Why the Government Bailout Failed

Since Jim posted on the mess in Washington, I thought I'd post a link to an especially good special on ABC's news program 20/20: The Big, Bad Bailout.

My wife and I watched it the other night and were blown away--particularly the first segment. This should be required viewing for all American voters and anyone interested in American politics should watch it. I don't agree with everything Stossel does, but he makes some very good points here.

Last Supper, Targums and "Blood of the Covenant" (2 of 2)

As I mentioned in the last post in this series, the Targumim [--there you go Jim!] of Exodus 24 link the covenant-making sacrifices with “atonement”. Why? Here I am going to “think out loud” a bit, drawing from J. H. Kurtz[1]. Just bear with me.

Of course, scholars usually refrain from posting items such as these because they are worried their ideas will get stolen before they can publish them in an academic journal--but I trust you. . .

Leviticus 17
The connection between the sacrifices of Exodus 24 and atonement language in the Targumim appears to flow naturally from the logic of Leviticus.

To begin with, let us point out that the sacrifices in Exodus from which Moses takes the “blood of the covenant” are explicitly identified as “peace offerings” (שׁלם) (cf. Exod 24:5).

Now, in Leviticus 17 it is said that such sacrifices are to be taken to the Tabernacle. Israelites are not to offer them elsewhere. They must bring them to the Tabernacle for a specific purpose: so that the priest can sprinkle the blood from the victims at the door of the sanctuary. Notice that it is specifically "peace-offerings" (also known as "well-being" offerings) which are explicitly mentioned:

This is to the end that the people of Israel may bring their sacrifices which they slay in the open field, that they may bring them to the Lord, to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting, and slay them as sacrifices of peace offerings to the Lord; 6 and the priest shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of the Lord at the door of the tent of meeting, and burn the fat for a pleasing odor to the Lord. 7 So they shall no more slay their sacrifices for satyrs, after whom they play the harlot. This shall be a statute for ever to them throughout their generations (Lev 17:5–7).

Leviticus 17 then goes on to explain that anyone who does not bring their burnt offerings or sacrifices to the Tabernacle will be cut off from Israel.

And you shall say to them, Any man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice [זבח] and does not bring it to the door of the tent of meeting, to sacrifice it to the Lord; that man shall be cut off from his people (Lev 17:8–9).

Two offerings are specifically mentioned now: the burnt offering and the zebah [זבח]. Has the peace-offering fallen out of the picture? I don't think so. Kurtz points out that within the Pentateuch the term zebah is exclusively used to describe the peace-offering. This suggests that the peace-offering is therefore still in view.

So why is God so insistent that sacrifices be brought to the Tent so that the blood from the victims can be sprinkled? Well, from the following verses it would seem that―at least in part―the command has to do with concern that Israelites not consume the blood of the offering.

If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people (Lev 17:10).

With this we've at last reached the critical verse. Here the Lord explains the precise reason for the injunction against drinking blood:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life. 12 Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood” (Lev 17:11–12).

Now here’s my question: given the context, which kind of sacrificial offering is in view here? I would submit that it is possible that since peace-offerings have been in view throughout the chapter the passage was read in connection with those specific sacrifices. Indeed, the concern would make sense: peace-offerings are eaten thus there you have the concern for the blood. So even though peace-offerings are not specifically attached to atonement elsewhere the readers of the Targums could make the connection between them.

In Exodus 24:5 then Israelites offer peace offerings at the covenant ceremony at Sinai. The authors of Targumim made the connection between them and atonement―a connection which could possibly be made in Leviticus 17. In fact, since in Exodus 24 it is the blood (“the blood of the covenant”) that is specifically in view and since in Leviticus 17 blood is specifically tied with atonement (“it is the blood that makes atonement”), the connection was easy to make.

The Last Supper and Atonement Language
How does this relate to the Last Supper? Well, notice that Jesus seems to speak of his blood having an atoning value. This is seen in multiple ways.

1. Jesus' language of his blood being "poured out"--something found in all three Synoptic accounts of the Last Supper evokes the Levitical law code. Not only does it evoke the language of Leviticus 17, but also the fact that the blood of the sacrificial animals brought for atonement had to be "poured out" (cf. Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34).

2. The ritual of pouring out blood is also linked with the Day of Atonement in the Dead Sea Scrolls (cf. 11Q19 15:3; 23:13). These texts provide strong support for the antiquity of the traditions found in the Mishna which also link the pouring out of blood to the Yom Kippur liturgy (cf. m. Yoma 5:4, 7; cf. also b. Yoma 56b). The Talmud explains that the blood was poured from cups (cf. b. Yoma 57b). This may be significant. There is a particularly striking parallel between Jesus’ words and Sirach 50:15, which explain that on the Day of Atonement the duties of the high priest apparently involved “pouring out” (ἐξέχεεν) the “blood of the grape” (αἵματος σταφυλῆς) from a “cup” (σπονδείου) (cf. Sir 50:15). That Jesus has spoken of his “blood” being “poured out” in connection with the wine in the “cup” is strikingly evocative of this text.

3. In Isaiah 53 we read about the Suffering Servant who “poured out his soul to death. . . he bore the sin of many” (Isa 53:12). That atonement imagery is linked to the Suffering Servant is clear. He is explicitly described as a “sin-offering,” who, like the scapegoat of Yom Kippur, is said to “bear iniquities" and "he bore the sin of many" (Isa 53:10, 12). Of course, it is widely accepted that Jesus' saying about his blood being "poured out for many" in Matthew and Mark (cf. Matt 26:27//Mark 14:24) is drawing on this prophecy.

4. In the account of the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul does not mention Jesus’ blood being “poured out.” But this does not mean that he does not see it as having atoning value. It is possible that the very image of Jesus' "blood" would have evoked such imagery for Paul. Expiation is typically associated with Jesus' blood throughout the New Testament books, including in other Pauline letters (cf. Rom 3:25; 5:9; Eph 1:7; 2:13; Col 1:20; Heb 9:12, 14; 10:19, 29, 12:24; 13:12; 1 Pet 1:2, 19; 1 John 1:7; 5:6, 8; Rev 1:5; 5:9; 7:14; 12:11). Confirmation that Paul has this in mind may be seen in the following.

5. That Jesus’ dies for others is explicitly stated in the Lukan version of the bread-saying: "This is my body which is given for you" (τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον; Luke 22:19). While Paul simply has "for you" (ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν), omitting "given" (διδόμενον), most commentators rightly note that he probably intends the same meaning―Jesus is giving his life for others. Indeed, elsewhere Paul uses the preposition ὑπὲρ (="for") to describe Christ’s death as an expiatory sacrifice (e.g., 1 Cor 15:3; Rom 5:6, 8). An allusion to atonement imagery is thus likely present in his account.

6. Of course, Matthew specifically has Jesus' describing his blood being poured out "for the forgiveness of sins". Some have seen here a reference to Isaiah 53, others to Jeremiah 31, and still others think both are in mind.

7. It may be significant that Jesus describes himself not only as a sacrifice but also as an edible offering (i.e., he gives his “body” to be eaten). In this scholars we might have an allusion to the Passover sacrifice, which was a kind of peace-offering. That would be significant because Jesus' sacrifice would then be linked with the same kinds of sacrifice offered in Exodus 24--a passage clearly evoked by his words which link his "blood" to "covenant".

However, there is another kind of offering which might also be mentioned: the sin-offering. Leviticus 10:17 seems to suggest that the priest's eating of the sin-offering was intrisically linked to atonement. After Aaron and the priests fail to eat of the sacrifices, Moses states: "Why have you not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, since it is a thing most holy and has been given to you that you may bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord?" (Lev 10:17). That eating of the sacrifice was an essential part of making atonement is thus recognized by many scholars of Israel's cultic laws [e.g., Milgrom (Leviticus 1-16, 638), Gane (Cult and Character, 96), and Levine (Leviticus, 62)]. By themselves imagery of “blood” being “poured out” and the eating of the sacrifice are merely possible points of contact with atonement terminology. However their appearance alongside each other within a passage containing allusions to the Suffering Servant (=a sin-offering) and the “covenant” ceremony of Exodus 24 makes an allusion to the eating of sin-offerings highly probable.

In closing. . .
Obviously, I realize that Jesus' language of "new covenant" may also have carried atonement implications--prophecies of God establishing/renewing an eschatological covenant with his people were almost always associated with the idea of reconciliation with God (i.e., the former covenant had been broken) so atonement imagery might have simply been suggested by that connection.

Either way, it seems atonement is in view in a passage in which Jesus cites from Exodus 24--a passage the Targums also linked with atonement.

Much more could be said. You'll have to read my thesis to get more.

But keep in mind, I’m just thinking out loud here.

NOTES
[1] For the following see J. H. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament (trans. J. Martin; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1863; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker House,1980), 365.

Oldest Icon of St. Paul discovered

L’Osservatore Romano is reporting that last Friday the oldest known icon of St. Paul was recently discovered in the catacombs of St. Thecla, which is located on the Via Ostiensis. The image apparently dates to the fourth century. It was discovered during a restoration project.

Since L’Osservatore Romano is in Italian, here's the story from Reuters:

ROME (Reuters) - Vatican archaeologists using laser technology have discovered what they believe is the oldest image in existence of St Paul the Apostle, dating from the late 4th century, on the walls of catacomb beneath Rome.

Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano, revealing the find on Sunday, published a picture of a frescoed image of the face of a man with a pointed black beard on a red background, inside a bright yellow halo. The high forehead is furrowed.

Experts of the Ponitifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology made the discovery on June 19 in the Catacomb of Santa Tecla in Rome and describe it as the "oldest icon in history dedicated to the cult of the Apostle," according to the Vatican newspaper.

The discovery, which involved removing layers of clay and limestone using lasers, was announced a day before Rome observes a religious holiday for the Feasts of St Peter and St Paul.

Peter and Paul are revered by Christians as the greatest early missionaries. Converting on the road to Damascus following a blinding vision of Jesus, Paul took the Gospel to pagan Greeks and Romans and met his martyrdom in Rome in about 65 AD.

Early Christians in Rome buried their dead in catacombs dug into the soft rock under the city and decorated the underground walls with devotional images, often in the Pompeian style.

Here are some of the amazing pictures that have been released.





























H/T: NLM

Do You "Pisseth" Correctly?

Okay, this post is a little, um, irreverent. But I just had to do this. . .

Over at the blog Theology Matters there's a post regarding a video of a pastor preaching that Jesus actually wore "pants" and not a "dress". His view is largely based on his assumption that the King James Version is the only truly inspired English Bible.

Now, I realize that this stuff is a little silly. But I just couldn't resist posting this video, which I first saw last year on Canterbury Tales. I hate to be uncharitable--I don't know the man and I'm sure he must really love the Lord--but I thought this sermon on "he who 'pisseth' against the wall" was the most hilarious thing I ever saw in my life. And I'm not exaggerating: this takes the cake. If anybody needs clarity on what a "fundamentalist" is, here's your answer.

Be forewarned. . . you may laugh so hard you hurt yourself:
Pisseth Against the Wall

Top 5 Influences Meme

Mike Koke has memed (is that the right term?) me on his excellent blog The Golden Rule. The meme was started by Kevin Brown, who says, "Name the five books (or scholars) that had the most immediate and lasting influence on how you read the Bible."

This is an impossibly difficult task for me, so I'll just name 5 "of the most influential" books or scholars who have had a lasting impact on the way I read the Bible and I'm listing them in no particular order. I'm going to limit my selections to authors who have lived in the past 30 years--otherwise, Thomas Aquinas and patristic sources would probably have to come first!

1. Scott Hahn. When I was a young teenager I was first exposed to a lecture given by Dr. Hahn--it literally changed my life. I was immediately hooked on Scripture. I must have been around 13 or so and I was hooked. I told my dad I wanted to major in Theology, get my Ph.D. and become a professor. I've been on that track ever since. So I mean it when I say that really no one has impacted me more than Dr. Hahn--he introduced me to Biblical Theology and was the first to light a fire in me to study my faith. And his work continues to profoundly shape my thought.

Of course, Dr. Hahn has numerous books. Many of them are written for popular or semi-popular audiences. Having said that, I realize that because he has so many best-selling popular books, many people are unfamiliar with his scholarship. Here I can single out one academic title of his that is a true must-read: Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God's Saving Promises (Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2009). This is Scott's doctoral dissertation which was completed at Marquette in 1995. It was only recently published by the Anchor Yale Reference Series. Previously it was available (in an earlier form) through UMI Dissertation services and has been cited in many monographs.

I can't stress enough how influential this single book has been on me.

Readers of his popular works of course will be struck by the strikingly different style of this work. If you are an academic and you do not have it yet, stop everything you're doing and order it today. Seriously. I mean it when I say that practically nothing has affected my outlook on Scripture more than this one single volume, which looks at the theme of covenant--a pretty important motif!--in the Old and New Testaments.

I plan to write a review post eventually, but suffice it to say Scott's analysis of covenant impacts the way you read just about the whole Bible. And you should see the reviews (David Noel Freedman, Scot McKnight, etc.)!

2. N.T. Wright. This is definitely NOT a sweeping endorsement of his work, though certainly I do like a lot of what he has to say. The man is so influential in scholarship at large--historical Jesus research, Pauline studies--it is almost impossible to remain unaffected by his work. Of all his works, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press; London: SPCK, 1996) is probably my favorite.

3. Jon D. Levenson. Levenson is a genius writer. Again, this is not a sweeping endorsement. But I must say, a lot of the ideas in his book Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985) have had a profound impact on the way I read the Bible.

4. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI). Of course, long before he became the Bishop of Rome, Joseph Ratzinger was a leading Catholic theologian, who especially emphasized the need for theologians to become rigorous exegetes of Scripture. A profoundly thoughtful writer (he is German, of course!), I firmly believe that he is deserving of a hearing from Catholics and non-Catholic scholars alike. As Ratzinger once put it, "Dogma is nothing other than an interpretation of Scripture." Numerous works could be mentioned here. In particular, I would highlight the following titles:

Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1988).
Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987).
Behold the Pierced One (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987).
The Nature and Mission of Theology: Essays to Orient Theology in Today's Debate (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995).

The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000).

Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996). The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993).

5. Brant Pitre. Yes, Brant is my good friend and co-blooger. I realize this might seem like I am simply being impartial, but the honest truth of the matter is I read the dissertation he wrote at Notre Dame before I really knew him well at all. Of course, it is now published by Baker Academic. The title is Jesus, the Tribulation and the End of the Exile (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006). Of course, so much could be said about it. But above all else three things stood out to me about this work.

First, Brant's methodology is brilliant. Among other things he does his exegesis prior to his historical analysis. Anyone familiar with Jesus research knows that this is the exact opposite of what one finds in most works; typically the historicity is established first and only then are exegetical considerations are brought into the discussion. Brant makes the point that this is absurd--how can we establish the historicity of a saying or deed of Jesus if we do not properly understand it?! Obviously, we cannot.

Second, Brant demonstrates that for ancient Jews restoration hopes were typically linked to the idea of a period of eschatological tribulation. In fact, he shows that this period of eschatological affliction was also tied to the idea of atonement. The overview of such ideas in Jewish sources is spectacular. He goes on to demonstrate a pervasive presence of eschatological tribulation traditions in the Gospels. The treatment on the Apocalyptic Discourse is extremely important. In addition, he shows how some of the most obscure passages in the Gospels become clear once the Jewish notion of eschatological tribulation is properly understood from the Jewish sources (e.g., Daniel, DSS, etc.), e.g.,

"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force. 13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John; 14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. 15 He who has ears to hear, let him hear" (Matt 11:12-15).

Moreover, he traces the origins of atonement theology into these texts.

After reading this book, I've come to see the significant importance of the tribulation theme in the New Testament--it seems that I can't turn a couple of pages without finding such imagery! Again, much more could be said, but the work is a must-read--and I'm not just saying that as Brant's friend. I can truly say that even if Brant was not a good buddy of mine, this would probably still be my favorite work on the historical Jesus.

Five Other People
So now I'm supposed to "tag" some other people. I actually am really interested in learning which books were most impactful on them: Michael Bird, Chris Tilling, Jim West, Nick Norelli, and James McGrath.

I should say that I normally dislike getting memed so I feel a little guilty doing it to these guys. But the question was a fun one, so I hope they won't mind too much!

The Last Supper, Targums and the "Blood of the Covenant" (1 of 2)

All four of the accounts of Jesus' words over the cup at the Last Supper (Matt 26:27//Mark 14:24//Luke 22:19//1 Cor 11:25) have Jesus linking his "blood" to the language of the "covenant". As many scholars have noted (and as I have noted in a past post), the language evokes Exodus 24. Here I want to delve a little further into this material.

Exodus 24: The Covenant Ceremony at Mt. Sinai
In Exodus 24 we read about a climactic moment in the narrative of the Exodus--God establishes a covenant with the people of Israel at Mt. Sinai. It is helpful to review the account:

Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, “All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do.” 4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. And he rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 And he sent young men of the people of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the Lord. 6 And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. 7 Then he took the book of the covenant, and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.”

8 And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, “Behold the
blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all
these words.” 9 Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the
elders of Israel went up, 10 and they saw the God of Israel; and there was
under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for
clearness. 11 And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of
Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank (Exod 24:3-11).

An allusion to this story is probably found in all four Gospel accounts of the Last Supper. Jesus links his blood with the motif of covenant while celebrating a meal. All of this mirrors not only Moses’ words concerning the “blood of the covenant” but also the fact that the ceremony in Exodus 24 culminates in a meal (Exod 24:8–11). These similarities are simply too strong to be written off as mere coincidence.

In addition, the description of the sacrificial blood being "poured out" (ἐνέχεεν) in Exdous 24:8 mirrors the terminology used by Jesus in Synoptics’ report of Jesus' words at the Last Supper, in which he describes how his blood will also be "poured out" (ἐκχύννομαι) (Matt 26:28//Mark 14:24//Luke 22:20 [Luke's formulation is slightly different but the idea is essentially the same]). Admittedly, the Greek word Jesus uses is different. But given that its meaning is the same as ἐνέχεεν, that Jesus probably spoke the words in Aramaic and not in Greek, and the other parallels with Exodus 24 a connection is likely.

It might also be noted that as Exodus 24:4 highlights that God’s covenant is established with the twelve tribes, the twelve apostles are prominent at the Last Supper all three Synoptics (cf. Matt 26:20; Mark 14:17; Luke 22:14, 30).

Zechariah 9:11
Up front, I should mention that some scholars think that Jesus was instead alluding to Zechariah 9:11, which also speaks of "the blood of my covenant". I do not believe one has to pit one passage over another though. In fact, as commentators of Zechariah regularly point out, his use of this image is likely drawn from Exodus 24. Even if this passage is in the background then one cannot escape Exodus 24. Indeed, since Jesus seems to have often brought multiple passages together in allusion in other places, it seems likely he is doing something similar here as well.

Matthew, Mark and the Targums
In particular, the allusion to Exodus 24:8 is especially strong in Matthew and Mark, who report that Jesus said, “This is my blood of the covenant” (τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης ; Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24). The LXX (=Septuagint) of Exodus 24:8 reads: "Behold, the blood of the covenant" (δοὺ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης).

Scholars such as Davies and Allison have pointed out that there is a particularly striking similarity between Jesus' words in Matthew and Mark and the account of Moses' words in the Targums, Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament which scholars date to a later period. Both Targum Onqelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 24:8 even more closely mirrors Jesus’ words, since they include the word "this": “Behold, this is the blood of the covenant” (Jesus' words: "This is my blood of the covenant").

If the similarity is merely the result of coincidence it is an amazing one. Indeed, many scholars suspect that Matthew and Mark preserve an early witness to the rendering found in the Targums. This seems quite sensible to me.

Atonement and the Blood of the Covenant?
There is another feature of the Targums' account which also deserves mention. Notably, in Tg. Ps.-J. and Tg. Onq. of Exod 24:8 the "blood of the covenant" is said to "atone" for sin. This also appears to correspond to Matthew's account, where Jesus' add that his blood will be poured out “for the forgiveness of sins”.

Of course, in the biblical version (MT [Hebrew Bible]/LXX) of Exodus 24 there is no mention of "atonement". So where did this idea come from?

I've got a theory. . . and I'll tell you about it in second (and concluding!) post in this series.

Goodacre's "Dating Game" 5: The Historicity of the Parable of the Vineyard

In the second installment of this series we looked at the way Jesus identifies himself as the “stone rejected by the builders”/ “cornerstone” from Psalm 118. There we argued that the stone was most likely associated with the temple and that, ergo, Jesus had identified himself in terms of the temple.

Here’s the question: is the saying historical? Because the saying is also so closely tied to the Parable of the Vineyard―which, as I explained earlier underscores the cultic aspect of the stone saying―we might also inquire into the authenticity of the parable itself.

To begin with we ought to observe that some scholars (e.g., Jeremias) have preferred the version of the parable in the Gospel of Thomas, seeing it as more original to that found in the Synoptic Gospels. The version in Thomas is simpler and therefore seen as being “more primitive”.

In particular, scholars have preferred the version found in Thomas because it seems to have fewer allegorical features. The assumption here is that the presence of allegory points away from the teaching of the historical Jesus and is evidence of the theology of the early church.

Without getting into a long discussion here, the view that Thomas’ version of the parable is more original than that of the Synoptics has been rightly rejected by a number of recent writers. Indeed, the Thomas’ account can be shown to be dependent on the Synoptics’ as well as Syriac translations of the Gospels.[1] Furthermore, as others have pointed out, Thomas had good reason to exclude the exegetical features found in the Synoptics―to argue anything from their omission here is problematic since such omissions fit well with Thomas’ agenda.[2] Finally, the view that Jesus did not use allegory in his parables has been widely rejected.[3]

But even if Jesus himself used allegory, scholars still insist that particular allegorical features point away from the historical Jesus and towards the theology of the early church.

1. That the “the son” is rejected and killed would seem to point to a post-Easter setting.

2. The implications of the parable are that Jesus is the son of the vineyard, i.e., the Son of God. This is also said to most likely reflect the theology of the early church.

3. In the parable the judgment on the tenants comes only after the “son” is killed. This highlights the unique importance of Jesus and thus also seems to point towards the early community’s view.

4. The destruction that comes as a result suggests a setting after the destruction of Jerusalem.

5. The son is depicted as the final climax, being sent only after other messengers have been killed. This is said to make little sense―why would a father send his son into such a situation? The language is only explicable if one sees Jesus as the climax of salvation history―as the one who comes after all the prophets, a view most see as more likely the product of the early church than Jesus himself.

6. The image of the vineyard being handed over to others is said to point to a period after the “parting of the ways”—i.e., to some belief that God has rejected Israel in favor of the Church.

Let us briefly deal with each of these arguments.

1. The implication of Jesus’ fate in the parable, i.e., that he will be killed, only necessarily points to a Christian origin if one believes that Jesus could not have anticipated meeting a violent ed. However, as a number of scholars rightly point out, there is good reason to think that Jesus did in fact expect to die. Numerous arguments could be cited. For example, since many of the prophets were killed, if Jesus saw himself as a prophetic figure―and we have established in the discussion of the temple incident’s historicity that he did―he would likely have anticipated to suffer as they did.

2. That Jesus is identified as the “son”, i.e., “of God,” does not require one to believe the parable is the product of the early church. The Davidide was frequently associated with such language and there is strong support for the idea that Jesus understood his role in Davidic terms.

3. The unique importance assigned to Jesus in the parable need not be seen as the product of early Christian theology. Jesus himself could have seen himself as an eschatological figure―that would make him unique.

4. We already argued in our post on the temple incident that Jesus likely predicted a coming judgment on the temple. That the parable includes mention of the destruction of the vineyard need not suggest a post-70 setting.

5. If Jesus saw himself as an eschatological figure, he in fact did see his role in “climactic” terms―eschatology relates to the “end”. That the son therefore is killed after the messengers are sent and that the final judgment of the tenants occurs finally after his death is completely consistent with such an eschatological view. Nothing here necessitates a Christian setting.

6. Those who take the parable to describe the rejection of Israel in favor of the church entirely miss the point of the parable. Craig Evans puts it best: such a view makes no sense of the story since it is the tenants and not the vineyard which is condemned. The identity of the vineyard remains constant―it is the tenants, likely the Jewish “leadership”―which changes hands. Evans (Mark, 223) writes: “All attempts to interpret the parable as a creation of the church suffer shipwreck on the rock of the parable’s basic story line: the focus is not on the identity of the vineyard, which is presupposed and remains constant; the focus is on the conflict between those who care for the vineyard and the owner of the vineyard whom the tenant farmers do not respect and will not obey.”

Suffice it to say, the arguments used to deny the authenticity of the parable are weak. In fact, a number of features actually weigh in favor of its historicity.

The Parable’s Dissimilarity to Christianity
As others have shown, the parable exhibits elements which are dissimilar from the early Church’s theology in significant ways.

1. Jesus was killed outside of Jerusalem. The Markan version has the son killed within the vineyard and then cast out, which does not mesh with the Gospel narrative of Jesus’ death who is killed outside the city. That in Matthew this element is changed attests to the problematic dimension of this element in the story. It is obvious that the Christians believed Jesus was actually killed outside walls of Jerusalem, something the author of Hebrews makes much out of (Heb 13:12-13).

2. The son is not raised from the dead. More telling is the fact that the story makes no mention of the resurrection, describing only the destruction of the tenants and the hurling of the corpse of the son over the fence. There is even no reference to a burial―an element that plays a crucial role in the Easter traditions. The fact that the story contains no hint of the son’s vindication, much less resurrection from the dead, would therefore seem to argue against it being of Christian origin and speak to its authenticity.[4]

Coherence of the Parable with the Jesus Tradition
The story can be shown to be coherent with what we know about Jesus.

1. Most obviously, the story is a parable―and that Jesus told parables is one of the most widely accepted pieces of the Jesus tradition.

2. In fact, this parable is quite similar to others attributed to him: e.g., the parable of the talents and parable of the pounds (cf. Matt 25:14-30; Luke 19:11-27), in which an authority figure goes away and entrusts what he owes to others and when they are proven unfaithful they are punished. Though Matthew and Luke appear to tell different versions of the story, the majority of scholars agree that their accounts are based on an authentic teaching of Jesus.[5]

3. Numerous other elements of the parable cohere with other aspects of the Jesus tradition which have strong claims to authenticity: his role as an eschatological figure (=he comes after the prophets); that he anticipated his death, an image which fits in well with his prophetic identity; his message of coming judgment; his identity as the “son” may be seen as related to his Davidic identity, etc.

Other Elements in Parable Meet Historical Plausibility
The parable can also be shown to be historically plausible within first century Judaism.

1. Jesus’ tale about the vineyard finds striking parallels with similar stories told by the rabbis, which also communicated lessons allegorically.[6]

2. Its connection with cultic themes (i.e., the stone saying―see below) is also plausible. As we saw in our exegesis of this parable, the temple and the cult were also associated with Isaiah’s description of the vineyard in other Jewish texts (e.g., 4Q500 and Targum on Isaiah).[7] That Jesus therefore speaks in a manner similar to the ancient rabbis and employs this Isaianic passage while speaking in the temple and in association with other cultic images (see above) strongly suggests a Jewish setting.

3. Furthermore, scholars have also identified over a dozen Aramaisms in the parable, which, at least signals that it originated in a Palestinian environment.[8]

All of this underscores the parable’s historical plausibility and weighs against the view that it originated in the early Church.[9]

Our next post in this series will examine the historicity of the stone-saying. This saying is, as we shall see, crucial to the whole question we have been exploring.

NOTES
[1] An excellent discussion can be found in the recently published comprehensive study on the parables of Jesus written by Klyne Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 280. Snodgrass highlights to specific elements which point to dependence on Luke: (1) “they will give to him” (δώσουσιν αὐτῷ; Luke 20:10); and (2) “perhaps” (ἴσως; Luke 20:13). In fact, ἴσως is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament. As Snodgrass writes: “its appearance in Thomas must arouse suspicion” (280). Amen! See also, idem., “The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen: Is the Gospel of Thomas Version the Original?,” NTS 21 (1974-75): 142-44.
[2] See, e.g., Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 280-81.
[3] For a fuller discussion see Craig Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990), 26-69.
[4] Moreover, Snodgrass makes the important point that “the parable is too indirect to be the confession of the early church” (Stories with Intent, 296).
[5] Can we really believe that the early Church attributed to Jesus the line: “You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed?” (cf. Matt 25:26; Luke 19:22). See Gundry, Matthew, 508: “Strikingly, the master accepts the severe portrait of his character and activity. His acceptance supports the authenticity of the parable. Early Christians would hardly have made up such a description of Jesus, even in a parable.” For further arguments in favor of authenticity ee also Bock, Luke, 2:1529, Nolland, Gospel of Luke, 2:911; Luz, Matthew, 248-50; Theodor Zahn, Das Evangelium des Lucas (KNT 3; Leipzig: A.Deichert, 1913), 628 n. 23; Alfred Plummer, St. Luke (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1922), 437.
[6] See Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 278-80 and Evans, Mark 8:27―16:20, 220-22 who cites Midr. Tanh. B. Qĕdôšîm §6 [on Lev 19:2] which begins: “To what may this be compared? To one man living in Galilee and owning a vineyard in Judea, and another man living in Judea owning a vineyard in Galilee.” See also Midr. Prov. 19:21 which alludes to Isaiah 5:7; Sipre Deut § 312 [on Deut 32:9]; S. Eli. Rab. §28.
[7] See the discussion in Evans, Mark 8:27―16:20, 226-28. It also appears plausible that the Targum contains a pre-70 interpretation of Isaiah’s vision. See Johannes C. De Moor, “The Targumic Background of Mark 12:1-12: The Parable of the Wicked Tenants,” JSJ 29 (1998):63-80.
[8] See Marius Young-Heon Lee, Jesus und die jüdische Autorität: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Mk 11, 27–12,12 (FB 56; Würzburg: Echter, 1986), 80; Martin Hengel, “Das Gleischnis von den Weingärtnern Mc 12:1-12 im Lichte der Zenonpapyri und der rabbinischen Gleichnisse,” ZNW 59 [1968]: 7-8 n. 31; Evans, Mark 8:27―16:20, 224. Some have made the case that the use of the LXX also suggests a Christian setting. However, see Evans, Mark 8:27―16:20, 224-228; Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 287-88.
[9] It is also interesting to note that the Targum on Jeremiah 7, a passage cited by Jesus in his earlier temple action, describes the prophets as “servants” (cf. Tg. on Jer. 7:13), who are not heeded by the people. This bears a striking similarity to the language of the parable, which recounts how the wicked tenants rejected the servants sent by the vineyard owner.

Newsweek Editor: "Obama is Sort of God"

Here is the editor of Newsweek offering his version of impartial, objective analysis:


By the way, given the reference to Reagan I thought I'd also post this:

Where Have You Been All My Life?

Yesterday I got my copy of A Reader's Hebrew Bible (Zondervan, 2008) in the mail and all I can say: Wow! Where have you been all my life?! (More to the point: Where were you when I first learned Hebrew ten years ago? I could'a used you then.)

This thing is fantastic. Essentially, it is what it says it is: a Hebrew Bible specifically designed for reading the Hebrew text. In order to facilitate this--for those who don't happen to have every word in the Hebrew Bible memorized--it provides footnotes for all Hebrew words that occur less than 100 times, excluding proper nouns. The definitions given in the footnotes are all taken from major lexicons like Brown-Driver-Briggs (lovingly or not-so-lovingly known by all Hebrew students as 'BDB') or Koehler-Baumgartner's massive Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament.

I can't say how helpful this is. Anyone who's done any reading of the Hebrew Old Testament knows that the one thing that really kills the joy of the whole endeavor is having to put down the text you're trying to read, pick up (an often-very-heavy) lexicon like BDB, track down the root of the Hebrew word, hope you got it right, then go back to your Hebrew Bible (usually the visually chaotic BHS), try to find your place, try to find your word, and start up the whole process of reading again...

Those days are over with the Reader's edition. Don't get me wrong--for detailed exegesis and study--there's no replacement for lexical work. Moreover, if you don't know how to recognize masculine and feminine forms, as well as the different lemmas (stems) of your words, then it's not going to be some kind of magic potion. You've still got to know your grammar and syntax (as well as all the words that do occur 100 times or more).

 However, if you're just wanting to practice reading, this Bible helps cut out the wasted time (and effort) of switching from book to book while your vocabulary grows. 

If you're a budding student of the Hebrew Bible, or if your Hebrew is getting rusty, or if you just (like me) hate reading the BHS because there's so much crammed onto one page, then this is the book for you. 

Oh, and one last thing--it comes in a sweet leather binding with silver-leaf and a silver RIBBON!

How can you top that?

Benedict's Pentecost Homily

"If we do not want Pentecost to be reduced to a mere ritual or to a suggestive commemoration, but that it be a real event of salvation, through a humble and silent listening to God's Word we must predispose ourselves to God's gift in religious openness. So that Pentecost renew itself in our time, perhaps there is need -- without taking anything away from God's freedom [to do as he pleases] -- for the Church to be less "preoccupied" with activities and more dedicated to prayer."

--Pope Benedict XVI, Homily for the Solemnity of Pentecost, May 29, 2009

The Longest Footnote in Human History?

For those of you who don't already know, the long-awaited fourth volume of John Meier's multivolume work, A Marginal Jew, is finally out. All 735 pages of it.

While reading through the book this morning, I discovered what may well be the longest footnote/endnote in human history. At the beginning of his chapter on Jesus' teachings on divorce, Meier has an endnote that spans almost twelve single-spaced 10 point font pages! (See pp. 128-139). 

I challenge any of our (obviously erudite) readers to find me a footnote or endnote longer than this! Go ahead, try! Someone needs to contact the Guinness book of world records and add a new section to it.

Now, don't get me wrong, for many a year, I have loved long footnotes. Meier was, after all, my teacher at Notre Dame, and I sought to emulate his footnote style in my own dissertation. However, this new record does raise a question. How long is too long? How many footnotes (or endnotes, as in Meier's volume) is too many?

Do you prefer works like Meier's, which are accompanied by exhaustive footnotes/end-notes and excursuses? Or works like N. T. Wright and Richard Bauckham, which keep the notes to a minimum, functioning as a selective group of references? Thoughts? Advice for future books?

Do you write in your books? My crazy approach

I also could have called this post: I write in my books. . . how 'bout you?

A little more background. . . Jim West recently spoke out against bibliobloggers who do not open up more about themselves (among other things) and simply write serious academic posts. He states,

Must every post be an academic publication in kernel form and must every thought be weighed in the balance of potential ‘tenure’ issues?

He probably doesn't care much for my posts--I do tend to provide a lot of footnotes. But I enjoy being thorough--it's not hard labor. (As to the second charge, I doubt anyone thinks I'm concerned with tenure issues! I've posted on a number of controversial issues!)
[edited: this paragraph was uncalled for. . . as Jim explains in the com-box, he really is not opposed to academic posts in and of themselves.]

Nonetheless, I do think Jim is right when he goes on to criticize scholars for being too self-important and stuffy. Let's not take ourselves so seriously. And, looking over my posts of late, I have been a bit serious.

So here's a peak into my demented approach to reading.

Once I was waiting for a friend, who was going to meet me at a bookstore. We were going to go see a movie but I wanted to do a little book shopping first.

I waited for him outside and while I was waiting I was reading a great book. When he showed up he horrified by what I had done to the book I was working on; it was dog eared, highlighted, written up with a pen--I'll admit, it wasn't a pretty sight. His exact words were, "It looks like you've put teeth marks in it!" (That however I did not do--it was just his way of saying that I had really, severely, disfigured the book).

He then asked: "Is it an old book?" I said, "No. I bought it last week." This traumatized him even more!

However, he dropped the matter and brought up something else. I gathered my things together and we headed into the bookstore.

Yet every time I picked up a book he would try to put me on a guilt trip: "Look at how nice that book looks. It's so new. It smells nice and fresh. It's pages are nice and crisp, not to mention clean. What are you going to do to that poor book, Michael Barber?"

I have to admit, though I didn't reveal it to my friend, I had never really thought of things in that way. I go to books to use them and marking things up helps me find things that I need in them. I never thought it wrong to mark them up--or, as my friend insinuated, to "defile" them. And, for the most part, I still don't!

I write in almost all of them, even the ridiculously expensive ones, e.g., titles from Brill, Mohr-Siebeck, etc.

But I'm not entirely indiscriminating. First, I do try to keep the outside of books looking nice. I try to preserve dust jackets. I take them off when I'm reading a book, putting it back on when I'm done. And I do hate cracking the spine of a book--they look terrible on a shelf after that.

Second, I won't just write with anything in my books. I've learned from experience. I've marked up books with ugly highlighters that, once dried, turned a hideous color which made it difficult to re-read the text. ENOUGH! Now I use only one kind: the bright yellow Sharpie Accent highlighters with the thick tip (see picture). I buy them by the box--no kidding!

Here's the really sad part: I'm almost so dependent upon them that if I can't find one, I'll put off reading altogether! In fact, I have not a few pairs of pants which are unwearable because some unfortunate oversight caused a highlighter explosion in a pocket. Bright highlighter stains can be found on almost all of my jeans, in my car, in my luggage, etc.

I also have drawers filled with highlighters that I've already used that I want to save for books with especially thin pages. It's less likely their ink will bleed through such fine pages. In addition, I have hoards of highlighters that well-meaning people have given me over the years. Unfortunately, they are either not my brand or the wrong "yellow". I'm always finding these in odd places and have to throw them away.

Yes, I know, I'm beginning to sound like Adrian Monk.

But just so you know I'm not a complete nut, there are also a few exceptions to the "must-highlight" rule. I can't bring myself to write in the follwing:
1. my Hebrew-English edition of the Babylonian Talmud that my wife gave me for my 30th birthday
2. my autographed copy of Pope Benedict's book Many Religions, One Covenant (signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger before his elevation to the papacy)
3. my perfectly clean and crisp copy of Matthias Scheeben's, Mysteries of Christianity, which was printed in 1951, is terribly hard to find and a book which has influenced my thought profoundly (I have another copy that is marked up though).

So here's my question: Do you write in your books? Do you have particular books you can't bring yourself to scribble notes in or mark-up with a highlighter?

One last thing, this post was inspired by something Bill Heroman recently put up on his blog. Check out what he did to his copy of the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. I might do something similar to mine. I must say, while I'm in agreement with his criticism of this volume, I am a little offended by the way he vandalized the spine's of his Loeb Classical Library. . . Surely, if there's a line to be crossed this is it! Bill--you've gone too far!!!

It's a good thing he isn't a private owner of any of the Dead Sea Scrolls! What he might do with 4Q521, the War Scroll, or 4Q174 will keep me up at night. Not that I have reasons to think it might happen, but just as a precautionary matter, I'm appealing to all interested scholars: let's take whatever means necessary to prevent Bill from obtaining any of the Dead Sea Scrolls for his personal library.

The Bible in Catholic Theology

Here are some of my favorite quotes on the role of Scripture in Catholic Theology. . . some of them might surprise you!

Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11: “The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God, and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God. Therefore, the ‘study of the sacred page’ should be the very soul of theology.”

Thomas Aquinas: “Only the canonical scriptures are the standard of faith.”[1]

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: “Dogma is by definition nothing other than an interpretation of Scripture.”[2]

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: “The normative theologians are the authors of Scripture.”[3]

Pope Leo XIII: “Most desirable is it, and most essential, that the whole teaching of theology should be pervaded and animated by the use of the divine Word of God.”[4]

The Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, The Theological Formation of Future Priests [1976]: “The basic fact which theological teaching must take into account is that Sacred Scripture is the starting point, the permanent foundation, and the life-giving and animating principle of all theology.” The document goes on to say, “The teaching of Sacred Scripture must culminate in a biblical theology which gives a unified vision of the Christian mystery.”[5]

John Paul II citing Paul VI: “Sacred Scripture is ‘a perpetual source of spiritual life, the chief instrument for handing down Christine doctrine, and the center of all theological study.’”[6]

John Paul II, lecture to the Faculty at the University of Lyon: “Theology must take its point of departure from a continual and updated return to the Scriptures read in the Church.”[7]

Pope Benedict XVI: “We are grateful to God that in recent times, and thanks to the impact made by the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, the fundamental importance of the Word of God has been deeply re-evaluated. From this has derived a renewal of the Church's life, especially in her preaching, catechesis, theology and spirituality, and even in the ecumenical process.”[8]

[1] Super Evangelium S. Ionnis Lectura, 21:24 [2656]. Cited in Christopher T. Baglow, “Thomas Aquinas as Biblical Theologian,” in Letter and Spirit: Reading Salvation 1 (2005): 141.
[2] Cited from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, “Crisis in Catechetics: Handing on the Faith and the Sources of the Faith,” in Canadian Catholic Review 7 (1983): 178.
[3] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theolgy (trans., M. F. McCarthy; San Francisco: Ignatius, 1987, 321.
[4] Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus: On the Study of Sacred Scripture, 19.
[5] Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, The Theological Formation of Future Priests (February 22, 1976), in The Pope Speaks 21 (1976): 365-66.
[6] Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum. This address is also quoted by John Paul II is found in U.S.A.: The Message of Justice, Peace and Love (Boston: Daughters of Saint Paul, 1979), 117.
[7] Pope John Paul II, Address (October 7, 1986); AAS 79 (1987):337-38.
[8] Address to the participants in the international congress organized to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, at Castel Gandolfo (September 16, 2005). Available on the Vatican website: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050916_40-dei-verbum_en.html

"This is My Body": Sacrificing Oneself in Battle

Here I am not going to offer a comprehensive treatment of the words Jesus spoke over the bread at the Last Supper. But, given that it is memorial day, I did want to highlight an interesting parallel which is often ignored.

Warning: this post is me simply thinking "outloud", so give me a little lattitude here as I'm still working out my thoughts.

First, let us read Luke's account of Jesus' words over the bread at the Last Supper:

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

Of course, given that it is Memorial Day, I can't help but note that "in remembrance of me" can also be translated "in memorial of me". The terminology is rich here and, in part, relates to the Passover, which was also described as a "memorial" (Exod 12:14). For a much fuller treatment on the theological implications of the language of "memorial" see Scott Hahn's Letter and Spirit: From Written Text to Living Word, 87-102.

While I clearly think that Jesus' words and actions must be understood within their Jewish context, I did recently notice something in John Nolland's three volume commentary on Luke which I thought was interesting. Here it is...

Nolland writes that in Thucydides (History, 2.43.2) and Libanus (Declam. 24.3), "give one's body" is "an image of dying in battle for the sake of one's people" (Nolland, Luke, 3:1054; emphasis added).

I found this striking. In fact, certain Jewish traditions suggest the idea that an annointed one would be cut off in battle, much like the Davidic figure in Psalm 89. In fact, a while back Brant wrote an amazing post on the messianic interpretation of this psalm in ancient Judaism (see my follow-up, where I show how it is used in connection with Isaiah 53 to refer to Jesus in 1 Peter). Nolland's insight might offer further insight here into Jesus' role. Jesus might see himself as winning the battle, by dying in it.

Moreover, it should be pointed out that the martial language may not be completely disconnected from atonement theology--after all, redemption can refer to the rescuing of prisoners of war who have been liberated. Just a thought...

10 Things to Know About WWII

On this memorial day, I thought I'd post a link to this fascinating article by Rick Atkinson, which ran in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

May the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.

Amen.

Did Jesus Really Say He Would Be "Seated at the Right Hand of the Power"?

Happy Feast Day of the Ascension! Since, in the Catholic world, a Holy Day begins the evening before the day (i.e., the vigil), I thought I'd go ahead and put up this post.

Two of the key texts associated with the Ascension are Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13.

Psalm 110:1: "The Lord says to my lord: 'Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool'.

Daniel 7:13: "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him."

Here I want to deal with the specific question of whether or not the historical Jesus used these two passages in reference to himself.

Jesus' Words to the High Priest
In all three Gospels Jesus brings together the vision of the son of man in Daniel 7 with Psalm 110:1, which describes the Davidic king as he admits his identity as the Messiah before the high council:

“Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ 62 And Jesus said, ‘I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’” (Mark 14:61-62; cf. Matt 26:63-64 and Luke 22:69).

Here I am not going to deal with the debate about whether or not this particular saying is referring to the Ascension. I want to instead deal with its historicity.

Because Psalm 110 was used frequently in christological texts by the early church a number of scholars see this saying as a creation of the early Christian community and not an authentic saying of the historical Jesus.[1] Is this compelling logic? I think not.

Daniel 7 and Psalm 110
First, we should mention that in other passages widely accepted as authentic, Jesus similarly combined different passages in the Old Testament (cf. e.g., Matt 11:5//Luke 7:22; Matt 21:13//Mark 11:17//Luke 19:46).

Second, we know that Davidic psalms and Daniel 7 were seen as having eschatological referents in ancient Judaism. That Daniel 7 was viewed as an eschatological text not only flows naturally from its context, but is attested fromt the fact that a non-eschatological interpretataion of the text cannot be found until much later. In addition, the Dead Sea Scrolls use Davidic psalms in reference to the Messiah (e.g., 4Q174). There is no reason then to suppose Jesus, understanding himself as the messiah, could not have seen these texts as referring to himself.

Moreover, at least one rabbinic source specifically links the two passages:

“And in one place in the Writings it is written, ‘The Lord said to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand’ [Ps 110:1],’ and it is also written: ‘Behold, one came with the clouds of heaven, as a son of man’ [Dan 7:13] (Midr. Ps. 2.9 [on 2:7]; cf. 18.29 [on 18:36]).[2]

If later non-Christian Jewish rabbis could bring together these passages, why couldn’t Jesus?

Third, in his excellent book, The Christology of Jesus, Ben Witherington highlights the fact that in 1 Enoch the “son of man” appears sitting next to God on a “throne of glory” (1 En. 45:3; 55:4; 62:5). He argues that the imagery also seems to draw on Daniel 7 and Psalm 1110.

Here we canot get into the lengthy debate about the dating of the Similitudes. Suffice it to say, the argument that this section of 1 Enoch is a later addition simply because it was not found among the few fragments of the book discovered at Qumran is hard to believe (cf. Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 234).

The "Criteria of Authenticity"
If one turns to the criteria of authenticity, one can also find support.
1. The saying appears in all three Synoptic Gospels (multiple attestation)!
2. One might also see the quotation as constituting “embarrassment”―after all, when exactly did the high priest see Jesus coming with the clouds of heaven?
3. There is also a semitisim―Jesus’ speaks of being seated at the right hand of “Power”. This is repeated in all three Gospels. One is hard-pressed to find another passage where the early Christians used such language! Notably, however, the expression is found in rabbinic Judaism (Sipre Num. §112 on Num 15:31; b. ‘Erub. 54b; b. Šabb. 88b; b. Yebam. 105b; Tg. Job 5:8; 14:18 [var.]; 18:4 [var.]).
4. In addition, Jesus’ words also appear coherent with Matthew 19:28, a text which is widely regarded as authentic.

Jesus, Exaltation and the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q491c)
At this point it may be complained that Jesus’ claim to heavenly exaltation is clear evidence of early Christian theology. For many it is simply impossible to imagine that a first century Jewish man would have thought about himself in these terms. Aside from the fact that this is not an ordinary first-century Jew, but Jesus, I think there are others reasons to believe that this such thinking among scholars is faulty.

Jesus’ claim to heavenly exaltation also bears affinities with 4Q491c 1, which describes a figure who is elevated to a “throne” in the heavens (cf. lines 5-6). The passage is of such significance that it bears reproducing here in full:

1 […] has done awesome things marvelously […] 2 [… in the streng]th of his power
the just exult, and the holy ones rejoice in […] in justice 3 […] he established
[I]srael from eternity; his truth and the mysteries of his wisdom in al[l
generations …] might 4 […] … […] … and the council of the poor for an
eternal congregation. […] the perfect ones of 5 [… et]ernal; a mighty throne in
the congregation of the gods {=angels} above which none of the kings of the East shall sit, and their nobles no[t …] silence (?) 6 […] my glory is {comparable} and
besides me no-one is exalted, nor comes to me, for I reside in […] the heavens,
and there is no 7 […]… I am counted among the gods and my dwelling is in the
holy congregation; [my] de[ire] is not according to the flesh,[but] all that is
precious to me is in (the) glory (of) 8 […] the holy [dwel]ling. [W]ho has been
considered despicable on my account? And who is comparable to me in my glory?
Who, like the sailors, will come back and tell? 9 […] Who bea[rs all] sorrows
like me? And who [suffe]rs evil like me? There is no-one. I have been
instructed, and there is no teaching comparable 10 [to my teaching …] And who
will attack me when [I] op[en my mouth]? And who can endure the flow of my lips?
And who will confront me and retain comparison with my judgment? 11 […friend of
the king, companion of the holy ones…incomparable, f]or among the gods is [my]
posi[tion, and] my glory is with the sons of the king. To me (belong) [pure]
gold, and to me, the gold of Ophir 12 […] Blank […] Blank […] [exult,] just
ones, in the God of […] and in the holy dwelling, sing for h[im…] 14 [… proclaim
during the meditation jubilation […] in eternal happiness; and there is no … […]
15 […] to establish the horn of [his] Mess[iah…] 16 […] to make known his power
with strength [….]

Who the passage is describing is unclear. The mention of the Messiah in line 15 at least raises the possibility that he is in view. What cannot be doubted is that that the fragment describes the exaltation of a person who has borne sorrows and has “suffered evil” (cf. line 9). Again, if Jesus expected to die―and certainly at the point in the narrative where Jesus is being questioned by the high priest, it looks that way―this passage emerges as an interesting parallel.

Moreover, as Martin Hengel and others have noted, the fragment appears to share a number of connections with Isaiah’s Suffering Servant prophecy:[3]
1. Both describe the exaltation of a figure over kings and nobles (cf. Isa 52:13-15; 4Q491c 1:5-6);
2. The three-fold emphasis on the figure’s “glory” (כבוד) in lines 6-8 evokes the LXX of Isaiah’s prophecy where the term is also emphasized (cf. Isa 52:13, 14; 53:2). Of course, ancient Jews would probably not have distinguished this Servant song from the others, so it is also significant that the term is used in Isa 55:5 (MT and LXX).
3. The appearance of the imagery of "bearing" sorrows (נשא) (line 9) evokes Isa 53:4 ["he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows"] and 53:12 [he bore the sin of many].
4. Both figures are associated with wisdom (cf. Isaiah 52:13; 4Q491c 1:9-10)
5. The conflict described in lines 9-10 of the fragment bear striking similarity also to the Third Servant Song (cf. Isaiah 50:8-9: “Who will contend with me? Let us stand up together. Who is my adversary? Let him come near to me. 9 Behold, the Lord GOD helps me; who will declare me guilty?").

That the figure is associated with a “mighty throne” also evokes the imagery of the heavenly enthronement of the Son of Man on the “throne of glory” in 1 Enoch (1 En. 45:3; 55:4; 62:5).

Here we have an important parallel with Jesus’ words before the High Priest. The fragment makes it especially historically plausible to believe that Jesus expected to suffer and be exalted by God.

Other arguments here could also be put forward (see my dissertation once it's published). Suffice it to say, I don't think it likely that Jesus' words to the High Priest were a Christian invention.

NOTES
[1] In particular the language here finds a close similarity with those attributed to the earliest Christian martyr, Stephen, in Acts 7:56: “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.” However, an interpretation which sees the statement made by Jesus as a re-working of Stephen’s speech, it should be pointed out that the Stephen’s language lacks the semitism and is difficult to see as more ancient than Mark 14:62 and par.
[2] Cited from Evans, Jesus and His Contemporaries, 419.
[3] See Martin Hengel with Daniel P. Bailey, “The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998), 143-44.

Jonah's Reluctance and Jesus' "Sign of Jonah"

Why did Jonah flee after the Lord told him that he was to go to Nineveh and warn the people that if they did not repent they would be destroyed? Was it cowardice? Was it laziness?

What is often overlooked by commentators is that Nineveh—the city in story of Jonah which repents―was at the heart of the Assyrian Empire. Of course, Assyria was a huge threat to the northern kingdom, i.e., the house of Israel. In fact, the prophets foretold that God would destroy Israel by their hand.

The news that God was about to destroy Nineveh, the capital city of Assyria, would have been welcomed by the people of Israel.

Thus Ancient Israelite readers would no doubt see Jonah’s hesitance to preach there as patriotic--he gladly anticipated the destruction of Israel's enemy and did not want to prevent their destruction by preaching to them.

The story is ironic--Jonah saves the Assyrians at Nineveh from destruction through calling for repentence. The Assyrians repent and are saved. The northern Israelites however persist in their sin and are eventually destroyed.

In the Gospels Jesus speaks of himself as Jonah, specifically speaking of performing the 'sign of Jonah' (e.g., Matt 12:39-41; Matt 16:4; Luke 11:29-32). Of course, Matthew and Luke’s readers would have been aware that the preaching of Jesus, rejected by the Jewish leadership, was being accepted in Rome. They knew of course that Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and, of course, it was well-known who the destroyer would be--Rome!

No one wonder then Jesus is linked with Jonah!