Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your … a discussion of English grammar, R. Quirk and S. Green- baum distinguish non-restrictive from restrictive apposition. In non-restrictive

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

Mark 14:61: "Are You the Messiah-Son-of-God?" Author(s): Joel Marcus Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 31, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1989), pp. 125-141Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560698Accessed: 25-03-2015 23:38 UTC

REFERENCESLinked references are available on JSTOR for this article:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560698?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 149.105.169.222 on Wed, 25 Mar 2015 23:38:44 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560698

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560698?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Novum Testamentum XXXI, 2 (1989)

MARK 14:61: "ARE YOU THE MESSIAH-SON-OF-GOD?"

by

JOEL MARCUS Princeton Theological Seminary

Types of Apposition

In a discussion of English grammar, R. Quirk and S. Green- baum distinguish non-restrictive from restrictive apposition. In non-restrictive apposition, the second appositive provides additional, parenthetic information not essential for identifying the referent, which is already identified in the first appositive. This type of apposition is "indicated in speech by separated tone units for the appositives and in writing by commas or more weighty punctuation." In restrictive apposition, on the other hand, the first appositive is viewed as a member of a class which can be linguistically identified only through the modification supplied by the second appositive.' Quirk and Greenbaum give the following illustration:

Non-restrictive apposition: "Mr. Campbell, the lawyer, was here last night." Restrictive apposition: "Mr. Campbell the lawyer was here last night" (i.e. as

opposed to any other Mr. Campbell we know).

Consider now Mark 14:61b-64 in the RSV version:

Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." And the high priest tore his garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.

Almost without exception known to me,2 translations and commen-

SR. Quirk and S. Greenbaum, A University Grammar of English (London: Longman, 1973) ?? 9.45-48; 13.3.

2 E. L6vestam ("Die Frage des Hohenpriesters [Mark. 14. 61 par. Matth. 26, 63]," SEA 26 [1961] 94-95) mentions, but rightly rejects, one alternative: that 14:61 is to be understood as a double question ("Are you the Messiah? [Are you] the Son of God?"). Nothing in the text would suggest such an understanding to Mark's readers.



126 JOEL MARCUS

taries join with the RSV in construing the relationship between the titles "Christ" and "Son of the Blessed" in Mark 14:61 as one of non-restrictive apposition.3 The two appositives are separated in translation by commas, and the second, "the Son of the Blessed," merely supplements the primary identification supplied by the first, "the Christ." This reading leads easily to the conclusion of several scholars that the two titles are essentially synonymous in the Markan account.4 The passage is thus taken to be parallel to 15:32, in which "Messiah" and "King of Israel" clearly are non- restrictive synonymous appositives.

It is the purpose of the present study, however, to challenge both the non-restrictive interpretation of the apposition in Mark 14:61 and the conclusion that the titles "Christ" and "Son of the Blessed" are to be understood synonymously.5

3 Moffatt, NAB, NASB, NEB, NIV, Phillips, TEV translations; E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951; orig. 1937) 326-28; V. Taylor, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981; orig. 1950) 567-68; J. Blinzler, Der ProzessJesu (2d ed., Regensburg: Pustet, 1955) 75; D. F. Nineham, Saint Mark (Pelican New Testament Commentaries; Mid- dlesex: Penguin, 1963) 397; W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Markus (THKNT 2; Berlin: Evangelische, 1965) 299; E. Schweizer, The Good News Accord- ing to Mark (Atlanta: John Knox, 1970) 320; W. Lane, The Gospel of Mark (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 535; R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (2 vols.; HTKNT 2; Freiburg: Herder, 1976) 2.437; J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (2 vols.; EKKNT 2; Ziurich: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1978-79) 2.274; C.S. Mann, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; Garden City: Doubleday, 1986) 606; D. Liihrmann, Das Markusevangelium (HNT 3; Tiibingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1987) 247. Some of the commentaries speak specifically of the "apposition"' of the two titles, by which they clearly mean non- restrictive apposition.

SIn the vocabulary of Quirk and Greenbaum (? 9.53), this type of non- restrictive apposition is "reformulation," in which "a synonymous word or phrase may replace the first formulation in order to avoid misinterpretation or provide a more familiar or a more technical term." Livestam ("Frage," 95) characterizes synonymity as the usual interpretation; see e.g. J. Blinzler, Prozess 75; D.R. Catchpole, "The Problem of the Historicity of the Sanhedrin Trial," The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in honour of C.F.D. Moule (ed. E. Bammel; SB 2nd series 13; Naperville: Allenson, 1970) 64; W. Lane, Mark 535; D. Juel, Messiah and Temple.: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 31; Missoula: Scholars, 1977) 79, 82. The present study draws heavily on Juel's excellent work, though it disputes his interpretation of 14:61-62.

5 That "Son of God" qualifies "Messiah" rather than being equivalent to it is not a new idea; cf. e.g. J. Schreiber, "Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums. Beobachtungen zur Theologie und Komposition des zweiten Evangeliums," ZTK 58 (1961) 164; Livestam, "Frage," 104; D. Juel, Messiah and Temple 78 (though Juel himself opposes this suggestion). Juel states the issue very well (Messiah and Temple 18): "Whether the force of the high priest's question is messianic in the



THE MESSIAH-SON-OF-GOD 127

The Charge of Blasphemy

One of the main problems with taking "Christ (= Messiah)" and "Son of the Blessed (= Son of God)"6 as synonyms is that the charge of blasphemy in 14:63-64 then becomes difficult to understand. Why should Jesus' claim to be "the Messiah, the Son of God" be considered blasphemous' if "Son of God" is merely a synonym for "Messiah"? What is blasphemous about claiming to be the Messiah?

One searches Jewish literature in vain for evidence that a simple claim to be the Messiah would incur such a charge. Although the Mishnaic limitation of blasphemy to pronunciation of the divine name (San. 7:5) probably reflects a later restriction of the charge,8 it is likely that already in New Testament times blasphemy was defined as misuse of God's name.9 This criterion is not met by the staking of a messianic claim if, as is normally the case in Jewish

proper sense, Son of God being understood as a synonym for Messiah, or is more 'Christian,' Messiah being defined by Son of God and the emphasis being on the Christian notion of Jesus' divine Sonship." What is new in the present study is the relation of this question to different kinds of apposition and to a specific Jewish background.

6 Matt 26:63 renders Mark's "Son of the Blessed" with "Son of God." On "the Blessed One" as a circumlocution for God, see D. Juel, Messiah and Temple 77-79. Since "Son of the Blessed" is equivalent to "Son of God," but the latter is a more familiar and less awkward phrase, it will be used in what follows even in renderings of "Son of the Blessed."

Noting that there are Jewish analogies ("the Holy One, Blessed be He") but no exact Jewish parallels to "the Blessed One'1 in the literature known to us, Juel concludes that this is a "pseudo-Jewish expression." The fragmentary nature of our sources for first-century Judaism, however, casts some doubt on the appropriateness of the prefix "pseudo-"

7 It is most likely that in the Markan narrative as it presently stands Jesus' affirmation of the titles of 14:61 is meant to be seen as the immediate cause of his condemnation for blasphemy. See the detailed discussions of the blasphemy charge by D.R. Catchpole (The Trial ofJesus: A Study in the Gospels and Jewish Historiography from 1770 to the Present Day [SPB 18; Leiden: Brill, 1971] 126-48) and D. Juel (Messiah and Temple 97-107). The major alternative would be to see the cause of the condemnation as the Son of Man saying in 14:62, but as Juel points out this saying "seems to function not as an independent source of information about Jesus or as a separate claim, but as a promise that Jesus will be vindicated as 'the Christ, the Son of the Blessed" (ibid., 105).

8 It is striking, however, that both the High Priest and Jesus avoid even the word "God" in 14:61-62, using instead the circumlocutions "the Blessed One" and "the Power"; cf. D. Juel, Messiah and Temple 97.

9 See D. Juel, Messiah and Temple 97-99.



128 JOEL MARCUS

texts, the Messiah'0 is simply a human figure from the line of David.'1

Two rabbinic traditions about the leader of the second Jewish revolt against the Romans in A.D. 131-135, Simon Bar Kozeba (Bar Kochba), drive home the point that a messianic claim is in itself an insufficient cause for a charge of blasphemy: 12

R. Aqiba, when he saw Bar Kozeba, said, "This is the King Messiah." R. Yohanan ben Toreta said to him, "Aqiba! Grass will grow on your cheeks before the Messiah will come!" (y. Tacanit 4:5).

Bar Kozeba reigned two and a half years, and then said to the Rabbis, "I am the Messiah." They answered, "Of Messiah it is written that he smells and judges: " let us see whether he [Bar Kozeba] can do so" (b. Sanhedrin 93b).

These traditions probably have an authentic historical core: it is likely that Bar Kochba was regarded as the Messiah both by R. Aqiba and by himself.'" Of relevance for our study, however, is the

10 The absolute term "the Messiah" is frequent in the NT, targumic, and rabbinic literature, but rare in the pre-Christian sources known to us. In the QL, for example, (ham)mdasiah is usually best translated "the anointed of..." (see D. Juel, Messiah and Temple 115-116). However, 1QSa 2:12 does seem to show the absolute usage; here we find the Messiah (hammdS'iah = the Messiah of Israel) in the singular alongside the priest (= the Messiah of Aaron). D. Juel concludes that the absolute usage "was current at the time ofJesus, at least in some Jewish circles"; cf. M. de Jonge, "The Use of the Word 'Anointed' in the Time ofJesus," NovT 8 (1966) 147: "Messiah" is "on the way to becoming a standard expression."

" I am aware of the diversity of Jewish messianic conceptions, and that the word mdSiah could be applied to figures not of David's line; indeed, this fact is crucial for the line of thought I advance in what follows. Nevertheless, even at Qumran, where the Davidic Messiah is subordinated to the Priestly Messiah, there is a tendency to associate the word

ma~iaah especially with the expected Son of David; see 1QSa 2:12, cited in the previous note, and cf. M. de Jonge, "Use" 141. On the generally human lineaments of the Messiah in Jewish texts, see G.F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (2 vols.; New York: Schocken, 1971; orig. 1927-30) 2.349; E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age ofJesus Christ (175 B.C. - A.D. 135), vol. 2 (G. Vermes et al., eds.; rev ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979) 518-519.

12 Translations from J. Neusner, Messiah in Context (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 189, 95.

13 J. Klausner paraphrases this clause, "He has an instinct for who is right and who is wrong" (The Messianic Idea in Israel.: From its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah [New York: Macmillan, 1955] 468). The phrase is derived from Isa 11:3.

14 Scholars seem agreed that Bar Kochba was probably regarded as the Messiah by others; see e.g. S. Abramsky, Bar-Kdkbd: Nis Yisrdgl (Tel Aviv: Massadah, 1961) 56; J. Neusner, Messiah in Context 19, and by implication P. Schiifer, Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand (Tiibingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1981) 55-57. Schiifer, however, doubts that there is enough evidence to speak of Bar Kochba's own "messianic self-consciousness"; (ibid., 57-58), but see S. Abramsky, "Bar Kokhba," Enc. Jud. 4.230: "The messianic hopes which were cherished by the nation centered




fact that neither of the passages suggests that a messianic claim is in itself blasphemous. In the first passage, Aqiba's assertion of Bar Kochba's messiahship leads to nothing more than a rebuke for his foolishness. In the second, Bar Kochba's confession of his messiahship meets with a "wait-and-see" attitude from the rab- binical authorities, who suspend judgment until they can ascertain whether or not he produces authenticating signs.'"

Assuming, therefore, that the same basic attitude toward messianic claims prevailed in the first century as in the second,'6 it is difficult to see how Jesus could have been accused of blasphemy solely for claiming to be the Messiah, or how Mark (or the author of a putative pre-Markan Passion Narrative),'7 if he had any knowledge of Jewish attitudes to such claims and any concern for verisimilitude,'8 could have portrayed Jesus' claim to messiahship

around Bar Kokhba. As might be expected from such a powerful, dominant per- sonality, he himself probably had pretentions to being a redeemer and fostered these hopes." At least we have no traditions about Bar Kochba similar to the "messianic secret" passages in Mark or John 6:15.

15 The passage from Sanhedrin 93b continues with the report that when Bar Kochba failed to produce such signs, the rabbis killed him. This execution is legen- dary, since Bar Kochba was almost certainly killed by the Romans in the siege of Bethar (see S. Abramsky, "Bar Kokhba" 235); on the late date of the passage, see J. Klausner, Messianic Idea 468. Nor does the tradition provide evidence that messianic claims were considered blasphemous; the presumed reason for the execution is not the confession of messiahship itself but the fact that Bar Kochba has demonstrated that he is a false prophet and a deceiver (mesit), and so is liable to the penalties of Deut 13:1-11; cf. S. Abramsky (NsiP 56), who says that Bar Kochba is executed as a "false Messiah" in this passage. On the mesizt charge, see D. R. Catchpole, Trial, passim; J.L. Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (2nd ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1979; orig. 1968) 73-81.

'6 It seems unlikely, contra J. Blinzler (Prozess 78-79), that a more lenient attitude toward messianic claims developed in the time between Jesus and Bar Kochba. Blinzler may well be right that the Pharasaic legal code that came into force after the failure of the first revolt was milder in many ways than the Saddu- cean code that prevailed up to that time (ibid., 109-115). But on the crucial point of attitude toward messianic claims, it is difficult to see Jesus' condemnation for blasphemy as a reflection of Sadducean stringency. The Sadducees insisted on the letter of the OT law, but, as Blinzler himself acknowledges, "Das AT gibt nirgends eine Definition des Gotteslisterung" (ibid., 78 n. 39), and it certainly does not suggest that a messianic claim is blasphemous.

17 For a survey of attempts to delimit a pre-Markan passion narrative, see M. L. Soards, "The Question of a Pre-Markan Passion Narrative," Bible Bhashyam 11 (1985) 144-69.

18 D. Juel (Messiah and Temple 104-105) thinks thatfor Mark the messianic claim is the basis of the blasphemy charge, though he acknowledges that historically it has the least claim to probability. On the question of Mark's knowledge of Judaism, see J. Marcus, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God (SBLDS 90; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986) 83.



130 JOEL MARCUS

as the cause of his condemnation. Certainly the possibility must be considered that he did not possess such knowledge or such a concern, but only after other exegetical possibilities have been explored. Is there another way of understanding the titles of 14:61 that makes more sense of the charge of blasphemy?

"Son of God" as a Restrictive Appositive

I would like to suggest that there is; the two titles are in restrictive rather than non-restrictive apposition, so that the second qualifies the first. According to the definition of restrictive apposition presented above, the first title, "Christ," is viewed as a member of a class which can be linguistically identified only through the modification supplied by the second, "the Son of God." Just as the phrase "Mr. Caldwell the lawyer" distinguishes this Mr. Caldwell from any other Mr. Caldwell we may know, so the phrase "the Messiah-the-Son-of-God" distinguishes this Messiah from any other Messiah the Markan characters and readers might have in mind. The second title, "the Son of God," far from being a synonym for "the Messiah," indicates what sort of messianic expectation is in view: not the Messiah-Son-of-David, nor the Messiah as the son of any other human being, but rather the Messiah- Son-of-God.

The Messiah-Son-of-Joseph

This restrictive understanding of the apposition in Mark 14:6! makes it parallel to the usage found in some later rabbinic traditions, which attest the pair "Messiah-Son-of-David"/"Messiah- Son-of-Joseph."''19 The latter term distinguishes a second figure, alongside of and subordinate to the more frequently-mentioned Messiah of Davidic descent. An example is provided by b. Sukkah 52a:

19 On the Messiah-Son-of-Joseph, see G .F. Moore, Judaism 2.370-71; S-B 2.292-99; J. Klausner, Messianic Idea 483-501; H.-W. Kuhn, "Die beiden Messias in den Qumrantexten und die Messiasvorstellung in der rabbinischen Literatur," ZAW 70 (1958) 200-208; J. Heinemann, "The Messiah of Ephraim and the Premature Exodus of the Tribe of Ephraim," HTR 68 (1975) 1-5; rpt. in L. Land- man, Messianism in the Talmudic Era (New York: Ktav, 1979) 339-53; J. Neusner, Messiah in Context 187-88.




Our Rabbis taught: The Holy One, blessed be he, will say to the Messiah the son of David (may he reveal himself speedily in our days!), "Ask of me anything, and I will give it to you." ... But when he will see that the Messiah the son of Joseph is slain, he will say to him, "Lord of the Universe, I ask of thee only the gift of life." 20

Two different figures are in view; the one, the Messiah-Son-of- David, takes fright when he sees the fate of the other, the Messiah- Son-of-Joseph. This Messiah-Son-of-Joseph (sometimes called Messiah-Son-of-Ephraim) was of great interest to an earlier genera- tion of New Testament scholars, to some of whom his violent death in battle seemed to point to a Jewish background for the Christian idea of a suffering Messiah.2' This opinion is now generally dis- counted because the texts that speak of the Messiah-Son-of-Joseph are late and because this portrait of the Messiah diverges significantly from the Christian portrait of Jesus.22 Still, for our purposes it is significant that in Tannaitic sources the term "Messiah" can be made more precise by the addition of the qualifier "Son-of-X" to indicate the descent of the Messiah in question.

The Messiahs of Aaron and of Israel

It is likely that such patronymic qualifiers of the noun "Messiah" already existed in New Testament times. We know that in this period the title "Son of David" was already in wide use for the more generally-expected figure.23 Furthermore, the Dead Sea Scrolls supply indirect but substantial evidence of the formula "Messiah-Son-of-X." There we hear of two figures, "the Messiahs

20 Translation slightly altered from J. Neusner, Messiah 188-89. Neusner, following the Soncino translation, puts a comma after the word "Messiah" in the phrase "the Messiah, the son of David" but not after the same word in the phrase "the Messiah the son of Joseph." It makes better sense, however, to omit the comma in both instances, since two Messiahs are in view. It is significant that here madidah ben ddwid and madidh ben ydsef are translated "the Messiah the son of David" and "the Messiah the son ofJoseph" respectively. The inclusion of the definite article in the English translations makes them more closely parallel to Mark 14:61, where the literal translation of the Greek is "the Christ the son of the Blessed."

21 See for example C.H. Torrey, "The Messiah Son of Ephraim," JBL 66 (1947) 253-77.

22 He is essentially a military figure, his death has no atoning power, and no connection is made between it and Isaiah 53; S-B 2.297.

23 See G. Vermes et al. (see above, note 11), History 2.518.



132 JOEL MARCUS

of Aaron and of Israel.""24 Something must be understood between the word "Messiahs" and the phrase "of Aaron and of Israel." The omitted word is not "tribe," since neither Aaron nor Israel is a tribe.25 I would suggest that it is, rather, "sons"; the phrase "the Messiahs of Aaron and of Israel," refers to the "Messiah-Son-of- Aaron" and the "Messiah-Son-of-Israel."

We know from ancient Israelite inscriptions that such an ellipsis of the word "son" is a grammatical possibility in ancient Hebrew. In several of the inscriptions collected by K. Jarol, the name of a son is immediately followed by that of his father, and Jarol inserts the words "son of" in parentheses in his translation.26

This grammatical possibility becomes an exegetical probability when we investigate the OT background of the titles "Messiah of Aaron" and "Messiah of Israel." Considering first the title "Messiah of Aaron," we recall that this title designates the priestly Messiah,27 and that one of the commonest OT designations for

24 Despite the ambiguity of the phrase in the Damascus Document "the Messiah of Aaron and Israel" (CD 12:23-13:1; 14:19; cf. 20:1), it is incontroverti- ble that at least some passages in the QL distinguish the Messiah of Aaron from the Messiah of Israel; see 1QS 9:11; 1QSa 2:11-22; cf. K. G. Kuhn, "The Two Messiahs of Aaron and Israel," The Scrolls and the New Testament (K. Stendahl, ed.; New York: Harper, 1957) 54-60; J.A. Fitzmyer, "The Aramaic 'Elect of God' Text from Qumran Cave 4," Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (Sources for Biblical Study 5; Missoula: Scholars, 1974; orig. 1965) 129-40; G. Vermes et al., History 2.550-52. See also the contribution of L. H. Schiffman to the Princeton Messiah Symposium, "Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls," 5-8; this paper will soon be published along with the other contributions to the symposium (The Messiah, J.H. Charlesworth and J.V. Brownson, eds.).

25 "House" is a possibility; "house of Israel" is used frequently in the OT, ("Bayit," BDB 110), and "house ofAaron" appears in Psalms 115:10, 12; 118:3; and 135:19, in all of which except 118:3 it alternates with "house of Israel." Since the "house" of a father consists of the line of his descendants, particularly of his sons (cf. BDB 109-110), understanding the ellipsis to contain the phrase "of the house" amounts to essentially the same thing as understanding it to contain the word "son." (Thanks to H.-P. Riuger for pointing this out to me in conversation.)

26 K. JaroB, Hundert Inschriften aus Kanaan und Israel. Fiir den Hebriiischunterricht bearbeitet (Fribourg: Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1982) ## 7, 16, 22- 25, 27, 42-43, 46, 57, and 59. The inscriptions are found on ostraca, seals, scaraboids, and one ovoid; their dates range from about 1200 B.C. to the seventh century B.C.; their sites include Samaria, Lachish, and Palestine. In some of them, the name of the son is placed above the name of the father, while in others the name of the son directly precedes that of the father on the same line.

27 In 1QSa 2:12 (restored), 19 this figure is referred to as "the Priest," and he appears alongside of "the Messiah" or "the Messiah of Israel"; see L. H. Schiff- man, "Messianic Figures" 10.




priests is "the sons of Aaron,'' 28 since all priests were supposed to be descendants of that illustrious ancestor. Indeed, in one OT passage "the priest" in the singular appears in apposition to "the son of Aaron" (Neh 10:39). Further, two of the four passages that have been identified by scholars as generative texts for the Qumran concept of the "Messiah of Aaron," Lev 6:15 and Num 25:10-13,29 use the term "son of Aaron" for the priest, and the former speaks of him as "the priest of [Aaron's] sons who is anointed in his place" (hakkohen hammadSiah tahtaw mibbanaw).30 Links are thus established in the OT between the concepts "priest," "son of Aaron," and "anointed." '

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that in 1QSa 2:12 the "Priest," the figure who is elsewhere called the Messiah of Aaron, is associated with "his brothers, the sons of Aaron, the priests." 31 Since they are sons of Aaron, it follows that he also is a son of Aaron.32 There seem to be good grounds, therefore, for inter- preting msyh )hrwn as the "Messiah-Son-of-Aaron."

This messianic descendant of Aaron is set over against, and

28 See Lev 1:5, 7-8, 11; 2:2; 3:2, 5, 8, 13; 6:9, 14; 7:10, 33-34; Num 3:3; 10:8; Josh 21:4, 10, 13, 19; 1 Chron 6:49, 54, 57; 15:4; 24:1, 31; 2 Chron 13:9-10; 26:18; 29:21; 31:19; 35:14; Neh 12:47 (cf. "Ben," BDB 120-21 [j]).

29 M. deJonge, "Use" 139; N.A. Dahl, "Messianic Ideas and the Crucifixion of Jesus," The Messiah (see n. 24) ?2.9.1. The other passages mentioned by de Jonge and Dahl are Lev 4:3, 5, 16 and Deut 33:8-11.

30 Cf. Num 3:3, which speaks of "the sons of Aaron, the anointed priests" (bin6 )Aharon hakkohiznim hammeiuhim).

31 This is the translation of E. Lohse, Die Texte aus Qumran. Hebriiisch und Deutsch (Miinchen: K6sel, 1964). Unfortunately, the text is fragmentary, and the word "sons" is part of the restoration. It has been restored, however, not only by Lohse but also by all other translations I was able to check: A.S. van der Woude, Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Qumran (Studia semitica neerlandica 3; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1957) 98; K. G. Kuhn, "Two Messiahs" 56; A. Dupont- Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1973); G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (2nd ed.; Middlesex: Penguin, 1975). The reason for this restoration is doubtless the frequent OT apposition "the sons of Aaron, the priests" (Lev 1:5, 8, 11; 2:2; 3:2; Num 3:3; 10:8; Josh 21:19; 2 Chron 31:19; cf. 26:18; 29:21; 35:14; citations from BDB, "Ben," 120-21).

32 It is probably some such reasoning that leads A.S. van der Woude to speak of the Messiah of Aaron as the Messiah who is "the son of Aaron" ("Christos," TDNT 9 [1974] 517-518). In the German original, van der Woude's word is "Aaronid"; similarly, L.H. Schiffman uses the word "Aaronide" for this figure ("Messianic Figures" 5). According to Webster's, the ending -id denotes "one belonging to a (specified) dynastic line," instancing the word "Fatimid" (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary [8th ed.; Springfield: Merriam, 1981]). Cf. M. de Jonge ("Use" 140), who speaks of the Messiah of Aaron as "the highpriest from the seed of Aaron."



134 JOEL MARCUS

clearly considered to be superior to, the lay Messiah, the Messiah of Israel.33 Because of the parallelism between the two Messiahs ("Messiahs of Aaron and of Israel"), I would propose that the latter title also should be understood as containing the word "son" in ellipsis. Referring to the lay Messiah as a "son of Israel" makes sense in terms of Qumran messianism, for it de-emphasizes this figure vis-A-vis the priestly Messiah, as is generally the case in the Qumran literature. The lay Messiah would be referred to as the "Messiah-[Son]-of-Israel"' perhaps in order to avoid the honorific "Son of David," a patronymic which would bring in its train a host of glorious biblical associations. The Messiah of Israel, in other words, would be that Messiah who, in contradistinction to the priestly Messiah, was only a ben-yisrdiael, the normal biblical term for an Israelite.34 Thus it seems reasonable that "the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel" are to be understood as the Messiah-Son-of- Aaron and the Messiah-Son-of-Israel, with "Son of Aaron" and "Son of Israel" functioning as restrictive appositives.

Restrictive appositives would be necessary because of the variety of messianisms in the postbiblical period.35 As we have seen from our study of the Qumran texts and of rabbinic traditions, more than one Messiah was expected in some circles (sometimes alongside other redeemer figures not called "Messiah").36 Indeed,

33 On the subordination of the Messiah of Israel to the Messiah of Aaron at Qumran, see H.-W. Kuhn, "Beiden Messias" 205-208; G. Vermes, History 550- 51. In the messianic banquet described in 1QSa 2:11-12, the "Priest" takes precedence over the Messiah of Israel in matters of ritual and doctrine. Cf. the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, where the same scheme of dual messiahship is present, and in which Judah declares, "To me God has given kingship, to him (Levi) the priesthood; and he has subordinated the kingship to the priesthood" (T. Jud. 21:2-5). On the relation between the messianism of the Testaments and that of Qumran, see the works listed above and K.G. Kuhn, "Two Messiahs" 57-58.

34 See BDB, "Ben," 120-21. 35 On this fluidity, see M. de Jonge, "Use" 132, 139; J. Heinemann,

"Messiah of Ephraim" 6; J. Neusner, Messiah in Context 187; N.A. Dahl, "Ideas" ??2.9-2.12.

36 The second Messiah alongside of the Davidic Messiah is different in the QL and the rabbinic traditions. The "Messiah of Aaron" is not identical with the "Messiah-Son-of-Joseph," and it seems unlikely that the one developed out of the other (contra K. Schubert, "Zwei Messiasse aus dem Regelbuch von Chirbet Qumran,"Judaica 11 (1955) 235; with H.-W. Kuhn, "Beiden Messias" 201-205). However, it is perhaps going beyond the evidence when Kuhn says that the two expectations have nothing to do with each other. Rather, the Qumran literature already indicates that not all messianic hopes fastened on the son of David, and that in a very fluid situation other "messiahs" could be considered.




N.A. Dahl goes so far as to say that a dual pattern, based on the dual OT expectation of a future Davidic ruler and a future Aaronite priest (e.g. Jer 23:17-26; Zech 3:6-8; 4:3-14; 6:9-13), was probably the norm.37 In a situation of such fluidity, it would sometimes be advantageous, when using the term "Messiah," to make more precise which Messiah one had in view. One way of doing this would be by means of the restrictive appositive "Son of X."

Mark 12:35-37 pars.: "Whose Son is He?"

We can see from a Synoptic passage, Mark 12:35-37 (pars. Matt 22:41-46; Luke 20:41-44), that there might be some question as to whose son a messianic figure was.38 This is clearest in Matthew's version ofJesus' introductory question: "What do you think of the Christ?-whose son is he?" As D. Hay observes, the placing of these two questions back to back links the mystery of the Messiah's nature with the mystery of his origin, and the pericope as a whole implies by its form and context that he is the son of someone besides David.39 Similarly, the Lucan version of the pericope places the genitive "of David" emphatically before the word "son," so that Luke 20:41 should probably be translated, "How do they say that the Christ is David's son?"40 Again, it is implied that he is the son of someone else. Finally, the Markan source of these two versions probably uses word order to make a similar point. As W. Wrede already pointed out in 1907, the order pothen autou estin huios ("how of him is he son?", 12:37) is odd. Wrede rightly suggested that this oddity was a deliberate stylistic device to put the emphasis on the word autou: "How is he then his [i.e. David's] son?"4'

37 N.A. Dahl, "Ideas" ??99 2.10; 2.10.1. J. Heinemann ("Messiah ofEphraim" 4-6) opines that "the evidence suggests not 'duality' of Messiahs, but multiplicity," but he seems to be using the word "Messiah" generally for any redeemer figure, whether or not he is called "Messiah."

38 The relevance of Mark 12:35-37 pars. for my hypothesis was suggested to me orally by Bart Ehrman, to whom also thanks for a thorough critique of an earlier draft of this study.

39 D. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (Nashville/New York: Abingdon, 1973) 116.

40 Luke 20:41 is the only NT instance of the title "Son of David" in which the word order is Dauid huios rather than huios Dauid. On the emphatic position of the genitive Dauid, cf. N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3. Syntax (Edinburgh: Clark, 1963) 217.

41 Wrede's opinion is cited by D. Hay (Glory 114 n. 33), who, however, is skep- tical of such syntactical subtlety on Mark's part. Such skepticism, however, seems



136 JOEL MARCUS

It seems, then, that in all three Synoptic versions a question is raised as to whose son the Messiah is, and as to whether or nor "Son of David" is an adequate title for the Messiah. It would probably be best to translate Mark 12:35b by putting this title in quota- tion marks: "How do the scribes say that the Messiah is 'the Son of David'?" In other words, why do they think that this is an adequate title for him? For in the context of the whole Gospel (indeed of all three Synoptics), the question cannot be whether or not the Messiah is to be a physical descendant of David; elsewhere Jesus' Davidic descent is acknowledged.42 Rather, the question is whether designating Jesus "the Son of David" really gets to the heart of what Hay calls "the mystery of his origin."

Plainly it does not, and this deficiency has to do with the forms assumed by the expectation of a Davidic Messiah in first century Judaism and Christianity. L. H. Schiffman has recently drawn on the work of G. Scholem to speak of two poles ofJewish messianism, one "restorative," the other "utopian."43 In the "restorative" strain, the messianic yearning is not for a catastrophic inbreaking of the new age but for an improvement and perfection of the present world by the reestablishment of the Davidic empire. The "utopian" strain, by way of contrast, nurses a discontinuous, apocalyptic messianic hope that God will destroy the old world and create a new one from its ashes. Schiffman goes on to link these two strains to contrasting messianic conceptions within the Qumran literature: 4 Those texts which espouse the Davidic Messiah tend toward the restorative. They therefore emphasize much more the prophecies of peace and prosperity, and do not expect the cataclysmic destruction of all evil. The more catastrophic, utopian, or even apocalyptic tendencies usually do not envisage a Davidic Messiah.

unjustified. Both Matthew and Luke, in revising Mark, imply that Jesus is the son of someone else, and the word order in 12:37b, which Hay admits is odd, provides a plausible point of departure for these revisions. Also to be rejected is the opinion of D. Juel (Messianic Exegesis.: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988] 142-44), who follows E. L6vestam ("Die Davidssohnsfrage," SEA 27 [1962] 72-82) in claiming the point of 12:35-37 to be that Jesus is the son both of David and of God. It is most natural to read the con- cluding question of the pericope (12:37b) as one that expects a negative answer.

42 The Markan Jesus does not reject the cry of Bartimaeus in 10:47-48, and cf. 11:10; see D. Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 142; D. Hay, Glory, 115-118.

43 L.H. Schiffman, "The Concept of the Messiah in Second Temple and Rab- binic Literature," Review and Expositor 84 (1987) 235-46; cf. also idem, "Messianic Figures," conclusion.

44 "Messianic Figures," 24-25.




When we relate these suggestive observations to Mark 12:35-37 pars., the problem with the title "Son of David" comes sharply into focus.45 The Messiah who is given this title is thereby designated as one whose task is primarily to reestablish the Davidic empire. Such a hope is not big enough to encompass the one who, according to Psalm 110:1, is to be at God's right hand as he displays his might by an apocalyptic destruction of evil cosmic powers.'46 As the OT passage is interpreted in Mark 12:35-37 pars., David himself has acknowledged the Messiah's superior role; "Son of David," therefore, cannot express the fullness of Jesus' identity.47 Although the title "Son of God" is not explicitly used in any of the Synoptic versions of this pericope, it is probably implicit in all three Synoptic passages that Jesus is not just the Son of David because he is the Son of God.48

45 As Schiffman puts it, the "utopian" Qumran writings invest authority not in a Davidic Messiah but "in an dominant priestly, religious leader and a tem- poral prince who is to be subservient" (ibid.). Though Jesus is not pictured in Mark 12:35-37 or in 14:61-62 as a priestly figure (contra G. Friedrich, "Beobachtungen zur messianischen Hohenpriestererwartung in den Synop- tikern," ZTK 53 [1956] 286-89), there is a certain resemblance to the Qumran pattern in which the Davidic hope is generally suppressed in favor of a more transcendent conception of the Messiah's role.

46 D. Hay, Glory, 111: "The implication is that the messiah's kingdom will not be a mere renewal of David's." Cf. ibid., p. 115, where Hay speculates that Luke may have avoided the title "Son of David" (though he strongly emphasized Jesus' Davidic descent) "because it suggested that Jesus was merely a second David."

47 A difference must be recognized between Mark 12:35-37 pars. and the pro- posed reading of Mark 14:61 pars. In Mark 12:35-37 the subject is the Messiah, apparently the one-and-only Messiah, and the question of whose son he is. In Mark 14:61 ex hypothese, on the other hand, the restrictive appositive "Son of God" is added to indicate which Messiah is in view, the Messiah-Son-of-God or some other Messiah; a plurality of Messiahs would seem to be presupposed. Two comments, however, are in order: 1) This variation is no more radical than that found in the Qumran literature or in rabbinic traditions. In the QL, "Messiah" usually has to be qualified by "of X," but on one occasion (1QSa 2:12) hammaosiah is used to refer to the Davidic Messiah; see above. In rabbinic traditions, "the Messiah" is usually used alone without a restrictive appositive, thus implying only one Messiah, but it can occasionally be used with such an appositive ("Messiah-Son- of-David/Messiah-Son-of-Joseph"), thus implying two Messiahs. 2) Sight should not be lost of the fact that the formulation in 14:61 is that of the high priest. He may expect two Messiahs; that does not necessarily mean that Jesus does.

48 D. Hay, Glory 109; J. Gnilka, Evangelium 2.171; contraJ. Fitzmyer (The Gospel According to Luke [2 vols.; AB 28; New York: Doubleday, 1981-85] 2.1313), who claims that the title "Son of God" has nothing to do with this episode. The passage implies that someone greater than David is the Messiah's father (see above); the logical candidate is God. Further, the passage cannot be hermetically isolated from the larger story, in which the title "Son of God" is brought into close



138 JOEL MARCUS

The Messiah-Son-of-God

This brings us back to Mark 14:61, where the high priest asks Jesus whether or not he is "the Messiah the Son of God." If our line of reasoning so far has cogency, the assertion of D. Juel, that "the Messiah, the Son of God" is essentially another way of denoting the Davidic Messiah,49 becomes questionable. Our argument, rather, has been that "Son of God" is a restrictive appositive, and that the accent falls on this title rather than on the title "Messiah." It indicates which messianic figure Jesus is being interrogated about; the high priest is not asking him whether or not he is the royal Messiah, the Messiah-Son-of-David, but whether or not he is the Messiah-Son-of-God.

Contrary to Juel, "Son of God" is not simply a synonym for the Davidic Messiah in Mark 14:61. It is true that in 4QFlor 1:10-11 the divine promise of 2 Sam 7:14, "I will be his father, and he shall be my son," is applied to the Davidic Messiah,50 and that this sort of interpretation may have played a role in the application of the title "Son of God" to Jesus.5' It is conceivable that at some earlier point in the tradition, the title "the Messiah, the Son of God" in Mark 14:61 may merely have been a reference to Jesus as the Davidic Messiah.52 The question is whether it retains this meaning in Mark, or whether the title "Son of God" has developed a higher sense, as Juel acknowledges it eventually did.53

connection with Psalm 110 (Mark 14:61-62 pars.; see below). Cf. also the striking parallel in Rom 1:3-4: "seed of David according to the flesh, Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness."

49 It would be most compatible with such an interpretation to understand "Son of God" in a low sense as a title indicating God's legal acknowledgment of his designated king. Cf. G. Fohrer, "Huios," TDNT 8 (1972) 349-51, on OT passages such as Psalm 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14: "The king of Judah was not God's son by nature and.., he did not by himself enter the divine sphere by enthronement. He was acknowledged as son by a resolve of Yahweh, and only thus could he have a share in the authority, possessions, and inheritance of God." Juel's own position, however, is nuanced. Although he interprets "Son of God" in Mark as a predominantly royal title, he admits that it may have additional components and associations; see Messiah and Temple, 114.

50 Juel, Messiah and Temple, 82, 110-111; cf. Lane, Mark, 535 n. 133. Another element of Juel's argument is his observation that the royal title "king of the Jews" plays a major role in the mockeries of Mark 14-15.

51 The explicit title "Son of God," however, is missing in 4QFlor; see D. Juel, Messiah and Temple, 80, 111; cf. idem., "Origin," 13-14; J.A. Fitzmyer, Luke 1.338-39.

52 Assuming that the verse has not been wholly created by Mark. 53 D. Juel, Messianic Exegesis 81-82.




A higher interpretation of the title is indicated by the progression of thought that leads from its use in 14:61 to the scriptural prophecy of exaltation and return in 14:62 to the charge of blasphemy in 14:63-64. That progression suggests that "Son of God" (14:61) is understood in terms of participation in God's cosmic lordship (14:62; cf. Ps 110:1),54 and that it is this participatory understanding of sonship that gives rise to the charge of blasphemy (14:63-64).66 The Markan Jesus implies in 14:62 that he will sit at God's right hand and come with the clouds of heaven,56 and that this description of a transcendent future indicates part of his understanding of the title he has just accepted, "Son of God." An approach to equality with God, then, is suggested, and this approach leads naturally to a charge of blasphemy on the part of his opponents.

Support for this interpretation comes from observation of one of the earliest commentaries on Mark 14:61-65-namely, Luke 22:67-71. Here the Jewish leaders first ask Jesus whether or not he is the Messiah. Jesus' answer implies that he is, and he goes on to prophesy his exaltation to God's right hand, using the imagery of Psalm 110:1 (the Markan reference to Dan 7:13 is reduced to use

54 Cf. Barn. 12:10, in which "Son of God" is associated with Psalm 110:1. D. Hay (Glory, 119) thinks that this association comes from a tradition that pre-dates Barnabas.

55 See E. Ldvestam ("Frage," 96-107), who sees interpretation of Psalm 2:2, 7 in pre-Christian Judaism and in early Christianity as crucial background for Mark 14:61-62. Ldvestam points to the way in which the psalm juxtaposes the concepts of "the Lord's anointed" (christon) and his "son," as well as to the midrash on Psalm 2:7, which interprets that verse by means of Psalm 110:1 and Dan 7:13, the same two OT texts brought in by Jesus in Mark 14:62. This observation supports our point that 14:61 cannot be considered in isolation from 14:62. L6vestam points out, however, that in the OT and Jewish texts, including the midrash, the Messiah remains a human being, though one with an extraordinary relation to God from whom he derives world-wide dominion; if this were the background of Mark 14:61-62, Juel's case would be supported. But Li6vestam adds that various passages in the NT also link Psalm 2 with Psalm 110 (e.g. Heb 1:5-13; 5:5-6), and that here the exaltation described in Psalm 110:1 is a cosmic dominion implying participation in God's majesty, which might very well be considered blasphemy in Jewish eyes.

56 If 14:62 in some form goes back to Jesus, the use of the third person in the reference to the Son of Man may indicate that the historical Jesus did not identify this expected figure with himself (on this distinction see R. Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition [FRLANT; Gdttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957] 117). For Mark, however, Jesus definitely is the Son of Man (see 2:10, 28; 8:31; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45; 14:21, 41).



140 JOEL MARCUS

of the title "Son of Man"). The leaders then ask, "Are you then (oun) the Son of God?" Jesus answers forthrightly that he is. The leaders respond that they have no need of further witness, suggesting that Jesus has condemned himself by his answer.

It is clear from this passage that "Messiah" and "Son of God" are two separate titles for Luke, or at least the exact nuance of "Messiah" must be clarified by further questioning. Jesus' implicit affirmation of the title "Messiah" in 22:67 is not enough to secure his condemnation; further interrogation is necessary in order to determine exactly which messianic figure he is claiming to be. The second stage of the interrogation opens with Jesus' prophecy of his imminent heavenly enthronement; the Jewish leaders assume (oun) that this prophecy is related to the title "Son of God," and this assumption is implicitly affirmed by Jesus and forms the basis for his condemnation. "Son of God," therefore, is not simply a synonym for the Davidic Messiah, but rather introduces an idea of quasi-divinity that is the basis of Jesus' condemnation.57 The two- stage Christology here is similar to that found earlier in Luke, in 1:32-35, where the picture of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah appointed by God (1:32-33) gives way to the picture of him as the Son of God (1:35), with "son" understood in a quite realistic, almost biological sense.58

The charge of blasphemy is plausible when "Son of God" is understood as participation in God's lordship, for some Jewish sources imply that claiming a heavenly enthronement for someone other than God could be considered blasphemous. In b. Sanh. 38b, for example, R. Aqiba's assertion of the Messiah's heavenly lord-

57 SeeJ. A. Fitzmyer, Luke 2.1463; G. Schneider, Lukas, 2.470. Our suggestion that the Markan passage revolves around the title "Son of God," which qualifies the title "Messiah," makes unnecessary the distinction drawn by D.R. Catchpole (Trial, 143-48, 200) between the Markan pericope, in which the two titles are synonymous, and the Lukan pericope, in which they are distinct. Also unnecessary, then, is Catchpole's conclusion that "Mark 14:61 emerges as secondary theologically and influenced kerygmatically in a way which Luke is not."

58 Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.1467-68; 1.338-40; R.E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah. A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke (Image Books; Garden City: Doubleday, 1979) 312. Already in Luke 1:32 Jesus is called the "Son of the Most High," and here the title, which is equivalent to "Son of God," is understood in the "low," Davidic sense attested in 4QFlorilegium. By the time one reaches 1:35, however, such an interpretation of Jesus' divine sonship has been left behind, since this verse speaks of his conception without the aid of a male parent.




ship causes R. Jose to protest that he has profaned the Shekinah. This protest at least comes close to a charge of blasphemy,59 and the reason for such a judgment is not hard to find. The exaltation of a human being to God's right hand suggests an approach to equality with God that infringes the incommensurateness and unity of God.60 The openness of the title "Son of God" to such blasphemous misunderstandings accounts for its relative disuse in Jewish sources, despite its biblical background in Psalm 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14.61

At the beginning of the Christian era, then, the title "Son of God" was ambiguous enough to be open not only to a low, Davidic interpretation but also to a high, quasi-divine interpretation. When used to distinguish a figure from the Davidic Messiah, as we have shown to be the case in the phrase "Messiah-Son-of-God," it would have fallen on Jewish ears as a claim to commensurability with God.62 In such a situation, the only possible response for one not predisposed to acknowledge Jesus' words as divine revelation would be that of the high priest: "Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy."

59 Aqiba interprets the plural "thrones" in Dan 7:9: one for the Ancient of Days, one for David; seeJuel, Messiah and Temple, 101; cf. S-B, 1.1017-1018; D.R. Catchpole, Trial, 140-141; A.F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (SJLA 25; Leiden: Brill, 1977) 94-95, 209 n. 73.

60 See Mark 2:7; John 10:33; cf. Lovestam, "Frage," 107, Segal, Two Powers, passim.

61 Cf. above on the absence even from 4QFlor of the explicit title "Son of God," as well as Juel's good discussion of indications in rabbinic and targumic traditions that the title was expressly avoided as a designation for the Messiah (Messiah and Temple 80, 108-109; cf. L6vestam, "Frage," 95-96). In the Targum on 2 Sam 7:14, for example, the promise "I will be a father to him, and he will be a son to me," is translated, "I will be to him like a father, and he will be before me for a son." An even more drastic weakening is found in the Targum on 1 Chron 17:13: "I will love him like a father loves his son, and he will be before me like a son to his father" (my translations). Juel comments, "The language [of the biblical passages] was understood as suggesting too real a view of sonship by the Targumists and was consequently modified" (Messiah and Temple, 111).

62 The high Christological claim made in Mark 14:61-65 supports the view that this passage, at least in its present form, reflects the Christology of the early church rather than the historical events ofJesus' trial. Contra O. Betz ("Probleme des Pro- zessesJesu," ANR WII.25.1.565-647), who takes the Markan passage as basically historical, but seems to waffle on the question of whether the cause ofJesus' condemnation for blasphemy was merely a messianic claim, or whether it was a claim to equality with God (see esp. p. 636).



Documents

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your … a discussion of English grammar, R. Quirk and S. Green- baum distinguish non-restrictive from restrictive apposition. In non-restrictive