The Messiah in the Old and the New Testaments. Stanley E. Porter (Ed.)

Introduction: The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments (Stanley E. Porter)

PART I: OLD TESTAMENT AND RELATED PERSPECTIVE 

The Messiah; Explorations in the Law and Writings (Tremper Longman III) 

Figuring the Future: The Prophets and Messiah (Mark /. Boda) 

The Messiah in the Qumran Documents (At Wolters)

Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism (Loren T Stuckenbruck)

PART II: NEW TESTAMENT PERSPECTIVE 

Jesus as Messiah in Mark and Matthew (I. Howard Marshall) 

The Messiah in Luke and Acts: Forgiveness for the Captives (Stanley E. Porter) 

Remembering Jesus: John's Negative Christology (Tom Thatcher) 

Divine Life and Corporate Christology: God, Messiah Jesus, and the Covenant Community in Paul S. (A. Cummins) 

Messianic Themes of Temple, Enthronement, and Victory in Hebrews and the General Epistles (Cynthia Long Westfall) 

The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments: A Response (Craig A. Evans) 

Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism
LOREN T. STUCKENBRUCK  

Introduction

In this paper I shall consider "Messiah" in early Jewish literature. This area of study is important in relation to our understanding of early Christianity for three reasons. First, it has figured prominently in the way beliefs of Jews in "the Messiah" set the stage for the emerging belief among early lewish Christian communities that Jesus was God's "Anointed One" or "Messiah." In this light, differences between "Christian" and contemporary "Jewish" understanding have often been construed as confirming the "uniqueness" of the Christian understanding of "Messiah." This concern with Christian distinctiveness has, in turn, fed a polarizing mentality that not only oversimplifies early Judaism but also reduces early Christian views about Jesus as "Messiah" to an unnecessarily rigid spectrum of ideas. Second, a reconsideration of this literature is becoming increasingly necessary, given that our evidence for "Messiah" in non-Christian Judaism has been increased through materials published from the Dead Sea materials during the last dozer years. Indeed, the Dead Sea Scrolls, to some degree, may be thought to provide an added, and previously unavailable, interpretive context for contemporary lewish literature. Third and finally, beyond shedding light on Christian origins, we learn that early Jewish ideas about "Messiah" underwent significant development through to the end of the first century CE. Despite the growing independence of Christian communities, especially in the aftermath of 70 CE, speculative ideas about intermediary figures and agents of God attested in non-Christian lewish literature continued to shape and parallel convictions about the exalted Jesus in Christian communities. Both communities, overlapping in tradition and devotion to the God of Israel, found in language about a Messiah ways of addressing and interpreting their experiences with religious and socio-political conditions under Roman rule in the Mediterranean world. Initially, however, it is important to delimit the focus of this review. I do so in several ways: (i) We are looking initially at the term "Messiah" as it occurs in the most important textual witnesses of Jewish literature preserved in Greek (xpiorôç, a sense translation from Hebrew and Aramaic rVWia), Latin functus), Syriac (XIVCS), and Ethiopie (mai/sih/h).2 We do so, recognizing lhat there will be other eschatological figures, not designated by these terms, who arc envisaged as God's agents. For this reason, the present discussion shall not be a broad consideration of "eschatological redeemer figures" in ancient Jewish thought. Put another way, we are not, broadly speaking, looking for "messianic" figures who may or may not carry the title "Messiah." Nevertheless, the narrower focus on figures actually designated as "Messiah" makes it possible to pose the question of what we arc doing in this discussion more sharply: What did early Jewish writers have in mind when they chose this designation as a suitable one to describe an agent of God? To be sure, some authors who speak of a "Messiah" or "Anointed One" frequently apply other tides or descriptions for the same figure. However, rather than simply adopting a synthetic approach, even within a given document, we look for clues from within the narrative itself or from the author's use of tradition that explain why "Messiah" has occurred in a particular instance. (2) We are here going to throw the spotlight on literature that is essentially non-Christian Jewish in character. This means that we shall not consider passages in writings that were composed by Christian authors (so Ascension of Isaiah, Odes of Solomon, Apocalypse of Zephaniah, and Apocalypse of Sedrach). Moreover, we shall neither attend to references to "the Messiah" in Christian additions to originally Jewish documents (Testament of Adam) nor consider those which, though heavily indebted to Jewish tradition, are Christian in their present form and convey views that cannot be straightforwardly assigned to nonChristian Jewish tradition (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs),' (3) Given our interest in lewtsh tradition that may have shaped early Christian theology, we shall not consider views of "Messiah" in rabbinic or other later Jewish literature (for example, the so-called 3 Enoch), (4) We shall inquire into two aspects of "Messiah" where these occur: nature and function, asking in particular what both have to do with perceptions about the activity of the God of Israel. (5) Finally, we shall ask whether any of the texts considered allow us to draw inferences about the social setting in which hope in a Messiah was expressed. The focus as delineated leads us to consider four Jewish works, which were composed early enough to either pre-date or be contemporaneous with the growing early Christian movement before the Bar Kochba revolt. These shall be considered in the approximate sequence of composition: Psalms of Solomon, Similitudes of I Enoch, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch.

Psalms of Solomon

Preserved in Greek and Syriac manuscripts from the tenth to sixteenth centuries,4 this collection of eighteen psalms was written within a generation of Pompey's capture of Jerusalem in 63 BC E and its aftermath, which saw the overthrow and humiliation of Hasmonaean rule (see especially 2:1-5,11-14; 8:14-22; and 17:11-18}. The psalms are categorically critical of the llasmonaeans, who are blamed for law-breaking activities in the home and the temple that exceeded even what the Gentiles do (cf. 1:4-8; 2:3-5; 8:8-13). The community behind the psalms believed that Pompey's activity, despite being a means by which God was punishing such "sinners" who had set up illegitimate rule (17:6), had introduced even further impurity and Gentile practices among Jews in Jerusalem (17:13-15, 18b20), so much so that the pious fled and were scattered "over the whole earth" (17:16-183). Knowing something about these events,-especially as they are depicted among the psalms themselves, takes on particular importance since it is precisely in relation to these that what is said about the Messiah takes shape. 

All four references to "Messiah" (Greek xpioroc; Syriac míyh~) occur in chs. 17 and 18. They may be listed as follows: 

17:32(36) — "There is no unrighteousness in his days in their midst, for all (will be) holy and their king (shall he the) Messiah Lord!' (Kcri (kíoiACÜc, aÜTtiiv xpiordc xúpioc,; wmlkyhwn mSyh' mry") 

The heading to 18—"Psalm of Solomon concerning the Messiah Lord':' (ipaXuoc; TOO LaXcoucov eri [emend to em?] xptorou KUpiou ; no heading in Syriac) 

18:5 — "May God purify Israel for the day of mercy with blessing, for the day of election in the return of his Messiah" (tv cxvafa xpioroO aurou; Syriac damaged) 

18:7 — (the generation to come, v. 6).. . "under the disciplinary rod of the Messiah Lord in the fear of his God, in wisdom of spirit and of righteousness and of strength." (XPIOTO O KUpfou )

The present discussion will thus consider chs. 17 and 18, respectively. In ch. 17, "Messiah Lord" is the title given to a figure whose activities are described in w. 21-43. The psalmist petitions God to raise him up as "king" of Israel "in the time which you see (or know)." This anointed figure is to be the antithesis of the religio-political rule under the Hasmonaeans: He will be a (legitimate) descendant of David, and is "to rule over Israel your servant" in an ideal way. In the role of a king, this agent of God will "purify Jerusalem fro m gentiles," dispossess Jewish "sinners from their inheritance "and annihilate "unlawful gentiles" (w. 22-24).

In their place, he will restore t o the land (ferri Tf\t; yfjc;) " a holy people, whom he will lead in righteousness, and will judge the tribes of people who have been sanctified by the Lord his God" (v. 26; cf. vv. 28, 43)«Two main features mark the rule and character of this Messiah:

(cultic) purity and justice, on the one hand, and power and might, on the other. First, the "Messiah Lord" is to restore Jerusalem to the pure and prominent state it enjoyed a t the beginning of the (here idealized) Davidic monarchy (v. 30). This state will be achieved as he judges not only those people who have been restored (w. 26,43), but also the remaining peoples and nations "in the wisdom of his righteousness" (v. 29). This judgment is the pre-condition for a proper order of things. Ultimately, the nations (v. 30), as well as Israel (cf. 7:9), will be subject to his "yoke," and the persecuted righteous who have been scattered throughout the earth (cf. 17:18} will be brought as gifts by the nations "to see the glory of the Lord" (vv. 30-31; cf. Isa 43:4-7). Unequivocally, all the rc-gathcrcd people of Israel will be holy (v. 32), leaving n o room for "sinners" and corrupt "officials," who will be driven out (v. 36; cf. w. 23,27). By the same token, this messianic figure will be "pure from sin" (v. 36) and powerful "in the holy spirit" (v. 37).* His "words"6  will be more refined — that is, they will be in a purer state (note the comparative expression nerrupuiuéva íírtép) — than even the choicest gold and will be comparable to words of holy ones (&y(cov) in the midst of sanctified peoples (v. 43).' It is possible here that the purity of the Messiah's activity is emphasized through a comparison with angels whose worship of God is considered ideal (cf. Ps 89:5-7).B Perhaps, then, the Messiah is not only expected to rule as king but also to perform priestly functions. This may be especially the case if the psalmist's description of the Messiah's work is formulated as an antithesis to the Hasmonaean dynasty that, since the rule of Aristobulus I (105-104 BCE), incorporated into one person the claim to be "king" and "high priest."9

Second, the author expects the Messiah to exercise power and authority over the nations of the earth. One manifestation of this rule is the destruction of "unrighteous rulers" and "the unlawful nations (S6vr| rrctpávoua)" (w. 22, 24). This retribution against the enemies of God's people might leave the impression that the Messiah is essentially a warrior figure — that is, one who will deliver Israel through military conflict. Indeed, it is at least true in principle that the author claims he "will crush all their substance with an iron rod" (v. 24}, which borrows language from Ps 2:9. However, this may in fact be a description of the effect rather than the means, since it is "by the word of his mouth" that this will be accomplished {v. 24; cf. v. 35: "he will strike the earth with the word of his mouth forever"). Thus, unlike the Hasmonaeans, this king will not rule through military might. In emphasizing this very point, the psalmist has probably been inspired by Isa 11:4: "he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked."10

 Significantly, this annihilation of Israel's enemies does not mean that the Gentiles as a whole are to be destroyed. On the contrary, the psalmist does not consider all Gentiles inimical: the Gentiles are to serve God's anointed one (v. 30; cf. i En 52:4), for "he wiil have mercy on all nations who are before him in fear" (v. 34; cf. 2 Bar72:2-4).11 Presumably those Gentiles who have not oppressed or subjugated Israel will be included in the new order; though they will not be converted as such, they will nevertheless play a positive, if clearly subordinate, role.12 Having reviewed the Messiah's character and activities in Psalms of Solomon, we may consider the question of who the author thought he would be. The title "Messiah Lord" in 17:32 (and 18:7) does not in any way imply that his position approximates that of the God of Israel. Neither is it correct to suppose that we have here a deliberate or inadvertent Christianization of a Jewish tradition.15 If anything, we may instead have to do with a very early use of Ps 110:1, in which the second "lord" in the phrase "the Lord said to my lord" is being used of the king, so that a double title is used (as occurs in also Dan 9:25 [VII TheocL xpioroO fYyouuivool)

It is not surprising, then, to find that throughout the psalmist makes clear that the Messiah is himself dependent on and subordinate to God, whose activity is ultimately, and immediately, in view. Although the Messiah is a royal figure, ch. 17 is framed by the proclamation that the Lord, the God of Israel, is "our king forever more" (w. 1,46). Moreover, in the main body of the psalm, it is God who will raise up David's descendant in his own time (v. 21), and it is God who will make him strong with a holy spirit (v. 37). Indeed, the Lord "is his [i.e., the Messiah Lord's! king" (v. 34). Because of this, the Messiah shall place his hope in God (v. 34; cf. also v. 39) and "shall glorify the Lord in a prominent (place) of the earth" (i.e., Jerusalem; v. 30). The Messiah Lord's kingship over the returnees to Jerusalem will be righteous because he has been "instructed by God" (w. 31-323). The Messiah is not "divine." He has neither heavenly status nor any apparent préexistence. The sinlessness with which he is to be endowed (v. 36; cf. Heb 4:15) functions here to make him an ideal, righteous ruler who sets matters aright in accordance with God's timing and purposes for Israel (cf. Acts 1:6-7). From the psalmist's perspective, he is a future agent of God's activity. The main thrust is thus summed up nicely at the conclusion of the psalm: "May God hurry up (to give) his mercy to Israel, may he rescue us from the pollution of profane enemies; the Lord himself is our king forever more." In ch. 18 the references to the Messiah are very brief and not developed. While the points described in relation to ch. 17 may be inferred for the superscription and v. 7 (cited above at the beginning of this section), the one new element may seem to be in v. 5: "... for the day of election in the return (óeváijei) of his Messiah " It is unnecessary from this to infer a préexistence, as the psalmist likely has in view the return of legitimate rule by a descendant of David whom God will set apart to fulfill Israel's hope for a theocracy.

Similitudes of Ethiopie or 1 Enoch (chapters 37-71) 

Similitudes is a pseud epigraph i c "vision of wisdom" given to Enoch that comprises chs. 37-71 of the earliest collection of Enochic compositions commonly called 1 Enoch. Whereas the antiquity of the remaining parts of 1 Enoch has not been questioned, the relative date of the Similitudes has been subject to some debate. This is so because of J. T. Milik's claim that this work, no fragments of which were found among any of the Dead Sea materials, was an essentially Christian book produced during the latter part of the third century CE . m Unconvinced that Similitudes shows any trace of Christian composition, many have been more inclined to assign a date of its production to sometime between the latter part of the first century BCE and 100 CE . 1 5 Indeed, the absence in Similitudes of any overt response to Christian tradition, especially in relation to the "Son of Man" figure, seems to push its traditions back into a period before the identification of Jesus with the apocalyptic "Son of Man" as recorded in the Gospels was sufficiently widespread. Similitudes contains two brief references to a "Messiah" or "Anointed One": 48:10 and 52:4¡ 1 6

48:10 — "On the day of their trouble [i.e., that of the kings of the earth and the wealthy landowners; cf. v. 8] there will be no rest on the earth, and they shall fall before him and shall not rise; and (there is) no one who will take them with his hands and raise them, for they have denied the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah. Blessed be the name of the Lord of Spirits!"

52:4 — "And he [i.e., the interpreting angel] said to me, 'All these things which you have seen serve the authority of his Messiah so that he may be mighty and strong upon the earth."* 

These passages occur within the "second parable" (chs. 45-57). Near the bcginning of this vision (46:1-8), a figure designated "the Son of Man"— also called "the Chosen One" and "the Righteous One" — has been introduced as the agent of God (called "Head of Days" and mostly "Lord of the Spirits") to execute judgment against the wicked who through wealth have oppressed the righteous (46:1-8). In all likelihood, the "Messiah" referred to in 48:10 is thought to be the same figure, just prior to 48:10, the author in v. 6 anticipates that a "Chosen One" (identified with "that Son of Man" in v. 2) will be disclosed by God's wisdom to "the holy and righteous ones" whom he will deliver. This figure is preexislent, as he has been "concealed since before the creation of the world" (v. 6), which is parallel to "that Son of Man" who in v. 3 was named before the Lord of the Spirits "before the stars of heaven were made." When the righteous ones are delivered, the wicked kings of the earth and the landowners will be given over to "the chosen ones" for punishment (v. 9). Thus the denial mentioned in v. 10 is a summary way, as elsewhere in the paTable (45:1-2; 467)» of-characterizing the activities of the wicked; to oppose those who are righteous is nothing less than a denial of the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah. The phrase "and his Messiah," this time added to "Lord of the Spirits" as the object of denial (cf. 45:1-2; 46:7). reflects the influence of Ps 2:2: "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and his anointed" (NRSV)." However, it is striking that the author has not invested this designation with any further detail. No activity as such is ascribed to God's agent when he is called "his Messiah." The same brevity and lack of detail apply even more lo Ihe reference in 52:4. Here, as in ch. 48, God's Messiah may be implicitly identified with "the Chosen One" (52:6,9), while the "Son of Man" title does not occur in this part of the vision (i.e., in 52:1-57:3)-'* A connection with the "Son of Man" tradition from Dan 7:13-14 may nonetheless be influential here. The seer's vision of mountains of various metals in the west (52:2) is explained by the angel as phenomena that serve "the authority" of "his Messiah," where the Ethiopk term for "authority" (seltan) approximates the Aramaic löV© in Daniel 7:14, where it denotes the power given to the "one like a son of man."19 Immediately following in the passage, the angel discloses that these same mountains will dissipate into fluid "before the Chosen One" (v. 6) — that is, the weapons fashioned through these metals will be useless in saving the wicked from judgment "when the Chosen One will appear before the Lord of the Spirits" (v. 9). These passages allow for several observations. First, the reference to "Messiah" in ch. 48 implies that God's designate is an ideal ruler figure who stands in stark contrast with the wealthy and oppressive kings of the earth and mighty who possess land. Though neither 48:10 nor 52:4 states anything about his activity, the Messiah's domain is conceived as terrestrial. However, it is striking that Similitudes makes no explicit attempt to link this figure with a Davidic lineage. This apocalyptic scenario does not envision the restoration of the monarchy, as in Psalms of Solomon. Second, the texts say nothing directly about what sort of figure God's Anointed One is supposed to be — that is, whether he is human, angelic, or divine. Something, nonetheless, can be noted if the author of 48:10 is identifying God's Messiah with the "Son of Man" and "Chosen One" mentioned earlier in the chapter. In this case, the author must have regarded the Messiah as precxistcnt and, as the Chosen One, yet to be revealed in the future. If in the wider context of the second parable (chs. 45-56) the Messiah is identified with the "Son of Man" and "Chosen One," then more can be said: he is a figure exalted to sit on God's throne to judge and to dispense wisdom (45-3; 5i:3; 55:3); he has a human and angel-like appearance {46:1); he removes the wicked (human and demonic} from positions of power (45:6; 46:4-7; 48:8-10; 50:6-9; 53:5-7; 55:4); and — without parallel in any earlier or contemporary Jewish literature — he can even be worshiped alongside God "by all those who dwell upon the earth" (48:5; cf. 46:5). Third, since these functions are co-opted into a profile for the Messiah only by extension, we may suggest that the activities and status ascribed to the eschatological vice-regent in Similitudes do not seem to have resulted from a writer's speculation about God's Messiah per se (which does not appear in an absolute form).20 He may be a composite figure of many titles, but it is questionable how much the title itself has shaped the author's understanding. The formative background for this speculation lies much more in Dan 7:9-14 and related traditions (in addition to biblical tradition, also the seated man-like figure recording judgment in Animal Apocalypse; 1 En 90:14,17}. In short, it is not as a Messiah that God's eschatological agent does all these things, but rather as the angelic and heavenly "Son of Man" whom the author further anchors in tradition by applying the "messianic" designation. 

4 Ezra (= 2 Esdras 3—14) 

This pscudcpigraphon, attributed to Ezra thirty years after the destruction of the first temple in 586 BC E (cf. 4 Ezy.\), consists of a series of seven dialogues or visions composed around the turn of the second century CE, that is, in the aftermath of the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE. These visions, though framed by Christian compositions 5 Ezra and 6 Ezra, respectively, with few exceptions preserve non-Christian Jewish tradition. The document does not survive in its original language, and so the most important textual witnesses to 4 Ezra are preserved for us in Latin and Syriac manuscripts. These, in addition to the evidence from Georgian, Armenian, and Ethiopie translations, furnish enough evidence to determine more original Jewish traditions behind the occasionally Christian intrusions into the texts.21 In 4 Ezra several passages are concerned with a "Messiah" (Lat. unctus; Syr. mfyh') figure: 7:26-44 (from the third vision); 11:36- 12:34 (from the fifth vision); and, by extension, 13:3-14:9 (from the sixth and seventh visions). 

4 Ezra 7:26-44: The Temporary Appearance of the Messiah 

The Messiah is first referred to in the third vision during the course of the interpreting angel's speech that responds to the seer's queries. Ezra has continued to question in 6:38-59 why God's covenant people do not possess the world as they should, while other nations, who have no special relationship with God, are allowed to dominate Israel (esp. 6:55-59). The angel counters, first by asserting the necessity of danger and hardship (7:3-9) and distinguishing between present and future experience and then by affirming that all, whether righteous or wicked, are accountable to the Law. This dialogue sets the stage for the angel's description of a time to come when things will not be as they are now: a city and land, previously unseen and hidden, will be disclosed, and wonders will be seen (7:26-28). This time lies in the future, when a figure called "my son the Messiah"21 and those who are with him (i.e., the righteous dead) will be revealed,23 while the remaining ones (the righteous) "shall rejoice tour hundred years" {v. 28). The passage then continues by making what might seem to be an unusual claim:  

And after these years my son2 4 the Messiah will die (morieturfiUus meus christus), and all who draw human breath. And the world shall be turned back to primeval silence for seven days, as it was at the first beginnings; so that no one shall be left. (7:29-30)

The author divides time into two ages, one of this world and one of the world to come (7:50; cf. 4:26; 6:7,20, 25-28; 7:112-15). The revelation of the Messiah will occur as the first of several events that bring this age to a close. Nothing is explicitly stated about a kingdom that this Messiah is to inaugurate; however, that he is expected to rule is implied by the specification of a limited number of years, during which conditions for the righteous will give cause for rejoicing. The surprising element here is the mention of the Messiah's death, which, though attested in later Jewish traditions,25 is unprecedented here. Unlike Christian conviction with regard to Jesus' death, this event is not apparently the result of any persecution or suffering26 and carries with it no salvific or atoning significance. Instead, coupled with the death of the remainder of humanity, it serves as a "ground clearing" of this age that prepares for the judgment that leads to life in the world to come. The Messiah's death, then, helps to mark the closing of this age. The hiatus between the old age and judgment is underscored by a space of time, seven days of primeval silence, which signals the correspondence between Urzeit and Endzeit shared by many apocalyptic writers. The judgment itself then occurs as the last event of this age, when there is a general resurrection of both the righteous and wicked (7:32; cf. Dan 12:2). As such, the judgment does not happen all at once; rather, it is envisioned as a drawn-out process of "a week of years" {7:43)- Significantly, it is "the Most High," not the Messiah, who "will be revealed upon the scat of judgment" (7:33) to pronounce punishment upon many and reward lo the few {7:138-8:3). The Messiah, aside from setting up a temporary kingdom, is given no further role in any of the subsequent eschatological events.

4 Ezra 11:1-12:36: The Lion Messiah 

The fifth vision of the seer is interpreted by the angel in relation to the Messiah. The vision itself opens with an eagle with twelve wings and three heads emerging from the sea and subjecting "everything under heaven" to itself (11:6). From the twelve wings eight smaller ones grew; each of the twelve wings and two of the little ones ruled in succession, each disappearing after its reign, until three heads and six little wings remained. After brief reigns, two of the little wings were devoured by the middle head, which then ruled oppressively "over the whole earth" with a power greater than all the previous rulers (11:32). This head disappeared, leaving the remaining right head to devour the left one (11:35)- The vision shifts focus to "a creature like a lion" that is stirred from the forest. With a human voice, this lion addressed the eagle on behalf of the Most High. It called the eagle "the fourth beast" that God had allowed to reign in the world and then announced its doom (11:36-46). At the conclusion of the lion's words, the last head disappeared, and two further wings ruled briefly until they disappeared as well (12:1-3). in the interpretation, the author explicitly acknowledges that the vision is adapted from Daniel (12:11), who, however, was not given the proper explanation for his "fourth kingdom" (Dan 7:7). This kingdom, the eagle "from the sea," is identified as the Roman Empire, while the wings and heads represent its kings. The lion that spoke to the eagle is interpreted as "the Messiah whom the Most High has kept until the end of days, who will arise from the posterity of David" (12:32; cf. Gen 49:9-10 and Rev 5:5). He is the one who, from "his judgment seat" (contrast with 4 Ez 7:33). will denounce and destroy the ungodly, while at the same time delivering the righteous remnant among God's people. In stating that the remnant will be made joyful, the author refers back to the earlier vision "of which I spoke to you at the beginning" (cf. 7:28). Several points may be noticed from this vision. First, as in Psalms of Solomon, the Davidic pedigree of the Messiah is stressed. Nothing is explicitly said about his nature. The claim that "the Most High has kept [the Messiah] until the end of days" implies that he is a préexistent figure,27 or, correspondingly, that he is a heavenly or angelic being. His status as a descendant from David does not contradict the notion of his préexistence;28 this suggests merely that the future Messiah is also a human being whose activities will not be unleashed until the close of the present age. Second, in contrast to the earlier vision in ch. 7, the Messiah here takes on a more active role in the eschatological events described: whereas God is the one who pronounces judgment in the earlier vision, the Messiah is now the one who occupies "his judgment seat." This is, however, a preliminary judgment, as "the day of judgment," which is yet to come, is described in neither the vision nor its interpretation.29 Third, in addition to dispensing judgment, the Messiah is to carry out the sentence by destroying the Roman Empire. The Messiah, then, is a military or warrior figure as well.'0 Fourth and finally, he will deliver a righteous remnant of Israel. The remnant refers to those who will live in the age to come. The author of 4 Ezra does not think the Messiah will restore Israel to its former glory in the way described in Psalms of Solomon. He envisions a clear break between the past, which belongs to tin's age, and the future, which belongs Lo a difieren l order of things. For this reason, the Messiah, as descended from David, is involved in events that relate to a future that still lies within the present age. When he delivers "the remnant of my people,... he will make them joyful until the. end comes" (12:34).

4 Ezra iy.1 -$6: The Man from the Sea 

In this section, the eschatological deliverer is not actually designated "Messiah." However, his function as one who destroys the enemies of the righteous at a time appointed by God (13:26 , 52 ) makes it clear that the author is thinking of the figure he has called the Messiah in chs. 7 and 12 . The dominant designation here is, instead, "son," which in the Latin version is rendered by the term ftlius. Scholars have argued that the messianic background for this term is strengthened in the more ambiguous Greek none, ("son," "servant"), which, in turn, goes back to the Hebrew ("servant"; cf. Ps 89:20-37 , csp. w. 2 0 and 26-27). 3 1 This seems, however, a remote way of establishing the messianic profile of the "man." More important maybe two further considerations. First, there is the reception of Psalm 2 , which at once refers to the conspiracy "against the Lord and his anointed one (h*WB )" (Ps 2:2 ; cf. 1 En 48:10 ) and the Lord's decree to the psalmist, "You are my son ('33 ); today I have begotten you (TmV)" (Ps 2:7) . The identification of "his [the Lord'sl anointed one" together with "my (the Lord's] son" was certainly current in Jewish circles by the turn of the Common Era, as is attested in the Dead Sea documents (esp. lQSa col. ii, lines 11 - 12") . While 4 Ezra does not explicitly cite Psalm 2 , the fixed designation "my son" in the sixth vision ( 13:32,37,52 ; cf. 14:9 ) would be consistent with this, and, as such, it is possible that the author knew the identification of "my son" and "anointed one" based on the biblical tradition. In this light the double designation "my son the Messiah" in the Syriac version of 7:2 8 thor's use of tradition from Daniel 7 without making an explicit claim about the protagonist's Davidic pedigree. The "man from the sea" is an imaginative interpretation of Daniel's "one as a son of man," which places the author in a position to claim more about the nature of this eschatological figure than in the previous visions. The interpretation of this "man" as "my son" reflects a fusion of ideas: the heavenly "one like a son of man" in Daniel 7 is ultimately appropriated by the author, not as the heavenly Son of Man (as is the case in Similitudes), but as God's "Son" in whom the symbolic significance of "the man from the sea" is not lost.*3 The role of God's eschatological agent in 4 Ezra 13 is thus universalized; beyond ch. 12's focus on the Roman Empire, the judgment and destruction that he metes out from Mt. Zion embrace all nations and inhabitants of the earth who assemble against him (13:33-39; cf. Psalm 2). In his destruction of Israel's enemies, the "man" of the vision reflects what has been associated with "Messiah" in earlier tradition. While he is militaristic, his function as a warrior, similar to Psalms of Solomon (17:24,35), is qualified by the fact that he accomplishes this without conventional military instruments and draws on tradition from Isa 11:4:

And behold, when he saw the onrush of the approaching multitude, he neither lifted his hand nor held a spear or any weapon of war; but I saw only how he sent forth from his mouth as it were a stream of fire, and from his lips a flaming breath, and from his tongue he shot forth a storm of sparks. (4 Ez 13:9-10)

The author's use of Isaiah 11 is more elaborate than that of Psalms of Solomon, The result described, however, is every bit what one could expect from military engagement: the multitude is completely burned, leaving only "the dust of ashes and the smell of smoke" (13:11). Thus, the identification of "my son" and "man" from ch. 13, on the one hand, with the "Messiah" from chs. 7 and 12, on the other hand, is implicit, based on tradition-historical considerations and on the prominence of a figure in the parallel scenarios of eschatological events in the document Why is this implicit? For the author, the concept of "Messiah" remains in the strict sense one concerned with a human designate of God descended from David. Because the author wished to emphasize the préexistent nature of this figure even more than in the previous visions (esp. 13:26; cf. 13:32, as 7:28), "Messiah" was in itself no longer sufficient; he found it necessary to use more comprehensive, far-reaching, though still related, designations. The interplay of the human imagery in the vision and the language of divine sonship in the interpretation feeds the author's claim that eschatological events will involve more than simply the restoration of a Davidic kingdom.5 *

2 Baruch 

The author of 2 Baruch composed his work soon after 4 Ezra, that is, after the destruction of the Second Temple and perhaps at the turn of or during the early part of the second century CE. 2 Baruch has much in common with its predecessor, including its use of the Babylonian destruction of the First Temple as the analogy through which to interpret the more recent catastrophic events at the hands of Rome." There are, however, many differences in the way the author of 2 Baruch treats common themes. Not surprisingly, this applies also to those passages that refer to the Messiah. The text is preserved in an important Syriac manuscript from Milan (dated sixth to seventh century CE), which claims that the version is a translation from Greek. The Greek is extant, however, only through a small fragment, while a more secondary version exists in an Arabic version.'6 The original language may have been either Hebrew or Aramaic References to God's eschatological "Messiah" or "Anointed One" occur in three groups: (1) 29:3 and 30:1 (within a section, chs. 26-30, which describes eschatological calamities and the messianic age); (2} 39:7 and 40:1 (within chs. 35-40, a forest vision and its interpretation); and (3) 70:9 and 72:2 (within chs. 53-76, a vision of clouds and its lengthy interpretation). We discuss these texts in turn. 

2 Barucfi 29:3 and 30:1: The Messiah's Revelation and Return

Chapter 26 begins with a description of eschatological "tribulation," which is to be a lengthy process divided into twelve periods. After recounting the worldwide calamities associated with each of these periods, the author goes on to claim that protection will be reserved for those who are "found in this land" (29:2). It is then that "the Messiah" (Syr. miyh1 ) "will begin to be revealed," a motif we have already noticed in the first reference to the Messiah in 4 Ez 7:28 and in what happens to "the Chosen One" in the Similitudes (1 En 46:6). This disclosure ushers in an age of bliss characterized by abundance of food, fertility, wonders, and good health for the protected righteous ones of the land. The author has here added the Messiah to an already known tradition of apocalyptic speculation about a period of future bliss and reward (see Book of Watchers in 1 En 10:17-22 and Book of Giants in 1Q23 frgs. 1 + 6 + 22), 3 ? making his appearance the means by which this period is initiated. In 30:1, a further, spectacular event is associated with the Messiah's appearance, also referred to as a return "with glory": the resurrection of those who "sleep in hope of him." Unlike the general resurrection of both the righteous and wicked in 4 £27:32, this event is limited to the righteous who "will enjoy themselves" (2 Bar 30:2), while "the souls of the wicked will waste away" and undergo torment (30:5). The "returning" of the Messiah may be a hint that the author considers him to be a descendant from David (cf. Pss Sol 18:5) and for the author probably implies that he is preexistent.38 In 2 Baruch 29-30, the presence of the Messiah is enough to generate the events described. 1 "he text does not attribute any activities to him; what happens in relation to him is ultimately regulated by the God of Israel.

 Baruch 39.7 and 40:1: "My Messiah" as the Fountain and the Vine 

In response to his despondence over the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, the seer is given a vision of a forest. He sees a large forest surrounded by "high mountains and rugged rocks" (36:2; cf. 39:2), At the appearance of a vine watered by a great fountain, the forest is drowned and uprooted, with the exception of one cedar tree (36:5). In a fashion similar to the lion episode in 4 Ezra 12, the vine then speaks to the cedar, reproving it for its wickedness, and decrees for it a period of "sleep in distress and rest in pain" until the time for an eternal torment comes ( 2 Bar 36:7-11). In the interpretation, the forest is interpreted as four world kingdoms (cf. Dan 7:2-8), each of which, being increasingly evil, is destroyed in turn. The last of these kingdoms will be in power through "a multitude of times," and the unrighteous will seek refuge in it (2 Bar 39:5-6). The duration of this kingdom is measured, and when the time of its end draws near, "the dominion of my Messiah, which is like the fountain and the vine, will be revealed" (39:7). The remaining cedar from the vision represents a ruler, who — while the rest have been destroyed — is taken alive to Mt. Zion, where a court proceeding conducted by "my Messiah" against him takes place. After convicting this remaining archenemy of his evil deeds, the Messiah "will kill him" (cf. Isa 11:4b; 4Q285 frg. 7. line 43 9 ). The Messiah's dominion then commences; it is to last for a limited time, that is, "until the world of corruption" is complete.40 The author at this point does not go on to describe what will ultimately happen after this. As in 4 Ezra, the Messiah's reign is intended as a prelude to the end.

2 Baruch 70:9 and 72:2: "The Messiah" as Slayer of Israels Enemies

The main actor in the eschatological events is God "the Most High," who orchestrates a series of catastrophes among the nations of the earth (war, earthquake, fire, and famine) and delivers over — expressed through a passivum divinum — all who have escaped with their lives "into the hands of my Servant, the Messiah" (70:9). As the following passage in 72:1-6 shows, the primary function of the Messiah is to destroy the wicked ones, that is, those who are inimical to Israel; as in chs. 39-40, and unlike 4 Ezra 12 (and 13), nothing is said about his rescue of the righteous. However, whereas in chs. 39-40 the Messiah convicts and slays the single ruler symbolized by the cedar, according to 72:2 his role is more comprehensive: he convenes all nations, sparing some and killing others. Three things may be noted about the Messiah's activity in this passage. First, destruction is not the lot for all Gentiles, but rather is confined to those nations which "ruled over" Israel.41 The same is similarly implied in the way the nations are treated in Pss 50/17:34 (see above and n. 12). Second, the Messiah's profile as a warrior is not mitigated by allusions to biblical tradition (as in Psalms of Solomon 17 and 4 Ezra 13). The nations to whom Israel has been subjected "will be delivered up to the sword" (2 Bar 72:6). Just who will do the killing is not specified. The "sword" is, however, a general way of referring to conflict by material means and occurs in earlier apocalyptic documents as the means by which revenge is taken out upon the wicked (cf, e.g., Jub 5:7,9; 1 En 62:13; 90:34; and 91:12; in the latter two the sword being wielded by the righteous). Third, the Messiah will sit down "on the throne of his kingdom" (2 Baryyi), inaugurating a reign, the bliss during which is described in details inspired by Gen 3:16-18 and Isa 11:6-8 (2 Bar 73:10-74:4). As in 4 Ezra 7 and 12 and in 2 Baruch 30, joy accompanies his reign and here sums up the emotion awaiting those who will be rewarded for their righteousness.

Conclusion Our survey of "Messiah" in four non-Christian Jewish writings has encountered a very broad profile: an eschatological ruler, chosen by God to act decisively against the wicked on behalf of the righteous of God's people Israel. Beyond this, diversity takes over. The texts considered reveal the degree to which this messianic speculation varied from author to author and even within the documents themselves. There is no indication that the variation within documents was considered problematic in the transmission of the text, so that copyists, beyond isolated instances, seem not to have attempted to either systematize or harmonize what passages relate about God's anointed one. We have considered a number of motifs held in common by more than one of these writings in relation to a "Messiah" figure: Davidic lineage, préexistence, effects of his disclosure or coming; warrior activity; the interpretation of certain biblical texts (esp. Psalm 2; Daniel 7; and Isaiah n); and other designations that apply from the narrative contexts (e.g., "Son," "Son of Man," "Chosen One"). While in this discussion we have had occasion to note where parallels between these traditions exist, it is striking that the motifs arc neither found in all the literature nor, if there, handled in the same way. Thus, beyond their immédiate literary presentations, these compositions resist any attempt to streamline or synthesize their respective ideas,*12 ideas that are integral to the particular concerns of the authors and their communities and that also depend on their respective approaches to the tradition-historical building blocks they had to hand. Thus, at least in relation to this material, lames Charlesworth is correct to say that the question "Why did Jews not recognise Jesus was the Messiah?" is misconstrued;'** this question easily assumes a high degree of coherenc e i n Jewis h thought , a s wel l a s presupposin g tha t earl y Christia n communities , whic h thrive d i n culturall y an d geographicall y divers e part s o f th e rvléditerranca n world , woul d hav e share d a commo n understand ­ ing. 4 4 I find it har d t o imagin e tha t Jewis h reader s o f Danie l 7, Psalms of Solomon, o r an y o f th e othe r document s considere d her e woul d hav e trie d t o negotiat e th e text s aroun d a basi c cor e traditio n — no t foun d i n an y on e o f ou r passage s — abou t God' s eschatologica l Messiah . Wha t w e d o hav e here , however , i s a serie s o f document s compose d nea r th e tur n o f th e Commo n Er a b y Jew s wh o wer e inspire d b y biblica l traditio n an d subse ­ quen t pattern s an d tradition s o f interpretatio n t o expres s thei r hop e i n a worl d restore d t o bein g totall y i n th e contro l o f th e Go d o f Israel . Suc h a dynami c hop e drov e thei r description s o f eschatologica l event s t o b e "cre ­ ativel y biblical " a t ever y turn . W e shoul d no t b e surprised , therefore , i f figure s calle d "Messiah " participat e i n a t leas t som e o f th e apocalypti c reformulation s o f thi s hope . 

The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments: A Response Craig A- Evans

Introductor y Comment s T h e nature and importanc e o f messianis m for early Judaism and Christianity continue to be explored and debated. Th e definition of messianism a nd ho w far back it ma y be traced are amon g the points that are the most sharply disputed. Simpl y put, is there messianism in the Old Testament, and, if there is, ho w doe s it compar e to the messianism expressed in the N e w Testament? Anothe r important question concern s the extent to which messianism played a role in the shaping o f the theologie s of various expressions o f Judaism and Christianity. Wha t wer e the messiani c ideas with which Jesus and his followers wer e familiar? Which parts o f these ideas were adopted by Jesus and the writers o f the Ne w Testament? An d finally, doe s the messianism o f the respective Ne w Testament writers coher e and perhaps even form a unity? T h e scholars in this volum e have wrestled with thes e difficult questions. To their credit, the y have allowed their respective biblical author s t o have their say, without foisting upo n the m a harmonizin g synthesis that hope s to smoot h away diversity and tension. In my judgment, a great strength in this collection o f studies, and the conferenc e out o f which they grew, is the freshness of the approache s that are taken. I find n o over-trod pathways and predictable conclusions. O n the whole , thes e essays are marked by innovation and insigh t It is a pleasur e to respond to them.

Tremper Longman III, "Th e Messiah : Exploration s i n th e La w an d Writings** 

Tremper Longma n has framed the issue well, recognizing that there is nothin g in the Torah an d Writings that is explicitly messianic , in the sens e understood in later times. Yet, later writers did find messianism in the I-aw a n d the Writings. By wha t hermeneutical strategy wer e the y able to d o this? Longman s question is right t o th e point. I found his pape r very stimulating. He rightly begins wit h the definition o f the term Messiah. Th e word tells u s little, but othe r concepts offer som e help. Th e verb masah an d the nou n (o r adjective) maSiah usually refer to consecration rituals. I n the Law t he reference is t o priests, consecrated for the Lord's culti c work. In the Writings the reference is mostly t o Israel's kings (reflecting custom and usage o f the narratives o f Samuel-Kings). Longma n focuse s o n the Psalter: Psalm 2, possibly a coronation psalm, perhaps also recited o n the eve o f hol y war. Although it is no t explicitly Davidic , the echoe s o f the Davidic covenant o f 2 Samue l 7 encourag e understanding Psalm 2 as Davidi c (as, indeed, the autho r o f Acts in the Ne w Testament understands it, an d as the author o f lQSa als o understands it). Placed at the beginnin g o f the Psalter, Psal m 2 ma y have set the tone for all that follows, especially thos e psalm s that refer to the Lord's anointed. Longma n wonder s if perhaps the remarkable claims o f this psal m helpe d to create the hop e o f a future kin g wh o would live up to them , given the fact that Israel's historic kings had not. In m y judgment, Longman's critique o f Gerald Wilson's theory o f the them e underlying the Psalter's organization is devastating. T h e "greater kin g wh o woul d derive from the Davidi c line (as reflected in Ge n 49:10 and Nu m 24:17! migh t have captured the imagination o f th e people."1 Indeed, it appear s that it did just that. Thes e texts are paraphrased explicitly as messiani c in the Aramai c paraphrase o f Scripture known a s the Targum. 'Ihes e texts are also understood in a messiani c sens e in the Ne w Testament era an d earlier, as w e se e in the Dea d Sea Scrolls an d i n allusions to the m in the Ne w Testament, Philo, and Josephus. And for thos e wh o objec t to a n appeal to the Targum, which after all postdate s the N e w Testament, I offer the reminde r that the edited form o f the Hebrew Bible, the Masoretic Text, is n o older. I mentio n this becaus e o f a commen t that Longma n make s i n a footnote, 2 in which he wonder s ho w Gen 49:10 migh t have bee n "understood within the context o f the original autho r a nd audienc e o f Genesis." Very goo d question. But wha t is mean t by this "original autho r an d audience" is very difficult to say. Genesis 49> edited a n d contextualized as we no w have it in the Hebrew Bible, ma y well hav e reflected messiani c hop e — if no t for the original author, probably for man y o f the earliest readers and hearers. Professor Longma n raises som e interesting questions i n his discussion o f Genesis 14 and Psalm 110.1 have little t o add, bu t I migh t point ou t that the priest-king o f Psalm n o ma y well have encouraged the me n o f Qumra n to give priority t o the priests in the preparation for an d engage ­ men t o f the great hol y wa r at the en d o f days, whe n the sons o f light de ­ stroy the son s o f darkness. 3 On e shoul d also recall that monarch s in antiquity often did take o n priestly roles. Even the Roma n emperor , o f a later era, wa s called Pontifex Maximus, "High Priest," as well as Imperator, "Commander." Close r to the Jewish context, the Hasmonea n rulers were priest-kings, at least som e o f the m (e.g., Aristobolus I, Alexande r Jannaeus, a nd perhaps Antigonus, the last Hasmonea n ruler). Therefore , even if else ­ wher e in Scripture there is expressed resistance t o kingl y encroachmen t upo n priestly roles, there wa s a measur e o f precedent in the twilight o f th e post-exilic/intertestamental era. I encourage Professor Longma n to give mor e attention to the myste ­ rious figure described in Danie l 7,* especially in light o f the fact that it is this figure to who m |esus refers an d probably in light o f whic h h e himself defines his messiani c task (e.g., Mark 2:10,28; 8:31; 10:45; 14:62)- Longma n is right t o loo k at Deuteronom y 18, a passage alluded t o in the Ne w Testamen t (e.g., Mark 6:15; John 1:21; Acts 3:22; 7:37) an d greatly emphasize d in Samaritan traditions o f late antiquity (e.g., Memar Marqa 4:12). T h e role o f Isaiah in the ministr y o f Jesus an d in th e exchang e be ­ tween hi m and th e imprisoned John the Baptist is a very interesting area o f study. In m y view, Jesus' allusion to healing an d exorcism is mean t t o allay John's doubts ("Go an d tell John wha t yo u hear and see"; Matt 11:2-6; Luke 7:18-23). Thes e activities o f Jesus did no t create the doubts. It wa s John's languishing in prison that created them . After all, according to Isa 61:1-2, o n whic h Jesus base s his Nazareth sermo n (Luke 4:16-30), the Anointed O n e is to Set the captive s free. Therefore, Jesus alludes to this Isaianic passage in his reply to John. We d o no t kno w if this reply satisfied the imprisone d baptizcr. Professor Longma n conclude s that the "Old Testament did no t provide the first centur y C R wit h a clear blueprint for the Messiah."5 This is correct, strictly speaking. But mor e than on e scholar has remarked ho w texts such as Ge n 49:10; Nu m 24:17; an d lsa 11:1 figure significandy in diverse Jewish circles, including Christian teachers an d writers o f the book s that woul d eventually find their wa y int o the Ne w Testament, writers an d collector s o f the corpu s we call the Dea d Sea Scrolls, an d various othe r intertestamental writers, including som e o f the Ol d Testament Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, and Philo. Thes e sam e three Old Testament texts con ­ tinue to b e interpreted in essentially the sam e sens e in later rabbinic and targumi c traditions. 1 agree that there wa s diversity in messiani c expectation i n late antiquity {and have said s o myself in various places 6 ), bu t there doe s see m to be a core o f material ou t o f whic h the diversity could spring. Th e rub for early Christians — and it wa s a big rub — wa s the crucifixion o f Jesus. This mad e it necessary t o ponde r the Scripture s afresh, as Longma n points out in his discussion o f Luke 24.1 will return to the question o f diversity whe n I respond to Loren Stuckcnbruck's pape r below. I greatly appreciat e wha t Longma n says unde r the headin g o f "Hermeneutical Implications." Thos e committe d to a "single-meaning hermeneutic" struggl e to d o fair, descriptive exegetical analyses o f many N e w Testament passages that cite an d interpret Ol d Testament passages, often reading Ne w Testament ideas int o the Old, or downplayin g the inno ­ vative elemen t in the Ne w Testament, claiming that it has no t really added anything t o the Ol d Testament text. I woul d add t o Longman's hermeneutica l observations by returning to the point I mad e above . Wha t w e call Bible ma y indeed contain very old traditions, which in man y case s are based o n very old sources, but it is the Bible as a whol e that is authoritative o r canonical. That fact in effect up ­ dates its contents. I a m no t advocating ignoring ancient history o r the data o f archaeology that address the question o f "what really happened"; I a m saying that the Bible is in a sens e a contemporary book , by virtue o f its up ­ dating by various editor s an d tradents. Th e original meanin g of Gen 49:10 m a y well have been messianic , in the full sens e o f the hop e o f a comin g anointed deliverer. O f course , the dyin g patriarch Jacob very probably wa s n o t thinking o f any such thing — beyon d perhaps a general hop e that the G o d o f Abraham is faithful and saving. But the final editor that gave us wha t becam e Ihe boo k o f Genesis, in the context o f what became the Bible, may well have thought o f Genesis 49 as messianic . 1 conclude with an exampl e o f what I mean , an exampl e that has nothin g to d o with messianism. Wha t d o we make of Deut 26:2? It reads: "You shall take som e of the first o f all the fruit o f the ground , which yo u harvest from your land that the LORD your Go d gives you, an d yo u shall p u t it in a basket, and yo u shall g o to the place which the LORD your Go d will choose , to make his nam e to dwell there." Most commentator s recogniz e that the "place" that Go d will choos e "to mak e his nam e to dwell" is Jerusalem and the temple . But did Mose s kno w about Jerusalem and the temple? Mose s probably did not, but a later editor did. Deuteronom y o f the Bible — that is, canonical Deuteronom y — know s about Jerusalem and the templ e that wuuld eventually be built there. To se e the templ e in Deuteronomy 26 is no t to "read somethin g int o the text," but to recogniz e somethin g that is in the text, as it eventually cam e to be edited and finalized, no t in the time o f Moses, bu t in a much later time . Likewise in the case of messianism: it probably is in the Ol d Testament, the Bible, even if the concept itself doe s no t reach back int o the history that parts of the Ol d Testament narrate.

Mar k J . Boda , "Figuring the Future : The Prophets an d Messiah "

 Mark Boda takes on what I believe is the most complicated area of Ol d Testament messianism. His learned pape r is primarily focused o n three o f the Mino r Prophets: Ilaggai, Zechariah, an d Malachi. I a m delighted that Professor Boda investigates the meaning of the curiou s designation "the tw o sons o f oil" (cf. Zech 4:14). Withou t disputing the question o f wh o wer e the original referents, I think it is interesting tha t this unusual passage appears at Qunirá n in an eschatological com - mentar y o n Gen 49:8-12 (i.e., 4(3254!, perhaps suggesting that amon g som e Jews in late antiquit y the tw o son s o f oil wer e non e othe r than the anointed king and the anointed high priest wh o will serve th e Lord faithfully side by side . This diarchic understanding o f messianis m seem s to be an integral part o f Qumran's eschatology. 7 However , here 1 anticipate a n issue that I shall take u p momentaril y wit h Professor Wolters. I especially appreciate Boda's treatment o f Malachi and this book's interest in the comin g Da y o f the Lord an d the messenge r that is sent be - fore, a concep t that recalls covenant ideas expressed in F.xodus 23. Readers o f the Ne w 'lestament canno t fail to notic e the citation o f Mai 3:1, com - bine d wit h Isa 40:3, in the introduction o f John the Baptist in Mark 1. But wha t often goe s unnoticed is ho w deepl y the Baptist is himself baptized in t he theme s and image s o f the messenge r prophet. 8 I foun d most interesting Boda's observation regarding the mal'ak adonai ("messenge r o f the Lord") figures, wh o are n o mer e mortals. We m a y have her e a n important contribution to the messiani c tradition that created a matrix out o f which early Christianity emerged. As it turns out, the Mino r Prophets pla y majo r roles in Ne w Testamen t messianism and eschatology. Jesus, the resurrected so n o f David, fulfills the prophec y o f Amo s 9:11 (cf. Acts 15:15-18); the comin g o f the Spirit, in the aftermath o f the resurrection and ascension o f Messiah Jesus, fulfills t h e prophec y o f Joel 2:28-32 (cf. Acts 2:14-21); whil e the birth o f the Davidic scion in Bethlehe m fulfills the prophec y o f Mt c 5:2 (cf. Matt 2:1-6). Jesus himself compare s his ministry to that o f Jonah, whic h the church later would develop int o a typolog y o f death, burial, an d resurrection "on the third day" (cf. Matt 12:38-41). 

Al Wolters, "Th e Messia h i n th e Qumra n Documents "

Professor Al Wolter s provide s u s with a succinc t distillation o f the niessianism at Qumran . Th e questions that h e raises in his openin g paragraph are indeed the questions that have driven research in this important area, and, sometimes, have actually hindered wor k — such as confusion ove r the question o f on e o r tw o Messiahs at Qumran , a point to which I shall return in a moment . Professor Wolters focuse s his remarks o n the recent work o f tw o Scrolls scholars — John Collins an d Michae l Wise . His assessment o f the arguments and contributions o f Collins is in m y judgmen t o n the whol e penetrating an d sound . M y onl y reservation concerns wha t is said about Zech 4:14, the passage that mention s the "two sons o f oil," the question o f Qumran's binar y or diarchic messianism, an d the larger question o f wh y Qumra n doe s no t see m to be preoccupied with messianism. Contrary to Professor Wolters, 1 think there is i n fact a measur e o f evidenc e that Qumra n appealed t o Zech 4:t4 in suppor t o f diarchi c messianism. This evidenc e lies in the discovery o f this distinctive phrase, that is, "the tw o sons o f oil" (found nowher e else in Hebrew literature), in 4Q254, amon g the fragments o f commentar y o n Gen 49:8-12, the oracle pertaining to Jacob's so n Judah. Som e Qumra n scholars, however , wonde r if the phras e from Zechariah 4 wa s part o f the commentar y o n Ge n 493-7* t he oracle concerning Simeo n and Levi." In m y view, it doe s no t matter, for t he "two son s o f oil" apply to both Levi the priest and Judah the prince. This interesting fragmentary commentary , whe n taken i n conjunctio n with the several references to the expected du o called "the anointed o f Aaron and o f Israel" (C D 2:12; 5:21-6:1; 12:23-13:1; 14:19; 19:10-11; 20:1; 1QS 9:11) — including the blessings o n the priest and the princ e in iQS b 4-5 a nd their seating together in lQSa 2:10-15, at wha t is a n eschatological banque t o f sorts — provide s significant evidenc e for the position that Collins takes. Nevertheless, I find that Professor Wolters's criticism is o n the whol e o n target. T h e reason wh y messianis m at Qumra n is no t clearer, as Wolters rightly observes, is that it is no t emphasized. An d the reason it is no t em ­ phasized is no t for lack o f interest; it is for lack o f controversy. Wha t is at issue wit h the me n o f the renewed covenant is th e lack o f culti c accuracy a n d the sorry deficiency, in their view, o f priestly ethic s in Jerusalem. Ther e is n o anointed Jewish kin g lo criticize, just the anointed priest and h is corrupt colleagues. Becaus e Cod will raise up the Messiah in du e course , it is assume d that the anointe d princ e will b e righteous and will follow the guideline s se t ou t by the righteous priests o f th e renewed cove ­ nant, wh o anticipat e restoring true worshi p and goo d governmen t in Israel someday . Thes e observations explain why Qumran's priestly and halakic views are distinctive at man y points, whil e thei r messianism is not. Th e Messiah for who m the y wait is no t muc h different from the Messiah awaited by others. 1 0 1 appreciate Professor Wolters's critique o f Michae l Wise's imaginary reconstruction o f th e foundin g o f the Qumra n communit y and the life o f its founder , wh o is called Judah. Wis e doe s indeed put together a wellinformed scenario o f wha t migh t have been. To quot e from m y ow n jacket blurb, "there is muc h t o learn from this engaging an d well-written book," Wha t I did no t g o o n t o say at that tim e wa s that I remain totally unper - suaded. I suspec t that Wolters's jacket blurb for this boo k shoul d be under ­ stoo d in the sam e spirit. O f it he says, "Simultaneously brilliant, daring, a nd readable." Professor Wolters an d I learned muc h fro m this interesting book , to b e sure; but at the en d o f the day, all that Wis e gives us is informed fiction. I concur wit h Professor Wolters's skeptical assessment.

Lo re II T. Stuckcnbruck, "Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism" Loren Stuckcnbruck begins his paper with a refreshingly clear and precise set of guiding questions, marked by tight controls. He rightly wishes to avoid anachronism and slippery definitions. His selection of Psalms of Solomon, Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch constitutes a well-chosendata base. The potential gains in insight from a work such as the Testaments of the TWelve Patriarchs are offset by the uncertainty created by the many Christian interpolations, which often have mcssianism (or Christology) as their focus. Indeed, it has even been argued that the Testaments was originally composed by a Christian. Professor Stuckenbruck rightly omits it In Psalms of Solomon 17-18 we find a zealous, energetic messianic son of David, who will purge the land of sinners. He is not divine, nor does he have heavenly status. To be sure, he will enjoy divine assistance. In this sense, he is a true descendant of David, through whom the nation of Israel will be restored. In the Similitudes of Enoch (or 1 Enoch 37-71), which is probably preChristian in origin since there is no allusion or response to a specifically Christian idea, we find two passages that mention a Messiah. This Messiah is terrestrial, and he may not be Davidic (at least there is no indication that he is). We are told nothing about the nature of this Messiah. Is he divine? But if he is related to the mysterious Son of Man figure, inspired by Daniel 7, then the Messiah of the Similitudes may well be a heavenly figure of some sort. The tide "Messiah" does not seem to have shaped the author's mcssianism as much as the Son of Man figure has. 1 1 In 4 Ezra 7 we have the interesting anticipation that the Messiah and all of humanity will die. There will be a time of silence. The Messiah's death appears to be natural; he is not martyred. His death has no value, atoning or otherwise. The Messiah has no further role. The Messiah of 4 Ezran-12 plays a different role, taking part in eschatological judgment. In 4 Ezra 13 the messianic ("my son") figure once again appears as a judge. I agree with Stuckenbruck's appeal to Ps 2:2,7, which is also seen in iQSa: "when God will beget the Messiah among them" Psalm 2, with its metaphorical language of the Lord's Messiah as "begotten," makes important contributions to the messianism of New Testament times. Professor Stuckenbruck finds a different messianic figure in 2 Baruch. The Messiah is revealed and returns "with glory." The righteous are resurrected; the souls of the wicked will rot. This Messiah may be Davidic, perhaps even préexistent. Visions in other chapters foresee a Messiah who will slay Israel's enemies (probably including the Romans) and will sit in judgment on them in court at Jerusalem. A period of messianic bliss will follow. Professor Stuckenbruck concludes by commenting on the messianic diversity of these Jewish writings of late antiquity. In general I agree with him; the diversity of views in these texts must be acknowledged. Nevertheless, there may be core elements. We find Isaiah 11 echoed in the Psalms of Solomon (cf. 17:24, 29, 36, 37) and in 4 Ezra (cf. 13:10), as Stuckenbruck points out The "son of man" figure of Daniel 7 is reflected in the Similitudes of Enoch and in 4 Ezra. Three passages in particular — Gen 49:10; Num 24:17; Isa 11:1-10 — frequently appear in contexts that are messianic. But as has been shown in intertestamental writings surveyed here, messianism could be entertained without them.12

I. Howard Marshall. "Jesus as Messiah in Mark and Matthew" Professor Howard Marshall treats us to thoughtful overviews of the messianic portraits of Jesus as we have them in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. With regard to Mark, I agree that in referring to himself as the "Son of Man" Jesus was alluding to Daniel 7 and that this passage readily invites a messianic identification. As Professor Marshall notes, the son of man is "given dominion and a kingdom from God" 1 3 Of whom else can that be said, except the Messiah? There are three points with regard to Mark that I wish to raise. First, I would like to hear more of Professor Marshall's views of the role played by the heavenly voice at the baptism of Jesus (Mark 1:11) and at the later Transfiguration (Mark 9:7), where Jesus is addressed: "You are my son."14 The allusion to Ps 2:7 seems clear; Psalm 2 is messianic (as seen esp. in v. 2). That it was understood this way in Jewish texts of late antiquity is seen in 4 Ezra 13, as Loren Stuckenbruck has discussed, and probably in lQSa 2, in reference to the time "when God will have begotten the Messiah." These two heavenly utterances in Mark's Gospel — the first at the outset of Jesus' public ministry in Galilee; the second shortly after Jesus' announcement to his disciples that he is going to Jerusalem to suffer and die — play a pivotal role. The heavenly voice seems both times to confirm the messianic identity of Jesus. Second, Professor Marshall treats the "Son of Man" passages judiciously He rightly comments on the abruptness of the first occurrence of this Danielic epithet in Mark 2 and goes on to explain its meaning in reference to the theme of suffering, which Jesus the Messiah will have to undergo. Daniel makes many other significant contributions to Mark's presentation of Jesus. The announcement of the rule of God in Mark 1:15 ("The time [kairos] is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand"; cf. 10:30; 13:33) probably reflects Daniel's frequent reference to the time of the end (Dan 7:12, 22: "the time [Jfrtiroj] came when the saints received the kingdom"; 8:17-18: "Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time [kairos] of the end"; 9:26-27: "until the time [kairos] of the end"; 11:35: "until the time (fcairosl of the end, for it is yet for the time [kairos] appointed"; 12:4: "shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time [kairos] of the end"). According to Dan 7:14, the Son of Man will be "given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him." But according to Jesus, the "Son of man also came not to be served but to serve" (Mark 10:45). This is a significant qualification of the Danielic vision, which coheres with the suffering theme that Professor Marshall discusses. Moreover, the very charge brought against Jesus at his hearing before the Jewish council, "We heard him say, lI will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days 1 will build another, not made with hands'" (Mark 14:58), surely alludes lo Daniel's vision of the coming stone that will crush the kingdoms that have opposed God and his people: "a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it smote the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces" (Dan 2:34; cf. v. 45). Daniel's visions, especially that of the coming Son of Man, appear to underlie essential components of the Christology and eschatology we find in Mark.15 The third point has to do with the cry of blind Bartimaeus, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!" (Mark 10:47; see v. 48 also). Professor Marshall remarks that the "call for healing... does not explain the title" 1 6 But perhaps it does, at least in part. I wonder if addressing Jesus as the son of David has anything to do with Solomonic traditions, in which David's famous son was well known for healing and exorcism. After all, it was in his name that Jewish exorcists conducted their ministrations. We have the example of Eleazar in Joscphus, as well as examples in the magical papyri." At least one exorcist, according to Mark 9:38, discovered that the name of Jesus was effective in casting out demons.18 It is plausible, then, that Jesus' ministry of healing and exorcism, evidently consistent with prophetic expectations in Isaiah (such as 35:5-6 and 61:1-2), gave rise to the hope in the minds of some that he was the awaited eschatological son of David. Indeed, Qumran's alludes to these very Isaianic passages in reference to expected healing when the Messiah appears. The blind man's call for healing may well tell us something about Jesus'* messianic status in Mark. With regard to the presentation of Jesus as Messiah in the Gospel of Matthew, Professor Marshall's treatment is again concise and to the point. The messianism is more explicit, at times almost formal. The royal component comes to the fore. The divine sonship of Jesus is also emphasized; so is his role as the Lord's Servant Jesus as teacher of wisdom and even as Wisdom incarnate constitutes fascinating portraits in Matthew's presentation. Matthew's Messiah Jesus is seen at the end as God's vice regent of heaven and earth, in contrast to the Roman emperor. Here we have again a theme found in Mark that is then further developed in the Gospel of Matthew. Often what Mark alludes to (such as an Old Testament passage or theme) Matthew develops more fully and explicitly. I find the portrait of Jesus as master teacher, as almost a new Moses, very interesting. This presentation of the Messiah may well be on the trajectory that will emerge more formally and emphatically in much later rabbinic texts where in the messianic era the Law is studied and obeyed perfectly.'9 Matthew's presentation of Jesus may represent an early stage in this concept. Of course, the presentation of a Torah-observant and Torah-teaching Messiah no doubt was intended to fend off"criticism emanating from the synagogue, to the effect that the Jesus movement was antinomian.

Stanley E. Porter, "The Messiah in Luke and Acts: Forgiveness for the Captives" Professor Stanley Porter argues the thesis that "a consistent and fundamental development of Jesus as the anointed prophet stands at the heart of Luke's depiction of Jesus as Messiah."2 " Porter's thesis is well founded. The prophetic emphasis is seen in the I.ukan birth narrative, where one figure after another speaks oracles, sometimes as songs and sometimes specifically noted as due to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Jesus himself is said to be filled with the Holy Spirit, traveling and ministering in the power of the Spirit. Of course, in his sermon in the Nazareth synagogue, Jesus quotes from Isaiah 61: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach... ."The Lukan Gospel ends on a note of prophetic fulfillment, with the risen Jesus instructing his disciples (Luke 24:25-27,44. 49; Acts i:6-8). The prophetic orientation of the Lukan infancy narrative is seen at many points, not least in the points of contact with the story of Samuel, Israel's great priest, prophet, and judge. The births of Samuel and Jesus are brought about by God (1 Sam 1:9-20). Mary's Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55), in which she praises God for what has been done in her, parallels Samuel's mother Hannah's Magnificat (1 Sam 2:1-10), in which she thanks God for her son. The name of the elderly woman in Luke's story, who sings praise, is Anna (Luke 2:36-38), which is from the Hebrew name Hannah. Hannah dedicates Samuel to the temple, which becomes his house (1 Sam 1:21-26). Mary brings the infant Jesus to the temple (Luke 2:22-24), to which he later returns as a lad, calling the temple his Father's house (Luke 2:41-52). In the context of the temple, it is said of Samuel: "Now the boy Samuel continued to grow both in stature and in favor with the Loan and with men" (1 Sam 2:26). In what is clearly an echo of this passage, Luke says of the boy Jesus: "Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52). Professor Porter also calls our attention to points of contact with the stories of the prophets Elijah and Elisha. The parallels here are not incidental but go straight to the heart of theological issues with which the Lukan evangelist is deeply concerned.21 Elijah and Elisha provide the examples in Jesus' explication of Isaiah 61 in the Nazareth sermon (Luke 4:16- 30, esp. w. 25-27). The implication is that the ministries of these great prophets of old will shed light on the meaning of Jesus' prophetic ministry. This is indeed the case. The resuscitation of the widow's only son (Luke 7:11-17) offers a half dozen points of contact with the stories of Elijah and Elisha, both of whom raised only sons (cf. 1 Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4:18-37). 'I"he incident in which the disciples wonder if Jesus should call fire down from heaven as judgment on the unwelcoming Samaritans (Luke 9:51-56) is a clear allusion to the fire that Elijah called down on the troops of the Samaritan king (2 Kings 1:9-16)." The rejection of the would-be follower, who wishes first to return home and bid farewell to his family (Luke 9:61- 62), is an unmistakable allusion to Elijah's summons of Elisha (1 Kings 19:19-21}. Parallels with other prophets and their various oracles confirm the inference that the Lukan evangelist has taken pains to highlight the prophetic dimension of Jesus' ministry. In the book of Acts, Professor Porter rightly recognizes the programmatic function of the Pentecost sermon, on analogy with Jesus' Nazareth sermon in Luke. He also calls our attention to the prophetic role of David. This is no Lukan innovation, for there are pre-Christian Jewish traditions in which David is depicted as a prophet or as one moved by the Spirit of God (e.g., iiQPs* 27). The parallel between Jesus and David is thus apparent. Prophetic fulfillment finds expression in Paul's later speeches in Acts. An important concomitant are the hints in Acts that Jesus is the fulfillment of the promise of Moses that God would someday raise up a prophet like him: "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him" (Deut 18:18). Twice this very passage is cited in reference to Jesus (cf. Acts 3:22-23; 7:37). Thus, the Lukan evangelist has appealed to an interesting diversity of prophetic traditions associated with Old Testament worthies who loomed large in Jewish late antiquity: David, Elijah, and Moses. Such an impressive collocation lends substantial support to the bold claim that in Jesus God has raised up a Messiah who will indeed bring forgiveness to the captives. 

Tom Thatcher, "Remembering Jesus: John's Negative Christology" Tom Thatcher interacts with current Johannine scholarship that has grappled with the complicated history of the development of Johannine literature, particularly the Gospel, and the Christology that it advances.23 "John's Christology," we are told, "is a formula that makes it possible for Christians to construct memories of Jesus under the guidance of the Holy Spirit."24 Dr. Thatcher focuses on two "themes"or what may be better termed strategies: (1) the evangelist's "ability to generate images of Christ that oppose Jewish claims," particularly with regard to Moses; and (2) the evangelist's "ability to generate memories thai oppose the Antichrists' claims."25 Concerning the first theme, Thatcher reviews in what ways the fourth evangelist portrays Jesus as superior to Moses. He is so "in every conceivable way, doing everything that Moses did and a great many things that Moses could never hope to do." 2 6 Thatcher mentions the Jewish teachers' self-designation: "we arc disciples of Moses" (cf. John 9:28}. This relevant observation opens up some interesting possibilities that Thatcher could pursue further. For example, he could delineate some of the numerous parallels with targumic and midrashic traditions, traditions generated by the "disciples of Moses,"27 that is, the early rabbis and interpreters of Scripture in the synagogue.28 These parallels are part of the evangelist's strategy, to find the common ground and, in effect, to prove that he is a better "disciple of Moses" than the unbelieving Jewish teachers of his time. Concerning the second theme, Thatcher examines in what ways the evangelist counters those whose exalted Christology denies the reality of the humanity and incarnation of Jesus, along with his pre-Easter teaching. They deny Jesus' humanity and earthly ministry, they believe, by warrant of the Holy Spirit. Because they deny the earthly teaching of Jesus, these false teachers, who at one time would have been viewed by the evangelist as Christians, are designated "Antichrists." The elitism and divisiveness of these Antichrists stand in tension with the command to love one another. Thatcher has again touched on a very interesting and potentially very enlightening theme. One may wonder if the Johannine author's reference to his opponents as "antichrists" (antichristoi) in 1 John 2:18 correlates to his assurance in 1 John 2:27 that true believers are to have God's "anointing" (chrisma), which teaches them everything. In essence, the Johannine writer proposes a scenario in which warfare occurs between false christs {i.e., the "antichrists") and the true christs (i.e., the Johannine Christians who have received the divine anointing). The Johannine believers have received the anointing (or spirit) promised them by Jesus (as in the fourth Gospel's upper-room discourse in John 14-16) and therefore know the truth, a truth that is now assailed by false christs or falsely anointed ones. Dr. Thatcher does not pursue this line of interpretation, but it seems to me that it could shed light on aspects of his assessment of the Johannine opponents.

S. A. Cummins, "Divine Life and Corporate Christology: God, Messiah Jesus, and the Covenant Community in Paul" Dr. Cummins divides his paper into three principal parts, each consisting of clearly delineated questions that take us right to the heart of the matter. In the first two parts he investigates Paul's faith before conversion and his faith after conversion. He rightly interprets 2 Cor 5:16 ("even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer") as meaning that Paul's understanding of the Messiah has changed, not that the pre-Eastcr fesus is of no interest. It is clear that Paul's understanding of the Messiah changed with his conversion. But how did his understanding of monotheism change (assuming that it did)? That is a question that I would like Dr. Cummins to address more directly. Did God's revealing of his Son to Paul lead Paul to revise his understanding of the Godhead? Did it set him on a path leading to trinitarian theology? These are not easy questions, 1 realize, but I would like to hear more.29 I wonder if Judaism's strict monotheism, which excludes hypostases, for example, is a reaction against Christianity? One thinks of the polemical interpretation of Isa 44:6 ("I am the first and 1 am the last; besides me there is no god"), which is applied against the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus (cf. Mek. on Exod 20:2 [Bahodesh $5]; Song Rab. 1:9 §9). How would Philo have fared, had he spoken of the Logos as the second God (theos)*0 in the second or third century, instead of the early, pre-Christian first century? The third part of the paper speaks to Paul's ideas of monotheism, Messiah Jesus, and the eschatological people of God. Much of the discussion here focuses on the question of faith, works of the law, and fellowship (involving Jews and Gentiles). In Messiah fesus the barriers that divided Jews from non-Jews are broken down. Non-Jews today are scarcely able to appreciate the dilemma that Paul and other Jewish believers in Jesus faced. The idea that the Law of Moses no longer had to be scrupulously observed was very difficult Dr. Cummins explores this complicated problem, suggesting solutions along the way: the fulfillment of the Law in Jesus conveys fulfillment to the believer; believers are therefore excluded from divine condemnation.31 

Cynthia Long Westfall, "Messianic Themes of Temple, Enthronement, and Victory in Hebrews and the General Epistles" Cynthia Westfall wraps up our conference with an assessment of the messianic themes in Hebrews and the General Epistles. She examines the respective contexts of these writings and what bearing they may have on their messianic ideas, the occurrences of "Christ" in the respective writings, and the respective "authors' use of messianic scenarios."32 She then works her way systematically through Hebrews, James, l2 Peter, Jude, and i -3 John. She finds a variety of approaches and emphases, and she calls attention to the messianic/christological innovations in Hebrews. If nothing else, West fall's assignment illustrates the diversity of the writings of the New Testament and their respective strategies in formulating Christology, Christology not apparently restricted to what was available in contemporary Jewish messianic ideas and hopes. The adoption of priestly scenarios in Hebrews is intelligible when it is remembered that most references to the "anointed" one in the Pentateuch are in fact to priests, usually the high priest. Once the identification of Jesus as "anointed" took hold—and indeed, became ubiquitous among his first followers —- informing this designation with data under this headng was a natural consequence. West fall's suggestions arc consistent with this approach. In l Peter, Dr. Westfall underscores enthronement, new birth, and the Christian community as a spiritual building, all of which are evocative images. 2 Peter is distinctive for recalling the story of the Transfiguration (Mark 9:2-8 and parallels). First John is distinctive for describing the believer, and not just Jesus, as ''anointed."Thus we have "christs" in the plural, the possible significance of which was probed above in connection with Tom Thatcher's paper. Here it might be added that the Johannine writer has introduced an innovative element into the more familiar cschatological scenario in which the tearful antichrist figure was expected soon to arise. Westfall rightly concludes with the suggestion that the christological contributions of the General Epistles have been underappreciated in much of previous scholarship. West fall's perspective coheres with recent, encouraging developments in scholarly investigations into Judaic Christianity, as preserved largely in the General Epistles (James and Hebrews paramount among them) and in the brief quotations of early church fathers. As work in Judaic Christianity continues,33 the neglect that Westfall decries will, we all hope, be addressed. In concluding my response, I wish to express my gratitude to Professors Stanley Porter and Mark Boda for convening a superb conference. Thanks also go to the contributors, who enriched participants and audience alike with fresh and insightful studies.