¹ Gibson, J., ‘Jesus' Refusal to Produce a “Sign” (Mk 8.11–13)’, JSNT 38 (1990) 37–66.Google Scholar

² Gibson, ‘Jesus’ Refusal to Produce a “Sign”', 53.

³ Rengstorf, K. H., ‘σημεον’, TDNT 6 (1971) 200–61, esp. 236.Google Scholar

⁴ Stolz, F., ‘“Zeichen und Wunder”: Die prophetische Legitimation und ihre Geschichte’, ZThK (1972) 125–44.Google Scholar

⁵ Glasson, T. F., ‘The Ensign of the Son of Man (Matt, xxiv.30)’, JTS n.s. 15 (1964) 299–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Toombs, L. E., ‘Ideas of War’, in IDB 4 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962) 796–801.Google Scholar

⁷ de Vaux, R., Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961) 259–67.Google Scholar

⁸ De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 263–5; Toombs, ‘Ideas of War’, 798–9.

⁹ Toombs, ‘Ideas of War’, 799–800.

¹⁰ See Ford, J. M., Revelation (Garden City: Doubleday, 1975) 52ff., 321–2, 348, 362Google Scholar; Collins, A. Y., The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation (Missoula: Scholars, 1976)Google Scholar; Bauckham, R., ‘The Book of Revelation as a Christian War Scroll’, Neotestamentica 22 (1988)17–40.Google Scholar

¹¹ De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 277; Wevers, J. W., ‘Methods of War’, in IDB 4, 801–5, esp. 803.Google Scholar

¹² De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 227.

¹³ Wevers, J. W., ‘Banner’, in IDB 1, 347–8.Google Scholar

¹⁴ De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 227.

¹⁵ De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 227.

¹⁶ My translation.

¹⁷ von Rad, G., Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951) 50–68.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Von Rad, Heilige Krieg, 56–62.

¹⁹ The text used is that of Elliger, K. & Rudolph, W., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1966/7).Google Scholar

²⁰ The text used will be that of Stenning, J. F., The Targum of Isaiah (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949).Google Scholar

²¹ The text used will be that of Rahlfs, A., Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesell-schaft, 1935).Google Scholar

²² See Chilton, B. D., The Glory of Israel (Sheffield: JSOT, 1982) 1–12;Google ScholarThe Isaiah Targum (New York: Glazier, 1987) 20–25Google Scholar. Chilton argues that the Targum ‘better represents an interpretative ethos than a single historical period’, but that ‘Individual passages, in their coherence with Rabbinica, intertestamental literature and the New Testament, and in their allusions to historical circumstances, may be datable to a considerable extent’ (Isaiah Targum, xxv). It would, thus, be rash to use the evidence in the Targum to attempt to date the tradition in the New Testament. Nevertheless, if the use of the tradition of the totem in the Targum and in the NT converges, then one could argue for an early provenance for the tradition.

²³ Chilton (Isaiah Targum, 13) suggests that it refers to a king of the Gentiles, but this is not clear from the text.

²⁴ Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targum, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature 1–2 (New York: Traditional, 1950) 313–14.Google Scholar

²⁵ Jastrow, Dictionary of the Talmud, 887.

²⁶ Liddell, H. G. & Scott, R., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968) 1734a.Google Scholar

²⁷ Chilton (Isaiah Targum, 28) translates, ‘And it shall come to pass in that time that to the son of the son of Jesse who is about to stand as an ensign to the peoples, to him shall kingdoms be obedient.’ It is possible, but unlikely, that the reference is to the ‘son of the son of Jesse’ setting up the totem (piel), since one would expect the hiphil.

²⁸ LXX reads πτερύγων in a literal rendering of ; Vg reads plagis, the four regions or quarters of the air.

²⁹ So Stenning (Targum, 44), contra Chilton (Isaiah Targum, 30). The ‘willingness’ would then be ascribed to the warriors who are signalled by the wave of the hand to invade the city.

³⁰ Cf. Chilton (Isaiah Targum, 62–3), ‘His rulers shall pass away before terror, and his princes break up before the standard.’

³¹ Jastrow, Dictionary of the Talmud, 914–15.

³² Chilton (Isaiah Targum, 98) has ‘over’.

³³ Box, G. H., The Testament of Abraham (London: SPCK, 1927) 17.Google Scholar

³⁴ Jellinek, B.H., 6.71–8.

³⁵ Glasson (‘Ensign of the Son of Man’, 300) wrongly identifies the with the OT .

³⁶ These banners may well have had a genuine military function according to Yadin, Y. (The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness [Oxford: University, 1962] 38–64)Google Scholar. Cf. van der Ploeg, J. (Le Rouleau de la Guerre [Leiden: Brill, 1959])Google Scholar; Davies, P. R. (1QM, The War Scroll from Qumran. Its Structure and History [Rome: Biblical Institute, 1977])Google Scholar and R. Bauckham, ‘Christian War Scroll’, 17–10.

³⁷ We would do well to heed the warning of von Rad against a too ready spiritualizing of the concept: ‘Indessen zeigt gerade unser Beispiel, daß dieser Prozeß der Vergeistigung nicht als eine Ablösung und Fortsetzung des älteren kultisch-sakralen Verständnisses sozusagen auf höherer Ebene zu verstehen ist. Er vollzieht sich nicht sozusagen auf Kosten des Alten, sondern das, was wir in spiritualisierter Gestalt antreffen, das sind doch nur Partikeln, die aus dem Schoß der alten Institution entlassen und ins Geistige hinausge-geben sind, ohne daß die Institution selbst – obgleich lange Zeiten kaum praktiziert – als solche wirklich aufgehört hätte. Sie war doch da und konnte auch nach langem Quies-zieren wieder in Funktion treten’ (Heilige Krieg, 80).

³⁸ The translations of the Scrolls offered here are my own.

³⁹ Cf. Glasson, ‘Ensign of the Son of Man’, 300. There is a tantalizing echo of the totem symbolism in the action of the popular Messiah Simon bar Giora, during the war of 66–70 AD (BJ 4.503–8). This Simon clearly made claims to kingship (ὡς πρòς βασιλέα BJ 4. 510). His first action, to inaugurate his claim to kingship, after the murder of the High Priest Ananus, was to withdraw to the hills (εἰς τὴν ὀρεινὴν ἀφίσταται), and to proclaim liberty to slaves and rewards to those who were already free. This was aimed at gathering the people around him (συνήθροιζεν). Sadly, for our purposes, there is no mention of the raising of the banner, but the rest of the description seems to indicate that this was Simon's intention in withdrawing to the hills. His action was highly successful and he succeeded in putting together the semblance of a government and in bringing a measure of order into the Jewish revolt. (See Michel, O., ‘Simon bar Giora’, NTS 14 [1967–8] 402–8;Google ScholarHorsley, R. A. & Hanson, J. S., Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985, 118–27.)Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Draper, J. A., ‘The Jesus Tradition in the Didache’, in Gospel Perspectives 5: The Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels (ed. Wenham, D., Sheffield: JSOT, 1985) 269–87.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Stuiber, A., ‘Die Drei SEMEIA von Didache XVI’, Jahrbueh für Antike und Christentum 24 (1981) 42–4.Google Scholar

⁴² The exact verbal parallels are highlighted by the use of bold type.

⁴³ Kloppenborg, J. S. Z., ‘Didache 16:6–8 and Special Matthean Tradition’, ZNW 70 (1979) 54–67;CrossRefGoogle Scholar J. A. Draper, ‘The Jesus Tradition in the Didache’, 269–87; contra Drews, P., ‘Unter-suchungen zur Didache’, ZNW 5 (1904) 53–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Köster, H., Synoptische Überlieferung bei den apostolischen Vätern (TU 65; Berlin, 1957) 184–9Google Scholar, who argue that Did. and Mark 13 use the same Ur-text. The argument of C. N. Jefford (The Sayings of Jesus in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles [Leiden: Brill, 1989] 92) that Did. reveals a knowledge of Luke ‘which makes the entire collection of sayings in Did. immediately suspect with respect to attempts to date the composition’ is fallacious. It begs the question of the origin of traditions common to Did. and Luke.

⁴⁴ Draper, J. A., ‘Torah and Troublesome Apostles’ (Paper presented to the Social History of Early Christianity subgroup of the Society of Biblical Literature Congress at Anaheim, November 1989), Novum Testamentum 33 (1991) 347–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵ Gnilka, J., Das Matthäusevangelium 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1988) 327–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ I would hesitate to accept the claim of Rengstorf (TDNT 7.237–8 note 264) that the material goes back to the historical Jesus.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Cf. Bousset, W., Kyrios Christos (Göttingen, 1921) 238;Google ScholarWengst, K., Didache. Barnabas. Zweiter Klemensbrief. Schrift an Diognet (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell-schaft, 1984) 99–100 note 139.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Niederwimmer, K., Die Didache (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989) 265–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ J. Gnilka (Das Matthäusevangelium 2, 330) refers in passing to the possibility of the influence of the Messianic totem at this point, but draws no wide-ranging conclusions from this.

⁵⁰ See the essays collected by Charlesworth, J. H. in John and Qumran (London: Chapman, 1972).Google Scholar

⁵¹ E.g. Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: University, 1953) 371–2;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSchnackenburg, R., The Gospel according to John 2 (New York: Herder, 1968) 398–412.Google ScholarBrown, R. E. (The Gospel according to John 1–2, New York: Doubleday, 1966, 517–18) also includes the resurrection and ascension in the concept.Google Scholar

⁵² Ignatius (Ign. Sm. 1.2) describes Jesus' death on the cross as setting up a σύσσημον or totem, linked to the resurrection but functioning for the ingathering of believers into the church. Apart from this isolated occurrence of the totem image in Ignatius, who comes from Syria, and is thus still linked to an area where the image would be understood, there is little or no further interest in it. Lactantius envisages the sign of the Son of Man as a sword appearing in heaven, possibly reflecting Constantinian propaganda (Div. Inst. 7.19).

⁵³ This passage and its parallels are, of course, hotly disputed, especially in their relation to the ‘Q’ tradition. See Linton, O., ‘The Demand for a Sign from Heaven’, Studia Theologica 19 (1965) 112–29;CrossRefGoogle ScholarKertelge, K., Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Munich: Kösel, 1970) 23–7;Google ScholarMartin, R. P., Mark: Evangelist and Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster, 1972) 166–71.Google Scholar There is no scope for a fuller discussion of the text in this paper.

⁵⁴ O. Linton, ‘The Demand for a Sign from Heaven’, 112–29.

⁵⁵ ‘Jesus’ Refusal to Produce a Sign', 53. Cf. Lührmann, D., Das Markusevangelium (Tübingen: Mohr, 1987) 136.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Schweizer, E., The Good News according to Mark (London: SPCK, 1970) 159.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition (2nd ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1972) 52–4.Google Scholar