The Old Testament Background of “Ecce Homo” in John 19:5

Adam Kubiś The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin [email protected] 11 (2018) 4: 495–519 ORCID: 0000-0003-4961-2254 ISSN (print) 1689-5150 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/BPTh.2018.024 ISSN (online) 2450-7059

Starotestamentowe tło „Ecce homo” w Ewangelii św. Jana 19,5

Abstract. Pilate’s declaration ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος found in John 19:5 has given rise to a number of interpretations that seem in basic agreement, yet, at the same time, many others of a divergent and opposing nature. Among the many treatments of this verse is a whole set of proposals that see in Pilate’s words an allusion to various Old Testament texts. The present article aims at presenting the range of these scholarly interpretations (both older and modern ones) which resort to an Old Testament background for the famous ecce homo phrase. The article then focuses the discussion on Daniel’s “Son of Man”, the Isaianic “Suffering Servant”, the messianic “man” of Zec 6:12 and Num 24:17 (LXX), Adamic typology, the king of 1 Sm 9:17, and finally the figure of the bridegroom from the Song of Songs. In each case, an evaluation of the hypothetical Old Testament background is given. The author concurs with the idea of multiple intertextual Old Testament references encapsulated in Pilate’s ecce homo utterance.

Streszczenie. Słowa Piłata ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος (J 19,5) spotkały się z całą gamą różno- rodnych interpretacji, czasem wzajemnie się wykluczających. Wśród nich znajdują się także propozycje widzące w wypowiedzi Piłata aluzję do kilku tekstów starotestamen- towych. Niniejszy artykuł jest krytyczną prezentacją tych propozycji. Zostały zatem omówione interpretacje wskazujące na „Syna Człowieczego” z Księgi Daniela, Izajaszo- wego „Cierpiącego Sługę”, mesjańskiego „człowieka” z Za 6,12 i Lb 24,17 (LXX), Adama z Księgi Rodzaju, króla z 1 Sm 9,17 oraz oblubieńca z Pieśni nad Pieśniami. W każdym przypadku przestawiono krytyczną ocenę danej interpretacji. Autor przychyla się do stanowiska uznającego jednoczesne istnienie aluzji do wielu tekstów starotestamento- wych w Piłatowym stwierdzeniu „Oto człowiek!”

Keywords: Ecce homo; John 19:5; intertextuality; John’s use of the Old Testament; nuptial metaphor.

Słowa kluczowe: Ecce homo; J 19,5; intertekstualność; Janowe użycie Starego Testa- mentu; metafora małżeńska. 496 Adam Kubiś

Introduction

ven a quick survey of recent commentaries on John 19:5 demonstrates Ea wide array of proposals concerning the significance of Pilate’s expression “Behold the man!” (ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος). In fact, one is taken aback not only by the multiplicity of interpretations, but also by the lack of general scholarly con- sensus on the issue. In a recent study by D. Francois Tolmie, one reads: “The tone on his [Pilate’s] words is difficult to determine (another empty space in the text). It could be indicative of a taunt, sarcasm, exasperation or irritation, or perhaps a combination of some or all of these.”1 The mystery of these words is also enhanced by their vague narrative function and a seeming lack of any larg- er significance. From the viewpoint of the narrative logic, Pilate’s declaration adds nothing to the real course of Jesus’ trial. In fact, some textual witnesses2 omitted the whole sentence, καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, apparently regarding it as unimportant.3 That being so, as Barnabas Lindars aptly noticed, “one must ask what effect John desires to produce.”4 Raymond E. Brown argued that “in itself there is nothing particularly significant about the use of ‘the man’ […], but the dramatic context lends importance.”5 The complexity of the issue arises not only from the vagueness of the expression itself, its undefined narratological function, and the dramatic context, but also from the known Johannine devices of double entendre, irony, metaphor, riddle and misunderstanding all widely attested throughout the Fourth Gospel. Faced with such interpretative complexities, some have argued that the meaning of the enigmatic expression ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος can best be understood on the historical level, referring to a particular sense that Pilate intended and his audience perceived. At the same time, however, the famous words of Pilate might also convey another meaning to be found on the discourse level of the narrative, transmitting its message only to the most well-informed readers of the Gospel. In his monographic study on the meaning of ecce homo, published in 1988, Charles Panackel listed at least five different literary meanings functioning on the level of history: (1) The ridiculousness of the Jewish charge, because Jesus,

1 D.F. Tolmie, “Pontius Pilate”, p. 592. 2 P66, Vetus Latina (a e ff2), Subakhmimic Coptic. 3 R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, p. 451, note 63. Bart Ehrman (The Orthodox Corruption, p. 94), however, interprets the omission as an anti-adoptionist corruption that served to underline Jesus’ divinity. 4 B. Lindars, The Gospel of John, p. 566. 5 R.E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, p. 876. The Old Testament Background of “Ecce Homo” in John 19:5 497

accused of being a politico-messianic pretender to the royal throne, appears to be a poor and harmless man (Jesus’ appearance should provoke only a burst of laughter in light of his supposed claim and the accusation); (2) an expression of Pilate’s contempt for Jesus (“See the poor fellow!”) and/or for the Jews (“Behold the poor creature – whom you are persecuting, and who is surely beneath your hostility!”); (3) an appeal to Jewish philanthropy (the Jews should be moved to sympathy and compassion); (4) an expression of the impression Jesus makes on Pilate, which ranges from respect (“See, what a man!”; “Here is a man!”) to pity for Jesus and contempt for his accusers; and (5) a formula of acquittal.6 Referring to the ulterior, theological meaning, the same author distilled seven proposals: (1) The evangelist has intended the “Son of Man” title. (2) The evangelist pointed to the perfect man, who is the embodiment of the ideal man and the perfect humanity. (3) The evangelist referred to the heavenly or primordial man (Urmensch), attested in Jewish and Hellenistic myths. (4) The evangelist wanted to highlight the paradox and scandal of the Word incarnate (ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο – 1:14). (5) The evangelist, following the line of his anti-docetic agenda, intended an allusion to the real manhood and humanity of Jesus. (6) Jesus is presented as a Suffering Servant of Isaiah. (7) The expression ecce homo has to be understood in light of the title “the Son of God” in Jn 19:7.7 In Charles Panackel’s own estimation, the historical and primary meaning can be deduced from the study of Pilate’s character in the trial scene. This in- novative approach, resorting to the Johannine characterization of Pilate, did not produce, however, any novel interpretation. Thus, in his opinion ecce homo, read in the context of the mockery and derision over a Jewish king, is nothing but an expression of Pilate’s contempt for the Jews and for their messianic hopes. At the same time, Pilate’s words express his declarations of Jesus’ in- nocence and harmlessness. Jesus, made the caricature of a king, is a miserable “man” unjustly accused. As such, he does not pose any threat to Roman rule. The political charge of the Jewish authorities, being totally ridiculous and without any foundation, should be dropped. The false accusations by the Jewish authorities are only to be laughed at.8 As to the ulterior meaning, it is determined by C. Panackel by surveying all the occurrences of ἄνθρωπος designating Jesus in the Gospel of John. The evangelist, by the use of ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, wants to

6 C. Panackel, ΙΔΟΥ Ο ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ (Jn 19,5b), pp. 312–314. The author furnishes also an ample bibliography. 7 Ibidem, pp. 315–322. 8 Ibidem, p. 228. 498 Adam Kubiś

achieve two goals. First, he wishes to emphasize the palpable humanity of Jesus. Second, he points toward a divine identity for Jesus as the Son of God (19:7).9 Acknowledging the unquestionable thoroughness of Charles Panackel’s monographic study, it must nonetheless be admitted that he has paid no real attention to a possible Old Testament background for Pilate’s ecce homo utterance. The present article tries to fill this vacuum, gathering the insights dispersed in many singular publications. Obviously, any intertextual connection with regard to ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος works only on the level of secondary (ulterior, theological) meaning, available only to an informed reader sufficiently acquainted with the Jewish scriptural heritage. In what follows, then, one will find a survey of scholarly proposals regarding possible Old Testament backgrounds for Pilate’s exclamation ecce homo. The evaluation of these should help to identify the most convincing suggestions.

1. The Danielic “Son of Man”

The view that the Johannine ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος reflects the figure of the Son of Man from Daniel 7:13–22 seems to be one of the most popular views among those scholars who argue for the presence of a double meaning in John 19:5.10

9 Ibidem, pp. 336–337. The author (p. 338) concludes: “By placing in the Ecce-homo- scene (19:4–7) the term ἄνθρωπος (v. 5b) in stark contrast to υἱὸν θεοῦ (v. 7), the evangelist no only emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, but also, theologically yet implicitly, evokes the status of Jesus as the Son of God. Besides, by having Pilate progressively designate the bloody and battered Jesus as ἄνθρωπος (v. 5b) and then as βασιλεύς (v. 14), the evangelist once again highlights the basic humanity of Jesus.” The reading of ecce homo as the affirmation of Jesus’ status as Son of God is also favored by J. Gnilka, Johannesevangelium, p. 141. It must be also noted that, after C. Panackel’s work, few other studies appeared that contributed any new insights in the quest for the meaning of Pilate’s words. Let us give only a few ex- amples: Pilate’s declaration might be interpreted in the context of anti-imperial polemics: Jesus is mortal but at the same time divine Emperor. Cf. H.K. Bond, Pontius Pilate, p. 185. Ecce homo might also be seen as an allusion to the acclamation of the emperor Augustus in Aeneid 6.791, and as such should be rendered in Latin as hic vir. See L.J. Hunt, Ecce homo or Hic vir? Pilate’s words are also interpreted as appealing to and subverting the prevailing imperial constructions of hegemonic manliness and dominion. See J.J. Ripley, “Behold the Man” ?, pp. 219–239. According to Thomas Söding (Ecce homo, p. 137), “the human character of Jesus is the theological key to the Gospel of John’s Christology. […] so it is that ecce homo is revealed as a narrative icon of human dignity in the midst of suffering.” 10 J. Blank, Die Verhandlung vor Pilatus, pp. 75.77; C.K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John, p. 541; F.J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, pp. 495 and 499; J.R. Michaels, The Gospel of John, p. 930; U.C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, p. 783. The Old Testament Background of “Ecce Homo” in John 19:5 499

There are a few points in favor of this interpretation. First of all, the Aramaic expression “son of man”, found in Dan 7:14, simply means “man.” The same can be said about its Hebrew equivalent. Then, in the Parables of Enoch (1 En 37–71), this title designates an omniscient, eschatological judge, sitting upon God’s throne and enjoying divine praise and predicates, including measureless and eternal glory. Such a presentation of “the Son of Man” conforms with the Johannine characterization of Jesus.11 Moreover, this proposal fits perfectly the immediate literary context, namely the objection voiced by the Jews in 19:7 that Jesus is not the Son of God, so he cannot share God’s throne as the glori- fied Son of Man. The expression ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος is evidently paralleled with another of Pilate’s exclamations, ἴδε ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑμῶν in Jn 19:14.12 According to Ignace de la Potterie, John 19:5 is also paralleled with the royal presentation of Jesus as sitting on the throne in John 19:1313. This royal description of Je- sus in John 19:5 and again in its immediate literary context conforms with the Danielic presentation of the Son of Man as exercising judgment and universal dominion. The Johannine Jesus receives indeed a juridical authority (5:27) and universal dominion (16:33). Thus, Pilate’s words ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος might be understood as the royal investiture the Danielic Son of Man. Pilate’s declaration ecce homo would be a fulfillment of Jesus’ prophetic utterance: “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he…” (8:28). Both in 8:28 and 19:6, the Jews play an active role in Jesus’ crucifixion, understood as “lifting up”. In the opinion of some commentators, the fact that the evangelist did not use the whole expression “son of man” is self-evident, as “it would be inappropriate on Pilate’s lips”14 and it “would have lacked the ambiguity that marks Pilate’s w o r d s”. 15 It has been argued, however, that if John had wanted to allude to the title ὁ υἱὸὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, he would have done it directly, as he did on many earlier occasions.16 Andrew Lincoln also noted that “although ‘Son’ and ‘Son of Man’ are virtually synonymous in a number of places, nowhere else is ‘man’ used as

11 F.J. Moloney, The Parables of Enoch, pp. 269–293; B.E. Reynolds, The Enochic Son of Man, pp. 294–314. 12 Frédéric Manns (Exégèse rabbinique, p. 533) argues that both ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος in Jn 19:5 and ἴδε ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑμῶν in John 19:14 stem from Daniel 7:12–22 and are juxtaposed by means of the technique of gezērā šāwā. 13 I. de la Potterie, Jésus roi, pp. 217–247. Cf. J. Verheyden, I. de la Potterie on John 19,13, pp. 817–837. 14 B. Lindars, The Gospel of John, p. 566. 15 C.K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John, p. 541. 16 Cf. 1:51; 3:13.14; 5:27; 6:27.53.62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23.34; 13:31. Cf. R. Schnackenburg, Die Ecce-homo-Szene, pp. 378–379; D. Böhler, “Ecce Homo!”, p. 105. of places, nowhere else is ‘man’ used as an abbreviation or equivalent for ‘Son of Man’.”17 Rudolf Schnackenburg observed that if we agree that ecce homo is to be understood as the title 500 Adam Kubiś “the Son of Man”, “the rule that the title only otherwise occurs spoken by Jesus (or in answer to him, 9:35; 12:34) would be broken.”18 The same exegete also argued that the title “the Son of Man”, angiven abbreviation its lofty and or pregnantequivalent theological for ‘Son of Man’.”meaning17, doesRudolf not Schnackenburg match the overall ob-tenor of the trial narrativeserved thatbeing if wefocused agree thaton Jesus’ ecce homo kingship is to (18:33.36be understood–37.39; as the19:2 title–3.5a.12.14 “the Son– 15.19–22). of Man”, “the rule that the title only otherwise occurs spoken by Jesus (or in an- The understandingswer to him, of 9:35;ecce 12:34) homo wouldas the beexalted broken.” Son18 of The Man same does exegete not fit wellalso arguedwith the parallel saying thatin 19:14 the title (“Here “the is Son your of Man”, king!”). given19 Ac itscording lofty toand Johannes pregnant Beutler, theological the prevailing mean- context ing, does not match the overall tenor of the trial narrative being focused on 20 of humiliationJesus’ kingship for Jn 19:5(18:33.36–37.39; does not fit the19:2–3.5a.12.14–15.19–22). idea of glorification encapsulated The understandin thetitle. The above ingcritique, of ecce however, homo as does the exaltednot take Son into of Man consideration does not thefit typicalwell with Johannine the parallel technique of 19 double sayingmeaning in 19:14, and for (“Here this reasonis your it king!”). is not very According persuasive. to Johannes To sum upBeutler,, the presencethe of an prevailing context of humiliation for Jn 19:5 does not fit the idea of glorifica- allusiontionto “theencapsulated Son of Man” in thein title.Jn 19:520 The, from above the theologicalcritique, however, point of does view not, is take very into tempting, but it has itsconsideration difficulties. the typical Johannine technique of double meaning, and for this reason it is not very persuasive. To sum up, the presence of an allusion to “the Son of Man” in Jn 19:5, from the theological point of view, is very tempting, but it has its difficulties. 2. The Isaianic References 2. The Isaianic References

The idea of reading Pilate’s words Ecce homo with reference to the Suffering Servant of the The idea of reading Pilate’s words Ecce homo with reference to the Suffering Book ofServant Isaiah of theis already Book found of Isaiah in the ismedieval already commentaryfound in the bymedieval Rupert ofcommentary Deutz (d. 1130). This Benedictineby Rupert monk of Deutz quotes Is (d. 53:2 1130). about This the ServantBenedictine in whom monk there quotes is noIs beauty53:2 about as an the appropriate Servant in whom there is no beauty as an appropriate elucidation of the Jo- elucidation of the Johannine ecce homo.21 Pilate’s phrase was also compared with the Isaianic hannine ecce homo.21 Pilate’s phrase was also compared with the Isaianic “man oror “a“a man man being being in calamity” in calamity” (ἄνθρωπος (ἄνθρωπος ἐν ἐνπληγῇπληγ ὢν)ῇ ὢν ) from Is (אִיׁש מַכְאֹבֹותman ofof sorrow” sorrow” (“ 53:3. Accordingfrom Is 53:3. to AccordingAnthony Hanson, to Anthony this Hanson,Isaianic thisprophecy Isaianic “exactly prophecy fits” “exactly the image of a fits” the image of a scourged and mocked Jesus in John 19:5.22 According to 22 scourgedXavier and Léon-Dufour,mocked Jesus thisin John intertextual 19:5. Acconnectioncording to is, Xavier however, Léon “too-Dufour, general.” this23 intertextual connectionWalter is, however, Bauer “tooargued general.” that the23 Johannine ecco home alludes to ἰδοὺ ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν in Is 40:9.24 In fact, in both Is 40:9 and Jn 19:5 the audience and geo- graphical place (Zion, Jerusalem, one of the cities of Judah) are the same. The

17 17 A. Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John, p. 466. A. Lincoln, 18 The Gospel According to Saint John, p. 466. 18 R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, p. 257. R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, p. 257. 19 19 Idem, Die Ecce Idem,-homo D-ieSzene Ecce-homo-Szene, pp. 379–380., pp. 379–380. 20 J. Beutler, 20Das J. JohannesevangeliumBeutler, Das Johannesevangelium, p. 490. , p. 490. 21 Rupert of21 Deutz, RupertCom. of Deutz, in Jo., ad Com. loc. (PL in Jo.169,782)., ad loc. (PL 169,782). 22 A.T. Hanson, The Prophetic Gospel, p. 205. 22 A.T. Hanson, The Prophetic Gospel, p. 205. 23 X. Léon-Dufour, Lecture, p. 97: “trop générale pour s’imposer.” 23 X. Léon-Dufour, Lecture, p. 97: “trop générale pour s’imposer.” 24 W. Bauer, Das Johannesevangelium, p. 218.6 The Old Testament Background of “Ecce Homo” in John 19:5 501

whole theological context is also similar: the salvation of Israel is coming from God, called a shepherd (Is 40:11; Jn 10:11). A competent reader of the Johan- nine Gospel would detect the irony that this seemingly helpless human Jesus is in fact to be identified with the almighty God (Jn 1:18; 20:28), enacting at this very moment his salvific act. Indeed, Craig Keener noted that “man” was an oc- casional euphemism for “God.”25 Despite its strong points, this proposal faced criticism and did not find many followers.26 Werner Grimm noted several parallels between John 19:3–6 and a few Isai- anic texts. For instance, καὶ ἐδίδοσαν αὐτῷ ῥαπίσματα (“And they were giving him slaps”) of Jn 19:3 would allude to τὸν νῶτόν μου δέδωκα εἰς μάστιγας τὰς δὲ σιαγόνας μου εἰς ῥαπίσματα (“I have given my back to scourges and my cheeks to slaps”) in Is 50:6. The Johannine double reference to Jesus’ inno- cence in 19:4b (ἴδε ἄγω ὑμῖν αὐτὸν ἔξω, ἵνα γνῶτε ὅτι οὐδεμίαν αἰτίαν εὑρίσκω ἐν αὐτῷ. – “Look, I am bringing him out to you, so that you may know that I find no reason [for an accusation] against him.”) and 19:6b (λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Πιλᾶτος· λάβετε αὐτὸν ὑμεῖς καὶ σταυρώσατε· ἐγὼ γὰρ οὐχ εὑρίσκω ἐν αὐτῷ αἰτίαν. – “Pilate said to them, ‘You take him and crucify! I find no reason [for an accusation] against him!’”) finds its parallel in Is 53:9 (καὶ δώσω τοὺς πονηροὺς ἀντὶ τῆς ταφῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους ἀντὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ ὅτι ἀνομίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ – “And I will give the wicked for his burial and the rich for his death, because he committed no law- lessness, nor was deceit found in his mouth”). Finally, the expression in question, ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, in Jn 19:5 would allude to Is 43:4 in the Hebrew version, which speaks of Israel as being precious in God’s eyes, honored and loved by God. Most importantly, however, God will give or hand over a man in exchange for Israel.27 If one wishes to apply this prophecy to Jn 19:5, then the Isaianic should be identified with Jesus. In fact, the idea of Jesus’ redemptive death ָאדָם for the nation is clearly present elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel (cf. 11:51–52). Nevertheless, this interpretation is hardly convincing, because the Hebrew -shouldshould bebe understood understood in a in verya very general general sense, sense, namely namely as people, as people, human ָאדָ םbecause the Hebrew humankind or humanity.kind This or ishumanity. corroborated This by is thecorroborated following text,by the which followingspeaks text,of thewhich nations speaks of the nations handed over in exchange for Israel’s life, as well as by the preced- handed over in exchangeing versefor Israel’s which speakslife, as of Egypt well as asby athe ransom preceding price, verseand Cush which (Ethiopia) speaks of and Egypt as a ransom price, and Cush (Ethiopia) and Seba as given in exchange for Israel. The Septuagint also talks about 25 givingC.S. Keener, men Gospelin plural of John (δώσω, p. 1123. ἀνθρώ He πουςmentions πολλο Ezekiel,ὺς ὑπὲρ Exagoge σοῦ 70;– “I Eccl. will Rab. 2:21, §1; 8:1, §1; Pesiq.28 Rab. 14:10. a give many people on your26 Rbehalf”).. Bultmann, TheInterestingly Gospel of John enough,, p. 659: “it1QIs is not crediblehas here that a thedefinite Evangelist article wanted M.and Theobald, stressing Ecce the homo singularity, ad loc.: „So of tiefgründigthe man.29 diesmTo Deutung su הָ ָא דָ םabove the line (lackingto in make 1QIs playb), on giving it [Iz 40:9]”; erscheint, der Bezug von Joh 19,5 auf Jes 40,6 bleibt spekulativ.” up, the Isaianic allusions have27 W .much Grimm, to Die be Preisgaberecommended, pp. 133–146.in defining the Johannine description of Jesus, especially in the light of how the authors of other canonical gospels portray Jesus as the Isaianic Servant.

3. The Messianic “Man” of Zechariah 6:12

A few commentators have suggested that Pilate’s words ecce homo constitute an allusion to Zec 6:12.30 The Septuagint version of this oracle reads: ἰδοὺ ἀνήρ Ἀνατολὴ ὄνομα αὐτῷ (“Behold, a man! Anatole is his name!”). Again a few arguments in favor of this intertextual connection can be mentioned. (1) The prophetic text refers to the coronation of Joshua, the high priest (Zec 6:11), and in the immediate literary context of John 19:5, Jesus is indeed crowned. The word στέφανος (“crown”) appears in John 19:2.5 and Zec 6:11.14. Both texts, then, share the same

Aram”) or“) ארם islands”, e.g. 41:1; 49:1) or“) איים lands”) or“) אדםות There were attempts to emend the text to 28 but the same parallel pair of terms ,( א ד ֹם Edom”, which can also be vocalized with no consonantal changes as“) אדום occurs in Ugaritic, so an emendation is unnecessary. See W.G.E. Watson, Fixed Pairs, p. 465. 29 Modern commentators read Is 43:3–4 in a christological manner. See J.N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, p. 140: “[T]he Bible does speak of the wicked being a ransom for the righteous (Prov. 21:18). In that light, it seems best to see this passage as a concrete imaging of that principle, which was ultimately worked out in him who knew no sin becoming sin for our sakes (2 Cor. 5:21) and giving “his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28). It was ultimately not Egypt and Nubia that God gave in ransom, but his own Son […]. The language is that which a bridegroom might use of his bride. Just as a groom finds his bride precious and worthy and lovable when others fail to see those qualities in her at all, God sees these things in us and is willing to pay any price to redeem his bride from her captors. But God’s grace is that he loves us without the self-delusion of some human grooms (and brides). He knows what his people really are (42:18–25), but that does not make them less precious to him. That is grace.” 30 W. Bauer, Das Johannesevangelium, p. 218; W.A. Meeks, The Prophet-King, pp. 70–72; B. Lindars, The Gospel of John, p. 566. According to J.D.M. Derrett (Ecce homo ruber, pp. 224–225), Pilate’s words allude to Lam 1:3 (ἐγὼ ἀνὴρ ὁ βλέπων πτωχείαν ἐν ῥάβδῳ θυμοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ – “I am the man who sees poverty by the rod of his wrath”), but quote Zec 6:12. The rationale for any connection with Lam is the following (p. 225): “The whole of the Third Dirge of Lamentations, the song of the Man of Sorrows, is relevant to the Passion Narrative. The Speaker is the Jewish people, undergoing the ‘rod’ (plagues) for her (their) sings [sic].” 8 ,should in bea veryunderstood general insense, a very namely general as sense,people, namely as people ָאדָ םshouldthe Hebrew be understood ָאדָ םbecause the Hebrewbecause ,should in a verybe understood general sense, in a namelyvery general as people, sense, namely as people ָאדָ םshould the Hebrewbe understood ָאדָ םbecause the Hebrew because humankind or humanity.humankind This isor corroboratedhumanity. This by is the corroborated following text, by thewhich followingspeaks text,of the which nationsspeaks of the nations humankind or humanity.humankind This is corroboratedor humanity. byThis the is following corroborated text, by which the followingspeaks of text, the nations which speaks of the nations handed over in exchangehanded overfor Israel’s in exchange life, as for well Israel’s as by life the, aspr ecedingwell as verseby the which preceding speaksverse of which speaks of handed over in exchangehanded for over Israel’s in exchange life, as well for Israel’sas by the life pr, ecedingas well verseas by whichthe pr ecedingspeaks ofverse which speaks of Egypt as a ransomEgypt price, as and a ransomCush (Ethiopia) price, and and Cush Seba (Ethiopia) as given and in exchangeSeba as given for Israel. in exchange The for Israel. The Egypt as a ransom price,Egypt and as aCush ransom (Ethiopia) price, and CushSeba as(Ethiopia) given in and exchange Seba as for given Israel. in Theexchange for Israel. The alsoshould talksSeptuagint be about understood giving also talksmen in a in aboutvery plural giving general (δώσω men sense, ἀνθρώ in plural namelyπους (δώσω πολλο as people,ὺ ἀνθρώς ὑπὲρπους σοῦ πολλο– “I willὺς ὑπὲρ σοῦ – “I will ָאדָ םbecause the HebrewSeptuagint Septuagint also talks Septuagintabout giving also men talks in pluralabout (δώσωgiving men ἀνθρώ inπους plural πολλο (δώσωὺς ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώ σοῦπους– “I πολλο willὺς ὑπὲρ σοῦ – “I will28 28 a a humankind or humanity.give many This people is corroborated giveon yourmany behalf”). people by the onfollowing I nterestinglynterestinglyyour behalf”). text, whichenough,enough, Interestinglyspeaks 1QIs1QIsof ha the ssenough, hereherenations aa definite1QIsdefinite ha articlearticles here a definite article 28 28 a Adam Kubiś a give many people ongive your many behalf”). people Ionnterestingly your behalf”). enough, I nterestingly1QIs502 has here enough, a definite 1QIs articlehas here a definiteb article 29 singularityand stressing of the the man. singularity29mTo su of the man.29mTo suהָ ָא דָ theם1QIsandb ),stressing giving הָ ָא דָ in םabove the line (lackingabove in the 1QIs lineb), (lackinggiving b handed over in exchange29 for Israel’s life, as well as by the preceding verse which speaks of and stressing of the theman. singularitymTo su of the man.29mTo su הָ ָא דsingularityָ םinand 1QIs stressingb), giving theהָ ָא דָ םabove the line (lackingabove in 1QIs the line), giving (lacking Egypt as a ransomup, the price, Isaianic and allusionsCushup, the(Ethiopia) have Isaianic much andallusions to Seba be recommended haveas given much in to exchangein bedefining recommended for the Israel. Johanninein Thedefining description the Johannine of description of up, the Isaianic allusionsup, thehave Isaianic much toallusions be recommended have muchin todefining be recommended the Johanninein defining description the Johannine of description of SeptuagintSeba alsoJesus, talksas given especiallyabout in exchange giving inJesus, the men for light Israel.inespecially plural of Thehow (δώσω in Septuagintthe the authors ἀνθρώ light alsoof πουςofhow talksother πολλο the about canonical authorsὺς ὑπὲρgiving ofgospelsσοῦ othermen– “I portray canonical will Jesus gospels as the portray Jesus as the Jesus, especially in theJesus, light especially of how the in authorsthe light of of otherhow canonicalthe authors gospels of other portray canonical Jesus gospelsas the portray Jesus as the in pluralIsaianic (δώσω Servant. ἀνθρώπους28 πολλοὺς ὑπὲρ σοῦ – “I will givea many people on give many peopleIsaianic on Servant.your28 behalf”).Isaianic I nterestinglyServant. a enough, 1QIs has here a definite article Isaianic Servant. Isaianic Servant. your behalf”). Interestingly enough, 1QIs has here a definite article above the and stressing the singularity of the of the man.man.2929 mTo su הָ ָא דָ םabove the lineline (lacking(lacking inin 1QIs 1QIsbb),), givinggiving up, the IsaianicTo sum allusions up, the have Isaianic much allusions to be recommended have much toin bedefining recommended the Johannine in defining description of the Johannine description of Jesus, especially in the light of how the authors Jesus, especiallyof other3. The in canonicalthe Messianic light ofgospelshow “3.Man The portraythe” Messianicofauthors Zechariah Jesus of as “other Manthe 6:12 Isaianic” canonicalof Zechariah Servant. gospels 6:12 portray Jesus as the 3. The Messianic “Man3. The” of MessianicZechariah “ 6:12Man” of Zechariah 6:12 Isaianic Servant. 3. TheA few Messianic commentators “Man”A fewhave of commentators suggestedZechariah that 6:12have Pilate’s suggested words thatecce Pilate’s homo constitutewords ecce an homo allusionconstitute to Zec an allusion to Zec A few commentators Ahave few suggested commentators that Pilate’shave suggested words ecce that homo Pilate’sconstitute words eancce allusion homo30 constituteto Zec an allusion to Zec 6:12.30 The SeptuagintSeptuagint6:12. versionversion30 The Septuagintofof thisthis oracleoracle version reads:reads: ofἰ δοthisὺ ἀνήρoracle Ἀνατολὴ reads: ἰδο ὄνομαὺ ἀνήρ αὐτῷ Ἀνατολὴ(“Behold, ὄνομα a αὐτῷ (“Behold, a 30 6:12. The Septuagint6:12. version30 The of Septuagintthis oracle versionreads: ἰ δοof ὺthis ἀνήρ oracle Ἀνατολὴ reads: ὄνομαἰδοAὺ few ἀνήρ αὐτῷ commentators Ἀνατολὴ(“Behold, ὄνομα a have αὐτῷ suggested(“Behold, that aPilate’s words ecce homo constitute man! Anatole is hisman! name!”). AnatoleAgain is his a fewname!”). argumentsAgain in a favorfew arguments of this intertextual in favor ofconnection this intertextual can connection can 3. The Messianican allusion “Man to ”Zecof 6:12.Zechariah30 The 6:12Septuagint version of this oracle reads: ἰδοὺ ἀνήρ man! Anatole is his name!”).man! AnatoleAgain isa hisfew name!”). argumentsAgain in favor a few of arguments this intertextual in favor connection of this intertextual can connection can Ἀνατολὴbe mentioned. ὄνομα αὐτῷ (1) be(“Behold,The mentioned. prophetic a man! (1)text Anatole The refers prophetic isto histhe name!”). coronationtext refers Again ofto theJoshua,a few coronation the high of priestJoshua,(Z ethec high priest (Zec be mentioned. (1) Thebe propheticmentioned. text (1) refers The propheticto the coronation text refers of toJoshua, the coronation argumentsthe high priest ofin favor Joshua,(Z eof thisc the highintertextual priest (Zconnectionec can be mentioned. (1) The A few commentators6:11), andhave in suggested the immediate6:11) that, and Pilate’s literaryin the words immediate context ecce of homoliterary John constitute19:5, context Jesus anof isallusion John indeed 19:5, to crowned. ZecJesus is The indeed word crowned. The word prophetic text refers to the coronation of Joshua, the high priest (Zec 6:11), 6:11), and in the immediate6:11), and literary in the context immediate of John literary 19:5, context Jesus isof indeed30 John 19:5,crowned. Jesus The is indeed word crowned. The word 6:12. Theand Septuagintστ in theέφανος immediate version(“crown”) of στ literarythis έφανοςappears oracle context (“crown”) inreads: John of Johnἰ δο19:2.5 appearsὺ ἀνήρ19:5, and ἈνατολὴinJesus Zec John is6:11.14. indeed19:2.5 ὄνομα Bothandcrowned. αὐτῷ Zectext(“Behold, s,6:11.14. then, a shareBoth thetext sames, then, share the same στέφανος (“crown”) appearsστέφανος in (“crown”)John 19:2.5 appears and Zec in John6:11.14. 19:2.5 Both and text Zecs, then,6:11.14.share Both the textsames, then, share the same man! AnatoleThe is hisword name!”). στέφανοςAgain (“crown”) a few argumentsappears in John in favor 19:2.5 of this and intertextual Zec 6:11.14. connection Both can

Aram”) or“) ארם e.g.(“Aram”) 41:1; 49:1) or or ארם islands”,(Z eorc“)(49:1 אייםislands”, the(“lands”) high e.g. 41:1;e.g. or41:1;priest“) אדםות toאיים ,coronation to emend (“lands”) the oftext oror Joshuaאדםות TThherehere Theere werewerewere prophetic attemptsattemptsattempts28 totext to toThere emendemendemend refers were thethethe attempts totexttexttext the tototo 28 28(1) be mentioned. but the same parallel pair of terms ,( א ד ֹם Edom”, which can also be vocalized with no consonantal changes as“) אדום 28 28 pair but ofthe terms same parallel pair of terms ,( א ד ֹם but the Thechanges same word parallelas ,( א ד ֹםbe vocalized(“Aram”) ofwhich which John with canor 19:5, alsoalsono consonantal bebe Jesus vocalizedvocalized is changesindeed withwith no no as crowned.consonantal consonantalארם ,”also (“Edom”,or context(“Edom אדוםEdom”, (“Aram”)(“Aram”) e.g. which41:1; literary or 49:1) can“)ארםor immediate אדום,”in the(“islands(49:1איים lands”)6:11) e.g., 41:1;and or“) אדםות,”to(“islands אייםto(“lands”) emend the or text אדםות There were attempts to emend There thewere text attempts to .Ugaritic, ), butof terms the so samesame anoccurs emendation parallelparallel in Ugaritic, pairpair is ofof termsunnecessary. soterms an emendation occurs See in Ugaritic, W.G.E. is unnecessary. Watson, so an emendationFixed See W.G.E. Pairs, isp. Watson, 465. Fixed Pairs, p. 465א pairד ֹםbut the same changes occursparallel as in ,( אconsonantalד ֹם also (“Edom”,be vocalized which with can no alsoconsonantal be vocalized changes with as noאדום Edom”, which can“) אדום 29 29 occurs in Ugaritic, so an emendationoccurs in Ugaritic, is unnecessary. so an emendation See W.G.E. is Watson,unnecessary.Fixedστ See έφανοςPairs W.G.E., p. 465.(“crown”) unnecessary.Watson, MoFixedderndern appears See Pairscommentatorscommentators W.G.E., p.in 465. Watson,John Mo readread 19:2.5dern Fixed IsIs commentators43:343:3 Pairsand–4 , inp. 465. Zec a christological 6:11.14.read Is 43:3 Both –manner.4 in text a christologicalSees, then, J.N. Oswalt,share manner. theThe sameSeeBook J.N. of IsaiahOswalt,, p.The 140: Book of Isaiah, p. 140: 29 29 “[T]he Bible does speak“[T]he of the Bibl wickede does being speak a ransomof the wicked for the being righteous a ransom (Prov. for 21:18). the righteous In that light,(Prov. it 21:18).seems bestIn that to light, it seems best to Modern commentators read Mo Isdern 43:3 commentators–4 in a christological read Is 43:3 manner.–4 in Seea christological J.N. Oswalt, manner.The Book29 See Mof J.N.odern Isaiah Oswalt, commentators, p. 140:The Book read ofIsaiah Is 43:3–4, p. 140:in a christological manner. See J.N. Oswalt, “[T]he Bible does speak of the wicked being a ransom for the righteous (Prov. 21:18). In that light,see this it seemspassage best as toa concretesee this imagingpassage asof athat concrete principle, imaging which of wasthat ultimately principle, worked which was out ultimatelyin him who worked knew noout sinin him who knew no sin “[T]he Bible does speak of the wicked being a ransom for the righteousThe Book (Prov. of Isaiah 21:18)., p. 140: In that “[T]he light, Bibleit seems does best speak to of the wicked being a ransom for the see this passage as a concretesee this imaging passage of thatas a principle,concrete imaging which was of thatultimately principle, worked which out was in himultimatelybecoming who knew workedsin for no oursinout sakesinbecoming him (2 whoCor. sin knew5 for:21) our noand sinsakes giving (2 “hisCor. life5:21) as anda ransom giving for “his many” life as (Matt. a ransom 20:28). for It many” was ultimately (Matt. 20:28). It was ultimately righteous (Prov. 21:18). In that light, it seems best to see this passage as a concrete imaging becoming sin for our sakesbecoming (2 Cor. 5 sin:21) for and our giving sakes “his (2 Cor. life 5as:21) a ransom and giving for28 many” “his life (Matt. as a 20:28).ransomnot Egypt Itfor was many” and ultimately Nubia (Matt. that 20:28).not God Egypt Itgave wasand in ultimatelyNubia ransom, that but God his gave own in Son ransom,[…]. Thebut hislanguage own Son is that[…] which. The languagea bridegroom is that might which a bridegroom might sin(“Aram”) or ארם in him(“islands”, who knew e.g. 41:1;no sin 49:1) becoming or אייםlands”) worked orout“) אדםותThere wereof that attempts principle, to emend which the textwas toultimately hisbut worthy bridethe same andprecious parallellovable and pairwhen worthy of othersterms and faillovable to see when those others fail to see those ,( אandד ֹםown(“Edom”, is Sonthat[ which… which]. Theuse a bridegroom canoflanguage his also bride. be is might vocalizedthat Just which useas a with of agroom bridegroomhis no bride. consonantal finds Just mighthis brideas changes a groomprecious as finds אדוםnot Egypt and Nubia that Godnot Egypt gave inand ransom, Nubia butthat his God own gave Son in [ransom,…]. The but language his for our sakes (2 Cor. 5:21) and giving “his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28). It was ul- use of his bride. Just as ause groom of his finds bride. his Just bride as preciousa groom and finds worthy his bride and preciousoccurslovable in when andUgaritic, worthy othersqualities so anandfail emendation lovabletoin see her those atwhen all,is unnecessary. qualitiesGodothers sees fail in these to herSee see atW.G.E.things all,those God inWatson, us sees and theseFixed is willing thingsPairs ,to p.in pay 465.us andany isprice willing to redeem to pay his any bride price from to redeem her his bride from her 29 timately not Egypt and Nubia that God gave in ransom, but his own Son […]. The language qualities in her at all, Godqualities sees these in her things at all, in Godus and sees is these willing things to pay in usany and Moprice dernis willingto commentatorsredeem tocaptors. pay his brideany Butread price fromGod’s Is 43:3to her graceredeem–4captors. in is a that hischristological But bridehe lovesGod’s from us grace manner. withouther is that theSee he self J.N.loves-delusion Oswalt, us without ofThe some theBook human self of-delusion Isaiah grooms, p.of ( andsome140: brides). human He grooms knows (and brides). He knows captors. But God’s grace iscaptors. that he Butloves God’s us without grace is the that self he-delusion loves us of without some humanthe self- groomsdelusionis that(and ofwhat whichsomebrides). his human peoplea bridegroomHe knows groomsreally arewhat (mightand (42:18 his brides). usepeople–25), of his He butreally knowsbride. that are does Just (42:18 notas a–make 25),groom butthem findsthat less does hisprecious notbride make toprecious him. themThat less isprecious grace.” to him. That is grace.” “[T]he Bible does30 speak of the wicked being30 a ransom for the righteous (Prov. 21:18). In that light, it seems best to what his people really are what(42:18 his–25), people but reallythat does are not(42:18 make–25), them but less that precious does seenot to thismake him. passage themThatand less isas worthy grace.” apreciousW concrete.. Bauer,Bauer, and to lovableimagingDas him. JohannesevangeliumThat when of isthatW grace.”others. Bauer,principle, failDas to,which p.Johannesevangeliumsee 218; those wasW.A. qualitiesultimately Meeks, in her , workedThe p. 218; Prophetat all,outW.A. God in-King himMeeks, sees, who pp. these The 70 knew– Prophet72; noB. sinLindars,-King, pp.The 70 Gospel–72; B. Lindars, The Gospel 30 30 W. Bauer, Das Johannesevangelium W. Bauer, ,Das p. 218; JohannesevangeliumW.A. Meeks, The, p.Prophet 218; W.A.-Kingbecoming Meeks,, pp. 70 sin–The72;things for ProphetB. ourof Lindars, Johnin us sakes-King, andp.The (2 ,566 pp.isCor. Gospel .willing 70Acco 5–:21)72;rding ofto B.and Johnpay Lindars,to giving anyJ.D.M., p. 566price “hisThe Derrett. Acco tolifeGospel redeem asrding (Ecce a ransom to his homo J.D.M. bride for ruber Derrett many”from, pp. her (Matt. (224Ecce captors.–225), homo20:28). ButPilate’s ruber It God’s was, pp. words ultimately 224allude–225), to Pilate’s Lam 1:3 words (ἐγὼallude to Lam 1:3 (ἐγὼ of John, p. 566. Accordingof to John J.D.M., p. 566Derrett. Acco (Eccerding homo to J.D.M. ruber ,Derrett pp. 224 (Ecce–225), homonot Pilate’s Egypt ruber words and, pp.grace Nubia allude224ἀνὴρ is– that 225),that to ὁ βλLamGod hePilate’sέπων lovesgave1:3 πτωχεί ( wordsἐγὼ inus ransom, withoutανἀνὴρalludeἐν ὁῥά but βλ βδtheto έπων hisῳLam self-delusion θυμοῦ own πτωχεί1:3 Son (ἐγὼ αὐτοαν[…ῦἐν of some] ἐπ᾽.ῥά Theβδ ἐμέ ῳlanguage– θυμοῦhuman“I am the is αὐgrooms το thatmanῦ whichἐπ᾽ who (and ἐμέ sees a– brides).bridegroom“I poverty am the manby might the who rod sees of his poverty wrath” by), the rod of his wrath”), ἀνὴρ ὁ βλέπων πτωχείαν ἐνἀνὴρῥάβδ ὁ ῳβλ θυμοῦέπων πτωχεί αὐτοῦαν ἐπ᾽ἐν ἐμέῥάβδ– “Iῳ am θυμοῦ the man αὐτοῦ who ἐπ᾽use sees ἐμέ of –poverty “Ihis am bride. theHe knowsby man thebutJust rodquote whoas whatof a sees hisgroomZec his wrath”poverty 6:12. people finds), The by butreally his therationalequote bride rodare ofZec(42:18–25),precious forhis 6:12. any wrath” connectiand The but), worthyrationale thaton doeswith and for notLam lovableany make isconnecti thewhen themfollowingon othersless with precious fail(p.Lam 225)to is see:the “The thosefollowing whole of(p. the 225) Third: “The whole of the Third but quote Zec 6:12. The rationalebut quote forZec any 6:12. connecti The rationaleon with Lamfor any is the connectifollowingonqualities with(p. 225)Lam in her: to is“The him.theatDirge all,wholefollowing That God of ofis Lamentations, sees thegrace.”(p. Thirdthese225): things“TheDirge the whole songofin us Lamentations, of ofand the the is ManThird willing ofthe Sorrows, tosong pay of any is the relevantprice Man toof to redeemSorrows, the Passion his is briderelevant Narrative. from to her theThe Passion Speaker Narrative. is the The Speaker is the Dirge of Lamentations, the song of the Man of Sorrows, is relevant to the Passion Narrative.Jewish The Speaker people, undergoingis the Jewish the people, ‘rod’ (plagues) undergoing for theher ‘rod’(their) (plagues) sings [sic for].” her (their) sings [sic].” Dirge of Lamentations, the song of the Man of Sorrows,captors. is But relevant God’s 30 to graceW the. Bauer, isPassion that Dashe Narrative.loves Johannesevangelium us without The Speaker the self, p. 218; is-delusion the W.A. Meeks, of some human The groomsProphet-King (and, brides).pp. 70– He knows Jewish people, undergoingJewish the ‘rod’ people, (plagues) undergoing for her the(their) ‘rod’ sings (plagues) [sic].” for herwhat (their) his singspeople [sic really].” are (42:18–25), but that does not make them less precious to him. That is grace.” 30 72; B. Lindars, The Gospel of John, p. 566. According to J.D.M.8 Derrett (Ecce homo ruber, W. Bauer, Das Johannesevangelium, p. 218; W.A. Meeks, The Prophet-8King, pp. 70–72; B. Lindars,8 The Gospel 8 8 pp. 224–225), Pilate’s words allude to Lam 1:3 (ἐγὼ ἀνὴρ ὁ βλέπων πτωχείαν ἐν ῥάβδῳ of John, p. 566θυμο. Accoῦ αὐτοrdingῦ ἐπ᾽to J.D.M. ἐμέ – “IDerrett am the (Ecce man homo who seesruber poverty, pp. 224 by–225), the rod Pilate’s of his words wrath”),allude but toquote Lam 1:3 (ἐγὼ ἀνὴρ ὁ βλέπων πτωχείαν ἐν ῥάβδῳ θυμοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ – “I am the man who sees poverty by the rod of his wrath”), Zec 6:12. The rationale for any connection with Lam is the following (p. 225): “The whole but quote Zec 6:12. The rationale for any connection with Lam is the following (p. 225): “The whole of the Third Dirge of Lamentations,of the Third the Dirgesong of Lamentations,of the Man of Sorrows, the song is of therelevant Man to of Sorrows,the Passion is Narrative. relevant to The the SpeakerPas- is the Jewish people,sion undergoing Narrative. the The ‘rod’ Speaker (plagues) is forthe her Jewish (their) people, sings [sicundergoing].” the ‘rod’ (plagues) for her (their) sings [sic].” 8 royal overtones. (2) The expression ἐπιθήσεις ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν Ἰησοῦ from Zec 6:11 can be royal overtones. (2) The expression ἐπιθήσεις ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν Ἰησοῦ from Zec 6:11 can be echoed in ἐπέθηκανroyal overtones. αὐτοῦ τῇ κεφαλ(2) Theῇ inexpression Jn 19:2, asἐπιθ thisήσεις detail ἐπὶ does τὴν notκεφαλ appeὴνar Ἰ ησοin theῦ from parallel Zec 6:11 can be royal overtones. (2) The expression ἐπιθήσεις ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν Ἰησοῦ from Zec 6:11 can be echoed in ἐπέθηκαν αὐτοῦ τῇ κεφαλroyalῇ overtones.in Jn 19:2, (2) as Thethis expressiondetail does ἐnotπιθ ήσειςappear ἐπὶ in τὴνthe parallelκεφαλὴν ἸησοTheῦ Oldfrom Testament Zec 6:11Background can be of “Ecce Homo” in John 19:5 royal overtones. (2) The expression ἐπιθήσεις ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν Ἰησοῦ from ZeMarkanc 6:11 canreport beechoed (15:17 –in19;ἐπέθηκαν see however αὐτοῦ Mt τῇ 27:29).κεφαλῇ (3)in 503JnAs 19:2, soon asas thisJoshua detail is doescrowned not appeby thear in the parallel royal overtones. (2) The expression ἐπιθήσειςechoed ἐπὶroyal τὴν inκεφαλ overtones.ἐπέθηκανὴν Ἰησο αὐ(2)ῦτο Thefromῦ τῇ expression κεφαλZec 6:11ῇroyalin canἐJn πιθovertones. 19:2,beήσεις as ἐπὶ this(2) τὴν detailTheκεφαλ expression doesὴν Ἰnotησο appe ῦἐπιθfromarήσεις in royalZ thee ἐπὶc 6:11 parallelovertones. τὴν canκεφαλ be ὴν(2) ἸTheησο ῦexpressionfrom Zec ἐ6:11πιθήσεις can ἐπὶbe τὴν κεφαλὴν Ἰησοῦ from Zec 6:11 can be Markan report (15:17–19; see howeverechoed inMtἐπέθηκαν 27:29). (3) αὐτοAsῦ soon τῇ κεφαλas Joshuaῇ in Jn is19:2, crowned as this by detailthe does not appear in the parallel echoed in ἐπέθηκαν αὐτοῦ τῇ κεφαλῇ in Jn 19:2, as this detailroyal doesovertones. not appe (2)ar Theprophetin the expression parallel(Zec 6:11)Markan ἐπιθ, ήσειςthe report declaration ἐπὶ ( τὴν15:17κεφαλ “Behold,–19; ὴνseeἸ theησοhowever man…”ῦ from Mt Zappears e27:29).c 6:11(6:12) (3)can Asbe. The soon sameas Joshuasequence is ofcrowned by the echoed in ἐπέθηκαν αὐτοῦ τῇ κεφαλῇ in Jn 19:2,Markan asechoed this report detail in ἐπέθηκαν(15:17 does –not19; αὐ appeseeτοῦarhowever τῇinκεφαλ theechoed parallelMtῇ in 27:29). inJn ἐπέθηκαν 19:2,(3) asroyalAs this αὐ soon τοovertones. detailῦas τῇ κεφαλdoesJoshua (2) notῇ Theisin appe crownedJn expression 19:2,arechoed in theasby in this paralleltheἐἐπέθηκανπιθ detailήσεις does ἐπὶ αὐτο τὴνnotῦ τῇappeκεφαλκεφαλarὴν inῇ Ἰtheinησο Jn parallelῦ 19:2,from asZe thisc 6:11 detail can does be not appear in the parallel prophet (Zec 6:11)royal, the overtones. declarationMarkan (2) “Behold, The report expression the ( 15:17man…” –ἐ19;πιθ appears ήσειςsee however ἐπὶ(6:12) τὴν. MtκεφαλThe 27:29). sameὴν Ἰsequenceησο(3)ῦAsfrom soonof Zecas 6:11Joshua can is be crowned by the Markan report (15:17–19; see however Mt 27:29). (3) As echoedsoon as inJoshuaἐπέθηκαν is crowned αὐeventsτοῦ– τῇbycoronationκεφαλtheprophetῇ in (19:2Jn(Zec 19:2,–5a) 6:11) as followed this, the detail declaration by declarationdoes not “Behold, appe (19ar:5b) thein – theman…”occur parallels in appears the Johannine(6:12). Thetext. same(4) sequence of Markan report (15:17–19; see however Mt 27:29).prophetMarkan(3)(ZecAs reportsoon6:11), as (the15:17texts,Joshua declaration– then,19; is seecrowned share “Behold,howeverMarkan the by same theMt report man…”royal27:29). ( 15:17overtones.echoed (3)appears–19;As in soonsee (6:12)(2)ἐπέθηκαν howeverTheas. TheJoshua expression αὐ sameMtτο isῦ 27:29). Markansequencecrowned τῇ κεφαλἐπιθήσεις (3)report ῇbyofAsin theἐπὶ Jnsoon(15:17 19:2,as– 19;asJoshua thissee detailhoweveris crowned does Mt not by27:29). appethe ar(3) in Asthe soonparallelas Joshua is crowned by the events – coronationechoed (19:2 in–5a)ἐπέθηκαν followedprophet αὐ byτο(Zec declarationῦ 6:11) τῇ κεφαλ, the ῇ(19 declarationin:5b) Jn –19:2,occur “Behold,ass inthis the detail Johanninethe man…”does nottext. appears appe (4)ar (6:12)in the. parallelThe same sequence of prophet (Zec 6:11), the declaration “Behold, the man…”τὴν appears κεφαλὴνMarkan(6:12) Ἰησοreport. ῦThe from(15:17 same ZecThe–19; sequence6:11 Greek see canhowever namebe of eventsechoed of MtJoshua,– in ἐπέθηκαν coronation27:29). Ἰησο(3)ῦς (19:2αὐτο,As is exactlysoon–ῦ5a) τῇ κεφαλῇfollowedas theJoshua same by isas declaration crownedthe name by (19“Jesusthe:5b)”.–(5)occur Thes Septuagintin the Johannine text. (4) prophet (Zec 6:11)Markan, the reportdeclaration (15:17 “Behold,–19; see thehoweverevents man…”prophet– Mtcoronation appears 27:29).(Zec 6:11)(6:12) (19:2(3), Asthe. –The5a) soondeclaration followedsameas sequenceJoshuaprophet by“Behold, declaration is (Zecofcrowned the 6:11) man…” (19 Markanby, :5b)thethe declarationappears– occurreports(6:12) in(15:17 “Behold,the. JohannineThe–19; sametheseeprophet man…” howevertext.sequence(Zec (4) appears 6:11)Mt of 27:29)., the(6:12) declaration(3). TheAs samesoon “Behold, sequenceas Joshua the of man…”is crowned appears by the(6:12). The same sequence of The Greek name of Joshua, Ἰησοeventsῦς, is exactly– coronation the same (19:2 as– 5a)the followedname “Jesusin Jn by” declaration .19:2,(5) Theas this Septuagint (19 detail:5b) does– occur nots appearin the Johanninein the parallel text. Markan (4) report (15:17–19; 31 of(“Branch”) Joshua, appears Ἰ ησοby(6:12)Ἀνατολήῦς, .is The exactly .sameThis the sequence Greek same termas of the has name clearly “Jesusroyal”. (5) and The Septuagintצֶ מַ ח ”…events – coronation (19:2–5a) followed by declaration (19:5b)prophet– occur(Zecs in 6:11)the Johannine, theof declaration Zec text.6:12 (4)renders “Behold,The Greek Hebrew the name man events – coronationprophet (19:2(Zec–5a) 6:11) followed, the declaration by declarationThe “Behold, eventsGreek 31(19:5b) name– thecoronation– man…” occurof Joshua,sees in (19:2howeverappears the Ἰησο –Johannine5a)ῦς(6:12) Mtfollowed, is 27:29).events exactly. text.The by –(3)same(4) thecoronation declaration As same sequence soon prophetas as(19:2 (19the Joshuaof :5b)name–(Zec5a)– is followedoccur“ 6:11)Jesuscrowneds,” in.the (5) bythe bydeclaration declarationThe Johanninetheevents Septuagint prophet– “Behold, coronation(19text. (Zec:5b) (4) – theoccur (19:2 man…”s–in5a) the followedappears Johannine(6:12) by text. declaration. The (4) same (19 sequence:5b) – occur of s in the Johannine text. (4) Branch”)The Greek nameby Ἀνατολή of Joshua,. This Ἰησο Greekῦς, is term exactly has theclearly sameroyal as the and name “Jesus”. (5) The Septuagint 31“) צֶ מַ ח of Zec 6:12 renders Hebrew Branch”)name sby inas declaration thea of royal Joshua,Johannine by titleἈνατολή (19 Ἰbyησο :5b)text. Ptolemaicῦς.– ,(4) isoccurThis exactly Greekskingsin thethe whoterm Johanninesame inhas turnas clearly the text. name r(4)oyal “Jesus and ”. (5) The Septuagint“) צֶ usedמַ occur sequenceחThe Greek name of Joshua, Ἰησοῦς, is Theexactly Greek the name same 6:11), ofas Joshua,theevents the name declaration Ἰ–ησο coronation“Jesusῦς, is”. “Behold,exactly(5) (19:2 Theconsequently the–Septuagint 5a)the same eventsfollowedman…”31 asmessianicof –the Zecappearscoronation by name declaration6:12 overtones (6:12).“ rendersJesus (19:2” The(19. –,Hebrew(5)5a)asThe:5b) Theitsame followed wasGreek– Septuagint occur(“Branch”) The whos SeptuagintThein31 in the turnGreek by JohannineἈνατολή name oftext.. Joshua,This (4) Greek Ἰησο termῦς, is has exactly clearly theroyal same and as the name “Jesus”. (5) The Septuagintצֶ (5)מַ – .kingsח ”(consequentlyThe Greek namemessianicevents of Joshua, –overtonescoronation Ἰησο, asῦς (19:2,it is was exactly–5a) used followed theasof a Zecsame royal by6:12 as declarationtitle the renders byname Ptolemaic Hebrew “(19Jesus:5b Branch”)of events –31 by Ἀνατολή coronation. This (19:2–5a) Greek term followed has clearly by declarationroyal and (19:5b) – occurs in the“) צֶ מַ ח of Zec 6:12 renders Hebrew Branch”)31 by Ἀνατολή. ThisThe GreekGreek termname has of clearlyJoshua,alludedr oyalἸησοto theandῦς31, consequently ancientis exactly Egyptian themessianic same royal as the titleovertones name “the 31“son,Jesusas ofit” was.Ra”,(5) used Thei.e. “theSeptuagintas a royalson of title the byRising Ptolemaic Sun”. 31kings(6) who in turn“) צֶ מַ ח of Zec 6:12 renders Hebrew the(“Branch”) clearly name “royalJesus by Ἀνατολήand”. (5) The. SeptuagintThis Greek term has clearly royal andצֶ hasמַ asח Branch”) of term Joshua, kings has by of clearlyἸwhoἈνατολήησο Zecῦς in 6:12r, oyalturnis. exactlyrenders Thisand Greek theHebrew same term“) צֶ PtolemaicGreekמַ name ח Branch”)Jesus itofr wasoyal Zec”. used(5)and6:12 Theby asrendersἈνατολή aSeptuagint royalThe Hebrew title.GreekThis by“)“צֶ asמַ ,ח of(“Branch”) Joshua, Ἰ byησοἈνατολήconsequentlyῦς, isof exactly Zec. This6:12 messianicthe Greekrenders same termas overtonesHebrew the has name clearly צֶ מַ ח of Zec 6:12 rendersThe GreekHebrew name alluded to the ancient Egyptian royalconsequently title “themessianic son of Ra”, overtones i.e. “the, as son itJohannine wasof the used Rising text.as a royalSun”(4) The . title(6) Greek by Ptolemaic name of Joshua, kings who Ἰησοῦ inς, turnis exactly31 the same as the (usedbyto theἈνατολή in ancient Zec 6:12. EgyptianThis refers Greek neither royal term title to hasJoshua “the clearly son the31r oyalofhigh Ra”, and priest i.e. nor“the to son Zerubbabel, of the Rising Sun”. (6 צֶ מַ ח turn(“Branch”) termalluded צֶ מinַ ח consequently messianic overtones, as it was used as a royal oftitle Zec by 6:12 Ptolemaic renders kings HebrewThe who Hebrew Sun”as (“Branch”)(“Branch”)who a .royal (6) in turnmessianic title by byἈνατολή Ptolemaic overtones. This kings, as Greek it who was term inused turn has as clearlya royal rtitleoyal byand Ptolemaic kings who in turnצֶ מַ ח Branch”)alluded as consequentlya royalto theby title Ἀνατολήancient bymessianic Ptolemaicname Egyptian.31 This “Jesus”. overtones kingsGreek royal (5) who termconsequently,title Theas in it“thehas was turnSeptuagint clearly son used messianicof rasRa”,oyal of of Zeca royal Zec andi.e. overtones 6:126:12 “thetitle renders sonby , Ptolemaicofas theitHebrew Hebrewwas Rising usedkings consequently“) צֶ usedמַ ח consequently messianicof Zec 6:12 overtones renders, Hebrewas it was used in Zecalluded 6:12 refersto the neither ancient to EgyptianJoshua the royal high title priest “thenor son to 31Zerubbabel,of Ra”, i.e. “the son of the Rising Sun”. (6) 32 צֶ מַ ח The Hebrew term ,highhas priestmessianicnor to Zerubbabelצֶ מַ חfigureused title in identifiby messianicZec Ptolemaic 6:12ed withrefers kings a neitherDavidide. who to inJoshua turneTitl the צֶ מַ royalח alluded to the ancient Egyptian royal title “the son of Ra”,by Ἀνατολη consequentlyi.e. “the.́ son This ofmessianic theGreek Risingbut term overtones rather Sun” has . to clearly(6), aasThe third it wasroyal Hebrew party, used and terma as consequentlyfuture a (sonroyalused of Egyptiantitle inthe Zec byRising 6:12Ptolemaic royalalluded Sun”refers title. kingsneither(6)to “the the who son ancientto Joshuaconsequentlyof in Ra”, turn Egyptian the i.e. high “the messianicroyal priest son title ofnor theovertones“the to alluded RisingZerubbabel, son ,of asSun”to Ra”, itthe was. (6)i.e.ancient used “the as Egyptianson a royalof the royaltitle Rising by title Ptolemaic Sun” “the. son(6) kings of Ra”, who i.e. in “the turn son of the Rising Sun”. (6צֶ a32מַ ancient ח alluded to the ancientconsequently Egyptianmessianic royal title overtones “the sonThe, as of alluded Hebrewit Ra”,was used i.e.toterm the “the as ashas it was to messianicJoshua used the as ahigh royal priest title norby Ptolemaic to Zerubbabel, kings who in turn alluded 32 צֶ מַ neitherח withused a inDavidide. Zec 6:12 overtones,erefersTitlצֶ מַ חbut rather to a third party, a futureThefigure Hebrew identifi term ed ,has the messianic high priest nor to Zerubbabel צֶ מַ Seaח identifitheRisingused Hebrew ined Sun” Zec with Bible. 6:12 (6) a Davidide. refers (Jer 23:5) neither,e TitlDead to Joshua צֶ מthe inַח alludedused the in high toZec the priest 6:12 ancient refersnor and toEgyptian neitherZerubbabel, eschatological toroyalJoshuabut title ratherovertones the “the32 high to son a priest, thirdasof itRa”, isnorparty,The attested i.e.to Hebrew Zerubbabel, a“the future elsewhere son termfigure ofצֶ מַ ח used in Zec 6:12The refers Hebrew neither term to Joshua צֶ מַ ח The Hebrew term (of thehas neither messianic Risingroyal to Joshuatitle Sun”. “the the son high of priest Ra”, nori.e. to“the Zerubbabel, son of the Rising Sun”. (6 צֶ מַ Egyptianח son usedDavidide.(6) of Ra”,to in the Zec i.e. anciente 6:12Titl “the refersson.צֶ aמַ חusedto the in ancientZec 6:12 Egyptian refers neither royalbut rather titleto Joshua “theto a sonthethird highof party, toRa”, thepriest i.e.aancient future nor“the to Egyptianson figureZerubbabel,The of Hebrew identifithe royal Rising edtitle term 32with Sun” “the alluded צֶ מַ ח The Hebrew termalluded has messianic צֶ מַ ח and eschatological overtones, as itbut is rather attested to elsewhere a third party, in the a Hebrewfuture figure Bible identifi(Jer 23:5)ed with,32 Dead a SeaDavidide. eTitl 6:12andin refers eschatological refers4Q161 neither neither 328–10 to toovertones17;Joshua Joshua 4Q174 the ,theas high1 – ithigh3 is Ipriest attested11; 4Q252nor elsewhere to32 Zerubbabel,V 3–4; in 4Q285 the Hebrew IV [frg. Bible 7] (Jer3–4), 23:5), Dead32 Sea 6:12 צמח דודScrolls usedhasused messianic in in Zec (Zec צֶ מַ ח but rather to a third party, a future figure identified with(6)32 aThe TheDavidide. HebrewHebrewe Titlterm has messianic צֶ מַ ח thefigurehas high messianic identifi priestednor with to Zerubbabel, a Davidide. eTitlצֶ מַ חZec has Deadrathered 6:12messianicwith Sea to refers aa Davidide.third neither party, toe TitlaJoshua future, צֶ מַ inbut חTitlused 23:5) identifiצֶ e(Jerמַ חfuturehigh ishas attestedbut priestmessianicfigure rather elsewherenor identifi to aZerubbabel, thirded inThe withthe party, Hebrew Hebrew a Davidide.a future term Bible figure צֶ itמַ a חfigureused in identifi Zecand 6:12ed eschatologicalbut with refers rather a Davidide.neither to a overtones thirdto Joshuae Titlparty,, astheצֶ מַ ח but rather to a Thethird Hebrew party, aterm future in 4Q161 8–10 and17; eschatological4Q174 1–3 I overtones11; 4Q252, as V it 3 is–4; attested 4Q285 elsewhere IV [frg. in7] the3– 4),Hebrew Bible (Jer 23:5), Dead Sea 33 32 צמח דוד) Scrolls ,(has3 Imessianic 11; 4Q252is the Targumic V32 3–4; 4Q285version IV of [frg. 7] 3–4–1צֶ elucidating מַ ח aed future (inwithConf. 4Q161 figurea 62Davidide.– 63).8 –identified10 17;Especiallye Titl4Q174צמח d Philoדוד) and eschatological overtones, as it is attested elsewherepriest in thebut Hebrewnor rather to Zerubbabel, Bibleto a third (Jer 23:5) party,butTargum rather, Deada future to toZecSea aScrollsfigure third6:12, party,an identifi has in the messianic Hebrew Bible (Jer 23:5), Dead Sea צֶ מַ חelsewherehasI 11; messianic 4Q252but overtones inrather the V Hebrew 3,to–as 4;a it third4Q285 is Bible attested party, IV (Jer [frg.elsewhereaand 23:5)future eschatological7], 3Deadfigure– in4), the Sea identifiHebrew overtonesed Bible with, as (Jera itDavidide. is23:5) attested, Deade elsewhereTitl Sea צֶ 3מַ –1חHebrewined 4Q161with Bible overtones a Davidide.8 (Jer–10 23:5),17;as it324Q17432,and isDeadTitl attested eschatologicale Sea צמח identifithe דודand eschatologicalbut ratherovertones to a, asthird it is party, attested a33 future elsewhereScrollsfigureand in( eschatological Especiallyin 4Q161 elucidating 8–10 17; 4Q174iswith the Targumica 1Davidide.–3 I 11; version 4Q252 Title of V 3 has–4; messianic4Q285 IV and [frg. eschatological 7] 3–4), overtones, as it is 33צמח .(63דוד–) Targum to Zec 6:12, and Philo (Conf.Scrolls 62 ,(4Q16163). 23:5)) Especiallywill 8, –Dead10 be 17; revealed, Sea elucidating4Q174 and1–3 is heI the 11;shall Targumic 4Q252 be V version 3–4; 4Q285 of IV [frg. 7] 3–4משיחא –Bible–4), 62in ((Jerצמח Conf. 3)[7 דודinattested4Q252 4Q161and V elsewhereeschatological 8 3––104; 4Q28517; in the 4Q174 overtonesIV33 HebrewZ [frg.ec1– 36:12: 7]I, as11; Bible3 Behold,–it 4),4Q252 is Targum(Jer attested 23:5),theV to3manelsewhere– Zec4;Dead 4Q285whose 6:12, Sea in an name IVScrollsthed Philo[frg.Hebrew is ( Anointed ;11צמח I 3דוד–) in 4Q161 8–10 17; 4Q174Scrolls 1 צמח דוד) Scrolls Deadinand 4Q161 elucidating Seaeschatological 8–10 is 17; the overtones4Q174 Targumic 1–, 3 asversion I it 11; is attested 4Q252of elsewhereV 3–4; 4Q285 in the IVHebrew [frg. 7]Bible 3– 4),(Jer 23:5), Dead Sea ,צמח Especially(23:5 דוד) ,(andin eschatological4Q161 8–10 17;overtones 4Q174, as1– it3Targum isI attested11; 4Q252 to Zec elsewhere 6:12,V 3– 4;an in d4Q285 thePhilo33 Hebrew (IVConf. [frg. Bible 62Scrolls 7]–63). (Jer3–4צמח דוד) Scrolls d Philo) 33will (Conf. be revealed,62–63). Especiallyand he shall elucidating be is the Targumic version ofמשיחא)Zec 6:12: Behold, the man whoseTargum name to is ZecAnointed 6:12, an Messiah) –will63). be33 Especially(1:41;revealed, 4:29), elucidatingand he shall is bethe Targumic version of 62 ,(4–3משיחא ).the 4Q174 Targumic62in– 4Q16163). 1–3raised33 IEspeciallyversion 811; up!–10 4Q252 In17; of John’sZ elucidating4Q174ec V 6:12:3–4; Gospel, 14Q285–Behold,3 is I Jesus the11; IV Targumic the 4Q252 [frg.is33Targum indeedman 7] V3–4), whoseversion presented to3– 4;Zec Tar name4Q285 of-6:12, as is ananIV Anointedd eschatological [frg.Philo 7]( Confצמח ;Conf.is17 ) דוד) Targum to Zec 6:12, and Philo (33Conf. 62Targum–63). toEspecially Zec 6:12,in 4Q161 elucidating anScrollsd Philo 8–10 ,(Conf.revealed,in 4Q16162– 63).and 8 –heEspecially10 shall 17; 4Q174be elucidating 1–3 I 11;is the 4Q252 Targumic V 3– version4; 4Q285 of IV [frg. 7] 3–4 )צמח be דודScrolls 3 an–4),)d will Philo (33[7משיחא ),inConf. 4Q161 62– 63).8–10 EspeciallyZ17;ec 4Q1746:12: Behold,elucidating 1–3 I 11;the is4Q252man the whose Targumic V 3– name4; Targumversion4Q285 is Anointed IVof to Zec[frg. 6:12) צמח Philo דודTargum to Zec Scrolls6:12, an (d -and 4:29),) Philo will be(Conf. revealed, 62–63). and Especiallyhe shall33 be elucidating is the Tar משיחא) ,raised up! In John’s Gospel, JesusZec is 6:12:indeedBehold, presented the as man an eschatologicalwhose namegum isMessiah toAnointed Zec (1:41;6:12 ,(Targum) will be to revealed, Zec 6:12, andana droyal hePhilo shall Davidic (Conf. beraised 62descendant–63). up! InEspecially John’s (cf. 7:42), Gospel, elucidatingwho Jesus is israisedis theindeed33 Targumicup presented(2:22; version cf. as3:14; an of eschatological 12:32) and reve Messiahaled (1:41; 4:29משיחא) Zec 6:12: Behold, the man whose name is Anointed version) will ofbe revealed, and he shall be משיחא) 62Behold, – 63).be) will theEspecially be man revealed, whose elucidating andname he is shallis Anointed the be Targumic משיחאeschatological manman to) whose willwhoseZec 6:12,be name revealed,Messiah an d is Philo Anointed Z (1:41;andec ( Conf.6:12: he 4:29), (shall משיחא)In33 )John’s willBehold, be Gospel,gumic revealed, the man versionJesus andwhose is of ZecindeedheZ ec nameshall 6:12: 6:12:presented isbe Anointed Behold,Behold, asTargum anthe the:6:12 משיחא!Zec 6:12: Behold, the man whose name is AnointedraisedZ ec (up a royal Davidic descendantTargum to Zec(cf. raised6:12, 7:42), an up!dwho PhiloIn isJohn’s (raisedConf. Gospel, 62up– 63).(2:22; JesusEspecially cf. is indeed3:14; 12:32elucidating presented) and asis reve anthe aeschatologicalled Targumic version Messiah of (1:41; 4:29), shallof up Zec be ( 2:22;6:12–13 cf. in3:14; John 12:32 19:5) and revealed צֶ מַ raisedheח L. is )Coloe, indeedwill (cf. be the pre7:42),revealed, allusion- who and tois משיחאraised up! In John’s Gospel, Jesus is indeed presented aswill an beZeschatologicalec revealed, 6:12: Behold, and Messiah he shallthe(14:21 man (1:41;be raised –whose22 4:29),). up!(7) namea In Accordingroyal John’s is AnointedDavidic Gospel, to Mary descendant (Jesus ,(JesusMessiah) iswill indeed (1:41; be revealed, presented4:29), and as anhe eschatologicalshall be Messiah (1:41; 4:29 משיחא) ,raised up! In John’s Gospel, Jesus is indeed presenteda royalraised as Davidic an up! eschatologicalIn descendant John’s Gospel, Messiah (cf. Jesus7:42), (1:41;raised iswho indeed 4:29), up!is raisedpresentedIn John’s upZec Gospel,as( 2:22;6:12: an eschatological cf. Behold,Jesus 3:14; is indeedthe12:32 manMessiah) presentedand raisedwhose reve(1:41; up! name aasled In 4:29),an John’s iseschatological Anointed Gospel who 6:12 )is –will 13raised inbe John revealed,up (19:52:22; and cf. 3:14;he shall 12:32 be ) and revealedמשיחא) of Zec,(7:42צֶ מַ ח.AccordingZec 6:12: toBehold, Marya royal the L. Coloe, manDavidic whose the descendant allusion name isto Anointed (cf (7) .(22–14:21) inof Jn Zec 18:5.7 6:12 and–13 in John 19:5צֶ מַ ח a royal Davidic descendant (cf. 7:42), who is raised sentedup (2:22;raised as an cf.up! eschatological3:14;In John’s 12:32 Gospel,)might andMessiah revebe Jesus also a(1:41;led is present(14:21 indeed 4:29),– 22alsopresented a). royalin(7) theAccording Davidic asJohannine an eschatological descendant to expressionMary L. MessiahColoe,s Ἰησο ῦνthe (1:41; τὸνallusion 4:29), Ναζωραῖον to Inof(cf. John’s Zec cf. 7:42), 3:14;6:12 Gospel,who– 12:3213 inais Jesus )royalJohnraisedand is19:5Davidic reve indeedup a(led2:22; presenteddescendant cf. 3:14; as (cf.an12:32 eschatological7:42),) andwho reve isa Messiah ledraised up (1:41; (2:22; 4:29), cf. 3:14; 12:32) and revealed צֶ ;2:22מַ )!upח a royal Davidic descendant (cf. 7:42), who is (14:21raiseda –royal 22up). ( 2:22;(7)DavidicAccording cf. descendant3:14; to12:32 Mary (cf.) andL. 7:42),a Coloe, reveroyalawho led Davidicthe isallusion raised descendantraised toup (of (1:41; Zec cf. 6:124:29), 3:14;–13 12:32) in John and 19:5 revealed (14:21–22). (7;2:22) צֶ מַ up ח might be also presentraised also up! inIn the John’s (14:21Johannine Gospel,–22). expression(7) JesusAccording is indeeds Ἰησο to ῦνpresented Mary τὸν L. Ναζωραῖον(cf.asColoe, an 7:42), eschatological thein who Jnallusion 18:5.7 is raised Messiahtoand ῦνand τὸν the ΝαζωραῖονJohanninein Jn 18:5.7 andצֶ מַ חof Davidic Zec 6:12 descendant–13Ἰ ησοin Johnῦς (cf. 19:5 ὁ7:42), Ναζωραῖοςmightwho be inalsois Jnraised present 19:9. up Thealso(2:22; inconnection the cf. Johannine3:14; between12:32 expression) and the revetitles Ἰaledησο צֶ מַ חAccording to Mary L. Coloe, the allusion toa royal (7) .(22–14:21) ledof Zec 6:12–13 in John 19:5צֶ aמַ ח raisedof Zec toup 6:12 Mary (2:22;–13 L. in cf. Coloe, John 3:14; 19:5the 12:32 allusion) and to reve צֶ מַ is חof Ναζωραῖονof Zec descendant Zec L. Coloe, 6:12–136:12in Jn–(14:21 13 the(cf.18:5.7 in Johnin allusion7:42), –John22 and). 19:5(7)19:5who to According צֶ Maryמַ ח ofAccordingAccording also Zec 6:12in the – to13 toJohannine Mary Maryin (14:21John L.L. expressionColoe,19:5–22). (7)theAccording sallusionaἸ ησοroyalῦν toDavidic τὸνto צֶ (7)מַ ח.(According to Mary L. Coloe, themight allusion(14:21 be also– to22 present (7) .(22–14:21) expression2:22;and the cf. Johannine3:14;s Ἰησο 12:32ῦν τὸν) and Ναζωραῖον revealedin Jn 18:5.7 and) צֶ מַ upח Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖοςa royalin DavidicJn 19:9.might descendant The be connectionalso (cf.present 7:42), between alsowho in the theis Johannineraised title basedand the Johannine צֶ מַ חtitle) wasתנצר ) of that Zec Thethe 6:12 Hebrewconnection–13 in name John between Nazareth19:5 the.19:9צֶ αζωραῖονמַ Jn factחmight be also present also in the Johannine expressionsmightἸησο(14:21ῦν be also τὸν–22 present). Ναζωραῖον(7) According alsoin in theΝαζωραῖος Jn 18:5.7 toJohannine Mary and(“Nazarene”)Ἰ L.ησο expressions Coloe,ῦς ὁthestems Ναζωραῖος Ἰησοallusion fromῦν τ ὸinthetoν Ν of 18:5.7 Zec expression 6:12and –13s inἸησο Johnῦν 19:5 τὸν Ναζωραῖον in Jn 18:5.7 and צֶ Jnמַ חΝαζωραῖονand expressionthe tomightin Johannine MaryJn 18:5.7be s L.alsoἸ ησοColoe, and presentῦν the τὸν also allusion Ναζωραῖον in the to Johannine in צֶ מַ חmight be also present also in the Johannine expressionἸησοmightῦςs Ἰησο be ὁ ῦνalsoΝαζωραῖος τὸν presentin Ναζωραῖον alsoJn 19:9. inin the JnThe Johannine18:5.7might connection beand alsoexpression present between(14:21s alsoἸησο –the22 inῦν ). titlethe(7) τὸν JohannineAccording -in Jn19:5and 19:9.the JohannineThe connection between the ti צֶ מַ חandof) betweenwas ZecἸησο based 6:12ῦς ὁthe –Ν13αζωραῖος title in John צֶ תנצרמַ ח) Ναζωραῖος (“Nazarene”)(14:21–22 stems). (7) fromἸAccordingησο ῦςthe fact ὁ to thatΝαζωραῖος Mary the L.Hebrewin Coloe, Jn 19:9.name the allusion TheNazarethin Jn connection 18:5.7to was based ( תנצר ) and name in the Nazareth Dead Sea (נֵצֶרΝαζωραῖος which, expression in turn,(“Nazarene”) serveds Ἰησο as ῦνstems the τὸν messianic from Ναζωραῖον the titlefactin in thatJn Is 18:5.7 the11:1 Hebrew (andנצרand onthealso the Johanninein rootthe Johannine צֶ presentמַ חἸησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος in Jn 19:9. The connection betweenmight the betitle also and the Johannine צֶ מַ ח ησο19:9.andῦν Thethe τὸν Johannineconnection Ναζωραῖον inbetween Jn 18:5.7 the and titleצֶ Ἰמַ sחand inἸ the) ησο thewasthe fact ῦςJohannine Johanninebasedbetween that ὁ theΝαζωραῖος expression the titlein Jnתנצרconnection)צֶ also fromמַ חin ῦν andand Jn τὸνfrom the the19:9. Johannine theἸ ΝαζωραῖονJohannineησο The factῦς connectionthat inΝαζωραῖος ὁ Jn theΝαζωραῖος 18:5.7 Hebrewmight between (“Nazarene”)andin bename Jn also the19:9. Nazareth present title stems Theצֶ מַ stems חἸησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖοςmight bein also Jn present19:9. Thealso connectionin the ΝαζωραῖοςJohannineἸ ησοbetweenῦς expression(“Nazarene”) the ὁ Ναζωραῖοςtitletles Ἰ ησο was based 34 ( תנצר ) fact) and that in thethe DeadHebrew Sea name Nazareth נֵצֶרwhich, in turn, servedΝαζωραῖος as the (messianic“Nazarene”) title stems in Is from11:1 (the נצר on the root also) and 3:8) in the Dead Sea נֵצֶר) .theand . messianicthe(8 )Johannine Both title in Zecin Is 6:12 11:1 (cfצמח צֶ asמַ דוד חinterchangeably which,which, between inin turn, turn, the served titlewith נצר Scrollsin) waswasJn is based19:9.based juxtaposed onThe the connection rootor used תנצר ) Ναζωραῖος (“Nazarene”) stems from the fact that the HebrewHebrewἸησο namenameῦς Nazareth ὁ Ναζωραῖος was based ( תנצר ) and the theHebrew Johannine name Nazareth צֶ thatמַ basedח the ) titlewas fact תנצרDead )the was TheSeaHebrew based( “Nazarene”)connection name Nazareth stemsbetween from ( the.19:9 תנצר Nazareth) andthe infactin Jn the (Ναζωραῖοςthat נֵצֶר)thebased andmessianic fact the (that“Nazarene”) Johannine thetitleἸησο Hebrew inῦς Is stems 11:1 ὁname Ναζωραῖοςfromצֶ theמַ חtitle )from Ναζωραῖοςwasas תנצר )namewhich,(“Nazarene”) between Nazareth in turn, thestems served נצר Ναζωραῖος (“Nazarene”)Ἰησοῦς ὁstems Ναζωραῖος from thein Jnfact 19:9. thaton theTheΝαζωραῖος Hebrewroot connection34 and in the Dead Sea 35 34 (נֵצֶר) in turn,. (8 served) Both asin theZec messianic 6:12 (cf. alsotitle 3:8)in Is 11:1צמח דוד ,withwhich נצר Scrolls is juxtaposed or used interchangeablyon the root (B(9. (8oth) Bothtexts, in Zechariah Zec 6:12 (cf. also 3:8(צמח based דוד with) was תנצר ).as theΝαζωραῖος messianic (title“Nazarene”) in Is and11:1 stems in( the) andfromcontextScrolls in the the of fact DeadJnis juxtaposedthat19:5, Sea the there Scrolls Hebrew oris usedisa referencejuxtaposedname interchangeably Nazareth to the priesthood and in the Dead Sea (נֵצֶר) title) was in Isbased 11:1 תנצר ) Sea factwhich, that inthe turn, Hebrew served name as the Nazareth messianic נצר and stemson in thethe from rootDead the (נֵצֶר) (”andas the in themessianic DeadΝαζωραῖος Sea 34title in Is( “11:1Nazarene (נֵצֶר) which, title in in Is turn, 11:1 served נצר which, in turn, served ason thethe messianicroot נצר on the root and in the Dead Sea (נֵצֶר) based. in(8)(8 turn,) Both served in Zecin Zec as 6:126:12 the (cf.messianic(cf. also also 3:8) 3:8) title and in Is 11:1 צמח ,waswhich דוד( נצר תנצרusedused) and interchangeably interchangeablyname in the Nazarethon Dead the34 Searoot with(with נֵצֶר ) Ναζωραῖοςwhich, in turn,(“Nazarene”) served as stemsthe messianic fromScrolls the titleis fact juxtaposed in that Is 11:1the35 ororHebrewנצר on the root and in the context of Jn 19:5, there is a reference to the priesthood. )B(9 oth texts, Zechariah 35 Both in Zec 6:1234 (cf. also 3:8) 34 (8) .צמח דוד Scrolls is juxtaposed or used interchangeably34 with (by .texts, (8) ZechariahBoth in Zec 6:12 (cf. also 3:8צמח othדוד Byis )a envisioningand reference or in usedthe Deadtointerchangeablythe the building Seapriesthood. of with the)B(9 temple 34נֵצֶר(and .with as to (8 inthe the) the35 theBoth messianic priesthood. rebuildingcontext in Zec oftitle 6:12 of35ScrollsJn (9)in the19:5, (cf. IsBoth temple. 11:1isalso there juxtaposed texts, (3:8צמח (served deal3:8 דודZec 19:5,which, 6:12 thereand in(cf. with turn,isJo alsoahn, reference נצר in the. oron context(8 usedthe) Both root interchangeably of Jn inצמח דוד Scrolls is juxtaposed or used interchangeablyScrolls 34iswith juxtaposed and in the Dead Sea ((3:8 נֵצֶר) as .the(8 messianic) Both in titleZec in6:12 Is 11:1(cf. also צמח דוד B(9which,oth in texts, turn, with Zechariahserved(נצרa also reference) and 3:8) is in juxtaposed the 35to theDeadon priesthood. theorSea usedroot interchangeablyנֵצֶר the .context messianic(8) Both of Jn titlein 19:5, Zec in Is 6:12there 11:1 (cf. is (Scrollsצמח in as theדוד interchangeablywhich, in turn, servedwithand נצר Scrolls is juxtaposedon the orroot used and John, deal with the rebuildingand of in the the temple. contextBy of envisioningJn 19:5, therethe is building a reference of theto35 thetemple priesthood.by )B(9 oth texts, Zechariah 34 the. rebuilding(8) Both in of Zec the 6:12temple.35 (cf.By also 34envisioning 3:8) the building of the temple35 byצמח דודand in the context of Jn 19:5, there is a reference to the35 priesthood.Scrolls is juxtaposed)B(9 oth texts, or used Zechariah interchangeablyand John, withdeal35 with thereoth. (8texts, )is Both a referenceZechariah in Zec 6:12to the (cf. priesthood. also 3:8) )B(9 oth texts, Zechariah צמח B19:5,(9( דוד B (9of rebuilding .Jn34 oth(819:5,) Bothtexts, there of inand theZechariah Zecis temple.in a thereference6:12 context (cf.By envisioning alsotoScrolls of the 3:8)Jn priesthood. 19:5, is juxtaposedthe there building is)B(9 aor reference of usedoth theand texts, interchangeablytemple in to theZechariah the bycontext priesthood. withof Jn(צמח theדוד and in the contextScrolls of Jnis 19:5,juxtaposed there oris aused reference interchangeablyand to andJo thehn, in priesthood. deal the with contextwith and John, deal with the rebuilding of the temple. By envisioning the building of the temple by 35 and John, deal with the rebuilding of the temple. By envisioning 31and in thethe buildingcontext of of 31Jn the 19:5, temple thereby is a reference to the priesthood. )B(9 oth texts, Zechariah 35 ἈbyothνατολήBy texts, envisioning) shall Zechariahthe building of the temple by / צֶ מַ 9)ח Th rebuildinge Septuagint of the35)B and(9temple of faithfully Jo theothhn, by temple.texts, dealh Trenderse SeptuagintZechariahwithByand the envisioningthe playin rebuildingfaithfullythe on contextwords therenders found of buildingof the theJn in the temple.play19:5,and of Hebrewon thethere wordsJoBy hn,temple text:envisioningis founddeal a Thereference byinwith the Hebrewthethe to rebuildingbuilding the text: priesthood. The of ofBranch the the temple (temple.)B and John, deal andwith inthe the rebuilding context of of Jn the 19:5, temple. there Byisand aenvisioning referenceJohn, deal tothe with the building priesthood.the .(.(ἀνατελεῖἀνατελεῖ // י ִצְ מָ חἈἈνατολήνατολή)) shall branchbranch out out ( / צֶ מַ ח) 31hT e Septuagint faithfully renders the play on words found in the Hebrew text: The Branch Ἀνατολή) shall / צֶ מַ ח) and John, deal with the32 rebuilding of31hT thee Septuaginttemple. By faithfully envisioning renders thethe play building on words of found the temple in the Hebrewby text: The Branch For thethe elaborated building analyses, of theFor templeseethe and W.H.elaborate Joby Rose,hn, d deal analyses,Zemah with; A.R.seethe W.H.Petterson, rebuilding Rose, BeholdZemah of the Your; A.R. temple. Petterson,By envisioningBehold Your theKing building. This is ofimportant the temple by 32 ἀνατελεῖand Jo). hn, deal with the rebuilding31 of the temple. By envisioning / י ִצְ מָ חbranch out ( Ἀ).νατολή) shall / צֶ מַ ח) ἀνατελεῖ / י ִצְ מָ חhT e Septuagint faithfully renders the play on words found in the Hebrewbranch text: The out (Branch 31 32 itἈ νατολήcounters) shallM. Theobald’s critique that in the Fourth Gospel there is no priestly Messiah. See / צֶ מַ ח) For the elaborate31d analyses, see W.H.hT eRose, SeptuagintZemah faithfully; A.R. Petterson, renders theBehold play onYour words King found. This in theis importantHebrew text: clarification, The Branch because 31 King. This is important clarification, because it counters32 M. Theobald’s31 critique that in the Ἀνατολή) shall For the elaborated analyses, see W.H. Rose, Zemah; A.R. Petterson, Behold Your King. This is important / צֶ מַ ח) ἀνατελεῖ in the ).Hebrew text: The Branch31 / י ִצְ found מָ חhT e Septuagint faithfully renders the playbranch on wordsout ( 31 Ἀνατολή) shall / צֶ מַ ח) on Ἀνατολή words) found shall in the Hebrew text: The Branch/ צֶ מַ חT/ eἈ in SeptuagintνατολήMessianologie. the Hebrew) shall faithfully text:” The renders Branch the ( playצֶ hמַ found ח) the /Messiah. Ἀ νατολήplayhT oneSee )Septuagint wordsshallTheobald, found faithfully inEcce the Hebrew homorenders, ad text:the loc. play The: “keine onBranch words priesterliche צֶ מַ ח) thatἀνατελεῖ found32 in thein). the hFourthT eHebrew Septuagint Gospel text: there faithfullyThe isBranchno renderspriestly / י ִצְ מָ words חclarification,hT e Septuagint because faithfullyit counters renders M. Theobald’s branchthe play out on critique ( ἀνατελεῖ32 ). For the elaborated analyses,Fourth Gospelsee W.H. there Rose, is noZemah priestly33; A.R. Messiah. Petterson, Seeclarification, Theobald,Behold Your Ecce because Kinghomo .it ,This adcounters loc. is : important“keine M. Theobald’s pries - critique that in the Fourth Gospel there is no priestly Messiah. See / י ִצְ מָ חbranch out ( .(ἀνατελεῖ / י ִצְ מָ חRose,ἀνατελεῖZemah31). ; A.R. Petterson, Behold See A.Your Kubiś, KingThe. This Book is ofimportant Zechariah , pp.branch 374–387. out ( / י ִצְ מָ חἀνατελεῖ, ad loc.:). “keine priesterliche For the Messianologie.elaborated analyses,branch” see out (W.H. /32 י ִצְ מָ homo חTheobald,branch outEcce ( Ἀνατολή) shall / צֶ מַ ח) ἀνατελεῖ the31 play). on words found in the Hebrew32 text: The Branch / י ִצְ rendersמָ חhT e Septuagintbranch faithfully out ( 32 33 32 31 For the elaborated analyses, see W.H.clarification, Rose, Zemah because; A.R. it countersPetterson,terliche M. Messianologie.”Behold Theobald’s Your32 critique King. Thisthat34 inis theimportant Fourth Theobald, Gospel thereEcce is homono priestly, ad loc. Messiah.: “keine Seepriesterliche Messianologie.” Petterson,/ ἈTheνατολή )Behold shall Your King. This is important צֶמַ ח,Fo Ἀthererνατολή ; detailsA.R.d isanalyses,h T)no Petterson,seeshall epriestly Septuagint M.L. see Coloe,Messiah.Behold W.H. faithfullyDwelling Rose,YourSee rendersKingZemah, pp.. 46This Fothe; –A.R.r47. playtheis M.L. importantPetterson, elaborateon wordsColoe, d foundBeholdTheanalyses, Johannine in Your the see Hebrew King W.H.Pentecost. This text:Rose, ,The isp. Zemahimportant48; Branch M.L.; A.R. ( Coloe/ צֶ elaborateמַ Zemah ח)See Fo A.r Kubiś,the elaborateThe BookhTd e analyses,of Septuagint Zechariah see faithfullyclarification,, pp.W.H. 374 Rose,– renders387. becauseZemah the play;it A.R.counters on FoPetterson, wordsr M.the foundTheobald’s elaborateBehold in thed critique YourHebrewanalyses, King that text: .see inThis The theW.H. isBranchFourth FoimportantRose,r the Gospel is/ ἀνατελεῖ noMessianologie. priestly). Messiah.” See33 י ִצְ מָ חloc. Fourth33: “branchkeine Gospel priesterliche out there( clarification, because it counters M. Theobald’sTheobald, critiqueEcce thathomo in, adthe 34 Kubiś,/ ἀνατελεῖ thereThe is). Bookno priestly clarification,of Zechariah Messiah. ,because pp.See 374 it–387. counters M. Theobald’s critique that in the Fourth Gospel there is no priestly Messiah. See י .848ִצְ .A–מָ Gospel ח 32 p.S ee48; A. Kubiś, M. M.L. Theobald’s Coloe,” TheThe Bookcritique N of Zechariahazarene that in Kingbranch the, pp. 374–387., Fourthpp. out See843 ( For details see M.L. Coloe, DwellingTheobald,, pp. 46–47.Ecce M.L. homo Coloe,33, ad loc.clarification,The: “Johanninekeine priesterliche because Pentecost it countersMessianologie., ἀνατελεῖ Theobald’s). critique that in the Fourth Gospel there is noFo rpriestly the elaborate Messiah.clarification,d analyses,See because see 32it W.H.counters 34Rose, M.Zemah Theobald’s; A.R. critique Petterson, that inBehold the Fourth Your Gospel King. thereThis is noimportant priestly Messiah. See / י .Mִצְ מָ חclarification, becausebranch it counters out ( Theobald,32 Ecce homo33 , ad loc.: “keine priesterliche See A. Kubiś,Messianologie.The Book” of Zechariah34 , pp. 374–387. 35 For the Fo elaborater details dseeanalyses, M.L. Coloe, see W.H.Dwelling Rose,, pp.Zemah46–47.; M.L.A.R. Coloe,Petterson,The BeholdJohannine Your Pentecost King. This, p. 48;is M.L.important Coloe, The NazareneTheobald, KingEcce, pp. homo 33843–,848. ad loc.: “keine priesterlicheSee A. Kubiś, Messianologie.The Book34 Theobald,of Zechariah” Ecce, pp. homo 374,– ad387. loc.For: “ keinedetails priesterliche see M.L. Coloe, Messianologie. J .P.Dwelling Heil, Jesus, ”pp. 46–47., pp. 729 M.L.–745; Coloe, H.K. TheBond, JohannineTheobald,Discarding PentecostEcce, pp. homo 183, –,194. ad loc.: “keine priesterliche Messianologie.” For the elaborated analyses, see W.H. Fo Rose,r33 detailsZemah see M.L.; A.R. Coloe, Petterson,Dwellingclarification,Behold, pp. because46YourTheobald,–47. King M.L.it counters.Ecce ThisColoe, homo isM. Theimportant, Theobald’sad Johannine loc.: “keine critique Pentecost priesterliche that, p.in 48;the Messianologie. M.L.Fourth33 Coloe, Gospel”The there is no priestly Messiah. See 35 33 See A. Kubiś, The34 Book of Zechariah, pp. 374 –See387. A. Kubiś, The Book of Zechariah, 33pp. 374–387. clarification,Nazarene because King it, pp. counters 843–848. M. See Theobald’s A. Kubiś, critiqueThe Book that of in Zechariah the Fourth, pp. Gospel 374– 387.there is no priestly Messiah. See J.P. See Heil, A.Jesus Kubiś,, pp.34Theclarification, 729 Book–745; of ZechariahH.K. because Bond, Fo ,it pp. rDiscardingcounters details 374– 387.see M., pp. M.L. Theobald’s 183 Coloe,–194. critiqueDwelling that, pp. in 46thep. 48;– 47.Fourth M.L. Gospel Coloe, there The See JohannineisNazarene noA. priestly Kubiś, PentecostKing TheMessiah., pp. 843–848. Book, p. ofSee 48; 35Zechariah M.L. Coloe,, pp. 374The– 387. 34 For details see M.L. Coloe, Dwelling, Npp.azarene4634–47. King M.L., pp. Coloe, 843–848.The JohannineTheobald, PentecostEcce homo, p., ad48; loc. M.L.: “keine Coloe, priesterlicheThe Messianologie.” 34 Nazarene King, pp. 84335 –848. For details see M.L. Coloe,3533 Dwelling, 34pp. 46–47. M.L. Coloe,Theobald,The Johannine J.P.Ecce Heil, homo JesusPentecost, ad, pp.loc. ,729 : p.“keine 48;–745; Fo M.L. priesterlicher H.K.details Coloe, Bond, see9 The Messianologie. M.L.Discarding Coloe,, pp.Dwelling” 183–194., pp. 46–47. M.L. Coloe, The Johannine Pentecost, p. 48; M.L. Coloe, The For details see M.L.Theobald, Coloe,EcceDwelling homo,, adpp. loc.46:– “47.keine M.L. priesterliche Coloe, The Messianologie. Johannine Pentecost” JSee,.P. p. Heil,A.48; Kubiś, M.L. JesusColoe, ,The Fopp. 729–745;r BookdetailsThe of see Zechariah H.K. M.L. 33Bond, Coloe,, pp. Discarding 374Dwelling–387. ,, pp.pp. 183–194.46–47. M.L. Coloe, The Johannine Pentecost, p. 48; M.L. Coloe, The N33azarene King, pp. 35843–848. J.P. Heil, Jesus, pp. 729–745; H.K. Bond, Discarding, pp. 183–194. See A. Kubiś, The Book of Zechariah, pp. 374–387. Nazarene King, pp.35 843–848. J.P. Heil, Jesus, 9pp. 729–N745;azarene H.K. King Bond,, pp.Discarding 843–848.34 , pp. 183–194. Nazarene King, pp. 843–848. See A. Kubiś, The Book of Zechariah, pp. 37435 –387. For details seeNazarene M.L. Coloe, King, pp.Dwelling 84334 –848., pp. 46–47. M.L. Coloe, The35 Johannine Pentecost, p. 48; M.L. Coloe, The 35 34 J.P. Heil, Jesus, pp. 729–745; H.K. Bond, Discarding J.P. Heil,, pp.Jesus 183,– pp.194. 729–745; H.K. Bond,35 Discarding, pp. 183 –Fo194.r details see M.L. Coloe, Dwelling J.P. Heil,, pp. Jesus46–47., pp. M.L. 729 Coloe,–745;9 H.K.The JohannineBond, Discarding Pentecost, pp., p. 183 48;–194. M.L. Coloe, The J.P. Heil, Jesus, pp. Fo 729r details–745; seeH.K. M.L. Bond, Coloe,DiscardingDwelling, pp., pp. 18346–194.–47. M.L. Coloe, The JohannineNazarene KingPentecost, pp. J.P. 843, Heil,p. –48;848.9Jesus M.L., pp. Coloe, 729–The745; H.K. Bond, Discarding, pp. 183–194. 35 9 Nazarene King, pp. 843–848. Nazarene King, pp. 843–848. 9 J.P. Heil, Jesus, pp. 729–745; H.K.35 Bond, Discarding, pp. 183–194. 35 J.P. Heil, Jesus, pp. 729–745; H.K. Bond,9 Discarding, pp. 183–194. 9 J.P. Heil, Jesus, pp. 729–745; H.K.9 Bond, Discarding, pp. 183–194. 9 9 9 9 504 Adam Kubiś

Zechariah and John, deal with the rebuilding of the temple. By envisioning the building of the temple by Joshua, Zechariah’s oracle (6:13) makes an allusion to the messianic and eschatological prophecy of 2 Sm 7:13 about building the temple. The theme of the temple and the characterization of Jesus as its builder of the temple is one of the leitmotivs of John’s Gospel (cf. Jn 2:19). Interestingly enough, as noted by Raymond E. Brown, the question of whether Jesus is the Messiah is connected with the issue of his rebuilding the temple, as reported in the Marcan and Matthean accounts of Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin.36 It has also been argued that Zec 6:12–13 is alluded to in John 2:22 and 20:9, with reference to Jesus’ resurrection, understood as the rebuilding of the temple.37 I commented on it, in one of my previous studies:

The reference to Zec 6:12 during Jesus’ trial should come as no surprise in light of the Johannine use of this prophecy in presenting Jesus’ resurrection, both in the cleansing narrative and in John 20. Thus, the words ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ought to be seen as a public introduction or presentation of the king-messiah who is going to (re)build the temple. From this perspective, the timeframe of Pilate’s utterance is perfect, because it gives an interpretative key for the subsequent passion narrative, preparing the reader for its final act: Jesus’ bodily resurrection understood as an act of rebuilding the temple (cf. 2:19–22). Thus, the reference to Zec 6:12 would add to the literal and historical meaning of the words ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος a new, profoundly theological significance, being yet another example of Johannine irony and double entendre.38

36 R.E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, p. 876. 37 A. Kubiś, Zechariah 6:12–13, pp. 153–194. 38 Idem, The Book of Zechariah, pp. 457–458. 39 R. Schnackenburg, Die Ecce-homo-Szene, p. 383; X. Léon-Dufour, Lecture, p. 97; A. Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John, p. 466. 40 B. Lindars, The Gospel of John, p. 566. The same authors states, however, that the reference to Zec 6:12 must remain “no more than a suggestion, because John has provided no indication that there are deeper issues here.” In the same vein, C.K. Barrett (The Gospel Joshua, Zechariah’s oracle (6:13) makes an allusion to the messianic and eschatological prophecy of 2 Sm 7:13 about building the temple. The theme of the temple and the characterization of Jesus as its builder of the temple is one of the leitmotivs of John’s Gospel (cf. Jn 2:19). Interestingly enough, as noted by Raymond E. Brown, the question of whether Jesus is the Messiah is connected with the issue of his rebuilding the temple, as reported in the Marcan and Matthean accounts of Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin.36 It has also been argued that Zec 6:12–13 is alluded to in John 2:22 and 20:9, with reference to Jesus’ resurrection, understood as the rebuilding of the temple.37 I commented on it, in one of my previous studies:

Finally, (10) Zec 6:12 was applied to the incarnation of Jesus by the early Christian writers, e.g. Justin, Dial. 106; 121. Interestingly enough, in Dial. 106 Zec 6:12 is combined with Num 24:17, another Old Testament oracle interpreted in a messianic way. The main argument raised against an intertextual allusion to Zec 6:12 in John 19:5 is the The Old Testament Background of “Ecce Homo” in John 19:5 505 use of the noun ἀνήρ instead of the expected ἄνθρωπος.39 According to Barnabas Lindars, however, “this does not destroy the allusion.”40 David Litwa calls this objection “somewhat pedantic”.41David In fact, Litwa Philo calls seems this objectionto quote Zec “somewhat 6:12 using pedantic”.ἄνθρωπος41 Ininstead fact, Philo of ἀνήρ seems(De Conf. to quote Zec 6:12 using ἄνθρωπος instead of ἀνήρ (De Conf. Ling. 62: ἰδοὺ Ling. 62: ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος ᾧ ὄνομα ἀνατολή). The critical note of Rudolf Schnackenburg that ἄνθρωπος ᾧ ὄνομα ἀνατολη).́ The critical note of Rudolf Schnackenburg that Ἀνατολη/Ἀνατολή ́ thatthat is the/צֶ מַ ח ἀνήρ in Zechἀνήρ 6:12in Zech is 6:12not isa notmessianic a messianic title, title, because because it it isis actually actually is the Messianic title,42 could indeed have some value as an argument. However, the expression ἰδοὺ ἀνήρ or, following Philo’s reading, ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος, appears 36 R.E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, p. 876. 37 A. Kubiś, in ZecZechariah together 6:12–13 , withpp. 153 the–194. messianic title “Branch”. So in the mind of a well- 38 Idem, Theinstructed Book of Zechariah reader, pp. of (or457–458. listener to) the Johannine narrative, the declaration 39 R. Schnackenburg,“Behold theDie man!”Ecce-homo would-Szene almost, p. 383; automatically X. Léon-Dufour, evokeLecture its messianically, p. 97; A. Lincoln, loadedThe Gospel According toparallel Saint John sequel, p. 466. “Branch is his name!” 40 B. Lindars, The Gospel of John, p. 566. The same authors states, however, that the reference to Zec 6:12 must remain “no more than a suggestion, because John has provided no indication that there are deeper issues here.” In the same vein,4. C.K.The Barrett Eschatological (The Gospel according “Man” toof St Num John, p.24,17 541) argued that “it would be hard to affirm that John was referring directly to this passage.” 41 M.D. Litwa, Behold Adam, p. 134. Wayne Meeks argued that ἄνθρωπος 10was “an eschatological title at least in Hel- lenistic Judaism”43 and noted an interesting parallel to Zec 6:12 in the Septua- gint of Numbers 24:17: “A star shall dawn out (ἀνατελεῖ) of Jacob, and a man (ἄνθρωπος) shall rise up out of Israel.” This famous prophecy was interpreted messianically and eschatologically in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QTest 12; CD VII,18–20; 1QM XI,6) and the Testament of Judah 24:1 (where Num 24:17 appears side-by-side with Zec 6:12).44 This image of a man set in an eschatological context is found earlier in the same chapter: “A man (ἄνθρωπος) will come forth from his [Israel’s] offspring and he shall rule over many nations” (Num 24:7). This verse is interpreted eschatologically by Philo: “‘there shall come forth a man (ἐξελεύσεται γὰρ ἄνθρωπος),’ says the oracle, and leading his host to war he will subdue great and populous nations” (Praem. 95). An eschatological judge of Israel dispersed over all the world is also envisioned in Testament of Naphtali, which speaks of “a man (ἄνθρωπος) who effects righteousness” and who will “work mercy on all who are far and near” (4:5). Wayne Meeks argues that the dramatic structure of the whole Johannine narrative of Jesus’ trial, as well as the purport of Zec 6:12 and Num 24:7.17, only make sense if

according to St John, p. 541) argued that “it would be hard to affirm that John was referring directly to this passage.” 41 M.D. Litwa, Behold Adam, p. 134. 42 R. Schnackenburg, Die Ecce-homo-Szene, p. 380–381. 43 W.A. Meeks, The Prophet-King, p. 70. 44 As was aptly noted by David Litwa (Behold Adam, p. 134), Christian interpolations have in all probability crept into the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which somewhat lessens the relevance of Testament of Judah for Meeks’ theory. 506 Adam Kubiś

ὁ ἄνθρωποςunconsciously is understood showing as a title, that a thethrone-name prophecy givenhas been to the fulfilled, King of the in fact he acts the part of the 45 Jews. If the intertextual46 allusion to Zec 6:12 is present in John 19:5, then Pilate would presentprophet.” Jesus to the Jews under a messianic title. According to Barnabas Lindars, “Pilate isMee unconsciouslyks’ proposal showing received that mixed the response.prophecy Althoughhas been fulfilled,the evidence is, as Andrew Lincoln in fact he acts the part of the prophet.”46 argued, “meagre and the correspondence with the wording here is by no means obvious”,47esom Meeks’ proposal received mixed response. Although the evidence is, as An- drew Lincolnscholars argued, are “meagre sympathetic and thetowards correspondence Meeks’ interpretation. with the wording48 In fact,here in the late Samaritan text 47 is by no meansMemar obvious”, Marqah somethe wordscholars “man” are sympathetic is five times towards applied Meeks’ to Moses, inter- the Samaritan messianic pretation.48 In fact, in the late Samaritan text Memar Marqah the word “man” is 49 five timesprototype. applied to Moses,The use the ofSamaritan the article messianic could also prototype. suggest49 Thethat ἄνθρωποςuse of the is to be understood as a 50 article couldtitle. also50 David suggest Litwa thatsumm ἄνθρωποςarized, is however,to be understooda rather convincingas a title. critiqueDavid of Meeks’ proposal: Litwa summarized, however, a rather convincing critique of Meeks’ proposal:

[I]n Numbers 24:17[I] andn Numbers 7, ἄνθρωπος 24:17 is and not 7, a ἄνθρωποςtitle, but merelyis not an a title, expression but merely to an expression to indicate a indicate a person whoperson has awho messianic has a function.messianic The function. fact that The the fact Septuagint that the transSeptuagint- translator rendered the scepter/staff][scepter/staff] in in Numbers Numbers 24:17 24:17 as as “ ἄ“ἄνθρωπος”νθρωπος” is not significant, because this] ׁשֵ בֶ טlator rendered the Hebrew is not significant, translationbecause this practice translation is not practice otherwise is not maintained otherwise (e.g.,maintained in the messianic passage Genesis (e.g., in the messianic49:10). passage Philo Genesis and the 49:10).passages Philo from and the theTestament passages of fromthe Twelve the Patriarchs also do not help Meeks’ case, because these passages, in their references to “a man,” simply depend on the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs also do51 not help Meeks’ case, because these passages, in their referenceslanguage to “a of man,” Numbers. simply depend on the language of Numbers.51

5. Adamic Typology

The reference to Adam (a Hebrew word meaning “man/human/humankind”), the first man, in

45 W.A. Meeks,reading ThePilate’s Prophet-King phrase, pp. 70–72. “Behold the man!” was suggested by a number of scholars. Alan 46 B. Lindars,Richardson The Gospelpointed of John out, p. 566. the royal dignity of the first Adam, who was supposed to rule over the 47 A. Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John, p. 466. Craig Keener (Gospel of John, p. 1123) argueswhole that creation “the title ( iscf. too Ps rare 8). for In usJesus, to infer the that king it was and probablynew Adam, known this both original to intention of the Creator John and tois his fulfilled audience.”.52 John Suggit argued that the Johannine emphasis on Jesus wearing the purple robe 48 R.E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, pp. 875–876; H.K. Bond, Pontius Pilate, p. 184. (19:2.5) alludes to the glorious clothing of Adam and Eve, allocated to them at the very moment 49 The ofreferences creation, are as given attested by Meeks, by TargumThe Prophet-King of Pseudo, p. 255.-Jonathan to Gen 3:7. Jesus, the new man, reveals 50 Bart Ehrman (The Orthodox Corruption, p. 94) made an interesting comment in this regard: “In Codex Vaticanus the definite article has dropped out […]. While there is nothing to commend46 thisB. Lindars, singularThe reading Gospel as of original, John, p. it does 566. make for an interesting shift in meaning. Now, rather47 A. Lincoln, than pointingThe Gospel to Jesus According as “the toman” Saint that John the, p. Jewish 466. Craig leaders Keene wantr ( Gospelto have of John, p. 1123) argues that “the destroyed, Pilatetitle is indicates too rare for that us the to infer mocked that andit was beaten probably Jesus known is only both a man to John (“See, and he to is his mor audience.”- tal”).” 48 R.E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, pp. 875–876; H.K. Bond, Pontius Pilate, p. 184. 49 51 D. Litwa, The Behold references Adam are, p. 134.given by Meeks, The Prophet-King, p. 255. 50 Bart Ehrman (The Orthodox Corruption, p. 94) made an interesting comment in this regard: “In Codex Vaticanus the definite article has dropped out […]. While there is nothing to commend this singular reading as original, it does make for an interesting shift in meaning. Now, rather than pointing to Jesus as “the man” that the Jewish leaders want to have destroyed, Pilate indicates that the mocked and beaten Jesus is only a man (“See, he is mortal”).” 51 D. Litwa, Behold Adam, p. 134. 52 A. Richardson, The Gospel, p. 197. 12 The Old Testament Background of “Ecce Homo” in John 19:5 507

5. Adamic Typology

The reference to Adam (a Hebrew word meaning “man/human/humankind”), the first man, in reading Pilate’s phrase “Behold the man!” was suggested by a number of scholars. Alan Richardson pointed out the royal dignity of the first Adam, who was supposed to rule over the whole creation (cf. Ps 8). In Jesus, the king and new Adam, this original intention of the Creator is fulfilled.52 John Suggit argued that the Johannine emphasis on Jesus wearing the purple robe (19:2.5) alludes to the glorious clothing of Adam and Eve, allocated to them at the very moment of creation,then what as God attested inten byded Targum man to of Pseudo-Jonathan be in the act of creation. to Gen 53 According to Gerald L. Borchert, 3:7. Jesus, the new man, reveals then what God intended man to be in the act of creation.53 AccordingPilate’s to Geraldwords areL. Borchert, also “a theological Pilate’s words affirmation are also “athat theo Jesus- was indeed “the man”, the second logical affirmationAdam, that Jesus God’s was Son, indeed who “the dealt man”,with thethe secondsin of the Adam, world God’s introduced through the first Adam.”54 Son, who dealt with the sin of the world introduced through the first Adam.”54 Dawid Litwa suggested the reference to Genesis 3:22, where God’s utterance is opened with the Dawid Litwa suggested the reference to Genesis 3:22, where God’s utterance ἰδοὺ/ἰδοὺ ΑδαμΑδαμ),), whichwhich manymany modern English translations render as/הֵן הָָאדָ םis opened with the phrase “Behold,“Behold, Adam” ( modern English translations“Behold the render man.” as Litwa“Behold resorts the man.”to an observationLitwa resorts made to an by Joel Marcus that the second definite observation made by Joel Marcus that the second definite article in the title “the Son of the Man” functionsarticle in to thepoint title out “the a particular Son of the and Man” definite functions man, toname point- out a particular and definite man, 55 ly Adam. In Litwa’snamely opinion, Adam. the55 article In Litwa’s has the opinion, same functionthe article in John has the 19:5 same function in John 19:5 in the phrase in the phrase ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, pointing to the first man, Adam. Taking into consideration the originalἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωποςcontext of Gen, pointing 3:22, to especially the first man, the expulsionAdam. Taking from into consideration the original context Eden (3:22b–24), theof wordsGen 3:22,“Behold especially the man!” the reflectexpulsion “Adam’s from alienationEden (3:22b and– 24), the words “Behold the man!” death”, emphasizing his human nature. The image of Adam as almost divine reflect “Adam’s alienation and death”, emphasizing his human nature. The image of Adam as and at the same time mortal reappears in Ps 87:1.7 and Ez 28:2.6–10.12.18. The phrase “Behold Adam!”almost is seen divine also a ndin the at the Latin same work time The mortal Life of Adamreappears and in EvePs 87:1.7 and Ez 28:2.6–10.12.18. The 13:3. The phrase is phrasepronounced“Behold by God,Adam!” whenis the seen archangel also in theMichael Latin presented work The Life of Adam and Eve 13:3. The Adam to the angels: “Behold Adam (Ecce Adam)! I have made you in our image and likeness” (13:3).phrase Interestingly is pronounced enough, by God, Adam when is presented the archangel in heaven Michael presented Adam to the angels: in order to be worshiped“Behold by Adamthe angels(Ecce as Adamif he were)! I have a divine made being. you inAs our Dawid image and likeness” (13:3). Interestingly Litwa observes: “the phrase “Behold Adam/the man!” in this context is thus enough, Adam is presented in heaven in order to be worshiped by the angels as if he were a an extremely lofty statement highlighting Adam’s divine glory which he had with God (to use Johanninedivine being. language) As Dawid “before Litwa the worldobserves: began” “the (John phrase 17:5).” “Behold56 Adam/the man!” in this context is thus an extremely lofty statement highlighting Adam’s divine glory which he had with God (to 56 52 A. Richardson, useThe GospelJohannine, p. 197. language) “before the world began” (John 17:5).” The American author noticed, 53 J. Suggit, John 19:5however,, p. 334. that the exclamation Ecce Adam! appears as “a deeply ironic”, because the whole 54 G.L. Borchert, John 12–21, p. 250. 55 J. Marcus, Son of Mancontext, pp. 38–61 of the narrative and 370–386.presents Adam as “fallen, tricked by the devil, helpless, hapless, unable 56 D. Litwa, Beholdto Adam find, p. 138.the means of bare sustenance, unable to find relief from pain, and ultimately unable to flee death.”57 On the basic level, then, the Johannine ecce homo underscores Jesus’ human frailty, but as to the deeper (theological) meaning, elucidated by the reference to Gen 3:22 and Vita 3:3, Pilate’s mocking phrase is to be connected with Jesus’ glory. The meaning on this deeper level is, however, reversed. Jesus understood his crucifixion as the hour of glorification (12:23; 13:31; 17:11) and acts during his arrest and trial in complete control of his destiny (18:5– 6; cf. 10:17–18; 13:21–30). Thus, Pilate’s phrase underlines “Jesus’ divine sovereignty over his

53 J. Suggit, John 19:5, p. 334. 54 G.L. Borchert, John 12–21, p. 250. 55 J. Marcus, Son of Man, pp. 38–61 and 370–386. 56 D. Litwa, Behold Adam, p. 138. 57 Ibidem, p. 139. 13 508 Adam Kubiś

The American author noticed, however, that the exclamation Ecce Adam! appears as “a deeply ironic”, because the whole context of the narrative presents Adam as “fallen, tricked by the devil, helpless, hapless, unable to find the means of bare sustenance, unable to find relief from pain, and ultimately unable to flee death.”57 On the basic level, then, the Johannine ecce homo underscores Jesus’ human frailty, but as to the deeper (theological) meaning, elucidated by the reference to Gen 3:22 and Vita 3:3, Pilate’s mocking phrase is to be connected with Jesus’ glory. The meaning on this deeper level is, however, reversed. Je- sus understood his crucifixion as the hour of glorification (12:23; 13:31; 17:11) and acts during his arrest and trial in complete control of his destiny (18:5–6; cf. 10:17–18; 13:21–30). Thus, Pilate’s phrase underlines “Jesus’ divine sovereignty over his whole trial. The “man” Jesus is not a man doomed to die, but a heavenly being who voluntarily lays down his life. He is not weak but strong. He is not humble but exalted. He is, importantly, not mortal but divine.”58 To sum up, according to David Litwa, Pilate’s declaration deliberately echoes Gen 2:22 and Vita 13:3 by means of reverse irony. In Gen 3:22 and Vita 13:3, Adam, seemingly divine and godlike, is in fact frail and mortal, whereas in John 19:5 the new Adam, seemingly pitiful and helpless, is indeed victorious, immortal and in control of the whole situation. This intertextual echo creates a contrast between Adam and Jesus.59 Dawid Litwa suggests also that the existence of the intertextual echo of Adam in John 19:5 implies also an ironic fulfilment of Ps 8:4–5 (LXX 5–7), understood as a meditative commentary on Gen 1:26–30: only Jesus, not the first Adam, fulfills the Psalm, because Christ, the son of man, is crowned with glory and honor, and everything is subjected beneath his feet (cf. Heb 2:6–10).60 According to Lionel Swain, in John 19:5 the evangelist evokes John 16:21, which describes the man who has been begotten into the world (ἐγεννήθη

57 Ibidem, p. 139. 58 Ibidem, p. 141. 59 David Litwa (Behold Adam, p. 142, note 26) mentions the following list of parallels: (1) Adam is in paradise (παράδεισος, Gen 2:8) and Jesus is in a garden (κηπος,͂ Jn 18:1); (2) Adam tries to make himself a god (Gen 3:5) and Jesus was said to have made himself out the son of God (Jn 19:7); (3) Adam sins (Gen 3:6) and Jesus is betrayed (Jn 18:2–3); (4) God comes to call Adam to account (Gen 3:8–9) and the cohort comes to arrest Jesus (Jn 18:2–3); (5) Adam hides (Gen 3:8) and Jesus steps forth to meet the cohort (Jn 18:4); (6) Adam deflects responsibility on others (Gen 3:12) and Jesus takes responsibility for others (Jn 18:8); (7) Adam is punished with thorns (ἄκανθα, Gen 3:18) and Jesus is punished with thorns (ἄκανθα, Jn 19:2; ἀκάνθινος, 19:5); (8) Adam is clothed in a garment of skin (Gen 3:21) and Jesus is clothed in a garment of glory (Jn 19:2.5). 60 D. Litwa, Behold Adam, p. 143. The Old Testament Background of “Ecce Homo” in John 19:5 509

ἄνθρωπος εἰς τὸν κόσμον). In Swain’s opinion, the allusion to Jesus’ suffering would be encapsulated in the mention of the pain (λύπη) and tribulation (θλῖψις) of a woman giving birth to a child. The man (ἄνθρωπος) from Jn 16:21 is in turn an allusion to the male offspring of the woman (γυνή) from Gen 3:15. This man is to be identified with the Messiah. Thus, Pilate unwittingly presents Jesus to the Jews as their Messiah who accomplished his mission through his suffering and death.61 All the above-mentioned intertextual connections resort to Adamic typology. An argument in favor of the existence of Adamic imagery in John 19:5 is the presence of the Adam typology elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel.62 Its presence in the Gospel of John is, however, questioned by some authors.63 Another argument in favor of Adamic typology is its intrinsic connection with the theme of Israel’s kingship, especially with the figures of David and Solomon.64 To sum up, the allusion of Adamic typology in Pilate’s ecce homo is very plausible.

6. The King of 1 Sm 9:17

Dieter Böhler argued that Pilate’s declaration ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος in John 19:5 alludes to 1 Sm 9:17 (LXX): ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὃν εἶπά σοι οὗτος ἄρξει ἐν τῷ λαῷ μου (“Behold, the man about whom I said to you: ‘This one will rule among my people’”). The expression ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος is pronounced by God and ad-

61 L. Swain, The Gospel, p. 228. The connection between Gen 3:16 and John 16:21 was amply elaborated by A. Feuillet, L’ h e u r e , pp. 178–179. 62 E.g. J.K. Brown, Creation’s Renewal, p. 281: “In view of the number of allusions to Genesis 1–2 in John 19–20 and specifically the Adam christology that emerges in 20:15 when Mary identifies Jesus as the gardener, it is likely that “Behold, the man” alludes to that first man, Adam, in the first creation story. Once again, John shows in narrative fashion that God is inaugurating creation’s renewal in Jesus, the “second Adam”. Even as Pilate declares, “Behold, the man,” on the story level, on the discourse level the implied author is signaling that Jesus is the center of creational renewal.” Brown also provides bibliographical references to the authors who share her interpretation. 63 Craig Keener (Gospel of John, p. 1077) excludes any reference to the Garden of Eden in the Johannine use of the word κηπος (18:1; 19:41), arguing that “John nowhere else uses any explicit Adam Christology.” C.R. Sosa Siliezar, Creation Imagery, p. 22: “[Jesus] is never explicitly (or even implicitly) portrayed as ‘Adam’ or ‘new Adam’.” 64 Y. Simoens (Secondo Giovanni, p. 729) combines Adamic imagery in Jn 19:5 with the purport of sapiential texts such as Ps 8:6; Sira 17:1–4 and Wis 2:2–3. See also E.W. Klink, John, p. 778: “[I]n light of the Genesis-laden context of the Gospel of John and the Genesis lens applied to its interpretive telling of the person and work of Jesus, the connection to Adam is hardly a stretch. And the “royal” context is also implicit to Adam.” 510 Adam Kubiś

dressed to Samuel, with reference to Saul as the first king over the Israelites. The expression ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος would be understood as a royal title, the proclamation of Jesus’ kingship. Pilate would then deliver the same message about the kingship of Jesus on two occasions, in Jn 19:5 (Ecce homo!) and 19:14 (Ecce rex vester!). Moreover, the proclamation is to be understood as originating from God, the Father. Pilate would only serve as a channel of this communication, an unwitting prophet. Dieter Böhler also draws attention to the literary context of 1 Sm 9:17, namely the rejection of God’s kingdom by the Israelites in 1 Sm 8. The same rejection of Jesus’ kingdom, by the Israelites, occurs during the trial before Pilate. In Jn 18:40, they reject the release of Jesus, ὁ βασιλεύς τῶν Ἰουδαίων (18:39), preferring Barabbas. And in 19:15, the high priests profess: “We have no king except Caesar!” The rejection of Jesus as the king of the Jews in exchange for the human king Caesar in John 18–19 is then paralleled with the rejection of God as Israel’s king in exchange for the human king Saul in 1 Sm 8–9.65 Dieter Böhler’s proposal was received sympathetically by a number of scholars.66 In the opinion of Andrew Lincoln, the allusion to 1 Sm 9:17 LXX is “by far the most plausible suggestion for a secondary and ironic connotation […]. The correspondence in wording is precise. […] The irony is appropriate. John’s formulation of Pilate’s mockery of both Jesus and Jewish notions of kingship employs the words used of Israel’s very first king and thereby reinforces Jesus’ true identity as ‘King of the Jews’. In this way ‘Here is the man’ anticipates Pilate’s explicit ‘Here is your king’ in v. 14.”67 In Craig Keener’s opinion, “John may well expect the more biblically literate members of his audience to recall Samuel’s acclamation of Israel’s first king with identical words.”68 Michael Theo- bald underlines the connection, present in both texts, between seeing the man and his royal dignity, although he also identifies different goals for the phrase in question: In 1 Sam the phrase identifies a person in order to be recognized by Samuel as a future king; in John the phrase does not serve to identify a person, but to demonstrate this person’s harmlessness and vulnerability.69 However, on the deeper level of meaning, the Johannine phrase can also serve as revealing the identity of Jesus. The reader can recognize the allusion and see that God himself identifies Jesus as a true king and true human.

65 D. Böhler, “Ecce Homo!”, pp. 106–108. 66 Cf. X. Léon-Dufour, Lecture, p. 98; M.M. Thompson, John, p. 383. 67 A. Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John, p. 466. 68 C. Keener, Gospel of John, p. 1123. 69 M. Theobald, Ecce homo, ad loc. The Old Testament Background of “Ecce Homo” in John 19:5 511

The choice of 1 Sm 9:17 as a hypotext of the Johannine ecce homo can also be corroborated by arguing that ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος in John 19:5 was pronounced by Jesus himself. In fact, there is no explicit indication in the text who is speak- ing these words. Thus some scholars, for example Friedheim Wessel, James Leslie Houlden and Roberto Vignolo, interpret the expression as spoken by Jesus.70 Roberto Vignolo presented five arguments in favor of this view. The final one is the intertextual reference to 1 Sm 9:17. His four other arguments are as follows: First, from the syntactical point of view, the implicit subject of λέγει in 19:5b is to be determined by identifying the nearest explicit subject in the preceding text: ἐξῆλθεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἔξω, φορῶν τὸν ἀκάνθινον στέφανον καὶ τὸ πορφυροῦν ἱμάτιον (19:5a). The explicit subject of ἐξῆλθεν and φορῶν is ὁ Ἰησοῦς. An argument against it, although not very robust, is the fact that during the Roman trial Jesus never speaks to the Jews. Second, from the narratological perspective, Pilate, who is very active and promises to bring Jesus out to the Jews (19:4), suddenly becomes passive in the next verse (19:5), where Jesus is unexpectedly very active as he alone exits the praetorium to meet his adversaries. This surprisingly active role of Jesus would proceed naturally if the declaration ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος were to be attributed to him. Jesus exercises the same liberty in exiting, expressed by the same verbal form ἐξῆλθεν, in 18:1.4 and 19:17. The verse in question becomes a narratological climax, represent- ing a reduplicated auto-presentation of Jesus, first on the level of action (mov- ing outside and his royal attire) and secondly on a verbal level, by Jesus’ own declaration. Third, Jesus’ proclamation ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος (19:5) conforms with the purport of his other utterances, especially in 8:40 and 18:37, where he de- fines himself as ἄνθρωπος, who was born in this world in order to testify to the truth. The ecce homo exclamation would encapsulate the same message but in an extremely elliptical way. Fourth, the pronunciation of ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος by Jesus, being the last Johannine occurrence of the term ἄνθρωπος, creates a rhe- torical climax of the Johannine theology of incarnation.71 This last argument

70 See the ample discussion in R. Vignolo, Chi pronuncia, pp. 717–726. Cf. J.L. Houl- den, John 19.5, pp. 148–149. The rejection of this view in D.F. Gniesmer, In den Prozeß, p. 200, note 871. Anthony Hanson (The Prophetic Gospel, p. 204) commented on this view: “This is original and interesting but not really appropriate to the context. The Jesus of the Gospel is more likely to point out his divinity than his humanity.” 71 John 19:5 is the last occurrence of the term ἄνθρωπος in John’s Gospel. The term occurs 60 times in this Gospel and thirteen of these instances refer to Jesus (4:29; 5:12; 9:11.16bis.24; 10:33; 11:47.50; 18:14.17.29; 19:5). In the twelve other instances ἄνθρωπος occurs in the phrase “the Son of Man”, which also refers to Jesus. Compared to the three other canonical Gospels, the number of occurrences of ἄνθρωπος employed to designate Jesus is highest in John. 512 Adam Kubiś

can be countered by the observation that ἄνθρωπος does not occur in state- ments about Jesus’ incarnation.72

7. The Bridegroom of the Song of Songs

The reference to the figure of King Solomon in Song 3:11 is to be viewed here as a final proposal for the intertextual background of Pilate’s declaration “Be- hold, the man!” To my knowledge, such an Old Testament background is never mentioned by modern commentators of John 19:5, and I am indebted to Nina Heereman for drawing my attention to such a possibility.73 There are a few arguments in favor of this intertextual allusion. (1) Both Solomon in the Song of Songs and Jesus in the Gospel of John (see 3:29) are presented as bride- grooms. (2) Both Solomon and Jesus are described explicitly as kings by the use of the lexeme βασιλεύς (Song 3:11; Jn 19:2–3.5.12.14.15). (3) Both Solomon and Jesus are wearing crowns (στέφανος – Song 3:11; Jn 19:2.5). (4) In both cases – Solomon and Jesus – the context of coronation is the same, namely their weddings. Coronation of the bridegroom must have been an ancient custom, although it is elsewhere attested only in 3 Maccabees 4:8 (written around the turn of eras) and in rabbinic sources (m. Sota 9:14; t. Sota 15:8; b. Sota 49b). In Song 3:11, the nuptial context is stated explicitly (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ νυμφεύσεως αὐτοῦ). In the Gospel of John, Jesus’ wedding, taking place at the “hour” of his death, is implicit, although proleptically enacted during the wedding in Cana (2:1–11). (5) In both texts the mother (μήτηρ) of the king is mentioned explicitly (Song 3:11; Jn 19:25–27), but his bride implicitly. (6) In both texts the action takes place in Jerusalem. This is evident in the Hebrew text of Song 3:11, referring to the “daughters of Zion” (cf. 3:5.10 – “daughters of Jerusalem”, and 3:4 – “city”). (7) The immediately preceding verses of Song, namely 3:1–4, are alluded to in the Johannine description of the encounter between Jesus and Mary Magdalene (Jn 20:1–18).74 The presence of Song 3:1–4 in John 20:1–18 makes more plausible the presence of the same chapter of Song of Songs in the preceding narrative, namely in John 19:5.14. (8) The Fourth Gospel contains

72 R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, p. 452, note 72. 73 Nina Heereman presented a paper during Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense LXVII in July 2018, suggesting the possibility of an intertextual allusion to Sg 3:11 in Pilate’s words ecce homo. Her insights will surely be published in a due course. Since I did not participate in the symposium and have no access to her paper, I will present my own argumentation in favor of this hypothesis. 74 M. Cambe, L’influence, pp. 17–18; J. McWhirter, Bridegroom, pp. 93–96. The Old Testament Background of “Ecce Homo” in John 19:5 513

a significant number of other recognized allusions to the Song of Songs.75 (9) Solomon was understood in Judaism as a messianic figure (cf. Ps 72; 127; PsSol 17)76 and Song of Songs was also interpreted messianically. The best witness of the messianic understanding of the Song of Songs is its targumic version. (10) The figure of the bridegroom in the Song of Songs has also been interpreted as the God of Israel. This allegorical interpretation appears to be very ancient (it could even have happened already before the final fixing of the text of the Song of Songs77) and predates the Fourth Gospel, in which Jesus is presented as equal to God of Israel. In fact, the immediate context of Jn 19:5 speaks of Jesus as the Son of God (19:7). (11) The Solomonic typology was employed elsewhere by the authors of the NT (e.g. Mt 2:1–12; Eph 2:13–22). This fact al- lows any reader to discover the Johannine intertextual identification of Jesus with Solomon in Song of Songs. (12) Adamic typology, present in the Fourth Gospel, is also connected with Solomon, who in biblical tradition is presented as first Adam, the king.78 (13) The interpretation of Jesus’ death as the moment of his wedding with the Church is widespread among ancient and medieval commentators. Most importantly, however, many of them interpreted Jesus’ coronation in Jn 19:2.5 in light of the reference to Solomon’s coronation in Song 3:11.79 Thus, the history of interpretation of Song 3:11 demonstrates the histori-

75 A. Roberts Winsor, A King; A. Taschl-Erber, Der messianische Bräutigam, pp. 323– 375. 76 B. Renaud, Salomon, pp. 409–426; J. Verheyden, The Figure of Solomon. 77 N.S. Heereman, Behold King Solomon!, pp. 191–219; N.S. Heereman,“Behold King Solomon on the Day of His Wedding!”, forthcoming. 78 J.-P. Sonnet, Côté cour, pp. 247–260. 79 Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394), interpreting Song 3:11, states that God Father placed the crown on the head of Jesus in fulfillment of Ps 20:4 (“you set on his head a crown of precious stone”). As God is not a sexual being, he can perform an act ascribed in Song 3:11 to the king’s mother (Homiliae in Canticum Canticorum, GNO 6,214). According to Nilus of Ancyra (d. 430), Solomon’s wedding in Song 3:11 should be interpreted as Jesus’ wedding enacted by his death on the cross. Solomon’s crown is to be identified with Jesus’ crown of thorns, and Solomon’s mother with the Synagogue or Israel, in which Jesus grew up. The entire verse is spoken by the friends of the bridegroom, namely the prophets, who call the pagan nations to come out of the darkness of unbelief and to contemplate the day of Je- sus’ wedding (Commentarius in Canticum Canticorum, SC 403,362). Theodoret of Cyrus (d. 466) identifies Solomon’s mother with Jesus’ mother, which should be understood as Judea. She crowns Jesus with the “crown of love” (τῆς ἀγάπης στέφανον), because Jesus’ death is his wedding ceremony with the Church (In Canticum Canticorum, PG 81,128A-B). Michael Psellos (d. 1078) sees in the figure of Solomon’s mother “the love of the Father” (ἡ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀγάπη) towards Jesus, the bridegroom of the Church (Commentarius in Can- ticum Canticorum; PG 122,608B). Among the Latin writers, Justus of Urgell (d. 546) identi- 514 Adam Kubiś

cal plausibility of interpreting Pilate’s words in John 19:5 in light of Song 3:11 by competent first century readers. To sum up, the cumulative force of all the above-mentioned arguments is impressive. It renders quite persuasive the proposal that Pilate’s ecce homo lies an allusion to the messianic bridegroom of the Song of Songs.

Conclusion

Dawid Litwa makes the pertinent observation that “in 19:5 there is a surplus of meaning which goes beyond any intertextual echo or suggested background.”80 After the above scrutiny, one can easily concur with this view. None of the above proposals should be regarded as the uniquely true one that automatically excludes the others. Irony, double entendre, metaphor, riddle, misunderstanding and so on are the techniques employed by John to convey a real polyphony of meanings. As Gail R. O’Day aptly noted: “There is always some kind of opposition between two levels of meaning in irony – either contradiction, incongruity, or incompatibility.” This polyphony of meanings should not be seen outside the text, as independent or removed from it, but rather, in Gail R. O’Day’s words, “in and through the expressed meaning”.81 Applying this theory to Pilate’s words, the primary meaning can easily refer to Jesus’ humanity, but the secondary meaning might evoke not only Jesus’ royalty, but even his divine identity. The prospective reader, envisioned already by John, is to be regarded as an intelligent expert, acquainted with the reach of Old Testament imagery, who detects at least two levels of meaning in Pilate’s words. Defining the primary, literal meaning, the reader should then be ready to discover also the ul-

fies the wedding day of Solomon with the day of Jesus’ passion: Qui dies passionis fuit etiam dies laetitiae cordis eius (Explicatio in Catnticum Canticorum, PL 67,976). According to Bede the Venerable (d. 735), Solomon’s coronation performed by his mother refers to the incarnation of the Son of Man from Mary. The incarnation, and not crucifixion, is then understood as the messianic wedding (Allegorica expositio in Cantica Canticorum, CCL 119B,242–243). Angelomus of Luxeul (d. 895) combines two interpretations of Jesus’ wedding with the Church. In the first one, Jesus’ coronation refers to assuming the human body from Mary; in the second one, Jesus’ coronation refers to the crown of thorns (Enarrationes in Canticum Canticorum, PL 115,606). According to Wolbero of Cologne (d. 1167), Solomon’s coronation is the pivotal point of the whole Song of Songs. The moment of coronation refers to the incarnation as well as to Jesus’ crucifixion, when he accepts the Church as his bride (Comm. in Cant.; PL 195,1146–1147). 80 D. Litwa, Behold Adam, p. 135. 81 Both quotes after G.R. O’Day, Revelation, pp. 23 and 8. The Old Testament Background of “Ecce Homo” in John 19:5 515

terior, theological meaning, which sometimes can differ in its purport from the former meaning. Pursuing this deeper meaning, the reader is invited to make multiple connections between Pilate’s words and their Old Testament referents. This kind of intertextual reading enables a reader to see in Pilate’s declaration a statement about Jesus real identity, which can be defined expansively as the true king of Israel, the Messiah, the Suffering Servant, the new Adam, the eschatological judge and universal ruler, the Son of God, and finally the messianic and divine Bridegroom. Again, none of these meanings excludes any of the others, rather they converge and paint together one multi-hued image of Jesus. Frederick Dale Bruner puts this polyvalent meaning in a very emphatic way, arguing that the audience of Pilate’s words “gets an actual view of “The Man”, the representative human being, the Son of Man, Son of God, Second Adam, Son of David, Humanity’s God-given and Humanity-assuming Substitute and Representative.”82

References

Barrett, C.K., The Gospel according to St John. An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (London: SPCK 21978). Bauer, W., Das Johannesevangelium (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 6; Tübingen: Mohr 1933). Beutler, J., Das Johannesevangelium. Kommentar (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder 2013). Blank, J., “Die Verhandlung vor Pilatus Joh 18,28–19,6 im Lichte johanneischer The- ologie”, Biblische Zeitschrift 3 (1959), pp. 60–81. Böhler, D., “ ‘Ecce Homo!’ (Joh 19,5) ein Zitat aus dem Alten Testament,” Biblische .Zeitschrif 39/1 (1995), pp. 104–108 Bond, H.K., Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation (Society for New Testament Studies. Monograph Series 100; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1998). ,Bond, H.K., Discarding the Seamless Robe. Te High Priesthood of Jesus in John’s Gospel in: Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children. Christology and Community in Early Ju- daism and Christianity. Essays in Honor of Larry W. Hurtado and Alan F. Segal (eds. D.B. Capes – A.D. DeConick – H.K. Bond – T. Miller) (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press 2007), pp. 183–194. Borchert, G.L., John 12–21 (The New American Commentary 25B; Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group 2002). Brown, J.K., “Creation’s Renewal in the Gospel of John,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72 (2010), pp. 275–290. Brown, R.E., The Gospel according to John (xiii–xxi). Introduction, Translation, and No- tes (The Anchor Bible 29A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday 1970).

82 F.D. Bruner, The Gospel of John, p. 1072. 516 Adam Kubiś

Bruner, F.D., The Gospel of John. A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans 2012). Bultmann, R., The Gospel of John. A Commentary (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press 1971). Cambe, M., “L’influence du Cantique des Cantiques sur le Nouveau Testament,” Revue Thomiste 58 (1962), pp. 5–26. Coloe, M.L., Dwelling in the Household of God. Johannine Ecclesiology and Spirituality (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press 2007). Coloe, M.L., “The Johannine Pentecost: John 1:19–2:12,” Australian Biblical Review 55 (2007), pp. 41–56. Coloe, M.L., “The Nazarene King. Pilate’s Title as the Key to John’s Crucifixion,” in: The Death of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (ed. G. van Belle) (Leuven – Dudley, MA: Leuven University Press; Peeters 2007), pp. 839–848. Derrett, J.D.M., “Ecce homo ruber (John 19,5 with Isaiah 1,18; 63,1–2),” Bibbia e Orien- te 32/4 (1990), pp. 215–229. Ehrman, B.D., The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York, NY – Oxford: Oxford University Press 1993). Feuillet, A., “L’heure de la femme (Jn 16,21) et l’heure de la Mère de Jesus (Jn 19,25– 27),” Biblica 47 (1966), pp. 169–184; 361–380; 557–573. Gniesmer, D.F., “In den Prozeß verwickelt. Erzähltextanalytische und textpragmatische Erwägungen zur Erzählung vom Prozeß Jesu vor Pilatus (Joh 18,28–19,16a.b)” (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/688; Frankfurt am Main: Lang 2000). Gnilka, J., Johannesevangelium (Die Neue Echter Bibel. Kommentar zum Neuen Testa- ment mit der Einheitsübersetzung 4; Würzburg: Echter Verlag 1983). Grimm, W., “Die Preisgabe eines Menschen zur Rettung des Volkes. Priesterliche Tra- dition bei Johannes und Josephus,” in: Josephus-Studien. Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet (eds. O. Betz – K. Haacker – M. Hengel) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1974), pp. 133–146. Hanson, A.T., The Prophetic Gospel. A Study of John and the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1991). Heereman, N.S., “Behold King Solomon on the Day of His Wedding!”. A Symbolic Dia- chronic Reading of Song 3:6–11 and 4:12–5:1 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum The- ologicarum Lovaniensium; Leuven: Peeters) forthcoming. Heereman, N.S., “Behold King Solomon!” Symbolic Inner-biblical Interpretation in Song 3:6–11, in: Interpreting the Song of Songs. Literal or Allegorical? (eds. A. Schellen- berg – L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger) (Biblical Tools and Studies 26; Leuven – Bristol CT: Peeters 2016), pp. 181–219. Heil, J.P., “Jesus as the Unique High Priest in the Gospel of John,” Catholic Biblical Qu- arterly 57 (1995), pp. 729–745. Houlden, J.L., “John 19.5: ‘And he said to them, Behold, the man’,” Expository Times 92/5 (1981), pp. 148–149. The Old Testament Background of “Ecce Homo” in John 19:5 517

Hunt, L.J., Ecce homo or Hic vir? Translation and Allusion in John 19:5 (Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Diego, California, November 22, 2014). Keener, C.S., Gospel of John. A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson 2003). Klink, E.W., John (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 2016). Kubiś, A., The Book of Zechariah in the Gospel of John (Études bibliques. Nouvelle série 64; Pendé: Gabalda 2012). Kubiś, A., “Zechariah 6:12–13 as the Referent of graphē in John 2:22 and 20:9. A Contri- bution to Johannine Temple-Christology,” Biblical Annals 2 (2012), pp. 153–194. La Potterie, I. de, “Jésus roi et juge d’après Jn 19,13: ekathisen epi bēmatos,” Biblica 41 (1960), pp. 217–247. Léon-Dufour, X., Lecture de l’Évangile selon Jean. IV. L’heure de la glorification (chapitres 18–21) (Paris: Éditions du Seuil 1996). Lincoln, A., The Gospel According to Saint John (Black’s New Testament Commentaries; London: Continuum 2005). Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (New Century Bible; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott 1972). Litwa, M.D., “Behold Adam. A Reading of John 19:5,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 32 (2010), pp. 129–143. Manns, F., “Exégèse rabbinique et exégèse johannique,” Revue biblique 92 (1985), pp. 525–538. Marcus, J., “Son of Man as Son of Adam,” Revue biblique 110 (2003), pp. 38–61; 370–386. McWhirter, J., Bridegroom Messiah and the People of God. Marriage in the Fourth Gospel (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 138; Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press 2006). Meeks, W.A., The Prophet-King. Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (Sup- plements to Novum Testamentum 14; Leiden: Brill 1967). Michaels, J.R., The Gospel of John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans 2010). Moloney, F.J., The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina 4; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press 1998). Moloney, F.J., “The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man”, in: Parables of Enoch. A Paradigm Shift (eds. J.H. Charlesworth – D.L. Bock) (Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies Series 11; London: Bloomsbury 2013), pp. 269–293. O’Day, G.R., Revelation in the Fourth Gospel. Narrative Mode and Theological Claim (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress 1986). Oswalt, J.N., The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 40–66 (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans 1998). Panackel, C., IDOU O ANTHRŌPOS (Jn 19,5b). An Exegetico-Theological Study of the Text in the Light of the Use of the Term ANTHRŌPOS Designating Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Analecta Gregoriana 251. Series Facultatis Theologiae. Sectio B 85; Roma: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana 1988). 518 Adam Kubiś

-Petterson, A.R., Behold Your King. Te Hope for the House of David in the Book of Ze chariah (Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 513; New York, NY: T & T Clark 2009). Renaud, B., “Salomon, figure du Messie,” Revue des Sciences Religieuses 68/4 (1994), pp. 409–426. Reynolds, B.E., “The Enochic Son of Man and the Apocalyptic Background of the Son of Man Sayings in John’s Gospel,” in: Parables of Enoch. A Paradigm Shift (eds. J.H. Charlesworth – D.L. Bock) (Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies Series 11; London: Bloomsbury 2013), pp. 294–314. Richardson, A., The Gospel According to Saint John. Introduction and Commentary (London: SCM 1959). Ripley, J.J., “ ‘Behold the Man’? Subverting Imperial Masculinity in the Gospel of John,” Journal of the Bible and its Reception 2/2 (2015), pp. 219–239. Roberts Winsor, A., A King is Bound in the Tresses. Allusions to the Song of Songs in the Fourth Gospel (Studies in Biblical Literature 6; New York, NY: Peter Lang 1999). Rose, W.H., Zemah and Zerubbabel. Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Pe- riod (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series 304; Shef- field: Sheffield Academic Press 2000). Schnackenburg, R., “Die Ecce-homo-Szene und der Menschensohn,“ in: Jesus und der Menschensohn. Für Anton Vögtle zur Vollendung des 65. Lebensjahres am 17. Dezember 1975 von Freunden und Kollegen gewidmet (ed. R. Pesch) (Freiburg im Br.: Herder 1975), pp. 371–386. Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel according to St John. Volume Three. Commentary on Chapters 13–21 (Herder’s Theological Commentary on the New Testament; New York, NY: Crossroad 1990). Simoens, Y., Secondo Giovanni. Una traduzione e un’interpretazione (Testi e commenti; Bologna: EDB 2000). Söding, T., “Ecce homo. Die johanneische Ikone des Menschen,” Zeitschrift für Theolo- gie und Kirche 114/2 (2017), pp. 119–137. Sonnet, J.-P., Côté cour, côté jardin. Salomon, l’Adam royal, in: Le Roi Salomon, un héri- tage en question. Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen (eds. C. Lichtert – D. Nocquet) (Bruxelles: Lessius 2008), pp. 247–260. Sosa Siliezar, C.R., Creation Imagery in the Gospel of John (The Library of New Testa- ment Studies 546; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark 2015). Suggit, J., “John 19:5: ‘Behold the man’,” Expository Times 94 (1983), pp. 334–335. Swain, L., The Gospel according to St John (New Testament for Spiritual Reading 4; Lon- don: Sheed and Ward 1978). Taschl-Erber, A., “Der messianische Bräutigam: Zur Hohelied-Rezeption im Johanne- sevangelium,” in: Das Hohelied im Konflikt der Interpretationen (ed. L. Schwien- horst-Schönberger) (Österreichische Biblische Studien; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang 2017), pp. 323–375. Theobald, M., “Ecce homo – Christus und der geschundene Mensch. Eine exegetisch- rezeptionsgeschichtliche Betrachtung zu Joh 19,4–7,” Theologische Quartalschrift 197/4 (2017), pp. 359–374. The Old Testament Background of “Ecce Homo” in John 19:5 519

Thompson, M.M., John. A Commentary (New Testament library; Louisville, KY: West- minster John Knox Press 2015). Tolmie, D.F., “Pontius Pilate: Failing in More Ways Than One,” in: Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John (eds. S.A. Hunt – D.F. Tolmie – R. Zimmermann) (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchun- gen zum Neuen Testament 314; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2013), pp. 578–597. Verheyden, J., “I. de la Potterie on John 19,13,” in: The Death of Jesus in the Fourth Go- spel (ed. G. van Belle) (Leuven – Dudley, MA: Leuven University Press; Peeters 2007), pp. 817–837. Verheyden, J. (ed.), The Figure of Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition. King, Sage and Architect (Leiden – Boston: Brill 2013). Vignolo, R., “Chi pronuncia l’”ecce homo” (Gv 19,5c)? Ovvero la ritrattazione d’una consuetudine,” Studia patavina 50 (2003), pp. 717–726. Wahlde, U.C. von, The Gospel and Letters of John. II. Commentary on the Gospel of John (The Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans 2010). Watson, W.G.E., “Fixed Pairs in Ugaritic and Isaiah,” Vetus Testamentum 22 (1972), pp. 460–468.