In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

137 P The Therapeutic Son of David 6 1 The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity (trans. H. Knight and G. Ogg; London: Lutterworth, 1969 [1963]), 240. 2 C. Burger, Jesus als Davidssohn: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuch (FRLANT 98; Göttingen: Vanderhoeck and Ruprecht, 1970). 3 L. R. Fisher, “Can This Be the Son of David?” in Jesus and the Historian, Ernest Cadman Colwell Festschrift (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 82–97. 4 While ultimately influential, Fisher’s work was limited in two ways: (1) Fisher’s treatment utilized Montgomery’s publication of the Aramaic texts and Yamauchi’s incantation bowl inscriptions that appealed to the authority of “King Solomon, Son of David [)klm Nwmyl#d / hwml#d dywd rb]” (J. A. Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications, 1913]; E. M. Yamauchi, In 1963 Ferdinand Hahn began his chapter on the title “Son of David” by observing, “There is no comprehensive recent study of the ‘Son of David’ tradition.” This comment was still relevant in 1969 when the English translation of Hahn’s work was published.1 Christoph Burger attempted to fill this lacuna in 1970. Burger’s Jesus als Davidssohn [Jesus as Son of David] represented the most comprehensive study to date on the title “Son of David.”2 Burger’s work touched a wide range of relevant biblical and extracanonical texts and discussed the christological as well as the historical implications of his analysis. This book was never translated into English, making Hahn’s statement relevant even today for the English-speaking world. This fact weighed heavily upon my decision to make Son of David a test case for my historiographical thesis. Burger’s book might have become the standard treatment of this topic had it not been for a blind spot in his research. It was unfortunate that Burger’s study was unaware of a short essay by Loren Fisher.3 What must have seemed a small oversight in 1970 rendered Burger’s work all but outmoded only a decade later. Fisher’s essay very modestly suggested that Son of David might have been initially applied to Jesus in response to his reputation as a Solomon-type exorcist.4 Burger’s treatment was oblivious to this possibility and, as a result, 138 The Historiographical Jesus was unable to anticipate subsequent research about the ways that demonology , exorcism, and healing had been incorporated into the Jewish thoughtworld .5 Burger was under the impression that healing and exorcism were “Aramaic Magic Bowls,” JAOS 85, no. 4 [1965]: 551–23. While important as corroborating evidence for later scholarship, his seminal study cautiously pointed to evidence that postdated the NT by five hundred years (Fisher, 84–85); as such, his results remained tentative. (2) He did not recognize the likelihood that “Son of David,” as it was applied to exorcism in Matt 12:33, was a product of Matthean redaction (92–93). Even so, Fisher sufficiently demonstrated that exorcistic activity was well at home in certain segments of Judaism and was linked to Solomonic tradition. His unique insight set the stage for the more detailed work of D. C. Duling, “The Promises to David and Their Entrance into Christianity—Nailing Down a Likely Hypothesis,” NTS 20 (1974): 55–77; E. Lövestam, “Jésus Fils de David chez les Synoptiques,” Studia Theologica 28 (1974 [1972]): 97–109; and K. Berger, “Die Königlichen Messiastraditionen des Neuen Testaments,” NTS 20 (1984): 1–44. 5 E.g., V. K. Robbins, “The Healing of Blind Bartimaeus (10:46-52) in the Marcan Theology,” JBL 92 (1973): 224–43; D. C. Duling, “The Therapeutic Son of David: An Element in Matthew’s Christological Apologetic,” NTS 24 (1977–1978): 392–410; D. C. Duling, “The Eleazar Miracle and Solomon’s Magical Wisdom in Flavius Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaicae 8.42-49,” HTR 78 (1985): 1–25; D.C. Duling, “Matthew’s Plurisignificant ‘Son of David’ in Social Science Perspective: Kinship, Kingship, Magic and Miracle,” BTB 22 (1992): 99–116; E. R. Dodds, The Ancient Concept of Progress and Other Essays in Greek Literature and Belief (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973), 156–210; K. Grayston, “Exorcism in the NT,” Epworth Review 2 (1975): 90–94; B. D. Chilton, “Exorcism and History: Mark 1:21-28,” in Gospel Perspectives 6 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1976), 253–71; M. Smith, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978); D. E. Aune, “Magic in Early Christianity,” ANRW 2.23.2 (1980): 1507...

Share