Zealot - The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth

Textual Notes
(Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1985). See also David Suter, “Weighed in the Balance:
     The Similitudes of Enoch in Recent Discussion,”
Religious Studies Review
7 (1981): 217–21, and J. C. Hindly, “Towards a Date for the Similitudes of Enoch:
     A Historical Approach,”
New Testament Studies
14 (1967–68): 551–65.Hindly offers a date between 115 and 135 C.E . for the
Similitudes
, which is a bit late, in my opinion. For better or worse, the best date we can give
     for the
Similitudes
is sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E ., but before the composition of the gospel of Matthew in around 90 C.E .
    On the parallels between the Enoch Son of Man and the gospel Son of Man in the material
     that is unique to Matthew, see Burkett,
The Son of Man Debate
, 78; see also John J. Collins, “The Heavenly Representative: The ‘Son of Man’ in
     the Similitudes of Enoch,” in
Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms
, ed. John J. Collins and George Nickelsburg (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980),
     111–33. On the Son of Man as a preexistent heavenly being in the fourth gospel, see
     Delbert Burkett,
The Son of the Man in the Gospel of John
(Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) and R. G. Hamerton-Kelly,
Pre-Existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973). It should be noted that neither in
     the
Similitudes
nor in 4 Ezra is “Son of Man” used as a title, certainly not the way Jesus uses it.
    Jesus standing before Caiaphas quotes not only Daniel 7:13 but also Psalms 110:1 (“The
     Lord says to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool’ ”).
     The integration of Daniel 7:13 and Psalms 110:1 in Jesus’s reply to the high priest
     may at first seem somewhat disjointed. But according to T. F. Glasson, Jesus is making
     a natural connection. Glasson notes that in Daniel, the coming of the Son of Man “with
     the clouds of heaven” symbolizes the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth.
     Thus, once Jesus is exalted to the right hand of God, the kingdom he preached in 1:15
     will emerge as the “new community of the saints.” According to Glasson, the reference
     to the Psalms demonstrates Jesus’s personal exaltation, while the reference to Daniel
     indicates the inauguration of the kingdom on earth—an event that must begin with his
     death and resurrection. This idea is quite in league with Jesus’s threefold interpretation
     of the Son of Man. In other words, Glasson believes that this is the moment when the
     two titles, messiah and Son of Man, come together for Jesus. See Thomas Francis Glasson,
     “Reply to Caiaphas (Mark 14:62),”
New Testament Studies
7 (1960): 88–93. Mary Ann L. Beavis notes the parallels between the story of Jesus
     before Caiaphas and the previous confession made by Peter. Both scenes begin with
     a question of Jesus’s identity (8:27, 14:60), and both end with a Son of Man discourse.
     Furthermore, in both instances Jesus’s reinterpretation of the messianic title is
     met with a resounding condemnation (8:32–33, 14:63–65); see Mary Ann L. Beavis, “The
     Trial Before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:53–65): Reader Response and Greco-Roman Readers,”
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
49 (1987): 581–96.
CHAPTER TWELVE: NO KING BUT CAESAR
    As tempting as it may be to dismiss the betrayal of Judas Iscariot as nothing more
     than a narrative embellishment, the fact is that it is a detail attested to by all
     four gospel writers, though each presents a different reasoning for his betrayal.
    Mark and Matthew make it clear that “the crowd” had been expressly sent by the Sanhedrin,
     and Luke adds the presence of the Temple captains to the arresting party to make the
     point clearer. Only the gospel of John indicates the presence of Roman troops in the
     arresting party. That is highly unlikely, as no Roman soldier would seize a criminal
     and deliver him to the Sanhedrin unless he was ordered to do so by his prefect, and
     there is no reason to think that Pilate became involved in Jesus’s situation until
     Jesus was brought before him. Although Mark seems to suggest that the one wielding
     the sword was not a disciple but “a certain one of those standing by” (Mark 14:47),
     the rest of the gospels make it clear that this was indeed a disciple who cut off
     the servant’s ear. In fact, John identifies the sword-wielding disciple as Simon Peter