SJH, demonstrating in particular the falsehood of the claim that the Gospels’ account of Jesus’s life and ministry is inconsistent and therefore incoherent. I will argue that its advocates have failed adequately to consider the central importance of eschatology to either (i) the violence with which they seek to associate Jesus, or (ii) the Synoptic Gospels’ portrayals of Jesus’s ministry. When we consider eschatology and violence together, understanding Jewish revolutionary violence as “eschatological violence,” we are provided with the key to exposing the problematic nature of the SJH, and to understanding (“making sense” of) the nonviolence of the Synoptic Jesus. I will argue that Jesus’s rejection of violent means of accomplishing the goals of his ministry is not the result of the theological and apolitical fabrication of the evangelists; rather, it was due to the inherently eschatological associations and implications of such violence. Understanding Jesus’s nonviolence in direct connection with his rejection of eschatological violence enables us to “make sense” of the presentation of his life and ministry found in the Synoptic Gospels. In the present chapter I will discuss the allegedly “problematic” Synoptic pericopae to which advocates of the SJH appeal. Whereas some previous scholars have attempted by various interpretative means to eliminate any suggestion of violence from the Gospel accounts, Berger makes the accurate observation that “Es ist nicht möglich, Aussagen über Gewaltgebrauch aus den Erzählungen über Jesus oder aus seinen Worten zu tilgen.”³ Therefore, my goal in what follows will not be to remove any suggestion of violence from the Synoptic portrayals of Jesus, but to demonstrate that such violence need not be understood to represent Jesus’s “true” seditious identity. Instead, I will argue that these pericopae demonstrate that: (i) the question of what role violence would play in the inauguration of the kingdom of God was of direct relevance to Jesus’s ministry, and of concern both to him and his contemporaries; and (ii) Jesus consistently engaged with this question in unexpected and controversial ways. I will thus demonstrate not only that the SJH is not supported by these pericopae, but also that they can

 Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 9 – 14, begins his article with a 35point list of “elements pointing in the direction of a seditious Jesus” (9). A similar (shorter) list is found in Bermejo-Rubio, “Why is the Hypothesis.” Cf. Klaus Berger, “Der ‘brutale’ Jesus: Gewaltsames in Wirken und Verkündigung Jesu,” BK 51 (1996): 119 – 27, 119; Desjardins, Peace, Violence, 62– 110, esp. 72– 78; see Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 24.  Berger, “Der ‘Brutale’ Jesus,” 126.

118

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

be understood as coherently contributing to the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus’s ministry, in which the rejection of eschatological violence was central.

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae 4.2.1 “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt 10:34) All three Synoptic Gospels tell of Jesus gathering together the twelve disciples, instructing them, and sending them out to proclaim the kingdom of God.⁴ In the midst of Matthew’s account of this event, Jesus proclaims: μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν· οὐκ ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἀλλὰ μάχαιραν (10:34).⁵

4.2.1.1 The Seditious Reading This reference to a “sword” has led advocates of the SJH to argue that the statement provides unmistakable evidence of Jesus’s violent intentions vis-à-vis the inauguration of the kingdom. This is epitomised by Brandon’s decision to use

 Mark 6:7– 11 // Matt 10:5 – 42 // Luke 9:1– 5.  A parallel to Matt 10:34 can be found in Luke 12:51, but Luke’s use of διαμερισμός instead of Matthew’s μάχαιρα removes the explicitly violent imagery of the logion (note, however, the clear eschatological significance of Luke 12:49). Significant scholarship on Matthew 10:34 includes: Dale C. Allison, Jr., “Q 12:51– 53 and Mark 9:11– 13 and the Messianic Woes,” in Authenticating the Words of Jesus, ed. Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans, NTTS 28.1 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 289 – 310; Matthew Black, “Uncomfortable Words: III. The Violent Word,” ExpTim 81 (1970): 115 – 18, Matthew Black, “‘Not peace but a sword’: Matt 10:34 ff; Luke 12:51 ff,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 287– 94; Warren Carter, “Jesus’ ‘I have come’ Statements in Matthew’s Gospel,” CBQ 60 (1998): 44– 62; Jan Liesen, “Violence in the Gospel According to Matthew: ‘I have not come to bring peace … but a sword’ (Matt 10:34; 11:12),” in Visions of Peace and Tales of War, ed. Jan Liesen and Pancratius Cornelis Beentjes, DCLY 2010 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 263 – 78; Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 26 – 27; Stephen J. Patterson, “Fire and Dissension: Ipsissima Vox Jesu in Q 12:49, 51– 53?,” Forum 5 (1989): 121– 39; T. A. Roberts, “Some Comments on Matthew 10:34– 36 and Luke 12:51– 53,” ExpTim 69 (1958): 304– 6; David C. Sim, “The Sword Motif in Matthew 10:34,” HvTSt 56 (2000): 84– 104; Robert C. Tannehill, The Sword of His Mouth, SemeiaSup 1 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 140 – 147; cf. Allison, “Q 12:51– 53”; C. Heil, “Die Rezeption von Micha 7,6 LXX in Q und Lukas,” ZNW 88 (1997): 211– 22; C.-P. März, “Zur Vorgeschichte von Lk 12,49 – 59,” SNTSU 12 (1987): 69 – 84.

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

119

Matthew 10:34 as the frontpiece of Jesus and the Zealots. ⁶ Brandon interprets the verse as Jesus’s warning to his disciples of the conflict that lay ahead for those who joined his kingdom movement. Jesus challenges those who would follow him to do so with open eyes, fully understanding the violent character—and potentially horrific consequences (see 10:38)—of the kingdom mission to which they were committing.⁷ Bermejo-Rubio, for his part, refers to Matthew 10:34 twice in his opening list of “elements pointing in the direction of a seditious Jesus” (alongside Luke 12:49 as texts implying “verbal violence,”⁸ and as evidence of the fact that “Jesus impressed upon his followers that discipleship is synonymous … with danger of death”⁹), and elsewhere cites the verse as evidence of statements made by Jesus “which are not to be reconciled with a kind of pacifism avant la lettre.”¹⁰ For Bermejo-Rubio, the logion simply cannot be understood unless one accepts Jesus’s openness to violent revolution.

4.2.1.2 Critique of the Seditious Reading The immediately apparent problem with this reading of Matthew 10:34 is its completely acontextual and literalistic nature. Neither Brandon nor Bermejo-Rubio makes any meaningful reference to the literary context of the verse, nor do they show any sensitivity to the evocative symbolism of the μάχαιρα. Rather, for them, the text is straightforward: Jesus associates an instrument of violence with a statement of his intentions, thereby revealing his seditious character. However, reading the Matthean Jesus’s words in context, it is clear that his claim that he came “to bring” (βάλλω¹¹) a μάχαιρα is not intended as a literal in A decision repeated more recently in Aslan, Zealot. Aslan later (120) cites the verse to back up his statement that Jesus “was certainly no pacifist.”  Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 145. Brandon thus reads 10:38 as “a grim challenge that every Zealot had to face for himself.” Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8 – 20: A Commentary, trans. James E. Crouch, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 109 notes the similar interpretations of Reimarus, Kautsky, and Eisler. Brandon references Matt 10:34 twice elsewhere in his study: (i) amongst a collection of texts which he uses to counter Jesus’s statements about turning the other cheek and not resisting evil (202– 203); and (ii) alongside Luke 12:51, as texts which “preserve … a reminiscence” of the portrayal of Jesus found in Rev 19:11– 16 (321– 322, n. 2).  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 10.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 12. Here the reference is to Matt 10:34– 39, alongside Luke 12:4; 14:25 – 27.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 39, see also 41.  The use of βάλλω in v. 34b is most likely carried over from v. 34a. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 406 n. 1, argues that “βάλλω ἐπί” is an idiom that suggests “forceful imposition”; cf. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, PlrNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 266 n. 79.

120

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

dication of militaristic intentions.¹² Rather, the μάχαιρα should be understood metaphorically to represent the division and conflict regarding which Jesus had, in the immediately preceding discourse, been speaking. Having begun by instructing his disciples, “πορευόμενοι δὲ κηρύσσετε λέγοντες ὅτι ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. ἀσθενοῦντας θεραπεύετε, νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, λεπροὺς καθαρίζετε, δαιμόνια ἐκβάλλετε” (10:7– 8b), Jesus then informs them of the hostility they should expect as they fulfill these tasks (10:6 – 33), ominously warning them that they are being sent out ὡς πρόβατα ἐν μέσῳ λύκων (10:16). The disciples are told that their proclamation and enactment of the βασιλεία would cause division, even within families and households (10:21, 35 – 37).¹³ The focus of the pericope, therefore, is on the cost of participating in the eschatological ministry of Jesus. Conflict and hostility, not tranquility and acceptance—effectively represented by the contrast between μάχαιρα and εἰρήνη—would ensue for those who identified with the kingdom that the Jesus had come to inaugurate.¹⁴ Such is the almost unanimous reading of this text among scholars.¹⁵

 See Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, 145 – 146; Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 26, 35; Norman Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in New Testament Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 46.  The allusion to Mic 7:5 – 6 should also be noted; see W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., Matthew 8 – 18, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 219 – 220; Heil, “Die Rezeption”; Luz, Matthew 8 – 20, 108, 110 – 111. Such division and hostility have already been suffered by Jesus himself, and the disciples have borne witness to it (e. g. Mark 2:19b–35). The Matthean Jesus speaks to this effect in 10:24– 25; cf. 9:32– 34; 12:22– 32. See France, The Gospel of Matthew, 407.  See Carter, “Jesus’ ‘I Have Come’” for connections between this passage and six other “I have come” (ἦλθον) statements in the Gospel of Matthew.  E. g. “Es ist ein Drohwort gegen das ehebrecherische Geschlecht, gegen die Gottlosen, die keinen Frieden haben, sondern dem Gottesschwert des endzeitlichen Krieges verfallen werden, wenn das Endgericht über sie hereinbricht” (Otto Betz, “Jesu heiliger Krieg,” NovT 2 [1958]: 116 – 37, 129); “It seem[s] fairly obvious that ‘sword’ is to be interpreted in this context in a figurative rather than in any literal sense” (Black, “Uncomfortable,” 116); “Jesus’ language is hyperbolic, of course” (Craig A. Evans, Matthew, NCBC [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012], 228); “The ‘sword’ can hardly be understood literally” (France, The Gospel of Matthew, 408); “Der Fortgang macht freilich deutlich, dass sich ‘Schwert’ hier nicht auf kriegerische Auseinandersetzungen bezieht” (Matthias Konradt, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, NTD Neues Göttinger Bibelwerk – Neubearbeitungen 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 172); cf. Carter, “Jesus’ ‘I Have Come’,” 59; Cullmann, Jesus, 47; Gabrielson, “Paul’s Non-Violent Gospel,” 76 – 77; Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 26; Luz, Matthew 8 – 20, 111, and on the history of interpretation, 109 – 110; John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 440; R. S. Schellenberg, “Peace,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 667. Neither Brandon nor Bermejo-Rubio engage to any significant extent with such scholarship.

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

121

4.2.1.3 Matthew 10:34 and Eschatological Conflict How, then, does Matthew 10:34 fit within the broader Synoptic portrayal of Jesus’s eschatological ministry? The juxtaposition of the two images of the εἰρήνη and the μάχαιρα is of particular significance to our present interests. With regard to the latter, David Sim has made an important contribution to understanding the symbolic senses with which a “sword” could be used in Second Temple literature.¹⁶ He argues that, when used metaphorically/symbolically, a “sword” would almost always have been understood in eschatological terms.¹⁷ Pointing to multiple examples, Sim demonstrates that the “sword” most often symbolised either (i) final eschatological conflict, in which the destruction of the wicked would be accomplished by God’s people; (ii) eschatological tribulations to be undergone by the faithful; or (iii) divine final judgment and punishment of the wicked.¹⁸ These three senses are quite distinct, and could theoretically result in contradictory interpretations of the μάχαιρα in Matthew 10:34.¹⁹ Sim, however, argues that the “multivocal” conceptual interrelation of all three enables the μάχαιρα to represent an amalgamation of Second Temple eschatological expectations.²⁰ This “multivocal” interpretation clearly suggests the plausibility—even the likelihood—of the Matthean Jesus’s statement about the consequences for those who participated in his kingdom ministry being understood in eschatological terms. It is somewhat more difficult to understand precisely why the Matthean Jesus warned his disciples not to expect εἰρήνη. It seems that his intention was to correct his listeners’ misguided assumptions.²¹ Many of those who witnessed Jesus’s teaching and action—even among his fellow Jews—responded

 Sim, “The Sword Motif.”  Sim, “The Sword Motif,” 97, argues that the allusion to Mic 7:6 further supports this case, and points to the its significance in 1En. 56:7; 100:1– 2; and Jub. 23:16, 19. Cf. John Nolland, Luke 9:21 – 18:34, WBC 35B (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993), 709, who notes in addition 4Ezra 6:24; 9:2– 3; cf. also Black, “‘Not peace but a sword’,” esp. 293 – 294.  Sim, “The Sword Motif,” 89 – 97. Sim (90) claims that in earlier Jewish scriptures the “sword” was primarily used with reference to God’s (present or future) judgment. Nolland, Luke 9:21 – 18:34, 709, makes a similar point, citing Isa 66:16; Wis 5:20; Sir 39:30; Jub. 9:15. Sim claims that most scholars understand the μάχαιρα in Matt 10:34 in terms of sense (ii); see, e. g., Allison, The End, 119 – 120; Carter, “Jesus’ ‘I Have Come’,” 58 – 59.  Sense (i), for example, would suggest that Jesus was here claiming to have come to bring climactic eschatological conflict—thus supporting the readings of Brandon and BermejoRubio. Sim, “The Sword Motif,” 98, however, argues emphatically against this reading.  Sim, “The Sword Motif,” 104.  So Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1 – 13, WBC 33 A (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 291, and Nolland, The Gospel, 439, where he cites Nolland, Luke 9:21 – 18:34, 709, on Luke 12:51.

122

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

to it with disagreement, hostility, and rejection. Although “peace” was expected to attend the eschatological fulfillment,²² and the Synoptic Gospels (especially Luke) make it clear that εἰρήνη was, indeed, the intended final outcome of Jesus’s ministry,²³ Matthew 10:34 (and Luke 12:51) make it clear that at this present stage of the kingdom ministry, such peace should not be expected. As Konradt observes, “‘Frieden’ ist Teil der (eschatologischen) Heilserwartung,” but “Die Zeit des irdischen Wirkens Jesu wird in V. 34 der Zeit des ‘Schwertes’ zugeordnet; sie ist noch nicht die Zeit des Friedens.”²⁴ The verse thus suggests the inaugurated but not yet consummated nature of the kingdom. The eternal age of God’s blessing would not come all at once. To suggest that Matthew 10:34 hints at a violent Jesus behind the Synoptic texts is to misunderstand the significance of these words in both their literary and historical context. The Matthean Jesus’s claim dissolves both the false perception that he intended his own role in the inauguration of the kingdom to be “passive,” and the idea that he avoided confrontation of any kind, demonstrating his expectation that conflict was an inherent component of the eschatological task he had been given.²⁵ The Matthean Jesus thus draws a clear distinction between the εἰρήνη which would attend the consummation of God’s eschatological promises, and the μάχαιρα of division, conflict, and hostility which would characterise the present ministry in which he and his followers were engaged.

4.2.2 The “Triumphal Entry” into Jerusalem (Mark 11:1 – 11 // Matt 21:1 – 11 // Luke 19:29 – 39) The Gospel accounts of Jesus’s arrival at Jerusalem are saturated with imagery and language evoking Jewish hopes for the reestablishment of the rule of

 See, e. g., Isa 9:6; 11:9; Zech 9:10.  See Luke 1:79; 2:14; 7:50; 8:48; 10:5 – 6; 19:38, 42.  Konradt, Das Evangelium, 172.  Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 319, notes that Jesus’s ministry frequently took place within and even through situations of conflict. See also France, The Gospel of Matthew, 408. Conversely, however, this does not mean that Jesus sought out unnecessary conflict; note Matt 12:14– 15; cf. Matthias Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew, trans. Kathleen Ess, Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014), 277– 280.

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

123

YHWH’s chosen king.²⁶ As a result, this event has regularly been understood to demonstrate Jesus’s messianic identity.²⁷

4.2.2.1 The Seditious Reading Advocates of the SJH, picking up on these messianic elements, argue that the Synoptic accounts preserve evidence that Jesus and his followers came to Jerusalem intending to force the militaristic confrontation the entire ministry had been building towards. Brandon describes the event as a “carefully planned demonstration by Jesus of his assumption of Messiahship … calculated to challenge both the Jewish leaders and the Romans,” thus clearly justifying the charge of “political Messianism” brought against Jesus at his trial.²⁸ Likewise, Bermejo-Rubio depicts this as “a prearranged action” which “involved a high messianic temperament and clear political claims in words and deeds, both from Jesus … and his followers.”²⁹ He also emphasises the “clandestine connection[s]” Jesus had with supporters in the city.³⁰ For both scholars, therefore, this was a subversive political manoeuver indicating Jesus’s intention to force (or willingness to provoke) a violent confrontation.

4.2.2.2 Critique of the Seditious Reading The problems with the seditious reading of this Synoptic passage derive from two main issues: first, the anachronistic suggestion that this act was “simply” (i. e. solely) political; and second, the assumption that the messianic identity which  Helpful recent overviews of Jesus’s arrival at Jerusalem are given by Brent Kinman, “Jesus’ Royal Entry Into Jerusalem,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb, WUNT 247 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 383 – 427 (cf. more extensively Brent Kinman, Jesus’ Entry Into Jerusalem: In the Context of Lukan Theology and the Politics of His Day, AGJU 28 [Leiden: Brill, 1995]) and Rikki E. Watts, “Triumphal Entry,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 980 – 85. See also David R. Catchpole, “The ‘Triumphal’ Entry,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 319 – 34; 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,” JBL 111 (1992): 55 – 71; W. B. Tatum, “Jesus’ So-Called Triumphal Entry: On Making an Ass of the Romans,” Forum 1 (1998): 129 – 43.  For example Schreiber, “Am Rande,” 96; Watts, “Triumphal Entry,” 980.  Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 349 – 350. Brandon notes that he is building on the argument of Eisler, ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣΑΣ, 459 – 463; cf. Reimarus, The Goal of Jesus, 93 – 94.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 10 – 11.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 11.

124

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

Jesus here claims was inescapably violent.³¹ With regard to the first of these, it is widely acknowledged that modern distinctions between the “political” and the “religious” spheres were not made in Second Temple Judaism (or in the ancient world more generally). Both Brandon and Bermejo-Rubio appear to operate with the assumption that if it can be demonstrated that the intentions behind this action were primarily political, the Synoptic presentation of its “religious” significance is shown to be problematic. This argument simply does not reflect Second Temple realities. In what follows, therefore, I will focus my attention on the second issue: the assumption that to be messiah was to embrace violent revolution.

4.2.2.3 The Messianic Implications of Jesus’s Arrival at Jerusalem The royal/messianic significance of Jesus’s arrival at Jerusalem seems undeniable. However, a great diversity of Second Temple messianic expectations is attested.³² Therefore, if we wish to understand the precise implications of this event, we must attend to the particularities of the Synoptic accounts—most significantly, the clear references to Zechariah 9:9 and Psalm 118:26 found in all three. It is with the royal figure(s) portrayed in each of these texts that the Synoptic Gospels associate Jesus. The first noteworthy component is the fact that Jesus comes to Jerusalem riding on a “colt” (πῶλος).³³ By citing Zechariah 9:9, Matthew³⁴ makes the prophetic allusion explicit: Jesus is cast in the role of the king whose coming Zechariah foretells.³⁵ The most noteworthy feature of Matthew’s citation is its elimination  For further critique of the seditious interpretation of the arrival at Jerusalem, see Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 37– 38.  See (among others) Collins, The Scepter; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The One Who is to Come (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007); Jacob Neusner, William S. Green, and Ernest Frerichs, eds., Judaisms and Their Messiahs At the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). With specific reference to the “triumphal entry,” see Kinman, “Jesus’ Royal Entry,” 403 – 405.  The description of the animal as a πῶλος is found in Mark 11:2, 4, 5, 7 and parallels. Matthew, making the fulfillment of Zechariah explicit, also mentions the ὄνος (“donkey,” 21:2, 7). For further on this, see Kinman, “Jesus’ Royal Entry,” 399 n. 42; cf. W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., Matthew 19 – 28, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 116 – 117, 122 – 123; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14 – 28, WBC 33B (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 595; Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21 – 28: A Commentary, trans. James E. Crouch, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 5 – 8; Nolland, The Gospel, 833, 835 – 837.  Cf. John 12:14– 15.  F. F. Bruce, “The Book of Zechariah and the Passion Narrative,” BJRL 43 (1960): 336 – 53, discusses the importance of Zechariah to the Synoptic passion account as a whole; see also Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “The Day of the Lord is Coming: Jesus and the Book of Zechariah,” in Jesus

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

125

of the fourth line (describing the king as ‫ צדיק ונושע הוא‬/ δίκαιος καὶ σῴζων αὐτός) from the prophetic source text. The only lexeme Matthew preserves is the reference to the king as “humble” (‫ עני‬/ πραΰς). This “humility” (or “meekness,” cf. Matt 5:5; 11:29), a unique feature of the Zecharian king,³⁶ is aptly demonstrated by his mount: not the mighty warhorse of a conquering general, but a lowly donkey.³⁷ The specific significance of this Zecharian king increases as the prophet continues: in striking contrast to the alternative messianic expectations found in texts such as the Psalms of Solomon, which declared that the anointed one would “destroy the unrighteous rulers” and “smash the arrogance of sinners like a potter’s jar” (17:22– 23), Zechariah describes a king who will remove (‫ כרת‬/ ἐξολεθρεύω) the chariot, warhorse, and battle-bow from Jerusalem, and command peace to the nations, leading Schreiber aptly to describe this figure as a “demütiger Friedenskönig.”³⁸ The contrast with prominent contemporary expectations could not be more clear: the Zecharian king, with whom, according to the Synoptic evangelists, Jesus intentionally associates himself, comes to Jerusalem not as a mighty warrior, but as one who brings peace to all those under his (worldwide) rule.³⁹ and the Scriptures: Problems, Passages and Patterns, ed. Tobias Hägerland, LNTS 552 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 111– 31. See Craig A. Evans, “Jesus and Zechariah’s Messianic Hope,” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, ed. Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans, NTTS 28.2 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 380 n. 11, for references to further scholarship on the topic, and 380 – 382 for his list of every allusion to Zechariah in the Gospels; cf. Greg Goswell, “The Eschatology of Malachi After Zechariah 14,” JBL 132 (2013): 625 – 38; C. Ham, The Coming King and the Rejected Shepherd: Matthew’s Reading of Zechariah’s Messianic Hope, New Testament Monographs 4 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005). Kinman, “Jesus’ Royal Entry,” 402, notes the lack of evidence that Zech 9:9 was read as a description of the messiah in the first century. Outside of the four Gospels, the earliest clearly messianic reading is found in b. Sanh. 98a. Cf. Fitzmyer, The One, 172– 173.  Neither ‫ עני‬nor πραΰς are ever used to describe one of the kings of Israel or Judah in the Jewish scriptures (though note the reference to Moses in LXX Num 12:3).  There appear to have been particular Davidic and royal associations with this animal: a [‫ פרד]ה‬/ ἡμίονος is described as the mount of the sons of David in 2Sam 13:29; 18:9; as well as of David himself in 1Kgs 1:33, 38 (cf. 1:28 – 40). See Kinman, “Jesus’ Royal Entry,” 401. Luz, Matthew 21 – 28, having claimed that Jesus’s mount “is to be understood as an expression of his kindness, peaceableness, and gentleness” (8), goes on to refer to this as a “messianic mount” (9), arguing that later Jewish exegetes explicitly interpreted Zech 9:9 messianically, and pointing to b. Ber. 6b, “Whoever sees a donkey in a dream may hope for (messianic) salvation” (cf. Gen. Rab. 75 [48c], Tanḥ. 2a) (9 – 10, n. 59).  Schreiber, “Am Rande,” 96.  On the association of peace with Jesus’s identity as the Zecharian king, see Bruce, “The Book of Zechariah,” 347; cf. Borg, Conflict, 244.

126

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

As Jesus approaches Jerusalem, he is met with acclamations befitting the Davidic king: εὐλογημένη ἡ ἐρχομένη βασιλεία τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Δαυίδ (Mark 11:10a); ὡσαννὰ⁴⁰ τῷ υἱῷ Δαυίδ (Matt 21:9a⁴¹); and, significantly, εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου (Mark 11:9b // Matt 21:9b // Luke 19:38a). This last statement is drawn directly from Psalm 118 (OG/LXX 117), where the words are used to welcome a royal figure who comes to Jerusalem to give thanks to YHWH for the deliverance he has provided.⁴² The most prominent theme of the psalm is YHWH’s mighty power to deliver those who take refuge in him (vv. 5 – 18, 21, 25). The psalmist proclaims that YHWH has been his salvation (v. 21), and that through YHWH, he has accomplished mighty deeds (vv. 22– 23).⁴³ Thus, both Zechariah 9 and Psalm 118 focus on the salvation that comes from YHWH: whereas the prophet looks forward to the reign of peace God will establish through his king,⁴⁴ the psalmist looks backward to the deliverance God provided in the past. Although both texts elsewhere make reference to the role of God’s faithful people in the punishment of their enemies,⁴⁵ the emphasis is predominantly on the power of YHWH, and the salvation he has provided and will provide again.⁴⁶ In its Synoptic context, therefore, Jesus’s arrival at Jerusalem anticipates the forthcoming climactic moment of his eschatological ministry. By placing Zechariah 9 and Psalm 118 at the centre of their accounts of this incident, the Synoptic evangelists emphasise particular features of Jesus’s messianic identity, the prophesied outcome of his arrival at Jerusalem, and God’s involvement in these events.⁴⁷

 On the precise meaning and significance of ὡσαννά (Ps 118:25: ‫)הושיעה נא‬, see Luz, Matthew 21 – 28, 9.  Evans, “Jesus and Zechariah’s,” 383, points out the similarity between the Matthean crowd’s acclamation and the Aramaic of Psalm 118, which extrapolates its explicit reference to David.  See Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101 – 150, WBC 21 (Waco: Word Books, 1983), 118 – 125; Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101 – 150, trans. Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 237– 244.  Cf. the allusion to Ps 118:22 in Mark 12:10 – 11 // Matt 21:42 // Luke 20:17; cf. Acts 4:11; 1Pet 2:7.  See further Zech 9:14– 16.  Psalm 118:10 – 13; Zech 9:13, 15b.  Schreiber, “Am Rande,” 96.  See Duff, “The March” for an insightful exploration of the significance of Zech 14 to the Markan account. Duff argues that the Markan Jesus embodies the march of the “divine warrior” YHWH from the Mount of Olives into the city, to inaugurate “a new age of peace and prosperity” (56); cf. Watts, “Triumphal Entry,” 981.

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

127

Therefore, while Brandon and Bermejo-Rubio appropriately acknowledge the messianic significance of Jesus’s arrival at Jerusalem, their suggestion that this implies his intention violently to confront those in power and assert his own rule conflicts with the particularities of the Gospel accounts. The Synoptic evangelists emphasise the significance of two texts for understanding this event properly: Zechariah 9:9, with which Jesus intentionally associated himself, and Psalm 118:26, with which the crowds greeted his arrival. Jesus thus draws upon himself the mantle of the “humble” Zecharian “Friedenskönig,” coming to Jerusalem to usher in an age of worldwide peace; and the crowds celebrate the deliverance YHWH has provided his people in the past, and anticipate its future fulfillment. While there are undeniably messianic (and thus eschatological) aspects to this event, they are not inherently violent.

4.2.3 The Temple Act (Mark 11:15 – 19 // Matt 21:12 – 17 // Luke 19:45 – 48) In all three Synoptic narratives, the next event to be discussed occurs immediately after Jesus’s arrival at Jerusalem. Upon entering the city, Jesus heads directly to the temple.⁴⁸ Although the precise meaning of the ensuing events are widely debated,⁴⁹ the “temple act”⁵⁰ has long been acknowledged as a moment of great

 In Mark’s account, Jesus heads directly to the temple, but then departs to Bethany for the evening (11:11). Mark thus situates the temple act on the following day. See R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 442; Robert H. Stein, Mark, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 506 – 507.  Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 61, famously named this “the surest starting point” into the investigation of Jesus’s relationship to the Judaism of his day. For a helpful recent overview of the temple act, including references to the most significant scholarship, see Jostein Ådna, “Temple Act,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 947– 52; and Klyne R. Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb, WUNT 247 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 429 – 80. Other scholarship includes: Jostein Ådna, “Jesus and the Temple,” in The Historical Jesus, ed. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter, vol. 3 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 2635 – 75; Hans Dieter Betz, “Jesus and the Purity of the Temple (Mark 11:15 – 18): A Comparative Religion Approach,” JBL 116 (1997): 455 – 72; Mark R. Bredin, “John’s Account of Jesus’ Demonstration in the Temple: Violent or Nonviolent?,” BTB 33 (2003): 44– 50; Maurice Casey, “Culture and Historicity: The Cleansing of the Temple,” CBQ 59 (1997): 306 – 32; J. Chanikuzhy, Jesus, the Eschatological Temple: An Exegetical Study of Jn 2,13 – 22 in the Light of the Pre 70 C.E. Eschatological Temple Hopes and the Synoptic Temple Action, CBET 58 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012); Adela Yarbro Collins, “Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple,” in Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on

128

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

significance for our understanding of Jesus. The incident is admittedly unique, standing out as a brief moment in which Jesus expressed frustration with his contemporaries not only with words, but also with aggressive action. Moreover, the “temple act” is of particular importance to the present study, for it is frequently cited as evidence that, when the situation demanded it, Jesus was willing to embrace violence.

4.2.3.1 The Seditious Reading The temple act has played an important role in almost every articulation of the SJH.⁵¹ Even Reimarus noted the “violence and disorder” Jesus caused by this ac-

His 70th Birthday, ed. Adela Yarbro Collins and M. M. Mitchell (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 45 – 61; Craig A. Evans, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple and Evidence of Corruption in the First-Century Temple,” SBLSP 28 (1989): 522– 39, Craig A. Evans, “Jesus and the ‘Cave of Robbers’: Towards a Jewish Context for the Temple Action,” BBR 3 (1993): 93 – 110, Craig A. Evans, “From ‘House of Prayer’ to ‘Cave of Robbers’: Jesus’ Prophetic Criticism of the Temple Establishment,” in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders, ed. Craig A. Evans and S. Talmon, BibInt 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 417– 42; Solomon Hon-fai Wong, The Temple Incident in Mark 11,15 – 19: The Disclosure of Jesus and the Marcan Faction, New Testament Studies in Contextual Exegesis 5 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2009); P. Richardson, “Why Turn the Tables? Jesus’ Protest in the Temple Precincts,” SBLSP 31 (1992): 507– 23; Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: A Key or a Puzzle?,” ZNW 97 (2006), 1– 22; Yoder Neufeld, Killing Enmity, 57– 72. For a list of the five most common interpretations of Jesus’s actions here, see Ådna, “Temple Act,” 949 – 950; comparable lists are given by Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” 463 – 464, and Wedderburn, “Jesus’ Action,” 1– 5 (with references). For a full-length treatment of the history of interpretation, see Christina Metzdorf, Die Tempelaktion Jesu: Patristische und historisch-kritische Exegese im Vergleich, WUNT 2/168 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). A range of options which pay particularly close attention to precedents for such an event in the Jewish scriptures, and the expectations associated with these texts, can be found in William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 404– 405; cf. Stein, Mark, 508 – 509. Perhaps the only widely agreed-upon aspect of the incident is its historicity (demonstrated by Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” 429 – 439).  Although many English translations of the New Testament head the Synoptic pericopae with something analogous to the NRSV’s “Jesus Cleanses the Temple,” this imposes a misleading interpretative grid on the event, since none of the Gospels use the explicit language of “cleansing” or “purification.” I will therefore refer to this incident with the more neutral “temple act.”  Earlier opponents of this hypothesis also recognised this; Hengel, Was Jesus, 15, for example, claimed that the temple act is the “key witness for the representation of Jesus as a political revolutionary”; cf. Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” 464, who argues that it is “the only real evidence pointing in that direction.” Andy Alexis-Baker, “Violence, Nonviolence and the Temple Incident in John 2:13 – 15,” BibInt 20 (2012): 73 – 96, offers a helpful overview of the interpretation of this event, with particular attention to the question of its evidence as violence on the part of Jesus.

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

129

tion.⁵² Eisler referred to the event as “die Besetzung des Tempels” and “der Angriff auf die Tempelbanken,” arguing that Jesus and his followers successfully stormed the temple courts, before being overwhelmed by the Roman military.⁵³ Maccoby identified this “violent event” as Jesus’s “bid for power.”⁵⁴ Brandon repeatedly refers to the incident as an “attack” against the “sacerdotal aristocracy” that controlled the temple (and by extension against the Romans from whom they received their power), “achieved by the aid of an excited crowd of [Jesus’s] supporters and … attended by violence and pillage.”⁵⁵ He thus claims to discern its “truly revolutionary” nature,⁵⁶ stating that it was “virtually a proclamation of rebellion.”⁵⁷ In Brandon’s estimation, this incident (along with the entry into Jerusalem, and the “armed resistance in Gethsemane”) provides evidence that “a good prima facie case for seditious activity could be made out against Jesus.”⁵⁸ Bermejo-Rubio is less confident in his assessment of the violence and/or revolutionary significance of the incident, recognizing that the Synoptic accounts lack sufficient detail to make such claims with any certainty.⁵⁹ However, he takes this scarcity of detail to indicate the evangelists’ desire to conceal the reality of what occurred, which indicates to him that the historical event was

 Reimarus, The Goal of Jesus, 93.  Eisler, ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣΑΣ, 2:475, 491. Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the AntiRoman Resistance,” 44, thinks such claims should not be too quickly dismissed; cf. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 297– 298.  Maccoby, Revolution in Judaea, 101.  Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 332, 333; see further 331– 339; cf. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 299 – 300.  Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 332. Critique of Brandon’s reading can be found in Bruce D. Chilton, The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program Within a Cultural History of Sacrifice (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992), 94– 100 (I am indebted to Evans, “Jesus and the ‘Cave of Robbers’,” 100, for the reference).  Brandon, The Trial, 175. I am indebted to Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 625, for drawing my attention to this quote.  Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 257. Brandon also suggests (334) that the temple act constituted the στάσις mentioned by Mark and Luke in their description of Barabbas (Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19, 25; cf. § 4.2.7.2). Cf. J. Harold Ellens, “The Violent Jesus,” in Models and Cases of Violence in Religion, ed. J. Harold Ellens, vol. 3 of The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004), 17.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 10; cf. 77– 78.

130

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

much more momentous—and likely seditious—than the Gospels suggest.⁶⁰ The temple act therefore significantly contributes to his claim that “a large number of the passages hinting at a connection between Jesus and violence or sedition became, in the extant Gospel tradition, at a certain point abstruse … these passages do not make real sense as they now stand.”⁶¹

4.2.3.2 Critique of the Seditious Reading In what follows, I will demonstrate that within the Synoptic narratives of Jesus’s ministry, the temple act is in no way “abstruse”; rather, it is eminently understandable as an enacted prophetic condemnation, and clearly bound up with his rejection of eschatological violence. First, however, I note that refuting the seditious reading is as simple as acknowledging that, within the limits of the term’s definition provided earlier (§ 1.4.3), the Synoptic accounts do not attribute violence to Jesus in this incident.⁶² Nevertheless, even scholars who do not otherwise advocate the SJH have referred to Jesus here “inflict[ing] blows upon the guilty” and described this as “the only act of violence recorded of the Lord,”⁶³ or “an actual attack involving some violence.”⁶⁴ This perception is often based on a misreading of the account given in the fourth Gospel (John 2:13 – 22), especially verse 15.⁶⁵ As a result of sometimes unclear or misleading English translations, which suggest that πάντας refers to those selling livestock and the money-changers (2:14, see e. g. ESV, KJV), the prominent image many have of this event is of Jesus viciously wielding a whip against his adversaries.⁶⁶ However, the text is

 Wedderburn, “Jesus’ Action,” 19 – 20, makes almost exactly this claim; referencing there the similar argument made by Metzdorf, Die Tempelaktion, 212, against Sanders. Cf. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 297– 298.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 23 – 24, here 24. See yet further Ellens, “The Violent Jesus,” 16, who refers to the temple act as “one of [Jesus’s] fits of violence.”  So also Schreiber, “Am Rande,” 102: “Die Gewaltanwendung bei der Tempelaktion Jesu hat symbolischen Charakter und stellt keine eigentliche Gewalt gegen Personen dar”; cf. Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” 439. Emphasis added.  Lane, The Gospel, 404.  Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 300.  Note, for example, that John 2:15 is the only verse referenced by Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 10, when he mentions the temple act on his list. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I – XII, AB 29 (London: Chapman, 1971), 122, refers to the “sweeping violence” of John’s account.  See for example the paintings accompanying the Wikipedia article on this event: https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple.

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

131

quite clear that πάντας points forward, to τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας.⁶⁷ Jesus uses the φραγέλλιον against the livestock, not their owners; thus, the whip functions as an agricultural tool, not a weapon.⁶⁸ Therefore, nothing in any of the Gospel accounts suggests that Jesus’s temple act should be considered one of “revolutionary violence.”

4.2.3.3 An Enacted Prophetic Condemnation If, then, we strictly adhere to the Synoptic narratives, the temple act appears to have been confrontational, disruptive, and short-lived—but not explicitly violent. Questions remain, however, about the symbolic significance of this event. Although the Gospels’ descriptions of Jesus’s actions are slightly distinct from one another, their reports of his words are almost identical. The statement with which Jesus follows his actions is thus of primary importance within this enigmatic incident, providing interpretative insight into its significance for his eschatological ministry. According to the Synoptic evangelists, Jesus declares that rather than functioning as it should, as an οἶκος προσευχῆς (πᾶσαν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν),⁶⁹ the temple had become a σπήλαιον λῃστῶν (Mark 11:17 // Matt 21:13 // Luke 19:46). Two allusions to prophetic texts are clearly evident in this statement. First, with οἶκος προσευχῆς (πᾶσαν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν), Jesus cites Isaiah 56:7, a verse drawn from a longer passage (56:3 – 8) in which the prophet declares God’s promise that, in days to come, the temple of YHWH would be a place where all those who love the name of YHWH would be brought together to worship him.⁷⁰ Second, alluding  In support of this, see David Rensberger, “Jesus’s Action in the Temple,” in Struggles for Shalom: Peace and Violence Across the Testaments, ed. Laura L. Brenneman and Brad D. Schantz, SPS 12 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014), 185 – 186, and the references found in nn. 26 – 28; note especially N. Clayton Croy, “The Messianic Whippersnapper: Did Jesus Use a Whip on People in the Temple (John 2:15)?,” JBL 128 (2009): 553 – 56, who offers careful grammatical examination of John 2:15. For the argument that πάντας refers backwards, see the references at Rensberger, “Jesus’s Action,” 185 n. 25. See also Ådna, “Jesus and the Temple,” 2644 n. 24; Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 38; Yoder Neufeld, Killing Enmity, 15.  Rensberger, “Jesus’s Action,” 184– 185, thus argues that the presence of the whip is inseparable from that of the cattle and the sheep.  Only Mark includes “πᾶσαν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν.” On this, see Yarbro Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 530 – 532; France, The Gospel of Mark, 445 – 446; Stein, Mark, 517– 518.  Cf. Isa 2:1– 4 (= Mic 4:1– 4); Zeph 3:9 – 10. On Isa 56:3 – 8, see, John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40 – 66, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 456 – 461; John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34 – 66, WBC 25 (Waco: Word Books, 1987), 248– 250; Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40 – 66: A Commentary, trans. David M. G. Stalker, OTL (London: SCM, 1969), 311– 316.

132

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

to Jeremiah 7:11, Jesus contrasts the Isaianic picture of the eschatological temple with a description of its current condition: the temple has become a σπήλαιον λῃστῶν. A contrast—made particularly clear by Mark’s inclusion of the full Isaianic phrase—is thus drawn between the intended and actual association between the temple and two groups of people: the ἔθνη and the λῃσταί. As already noted, the importance of this incident to our overall understanding of Jesus and his ministry is undeniable, given (i) its unanimous attestation by all four Gospel writers, and (ii) the deep symbolic significance of the temple within the Jewish worldview.⁷¹ While debates regarding the precise implications of the temple act have been widespread, there is one specific line of interpretation that draws out an aspect of its meaning with particular relevance to the present study and its refutation of the SJH. Several scholars have suggested that at least part of the force of Jesus’s words in Mark 11:17 parr. is found in their implied critique of the association of the temple with violent nationalist (i. e. revolutionary) Jewish ideology.⁷² This interpretative trajectory focuses on the phrase σπήλαιον λῃστῶν, and its particular significance both within its original literary context (Jer 7:11, as part of 7:1– 15); as well as its immediate historical context (firstcentury CE Palestine). The first point to note, then, is the particular significance of Jeremiah 7, which is evoked by Jesus’s reference to the temple as a σπήλαιον λῃστῶν.⁷³ Within the biblical texts, σπήλαιον λῃστῶν is found only here, in the Synoptic accounts of the temple act, and in Jeremiah 7:11 LXX, where it renders the MT’s

 For a helpful overview of the significance of the temple in the world of Second Temple Judaism, see Lee I. Levine, “Temple, Jerusalem,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1281– 91; cf. Wright, The New Testament, 224– 226. For commentary on its significance to the Synoptic portrayals of Jesus, see Daniel M. Gurtner and Nicholas Perrin, “Temple,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 941– 944.  Including Bird, “Jesus and the Revolutionaries,” 132– 136; Borg, Conflict, 185 – 189; George B. Caird, “The Mind of Christ: Christ’s Attitude to Institutions,” ExpTim 62 (1950): 259 – 62, 259 – 260; Wright, Jesus, 418 – 428; cf. C. K. Barrett, “The House of Prayer and the Den of Thieves,” in Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. E. Earle Ellis and E. Grässer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 13 – 20; G. W. Buchanan, “Mark 11.15 – 19: Brigands in the Temple,” HUCA 30 (1959): 169 – 77; L. Gaston, No Stone on Another: Studies of the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels, NovTSup 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1970); Cecil Roth, “The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechariah xiv 21,” NovT 4 (1960): 174– 81.  While only Mark includes πᾶσαν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (see n. 69), all three Synoptic evangelists include σπήλαιον λῃστῶν, making the reference to Jer 7:11, and its interpretative significance for this incident, unmistakable.

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

133

‫“( מערת פרצים‬cave of violent ones”).⁷⁴ In Jeremiah 7, the prophet has been instructed by YHWH to stand in the gateway of the temple and proclaim a message of judgment and a call to repentance.⁷⁵ At the heart of this message is the fact that Jeremiah’s contemporaries had turned the temple itself into an idolatrous object. Despite their own wickedness, injustice and idolatry (vv. 5 – 6, 9), and the growing power of Babylon, once inside the temple, the people of Judah considered themselves invulnerable to external threat (vv. 4, 10). Based on their own misguided understanding of the implications of YHWH’s promises to protect the temple, Jeremiah’s contemporaries had come to perceive it as an inviolable refuge.⁷⁶ Through his prophet’s words, YHWH dismisses this misguided notion: by their actions, they have turned this “house,” called by the name of YHWH, into a ‫ מערת פרצים‬/ σπήλαιον λῃστῶν (v. 11). Therefore, the judgment which fell on Shiloh (vv. 12– 14; cf. Hos 9:15) will likewise fall on Jeremiah’s contemporaries, as a result of their failure to listen to YHWH (v. 13) and to embody the character of the God to whom they claim to belong. By naming the temple a σπήλαιον λῃστῶν, therefore, Jesus utilises this key phrase from Jeremiah 7 to invoke the entirety of the prophetic condemnation and pronouncement of judgment. Having held up the Isaianic portrayal of what the temple was intended to be (an οἶκος προσευχῆς), Jesus follows this with Jeremiah’s critique of what his contemporaries, through injustice and idolatry, had caused it to become instead, and warns his listeners of the judgment that would result.⁷⁷ This has two implications for our reading of the temple act: first, it suggests that the incident should be understood as an enacted prophetic declaration of the temple’s impending destruction;⁷⁸ second—and more signifi ‫ פריץ‬occurs only six times in the Hebrew Jewish scriptures (Ps 17:4; Isa 35:9; Jer 7:11; Ezek 7:22; 18:10; Dan 11:14), in every case connoting ideas of violence. Aside from Jer 7:11, λῃστής is not used to render ‫פריץ‬. See J. Conrad, “‫ ָפּ ַרץ‬,” TDOT 12:104– 110. See also Borg, Conflict, 185 – 186, who argues the case for translating the key phrase in Jer 7:11 as “den of violent ones.”  For commentary on this passage, see (among others): Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1 – 20, AB 21 A (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 453 – 473, esp. 465 – 468; John A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 271– 283.  Bird, “Jesus and the Revolutionaries,” 132, notes the representation of YHWH’s promise to protect the city and temple in which his presence dwelt in Isa 26:1– 3; Pss 48; 132; 147; as well as the connection between YHWH’s choice of David and YHWH’s choice of Jerusalem represented in Pss 2:6; 78:68 – 72; 132:11– 14.  Thus Bird, “Jesus and the Revolutionaries,” 135, refers to Jesus’s “midrashic juxtaposition” of Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11 as an “example of prophetic criticism”; see also Evans, “From ‘House of Prayer’.”  On this see most famously Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 61– 76; cf. Tom Holmén, Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking, Biblical Interpretation Series 55 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 323–329; Wright, Jesus, 419.

134

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

cantly for our purposes—it implies Jesus’s condemnation of the belief that the temple provided inviolable security for those who worshipped YHWH within its walls. Although this latter idea was, of course, proved false with the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians, Bird notes literary evidence of the persistent Jewish hope that the new temple—the eschatological temple—would be “inviolable and invincible.”⁷⁹ This, then, raises the question of the historical significance of such ideology in Jesus’s own day. Several scholars have argued that the temple was of particular symbolic importance for revolutionary Judaism in the first century. Freyne, for example, claims that throughout “the whole procuratorial period the temple repeatedly became the flashpoint of Jewish nationalist implications,”⁸⁰ building upon the earlier work of Caird, who argued that “instead of being the centre of a world religion, the Temple had become the symbol of nationalism and division.”⁸¹ Bird, noting the work of both scholars, offers ten lines of evidence which, he argues, support Caird’s statement.⁸² These scholars convincingly demonstrate that the historical and literary data suggests that, for those of Jesus’s contemporaries who inherently associated YHWH’s deliverance of his people with “eschatological violence,” the temple played a significant symbolic role. It represented YHWH’s presence in the midst of and protection over his people. Just as in 586 BCE the ‫ פרצים‬trusted in the temple to guarantee their inviolability vis-àvis Babylon, so in the first century CE the λῃσταί saw the Temple as a “guarantor of security and a focal point of liberation hopes.”⁸³ This is perhaps nowhere more clearly represented than in Josephus’s Jewish War: when, at last, the final line of defence had been breached by Titus and his legions and the destruction of the temple was inevitable, the leaders of the Jewish resistance petitioned Titus for permission “to retire to the desert (ἀπελεύσεσθαι … εἰς τὴν ἔρημον) and to leave the city to him.”⁸⁴ The temple had fallen without YHWH’s intervention on behalf of his people; therefore, no hope remained.⁸⁵

 Bird, “Jesus and the Revolutionaries,” 132 n. 21, points in particular to Ezek 38 – 39; Zech 1:16; 8:9 – 15; Sib. Or. 3:663 – 730; 1En. 56:5 – 8; and Jub. 1:28.  Seán Freyne, Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 179.  Caird, “The Mind of Christ,” 259 – 260. Similar arguments are found in Borg, Conflict, 186; Wright, Jesus, 420 – 421.  Bird, “Jesus and the Revolutionaries,” 132– 136. Bird thus claims that “We observe the apex of Jesus’ critique of the nationalistic movement by examining his attack upon its most strident symbol of assured victory: the temple” (132).  Borg, Conflict, 186.  War 6.351; see further 6.323 – 327, 351– 353. See Wright, Jesus, 421 n. 195.  Earlier, some of Titus’s officials observed that “the Jews would never cease from rebellion while the temple remained as the focus for concourse from every quarter” (War 6.239); see

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

135

As Wright observes, reading Jesus’s declaration that the temple had once again become a σπήλαιον λῃστῶν need not be taken to mean that there were actually revolutionaries hiding out in the temple in his day; rather, the force of the statement is found in its identification and condemnation of the ideological connections that existed between violent nationalism and the temple.⁸⁶ The particular nature of the problem is demonstrated by the preceding reference to Isaiah 56:7: rather than being a “house of prayer [for all the nations],” a light to the world drawing people in, the temple had become the centre of resistance separating Israel from the world.⁸⁷ It is therefore plausible to understand Jesus’s statement as a prophetic condemnation of the widespread embrace of the λῃστής-ideology amongst his contemporaries and the effect this has had upon the temple, with an implied warning about its eschatological consequences. Finally—on a less certain but nevertheless significant note—we may observe the particular significance of the word λῃστής here. Given (i) the relative rarity of the lexeme in the Synoptic Gospels,⁸⁸ and (ii) the fact that λῃστής is frequently used in contemporary sources to identify violent revolutionaries, its presence in Mark 11:17 parr. is noteworthy.⁸⁹ As we saw earlier (§ 3.3.2), Josephus used the

Bird, “Jesus and the Revolutionaries,” 135. Bird also notes that following the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, Titus ordered that the temple at Leontopolis be closed, “to prevent it becoming a rallying point for Jewish forces” (see War 7.420 – 421, 433 – 435); cf. Horbury, Jewish War, 117, 120, who also notes the significance of Ezek 24:21 in this regard; as well as Tacitus’s description of the fortress-like character of the temple (Hist. 5.12). The significance of the temple to Second Temple Jewish nationalism is also clearly evidenced by the ubiquitous presence of associated imagery on numismatic evidence from the revolts of 66 – 70 and 132– 135 CE; see Robert Deutsch, “Coinage of the First Jewish Revolt Against Rome: Iconography, Minting Authority, Metallurgy,” in The Jewish Revolt Against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Mladen Popović, JSJSup 154 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 361– 368; Mildenberg, The Coinage; cf. McLaren, “The Coinage”; see also §§ 3.3.3; 3.4.2.  So also Borg, Conflict, 186 n. 59: “The charge is appropriate at any time in the first century, given the ideological and actual role of the Temple in Jewish resistance to Rome”; contra Barrett, “The House,” 16; cf. Buchanan, “Mark 11.15 – 19,” 176; Gaston, No Stone; Roth, “The Cleansing.”  So Bird, “Jesus and the Revolutionaries,” 136: “The antonym of a house built for worship that includes the nations, is one that is an enclave for terrorists bent on eradicating the Gentiles from Judea.” See further Joel Marcus, “No More Zealots in the House of the Lord: A Note on the History of Interpretation of Zechariah 14:21,” NovT 55 (2013), 22– 30, who (pointing in particular to the significance of Zech 14:21b for the Markan account of the temple act) sees a “clear connection between the Markan citations and the exclusionary, anti-Gentile policy of the temple-occupying Zealots” (27).  Aside from the verses under discussion, λῃστής is found in Matt 26:55; 27:38, 44; Mark 14:48; 15:27; and Luke 10:30, 36; and 22:52.  See Buchanan, “Mark 11.15 – 19” for a thorough comparison of the usages of κλέπτης and λῃστής across the LXX, NT, and other Second Temple Jewish literature. Buchanan supports read-

136

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

term to refer to revolutionary individuals in a derogatory manner.⁹⁰ Furthermore, at several points he writes of the λῃσταί who dwelt ἐν τοῖς σπηλαίοις in reference to the revolutionary brigands who were wiped out by Herod the Great.⁹¹ At the very least, this suggests the insufficiency of reading Jesus’s words as implying simple “theft” on the part of the money-changers and merchants, and provides evidence of the nationalistic, revolutionary frame of reference within which σπήλαιον λῃστῶν quite likely would have been heard.⁹² In sum, the reference to Jeremiah 7:11, the ideological connections of the temple with revolutionary Judaism, and the lexical significance of λῃστής together suggest that it is at least plausible to read σπήλαιον λῃστῶν in Mark 11:17 parr. as connoting a “den of (violent) revolutionaries.” This in turn suggests—directly over-against the claims of SJH-advocates, that the temple act gives us a glimpse of the violence representative of Jesus’s “true” character— that we see here a critique of the revolutionary identity embodied by the λῃσταί as part of the deep symbolic significance of Jesus’s words and actions in this event. While denying neither the specific ways in which the Synoptic evangelists utilise this account in their portrayals of Jesus, nor the broader implications—political, social, and “religious”—of the temple act, I argue that the twofold prophetic critique which (all three Synoptic evangelists tell us) provides the lens through which to understand the significance of this incident suggests that, far from being a key piece of evidence supporting the SJH, the temple act implies Jesus’s condemnation of eschatological violence and rejection of its association with the identity of those who would worship YHWH in his temple.

4.2.4 The Tribute Question (Mark 12:13 – 17 // Matt 22:15 – 22 // Luke 20:20 – 26) According to the Synoptic accounts, Jesus spent the days between his arrival at Jerusalem and his crucifixion teaching in the temple courts and engaging in dis-

ing σπήλαιον λῃστῶν as “zealot stronghold” (175 – 177); cf. Karl H. Rengstorf, “λῃστής,” TDNT 4:257– 262.  E. g. War 2.254; 4.504; Ant. 14.159; 20.160; and frequently elsewhere (see § 3.3.2). It is less clear, however, whether this was the most widespread meaning of the term. Further (tangential) support of my reading is offered by Marcus, “No More Zealots”; cf. Bird, “Jesus and the Revolutionaries,” 136; who claims that λῃστῶν is “readily associated with brigandage and insurrection.”  Josephus, Ant. 14.415; War 1.304; cf. Ant. 14.415; 15.345 – 8.  See Borg, Conflict, 185; Wright, Jesus, 420; cf. Buchanan, “Mark 11.15 – 19.”

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

137

cussion with the chief priests, scribes, and elders. During one of these encounters, Jesus was presented with a question that required him to make a choice: either to declare his support for the Roman taxation of the Jewish people, or to reject it. It seems that the intent of his interlocutors was thereby to cause Jesus either to lose some of his popularity, or to provide a pretext with which they could bring him before the Romans on charges of sedition.⁹³

4.2.4.1 The Significance of the Tribute Question The potential volatility of this question, and the significance of this pericope to the present study, derives from the contentious nature of taxation within the Jewish worldview. Paying tribute to Rome was not simply a financial matter, it was symbolic: the tax tangibly represented Jewish submission to pagan rule over the land that YHWH had promised to his people.⁹⁴ More specifically, Davies and Allison note that the κῆνσος (Mark 12:14 // Matt 22:17; cf. φόρος, Luke 20:22) was the tax placed upon personal property, which was assessed through the Roman census.⁹⁵ This further suggests the seditious overtones of the question, since (according to Josephus) it was the first Roman census and the resulting imposition of the κῆνσος that caused the revolt led by Judas the Galilean in 6 – 7 CE.⁹⁶ To submit to taxation was to acknowledge the lordship of Caesar (War 2.118).⁹⁷ In the eyes of Judas and his followers—for whom ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς μόνον ἡγεμόνα καὶ δεσπότην τὸν θεὸν (Ant. 18.23)—paying the tribute was, therefore, idolatrous.⁹⁸

 See especially Luke 20:20; 23:2.  Though the economic pressures Roman taxation placed upon the majority of the Jewish population should not be taken lightly. See Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 3 – 19. For Jewish resentment of Roman taxation see Josephus, Ant. 17.204– 205, 308; see Davies and Allison, Matthew 19 – 28, 214; Stein, Mark, 544.  Davies and Allison, Matthew 19 – 28, 214. Contra arguments that κῆνσος (a loanword from the Latin census) referred to some sort of poll tax directly related to the census itself, D. Downs, “Economics,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 224, argues that Luke’s use of φόρος, the regular word used to refer to the empire-wide Roman “tribute” (cf. Rom 13:7; Josephus, War 2.403; Ant. 14.203), makes it clear that this more general tax is at issue. For detailed analysis of the Roman taxation of Judea after 4 BCE, see Fabian E. Udoh, To Caesar What is Caesar’s: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine (63 B.C.E.–70 C.E.), BJS 343 (Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2005), 207– 243.  Josephus, War 2.117– 118; Ant. 18.1– 9; cf. Acts 5:37; Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom. 4.27. See § 3.3.2.  Cf. Tacitus, Ann. 2.42 (with reference to events in 17 CE).  Catchpole, “The ‘Triumphal’ Entry,” 257, claims: “the new doctrine that it was impious to pay tribute to Caesar was the distinguishing feature of the Zealot outlook.” Emphasis added.

138

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

This forms the background against which we must read the Synoptic accounts.⁹⁹ For Jesus to suggest that his listeners should not pay the tax was tantamount to a declaration of rebellion against Caesar.¹⁰⁰ His interlocutors could accuse him of fomenting sedition.¹⁰¹ On the other hand, to affirm the Roman demand for tribute would, his adversaries knew, have severely damaged Jesus’s popularity. Many of those in the crowd, hoping that he would shortly fulfill their messianic expectations, would have been disappointed and disillusioned.¹⁰² The question thus brings into focus the practical implications of the eschatological message Jesus had been proclaiming, operating with the presumption of the underlying connections between eschatological fulfillment and revolutionary violence: if the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ is at hand, what did this mean vis-à-vis Jewish submission to Roman rule? Jesus’s response—found in all three Synoptic accounts—is remarkable. Refusing to be bound by the either/or with which his adversaries had attempted to trap him, Jesus replies, ἀπόδοτε τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῷ θεῷ (Mark 12:17 // Matt 22:21 // Luke 20:25). The words are “intentionally ambiguous,”¹⁰³ “subtly stated,”¹⁰⁴ a “coded statement”¹⁰⁵ that simultaneously affirmed and condemned both possible responses.

4.2.4.2 Contrasting Interpretations As a result of the subtle complexity of his response, a great variety of interpretations of Jesus’s words have been offered.¹⁰⁶ Many scholars understand them clear Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 32: “The Roman tribute was … a central symbol of Jewish resistance and provoked the controversial question: who was the true King—God or Caesar?” Emphasis original.  See Josephus, War 2.403, where Agrippa tells the Jews that τὰ ἔργα [not paying the tribute to Caesar] … Ῥωμαίοις ἤδη πολεμούντων ἐστίν.  This is precisely what occurs in Luke 23:2. See below, § 4.2.7.1.  See Stein, Mark, 544: “this was not a small, abstract, theoretical question … this was a serious and deeply impassioned issue.” Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 712, insightfully observes that, since Jesus’s popularity with the crowds was the factor preventing his Jewish adversaries from laying hands on him (see e. g. Luke 19:47– 48; 20:19), no matter which answer Jesus gave, he would have left himself susceptible to threat; cf. Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 32.  Cullmann, Jesus, 45; cf. Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 33 – 34.  Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 307.  Wright, Jesus, 504.  Scholarship on this passage is voluminous. For bibliography, see J. Spencer Kennard, Render to God: A Study of the Tribute Passage (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950); more recently, see Niclas Förster, Jesus und die Steuerfrage: Die Zinsgroschenperikope auf dem religiösen und po-

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

139

ly to disassociate Jesus from revolutionary action of any kind. Merkel, for example, sees here “Jesus’ unequivocal renunciation of the Zealot ideology.”¹⁰⁷ Perhaps surprisingly, Brandon is among the scholars who claim that Jesus’s words are an endorsement of “the Jewish obligation to pay tribute to Rome.”¹⁰⁸ As Brandon himself acknowledges, this contrasts with the SJH: if the Synoptic accounts suggest Jesus’s positive attitude towards the payment of tribute, he would never have been accepted by his contemporaries as the sort of messiah Brandon believes Jesus to have been.¹⁰⁹ Therefore, the tribute passage is for Brandon the central piece of evidence in support of his argument that Mark, composing his Gospel post-70 CE, redacted the story of Jesus with the precise intention of removing from it any possible association with revolutionary Judaism.¹¹⁰ Bermejo-Rubio takes the opposite position, arguing that “Jesus opposed the payment, and … was shrewd enough not to let himself be trapped, by providing an apparently ambivalent, but also a rather clear answer for those in the

litischen Hintergrund ihrer Zeit mit einer Edition von Pseudo- Hieronymus, De haeresibus Judaeorum, WUNT 294 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). Some of the most significant treatments include: F. F. Bruce, “Render to Caesar,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 249 – 63; Richard J. Cassidy, Christian and Roman Rule in the New Testament (New York: Crossroad, 2001); John R. Donahue, “A Neglected Factor in the Theology of Mark,” JBL 101 (1982): 563 – 94; Paul C. Finney, “The Rabbi and the Coin Portrait (Mark 12:15b, 16): Rigourism Manqué,” JBL 112 (1993): 629 – 44; Albert Fuchs, “Die Pharisäerfrage nach der Kaisersteuer: Mk 12,13 – 17 par Mt 22,15 – 22 par Lk 20,20 – 26,” SNTSU 26 (2001): 59 – 81; Charles Homer Giblin, “The ‘Things of God’”; K. Haacker, “Kaisertribut und Gottesdienst (Eine Auslegung von Markus 12,13 – 17),” TBei 17 (1986): 285 – 92; W. R. Herzog, “Dissembling, a Weapon of the Weak: The Case of Christ and Caesar in Mark 12:13 – 17 and Romans 13:1– 7,” PRSt 21 (1994): 339 – 60; Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 306 – 317; Arland J. Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries: The Form and Function of the Conflict Stories in the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979), 75 – 78; Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 30 – 34; Kennard, Render to God; Stefan Schreiber, “Caesar oder Gott (Mk 12,17)? Zur Theoriebildung im Umgang mit politischen Texten des Neuen Testaments,” BZ 48 (2004): 65 – 85.  Helmut Merkel, “The Opposition Between Jesus and Judaism,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 142, listed alongside Mark 4:26 – 29 and Matt 5:43 – 48. See also Borg, Conflict, 244– 245; Catchpole, “The ‘Triumphal’ Entry,” 261; Cullmann, Jesus, 45 – 47; Davies and Allison, Matthew 19 – 28, 216 (though not stated with such force); Nolland, The Gospel, 899; Douglas E. Oakman, The Political Aims of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 146.  Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 345. Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 30 – 31, refers to this as the “traditional view” (30) and points to Justin, 1 Apol. 1.17; and notes Josephus’s attribution of this view to the Essenes in War 2.139 – 140. Cf. Matt 17:24– 27.  Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 345 – 348; see also 224, 270 – 271.  Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 224– 227.

140

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

know.”¹¹¹ This “rather clear answer,” in Bermejo-Rubio’s evaluation, “directly implies a seditious stance,” and thus forms a key piece of evidence to which he repeatedly refers.¹¹² Noting the important role that the census-based Roman tax played in the rebellion of 6 – 7 CE, Bermejo-Rubio argues that Jesus’s clear opposition to paying the tribute identifies him as a “link within the chain” that stretches from Judas the Galilean to the rebels who took up the sword in 66 – 70 CE.¹¹³ Richard Horsley similarly argues that Jesus’s words, though cryptic, spoke clearly to those with ears to listen.¹¹⁴ He observes the way that Jesus broadens the scope of the question by speaking not simply about the κῆνσος/φόρος, but the much larger category of τὰ Καίσαρος. By using ἀποδίδωμι—which, Horsley contends, was “the standard term where people are obligated to recognise the rightful claims of others”¹¹⁵—Jesus alludes to the unparalleled extent of Caesar’s claim within the Empire.¹¹⁶ Horsley argues that after alluding to this reality with τὰ Καίσαρος, Jesus completely subverts the authority of Caesar with καὶ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῷ θεῷ. The statement would have made it clear to Jesus’s listeners that τὰ Καίσαρος and τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ stood in “sharp conflict.”¹¹⁷ The absolute sovereignty of God over all creation, and his commands to his people to serve and worship him alone (e. g. Exod 20:2– 3; Pss 24:1; 96) meant that there could be no compromise: God’s claim surpassed Caesar’s, and τὰ Καίσαρος ended up as an empty category.¹¹⁸ Therefore, Horsley’s verdict is that ἀπόδοτε τὰ Καίσαρος

 Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 62; cf. Bermejo-Rubio, “(Why) Was Jesus,” 145 – 146.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 13, 28, 55 n. 192, 62 (here 62). Other scholars who read Jesus’s words as a clear indication of his seditious nature include Eisler, ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣΑΣ, 2:195 – 201; W. R. Herzog, Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 219 – 232 (referenced by Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 62 n. 218).  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 28.  Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 306 – 317.  Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 309; cf. Green, The Gospel, 716. For an intriguing alternative understanding of the significance of Jesus’s use of ἀποδίδωμι, see Wright, Jesus, 502– 507, where he argues that Jesus’s words are intended to allude to (and subvert) 1Macc 2:67– 68, where Mattathias commands his sons to ἀνταπόδοτε ἀνταπόδομα τοῖς ἔθνεσιν.  For further discussion of what would have been considered as “belonging” to Caesar, see M. Bünker, “‘Gebt dem Kaiser, was des Kaisers ist!’—Aber: Was ist des Kaisers,” Kairos 29 (1987): 85 – 98.  Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 312.  Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 316; cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew 19 – 28, 217: “obligation to the former obviously overshadows obligation to the latter.” See m. Avot. 3:8. On the particular relevance of Psalm 96 (esp. vv. 4– 5, 7– 10) to this passage, see Wright, Jesus, 505 – 506. See also

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

141

Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῷ θεῷ constitutes an outright rejection of Roman demands, and an implicit challenge to respond appropriately: “For those who responded to Jesus’ call ‘to enter the kingdom of God’ the implications for rendering to Caesar were clear.”¹¹⁹ This important quote from Horsley draws out the direct connection between the implications of Jesus’s response to the question, and the eschatological focus of his ministry. For Horsley, who argues that Jesus was a social revolutionary seeking the end of economic disparity and colonial injustice, Jesus’s statement in Mark 12:17 parr. was a call to resist Caesar’s claims with whatever means necessary—including violence.¹²⁰ My disagreement with Horsley is not with his reading of Jesus’s response to the tribute question, but with his understanding of its implications, which derive from Horsley’s overall understanding of Jesus’s proclamation of the kingdom of God. I agree that Jesus makes the opposition between τὰ Καίσαρος and τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ clear, and cryptically (but undeniably) asserts the precedence of the latter over the former. However, Jesus does not explicitly describe the proper response of the true people of God to the resulting confrontation between these demands for allegiance. Instead, Jesus rejects the binary, dichotomous choice presented to him, and challenges his listeners to think for themselves: what would it look like for the people of the kingdom of God to respond to Caesar’s claims?

4.2.4.3 The Eschatological Implications of the Tribute Question It is thus clear that within the context of first-century Judaism, the question of paying the Roman tribute resonated deeply with overtones of revolutionary violence, resulting from the perceived implications of this action vis-à-vis the competing claims of Caesar and YHWH. This Synoptic pericope is, therefore, of direct relevance to the interests of the present study, for it draws out the connections between (i) Israel’s desire for God’s eschatological reign; (ii) the challenges (social, political, theological) of living under the rule of an idolatrous Gentile kingdom; (iii) the question of the proper response of the faithful, righteous people of

Charles Homer Giblin, “The ‘Things of God’ in the Question Concerning Tribute to Caesar (Lk 20:25; Mk 12:17; Mt 22:21),” CBQ 33 (1971): 510 – 27; Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 32; Christopher Rowland, “Render to God What Belongs to God,” New Blackfriars 70, no. 830 (1989): 365 – 71.  Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 317.  Cf. the comment of Oakman, The Political, 127: “Jesus had, in fact, been a lēstēs in advocating rearrangements of debts and tax resistance.”

142

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

God to these circumstances; and (iv) the prominent—perhaps even primary—option of violent revolution. According to the Synoptic accounts, Jesus’s response to the question explicitly endorses neither the Jewish payment of tribute to Caesar (so Brandon) nor violent resistance to it (so Bermejo-Rubio). According to the advocates of the SJH, this ambiguity is due to the muddling effect of the evangelists’ fabrication. In contrast, I argue that Jesus intentionally refused the binary options of revolution or quietistic submission because neither accurately embodied his eschatological proclamation. Jesus’s words clearly show that he recognised the conflict between τὰ Καίσαρος and τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ; however, they then challenge his listeners to consider for themselves what it meant to ἀποδίδωμι to each his own. Therefore, ἀπόδοτε τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῷ θεῷ cannot properly be interpreted apart from the entirety of Jesus’s ministry of proclaiming and enacting the kingdom of God, of which the rejection of eschatological violence was a central part.

4.2.5 The Two Swords (Luke 22:35 – 38) 4.2.5.1 The Seditious Reading This enigmatic passage is regarded by advocates of the SJH as one of the strongest pieces of evidence in support of their hypothesis.¹²¹ Brandon refers to the

 Some of the more recent and insightful scholarship on this passage includes: J. Duncan M. Derrett, “History and the Two Swords,” in Studies in the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1982), 3:193 – 99; J. Gillman, “A Temptation to Violence: The Two Swords in Lk 22:35 – 38,” LS 9 (1982): 142– 53; Roman Heiligenthal, “Wehrlosigkeit oder Selbstschutz? Aspekte zum Verständnis des lukullischen Schwertwortes,” NTS 41 (1995): 39 – 58; Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 27– 29; H. A. J. Kruger, “A Sword Over His Head or in His Hand? Luke 22:35 – 38,” in The Scriptures in the Gospels, ed. C. M. Tuckett, BETL 131 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 596 – 641; G. W. H. Lampe, “The Two Swords (Luke 22:35 – 38),” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 335 – 51; Kevin L. Moore, “Why Two Swords Were Enough: Israelite Tradition History Behind Luke 22:35 – 38,” (Ph. D. diss., University of Denver, 2009); Mary H. Schertz, “Swords and Prayer: Luke 22:31– 62,” in Struggles for Shalom: Peace and Violence Across the Testaments, ed. Laura L. Brenneman and Brad D. Schantz, SPS 12 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014), 191– 204; John K. Stoner, “The Two Swords Passage: A Command or a Question? Nonviolence in Luke 22,” in Within the Perfection of Christ, ed. T. L. Brensinger and E. M. Sider (Nappanee: Evangel, 1990), 67– 80; Jeremy Thomson, “Jesus and the Two Swords: Did Jesus Endorse Violence?,” Anabaptism Today 33 (2003): 10 – 16; E. Voigt, Die Jesusbewegung: Hintergründe ihrer Entstehung und Ausbreitung—Eine historisch-exegetische Untersuchung über die Motive der Jesusnachfolge (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008), 268 – 271.

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

143

Lukan text on multiple occasions.¹²² He suggests that Jesus’s primary concern was to ensure that the disciples were adequately prepared and appropriately armed to resist his arrest, should the need arise.¹²³ The disciples, Brandon argues, did not disappoint, revealing in sicarii-like fashion the weapons concealed beneath their cloaks.¹²⁴ Bermejo-Rubio, likewise, repeatedly refers to this text as a clear example of a Synoptic account that can only be explained by the seditious hypothesis. For Bermejo-Rubio, Luke 22:35 – 38 is evidence that “on a critical occasion, Jesus ensured his disciples were armed,” and that some (if not all) of the disciples “went about with concealed weapons.”¹²⁵ To him, this passage comes close to an “open call to arms,” clearly implying the seditious intentions of Jesus and his followers, and their willingness to use violence to accomplish them.¹²⁶ Furthermore, Bermejo-Rubio argues that any elements of the passage that confuse its plain meaning (Jesus’s seditious intentions, and the preparation violently to accomplish them) can be attributed to Luke, who deliberately “truncated or obscured his account” to conceal its troubling implications.¹²⁷ Martin takes this one step further, suggesting that the entire account was created by Luke to provide an excuse for the fact that Jesus’s disciples were found to be armed—a historical datum that otherwise provides incontrovertible evidence that they were “brigands, bandits, or rebels”—by suggesting that this took place only in order to fulfill Isaiah 53:12.¹²⁸ Therefore, advocates of the SJH argue that its strength is demonstrated by its ability to interpret this difficult passage in straightforward terms. Any alternative

 Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 16, 316, 317, 340 – 341; cf. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem, 102– 103, 207. Cf. Eisler, ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣΑΣ, 2:268 (referenced by Brandon 1967, 341 n. 1), who suggested (based on Jesus’s evaluation of the “sufficiency” of the disciples’ armament [ἱκανόν ἐστιν, v. 38]), that the disciples were each carrying two swords.  Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 342. Against this is Lampe, “The Two Swords,” 335.  Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 203 n. 3.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 10, see also 38, 39. He later cites Luke 22:36, 38, 49 alongside Mark 14:47 as “evidence for some kind of armed activity” (73).  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 35.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 25.  Martin, “Jesus in Jerusalem,” 6; for a clear statement supporting the SJH, see 4. Scholars who focus on the significance of Isa 53:12 include Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 29; Jean Lasserre, War and the Gospel, trans. Oliver Coburn (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1962), 37– 45; Willard M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics, SPS 9 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 131. See further Moore, “Why Two Swords”; Jeremy Schipper, Disability and Isaiah’s Suffering Servant, Biblical Refigurations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 75.

144

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

reading must explain why, if Jesus did not intend his disciples to be prepared for violence, he would instruct them to purchase swords. In Bermejo-Rubio’s evaluation, all such attempts fall woefully short; hence, for most scholars this passage remains “an insolvable problem.”¹²⁹

4.2.5.2 Critique of the Seditious Reading While it is true that, as Lampe observes, “commentators have floundered in a morass of perplexity when confronted with this notoriously difficult passage,”¹³⁰ it must be acknowledged that the SJH’s reading of the text is not without its own problems. Three are immediately apparent: (i) If, in 22:36, the Lukan Jesus instructs his disciples to buy swords in preparation for revolutionary conflict with the Romans and their Jewish supporters, why does he rebuke the use of the sword in 22:51? (ii) If the purpose of the disciples’ armament was revolutionary battle, why does Jesus respond to their presentation of two swords with ἱκανόν ἐστιν (22:38)? In what sense were two swords (among thirteen men) possibly “sufficient”? (iii) Finally, if these incoherent details are due to Luke’s desire to cover up any trace of the historical Jesus’s revolutionary identity and seditious intentions, then why include this account at all? The suggestion that this passage is evidence that Jesus ensured that his disciples were prepared for an armed uprising is therefore too problematic to be taken seriously.

4.2.5.3 Counted Among the “Lawless” Nevertheless, the text is indisputably puzzling, and raises several significant questions pertaining to this study. Why does the Lukan Jesus instruct his disciples to buy a μάχαιρα? What are we to make of the fact that at least two disciples were able to produce swords on demand? How should we understand Jesus’s response, ἱκανόν ἐστιν, or his reference to Isaiah 53:12? Numerous answers to such questions have been offered.¹³¹

 Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 82. See 82– 83, where BermejoRubio lists common alternative interpretations of Luke 22:35 – 38, critiquing them to the point of ridicule, before subsequently dismissing each one.  Lampe, “The Two Swords,” 335.  See Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 28 n. 27, for a list of interpretative possibilities and references. Guy F. Herschberger, War, Peace, and Nonresistance (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1969), 302– 303, argues that Jesus is advocating his disciples’ own protection; Stoner, “The Two Swords,” 67– 80, interprets the pericope as a test; Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (San Francisco: Har-

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

145

A particularly suggestive take on this passage is offered by Mary Schertz, who builds on the earlier work of H. A. J. Kruger.¹³² Both scholars emphasise the necessity of reading Luke 22:35 – 38 in its literary context, bringing the last supper discourse (22:14– 38) to a close and providing a transition to the events in Gethsemane. Schertz and Kruger argue that the text represents the first stage of a decision-making process undergone by the Lukan Jesus, represented on the one hand by verse 36 (the command to buy a sword), and on the other by verses 49 – 51 (the rebuke of the violent action of one of the disciples). The transitional moment of this development is found in Jesus’s prayer (vv. 41– 46), where, they both contend, the Lukan Jesus struggled to discern God’s will vis-à-vis the place of violence in the imminent climactic confrontation of his kingdom ministry. Kruger argues that as the Lukan Jesus prayed in Gethsemane, he saw before him two options for what role he would embrace in the forthcoming events: the Divine Warrior, and the Suffering Servant. These options, Kruger claims, are already present in verses 35 – 38, represented by the swords and the citation of Isaiah 53:12 (Luke 22:37). The Lukan Jesus committed himself to the latter of the two, believing that God’s will was that he submit to violence himself, rather than inflict it on others.¹³³ Schertz offers a very similar reading, suggesting that the cup that Jesus dreaded (22:42), the anguish (ἀγωνία, 22:44) with which he struggled, was the challenge to understand and accept “the nonviolent and so much more costly means by which God willed the establishment of his kingdom.”¹³⁴ However, whereas Kruger argues that Jesus rejected the option of “holy war” in favour of the task of the Isaianic Servant, Schertz argues that Jesus “integrate[d] these two biblical strands into one.”¹³⁵

perOne, 1996), 333, sees ἱκανόν ἐστιν as an expression of exasperation; I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 823, reads the text ironically. E. Scheffler, “Jesus’ Non-Violence At His Arrest: The Synoptics and John’s Gospel Compared,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 17 (2006): 312– 26, 320, reading Luke 22:35 – 38 in connection with the Lukan Gethsemane pericope, endorses the Gute Nachricht Bible’s translation of ἱκανόν ἐστιν as “Ihr versteht mich nicht.” See Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 28 n. 27.  Schertz, “Swords”; Kruger, “A Sword.”  Kruger, “A Sword,” 598 – 603.  Schertz, “Swords,” 193.  Schertz, “Swords,” 203 – 204. I have explored the idea that Matthew depicts Jesus bringing together the role of the Isaianic servant with the prosecution of the eschatological battle further in J. P. Nickel, “Jesus, the Isaianic Servant Exorcist: Exploring the Significance of Matthew 12,18 – 21 in the Beelzebul Pericope,” ZNW 107 (2016): 170 – 85. See § 6.3.1.

146

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

These similar interpretations are based on a central assertion that Jesus was ambivalent about the prospect of (what I have termed) eschatological violence until mere moments before his arrest in Gethsemane.¹³⁶ Kruger and Schertz both argue that the Lukan Gethsemane prayer demonstrates the moment at which Jesus’s uncertainty resolved into a commitment to one path over the other. The strength of this reading is its ability to interpret Luke 22:35 – 38 both on its own, as well as within the larger Lukan narrative. Kruger and Schertz accept that the Lukan Jesus does, in fact, instruct his disciples to purchase swords. However, unlike the advocates of the SJH, they do not suggest that these verses give a definitive indication of how Jesus would have responded (or instructed his followers to respond) when confronted with hostile opposition. Whereas the reading of Bermejo-Rubio (et al.) lacks explanatory power for verses 49 – 51, the readings offered by Schertz and Kruger are able to account both for Jesus’s command (v. 36) and rebuke (v. 51), without resorting to unsatisfactory interpretations of the swords in “symbolic” or “spiritual” terms.¹³⁷ Moreover, in line with the argument of the present study (and unlike many previous readings of the Synoptic Gospels), Kruger and Schertz acknowledge the contextual significance of revolutionary violence, and argue that Jesus made a conscious and intentional choice to reject it. However, despite the intriguing and suggestive components of this reading, there is too much evidence from earlier in Luke’s Gospel demonstrating Jesus’s direct opposition to revolutionary violence (e. g. 6:27– 36; 13:1– 5; 19:42) to suggest that the Lukan Jesus was still considering this possibility. Rather, I suggest that the Lukan Jesus himself provides the most compelling explanation of the command that his disciples buy swords, with his clear reference to Isaiah 53:12.¹³⁸ Unlike many readings of this text, which discuss the ref-

 Schertz, “Swords,” 192; cf. André Trocmé, Jesus and the Non-Violent Revolution (Scottdale: Herald Press, 1973), 107; Yoder, The Politics, 47– 48.  See, e. g., Henry A. Fast, Jesus and Human Conflict (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1959), 105 (cf. Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 82 n. 304); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV), AB 28A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 1432.  Specifically, the second half of Isaiah 53:12b: ‫ תחת אשר הערה למות נפשו ואת־פשעים נמנה‬/ ἀνθ᾿ ὧν παρεδόθη εἰς θάνατον ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀνόμοις ἐλογίσθη. In support of this interpretation, see Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 29. Admittedly, this means that the only explanation of this passage that I can offer is directly dependent upon the evangelist’s inclusion of an explanatory text—we are, in other words, inescapably reliant on the evangelist Luke’s interpretation of the meaning of Jesus’s enigmatic words. Nevertheless, given what was spelled out in § 1.2 of the present study, this should not present an unsurmountable obstacle to our examination of the “remembered” Jesus found in the Gospels. Luke includes these words of Jesus, as well as a way of understanding them, that is coherent within an overall nonviolent reading of the

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

147

erence to the Isaianic παῖς in 22:37 primarily in terms of its theological or christological significance within Luke-Acts,¹³⁹ I argue that this citation helps us to understand the sociopolitical implications of Jesus’s enigmatic command in scripturally-based, eschatological terms. For an as-yet unclear reason, the Lukan Jesus intends to take the Isaianic παῖς identity upon himself by being found among armed followers. With his command (v. 36) and his disciples’ willing response (v. 38), Jesus ensures that the preconceived (and mistaken) notions held by many of his contemporaries—that he was a militaristic messiah waiting for the right opportunity to rise up in armed resistance—would be confirmed. Two swords may not be “enough” for a successful violent overthrow of the Romans and their supporters, but they are “sufficient” to confirm his being numbered among the ἄνομοι (cf. ‫פשע‬, Isa 53:12).¹⁴⁰ The Isaianic reference thus draws verses 35 – 38 into a motif prevalent throughout the Synoptic passion narratives: Jesus’s association with violent revolutionaries. This will be discussed at greater length below (§ 4.2.7.2).¹⁴¹ Therefore, it is not the case—as the advocates of the SJH would have us believe—that by including this pericope, Luke has botched his effort to portray a pacifistic Jesus. When we properly understand the integral connections between Second Temple Jewish eschatology and revolutionary violence, and consider the significance of eschatological violence to the context and content of Jesus’s ministry, we find that enigmatic pericopae such as Luke 22:35 – 38 can be seen in a new light. The Lukan Jesus, aware of his own eschatological task, aware that it was about to reach its climactic point, and aware of the prominent and problematic expectations—even among his own followers—that this would involve revolutionary violence, prepares for the imminently impending confrontation. In so doing, the Lukan Jesus also prepares for the way in which he foresaw that his ministry of proclaiming and inaugurating the kingdom of God would come to

Gospel portrayal of Jesus. Therefore if the plausibility of reading Jesus’s words in line with Luke’s citation of Isaiah 53 can be demonstrated, I contend that we are on stronger ground than that provided by the SJH’s claim that this reveals the (otherwise unseen) “true” revolutionary intentions of Jesus.  See Darrell L. Bock, Luke: Volume 2: 9:51 – 24:53 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 1747– 1749; François Bovon, Luke 3: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 19:28 – 24:53, trans. James Crouch, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 183 – 184; Green, The Gospel, 775 – 776; cf. D. L. Jones, “The Title Παῖσ in Luke-Acts,” SBLSP (1982): 217– 26. The question of the significance of the Isaianic ‫עבד‬/παῖς to Jesus’s self-understanding and New Testament Christology is far too complex to be thoroughly discussed here.  Cf. Luke 22:52.  See further J. P. Nickel, “Jesus and the Lēstai: Competing Kingdom Visions,” ExAud 34 (2018): 42– 61.

148

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

its unexpected climax. Somehow, this would involve—even necessitate—that he suffer the consequences of being “reckoned/counted” among the “lawless,” as a violent revolutionary.

4.2.6 The Arrest in Gethsemane (Mark 14:43 – 50 // Matt 26:47 – 56 // Luke 22:47 – 53) The inclusion of the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’s arrest in Gethsemane in this chapter is due to the fact that Brandon, Bermejo-Rubio, and Martin all make reference to it in their arguments for Jesus’s revolutionary identity.¹⁴² This ought to strike us as somewhat surprising, since a straightforward reading of the texts suggests that, rather than supporting the SJH, these events provide some of the strongest evidence that Jesus rejected the option of revolutionary violence. If ever there was an appropriate moment to take up the sword, or call his followers to do so, this was it. Yet the Synoptic Gospels are clear that in Gethsemane, Jesus completely rejected the use of violence.¹⁴³

4.2.6.1 The Seditious Reading Nevertheless, advocates of the SJH suggest that the Gethsemane narrative betrays hints of an alternative incident. The Jewish and Roman authorities had decided to eliminate the seditious threat posed by Jesus and his followers. However, knowing Jesus’s popularity with the crowds, they decided to act at night, in a secluded location. Expecting violent resistance, they sent a large and heavilyarmed force.¹⁴⁴ Jesus and his (armed¹⁴⁵) band of followers fought to protect themselves, but were ultimately overwhelmed. Jesus and several others were led away captive, while the rest of his followers scattered.¹⁴⁶

 Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 203; Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 10, 24, 39, 56; Martin, “Jesus in Jerusalem,”, 5 – 6, 20 n. 36; cf. Bermejo-Rubio, “(Why) Was Jesus,” 146.  See also John 18:10 – 11.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 10, 24, 44, 56; cf. Bermejo-Rubio, “(Why) Was Jesus,” 146; Martin, “Jesus in Jerusalem,” 5.  Bermejo-Rubio, “(Why) Was Jesus,” 147, points to Luke 22:36, 49.  See Bermejo-Rubio, “(Why) Was Jesus,” for the full argument that several of Jesus’s followers were crucified alongside him; cf. Paula Fredriksen, “Why Was Jesus Crucified, But His Followers Were Not?,” JSNT 29 (2007): 415 – 19.

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

149

This incident thus occurs twice on Bermejo-Rubio’s list, including his claim that “All four Gospels … record that armed resistance (involving swords) was offered in Gethsemane.”¹⁴⁷ This statement exemplifies the rhetorical methods Bermejo-Rubio utilises to enlist this event in support of the SJH. First, he suggests that the Gospel accounts cover up the violence of the encounter, which was in actual fact an armed skirmish between two opposing forces. The evangelists attempted to eliminate this from the record, in order to preserve their pacifistic portrait of Jesus. Second, he therefore argues that the Synoptic Gethsemane account is a fabrication: “The whole scene is, in its schematic construction, meaningless, and, as such, hardly credible.”¹⁴⁸ However, third, although he raises doubts about the historicity of the account, Bermejo-Rubio nevertheless repeatedly references it: (i) as evidence that the Gospels attest armed resistance in Gethsemane;¹⁴⁹ (ii) to raise questions about the suspicious nature of Jesus being found at night, on the Mount of Olives, “with an entourage of armed men;”¹⁵⁰ and (iii) to argue that “at least some of Jesus’ disciples had war-related expertise.”¹⁵¹ In other words, Bermejo-Rubio dismisses the possible historicity of the Synoptic account, but then utilises elements of it to support his hypothesis.¹⁵²

4.2.6.2 Critique of the Seditious Reading Thus, reading the Gethsemane event to support the SJH is only possible through a process of elaborating upon certain fragments of the Synoptic accounts, denying others, and filling in the large gaps that remain. Bermejo-Rubio’s argument is made predominantly from silence, since the SJH has no solid basis in the Synoptic narrative. Its advocates must explain why, if the evangelists sought to remove any stain of revolutionary violence from their portrayal of Jesus, they would have left such (ostensibly) incriminating evidence throughout this account. I will re-

 Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 10, almost a verbatim quote of Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 203; cf. Bermejo-Rubio, “(Why) Was Jesus,” 134.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 24; cf. Bermejo-Rubio, “(Why) Was Jesus,” 147 n. 103.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 10, 39; cf. 44, 56; Martin, “Jesus in Jerusalem,” 5.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 24, 56. For an alternative explanation of the μάχαιραι carried by the disciples, see Fredriksen, “Arms and the Man,” 323 – 324; cf. Martin, “Response,” 336 – 337.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 39 n. 133.  Martin, “Jesus in Jerusalem” (see esp. 4– 7) could also be interpreted as offering a “seditious” interpretation of the Gethsemane events, arguing that Jesus and his armed disciples expected angelic assistance in the imminent eschatological battle.

150

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

turn to the Gethsemane event in the next chapter to demonstrate—against the SJH—that when we understand violence and eschatology together, and their centrality to the Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus’s life and ministry, we can more fully appreciate this incident as Jesus’s climactic rejection of eschatological violence.

4.2.7 Tried and Crucified as a λῃστής Lastly, we come to the Synoptic accounts of the final hours of Jesus’s life, during which he is brought before the Jewish council and the Roman procurator Pilate, beaten and mocked by his captors, and, ultimately, executed by crucifixion.

4.2.7.1 The Seditious Implications of the Crucifixion The historical fact that a Jew known as Jesus of Nazareth was crucified during the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate at some point in the late 20s/early 30s CE is effectively uncontested.¹⁵³ This leads Dunn to acknowledge that “to be ‘historical’ the Historical Jesus must have been crucifiable.”¹⁵⁴ Scholars have offered a wide array of explanations for why this happened,¹⁵⁵ all of which avoid the —in Bermejo-Rubio’s eyes—most obvious reason: “the hypothesis of a seditious Jesus involved in anti-Roman resistance provides the best and simplest explanation for his execution on the cross.”¹⁵⁶ Bermejo-Rubio argues that without the SJH, the fact of Jesus’s crucifixion—not just his death, but the manner of his death—remains an “unfathomable conundrum.”¹⁵⁷ In essence, therefore, he expands Dunn’s statement: “to be ‘historical’ the Historical Jesus must have been crucifiable” … and to be crucifiable, the Historical Jesus must have been seditious.

 Note its attestation in Tacitus, Ann. 15.44, who claims that “Christus” underwent the “supplicio adfectus.”  Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 784; who himself notes (175 n. 7) Wright, Jesus, 86. See BermejoRubio, “(Why) Was Jesus,” 148 n. 109.  These are catalogued and denounced by Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 75 – 80.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 52.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 74– 75; see n. 269 where he quotes John P. Meier, Companions and Competitors, vol. 3 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 646; Joel B. Green, “Crucifixion,” in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, ed. Markus Bockmuehl, Cambridge Companions to Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 88 – 89. Cf. Kautsky, Der Ursprung des Christentums, 390. See further Bermejo-Rubio, “Why is the Hypothesis.”

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

151

Bermejo-Rubio argues that three components of the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’s execution suggest his seditious identity: (i) its method; that is, the fact of the crucifixion itself; (ii) its specific circumstances; that is, the fact that “Jesus was crucified in the middle of two insurrectionists”;¹⁵⁸ and (iii) the titulus crucis, and its proclamation of Jesus’s claim to be “King of the Jews.”¹⁵⁹ First and most fundamentally, Bermejo-Rubio argues for the significance of the fact that crucifixion was the mode of execution reserved for “slaves and rebellious provincials.”¹⁶⁰ Many studies on crucifixion in the Roman world¹⁶¹ have been undertaken, with scholars offering differing opinions regarding the accuracy of such a statement: Cook’s analysis of extant literary accounts of the act supports the notion that crucifixion was not typically inflicted upon individuals of any standing,¹⁶² while Joseph argues (against Bermejo-Rubio) that it is “simply not true” that it was reserved as the punishment for violent insurrection and banditry.¹⁶³ Yet Josephus’s references to crucifixion do clearly associate the practice with the Roman response to Jewish uprisings,¹⁶⁴ and the other crimes with which this form of execution is associated (e. g. military desertion¹⁶⁵) seem irrelevant

 Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 9. Emphasis original. See further Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 2:968 – 971.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 9 – 10.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 9. Note Cicero’s description of it as “the worst extreme of the tortures inflicted upon slaves” (Verr. 2.5.66.169; see further 2.5.64.165 – 66.170).  Some of the more significant and recent studies include: Brown, The Death of the Messiah; David W. Chapman, Ancient and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010); John Granger Cook, Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World, WUNT 327 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014); Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross, trans. J. Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977); Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “Die Kreuzesstrafe während der frühen Kaiserzeit. Ihre Wirklichkeit und Wertung in der Umwelt des Urchristentums,” ANRW 25.1:648 – 793; Gunnar Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry Into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion, WUNT 2/310 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011); Robert L. Webb, “The Roman Examination and Crucifixion of Jesus: Their Historicity and Implications,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb, WUNT 247 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 669 – 773.  John Granger Cook, “Roman Crucifixions: From the Second Punic War to Constantine,” ZNW 104 (2013): 1– 32, 1– 2.  Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 35 n. 60, listing other reasons.  E. g. War 2.253; 5.449 – 451; Ant. 17.295; cf. Philo, Flacc. 83 – 85.  John Dennis, “Death of Jesus,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 174; cf. Cook, “Roman Crucifixions,” 32.

152

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

to Jesus. The evidence from outside the Gospels therefore appears to support Bermejo-Rubio’s claim that Jesus’s death on a Roman cross was related to charges associated with sedition.¹⁶⁶ Second, Bermejo-Rubio argues for the significance of two facts: first, that those crucified with Jesus are identified as λῃσταί, and second, that Jesus was crucified between them.¹⁶⁷ Not only is Jesus thus directly associated with λῃσταί in his death, further reinforcing the likelihood that seditious charges led to his execution; this also suggests to Bermejo-Rubio the possibility that these were two of Jesus’s followers, and that placing Jesus’s cross between theirs was intended as a form of “parodic exaltation.”¹⁶⁸ The would-be king Jesus is set upon the only “throne” Rome would allow him, flanked by two of his “subjects” in a gruesome parody of a “king’s retinue.”¹⁶⁹ Problematically, however, Bermejo-Rubio does not provide sufficient historical evidence to support the assertion that individuals crucified at the same time were necessarily associated with one another.¹⁷⁰ Against his claim that insurrectionist activity was infrequent in Palestine during the decades of Jesus’s life

 Note the charges brought against Jesus before Pilate by the Jewish council in Luke 23:2, 5 (cf. Mark 15:3 – 4 // Matt 27:12– 13). It should be noted, however, that there were several different sorts of seditious charges in the Roman legal system: for further analysis, see John Granger Cook, “Crucifixion and Burial,” NTS 57 (2011): 193 – 213; cf. Bermejo-Rubio, “(Why) Was Jesus,” 134; Raymond E. Brown, “The Burial of Jesus (Mark 15:42– 47),” CBQ 50 (1988): 233 – 45; J. H. Welch, “Miracles, Maleficium, and Maiestas in the Trial of Jesus,” in Jesus and Archaeology, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 349 – 83.  Mark 15:27 // Matt 27:38; cf. Luke 23:32, 39. Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 9; cf. Martin, “Jesus in Jerusalem,” 19. See further Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 2:968 – 971.  Bermejo-Rubio sees this as convincing evidence to counter the claim that the fact of Jesus’s being executed alone (i.e., without any of his followers) suggests that he must not have been considered a legitimate threat (see, e. g., Helen K. Bond, Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation, SNTSMS 100 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999], 204; Cook, “Crucifixion and Burial,” 203; Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, 8 – 11; Hengel, Was Jesus, 18; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 304– 305). Bermejo-Rubio, “(Why) Was Jesus,” responds to these claims at length. This article joins the conversation recently revived in Justin J. Meggitt, “The Madness of King Jesus: Why Was Jesus Put to Death, But His Followers Were Not?,” JSNT 29 (2007): 379 – 413 (responded to directly by Joel Marcus, “Meggitt on the Madness and Kingship of Jesus,” JSNT 29 [2007]: 421– 24, and Fredriksen, “Why Was Jesus”). Bermejo-Rubio cites in support Eisler, ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣΑΣ, 2:525 – 526; Brandon, The Trial, 103; and Montserrat, El galileo armado, 142– 143; cf. Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 53.  Joel Marcus, “Crucifixion as Parodic Exaltation,” JBL 125 (2006), 73 – 74. Marcus argues for the intentionally parodic function of Roman crucifixion, which in some cases even functioned as “parodic enthronement” (83 – 84).  Bermejo-Rubio, “(Why) Was Jesus,” 131.

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

153

(thus in his mind increasing the likelihood that the two λῃσταί were somehow connected to Jesus¹⁷¹) two points may be noted. First, Josephus’s accounts indicate relatively consistent rebellious Jewish activity throughout the Roman occupation.¹⁷² Second, both Mark and Luke mention just such an incident: the στάσις for which the λῃστής Barabbas had been imprisoned.¹⁷³ Third and finally, Bermejo-Rubio suggests that the titulus crucis, which read “King of the Jews,” gives direct evidence of the seditious charges which led to Jesus’s death (Mark 15:26 // Matt 27:37 // Luke 23:38).¹⁷⁴ This confirms to Bermejo-Rubio that Jesus was hung on the cross for making rebellious claims to kingship. In support of the implications Bermejo-Rubio reads into the titulus is the fact that frequent references to Jesus as “the king of the Jews” are found in the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’s trial before Pilate, and subsequent beatings and crucifixion,¹⁷⁵ but only once outside the passion narratives.¹⁷⁶ Moreover, the phrase is never used by a Jew, but only in Roman descriptions of Jesus.¹⁷⁷ It thus seems plausible to connect the words on the titulus—οὗτός ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων—directly to the Roman charge against Jesus which led to his death.¹⁷⁸ However, the titulus seems to accomplish more than simply legal justification. The evangelists’ descriptions of this element of the crucifixion suggest that the placard did not document the charge against Jesus (“insurrection,” στάσις, maiestas, or whatever it would have been), but rather the reason for the charge. Moreover, the way it functioned as a “label,” identifying the man on the cross as ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων, contributed to one of the most bene-

 Bermejo-Rubio, “(Why) Was Jesus,” 134– 135.  E. g. War 6.329. Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 32– 33, makes this very point; cf. Borg, Conflict, 43 – 65; Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, 48 – 243. See n. 40 of ch. 3 above.  Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19. Bermejo-Rubio, “Has the Hypothesis,” 134 n. 42, notes that Eisler, ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣΑΣ, 2:459 – 529; Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 263 – 264; and Brandon, The Trial, 102– 103, all argue for the interrelation between those responsible for the στάσις, and Jesus’s group.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 10.  Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18, 26; Matt 27:11, 29, 37; Luke 23:3, 37, 38.  Matt 2:2.  Namely Pilate himself, the soldiers, and the anonymous individual responsible for inscribing the titulus. Note the text critical debate over Mark 15:12, “[the man you call] the King of the Jews” (cf. Luke 23:2); see France, The Gospel of Mark, 624, 633.  For further analysis of the titulus, see Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 2:962– 964.

154

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

ficiary effects of crucifixion from a Roman perspective: its deterrent power.¹⁷⁹ By bestowing upon the victim the title he seditiously claimed, the titulus made the message clear: here is what led to this horrific fate. Raised up for all to see, the crucified “king” became a “human object lesson.”¹⁸⁰ Therefore, on the basis of the historical evidence, it is difficult (if not impossible) to deny the seditious implications of Jesus’s crucifixion. Bermejo-Rubio thus argues that the simplest explanation of the facts—namely, that Jesus was (i) crucified by the Romans, (ii) between two λῃσταί, (iii) with a placard above his head displaying his seditious claim to kingship—is that he was, in fact, an insurrectionist.¹⁸¹ Bermejo-Rubio sees a direct correlation between the legal reasons for Jesus’s death, and Jesus’s “true” identity. But is that necessarily the case? If we accept the hypothesis that Jesus suffered the execution of a λῃστής, do we have to identify him as such?¹⁸²

4.2.7.2 The Synoptic Jesus and the λῃσταί Of great significance to our response to this question is the fact that, throughout the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’s arrest, trials, and crucifixion, he is repeatedly

 Hengel, Crucifixion. A noteworthy example is found in Josephus, War 5.449 – 451. See also Quintillian, Decl. 274.13 (this ref. noted by Meggitt 2007, 383). The Roman intention to reach as wide an audience as possible with this message is supported by the numerous MSS of Luke (including ‫*א‬.c, D) which add the words “written in Greek and Latin and Hebrew” to the end of v. 38. Cf. John 19:20.  Marcus, “Crucifixion,” 78; see also Dennis, “Death of Jesus,” 173; Fredriksen, “Why Was Jesus”: “Crucifixion is, first of all, crowd control” (417– 418).  Bermejo-Rubio, “(Why) Was Jesus,” 148 – 149.  On a more technical level, this raises the legal question of how quickly a punishment such as crucifixion would have been handed out in these circumstances. In other words, would Pilate have passed such a judgment even on the suspicion of seditious activity, or would something more have been required? Other factors—for example, the fact that it occurred during Passover—may also have affected Pilate’s decision. Scholarly opinion is divided. See Cook, “Crucifixion and Burial,” 197– 203; cf. Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 54, 57, 79 – 80; W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders, “Jesus: From the Jewish Point of View,” in The Early Roman Period, ed. William Horbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy, vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 673; Webb, “The Roman,” 758 – 759. Of possible significance is Josephus’s portrayal of Pilate as unhesitating in the use of violent repressive tactics against the Jews (e. g. War 2.176 – 177; Ant. 18.60 – 62); cf. Philo, Legat. 302. Meggitt, “The Madness,” 380, argues that “under the rule of Pilate, ending up on a cross seems to have been a reasonably easy thing to achieve,” and notes in support Juvenal, Sat. 6.219; however, the value of this reference is disputed by Fredriksen, “Why Was Jesus,” 417.

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

155

and closely associated with λῃσταί.¹⁸³ The continuous presence of such individuals in these climactic events suggests that they are in some way significant to the culmination of the kingdom ministry. The first overt association of Jesus with the λῃστής-identity occurs in the Garden of Gethsemane, when he challenges the mob that has come to arrest him with ὡς ἐπὶ λῃστὴν ἐξήλθατε μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων [συλλαβεῖν με]; (Mark 14:48 // Matt 26:55 // Luke 22:52). Their armament, together with the timing and location of the encounter, make it clear that this mob has come precisely ὡς ἐπὶ λῃστὴν, demonstrating their misunderstanding of Jesus’s identity and intentions vis-à-vis the inauguration of the kingdom. As discussed above, Jesus is also associated with λῃσταί in his crucifixion (Mark 15:27 // Matt 27:38; cf. κακοῦργοι, Luke 23:32), as he is flanked by two individuals who had embraced eschatological violence, and were suffering its consequences. However, the comparison between Jesus and the λῃσταί is made most explicit during the trial before Pilate (Mark 15:1– 15 // Matt 27:11– 26 // Luke 23:1– 7, 13 – 25).¹⁸⁴ Both Mark and Matthew note that it was Pilate’s custom to release

 For a more thorough examination of Jesus’s association with λῃσταί in the Synoptic passion narratives, and the potential theological implications of this phenomenon, see Nickel, “Jesus and the Lēstai.”  Important sources on the trial before Pilate include: E. Bammel, “The Trial Before Pilate,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 415 – 51; Bond, Pontius Pilate; Helen K. Bond, “Barabbas Remembered,” in Jesus and Paul: Global Perspectives in Honor of James D. G. Dunn for his 70th Birthday, ed. B. J. Oropeza, C. K. Robertson, and Douglas C. Mohrmann, LNTS 414 (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 59 – 71; C. Callon, “Pilate the Villain: An Alternative Reading of Matthew’s Portrayal of Pilate,” BTB 36 (2006): 62– 71; C. B. Chavel, “The Releasing of a Prisoner on the Eve of Passover in Ancient Jerusalem,” JBL 60 (1941): 273 – 78; Lynn H. Cohick, “Trial of Jesus,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 972– 79; Catherine S. Hamilton, “‘His Blood be Upon Us’: Innocent Blood and the Death of Jesus in Matthew,” CBQ 70 (2008): 82– 100; Maccoby, “Jesus and Barabbas”; Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean, “Barabbas, the Scapegoat Ritual, and the Development of the Passion Narrative,” HTR 100 (2007): 309 – 34; B. C. McGing, “The Governorship of Pontius Pilate: Messiahs and Sources,” PIBA 10 (1986): 55 – 71, B. C. McGing, “Pontius Pilate and the Sources,” CBQ 53 (1991): 416 – 38; Robert L. Merritt, “Jesus Barabbas and the Paschal Pardon,” JBL 104 (1985): 57– 68; Robert E. Moses, “Jesus Barabbas, a Nominal Messiah? Text and History in Matthew 27.16 – 17,” NTS 58 (2011): 43 – 56; A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament: The Sarum Lectures 1960 – 1961 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963); Andrew Simmonds, “Mark’s and Matthew’s Sub Rosa Message in the Scene of Pilate and the Crowd,” JBL 131 (2012): 733 – 54; J. E. Taylor, “Pontius Pilate and the Imperial Cult in Roman Judaea,” NTS 52 (2006): 555 – 82; Gerard S. Sloyan, Jesus on Trial: A Study of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2006); Paul Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, 2nd ed. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974).

156

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

a prisoner to the Jewish people at Passover each year (Mark 15:6 // Matt 27:15).¹⁸⁵ Thus, having examined Jesus, the Roman procurator presented the gathered crowds with a choice: Jesus or Barabbas? Beyond his description in the Gospels, nothing else is known about Barabbas. However, the words of the evangelists leave little doubt about the type of man this was: Barabbas is described as a seditious revolutionary (στασιαστής¹⁸⁶), a notorious (ἐπίσημος¹⁸⁷) brigand who had been imprisoned for murder (φονός¹⁸⁸) and for his participation in a recent insurrection (στάσις¹⁸⁹).¹⁹⁰ Though the Synoptic evangelists do not use the word to describe him,¹⁹¹ Barabbas was clearly a λῃστής: a freedom fighter who desired Jewish ἐλευθερία, and took up the sword against Israel’s Gentile overlords to attain it.¹⁹² The choice that Pilate offers the crowd brings into clear focus how distinct Jesus is from Barabbas and that of which he is the paradigmatic representative. Pilate effectively sets before Jesus’s compatriots a choice between two embodiments of the eschatological hope: on the one hand, Barabbas and the belief that God’s deliverance would be associated with the eschatological violence of his faithful people; on the other, Jesus and the kingdom of God he had been pro-

 Cf. Luke 23:17, absent from MSS P75, B, and A. The historicity of the so-called “privilegium paschale” has been debated at length; see Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1:794– 795, 814– 820 (with thorough bibliography); cf. Evans, Matthew, 451.  Mark 15:7 marks the only use of this word in either the OG/LXX or NT (cf. the use of the cognate στασιάζω in Jud 7:15; 2Macc 4:30; 14:6). Josephus, however, uses στασιαστής quite frequently to describe the “seditious” revolutionaries he deems responsible for the war against Rome; e. g. Ant. 17.214; 20.227; War 1.10, 180; 2.9, 267, 289, 411, 423, 432, 441, 452, 455, etc.  Josephus uses ἐπίσημος to describe John of Gischala (War 2.585): Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1:797.  Cf. Mark 7:21 // Matt 15:19; Acts 9:1; Rom 1:29; Heb 11:37; Rev 9:21.  Cf. Acts 15:2; 19:40; 23:7; 23:10; 24:5. Scholars have attempted to identify the στάσις mentioned by Mark and Luke with a known historical event from the period (often trying to connect it with one account or another in Josephus), without much success. See, e. g., C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St Mark, CGTC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 449; James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 460 – 461; Lane, The Gospel, 554.  See Mark 15:7; Matt 27:16; Luke 23:19; cf. Acts 3:14. For further discussion of the Gospels’ presentation of Barabbas, see Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1:796 – 800.  See John 18:40.  On the likelihood of Barabbas’s popularity, see D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Matthew & Mark, vol. 9 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 636; cf. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1054; Moses, “Jesus Barabbas,” 55 – 56; Nolland, The Gospel, 1173 – 1174.

4.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

157

claiming and enacting.¹⁹³ Two visions for the inauguration of God’s eschatological kingdom, and what would identify those who belonged to it, are held before the crowd. The Synoptic accounts are clear about which option they embrace. Luke’s words are particularly vivid: Πιλᾶτος ἐπέκρινεν γενέσθαι τὸ αἴτημα αὐτῶν· ἀπέλυσεν δὲ τὸν διὰ στάσιν καὶ φόνον βεβλημένον εἰς φυλακὴν ὃν ᾐτοῦντο, τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν παρέδωκεν τῷ θελήματι αὐτῶν (Luke 23:24– 25).¹⁹⁴ The crowd endorses στάσις and φόνος, and rejects the eschatological vision of Jesus, who would, as a result, ironically suffer the punishment due those from whom he had consistently disassociated himself and his ministry.¹⁹⁵ Thus, in their accounts of his trial, condemnation, and execution, the Synoptic evangelists describe Jesus to be set alongside and treated by the Roman authorities as a λῃστής— a violent bandit, one whose ideology threatened Rome’s governance of Judea. However, as clear as this may be, it is equally evident that this represents an inaccurate perception both of Jesus and of the nature of his ministry of proclaiming and inaugurating the kingdom of God. The presence of λῃσταί throughout the Synoptic passion narratives does not, as advocates of the SJH would argue, betray evidence of Jesus’s own λῃστής-identity. Rather, by repeatedly juxtaposing Jesus with λῃσταί, the Synoptic accounts distinguish the two from one another, implicitly contrasting Jesus and his inauguration of the kingdom from that envisioned by his revolutionary contemporaries.

4.2.7.3 Competing Eschatological Visions For Bermejo-Rubio, therefore, the Gospels’ accounts of Jesus’s death lead to the following line of reasoning: (i) Jesus is crucified; (ii) crucifixion was the Roman punishment for sedition; therefore (iii) Jesus must have been seditious. In other words, the crucifixion was a simple matter of the punishment fitting the crime: Jesus was tried, condemned, and executed as a λῃστής because he

 For a similar reading to the one I am here proposing, see Bird, “Jesus and the Revolutionaries,” 137– 138. On Jesus and Barabbas as messiah figures, see Moses, “Jesus Barabbas”; cf. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1:820. Acts 5:35 – 39, in which Jesus is compared to Theudas and Judas the Galilean, attests to the ongoing Jewish categorisation of Jesus as just another failed messiah. See Bond, Pontius Pilate, 204; opposed by Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 79 – 80 n. 292.  Cf. Mark 15:15 // Matt 27:26.  The idea of Jesus dying the death of a λῃστής so that the ideology the λῃσταί embodied would be broken resonates with René Girard’s theories about violence, mimetic rivalry, and scapegoating; see Girard, Violence, 2001.

158

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

was a λῃστής. The fact that Jesus is associated with λῃσταί at several other points in the Synoptic accounts of the events leading up to his death simply reinforces this point. From Bermejo-Rubio’s perspective, the arrest, trial, and crucifixion provide definitive evidence of the necessity of the SJH, since there is no valid historical reason why the Jesus fabricated by the Synoptic evangelists—a pacifistic figure unconcerned with sociopolitical matters—would have ended up on a cross. I take no significant issue with points (i) or (ii) of Bermejo-Rubio’s analysis of the crucifixion. My argument diverges, however, at point (iii). Rather than indicating that the Jesus “behind” the Synoptic accounts was a seditious and potentially violent revolutionary, the fact that crucifixion was inherently associated with such individuals suggests that the cross should be understood as the climactic point of distinguishing Jesus from the λῃστής identity—ironically, by directly associating him with it. Against Bermejo-Rubio’s reading of the crucifixion’s implications, I argue that (i) the repeated associations between Jesus and the λῃσταί serve an important purpose in the Synoptic accounts; (ii) this purpose is directly connected to the distinction between their competing eschatological visions; and (iii) this distinction, in turn, is directly connected to the use of violence to achieve its aims. Understood in this way, the crucifixion can be seen as the climactic demonstration of Jesus’s rejection of eschatological violence. Eschatological violence, of central importance to the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’s ministry, continues to be of direct significance to their description of his crucifixion. As Jesus hangs on a cross between two λῃσταί, three themes present throughout the Gospel narratives are brought to a climax: (i) the distinction between the eschatological visions which each embodies, which is directly bound up with the question of the place of violence therein; (ii) the rejection of Jesus and his kingdom-inaugurating ministry by many of his contemporaries, precisely on the basis of that distinction (see Mark 15:29 – 32 parr.; cf. § 5.2.1); and (iii) Jesus’s commitment to nonviolence, to faithfully trusting God’s promises for eschatological deliverance. Rather than enacting violence, Jesus suffers it. Thus we can see that properly understanding eschatology and violence together, and the important role this played within the world of Second Temple Judaism, enables us to understand the crucifixion as the climactic result of a theme present throughout the Synoptic Gospels: Jesus’s rejection of eschatological violence. At this point of the study, ideally, we would proceed to a whole section on how Jesus’s understanding of his own death relates to all that we have been examining. Such a discussion would centre around the fact that the Synoptic Gospels present Jesus’s death on the cross not as a failure of his kingdom mission, but as part of the victorious eschatological defeat of the enemies of God, his kingdom, and its people. Somehow, Jesus believed that part of his role in the in-

4.3 Summary and Conclusions

159

auguration of the kingdom of God was to submit—to Israel’s Gentile oppressors, to those of his contemporaries who opposed his kingdom-vision, and to the ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους (Luke 22:53). However, this discussion would clearly raise so many further questions that it would be impossible to deal with adequately here. Having demonstrated that the historical implications of the crucifixion do not necessitate recourse to the SJH, but in fact reinforce the argument of this study—that the rejection of eschatological violence is central to the Synoptic presentation of Jesus’s life and ministry—a full discussion of the significance of the cross in this regard must be left for another time.

4.3 Summary and Conclusions In this chapter, I have offered exegetical analysis of the Synoptic pericopae to which advocates of the SJH most frequently appeal as evidence of the historical Jesus’s revolutionary identity. I engaged primarily with the recent form of the SJH set forth by Bermejo-Rubio, calling his defence of it into question in several different ways. At certain points, his reading of the texts is exegetically inadequate, failing to consider the meaning of Jesus’s words in their context (οὐκ ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἀλλὰ μάχαιραν; τὰ Καίσαρος ἀπόδοτε Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῷ θεῷ); at others, he ignores the clear significance of the Jewish scriptures to a proper understanding of the events portrayed (the “triumphal” entry; the temple act); and elsewhere, his reading rests entirely on the assertion that the Synoptic accounts are historical fabrications (the arrest in Gethsemane). However, my goal was not simply to debate the interpretation of individual passages. As has already been discussed, one of the foundational claims of the SJH is the idea that the Synoptic Gospels are incoherent, because of the inconsistent portrayal of Jesus that results from the evangelists’ unsuccessful attempt to cover up his revolutionary identity. According to the advocates of the SJH, this inconsistency is demonstrated most clearly in the pericopae that have been discussed above. This perceived incoherence provides the rationale for their attempts to describe the “true” Jesus—the seditious, violent, nationalistic revolutionary—behind the apolitical, nonviolent “caricature” found in the Gospels. Therefore, in focusing on these particular Synoptic pericopae and the readings of them offered by advocates of the SJH, it was my intention not simply to contest the readings themselves, but to refute the foundational claim of incoherence that lies behind such readings. Building on the analysis of the integral connections between eschatology and violence in Second Temple Judaism set forth in chapters two and three, I argued that eschatological violence is the key to understanding these pericopae as

160

Chapter 4. Jesus and Revolutionary Violence

coherent components of the consistent Synoptic portrayal of Jesus’s life and ministry. If we read these accounts with a proper grasp of how closely violence and eschatology were related to one another in the worldview of Jesus and his contemporaries, we can see that the question of eschatological violence was of direct concern throughout Jesus’s ministry. Whereas the advocates of the SJH claim that anything in the Synoptic accounts suggesting that Jesus might have been associated with revolutionary violence is evidence of the historical reality the evangelists tried to cover up, I have argued that the overtones of eschatological violence that are undeniably present in these Synoptic pericopae reflect the reality of Second Temple Judaism, in which the longing for God’s deliverance and the question of what role violence would play in the inauguration of God’s long-awaited kingdom were prevalent. The pericopae discussed in the present chapter clearly demonstrate that the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels consistently engaged with such longings and answered such questions in a way that contrasted with the expectations of many of his contemporaries. The Synoptic evangelists have not botched the attempt to eliminate any suggestion of violence from their accounts; rather, as coherent historical narratives, they accurately reflect the world within which Jesus’s ministry took place.¹⁹⁶ Jesus is not, as the advocates of the SJH would claim, an incoherent figure, passively “uninterested” in questions of violence at some points, and preparing to take up the sword at others. Rather, Jesus consistently engaged with the question of eschatological violence, a question of direct relevance within his historical context, by actively rejecting violence in the course of his inauguration and proclamation of the kingdom of God. Therefore, having in this chapter argued against the SJH, I turn my attention in the next chapter to argue more intentionally for the alternative hypothesis of this study: that, according to the Synoptic accounts of his life and ministry, Jesus completely disassociated eschatological violence from the inauguration of the kingdom of God, and the identification of its people.

 Allison, Constructing Jesus, 157; Horsley, The Prophet Jesus, 71. See § 1.2.

Chapter 5 Jesus’s Rejection of Eschatological Violence In the Synoptic Gospels 5.1 Introduction In the previous chapter, I contested the reading of several Synoptic texts offered by advocates of the “seditious Jesus hypothesis” (SJH), and their claims that these pericopae demonstrate the incoherence of the Gospel accounts. I argued that these scholars have not adequately accounted for the integral connections between violence and eschatology in Second Temple Judaism; therefore, they have been unable to perceive the unifying significance of eschatological violence throughout the Synoptic Gospels. I thereby demonstrated that the texts to which the advocates of the SJH frequently appeal can coherently be understood to contribute to a consistent presentation of Jesus’s life and ministry. In the present chapter, I turn my attention to four further Synoptic passages in which eschatological violence is of central concern. Many of Jesus’s contemporaries believed that (i) violence enacted by God’s righteous people against their wicked Gentile oppressors would be a necessary and integral element of the inauguration of God’s eschatological kingdom; and (ii) such violence would identify those who were the true people of God; moreover, many expected the coming of a mighty deliverer, who would participate in, if not inaugurate, this “eschatological violence.” The texts to be discussed in this chapter demonstrate that Jesus consistently and thoroughly disassociated such beliefs from his ministry and rejected the embodiment of such a role. Moreover, he saw the prevalent desire for such violence among his contemporaries as a grave problem, of which he warned them and called them to repent. Therefore, this chapter will further refute the claims of incoherence made by advocates of the SJH. The Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels is not, as such scholars suggest, a fabricated figure who is nonviolent because he is apolitical and therefore unconcerned with or removed from his sociopolitical context, and the prevalence of revolutionary Judaism therein. Rather, I will argue that the nonviolence of the Jesus described by the Synoptic evangelists is the direct result of his rejection of eschatological violence—his belief that it had no role to play in either inaugurating the kingdom of God, or identifying the people who belonged to it.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703771-006

162

Chapter 5. Jesus’s Rejection of Eschatological Violence In the Synoptic Gospels

5.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae 5.2.1 Τhe Kingdom of Heaven βιάζεται (Matt 11:12¹) The first text to be discussed demonstrates the problematic effects of the widespread expectations of and longing for eschatological violence amongst Jesus’s contemporaries. Matthew 11:12 is widely acknowledged as one of the most puzzling verses in the Gospels.² Its rare vocabulary, the unclear grammatical sense of one of its main verbs, and its debatable relationship to the surrounding text have resulted in continuing scholarly disagreement regarding the verse’s meaning. In the conclusion to his monograph on the history of its interpretation, Peter Scott Cameron states: [Matthew 11:12] has been “wax in the hands of the theologians.” It is a history of exegesis dictated by presuppositions, of favourable assumptions uncritically accepted and opposing arguments unfairly dismissed, of a text used instead of interpreted.³

 Although a parallel to Matthew 11:12 is found in Luke 16:16, and to Matthew 11:2– 19 in Luke 7:18 – 35, the Lukan texts will not be discussed here. The questions raised by the lexical particularities of Matthew 11:12 are not present in Luke 16:16 (the kingdom “being proclaimed” [εὐαγγελίζεται] is much simpler to interpret, as is the concept of πᾶς εἰς αὐτὴν βιάζεται), and the primary focus of my discussion of the Matthean pericope will be its contextual significance for understanding verse 12. On the relationship between the Matthean and Lukan passages, see Nolland, Luke 9:21 – 18:34, 814– 820; also Matthew W. Bates, “Cryptic Codes and a Violent King: A New Proposal for Matthew 11:12 and Luke 16:16 – 18,” CBQ 75 (2013): 74– 93; Hans Kvalbein, “The Wonders of the End-Time: Metaphoric Language in 4Q521 and the Interpretation of Matthew 11.5 par.,” JSP 18 (1998): 87– 110; Stephen Llewelyn, “The Traditionsgeschichte of Matt 11:12– 13, par. Luke 16:16,” NovT 36 (1994): 330 – 49; Roberto Martinez, The Question of John the Baptist and Jesus’ Indictment of the Religious Leaders: A Critical Analysis of Luke 7:18 – 35 (Cambridge: James Clarke, 2012); C. Mearns, “Realized Eschatology in Q? A Consideration of the Sayings in Luke 7.22, 11.20, and 16.16,” SJT 40 (1987): 189 – 210; H. Stettler, “Die Bedeutung der Täuferanfrage in Matthäus 11,2– 6 par Lk 7,18 – 23 für die Christologie,” Bib 89 (2008): 173 – 200.  “One of the greatest riddles of the exegesis of the Synoptics” (Luz, Matthew 8 – 20, 140); “without a doubt, one of the New Testament’s great conundrums” (Davies and Allison, Matthew 8 – 18, 254); “almost impossible to reconstruct in fully satisfactory form” (Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 189); cf. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 452.  Peter S. Cameron, Violence and the Kingdom: The Interpretation of Matthew 11:12 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1984), 247; cf. Luz, Matthew 8 – 20, 143.

5.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

163

It is beyond the scope of this study to engage fully with the debates surrounding this enigmatic logion;⁴ however, the relevance of the Matthean Jesus’s statement to the questions with which we are concerned necessitates its careful consideration.

5.2.1.1 Literary Context and Interpretative Issues Jesus’s ministry raised many questions among his contemporaries; even John the Baptist had difficulty understanding his deeds. John had proclaimed Jesus as the ἰσχυρότερος (Mark 1:7 // Matt 3:11 // Luke 3:16) who would be the agent of the eschatological judgment of which John warned his listeners (Matt 3:7– 12 // Luke 3:7– 17). Imprisoned by Herod Antipas, John heard reports about Jesus’s activity (Matt 11:2), which did not match his expectations of the ἰσχυρότερος. Therefore, he sent his disciples to Jesus with a question: σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἢ ἕτερον προσδοκῶμεν; (Matt 11:3). The Matthean Jesus’s response (Matt 11:4– 6) to John’s question resonates deeply with Isaianic texts (29:18 – 19; 35:5 – 6; 61:1) that describe the blessings associated with YHWH’s redemption of Zion. Jesus thus summoned John to recognise the connections between his works and Isaiah’s portrayal of the healing and restoration that would attend the inauguration of God’s eschatological reign, and thus to perceive the prophetic significance of his ministry. The Matthean Jesus then turned to address the gathered crowds (Matt 11:7– 19). Citing a conflation of Malachi 3:1 and Exodus 23:20 (Matt 11:10; cf. Mark 1:2), he declared that John was “Elijah, the one who is to come” (Matt 11:14).⁵ In other words, John was not just any prophet (11:9), he was the last prophet of his age. This, therefore, had logical implications for Jesus’s own iden-

 For thorough discussion of the main interpretative options, see Cameron, Violence; see also Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom, 91– 96; more up-to-date summaries can be found in Davies and Allison, Matthew 8 – 18, 254– 255; Llewelyn, “The Traditionsgeschichte”; and Luz, Matthew 8 – 20, 140 – 142. Some of the significant scholarship on this verse includes: Paul W. Barnett, “Who Were the “Biastai” (Matthew 11:12– 13)?,” RTR 36 (1977): 65 – 70, Betz, “Jesu,” 125 – 128; Cameron, Violence; David R. Catchpole, “On Doing Violence to the Kingdom,” IBS 3 (1981): 77– 92; Rod Doyle, “Matthew 11:12: A Challenge to the Evangelist’s Community,” Colloq 18 (1985): 20 – 30; Simeon F. Kehinde, “‘The Violent Kingdom’ in Matthew 11:12 and Its Implications for Contemporary Christians,” Ogbomoso Journal of Theology 12 (2007): 99 – 106; Kvalbein, “The Wonders”; Liesen, “Violence in the Gospel”; Ernest Moore, “Violence to the Kingdom,” ExpTim 100 (1989): 174– 77; Günther Schwarz, “Kai biastai harpazousin autēn (Matthäus 11,12),” BN 11 (1980): 43 – 44.  Cf. Mark 9:11– 13 // Matt 17:10 – 12.

164

Chapter 5. Jesus’s Rejection of Eschatological Violence In the Synoptic Gospels

tity and task, and he called those listening to put the pieces together (11:15). If John was Elijah, then with Jesus the time of fulfillment had come. In the midst of this pericope, the Matthean Jesus makes the enigmatic statement upon which we are focused: ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ ἕως ἄρτι ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν βιάζεται καὶ βιασταὶ ἁρπάζουσιν αὐτήν (11:12). The main interpretative issue of this verse hinges on the grammatical sense of βιάζεται: namely, whether the verb should be read in the passive voice (“the kingdom of heaven suffers violence”; i. e., is violently treated or oppressed), or as a middle deponent (“the kingdom of heaven goes forth powerfully”).⁶ The meaning of the second clause depends on our reading of the first, though it also has its own puzzles: βιασταί is a hapax legomenon, making it difficult to determine to whom Jesus refers with the term, and ἁρπάζω (though attested elsewhere in the NT⁷) derives much of its force from its association with its subject (βιασταί).⁸ The interpretation of each of these lexemes thus contributes to the positive or negative sense with which we read Jesus’s statement.⁹ The grammatical and lexical evidence has pointed most scholars towards what Luz describes as the “passive-negative” interpretation: βιάζεται must be read as a passive verb, and the statement as a whole must be taken negatively.¹⁰ Luz argues that this reading most effectively brings together the two clauses: the ἁρπάζουσιν (“seizing,” “taking control”) of the kingdom of heaven by the βιασταί (“violent ones”) causes it to βιάζεσθαι (“suffer violence”).¹¹ This also makes clear the connotations of the violent use of force present in the lexical root (βια‐) shared by βιάζω and βιαστής. However, although this “passive-negative” reading is widely accepted, there is certainly no consensus on the matter.¹² The significance of Matthew 11:12 to the present study derives from Jesus’s use of the language of violent force (via the twofold presence of the βια-root) with direct reference to the βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. Furthermore, its importance is magnified by the unmistakably eschatological focus of the discourse in which it is located. If John is “Elijah who is to come” (11:14), this has implications for

 See Gottlob Schrenk, “βιάζομαι,” TDNT 1:609 – 613.  Ἁρπάζω is found only in Matthew (11:12; 12:29; 13:19) among the Synoptics; cf. John 6:15; 10:12, 28, 29; Acts 8:39; 23:10; 2Cor 12:2, 4; 1Thess 4:17; Jude 23; Rev 12:5.  See Gottlob Schrenk, “βιαστής,” TDNT 1:613 – 614; Werner Foerster, “ἁρπάζω,” TDNT 1:472– 473.  Cameron, Violence, categorises interpretations of the text as either “in malam partem” or “in bonam partem.”  Luz, Matthew 8 – 20, 141.  Also Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 31 n. 45.  The lengthy analysis of Cameron, Violence, makes this clear.

5.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

165

Jesus’s own identity and the purpose of his ministry—implications he urges his listeners to perceive (11:15). The dawn of the kingdom of God began with “the days of John the Baptist” and continues ἕως ἄρτι (11:12). The main questions, then, concern (i) the precise nature of the connection between βιάζω, βιαστής, and ἁρπάζω (all of which connote power, force, or violence) and the arrival of the kingdom of God; and (ii) the contribution verse 12 makes to its contextual discourse.

5.2.1.2 Matthew 11:12 and the SJH Cameron notes that the nineteenth-century German scholar Alexander Schweizer was the first to argue that βιασταί in Matthew 11:12 referred to the Zealots, or a similar group active in first-century Palestine.¹³ This argument was taken up again in the early twentieth century, most notably by Robert Eisler, who read Jesus’s statement about the βιασταί positively; that is, as an affirmation of those who demonstrated “zeal” for the kingdom, with John the Baptist as the primary example.¹⁴ Eisler, therefore, saw Matthew 11:12 as evidence of Jesus’s revolutionary intentions.¹⁵ Subsequent advocates of the SJH have, however, mostly remained quiet about this text. Brandon picks up on Eisler’s suggestion that βιασταί could theoretically refer to the “Zealots” (or Sicarii), but does not do much more than note the ambiguity of the Matthean passage.¹⁶ Likewise, Bermejo-Rubio refers to the text only in passing, commenting on the “desperately vain” attempts of some to argue for a pacifist Jesus on its basis.¹⁷ However, he offers no alternative reading, instead asserting that “any serious scholar must avow” the saying’s “puzzling and obscure” nature.¹⁸ The reticence of such scholars to utilise this verse is somewhat surprising. Given the incontrovertibly violent connotations of the βια- root, and the range of interpretative options available, at least two readings of Matthew 11:12 plausi Cameron, Violence, 185; see A. Schweizer, “Ob in der Stelle Matth 11,12 ein Lob oder ein Tadel enthalten sei?,” TSK 9 (1836): 90 – 122.  Cameron, Violence, 186 – 187; Eisler, ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣΑΣ, 2:88; cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew 8 – 18, 255.  Cameron himself is strongly opposed to such an interpretation, claiming that it can be “dismissed out of hand” (Violence, 211).  Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 300 – 301 n. 5; also 78. See Cameron, Violence, 188, on Brandon’s reading.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 85 n. 318. He refers specifically to Betz, “Jesu,” 128 – 130; and Fast, Jesus, 73 – 74.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 85 n. 318.

166

Chapter 5. Jesus’s Rejection of Eschatological Violence In the Synoptic Gospels

bly could suggest its seditious significance. If βιάζεται is read in the middle voice, Jesus could have been affirming the forceful (i. e. violent) progression of the kingdom; alternatively, if βιάζεται is read passively, Jesus could have been implicitly warning his listeners to defend the kingdom. However, I could find neither these nor any similar readings advocated anywhere. This appears to be due to the clearly negative sense of the verse’s second half: whatever Matthew 11:12a means, it is clear that Jesus condemns the actions of the βιασταί in 11:12b.

5.2.1.3 Perceiving τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ Turning our attention to the importance of Matthew 11:12 for the present study, we note that discussions of this logion often overlook the interpretative significance of verses 2– 6. Jesus’s statements in verses 7– 19 are, in effect, motivated by John’s inability to recognise the eschatological implications of the work Jesus had been doing. Hearing about τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ (11:2), John had evidently been either disappointed or confused (or both), for these “works” did not match up with what he had expected from the God-sent deliverer of Israel. The question John sent his followers with—σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἢ ἕτερον προσδοκῶμεν; (11:3)—appears to have been a less direct way of asking, “If you are ὁ ἐρχόμενος, why aren’t you doing the works we have been waiting for?”¹⁹ If Jesus was the one who would “proclaim liberty to the captives and release to the prisoners” (Isa 61:1) then why was John still in Herod’s custody? Where was the “vengeance of our God” (61:2)?²⁰ As noted above, Jesus responded by exhorting John to perceive the prophetic eschatological significance of his deeds (Matt 11:5)—precisely the ἔργα that God, through Isaiah, promised would attend the eschatological restoration of his people.²¹ Jesus concludes his answer with μακάριός ἐστιν ὃς ἐὰν μὴ σκανδαλισθῇ ἐν ἐμοί (Matt 11:6)—in other words, blessed is anyone who recognises the true significance of these ἔργα, who does not consider them a source of discouragement, but perceives their eschatological nature and their demonstration of the true nature of Jesus’s messianic identity.²²

 So Stettler, “Die Bedeutung,” 174.  Evans, Matthew, 233. See also Robert R. Beck, Banished Messiah: Violence and Nonviolence in Matthew’s Story of Jesus (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 149.  Stettler, “Die Bedeutung” emphasises the fact that the Isaianic acts with which Jesus associates his own ministry are “die Werke Gottes” (198), “die von Gott in der Heilszeit zu erwarten waren” (200), and that this therefore “impliziert eine christologische Aussage” (200).  For further discussion of the eschatological significance of the list of Jesus’s deeds, and in particular their connection to 4Q521, see Kvalbein, “The Wonders.” Konradt, Das Evangelium,

5.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

167

Matthew 11:2– 19 as a whole is thus concerned with perceiving the eschatological ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ.²³ I therefore argue that verse 12a should be read as Jesus’s assertion that “from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been going forth powerfully.” This is (against the majority) to read βιάζεται in the middle voice. After questioning the crowd’s perception of John (11:7– 9a), Jesus affirms his eschatological role as the one who would herald the return of YHWH to his people (11:9b – 11). John was a transitional figure; now (ἄρτι), in Jesus, the undeniable power of the kingdom is expressed (βιάζεται) as he gives sight to the blind, makes the lame to walk and the deaf to hear, cleanses lepers, raises the dead, and brings good news to the poor.²⁴ Of direct significance to the present study is the fact that this reading of βιάζεται suggests that with 11:12b, the Matthean Jesus makes an intentional contrast between two types of “force.”²⁵ On one side is the “power/force” demonstrated in his own eschatological ministry (vv. 5 – 6), which causes the kingdom to βιάζεται. On the other is the “power/force” that characterises those who try to ἁρπάζω the kingdom; that is, to seize control of it for their own purposes (the βιασταί). By connecting the nominal use of the βια- root directly to ἁρπάζω, the sense of “force” which identifies these individuals is given clearly negative overtones. The Matthean Jesus thus directly critiques the wrong expression of “force” for the work of the kingdom of God. As some commentators have picked up on, but needs reemphasising, this argument is strengthened by Ernest Moore’s examination of the usages of βιάζω, ἁρπάζω, and their cognates in the Josephan corpus.²⁶ Moore argues that “βιάζω and ἁρπάζω are used in Josephus, especially in combination, to signify the direct employment of physical violence as a means of coercion” and that “they carry with them a strong overtone of censure.”²⁷ Furthermore, he observes that ἁρπάζω is frequently used by Josephus in the War to describe “the violence

180, also notes the significance of v. 6 for understanding the rest of the pericope, claiming that, “V. 7– 30 ist Entfaltung des Makarismus in V. 6.”  Konradt, Das Evangelium, 177: “Matthäus spricht ausdrücklich von ‘den Werken des Christus’.” Emphasis original.  For a similar reading see T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus: As Recorded in the Gospels According to St. Matthew and St. Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 133 – 135; referring to Rudolf Otto, The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man: A Study in the History of Religion, trans. Floyd V. Filson and Bertram Lee Woolf (London: Lutterworth, 1938).  Nolland, The Gospel, 458.  Hagner, Matthew 1 – 13, 302; Luz, Matthew 8 – 20, 140.  Ernest Moore, “ΒΙΑΖΩ, ΑΡΠΑΖΩ and Cognates in Josephus,” NTS 21 (1974): 519 – 43, 540. Elsewhere (534) he claims that physical violence “is almost invariably implied in their usage.”

168

Chapter 5. Jesus’s Rejection of Eschatological Violence In the Synoptic Gospels

of ‘rebels’, ‘brigands’ (λῃσταί), Zealots and Sicarii.”²⁸ Although Josephus’s works are not a direct parallel to the Synoptic Gospels, Moore’s study is nevertheless informative for our understanding of these lexemes in Matthew 11:12, and supports the interpretation I have articulated above. Moore himself, commenting on this verse, claims that it should be read as, “a very strong condemnation of the idea that the kingdom of God could be established or snatched by force of arms.”²⁹ The Matthean Jesus thus follows his assertion that the kingdom is “going forth powerfully” (βιάζεται) through his own eschatological ἔργα by condemning the βιασταί who try violently to “seize control” of it. It is therefore best to understand βιασταί not as a reference to a specific group (the “Zealots,” Pharisees, etc.), but as all those who set themselves against the ministry of Jesus because of his failure to use a certain type of (violent) “force” to bring about the inauguration of the kingdom.³⁰ Such individuals are not only disassociated from this kingdom, but described as adversaries of it.³¹ The pericope concludes with the Matthean Jesus lamenting the state of “this generation” (11:16 – 19), whose members have remained fixated on their own eschatological expectations, and have thus have been blind to Jesus’s deeds and deaf to his words. Jesus describes their failure to respond properly to his eschatological summons with the words of a children’s song: ηὐλήσαμεν ὑμῖν καὶ οὐκ ὠρχήσασθε, ἐθρηνήσαμεν καὶ οὐκ ἐκόψασθε (11:17). Not only has “this generation” ignored the tune (so to speak), their preconceived notions about how God’s deliverance of his people and inauguration of his kingdom would take place had caused them to make paradoxical accusations against its true servants, claiming that one was possessed, and the other a gluttonous drunkard (11:18 – 19).³² They have thus set themselves against the kingdom, unwittingly aligning themselves with the βιασταί who ἁρπάζουσιν it, embracing the wrong use of “force” in their pursuit of eschatological goals.

 Moore, “ΒΙΑΖΩ, ΑΡΠΑΖΩ,” 526.  Moore, “ΒΙΑΖΩ, ΑΡΠΑΖΩ,” 542.  For various attempts to identify the βιασταί with a specific referent, see Barnett, “Who Were”; Bates, “Cryptic Codes”; Carson, Matthew, 309; Hagner, Matthew 1 – 13, 307; Konradt, Das Evangelium, 182.  See Evans, Matthew, 239; cf. Moore, “ΒΙΑΖΩ, ΑΡΠΑΖΩ,” 542.  For commentary on how this passage relates to Jesus’s and John’s perspectives on eschatological judgment, see Petr Pokorný, “Demoniac and Drunkard: John the Baptist and Jesus According to Q 7:33 – 34,” in Jesus Research: An International Perspective: The Proceedings of the Biennial Princeton-Prague Symposium on the Current State of Studies on the Historical Jesus, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorný (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 170 – 82.

5.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

169

The entirety of Matthew 11:2– 19 thus concerns the unexpected way in which God’s eschatological reign has been “going forth powerfully” in the ministry of Jesus, who contrasts the “power/force” of his kingdom work (vv. 4– 5) with the (violent) “power/force” of those who oppose him (v. 12). To borrow Konradt’s apt description, these words are a “Weckruf”: the Matthean Jesus exhorts his listeners to move beyond their expectations of eschatological violence and to perceive the prophetic significance of his words and deeds, lest they miss the kingdom inauguration to which they are bearing witness.³³ Against the claims made by advocates of the SJH that the Synoptic evangelists eliminated violence from their accounts, Matthew 11:2– 19 demonstrates Jesus’s critical engagement with his contemporaries’ expectations for eschatological violence. Not only did he reject such expectations, he summoned his contemporaries to perceive the eschatological significance of the deeds of his ministry as the true ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

5.2.2 “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:1 – 5) Like the first text discussed in this chapter, Luke 13:1– 5 is enigmatic, eliciting diverse interpretations from various scholars, dependent upon how they answer several key questions raised by the text. First, what precisely occurred in the event to which reference is made in verse one, and why did these individuals bring it to Jesus’s attention? Second, what specifically does the Lukan Jesus call his listeners to “repent” of? Third, why does Jesus bring up the destruction of the tower of Siloam? Finally, fourth, what is the sense of ὁμοίως / ὡσαύτως (vv. 3, 5) in Jesus’s twofold response? What would be “similar” about the two incidents mentioned and the fate of his listeners, if they failed to repent?

5.2.2.1 Identifying the Historical Incident Behind Luke 13:1 – 5 The minimal information offered in verse one—that Pilate “mingled” (μίγνυμι) the blood of some Galileans “with their sacrifices”—enables us to make a few preliminary observations regarding this incident. First, it very likely occurred in or around the temple, since this is the only location where Jewish sacrifice occurred;³⁴ second, the victims were Galilean;³⁵ and third, Pilate appears to have  Konradt, Das Evangelium, 183.  See Bovon 2013, 267; cf. J. Blinzler, “Eine Bemerkung zum Geschichtsrahmen des Johannesevangeliums,” Bib 36 (1955): 20 – 35, 31– 37; Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X – XXIV), 1006.

170

Chapter 5. Jesus’s Rejection of Eschatological Violence In the Synoptic Gospels

ordered an attack upon them as they were in the midst of some sort of cultic practice. We may speculate about further details—for example, the identity of the victims, or the motivation for Pilate’s action—but Luke himself offers no additional information. Numerous attempts have been made to correlate Luke 13:1 with historical incidents known from other sources, with references most often made to Josephus’s accounts of the various disturbances that took place during Pilate’s procuratorship.³⁶ However, the consensus opinion is that no viable candidate can be found.³⁷ That said, this should not cause us to reject the plausible historical background of the Lukan account, since Josephus’s record is far from exhaustive,³⁸ and the event reported to Jesus is consistent with descriptions of Pilate’s character and his exercise of power found elsewhere.³⁹

5.2.2.2 The Motivation Behind the Report For our present purposes, the more important question concerns why these individuals brought the event to the Lukan Jesus’s attention. Although the precise facts of what transpired remain incomplete, the information that is provided  Several scholars have suggested the interpretative significance of this point. See in particular the argument of Cullmann, The State, 14, who identifies the Galileans as “Zealot” revolutionaries; later supported by Solomon Zeitlin, “Who Were the Galileans? New Light on Josephus’ Activities in Galilee,” JQR 64 (1973): 189 – 203; cf. Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 33 n. 118; Borg, Conflict, 205; François Bovon, Luke 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 9:51 – 19:27, trans. Donald S. Deer, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 267; Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem, 106; Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 54; Uriel Rappaport, “How Anti-Roman Was the Galilee?,” in The Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. L. I. Levine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), 95 – 102. This is refuted by Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X – XXIV), 1006 and Nolland, Luke 9:21 – 18:34, 717. On the character of Galilean Judaism as distinct from that of Judea (particularly in terms of its “zealousness”), see more recently É. Nodet, “Galiléens (Lc 13,1…),” RB 120 (2013): 267– 76. Borg, Conflict, 205 – 206, makes the important observation that by referencing an event that took place in Jerusalem in the second part of his statement (vv. 4– 5), Jesus dismisses any suggestion that such a distinction is of any relevance to the point he wants to make—whatever the intention of his interlocutors may have been.  See War 2.169 – 177, Ant. 18.55 – 62, 86 – 87; alternate incidents not related to Pilate include War 2.8 – 13; Ant. 17.213 – 218.  See most notably the analysis of J. Blinzler, “Die Niedermetzelung von Galiläern durch Pilatus,” NovT 2 (1957): 24– 49, 32– 37; cf. Bock, Luke: Volume 2, 1205; Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X – XXIV), 1006 – 1007; and Marshall, The Gospel, 552– 553.  Blinzler, “Die Niedermetzelung,” 39 – 40, notes the account in Philo, Legat. 299 – 305, not found in Josephus; cf. Marshall, The Gospel, 553.  Green, The Gospel, 514; cf. Nolland, Luke 9:21 – 18:34, 717.

5.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

171

by Luke is sufficient to make clear the significance of such an incident. A group of Jews, piously fulfilling their responsibilities to God, were the victims of Roman violence. In the tense sociopolitical circumstances of first-century Palestine, an event of this nature could potentially have had explosive revolutionary consequences.⁴⁰ This suggests an intriguing possibility regarding the motivation of those who brought this news to Jesus: did they perhaps hope to gauge his reaction to such news, in order to get some sense of his (potentially revolutionary) intentions?⁴¹ The Lukan Jesus had been proclaiming and enacting the kingdom, gaining followers all over Galilee and Judea. Now, having “set his face to go to Jerusalem” (9:51), it appeared that his actions were building to a climactic confrontation. Many of those who accompanied him must have been wondering what this would entail—what were Jesus’s intentions vis-à-vis the Roman occupying power? The reported slaughter of faithful Jews was precisely the sort of “last straw” offence with the potential to catalyse seditious intentions into outright revolutionary violence. If Jesus had been harbouring such intentions all along, would this incident cause him to “show his hand” at last? Would he prove to be the militaristic messianic deliverer for whom many had been waiting? Although this reading of Luke 13:1– 5 is not widely attested in previous scholarship, in what follows I will argue for its plausibility, and demonstrate the light it sheds on several otherwise puzzling aspects of this pericope. First, the strength of reading Luke 13:1 in this way is demonstrated when we turn our attention to the key interpretative questions of verses 1– 5 as a whole. As already noted, these questions concern (i) how we understand Jesus’s twofold call to “repent” (vv. 3, 5); (ii) what links together the collapse of the tower of Siloam (mentioned by Jesus in v. 4) with the horrific action of Pilate; and (iii) how we understand the twofold warning (vv. 3, 5) and the “similarity” of the fate awaiting those who refuse the call to repentance. Most commentators, overlooking the clear sociopolitical significance of the reported incident, argue that 13:1– 5⁴² should be read as a climax to the discourse begun in 12:1, and a continuation of Jesus’s warnings about interpreting the times and settling one’s accounts (12:54– 59).⁴³

 Cf. similar incidents and their consequences in Josephus, War 2.223 – 231.  For a similar trajectory of interpretation to that I am proposing here, see Yoder, The Politics, 36; cf. Kenneth E. Bailey, Through Peasant Eyes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 74– 80; Green, The Gospel, 513; Nolland, Luke 9:21 – 18:34, 718.  Most commentators treat vv. 6 – 9 as part of this same passage. On the important links between vv. 1– 5 and 6 – 9, see K. Haacker, “Zeit zur Umkehr! Jesu Gleichnis vom unfruchtbaren Feigenbaum (Lk 13:6– 9),” TBei 40 (2009): 338 – 44.  See, e. g., Green, The Gospel, 513; Christopher M. Hays, “Slaughtering Stewards and Incarcerating Debtors: Coercing Charity in Luke 12:35 – 13:9,” Neot 46 (2012): 41– 60; and Franklin W.

172

Chapter 5. Jesus’s Rejection of Eschatological Violence In the Synoptic Gospels

Therefore, it is commonly suggested that Jesus’s twofold call to “repent” (13:3, 5) constitutes a warning to avoid post-mortem judgment, and the incidents referred to (vv. 1, 4) are offered as evidence that death can come unexpectedly, whether one “deserves” it or not—the need for repentance, therefore, is urgent.⁴⁴ Those who brought the report to Jesus (such readings continue) sought to distance themselves from the warnings he had just issued, by providing an example of sinners whose guilt was clearly demonstrated by the violent end to which they had come.⁴⁵ The problem with such interpretations is that they do not adequately take into account the fact that the Lukan Jesus’s repeated call to repentance is, both semantically and syntactically, directly connected to the historical incidents mentioned in the passage.⁴⁶ “Unless you repent” (ἐὰν μὴ μετανοῆτε), the Lukan Jesus twice declares, “you will all perish in the same way” (πάντες ὁμοίως [v. 3] / ὡσαύτως [v. 5] ἀπολεῖσθε): there is a clear association between the way in which these individuals died (slaughtered at Pilate’s behest; crushed by a falling tower) and the way in which Jesus’s listeners will also die—unless they repent. To read this passage as a warning about turning from sin lest one be liable to eternal post-mortem judgment is to ignore the fact that the Lukan Jesus’s words are spoken explicitly in response to a specific and sociopolitically-significant historical incident, and that his warning, likewise, makes an explicit connection between the potential fate of his listeners and the actual fate of those involved in these events.⁴⁷ In other words, it is not simply death itself (whether sudden and unexpected, or otherwise) that can be avoided by their repentance, but the particular

Young, “Luke 13:1– 9,” Int 31 (1977): 59 – 63; cf. Bovon, Luke 2, 265. Nolland, Luke 9:21 – 18:34, places the heading “Preparing for the Coming Judgment” over the entirety of 12:1– 13:9. A notable exception is Robert J. Shirock, “The Growth of the Kingdom in Light of Israel’s Rejection of Jesus: Structure and Theology in Luke 13:1– 35,” NovT 35 (1993): 15 – 29, who argues that 13:1– 35 is a stand-alone passage.  Examples of this line of interpretation are found in Bock, Luke: Volume 2, 1206; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 424, 505; Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV), 1005, 1007– 1008; and Marshall, The Gospel, 554.  As claimed by Green, The Gospel, 513, 514. For the Jewish association between tragedy and an individual’s sin, see John 9:1– 2; cf. Exod 20:5; Job 4:7; 8:4, 20; 22:5; Pss 1:4; 37:20; Prov 10:24– 25. On this, see Bock, Luke: Volume 2, 1206; Marshall, The Gospel, 553; and Nolland, Luke 9:21 – 18:34, 718.  On the particularities of Jesus’s use of “repentance” language in Luke, see Guy D. Nave, Jr., The Role and Function of Repentance in Luke-Acts (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 159 – 191; cf. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 498 – 500.  For examples of the sort of reading I am arguing against here, see Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1 – 8:26, WBC 34 A (Dallas: Word, 1989), 45; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 109.

5.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

173

manner of their death.⁴⁸ Taken together, this suggests that in order to understand this enigmatic pericope more clearly, we need a more precise sense of what the Lukan Jesus called his listeners to repent of, in order to avoid such a preciselydefined death. Along similar lines of thinking, several scholars have suggested that in this passage the Lukan Jesus is warning his listeners of impending national disaster, calling them to “repent” of their longing for and/or attempts at the militaristic overthrow of Roman rule, and warning them of the outcome if they continue down this road.⁴⁹ Two particularly strong pieces of evidence support such a reading. First, Wright draws an intriguing parallel between the Lukan Jesus’s call to “repent” and the similar use of μετανοέω-language in the work of Josephus.⁵⁰ Having foiled an attempt made against his own life by a “band of brigands” (σύνταγμα τῶν λῃστῶν), Josephus took aside the leader of the group (the ἀρχιλῃστής Jesus) and told this Jesus that he would “condone his actions if he would show repentance and prove his loyalty to me (εἰ μέλλοι μετανοήσειν καὶ πιστὸς ἐμοὶ γενήσεσθαι).”⁵¹ This striking passage demonstrates that the first-century semantic range of μετανοέω was by no means limited to “morality” or “personal sin,” but could be used with regard to the actions which defined one’s own identity and through which one sought to achieve one’s own goals.⁵² As Wright observes,

 For a similar argument about the importance of the term “likewise” to a proper understanding of this passage, see Borg, Conflict, 205 – 206. Borg (205, n. 137) also notes (and dismisses) the “imaginative” argument of Eisler, ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣΑΣ, 2:480 – 606, that the tower of Siloam was destroyed by the Romans while they were fighting rebellious forces led by Jesus (cf. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 78; Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 33 n. 118; H. G. Wood, “Interpreting This Time,” NTS 2 [1956]: 262– 66, 263). See G. W. Buchanan, “The Tower of Siloam,” ExpTim 115 (2003): 37– 45, 44, for further support of Borg’s reading.  See most notably Borg, Conflict, 205 – 207; George B. Caird, The Gospel of St. Luke (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1963), 169 – 70; John Cadoux, The Historic Mission of Jesus: A Constructive Re-Examination of the Eschatological Teaching in the Synoptic Gospels (London: Lutterworth, 1941), 270 – 71; J. M. Creed, The Gospel According to St. Luke (London: Macmillan and Co., 1930), 180 – 81; Gaston, No Stone, 341– 42; A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1896), 338; Wood, “Interpreting,” 263.  Wright, Jesus, 250 – 251.  Josephus, Life 105 – 106, 110. Wright, Jesus, 250, notes that the key phrase could just as legitimately be rendered, “if he would repent and believe in me” (emphasis original).  Wright, Jesus, 251, makes this same point somewhat more forcefully: “This is what those words meant in Galilee in the 60s; by what logic do we insist that they meant something rather different, something perhaps more ‘personal’, ‘inward’ or ‘religious’, in Galilee in the 20s and 30s?” (cf. 253 – 254). Another instructive Lukan example, noted by Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 500, is found in the repentant action of the prodigal son (15:18 – 20a), “who literally turned

174

Chapter 5. Jesus’s Rejection of Eschatological Violence In the Synoptic Gospels

“Josephus is requiring of this Jesus that he give up his brigandage, and trust him (Josephus) for a better way forward.”⁵³ This provides an illuminating example of μετανοέω being used in a literary context roughly contemporary with that of Luke as an appeal to turn away from revolutionary activity. It is at least plausible that the words of the Lukan Jesus could be understood in the same terms—as a summons to set aside one way of being/acting and to take up Jesus’s alternative.⁵⁴ The second piece of evidence that supports reading Luke 13:1– 5 in this way—that is, as Jesus’s warning to his contemporaries to abandon their desire for military deliverance from Rome, lest they suffer the inevitable consequences of pursuing such nationalistic goals—is the coherence of such a reading within both the literary structure of Luke 13, as well as the Gospel as a whole. The work of two particular scholars is helpful here. First, Franklin Young observes Luke’s tendency to have parables and sayings work hand-in-hand with one another, and argues that in the case of Luke 13:1– 9, the parable of the fig tree (vv. 6 – 9) “functions to bring home the meaning of the introductory sayings.”⁵⁵ If this is indeed the case, then the parable, which uncontroversially concerns the fate of the people of Israel,⁵⁶ suggests that we read the Lukan Jesus’s sayings in verses 1– 5 in the same light: not as having to do with individual “moralistic” repentance, but with national repentance in response to Jesus’s summons, in order to avoid being “cut down” (ἐκκόπτω, vv. 7, 9).⁵⁷ Second, Robert Shirock

round, abandoned his life-style and returned to his father”; note the twofold use of μετανοέω in 15:7, 10 to articulate the impact of the two preceding and analogous parables.  Wright, Jesus, 250. This has parallels with other passages from the Josephan corpus, in which the author recounts various attempts made to convince the Jews to turn from their hopeless rebellion against the overwhelming might of Rome and make peace while they still can (e. g. the speech of Agrippa, War 2.345 – 401; or that of Josephus himself, War 5.367– 412; cf. 5.114, 261, 325 – 26, 541; 6.94, 118, 129, 365). See Per Bilde, Flavius Josephus Between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988), 55; Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 8; Walker, “‘God is With Italy Now’,” 181– 83.  Cf. Borg, Conflict, 206. Both Shirock, “The Growth,” 28, and Wright, Jesus, 184, 253, demonstrate that this—calling Israel to turn from their present course of action, and warning them of the consequences if they did not—is part of Jesus’s prophetic vocation; so also Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 499: “The call expressed in the Greek term metanoeō, therefore, would have initially been heard as a reiteration of the call of the prophets to turn back to God.”  Young, “Luke 13:1– 9,” 59; cf. Haacker, “Zeit Zur Umkehr!”; Wright, Jesus, 331.  Such a reading of Luke 13:6– 9 can be found in, e. g. James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke, PlrNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 393 – 394; cf. Bovon, Luke 2, 276 – 277.  “Unless the people, judging for themselves ‘what is right,’ acknowledge Jesus and his message, they cannot interpret the ‘present time’ and are doomed by the coming judgment” (Young, “Luke 13:1– 9,” 60 – 61).

5.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

175

makes a convincing argument for reading the entirety of Luke 13 as “standing with purpose in the midst of the ‘to Jerusalem’ section” as a “miniature narrative excursus on the deteriorating relationship between Jesus and the Jewish nation.”⁵⁸ Most notably for the argument of this study, Shirock observes the parallels between 13:1– 9 and 13:31– 35,⁵⁹ suggesting that the two sections bracket the chapter with an opening warning/question, and a closing lament/proclamation of judgment—both directed towards Jesus’s Jewish contemporaries: The opening pericope (13:1– 9) focuses on the urgency of repentance for the nation Israel. Unless swift repentance occurs, disaster will overtake the nation. … But the question lingers in the opening scene: Will Israel repent? She is in grave danger. Sufficient time has elapsed for her to begin to produce fruit (i. e. to respond positively to the message of the kingdom). Nevertheless, her fate is not yet sealed. The closing pericope (13:31– 35) focuses on the sad fate of the unrepentant nation. … The question of Israel’s repentance (13:1– 9) is given a sad and decisive answer. Unrepentant Israel will continue in her hardness of heart, will murder the prophet Jesus and will, as a result, be given over to divine judgment. The intercessor, at the close of the scene, no longer pleads for time. He can only weep in sorrow at what is to come.⁶⁰

For Shirock, then, Luke 13:1– 5 must first of all be interpreted as a part of the tightly-woven literary unit of chapter thirteen itself, not primarily as continuing on from the discourse of chapter twelve. This strengthens the literary plausibility of reading Luke 13:1– 5 as a warning of impending disaster, functioning in parallel with the closing verses (31– 35) of the chapter and alongside other uniquely Lukan passages such as that found in 19:41– 44.⁶¹ By the time Jesus arrived at Jerusalem, it was too late: his call to repentance had not been heeded. Instead of recognizing τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην (19:42), his contemporaries held on to their misguided aspirations for deliverance. The destruction of the city, and those within it, was now inevitable (vv. 43 – 44). The arguments of these scholars thus make a strong case for reading the Lukan Jesus’s words as having primarily to do with the repentance necessary to avoid national destruction at the hands of Rome, a foretaste of which is rep-

 Shirock, “The Growth,” 16, 29.  For detailed analysis of these parallels, see Shirock, “The Growth,” 18 – 21; cf. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke, 390 – 391.  Shirock, “The Growth,” 25. Shirock (28) points to prophetic texts where a similar repentancelament pattern can be found, e. g. Isaiah 1:16 – 26.  See also Luke 20:20 – 24, regularly recognised to be even more clearly descriptive of the destruction of Jerusalem than its Markan and Matthean counterparts; cf. 21:6. See further Shirock, “The Growth,” 28; cf. Haacker, “Zeit Zur Umkehr!”

176

Chapter 5. Jesus’s Rejection of Eschatological Violence In the Synoptic Gospels

resented by the events mentioned in 13:1 and 4.⁶² This, in turn, suggests the plausibility of the proposal I put forward at the beginning of this section; namely, that those who brought Jesus the news of Pilate’s slaughter of the Galilean worshippers were motivated to do so—at least in part—by their underlying expectations for “eschatological violence.” Though it cannot be claimed that this is explicitly present in the text, it is at the very least a cogent hypothesis—one that fits within its literary context, and makes unifying sense of the otherwise puzzling words spoken by the Lukan Jesus. If, on the basis of the scholarship presented above, it is accepted that Jesus was warning his listeners of national destruction, then the logical question to ask is: what is it that would lead to such a fate? The most straightforward response is, I suggest, the widespread tendency to revolutionary violence which, as I have previously argued, characterised Judaism throughout much of the Second Temple period, including the years of Jesus’s ministry.⁶³ If we look again at this account through this plausible lens, I suggest that the following reading merits consideration. The Lukan Jesus sees through the ostensibly innocuous report to the concealed motivation behind it: the hope that he would be a militaristic messiah, a mighty deliverer who would respond to this offence by rising up against Rome with revolutionary zeal. If his interlocutors, as well as all who were listening, did not repent of what lay behind the report —their vision that God’s promises to deliver his people would be effected through eschatological violence under the leadership of God’s anointed one— the Lukan Jesus warns them that they will all “likewise perish” in the violent retribution that will fall upon them as a result of their persistent attempts to make this vision a reality.⁶⁴ This links the two examples (13:1, 4) and constitutes the heart of Jesus’s warning. His twofold question about whether the individuals who died were “worse sinners” (ἁμαρτωλοὶ/ὀφειλέται παρὰ πάντας, 13:2, 4), then, emphasises that this fate will fall on all Israel (Galilean and Judean), whether they “deserve” it or not. The road which the nation as a whole was choosing to go down led to only one destination: the widespread commitment to an eschatological vision which involved casting off the Roman yoke through violent insurrection would lead to its terrible consequences being visited upon

 Bird, “Jesus and the Revolutionaries,” 130, likewise observes that both are “images drawn from conflict”; cf. Wright, Jesus, 642; Young, “Luke 13:1– 9,” 62.  Borg, Conflict, 205 – 207, suggests a similar interpretation to that for which I am arguing, claiming that “the warning counselled both separation from the liberation movement and a repentance which qualified the loyalties responsible for the coming collision with Rome” (206).  Cf. Bock, Luke: Volume 2, 1206; Borg, Conflict, 206; Wright, Jesus, 251, who reconstructs Jesus’s call to repent as both eschatological and political.

5.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

177

the nation as a whole—the fruitless fig tree of Israel would be uprooted (13:6 – 9).⁶⁵ Whereas the advocates of the SJH see this pericope as demonstrative of Luke’s falsification of an apolitical Jesus interested only in questions of postmortem judgment,⁶⁶ when we grasp that the questions which surrounded the possibility of a violent revolutionary response to Roman rule were, within the worldview of Second Temple Judaism, inherently connected to eschatology, we can see how this Lukan pericope results from the conflict between the competing eschatological visions held by Jesus and many of his contemporaries. Thus, I argue that in Luke 13:1– 5, Jesus calls his listeners to turn away from their violent eschatological expectations, and to embrace the alternative inauguration of the kingdom of God that was at the heart of his ministry.

5.2.3 “Love your enemies” (Matt 5:38 – 48 // Luke 6:27 – 36) Jesus’s commands to his followers regarding nonretaliation and love of enemies, found in Matthew’s “Sermon on the Mount” (5:1– 7:29) and Luke’s “Sermon on the Plain” (6:17– 49), have been at the centre of exegetical and theological discussions since the earliest apostolic paraenesis.⁶⁷ The historical evidence suggests that obedience to these commands was one of the defining features of the early Christian community.⁶⁸ Needless to say, the scholarship on this Matthean/Lukan passage is vast, and cannot be engaged thoroughly here.⁶⁹ In  Caird, The Gospel, 169; see further Caird, Jesus and the Jewish Nation.  Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 316.  See Rom 12:17; 1Thess 5:15; 1Pet 3:9. On these texts, see John Piper, “Love Your Enemies”: Jesus’ Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and in the Early Christian Paraenesis: A History of the Tradition and Interpretation of Its Uses, SNTSMS 38 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 8 – 17, 100 – 133; Wink, “Neither Passivity Nor Violence,” 116 – 117; Zerbe, Non-Retaliation, 211– 269 (on the Pauline texts), 270 – 290 (on 1 Peter).  Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1 – 7: A Commentary, trans. James E. Crouch, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 285. See for references to ancient sources; cf. William Klassen, “‘Love Your Enemies’: Some Reflections on the Current Status of Research,” in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament, ed. Willard M. Swartley, SPS 3 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 8; and see Gabrielson, “Paul’s Non-Violent Gospel,” 56 n. 51, for further references.  Some of the more noteworthy and, for the purposes of the present study, helpful treatments can be found in: W. Bauer, Aufsätze und kleine Schriften (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967), 235 – 252; O. Bayer, “Sprachbewegung und Weltveränderung: Ein systematischer Versuch als Auslegung von Mt 5,43 – 8,” EvT 35 (1975): 309 – 21; Gerald L. Borchert, “Matthew 5:48—Perfection and the Sermon,” RevExp 89 (1992): 265 – 69; Warren Carter, “Love Your Enemies,” WW 28 (2008): 13 – 21; Henri Clavier, “Matthieu 5,39 et la non-résistance,” RHPR 37 (1957): 44– 57; Martin

178

Chapter 5. Jesus’s Rejection of Eschatological Violence In the Synoptic Gospels

Ebner, “Feindesliebe—ein Ratschlag zum Überleben? Sozial- und religionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zu Mt 5,38 – 47/Lk 6,27– 35,” in From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson, ed. Jon Ma Asgeirsson, Kristin de Troyer, and Marvin W. Meyer, BETL 146 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), 119 – 42; Paul Fiebig, “Jesu Worte über die Feindesliebe,” TSK 91 (1918): 30 – 64; Paul Hoffman, “Tradition und Situation: Zur ‘Verbindlichkeit’ des Gebots der Feindesliebe in der synoptischen Überlieferung und in der gegenwärtigen Friedensdiskussion,” in Ethik im Neuen Testament, ed. Karl Kertelge, QD 102 (Freiburg: Herder, 1984), 50 – 118; Horsley, “Ethics and Exegesis”; Horsley, “Response to Walter Wink”; John Kampen, “A Reexamination of the Relationship Between Matthew 5:21– 48 and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” SBLSP 29 (1990): 34– 59; William Klassen, “Love Your Enemy: A Study of New Testament Teaching on Coping With an Enemy,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 37 (1963): 147– 71; Klassen, “‘Love Your Enemies’”; Sheri L. Klouda, “Applying Fishbane’s Hermeneutical Strategies: Aggadic Exegesis in Matthew’s Use of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:21– 48),” SwJT 46 (2004): 19 – 30; Matthias Konradt, “The Love Command in Matthew, James and the Didache,” in Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings, ed. Hubertus Waltherus Maria can de Sandt and Jürgen Zangenberg, SBLSymS 45 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 271– 88; J. Lambrecht, “The Sayings of Jesus on Nonviolence,” LS 12 (1987): 291– 305; J. Lambrecht, “Is Active Nonviolent Resistance Jesus’ Third Way? An Answer to Walter Wink,” LS 19 (1994): 350 – 51; Wolfgang Lienemann, Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit: Studien zur abendländischen Vorgeschichte der gegenwärtigen Wahrnehmung von Gewalt, Forschungen und Berichte der Evangelischen Studiengemeinschaft 36 (Munich: Kaiser, 1982); O. Linton, “St. Matthew 5,43,” ST 18 (1964): 66 – 79; Dieter Lührmann, “Liebet eure Feinde (Lk 6,27– 36; Mt 5,39 – 48),” ZTK 69 (1972): 412– 38; Ulrich Luz, “Jesu Gebot der Feindselige und die kirchliche Verantwortung für den Frieden,” Reformatio 31 (1982): 253 – 66; A. Milavec, “The Social Setting of ‘Turning the Other Cheek’ and ‘Loving One’s Enemies’ in Light of the Didache,” BTB 25 (1995): 131– 43; N. Murphy, “When Jesus Said ‘Love Your Enemies’ I Think He Probably Meant Don’t Kill Them,” PRSt 40 (2013): 123 – 29; Fritz Neugebauer, “Die dargebotene Wange und Jesu Gebot der Feindesliebe: Erwägungen zu Lk 6,27– 36/Mt 5,38 – 48,” TLZ 110 (1985): 865 – 76; John Nolland, “The Mandate: Love Our Enemies: Matt. 5:43 – 48,” Anvil 21 (2004): 23 – 33; Gerbern S. Oegema, “‘Love Your Neighbor as Yourself’: Jesuanic or Mosaic?,” BN 116 (2003): 77– 86; Piper, “Love Your Enemies”; Marius Reiser, “Love of Enemies in the Context of Antiquity,” NTS 47 (2001): 411– 27; S. Ruzer, “From ‘Love Your Neighbor’ to ‘Love Your Enemy’: Trajectories in Early Jewish Exegesis,” RB 109 (2002): 371– 89; S. Ruzer, “‘Love Your Enemy’ Precept in the Sermon on the Mount in the Context of Early Jewish Exegesis: A New Perspective,” RB 111 (2004): 193 – 208; Luise Schottroff, “Non-Violence and the Love of One’s Enemies,” in Essays on the Love Commandment, ed. Luise Schottroff et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 9 – 39; Swartley, The Love of Enemy; Robert C. Tannehill, “The ‘Focal Instance’ as a Form of New Testament Speech: A Study of Matthew 5:39b-42,” JR 50 (1970): 372– 85; Gerd Theissen, Social Reality and the Early Christians: Theology, Ethics and the World of the New Testament, trans. Margaret Kohl (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 115 – 156; Dorothy Jean Weaver, “Transforming Nonresistance: From Lex Talionis to ‘Do Not Resist the Evil One’,” in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament, ed. Willard M. Swartley, SPS 3 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 32– 71; Lisa Wells, “An Interpretation of Matthew 5:38 – 42,” Proceedings (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 23 (2003): 15 – 28; Samuel F. Williams, Jr., “Matthew 5:43 – 48,” RevExp 89 (1992): 389 – 95; William H. Willimon, “Matthew 5:43 – 48,” Int 57 (2003): 61– 63; M. Winger, “Hard Sayings,” ExpTim 115 (2004): 266 – 73; Wink, “The Third

5.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

179

what follows I will focus on the particularly significant contributions these texts make to my argument that according to the Synoptic descriptions of his life and ministry, Jesus consistently disassociated eschatological violence from his kingdom of God ministry.

5.2.3.1 “Love your enemies”—A “Straightforward” Reading The significance of these words to the present study is clear: the Matthean/Lukan Jesus commands his listeners not to return evil for evil (Matt 5:38 – 39 // Luke 6:28 – 29) and to love their enemies (Matt 5:44 // Luke 6:27, 35), and connects this to bearing the identity of the sons of God (Matt 5:45 // Luke 6:35). However, two interpretative questions immediately arise: (i) who are the “enemies” (ἐχθροί)? and (ii) what does it mean to “love” (ἀγαπάω) them? Within the context of first-century Palestinian Judaism, the answers to both these questions would, in some ways, have been obvious.⁷⁰ The ἐχθροί would almost certainly have been understood as those who subjugated and oppressed the Jewish people (the Romans) as well as those who enabled such oppression (their Jewish collaborators).⁷¹ Whatever else the command to “love” this enemy implied, it almost certainly included not killing them.⁷² Read in a straightforward

Way”; Wink, “Beyond Just War and Pacifism”; Wink, “Counterresponse”; Wink, “Neither Passivity Nor Violence”; Zerbe, Non-Retaliation, 176 – 210.  On the identity of Israel’s “enemies” in the Jewish scriptures, see Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 211– 213; see also Jacob Neusner, A Rabbi Talks With Jesus: An Intermillennial Interfaith Exchange (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 27– 28. It is often remarked that, against the antithesis of Matt 5:43, the Torah does not advocate hatred of enemies (though see Ps 139:19 – 22). Some scholars have sought the background of this statement in the DSS and the Yaḥad’s perspective on the “sons of darkness”; see Hans Bietenhard, “Die Handschriftenfunde vom Toten Meer, (Óirbet Qumran) und die Essener-Frage. Die Funde in der Wüste Juda (Eine Orientierung),” ANRW 10.1: 704– 78, 753 – 754; Kurt Schubert, “The Sermon on the Mount and the Qumran Texts,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. Krister Stendahl (New York: Harper, 1957), 120; Morton Smith, “Mt. 5:43: ‘Hate Thine Enemy’,” HTR 45 (1952): 71– 73. For arguments against this view see William Brownlee, “Jesus and Qumran,” in Jesus and the Historian. Festschrift E. C. Colwell, ed. F. Thomas Trotter (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 73; Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 215; cf. M. Broshi, “Hatred—An Essene Religious Principle and Its Christian Consequence,” in Antikes Judentum und Frühes Christentum, ed. B. Kollmann, W. Reibold, and A. Steudel (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 245 – 52; Edmund F. Sutcliffe, “Hatred At Qumran,” RevQ 7 (1960): 345 – 56.  See Borg, Conflict, 142; Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 303; Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “Das Liebesgebot Jesus als Tora und als Evangelium: Zur Feindesliebe und zur christlichen und jüdischen Auslegung der Bergpredigt,” in Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus, ed. H. Frankemölle and K. Kertelge (Freiburg: Herder, 1989), 194– 230; cf. Wink, “Neither Passivity Nor Violence,” 125 n. 46.  Murphy, “When Jesus Said,” 123.

180

Chapter 5. Jesus’s Rejection of Eschatological Violence In the Synoptic Gospels

manner, therefore, the Matthean/Lukan Jesus’s command ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν communicates an explicit rejection of revolutionary violence.⁷³ Therefore, the more difficult task lies with anyone who would attempt to argue that the Matthean/Lukan Jesus commands anything less of his followers than that they go beyond loving their neighbours (i. e. countrymen⁷⁴) and treat their enemies in the same way. This was unheard of in Second Temple Judaism—although we can find examples of nonviolent resistance to foreign oppression,⁷⁵ nowhere else do we find the command of enemy-love.⁷⁶

5.2.3.2 “Love your enemies” and the SJH How, then, have advocates of the SJH interpreted Matthew 5:38 – 48 // Luke 6:27– 36? Brandon’s solution to this (from his perspective) problematic passage is simple: he argues that the text was fabricated by Matthew to address the sociopolitical circumstances facing the post-70 CE Christian community in Alexandria, in which “the need to counter that intransigent spirit that the Sicarii had shown … was paramount.”⁷⁷ Brandon thus argues that the entire Sermon on the Mount was constructed by Matthew to present a specific portrait of Jesus’s messianic identity that would directly contrast the violent expectations for such a figure which were held by the Jewish revolutionary groups.⁷⁸ He strips from the text

 Scholars who take a similar position include Borg, Conflict, 139 – 146; Cullmann, Jesus; Hengel, Was Jesus, esp. 26 – 29; Hengel, Victory Over Violence, esp. 49 – 50, 54; Klassen, “Jesus and the Zealot Option” (1999); Merkel, “The Opposition,” 142– 144; cf. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 623 – 624; Piper, “Love Your Enemies”, 98 – 99.  Lev 19:18 parallels “your neighbour” (‫ רעך‬/ τὸν πλησίον σου) with “sons of your people” (‫בני‬ ‫ עמך‬/ τοῖς υἱοῖς τοῦ λαοῦ σου). See Borg, Conflict, 141, on the conception of one’s “neighbour” as “fellow Israelite” in first-century Judaism.  E. g. Josephus, War 2.174, 197.  See Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 214; “The historical Jesus directly challenges the Jewish biblical tradition of war and violence” (216). See further Tom Holmén, “Hermeneutics of Dissimilarity in the Early Judaism-Jesus-early Christianity Continuum,” in Jesus in Continuum, ed. Tom Holmén, WUNT 289 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 23 – 27; Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching, trans. Herbert Danby (New York: Macmillan, 1925), 392– 393, 397; Reiser, “Love of Enemies”; Luise Schottroff, “‘Give to Caesar What Belongs to Caesar and to God What Belongs to God’: A Theological Response of the Early Christian Church to Its Social and Political Environment,” in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament, ed. Willard M. Swartley, SPS 3 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 232; Zerbe, Non-Retaliation, 171– 172.  Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 308 – 309; cf. 202– 203.  Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 310; cf. 308.

5.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

181

any suggestion that it reflects the mindset of the “true” Jesus, enabling him to disregard any challenge it might have posed to his articulation of the SJH. Although Bermejo-Rubio acknowledges that Matthew 5:38 – 48 // Luke 6:27– 36 “seems to preclude any violent reaction against the Roman Empire and its collaborators,” he claims that this issue has already been satisfactorily dealt with by Robert Eisler.⁷⁹ Drawing upon the earlier scholar’s work, Bermejo-Rubio lists three possible solutions to the apparent conflict between the love command and the SJH.⁸⁰ First, when faced with contradictory statements made by Jesus (e. g., according to his reading, those found in Matthew 5:44 and 10:34), Bermejo-Rubio argues that it is the reader’s decision which to reject and which to embrace.⁸¹ Second, since “seditious overtones” are much more prominent toward the end of the Gospel accounts, it is plausible that Jesus underwent a “spiritual evolution”⁸²—in other words, that Matthew 5:38 – 48 // Luke 6:27– 36 reflects an earlier stage of Jesus’s ethical thinking. Third, Bermejo-Rubio argues that by postulating an alternative referent for the ἐχθροί, it is possible to interpret this text so that it does not contradict the SJH.⁸³ In support, he notes Horsley’s claim that ἐχθρός was used to refer to “enemies” of a personal nature, in contrast to πολέμιος, which referred to adversaries in warfare.⁸⁴ However, Bermejo-Rubio himself does not seem entirely convinced by these three points, and admits that “unless we accept the already mentioned view of a shift in Jesus, we should conclude that there is here a blatant inconsistency.”⁸⁵

 Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 90.  Eisler, ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣΑΣ, 2:256, 259 – 267, 270; see Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 91 nn. 345, 347, 348.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 91; cf. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 202– 203.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 91.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 91– 92.  Horsley’s argument will be discussed further below; similar arguments are made by J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology. Part 1: The Proclamation of Jesus, trans. John Bowden, NTL (London: SCM, 1971), 213 n. 3; L. H. Marshall, The Challenge of New Testament Ethics (London: Macmillan and Co., 1950), 120 – 122; cf. Borg, Conflict, 142– 143 n. 25. See Werner Foster, “ἐχθρός,” TDNT 2:811– 814.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 92. In particular, Bermejo-Rubio admits the weakness of the ἐχθρός/πολέμιος argument, recognizing that in the OG/LXX ἐχθρός is the term used for “enemies” of all kinds (92 n. 353). Furthermore, πολέμιος is not found in the NT, and outside of the Maccabean literature is rarely attested in the OG/LXX (see 1 Chr 18:10; Ezra 8:31; Esth 9:16; Isa 27:4; cf. the over five hundred uses of ἐχθρός). See further Borg, Conflict, 142– 143. Examples of reading ἐχθροί as referring to enemies of all kinds include Robert J. Daly, “The New Testament and Early Church,” in Non-Violence, Central to Christian Spirituality: Perspectives from Scripture to the Present, ed. Joseph T. Culliton, Toronto Studies in Theology 8 (Tor-

182

Chapter 5. Jesus’s Rejection of Eschatological Violence In the Synoptic Gospels

Faced with this predicament, Bermejo-Rubio can only point out that “religious visionaries and charismatic preachers are not usually consistent.”⁸⁶ Ironically, his recourse to this point is itself inconsistent, since one of the main assertions of his article is that the SJH makes the most consistent sense of the historical data about Jesus, and that the inconsistency of the Synoptic Gospels is their most telling downfall.⁸⁷ Yet when it comes to ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν—the Synoptic text which, perhaps more than any other, causes many scholars to reject the plausibility of the SJH—Bermejo-Rubio acknowledges that his own position is inevitably inconsistent. It is thus clear that the advocates of the SJH are unable either (i) to interpret Matthew 5:38 – 48 // Luke 6:27– 36 in such a way as to deny Jesus’s clear rejection of revolutionary violence; or (ii) to offer a satisfactory explanation of why—if, as Brandon claims, this passage results from a later fabrication of a pacifistic Jesus —the command to love one’s enemies is attested in such widespread fashion across the earliest Jesus tradition. However, we must consider Richard Horsley’s interpretation of Matthew 5:38 – 48 // Luke 6:27– 36. Horsley—though not an advocate of the SJH—also argues against reading this passage in strictly “nonviolent” terms. Unlike Brandon and Bermejo-Rubio, however, Horsley tries to do so in such a way that the passage still coheres with (his reading of) the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus’s kingdom of God ministry.⁸⁸ He interprets this text within the framework of his presentation of Jesus as a social revolutionary. Horsley argues that several problematic assumptions about Jesus’s words have resulted in misinterpretations of the true significance of this text.⁸⁹ Most notably, he claims that the “focal instances”⁹⁰ provided in the imperatives suggest that “the context indicated by the content of the individual sayings is that of so-

onto: Edwin Mellen, 1982), 41, 52; Hengel, Victory Over Violence; Schottroff, “Non-Violence”; Wolfgang Schrage, The Ethics of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); and O. J. F. Seitz, “Love Your Enemies,” NTS 16 (1969): 39 – 54, 43 – 44, 46, 48, 50, 52; see Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 43 – 44 n. 122.  Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 92. He references in support Allison, “A Response,” 91; Eisler, ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣΑΣ, 2:257; and J. T. Sanders, “The Criterion of Coherence and the Randomness of Charisma: Poring Through Some Aporias in the Jesus Tradition,” NTS 44 (1998): 1– 25.  See Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 6, 8, 51– 52, 66 – 69.  This reading first appeared in Horsley, “Ethics and Exegesis,” before being expanded upon in Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 259 – 273.  Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 261– 264.  Horsley draws here on the work of Tannehill, “The ‘Focal Instance’.”

5.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

183

cial-economic relations in a village or town,”⁹¹ and thus, that Jesus refers to his listeners’ “local interaction with personal enemies,”⁹² rather than with foreign, political ones.⁹³ Horsley thus integrates Matthew 5:38 – 48 // Luke 6:27– 36 into his thesis regarding Jesus’s opposition to the “spiral of violence” that was operative in first-century Palestine.⁹⁴ Jesus’s teaching responds to the socioeconomic oppression at the foundation of Roman control by exhorting his listeners to create communities that stand together in true righteousness, refusing to allow the suffering which resulted from foreign exploitation to produce internal division. By limiting the application of Jesus’s commands to relationships within local peasant communities, he leaves room for the problematic implication that Jesus (cryptically) advocated violent revolutionary activity against the ruling elite. Thus, “‘Love your enemies’ turns out to be not the apolitical pacific stance of one who stands above the turmoil of his day, nor a sober counsel of nonresistance to evil or oppression, but a revolutionary principle.”⁹⁵ While Horsley’s analysis of the text represents a careful attempt to understand Matthew 5:38 – 48 // Luke 6:27– 36 within the sociopolitical and religious context in which these words were spoken, it ultimately falls short because of Horsley’s anachronistic division of the social, political, and “religious” implications of Jesus’s teaching. Furthermore, because of his interpretation of the “kingdom of God” as a socioeconomic reality, Horsley—like the advocates of the SJH— neither adequately nor accurately accounts for the fundamentally eschatological significance of Jesus’s teaching, nor does he appreciate its implications for the eschatological expectations of many of his contemporaries.

5.2.3.3 Love of Enemies and the People of the Kingdom of God One popular strand in the interpretation of Matthew 5:38 – 48 // Luke 6:27– 36 is represented by Stefan Schreiber’s claim that “Jesus findet damit eine aktive Strategie zwischen hilfloser Ergebung und gewalttätigem Widerstand.”⁹⁶ Schreiber is

 Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 270.  Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 266.  Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 266, therefore suggests that ἐχθροί might better be translated as “adversaries.” Wink, “Neither Passivity Nor Violence,” 125 n. 46, argues strongly against Horsley on this point. See Swartley, The Love of Enemy, for a series of articles in which Wink and Horsley debate the meaning of “love your enemies.” Horsley’s interpretation of ἐχθροί is also refuted by Hays, The Moral Vision, 327– 328.  See § 1.3.2.2.  Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral, 376.  Schreiber, “Am Rande,” 100.

184

Chapter 5. Jesus’s Rejection of Eschatological Violence In the Synoptic Gospels

here very close to Wink’s well-known argument that Jesus’s teaching represents a “third way, a way that is neither submission nor assault, neither flight nor fight, a way that can secure … human dignity and begin to change the power equation.”⁹⁷ Though I agree that Jesus advocates neither “hilfloser Ergebung” nor “gewalttätigem Widerstand,” the suggestion that “chang[ing] the power equation” is the intent of the command to love your enemies is misleading. Reading Matthew 5:38 – 48 // Luke 6:27– 36 as Jesus’s articulation of a pragmatic solution to the social/economic/religious/political issues which he and his Jewish contemporaries faced does not accurately reflect the significance of these verses within the Synoptic presentation of Jesus’s ministry of proclaiming and inaugurating the kingdom of God.⁹⁸ Jesus did not come up with nonviolent resistance as an alternative and more “effective” solution to the problem of Roman military power. Rather, his rejection of violence was directly bound up with his vision of how God’s eschatological promises would be fulfilled, and what would identify those who were God’s true people. Therefore, it is significant that Jesus not only commands his followers ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν, he gives them good reason for doing so: ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς (Matt 5:45; cf. Luke 6:35).⁹⁹ In other words, those who observed this command would identify themselves as the “sons of God”; that is, as “Israel”—God’s true people who would receive the eschatological blessings promised by God through his prophets.¹⁰⁰ This connection is especially clear in the Gospel of Matthew, where the same point is made several verses earlier, in the Beatitudes with which the Sermon on the Mount begins (Matt 5:3 – 12). There, Jesus declares, μακάριοι οἱ εἰρηνοποιοί, ὅτι αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ θεοῦ κληθήσονται (Matt 5:9).¹⁰¹ The Matthean Jesus thus twice proclaims that those who

 Wink, “Neither Passivity Nor Violence,” 115; cf. Wink, Jesus and Nonviolence; Lambrecht, “Is Active.”  “The content of the command of enemy love is determined by the tension of the eschatological situation which Jesus has brought” (Piper, “Love Your Enemies”, 174; cf. 69 – 88); see also Evans, Matthew, 135; Luz, Matthew 1 – 7, 273 – 275, 286 – 287; Wink, “Neither Passivity Nor Violence,” 111– 112; Yoder, The Politics, 49, 236 – 237.  Καὶ ἔσται ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολύς, καὶ ἔσεσθε υἱοὶ ὑψίστου (Luke 6:35b).  For “Israel” as the “children of God,” see Deut 14:1; Pss. Sol. 17:30; m. ’Abot 3:15; cf. Hos 1:19. See Borg, Conflict, 144 n. 33; Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 218 – 220, see 219 – 220 nn. 155 – 164 for bibliography and references.  Schreiber, “Am Rande,” 102; Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3 – 7:27 and Luke 6:20 – 49), Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 137– 142; cf. Borg, Conflict, 145 n. 36, noting Luke’s use of υἱὸς εἰρήνης in 10:6 (see William Klassen, “A ‘Child of Peace’ [Luke 10:6] in First Century Context,” NTS 27 [1981]: 488 – 506).

5.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

185

wished to be God’s “sons” must “make peace” (εἰρηνοποίειν); they must “love their enemies.”¹⁰² Given that both the Matthean and Lukan statements are found in passages describing the nature of the kingdom and those who would belong to it, Matthew 5:45 // Luke 6:35b should be understood as descriptions of the identifying features of God’s eschatological people.¹⁰³ This passage thus makes clear the contrasting eschatological visions of Jesus and those of his contemporaries who longed for the day when the ἔχθροι—the wicked oppressors of God’s people—would be utterly destroyed by the sword of the righteous.¹⁰⁴ According to the consistent presentation of the Synoptic Gospels (and therefore against the claims of the SJH), Jesus’s kingdom-vision confronted expectations of eschatological violence and manifested itself instead in love for one’s enemies. Jesus proclaimed that those who would belong to the eschatological kingdom—the υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ—would reflect the τέλειος (Matt 5:48) character of the God who was its king.

5.2.4 The Arrest in Gethsemane (Mark 14:43 – 50 // Matt 26:47 – 56 // Luke 22:50) As noted in the previous chapter, the Synoptic accounts of the events that took place in Gethsemane clearly demonstrate that Jesus rejected the option of revolutionary violence. The advocates of the SJH would of course agree with this; but for them, the scene is full of inconsistencies that betray Jesus’s truly revolutionary identity. However, by considering the factors of eschatology and violence together, we are able to see that the Gethsemane events are part of a coherent Synoptic presentation of the remarkable climax to Jesus’s ministry. In the Synoptic evangelists’ description of the confrontation that took place in Gethsemane,¹⁰⁵ Jesus disassociated eschatological violence from his kingdom

 Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 225; Piper, “Love Your Enemies”, 61– 62.  W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., Matthew 1 – 7, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 1988), 554, note the similar connection between love, “the imitatio Dei,” and divine sonship in Eph 5:1– 2. See Gabrielson, “Paul’s Non-Violent Gospel,” 58 n. 60.  Cf. 1QS I, 3b–11a; cf. Piper, “Love Your Enemies”, 40, who calls this text “the most explicit command to hate in the environment of the early church”; cf. Evans, Matthew, 133; Kampen, “A Reexamination.”  The Garden of Gethsemane was located on the Mount of Olives, a location of eschatological significance, most notably in Zechariah’s climactic vision of the Day of YHWH (ch. 14, esp. vv. 4– 5): Bruce, “The Book of Zechariah”; cf. Gabrielson, “Paul’s Non-Violent Gospel,” 59 – 61, who also notes its significance in Josephus’s account of the “Egyptian false prophet” in War 2.261– 263.

186

Chapter 5. Jesus’s Rejection of Eschatological Violence In the Synoptic Gospels

ministry in two ways. The first came through his response to the violent outburst of one of his followers (Mark 14:47 // Matt 26:51 // Luke 22:50). While the Synoptic narratives leave some room for questions about what precisely took place,¹⁰⁶ it seems clear that this was a spontaneous, short-lived outbreak of violence.¹⁰⁷ The focus of the texts is on Jesus’s response to this action;¹⁰⁸ of which Matthew gives the fullest description (26:52– 54). The Matthean Jesus’s response can be broken down into three parts. First, he commands the assailant to put the sword away, πάντες γὰρ οἱ λαβόντες μάχαιραν ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀπολοῦνται (26:52b).¹⁰⁹ Although scholars have observed that this statement is reminiscent of other texts,¹¹⁰ the words resonate with the Matthean Jesus’s earlier teaching against violence (5:38 – 48), and are not out of place here.¹¹¹ Jesus forbids the use of the sword by his follower, and informs him that violence only begets more violence. Konradt makes the observation that, Durch das generalisierende Subjekt “alle” liest sich das Wort im Kontext zugleich als eine hintergründige Drohung gegen die, die gegen Jesus “mit Schwertern und Stangen” ausgezogen sind: Sie werden durch das Schwert umkommen. Der Zusammenhang, den Matthäus zwischen der Tötung Jesu (sowie der Verfolgung seiner Jünger) und der Zerstörung Jerusalems gesehen hat (vgl. zu 27,25 sowie zu 22,7; 23,37– 39), fügt sich hier ein.¹¹²

 Among other interpretative issues, questions are raised about the identity of the assailant and his association with Jesus (see Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, 438 – 439; France, The Gospel of Mark, 595; R. H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 860; Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 5th ed., HTKNT [Freiburg: Herder, 1989], 2:400); and the significance of the fact that it was the servant’s ear that was struck (see Benedict T. Viviano, “The High Priest’s Servant’s Ear,” RB 96 [1989]: 71– 80; cf. Lampe, “The Two Swords,” 343 – 345; Gerd Theissen, Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, NTOA 8 [Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg, 1989], 198).  Against the arguments of Eisler, Brandon, and Bermejo-Rubio that this was a more serious incident (see § 4.2.6.1 above).  The Markan Jesus does not respond directly to the assailant, but instead addresses the arresting party.  See Black, “‘Not peace but a sword’,” 254; Cullmann, Jesus, 40 – 41.  Most notably Rev 13:10; cf. Gen 9:6; Prov 22:8; Hos 10:13; Sir 27:27; Tg. Isa. 50:11; m. ’Abot 2:7. see Davies and Allison, Matthew 19 – 28, 512– 513; Evans, Matthew, 438 – 439. Bermejo-Rubio, “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance,” 93, sees this as a quotation of Targ Isa. 50.11.  Martin Hengel, Christus und die Macht—Die Macht Christi und die Ohnmacht der Christen. Zur Problematik einer ‘Politischen Theologie’ in der Geschichte der Kirche (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1974), 18 – 19. There is even a linguistic connection between the two passages, observed by Davies and Allison, Matthew 19 – 28, 512 (cf. 506): ἀποστρέφω occurs in Matthew only in 5:42 and 26:52. Cf. Carson, Matthew., 613.  Konradt, Das Evangelium, 416.

5.2 Discussion of Key Synoptic Pericopae

187

With this reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, Konradt insightfully suggests that we must read Matthew 26:52b analogously to the interpretation of Luke 13:1– 5 I have offered above. His contemporaries’ willingness to resort to violence leads the Matthean Jesus to warn them of the consequences that would inevitably follow. Second, the Matthean Jesus claims that if he asked his father, πλείω δώδεκα λεγιῶνας ἀγγέλων would be sent to defend him (26:53). As observed in chapter two, prominent traditions in Second Temple Judaism conceived of heavenly beings fighting alongside God’s people—both in Israel’s past, and in the eschatological conflict to come.¹¹³ The War Scroll, for example, speaks of the ‫מלאכי קודש‬ who stand alongside the army of the sons of light (1QM VII, 6).¹¹⁴ With these words, therefore, the Matthean Jesus not only makes clear how unnecessary his follower’s attempt to defend his master had been—after all, what was the sword of one disciple, compared to the power of more than twelve legions of the heavenly hosts?¹¹⁵—he also rejects any suggestion that his followers should expect cosmic eschatological violence.¹¹⁶ Finally, with the third part of his response, the Matthean Jesus gives the reason for his submission: αἱ γραφαί say it must happen this way, and they must be fulfilled (26:54, cf. 26:56 // Mark 14:49).¹¹⁷ As we have already noted in our discussion of other passages, Jesus’s refusal to take up the sword in his own defence, to call his followers to do so, or to summon the aid of ‫יהוה צבאות‬, was grounded in his scripturally-based understanding of how God’s eschatological promises would be fulfilled. According to Luke’s account, Jesus rebukes the attack with the enigmatic phrase ἐᾶτε ἕως τούτου (22:51a), which—meaning literally “Let him/it (be) as

 See, for example, 2Kgs 6:15 – 19; cf. 2Macc 3:22– 30 5:2– 3; 10:29 – 31; 4Macc 4:10; 2Bar. 63.5 – 11 (referring to 2Kgs 19:15 – 19, 35 – 37); T. Adam 4:6– 7; T. Levi 3:3. Angels are depicted holding swords in Num 22:23; Josh 5:13; 1 Chr 21:16, 30. See also Dan 10:11– 14, 20 – 21; cf. Deut 32:8 – 9. See Davies and Allison, Matthew 19 – 28, 513 – 514; Evans, Matthew, 439; Hagner, Matthew 14 – 28, 790; Nolland, The Gospel, 1113 – 1114.  Cf. XII, 4– 5, 8 – 9; XIII, 10. See Davies and Allison, Matthew 19 – 28, 513 n. 61; Gabrielson, “Paul’s Non-Violent Gospel,” 63 n. 76; Hagner, Matthew 14 – 28.  Davies and Allison, Matthew 19 – 28, 513 – 514; cf. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1014; Scheffler, “Jesus’ Non-Violence,” 317; on the possible significance of there being twelve legions of angels, see Hagner, Matthew 14 – 28, 789 – 790.  Cf. Matt 4:5 – 7 // Luke 4:9 – 12.  Scholars have debated whether αἱ γραφαί is intended to refer to a precise text (or collection of texts), or to “the scriptures” in general. Suggestions include Ps 41:10; Isa 53:12; Zech 13:7. See Davies and Allison, Matthew 19 – 28, 514, and (on v. 56) 515 – 516. Leroy A. Huizenga, The New Isaac: Tradition and Intertextuality in the Gospel of Matthew, NovTSup 131 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 259, argues that Gen 22 should also be considered. Cf. Konradt, Das Evangelium, 417.

188

Chapter 5. Jesus’s Rejection of Eschatological Violence In the Synoptic Gospels

far as (or: up to) this”—may have the force of “Stop! No more of this!” or “Let this happen!”¹¹⁸ The latter translation could suggest a connection to Luke 22:37 and Jesus’s citation there of Isaiah 53:12—the single sword swing, like the presence of two swords, was “enough” to fulfill the scriptures, to ensure that Jesus was μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη. However, given the complexity of the phrase, it is probably best to stick with the former, less complex option, and simply to read this as the Lukan Jesus commanding his follower to stop. The Lukan Jesus then reaches out and heals the victim’s ear (22:51b). The power Jesus had repeatedly demonstrated throughout his eschatological ministry is utilised here not to overwhelm his adversaries, but to bring restoration to the harm wrought through violence.¹¹⁹ Jesus’s response to the act of his follower thus makes it clear that violence— whether human or cosmic—would have no part in the fulfillment of his eschatological ministry. The second means by which Jesus makes his rejection of eschatological violence clear is the challenge he issues to the arresting party, : ὡς ἐπὶ λῃστὴν ἐξήλθατε μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων συλλαβεῖν με; (Mark 14:48 // Matt 26:55a // Luke 22:52).¹²⁰ Jesus contrasts himself with the λῃσταί, and critiques the misperception of his identity and intentions that had led so many of his contemporaries to expect that he would take up such a role.¹²¹ Day after day he had been teaching in the temple, completely defenceless (Mark 14:49 // Matt 26:55b // Luke 22:53). If his adversaries had actually attended to Jesus’s proclamation of the kingdom of God, rather than perceiving him through the lens of their own expectations, they would have realised that violence had no part in his eschatological vision. To come for Jesus ὡς ἐπὶ λῃστὴν demonstrates their fundamental misperception of τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, through which he had already been inaugurating the kingdom.¹²²

 For the literal translation, see Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV), 1451, who points to 2Sam 7:18 (LXX) and Aristotle, Hist. an. 9.46; for the idiomatic options, see Bock, Luke: Volume 2, 1771; cf. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1:280; Marshall, The Gospel, 837, who suggests “Let them have their way”; Scheffler, “Jesus’ Non-Violence,” 318.  Green, The Gospel, 784, suggests a connection to Luke 23:34; cf. Bock, Luke: Volume 2, 1771.  Luke 22:52 lacks συλλαβεῖν με.  Against Lane, The Gospel, 526, who interprets this as Jesus’s response to the “shame and humiliation of being treated as a common criminal.”  It should be noted that it was not only the adversaries of Jesus whose misperceptions of his eschatological intentions were exposed in Gethsemane. The Synoptic Gospels suggest that this is also true of Jesus’s disciples. It is at least plausible, if not likely, that for some of them, the fact that Jesus did not respond with eschatological violence at this climactic moment would have been greatly disappointing. This perhaps helps us to understand why ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἔφυγον πάντες (Mark 14:50 // Matt 26:56b).

5.3 Summary and Conclusions

189

Therefore, the events that take place in Gethsemane are consistent with the Synoptic evangelists’ portrayal of Jesus’s rejection of eschatological violence throughout his ministry. If the SJH is to be believed, this was the moment for Jesus to show his “true colours,” to use the power he possessed to defeat the idolatrous oppressors of Israel and establish the righteous reign of God over his people. Instead, faced with the threat of arrest, abuse, and death, Jesus responded with submission—not only to his adversaries, but to the will of God revealed in the scriptures. By clearly rebuking the use of the sword, and critiquing those who demonstrated their ignorance by treating him ὡς ἐπὶ λῃστὴν, Jesus once again disassociated violence from his inauguration of the kingdom of God.

5.3 Summary and Conclusions Once again, we have reached the point at which all the lines of the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus and his ministry are pointing forward to the cross, which we are not in a position to discuss in appropriate detail. The pericopae analysed in this and the preceding chapter have demonstrated that the question of what role violence played in the ministry of Jesus cannot properly be understood apart from an appreciation of the centrality of eschatology therein, and that this question finds its ultimate resolution as Jesus is crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem. In this chapter, I have shown that the ingrained expectations of eschatological violence among many of the contemporaries of Jesus had two problematic results. First, the expectation that God’s eschatological deliverance would come about through his faithful people taking up the sword against their wicked oppressors was taking them down a path which led only to destruction. Second, the hope that Jesus, as the chosen instrument of God’s deliverance, would lead the faithful in such eschatological violence, was causing many of his contemporaries to be blind to the eschatological fulfillment that was, in fact, happening in and through his ministry. Because τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ were different from what many of his contemporaries were expecting, they hardened their hearts against Jesus and the kingdom of God he was proclaiming and enacting. In so doing, such individuals further committed themselves to their misguided eschatological vision and the destruction to which it inevitably led. Because they did not recognise that in and through Jesus, God was “visiting” his people for their deliverance (τὸν καιρὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς σου), Jesus’s contemporaries had turned their back on “the things that lead to peace” (τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην) (Luke 19:41– 44). All that now lay ahead was destruction. In this way, I argued that the Synoptic evangelists consistently describe Jesus as clearly disassociating revolutionary violence from his inauguration of the

190

Chapter 5. Jesus’s Rejection of Eschatological Violence In the Synoptic Gospels

kingdom of God. Moreover, I demonstrated that Jesus describes those who would belong to the eschatological kingdom as “peacemakers” (εἰρηνοποιοί). The true υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ were those who loved their enemies and prayed for their persecutors. These core attributes of the people of God—peacemaking and love of enemies—are antithetical to the longing for or enactment of retributive eschatological violence. In word and deed, Jesus made it clear that such violence had nothing to do with the kingdom of God he was proclaiming and enacting. Yet the Synoptic Gospels are clear that the story of Jesus’s ministry is a story of eschatological fulfillment. As we saw in chapter two, Second Temple eschatological expectations involved the final defeat of the enemies of God and his people. If, as I have argued, Jesus rejected the prevalent belief that this would involve the faithful people of God taking up the sword against their wicked oppressors, then how did he envision and enact the eschatological victory? I turn my attention to this question in the next chapter.

Chapter 6 Jesus and Eschatological Conflict 6.1 Introduction The content of the previous four chapters of this study can be summed up with the following: first, I demonstrated that Second Temple Jewish eschatological expectations included inherently violent components, related to the final defeat of the enemies of God/his people, and that such expectations played an important motivational role in the revolutionary violence of this period. Second, I argued that thus understanding eschatology and violence together enables us to perceive their interrelated significance throughout the Synoptic Gospels’ portrayals of Jesus, who consistently and thoroughly disassociated eschatological violence from his proclamation and inauguration of the kingdom of God. In this final main chapter of the study, I will address a crucial question that arises from this: if it is the case, as I have argued, that (i) Jewish eschatological expectations included the defeat of the enemies of God/his people; and (ii) according to the Synoptic accounts, Jesus consistently rejected prevalent contemporary expectations that this would come about through eschatological violence; then how did he envision and/or enact this element of eschatological fulfillment? In what follows, I will argue that in the Synoptic narratives, eschatological conflict is manifested most clearly in Jesus’s exorcistic activity. In his encounters with “demons” and “unclean spirits,” the servants of the s/Satan,¹ Jesus con-

 Throughout this chapter, “the s/Satan” will be used to identify the principle demonic figure in the Synoptic Gospels. Ὁ σατανᾶς is by far the most frequent designation used by the Synoptists (15x: Matt 4x, Mark 6x; Luke 5x), followed by ὁ διάβολος (11x: Matt 6x; Luke 5x). The choice to use “the s/Satan” is intended to reflect the fact that the Synoptic ὁ σατανᾶς seems to represent both the conception of the “adversary/accuser” (‫ )שטן‬found in the Hebrew Jewish scriptures (e. g. Num 22:22, 32; 1Sam 29:4; 1Kgs 11:14, 23, 25; Zech 3:1; Ps 109:6; Job 1:6, 12; 2:1, 6), as well as contemporary conceptions of a chief demonic figure such as Belial or Mastema found in texts such as Jubilees and the DSS (see § 6.2.1). For helpful introductions to the concept of the s/Satan in Second Temple Judaism, see C. Breytenbach and P. L. Day, “Satan,” in The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 726 – 32 and Chad T. Pierce, “Satan and Related Figures,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1196 – 200; cf. R. H. Bell, “Demon, Devil, Satan,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 193 – 202; Derek R. Brown, “The Devil in the Details: A Survey of Research on Satan https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703771-007

192

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

fronted the true enemies of the kingdom of God. I will demonstrate that the language and imagery of these accounts makes it clear that when he cast out demons by the power of God, Jesus was thereby victorious in eschatological conflict. Therefore, I will argue that the Synoptic evangelists consistently suggest that Jesus began to achieve through exorcism what many of his contemporaries expected to come about through revolutionary violence: the eschatological defeat of the enemies of the kingdom of God, and the deliverance of God’s people. This chapter will thereby further demonstrate the shortcomings of the “seditious Jesus hypothesis” (SJH), since its advocates are unable to offer any convincing explanation for why the Gospel writers would make exorcism so central to their fabricated portrayals of Jesus’s ministry. By contrast, if we view the Synoptic exorcism accounts through the lens of eschatological violence, we can see that the conflict embodied therein represents an alternative means of accomplishing those elements of the inauguration of God’s kingdom which were frequently associated with taking up the sword, in a manner consistent with the rejection of violence found throughout Jesus’s eschatological ministry.

6.2 Demons, Exorcism, and Jesus’s Ministry Before discussing the Synoptic exorcism accounts, we must first examine their background in Second Temple Judaism. I will focus on three elements of this milieu: (i) the conceptions of demons and evil spirits; (ii) the practice of exorcism; and (iii) the connection between exorcism and eschatology. This overview will accomplish two tasks: first, it will provide the necessary context for the discussion to follow; and second, it will demonstrate that Jesus’s exorcistic activity stood out within its sociohistorical context, most notably as a result of its associations with eschatological conflict.

in Biblical Studies,” CurBR 9 (2011): 200 – 27; P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven: Satan in the Hebrew Bible (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); N. Forsyth, The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989); Osten-Sacken, Gott Und Belial; S. H. T. Page, Powers of Evil: A Biblical Study of Satan and Demons (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995); J. S. Russell, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil From Antiquity to Primitive Christianity (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977). Demons are portrayed as servants or “minions” of the s/Satan in 11Q13 III, 12– 13, 24; 4Q387a 3 III, 4; and Jub. 10:7– 8; see Graham H. Twelftree, “Miracles and Miracle Stories,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 594.

6.2 Demons, Exorcism, and Jesus’s Ministry

193

6.2.1 Demonology in Second Temple Judaism Historical sources suggest that belief in the existence of beings known as “demons” or “evil spirits” was widespread in Second Temple Judaism.² That said, these beliefs were by no means unanimous, and were certainly diverse: for some Jews of the time, demons/evil spirits seem to have been a “central feature” of their worldview; for others (such as Philo of Alexandria), belief in such beings was mere superstition.³ References to demonic figures in the Jewish scriptures are limited. Most notably, Deuteronomy 32:17 and Psalm 106:37 speak of “demons” (‫)שד‬, several other texts refer to “goat-demons” or “satyrs” (‫( )שעיר‬Lev 17:7; 2Chron 11:15; Isa 13:21; 34:14), and 1 Samuel refers to an “evil spirit from God” (‫)רוח־אלהים רעח‬ that afflicts Saul (16:15, 16; 18:10).⁴ The lexeme δαιμόνιον occurs with greater frequency in the OG/LXX: not only is it used to translate ‫ שד‬and ‫( שעיר‬Deut 32:17; Ps 106:37 [LXX 105:37]; Isa 13:21; 34:14), it is also found in the Psalms (91:6; 95:5),

 Important sources on Second Temple demonology include: Philip S. Alexander, “The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam (Leiden: Brill, 1998): 2:331– 353; R. H. Bell, Deliver Us From Evil: Interpreting the Redemption From the Power of Satan in New Testament Theology, WUNT 216 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 10 – 23; Ida Fröhlich and Erkki Koskenniemi, eds., Evil and the Devil, LNTS 481 (London: Bloomsbury, 2013); Esther Eshel and Daniel C. Harlow, “Demons and Exorcism,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 531– 33; A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and K. F. Diethard Römheld, eds., Die Dämonen/ Demons: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt/The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of Their Environment (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); Pierce, “Satan”; Ryan E. Stokes, “Evil,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 613 – 15; Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “The Origins of Evil in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition: The Interpretation of Genesis 6:1– 4 in the Second and Third Centuries B.C.E.,” in The Fall of the Angels, ed. Christoph Auffarth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, TBN 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 86 – 118; Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “The Demonic World of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Evil and the Devil, ed. Ida Fröhlich and Erkki Koskenniemi, LNTS 481 (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 51– 70; and Archie T. Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits, WUNT 2/198 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).  Fröhlich and Koskenniemi, Evil and the Devil, ix, claim that “there was no uniform idea of evil powers”; cf. Eve, The Healer of Nazareth, 38, who identifies four “strands” of demonological belief in Second Temple literature; see also Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Satan and Demons,” in Jesus Among Friends and Enemies: A Historical and Literary Introduction to Jesus in the Gospels, ed. Chris Keith and Larry W. Hurtado (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 174– 175. The quote is from Eshel and Harlow, “Demons and Exorcism,” 531 (cf. Alexander, “The Demonology,” 331); the Philo reference (found in Eve, The Healer of Nazareth, 26) is to Gig. 16.  Cf. 1Sam 16:23; Judg 9:23; 1 Samuel also mentions “an evil spirit from YHWH” in 16:14 and 19:9.

194

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

Isaiah (65:3), and both Tobit and Baruch.⁵ Beyond this, a diverse array of other terms are less frequently used to describe wicked spiritual beings, including “the leech” (Prov 30:15), “Azazel” (Lev 16:8, 10, 26), and “Lilith” (Isa 34:14).⁶ Many more references to demonic figures are found in non-canonical Second Temple Jewish texts, including 1 Enoch, Jubilees, many of the DSS, and the writings of Josephus. Alongside this multiplicity of impersonal evil spirits, there are numerous references to individual chief demonic figures/spiritual beings, who are personified to various extents.⁷ Loren Stuckenbruck argues that five such “chief demonic figures” are found in the DSS alone: Melki-reša, the Angel of Darkness, S/satan, Mastema, and Belial.⁸ Among these, Belial is by far the best-attested—not only in the DSS, but in all of Second Temple Literature.⁹ This leads Stuckenbruck to argue that “the name Belial becomes a gathering point around which discourse about personified evil is constructed,” and that Belial himself was associated with the “notion of a ‘dominion’ … that characterizes the present age of wickedness.”¹⁰ Moreover, many of the texts that make reference to Belial attest the belief that, although the present age suffered under the dominion of this demonic lord, in days to come God would defeat Belial and all the evil beings subservient to him (esp. 1QM I, 5; cf. T. Levi 3:3; 18:12).¹¹ These texts provide a conceptual matrix for associating demonic defeat with eschatological fulfillment, and are thus of particular significance to the present study. Given the great diversity of this material, the task of establishing any sort of systematisation with regard to the Second Temple understanding of the identity of demons/evil spirits is difficult.¹² This is aptly demonstrated by the question of

 For the understanding of δαιμόνιον in the Greco-Roman world: Naomi Janowitz, Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians (London: Routledge, 2001), 34– 35; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 33 – 34; see further Werner Foerster, “δαίμων, δαιμόνιον,” TDNT 2:1– 19.  Bell, “Demon,” 193; see at greater length Bell, Deliver Us, 10 – 23.  Fröhlich and Koskenniemi, Evil and the Devil, ix.  Stuckenbruck, “Satan,” 176. Cf. Alexander, “The Demonology,” 341– 344, for further discussion, esp. 341 n. 31 for references to the uses of these names in the DSS; Armin Lange, “Satanic Verses: The Adversary in the Qumran Manuscripts and Elsewhere,” RevQ 24 (2009): 35 – 48.  See, e. g., T. Dan 1:7– 9; 1QM I, 13 – 15; 1QHa XI, 28 – 29. The one exception is Jubilees, in which “Mastema” is predominant; see Stokes, “Evil,” 614.  Stuckenbruck, “Satan,” 180. Emphasis original. For further on this, and Belial’s role in the DSS, see Stuckenbruck, “Satan,” 179 – 180; and Stuckenbruck, “The Demonic,” 64– 66; cf. Smith, Jesus’ Twofold Teaching, 96 n. 347.  Alexander, “The Demonology,” 342– 344.  Alexander, “The Demonology,” 332– 333, describes at length the “complex demonic world” of the DSS, identifying six distinct “classes” of demons therein; cf. Stuckenbruck, “The Demon-

6.2 Demons, Exorcism, and Jesus’s Ministry

195

their origins. There appear to have been two main demonic aetiologies: the first identified demons/evil spirits as the offspring of the Watchers and human women (see Gen 6:1– 4), while the second suggested that they were created by God in the primeval era.¹³ There was also considerable diversity in how the effects such beings had upon humanity were perceived. Eric Eve distinguishes between “individual” and “cosmic” views on this matter: texts attesting the first (e. g. the Gospels; Josephus) portray demons attacking individuals “by possessing them or afflicting them with disease”;¹⁴ while those attesting the second (e. g. 1 Enoch) depict these beings causing evil “on a massive scale by instigating sin and leading people astray.”¹⁵ Adding to the diversity, a number of the sectarian DSS demonstrate the belief that all humanity was “under the influence of two types of superhuman beings, one good and the other evil.”¹⁶ Therefore, although beliefs about their origin, identity, and function were diverse, the literary sources suggest that demons and evil spirits were very much a part of the worldview of Second Temple Judaism. We now turn our attention to the understanding of exorcism in Second Temple Judaism, with the aim of pro-

ic.” Alexander makes particular note of the similarities between Qumran demonology and that of the NT (cf. Stuckenbruck, “Satan”), and the former’s significance for understanding the latter (esp. 351– 352). On this point, see further Hermann Lichtenberger, “Demonology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament,” in Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of the Orion Centre for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Centre for the Study of Christianity, 11 – 13 January, 2004, ed. Ruth A. Clements and Daniel R. Schwartz, STDJ 84 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 267– 80.  The former option is preserved in 1En. 1– 36 (esp. 10:15), texts that build on the Enochic myth (e. g. Jub. 5:1– 11), and certain texts from Qumran (CD II, 17– 21; 4Q203; 4Q531– 533); while the latter is primarily attested elsewhere in the DSS (1QS III – IV and 4Q286 – 287; cf. also LAB 60): Eshel and Harlow, “Demons and Exorcism,” 531; see also Alexander, “The Demonology,” 337– 341; Bell, “Demon,” 194. For further on the Watchers myth, and its role in Second Temple conceptions of evil and demonology, see Stuckenbruck, “The Origins”; Stuckenbruck, “The Demonic,” 53 – 55; and Archie T. Wright, “Evil Spirits in Second Temple Judaism: The Watcher Tradition as a Background to the Demonic Pericopes in the Gospels,” Hen 28 (2006), 141– 59.  See Jub. 10:1– 14 and 11:4– 6; Stokes, “Evil,” 614; cf. Alexander, “The Demonology,” 345; Pierce, “Satan,” 1198.  Eve, The Healer of Nazareth, 27.  Stokes, “Evil,” 615. See also Ida Fröhlich, “Evil in Second Temple Texts,” in Evil and the Devil, ed. Ida Fröhlich and Erkki Koskenniemi, LNTS 481 (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 50; Osten-Sacken, Gott Und Belial. This is particularly well attested in the so-called “Treatise of the Two Spirits” (1QS III, 17b – 19a, 20 – 25; cf. IV, 2– 26); see Alexander, “The Demonology,” 343.

196

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

viding a framework within which to analyse the Synoptic presentation of Jesus’s engagement with demonic beings.¹⁷

6.2.2 Exorcism in Second Temple Judaism and the Synoptic Portrayal of Jesus Jewish literary sources suggest that exorcism and exorcists were a recognizable— though still remarkable—component of the Second Temple world. Two examples provide evidence of this. The first and earlier is found in Tobit 6 – 8, where the angel Raphael instructs Tobias in the technique of exorcizing a demon by burning fish innards (6:7– 8, 17– 18a). Tobias then uses the method to drive out the demon Asmodeus from his wife Sarah on their wedding night (8:2– 3). Second, we find in Josephus’s Antiquities (8.45 – 49) the story of Eleazar, who “freed men possessed by [i. e. under the control of] demons” in the presence of Vespasian.¹⁸ Holding up a ring (under the seal of which was concealed a particular root, prescribed by Solomon¹⁹) to the nose of the demoniac, Eleazar spoke Solo-

 The most recent thorough treatment can be found in Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 41– 59; though she adds little to the survey of Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1993), 13 – 52. See also M. Becker, Wunder und Wundertäter im frührabbinischen Judentum: Studien zum Phänomen und seiner Überlieferung im Horizont von Magie und Dämonismus, WUNT 2/144 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002); Eshel and Harlow, “Demons and Exorcism”; Craig A. Evans, “Jesus’ Exorcisms and Proclamation of the Kingdom of God in the Light of the Testaments,” in The Changing Face of Judaism, Christianity, and Other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity, ed. Ian H. Henderson and Gerbern S. Oegema, Studien zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit 2 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006), 210 – 33; Eve, The Healer of Nazareth, 26 – 39; T. Klutz, “The Grammar of Exorcism in the Ancient Mediterranean World: Some Cosmological, Semantic and Pragmatic Reflections on How Exorcistic Prowess Contributed to the Worship of Jesus,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, ed. Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis, JSJSup 63 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 156 – 65; Cheryl S. Pero, Liberation from Empire: Demonic Possession and Exorcism in the Gospel of Mark, Studies in Biblical Literature (New York: Lang, 2013); Eric Sorenson, Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity, WUNT 2/157 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 47– 74; and Edwin Yamauchi, “Magic or Miracle? Diseases, Demons and Exorcisms,” in The Miracles of Jesus, ed. David Wenham and Craig Blomberg, Gospel Perspectives 6 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986), 89 – 183.  See also Josephus, War 7.185.  Solomon was renowned as a powerful exorcist in Jewish tradition. See Josephus, Ant. 8.45 – 46; cf. Wis 7:20. See Eshel and Harlow, “Demons and Exorcism,” 533; for an indepth study, see P. A. Torijano, Solomon the Esoteric King: From King to Magus, Development of a Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2002). On Jesus’s exorcistic identity and the question of its connections to Solomon, see Jennifer Nyström, “Jesus’ Exorcistic Identity Reconsidered: The Demise of

6.2 Demons, Exorcism, and Jesus’s Ministry

197

mon’s name, recited “incantations” (ἐπῳδή), and bound the demon by oath never to return. Alongside these accounts are several DSS manuscripts which appear to make reference to exorcism: 11Q5 and 11Q11 both comment on David’s ability to expel demons by his music,²⁰ and 4Q560 (sometimes called 4QExorcism) may contain a fragmentary formula for protection against demonic attack.²¹ The literary record thus suggests general familiarity with a diversity of exorcistic practice in Second Temple Judaism, and provides evidence for the belief that the harmful effects of demonic possession could be combatted by a variety of techniques. This is corroborated by evidence for the practice of exorcism elsewhere in the first-century Mediterranean world,²² as well as in later Jewish and Christian texts.²³ Having analysed a wide array of this evidence, Graham Twelftree argues that the success of ancient exorcisms was believed to be dependent on the interplay of several factors: (i) the exorcist himself; (ii) the source of the exorcist’s power (often a physical object of some kind); and (iii) the ritual (i. e. the application of that power to the spirit, which often involved both specific actions and the recitation of particular words).²⁴ These factors were emphasised to varying degrees in different texts.

a Solomonic Typology,” in Jesus and the Scriptures: Problems, Passages and Patterns, ed. Tobias Hägerland, LNTS 552 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 69 – 92.  11Q5 XXVII, 2, 3, 4, 9 – 10; 11Q11 I, 4, 6; IV, 4; cf. 1Sam 16:14– 23; Josephus, Ant. 6.166 – 169. See Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 45.  4Q560 I, 1– 4. Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 45, notes (n. 116) the discussion of this passage in D. L. Penney and M. O. Wise, “By the Power of Beelzebub: An Aramaic Incantation Formula From Qumran (4Q560),” JBL 113 (1994): 627– 50. See further Sorenson, Possession, 64– 73.  See, for example, Plutarch, Marcellus 20.5; the Greek Magical Papyri, e. g. PGM IV.1230 – 45, 3020 – 40 (see Hans Dieter Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells, 2nd ed. [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992]); and the accounts of Apollonius of Tyana in Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii. See Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 33; cf. Janowitz, Magic, 28 – 31. See further Tony Costa, “The Exorcisms and Healings of Jesus Within Classical Culture,” in Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, TENTS 9 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 113 – 44; Sorenson, Possession, 75 – 117; and, on possession/exorcism in the Ancient Near East, 18 – 46.  See Acts 19:13 – 16 and the Testament of Solomon; cf. the references to other Jewish exorcists in Mark 9:38 – 39 // Luke 9:49 – 50 and Matt 12:27 // Luke 11:19. See also the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen XIX – XX) and the Prayer of Nabonidus (4QPrNab or 4QsNab), both of which are often discussed in connection with ancient exorcistic practice (e. g. Eshel and Harlow, “Demons and Exorcism,” 532– 533; Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 17– 18, 52– 53); this connection is disputed by Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 41– 44.  Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 22.

198

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

Our knowledge of exorcistic practice in Second Temple Judaism suggests two conclusions of significance to the present study. First, the Synoptic presentation of Jesus as an exorcist is historically plausible.²⁵ Exorcism undeniably was part of the first-century world, and the Synoptic exorcism accounts can be mapped onto that grid.²⁶ However, second, it is also clear that within that world, Jesus’s exorcistic activity was exceptional. The Synoptic Gospels portray Jesus as a uniquely powerful exorcist,²⁷ whose acts stand out in terms of methodology, the source of power that Jesus utilised, the number of successful exorcisms attributed to him, and the eschatological significance with which they were imbued.²⁸

 Bell, Deliver Us, 77– 89; more concisely, Bell, “Demon,” 198, offers six arguments supporting the historicity of Jesus’s exorcisms. See Paul J. Achtemeier, “Miracles and the Historical Jesus: A Study of Mark 9.14– 29,” CBQ 37 (1975): 471– 91, 491; Craig S. Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 1:613; Thomas Söding, “‘Wenn ich mit dem Finger Gottes die Dämonen austreibe.’ (Lk 11,20): Die Exorczismen im Rahmen der Basileia-Verkündigung Jesu,” in Die Dämonen/ Demons: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt/The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of Their Environment, ed. A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and K. F. Diethard Römheld (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 519; and Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 136 – 142.  One further aspect of exorcism that should be acknowledged is its potential significance as a sociopolitical phenomenon. This is the primary lens through which Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist discusses Jesus’s exorcisms (see esp. 22– 60, 205 – 207), arguing that exorcism must be understood “as part of broader Judean and Galilean responses to the politically charged and socially oppressive context of first-century Roman Palestine” (3). Witmer thus builds on such works as Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988) and Horsley, “‘By the Finger of God’”; Richard A. Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001); Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003); Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Powers: Conflict, Covenant, and the Hope of the Poor (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010). While insightful, this hypothesis will not impact our discussion to any great extent (though see comments in §§ 6.3.1, 6.3.2.2).  This is corroborated by evidence from other texts, e. g. Acts 19:13 – 16.  This becomes even more significant when we consider the Synoptic “summary passages” (e. g. Mark 1:34; cf. Mark 1:39; 3:7– 12; Matt 8:16 – 17; 4:24– 25; 12:15 – 16; Luke 4:40 – 41; 6:17– 19; 7:2), which suggest that Jesus performed many more exorcisms beyond those the evangelists record in detail. See Eve, The Healer of Nazareth, 7– 8, 38. For thorough treatment of what set Jesus apart from contemporary exorcists, see Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 157– 165; cf. Bell, Deliver Us, 89 – 95.

6.2 Demons, Exorcism, and Jesus’s Ministry

199

6.2.3 Exorcism as Eschatological Conflict This last aspect of Jesus’s exorcistic activity—its association with eschatology— is, for the purposes of this study, its most significant characteristic. Texts such as Matthew 12:28 // Luke 11:20 suggest that Jesus not only associated his exorcisms with the arrival of the kingdom of God, but with the downfall of the dominion of evil.²⁹ This appears to have distinguished Jesus from any other exorcist of his time. In Twelftree’s words: Prior to the New Testament even though the end of Satan was expected in the eschaton, there is no specific connection made between exorcism and eschatology. That the connection is found in authentic words of Jesus but not before Jesus, it appears that it was Jesus himself who made this connection between exorcisms and eschatology. ³⁰

More precisely, the Synoptic Gospels clearly portray Jesus’s exorcisms as moments of eschatological conflict: in these encounters, demonic power was being overcome by God’s power.³¹ Although (as Twelftree notes) there was widespread expectation that evil spirits and their powerful leader (Belial, Mastema, etc.) would be defeated in the eschatological age,³² nowhere was this associated with exorcism. This attribute of Jesus’s exorcistic activity sets him apart not only from the context of Second Temple Judaism,³³ but also from that of the early church, in which exorcism was neither practised as frequently nor understood to embody the same eschatological significance.³⁴ The Synoptic presentation of Jesus’s exorcisms as eschatological conflicts is, therefore, of unmistakable importance to the present study. Exorcism is a central element of Jesus’s ministry, one which does not appear to have typically been

 See Twelftree, “Miracles,” 594.  Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 220. Emphasis original. See also Söding, “‘Wenn Ich’,” 534: “Die eschatologische Deutung der Exorzismen durch Jesus ist … ohne Parallele”; cf. Bell, “Demon,” 198; Eve, The Healer of Nazareth, 47; Craig S. Keener, “Jesus and Parallel Greco-Roman Figures,” in Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, TENTS 9 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 97; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 129.  Stuckenbruck, “Satan,” 184.  See, e. g. Isa 24:21– 22; 1En. 10:4– 6, 11– 13; 1QS IV, 18 – 19.  Evans, “Exorcisms and the Kingdom,” 164, remarks on some parallels to T. Mos. 10:1; cf. Eve, The Healer of Nazareth, 29, on Jub. 10:1– 14.  For analysis of exorcism in the early church, see Sorenson, Possession, 148 – 153, 168 – 221; also Graham H. Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism Among Early Christians (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007).

200

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

associated with messianic expectations.³⁵ The advocates of the SJH are, therefore, unable convincingly to account for its presence in the allegedly fabricated Synoptic portrayals of Jesus. In contrast, the argument I have been setting forth throughout this study—that violence and eschatology were closely connected, and that this is integral to understanding Jesus’s consistently nonviolent teaching and action—is also able to provide a rationale for the centrality of exorcism to Jesus’s ministry. In what follows, I will first analyse the Synoptic portrayals of Jesus’s exorcisms as eschatological conflict in more detail, and then demonstrate the connections between this element of Jesus’s ministry, and his rejection of eschatological violence.

6.3 The Synoptic Exorcisms as Eschatological Conflicts We now turn to the main task of this chapter: exegetical analysis of the Synoptic exorcism pericopae. I will first explore the Beelzebul controversy, arguing that it provides a lens through which to view the Synoptic exorcisms as instances of eschatological conflict between Jesus, the representative of the kingdom of God, and the unclean spirits/demons, the representatives of the kingdom of the s/ Satan.³⁶ I will then discuss four exorcism accounts through this lens, in order to establish the contribution each makes to this motif. I will thereby aim to establish the most important elements of the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus’s powerful and victorious engagement in eschatological conflict.

 Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 182– 189; cf. Keener, The Historical Jesus, 198; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 134– 135; see 378 n. 54 for a list of scholars who, in contrast, associate exorcism with messianic expectations.  Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination, has taken a similar approach to the Beelzebul controversy in her literary analysis of Mark’s Gospel as an “apocalyptic narrative” (20). Whereas I will discuss the Synoptic pericope strictly in terms of its significance for the exorcism accounts, Shively argues that in Mark it “provides the program for the whole Gospel,” constructing a “symbolic world that shapes the literary and theological logic of the rest of the narrative” (1– 2). Nevertheless, her thorough examination of how the Beelzebul controversy reveals Jesus’s ministry as a conflict between Jesus and the s/Satan (laid out in 41– 83) offers helpful insight into the significance of this pericope for the purposes of the present study.

6.3 The Synoptic Exorcisms as Eschatological Conflicts

201

6.3.1 The Beelzebul Controversy (Mark 3:22 – 27 // Matt 12:22 – 30 // Luke 11:14 – 23) The connections between Jesus’s exorcisms and eschatological conflict are revealed most clearly in the “Beelzebul Controversy.”³⁷ Two aspects of this pericope are particularly significant: (i) its use of the language of kingdoms in conflict; and (ii) its inclusion of the parable of the “Strong Man.” We first note the charge brought against Jesus.³⁸ Some of Jesus’s contemporaries, reacting to his ministry with hostile opposition, claimed that the only way Jesus was able to act with such power was because he himself was under the power of / in collusion with Βεελζεβούλ, the ἄρχων τῶν δαιμονίων.³⁹ With this accusation, they effectively attempted to discredit Jesus by claiming that his

 Mark (3:28 – 30) and Matthew (12:31– 32) also include Jesus’s words about “blaspheming against the Holy Spirit” (cf. Luke 12:8 – 10). Some of the most important scholarship on this pericope includes: Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom, 76 – 80 (with extensive bibliography); Evans, “Exorcisms and the Kingdom”; Albert Fuchs, Die Entwicklung der Beelzebulkontroverse bei den Synoptikern: traditionsgeschichtliche und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Mk 3,22 – 27 und Parallelen, SNTSU B 5 (Linz: SNTU, 1980); Santiago Guijarro, “The Politics of Exorcism,” in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Wolfgang Stegemann, Bruce J. Malina, and Gerd Theissen (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 159 – 74; Joel Marcus, “The Beelzebul Controversy and the Eschatologies of Jesus,” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, ed. Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans, NTTS 28.2 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 247– 77; E. Miquel, “How to Discredit an Inconvenient Exorcist: Origin and Configuration of the Synoptic Controversies on Jesus’ Power as an Exorcist,” BTB 40 (2010): 187– 206; Myers, Binding, 164– 167; Douglas E. Oakman, “Rulers’ Houses, Thieves, and Usurpers: The Beelzebul Pericope,” Forum 4 (1988): 109 – 23; Heikki Räisänen, “Exorcisms and the Kingdom: Is Q 11:20 a Saying of the Historical Jesus?,” in Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q, ed. Risto Uro, Suomen eksegeettisen seuran julkaisuja 45 (Helsinki: Fininish Exegetical Society, 1996), 119 – 42; Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination; Söding, “‘Wenn Ich’”; Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 98 – 113; P. Verhoeven, “The Meaning of Exorcisms: The Q Jesus and the Historical Jesus,” The Fourth R 25 (2012): 11– 16; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 109 – 132.  Matthew (12:22) and Luke (11:14) both begin this pericope with an intriguing exorcism account that straddles the line between exorcism and healing. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 103, suggests a possible allusion to Isa 35:5 – 6. On the exorcism/healing connection, see further § 6.3.2.4, esp. n. 126.  It is clear from the following references to ὁ σατανᾶς (Mark 3:23, 26; Matt 12:26; Luke 11:18) that Βεελζεβούλ functions as yet another name for a chief demonic figure, parallel to the s/ Satan, Mastema, Belial, etc. See Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination, 60 – 62; cf. Wolfgang Herrmann, “Baal Zebub,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 154– 56; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 113 – 114.

202

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

acts were demonically empowered.⁴⁰ Jesus’s response to the charge offers significant insight into the eschatological significance of his exorcisms.⁴¹ First, Jesus points out the logical absurdity of the accusation. If indeed he were casting out demons ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων (Mark 3:22), the s/ Satan would be acting against himself—and πῶς δύναται σατανᾶς σατανᾶν ἐκβάλλειν; (3:23).⁴² The s/Satan’s kingdom/house would be divided against itself, and a divided kingdom/house is not able to stand (Mark 3:24– 25 // Matt 12:25 – 26 // Luke 11:17– 18a). Therefore, Jesus concludes: εἰ ὁ σατανᾶς ἀνέστη ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἐμερίσθη, οὐ δύναται στῆναι ἀλλὰ τέλος ἔχει (Mark 3:26).⁴³ Jesus thus utilises the language of kingdom and conflict to respond to the charge, implying that his exorcisms constitute an attack against the “kingdom” of the s/Satan.⁴⁴ The discourse suggests that this perception of his exorcistic activity is not controversial, but is shared by his listeners (both the interlocutors, and the crowds). What is in question is neither the fact of Jesus’s ἐκβάλλειν τὰ δαιμόνια, nor the significance of such actions. Rather, both his interlocutors’ accusation and Jesus’s response focus on the source of power by which he is able to perform such deeds. If that source were demonic, Beelzebul (the s/Satan) would be bringing about his own downfall. Matthew and Luke diverge from Mark at this point, including a statement in which Jesus identifies the source of his exorcistic power and the eschatological significance of these actions: εἰ δὲ ἐν πνεύματι [Matt] / δακτύλῳ [Luke] θεοῦ ἐγὼ ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιμόνια, ἄρα ἔφθασεν ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (Matt 12:28 //

 Cf. Matt 9:32– 34. On the charge/accusation, see Santiago Guijarro, “The Politics of Exorcism: Jesus’ Reaction to Negative Labels in the Beelzebul Controversy,” BTB 29 (1997): 118 – 29; Miquel, “How to Discredit”; cf. Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 97– 109. As I have argued elsewhere (Nickel, “Jesus, the Isaianic Servant,” 176), Jesus is, effectively, accused of demonically-empowered sorcery. In later Judaism this accusation was frequently made against Jesus (e. g. b. Sanh. 43a; 107b; cf. Tertullian, Apol. 21.17; 23.7, 12; Justin, Dial. 69.7); on this see Miquel, “How to Discredit,” 195 – 196; Dwight D. Sheets, “Jesus as Demon-Possessed,” in Who Do My Opponents Say I Am? An Investigation of the Accusations against Jesus, ed. Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica, LNTS 327 (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 27– 49. Some scholars equate this charge with the accusation that Jesus was insane (see Mark 3:21); e. g. Meggitt, “The Madness,” 385.  Schreiber, “Am Rande,” 104.  See Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 109 – 110, on the Synoptic Gospels’ use of ἐκβάλλω with reference to exorcism, which, he suggests, is a historical novum.  Evans, “Exorcisms and the Kingdom”, 164, 168, notes the close connection between this verse and T. Mos. 10.1; cf. Evans, “Jesus’ Exorcisms.”  While the exact phrase “ἡ βασιλειά τοῦ σατανᾶ” is not found in any of the Synoptic accounts of the Beelzebul controversy, the idea that the s/Satan has a kingdom or rules over a domain is clearly implied by Matt 12:26 ( // Luke 11:18; cf. Mark 3:24); cf. Rom 5:21a. See Heinz Kruse, “Das Reich Satans,” Bib 58 (1977): 29 – 61; Smith, Jesus’ Twofold Teaching, 95 – 96.

6.3 The Synoptic Exorcisms as Eschatological Conflicts

203

Luke 11:20). With these words, the Matthean/Lukan Jesus draws a direct connection between his exorcisms ἐν πνεύματι/δακτύλῳ θεοῦ and the presence of the eschatological kingdom of God.⁴⁵ Not only do the exorcisms provide tangible evidence of the kingdom’s reality, they also demonstrate that through Jesus’s ministry, the enemies of God’s reign were, in fact, being defeated.⁴⁶ Twelftree helpfully breaks down this statement into three components: (i) the exorcist (ἐγώ); (ii) the source of his power/ability (πνεῦμα/δάκτυλος θεοῦ); and (iii) the significance to be drawn from the combination of (i) and (ii) in the exorcisms (ἔφθασεν ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ).⁴⁷ Because (as noted above) exorcism was not especially rare in the first-century world, component (i) emphasises that it is Jesus’s own exorcistic activity that is in focus.⁴⁸ Just as important, however—especially given the accusation made by the interlocutors—is the source of power by (ἐν) which Jesus acts: the “Spirit” or “finger” of God.⁴⁹ The Matthean πνεῦμα resonates with the frequent OG/LXX usage of πνεῦμα κυρίου to translate ‫רוח יהוה‬.⁵⁰ The occurrences of the phrase in the book of Judges (3:10, 11:29, 14:6, 19; 15:14) illuminate Matthew 12:28 particularly effectively. There,

 Therefore, this verse is invariably cited whenever a scholar points out the eschatological nature of Jesus’s exorcisms: e. g. Bell, “Demon,” 198; Stuckenbruck, “Satan,” 184; Twelftree, “Miracles,” 595.  Evans, “Exorcisms and the Kingdom,” 152; Norman Perrin, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus, NTL (London: SCM, 1963), 171; Söding, “‘Wenn Ich’,” 520.  Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 108.  See Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 128 – 129, on the significance of the “emphatic I”; cf. Graham H. Twelftree, “ΕΙ ΔΕ … ΕΓΩ … ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ ΤΑ ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΑ! … [Luke 11:19],” in The Miracles of Jesus, ed. David Wenham and Craig Blomberg, Gospel Perspectives 6 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986), 92– 93.  Scholarly opinion is divided on whether πνεῦμα or δάκτυλος is the original reading of the source shared by Matthew and Luke. The majority support the originality of δάκτυλος, as is argued for in the classical treatment of T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935), 82. Particularly significant is the fact that Luke uses πνεῦμα almost twice as much (36x) as does Matthew (19x); thus, Matthew’s use of it in 12:28, where Luke lacks it, is noteworthy. R. G. Hamerton-Kelly, “A Note on Matthew xii.28 Par. Luke xi.20,” NTS 11 (1965): 167– 69 makes a noteworthy rebuttal of Manson, in favour of the originality of πνεῦμα. For a helpful summary and bibliography, see Nolland, Luke 9:21 – 18:34, 639; cf. also Davies and Allison, Matthew 8 – 18, 339 – 340; Martin Hengel, “Der Finger und die Herrschaft Gottes in Lk 11,20,” in La Main de Dieu—Die Hand Gottes, ed. René Kieffer and Jan Bergman, WUNT 94 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 87– 106; Cyril S. Rodd, “Spirit or Finger,” ExpTim 72 (1961), 157– 158; Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 108; R. W. Wall, “The Finger of God Deuteronomy 9.10 and Luke 11.20,” NTS 33 (1987): 144– 50; David T. Williams, “Why the Finger?,” ExpTim 115 (2003): 45 – 49.  E. g. 1Sam 16:13; 2 Chr 20:14; Mic 3:8; cf. πνεῦμα [τοῦ] θεοῦ in Judg 6:34.

204

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

the “spirit of YHWH” comes upon a chosen individual, in order that they might bring about God’s deliverance of his people. Also significant are Isaiah 11:2 and 61:1, since (as I have argued elsewhere), at least part of the reason for the use of πνεῦμα in Matthew 12:28 is connected to the description of Jesus as the Isaianic παῖς in verses 18 – 21 (citing Isaiah 42:1– 4).⁵¹ The πνεῦμα/‫ רוח‬with which God would anoint his servant, through whom he would bring about the redemption of his people (Isa 61:1– 7), is identified as the empowering presence by which Jesus “casts out demons” and inaugurates the eschatological βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.⁵² Luke, on the other hand, identifies the source of Jesus’s exorcistic power as the δάκτυλος of God. In the OG/LXX, δάκτυλος τοῦ θεοῦ renders ‫אצבע אלהים‬, elsewhere used to portray God’s work in creation (Ps 8:3) and in relation to his people (Exod 31:18; Deut 9:10). For our purposes, the most significant use of the phrase is found in Exodus 8:19 (8:15 MT/LXX): Pharaoh’s sorcerers, unable to replicate the plague of gnats, exclaim, ‫ אצבע אלהים הוא‬/ Δάκτυλος θεοῦ ἐστιν τοῦτο. Here, the “finger” serves the same conceptual purpose as the more common “hand” or “arm of YHWH,” by which he rescues his people from their enemies.⁵³ Δάκτυλος thus directly connects Jesus’s exorcisms with God’s deliverance of his people from slavery in Egypt.⁵⁴ Therefore, both πνεῦμα and δάκτυλος identify the power by which Jesus “casts out demons” with the power by which God had delivered his people throughout history.⁵⁵ The exor-

 Note particularly Matt 12:18b; cf. Isa 42:1b. On this, see Nickel, “Jesus, the Isaianic Servant,” 175 – 177; cf. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 472, 479 – 480; Luz, Matthew 8 – 20, 193, 204. See Alicia D. Myers, “Isaiah 42 and the Characterization of Jesus in Matthew 12:17– 21,” in ‘What Does the Scripture Say?’ Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity. Volume 1: The Synoptic Gospels, ed. Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias, LNTS 469 (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 73 n. 11, 78 n. 31, for further references.  Mark 3:28 – 30 also implies the work of the Holy Spirit in Jesus’s exorcisms; see Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination, 76 – 78. See Márta Cserháti, “Binding the Strong Man: Demon-Possession and Liberation in the Gospel of Luke,” in Evil and the Devil, ed. Ida Fröhlich and Erkki Koskenniemi, LNTS 481 (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 115, on the eschatological significance of the power of the Holy Spirit.  E. g. Exod 6:1; 9:3; 13:14, 16; 15:6, and frequently elsewhere; cf. ‫ ביד חזקה ובזרוע נטויה‬/ ἐν χειρὶ κραταιᾷ καὶ ἐν βραχίονι ὑψηλῷ (Deut 4:34; 5:15). Cf. 1QM XV, 12– 14.  See Evans, “Exorcisms and the Kingdom,” 172, for further parallels between the exodus and the Lukan Beelzebul pericope.  For further discussion of the functional equivalence of πνεῦμα and δάκτυλος in Matt 12:28 and Luke 11:20, see Davies and Allison, Matthew 8 – 18, 340; Hamerton-Kelly, “A Note,” 168; Nickel, “Jesus, the Isaianic Servant,” 175 – 177; Williams, “Why the Finger?.”

6.3 The Synoptic Exorcisms as Eschatological Conflicts

205

cisms are thus presented as, in Schreiber’s words, “ein Machtkampf zwischen Dämon und göttlicher Macht.”⁵⁶ Finally, we note the significance of ἔφθασεν. Scholars have offered a wide range of opinions on whether this verb is meant to denote that the kingdom of God has come near or has in fact arrived “upon” Jesus’s listeners, going back to earlier debates about “realised” versus “imminent” eschatology.⁵⁷ The most straightforward reading of the text suggests a direct (i. e. immediate) connection between each successful exorcism, and the presence of the kingdom.⁵⁸ Read in the context of the conflict-saturated language of this pericope, ἔφθασεν suggests that when Jesus casts out demons ἐν πνεύματι/δακτύλῳ θεοῦ, the kingdom of the s/Satan falls back in defeat, as the eschatological kingdom of God “comes near.”⁵⁹ Matthew 12:28 // Luke 11:20 thus makes it clear that it is the combination of (i) Jesus as exorcist, and (ii) the πνεύματος/δάκτυλος θεοῦ as the source of his power, that results in (iii) the presence of God’s eschatological kingdom (ἔφθασεν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ).⁶⁰ In the exorcisms of Jesus, God’s eschatological victory was manifested. Jesus continues his response with a short parable about the “Strong Man” (ὁ ἰσχυρός) (Mark 3:27 // Matt 12:29 // Luke 11:21– 22⁶¹), further increasing the escha-

 Schreiber, “Am Rande,” 103.  Hagner, Matthew 1 – 13, 343, claims that the use of ἔφθασεν “necessitates the conclusion that the kingdom of God has in some sense actually become present,” and compares this to ἐγγίζειν in Matt 4:17; 10:17; this is also the position of Davies and Allison, Matthew 8 – 18, 340. For more thorough treatment of the debate, see Allison, Constructing Jesus, 100 – 101 (with refs.); BeasleyMurray, Jesus and the Kingdom, 75 – 80; R. F. Berkey, “ΕΓΓΙΖΕΙΝ, ΦΘΑΝΕΙΝ, and Realized Eschatology,” JBL 82 (1982): 177– 87; Bock, Luke: Volume 2, 1079 – 1082; Richard H. Hiers, The Kingdom of God in the Synoptic Tradition (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1970), 22– 35; W. G. Kümmel, Promise and Fulfilment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus, trans. D. M. Barton, SBT 23 (London: SCM, 1957), 105 – 109; Ladd, The Presence of the Future, esp. 138 – 154; G. Lundström, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus: A History of Interpretation From the Last Decades of the Nineteenth Century to the Present Day, trans. J. Bulman (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1963), esp. 104– 126. Caragounis, “Kingdom of God,” 20 – 23, argues for a future reference in this use of the verb.  Nolland, The Gospel, 501.  See Evans, “Exorcisms and the Kingdom,” 176; Konradt, Das Evangelium, 200.  See Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 109, 217– 218.  For commentary on the distinctions between Luke’s parable and that of Mark / Matthew, see Bock, Luke: Volume 2, 1082– 1083; Marshall, The Gospel, 476 – 478; Nolland, Luke 9:21 – 18:34, 641– 642.

206

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

tological significance of this pericope.⁶² The “Strong Man” is to be understood as the s/Satan, who is “bound” and has his “property” (τὰ σκεύη)—that is, those who are possessed, the captives of the s/Satan—“plundered” from his house by Jesus.⁶³ In light of John the Baptist’s description of Jesus as ὁ ἰσχυρότερος (Mark 1:7 // Matt 3:11 // Luke 3:16), the parable makes a clear statement about the power dynamic present in the exorcisms: though the s/Satan may be strong, Jesus is stronger (Luke 11:22).⁶⁴ Jesus thus parabolically portrays his exorcisms as the rescue of individuals from the s/Satan’s dominion.⁶⁵ The kingdom of the s/ Satan is not undergoing civil war (as the logic of his interlocutors’ accusation demands), but an external attack. The particular eschatological significance of this parable comes through the reference to the Strong Man’s “binding” (δέω, Mark 3:27 // Matt 12:29; cf. Luke 11:22).⁶⁶ Numerous examples from Second Temple texts provide evidence of the expectation that in the eschatological age, the chief demonic figure(s) would be “bound” by God: the Testament of Levi, for example, states that “Beliar shall be bound by [the Lord]” (18:12).⁶⁷ Moreover, a common feature of such

 Mark introduces Jesus’s entire response as parabolic (ἐν παραβολαῖς ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, 3:23); cf. Gos. Thom. 35. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 112. See Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 123 – 125, for the possibility of a sociopolitical reading of this parable (pointing to Horsley, Hearing, 122 – 125; and Oakman, “Rulers’ Houses”).  Note the clear connection to Isaiah 49:24– 26, which describes YHWH rescuing Israel from the “mighty one” (‫ גבור‬/ γίγας) and the “tyrant” (‫ עריץ‬/ ἰσχύοντος). See Twelftree, In the Name, 107– 108. See also Pss. Sol. 5:3.  For further discussion of the significance of ἰσχυρός imagery, see Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination, 72– 76.  Cf. the use of ἀπολύω in Luke 13:12. Evans, “Exorcisms and the Kingdom,” 175; see Rikki E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1997), 146 – 152.  Analogous to the discussions regarding ἔφθασεν are the lengthy scholarly debates regarding the temporal aspect of δέω. When, precisely, did the “binding” of the Strong Man occur, or when was it expected to occur? The main options (with subtle differences) are in the wilderness temptation, in the exorcisms themselves, or in the crucifixion. Scholars who see the temptation in the wilderness as the moment of “binding” include Ernest Best, The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology, SNTSMS 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), esp. 10 – 15; J. Jeremias, The Parables, 122; see Stein, Mark, 185. However, my reading is more in line with Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 224, who argues that the exorcisms constitute the “preliminary binding of Satan who would finally be destroyed in the eschaton” (224); cf. Jan Dochhorn, “The Devil in the Gospel of Mark,” in Evil and the Devil, ed. Ida Fröhlich and Erkki Koskenniemi, LNTS 481 (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 105; Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination, 67– 76, 203 – 211. For further discussion see Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom, 109 – 111.  See 1En. 10:4– 6, 12– 13; 54:4– 6; Jub. 5:6; 10:4– 9; T. Zeb. 9:8; T. Dan 5:10 – 11; see also Rev 20:2– 3. See further Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 123 n. 118, who also references Tob 8:3; 1En. 13:1; 18:16; 21:6; 69:27– 28; 90:23; Jub. 48:15; and PGM IV.1244– 5; France, The Gospel

6.3 The Synoptic Exorcisms as Eschatological Conflicts

207

texts is the release of those held captive by the forces of evil.⁶⁸ Whether or not Jesus is alluding specifically to one of these texts, the language of the parable is clearly evocative of Jewish expectations for God’s eschatological victory over his demonic adversaries. The Beelzebul Controversy thus describes the twofold eschatological result of the God-empowered exorcisms of Jesus: they bring about the presence of the kingdom of God, and the downfall of the kingdom of the s/Satan. Therefore, this pericope provides us with an eschatological framework within which to examine the other Synoptic exorcism accounts as incidents in which the kingdom of God “comes upon” those present, and the eschatological defeat of the s/Satan is enacted. To this task we now turn our attention.

6.3.2 Exorcism in the Synoptic Gospels Exorcism is a central component of Jesus’s ministry in the Synoptic Gospels. Alongside its inclusion in short summary statements (Mark 1:34; cf. Mark 1:39; 3:11– 12; Matt 4:24; 8:16; Luke 4:41; 6:18), there are four lengthier Synoptic accounts in which Jesus casts out (an) unclean spirit(s)/demon(s). Two of the four are found in all three Gospels (§§6.3.2.2, 4); of the remaining two, both are found in Mark, and one each in Matthew (§6.3.2.3) and Luke (§6.3.2.1). In what follows, I will analyse these four pericopae through the eschatological lens established in the preceding section, in order to determine what each contributes to the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus’s defeat of his eschatological adversaries through exorcism, and how this central component of his ministry of inaugurating the kingdom of God functions in tandem with his rejection of eschatological violence.

6.3.2.1 A πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτος in the Capernaum Synagogue (Mark 1:21 – 28 // Luke 4:31 – 37) The fact that Jesus’s encounter with a demoniac in the Capernaum synagogue— the first Synoptic exorcism account—is also the first mighty deed recorded in the

of Mark, 173, to Isa 24:21– 22; and Smith, Jesus’ Twofold Teaching, 93 – 101, esp. 98 – 99 nn. 354, 356, to T. Sim. 6:6; T. Zeb. 9:8; T. Dan 5:10 – 11; and T. Jud. 25:3. Cf. Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination, 140 – 142. Craig A. Evans, “Defeating Satan and Liberating Israel: Jesus and Daniel’s Visions,” JSHJ 1 (2003): 161– 70, emphasises the importance of the book of Daniel for understanding the Beelzebul pericope; cf. Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination, 98 – 105.  See T. Dan 5:11; T. Zeb. 9:8; 11Q13 II, 11– 13, 24– 25; France, The Gospel of Mark, 173.

208

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

Gospels of Mark and Luke makes the centrality of exorcism to the Synoptic portrayals of Jesus’s ministry immediately apparent.⁶⁹ Two aspects of this pericope are particularly significant to the theme of Synoptic eschatological conflict. First, both Mark and Luke clearly present this as a hostile encounter between two opposing forces.⁷⁰ This is evident as soon as Jesus enters the synagogue: his mere presence immediately causes the unclean spirit⁷¹ to “cry out.”⁷² The demonic being then speaks (Mark 1:24 // Luke 4:34). Its statement can be broken down into three parts, each of which communicates a defensive posture. First is the intriguing phrase τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, literally meaning something like “What to us and to you?” In the OG/LXX, the phrase regularly renders ‫מה־לי ולך‬, and communicates something analogous to “Why are you bothering me?”⁷³ The words thus convey the unclean spirit’s desire to have nothing to do with Jesus—and for Jesus to have nothing to do with it. Second, the spirit inquires, ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι

 Matthew has not included this encounter in his Gospel. Scholarship on this pericope includes: Bruce D. Chilton, “An Exorcism of History: Mark 1:21– 28,” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, ed. Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans, NTTS 28.2 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 215 – 45; H. Giesen, “Dämonenaustreibungen—Erweis der Nähe der Herrschaft Gottes. Zu Mk 1,21– 28,” Theologie der Gegenwart 32 (1989): 24– 37; Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 57– 71; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 154– 166.  This hostility leads Berger, in “Der ‘Brutale’ Jesus,” to argue that, “Jesu Exorzismen sind Gewaltanwendung gegen Geistermächte” (127). He thus claims that the exorcisms are indicative of the violence that permeates Jesus’s ministry (see also 119; cf. Aichele, “Jesus’ Violence,” 82). A similar argument is made by Schreiber, “Am Rande,” 102, who states that, “Exorzismen bedeuten Gewaltausübung über Dämonen” (though unlike Berger, Schreiber does not see Jesus’s ministry as inherently violent). Against this, I argue that not only does Jesus’s exorcistic activity not demonstrate violence (as defined in § 1.4.3), it represents a nonviolent (yet authoritative) response to the (often violent) oppression and hostility of the demonic powers.  For discussion of the potential significance of the difference between the description of the demoniac in Mark (ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ, 1:23) and Luke (ἄνθρωπος ἔχων πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου, 4:33), see Clinton Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels, WUNT 2/185 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 167. On the terms used to describe possessive spirits by each of the Synoptists more generally, see Bell, “Demon,” 194; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 153– 154, and 156 – 157.  ᾿Aνακράζω elsewhere “expresses a sense of extreme agitation or fear”: Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 157– 158. See Mark 6:49; cf. Luke 8:28. See Walter Grundmann, “κράζω, άνακράζω, κραυγή, κραυγάζω,” TDNT 3:898 – 903.  See Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 158, who points to Judg 11:12; 2Sam 16:10; 1Kgs 17:18; 2Kgs 3:13; as well as Philo, Deus 138; 2Sam 19:22; 2 Chr 35:21; cf. John 2:4. Witmer also notes Pierre Guillemette, “Mc 1, 24 est-il une formule de défense magique?,” ScEs 30 (1978): 81– 96, who argues against reading the phrase as a magical defence formula in 1Kgs 17:18; Philo, Deus 138; and Mark 1:24. Cf. A. H. Maynard, “ΤΙ ΕΜΟΙ ΚΑΙ ΣΟΙ,” NTS 31 (1985): 582– 86; Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 63 – 64.

6.3 The Synoptic Exorcisms as Eschatological Conflicts

209

ἡμᾶς; The verb ἀπόλλυμι is unambiguously hostile, connoting destruction and death.⁷⁴ Although the clause is punctuated as a question in NA28 (and every major English translation of the NT), Nolland argues that it should instead be read as a statement, demonstrating the unclean spirit’s awareness of Jesus’s intentions, based on its knowledge of his identity.⁷⁵ Jesus’s presence is immediately associated with its own destruction. Finally, the unclean spirit’s statement concludes with οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.⁷⁶ This titular identification of the Markan/Lukan Jesus implies the inherent opposition between his holiness and the spirit’s impurity.⁷⁷ Furthermore, in the spirit’s use of οἶδά σε there appears to be a connection to the conventions of contemporaneous exorcism accounts. Witmer observes: The “I know” formula is used in other ancient texts … for subduing evil spirits, and … in the ancient world knowledge of a demon’s name or other aspects of its identity was thought to give the exorcist an advantage. However, in this case, the roles are actually reversed. It is the demon who attempts to ward off Jesus by revealing knowledge of his name and relationship to God, rather than the other way around.⁷⁸

The unclean spirit thus attempts to gain control over the situation, doing whatever it can to delay the inevitable outcome of Jesus’s presence. Its vocalised response to the Markan/Lukan Jesus thereby clearly reflects the conflict and hostility that permeate this encounter. The second significant aspect of this account is the emphasis that both Mark and Luke place on the overwhelming authority demonstrated by Jesus (Mark 1:25 – 26 // Luke 4:35). Viewed through the lens of eschatological conflict, this encounter is entirely one-sided—the demon stands no chance. The Markan/Lukan Jesus rebukes (ἐπιτιμάω) the unclean spirit with a two-part command (φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε⁷⁹), and although it puts up a fight, the spirit is powerless to resist. In an influential article, Kee demonstrated that ἐπιτιμάω, when used to render ‫גער‬

 See Albrecht Oepke, “ἀπόλλυμι,” TDNT 1:394– 396.  John Nolland, Luke 1 – 9:20, WBC 35 A (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 207.  Ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ is found also in John 6:69; cf. Acts 3:14; 4:27, 30; 1 John 2:20; Rev 3:7. The only other biblical figure identified as “the Holy One of God” is Samson (Judg 16:17). See Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, 58; cf. Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 160.  Nolland, Luke 1 – 9:20, 207.  Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 159. Witmer cites PGM VIII.6, 13 (for the “I know” formula); and Lucian, Philopseudes 16; T. Sol. 1:6– 7; 5:3; and PGM IV.1017– 19, 3030 – 40 (for the use of a demon’s name as an advantage). Similarly, Chilton, “An Exorcism,” 228, claims that “the demon, in effect, attempts to exorcise Jesus.”  Note the repetition of ἐπιτιμάω and ἐξέρχομαι in Mark 9:25 (see Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 162).

210

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

in the OG/LXX, connoted not simply “rebuking” one’s opponent, but “conquering” or “subjecting” him/it.⁸⁰ Similarly, Witmer observes that φιμόω (and the underlying Semitic ‫ )חסם‬often connotes more than simply “silence.”⁸¹ In extra-biblical sources, it is “associated with ‘incantational restriction’ and implies the idea of binding, muzzling, immobilizing, or rendering someone unable to function.”⁸² Therefore, the combination of these two verbs suggests that with this command, the Markan/Lukan Jesus not only rebuked/silenced the unclean spirit, he overcame and restricted its power, terminating its ability to possess its victim. The hostile encounter comes to a rapid conclusion as the command is immediately obeyed. The crowds, initially astonished at the ἐξουσία of Jesus’s teaching (Mark 1:22 // Luke 4:32), marvel at how that ἐξουσία had been unmistakably demonstrated (Mark 1:27 // Luke 4:36).⁸³ Acting in the power that was his as ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ, the Markan/Lukan Jesus cast out the demon by his mighty and authoritative word (ὁ λόγος … ἐν ἐξουσία καὶ δυνάμει, Luke 4:36), delivering the man from demonic oppression.⁸⁴ This encounter thus contributes to our understanding of the eschatological conflict present in the Synoptic presentation of Jesus’s exorcisms in three ways: (i) it foregrounds exorcism within Jesus’s ministry; (ii) it demonstrates the hostility that permeates the encounters between Jesus and the demons/unclean spirits; and (iii) it manifests the unparalleled ἐξουσία with which Jesus acted.⁸⁵ Whereas the advocates of the SJH cannot offer a coherent explanation of why the Synoptic evangelists would include such a hostile account in their allegedly fabricated portrayals of Jesus’s pacifistic ministry, understanding this encounter as the manifestation of Jesus’s victorious eschatological conflict enables us to perceive its contribution to his inauguration of the kingdom of God.

 H. C. Kee, “The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories,” NTS 14 (1968): 232– 46; cf. Cranfield, The Gospel, 77, who makes the same observation and points to 2Sam 22:16; Job 26:11; Ps 80:16; 104:7; 106:9; Zech 3:2; cf. France, The Gospel of Mark, 104; Horsley, Hearing, 137– 138. Cf. 1QM XIV, 10. Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 162 n. 55, references also Ps 9:6; 68:31; 78:6. See A. Caquot, “‫ ָגַּער‬,” TDOT 3:49 – 53; Ethelbert Stauffer, “ἐπιτιμάω,” TDNT 2:623 – 626.  Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 163.  Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 162.  See Green, The Gospel, 221, 224; cf. Nolland, Luke 1 – 9:20, 204.  Note Luke’s additional comment that the demon left μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν (4:35).  Darrell L. Bock, Luke: Volume 1: 1:1 – 9:50, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994), 435, observes the emphatic position of ἐν ἐξουσία καὶ δυνάμει in the Lukan account; cf. Marshall, The Gospel, 193.

6.3 The Synoptic Exorcisms as Eschatological Conflicts

211

6.3.2.2 The Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1 – 20 // Matt 8:28 – 34 // Luke 8:26 – 39) Jesus’s encounter with a man/men possessed by a “legion” of demons in the region of the Gerasenes/Gadarenes is found in all three Synoptic Gospels.⁸⁶ This incident not only develops themes attested in the previous section, it also demonstrates additional points of significance to the present study. These derive from the clear eschatological overtones of the demoniac’s words, the emphasis placed on the terrifying power of this figure, and the sociopolitical and scriptural imagery that permeates the encounter. The first noteworthy feature of this account is the violent language with which the demoniac is depicted. The spirits in possession of the man had endowed him with frightening strength: Mark and Luke both note how he had “torn apart” and “crushed” any bond or chain used to restrain him (Mark 5:4 // Luke 8:29). Although placed under guard, οὐδεὶς ἴσχυεν αὐτὸν δαμάσαι (Mark 5:4).⁸⁷ Similarly, the Matthean demoniacs are described as χαλεποὶ λίαν—such that no one was able to pass by the way they guarded (Matt 8:28). This emphasis on the fact that prior to Jesus’s arrival, no one was strong enough to overcome the power of the demons at work in this man (οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο … οὐδεὶς ἴσχυεν, Mark 5:3, 4; μὴ ἰσχύειν τινὰ, Matt 8:28), serves to make the unparalleled strength/

 Important sources on this passage include: Jostein Ådna, “The Encounter of Jesus With the Gerasene Demoniac,” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, ed. Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans, NTTS 28.2 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 279 – 301; Franz Annen, Heil für die Heiden: Zur Bedeutung und Geschichte der Tradition vom besessenen Gerasener (Mk 5,1 – 20 parr.), Frankfurter theologische Studien 20 (Frankfurt am Main: Joseph Knecht, 1976); T. K. Huat, “Exorcism and Empire in Mark,” TTJ 14 (2006): 34– 47; Walter Kirchschläger, Jesu exorzistisches Wirken aus der Sicht des Lukas: ein Beitrag zur Lukanischen Redaktion, ÖBS 3 (Klosterneuburg: Verlag Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981), 91– 130; M. Klinghardt, “Legionsschweine in Gerasa: Lokalkolorit und historischer Hintergrund von Mk 5, 1– 20,” ZNW 98 (2007): 28 – 48; M. Lau, “Die Legio X Fretensis und der Besessene von Gerasa Anmerkungen zur Zahlenangabe ‘ungefähr Zweitausend’ (Mk 5,13),” Bib 88 (2007): 351– 64; W. R. G. Loader, “Son of David, Blindness, Possession, and Duality in Matthew,” CBQ 44 (1982): 570 – 85, 580 – 582; Maynard, “ΤΙ ΕΜΟΙ,” 582– 586; Rudolf Pesch, Die Besessene von Gerasa, SBS 56 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972); Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 105 – 112; Dieter Trunk, Der Messianische Heiler: Eine Redaktions- Und Religionsgeschichtliche Studie Zu Den Exorzismen Im Matthäusevangelium, HBS 3 (Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 103 – 140; Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 72– 87; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 166 – 185.  Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 159, observes a Markan connection between this passage, the Beelzebul pericope, and the words of John the Baptist, on the basis of “ἰσχυρός terminology”; cf. Dennis Eric Nineham, The Gospel of St. Mark, Pelican Gospel Commentary (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963), 120.

212

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

power of Jesus himself even more apparent.⁸⁸ The evangelists imply that the very moment Jesus sets foot on shore (Mark 5:2 // Luke 8:27), the demoniac, running to meet him, throws himself down before Jesus like a supplicant before his more powerful superior (προσκυνέω, Mark 5:6; cf. προσπίπτω, Luke 8:28). The “exceedingly fierce” figure is reduced to powerlessness.⁸⁹ Two elements of the words spoken through the demoniac are roughly parallel to the defensive statement examined in § 6.3.2.1 above: (i) the opening τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί; and (ii) the address of Jesus with an identifying title—in this case, υἱε τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου.⁹⁰ The demonic horde, like the unclean spirit in the synagogue, attempts to disassociate itself from Jesus and/or to gain control over the situation. In addition, we note the demons’ use of ὁρκίζω (Mark 5:7).⁹¹ Although the verb is rare in the NT,⁹² Witmer notes that in other ancient texts, ὁρκίζω is frequently used by individuals attempting to ward off spiritual attacks.⁹³ However, as she observes, in the Markan account its usage is reversed—it is the demons who attempt to utilise this protective formula. Thus, having first depicted the great strength of the demonic force possessing the man, the Synoptic accounts make clear the even greater strength and power with which Jesus speaks, acts, and controls this encounter.⁹⁴

 Stein, Mark, 252, 254.  Nolland, The Gospel, 375.  See Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 180 – 181, for comparison between Mark 1:24 and 5:7. On the significance of the title used here, see Collins, Mark, 268, who points to Deut 32:8; 1QapGen XXI, 2; 4Q246 II, 1; cf. Adela Yarbro Collins, “Mark and His Readers: The Son of God Among Greeks and Romans,” HTR 93 (2000): 85 – 100; see also Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, 156; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I – IX), AB 28 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), 738; France, The Gospel of Mark, 228; Nolland, Luke 1 – 9:20, 408. Both Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 82, and Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 180, observe that the only other NT use of “Most High God” in relation to exorcism is found in Acts 16:17. Roger David Aus, My Name is “Legion”: Palestinian Judaic Traditions in Mark 5:1 – 20 and Other Gospel Texts (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2004), 9 – 10, suggests a connection to Ps 91:1, 9.  Cf. the use of παρακαλέω (Matt 8:31) and δέομαι (Luke 8:28). See Collins, Mark, 268 (esp. n. 64); France, The Gospel of Mark, 228; Marshall, The Gospel, 338; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 182.  Found elsewhere only in Acts 19:13. See Johannes Schneider, “ὁρκίζω” TDNT 5:462– 463.  Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 180 – 181, she points to PGM IV.3025; cf. 1En. 12– 14; Jub. 10:4– 5; see further Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 82– 83, who references PGM IV.3019 – 20, 3046.  Further demonstrated by the use of ἐπιτρέπω (Mark 5:13 // Luke 8:32). The demons are able to act only as Jesus permits.

6.3 The Synoptic Exorcisms as Eschatological Conflicts

213

What is it, however, that the demonic host fears that Jesus will do? This is revealed, once again, by the words spoken through the demoniac (Mark 5:7b; Matt 8:29b; Luke 8:28b). The demons seek to delay or avert their eschatological “torment/torture” (βασανίζω) which, Jesus’s presence suggests, is imminent. The expectation that the cosmic forces of evil which stood in opposition to God would be “tormented” is relatively well-attested.⁹⁵ In addition, the Lukan demonic force begs Jesus not to send it into the ἄβυσσος (8:31), attested in Jewish tradition as the realm of the dead, as well as the place where demons would face eschatological punishment.⁹⁶ Moreover, Matthew’s addition of πρὸ καιροῦ further clarifies that it is not matter of whether Jesus, the “son of [the Most High] God,” would subject the demonic host to eschatological torment, but when.⁹⁷ Finally, observations about the possible symbolic significance of this pericope suggest further levels of its relevance to the present study. First, many scholars have noted the sociopolitical significance of certain aspects of this account.⁹⁸ Observing the presence of numerous non-Jewish elements—its location in the Decapolis, the herd of pigs, and most significantly, the self-identification of the demons as λεγιών⁹⁹—scholars have suggested that this pericope embodies Jewish resistance against Roman rule.¹⁰⁰ According to such readings, the de See Rev 20:10 (cf. 14:10); 1En. 10:12– 13. Cf. the language of being thrown into the fire in 1En. 54:4– 6; 90:23 – 24; T. Jud. 25:3; Matt 25:41.  Bock, Luke: Volume 1, 775, who references Gen. 1:2; 7:11; Job 41:32; Pss 71:20; 107:26; Rom 10:7; Jub. 5:6 – 7; 1En. 10:4– 6; 18:11– 16. See further Marshall, The Gospel, 339 (who notes also Jude 6 and 2Pet 2:4); Nolland, Luke 1 – 9:20, 410; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 183, esp. n. 155, where she references 1En. 54:3 – 5; 56:1– 4; 4Q521 VII; 4Q511 and 11Q11 IV, 7– 9; as well as Rev 9:1– 2, 11; 11:7; 17:8; 20:1, 3; cf. France, The Gospel of Mark, 228; Twelftree, In the Name, 37. See Joachim Jeremias, “ἄβυσσος,” TDNT 1:9 – 10.  Davies and Allison, Matthew 8 – 18, 81– 82; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 341; Luz, Matthew 8 – 20, 24.  See Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 170 – 173.  See Wright, Jesus, 195; cf. Ådna, “The Encounter,” 301.  Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-Political and Religious Reading (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000), 213. Representative of this reading in various forms are M. M. Baird, “The Gadarene Demoniac (Mk. 5),” ExpTim 31 (1919): 189; Christopher Burdon, “To the Other Side: Construction of Evil and Fear of Liberation in Mark 5.1– 20,” JSNT 27 (2004): 149 – 67; Richard Dormandy, “The Expulsion of Legion: A Political Reading of Mark 5.1– 20,” ExpTim 111 (2000): 335 – 37; Stephen D. Moore, Empire and Apocalypse: Postcolonialism and the New Testament, The Bible in the Modern World 12 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006), 24– 44; Myers, Binding, 141– 143, 190 – 194; Schreiber, “Am Rande,” 103; Gerd Theissen, The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition, ed. J. Riches, trans. F. McDonagh, SNTW (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 255 – 259; Wink, Unmasking the Powers, 45 – 48; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 172– 173. Such readings are argued against by (e. g.) Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination, 179 – 180; Elizabeth E. Shively, “What Type of Resistance? How Apocalyptic Discourse Functions as

214

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

scription of the demonic horde would have been clearly suggestive of the occupying Roman military power, so that when Jesus “cast out” these “demons,” it symbolised “casting off” Roman rule and rejecting the Gentile presence in the land.¹⁰¹ Some components of these interpretations are intriguing—for example, the fact that the Roman legion stationed closest to Galilee, the Legio Decima Fretensis, bore the standard of a boar;¹⁰² or Horsley’s observations about the militaristic overtones of the language used to describe the pigs.¹⁰³ If only because of the striking and clearly significant use of λεγιών in Mark and Luke, such readings should not be entirely dismissed. However, Horsley’s claim that the primary significance of this pericope is found in its sociopolitical symbolism is problematic, since it implicitly suggests that the account would not have been properly understood within the framework of first-century cosmology, in which demons were understood as real and active forces, rather than as ciphers for colonial oppression.¹⁰⁴ Moreover, such readings ignore the contribution this pericope makes to the Synoptic portrayal of the eschatological significance of Jesus’s exorcisms.¹⁰⁵ Rather than symbolising (or foreshadowing) the Roman defeat—and thus implicitly leaving room for the actual embodiment of this event (through revolutionary violence) at a later point—this eschatological act of exorcism (alongside the others) takes its place: Jesus defeats an “army”/λεγιών of the kingdom of the s/ Satan, the true enemy of the kingdom of God.¹⁰⁶ Therefore, I would argue that increased awareness of the sociopolitical symbolism present in elements of

Social Discourse in Mark’s Gospel,” JSNT 37 (2015): 381– 406, 387; Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 163 – 164.  See Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary, 107; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 173.  See Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 171 n. 95 for further discussion; also Theissen, The Gospels, 110; cf. E. P. Sanders, “Jesus’ Galilee,” in Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity – Essays in Honour of Heikki Räisänen, ed. Ismo Dunderborg, Christopher Tucket, and Kari Syreeni (Köln: Brill, 2002), 3 – 41.  Horsley, Hearing, 141; cf. J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Demoniac,” JSNT 3 (1979): 2– 17, 5; see also Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 159; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 172.  Horsley, Hearing, 145 – 146.  Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 163, effectively identifies the problem with these readings; cf. Betz, “Jesu”; Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination, 179; B. A. Stevens, “Jesus as Divine Warrior,” ExpTim 94 (1983): 326 – 29, 328; Wink, Naming the Powers, 26 – 35.  See Otto Betz, “The Concept of the So-Called ‘Divine Man’ in Mark’s Christology,” in Studies in the New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren, ed. David E. Aune, NovTSup 33 (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 238; R. Leivestad, Christ the Conqueror (London: SPCK, 1954), 40; Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination, 179 – 80; Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 163; Wright, Jesus, 195 – 196.

6.3 The Synoptic Exorcisms as Eschatological Conflicts

215

this pericope should inform and support our understanding of the eschatological significance of the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’s exorcisms, rather than replace it.¹⁰⁷ Second, other scholars have noted the particular ways in which the Exodus narrative resonates in this account.¹⁰⁸ The encounter with the Gerasene demoniac immediately follows Jesus’s stilling of the storm (Mark 4:35 – 41 parr.). The juxtaposition of an account involving deliverance from the sea, in which Jesus exerts divine power over creation,¹⁰⁹ and an account in which a hostile force, described with militaristic language, is drowned in the sea, is clearly reminiscent of Exodus 13 – 14.¹¹⁰ In this allusion to the paradigmatic story of God’s deliverance of Israel, the λεγιών of demons is placed in the role of Pharaoh’s army, as the enemy that YHWH defeats as he sets his people free from slavery and oppression.¹¹¹ The Israelites do not take up the sword on their own behalf, but are delivered by the “mighty hand and outstretched arm” of their God (Exod 14:13 – 14). Therefore, heightened awareness of the biblical (as well as sociopolitical) symbolism of this pericope enables us to perceive more clearly how Jesus’s exorcistic activity drew upon and fulfilled Jewish eschatological expectations. Thus, in the story of the Gerasene demoniac we again see that understanding the exorcisms of Jesus as the eschatological defeat of the enemies of the kingdom of God provides a coherent framework within which to interpret this element of the Synoptic narrative, one that stands alongside Jesus’s rejection of eschatological violence.

 Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 175, comments on the deep interconnections between political and cosmological realities for first-century Jews; cf. Twelftree, In the Name, 109 – 110.  See Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 157– 164; cf. Carter, Matthew, 213.  The disciples’ fearful (ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν) response—τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἡ θάλασσα ὑπακούει αὐτῷ; (Mark 5:41 // Matt 8:27 // Luke 8:25)—is telling.  See Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 159, who references this argument as made by Derrett, “Contributions,” 6; and points also to Betz, “The Concept,” 238; C. H. Cave, “The Obedience of the Unclean Spirits,” NTS 11 (1964): 93 – 97, 96. For discussion of the Exodus-like connections between the storm-stilling and the encounter with the Gerasene demoniac, see Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 160 – 163; cf. Stevens, “Jesus,” 328.  Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 159 – 160; on the idea of a new Exodus inherently involving a new conquest, see Daniel G. Reid, “Jesus: New Exodus, New Conquest,” in God is a Warrior, ed. Tremper Longman III and Daniel G. Reid, Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 91– 118.

216

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

6.3.2.3 The Syrophoenician Woman’s Daughter (Mark 7:24 – 30 // Matt 15:21 – 28) Next, we turn our attention to an account found only in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, in which Jesus casts out a demon from the daughter of a Syrophoenician woman.¹¹² Although there are several unique aspects of this pericope, two contribute particularly significantly to our analysis of the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus’s exorcisms as eschatological conflict: this is (i) the only exorcism account that does not involve a direct encounter between Jesus and the demoniac/the evil spirit itself, and (ii) one of the rare instances of Jesus providing some form of deliverance to a Gentile.¹¹³ First, by virtue of the absence of any direct encounter between Jesus and his demonic adversary, this account makes a unique contribution to the already-observed theme of the unparalleled power and authority demonstrated in Jesus’s exorcistic activity. Jesus speaks only to the mother of the demoniac girl.¹¹⁴ Nevertheless, Mark and Matthew are clear that his power is in no way restricted by

 Significant discussions of this passage include: T. A. Burkill, “Historical Development of the Story of the Syro-Phoenician Woman,” NovT 1967 (1967): 161– 77; J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Law in the New Testament: The Syro-Phoenician Woman and the Centurion of Capernaum,” NovT 15 (1973): 161– 86; Glenna S. Jackson, “Have Mercy on Me”: The Story of the Canaanite Woman in Matthew 15.21 – 28, JSNTSup 228 (London: Sheffield Academic, 2002); Sharon H. Ringe, “A Gentile Woman’s Story,” in Feminist Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Letty M. Russell (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 65 – 72; G. Schwarz, “ΣΥΡΟΦΟΙΝΙΚΙΣΣΑ—ΧΑΝΑΝΑΙΑ (Markus 7.26/Matthäus 15.22),” NTS 30 (1984): 626 – 28; Gerd Theissen, “Lokal- und Sozialkolorit in der Geschichte von der syrophönikischen Frau (Mk 7,24– 30),” ZNW 75 (1984): 202– 25; Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 88 – 91; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 191– 202.  The others are the encounter with the Gerasene/Gaderene demoniac(s), and the healing of the centurion’s servant (Matt 8:5 – 13 // Luke 7:1– 10); cf. the inclusion of a Samaritan among the ten lepers in Luke 17:11– 19.  In Matthew’s account, the woman addresses Jesus as “κύριε υἱὸς Δαυίδ” (15:22), in potentially analogous fashion to the application of titles to Jesus found in Mark 1:24; 5:7 (and parr.). This could be due to Matthew’s particular interest in this title in association with his emphasis on Jesus as the Davidic Messiah (cf. the use of υἱὸς Δαυίδ in Matt 9:27; 20:30; 21:9, 15). However, at the beginning of the Beelzebul pericope, Matthew also claims that the crowds’ response to Jesus “healing” (θεραπεύω) a “demon-possessed blind and mute man” (12:22) is to wonder, μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς Δαυίδ; (12:23). This suggests that Matthew may possibly have seen a particular connection to be made between exorcism and the title. Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 197 n. 214 (pointing to Stuart L. Love, “Jesus, Healer of the Canaanite Woman’s Daughter in Matthew’s Gospel: A Social-Scientific Inquiry,” BTB 32 (2002): 11– 20, 11– 17; Wahlen, Jesus, 130 – 131) suggests that the connection may be attributed to the reputation of both David and Solomon as exorcists. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 182– 189, argues that there was no connection in preChristian material between the coming son of David/Messiah and exorcism (against the few scholars who support this position, 182 n. 3).

6.3 The Synoptic Exorcisms as Eschatological Conflicts

217

these circumstances. Without even speaking an exorcistic word of command, the Markan/Matthean Jesus simply tells the woman to go home—the demon ἐξελήλυθεν (Mark 7:29). He thus overpowers his spiritual adversary without even being near it. In comparison with the general conventions of ancient exorcism, in which exorcists usually used some sort of charm, incantation, or special tool to effect power over a demon, the ἐξουσία demonstrated by Jesus is extraordinary. Second, the ethnic identity of this woman (and, by implication, her daughter) is noteworthy (Mark 7:26 // Matt 15:22).¹¹⁵ When viewed through the lens of eschatological conflict, the woman’s non-Jewish identity suggests that Jesus might have responded differently than many of his contemporaries to questions concerning the identity of (i) the enemies whose defeat was necessary to bring about the inauguration of God’s kingdom; and (ii) those who would be the recipients of God’s eschatological deliverance.¹¹⁶ Second Temple expectations did not include the Messiah’s waging eschatological conflict on behalf of the Gentiles. Although the initial response the Matthean Jesus gives to the woman—οὐκ ἀπεστάλην εἰ μὴ εἰς τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἀπολωλότα οἴκου Ἰσραήλ (15:24)¹¹⁷—suggests that the primary focus of his eschatological ministry is the community of his Jewish contemporaries, and his comment about children and dogs (Mark 7:27 // Matt 15:26¹¹⁸) is somewhat troubling, the account ultimately concludes with Jesus providing deliverance to the girl.¹¹⁹ Though there is hesitation, there is not refusal. Thus, this Markan/Matthean pericope suggests that the same oppression from which Israel needs deliverance is also present in the Gentile community.¹²⁰ In the encounters with the Syrophoenician woman and the Gerasene demoniac, the eschatological victory that came about through the Spirit-empowered exorcisms of Jesus reached beyond the boundaries of ethnic Israel. This demonstrates that the enemies against whom Jesus waged eschatological conflict were

 On the possible significance of sociopolitical connections between Galilee and Tyre, see Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 195 – 197.  Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom, 6.  Cf. Matt 10:6. For further discussion of the meaning and significance of this statement, see Davies and Allison, Matthew 8 – 18, 550 – 551; Hagner, Matthew 14 – 28, 441– 442 (see Hagner, Matthew 1 – 13, 270 – 271); Luz, Matthew 8 – 20, 339 – 340; Nolland, The Gospel, 416 – 417.  See Collins, Mark, 366 – 367; Cranfield, The Gospel, 248; Davies and Allison, Matthew 8 – 18, 552– 554; Guelich, Mark, 385 – 387; France, The Gospel of Mark, 298; Hagner, Matthew 14 – 28, 442; Luz, Matthew 8 – 20, 340 – 341; Nolland, The Gospel, 634– 635; Stein, Mark, 351– 354.  Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 200; cf. Ringe, “A Gentile,” 68; David C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community, SNTW (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 224.  Wahlen, Jesus, 101; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 192.

218

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

not beings that could be identified by features like ethnicity. The demons and unclean spirits under the rule of the s/Satan were defeated by Jesus wherever he encountered them.

6.3.2.4 The Possessed Boy and His Father (Mark 9:14 – 29 // Matt 17:14 – 20 // Luke 9:37 – 43) The last exorcism to be discussed occurs immediately after the transfiguration,¹²¹ upon Jesus’s descent from the mountain. This account, in which Jesus casts out a demon from a possessed boy, makes three further contributions to our discussion of Jesus’s exorcisms and/as eschatological conflict.¹²² First of all, this pericope provides striking evidence of the violent, destructive desires of the evil spirit, and its harmful effects upon the one possessed.¹²³ In Mark, the father tells Jesus that the spirit “overtakes” (καταλαμβάνω) and “attacks” (ῥήσσω) his son, causing the boy to foam at the mouth, grind his teeth, and become stiff (9:18). On numerous occasions, the spirit had thrown the boy into fire or water “in order to destroy him” (Mark 9:22; cf. Matt 17:15). In Luke, the father describes the boy being “thrown into convulsions” by the spirit, which scarcely stops short of crushing him (9:39); furthermore, this is precisely what occurs when the demon catches sight of Jesus (Mark 9:20 // Luke 9:42a). Finally, when the unclean spirit at last leaves the boy, Mark’s account says that he was left “like a corpse, so that many were saying that he was dead” (9:26b), until Jesus took his hand and raised him up (9:27).¹²⁴ Therefore, both the demon’s intentions and the results of its possession of the boy are violent: they are harmful and physically destructive.¹²⁵

 Mark 9:2– 8 // Matt 17:1– 8 // Luke 9:28 – 36. This suggests the two events were linked from very early on in the Jesus tradition.  Significant discussions of this passage include: Achtemeier, “Miracles”; H. Aichinger, “Zur Traditionsgeschichte der Epileptiker-Perikope Mk 9,14– 29 par Mat 17,14– 21 par Lk 9,37– 43a,” in Probleme der Forschung, ed. A. Fuchs, SNTSU 3 (Vienna: Herold, 1978), 114– 43; O. Hofius, “Die Allmacht des Sohnes Gottes und das Gebet des Glaubens: Erwägungen zu Thema und Aussage der Wundererzählung Mk 9,14– 29,” ZTK 101 (2004): 117– 37; Trunk, Der messianische, 155 – 182; Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 91– 97; J. Wilkinson, “The Case of the Epileptic Boy,” ExpTim 79 (1967): 39 – 42; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 185 – 191.  Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, 280.  On the connection between exorcism and the reversal of death, see Lane, The Gospel, 334; cf. Bock, Luke: Volume 1, 878.  Lane, The Gospel, 332.

6.3 The Synoptic Exorcisms as Eschatological Conflicts

219

Secondly, the pericope stands out for the notable way it integrates the language of exorcism and healing.¹²⁶ This is demonstrated by the extensive description of the boy’s symptoms in all three Synoptic accounts, but is especially clear in Matthew’s Gospel. There, the father first describes the boy as “moonstruck” (σεληνιάζεται,¹²⁷ 17:15) and the disciples’ inability to θεραπεύω him (17:16).¹²⁸ Then, after narrating what is clearly an exorcism—Jesus “rebukes the demon,” which “comes out from” the boy—Matthew reports that the boy was “healed from that hour” (17:18). Luke retains Mark’s language of possession/exorcism in the opening verses, but then follows Matthew in describing the boy as “healed” (ἰάομαι, 9:42) after Jesus rebukes the demon. While exorcism and healing were distinct from one another, the Synoptic accounts thus demonstrate that

 The connection between healing and exorcism on the one hand, and illness and possession on the other, both within the Synoptic Gospels and more broadly in the ancient world, is a complex topic that has been thoroughly examined in previous scholarship: see Ernest van Eck and Andries G. van Aarde, “Sickness and Healing in Mark: A Social Scientific Interpretation,” Neot 27 (1993): 27– 54; Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2013), 80 – 107; Craig S. Keener, “Cultural Comparisons for Healing and Exorcism Narratives in Matthew’s Gospel,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 66 (2010), art. #808, 7 pages; Michael Lambek, “From Disease to Discourse: Remarks on the Conceptualization of Trance and Spirit Possession,” in Altered States of Consciousness and Mental Health, ed. Colleen Ward (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1989), 36 – 61; S. Vernon McCasland, By the Finger of God: Demon Possession and Exorcism in Early Christianity in the Light of Modern Views of Mental Illness (New York: Macmillan, 1951); John Christopher Thomas, The Devil, Disease and Deliverance: Origins of Illness in New Testament Thought, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 13 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998); Henry A. Virkler and Mary B. Virkler, “Demonic Involvement in Human Life and Illness,” Journal of Psychology and Theology 5 (1977): 95 – 102; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 151– 152 (on the connection between spiritual possession and illness more broadly; note her reference there [151 n. 1] to Erika Bourguignon, Possession [San Francisco: Chandler and Sharp, 1976], 7, 45), 185, 188, 190 – 191 (on Mark 9:14– 29 parr.); Yamauchi, “Magic or Miracle?” Matthew and Luke bring together healing and exorcism elsewhere in their Gospels, most notably in the exorcism which precedes the Beelzebul pericope (Matt 12:22 // Luke 11:14). See also Luke 4:38 – 39 (Jesus “rebukes” the fever); 13:10 – 17 (Jesus heals a woman who had a πνεῦμα ἀσθενείας [13:11] that had crippled her for eighteen years). This is also picked up by Mark’s use of “unclean spirit,” which connotes the impurity that was associated with diseases of various kinds. For the connection between demons and impurity in Second Temple Judaism, see Alexander, “The Demonology,” 348 – 350; at greater length, Wahlen, Jesus, 24– 59. A helpful overview of the Synoptic approaches to healing and/vs. exorcism is found in Bell, Deliver Us, 67– 72.  Matthew’s use of σεληνιάζομαι and the symptoms described by all three Synoptists have led many scholars to assume that the boy was an epileptic. See Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 185, 187– 188, for discussion (esp. 187 n. 163); cf. Achtemeier, “Miracles”; Luz, Matthew 8 – 20, 407– 408; Wahlen, Jesus, 132– 133; Wilkinson, “The Case.”  Cf. ἐκβάλλω, Mark 9:18 // Luke 9:40.

220

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

they were so closely associated as to be functionally interchangeable in certain contexts.¹²⁹ This is significant to the present study for two reasons: first, it demonstrates that although demonic possession was understood as a spiritual affliction, it nevertheless (like illness) had detrimental physical effects. This shows that the eschatological deliverance provided through Jesus’s exorcisms was, correspondingly, physically effective. Second, it reveals that the same malevolent source was perceived behind both possession and sickness. A close functional and conceptual link thus bound together the healings and the exorcisms of Jesus: both were means by which he waged eschatological conflict, their success demonstrating that the kingdom of God was going forth, and that its enemies—the s/Satan and the demonic spirits under his control—were being defeated. This further reinforces the suggestion that Jesus saw his exorcistic work (and perhaps also his healings) as embodying the eschatological defeat of the true enemies of the kingdom of God. Not only did Jesus reject eschatological violence, he accomplished its goals in a nonviolent manner that brought healing and restoration, instead of destruction and death. Third and finally, this pericope again contributes to the prevalent Synoptic emphasis on Jesus’s unparalleled power. A direct comparison is drawn between the strength/ability of Jesus, and that of his disciples. Although the boy’s father had requested the disciples’ help, they had lacked the strength (οὐκ ἴσχυσαν, Mark 9:18) and proven unable (οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν, Matt 17:16; Luke 9:40) to cast out the spirit.¹³⁰ In contrast, Jesus’s power over his demonic adversary is definitively demonstrated: he rebukes the demon and commands it to come out, forbidding it to return (Mark 9:25 // Matt 17:18 // Luke 9:42). Mark further emphasises that this power belongs to Jesus alone, with the emphatic ἐγὼ ἐπιτάσσω σοι (9:25), the only such use of the pronoun in any Synoptic exorcism.¹³¹ As these accounts repeatedly demonstrate, the unclean spirit is powerless to resist Jesus’s authority.

 O. Böcher, Christus Exorcist: Dämonismus und Taufe im Neuen Testament, BWANT 5/16 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972), 80, is notable for the argument that all the healings were also exorcisms (see Bell, “Demon,” 196).  On this contrast, see: Davies and Allison, Matthew 8 – 18, 723; Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX), 809; France, The Gospel of Mark, 364; Marshall, The Gospel, 391; Nolland, The Gospel, 712; Stein, Mark, 433; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 188.  Cf. Matt 12:28 // Luke 11:20; see France, The Gospel of Mark, 368 – 369; Söding, “‘Wenn Ich’,” 521; Stein, Mark, 435. Mark emphasises this theme even further by means of the exchange between Jesus and the boy’s father concerning the question of Jesus’s ability to address the situation (9:22– 23).

6.4 Jesus and Expectations of Eschatological Violence

221

6.3.2.5 Concluding Observations The above analysis has revealed several prevalent themes in the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’s exorcistic activity, which together suggest that in these encounters, Jesus was fulfilling Second Temple expectations for the eschatological defeat of the enemies of God/his people in a unique and unexpected manner. Empowered by the πνεῦμα/δάκτυλος θεοῦ and acting with unparalleled ἐξουσία, Jesus defeated the servants of the s/Satan. This defeat was manifested in Jesus’s nonviolent yet powerful deliverance of those held captive by demons and subjected to their violent, physically destructive oppression. Therefore, I argue that this embodiment of the eschatological defeat of the enemies of God/his people provided a coherent alternative to the eschatological violence expected by many of the contemporaries of Jesus, which (as demonstrated in the previous two chapters) he consistently disassociated from both his inauguration of the kingdom of God and his identification of its people. Against the claims of the advocates of the SJH, this reinforces my contention that the Synoptic portrayal of a Jesus who rejects revolutionary violence and commands his followers to do likewise is not fraught with inconsistencies. Viewed through the lens of eschatological conflict, Jesus’s exorcisms—a central component of the Synoptic portrayals of his ministry—give the impression of a battle quite unlike that which many first-century Jews were expecting, yet which nevertheless achieved the goals for which many of them were willing to take up the sword: the enemies of the kingdom of God began to be defeated, and God’s people began to be delivered.

6.4 Jesus and Expectations of Eschatological Violence In this final section of the chapter, I will develop further my argument that, inasmuch as they embodied eschatological conflict against the enemies of the kingdom of God, the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’s encounters with and defeat of the demonic forces of the s/Satan are presented as an alternative to eschatologically-motivated revolutionary violence. The means/methods by which Jesus began to fulfill the components of Second Temple eschatological expectations that were bound up with the defeat of the enemies of God/his people were intentionally chosen instead of the means/methods by which his revolutionarilyminded contemporaries attempted to do the same. I will argue that this choice was directly connected to Jesus’s awareness of the true identity of the enemy to be defeated. He viewed the suggestion that he, as the messiah, would lead the people of God in an eschatologically-motivated, violent uprising against Rome as a temptation, a σκάνδαλον that was inherently associated with the

222

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

work of the s/Satan. This will further enable us to understand the rejection of revolutionary violence, understood as an eschatological phenomenon, as a coherent component of the consistent Synoptic presentation of Jesus’s life and ministry.

6.4.1 The Wilderness Temptation: the ἐξουσία and δόξα of Two Kingdoms (Mark 1:12 – 13 // Matt 4:1 – 11 // Luke 4:1 – 13) Immediately after being baptised by John, the Synoptic narratives describe Jesus spending forty days and nights fasting in the wilderness.¹³² The Spirit, which had come upon Jesus at his baptism (Mark 1:10 parr.), αὐτὸν ἐκβάλλει εἰς τὴν ἔρημον (Mark 1:12).¹³³ During this time, Jesus was “tempted/tested” (πειράζω) by ὁ σατανᾶς (Mark 1:13).¹³⁴ The fact that all three Synoptic evangelists placed the wilderness temptation at the very beginning of their accounts, before Jesus began to proclaim the kingdom, suggests that they saw it as determinative for Jesus’s full understanding of the eschatological ministry upon which he was about to embark. These “temptations” directly confronted Jesus’s understanding of his identity as “son of God,” the eschatological task lying before him, and the means by which he would accomplish it. More significantly, this marks the first encounter between Jesus and the ruler of the forces which stood in direct opposition to his inauguration of the kingdom of God. In the wilderness, he came face to face with his great adversary, ὁ σατανᾶς/ὁ διάβολος.  Significant scholarship on this account includes: Dale C. Allison, Jr., “Behind the Temptations of Jesus: Q 4:1– 13 and Mark 1:12– 13,” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, ed. Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans, NTTS 28.2 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 195 – 213; Jacques Dupont, Les tentations de Jésus au désert, StudNeot 4 (Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1968); Susan R. Garrett, The Temptations of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); Daniel M. Gurtner, “‘Fasting’ and ‘Forty Nights’: The Matthean Temptation Narrative (4:1– 11) and Moses Typology,” in ‘What Does the Scripture Say?’ Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity. Volume 1: The Synoptic Gospels, ed. Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias, LNTS 469 (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 1– 11; Erkki Koskenniemi, “The Traditional Roles Inverted: Jesus and the Devil’s Attack,” BZ 52 (2008): 261– 68; R. D. Moore, Tempted and Tried: Temptation and the Triumph of Christ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011); S. H. T. Page, “Satan: God’s Servant,” JETS 50 (2007): 449 – 65; Luigi Schiavo, “The Temptation of Jesus: The Eschatological Battle and the New Ethic of the First Followers of Jesus in Q,” JSNT 25 (2002): 141– 64; Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 114– 117; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 104– 109.  Cf. the uses of ἀνάγω (Matt 4:1) and ἄγω (Luke 4:1). As Allison, “Behind,” 202, notes, only two scriptural figures fast for a period of forty days: Moses (Exod 24:18) and Elijah (1 Kings 9:8); on this, see Gurtner, “‘Fasting’ and ‘Forty Nights’”.  Cf. ὁ διάβολος, Matt 4:1 // Luke 4:2; cf. ὁ πειράζων, Matt 4:3.

6.4 Jesus and Expectations of Eschatological Violence

223

Matthew and Luke record three temptations that were set before Jesus by the διάβολος. Two of them begin with a challenge to consider the meaning and implications of the identity that had been revealed in the baptism: εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ (Matt 4:3, 6 // Luke 4:3, 9).¹³⁵ It is the remaining temptation (Matt 4:8 – 10 // Luke 4:5 – 8), however, that is of particular significance to the present study. The διάβολος holds before Jesus the power and glory of all human kingdoms (πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τοῦ κόσμου, Matt 4:8; πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τῆς οἰκουμένης, Luke 4:5) and claims that they are under his control. If Jesus would simply fall down and worship (προσκυνέω) him, ὁ διάβολος would place τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην ἅπασαν καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν (Luke 4:6; cf. Matt 4:9) in Jesus’s hands. The Matthean/Lukan Jesus is thus offered ἐξουσία which is (i) associated with the “kingdoms of the world,” and (ii) under the dominion of the διάβολος.¹³⁶ In this temptation, an alternative to the kingdom of God and the dominion of YHWH is set forth, and Jesus is challenged to declare his allegiance. In response, Jesus first issues the forceful command ὕπαγε, σατανᾶ (Matt 4:10a), then cites Deuteronomy 6:13 (Matt 4:10b // Luke 4:8), committing himself to “worship” and “serve” YHWH alone. Jesus thus rejects the ἐξουσία he had been offered by the διάβολος.¹³⁷ Implicit in this refusal is his trust that God would provide him with everything needed for the eschatological task set before him, and, thus, his reliance on the ἐξουσία of God, instead of the ἐξουσία of the kingdoms of ὁ κόσμος/ἡ οἰκουμένη.¹³⁸ The Synoptic Gospels suggest that Jesus emerged from the forty days in the wilderness with a clear sense of his mission, and empowered to carry it out.¹³⁹  See Mark 1:11 // Matt 3:17 // Luke 4:22b; on the connections between the temptation and Jesus as “Son of God” see Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 217– 218. The challenge to Jesus’s identity as “son of God” is reiterated by the passers-by as he hangs on the cross (Matt 27:40, 43; cf. Mark 15:39).  For the s/Satan’s authority over “this world,” see 1John 5:18 – 19; John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; Eph 2:2; 2Cor 4:4. See Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 33; cf. Schreiber, “Am Rande,” 105.  Joseph, The Nonviolent Messiah, 218, similarly suggests a connection between “the kingdoms of the world” and “the politico-military power often associated with royal Davidic messianism.” Cf. Simon J. Joseph, “‘Blessed is Whoever is Not Offended By Me’: The Subversive Appropriation of (Royal) Messianic Ideology in Q 3 – 7,” NTS 57 (2011): 307– 24; also Beck, Banished Messiah, 146.  Konradt, Das Evangelium, 417, makes a similar observation: “Als Sohn Gottes partizipiert Jesus an göttlicher Vollmacht; zur Gottessohnschaft gehört aber ebenso die strenge Bindung an den Willen Gottes – auch im Blick auf die Inanspruchnahme seiner göttlichen Vollmacht.” Konradt thus draws out the way in which Jesus’s enactment of divine ἐξουσία is determined by both his “son of God” identity and submission to God’s will.  Note especially Luke 4:14: “Then Jesus returned to Galilee ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ πνεύματος.” See Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 108.

224

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

Immediately following his short temptation account (1:12– 13), Mark writes, Μετὰ δὲ τὸ παραδοθῆναι τὸν Ἰωάννην ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ λέγων ὅτι πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ· μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ (1:14– 15; cf. Matt 4:12– 17; Luke 4:14– 30).¹⁴⁰ Jesus thus began not only to proclaim the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, but also to enact it. The kingdom was at hand; it had “come near” (ἤγγικεν). We have already discussed the first mighty deed recorded by both Mark and Luke—the exorcism in the Capernaum synagogue—and noted that the ἐξουσία of Jesus is a primary theme of this account.¹⁴¹ Likewise, Matthew—though not following this narrative progression precisely—immediately foregrounds the great power with which Jesus acts (4:23 – 24).¹⁴² Thus, in all three Gospels, upon returning from the wilderness Jesus immediately begins successfully to inaugurate the kingdom of God, and in so doing, to demonstrate unparalleled ἐξουσία. It appears, therefore, that the wilderness experience prepared and equipped Jesus for his eschatological task. Coming out from this period of temptation having overcome his enemy in some preliminary way, Jesus embarks on this new mission, proclaiming that the kingdom of God ἤγγικεν—which, as we have seen, precipitates eschatological conflict of its own kind. The temptation pericope thus contributes three main points to our discussion. First, in it, the great adversary of Jesus and his eschatological ministry is revealed to be the s/Satan. Immediately after Jesus is revealed as the son of God (Mark 1:9 – 11 parr.), but before he begins to proclaim the kingdom (Mark 1:14– 15 parr.), we are given epistemological insight into the enemy against whom the eschatological battle would be fought. Other candidates for the role —most notably, Israel’s Gentile oppressors—are set aside. Second, it reveals that the ἐξουσία of the kingdoms of ὁ κόσμος/ἡ οἰκουμένη (Matt 4:9 // Luke 4:6) has been placed under the dominion of the s/Satan. This implicitly includes the means with which this ἐξουσία was enforced—most notably, violent militaris-

 On the Markan passage, see Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom, 71– 74. The Lukan verses also include the so-called “Nazareth Manifesto.” On the significance of this passage within Luke’s Gospel, see Bock, Luke: Volume 1, 394– 421; Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (IIX), 526 – 539; Green, The Gospel, 203 – 219; Marshall, The Gospel, 175 – 190; Nolland, Luke 1 – 9:20, 188 – 203.  Mark 1:22, 27 // Luke 4:32, 36; see § 6.3.2.1 above. Commenting specifically on Mark, Shively, “What Type of Resistance?,” 390, also sees the significance of the close proximity of the Gospel’s baptism and temptation accounts to its brief prologue and the prophetic citation therein, claiming that this suggests that: “Mark views the conflict between the Spirit-filled Jesus and Satan as the beginning of the fulfillment of Israel’s prophetic hope.”  Note that Matthew then follows this with the Sermon on the Mount, which itself concludes with an emphasis on Jesus’s authority (7:28 – 29).

6.4 Jesus and Expectations of Eschatological Violence

225

tic power. Third, it implies a direct connection between Jesus’s rejection of the s/Satan’s offer of such ἐξουσία, his commitment to trust and serve God alone, and his empowerment with the unparalleled ἐξουσία with which he embarked upon his ministry. Jesus thus made a decision regarding the ἐξουσία with which he would go about his eschatological task of inaugurating the kingdom of God. This decision was directly connected to Jesus’s perception of the identity of his adversary. Having come to understand that the enemy to be defeated was neither Rome nor any other βασιλεία τοῦ κόσμου/τῆς οἰκουμένης, but rather, the one who gave them the ἐξουσία with which they violently oppressed those under their control, Jesus believed that to embrace that same ἐξουσία was tantamount to bowing down in servitude to the s/Satan.¹⁴³ Refusing to do so, Jesus returned from the wilderness having committed himself to an alternative means of accomplishing his eschatological task, one that was in keeping with his identity as the υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, and his decision to worship and serve God alone.

6.4.2 The “Things of God” or the “Things of Humanity”? (Mark 8:27 – 33 // Matt 16:13 – 16, 20 – 23 // Luke 9:18 – 22) The conflict between these two forms of ἐξουσία was continually present throughout Jesus’s ministry, most notably in the divergence between prevalent expectations for τὰ ἔργα Χριστοῦ, and the mighty deeds performed by Jesus.¹⁴⁴ This divergence comes into direct focus in Mark 8:27– 33 parr., in a manner that demonstrates its implications for the eschatological conflict between Jesus and the s/Satan. Jesus was engaged in discussion with his disciples regarding the perception of his identity among the group itself, and in the eyes of “the people” (Mark 8:27– 29a // Matt 16:13 – 15 // Luke 9:18 – 20a). After Peter acknowledged him as ὁ χριστός (Mark 8:29b // Matt 16:16 // Luke 9:20b), Jesus proceeded to tell his dis-

 Note the comments of Beck, Banished Messiah, 106 – 107, on the ideological associations of divinely-ordained rule and the expression of power through violence in the Roman empire; see further 128 – 130. Elsewhere (145), Beck refers to the s/Satan as “the Gospel’s spirit of the theology of violence as expressed through dominating power.” For commentary on the “ideology of violence” of the Roman empire, and how this contextually effects the theme of violence in the NT, see Jeremy Punt, “Violence in the New Testament and the Roman Empire: Ambivalence, Othering, Agency,” in Coping with Violence in the New Testament, ed. Pieter G. R. de Villiers and Jan Willem van Henten, STAR 16 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 23 – 39.  See § 5.2.1.

226

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

ciples of the suffering, rejection, and death that would be his fate (Mark 8:31 // Matt 16:21 // Luke 9:22). In response to this, Peter took Jesus aside and “began to rebuke him” (Mark 8:32 // Matt 16:22). In Matthew’s account, Peter tells Jesus, ἵλεώς σοι, κύριε· οὐ μὴ ἔσται σοι τοῦτο (16:22b).¹⁴⁵ Nolland notes that ἵλεώς σοι is “a frequent LXX idiom,” meaning either something like, “God is/will be kind to you [i. e., you may rest assured]” or “May God have mercy on you [i. e., forgive you].”¹⁴⁶ The double negative (οὐ μὴ) then serves to deny the foretold events as strictly as possible. It therefore appears that Peter either felt the need to assure Jesus that such things would never happen to him, or to warn Jesus that he was in need of God’s mercy for daring to suggest that he, as the χριστός, could suffer such a fate. The Markan/Matthean Jesus reacted to Peter’s rebuke by forcefully rebuking him in turn.¹⁴⁷ Two aspects of his words—ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, σατανᾶ, ὅτι οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (Mark 8:33 // Matt 16:23¹⁴⁸)—are of particular significance. First, given its relative infrequency elsewhere in Mark and Matthew, the use of [ὁ] σατανᾶς here is noteworthy. Prior to this pericope, the term is found in the wilderness temptation (Mark 1:13; Matt 4:10) and the Beelzebul controversy (Mark 3:23, 26; Matt 12:26)—in both of which, the adversary of Jesus’s eschatological ministry is identified.¹⁴⁹ By addressing him with the vocative σατανᾶ, the Markan/Matthean Jesus thus suggests that Peter—knowingly or unknowingly—is fulfilling this role. Peter clearly felt that Jesus’s messianic identity was incompatible with the suggestion that he would suffer, be rejected, and die. This suggests that his messianic expectations were more closely aligned with those prevalent amongst his contemporaries—that is, that Jesus’s ministry would culminate with the militaristic overthrow of the Romans and their collaborators. In Peter’s rebuke, there is thus an implicit temptation (note the use of σκάνδαλον in Matt 16:23b) for Jesus to turn from one means of bringing about the kingdom of God and to embrace another. As a result, his words recall the adversarial work of the s/Satan,  For further discussion of the meaning and significance of this statement, see Davies and Allison, Matthew 8 – 18, 661– 663; Hagner, Matthew 14 – 28, 480; Luz, Matthew 8 – 20, 382; Nolland, The Gospel, 688.  Nolland, The Gospel, 688, references 2Sam 23:17; 1Chron 11:19; Isa 54:10; cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew 8 – 18, 662 (from where the LXX references are taken); Hagner, Matthew 14 – 28, 480.  Peter ἤρξατο ἐπιτιμᾶν αὐτῷ (Mark 8:32 // Matt 16:22); Jesus ἐπετίμησεν Πέτρῳ (Mark 8:33; cf. Matt 16:23).  Matthew adds the phrase σκάνδαλον εἶ ἐμοῦ, thus making even more clear the fact that Peter’s words performed the work of ὁ σατανᾶς.  Cf. Mark 4:15.

6.4 Jesus and Expectations of Eschatological Violence

227

which Jesus overcame in the wilderness.¹⁵⁰ The link between the two accounts is further suggested by the Matthean Jesus’s command ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου σατανᾶ (16:23)—the same words with which he responded to ὁ διάβολος in 4:10.¹⁵¹ This connection provides an effective segue to the second noteworthy aspect of the Markan/Matthean Jesus’s rebuke: his declaration that Peter is “setting his mind on” (φρονέω) τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων instead of τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ.¹⁵² Although neither evangelist explicitly defines either of these abstract entities, the context suggests that τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ should be associated with Jesus’s words about his own suffering and death (Mark 8:31 parr.).¹⁵³ This implies that τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων stand in opposition to these foretold events, envisioning an alternative way by which Jesus might accomplish his messianic mission: not through his own suffering, rejection, and death; but the destruction, defeat, and death of his enemies. As the climactic confrontation of Jesus’s ministry loomed ever nearer— and in the Synoptic Gospels, it is repeatedly made clear that this was building directly towards the cross¹⁵⁴—the temptation to use his power to inflict violent destruction on the enemies of God/his people was ever-present. This is the σκάνδαλον that Jesus identifies as the work of the s/Satan, and characterises as τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, and hence as diametrically opposed to τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ.¹⁵⁵ Therefore, by responding to Jesus’s understanding of his own eschatological task with οὐ μὴ ἔσται σοι τοῦτο, Peter rejects τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ and embraces τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Therefore, these two Synoptic pericopae demonstrate that the decision made by Jesus with regard to the method and means by which he would begin to bring about this element of inaugurating the kingdom of God—the defeat of the ene Carson, Matthew, 429.  Ὀπίσω μου is absent in Matt 4:10. See on this Nolland, The Gospel, 688 – 689; cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew 8 – 18, 663.  Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination, 224– 228, discusses τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων and τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ in terms of the nature of power in the Gospel of Mark. Somewhat analogously to my reading of these abstract phrases, Shively claims that they reflect “an apocalyptic symbolic world in which Satan seeks to lead people astray from the will of God” (224), clearly connecting Mark 8:33 with 1:12– 13 and 3:22– 30 (cf. Shively, “What Type of Resistance?,” 397).  We should note that it is not just Peter who has difficulty accepting this, either: the Synoptists repeatedly tell of the confusion and fear this thrice-repeated message of Jesus elicited in the disciples (Mark 9:32; Luke 9:45; 18:34; cf. Matt 17:23b); also revelatory of the disciples’ expectations are Luke 9:51– 56; 24:24.  See Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33 – 34; Matt 16:21; 17:22– 23; 20:18 – 19; Luke 9:22, 44; 18:31– 33.  See Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, 255. For further on the association of violence with the activity of the s/Satan, see Warren Carter, “Constructions of Violence and Identities in Matthew’s Gospel,” in Violence in the New Testament, ed. Shelly Matthews and E. Leigh Gibson (New York: T&T Clark, 1988), 81– 108; cf. Shively, “What Type of Resistance?”: “those who oppose Jesus’ suffering and death are opposed to God and are, in fact, on Satan’s side” (397).

228

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

mies of God/his people—was of deep significance, and directly connected to the success of his eschatological mission. Jesus’s choice to engage in eschatological conflict through exorcism, instead of taking up the sword of eschatological violence against Rome, was based on: (i) his belief that the enemy to be defeated was the s/Satan and his demonic servants, not Rome; (ii) his decision to trust in the ἐξουσία God would provide, not the ἐξουσία of the “kingdoms of the world”; and (iii) his commitment to “set his mind on” τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, not τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Jesus was therefore enabled to act with the power of God himself, casting out demons ἐν πνεύματι/δακτύλῳ θεοῦ, thus bringing about the kingdom of God. To conclude, we turn our attention one last time to Gethsemane, where Jesus’s choice to embrace τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ and to reject τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων as the means of inaugurating the eschatological kingdom of God passed the point of no return.¹⁵⁶ At the ultimate moment of πειρασμός,¹⁵⁷ Jesus remained committed in faith to God’s eschatological work, to “drinking the cup” set before him (see Mark 14:36 parr.). The opportunity for eschatological violence was available: around him were men ready to take up the sword, and angelic armies were at his call (Matt 26:53). However, that was not how the eschatological conflict waged throughout his ministry would finally be won. Jesus instead submitted —not only to his human adversaries, but also to the power that lay behind them, ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους (Luke 22:53b).¹⁵⁸ He rejected the option of eschatological violence to the bitter end, perceiving its diametric opposition to the eschatological task that he had been given to do.¹⁵⁹ Rather than embracing violence, Jesus submitted to it; rather than enacting violence, he suffered it.¹⁶⁰

 On the connection between the temptations in the wilderness and in Gethsemane, see Beck, Banished Messiah, 147.  Note Jesus’s instruction to his disciples to pray that they might not go εἰς πειρασμόν (Mark 14:38 // Matt 26:41 // Luke 22:40, 46).  Cf. Shively’s argument that Mark’s intention in communicating his Gospel through apocalyptic discourse was to “communicate that what appears to be subjugation, weakness and death is, in fact, God’s power for overcoming satanic forces to establish God’s kingdom” (Shively, Apocalyptic Imagination, 170); see also 228 – 232 where she comments on the significance of Mark 10:45 in this regard.  See Beck, Banished Messiah, 164.  See the previously-made comments on how this points forward to the cross (§§ 4.2.7.3; 5.3).

6.5 Summary and Conclusions

229

6.5 Summary and Conclusions In this chapter, I have therefore argued that the Synoptic exorcism accounts depict Jesus engaging victoriously in eschatological conflict against the s/Satan. Jesus made an intentional choice to fulfill the eschatological expectations for the defeat of the enemies of God/his people in this way, rather than through revolutionary violence. This argument proceeded in the following manner. I first demonstrated that Jesus’s exorcistic practice fits the historical context of Second Temple Judaism, while also standing out as remarkable within it, particularly as a result of the portrayal of its eschatological significance. I then argued that the Synoptic accounts of the Beelzebul Controversy provide convincing evidence that Jesus viewed his exorcisms through the lens of eschatological conflict: when he cast out demons ἐν πνεύματι/δακτύλῳ θεοῦ, the kingdom of God went forth and the kingdom of the s/Satan fell back. Thus informed, my analysis of the Synoptic exorcism pericopae revealed the main thematic elements of these instances of eschatological conflict. My focus then turned to how understanding exorcism in this way relates to Jesus’s rejection of eschatological violence. First, I established that during the wilderness temptation, Jesus is portrayed as coming face to face with the adversary of his eschatological task, the enemy of the kingdom of God: the s/Satan. In committing himself to worship and serve God alone, Jesus chose to trust in God’s power to overcome this enemy and inaugurate the kingdom of God. Finally, I argued that in the Markan/Matthean Jesus’s response to Peter’s rebuke, τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων are directly associated with both (i) contemporary expectations for the messiah’s eschatological violence, and (ii) the work of the s/Satan; as opposed to τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, which are associated with (i) Jesus’s own vision for the inauguration of the eschatological kingdom, and (ii) the power and work of God himself. The chapter has thus made three significant contributions to the present study. First, by demonstrating the importance of exorcism to the ministry of Jesus, as well as the ways in which Jesus’s exorcistic activity was exceptional within its historical context (most notably because of its clearly eschatological significance), I have presented a further challenge to the SJH, whose advocates cannot offer a convincing rationale for this central element of the allegedly fabricated Synoptic portrayals of Jesus. Second, I have demonstrated the ways in which exorcism constituted an alternative to eschatological violence. The Synoptic Gospels do not simply present Jesus rejecting revolutionary action, they present him achieving its goals through different means. This alternate embodiment of eschatological conflict resonated with Second Temple expectations for the

230

Chapter 6. Jesus and Eschatological Conflict

final defeat of the great demonic adversary found in texts such as the Testament of Levi, 1 Enoch, and Jubilees.¹⁶¹ Finally, third, I have argued that Jesus’s decision to engage in eschatological conflict through exorcism reflects his awareness of (i) the true identity of the enemy of God/his people; and (ii) the deeper significance of embracing violence. To take up the sword against Rome, however pious one’s motivations, would be to attempt to inaugurate the kingdom of God using the power controlled by that kingdom’s great adversary, the s/ Satan. Therefore, Jesus’s rejection of eschatological violence is directly connected to his commitment to serve and trust in God alone, to engage in his eschatological task through God’s empowerment, and ultimately to embrace τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ —that is, to submit himself in faith to the will of God. This further emphasises the deep coherence of every element of the Synoptic presentation of Jesus’s life and ministry—including his rejection of eschatological violence.

 See n. 67 for a full list.

Chapter 7 Conclusion In this study, I have attempted to offer fresh insight into the relationship between violence and eschatology in both Second Temple Judaism and the Synoptic Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus and his ministry. This has led me to argue that the SJH is fundamentally flawed, demonstrating that when we fully comprehend the crucial role of eschatology within Second Temple Jewish revolutionary violence, we can better understand Jesus’s nonviolence as a central component of his proclamation and inauguration of the kingdom of God.

7.1 Summary of the Study 7.1.1 Identifying the Problem and its Results In the first chapter, I argued that a misguided understanding of Jesus’s eschatology—the suggestion that Jesus expected the imminent, catastrophic arrival of an “other-worldly,” “supernatural” kingdom of God—lies at the heart of the widespread disassociation between violence and eschatology in much Jesus scholarship of the past one hundred and twenty years. Most significantly for the present study, this disassociation enabled the development of what I have referred to throughout as the “seditious Jesus hypothesis” (SJH). The foundational claims of the SJH are threefold: (i) the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus as the nonviolent proclaimer of the “eschatological” (understood as “other-worldly”) kingdom of God is a fabrication, developed by the early church on the basis of its theological commitments and apologetic needs; (ii) the truly historical Jesus—whose identity the evangelists sought to conceal—was a politically-minded, seditious, and potentially violent Jewish revolutionary; and finally, (iii) the fabricated Synoptic portrayal of Jesus is incoherent, since the Gospels themselves contain elements betraying hints of Jesus’s “true” nature, which are inconsistent with the apolitical, pacifistic Jesus they depict elsewhere. I argued that the SJH results in part from the widespread misperception that Jewish eschatology was “other-worldly,” which in turn has led to an insufficient appreciation of its central role in Second Temple revolutionary violence. I suggested, therefore, that a proper understanding of the “this-worldly” effects of Second Temple eschatological expectations—most notably, the ways in which it motivated and conditioned violence—enables us to understand how the resulting phenomenon, eschatological violence, plays a significant role throughout the https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703771-008

232

Chapter 7. Conclusion

Synoptic presentation of Jesus’s proclamation and inauguration of the kingdom of God.

7.1.2 Identifying and Describing Eschatological Violence in Second Temple Judaism In chapters two and three, therefore, my goal was to identify and describe “eschatological violence.” First, in chapter two I analysed the violence envisioned in four prominent examples of eschatological writing from the Second Temple period: the book of Daniel, the “Animal Apocalypse” and “Apocalypse of Weeks” from 1 Enoch, and the War Scroll (1QM). My analysis demonstrated that violence played a significant role in Jewish eschatological expectations. This violence was prominently associated with the defeat, destruction, and/or judgment of the enemies of God, his kingdom, and its people, which would either precede or attend the inauguration of the age to come. However, the texts diverge from one another in terms of how each envisages the role of God’s people in these violent events. Although God was unanimously depicted as the ultimate agent of eschatological victory, three of these four texts (Daniel being the only exception) clearly describe human participation in violent action against their enemies. In chapter three, then, I explored the possibility that such eschatological expectations played a role in Second Temple Jewish revolutionary violence. I looked at the three most significant such events: the Maccabean Revolt, the JewishRoman War, and the Bar Kokhba Revolt. I argued that major historical sources for all three incidents contain conspicuous elements suggesting that eschatology played a primary role in motivating the Jewish participants to take up the sword against their Gentile oppressors, and in shaping ideological perceptions of this revolutionary violence. Many Second Temple Jews appear to have believed that by taking up the sword they would (i) play a role in God’s eschatological deliverance of his people, and (ii) identify themselves as God’s faithful people, those who would receive the eschatological blessings promised by God. Thus, in chapters two and three I established that eschatological violence— that is, violence motivated by the belief that God’s people would participate in the eschatological defeat of his/their enemies—was a significant historical component of Second Temple Judaism, with important sociopolitical and theological implications.

7.1 Summary of the Study

233

7.1.3 The “Seditious Jesus Hypothesis,” Eschatological Violence, and Jesus Next, I turned my attention to the Synoptic Gospels. My aim was to establish the thematic significance of eschatological violence within the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus, and thereby to refute the SJH. Against the claims of its advocates—that the Synoptic presentation of Jesus is riddled with inconsistencies, resulting from the evangelists’ failed attempts to cover up Jesus’s “true” identity—I set out to argue that a proper understanding of the central place of eschatology within revolutionary violence enables us to appreciate Jesus’s rejection of such violence as a definitive, consistent element of the Synoptic presentation of his proclamation and inauguration of the kingdom of God. The first step of making this argument, undertaken in chapter four, was to engage in exegetical analysis of the Synoptic pericopae to which advocates of the SJH repeatedly point as evidence of Jesus’s seditious identity. Against such claims, I demonstrated that these passages can be understood as part of the coherent presentation of Jesus’s eschatological ministry made by each of the Synoptists. The various aspects of these pericopae upon which Bermejo-Rubio focuses—their possible references to tensions in the sociopolitical world of firstcentury Judaism, allusions to Jewish messianic expectations, or even the mere mention of a μάχαιρα—are not inconsistent with the overall Synoptic portrayal of Jesus and his ministry. Instead, I argued, such elements demonstrate that: (i) the question of what role violence would play in the inauguration of the kingdom of God was of central concern to both Jesus and his contemporaries; and (ii) Jesus consistently engaged with this question in ways that contrasted with prevalent Second Temple expectations. Chapter five further refuted the SJH by discussing four Synoptic passages in which Jesus completely disassociates eschatological violence from his inauguration of the kingdom of God and the identification of its people. Jesus consistently rejected violence, and explicitly commanded his followers to do the same. These pericopae demonstrate that the Synoptic Gospels do not portray Jesus as one who (as a result of his “other-worldly” mindset, and/or the strictly “spiritual” concerns of his ministry) was apolitically unconcerned about violence. Rather, Jesus saw the widespread desire amongst his contemporaries to take up the sword against Rome, and their desire that he would lead such a revolutionary movement, as an eschatological issue, one that directly conflicted with his proclamation and inauguration of the kingdom of God. Furthermore, Jesus warned his listeners that their fixation upon eschatological violence was something of which they needed to repent, because (i) it was blinding them to the fulfillment of God’s eschatological promises happening before their very eyes; and (ii) it would lead to only one end: national destruction.

234

Chapter 7. Conclusion

The exegetical analysis carried out in chapters four and five thus demonstrated the thematic importance of eschatological violence throughout the Synoptic Gospels, as, counter to the expectations of many of his contemporaries, Jesus consistently disassociated it from his inauguration of the kingdom of God and identification of its people.

7.1.4 The Victorious Eschatological Conflict of Jesus Finally, in chapter six I set out to answer the following: if it is the case that (i) the Synoptic Gospels depict Jesus’s ministry as inaugurating the kingdom of God; and (ii) Jewish expectations for that eschatological event included the defeat of the enemies of God/his people, then how was this component of such expectations fulfilled by Jesus? If, according to Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesus rejected eschatological violence, then how did he envision and embody the eschatological defeat of the enemies of the kingdom he proclaimed and inaugurated? I argued that the Synoptic Gospels portray Jesus as engaging in eschatological conflict in his exorcistic activity: a central, unique component of their accounts of his ministry. In his encounters with possessed individuals, Jesus confronted the true enemies of the kingdom of God: the “demons” and “evil/unclean spirits,” the servants of the s/Satan. I demonstrated that the language and imagery of these accounts make it clear that when Jesus, acting by the unparalleled authority and power of God, cast out demons, he was thereby triumphant in eschatological conflict. The kingdom of God ἔφθασεν, and the kingdom of the s/ Satan fell back in defeat. Thus, according to the Synoptic portrayals of his ministry, Jesus began to accomplish through exorcism the goals which many of his contemporaries expected to be accomplished through revolutionary violence: he defeated eschatological enemies, and provided deliverance to God’s people. While the primary significance of this exploration of Jesus’s exorcistic activity was its contribution to my argument against the SJH, I suggested that this also points towards the alternative eschatological vision which Jesus seems to have embraced. The Gospels make it clear that, having come to understand the identity of the great adversary of his eschatological task, Jesus believed that how he went about accomplishing that task was directly connected to which kingdom he would serve. To attempt to inaugurate the kingdom of God through violence would be to attempt to defeat the enemy of that kingdom by using his own ἐξουσία against him; it would be to set one’s mind on τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων instead of τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ. Jesus had a very different vision of his own role in God’s eschatological victory, one that involved submitting to violence rather than enacting it, and ultimately led to the cross.

7.2 Prospects for Future Research

235

This study has thus demonstrated the significance of eschatological violence to Second Temple Judaism and the Synoptic portrayals of Jesus’s life and ministry. Against the advocates of the SJH, I have shown that understanding eschatology and violence together enables us to read the Synoptic accounts as consistent wholes that tell a coherent narrative, in which Jesus disassociated violence from his inauguration of the kingdom of God and identification of its people. This hypothesis postulates that the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels is a Jesus whose ministry makes sense within the world of Second Temple Judaism both in terms of its prominent eschatological expectations and sociopolitical conditions. Furthermore, it enables us to reject the suggestion that Jesus’s nonviolence is evidence of apolitical, pacifistic disengagement. Rather, the nonviolence of Jesus was an intentional, central component of his eschatological vision; it was an active element of his inauguration of the kingdom of God.

7.2 Prospects for Future Research Having summarised the argument set forth in this study, the last task is to point towards three areas of future research which might build upon what has here been offered.

7.2.1 Eschatological Violence and the Cross As I have more than once acknowledged, the most obvious area requiring further attention concerns how the central claim of this study—that the rejection of eschatological violence plays an integral role in the Synoptic portrayals of Jesus’s life and ministry—affects our understanding of the cross. It is not simply the case that Jesus rejects the use of violence throughout his ministry. Once that ministry comes to a climax in Jerusalem, Jesus submits to violence instead. Rather than take up the sword against Rome, Jesus is crucified by Rome; in other words, the subject and object of eschatological violence are reversed. Despite this, however, the Synoptic evangelists present this as a narrative of eschatological fulfillment. Somehow, the fact that Jesus, having rejected revolutionary violence throughout his ministry, dies the death of a λῃστής—one who had embraced such violence, and the eschatology implicit within it—plays an integral role in the Synoptic portrayal of the victorious inauguration of the kingdom of God and the defeat of its enemy, the s/Satan. Jesus’s taking violence upon himself is a central component of breaking the power of the one to whom violence itself belongs. Many of the most important themes of this

236

Chapter 7. Conclusion

study thus come to a climax in the crucifixion, making it a clear (and necessary) next step of the research begun here.

7.2.2 Eschatological Violence and the Gospel of John A second area of further research would involve applying the lens of eschatological violence to the Gospel of John. Several of the Synoptic accounts discussed in chapters four and five are present also in the fourth Gospel (e. g. the triumphal entry, the temple act, the arrest in Gethsemane), but other passages found only in John could potentially provide fruitful additional insight into the role played by Jesus’s rejection of eschatological violence, and his perception of its widespread embrace amongst his contemporaries. Examples include the Johannine Jesus’s description of the false shepherds of Israel as λῃσταί (10:1, 8); his declaration in anticipation of his crucifixion, that νῦν ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτο ἐκβληθήσεται ἔξω (12:31); and his statement to Pilate, that εἰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἦν ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμή, οἱ ὑπηρέται οἱ ἐμοὶ ἠγωνίζοντο (18:36). These intriguing texts add depth and nuance to our understanding of Jesus’s rejection of eschatological violence. It would be particularly important (given the focus of chapter six of this study) to discuss the lack of exorcism in John’s account of Jesus’s ministry, and the correspondent emphasis on the cross as the moment at which ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτο is “cast out.”

7.2.3 Eschatological Violence and Early Christianity Finally, a third intriguing avenue for further research would be to look into the reception of Jesus’s rejection of eschatological violence by the early Christian community. As noted already (see §5.2.3), love of enemies is widely attested as a definitive identifying feature of early Christianity. This can be detected even in the book of Acts, most notably as, with his dying words, Stephen prays κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν (7:60). We should not overlook how drastically this differs from contemporary Jewish martyr traditions (see for example 2Macc 7). Jesus’s example clearly had a profound impact on his followers. Many intriguing associated questions could be raised. How did this affect the (non)participation of the early Christian community in the Jewish-Roman war of 66 – 70 CE, and how might this affect our reading of Mark 13 parr.? How does understanding Jesus’s nonviolence specifically in terms of the rejection of eschatological violence affect how we read texts such as Romans 12:14– 21, and Paul’s ex-

7.2 Prospects for Future Research

237

hortation that his readers μὴ νικῶ ὑπὸ τοῦ κακοῦ ἀλλὰ νίκα ἐν τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὸ κακόν (12:21)? How does Jesus’s rejection of violence in his conflicts with his adversaries during his earthly ministry affect our understanding of the events depicted in the book of Revelation—most notably, the final defeat and destruction of the beast and the kingdoms of the earth (19:11– 21)? In other words, how did Jesus’s rejection of eschatological violence impact (i) early Christian praxis, especially vis-à-vis their adversaries, and (ii) early Christian eschatological expectations? *** The question of violence/nonviolence has, since at least the time of Constantine, been a divisive topic within Christian theological ethics. For some, the nonviolence of Jesus and his earliest followers was a mere temporary expedient, to be abandoned later on, because it was born out of either (i) their specific sociopolitical circumstances, which led them to adopt such practices for pragmatic reasons; or (ii) their misguided “apocalyptic” eschatology, which led them to embrace nonviolence as a short-term ethic, until the imminent arrival of the supernatural kingdom. For others, however—including whole branches of later Christian tradition—nothing could be more obvious than that those who call Jesus “Lord” should follow his nonviolent example. Part of my intention in this study was to provide a firmer historical foundation upon which to understand Jesus’s nonviolent teaching and practice, in order better to discern its relevance for the church today. I have argued that the Synoptic Gospels give an account of Jesus’s life and ministry that is historically coherent within the sociopolitical and theological context of Second Temple Judaism. Within that ministry, Jesus’s rejection of eschatological violence played a central role, one that was directly bound up with his eschatological vision of how the kingdom of God would be inaugurated, and what would identify those who belong to it: μακάριοι οἱ εἰρηνοποιοί, ὃτι αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ θεοῦ κληθήσονται.

Bibliography Abbreviations are as listed in The SBL Handbook of Style, 2nd ed. (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014). The following abbreviations will also be used: AJEC CQS CSCT DCLY EC JPR JSHJ JSJSup NCBC PlrNTC SANt SPS STAR

Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity Companion to the Qumran Scrolls Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook Early Christianity Journal of Peace Research Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism New Cambridge Bible Commentary The Pillar New Testament Commentary Studia Aarhusiana Neotestamentica Studies in Peace and Scripture Studies in Theology and Religion

Abegg, Martin G., and Craig A. Evans. “Messianic Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 191 – 203 in Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Achtemeier, Paul J. “Miracles and the Historical Jesus: A Study of Mark 9.14 – 29.” CBQ 37 (1975): 471 – 91. Ådna, Jostein. “Jesus and the Temple.” Pages 2635 – 75 in The Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter. Vol. 3 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Ådna, Jostein. “Temple Act.” Pages 947 – 52 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Ådna, Jostein. “The Encounter of Jesus with the Gerasene Demoniac.” Pages 279 – 301 in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Edited by Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans. NTTS 28.2. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Aichele, George. “Jesus’ Violence.” Pages 72 – 91 in Violence, Utopia and the Kingdom of God: Fantasy and Ideology in the Bible. Edited by George Aichele and Tina Pippin. London: Routledge, 1998. Aichinger, H. “Zur Traditionsgeschichte der Epileptiker-Perikope Mk 9,14 – 29 par Mat 17,14 – 21 par Lk 9,37 – 43a.” Pages 114 – 43 in Probleme der Forschung. Edited by A. Fuchs. SNTSU 3. Vienna: Herold, 1978. Albertz, Rainier. “The Social Setting of the Aramaic and Hebrew Book of Daniel.” Pages 171 – 204 in vol. 1 of The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. VTSup 83. Boston: Brill, 2001. Alexander, Philip S. “The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 331 – 353 in vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703771-009

Bibliography

239

Alexander, Philip S. “The Evil Empire: the Qumran Eschatological War Cycle and the Origins of Jewish Opposition to Rome.” Pages 17 – 31 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Weston W. Fields. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Alexis-Baker, Andy. “Violence, Nonviolence and the Temple Incident in John 2:13 – 15.” BibInt 20 (2012): 73 – 96. Allen, Leslie C. Psalms 101 – 150. WBC 21. Waco: Word Books, 1983. Allison, Dale C., Jr. “A Plea for Thoroughgoing Eschatology.” JBL 113 (1994): 651 – 58. Allison, Dale C., Jr. “A Response.” Pages 83 – 105 in The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate. Edited by Robert J. Miller. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2001. Allison, Dale C., Jr. “Behind the Temptations of Jesus: Q 4:1 – 13 and Mark 1:12 – 13.” Pages 195 – 213 in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Edited by Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans. NTTS 28.2. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Allison, Dale C., Jr. Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Allison, Dale C., Jr. “How to Marginalize the Traditional Criteria of Authenticity.” Pages 3 – 30 in How to Study the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter. Vol. 1 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Allison, Dale C., Jr. Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Allison, Dale C., Jr. “Kingdom of God.” Pages 860 – 61 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Allison, Dale C., Jr. “Pro: Jesus was an Apocalyptic Prophet.” Pages 17 – 29 in The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate. Edited by Robert J. Miller. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2001. Allison, Dale C., Jr. “Q 12:51 – 53 and Mark 9:11 – 13 and the Messianic Woes.” Pages 289 – 310 in Authenticating the Words of Jesus. Edited by Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans. NTTS 28.1. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Allison, Dale C., Jr. Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. Allison, Dale C., Jr. The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Allison, Dale C., Jr. “The Eschatology of Jesus.” Pages 267 – 302 in The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity. Edited by John J. Collins. Vol. 1 of The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism. Edited by Bernard McGinn, John J. Collins, and Stephen J. Stein. New York: Continuum, 2000. Allison, Dale C., Jr. The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Allison, Dale C., Jr., Marcus J. Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and Stephen J. Patterson. “Assessing the Arguments.” Pages 109 – 27 in The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate. Edited by Robert J. Miller. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2001. Allison, Dale C., Jr., Marcus J. Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and Stephen J. Patterson. “The Historical Jesus and Contemporary Faith.” Pages 147 – 63 in The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate. Edited by Robert J. Miller. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2001. Annen, Franz. Heil für die Heiden: Zur Bedeutung und Geschichte der Tradition vom besessenen Gerasener (Mk 5,1 – 20 parr.). Frankfurter theologische Studien 20. Frankfurt am Main: Joseph Knecht, 1976.

240

Bibliography

Applebaum, Shimon. “Josephus and the Economic Causes of the Jewish War.” Pages 237 – 64 in Josephus, the Bible, and History. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989. Applebaum, Shimon. “The Zealots: The Case for Revaluation.” JRS 61 (1971): 155 – 70. Arendt, Hannah. On Violence. San Diego: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1970. Ariel, Donald T. “Identifying the Mints, Minters and Meanings of the First Jewish Revolt Coins.” Pages 373 – 97 in The Jewish Revolt Against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Edited by Mladen Popović. JSJSup 154. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Arnold, Bill T. “Old Testament Eschatology and the Rise of Apocalypticism.” Pages 23 – 39 in The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology. Edited by Jerry L. Walls. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Aslan, Reza. Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. London: The Westbourne Press, 2013. Assefa, Daniel. “Book of Dreams (1 Enoch 83 – 90).” Pages 552 – 53 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Assefa, Daniel. L’Apocalypse des animaux (1 Hen 85 – 90): une propagande militaire? Approches narrative, historico-critique, perspectives théologiques. JSJSup 120. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Assmann, Jan. Religion and Cultural Memory. Cultural Memory in the Present. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006. Aus, Roger David. My Name is “Legion”: Palestinian Judaic Traditions in Mark 5:1 – 20 and Other Gospel Texts. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2004. Avis, Paul. “Ecclesiology.” Pages 209 – 216 in vol. 1 of Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia. Edited by Leslie Houlden. 2 vols. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2003. Axel, Brian Keith. “The Diasporic Imaginary.” Public Culture 14 (2002): 411 – 28. Bailey, Kenneth E. Through Peasant Eyes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Bailie, Gil. Violence Unveiled: Humanity at the Crossroads. New York: Crossroad, 1995. Baird, M. M. “The Gadarene Demoniac (Mk. 5).” ExpTim 31 (1919): 189. Bammel, E. “The Revolution Theory from Reimarus to Brandon.” Pages 11 – 68 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Bammel, E. “The Trial Before Pilate.” Pages 415 – 51 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Bammel, E., and C. F. D. Moule, eds. Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Barclay, John M. G. Against Apion. Vol. 10 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Edited by Steve Mason. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 BCE). Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Barclay, John M. G., ed. Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews. WUNT 275. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Barclay, John M. G. “The Empire Writes Back: Josephan Rhetoric in Flavian Rome.” Pages 315 – 32 in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. Edited by Jonathan Edmondson, Steve Mason, and James Rives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Bibliography

241

Barnett, Paul W. “The Jewish Sign Prophets.” Pages 444 – 62 in The Historical Jesus in Recent Research. Edited by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Barnett, Paul W. “The Jewish Sign Prophets—A.D. 40 – 70: Their Intentions and Origin.” NTS 27 (1981): 679 – 97. Barnett, Paul W. “Under Tiberius All was Quiet.” NTS 21 (1975): 564 – 71. Barnett, Paul W. “Who Were the ‘Biastai’ (Matthew 11:12 – 13)?” RTR 36 (1977): 65 – 70. Barnstone, Willis S. The Other Bible. New York: Harper San Francisco, 1984. Barrett, C. K. “The House of Prayer and the Den of Thieves.” Pages 13 – 20 in Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by E. Earle Ellis and E. Grässer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Bartlett, John R. 1 Maccabees. Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Bartlett, John R. The First and Second Books of the Maccabees. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Barton, John. “Theological Ethics in Daniel.” Pages 661 – 70 in vol. 1 of The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. VTSup 83. Boston: Brill, 2001. Barton, John. Understanding Old Testament Ethics: Approaches and Explorations. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Bates, Matthew W. “Cryptic Codes and a Violent King: A New Proposal for Matthew 11:12 and Luke 16:16 – 18.” CBQ 75 (2013): 74 – 93. Batsch, Christophe. “Priests in Warfare in Second Temple Judaism: 1QM, or the AntiPhinehas.” Pages 165 – 78 in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Lljubljana. Edited by Daniel K. Falk, Sarianna Metso, Donald W. Perry, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. STDJ 91. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Bauer, W. Aufsätze und kleine Schriften. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967. Bayer, O. “Sprachbewegung und Weltveränderung: Ein systematischer Versuch als Auslegung von Mt 5,43 – 8.” EvT 35 (1975): 309 – 21. Bazzana, Giovanni Battista. “The Bar Kochba Revolt and Hadrian’s Religious Policy.” Pages 85 – 109 in Hadrian and the Christians. Edited by Marco Rizzi. Millennium-Studien 30. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Beale, G. K. The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984. Beasley-Murray, G. R. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Beck, Robert R. Banished Messiah: Violence and Nonviolence in Matthew’s Story of Jesus. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010. Becker, Jürgen. Jesus of Nazareth. Translated by James E. Crouch. New York: de Gruyter, 1998. Becker, M. Wunder und Wundertäter im frührabbinischen Judentum: Studien zum Phänomen und seiner Überlieferung im Horizont von Magie und Dämonismus. WUNT 2/144. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Beckwith, Roger T. “Daniel 9 and the Date of the Messiah’s Coming in Essene, Hellenistic, Pharisaic, Zealot, and Early Christian Computation.” RQ 10 (1979): 512 – 42. Bell, R. H. Deliver Us from Evil: Interpreting the Redemption from the Power of Satan in New Testament Theology. WUNT 216. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.

242

Bibliography

Bell, R. H. “Demon, Devil, Satan.” Pages 193 – 202 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Benoit, P., J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, eds. Les Grottes de Murabba’ât. DJD 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. Berger, Klaus. “Der ‘brutale’ Jesus: Gewaltsames in Wirken und Verkündigung Jesu.” BK 51 (1996): 119 – 27. Berkey, R. F. “ΕΓΓΙΖΕΙΝ, ΦΘΑΝΕΙΝ, and Realized Eschatology.” JBL 82 (1982): 177 – 87. Berlin, Andrea M., and J. Andrew Overman, eds. The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology. London: Routledge, 2002. Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. “Has the Hypothesis of a Seditionist Jesus Been Dealt a Fatal Blow? A Systematic Answer to the Doubters.” Bandue: Revista de la Sociedad Española de Ciencias de las Religiones 7 (2013): 19 – 58. Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. “Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance: A Reassessment of the Arguments.” JSHJ 12 (2014): 1 – 105. Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. “Jesus as a Seditionist: The Intertwining of Politics and Religion in his Teaching and Deeds.” Pages 232 – 43 in Teaching the Historical Jesus: Issues and Exegesis. Routledge Studies in Religion. Edited by Zev Garber. London: Routledge, 2015. Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. “The Day of the Lord is Coming: Jesus and the Book of Zechariah.” Pages 111 – 31 in Jesus and the Scriptures: Problems, Passages and Patterns. Edited by Tobias Hägerland. LNTS 552. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. “Why is the Hypothesis That Jesus Was an Anti-Roman Rebel Alive and Well?” The Bible and Interpretation. April 2013. http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/ 2013/ber378008.shtml. Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. “(Why) Was Jesus the Galilean Crucified Alone? Solving a False Conundrum.” JSNT 36 (2013): 127 – 54. Bernat, David. “Josephus’s Portrayal of Phinehas.” JSP 13 (2002): 137 – 49. Bernat, David A., and Jonathan Klawans, eds. Religion and Violence: The Biblical Heritage. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007. Bernstein, Moshe J. “Scriptures: Quotation and Use.” Pages 839 – 72 in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James VanderKam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Berthelot, Katell. “L’idéologie maccabéenne entre idéologie de la résistance armée et idéologie du martyre.” REJ 165 (2006): 99 – 122. Berthelot, Katell. “The Biblical Conquest of the Promised Land and the Hasmonean Wars according to 1 and 2 Maccabees.” Pages 45 – 60 in The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology. Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanoncial Books. Pápa, Hungary, 9 – 11 June, 2005. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Best, Ernest. The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology. SNTSMS 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Betz, Hans Dieter. “Jesus and the Purity of the Temple (Mark 11:15 – 18): A Comparative Religion Approach.” JBL 116 (1997): 455 – 72. Betz, Hans Dieter. The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Bibliography

243

Betz, Hans Dieter. The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3 – 7:27 and Luke 6:20 – 49). Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Betz, Otto. “Jesu heiliger Krieg.” NovT 2 (1958): 116 – 37. Betz, Otto. “The Concept of the So-called ‘Divine Man’ in Mark’s Christology.” Pages 229 – 40 in Studies in the New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren. Edited by David E. Aune. NovTSup 33. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Beyerle, Stefan. “The Book of Daniel and Its Social Setting.” Pages 205 – 28 in vol. 1 of The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. VTSup 83. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Bietenhard, Hans. “Die Handschriftenfunde vom Toten Meer, (Óirbet Qumran) und die Essener-Frage. Die Funde in der Wüste Juda (Eine Orientierung).” ANRW 10.1:704 – 78. Part 2, Principat, 10.1. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982. Bilde, Per. Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988. Bilde, Per. “Josephus and Jewish Apocalypticism.” Pages 35 – 61 in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives. Edited by Steve Mason. JSPSup 32. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Bilde, Per. “The Causes of the Jewish War According to Josephus.” JSJ 10 (1979): 179 – 202. Bilde, Per. The Originality of Jesus: A Critical Discussion and a Comparative Attempt. SANt 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Bird, Michael F. “Jesus and the Revolutionaries: Did Jesus Call Israel to Repent of Nationalistic Ambitions?” Colloq 38 (2006): 127 – 39. Bird, Michael F. “Matthew 23.15—The Case of the Proselytizing Pharisees?” JSHJ 2 (2004): 117 – 37. Black, Matthew. “‘Not peace but a sword’: Matt 10:34 ff; Luke 12:51 ff.” Pages 287 – 94 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Black, Matthew. “Judas of Galilee and Josephus’s ‘Fourth Philosophy’.” Pages 45 – 54 in Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament: Otto Mechel z 70sten Geburstag gewidmet. Edited by Otto Betz, Klaus Haacker, and Martin Hengel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. Black, Matthew. “Uncomfortable Words: III. The Violent Word.” ExpTim 81 (1970): 115 – 18. Blaising, Craig A. “The Day of the Lord and the Seventieth Week of Daniel.” BSac 169 (2012): 131 – 42. Blasius, A. “Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Ptolemaic Triad: The Three Uprooted Horns in Dan 7:8, 20 and 24 Reconsidered.” JSJ 37 (2006): 521 – 47. Blinzler, J. “Die Niedermetzelung von Galiläern durch Pilatus.” NovT 2 (1957): 24 – 49. Blinzler, J. “Eine Bemerkung zum Geschichtsrahmen des Johannesevangeliums.” Bib 36 (1955): 20 – 35. Boccaccini, Gabriele, ed. Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Boccaccini, Gabriele. “The Covenantal Theology of the Apocalyptic Book of Daniel.” Pages 39 – 44 in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

244

Bibliography

Boccaccini, Gabriele, and Jason M. Zurawski, eds. Interpreting 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: International Studies. LSTS 87. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Böcher, O. Christus Exorcist: Dämonismus und Taufe im Neuen Testament. BWANT 5/16. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972. Bock, Darrell L. Luke: Volume 1: 1:1 – 9:50. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994. Bock, Darrell L. Luke: Volume 2: 9:51 – 24:53. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996. Bolotnikov, Alexander. “The Theme of Apocalyptic War in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” AUSS 43 (2005): 261 – 66. Bond, Helen K. “Barabbas Remembered.” Pages 59 – 71 in Jesus and Paul: Global Perspectives in Honor of James D. G. Dunn for his 70th Birthday. Edited by B. J. Oropeza, C. K. Robertson, and Douglas C. Mohrmann. LNTS 414. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Bond, Helen K. “Dating the Death of Jesus: Memory and the Religious Imagination.” NTS 59 (2013): 461 – 75. Bond, Helen K. Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation. SNTSMS 100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Bond, Helen K. The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Bloomsbury, 2012. Borchert, Gerald L. “Matthew 5:48—Perfection and the Sermon.” RevExp 89 (1992): 265 – 69. Borg, Marcus J. Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus. New ed. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998. Borg, Marcus J. “Jesus and Eschatology: A Reassessment.” Pages 42 – 67 in Images of Jesus Today. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Walter P. Weaver. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994. Borg, Marcus J. Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1994. Borg, Marcus J. Jesus, a New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and the Life of Discipleship. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. Borg, Marcus J. Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary. New York: HarperOne, 2006. Borg, Marcus J. Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: The Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994. Borg, Marcus J. “The Currency of the Term ‘Zealot’.” JTS 22 (1971): 504 – 12. Borg, Marcus J., John Dominic Crossan, and Stephen J. Patterson. “Con: Jesus was not an Apocalyptic Prophet.” Pages 31 – 82 in The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate. Edited by Robert J. Miller. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2001. Bourguignon, Erika. Possession. San Francisco: Chandler and Sharp, 1976. Boustan, Ra’anan S., Alex P. Jassen, and Calvin J. Roetzel, eds. Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Bovon, François. Luke 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 9:51 – 19:27. Translated by Donald S. Deer. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. Bovon, François. Luke 3: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 19:28 – 24:53. Translated by James Crouch. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Brandon, S. G. F. Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967. Brandon, S. G. F. “Jesus and the Zealots: Aftermath.” BJRL 54 (1971): 47 – 66. Brandon, S. G. F. The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of the Jewish Overthrow of A.D. 70 on Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1951.

Bibliography

245

Brandon, S. G. F. The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth. London: Batsford, 1968. Bredin, Mark R. “John’s Account of Jesus’ Demonstration in the Temple: Violent or Nonviolent?” BTB 33 (2003): 44 – 50. Brenneman, Laura L., and Brad D. Schantz, eds. Struggles for Shalom: Peace and Violence Across the Testaments. SPS 12. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014. Breytenbach, C., and P. L. Day. “Satan.” Pages 726 – 32 in The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Broshi, M. “Hatred—An Essene Religious Principle and its Christian Consequence.” Pages 245 – 52 in Antikes Judentum und Frühes Christentum. Edited by B. Kollmann, W. Reibold, and A. Steudel. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Brown, C. “Quest of the Historical Jesus.” Pages 718 – 56 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Brown, Derek R. “The Devil in the Details: A Survey of Research on Satan in Biblical Studies.” CurBR 9 (2011): 200 – 27. Brown, Raymond E. “The Burial of Jesus (Mark 15:42 – 47).” CBQ 50 (1988): 233 – 45. Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. 2 vols. Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1994. Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John I–XII. AB 29. London: Chapman, 1971. Brown, Robert McAfee. Religion and Violence. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987. Brownlee, William. “Jesus and Qumran.” Pages 52 – 81 in Jesus and the Historian. Festschrift E. C. Colwell. Edited by F. Thomas Trotter. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968. Bruce, F. F. “Josephus and Daniel.” ASTI 4 (1965): 148 – 62. Bruce, F. F. “Render to Caesar.” Pages 249 – 63 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Bruce, F. F. “The Book of Daniel and the Qumran Community.” Pages 221 – 35 in Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black. Edited by E. Ellis and M. Wilcox. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1969. Bruce, F. F. “The Book of Zechariah and the Passion Narrative.” BJRL 43 (1960): 336 – 53. Brutti, Maria. “War in 1 Maccabees.” Pages 147 – 72 in Visions of Peace and Tales of War. Edited by Jan Liesen and Pancratius Cornelis Beentjes. DCLY 2010. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Bryan, Steven M. “Jesus and Israel’s Eschatological Constitution.” Pages 2835 – 53 in The Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter. Vol. 3 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Bryen, Ari Z. Violence in Roman Egypt: A Study in Legal Interpretation. Empire and After. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013. Buchanan, G. W. “Mark 11.15 – 19: Brigands in the Temple.” HUCA 30 (1959): 169 – 77. Buchanan, G. W. “The Tower of Siloam.” ExpTim 115 (2003): 37 – 45. Buehler, Paul. “Daniel and Akkadian Prophecy: Exploring the Origins of Apocalyptic Eschatology.” Journal of Theta Alpha Kappa 32 (2008): 1 – 24. Bultmann, Rudolf. Jesus and the Word. Translated by Louise Pettibone Smith and Erminie Huntress. London: Ivor Nicholson & Watson, 1935.

246

Bibliography

Bultmann, Rudolf. “New Testament and Mythology.” Pages 1 – 44 in Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate. Edited by Hans Werner Bartsch. Translated by Reginald H. Fuller. London: SPCK, 1953. Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. London: SCM, 1952. Bünker, M. “‘Gebt dem Kaiser, was des Kaisers ist!’—Aber: Was ist des Kaisers?” Kairos 29 (1987): 85 – 98. Burdon, Christopher. “To the Other Side: Construction of Evil and Fear of Liberation in Mark 5.1 – 20.” JSNT 27 (2004): 149 – 67. Burkill, T. A. “Historical Development of the Story of the Syro-Phoenician Woman.” NovT 1967 (1967): 161 – 77. Burkitt, F. Crawford. “Johannes Weiss: In Memoriam.” HTR 8 (1915): 291 – 97. Cadoux, C. John. The Historic Mission of Jesus: A Constructive Re-Examination of the Eschatological Teaching in the Synoptic Gospels. London: Lutterworth, 1941. Caird, George B. “Eschatology and Politics: Some Misconceptions.” Pages 72 – 86 in Biblical Studies: Essays in Honor of William Barclay. Edited by Johnston R. McKay and James F. Miller. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976. Caird, George B. Jesus and the Jewish Nation. London: Athlone Press, 1965. Caird, George B. “Les eschatologies du Nouveau Testament.” RHPR 49 (1969): 217 – 27. Caird, George B. The Gospel of St. Luke. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1963. Caird, George B. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. London: Duckworth, 1980. Caird, George B. “The Mind of Christ: Christ’s Attitude to Institutions.” ExpTim 62 (1950): 259 – 62. Callon, C. “Pilate the Villain: An Alternative Reading of Matthew’s Portrayal of Pilate.” BTB 36 (2006): 62 – 71. Camara, Helder. Spiral of Violence. Translated by Della Couling. London: Sheed and Ward, 1975. Cameron, Peter S. Violence and the Kingdom: The Interpretation of Matthew 11:12. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1984. Caragounis, C. C. “Kingdom of God, Son of Man and Jesus’ Self-Understanding.” TynBul 40 (1989): 3 – 23, 223. Carmichael, Joel. The Death of Jesus. London: Gollancz, 1963. Carmignac, J. “Les citations de l’Ancien Testament, dans la Guerre des Fils de lumière contre les Fils de Ténèbres.” RB 63 (1956): 234 – 260, 375. Carmignac, J. “Les dangers de l’eschatologie.” NTS 17 (1971): 365 – 90. Carson, D. A. “Matthew.” Pages 23 – 670 in Matthew & Mark. Vol. 9 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Carter, Warren. “Constructions of Violence and Identities in Matthew’s Gospel.” Pages 81 – 108 in Violence in the New Testament. Edited by Shelly Matthews and E. Leigh Gibson. New York: T&T Clark, 1988. Carter, Warren. “Jesus’ ‘I have come’ Statements in Matthew’s Gospel.” CBQ 60 (1998): 44 – 62. Carter, Warren. “Love Your Enemies.” WW 28 (2008): 13 – 21. Carter, Warren. Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-Political and Religious Reading. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000.

Bibliography

247

Casey, Maurice. “Culture and Historicity: The Cleansing of the Temple.” CBQ 59 (1997): 306 – 32. Cassidy, Richard J. Christian and Roman Rule in the New Testament. New York: Crossroad, 2001. Castelli, Elizabeth. “Reza Aslan––historian?” The Nation. 9 August 2013. http://www.thena tion.com/article/reza-aslan-historian/. Catchpole, David R. “On Doing Violence to the Kingdom.” IBS 3 (1981): 77 – 92. Catchpole, David R. “The ‘Triumphal’ Entry.” Pages 319 – 34 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Cave, C. H. “The Obedience of the Unclean Spirits.” NTS 11 (1964): 93 – 97. Chanikuzhy, J. Jesus, the Eschatological Temple: An Exegetical Study of Jn 2,13 – 22 in the Light of the Pre 70 C.E. Eschatological Temple Hopes and the Synoptic Temple Action. CBET 58. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Chapman, David W. Ancient and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Chavel, C. B. “The Releasing of a Prisoner on the Eve of Passover in Ancient Jerusalem.” JBL 60 (1941): 273 – 78. Chilton, Bruce D. “An Exorcism of History: Mark 1:21 – 28.” Pages 215 – 45 in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Edited by Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans. NTTS 28.2. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Chilton, Bruce D. The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program Within a Cultural History of Sacrifice. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992. Clavier, Henri. “Matthieu 5,39 et la non-résistance.” RHPR 37 (1957): 44 – 57. Cohen, Shaye J. D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian. Studies in the Classical Tradition 8. Leiden: Brill, 1979. Cohick, Lynn H. “Trial of Jesus.” Pages 972 – 79 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Collins, Adela Yarbro. Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism. JSJSup 50. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Collins, Adela Yarbro. “Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple.” Pages 45 – 61 in Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday. Edited by Adela Yarbro Collins and M. M. Mitchell. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Collins, Adela Yarbro. “Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Greeks and Romans.” HTR 93 (2000): 85 – 100. Collins, Adela Yarbro. Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Collins, Adela Yarbro. “The Second Temple and the Arts of Resistance.” Pages 115 – 29 in From Judaism to Christianity: Tradition and Transition. Edited by Patricia Walters. NovTSup 136. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Collins, John J. “Apocalyptic Genre and Mythic Allusions in Daniel.” JSOT 21 (1981): 83 – 100. Collins, John J. Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: Routledge, 1997.

248

Bibliography

Collins, John J. “Cult and Culture: The Limits of Hellenization in Judea.” Pages 38 – 61 in Hellenism in the Land of Israel. Edited by John J. Collins and Greg Sterling. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. Collins, John J. “Current Issues in the Study of Daniel.” Pages 1 – 15 in vol. 1 of The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. VTSup 83. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Collins, John J. Daniel, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees. OTM 16. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1981. Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Grand Rapids: Fortress, 1993. Collins, John J. Does the Bible Justify Violence? Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Collins, John J. “Dualism and Eschatology in 1QM: A Reply to P. R. Davies.” VT 29 (1979): 212 – 15. Collins, John J. “From Prophecy to Apocalypticism: The Expectation of the End.” Pages 129 – 61 in The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity. Edited by John J. Collins. Vol. 1 of The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism. Edited by Bernard McGinn, John J. Collins, and Stephen J. Stein. New York: Continuum, 2000. Collins, John J. “Messianism in the Maccabean Period.” Pages 97 – 109 in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Edited by Jacob Neusner, William S. Green, and Ernest Frerichs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Collins, John J. “Patterns of Eschatology at Qumran.” Pages 351 – 75 in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith. Edited by Baruch Halpern. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981. Collins, John J. “Pseudepigraphy and Group Formation in Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 43 – 58 in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12 – 14 January, 1997. Edited by Esther G. Chazon, Michael E. Stone, and Avital Pinnick. STDJ 31. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Collins, John J. “Temporality and Politics in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 26 – 43 in Apocalyptic in History and Tradition. Edited by Christopher Rowland and John M. T. Barton. JSPSup 43. London: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel. HSM 16. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977. Collins, John J. “The Expectation of the End in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 74 – 90 in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Collins, John J. “The Meaning of ‘The End’ in the Book of Daniel.” Pages 91 – 98 in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism and Christian Origins. Edited by H. W. Attridge, J. J. Collins, and T. Tobin. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990. Collins, John J. “The Mythology of Holy War in Daniel and the Qumran War Scroll: A Point of Transition in Jewish Apocalyptic.” VT 25 (1975): 596 – 612.

Bibliography

249

Collins, John J. The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Collins, John J. “The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence.” JBL 122 (2003): 3 – 21. Cook, John Granger. “Crucifixion and Burial.” NTS 57 (2011): 193 – 213. Cook, John Granger. Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World. WUNT 327. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Cook, John Granger. “Roman Crucifixions: From the Second Punic War to Constantine.” ZNW 104 (2013): 1 – 32. Costa, Tony. “The Exorcisms and Healings of Jesus Within Classical Culture.” Pages 113 – 44 in Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts. TENTS 9. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Crabbe, Kylie. “Being Found Fighting against God: Luke’s Gamaliel and Josephus on Human Responses to Divine Providence.” ZNW 106 (2015): 21 – 39. Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to St Mark. CGTC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Creach, Jerome F. D. Violence in Scripture. Interpretation: Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2013. Creed, J. M. The Gospel according to St. Luke. London: Macmillan and Co., 1930. Crossan, John Dominic. “Eschatology, Apocalypticism, and the Historical Jesus.” Pages 91 – 112 in Jesus Then and Now: Images of Jesus in History and Christology. Edited by Marvin Meyer and Charles Hughes. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001. Crossan, John Dominic. God and Empire: Jesus against Rome, Then and Now. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2007. Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus and the Violence of Scripture: How to Read the Bible and Still Be a Christian. London: SPCK, 2015. Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994. Crossan, John Dominic. The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998. Crossan, John Dominic. The Essential Jesus: Original Sayings and Earliest Images. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008. Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco: HarperOne, 1991. Crossley, James G. Jesus and the Chaos of History: Redirecting the Life of the Historical Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Croy, N. Clayton. “The Messianic Whippersnapper: Did Jesus Use a Whip on People in the Temple (John 2:15)?” JBL 128 (2009): 553 – 56. Cserháti, Márta. “Binding the Strong Man: Demon-Possession and Liberation in the Gospel of Luke.” Pages 108 – 15 in Evil and the Devil. Edited by Ida Fröhlich and Erkki Koskenniemi. LNTS 481. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Cullmann, Oscar. Jesus and the Revolutionaries. Translated by Gareth Putnam. New York: Harper & Row, 1970. Cullmann, Oscar. The State in the New Testament. New York: Scribner, 1956.

250

Bibliography

Daly, Robert J. “The New Testament and Early Church.” Pages 33 – 62 in Non-Violence, Central to Christian Spirituality: Perspectives from Scripture to the Present. Edited by Joseph T. Culliton. Toronto Studies in Theology. Toronto: Edwin Mellen, 1982. Daschke, Dereck, and D. Andrew Kille, eds. A Cry Instead of Justice: The Bible and Cultures of Violence in Psychological Perspective. LHBOTS 499. New York: T&T Clark, 2010. Davies, Philip R. 1QM. The War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1977. Davies, Philip R. “Dualism and Eschatology in 1QM: A Rejoinder.” VT 30 (1980): 93 – 97. Davies, Philip R. “Dualism and Eschatology in the Qumran War Scroll.” VT 28 (1978): 28 – 36. Davies, Philip R. “Dualism in Qumran War Texts.” Pages 8 – 19 in Dualism in Qumran. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Davies, Philip R. “Eschatology at Qumran.” JBL 104 (1985): 39 – 55. Davies, Philip R. “Eschatology in the Book of Daniel.” JSOT 17 (1980): 33 – 53. Davies, Philip R. “The Biblical and Qumranic Concept of War.” Pages 275 – 305 in The Hebrew Bible and Qumran. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. N. Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 2000. Davies, Philip R. “The Scribal School of Daniel.” Pages 247 – 65 in vol. 1 of The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. VTSup 83. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Davies, Philip R. “War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness.” Pages 965 – 68 in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James VanderKam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison, Jr. Matthew 1 – 7. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 1988. Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison, Jr. Matthew 19 – 28. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison, Jr. Matthew 8 – 18. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991. Davies, W. D., and E. P. Sanders. “Jesus: From the Jewish Point of View.” Pages 618 – 77 in The Early Roman Period. Edited by William Horbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy. Vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Davila, James R. “The Animal Apocalypse and Daniel.” Pages 35 – 38 in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Day, P. L. An Adversary in Heaven: Satan in the Hebrew Bible. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Dennis, John. “Death of Jesus.” Pages 172 – 93 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Derrett, J. Duncan M. “Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Demoniac.” JSNT 3 (1979): 2 – 17. Derrett, J. Duncan M. “History and the Two Swords.” Pages 200 – 14 in vol. 3 of Studies in the New Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1982. Derrett, J. Duncan M. “Law in the New Testament: The Syro-Phoenician Woman and the Centurion of Capernaum.” NovT 15 (1973): 161 – 86. Desjardins, Michel. Peace, Violence, and the New Testament. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997.

Bibliography

251

Deutsch, Robert. “Coinage of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome: Iconography, Minting Authority, Metallurgy.” Pages 361 – 71 in The Jewish Revolt Against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Edited by Mladen Popović. JSJSup 154. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Devir, Y. Bar Kokhba, the Man and Messiah in the Light of Talmudic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1964. Dimant, Devorah. “History According to the Vision of the Animals (Ethiopic Enoch 85 – 90).” ‫ מחקרי ירושלים במחשבח ישראל‬2 (1982): 18 – 37. Dimant, Devorah. “Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (Ethiopic Enoch 85 – 90) in the Light of the ideology of the Dead Sea Sect.” Shenaton 5 – 6 (1982): 177 – 93. Cassius, Dio. Roman History, Volume VIII: Books 61 – 70. Translated by Earnest Cary and Herbert B. Foster. LCL 176. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925. DiTommaso, Lorenzo. “Book of Daniel.” Pages 513 – 16 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Dochhorn, Jan. “The Devil in the Gospel of Mark.” Pages 98 – 107 in Evil and the Devil. Edited by Ida Fröhlich and Erkki Koskenniemi. LNTS 481. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Dodd, C. H. The Parables of the Kingdom. Fount Paperbacks. Glasgow: Collins, 1978. Donahue, John R. “A Neglected Factor in the Theology of Mark.” JBL 101 (1982): 563 – 94. Doran, Robert. Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees. CBQMS 12. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981. Dormandy, Richard. “The Expulsion of Legion: A Political Reading of Mark 5.1 – 20.” ExpTim 111 (2000): 335 – 37. Downing, F. Gerald. “Dale Martin’s Swords for Jesus: Shaky Evidence?” JSNT 37 (2015): 326 – 33. Downs, D. “Economics.” Pages 219 – 26 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Doyle, Rod. “Matthew 11:12: A Challenge to the Evangelist’s Community.” Colloq 18 (1985): 20 – 30. Drake, H. A., ed. Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Practices. London: Routledge, 2016. Duff, P. B. “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco-Roman King: Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem.” JBL 111 (1992): 55 – 71. Duhaime, Jean. “‘Le temps des guerres de tes mains’: Étude intertextuelle de 1QM xi 1 – 12.” Pages 67 – 87 in En ce temps-là. Conceptions et expériences bibliques du temps. Edited by M. Gourgues and M. Talbot. Sciences bibliques 10. Montréal: Médiaspaul, 2002. Duhaime, Jean. “La Règle de la Guerre (1QM) et la construction de l’identité sectaire.” Pages 131 – 45 in Defining Identitie: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by F. Garcia Martínez and M. Popović. STDJ 70. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Duhaime, Jean. “The War Scroll from Qumran and the Greco-Roman Tactical Treatises.” RQ 13 (1988): 133 – 51. Duhaime, Jean. The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts. CQS 6. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Duhaime, Jean. “War Scroll.” Pages 80 – 203 in Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. Vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with

252

Bibliography

English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. PTSDSSP 2. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Duhaime, Jean. “War Scroll (1QM).” Pages 1329 – 30 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Dunn, James D. G. Jesus Remembered. Vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Dunn, James D. G. “Remembering Jesus: How the Quest of the Historical Jesus Lost its Way.” Pages 183 – 205 in How to Study the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter. Vol. 1 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Dupont, Jacques. Les tentations de Jésus au désert. StudNeot 4. Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1968. Ebner, Martin. “Feindesliebe—ein Ratschlag zum Überleben? Sozial- und religionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zu Mt 5,38 – 47/Lk 6,27 – 35.” Pages 119 – 42 in From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson. Edited by Jon Ma Asgeirsson, Kristin de Troyer, and Marvin W. Meyer. BETL 146. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000. Eck, Ernest van, and Andries G. van Aarde. “Sickness and Healing in Mark: A Social Scientific Interpretation.” Neot 27 (1993): 27 – 54. Eck, W. “Hadrian, the Bar Kochba Revolt, and the Epigraphic Transmission.” Pages 153 – 70 in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome. Edited by Peter Schäfer. TSAJ 100. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Eck, W. “The Bar Kokhba Revolt: The Roman Point of View.” JRS 89 (1999): 76 – 89. Edmondson, Jonathan, Steve Mason, and James Rives, eds. Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Edwards, George R. Jesus and the Politics of Violence. New York: Harper & Row, 1972. Edwards, James R. The Gospel According to Luke. PlrNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Edwards, James R. The Gospel According to Mark. PlrNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Efron, Joshua. Studies on the Hasmonean Period. SJLA 39. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Ehrman, Bart D. “Brian and the Apocalyptic Jesus: Parody as a Historical Method.” Pages 141 – 50 in Jesus and Brian: Exploring the Historical Jesus and his Times via Monty Python’s Life of Brian. Edited by Joan E. Taylor. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Ehro, Ted M. “The Motif of the Eschatological Battle in the War Scroll (1QM).” Pages 359 – 74 in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection. Edited by Peter W. Flint, Jean Duhaime, and Kyung S. Baek. EJL 30. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Eisen, Robert. The Peace and Violence of Judaism: From the Bible to Modern Zionism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Eisler, Robert. The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist. Translated by Alexander Haggerty Krappe. London: Methuen & Co, 1931. Eisler, Robert. ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣΑΣ: Die messianische Unabhängigkeitsbewegung vom Auftreten Johannes des Täufers bis zum Untergang Jakobs des Gerechten, nach der neurschlossenen Eroberung von Jerusalem des Flavius Josephus und der christlichen Quellen. 2 vols. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1929. Elledge, C. D. “The Prince of the Congregation: Qumran ‘Messianism’ in the Context of Milḥāmâ.” Pages 178 – 207 in Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions. Edited by Michael Thomas Davis and Brent A. Strawn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

Bibliography

253

Ellens, J. Harold. Sacred Scriptures, Ideology, and Violence. Vol. 1 of The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/ Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004. Ellens, J. Harold. “The Violent Jesus.” Pages 15 – 37 in Models and Cases of Violence in Religion. Edited by J. Harold Ellens. Vol. 3 of The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004. Ellul, Jacques. Violence: Reflections from a Christian Perspective. Translated by Cecelia Gaul Kings. London: Mowbrays, 1978. Emilsen, William W., and John T. Squires, eds. Validating Violence – Violating Faith? Religion, Scripture, and Violence. Adelaide: ATF, 2008. Enermalm, A. “Prayers in War Time: Thematic Tensions in 1 Maccabees.” ST 49 (1995): 272 – 86. Eshel, Esther, and Daniel C. Harlow. “Demons and Exorcism.” Pages 531 – 33 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Eshel, Hanan. “Bar Kokhba Caves.” Pages 417 – 18 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Eshel, Hanan. “Bar Kokhba Revolt.” Pages 421 – 25 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Eshel, Hanan. “Documents of the First Jewish Revolt from the Judean Desert.” Pages 157 – 63 in The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology. Edited by Andrea M. Berlin and J. Andrew Overman. London: Routledge, 2002. Eshel, Hanan. “The Dates Used During the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” Pages 93 – 105 in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome. Edited by Peter Schäfer. TSAJ 100. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Eshel, Hanan. “The Kittim in the War Scroll and in the Pesharim.” Pages 29 – 44 in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by David Goodblatt, Avital Pinnick, and Daniel R. Schwartz. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Evans, Craig A. “Daniel in the New Testament: Visions of God’s Kingdom.” Pages 490 – 527 in vol. 2 of The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. VTSup 83. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Evans, Craig A. “Defeating Satan and Liberating Israel: Jesus and Daniel’s Visions.” JSHJ 1 (2003): 161 – 70. Evans, Craig A. “Exorcisms and the Kingdom: Inaugurating the Kingdom of God and Defeating the Kingdom of Satan.” Pages 151 – 79 in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence. Edited by Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb. WUNT 247. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Evans, Craig A. “From ‘House of Prayer’ to ‘Cave of Robbers’: Jesus’ Prophetic Criticism of the Temple Establishment.” Pages 417 – 42 in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders. Edited by Craig A. Evans and S. Talmon. BibInt 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Evans, Craig A. “Jesus and the ‘Cave of Robbers’: Towards a Jewish Context for the Temple Action.” BBR 3 (1993): 93 – 110.

254

Bibliography

Evans, Craig A. “Jesus and Zechariah’s Messianic Hope.” Pages 373 – 88 in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Edited by Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans. NTTS 28.2. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Evans, Craig A. “Jesus’ Action in the Temple and Evidence of Corruption in the First–Century Temple.” SBLSP 28 (1989): 522 – 39. Evans, Craig A. “Jesus’ Exorcisms and Proclamation of the Kingdom of God in the Light of the Testaments.” Pages 210 – 33 in The Changing Face of Judaism, Christianity, and Other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity. Edited by Ian H. Henderson and Gerbern S. Oegema. Studien zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit 2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006. Evans, Craig A. “Josephus on John the Baptist and Other Jewish Prophets of Deliverance.” Pages 55 – 63 in The Historical Jesus in Context. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison, Jr., and John Dominic Crossan. Princeton Readings in Religions. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. Evans, Craig A. Matthew. NCBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Evans, Craig A. “Reza Aslan Tells an Old Story About Jesus.” Christianity Today. 9 August 2013. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/august-web-only/zealot-reza-aslan-tellssame-old-story-about-jesus.html. Evans, Craig A, ed. The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus. New York: Routledge, 2010. Evans, Craig A. “Was Simon ben Kosiba Recognized as Messiah?” Pages 183 – 212 in Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. AGJU 25. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Evans, Craig A., and Peter W. Flint, eds. Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Eve, Eric. Behind the Gospels: Understanding the Oral Tradition. London: SPCK, 2013. Eve, Eric. “Memory, Orality and the Synoptic Problem.” EC 6 (2015): 311 – 33. Eve, Eric. The Healer of Nazareth: Jesus’ Miracles in Historical Context. London: SPCK, 2009. Eve, Eric. “The Miracles of an Eschatological Prophet.” JSHJ 13 (2016): 129 – 47. Eve, Eric. Writing the Gospels: Composition and Memory. London: SPCK, 2016. Fagan, Garrett G. “Violence in Roman Social Relations.” Pages 467 – 95 in The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World. Edited by Michael Peachin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Farmer, W. R. Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus: An Inquiry Into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. Fast, Henry A. Jesus and Human Conflict. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1959. Feldman, Louis H. “Josephus’ Portrayal of the Hasmoneans Compared with 1 Maccabees.” Pages 41 – 68 in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. Edited by Fausto Parente and Joseph Severs. StPB 41. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Feldman, Louis H. “Restoration in Josephus.” Pages 223 – 64 in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. Edited by James M. Scott. JSJSup 72. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Feldman, Louis H. “The Concept of Exile in Josephus.” Pages 145 – 72 in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. Edited by James M. Scott. JSJSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Bibliography

255

Ferda, Tucker S. “Jeremiah 7 and Flavius Josephus on the First Jewish War.” JSJ 44 (2013): 158 – 73. Fiebig, Paul. “Jesu Worte über die Feindesliebe.” TSK 91 (1918): 30 – 64. Finney, Paul C. “The Rabbi and the Coin Portrait (Mark 12:15b, 16): Rigourism Manqué.” JBL 112 (1993): 629 – 44. Fishbane, Michael. “Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran.” Pages 339 – 77 in Mikra: Texts, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Martin J. Mulder and Harry Sysling. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke (I – IX). AB 28. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke (X – XXIV). AB 28 A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The One Who is to Come. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament.” NTS 7 (1960): 298. Flesher, LeAnn Snow. “Daniel 9:24 – 27 and the Tribulation.” RevExp 109 (2012): 583 – 91. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin. “Jesus and Apocalypticism.” Pages 2877 – 909 in The Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter. Vol. 3 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Flint, Peter W. “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran.” Pages 329 – 67 in vol. 2 of The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. VTSup 83. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Flusser, David. “Apocalyptic Elements in the War Scroll.” Pages 140 – 58 in Judaism of the Second Temple Period, Volume 1: Qumran and Apocalypticism. Edited by David Flusser. Translated by A. Yadin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Flusser, David. “The Magnificat, the Benedictus, and the War Scroll.” Pages 126 – 49 in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. Edited by David Flusser. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988. Förster, Niclas. Jesus und die Steuerfrage: Die Zinsgroschenperikope auf dem religiösen und politischen Hintergrund ihrer Zeit mit einer Edition von Pseudo-Hieronymus, De haeresibus Judaeorum. WUNT 294. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Forsyth, N. The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989. Foster, Paul. “Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel: An Ongoing Conversation with Stan Porter and Hughson T. Ong.” JSHJ 12 (2014): 165 – 83. Foster, Paul. “Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel: Three Dead-Ends in Historical Jesus Research.” JSHJ 10 (2012): 191 – 227. France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Fredriksen, Paula. “Arms and the Man: A Response to Dale Martin’s ‘Jesus in Jerusalem: Armed and Not Dangerous’.” JSNT 37 (2015): 312 – 25. Fredriksen, Paula. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. New York: Alfred I. Knopf, 1999. Fredriksen, Paula. “Why Was Jesus Crucified, but His Followers Were Not?” JSNT 29 (2007): 415 – 19.

256

Bibliography

Freyne, Seán. Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Freyne, Seán. Jesus, a Jewish Galilean: A New Reading of the Jesus-Story. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004. Freyne, Seán. The Jesus Movement and Its Expansion: Meaning and Mission. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Fröhlich, Ida. “Evil in Second Temple Texts.” Pages 23 – 50 in Evil and the Devil. Edited by Ida Fröhlich and Erkki Koskenniemi. LNTS 481. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Fröhlich, Ida, and Erkki Koskenniemi, eds. Evil and the Devil. LNTS 481. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Fuchs, Albert. Die Entwicklung der Beelzebulkontroverse bei den Synoptikern: traditionsgeschichtliche und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Mk 3,22 – 27 und Parallelen. SNTSU B 5. Linz: SNTU, 1980. Fuchs, Albert. “Die Pharisäerfrage nach der Kaisersteuer: Mk 12,13 – 17 par Mt 22,15 – 22 par Lk 20,20 – 26.” SNTSU 26 (2001): 59 – 81. Funk, Robert W. Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996. Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar, eds. The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan, 1993. Gabrielson, Jeremy. “Paul’s Non-Violent Gospel: The Theological Politics of Peace in Paul’s Life and Letters.” PhD diss., University of St Andrews, 2011. Gafni, Isaiah M. “Josephus and 1 Maccabees.” in Josephus, the Bible, and History. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1988. Galtung, Johan. “Cultural Violence.” JPR 27 (1990): 291 – 305. Galtung, Johan. “Violence, Peace and Peace Research.” JPR 6 (1969): 167 – 91. Garber, Zev. “The Jewish Jesus: A Partisan’s Imagination.” Pages 13 – 19 in The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection, Reclamation. Edited by Zev Garber. Shofar Supplements in Jewish Studies. Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2011. García Martínez, Florentino. “The War Scroll and Related Literature: War and Peace in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 303 – 34 in Visions of Peace and Tales of War. Edited by Jan Liesen and Pancratius Cornelis Beentjes. DCLY 2010. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Gardner, Anne E. “The ‘Little Horn’ of Dan 7,8: Malevolent or Benign?” Bib 93 (2012): 209 – 26. Garrett, Susan R. The Temptations of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Gaston, L. No Stone on Another: Studies of the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels. NovTSup 23. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Giblin, Charles Homer. “The ‘Things of God’ in the Question Concerning Tribute to Caesar.” CBQ 33 (1971): 510 – 27. Gichon, M. “New Insight into the Bar Kokhba War and a Reappraisal of Dio Cassius 69.12 – 13.” JQR 77 (1986): 15 – 43. Giesen, H. “Dämonenaustreibungen—Erweis der Nähe der Herrschaft Gottes. Zu Mk 1,21 – 28.” Theologie der Gegenwart 32 (1989): 24 – 37. Gillman, J. “A Temptation to Violence: The Two Swords in Lk 22:35 – 38.” LS 9 (1982): 142 – 53. Girard, René. Violence and the Sacred. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1977.

Bibliography

257

Gmirkin, Russell. “Historical Allusions in the War Scroll.” DSD 5 (1998): 172 – 214. Gmirkin, Russell. “The War Scroll and Roman Weaponry Reconsidered.” DSD 3 (1996): 89 – 129. Gmirkin, Russell. “The War Scroll, the Hasidim, and the Maccabean Conflict.” Pages 486 – 96 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, James VanderKam, and Galen Marquis. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in Cooperation with The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000. Goldingay, John E. Daniel. WBC 30. Dallas: Word Books, 1987. Goldstein, Jonathan. 1 Maccabees: A New Translation, with Introduction and Commentary. AB 41. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. Goldstein, Jonathan. “How the Authors of 1 and 2 Maccabees Treated the ‘Messianic’ Promises.” Pages 69 – 96 in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Edited by Jacob Neusner, William S. Green, and Ernest Frerichs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Goodblatt, David. Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Goodman, Martin. “Coinage and Identity: the Jewish Evidence.” Pages 163 – 66 in Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces. Edited by Christopher Howgego, Volker Heuchert, and Andrew Burnett. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Goodman, Martin. “Messianism and Politics in the Land of Israel, 66 – 135 C.E.” Pages 149 – 57 in Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity. Edited by Markus Bockmuehl and James Carleton Paget. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Goodman, Martin. “The First Jewish Revolt: Social Conflict and the Problem of Debt.” JJS 33 (1982): 417 – 27. Goodman, Martin. “The Origins of the Great Revolt.” Pages 39 – 53 in Greece and Rome in Eretz-Israel: Collected Studies. Edited by A. Kasher, U. Rappaport, and G. Fuks. Jerusalem: Yad ben Zvi and Israel Exploration Society, 1990. Goodman, Martin. The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt Against Rome, A.D. 66 – 70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Goodman, Martin. “Trajan and the Origins of the Bar Kochba War.” Pages 23 – 29 in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome. Edited by Peter Schäfer. TSAJ 100. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Gore-Jones, Lydia. “Animals, Humans, Angels and God: Animal Symbolism in the Historiography of the ‘Animal Apocalypse’ of 1 Enoch.” JSP 24 (2015): 268 – 87. Goswell, Greg. “The Eschatology of Malachi after Zechariah 14.” JBL 132 (2013): 625 – 38. Gowan, Donald E. Eschatology in the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. Grabbe, Lester L. “Chronography in Hellenistic Jewish Historiography.” Pages 43 – 68 in vol. 2 of SBL Seminar Papers, 1979. Edited by Paul J. Achtemeier. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1979. Grabbe, Lester L. “Eschatology in Philo and Josephus.” Pages 163 – 85 in Death, Life-afterdeath, Resurrection and the World-to-come in the Judaisms of Antiquity. Vol. 4 of Judaism in Late Antiquity. Edited by A. J. Avery-Peck and J. Neusner. HdO I/49. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Grabbe, Lester L. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. Volume Two: The Roman Period. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.

258

Bibliography

Grabbe, Lester L. “Warfare.” Pages 2:963 – 965 in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James C. VanderKam and Lawrence H. Schiffman. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Gräßer, Erich. Die Naherwartung Jesu. SBS. Stuttgart: KBW Verlag, 1973. Gray, Rebecca. Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Green, Joel B. “Crucifixion.” Pages 87 – 101 in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. Edited by Markus Bockmuehl. Cambridge Companions to Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Green, Joel B. “Kingdom of God/Heaven.” Pages 468 – 81 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Gregg, Brian Han. The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q. WUNT 2/207. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Griffiths, John Gwyn. “Tacitus Hist. 5. 13. 2 and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 113 (1970): 363 – 68. Grol, H. W. M. van. “Three Hasidisms and Their Militant Ideologies: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Psalms 144 and 149.” Pages 93 – 115 in Between Evidence and Ideology: Essays on the History of Ancient Israel Read at the Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and the Oud Testamentisch Wekgezelschap, Lincoln, July 2009. Edited by Bob Becking and Lester L. Grabbe. OTS 59. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1 – 8:26. WBC 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989. Guijarro, Santiago. “The Politics of Exorcism.” Pages 159 – 74 in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Wolfgang Stegemann, Bruce J. Malina, and Gerd Theissen. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Guijarro, Santiago. “The Politics of Exorcism: Jesus’ Reaction to Negative Labels in the Beelzebul Controversy.” BTB 29 (1997): 118 – 29. Guillemette, Pierre. “Mc 1, 24 est-il une formule de défense magique?” ScEs 30 (1978): 81 – 96. Gundry, R. H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Gurtner, Daniel M. “‘Fasting’ and ‘Forty Nights’: The Matthean Temptation Narrative (4:1 – 11) and Moses Typology.” Pages 1 – 11 in ‘What Does the Scripture Say?’ Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity. Volume 1: The Synoptic Gospels. Edited by Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias. LNTS 469. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Gurtner, Daniel M. “On the Other Side of Disaster: Soteriology in 2 Baruch.” Pages 114 – 26 in This World and the World to Come: Soteriology in Early Judaism. Edited by Daniel M. Gurtner. LSTS 74. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Gurtner, Daniel M., and Nicholas Perrin. “Temple.” Pages 939 – 47 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Haacker, K. “Kaisertribut und Gottesdienst (Eine Auslegung von Markus 12,13 – 17).” TBei 17 (1986): 285 – 92. Haacker, K. “Zeit zur Umkehr! Jesu Gleichnis vom unfruchtbaren Feigenbaum (Lk 13:6 – 9).” TBei 40 (2009): 338 – 44.

Bibliography

259

Hägerland, Tobias. “The Future of Criteria in Historical Jesus Research.” JSHJ 13 (2015): 43 – 65. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1 – 13. WBC 33A. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 14 – 28. WBC 33B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995. Hahn, I. “Josephus und die Eschatologie von Qumran.” Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften 42 (1963): 167 – 72. Ham, C. The Coming King and the Rejected Shepherd: Matthew’s Reading of Zechariah’s Messianic Hope. New Testament Monographs 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005. Hamerton-Kelly, R. G. “A Note on Matthew xii.28 Par. Luke xi.20.” NTS 11 (1965): 167 – 69. Hamilton, Catherine S. “‘His Blood Be upon Us’: Innocent Blood and the Death of Jesus in Matthew.” CBQ 70 (2008): 82 – 100. Hamm, Mark S. “Apocalyptic Violence: The Seduction of Terrorist Subcultures.” Theoretical Criminology 8 (2004): 323 – 39. Hanson, Paul D. “War and Peace in the Hebrew Bible.” Int 38 (1984): 341 – 62. Harrington, Daniel J. “‘Holy War’ Texts Among the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 175 – 83 in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich. Edited by Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov, and James VanderKam. VTSup 101. Boston: Brill, 2006. Harrington, Daniel J. “Maccabean Revolt.” Pages 900 – 2 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Hartman, Louis F., and Alexander Di Lella. The Book of Daniel. AB 23. Garden City: Doubleday, 2005. Hays, Christopher M. “Slaughtering Stewards and Incarcerating Debtors: Coercing Charity in Luke 12:35 – 13:9.” Neot 46 (2012): 41 – 60. Hays, Christopher M. “Theological Hermeneutics and the Historical Jesus: A Critical Evaluation of Gadamerian Approaches and a New Methodological Proposal.” Pages 129 – 57 in The Quest for the Real Jesus: Radboud Prestige Lectures by Prof. Dr. Michael Wolter. Edited by Jan van der Watt. BibInt 120. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Hays, Richard B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. San Francisco: HarperOne, 1996. Heard, W. J. “The Maccabean Martyrs’ Contribution to Holy War.” EvQ 58 (1986): 291 – 318. Heard, W. J., and K. Yamazaki-Ransom. “Revolutionary Movements.” Pages 789 – 99 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Heil, C. “Die Rezeption von Micha 7,6 LXX in Q und Lukas.” ZNW 88 (1997): 211 – 22. Heiligenthal, Roman. “Wehrlosigkeit oder Selbstschutz? Aspekte zum Verständnis des lukullischen Schwertwortes.” NTS 41 (1995): 39 – 58. Hengel, Martin. Christus und die Macht—Die Macht Christi und die Ohnmacht der Christen. Zur Problematik einer ‘Politischen Theologie’ in der Geschichte der Kirche. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1974. Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Translated by J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Hengel, Martin. “Der Finger und die Herrschaft Gottes in Lk 11,20.” Pages 87 – 106 in La Main de Dieu—Die Hand Gottes. Edited by René Kieffer and Jan Bergman. WUNT 94. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Hengel, Martin. Die Zeloten: Untersuchungen zur Jüdischen Freiheitsbewegung in der Zeit von Herodes I. bis 70 n. Chr. AGSU 1. Leiden: Brill, 1961.

260

Bibliography

Hengel, Martin. Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit: Zur “politischen Theologie” in neutestamentlicher Zeit. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1971. Hengel, Martin. “Review of S. G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity.” JSS 14 (1969): 231 – 40. Hengel, Martin. The Zealots: Investigations Into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I Until 70 A.D. Translated by David Smith. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989. Hengel, Martin. Victory over Violence: Jesus and the Revolutionists. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973. Hengel, Martin. War Jesus Revolutionär? Stuttgart: Calwer, 1970. Hengel, Martin. Was Jesus a Revolutionist? Translated by William Klassen. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Hengel, Martin. “Zeloten und Sikarier: zur Frage der Einheit und Vielfalt der jüdischen Befreiungsbewegung 6 – 74 n Chr.” Pages 175 – 96 in Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament: Otto Mechel z 70sten Geburstag gewidmet. Edited by Otto Betz, Klaus Haacker, and Martin Hengel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. Hennel, Charles Christian. An Inquiry Concerning the Origin of Christianity. Cambridge Library Collection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Henten, Jan Willem van. “Religion, Bible and Violence.” Pages 3 – 21 in Coping with Violence in the New Testament. Edited by Pieter G. R. de Villiers and Jan Willem van Henten. STAR 16. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Henten, Jan Willem van. “Royal Ideology: 1 and 2 Maccabees and Egypt.” Pages 265 – 82 in Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers. Edited by Tessa Rajak, Sarah Pearce, J. K. Aitken, and Jennifer M. Dines. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. Henten, Jan Willem van. The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees. JSJSup 57. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Henze, Matthias. “Enoch’s Dream Visions and the Visions of Daniel Reconsidered.” Pages 17 – 22 in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Henze, Matthias. Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel: Reading Second Baruch in Context. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Henze, Matthias. “The Apocalypse of Weeks and the Architecture of the End Time.” Pages 207 – 9 in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Henze, Matthias, and Gabriele Boccaccini, eds. Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction After the Fall. JSJSup 164. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Herrmann, Wolfgang. “Baal Zebub.” Pages 154 – 56 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Herschberger, Guy F. War, Peace, and Nonresistance. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1969. Herzog, W. R. “Dissembling, a Weapon of the Weak: The Case of Christ and Caesar in Mark 12:13 – 17 and Romans 13:1 – 7.” PRSt 21 (1994): 339 – 60. Herzog, W. R. Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Hieke, Thomas. “The Role of ‘Scripture’ in the Last Words of Matthathias (1 Macc 2:49 – 70).” Pages 61 – 74 in The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology. Papers of the

Bibliography

261

Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books. Pápa, Hungary, 9 – 11 June, 2005. Edited by Geza Xeravits and József Zsengellér. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Hiers, Richard H. The Kingdom of God in the Synoptic Tradition. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1970. Höffken, Peter. Josephus Flavius und das prophetische Erbe Israels. Lüneburger theologische Beiträge 4. Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2006. Hoffman, Paul. “Tradition und Situation: Zur ‘Verbindlichkeit’ des Gebots der Feindesliebe in der synoptischen Überlieferung und in der gegenwärtigen Friedensdiskussion.” Pages 50 – 118 in Ethik im Neuen Testament. Edited by Karl Kertelge. QD 102. Freiburg: Herder, 1984. Hofius, O. “Die Allmacht des Sohnes Gottes und das Gebet des Glaubens: Erwägungen zu Thema und Aussage der Wundererzählung Mk 9,14 – 29.” ZTK 101 (2004): 117 – 37. Hogeterp, Albert L. A. Expectations of the End: A Comparative Tradition-Historical Study of Eschatological, Apocalyptic and Messianic Ideas in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. STDJ 83. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Holmén, Tom. “Hermeneutics of Dissimilarity in the Early Judaism-Jesus-Early Christianity Continuum.” Pages 3 – 42 in Jesus in Continuum. Edited by Tom Holmén. WUNT 289. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Holmén, Tom. Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking. BibInt 55. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Holmén, Tom, ed. Jesus in Continuum. WUNT 289. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Holmén, Tom. “Jesus in Continuum from Early Judaism to Early Christianity: PracticalMethodological Reflections on a Missed Perspective.” Pages 201 – 12 in Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Holmén, Tom. “The Jewishness of Jesus in the ‘Third Quest’.” Pages 143 – 62 in Jesus, Mark and Q: The Teaching of Jesus and its Earliest Records. Edited by Tom Holmén. JSNTSup 214. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Holmén, Tom, and Stanley E. Porter, eds. Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Hölscher, Tonio. “Images of War in Greece and Rome: Between Military Practice, Public Memory, and Cultural Symbolism.” JRS 93 (2003): 1 – 17. Hon-fai Wong, Solomon. The Temple Incident in Mark 11,15 – 19: The Disclosure of Jesus and the Marcan Faction. New Testament Studies in Contextual Exegesis 5. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2009. Hooker, Morna. “On Using the Wrong Tool.” Theology 75 (1972): 570 – 81. Horbury, William. Jewish War Under Trajan and Hadrian. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Horbury, William. “Liberty in the Coin-Legends of the Jewish Revolts.” Pages 139 – 52 in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies. Edited by J. K. Aitken, K. J. Dell, and B. A. Mastin. BZAW 420. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Horsley, Richard A. “Ancient Jewish Banditry and the Revolt Against Rome, A.D. 66 – 70.” CBQ 43 (1981): 409 – 32. Horsley, Richard A. “‘By the Finger of God’: Jesus and Imperial Violence.” Pages 51 – 80 in Violence in the New Testament. Edited by Shelly Matthews and E. Leigh Gibson. New York: T&T Clark, 1988.

262

Bibliography

Horsley, Richard A. “Ethics and Exegesis: ‘Love Your Enemy’ and the Doctrine of Nonviolence.” Pages 72 – 101 in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament. Edited by Willard M. Swartley. SPS 3. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Horsley, Richard A. Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Horsley, Richard A., ed. Hidden Transcripts and the Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul. SemeiaSt 48. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2013. Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and the Power: Conflict, Covenant, and the Hope of the Poor. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Horsley, Richard A. “Josephus and the Bandits.” JSJ 10 (1979): 37 – 63. Horsley, Richard A. “‘Like One of the Prophets of Old’: Two Types of Popular Prophets at the Time of Jesus.” CBQ 47 (1985): 435 – 63. Horsley, Richard A. “Menahem in Jerusalem: A Brief Messianic Episode Among the Sicarii— Not ‘Zealot Messianism’.” NovT 27 (1985): 334 – 48. Horsley, Richard A. “Popular Messianic Movements around the Time of Jesus.” CBQ 46 (1984): 471 – 95. Horsley, Richard A. “Power Vacuum and Power Struggle in 66 – 7 C.E.” Pages 87 – 109 in The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology. Edited by Andrea M. Berlin and J. Andrew Overman. London: Routledge, 2002. Horsley, Richard A. “Response to Walter Wink.” Pages 126 – 32 in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament. Edited by Willard M. Swartley. SPS 3. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Horsley, Richard A. The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel: Moving Beyond a Diversionary Debate. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Horsley, Richard A. “The Sicarii: Ancient Jewish ‘Terrorists’.” JR 59 (1979): 435 – 58. Horsley, Richard A. “The Zealots: Their Origin, Relationships and Importance in the Jewish Revolt.” NovT 28 (1986): 159 – 92. Horsley, Richard A., and John S. Hanson. Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1985. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101 – 150. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011. Huat, T. K. “Exorcism and Empire in Mark.” TTJ 14 (2006): 34 – 47. Huizenga, Leroy A. The New Isaac: Tradition and Intertextuality in the Gospel of Matthew. NovTSup 131. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Hultgren, Arland J. “Eschatology in the New Testament: The Current Debate.” Pages 67 – 89 in The Last Things: Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Eschatology. Edited by Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Bibliography

263

Hultgren, Arland J. Jesus and His Adversaries: The Form and Function of the Conflict Stories in the Synoptic Tradition. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979. Isaac, Benjamin. “Bandits in Judaea and Arabia.” HSCP 88 (1984): 171 – 203. Isaac, Benjamin. “Cassius Dio on the Revolt of Bar Kokhba.” Pages 211 – 19 in The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers. Edited by Benjamin Isaac. Mnemosyne, Supplements 177. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Isaac, Benjamin. “Roman Religious Policy and the Bar Kokhba War.” Pages 37 – 54 in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome. Edited by Peter Schäfer. TSAJ 100. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Isaac, Benjamin. The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Isaac, Benjamin, and Aharon Oppenheimer. “The Revolt of Bar Kokhba: Ideology and Modern Scholarship.” JJS 36 (1985): 33 – 60. Isaac, Ephraim. “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch.” Pages 5 – 89 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Volume One: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1983. Jackson, Glenna S. “Have Mercy on Me”: The Story of the Canaanite Woman in Matthew 15.21 – 28. JSNTSup 228. London: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Janowitz, Naomi. Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews and Christians. London: Routledge, 2001. Janse, Sam. “A Little Help or a Great Help? Jesus and His Time Against the Background of 1, 2 Maccabees and Daniel.” Scriptura 101 (2009): 397 – 403. Jassen, Alex. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Violence: Sectarian Formation and Eschatological Imagination.” BibInt 17 (2009): 12 – 44. Jeremias, J. New Testament Theology. Part 1: The Proclamation of Jesus. NTL. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1971. Jeremias, J. The Parables of Jesus. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1972. Johns, Loren L. “Identity and Resistance: the Varieties of Competing Models in Early Judaism.” Pages 254 – 77 in Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions. Edited by Michael Thomas Davis and Brent A. Strawn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996. Jones, D. L. “The Title παῖς in Luke-Acts.” SBLSP (1982): 217 – 26. Jones, Gwilym H. “The Concept of Holy War.” Pages 299 – 321 in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives. Edited by R. E. Clements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Jonge, Marinus de. “Josephus und die Zukunftserwartungen seines Volkes.” Pages 205 – 19 in Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament: Otto Mechel z 70sten Geburstag gewidmet. Edited by Otto Betz, Klaus Haacker, and Martin Hengel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. Joseph, Simon J. “‘Blessed is Whoever is Not Offended by Me’: The Subversive Appropriation of (Royal) Messianic Ideology in Q 3 – 7.” NTS 57 (2011): 307 – 24. Joseph, Simon J. “Armed and Dangerous?” Simon J. Joseph. 23 Sept 2014. http://simonjjo seph.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/armed-and-dangerous.html. Joseph, Simon J. The Nonviolent Messiah: Jesus, Q, and the Enochic Tradition. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014.

264

Bibliography

Joseph, Simon J. “Was Daniel 7.13’s ‘Son of Man’ Modeled after the ‘New Adam’ of the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 90)? A Comparative Study.” JSP 22 (2013): 269 – 94. Josephus, Flavius. Jewish Antiquities, Volume II: Books 4 – 6. LCL 490. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray and Ralph Marcus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930. Josephus, Flavius. Jewish Antiquities, Volume III: Books 7 – 8. LCL 281. Translated by Ralph Marcus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934. Josephus, Flavius. Jewish Antiquities, Volume IX: Book 20. LCL 456. Translated by Louis H. Feldman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965. Josephus, Flavius. Jewish Antiquities, Volume VIII: Books 18 – 19. LCL 433. Translated by Louis H. Feldman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965. Josephus, Flavius. The Jewish War, Volume I: Books 1 – 2. LCL 203. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927. Josephus, Flavius. The Jewish War, Volume II: Books 3 – 4. LCL 487. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927. Josephus, Flavius. The Jewish War, Volume III: Books 5 – 7. LCL 210. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928. Juergensmeyer, Mark, Margo Kitts, and Michael Jerryson. “Introduction: The Enduring Relationship of Religion and Violence.” Pages 1 – 12 in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence. Edited by Mark Juergensmeyer, Margo Kitts, and Michael Jerryson. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Kadman, L. The Coins of the Jewish War of 66 – 73 CE. Jerusalem: Schocken Publishing House, 1960. Kaiser, Otto. “‘Our Forefathers Never Triumphed by Arms.’ The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Addresses of Flavius Josephus to the Besieged Jerusalemites in Bell. Jud. V. 356 – 426.” Pages 239 – 64 in History and Identity: How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed its Earlier History. Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages and Jan Liesen. DCLY 2006. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Kampen, John. “A Reexamination of the Relationship Between Matthew 5:21 – 48 and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” SBLSP 29 (1990): 34 – 59. Kampen, John. The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism: A Study in 1 and 2 Maccabees. SCS 24. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Käsemann, Ernst. “The Problem of the Historical Jesus.” Pages 45 – 47 in Essays on New Testament Themes. Translated by W. J. Montague. SBT 41. London: SPCK, 1964. Kautsky, Karl. Der Ursprung des Christentums. Eine historische Untersuchung. Stuttgart: Verlag von J. H. W. Dietz Nachf., 1908. Keck, Leander E. Who Is Jesus? History in Perfect Tense. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2000. Kee, H. C. “The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories.” NTS 14 (1968): 232 – 46. Keener, Craig S. “Cultural Comparisons for Healing and Exorcism Narratives in Matthew’s Gospel.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 66 (2010). Art. #808, 7 pages. Keener, Craig S. “Jesus and Parallel Greco-Roman Figures.” Pages 85 – 111 in Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts. TENTS 9. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Keener, Craig S. Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Keener, Craig S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Bibliography

265

Kehinde, Simeon F. “‘The Violent Kingdom’ in Matthew 11:12 and its Implications for Contemporary Christians.” Ogbomoso Journal of Theology 12 (2007): 99 – 106. Keith, Chris. “Memory and Authenticity: Jesus Tradition and What Really Happened.” ZNW 102 (2011): 155 – 77. Keith, Chris. “Social Memory Theory and Gospels Research: The First Decade (Part One).” EC 6 (2015): 354 – 76. Keith, Chris. “Social Memory Theory and Gospels Research: The First Decade (Part Two).” EC 6 (2015): 517 – 42. Keith, Chris. “The Narratives of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus: Current Debates, Prior Debates and the Goal of Historical Jesus Research.” JSNT 38 (2016): 426 – 55. Keith, Chris, and Anthony Le Donne, eds. Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Kennard, J. Spencer. Render to God: A Study of the Tribute Passage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950. Kinman, Brent. Jesus’ Entry Into Jerusalem: In the Context of Lukan Theology and the Politics of His Day. AGJU 28. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Kinman, Brent. “Jesus’ Royal Entry into Jerusalem.” Pages 383 – 427 in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence. Edited by Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb. WUNT 247. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Kirchschläger, Walter. Jesu exorzistisches Wirken aus der Sicht des Lukas: ein Beitrag zur Lukanischen Redaktion. ÖBS 3. Klosterneuburg: Verlag Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981. Kirk, Alan. “The Memory of Violence and the Death of Jesus in Q.” Pages 191 – 206 in Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity. Edited by Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher. SemeiaSt 52. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Klassen, William. “A ‘Child of Peace’ (Luke 10:6) in First Century Context.” NTS 27 (1981): 488 – 506. Klassen, William. “Jesus and the Zealot Option.” Pages 131 – 49 in The Wisdom of the Cross: Essays in Honor of John Howard Yoder. Edited by Stanley Hauerwas, Chris K. Huebner, Harry J. Huebner, and Mark Thiessen Nation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Klassen, William. “Jesus and the Zealot Option.” CJT 16 (1970): 12 – 21. Klassen, William. “‘Love Your Enemies’: Some Reflections on the Current Status of Research.” Pages 1 – 31 in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament. Edited by Willard M. Swartley. SPS 3. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Klassen, William. “Love Your Enemy: A Study of New Testament Teaching on Coping with an Enemy.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 37 (1963): 147 – 71. Klausner, Joseph. Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching. Translated by Herbert Danby. New York: Macmillan, 1925. Klausner, Joseph. The Messianic Idea in Israel: From Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah. Translated by W. F. Stinespring. Hebrew 3rd ed. London: Allen & Unwin, 1956. Klinghardt, M. “Legionsschweine in Gerasa: Lokalkolorit und historischer Hintergrund von Mk 5, 1 – 20.” ZNW 98 (2007): 28 – 48. Kloner, Amos, and Boaz Zissu. “Hiding Complexes in Judaea: An Archaeological and Geographical Update on the Area of the Bar Kochba Revolt.” Pages 181 – 216 in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome. Edited by Peter Schäfer. TSAJ 100. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

266

Bibliography

Kloppenborg, John S. “The Representation of Violence in Synoptic Parables.” Pages 323 – 51 in Mark and Matthew I. Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their First-Century Settings. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker and Anders Runesson. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Klouda, Sheri L. “Applying Fishbane’s Hermeneutical Strategies: Aggadic Exegesis in Matthew’s Use of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:21 – 48).” SwJT 46 (2004): 19 – 30. Klutz, T. “The Grammar of Exorcism in the Ancient Mediterranean World: Some Cosmological, Semantic and Pragmatic Reflections on How Exorcistic Prowess Contributed to the Worship of Jesus.” Pages 156 – 65 in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus. Edited by Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis. JSJSup 63. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Knibb, Michael A. “Eschatology and Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 327 – 48 in Essays on the Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions. SVTP 22. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Knibb, Michael A. “Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37 – 71).” Pages 585 – 87 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Koch, Klaus. “History as a Battlefield of Two Antagonistic Powers in the Apocalypse of Weeks and in the Rule of the Community.” Pages 185 – 99 in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Konradt, Matthias. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. NTD Neues Göttinger Bibelwerk – Neubearbeitungen 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Konradt, Matthias. Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew. Translated by Kathleen Ess. Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014. Konradt, Matthias. “The Love Command in Matthew, James and the Didache.” Pages 271 – 88 in Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings. Edited by Hubertus Waltherus Maria can de Sandt and Jürgen Zangenberg. SBLSymS 45. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Kooij, Arie van der. “The Claim of Maccabean Leadership and the Use of Scripture.” Pages 29 – 49 in Jewish Identity and Politics between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba: Groups, Normativity and Rituals. Edited by Benedikt Eckhardt. JSJSup 155. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Koskenniemi, Erkki. “The Traditional Roles Inverted: Jesus and the Devil’s Attack.” BZ 52 (2008): 261 – 68. Kratz, Reinhard Gregor. “Reich Gottes und Gesetz im Danielbuch und im werdenden Judentum.” Pages 435 – 79 in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings. Edited by A. S. van der Woude. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993. Kruger, H. A. J. “A Sword over His Head or in His Hand? Luke 22:35 – 38.” Pages 596 – 604 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. BETL 131. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. Kruse, Heinz. “Das Reich Satans.” Bib 58 (1977): 29 – 61. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. “Das Liebesgebot Jesus als Tora und als Evangelium: Zur Feindesliebe und zur christlichen und jüdischen Auslegung der Bergpredigt.” Pages 194 – 230 in Vom

Bibliography

267

Urchristentum zu Jesus. Edited by H. Frankemölle and K. Kertelge. Freiburg: Herder, 1989. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. “Die Kreuzesstrafe während der frühen Kaiserzeit. Ihre Wirklichkeit und Wertung in der Umwelt des Urchristentums.” ANRW 25.1:648 – 793. Part 2, Principat, 25.1. New York: de Gruyter, 1982. Kümmel, W. G. Promise and Fulfillment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus. Translated by D. M. Barton. 2nd ed. SBT 23. London: SCM, 1961. Kvalbein, Hans. “The Wonders of the End-Time: Metaphoric Language in 4Q521 and the Interpretation of Matthew 11.5 par.” JSP 18 (1998): 87 – 110. Kvanvig, H. S. “Throne Visions and Monsters: The Encounter Between Danielic and Enochic Traditions.” ZAW 117 (2005): 249 – 72. Laato, Antti. A Star is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations. International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism (University of South Florida) 5. Atlanta: Scholars, 1997. Lacocque, André. “The Socio-Spiritual Formative Milieu of the Daniel Apocalypse.” Pages 315 – 43 in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings. Edited by A. S. van der Woude. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993. Ladd, G. E. The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism. London: SPCK, 1974. Lake, Kirsopp. “The Zealots.” Pages 424 in The Beginnings of Christianity, Vol. 1: The Acts of the Apostles. Edited by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. London: Macmillan, 1920. Lambek, Michael. “From Disease to Discourse: Remarks on the Conceptualization of Trance and Spirit Possession.” Pages 36 – 61 in Altered States of Consciousness and Mental Health. Edited by Colleen Ward. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1989. Lambrecht, J. “Is Active Nonviolent Resistance Jesus’ Third Way? An Answer to Walter Wink.” LS 19 (1994): 350 – 51. Lambrecht, J. “The Sayings of Jesus on Nonviolence.” LS 12 (1987): 291 – 305. Lampe, G. W. H. “The Two Swords (Luke 22:35 – 38).” Pages 335 – 51 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Lane, William L. The Gospel of Mark. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Lange, A., H. Lichtenberger, and K. F. Diethard Römheld, eds. Die Dämonen/Demons: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt/The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of Their Environment. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Lange, Armin. “Satanic Verses: The Adversary in the Qumran Manuscripts and Elsewhere.” RevQ 24 (2009): 35 – 48. Lapin, H. “Palm Fronds and Citrons: Notes on Two Letters from Bar Kosiba’s Administration.” HUCA 44 (1993): 11 – 135. Lasserre, Jean. War and the Gospel. Translated by Oliver Coburn. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1962. Lau, M. “Die Legio X Fretensis und der Besessene von Gerasa Anmerkungen zur Zahlenangabe ‘ungefähr Zweitausend’ (Mk 5,13).” Bib 88 (2007): 351 – 64. Lawrence, Bruce B., and Aisha Karim, eds. On Violence: A Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007.

268

Bibliography

Le Donne, Anthony. Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know it? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Le Donne, Anthony. “Memory, Commemoration and History in John 2:19 – 22: A Critique and Application of Social Memory.” Pages 186 – 204 in The Fourth Gospel in First-Century Media Culture. European Studies on Christian Origins /LNTS 426. Edited by Anthony Le Donne and Tom Thatcher. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Le Donne, Anthony. The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. Leivestad, R. Christ the Conqueror. London: SPCK, 1954. Levine, Lee I. “Temple, Jerusalem.” Pages 1281 – 91 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Lichtenberger, Hermann. “Demonology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament.” Pages 267 – 80 in Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of the Orion Centre for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Centre for the Study of Christianity, 11 – 13 January, 2004. Edited by Ruth A. Clements and Daniel R. Schwartz. STDJ 84. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Lienemann, Wolfgang. Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit: Studien zur abendländischen Vorgeschichte der gegenwärtigen Wahrnehmung von Gewalt. Forschungen und Berichte der Evangelischen Studiengemeinschaft 36. Munich: Kaiser, 1982. Liesen, Jan. “Violence in the Gospel According to Matthew: ‘I have not come to bring peace … but a sword’ (Matt 10:34; 11:12).” Pages 263 – 78 in Visions of Peace and Tales of War. Edited by Jan Liesen and Pancratius Cornelis Beentjes. DCLY 2010. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Lindner, H. Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum: Gleichzeitig ein Beitrag zur Quellenfrage. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Linton, O. “St. Matthew 5,43.” ST 18 (1964): 66 – 79. Llewelyn, Stephen. “The Traditionsgeschichte of Matt 11:12 – 13, par. Luke 16:16.” NovT 36 (1994): 330 – 49. Loader, W. R. G. “Son of David, Blindness, Possession, and Duality in Matthew.” CBQ 44 (1982): 570 – 85. Love, Stuart L. “Jesus, Healer of the Canaanite Woman’s Daughter in Matthew’s Gospel: A Social-Scientific Inquiry.” BTB 32 (2002): 11 – 20. Lührmann, Dieter. “Liebet eure Feinde (Lk 6,27 – 36; Mt 5,39 – 48).” ZTK 69 (1972): 412 – 38. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1 – 20. AB 21 A. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Lundström, G. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus: A History of Interpretation from the Last Decades of the Nineteenth Century to the Present Day. Translated by J. Bulman. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1963. Luz, Ulrich. “Jesu Gebot der Feindselige und die kirchliche Verantwortung für den Frieden.” Reformatio 31 (1982): 253 – 66. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1 – 7: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Translated by James E. Crouch. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 21 – 28: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Translated by James E. Crouch. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 8 – 20: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Translated by James E. Crouch. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.

Bibliography

269

Maccoby, Hyam. “Jesus and Barabbas.” NTS 16 (1969): 55 – 60. Maccoby, Hyam. Revolution in Judaea: Jesus and the Jewish Resistance. 2nd ed. New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1980. Maclean, Jennifer K. Berenson. “Barabbas, the Scapegoat Ritual, and the Development of the Passion Narrative.” HTR 100 (2007): 309 – 34. Manson, T. W. The Sayings of Jesus: As Recorded in the Gospels According to St. Matthew and St. Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Manson, T. W. The Teaching of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935. Mantel, H. “The Causes of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” JQR 58 (1968): 224 – 242, 274 – 296. Marcus, Joel. “Crucifixion as Parodic Exaltation.” JBL 125 (2006): 73 – 87. Marcus, Joel. “Meggitt on the Madness and Kingship of Jesus.” JSNT 29 (2007): 421 – 24. Marcus, Joel. “No More Zealots in the House of the Lord: A Note on the History of Interpretation of Zechariah 14:21.” NovT 55 (2013): 22 – 30. Marcus, Joel. “The Beelzebul Controversy and the Eschatologies of Jesus.” Pages 247 – 77 in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Edited by Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans. NTTS 28.2. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Marshall, L. H. The Challenge of New Testament Ethics. London: Macmillan and Co., 1950. Martin, Dale B. “Jesus in Jerusalem: Armed and Not Dangerous.” JSNT 37 (2014): 3 – 24. Martin, Dale B. “Response to Downing and Fredriksen.” JSNT 37 (2015): 334 – 45. Martin, Dale B. “Still a Firebrand, 2,000 Years Later: ‘Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth’.” The New York Times. 5 August 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/ books/reza-aslans-zealot-the-life-and-times-of-jesus-of-nazareth.html?_r=0. Martinez, Roberto. The Question of John the Baptist and Jesus’ Indictment of the Religious Leaders: A Critical Analysis of Luke 7:18 – 35. Cambridge: James Clarke, 2012. März, C. -P. “Zur Vorgeschichte von Lk 12,49 – 59.” SNTSU 12 (1987): 69 – 84. Mason, Steve. A History of the Jewish War: A.D. 66 – 74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Mason, Steve. “Being Earnest, Being Playful: Speech and Speeches in Josephus and Acts.” Sapientia Logos 3 (2011): 1 – 82. Mason, Steve. “Contradiction or Counterpoint? Josephus and Historical Method.” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 6 (2003): 145 – 88. Mason, Steve. “Figured Speech and Irony in T. Flavius Josephus.” Pages 244 – 88 in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. Edited by Jonathan Edmondson, Steve Mason, and James Rives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Mason, Steve. “Josephus.” Pages 828 – 32 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Mason, Steve. “Josephus, Daniel, and the Flavian House.” Pages 161 – 91 in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. Edited by Fausto Parente and Joseph Severs. StPB 41. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Mason, Steve. “Of Audience and Meaning: Reading Josephus’ Bellum Judaicum in the Context of a Flavian Audience.” Pages 71 – 100 in Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond. Edited by Joseph Sievers and Gaia Lembi. JSJSup 104. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

270

Bibliography

Mason, Steve. “What is History? Using Josephus for the Judaean-Roman War.” Pages 155 – 240 in The Jewish Revolt Against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Edited by Mladen Popović. JSJSup 154. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Mason, Steve. “Why Did Judaeans Go to War with Rome in 66 – 67 CE? Realist-Regional Perspectives.” Pages 126 – 206 in Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries: How to Write Their History. Edited by Peter J. Tomson and Joshua Schwartz. CRINT 13. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Matson, David Lertis. “Pacifist Jesus? The (Mis)Translation of ἐᾶτε ἕως τούτο in Luke 22:51.” JBL 134 (2015): 157 – 76. Matthews, Shelly, and E. Leigh Gibson, eds. Violence in the New Testament. New York: T&T Clark, 1988. Mattila, Sharon Lea. “Two Contrasting Eschatologies at Qumran (4Q246 vs 1QM).” Bib 75 (1994): 518 – 38. Maynard, A. H. “ΤΙ ΕΜΟΙ ΚΑΙ ΣΟΙ.” NTS 31 (1985): 582 – 86. Mays, J. L. “The Language of the Reign of God.” Int 47 (1993): 117 – 26. McCasland, S. Vernon. By the Finger of God: Demon Possession and Exorcism in Early Christianity in the Light of Modern Views of Mental Illness. New York: Macmillan, 1951. McGing, B. C. “Pontius Pilate and the Sources.” CBQ 53 (1991): 416 – 38. McGing, B. C. “The Governorship of Pontius Pilate: Messiahs and Sources.” PIBA 10 (1986): 55 – 71. McKnight, Scot. A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. McLaren, James S. “A Reluctant Provincial: Josephus and the Roman Empire in Jewish War.” Pages 34 – 48 in The Gospel of Matthew in Its Roman Imperial Context. Edited by J. Riches and D. C. Sim. JSNTSup 276. London: T&T Clark, 2005. McLaren, James S. “Constructing Judaean History in the Diaspora: Josephus’s Accounts of Judas.” Pages 90 – 108 in Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire. Edited by John M. G. Barclay. London: Clark, 2004. McLaren, James S. “Going to War Against Rome: The Motivation of the Jewish Rebels.” Pages 129 – 53 in The Jewish Revolt Against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Edited by Mladen Popović. JSJSup 154. Leiden: Brill, 2011. McLaren, James S. “Jewish War (Josephus).” Pages 838 – 40 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. McLaren, James S. Power and Politics in Palestine: The Jews and the Governing of their Land 100 BC-AD 70. JSNTSup 63. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. McLaren, James S. “Resistance Movements.” Pages 1135 – 40 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. McLaren, James S. “The Coinage of the First Year as a Point of Reference for the Jewish Revolt (66 – 70 CE).” Scripta Classica Israelica 22 (2003): 135 – 52. McLaren, James S. “Theocracy, Temple and Tax: Ingredients for the Jewish-Roman War of 66 – 70 CE.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the SBL. Atlanta, GA, 21 November 2004. McLaren, James S. Turbulent Times? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century. JSPSup 29. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998.

Bibliography

271

Mearns, C. “Realized Eschatology in Q? A Consideration of the Sayings in Luke 7.22, 11.20, and 16.16.” SJT 40 (1987): 189 – 210. Meggitt, Justin J. “The Madness of King Jesus: Why was Jesus Put to Death, but his Followers were not?” JSNT 29 (2007): 379 – 413. Meier, John P. “Basic Methodology in the Quest for the Historical Jesus.” Pages 291 – 331 in How to Study the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter. Vol. 1 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Meier, John P. Companions and Competitors. Vol. 3 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. Meier, John P. The Roots of the Problem and the Person. Vol. 1 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991. Merkel, Helmut. “The Opposition Between Jesus and Judaism.” Pages 129 – 44 in Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Merritt, Robert L. “Jesus Barabbas and the Paschal Pardon.” JBL 104 (1985): 57 – 68. Meshorer, Ya’akov. A Treasury of Jewish Coins From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2001. Meshorer, Ya’akov. Ancient Jewish Coinage. 2 vols. Dix Hills, NY: Amphora Books, 1982. Meshorer, Ya’akov. Coins of the Holy Land: The Abraham and Marian Sofaer Collection at the American Numismatic Society and the Israel Museum. 2 vols. New York: The American Numismatic Society, 2013. Metzdorf, Christina. Die Tempelaktion Jesu: Patristische und historisch-kritische Exegese im Vergleich. WUNT 2/168. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Meyer, B. F. Review of The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, by John Dominic Crossan. CBQ 55 (1993): 575 – 76. Meyer, B. F. The Aims of Jesus. London: SCM, 1979. Meyer, Rudolf. Der Prophet aus Galiläa. Leipzig: J. C. Heinrich’sche Buchhandlung, 1940. Milavec, A. “The Social Setting of ‘Turning the Other Cheek’ and ‘Loving One’s Enemies’ in Light of the Didache.” BTB 25 (1995): 131 – 43. Mildenberg, L. “Bar Kokba Coins and Documents.” HSCP 84 (1980): 311 – 35. Mildenberg, L. “Der Bar-Kochba-Krieg im Lichte der Münzprägungen.” Pages 357 – 66 in Palästina in griechisch-römischer Zeit. Edited by H.-P. Kuhnen. HdA 2.2. Munich: Beck, 1990. Mildenberg, L. The Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War. Aarau: Sauerlinder, 1984. Milik, Josef T., ed. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. Miller, Robert J. “Introduction.” Pages 1 – 13 in The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate. Edited by Robert J. Miller. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2001. Miller, Robert J. The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 1999. Miquel, E. “How to Discredit an Inconvenient Exorcist: Origin and Configuration of the Synoptic Controversies on Jesus’ Power as an Exorcist.” BTB 40 (2010): 187 – 206. Montgomery, James Alan. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1927. Montserrat, Josep. El galileo armado: Historia laica de Jesús. Madrid: Edaf, 2007. Moore, Ernest. “Violence to the Kingdom.” ExpTim 100 (1989): 174 – 77. Moore, Ernest. “ΒΙΑΖΩ, ΑΡΠΑΖΩ and Cognates in Josephus.” NTS 21 (1974): 519 – 43.

272

Bibliography

Moore, Kevin L. “Why Two Swords Were Enough: Israelite Tradition History Behind Luke 22:35 – 38.” Ph. D. diss., University of Denver, 2009. Moore, R. D. Tempted and Tried: Temptation and the Triumph of Christ. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011. Moore, Stephen D. Empire and Apocalypse: Postcolonialism and the New Testament. The Bible in the Modern World 12. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006. Mor, Menahem. “The Geographical Scope of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” Pages 107 – 31 in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome. Edited by Peter Schäfer. TSAJ 100. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. PlrNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Morton, Russell. “Quest of the Historical Jesus.” Pages 472 – 79 in The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Craig A. Evans. New York: Routledge, 2010. Moses, Robert E. “Jesus Barabbas, a Nominal Messiah? Text and History in Matthew 27.16 – 17.” NTS 58 (2011): 43 – 56. Murphy, N. “When Jesus Said ‘Love Your Enemies’ I Think He Probably Meant Don’t Kill Them.” PRSt 40 (2013): 123 – 29. Myers, Alicia D. “Isaiah 42 and the Characterization of Jesus in Matthew 12:17 – 21.” Pages 70 – 89 in ‘What Does the Scripture Say?’ Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity. Volume 1: The Synoptic Gospels. Edited by Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias. LNTS 469. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Myers, Ched. Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988. Nadler, Allan. “What Jesus Wasn’t: Zealot.” Jewish Review of Books. 11 August 2013. http://je wishreviewofbooks.com/articles/449/reza-aslan-what-jesus-wasnt/. Nave, Guy D., Jr. The Role and Function of Repentance in Luke-Acts. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. Neill, Stephen, and N. T. Wright. The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861 – 1986. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Neugebauer, Fritz. “Die dargebotene Wange und Jesu Gebot der Feindesliebe: Erwägungen zu Lk 6,27 – 36/Mt 5,38 – 48.” TLZ 110 (1985): 865 – 76. Neusner, Jacob. A Rabbi Talks with Jesus: An Intermillennial Interfaith Exchange. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Neusner, Jacob, William S. Green, and Ernest Frerichs, eds. Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Neville, David J. A Peaceable Hope: Contesting Violent Eschatology in New Testament Narratives. SPS 11. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. Neville, David J. “Faithful, True, and Violent? Christology and ‘Divine Vengeance’ in the Revelation to John.” Pages 56 – 84 in Compassionate Eschatology: The Future as Friend. Edited by Ted Grimsrud and Michael Hardin. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011. Neville, David J. “Moral Vision and Eschatology in Mark’s Gospel: Coherence or Conflict?” JBL 127 (2008): 359 – 84. Neville, David J. “Toward a Teleology of Peace: Contesting Matthew’s Violent Eschatology.” JSNT 30 (2007): 131 – 61. Neville, David J. “Violating Faith via Eschatological Violence: Reviewing Matthew’s Eschatology.” Pages 95 – 110 in Validating Violence – Validating Faith? Religion,

Bibliography

273

Scripture and Violence. Edited by William W. Emilsen and John T. Squires. The PACT Series 4. Adelaide: ATF, 2008. Newsom, Carol A. “Political Theology in the Book of Daniel: An Internal Debate.” RevExp 109 (2012): 557 – 68. Nickel, J. P. “Jesus and the Lēstai: Competing Kingdom Visions.” ExAud 34 (2018): 42 – 61. Nickel, J. P. “Jesus, the Isaianic Servant Exorcist: Exploring the Significance of Matthew 12,18 – 21 in the Beelzebul Pericope.” ZNW 107 (2016): 170 – 85. Nickel, J. P. Review of A Peaceable Hope: Contesting Violent Eschatology in New Testament Narratives, by David J. Neville. TJ 35 (2014): 156 – 9. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “1 and 2 Maccabees—Same Story Different Meaning.” CTM 42 (1971): 515 – 26. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1 – 36, 81 – 108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “Response: Context, Text, and Social Setting of the Apocalypse of Weeks.” Pages 234 – 41 in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “The Apocalyptic Message of 1 Enoch 92 – 105.” CBQ 39 (1977): 309 – 28. Nickelsburg, George W. E., and James C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 37 – 82. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Nickelsburg, George W. E., and James C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch: A New Translation based on the Hermeneia Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Nikiprowetzky, Valentin. “Josephus and the Revolutionary Parties.” Pages 216 – 36 in Josephus, the Bible, and History. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Translated by Angela Armstrong. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1988. Nikiprowetzky, Valentin. “Sicaires et Zélotes –– une réconsidération.” Sem 23 (1973): 51 – 64. Nineham, Dennis Eric. The Gospel of St. Mark. Pelican Gospel Commentary. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963. Nitzan, Bilha. Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry. Translated by Jonathan Chipman. STDJ 12. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Nodet, É. “Galiléens (Lc 13,1…).” RB 120 (2013): 267 – 76. Nolland, John. Luke 1 – 9:20. WBC 35A. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000. Nolland, John. Luke 9:21 – 18:34. WBC 35B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993. Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Nolland, John. “The Mandate: Love Our Enemies: Matt. 5:43 – 48.” Anvil 21 (2004): 23 – 33. Norden, E. “Josephus und Tacitus über Jesus Christus und eine messianische Prophetie.” NJahrb 31 (1913): 637 – 66. Nordling, John G. Religion and Resistance in Early Judaism: Readings in 1 Maccabees and Josephus. St. Louis: CPH, 2010. Novenson, Matthew. “Why Does R. Akiba Acclaim Bar Kokhba as Messiah?” JSJ 40 (2009): 551 – 72. Nyström, Jennifer. “Jesus’ Exorcistic Identity Reconsidered: The Demise of a Solomonic Typology.” Pages 69 – 92 in Jesus and the Scriptures: Problems, Passages and Patterns. Edited by Tobias Hägerland. LNTS 552. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016.

274

Bibliography

Oakman, Douglas E. “Rulers’ Houses, Thieves, and Usurpers: The Beelzebul Pericope.” Forum 4 (1988): 109 – 23. Oakman, Douglas E. The Political Aims of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Oegema, Gerbern S. “‘Love Your Neighbor as Yourself’: Jesuanic or Mosaic?” BN 116 (2003): 77 – 86. Oegema, Gerbern S. The Anointed and His People: Messianic Expectations from the Maccabees to Bar Kokhba. JSPSup 27. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Oppenheimer, A. “The Ban of Circumcision as a Cause of the Revolt: A Reconsideration.” Pages 55 – 69 in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome. Edited by Peter Schäfer. TSAJ 100. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Osten-Sacken, Peter von der. Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran. SUNT 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40 – 66. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Otto, Rudolf. The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man: A Study in the History of Religion. Translated by Floyd V. Filson and Bertram Lee Woolf. London: Lutterworth, 1938. Page, S. H. T. Powers of Evil: A Biblical Study of Satan and Demons. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995. Page, S. H. T. “Satan: God’s Servant.” JETS 50 (2007): 449 – 65. Patterson, Stephen J. “Fire and Dissension: Ipsissima Vox Jesu in Q 12:49, 51 – 53?” Forum 5 (1989): 121 – 39. Patterson, Stephen J. “The End of the Apocalypse: Rethinking the Eschatological Jesus.” ThTo 52 (1995): 29 – 48. Penney, D. L., and M. O. Wise. “By the Power of Beelzebub: An Aramaic Incantation Formula from Qumran (4Q560).” JBL 113 (1994): 627 – 50. Pero, Cheryl S. Liberation from Empire: Demonic Possession and Exorcism in the Gospel of Mark. Studies in Biblical Literature. New York: Lang, 2013. Perrin, Norman. Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in New Testament Interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Perrin, Norman. Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. NTL. London: SCM Press, 1967. Perrin, Norman. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus. NTL. London: SCM, 1963. Perrin, Norman. What is Redaction Criticism? London: SPCK, 1970. Pesch, Rudolf. Das Markusevangelium. 5th ed. HTKNT. Freiburg: Herder, 1989. Pesch, Rudolf. Die Besessene von Gerasa. SBS 56. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972. Pierce, Chad T. “Satan and Related Figures.” Pages 1196 – 200 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Pigott, Susan M. “The Kingdom of the Warrior God: The Old Testament and the Kingdom of Yahweh.” SwJT 40 (1988): 5 – 20. Piper, John. “Love Your Enemies”: Jesus’ Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and in the Early Christian Paraenesis: A History of the Tradition and Interpretation of its Uses. SNTSMS 38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Pisón, Ramon Martínez de. From Violence to Peace: Dismantling the Manipulation of Religion. Conflict, Ethics, and Spirituality 1. Leuven: Peeters, 2013. Ploeg, J. P. M. van der. Le rouleau de la Guerre traduit et annoté. STDJ 2. Leiden: Brill, 1959.

Bibliography

275

Plummer, A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1896. Pokorný, Petr. “Demoniac and Drunkard: John the Baptist and Jesus According to Q 7:33 – 34.” Pages 170 – 82 in Jesus Research: An International Perspective: The Proceedings of the Biennial Princeton-Prague Symposium on the Current State of Studies on the Historical Jesus. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorný. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Polaski, Donald C. “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin: Writing and Resistance in Daniel 5 and 6.” JBL 123 (2004): 649 – 69. Portier-Young, Anathea E. Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Price, Jonathan J. Jerusalem under Siege: The Collapse of the Jewish State, 66 – 70 CE. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Price, Jonathan J. “Revolt, First Jewish.” Pages 1146 – 49 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Price, Jonathan J. “The Failure of Rhetoric in Josephus’ Bellum Judaicum.” Ramus 36 (2008): 6 – 24. Price, Jonathan J. “The Provincial Historian in Rome.” Pages 101 – 18 in Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond. Edited by J. Sievers and G. Lembi. JSJSup 104. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Prothero, Stephen. “Book Review: ‘Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth’ By Reza Aslan.” The Washington Post. 2 August 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin ions/book-review-zealot-the-life-and-times-of-jesus-of-nazareth-by-reza-aslan/2013/08/ 02/029f6088-f087-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html. Punt, Jeremy. “Violence in the New Testament and the Roman Empire: Ambivalence, Othering, Agency.” Pages 23 – 39 in Coping with Violence in the New Testament. Edited by Pieter G. R. de Villiers and Jan Willem van Henten. STAR 16. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Räisänen, Heikki. “Exorcisms and the Kingdom: Is Q 11:20 a Saying of the Historical Jesus?” Pages 119 – 42 in Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q. Edited by Risto Uro. Suomen eksegeettisen seuran julkaisuja 45. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1996. Rajak, T. “Friends, Romans, Subjects: Agrippa II’s Speech in Josephus’ Jewish War.” Pages 122 – 34 in Images of Empire. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 122. Edited by Loveday Alexander. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991. Rajak, T. “Jewish Millenarian Expectations.” Pages 164 – 88 in The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology. Edited by Andrea M. Berlin and J. Andrew Overman. London: Routledge, 2002. Rajak, T. Josephus: the Historian and His Society. London: Duckworth, 1983. Rappaport, Uriel. “A Note on the Use of the Bible in 1 Maccabees.” Pages 175 – 79 in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12 – 14 May, 1996. STDJ 28. Edited by Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Rappaport, Uriel. “How Anti-Roman Was the Galilee?” Pages 95 – 102 in The Galilee in Late Antiquity. Edited by L. I. Levine. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992.

276

Bibliography

Redditt, Paul L. “The Community Behind the Book of Daniel: Challenges, Hopes, Values, and Its View of God.” PRSt 36 (2009): 321 – 39. Reid, Barbara E. “Violent Endings in Matthew’s Parables and Christian Nonviolence.” CBQ 66 (2004): 237 – 55. Reid, Daniel G. “Jesus: New Exodus, New Conquest.” Pages 91 – 118 in God is a Warrior. Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology. Edited by Tremper Longman III and Daniel G. Reid. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. Reid, Stephen Breck. Enoch and Daniel: A Form Critical and Sociological Study of the Historical Apocalypses. Berkeley: BIBAL, 1989. Reimarus, Hermann Samuel. The Goal of Jesus and His Disciples. Translated by George Wesley Buchanan. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Reinhartz, Adele. “Rabbinic Perceptions of Simeon Bar Kosiba.” JSJ 20 (1989): 171 – 94. Reiser, Marius. “Love of Enemies in the Context of Antiquity.” NTS 47 (2001): 411 – 27. Rensberger, David. “Jesus’s Action in the Temple.” Pages 179 – 90 in Struggles for Shalom: Peace and Violence Across the Testaments. Edited by Laura L. Brenneman and Brad D. Schantz. SPS 12. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014. Rhoads, David M. Israel in Revolution: 6 – 74 C.E. A Political History Based on the Writings of Josephus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Richardson, P. “Why Turn the Tables? Jesus’ Protest in the Temple Precincts.” SBLSP 31 (1992): 507 – 23. Riedl, Matthias. “Apocalyptic Violence and Revolutionary Action: Thomas Müntzer’s Sermon to the Princes.” Pages 260 – 96 in A Companion to the Premodern Apocalypse. Edited by Michael A. Ryan. Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 64. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Ringe, Sharon H. “A Gentile Woman’s Story.” Pages 65 – 72 in Feminist Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Letty M. Russell. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985. Ringgren, Helmer. The Faith of Qumran: Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Translated by Emilie T. Sander. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963. Roberts, T. A. “Some Comments on Matthew 10:34 – 36 and Luke 12:51 – 53.” ExpTim 69 (1958): 304 – 6. Rodd, Cyril S. “Spirit or Finger.” ExpTim 72 (1961): 157 – 58. Rodríguez, Rafael. “Authenticating Criteria: The Use and Misuse of a Critical Method.” JSHJ 7 (2009): 152 – 67. Rodríguez, Rafael. “Jesus as his Friends Remembered Him: A Review of Dale Allison’s Constructing Jesus.” JSHJ 12 (2014): 224 – 44. Rodríguez, Rafael. Structuring Early Christian Memory: Jesus in Traditions, Performance and Text. LNTS 407. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Rossing, Barbara R. “Apocalyptic Violence and Politics: End-Time Fiction for Jews and Christians.” Pages 67 – 77 in Contesting Texts. Edited by Melody D. Knowles, Esther Menn, John Pawlikowski, and Timothy Sandoval. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Roth, Cecil. “The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechariah xiv 21.” NovT 4 (1960): 174 – 81. Roth, Cecil. The Historical Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958. Roth, Cecil. “The Zealots in the War of 66 – 73.” JSS 4 (1959): 332 – 55. Rowland, Christopher. “Render to God what belongs to God.” NBf 70, no. 830 (1989): 365 – 71.

Bibliography

277

Rowland, Christopher. “The Book of Daniel and the Radical Critique of Empire. An Essay in Apocalyptic Hermeneutics.” Pages 447 – 67 in vol. 2 of The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. VTSup 83. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Russell, J. S. The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977. Ruzer, S. “‘Love Your Enemy’ Precept in the Sermon on the Mount in the Context of Early Jewish Exegesis: a New Perspective.” RB 111 (2004): 193 – 208. Ruzer, S. “From ‘Love Your Neighbor’ to ‘Love Your Enemy’: Trajectories in Early Jewish Exegesis.” RB 109 (2002): 371 – 89. Samuelsson, Gunnar. Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion. WUNT 2/310. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. London: SCM, 1985. Sanders, E. P. “Jesus’ Galilee.” Pages 3 – 41 in Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity – Essays in Honour of Heikki Räisänen. Edited by Ismo Dunderborg, Christopher Tucket, and Kari Syreeni. Köln: Brill, 2002. Sanders, E. P. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE. London: SCM, 1992. Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Penguin, 1993. Sanders, J. T. “The Criterion of Coherence and the Randomness of Charisma: Poring through some Aporias in the Jesus Tradition.” NTS 44 (1998): 1 – 25. Schäfer, Peter. “Aqiva and Bar Kokhba.” Pages 113 – 30 in Approaches to Ancient Judaism. Edited by W. S. Green. BJS 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1980. Schäfer, Peter. “Bar Kochba and the Rabbis.” Pages 1 – 22 in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome. Edited by Peter Schäfer. TSAJ 100. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Schäfer, Peter. Der Bar Kokhba Aufstand. Studien zum Zweiten Jüdischen Krieg gegen Rom. TSAJ 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981. Schäfer, Peter. “Hadrian’s Policy in Judaea and the Bar Kokhba Revolt: A Reassessment.” Pages 281 – 303 in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History. Edited by Philip R. Davies and Richard T. White. JSOTSup 100. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990. Schäfer, Peter. “The Causes of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.” Pages 74 – 94 in Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann. Edited by J. Petuchowski and E. Fleischer. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981. Schäfer, Peter. The History of the Jews in the Greco-Roman World. London: Routledge, 2003. Schalit, A. “Die Erhebung Vespasians nach Flavius Josephus, Talmud und Midrasch. Zur Geschichte einer messianischen Prophetie.” ANRW 2.2: 208 – 327. Part 2, Principat, 2.2. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. New York: de Gruyter, 1975. Scheffler, E. “Jesus’ Non-violence at His Arrest: The Synoptics and John’s Gospel Compared.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 17 (2006): 312 – 26. Schellenberg, R. S. “Peace.” Pages 666 – 69 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Scheper-Hughes, Nancy, and Philippe Bourgois. “Introduction: Making Sense of Violence.” Pages 1 – 31 in Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Edited by Nancy ScheperHughes and Philippe I. Bourgois. Blackwell Readers in Anthropology 5. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.

278

Bibliography

Scheper-Hughes, Nancy, and Philippe I. Bourgois, eds. Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Blackwell Readers in Anthropology 5. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. Schertz, Mary H. “Swords and Prayer: Luke 22:31 – 62.” Pages 191 – 204 in Struggles for Shalom: Peace and Violence Across the Testaments. Edited by Laura L. Brenneman and Brad D. Schantz. SPS 12. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014. Schiavo, Luigi. “The Temptation of Jesus: The Eschatological Battle and the New Ethic of the First Followers of Jesus in Q.” JSNT 25 (2002): 141 – 64. Schiffman, Lawrence H. The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls. SBLMS 38. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Law of Conscription in the War Scroll.” Pages 179 – 92 in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Lljubljana. Edited by Daniel K. Falk, Sarianna Metso, Donald W. Perry, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. STDJ 91. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Schipper, Jeremy. Disability and Isaiah’s Suffering Servant. Biblical Refigurations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Schmid, Konrad, and Odil Hannes Steck. “Restoration Expectations in the Prophetic Tradition of the Old Testament.” Pages 41 – 82 in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. Edited by James M. Scott. JSJSup 72. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Schnelle, Udo. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Schottroff, Luise. “‘Give to Caesar what Belongs to Caesar and to God what Belongs to God’: A Theological Response of the Early Christian Church to Its Social and Political Environment.” Pages 223 – 57 in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament. Edited by Willard M. Swartley. SPS 3. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Schottroff, Luise. “Non-Violence and the Love of One’s Enemies.” Pages 9 – 39 in Essays on the Love Commandment. Edited by Luise Schottroff et al. Translated by Reginald H. Fuller and Ilse Fuller. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. Schrage, Wolfgang. The Ethics of the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Schreiber, Stefan. “Am Rande des Krieges: Gewalt und Gewaltverzicht bei Jesus von Nazaret.” BN 145 (2010): 91 – 112. Schreiber, Stefan. “Caesar oder Gott (Mk 12,17)? Zur Theoriebildung im Umgang mit politischen Texten des Neuen Testaments.” BZ 48 (2004): 65 – 85. Schröter, Jens. Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas. WMANT 76. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997. Schröter, Jens. From Jesus to the New Testament: Early Christian Theology and the Origin of the New Testament Canon. Translated by Wayne Coppins. Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2013. Schröter, Jens. “Jesus and Memory: The Memory Approach in Current Jesus Research.” EC 6 (2015): 277 – 84. Schröter, Jens. “Jesus and the Canon: The Early Jesus Traditions in the Context of the Origins of the New Testament Canon.” Pages 104 – 46 in Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory and Mark. Edited by Richard A. Horsley, Jonathan A. Draper, and John Miles Foley. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2006.

Bibliography

279

Schröter, Jens. “Jesus im Context: Die hermeneutische Relevanz der Frage nach dem historischen Jesus in der gegenwärtigen Diskussion.” TLZ 134 (2009): 905 – 28. Schröter, Jens. “Jesus of Galilee: The Role of Location in Understanding Jesus.” Pages 36 – 55 in Jesus Research: An International Perspective. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Petr Pokorný. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Schröter, Jens. Jesus of Nazareth: Jew from Galilee, Saviour of the World. Translated by Wayne Coppins and S. Brian Pounds. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014. Schröter, Jens. Jesus von Nazaret: Jude aus Galiläa – Retter der Welt. 3rd ed. Biblische Gestalten 15. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlag, 2010. Schröter, Jens. “Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft jenseits des Historismus.” TLZ 128 (2003): 855 – 66. Schröter, Jens. “The Historical Jesus and the Sayings Tradition: Comments on Current Research.” Neot 30 (1996): 151 – 68. Schröter, Jens. “Von der Historizität der Evangelien: Ein Beitrag zur gegenwärtigen Diskussion um den historischen Jesus.” Pages 163 – 212 in Der historische Jesus. Edited by Jens Schröter and Ralph Brucker. BZNW 114. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Schröter, Jens, and Ralph Brucker, eds. Der historische Jesus: Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschungen. BZNW 114. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Schubert, Kurt. “The Sermon on the Mount and the Qumran Texts.” Pages 118 – 128, 270 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by Krister Stendahl. New York: Harper, 1957. Schultz, Brian. “Compositional Layers in the War Scroll (1QM).” Pages 153 – 64 in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Llubljana. Edited by Daniel K. Falk, Sarianna Metso, Donald W. Perry, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. STDJ 91. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Schultz, Brian. Conquering the World: the War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered. STDJ 76. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Schultz, Brian. “Not Greeks But Romans: Changing Expectations for the Eschatological War in the War Texts from Qumran.” Pages 107 – 27 in The Jewish Revolt Against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Edited by Mladen Popović. JSJSup 154. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Schultz, Brian. “Re-Imagining the Eschatological War—4Q285/11Q14.” Pages 197 – 212 in ‘Go Out and Study the Land’ (Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical, and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel. Edited by A. M. Maeir, Jodi Magness, and Lawrence Schiffman. JSJSup 148. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 35). Revised and edited by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973. Schwager, Raymund. Must There Be Scapegoats? Violence and Redemption in the Bible. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. Schwartz, Daniel R. 2 Maccabees. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Schwartz, Daniel R. “Divine Punishment in Second Maccabees: Vengeance, Abandonment or Loving Discipline?” Pages 109 – 16 in Der Mensch vor Gott. Forschungen zum Menschenbild in Bibl, antikem Judentum und Koran. Festschrift für Hermann Lichtenberger zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Ulrike Mittmann-Richert, Friedrich Avemarie, and Gerbern S. Oegema. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003. Schwartz, Daniel R. “Rome and the Jews: Josephus on ‘Freedom’ and ‘Autonomy’.” Pages 65 – 81 in Representations of Empire: Rome and the Mediterranean World. Edited by Alan

280

Bibliography

K. Bowman, Hannah M. Cotton, Martin Goodman, and Simon Price. Proceedings of the British Academy 114. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Schwartz, Daniel R. Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. WUNT 60. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Schwartz, Daniel R., and Zeev Weiss, eds. Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History?: On Jews and Judaism Before and After the Destruction of the Second Temple. AJEC 78. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Schwartz, Seth. Josephus and Judaean Politics. CSCT 18. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Schwarz, G. “ΣΥΡΟΦΟΙΝΙΚΙΣΣΑ—ΧΑΝΑΝΑΙΑ (Markus 7.26/Matthäus 15.22).” NTS 30 (1984): 626 – 28. Schwarz, Günther. “Kai biastai harpazousin autēn (Matthäus 11,12).” BN 11 (1980): 43 – 44. Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Translated by W. Montgomery. Mineola, NY: Dover, 2005. Schweizer, A. “Ob in der Stelle Matth 11,12 ein Lob oder ein Tadel enthalten sei?” TSK 9 (1836): 90 – 122. Scott, James C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. Seibert, Eric A. The Violence of Scripture: Overcoming the Old Testament’s Troubling Legacy. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Seitz, O. J. F. “Love Your Enemies.” NTS 16 (1969): 39 – 54. Sen, Amartya. Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny. New York: W. W. Norton, 2006. Shatzman, Israel. “Jews and Gentiles from Judas Maccabaeus to John Hyrcanus according to Contemporary Jewish Sources.” Pages 237 – 70 in Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism. Edited by Shaye J. D. Cohen and Joshua J. Schwartz. AJEC 67. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Shaw, Brent D. “Bandits in the Roman Empire.” Past and Present 105 (1984): 3 – 52. Shaw, Brent D. Sacred Violence: African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Sheets, Dwight D. “Jesus as Demon-Possessed.” Pages 27 – 49 in Who Do My Opponents Say I Am? An Investigation of the Accusations against Jesus. Edited by Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica. LNTS 327. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Shepherd, Michael B. “Daniel 7:13 and the New Testament Son of Man.” WTJ 68 (2006): 99 – 111. Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament: The Sarum Lectures 1960 – 1961. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963. Shirock, Robert J. “The Growth of the Kingdom in Light of Israel’s Rejection of Jesus: Structure and Theology in Luke 13:1 – 35.” NovT 35 (1993): 15 – 29. Shively, Elizabeth E. Apocalyptic Imagination in the Gospel of Mark: The Literary and Theological Role of Mark 3:22 – 30. BZNW 189. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Shively, Elizabeth E. “What Type of Resistance? How Apocalyptic Discourse Functions as Social Discourse in Mark’s Gospel.” JSNT 37 (2015): 381 – 406. Shochat, Azriel. “On ‘the Ambiguous Oracle’ in the Words of Josephus.” Pages 163 – 65 in Sefer Yosef Shiloh. Edited by Michael Händel. Tel Aviv: 1960. Sim, David C. Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew. SNTSMS 88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Bibliography

281

Sim, David C. The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community. SNTW. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Sim, David C. “The Sword Motif in Matthew 10:34.” HvTSt 56 (2000): 84 – 104. Simmonds, Andrew. “Mark’s and Matthew’s Sub Rosa Message in the Scene of Pilate and the Crowd.” JBL 131 (2012): 733 – 54. Simpson, Connor. “Why the Fox News Scandal is Good News for Reza Aslan.” The Atlantic. 28 July 2013. https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2013/07/why-fox-news-scan dal-good-news-reza-aslan/312800/. Sloyan, Gerard S. Jesus on Trial: A Study of the Gospels. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2006. Smallwood, E. Mary. The Jews Under Roman Rule, from Pompey to Diocletian: a Study in Political Relations. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. “Prayers and Dreams: Power and Diaspora Identities in the Social Setting of the Daniel Tales.” Pages 266 – 90 in vol. 1 of The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. VTSup 83. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Smith, Barry D. Jesus’ Twofold Teaching About the Kingdom of God. NTM 24. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009. Smith, Morton. “Mt. 5:43: ‘Hate Thine Enemy’.” HTR 45 (1952): 71 – 73. Smith, Morton. “The Troublemakers.” Pages 501 – 68 in The Early Roman Period. Edited by William Horbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy. Vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Smith, Morton. “Zealots and Sicarii: Their Origins and Relations.” HTR 64 (1971): 1 – 19. Snodgrass, Klyne R. “The Temple Incident.” Pages 429 – 80 in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence. Edited by Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb. WUNT 247. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Söding, Thomas. “‘Wenn Ich Mit dem Finger Gottes die Dämonen Austreibe.’ (Lk 11,20): Die Exorczismen im Rahmen der Basileia-Verkündigung Jesu.” Pages 519 – 49 in Die Dämonen/Demons: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt/The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of Their Environment. Edited by A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and K. F. Diethard Römheld. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Sollamo, Raija. “War and Violence in the Ideology of the Qumran Community.” Pages 341 – 52 in Verbum et Calamus. Edited by H. Juusola, J. Laulainen, and H. Palva. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 2004. Sorenson, Eric. Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity. WUNT 2/157. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Spartianus, Aelius. Historia Augusta, Volume I: Hadrian. Aelius. Antoninus Pius. Marcus Aurelius. L. Verus. Avidius Cassius. Commodus. Pertinax. Didius Julianus. Septimius Severus. Pescennius Niger. Clodius Albinus. Translated by David Magie. LCL 139. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921. Spilsbury, Paul. “Reading the Bible in Rome: Josephus and the Constraints of Empire.” Pages 209 – 27 in Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond. Edited by Joseph Sievers and Gaia Lembi. JSJSup 104. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Stein, Robert H. Mark. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Stemberger, Günter. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Translated by Markus Bockmuehl. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.

282

Bibliography

Stern, M. “The Herodian Dynasty and the Province of Judaea at the End of the Period of the Second Temple.” Pages 124 – 78 in The Herodian Period. Edited by M. Avi-Yonah. Vol. 7 of The World History of the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1975. Stettler, H. “Die Bedeutung der Täuferanfrage in Matthäus 11,2 – 6 par Lk 7,18 – 23 für die Christologie.” Bib 89 (2008): 173 – 200. Steudel, Annette. “The Eternal Reign of the People of God—Collective Expectations in Qumran Texts (4Q246 and 1QM).” RevQ 17 (1996): 507 – 25. Stevens, B. A. “Jesus as Divine Warrior.” ExpTim 94 (1983): 326 – 29. Stokes, Ryan E. “Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1 – 36).” Pages 1332 – 34 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Stokes, Ryan E. “Evil.” Pages 613 – 15 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Stone, Michael E., and Matthias Henze. 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Translations, Introductions, and Notes. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. Stoner, John K. “The Two Swords Passage: A Command or a Question? Nonviolence in Luke 22.” Pages 67 – 80 in Within the Perfection of Christ. Edited by T. L. Brensinger and E. M. Sider. Nappanee: Evangel, 1990. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 1 Enoch 91 – 108. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “Daniel and Early Enoch Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 368 – 86 in vol. 2 of The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. VTSup 83. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “Epistle of Enoch (1 Enoch 91 – 105).” Pages 583 – 84 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “‘Reading the Present’ in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85 – 90).” Pages 91 – 102 in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations. Edited by K. de Troyer and A. Lange. SBLSymS 30. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “Satan and Demons.” Pages 173 – 97 in Jesus Among Friends and Enemies: A Historical and Literary Introduction to Jesus in the Gospels. Edited by Chris Keith and Larry W. Hurtado. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “The Demonic World of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 51 – 70 in Evil and the Devil. Edited by Ida Fröhlich and Erkki Koskenniemi. LNTS 481. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “The Origins of Evil in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition: The Interpretation of Genesis 6:1 – 4 in the Second and Third Centuries B.C.E.” Pages 86 – 118 in The Fall of the Angels. Edited by Christoph Auffarth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. TBN 6. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Styka, Jerzy, ed. Violence and Aggression in the Ancient World. Classica Cracoviensia 10. Kraków: Ksiegarnia Akademicka, 2006. Sutcliffe, Edmund F. “Hatred at Qumran.” RevQ 7 (1960): 345 – 56. Swartley, Willard M. Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics. SPS 9. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Swartley, Willard M., ed. The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament. SPS 3. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992.

Bibliography

283

Swartley, Willard M., ed. Violence Renounced: René Girard, Biblical Studies, and Peacemaking. Telford, PA: Pandora Press U.S., 2000. Swartley, Willard M. “War and Peace in the New Testament.” ANRW 26.3: 779 – 848. Part 2, Principat, 26.3. Edited by Wolfgang Haase and Hildegard Temporini. New York: de Gruyter, 1996. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Davidic Typology in the Forty Year War Between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness.” Pages 213 – 20 in Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 16 – 24, 1989. Division A. The Bible and Its World. Edited by D. Assaf. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1990. Sweeney, Marvin A. “The End of Eschatology in Daniel? Theological and Socio-Political Ramifications of the Changing Contexts of Interpretation.” BibInt 9 (2001): 123 – 40. Tannehill, Robert C. “The ‘Focal Instance’ as a Form of New Testament Speech: A Study of Matthew 5:39b–42.” JR 50 (1970): 372 – 85. Tannehill, Robert C. The Sword of His Mouth. SemeiaSup 1. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Tatum, W. B. “Jesus’ So-Called Triumphal Entry: On Making an Ass of the Romans.” Forum 1 (1998): 129 – 43. Taylor, J. E. “Pontius Pilate and the Imperial Cult in Roman Judaea.” NTS 52 (2006): 555 – 82. Thate, Michael J. Remembrance of Things Past? WUNT 2/351. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Theissen, Gerd. “L’eschatologie de Jésus – expression d’un monothéisme radical?” RHPR 92 (2012): 555 – 71. Theissen, Gerd. “Lokal- und Sozialkolorit in der Geschichte von der syrophönikischen Frau (Mk 7,24 – 30).” ZNW 75 (1984): 202 – 25. Theissen, Gerd. Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. NTOA 8. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg, 1989. Theissen, Gerd. Social Reality and the Early Christians: Theology, Ethics and the World of the New Testament. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993. Theissen, Gerd. The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Theissen, Gerd. The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. SNTW. Edited by J. Riches. Translated by F. McDonagh. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Theissen, Gerd, and Dagmar Winter. The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Thomas, John Christopher. The Devil, Disease and Deliverance: Origins of Illness in New Testament Thought. Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 13. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Thompson, John A. The Book of Jeremiah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Thomson, Jeremy. “Jesus and the Two Swords: Did Jesus Endorse Violence?” Anabaptism Today 33 (2003): 10 – 16. Tiller, Patrick A. A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch. SBLEJL 4. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Tiller, Patrick A. “The Sociological Context of the Dream Visions of Daniel and 1 Enoch.” Pages 23 – 26 in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Tite, Philip L. Conceiving Peace and Violence: A New Testament Legacy. Dallas: University Press of America, 2004.

284

Bibliography

Tobar, Hector. “Reza Aslan’s Jesus Book a No. 1 Bestseller, Thanks to Fox News.” Los Angeles Times. 29 July 2013. http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-reza-aslansjesus-book-bestseller-fox-news-20130729-story.html. Tomasino, Anthony J. “Daniel and the Revolutionaries: The Use of Daniel Tradition by Jewish Resistance Movements of Late Second-Temple Palestine.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1995. Tomasino, Anthony J. “Oracles of Insurrection: The Prophetic Catalyst of the Great Revolt.” JJS 59 (2008): 86 – 111. Tomes, Roger. “Heroism in 1 and 2 Maccabees.” BibInt 15 (2007): 171 – 99. Torijano, P. A. Solomon the Esoteric King: From King to Magus, Development of a Tradition. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Trocmé, André. Jesus and the Non-Violent Revolution. Scottdale: Herald Press, 1973. Trunk, Dieter. Der messianische Heiler: Eine redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Exorzismen im Matthäusevangelium. HBS 3. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. Twelftree, Graham H. “ΕΙ ΔΕ … ΕΓΩ … ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ ΤΑ ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΑ! … [Luke 11:19].” Pages 361 – 400 in The Miracles of Jesus. Edited by David Wenham and Craig Blomberg. Gospel Perspectives 6. Sheffield: JSOT, 1986. Twelftree, Graham H. In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Twelftree, Graham H. Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1993. Twelftree, Graham H. “Miracles and Miracle Stories.” Pages 594 – 604 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Udoh, Fabian E. To Caesar What is Caesar’s: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine (63 B.C.E. – 70 C.E.). BJS 343. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2005. Ulrich, Eugene. “The Text of Daniel in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 573 – 85 in vol. 2 of The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. VTSup 83. Leiden: Brill, 2001. VanderKam, James C. “Astronomical Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 72 – 82).” Pages 581 – 83 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. VanderKam, James C. Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. CBQMS 16. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984. VanderKam, James C. “Open and Closed Eyes in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85 – 90).” Pages 279 – 92 in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel. Edited by Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman. JSJSup 83. Leiden: Brill, 2004. VanderKam, James C. “Studies in the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 Enoch 93:1 – 10; 91:11 – 17).” CBQ 46 (1984): 511 – 23. Velji, Jamel. “Apocalyptic Religion and Violence.” Pages 250 – 59 in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence. Edited by Mark Juergensmeyer, Margo Kitts, and Michael Jerryson. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Venter, P. M. “Violence and Non-Violence in Daniel.” OTE 14 (2001): 311 – 29. Verhoeven, P. “The Meaning of Exorcisms: The Q Jesus and the Historical Jesus.” The Fourth R 25 (2012): 11 – 16.

Bibliography

285

Vermes, Geza. “Biblical Proof-texts in Qumran Literature.” JSS 34 (1989): 494 – 508. Vermes, Geza. “Josephus’ Treatment of the Book of Daniel.” JJS 42 (1991): 149 – 66. Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Rev. ed. London: Penguin, 2011. Villiers, Pieter G. R. de, and Jan Willem van Henten, eds. Coping with Violence in the New Testament. STAR 16. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Virkler, Henry A., and Mary B. Virkler. “Demonic Involvement in Human Life and Illness.” Journal of Psychology and Theology 5 (1977): 95 – 102. Viviano, Benedict T. “The High Priest’s Servant’s Ear.” RB 96 (1989): 71 – 80. Viviano, Benedict T. “The Kingdom of God in the Qumran Literature.” Pages 97 – 107 in The Kingdom of God in 20th-Century Interpretation. Edited by Wendell Willis. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987. Vogel, Manuel. “Tales of War by Josephus, Bellum Judaicum.” Pages 335 – 52 in Visions of Peace and Tales of War. Edited by Jan Liesen and Pancratius Cornelis Beentjes. DCLY 2010. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Voigt, E. Die Jesusbewegung: Hintergründe ihrer Entstehung und Ausbreitung—Eine historisch-exegetische Untersuchung über die Motive der Jesusnachfolge. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008. Wahlen, Clinton. Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels. WUNT 2/185. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Walker, Julia. “‘God is With Italy Now’: Pro-Roman Jews and the Jewish Revolt.” Pages 157 – 87 in Jewish Identity and Politics between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba: Groups, Normativity and Rituals. Edited by Benedikt Eckhardt. JSJSup 155. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Wall, R. W. “The Finger of God Deuteronomy 9.10 and Luke 11.20.” NTS 33 (1987): 144 – 50. Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 34 – 66. WBC 25. Waco: Word Books, 1987. Watts, Rikki E. Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1997. Watts, Rikki E. “Triumphal Entry.” Pages 980 – 85 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Weaver, Dorothy Jean. “Transforming Nonresistance: From Lex Talionis to ‘Do Not Resist the Evil One’.” Pages 32 – 71 in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament. Edited by Willard M. Swartley. SPS 3. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Weaver, J. Denny. The Nonviolent God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Webb, Robert L. “The Roman Examination and Crucifixion of Jesus: Their Historicity and Implications.” Pages 669 – 773 in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence. Edited by Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb. WUNT 247. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Wedderburn, Alexander J. M. “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: A Key or a Puzzle?” ZNW 97 (2006): 1 – 22. Weiss, Johannes. Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God. Translated and edited by Richard H. Hiers and D. Larrimore Holland. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Weitzman, Steven. “Violence.” Pages 1326 – 27 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Weitzman, Steven. “Warring against Terror: The War Scroll and the Mobilization of Emotion.” JSJ 40 (2009): 213 – 41. Welch, J. H. “Miracles, Maleficium, and Maiestas in the Trial of Jesus.” Pages 349 – 83 in Jesus and Archaeology. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

286

Bibliography

Wells, Lisa. “An Interpretation of Matthew 5:38 – 42.” Proceedings (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 23 (2003): 15 – 28. Wenham, David. “The Kingdom of God and Daniel.” ExpTim 98 (1987): 132 – 34. Wenthe, Dean O. “The Use of the Hebrew Scriptures in 1QM.” DSD 5 (1998): 290 – 319. Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40 – 66: A Commentary. Translated by David M. G. Stalker. OTL. London: SCM, 1969. Whitton, James. “The Hebrew Tradition of ‘Holy War’ with Special Reference to the Qumran Battle Scroll.” Ph.D. diss., University of St Andrews, 1979. Wilkinson, J. “The Case of the Epileptic Boy.” ExpTim 79 (1967): 39 – 42. Willet, Tom W. Eschatology in the Theodicies of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra. JSPSup 4. Sheffield: JSOT, 1989. Williams, David T. “Why the Finger?” ExpTim 115 (2003): 45 – 49. Williams, Samuel F., Jr. “Matthew 5:43 – 48.” RevExp 89 (1992): 389 – 95. Willimon, William H. “Matthew 5:43 – 48.” Int 57 (2003): 61 – 63. Winger, M. “Hard Sayings.” ExpTim 115 (2004): 266 – 73. Wink, Walter. “Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus’ Nonviolent Way.” RevExp 89 (1992): 197 – 214. Wink, Walter. “Counterresponse to Richard Horsley.” Pages 133 – 36 in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament. Edited by Willard M. Swartley. SPS 3. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Wink, Walter. Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination. The Powers 3. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Wink, Walter. Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Wink, Walter. “Jesus and Revolution: Reflections on S.G.F. Brandon’s Jesus and the Zealots.” USQR 25 (1969): 37 – 59. Wink, Walter. Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament. The Powers 1. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Wink, Walter. “Neither Passivity Nor Violence: Jesus’ Third Way (Matt. 5:38 – 48 par.).” Pages 102 – 25 in The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament. Edited by Willard M. Swartley. SPS 3. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Wink, Walter. “The Third Way: Reclaiming Jesus’ Nonviolent Alternative.” Sojourners 15.11 (1986): 28 – 33. Wink, Walter. Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Forces that Determine Human Existence. The Powers 2. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Winter, Paul. On the Trial of Jesus. 2nd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974. Wise, Michael O. “Bar Kokhba Letters.” Pages 418 – 21 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Witherington III, Ben. The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997. Witmer, Amanda. Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist: His Exorcisms in Social and Political Context. LNTS 459. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Wood, H. G. “Interpreting This Time.” NTS 2 (1956): 262 – 66. Wright, Archie T. “Evil Spirits in Second Temple Judaism: The Watcher Tradition as a Background to the Demonic Pericopes in the Gospels.” Hen 28 (2006): 141 – 59. Wright, Archie T. The Origin of Evil Spirits. WUNT 2/198. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

Bibliography

287

Wright, N. T. “Five Gospels but No Gospel: Jesus and the Seminar.” Pages 83 – 120 in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus. Edited by Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans. NTTS 28.2. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Wright, N. T. “Jesus.” Pages 43 – 58 in Early Christian Thought in its Jewish Context. Edited by John Barclay and John Sweet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Wright, N. T. Paul and His Recent Interpreters: Some Contemporary Debates. London: SPCK, 2015. Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Xeravits, Géza G. King, Priest, Prophet: Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Qumran Library. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Xeravits, Géza G., and József Zsengellér, eds. The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology. Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books. Papa, Hungary, 9 – 11 June, 2005. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Yadin, Yigael. Bar–Kokhba: The Rediscovery of the Legendary Hero of the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971. Yadin, Yigael. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness. Translated by Batya Rabin and Chaim Rabin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. Yamauchi, Edwin. “Magic or Miracle? Diseases, Demons and Exorcisms.” Pages 89 – 183 in The Miracles of Jesus. Edited by David Wenham and Craig Blomberg. Gospel Perspectives 6. Sheffield: JSOT, 1986. Yishai, Rony. “The Model for the Eschatological War Descriptions in Qumran Literature.” Meghillot 4 (2006): 121 – 34. Yoder Neufeld, Thomas R. Killing Enmity: Violence and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. Yoder, John Howard. “A Theological Critique of Violence.” Pages 27 – 41 in The War of the Lamb: The Ethics of Nonviolence and Peacemaking. Edited by Glen Stassen, Mark Thiessen Nation, and Matt Hamsher. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009. Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Young, Franklin W. “Luke 13:1 – 9.” Int 31 (1977): 59 – 63. Zeitlin, Solomon. “Who Were the Galileans? New Light on Josephus’ Activities in Galilee.” JQR 64 (1973): 189 – 203. Zerbe, Gordon. “‘Pacifism’ and ‘Passive Resistance’ in Apocalyptic Writings: A Critical Evaluation.” Pages 65 – 95 in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Craig A. Evans. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993. Zerbe, Gordon. Non–Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts. JSPSup 13. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993. Žižek, Slavoj. Violence: Six Sideways Reflections. London: Profile Books, 2009.

Index of Ancient Sources Greco-Roman Literature Aelius Spartianus Vita Hadriani 14.2

105 – 106

Aristotle History of Animals 9.46 188 Cicero In Verrum 2.5.64.165 – 66.170 151 2.5.66.169 151 Dio Cassius Roman History 4.27 69.12.1 69.12.1 – 2 69.12 – 14

137 106 104 105

Juvenal Satirae 6.219

154

Lucian The Lover of Lies 16

209

Quintillian Declamationes 274.13

154

Seneca De Ira

46

Suetonius Vespasian 4.5

101

Tacitus Annals 2.42 15.44

137 150

Historiae 5.9 5.12 5.13

91 135 101

Virgil Aeneid 12

46

1QHa (Hodayot) VI, 29 – 30 XI, 19 – 36 XI, 28 – 29 XIV, 29 – 30 XIV, 29 – 32

75 73 194 73 75

1QpHab V, 3 V, 4

76 75

Dead Sea Scrolls CD (Damascus Document) II, 17 – 21 195 VII, 18 – 21 112 VII, 19 – 21 73, 112 VIII, 18 – 21 112 1QapGen (Genesis Apocryphon) IX–XX 197 XXI, 2 212

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703771-010

Index of Ancient Sources

1QM (War Scroll) I, 1 I, 1 – 2 I, 2 I, 4 I, 5 I, 5 – 10 I, 6 I, 8 – 9 I, 9 I, 9 – 10 I, 10 – 13 I, 12 I, 13 – 15 I, 14 – 15 I, 14 – 16 I, 15 – 16 II, 10 – 14 III, 6 III, 8 III, 9 IV, 12 IV, 13 VI, 17 VII, 6 VIII, 8 – 9 VIII, 16 – 18 IX, 1 – 2 XI, 1 XI, 1 – 4 XI, 2 XI, 2 – 3 XI, 2 – 5 XI, 3 – 4 XI, 4 XI, 5 – 7 XI, 6 XI, 6 – 7 XI, 8 – 9 XI, 9 – 10 XI, 10 XI, 11 XI, 11 – 12 XI, 13 – 14 XI, 17 – 19 XII, 4 – 5 XII, 7

75 77 75 77 78, 194 79 75, 77 – 78 75 77, 79 74 75 77 194 75 75 77 77 77 74 77 74 74 74 187 74 74 74, 77 76 77 76 76 76 76 76 76 113 112 76 76 77 77 75 – 77 77 77 187 39

XII, 8 – 9 XII, 11 – 12 XII, 16 XIII, 10 XIII, 14 XIII, 16 XIV, 4 – 15 XIV, 10 XIV, 17 XV, 13 – 14 XVI, 7 XVI, 9 XVI, 11 XVII, 1 XVII, 7 – 8 XVII, 12 – 13 XVIII, 1 XIX, 3 – 4 XIX, 8

187 74 75 187 77 77 77 210 77 75, 204 74 74 77 74 79 74 75 74 79

1QS III–IV III, 13–IV, 26 III, 17b–19a III, 20–I25 IV, 2 – 26 IV, 18 – 19 V, 1 VIII, 6 – 7 IX, 23

195 73 195 195 195 199 74 75 75

1QSa (1Q28a) I, 1

78

1QSb (1Q28b) IV, 25 – 26 39 V, 20 – 22, 23b–29 112 – 113 V, 24 – 25, 27 73 4Q161 Frags. 8 – 10

73

4Q171 II, 14 – 15 II, 18 – 19

73 73

289

290

Index of Ancient Sources

4Q174 I, 18 – 19 I–III, ii 3 – 4

73 53

4Q175

112

4Q203

195

4Q212 (4QEng ar) IV, 16

4Q491 XI, ii 17

39

4Q511

213

4Q521

39

4Q526 VII

73 213

4Q531 – 533

195

4Q560 I, 1 – 4

197

11Q5 XXVII, 2 – 4 XXVII, 9 – 10

197 197

11Q11 I, 4, 6 IV, 4 IV, 7 – 9

197 197 213

11Q13 II, 11 – 13 II, 18 II, 24 – 25 III, 12 – 13, 24

207 53 207 192

90:2 – 5 90:6 90:8 90:9 90:10 90:11 90:12 90:13 90:13 – 15 90:14 90:15 – 16 90:16 90:18 90:18 – 19

65 68 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 66, 68 66 66 66 66

69

4Q242 (Prayer of Nabonidus) 197 4Q246 II, 1 II, 4, 5 – 9 4Q252 1 V, 3 – 4

39, 73 212 75

39

4Q285 Frag. 6

73

4Q286 – 287

195

4Q387a 3 III, 4

192

4Q471a

73

Early Jewish Literature 1 Enoch 10:4 – 6 10:11 – 13 10:12 – 13 10:15 13:1 18:11 – 16 18:16 54:4 – 6 56:5 – 8 56:7 69:27 – 28 89:16 89:59

199, 206, 213 199, 206 213 195 206 213 206 206, 213 134 121 206 65 55

Index of Ancient Sources

90:19 90:20 – 27 90:20 – 36 90:23 90:23 – 24 90:28 – 29 90:30 – 36 90:31 90:34 90:38b 91:11 91:11 – 13 91:11 – 17 91:12 91:12 – 16 91:14 91:15 91:16 – 17 91:17 93:1 – 10 93:2 93:3 93:9 93:9 – 10 93:10 94:10 – 11 95:3 96:1 98:12 99:11 – 16 99:16 100:1 – 2 100:1 – 4 100:4 – 5 100:7 – 9 103:15

66 – 67, 70, 88 66, 70 66 – 67 206 213 66 66 65 66 – 67 65 68 – 69 68 67 68, 70, 88 68 68, 70 68 68 68, 70 67 68 68 69 68 68 69 69 – 70 70 70 70 69 121 70 69 70 70

2:26 2:29 2:40 2:42 2:44 – 48 2:47 2:51 – 60 2:51 – 61 2:67 – 68 3:3 – 9 3:6 3:8 – 9 3:19 3:22 3:47 – 57 3:53 3:58 – 59 4:10 4:11 4:25 4:30 – 33 4:33 5:33 5:50 5:62 7:13 7:40 – 42 7:41 7:41 – 43 9:46 13:41 14:4 – 15 14:8 14:10 14:12 14:15 14:36

85 85 87 60, 85 85 86 85 85 140 86 86 86 87 87 88 87 85 87 87 87 87 87 88 87 85 85 88 88 87 87 86 86 86 86 86 86 86

1 Maccabees 1:41 – 42 1:43 1:60 – 64 1:63 1:64 2:1 – 14 2:15 2:24 2:24 – 27

84 84 84 84 57 84 84 85 84

2 Baruch 27:1 – 30:5 36:1 – 40:4 53:1 – 76:5 63.5 – 11

52 52 52 187

2 Maccabees 2:7 2:17 – 18

86 87

291

292

2:17 – 28 2:18 3:22 – 28 3:22 – 30 3:28 4:30 5:2 – 3 5:20 6:3 – 11 7:38 8:2 – 5 8:5 8:18 8:19 8:24 8:27 8:36 9:5 10:1 10:16 10:28 10:29 – 30 10:29 – 31 10:38 11:8 11:10 11:13 12:11 12:16 12:28 12:36 13:14 13:15 13:17 14:6 15:6 – 37 15:7 15:8 15:9 15:11 – 16 15:12 – 16 15:17 15:21 15:21 – 24 15:22 15:23 15:24

Index of Ancient Sources

84 86 87 187 87 156 187 57, 87 84 57 87 57 87 88 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 187 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 85 87 87 85, 156 88 87 88 88 88 87 85 88 87 88 88 88

15:27 15:29 15:32 15:32 – 33 15:33 15:34 15:34 – 35 15:35

87 – 88 88 88 88 88 88 87 88

4 Ezra 6:24 9:2 – 3 11:1 – 12.3 12:10 – 29 13:1 – 13 13:21 – 56

121 121 52 52 52 52

4 Maccabees 4:10

187

Josephus Antiquities 6.20 6.21 6.166 – 169 8.45 – 46 10.267 12.303 13.172 13.198 14.77 14.149 14.415 15.345 – 8 17.204 – 205 17.214 17.214 – 218 17.295 17.308 18.1 – 9 18.9 – 10, 23 18.18 18.23 18.24 18.25 18.55 – 62 18.60 – 62

97 97 197 196 102 97 75 97 91, 97 136 136 136 137 156 170 151 137 137 96 75 40, 96, 137 96 100 170 154

Index of Ancient Sources

18.86 – 87 20.97 20.160 20.167 20.168 20.227

170 103 136 103 103 156

War 1.10 1.10 – 11 1.27 1.176 – 177 1.180 1.304 2.8 – 13 2.9 2.84 2.88 2.117 – 118 2.118 2.139 – 140 2.169 – 177 2.174 2.197 2.208 2.223 – 231 2.230 2.252 – 253 2.253 2.254 2.258 2.259 2.261 2.261 – 263 2.264 2.266 2.267 2.274 2.289 2.289 – 308 2.301 2.316 2.320 – 324 2.324 2.345 – 401 2.346 2.403

156 95 95 154 156 136 170 156 95 85 137 96, 137 138 170 180 180 95 100, 171 99 98 151 136 103 103 103 185 103 95 156 95 156 100 95 95 95 95 174 97 138

2.409 2.410 – 411 2.411 2.422 2.423 2.433 2.441 2.447 2.452 2.455 2.517 – 518 2.585 2.651 3.9 3.399 – 408 4.157 4.160 – 161 4.323 4.362 4.504 5.5 5.11 5.21 5.30 5.33 5.100 5.114 5.261 5.312 – 313a 5.325 – 26 5.362 – 419 5.367 – 412 5.402 5.412 5.439 5.541 5.442 – 445 5.443 5.449 – 451 6.79 6.94 6.98 6.118 6.129 6.143 6.239 6.285

95, 100 95 156 95 156 98 156 98 156 156 95 156 98 99 102 95 98 95 95 136 95 95 99 95 95 99 174 174 55 174 97 174 95 95 95 174 94 94 151, 154 99 174 95 174 95, 174 95 134 103

293

294

Index of Ancient Sources

6.286 6.288 6.289 – 311 6.312 – 313a 6.313a 6.313b 6.315 6.323 – 327 6.329 6.351 6.351 – 353 6.365 6.442 7.185 7.252 – 253 7.253 7.254 7.268 – 274 7.270 7.389 7.420 – 421 7.433 – 435

103 103 103 101 103 102 103 134 91 134 134 174 100 196 98 98 96 98 99 99 135 135

Jubilees 1:28 5:1 – 11 5:6 5:6 – 7 9:15 10:1 – 14 10:4 – 5 10:4 – 9 10:7 – 8 11:4 – 6 23:9 – 32 23:16 23:19 23:23 – 25 48:15

134 195 206 213 121 195, 199 212 206 192 195 52 121 121 69 206

Judith 7:15

156

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 60 195

Philo Against Flaccus 83 – 85

151

On the Embassy to Gaius 302 154 That God is Unchangeable 138 208 Psalms of Solomon 5:3 206 17 52 17:1 39 17:22 – 23 125 17:22 – 25 52 17:30 184 Sibylline Oracles 3:663 – 730 3:669 – 701 4:40 – 48

134 52 52

Sirach 27:27 39:30

186 121

Testament of Adam 4:6 – 7 187 Testament of Dan 1:7 – 9 5:10 – 11

194 206 – 207

Testament of Judah 24:1 112 25:3 207, 213 Testament of Levi 3:3 18:3 18:12

187, 194 112 194, 206

Testament of Moses 10:1 199 10:1 – 10 52

Index of Ancient Sources

Testament of Simeon 6:6 207 Testament of Solomon 1:6 – 7 209 5:3 209 Testament of Zebulun 9:8 206 – 207

Tobit 6:7 – 8 6:17 – 18a 8:2 – 3 8:3 8:45 – 49 13:5

196 196 196 206 196 86

Wisdom 5:20 7:20

121 196

16:10 16:26 17:7 19:18

194 194 193 180

Numbers 12:3 22:22 22:23 24:17 24:17 – 19 24:18b 24:24

125 191 187 102, 111 – 112 76 – 77 76 78

Deuteronomy 1:30 3:22 4:30 4:34 5:15 6:13 7:17 – 24 7:19 9:10 14:1 20:1 – 20 30:3 31:29 32:8 32:8 – 9 32:17

75 75 54 61, 204 61, 204 223 87 61 204 184 73 86 54 212 59, 187 193

Old Testament Genesis 1:2 6:1 – 4 7:11 9:6

213 195 213 186

Exodus 2:23 4:21 6:1 8:19 9:3 11:10 13:14 13:16 14:1 – 31 14:4 14:13 14:13 – 14 15:1 – 18 15:2 15:4 15:6 15:18 20:2 – 3 20:5 23:20 24:18 31:18

66 61 61, 204 204 204 61 204 204 76 61 86 215 39 86 76 204 39 140 172 163 222 204

Leviticus 16:8

194

295

296

Index of Ancient Sources

32:30 34:12

75 61

Joshua 1:7 5:13 10:25 10:42 21:44 23:6 23:10 24:7

61 187 61 75 59 61 75 66

Judges 2:14 3:10 6:34 9:23 11:12 11:29 14:6 14:19 15:14 15:18 16:17

59 203 203 193 208 203 203 203 203 86 209

1 Samuel 2:1 11:9 11:13 12:8 16:13 16:14 16:15 16:16 16:23 17:3 17:46 17:47 18:10 19:9 23:1 – 5 29:4

86 86 86 66 203 193, 197 193 193 193 59 77 76 193 193 76 191

2 Samuel 3:18 5:17 – 25

85 76

7:18 8:1 – 4 13:29 16:10 18:9 19:22 22:3 22:16 22:36 22:47

188 76 125 208 125 208 86 210 86 86

1 Kings 1:28 – 40 1:33 1:38 4:25 8:51 – 53 9:8 11:14 11:23 11:25 17:18

125 125 125 86 66 222 191 191 191 208

2 Kings 3:13 6:15 – 19 18:13 – 19:37 19:15 – 19 19:35 – 37

208 187 76 187 187

1 Chronicles 5:22 18:10 21:16 21:30 28:5

76 181 187 187 38

2 Chronicles 11:15 13:8 20:14 20:15 32:7 – 8 35:21

193 38 203 76 75 208

Index of Ancient Sources

Ezra 1:8 8:31

112 181

Nehemiah 9:9

66

Esther 9:16

181

Job 1:6 1:12 2:1 2:6 4:7 8:4 8:20 22:5 26:11 41:32

191 191 191 191 172 172 172 172 210 213

Psalms 1:4 2:6 8:3 9:6 17:4 24:1 24:8 24:10 29:10 37:20 41:10 47:2 68:31 71:20 78:6 78:68 – 72 80:16 91:1 91:6 91:9 95:3 95:5 104:7 106:9

172 133 204 210 133 140 39 39 39 172 187 39 210 213 210 133 210 212 193 212 39 193 210 210

106:37 107:26 109:6 118:5 – 18 118:10 – 13 118:21 118:22 118:22 – 23 118:25 118:26 132:11 – 14 139:19 – 22 144:1 – 2

193 213 191 126 126 126 126 126 126 124, 127 133 179 75

Proverbs 10:24 – 25 22:8 30:15

172 186 194

Isaiah 1:16 – 26 2:1 – 4 2:2 9:6 9:16 10:24 – 11:10 10:33 – 34 11:2 11:9 12:2 13:21 17:2 23:1 23:12 24:21 – 22 25:9 26:1 – 3 26:18 27:4 29:18 – 19 30:15 – 18 30:18 31:8 33:2 33:6 33:22 34:14

175 131 54 122 77 55 102 86, 204 122 86 193 86 78 78 199, 207 86 133 86 181 163 61 61 76 – 77 86 86 39 193 – 194

297

298

Index of Ancient Sources

35:5 – 6 35:9 35:10 36:16 40:11 42:1b 42:1 – 4 43:5 44:1 – 6 39 45:17 46:13 49:5 49:6 49:8 49:24 – 26 52:7 52:10 53:12 56:3 – 8 56:7 59:11 61:1 61:1 – 7 61:2 65:3 66:16

163, 201 133 86 86 86 204 204 86 86 86 86 86 86 206 39, 86 86 143 – 147, 187 – 188 131 131, 133, 135 86 163, 166, 204 204 166 194 121

Jeremiah 2:10 3:23 7:1 – 15 7:4 7:5 – 6 7:9 7:10 7:11 7:12 – 14 7:13 23:20 25:8 – 14 25:12 25:16 – 38 29:10 30:24 31:8 31:10 32:27

78 86 132 133 133 133 133 132 – 133, 136 133 133 54 55 55 66 55 54 86 86 86

48:47 49:39

54 54

Lamentations 2:2

111

Ezekiel 7:22 11:17 18:10 24:21 27:6 28:25 34:13 37:21 38:16 39:27

133 86 133 135 78 86 86 86 54 86

Daniel 1:4 1:17 2:20 – 23 2:21 2:25 – 45 2:28 2:34 2:34 – 35 2:40 2:44 2:44 – 45 2:45 2:47 4:25 4:33 – 35 5:18 – 23 6:26 7:1 – 28 7:7 7:8 7:9 7:11 7:13 7:14 7:18 7:19 7:20 – 21 7:21

59 59 59 39 55 54 54, 57 – 58, 62, 77 57 56 54, 58, 62 57 58, 77 39 59 39, 59 59 39, 54 55 55 56 58 57 – 58 55 54 – 55 54 – 55 56 56 56

Index of Ancient Sources

7:22 7:23 7:26 7:27 8:1 – 26 8:9 – 10 8:17 8:19 8:19 – 25b 8:24 – 25 8:25 8:26 8:26 – 27 9:4 – 19 9:20 – 27 9:22 9:24 9:24 – 27 9:25 9:26 9:27 10:1 – 12:13 10:11 – 14 10:13 10:14 10:20 – 21 11:1 – 12:3 11:4 11:5 – 40 11:28 11:30 11:31 11:32 11:32 – 34 11:33 11:34 11:35 11:36 11:37 11:40 11:44 11:45 11:45 – 12:1 12:1

57 – 58 56 57 – 58 54, 63 55 57 54 54, 57 58 57, 59 54, 57 – 58, 62 62 57 44 55 59 55 55, 102 59 54 57 – 58 55 187 59 54 59, 187 55 133 57 62 60, 78 60 60 – 61 60 61 62 54, 60 – 62 57 54 54 58 57 – 58, 62 61 57, 59, 62

12:2 12:3 12:4 12:9 12:13

63 60, 63 54 54 54

Hosea 1:19 3:5 9:15 10:13

184 54 133 186

Obadiah 21

39

Micah 3:8 4:1 4:1 – 4 4:4 7:5 – 6

203 54 131 86 120

Zephaniah 3:9 – 10

131

Zechariah 1:16 3:1 3:2 3:10 6:9 – 15 8:9 – 15 9:9 9:10 9:13 9:14 – 16 9:15b 13:7 14:9 14:21b

134 191 210 86 113 134 124 – 125, 127 122 126 126 126 187 39 135

Malachi 3:1

163

299

300

Index of Ancient Sources

New Testament Matthew 2:2 3:7 – 12 3:11 3:17 4:1 4:1 – 11 4:3 4:5 – 7 4:6 4:8 4:8 – 10 4:9 4:10 4:10a 4:10b 4:12 – 17 4:23 – 24 4:24 4:24 – 25 5:1 – 7:29 5:3 – 12 5:5 5:9 5:29 – 30 5:38 – 39 5:38 – 48 5:42 5:44 5:45 6:10 7:16 – 20 7:24 – 27 7:28 – 29 8:5 – 13 8:11 – 12 8:16 8:16 – 17 8:27 8:28 8:28 – 34 8:29b 8:31 9:27 9:32 – 34

153 163 163, 206 223 222 222 222 – 223 187 223 223 223 223 – 224 226 – 227 223 223 17, 224 224 207 198 177 184 125 184 47 179 29, 177, 180 – 184, 186 186 1, 179, 181 179, 184 – 185 40 47 47 224 216 47 207 198 215 211 211 213 212 216 120, 202

10:4 10:5 – 42 10:6 10:6 – 33 10:7 – 8b 10:14 10:15 10:16 10:21 10:24 – 25 10:32 – 33 10:34 10:35 – 37 10:34 – 39 10:38 11:2 11:2 – 6 11:2 – 19 11:3 11:4 – 5 11:4 – 6 11:5 11:5 – 6 11:6 11:7 – 9 11:9 11:9b–11 11:10 11:12 11:14 11:15 11:16 – 19 11:17 11:18 – 19 11:21 – 24 11:29 12:14 – 15 12:15 – 16 12:18b 12:22 12:22 – 30 12:22 – 32 12:23 12:25 – 26 12:26

23 118 217 120 120 47 47 120 120 120 47 118 – 119, 121 – 122, 181 120 119 119 163, 166 166 162, 167, 169 163, 166 169 163 166 167 166 163, 167 163 167 163 162, 164 – 169 163 – 164 164 – 165 168 168 168 47 125 122 198 204 201, 216, 219 201 120 216 202 201 – 202, 226

Index of Ancient Sources

12:27 12:28 12:29 12:31 – 32 12:41 – 42 13:40 – 43 13:47 – 50 15:19 15:21 – 28 15:22 15:24 15:26 16:13 – 15 16:16 16:20 – 23 16:21 16:22 16:23 16:23b 16:27 17:1 – 8 17:10 – 12 17:14 – 20 17:15 17:16 17:18 17:22 – 23 17:23b 17:24 – 27 18:6 – 9 18:23 – 32 19:28 20:18 – 19 20:30 21:1 – 11 21:2 21:7 21:9 21:9a 21:9b 21:12 – 17 21:13 21:15 21:42 21:43 – 44 22:1 – 14 22:15 – 22

197 199, 202 – 205 205 – 206 201 47 47 47 156 216 216 – 217 217 217 225 225 225 226 – 227 226 226 – 227 226 47 218 163 218 218 – 219 219 – 220 219 – 220 227 227 139 47 47 47 227 216 122 124 124 216 126 125 127 131 216 126 47 47 136

22:17 22:21 23:15 23:29 – 36 23:33 24:45 – 51 25:14 – 46 25:41 26:24 26:41 26:47 – 56 26:51 26:52b 26:52 – 54 26:53 26:54 26:55 26:56 27:11 27:11 – 26 27:12 – 13 27:15 27:16 27:26 27:29 27:37 27:38 27:40 27:43 27:44

137 138 48 47 48 47 47 213 47 228 148, 185 186 186 – 187 186 187, 227 187 135, 155, 188 187 – 188 153 155 152 156 156 157 153 153 135, 152, 155 223 223 135

Mark 1:2 1:7 1:9 – 11 1:10 1:11 1:12 – 13 1:13 1:14 – 15 1:15 1:21 – 28 1:22 1:23 1:24 1:25 – 26 1:27

163 163, 206 224 222 223 222, 224, 227 222, 226 17, 224 38 207 210, 224 208 208, 212, 216 209 210, 224

301

302

1:34 1:39 2:19b–35 3:7 – 12 3:11 – 12 3:18 3:21 3:22 3:22 – 27 3:22 – 30 3:23 3:24 3:24 – 25 3:26 3:27 3:28 – 30 4:15 4:35 – 41 5:1 – 20 5:2 5:4 5:6 5:7 5:13 5:41 6:7 – 11 6:11 6:49 7:21 7:24 – 30 7:26 7:27 7:29 8:27 – 29a 8:27 – 33 8:29b 8:31 8:32 8:33 8:38 9:2 – 8 9:11 – 13 9:14 – 29 9:18 9:20 9:22 9:22 – 23

Index of Ancient Sources

198, 207 198, 207 120 198 207 23 202 202 201 227 201 – 202, 206, 226 202 202 202, 226 205 – 206 201, 204 226 215 211 212 211 212 212 – 213, 216 212 215 118 47 208 156 216 217 217 217 225 225 225 226 – 227 226 226 – 227 47 218 163 218 219 – 220 218 218 220

9:25 9:26b 9:27 9:31 9:32 9:38 – 39 9:42 – 47 10:12 10:12 – 15 10:33 – 34 10:45 11:1 – 11 11:2 11:4 11:5 11:7 11:9a 11:10a 11:11 11:15 – 19 11:17 12:10 – 11 12:13 – 17 12:14 12:17 12:22 14:21 14:36 14:38 14:43 – 50 14:47 14:48 14:49 14:50 15:1 – 5 15:2 15:3 – 4 15:6 15:7 15:9 15:12 15:15 15:17 15:18 15:26 15:27

209, 220 218 218 227 227 197 47 47 47 227 228 122 124 124 124 124, 131, 136 126 126 127 127 132, 135 126 136 137 138, 141 37 47 228 228 148, 185 143, 186 135, 155 187 – 188 188 155 153 152 156 129, 153, 156 153 153 157 156 153 153 135, 152, 155

Index of Ancient Sources

15:29 – 32 15:39

158 223

Luke 1:79 2:14 3:7 – 17 3:16 4:1 4:1 – 13 4:2 4:3 4:5 4:5 – 8 4:6 4:8 4:9 4:9 – 12 4:14 4:14 – 30 4:22b 4:31 – 37 4:32 4:33 4:34 4:35 4:36 4:38 – 39 4:40 – 41 4:41 4:42 – 44 6:15 6:17 – 19 6:17 – 49 6:18 6:27 6:27 – 36 6:28 – 29 6:35 6:46 – 49 7:1 – 10 7:2 7:18 – 35 7:50 8:25 8:26 – 39 8:27

122 122 163 163, 206 222 222 222 223 223 223 224 223 223 187 223 224 223 207 210, 224 208 208 209 – 210 210, 224 219 198 207 17 23 198 177 207 1, 179 29, 146, 177, 180 – 184 179 179, 184 – 185 47 216 198 162 122 215 211 212

8:28 8:29 8:31 8:32 8:48 9:1 – 5 9:5 9:18 – 20a 9:18 – 22 9:20b 9:22 9:28 – 36 9:37 – 43 9:39 9:40 9:42 9:42a 9:44 9:45 9:49 – 50 9:51 9:51 – 56 10:5 – 6 10:30 10:36 11:14 11:14 – 23 11:17 – 18a 11:18 11:19 11:20 11:21 – 22 11:22 11:31 – 32 11:47 – 51 12:1 12:1 – 13:9 12:4 12:8 – 9 12:18 – 10 12:42 – 46 12:49 12:51 12:54 – 59 13:1 13:1 – 5

303

208, 212 – 213 211 213 212 122 118 47 225 225 225 226 – 277 218 218 218 219 – 220 219 – 220 218 227 227 197 171 227 122 135 135 201, 219 201 202 201 – 202 197 199, 203 – 205 205 206 47 171 172 119 47 201 47 119 118 – 119, 121 – 122 171 170, 172, 176 146, 169, 171, 174 – 175, 177, 187

304

13:1 – 9 13:1 – 35 13:2 13:3 13:4 13:5 13:6 – 9 13:7 13:9 13:10 – 17 13:11 13:28 – 29 13:31 – 35 14:25 – 27 16:16 16:19 – 31 17:1 – 2 17:11 – 19 18:31 – 33 18:34 19:11 – 27 19:29 – 39 19:38 19:41 – 44 19:42 19:43 – 44 19:45 – 48 19:46 19:47 – 48 20:17 20:19 20:20 20:20 – 24 20:20 – 26 20:22 20:25 21:6 22:14 – 38 22:22 22:28 – 30 22:35 – 38 22:36 22:37 22:38 22:40 22:41 – 46 22:42

Index of Ancient Sources

174 – 175 172 176 169, 171 – 172 172, 176 169, 171 – 172 174, 177 174 174 219 219 47 175 119 162 47 47 216 227 227 47 122 122, 126 175, 189 122, 146, 175 175 127 131 138 126 138 137 175 136 137 138 175 145 47 47 142 – 147 143 – 148 145, 147, 188 143 – 144, 147 228 145 145

22:44 22:46 22:47 – 53 22:49 22:49 – 51 22:50 22:51 22:52 22:53 23:1 – 7 23:2 23:3 23:5 23:13 – 15 23:17 23:19 23:24 – 25 23:25 23:32 23:34 23:37 23:38 23:39 24:24

145 228 148 143, 148 145 – 146 185 – 186 144, 146, 187 – 188 135, 147, 155, 188 159, 228 155 137 – 138, 152 153 152 155 156 129, 153, 156 157 129 152, 155 188 153 153 152 227

John 2:4 2:13 – 22 2:14 6:15 6:69 9:1 – 2 10:1 10:8 10:12 10:28 10:29 12:14 – 15 12:31 14:30 16:11 18:10 – 11 18:36 18:40 19:20

208 130 130 164 209 172 236 236 164 164 164 124 223, 236 223 223 148 236 156 154

Index of Ancient Sources

Acts 3:14 4:11 4:27 4:30 5:37 7:60 8:39 9:1 15:2 16:17 19:13 19:13 – 16 19:40 23:7 23:10 24:5

1 Thessalonians 5:15

177

Hebrews 11:37

156

1 Peter 2:7 3:9

126 177

1 John 2:20 5:18 – 19

209 223

Jude 23

164

Revelation 3:7 9:1 – 2 9:21 11:7 12:5 13:10 14:10 17:8 19:11 – 16 19:11 – 21 20:1 20:2 – 3 20:3 20:10

209 213 156 213 164 186 213 213 119 237 213 206 213 213

Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 6b 125

Genesis Rabbah 64:10 75

106 125

Sanhedrin 43a 93b 98a

Jerusalem Talmud Ta’anit 4:8, 68d

111

156, 209 126 209 209 137 236 164 156 156 212 212 197 – 198 156 156 156, 164 156

Romans 1:29 5:21a 10:7 12:14 – 21 12:17 12:21

156 202 213 236 177 236

2 Corinthians 4:4 12:2 12:4

223 164 164

Ephesians 2:2 5:1 – 2

223 185

Rabbinic Literature

202 111 125

305

306

Index of Ancient Sources

Lamentations Rabbah 2:4 111

Tanhuma 2a

125

Mishnah Avot 2:7 3:8 3:15

Targumim Isaiah 50:11

186

Eusebius of Caesarea Ecclesiastical History 4.6 106 4.6.1 – 4 105 4.6.2 110

1.17 31.6

139 111

Gospel of Thomas 41 47

Tertullian Apology 21.17 23.7 23.12

186 140 184

Early Christian Literature

Justin Martyr 1 Apology

Dialogue with Trypho 69.7 202

202 202 202

Subject Index Allison Jr., Dale C. 12 – 15, 32 – 34, 137 Antiochus IV Epiphanes 61 – 62, 84 – 85, 106, 113 Apocalyptic 4 – 6, 33, 34, 47, 48, 49 Apocalyptic Jesus 31 – 34 Apolitical 5, 26, 117, 159, 161, 177, 183, 231, 233, 235 Aslan, Reza 1 Balaam 111 Bammel, Ernst 25 Barabbas 153, 156 – 157 Barclay, John 93 Bar-Kokhba Revolt 50, 81, 104 – 114 Bar Kosiba, Simeon 110 – 114 Beelzebul controversy 200 – 207, 229 Berger, Klaus 117 Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando 3 – 7, 116, 119, 123 – 124, 127, 129, 139 – 140, 142 – 144, 146, 148 – 154, 157 – 159, 165, 181 – 182 Bird, Michael 134 Borg, Marcus J., 30 – 32, 34 Bourgois, Phillippe 42, 45 Brandon, S. G. F., 5, 22 – 25, 116, 118 – 119, 123 – 124, 127, 129, 139, 142 – 143, 148, 165, 180, 182 Brown, Robert McAfee 43 Bultmann, Rudolph 9, 21 Caird, G. B. 36 – 38, 134 Cameron, Peter Scott 162, 165 Carmignac, Jean 36 Cook, John Granger 151 Criteria of authenticity 8, 12 Crossan, John Dominic 30 – 32, 34 Crucifixion 4, 49, 136, 150 – 159, 189, 235 – 236 Cullmann, Oscar 24 Davies, W. D. 137 Demons 51, 192 – 200, 207 – 221 Divine warrior 145

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110703771-011

Duhaime, Jean 75 Dunn, James D. G. 13 – 15, 150 Eisler, Robert 129, 165, 181 Ellul, Jacques 43 Epistemology 11, 15 Eschatology 2 – 8, 15 – 21, 23, 25, 26, 29 – 30, 32 – 38 , 40, 42, 46 – 51, 54, 62, 65 – 70, 79, 87, 96 – 97, 99, 141 – 142, 147, 157, 169, 188 – Inaugurated 109 – Jewish 7, 28, 37, 50, 52, 90, 97 see also Second Temple Judaism – Other-worldly 5, 19 – 21, 25 – 27, 34 – 35, 38, 191 – Role of God’s people 59 – 62, 69 – 70, 75, 78 – 79 – This-worldly 5, 20 – 22, 34, 35 Eschatological expectations 2, 5, 7, 38, 47 – 48, 50, 52 – 53, 62, 65, 69, 79 – 80, 82, 101, 103 – 105, 114, 191, 215 Eschatological violence 7, 15 – 17, 4 – 53, 63, 69, 70, 78 – 79, 101, 113, 115 – 118, 130, 134, 142, 156, 158 – 160, 185 – 186, 189 – 190, 192, 215, 221, 228 – 231 – Jewish 81, 83, 85, 87 – 88, 231 – 232 see also Second Temple Judaism – Synergistic 70 – 71, 74 – 78, 87 Eve, Eric 13, 15, 195 Evil (unclean) spirits, see Demons Exorcism 192 – 221, 224, 228 – 230, 234 – 236 – Jesus’ exorcistic activity 51, 191 – 192, 207 – 221 – First-century Jewish understanding 193 – 198, 229 – 230 Exousia 159, 210, 217, 221 – 225, 228 “Fourth philosophy” 95 – 98, 104 Freyne, Seán 134 Galtung, John 43 Gerasene Demoniac 211 – 215

308

Subject Index

Gethsemane 129, 145 – 146, 148 – 150, 155, 159, 185 – 189, 236 Green, Joel B. 40 Hadrian 106 – 107, 113 Hengel, Martin 24 Herod Agrippa II, 97 Herod Antipas 163, 166 Herod the Great 90, 136 Historical Jesus 3, 5 – 6, 8 – 12, 14 – 16, 21, 23, 25, 30, 34 – 35 Historiography 10, 13 Horsley, Richard 27, 28, 35, 140 – 141, 181 – 183 Isaac, Benjamin 105 Israel 31 – 32, 39, 40, 54, 59, 69, 76 – 79, 83, 101, 107 – 109, 135, 141, 159, 166, 176 – 177, 187, 189, 215, 217 Jesus Seminar 29 – 30 Jewish Revolutionary Violence, see Violence, Revolutionary Jewish-Roman War 19, 23, 27 50 – 51, 81, 89 – 91, 97, 99, 104, 113 John the Baptist 163 – 167, 206 Josephus 91 – 96, 98 – 104, 114, 134 – 135, 153, 170, 173 – 174 Judas the Galilean 95 – 96, 98, 137 Käsemann, Ernst 8 Keck, Leander 37 Keith, Chris 9 – 12, 14, 15 Kingdom of God/Heaven 5, 7, 15, 17 – 21, 27, 30 – 35, 38, 40 – 42, 50 – 51, 54, 57 – 58, 63, 117 – 118, 122, 147, 156, 158 – 159, 161 – 169, 183 – 185, 189 – 192, 200, 202, 207, 210, 214, 217, 221 – 222, 228, 230 – 231 Kloppenborg, John 41 – 42 Konradt, Matthias 122, 169, 186 – 187 Kruger, H. A. J. 145 – 146 Lampe, G. W. H. 144 Lēstēs / Lēstai 132 – 136, 150 – 159, 168, 189 Luz, Ulrich 164

Maccabean Revolt 50, 64 – 65, 81 – 89, 100 – 101, 113 – 114 Maccabeus, Judas 64 – 65, 86, 88 – 89 Maccoby, Hyam 129 Martin, Dale B. 4 – 6, 148 McLaren, James 98, 100 – 101 Memory theory 10, 12 – 13 Merkel, Helmut 139 Meshorer, Ya’akov 107 Messiah/messianic 19, 110, 123 – 124, 127, 166, 176, 226 – 227 – Expectations 19, 103, 138, 226 Moore, Ernest 167 – 168 Moule, C. F. D. 25 Neufeld, Thomas Yoder 42 – 44 “New Quest” 8 Nolland, John 209, 226 Nonviolence 1, 5, 7, 20, 29, 33, 35, 50, 51, 117, 158, 161, 231 Numismatics 107 – 109 Oppenheimer, Aharon 105 Pacifism 23, 119 Passover 156 Peace 121 – 122, 125 – 127 Peacemakers 6, 183 – 185, 190 Pigott, Susan 39 Pontius Pilate 150, 153, 155 – 157, 169 – 172, 176 Portier-Young, Anathea E. 61, 63, 69 Reimarus, Herman Samuel 19, 20, 22, 128 Reinhartz, Adele 110 – 111 Sanders, E. P. 26, 34 s/Satan, The 33, 51, 194, 199, 200, 201 – 207, 214, 218, 221 – 222, 222 – 225, 225 – 228, 229 – 230 Scheper–Hughes, Nancy 42, 45 Schertz, Mary 145 – 146 Schreiber, Stefan 99, 183, 205 Schweitzer, Albert 19 – 21, 23, 25 – 26, 34 – 35 Schweitzer, Alexander 165

Subject Index

Second Temple Judaism 1, 3, 5 – 8, 15 – 16, 18, 24, 32 – 39, 42, 46 – 53, 79, 81, 89, 113 – 115 159 – 161, 180, 187, 191 Sedition 4 – 5, 137 – 138 Seditious Jesus Hypothesis (SJH) 5, 7, 9, 15 – 16, 35, 50, 116 – 118, 128 – 130, 132, 136, 142 – 144, 146 – 148, 150 – 151, 157 – 158 – 161, 165, 169, 180 – 183, 185, 189, 192, 200, 210, 231 – 234 Sermon on the Mount 177 – 185 Shirock, Robert 174 – 175 Sim, David 121 Stuckenbruck, Loren 194 Suffering servant 145 “Temple Act” 127 – 136, 159 Temptation (in the Wilderness) 222 – 225 “The end” 2, 34, 36 – 38, 52, 54, 59 – 60, 62 Third Quest 18 – 19, 25, 29 Titulus crucis 153 – 154 Tomasino, Anthony J. 102 Triumphal Entry 122 – 126, 159 “Tribute Question” 136 – 142 Twelftree, Graham 197, 199, 203 “Two swords” 142 – 148

309

Violence 1 – 8, 15 – 16, 18 – 23, 25 – 28, 34 – 35, 41 – 52, 54, 79 – In Daniel 56 – 63, 70, 79, 102 – In 1 Enoch 64 – 67, 67 – 70, 79 – Eschatological, see eschatological violence – Physical 41 – 48 – Revolutionary 1, 5, 7, 16, 23 – 25, 28 – 29, 34 – 36, 48, 50 – 51 , 79, 81, 85, 89, 91, 131, 138, 146, 148 – 149, 160, 221 – 222 – In 1QM 70 – 79 Weiss, Johannes 19 – 20 Wilderness temptation, see Temptation (in the Wilderness) Wink, Walter 24 – 25, 28 – 29, 35, 184 Witmer, Amanda 209, 212 Wright, N. T. 135, 173 Yaḥad 74 – 75, 77 – 78 YHWH 39 – 40, 55, 59, 62, 69, 85, 109, 114, 123, 127, 131, 133 – 134, 137, 141, 167, 204, 215 Young, Franklin 174 Zeal 82 – 85, 89, 99 Zealot 2, 22 – 24, 26, 28, 139, 165, 168