Article

Journal for the Study of

the New Testament
Why Did the New Testament 2015, Vol. 38(1) 36­–48
© The Author(s) 2015
Writers Appeal to the Old Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Testament? DOI: 10.1177/0142064X15595931
jsnt.sagepub.com

Craig A. Evans
Divinity College, Acadia University, Canada

Abstract
Jesus’ use of the Old Testament was innovative and experiential. Although his use of
scripture was foundational for the theology of the early church, early Christian teachers
and writers were not limited by it. Some of the New Testament writers appealed to
certain passages because Jesus appealed to them and they had become part of the
‘biblical theology’ of the Jesus movement in the post-Easter setting. Other texts were
appealed to because they clarified new problems and questions that the early church
faced as it grew and expanded into lands outside of Israel.

Keywords
Jesus, scripture, authority, canon

New Testament writers appealed to Jewish sacred literature for two basic rea-
sons: First, religious claims had to be justified in one way or another by Jewish
sacred literature. Secondly, Jesus himself grounded his preaching and mission in
Jewish sacred literature. His followers did likewise, appealing to some of the
same texts in this literature and appealing to new texts.

Corresponding author:
Craig A. Evans, Acadia University, Divinity College, 38 Highland Avenue, Wolfville, NS B4P 2R6, Canada.
Email: craig.evans@acadiau.ca

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 18, 2015

Evans 37

Jesus and the Old Testament: General Observations

According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus quotes or alludes to 23 of the 36 books
of the Hebrew Bible1 (counting the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as
three books, not six). Jesus alludes to or quotes all five books of Moses, the three
major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel), eight of the twelve minor
prophets,2 and five of the ‘writings’.3 In other words, Jesus quotes or alludes to
all of the books of the Law, most of the Prophets, and some of the Writings.
Superficially, then, the ‘canon’4 of Jesus is pretty much what it was for most
religiously observant Jews of his time.
Qumran fits this picture.5 Among the Dead Sea Scrolls there are some 80 mss
of the books of the Law, some 70 mss of the Prophets, and about 61 mss of the
Writings6 (of which 34 mss are from the Psalter – a collection apparently regarded
at Qumran as prophetic). The proportion of quotations in the non-biblical scrolls
is roughly consistent: some 75 quotations of the Law, some 81 quotations of the
Prophets, and some 37 quotations of the Writings. Had it not been for the dispro-
portionate number of quotations of Isaiah (about 35), the correlation between
mss and quotations would have been closer.
However, it is this great interest in Isaiah and the Psalms that draws even
closer correlations between Jesus’ use of scripture and the evidence from Qumran
and the region of the Dead Sea. According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus quotes
or alludes to Deuteronomy some 15 or 16 times, Isaiah some 40 times, and the
Psalms some 13 times. These appear to be his favorite books, though Daniel and
Zechariah seem to have been favorites also.
In the non-biblical scrolls of Qumran and the region of the Dead Sea7 the book
of Deuteronomy is quoted some 22 times, Isaiah some 35 times, and the Psalter
some 31 times.8 Moreover, just as the Psalter was viewed as prophetic at Qumran
(with two or three prophetic pesharim devoted to various psalms), so was it
viewed as prophetic by Jesus and his first followers.

1. See the tabulation in France 1971: 259-63.

2. That is, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Zephaniah, Zechariah and Malachi. Omitted are
Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Haggai.
3. That is, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Daniel and Chronicles. Omitted are Song of Songs, Ruth,
Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah.
4. I, of course, do not use the word ‘canon’ in its later, official sense. I am referring to those writ-
ings regarded as authoritative in a religious sense.
5. See the perceptive study by Schwartz 2010.
6. See the index provided by Fitzmyer 1990: 205-37. For further clarification of the ‘canon’ of
scripture at Qumran, as well as lists of mss, see Ulrich 1992: 267-91; 1998–99: II, 649-65.
7. The pesharim here are also being excluded.
8. VanderKam 1998: 382-402. I gratefully acknowledge updated data supplied by Martin G.
Abegg Jr.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 18, 2015

38 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38(1)

It seems, then, that Jesus’ usage of scripture was pretty much in step with what
we observe in similar circles, circles that took the Law very seriously, under-
stood the Prophets eschatologically, and had some regard for the Writings,
though the contents of this last division were not established in the first century.9
Of the writings that make up the last division, the Psalter seems to have been of
especial interest, both for personal worship and for additional prophetic insight,
perhaps almost on a par with the Prophets themselves.

Jesus and the Old Testament: What is Cited and Why

I begin with a review of some of the Old Testament passages that Jesus in the
Gospel of Mark is said to have quoted, paraphrased or alluded to. I choose this
gospel because, unlike the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John, which make
frequent appeal to Old Testament texts as fulfilled, the Markan evangelist does
not.10 Much of the Old Testament in Mark is traditional, which increases the
probability that it derives from Jesus. Along the way, and where necessary, I will
argue this point.11

Appeals to the Law of Moses

In several passages, Jesus appeals to the Law of Moses for support of one sort or
another. There is no question that for him the Law is authoritative (Mk 10.17-
22). Jesus instructs the healed leper, ‘Go, show yourself to the priest, and offer
for your cleansing what Moses commanded’ (Mk 1.44). The command is based
on Lev. 14.2-32. Notwithstanding the evangelist’s editorial touches throughout
(Marcus 2000: 207-208), commentators generally accept the story, including the
appeal to the Law, as authentic. It is improbable that a fictional story would
include the command given the healed leper to show himself to a priest, espe-
cially after already portraying Jesus as showing disregard for purity laws by
touching the leper. The apparent inconsistency is more readily explained in refer-
ence to Jesus himself than to a Christian tradent.12
When Jesus and his disciples plucked and ate grain on the Sabbath, they are
accused of violating the Sabbath (Mk 2.23-28). Plucking grain from a neighbor’s

9. Satlow (2014: 208) rightly says that Jesus, even if at points he differed with their interpreta-
tion, ‘confirmed the value of most of the “ancestral customs” of the Jews’. I do not agree with
Satlow, however, when he says that ‘scripture per se appeared to have played a marginal role
in (Jesus’) religious life’.
10. The thesis is forcefully argued (and at points over-argued) in Suhl 1965.
11. For a balanced and concise assessment of the ‘minimalist’, ‘moderate’ and ‘maximalist’
views, see Moyise 2010.
12. This aspect of tension is summed up well in France 2002: 115-16. Also see Loader 1997:
19-25.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 18, 2015

Evans 39

field was permitted, so long as no tool was used (Deut. 23.25; Lev. 19.9-10). The
objection, however, centers on doing ‘work’ on the Sabbath, for the plucking of
the grain, even if no tool was employed, could be interpreted as harvesting and,
as such, as a violation of Exod. 34.21. In the oral tradition, plucking grain for
eating a meal on the road was considered a violation of this law (b. Šabb. 73: ‘he
is liable … on account of stripping [i.e., removing the husk from the grain]’). The
need for food was no excuse (t. Šabb. 15.17: ‘prepare in advance of the Sabbath
day their food for the Sabbath’).
In responding to the charge that his disciples have violated the Sabbath, Jesus
asks:

Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and
those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high
priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests
to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?’ (Mk 2.25-26).

Here appeal has been made to 1 Sam. 21.2-7 (Eng. 21.1-6) and the law concern-
ing the Bread of the Presence in Lev. 24.9. Jesus has pitted the example of David,
who was widely admired in Israel and whose deeds were often viewed as prece-
dent-setting, against the law – or at least how the law was interpreted by some. A
strict interpretation of Lev. 24.9 could lead to condemnation of David and his
men. But the circumstances in which David found himself, including his status
as the Lord’s anointed and the importance of his mission (to become Israel’s
king), justified his action.
Jesus’ comparison implies that he and his disciples are therefore justified to do
what may seem to some to be a violation of the Law. Their action is all the more
valid if Jesus, as the Lord’s anointed, is in fact greater than David (see below)
(Loader 1997: 34-35). In the light of the eschatological moment and the messi-
anic identity and authority of Jesus, his and his disciples’ actions can be justified
(Hengel 1995a: 72).
In the dispute over what defiles (Mk 7.1-13), Jesus appeals to the prophecy of
Isa. 29.13 (‘This people honors me with their lips’) and quotes Exod. 21.12
(‘Honor your father and mother’) and 20.17 (‘Whoever curses his father or
mother shall be put to death’), arguing that Pharisaic oral tradition has broken the
written Law (Mk 7.6-13). The parenthetic note, ‘Thus he declared all foods
clean’ (Mk 7.19), represents the post-Easter Christian perspective.
Several commentators see post-Easter material in Mk 7.1-13. To be sure, the
material has been heavily edited. But the editing of the material is itself evidence
that the dominical tradition in its earliest form did not entirely conform to
Christian preferences. Post-Easter material would likely not require such editing.
It is better to see Mk 7.1-13 as reworked genuine material. Sometimes it is
pointed out that the appeal to Isa. 29.13 reflects early Christianity’s interest in

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 18, 2015

40 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38(1)

Isa. 29.10-16 (as seen in Rom. 9.20; 11.8; 1 Cor. 1.19; Col. 2.22), not Jesus’
interest. But, in my view, it is better to see early Christian interest in Isa. 29.10-
16 as a reflection of the Sitz im Leben Jesu, in which Jesus responds to the chal-
lenge of oral traditions with which he disagrees (Banks 1975: 134-35). His
appeal to Isa. 29.13 created interest in this verse and the large oracle of which it
is a part (more on this passage below).
In responding to the Pharisees’ question about divorce and the meaning of
Deut. 24.1-4, Jesus quotes portions of Gen. 1.27 (‘God made them male and
female’) and 2.24 (‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and
be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer
two but one flesh’), concluding, ‘Therefore what God has joined together, let no
one separate’ (Mk 10.6-9). The question about divorce was not academic: it was
potentially dangerous. John the Baptist’s criticism of Antipas for putting away
his wife, the daughter of Aretas the king of Nabatea, and marrying his sister-in-
law resulted in John’s imprisonment and execution (Mk 6.17-29; Josephus, Ant.
18.116-19). It is possible that the enemies of Jesus were attempting to lure him
into uttering similar criticisms. The debate over divorce (and remarriage), espe-
cially in reference to Israel’s leaders, was not limited to John and Jesus. Given
the similarity of arguments in some of the sectarian literature from Qumran,13 we
may surmise that at the turn of the era it was very controversial and sometimes
led to tensions.
Our last example is rather conventional. A scribe asks, ‘Which commandment
is the first of all?’ Jesus replies,

The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord
your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with
all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There
is no other commandment greater than these (Mk 12.28-31).

Jesus has appealed to Deut. 6.4-5 and Lev. 19.18, texts to which appeal was fre-
quently made. Jesus, as did many of his contemporaries, viewed these two texts
as a summary of the Decalogue.14

Eschatology and Prophetic Indictment

On a number of occasions, Jesus appealed to the Prophets to indict his contem-
poraries or otherwise speak of coming judgment. All of these warnings should be

13. CD 4.20-21 argues for monogamy by citing Gen. 1.27. 4Q416 frag. 2, 3.21b–4.4a promotes
the permanence of marriage with an appeal to Gen. 2.24.
14. Allison 1994. Allison notes that this function of the Double Commandment, well documented
in late antiquity and in subsequent exegesis of Mk 12.28-31 down through the centuries, is
surprisingly often overlooked in today’s commentaries.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 18, 2015

Evans 41

understood in the light of the proclamation of the kingdom of God (Mk 1.14-15),
whose theme and language were indebted to Isaiah (24.23; 31.4; 40.9; 52.7),
especially as it was expressed in Aramaic.15
Inserted between the parable of the Sower (Mk 4.3-9) and its explanation
(4.13-20) is the mysterious utterance about how and why it is that proclamation
of the kingdom is to outsiders little more than riddles. It is thus, says Jesus, ‘so
that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not under-
stand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven’ (4.12). Jesus has paraphrased
and condensed Isa. 6.9-10. Appeal to Isa. 6 is ominous, for the ancient vision
concerned impending judgment that was to befall the kingdom of Judah. Isaiah
was to proclaim his dolorous word, ‘Until cities lie waste without inhabitant, and
houses without men, and the land is utterly desolate’ (v. 11). The full context of
Isa. 6.9-10, whose wording reflects the Aramaic,16 not only explains why some
refuse to receive the message, it warns of judgment.
In the parable of the Seed and Harvest (Mk 4.26-29) Jesus alludes to Joel 4.13
(Eng. 3.13): ‘But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the
harvest has come.’ The allusion likely adds to the parable an element of pro-
phetic judgment.17 In the Aramaic Joel 4 takes on a noticeable eschatological
orientation. In v. 12 the Lord ‘will reveal’ (‫ )אתגלי‬himself. The verb ‫ גלי‬is used
regularly in the Aramaic in reference to the revelation of the kingdom of God
(e.g., Isa. 40.9; 52.7; et al.). Whereas in v. 13 the Hebrew says, ‘he puts in the
sickle, because the harvest has come’, the Aramaic reads, ‘Put the sword into
them, for the time of their end has arrived’.
In the dispute over what causes defilement, Jesus appeals to Isa. 29.13: ‘Well
did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “This people honors me
with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teach-
ing as doctrines the precepts of men”’ (Mk 7.6-7). The purpose of the passage
from Isaiah is not simply to serve as a proof-text, by highlighting the hypocrisy
of those who privilege human tradition over God’s law; it is again to hint at com-
ing judgment. Jesus may have seen this Isaianic text as especially relevant in his
debate with the religious teachers of his day because of the Aramaic paraphrase,
in which ‘scribes and teachers’ appear (in 29.10) and reference to the ‘command-
ment of men’ (in 29.13), which is qualified with the addition of ‘who teach’.

15. Chilton 1984: 58-67. In the Targum, the usual expression is ‘the kingdom of your God is
revealed’. Jesus’ expression, ‘the kingdom of God has drawn near’ (Mk 1.15), is likely his
own adaptation of the language that was current in the synagogue in his time. On the rele-
vance of the Isaiah Targum for understanding the preaching of Jesus, see Chilton 1982.
16. On the authenticity of the utterance (whatever its relationship to the parable of the Sower) and
its Aramaic diction, see Chilton 1984: 90-98.
17. Judgment against whom? Marcus (2000: 323) wonders if the allusion to Joel intentionally
reverses the original meaning, in that the prophecy is now seen as friendly toward the Gentiles.
In other settings, Jesus inverts or reverses the orientation of a text of scripture.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 18, 2015

42 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38(1)

I might add that in v. 13 the Hebrew’s ‘this people draw near’ becomes, in the
Aramaic, ‘this people exalts itself’.18
Jesus’ warning about the dangers of temptation (Mk 9.42-49) is supported by
an appeal to Isa. 66.24: ‘where their worm does not die, and the fire is not
quenched’ (Mk 9.48).19 The appeal to Isaiah once again reflects the Aramaic
paraphrase and interpretation of scripture (cf. Tg. Isa. 66.24: ‘the wicked shall be
judged in Gehenna …’).20 Whatever the original meaning in Hebrew Isaiah, the
Aramaic version is oriented to eschatological judgment and so is consistent with
the dominical utterance.
In his demonstration in the temple precincts, Jesus criticized the priestly
authorities for failure to live up to the grand vision of Isa. 56.1-8, a vision in
which the temple would function as ‘a house of prayer for all the nations’ (Mk
11.17a, citing Isa. 56.7).21 Instead, the authorities have made God’s house into a
‘den of robbers’ (Mk 11.17b, citing Jer. 7.11). This language alludes to Jeremiah’s
scathing criticisms of and threats against the ruling priests on the eve of the
destruction of the first temple. Perhaps reflecting a typology, Jesus has implied
that the fate that overtook the first temple establishment will overtake the second
temple establishment. The anger of the ruling priests (Mk 11.18 ‘sought a way to
destroy him’) was not so much in response to the protest itself, but rather to the
prophetic indictment and accompanying hint of coming judgment.22
Jesus’ actions in the temple precincts, whereby he disrupts the buying and
selling, and prevents people from carrying items ‘through the temple’ (Mk 11.15-
16), may well have been a dramatic acting out of the prophecy of Zech. 14.21
(‘And there shall no longer be a trader in the house of the Lord of hosts on that
day’), which in the Aramaic tradition seems to have taken on a heightened escha-
tological sense.23

18. The Aramaic’s ‘this people exalts itself’ approximates Jesus’ well-known dictum, ‘whoever
exalts himself will be humbled’ (Mt. 23.12 = Lk. 18.14). Although likely not the inspiration
for the dictum (Isa. 10.33 and Ezek. 21.26 are better candidates), the language would have
attracted Jesus to this Isaianic passage.
19. Several mss add the quotation of Isa. 66.24 between vv. 43 and 45 and vv. 45 and 48. For the
addition, see A D K X Θ Π f13 et al. Verses 44 and 46 do not appear in ‫ א‬B C L W Δ Ψ f1 et al.
20. For critical discussion, see Chilton 1984: 101-107. Chilton speaks of the saying’s ‘essential
authenticity’.
21. The oracle of Isa. 56.1-8 is itself based on Solomon’s prayer of dedication of the temple (1
Kgs 8.41-43).
22. For further discussion of the factors behind the temple demonstration, see Evans 1989a,
1989b.
23. Zech. 14.21 may lie behind the saying in Jn 2.16: ‘Take these things away; you shall not make
my Father’s house a house of trade.’ For further discussion, see Chilton 1992: 135-36. For
support of the suggestion that Jesus acted out aspects of Zechariah’s prophecies, see Moyise
2010: 96-97.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 18, 2015

Evans 43

In the eschatological discourse, Jesus’ warning of coming persecution, includ-

ing family division, is especially interesting: ‘brother will deliver up brother to
death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have
them put to death’ (Mk 13.12; cf. Mt. 24.9). Jesus has alluded to Mic. 7.6: ‘the
son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies are the men of his
own house.’ What supports the dominical origin of this saying is its appearance
in Q, though in fuller form: ‘For I have come to set a man against his father, and
a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
and a man’s foes will be those of his own household’ (Mt. 10.35-36; cf. Lk. 12.53).
In Jewish circles Mic. 7.6 was understood as one of the signs of the approaching
day of judgment, especially in reference to the appearance of the Messiah (m. Sot
9.15). Surprisingly, post-Jesus Christian eschatology (e.g., 1 Thess. 4.13–5.11;
2 Thess. 2.1-12) makes no use of it.

Prophetic Christology
In the Passion Predictions (Mk 8.31; 9.31; 10.32-34) the phrase ‘after three days
(καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς) rise again’ alludes to Hos. 6.2 (‘After [LXX: μετά] two days he
will revive us; on [LXX: ἐν] the third day he will raise us up’), though again
probably reflecting the Aramaic paraphrase, which understands the passage in
reference to the future resurrection (‘He will give us life … on the day of the
resurrection of the dead he will raise us up …’). The two pronouns in Hos. 6.2
(‘after’ and ‘on’) probably account for the variation we find in the New Testament
(Mark: μετά ‘after’; Matthew, Luke, Acts and 1 Corinthians: ἐν ‘on’).
In contrast to the thinking of the bickering disciples, whose ideas of leader-
ship are more akin to Greco-Roman ways of thinking, Jesus sums up his mission:
‘For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a
ransom for many’ (Mk 10.45). The first part of the utterance alludes to Dan. 7.13-
14, while the second probably alludes to Isa. 53.10-12. Jesus has inverted Dan.
7.13-14, which envisions the Son of Man figure as being served by the nations,
an inversion facilitated by the description of the Suffering Servant who has come
to serve and to give his life for his people.
Another example of prophetic Christology is seen in the acted out drama of
entering Jerusalem mounted on an ass, almost certainly done consciously as a
fulfillment of Zech. 9.9. The Markan evangelist does not cite the prophecy of
Zechariah (nor does the Lukan evangelist, who follows Mark). It could be that
the evangelist was not aware of the prophetic import of Jesus’ action. Indeed, the
evangelist speaks of a ‘colt’ (πῶλος) – which could refer to a young horse – not
of an ‘ass’ (ὄνος) or a ‘beast of burden’ (ὑποζύγιον), as we find in Mt. 21.2 and in
the formal quotation of Zech. 9.9 in Mt. 21.4-5. Similar language is found in the

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 18, 2015

44 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38(1)

Johannine account, where Zech. 9.9 is also formally quoted (Jn 12.14-15). There
is no indication that the Markan evangelist was aware of the prophecy.24
The parable of the Vineyard (Mk 12.1-9) is based on Isaiah’s Song of the
Vineyard (Isa. 5.1-7), itself an example of the juridical parable. Although the
point is debated, I believe the original form of the parable included the allusion
to Isaiah, for it is hardly the product of a Greek-speaking, LXX-reading Christian.
Rather, the parable reflects Aramaic tradition, as we often see in authentic domin-
ical tradition. The parable is semi-allegorical, suggesting that the murderous
caretakers of the vineyard are the ruling priests and the murdered son of the
vineyard owner is Jesus. The parable concludes in the fashion of many rabbinic
parables with a quotation of another scripture that both confirms the implications
of the parable and makes the point clearer. The text that is cited is Ps. 118.22-23,
which, in the Aramaic tradition, was understood to refer to the priests who ini-
tially rejected David as Israel’s king.25 Christians made use of Ps. 118.22-23
(Acts 4.11; Eph. 2.20; 1 Pet. 2.4, 6-8) but not Isa. 5.1-7.
The ruling priests readily perceive the meaning of the parable, including the
quotation of Ps. 118, and are offended by it. The parable is both Christological,
in that it implies that Jesus is God’s Son, and also prophetic, in that it implies
judgment against those who oppose and plot against Jesus.
Jesus calls into question the scribal habit of referring to the Messiah as the
‘son of David’ (Mk 12.35-37). The point Jesus makes once again turns on
Aramaic diction (Fitzmyer 1979: 90). The passage is obviously Christological,
suggesting that the Messiah is no mere ‘son of David’, but rather is much
greater – he is David’s ‘lord’, as Ps. 110.1 seems to imply. The exegesis coheres
with the Christology of the parable of the Vineyard, in which Jesus has implied
that he is none other than God’s Son. This interpretation of Ps. 110.1 is not post-
Easter, for it is quite unlikely that a Christian tradent would create tradition in
which Jesus seems to distance himself from Davidic messianism.
Given the Christological importance of Ps. 110, it is not surprising that New
Testament writers appeal to this passage, sometimes quoting it, often alluding to
parts of it (such as ‘at the right hand’).26 Its usage is very early and widespread,27

24. Hengel 1995a: 56; Evans 1999: 382-83.

25. The coherence and seamlessness of the components of the parable, including the quotation of
Ps. 118.22-23, and its perfect fit in the Markan context argues against viewing as more ancient
and more original the version we find in the Gospel of Thomas, whose banal anti-commercial
thrust is clearly secondary. See Brooke 2005: 235-60. Brooke rightly observes that the ‘proof-
text from Psalm 118 is remarkably coherent with the opening parts of the parable’ (p. 260).
26. For detailed discussion, see Hay 1973; Hengel 1995b.
27. The quotations and allusions to Ps 110.1, as well as 110.4, are conveniently laid out in Hay
1973: 163-66. The passage has especial importance for the author of Hebrews.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 18, 2015

Evans 45

suggesting that this usage began with Jesus himself. Jesus’ appeal to such a text
would then make sense of his execution as ‘king of the Jews’ (Mk 15.26).28
Perhaps the most innovative feature of what I am calling Jesus’ prophetic
Christology is found in the Words of Institution, in which reference is made to
the (new) covenant (Mk 14.22-25 // Mt. 26.26-29 // Lk. 22.14-20 // 1 Cor. 11.23-
25). We have here a startlingly new idea. The suffering and death of righteous
martyrs sometimes resulted in heaven’s favor, as Israel struggled against Gentile
oppressors. But to speak of the establishment of the longed-for new covenant, of
which Jeremiah spoke (Jer. 31.31), through one’s own death is quite remarkable.
That such suffering could be thought of as the Messiah’s task was likely the con-
tribution of the Song of the Suffering Servant (Isa. 52.13–53.12), particularly as
described in Isa. 53.10, 12.
Not only does Jesus relate his death to the new covenant, he creates a temporal
frame of reference when he says, ‘I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine
until that day when I drink it new (καινόν) in the kingdom of God’ (Mk 14.25).
The ‘new’ (or ‘renewed’) Jesus will some day drink wine in the kingdom of God,
when the promised new covenant with Israel has been realized.
At the conclusion of the meal, Jesus and his disciples retire to the Mount of
Olives, where he warns them: ‘You will all fall away; for it is written, “I will
strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered”’ (Mk 14.27). Jesus has para-
phrased Zech. 13.7: ‘“Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man
who stands next to me,” says the Lord of hosts. “Strike the shepherd, that the
sheep may be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones”.’ This can
hardly be an early Christian proof text, for the oracle is a word of judgment
directed against Israel’s leaders. Why would early Christians apply this text to
Jesus? One would think that Christians would apply the text against Israel’s false
shepherds (as in Jn 10.1-18; cf. Ezek. 34.2-10; 1 En. 89–90). It is better to see the
tradition as originating with Jesus, who, as we have already seen, has acted out
some of the prophecies of Zechariah. Jesus has applied the prophecy to himself,
altering the imperative, ‘Strike the shepherd’, to a prophetic prediction, ‘I will
strike the shepherd’. The striking down of the Shepherd coheres with the Words
of Institution, in which the blood of Jesus will be poured out for his people.
When Jesus answers the high priest, ‘I am (the Messiah, Son of God); and you
will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the
clouds of heaven’ (Mk 14.62), he has combined elements from Dan. 7.13 and Ps.
110.1, passages that envision coming judgment upon God’s enemies. We find Ps
110.1 and Dan 7.13 combined in Jewish exegesis (cf. Midr. Ps. 2.9 [on Ps. 2.7]).
In one old exegesis, the plural ‘thrones’ of Dan. 7.9 is understood by Rabbi

28. This point is made by Hengel 1995b: 134, 173, 217. Hay (1973: 157) also allows that
Christological usage of Ps. 110 began ‘possibly (recalling Mk 12.35-37 par) in the pre-Easter
period’. In my view it is more than possible; it is probable.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 18, 2015

46 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38(1)

Aqiba (late first, early second century) to refer to the throne on which God sits
and a throne on which David (probably meaning the Messiah, son of David) sits
(b. Sanh. 38b; b. Hag. 14a; see also Hekhalot Rabbati §§125-126, attributed to
Rabbi Ishmael, early second century: ‘as David came and sat upon his throne,
which was prepared in the presence of the throne of his Creator’).
Finally, Jesus’ quotation of Ps. 22.1 on the cross probably should be viewed as
another instance of prophetic Christology. Mark records the words in Aramaic:
‘Elo-i, Elo-i, lama sabach-thani?’ (Mk 15.34). Most scholars accept this utter-
ance as originating with Jesus. It is hardly a saying that early Christians would
invent. Jesus may well have intended the appeal to Ps. 22.1, in reference to his
‘abandonment’ on the cross, as the completion of the Servant’s suffering and the
fulfillment of the supper saying about shedding his blood.

Concluding Observations
After his study of the use of the Old Testament in the gospels, C.H. Dodd com-
mented: ‘This is a piece of genuinely creative thinking. Who was responsible for
it? … Whose was the originating mind here?’ (Dodd 1952: 109-10). Dodd
believed that the creative approach to the Old Testament found in the gospels and
elsewhere in the writings of the New Testament originated with Jesus himself. In
a study published two decades later, R.T. France agreed, adding: ‘The source of
the distinctive Christian use of the Old Testament was not the creative thinking
of the primitive community, but that of its founder’ (France 1971: 226).
Thirty years ago, the late John A.T. Robinson spoke of Jesus’ ‘challenging
use’ of scripture, as seen in counter-questions like ‘Have you never read what
David did?’ (Mk 2.25) or ‘Have you not read this scripture?’ (Mk 12.10) or
‘Have you not read in the book of Moses?’ (Mk 12.26) or ‘How can the scribes
say?’ (Mk 12.35) (Robinson 1984). Bruce Chilton spoke of Jesus’ experiential
use of scripture, a sort of ‘divine activity in the present’ (Chilton 1984: 174).
Evans has suggested that, in some instances, Jesus’ use of scripture could be
described as subversive, in a sense turning the text on its head (Evans 2009).
In the survey above we often encounter an ad hoc, situational use of scripture,
consistent with the observations of the scholars mentioned in the two preceding
paragraphs. Jesus’ use of scripture provided a foundation on which the New
Testament writers built, but it did not establish rigid boundaries beyond which
these writers could not go. Jesus’ use of scripture was suggestive and at times
exemplary. New Testament writers followed and developed some of the texts to
which Jesus made appeal (such as Pss. 110 and 118), ignored others, and appealed
to many others that were never quoted and alluded to in the dominical tradition.
I suspect that some of the New Testament writers appealed to certain Old
Testament passages simply because they had been appealed to by Jesus and had
become part of the ‘biblical theology’ of the Jesus movement in the post-Easter

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 18, 2015

Evans 47

setting. Other texts were appealed to because they clarified new problems and
questions that the early church faced as it grew and expanded into lands outside
of Israel.

References
Allison, Dale C. Jr
1994 ‘Mark 12.28-31 and the Decalogue’, in Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner
(eds.), The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup, 104; SSEJC, 3;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 270-78.
Banks, Robert
1975 Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS, 28; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Brooke, George J.
2005 The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Chilton, Bruce
1982 The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum
(JSOTSup, 23; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
1984 A Galilean Rabbi and his Bible: Jesus’ Use of the Interpreted Scripture of his
Time (GNS, 8; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier).
1992 The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program within a Cultural History of
Sacrifice (University Park: Penn State Press).
Dodd, C.H.
1952 According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology
(London: Nisbet).
Evans, Craig A.
1989a ‘Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?’, CBQ 51:
237-70.
1989b ‘Jesus’ Action in the Temple and Evidence of Corruption in the First-Century
Temple’, in David J. Lull (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar
Papers (SBLSP, 28; Atlanta: Scholars Press): 522-39.
1999 ‘Jesus and Zechariah’s Messianic Hope’, in Craig A. Evans and Bruce Chilton
(eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: Brill): 373-88.
2009 ‘“Have You Not Read …?” Jesus’ Subversive Interpretation of Scripture’,
in James H. Charlesworth and Peter Pokorny (eds.), Jesus Research: An
International Perspective. The Proceedings of the Biennial Princeton-Prague
Symposium on the Current State of Studies on the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans): 182-98.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A.
1979 A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBLMS, 25; Missoula, MT:
Scholars Press).
1990 The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study (SBLRBS, 20;
Atlanta: Scholars Press).

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 18, 2015

48 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38(1)

France, R.T.
1971 Jesus and the Old Testament (London: Tyndale Press).
2002 The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster
Press).
Hay, David M.
1973 Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS, 18; Nashville:
Abingdon Press).
Hengel, Martin
1995a ‘Jesus, the Messiah of Israel’, in Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark): 1-72.
1995b ‘“Sit at My Right Hand!”’, in Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark): 119-225.
Loader, William R.G.
1997 Jesus’ Attitude towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels (WUNT, 2.97; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck).
Marcus, Joel
2000 Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 27; New
York: Doubleday).
Moyise, Steve
2010 Jesus and Scripture (London: SPCK).
Robinson, John A.T.
1984 ‘Did Jesus Have a Distinctive Use of Scripture?’, in Twelve More New Testament
Studies (London: SCM Press): 35-43.
Satlow, Michael L.
2014 How the Bible Became Holy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
Schwartz, Daniel R.
2010 ‘Special People or Special Books? On Qumran and New Testament Notions of
Canon’, in Ruth A. Clements and Daniel R. Schwartz (eds.), Text, Thought, and
Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity (STDJ, 84; Leiden: Brill): 49-60.
Suhl, Alfred
1965 Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im
Markusevangelium (Gütersloh: Mohn).
Ulrich, Eugene
1992 ‘The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Latter Stages in the Composition
of the Bible’, in Michael Fishbane and Emanuel Tov (eds.), ‘Sha’arei Talmon’:
Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu
Talmon (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 267-91.
1998–1999 ‘Index of Passages in the Biblical Scrolls’, in Peter W. Flint and James C.
VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive
Assessment (2 vols., Leiden: Brill): II, 649-65.
VanderKam, James C.
1998 ‘Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, DSD 5: 382-402.

Downloaded from jnt.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on August 18, 2015