Zealot - The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth

established forever” (2 Samuel 7:16).
    Jesus’s lineage from King David is stated over and over again, not just throughout
     the gospels but also in the letters of Paul, in which Jesus is repeatedly described
     as “of the seed of David” (Romans 1:3–4; 2 Timothy 2:8). Whether it was true is impossible
     to say. Many people claimed lineage to the greatest Israelite king (who lived a thousand
     years before Jesus of Nazareth), and frankly none of them could either prove such
     lineage or disprove it. But obviously the link between Jesus and David was vital for
     the early Christian community because it helped prove that this lowly peasant was
     in fact the messiah.
    It is widely accepted that the original text of Mark ended with 16:8 and that Mark
     16:9–20 was a later addition to the text. Per Norman Perrin: “It is the virtually
     unanimous opinion of modern scholarship that what appears in most translations of
     the gospel of Mark 16:9–20 is a pastiche of material taken from other gospels and
     added to the original text of the gospel as it was copied and transmitted by the scribes
     of the ancient Christian communities.” Perrin,
The Resurrection According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press: 1977), 16. However, there are still some who question
     this assumption, arguing that a book cannot end with the Greek word γαρ, as Mark 16:8
     does. That view has been debunked by P. W. van der Horst, “Can a Book End with TAP
     Note on Mark XVI.8,”
Journal of Theological Studies
23 (1972): 121–24. Horst notes numerous texts in antiquity that do in fact end in
     this manner (e.g., Plotinus’s 32nd treatise). In any case, anyone who reads Mark in
     the original Greek can tell that a different hand wrote the final eight verses.
    For prophecies claiming that “when the messiah comes, no one will know where he is
     from,” see 1 Enoch 48:6 and 4 Ezra 13:51–52. For a complete breakdown of the so-called
     messianic “proof texts,” see J.J.M. Roberts, “The Old Testament’s Contribution to
     Messianic Expectations,”
The Messiah
, 39–51. According to Roberts, these texts fall into five categories. First, there
     are those passages that appear to be prophecies
ex eventu
. Roberts cites Balaam’s oracle in Numbers 24:17 (“a star will come forth out of Jacob”)
     as an instance in which a prophecy that seems to find its fulfillment in the early
     monarchical period (in this case, the celebration of David’s victories as king of
     Israel over Moab and Edom, as is indicated in verses 17b and 18) has been forced to
     function as a prophecy regarding future divine kingship. Such a futuristic interpretation,
     argues Roberts, ignores the original setting of the prophecy. The second category
     deals with prophetic passages that seem to have settings in the enthronement ceremonies
     of the anointed kings. For instance, Psalm 2 (“You are my son … / this day I become
     your father”) and Isaiah 9:6 (“For a child has been born to us … and his title will
     be Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace”) were most likely
     composed for specific occasions to serve both religious and political functions. The
     political usage of these texts is apparent in their claims of the authoritative power
     of the king and his direct link to God. They also establish a link between the responsibilities
     of the king toward his people and the commands of God. The king who serves in God’s
     stead must display God’s justice. Even so, such statements as are found in these verses
     would no doubt create a powerful tool for kingly propaganda. The third category of
     the messianic proof texts do indeed speak of a future ruler and are perhaps the verses
     most frequently quoted by those who want to give a salvific interpretation to the
     messiah of the Hebrew scriptures (Micah 5:1–5; Zechariah 9:1–10). These texts speak
     of the embodiment of the Davidic ideal,
metaphorically
(not physically) referred to as a king of the Davidic line, who will restore the
     monarchy of Israel to its former glory. But for Roberts, the promises of a future
     king (e.g., Micah’s promise of a king rising from the humility of Bethlehem) “imply
     a serious criticism of the current occupant of the Davidic throne as less than an
     adequate heir to David.” Such criticism is apparent throughout the prophetic texts
     (see Isaiah 1:21–26, 11:1–9, 32:1–8). Roberts uses the same