The Expectation of Sabbatical Redemption within Ancient Judaism and Luke-Acts

How to cite this article: Marc Turnage, “The Expectation of Sabbatical Redemption within Ancient Judaism and Luke-Acts,” Jerusalem Perspective (2024) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/28733/].

In contrast to the other Synoptic Evangelists, Luke preserved Jesus’ unique attachment to Jerusalem and its Temple (Luke 13:34-35; 19:41-44; 21:28; 23:27-31). His second volume, Acts, continued the connection between Jesus’ movement to Jerusalem and the Temple, including Paul. In Luke, Jesus predicted the coming destruction of Jerusalem and lamented it (Luke 13:34-35; 19:41-44; 21:20-36; 23:27-31), yet only in Luke does Jesus promise the restoration and redemption of Jerusalem and the Jewish people (Luke 21:20-36; Acts 1:6-8).^[74] Luke alone of the Gospel writers tied Jesus and his movement to the Jewish national redemptive hopes by retaining the language of redemption (ἁπολύτρωσις [apolūtrōsis, “release”] and λύτρωσις [lūtrōsis, “redemption”];^[75] Luke 1:68; 2:38; 21:28; 24:21; see also Luke 2:25).^[76] The other Gospel writers severed Jesus’ connection with Jerusalem, its Temple, and the Jewish people.^[77] The strong ties of Jesus and his movement to Jerusalem, its Temple, and Jewish national redemptive hopes in Luke-Acts suggests Luke wrote his work prior to the destruction of the Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 C.E., when these sentiments were at their highest and not only among the Jewish rebels (see J.W. 4:314-325; Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael on Exod. 20:21-23).^[78] The absence of the language of redemption within the other Gospels, as well as the separation of Jesus and his movement from Jerusalem and the hopes of its redemption, reflect a post-destruction reality, which highlights Luke’s uniqueness, and strengthens our suggestion of the pre-destruction composition of his works. The evangelists, however, could not sanitize their biographies entirely from Jewish hopes of redemption due to the prevalence of the phrase “kingdom of Heaven/God” within their sources,^[79] which, within its earliest formulations, connected the redemption of Israel with the reign of Israel’s God.^[80]

Luke’s unique preservation of the connection between the earliest traditions of Jesus and his movement to the redemption of Israel enables us to see another exceptional feature of Luke-Acts pertaining to speculation of the timing of redemption within ancient Judaism. Some anticipated God’s redemption would occur within the sabbatical year.^[81] The widespread distribution of this expectation across Jewish literature indicates its prominence within Jewish speculation concerning the eschatological end. Jews searched the Scriptures to ascertain the exact date of the coming redemption. Daniel 9:24-27 provided the central scriptural passage for sabbatical redemption; in fact, this idea likely originated with the author of Daniel 9.^[82] The idea of sabbatical redemption penetrated into Luke-Acts in two primary ways: 1) Dates Luke assigned to the birth of Jesus and the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptizer, and 2) the language of sabbatical/Jubilee redemption which frames the mission of John (Luke 3:3; see also Mark 1:4), Jesus’ mission (Luke 4:18), Luke’s version of Jesus’ commission to his disciples (24:47), and the mission of his movement in Acts, especially in the first half of the book (2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; and 26:18). The absence of the idea of sabbatical redemption within the other Gospels (apart from Mark 1:4) and the remainder of the New Testament^[83] suggests the appearance of sabbatical redemption in Luke originated within a Jewish community, in the land of Israel—the sabbatical and Jubilee years are only observed in the land of Israel (Lev. 25:2); in other words, at the earliest stage of the traditions of Jesus and his movement.

This study will analyze the idea of sabbatical redemption first found in Dan. 9:24-27 and its appearance within other Jewish literature of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, in which we will outline the primary expectations of sabbatical redemption. We will then analyze the appearance of sabbatical redemption within Luke-Acts in light of ancient Jewish expectations.

Conclusion

Luke-Acts attests to the connection of the movements of John the Baptist and Jesus to the ancient Jewish hopes of sabbatical redemption. The observance of the sabbatical year/שְׁמִטָּה and Jubilee only in the land of Israel suggests Luke preserved traditions which went back to the origins of these movements within the land of Israel. It further reflects Luke’s preservation of the connection of Jesus and his movement to the hopes of national redemption. The virtual absence of the idea of sabbatical redemption within the other Gospels does not indicate Luke as its originator, for, as we have seen, it appears widespread within ancient Judaism. Rather, it attests to the manner of Luke’s fidelity to his sources, and in this case, his non-Markan sources.

The primitive connection of Jesus and John’s movements to the idea of sabbatical redemption allows us to see them as part of the rich tapestry of ancient Judaism. It enables us to place them within the landscape of ancient Judaism and understand their redemptive expectations better.

---

• ^[1] See C. A. Newsom, Daniel: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014), 286-291. ↩
• ^[2] Newsom, Daniel, 178-179, 289. ↩
• ^[3] Newsom, Daniel, 289. ↩
• ^[4] Michael Fishbane suggests the seventy-year oracle from the second Judean exile (587/586 B.C.E.) could have fueled the national energies towards the restoration of the temple in 516/515 B.C.E., as recounted in Zechariah (Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985], 479-489). ↩
• ^[5] S. Japhet, I and II Chronicles: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 1075-1076; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 479-489. ↩
• ^[6] J. VanderKam, “Sabbatical Chronologies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, ed. T. Lim (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 162. ↩
• ^[7] H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982), 417-418. ↩
• ^[8] Stone, Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2011), 66. ↩
• ^[9] Modern interpreters understand this phrase as “seventy weeks,” but ancient interpreters understood, שבעים שבעים, as “seventy sabbatical cycles,” a שָׁבוּעַ (shāvūa‘) refers to the heptad of the sabbatical cycle; see Wacholder, “Chronomessianism,” 202-203. ↩
• ^[10] J. Licht, The Festivals of Israel (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1988), 55-73; Newsom, Daniel, 299. ↩
• ^[11] VanderKam, “Sabbatical Chronologies,” 162. ↩
• ^[12] L. E. Hartman and A. A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel (AB 23; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1978), 250; J. J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 352-353. ↩
• ^[13] Collins, Daniel, 352; Newsom, Daniel, 299. ↩
• ^[14] D. Dimant, “The Seventy Weeks Chronology (Dan 9,24-27) in the Light of New Qumranic Texts,” in The Book of Daniel in Light of New Findings, ed. S. van der Woude (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), 59. ↩
• ^[15] Dimant, “Seventy Weeks Chronology (Dan 9,24-27),” 60. ↩
• ^[16] Ibid. ↩
• ^[17] The division of history into ten periods was something Judaism likely inherited from Persian religion. ↩
• ^[18] Leviticus 25 has more occurrences of the verb “to redeem” and the noun “redemption” than any other chapter in the Hebrew Scriptures. While the language of redemption in Leviticus 25 did not originally refer to political redemption, Jews read it in this manner by the first century. See further, Turnage “‘The Things that Make for Peace.’” ↩
• ^[19] See sources cited in Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27 (AB; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), 2250; and J. S. Bergsma, The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran: A History of Interpretation (VTSup 115; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 88. ↩
• ^[20] Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2250. ↩
• ^[21] Ibid. ↩
• ^[22] Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2164. Milgrom notes the Jubilee (and possibly the sabbatical year) is based on an agricultural year, that is a fall calendar (see m. Rosh. Hash. 1:1; Josephus, Ant. 1:80-81). ↩
• ^[23] See Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2166-2169; 2173-2176; 2245-2248; and 2251-2257. ↩
• ^[24] Milgrom notes that the use of קָרָא (qārā’, “proclaim”) is not Deuteronomic language, but derives from priestly material (Leviticus 23-27, 2245). ↩
• ^[25] See E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint. Volume 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 182; Schwartz, “On Quirinius, John the Baptist, the Benedictus, Melchizedek, Qumran, and Ephesus,” Revue de Qumran 13/49 (1988): 635-646; F. Garcia Martinez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar, and A. S. van der Woude, Manuscripts from Qumran Cave 11 (11Q2-18, 11Q20-30) (DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) 230. ↩
• ^[26] The Aramaic Targums translate שבת in Lev. 25:2-7 with שמט: וְשָׁבְתָה הָאָרֶץ שַׁבָּת לַיהוה (Lev. 25:2) is translated לְארעא דַאְנָא יָהֵיב לְכוֹן וְתַשׁמֵיט ארעא שְׁמִיטְתָא קְדָם יוי; and וּבַשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁבִיעִת שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן יִהְיֶה לָאָרֶץ שַׁבָּת לַיהוה (Lev. 25:4) is translated וּבשַׁתָא שְׁבִיעֵיתָא נִיָח שְׁמִיטְתָא יְהֵי לארעא דְתַשׁמֵיט קְדָם יוי. The Targum clearly connected the sabbatical year in Leviticus 25 with the שְׁמִטָּה in Deuteronomy 15. ↩
• ^[27] D. Barthélemy and J. T. Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD 1; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), 91-97 [henceforth DJD 1]. ↩
• ^[28] See also Bergsma, The Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran, 256-257. ↩
• ^[29] See M. Weinfield, “The Day of Atonement and Freedom (Deror): The Redemption of the Soul,” in Normative and Sectarian Judaism in the Second Temple Period (Library of Second Temple Studies 54; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 227-231. ↩
• ^[30] On the development of the connection between human compassion and forgiveness to one another with divine forgiveness in ancient Judaism, see Flusser, “A New Sensitivity in Judaism and the Christian Message,” in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 469-492. ↩
• ^[31] See DJD 1, 95. ↩
• ^[32] See C. Werman, “Epochs and End-Time: The 490-Year Scheme in Second Temple Literature,” DSD 13 (2006): 229-255; Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 245-246; J. Strugnell and D. Dimant, “4Q Second Ezekiel (4Q380),” RevQ 13 (1988): 45-58; idem, “The Merkabah Vision in Second Ezekiel (4Q385 4),” RevQ 14 (1990): 331-348; Dimant, “The Seventy Weeks Chronology (Dan 9,24-27),” 57-76, especially 69, 72-76; idem, “New Light from Qumran on the Jewish Pseudepigrapha—4Q390,” 2:405-448; for a short survey of the history of the publication of these fragments, see Dimant, Qumran Cave 4, XXI. Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts (DJD 30; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001), 1-3. ↩
• ^[33] Jewish interpreters often updated and recalibrated Daniel’s chronological schema; see Flusser, “Salvation Present and Future,” in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 229-244 229-244; Stone, Ancient Judaism, 67; and H. Eshel, “4Q390, the 490-Year Prophecy, and the Calendrical History of the Second Temple Period,” in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection, ed. Gabriele Bocccaccini (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 2005), 102-110. ↩
• ^[34] Scholarship on 11Q13 has suffered in two principal ways: 1) Scholars have focused on the eschatological figure of Melchizedek, assuming he is the center of the preserved manuscript. They have even given his name to the nomenclature of the manuscript, 11QMelchizedek. Melchizedek, however, is not the central theme of the manuscript nor of the interpretations of the biblical lemmata cited. Rather, the pesher describes the various aspects of the Yom Kippur at the conclusion of the tenth Jubilee, not the character of Melchizedek. 2) Although acknowledging 11Q13 belongs to the Qumran pesharim, 11Q13 has not been read in accordance with the character of the genre of pesher at Qumran. This manifests itself in two separate yet related ways. First, most scholars identify Melchizedek in 11Q13 as the archangel Michael. As such, they elevate this text into the realm of apocalyptic, cosmic supra-history. The problem, however, lies in the fact that the pesharim are not apocalypses. They do not concern themselves with suprahistorical realities of apocalypses. Angels, demons, and otherworldly beings do not appear in the Qumran pesharim. The Qumran pesharim provide an eschatological-historical interpretation to the biblical lemmata they include, but they altogether lack an apocalyptic reality. Although they refer to human figures with sobriquets, they do not include angelic, otherworldly beings or suprahistoric realities. Second, although Psalm 82:1-2 and Psalm 7:8b-9a convey a mythic reality, for example, God among the heavenly court, this does not mean the pesherist imparted the same mythic meaning in his interpretation. Such interpretations are absent in the Qumran pesharim. The pesharim interpreted the biblical lemmata as pertaining to the history of the Community—its past, present, and near future, and identified this history within the period of אחרית הימים. Yet, this in no way requires a mythic, suprahistorical interpretation be given for the pesharim, including 11Q13. The author of 11Q13 derived his eschatological chronology and expectations from the biblical texts he cited. Given the nature of the Qumran pesharim, the author of 11Q13 likely viewed himself as already within the tenth Jubilee and anticipated its conclusion and the eschatological turn soon. See further, Turnage, “‘To Proclaim Liberty’: Atonement, Justice, and the Proclamation of Good News at the End of the Tenth Jubilee: An Analysis of 11Q13.” PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 2024. ↩
• ^[35] See Turnage, “‘To Proclaim Liberty.’” ↩
• ^[36] Text readings and reconstructions according to Turnage, “‘To Proclaim Liberty.’” ↩
• ^[37] Translation is the author’s. ↩
• ^[38] The author indicated this by the frequent use of markers of time, which he interpreted throughout column 2. ↩
• ^[39] Melchizedek’s hosts refer to the Community of the Sons of Light. ↩
• ^[40] The author plays on the double meaning of the word פקודה (11Q13 2:10-20). ↩
• ^[41] See Flusser, “Salvation Present and Future,” 229-244; Stone, Ancient Judaism, 67; and Eshel, “4Q390, The 490-Year Prophecy,” 102-110. ↩
• ^[42] The manner of the pesherist’s interpretation of the biblical text upon the organization of his pesher appears in 2:9-14. Identifying the Yom Kippur at the end of the tenth Jubilee as “the period of the year of the favor of Melchizedek and [his] hosts” (הואה הקץ לשנת הרצון למלכי צדק ולצב[איו; 11Q13 2:9), the author played upon the dual aspect of the favorable year of the Lord in Isa. 61:2 as a day of vengeance. The anointed herald in Isa. 61:2 proclaims, שְׁנַת רָצוֹן לַיהוה וְיוֹם נָקָם לֵאלֹהֵינוּ; thus, the year of the Yahweh’s favor is also the day of judgement. The author of 11Q13, however, understood, אֱלֹהֵינוּ (’^elohēnū), not as parallel to Yahweh, but rather, Melchizedek and his hosts, who will execute the judgements of God against Belial and his lot, with the aid of the Sons of Light (11Q13 2:12-14). The pesherist identified their judicial role from Psalm 82:1, אֱלֹהִים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת אֵל בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט. The author of 11Q13 did not identify Melchizedek and his hosts as angelic figures (as many scholars assume, see note 44). Rather, he understood the term אֱלֹהִים (’^elohim) to mean “judge” and “judges”; the citations of Psalm 82:1-2 and Psalm 7:8b-9a described the judicial character of the Yom Kippur at the end of the tenth Jubilee, not Melchizedek and his hosts. From Isa. 61:2, the pesherist concluded the end of the tenth Jubilee would be a period of favor (atonement for the Sons of Light, 2:8), but a time of judgment for the wicked (2:12-14); thus, 11Q13 2:9 provides a transition from describing the Yom Kippur at the end of the tenth Jubilee as a “year of favor” to the “domain of justice” (מששלת משפט). Both aspects appear in Isa. 61:2, but they also appear in Dan. 9:24 where the eschatological turn at the conclusion of the seventieth sabbatical cycle will be a period of atonement and justice. See further Turnage, “‘To Proclaim Liberity.’” ↩
• ^[43] Turnage, “‘To Proclaim Liberty.’” ↩
• ^[44] See Weinfield, “The Day of Atonement and Freedom (Deror),” 227-231. ↩
• ^[45] See for example, P. J. Kosmin, Time and Its Adversaries in the Seleucid Empire (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press, 2018). ↩
• ^[46] H. M. Cotton, “The Roman Census in the Papyri from the Judean Desert and the Egyptian κατ᾽οἰκίαν ἀπογραφή,” in Roman Rule and Jewish Life: Collected Papers, ed. O. Pogorelsky (Studia Judaica 89; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2022), 363-378. ↩
• ^[47] Many make the mistaken assumption that Rome’s entry into Judaea in 63 B.C.E., with the army of Pompey the Great, annexed the land to the Roman Empire. They did not. Rome took a more “hands on” policy in Judean politics, first establishing the client kings of the Hasmoneans and then Herod the Great, but it did not annex the land. Rome pulled the strings and exerted its will, but the local rulers still wielded power. The land of Israel remained an independent, yet client kingdom of Rome. This changed with the removal of Archelaus and Rome’s annexation in 6 C.E. The annexation of Archelaus’ territory and placing it under a Roman governor did not extend the hegemony of the governor to all the land of Israel. Philo of Alexandria how the sons of Herod led a delegation to the emperor Tiberius against Pilate (Embassy to Gaius, 299-305). The interaction between Pilate and Herod Antipas concerning Jesus (Luke 23:6-12; Acts 4:25-28) likewise displays the regional limits of the Roman governor of Judea. ↩
• ^[48] See Cotton, “The Roman Census,” 364-365. ↩
• ^[49] Wacholder, “Chronomessianism,” 215. ↩
• ^[50] Wacholder, “Chronomessianism,” 213-214. ↩
• ^[51] Wacholder, “Chronomessianism,” 213-214; J. A. Fiztmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (AB 28; New York: Doubleday, 1970), 455-456. ↩
• ^[52] See Hatch and Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint. Volume 1, 182; and Schwartz, “On Quirinius, John the Baptist,” 635-646. See Exod. 23:11; Lev. 25:10-12, 28, 30-31, 33, 40, 50, 52, 54; 27:17-18, 21, 23-24; Num. 36:4; Deut. 15:1-3, 9-10; Isa. 61:1; Jer. 34:8, 15, 17; and Ezek. 46:17. ↩
• ^[53] The Septuagint used different verbs than κηρύσσω in Lev. 25:10 (διαβοάω) and Jer. 34 (LXX 41; καλέω), but Isa. 61:1 translated לִקְרֹא לִשְׁבוּיִם דְּרוֹר with κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν. ↩
• ^[54] Turnage, “‘The Things that Make for Peace.’” ↩
• ^[55] Luke’s Greek, τῷ μὴ ἔχοντι (tō mē echonti, “to the one not having”), preserves the Hebraism, הוּא שֶׁאֵין לוֹ (hū’ she’ēn lō, “he that has not”). ↩
• ^[56] Turnage, “‘The Things that Make for Peace.’” ↩
• ^[57] Among the Evangelists, Luke provides the most detailed account of John, his family and birth, his teaching, and imprisonment. If we remove Luke’s story of the annunciation to Mary and Mary’s visit with Elizabeth (1:26-56), as well his account of the birth of Jesus (chapter 2), Luke preserves a bios (biography) of John: his family (Luke 1:5-25), his birth (Luke 1:57-66), the redemptive hopes of his movement (Luke 1:67-79), a brief mention of his childhood (Luke 1:80), his ministry and message (Luke 3:1-18), and his imprisonment (Luke 3:19-20). It seems probable that the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) was originally spoken by Elizabeth, the mother of John. Some Latin manuscripts identify her as the speaker, and while the preponderance of the Greek manuscripts identify Mary as the speaker, the language of Luke 1:56, “And Mary remained with her,” (emphasis added) implies Elizabeth as the speaker of the Magnificat. While Luke may have originally identified Mary as the speaker of the Magnificat, the hymn likely originated within the circles of the Baptist and was originally ascribed to Elizabeth. See Flusser, “The Magnificat, the Benedictus and the War Scroll,” in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 126-149; Schwartz, Reading the First Century: On Reading Josephus and Studying Jewish History of the First Century (WUNT 300; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 66-70. Luke incorporated this biography of John into his Gospel. Luke’s use of a biography of John also explains the structure of his narrative in which he related the ministry and message of John (Luke 3:1-18), and then John’s imprisonment (Luke 3:19-20), placing the story of Jesus’ baptism after John was imprisoned. In this, Luke displays a literary independence from Matthew and Mark, who both placed John’s imprisonment after John’s baptism of Jesus. While Matthew and Mark represent the historical chronology, Luke’s relating of John’s biography prior to his recounting of Jesus’ baptism betrays his use of a narrative source on the life of John, whose narrative he incorporated into his Gospel, and then related his account of Jesus’ baptism. Luke did not break the narrative continuity of his source by inserting the baptism of Jesus into it. Rather, after he told of John’s imprisonment, he related Jesus’ baptism. Josephus’ testimony concerning John, likewise, seems to affirm the existence of such a bios of John. ↩
• ^[58] Flusser, “A New Sensitivity in Judaism and the Christian Message,” 469-489. ↩
• ^[59] Within the Hebrew Scriptures, words like צֶדֶק (tzedeq, “righteousness”), צַדִּיק (tzadiq, “righeous”), צְדָקָה (tz^edāqāh, “righteousness”), and לְהַצְדִּיק (l^ehatzdiq, “make righteous”) were relationally defined terms, either between God and humanity, or person to person. Scripture defined the breaking of these relational aspects as sin. The relational quality of these terms played a significant role in the development of the euphemism of צְדָקָה as charity. ↩
• ^[60] See Turnage, “‘The things that Make for Peace.’” ↩
• ^[61] Turnage, “‘To Proclaim Liberty.’” ↩
• ^[62] See R. S. Notley and J. P. Garcia, “Hebrew-Only Exegesis: A Philological Approach to Jesus’ Use of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels. Volume Two, ed. R. Buth and R. S. Notley (Jewish and Christian Perspective Series 26; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 349-374. ↩
• ^[63] Turnage, “‘The Things that Make for Peace,’” and Flusser, Jesus, 258-275. ↩
• ^[64] Weinfeld, “The Day of the Lord: Aspirations for the Kingdom of God in the Bible and Jewish Liturgy,” in Normative and Sectarian Judaism in the Second Temple Period, 68-89; idem, “The Heavenly Praise in Unison,” in Normative and Sectarian Judaism, 45-52; Flusser, “Sanktus und Gloria,” in Abraham unser Vater: Festschrift für Otto Michel zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. O. Betz, M. Hengel, and P. Schmidt; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 129-152 [an English version of this article now appears on Jerusalem Perspective: https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/27983/—JP]; D. De Sola Pool, The Kaddish (Leipzig, 1909). ↩
• ^[65] I hope to address this in a future study. ↩
• ^[66] Flusser, “Jesus and Judaism: Jewish Perspectives,” in Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism, ed. H. W. Attridge and G. Hata (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1992), 80-109. Fitzmyer, however, argues that Luke preserves the more original form the prayer (The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV [AB 28a; New York: Doubleday, 1985], 896-907), yet he ascribes Luke’s use of ἁμαρτίας (Luke 11:4) instead of Matthew’s ὀφειλήματα (Matt. 6:12) to Luke’s editorial hand. See also I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 454-462. ↩
• ^[67] G. A. Anderson, Sin, a History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009). ↩
• ^[68] Anderson, Sin, 135-151. ↩
• ^[69] See Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, 902. ↩
• ^[70] Notley, “Luke 5:35: ‘When the Bridegroom Is Taken Away’—Anticipation of the Destruction of the Second Temple,” in The Gospels in First-Century Judaea. Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of Nyack College’s Graduate Program in Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins, August 29, 2013, ed. R. S. Notley and J. P. Garcia (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 107-121. ↩
• ^[71] Flusser, “The Magnificat, the Benedictus and the War Scroll,” 126-149. ↩
• ^[72] See also Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 456. ↩
• ^[73] See Turnage, “‘To Proclaim Liberty.’” ↩
• ^[74] See M. Turnage, “‘The Things that Make for Peace’: Jesus and the Politics of His Day,” [forthcoming]. ↩
• ^[75] The Greek substantives, ἁπολύτρωσις and λύτρωσις, are equivalent to the Hebrew, גְּאוּלָה (g^e’ūlāh, “redemption”). The language of redemption, גָּאַל (gā’al, “redeem”) and גְּאוּלָה, as well as their Greek equivalents, ἀπολυτρόω (apolūtroō, “to release”), λυτρόω (lūtroō, “to redeem”), ἁπολύτρωσις, and λύτρωσις, do not appear within works belonging to apocalyptic historiography. This does not mean the idea of redemption does not appear within the apocalyptic worldview. Merely the language of redemption does not belong to the expectations of apocalyptic historiography. Considering this, Luke’s presentation of Jesus in his Gospel and his movement in Acts should give pause in identifying either as “apocalyptic.” ↩
• ^[76] Turnage, “‘The Things that Make for Peace’”; Flusser, “A Prophecy Concerning Jerusalem in the New Testament,” in Jewish Sources in Early Christianity: Studies and Essays (Tel Aviv: Sifrat Poalim, 1979), 253-274 [Hebrew] [An English version of this article is now available on Jerusalem Perspective: https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/11517/—JP.] On Luke’s more historical treatment of Jerusalem’s future versus Mark’s apocalyptic treatment, see L. Gaston, No Stone On Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels (SupNT 23; Leiden: Brill 1970), 244-487. ↩
• ^[77] Flusser, Jesus (3rd ed.; Jerusalem: Magness Press, 2001), 244. Matthew 23:37-39 preserves one of Jesus’ laments for Jerusalem, yet Matthew placed it after his critique of the Pharisees and immediately preceding his prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, which implicates the Pharisees as those “who kill the prophets” (but see Matt. 23:29-31). In Matthew, it becomes part of his invective against the Pharisees. Moreover, his placement of this lament of Jesus, after he arrived in Jerusalem, indicates Jerusalem will not see Jesus again (Matt. 23:39), until it says in the eschatological future, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” ↩
• ^[78] Turnage, “‘The Things that Make for Peace’”; Flusser, “A Prophecy Concerning Jerusalem,” 253-274. ↩
• ^[79] John, however, almost succeeded in removing the Kingdom of God from the lips of Jesus. It only appears twice in his Gospel (John 3:3, 5). ↩
• ^[80] Turnage, “‘The Things that Make for Peace.’” ↩
• ^[81] B. Z. Wacholder, “Chronomessianism, The Timing of Messianic Movements and the Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles,” HUCA 46 (1975): 201-218. ↩
• ^[82] Wacholder, “Chronomessianism,” 201-202. ↩
• ^[83] Although see Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:22; 10:18. ↩