Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§15.3 Who Did They Think Jesus Was?
of the Temple provided the chief ground or excuse for bringing him before
Caiaphas's council. The charge was not without substance! 98
The point of more immediate relevance here is that the charge (regarding
the Temple's destruction and rebuilding) and Jesus' failure to respond to it are reported
as having provoked the question of the High Priest, 'Are you the Messiah,
the Son of the Blessed One?' (Mark 14.60-61)." Whether there was any connection
between the charge and the question has rarely been discussed, but in fact
the link between the Temple charge and the Messiah question gives a greater
credibility to the question than most seem to have realized. The link was recognized
by Otto Betz nearly four decades ago, but his insight has been rarely
acknowedged. 100
The link is provided by the ancient promise of 2 Sam. 7.12-14, the primary
root of Israel's ideology of Davidic kingship. For the promise of Nathan to David
was threefold: that he would have a son (son of David), who would build 'a
house for my name' (the Temple), and whom God would regard as his son (God's
son). It was Betz who first noticed that 4Q174 (4QFlor) 1.10-13 interpreted
2 Sam. 7.12-14 of the royal Messiah, the 'branch of David', and the relevance of
the text to the trial scene. For if a messianic reading of Nathan's prophecy was 'in
the air' at the time of Jesus, that would provide all the explanation necessary for
Caiaphas's question. In effect Caiaphas asks: 'You are charged with promising to
build the Temple. Do you then claim to fulfil Nathan's prophecy? Are you the
royal Messiah, God's son?' The prophecy of Nathan and its interpretation at
Qumran provide the missing link between charge and question. 101
The probability is strong, therefore, strong beyond plausible rebuttal, that
98. Horsley, Jesus 160-64.
99. On the issue whether the High Priest could/would have used the phrase 'the son of
the Blessed' see Brown, Death 469-70, and my 'Are You the Messiah?' 9-10, where I point out
that it is as difficult to explain the emergence of the phrase in the middle of the first century
(when Mark did use it) as in the year 30.
100. O. Betz, 'Die Frage nach dem messianischen Bewusstsein Jesu', NovT6 (1963) 24-
37; also 'Probleme' 625-28, 633-34. Exceptions are Meyer, Aims of Jesus 179-80; Hampel,
Menschensohn 174-75; and Witherington, Christology 258. Even Brown does not refer to it in
his exhaustive treatment of the passage in Death (though he does refer in his bibliography to
Betz's 'Probleme'), presumably because he himself does not pursue the question of the linkage
of thought between 14.58 and 14.61. In reference to Mark 14.53-65, our regular samples of
sceptical historicism, Funk, Five Gospels 121-22 ('mostly fabrication of the Christian imagination'),
and Lüdemann, Jesus 101-102 ('the historical value of the pericope is nil, apart from
v. 58') totally ignore the link indicated by Betz; similarly Legasse, Trial of Jesus 40-41;
Fredriksen, Jesus 222, 255.
101. Cf. also Zech. 6:12-13 — 'the man whose name is the Branch . . . shall build the
Temple of the Lord . . . and shall sit and rule upon his throne'. For other 'Branch' expectation
see above, §15.2a.
633