A Quest for the Intertextual Jesus? His view of Scripture

The Gospels, especially Matthew’s, speak of Jesus fulfilling Scripture, but what did Jesus himself think of the Scriptures? In other words, what might we know about the historical Jesus and his view of Jewish sacred texts that today are called the Old Testament?

It is not enough to point to a passage such as John 10:35 in which Jesus considers Scripture to be the word of God and claims that it cannot be broken. Most texts in John are unique in what they claim about Jesus, and this Gospel was written towards the end of the first century, more than half a century removed from the times of Jesus. Hence, a number of scholars question whether the historical Jesus actually said these things, or whether we are hearing instead a paraphrase or embellishment from the Johannine author.

Sayings attributed to Jesus that come from the Synoptic Gospels, especially Mark, the triple tradition (Matt, Mark, Luke), and Q (a non-extant source for Matthew and Luke), are often considered older and more reliable information about Jesus.* Sayings from these sources more credibly reflect and characterize the substance of what the historical Jesus might have said, according to a number of scholars. We will focus on these sources regarding Jesus’s view of Scripture.**

Jesus and Scripture

1. The commandment of God from Scripture is the word of God

In Mark 7, Jesus speaks of Scripture as the “word of God” when contesting the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees who criticize his disciples eating with impure hands (Mark 7:13). The discourse is also repeated with various nuances in Matthew (Matt 15:6). The passage Jesus cites is from the Ten Commandments— honor one’s parents, and to revile them results in death (Exod 20–21). Hence, to identify God’s commandment as the word of God is not surprising, though one may adduce from this that Jesus assumes the Torah as authoritative.

In the Q tradition, Jesus quotes Scripture when contesting with Satan in the wilderness. Among the Scriptures he cites is Deut 8:3, in which he claims that a person should not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (Matt 4:4; though Luke 4:4 adopts a shorter version in the oldest manuscripts). Utmost attention and loyalty, then, are required by what is perceived to be divine communication.

2. The Law of Moses is authoritative

In Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount, often regarded as having authentic teachings of Jesus, Matt 5:17–19 has Jesus claiming that Mosaic law and the Prophets are binding and authoritative until all is fulfilled. A nuance of this saying is repeated in Luke 16:17. Given the high regard for the Law in this text, it meets the criterion of embarrassment—early gentile churches that stressed faith against works of the Law might be tempted to omit it.***

Similarly, with high regard for Genesis, Jesus promotes marriage between men and women in Mark 10:6–8 (also in Matt 19) based on Gen 1:27; 2:24. Also, the famous love commands from Deut 6:4–5 and Lev 19:18 Jesus stresses in the triple tradition (Mark 12:29–31; cf. Matt 22:34–40; Luke 10:25–28). He likewise contests the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection by appealing to Exod 3:6 in the triple tradition (Mark 12:26–27 cf. Matt 22:31–32; Luke 20:37–38).

3. The Prophets in Scripture are assumed to prophesy by the hand of God, and certain things they communicated are being fulfilled in Jesus’s day

In the context of Mark 7, Jesus claims that fulfillment of Scripture related to the prophets, notably Isaiah, is taking place with regard to the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of his day (Mark 7:5–8/ Isa 29:13; also in Matt 15:7–9). Other fulfillments include Zechariah 13:7 in Mark 14:27. In the triple tradition, Jesus refers to Isa 6:9–10 to speak of the spiritual blindness of the people (Mark 4:12; Matt 13:13–15; Luke 8:10; cf. John 12:37–40 here apparently said by John).

4. Jesus speaks of his own identity through Scripture as Messiah, Lord, and Son of Man

Jesus alludes to himself as the anointed one (Messiah) with the Spirit in Isa 61:1–2 in Q (Luke 7:18–23; Matt 11:2–6). When contesting with religious leaders in Jerusalem, he implicates himself as the Lord who is exalted in Psalm 110 in the triple tradition (Mark 12:35–37; Matt 22:41–46; Luke 20:41–44). In Q, he refers to himself by quoting Psalm 118:26: “blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” (= YHWH in Hebrew) (Luke 13:35/Matt 23:39). He affirms “I am” to the high priest’s question on whether he is the Messiah and Son of God. He then follows this up by referring to himself as the exalted son of Man at the right hand of God, based on Dan 7:13. These claims are interpreted as blasphemy at his trial (Mark 14:61-63; Matt 26:63-65; cf. Luke 22:69–71).

5. Jesus implicates his death and resurrection from Scripture

When Jesus claims at his arrest, “that the Scripture might be fulfilled” in Mark 14:49, no reference to a particular Scripture is given. Contextually, this takes place at Jesus’s arrest, and so the issue perhaps deals with his upcoming death and resurrection. Such is the case in the creedlet of 1 Cor 15:3–4, and perhaps texts such as Isaiah 53 (the Suffering Servant) and Psalm 16 (life from the grave) are in view.  Similar affirmations by Jesus appear in the triple tradition of Mark 14:21; Matt 26:24; Luke 22:22.

In Q the sign of Jonah (three days in the great fish) is compared to the sign of Jesus being buried and implicated as returning to life again (Luke 11:29–30; Matt 12:39; 16:4).

6. Jesus and the canon of Scripture?

We have noticed already that Jesus regarded the Torah, Prophets, and Writings as authoritative based on the Scriptures he references such as from Moses, Isaiah, and the Psalms. The spectrum of such texts may appear to be what is meant in the Q (Luke 11:50–51 and Matt 23:35–36). Originally, this saying may have been understood this way: “ so that «a settling of accounts for» the blood of all the prophets poured out from the founding of the world may be required of this generation, from «the» blood of Abel to «the» blood of Zechariah, murdered between the sacrificial altar and the House. Yes, I tell you, «an accounting» will be required of this generation!” (James McConkey Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg, eds., The Critical Edition of Q, Hermeneia; Leuven: Peeters, 2000).

Cain slew Abel in Genesis 4:8, the beginning of the Jewish canon, and Zechariah was slain at the temple in 2 Chronicles 24:20–22. The Jewish canon places 2 Chronicles at the end of the Bible (b. Baba Batra 14b [1.1:6.IV9 A]). This shows the comprehensiveness of the act of murder required on the generation of that time, as though saying, “from the start and finish of Scripture…” (see John Nolland, Luke WBC 2:668).

Likewise, the witness of Cleopas or his unnamed companion appears to be the source behind Luke 24:25–27 (cf. vv. 44–46). Here, on the walk to Emmaus, the risen Jesus explains to them how he fulfills Moses and the Prophets. Richard Bauckham refers to the stories of Jairus’s daughter, blind Bartimaeus, Zacchaeus the tax collector, and Cleopas to write, “The last three of these four stories are certainly told from the perspective of the named characters. In fact, if the details in these stories really are recollected, rather than the product of storytelling imagination, they can only have been recalled by, respectively, Bartimaeus, Zacchaeus, and Cleopas (or his anonymous companion).” (Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitness, 2^nd ed., 2018:55).

7. A change of eras and a new covenant is anticipated through Jesus

In Q, Jesus implicates a new era after the time of John the Baptist, who is the greatest among prophets, though he is considered least with regard to those of the kingdom of God. “The law and the prophets «were» until John. From then on the kingdom of God is violated and the violent plunder it” (Luke 16:16; Matt 11:11–13; cf. Luke 7:26–28) (Robinson, et al., Critical Edition of Q version).

Also, Jesus proposes a covenant established by his blood (= death) at the Lord’s Supper, the new covenant according to Luke 22:14–20 and the oldest extant source of this tradition in 1 Cor 11:23–26. Jeremiah anticipates this covenant in Jer 31:31–34.

Conclusion

Based on these seven points, it is clear that the historical Jesus had a high regard for Scripture even though the new era he ushered is anticipated to be greater than what went before it.

Notes

 * One caveat here is that a growing number of scholars these days argue that Luke drew from Matthew rather than Q. If so, this view would consider Matthew’s Gospel as an older source than Luke. A question remains, however, on how old is Matthew. Most are comfortable dating Matthew post-70 CE. An earlier Hebrew version of it might have existed, if we accept what patristic writers say about it (e.g., Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.1.1; Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men 3; Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.24.26; 3.39.16; 5.10.3; 6.25.4). For a pre-70 date for both Matthew and Luke, see Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2022), 66–67.

 ** Helpful for my distilling Jesus’s words about Scripture in these traditions is especially Craig Blomberg, “Jesus’s Use of the OT” in Dictionary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale, D. A. Carson, Benjamin L. Gladd, and Andrew David Naselli (Baker Academic, 2023), 377–82. His bibliography is also very useful.

*** The criteria traditionally used to determine authenticity includes such tests as these:

• multiple attestation: whether a saying from Jesus is repeated in other Gospel texts.
• embarrassment: whether a saying would be awkward since it creates tensions with how Jesus and church teachings were interpretated later on.
• Semitic origin: whether a saying can be traced to Aramaic, Jesus’s language.
• divergence: whether a saying is retained despite its irrelevance or serving no purpose for the author to retain it.
• coherence: whether one text that is authenticated assists the authenticity of parallel texts.
• double dissimilarity: whether a saying is retained that sounds dissimilar to both ancient Judaism and the early church.

These criteria have come under heavy criticisms in recent years. Among other things, this is due to their positivist origin, attempt to find an absolute history, blindness to their own subjectivity and circular reasoning, atomistic ways of isolating texts and sayings of Jesus from larger contexts and themes, and inconsistencies and limitations among the various criteria.

For example, the criterion of double dissimilarity, when used as a way to disconfirm the authenticity of Jesus’s sayings, drastically and unfairly reduces the amount of “authentic” Jesus sayings. It would be better to argue, as N. T. Wright does, for double similarity rather than dissimilarity—that is, we should expect that an authentic saying of Jesus would fit contextually well with his life, times, and location. This means that authentic sayings of Jesus would seem to be consistent with both ancient Judaism and the earliest churches that were influenced by him.

Even so, I still consider tests such as multiple attestation and embarrassment to be of some value. They should not be ignored in my opinion. Mark L Strauss, Four Portraits, One Jesus, 2^nd ed. (Zondervan Academic, 2020), 435–39, provides a convenient list of traditional criteria along with some criticisms. For further critique and possible alternatives, see, e.g., Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne, eds., Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity (London: T&T Clark, 2012).