LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

of the Davidic Messiah, see Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 35–75; Fitzmyer, One Who Is to Come, 8–81; Schmidt, “βασιλέυς, βασιλεία,” 576).

109. Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 35. Von Rad describes the complex of religious and political ideas linked with the empirical king as forming the soil for Messianic belief and that the true point of connection or starting-point of the Messianic belief was the person of David and especially the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7) (see von Rad, “βασιλέυς,” 566–68).

110. It is “with the collapse of the Davidic monarchy and the Babylonian exile” that “expectation for the restoration of the monarchy became a common feature—though not universal—within the more general hope for Israel’s renewal” (Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 38). On the very diversity of the development of the hope for their restoration before the Exile, see Barton, “Messiah in Old Testament Theology,” 365–79.

111. See Williamson, “Messianic Texts,” 238–70; Mason, “Messiah, 37–38.

112. Williamson emphasizes the nature of king as agent through whom God will work, which is reminiscent of the Johannine Jesus as God’s agent (see Williamson, “Messianic Texts,” 254–58).

113. See Prologue of the Gospel of John; John 8:12–59; 18:1–11, 35–37.

114. In the Qumran literature, as in rabbinic tradition, the branch, son of David, appears as a man of peace after the battle has been won (Johnson, “Davidic-Royal Motif,” 148).

115. This image as a favorite metaphor for the coming Davidic king was used by the exilic and post-exilic prophets (Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 38).

116. Klappert, “King, Kingdom,” 374. “The branch” in the Qumran literature as well as in the Hebrew Bible appears as the Messianic figure (see Collins, Scepter and the Star, 49–73; Fitzmyer, One Who Is to Come, 103–4; Johnson, “Davidic-Royal Motif,” 146–48). In 4QBt3 (4Q504), for example, God has chosen the tribe of Judah and made a covenant with David who was to be shepherd and prince of the people (see Johnson, “Davidic-Royal Motif,” 146); the Messiah of Righteousness is called the Branch of David (see Vermès, Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 494; Allegro, “Further Messianic References,” 174–87). Particularly, in 4QSefM (4Q285) 7:1–6, which quotes Isa 10:34—11:1, the titles “scion of David” and “Prince of the congregation” indicates the same person, and “identifies ‘the shoot from the stump of Jesse,’ indirectly giving that passage of Isaiah a messianic connotation, which it did not have in preexilic times” (Fitzmyer, One Who Is to Come, 104).

117. See Mason, “Messiah,” 340–49; Toy, “King,” 157–60.

118. The concept of a fig tree (Zech 3:10) is linked to John 1:48. In that context, being called under a fig tree marked the arrival of the “Branch” (Zech 3:8), who was understood to be the Davidic Messiah foretold in the Law (Gen 49:10) and the Prophets (Jer 23:6; 33:16; Zech 3:8; 6:12–13) (Koester, Symbolism, 40).

119. In the book of Jeremiah, the concept of king stresses the political qualities of the king. That is, the function of the king in the book of Jeremiah is that of political ruler. The coming king as a branch of David in Jer 33:15–16 will rule on “the earth” with justice and righteousness, and Israel will be saved and safe under him. The king in Jeremiah also functions as a decolonizer.

120. Von Rad, “βασιλέυς,” 567, 569.

121. Lambert, “Kingship in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 69.

122. To consult recent research, see Cassidy, John’s Gospel; Koester, “Savior,” 665–80; Carter, John.

123. About “Savior” or “Savior of the World,” see chapter 3 of this book; about “My Lord and My God” see also chapter 3 of this book.

124. See Danker, Benefactor, 36–42, 202–36; Danker, “Benefactor,” 58–60; Kleinknecht, “βασιλεύς,” 565; Neyrey, “God, Benefactor and Patron,” 465–92, esp. 471–76.

125. Danker, Benefactor, 29.

126. To be exact, the divine kingship is rooted in the kingship of the Pharaoh in ancient Egypt and the kings in the Ancient Near East. For example, the Pharaoh was regarded as both a god and as the son of a god, the incarnation of god; in the Sumerian period in Mesopotamia, the king was deified and regarded as representative of the god (see Day, “Canaanite Inheritance,” 81–82; see also Rajak et al., Jewish Perspectives).

127. See chapter 1 of this book; Klappert, “King, Kingdom,” 372–73.

128. The Christian proclamation of the New Testament “Jesus is the Lord!” might be a crucial anti-language against Rome. On Christ’s challenge to the living Caesar, the polemical purpose of the term, Christ, see Fantin, “Lord of the Entire World,” 174–240. Fantin argues that “given the relational nature of κύριος and the exclusive nature of supreme lord, using the title for Christ with explicit features such as unique modifiers, creedal formulas, and praise hymns would be viewed by the original readers as challenging the default supreme lord” (Fantin, “Lord of the Entire World,” 240).

129. Johnson, “Davidic-Royal Motif,” 136–37; Tacitus, Hist. 4.81, 5.13; Dio Cassius, Hist. 65.8.1, 66.1.4; Josephus, Jewish War 3.399–404, 6.310–315; Suetonius, Vesp. 4.5. In Suetonius, Vesp. 7, the second man was lame.

130. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.12; cf, Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.20, 1–6; Johnson, “Davidic-Royal Motif,” 150.

131. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 38; Barrett, New Testament Background, 20.

132. Josephus presents imperial connotations as examples of welcoming visiting rulers/emperors: Tiberius (J. W. 398); Vespasian (J. W. 741); Titus (J. W. 425; 752–3) (Koester, “Savior,” 665–80; Catchpole, “‘Triumphal’ Entry,” 319–34). In addition, in Israelite kingship ritual, we can find the ultimate precedents. Particularly, in 1 Kgs 1:32–40 (cf. Zech 9:9) a ceremonial entry with acclamation is described when the king-designate precedes a celebrating crowd. The king rides the royal animal and the crowd play on pipes and rejoice with great joy. This image seems

Скачать книгу