to direct me to this point was David Frederickson, professor of New Testament, Luther Seminary.
230. Also see comments in Leithart, Four, 153.
231. Gathercole, Pre-Existent Son, 49.
232. Juel, Mark, 128.
233. Scaer, Christology, 79.
234. France, Gospel of Mark, 608.
235. See discussion of this interpretation of Jesus’s confession in N. T. Wright, Christian Origins, 2:551.
236. Gathercole, Pre-Existent Son, 60–61. Also see similar arguments in Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation; Timo Eskola, Messiah and the Throne. Beyond Gathercole’s argument, Bock mentions that the challenge to the priesthood (representatives of God) would be viewed as blasphemy.
237. Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus and the High Priest,” 21.
238. Ibid., 15.
239. Just, Heaven on Earth, 100.
240. Mowinckel, Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2–3.
241. For a similar argument see Bayer, “Toward a Theology of Lament,” 211–20. Gerhard also suggests that Jesus was a hero of faith who was not defeated even in death (History of the Suffering, 265).
242. Lenski, St. Mark’s Gospel, 722–23.
243. Jewish War, 5.5.4, in Josephus, Works of Josephus, 707.
244. For example, Schweizer, Mark, 354–55.
245. Juel, Mark, 225.
246. Ibid., 226.
247. Lenski, St. Mark’s Gospel, 724.
248. See the following commentaries: Allen, Critical and Exegetical Commentary; Broadus, Gospel of Matthew; Bruner, Matthew; M. Davies, Matthew; Allison and W. Davies, Saint Matthew; Dickson, Brief Exposition; Erdman, Matthew; Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium; Fenton, Saint Matthew; Filson, Saint Matthew; France, Gospel of Matthew; Gaetcher, Matthäus Evangelium; Gibbs, Matthew 1–11; Grundmann, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Gundry, Matthew; Hagner, Matthew; Harold, Gospel of Matthew; Harrington, Matthew; Jerome, Matthew; Keener, Gospel of Matthew; Keil, Evangelium des Matthäus; Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Matthieu; Lenski, Matthew’s Gospel; Luz, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Michaelis, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Meier, Matthew; Nolland, Gospel of Matthew; Overman, Church and Community; Rienecker, Evangelium des Matthäus; T. Robinson, Gospel of Matthew; Sabourin, St. Matthew; Sand, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Scaer, Discourses in Matthew; Scaer, Sermon on the Mount; Schanz, Evangelium des Heiligen Matthäus; Schlatter, Evangelist Matthäus; J. Schmid, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Schniewind, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Staab, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Schweizer, Evangelium nach Matthäus; D. Turner, Matthew; Wiefel, Evangelium nach Matthäus; Witherington, Matthew; Zahn, Evangelium des Matthäus.
249. Harrington, Matthew, 35; Lenski, Matthew’s Gospel, 49; Meier, Marginal Jew, 207.
250. Lenski, Matthew’s Gospel, 54–55.
251. Ibid., 1168.
252. David Scaer considers these to be highly significant for the structure of Matthew. See Scaer, Discourses in Matthew.
253. Allison, New Moses.
254. N. T. Wright, Christian Origins, 1:236–37.
255. G. Barth, “Matthew’s Understanding,” 135.
256. Gieschen, “Divine Name,” 130–48.
257. See similar argument in Scaer, Discourses in Matthew, 157–99.
258. Ibid., 172.
259. Gieschen, “Divine Name,” 124–25.
260. Scaer, Discourses of Matthew, 202.
261. See discussion of the incident in the context of Matthew’s gospel in Maccoby, “Jesus and Barabbas,” 55–60; H. Rigg, “Barabbas,” 417–56.
262. Leithart, Four, 90.
263. We offer this interpretation against the claim of many that this passage has to do with anti-Judaism (or anti-Semitism). See discussions in the following authors: Crossan, “Anti-Semitism,” 189–214; Fitzmyer, “Anti-Semitism,” 667–71; Gaston, “Messiah of Israel,” 40; Harrington, Matthew, 388–93; Stanton, Gospel for a New People, 148–57. First, claiming the passage is anti-Semitic is absurd insofar as it is not only an anachronism (prior to the modern period, hatred of the Jews was for the most part not racial, but religious), but also the author and the gospel hero are both Jews. Secondly, Matthew does not portray Pilate tremendously well either (while he pretends to shuck responsibility, but ultimately allows an innocent man to die). Similarly, many of Jesus’s negative statements about Gentiles are reported through the gospel. Ultimately, Matthew’s polemic is not against the Jews as such, but against unbelieving humanity that rejects Christ. Jews who do not accept Christ are no worse than Gentiles who do the same.
264. Leithart, Four, 118–20; Scaer, Discourses of Matthew, 123.
265. See 1 Enoch 93:2; Ezra 7:4, 12:34; 2 Baruch 24:1–4, 30:1–5,
