Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 2006 by Kennard, Doug

Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement. By Brant Pitre. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005, xiii 586 pp., $49.99 paper.

This is an excellent, focused dissertation (University of Notre Dame) on the historical Jesus and Second Temple Judaism and on the limited question of the tribulation that brings the exile to an end so that the kingdom might begin. For both historical Jesus and tribulation concerns, Pitre positions this work in the wake of Albert Schweitzer (especially The Mystery of the Kingdom of God [New York: Macmillan, 1950]); Joachim Jeremias (The Proclamation of Jesus [New York: Scribner, 1971]); Ben Meyer (The Aims of Jesus [London: SCM, 1979]); Dale Allison (The End of the Ages Has Come [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985]); N. T. Wright (Jesus and the Victory of God [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996]); and C. Marvin Pate and myself (Deliverance Now and Not Yet [New York: Lang, 2003]). There is a good discussion and evaluation of the contributions that each of these volumes make to this particular question.

In the introduction and second Temple material (reacting to Wright, pp. 31-34), Pitre makes a significant contribution, clarifying the regathering of the tribes of Israel after the captivity as not just Judah from Babylon but all the tribes from Assyria as well. The individuals in whose wake Pitre writes probably were not trying to exclude the Assyrian captivity when they refer to the captivity, but Pitre points out explicitly that, as captivity begins with Assyria, so kingdom recovers all tribes (pp. 35, 41-129). Pitre does not continue this point into the historical Jesus material; it is replaced by an occasional mention of the extension of the gospel to the Gentile nations. For example, in discussing Mark 13:9-13 Pitre states, "the only way to bring about the End of the Exile, the ingathering of the lost tribes who had been scattered among the nations, is to go to the nations, and to bring back the Gentiles to Zion, along with the Israelites scattered among them" (p. 263, italics his). Following Wright, as he does in this statement, actually tends to deemphasize Israel's return from captivity in a futuristic manner to allow this hope to be supercessionally co-opted or dominated by the Gentile gospel program, which works counter to the stated thesis of the book.

Pitre is post-critical on much of the Second Temple material, but form-critical on 1 Enoch, and historically critical on Daniel and the Gospel materials. I consider his post-critical approach toward most of the Second Temple material to be an advantage in capturing their respective contributions to his thesis. His dividing 1 Enoch into separate form-driven segments (apocalypse, epistle, dreams, and similitudes) is not harmful since it does allow for genre-specific contributions to be provided, but it is a little odd to insert Daniel between his 1 Enoch discussions on epistle and dreams, possibly implying a confidence to discern a sequence of development. He keeps all other documents together as intact. He identifies Daniel as a pseudepigraphon and dates its composition during 167-63 bc. He cites Pate and Kennard as his first source on this point (but our view is closer to the conservative stance in our note, while acknowledging this critical position is celebrated [Deliverance, pp. 39,64 n. 33]). His remaining sources for this point support his view. Pitre (p. 465, text for n. 228) also wrongly claims that Pate and Kennard hold the view that the tribulation is a forty-year period, as we identify that this is the view of CD in the discussions by Wise and Douglas (Deliverance, pp. 8283). Pitre (p. 126) challenges Pate and Kennard's reading of / Enoch 62:14-16 as a mystical vicarious atonement by marshalling what we acknowledge to be a strong case for mimetic atonement in 1 Enoch broadly. Our point is that both forms of atonement are present in 1 Enoch, and Pitre is unconvinced of this. Pitre accurately summarizes his Second Temple conclusions (pp. 128-29). However, it would be helpful if his notational support was more specific in listing verses. While I agree with all his points in this summary, I think only about half of his stated support backs up his points (e.g. for p. 128, n. 2631 would list 1 Enoch 93:8; Dan 9:7; Jub. 1:22-25; Ps. Sol. 17:16-18; T. Moses 3:8-9).

Pitre's approach to the historical Jesus follows John Meier's criteria: (1) multiple attestation; (2) coherence; (3) embarrassment; and (4) discontinuity (pp. 26-29). He diminishes discontinuity to only discontinuity with the early church rather than also with Judaism (double dissimilarity). He also diminishes "coherence" to a second-tier criterion of plausibility (close to Dale Allison's category of "historicity"). Pitre adds a fifth criterion of "historical congruence," which I think has added back into his criteria what he had excised from Meier's understanding of "coherence." I am in substantial agreement with Meier's criteria, so I see Pitre as an ally in historical Jesus studies. The main body of his work is a study of Gospel texts analyzed consistently through this methodology, affirming that all the biblical claims contain legitimate historical Jesus statements. He might be momentarily inconsistent in his handling of the criteria in the last paragraph on p. 154 when compared to the first full paragraph of p. 155, but he still affirms the historicity of the biblical claims. Pitre's excellent analysis shows why he affirms the biblical text as from Jesus, often answering other critics.