Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, Volume 2: The Gospel of Matthew

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

310 fonm-rly thf' joum.rJ for thf' Study a(thf' New TNr.rmc•nt Supph-mcnt Sf'ri<'S

Ediror

Mark Goodacre Ed/ror/,>1 fkMrd John M. G. Barela)'. Cr.ti8 Blomlx•rg, KaLhi<.··'C"n

~.

Corley,

R. Al.tn Culpcp p<"r, Jamt"s 0 . G . Dunn, Crai6 A. Evans.

St<·phcn fowl. Robrrl fowln, Simon J. Gath<.·rcolc, john S. Kloppc'nborS. Michad l abahn, Robert Wall. Steve W.lh on. Robcrl L W<-•bb, Catrin H. WilliJms

This page illlentionally leji blank

BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN EARLY CHRISTIAN GOSPELS Vo lume 2: Th e Gosp el of Ma tthew

Ed ited by

Thomas R. H a tina

.\\ l &.t dark

Copyright C Thomas R. liatinuand c.ontributors. 200& Published by T&T Clark lntcmntionnl A C0111immm imprim The Tower Building. I I York Road.londoo SEt 7NX 80 ~tai dm lane. Suite 704. Kc,.,_. York. NY 10038 \\'Ww.tnndtcl~~rk.com

All rights rcS<:rwd. No part of l.his publication IM)' be reproduced or transmitted in any fonnor b)' any mcnns. dtttronic or mcchanlcal including photocopying. recording or any information storngc: or rctric\'al system. without p<m1ission in writing from the publishers. British library Cataloging-in-Publication Oat.11 A catalogue. record for this book

ISBN-10: ISBN-13:

0-567-04194-8 978.()..56744194-4

is available from the British l ibral)'.

(hardh.1ck)

T)'pes<:t by ISB T)'P(:S('Iting. Shcflldd Printed on aeid-frcc paper in Great Britnin by Biddies Ltd. King ·s lynn. Korfolk

CONTENTS

Preface Abbre.viations

VII

LX

Contributors Introduction

xi I

I. Myth Theory, Comparison and Embedded Scripture Texts: Ibn lsl)aq 's Biography o r Muhammad and the Mythologi,ing Function o f Isaiah 7.14 in Matthew 1.23 M. Anthony Apodaca

14

2. Love as Societal Vision and Counter-Imperial Practice in Matthew 22.34-40

30

Warren Carter 3. Matthew's Earliest Interpreter: Justin Martyr on Matthew's Fulfilment Quotations J. R. C. Cousland 4.

5.

45

' The Book or the Genesis of Jesus Chris t': T he Purpose o r Matthew in Light ofthe lncipit Craig A. Evans

61

Mark, Elijah, the Baptist and Matthew: The Succe.<S oft he f ir.;t lntertextua l Reading o f Mark Mark Goodacre

73

6. Reading Zechariah and Malthew's Olivet Discourse

85

Clay Alan Ham 7. From History to Myth a nd Back Again: The Historici,ing Function or Scripture in Matthew 2 Thomas R. Hatina

98

S. Plouing Jesus: Characterization, Identity and the Voice of God in Matthew's Gospel Michael P. Knowles

119

VI

BibliL·al lnterprelalion in Early Christian Go:lpels

9. The King as Shepherd: the Role of Oeutero-Zechariah in Mallhew John Nolland 10. Malthew's Atomistic Use o f Scripture: Messianic Interpretation of Isaiah 53.4 in Matlllew 8.1 7 Lidija Novakovic

133

147

I I . ~·lalthew's lntertexts and the Presentation of Jesus as

Healer-Messiah Andries G. van Aarde

163

12 Scribal Methods in Matthe.w and lvlish1wh AlxH Lawrence M. Wills

183

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

198 216 229

PREFACE

T1tis collectjon of essays on the interpretation of Scripture in the narrative of

Matthew's Gospel is the second in a five-volume series, which will include each of the four canonic--al Gospels and a final volume on the extracanonical gospels. T1te objectives of the sel'ies are to situate the cun-ent state of research and to

advance our understanding of the function ofembedded Scripture texts and their traditions in lhe narrative and socio-religious comexts of early Christian Gospels. T1tough methodologically broad, lhe series ;.tims to bl'idge the concerns of both narrative, social-scientific, and historic-.al critics. The essays in each volume have not been sele.cted nor have they been organized according to specific pre-determined categories. but instead they are presented as a single undivided collection tha1 promotes methodological integration and overlap. I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to the contributors whose expertise, creativity, generosity and enthusiasm have made this ambitious pi'Oject possible. I .am also grateful to t\·fark Goodacre and Craig Evans, who have seen the value of this p1'0ject, and to the editorial stallat T&T Clark, who painstakingly bring such collaborations to completion. Finally. I wish to expres.~ my grati1ude. to Anthony Apodac-.a tOr his editol'ial assistance in the final stages of this volume. This sel'ies is dedicated to my colleagues in the Religious Studies department at Trinity Westem University, whose rich scholarship. frie-ndship and good humour are cherished. TI1omas R. Hatina Novembe-r 2007; Vancouver. B.C., Canada

This page illlentionally leji blank

ABBREVIATIONS

AB ABD ABRt AnBib A1m.

ANRW Aporol ArBib AsSeign ASNU ATANT BAGD

Andtot Bible David Nod Frct.-dman (cd.). 71re AltdKJr Bibl£> Dit'tiotUIJ)"(New York: Ooubkda)'. 1992) Anchor Bible Rcfermb/t!es du Seig11e11r Ac-la sCominarii ncotcs.tamcntici upsal i~~ns.is Abhandlungcn :rur Thcologic des A he-n und Neuen Tcslamcnts Wahcr Bauer. William F. AmcJL F. William Gingrich and Frederic-k W. Oa.nl:er. A Gn-ek- E1rgli:ih l.aicrm
BBR BETL BEvT Rib Riblnt RibRe\·

BJRL BTB BWANT

BZNW CBET

CBQ ConBNT

DSD

EKKNT FGrl/i:ii

FRlANT GNS

HAWT

Bulletin for Biblical Research Bibliotheca ephcmcridum thcologicii1Um kwaniC11Sium Bcittiige zut Evangdischcn ll!cologic Biblico 8ib/icollmr111reta/i(m Bible Re-.ier.Bulletin oftile John Rylamfs UnirY!J"Jity Library oj.4fmrdwstl'r Biblical Tlw(l/ogy· Bulletin Beitriigc mr Wis.scnschaft ' 'om Allen und Nwen Tcstnmcnt Bcihcftc :rut Zeitscllrift fiir die tl£-'llli!Jiametltlicht' WiJJe,udrafi Contribtrtions to Biblical Ex.tgesis nnd Thoolo~y Catlrolic Biblical Quarterly Cooioctnnca biblica. N~·w Teslarncnl Dmd S£-vt DiJrot't'ries E\'angd i seh~katholiSteh« Komm~'lllar zum Ncurn Testamcnt Felix Jncoby. Die Fragmnlli'
1-ITKNT

IITR HUCA

Hcrdcrs thcofogiStehcr Komm~-nlar zum Ntu~'tl T('$lament llunwrd 11u!ologicol Rer·iew llebrerr U11iot1 Colleg<' Annual

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels H~·TSt

ICC

Int. JAA/1 JBL JETS JG/ICJ JJS JSNT JSNTSup JTS LNOS

MM MSS

MT

NH NIBC NICNT NIGTC NO\'T No\·TSup

NTS NTIS

OG/S

1/err-ormde reologiese studies International Critical Commcruary lt~telprctaliotl

Jmrmul of/he .4merirnll Acmkmy ofReligio11 Joumul ofBiblical Urera111re Jmrmul ofrlu- £ wmgdical Tl•rological Sock/)' Joumal ojGriTo-Roman Christianity ami J11daism Joumal q(Je"·ish Swdies Joumalfor tl•c SIUd)' oj1he New Testumrml Joumalfor 1/•e Swdy oj1he New Testoment. Supplc:mc:nt s~·rics Juumal of11•eo/ogica/5tudies l ibrary of New Testament Studies Jamc:s Hope Moulton and George. Milligan. The Yocuhllloryofthe Grft'k TeJtalttt'fll (London: Hodder & Stoughton. 1930} Manuscripts Masoretic Text Natuml Hiuory (Nolumlis J.liJioriu) (Pliny} New lntemationaJ Biblical Commentary New lntcmational Commmuuy on t.hc: New T~-stamcnt New lntcmational Greek Te.s tamm Commentary No111m TeJttrmt>11t11m Nomm TeJtammtum. Supplement Series New Tes.tomelll Studies New TcSiamc:nt Tools nnd Studtc:s Orierui.\' Groed lnscriptitmis Seleclae, cd. W . Di lt~"tlbcrge-r. 2 \'Ois: 1903-0S

OTL

JIB SBLDS SBLMS SBS

SBT

Scfs SNTSMS SSEIC

STDJ SupJSJ SupNovT

TDNT THS

TR TlJ

TynRul UBSGN1'

vr

\\t'BC

\VUNT

lAW ZTK

Old TcSiamcnt librmy Re1'1re biblique Society of Biblical Literature Disscnation Scri'-'S Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Stuttgarl\."f Bibclstudien Studies in Biblical Throlog_v Scie~~Ce c1 e:;prit Society for New Tl'$(am~·m Studi'-'S Mo1wgmph Series Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and CJuistianity Studies on the Texts of the Dcsc:rt of Judah Supplements to the: Journal for the: Study of Judaism Supplc-•nc-nts to No~-um Teston~11111m Gtthard Kittel and Gcrt.ard Friedrich ( c:ds). TlFeo/ogical Dk1iorwry of t/1!' Nell' Testament (trnns. Geoffrey W. Bromilcy: 10 \'Ois: Grand Rapids: E~"l'dllL.11lS. 1964- 76) Ty•ldalc. House Studies T1reologisd1e Rente (TRt"t') or TheologisdU! Rundsd1at1 (fRu) Httmission. H.-J. Te.xte und Untersuchungen Tyndole Bullf'tifl United Bible Socictit.s' Gred Ne1~· Te:;tmmmt. 4th c:dn Vehu TeJUJmcnlwfl

Word Biblical Commentary Wisscnschafiliche Untersuchungen n1m Nc:ucn Tcst.amenl lciuchijifor die alttesttmli!llllklfe Wi.ue1udw;; leitsch{tifiir T1•eologie mtd Kin:h

CONTRIBUTORS

M. Anthony Apodaca Graduate Research Assistant

Trinity Western University langley, B.C.. Canada Warren Carter

Protesso1· ofNew Tes tament Brite Divinity School. Texas Christian University Fort Wo1'lh. TX, USA J. R. C. Cousland Associate Profcsso1· of Classical, Near Eastem and Religious Studies University of British Columbia Vancouver. B.C.~ Canada Craig A. Evans Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Tc$tament Acadia Divinity College Wolfville~ Nova Scotia., Canada Mark Goodacre Associate Professor of New Testament Duke Univc.rsity Durham, NC, USA Clay Alan Ham Academic Dean and Professor of New Testament Dallas Christian College Dallas, TX, USA Thomas R. Hatina Associate Professor of Religious Studies Trinity Western University langley, B.C., Canada Michael P. Knowles G. F. Hurlbtui Associate Professor of Preaching McMaster Divinity College Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

xii

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

John Nolland Vic.e Principal and Lecturer in New Testament Trinity College, Bristol. England

l idija Novakovic Associate Professor of New Testament Baylor University Waco~ TX~ US.A. M. Wills EthelbenTalbot Professor of Biblic.al St11dies Episcopal Divinity School Cambridge. MA, USA lawn~.nce

Andries G. Van Aarde Professo1· Emeritus. Department o f New Testament Studies Faculty of 111eology University of Pretoria, South Afric-.a

INTRODUCTION

Inquiry into Matthew's heavy dependence on Scripture. and especially his use of quotations, can be traced to the time of Justin Ma11yr and (renaeus~ who argued that the Evangelist 'demonstrates· the unity of law and gospel. and the broad anticipation of Christ among the prophets oflsraeL I But exhaustive treatments on the problems of Matthew's wording, meaning and sources appear to begin with Jeron1e.1The interest has never ceased. Quite.to the contrary, it has branched out into various fie.lds of research, suc.h as textual criticism, comparative religions. early Jewish- Christian relations, the origins ofChristianity, New Testament theology. socio-linguistics, semiotics, and literary criticism. to name a few. TI1e following essays are a tribute to the diversity oftoday's quests. Perhaps the most enduring area of interest in studies on .Matthew's use of Scripture has been his so-c--alled fulfilment ' tb nn ulae quotations' which refer to (probably) ten 9uotations from the prophets introduced by the formulaic phrase (iva) rrAnpweD To pn9£v 61a . . . Too rrpO<j>i}Tou Aiyovto, (Mt. 1.22-23; 2.15, 17-18, 23: 4. 14-16: 8.17: 12.17; 13.35; 21.4-5; 27.9). Scholars remain interested in the problems associated with Matthew's unbalanced and inconsistent use o f these fonnulae. The theological meaning and importance of the fommla. Matthew's redactional interests, his (mis)repr...~entation s ofbiblic-al solu·ces, his possible awareness ofa synagogue community's library, the e.mergenceofChristianity as a new religion. and the historicizing t1mction ofthe quotations are just some of the more recent issues associated with the formula quotations today. Whatever the angle of inquiry. there is consensus that the fulfilment formulae provide a vital salvation-historical link in Matthew's connection between Jesus' .Messiah (and Matthew's community) and God's revelation to lsmel. For Matthew, the Scriptures are-.the voice of God spoken through the propheK God. however. is their ultimate author. And like all attempts toward unification oftmth and legitimization of identity in religious systems, Matthew seeks to appropriate the past into the present. (fUi rich Luz is correct that Matthew's community experienced a traumatic separation from (srael. then the Evangelist's claim to the Bible becomes all the more intense. selfis h and fateti1l.ln the history of Christian anti-Jewish polemic, Matthew's convictions can be viev..-ed as a significant contribution to an intensified anti-Jewish sentiment expressed via Chl'istian programmatic and exclusive I. D. 1. Bingh.1m. Jnmoeus' Use ofMoJJ!ww 's GoJ[X'I itr Adversus Hacrescs(l'md:itio Ex~·gclica Gr.tcca. 7: l ot•vain: Poc:t« s. 1998). pp. 206- 27. 1. Ktistcr S•cnd.1hl. Tlw Schoof ofSt. .4fouhe•,· ond Irs U.f(' ofthe Old TeJtament (ASNU. 20: l und: C. W. K. Glocrup. 1954: 2od cd:n; Philadelphia: Fonress Press. 1968}. pp. 39-41.

2

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

claims to the Bible in subsequent gene.rations.l In our religiously charged world, it is hoped that in at least a small way studies such as these, which shed light on the appropriation of authoritative texts of one religion by another, will bring an awareness of dependence. gratitude and peace. I. Colllribulions

As stated in the Series Preface, the essays in this volume are not divided into predete-rmined categories or sections. All thecontributo1·s attempt to integrate narrative, social-scientific and historical concerns. even whe-n tbcusing on a particular section of Matthew. M}' lhinking is that such divisions may fom1ulate assumptions that may be counterproductive in promoting methodological integration. I have ente11ained the option of dividing the essays into two sections, one that is methodological and the other that is exegetical, but the line between them is often blurred. In summarizing the essays. I seek to stay as close as possible to the wording that the contributors use. Recognizing the absence, in much of current New Testament studies, of any clear theoretical framework from which to approach embedded Scripttll'e texts, Apodaca attempts to fill the void by drawing on current myth theory within the field ofcomparative religions. He then tests his theoretical framework b;rapplying it to the quotation o f lsa. 7.14 in Mt. 1.23. His essay is c.onstructe.d in three sequential parts. First. he articulates the necessity for New Testament sc.ltolars to theorize about religion in order to interp1·et J'eligiou.s texts sufficiently- an endeavour vim1ally ignored by the guild. Apodaca aptly wams that theol'izing is not me1·ely an academic exercise. but has significant implications for the exegetical task. Second. after surveying several myth theories, Apodaca establishes a helpful working definition of myth that elucidates aspects of ideology. social fonnation and the process ofmythmaking. And third, Apodaca uses myth theory as a platfomt for his comparison ofMauhew's birth narrative and Ibn Jsl)aq 's biography of Muhammad. illuminating similar mythologizing processes ofearly Muslim and Christian writers. He.concludes that lsa. 7. 14 in Mt. 1.23 is part ofa mythmaking process aimed at reinterpreting the. past as a mode of social argumentation. lsa. 7. 14 is not included fOI' its own sake. but rathe.r fo1· its rhetorical function as a mythmaking agent. Embedded Scripture texts are chosen by the Gospel writer for their ideologic-al value rathe1·than for 1heir ·meaning' in an ·oJ'iginal' context. Consequently. Apodac.a argues that embedded Scripture texts should be interpreted according to their new narrative context rather than their abandoned old narrative context. Apodaca's contribution is significant for pointing out some of the potentially problematic hem1eneutical as$umptions when religion is neither defined nor compared. This is a timely essay that speaks to today's re.ligious biases ofsuperiority and hermeneutical literalism.

3. U.lu:t.. Mau!lew 1-7 (trans. W. C. l inss: M i nn~<tpolis: Augsbutg. 1989), pp. 156-64, espccinll)' p. 163.

lmroduction

3

Carter's study stems from his observatjon that all too frequently discussions of Matthew's use of Scripture have not given e-nough attention to the contexts ofthe embedded Scripture text By ' context' Cilrter has in mind both the text segments from which they come and the Gospelcontext in which they func6on. f\·1atthev.•'s Gospel. acco1·ding to Caner, should not simply be viewed as a narrative concerned with religious issues - as has often been the c.ase - but as a narrative which negotiates with first-century world religion within imperial political and societal re-alities. (nan attempt to alleviate this problem, Caner explores how quotations fro m Deuteronomy 5 and l eviticus 19 in Mt 22.34-40 function in light of these broader contextual concerns. Instead of a myopic focus only on the cited verses, Carter, following the work of John Foley on me-tonymic referentiality in oral c.ultures, brings attention to the larger text segments to which the cited verses belong and which they evoke.J Cm1er's essay makes three contributions to the.discussion of Matthew's use ofsc1·iptuml tmditions. Fi1·st, it offe1·s an interpretation of a significant contlict scene that mo\•e-s beyond more wmal emphases on individual religious practices to societal visions and structures. Second. it argues that MattheaJl scriptural citations and echoes are more appropriately engaged not through atomistic interpretation of isolated fragment:; - the practice of much prior discussion - but through the notion offoley's metonymic intertextuality in which cited fragments evoke much larger narratives and traditions as was the common practice of oral socie-ties. And third, it locates interpretation ofMatthewts Gospel not only in the intra-Jewish debates ofpost-70 AD Judaism (the context that has dominated Matthean studies for over fifty years), but also in the much neglected larger context o f Jewish negotiations o f the Roman impel'ial world. Robert Cousland examines Matthew's fulfilment quotations from an entirely different vantage point. Instead of focusing on the Evangelist's influences and sources as is the norm. Cousland begins by viewing Matthew as a source for Justin Martyr's appropriation ofScl'ipture. More specifically, his ankle considers thrt.~ questions: (I) What influe.nce have Matthew's fulfillment quotations e-xerted on Justin' s citations from the Hebrew Scriptures'? (2) Why did they have this particular effect? And (3) what does JtL~ti n 's interpretation suggest about how Manhew's fulfilment quotations ought to be understood? Cousland concludes that Mat1hew's fulfilment quotations had limited influence on Justin, and that it was the literary forms (apology. dialogue) of Justin' s writings that helped determine the quotations that Justin employe.d. A comparison of the.strategies employed by Justin and Matthew in their citations of Scripture.reveals that Justin uses Chl'ist to elucidate the meaning ofScripttu·e, whe1·eas f\·1atthew uses Scripture to interpret Jesus' advent. Causland's comparative analysis suggests that Matthew' s fulfilment quotations are best understood as inductive. and that they likely have an apologetic or propagandistic dimension. The goal of Craig Evans~ study is to draw at1ention to Matthew's incipit (i.e., Mt. 1. 1) and inquire in what ways it may have a be-aring on the question of the ~- J. Fok-y. fmnUJMFJI Art: From Sm rcftlN' UJ Meaning i11 TrodiJinnaf Oral £piC' (Bloomington; lndinna Uni"crsily Press. 1991). pp. J-60.

4

Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

Evangelist's primary purpose tbr writing. Discussions ofpurpose regularl}' deal with genre and integration, but, acoording to Evans~ the incipits of the New Testament Gospels and Acts are not always sufficiently appreciated by interpretei'S . Yet Evans demonstrates that books in antiquity. which nom1ally did not have formal titles, were frequently prefhce
would have been immediate.ly connected, by those familiar with the synagogue, with seve.ral texts in Genesis that refer to lists of generations in Israel's salvation histo1y. Evans liutherdemonstrates the incipit's probable reverl>erations by pointing to tlte numerous typological parallels throughout Matthew between Jesus and key biblical figures> especial!)' Abraham, Moses and David. The incipit, then, introduces Jesus as a ' son of Abraham·. that is, a tme descendant of the-first great patriarch of the Jewish people, a 'son ofDcwid' and therefore legitimate messianic heir. and a new Moses who has come to fulfil the. law. The purpose of this apologetic, according to Evans. is to bolster the faith of those who believe in Jesus (both Jews and Gentiles) and ro reply to the objections of illegitimacy emanating from the-synagogue. In response to tlte current preoccupation with Mark and undervaluing of Matthew, Mark Goodacre argues that it is time to rethink our negative outlook on Matthew's interpretation of Mark (caused largely by redaction criticism's preoocupation with finding ditl'ering theological themes) and to emphasize instead one of the key ways in which Matthew might be seen as a successful re-ading o f Mark. By ·successful'. Goodacre means a reading that strengthens the stronger connections. deletes the weaker ones, and clarifies the.remainder. all for the benefit ofMa tthew ~s own audience. One such successt\1l reading. according to Mark Goodacre, is Matthew·s rendition of tlte Elijah image1y. Tracing the role that Elijah played in the synoptic tradition. Goodacreobserves that in the pre-Marcan context, many were making the equation between Jesus and Elijah. But Mark sees the potential ofidentifying the Baptist with Elijah as much more conducive to his key Christologic-al and soteriological agenda. Matthew, who in large. part shares that agenda. and who enjoys the thrill of untangling the message. that for him is presented all too subtly, carries tbrward the.identification. underlines it and develops it1 clarifying some oft\•lark's idiosyncrasies and in the process adding his eschatologie3l touch>drawing Elijah into an involvement in the Parousia. Goodacre observes that an interesting pattern emerges in Matthew·s reading of Mark' s Baptisl narrative. Where he sees the link between Elijah and the Baptist, and where he expects his own readers to be able lo see the link, it is accentuated and brought into g.reate1·prominence. Where he has the chance. he will intervene and use the narrator's voice to underline the link. And if he does not find his source conducive to fOrwarding that theme, he will play it down. He-re we can see the way that one ofthe first readers ofMark reacted to his text: strongly affirming its direction (John the Baptisl = Elijah) but modifying, re-reading. or omitting anything that faHed to make this clea1·.

lmroduction

5

One o f the many interesting problems with which Goodacre interacts is Matthew's abbreviation of Mark's allusions to the broader Elijah story. For instance. it is surprising. give-n its impo11ance for Matthew. that it is more difficult to hear echoes of the Ahab-Jezebcl complex in his version of the Herod-Herodias story than it is in Mark's (Mt. 14. 1-12 II Mk 6.1 4-29). Matthew's much abbreviated version significantly plays down the role of Hc.rodias in the drama and as soon as Herod takes the-.majo1·role. he begins to look Jess like Ahab. and his wife Jess like Jezebel. In the end the irony is that where Matthew strongly affinns the.di1·ecrion o fr!.•tark, he has done him the disservice of making the identification, or lack of it in some cases, so clear as to deter many future readers. Cia)' Ham tackles the various levels of literary relationship between Zechariah and rvtatthew's Olivet discourse fro m a tradition-critical perspective. He argues that Matthew refers to the Mount of Olives three times (Mt. 21 .1; 24.3; 26.30), each of which appear in contexts related to material from Zechariah~ either directly by citation (Mt. 21.5 to Zech. 9.9 and Mt. 26.31 to Zech. 13.7) and allusion (Mt. 24.30 to Zech. I 2. I0- 14) or indirectly through what he calls intertextuality (Mt. 24.36 and Zech. 14.7: Mt. 25.3 I and Zech. 14.5). On tl1e basis o f these similarities, he posits that Matthew's audience, who would have been familiar with the Scriptures. would have understood the Olivet Discourse as a reference to the Parousia - namely the coming of God through the Son of Man who brings judgement and salvation on a universal scale in parallel to Zechariah's coming ofYahweh with all the holy ones. Ham does not call for a literal pamllel. however. Both Zechariah 14 and rvfatthew 24 use theophanic imagc-.Jy in relation to the coming of Yahweh and the Parousia o f the Son of Man. Even though the language of destn1ction appears in both comexts. such portrayals imply more than the physical destruction o f Jerusalem. AccoJ·ding to Ham. the function o f this mythological language highlights the glory of the Parousia, that is, t:he divine ·aJTival' that has implications for the entire world. Yahweh's standing on the Mount ofOlives and causing the mountain to split in two challenges the 1-eader to consider the eventual destnJction of Jerusalem as part of the plan ofhisto1y which le-ads to the universal WOJ'S hip ofYahwch as king. Likewise-.. Matthew 24-25. with its stylized p1·esentation of Jesus sining on the f\,lount ofOJives and answering the disciples' que-stions about the destruction ofJelllsalem~ fb reshado\VS an csch.aton wherein Jesus is worshipped as Lord by ·all the peoples o f the. earth ·. In my contribution I aim to explain why. in Matthew 2. Scripture was connected with Jesus· journey ofescape from Bethlehem to Nazareth via Egypt. One o f the most unusual t"batUJ'eS of the infancy travel story is that eadt of the three geographical locations (Bethlehem, Egypt and Nazareth) is associated with a fulfilment quotation. 1\•latthew uses place names elsewhere~ and even on one occasion refers to six locations (Syria, Galilee, Dccapolis, Jerusalem. Judea. and 'beyond the Jordan' in 4.23-25), but these are not depicted as fulfilments. I attempt to explain the usc of Scripture in Matthew 2 within the broadeJ' process o fmythmaking. which in geneml temts begins with some kind of historical (or facn1al) evem~ is then inte1·preted within a cosmic suucture, and is finally legitimized historically. It is the last two phase-s in the process that are of conc.ern. I

6

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

respectively divide the essa}' into two po:uts by firs t drawing attention to the literary artistry o f chapter two. namely the mythmaking phase-, and then focusing on the historical legitimization ofthe travel story via the embedding of Scripture. More specific to method, in the first part of this essay Matthew's literary artistry is explo1·ed in light of Nonhrop Frye's theory of mythmaking. which brings attention to Jesus' portrayal as a divine child who miraculous!}' escapes death from a paranoid tyrannical king whose rule in turn is subve1ted by his intended victim. h is a narnltive that cont
l'evelations through drearns, a miraculous birtll, divine parentage, cosmic portents, and the-battle between good and evil, all of which are reminisc-ent of hero myths that would have been known in various fomts throughout the HellenizediRomanized Diaspora in the latter part of the first century. The second pa11 of the essay concentrates on how the quotations containing fulfilment formulae func tion in the tr:.wel narrative. The tenn ' function,' is here again limited to Northrop Fl)'e's literary-critical insights into myth and ideology. ) argue that Matthew's appeal to scriptural quotatio1tscan be explained as an exercise in historicizing m)1h for the purpose of legitimization. which inevitably leads to ideology. .Methodologically, my frame of reference is not the early historical-critical bifurcatio ns between history and myth (often depicted as the division between tmth and falsehood) utilized in the nineteemh- and early twentieth-century ' li\•es ofJesus'.nor the redaction-critical and tradition-critical distinctions which have dominated much ofthe discussion about embedded Scripture texts in the Gospels. Instead, my approach is more oriented toward process - from what might be termed historical f.'lcts to their mythical interpretation and eventual historicization - which is at home within current theories of m)1hmaking in both literary and J'eligious s1udies. Putting it another way, my interest is not so much in theology (or apologetics) as was largely the case in the use ofhistorical criticism, but in more inclusive modes of thought and consciousness which have l'O do with imagination and the role of metaphor in the construction of J'eality, panicularly that which is believed to bt• historic-.al reality by the Mauhean devotees. _r..,tichael Knowles' contribution focuses on the role ofScripture in the context of competing authoritative 'divine' voices in Matthew's characterization technique. Taking his cue from Norman Mailer's The Gospel According to the Son. a novelistic acc.ount of Jesm;' life and minisny narrated through the eyes and voice of Jesus himself, Knowles asks the question: where is the voice of God to be heard in Matthew's Gospel'? An initial reading may suggest that God - the prime mover and agent behind the Gospel narrative and therefore, arguably, its main charncter- is invisible and mostJy silent. Not only does God have no more than a single line of direct discourse in the entire Gospel, but the same line is repeated twice: ' This is my Son, the Beloved. with whom I am well pleased (Mt 3.17. 17.5; ed1oing Ps. 2.7 and Isa. 42.1). Given the Evange-list's conviction that Jesus is the Jewish Mess iah~ 'lord'. and ·Son o f God\ this seems somewhat unexpected. But, according to Knowles, Matthew depicts an invisible divine spe.aker who in the course of the Gospel narrative prefers to speak indirectly - initially via Scripture - through the mouth of Jesus. Whether by me.ans of this gradual

lmroduction

7

appropriation Ol' by downplaying other voices that might de.tract from Jesus' own, the namtive. focuses increasingly on the identity and verbal authority of the Messiah. Jesus· practise ofscriprural exegesis implies that just as there is not one ' Lord' but two within the narrative and theologic-al sti'Ucture of Matthew's Gospel so there are two sources of authority: not simply the biblical text per se. but the text as interpreted in relation to and especially by the f!.·1essiah himself. The Evangelist depicts in practice what the ascription ofKUptQS entails in thular or appellative terms: Je.sus speaks with an authol'ity equivalent to that of Scripture itse l f~ such that both convey the voice of'lhe Lord' . With particular sensitivity to text-critic-al variations aJld thematic parallels, John Nolland explores the role o f Deutero-Zec.hal'iah (chapters 9- 14) in the Gospel of Matthew. His study is guided by two questions: ( I) what is the function o f these quotations and allusions? And (2), is there any coherence in how these texts are used? He argues that most of the quotations and allusions fro m Deutel'o-Zechariah arc to be understood as designed to suggest. and then to bolster. the idea that Jesus (as the king: ofZech. 9.9), is the one who is to fulfil all the ideals for the shephe1·ding of God's people that are (mostly indirectly) attested to by the shepherding: imagery in Deutero-Zechariah. As he sees it, all the shepherd references in Zechariah are negative; they are all about she.phel'ding that has fai led in one way or another. But they implicitly set up a positive image of shepherding by disc.losing the kind o f leadership that the people need. The one very positive image of leadership in Deutero-Zechariah comes in the opening chapter, but it uses the language of the king and not of the shepherd (Zech. 9.9-10).

According: to Notland) it is from this point ofrefe.rence that Matthew feels justified in reading into the subsequent shepherd texts a positive counterpa.n to the failures o f shepherding. The king of Zech. 9.9- 10 becomes that positive counterpart to the failures of shepherding in Zechariah. T11e hermeneutical key to Matthew's appi'Oach to the Zechariah shepherd texts is that they arc mined for their potential contribution to the positive image of t11e shepherd king as an identity marke1· for Jesus. Aside from shedding light on how rvtatthew appropriates Zechariah. No Iland wrestles with the. problem of how to discern individual scripmral allusions in a Gospel that is so deeply influenced by the Jewish Scriptures. In the form of questions, t--.vo main criteria are used for validating: the presence of :.1Jl allusion: ( I) does the Evangelist echo a religious theme(s) found in the literary context of the exporting Scripture text? And (2). does the Evangelist demonstrate familiarity (e.g. via quotations) with the Scripture text from which the allusion is supposedly taken? Lidija Novakovic provides a compelling response lo those who, following the lead of C. H. Dodd,s assume that whenever the New Testament authors quote scriptural passages, they have their entire original (canonical) literary contexts in view. She equates this to James Ban··s well-knowncritiqueofKitrel·s TDNT that its contributors engaged in ' illegitimate totality transfer\ which happe.ns when 5. C. H. Dodd. Acrordi11g to the &ripluJ·es: The Substmctureo-fNewTt•:>Jamenl Tlwology (lon· don: Nisbe•. 1952). pp. SS- 96.

8

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

the semantic value of a word in one context is added to its semantic value in another context.' Novakovic challenges the legitimacy of this assumption by focusing on the quotation of lsa. 53.4 in Mt. 8.17. The significance of this cita.tion lies in the fact that this is the only explicit quotation of any portion of Isaiah 53 in the Gospel of Matthew, and one o f only nvo explicit citations of Isaiah 53 in the entire synoptic tradition. Novakovic attempts to show that in Matthew the citation of Isa. 53.4 is devoid o f the idea of vicarious suffering. likewise.• she finds that in the first cenmry there was nothing like a unitb rmly de-fined concept of the ·servant' . much less the ·sunering Servant'. Her survey reveals that early Jews referred to individual portions of these songs without much regard for their context or a unifying message. In Matthew, this text is applied to Jesus' healings through a method that can be called the ' atomistic use o f Scripture'. The Evangelist achieves this through a selective useofthe content of lsa. 53.4 and a verbal. even forced, translation of the Hebrew text, with the purpose of making it applicable to Jesus' healing ministry, which is, in the Gospel of Matthew, inse1>arable from Jesus' identity as the Davidic Messiah. By employing two interpretative techniques, messianic and atomistic exegesis, Novakovic argues that Mattltew facilitates a textual interpla}' bet\veen the servant o flsaiah 53. the.portrayal of the ideal Davidic king in Ezek. 34, and the depiction of the Davidic f\·1essiah in the Psalms ~lSolomon 17. The scriptural warrant of this complex hemteneutical process can be- found in Ezekiel 34.23, which provides the ve1·bal link between the tenns ' shepherd' . 'se1vant" and ' David'. Novakovic 's argument provides a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate largely initiated by Morna Hooker almost haifa century ago, who on the basis o f the atomistic use of Scripture in early Christian texts concluded that the concept of vicarious suffel'ing of the servant from Deutero-lsaiah had no formative influence on Jesus' understanding of his own mission or on the earliest layers of Christian tradition.7 Andries van Aarde raises the timely problem of'intertextuality' and its varied {often incorrect) uses among biblical scholars. Observing that the term has become a catchWOI'd for the embedding of Scripttu'C texts, he aims to develop a usage that is infOrmed by the literary theorist who coined the tem1. By exploring the 'intertext' o f the usage of the wo1·d •to save· (o~Cal) in rvtatthew, the First Gospel's presentation ofJesus as 'Heale-r-Messiah' becomes intelligible. The essay aims at applying two approaches to intertextuality. The one pe-rtains to the way in which Matthew produces an intertcxtual space whose occupants correspond to other texts. The second enterprise fomts an account of how Matthew creates pre-texts. The fonne.r entails intertextuality on the synchronic level and the latter on the.diachronic level. The second enterprise entails a theoretical discussion of types o f inter-texts and their interrelationships. also referred to as the 'encyclopaedia' o f the author and the intended addressees. The synchronic dime.nsion involves the 'interrextual space· in which Matthew's intended readers could be addresse.d by 6. J. Barr. T11e Semumics ofBibJicol J..anguag.:>(london: Oxford Uni,·crs.it)' Prest. 1961). p. 21&. 7. M. D. Hool:cr, Jesm m1d 1lw Sen•ont: T11e !t~jluenc~ojll.e Se1YOI!I ConuptofDemero-Jsaiull ilt the J'V(Ilt' Testamer1t (london: SPCK. 1959).

lmroduction

9

the ·pre-texts' of the-word ' to save· (o~~l'ecise antithetic parallelism. Abo/. like Matthew. affinns the ideal ofscribal wisdom1 but tl1e unadomed simplicity ofthe precise antithetic parallelism, separating unmistakably those tOund to be righteous from those who are.not is directed to a broad cross-section ofsociety. In both cases the aim is to inc1·ease the.demand of moral pe1·fection. (n both Matthew and Abot, the balanced. either/o1·c.ontrasts of the sayings are framed in such a way as to leave no doubt in the minds of the audience that one path leads to acceptance before God, aJld the other to destruction. In neither Matthew nor Abo/ are the traditional wisdom motif." presented as they had been for centuries. Rathe1·, what is common to the tv.:o is an orientation to wisdom that is transmuted into an allembracing demand for a righteous ethos and lifestyle. The wisdom aspect in all o f these cases is not found in lradilional wisdom, but in the new experience o f the scribe and sage. In an ern when historical criticism is taking its share ofcriticism1 Wills demonstrates the.value of redaction criticism in the.service of a comparative analysis that is not governed by a theological agenda. f\·loreover. Wills' comparisons J'eveal something o f the social background of the redactor, indicating a certain kinship between Matthew and some early rabbinic rfletorical techniques. This rhetorical similarity between f'.·fatthew aJld Abo/ suggests that tl1e former was more in the orbit of ' Jewish Christians' (or more accurate.ly. legally observant followers o f Jesus) as opposed to 'Gentile Christians· guided by the Gentile mission.

10

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels 2. Issues and lmplicalious

T11ere are several related issues, representative of broader scholarly thinking, which emerge from this collection ofessays. The.first issue concerns the meaning o f embedded texts in the Gospel narratives. (n other words, to what degree does a narrative context aid in determining the meaning of allusions? How do narrative features such as plot, characterization and time affect the interpretation ofembedded Scripture texts? Do embedded texts s hape narrative in the sense that the

narrative attains its structure and meaning from biblical stories or episodes, from which the embedded texts are taken:

Ol'

does narrative shape and give (new)

meaning to embedded texts and by implication to the biblical stories and events they echo? While it could be argued that both processes are at work, one is usually presupposed. Underlying theological assumptions about the unity ofthe two Testaments sometimes tips the scale in favour o f the fomler. As a result, the embedded texts serve as extensions o f their prior (ancient Israelite or early Jewish) meaning, even though they m·e found in a Christian context. Socialscientific assumptions are ce11ainly at work with regard to the latter, which would allow for embedded texts to take on entirely different meanings within the larger context o f mythmaking. This approach has no investment in trying to preserve some kind of theological unity between the Testaments. The two approaches emerge tf om the well-established distinction between theology and re-ligion. The second issue - which is closely connected to the first- has to do with the embedded texts~ loci o f meaning. (n other words. in which o f the many possible contexts do quotations and allusions attain meaning? Is it in extemal contexts such as the biblical book from whid l it is taken, the early Jewish interpretive traditions (and even rabbinic traditions). the historical Jesus. and/or early Chris-tian kerygma? If meaning is found external to the narrative, then the reader must assume that embedded texts are charged with prior meanings that influence the narrative. ln this case, Matthew can be regarded as an importer of meaning. Or are meanings ofembedded texts strictly shaped by their new narrative context? If this is the case, then the reader must allow for the possibility of entirely new and even contradictory meanings to e.me1·ge, which function in the service of their new literary context. (n this case, Matthew can be regm·ded as a new exporter of meaning. Again. one can argue for both impo11ation and exportation of meaning, but in practicality, studies of embedded texts in ~ilatt h ew have tended toward one or the other- usually the tb nne-r, partly because New Testament studies, as a more traditional discipline generally speaking, has not sufficiently interacted with postmodem literary theory, especially its conception ofin tertext11ality. To push the point further, some of the contributors in this c.ollection have well noted the lack o f sufficient interaction with first-century l'eligion as an integ:ml part of the imperial political and societal reality with which various synagogue commtulities had to negotiate, and thus re.think what the Scriptures mean. The collection reflects ditTering point~ of view on the-role and breadth of the exporting scriptural context. Some argue that Matthew uses Scl'ipture atomistically, whereas others claim that he has in mind some kind of original

lmroduction

II

literary context. The te.rm ·original'. though often used. can be deceptive since it depends on the stage of development to which one is referring. It also depe.ndson the interpretive frame\vork within which one is operating in see.kingmeaning. Are we speaking. fo1· instance, of a social, religious. theological. literary or canonical context, or some c.ombination of these'? From what [ can surmise, most contributors use the term to 1·efe1·to a theological theme in the final form of a given writing. Too often when "original' contexts are. invoked for the purpose of demonstrating theological continuity between the Test::une.nts, not enough c.l'itical variables are brought to the fore. Difference..'> between the two texts, which are separated by culture, time. space. and even belief, are overshadowed by verbal similarities. Comparative textual analysis gives way to apologetics. And established methods in comparative.religions and mythology are not even considered. In my estimation a theologic-al venture which sadly tmmps critic.al comparative analysis (usually for fear of fragme ntation) is ii'Onically undemtined because it cannot possibly fulfil, even if in principle, its mandate to unify knowledge. The third issue - again closely related - concerns the meaning of the. term ·fUnction·. Most of the studies on the use ofScriptu1·e in the New Testament over the last century c-an be divided into two overall aims. The first concerns the fonn o f the. embedded ScriptUI'e text. This quest is oriented toward identifying the influential antecedent text be it a version of Scripture (e\•en if oml, such as targumic traditions) or an embedded Scripture text in an earlier Jewish writing. Finding the appropriate formal textual comparison is often 1-egarded as a vital preliminary ste-J> bec-ause, it is argued. it potentialI)• aids in discerning the meaning of the embedded text. This assumes. ofcourse, that imported Sc.ripture texts carry with them imported meanings. In othe.r words. it is argued that if one can show tJlat a given Scripture quotation or allusion in Matdlew more closely resembles the Se.pruagintal form than the Masoretic. it must imply a Septuagintal meaning.11le problem is that the choice of embedded texts by ancient writers is guided by a variety o f reasons. And all too o ften the reason for the choice, even if the author was fumiliar with the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, is unattainable. The second overall aim has to do with tlle ·function· of the embedded Scripture text usually within a fairly restricte.d lite1'3f)' context. such as the immediate.passage or the writing as a whole. The problem is that the temt ·fimction' is rarely evaluated. Using the three-dimensional model of identifying where the locus of authority lies in hermeneutics- author, text or reader - the temt ' t\mction' is nonnally understood in what can be called a two-dimensional way. focusing on the intent of the author and/or the elemental uni fying features of written texts (usually narratives). What some of the essays in tJtis collection point out is that 'fimction· can be extended not only to the reader, but also to the brooder context ofhtunan imagination. mythmaking and ideology as they are understood in the field of religious studies. The func1ion of an embedded text is dms viewed as a symptom of the insatiable need to legitimize and unify experience, which necessarily employs metaphor and symbol. Anothe-r observation that is made in this regard is the unhealthy separation between biblical studies and religiow sn1dies in the current academic scene, whic.h has resulted in a myopic approach (with 1·espect to religion)

12

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

in much ofbiblic-.al scholm'Ship, and a sophomol'ic understanding of biblical scholarship in the broader srudy of 1·eligion. The fourth issue, which is ofparticulm· interest to historical critics, is the connection between the historicity of the Gospel vignettes - as potentially accurate representations of .les.us' deeds and sayings - and the Evangelist's adaptation of Scripture tex t'> in the composition of his narrative. Scholars who are predisposed to preserve the line ofcontinuity between Jesus· programme and that o f!\.fatthew tend toward acknowledging Jess literary creativity in the.use of embedded texts. But i f Scripture is acknowledged as playing a vital role in the shaping of the larger narrative (which supposedly preserves its continuity with the Old Testament}, does this not imply that the narure of the Gospel narmtive is apologetic, aggadic, or some fonn ofmythmaking. which at the same time detract'> from its historicity'? In other words~ the more that one appeals to influence (whether the motive is or is not cohesion) . the more one needs to wrestle with historicity and historicizing. In this regard. if my observations on the historicizing process in Matthew 2 are sound they can be dovetailed with Cousland's insights on Justin's use of Matthew's tl1lfilme.nt quotations to fb nn a hypothesis on the sequential relationship ben.veen historicizing and mythmaking in early Christianity. If Matthew's sequence is extended to indude Justin, then we can hypothesize that the l'elationship oscillates whereby mythmaking leads to historicizing (as ideological fom1ation) and historicizing leads back to mythmaking. An intere.'>ting response, howeve1·, might be expected from Apodaca. who tends to see the quotations not as historicizing features. but as mythmaking feanLres. ln addition, the problem of historicity is compounded when Wills' argument tb1· the rhetol'ical force of Matthew's redaction is thrown imo the mix. The fift h issue c,oncems the litemry competence ofMattl1ew's audienc.e. Even if the audience was familiar with the Scriptures, as ( think we should presuppose, should the audience be primarily located in an oml culture or a chil•og.raphic/ literate culture? There are two contrary assumptions regarding the reception of Matthew operating in this collection of essays. Some contributors assume that Matthew was read by individuals much like we would read it today. This means that most embedded texts would have been grasped and interpreted bec-ause the aud ienc-e was well versed in the Jewish Scriptures and interpretive traditions. But as f.1.r as the papers in this collection are concemed, this can only be an ·operating assumption· because the competence of the audience is often not explicitly mentioned. Other contributors assume that rvtat1hew was an oral performance heard primarily by an illiterate.audience which would have had mixed abilities in identif)•ing allusions. Ce11ainly, they would have been familiar with biblical stories and their traditions. If it is the case that the audience was large.ly illiterate, many of the so-c--alled allusions and even some of the quotations (i.e. without fom10las) ma)' not have been identified by the heare-rs at all. How one understaJlds the cultural reception of the narrative and its audience has significance for how one reads embedded texts. (n this regard, narrative explorations o f embedded texts cannot be separated from sociolog:ical/anthropolog:ical ones. \Vhat is more, a tCw of the contributOI's in this collection push the-role of the audience in

lmroduction

13

new, more universal. d irec.tions that tl'anscend cultural frameworks. When lll)1h theory aJld comparative religions are brought into the mix, the experiences ofthe Matthean audie-nce se1·ves not itself or Christian theology. but the larger quest of understanding human religious experience. The sixth issue which emerges in seve.ral o f the sn1dies is the politicized and rhetorical role of Scl'ipture in Matthew's. and indeed earlyChristianity's, quest for legitimization in the face of non-Christian Jewish opposition. Using Scripft1re as the fundamental source o f authoritative common ground, Matthew is forced to reinterpret and l'e.tell the role of the law and the story of national lsmel within a view ofhistory that find~ its fulfilment in Jesus. for some of the contributors, the legitimization pi'Ocess. via the Scriptmes. leads to an all too familial' establishment of a new ideology~ whe1·eas for others it is \•iewed as an organic development. Whatever one's position, the1·e is no doubt that !vlatthew's use of Scripture was fateful, leading to a tug-of-war betwee.n an old l'eligionand a new one. Unfortunately, f\•1at1hew's programmatic and exclusive claim to the Scriptures became influential for anti-Jewish polemic in the fonn.ation of institutional Chl'is1ianity that saw itself. largely from the time of Eusebius to the ho1Tors of the Holocaust, as superior.11 The final issue concerns lhe meaning of the term 'in tertexn~a l ity' , which has become common nomenclature among. especially, New Testament scholm·s who investigate the function o f scriptural allusion (often called 'echoes') and quotations. I (along wilh a few others) raised the problem almost a decade ago, but my critique has received modest interaction.9Jfanything, the use of the term among histol'ical critics has escalated. It is thus encouraging to include van Aarde's essay on this topic. These are what I consider to be the major insights and implications that emerge from the following essays>and w1doubtedly othe-rs will be raised, for which I will be grateful. While some of the issues are similar to those raised in the previous volume on Mark- thus accennlating the need for addres..'>ing lhem - lhis volume extends the. implications for further research in new directions.

S. Bunon t . Visotd:y. ').fidrash. Chtistian E~egcsi s.and Hellenistic Hcmlen('Utics'. in Cumm1 Tmhlfintlw Study ofMidroJh (cd. C. Bakhos: SupJSJ. I06: lcidcn: BrilL 2006). pp. 112- 13. 9. SecT. R. li atina. ' l nterte~tuality and li istoric-al criticism in New Tc-!ilamc:nt Studies: Is 1h~~re a Rd alionship?•. Bibfm 7 (1999). 28-43.

I. MYTH THEORY, COMPARISON AND EMBEDDED S CRII'11JRE T EXTS: IBN ISI:IAQ' S B IOGRAPHY OF MUHAMMAD AND THE MYTHOLOGIZ ING f UNCTION Of ISAIAH 7.J4tN MAlTHEW

1.23

M. Anthony Apodaca Being ~kcptical of the uni\·ers.Jiily of any theory is one thing. Being nblc-to side-step theorizing ahog~1her is anothc:r.1

In this :.ll1icle, the datum under examination is the embedded text of lsa. 7. 14 in Mt. J.23. However, given the absence of any clear theoretical fmmewot•k from which to interpret embedded Scripture texts in early Christian Gospels, my aim is to develop (in part) such a framework fo r interpretation. ( should say from the outset that this is not an exegetical exercise, rather a theoretical one with exe.getical consequences. My purpose is to advance the state of theoretical discussion regarding embedded Scripture texts. not to make a specific exegetical argument. To this end, ( explic-ate Matthew's appropriation of Isa. 7.14 in 1.23 using the interpretive theories of myth and comparison. This c-hapter is thus divided in three sections. (n the first, I articulate the need for New Testament scholars to theorize about religion, suggesting that the advancement of the field depends on it. It is only consistent that if we are to interpret religious texts, it is imperative that we sufficie-ntly theorize about religion itself. Second, ( map current myth theories, particularly elucidating aspects ofideology, myth making and social formation. I do not argue for one particular definition of myth over and against another, but define myth as it will be used here - ideologically, which is particularly usetUI for the study of embedded Scripture texts. In the third and final se.ction ( use myth theory as the grounds tb r comparison bel\'le<'O Matthew's birth narrative and Ibn lsl)5q's biograph)rof]!.·luhammad. illustrating how early Christian and early ?\•Iuslim writers mythologized their respective tbunders. The result is that f\·1atthew's embedded Scripture texts emerge as myth making agents~ which constin1te one o f several mythologizing strategies. Myth. then, is really the ordinary organization of the past in human societies, whel'eby rituals. texts or omI stories are used as modes of social argumentation. ln this respect. I.

p. 10.

Rob~'fl A. Segal. My1h:

A fiery Short lntrQ(hKfion (Oxford: Oxford University PI"I.'SS. 2004}.

APODACA

A(rth The.my, Comparison and Embedded Scripture Texts

15

Matthew's appropriation of (sa. 7. 14 in 1.23 is a cle-ar example-of one mythologizing strategy.l11e function of the embedded text is thereby one of social argumenta1ion and legitimization, dictated b)' the social concems of the community, especiall)' with regard to self-identity. Consequently, the hermeneutical value of an embedded ScripnLre text is its quality as an authoritative mythmaking agent, and the place o f the embedded Scripture text in its new narrative context. rather than the old narrative context(s), eme-rges as the locus for interpretation. I . Thinking about Method

The purpose of these volumes, as stated by the editor. is to 'advance our understanding of the function o f embedded Scripture texts and their traditions in the narrative and socio-religious conte.xt ofeaJ'I)' Christian Gospels' .2 While the first volume succeeds in its efforts to ·bridge the conc.erns o f both narrative and historic--al critics'. there is still much work to be done concerning the jimction of embedded Scripture texts in early Christian Gospels. T11ough most of the-previous contributions, reflecting current trends in New Testament scholarship, locate the.meaning ofembedded texts within a litermy and social framework, little or no attention is given to the methodological issue-s involved in re-ading such texts. Further. the common working assumption is that themeaning ofan embedded text is attainable through the historical-cl'itical method} While the historical-critkal method has provided invaluable data aJld insight into reading ancient texts. this historical-positivist approach proves inadequate not least bec-ause its myopic character has faile.d to pi'Oduce any substantial theoretic-al framework for biblical interpre.tation. 4 Amlin W. Geertz eloquently remarks that the study ofreligion issignificunt~J'more 1lmn reading undana~J>:illg li!XIs. The study of religion is a thcorolical project c:.xploring an nc:.ndc•nic construction culk d ·rdigion.' which is informed by empirical C\'idencc: pcrccivod in terms of n whole runge of ideas and as:s.umpcions. These idcus nnd nssumpcionsoftcn tum on the nature of human being;;, their origins. cognition nnd ps)·chotogy. their cuhuml and socinl nc:..-ds. and so on.5

T11e current reign of the historical-critical method, which so often illicitly transforms raw data into theological meaning, has indeed become a methodological 2. Tiwmas R. Hatina. 'Introduction•. in Biblical hlf(•J·prt>toJion in £ar~v ChriS/ion GoJpel.f; Volume 1: 11li!Gospel ofMurk(c-d. Thomas R. Hatitl3: LNTS,304: l ondon: T&TCblk. 2006). p. \•ii. 3. An exc-eption is Hatina. who writes. ·the exegete must in the:. end remain satisfied with a plurality of options' (Batina.. ·Embcdlli.'d S<>riptu.re TexiS and the Plurality of Me-aning: The Anoounccmc:nt of the: -voice from lieavc:n'' in Mark 1.11 ns a Cnsc Study'. in Biblical lnterprewtion in &11·{1' Christian Grupc4s. p. 82). 4. Elisabeth Schiisslc:r Fioren:r.a rcflc:c-ts: ·o ne: would think thnt the: great dispatity in the results ofHistoricnl·ksus research wouJd have rxrsuadcd scholars a long time ab'Oto abandon thc:irqucst for the Historic:aJ.Jcsus produced by the: disciplined usc:.of historical methods. in fn\'or of more fruitful c:ncka\'ors' (J~us amlthe Polilirs oflmi!rprewtirm [londonand Ne-w Yor\:: Continuum. 2000~ p. 30). 5. A nn in W. Gctrlz. ·cognitive Approaochc::sto the Scudy ofRdigion• in l1lewAppruadws to-tilt• SJudyofRrligion(ed. Peter Antc:s..e/ a/. ~ Rdigionand Reason. 4213: 2 vols~ Berlin: Walter dcGtuylcr. 2005). ,·ol. 1. pp. 2.354-5.

16

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

trap for the exegete, rather than a tool to be used, challenged, modified, or even abandoned. Rita M. Gross incisively argues that the:. most critic.1l nnd Jibeor11ting thing to be suid aboul methodology is thnt it is a tool . . . Methodology often turns from tool to trap bccauseasp«tsofas.:holar's persona) imcrcst and idcmily become tnngkd up with supposed))· ne-utral schol:uly methods .•. lk1Kfs about religion nrc at stake. no matter how nc.utral their proponcms d aim to be . . . Sllcil doctrinal (Jlflrermce to on alreffltl' ac
If the previous volume leaves us with one concluding consensus about the current state of scholarly research. it is that theorizing about t'e-ligion, which demands scmtinizing method, plays little to no role in the assumed exegetical task. There are-, I believe. at le.as1 three reasons for the absence oftheot·etical discussions. First, New Te-stament scholars have been reluctant to perform critical self-reflection. which is to say, they lack a cle.arly articulated purpose. As motivations for scholarship tend to be either apologetic and defensive or antagonistic and o fl"'ensive, methods become self-serving tools. The methods employed for these interests m·e rarely the objecl of debate and cannot be so unless the apologetic task is first abandoned. a risky prospect for those whose own idcmities are bound to the results oftheit' scholarship.1 J. Z. Smith writes: lucking ndC!lr aniculation of potpc:GC. one may d« ivc am:sting anccdotalju:\laposition!> or self-serving differentiations. but 1hedisciplincd constructive work of theacadcmy will not bnw been advanced. nor will Lhe study of religion have come of agc.8

Second, New Testament scholarship remains largely unaware (or at least disinterested) in theories ofreligion developed in other disciplines. such as cultural anthropology, comparative religion. evolutionary biology. or cognitive psychology, to name a few. The theory ofreligion in New Testamem scholarship is, by and large, a Christian theory o f religion fb.llaciously based on Christianity itself. This model, which emphasizes personal experience and divine moments oftransfomlation, sustains a theory of religion that. even after comparative. efforts (if

6.

RiLo ~I. Gross. 'Methodology - Tool or Trap?'. in Ho,,· to do Comporolive- R~ligitm? 11wee

Ways• ..\ferny Goab (~-d. Rene Goth6ni: Religion and Rc3SOO. 44: Berlin: Waller de Gruytcr. 2005).

p. 154. The cmphas($ ore mine. 7. This bttame stanlinglyapparcnl to me:. wh<-n. during a rcccn1 gu<"$.ll~ture. at m}' in~ i tution. one promitKnt New Tcstnm~'1l l scholar IIJl,'UCd thalthekemel of nascent Christi.1ni1y wn.s mon•or less equal to t.hat ofonhodox Christianity. After ltJSkod himto tt\'Cill whnt m~'1hod he wns using to make such judgements. he:. responded caOO:iilly by announcing that he dtd not have one:-. He wen1 on to say that he simply rend the text and observed - an upfront admission ofwhal Ni017schccallcd the ·myth of immaculate pcrccpcion• (larathu.stra 2.15. quoted from J. Z. Smith. Drmlgery Divine: On the Comparis(}tl tJ/Eurly ChriJiiatlities and the Religion.f o/Lali" Antiquity[Chicago: The: University of Chicago Press. 1990]. p. Sl ). Arc we to believe thn1the-rostlhs of his passive obsm·utions and their reinforce-ment oforthodox Christian it)' arc merelya sensation:. Ic:oinc:idcnce? Surely. as this example illusllntcs. further inwstig-11tion into the: aims ond methods of New Testament scholars is p.1tallli)Unl. 8. Smith. Drudgery DMne. p. 53.

APODACA

A(rth The.my, Comparison and Embedded Scripture Texts

17

any), promotes Christianity to be unique and superiot·.~ Bmton Mack articulates the problem in the fOllowing way: ...s.intt the discipline docs not demand cxpC"rtise in the fields of compar.uivc religions. c-uhuml anthropology. and religious studies. it hasnocsccmcd nocc-;saryto \'tntun: bl")'· ond the-history of Christianity to look for a gencr~ll theory of religion. Famili111ity with the Christian religion has taken the- place--of thcoreticnJ discussion. and Christianity has provided the categories thnt nrc-used to Mnll: and explain carfy Christian phenorncntL 10

Third, general theories of religion are by no means cohesive aJld conclusive, as a number of recent sntdiesdemonstratc.'' However. this should not discourage New Testament scholars from participating in the debate.12 These.are not met•ely theoretical exercises, but havesignificantexegetical consequences. For example, the tacit agreement among many New Testament scholars concerning the uttet· uniqueness of the Christ-event precludes any serious discussion ofcomparison.u.11lis ontological conviction tends to f.1vour interpretations of embedded Scripture. texts that reinforce Christian ot1hodoxy and emphasize continuity with the-Jewish Scripture. Applying myth theory to the study of embedded Scripture texts frees us from these re$trictions 1 challenges methodological assumptions, and allows for early Christian literamre to be read with a frt-sh perspective. Further, reconceiving eal'ly Christian Jitemntre. as mythic literature, 'thereby establishing parity with non-Christian materials, is a prerequisite for comparative research' .1J 2. Myth A. Ratioualisl and Romantic Approaches At a popular level, myth is usually defined as a story or belief that is false and

contrasted with writings that are considet'ed to convey truth or fact. In academic discourse, the term is so nuanced that it has become ambiguous at best and obsolete at worst. I$ As a result, it has become more than necessary to define myth 9. See Burton Mack. T7re Christion !l(I·J/J; OJ·igilu. Logic. ond Lt•gocy (London and Ne-w Yor\:; Continuum. 2001). pp. 64-6. Sec-nlso Smith. Dnulg<'YY DMne. pp. 36-53. 10. Mnc-k. TlJ<• Christian Myth. p. 65; sec also. Smith. Dnrdgery Oil'ine. pp. 38-9. II. Ame-;. N~w Approudws IQ the Simiy ofRdigion: Willi Bruun nnd Russe-ll T. McCutch-eon (cds}. Guille lo the Study of ReligitJfl (london nnd New York: Cassell. 2000): Goth6ni. flow liJ d(J C(JJU· paraliw Religion?: Robe-rt Seg-11! (cd.). The Blar:k~re/1 Componionlo lite StudyofReligion(Muldc-n. MA: Blackwell Publishing. 2006). 12. Praiscwonhy in this regurd is the Christian Origins Project whose wor\: is published in RedrscribingChriJJiufl Origin.\·(cds. Roo Caml•ron nnd Merrill P. Miller: AtlanLO: Soc i~-cy ofBibticnJ Literature. 200-4). Sec also Gcrd Thics.scn. A Theory ctfPrimiliw ChriJJiQnity (Irons. John Bowden: L-ondon: SCM Pres.s. 2003): trnns. of Thc-v:wie ckr w·chril·Jiirlten Religion (Giitcrsloh: Giitcrsloher Vcrlagshaus, 1999): and Hcikl:i Riiisiinc-n. Marcio11. Muhammadamlllli! ;\{Qflalma: £xeg~Jical Per.fpt'Ciil-es 011 the Eu~mmter ctfCulllltY!S ond Failhs (london: SCM Press. 1997). 13. See Smiah. Dmt/g'-'(1' Ditrine. pp. 36--53. 1 ~. Smith. Drudgery Di~"ine. p. 87. 15. Robl~fl Ellwood ('Is ).fythology Obsolete?'. JAAR 69 [2001). 673-86: 685) ('VCll suggests replacing the word mylh 'with new language to indicate an entirely new approach. ns incrc-nsingly

18

Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

cogentI)'~ even if it is conceded not to be the only plausible de-finitio n. In what follows . I survey several theol'ies of myth and attempt to establish a working de-finition that elucidates the ideological function of myth, which in turn can be

applied to the embedding o f Scripture texts in Matthew. Robert Segal. among others. classifies theol'ics of myth into two principal categories: rationaJist and romantic.1" The ,·ationalist pionee.rs of myth theo1y, E. B. Tylo1·( 1832- 1917) and J. G. frazer ( 1854- 1941), defined myth as the p1·imitive counterpart to science. This approach views myth as either an explanation of the physical world (Tylor) or an attempt to affect it (frazer). Segal summarizes the distinction in early theories this way: 'Myth and science are not merely redundant but outright incompatible: myth invokes the wills of gods to account for events in the world; science appeals to impersonal processes like those o f atoms. ·n Myth is theretbre inferior to modem thought: science replaces myth as a means of explaining the natural world. The rationalist approach o f the structural anthropologist Claude LCvi-Strauss is one of the most influential variations on Tylor. For LCvi-Strauss, primi1ive mythology is not unscientific in narure, but differs in that mOOern thinking is abstract while mythic thinking is concrete. IS For rationalists>the prim.:uy function of myth is to explain the physical and social world. Thus, for LCvi-Strauss. the most important function of myth is to mediate contradictions (and thereby relieve cultural anxiety) usually expressed in binary oppositions such as life/death~ maleifemale-, clean/ unclean.1') For example, mediators of life/death may be expressed as follows: life <=> Agric.ulture <=> Herbivores <=> Carrion Eaters <=> Hunting <=> Predators <=> War <=> Death. In some. N011h American indigenous myths, the mediator between life and death, often the trickster within the narrntive c.ontext. is usuall)' a mven or coyote (carrion eah!t'S).lO The coyote's character as a mediating figure is indecipherable without knowledge o f the totalizing structure.

scholorsarcdoing with another foudc:ucrword. cull' . In schotorship. m)1h h:tS become ·ollllOSt inex.triCilbly bollixed up in debates like those: about lndo-Europcanism ond anti-Semitism with which (Robert Sc:g.l) and Brutt Lincoln] have: deal!'. 16. See Robc11 Segal. Theori:ing Ab(}/1/ Jtvllr (Amhcrst: University of Massachusetts. 1999)~ Hnns Blumenberg. Work 011 My11l (Ounbridge". MA: MIT Press. 1985). 17. Robett SegaL 'Myth and Politics::\ Response:-to Robc:11 Elhvood".J.4AR 70(2002).61 1- 12. 18. ScpL My1h. pp. 29- 30. 19. SegaL My1h. p. 114. 20. Sec-EricCs:tpo. Tlwr,riesl.!fM;.thologr(Maldc:n. MA: Blad:wcll Publishing. 2005). pp. 226-&. Even in unrd:itcd cultures. mediators mny serve the same futl(tion. Csopo write$: Clothing is 11 medilltor between c-ulture and Mturc: Mkcd we: arc aJI children of noturc: c loth~-d we ore-full)· products ofculture: by clothing we: rnanifcst all culturul diffcn:nccs: stntus. ronk. notionnlity. gender. profession. etc . . . rats. lic~·. and other ' '« min mediate bc:twttneulture nnd noturc in nl:11l)'SOC:i~"1ics. silK'( tlloC)·art unwanted produ~1s of nature, but the)· breed in the midst of the human communit)·. and most prolifically wht-n: the. poputution is most dense. (Csapo. Tlloories ofM>tlmfogf. p. 228) For a m:c:ont applicotion ofStrnuss. set Andre. Van Ookkum. ·adicf Systems about Virgin Birth: Structure and Mutunl Cornpm'3bility". Current AnthropologJ' 38:1 ( 1997). 99- 104. Van Dokkum

APODACA

A(rth The.my, Comparison and Embedded Scripture Texts 19

Romantics. b}' contrast~ interpret myth as anything other than explanations of the physical or social worlds. f\·1yth, for romantics such as Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell and Mircea Eliade. is an e.ternal phenomenon that expresses psychologic-al or metaphysical realities. Jung sees myth as a projection of the collec1ive unconscious onto the e.xternal world.21 For Campbell, myth represents a single metaphysical reality. Religion obstmct~ the experience of this re-.aJity because it turns the poe6c metaphor, which is the 'mask of God through which etemity is to be experienced' .21 into liter.tl prose. Speaking with Bill Moyers in the now famous interview series, Campbell clarifies: The ps)·chologist Jung has n ttlevant snying: "Re.ligion is a defense agaiMt the e:xpcri· ence of God'. The-mystery hns bocn reduced to a sct ofconccpiS and idea!>. and cmphs· siling thcseconcepls and ideas can ~rt4circuit the trnnscclldc:nt connotcde~pc:ri~~ncc:. An intense c~pc:-ricnc<: of mystery is what one: has 10 regard as the ultimate. religious .

l.l

~·xpcnc:ncc:.

Similarly for Eliade. myth is ultimately a means to an experiential encounter with the divine.14 \Vhile there are important differe nces between rationalist~ and romantics, such a~ whether lll}1h should be read lite.rally Ot' symbolically or at the expense of or askew to modern though1. there remains at least one shared conviction: myth remains substantial. defined by its contents.

B. Myrh as Ideology As an altemative to the.se theories. Russell l\kCutcheon (following Roland Bm1hes) argues that lll}1h should be understood in a fomtal rather than substantial way. McCutcheon writes: ... a shift in perspC!Ctive nllows us tosu.ggcsl ( I ) th:U m)·thsarc not special (or ·sacred") but ordinary humnn m~ns of fashioning nnd authoriling their lived-in and bclicvcd in ·worl
Bm1hes, who is one of the first to apply an ideological layer to the investigation of myth. de.fines myth as ·a type of speech'. He argues that ·myth is not defined

.s.hows how myth resolves inc.onsistenc:«:s by comparing the male rokorconcit)' Press. 1998}. pp. 8&-94: Rob~·n Seg.1l. ' Myth'. in nre Rladnwll 0Jmpm1Wn to tl1e Study ofReligkm. p. 349: Russell T. McCutcheon. ·M)'lh•. in Guidi! UJ the SIUdy ofReligf(}ll. p. 196. 12. Jospch Campbell. The Po11'1!1' ofMyth (New York: Doubleday. 198.&). p. 73. 23. Campbell. The Power ofMyth. p. 261. N. Sc:gal. Myth. p. 56. 25. McCutcheon. ":O.fyth'. p. 200.

20

Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

by the object of its message, but the way it utters this message: there are fonnal limits to myth, the-re are no .;substantiart ones' .16 for Barthes, as well as McCutcheon, the rea l powe-r of myth is its ability to parade as a self-evident tl'Uth.~ 7 B:u1hes accomplishes this by conceiving of myth as a second-order semiological system.~~~ In language. the meaning of any given sign is defined not by the literal referent but by the sign and its re lationship to other signs within the total lan-

guage system. As a tb nnal equation. the signifie-r (acoustic sound)+ the signified (mental image)= the s ign. In mythology, the linguistic sign (\"'hich may be a

picture, painting, ritual, etc.) becomes the mythological signifier.11le mytJlological sign has no literal referent. but acquires meaning from the cultural system to which it belongs. Consider Ba11hes' \Veil-known example.of a young black soldier in a French uniform saluting on the cover o f Poris-Matclt. On the first order, it is literally a picture of a man in a unifom1. On the second order, howeve.r, it signifies that 'France is a great Empire, that all her sons. without any color discrimination, faithfully serve under her flag, and that there is no better answer to the detmctors of alleged colonialism than the zealshown by this Negro in serving his so-called opp1·essors' .:::9 Csapo. writing of this same example. concludes that ... mythology is indistinguis.habk .from a partic-ular ideological function. m~ificalion. and a particularopcttlllondaimc:d to be especiallycharacteristic ofbourgcois idoolog,_v, nnmdy natumliza1ion (concealing the con.sm1ctod nature of the ·myth' but making the myth sit invisibly upon the seemingly unassuming and m.lt1er-of-factuallingui.sticsign).30

In recent years. l\•lcCutcheon has not been the only theorist to have made the shift from a substantial to a fom1al definition of myth. Bruce Lincoln, for instance. defines myth as ·ideology in narrative form~ :H Influenced by Lincoln, Csapo sugge$tS that ·myth is a function ofsocial ideology . .. and we should not insist on certain contents and context but rather use these as evidence tOr the existence of the mythic tUnction' ..u It is this ideological appt·oach to myth- as a form ofsocial argumentation - which is most useful in undet'Slanding the function of embedded Scripture text~. Defined in this way, myth is virtually interchangeable with ideology. which is a ·matter of''discourse" rathe-r than of;·lang:uage"' :B Ideology. then. may take on mythic or imaginary 'resolution of contradictions' employing such strategies as ·unification, spurious identification, nantralizarjon, deceprion. self-
26. Roland Bnrtbcs:. Mytlwlogies(tr.utS. Ann~':!tc. l.a\'«S: New York: The Noonday Pres~ 1972}. p. 109. 27. Mc.Cutchcon, ').fyth'. p. 201. 28. Barlhcs. .Uyt!lologie$. p. 114. 29. Barthcs. Myt/Jo/(}gies. p. 116. 30. Csapo. TheoriesQjMythology. p. 278.

31. Bruce Lincoln. nll"'rizing Myth: iVarrafi~~. ldmlogy. ondSdwlaJ·.fflip(Chicago: Unin-rsity of Chicago Press. 1999}. pp. xii. 147. 32. Csnpo. TheoriesQjMythologl', p. 9.

33. Tcny Eugkton.ldeo/(Jgy: An lmmdt,c-/i(}n (london: Verso. 1991 ). p. 223. 34. Eagleton. ldrology. p. 22"2.

APODACA

A(rth The.my, Comparison and Embedded Scripture Texts

21

At this point I offer three caveats. First. the importance ofBanhes' theory discussed above lies in his designation of myth as a ·type of speech'. While McCutcheon does not hesitate to tbllow Ba11he.s' theory of naturalization in describing lll)'lh as truth held to be 'self-evidenf.lJ Eagleton has clearly shown the limits of universally applying any one strategy to ideology (or lll}1h) ..lti Second, contrary to structuralisrn 's totalizing and monolithic function of ideology and lll)1h. a poststmcn1ralist emphasis on discourse allows for multivalent cultural narratives. Subgroup ideologies coexist 3Jld compete for the dominant ideology..l7 Quite diflerent from stn1cturnlism. ' ideological analysis regard'> language and semiotic systems as practical, not abstract, as social. not autonomous, and as conHicted. not homogeneous· ..l~o: Third,lmust emphasize that ideology and myth are used here in the non-pejorative sense. Ideology is not limited to the.Marxist notion of ·false consciousness' and myth is not a designated term for a non-historical event. C. Myth, !Wythmaking, <md Social Formation Social fom1.ation emphasizes that humans nat\Jrally form groups with social interests. In relation to a larger social body. subgroups 'desire to pursue ends and agenda shared with and relative to othe1·s within the same social body'.19 These interests mnge from the.collection of food to the.fonnation of group identity. Mythmaking is the process of ·constructing, authorizing and reconstructing social identities or social fonnations' ..~o Mythconceived as a function of social fonn~llion allows for a group actively to participate in mythmaking and the creation of myth, which is also taking an active role in shaping their own social idemity. Ellwood writes: ·Myth and mythmaking assimilate collectivities of people to a single le.adero1· hero and reduce complicated struggles to the \varofthe children of light against the children of darkness. ' 41 Mythmaking maintains paradoxes, resolves conflicts, and ofTe1·s solutions to oppositions. similar to the structuralist approach discussed above.'H Mythmaking is also the ideological arena in which soc.ial groups lobby for their respective social interest and legitimization.:1 1n this regard, mythma.king ma}' be use.d either to reintbrce or confi'Ont dominant power groups. It is the stage for ideological confrontation and reinforcement always bound to social interests and group identity. Myths are the result ofmythm.aking and social formation.

35. See Mc.Cuic.hcon. ·Myth'. pp. 201- 2. 36. See Eaglelon. /dl>o/ogy. pp. 59-61 . 200. 37. Sec Csnpo. Theories oj.4fyll10logy. pp. 29!. 1:97. 38. Csapo. Thoories of.4(rthology. p. 299. Sec:. uJso Eagleton. /d;;oo/q;J•. p. 194. 39. William Arnal nnd Willi Braun. 'Social Fom1n1ion and ).fythmaking: Theses on KeyTenns'. in Redrscribing ChriJiiun on·gins. p. 462. 40. McCu!dlC'Oil. ' ).fyth'. p. 202. 41. Ellwood. · [s ).fytholog)' Obsok-le?'. p. 680. 41. Sec Mc.Cutc.hcon. ' ).fyth •• p. 203. Sec also. Csapo. Throries of.4(rthology. pp. 19S-9. 43. See Burton Mack. ·social Fom1ntion' . in Guide 1u 1/le S1udy ofReligimu . p. 292.

22

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

D. Myth The01 yaud Ancient Biography One of the advantages in utilizing myth theory is it~ close relationship with Matthew's genre as Graeco.Roman biography."' Biography in the ancient world, viewed separately from history, was an ideal instrument t0 1·disseminating ideology. As a mythologizing technique, typically the biographer presents the divine philosopher in a way that legitimizes his individual impo11ance as well as the importance of his school (OJ' disciples).JS In other words, there is a clear c.orrelation between the character and works of the philosopher and the social identity o f the group that idealizes him. Consistent with our descriptions ofmythmaking and social fom1ation. biography may either be a vehicle for defending the dominant ideology (i.e., the life of the Caesar) or a vehicle for challenging that ideology through subversive political i deas.~ Ancient biographies 'were personal statements which, though couched in religious and philosophical terms, addressed sociopolitical and cultural concerns as well' ."7

3. Comparison A. Isaiah 7. 14 in Mallhew 1.23

lsa. 7.1 4 in Mt. 1.23 is introduced by TOUTO OE OAOV yiyovev 'i vcx ITADPU>a(i TOpn~v uno KUpiou o1ix TOO npo<j>J] Tou AeyovTOS (Mt 1.22), descl'ibing the t'emal'kable circumstances o f Jesus' birth. T11is use o f the verb rrAT}p6cu to introduce the Scripture quotation is the first in a series (of probably ten) of socalled 'fulfilment quotations' employed by the Gospel writcr..«S Of these. tOur occur in the birth narrative ( 1.23; 2.15, 17-18, 23)."~Matthew depicts Jesus as the 'fulfilment' ofScripnLre and thereby effectively makes the point that Matthew's community is not fOrsaking the past. but is in continuity with it 50 (n particular,

44. Tbis is not the place to mnkeanargumcnt for Gospc.l genre: howewr.an trncrging majority of Gospel !>"(X'C ialists place the Synoptics within tht.c-iltegot)'Of Graeco-Roman biography. Sex- Rjchard A. Burridge. lflluu Are 1lwGospds? A Comparison ,~·illtGrmoc(} ·Romall Biograpl1y. (2ndcdn: Grund Rapids: William B. Etrdmans Publishing Company. 2004). Stenfso. O.wid E. Aune ·Grcco-Roman Biogmphy·. in GrectJ·Romall Lili'rotlwealltlthe l'•l£'"' Ti'JIWfumt(cd. David E. Auoc~ Ad!lntn: Schob rs Prcs.s. 1988}; W. D. Davits and 0. C. Allison. TIJe Gospt'l AC'Cordi11g w Saint MailluM (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1988- 97). ' 'ol. 3. pp. 707- l &: Graham Stnn1on. A Gospelfor a Ne1r Pe(}p/e: Sludies in MOIIIIe"·(Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1992). p. 64. 45. Pntricia Cox Millc:r. Biography ill LtJtf! .-4ntiqui~l•: A Quest for the-Ho(v Mmt (Berkeley: Uni· \'ersity of C-alifornia Press. 1983). p. 166. 46. Amnldo MumigiU.no. J11e Dewdopme111 of G1vek Biography (Cambridge, .\tA: Harvard Univcrsit)' Press. 1993). p. 99. .J7. Co:t ~iiller. Bi(}grapiJy in I.ate Amiquity. p. 135: soc: also Bunidgc. H'ho1 An" lfw Gospds?. p. 291. 48. These usually in dude: Mt. 1.22·23: 2.15; 1. 1 7· 1 8~ 1.13:4.14-1 6: S.l7: 12. 17·2 I: 13.35: 21.4· 5: 27.9·10. less agreed upon arc: Mtl.5-6: 26.54. 56 . 49. Sec Dunuld Senior. ·The Lure ofthe Formula Quotations: R~~-Asscssi ng Matthew's Usc: ofthe Old Te.stamcnt with the Passion Narrative as Test C-ast.' in Tlw Scripfmvs in the Gospl!ls {~-d. C. M. Tucket Ltli\'CU: l~':Uvtn Univcrsil)' PI'($$. 1991). pp. 10 1- 3. 50. See Oal.'icsand Allison. The G()SfH!IAcrordinglo Sainl.tlattlww. vol. 3. p. 511: l ui'_ MmlhC'IV

APODACA

A(rth The.my, Comparison and Embedded Scripture Texts 23

Matthew's ·parting of the ways' reveals a distinct relation between the identity of Jesus and the identity of the Matthean community as a new moveme-nt within Judaism.51In acc.ordance with other fulfilment quotations. Matthew uses lsa. 7. 14 to make an explicit Christological statemen ts~ (n accounting for the origin of Jesus. Matthew makes the argument that he is both from the Davidic line (tvtt. 1.1-17) and from God (Mt. I.IS-25). While originally(in tl1e literary context of Isaiah) addressed to the 'house of David', the use of lsa. 7. 14 by !\•latthew serves as a legitimizing technique that would have been adopted by his community in their struggle against non-Christian Je,vs.5J These observations are straightforward and reftect the current scholarly consensus. However, what about the question ofhistoricity and the problem of the old narrative context ofls.a. 7. 14? For the func.tion oflsa. 7.14 in Matthew's birth narrative has played a key role in interpretation. Thus, for Brown, Matthew uses ls.a 7.14 to confinn the already existent association ofthe Christo logical statement ·son of God ' and the work of the Holy Spirit.:.. There is nothing inherent in (sa. 7. 14 that would have given rise to the idea that the Messiah was born by virginal conception. Bmwn·s conclusion is that the.'scient!fica/lycontrollab/e biblical evidence leaves the question of the historicity ofthe virginal conc.eption mu·esolved'. although he maintains that the New Testament evidence is easier to e.'< plain g iven the historical t3 cticity ofsuc.h a conception rather than to see it as a theologicalor literary creation.:.> In quite the opposite direction~ Schaberg suggests that Matthew used Isa. 7.l4 bec-ause of the law in Deuteronorny 22.23-27 'conceming the rape or seduction ofa betrothed rrapSEvos·. The law is presupposed in his p1·esentation of the dilemma of Joseph as "a just man, Torah-observant' .56 In her analysis of the Matthean text, ' Mary's pregnancy in the interim between the betrothal and home-tak ing is historical, as is the insistence of both Matthew and Luke that Joseph \Vas nof the biological fhther· .31 Minn~poli s: Fonrcss Press. 1989). pp. 159- 62: Senior. ' The Lure of «hc fonnula Quotations'. p. 103. 51. Luz writes tha« the ·continuod patting ufthc \\'ays wilh Juduism' and the: perception otusidc lheChristinn nlO\'Cm~·nt thnt ChriSiianily wns ·a distinct and novd n:ligion· wcrcMo mnjor (IIC'tors in Mntlhew's inv~ontion ofthe fulfilme-nt quotation (lu1.. .4ftllthe-w 1- i. pp. 16 1- 2). SC'Calw. Onvies ond Alison. The Gospel Ac-cordi11g to &1i111 Mollhew. vol. I. pp. 219- 20 and \ 'OJ. 3. p. 577: Senior. 'Tbc L ure ofl.hc Formulll Quotations'. pp. 99-103: Stanton. A GoJJXIfor(l New P~·ople. p. 189. 52. Sec Raymond E. Brown. The Birlil ofthe Me.uia!l {Garden City. New Yori:: lmngc Books. 1979),p. 133: Lto:, Molt/lew 1- i. p. 12 1: Donald Senior•.tlutl/lof'w(Abingdon New Tcstomcnt Commentaries: N:t$hvlllc: Abingdon. 1998). p. 39. 53. Sec Brown. TheBirth ltifonC'y NarrmiwofMuuhtw (Rome: Bibtical lnstilUtc Press, 1976). p. 252. 5-l. Browu. Binh ofrh~ Messiuh. pp. 149. 160- 1. 524. 55. Brown. Binll
1-7: A Comme!IIWJ' (tmns. \Vilhclm C. linss:

24

Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

In addition to the historical problem. we must deal with the loss of the old narrath•e context (and hence meaning) oflsa. 7.14 at the expense of the new narrative context off'.·lt. 1.23. How much, if any. ofthe narrative context oflsa. 7.14 should we infer/impose on Mt. 1.23? Is it justifiable, as Carter has recently a1·gued. to read the e.ntire c.ontext of Isaiah 7-9 into Matthew 1-4 through the quotations of lsa. 7.14 in Mt. 1.23 and lsa. 8.23-9. 1 in 4.1 5-16?" What about tl1e more common infe.re.nce of the 'house ofDavid" onto Mt. 1.23 via the literary context of lsa. 7.14 (7 .2 and 7. 13 )? Mythmaking and social formation. as an ideological strategy~ address both the issue of historicity and literary context. ln the c-ase of the latter, myth theory illumi n ate.~ the.ideological fi.ulctjon of the embedded text in its new narrative context which debunks the specific context ofthe old narrative. What should be.imposed onto "'·lt. 1.23~ then, is nothing more.than the ideological weight of the quoted authoritative prophet. Even the seemingly straightforward inference of the ·house of David' (Isa. 7.2: 7.13) needs to be 1·econsiderod. Isaiah 7.14 may still legitimize the community's belief in Jesus· dual identity as a David king and dh•ine SOil of God. but on the basis of the new litel'ary context in Matthew's birth oanative (especially 1.1 -17. 20) and not the literally context oflsaiah. Second, the former question of historicity is replaced by the more fruitful question of meaning. This suggests that the motivation for writing is bound more to the self-identity of the community than to the 'historical facts'. While these conclusions may not be satisfactory at this point, the comparative effort is the tme testing gJotuld for myth theory. For comparison is where theoretical discourse and data meet. resulting in either the reciprocal illumination of the data under examination or the failure of the stated theory.

B. Theorizing Comparison Serious inquiry into Matthe\v's birth narrative inevitably requi1·es at least some level ofcomparison with other ancient birth narratives. The usual suspects include: Moses (in multiple rabbinic and other Jewish sources, but e-specially in PseudoPhilo's Liber Anliquitatum Bib/icarum [9.1-1 0]);59 Phythagoras (lamblichus~ The Pythagorean Life 3-5. 7-10): Apollonius (Philostratus, Life ofApallonius 1.4.5-9; 1.6); Augustus (Suetonius, Li\•es qllhe Twelve Caesars. 'The Deified Augustus' 94.4); Noah (/ Euach 106-107); Melchizedek (2 Enoch 7 1- 72); Theagenes(Pausanius, Description ofGreece, Elis II. I I .2-3); and Alexander the Great (Plutarch, Life ofA/exander, 2.1-6: 3. I -9). In addition, there are multiple accounts of the 58. W. Ca.rtcr. 'E\•o\:ing lsainh: Matth~"an Sotcriolog)' nnd an lntctle:ttuu] Reading of Isaiah 7- 9 i!nd ~fauhew 1.23 and ~.15- 16'.JBL 199:3 (1000}. 503-10. Building panicularly on the work of J. M. Foky. Cart~Tsrguesthat in oral cultures. ·:.-pokcn texis froqucntlyare mctonymic.cmploying brief refcrcm:es- whethcrphras~"'iogy. themes. ehsrac:t~·r units. events. ornarrntivc structures - thul have c:ttrutex.tual coJUl()(ntions. The: part summons the whole.' Can« docs not however, oO':r n dear mclhod fordetennining .,...f~ioh pans ofthc:.nll1l'31i\•econtc:x1 should be imponod in the new nurmtive. Not only do the: old contexts have multiple meaning:;, but also the-citations thc:msd\'cshavc multiple conte-xts. 59. Sc:e J. 0. tios:san. ·v irgin Molhcr or Bas~.nrd Child?·. in A Fem itli:>f Guide to Mari(J/og)'. pp. 31- 55.

APODACA

A(rth The.my, Comparison and Embedded Scripture Texts

25

bi11h ofJesus in other Christian writings (Luke~ the Infancy Gospel o.fJames~ the Infancy Gospel ofThomas, the Arabic Jujauc~vGospel. etc.). Unfot1tmatel}', aside from the gene-ral observation that other miraculous binh accounts exist in antiquity, comparative etl(>l'ts have yielded little fruit Once again. little or no attention has been given to theories and methods ofc.omparison.60 Here. I follow J. Z. Smith~ whose work on comparison sets the standard tbr the field. For Smith. the prevalent assumption o f the ' uniqueness' of Christianity requires tlmt the cntcrptisc:. of comparison focus on questions of borrowing and diffu· slon. The usc ofcomparison as a hcrmcneulicdc:vic-e. or as a principle of disco\'a')' for the construction of theories or b"Cncric categories places no tole. What tuk s. i nste~~d. is an O\'c.nvfldming concern rot assigning value. rathcr than intellectual significnncc. to the results ofcomparison.t-1

In the c-ase of Matthew's birth narrative. questions of historicity and authenticity too often govern, and thereby undermine. the comparative eftbt1.61 Smith's own method for comparison toequires the 'acceptance of difference as the.grounds of its being interesting'.fil Rather than focus on issues of identity ofuniqueness. Smith asks. ' \Vhat differences are to be maintained in the in(eresl<> of comparative inquiry?'64 In what ways may we account for similarities in religions other than through the tmditional explanations oftlle 'ps}rchic unity' of humankind or djrect dependence?t.S Smith 's aJlswer, in part. is t-ecognizing that we are not merely dealing with the reception of ide.as, but rather the ·historical process ofreinterpretotiou' .'·<~> He- therefore considers the pamllel notions of the 'dying and rising' o f a cult figure in lhe religions of Late Antiquity and Christianities in the second to fom1h century as analogous processes, responding to parallel kinds of religious situations. '67 Comparison. then. only becomes intet·esting insofar as d ifferences can be maintained with respect to some stated theoty~ which exist 'solely within the space of the scholar·s mind '.t.i In our case, mythmaking and social fonnation sustain comparison of Matthew's birth with other birtJl narratives even whe.re no direct dependence-can be demonstrated. Consequently, a comparison of the early stories and traditions of the life ofMuhanunad and the Gospel of Matthew provide an instructive exercise. 1

60. See. ror example, R. J. Miller. Bom Dil'in~: Tile Rinlu of.lcsw; <-~ Other Smu ofGmi(Santa Rosa. California: Polebridge Pms. 2003). 61. Smith. Drudgery Dil:ine. p. 46.

62. This is equally true for bot.h ' lib~'llll' ond ' traditionaJ' endcavoots. 63. J. Z. Smi1h. To Tute P/(t('-e: T(Jward 11•eory i11 Ritu(JI (Chicago: The-Uni\'crsity of Chicago Prc:!:!t. 1987). p. 14. 64. Smith. T(J TokeP/uce, p. 14. 65. See Smith. Dmdge(l' Ditrine. p. 47. 66. Smith. Dmdgery Di~"ine-. p. 107. 67. Smith. Drudgery Dil:ine. pp. 112- 13. 68. Smith. Dnrdgery DM~~e. p. 115.

26

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

C. Ear~y Traditions ofA1uhammad As nearly one quarter of the Qur·an is composed of stories of biblical pi'Ophcts ft·om Adam to JC<sus. one catl hardly unden."Stimate their impot1ance in e.:uly Muslim communitics.b'} The stories of the prophets are said to have been revealed to Muhanunad by God (Q 7. 10 I; II. I00, 120: 18.13; 20.99) in order'to strengthen' his heart so that he might serve as a pedagogic-a l a id tbr the harsh lesson of disobedience.70 As Q 7. 10 I reads: "Then af\er them we sent Moses with our signs to Pharaoh and his nobles, who acted unjus11y in the-ir regard. But see what was the end of the oorntpt doers!·n However. while these themes are prevalent, a strong anti-Christian and anti-Jewish polemic also penneates such stories. fo1·the early Muslim community, Muhammad wa..'> the last and greatest prophe.t in a long succession of prophets that were.not Jewish or Christian. but f'.·tuslim (Q 2.136: 3.6568: 5.44; 42. 13). The biblical prophets ofold affi m1 Muhammad as God's apostle (Q 3.81) and Jesus announces the coming of the PI'Ophet in Q 61.6. in which he states: · . . . I am God's aJ>OSUe to you and to confirm the law which was give.n to me, and to announce an apostle that shall come a fter me whose name shall be Ahmad!· In this way. the stories of the p1'0phets in the Qur'5Jl function to legitimate f\·fuhanunad's authority. Subsequent Islamic exegetes expanded on these traditions, often as a means for legitimizing their own amhority and forging their self-identity." As the Qur'5n provides little information on the life of1vluhammad>the early communities wrote biographies of the Prophet. which, not surprisingly, utilized topoi from the vitae of biblical prophets.73 That this was the case becomes immediately appm·ent at even a ctu'Sory reading of the earliest biography of Muhammad - Ibn lsl)aq's (d. 1501767 CE) Sira. preserved in the edited version of ibn Hish5m (d. 2181833 CE). While the e\•idences of these topoi are too numerous to list here, I will address three that I find to be the most relevant for our discussion. The first feature is th~ll the Sira opens with a genealogy of?vluhanunad that traces his pure descent from Adam.14 Ibn lsl)aq 's recountingofMuhrunmad's line f1·om Abraham: to Adam is almost identic-.al to the last halfofLuke 's genealogy of Jesus. but with two important difference.~: Ishmael re.place-s Isaac and Adam is not the son ofGod. Second, Muhammad's bil1h is preceded by several prophetic announcements for 69. Sec R. Tot1oli. 'Natr.tli\·c l itemturc•. in Tile Blodhr!ll Companiomu the Qu'rW1(cd. Andrew Rippin: Malden. MA: Blad:wcll Publishing. 1006). pp. 467- SO. csp. p. 469. 70. Sc:c U. Rubin. ·Prophctsnnd Prophcthood\ in T11e Blucl.wcll Companion to the Qu'run. pp. 234-41.csp. p. 134. 71. Qut'an quo1a1ions arc.from Tile Koron (trans. J. M. Rodwell: cd. A. Jon~: london: PbOC'-nix. 2001 [1909)). unkss Olherwisc indicnt.:d. 72. Tbis is cspc:cially the case for •he Moses 1radition in the:.Qur'nn. ns B. Whcdcr coodudcs (' ~1osc::s ' in The B/(J('kwe/1 Compani011W theQm· ·~n. pp. 248-65. csp. p. 264). Sec-also B. Wh«k r. Prophets i111lle Quron: An lmrmJuc:liurl to the Qurtm tmd MuJiim £xeg_~--sis (London and N~·w York: Con1inuum. 2002). pp. I73- 121. 73. Sec U. Rubin. fye ofilte lklwlder: Tl"' Lifo ofMuii(UilfiJtul as Vif:'Wedhyll!e Eady Mtuli11u A Texlual Anu{1:sis (Princeton: Darwin Press. 1995). p. 11. 74. Srru. 3. Quo~.ati Oll$ of the Sira follow the English trnnslation by A. Guillaume. The Ufi-v(}j Muhammad: A Trmulation (}IM!iiq's Sirot Rasul Allull (Oxford: Ox lOrd University Press. 1955}.

APODACA

A(rth The.my, Comparison and Embedded Scripture Texts 27

which we have both biblical and Arabian sources. The first example is yet another annunciation of Muhammad by Jesus, in which Muhammad is identified as the paraclete of the Christian Testament The announcement is formulated through the embedded Scripture text of Jn 15.23 in Sin1 149-50: Among the things wbic.h have reached me about wh.1t Jesus the: Son of Mary stated in the:. Gospd which he rettived from God for the follow"trs of the: Gospd. in applying a term to describe the:.apostle of God. is the following. II is extracted from what John the Apostle:. r.ct d0\\11 for them wb~·n he wrote the Gospel for th~·m from the Tcstnm~'nl of lc:$US Son of Mary: ' lie th!lt hat~·th me: hath hated the: l ord. And if I had not done in tllcir presence works which nooe other bc:forc. me:. did. they had not had sin: but from now they arc: puffod up with pride and think they will ovcn:o1nc m~· nnd also the: Lord. But the:. word tltJt is in the law must be:. fulfill¢d. ·They hated me: without n tauS<"· (i.e. without reason). But when the: Comfortc:rhns come whom God will r.cnd to you from the. Lord•s presence.he (shall bear) witness ofme :utd ycalso.b«ausc:.ye have been with me from the.beginning. I have spoken unto )"Ouabout this that )"e shouk! not be in doubl'. i!.

The Arabian annunciation begins in a way familiar to biblical scholars: Rabra b. Na~r. l:ing of the: Yamnn. was of the: true.stock of the Tubbn' kings. li e had a vision which terrified him and coniinuc:d (0 en use him much anxiety. Soh~· summoned c:.vcry sooth!:ayer. sorter~..-. omen monger. and nstrolog~"f in his kingdom and s!lid: ·1 have h."'ld a ,·ision which terrifKs me nnd is tile. source of anxiety. Tc:ll lnt' what it wns and what it means.' Thc:.y n-plicd: "Tdl us the vision and we will tdl you its meaning•. ' lfl tdl you it'. !'.'lid he. ' I can hn\'c no con fid~'flcc: in your imc:rprctation: for the ooly mnn wflo l:nows its rncaning is he: who knows nbout the: \'ision without my telling him.· Thereupon one of lhem m:ommc:nded him to send for Shiqq and Sa1il). 1~>

A.s the story continues. Shiqq and Sa!ll) independently confinn the king·s dream and offet· ne.ar identical interpretatjons. The king dreams of a fire coming fron't the sea and devoul'ing evet·ything in its path. whic.h symbolizes the imminent inva.~;i on ofthe "black' Abyssinian army. A Yemeni leadet• from the Dhfi Yazan family will then drive out the Abyssinian at·my only to have his kingdom ·ended by an apostle who will bring truth and justice among men of religion and virtue' .77 The third teature of the. Sira is the voice of God that Muhammad's mother, Am ina, he.ars while she is pregnant. It is alleged in popul111 stories (and only God knows the truth) that Amina d. Wahb. the. mother ofGod's aposdc. used to say wh~~n she was prq;nanl with God's apostk that a \"Oiecsaid to her. 'You IlK prcgMnt with the lord of this pooplcand whc:n he is bom stl)'. ··1put him in !he care of the One:. from che c.vil nnd e\"ct)" envier. then coli him Mul.mm· mnd.... As she wns pregnant with him she saw a light tonl~ forth from hcr b)' whlc:h she. could r.cc the cllStlc:s ofBu.~!i in Syria. ill

75. The .J.fu11a~~renumu (God bkss and preserve him!) in S)'riac is ').tuhammnd': in Greek he is the p:.rockte. The embedded text of Jn 15.23eomcs ftom a PalcstinianSyrioc lcctionwy. The: Syriac: Munu~'~'emana in thiseonte-:tt mca.ns ·one..,.,.Jto eonsolcsand comfori.S SX"X"~Pie for the lns.sof one dear to them'. Sec A. Guillaume. Lifr
77. SJro. 11- 11. For other Atnbian onnunciation;s sec:. U. Rubin. £yf! ofthe Beholder. pp. 44-55. 78. Siro, 102.

28

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

T11e light. which is a prevalent theme ofrv1uhammad's prophetic office. tbrecasts Syria as the furure domicile oflslam.19 Aside from the obvious parallel with rvtt. 1.21-23, this passage is of particular interests bec.ause. of its subsequent association with Q 1.129. in which Abraham prays: ·our Lord, send among them amessenge1· from amongst them. that he may recite to them Your signs, and teach them the book and the wisdom ' .30 ln late.r traditions, this Qur'finic passage became associated with rvtuhammad's self-portrait. In one such tradition, Muhammad states: ' I am the [subject) of the pnlyer of my fa the1· Abraham·, which is then immediately followed by the embedded text Q 1. 129.31 In multiple Syriac naditions, the story of i\mina, Muhanunad's self attestation. Q 1.129. and Jesus· announcement of Muhammad in Q 6 1.6 arc. a ll intertwined. Asked about the beginning o f his affairs, lvluhammad replies: 'The praye1·of my tb.ther Abraham. the good tidings o f Jesus, and my mother saw light come out ofher, which illuminated the forts of Syria. •ll2 Early Muslim communities seem to be involved in the same process of mythmaking and social fonnation as the early Christian \Vriters. In the above examples. we see how the early Muslim writers mythologized Muhammad using a variety ofconventions, a ll of which attempt to organize the past through the concerns of the present: genealogy, prophecy and tl tlfilment, and the use ofembedded Scripture texts. Uri Rubin concludes that 'the medieval Muslims saw themselves as heirs to previous c ivilizations which came under their control, and this was how they shaped the story of their own prophef.Kl. These mythic stories were used to interpret the way in which Muhammad brought about spiritual. intellectual and social transfom1ation.SJ D. A1allhew 's Mythmaking EutetprisC! Matthew's use of embedded Scripture texts thus emerges as a mythmaking enterprise not dissimilar from the way in which Scripture and tradition are used in the Qur 'iin and lbn lsl)aq's Sira. Mauhew explicitly argue.s for J esus ~ origins in chapters 1- 2 by creating (or popularizing) Jesus' dual identity and thereby addresses the an.xiety oftlle community with its rec.ent (or impending) split with 79. Rubin. U.• Eye oflht> Be/wltk!J'. p. 3 i. S« also U. Rubin. "Prc· Existcnt l ight: A~c.ts of lhc Concept of Nnt .\tu~ammad'. lsrm4 Oriental Studies S (1975). 62- 119. SO. Quoted from Rubin. fy~ oj1!1e Behokkr. p. 37. 81. Ibn Sll'ad. I, 149: quoted from Rubin. /:'ye uj1/le Beholder. p. 37. S2. Recorded b)· A~mad ibn tfanbal. Mu:mod. V. 262:quoted from Rubin, £ye oj1he Tklrolder. p. Ja. S3. Rubin. £ye ofJiw B~holtkr. p. 21 7. 84. J. \Vansbrough. The Sectarimr Milieu: Comelff und CompoJitionoflslamic Salwrlion History (Oxford: Oxford Univer.>itr P~ 1978). p. 23. S« also (I.-f. Klar. who 'vrites: Much like thc.rabbisoflate antiquit)'. the: Islamic storytellers llnd histotiopuphcrs were cngag~-.:1 in M ongoing cxplor.uion of the mcnning ofthe stories they inh«itcd.. llttcmpt· ing to prese-nt these storic.s to Lhc:ir reader.> in a co1wincing wny •. . The linking together of figures fromthe.distant pasLearly Islamic.figures. and a contemporary \'Oic.c. ser ves to cmphllsize 1M rdc\'ance a1ki llpplicabilit)· of the.events described. ('Stories of the Prophets" in TM Bla
APODACA

A(rth The.my, Comparison and Embedded Scripture Texts 29

post-70 CE Judaism. These specific-social interests account fOI' the special material of Matthew's Jesus story. especially the birth narrative. lsa. 7. 14, as a mythmaking agent, l'esolves the issue of Jesus' origins and maintains the paradox of his dual identity. In le.gitimizjng his (and his community's) belief•hat Jesus is the promised Christ, Matthew advoc-ates a fulfillment oflsmel's history and prophecy that cannot be shared by his Jewish opponents. Through the legitimizing of Jesus via the Scriptures, f\·1atthew and his community attain an identity that is in continuity with past divine revelation. They. in short, become the new \roice of revelation and the ' tme · reconstinttion of Israel in the post-war age. In a general sense, Matthew's mythmaking technique through the appropriation of Scripture is not unlike that of any other early Jewish, Muslim or Christian group vying for the legitimacy of their identity. Concerning the old narrative context(S) of the embedded text, this study roneludes that the pl'imary reason tbr the-use of embedded texts lies is their quality as mytlunaking agents. Should we assume the.old narrativecontext(s) as a kind of cuhural backdrop in re.ading. interpreting and teaching the Gospels? No. Unless the new na1·rative context explicitly demands this inference, the old narrative c.ontext(s) should not play a role. Matthew's consistent use of embedded Scriprure texts. especially fulfihne nt quotations. as proof texts, accentuates this JXlSition. For Matthew. as well as e.arly Muslim communities, the past is understood only in light of the present. rvfatthew's re.telling of biblical histo1y and recalling of biblical prophecy are not incorporated for their own sake, but they serve an ideological age.nda that legitimizes a new community inextricably bound to the identity ofJesus as Christ In the end, Matthew's birth narrative, including the embedded Scripture texts, is a myth narrative - the creation ofmythmaking and social formation by an early Chl'istian group deviating from an emerging formative Judaism that likewise engages in legitimation.

2. L ovE AS S OCI ETAL Y1s10N AND CoUNTER- IMPERIAL PRACTICE I N MATTHEW 22.34-40

Warren Carter

Discussion ofMatthew's use ofScripnu·e has tbcused on the origin, language and authorial intention of citations. I Frequently lacking has been adequate attention to the contexts of the d losen Scriptures, both the text segments from which they come and the Gospe-l context in which they function. In this discussion of rvtt. 22.34-40, I will explore.how the. verses quoted from Deuteronomy 5 and Leviticus 19 function in their new narrative contexts. And instead of a myopic tbcus only on the cited verses, I will. following the work ofJohn Foley on metonymic referentiality in Ol'al cultures, auend to the larger text segments to which the cited verses be.long and which theyevoke.1 Moreover, much discussion ofMatthew' s use of Scripture has been framed by the mistaken assumption, widespread in Gospel studies, that Matthew is a relig ious te.xt concerned only with religious issues and in dispute with another relig:iotL'i community. Absent from this approach is awareness that in the firstcentury world, religion was embe.dded in imperial political and societal realities, and that rvfatthew's Gospel, like various synagogue communities, was engaged in I. In addition to various comm~~ntaries. for instnncc. A. Baumstark. ' Die Zitate des Mt-Evangdiums aus dcm ZwOifprophctc-nbuch'. Biblicu 31 ( 1956). 2%-313: R. Gundry. Tlw Us~ q(rhe Old Testamrol in S1 Mauhe•~· 's Gospel "'ith Spcrial Re/«!!t1C~ Itt tlte lllessianic Hope (l.ciden: E. J. Brill. 1967): Kristcr Stend.ithl. The Sch<>ol ufSr. Maulle11·ond {b· V:wroftlw Old Teslam~tlt (Philndclphia: Fonrcss. 1968): W. Rol.hfuc hs.. Die ft:/iillmrgszitute des Molllliitu-Emng£4itull: Eitw biblisd~ Jfwologisdw lfllfeJ·suchutlg (BWANT 8&: Stutt.g<~n: W. Kohlhammer. 1969): Franz vnn Scgbroccl. 'L<s c.itatlons d'ac~"lOmpl isscmcnt dans I'Fln mgilc-sd onsaim Matthicud'ap..Cs trios ouvrngcs n't'Cnts'. in M. Didi~'l (cd.). [ 'Ewmgile Jelon Mwtllieu. Rhla
CARTER

Love as Societal Vision and Counter-Imperial Practice

31

the task of negotiating the-imperial world.J. Hence ( am also interested in how the Scriptures cited and evoked in Mt. 22.34-40 contribute to this negotiation. This discussion. then, makes thl\."e c.ontributions to the discussion of Matthew's use of scriptural traditions. Fil·st. it offers an interpretation of a significant conflict scene that moves beyond mo1-e usual emphases on individual re-ligious practices to societal visions and srmctures. Second, it argues that Matthean scriptural citations and echoes are more appropriately engaged not through atomistic interpretation o f isolated fragments - the-practice of much prior discussion- but through the notion of Foley's metonymic inte11extuality in which cited fragments evoke much large1·nal'ratives and traditions as was the common practice of oral societies. And third, it locates interpretation of Matthew's Gospel not only in the intraJewish debates o fpost-70 Judaism (the context that has dominated Matthean studies for ove1·fit)y years), but also in the much neglected larger context of Jewish negotiations o f the Roman imperial world. I. Dangerous Love?

In a cmcial sce.ne in Matthew's Gospel, a Pharisee asks Jesus. 'which is the greatest commandment in the law'?' (22.36). Jesus' response. citing Deut. 6.5 and Lev. 19.18, identifies love for God and for neighbour. Five verses later. all dialogue between Jesus and his opponents has ended (22.46). In chapter 23 Je-sus unlovingl}' it would seem - consigns the scribes and Pharisees, whom he repeatedly identifies as hypocrites, to eschatologicalcondemnation. Four chapters late1· they, along with the rest of the Jemsalem elite and their ally the Roman governor Pilate. consign Jesus to a Roman cross. How can talk of love be so contentious, divisive, th1-eatening and dangerous? Several possible explanations can be eliminated. The Pharisee's request for Jesus to identify the greatest commandment is not in and of itself problematic. Victor Furnish argues that the Pharisee ·s test of Jesus comprises o f determining whethe1· 'Jesus accepts all the stn.ttltes o f the Torah as of equal importance· .4 Numerous figures in the biblical tradition, though. have readily answered this question in the negative.by identifYing more important teachings.5 David, according to Psalm 15, identifies fifteen commandment<> for faithful relationship with

3. W. Carter. Mauhnt•and lhf! Marg;,u: A Sodcpolilica/ ond Religious Rcaditi,'S {Mnr)·knoll: Orbis Books. 2000)~ ickm. MatthewtmdEmpire:idem. Po11tius Pilau•: Portroit.H,fa RonwnGowmor (Colle-geville: Liturgic-nl. 2003). On Jewish ne-g01iation ofthe-Roman world. sec:.John M.G. lklrclay. }1!\t-"S in the Mediterrot/ean Diasporafrom Alexa11der to Tt4m1 (313 BC£--J 17 CF.) (Edinbtugh: T&T Clark. 1996).

4. v . Fumish.. nut Lore Commalldmellt ill the Nf!l~· TeJ/UIIII!III(K-IlSh\·ilk: Abingdon. 1972). p. 32: R. F. Collins. ·Matlhcw's ivroAo'l : Tow·ards nn Under~l.and ing of the Commandments in dtc Fir.>t Gospel'. in F. Van Scgbroc-ck.C. ~i . TuckeltG. ' 'an Bd lc-andJ. Vcrh~-ydcn (cds).71w FourGospels (Vol. 2: Lcuvcn: l cuvcn Univcr.>it)' Prt.ss 1992). pp. 13.25-48.. especially 1340 and note 71) ngt~'S. but mis•:tl:enly nttributc:s lhc view to FuJltt. llOI Furnish. 5. 0 . Hagner. Mallhew 14-18(WBC 338 : D:dlas: Word Books. 1995). p. 646. Soc b. .Hakkoth 24a.

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

32

God. God gives Moses ten (Exod. 20. 1-17). Isaiah ident i fie..~; six requirements (Isa. 33. I 5- 16). Micah offers three - do justice, Jove kindness. and walk humbly with your God (rvtic. 6.8). Amos names one -seek me and live (Amos 5 .4)~ as does Habakkuk: the righteous Jive by faithfulness (Hab. 2.4). The question itself is not problematic. Nor does Jesus' answer appear problematic at first glance. Though asked to name one great commandment, Jesus offers two inter-related commandments. love God. Love neighbour. Both come from the tradition he-s.hares with the questionel'. In commanding love for God (l\·1t. 22.37-38), Jesus cites Deut 6.5, part o f the Shema (Deut. 6.4-9) that recognized that covenant relationship with God requires total t1lithfi.1lness and lived loyalty. Jesus· second commandme.nt. love neighbour, cites Lev. 19.18 from a chapter outlining numerous societal responsibilities. In twice quoting Torah. Jesus' answer does not oppose., undennine, devalue or abolish the tradition. He embraces it (22.40), fulfilling it (5.17; 7. 12). naming widely recognized central matters. Nor do the Pharisee or his companions protest Jesus' words. Take-n at face value, Jesus· answer does not appear problematic. Nor, thirdly, is the emphasis on love itself problematic. We cannot claim for instance that Jesus valued love while Jews valued law (viewed negatively).~ Such a suggestion evokes a regreuably pervasive yet vel)' inaccurate ste-reotype offirstcentury Judaism as being imerested only in ritual and legalism and oblivious to Jove for God or humans. Such claims are patently false.1 This claim conveniently overlooks Je.<;us' Jewishness and that the Jaw is the source and content ofthe two citations that comprise his answe1·.8 In addition to Deuteronomy 6 and Leviticus 19, numerous Jewish texts value love for God and people, though the-explicit combination of these particular texts is not found. For instance. the sec.ond-ce-ntury BCE Tes1aments ofthe Tweh·e Patriarchs commands love fOI' God and neighbour." lo\'e the: lord nnd )'Out neighbor. Be compnssionnle toward po\'Crt)' and sid;ness. (T. In· 52). Th~ lord

!loved with nil my s1rcngth: l ikewise. I loved every hum.1n being as I k'l\'e my c-hildre-n. You do these ~ well. my children. ( T. Iss 7.6b-7n).

Throughout nil your fife low the Lord. and on~·1mothc-r with a true: hcatt. (T. Don 5.3).10

Jesus· contemporal)'~ Philo, similarly advocates love fo1· God and people. He observes that the first four commandments of the Decalogue concern relationship 6. This issue is named and hd pfully addressed by D. J. Harrington. Tile Gospel of Maulww (Socra Pu.gina. I: College,,illc: Litul'gical Pn:ss. 1991 ). p. 316. 7. G. W. E. Nickdsburg. Andent Judai.nn and C/rrisrimr Origins: Diwrsity. C(}ntinuity. tmd Tnm.sformatimt {~finnc:apol i s: Fortress PTC$S. 2003). S. Note repeated n:fcrcn(-CSto lo\'ing God. for example. in Deut 5. 10: 10. 12: 11 .1. 22: 30.16. 9. For texts. J. l·l. Chnrleswonh (od.). Tlw Old Testament Ps£Yudepigmpha (2 \'Ois: Garden Ci1y: Doubleday. 1983). ,·ol. 2. pp. 175-828. 10. See also Jub. 34.4-7 and T. Bem·. 3.1-3.

CARTER Love as Societal Vision and Counter-Imperial Practice

33

with God while the remainde.r concern human interactjon. Philo laments those who atte-nd to only one o f these two dimensions. Those concerned only with human duties, ·These may be justly c.aJied lovers of people, dle former sort lovers ofGod. Both come but hallWay in virtue; they only have it whole who win honor in both depa11ments (Ou the Decalogue. 106- 10).11 Jesw;· teaching> then. about love for God and neighbour is quite consistent with Jewish traditions. Yet he and his opponents1 the Jerusalem-based, Romeallied. power group, do not find common ground nor respectful coexiste-nce. How can talk of Jove be so dangerous? My argument is that at issue in this conflict scene is Jesus· understanding of love as a transformative rather than prese1·vative societal vision and practice. 12 Those with whom he conflicts do not share this transfonnative vision but practice love within the societal status quo. That is, there. is no problem with Jesus' words per se. but the1·e are profound differences over what they signify. a..o;; the rest of the Gospel narrative leading to his crucifixion depicts. It is thus notadequ~lte to a_~;se11 as Davies and Allison do that 'there can be no political repercussions' from the question about the greatest commandment, u. nor to 1-educe the exchange to a test of" piety' as Hagne.r does.1" Definitions and practices oflove are diverse. societal and polhical. I will identify the conflict that engulfs this scene, and elabomte the content of Jesus· citations, explicating the issues that comprise the .subveJ·sive socie-tal challenge encoded in his talk of love. 2. A Couflict Sceue

Considerable debate exists concerning rvtatthew's sources for this scene. There are significant agreements between Mt. 22.34-40 and Lk. 10.25-28 along with interaction with Mk 12.28-34. Scholars have. variously suggested .Matthean use of versions of Mark's scene, possible confJation with Q, and influence from oral tradhions. There is no need to detail the options here.15 There seems to be some

II. For te-xts. Philo (trans. F. H. Colson: Loeb CL·m ical Library; 2 vols: london/C-ambridge: 1950). In ·o n Spcc.ial Laws·. 2.63 Philo says Moses' tc-nc-hing about relationship wilh God comprises two areas: ·one ofduty to God as shewn by piety and holiness: one of dUly to people as shc\\11 by humanily and j ustice .. : 12. The language of ·\'ision • is used by B. Gcrbardsson (·The HcnncneutK Program in Mntthcw 22:37-40'. in R. Hnmm~'tton--Kclly nnd R. Scroggs (eds),Jt"ws .GnW. andChJ'J'slkmJ [Lcidcn: Brill 1976]. pp. 129- 50. csp. 146) btu wi1h re-ference.ton rdigiousaOOcthic!ll \·ision. r!llhcnban 1osoci~1aJ pructicc.s and vision. 13. W. D. Davies-and D. C. Allison. Tile Gospel Acxording m Saint Motthew(ICC: 3 vols: Edin· burgh: T& T Clark. 1997). vol. 3, p.239. 14. Flagncr. Mottlte'r 14-18. p. 644. 15. O,wi-c:s and Allison. The GoJ[)f!l AtY:ording to Soint Mottlrew. ' 'ol. 3. pp. 235-38~ Collins (').iatthcw's ivToAo:t •• p. 1336. note 50) sketches some wun:-e-<"ritical pc-rsp~'t'ti ves. R. Fuller. 'The Double Commandment of Love: ATcs• Case.for the Criteria ofAuthc:nticily'. in R. fulkr t'/ ol. (c:ds). E.\·sayson the l.m-eCommumbmmi(Philadcfpbia:fortress Press. 1978). pp. 41- 56: A. Hultgren, ·The Double l ove Command in ).ft. 22:3440: lis Sources and Compos-ilion'. CBQ 36 ( 19'74). 37 33- 78. ~k ine-mann/Harvard Uni"ersity PT~'Ss.

34

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

agreemem~ though, that Matthew's redactional dtanges ' nLrn a successful scho-

lastic dialogue with friendly participants into a controversy narrative'. 16 From a natTative perspective, five tb.ctors indicate that conflict pervades Matthew's scene. Jesus' response is part of a life-.and-death controversy. i. Conflict dominates the scene's immediate context A series of verbal disputes between Jesus and the Je111s.ale.m )>0\Ver group comprising c.ltiefpriests and scl'ibes (21.1 5). chiefpt·iestsand elde..-s(2 1.23). chiefpriests and Pharisees (21.45), Pharisees and Hei'Odians (22.15-1 6), Sadducees (22.23), and Pharisees (22.34) spans chapters 21- 22. Interchangeable combinations of these leadet·s fonn a block of opposition to Jesus.u Anthony Saldarini has clarified the nature of this conflict by attending to the functions of these figures in first-centtu·y imperial society.IKArguing against the anachronistic imposition of a division between 'religion' and ' politics', Saldarini has demonstrated that in Matthew's first-century world, politics a nd religion are intertwined and that these figures. often misleadingly designated 'religious' leaders. are socio-political le-aders who function as Rome's allies. 'The Pharisees are not only part of the loc-al leadership whose influence. over the poople and power over social nomts are being c--hallenged and diminished by Jesus; they are also in direct contact with the more powerful fore~ ofthe Jen1salem leadership.' 19 Jn this leade1·ship role and alliance, they ' shape Je.wish life and piety and ... defend Jewish society from the many non-Jewish political and social pressures which surI'Ounded it' .'~0 This leade1·ship alliance is Jerusalem-based and temple-.-centred (Ml. 2.4: chief priests and scribes: 15.1 : Pharisees and scribes 'from Je-rusal em~· 21 .45: chief priests and Pharisees). Jesus enters Jerusalem in chapter 21 and condenms the Temple--, the centre of their power. as a 'den for robbe1•s' (2 1. 1-17). The unflattel'ing term ' robbers' . evokingJer. 7, 11, describes the leaders as both thieves who extort money from the people through taxes. offeri ngs and tithes, as well as bandits who attack a nd destroy society by their rule (e.g. Josephus, Jewl.
(ANTC: Nnslwilk.: Abingdon, 1998). p. HI : t~ mi nglon. Maubn,•, p. 315: B. Rcpschinski. 'Tnking on the Elite: The ).fnlthron Controvcrs)' S1orics'. in Socie(l' ofBihlictr! Literature /999 Semi11ur Papers (Atlanta: Society ofBiblical littr<~ture-. 1999). pp. t- 23. c.sp. 9-15. 17. S. nm Tilborg. TlteJ~l'iJh Leaders in .o\falllk'11-'(lcidc:n: E. 1. Brill. 1972). IS. A. J. Suldarini. PhariJees, Sc-rilx!s ood Sadducees ill Palestinia11 Society (Wilmington. DE: Michael Gluzicr. 1988). pp. 157-73. 19. SuJdarini.Pharin-es. p. 168. 20. St1Jdarini. Pharis.:es. p. I73. 11. R. A. Horsle-y. ·Josephus and the-Bandits'. JSJ 10 ( 1979). 37- 71 : R. A. Horsley. •Ancient Jewish &nditl)' and the Revolt Against Rome A.D. 66--70'. CBQ 43 (19&1). 409-32: B. Show. ·anndiLs in 1hc Roman Empire•. PaJt mrd Pre.nml 102 (1984}. 3- 52: K. C. Hanson and D. Oakman. Pa/r:;tine in tile Time ofJe.w:; (Minneapolis: Forlrcss. 1998). pp. 8~90.

CARTER Love as Societal Vision and Counter-Imperial Practice

35

counter Jesus' condemnation and challenge (2 1.45) by attempting to arrest (2 1.46) and entrnp him (22.1 5). They ask him about several hot topics: paying taxes to Caesar(22.15-22) and resurrection life (22.23-33). This great commandment scene begins by 1'ec-aJiing the previous dispute over resurrection in which Jesus had silenced the Sadducees (22.34). ii. Conflict between Jesus and these leaders has pervaded the Gospel. TI1e Gospel has depicted this leadership group as consistently opposed to God's purposes and to Jesus. (n c-hapter 2. in Jerusalem, as allies ofRom.e's vassal 'king of the Jews Herod (Josephus, Ant. 15.387; 16.31 1). they provide Herod with cmcial infom1ation for his plans to kill Jesus. In chapter 3 John the Baptist denounces them for resisting his baptism as hypocrites who need to repent or encounter God's wrath (3.7- 10).21 Jn 5.20 Jesus requires acts ofjustice or righteousness that exc-.eed those of the scribe-s and Pharisee..~. In chapter 9 they complain about Jesus forgivi ng and associating with the socially mm·ginalized such as tax-colle.ctors and tmdesirnbles ("sinners·, 9.1- 13). In 9.36 he declares their leadership illegitimate by describing the people as 'sheep without a shepherd'. They interpi'Ct his exorcism as the devil's work instead of God's (9.32-34: 12.24). fn chapter 12. they conflict over how to honour the Sabbath. Against their insistence. on rest (imitating God. Gen. 2.2-3). Jesus mandates doing trans formative acts of mercy ( 12.7) and good ( 12. 12). They ·conspi•·ed against him, how to destroy him· ( 12. 14) and demand legitimating sigJIS ( 12.38-45). In 15.1-20 Jesus atlacks them for encouraging payments to the temple that deprive.the vulner.tble elderlyofsupport. 111ese vo\vs contrndict the. command to honolll' parents; he declares God's judgement on them ( 15.13) and attacks tl1eir teaching ( 16.1 -1 2). He announces that this power group will. aided by their Roman allies. put him to death (16.21; 17.12, 22-23; 20. 17-19). This narrative coniext provides a long line of bitter conflicts. iii. TI1e opening verse of the great commandment scene also signals the nature of the conHict (22.34). The questioner is a member of the Pharisees. major players in the conflicts outlined above. This identification replaces Mark's •scribes' (Mk 12.28) and adds to Luke's 'lawyer' (Lk. 10.25), an example of Matthew's well-known intensification of conflict between Jesus and Phal'isees.n He has made 'the chief priests and Pharisees· the.special tbcusofhis condemning pal'able at the close of chapter 21 (2 1.45) instead ofMal'k's unspecified 'they' (Mk 12.12) and luke~s ' the scribes and the chief priests' (Lk. 20.19).2"'

22. Carter. MaJiifch' Ond 1he Margins. pp. 96- 7. 23. For e:t!lmplc. hercplaoc:s Mark's ·scribes• with 'Pharisoes' (comp111c .\fk 2.16 and MI. 9. 1I: Mk 3.22 and Mt. 9.34 and 11.24: Mk 12.35 and Mt 22.41}.cditsoul Mark's ' Hcrodilllls'to highlight the Pharisees as those plouing to
36

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

Tile questioner belongs to the group ofPhal'isees that have.'gathered themselves ' together· (ouvo:yc.u). This verb's p1-evious I I uses have referred to opponents of God's purposes manifested in Jesus (2.4; 12.30; also 22.4 JlS) and to judgement scenes (3. I2; 13.30. 47: 22. I 0: also 25.32). The verb signals conflict and the high stakes of eschatological destiny. Mo1·eover, the verb rec.alls Ps. 2.2 where the 'kings of the Cs God's terrifying wrath on them and assured destruction unless they submit to God!s purposes. Using this verb to evoke the Psalm ensures that Psalm 2 functions as an inte11ext to frame and interpret this conflict God has anointed Jesus (rvlt 1.1 . 17), who is. in the words of Ps. 2.7. God's son. In Matthew's narrative. God has p1·eviously c.ited this ve1-se twice (3. 17; 17.5) to reinfo1·ce Jesus' identity and ally him with God. The Jemsalem-based power group. to which these assem.bled Pharisees belong in the Gospel narrative, is thus framed as enemies of Jesus and of God who do not embrace God>s loving purposes manifested by Jesus. And their opposition to God's purposes will be unsuccessful. iv. Another verbal cue underscores the nature of the conflict. The. Pharisee asks Jesus about the great commaJldment ' to test him' (22.35). How is the.question a test'? On three previous occasions the verb ' test· has introduced exchanges between Jesus and these leaders ( 16.1 ; 19.3; 22. 18). It presents them as not genuine but concerned to entrap Jesus (22.1S). Furthe1·, the verb recalls two previous uses in which the devil attempts to ' test' or ·entmp' Jesus (4. 1, 3) so that Jesus will obey the de\•il (4.9) and not be Joyal to God (4. 10)." The use of the ve1·b ' test' in 22.34 links the leaders with the devil as oppone nts ofGod's pmvoses. As allies of Rome, they are the agents of the one who cont1•ols 'all the empires (~001Ae:ios) of the wol'ld' (4.8). This regrettable identification fmmes their question as a diabolical test but leaves open the question of the danger of discerning what is centJ'al to God's purposes. v. The aftermath of the scene evide.nccs the scene's life-and-death stakes. Matthew removes fi'Om ]\.•lark's scene Jesus' words that commend the scribe's embracing of Jesw;· t·esponse. 'You are not fill' from the kingdom of God' (Mk 12.34). Instead. 1\•latthew's account continues with another confro ntation scene (22.41 -46) which concludes with Jesus shaming the Pharisees into silence and endingall dialogue.(22.45). In chapter 23 he ctu'Ses them repeatedly for not enacting God 's purposes ofjustice. mercy and faithfulness (23.23). In chapter.; 24-25 25. For iIS uses in 24.181odcpictj ud.gcmcnl on Rome.destroyed in lhc 6nal oosrnic b.1ule. S('C W. Carter. 'Arc There Imperial Texts in lhc Clas!>'? lntert::xtual Eagles nnd .\fallhcan Eschatology as "lights Out'' Time. for lmp«inJ Rome (Matthew 14:21-31)'. JBL 122 (2003). 461-81, cspcciaJly 418-9. Througb thc.pa!>Sion narrati\'c. it denotes the:.gathering ofJesus' opponc:.n~.S; 26.3 chiefpriests and elders. 26.57 chief priest. scribes and elders: 21.27 soldiers. 27.62 chief prie-sts. Phsrisccs and Pilate: 28.12 pric:si.Sandddcrs. for complctencs:s. thc tcnn can nJso be.used for c-rowds (13.2: 27.1 ij and oooc.for disciples ( 18.20). 26. Tflis phmsc.also appe-t~rs as another echo ofPs. 2.1 in 17.25. For discussion. Caller. ·r aying the Tax to Rome as Subversive P'tnxis'. in Muttht•w tmd E:'mpire. pp. 130-44. 27. Simitnrly. Gc:rflardsson. ' H crm~·nc:uti c Progrum •• p. 134.

CARTER Love as Societal Vision and Counter-Imperial Practice

37

he declares. the end of their world in God 's judgement (24.27-3 1).211 In chapters 26- 27, with Rome's provincialgovemor Pilate, they crucify him.~ Five chapters at)er this exchange, Jesus is dead. These five factOI'S frame the exchange over the greatest commandment as one of diabolical and deadly conftict. 3. Love as a 1'l1reatening Societal Vision for Well-being

Wherein lies the deadly power of Jes.us' teaching about Jove tb1·God and neighbour? My argument is that the explanation lies in Jesus' definition of Jove in the socio-political context of Roman imperial power.!O Jesus' talk of love is not an isolated personal and l'eligious matter but involves. societal strucnu·es and human interaction. At issue between Jesus and the Jen1salem power group moe two different unde.rstanding.~ ofhuman imeraction, two diObrent visions ofsocietal struc.tm-e and nonns. One involves maintaining a status quo that benefits the ruling elite by dominating and exploiting the rest; the othe-r envisages human community oriented to the good of all. Jesus explici1ly names, evaluates and contrasts these alternative societal stnlctures two chapters 1>reviously: 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them and their great ones are tyrants ove1· them.J1 h will not be so among you' (20.25). The ve1·b..~ 'lord it ovel" and "are tyrants over' descl'ibe the hk ra1·chicaland oppressive \\iOrld of the Roman empire in which a small, powerful, wealthy and high-status elite. including the Jerusalem leadership, control power and resources for their own benefit.H Jesus evaluates this world negatively, immediately outlining an alternative way of being for his disciples committed not to dominating others but to see-king the best for the other (service): ' But whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant And whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave.' (Mt. 20.26). He identifies himself as a model of suc.h service in which he gives 'his life a ransom for many' (20.28). The following healing scene demonstrates life-giving service that be.nefits others (20.29-3-4). In chapter 23, immediately after naming these love commandments. Jesus again contrasts himse-lf and the leaders. He cl'iticizes them for neglecting ' the weightie-r

28. Carter. 'Are There Imperial Tc:tts'?'. 29. For Pilate. and Jtsus (T\fL 27.1-26). see-Carter. Por~tius Pilate, pp. 75-99. 30. This discussion assumes my previous work on Matthew. For discussion and bibliogrnphy. 5((' Carter. Mattlww and tile Margins: idem. Mallhew ami Empire. 31. Objecting to thc:sctrandations. K. W. Ctnrl: ar.;,ues('Thc: Meaning of (Ko:TO:( kVpmJEtv in The Gemi/e Bias and 01lwr Essays (Lc:idc-n: E. J. Brill. 1980). pp. 207- t ! ) that the:. \·-c:rbs do not denote ·nrrogancc. oppression. nnd abur.c ofpower' bul simply lhc excn:isc the power (207-8). But Clllrk's analysis tt.
sity of North Cnrolinu Press. rex. c:dn. 1984). pp. 189-196.

38

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

matters of the Jaw· which he identifies as ·justice, mercy, and faithfulness' (23.23). Implicit in the criticism is Jesus' commitment to justice (6.34; 12.18. 20).

mercy (9.1 2: 12.7) and faithfulness (8.1 0; 9.2). Tile c.onflict bet\lleen these societal visions and strucwres begins in the Gospel's opening chapters. Jesus' birth troubles the Jerusalem-based powe1·group centred on Herod (chapter 2). Herod's appointment as ·king ofthe Jews' (Josephus. Ant. 16.311) is an example of Rome's common practice of forming alliances with local ntling elites to exercise its rule. T11e alliance is rooted in a common commiunent to maintain the status quo for the benefit of the I'UJing elite-( 1- 3 per cent o f the population). 'Troubled' by the n-easonous news ofone ·born king of the Jews', Herod summons his allies and political advisers, ·an the chief priests and scribes' (Mt 2.24). Chief priests in Jemsalem we.re appointed by Herod and, after him, by Roman governors (Josephus. An/20.249-51). Josephus describes !he chief priestly group as the n1lers of Judea (Ant 20.251 ). Josephus includes leading Pharisees and Sadducees in this ruling group. a powe1·alliance evident in Matthew.n The chief priests with their allie.s occupy the difficult position of r~presenting (srael"s traditions while allied with Rome, which claims to rule because Jupite1·has given Rome 'empire without end" (Virgil, Aeneid 1.278-9). An imperial theology proclaiming Rome agent of the gods to manifest their sovereignty, will, presence and blessings on earth sanctions the Roman imperial world with which Herod and the Jerusalcn1 leaders are allied.·ll Together, this Jerusalem-based. Rome-allied power group compl'ises 1- 2 per cent of society. They exercise power to maintain a societal system that benefits and enriches themselves. They control the dominant resources ofland and (slave) labom·. They consume over 50 pe1·cent ofproduc.tion, transferring it to themselves through taxes. tributes, tithes, rents and defaulted loans. This ruling group accumulates great \l.realth l i h~ 1·a ll y at the expense of97 per cent of the.population- peasant fanners, artisans. labourers. slaves etc. - who struggle for daily bre.ad. Elites employ patronage and acts of public benefice.nce (grain hand-outs, const1·uctjng public buildings, provision of entertainments, etc.) to alleviate some suftering. maintain dependence and gratetUiness, and ensure the continuation o fthe.ir selfbenefiting system. Matthew 2 shows this Jerusalem-based, Rome-allied, power group resisting God"s disruptive intervention in Jesus' bi11h. Herod uses the standard tactics o f tyrannical rulers - allies (2.4), informalion (2.5-6). spies (2.7-8). lies (2.8b), murderous violence (2.16- 18) - to defend the societal status quo against a potential challenge to their power. In lhis context, the elite's interpretations of the scriptural traditions serve their own intcres£s.11tey know that the Scl'iptures refer to a n1le.r who will come from Bethlehem (2.5-6). But despite the magi's testimony. they do not go to Betlllehem to welcome another ruler. They do not connect the Scriptures and Jesus. 33. Josl-phus. Ani t 8. t 7: J W 2. 197. 320. 411, 414: SnJda.rini. Pharis~s. pp. 79- 133. CSf'\.-"tinU)' 10 1- 5. 34. On Roman imperial thcolo~y. sec Carter. Mattlff!ll' w 1d Empire. pp. 10- 34.

CARTER

Love as Societal Vision and Counter-Imperial Practice

39

Why not'? Because~ it seems, they have too much to Jose. In powe-1' with Herod and Rome, they benefit greatly tfom the current societal structure in wealth and power. Contrasting their inattention to this Scripture is their subsequent close attention to interpre ting other Scl'iptures for their own benefit. Their scriptural areas of attention involve practices by which they maintain the ir power and societal Stl11Ctures. Consistent with the conce.rn of the first three commandm.ents on honouring God (Exod. 20. I -7). tlte}' accuse.Jesus ofdishooouring or blaspheming God when he announces forgiveness of sin{Mt. 9.2-3). They are very concerned. as is Jesus, with the fourth commandment about honouring the Sabbath (Exoct. 20.8- 11). They complain that neithe1·Jesus no1·his disciples rests on the Sabbath: Jesus uses it to show merc.y and to do good (1 2. I- 14). They interpret the fitl h commandment about honouring one's parents so as to allow people to donate to the Temple rather than suppo11 parents (1 5.3-9). They imerpret Deut. 24. 1 as legitimating maledominated divorce proceedings (1 9.3-9). They identify binding and non-binding oaths (23.16-22). And they emphasize tithing since it was a primary means o f transferring supplies to the Te mple-based elite - not just of flocks, wine, grajn, and oil tosuppo11 Levites and the Temple (Lev. 27.30-33: iNum. 18.21-32: Deut. 14.22-29; 26.1 2- 15). but extending it even to heros (23.23)-" \ Ve must, o f course, take the Gospel's constant negative presentation o f these leaders with a grain- or bag - of salt. We are reading polemic that re flects the conflicted situation of Matthew's community in the traumatic post-temple, post70 period of imperial negotiation and re.building of Judaism.J' Polemic never provides fair and balanced presentation. It ahvays shows opponents in the worst light. But certainly f!.·latthew's presentation of the power d)'ltamics in these scenes is consistent with what we know of the roles o f ruling e-lites in imperial societies in general, and of first-century Judea in particular. The elite 1'Uie for their own benefit They interpret the Scriptures to le.gitintate their societal struc tures, privileges, power, practices and wealth. It is equall)' ce11ain that when power is asserted, various fonns of opposition eme.rge. First-century Judeans negotiated Roman power with a wide spectrum o f responses typical of peasant societie.~;31 ranging fro m accommodation to violent revolts to non-violent, self-protective. calculated acts of protests (e.g. Mt. 5.39) ..lll One fOrm of protest involves disputing the inte,rpre.tation ofScripturesoffered by the.power group to support their societal stmcture. Matthew presents Jesus as the definitive interpre ter of Scripture (5.21 -48). Jesus refuses to accept their 35. A. J. Salditrini. Matthew S ChJ·isliun.Jn~ish Community (Chi-cago: Unin:rsi1y of Chic-ago Press. t994), pp. 1 14-6~. 36. W. C11rtcr. Matt/lew: SIOIJfeller. /ntt>rprc-li'l·, £wmgelisl (Peabody: Hendrickson. I'I:Y. cdn. 2004). pp. 66- 91; idem. M(lti/~w urJd 1/w Mm-gitu. pp. 1~-49. 37. J. Scott. Weapons ofthe Weak: £reryday Forms ofPeasant ReJislunce (New Hll\'OO: Yale University Press. 1985). 38. W. Wink. ' Beyond Jus1 W11r 11nd P11cifism: Jesus' Non· Violent Wa)". Re1iew mJd £rpoJiUJr 89 ( 1992). 197-2 14: W. Wink. Jesus andNom,tolence: A Third W~: (Minn~-apolis: Fortress Press. 2003).

40

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

claim that only they honour God in being authorized to make-God 's power to forgive or exorcise available (9.1 -8; 12.24-32). Nor is he willing to grant them the right to contt·ol the Sabbath. Jesus shares their emphasis on honouring it, but does so not by I'CS( that maintains the societal status quo. but by trans formative practices ofmeeting human need, showing mercy, healing, and doing good ( I2. 114). Likewise he urges obedience to the comma nd to honour parents not by increasing funding tbr the Temple, but by ensuring adequate resources for the eldel'ly ( 15.3-9). Ag;.linst theirdetbnce of male privilege in divorce. he affinns the equality of male and fl!:male as ·one flesh' before God ( 19.3-9). He shares their concern with oath-taking but instead of ensuring ·wiggle room· with binding and non-binding oaths, he.urges integrity and reliability of speech in societal intemctjons (23. 16-22; 5.33-37). Likewise he affirms their concern with tithing~ not as a means of sustaining the Temple system but to ensure justice, merC}' and faithfulness (23.23). Jesus. claiming to be greater than the Temple ( 12.6). confronts their Temple-based power as a system of self-serving theft and exploitation (2 1.1217). These actions aJld pe1·spectives constitute important aspects of Jesus' understanding of love for God and neighbours. JcstL
Talk of loving God is rare in the NewTestament and Mat1hew does not repeat this command.l 9 Jesus quotes the command from Deut. 6.5. As with most scriptural citations in Matthew, scholars have devoted much attention to the form of Matthew's citation and to textual variants in the.biblical and synoptic tmditions:"u This limited focus. though. has missed cntcial aspects of how ~·1atthew's scriptural citations function. John Foley has examined the role.of" traditional refere.ntiality' in oral societies in which citations in orally pe1forrned and written narratives ftmction meton}rmically.'u The citation of a small pa11 of a large1· narrative does not funcrion to direct attention only to the isolated fragmen t as typically happens in discussions ofMatthe.an citations. Rathel' the citation - a part of a larger wholefunctions as a metonym. pointing to and evoking a larger narrative and/or tradition that belongs to the hearers' cultural repertoire. A focus only on Matthew's cited

39. Lk. 11.42: Rom. 8..28: I Cor. 2.9: 8.3: 16.22: I Jn 4.10·21. ~0. E.g. Gundry. Use oftl~e Old TNiamenl. pp.l2-4: Davies and Allison. Mattlww. vol. 3. pp. 14()..2. 41. Foley. Jmnument An. pp. 1-60: Carter. ·E,•ol:ing Isaiah' in MuulrewmJd Empire. pp. 93--107.

CARTER

Love as Societal Vision and Counter-Imperial Practice

41

verse is culturally inappropriate and myopic, mistreating the fragment as a whole and ignoring the larger sc.riptural context whic.h it evokes. Attention to the larger context ofDeuteronom)• 6 confirms the meaning oftJte love fo1·God that Jesus commands.""l This love is not primarily an emotion or intimacy, but comprises relational obligations involving lived loyalty, faithfulness. and obedience to God expresse.d in a societal way of life. Moses has bee.n outlining the way of life to be lived in the land (Deut. 4.1: S. l ), central aspects of which comprise the Decalogue based on uncompromising loyalty to God (5.6) and consisting ofsocietal obligations such as honotll'ingparents, not murdering or committing adultCI)'. not stealing or beal'ing false witness, O l' coveting (5.1 6-2 J). Immediately followi ng these commandment<;, the rest ofchapte.rs Sand 6 exhon obedience. Preceding the command to love God in Deut. 6.5 are three exhortations to ·observe' (6.1), 'keep' (6.2) and "obse1·ve' (6.3) the covenant commandmentli. .A. fourth exho11atjon to ' keep these words' follows in verse 6. Obeying the commands to honour God alone and to fulfil one ·s societal obligations justly constitutes ' fearing' (6.2) aJtd "loving' (6.5) God. Loving God is inextricably linked to commitrnent to this societal \'ision based on obedience to God's wiii . J ~ This commanded. active Jove for God claims one's total being. 'Hem1' designates the centre of a person's allegiance, their willing. thinking. knowing, deciding and doing."-' 11te 'soul' or 'life' designates a person's daily existence given either to serving God or something else."" 5 'Mind '. used only hc.re in Matthew, similarly designates a person's fundamental and lived o1·ientation, either for (Heb. 8.10; 1 Pet. 1.13; I Jn 5.20) or against (Col. 1.21) God's purposes. Love for God claims a person's total existence. The language ofloving God, tlten. denotes faithful and obedient relationship. Obedience to God ~s will as re\•ealed in the covenant requirements is the supreme expression of love for God. But how does one interpret God's purposes'! This issue is at the heart of the disputes between Jesus and the Jerusalem power group of leaders. T1te leaders interpret the tradition to legitimate their unjust structures and practices. Does God's will mean a society in which 2- 3 per cent exe-rcise powe1·ove.r 97 per cent of the population for the benefit of the fonner and at great cost to the latter'? Does it mean a society in which a few control key resources so that most stmggle for daily bread'? 42. The larger structure and content of O¢utcronomy receives nucn1ion from 0 . Brooks. ·The Func-lion of the: Double l ove Command in Mallh¢w22:34-40' .Andrews Ut~itl!tsity Seminal)' Studies 36 (1998). 7- !1. <Sp. 8-10. 43. The lovc-lan,b'U3ge- in O.."lltcronomr quoted b)' Jesus derives from international po-litic-al relations c:.xpr-csscd in lreutiesnnd from tbc relationship of rukr und ruled dc6ncd. by faithful ubcdi· cncc:. loyalt)' nnd servi-ce in return for protection ond sccurity(\V. L Moran. 'The Ancient NearEustem Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy'. CBQ 25 {1963}. 77- 87). Matlhcw employs other languugc from intcrnaliolllll imperial politics th.11signifies political homage. klynhy.aodobcdicnccto e~presshomag
42

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

1\·latthew's Jes.us does not think so. l ove fo1·God is inte.11wined with love for neighbour. By coupling the commands to love God and neighbour in Mt. 22.3440. Jesus declares, following Moses, that it is impossible to have one witJ1out the other.J6 Jesus makes this connection abundanti}' evident throughout Matthew·s Gospel. In 5.21-26 there is no worship for God without re lational reconciliation. In 6. 1 4- 1 5~ there is no forgiveness from God without forgiveness tOr others. In 15.5-9 gifts that be.nefit the-Temple but depl'ive.the vulnerableelderlyofresources for daily l iving avoid God's purposes and are enacted by leaders who ' honour me

(God) with their lips but thei1'11eart is far from me' (citing lsa. 29. 13).1n 25.3 146, to give food to the h ungry~ drink to the thirsty~ \VC.Icome and community to

the foreigner, clothing to the naked, c.are to the sick. and company to the imprisoned, is to do the same thing to Jesus. Jesus' connection of love tOr God and neighbour casts doubt on any profession of love for God that is deficient in its treatment of people. His declaration res ists every societal system lhat benefits a few at the expense of the rest and deprives people ofnecess;:uy life-giving resources. His declaration p1'0tesls all such inj ustice and oppression as contrary to God's will. It points instead to a

vastly d ifferent, merciful, and just, societal interaction and structure.

5. Love .:vour Neighbour To Deuteronomy 5-6 Jesus adds Lev. 19.18. Again. following Foley, it is necessary to e laborate the large1·tradition of which the cited verse is a part and which it evokes. In Leviticus 19, Moses. in the context of outlining the use of holy space and time (Leviticus 1- 16) and societal interactions ( 17- 26), offers a vision of a holy and just society. This socie.ty comprises human interactions that include respect for parents (19.3, 32, the obligation of adult children to pro\ride for parents). providing food tb r the poor and the foreigner (19.9-10), 1-elationships o f integrity without stealing, false dea lings, J}ring, or f.·\lsc oaths (19.1 1-12), no defra uding by stealing or withholding fair wages (19.13), no taking advantage of the vulnerable blind and deaf ( 19.14), no biased judgments in executing justice ( 19.15), no slander (19.16). no hatred or vengeance ( 19. I 7-18), obedience to God's statutes for animals. land and worship ( 19. 19-31), respect for the (vtllnerable) elderly ( 19.32). equal treatment of foreigners ( 19.33-34), and fair economic dealings (19.35-37). These societal interactions constitute loving one's ne ighbour (19. 18). To do these practices e.nacts a societe.! I vision that ensui\."S adequate provision for the vulnerable (elderly, poOl', damaged) and includes the marginal (foreigners). ' Neighbom·· is not limited to those.of the same kinship. ethnicity. gender or social status. 'Love fo1·neighbour· comprises a pl'3ctical and continual seeking o f the daily well-being o f all members ofsociety. lt embodie-s a societal vision. In addition to 22.39, Matthew's Jesus cites t:his commandment from Leviticus 19 two other times. In 5.43-44, consistent with the widedefinition of'neighbour' 46. Christian tr.tdilion has long reflected on lhc oonncc-lion bc:~wccn lhc (WO. Sec DnvieJ; and Allison. .4/auhelv, \'Of. 3. pp. 144-45.

CARTER

Love as Societal Vision and Counter-Imperial Practice

43

in Leviticus 19, he oounte.rs any attempt to limit the definition of neighbour to the compatible and friendly. By explicitly naming Jove for one's enemy - those opposed to God's purposes; t:he Jemsalem-based1 Rome-allied power group Jesus stipulates that ·neighbour-love' has no limits. lt seeks the good of all including freeing people from the need to dominate and destroy others by hoarding and disregarding eve1yday needs - even if it means lo..o;ing one's life ( 14.1-12). It renders the-oppressive-off-balance with diffe rent patterns of societal inte1-action (5.38-42):' 7 It offers altemative ways of being human to those whose societal structure and actions threaten and oppose God's li fe-giving and liberating purposes for a ll creation (5.45). Such indiscriminate love renounces hate. vengeance (5.38-42), and boundaries of stants. ethnicity, gender, etc. lt involves prayer (5.44), ensuring life for all (5.45-46), and inclusive community ('greeting' . 5.47). Jesus does not promise that such love will be ·successfUl'. Rather. d i sciple~<; live this way because it imitates and embodies God's indiscriminate loving actions toward the world (5.45). Jesus quotes the neighbour-love command again in MI. 19.19. A young wealthy man (19.22) - one of the ruling elite - asks Jesus how to gain 'life of the age·. His question concerns how he might participate in the age to come in which God's life-giving purposes for all creation will be established in a new heaven and earth marked by abundance and wholeness tOr all (see the visions in (sa.. 25.6-10; 35). Jesus has anticipated and revealed this li fe in providingabundrutt food for hungry crowds ( 14.13-21; 15.29-39) and in healing numerous sick and broken people who are. victims of unjust and oppressive societal structures (4.2325: chapters &- 9; 11.2-6; 12.9-14; 14. 14; 15.31; 20.29-34:21.1 4 etc.}. Jesus' answer focuses on a life lived according to God 's vision for a just society (19.17-J9). There.is no murder, adultery. theft or false testimony. but the-l'e is care for pare.nlo; and love for neighbour (¢ 1~ Lev. 19.18). The rich young man declares he has lived these just societal re-lations. Jesus responds to his declaration by employing the prophetic tl'adition ·s recognition that people acquire abundant wealth by depriving others and making them poor through oppres.~;ion, theft and greed (I sa. 5.8-10; 10.1 -3: Ezek. 22.6-31; Amos 2.6-7: 5.10-12). Jesus confronts the wealthy man's exploitative societal actions with four commands. I. 2. 3.

Go. To enter 'life of the age·, he must obey Jesus' commands to Jove his neighbour. Sell your possessions. liquidate your assets. Give to lhe poor. Divest, redistribute, undertake restitution, repent. He is to renu11 wealth to the poor (97 per cent of society)~ those who endure an oppressive system in which they lack resources. skills~ oppo11t111ities, power, etc. to sustain life. Jesus calls him to imitate God's indiscriminate, life-giving, love (5.44-45).

47. Wink. ·scyondJusl WUI' .

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

44

4.

Come follow me. Jesus calls him from mammon (6.24), from hierarchy, from selfislu1ess~ ffo m greed, from injustice, to a community ofdisciples that includes the desperate, the marginal, the nobodies.

But his wealth c hokes the word that he has heard ( 13.22) and the young rich man declines Jesus' call, preferring to be possessed by his possessions (6.24: I9.22). In addition to these three neighbour-love citations, Jesus uses other words to denote this lifestyle o f neighbour-love. It enac.ts the reign or empire o f God that dismantles all stnJctures and practices contrm·y to God's life-giving purposes (4.17). H is the blessed a nd tmnsfonned way of life outlined in the beatitudes of 5.3-1 2. 1t is the life of greaterjustice or righteousness for which Jesus provides six vignettes in 5.20--48. It constitutes I he ·piety' or spirituality of deeds of mercy. prayer and fasting (d )sa. 58.6- 10) outlined in 6. I. I8. It is to do to others what you wish the-m to do to you (7.12). It is the inclusive, creative. empowering and life-giving me.1·cy demonstrated in Jesus' restorative acts of healing, forgiving, feeding and inclusive community (9 .1-13; 12. 1-14: 14. 13-21). (t is the life of transforming mission ent111sted to disciples and imitative of Jesus' ministry (10.7-8) in which disciples persevere despite the ine\•itable-opposition ( 10.16-23: 13.18-23). It is to do the will of God (12.4-6-50) in a life ofloving practical service for \Vhich disciples are held accountable in the judgement (2 5.3J -46) . ~ll

Conclusion Jesus' commands to love God and neighbour arc not unique. but they are dangerous because they are socially transfonnative. They point to a way o f life in which commitment to God and to just human interaction m·e intricately c.onnected. This life c.ommitted to God's vision for societal struc.ture is at odds with and challenges the self-serving power, status and wealth of Roman imperial power and its elite provincial allies. Jesus envisions a tmnsformed world in which, contrary to business a~ usual, all know the goodness of God's life-giving provision fOI' God's creation. Not surprisingly, (in)vested interests - then and now - resist such alternative societal S-tructures. The empire always strikes bac.k to defend the self-benefiting power and privilege of its unjust societal stntctures against such a vision and practices. They kill Jesus and oppose his d isciples. Yet the Gospel story attests that the lo\•c commanded by Jesus and explicated in the traditions that he evokes with his citations from Deuteronomy and Leviticus will have the final word. God raises him from the dead (chapter 28).

48. Spac-e prcc.Jude!: discussion of ·as yourself' though Matlhcwdoc!: not d llbomtt it. The interprttiw LTildition hn.s read this phr.:ssc positivdy(,c.g. Augustine. De CMtal£' D£ti 19.14)as is lhecurn:nt lt<:nd. n.s wd l as negniin:Jy.

3. MAnH~<w's EARLIEST INTERPR~:rER: Ju sTIN MARTYR oN

M AnHew's FuLFI L M ENT Q uoTATIONs

J. R. C. Cousland

Justin Mm·tyr is one of the e.arliest authors to refer to and to rely upon the Gospel of Matthew iu e:aeuso, so his works pi'Ovide us with the first major examples of the Gospel"s 'histo1y of influe nce' (Wirkungsgeschicllle).1 (n using the phrase 'histoJy o f influe nce' ,I am drawing upon the work o f Uirich Luz, wheJ'C Wirkungsgeschichte is a notable and cele.brated fe-ature of his commentaries on t\·latthew.2 He defines it as 'the history. reception. and actualizing ofa text in media other than the commenta1·y .. • The history of infl uence and the history ofinterpretation are related to each other like concentric circles so that ''history of influence'' is inclusive of'·histot·y ofinterpt·etation.··•J Justin's I Apology and Dialogue with T1}pho. therefore, furnish us with the opportunity to assess how Justin interpreted and responded to the Gospel of Matthew.' While an examination of Justin's use of Mauhew as a whole is considerably beyond the scope of this article,5 it may I. For analyses of the influence of Matthew on the Chun:.h Fathers in the li~ two centuries of the Common Eru. sec: Wolf·Dicuich KOhkr. Die R£'Uptkmtks MoliMII.I't'l'tmg~...Jiwtb' in). 2. Ulrich LUl.. Matthew 1- 7 (trnns. Willlc:lmC. l inss.: Minneapolis: Aug.s:butg. 1989): MaiiiH!II' 8- lO(Irans. James E. Crouch~ Hc:nnc:ncia. 2 "ols: rvlinnc:apolis: Fonrcss. 2001); Matthr:w ll-l8 C,trans. James E. Crouch: Hcmu:·ncin. 2 vols: Minnc..1polis: Forttc:ss, 2005). 3. Luz. Muulwwl- 7. p. 95. 4. Justin's document entitled 1 Apology is now gc:n«nJfy n'(Ognized as the Appendix to J Apill· <>KJ'= d . MiroslnvMarcovich(cd.). /ustini Mm1jris. Apologi~proChJ'iMiani.s (Pattisti~hc: Tcxtc und Studien. 38: lkrlin nnd New Yor\:: Walter de: Gru)1tr. 1994). pp. S- 1L P. Lorraine Huck. ·Justin Martyr's Apo/ogieJ: Their Number. O~ination. and Fonn•. JTS 54 (2003). 45-59. convinc-ingly argues that the actunl l Apology has been lost. 5. In addition to the: works ci t~-d in ootc I abow. tbc: influc:n, cof Manhcw on Justin hns been eon· side..OO by Craig D. Allen. Rew/(ltiolt, TnttiJ. Caoon and lnterpn1(1lion: Sllldies itJJustill Mmtyr :S

46

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

prove useful to examine Justints response to one-of the most distinctive features ofMatthew's Go..~;_pel, namely, the fulfilment quotations.6 To my knowledge, this topic has not been examined bctOre and1 given lhat both Matthew and Justin rely heavily on 'p1ooffrom prophecy', it is a logical examination to undertake.7Jn what fOllows, I want to consider three distinct questions: (1) What influe nce have Matthew's fulfilment quotations exe.11ed on Justin's citations from the Hebrew Scriptures?; (2) Why did they have this panicular eiTect?; and (3) What does Justin's interpretation suggest about how Matthew's fulfilment quotations ought to be understood'? I . .Matthew's Fulfilment Quotations and their Influence on Jusfiu J\1/a!'lyr

Given that Justin's method of scriptural citation is often considered to be an extrapolation of Matthew's own technique, it needs to be asked whethe-r the rhetorical strategies of the two authors are indeed related. At first sight it would seem that they are. David Aune m·gues that Justin's knowledge of the Gospels ·meant that he would know the Messianic proof-texts used by the Evangelists together with their exegetic.al methodology'.f: Edouard Massaux would take this inference funher. affirmi ng that Justin 'knew very well that he had been p•·eceded in this apologetic form by ML and he has built on the foundation laid down by the first gospel' .9 He remarks, in addition. that since Matthew and Justin shared the same concems. 'it is normal that Justin draws his inspil'a tion from the text in which Matthew himselfannounces that the prophecy has been tb lfilled' .10 Is this assessment, in fact correct?

Dialogue wilh Trypho(VCS, 64: Lc«knlBostonlKOin: E~ J . BrilL2002). pp. 255--76: A.J. Bellinzoni. Tht' SayillgS ofJe.ms in the Writings ofJustin .4/nnyr (No\'TSUp. 17: le.idcn: E. 1. Brill. 1967). pp. 57- 69. 76-1 06~ and Osk111 Skarsauoc. Tlwt Prooffivm Pn>pht•c,v. A Swdy in JuMi11 M<~nyr ·J Pmr(Ti!l.' t Tnxlilion - Text·Type. Pmw•umcf!. 111rologkal Profi/e(No"TSup. 56: Lcidrn: E. J. Btill 1987). pp. 100-3. 6. As is wdl known. the:. p.'lssngc:s hnve been tc:m1ed variously. fulfi lmenl cil!llions. formula quotations. Re:fle.ricns:itme. F.rjiilhmgs:ilate. cil:uionsd•nccomplissemrnt. and so on. Hcre lhcy will be tentK'd ·fullilmc:nl quotations'. On lhcsc: dcsig:nntion~ scc:: Raymond E. Brown. n/(! Rirt!l ofth~ Messioh: .4 CommeriiOIJ' OII I/Je lrifancy Narmtil<'s in Moulww and L.uke(Gnrdc:n Cil)': Doubleday. 1977). p. 96 n. I: Gru.h.1m Stnnlon. A GoJpelfor a .tt.rt'l~ Prople:St1ulies ill Molt/le•~· (Edinburg:h: T&T Clark. 1991). p. 347: F. Van Scgbro«k. ·wcilalionsd•uccomplisscmcnt dans f•E,·angik sc:lon sainl Matthieu d•aprts troisotl\'tagc:srtc-ents•. in M. Oidier(cd.). L'i!wmgile seton saint Mauhim. R(·Jm•. lion et tllciologie (BETL 29: Gc:mbloux.: 1. Ouculot. 1972). pp. 107- 30 ( 109 n. 11). 7. On ·proof from prophecy'. sc:e Allen. Rt'l'trloti(m, Truth. Canon and lnterprewtion. pp. 15568-: JC!ln Danit-lou. Grupe/ Mmage and 1/e//enistkCIIIture: A llil·tory ofEorlyCIIriJiialllftxtrin~ before the CcuJtdl ofNimea (2 ''ols: London and Pbiladc:lpbia: D.:tnon. Longmnn and Todd/Wcsl· minster. 1973). vol. 2. pp. 211- 19: Willis A. Shotwell, TIN! Riblimf Exegesis ofJus1ix Ma'(I'I'(Loodoo: SPCK . 1965). pp. 6- 9: Sl:a~nune. Tlw Prooffrom Pmph«y. S. Cf. O.wid E. Aunc. •1uslin Murtyr's Usc of the Old Tcs1nmc:nt'. Bulle/in q(Jire fl'Ongelictrl TIJ£-'0/ogica/ Sociely 9 (1966). 179- 97 (185). 9. Mas.saux.. lrifhli'ltce. vol. 3. p. 44. 10. Mas.S
CaUSlAND

JriSiin Afartyron Mauhe..,:li Fulfilment Quotations

47

1\·latthew's reliance on the Hebrew Scriptures is one of the most distinctive features of his Gospel. John Nolland remarks that Mauhew ·quotes the OT at least tw-ice as ofien as any other Gospel writet·' . 11 Matthew cites the Scriptures explicitly 40 1imes, implicitly some 21 thnt\'i. and while the precise number of scriptural allusions within the Gospel is disputed. they are not inconsiderable.12 Notable among these quotations is the presence of a distinctive body ofcitations from the Hebrew Scriptures that Matthew himself introduces.•$Ten ofMatthew's quotations are commonly grouped together in a single corpus: Mt 1.22-3; 2.15; 2. 17-1 8; 2.23: 4. 14-16; 8.17; 12.17-21; 13.35; 21.4-5; 27.9." They share three d istinctive features. First~ they aU include the introductoty fommla 'tvo: (0rrcus) rrilnp~n TO pnS!v rou rrpo¢tiroo ileyovTOS''' Second, they are interpretative remarks made by the Evangelist. and~ finally. they feantre a mixed textual form lhat appears to combine. elements of the MT and che LXX. 1~ It is also significant that they tend to be situated at the end of a narrative. and show how the events t'elated constit\lte a fulfilment of prophecy.n Third, while the-se passages are not substantively distinct from other citations in Matthew also drawn from the Scriptures - especially those that are very similar in form (cf. Mt 2.5-6; 3.3; 4.6; 13.14- 15; 24. 15) - they represent Matthew's distinctive. interprelation. 111 Beaton l'ightly remarks that the.final textual form of these

oux

II. John Nolland. T1•e GospelA«ording w Mauhelv(NIGTC. 1: Gr.tnd Rapids/Bietc-hlcy: Ecrdmans/Patcrnostcr. 1005). p. 19. 12. Richard Bcuton.lsoiah's Christ;, Maflllew's Gospel (SNTSMS. 123: Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Prcss. 1002). pp. I7- IS. For a
ami Dissuasi(m in far~r C/JrisJianil)'. A11C'ient .ludaU.m, m1d Nelleni.nn (LCU\''I:n/Pnri:i/Dudlc.y. MA: P~x-tcrs. 2003). pp. I 79--98 ( 180-&1). 15. Fora detailed discussion of the: components of the.fom1ulac ofthe fulfi frncnt quotations. soc: D.~ vi($ and Allison. Tlu- Gospel According to Saint Matt/Jew. \'OI. 3. 57 3-7~ Brown. Birth of the Messiull. pp. 96-t04: George M. Soares Prnbhu. The FomwlaQu()latimu ;, 1lle l11juncy .Alomui~Y!of M
nw

48

Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

passages is influential because of the distinctive textual forms of the fulfilment quotations.19 eve-n if the nature of Matthew's sources has yet to be. l'esolved. 111 Just as controve1'Sial is the function oft he fUlfilment quotatiolt.~ . Georg Strecker, for instance1 maintains that the citations emphasize the biographical and historical aspects of Jesus"Jife, and aim at 1historical-biographical fhcticity' .21 Donald Hagner is more concerned to s tress the fact that they are Christological: they 'have as their fOundation christological convictions- they are, indeed, chris tocentric. The.y take as their starting poilll that Jesus is the One promised by the OT scriptures. '1:! Accordingly, Hagner would den}' that they have an apologetic or propagandistic dimension. Barnabas Lindars, by contt·ast. has identified an apologetic dimension - they m·e designed to vindicate the claims ofChristianity:23 More recently. Menken has stressed the c.omplementary notion that the.fulfi hnent quotations m·e designed with a propagandistic function in mind, notably 'to influence people to accept the. message that God had acted decisively in Jesus. and to join the Christian community' .11 Finally, Jean Miler emphasizes tlleir rhetorical, narrative function, which embraces a variety offeatures.l.S Justin's reliance on Greek versions ofthe Hebrew Scriptures is even more pronounced than Matthcw·s, and he has been fittingly described as 'the first comprehensive imerpreterofthe Old Testament" .:G He cites the Hebrew Scriptures more than 700 times, and quotes from 19 different biblical books.Z7 Jt i.s likely that he culled these ·proofs from prophecy' from a variety of sources: some of these citations probably originated in Christianjforllegia, and others are doubtless the pt·oduct ofhis own long-standing acquaintance with the LXX.2" As Hengel observes, 19. Bcaton.l:wittlr 's Cllri:il, pp. 33-4. 20. 1'11c mx:nt appro:u:.h taken by Mcnkrn (Mmihew ·J Bible) is intriguing. but o,·crly s~C'Uiati\'-c:.: cf. th~ critical remarks by Nolland. Muu/zew. p. 33 n. 23. 21. Georg Sttcckcr. Der ll'eg ckr Gn't!<'lllig/wil: Umersuchllng :ur Th£'0/ogie des Ma11Mu.s (FRLAt\"T. 81: GOttingr:ts ofReligWu.f Ptvpogonda in Judaism tmd Eur{vChriJtianity(Notrc Dame/ l.o1~n: Unive-rsity of Notre Dame Press. 1976). pp. t-25 (3). 15. Jean ~,1ilcr. Le:; riwtion.'> d'acromplissemem dmu /'irangile de Maullietr (AB, 140~ Rome:: Pontilico lstituto Biblico. 1999). pp. JSI-60. 26. Aunc, 'Justin Martyr's Usc of the Old Tcstnm¢nl'. p. t 79. 27. AlktL Rew.dttlirm. Trut/J. Concn u11d lnterpreUJiiotl. p. IS6. For 11n anuJytic table of Justin's sources. soc Sknr!'.utne. The Proof/rom Prophi'<J'. pp. 454-71. Sec. in addition. tbc Mo editions of Justin b)' Mirosla\' Mnrco\'icb: ~1pologioe proChriJtiunis. pp. 11- 19. and l11sfi11i Mlr(rris Dialogw c11m Tryplwne(P:~tristisdtc Textc und Studicn. 47: B~~rli n and N~·w Vorl:: Walter de-Gmyter. 1997). pp. 23-61. 28. Martin I-t engel. T/w Sepwaginr aJ Ch1·isliun Scripture(tr
CaUSlAND

JriSiin Afartyr on Mallhe"':\' Fulfilment Quotations

49

Justin's evident familiarity with a pre-Aquilan version of the Greek Minor Prophets suggests that he was actively engaged in gaining access to improved, contemporary versions of the LXX.19 A further source of the Hebrew Scriptures was from writings later included in the NewTestament. such as Romans~ I Corinthians, GalatiaJlS~ Ephesians, Luke/Acts. and probably Hebrews.JO Of these, Romans is probably his chief single sourc.e-of citations; Skarsaune estimates that Justin has parallels to 14 (29%) o fPaurs 49 explicit ot· implicit citations of the Hebrew Bible.11 He furthe-r observes that Justin's pmctice is eithet· to take over the citation d irectly from Paul. or to go back to the Greek Bible and cite iLat greater length .~.!

Next tu Romans, the Gospel of Matthew is Justin's most signitkant source of scriptural citations. Skarsaune estimates that of u.ppro:timatcl)' 6 5 quot.ations and nlfusions in ~ft. Justin hns parallels to 22 (34o/. ). but [«hat}the« is din."d dependence: in no more tha.n 14 c:-asc:s (22%). Then" is thus slightly k ss use ofMauhcw's OT mutc:-rinJ than is thc: case with Romans. HowC\•cr. this is hardly significant. since much OT material in Jesus' discussions with the: Pllllriscc.s on hulokic qu~-stions would be:. indc\'nnt to Justin.)..)

That said, Justin's reliance on Matthew is so pronounced that Barnard observes that· Justin gives passages which substantially correspond to parts ofevery chapter of St Matthew's Gospel' ..u As a consequence, it is generally conceded among scholars that the entirety of the Gospel of Matthew is used by Justin. and not simply testimonia drawn ft-om the Gospel. lJ In keeping with this emphasis on Matthew. Justin consistently prefers it to the other Gospels.J6 Even whe.re Justin uses rvtark. it is usually f\·1arl< as refracted through Matthew.n So. too. with Luke. where most, if not all, o f his references to the Gospel are harmonized with Matthew.~This harmonizing may suggest the existence of a harmonized gospel of 29. Bengel. &pwugint. p. 34. Cf. P. Katz. "Justin's Old Testament Quototions and tht' Greek Oodd:aprophcton Scroll>. Studio PutJ"iJtica I ( 1957). 343- 53 {345-49). 30. Sknrs.aunc:. n... Prooffmm Pruplttv:)'. pp. 92- IOS.Shrs!lunc further Sllggt:SIS that Justin nlll)' hav.:-b~-cn acquainted with I Clc:mcnt and Bnrnnbus. 31. Sknrs.1unc:-. The' Prouf from Propht>t:l', p. 93. 32. Skorsaunc:. The Pmoffrom PJ·oplk'cy. p. 94. 33. Skorsaunc. Tlw Prooffrom Proplk'C)', p. I03. 34. LW. Barnard. JusJin Mar~'"· His L!fooml11•tmgl•t(Cambridgc. UK: Cambridge Uni\·c:rsity Press. 1967). p. 59. 35. Sc:e Bellinzoni. TI•e Saying,r q{Jesus. pp. 57-69: Hd mu1Kocstcr.Anciem ChristiM Gospels (london!Philaddphia: SD.ttrPt 1990), p. 360: Mnss."'ux./njlut'tiCY!. \'OI. 3. p. 49. 36. Craig Allert conveniently summatil'.es the Gospd quolntions nnd allusions to bc: found in the: Dialogue:cf. idem. Re,·elotion. Tmth. Cummond lmelprt'IUtion. pp. 255- 76. Comp:ut thc:-passages assessed by KOhler. Reuption. pp. t 67- 25 1(csp. p. 237) nnd Massaw: ·s findings: Mnssnu:t. /n/ftJer~W. vol. 3. pp. 11--89. {whic.h include the: Apologie.\·). Biblia Putristica. Index des ciwriom· et ull11sim•s bibliqllC$ duns Ia liueraurn! JKTiril'liqlle, de$ Origines 0 Clement d'Aie.,·alldrie et Temtllien. vol. I {Paris: CNRS. 1975). pp.123- 93 (cited in ~fassaux. vol. 3. pp. 106-9) !isiS 176 c-itations or allusions to Mntthew. 37. Bdlinzoni. Su,rillg$, pp. 87-S. 38. Koester. A11cient Cltristian Gospels. pp. 365-70. Ko::st~'f di~ussc:s several sayings lhst troy be derived from l uke on pp. 364-5: d. Bdlinzoni. Suyi1tgs. pp. 7tHI6.

so

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

the Synoptic-s utilized by Justin, but even so, he will have had acce.ss to a copy of Matthew.!9 Given Justin·s evident preference for Matthew, and the prominence Matthew himself gives to the fulfilment quotations, one would anticipate, as Massaux suggests. that Justin would draw 'his inspiration from the text in which Matthew himselfannounces that the prophecy has been fulfilled'..te~That is to say. one would expect that Justin would t•eproduce Matthew's scripttu-al citations. This is just what Matthew does when he appropriates Scripture citations from lvtark ruld Q; he generally reproduces their wording.JI Yet, despite Massaux's expectations, this is not the case with Justin. Remarkably. Justin cites fewer than half of Matthew's fulfilment quotations -only four out often (MI. 1.22-3: 2. 18: 12. 18-21 : 21.4-5). If one also includes the passages resembling the tUifilment quotations in forlll, this lotal becomes even less - five out of fourteen witll the-inclusion of Mt. 2.6 - just over a third ofMatthew's citations.llle following chart, based on Skarsaune, furnishes an overview ofMatthew's scriptural citations and the-parallels in Justin:12 I Apol. 33.1: Dial. 84 I Apo/. 34.1-4; Dinl. 78.1

1.22-3;

lsa. 7. 14

*1.5~

~tic.

1.15

Nos. 1/. / J er. 31.15 /sa. II. I?

Dial. 18

4.7 f 4. 10

Jsa. 40.3 Ocut. 8.3 Ps. 91.ll f. Ocut. 6 .16 Ocut. 6 . 13

Dial. 50.3-5 Dial. 125.4 Dial. 125.4 Dial. 125.4 Dial. 125.4

4.14-16 8./i

l.m. 8.1/-9./ /sa. 53.4

I Apol. 50

9.13

Hos.. 6.6 ).fie. 7.6 ls..'l. H .sr.

Dial. 69.5

2.18

].}J •3.3

4.4 •4.6

10.35[. 11.5 11.10 11.23 12.18-21 12.40 •13. 14+15

IJ.Jj

5. t . 3: 2 S~; m. 5.2

Exocl. 23.20U MaL 3.1 ls-1. 14. 13,15 ts~. 42.1-4

Jon. 1.17

DiaL 123..8: d. 13!'.:2 Dial. 107.9

lsa. 6.9f.

Ps. 78.1

l l5.8-9

lsa. :!ii. U

19.4

Gen. 1.27

Dial. 27.4: 39.5: 4 &.2: 7&.1 1:80.4: 140.2

39. Koester•.41fcieflt Cllril'liufl Gospt'ls. p. 318. Koester posit'> four diO'(:!ent sourc~"S for Justin: ( I) testimonia: (2) imptO\'td texiS of th~· Gr«k Bible: (3) Mutthc:w und Luke and possibly other gospels:: {4) a harmony of l.hc Synoptics. .JO. Massaux. lfljlunr<e. vol. 3. p. 37. 41. Brown. Rirlll ~(the Me.uiull, p. I 03: Oa\·ics and Allison. Saint Mauhew, \'OL 3. p. 515.

-l2. In lhcch:ut furnished hc-re.•lhc bold references are fullihncnt quotutions used by Justin. wMc the italicized rcfcrenc~"Sarc. thosc- quotations he docs not usc:. The: passages marked byan asteorisk 111e. those. in M-11tthc:wthut n:sc:mbk the (ullilmcntquotlltions. Tlx-dnggcrs signify those passngcs from the Hebrew Scriptures thllt are not fulli lmc-nl quotations. bul whose Mntthean fom1 ofthe text Justin hus likely c:itc:d.

CaUSlAND

JriSiin Afartyr on Mallhe"':\' Fulfilment Quotations

t9.5

Gen. 2.24

19.7 21.4-5 !1.1 3 21.16 21.33 21.42 21.24 22.32 !1.37 !2.39 !4.29 14.30 16.31 26.64

Ocut. 24. 1 Zt>tb. 9.9: I sa. 61.11 lsa. S6.7 J>s. 8.3 lsa. s. 1r. J>s. 118.22C Dcut. 2S.5fGcn. 38..8 Exod.3.6 Dcut. 6.5 l eY. 19.18 Dan. 9.27f. lsa. 13. 10 Oan. 7.13/ Zech. 12.10 12 L."eh. 13.7 D.ln. 7. 13/J>s. 110.1

11.?

Z.xh. /1./J!Jer. 31.6-9

27.34 17.46 !7.35 17.39 17.43 27.46 17.4S

P-s. 69.22 Ps. 12. 1 Ps. !1. 19 J>s. 12.8 Ps. 22.9 Ps. 22.2 Ps. 69.22

~24. 15

4

51

I :\pol. 35: Dial. 53

Dial. 17.3: d 17.17-28. Dial. 126.11(cr. tsn. 28.16)

Dial. I.J.44--45: 31.3: 110. 10-11 : 120.24 Dial. 53.29 30 4

Dial. 98.6-7: 99.3.5 I Apol. 35.5. 38.4: Diul. 97.3 I Apol. 38.6: Dial. 10 1.3 I Apol. 3&.6: Dial. 101.3 Dial. 99. 1

The relative paucity of Matthean fulfilment quotations cited by Justin again l'
43. Pierre PrigcnL Justin etl'.411dt',l Te.~tament (Etudes Bibliqucs. Paris: Librniric locon·n:. 1964),pp. 12- 13. SkarsaUilC. Thi' Prooffrom PmpherJ•. p. 130. cautions thai tlrrc ·is much Matltlcun malcrial in OT texts which a~ not quoted din:ttly from M11Uhc:w'. 44. Massaux.. lnflmmce. vol. 3. p. 35. ~5. Prigcni.JU.flill et I'Ande/J TeJJametll. p. 146. 46. Koester. Andem Cl!ristia11 Grupek p. 379. cr. Rothfochs. Die £rfiilhmgs-zitote. p. 58 n. 7.

52

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

col lection.~1 On the other hand, while the first part of the citation confonns

to the

text:111

LXX, Ute second part is identical to Matthew's In the near ftllfilment quotation at Mt 2.5-6, it is evident that Justin is also reliant on Matthew for his citations ofMic. 5.1 (I .~pol. 34.1: Dial. 78.1), as he agrees with Matthew word for word against the LXX."~ Koester notes that Justin is evidently unaware that Matthew's citation is actually a conflation with 2 Sam. S.2.so Asimilar phenome.non can be seen in the citation ofJer. 31.15 (Dial. 18.78) at Mt. 2.17- 18, where J us tin again follows Matthew's fom1 of the text in preference to the LXX.51 The le-ngthy citation of Isa. 42.1 -4 occurs twice in the Dialogue. at 123.8 and again at 135.2. K<>hler notes that the. two citations arc notably ditTerent. with the first clearly more reliant on Mt. 12.18-21, and the second much more dependent on the LXX. He infers thereby that Justin selects his citation according to the form that best suits his argument.51 So. it is probable that Justin had access to Matthew's tUlfilmem quotations. and availed himself of them. Neve11heless. even if these fulfihnent quotations are derived from Matthew, it is apparent that. pace Massaux, Justin does not draw much inspiration from tv1atthew·s use of them. It was noted above that Matthew's fulfilment quotations are distinguished by three distinctive features- their introductory fomlUia, their mixed textual form. and the fact that they constitute Matthew's interpretation of the gospel events. A brief consideration of Justin's treatment o f these features sugge..o;;ts that they hold little significance for him. The introductory formulae that Matthe.w employs to frame the fulfilment are notable for their absence. (n each instance. Justin curtails or retbnnulates the introductory sentences. What is more - and no Jess remarkable given the abundance of Justin's citations - ?\•latthe.w 's familiar and recurring use of yiypo:nTO:I is vi11ually absent.S3 Fi nally~ with respect to the citations· textual form. Justin adheres to them in a geneml way. but it is evide-nt from the changes he has made to Matthew's versions o flsa. 7. 14 and Zech. 9.9 that he is not committed to Matthew·s fom1of the text As suggested above, the fonn of the citation Justin uses seems to be predicated not on his faithfulness to a given version so much as coherence with his argument. In addition. it is evident thai for Justin the fulfilment quotations do not seem to enjoy any pm1icular place of p1·ecedence ove1·other scriptural citations. As emerges Bernnrd. Justill Mmtyr. pp. 69- 70: Lindars, New Testament Apologclic. p. 26 n. 1. 48. Massaux.. lnfiuellt'e. ,·ol. 3. p. 37: Krister StcndahL The School
p. JO.

50. Koester. Ancient Clwi.Jtian Gospels. p. 383. On 2 Sant. 5.2 as Mntthew·s addition. s« Menken. Maflhe•)·'s Bible. p. 260 and Soares Probhu. Formula Q1KJtalions. pp. !66- 7. 51. KOhlc-r,Re:eption. p. 228: Mnssnux. lnjfue11<"-£', \'01. 3. p. 64: Menken. MauiN!w :S Bible. p. t 45. 52. KObler. Rezcp1i<»1. pp. 206-7. Menken, Malllww :S Bible. pp. 87-S.dctccts Matthcnn influc11C(' on both of Justin•s citations. 53. Sl.'lnton. Je.msandGospd. p. 98. Stunton remarks that Justin ·never uses yiypo rno 1 to i ntrodu~~ . . • 1111 OT qt1ota1ion' (p. 98). bu1 h~·appcars to~werlool: Dialogue 78.1 wh~re yiypo: nTO:I introduces !.he citalion ofMic. 5.2.

CaUSlAND

JriSiin Afartyr on Mallhe"':\' Fulfilment Quotations

53

from the chart above, passages such as Isa. 29.13 (Mt. I 5.8-9) and Dan. 7. 13/ Zech. 12. 10-12 (Mt. 24.30) assume considerabl}' more prominence in Justin's ovemll t:cuvre than the fulfilment quotations. Here one can menf"ion passages such as Mt. 4. 10 (Deut. 6. 13);;, Mt. I 5.8-9 (I sa. 29.13)," with a number o f other possible allusions. Finally. even when he does appropl'iate a citation from Matthew. he often returns to the original LXX context and expands the citation considerably beyond ito,; Matthean confine$. The foregoing leads one.to conclude that the 'history of influence· ofthe fulfilment quotations in the works of Justin Martyr is decidedly limited. He is aware of the fulfilment quotations . uses some. of them, but is not himself much influe.nced by them in his own interpretations. Hence. the singularity of the fonnula quotations. something that has been such a foundational datum for modern rvtatthean scholarship, is a feature that is entirely disregarded b)• Matthew's first intC·I'J>I'eter.s' 2. Juslin 's Omission q{Maflhew 's Fuljilmenl Quotations Tite problem arises> therefore, if Justin does indeed esteem the Gospels. and the Gospel of tv1atthew above all, why does he t3.il to include the majority of the fulfilment quotations mentioned above? Although Matthew's comments lack the p1'0phetic and authoritative impact ofJe-sus' own dicta. ]\.·Jatthew is still (in Justin's view} an apostle-. and the1·efore, participates to some extent in Jesus' authority. Moreover, the fulfilment quotations are ready-made as proofs from prophecy and. given their imroductOI)' formulae. \VOuld have been relatively easy to locate in a scroll or codex. So what grounds did he have for bypassing the-m? Naturally. it is very difficult to establish why an author did not use a given citation. Neve11heless, tlte most straightforward su p~)Osit i on is that Justin1 fo1·val'ious reasons, did not find the citations suitable tOr his l'he.torical purposes. A caseby-case consideration of the citations he omits may help to support this contc.ntion. The first citation he does not include is Hos. 11.1: 'Out of Egypt I have.called my son.' Given Justin's paraphrase ofJesus· infancy in Dial. 18. one would have expected Justin to make use of it. especially as he-mentions the flight to Egypt twice (Dial . 78.4,7 ). and includes the fulfilment quotation associated with the massacre.of the.innocents (?Yit. 2. 18=Jer. 31. 15 at Dial. 78.8). Justin, howeve.r, has conflated his sources awkwardly and, as a conseque.nce, never specifically me.ntions Jesus' renu·n from Egypt.51 f urther, the whole point of his introducing the infancy narrative is so that he can present Trypho with what he regards as a further fulfilment o f prophecy. namely Isa. 8.4. Here. Justin is intent upon showing 54. KOhle-r. Re:eption. p. 226.

55. Marcovic-h. Dialugus £'11/tl Ji:rphon~. p. 29: cf. KOhkr. Re:eplion. pp. 236- 7. who considers dcp~~ndc1Ke on Mntlhcw to be-a slrong possibility. 56. This fi nding docs not surprise. gi,·en that the modem isolation of the formula quotations is auributcd to Massebieau {st.-c note 13 above}. Ncvenhdcss.. it is still ~triking that Justin seems to overlook the foll'll31 features of ,\fallhcw's citutions. 57. It is also pos.slbk that Jus•in is relying he.re-on an c-arli« harmony: d . Allert Rn'elatioJt. Tmth. Canon und JnJerpr~fution. pp. 198-9.

54

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

Tl)rpho that the pa;;sage.does not, in fact. refe-r to Hezekiah, but to the Magi. He is so pleased with the proof that, as soon as Justin has fi nished recounting the

sto1y of the Magi. he hastens to show T1·ypho how their appearance fulfils all the details of the prophecy.ln effect. therefore. Justin drops Hos. 11.1 in favour of a better passage of his own: ls.a. 8.4. The absence of ML 2.23 is easier to explain, simply because the c itation's

provenance is notoriously problematic.s" Since there is no prophetic passage that states that ' He will be called a Nazo1-ean ·. it is not unexpected that Justin refrains from ny ing to convince the asrute T 1y pho that it is an ins tance of fulfilled prophecy. Justin's f.1.ilure (0 cite Mt. 4. 14-1 6 (I sa. 8.21-9.1 ) may arise from his disinclination to associate Jesus with Galilee. The only thne the word ·Galilee.' occurs in his entire corpus is in an accusation of Jesus that Justin imputes to the Jews: ·a godless aJld lawless heresy had spnmg from one Jesus, a Galilean deceiver. whom \Ve crucified· (Dial. 108.9).}'> So even though the.passage treats theconversion of the Gentiles- something to which Justin was very sympathetic (ct: I Apol. 49: Dial. 52) - the mention of ·Galilee of the Gentiles' may have caused him to hesitate at including this citation. Justin does in fact refer to Isa. 53.4 in the context of prophecy at I Apol. 50.8, but his text shows no inHuence of the distinctive Matthean fonn and adheres to the LXX. Although Justin elsewhere alludes to Jesus healings (I Apol. 48.1; Dial. 69.6), they do not constin1te a major component of his apologetic.60 Goodenough notes that Justin tends to downplay Jesus· miracles: 'because miracles were so conunon>they were not adequate evidence for His divine Sonship, and Justin gives the miracles actually very little attenrion •.61 The quotation of Ps. 78.2 at Mt. 13.35 is probably not cited because Justin does not elaborate on Jesus' useofparable.s in his teaching. Even though Justin bases his writings on the synoptic record. he devotes very little attention to Jesus· style of teaching, though he does fum ish dicta of Jesus in chapters IS and 16 of the I •.Jpology. Nor is he untbmiliarwith Jesus' parables: he refers briefly to the Parable of the Sower at Dial. 125.1, but he does not otherwise discuss them.62 The joint citation ofZech. 11.13 and Jer. 32.6-9 a! Mt. 27.9 is not included by Justin, which is somewhat unexpected because Justin does devote considerable attention to Jesus crucifixion (cf.l Apol. 35; Dial. 53.5; 97.1, 3; 99.1-2: 101.3; I 03.8; I 04. I -2: IOS.S). and alludes to two prophecies from Zechariah (Zech. 9.9; 13.7). A third citation would be entirely in order. On the other hand, Justin never 58. For a n:oc:nt auc:mpt to sol\'e the: problc:m. sc:c r-.knkcn. .4faulww ·J Bible. pp. 161- 77. 59. At Dial. 80.2 Jus•in describes ·the Galikans• ns n socL which may be anolhcr reason he is

reluc.tant lo as:socinte-Jesus with lhcm. 60. Dial. 69.6 mny well be nn allusion to MI. 11 .5. 61. Erwin R. Goodenough. The nwologvof Justin Mar~rr (repr.. An'6ttnlam: Philo Press. 1968 (1923 J). pp. 245-6. It is also possible thnl Justin is mindful of the charges ofmagie impul'--d to Jc:sus: cf. JApol. 30: c-f. Stephen G. \Vilson. Related S!nmgers:.lcws a11d C!lrisJians 70-1 iOC. E. (Minne· apolis: Fortress. 1995}. pp. 271·72. 62. Justin uses the word ·pnrabk ' at Dial. 36.2: II·U: II S. I but in e-ac.h inSianee gi\'cs i1 typological signific-ntions.

CaUSlAND JriSiin Afartyr on Mallhe"':\' Fulfilment Quotations

55

mentions J udas~ and is more concerned to lay responsibility for Jesus· passion elsewhere. Taken together. the above considerations reveal a distinct tendency in Justin's practice of citation, namely. to omit those fulfilment quotations that Brown describes as being ·attached to the minutiae o f Jes.us' career·.&} FOI' instance, Justin eliminates what could be characterized as non-essential geographical referents, such as Egypt~ Nazareth and Galilee.61 So. too, for what might described as - to Justin's mind- the more.peripheral details of Jesus' ministry. ln their place, he opts for quotations that are more ovenly theologicaL These conjectural explanations for Justin's elimination ofsome ofMaHhew's fonnula quotations, while not implausible. still leave the large1· problem of why Justin has not hesitated to eliminate over half the Matthean corpus. The answer probably stems from his understanding of prophecy. As Skarsaune observes. 'When Justin expounds the OT, he does so as a pupil of the apostles; he is carrying on the OT exegesis they leamt from Christ.'65 Here, the phrase 'carrying on' is ve-Jy apropos. Justin's approach to the fulfilment quotations is to emulate the procedure undertake-.n by the ·apostle· Matthew. For Justin, the Scriptures in their entircry were prophetic,u and following in the footsteps o f Matthew~ he chose those texts that best suited his exposition. Justin ·s approach also casts light on the disputed issue of the authority of the ·memoirs of the apostles'. (n recent discussion. Charles Cosgrove has pointed to Justin's disinclination to use the term cUayyiAtov of the Gospel writings and to his designation of them as ' memoirs of the a postl es~, as an indic-ation that the memoirs are not to be equated with the go..c;pel and that they lack its authority.61 Helmut Koeste.r further questions their authol'ity by affirming that in the second ce-ntu1)' "the1·e were multiple gospels in circulation that were not distinguished at the time with respect to their authority and authenticity·.~ Tilis position has not gone unc-hallenged. 0 -aigAIIe·rt has addressed Cosgrove·s article in considerable. detail and contested many of his conclusions.fh Luise Abramowski makes a convincing c.ase that the memoirs of the apostles are~ in fact, the Gospels.10 In addition, Graham Stanton has argued in a series of ;;u1icles 63. Brown. Binh q(thc Messiah. p. 98.

64. Given the c.itation's pronounced Dnvldic associations. Justin's re-te-ntion of the Bcthlch~·m reference of Mic. 5.1 3 is undcrstu.ndabfe. 65. Skarsaunc. ThC' Prooffrom Prophecy. p. 11. 66. Shotwell. Bihlkal fxq;eJis. p. 29: Justin ·uses tile:.Old Tcsl.nmcntas one grc~"'t mass of proof 4

texts'.

67. Ch111lcs H.Cosgrove. 'Justin Mnnyrand the Emerging Christian Canon: Obscr'l'ationson the Destination of the Dialqgue with Trypho'. VC 36 (1982). 209- 32 (22 t - 2). 68. Hdmut Koe$1Cr. ·Gospels and GospdTmdi1io~ in the Second Ccnlury'. in Andrew F. Gn:gory sod Christopbcr Tuc.kctt (cds). Trojecwries tlrroug!J th~ Nrw Trslamenl a11d the Apo.wo!k Fathers (Oxford: Oxford Univcr.>itr P~ 2005). pp. 2 7-44 (43). 69. A liM. Rrr-eloJion, Tn11h. Cano-11 ond lnt<•rpreWJi<m. pp. 13- 25. 70. l uisc Abramowsh'The ..Memoirs of the Apostles" in Ju~ti n' . in PctcrS1uhfm.1chcr {cd.). The GosfX'I am/the Gmprls (Gr..1nd Rapids: Eerdman:s. 1991). pp. 323-35 (326-35)~ cf. Allen. Ritrdation, Tmtlr. Concn and lm.:-qJI"i'lation. pp. 192- 5. He offers a detailed eritiquc of Cosgro\·e on pp. 14-25. Purpos~ and

56

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

for the authoritative character of the tOur canonical Gospels.il FUJ1her. he notes that the earlies t Gospel papyl'i are all codices and, contrary to what had been previously supposed. they \VCre not workaday handbooks, but 'upmarket' texts

that suggest they were authoritative and used in Christian worship.n Stanton concludes that· Justin comes within a whisker of regarding sayings of Jes.tLS and the Gospels as Scl'ipture. •?J A similar infet-encc is made by Martin Hengel- for Justin the Gospels 'already embody the apostolic, i.e. authoritative, tradition regardless of whether the authOI's were real ..apostJes·• or only their"successors.. •.74 These views slightly ove1-state the case. There is little doubt that the memoirs were thought to enshrine divine authority. It is not sufficiently appreciated. for instance. that Justin unequivocally accepts the authority ofMatth ew~s citations of the Hebrew Bible. In fact. on a number of occasions Justin gives preference to Matthew's version of the Scriptures against the readingsofthe LXX. Even where he demonsrrably has both, he still makes use of Matthew's version when it suits his pmpose. Such practices indicate that, t01· Justin, Matthew's rendering oftJ1e Scripnu·cs is at least as authoritative as the LXX ve1·sions he possesses. That said, while Justin recognizes the authorityofMatthew's text of the Scriptures. he evidently does not feel bound to heed Matthew's selection of proof-texts. Nor.judging from his compression and harmonization of Matthew and the other Gospels, does he seem to regard their narratives as authoritative.IS. It is, rathe1·, the events that the narratives 1·ecount that he deems authoritative. B)rcontrast, tJ1e ac.counts of Jesus' sayings and the Gospel's citatiOilS of the Scriptures are authoritative, though interestingly. Justin docs not appear concemed for exactitude with either group ofsayings.76 So it is probably precipitate-to affim1that the 'memoirs' have a quasi-scriptural status. Instead, the Gospels include authoritative elements within their fabric, but are not authoritative in their entirety. (t is probable, for instance1 that Justin would regard his harmony of the infancy narratives as being little different from those narratives he uses to constn1ct his harmony.n In sum, Justin's procedure is akin to that of a jeweller who removes gems from one piece of jewellery ro reset them into a ditTerent c1·eation of his own. Those that do not fit his design he leaves behind, along with their discarded gold 71. See. espec-ially. Graham Stanton. Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press. 2004). pp. 75- S: 92- 109. 72. St.1nton. Jesus tmd Grupe/. pp. 192- 106. 73. Ibid.. p. 205. Cf. A. I. Bdlinzuni. "The Gospd of Mallhew in the Second Century•. Second Cemury 9 (1992). 191-25& (242}. 74. Marlin Hengel The FourGosJNis and the- One GrAfpel ofJesus Cltrist (H.nrri sbu~. PA: Trinity Press lntemational. 2000). p. 20. 75. Cf. Koester. "Gospels nnd Gospd Tndilions'. pp. 41- 2. Koester. howc,·cr. mainwins that the ' text' of the. Gospe-ls was not sacrosanct where-as il is the tl31Tilli\'C: componc:nls of the Gospels thnt are not sacfOIS.anct 76. Man:ovich: ApologiM pm Cltristimtis. pp. 19-30: Jos.c:ph Vcrflcydcn. 'Assessing Gospel Quotations in Justin Martyr'. in A. Oenau:t (ed.). Ne1)' Testament amfTextual Crilici.nuamlExegesis. Festscllriji J. Delobel (BETL. 161: lcuvc:n: lc:uven University Pa-ess/Pcctcrs. 2002}. pp. 301- 77. 77. I would stop shon of Kocs1er's view Ihat Justin's intention was to consttuct a single ham)()· nizod gospck cf. Kocslc:r. AnrirntChristiun G
CaUSlAND

JriSiin Afartyr on Mallhe"' :\' Fulfilment Quotations

51

setting. NaturaJiy. these remaining gems and gold retain their value - the gems can be reset, and the less valuable gold recast- but they are not so immediately valuable as those elements he has chosen to employ tb r the moment. 3. Justin and 1he lnterpretaliou of Malfhe,.,·'s Fulfilment Quota lions

What. then. has impe.lled Justin to recraft Matthew's legacy as he has? He evidently does not feel bound by the Evangelist's choice~li. nor does he regard them as somehow sacrosanct. While he emulates Matthew's respect for Scripture, and the conviction that it is prophetic, it is apparent that Justin feels equally capable of expowlding Scripture on his own. The likely explanation for his depa11Ure from the Gospel record is that he is writing difl"b1•ent types of documents from gospels. Where Matthew is probably closest to the bios genre. the ovemll forms of the l..tpologyand Dialogue are c.ertainly not bioi. despite the prese.nce ofbiographical details about Jesus)" Rather, the tides of Justin's works effectively se1·ve to identify the genre of the works./ Apology is indeed a justHlcation for Justin's exposition of his system of belief,~ while the title Dialogue with Trypho is apropos, if one classes it as an ·apologetic dialogue'.$» The change in genre entails both an appropriation of new materials. and a redeployme-nt of the old. With respect to the former, Justin is able to draw on an expanded palette of citations~ one that has emerged from lhe ongoing development of Christian testimonia, and from Jewish-Christian exegetical debate.81 Justin. therefore. benefits from the results ofdecades of the theological mining of the Scriptures (including his own), and can select those passages tJlatseem to him to be the most convincing and compelling for his arguments.ll2 As a consequence, he omits those fulfilment citations in Matthew concerned with biographical minutiae in favour of those that help justify the broader assertion that the Hebrew Scriptures establish the tmth of Christianity. 78. Cf. J. R. C. Couslnnd. Tlw Crowtb· ir1the Gospd ofMaulw~r(NovTSup. 102: Lcidl-n and New York: E. J. BrilL 2002). pp. 25-7. 79. Euscbius(ff.f. 4. 11.8) relates that Jusain 'eontend~-d for the faith in his writings•. Cf. Erwin R. Goodcnougtl. T1re nwo/o~:voflu:ilin Mmtyr(n:pr.. Amsterdam: Philo Press. 196S (1923]).pp.S0-4: Michad Madt.. · Jus1in Mart)•r's Diologus cum T(lphone ludaco and lhc 1Xvdopm~'fl1 of Christian Anri-Jud.'lism'. in Oro l inlOt and Guy G. Suoumsll (eds). Comra ludaeos. Andenl ond Mediewtl Polemics IN:/11\'CII Chrislia11s u.ndJClrs (TSMJ. 10: Tiibingcn: Mohr Sicbcck. 1996}. pp. 2 7-47 (37-9). SO. The plunsc is advanocd by Tcssll Rajuk: ·Talking nt Trypho: Christian Apolog-ccK us AntiJudaism in lustin•s Dialogue wil/1 Tr>rJim the Jew·. in M. Edwards. M . Goodman and S. Pricc-(tds). Apologetics in Ihe Rommr Empire: Poga11s. }eh•s, and C/rril'limrs (O:tford: Oxford Univcuity Press. 1999). pp. 59-SO(80). Cf. further. Goodcnou.gh. ThrologyofJustiJt Mor~rr. p. 90. Mach. 'Christian Anli·Judaism'. pp. 34-7. discusses its dialogic. qualities. 81. Hcngci.Seplllagiut. pp. ! 6-34: Judith l iw.lmage and Rt·a/ity. TheJt•ws int/1e Worldoftl~e Christians ofthe Stv:ondCentury(£dinbmgh:T&T Clurk. 1996). pp. ll&-9: Lindars. Ne·w Testomem Apologetic, p. Hi. 81. On the collection and dc.vdopment of 1estimonin in the curly Chri ~tiun communities. S«' Manin C. Albl. 'And Scripture Com101 hi! Bmken ': TM Form ami Fmmiun oftl~e Ear~v ChriJtiatl Testimonia Colll"t'/imu(No\·TSup. 96: Lcid~'tli'BostlWKOln: E. J. Brill. 1999). pp. 97- 1 58~Skllrsaunc. The Pmoffrom Prophe-cy. pp. 135-434.

58

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels Justin also redeploys those formu la quotations that he does take over from

Mauhew. Luz has recently examined the role of inte11extuality in the Gospel of Matthew with respect to its use of the Hebrew Scriptures."J. Here he observes that inte11exts 'belong to the rhetorical strategy o f a text' .f..! Of course, the fulfilment quotations are a prime example, and when the rhetorical strategies of Justin and Matthew are compared, Justin' s approach helps to illumine the quite diffe.rent .strategies employed by the two autllors. The principle dit)"brence between them is that in Justin's writings '(T]he confession o f Jesus as Messiah was foundational, a presuppos ition for the rest' .85 As he states in I Apol. 31.7-8: ·we find it pred icred in the books o f the prophets that Jesus our Chris( would come, born of a virgin, born to manhood. heating every sickness and every disease and raising the dead. hated and unacknowledged and crucified. dying and rising again and ascending into heaven, both really being and being called Son of God.' Here Justin ·fii'St gives at great length all the major christological passages. pro\•ing that they are to be given the tl lture mes..~ianic interpretation, and that other commonly held Jewish interpretations are inadequate' .86 The ke1ygma serves as the cornerstone for Justin's prophetic exegesi s.~ This fearure o f Justin's hermeneutic can contribute to an understanding of the function of Matthew·s fulfilment quotations. When the rhetorical strategies o f Justin and Matthew are compared, Justin's approach helps to illumine the quite different tactics adopted by the two aud1ors. And, while this comparison cannot o fitselfilluminate the function of the fulfilment quotations in Matthew, in pa11 because there is no substantial agreement among scholars about the audience of Matthew's Gospel or Jusrjn 's Dialogue. it can help to eliminate at least one ofthe functions advanced by scholars.•!; In particular, this application of w;rJwngsgesch;chte leads one to d iscount Hagner's understanding of the fun~tion ofthe fulfilment quotations. As was noted above, Donald Hagner contended that in Matthew the fulfilment quotations 'have as their foundatjon ch.ristological convictions - they are, indeed. christocentric. T11ey take as their starling point that Jesus is the One promised by the OT .scriptures. 'S9 Consequently. ' the quotations are not to be understood as proof-texts that would in themselves persuade. tOr example, Je\VS who had rejected the gospel.

83. Luz. ·rntcrtexts'. pp. 119-37. Questions ofinlerte.xtualit)' tuc.also addressed by Annl! M. O'leary. MaiiiU!w·s Judai:oJion q{Mork examined intlw Context q{l/re Usl! ofSoun:es ill Gmec&Romon .4ntiqlli(I'(LBS. 323: London and Nt:w York: T&T Cl:uk. 2006).

84. Luz. ·Jnte-rtexts'.p. 121. 85. DonaldJud . Me.uianic f.rq;el·is: ChriJtologicollnterprelatirm. p. 214. 88. For a detailed su.rn:y of the possible nudi¢nccs of the Dialogue. sec Tessa Rajak. ·Talking Ill Ttypho•. pp. 7$--80. For r«rnt discussion of Matlhc:w. see Paul Foster. Cormmmi(Y, Low tJJJd MisJirm ill Mutthew :t GoJpel (WUNT. 171: Hibingen; Mohr Sieb(('k. 2004}. pp. 254-60. 89. Hagntt. Muttlww /-/J.p. hi

CaUSlAND

JriSiin Afartyr on Mallhe"':\' Fulfilment Quotations

59

T11e quotations are thus addressed to Christians, and their compelling power is only evident to those who have been confronted with the fact of the risen Christ. •91.1 Hagner's assertion simply does not hold true for the Gospel's readers or auditors. There is no doubt that f'.·latthew and Justin both take the Messiahship of Je-sus as axiomatic. but. quite clearly. for Justin it is a deductive process where for Matthew it is essentially inductive. For Justin, it is the premise that grounds the entire superstructure of his reintcrpl'etation ofthe Hebrew Scriptures. Or. to put it differently, Jesus the Christ is the only lens that will a llow fo r a co1·rect unde-1'standing of the Scriptures. The reverse, however, is true fo1· Matthew: it is the Scriptures that are the lens that help show Jesus to be the Messiah. The unfolding narrative of.le.:ats' bios pl'Oduces in the auditors or readers a growingape~u that Jesus is the promised one. Over the course of reading or hearing the Gospel>they are brought to discern in the-cumulative events of Jesus' life the ongoing fulfilment of Scripture. By the time they reac.h the Gospel's end, with the-exalted Christ on the mountain in Galilee, they should have come to recognize with Peter that Jesus is ' the Messiah, the Son of the living God' (Mt. 16.16). This approach is apparent bollt in Matthew's deployment of Christological titles and in the narrative developments that occur in the course of the Gospel. With respect to the former, it is c lear that the denotations ofMauhew's titles are by no means self-evident Even at Mt. 1.1, for instance, which expressly affinns that Jesus is the Son of David and the Son of Abraham, the import of these titles only becomes evident over the course ofMatthew's narrarive.91 Similar observations hold tme for other titles in Matthew, such as Son of God o1· Son of rvfan.is the development of a rich and detailed set of characteristics that they carry with them into each new scene of the narrative and that ar-e ultimately incorporated into their final assessment of the significance ofJesus as they come to the end of the narr.uive' .9$l11is scenario, however. suggests that this type ofChristological

90. Hagner. ,\.lutthc•w /- /J.p. hi 91. On ~fauhcw's idiosyncmtic. undcrstnnding of 'Son of O:t\•id'. sec Cousltmd. Crowd-;. pp. 175- 99.

92. Ulrich luz. S11Kiies ill Maulll'h' (trons. Roscnnry Sdk: Grond Rapids and Cambridge: Ecrdmans. 2005). pp. 83- 96. 93. Frank J. Matern. Nt•w Te.wmmmt Chrislology· (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox. 1999}: RudolfSchnad:c-nburg. Jesus i11tht-Gos{Kk A Bibliool ChriJtology(ttans. 0. C. Dean. Jr: louis,·ilk : Wc.stmins.tco'John Knox. 1995). pp. 79-84. 94. Schnacl:cnburg. Jesus in tl•eGospds. pp. 107- 14. uses lhcapt term ·signposts' to describe the function or the fuJfilmml quotations wilhin tbc nnrmti\·e~ 95. Tcrenoc L llon:tldson. ·n.c VindM::ttOO Son: A Narr.Ui\·c Approach to Mutlhcun Cltristology•.

60

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

assessment is the ending poimtOr the-reader. and not. as Hagner would maintain. the stoning point. Paradoxically. therefore, both the histo1y ofMatthew"s influence on Justin and his very lack of influe-nce both contribute to a more precise unde.rstanding of the fulfilment quotations. In panicutm·~ they leave open the strong possibility that Matthew's scriptural citations we.re designed not simply for the edification ofthe Christian community. but for an audience that would respond to an inductive and apologetic presentation of the formula quotatjons. 4. Conclusions

This chapter undertook to address the three following questions: (I} What influenc.e have MaHhew"s fulfilment quotations exened on Justin 's citations from the Heb1·ew scriptures?; (2) Why did they have this pa•·ticular effect?: and (3) What doe-$ Justin's interpretation suggest about how f\·1atthew's fulfilment quotations ought to be understood? With respect to the first ques-tion, it has to be-said that in contrast to the expectations of ?vlassaux and others. it is no/'nonnal that Justin draws his inspiration from the text in which Matthew himself announces that the prophec.y has been fulfilled' .9" Justin appropriates f¢wer than half of Matthew's fulfilment quotations, and does not adhere to Matthean introductory tbrmulae o f the citations, nor to Matthean text forms. Why tJle tb rmula quotations had limited impact on Justin can be explained in light of the difference in genre. and pmpose between Matthew's Gospel and Justin's writings. Because he does not consider the Gospel to be authoritative in its entirety. he has no reservations about omitting some of Matthew's fomlula quotations or selecting alternate passages of Scripture. Justin's treatment of the formula quotations in Matthew reveals a great gulf between his rhetorical strategies and those of Matthew. Justin•s enth·e scriptural he.rmeneutic is predicated on the axiom that Jesus is Messiah, where for Matthew it is the understanding o f Scripture that leads to the inference that Jesus is tvtessiah . Recognition of this fundamental disparity between Justin and Matthew shows that views such as Hagner's about the purpose of the fommla quotations are mistaken. Justin's deducti\'e approach brings Matthew's inductive stance into shmp relief. and suggests that the formula quotations did have an apologetic or propagandistic dimension.

in Richard N. longct-ncd:cr (cd.). Gmt011r:i ofCiwisto/(Jgy in the Nt"w Testamelll (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Ecrdmans. 2005). pp. t00-2 1 ( 1tO). 96.

Mas.S
p. 31.

4. ' THE B ooK o~ THE GENESIS oF JEsu s CHRIST': THE Pu RPOSE oF MATniEW IN LtGHTOFTHE I NCII'IT

Craig A. Evans The selling and purpose behind the composition oft he Gospel of Mauhew have occasioned a lively discussion among Malthean scholars in recent years. Learned .studies have appeared arguing fOr a thoroughly Jewish selling, with the synagogue primarily in view, I while in other studies, perhaps represented best in work by Warren Carter, we are urged to interpret rvfatthew as contending for faith in the context or a threatening and hostile Roman Empire.1 Or course, Carter does not minimi.ze the relevance of the Jewish and synagogue backdrop; he is concerned that the stmggle to survive in the Roman world is not overlooked when we interpret the Gospel or Mauhew. In my view there is significanlln1th in both of these competing views. The Mallhean Evangelist addressed " synagogue and Jewish leadership that had rejected Je.sus as lsrnel's Me.s:siah and on occasion had persecuted those who believed in him. The Evangelist was concerned to demonstrate that Jesus and his movement fUlfil Jewish expectations and hopes and do not undermine the authoritative place ofTorah.:; But the Evangelist also took pains to fUshion his murative and the teaching of Jesus in ways that reHecllhe very real challenges and dangers I. Some ofthe most infturntilal studies include J. A. 0\'crtnan.Mattkw:\·GospelamlFomJati\·e Judai5m: A Swtly ofthe Social Worltl uf!lw Mati!Jt'OIICw.mmmity(Minncapolis: F«lress Press. 1990): A. J. Saldarini. Mauhe-~v j Chrislian.Je,riJir Commtmity(Chicago Studic:; in the History of Ju<Wism: Chicago: Uni\'roity of Chicago Pms, 1994}: D. C. Sim. The Gospel ofMoJtlrew ond ChrislitJrl Judaism: The Ni.storyondS«iul Settil~g oftlte MauJw-mJ Conrmtmity(Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1998). Ovcm1an believes that the Mattbean community was in essence a sect within Judaism whose home \\'aS Gulike (and not Antioch}. Saldarini bdie.vcs thai the. E\'angdist wns himsdf a Jewish teacher competing for the minds of lhc Jl'\vish poople in the--aftermath of Lhc calamily of70 AD. Sim ngm:sin large measure wilh these Sludies. describing the MatthClln community as a gruupof J'-"'"S whobclic\-c in Jesus. 2. W. Carter. J,fauhcw m1d tht' .1./argins: A Socio-Politiool and Religious RMding (JSf'..~·sup. 204: Sheffield: Sheffie-ld Ac-ndemie Press. 1000): idem. Moulrew (trltl Empire: lnititll f.ypforotimu (Harrisburg. PA: Trinity P~ lnt~~ma tionaJ.100 1): idem. AfalllliM: Sturyte/ler. Interpreter. fran· geliJI {rcY. cdn. Pcabod)·. MA: Hendric:l:son.2004). 3. Sec also S. McKnight. 'A loy!ll Cri1ic:.: Matlhew's Polemic wilh Judllism in Theological P~'fspecli,,e•. in C. A Evans and D. A Hagncr(cds). .4mi-Semilism utJd furlyChristitmi(l': Jss11esof Polemkond Foitll (Minneapolis: Fofln.'$..._ 1993). pp. 55--79.

62

BibliL·al lnterprelalion in Early Christian Go:lpels

o rtitC in the Roman Empire. These perspectives are hardly contradictory, fOr in early rabbinic literature itself we see tOrmative Judaism struggling to maintain t3ith and integrity in the Empire and~ especially, in the atlermath of three catastrophic rebellions."* So also in the c~-1se of the Matlhean community. which likewise mounted a rebuttal in response to the rejection. c-riticisms and cowllerd aims emanating from the synagogue and at the same lime sought ways to survive in the context of an Empire that was growing increasingly hostile to Jews on the one hand and to the new cult - the Christian cult - on the other. The horrors of the persecution during the latter part ofNero's reign and the frightening consequences of the failed Jewish re\'olt that ended in 70 AD could never ha\'e been far from the Evangelist's consciousness. The goal of this modest study is to draw attention to Matthew•s incipit (i.e., Mt. 1. 1) and inquire in what ways it may have a bearing on lhe question of the Evangelist's primary purpose (Or writing. I do this because in my observation the incipits of the New Testament Gospels and Acts are not always sufficiently appreciated by interpreters. Questions of genre and integration are usually raised, but in what way the incipit itself might actually indicate purpose or a thesis is often passed over tooquickly.s Books in antiquity normally did not have lomlal titles, but they ol\en were prefaced with a phr:tse or with a prologue o f some sort. In his biography ofAlexander the Great, Plutarch announces his subject at the beginning ofa brief preface: 'It is the life of Alexander the king .. . that we are writing' (Alexander 1.1). Likewise, Jewish books in late i:lntiquity sometimes began with an incipit that succinctly announced the-direction that the work would take: 'An oracle conceming Nineveh. The book (,;;Q I 13•13Atov I /iber] of the ,; sion of Nahum ofElkosh' (Nab. 1. 1; RSV): "The book l,~t:i / j3ij3;1.osl of the acts ofTobit the son oflobiel, son o f Ananiel, son of Aduel, son ofGabael, oflhe descendants of Asiel and the tribe ofNaphtali' (lob. 1.1; RSVA); 'These are the words of the book (oi:JTol oi l\oyo1 Tou fl•j31\lou] which Baruch the son of Neraiah, son o f Mahseiah, son o f Zedekiah, son of Hasadiah, son ofHilkiah, wrote in Babylon' (Bar. 1.1; RSVA); ' The second book (liher] of the proplret E
4. 111nt is. in tlte rcbe-IIKlns of66-70. 115-17, and 132- 5. The first ofthese wars resulted in th-e dcstruelion of the Temple at krusukm. while the.last war rcsuhod in lbc destruction of the Jewish state itself. 5. A de-lightful exception is scc:n in W. D. Davies nnd D. C. Allison. A Critical aud f:xi!getical Commemaryonth.. Gospel Acoordit1g to Soim .4taliJu!w. Volume 1: lmroffl,c·tWnandCommmtm~· or• MatJhew I- VII (ICC: Edinburgh: T&T Cbrk. 19SS}. pp. 149-60. I hnve benefited from their careful wotk nt man)' points.

EVANS

lJu.' Purpose o/Mauhew in Light (?lthe lncipil

63

(Sepher ha-Ra=im I).6 f\
lollowed by a full genealogy in vv. 2-16). Study ofMauhew's incipit is especially promising, given the probability that the Evangelist had the Gospel of Mark before him.1 The Mallhean Evangelist drew heavily on his Markan source~ adopting some 90 per ce.nt of this older materiaL Yet, the Matthean £vangelist chose not to make use of the ?vlarkan incipit (Mk I: I), which reads: ap),'l) TOV ~Voyyt.Mou .11)000 Xp•oroU [v'•oU thoU). (UBSGA'P} The-beginning ofthe good n-ews of Jesus ChrisL Son of God.

With or without the unc.ertain \Vords u'toU 6EoV. we ltave here an unmistakable allusion to the cnlt of the Roman emperor, in whom the good news for the world begins.ll Had his primary purpose for writing been focused on life in the Empire, one would h:tve expected the Matthean Evangelist to have made use of Mark's incipit. Yet, interestingly. no truce of the imperial orientation of Mark's incipit remains in Matthew's incipit) to which we now turn. I . MaltheH: ·s lncipif and Scriptural Aufecetk•nfs

Analysis of Matthew's incipit is complicated by close parallels with several texts and at the same time some interesting points of divergence. One text may otTer an exact parallel in Hebrew but nol in Greek, while another may ofler an exact ptuallel in Greek but not in Hebre\V. Beyond this, we have discre-pancies in the various versions of Matthew itseiJ: which also oJler some intere.sting parallels \\~lh lhe several Old Testament passage.s under consideration.

Mt. 1.1 Bi"Aos" ywiorw5 't11ooU Xp•oToV uioU llavi5 uioiJ .~paO:~.~ (UBSGN1"<) The book of G:-n~~is of Jesus Messiah. the son of O!lvld,lhc son of Abraham. tO Liher gmc·mtionis le.wr Christi filii Dm•idfilii Ahrohom. (Vulgate-) The-book of the ge-neration of Jesus Christ. the son of David. the son of Abraham.

6. For ad.:litkmul examples. sccC. Bryan.A Prf!/oce Jo Mark: Notes on/Ire Gospel ill bs Litervry andCult11r

9. The n:ading is well -established. aues1cd in third-century 0 1 ( .. P.Oxy. 2 verso). as well as in the gn:at c.odi«s (i.e .. ~ ABC D). I0. The trunslations arc mine-. unless ot~..crwisc indicated. Thenan:sJitcration. 'dllt' bookofGcocsis'. will be c.xplaine-d below.

64

BibliL·al lnterprelalion in Early Christian Go:lpels :cii-·:I~ j~ i i i p 1V rli"i~·n :i~. 11 (Shc:m Tob>

These arc the g~o'flcmt ions of Ycshu. son of David. son of Abrahmn. : ,.;..~il ~ ·~4· ...\:. ~ .....~- ~,.t.;. ~¥ (Pcshitltl)

The book ofthe generation (klbd:rly;lwt) ofYcshua the Messiah. the son of David. theson of Abrnham.

Most commentators agree thal ?o.·falthew's incipil echoes Scripture. Three Genesis passages have been sugge.sled: ( I) Gen. 2.4a :c~"::;."J~ f!>~~: rtQW rlii?'ri ii~ (MT) These arc the genc-mtions of the heavens und th-e earth. when they ''IC're Cl\'attd. aUrn h i)i~).os yMa~c.>S' oVpcwoii Ko:i Yh5 0-n i vivno. (OG)

This is !he bool: of the lineage of hc<~vcn and Clll1h. '...t.cn they came into being. istae ge11ermiones caeli eJ li!rn w quando creotae .nmt it1 die q110 fiv:it Dominus Deus cadum etlermm. ( Vulgntc-) These arc the gcncrutions ofhc!l\'Cn and c.1rth. when they were orcated. on lhc day that the lord God made. he1wcn and ct~rlh..

:;~·-.;,1~ ~ ~~'i.~! ~:QiP rt:'(t'i r l;..~ (Targum Onqdos) Thc:s< arc the gencrutions of the hca\'cns Md lhe.curth. when they were created. '~

(2) Gen. 5. 1 :u·i-'\ ;'i~~ c·:i~-~ rae-~ t!!~ r:··:i~ ~-~ C"a' ; c:~ n17"~r; i~ ii} (MT) This is the book of the generations of Adam. On the d!ly God c-reated Adam. in thelikeness of God he made him.

aU-rn

hf3l~os YtViott.:~5 Cw6pt.lnwY b ~~pq; €rrolnon, 0 €1!0, T0v AOaiJ KO:T.

Ei~e(wo: 6to0 £rroil')otll

o:UTbv. (OG) This is the bool: of lhe g_cncsisofmrn. On thedayGod created Adam. according to the imugc of God he mad~· him.

hie-est /iber gemmJiiOtlis Adam ill tfj<' quo crt'O\'il Deu.f h<>miltcm ad.fimilitudi~tem lfili /t-'r:it ;//um (Vulgate). This is the book of the gen~·m tion ofAdam. On the daythut God created man. according to the likeness of God he made him.

r,·

:-·n: i;P O'i~~ i t;Ci:J C"!l_' ' 1" !'\"!::!, ~'::! D~ n-:'{r.i i~ (Tilr!,'llm Onqdos) This is the book ofthC' gcncmtions ofAdam. On the day the lord c-n:atcd Adam. in the image of God he trc-tlted him.u II. For tex-t. sec G. Howard. Tite Gos,wl oj Matt/tell' o«ording to n Primitiw 1/ehnM Te.tl (Mucon.. GA: Mercer Uniwrsity Press. 1 9~7). p. 2. The He-brew text ofMnllhcw published by Jeandu Tilkt rc!lds the-same: way: c:f. A. Herbs!. Uber die WJIJ Sebo.\'lian MiillSII!r uml Jealllill Tillet Mrol(.f· gegebetli!IJ lrebrtii.w·hm Olx!rset:ungen des fwJrq;t"/iumJ Mauho<'i(GOttingcn: Dictcrichs. 1879). p. I. Th-e Pc:shiua ugrces with the Grc~-1: and latin \'ersions. On the confusion of the Hebrew texiS of Mat· thew by Shcm Tob und du Tillct. sec Howard. Gospt'l ufMattltew. pp. 160-80. 12. The Pcshittu ugrcc:s with the .\fT and the Tnr!,'lllll. 13. Wbcr~'aS the Targum re-ads ' the LordctC'atcd Adam'. the Pcshiltn ugrceswithtbc ~IT. in rct~di ng ·God created Adam'.

EVANS lJu.' Purpose o/Mauhew in Light (?lthe lncipil

65

(3) Gen. 6.9 :ry11~0r.1 ~·::-~~'j1i~ i'\i,~ i:\ c·n~ p·~~ 'Zl'~ ry) t!· n1*1tr1;:~ (~tT) These urc the gencrutions ofNooh. Nooh w<~s a righteous man. perfoct in his generation. With God No.1h walked.

aUTo:• & a'• ywious Nc.:.: N(,)¢ O:vepwnOS' 6\~eo:•OS TiMtOS c:lv tv Til ytwQ: o:VTOO Tc;> 6!c;> ~\rqpioTno~v Nwr. (OG) Tht$C urc the gencrations ofNooh. Nooh wus a righteous man. pcrf..·-ct in his g-eneration. To God Noah was piCilsing. hoegeMratioiH':$ Noe Noe rir ius/U.f otqu~ perfocuufuil in geJWratiMihussuis cum Dw umhulon'l. (Vulgate) These arc t~ g-c:ncfntions of Not-. Not y,u a j ust and pcrfoct man in his g-c:ncrutions. With God he 'valked.

:ip

-1''?.1 '•'1 ~")71"11~ 'ii',,"!= i11;:1 ~-~ ·~; i :;J IJ'l rp l'i"!~i'l r~~ (Tnrgum

Onqcoo)

Tht$C are the generations of Nooh. Noah was un innocent tnM. He wus pcrf«t in his gencmtion. 'valking in the IC111 of the Lord.14

A fourth passage from Genesis should be taken into account: (4) Gen. 10.1 :t;r':eii ~1~ c:,~ C(i? ~.,7·n r~~~1 OIJ cv-mw·:,·; r~17ln :i~1 c~ro Tht$C IIIC the-gcnm1tions of the sons of Noah.Shcm. Ham. and Japhcth; und sons we.re bom to thent urtcr the Rood. aUTo:• & o:i y;vious n:Jv uiC:w N(,)¢ Iru.1 Xo:IJ lo:¢f& ~eo'i iyn,il&noov o:VTois ui~ IJET0: T(IY ICO:Tcu::Allov6Y. ( QG) Tht$C urc the gcn~Ttttions of the sons ofNoah. Shcm. Ham. und Japheth: und sons ~re bom to tltenl nftc-r the Rood. hoe gener(Jfiones .filionu11 N
pi? ,,·!;:n~· ri!J:: cry ~Q m'i'~ ~"!'iii,

j'?~; (Tar!,'Wll

Onqdoo)

Tht$C m the gencrutions of the.sons ofNouh: Shem, Hum. nnd Japhet. And sons wereborn to them nftcr the llood.

Finally, one more text could be mentioned: (5) Num. 3. 1 :'to -~~ iiQ'Y\"l~ ii,1i1: ~- ~~·~ :iY'Jl l'iC~ rh 1("~1 ;'i7~: (MT) Tht$C IlK thc. g~'fl trnti onsof Aaron and Mos.cs inthe day the lord spol:c with ).toscson Mount Simi.

14. 111c Pcshitta agrees with ckrnents of the OG ('God was plcas~-d with Noah') ood the Amrnaic ('Noah \ViiS an innocent nmn').

66

BibliL·al lnterprelalion in Early Christian Go:lpels Kal oUTat a'• ytviottS Aopwv.:a't Mwvoi}f.vb hlliPQ fAO>.qorvi
Ev Cpu Iwo:. (OG)

Thes< arc the g~o"«rationsof Auron nnd ).fos~ in the day the.lord spoke to Moses on MountSinni

h(t{X sunt gcnenui<mes Aaron et Mosi in di~· q1w locwm est Dominll.$ ctd Mrue11 in mome Sinai. (Vulgate) These are the generations of Aaron and Moses in the day •hat the Lord spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai.

:•r:,

r

~l'~ il~ t:¥ .,. ~·~7 ~fl!":l iitr-i jiil~ n:'t.n ~1 ( rargum Onqdos) And lht$C IlK the g~'flcnttions of Aaron und ).foscs. on the day whm the Lord spoke with Mos~ on the mountain of Sinai.

Matthew's Greek ~i~A05 y•.vioE<.» ('book o f genesis') echoesOG Gen. 2.4 and 5.1, the latter of which in tum agrees with the Hebrew n'1';>in-;;~c ('book or generotions'). Shem 'fob's fom1 o r Matthe.w 's incipit. m, ?1ro;;?~ ('these are the genemlions'), echoes Gen. 2.4; 6.9; I0.1; and Nmn. 3.1. All but one of these passages contain genealogical data (the exception is Gen. 2.4). 1n Mt. 1.2-16 we encounter the recurring formula 'A begat s· (e.g., ' Af3pa0J,J i y i vvT}atV T0v 'loaO:K, 'loaCxK Of Eyi vVfloev T0v 'laKC.::,f), 'laK~(3 O[ iyivvf1oev T0v 'loUOav Kat ToUS lx&l-¢ous a iJTou, KTA.). Similarly, in Genesis 5 Adam 'begat' (iyiwqo.v) Seth. and Seth 'begat' £nosh, and so forth (w. 3-32). In Gen. 6.10 Noah 'begot' (fyivvr)o•v) three sons. l n view oflhis language i1seems likely that readers or Mallhew's Gospel, who have re-ad or heard the Scriptures read, could scarcely fitil to he.ar the allusion(s) lo Genesis. Indeed, the book of Genesis (Ben·shit in the Hebrew Bible) was known by the name 'Genesis' in late anti-quity~ at least one gene.mtion before the Gospel of Mathew was composed and circulated. Philo k 20 BC-c. AD 50) begins his tractate on Abraham with these word.< (Abr. I): Of the fi ve book..<; in wbich the holy luws arewTiltcn the fi rst bears the nantc nnd inscri~ tion of Genesis fh npt.lTq Ko:MiTCo ~eo:i i ;nypitcjlno1 yivro15}, from the genesis or c-reation of tile wortd. an account of which i1 contains at its beginning. It has re«i\'00 this title in spite of its
Two other time.s Philo refers to the first book or Moses as ·Genesis• (cl: Poster C. 127; Aet. ,\;fund. 19).ln view of what Philo says (and in the next century or so he is fOllowed by other scribes and writers, both Jewish and Christian15), it seems most probable that in beginning his Gospel narrative with the words ~~~A05 yeviocCo:Js the Evangelist Matthew intends his readers to think o f the book of Genesis -a book ofbeginnings and a book of genealogies. 16 Davies and Allison 15. For example~ the y
Moreover. the rrnding of A. yiv.:ot5 .:Oouou. approximiltes the incipit or the Latin version of the Jewish work LAB I .I (initio mumli). 16. IIshould be noted that LABsimililrly begins with .!,'l:nealogical datu: 'In the beo.;inning of t.hc wortd Adam b
67

EVANS lJu.' Purpose o/Mauhew in Light (?lthe lncipil

plausibly suggest: 'By opening his gospel with another book's title, Matlhew almost ce-rtainly intended to set up the story of Jesus as a counterpart to the story of Genesis.'" Acconlingly, lthink Mallhew's incipil should be lrnnslated: 'The book of Genesis or Jesus Messiah, the son o f David. the son or Abraham' . 2. /ltlalt!Jew's lncipit and Clusters ofFive Genesis is the first of the five books anributed to Moses. That the books oflaw given by t\•foses numbered 'five' is suOkiently attested in Jewish literature oflate antiquity. Philo state.s that 'Israel's sacred laws have 'been written in llve books' (Abr. I) and, elsewhere, 'the number or the books is live; the first of which (Moses) entitled Genesis' (Ad. Mwul 19). So also Josephus declares that in con. trust to the Greeks. whose sat~red books are innumerable and contradictory. the sacred books of the Jews number 22 'and of them five belong lo Moses' (Apion 1.38-9). Moreover, the fivefold nature ofthe Mosaic corpus is probably reflected in the legend of2 Esdras 1 4~ in whic.h Ezra. with the assistance of five-st:ribes) is able to restore the law (esp. \rv. 24> 37, 42).111 As is otlen noted, the Evangelist 1v1a1lhew presents the principal teaching of Jesus in five major blocks or material: The-Scm1on oo the. Mount (chs 5- 7) The Missiooary Discour:;e (ch. I0) The Parables of the Kingdom (<:h. 13) The OiS<:outs
Besides the structure itself; this fivefold patlern is strengthened by the obser. vation that euch d iS<.~o urse concludes with a Mosaic phrase: 'And when Jesus finished lflcsc: words (On iTiAt:a<:v 0 ·11}0005

TeNs

AOyous

rolnovs] .. .' (7.2&). 'And when Jesus had fini:>bed ins1ructin-g hist,vth•c disciples [On i:r!MowO 'JrpoUs 01oTO:oCK.)v rois Ot.J&~eo: uo:&i}Tais o:\rtOOJ... •( 11.1 ). ·And when Jesus hnd finished lhtse-parnbles (on tTiAI:owO ·111ooUs TUS rro~Os To\rro:S') . •.' ( 13.53).

I 7. J),l\·ics and Allison. T11e Gospel according to- Sai11t Malllll?w. p. 151. It should be noted thut scn:ml commentators do not agree-with this intcrpretntion; e.g. J. Noltand. Tlw GosJX•I of.A.Iauhew (NIGTC; Grund Rapids: Emlmans: Blctchlc.y. UK: P.Jttmex>l~~r. 2005). pp. 71- 2. Fora fulkrdiscus· sioo of the e.vidcncennd arguments. sct-J. Nolbnd. 'Whnt Kind ofGenesis do we have in Mt. 1.1'.". NTS ~2 ( 1996). 463- 71. In the end. NoiL1nd is not sure ''lilat the Evangdist•s intcntioo wns in using the words l3i13Aos- yivto-15'. In my view. the proposnl ofDa\'ics nnd Allison is the more probable. for the words actuuJiydo mean 'bool: ofGenesis'. Theappcar.t.nce ofa gencnlogy coheres with nmcrinl found in thecarlyehnpt~Tsof Genesis and ksus is presented in Mntthewas the new tnwgi\'Cr. whose tcnching consists of fi\'C blocks of mnterial. 1S. The fi,·e scribes. writing in turns. produce the (canonical) 24 booksof Scriptl.IK. as wdl as 70 apoc.f)-phnJ books. Howe\·cr. what initiated this rcmnrkabk fcal was the rec.oll~tion of the Law tt\'caled to Mos~'$ and lhe fac-t tll!lt in the exile it had been lost (cf. 2 Esdr. 1·1. 1--6. 22).

68

BibliL·al lnterprelalion in Early Christian Go:lpels ·And whe-n Jesus had finished these words [On i-ti"fotV 0 'l11ooiis ;005 'AOyou) ToUt-coS') .. : (19. 1).

"And Jesus had finished all these \\'
Note that the last concluding summary (26.1) adds the word 'all'. The use or rrCnnas here means that this summary is the fiflh and final summary. Jesus• flvefo ld teaching, presented in five discours~s. has ended. The verb nAf(o) occurs seven times in Matlhew. But the form fTiAto€v occurs only in the flve summary statements that have been cited. This simple aorist Ji.mn, a long with hmguage that accompanies it oiTe.rs a striking paralle l to summaries found in the books of r-,.
19. At leaS! W
EVANS lJu.' Purpose o/Mau hew in Light (?lthe lncipil

69

eschatological interpreter o flhe la'v~ Pharisaic interpretation ;.md practice were deficient Within the framework oft he infancy narrative, which contains Mosaic typology already mentioned, we find the fulfilment of five prophecies: the miraculous conception of Jesus (Mt. 1. 18-25) fulfols Isa 7.17; the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem (Mt. 2.1-6) fulfils Mic. 5.2; the return lrom Egypt (Mt. 2:13-15) fulfils Hos. I 1.1; the murder of the infants (Mt. 2. 16-18) fulfild er. 31.1 5; and the settling inN"'areth (Mt. 2.2 1-23) fulfils Judg. 13.5. his against this typology of 11ve thi.il the five women in the messianic genealogy of Jesus (Mt. 1.2-1 6) should be. viewed: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, the wile of Uriah, and Mary. The function of the firsl lOur women in the genealogy and how and if tl1ey relate to Mary the mother ofJesus has been debated. Marshall Johnson, Raymond Brown, Jane Schaberg and Richard Bauckham, among others, have carefully explored the possibilities and the nuances) some of which are rather subtle. 20 Among the lines of interpretation explored is the suggestion lhat the first fOur women were sinners. yet they contribute to the messianic genealogy. Of course) this approach is faulted. because Ruth is probably not portrayed us a sinner in the book of Ruth. Moreover, ifthe point is th.at these fOur women are sinners! what does that suggest with regard to Mary'? And in any case, there is evidence that th~se women were held in high regard in late antiquity.zt Another approach is to see the inclusion o f Gentile women in the genealogy as adumbrating the gathering o f the Gentiles into the Church~ the new people ofGod, which the risen J~sus commands his apostles to undertake (Mt. 28. 18-20). The dillicnlty here is that we do not know that Tamar and Bathsheba~ the wife ofUriah, were Gentiles(favoured by Bauckham). Yet another approach is to see the presence of all flve women as the results of extraordinary, unexpected occurrences (favoured by Brown)) perhaps in response to Jewish scribal polemics (favoured by Marshall)." Schaberg has 20. M. O. Johnson, Tlw Purpost rifllw Biblical G~nea!tJgks: WithSpeciul Referenc~ to lhe SellhJg ofthe Grmeologies of Jesus (SNTSMS. 8: Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni'''-TSity l>rt"SS. 1969). pp. 146-79; R. E. Brown. Th<• Birth q{ihe Messiah: A ConmumtaJ~I on the lnfwrc.F Narratiws in the Gol'{N..fs of.l!utt/urw rord Utf.:i! (Garden City: Doubleday. 1977: llpiogkallntetptl"luticJH!ltiN! New TeJJamc-m /nfan
70

BibliL·a l lnterprelalion in Early Christian Go:lpels

.shed fUrther light on the ques(ion by seeing the fOur \Vomen as outside patriarchal structures, as wronged or potentially wronged by men, as vulnerable to charges of se.xual misconduct, ~md then as protected by men and brought back into a secure social selling. I think there is truth in all ofthe.se views. with perhaps Schaberg's the most nuanced and insightful.n I would add that the fOcus may not be so much on the

four/five women, but on their respective o.O~pring. The taint ofquestionable birth was he.avily Jell by the child. Was the E\'llngelist Manhew concerned with protecting the reputation o f Mar'/! Or was he more concerned ''~th the reputation or Jesus. 'son of Abr;.iham, son o f David''? In view of this larger question, let us take a some.what diiTerent approach to the genealogy~ not focusing on the women the mselve-s~ but on the ir respective o lispring. In a catechizing style I raise a question and then provide the answer. Under what circumstances we.re Perez and Zernh conceived (Ml. I .3)? By Judah the patriarch having sex with his daughter-in-law~ whom he mistakes tOr a prostitute (Gen. 38. I2-30). Under what circumstances was Boaz conceived (MI. I .Sa)? By his lather Salmon marrying Rahab the prostitute.(Josh. 2. I -2 I; 6.25)."' Under what c ircumstances was Obed conceived (Mt. I .5b)'? By his lather Boaz marrying the Moabile widow, who 'uncovered his feel' as he slept (Ruth 3.6-9; 4. I J)H Under what circ umstances was Solomon conce ived (Ml. 1.6)? By his la ther David murdering Uriah and then marrying his wife Bathsheba (2 Sam. I 1.2-27; I 2. I 5-25). Under what circumstances was JestLS conceived (MI. I. I6)0 By the Holy Spirit, be fore Joseph had consummated his marriage with Mary. It is not so much the irregularitie.s of the conceptions of these five women1 or the irregularities o f their lives, or even less their e.thnicity; it is the question legitimacy that hangs ove-r their respective offSpring. Matthew the Evangelist is not portra)~ng the four Old Testament women as sinners (for this probably does not apply to Ruth and may not even apply to Bathsheba); he is placing the shadow hanging over Mary and Jesus in a historical context, specillcally the history ofthe Davidic/messianic lineage. Similar shadows hung over lOur women in the messia nic line. just as one lmngs over Mary.

or

1hc Messinh 's tineab't''. I nm sympnlhctic to this imcrpre-tation and will suggest a complc:mcntnrybtu somcwh.1t diffen:n l understanding. 13. A similar view is expressed in J. Nollllnd. ·'fbc Four(Fi,·c) Women and Olhcr Annotnlions in Matthew's Gcn-c:al~y', NTS 43 ( 1997). 527- 39. See also J. Nolland. 'Genealogical Annolatioo in Genesis ns Bac\:grmmd for the Mntthc:an Gcnealo~ofJesus', TyiiBu/41 (1996). I 15-21. 24. On the: qucslion of tbc idcnlityofRnhnb ofJoshwwi1h the: Rahabof thcgcnelllogyin Matthew. sec R. E. Brown. ·Rm·hab in Mt 1.5 Probably is Rnhab of Jericho'. Bib 63 ( 1982). 79-110. 25. And e., •cn if the eupbcmism ·uneo,·ettd his fc:~'1' not be-understood in the- ecnu~·x1 of Ruth ns !w\'ingtodowilh sexual inktcourse. the mm- fact ofRuth's Moobitc nncesti)'Castshctund~'f:t shad· ow, in view of texts like-Gen. 19.30-37 and Oetll. 2 3.3 ('No Ammonite or Mo.1bitc shall enter the: asscmbl)·of the lord: even to !he 1cnth!,'t'nm1tion none bdonging to them shall cntcrlhcasscmblyof the Lord for e\'cr'). For an assessment of ~-arly Jewish discussion of this lllw. s~'C Johnson. The Pur· pose oftlw Bihlirol Ge-nealogies. pp. 165- 10.

EVANS lJu.' Purpose o/Mauhew in Light (?lthe lncipil

71

As Brt1ce Chilton has rightly underscored, the question of Jesus• conception would have placed him in the category of mamze,. (it~), or person of suspect birth. 26 In the eyes of a sceptical and sometimes hostile synagogue in Matthew's day, such a person simply could not be taken seriously as a messianic contender. One should re<.·.all the incident in which Alexande.r Jannaeus, the Hasmonean high prie.st and king, was pelted with lemons as he began to oll"er sacriJice. Pharisees incited the crowd to do this, saying that Alex;mder 'was descended from <.-.aptives and was unfit to hold o ll1ce and to sacrifice' (Josephus, Ani. 13.372- 3). The allusion here is to the mmour that the grandmother of Alexander had been a slave (cf. Ani. 13.292). If so, then Alexander would have been ineligible to hold the ollice of high priest in light of the proscription of Lev. 2 1.7, 14." Accordingly}the peculiar circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth - and by this I mean the actual historical memory of Jesus as 'son of Mary' (Mk 6.3) and as one 'born in sin' (Jn 9.34) - would have fostered doubts about the legitimacy of the conception and birth of Jesus, doubts that were exploited in later rubbinic tradition in the cmdest fonns.21 It is to this issue that the Evangelist ?v1anhew is compelled to speak. Jesus is not the first in the messianic line to come onlo the scene in an irregular and unconventional manner and therefore suffe-r under the stigma of doubtful conception and birth; he is thejij(h. He has been prece.ded by Perez, son ofTamar, by Boaz, son ofRahab, by Obed, son of Ruth, and by Solomon, son of the fOrmer wife of Uriah. In this intere-sting tradition stands Jesus, son ofMary. By being the.fiflh person of doubtful conception and birth in the Davidic line, Jesus is in fuel the fulfilment of" the messianic hope associated with this lineage. By presenting Jesus as the fillh and final person ofdoubtful conception and birth, the Evangelist Matthew hints at fulfilment, which in the balance of his infancy narrative he will in fact underscore w·ith five citations o f prophecy fulfilled. And it is in this light that the scheme of 'fourteen generations' (Mt. 1. 17) should be understood.29 The Davidic, messianic stamp is leO on every epoch of theMessiah's ancestry, from Abraham to David. from David to exile, fTom exile to the

16. B. D. Chilton. Rabbi Jesu.e An Intimate Biography - 1T1e Jeu·iJ/1 Lif~ and Teoclring thut /nspiredChriJfi{mity(Ncw Yor\:: Doubleday. 2000). pp. 3-22. For enrl yrubbi n icdi~ussi on oft.htmom:er. S« m. Hag. 1.7: YehanL2.4·5: 4.1 2-13: 62: 7.5: 9.1·3: 10. 1. 3-4: Ketub. 1.9: 3.1: 11.6:5ow 4.1; 8.3. 5: Gil. 8.5: 9.2; Qidd. 1.3: 3.12- 13: 4.8. The mam:.f'r tradition gJO\\'S out ofDeut. 23.3 (Et r 23.2): ·No bastard f- !Cl;]sbaiJ rnkrthc.asscmblyof the Lord:
29. That is. the munerical value ofthenanK' On\id (IIi) is 14. UnderstandingM-llUhew·spoinl ilS an example ofg.f'tllt.llriu is accepted by most commcnlators.

72

BibliL·a l lnterprelalion in Early Christian Go:lpels

advent o f Messiah Jesus, an ancestry that includes five women whose otrspring were doubtful. 3. Conclusion

In what direction would Matthew•s incipit. 'The book of Genesis ofJesus ~·lessiah, son of Abraham, son of David', point his readers? How would readers react to the inclusion oft he four women in lhe gene.alogy, as well as the IHlh woman - Mary? Whal would be lhe overall impression of lhe Moses 1ypology in 1he infancy narrative a nd elsewhere? Of the five prophecies fulfilled in Jesus' conception, birth and inl~mcy'? Of the five major discourses, each concluding with a summary taken straight out of Deuteronomy'? Of the five antitheses in the Sermon on the Moun I, showing how Jesus demands his disciples lo fulfillhe law and prophels a nd thll
30. Remember, the Ph.1risocs chirncd to be 'di!iiCipks of ).foscs' (cf. Jn 9.28: b. l'Omu 4n). 31. The claimof()(.inga ·son ofAbmham' orofhavingAbnabam asonc·s · fn th~-r· carried wilh i1 impiK:atioos of election aod right-standing before God. Scc ).h. 3.9 (- Lk. 3.&). whcrc John the Baptist articulates the. views of so1ru: Jews: '\Vc h:.wc Abntham as our father': or lk. 13.16. where Jesus suys of the womun with lhc c.urn:d spine. 'this woman. a daughter of Abrnham': or U:. 16.24. where the rich man in the-parable cries out. 'Father Abrnham. have IUCI'C)' oo mer: or U:. 19.9. where Jesus says ofZacchacus the ltl:t·colloctor. 'Todaysalnllion has rome to this house~ since he also is a son of Abraham': or the pokmK:al p.'lssagcs in tile Fourth Gospd . wflcrt-Jesus' criticsclaimrobethc se
5. M ARK, ELIJA H, T HE B APT IST AND li'IATntEw: THE SuccEss oF TH E f iRST INTERTEXTUAL R EADING OF M ARK

Mark Goodacre.

flllroducl ion

In a great deal o f contemporary New Testament scholarship, there is a love affair going on with Mark alongside a polite.and patient disdain for his first interpreter Matthew. for many, it is taken for granted that Matthew somehow dumbs down on Mark's glorious subtlery. fnsofar dlat Matthew c-.an read and understand Mark's subtle and enigmatic plots, he crassly provides us with a straightforward, workaday interpretation ofthem. Not tbr Matthew is the messianic secret, the disciples' incomprehension or the dark, dmmatic irony ofMark's Passion narrative. lnstead o f parable, we have allegoJy. Instead of mystery, we have disclosure. This kind of approach is exemplified in Robert Fowler"s seminal readerresponse work~ Let the Reader Understand, 1 which characterizes Matthew's reading o f f!.
Robert Fowlc:r. f.et Jll£' Reader Umkrstand: Reader-Response Criticism am( the Gttspel of

Murk (Minneapolis: Fonrcss. 1991). 2. Jbid.p. 237. 3. On Mare-an priotily. sec note:-12 bc:low. 4. For some usc:fuJ rdloc:tionson the difficulties with Fowic:fsappronch.scc Sbnwn Kdlc:y. 'Inter· tcxlu3lily and the Gospels: An Introduction·. papc-rrend al thc SBL Annual M~Xtin& 2001 Synoptics Section. online nt http ://pc:rsonal l.stthomas.ed ufdtL
74

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

interpretation of Mark and e.mphasize instead one of the key ways in which Matthew might be seen as a successful reading of Mark. By ·successful', I mean a reading that understands what Mark is doing bm unde-rlines it for his own readers by strengthening the stronger connections. deleting the \Veaker ones and clarifying the remainder. But in orde1·toachievea more sympathetic unde1'Standing of .Matthew's reading ofMm·k, it is necessary to look in the right places, and here there is a difficulty. When Fowle1·discusses Matthew·s 1·eading oft\•lark, he focuses solely on elements where Matthew apparently intervenes to alter Mark. the secrecy theme, the portrait of the disciples, the parables. the resurrection. Places where the ditTerences between Matthew and rvtark a.l'e minor. subtle o1· non-existent do not have any part to play in the reading. This is problematic. It is a reading too indebted to the legacy ofredaction-c.riticism. witll itc; perennial stress on scrutinizing the.elements distinctive in each Gospel.5 A different and more sympathetic appreciation of Matthew's reading of Mark might pay much closer attention to places where Matthew correctly interprets and brings forward elements in Mark 's narrative. ln other words. one of the most potentially interesting facets of Matthew as a reading grid is getting ignored1 the places where Matthew provides a s.ucc.essful reading ofl'vlark. One such a1'Ca will be the focus of the 1·em.ainder of this chapte1·, and it is an are.a that is not mentioned by Fowler in spite of the fact that it is clearly an are.a of enormous importance to Mark. and one that is con·oborated and carried forwm·d by f\·latthew. the-equation of John the Baptist with Elijah. He1·e we might fbcus on Matthew as a successful intertextual reading of Mark1 picking up on the subtleties of Mark's account, understanding their implications and flaggi ng them up for his own readers in such a way that it then influe nces future readings of Mark, affirming those who also succeed in reading and understanding the role played there by John the Baptist. 2. John I he Baptist and Elijah in }vfark

let us begin by reviewing the evidence. It is clear that Mark presents John the Baptist as E-lijah re-tumed.6 How does he do this? T1le identification becomes steadily clearer as the first halfofMark's narrative progresses. Tile link bet-ween John and Elijah is introduced in 1.6 (clothing), elaborated in 6. 14-29 (a new 5. For additional rcAec•ions on these points. with spcc.ial npplication to the charac-terization of Pel..:r. sec: ).fari.: Goodacrc. 'The Rocl: on Roc.kyGtound: Matlhc:w. Marl: and Pctc:rasskandofon' in Philip ).fcCosker (c:d.}. JJ!Iwt is it thattM Scnjmm~ S~rs? Essays ill Biblicullllteqm:lmion, Tnmslation. und Reception in HoMur of He111J' U'onsbrough OSB (Library of New Tc:stnmc:m StudKs: London and New York: Continuum. 2006). pp. 6 1- 73. 6. For a usc:.ful discussion of the c:vidcnc:c. sec Christine E. Joynes. 'A Question of Identity: "Why do people: say t:hat l am?'· Elijnh.lohn the: Buptisl and lt$US in Mark's Gospel' inChtistophc-r Rowland and Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis (eds). Understanding. Sludyingond Reading: Arew h-'Sto· mem £s.(ays ill Honour ojJol1n .-bhum (JSNTSup. 153: Shc:llidd: Shdlidd Academic Prcss.199S). pp. 15-29. JoynC$('A Question of Identity'} suggests that the traditional tc--nn redil'illls is inappropriate. (~tt espec-ially pp. 16-li).

GOODACRE

Mark, Elijah, the> 8ap1ist and Mall}u.:w

75

Ahab and Jezebel) and confim1ed in 9.11- I3 (on the way down from th~ 'frru~sfigu­ mtion). The clothing gives us the first. fumous link to Elijah. Kcxl i)v o lc.Jcxvv~s iv0£0UUfVO) Tpixo:s KCXUlJAOU KCXl ~WV~V &pUCXTt~V ntpl T~V oo$UvaliTOU ('Now John was clothed with camel's hair and had a leathe1· g irdle m·ound his waist·. 1.6), in as clear an allusion to 2 Kg.s 1.8 as one could wish for. 1 Just as in 2 Kings I. the very description of his clothing is enough to signal to King Ahaziah that ' It is Elijah the Tishbite', so here the description of John's clothing in Mark is enough to make clear to the reader that this is a new Elijah. With this identification established, many astute readers c.annot help hearing echoes of Elijah·s complex relationship with the weak king Ahab and his manipulative wife Jezebel as Mark narrnles the sto1y of John the Baptist's relationship with the similarly weak Herod and the similarl)' scheming Herodias (Mk 6.1429).x While some remain unsure about the link between these two complexes. pointing out, fo1·example~ lhat the verbal echoes m-e limited,9 this might be see.n as declining the invitation to read Mark intratextually as well as intertexn1ally sinc.e both the broader context ( 1.6, 9.11- I3) and the immediate context (6.14-I 6) d1aw the 1-eade.r's attention to Elijah.IOIf the beheading ofJohn the Baptist were all we had~ we might well join with others in their scepticism. But as part of a developing discourse in which this theme is clearly impol'tant, it is difficult not to spot Jezebel's haunting presence lurking in the shadows of Herod's court. But the most explicit link between John the Baptist and Elijah is the extraordinaJy c,onversation between Jesus and the inner group ofdisciples at)er the transfiguration (9.1 I - 13). It is this passage. a passage that reveals much about Mark's narrative technique~ which affinns that the earlier echoes of the Elijah narrative have indeed been correctly read by the astute reader. First there is an allusion and then there is the explicit link: the successful reading by the person familiar with the Hebrew Bible is affirmed.

7.

Mt. 11.9· 13

~tk 9.9- 1 3

17.9 Ko:l t::cn o:jXIn.
9.9 Ka'• KO:To(icu vOvTc.w oU'Iilv i:~e To\r Opoo.; S.:oui)..cno o\rro'i5 i va ,.u;&vi E1&w OtrrrfioWVTOI, Ei p~ Onw 0 uiOs To\r O:vtlpc.jnoo iK vupWv OvoOTfl. 10 Kal ;Ov AOyov iKp&TflCiov npOS' EauroV$

a

LXX: w:o:i tl nov npOs: o:VTov' Avrjp 5o:oUs Ko:·, ~~VI'IV Oe~o:TlVJW mpa~(,))..ivos n\v

Oo.pVv ooitoU. Kol r1rrni HA1ou 0 0 rof3i'TrtS 01h0s' i:onv ('They onsweml him. "l-Ie wore a gam1c-nt of haircloth. with n girdle of leather nbou1his Joins."' And he said. "II is Elijah the Tishbite-."'). J. A. T. Robinson is one-of the few to T($ist the allusion. 'Elijah. John nnd J(SUs: An Essa)' in Dctcclion'. in his Tll'd i'E' l•le"' Tes.ramem Studies (Studi($ in Biblical Tbcology. 34~ London: SCM. 1962). p. 29. S. On :O.futk 6.14·19 and the- Elijah links wilh both John the- Baptist and J(SUS, see Joynes. · A Question of Identity'. pp. 10-3. 9. Most ekarly in Robert H. Gundry. MOJ·k: A Commemaryo11 NisApologyfiw ll1eCross(Grnnd Rapids. Ml: Ecrdmans. 1993). p. 313. 10. One of the narrati\'e tochniqucsso cleverly used by Mutk here is the-.setting up of the.m)'stcry of Jesus• id¢ntit)' in 6.1-1· 16 nnd !.hen only to hint nl the answct in the narr
Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

76

I 0 "o't inruxSrl')oov aUTOv o'•

IJ«flnTol ).£yovn5, Ti cVv oi ypo pf.!oni$ "i-yovoav OTt 'H).lav .Sri EA&iv npWrov; II 0 OE O:noKpt&'•s £i mv. 'H>.ias 1-1h" Epxncu Ka t Cmo~~:o"taon)ou rrOVTo:

12 hfyw OE U,u'iv 0l't 'HAias ~611 ~Miw, t,.'t•v Un' o:lm~v. 13 .Ow mtvf!Ko:v oi. uaflnTol On rn p'• 'lc.>O:woo mit Bo:rr
•

~I')T
a lrrOv Aiyo~ms . "OTt ).iyOlJOtV oi ypo~~o:u'is On 'HAio:v &i i.Aeriv npC:nov; 12 0 & Eo:pn aUrol5, 'HAias IJiv

(MC::.v npWTOV 0.nOKo:8toT0\It 1 n6:VTo:, ~~:a'• nCl5 yiypo;nTo:• f ni T0v ui.Ov TOO Ov6pWnoviuoa rro).).O: nCteo Ko:i £~ou&.vtj60 ; 13 c)).).(t ).iyw u,.itv OTt Ko't

1-IAio:s

i>.iy.u&w, .:c£1 i.nolqoo:Y

o:lm;, Ooo:

"oeWs

~eu.ov. yiypo.li'TOI tn' oVTbv.

'

tiiUV O:UTOI, , ~ft.

11.9-13

Mk 9.9-13

9 And ns thC)' were coming down the mountnin. Jesus eom1n.1ndOO. them. mountain. he c-harged them to tell no one wh.1t they had seen. until 'Tdl no one the vision. until the Son of man should have risen from the Son of m.1n is ruiscd from the-dead.' the dead. 10 So the>' kept the matter to thcmidves. questioning what tile rising fro m the dead meant. 10 And the discipks asked him. ' Thm II And they asked him. why do the scribes say that fi rst Elijah must ·why do the. scribes say that first Elijah come?' II He: replied. must comc·r 12 And he s.1id to them. ·Elijah dot$ com~·-. and he is to n'$tore 'Elijah does come fi rst to restore all lhings: all things: nnd how is it written of tile:. Son of man. that he should sufltr many things and be created with c.ontcmpt? 13 12 but I tell you that Elijah has alrcad)' But I tell you thut Elijah has c.omc. nnd they did not know him. but come. did to him whatever they plenscd. So and the)' did to him whatever the)' also lhc Son of man ,vjiJ suO'cr ot their pleased. as it is wriucn of him.' ha1Mk.' 13 Then the disciples und~'1stood thnt he was spc.1king to lhem of John the-Buptist. 9 And as they were. coming down the-

Het·e. we see the impot1 of what has gone betb re. and why it is that the Elijah identification is introduced by Mark. The)' will see that Elijah has indeed come. in John the Baptist, and that this confirms the messianic idemity of Jesus that the disciples are now beginning to pet'ceive (8.30). Further - and this is the key element - the sharp reader is expected to see that Jesus will meet an end that is similar to that of John- ' they did to him whatever they ple.ase
GOODACRE

Mark, Elijah, the> 8ap1ist and Mall}u.:w

77

Baptist. the Scriptures, Jesus' identity, suffering. messiahship and the disciples' perception. But there is a potential difficulty with reading Mark. It is too complex. too subtle, its message much too easily missed, especially by the person reading or hearing Mark's Gospel for the firsttime. Take Mk 1.6. Even if one's eye or ear catches the quick sentence of reference to John the Baptist's clothing in an already tightly packed narrative prologue, deciphering the pa1'3llel with Elijah f\."qUires not a pa..~;s ing acquaintance with the Elijah- Elisha cycle but a detailed knowledge of it. And what reader will hear the.echo on a first reading (or hearing) with so much else going on? Moreover, the Herod and Herodias II Ahab .and Jezebel material is so subtly allusive that one cannot be absolutely cenain that the link is even there. If Jesus· revelation in 9.13. ·Elijah has come'. is not to be a complete surprise. one has to be a skilled and en1dite reader. one who combines a careful intratextual I'Cading of Mark with a good knowledgeofthe Hebre.w Bible and a sharp intertextual eye. One ofthe things that is so suu11ing and yet so rarely acknowledged 11 is that the fi1·st reading of Mark to which we have direct accessl2 not only sees what !\·lark is doing but clarifies it, extends it, underlines it. Let us have a look at the evidence.

3. John the Baptist and Elijah ill Mallhew If a reader of rvtark were to seek help by re.ading Matthew, the problem of puzzling out the identity ofJohn the Baptist is now solved in one of Matthew's characteristic explanatory narrative asides, the function of which appears to be to clal'i fy to the reade1· that which might otherwise be opaque. It comes in his version of the dialogue betwee.n Jesus and the inner circ le of Peter, James and John on the way down from the f\·fount ofTransfiguration (see above). , The syn?esis sho'Ys. Ma~hew •s ~actional cla:ificatory ?ddition rOn auv1;Kav 0 1 ~<Xih)TO:I OTI IT£p1 IWO:VIIOU TO\J ~O:ITTIOTOU £11!£0 O:UTOI) ('Then l he disciples understood that he was speaking to them about John the Baptist', 17.1 3). The addition is typical off!.·fatthew. not least in contexts where he is attempting to explain something the readeroff\·tark might miss. He does the same thing, using much of the same vocabul:lly in 16.12,just atler the discussion about the leaven of the Pharisees (and Sadducees) in the boat. n)n ouvl}Ko:v On o\n:: t:1 rrev rrpooixuv O:rro TIJS ~u~n5 [rc:lv O:prcuv] imo TIJ5 OIOo:xi!s TWV
aMa

II. One of the: s1rcngt.hs of Austin Fnmr's St Mailll~tt· and St Mark (Tile Edward Cadbury b .octurcs 1953-54: Westminster. Ot~cre. 1954) is lhat hcauempts to usc r..·lallhew- and to a limit.."hlem (Harrisburg. PA: Trini1y Press lntcrnnlioMI. 2002). c.haptcr 2 nod my carlicranicle. 'Fntiguc-in tbc: Synoptics'. NTS 44 (1998). 45- 58. rcprodoccd on 11re Case Against Qweb site-. http://NTGatcway.com'Q.

78

Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

not about the leaven [ofbread] but about the teaching ofthe Pharisees and Sadducees'). Yet by this stage in Matthew's nan-ative. the reader is not in the least sm·prised by the explicit ide-ntification made betwee-n Elijah and John the Baptist. We have already heard. at a key point in the lengthy passage concerning Jolm the Baptist (11. 1-19): 11. 13: nclvns yO:poi npo4l~Tal tr:o'i 0 00~05 {(1)5 'Jw6wov i:npo~~nuoo:1r (H)

~eal ;: j 6(An-i 5i~o:o6co,

aUTOs ioTIII 'I-IAioS 0 pi>J.wv ipx
11. 13: 'For nil the prophets and thc:-luw prophesied until John; (141 and if )X>U are willing to receive it. he is Elijah, the: one who is to come~•

The explicit statement shows rvtatthew's success in penetrating Mal'k's enigma as well as his de$ii'C to flag this identification up to his readers. dra\•,;ing out the implications of the identification. The way his narrative \vorks contrasts w ith Mark: here it is not a c-ase of gradually fathoming out a mystery but of establishing 3 connection and then underlining it, once in 11.14 and again in 17. 13. One can gauge the importance of the theme. for Matthew by notiC-ing how eal'ly in the narrative it emerges. He brings tb rward the description of John the Bapti st ~s clothing {Matthew 3.4 // rv1ark 1.6), M now appearing before the notice about those who came to John for· baptism (Matthew 3.5-6 II Mark 1.5), the

greater promine.nce not only g iving the reader 3 moment to process the information but also linking it directly to the quotation from Isaiah 40 o f the one crying in the wilderness. One might well see the link between John and Elijah tiu1her elaborated in the material Matthew adds at 3.7- 10. John's "fie1y' preaching, where many have heard echoes of Elijah. Given the importanc-.e that the theme appem·s to have for Mauhe.w, one piece.of evidence.stands out: it is surprising that it is so much more difficult to hear echoes of the Ahab-Jezebel complex in his version of the Herod-Herodias story than it is in Mark's (Mt. 14.1-12 // Mk 6. 14-29). Matthew's much abbreviated version"

grea11y plays down the role ofHerodias in the drama and as soon as Herod takes the major role, he beg-ins to look les..c; like Ahab~ and his wife less like Jezebel. It is probably no coincidence that, accordingly, f\·fatthew, UJllike Mark (6.15), does not introduc-e his version of the story with any mention of Elijah. Given Matthew's enthusiasm for the Elijah- John the Baptist parallel, so explicit in both 11.13- 14 and 17 .13, we c-an only speculate as to why he chooses to play it down here. Atler al l~ E. P. SaJlders, useful corrective to dle old idea that Matthew had 13. The key "~rse her~. 11 . 14. is not present in the Luc:an pamlid 7.1 1·35. ForQ l.hcorists. this is u:s.u.ally tnk~n os a c:lmacteristic Matthacan ml1c-1ionaJ int«\'ention in Q: for those wbo l.hink Luke knew Motthew. this is luke oharacteristicallyomil1ingrcfcrenoe to the direct Jobn the: Baptist- Elijah link. On the Iauer. sec rurthc:r below. 14. On the link between John and Elijah here in Mntthc:w. s:c Roben Gundrr. Maulu!w: A Commemary m1 His f!mulhoo/.:for lt Mi'(('(/ Church Ul"lder Persmuion (2nd cdn: Grand Rapids: Eerd~ mans. 1994). p. 45. 15. For this pcricopc-as a particula.rl)' clear CJtample of Matl.hcw'sdcpendencc on Mnrk. and l.hc cditorinl fntigue involved in his version of it sec my 'Fatigue in thc-Synoptics'. pp. 46--7nnd 52. and rc:fc:rcnccs there.

GOODACRE

Mark, Elijah, the> 8ap1ist and Mall}u.:w

79

an innate tendency to abbreviate the f\·1arkan narratives16 encourages us to ask the question why. in a given instance, Matthew has abbreviated a Markan narrative. In this pericope, the answer may well be bec.ause the 1\•larkan account takes such a lot of space to hint so gently at the Elijah theme. In a text in which the identification between Elijah and John is expticit. there is no need for such a subtle (or should one say opaque?) piece of writing. After all, contemporary scholars still debate whether or not the .Markan Herod-Herodias story evokes the Ahab and Jezebel story of 1 and 2 Kings, so it is scarcely surprising that one of Mark's fi1'St reade1·s chose to play down potential links in this story. An interesting patten1emerges here in f\·1arthew·s reilding ofMark ~s John the Baptist narrative. Where he sees the link betwee.n Elijah and John, and where he expects his own readers to be able to see the link, it is accentuated and brought into greater prominence. Where he has the chance, he will inte-rvene and use the narrator's voic.e to underline the link. And if he does not find his source conducive to forwarding that theme., he will play it down. Here we can see the way that one of the first readers of Mark reacted to his text: strongly affinning its direction (John the Baptist = Elijah) but modif)'ing, re-reading, or omitting an)'ihing that failed to make this clear. This is a strong reading of Mark, but it is not 'strong' in Fowler's sense of misreading, supplanting, vanquishing. h is, rather, a reading of bold affirmation, understanding, developing, underlining. But why is this identifi~tion between John and Elijah important to Matthew? Why is it that he makes what he does oftvtm·k's inte11extuality? On one level. it is, no doubt, the very f:1ct that Matthew has here read ~'lark, le.arned it and inwardly digested it. T11ere is a certain thrill in reading inte.11extually1 rec.ognizing allusions and teasing out their implications, and tOr no one more so than a reader like Matthew, so sensitive l'O the expression of the gospelas a fulfilment of the Scriptures. It is worth noting that the first of the two explicit identifications of Elijah with John the Baptist (1 1.1 3-14) comes in 11.1-19. one of the richest Scripture-based pieces in the Gospel, where the roles of John and Jesus in salvation-history are clarified, and John is identified with the prophecy of Malachi 3 and subsequently directly with Elijah. But to read Matthew as obsessed with the theme offulfilment of the.Scripmres at the expense of all else would be to read Matthew superficially. He engages with tllC Hebrew Bible. and w·orks with Mark's intertextuality in the se-rvice of his broader literary and theological agenda. To sec this. it is worth taking a closer look at his reading of Marie 9.9- 13. The extra, clarificatory ve1·se Mt. 17.1 3, stands out straightaway, as we have seen. It is this that signals so clearly to the reader that the proper identification of John the Baptist is as the Elijah prophesied by Malachi. But a closer look at the rest of the passage shows Matthew intervening in the passage in some subtle but fascinating ways. First. it is quite.clear that for Matthew, as for Marie, the identification functions Christologically and soteriologically. The logic is straighttbrward. If ' Elijah has 16. E. P. Sunders. Tencl~llciestJjrlte Synoptic TnuliritJII (SNTSt\.-tS. 9: Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Pn'$$.. 1969). pp. 8~7. c.s p«inll)· pp. 84-5.

80

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

already come' (HAlas Jio~ ~MEV, Mt. 17.12), then clearly, to use a Matthaeanism, something greater than Elijah is here. If the reader is persuaded by the. link between John and Elijah~ how much more will s/he affim1 lhat Jesus is the Christ. But Matthew, Jike.Mark, believes in the gospel of the.Messiah who suffers and he repeatedly affirms this clem· element in f'-·lark·s agenda, and nowhe1·e more clearly than here. If Elijah has already come and he was mistreated, then surely lhis greater-than-Elijah will also suffer at the-ir hands. This is at the heart ofMark and Mauhew. both Gospe.ls of Christ crud fied. But as well as affim1ing this. Matthew needs to make some changes. To someone who knows his Hebrew Bible as well as: rvtatthew. f'-·1ark's ·as it is written of him' (Ka9ws yiypanr a t i n' aurov.Mark 9. 13) is quite unfathomable. Where is it written that Elijah would be mistreated and suffet· on his retunt? 11 We know that Matthew knows and values the prophecy in 1\·lal. 3.24 (4.6) concerning Elijah 's return (quoted in 11.10) 111 and there is no hint in that key verse about Elijah 's suffering on his return. So1 unsurprisingly1 f\•1atthew drops Mark's ·as it is written of him·. Given Matthew' s own fondness for using yiypa rrra t, and the fulfilment theme to which that mage witnesses 1 we can get some idea of how much c-are Matthew is taking in working on the identific--ation between John and Elijah. But e\•en with this omission. the difficulties with Mark's account are still not all resolved. One impot1ant thing remains. 'Elijah does come first to restore all things·, Jesus says in Mk 9.12, O:rroKa9toTcXV€t rrcXvr a. This is, of course. a clear allusion to the Mal. 3.24/ 4.6 prophec.y. But what sense does it make to say that Elijah comes first to restore all things if the very point of the passage is that he was mistreated and - what's more - that this point<> to the even greater mistreatment of his successor?•9 Depending on one's perspective. this is Mark at his

17. II is som~-1imes suggested that Mark is 1hinking of I K~ 19.10. 14. "The children of lsrac:.) hunl an~., my life to tnkc it away'. for example Aus•in Farrer. Sf M(lti/lewond St Mark. p. 5. 11lis is fur from an obvious reading. !hough. and !he fact thnl conlc:m.pornry n:-.aders dis..-tgrcc.aboul wh~'1her or not one can read this h~~re in Marl: reinforces lilt poinllhat one of Murk's anc.icnl readers. Mntthcw. may also hove been uncertain how lo read Matk hen:-. and ns a rcsuh disooUI"'IgCShis own readers (rom sc~i ng Mark in thai way. 18. Q sceptics might argue: thnl M.nl 3.1 isespc:c.ially importnnt to Matthew since it is he who hns apparc:nd)' lakcn can:-to extract the Mal. 3. 1 c:krncnl from !he composite: quotation (of ls.1. 40.3 + MaL3. 1) found in Mk l.l ·3.sa\·ing th~- Malac-hi dcrncnl fordabor.uion here in Mt. I U-19. Qlhcorisls h.w~ nJways slruggled wilh lhe minor agnxments/ Mark·Q twc:rlap in this compkx. on which sec espec-ially MM:had Gouklcr. 'On Putting Qto l.hC" Test'. NTS24 (1978). 118- 34 (pp. 214-5): nnd E. P. Sanders and M. O.wic:s. Stu<{lring the Spwptic Grupels (linrrisburg. PA: Trinity Press lntc:malional: London: SCM. 1989). pp. 95-6. 19. For a line ~·xpositioo of wilat Mark is aucmpting to do here:-. s~'¢ Jod Marcus. T1w Way ofrlte Lord: Clwi.\·tologiml f.n>gesis ofth~ Old TesUJm<'lll in lire Go-sJWI
GOODACRE

Mark, Elijah, the> 8ap1ist and Mall}u.:w

81

infuriating worst or his subtle best It is so typical ofhis Gospel to pose the problem without providing adequate answers. While much recent New Testament scholarship ha.~ tended to celebmte f\·fark!s opaqueness at such points. lauding the riddles he poses. Matthew's Gospe.l has none o fthat. His Gospel provides a strong reading that in many ways takes Mark so seriously that he. is simply not going to be happy witll such difficulties. M;.ttthew's strategy for overcoming the conundrum is clever. As Robe11 Gundry has shown;:!0when Mark's O:rrot
Our focus so tilr has bee.n on Mark and on Matthew's reading of ?\•lark. I have attempted to describe Matthew's reading off!.
Elijnh.J>O Mnrk docs his best to find a wny around this difficulty. tk does not. like Paul talking nbout circ.u1ncision in Galatians. simply ignore the troubling text (Genesis 17): ruthe-r. he has Jesus tackle it i!nd ·refute• it hcad on. It is a bold 100\'C thttt we. would not C.'lpcc.t to be universally popular. And indcc:d it was not. tukcdocs no1likcthisand omits Mk 9. 1t -t3altog«hcr. in line with hiswenke.n.ing of the link bc:lwcc.n John and Elijah (on which sec. further below). 20. Gundry. Matthew. p. 347: 4

Far from raising al)d leaving unanswered 11 question. Matthew's Jesus aJISii 'eJ'J the. c.htonologiCIIJ question - i.e.. ti\'CS further undcrs1allding to those who alrcltdy fta,·~. undC'tslanding (sec t3.12)- by pulling Elijnh 'scomingand n:stor:ttioo ofall things into the: future. Cf. Mattht.·w's making the-prediction in 16.28 rcfcrto the parousia. In this wa)'lhc lirsl cvnngd i~t avoids the incongruity in Mar\: thlll Elijah restores all thinp yet is maltr~oatcd. Now the m.lltrcatmcntlics in the past- i.e. in the fate of John the Bllptist liS Elijah - nnd the restoration of all things in the future.

82

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

It is usually assumed that the link between John and Elijah is pre-Markan. Some think that it may even go back to Jesus' consciousness itself~11 but an alternative to this view is the notion that Mark himself \\lilS I'Csponsiblc for the identification. The earliest evidence \VC have for the link is ?\'lark's Gospel and Mark more than hints at a contrary view, perhaps the view he has taken over from his tradition. And this view is that it is no1John but Jesus who is Elijah. Not only do Jesus' miracles often sound similar to those in the Elijah- Elisha cycle,22 but twice.tJ1e identification o f Jesus with Elijah is given as a view held by others that is in need ofco rrection (6.15. 8.28). And then - strikingly- at t:he Mount of Transfiguration. Mark Jays al~ tl!e stres~ on...Eiijah:. ·An~ then tJ~.ere...appeared to them Eliiah with Moses (KCXt <.>¢>9n auTOt) HXta) ouv Mwuo£t).v Elijah's presence on the mountain is getting stressed he.re. all the more so in that the disciples straightaway ask about Elijah on the way down from the mountain, 'Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come?' The disciples are surprised because if Elijah is there with Moses and Jesus on the mountain. tl1e-n clearly Jesus cannot be Elijah.21 Perhaps Mark is setting up this John-Elijah identification as a means of oountel'ing a dominant tradition and his reason. as so of\e.n~ is Christological and soteriological. Rather than. as his tradition, having Jesus as Elijah he.ralding the great and terrible day of the Lord, he has John as the Elijah who heralds the embodiment of that day of the Lord, Je.sus. And as Elijah came first and was mistreated~ so now Jesus will likewise suffer.15 11. For a r«cnl example. soc Joan E. Tnylor. The Jmmem•r: J(Jhl1the BaptisJ ll'ithin S£-ccmd Temple Jmltrism (Siud)·ingthe Historical Jesus: Grand Ropicls: Effllmans.. 1997). fore-Xomplep. 32 1. ·Jesus seems to haw though! thnl Jobn was Elijah·. 22. For n thoroughc:o:plomtionof lhe links between 1he Elijub-Eiisba cydc-and Mnrk. soc Thomas L Brodie. Thi! CnJC'f'al Bridge: The f /ljuh-£/i!i/1<1 NmTutitl'aJ urJ lnmpretiw Symhc•!iiJ rJ/G,·Jie!iiJKing.s ando Literary MrJddfor th-t' Go!ip-t'ls (CoU::gc\·illc: l iturgical Press. 2000), pp. 86-95. 23. Contmstthe pamllds in ML 17J and luke 9.30 .,...f~ic.h more. nnturally spcal: of·Mosts and

Elijah'. 14. Cf. Michnd Gouldcr. 'Elijsh with Moses. or. a RiA in lhc Pre-M a~bn lute'. in David G. H oiTC!I andChti stoph~~r M. Tucket1 (cds). Christo/ogt: Cootrm>ersyu.ndCnrmmmi{l': New Teswmem E.uay.f in #anmiJ'ojDaridR. Cau·hpoli'(lcMkn: Brill. 2000). pp. 19J- 208.cspcciallyp. 199: 'Mark does not like Ibis: 10 him John was Elijah nU right but Jesus i.sdx Son ofGod. Only the stori~o,s lx ld ls giw-the background Christology uway.· Bul wilh many others. Gffitldcr also 1hinks lhat ·John tbc Baptist saw himself ns the prophesied Elijah• (ibid.). 25. One potentiul probkm for •his thesis mighl be the alleged Jewish e:o:pcC'Iation th.1t Elijah would prtte
GOODACRE

Mark, Elijah, the> 8ap1ist and Mall}u.:w

83

5. The Legacy of 1he Link: The Conlriblllions ofLuke and John Matthew's success in reading the-Elijah-John the Baptist story is even more striking if Mark was the first to make the identification. If this is the case, Matthew is not simply the next uninte1·esting acceptance of a pre-f\·farkan tradirion. but he is the first endorsement of Mark"s bold piece of propaganda. a piece that actually goes against the grain o f the earliest traditions. But if the idea has little pre-Markan pedigree, what of its po..~tt-11<'latthaean legacy? One c-.an get some idea ofjust how bold .Matthew's affinnation o f Mark"s identification of John with Elijah is by reflecting on the way this identification was subsequently treated. The identification in tbct causes some real problems. One is the move Matthew made in I 7. I 1-13 to work his way out of the problem thal John the Baptist did not restore all things (see above). For all its brilliance as a means of overcoming the problems with Mk 9.11-13, in the end it can only create fresh problems. Was anyone in the earl}' Church reaII}' going to buy the idea that Elijah would return againahead of the Parousia'? Who had ever heard of such a thing'? But a second. more serious problem is that the identification runs the risk o f exalting the role o f John the Baptist too much for Christians keen to demote him. This is most clearly and famously the case in the FoUJ1h Gospel, where John issue-s his flat denial that he is Elijah (Jn 1.21. ' '"Are you Elijah?"" ..1 am not""). Moreover, the link between Jesus and Elijah appears to have been too pervasive in the tradition to be supplanted as quickly as Marie and Matthew desire. Luke. no doubt ll1lly aware of the tradition, greatly plays down the idea that John is Elijah, omitting altogether the key places where the identification is established - Mk 1.6 /1 Mt. 3.4 (John's clothing), Mt. 11.14 (the first of Matthew's explicit identifications). Mk 6.17-29 (Herod and Herodias) and Mk 9.9-131/ Mt. I 7.9-I 3. But hewing omiued these sections, Luke typically attempts reconciliation between tJ1e different stream.;; oftl'adition. On the one hand the Gospel early affinns that John the Baptist will come in the 'spirit and powerof£1ijah · (lk. 1.17). but on the other hand, the notion that Jesus is Elijah is enhanced. In the synagogue in Nazareth, Jesus parallels his own destiny with that of Elijah and Elisha (lk. 4.25-27): he raises a widow"s son to lite (Lk. 7.11- l?'j' and he has an invitation to call down fire from heaven (lk. 9.5 1-56).21 This is a major depatture tl·om the MarcanMatt haean consensus that insists so strongly on the identification between John and Elijah." 26. Sec I Kgs 17. 17-24 nndd 1 K£$ 4. 18-37. 1'11c people appear to r«ognize-thc links.· A great prophcc h.1s arim t nmong us· in Lk. 7.16. 27. Scc2 Kgs l.IO· I4. 28. Note nJso how l k. 9.7·9 diOCrs from Mk 6.14· 16. Thl· salt!¢ options ate-pro\·idcd - ksus could be John the: Baptist. Elijnh or one of lhc prophe(s. Herod ruks out the. first one of these. that Jesus is John lhc Baptist. but whcrens in Mart the idea that he is EJijah iseompromiscdbytllc: Herod· Herodias stocythat follows. in which John is al ign~'() wi1h Elijah. tbe-lack ofthat story in Luke leaves open 1hc possibilit)' that Jesus is indeed Elijah or one-of the prophets.

84

Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels 6. Couclusiou

If the reading here is on the right lines. Gospel origins, and the role played by Elijah, could be mapped out as follows. In the pre-Marean tmdition, many were making the equation between Jesus and Elijah. But Marie sees the potential of identifying John with Elijah as much more conducive to his key Christo logical and soteriological agenda. Matthew, who in large part shares that agenda. and who enjoys the thrill of untangling the message that for him is presented all too subtly. carries fOI'ward the identification~ underlines it and develops it, clarifying some of .Mark's idiosyncrasies and in the process adding his cse-hatological

touch, drawing Elijah into involvement in the Parousia. But Matthew·s move was bold. By affirming the Marean view so strongly, he only causes his successors to see the problems with the new identification all the more clearly. The Fo011h Evangelist has John deny it even more explicitly than Matthew has his narrator affim1 it. And luke typically nods in the direction ofhis Marean and Matthaean tradition with his ·spirit and power of Elijah• in 1. 17. but he wants to affinn more.strongly the still pe1·vasive eal'liertradition that Jesus was Elijah. In the end the irony is that whe1·e Matthew strongly affinns the direction of Marie. he has done him the disservice of making the identific-ation so clear as to deter many funu·e readers. far from vanquishing or supplanting Mm·k, he stands as a powerful and belligerent partner with Mark, alone in the canon in stressing this identification.

6. READING Z ECHARIAH AND M AHHEW'S OLI VET DISCOURS~

Clay Alan Ham The M-ount of Olives, so named for its abundant olive groves, is a mile-long ridge ofhigh hills running parallel lo the Kidron Valley on the east side or Jerusalem. Three summits constitute the series ofhills, Mount Scopus to the north, ~·lounl of Destruction to the south (cr. 2 Kgs 23.13), and between them the traditional Mount of Olives, rising more than two hundred feel above lhe Temple Mount. The New Testament uses two phrases to designate the ' Mount of Olives•: TOOpos Tc:;)v il-a tc:\v(Mt. 2 1.1; 24.3; 26.30; Mk 11.1; 13.3; 14.26; Lk. 19.3 7; 22.39; Jn 8.1) and 0 opos TOKOAOU~EVOV 'EAatWV (lk. 19.29; 21.37; Acts 1.12). The geographical location is firmly rooted in the synoptic tradition (presumably derived !rom Mark) orthe triumphal entry (Mt. 2 1.1; Mk I I. I; Lk. 19.29, 37), the Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24.3; Mk 13.3), and the prediction o f Peter's denial (Mt. 26.30; Mk 14.26). The Gospel of luke also notes that Jesus spent the night on the Mount of Olives during his ministry in Jerusalem (Lk. 21 .37) and went there, as was his custom, to pray (Lk. 22.39). 1 In the account of the ascension of Jesus, the Mount of Oli\'es is evidently the place from which Jesus is taken up into heaven from the sight of the II apostles (Acts 1.12).' Howe\'er, the reader of the New Te.stament Gospels has not been prepared for any particular connotation associated with this location by frecruentmention ofthe Mount of Olives in the Old Testament. Only two texts specifically refer to the locale: 2 Sam. 15.30, where it is called c:rtr.iJ ii 7¥0 or ' the ascent of the Olives', and Zech. 14.4. Three other texts (I Kgs 11.7; 2 Kgs 23. 13 ; and Ezek. 11.23) may also denote the Mount of Oiives (cf. 2 Esd. 13.6), although they do not mention it

I. Tflc parnJkls in )oft. 26.36 and Mk 14.12 name a more spccifi'l: locution on the-Mount of Olives. Gc:thscrnanc.(mcuning 'olive press'). as the place wh~~rc Jesus went to pruy. 2. Elsewhere in the NewTcstnmcnl the Motml ofOlives is menlionod b)' tt."'tnc before the story of Lhc womnn c.lJught in adultcry.as a place (owhic.h Jesus rctrCllted during the Temple discourse {Jn 8.1}. On the textual evidence whieh makes unlikd y the-original conn~'t'"tion of Jn 7.53--8..11with l.hc Fourth Gospel. sec Bn1cc t\.-1. Met~._.,., ..f TaftJlfl CtXIfmentOJ)' em 1ile- Greet N~· Tt>Jfamellt(Stullgart:: D::utsehc Bibd gcscll.schafL 2nd cdn. 1994). pp. 187- 9: &rt D. Erhman. 'Jesus and the-Adulteress'. NTS 34 ( 198&). 24-44: and Danid B. Walhoc:. 'Rccoosidcfing '1'hc Stor)' of Jesus and the Adullc-1\'Ss Rcconsidmd"'\ NTS 19 ( 1993). 190-6.

86

BibliL·a l lnterprelalion in Early Christian Go:lpels

by name.3 A<.'cording lo 2 Sam. 15.30, David, with his household and onicials, escaped from Absalom by ascending the Mount of Olives. In I Kgs I 1.7, Solomon buill an altar to the Moabite god Chemosh and the Ammonite god Molech on the mountain east of Jenlsalem; Josiah demolished these altars that Solomon had buih1 ahhough their locution is said in 2 Kgs 23.13 to be al the south of the rvtount o f Destruction. A vision of the glory of Yahweh leaving Jerus~ilem and stopping above the mountain east oflhe city, presumably. the Mount ofOiives, is recorded in Ezek. 11.23. Zechariah 14.1-5 relates the devastation and deliverance of Jerusalem, during which Yahweh will stand on the f\,tount of Olives, causing it to split in two. This anthropomorphism (c[ E:rek. 43.7} may signal the relnrn of Yahweh's presence. to Jerusalem, after the departure depicted in Ezek. 11.23.J Neither is a specific connotation signalled in the mention of the Mount o f Olives, in part, because ofthe.paradoxical uses ohhe general image of mountain in Scripture, particularly> the Old Testament It can serve as a symbol of refuge (Gen. 14.1 0) and of military lhre.al ( I Sam. 17.3), as a symbol of worship denounced by Yahweh (Ezek. 6.1-7, 11 -1 4) and o f worship required by Yahweh (I sa. 2.1-5), and as a symbol ofdh;nej udgement (Hag. 1.11) and of divine blessing (Zech. 8.3).5 Given these categories it would appear that, in the Old Testament relerences to the l\·1ount of Olives, 2 Sam. 15.30 connotes military defeat, I Kgs I I. 7 and 2 Kgs 23.1 3, worship denounced by Yahweh, Ezek. 11.23, divine j udgement, and Zech. 14.4> both divine judgement and blessing. Similar to Ezek. 11.23 and Zech. 14.4, the t~stament ofi\lophtali identifies the Mount of Olives as the place of a vision (r Naph. 5. 1-8)) in whi<.~h is portr.iyed a series of conquests o f Jerusalem through the Hellenistic period (32H3 BCE). I . 11Je A1oufll ofOiiw!s in A4althew

The motif of mountain in Matthew appears with some l'requency,t. and thre.e times the Gospel specifically mentions the Mount of Olives (2 1. 1; 24.3; 26.30). In the Hrst and third oflhese instance.s, the reference to the M·ount of Olives stands in the same conlexl with an explicit citation to Zechariah: MI. 21.5 to Zech. 9.9 and MI. 26.31 to Zech. 13.7.7 1n the context of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, MI. 2 1.5 dies Zech. 9.9 to make explicit the meaning of Jesll.S' action of riding a donkey>

3. On the Moun IofOii\'cs in lht Old Ttslamcnl sc:cJohn Briggs O.nis. ·An ln\•t.stigalionoftht Mount ofOlives in the Judaco-Christian Tradition'. NUCA 28 (1957). 137-80 (139-41~ 4. .\brk Allen Hahkn and Cl<~y Alan Hum. Minor Prophets 1: Nafwm-Maluclti (1'he-College Press NIY Comrncntllry: Joplin. MO: Colkge Press.. 2006). pp. -ISO-I. 5. Leland Rykm. Jim Wilhoil and Tremper Longmtm Ill (eds). DMimrmJ: ofBibliml Imagery (Downers Grove. ll : lnterVarsity Press. 2000). pp. 572-4. 6. .\ft. 4.&: 5. 1. 14: S.l ~ 14.23: 15.29: 17. I. 9. 20: 18. 12: 21.1. 2 1: 14.3. 16: 26.30: 28. 16. S« Tcrcnc:e L Donaldson. JI!SIIS on Jh! Mountain: A SttN~I' ilt Mattftean TheoilJ1,'l' (JSNTSup, S: Shcf· field: JSOT Press. 1985). 7. For an extended discussion ofthese citnlions. soc Clay Aliln Hnm. The Comi11g King and the RejectedShepherd: Matthew':; Reading ofz~·~!lan'ah S Me:;skmic IIope (NewTc!itamcnt Monogrnphs. 4: Shcffidd: Sheffield Pbocni:\ PrtSS. 2005). pp. 20-47. 69-&3.

Ho\M Reading z~.L~hariah and !t(althew':; 0/iw!l Discourse

87

signifying the humility and kingship of Jesus.8 The wording o f the citation !Tom Zech. 9.9 omit~ the description of the king, ' triumphant and victorious'> which would otherwise be inappropriate for the Mallhe-.•m context and whose omission thereby highlights the humble character ofJesus. The portrayalo rlesus riding on a donkey's colt further emphasi:£es this humble character, which, when read in view of Gen. 49 .II >9 may identif)' Jesus a."i king, the legitimate Davidic heir, whose rule extends beyond Jerusalem to include 'the ends of the earth' (Zech. 9.1 0). Afler Jesus e-ats the Passover supper with the disciples and then leaves with them for the Mount ofOiives, Mt. 26.3 1 cites Zech. 13.7 to explain Jesus' prediction about the desertion of the.disciples. The citation applies the metaphoric language of Zech. 13.7 to the historical realities about to transpire: shepherd = Jesus, strike = his death, sheep = the disciples, and scatter = theirdispersion. 10 The citation also fun<.~t i ons theologically to establish that 'the disciples' detection. though tragic and irresponsible, does not fall outside God's sovereign plan•. 11 Furthermore, ifML. 26.31 presupposes the context ofZech. 13.7-9, in which a remnant of the people is puritled and in this manner become.s the renewed people of Yahweh, it may also intimate the promise of the disciples• restoration to Jesus, anticipated in Mt. 26.32: 'But alier I am raised up. I will go ahead of you to Galilee'-" Ofwncem to this study is the possibility that the second mention o f the ~w. Mark. Lrtke (Grund Rapids: Zondcrvnn. 1984). pp. 1- 599 (540). 12. W. D. Davies and O'Jic C. Allison. T1re Gosp.>/ According to Saint Maulrew (ICC: 3 \'Ols: Edinbutgh: T&T Clnrk. 1988-97). Ill. pp. 541. 1.1 Sian ley E. Porter. 'The Useoflhe Old Tcstnmcnt in the NcwTcstuncntA Bric:fCcmmenton Method and Tmninology·. in Cruig A. Evans and James A. S..1ndcrs(cds). Early Christian lmnpretationofJiw Scriptures oflsnwl: lnl'<'stigmionsond Proposals (JSNTSup. 148: SSEJC. S: She-ffield: Shcffidd Academic Pr<:ss. r997). pp. 79--96(79-88). hlsdc.monstr.ucd wdJ 1he compk\:i'ly of
88

BibliL·al lnterprelalion in Early Christian Go:lpels

example, Stanley Hauerwas suggests that in Mt. 24.3 the disciples appropriately ask JestL~ about the destruction of the Temple and the. sign of the coming age 'because the t\•1ount ofOiives is identified in Zech. 14.1-5 as the mount on whkh the Lord will stand to save his people from the nations that have surrounded it'·'" E\•en so. the scholarly literttlUre. has not gener~llly emphasized the use of Zechariah in the Gospel of Matthew 115 leaving such an assumption unproven. At least sixteen works deal wilh the use of Zechariah in the New Testament; t6 in actualily, focuses on tbc: rcbtionship bc.twccn thc.antcccdcmtc:tl nnd the author of Lhc second text.lbat is.. how the-second text e-vokes the antceiah who is Coming with his Angels: The Messianic E-xegesis of Zechariah 9- 14 in the Passion Narrati\'cs· (PhD dissertation. Emory University. 19'90): Mart: J. Soda and Stanley E. Porter, · Li ~;ereture tothe.Third Dcgt'(': Prophecy inZ«hariab 9- 14 and the Passion of Chrisf. in ~ l anud JinOOch.ian and Robert Da\·id (cds). Trodltirt Ia Bihl~ IWbraiqw. IX Ia Si!plunt~ ir Ia Nom-ell~ Biblr S(>gond(Scicnces bibliques. IS: ~ion trcal: Midia!•p,,ul. 2005). pp. 215- 54: F. F. Bruce. 'The. Book ofZechariah and the Passion Namtti\'cs'. BJRL 43 ( 1960-6 1). 33653: idem. Ni!w Testament DerrdfJpmenl q{Oid Testament11remes {Grand Rupids: Eerdmans. 196S). pp. 100--14: C. H. Dodd.Accordiug to tllf! Scriptures: The Suhstmctuu ofNew Tes/(tm~m ThefJiogy (London: Nisbet. 1952). pp. M- 7: lao M. Duguid. 'Mes>innK Thc-mcsinZcchariah 9-14'. in Philip E. Satterthwaite. RichardS. Hess and Gordon J. Wenham (c:ds). 11re Lord's Anoint~d: lnterprt•ftlfiun fJj OldTe.\·tament Meuionk Texts (THS: Grand Rapids: Buker Book l~ouse,l995). pp. 265-80: Cmig F. Evans. · 1Will Go before You into Galikc•. JTSNS 5( 1954). 3--18: idt?m. ·JesusandZc.:hariah'sMc:s-sianic: ~l ope". pp. 373-SS: Paul foster. ·rhc Usc of Zechariah in Mutthtw'sGospcl'. in ChristC9hcr M. Tud;ett (od.}. T7te &okofledl(lrialr (Ntd Its /nflueltce(Burlington. VT: Asbg,atc, 1003). pp. 6585: R. T. Fmnce. Jesus mrd the Old Testament. pp. 1 03 · 10~ Robert M. Gmnt. '1'hc Coming of the Kingdom'. JBL 67 (1948). 1'97- 303: Ham. 11u~ Coming King and Jl!e Rejected Sheplterd: Scyoon Kim. •J(<.;US - 111e Son of God. the Stone~ the Son ufMun.nnd the Servant: The Role ofZochariah in

Ho\M

Reading z~.L~hariah and !t(althew':; 0/iw!l Discourse

89

only two of these deal specifically with Matthew's use ofZechariah: Paul Foster's 'The Use of Zechariah in ~·lalthew• and the author's 1'Jw Coming King and the Rf(i~·ctcul Shepherd·

,\!auhew's Rcwding o/Ztrchariah ·_.. MessitmiL· Hope.

In contrnst to the assumption that Matthew 24 relers to Zechariah 14, the essay by Foster attempts to minimize the.use of Zechariah in Matthew, identil'ying lOur citations (Zech. 9.9 in Mi. 21.5; Zech. 11.12 in Mi. 26. 15; Zech. 13.7 in Mi. 26.31; and Zech. 11.13 in Mi. 27.9-1 0} but allowing for only one possible allusion to Zechariah (notably, Zech. 12.10-14 in MI. 24.30). To some extent, Foster discounts the citation ofZech. 13.7 in Mi. 26.31, judging thai Mauhew has takeu the wording from Zechariah direcely from Mark and only secondarily ffom Zechariah. He also proposes that Mt. 26. J5 is better understood as a citation rather than an allusion lOr two reasons: (I) the verbal correspondence betwee-n Mt. 26.15 and Zech. 11.12 and (2) the connection ofMt. 26.15 with Mi. 27.9-1 0 thai lakes up the same text from ZechariahY The identifi<.--.ation ofMt. 26.15 as a ' citation' ntther than 'allusion' more likely relates to the matter o fdeHning the terms. Five of the seven <.~riteria proposed by Richard Hays for confinning the prese.nce of allusions (availability. volume, rec.urrence, history of interpretation. and satisfaction}substantiate an allusion to Zech. 11.12 in Mt. 26. 15.1 Purthermore, these criteria corroborate six allusions (Mi. 23.35; 24.30, 31; 25.31; 26. 15; 26.28) and may substantiate two more (MI. 24.36; 26.56)." Although an extended treatment ofthese eight texts lies outside the parameters ofthis study, some general comments about Foster's assumptions. methodology and analysis disclose what may have contributed to his minimalist perspective on the use ofZechariah in MaHhew. f irst, fos ter assumes the two-source hypothesis, so he does not o.-dlow for Matthew, as is the case with his discussion ofMt. 26.3 J, to recogni:£e or develop further material from Zechariah that may have been present in the Markan source used by Matthew.20 Second, Fosler treats the.potential allusions to Zechariah. dismissing them one by one (with the exception ofZech. 12.10-1 4 in Mi. 24.30) before his discussion of citations. f rom the. outset this method avoids the use ofcle.o.u and significant citations of Zechariah in l\•1a1lhew to confirm any potential allusion. Third, Foster rejects some potential allusion.'i to Zechariah in Matthew by making some unsupported statements about certain Old 1(

the Sc.Jf.kfcnlificalion of Jesus·, in Ouo lktz and Gerald F. Hawthorne (tds). Traditioll and lnt~1pre1u1ion in tlte Nt"w Testanwm: b .wrys itt Ho11or of£. Eorle Ellisfi,r /lis Sixtieth Binlrtfay (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.. 1987). pp. 134--48: Barnabas Limlars. New Testamenl A)Miog!!tic: Tire Doc1rina/ Sig11ifirm1<ea/llte OldTestamem Quowtions (Philadelphk1: Westminster Prc!OS: l ondon: SCM. 1961). pp. 11()-34: Jod Marc.us. 'The Old Tcssamcnl and the Death of ksus: The Rok of Sc.riptun:. in tht.Gospd Passion Nllrmtives'. in John T. Carroll and Jod B. Grcrn (eds}. TTre fkttlh of Je.nu in Ear~l' Chril·tionity (Peabody. MA: Hcndrid:son. 1995). pp. 218-20: and Douglas J. Moo. The OldTe-swment ill theGO.\]NI PaJ.\'imr Nurrotires (Shl:ffidd: Almond Press. 1983). pp. 173- 224. 17. f()S(c.r. ·nc US(' of Zcc:hariah in Mallhcw·s Gospel·, pp. 76-80. 18. Richani B. Hnys. EclmeJ q(Scriptur~ intlw LellerJ of Poul (New l~ a\'Cn: Yale Unim-sity Press. 1989). pp. 29- 31. The olh-crtwo criteria arc thematic eohcrmoc and historical plausibility. For discussion of the allusion. sec Ham. nre Coming King and tlk' Rej«led S/replunl. pp. 99-100. 19. Ham. 71tr~ Coming King ami tlk' Rej«ted Shepherd. pp. 84-106. 20. Foster. 'The Usc of Zechariah in ).falthC'\\·•. pp. 67- S. 70-1. 79- 80.

90

BibliL·al lnterprelalion in Early Christian Go:lpels

Testament concepts. For example, he dismisses the possible allusion to Ze<.~h. 9. 11 in Mt. 26.28 by asserting that 'covenant blood' is a common idea in the Old Testament111 when in fact 'blood' and ' covenant• are rJ.rely linked in the Old Testament. 'Blood' and 'covenant' evide.nrly do not appe-..tr in the same pericope in leviticus; their close., I proximity is Lev. 2.13 and 3.2. In point o r fact. only two texts, Exod. 24.8 and Zech. 9.11, use the specific phrase, ' the blood of the covenant', found also in MI. 26.28 (and Mk 14.24)." .Mark Boda and Stanley Porter dn1w on Fosler's essay in the <.~ontexl o f two broader is.sues. 1) The first part of the essay reviews the research on the use ofe-.trlier prophets in Zechariah 9- 14, particularly the use of the shepherd-Hock motif (Zech. 10. 1-3: I Ll -3, 17; 13.7-9). The seoond part reassesses the hypothesis originally put forth by C. H. Dodd 1' that Zechariah 9- 14 funned part or a collection o f Old Testament texts or te.\·fim ouia. More recently, Mark Black has taken up Dodd's hypothesis and argues that the overall stn1cture or Zechariah 9- 14 had some formath•e in1luence on the structure of the Passion Narrative.1' Sped fk.ally, Porter oJTers three arguments against this idea: (I) the order of the passion story does not follow the order of Zechariah 9-14, (2) the allusions used to support Black's conclusion are doubtful, and (3) the citations and allusions in the Passion Narrative do not correspond to Black•s outline of nine specillc events ffom Zechariah. To support the second argume.nt, Foster's analysis of the allusions to Zechariah in Mallhew is presented in order to minimize the evidence for linking Matthew's Passion Narrative with the. arrangement of Zechariah 9- 14.26 Since Foster concludes that Manhew alludes to Zechariah only once (MI. 24.30 to Zech. 12.1014), the potential support for Black's conclusion has been greatly reduced (to, in Poster's estimation, only Mt. 21.5; 24.30; 26.15, 31; 27.9-1 0). likely correct is the assessment th;.H the Gospel writers ~ippear to cite ffom Zechariah more selectively and for more specific purposes than suggested by the testimonia hypothesis and that Zechariah 9- 14 has no controlling influence on the fOrmation of the Passion narrative.li Nonetheless, while Foster· s study of the allusions in Matthew has served these positions well, Foster's analysis is 1lot without its dHlk ultie.s. In his conclusion, Porter himself points beyond these minimal conclusions, suggesting that Matthew, perhaps resulling from his use of Mark's Gospel.~~> has 'enhanced this source through specific citation of Zech~uiah, inspired to do so because o f Mark's usage no doubt, but also because it probably supported a number of his

21. Fos.tcr. ·The Us:: of Zechariah in ).fattbcw'. p. 70. 22. Cllly Alan l~ nm. ·'J'he Last Supper in ).iatthcw'. BBR 10. 1 (2000). 53-69 (62-6). 23. Bodn and Porter. 'l ite-nuun: to lhc Third Ocgroc'. pp. 220-34. 24. Dodd. According to the Xript11res. pp. 64--6. 25. Blnck. ·rhc Rejccltd and Slllin Messiah who is Coming ..,;th his Angds'. p. 8. 26. Soda and Porter. 'l itc-rnturt to tht.Third Ocgroc'. pp. 24-8-50. 27. Boda and Porter. 'litcrnturt to the Third Ocgroc'. pp. 25 1- 52. 28. Even if the priority of Marl: is oftoo nssumed.the issue of sotuccs for the Synoplic Gospels hns noc bocn cc.mtlusivcly nnsweml. For a d~:1ailed history of the seholtuly debate. soc David L. Dungan. A 1/il·JtJI~'~lthe Synopti<" Probli!m: TheConon. tM Text, the ContpOJiliMond the ftlterpre· taliotl qltlw Gospt'ls (ABRt: New Vorl:: Doubb lay. 1999).

Ho\M Reading z~.L~hariah and !t(althew':; 0/iw!l Discourse

91

messianic perspectives, such as seeing Jesus as king, good shephenJ or pierced messiah'.~

2. An Allusion to Zechariah i11 Mal/hew 24.30

Such is probably the case with material in the midst of Malthew's Olivet Discourse, and what is a.."serled here about citalioll.'~ ffom Zechariah may also hold true for the allusion in Mt. 24.30. Two statements in the verse may allude to Zechariah: 'all the peoples of the earth will mourn' and ' they will see'. Mallhe.w shares several words with the LXX ofZech. 12.10-14: rraoon a i <1>ulla1in Zech. 12.10, y~ in Zech. 12.12, and K&.j!OvTal in Zech. 12. 14. Also, the phrase ' they "~II see' may relate to the similar phrase in Zech. 12. 10: however, Matthew uses the verb o <j!OVTQI instead of the LXX's i mjlii'-'JiovTal,lO and both verbs have diJTerent objects, ' the Son ofl\,1un coming on the clouds o f heave-n' in Matthew ~md 'on me" whom they have pierced' in Zechariah. The density oflonguage from Zech. 12.10-14 strongly supports the prese.nce of the allusion in Mt. 24.30. Zechariah 12. 10- 14 appears near the beginning of the second oracle (Zech. 12.1 - 14.21) ofZechariah 9-14. Zechariah 12- 14 envisions both the end ofoppressive ie'•dership and the restoration of Yahweh's purified people. In Zech. 12.1-9, a series of promise-S cast in first-person statements speak of the empowemlent of Jerusalem and Judah against the surrounding nations. Yahweh will make Je-rusalem a cup of judgement from which lhe nations must drink ( 12.2) and an immovable rock ( 12.3), strike every horse with panic and kee.p Watch over Judah ( 12.4). make the leaders of Judah like a frrepot and a torch to inflict destruction on the surrotmding people (12.6), and deslroy a lithe nations who attack Jerusalem ( I2.9). Verse I0 begins with a similarly worded statement, Yahweh will act with grace toward the people or Jerusalem; however, they will mourn 31 fOr the one they ha\'e pierced, here identified in the context as Yahweh}.l The severity ofthis mourning is depicted in three similes: 'as one mourns fOr an only child', ·as one grieve-S ror a firstborn son', and ·as the mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddo' (12.10-1 1). The third of these may refer to an act o f mourning 29. Boda and Porter, 'l itcrnturc to l.hc Third Ocg~', p. 252. 30. Both Jn 19.36 nnd Rev. 1.7 nlso usc a formof OpO:c,) fori: rul3).£trw in their citations ofZtth. 12.10, and in MI. 24.10 the usc of Op.Xw allows for the possible: wordpla)· bclwten K&o/ovTol and ~TOL 31. Wbik so•oc English ttanslations(c:.g. NlB and NRSV) re-ad 'tbc: oncwbomthc:y 00\'t-pic:~o:l'. bolh the-~tT and LXX n:ad ·on me·. which is prcfmc:d for tc:xt·c.ritical rea:sons,aocordingtoManhins Dc:kor. ·un prob!i.'tllCde c:ritiqlK' tcxtudk ct d'c:xCgCsc: Znc-h 12.10 ct aspicicnt ad me quem con· llxcnmt', RB 58 ( 195 1). 189-99 (192). 32. Mark J. Bo
respond in rcpcntnnoc:-. H. Carol L Mc.ycrs nnd Eric M. Mc)·c:rs.lechorioll 9- /4 (AB. 15C: New York: Doubleday. 1993). p. 337. On oth1.' f proposed idcmtlfications of the: one picn:cd. soc Katrinn J. A. l.nrkin. T/t(' f \.·chutologyofS«cnd lerlroriah: A SitJJy of1he Formmkm ofa .1,/unwlogi

92

BibliL·al lnterprelalion in Early Christian Go:lpels

remembering the death o fKing Josiah (2 Kgs 23.29; 2 Chron. 35.25).1' Furthermore, this mourning involves the whole land ( 12.12-1 4), that is~ the entire society of people, including all families, signalled through the redundant use of 'clan' (:;ry~;;.b), both genders, indicated in the fivefold re.petition of' wives- ~,~ ), political leaders, represented in David and Nathan, and religious le.ade.rs, re-presented in Levi and Shimei. Zechariah 13.1-6 indicts the royal and prophetic leade.rship but lirst depicts a fo untain that cleanses fTom sin and impurity those who have pierced Yahweh. Matthew 24- 25 contains material sirnihu to Mark 13, some of which is nearly verbatim and in the same order(Mt. 24.1 -36 and Mk 13.1-37) and some ofwhich comprises considerable additions on the theme ofj udgement (Mt. 24.37- 25.46). r-,. it remains uncertain whether the discourse itself confimts or rejects this point of view, and the chapter demonslntle-S a certain chronological imprecision.36 While the disciples (and readers) expect a definite answer, they are laler told that even Jesus does not know the timing of that day; this disappointing ambiguity serves onl)' to heighten the admonilions emphasized in the. discourse. 'watch• (24.4) and 'slay alert' (24.42; 25.1 3),'' and implicit in the parables ofj udgement in Mauhew 25. The topic of the coming of the Son of Man, represented in the discourse with rrapouoia (24.3, 27, 37, 39) but more often with !pxo~on (24.5, 30, 39, 4244, 46; 25.10, 27' 31; cr. 16.27-28; 23.39), is take.n up in 24.27-31. The tertn rrapouola has the general sense of 'presence' or 'arrival' (1dt. I0.18; 2 Mace. 8. 12); it t-an connote God's presence and blessing (Josephus, Am. 1.281; 3.80, 203: 4.180; 9.55; 18.284: Divgn. 7.6). In addition, rrapouola serves as a technical expression for the 'visit' of a king or high-ranking official, requiring funds lOr a proper welcome (3 !\Jiacc:. 3.1 7).l11 In Mallhew, it means 'arrival' rather than 'return'~ and it refers to the eschatological coming o f the Son of Man, foreshadowed in the entry into Jemsolem (MI. 21.5, 9)'' lightning (Mt. 24.27) conveys the sudden and unmistakable nature of the Son of Man's coming, and the image is commonly associated with thoophany (Exod. 19.16; Ps. 18.14; Ezek. 1.1 3: Dan. I0.6; Hab. 3. 11) and divine judgement on the nations (Zech. 9.14). Here 34. Oa,•id l. Pcterscn.Zochoriah 9- /4 and .4tolachi: A Commentmy(On: Louisville: w~'$tmin· stco'John Kno.x. 1995). p. 1!2. for other options.. sec Ha.hlcn and Bam. Jfinnr Proplwrs 1. p. 466. 35. Fred W. Bumc-n. ·r rolcgomcn-on to Reading Matthcw•s Eschatological Discourse: Rcdun· dnnc.y and the.Education of the R~-adcr in Mat1hcw'. Semeiu 31 ( 19&5). 91 - I 09 (9S-9). 36. Oa\'ics and Allison. Tlw Gospel According to Soint Muuhcw. \'OI. 3. pp. 31&-3 1. .H . Wiltcrn S. Vorstcr. "A Reader-Response Approach to Matthew 24.3·28'. fi.,.·TSJ 47 (1991).

t099-108(t t06). 38. M).f. p. 497. 39. Davits and Allison. The Gospt"{ According to Saint .tluulurw. \'Ol. J. p. 338.

Ho\M Reading z~.L~hariah and !t(althew':; 0/iw!l Discourse

93

'lightning' with napouola may as.sert divine power against human military and political power, and the 'arrival' of the Son of t\·1-an ends any claims counter to God's sovereignty.~ The conse.quence and impact of Jesus· coming is seen in judgement upon earthly powers who can no longer claim the blessing of deities represented in the sun, moon and stars (Ml. 24.28-29), mourning among the nations who see the Son ofl\•1an coming on the clouds (24.30);Hand delivemnce. lor the elect who are gathered by !he angels from !he four winds (24.3 I). Mall hew has introduced the material lfom Zechariah, 'all the peoples of the earth will mourn', before the statement about seeing the Son of rvtan coming on the clouds ofh~..tven, a statement that alludes to Dan. 7.13 and is also found in Mk I 3.26 (and Lk. 2 I.27). Some doubt, however, that Mallhew draws the allusion lo Zechariah from the Old Testament source, since Zech. I2. I0- 14 is conllaled with Dan. 7.13 in Rev. 1.1 (cf. Justin, I Apal. 52.1 I; Dial. 14.8; 64. 7; l renileus, H"er. 4.33.11). For instance, Foster suggests •hat rv1atthew recognized the expansion of Dan. 7. I 3 with material lium Zechariah in Mark and incorporated the Old Testament material into his Gospel without reference to the text ofZechariah.J~ Granted this is possible, but it cannot be corroborated since the evidence comes from texts in all probability written ;.-1 fter the 11rst Gospel. A! Furthermore, by virtue of the citations from Zechariah in Matthew (2 I .5; 26.3 I. 27.9-I 0), one can hardly suggest that rvtatthew is unfamiliar w'i th Zechariah 9-14. Signific~mttoo m~-1y be the diiTerence in the order of !he combined lexts in Mt. 24.30 (Zech. I2. I 0- I4 then Dan. 7.13) and Rev. 1.7 (Dan. 7.13thenZech. 12.JO. J4).1fMallhewmerelyknew of some pre-existing tradition of Dan. 7. I 3 and Zech. I2. I 0- I4, why does he aller the order found consistently elsewhere in first- and second-centll1)' texts combining the two texts (e.g. R.-·. 1.1;Justin, I Apol. 52. I I; Dial. 14.8; 64.7; )re.naeus. Haer. 4.33. I I)'I Neither does Mallhew apply the teXI lo the crucifix ion, as do Jn I9.37 and these other texts,.u nor to the rejection of Jesus by the Jews, as is common among the.earlier Church Fathers (cf. Justin, Dial. 32.2). More likely. Mallhew adds the allusion 10 Zech. I2. I 0. apparenlly prompted to do so by the presence of O"'ovrat in rvtk 1 3.26;~ 5 in order to emphasize the reaction of universal mourning at the Parousia of the Son or t\•fan..lli

.40. WaiTtn Carter. 'Art T11crc Imperial Texts in tht CL1ss'! lnttnCJttual Eu.gks and Matthcan Eschatology us - Lights Out" Time tOr Imperial Rom~·(Mauhc:w 24-:27·3 1)'.JBL 122 (2003). 467-87 (480- 2}.

41. On l.hc: iliOi:rcncc in wording between iTri Tc:Jv ve¢tACJv -rOO oUpavoU in Mt. 24.30 and iv vt¢iho1.,; in Mk 13.26. sc:e Muninus J. J. Menken . .4fallheh' 's Bible: Th<' OidTesrami!m Texr ojtlw Enmge/isr (BETL.. 173: lc:uvcn: Lcuvcn University Pn:so. 2004). pp. 220- 1, 42. Fostc.r. ·fhc Usc of Zechariah in Mauhcw•s Gospel·. p. 71. 43. Karl li cinric:.h Rcng:;torf. 'o1),J.I£icv\ TDNT, VJI. pp. 200-69 (237). 44. Sec also Born. 7.9: Justin. Dk1l. 32.2: 11 8.1. .45. Christopher M. Tuckett. ·z '-'Churiah 12.10 and the-NewTestamcnt', in idwri
94

BibliL·a l lnterprelalion in Early Christian Go:lpels

Whether lhis mourning lead~ to anguish or repentance is not entirely clear:H The ambiguity of the connotation of mourning is not unlike.the context ofZechariah 1 2 ~ in \Vhkh some. receive grace ltom Yahweh and through a fOuntain that cleanses from sin ( 12. I 0- J3. I) and others are remol'ed fro m royal and prophetic leadership ( 13.2-6). In ML24.30 three Jitclors fal'our the notion of fear and despair o f judgement: ( I) the preceding imagery about the defeat of human military and political powers (24.27-29), (2) the subsequent depictionsofthe unwatchfltl who are unprepared for comingj udgement (ML 24.3 7- 25.46), and (3) the direct connection wilh Dan. 7. 13-1 4, where ' one like a son of man' is ghren everlasting dominion and an indestructible kingship over 'all peoples. nations, and languages' .Jil Nonetheless, the broader missiolo$ical purpose o f the Gospel (Mt 28. I 8-20), here implied in wording ( rraoou at <j>uAa l Ti); y R;) reminiscent o f Gen. I2.3 (cr. Gen. 28. I4; Rei'. I .7; I Clem. I0.3), may intimate the inclusion of the Gentiles in the blessings o f the <'<>l'e.nant with Abraham and thereby signify their repentance. Thus, 'the sign ofthe Son o f Man' may be both a sign o fj udgetmmt against the defiant among the nations and a sign o f gathering the elect from 'all peoples of the earth '.•• 3. Zechariah 14muJ A1atfhew's Olivet Discours,~

The aiiLL>iOn to Zech. I2.10-14 in Mt. 24.30 raises the possibility of other intertexrual connections between the Olivet Discourse in Mauhew and Zech;.iriah 9-14. For example. the Didach f-• contains an intriguing combination or statements demonstrating that others have read additional texts from these corpuses in relation to one another: 'And ..then there will appear the signs" of the tn tlh: first the sign of an opening in heaven, then the sign of the sound of a trumpe.t, and third, the resurrection of the de.ad - but not for all; rather, as it has been said, "The l ord will come, and all his saints with him." Then the world "will see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven'' (I 6.6-8)-'0 Here a sta!ement from Zech. 14.5 (' Yahweh will rome, and all his holy one-s with him' ) is joined with two clauses lfom Mt. 24.30-3 I ('then the sign (of the Son of Man I will appear' and they ' will see the Lord <.~ming upon the clouds of heaven'). Moreover, wording similar to Zech. 14.5 appears also in Mt. 25.3 I, 'when the Son of Man comes in all his glory and all his angels with him' . The presence of anallusion to Zech. 14.5 in Mt. 25.3 I has been questioned on the basis o f fOur inwnsiste.ncies: (I} ditlerent people are depicted, (2) dill
0 .:1\'its and Allison. Thr Go!l~l.4cconling to Saint Mauhew. \'OI. 3. p. 361. 48. Carter. ·Are. thrn:' Imperial Texts in the:.Class'?' pp. 467-87 (486). 49. Schylcr Brown. ' The Mnuhcan Apocalypse'. JSNT 4 (1979). 2- 27 (13--14). 50. l11ce.itntion is taken from Michad W. ~l ol mc:s(cd .). nu' .4poJIOik FUI!wrs:Greek Textsmtd Englislr TranJ!ations o/lhr!ir lflrilings. {tmns. J. B. Lightfoot nnd J. R. Hnm1er; Gmnd Rapids: B.."'kt r Book Hous~-. 2nd cdn. 19'99). 51. Foster. 'The Usc of Zechariah in ).fatthcw's Gos.pel'. p. 72.

Ho\M Reading z~.L~hariah and !t(althew':; 0/iw!l Discourse

95

the one coming in Zech. 14.5 is 'Yahweh'~ translated KUpto-; in the LXX; the one coming in Mt. 25.31 is lirsl identified as ' the Son of Man', but later as 'King' (25.34, 40; cf. Zech. 14.9) and also Kup•os (25.37, 44). Second, the companions in Zech. 14.5 are 'holy ones' or ·angelic beings', which Mt. 25.31 ' interpretively (and correctly) renders' as ol Ci:y~Aot'. :.~ 1ltird~ the imagery of a figure arriving \\~than entourage of angels is in (·ftct not commonlyapplied to the coming of the Messiah; however, the New Testament writers transfer this imagery (and expectation) without hesitation from Yahweh (Zech. 14.5) to Jesus (see Mt. 16.27-28: 24.30-31)'' In Zech. 14.5, the coming of Yahweh with the holy ones occurs within the first of fOur episodes that pre.sent a namttivedescriptiono f the coming dayofYahweh (Zech. 14.1-5, 6-7, 8-12, 13-2 1). This first episode narrates the devastation and rescue of Jerusalem. The day of Yahweh is coming ( 14.1) when Yahweh will gather all the nations to 1\ghl against JeniSalem ( 14.2) and the city will suffer a crushing defeat (14.3). Yahweh will then intervene, J1ghting against those nations, and will stand on the Mount ofOiives, causing the mountain to split in two (14.4). The \•alley created by this split will provide a way of e-scape for the inhabitants of JeniSalem, and Yahweh will come with all the holy ones (1 4.5). The anthropomorphic image of Yahweh standing on the Mount ofOiives adv~mces the concept o f military vic.tory, and the depiction of Yahweh coming (1 4.5) answers the notion ofYahweh going out ( 14.3), highlighting the role ofYahweh in rescuing a remnant ofl he city's inhabitants ( 14.2)' ' The remainder of Zechariah 14 elaborates on the outcome of 'that day', in which Jemsalem is destroye.d and then restored as the centre of Yahweh's universal reign. In that day Yahweh will be worshipped as king by 'all the clans of the earth' (Zech. 14.1 7; d'. n&oaoai <j>u>.ao Tijs yijs in Ml. 24.30). The chapter surpasses any unive.rsal perspective presented in previous chapters; Zech. 12. I 1-14 speaks of the clans oflhe land o r Israel, but 14.17, ofthe clans of the earth. A similar perspective appears in Matthew's Olivet Discourse; all nations "~II hear the gospel preached (1\>IL 24.14), 'a li the nations ol'lhe earth• will mourn the appe.arance of the 'Son ofr\+tan coming on the clouds or heaven' (MI. 24.30), and all nations will assemble before the Son o f Man who separates them as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats (1'v1t. 25.32)." Interestingly, the vivid presentation o r Yahweh as king in Zechariah 14 surpa."es that of previous sections o r the book (cf. 2.13; 4.14; 6.5, 7; 8.20-23; 9. 10). and the story of the sheep and goals al the end of the Olivet Discourse

52. Gundry. T1u! Uw: oflilt' Old Testam.elrf ill St Matthen·'s Gospel. p. 142. 53. Fmncc.Je.m.f muftile OldTes1ament. p. 184: cf. Mt 16.17·28: 24..3 1: I 111css. 3. 13: 2 Thcss. 1.7: Jude J.J: Did 16.7: Justin. 1 Apol. 51.9. 54. liahk n nnd Hnm. Minor Prophets l. pp. 481-2. 55. According to Kathlccr~ Weber. I he: Image of Sheep and Goats in Mall 24:31·46'. CBQ 59 ( 1997}.. 657- 78 (.6S9. 6i0. 677). thc Old Testament provides sufficient c:vKfcr~cc to suggest thai the reader of the first Gospel would likc.ly regard the ·gotu• a1 a posili\'e image (e.g. Gen. I5.9: 31. 14· I5: Judg. 13.15: 15. 1}: lhw. iLsappcarane.c in the context ofMaHbe-w 24-25 as 'the most surprising of a series ofsurprising judgments• sm•es ns a wllming for ·readers imperfoctlyprcparOO for j udgmcnf.

BibliL·a l lnterprelation in Early Christian Go:lpels

(Mt. 25.34, 40) is the only place in Matthew that associates the. Parousia of the Son ofMan with the title 'King'." The introduction oflhe Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24.1-2) create.s for the reader 'a confiden<.~e chat the spe-..tker c~m indeed see the future' ,s7 and the redundant information given in t\•11. 24.3 ('Jesus was siUing on the Mount ofOiive.s ') gene-rates the expectation Chat Jesus will reveal something \\~th authority, since he sits (see Mt. 5.1-2; 13.1 -3; 15.29) on a mountain (see MI. 5.1; 8.1; 14.23: 15.29; 17. 1, 9; 26.30; 28.16). Furthermore, the Gospel has already depicted Jesus as an omniscient chamcter with knowledge beyond human perception (Mt. 9.4; 12.25), knowledge ofthings hidden from the wise ( 11.25-27), and knowledge of events before their occurrence (Mt. 16.21, 27-28: 20.18-19). Because of this prior edut-ation, the reader has no reason to doubt that Jesus can answer the disciples' question in temporal terms: 'when will these things happen and what will be the sign o f your coming and the end of the age'?' (MI. 24.3)."' Most disconcerting for the reader is Jesus' own admission that he does not know 'about that day or hour' (Mt. 24.36)-'' Both MI. 24.36 and Zech. 14.7 deal with expectations regarding the chronological arrival of'that day'. The phrase is ollen repeated in Zechariah 14 ( 14.4, 6, 8-9, 13, 20-2 1; cf. 9.16; 11.1 1; 12.3-4, 6, 8-9. I I; 13. 1-2, 4), and the concept appears with similar vocabulary in Matthew 24- 25 (Mt. 24.36, 42, 50; 25.13; cf. 7.22), where it is also denoted by the term napovola (Mt. 24.3, 27, 37, 39). For Zechariah, Yahweh comes 'on that day'; for Matthew, the Son of Man <.'.Omes on 'that day' at an hour unexpected (MI. 24.36, 44). For Zechariah 'that day' is a 'never-ending day'&> without day or night; the absence of this diurnal pattern results in perpetual light.61 This representation of continuous day, 'known to Yahweh' and thus beyond human comprehension, depicts the reversal ofthe first day of creation that has produced the original division of day and night (Gen. 1.35). In Zech. 14.7 no human can understand an unending day; in Mt. 24.36 11<> human or angel or the Son knows the timing of the day's arrival (cf. I Thess. 5.12). These verbal and conceptual similarities may not be sullicient to corroborate the presence of an allusion to Zech. 14.7 in Mt. 24.36;" nonetheless, the thematic coherence between the portrayals of the two texts may rather suggest to the re-J.der an identification of 'that day' in Matthew with the comparable phmse in Zechariah. 56. Hahlen and Hnm. Mi11or Pmph~tsl. pp. 491- 2: Dnvicsu.nd Allison. 11wGo.spelAccording to Saint .Uaulu:w. vol. 3. p. 41&. 57. 0.:1\'its and Allison. Thr Go!l~l.4cconiing to Saint Mmthew. vol. 3. p. 333. 58. Burnell. ·Prolegomenon to Reading Matthew's Eschatological Discourse:·. p. 100. 59. Son1e MSS (e.g. ~~ l W p 33 vg s)·co) omit the phli!S:C 006£0 vibs. but this omission is b(St explllined bydoctrin.'ll diflicultics: its authenticity is likely. since. asAJbr.:clu Ocpkc. ·napovola·. in TDNT. v. pp. 858-71 (867). hilS re.maR:od. ·who wou\d h•wednrcd invent sucfl a snying"!' 60. HALOT. p. 30. 61. .\fcycrs nnd Meyers. Zecltnriall 9- 14. pp. 433-4. 62. So f
Ho\M Reading z~.L~hariah and !t(althew':; 0/iw!l Discourse

97

Both Zechariah 14 and ~·la1thew 24 use theophanic imagery in relation to the coming of Yahweh and the Parou.sia of the Son of Man. Even though the language of destruction appears in both contexts. such portrayals imply more th~m the physical destmction of Jerusalem. The func:tion ofthis mythological language highlight• the glory of the Parousia, that is. the divine 'arrival' that brings judgement and salvation.6..~ Thus, Zechariah 14 with its stunning represe-ntation ofYahweh standing on the Mount of Olives and causing the mOlmtain to split in two 'challenges the reader to <.-onside-r the eventual destruction of Jerusalem us part of Yahweh's larger purpose and to act accordingly, assured that the victorious intervention of Yahweh results ultimately in the universal worship of Yahweh as king' .M likewise, ·Matthew 24- 25 with its stylized presentation of Jesus silting on the. MOlmt ofOiives and ans\Vering the disciples, questions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the sign of his coming prepares the reader (Or a coming judgement like.the one that overtook Jerusalem and for a universal commission, in which the reader is urged to participate,'> and through which results the recognition of Jesu.s as Lord by 'all the peoples of the earth' (Zech. 12.10-14; Mt. 24.30; 25.32: 28.16-20).

6.1 George-R. Bl-aslcy-Mum1y, J e-.u.u and lire Lmt Days: nre lnterpmatiou ufllw 0/ivel Dis· courst- (Peabody. MA: Hmdriekson. 1991). p. 425. 64. Hahk n nnd Hnm, Minor Prophets 1. p. 478. 65. Brown. ' The: Mntthcan Apoc.nlypsc', pp. 2- 27 (2).

7. F ROM HISTORY TO MYTH AND B ACK AGAIN: THE HISTORICIZING FUNCTION OF SCRIPTURE IN MATTHEW 2

l11omas R. Hatina Matthew's second chapter, in contrast to the firs t, is dominated by a geogr.tphical motif. Even the story of the magi, which is ofte.n viewed as a distinct narrative strand, is oriented toward the establishment of Bethlehem as the birthplace. of Jesus. Chapter 2 is a t1avel narrative which attempts to explain why Jesus. although born in Bethlehem. joumeyed to Egypt and eventually settled in Nazareth. T11e geographical importance is underscored by appeals to Scripture. Matthew uses place names elsewhere, and even on one occasion refers to six locations (Syria, Galilee, Decapolis. Jerusalenc Judea, and ' beyond the Jordan· in 4.23-25). but it is only in ch. 2 that they are all associated with Scripture texts introduced by fulfilment tb rmulae. Omission of Scripture in other places where they might be expected, such as associating the magi story with Num. 24. 17, adds further weight to the geographical emphasis. 1 TI1e aim of this chapter is to provide an explanation for associating Scripture with Jesus' journey of escape from Bethlehem to Nazaretl1 via Egypt. Although the broader historical question of w hy a travel narrative needed (o be-incorporated looms tangentially large. it is here secondary. I attempt to explain Matthew's use of Scripture within the broader process of mythmaking, \Vhich in general temlS begins with some kind ofhistorical (or factual) event, is then interpreted withina cosmic structure, and is finally legitimized historically. It is the last two phases in the process that are of ooncem here. I respectively divide the chapte-r into two parts by fiJSt drawing atte-ntion to the literary artistry of ch. 2, namely the mythmaking phase, and then foc.using on the historical legitimization ofthe trave.l story via the embedding of Scripture. More specifically. in the first part of this chapter f'.·tatthew's literary artist1y is explored in light of Northrop Frye's tJ1e01Y of mythmaking which brings attention to Jesus' portrayal as a divine child who miraculously escapes death from a paranoid tyrannical king whose J'Ule in turn is subve11ed by his intended victim. It is a narrative that contains all (oo many familiar tCatures. such as revelations through dreams, a miraculous birth~ divine parentage, cosmic portents>and the battle-betwee.n good a nd evil, all of which are reminiscent of hero myths that I. K. Stcnduhl. ·Quis ct U1ldc:? An AnulysisofMl I-2'. in W. Eltc-stc-r (cd.).Judentum.. Urrlwis· lf!ntwn, l
HAnNA

The Historicizing Function ofScripture in Matthe-w 2

99

would have been known in various forms throughout the He.llenized/Romanized Diaspora in the latter pm·t of the first century. They are. similar also to more remote hero myths in religions that were outside ofMatthew"s direct sphere of influence. (n light of Matthew's preceding genealogy where gamara clearly emphasizes David. the emphasis on Bethlehem: and nine refel'ences to the evil king Herod, Matthew~s hero Jesus emerges as a divinely appointed rival king. The sec.ond part of the chapter concentrates on how the quotations containing fulfilment formulae function in the journey narrative. The term 'function; of course, has a broad meaning, but it is hero again limited to Northrop Frye's lite.rary-critical insights into myth and ideology. ) argue that Matthew's appeal to scriptural quotations can be explained as an exercise in historic.izing myth for the purpose of legitimization. f\·1ethodologically, my frame of reference is not the early historical-critical bifurcations between history and myth (often depicted as the division between truth and falsehood) utilized in the nineteenth- and eal'ly twentie-th-centUiy 'lives of Jesus', nor the redaction-critic-aland tradition-critical distinctions that have dominated much ofd1e discussion about embedded Scripture texts in the Gospels. lnstead, my approac-h is more posrmodern, fo1· the lack of a better word. This is to say that I am in.tere.sted in the pi'Ocess- from what might be termed historical facts to their mythical inte.q>retation and eventual historicization - which is at home within current theol'ies of lll}rthmaking in both liten11y and religious studies.2 Putting it another way, my interest is not so much in theology, as was largely the case in tl1e use of historical-criticism, but in more inclusive modes of thought and consciousness which have to do with imagination and the role of metaphor in the construction of reality, particulatly that which is believed /o be historic--al reality by the devotee.s. I . Mapping the Literary Artist1y of Matthew 2: From History to Myth

In the history of Western culture. myths that have maintained their ideological function or have retained some kind of an appeal in society have been translated into and conve.yed in logos language. The infancy nan-atives of both Matthew and l uke have particulatly suftered from the supe-rseding ofmythos b)' logos whereby that which is deemed true is formulated in literal, dialectical or factual ("historical') language. Throughout the history ofinstitutional Christianity, for example. structu1·ed logos-formulated doctrine ahvays preceded readings of the infan~y ac-.counts (and indeed the entire Bible).3 The scholastic and Enlightenment periods are pinnacle-~li of an obfuscation. and even omission, of the literary artistry and the imaginative processes that should be credited ro the Evangelists. While logos2. From n rcdnction
I00

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

influenced readings still dominate in tbrmal ecclesiastical settings, their cultural foi'Ce has considerably diminished since the blossoming of modem biblical studies in the nineteenth century followed by more inclusive approaches to the study o f world religions and mythology. Comparative, phenomenological and liter;uy appl'Oaches to the study of biblical texts have. understandably tended to be less apologetic than their theological counterparts, as has often been seen in redaction and tradition criticisms. Taking our text as an example. the miraculous escape journey of Jesus. along with his divine conception~ has in traditional Christian settings been read factually in light of doctrinal stn1ctures; whe1·eas in nonecclesiastical set1ings the entire infhncy account is read mythically in light o f comparative stories in the ancient world.

Genre: From History to Lilermy Artisfl y The fundamental question is that of genre. What kind of writing is the journey account in Matthew 2? (s it, from one end of the literary spectn un. a travel log (logos) recording the events that perpetuated tJ1e journey from Bethlehem to Nazareth via Egypt. as it is often 1'ead on popular and institutional levels by Chl'istians? [t is ce-rtainly written to appe-ar as such- which is discusse-d below. ffso. not only do insurmountable historical problems arise whe-n the account is compared with that of Luke and the rest of t\
H An NA

The Historicizing Function ofScripture in Matthe·w 2

10 I

presented. Although there is significant debate about Gospe.l genre. all major positions agree that whateve1· might be regarded as a1·chive is presented m·tistically. One of the leading positions today is that the Synoptics resemble Graeco-Roman biographies. such as Plutarch ·s Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans. Philostratus' Apo/lonius ofTyana. Tacitus' Agricola. ~u1 d Suetonius· Lives ofthe Twe/o;e Caesars. Richard Burridge. building on previous studies. has pi'Ovided one of the most extensive.comparative treatments.& Casting his net widely to include.Greek. Hellenistic and Roman biography. Burridge understands these..ancient writings in a threefold manner. First they .are writings which naturally eme-l'ge within a group that has been formed arotUld the teachings o1· leadership of a charismatic leader. Second, their main purpose and function is found in the context of didactic or philosophical polemic. And third, they are flexible, allowing for adaptation and growth.7 Bun·idge admits that on some levels the Gospels fall shOI't of an exact parallel with any one biography - for they tell us nothing of Jesus· home life, how he spent his youth~ his personality traits. or his physical appearance but he concludes that there seems to be no othe1· literature prio1· to the Gospels that we c.an point to with more precision. If Matthew is taken to be a tbnn o f ancient biograph>·~ then we must be mindful of at least fo ur chamcteristics that have implications in relation to histo1y. First, ancient biographers were interested in portraying their main characrers as re.latively constant throughout lheh· lives. which is a major shift fro m modern biographers who emphasize change. Events and experiences were chosen not for a lesson in history, but to demonstrate the exemplary traits and the consistency of character through difficult obstacles. Ancient audiences paid close attention to how characters not only acted and reacted to c.hallenges, sometimes through impressive deeds, but how they carefully articulated their verbal responses. G1·eat persons were believed to be born great~ and they became models for others to imitate. Second, ancient biogmphers attempted to e.nte11ain their 1·eaders and often promoted a vi11ue and philosophy oftheir subject that posed a challenge to mainstream society. Third, biographies of' holy men· or divine philosophers attributed dh•ine qualities in va1ying degrees to their subjects. Some were characterized as sons of god which implied divine parentage (e.g. like Apollonius ofTyana and P)'1hagoras). whereas others were deemed godlike (e.g. Plotinus) becalL~e they were gifted beyond ordinary men. despite their human parentage.11 Fourth, although ancient biographers wrote with historical intentions. a c.ertain amount of fiction and exaggeration was commonplace. Data collection and verification ofevidenc.e 6. Richard A. Burridge. What c1re the GoJpel.'i? A Comporiso11lt'ilh Gmt-co-Roman Biograpftl• (SNTSMS. 70. Cambridge:. UK: Cambridg-e Universily Press. 1992). J>revious~udi cs indudcChari(S H. TalbcrL JI'JuJt is a Gospel? The Gn1re oj1/!e Cononicol Go.\]X!Is (Phil.add phin: Fortress. 1977); 0.1\~d E. Aunc:. ·The Probkm of the Genn: of the Gospels: A O ilique-ofC. H. Tafbcrl's What is u Go:.-pel?'. in R. T. Fn:mcc and D. Wenhnm (cds). Sludiel· of/lis10ry and TrodiJion{Gospcl Perspcc.li\'C$. 2. Sheffield: JSOT Pms. 198 1). pp. 9-()(). 7. Burridge. rfllm are tlli! Gospds?. pp. SO- I. S. Pillricis Cox. Biq;rapi{J' in Lute Antiquity: A Ques.tfortile Holy Man( B~~rkclcy: Uni\'m:ily of California Press. 19SJ). pp. J0-44.

102

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

cannot be compared to today's standards. Speeches and deeds, Jb r example, followed consistent fonns and were freely adapted to situations that would enhance the subject's traits and characte1·~ which was moulded to an established model. As Cox summarizes. 'From its inception. biography was marked by its encomiastic tendencies to exaggerate a person's achieveme-nts and virtues. carefully selecting traits and deeds that lent themsei\'CS to idealization.' 9This may be.why biographies for the ancient G1·ee-ks and Romans did not fall within che five majorcategol'ies of histot•ical writing (genealogy or 111)1hography. ethnography. history. horogmphy or local history, and chronography)' ' By the Imperial age, Plutarch (P01np•y 8) makes a clear distinction between histot·y and biography, arguing that history recalls the chronological account of the life. whereas biography providc.s a systematic treatment o f characte.r.11 During this period, the lives of the emperors gained popularity as means of not only promoting Caesar, but retelling and explaining events on a grander scale.12 (n light of the fUnction of these Roman biographies. Matthew can be viewed as an alternative explanation on even a grande1·, cosmic scale. Potter claims that ' Ultimately. the most powerful o fthese altemative narratives was that offered in the Christian Gospels. and they in turn reshaped the world in which they were read. ·u The comparison can be broadened. Comparative mythologists have long notic.ed that in the ancient wol'ld, the metamorphosis of a historical figure into a mythical hero is guided by e..~tablished prototypes (be they conscious or unconscious) that in some casesevc.n transc.end largcrculruml fields. Mircea Eliade, for example. has well documented how retellings ofhistorical personages in popular epic poems fit into existing pattents. In tlle process he is careful to distinguish legends or folklore. which are reinforc.ed with supenlatural occurrences in their l'etellings. from historical persons who are mythicized. Popular memoty seems to lead naturally awa}' from tlle historical data, howeve-r important it might be~ to a mot•e imaginative recollection rooted in archetypes which constitute the truly real. Across cultures, many of the mythicized heroes arc remembered via archetypal categories in that they have miraculous births. they have at least one divine parent, and they undertake a journey to heaven or heti.IJ After death, as is the 9. Co:t. Bicgr(lphy ;, LaJe .4miqui~J'. p. 15. 10. Ch:.rlcs William fomarn. Tllf: Nature ofHistory in A11dem Greece and Romt' (Bcrkde.y: University of Californ ia Pn:ss, 1983). pp. 1- J. By eonlnast. scveml early Christinn theologians {e.g. Justin. Tatianand Clement ~lfAI<:tandria) r~-gardo:llhc Gospels a$histories. Justin Mnnyr. for example-. bclic\·ed lhal non·bd ie\'ers oould be provided with material proof- namely Quiriniu.s' wxdcc.laratioo found in Romnn re-cords - thnt .\fallhew and bke:•s infancy acrounts 111e historicnlfy nccutntc. Stt the C-Xtlmplcs in Robert M. Grant. The £arlieJI Li•-es ofJ~.ms (New York liarpcr and Brothers. 1961). pp. 10- 11. II. Co:t, Biogr(lphy i11 Late .4miqui~l'. pp. 11- 13. 12. A. Momis.Jinno.T7te Dn>elopnwm ufGr~k Biagrapl{t•(Cambridge. MA: Han•ard University Press. rev. edn. 1993}. p. 99. 13. 0. S. Potter. /.im·m:t•Texis ami rl~ Romw1 J.listodmt (Approaching the Ancient World: London: Roullcdgc. 1999). p. 9. 14. Min.' ta Eliadc. Tht' !16·thofll•t' ftemal Retum(trnns. W. R. Trask: Princ-eton: Princ~~ton Uni· vcrsit)' P~. 197 I). p. 42.

HAnNA The Historicizing Function ofScripture in Matthe·w 2

103

case in Greek tradition for example~ personal memory ofthe individual ceases and is transformed into an impersonal archetype of the ancesto1·. Eliade argues that heroes retain the memo1y of their deeds bec-ause they m·e the. exemplars.15 He is correc1 to a certain extent. but the fUnctionappea1·s broode1·in that myths attempt t'o alleviate confusion. concerns~ problems associated with etiology. le.gitimization in the. fhce ofconflict1 contradictory traditions, mediation of polar extremes. identification ofimpe1-sonal forces with personalone$, and problems associated with the l'elationship between nature and culture. 16

The Process: From History to ll·~yth A more inclusive theoreti<.-.alstarting point for understanding the mythmaking process is Northrop Frye's concept ofmyth as it was originally articulated in his Fearjill Symmetry and later developed in Words willt Power. 11 Recently. Glen Gill and Robert E.llwood have argued that unlike the theories of his contemponuie$ in the middle ofthe twe.ntieth centtuy. namely Mircea Eliade. Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell, Frye's theory does not suffer from poststructtll'alist criticisms that pointed to the problem of ontological or metaphysical prioritization.'" Fo1· many critics, the problem with the theories of these mythologists lies in their bifurcation oft he mythic sou1·ce-as an external entity or agency and consciousness upon which the m)rthic 'othe1·' acts. Eliade, for example. assumes that the interplay between the sacred and profane-is considered to be the objective reality to which m)1h speaks.l9 For Jung, assumed archetypes exist in an abstract state in the collective unconscious and (without explanation) rransitjon into the conscious sphere.20 And for Campbell, the assumption of a grand monomyth unifies all the pa11iculars, often witl1 little 1·espect for contextual factors like loc-alities.:U The missing insight in ead1 case, according to Gill, is ' an oversight oft he essentially phenomenological or imaginative condition of consciousness> of which all thought and reality is a 15. Eliadc. 11w J\(1-th oftlw fl£'1'11(1/ Rnurn. p. 4 7. 16. Sc:c !he more op~n~tndcd \'icw in G. S. Kid:. M}th: Its Meaning tmd Fundi01u in.4ncient trlld Ot!U'r Cuiltlrl'S (Salhe.r Cias~icnJ loctun-s. 40: l ondon: C-ambridge Uni\•.:rsily Pr¢ss: Bcrkc:k-y: Uni\'ersit)' of California Press. 1970). pp. 253-61. 284. 17. Norlhtop Ft)'C. Fearful S,1111t1U'f1y: A Study of William B/ah•(Princctun: Ptinockm Uni\•ctsily Pres.s. 1947): idem. JJ'ordf IVitiJ Power. 18. Glen Robert Gill. No11hrop Fryi:' ami til£' PlrenomrmoltJgy ofAtrrh (Toronto: Uni\'crsit)' of Toronto Pt~-ss. 2006}; Robert Ellwood. Tlli' Politics q{Myth: A S11uly q{C. G..lung. Mirceu Eliad£'. andJoJeph Cumphd/ (Albany: State University of N~·w York Pl't'$$. 1999}. 19. Sec Robert Baird. Catego•J' FtJrmmion ond the- History ofReligion (The Hague: Mouton. 1971). pp. 74-89: Guilford Dudley. Rt!ligitJIJ 011 TJ·ial: Mircea 1:'/itUie ond His Critics (Philadc:Jphia: Temple Uni\'etsily Pr~. 1977): BryanS. Rennie. ReronJtmctilv; £/imk: Moking!*nseofRe/igion (Albany: State Uni\'c:rsity of Ne.w York Pr.:ss. 1996}. 20. Sec Eric Goold. Mythicul Jntentimu i11 Mndt~m Literaurre (Princeton: Princeton Unin:rsity Pre!:s. 1981). pp. 21- 3: I. J. Clarke, In Sean•/• ofJmtg: HiJtorirnl and PhiloJophicol fnquirits(lon· don: Roullcdgc. 1992). 21. Sec William Kerrig<~n. ·n.c Raw. The Cooked. and the:- Half-B.1ked'. Virgim'u QuoJ·ter~' Rn·iew 51 ( 1975). 651- 5; Waller B. Gulick. 'The Thousand and Firs! Fac:e'. inPatlu tothe Ponw tJj Myth: Joseph Con~pbe/1 011(/tlre StudyofRe/igion(cd. Daniel C. Noel: New Vorl:: Crossrood:s. 1994). pp. 29-44.

104

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

function, and myth the perennial expression·.n ln Frye's theory there is no gap between the archetype's origin and its occurrence in consciousness. and hence expression in language. because-the archetypes are the structure-s in language. Since Fl)•e is leery about an 'unconscious' that is somehow known. the sepm-ation between the physicaJ body and mind is more ofa distinction whereby the physical is at the same time the ground of language and the source of archetypal form.23 Frye' s conception of myth is rooted in the unification ofsense perception which is at times called 'the literal' , :lJld consciousness which constitutes 'the im.agination ·. Anothe1·way of putting it is that it is an integration of material and spiritual aspects o f a culture. Tile whole of life is a single mental foml which attempts to transform the totality of human experience imos}'lnbol or m1. For Frye, this single mental foml is the drama of life, which is the archetype of all prophecy and art, even if each only reveals and transforms reality in pieces. Myth is this sing le mcmal tbml which seeks to make sense of a unified reality. As Ftye puts it, myth is 'the end of the journey of our intellectual powers' .u In The Crilicol Path, the cullural or societal fttnction of myth is fut1her developed whereby he increasingly obsen•es myth's cohesiveness. at least as far as wot·ds have the power to achieve. Myth as cultural or societal cohesion is a socially establishe.d truth and reality, though not necessarily tied to or derived fi'Om evidence or reason. Truth is that which a society does and believes. It is as Ft·ye puts it, 'the language of belief out of which literature and art is existentially commissioned and t'eceivcd.2:. Where Frye d iffers from other mythologists is in his unification schema, which moves beyond a comparison of rituals and the subconscious commonness of m.ythopoeic dreams. which he regards as crude 311 fot·ms or rough drafts of the artist.26 A spiral pattern ofm)1hic development occurs from individual (rough dmfts) to community and back again. Frye explains: In time lhe communal mrlh precedes the indi\·idual one. but the-latt« focuses and d ori· fics the: former. nnd wh<'n u work ofan deal.s with a primiti\'c myth, the essential mean· ing of that myth is not di.s,!,'Uised or sublimated. or refi ned. but rc\'~"tllcd. A comparutivc studyofdrc.:mlS and ritunls can lend us only to a vague and intuiti\•escnscof the-unity of the:. humnn mind: u comparative study of works of art (inc:luding liu:roture) should demonstrute it beyond conjec-turc.17

Early Christian use of Scripture, when understood as an at1istic process, well fits a spiral pattern of mythic development. Like the Irish olla\'es, the legendary 01'Uid bards, the pre-Homeric figures such as Orpheus, or the Hebrew prophc.ts, the Evangelists arc the poets of their communities who retell the. past in light of the pt·esent, and vice versa, selecting the mythological information that their

22. Gill. Nrm llmp F'ryf!. p. 172. 23. Gill. Nor1llmp F1J·e. p. 187.

24. Frye-. FeOJ:ful Symmrtry·. p. 340. 25. Nonhrop Fry<'. The Critical Pt~~fl: An f ss.uy rm1ht SociiJICome.rt {IfLiterary Critid.nn (Bloom· ington: Indiana Unin:rs.it)' Pn:ss. 1971). p. 36. 26. Frye. Fearful Symmeuy. p. 424. 27. Frye-. Fearful Symmeli)'. p. 425.

HAnNA The Historicizing Function ofScripture in Matthe-w 2

105

communities needed to know.1li The poet's connection with the past, through various means of retelling, allusion or quotation, is a manoeuvre that garners authority by a kind ofosmosis whereby the old accepted wisdom. be it in Homer or the Evangelists. finds a ne.w context in the present. Thus, the poet's panicular attribute is not so much a knowledge of style. but a broad knowledge of data stemming from his understanding of wh.at we might call a mythopoeic history. In the cycle, individuals b1·eak with accepted ideology and are freed (and instinctively compelled) to create. their own. Frye also distances himself from theological language. because it must rely on subjects and objects even when speaking of God as immanent or transcendent, and this leaves language in a ve1·y limiting state. \Vhenever humans are the subject and God is the object the distance seems unbridgeable even in the use of analogy.lnstead of analogy, Frye finds mOI'e cohesion in identity, which is the principle behind metaphor and imagination, and ultimately myth.Thus, paradoxical claims that two diffe-rent things are the same, such as 'God is man'. or 'Christ is a l amb~, is at the heart of both religious and literary language, which resist habitual thinking, expand the mind. and incline toward the imaginative. In concise manner. Frye writes, ' ( think the real conception "'God" must st ood Other Religious Te:tts (Collected \Vorb of Northrop Frye. Volume 13: Toronto: Uni\'tTSily ofToronlo Press. 2003). p. 350. 30. Robert D. D
106

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

realty is expanded and the new Christian experience is given fom1 and order by placing it within a cosmicizcd world pem1eated with meaning.J~ At the most the process from the historical to the mythical take-s two or three cenmries. and at the least it can begin to take shape within a few decades after the figure's death. An example of a standard time span in the ancient world is found in Suetonius's Lfle ofAugustus 94 in The Twelve Caesars. ln the midst ofa fairly typicalnon-supematural biographical narrative, Suetonius insct1s an account of Augustus' binh w hich is filled with supernatural events, including a human-

divine conception. After the birth account the narrative reverts bac.k to a more secular tenor. A key point of the mythologization is to unify the transcendent and immanent planes of reality as they impact the empire and its role in world history. The time span between the death of Augustus and the writing of The T"'elve Caesars is approximately a century. Mit·cea Eliade recalls a fascinating modem example ofmetamotphosis which has strictly developed in the context o f oml transmission within a tb t1y-year period while. man}' o f the contemporaries of the actual events in the-story \vere still alive. The stoty, which is actually a baJiad of tragic love. was originally recorded and investigated by the Romanian fOlklorist Constantin Brailoiu just before the Second World War. The account, as it was widely circulated in the village of~·laramures. is summarized as follows. Th~ young suitor had bocn bewitched by n mounlain fniry. and a few days befort-he was

to be married. the fairy. dri,•cn by jealousy. Md tlung him from a cliff. Tbe nc:tt d.'ly. shepherds found his body and. caught in a tn:t'. his haLThey cani~-d the body b.1ck to the village and his fianctc. came to meet them: upon secill,£. her lo\·cr d~d. she poured out a fun¢ral lamc:nt. fuU of mythological allustons. a liturgical tc:tt of rustic bc:auty.lJ

Eliade continues with a summary o fBrailoiu' findings. In lhc ooursc of recording the C\'Cnts of the. v..1ri:utts that he wns able (0 collect. th~­ foll:Jorist tried to lcum the-period when the trogcdy hadocc-utrcd: he was told that i1 was a very old story. which Md hnppell('d 'kmg ago'. Pursuing his inquirK.s. howe\'et. hekamcd that the event h.1d taken place not quite for1y years earlier. He final!)' even disco\'crcd lhst the he-roine-was still alive-. He went to see her and heard the.stor)' from her own lips. It was a quite commonplRIX' lrngcdy: one e\·cning her lo"~'f h.'1d sl ipp~-d and fallen over a d iff: hc: had not died insltintly: his cries had b«n h~-ard by moun· t!lin«rs: he.had bocn carried to the viUage. where he hnd dtcd soon after. At tbe funernl. his fiancee. with the other wom~'1l at th~· "illage. had repented the customnry ritual lnmcntations. without the slightC"Sl nllusion to th~- mountain fairy.

What is fascinating about this example is that despite the presence of witnesses and eve-n the fiancee's retelling ofthe accoun t~ the events were mythicized within the lal'gercommunity. The more f.'lctual account. explained as a simple accide-nt, did not seem to satisfy the tragedy o f a yoUJlg man dying on the eve of his wedding. The reside.nts of the village needed to provide meaning by retelling it in 32. W. Tnylor Stc\·cnson. ' Myth nnd the Crises of Historical Consciousness'. in lee W. Gibbs and W. TnyforStcn:-nson (c:ds). MytiHmd the Crisesojf.listoriml Coosrkiii.\'JWSs(Missoula: Scholars Press. t9 75). p. IS. 33. EJiade. 17te Myth ojJI1e ftemal Remrn. pp. 44- 5.

HAn NA The Historicizing Function ofScripture in Matthe·w 2

107

mythical categories. What is mo1·e, when Brailoiu infom1ed the villagers about the authentic events, they discounted the fiancee's memory by saying that the grief permanently affected her mind. In this case, popular memory retained archetypes to the exclusion of h is tory_:~~ Collective memory theorists, like Barry Sch\v:u1z. have likewise noticed a mythicizing proc.ess ofcultumJ icons within a fe w decades o f their deaths. most notably George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.35 h is a pattern that is reminiscent of ancient re tellings of suffel'i ng, particularly of persecuted political and religious groups.

The Artistry of Mal/hew 2 First otT, the infancy stories in both Matthew and Luke, which have long been viewed as late appendages to the earlier written so\ll'c es Mark and Q. are dist inct

from the rest of their respective narratives, conta ining a number of inconsistencies which have gamered them the name ' (nfancy Gospels' . Whatever the editing process, the Evangelists were not able to erase traces that the ministry stories were composed without a knowledge of the infancy material. The clearest indicator of this is that the Gospel proper never refe1'S back to the infancy narrative.J6 Exactly why the infancy storie.s were originally constlllcted and added has been the subject of much debate. While nume1·ous theological and social theories have been proposed - from a curiosity about Jesus· f.'lmily to an apologe.tic in response to rival birth stories1 or hostile groups who denied Jesus' messianic identity. to allegations that Jesus was bom illegitimateJy31- a common denominator has emerged. At the root of most theories lies the view that the accounts are not intended to reconstmct historical events, but are primarily written to legitimi1J! Jesus and belie f in him as God 's salvific hero 1 at the exclusion o f all others. As one chronologically surveys the earliest Christian writings, it is apparent that reflections on the resurrected Christ in Paul's writings led to re flections about Jesus' min istry, which eventually Jed to reflections about his origins. In a sense, the infancy narratives atte.mpt to claim that Jesus· identity in his resurrection was consistent with that ofh is birth. From that point, re flections on the unification of the resurrected Christ and the so-called ·earthly' or ' historic--al' Jesus escalated to a fusion of t he two whereby the latter was subsumed into the forme r, as is seen in John's Gospel and later in Christian- Roman debate and syncretism.l8 Matthew 2 significantly contributes to the legitimization of Jesus as the divine hero, particularly in relation to the existing monarchy. While the archival source (if any) is impossible to verify, the literary artistry is vibrant, consisting o f symbolic, 34. Eliadc. Tlte Myth ufthe flemal Rewm. p. 45. 35. Barry Schwa rtz. .4brohum UntYJ!tlandIlk? Forge ojNmional MelllfJI)'(ChK:ago: Univcrsi1yof Chicago PrtSS. 2000): idem. ·n.c Soc\alConlc:\1of Commemoration: A Study in Colkctiw Memory'. S«iol Forr'es 6 1 (1982). 374-402. 36. On ~·xampl es of incongruCfloc nnd the problemof corroboroti.n.g, witnesses. sec Brown. 71w Birlh <>/the Mes.tiuh. pp. 31-3. 48-9. 37. A SUIVC)' is pro\·idcd by Brown. The BirJ/1 of the MeJsiuh. pp. 26- 32. 38. Hugo Raimer. Gt\~ek My1luand Christian # rslf!IJ'(trans. B. Battcr~w: New Yorl:: Harpe-r & Row. 1963): Robin Lane: Fox. Pagans ondCIIrislimu (San Francisco: Hnrpcr & Row. 1986}.

I08

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

metaphorical and typological language along with common mythical events such as dreams. c,osmic po11ents and miraculous escape. The aim of the narrative is to subven Herod' s reign by legitimizing Jesus as the divinely established king whose J'eign. for Matthew, is the goal ofhistol)r. Jn her study of the ·ideal king' in Classical and Hellenistic litemture. Deirdre Good observes that Hei'Od. as he is portrayed in Matthew 2 falls sho11 in every categOI)' (e.g. Leller ofAristeas 2904). Instead, it is Jesus in the balance of the Gospel narrative who fulfils the chief Helle.nistic virtues of gr.tce, justice and compassion even toward his enemies in times of crises.19 In connec1ing Jesus with Israel's histo1y, particularly in relarion to Moses and David. as well as Israel's future (as redefined in Christ). Matthew retells the cosmic story. Frye's principle of identity figures prominently in that Matthew and his community participate in a recreated cosmic reality which is pe.rceived as a continuation (i.e. fulfilment) of the old. In shOI't, it is a retelling of the Jewish national myth with a new David - similarly born in Bethlehem and escaping the mmderous threats of the reigning king - establishing a new kingdom. Without duplicating the encyclopedic tradition-cl'iticallists off\·latthew' sinterpretations of scriptural images and persons,J0 the artistry ofsubversion and legitimization can be sufficiently shown through the stOI)' of the magi following the star. For Matthew, tl1e 'king of the Jews· becomes the king of the ea11h, to whom the magi pa)' homage. They are not kings. however, but probabl)' are meant to convey Gentile (Persian) priests andfor astrologers who. unlike the Jewish religious leaders, are perceptive in not only re-ading God ~s signs. but identifyi ng God's king:11 Their actions are subversive toward the antagonists and in turn legitimate the protagonists, extending in ethnic. political and religious directions. In telling the story, the Evangelist retains a Jewish pattern whereby those who were supposed to recognize djvine revelation become obdurate and even hostile in encountering Jesus, while those who were outside the accepted ethnic and I'Clig ious circles recognize the divine signs of a new king. The reference to Herod sununoning the chief priests and scribes to search the Scriptures in order to discern where the impostor king was to be born (f\·1t. 2.3-4) is a clever case ofirony that generates the series of fulfilment quotations in the re-$t of the chapter. Not only do the religious authorities legitimize the place of Jesus' birt:h and hence Matthew's point that Jesus is the divine king, they in turn subve1·t Herod's monarchial authority. What might be operating in the background for Matthew is a popular pre-war messianic expectation, of which there were.many. Josephus, for example, refers to a wi de..~pread belief, revealed in both an oracle and the Scriptures. that a ruler 39. IXirdrc J. Good. Jesus the Meek Kil~g (HarTisburg. PA: Trinity Press International. 1999). pp. 39-60.

40. Sec ~•"'ially the trcutmc:nts of Motthcw 2 in Ulrich l uz. Muiiii'E'w 1- 7: A CoJ1Wlt>nla(l' (ltllns. \VilhdmC. Linss: Minnc-.apofis: Augsburg Fortrcss. 1989); W. 0. Davies ond Dale C. Allison. Jr. Tite Gospd A«ording w Saim Matt/few. Volume 1 (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clork. 1988). 41. Warren Cat!cr. Mmtl~nmdJhc> .Jdargim: A Socit>-PoliticalaJtclReligious Reading (JSNTSup. 20:1: Shcffidd: Sheffield Acad~·mic Prcss.2000). pp. 74-6.

HAnNA The Historicizing Function ofScripture in Matthe-w 2

109

of the wol'ld would emerge from Judea. Although Josephus identifies Vespasian as the fulfilment of the oracle because of his proclamation as emperor on Jewish soil;'1 he at the same time records that the oracle was widely interpreted as a reference to a Jew (War, 6.3 I2- 14). The subversion ofJewish religious authority becomes evenmOI'e pronounced when one rakes into account the negative reputation of magi among Matthew's conte.mporaries. Certainly it is no surprise that Matthew's direct opponents, who repl'esent Pharisaic Judaism, \vould have had considerable difficulty with magi as conveyors of the divine. In addition to being Gentiles>astrological insight, which inherent!)' assumedsupematural power and knowledge, was considered foolish at best in the Jewish Scriptmes and early Jewish traditions because it was in d i1·ect competition with the prophetic office a nd established cle.ricaVIe.gal schools of thought (e.g. E.xod. 7-9: lsa. 47.1 2-15; LXX Dan. 2.5;Jub. 12.16-24; Philo, Moses 293). Mauhew·s w1usual description of Herod summoning 'all the c-hief priests and scribes of the people' conveys on the one hand a consensus among Israel's religious authorities tl1at the Messiah was to be bom in Bethlehe-m. yet on the other hand it conveys a collective inability to recognize that the Scriptures refer to Jesus. T11e devaluation of the Jewish authorities' ability to interpret the Scriptures in contrast to Matthew' audience is an irony that pervades the Gospe.J. According to Josephus, the Pharisees were especially utilized by Herod. despite their mutual disdain for each othe1·, because they gained a reputation of having di\•ine fo resight (Alii. I 7.4 I - 2). Roman \\'Titers likewise express negative sentiments toward ao;trologers and related prophetic claimants. For example, Pliny explains how the unorthodox medical practices of a certain Asclepiades were foo lishlyexaggel'ated beyond the normalcy of medicine and taken up by magi (NH 26.9). Tacitus refers to a yow1g man who, because of his thoughtlessness, fell prey to the delusions ofastrologers, magicians and inte-rpreters ofdreams (Ann . 2.27). Later, Tacitus rec-alls how the Senate expelled astrologers and magicians from Italy (2.32). On the death bed of Claudius. Seneca has Mercu1y say, ·Do let the astrologers tell the truth for once; since he became emperor, they have never let a year pass. neve-r a month. without laying him out for his buriaP (Apoco/. 3). And Philostran1s attempts to e levate the status of Apollonius by explaining that it is incorrect to associate his prophetic abilities with the Egyptian magi (Apolloniu.'i 1.2). Apart from the odd negative reference in Jewish literature..o the star (along with other c.elestial signs) which the magi we1·e following, was a ve.Jy positive 42. See also Suelonius. Yt~l·pru·ia114; Tacitus. HiJWti£'S 5. 13. 43. Stnrs were on occasion used in a ncgati\'c way to conn:y future destnlc.tion. For example-. Josephus rec-alls how a star resembling a sword stood O\'cr Jerusalem prior to ii.S dC'Struc:tion (H'or 6.289}. I hnvealsoarguod that <:c-ks t:ial portcnis in the tradition nssociah:d with Mk 9.1. 13.14-25. nnd 14.62 are symbols of judgeme-nt. It is stresse-d. howc\'Cf. that these symbols ltli'£CI the temple cstnblishm..:nt. notlhe infancy of Jesus. Sec Thomas R. Hu1inn./n Setrn·hof aGmtext: The Funt·Jirm q{ Scriptw·e in Mark's NCJJ'I'lJ/i\'e (JSNTSup. 232: SSEJC. S: london: Sllcffidd Academic Pross. 2002)~ idem. ·who Will S« the: -Kingdomof God Coming with Power" in M:uk 9. 1- J>rotagonists or Antagonists?'. Bihlicu 86 (2005). 20-34. Bro""' (The Birl!1 ofthe Messiah. p. 52) has nq,;ucd that the Matthean account is p.1ttc:mc:d uftcr the ·m:t.b'US' Bslaam who cum::.from the-Eost and suw nstill

I I0

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

and promising symbol in Graeco-Roman superstition. Celestial phenomena associated with the birth of extraordinary individuals were used as signs of optimism and hope b)' Roman writers. It was believed that the tl'imscendent realm was not only connect'ed, but pleased with the birth. Though the births of wonder workers and teachers were associated with celestial signs, as is the case with the sto1y of Apollonius ofTyana (Apolloniu:o. 1.5), most o f the literary evidence points to the bil1hs of political figures, such as AugusniS, Tiberi us and Nero ..u The celestial signs conveyed a new era ofpeace a11d justice tOr the entire empire. First-centtuy Roman coins utilized astrological signs to depict the birth of emperors (e.g. Capricorn for Augustus) along with a single star, which probably propagandized supreme authority and on occasion even divinity. as may have been the case with the silver denarius issued by Augustus which depicted the comet of 'divine Julius';'"s 2. Legitimizing the Arlistry: From JWylhto History In this section I examine the final phase in the mythological process as it relates to the functjon of the fulfilment quotations in Matthew 2. According to frye's myth theory. broader acceptance of the infancy account would have inevitably led to its legitimization. be it in response to opposition, the need tbr unification, or simply to satisfy curiosity. T11e legitimization~ as discussed above~ was the historicizing of the tn.wel narrative which subtly shifts myth into ideology. Jesus' journey of escape from Bethlehem, to Egypt 1 and eventual re-turn to Nazareth is associated with Scripture so as to convey that the journey was divinely predetermined and thus facwal. Whether one understands the fulfilment fonnulae typologically or as literal prediction plays no role in the historicizing process. The standard debate.over the last few decade.s on the relationship between the quotations and the narrative.in which they are embedded has focused on their compositional sequenc.e. In broad terms, one side. of the debate has argued that the quotations have given rise to the narrative;JG whereas the other side has argued that the quotations were appended to an already existing namttive.J7 Redaction critics have well demonstrated over the years that Matthew uses Scripture to append Mark and Q, but it has also been convincingly shown that sections of MaHhew have bee-n composed from Scripture even when Mark is used as a souroe.Jk Forcing the discussion into an either/or strict11re, ho\vever, is not the arising from Jacob. ~mbo1i.zing the dcstructioo of lsrttcl's Clll:mfcs (Num. 24.17). While some similarities can be gmnted. the tcnorofM ntthcw 2 is much closer to thttl ofGraoco-Roman cd (bru4 tion of a new political ruler who is expected to bring peace and compa~ion4 44. Rcspectivdy. Suctonius. Augrtstus 94.2: Tibi'rilu l.f.2; and Cassius Dio. Roman /1isJOIJ' 6 1.2.1.

-l5. ~iolnar Collt'Ction. RIC L 37a. -l6. E.g. G. D. KiiPQttick. The Origin.\· ofl/w GoJpd According toSt. Mollh£-'li'{O~ford: Clarendon Press. 1946): Stcndahl. 'Quis ~ Undc-'?' 4 7. Brown.. The Birth oflh£' .1-.ftmia/J. pp. 99- 100. 48. See. forexample. the dimrssion of Judas' dcnU.J in Frank Kennod:c. TheGene.(is of&cn'C')'.'

HAn NA The Historicizing Function ofScripture in Matthe-w 2

Il l

best way forward, since both appear to be utilized by the Evangelist throughout the Gospel. f\·1orcover, we are comple.tely in the dark when it comes to the Evangelist's redactional process, which may have even taken on a spiral progression before the final tb nn was completed. Haggadic processes may have already been at work prior to the insertion of the quotations and their fuJfilment formulae.J9 Certainly the distribution offulfllment quotations is unbalanced. with the.majority ocCUlTing in the prologue material that is unique to Matthew. With regard to the sequence - at this juncture in my own resem·ch - I am comfortable in follo wing the conclusions of Ulrich Luz and George Soares Prabhu~ who have argued th.at in the majority of the cases the quotations were appended to the narrative mate.rial as commentary.S
On 1/w Ttlt..-rpretalim• rdNorraJiw•(Cambridgc. MA: Han·nrd Uni\'Crsity Pl't$$. 1979). pp. 84-95: nnd Petri Mcrenlahti. P«ti<:> jo1· tM Gospelf? ReJIJit1ki11g JVtrrmtil'l! Critid:~m (Edinburgh: T&T Clarl:. 2002). pp. 86--9. 49. See Brown. The-Birthf.?{lhc' Messiah. pp. 36-7: Rober! H. Gundry. 71te UseoftheO!dTt"slamem in St. Mattllew 's Go.~JX'III'ith Special Reference Jo thi! Messiut1k Hope (No\'TSup. I &: l ciden: E. J. Brill. 1975). Tfle problem. according to Bro\\TI. is. Lhat midrash popularized and c;,:pandcd biblical accounls for the purpose-of mnklng them intelligible. Brown argues that Lhc infancy narratin:s were wriltcn to make 1cstls' origins intelligible in light ofscriptural cxpc:c.tations. He.claims thst the heavy reliance on the Scriptures in t.hc infancy accounts allows the Church to present its message through the imagery of ls.:rad. Whi le- the~- is no doubt that early Christians. att~lllp(cd toj ustifyaeon· sistCflC)' bctwem the Scriptures. and their own mcss.nge-. Br~nvn.•s. distinction bctw«n what is and is not midr..1sh is too fine-of a cut. and may well scr\'e-to protect his compositionnl rcoonstruction that theqoo1<1tions were appended. His usc-of ·intelligibility• is the probkm. Ha.;g.adic midrash certainly c:\pnndcd biblic-t~l accounts into narrali\'es.. but like the Evangelists.. specific agendas (be they political. social. legal} guided all nucmpts. at in1elligibility. One-is hard pressed to d e1~rote that haggadic midrash was driven by a ncutml altc-mpt to make Scripture intelligible. Myth theory is here helpful in that it "icws hcrmcncutic.s us the unification of hum:m ~·xpcricnce. 50. Luz. Malthe"·l- i. pp. 156-63: G. M. Soares Prnbt.u. n.e FormulaQJr<>UfliOJIS itii!Je lf!(OIIC)' Narrative rif Malllleh' (AnBib. 63 Rome: Biblical Institute-Press.. 1976). pp. 162- 91. 51. Frye-. JJ!ords ll-ith Poll'er. p. 43.

I I2

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels phrase. but confrontations wilh a ptc$Cnl s.ignificancc:.druwing otlt the rescn•csof courage a1Ki energy n~'t!dcd "~:ithc:r to maintain routine:.or tom««n crisis.52

The social function of myth in the technologically undeveloped ancient world fused fact and speculative science (especially cosmology) with the
pendent ~)eriods merged into a unified vision that transcended history. For it is only in the contemporizing of the past through myth that the present is atTected. So, although myth may take on a historical tbnn, it actually dehistoricizes past events by viewing them not as unique, but as patterns or repetitions. :.4 At the root of tl1is process, according to Frye, is a Spenglarian influence of the universal interpenetration of symbolism. whereby 'eve1y thing that happens in the world symbolizes everything else that happens'. The unity of culture is thus viewed organically instead of cyclic--ally or linearly. However, the progression ofhisto1·y still guides Frye ·s thinking in that the apocalyptic analogy of this interpenetrating process is the incamation because it libe.mtes one from eternal recurrence. for F'1ye. this is the an..">wer to the philosophical problem of the one and the many.SS When it comes to the events narrated in Matthew 2. the point (oconsider is not that the mythical aspects falsify history as if myth is simpl)' an effect of a historic-al process. but that myth is a social vision oriented toward a tmnscending of history. But when myth is socially accepted it is historicized. Again, it should be viewed as an attempt to unify the totality of human experience. Matthew. like many ofhis contemporaries, merges three pel'iods oftime: the past ·sacred' realm presented in the Scriptures, the rransmitted collective memo1y of Jesus, hion. His appending of the chronological tb nuula ' arrO TOT£ to Mark, for instance. is one of several indications where chronology is used to emphasize a temporal and linear movement. The situating ofevents aJld nebulous locations into geographical categories is a historicizing feature that is even closer to ch. 2. One example given by GeOI'g Strecker is a comparison between Mark and Matthew's treatme-nts of the idea of the ' house· wherein Jesus stays. for Mark, the concept of' house · is topological, ti.mctioning within the larger theme of the messianic SCCI'et as a place of revelation in conn-ast to the pubtic arena, which is

52. 53. 54. 55.

Frye-. H'ortl.f uith P{}wer. p. 26. Frye. H'ords uitlt Power. pp. 31- 2. 34. Frye. H'o('(l1· with Power. pp. 6. 60. Ocnhnm. Nmthrop Frye. pp. 38-9.

HAnNA

The Historicizing Function ofScripture in Matthe·w 2

113

the place of secrecy. Thus the ' house· is not a fixed geographic--al term.56 Matthew. on the other hand, understands the corresponding passages geographically. The house is located at Capemaum and is identified as Jesus' 'dwelling· (4. 13) and ·own city' (9. 1).57 The movement from the topological to the geographical literalizes the account by turning the nebulous. symbolic, catego1y. which is open to literary ·ptay· into a fixed literal category that locks these passages in a distant past. Matthew's overall use of formula quotations likewise contributes to his historicizing tendencies.S3 The promises in Scripture (o the people of Israel find their fulfilment in the life of Jesus, and in the pmcess Judaism as an open-ended. anticipatory and eschatologically oriented religion finds its culmination or centre. Even Israel's law is viewed as coming to its fulfilment, not in the sense of abolition or a c.ontinuation in a fuller sense revealed by a new ]!.9 for lvlatthew a Judaism without Christ has no eschatological featlu'e and is thus locked into an irrelevant past. Israel's understanding ofwhere hist'OI)' was leading is now l'eplaced by an anticipation of Jesus· return to a wol'ld that has been evange.lized in a way thal unifies messianic belief and social justice (ho\vever sho11sighted it may have been, especially ethnic-ally and institutionally). Nationalistic history takes on a unive.rsal, even utopian, aim. Likewise the theme ofthe conquering of the land in ls1-ael's tmdition has been replaced by tlle conquering of the. world tbr ' righteousness'. which ultimately leads to a period in time when punishment and 1·eward are distl'ibuted in accordance. with one's deeds. As in othN eschatological systems. the re.worked fu ture.whic.h seeks to preserve linear continuity (from past to future) becomes the basis for life.in the present; but unlike in other systems (even some in the NT). the historicizing of Jesus serves as a template tbr the new way of righteousness (e.g. baptism)~ as of course it begins to take on an institutional tb nn.60 That Scl'ipture was used to legitimize and historicize the life of Jesus by the Evangelists is made explicit in the second cennuy by Justin Martyr. ln the process ofarguing tllat the Gospels are historical narratives, and that they should not be confused with ·wonder stories' or myths. Justin claimed that the Evangelists have shown that Jesus has accomplished the prophecies of Scripture. Justin"s distinction between historical narrative and myth appears to resemble that of the early second-century V.'Titer Aelius Theon. who in his Progymuasmala m·gued 56. Cf. Murk 2.1; 3.20: 7. 17~ 9.28.. 33; I0.10. GeorgSttcd:er. ·r ite ConceptofHisiOI)' in ~htlh~w· . in G. Slanton (od.). Tire /nt<•rpretoJiiJII ofMaJtlww (Issues in Religion nnd Theology. 3: London: SPCK. 198.3). pp. 71- 2. 57. Cf. Mt. 8.14: 9. 10. 28: 12.46: B . l. 36: 17.25. 58. S
60. Succkcr. 'The Concept ofHistoty in Muuhcw'.pp. n-.s.: H. KOster. ·fNOMAil\IAOPOI: The. Origin and Nnture of Divcrsifica1ion in the Hislot}' of Early Christianity'. 1/TR 58 (1965). 279-3 18..

I I4

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

that myth is ·a false account po1·traying tmth', whereas a narrative is ·an accow\t descriptive of events which took place or might have taken place' .61 (n light of

today's d istinctions. the bifurc-ation was simple. When Matthew's historicizingof Jesus' escape journey via appeals to Scripture is read within the broader context of the Graeco-Roman wol'ld. it remarkably compares more to Jewish historiography than to Graeco-Roman. Matthew is intent on showing that the divine is present and l'eveals his plan within the

confines of space and time, not unlike what we find in the Jewish tradition from the oldest historical narratives of Israel to the narratives that are contemporary to his own day wherein supematural acts, seasonal festivals and cosmic symbols were connected with Israel's histo1y. In short, historical events were believed to convey religious meaning, and hence were objects ofknowledge. Thus it is no wonder that he engage$ in a legitimatization process that atte.mpts to place Jesus within the paradigm of Israel's histo1y. TI1e same historicizing proc.ess would have undoubtedly been employed by his Jewish oppone-nts. who argued conversely that l\•latthew's messiah is inconsistent with the Scriptures. and thus the goal of(srael's history .l11e utilization ofthe same kind of argumentation by two oppo..~ing groups was as much a nom1 in the ancient world as it is today.~ ~·latthe.w's Jewish historiography comes into sharp reliefwhen compared to his Graeco-Roman counterpart'\ for whom historical events d id not carry a soteriological message. Despite their varied interests in the gods) historians like Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius aJtd Livy did not attempt to legitimize or disclose a divine plan through the events of their narratives. The main reason tOr this seems to lie in their religious systems, which did not include a single personal god who inte,Jvenes in history. Historical events were vie-wed as only a part of a larger cosmic process ofeternal becoming, conveying the chronological pattern ofsocieties from their inception to their demise; but in and of themselves these events could not be. objects of knowledge. Historiogmphy as a mnemonic activity was beneficial only insot1u as it contributed m the process ofbecoming.63 Apart from these differences between Matthew and major Gra.eoo-Roman historians~ the Graeco-Roman material is not altogether irrelevant. First, Matthew·s historiciz.ing of myth is similar in intent to the historicizing of poetry among some of his Craeco-Roman contemporaries. Charles fornara has noted that the turning of mythical poetJy into litemry prose was a well-established practice, viewed as a kind ofcon·ective) since the time ofHesiod. Clement of Alexandria and Josephus are cited as observers of the practice. Fornara writes, ·Clement of 61. Min.'ta Elindc. Myth tmd Ri!trli~l' ( tl'll.1lS. W. R. Tmsk: New York: liarpc-r & Row. 1963}. p. 165: Grant Thf' Eudiest U~l--'S ofJesus. pp. I 0-1S. 21 . 39. 62. One immediately thinks of the oontrovcrsi~-s bclween the Marcionitcsand the Gnostic grot1ps oo l.be one side. and proto-onhodox grot1pson the otheor. Both side:> rdtcd oo Graeco-Roman gram-· marians who in Eli-ade's t~'flllS 'claimed to be nbk to separate the mythologica1 excrescences from antique tllc:ological tex-ts' (.4fyth and Ri!ali(l'. p. 165}. In more recent times. E\'angdical groups have commonl)·emplo)'Cd the-same ratiooofistic m~'1hods in dcf~-nding tbc historiciJy ofthc Gospel acrotmts as th~·ir counterparts who hn\'Cargued for more-tbcologization of the Gospels. 63. EJiadc. Myiil ond Reolity. pp. 134-S.

HAnNA

The Historicizing Function ofScripture in Matthe·w 2

115

Alexandria (ca. 200 A.D.) charged (FGrHist 2 T 5) that "Eumelus [of Corinth) and Acusilaus [of Argos], the historiographers, turned Hesiod's poetry into prose and published it as if it were lheir ownH• and Josephus wrote that (FGrHist2 T 6) ·Hellanicus of Lesbos had corrected Acusilaus in the same way Acusilaus had corrected Hesiod' .64 Second, there is a body ofwriting known as Greek "sacred history ~ that shares some affinity with the historicizing of Matthew 2. though rarely discussed in Gospels research. These writings were local histories that focused on a specific cuh in a paliicular region or polis based on religious traditions (such as temple archives)or authorities (such as cult officials). That regional or popular histories were practised by poets even before HerodonLc; is often supported by appealing to Dionysius of Halicamassus' Drt Tlmcydide 5.1, which explicitly mentions local public traditions and myths on various topics preserved in secular and sacred archives.65 But the epigraphic rec.ord of the Hellenistic period is particularly rich with names ofregional historians \Vho engaged in this kind ofwriting.~6 (n a series ofsignificant articles. Hans-Joachim Gehrke, who defines this kind ofwriting as ' intentional history·. argues that dtC)' are combinations of histo1y and myth which retell a given group's understanding of the importance of its geographical location usually in c.onnection with the gods. In a sense they are legitimizations of group identity for purposes of honour. po\ver, prestige. recognition, and the like. Fo1·Gehrke. such self-categorizationshould be regarded as constituting the "mainstream tradition of Greek historiography'. The. relevant point that can be drawn from this kind ofhisto1y in comparison to the quotations in Matthew 2 is the corrobomting function ofpriestl)• written records. The Chronicle of Lindos. dating to 99 CE, is a particularly good example. Consisting of four sections - a decree which authorizes the inscription (section A), a series ofvotive.s to Athena Lindia (sections Band C), and a series of the goddess's epiphanies (section D) - the. Chronicle explicitly mentions a 1-eliance.on priestly letters, official acts, and authors of local histories. Dillery cites Text B. lines 1822, as a good representation:67 ·Minos. A silver drinking-cup. upon which was written: ..Minos to Athena Polias and Zeus Polieus; · as Xenagoras says in the.first book of his Chronological Composilion, Gorgon in the first book of his [Books} Concerning Rhodes, Gorgosthenes in his letter, [and] Hieroboulus in his letter.' T11e combination of the priest's letters, which appear to have. the same value as histories (despite their inclusions ofepiphanies) along with the literary histories

64. Fom:un. Th.:> ,l!,.ruture ofHis1my in Auciem Greece ami Rm1N!. p. 4. Italics nrc mine. On 1.hc btoud usc of the-clussKal poets in Roman literary onjstry. sec Sup hcn Hinds. Allusion u-nd lmerte:rt (Cambridge. UK: C-ambridge-Uni\'crsity Pres!:. 1998). 65. John Dillcry. 'Greek Sncrtd History'. .4merican Joumul ofPhilolog)ll16 (2005). 505- 7. 66. Sources are eolloct~-d in Anb•-c:los Chaniotis. llistorie u11d 1/i:.-toriJ:er ill d i!ll griec-hisdlt'll ln:.-d wiftm (Heidelberger :.Jthis.torisdx- Beitriige und cpigrophi~he Studicn 4: Stuttg-art: Su·incr Verlag Wicsbndcn. 1988). 67. Oilk ry ('G1eek Sacred Histor)". p. 51 5) rdies on the 1cx1 in Carolyn Higbie. TM l.indiu-n C!lnmic-lf! and J!le Gn1ek Creution q(Their Prul {Oxford: Oxford Uni\·ers.ity Press. 2003).

I I6

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

has been observed to be an important part of Hellenistic historiog:rnphy.611 For our purposes. the reinforcement of the prese.nt via appeals to religious archives preserved in the te-mples was a common me-thod in the legitimizing role oflocal histories. ln the absence of an ·o fficial' Scripture, the legitimizing role of religious archives seemed to have played a similar autlloritative role in defin ing their

identity, needs and aspirations within the power dynamics of their region. lfwe reduce the comparison to a simple statement, then like the Chronicle of Lindos, which is essentially a ' ''history of the temple" as seen through ''the history of its treasures'"/~ Matthew 2 is a history of Jesus' escape journey as seen through the history oflsrael"s sacred treasure. Scriptme. Since each is a historicizjng enterprise initiated by religious compilers who were pi'OfotUldly cult-centred, each in a sense can be called 'sacred histo1y'. There is no need~ however, lo push the genre question in the comparison since. according to Mikhail Bakhtin, this is a strntegy employed in a variety of literary genres that attempt to ac-hieve a semblance of reality by means ofa fusion between 1he te.mpoml sequences of an individuaJ life (time) and historical events or plotlines (space).ro Since myth is eschatological and all-encompassing, attempting to incorporate the totality of human expe.rience. its medium can only be symbol; and in this way it surpasses the ' litem I' function of ide.o logy in culrure. This view is broader than that of more recent mythologists. such as B1·uce Lincoln, who regard myth as an ideology in narrative fonu.11 f rye would have most likely incorporated tJlis notion into a wider realm of human consciousness. which seeks to bring ideologies into more eternal or transcendent perspective tJwough imagination and art the-real fomls of myth. Ideology, for f rye, is subordinated to myth; not the reverse. Mythology creates ideology. which in tum selects, adapts and applies myth in the formation of a social belief system. tvfyth in this context provides an identity and a shared knowledge proclaiming \Vhat must be known.n The belief is akin to adherence and obedience.• and is of\en reinfOrced by a power structure. Since ideology, according to Frye. is mono logical and exclusive~ it is vel)' guarded in permitting competing ideologies as dialogue partners. To restrict dialogue and hence challenges to existing ideologies is for Frye a centralizing tendency that is authoritative and aggressive. T1le mythological underpinnings become especially visible when an ideology is enforced or advanced in extreme ways.1l The b1·eaking with the dominant ideology also has political consequences at the instin1tional level. f\·lyth is potentially threate.ning to the. fo undations of societal strucnLre because it elicits new visions of reality. G. S. Kirk has well articulated 68. Dilkry. 'Greek &tcrcd History', p. 5 1 5~ J.·M. B::rtnlnd.lllst·riptimu Hiswrique.f Grffqllts (Paris: l cs Bd ks lttti'C$. 1992). pp. 25-6. 69. Dillcry. ' Gre-ek Sacrt:d History•. p. 518. 70. Mikhail M. Bakhtin. ' Forms ofTimcand Chronotyp:.i:n the Novel'. in The Dialogic !m«gino· lion (cd. M. Holquis1: trans. C. Eme-rson and M. Holquist Austin: Uni\·crsily ofTt);IIS Press. 1981). pp. IJ I-40. 2 16-17. 71. Bruce l incoln. Theorizing Myth: :Vmrutil~. ld~V>Iogy, cmdSt'ho/arship (Chic-ago: Univcrsily of Chtcago Press. 1999). 7'1. Frye. H'on/.1· with Power. p. 31. 73. Frye-. H'ords lt-ilh Power. pp.23--4.

HAnNA The Historicizing Function ofScripture in Matthe-w 2

117

how in the ancient wol'ld (particularly Mesopotamian culture) nature-gods developed into city-gods and in the process re-established the-natural and social orde1·. At its root is a quest ioningofthe relationship between nature and culture.iJ Development ofand/or dissension from instirurion frequently results in a new, perhaps synthesized, institution. Nascent Christianity fits well within the process of institutional separation and re.place.ment as it b1·oke from its Jewish moorings through a Christo logical he-rmeneutic ofScripture. Given the absence of dialogue. Matthew's entire story can be categorized as a legitimization of power. e\•en if it was originally directed against an oppressive group or inst itution. Certainly throughout the histo1y ofChristianity. Matthew has been utilized with relative ease for legitimizinganti-Semitic sentiment and even tl1e denigration ofJudaism. Mo1·e specifically. inch. 2, the use of tb mmla quotations transfom1s the story of Jesus' miraculous escape and re.turn into a historicized and geographically literalized accowlt which becomes frozen in time, mythically speaking. and as a result contributes to an emerging ideology that is legitimized in the face ofa compe-ting tbm1 ofJudaism. 3. Conclusion

My approach to understanding the function of Scripture in Matthew 2 from the perspective of comparative myth theory is certainly on the fringes ofcontemporary biblical stu dies~ and can be deemed experimental. Undoubtedly~ (expect some critic-ism that I have not inte1-acted sufficie-ntly with historical-Jesus critics of the nineteenth century along witl1 the many form critics and history-of-religions schools of the first half ofthe t\ve.ntieth cenrury, who readily incorporated ancient mythology in their studies ofeal'ly Christianity.a rvty preliminary response is that the aims are different today. The rationalist assumptions that bifurcated factual material (called •histo1y') and theological, or reason and faith, or object and subject, has reached an impasse in our poststmcturalist/postmodemist period. Gone is the era when Gennall fom1critics domin~lted the methodological discussion in the-.ir attempts to understand nascent Christianity and early compositional development, but what remains, and is ripe tbr the picking. is their encyclopaedic awareness ofthe religious context ofearl}' Christianity. One nee-d only to skim through the foo tnotes of Kittel and Friedrich's TDNT to get a glimpse of that breadth. Another foreseeable criticism is that I have not sufficiently interacted with the potentially influential stories in lhe Hebrew Scriptures and their early Jewish exegetical interpretations. Again. my preliminal)' response is that I have not atte.mpted to verit)r and trace the exact tradition that Matthew and/or his source used. Early Jewish traditions are c.ertainly vital for understanding nascent Christianity, but when it comes to the process ofmythmaking - from history to myth and back again - the Jewish religious tradition is not unique in the ancient world.

N. Kirk. My1b. p. 253.

75. On Manhew•s inrnncy namlivc. set-espec-ially the list or rcrcrences in Soares Pr..1bhu, The Formula Quoialions in Ihe' !11/ancy iVarroJ;I'f! ofMallllfM. pp. 1- IS.

I 18

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

T11e continuous assumptions in many cuJTent writings that the ·superiority' or rationality of the Bible supersedes pagan myth needs to be seriously questioned when process is at issue.i6 New Testament studies in 01)' estimation need to build on the wealth of ancient sources provided by our predecessors and view them in light of contemporary myth theories which attempt to understand religious language in more unified ways. moving beyond the theological/historical impasse. Part o f the cun-em problem is that the discipline of biblical studies (at least on the NT side) in general is ill infOrmed whe-n it comes to the broader field ofthe study ofreligion, especially the.nature of religious language. imagination and memory. Eric Csapo well speaks of the postmodem period in cautiously optimistic terms given its openness to incorporate and even synthesize what once were striclly independent method;;.17 T11is is the methodological awareness that I have also tried to conve}'· T11e usefulness ofapplying myth theol'y in general and Frye's phenomenology of myth in p~u1icular to t:he function of embedded Scripture texlo; and traditions certainly requires further discussion. but the success of an article or book that takes no risks is, in Frye's words, ·hardly wo11h achieving' .1S

76. Sec the criti ci~•ns in Michael

Fishb.'lnc~

Biblical .lt(rth and Rabbi1tic: A(tthmukillg (Oxford;

O:dord University Press. 2005), pp. 6- 21. 77. Eric Csapo.71t(>oril'.uifM>Yhology(Or.ford llnd Mllfdcn, ~iA: BlaclwdL 2005). pp. 296-301. 78. Frye-. H'ords lt-ith Power. p. uii.

8. PLOTTING J ESUS: CHARACT~RIZATION, IDENTITY AND T HE VOICE OF Goo IN MATrHEw's GosPEL

Michael P. Knowle-s I. lntroductiou In thosc-d.1ys. I wus the:. one: who came:. down from N!l:t.llrcth to be b.1ptir.cd by John in the: River Jordan. And the Gospel of Mnrk would dcda.re that on my immersion. the:. ht:a\'rnS opened and I snw ·a spirit liken dove: descending·. A might)· voice said. 'You arc:. My beloved Son in whom I :un wdl pk ascd'. Then the Spi1it dron:. me into the wlldcmcss. nnd I was there for forty days and was tc:mptc:d by Sutan. While I wouf.d not say that ~fark's Gospd is false:-. it hns nwc:hc:x.ngg(filtion. And I would offer less for ~fatthC\v. nnd for luke:. and John. who gave: me words I ncn:r uucred nnd dt$Cribcd m~· as gentle whc-.n I wns pnlc with rage:. Thc:.irwords wc:rc wrillc:n many )'t"ars aflcr I was gone and only rcp~-ot wh.11old men told thc:-m. Very old mcn.l

So begins Nom1an Maile.r 's The> Gospel According 10 the> Son. a novelistic account of Jesus' lite and ministry narrated through tJ1e eyes and voice of Jesus himself. Even while copying verbatim from all four Gospels~ Mailer supplies much that readers both ancient and modern have fOund lacking from the canonical acc.ounts: a single~ authoritative pe1·spective on the events of Jesus' life, a running description of his thoughts and emotions. and in particular a partial transcript of Jesus' ongoing inner dialogue with God. As Mailer tells it, a growing sense ofself-awan~ness. emerging out of persistent doubt, ambiguity and uncertainty. provides the unifying narrative thread around which the plot and purpose of Jesus· ministry develop. As might be expected ofa Jewish ?\•lessiah, Mailer's Jesus reflects at le-ngth on the meaning oflsrael's sacred texts. Sometimes God spe.aks to him directly: more frequently. however, the words of Scripture become. personal words of divine instruction and admonition. As noted above, Mailer begins his wol'k by c.iting the flrstofo nly three audible divine voices reported in the Gospels (Mk 1.11 par.: cf. Mk 9.7 par., Jn 12.28). A few chapters later, ho\VC\•er, the novelist provides a mo1·e revealing accotult of Jesus· baptismal experience: I heard a \'Oicc. and i1came from the.hrnn:ns. ll came in1o my car nnd ~'lid: 'Before I forrncd thi."C In l.hc btU)'. I knew thee· . •. I n iscd m)' fnceto the h~'a\'crlS nnd said. 'lord God. I urn like a child.' I.

Norman Mailer. TheG(}spel According to lhe Sou(Ncw York: Random House, 1997). pp. J-4.

120

Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels And lhc:. Lord spoke 11s l·k hsd to the propbcl Jc:rcmi.ah. I heard: ·soy nol .. l nm a ohild". for you shall go lo all the places thnt I shall send thoc.•2

Even more explicit is this paraphrase of Ezek. 2.2-4, sel immediately followi ng the baptism: He said: 'S!and upon )oot feet•. Whtn I did. He told me: 'Once I spoke to the proph~1 Eze-kiel and he snvcd our pooplc in Babylon. Now these words given to Eukicl arc: for yot.: ··son of Man. I s¢nd thee to l.hc children of lsrnc.l. to a nalion that hath rebelled ag.uinst Me. even unto this \'~~t)·day. For they arc impudent <:hild:ren nnd stiff-hearted. Bul you wiUspc-nk Mywocck unto them•.."' ..l

Particularly as Jesus fasts in the wilderness, the words and experiences ofGod's prio1· servants become his own, shaping his sense of identity: Th~· prophets we-re ofl
As the narrative progresses and Jesus' sense of himself grows more sure. howevet·, the voice of God comes to him less frequently. As in the canonical Gospels, Jesus increasingly applies the words of the sacred text to himself and his circumstances. 11\us, when overturning the tables in the Temple courtyard, Mailer's Jesus paraphrases not only Isa. 56.7 with Jer. 7. 11 - 'My house shall be known before all nations as a house of prayet·. Whet·eas you are men of Mammon and have made it a den of thieves' - but Isa. 28.8 as well: ' These tables arc a pool of vomit. In suc-h tilth, nothing is clean! ·s Indeed. he be.comes ever more certain that his own voice is the voice of God: · t could hear the voiceofthe lord coming forth from me. without errant thoughts of my own.' 6 Yet Mailer's reliance on canonical texts both fm his narrative depiction of Jesus and to record Jesus' interior perception of the divine voice represents no concession to conventional piety. for the author is elsewhere not shy ofdive.rg.ing from orthodoxy. Rather.l\
6.

Mailc:r. According to tile Stm. pp. 1 67~ d. pp. 169. 173. 204. ctc.

K NOWLES

Characterization, Identity om/ the Voice> of God

12 1

motifs. together with allusions to and direct quotations from the sacred texts o f Israel. i 2. Afallhew's 1\1ain Character: Invisible but No/ Silenl

Approached from a literary-critical pe1·spective, the Gospel o fMatthew presents its readers (and modern readers in particular}with a curious conundrum. At least on first reading. God - the prime mover and agent behind the Gospel narrative and therefore, arguably, its main character11 - is invisible and mostly silent. Not only does God have no more. than a single line of direct discourse in the entire Gospel (a mere ten words of Greek). bm the same line is repeated twice: 'This is my Son, the Beloved. with whom lam well pleased. [Listen to him!)' (Mt. 3.17, 17.5; echoing Ps. 2.7 and Js.a.42.1 ).9 Given the Evangelist's conviction that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and ·son o fGod', this seems somewhat less than might be expected. CertainI}' Matthew reports that Jesus addresse..~; his heavenly Father directly, and e.noourages his tO!lowe-rs to do the same (6.9-13; 1 1 .25-26~ 26.39. 42: 27.46). Andce11ainly - as Mailer is aware - God seems to have spoken both directly and frequently to the prophets of old. Where, then, is God's voice to be found throughout the remainder of rvtatthew's Gospel'? Although the p1'0cess untblds far Jess smoothly or sequentially than in Mailer's more recent imitation. Manhew depicts an invisible divine speaker who in the course of the Gospel narrathre prefers to speak indirectly- initially via Scripture - doing so in order uhimately to transfer his voice and authority into the mouth of Jesus himself. Whether by means of this gradual appropriation or by downplaying other voices that might detract from Jesus' own, the narrative focuses increasingly on the identity and verbal authority of the Messiah. A. The Voices of.-lngcls aud 1/Je Voice of Scriplure T11e first voices sin1ated so as not to conHict with that of Jesus are those of the Matthean ange.ls (in both Gre.e-k and Hebrew. literally, ·messe-ngers'). Angels are prominent throughout this Gospel. both as characters refe1·red to in discourse and. in five instances, as participants in the narrative itself. But they speak only when Jesus is physically absent from the action. Lest there be any confusion as to the 7. For a c-Oncise: inLroduction to the: cor~cpt and \•ocubular)' of inlc-rtc::ttualit)'. and iL<> various c:tpressions in Matlhcw. see Ulric.h Lw.. ·fntcrtc:tts in Lhc: Gospd of Matthew', HTR 97:2 (2004). 119- 37. Tht- fotm
122

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

d ivine origin of these messengers. Matthew specifies in each case that it is an 'angel ofthe Lord [ayy£AO) Kuploo)' who tells Joseph in a dream to take Mmy as his wife ( 1.20, cf. 24). to flee to Egypt with his f.'mily (2.13), and to t'etum home following the.death of Herod (2. 19-20). Again. it is ·an angel ofthe Lord. descending from heaven' who explains to the women why the re-su1·rected Jesus is no longer in his tomb (28.2-7). By contrast. when present wilh Jesus the anqels ministe~ in silence, their divine origin unmenlioned (so Mt. 4.11, Ko:l iOOU O.yy£~01 rrpooilAfkv; par. Mk 1.1 3). Given the evident authority of angelic- voices in this Gospel - indi£ated botl~ lD' Joseph's consislent obedie-nce and especially by the emphatic i6ou £lrrov U~nv of 28.7- such comparalive silence efl'eclively (if indireclly} acknowledges the authority of Jeswi' own voice. That Matthew intends such a relali\•ization of angelic voices emerges more clearl}• from closer study of the texts that report them, at least in his first two chapters. Specifically. each angelic annotulce1uent in the int:1.ncy narratives is followed immediately by a citation of Scripture that focuses more directly on Jesus and provides a more definitive interp1·etation of the. reponed events. The angel's first appearance to Joseph. fo1·example, inC-ludes an explanation of Jesus' origin, name and purpose: ' the child conceived in her is from the Hoi}•Spirit. She will bear a son. and you are to name him Je.sus, for he will save his people from their sins' ( 1.20-21). But the angelic aJmouncement, momentous a.<.; it is, is inunediately overshadowed by the ensuing editorial comment: 'All this took place to fulfil what had been spoken by the l ord through the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel". whic.h means, "God is with us" (Mt. 1.22-23; citing LXX lsa. 7.14, 8.8). The visitation and voice of the heavenly messenger are thus ullimately subsen•ie-nt to the voice of the prophet. in its own decisive affim1ation of Jesus' ide-ntity. A similar patte1·n is evident with subsequent angelophanies. An angel commands Joseph to depart for Egypt and remain there until the death of the tyl'ant. But this sequence of events is already foreseen by Scripture: ·This was tofulfill what had been spoken by the lord through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son'" (2. 15: citing Hos. 11.1). In due course Joseph is instructed, not to leave his place-.ofexile specifically, but rather to ·go 10 the land oflsmel' (2.20). Vet this too takes place only 'so Ihal what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, " He will be called a Nazorean'" (2.23). However enigmatic the latte1·reference has proven and however elusive its source, its intended authority is unmistakable. The voice of Scriptme thus takes precedenc-e for f!.·tatthew over the voices of angels. True, they are ' messenge1'S t?_{the Lord' . O:yy£Ao1Toli Kl.lpiou, bU1 so likewise in 1.22 and 2.15 the Evange-list describes the "!OfdS?f~cripture. f!S 'wh~t ha~ been spoken by the Lord throngh the prophet' . TO p1]9£v urro KUptou 5ta TOU rrpo
K NOWLES

Characterization, Identity om/ the Voice> of God

123

to pn~v (o pn9£1s] lita toG rrpoqn\tou in 2. 17, 23; 3.3; 4.14: 8. 17; 12. 17; 13.35; 21.4; 27.9: c f. 2.5). To this point we h;we seen, first, that the Gospel of Matthew relativizes voices whose own, more evidently divine origin might odlerwise appear to challenge the voice of Jesus; second. that the author of Scripture is ideJHified as kllptO), "l ord'; and, third, that even where this title does not appear, rvtatthew's c itation fonnulae point to the divine author and mover be.hind the words of the prophets. Now we tum to examine furthe-r narrative strategies that set forth Jesus' affi nnation and appropriation o f Scripture. as he (and !vlaUhew with him) begins to make the voice of God in Scripture his own.

B. The Voice ofJems and the Voice oft he Lord Where rvtatthew identifies ' the Lord' as the source of propheric i nspiration~ Jesus specifies more clearly that Scripture represents the actual voice of God. Thus. for instance-, he 1-eplies to the tempter, ·Jt is written, ..One does not Jive by bread alone, but by every WOJ'd that comes from the mouth qj'God" (l\·11. 4.4}. From a redaction-critical perspective. it is worth noting that the critica l apodosis like ly did not originate with Q. 1osuggesting that such an a ffinnation ofdivine speech is significant fo1· Matdlew. Read as part ofa canonical corpus. the quotation of LXX Deut. 8.3 amounts to a scriptural validation of Scripture's own authority: Jesus thus a tlirms what Scripture affirms about itse-l t: Similarly in debate with the Phal'isees and scribes, Jesus declares, ·For God said, ''Honour your fllther and your mother", aJld, ..Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die'" ( ML 15.4; cf. 15.6: ' You make void Ihe word ofGod'). Again in 22.3 1-32~ he rebuts certain Sadducees with a pointed question: ·Have you not read what was said to vou by God, " I a m the God of Abroltam, [etc.]"'. Here Jesus' words c losely echo ·th,e formula of 1.22. 2. 15. and subsequent iterations: rOPn9£vUrrOKupiou . . . Ae:yovTOS. Matthew. it would appear: bases the language of his fulfilment fonnulae - his a ffim1.ation o f the voice ofGod in Scripture - on the language of Jesus. Parenthetically, the theological solipsism of th is parallel is striking: Jesus affirms that Scripture directly represents the voice of God, while Matthew employs the language ofJesus to a ffirm his messianic fulfilment of the Scriptures that point to him. We will retum later to consider the narrative and theological signific-.ance o f this merging of perspectives. Resuming our considera tion of specific nalTative strategies, Jesus' challenge, ' Have you not read . . . (o\ncc:iv€yvwn.]'. appears a total of six time-s in this Gospel (cf. 12.3. 5; 19.4; 21 .1 6. 42). in each instance both assuming and affi nning the primacy of Scripture. This is likewise the impo1t ofthe formula Jesus first uses in Mt. 4.4: yiypcmt<:u, ' it is written· (also Mt. 4.7, 10; I I. I0, 26.31: cf. 26.24). His high view of Scripture is particulal'ly e\•idem in 11.10 (par. f'.,tk 1.2) where lhe combined citation oftwo quite.distinct passages, Exod. 23.20 and Mal. 3.1. implies that the whole ofdte biblical text speaks with a single, authoritative voice. 11 10. So O$ies and Allison. Tlw GoJpel According 10 Saim Malllww. vol.l p. 363: cf. luke ~.4. II. On Mauh.:w's usc of such fotmulae. see furthtt Michnd P. Knowl"!!s, 'Scripeurc. History.

124

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

In one se.nse, Jesus' high C$timation ofScripture is ofitselfhardly t'cmarkable: notwithstanding the relative fluidity and variety of biblical texts at this period,12 his view would have been shared by the majority o f Jews in the Second Temple ern. But the same cannot be said for the way in which Jesus i nterpret.~> the sacred text as re tbrring to himself. So. tb rexample. Jesus uses the language offulfi lment to account for his enigmatic use of parables (Mt. 13.13- 14 ): The reason I spe!lk to them in parables is thnt ·seeing tbty do 001 pcrociw. and hearing they do not l istcn. nor dotbcyund~TStand'. With dtt<mindeed is fulfilled L«volT).qpOOTal) tile prophc'y of lsninh that snys: ·you will indocd listen, but nc.vcr un
According to Matthew's formulation of this passage, Je.~us cites and adapts the text o flsa. 6.9-10, both \Vith and without explicit notice tha1 he is drawing on the words of the prophet (cf. Mt. 15.7-8. ' Isaiah prophesied rightly . . .', c iting lsa. 29.1 3). Jesus· self-re ferential intet·pretation o f Scripture intensifies as the climax of his ministry approaches. A number of the interpretative strategies reviewed thus far e merge clearly in Matthew's account of Jesus' entJy into the sacred precincts: Then Jesus mte:rOO the temple and drove out all who were sd ling and buying in the temple. and he ovenumod the: tables of lhc money changers and the SCllts of those who sold doves. He snid to them. •Jt is ll'rill~ll•..My house shall be called a house of pmycr"': but you arc mnking it "a den of robbers.... The: blind and the lam~· came to him in the. temple. and he: eurOO them. But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the: amnzing thinp that he did. ond heard the children crying out in the tempk. · 1~ cmmnn to the Son of Oavid'.thcy bocame nngry and $lid to him. 'Do you hear wllllt these-are sa)·ing?' lc:$US snid to them. · ves~hal'(l.r-ofltk'\'erreud. -out of the mouths of infants and nursing babies you 113\'C prepared prnise for yourself{t::aTf)pTio(.J a.,tvov)"?' (Mt. 21.11-16)

In his initial declaration, Jesus in effect arbitl'ates between t\vo alternative descl'iptions of the Temple: the fit·st fi'Om Isa. 56.7 and the second from Jer. 7 .II . Notwithslanding the authority of the fOrmer (i.e .. ' it is written .. .'). Jesus proclaims the greater accuracy ofthe latter in light of the situation at hand. Then in the second half ofthe passage - unique to Matthew - Jesus applies a furthet· text to himself. Here the reflexive or middle voice of the verb KO:Taprl~ttV, from LXX Ps. 8.3, is all-imponant For by means o f it Jesus allows that the children's praise of him is the praise that God inspires for himself. That is to say: ( I) Jesus explains the true meaning of the sacred text in relation to contemporary event~; (2) he explains it as a ret'Ct·ence to himself; and (3) he implies that, according to Scripture, such praise identifies him with God. f\·fatthew's depiclion of Jesus citing Scripture is not merely polemical or apologetic, bul specifically Christological: it

Messiah: ScriptumI Ful6lment and the: FullMss of Time in M.tJtthcw·s Gospd'. in Stunk y E. l>one:r (ed.).J.Iroring the Old TeJtamem in the New TeJiamtmi (Gr.!nd Rapids: Eerd.mans. 2006). pp. 59- 82 (62- 6).

12. Sc:c:. th~· summarydiSCllS$Km by Ri,hard B~ton. f.faialt :f Texl ill Matt!J{?l\' 's Go.\pe/(SNTSMS. 113; Cambridge. UK: Cambridg~. Uni\·ersity. 1003). pp. 52--6.

K NOWLES

Characterization, Identity om/ the Voice> of God

125

designates Jesus as the authoritative interpreter oflsrael's Scriptures, of contemporary events, and. more to the point, of his own identity and significance. Even more obviously self-referential- given that it concerns the.identity of the Messiah - is his interpretation of Ps. 110. 1: Now while- the Pharisc~~ \VC-I'C gathered together. ksus asl:OO the-m this question: 'What do you think of the-Messiah? Whose son is hcT They said to him. ·The son of Oa\'id.' He said to them. '1-low is i1the-n that David b)' the Spirit calls him Lord. soying. - The. Lord !';1id to my Lord (El n:v 1<\ipto:i ;t:) Kupit.;t uou}. ·sit at my right hund, until I put your enemit'$ under ym•r feet.,..! If Oa\'id thus c-nJis him Lord. how can he be his -son'?' (Mt. !2.41-45)

According to Matthew, Jesus himself initiates this exchange~ refuting the views o f his rivals, and interpreting the text to mean that David, inspired by the Spirit of God. testifie.s to the true identity of the f\·tessiah. By way of background to this episode, \Ve recall once more that in two of its earliest appearances in this Gospel, the title .Uptos refers to God as the author of Scripture (1 .22, 2.1 5), and thai throughout Matthew's narrative this ttm n frequently refers to God.n Conversely, the citation oflsa. 40.3 in Mt. 3.3 1 ' Prepare the way of the Lord' . clearly implies that Jesus himself is the "Lord' to whom the prophet refers, insofar as John the Baptist prepares the wa}' fo1· Jesus within the narrative sequence of Matthew's account. For all its boldness1 this is equally the significance ofJesus' implicit selfreference in hi.s refutation of the tempter: ·Again it is written, ··Do not put the lord your God to the test"' (Mt. 4. 7. citing Deut. 6. 16). Most c learly of all. Jesus' c itation ofPs. 110.1 indicates that there is not one ' lord' but two: ·The Lo1·d said to my Lo1·d'. In his classic discussion of !
126

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

more momentous - given that it seals his fate before the-High Priest and Sanhedrin- is his appropriation of Ps. 110.1 and Dan. 7. 13: 'From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven• (tvh. 26.64), or his cry of dereliction from the cross, by which he applies Ps. 22.2 to himself: 'My God, my God. whyhaveyou forsaken me?' (Mt. 27.46). Pa11icularly at the beginning ofMatthew·s GospeL freque-nt fomlUia citations indicate various as.pects o f Jesus' origins and personal history to be in fulfilment of scriptural expectation. In the unfolding chronology of Jesus' life, Matthew prompt-; Scripture to speak of and for Jesus either before Jesus is able to speak for h hnselt~ or before his authority has been fully established. By the time the Gospel narrative reaches its climax, however, fulfilment citations in the fonn of editol'ial assertions or narrative ·asides' are infrequent (21 .4-5: 27.9- JO). But that is because Jesus himselfhas largely taken over the method and language ofscripturnl fulfilment. both in gcnernl tenus (so 26.54. 56). and with respect to the particular text,o; indicated above. While similarities of language imply that Matthew has derived his scriptural hermeneutic from Jesus, by the end of the Gospel Jesus himself is its ~re-emi nent practitioner. With or without the use of formulaic language (ooKioooe rron a veyvc.:>n , yeyparrt <X<, avo:rrA~poiitat, !!A~pc.:>9<.JoSince the content of these sections is not unifomll}' didactic. and

K NOWLES

Characterization, Identity om/ the Voice> of God

127

emphasizing a five tbld division leaves out of consideration the aH-impo11ant infancy and Passion narratives. scholars are typically reluctaJlt to speak of a Matthean ' New Torah·. Nonethele~~. it seems likely that the Evangelist seeks to present Jesus· teaching in a generally pentateuchal shapc.lt. implying that he has authority akin to that of Moses to articulate the voice and will of God. Jesw;· authority is particularly evident in the first such section, the Sem1on on the f\·1ount. Toward the beginning ofthis discourse. Jesus declares, ·Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets: I have come not to abolish but to fulfil [rrAnpc.locu]' (M1. 5.17). But whereas(as we have seen already) both Matthew and Jesus consistentI}' affirm ' that which was said' by God through the prophe-ts, Jesus repeatedly contradicts the words o f the Torah. the teaching o f Moses: ' You have heard that it was said . . . But I say to you'.li In all six instances, the force of Jesus· words is conveyed by an emphatic personal pronoun and advorsative: £y<.) o£ }.i yw u~iv (cl' 19.7-9). Elsewhere Jesus confim\S the Torah to be the very voice and word of God (4.4; 15.4-6; 22.3 1), eve-n counselling obedience to Moses· teaching (8.4). Yet on the Mount ofTransfiguration. Moses' subordination to Jesus - implied ah·eady in the Sennon on the Mount - is explicitly depicted. Appearing in visionary tb rm, Moses and Elijah are said to speak with Jesw; (17.3). Yet for readers and hearers o fthis Gospel. tl1ey remain silent: Matthew does not report the substance oftheirconversation. l\nd whereas in the past God is known to have spoken with both Moses and Elijah. here God addresses Jesus alone, in the most intimate and affinning ofte.rms: ' This is my Son. the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased' (1 7.5}. Rec-alling the revelation at Sinai, God speaks from a cloud (as in Exod. 24.1 6),111 fulfilling in the person o f Jesus Moses' proph£CYof one like himselfyet to come. In particular, the imperative ch:oUn e aUtou echoes Deut. 17.5, 'The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet [LXX auToU aKooowlle)'. Whereas Moses 0\\11 words do not imply the superiority of this future prophet God's emphatic ' Listen to him! ' clearl}' indicates that the voice of Jesus c-arries mot·e \Veight than those of either Moses or Elijah. Het·e, then. is a clear narrative exposition of Jesus' authot·ity, as one greater than Temple ( I2.6), prophet<( 12.41 ), wise.men (12.42), and even Mooes himself" timv To'i5 po6nT«i5 ooh oU) with LXX Deut. 3 1 .2~·25: ~v1Ko:6i ouvrrU.Eotv ~~5 yp0:¢1wv ncivTo5 ToUs M yovs TOU v6s,tou -roVTou ... rol iVf:n iAo:ro To\s tuulToS ••. Mywv ... 16. So. <.g.• luz. 'lntcnexts in the Gospel or Matth!."\v•. p. 129. I 7. So ML 5.11·22 (citing Exod. 20.13. IXut. 5.17: Exocl. 2 1.12. nnd ultirn,,tdydcconstruc:tsthc ch."!mctcrofPctcr. C\ 'CO though he is first among the aposdes.. so as to point beyond him to the: unsubstitutnble-authority of Jesus.

cr.

128

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

The parallel processes ofappropriation and t•elativization reach a high point in Jesus' conflict with the "scribe-s and Pharisees' . who as contemporaries ofMatthew and his community offe r tJle most significant rival claim to divine authority.20 On the one hand Jesus rebuts specific points of interpretation and t•cligious practice (e.g. 12.1-8: 15.1-14). Yet his criticism applies to particular details rather than to their teaching in principle, which he in fact affirms, instructing his hearers~ ' Do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach' (Mt. 23.3) . Even so, the relativization o f Moses' own teaching applies even more cle-arly to those who. he says. ;occupy the seat of Moses' . .A.s a command directed both 'to the crowds and to his disciple-s', neither they not· the 'scribes and Pharisees' are to be designated 'rabbi' or 'teacher' (23.12). ·For you have one teacher [Ot6cim::aAO))'. Jesus e.xplains, and ·one instructor, the Messiah' (Ka9t)yt)nl5 u~6>v EOTIV ils 0 XptorO,: 23.8, I 0). With this statement, since the audience has from the opening sentence known the nat·rati\•e as a whole to be Mattltew·s BI~AO> yevioews 'h)OoU XotOToU. the transfer of authority to Jesus - and Jesus alone - is unmistakable and complete. Where, then. is the voice of God to be heard in Matthew·s Gospel? It is conveyed in the first instance by angelic messengers, but more definitively by the prophets of old, with Moses. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea, rvtic.ah, Zechariah and King David prominent among them. Yet previous or competing voices are e ithet· sile-nced or subordinated to that of Jesus. while the voice of God in Scripture gradua lly merges with Jesus' own. both in the-course of the t\·fessiah 's authol'itath•e exposition of sacred texts. and by virtue o f the fuc.t that Jesus, like.God, is acclaimed as t::Up!O) - in more than one instance as an interpretation of Scripture itself (so 3.3; 4.7; 21.16; and 22.43-45). Given that ·God's point of view !u nctions as the norm tOt· the world o f this Gospel. by which all events are evaluated ' ,11 this convergence of perspectives is of primal)' Christo logical significance for Matthew. At Jesus' baptism and on the Mount of Transfiguration in particular. the audible voice of God follows the same strategy we have seen both Matthew and the Messiah employ, applying to Jesus the divine voice recorded in Scripture and thereby reite.rating that his authority is equivalent to God's own. As to the purpose and intended effect o f this merging of voices. f\·1atthew as narrator and implicit disciple concurs with Jesus in identifying him as God's Son, conveying to the hearer/re-ader God's own point of view in this matter and thereby inviting the audience to adopt in tum the perspective of believing d i sc i p les. ~ 20. Note that. within this narrati\'c. ·scribes a1ld

Pha.risc~-s·

collccti\·d y

tcprcs~"tl l

those who

oppose ksus on religious grounds: sec further Dnvid R. Bauer. 'The MnjorCh111nelcrs of:O.fatthcw's Story: Their Function and Signilknnoc'. f nJ. 46 ( 1992). 35i-67 (364-7). 21. Warren C111tcr. 'NmTntivcll itcrary Approaches to Manhean Theology: The " Reign of the Heavens'' as an E:tnmplc: (Mt 4 .1 7-5.12}'. JSNT 67 ( 1997). 3-17 ( 19- 20): similarly. Mark Allan Powell. ·r hc: Plot and Subplo ts of Mau hcw's Gospel•. NTS 38 ( tm). 187- 104 ( 199). 21. So Jack Ocun Kingsbury. 'Tbc Significance: of the: Earthly Jesus in lhc Gospel of Matthew'. E.vAud 14 ( 199&). 59-65 (61. 65): similarly. Andrie-s G. \'all Anrdc. ·111c First Tcshlmcnt in the Gospel of Matthew'. fll'TSi 53 ( 1997}. 126-45 ( 129-30).

KNOWLES

Characterization, Identity om/ the Voice> of God

129

Although the process appears far less orderly Ol' incrementa I than in Norman Mailer's version ofevents. the Gospel narrative clearly recounts Jesus' identification, appropriation and inte.riorization of divine authority. an authol'ity that not only points to him. but ultimately becomes his own. For rvtatthew. the voice of the lord God in Scripture testifies that Jesus is greater and more authoritative than any previous messenger in the history of IsraeL As a character aJld participant in Matthew 's narrative, God remains largely out of sight> as seems only proper. But because of Jesus God is, in the last analysis, far from silent In this account> the chal'acters ·God' and ' Jesus' are mutually referential: just as the character and identity of Jesus come into focus primarily as his rela6on to God is clarified. so God steps into the narrative- emerges as an active-characte-r - almost exclusively as God authorizes, identifies and c.haracterizes Jesw; in relation to himself. 3. New Voices: Spirit, Apostles. C!Jurclt

Thus far we have contended that the voice of God (whether by way of cloud. angels. or the prophets of old), the voice of Jesus (in both his self-referential appropriation of Scriptul'e ru1d his 1-ecasting of the Torah), and the voice of Matthew (via the evangelist's narrative shaping and use of fulfilment citations) all ascribe divine authority to the Messiah. All c.oncur in their Christoce.ntric reading of Israel's sacred scriptures. In this specitlc sense, although in diftC.ring degrees and only from within the perspective.of the narrative itself. aJI three articulate.the ·voice of God'. In fact. the same may be said of the apostles. and arguably of the Chlll'ch as a whole. To see how this is so requires a brief review of the consistent theological parallels that Matthew establishes between Jesus> John the Baptist, and lhe earliest disciples. Just as Jesus begins his minisny with the words, 'Repent, tOr the kingdom of heaven has come near' (4. J7). so he subsequently instructs the Twelve tbr the.ir O\VIl mission. ;Proclaim the good news, ..TI1e kingdonl of heaven has come near... (Mt. 10.7). Indeed. he says. their ministry will closely resemble Jesus· own: 'CUI·e the.sick, raise the dea~ cleanse the lepers, cast out demons' (I 0.8). Yet within the confines of the text, these are not actions that we see the Twelve actually carrying out if they are to be accomplished at all. these will be the responsibility of postnarrative disciples. In any event the Twelve, like Jesus, are sent only ' to the lost sheep of the house oflsmer ( 10.5: 15.24).just as they too will be persecuted and rejected for their trouble (5. 11 ; I 0. 17-25), even to the point of being crucified or killed ( I 0.38-39; 16.24-25; 23.34: 24.9). John the Baptist. whom Jesus identifies as a prophet in his own right. is the first to suffer such a fiue. ( 11.1 1-13: 17.1213). In thL'> latter respect the disciples resemble not only Jesus, likewise a rejected prophet (so 13.57; 23.37), but also the prophets of old (5.1 2). Thus there are. fundamental similarities of mission and experience between John. Jesus and Jesus· disciples. But a IUrthersignificant parallel concerns the role of the Holy Spirit in inspiring and expressing the words of God through human servants, an issue of particular relevance tOr those ofhis emissaries whom Jesus

130

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

identifies as prophets (23.34). Jesus' conception, says rvtatthew, is the-v.:ork of the Holy Spiril (1. 18, 20); the voice of God at Jesus' baptism accompanies the descent of the Spirit upon him (3.16-17); and the Spirit leads him in preparation for public minisuy (4. 1). In a passage with close verbal resemblances to the audible.divine words at Jesus' baptism and Transfiguration. Matthew dec.lares that Jesus' ministty is in fulfihnent ofthe prophecy of lsa. 42. 1: 'Here is m.y servant, whom r have chosen, Ill)' beloved. with whom my soul is well please.d. I h'ill put "~V Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Ge.ntiles' (Mt. 12.18; cf. 12.28). 1f Jesus· ministry is inspit•ed by the Holy Spirit. so too, he says. is that of his disciple.s. particularly so when it comes to the matte-r of faithful testimony amidst persecution: Yotl will be dragged before governors and kings b~-couse ofmc.os a testimony to them and the Gentiles. When they hand you O\'Cl'. do not worry about how you are to speak or what you arc to say; for what you are to say will be-given toyotl at that time.: for it is 001 you who spc:.:~k. but 1he Spirit ofyour Fmher Jpt"akillg thnmg!l you. (MI. 10.18-20)

That is, just as Jesus calls God ·Father' ( 11.25-26; 26.39, 42) and bids his disciples do the same (6.9; 23.39), so he promise.s that his followers' faithful testimony will, by virtue of God's Spirit. express the voice of their heavenly Fathet·. For whom is this assurance intended'? Even as the voice that declares,· Listen to him!' is addressed as much if not more to Matthew's church than to the three sleepy apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration. so this promise is directed ultimately to those of the. Evangelist's da}' as they encounter the persecution Jesus foretold. Both in the suffering they face and as to the privilege ofspeaking words inspired by God. says Jesus. ·It is enough for the disciple to be like the te~chet·, and the slave like the master (o .UptO) O:UTOu]' (Mt. 10.25). With this assurance, the voice ofGod portrayed in Matthew's narrative finds its final mode ofexpression, allowing us to link the words from ancient texts and contemporary theophanies~ from prophe.ts old and new- John the Baptist, Jesus, his apostles, and members ofMatthew·s church among them- in a single (ifhierarchical) line of divine authorship and inspiration. Within the narrative world ofMatthew·s Gospel, this linkage is all-important. For it permits us to see the conclusion of t:he narrative in a distinctive light. as Jesus sets the agenda for the Church of a later day. Matthew's repeated emphasis on God's prior use ofhum.an messengers has prepared the way, in the narrative, for the Evangelist's audience to hear the voice of God first via the human agent Jesus and now via the human proclaimers of the Gospel envisaged at the conclusion of his account: Jesus came nnd sujd lo the-nt.. ·All ttuthorit)' in hc.wen and on earth httS btlCn given lome. Go therefore and make d i~iples ofall nations. baptizing them in the name of the Fnther and of the Son and of the-t~ ol y Spirit. ond teac-hing them to obq e.verything thut l h.wc commanded rou. And r~·m~·•nbc--r. I am with you ttl wt~ys. to the end of the. age..> (Mt. 28. t&-20}

Here neither the abiding presence nor the enduring authority of Jesus are consequenl solely upon his resun·eclion. Rather. as Reese obsen•es. the linked themes

KNOWLES

Characterization, Identity om/ the Voice> of God

13 1

ofdivine presence and divine authority, evident throughout this Gospel, come to nai'I'
23. J. M. R~-.cst . 'How Mn!thew Portrays the Communication of Cluist's Authority'. BTB 7 ( 1977).139-44("1). 24. So van Aarde. 'First Testament>. passim. 25. W. VOJstcr. ·n.e Function of the. Useofthl!'-Oid Testnmml in Matk'.Neot 14 (1981). 62- 72 (70). cited by vun Aorde. 'First Teslttment'. p. 132.

132

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels 4. Ajlerword

In The Gospel According 10 1/Je Son, the heavenly voice at Jesus· baptism speaks to him alone; on the Mount ofTransfiguration, the three apostles see and hear nothing.16 And by the end of the sto1y, Mailer"s Jesus laments, 'tvly Father . . . does not of\en speak to me. Nonetheless. I honor Him. Surely He sends forth as much Jove as He can offer; but His Jove is not without limit •!? Although lhis modem Jesus expresses a plaintive hope that love will prevail~ by the end o f the story the voice of God falls silent. Written in and tOr a sceptical age. Mailer"s narrative proposes, in et1"'ect theological defeat. By contrast, the shaping and conclusion of Mtltlltew's narrative- particularly in terms of characte1· development and the voice of God - testify eloquently to the depth of conviction from which it arose.~ thereby accounting for the.depth of c.onviction to w·hich it has given rise in tum.

26. Mailer. Accordi1rg to lite S011. pp. 34. 128-9. 27. Mai lcr.At~ordingtoJ!teSm•.p. 240.

9. TH E K ING AS SHEPHe RD: THE Ro L E oF D EUTERo -ZECHARIAH IN M AHHEW

John Nolland The concentration ofquotations and definite allusions to Zechariah in Matthew is in chs 21- 27. There are three quotations: Zech. 9.9 is used in Mt. 21.5 (a royal figure approaching Jemsalem in humility}; Zech. 13.7 is used in Mt. 26.31 (the shepherd struck down and the sheep scattered); and Zec.ll. I 1.12- 13 is used in Mt. 27.9-10 (thirty pieces of silver used to procure the potter's field). The fir.;t and the third of these have.generated a series of allusions within their immediate contexts. To these is to be added a larger list of certain or likely allusions. The casting o f the mountain into the sea ofM t 21.21 is likely to have links with Zech. 14.4. There is a definite allusion to Zech. 12.12 in Mt. 24.30 (all the tribes of the earth will mourn). The trumpet blast of Mt 24.31 may \Veil owe something to Zech. 9. 14. ' Blood of the covenam' in Mt. 26.28 evokes Ex. 24.8, but probably also Zech. 9.1 1. The reference in Mt. 27.52 to 'the holy ones' is likely to be indebted to Zech. 14.5. which may be echoed again in Mt 27.53 ("entered into the holy city').' Earlie1·in the Gospel it is likely that an allusion to Z-ech. 11.16 has been woven into rvtt. 15.30-31 in the description ofthe he.aling actions o f Jesus. [f this is so. it make$ it more likely that Zech. 10.2 is the main text that stands behind 'sheep without a shepherd' in Mt. 9.36.2 The aim ofthis chapter is to explore the role of Deutero-Zechariah (i.e. ch.'li 914) in the Gospel of f\·farthew. What is the function of these quotations and allusions'? (s the1'e any coherence in how these texts are used? My thesis is that most of the quotations and allusions from Deutero-Zechariah are to be understood as I. Contmsl P. Fos.ter, 'The Uscof Zcoharinh in Matthc:.w's Gospd'. inC.Tuc:h1t(ed.). The &oJ;. oflechuriohond lis brfluence (Aider.ohot: Asbgate. 2003). pp. 65-85. who onf)' finds an allusion in

Mt. 24.30 - cwn then oot one that came to Manhew from Zechariah. ( ~l owc\'er. I share FOSlc:or'ssccp· licism about most of the. su~'(stcd allusions he reviews - I want to rescue two and add H"c\'cral new ones.) C. A. Ham. Til,. Coming King and Jlw Rr?jtV:It--d Shepherd: Mat/he"·'s n•uding ofledwriuh S Mcssiuflk HoJX! (Sbeffidd: Sheffield Phoenix Press. 2005). is more generous. accepting - as I count them- seven allusions (two in common with mine). Given spac-e constraints I sl.'1 aside without com· ment the proposed nltusions tbnt I do not consider likdy. 1. The quotations from Zech. 9.9 and 13.7 and thc-lil:dy aUusions to9.11 and 14.4 arc not distincti\'e to Malthl'W.

134

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

designed to suggest, and then to bolster, the ide.a that Jesus, as the king ofZech. 9.9. is the one who is to ti.1lfil all the ideals fOI' the shepherding of God's people that are (mostly indirectly) attested to by the shepherding imagery in DeutcroZechariah.J To appreciate the cumulating significance of the links with Zechariah 9-14 in Matthew we probably need to start with a texl tl1at is not from Zechariah. but which performs a vital role early in Manhew·s story by drawing together two key categories: a renewal of Davidic kingship and the shephe-rding of God's people. Mt 2.6 offers as something that ' has been written by the prophet' a version of Mic. 5.2. The text tO! lows neither the MT nor the LXX closely, but is somewhat closer to the MT. T11ere are several editorial modific-ations of the First Testament texl, but the one that inte.rests us he1·e is the inclusion, at the end, of ·who will shepherd my people Israel'. The wording 'will come from me a ruler', on which MT and LXX agree, becomes ·will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel'. T11e role ofshe.pherd is attributed in Mic. 5.4 to this figure to arise from Bethlehem, but the language in Matthew is the.result of a merging into Mic. 5.2 of a clause from 2 Sam. 5.2 (pamllelcd in I Chron. I I.2). The text from 2 Samue.t points to the way in which a shepherding role tbr the king is embedded in the foundation of the Davidic monarchy. Ps. 78.71 -72 makes the same.point by imaging David as one who moved on from te-nding to the needs ofsheep to tending to the needs oflsrael. The role o f the one prophesied is to be tl1e king who would. in his rule, faithfully shepherd the people of God. 'Sheep' and 'shepherd' turn up in f\•lt. 9.36. but we cannot immediately speak ofa certain allusion to Zechariah. The idea ofsheep without a shepherd allows tbr a number of possible First Testament links. In Num. 27.17 the. imagery is used in connection with the need for a successor to Moses - shepherding is n1le-. but not yet royal n.1le. ln Ezek. 34.5 (cf. v. 6) the imagery points to shepherding the people as the proper function of the Davidic king.~ I Kgs. 22. 17 does as well. with its vision o flsrael as shepherdless because the king is to lose his life in war. Finally there is Zech. 10.2 where 'the people wander like sheep; they suffer tb r Jack of a shepherd'. which is follo\ved in v. 3 with 'my anger is hot against tl1e shepherds' .5 Zech. I0.2-3 echoes Ezek. 34.5- tO, and as in Ezekiel ·no shepherd' is the tack of a functioning Davidic monarch and ' the she.phe-rds • are such leaders as the people

3. Ham. nu• Coming King. shares my focus on king and shcphml. but Olhcrwisc-our studies ha\-c littlespoci6eground incommon. -4. Ezd:. 34.8 oOCrsthc parndox of·no shephcrd'. but ·shepherds (who) hll\'eno4 ... '. Thc- rcf~"f4 cnc-e scents 10 be to the lackofa functioning Oavidicmonarchand then to Lhc (badly Aawcd) role. of such leaders as the people still had. God's response will be. ·1myself will be Lhc shcphad of m)' sheep' (v. 15)- Sir. IS.I J off~·rs a universal and atcmpoml v-ersion of th~ - nnd ' I will set up over the-mone shepbcrd. my sen·un1Dnvid' (Ezcl:. 34.13). 5. The LXX seems to hnve b~"t'n based on a Bcbrew text that rend:i!>l ot possiblytot!)i mthcr than';li- . which is rendered ' there is no heoJing' instcOO: of 'there is no sh~-,hcrd ' . ihc likely LXX basis hc.rcmay wd l be: u·correction' based on the difficulty ofcorrelating ·ooshcphcrd' in Zech. 10.1 with 'the.sheph«ds' in\'. 3.

NOLLAND The Role ofDeutero-Zechariah in Manhew

135

actually have (see note4) - shepherding is the role of111lers. but especially ofthe Davidic king.6 It is likely that Matthew is picking up this First Testament thread, rather than focusing in a narrow way on any one of these texts. T11e prominent role of a Davidic she.phe1·d in these texts is striking, and is not likely to have been lost on Matthew. particularly after Mt. 2.6 with its investment in highlighting the shepherding role of the messianic king. There is, however, some reason for thinking that Zech. I0.2 is specific-ally in mind, though certainly against the wider thematic background created by the set of texts. In Zech. 10.3 God announces his hot anger against the shepherds and begins to lay out his intended re-sponse. a response which finds its basis in the statement in v. 3 that ' the LORD of hosts cares for his flock·. which is reiterated in V. 6 with the language. ' I have compassion e r/.Jni) on (the people of Judah and Jsmel]'. Zech. I0.3-6, thus, b1·ings together the three key features ofMt. 9.36: sheep, the lack of a shepherd, and a 1-esponse base.d in c-.ompassion.1 Jesus has God's heart for his people and he acts for God as he intervenes on behalf ofGod's needy people. (t is Jesus who will step into the breach: he will see to the shepherding of God's people; the Davidic shepherding role will be fulfilled in hinL We move onto Mt. 15.30 whel'e Matthew seems likely to have woven in an allusion to Zech. 11.1 6. To see this, we need to appreciate something ofthe intricate.pattern of cross-1·eference Matthew C.l'eates in his text. This is even more than usually the. case in 15.29-31. where ·starting from a minimal Markan skeleton, Matthew appears to have taken the opportunity to fommlate an account that draws togethe1· phrases and motif's from quite a range ofearlier material' .8 Within just v. 29 there is an echo of 12.9 that links to a more general pattern in Mauhew that is used to point up the regularly itinerant nature ofJesus· minisny: and there are links to the call of the fishermen in 4. J8-22, to the teaching sce-ne of 13. I onwards, and to the mountain scene in 5. 1 for the Sermon on the Mount.9 Our interest here~ however. is specificall}' in the list of afflictions in 15.30. In a general sense the Jist echoes other rvtatthean lists and othe.r mention in Matthew of some of tJ\e specific maladies, but it has a quite specific link with the list in 11.5. !\·tt. 15.30 and 11.5 have in common the mention of the lame. the blind, and 6. Ou!Sidc Zec.bariah the: only othet rdc,·nnt matcriul on shepherds is Jcr. 13.1 -6. where the shepherds ore chc. ka.ilal he was imaging in his role of 1he shcphcrd. In the First Tcstamcnt. shepherd imt~gcry is nc:"c-' used of the rok of a prophet. 7. Sir. IS. 13 links .:ompussion wilh God as a sh~-phcrd. but the fit is much k ss compktc:. S. J. Nolland. TI1i!Gospd (ifMallhtw(K!GTC: Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans.. 2005). p.638 ..\l:uthc:w .seems to be.do in:;. this "to rcfTCsh the me-mory of the n:-adc-r. to provide n point ofi ntcgrntion for di!>parntc ml!criok:. and to ereale lhc sc::nsc thnl Jesus kept oo doing the \'Urious things which have b« n reported c-nrlier' (p. 638}. 9. For cktnils s« Nolland. Matthew. pp. 638--9.

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

136

the KcuAOOS ("blind') and Kc.:><j>ol)s ('deal)'mute '), make a good conceptual pair'?This is certainly possible, but the word orders do not pm·ticularly suppon this suggestion. u There is a third possibility. In rvtt. 15..32 the use once more of compassion language creates a thread that leads back via 14.14 to 9.36 - the only three uses of this vocabulary to this point in the Gospel. Given that the shepherd and sheep image of9.36 has been recently refreshed by the reference to 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel' in 15.24. the compassion language is likely to function to reinforce the image of Jesus as the compassionate shepherd. and therefore, pe1·haps, the Zech. 10.2-6 1ink that bl'ings together compassion ~nd sheep who lack a shepherd. KuAAO$- is not a Septuagintal word; and the use ofuyn}s occurs in connection with healing only in lsa. 38.21 . 1 <~ But the idea of the healing of the maimed as a task for the shepherd with the sheep of his Hock seems to come to expression uniquely in Zech. I 1.16,15 which is part o f the continuing thread of references to the shepherd role in Deutero-Zechariah. beginning from Zcch. I 0.2. 10. Sec Nolland. M11ttltew. p. 403. II. The absence of reference in ~it. 15.30·31 to lhe dead and to lqx-r.> is to bc. ~pccted, p,'tn the selling in 15.29 30. ns is lhc loss of 'Lhc poor are-being brougtu good n~-ws· . 12. The synut:t appear.> to be-brokm - hcrds luwe not ·strengthened n'M lil1"';~ (thos.c made weak by exhaustion or illness]'. 'healed the sick'. ' bound up !.he injured•. 4

NOLLAND The Role ofDeutero-Zechariah in Manhew

137

The NRSV ' heal the maimed' in Zech. 11.16 is an unproble-matic translation for both the MT and the LXX language, but both the MT and the LXX represent ·maime-d' with participles that suggest an imag,e-of the maimed state as one of being broken o1·ci'Ushed (r1i;:j"'Ji1. ouvTH PIJ.IJ.I€VOV). f\·11. 15.31, instead, makes substantival use of an adjective (KUAAoUs) which is mostI}' applied t'O deformed limbs. but the idea of brokenness is not lost sight of. in that the adjective chosen to represent the restored state. Uy1cls. rep1·esents health under the image of wholeness or soundness. Though there. is no LXX language, the likelihood of a link to Zech. 11 .16 is strong. There are textual and language difficulties in Zech. 11.16, but the}' probably do not a fleet in any central way the relevance ofZech. 11.16 for Mt. 15.30-3 1. Indeed, each ofthe other phrases potentially adds something to the case for identifying a .Matthean interest in Zech. 11.16. NRSV has ·a shepherd who doe$ not care tOr the perishing. or seek the.wandering, or heal the maimed. or nourish the healthy'. ·The perishing'links well with the three Matthean uses ofO: rrOAAu}.u ('be lost' . 'perish' ), 8.25; 10.6; 15.24 (the last two with sheep imagery). 16 'The wandering' fits with 'the-lost sheep' ofMt. 10.6 (15.24 makes use of a closely related idea).11 ·Nourish the healthy! .111 matches the I'Oie of the imagery of feeding19 in the immediate context of the ret"el'ence to 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel' in ML 15.24. as well as with the actual fee.ding that in vv. 32-39 inunediately follows the healings of 15.30-3 1. So there arc various indications that Matthew is likely to be thinking ofZech. 11. 16 as he introduce.s the role of the healing of the maimed into his text in Mt. 15.30-31 . The implication is that Jesus is being seen as the.shephe1'd who is everything that the uncaring shepherd announced in Zech. 11.16 is not. Jesus is the positive oounte-rpaJ1 to the diselS-trous shepherd ofZech. 11.16, the 'should have been • implied by the acted-out failure. Jesus is being ide-ntified as the positive counterpart to the disastrous king that the prophet had been called upon to represent symbolically (v. 15). The interest in the Davidic royal shepherding role conrinues. The first actual quotation from Zechariah in _r..,tatthew comes in Mt. 21.5. whe.re words from Zech. 9.9 are quoted. T11e allusions to Zechariah thus far have concentrated on lhe role of the shepherd. though a Davidic connection has not been far from sight. As we will see, Matthew has carefully embedded this, his first quotation, into his text. already preparing the ground ahead of time tb1· the

16. For ' the. perishing' MT uses the: nipha/ participle-of- r.::l and the: LXX TO i:KAIIJnci:\K)v. 17. Underlying 'the watKf~Ting' in the NRSY ofZcch. I l.l6 stnnds -L:-~ii ('the youth') in the MT: the LXX has ,.0 Oaoxopntop£vov('thc: scattered'). pn-st•mably based on o diOCrcnce in the: Hebrew Vorlage ot this point (n,Jil has been conjc:"!Urcd). The- NRSV has bcc:n guided by the Syriac unnslntion. IS. The MT of Zcch. 11 .16 has~~· ii:l;:;i:l ond the: LXX has K«trufhlvo TOOXO.:).qpov. The 1r11nsla1i-on of the: r-.rr is fnr from cc-rtnin. bu1Ithink the mo!-1likcly sense for the-.\tT is ·provide food for those {slill) standing'. 19. Mt. 15.26: 'the: children's foocf>: v. 27: 'cat the: crumbs lh.1t fall from the: maslcr's table'.

138

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

use to which he intends to put the quotation. And this time tlle foc us is sharply on the Davidic. connection: here is a monarch entering the Throne City. From our discussion above of rv1t. 2.6 we have seen how Matthew is capable of merging texts from different First Testame.nt sources (there f\·fic. 5.2 and 2 Sam. 5.2). Zech. 9.9 begins "Rejoice greatI)'. daughter Zion' . and Matthew will want to include this idea, but in Matthew's context, it is the crowd accompanying Jesus into JeiUsalem (Mt 2 I .8-9) and not Zion whic.h rejoic-es. lsa. 62.11 is thematically similar: ·see. your salvation [your saviour in the LXX] comes' where Zech. 9.9 has ' triumphant and victorious is (the king]'. lsa. 62.11 is introduced with ·say to daughter Zion'. So Matthew makes a subs.titution.zo In Matthew's story there is no confidence at this point that Zion will rejoice at the arrival in Jerusalem of this f.1teful visitor. Mt. 21 .10 leaves us with the question hanging: 'What will the city ultimate.ly make of this strange claimant to royal dignity'?' The piece in Zechariah about the role of the king, from which Matthew draws, embraces Zech. 9.9- 10, but his quotation is quite selective. The opening call to rejoice is repeated in a new tOmt., but Matthew wants to keep it compact. The next piece is fundamental and Matthew reproduces it fully: ·Look your king is coming to you.· The royal identity of Jesus and tlle idea that a royal entry into the Throne City is being enacted here are of central impo11ance for MattJlew. Royal messianism in the line of David is the.first Christolog.ical category Matthew introduces (Mt. 1.1). It is a category that remains prominent through chapters I and 2, but then moves to the background while other categories are developed, and while the actual shepherding function of Jesus is introduced. Matthew keeps the royal messianism category alive by having people identify Jesus as ·the son of David' or question whether he m ight be s uch (9.27; 12.23; 15.22: 20.29, 31; 21.9, 15). Matthew a lso allows ' the Christ' to slip thi'Ough in 11.2 as paJt of his

own personal diction tOr speaking of Jesus. And he treats ' you are the Christ· as a key insight to emerge at a pivotal point in the unfolding ohhe story (16.13-20). But it is with the staged entry to Jerusalem that Matthew brings to the fore once again the Davidic messianic category.11 Jesus claims a royal role as he enters Jerusalem and he. will be executed as a royal pretender. 1\·latthew drops out the next claw;e ofZech. 9.9, which tlle NRSV represents as 'triumphant and victorious is he' . How significant this deletion is de.pends on some interlocking interpretative, translation and textttal issues. In the NRSV the immediately followi ng ' humble.' seems rather out of place at fit·st. However, we can make adequate sense of the text if we correlate ·humble· with ;peace to the nations' in v. 10 and ' triumphant and victorious' with "he shall cut ofYthe chariot from Ephraim . .. t The king, having established his authority

10. Ma!thcw's language is that of the LXX. but the LXX langu..lge. is lhc ob\'Wus rctldering into Gr«kor thcMT. 21. ihc lnnguagc 'in your kingdom• in ~ft. 20.21 points ton rok ror 20.10-29 in prcp!!ring for tile emergence into rte$-h prominence in Mntthe.w•s story of On\'idic. messianism.

NOLLAND The Role ofDeutero-Zechariah in Manhew

139

and imposed peace. is able to enter Jerusalem with no need ofany of the accoutrements ofpower.~2 His authority is fOI' the benefit of those he n1les, and not to serve his own self-importance. But I doubt whether this is how the text should be read. Only a very abbreviated discussion can be o ftered. There is fi1·st the question of translation. ( I) The.nip!Jal pa11iciple ofitit"' means not ·victorious', but ·helped' or ·receiving help·. (2) 1"17:6 does not mean ' tritunphant'. but 'righteous'. It is tn1e that the cognate noun ;"":li::t sometimes has overtones of 'deliverance' .u But, while there are 110 uses ofj.i!l: in the rvtT, in none of the others is there any sign of influence from this noun usage. The pairing in Zech. 9.9 seems to be.' righteous' and 'having been helped' rather than the NRSV ' triumphant' and ·victorious'. Then there is the.question of whether to begin Zech. 9.10 with the. first person of the MT or the third pe1·son of the LXX. Is it God or the.king who will see to the 1·emoval of the instruments of war? 'Righteous and receiving help' in v. 9 works better with God as the subject in v. 10. The king would then gain a subordinate role later in the ve1·se. Our question has been: how significant is Matthew's deletion ofthe clause we have been exploring'? If Matthew read Zech. 9.9- 10 as the NRSV does then we could see him as totally changing the fOcus of the language of humility. There is no \rulnerability involved whe-n the 'triumphant and victorious' king enters the city without pomp or self-assertion! The situation is much more open-ended if the king who is righteous and helped (by God) makes his humble enhy. '111is king must await God for help, and with this construal of the text it is an open question whether God's intervention in v. I0 should be thought o f as preceding the entry or as following it. Matthew needs an entering king who can be vulnerable, and without disto1tion Zcch. 9.9-1 0 allows for one. Though his ve-rsion ditTers from both the MT and the LXX there is no significant abbreviation in Matthew's use of the rest ofZech. 9.9. It looks as though Matthew has drawn on both the ?viT and the LXX.14 The only choice involved here that might be inte-rpretative.ly significant is his double use of 'u rl ("on' matching the double. use in the MT of .U :,). The reader of Matthew can look back to 11.29 for the significance of Jesus as 'humble'. As !\·loses had been (Num. 12.3). Jesus was free of the self-importance of those who are focused on theil· own interest<>: his ways are marked by moderation and other-centredness. And in the context of the entry he is vulnerable to the actions ofothers. This is a reasonable enough gloss on the place of · humble' in Zech. 9.9.

22. One could unde-rstund 'LTiumpflant and victorious' ns pointing fon'r.lrd to thc.ac.tion of Z-ech. 9.10. seen liS futur-e fromthe time.ofthe cnlty. The main point r.:ll13insthcs:unc: he m tcrs Jerusalem as one who has hnd major stlcccss in imposing his rule. 23. E.g. in lsa. 46. 13 il:Ji!: stnnds in parallel with ill.'tJ\V-':1 ('salvation'). 24. Fordclails on how ).fatthcw shows hims.dfonce ag-11in to be-a mnst~·r of multiple t::x1 fonm. incorporating both MT fcatutes und LXX f«~IUI\'$. sec Nolland. Mauhew. p. 835.

140

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

In the narrative that frames the quotation Matthew guides his reader to the specific way of applying the quoted text to Jesus that he has in mind. In Matthew's story there are two donkeys to be fe.tche.d (Mt. 21 .2) and Jesus will ride them both (v. 7). This is not literally whill Zechariah intended, aJld I have suggested elsewhere that Matthew is likely to want his readers to see the Gospe.l fu lfil ment of Zech. 9.9 as a piec-e of prophetic symbolism. akin to •he OT sign nc.lsrsJ .... more-a state-ment about the appropriate messianic aims and goals to be properly nssociatOO with Jesus and an insistence that their fullilment was on its wny tlun 11 clnimthnt thcc:tpect:uionsof l!.:. 9 were rccei\·ing thl·ir d~·finitivc impkmcnlation at prcc.i~cly that monxnt 1'

Jesus procures the donkey as one whose authority will be immediately recognized (v. 3): but he has to make his ·grand' entry on a borrowed donkey. The humble circumstances of this messianic claimant are carefUlly underlined. The Son of David language (v. 9) ensures a Davidic me-.s..~ianic understanding o f the king of Zech. 9.9.

The next Zechal'iah link is likely to be in Mt. 21 .21 . Writing elsewhere I have pointed out that since Jesus has just come across the Mount ofOJives this is the natural referent for ' this mountain', and also that the removal of the Mount of Olives from in front of Jerusalem is something: anticipated in Zech. I4.4, the only OT reference to the Mount of01ive.s.17 Ifthere is a link here, and l think it likely, it adds nothing to our theme of shepherd and king. But it does contribute to the eschatological framework within which rvtatthew would have us set the significance of the other Zechariah links. And it does add its own small contribution to the need to recognize the signific--ance o f Zechariah f'o1· Matthew.2fl Much tlle same may be said for the clear and universally recognized allusion to Zech. 12. 10, 12. 14 in Mt. 24.30. Ma!thew·s ·and then all the tribes of the

earth will moum ' is ratller cty ptic and it raises some f.1SCinating interpretative challenges that. unfo11unately, cannot be addressed here. Matthew clearly draws on Zec.h. 14. I7 to get the universal sense he intends (all the tribes of the earth~ not just all the groups of Jews). In Mt. 26.3 1 he is going to offer Jesus as a version o f the struck-down shepherd ofZech. 13.7 ~ so this is likely to be the event which is mourned. This presumably involves Matthew identifying the sti'Uck-down shepherd with the one pie.rced/stabbed in Zcch.ll. IO. For reasons that cannot be rehearsed here.~ I think that the prophet in Zechariah is thinking: ofhimselfa.s the one to be stabbed/ pierced. Jesus has been identified by Matthew as the counterpart to the prophet as one who was c-alled upon to image the leadership t•ole of the Oavidic mler. Does lv1atthew consciously make a further link with the-prophet 25. See 2 Kgs 13. 1 4- 1 9~ lsa. 20. 1-6: kr. 32.9·1 5: Ezd:. 4.1·5. 17: 12. 1·7: 24. 15-27: Hos. 3. 1·5. 16. Nolland. Matt!l t•w. p. 8-37. 27. Nolland. Mattlrew. p. 853. I have since done further worl: on the-link. btu the W'Ork remains incomplete a1this point 28. Anolhcr minor link to Z..."tharinh comes in ML 23.35 with the mc-nlion of ' Ze>.:h11riah son of Bcre>.:lmiah•. which «hoes Zcch. 1.1. MI. 23.35 hns its own interpretative cb..
NOLLAND The Role ofDeutero-Zechariah in Manhew

14 1

here? Perhaps he sees the prophetic pattern as repeating itself and reaching its culmination with Jesus. Certainly. applied to the prophet, the ultimate vindic-.ation implied by the-mourning 1'emains only partially realizein whose hands is the fate of t:he sheep (and the goats). 'Blood of the covenant' in Mt. 26.28 clearly echoes Exod. 24.8> where the covenant is solemnly scale.d in blood. But the only other First Testament use of "blood of the covenant" is Zech. 9. 11, where the Exodus covenant is cited as the basis upon which God will intervene to free his people: 'bec-.ause of the. blood of mycovenant with you, l will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit'. Given the importance ofZechal'iah in f\•tatthew it is more than likely that Matthew has Zech. 9. 11 in mind as well~ and inte.nds to echo God's fresh affinnation there of his covenant commitment to the saving of his people. Ho\vever in the Matthean comext we have a fresh sealing of the covenant in the blood of Jesus, which belongs in the tradition of the wider prophetic expectation that the way forward be)'Ond the devastation of the Exile - brought about by the people"s failure to adhere to the cove.nant - would involve God freshly initiating a covenant relationship with his people.JJ These extra allusions to Zechariah 9 provide eschatological links for the use of Zech. 9.9 in connection with Jesus. But the last may o ffer us more, as suggested be-low. The second quotation from Zechariah comes soon at1er, in Mt. 26.3 1. Thus far a link to the Zechariah shepherd theme has only surt3ced in Matthew at the.level 29. C.:tlainly partly \'i ndicat~-d bC"CUuse his work c--nme to be- recognized as Scripture. 30. Sec Exod. 19. 13. 16. 19;20.18: Ps.47.5 (lXX ..J6.6): Zcth. 9.14:cf. ts.1. 18.3: 21. 13.

31. In Mt. 14.31. ·his nngds' in relation to the Son of t~ umsnity is striking. 32. See disc.US$ion in Nolland. .4faulw-w. p. I025. 33. Sec Iss. 55.3: 59.20-'2 I: 61.7-8: Jer. 31.31· 34: 32.37-41: Ezek. 16.60-63: 37.24-28.

142

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

o f allusion, and therefore not always with cenaintyl but, with a quotation from Zech. 13.7 that speaks of the striking of the shepherd a11d the sheep of the flock being scauered, the Zechariah shepherd image1y becomes explicit The quotation is used to support Jesus· prediction that ' this night you [the disciples] will all take offence at me' (Mt. 26.30). The disciples' expectations in relation to Jesus will be shattered (temporarily as it mrns out) and they will abandon him. 'Ta ke offence· links the disciples with what is wamed against in Mt. 11.6, and with people. earlier who had not responded positively to Jesus ( I3.57; I 5. I 2). It is used to mark a major lapse of discipleship. The quotation from Zech. 13.7 is loose. but not tangentiaJ..l4 The first half ofthe verse is dropped: its substance is repeated in the sec.ond. The. final clause is also peeled away: it provides a headline summary for the account of the fate of the sheep, to fo llow in vv. 8-9; and f\·fatthew·s focus is narrower. There are tvo•o notable change.s from the Zechariah \Vording. ·( will strike' replaces an impe1-ative ·strike \ which was directed to the sword introduced in the missing firs t half of the verse. That the final dropped clause has the fi1·st person fom1reasonabl}' justifies the change. But in the Gospel context the direct attribution to God is striking. The divine necessity in relation to the Passion has been emp hasized~ but we seem to go a step ftu1her here: the use of the quotation identifies the fate that will befall Jesus as the judgement o f God. The other c hange is with ·of the flock'. This has no immediate counterpart in Zech. 13.7. Matthew is not content with just 'sheep'; he wants ·sheep' together in a ' Hock'. This is implicit in the imagery o fshephe.J'd and sheep, but it is likely that Matthew makes it explicit in orde1· to echo the use of"fJock' as a standm·d image for lsraei/Judah.H rvfatthew is unlike ly to be thinking only of the immediate scattering of the disciples; their scattering anticipates and is the first pa11 of a much wider scattering, which comes into focus in rvtt. 24. I 5-22." The immediate cause for Matthew's application to Jesus may be found in language fro m the omitted first halfo fthe verse. God identifies the figure spoken of as ·my shepherd' and as ' the man who is my associate'. Some sort of stan1s as God's vice-regent is involved. But the geneml scholarly consensus is that in Zechariah the shepherd figure is a negative figure, something of an echo of that in Zech. I 1.16- I 7. Could Matthew have read Zechariah this way and still used the text as he has? We will come back to Zech. 13.7 in f\·11. 26.3 1 when we have before us as well the use ofZech. 11.13 in Mt. 27.9-I O. In the meanwhile there are two furthe.r likely or at least possible Zechariah allusions to note. The final two allw;ions to Zechariah add little to our theme, so it will be convenient to deal with them here out of order. For our purposes they simply point again to the eschatological framework within which ?\•latthew is able to use materials fro m Zechariah to interpret his story of Jesus. The use of ' the holy ones' in Mt. 27.52 is probably to be linked with the use of the phrase in Zech. 14.5. Their 34. ll is not based on the Greek text of Z~'Ch. 13.7. which hns the plumJ·she:pherds'. 35. E.g. Jer. 13.1 7: Ezekiel 34. passim: Zech. I0.3. 36. Contrns. the gnlhe:rin.£.langlUlgc-of Mt. 2.'U 7 (where !he imagery is of a moth~·r hen nuhcr 1han of a shepherd).

NOLLAND

The Role ofDeutero-Zechariah in Manhew

14 3

entry into the holy city in Mt. 27.53 may echo the coming of the same verse tTom Zechal'iah.)J The third and last quotation fro m Zechariah is found in Mt. 27.9- 10 where a version ofZech. 11.13 is quoted.33 Given Mauhew's very significant editing of this quotation, it m.ay be that in some ways we can look to this quotation to provide a key to Matthew's wide1· interpretative procedure. Zech. 11 . 13 has a command followed by its implem:entation. Matthew abbre.viates by foc using on the implementation. but compensates by drawing in quite a bit oftJle intbnn~ltional content from the dropped section. Notably ' the. price of the one priced, whom some of the sons of lsrnel priced' in Matthew COI'responds to ' the magnificence of the price. at which I was priced by the.m· in the rvtT. Matthew drops the irony involved in the use of ·magnificence' [-,,~ ] tbr the rather small sum involved. 'Them· in Zechariah is the sheep merchants - literal sheep merchants. but seeming in the imagery of the scene to represent those who have influence and wield power (as in a rather specillc way the prophet's own taking onofthe role of a shepherd does). Matthew's 'some ofthe sons of lsraer points to the role of'tJle chief priests and elders' in buying Judas' services as a betl'3yer. But it is the move from •J was price.d' to the third pe1son, ' the one priced', which is at the heart o ff\·fatthew's approach here. In Zechariah the one who has had a value placed on his se1·vices is the same person as the one who brings to the Temple t:he money involved. The prophe.t himself is both, as he. provides an enacted image of the failure of leadetship within the people of God. For his shephe.,·ding work he gets paid money that he does not really deserve; and he marks his recognition of his failure by disposing of the money in the.Temple. But 1\•fatthew has divided this character into two di t~ feren t people. And tb r Matthew 'the one pric.ed' becomes a positive figure, presumably one-now to be seen as a good shepherd. The price connected with him is no longer payment for his flawed shepherding work: it is instead the money that changes hands to get the shepherding work stopped. An inversion has taken place; now. good shepherding is being sabotaged, not bad shepherding coming to its natural end. The part of the negative image taken up by Matthew is bestowed upon a quite different person, the one who has taken payment for his part in getting the good shepherd's woric stopped. But at the point where we e-ncounter him, this second figure hassee.n the error of his ways and is disposing oftJle money he has received. .Matthew is clearly taking quite a lot of freedoms with the text o f Zechariah. But is there anything principled about what he is doing'? Perhaps Matthew's treatment ofZech. I 0.2 and 11. 16 in the allusions in Mt. 9.36 and 15.31 can help point the way. (n the former the Zechariah text is about the Jack of a shepherd. and Matthew implies that Jesus is to be the shepherd. ln the latter tJle Zechariah te.xt is about the failu res of the dis::t.strous shepherd, and Matthew implies that 37. Sec the discussion in Nolland. Matrhew. pp. 1214-17. 38. A disc-ussion ofwhy Matthew in Mt. 27.9 attributes the: tc:xt loJc:rcmiah would take us too far afidd for this study: Mal1hcw sc:ems to be wanting to link some: fcntures from Jc:rcminh 18. 19 und 32 wilh l.hc Zcch:lriah tc:xt. Sec:. Nollnnd. Mallhe•.,.. pp. 1155- 7.

144

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

Jesus is to provide the positive counterpo:u1 to the shepherding role envisaged in this text from Zechariah - the ought-to-have-been implied by the repo11 o f what was to be. As I see it (see below) all the shepherd refe.rences in Zechariah are negative: they are all about shepherding that has fuiled in one way or another. But they implicitly set up a positive image of shepherding, i.e. o f the leadership thal the ~)cople need. The one very positive image of leadership in Deute-roZechariah comes in the opening chapter, and it uses the language.ofthe king and not of the shepherd (Zoch. 9.9- 10). It will be from this point ofreferenc.e that Matthew feels justified in reading into dle subsequent shephe1·d texts a positive counterpart to the failures of shepherding that are written about. The king of Zech. 9.9-10 will be the positive counterpart to the f.1ilures of shepherding that the Zechariah texts are invested in. So with appropriate inversions we may find an image.of this shepherd king in the shepherd texts found scattered through the I'Cst of Deutero-Zechariah. The idea of splitting the identity of the figure in Zech. 11. 13 may have suggested itself to Matthew from reflection on the double identity already involved for the prophet in Zechariah 11. The prophet is at one and the same time-the one who listens to, obeys and speaks for God and the one who has been called upon to provide an acted parable of the failure of leadership that is evident in the people of God. He is both an admirable figure and a despicable figure. Here is something Matthew can play with and develop. He can produce the inversion involve-d in getting a good shepherd out of the Zechariah material by ( I) giving half the role of the shepherd to Judas and half the role to Jesus, and the.n ( 2) attributing to the Judas-half the negative features of the image and investing the Jesus-half with the qualities of a positive counterpart to the tbilure.c; of leade1·ship imaged by the prophe.t as shepherd. With all the material now befo1'C us we turn again to the use ofZc.ch. 13.7 in Mt 26.31. As already intimated. one ofthe inte1·pretarive challenges of Zechariah 11- 13 is to determine the relationship between the shepherd figure of I 1.1 5- 17 and that o f 13.7-9. ( think the two figures are to be correlated (which does not nec.essarily mean identified), but not all agree: despite his fate, the shepherd of 13.7 is not identified negatively.-~ and some would prefer to separate the two figures categorically.... Given space limitations it must suffice. in favour of correlating the two shepherds, to point to the thematic connections between the-first oracle and the second (chs 9- 11 and 12- 14) and to note that 13.7-9 as a whole piece is about a coming period ofjudgement and refining and not about the basis upon which God intends to act in this way. Correlating the shepherds ofZech. 13.7 and 11.1 7 will involve relating both to the failure of leadership and in pa11icular to the fb.ilure of the house of David to provide a king who would rule in a wo1·thy manner

39. E.g. S« S. L Cook. ·The Me1amorphosis of nShcplh.'!fd:The: Trnditioo li istory of Ze-chariah II :17 + 13:7-9'. CBQ SS ( 1993). 453- 66.

40. E.g. Cook. 'The: Metamorphosis of nShepherd. pp. 453-66: Meyers and Mcycr!:.l«harial•. pp. 385-6.

NOLLAND

The Role ofDeutero-Zechariah in Manhew

145

in the nameofGod.lfMa!thew read Zec.lt. 13.7 1ike this, could he still have used it for his positive shepherd figure'? To get a positive shepherd out ofZech. 13.7 .Mattl1ew docs not need. this time. to d ivide the role. Zech. 13.7 already points to the vital role of the shepherd in the defenc.e of the shee1>: it is the removal of the shepherd that makes the sheep vulnerable. All he has to get rid of is the presumpdon in the Zechariah text that the shepherd is himself part of the problem that brings God's judgement and his l'efining fire. Matthew needs to make his division this time between shepherd and sheep. and to locate the problem in the sheep. The shape of the Zechariah text helps him here: the shepherd is removed so that God can deal with the people in judgement and refinement. And in any case Matthew, who takes his point of departure from Zech. 9.9~ is interested in the positive counte.('part to any negative elements in the shepherd images that emerge. The transformation o f the role of the shepherd ofZech. 13.7 to its positive counterpart 1night, however, have involved not a shepherd who is struck down, but rather one who evades tl1e strike and protects the sheep, but this is not how it plays out in the Gospel frame. Why make a positive virtue out of the striking of the shepherd? At one level the answe1· is simple: Jesus suftered! But are there things in the text of Zechariah that can help us make sense of this interpretative move? If the. double nature of the role of the prophet in Zechariah I I helped Matthew in relation to the use ofZech. I I .13. it may be that something about the role of the prophet helps Matthew here as welL Apart from that in Zech. 13.7-9, there is another image ofsuffering in Deute.ro-Zechariah: as suggested above. the sufferer of 12.1 0 is probably tlte prophet himself. The prophet in Zechariah is ah·ead}' linked to the she.pherd image because of Zechariah I I. f\•tatthew has a good prophet who is (I} c-alled upon to act out the role of a worthless shepherd who will sutrer judgement for his failure and who is (2) himself (as prophet) destined to sutler because of the unwe.lcome challenge his words represent to his people. This anticipated suffering of the pi'Ophe.t is already linked in Christian tradition to the suffering oftl1e messiah/Son ofHumanity... 1 And he.ha.~ finally in Zech. 9.13 'the blood of my covenant' as the basis in Deutero-Zechariah for God's saving intervention. Surely there is enough here to identify a track of redemptive suffering to sit alongside the suffering of judgement and of refining! It seems. then1 that Matthew has first provided a foundation for his use of Zecharialt by prominently linking shepherding and kingship in Mt. 2.6. In 9.36 there is the first allusion to Deute.ro-Zec.hariah: Jesus is the one who will see to the neglected shepherding ofGod's people: the Davidic shepherding role will be fulfilled in him. Mt. 15.3 1oners a second allusion: Jesus is the positive counterp~ut to the disastrous shephe1xl ofZech. 11. 16; the 'should have been' implied by the acted-out failure; the positive oounterpaJt to the disastrous king that the prophet had been called upon to symbolically represent. Shepherd imagery drops from sight for a time and it is king language that is used in Mt. 21.5, in the first .JI. Suggest~'<~ by the e.xistence.of Jn 19.3i: Rev. 1.1.The:.situation with regard to Jewish lrndition

is unclear.

146

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

actual quotation. We are infol'llted about the appropriate messianic aims and goals to be associated with Jesus. But we are also provided with the main henneneutical key to 1\•latthew's approach to the Zechariah shepherd texts: they are to be mined for their potential contribution to the positive image of the shepherd king that Matthew identifies Jesus as. Several minor links to Deutero-Zechariah serve, for our purposes, only to emphasize the eschatological frameworic within which rvtatthew develops his Deutero-Zechariah-infJuenced picture ofJesus (Mt. 21.21; 24.31; 26.28; 27.52, 53). Tile most challenging texts are the two nu·ther quotations: Mt. 26.31, where the shepherd's role is shared between Jesus and Judas: and 27.9-10. where Jesus is the sn·uck-down shephel'd - a shepherd who in the Zechariah context is to be \'iewed negativel}'· For the former I have suggested that Matthew's division of roles may be rooted in a double identity already involved for the prophet in Zechariah (himself and his acted-out role). For the latter I have suggested that once again the prophet may be the key, this time as the sufferer ofZech. 12. 10. Following in the foot'i.teps of the prophet as one who suffe1·s, the shepherd king Jesus dies as the one who seals the covenant with his blood.

I 0. MATTHEW'S ATOMISTIC USE OF SCRIPTURE: M ESSIANIC INTERPRnAT ION oF IsAIAH 53.4 IN MATTHEw 8. 17

Lidija Novakovic

flllroduclion

In his well-known criticism of Kittel 's nu?o!ogical DictionOJ:yofthe New Testament. James Barr accused the contributors of' illegitimate totality transfer', which happens when the semantic value of a word in one context is added to its semantic value in another context ' The same criticism can be. in Ill)' view. exte.ndcd to those interpreters who, following the-lead of C. H. Dodd,l presume without further ado that whenever tJ1c New Testament authOI'S quote scriptural passages. they have theirenth·e original contexts in view.l wish to challenge the suitability o f this approach for the quotation oflsa. 53.4 in Mt. 8.17. The significance of this citation lies in the fact that this is the-only explicit quotation of any po11ion o f Isaiah 53 in the Gospel ofMatthew1l and one of the only tv.•o explicit citations o f Isaiah 53 in the entire synoptic tradition . ~ In the Matthean context, the quotation oflsa. 53.4 provides the scriptur.tl prooffOI' Jesus· healing ministry. A number of interpretet'S1 however, have suggested that in addition to this, the entire context of Js.ajah 53 is implied. Titus. for example, Barnabas Lindars believes that "it is not enough . . . to see it merely as scriptural justific-ation for the miracles, fo1· it comes from a chapter which describes the sutl'ering of the Servant himself. The fundamental issue is that Jesus· own suftCrings are rede-mptive.'5 Robert H. Gundt·y proposes that Matthew's application of (sa. 53.4 'may be partially based on the observation that the.verse forms a 1ransition from the Servant's gro\ving up1 being despised, and knowing sorrow and sickness on the one hand to his suffe.ring and I. J. Barr. Tlw Si!mamiN ofBiblirnl LallgtJ£/gt"(London: O:tford Uniwrsity Pr<'ss. 1961). p. 2 18: ' The cnor thut.uriscs. when thc:"mcaning'" ofa word (understood as a totul serie-s of relations in whtch it is used in lhc litcnuurc) is read into a panic:ulnrcnsc.as itss-.:nsc !lnd impiK:ation Iller<. may lxcalkd ..illegitimate-totalily uansfer".' 2. C. H. Dodd. Accordi11g to the Scriplllres: The Sub.srructmvtJ/Ne•)·Testament Thc-ologt' (Lon· don: Nisbcc. 1952}. pp. 88- 96. 3. For the sake ofcon,•cnicncc. I will usc th~·tradiJjonal d¢signation 'Mauhew' as a n:fercnce to the author of the.Gospel. 111is study is bused on the premises of the: two-doc-ument hypotllc:sis. 4. The second citation is in l k. 22.31. whic-h quotes lsa. 53.12. 5. B. lindars. New Teslelmtllt Apo/tJg(!fic: The D{JclrinalSignifimtlt'e(!{lhe OldTestnml'lll Qtto· tmimu (l ondon: SCM Press. 1961). p. 86.

148

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

death on the other'.(, Otto Betzcontends that ' Matthew certainly knew the spirirual meaning of Isaiah 53.4: Be-aring and taking away our sicknesses acn1ally refers to the vic.arious suffbring of the Servant because ofou1·sins. ' 7W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison. Jr ponder that ' perhaps he unde1·stood the healing ministry to be a type of Jesus redemptive suffering' .s Pe-te-r Stuhlmache-•· argues that ' the.so-called fom1h Servant Song was available. to early Judaism and Christianity only in the context oft he book oflsaiah and the Dcute-I'Oisaianic sa}•ingsabout the.Servant as a whole· so that every citation fro m this poem should be related to Jesus' sacrifice." In contrast to these authol's, I wish to show that in Matthew. the citation ofls.a. 53.4 is devoid of the idea of vicarious suffering. Rather. this text is applied to Jesus· healings through a method that c.an be called the ·atomistic use of Scripture·. TI1is is achieved through a selective use ofthe content of Isa. 53.4 and a verbal, even tb rced, translation o f the Hclwew text, with the purpose of making it applicable to Jesus' healing ministry which is, in the Gospel of Matthew, inseparable from Jesus' identity as the Davidic Messiah.1o The concept of the atomistic exegesis is not a new idea in biblical studies. It was originally proposed by Henry J. Cadbury, who argued that the atomistic use o fScripture characterized both early Christian interprete.rs and their Jewish contemporarie.s.11 In his elabonlte e.xamination of the term rro:ls ewU, Joachim Jeremias acknowledged the frequency o f this type o f exegesis in early Jewish interpretations of the servant of God passages in Deutero-lsaiah, 12 but failed to appreciate the full significance of this insight.ll. The Jatte1· has been done by Morna D. Hooker. who on tl1e basis of the atomistic use of Scripture in early Christian texts concluded that the conc.e-pt of vicarious suffering of the se.rvant from Deutero-lsaiah had no formative influence on Jesus' understanding of his 6. R. 1~. Gundry. The Useofl/re OldTeJitWlNII ill St. Mattlww :S Gospel witII Sp«ial Riforer/ce Jo tire Mes.siunic' Hope (NovTS'up. 18: leickn: E. J. BrilL 1967). p. 230. 7. 0 . lktz. 'Jesus and tsaiJh 53". in W. ~1. Belling-er nnd W. R. Fnrm<'r (cds}. Jes11.umd the 5J{tferillg Sm·anf: lsaiall jJ ond Christim1 Origitu ( l~ nrris:butg. PA: Trinily Press lnlcmntional. 1998). p. 81. 8. W. D. Davies and 0 . C. Allison. .4 Critical and Exegetical Comme111ary on the GiJspel Acrordi11g to Saint Mmtl""'' (ICC: ,·oL 2: Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1991}. p. 38. 9. P. Stuhlmacher. ' lsaiah 53 in the Gospels nnd AciS'. in B. Janowski nnd P. Stuhlm.'lchcr (eds). nli' SJrtferillg Smunt: lsaiuh 53 iiiJe'lriJhamiChristian Stmrces(trans. 0. P. Bniky: Grnnd Rapids: \Villi:un B. Eerdman.s. 2004). p. 158. 10. For an e.xploration of the:. link between Jesus:' messianic idcntit)' and his hct~li ng ministry soc L Novako,·ic. Mer.siah.Jire Healer ofllw Sick: A Study ofJe.nts as 11/e Son ofDav-id i111lw Grupe/ of MaJthew (WUNTt1L 170: H1bingrn: Molu SicbC<'k, 2003}. II. H. J. Cudbury. ·nc Titles ofll-sus in Acls'. in F. J. F. lackson and K.lakc (cds). The Begi11· 111.,1gs ofChriJiiuni(l'. part I : Tire Acts o.ftlw ApoJtles. vol. 5: Additio11al Nmes to 1l1e Commentary (cd. K. Lakennd H. 1. Cadbury: lo1.don: Macmillan. 1933), pp. 369- 70. 12. J. kn:mias. ·na'is 6toU'. TD.l!,r'f 5. p. 682. 13. In his "le.w. ' the-rcc-utrcntapplicutionsofi ndividual scn•anl p:wa.ges:to indlvidu.1l 6gum; arc \\"ilhout significance. for such reference.:; ... ate all wi1hout exception references lo individwl \'C-I'SCS which do not •ell us how the rabbis:conocmcd c.xpmmdcd !he pa!>Sagcs in context' (Jeremias:. ·nai5 6toti". p. 686). For a critique. sec D. JucL Messiank Exegesis: Clrril·tological lnmprelatiofl ofthe OldTesronwm inl:."arly Clrristianity (Philaddphin: Fortress P~. 1988). pp. 125-6.

NOVAKOVIC

Jt1attllew 's Atomistic l.h;f! ofScripture

149

own mission or on the earliest layers ofChristian tradition.14 Even though some scholars supponed Hooker's conclusions,15 others challenged it. 16 The fbilowing analysis is meant to o tTer a contribution to this ongoing discussion. Matthew's interpretation of Jesus' healing ministry in tenns of lsa. 53.4 is clearly l'edactional and has no direct relevance for the question of whether Jesus hirnselfunderstood his mission in terms of Isaiah 53, which lies at the core of this debate. At the same time, howeve-r, since the citation oflsa. 53.4 in f\·fatthew is one of a ve.ry few dil·ect quotations of Isaiah 53 in the NewTestament. 11 it can contribute to our understanding of the application of the tb urth servant song to Jesus in primitive Christianity. I will first address some genernl issues related to the meaning o f Isaiah 53 in the Old Testament and its subsequent interpretations in early Jewish literature. T11is will be tbllowed by an examination of the textual fom\ ofthe citalion oflsa. 53.4 in Mt. 18.17 and its tlll\ction in the Matthean context. (n the concluding section, I will try to find out the rationale. both conceptual and scriptural, which infom\s the messianic application of this text to Jesus · healing activity. My goal is to demonstrate that Matthew,s method of reading Scripture exemplifies the atomistic use of Scripture that was common in early Jewish exegesis. 2. Isaiah 53 in the Old Testament aud Early Jewish Literature

Ever since.Bernhard Duhm isolated the so-called servant songs (I sa. 42.1-4; 49. 16; 50.4-9; 52.13- 53.12)." there have been sn·ong objections to the idea o ftreating these poems as a group in isolation from their context in Deutero-ls.aiah.19 1 ~.

M. D. Hooker. }£!SUJ tmd th~ Sen•ont: 11•e lnjhli!llceoftl~e SetWtJ1t C011cept ofDemero-Jsaiull

ill the New TeJintm'tll (london: SPCK. 1959). !-looker reaflim1ed her original position fony years later in her essay. ·oid the Use of Isaiah 53 to llllerprct His Mission Begin wilh Jesus?'. in Btl linger and Farmer (eds). Je.\·u.o; am/tile Sl!O'ering Sen um. pp. 88-103. 15. Jud . Messianic E.n;gt>sis. pp. 119-33. 16. M. C. Parsons. 'lsainh 53 in Acts S: A Reply to Professor Morna Hooker'. in Bellinger and Farmcr(eds).J esus a11d tile Sufforing Sen'tlnt. pp. 10-1--19: W. R. Fllllll('r. 'Reftoctions on Isaiah 53 and Chris1inn Origins'. in Bdling-cr and Farmer («is). Jesus and the Suffering Smvnt. pp. 260-SO: Stuhlmachcr. ·1s.1iah 53 in the Gospels and Aels'. pp. 147-62. 17. Some copies oflhe 15th chnptcr of Mnrk•s Gospd ( L e, 0112. 0230.F ·u) contain verse 28 which quoits lsa. 53.12, but this is most likdy a latcr S<:ribnl addition to Mark's text under the influ· encc of Lk. 12.37. which also q uO(~-slsa. 53. 12: Jn 12.38 quoteslsa. 53.1 : Ac.ls 8.32-33 quote lsa. 53.7-8: Rom. 10.15· 16 quote. Jsa. 52.7 and lsa. 53. 1: Rom. 15.21 quotes lsn. 52.15: I Pet. 2.2 1-25 quo1e Jsa. 53.4. 5. 6. 9. 12. Only the quo1ations of Isa. 53.4. 5. 6. 9. 12 in I Pet. 2.21-2; point to the atoning sign i6 ct~noc ofChrist's death. II is certninl)· noteworthy. as Hookeor re-marks. 't.hat in none of the scYcn pnssagcs where a quotnlion from ls.1iah 52- 53 is introduocd by a formuln indicating that s ciLllion from scripture follows is that quo1a1ion int«pretcdo/J/w meani11g of Jesus' death· ('Did the Use.of Isinh 53 to Interpret His Mission Begin with k sus?•. p. 91). 18. B. Duhm. Das BuC'II Je.~aja (GHAT. IlLII:.GOningcn: Vnndenhocd: & Ruprecht 1&92). 19. T. N. D. Meuinger.A Fart"''r-ellto lhf! Sen um Songs: A Critical £wminaJionofan f.Yt"'getical A:riom (Lund: Gk erup. 1983): F. Mtnhe.us., Si11g1 tkm J.leJT dn llt!lles Lk d: Die Hymmm IN1m'ro· jesaja (SBS. 141 : Stuttgart: Kntholisches Bibclwcrk. 1990): A. Laato. 17te Senu111of rNWH om/ C:rms (ConBOT. 35: Stockholm: Afmqvist & Wikscll lntemationaL 1992).

150

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

Nonetheless. many scholars continue to regard these songs as separate compositional units~ even though the)' acknowledge the significance oftheircurrent placement in the canonical text of Jsaiah.20 The f..1:SCination with the identity of ' the servant' and his fate, especially his suffering on behalf of others, which scents to surf.'lce in the so-called fo urth song.11 has been the driving force in this research. T11e main difficulty here is caused by the interplay betwe.en corporal and individualcharacteristics ofthe servant. Plausible arguments have-been proposed that the songs presume either a corporate personality. i.e.lsnlel,:u or a particular individuat.1:l The latter is especially pertinent to tlte fourth servant song, which apparently distinguishes the corporate ·we• from the servant. Tvlo main themes of the poem are the servant's humiliation/vindic.ation and his suffering on behalf of the othe-rs. Prior to (saiah 53. as Henning GmfRc vemlow argues~ ' there was no institution and the-1·efore.no institutional languagedescribing the unheard-ofoccurrence that the suffering of a single man could have the power of removing the consequences of the guih o f a whole group ofpeople' .14 K. Koch called Isaiah 53 an ·eJTatic block' in the history ofideas.25 For our present pu!pOseS, however, it is more important to look at tlte ways these poems were read in the subsequent Jewish litemture. Can we find there some clues about Jewish perceptions of the

20. Cf. H.-J. Bcnnisson. ·voreiligcr Abschicd von dm Gotlcskncchtc:liOOcm •• TR 49( 1984). 20921: H. G. Rt\'crltlow. 'Basic Issues in lhc lnttrpre•ntion of Lsainh 53'. in Bellinger and Fanncr (cds). Je.ms ond lhf! S11jJering Sermm. pp. 1J -3S. 21. II is no! clear whether thesuffering ofthe servant in Isaiah 53 coostilutcsa substitutionat)'. !lnd lhuscxclusi''<. suO'cring (suAC:ringinstcad of olhcrs) ora rcprcsenta!iw. and thus indusi\'e. suff~'fi ng (suffering alongside. others). A helpful explanation of terminology and n rc\·iew of diffcrcn! \'itws taken on thi,; issue can be found in D. P. Baile)'. 'Conccpcs ofStell•·ertretlmg in the lnteiprctation of Isaiah SJ'. in Bellinger and Farmer (eds). JeJus and th~ Suj}'ering Smmt. pp. 223- 50. 22. In the ,;eco1.d !iJCn.•anl song. Jsa. 49.3 iOngs. the term ·servant of Yuhw~h ' is frequendy understood in a collccti"t sense: lsn. -11 .8·10: ~~. 1 -2. 21: 45-.4; 48.20. For a proposal that ancient lsradi1c.s h.'td the scnsc-of"oorporatc pcr:>oMiity'. which blurred a distinction between the individuality of a person and the group to which tbc person belonged. see-H. W. Robinson. ·The Hebrew Conception of Corporote-Personality'. in p. Volz. F. Stummer nnd J. ~I empel (cds). w~rdm lind We$en dts .. fltts Teswments (BZAW. 66: Be-rlin: A . TOpdmnnn. 1936). For 11 crilique of this idea.. sec R. E. ClcmeniS. ·rsaiah 53 and the Rcstoralion of lstnd'. in Bellinger and Fnm1cr (tds). Jesus amf tlw Suffering St'n:am. pp. 42- 3. 23. C( Re-vcntlow. 'Busic Issue-S in the-lnlerpn·tuion oflsaiah 53'. p. 14. Clm1ents. ·tsaiah 53 and the Restoration oflsrnd•. pp. 44- 54. discussesthrtt most likely possibilities which could pro\'ide a plausible-background (Of a link between a distinc:ti\'tly personal e:tpericnc:e of the s~'f\'illlt and the corporate identity of lbc: sccvant-lsrnc-1: the royal strvilnt. lbc servant as prophet. and Moses ns the servant 24. RC\•enllow. "Busic tssucs in the lntcrprc(ation of lsaish 53'. p. 28. Revcntlow's conclusion is valid even if one-concurs with Martin Hengel thai Lhc concept of ntoning death wns well kno\\1\ in antiquity: ~e).i. liengd. T1•r At<mermmt: The Origin oftlw Doctrine i11 tlw Nell-' Te.\·tammt(London: SCM: Philaddphia: Fonress Press. 198 1). pp. 19- 32. 25. K. Koch. Sput'i'Jl des hebriiisdwu Dtmkeru: Beilriige : ur alttestamentliC'!Iom Theo/Qgie (cd. B.lano\vsl:i and M. Krau~: Gesammchc Aufsiit;x. 1: Ncukirchcn-VIuyn: Ncukirchcne-r Verlag. 1991), p. 10J.

NOVAKOVIC

Jt1attllew 's Atomistic l.h;f! ofScripture

15 1

identity of the servant and his mission, pru1icularly his vicarious suffering, which were ooncurre.nt with the Jesus movement and the rise of Christianity? In Sir. 11.1 2-13, Isa. 52.15 ('Thus shall many nations be amazed at him') is applied to a righteous person who at first experiences misfommes but is eventually exalted by God. which provokes the amazement of others: 'The1·e is another who is slow and needs help. who lacks strength and abounds in pove-rty: but the eyes of the Lord look upon him for his good: he lifts him out of his low estate-and raises up his head. so that many are amazed at him.' Sir. 48.9-10. on the other hand, uses a short clause from the second sen•ant song ('to l'ise up the tribes of Jacob' in (sa. 49.6b) and combines it with a prophecy from Mal. 4.6 ('He will turn the hearts of parents to their child1·en')to descl'ibe one of the activities of Elijah whose return is prophesied in Mal. 4.5-6: 'You who we1·e taken up by a whirlwind of fire, in a chariot with horses of fire; you who are ready at the appointed lime. it is written, to calm the.wrath of God before it breaks out in fury. to tum the heart of the f.1ther to the son and to 1·estore the tribes of Jacob.· Dan. 12.3 applies (sa. 53.ll b ('The righteous one. my servant shall make many righteous' p:~:,; ~;~.D p•i:: ; p· ,~·n to tlle righteous who will be resurrected at the end of days: 'Those.\Vho are \vise (Ct ;:l\l:.'Oit) shall shine like the bl'ightncss of the sky. and those who lead many to righteousness [o· :~ -~oi · p · i~O},Iike the stars forever and ever.' Thehiphil of the verb p11.:, which appears in both passages. means 'to make righteous' rather than having the usual sense 'to declare innocent' .26 1nterestingly enough. Daniel makes no reference to the statement 'and he shall bear their iniquities·. which immediately follows in Isa. 53.11 c. Rather, the text expaJlds the idea of exaltation of those who have previously suffered. Tile wise ones are those whose martyrdom will be rewarded by the resurrection from the 'dust of the earth• and everlasting life (Dan. 12.2). It is therefore t3 ir to conclude that the passage in Dan. 12.2-3 inte1·prets Isaiah 53 collectively as a reference. to the martyrs who will be 1·aised and exalted in the end-time.27 The i\ramaicApoc1yphon ofLevi. prese"•ed in 4Q540 (4QapocrLevi'? ar) and 4Q541 (4QapocrLevib·] ar). contains several allusions to Isaiah 53. The largest among the existing fragments is fragment9 of4Q541, where the speake1·(presumably Jacob addressing his son Levi) mentions an unidentified figure who ·will atone (-~~:=t~) for all the children of his generation' and who "will be sent to all the children of his [people]' (4Q541 frg. 9 1.2-3)." Lines 5-6 describe the suffering of this person: 'They will uttc.r many words against him. and an abundance of (lie]s; they will fabric--ate fables against him. and utte1· every kind of disparagement against him.· 4Q540 also contains several, albeit fragmentary, references to suffering: ' distress will come upon him, and the linle one will lack goods' (line 1) 16. J. A. :O.fofllgomery. A G·ilica/ a1td£t:q;etical C(}mmenrm:r(Jfl the BmJk t;?{Dallie/ (ICC; New York: C. Scribne.r's Sons. 1917). pp. 47--8. 27. Cf. M. Hengel wi1h D. P. Bailey. 'The Effoc1ive HislOI)' of tsniah 53 in th~· Pre-Christian Period•. in Janowski and Stuhlmnc-hcr (cds). The Suffiriltg Sen·anl. p. 98. 28. The English translation used llc:rc is taken from F. G. .M:artin¢Z nnd E. J. C. Tigchd.aar. Tile DemlSea Scrolls Study Edition (vol. 2: Leiden: Brill: Gl\lnd Rapids: \Villiam B. Ecn:lmuns. 2000}. pp. 10 79-81.

152

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

and ·a loss will come to it, and he will lack goods' (line 2). Puech suggests that these sections refer to the end-time priest who procures cultic atonement within the framework of a 1'Cbuilt or reconsecrated sanctu:uy mentioned in 4Q540 line 5.~ Nonetheless, as Martin Henge.l notes. ' no vicarious surrende1· of life is evident in the fn1gments'.l0 The-re are several indic--ations that the LXX understands God's servant as a collective tem1, which refers to Israel and Jacob. Tims. fo1·example. the LXX translates '1::Jll ('my servant') in lsa. 42. 1 as 'laKe.:>~ 0 IT<XiS' ~OU CJacob. my child '), whereas Isa. 49.3 LXX (5oo>.O, ~0\J 11ou 'lopa~}, - ·You are my servant, Israel') 1·etains the collective meaning found ah·eady in the.MT (~~i~ 0r~~-~1::.D - 'You are my servant. lsmel'). This collective interpretation is much less visible in the foUJ1h servant song. which seemingly preserves the individual notion (0 rro:l$ IJOU in fsa. 52.13) found in the MT, but even here 'collective and individual interpretations need not be.mutually exclusi\•e ·.:11 The LXX also retains the c,oncep1 of vicarious suffering. but shows a tendenc.Y toward spiritualization. Thus. for example, the servant c.a,·ries •our sins' (TO$' a·I.J o:ptlo:s- fu.Jc3v) instead of"our infirmities· (n•'m). T1le sin spoken of here is frequently interpreted :15 lawlessness ..n Furthermore. the honour and shame dichotomy is mo1·e emphasized in the LXX: the servant ' had no form or beaut,)' (oUK s1xev E15os ou5s KcXAAOS in lsa. 53.2). his form was ;without honour' (O:TiiJOV in Jsa. 53.3}. aJld 'he was not hono1·cd' (ftTt~cio9rt in Isa. 53.3)-" Finally. the emphasis llllls on the justification of the servant as a righteous pcl's on, mther than his ability to make many righteous.l4 The motif of exaltation o f an innocen1sut1brer is especially elaborated in Wis. 2. 13-20 and 5.3-6. Both passages apply the servant imagery to the righteous person who suffe1'S unjustlY.. He is P.Ortraycd as the one who ·calls himself a child/ servant of the Lord' ( rro:i5o: K1!ptoo 'saurov ovo~ci<et in Wis. 2. 13). Like in the fom1h servant song, there is a distinction between the collective "we· and the righteous sufferer. The latter becomes to the former a reproof of their thoughts, who in turn decide to test his trust in God by condemning him to a shameful 29. Cf. E. Puc:ch. ·frngmenls d'un apocryphc de te\·i et le personnuge cschlllologiquc:: 4QTc:.stlCvi' 4 (?) c:1 4QAJa'. in J. T. Borttrricol Jesus ill Co11text (Princclon Readings in Rdigions: Princ.eton and Ox.ford: Princeton University Press. 2006). p. 402. 33. According•o Witherington Ill. 'Isaiah 53:1-12 (Scptuaginl)'. p. 401. 'the preocrupa1ion wid1 his outward fom1or beauty or ··face" probably rcAC'Cts how some of Lhc Grec:l: virtUC$31\' in the mind of the trJJtSialor'. 34. Wi1hcring1on ttl. ·tsui:th 53: I-12 (Scptungint)'. p. 402: H'--ngcl with Bailey. 'The Effcctiw ~t islory oflsniah 5J in the: Pre-Christian P~"l'i od'. p. 118. 4

4

NOVAKOVIC

Jt1attllew 's Atomistic l.h;f! ofScripture

153

death. Yet they are proven wrong at the final judgement, when they see that the righteous one. (0 5lt::at0)), whom they held in derision and believed to be without honour, is vindicated by God and numbered among the children of God. T11ese descriptions contain numerous allusions to lsa. 52.13--53.12, but the dominant the.me is not vicarious suflbri ng on behalf of others. but God's vindication of an innocent sufferer. Also. similar to the ·we· group in Isaiah 53, his persecutors do not recognize their own guilt until after his exaltation. Only the Targum of lso.tiah, composed some.time. bet·ween 70 and 135 CE,H consistently interprets lsa. 52.13--53.12 as a reference to the Messiah. This is indic-ated already in the opening line of the tburth song~ which translates ~,~ ii from Isa. 52.13 with ~rn::c .,:iii ("my servant the Messiah"). The identification of the servant with the f\•tessiah occurs only here and in lsa. 43.10, and is most likely based on Zech. 3.8. which juxtapose$ the messianic temt ' branch· (nC::.:) to the term ·my servant' (~i:::!.IJ). 36 1n other instances, the targumist understands this term collecl"ively as a retCrence to lsraet.Ullte messianic interpretation oflsaiah 53 is, however. achieved through a dmstic reinterpretation of the Hebrew text, which removes eve I)• allusion to sufYering from the messianic figu re and transfers it either to his enemie$ or to Israel. This reinterpretation. howeve1·, is not arbitrary. but seems to be based on the targumist's understanding oflsa. 52.1 3. which speaks about the prosperity and succe.ss ofthe se.rvant. and the change in the Hebrew text ft·om the.third person singular ("1~1') in lsa. 52. I 3 to the second pe1'Son singular in Jsa. 52.14 ('many we.t•e astonished at you [j ' ;v]'). From dtis. he most likely concluded that the references to suffering must apply to the Messiah's adversaries..!* Verses 3-4 are quite illustrative of this tendency: Then !he gloryof nU!he kingdoms will be for oontempt andcessc:: the)' will be faint and mournful. behold. ns n mttn of sorrows nnd appointed for sicknesses: and ~ wbe.n !he fac1 of the: Shekhinah 'vas tnken up fro mus. they arc dcspisl-d nnd nol esteemed. The-n he. will beseech concerning our sins and our inquitic:s for his sake will be forgi,·c:n: ye1 we were cstoc:nn-d wounded. smitten before the LORI>and nnlic.ted..i9

T11e f\·fessiah is presented here in the int:el'cc.ssOI)' role-he shall pray on behalfof lst'3el's t:mnsgressions. which will be pardoned for his sake.

35. Cf. J. ..\dna. ·The Servan1offsniuh 53 ns Triumpflanl and Interceding Messiah: The.Rcttption of Isaiah 52: 13-53:12 in lhe Tnrgu:m oflsninh wi1h Spceial Attention to lheConcc:pt of the Messiah•. in Jnnov.rski and Stuhlmachcr (eds}. TIJe Sufforing Semml. p. 197. 36. Cf. Adna, ·nc S-ervant of Isaiah 53 as Triumphant and Interceding Messiah'. p. 199. Adna further explains that ·bcc3use. the Isaiah Tnrgumist already 11IKkrstands the Brnnc,h as tbc: l ord's Messiah in Targum of Isaiah 4:1. the: equalion of IlK- Lotd·s SC-f ''anl with the messinnic Brunch of Zcdtarinh 3:8 makes it possible for him to idlTitify the Servant wilh th~· messiahc"en where.the Bible le:tt has only ' "i~.i} •. 37. For e:tnmple. the targumist preserves t:hc Kientilknlion ohhc servant wilh lsrud in lsa. 49.3. while in lso. 49.6. ·my Sc::t\·ant' (singular) boc:onn-s ·my scn •ants' (plural). 38. Adn..'l. 'The Sc:rnuu of Isaiah S3 as Triumphunt and lntc:roc:ding Messiah'. p. 199. 39. English LTnnslution is ~t~ken fromB.D. Chilton. Tlw lsaitlll Targum: JntrmhK"ti<m. Tiutb·fmif.m. Apparatus ond ,ftlota (The. Aramaic. Bible. I 1: Wilmington. DE: Michael Glazier. 19&7).

154

Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

We can thus conclude that in the first century there was nothing like a unifom1ly defined concept of the-·servant". even less the. ·suffering Servant' ..tO There is

simply no evidence to uphold the view that ·early Je,vs read these Servant Songs as a whole and did not atomize and compartmentalize the text the way we do

today', or that 'they did not read or interpret the chapter in isolation from the previous Servant Songs':" Rather>as the survey of the relevant documents indicates, eal'ly Jews referred to individual portions of these songs without much regm·d for their context or a unifying message. The most striking characte1·istic of these texts is lhat. apart from the LXX, which stands close to the sense of the Hebrew text, the theme of vicarious suffering of the set·vant is conspicuously absent.Jl Even in the LXX. the theme ofsubstitutionary sufl'ering is downplaycd. The IsaiahTargum is especially instructive, because it demonstrntes just the opposite tendency - the text llltet·s out any reference to the servant's suffering and ascribes it to his enemies. lf thet'e is a motif that early Jewish writings take over from Isaiah 53, it is not the redemptive sufferings! but the idea of exaltation after undeserved humiliation. Even so, the references are scattet-ed and do not capture the sense of the whole. Finally, these texts show that ...Servant of God... whether in Greek or Hebrew. is never treated as a title like Christ. It does not appear in Jewish litemlure in statements like. "So and so is the servant ofthe Lord". •.u Even in the New Testament. the ' Scr\'ant of God· is not treated like a title.: Jesus is never confessed to be the ·servant' .H The reason tbr this see-ms to be.quite obvious: the temt 'servant' could be applied to mal\y diflbt-ent pet'SOnalities and had no specific content. Broadly speaking, 'God's servant' was an appropriate term forevetyone who has been faithful to God."

40. Cf.Jerc-mias. · nais etoU'. pp. 682- 3: Hengd wilh Baiky. 'The Effective 1-listof)' oflsaiuh 53 in Lhc Pre-Christian P~"l'iod'. pp. 79-80. 41. Withcringlon Ill. 'lsniah 53: 1· 12 (Scptuuginl)'. p. 403. 42. Cf. 1-lengd wilh Bniley. 'The Effcccin: History of lsainh 53 in !he P~-Chti.s.lian Period'. p. 140: 'ihc txf)\.-"ttation ofan eschatological s.u ffcring figureconncc-100 with l<:aiah 53 Cllnnotlh~~rdorc be pron:n lo exist with absolute «rlainly and in a d cnrly outlinl" 43. According to Rc\·cntlow. ·the third and. above all. the fourth Song were not in !he snmc: \'18)' open to a re-use. as the aspcC"I of suffering. above aUa vicutiou.s. suffering. blodcd the.dc\·clopmenl of new ideus· (' Bas-ic Issues in the Interpretation of Isaiah 53'. p. 33). 44. Jud. MeJJitmic ExegeJis. p. 124. Hookcringcniot•slyc:tplains thnt · !.he~- \vas no notice of !.he •·Jobs Voc.unf' column of thqmpcrs rending ·'Wanted: IlK- Servant of the Lord''• ('Did the Use of lsniah 53 to Interpret I-I is Mission Begin with Jesus'?' p. I 00). 45. None ofa \'ery few New Tcstamcnt occurrences- of no:Is in n:lation to Jesus is titular: in Mt. 12.18. this tcnn is part of the quotation of Isa. 42.1; Acts- 3.13 contains- the expression ' his s~"f\'hn t Jes-us-'. Acts 3.26 hns ' his ser\'ant'. while-Acts 4.27 nnd 4.30 comprise-lhc pbr<~sc ')'our holy sernml Jesus·. In none: of 1hesc c:~ses do we find a formul
NOVAKOVIC

Jt1attllew 's Atomistic l.h;f! ofScripture

155

3. The Form aud Ftmc fion ofIsaiah 53.4 in the Gospel
T11e quotation o f (sa. 53.4 in Mt 8. 17 is linked to a mini-summary of Jesus' healing activity~ which alleges that ' they [the people] brought to him many who were possessed with demons; and he cast out the spirit'i with a word, and healed a ll who were sick' (Mt. 8.16). This declaration is followed in 8. 17a by one of Matthew's fommlaic introductions into scriptura l quotations, 'in order that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled' (onws nA~pc.>llfi TOp~9£v ota 'Hoaiou roii npooj>nrou 1-iyovros)." Like most of the other formulaic introductions, this statement is articulated as a purpose-clause::.s In this way, Jesus' healing activity is prl!'sented as a purposeful fulfilment ofan ancient pi'Ophecy uttered by the prophet Isaiah. The Greek text of the. quotation (auTOS rixs ixo9EV£io:s ~~wv 11\a~EV Kal tO:s v6oous £~0:oto:oc.v - ·He took our infimtities and carried away the diseases') in 8.17b differs sigJ~ificantly fr~m the ~pirit~uallzed i_nterpre!atjon~ ~fl!<'L 53.4 found in the LXX (OUT05 T£p€1 KCll n£pt ~~wv OOuvCnat- ·This one carries out· sins. and sutTe.t'S pain for us').l\·tauhew's version ofls.a. 53.4 is closer to the sense of the-Hebrew text, which t•efers to the physical condition of the sick: ~;:c n~~~::lOi ~~ ~itl i:-·'" f::l~ ('Surely he has bome additional Greek our infirmities and carried our pains'). Since ,,we possess . two ,, , tmnslationsoflsa. 53.4a. produced by Aquila (ovTWS' auTOS' T0:5 VOOOUS' ~~wv ixvii-o:~ev Kal reus nolli~ous ~~c.3v uni~etv£v [cod. 86)) and Symmachus fOVTWS' Ta) VOOOU5 h~c.3v O:UTQs avii-o:~£V Kal TOUS' novous ~~c.3v unf~Et VEV).~ which are closer to the MT than the LXX. rvtatthew's t•endering can be compared to theirs, even though, given its chronological priol'ity, it is completel}' independent.

. .

~7. O!hcr cxamplesof Matlhcw's formulaic inttoductions into scriptural quowt;onscan be found in 1.22: 2.1S. 17.23: 4.14: 12.17; 13.35: 21.4: 27.9. Some.ofthc ~ important studies ofMntl.hcw's fom1ula quot!ltions arc: K. Stc-nduhl. nu: School ofSt. Mallhi!~<>' and f1s Ustr oftluo Old Testamem (ASNU, 2 0: Lund: C. W. K. Gl«rup. 19 54). pp. 9?- 127. 183-206: G. Strcc.kcr.!Nr Weg der Gm't'hligkeit: Untersuchu11gen :ur ThtVJiogk des Mulliliitu (FRLANT. 82: GOuingcn: Vandcnhoock & Ruprecht. Jrd edn. 1971). pp. ~9-85: Gundry. The Useof tluo Old Testament ill S1. Matthew's Gospel. pp. &9·127: W. Roth fuchs. Die fJ:fii!lung,\·zitute des Maulliius· £rongeli1mu: fine biblist·h· Jllf!ologisclw Unt~r.nrd11mg (BWANT,8&: Stuugart: W. Koblhamnll:r Verlag. 1969). pp. 27--44: G. M. Soam. Prabhu. The Formulo Qrwtatimu in rile lrif(JJwy J'Vurro,;,,... of,\.Jutrl~t.•w: An fnquby imo tht• Troditi(JII HiJIO(I' tifMatt 1-l (AnBib. 63; Rom~·: Biblicallnstihuc Press.. 1976). pp. 18-161. ~S. MI. 2.23. 8.17 nnd 13.35 conlaif) purpose c.lauscs introduccd with Onw5. \\'hcrcus Mt. 1.22. 2.15. 4.14. 12. 17 nnd 21.4 conmin purpose clauses introduced with'iva. The only exceptions from this p:.Ucm arc the introductions in 2.17 and 27.9. whic.h are fonnulatcd u.s dcdarativc sk1tcmcnts with l.hc verb nAEpOw in aotist passi\·c indic-ntivc. 49. Tbc lrnnslations by Aquil:. and Symmachus were produced in the sccondocnturyct:. Aquila's text is characterized by n literal rendering of the Hebrew original. which frcqucnd>' results in awl:ward syntnctical constructions. Symmuchus' trunslatioa is. in contrast. cha.ractcrizcd by lite-m y dcgancc. C(. H. 1-lcgcrmann.Jesujo 53 i11 Hemp/a. Targum wrd Pt•scltiuo (BFCT. 11156: GUtcrsloh: C. lkrtelsmann Verlag. 19 54).

156

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

1\·latthew's quotation starts with the personal pronoun a·Ut6s 1 which is a more natural rendering of the Hebrew personal pronoun ~·ri1 than the demonstrative pronoun ® TO$' found in the LXX, as the tmnslations of Aquila and Symmachus demonstrate.~ Next, rvtatthew's citation contains the term O:o9€v£tCX~ which is c loser to the meaning o f the Hebrew noun · ;;, ("sickness. disease') than the LXX's translation ix~aptla. Even though there are instances, such as Judg. 16.7, I I, 17; Hos. 11.6; Ezek. 34.4; and Dan. 8.27. where ihe LXX translates the ve1·b il ';n ('to grow weak. to be ill') with O:o9evi!v. it never uses the noun O:oeivE ICX as a rendering of· ~- Matthew's c hoice ofixo9ivtto: as a translation · ';n is similar

to Aquila's choice ofv6oo) as a translatjon o f the same Hebrew noun.SI Matthew's phrase Td$' O:o9evcfo:) iu.tc.3v can be therefore understood as a literal rendering of,~ 52 Further,~ unlike the LXX. which translates the verb~C'I) with ¢i€pcu, Matthew uses Aa·IJ~O:vcu.u In view of Aquila's and Symmachus ' choice of a similar verb (0:vaAa1J~civUl) tbr the same purpose. Matthew's translation is an acceptable, and quite natural, rendel'ing of the Hebrew equivalem.5J In the next clause. Matthew's choice o f the noun v6oos ("disense /'5 to ~rans­ late ~~:JC ('pain~) ditl'ers fi'Om the LXX, which combjnes the verbOOuVO:OIJO'I with the prepositional phrase rrep'1huWvto produce the cJause "he suftb1'S pain tbr us'.56 Matthew's 1·endering also differs from Aquila's noAEIJOS' ('strife') and S)•mmachus· nOvO) ('distress, affliction'). Matthew's translation is intentional and purposefill - he understands the pain mentioned in the MT a~ the physical pain caused by illness and select~ therefore an appropriate term (VOOO>._) to communicate this idea. He completes this task by choosing the ve.rb ~O:OT0:~(.)51 as a translation of;~o. which is attested neither in the LXX nor in Aquila and Summachus. Even though the semantic range of~o:otci includes the ideas such as 'c-.any·, ' bear' or ·endure.', in the Matthean context it is narrowed down to the idea of ·carrying away· or ·removing·, which is apparently not the sense of'=.C ('bear a heavy load'),5ll even though the latter is not opposed to it.59

,n.

50. Cf. M. J. J. Mc:nkeon. 'ihc: Sourc.: oflhc Quotation from Isaiah 53:4 in Mauh::w 8:11'. l1lovT 39 ( 1997). 317.

51. Even though O:oeivuo is nlwpa:r legomemJII in Mauhcw. A. Schlatter. Der Enmgelist Mull· hiiuJ:Seine Sproclzc. Jl!in Z.it. sd11 Sdbstiilfdigkdt (Stuugan: Calwer. 6th odn. 1963). pp. 282- 3. hns shown that Matthc:w'schoKc ofthis lcnn is no1 surprisinggl\'en !he fact thnt O:o&un:iv and O:o&nn)S belong to Mnlthcw's \'otabulary (~11. I 0.8: 25.36. 39). 52. Cf. Gundry. The Use q( tlw Old TeJtumt·m in St. M(Jttflcw 's GoJJJt.>/. p. I 09: l) .;wics and Allison. The Go.fJ><'I .4c• Rrligio11 ofNellcmi.wicJ11daiJm ami Pn'miti,·e C/uiJti· anity (tr.,ns. A. Grien:: Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1901). pp. 102- 3. 59. Cf. Gundry. Tlrt· UJt> (}jthr OidTcstammt i11St. Mauhell' 'sGafJ><'I. p. t II . Aquiln 's trnnsla1ion of 'r.lo with !XtoTCX<w in lsu. 53.11 show'S thnt !his is a possible 1"(-ndcring of !his verb.

NOVAKOVIC

Jt1attllew 's Atomistic l.h;f! ofScripture

157

Matthe\v' s citation hence does not have any exact parallel in the existing Greek versions and most likely represents Matthew's own rendering of the Hebrew text oflsa. 53.4.60 ft is apparent that Matthew exercised great freedom in adapting the quotation of lsa. 53.4 to his desired purposes. Krister Stendahl called this method ofquoting Scripture a 'targumizing procedure'. which is certainly a suitable term for ?l.
o

60. Cf. Stendahl. Tire School ufSI. Mollhew. p. I07: li. J. HeM. 'Matthew us lnlerprete-r of the Mirode Stori~-s' . in G. Bomkamm. G. B.mth und H. J. Held (cds). TnJdi/i()l1 trlld lnJerpreMioll itJ MoJt/rew(truns. P. Scott: London: SCM P~ 1963). p. 259: Gundry. TM lheofJ!te OldTeJtamarl ill S1. MallIre"' 'sGospd. pp. I09-11: Rothfuc.hs. Die E1jiiflu11gs:ilme
158

Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

we accounted him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted• (iijit01 O"ii~"' ii;:jO ~i); 'liil~iZ.V'I D~:~1 in (sa. S3.4b f\.~1); ':n~ we confidered ,h h~l to be i1~ trou,ble. tn blow(s). and tn Iii-treatment" (K<XI nPHS tAOYIOO:ptBa O:UTOV tTV<XI tV ITOVW KO:l £v rrAny(i Kal £v KO:KWotl in lsa. 53.4b LXX). Both versions of lsa. 53.4b emphasize the suffering of the servant which is entirely absent from the Matthcan context Furthennore, Matthew also stops short of quoting Lc;a. 53.5. which in both versions, the MT f But he was wounded for our transgressions. he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the-punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed') and the LXX ('But he was wounded because ofour lawlessness and has been weakened because of our sins: the discipline of our peace was upon him: by his bi'Uise we were heaJed"). interprets the suffering of the se-rvant as a substitutionary suffel'ing on behalf ofothers. T1le reason fo1·this omission is quite. apparent: in the Matthe;m context, the idea of Jesus' vicarious suffering plays no role. At this point of his ministry, Jesus neither suffeJS nor bears the sufferi ng ofothers.63 Matthew interpret~ the p1'0phecy oflsa. 53.4 neither as vicarious sutrering nor atonement fo1·sin, but as elevating the suffel'ingof others caused by physic.al illnesses. Has Matthew thereby falsified ' the intention of the original context', bec-ause 'the application of lsa. 53.4 to healing miracles is not really appropriate'?~ Davies and Allison aHe.ge that ' it cannot be rightly said that the New Testament verse captures the true sense of the OT text' . and ask, 'Can Matthew be delivered from the charge of eisegesis?' 65- ls, in view of such a critique, ' the pi'Oper Christian understanding of this verse .. . the atoning efficaC}' Ofthe Passion', so that an interpreter must ·relate Christ's healing mi racle~~ to his total work of redemption~. as LindaJS suggests?G~> The survey in the previous section has shown that this was not the way Matthew's Jewish contemporaries 1·ead Isaiah 53. Rather, they we1·e able to refer to individuaiJXH1ions of this song without much regard for the.ir ove-rall context and have shown little, if any. interest in the rede-mptive suffering ofche servant If so, Matthew's application ofls.a. 53.4 to Jesus' healing ministry is neither an exception nor a falsification of its original intent. Matthew made. use ofonly that paJ1 oflsa. 53.4 which was able to illuminate his narrative about Jesus' healings. The po1tions of (saiah 53 that are not quoted, such as the references to the.vicarious suffering of the servant of God, we1-e mosllike.ly intentionally omitted because they had no l'elevance in the ne-w context into which the

63. Cf. U. lux. ,\/att/U'w 8-lO(Irsns. J. E. Crow: h.: Hc:mlcnc:ia: Minneapolis: Fonress Press.. 200 1). p. 14. Diffcrendy. W. Caner. Mattb!!..- (tlrd tilt' Margin.f: A !i«Wpo/iti

NOVAKOVIC

Jt1attllew 's Atomistic l.h;f! ofScripture

159

quotation was embedded.67 Hooker has probably overstated her case when she concluded that • if the very quotations which would, used in cert;.lin contexts. make abundantly evident the identification o f Jesus with the Servant who by his suffering expiates the sins of others are instead used only o f his work in other spheres. then this is strong evidence that such an identific-ation was never made, either by Jesus or by his earliest followers' .6~ Even though, in my view, the citation oflsa. 53.4 in ?\·ft. 8.1 7 cannot be taken as decisive evidence that Jsaiah 53 was never associated with redemptive sutTering by Jesus himself or in primitive Christianity~ it ce11ainly shows that it did not have to be associated with this idea unless such correlation was required by the context In Matthew. Jesus' healings are not d irectly associated with his suffering. Rathe-r. they comprise a signific--ant part of Jesus' public minisuy through which he expresses compassion for his contemporaries, because ·they were harassed and helple$S, like sheep without a shepherd' (Mt. 9.36b) . .l\·latthew's decision to use Isa. 53.4 ;15 a scriptural basis of Jesus' healing ministry is thereby still not explained. Isa. 53.4 was certainly a suitable passage for the purpose of showing that Jesus took away the infiml itie$ of the sick. but one still wonders why Jesus' healings needed scriptural justification at all. Donald Juel points out that 'Christians did not search the whole of the Scripture for passages that struck them as paralle-ls to Jesus' career or as possible lbreshadowings. There was more logic and order in their movement through the Bible.·~ I propose that the answer to this question should be sought in the overall chaJ'acte.r of Jesus' healing ministry. In Matthew's Gospel, Jesus' healing miracles have a messianic 9uality. '!hey are 'lot j ust act;; ofcompassion. but ' the works of the f'.·fessiah ·(tO: tpya rou XPIOTOUin f'-·t t. 11.2), as Matthew explains to the reader while recounting the e.pisode about John lhe Baptist. who he.ard about Je.sus' miracles but could not conclusively perceive their messianic significance. Mol-eover~ Jesus' identity as the Davidic Messiah is closely linked to his healings. On several occasions. he is either addressed by the messianic title ' Son ofDavidt when the sick approach him asking for a cure (Mt. 9.27-31 : 15.21 -28; 20.29-34), or his healings provoke a question concerning his me.ssianic identity: ·can this be the Son o f David?' (Mt. 12.22-24). If so, the citation o flsa. 53.4 in Mt. 8.1 7 appears in a new light. h offers a scriptural proof that Jesus heals the sick in his capacity as the Davidic Messiah. Since, at the.end of the miracle cycle in Matthew 8- 9, Jesus is addressed by the 1\vo blind men with the messianic title ·son of Da vid ' ~ the quotation of Isa. 53.4 c-an be understood as the preliminary him which Matthew offers to his reade1·s concerning the messianic significance of Jesus· healings. The Targum of Isaiah shows that by the time of the composition of?.,•latthew's Gospel. the fourth se1·vant song was read in some Jewish circles as a messianic text. It should be stressed, however, that the messianic reading o fthis poem was just one among several diO''erent possibilities. We cannot therefore speak about ·a Messianic intention be.hind the Se.rvant passages' and ·a recognition of that 67. Cf. l uz. Mmthew8-10. p. 14. 68. Hooker. JeJtu and the SetYOIII. p. 83. 69. Jud . Mm kmic E:u.oge.\·is. p. 130.

160

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

intention from the beginning'~ as Gundry proposes.10 The messianic potential of Isaiah 53 was recognized only in some reading communities, pl'esumabl)' those that linked their messianic hopes to certain individuals, such as Bar-Kochba 11 or Jesus. 4. The Underlying Principle ofthe :\lfessianic lutcrprelatiou of

Isaiah 53.4 in Mallhet.o,• T11e scriptural warrant for Matthew's identification of the servant with theMessiah can be fou nd in several biblical passages in whid1 the messianic figure is called God's ser\'ant. Two parallel statements in Ps. 89.39-40. for example. juxtapose ·your anointed' (1n·\tio) and ·your servant' (j1:..D), thus closely associating the two. The messianic passage in Zech. 3.8 comprises the promise that God is going to bring ·my servant the Bmnch· (iiO!l .,:.D}.n The messianic promise in 2 Bar. 70.9, which assei1S that ·all will be delive.red into the hands ofmy se,·vant. the Anointed One·. further indicates that the juxtaposition of both designations was quite common by the end of the first centuryCE. Yet. similar to the Targum of Isaiah, t:his link only provides the basis for Matthew's messianic reading of Isaiah 53. Othe1· texts, especially those that infom1his understanding of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah. seem to have played a more significant role in his application oflsa. 53.4 to Jesus. In view of the fact that the. messianic title "Son of David', which J!.•latthew finnly links to Jesus' healings, is attested in pre-Christian Judaism only in the Psalms ofSolomon, its influence on Matthe.w's Gospel could have been quite p1·otbund. ln fact. it is m·guable that l\·latthcw's choice of the temt O:o9cvclo: as the rendering of~ ;n~ which is not attested in any other existing Greek version. might have been influenced by Pss. Sol. 17.38-40. In this passage. the expected Son of David is described as a caring shepherd, who will not let any ofhis flock weaken (ao9£vnocu) (17.40). He himself will be "strong in his actions· (17.40) becaw;e "the blessing of the Lord will be with him in strength. and he will not ·weaken' (Kal oUKboSnrr)oEI) ( I7.38). Such an UJlderstanding of the Messiah is certainly closer to f\·1atthew's portrayal of Jesus as a mighty healer than the servant from Isaiah 53 who takes on himself the infirmities of others. This description of the Son of David as a compassionate shepherd of his people resembles the description of the ideal Davidic king in Ezek. 34.23-24. The fact that in this passage this ideal king is called twice •my servant David' (i"'li ~i:!iJ)H could have provided the most direct link betwee.n the Davidic 70. Gundry. 11•e UJe ofthe Old Testamer/1 ill St. Mut1ltew's Gospd. p. 230. 71. Cf. Adna. 'The Strvum of lsaiuh 53 as Triumpllun1and Interceding Messiah·. p. 197. 72. The ·brunch' melaphor is u common d~ ignution for a D.widK: Messiah in the Oeud Sea Sc.rolls.. 4Q252 (4QCommGen A) 5.3-4 identifies 'the righteous Messiah IJ'1~ii n ·c:o) with 'lhc BranchofOa\·id• (1'1- liC~ ): 4Q 174 (4QFior) frgs l - l and 21 1. 10-11 inlerprct God's promise to David from 2 Sam. 7.13-14 in term!> of 'the. Brnnch of David' (1'-.r 110'!:!:) who will uppcur in the latter days: cf. Novakovic. MeJ.da!J. I IIi! Hea!eJ· ofli•e Sick. pp. 16-19. 73. The d::signa.1ion ·m)' servant David' is frcqucndy opplicd to King David: 2 Sam. 3. 18: 75. 8:

NOVAKOVIC

Jt1attllew 's Atomistic l.h;f! ofScripture

161

Messiah and the servant of Isaiah 53, which informed Matthew's messianic interpretation o flsa. 53.4. fn Ezekiel 34, the-ideal Davidic king is prese-nted as a benevolent shepherd who takes care of his flock, unlike the current leaders of Israel who take care only of themselves (Ezek. 34.2-3). The shepherd/sheep metaphOI's enable the prophet to describe the neglected people as weak (r 11'x1:ii~ i)o9EV11K05 [LXX]), sick (;;'m;; ; KO:Kc.)s EXOV [LXX]), injured, and loS! (Ezek. 34.4}. Even though these de.scriptions are not explicitly repeated later in the chapter when the ideal Davidic king is introduced. they are CCJ1ainly implied. Tite Davidic king will be the perfect shephe-rd who will tend his wounded flock. Ezek. 34.23 explicitly fuses the metaphor of the shepherd with the David/servant link: ·1will set up over them one shepherd FUJi; ITOt~iva [LXX]). my servant David(,,,, ,,:lil: TOV OOUAOV~ov Llaut5 [LXX}). and he will shepherd them.' Mattlte\v's portrayal ofJesus as a he-aler who takes away the diseases and infirmities of the people is profoundly shaped by this image ofan ideal shephe-rd. In the closing sunmlaJy of the miracle collection in c.lts 8- 9, Matthew explains that Jesus' t~ching. preac.hil~g a~d ' healing eye1y disease and every infimtity' (ae:po:rrsUwv no:oav vooov Kat rro:oav JIOAOKtav) (9 .35) are. the expressions of Jesus ' compassion tOr his afflicted contemporaries, 'bec-ause they were harassed and helpless. like sheep without a sheP.herd' (OTI ~oav SOKUA~ivot KtX·, ipp1~~ivo1 WJ'omised Messiah from the Davidic line, by healing his people. tvtatthew 'concretizes this OT metaphol" 15 by oscillating between its literal and metaphorical implications, which enables him to apply it directly to Jesus' ministry of healing.

a

5. Conclusion The p1·eceding analysis has shown that Matthew's choice oflsa. 53.4 as scriptumI justification of Jesus· healing ministry is guided by his desire to show that J esus ~ healings belong to his messianic duties. By employing two interpretative techniques, messianic and atomistic exe.gesis. f!.·fatthew facilitates a textual interplay between the servant of Isaiah 53, the portrayal of tlte ideal Davidic king in Ezekiel34, and the depiction of the Davidic Messiah in the Psalms ofSolomon 17. T11e scriptural warrant for this complex hermeneutic.al process can be fo und in I Cluon. 17.4. 7: I Kgs I 1.32: 14.&: 2 K~ 8.19: 19.34: 10.6: lsu. 37.35: Ps. 89.3. 20.11tis idiom is applied to the idcuJ Da\'idtc king only in the Book or Ezekid : Ez~~k. 34.23-24 und Ezck. 37.24. 74. cr. a simil:u comrnand gi\'cn to the discipk s in ML 10.6. 75. F. Murlin. ' The lmagc or shepherd in the Gospel of Saint Mallh<w'. 5<& 27 (1975). 177.

162

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

Ezek. 34.23, which provides the verbal link between the te-rms 'shephe-rd', ·servant' and ' David'. This hermeneutical method is based on a simple principle that ·Scripture interprets Scripture', which characterizes many early Jewish and Christian texts. This notion presuppo..c;es that the meaning of a certain passage is neither fixed nor inseparable from its context but c-.an be detennined. if needed. in light of another passage. Yct, which scriptural tc.xt provides a hem1eneutic.al key foranothe.r scriptural text is in many cases t:1.r from being obvious. To uncover this interplay of texts ' behind the scene' frequently requires a tedious and, by its very nature. tentative process of reconstruclion. Textual interpretation never happens in a vacuum but is guided by a number of preconceived notions of a reading community. I propose that in this case. Matthew's messianic reading oflsa. 53.4 in light ofEzekiel34 was induced by his prio1· conviction that Jesus was the expected D:.widic Messiah.7' This belief infom1ed his selections of texts with potentially me.s:sianic implications. The fourth servant song was certainly prone to such a reading, as the Targmn of Isaiah clearly demonstrates. If so. Matthew's atomistic reading oflsa. 53.4 and its application to Jesus' messianic healings. with no referenc.e to his t•edemptive.sufferi ng, are no longer surprising but represent a legitimate, and quite plausible, reading of this portion of Scripture.

76. Cf. Jud . Messianic £.n:gesis. p. 13 1.

II. MAnHEW's (NTERTEXTS AND THE PRESENTATION or J ESUS AS HEALER- M ESSIAH

Andries G. van Aarde

I. lntroducliou

When one.explores the ' intertexf in which the word O~
have~ however~

cautioned that us ing the. concept o f· inrer-

texnlality' merel}' as a new label for what used to be called historical-critical approaches can be problematic. These historical approaches were employed to study texts and their intra-, inter- and extra-textual relationships, focusing on assumed authorial intention. The emphasis was on a diachronic analysis of an authol"s use ofGallungen and text types (genres}, sources, uaditions, motifs and the transmission history of motifs and their social locations, as they become visible in the redactionaJ and compositional tende.ncies ofauthors who were inevitably embedded in their own social settings. Eve-n when exegetes shifted their emphasis from a diachronic analysis of a text's history to a synchronic explanation of the immanent poetics of a text (such as its nat•tative constitttents}, they wen;- often tempted to recycle only old insights and approaches d isguised in the vocabulary of a postmodem thesaurus. So, tbr example, in the I970s, in some literary-critic--al studies by Gospel scholaJ's (such as the studies by Kingsbury}) 1 tem1s such as composition c.riticism and redaction criticism we.re merely renamed ~narrative criticism·. Later) clearer distinctions were made by scholars such as NonnaJl R. Petersen 2 and Jack D. Kingsbury~ between literary-critical and historical-critic.al approache-s to a text Kingsbury. for

I. J. 0. Kinp,buty. Mauhew: Structure. Christology. Kingd(}m (Philadelphia. PA: Fonrcss. 1914).

2. N. R. Petersen. ·The Composition of Mnr\: 4: 1-8'. HTR i3 ( 1980). 185-6: idem. 'litcr.tl)' Criticism for New T'-'$.lament Criti-cs'. in R. A. Spc:nc
in Liu>rmr Crilt'ism und Bihlrcal Lirerory Criticism- Presmtcd i11llon(}r ufH'illium A. BeanMec (P i tt~burgh. PA: Pit·kwi
1980). pp.15- 50. 3. J. 0 . Kingsbury. Matthew lU SJury (Phibddphia. PA: Fortress. 1986).

164

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

example. state-S that 'litermy criti<·ism stands apart from the historical-biographical, the tbrm-critical. and the redaction-critical approaches to Mauhew· ...~ Similarly. within the ·guild' of biblical scholarship it seems as though • interte.xtuality' has become a mere synonym for tradition c.riticism and fom1 criticism. In this regard a caw!al from literary critics to biblical scholars should be heeded. In his essay 'Presupposition and htte11extua l i ty~. Jonathan Culler states: 'The study ofinte11exn1ality is thus not the investigation of source..~; and influences as traditionally conceived; it casts its net wider to include. anon}•mous discmsive prac.tices, codes whose-origins are lost, that make possible the signifying practices of later texts.·s When they used a historic--al-critical paradigm: biblic.al sc-holars have tended to focus on questions pertaining to the evolutionary making of a document. They have not really been particularly intere..~ted in the composition of the literary endproduct. Even when a historic.al-critical exegete did examine the stniCtlll'e and compositionof a document. suchexegesis would usually consist ofquestions about the redaction or editing that gave rise to the creation of a ' new· document. Such exegeses tended to concentrate on the history ofdocuments, more than anything else. A historical-critical investigation typically focused on questions aimed at establishing by whom a document was written, to whom it was addressed, and when and where it was written. Such an investigation presupposed that insight into the hislorical process of producing a document could assist the exegete in finding answe1·s to questions regarding c-ause and etlect - and the discovery of this evolution would assume that the process would make it possible to ascertain I he meaning of the document This chapter aims to explore and to apply two ·Jimited approaches to intertextuality' ~as Culler calls them.t. Theone pertains to ·me specific presuppositions of a g iven text, the way it produces a pre-text, an intertextual space whose occupants may or may not correspond to other actual texts". (n this regard1 the ·given text' is Matthew's Gospel. T11e ·second ente.rprise", according to Culler. is ·an account of how texts create presuppositions and hence pre-texts for themselve-s·.1 The forme1·enterprise.eJltails exploring intertextuality at the synchronic level. and the latter examines inte1·textuality at the diachronic level. The second ente1·prise entails an engagement with all 'pragmatic presuppositions, the conve.ntions of discourse, and the sedimentation of priot· texts designaled by 'inte1·textuality".ll In this chapter, the ·pragmatical presuppositions· concern a discussion ofwhat Gerard Genette refers to as types de relations transtextuel/es (kinds oftranstextual relationships) and what Ulrich Luzcalls the ""Enzyklopiidie" des ..tutorsoder Er.sth•sers' (encyclopaedia of the author or the first/original reader).9 The Kingsbury. Matt/u-w as Stmy. p. I. 5. J. Culle-r. 'Presupposition and tntcncx•uality'. in J. Culler. The Purs11it ofSigm: St•mioti<s. l.ileral/lre, Deconslrllrtion (JthaCII. NY: Cotnd l Univcrsit)' Pn'SS. 200 1). p. 103. 6. Culler. ' Prcsuppo~ition and lntcncxtuality'. p. 118. 7. Culler. 'Presupposition and lntcrtcxtuality'. p. tIS. S. Culler. 'PKsupposition and tntcrtc..xtualiiy'. p. 118. 9. G. Gen~':ltc. Polimpsestes: I.a /iuenru're 011 .f«rmd ckgrV (Pnris: Seuil. 1982). p. 8.: U. l uz. 4.

VAN AARDE Th~

Presentation ofJesus as Healer-Messiah

165

synchronic dimension involves the ' inte1text11al space, in which specific 'occupants' (in this case, f\·fatthew's intended readers) could be addressed by the 'pretexts' of the word ocJ~<.V. The chapter consists of three parts. The first represents a concise re.f!ection on criteria and methods relevant to an investigation of inte-rtextuality: the second exemplifies the "encyclopaedia' of Matthew' s intertextuality: and the third discusse.s the 'p1·e -texts' of the various occurrences of the word ocJ~(,.) in Matthew. 2. Criferia aud i\ttellmds With regard to an investigation into Matthew's 'inte11exts' . the ' texts' behind his use of the word oc.)~w. one should also remember that, according to John Dominic Crossan. ·crileria. no matter how good. do not constitute a me/hodtulless they are organized on some theoretical basis into some operational syste.m that can be used by anyone' .16 A brief theoretical reflection on the notion of · inte1·texn1ality' is therefore essential to this chapter. lnte11extuality looks at the ·making' of a text, and both its composition and message, from a radically difYerent aJlgle than historical criticism does. The fbilowing precis by Jonathan Culler expresses something of this novelty: ·tnteltextuality thus becomes less a name. for a work's relation to pm·ticular prior texts than a designation of its participation in the discursive space ofculmre. ' I I From this perspective. a text is not a configuration of language. symbols as such, but mther a complex language.symbol witllin a OOit.'l-tellation oftexts. Essentially. language is a product of sociological interaction. The social context can be 1·egarded as the mechanism 1hat generates texts. Eve1y text reflect.:;. the social context from which it is communicated. Danow quotes a remark from the work ofUspenski and Lotman with important intertextual implic--ations: "A text can only be undel'stood if it is compared extensively with the-culture, or more precisely with the behaviour of the people contemporary witll it; and their behaviour c.an likewise only be made sense of ifit is jlLXtaposed with a large.numberoftexts.' 12 However, social context is an indirect. mther than a di1·ec.t. ·mechanism· behind the generation of texts. It is people who are directly responsible tb r the production of texts. This does not imply that historical criticism has no1 contributed to the. understanding of the ·inteltextuality' ofa text (such as Matthew' s text). h also does not mean that historical criticism•s concern with sources prior to the production ofa text is irrelevant when Matthew is ;juxtaposed with other texts·. However. historical criticism does not constitute the exegetical paradigm of an intertextual appi'Oach. Therefore~ the study of the intertextuality of Matthew l'equires an

'ln!C"rtcxtuaJitiit im Mnuhaus~''angdium' . Paper rend to the Gospel of Matthew S¢minar, Studiorum No\·i Testam('nti Societas. 57th Q(tlcral Meeting. Bonn, Gcrmony, :29 July- 2 August1003. 10. J. D. Cross.1n. The RinllofChristilmity: D&t'Ol<ering What Napp""ncd ittthf! YearJ lmm~-diatdy afier the £.wx ution ofJesus (San Francisco: HorpcrS:t.nFrancisco. 1998). pp. 143. 145. II. Culler, ·Presupposition and lntcrtc-..xtu:dily'. p. 103. 12. D. K. Dnnow. ' lotman and Uspcnsky: A Perfusion of Mock·-ls'. Semi01ica 64 ( 198i). 351.

166

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

acknowledgment ofa frame o f reference with which scholars approach this concept today. It means donning a differen t thinking cap, while not disregarding previous scholarship. For example, Ulrich Luz asserted that. in his exe.g etical, historical and hermeneutic work. he isgrmut~titzliclt (fundamentally) inteJ-ested in intertextuality as a source of a model in terms ofwhich an author's ideology and technique- what he calls the Art uud Welse (nature and manner)- of using "intertexts ·can be uncovered.13. To Luz, there are ways and means to identify and investigate germane inte11exts methodically so that the process occurs in a scholarly, controlled manne-r. It also remains on the level of reception aesthetics that the task of hermeneutical work is to assess ditTercnt receptions ofa text by evaluating them within the constraint'>ofthe text itself. In other words, the CJ'UXof the matter is the question whether the idenrjfied intertext is really connected to the.author' s intention and whether the method used in identifying this intertext is properly applied. It therefOre makes good sense to note Stefan Alkier's distinction between, on the one hand, a ' restricted" and an ' unlimited' conception ofinte11extuality.1J On the other hand, he distinguished between the. phenomenon of producing texts and the practiceofrec.eiving texts. In the first distinction, the tem1 · intertext' is a synonym for culture. in general. as opposed to an ' intertext' as a c.oncrete text. T11e second catego1y entails a distinction betwee.n intcrtextuality at either the textual level of authorial intent or at the level of reader reception. In respect of the latter distinction. Luz has said that, as a historian and hermeneutics scholar, he prefers exegesis at tl1e Testeben~ (textual level), that is, the ;level ofauthorial intent'; and that he would prefer to reduce his interest in tl1e Leserebcne (reader level). that is, the ' level of reader rece.ption', to the. concrete text. 1.s Alkier. building on the work of the theorists Charles Sanders Peirce (cf. J. J. Liszka) and Umbe110 Eco, defined the concept ' text" from a semiotic perspective by distinguishing between syntagmatic-s. se-mantics and pragmarics.16 In syntagmarics, texls are regarded as 'signs· related to other "signs'. ln semamics. texls are seen as ·signs' which signify other signified 'signs'. In prngmatics. texts are seen as 'signs· related to users. An investigation into these relations can be done from a text-extemal or a text-internal perspective and each of these points of view requires two steps in 'semiotic reading'. The first perspective implie.'> an intratexn1al reading which considers a given text a world in itself, thal is a ·universe'/'d i scou rse~ consist-ing of·word structures' and· ideology stJ'Uctures'. The second, according to Eco, pertains to a texfs ·encyclopaedia ~ which provides the

13. Luz. · tntcnc:xtualiliil im Maub.
VAN AARDE Th~

Presentation ofJesus as Healer-Messiah

167

reade.r with the knowledge o fcuhural codes (such as political, geographical and social codes) to interpret the text by filling in the blank spaces of a given text. 11 Atler reflecting on Julia Kristeva ·sand Roland Barthes's dictums. 111 Luz commented: ·rntertextualitllt ist also letztlich nicht anders als die textliche Gestalt, in der sich Kultur, Geschichte und Gescllschaft in Texte eingra\•ieren [Ultimately, inh!'J1exmality is nothing other than the textual foml in which culture, histo1y and society engrave themselves on texts)' .19 This quotation reveals that the exp1·ession '1!!.\'//iche Gestalt' (textual fonn) denotes ·texture', interwoven with culn1re. history and society. These three notions provide the conscious and subconscious echoes that J'eveal the world of either the author or the reader at a diachronic or synchronic level of interaction with the text. lntertexts on tlle first level. that is conscious echoe-s. include lhe sources of the text that disclose the memories of both the author and the intended readers embedded in these sources. Tiley are.memories that narrate e-ither consciously or implicitly the life stories of figures from a sac1-ed histo1y who serve as models of identity and behaviour for the author ami loJ' the reader(s). (ntertexts on the second level. that is subconscious echoes. penain to code-s that ae..,thetic theorists have highlighted in reception theol'ies. This chapter focuses on the so-c--alled ·conscious echoes·. This is done by exploring the ' me-mo1·ies' embedded in Matthew's text and those of its intended reade1·s through those text-internal signs that r referred to earlier as the text"s encyclopaedia. In order to accomplish such a goal. codes should be provided for reading f\·latthew's Gospel within its cultural context. B)• presenting such infomtation I intend to fill in blank spaces so that the reade.rs of this chapter can follow my interpretation of Matthew's intention in using the wo1·d ocJ~c.v. Howeve1·, more theoretical reflection seems necessary to undet·stand what is meant by the tenn 'encyclopaedia·. 3. The ·Encyclopaedia' o[!Watthew's lnterlextuality

A. Clar!ficaiion of ideas To recognize the echoesofthe world in which meaning is attributed to a text. the author and first J'e.aders need to be de-contextualized. This is done by means of a reconstruction of the authorial intent by distjnguishing between the ·voices o f sources· and an author"s particular intent. T1lese 'voices' constitute the so-called encyclopaedia of the document. Here the tbcus is only on the level of the Tc.ttebene (text level). that is, on Matthew as author and the.text's intended addressees. the· Erstleser· (the first OJ' original reade1'S). Thus. the so-called synclll'onic mode ofapproaching f'.·latthew's language usage. lhat is. focusi ng on the text's rec.eivers 17. Eco. 11Fe Role ofJ!Fe Reoder. 18. J. Kris1cva.. Sim~i<>Jike: Rec!F~rches pour unc .H!moml{l'se (Paris; ScuiL 1969}: R. lktnhcs. 'Tcxtc (theori-c: du)'. in £«yclopoNI/u Uniwr.wrlis. \'OI. 17 ( Paris: Scuil. 19SS). pp. 996-1000: 1-1. ~l i lknnar. Rol(mdBuriluts: E.risf(;lll/iali.\'1/lt'. Semi01id: Ps}'-rll(.l(lll
168

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

or readers through history to the present day(" Leserebene' [reader level]), is not explored in this chapter. The explicated aim ofthe chapter requires clarification with regard to the term Te.Yiarchtiologie (archaeology of the text). I use this term to refer to an elucidation of the tradition and transmission histOJ)' of the Gospel of Matthew. Such a study describes the history of the text's ol'igins. lts function is to define the commwtication strategies in the text. If the focus were to be on the text's receivers and prese-nt-day readet·s, the hermeneutic assumption would be that the text does not have a precise meaning. Such a readingstrategy would be interested in broadening the scope.of the possible meanings of the text. Although this chapter does not pay specific attention to reader aesthetic-s. cleal'ly each aspect of the elucidation of Matthew's communication stmtegies presented here reveals some signs of my subjec-.tive. (re)construction of the text The study of the ·archaeology of the text· entails an investigation into ·sec-.onda.ry texlo;'. Gerard Genette has identified differe.nt types of'secondill)' texts•.:::o Titis is helpful for recognizing the specific category which is implied when Matthew's ' intene-xntal' perspective is considered, that is, his ;authorial intent'. We have seen that this can be done by separating Matthew's intent from the 'voices' ofthe sources he alludes to. These 'voices' are what Genette refers to as (I) the intertext. (2) the pamtext, (3) the hypertext (4) the hypotext. (5) the architext. and (6) the metatext.21 In Luz's application of these cate.gories to the Gospel of Matthew, the. tem1 intertcxt 1-eters to the occunence of another text in a specific text (for example~ quotation..<;, copying as plagiarism. and alhtsionsVu In addition to inter/ex/. there is also what is t•efcrred to as paratext, that is. the occurrence of texts witltin another text. such as forewords. footnotes. marginal notes and even the title. Then. thirdly, there is thehypcrtcxl. which refe1·s to the type of text that was produced at1er a 'base text·. the so-called hypotexf. but which is neither taken up into tlte hypotc.YI as the ·first' text (like an 'inte,·text') nor functions as a commentaty on the ·first· text (like a ·metatext'). (Virgil'sAeneid. for example, is a 'hype11ext' to the Odyssey as ' hypotext'.) An archiwxt refers to a general te-Xt type which serves as a model for othe.r texts, that is a Gal/rmg (genre). Finally, there is the so-calle-d metatexl, which is a text such as a commentaJy, which should be distinguished from the 'Grundtexl ' (hypote.YI).

B. Atfatthcw 's Secoudmy Texis Met(l(ext. To begin with the last category mentioned. namely metatext, the general scholarly assumption is that the Markan tl'adition served as the framework for ~·1atthew to which material from Qwas added. This assumption raises the question whether the Gospel of Mark should be seen as Matthew's hypotext ('Grundtext ')

20. 21.

Gcn~'tte. PalimpseJit!.f. pp. Gcn~11c. PalimpJe.des. pp.

7- 16. 7- 16.

22. Luz. ' lntcnc:xtualitlit im Matlhausc\'angc:lium·.

VAN AARDE Th~

Presentation ofJesus as Healer-Messiah

169

and whether Matthew should be read as a ·commentary· on Mark or as a l~}per­ fextto it. If one deems the Gospel of Matthew a hypertext, that would entail a lesser degree of independence from Mark - an option which previous scholarship would not endorse. The first option is more e.asily defended: it implies that the Gospel ofMatthew as a whole is a nu?IO!tttt, essentially distinguished from lvlark as hypotext, and that Q is an inte11e.x t taken up in Matthew (and Luke) as its hypote.\'1 . If one sees Matthew as a mefalt.•xt (that is, as a ·commentary' on Marie). one can describe ?vlatthew's contents as comments in the format of an independent narrative. These ·comments' are based on a diffc!rance between Matthew and Mark with regard to an evaluation of the disciples· relationship to Jesmt as the Healer-Messiah. This assessment results from my understanding ofthe narrator's viewpoint with re.gard to both Jesus' and the disciples· interaction with the ·crowds' in lvlatthew's plot as a story.~~ Thus. seen from the pe1·spective of Matthew's use ofQ, Matthew is simultaneously hypotext and metatext. As a diff'erent te.xt which substitutes Mark, Matthew cre.ates an analogy between Jesus' commission and that of the disciples towards the ·crowds'. Both commissions are distinctly different to those de.picted in Mark. In this sense, Matthew se1·ves as a specific kind of'commenta1·y' (that is, a metatext) to f!.·(ark. Let me explain my exposition of .Matthew's interaction between Jesus. the disciples, and the crowds. Central to Mark's Gospel is the death ofJesus on the cross. Jesus comes into conflict not only with antagonists such as the elite, but also with the Israelite crowd (Mk 4. 1-2), those who are supposed to be his fr iends, his family (Mk 3.2021, 31-35). and fellow villagers (Mk 6. 1-5). Alienation is reported throughout Mark and it leads to Jesus' sutlering and eve-ntual death on the cross (Mk 15.254 1). Mark shows that Peter (Mk 8.29-30), the Twelve (Mk 9.33). and the sons o f Zebedee (James and John) (Mk I 0.35-45) do not undet·stand what God intended. T11e Gospel of Matthew is about understanding and doing God's will. Commenting on Mark. Matthew changes the roles of both the disciples and the crowd. In Matthew. the disciples f.11c better lhan in f\·1ark. They do know who Jesus is, but they have difficulty doing God·swill as Jesus does. The crowd's role in the story is to demonstrate the message of Jesus, which is God's love for all people. TI1e disciples are supposed to emulate Jesus. but they display an inability to do so. Although rvtatthew warns against the teachings of the Pharisees (Mt. 16.5), he does not advocate a total break with the Second Temple customs (Mt 17.24-27). Had he taken Mark over as it stands (see for instance Mk 7.14-23; IO.l - 12) - that is. seeing Mark as inlet/ext and not as hypotext- he. would have defended a break with Israelite culture as codified in Leviticus I I and De-uteronomy 14 and 24.1. 3.

23. See A G. van Aardc:.• ·Jesus' Mission to All of lsrad Emplotted in /estameruiro 4.1.2 (2007}.

~fatth~·w's Story'. N(-'0-

170

Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

Architext. Matthew's texture represents the genre (architc."(/) of a discursivebiographical Gospe-l type and, as a result. the narrative and argumentative structUI'e ofthis Gospel is imponant. The Gospel ofl\·fark as Matthew's h)'potext represents the so-C3lled biogrnphie31 Gospel type. The Gosp<'l of7110mas and Q m·e ·sayings' Gospels and the Protevangelium ofJames is a discursive Gospel. like Matthew, the Epistula Apostolorum and the Acts of John are examples of a discursivebiographical Gospel type.'' An unde-l'standing of tJ1is archifext has importaJlt heuristic consequences for the unravelling of the communication strategies in ?\•latthew that are concealed within its texture. consisting of discourse alternating with biographic--al materiaL The five.discourses of Jesns (Mt. 4.23- 7.29: 9.3tH 1.1 : 13. 1-52: 18.1- 19.1; 23.125.46) mostly contain material from Q as an inter/ext. This fivefold division is characte-ristic of the concentric chiastic composition of Matthew as a hyp
VAN AARDE Th~

Presentation ofJesus as Healer-Messiah

17 1

this doe-$ not mean that the book of Joshua as a specific text among the Hebrew Scriptures, or any other text in which the Joshua figure from the First Testament functions as the protagonist, was used as an explicit intcrtt•.\"1 for the author who produced Matthew's Gospel.

Seen from another perspe.ctive. the term J~yperrext refers to something similar to what J.-f . Lyotard calls a 'bigstory' .15 but not in the.sense of what Lyotard in a postmodern context calls an ' incredulity toward metanarrathres' (that is. 'grand narratives').2' If the Joshua story in the Hebrew Scriptures was the ' big story' upon which Matthew's author re l ied~ his Jesus st01y would be. in Lyotard's temls. a 'little story'. From the perspective ofsuch a postmodcrn argument, f'.·fatthew's ' linle stor)" is about the man Joshua whom Mary gave birth to in the Judean village of Bethlehem. Gina Hens-Piazza quotes Lyotard, who comments: 'You make up little stories. Or even segments of little stories, listen to them, transmit them, and act them out when the time is right' .27 Hens-Piazza asks why the tenn 'little story' would be chosen. She finds an answer in Lyotard's explanation: "Because they are short, because they are not ex(racts from some great histo1y, and be.cause they are difficult to fit into any great history . . . Histo1y consists ofa swann ofnm·ratives, narmtives that are passed on, made up, listened to and acted out; the. people do not exist as a subject . . . ~2s Here. with history, Lyotard means the history of the 'reigning Westem discourse·. However, at the tum of the Common Era, the 'big story' in Jsmel's history was the expectation of an apocalyptic saviour who would liberate God's people, in a Joshua-Jvfoses fashion. T1lese people were not regarded as 'subjects' in the grand narrative of the Pat Romaua. The}' we1·e exploited and forced from their land - almost like lost sheep without a shepherd. bearing in mind how their own leaders c~l l a borated with the powerful individuals whose power was enforced by Rome. As the}' were a people who d id 'not exist as a subject', their voices and their stories \vould have become unhem·d if it were not for an author who. in his own words in ~·latthew 13.52, became like a ·scribe tl·ahted for God's kingdom' and who told his ' little sto1·y' in the light o flsraePs history. lt is, as Lyotard sees, ·a mass of thousands of little-stories that are [at] once futile and serious, that are sometimes attracted together to tb rm bigger stories, and which sometimes disintegrate into drifting ele.ments' .19 Matthew's narrative is not a ' little story·. in the-sense that it deconstructs tJle Joshua story as a metana1·rative. Anothe1·type ofhistory formed the metanamtive 25. J.-F. lyotllrd. ·Lessons in Pragm.1ticism•. in The L)YJtan:l Rwffl.•r(cxf. A. Benjamin: (rolns. D. Moccy: Oxrord: Busit Bluck.wc1J. 1989). p. 131. 26. J.-F. lyot11rd. The P{u /modem CcnditiQfl (tram:. G. Brnnington nnd B. Masrumi: Theoryand History ofli t~"fll turc. 10~ Mi.nnc-npolis. MK: Univcrsily or t\.·linnesota Press. 1984). p. >:>:i\'. Cf. A. C. Thisdton. ·A Rcltoscpctivc RcappraisuJ: POS«nodernity. l anguagcand Hcmlencuticr:. in A. C. Thisd· ton (od.). TIJi. wlton j11 ffrrmm~111ks: Tire ColleC'IedWorkr amiNe\!' £Mays ofAnilwny Thisellon Ash· gate ContempornryThinkcrs on Religion: Colkc1ed Works: Aldcrsbot: As.hgate. 2006}. pp. 667- 71. 27. G. He-ns-Piazza. 'Lyotard'. in A. K. M. Adam (.cd.). Hmrdb{}(lk of Prutmodt·m Bihlictr! lnterpN!IOiion (St louis..MO: Chulic<. 1000). pp. 164: Lyotard. 'lessons in Pr~lgmnti cism•. p. 131. 28. Lyocard. 'Lcsson:s in Pmgmaticism'. pp. 132- 3. 34. 29. Lyotard. 'Lessons in Pragmaticism'. p. 134.

172

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

o f Matthew's time. Instead, his story about a new-born Joshua deoonstructs the coalition between fii'St-centtuy Roman Imperialism and Pharisaismas the ·metanarrative/grand narrative' of that time. In such a context, the Joshua-Moses story functioned as a hypenext - a social-cultural context in which the first-ce.nnuy Pharisaic formative rabbinate. loc-a lized in the authoritative setting of various synagogues. began to collaborate with the Roman Empire. Set against this and in the midst o f such a ·grand narrative' , Matthew's 'counternarrative' was one about anothe1·Joshua-Moses - one who came from Bethlehem and not f1·om the ' royal city' of Jerusalem (Mt. 2.4-6). If it is looked at in this way. Matthew's story constitutes anothet· ' little story' in which the Joshua-Moses metanarrative forms the hyperte.tt. Such a hy;xmexl occurs in many texts. These texls can be regarded as 'intertexts' to each other, but that does not me.an that the one is delibe.rately take.n up in or alluded to by the othe-r. Othet· ' intenextual' motifs which also share c,ommon cultural imagery or ideas appear without being consciously quoted or alluded to from a specific text They are found in differe.nt, a lthough ' intenextually' related, contemporaneous documents. (n Matthew. the Joseph tradition is a case in point.lO 30. ll is found. among~t other pl30t$. in the TeJIUhli!IIIS q{the Twe/1-e Patriarch:;(c.g. T. Benjamin 4.2: 4.4d: T. Zebulon6.5: 7.Jf.: T. God2.1: 2.3-4: 4.1·2: 6.3-4. 7). Cf. H. W. Hollandcr.Jo..fephtrJUn

Elhica/ Modt!l in 1/11! T~laments <1/the T•whte Patriarchs (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pscudepi· grnpha: Lcidcn: BriJJ, 1981): ~1. W. Skbr. ·The Fighter of Horizons: The Story of JOS('ph as a Mockl for Sooial aOO Spiritual Rcroocllintion'. MA thesis.. Grnduatc-Theological Union. Bcrkd ey. CA. 1994: G. M. Zerbe-. Non·R(!taliarion it• E-01·~•' Je\i·isll and Nell' Te.ftammt Texis (Sbc.flldd: JSOT Pn:ss.. 1992): A. W. Argyle. 'The lnfluen.:c ofthe Testamcntsofthe Twd\'e Pauiarchs upon dlt N~"'v TcSiamcnt•. f.rpT 63 ( 195 1- 52). 256-8: aod in the roJn.'lncc Jo:;cp/• andA:;erwth (e.g.Jo.(.4J (Ph) 15:7-S: JruAs 17:9 {B)). Matthew shares and mnkes usc.of this tradi1ion in its
VAN AARDE Th~ Presentation ofJesus as Healer-Messiah

173

1\·latthew's representation of the Joshua motif is trnnsfom1ed into a story about a choice ofleadership. This choice is c,oncretized in either the people's acknowledgement of 'lnooU} ('Joshua~) as the Davidic Messiah who was commissioned by God to sa\>e (O~Ul) all of Israel from its sins. o1· in their killing him and letting their descendants share the responsibility tOr his blood (Mt 27.25). Those who remain faithful to the; Jaw of the messiah'. which is the ·Gospel of the Kingdom', will live in the presence of the God-wiih-us (Mt. 28.16-20).

Hypc11e.w as a Communication Strategy at mt Abstract Level. Part of our reflection on the •voices' that constin1te Matthew·s •encyclopaedia' requires us to focus on the text's intended addressees (the ·£rstleser' ). Matthean scholars usually locate the discourse in Antioch before the end of the first century CE, 'where he wrote tOr a church that contained Christian Jews but that was already largely Gentile Christian in composition' .u Matthean scholars have expounded various possible scenarios within which the text could be read by its first addressees. Such a reading scenario could also be re-garded as a type of hypenext, not in the concrete sense of the word, but at an abstract level. For many scholars ofa previous generationll, the concept ofa Heilsgeschichtc (salvation histo1y) has provided a hyper/ext at an even more abstract level than I'Cading f\·latthew in the context of fi1'St centUJy Antioch}l Hanz Conzelmann's theory of the salvation-historical approach toward the Gospel of luke appears to mean thai I deny any Christian interpolation at all. The n:Jercncc-in 1he TeMu.nmll ofJoJeph to the ;lamb of God' born from n \'irgin wbo takes away tbc ·sin of the worM· is inall probnbility socb an i nl~'1polation. 1'11csc arguments arc the c-oncern of complicllled rpfl!lalion- A Bible ComJIWIFimy}Qr Teoc!Jing and Preoc!Fing (louisville. KY: 1o1m Kno~. 1993), p. 2. 32. In the prc\·i~•s gcncr:uionofscholars. propon~'fllsoftbc: s!lhation-historical approoch included G. Barth. ·oas Gcsclzcs,·crstillgung im MauhiiuJeWtllgdium (Ncukirchcn: Neukirchen Vcrl:.g.. 1961. 2nd cdn). pp. 54-154: W. Trilling, Dus wahre lsroel: Swdi£>11 :ur T11eologie des MmthiiusJ:,•angelimJu (3rd cdn: Miinchcn: KOsc:l l%4): G. Strtcl:cr. /Jw Jlt>g dt!J·Genxhtigkrit: UJFii!fSFKhlllf:S : ur n,~o/ogiedt·s Maulliius (2nd cdn: GOuingen: Vnnde:nbo«k & Ruprttht. 1%2): R. Walker. Die Heil.\ges('hichre ime1"S1e11 fwmgelium (GOtti ng~'=tl.: Vandenhoock & Ruprecht. 1967): J. 0. Kin£;>bury. 'The Struc.turc ofMatth~"'v's Gospel and 1-lisConc~,x ofSah•ation-History•. CBQ 35 ( 1973). 45 1- 74: H. Fr.tnkemOile-. Jalrwebrmd wrd Kin:lle ChriJti: S111die11 zur Form· und Tmdilion.~gesdu'('htc> des •£vangelirmu· •noc/1 Mallhiius (MUnster. Aschcndorf. 1974). From a rheological pen:pcc-CiR onec.nn sa)' thut this approuch is less concerned with the characters in M:ttth~·:w's discourse thtin with the Church·s stnucc before-God and that it looks for lcnsionsbetwccn 'grace• and ·l_sw·. 'judgement• and ·mcrt)·'. and · faith· and ·works'. 33. See. forexomplc. Donald A Hagner 'Matthew: Aposltlte. Reformer. Rc,·ofutionaryT. .ft.ifS 49 (2003}. 193- 208: ef. \V. Caner. Matt!Fell'aml;he Margins: ~t Sodopolilical a11d Rdigious R£>trding (Maryknoll. NY: O~is. 2000). pp. 14- 29. 36-B: idem. Matt/Few and Empire: Initial Evp/oralions (H:urisburg. PA: Trinity Pre~ lntemutional. 2001). pp. 9- 53: idem. 'M-Utthenn Christologyin Romun Imperial Key: ).fauhew 1:I'. in J. Riches and D. C. Sim (005). The Gospel ofMullht>w in its Roman Imperial Coniex/ (London: T&T Clark. 2005). p. 143.

174

Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

have influenced these Matthean scholm·s from the previous ge.ne1·atio n ~ who worked with an 'older' redactional-critical paradigm.JJ According to this theory, salvation histo1y is divided into the lhree areas, which can be clearly distinguished as the era of fsrael, the era of Jesus and the e.ra of the Church}:. Salvation histo1y (Heilsg(~'ic!Jicllle!) has functioned as a kind of reading strategy to interpret rvtatthew from the Pauline (Lutheran) perspective o f an indic--ativeimperative relation. From an exegetical perspecthrc, it serves to explain the paradox between the so-called particular and universal background o f Matthew.J6 Although both Strecker and Walker were influenced by Conzelmann's study of l ukan salvation history. they differ in respect to certain finer detaHs. Howeve.r~ they agree Lhat three phases c-an be distinguished in Matthew·s salvation histOJ)I: the prehistory of the Messiah (beginning with Abraham); the history o flsmel's commission (including the ministry of John the Baptist as the precursor of the Messiah and Jesus as the ce-ntre point); and the history of the mission to the Ge-ntiles (beginning with Jesus' crucifixion and resurreclion, and extending until the day of God's final judgement). However, the salvation histo1y approach has not convinced Matthean scholarship at large. This approach sees the history oflsrael as being replaced by that o f the Church. In Matthew, this does not happen.J.i The turning of the tide does not

34. Hanz Conzclmann. T11t- Tht'ologro/51 Luke(ltllns. G. Buswdk London: Faber & Faber. 1960). p. 3.J. This ,.;cw has cmued some differences llmong S(holars. but there was som~· conS(nsuson i1by scholars such as Strcd:.cr. Der Wt•g tier Gerechtigkeit: Trilling. DttJ wullre lsroel: and Walker. Die

Heill·gesdu'chtt' im ersrnr £wurgdium. 35. D. B. Howell. Marthe-or's lnclusire SUn)': A Study in the Namttivt> Rlwtork oftlw First Gospd (JSNTSup. 42: Shcffidd: JSOT Prcs.s.. 1990). pp. 59- 77. 36. Sltcd:cr (Der Weg JerGt-nYiuigkdt. pp. 45-9. 184-8) bclie\'cs lhatthcdday oflhc Pan>ltJiu is the main issue in undcrsJanding We salvation history ~:onecpt in Maltbew. As a malu'toffact. Matdt~w did compose a life of Jesus wiW cs.:hntological rclevan~:e pertaining to thcprcscribod way of righteous· ness in the historyofsah'alion. According 1oJ. P. r..kicr(·Salvation-Hinory in Matthew: In Sciltch of a Starting Point'. CBQ 37(1975(. 203- 15). Matth~·:w's intauion W'tl!> to set up a sal vation~historic-nl schema with national (l!>r:td) and gcographicallimi1n1ions (Mt. 10:5·6. 15:24. 28). By comrast. R. l·lummd (Die Atuf!illandusel:ung ;,)·isclr~u Kirc/1-e mWJudentum im MuJJ/tiiusewrttg<'lium{Bci· tragc :rut C-\'angd ischcn Tfleologie. 33: :O.funich: Chr. K-11iscr Vcrlag. l963(.p. 25) has poimcd out that the most importnnt ,·icw is that Jesu.sproclai m~-d salva1ion to Gentiles (suc-h as tJu:- ccmurion 8.5·13. or the Canaanite womnn 15.21·18). Therefore. :O.fcier ('Salvation-History in :O.fatthew: In Scaroh of a Su1rting Point'. p. 205) d nims that Mauhcw ·conS(tously drnws up a schrn1:1 of S.'ll\'ntion-history which widens the geogrnphieal nnd national rcsttictionsof Jesus• public ministry into a univcrs:.l mission (mission ( 0 lhcGcntilcs) aftcr thc death-r<sumx tion'. GcorgStrcckc-r•s (fNr lfeglkrGert'dUig· lit'it. p. 87) \'le-w was similar to lh!U of Jack D. Kingsbury ('The Structure of Matthew's Gospel and His Concept of Salvation-Histor)·'. CBQ 35 [1973). 451- 74 {470)). who become-known among Mntlhcan sc-holars for his s:ll\'ntion-historical emphasis basod '-' n thcso-cnJk d 'lime fonnuln' in Mat· thew 3.1 nnd 14. 19. 22.29 (Kingsbury. p. 470). According to Kin.gsbwy. this lime fonnula hss an c:tdusi,·e eschatologic-al connotation that ~fers to ' that period of lime whic-h pn"Cl-dcs 1hc consummation of the age and the rc1um of Jesus. Son of Man·. 37. Sec imcr aliu D. C. Sim, ·The Gospd ofMn1We-w and We Gentiles'. JSNT 57 (l995). 19-48:

idem. Tift' Gospel ofMaiiiJt-wwtd Christian Judaism: Thr !liJto1r <mdSoda/ Se-uing of thr Morthtu.n Cummm•i~r (SJUdie-s of the New Tcstnmrnlllnd iiS World: Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1998). pp.143. 46.

VAN AARDE Th~

Presentation ofJesus as Healer-Messiah

175

mean a separation oflsrael's history from that of the-Church. The ltist01y ofJesus and the Church is pan and pm·cel of lsrae.l 's ltis1o1y. that is. in Matthew's ( l.l) own words: BI~AOS ywioEc.» 'inoou Xp1otou." Another hyperte~tl. at a highI}' abstract leve.l, is the so-c-aJied end-rime apocalyptic approach ..i9 In this regard it is important to bear in mind that apocalypticism is unthinkable without a belief in the resurrection from death. I also consider it highly likely that Emst K~semann 's view is COI'rect~ namely that it was the reaction to the death of Jesus by the earliest Jesus group in Jen~salem that led to tlle ol'igin of' Chl'istian theology'."" Ho\vever, I am not convinced by David C. SimJ' - to use my own terminology as set out with the purpose of this chapterthat Matthew's hyperte;t/ bears witness to a conflict between chal'ismatic followers o f Jesus who refused to adhe.re to tvlosaic or Tahnud Jaw and apocalyptically oriented followers of Jesus. In the words ofMohrlang, Matthew and Paul present

Contra U. Luz.. M(I/IIW'>•' 1/-1& A Cmnmt'IIIOJ:t'(Htmu'1ltia: Minn~-apolis., MN: Fortress. 2005). p. 6 31 n.l15. 38. A. G. \'an Aarde. 'Matthew 27 :~5-53 and the Turning of the Tide in lsrad "s Histor)'". BTB 28.1 ( 1998). 16-26.

39. Proponents of this nppro.1c-h include 0. L Cope. "'To the-Close. of the- A~'·: Tt.c Role of Apocalyptic.Thought in the Gospd of Matthew'. in J. ~farc.us .nnd M. L Soards (cds). AJXKO~Iptic and1/le New Testument: f.fs«ys ill Ho1ww·tljJ. Louis M(II'IJII(JSNTSS. 24: Sh::Oield: SheAield Academic Press. 1989). pp. 113-24: D. Hagn~'f. ·Apocalyptic Motifs in the.Gospel of Matthew: Continuity and Discontinuity'. Hori:rms in Riblica/Thrology 7 ( 1984). 53-82: nnd n. C. Sim, 'The Meaning of na>... ~vfoi q.: in Matthew 19:28'.JSNT50 (1993). 3--11. Howe\'t:r. l>a\·idSim(Tirt• GosprlofMoti/wwandCIIristi«IIJuJaism disagrees with scholars such as Hagnerrcg.nrdingas;poctssuch llS whctht:r Matlhcw's community had already separutcd from formative Judaism or whether the. separation bctw~o'C'n ·synagooe'Ue· and 'churth' was not ye1 complete. Attording to lu~(M«ttiKw 11-18. p. 6 31). for Matthew

and his-churches the stpamtion of Israel into a mujority hostile to Jesus and a minority consisting ofdisciples of Jesus is ddinitive. AI the.\'CT)' ltu~ since.the J~·wi sh War they were no longer li\'ing in the lnnd of Israel but in Gentile S)'ria. In S)'ria. theit own mission v.-as the proclamation of the C()llUnandmcnts of Christ to the Ge-ntiles u.ndcr the. signature of the universal mis;ion com1n.
tension that cntt~natcd from 'theological' differences conccming lhc rcnnion to ksus' denth. The historic.al-c.ritic-nl rt'tonslruction of this 'rt-aetion• (p. 82) is difficult. as only frngments rdating to the first Jesus group arc-a\'ailabk in Acts. Howe\·er. because or all the small bits and pioc:cs of lhc: mosaic. no clcntdc:lincation is possibk of wh.711if: E.w:lwrology ill tile GoJJ~I ojMotJIIl•w(Cambridgc. UK: Can1bridgc. Uni\'«sity Press): idem. The Gosprl ofMatthewandCI!ri:uianJuckti:mt:idem. "Matthew's anti-P1). 767- 83.

176

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

'two examples ofhow the early Christian community perceived Je..~us to provide a new basis fOI' ethical living'.·0 In a similar vein. Wim Weren, in his dissertation on Matthew's eschatology, rcters to Matthe.w' sde.-apocalyptizing tendency (£ntgesclticlnlic/nmg der EschaJo/ologh.>).4'J By resc.i nding the typic-aldualism fOund in apocalypticism betweena present despondent time and an imminent time ofsalvation, Matthew refocused attention on the ethics ofcaring tOr the poorest o f the poor (cf. Mt. 25.45), whom Weren referred to in the title o f his book as 'de broede1'S van de Mcnsenzoon' (the bi'Othe-rs of the Son ofMan}They were the object of both Jesus' commission and the disciples' commission.u T1ms. We.ren co n c lude-~li that the eschaton in Matthew functions as a continuous present perspective by means of which the readers are challenged not to make pe-ace with their immediate concrete need. but rather to ove1'Come it by concrete actions ..~s Eschatological pronouncements are thus ethical appeals,"" explicitly expressed in the Lord's Prnye1· by the pethion that God's kingdom should come. followed by t:he phrase ·on earth as it is in heaven' :n According to Weren. 'Matthew c-annot [therefore.] be regarded as an apocalyptic.ist', because the ethical actions of human beings do not attest to a passivity that is thought to go along to the end of time when this injustice oiOn is replaced by God's judging act o f retribution, avenging tJ1e-rightoous.-lS A significant view that is worth considel'ing on Matthew· s hype11ext at such an abstract level is the one recently advocated by Wan·en Cm·tc-r in pa11icutar.49 Carter rejects the notion that salvation is a merely spiritual phenomenon, and not a social one.ln Mediterranean cultures. politics and economy were pan and parcel ofcultic life. T11e salvation-historical approach is a textbook example of an anachronistic reading that tends to dichotomize vertical and hol'izontal dimensions ofsalvation. Acco1·d ing to Ca11er, Jesus as Joshua, the saviour, was a political figu1-e who dclivel\."<1. people fi'Om political oppression. lt has become a cliche to say that Jesus was 42. R. .\iobrlang. Mallhew am/ Paul: A CcmpurUoo ojE1hkal PersJWdit't'S (SNTSMS. -18-: CamPress. 198-1). p. 131. ·B. W. J. C. \\'c-n:-n. De- Broi!der.f mn tk MrJJWfl.:omr: M1.l5. Jl-46olJ Toegm~g (01 de E.w:hoJologie wtn Mattt>ils (Amsterdam: Uitg~.ve-rij Ton Bolland. 1979). pp. 188 n. 16,13-6. refers imer alia to 1he wort of A . Sand. ·zur Fruge Melt dcm ..Sitz in Leben" dcr apokalr ptischen Te.xtc des Nc:ucn Testomenls'.."-7'5 18(1972- 73). 167- 77). +t In my :utick 'Jesus' Mission to All of lsro:cl Emplottcd in Matthcw•s Stol)''. I argue. thaL slllloogh the-'crowd• and lhc ·gcntilc.s' do not fulfil the same charJ:ctc:.r roles in Mallhew·s plot both groups funclion togctherasthc:.objc:cl of both the missionof Jesus and that ofthc:.disc:ipk s in the post· paschal period. ibis \"iew disputes the a~urncnl that there is a disc:ontinuity between lhc 'Israelite crowd' 3S thc obj~Xt of Jesus' commission nnd the Gentiles as lhe object of tile disciples' commission at the post-paschal lc,·el. The commission reported in both Mauhcw JOand Mt. 28:16-20 olludes to the mi~ion ofJ esus'twch·~ disciples to the ' lost shocp of Israel•. 45. W~rcn. De Broedtr.r wm de Mens.rlt:OOIJ, p. 190. 46. · . . . in de rc:doctic: \'an Mattheiis hn wotd(n oongemcrkt. dat hij esdtatologischc uits-pruk( n vc:rbind met concrc:k-appels' (in Mauh~~w·s redaction. it can be noted tltat he.c.ombirtes cschatologicaJ statements wl1h concrete appeals((Wcrtn . De Rroetfl!rs wm de Mellst.,.:oon. p. 190j. ~7. Wercn. Df! Broeckr:.· wm de M~nseltztKm. p. 190. ~S. Wercn. Df! Bmeckrs t•un di! Meti.SeiiZOOtt, p. ISS. 49. E.g. Canet. MmtJu.waml the Margins. bri dg~. UK: Cambridge Uni,·~rsi ty

VAN AARDE Th~

Presentation ofJesus as Healer-Messiah

177

not a political messiah as expected from the son of David. Cm1e1·emphasizes that Je.sus. as ~o:ot.A€.US'. was the. alternative to the emperor as saviour of the people. He concedes that leaders oflsrael were Jesus· opposition, but only in the sense of their collaboration with Rome. The emperor was the real enemy. 4. The Encyclopaedia of oc,}(GJ in Matthew

Seen from the perspective of the insight of Jonathan Culler, namely thal intertexnJality pe.rtains to a v.:ork 's ' participation in the discursive space-of culture', MaHhew·s ntuTath•e d iscourse echoes the po11rayal of the Israelite-elite that collaborated with Rome.5° This 'discursive spac.e.ofculture' constitutes an 'encyclopaedia' in terms of which Matthew's inclusion of the. idea that ·Jesus saves' should be understood. In Matthew's story~ the protagonist Jesus, as~aotMU), stood in opposition to the emperor. The contrast was between how Jesus saved and how the emperor func(ioned as ·saviour' (oCJTI)p!o~~CJ). Jesus' approach was that of a shepherd caring for his sheep, whereas the emperor exploited the p:eople from whom he demanded loyalty. There was no n.,rcy (EA€0)i5tKCXIOoUVT)). Jesus, the main

character of the narrative. was killed by Roman amhorities in a typic-.ally Roman fonn of execution. Jesus announced the-"empire of God' (~O:Ol~tia). Because the Roman empire dominated the world in the first century, the meaning ofthe word ~a01Aela would denote this empire. The ~ao1AEla of God would directly oppose the Roman empire. f\·lanhewdepicts the leaders oflsrncl as the allies of Rome. God punished the leaders oflsrael as allies of Rome by ironic-ally using Rome as instrument to destroy Jerusalem (Mt. 22.7)5 1

Using mainly f\·lark as its hypo/ex/ and Q as an intertext, Matthew - as a metaretold the Jesus story against the background ofa particular hyperlex/~ namely the Joshua story. The context of this hype11ex1 can be described as a process and a mindset. T11e process was that of the so-called separation between the synagogue and the Church that sta11ed at)er the destn1ction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE. The mindset was tl1at ofan apocalypticism that Matthew took over from Mark and (a later version) ofQ.51 The apocalyptic expectation was that this world would be transtbnned into the final kingdom of God. Accord ing to a p~u1icular prophetic tradition (the so-c-.alled idea of the nations' pilgrimage to Mount Z.ion),53 the new age would da\Vll when Israe-l's Messiah was revealed in lex/ to .Mark-

50. Culler. 'Presupposition and lntcncxlualily'. p. 103. 51. In lhw: chnpteu. the instruments of Rome. the client kings Herod the Gn:al (Mnuhcw 2) nnd his son Herod Antipas (M!llthcw 14). and the Romnn gowrnor Pontius Pilutc(tvlallhew27). dominate thcs..'(nc, Twicdcsus instruciS people to puy their (U.'(C'S.In these pericopes Jesus e.xprcsscs his \•ision lhat God is grc.nlcr •han the-powcr o r Rome (Mt. 17.14-27: MI. 22. 15-12). 51. J. S. Kloppcnborg Vcrbin. £ m rrati11g Q: Tlli! 1/istOJ)' and Selli11g q( tlw Sayiug.o; Gospel (Minneapolis. MN: Fortress. 2000). p. 2>6. 53. E.g. Mt 3.11 fJ l k. IJ.2Sr.: Zcch. 2.11: Targum o r lsa. 2.2b: 1 Esdras 13.49: 2 Bar. 71.3-6.

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

178

Jerusalem as the Son of Man causing the nations to come to Jerusalem to join the unified Israel. ]..·(any scholars are convi nced that Matthew confOrmed to the Jesus group in Jerusalem.SJ For Matthew the ' twelve apos tles' represent this restored Israel.

According to the Evangelist (see ~'It 19.28),the twelve disciples as healed healers obtain justice (KplvovT£S) for the twelve tribes of Israel in view of the prophetic notion of the pilgrimage of ' all peo ple' to the ·new Jerusalem' . ·All of Israel' ( IT(XVT<X €61/Tl) fomlS the SKKAqoia (the 'Christian' cult) as opposed to the ' ouvaywyq (the Temple cult).

ra

In my opinion, Matthew originated not in Antioch, but somewhere in no11hem aAoAaia TWV kevu>v - Mt. 4. 15). 1n this region~ there was conflict between the grammateus Matthew and village scribes who were in the process of establishing the first phase of a Pharisaic rabbinate. T11e Gospel of .Matthew could therefore be seen - like Q- as a product of scribal activity within the context ofthe.revitalization of villages after the destmction of the Temple in Jerusalem.55 These communities stn tggled to come. to grips with the Joss o f Jei'Usalem and the Temple. Since the city o f God no longer existed, they had to find God's presence in the envil·onment of village conununities.56 In these. villages there was contlict between two sets of scribes: the tbllowers o f Jesus, who acknowledged him as Messiah. and other lsn.1elites who upheld the tmditional view of the Messiah. Galilee and southern Syria after 70 CE

cr

5-l. Sec. forc-x.nmpk. Kiisc.maM. ·The Beginnings of Christian 11loolo~y·. w. &3. 86: M. H~ongd. ·s itnt my Right H:md!', in Strulies in far&=CitriMolo,tr~'(Edinbtrrgb: T&T Clark. 199.5}. pp. 1.55. 15&. 167. I &I. Htngd (pp. 83. 86) puts it as follows: In early Cbristillllity at13logous ideas are supposed in Mutt. 19:28 ... Luke 22:30: I Cor. 6:1(. and Rc.v. 20:41l More signillcnnl wns the pnrallcl tradition thnt the Son of Man/

Messiah as reprcscnlativcand.snviourof the true poopkofGod is gi\·cn th~ authority to judge: this isdocunttntcd in the Similitudes of I Eno~:.h and in particulnr in th~ teaching ofJesus and in c.1rli($• CluiSiianity ir.cluding Matt 25:31ff.... )A}pparentlydcpendent upon the: Jungu:~ge. o f thcSimi l itudc:s . . . )M.auhcw - 19:28: 25:31) . . . twice mc:n•H.mc:d thlu the:. Son of ).fan 'sits on the: throne of his glory· and the: twcln: disc.iplcs ns the:. followers of Jesus become his collc:g-c: of associate judgcs ... ' According to Hengel (p. 173), ·in p.1rticular l.h<: motifof.fe:.·Jio adde.rteram was material common to early Christian congreptions. whethct in Corinth. Antioch or Rome.and in my opinion d~monsltntes incontcstnbly that l.h<:y go back to earliest Jesus group in Jerusalem congn.;gation•. 55. R. A Horsley (withJ. A. Draper). Jnmn"t.'r J./rors t011 Hears Me: PIYJphets. Pelfomumr:etmd TroditiQII i11 Q (Harrisburg. J>:\: Trinity Press InternationaL 1999), pp. 145-6. 193-4. 56. ihc Jesus movement in Galikc and the work of early post-70 a:. rabbis. calkd th~- 'cnrlier scribes and s.'tgcs' b)' 1-lorslc:y (Whoe1-•er l·!.•ors Y(}fl Heors Me. pp. IS 1-4}. can be: SlX'n as a ·rcvit:ali zation ohillagceommunitil'$'. Aftc:rthc: Tcmplc:.was ck.stroycd. the Phnrisnjc.scribcsand sages reor g.:~nizcd thc-1nsd vcs in plncc:s such as Jamnin (in Jud~-a) . Gnlik-c-. and Syria. Thct-c:. they ui~-d to duplic-ate the: old value systems ofthe: Tcmpkin the households of the:.villag-es. cspocinllyrcgulations concerning hierarchy in sociely and the purity id~'Oio~y ofth~ Temple. A similar activity revitalizing villnge communities was found among the:. Jel>US groups. Tbc value: S)'Stc:m th~y implemented was OOsc:d on lcsus· alte-rnative UJl(krstanding ofthe Torah. The: diffc:rcr.cc in \'alues-ystcms and intcn:sts led to confl ict bc:-twe~·n Pharisaic saibc:s and scribes among the- followers of Jesus. 4

4

VAN AARDE

Th~

Presentation ofJesus as Healer-Messiah

179

The conflict centre.s on the interpretation of the Torah: Jesus could be seen as the new f\·foses who fulfilled the.Torah, versus a traditional Mosaic view as it was 1·egulated by the temple cult. Amid Roman exploitation, scribes were.engaged in village restoration. Scribes in the synagogues had a problem with Jesus' being seen as the.healing son of David. They could not concede that he was Israel's new Mose-s. They did not understand that Jesus could ·replace the temple· when he did .away with purity regulations~ demonstrated by his act of healing on the Sabbath (Mt. 12.1-32). By means ofa par
180

Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

l\·le-$siah became the technicus /ermitws for the anointed son of David (or David's son) as the king over all Israel (2 Sam. 5. i-3).1n Ps. 118.25. an example

o fwordplay between moshia (= Moses} and messialt (= son of David) is found in the Greek expression ltoshiah na. In Matthew 2 1.9. the Evang~list cit~s, ~n~ns other texts. Psalm 118.25: 'Hosanna to the Son of David ' (CV00:\1\IQ T(J) \H(J)

llo:ulo). What such healing implies becomes clear when other passages where the word o~cv appears in Matthew' s Gospel are s1udied. The encyclopaedic echo for the stilling oflhe storm in Mt 8.18-27 is the ancient Near Eastern idea that the sea (especially a storm at sea) symbolized the powe.rs ofchaos and evil as opposed to God. The Matthean episode is rooted in Psalm 107.23-30 as intertext. By showing that he has power over the sea Jesmt does what God does. according to Ps. 74.13- 14 and 89. I0-12. These Psalms are paratexts taken up in the intertext. The paratexts are apocalyptic in nature and they refer to the sea monsters Leviathan (Ps 74.14) and Rahab (Ps 89.10), which became symbols of the evil powers defeated when God 's kingdom comes in its fullness (see 2 Bar. 29.4 as another poratexf).

Matthew·s account of the interwoven story of the daughter of the aristocratic official (not a ruler ofa S}'nagogue as in Mark) and the haemorrflaging woman in Mauhew 9.18-26 is ' paradigmatic.' of the exclusivity of the 'old ' Israel and the inclusivity of the Matthean community as the ·new' lsrael.31 Matthew as metatext changes Mark's emphasis on menstrual bleeding to bleeding in ge-neral. In the metatext the age of the daug.hte1·of the official ( 12 years) is omitted. At twelve a young woman in that culture would be considered sexuall}' mature aJld ready for man iage. According to Lev. 15. 19-30 - a para/ext in Mark as t\·latthe.w's hypote.tl - women who menstruate are unclean and are not to be touched. In Mark, Jesus is touched by a menstruating woman. In Matthew as metotext, the issue is not menstruation and the woman does not take the initiative. However, she remains someone who 1-eceives Jesus' love just like all other unclean people. Restoration to life is highlighted by the. threefold use of o~~
·comments" on Mark. Matthew's notion ofinclusivity is also expressed by the word ' all' (OAos,'O~T)) which occurs freq uentl}'· Matthew's understanding of an authentic life involves iutegrilylcongruenc~v(n~w)TT)')): a ·complete-ness .. . whic.h unites e.verything in complete harmony· ..ss Congruency makes inner life correspond with outer behaviour. Hypocrisy conceals congn1ency {Mt 23.13-36}. According to Matthew (23.2). the hypocrites sit on Moses' seat and they love the best seats in the synagogues (Mt. 23.6). They repre-~'ient the Israelite elite who collaborated with 57. These. stories art- ·muc-h more than <:xampii."S of faith'. According to Elaine WainwTight Toword:; a Femini.ft Critical ReadingojJ/Je Gospel According to Mollhew(BZNTW. 60: Berlin: Oc Gmyter. 1991). p. 214. th~'Y nrc ·s1orics of n woman and n )'0\lllg giri oppressed by n: ligious. socinl and hum.1n boundaries nnd of Jesus as the one who rcachcsotlt across these boundari~-s offering new c~p~x-hlti ons for life and wholeness ... • 58. B. ~1. Newman. A CcndseGn"ei:- English Dklionoryofll~e Ne"' Testomrnt (London: United Bible Societies. 1971 ). p. SO.

VAN AARDE

Th~

Presentation ofJesus as Healer-Messiah

181

Roman imperial power (Mt. I 0. 17): the ouvi1ipux (local Israelite village c.ouncils) and ouv ri>-os ooros ow9Jiono:1 - Mt. 10.22). In Mt. 14.24, Jesus saves the disciples' boat. which is buffeted by the waves of the sea. In both cbs 14 and 16, the ambiguous role ofthe disciples' spokesperson. Peter. is highlighted. In ?vlt 14.28-33, Jesus reache-s out his hand to the doubting Peter. a ·man oflittle faith· (f\·1t. 14.30). who cries: ·Lord. save me· (KUpte, oc.3o0v IJ€). After Jesus reprimands Peter, he reminds the disciples that 'whoever \VOuld save (ouloat}his life will lose it. and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it' (Mt. 16.25). When Matthew narrates the disciples· astonishment in chapter 19 at the fb.ct that Jesus' under.< tanding of congmency (Ei &iAet> riA£10> itV!Xt) is that ihe rich should sell thei1· possessions and give it to the marginalized pOOr (06) rois ITTc.:>XotS- Mt. 19.21 ). they ask. 'Who then can be saved (oc.:>afiva1)' (Mt. 19.25)'1 The blasphemy of the passers-by at the crucifixion scene 1'C fers to Jesus' words about the destruction of the Temple (Mt. 27.39-40). fn view of the memory o f Jesus· words of the destn1ction of the Temple, his ·prophecy' offumre tribulations by ·all nations', and his remark about love (d:yciTTT}) that could grow cold (Mt. 24. 1 -1 4)~ 1o.·latthew reminds his readers of what the.prophet Daniel sajd about the victory of d1e Son of Man (ML 24. 15-28. 29-31) over the Roman empire which God used to Mstroy JenlSalem (ML 24.27-28). God will bring together the "elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other' (Mt 24.31 ). In Matthew 24.22, the Evangelist alludes to another known apocal}'ptic idea which is also expressed by 2 Bar. 83.1 (cf. Josephus. Ant. 19.1 3).59 This inte-rtext refers to God 's salvation in the midst of affliction: ·And i f those days had not been shortened. no human being will be saved (£oul9q}; but for the sake of the elect tpose days will be shortened'. They who endure •to the end will be .saved (oc.:>91)0ETIX1)' (ML 24. 13). 6. Conclusion

T11e end of this chapter echoes the type of end by means ofwhid1Malthew ·concludes' his own discourse, that is by keeping the end open - similar to the notion of inte11extuality itself: 'Every text is a locus of inte1·sedions, overlaps. and collisions between other texts. Every text is an intertext, that is. a be.tween-text (intC'r, .. between"), a paradoxical locus ofd islocation. without center and without boundaries. ' 60

59. D. J. Harrington. The Gilspel ~{.4falliU'11' (Sar:ra Pagin.1. t Collcgc,·ille. MN: Litutgic-nl Press.

1991). p. 337. 60. T. K. Bcal. 'lntcnc.xtualily•. in A. K. M. Ad.1m(cd.). Hamlbook q/Pa(tmockm Biblical lt~Jt·r· pretatim• {St Louis. MO: Chulicc Press. 2000). p. 128.

182

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

According to Matthew (24. 14), the euo:yyfAtOVT~5 ~O:OtAelo:s will be proclaimed 'throughoU1 the 111/Jole (0Am world, as a testimony to all ( rr
I2. SCRIBAL M ETHODS IN M ATI11EW AND MISHNAH ABOT 1

Lawrence M. Wills

A peculiarity ofMatthe.w·s redactional style. one that may be of some significance. has neverthe-less not received sufficie.nt attention in scholarly wol'k on this GospeL I. Precise A111ithetic Parallelism in Malfhew 's GospC'I

When Matthew cnc.ounters a saying that invol\'esany kind of<.'.Ontrast, the material is often pressed into a precis~ antithetic parallelism: one line with a positive statement~ and a second which is repeated won~forword(rather than the more typical thought contrast). but now negated.1 for example, Mt. 12.35: The good person oul of a good trcusurc btinp forth good things. and the-evil pe-rson ou l of an evil h'\'aSUI't" bring:; forth C\'il things.

0 O:yatlOS" 0ll6pwnos Etc ToU O:yo:&OO 6nooupoU 0:~0:)J.f 1 Oyoi!O, Ko:l 0 novnp0) Ov&pwnos i:K TaU nOV'lpo\.t eqoaupoO i:l(rlO:lli· lTO\IT)pc):. I. This essay appeared in CoJ/wlic Biblicol Q11urterly63 (200 1), pp. 241- 57. This is a re\·iscd \'Crslon. 2. Some instn•c.live-comm('nts htl\'e been nt.."lde about parallelism in the-Gospe-ls in g-eneral and i1s re-lation co Hdm:w parallelism: SC'e Vin«nt Taylor, 77•e Formoli011 oftht! Gospel Trodilion: £igl11 L«tw-es(LoOOon: Macmillan. 1960). pp. 88-90: C. F. Burney. Tlw Poetq o.fOw· Lord(O.xford: Clarendon. 1925): JoachimJeremias. New Teswmenl Theology 1: TM PJ'(H:Iomt~ficm rifJe.ms(NTl: New York: Scribner's. 1971). pp. 14-20: Robert C. Tannehill, 111e Sll'ordofllis Mouth(PhiiOO.dphia: for· tress/Mis:ooufa. MT: Scholors.. 1975). pp. 39- 59: M. 0. Goukkr. Midauh a11d Le
184

Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

T11is redactional process c-an be seen in Matthew II times by my count, both in material that is taken over from rvtark and from Q, and in special Matthean material (6. 19-24 [3 times]; 7.13-14, 24-27; I0.32-33; 12.33, 35: 16.19; 18.18; 23.12). It pi'Obably also influences the composition ofMt. 25.33-46. a passage that will be analysed below. It is clearly, then, a trait on the. redactimw/ Jevel. and not to be assigned to the.sources:~ Although f\ofauhew does not impose this pa«ern at every available oppo1·runity. it is not an incidental nuance or idiosyncracy ofthe 1\.-xl.ac.tor but a st•·ong tendency. lt may, in fact, reflect an impo11aJll tJleological Tendem and reve.al something of the social background ofdte redactor, indicating a certain kit\ship betwee-n Matthew the t'edactor and some early rabbinic rhetorical techniques. The sayings that are rewritten in this formulaic way are not all of the same type. Some are wisdom sayings~ such as 6.1 9-20: llo oot store. up for yootsdve:s ueasures on Cllrlh. where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves dig in and ste-al. but store up for yourselves 11'¢1lSUres in heaven. where neither m(l(h nor ruSI dcsnoys. and whcre thieves do not dig in and steaL Mh enoo.vpl<, Orrou oUn ali$ oVn ~pClOI$' a~avi
Even when wisdom sayings have lost their original generalized formulation, they can retain this precise antithetic parallelism, :tS in this invective against the Pharisees ( 12.33): Either mllkc the-tm- good. and its ftuit good. or m..'lkc-the 11ce bad. and its fruit bad. .. H no.i)oa n

ro 6Ev0pov KoA(w !::O:i TOv KapnOv o.UToV KaAOv,

h not~oau TO .S£Y5povoonp0v Koi T0v .:apnOv a\noO oo:npOv·

This Q saying as fo und in Luke 6.43 is parallel. but not as pre.cisely as in Matthew:.a For thcr~· is no good troc that bears bad fruit. nor. indeed. a bad 11«' that b~-ars good fruit

OUyO:p iOTtV OEvOpov tcoAOv rro•civv KapnOv oo:npOv, oOOi n6Aw 6Ev0pov oo.npOv notcitv Ko:pnOv KoAOv.

3. Conlin ROOolfBultmann. Tltt• HUtoq ofthe Synqplk Trodilion (trans. John Mars.h: New Yor\:: Harpcr & Row. 1963}. p. 111. wfto argues that Matthew retilins the parallelism ofQ. while- Luk< alters it This. I would argue. occurs only rarely. ~. Comp:tr< GoJ. Them. 43. which nppeurs to be adnptcd from an older saying. but recoining in Coptic the prec.ise parallelism of M-atthew.

WILLS Scribal Melhods in Mal/hew and Mishnah Abot

185

Other instances in Matthew make a strong distinction between those who al'e

saved and those who are damned. those who are in and those who are out, suc.h as 7.13- 14: Ent'-'f by 1M narrow gate.

for the gote is wide and tile:-wny is C"SSY that leads to d~-stru<:ti on. and those-who enter by it arc many: but the gate is narrow and the way is ha.rd that leads to life. and those-who find it arc fcw.S

E.ioiAea"Tt 610: T~$ onvi)) nitAT'IS'· :;,., nAo:nla ~ rtiJ)..n ~:a·, tUpU;<w~ h 0005 il O:rrOyouoa Ko:i no).).oi tiono ot t ie
ti) -rlwO rrt.J~oo:v

Oi o:Urits"·

~~ OE o-ntffl i] rrV).q Kal n6).tl.ltJill1} it OOOs i1 Cmiryoooa Ei5 T~v ~w~v

1
Still other examples in Matthew approximate the form of·sentences of holy law'. as descl'ibed by E.('nst Ktl.semann.6This prophe-tic form is defined as being of the type, 'To those who dox, God will do x to them! (or •x will be done to them'). Kllsemann 's first example from the New Testament is I Cor. 3.17: ' If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him.' Other examples include 2 Cor. 9.6, Rom. 2.12. and Rev. 22.1 8-19. Ka.~emann loc.ates the sentences ofholy law in the pi'Ophetic utterances ofthe-early community. They impose an eschatological judgement and define who is to be-fou nd acceptable and who is not. Says Kasemann: 'There is only one punishment. i.e. the delivetyofthe guilty pa11y over to Satan which is identical with exclusion from the community' .1 To be sure, K5semann 's attribution of the sentences of holy law to an early prophetic layer has been challenged. but the refinements of his analysis by others have borne him out." Still, 5. With original readingofVaticanus. Matthew h•u introduoc:d two gates whe-re luke 13.24 probably reftc:e~ i ng the Q \"C:rsion - hns only one. Two gates would imply two scp11r11te roads or approaches. One might expect an application of the twowoys doctrine. found in Diducl•e. Banwbas. and nt Qummn. but Mauhcw nowh~~re explic-id)· attests this common topes. Sec F. W. Beare. The Go.fJX'I According to Mafl1u•w: Trcmslolim~, !mrodu
Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

186

the sentenc.es of holy law are not identical to Matthewts precise antithetic parallelism. although in one instanc.e, 10.32-33 (based on Mk 8.38), the Matthean sentence is at least similar, and is probably based on this fotm: Ew1yonc:. who confesses me:-bdOre pt.
TTOs oOv Ocnt5 0.-o>.oyT,ou iv i:p.oi £1.mpoo6n" rt:lv Ov&pWnCo)v, hJ,oAoyi)ow tcO.yW ~v alm;, i.,_ ffpoo~ u ;00 no:tpbs' 1.100 TOO iv Tois OOpavo(s· Ocm~ 6 Gv O:pv~orrroi ~ i~onl'poo&tv ;Wv O:vEipcSrrwv,

Opvi)o®at ~tOycilo\rr(wip rrpoo&v TOO no:;pOs ~oo ToVi:v ToiS OOpavoi':i.

It is important to note. then, that Matthew could have included sentences of holy law as they were found elsewhere, but chose not to. Just as tvlatthew altet•ed a wisdom form above~ here the prophetic tb rm of the se-ntence o f holy law is altered in a characteristic way. Kasem.ann, in fuct, rightly describes Matthew's general procedure thus: ' (Matthew) is characterized by an anti-enthusiastic tempe.r which causes the teacher and Christian rabbi rathet· to conceal than to expose to view the activity of primitive Cluistian prophecy ... (T)he heir of the prophets ha..o; here been taken over and altered in character by the CIU'istian rabbi' (p. 78). Dieter LOhnnann also perceives similar developments in Matthew•s n.~ctio n al changes, when he refet·s to ' cine halachische. Form . . . der Gemeinde' reflected in Matthe.w's redaction ofQ.9 t\~1atthew still retains an intense eschatological orientation, but the pi'Ophetic fol'lll is dropped in favour of a systematized community order. Another passage in Matthew. 16.19 (compare 18.18) is del'ived from a church order tb t·mulation that looks toward an eschatological inclusion and exclusion: I shull gl"c-to ym• the keys of the. kingdom of heaven. and whatc\'Ct you bind upon cutth will be bound in hean:n, and whatC\'Ct you loose upon canh will be loos~-d in hC:lvcn.

OWow oot T<x$ ~~:Al:i&as rirs ilootArios TWv oUpovWv. ~~:o:l 0 £0:v O[jo-os inl TiJS yi)s £oTOI O.&ptvov i-v Tol5 o\,po:vol5, Ko:'i 0 £0:v AUons l:nl -ril5 yi)s toro• AtAu!Ji-vov iv ToiS oUpovois.

Scholarly interpretations o f the meaning ofbinding and loosing differ,10 but the other examples of precise paralle.tism in Matthew would push us to tJ1e view that, among othe1·things. the reference here is to the inclusion Ol' exclusion of members in the present conunuJlity sn·ucture and in the eschatological judgeme.nt.11 Cilristianit)' amithe Ancient ,\·ft·diU.'ITtllleon Wor/d(Gntnd Rapids. Ml: Ecrdmnns. 1983). pp. 166-8.. 231-40.

9. 0. Uihtmann. Die Reda!·Jionder L(}gknqut'lle: Anh.: Zur weiterelf Obi!r!iefmmg der LogimQitelle (WMANT. 33: Ncuk i rchcn~Vluyn: NcukirthCll('t. 1969). pp. 107- 21: quotulion rrom p. 107. 10. Davies and Allison. The GoJJ)t'l.4uonfing JtJ Soint Mollhew. \'OI. 2. pp. 634-41. II. J. Andrew 0\•ermun. Mollhl"''l' :S Gospel ond Formati\te Judaism: The Sociol ll'odcl of the MaJtheon C(}nummity (Minneapolis: Fortress. 1990). p. I39.

WILLS Scribal Melhods in Mal/hew and Mishnah Abot

187

Whereas il is true that ]l.•latthew·s redactional use of this technique does not always result in word-for-word parallelism. even when it is not absolute-ly precise it often reflects a clear redactional tendency in that direction. Fo1· instance. f\·11. 6. 14-15 is not as precise as the examples above: If you forgi\'C' people their sins. your hca\·rnly father witJ also forgive you. If ym1do noc fof¥i\·c: pcoplc-.1neilhl:'r will your fnthcr forgive your sins.

' EO:v yO:p 0:cflfrn: Tol) O:vl}pt.lno•S' TO: napo: rrT~ucna a \m:)v, O:¢~ou Kc£1 i.t1.iiv 0 ncn f-p U:~~t:>v 0 OOpO:vtO)" iav& pftO:+hn ToiS 0:\IEII)(o)no•S, 006£ 0 noTftp i.JIJClV 0:¢~ou Ttl nopo:rrrt.)IJOTO: ~&lv.

But even here Matlhew has evidently taken over Mk 11.25, insened it into the Sermon on the MoUJll. and rendered it in parallel lines. To be sure, precise antithetic parallelism can occasionally be found elsewhere, as tb r example when a simple paradox is stated in Q (Lk. 14. 11: cf. Mt. 23.1 2): All those who c:talt themsdvcs will be humbt~-d. and all those-who humble thcmsd \'CS will b.: c..xahcd. D nO:s 0\r.I!Wv iOVTOv ;a nt~vc.:.&ftonoe, ~eol 0 ;anu~v favTOv V4'c-X!~o.:.Tcu.

Matthew. however, moves well beyond such simple conn·asts in a number of ways. First, Matthew's sayings can be grouped. Mt 6. 19-24 consists ofthreesayings with antithetic pairs, the first two pl'ecisely parallel and the third containing a variation of the verbs. Only in the last case does Luke contain close parallelism. In Matthew, three general e.thical maxims. presumably from different parts ofQ, are brought together, arc all arranged with two central lines in precise antithetic parallelism (varied only by one word in the third saying). and then each is concluded with a summill)' line. Second. some of M atthe w ~s examples of precise.antithetic parallelism t·un on fot· a number of verses. as. for instance, in the case of the wise person who built a house upon the rock (7.24-27; compare Lk. 6.47-49). Especially importaJlt is a culminating example in the Gospel. Mt. 25.33-46. The two halves of the contrasting thought, the positive and the negative, are here arranged in parnllel columns:

12. The bcSI uncicnt textual witnc:;sc:s arc divided here on wllc:th~·r to include ' thtir sins· ntthis point. thus tightening the p.'lralld ism. but the Inner ahc:m:Ui\•.: is viewed b)' many te:tt critics as a corre«ion. und i,; lhus not gctK'rally the preferred text. For l.he purposes of di!leussion l ehercforc ac-OCpc the less prcc.isd y patnJk .J rt-~1ding. uhhough the alternative would only strengthen the conclusions of the plC$Cilt chspter. 13. This pattem i,; noc unusual when used to !>laic a p:undox: compare Diogcnes Luenius.. Lin's. Chikl 2. who recounts thul when Chilo as-ked Aesop whut Zeus was up to. Aesop "-"Plied. ·He. is lowering what i,; hi.gh. ll.tldc:tulting wh:u is low.' Compare in nddition ·Entb. 13b: ·1~ im whohumbk s himselfthe HolyOnc. bk'SSCd be He. raiStCs up. and him who cxahs hin-.sclf the Holy on~·. blessed be He. humbk s. •

188

Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels J.I'J"hc (son of hunmnity) will set the shee-p on his right and the goats on his felt 11 Thc:n he will say to lhosc uThcn the-king will say co those on his right on his len. ·come here. you who arc-blessed by my father. inhc:ritl.hc kingdom that has been prepared for you from the foundation of the world: J~or I was hungry and you gave me something to Ctll. I was thirsty and you gii\'C-Illl:'

'Get away from me. you who are condemned. to the eternal fire that has been prcpnrcd for the dcYil !lnd

something to drink.

his mcs.scngc:rs: •:for I was hungry and you did not give me something to c.ul. I was thirsty a1ld you did not s)\'C- me something to drink.

I was a sltangcr and you took ml' in.

ul \'laS a stranger and you did not tnkc me

'"naked and you clothed me. sKk nnd you looked nficr me. I was in jail and you came to visit me.'

naked and you di-d noc clothe me. sicl: and in juil and you did not loo\: after me:

Jfjhcn the. rightcotiS will ilnswcr himand say. ·tord. Vlflen did we St:e you hungry and focd )X>U. or thirsty and gi\'c you something to drink? J~When did we sec you a stnmgcr and take you in. or naked ond clothe you'?

"Then these also will answer and say. ·Lord. when did we. sec you hunyy

m.

or thirsty or u sltungcr or naked

JV..\Ihcn did we sec yot• sick or in jail and or l1Kk or in jail come to ' 'isit you?• and not cake care of you'?' 1 'The king will answcr and sa)' to the-m. .j,!Then he will answe.r th~·m and say. Truly I say to you. \vflate\·er you did to ·Trui)· I say to you. wflate\'cr yotl did one-of the le-11st of m)' brolhcrs and noc do to one of the: leust of these. sisters. you did it to me.: you did not do to me:.: •t.And these will prooc:ed to an eternal punishment. but the: righteous to ctemallife.

The pamllelism between the two halves is not absolutely precise.1J A thoroughly rigid antithetic parallelism extended over so many vet•ses would probably have seemed artificial and not conducive to the rhetorical effect desired. Nevertheless. the parallel use of language is quite close, and appears to b uild upon themes developed in the previous examples; that is, the issue of inclusion and exclusion is here projected explicitly onto the eschatological judgement. as it has been implicitly until now. (tis possible, even pt'Obable, ihat all of Matthew's uses ofpt·ecise antithetic parallelism are interpretation and application for the community of Mt. J6.19. the saying on binding and loosing.

14. Ahhough it maybe suggested that here the: patalfdism i ~ a mnemonic device that indicnte~ nn ora] tmdition for the passage:. I think chat it is unlikely (pace Charlc:s H. Lobr. ·oral Techniques in the Go!'pel ofMauhcw'. CBQ 23 119611. 403-2>). Cenuinl)• in the case of shortersarins:;. it is mrialion that is typic-al of or.tl proverbs. In grn..:ml. I nm inclined to agree:. with Dennis MacDonald. who in a personal oommunic3tioo has ~atcd th..
WILLS Scribal Melhods in Mal/hew and Mishnah Abot

189

2. Precise Aulilhetic Parallelism in Jewish and C/Jristi.an Literature

Since the compositional pattem that f\·1atthew is using of\en involves wisdom sayings. and a lways involves parallelism, the fi rst place one might look fo r a similar sort of composition would be in biblical texts such as Proverbs and Ben Sira. wisdom texts that utilize parallelism. However. in cases ofHcbrew composition where the second line reflects some kind of negation or opposition to the first. tlle identical tem1s are intentionally no/ used in both lines. Instead. there is always an artful variation of the terms of the two contl'asting lines. For instance: A wise son mokes a glod falhct. but a foolish son is a sorrow to his mother. (Prov 10.1) :~Oi~O" t :J'I i j:l :1c.- t il.r.n *,·o:J p1

Or: He wt.o walks wilh wise men bccomC'S \\isc. but the companion of fools will suO·ct harm. (Pro\' 13.20}15 l::l.1' e·o:m·r~ -,~:i

:VI- ·

c·.,·o:~ lu-,

T11ese wisdom sayings could have been as rigidly constmcted as the one in Matthew. but with a loss of a great deal oftheir poe.tic appeal. ln f.1ct, there is not to my knowledge a single instance of this precise so11 ofantithetic parallelism in a ll of Proverbs or Ben Sira. nor in the wisdom texts from Qumran. Although the neat division of biblical parallelism into synonymous. antithetic and synthetic parallelism has come in tOr a good deal ofjustified criricism by James Kugel and Adele Berlin, 16 we should note that Matthew's usage is so ditle rent from Hebrew parallelism in general that it lies comple.tely outside the purview o fKugel's and Bel'lin's studies. Matthew is evidently appl)ring parallelism in a new way. Outside of the wisdom books1 some isolated instancesofthis p1-ecise antithetk parallelism can be found. As noted above~ the sayings concerning binding and loosing al Mt. 16.1 9 and at 18.18 a1•e both precisely parallel. and Jhe fir.< I, where the binding and loosing is tied to the keys of David~ echoes lsa. 22.22, which is also organized in precise lines o f antithetic paJ'a llelism:

15. Reading lhc qere lnr/k for hlwk.1111d 'ii: O for li:J'::. 16. J. Kugd . Tht-Idea q{BiblicYJI Pol!l(l': ltJ PantiMism
nw

Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

190

And I will lay the key ofl.hc house of David upon his shoulder. and he shall open. and no one shall shut and he shall shu1. and no one shall ope-n.U '!O~r::ri;~ i 1i"il:l nr;!lC ·r.-u1 i:C

r

: fiji~

~l rn~,

p t "! - ;0'1

Where this same passage of Isaiah is alluded to in Rev. 3.7. it also retains precise parallelism: The-one who llus lhe key of David. the-one-who opens and no one shui.S. and d oses :md no one opens.

0 Exwv Ti)v Kkt:l v .O.auiO., 0 Ovoiyt.>v Kal oV0Ei5 t::: ).t iail Kal Kheiwv.:a i oOOEis O:voiyn·

Other passages could be brought forward as well, such as Jn 20.23 or Mk 16.16. but thes.e are isolated. and not always p1-ec.isely pamltel. lt is interesting. however, that this entire group of passages sugge..~ts the use of this pattem to expres..o,; the community's final power to include or exclude people for the judgement at the Endtime. The blessings and curses fOund in several passages in the Hebrew Bible also divide the world neatly into a binaJy opposition. Gen. 27.29 refers to the covenant with Abraham: Cursed be lhc one who cutsc:s )W . and bk ssed bl~ the: one who blc:sses you. ,'\,~ r~,~

:r~,:J

-r::r1:Jo,

At Jer. 17.5-8~ as above at Mt. 25.33-46, the more developed curses aJld blessings can be arranged, as above in rvft. 25.33-46, in two columns: Cursl."d are the)' who trust in wlltu is ruk sscd are the)' who trust in lhe Lord. human. a1ld their trust is the lord. and take flesh as the-ir strength. and whose beans tum away fromlhe lord. 'iflc)· shall be like- a shrub in the desert. "rhcy shall be: like a tree:.planted by tile: waters.. and by lhc ~ream it will sc:nd forth its rools.

1

17. Tbc prttise p:ualk li!>m is rclainc:d in the:.torgumim. lsa. 22.22. like- the other texts. has an cscha1ologlcat perspcc.tiw-. C\'tn if the t"'tnts n:f~red to are und~r.:tood \'try ditTcrc-ntly from those refc:ITtd loin the Nc:w TesL1mtnt tcxts..

WILLS Scribal Melhods in Mal/hew and Mishnah Abot and shall not sec when help comes. and shnJI dwell in the parched plae<s in the.desert in 11 snh land that is uninhabi1~-d.

191

and shall not sec (or fcar)l i ,...tJcn heal comes. btu its lcnvcs shuJJ stay green. und it shall noc be anxious in the y~-ar ofdrought. 11nd it does not oc:asc bearing fruit

Compare also a similar passage at the conclusion of Shepherd ofHermas: Whocn:r therefore.shall walk in th(SC commandments shall live. and shall~ happy in lik but whoc\'Of shall ncgkct them shall not lin:. and shall be unhappy in life.

QuinuruJtu· ergo in his mamlmis amhulurerit. l'in'l cr folix erit ilt ~·ita JtJa; quicumque 1~1v TWgleurit. 11011 ._.;vet el erit it~felix ifl riUJ .ma. (Simi/. 10.4. I)

The beatitudes and woe.s in lk. 6.20-26 fl\3}' a lso attest this limited use of antithetic parallelism, common. as we see here. in blessings and curses. But these isolated instances are ofonly pa11ial help; Matthew uses this pattern often, not just once or twice. It appears to be one ofMatthe.w's favourite.modes of recomposirion ofsaying$. Although f\·1atthew does not apply it in evety occ.asion. it is as strong a redactional tendency as one is likely to find in the Synoptic Gospels. To my knowldege~ there is only one othe.r place.where this pattern appears often enough to suggest a significant kinship with its usage. in Matthew: the mishnaic tractate Abot. 3. Precise Antithetic Parallelism in A bot

Abot, ·fathers'. also called Pirkci Abot, 'Chapters of the Fathers'. is unlike the othermishnaic tractates in that it contains no legal material, but is largely composed of the wise sa)•ings of the pl'incipal rabbis. f rom the beginJling of the third century CE Abot was treated by the rabbis as the foundationdocument oft he Mishnah. h delineates the pi'Ogre-ssion of oral law fi'Om Moses o-n Sinai dO\VIl through Joshua, the elde1·s, the prophets, the men of the Great Synagogue. through all the generations of rabbis to the time. of the codification of the Mishnah. It c--an be divided into different sections, which were likely composed in different periods.19 T1le three sayings attributed to oneofthe students of Johanan ben Zakkai. Hanina ben Dosa, are all in precise antithetic parallelism. One. example will suffice:

IS. The ketib h:u yr'. 'fcnr•. bul the: qere n·ads at this pointyr'/t, 'sec•. which is mor~ precisc:ly parallel. 19. Louis Finke-lstein. ' lntroduclory Study to PiJ'/;e Abet' .JBL 57 (1938). IJ.- 5-0: idem.Mabole· Mas.w!kttJI Abot W!·Abot
192

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels E\'cryone whose dc:c:ds is more than his wisdom. his wisdom endures. And t -\'el)'Onc: whose wisdom is more than his docds. his wisdom docs no I endure. (3.9b)W

'! _""..,n""' _<M _.., ·•:::''""',.. , ....-! t.l .,., ( I ..,.., _.,_, L,. / .J no..pno 1~n ~~

'

·n~""r-

-, , ...· ...,- ·-... - n~·: !11 • ..1 w

.. ...... _ ' -

~.,_ , /~

nrY·pro 1rr-:::m r~

Conveniently enough tb1· our comparison, this rabbi lived at the end of the first century CE, an exact contemporary o f Matthew. It is, however, unwise to date these wisdom sayings on the basis of the rabbis to whom they are attributed. The Mishnah was edited in the early third century CE. and although it is likely that certain sections of Abot were composed and collected earlier. the1-e was a tendency to ascribe. important sayings to the. leading sages of the tradition. The lack o f a precise dating fo1·Abot traditions is not a prohibitive.problem, ho,veveJ'. Although the rabbinic traditions in the Mishnah are often mined for the light they may shed on the NewTestament, this single direction ofime1-est sometimes limits discussion of the common stream of tradition that Matthew and some rabbinic traditions may share. Matthew and Abot may reflect similar p1·actic.es arising in the first to second cenn1ries CE. In addition to these sayings of Hanina ben Dosa, a mm1be:r ofsayings attributed to other rabbis reflect this pattem~ such as this one attributed toR. Jonathan ben Jose: The-p~~rson who fulfi ls Torah while-poor will iUihl it in the c1ki \...tlen rich. And lhc person who makes void the Toruh while rich will make il void in the end when poor. (4.9} · : l £.'0 ii- ,r.,-n~ c··pcT;:J ,ir!'lt.'C ;-~ ..p; ·,:;';C i~.tlt: iii1ni·n~ ; l:::::Di '?::.1

· :,liO ii':io:h 1!n:

In Abo! ( count twelve clear instances of precise antithetic parallelism ( 1.3: 2.9; 3.2, 3. 5, 9 [2 times], I0; 4.6, 9, I I a, 20)-" Two ofthe.m. 1.3 and 4.11a, also conclude with a moral tag line ve1y similar to what was noted above for Mt 6. 19-24. 20. 1'1le other sa)·ings are 3.9b. I 0. Numbering is according to the: Mishnnh. ootthc pmycrbool:. Note that Finkelstein and Saldarini in the-foolnOteabo\'t' usc the prn)'('r book numbering of S.'l)'in.g.sin Abo/, and thus their re-ferenc-es will not e.orrcspond precisely to those I have given. Churlcs Ta)·lor notes the possibility that the: sroond p!!rallcl l in~· in tbc:s~- thrcc: snyings may have be:en added. because they an:.not in .4boJ de Rabbi l1lothon 22 (Sayings ofrl~ .Je,riJ/1 Fat/~J·s, comprising Pirqe Aboth ill Hebr.:wutJd Engli.\'h. will1 Notes and E.ww·suses (200cdn: New York: Ktav. 1969}. p. -l9}. 1iowt\'C:r. Taylor rightly considers this 11 conjc:eturc.und it would not inany C-ilse.diminatc the: othe-r instnne<:s of precise antithcttc: pnralld ism in AbfJI. 11. Nine 01hcr instaoccs are not !IS procisc (2.-l: 3.17: 4.5. lib: 5.16. 17. IS. 19 {2 times]). suggesting. as in Mauhcw. that the goal wus not an ubsolutc rigidity. btu simplyadarityofc.ontrasLI hav~- also found occasional uses of this form d scwhe:rc in rabbinic literature. '...tlich Isimply list here: Sukk. 53a: B.&ll. 12b: '£rub. IJb. 53a: nnd AbfJt di! Rabbi No1lum (A) 24 (paralld to Ahot 3. 17).

WILLS Scribal Melhods in Mal/hew and Mishnah Abot

193

Tlms, although Abo/ as a whole is closer in genre-to Q- they are both collections of 'sayings of the wise' 1:! - many sayings in Abot, as in Matthew, utilize precise antithetic pamllelism in sayings that dL~ttinguish those who are righteous from those who are not. This rhetorica l similarity betv.•een Matthew and A. bot suggests that the fom1er was more in the orbit of 'Jewish Christians' (or more accuratel)r. Jegally observant followei'S of Jesus) as opposed to 'Gentile Christians· (or more accurately, non-observant followers of Jesus). Although it has recently become quite common among scholars to assume this.21 it has by no means been a unanimous conclusion. Georg Strecker, Hans Dietel' Betz and John rvfeier have aU attempted to restrict the Jewish-observant influence in Matthew to its earliest stages. and aver that Matthew the redactor has moved into a Gentile-mjssion phase that is no longe-r tied to strict Jewish observance.u If, however. it is the reformulalion of sayings in Matthew that is so similar to Abo!. then Matthew the redactor \Vas likely schooled in the same technique-s, and the similarities adduced here speak to the final layer o f Matthew and not to its sources. But beyond this general statement of the background of the t¥iO documents, can we be more specific about the similar social context for Matthew and ..fbol? One might assume that whatever explanation is suggested fo1·this redactional tende-llC)' o f .Matthew, the same or a similar explanation would apply to Abel as well. 25 T\VO possible approaches may be considered here. One possible explanation is that Matthew and Abet are both auempting to provide boundary definitions for their groups. Matthew is certainly a sectarian document, and much has been written about the sectarian nature of various Jewish groups in the first ce.nttlly. W. D. Davie-s asserts tJlat implicit in much of the Se.rmon on the Mount is the same contrast between True Israel and False Jsrael as that whic.h is drawn more explicitly in the antitheses.16 The beatitudes draw a contrast between those who 12. Jame$ M. Robinson. ·toGOJ SOPHON:On thcGattung ofQ'. in idem :md 1-ldmul Kocs1er. Trajectories Througll Early Cltristianity (Philacklphin; Fonrcss. 19i t ). pp. 71- 113. 23. A. J. Snldarini. Muttht•w 's CIJriJficrll-,h:wi)·h Conummily (Chicago Studies in the 1-listory of

Judaism: Chicago: Uni\'Crs.it)·of Chieago Press. 199-1);!\.hnin Hcngd . ·zurtnanhii s.:h('tllk~tpredi.:t und ihrem jiidisehcn l·lintcryuncl>. TR 52 ( I 987). 327-400: and On:rman. Mattlww 's Go.~pel. 24. Georg Strecker. Der ll'eg ckr GentCIJtigkeil: Untersud11mg :ur Tlleo/ogie des .4fauMu.s (FRLANT. 82~ GOuingcn: Vundcnhocd: & Rupn'thl 1971): HansDicttt He1z. £mryso11th
194

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

are pure and good and those who are not: ·You are the sah of the e.arth·,' You are the light of the world'. A recent analysis by Anthony J. Saldarini presses this sectarian interpretation fi.111her. and argues that Matthew condemns the scribes and Pharisees, along with other Jewish leaders, as pan of a programme to define the community's sectarian boundaries.'~? This could conceivably be caJTied over to such seemingly innocuotL:; sayings as Matthew's version of the wise man who built his house upon a rock. Placed in precise antithetic parallelism. the contra.~tt between the man who buih his house upon a rock and the.man who bui lt his house upon the.sand is taken to be an eschatological distinction between those who have

the proper orientation and those who do not. This theory commends itself especially when one considers that one of the few places outside ofMatthe.wandAbol where precise antithetic parallelism occurs is in the appropriation of the binding and loosing tradition in Jn 20.23 and Re.v. 3.7. a tradition that is certainly appropriate for bound'lry distinctions. It could be argued that what is emphasized in these antithetic S3yings in f\•fatthewand Abot is the t•adi<:·al demand ofa cet1ain lifestyle and the imposition of a sectarian, divided-off consciousness. The sayings attempt to simplify an approach to religious life that is based on a single ethos. However, Matthew is likely a more.sectarian document than isAbot. Although one could attempt to date the rele,•ant sayings in Abot at an carl)• period, more contemporary with Matthew, the sayings in question simply do not seem to be applied to the task ofboundary fonnation.211 Saldarini, while emphasizing the sectarian na1Ure of Matthew, has rightly also minimized a sectarlan tendency among the Pharisees in the first century. or among other groups that would constitute the beginnings o f the rabbinic movemem.29 Shaye J. D. Cohen, indeed, argues that 17. SnJd:uini. Mut!hew :S Christian-Jeui:dt Cmmmmity.11uoughotu this chapter Itake ·sectarian· to refer to small groups thnt arc:.sc:.lr-c:oo.sciously div«kd ofr from l:ugc:rsocittaJ grouping:;. Debates about the definition of:
WILLS Scribal Melhods in Mal/hew and Mishnah Abot

195

a lthough sectarian divisiveness was a part ofJudaism befOre the Jewish Wm·, the1·e was a gradual acceptance at Ya\rneh of the-princ.iple of agreeing to disagree.30 T1ms the group that was responsible for collecting alld passing on Abot \Vas not likely as concerned with boundary formation, and it would be difficult to reconstmct a sectarian period in the earl}' sayinw; ofAbot. As a second possible explanation of the relationship, we note that a numbe-r o f scholars have argued that Matthew's scribal inte.restsco1-respond to scribal practices among Jews in the first ce-nttuy .) 1 The scribe was a professional who had the training to be able to read and write, but was also steeped in the ethos of learned study and expertise in the written traditions of Israel. On several occasions Matthew takes up the image o f the scl'ibe and carries it over to a community o fbelievers in Jesmi that m.a}' have contained few actual scribes. Matthew concludes chapter 1 3~ the parables chapter, with a paean to the ·scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven· .n it is possible that precise antithetic parallelism was a common compositional technique in scribal circles at lhe end ofthe first century, and was used by Matthew. a scribal, Jewish tbllower of Jesus, and by the scribal fOrebears of rabbinic Judaism) .l This can perhaps be specified more precisely. l would propose that a tbrm that in Matthew emphasized inclusion and exclusion has in Abot also been used as the means of discerning the-person with the proper ethical lifestyle. Ben Sira had earlier invited his readers to take up a lifestyle committed to wisdom, but for him this lifestyle was a professional option for wealthy males only, understood to apply to all aspects of a gentleman's concerns. Abo/, like Matthew, affimts the ideal o f scribal wisdom. but the unadorned simplicity of the precise antithe-tic 30. S. 1. 0 . Cohen. 'The Signihconce of Yuvndt: Phari s~'t's. Rabbis. and the- End of k.wish Stttnrianism'. HUCA 55 ( 1984). 27- 53: id;.'m. From the Maccahf!es tolhe Mishnah (Library ofEurly Christianity: Philaddphiu: Westminster. 19SS}. pp. 119. 124-64. 31. Kristcr Stcndabl. The School ojS1. Ma1thr>1' tmd Its UJr ofthe 0/dTeJtament (Philadelphia; Fortress. 1968): M. lack Suw. H'iJdcm, ChriJWfogy tmd Lm~ ;, Molt/sew ·s GoJpel (Cambridge. MA: Harn1rd Uni\'ersity Press. 1970). pp. 11~7: and Cdia M. Dc-uiSch. Lady Wisdom. Jesus. orul lite Sages: Metophcr andSoda/ Context in MuulU'w's Go.;presscd doubts about our ability to discern with any precision the relations of Phsrisccs with anybody in the first century (Judaism: The £ridenc'e tifl!le MiJI111a/J (Chicago: Uni,·crsity of Chicago Pn'SS.. 1981 ). pp. 70-1).

196

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

parallelism, separating unmistakably those tb und to be righteous from those who are not, is directed to a broader cross-section of society, at the same time that it increases t:he demand of moral perfection. In both Matlhew and Abo/, the balanced, either/or contrasts of the sayings are framed in such a way as to leave no doubt in the minds of the audience that one path leads to acceptance before God, and the other to destmction. Further, in Abo/ and f\·fatthew wisdom has found its perfect incarnation. for the studems of Akiba. wisdom is realized in Torah (Abot 3.3 ; 4.6, 9. I I). while for Matthew. it is realizc.d in the teachings of Jesus. As M. Jack Suggs would press it.J4 Jesus in Matthew is the incamation of wisdom and Torah. and so Matthew's criterion is not so differen t from the 5a)'ings in Abot. Wisdom is experienced in Matthew not simply through traditional wisdom motifs, but through a sort of intensified scribalism. The.re are good scribes and bad scl'ibes in .Matthew, and the good scribes are marked by the crucial tem1 ' righteous', dikaios (f\·ft. 23.2930. 34: compare 13.1 7). Russell Pregeant and Earl James Breech also emphasize the extent to which Matthew increases the theme of the ·persecution of the just man·. a wisdom motif analysed thoroughly by George W. E. Nickelsburg.Js In neither Matthew nor A. bot are the traditional wisdom motifs presented as they had bee.n for centul'ies. Rather. what is common to the two is an orientation to wisdom that is transrnutcd into an all-cmbmcing demand for a righteous ethos and lifestyle. Matthe\v's saying. 'Evel)• scribe. trained tbr the. kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out ofhis stores some.thing old and sonlething new' ( 13.52). seems to reflect on this development within what had formerly been a very conservative tradition:t5The wisdom aspect in all of these c.ase.~; is not tb und in lraditional wisdom, but in the new experience o f the scribe and sage. 3~.

Suggs. Wisdom, ChriJtoiO[;J', lmd L«w.prusim. Ahhough Marshall Johnson ('RcAoctions on a Wisdom Appro:.ch to ).fanhcw's Clui!:tology', CBQ 36 (1974). 44-64) nnd Oa,·ies nnd Allison(T1te Golpel A«ording Jo Suitll Muuhe1r. \'OI. 2. pp. 295) critieiu Suggs for O\'Cm.1imnting the imponanoc: of the wisdom Cluistolo~v in Matthew. they failed to r'-wgnizc all 1M implications of Suggs' suggestive book. Admittedly. Suggs did not drow out all of lhc implications, but see 11lso Orton. Untkrstmuli11g St'rib<-: Oeutsth. Lad)· Wisdom:and Ben Witherington Ill. Jesus theSog.e: The Pilgrimage ofWiJdom (Minneapolis: Fortress. 1994). 35. R. Prcgcant. 'The. Wisdom Pass11gc!> in Mlllthew>s Story·. in Dtwid lull (ed.). SBL Semi11ur Papers /990 (Adnnta: Scholars. 1990). pp. 469- 93; ~ J. Br'-"CCh. ·crucifix ion as Ordeal: Tmdition and lnterprctation in Matthew 26-2&' (PhD dissertation. ~l 11rvard Uni\'etsity. 1976): and G. W. E. Nickdsburg. Reslln·e t'lion, lmmmtuliry, mtd Eternal Lifi• ;, lfltertestamenra/Judaism (Hiltvard Thco· logic-at Studies. 16: Cambridge. ).fA: Harvatd Unin:rsity Prt$$. 19i1). pp. 48- 92: idem. 'The-Genre and Function of the Markan Pwion Nlllf3tive•. HTR 73 ( 1980). 153-S•t. Brooch notes that in p.1rticu· Jar M.atthcw focus~-son thetc-n n dikaios. nnd the c-rucifixion SCCtl('COntainsd car pamllcls to \Visdom 2- 5 (compare cspcc:ially Mt. 27.43 with Wis. 2.10·20). Bernard Bra1ldon Scott IISSUffiC$ but do(S not dcmonstmtc the presence of wi!OOm motifs in Mauhcw ('TheGospcl ofMnuhcw: A Snpiential Pcrfonnnnc<.ofan Apocalyptic Discoum·. in B. B. Scott l.G. Perdue.and W. Johnston \\'iscm.:"'n J~-dsJ. In Search ~{H'isdcm: E.mrys ir1 Memory ofJuhn G. Gammie (louisville: Westminster/John Knox. 1993}. pp. 145-62}. 36. Compare here.a latersnying from the Talmud. 'Emh. 21b (quoted also by Davies and Allison, The Grupe! According w Saint Mallfutw. \'Ol. 2. p. 447): Regarding th( ·new and t.he.old' of Cant. 7.14. ·the old arc the commandments
WILLS Scribal Melhods in Mal/hew and Mishnah Abot

197

1\·lichael Fishbane hns chm·ted the general course of such a development in ancient Judaism when he speaks of the rise of scribal is m as a fonn of Jewish exegesis, learning and spirituality after lhe Exile, and its culmination in rab-

binism.li Many o f the texts of this period, of ditTerent genres, reflect the scribe's special way of appropriating ancient tradition and interpreting it. According to Fishbane-, some texts lean more toward a sectarian claim to final revelation (Daniel. Qumran texts)1 while others denounce and even repress such claim.s to final revelation. and point the audie.nce to a benign assurance in the efficacy of legal observance (Ben Sira 1 rabbinic literature). In this last regard~ Fishbane adduce-s many passages from A. bot (though none of the Mtithetic parallelism passages). and sees in the rabbinic appropriation of scribalism a ·neutralization of the prophetic impulse - its scribalizatio n~ one might say, and it'> reemployment in the service of the Law' (p. 75). Klisemann (above) used almost identical words to describe MaHhew·s own attenuation of the prophetic se.ntences of holy law, and here we may be closer to the significant similarity between the sectarian Matthew and the non-sectarian Abot, a sort of intensified scl'ibalism that also has the effect o f delimiting the direct revelation of prophecy. Matthew and Abot bl'ing to scribalism an intensified moral demand that leads, in effect1 to a new relig ious discipline. To be sure. there may remain a number of important differences between them. Aside from the Christo logical divide, f\·fatthew e.mphasizes intentions and inner dispositions in t:he demand for a moral perfectionism more strongly than does A bot. This is the clear thn1st of the antitheses of Matthew 5. the instn1ctions on tbsting in Mt. 6. 16- 18. and is at least part o f the basis for Matthew's condemnation of the Pharisees in Matthew 23. Although motives and inner dispositions are sometimes addressed inAbot, more sayings emphasize actions. and do so more stro ngly }~ (f a new religious discipline is advocated by each text, the fOcus of that discipline is chm1ed ditlerentl}'~ and the more sectarian Matthew was probably aware o f that Matthew probably le.amed a scribal tradition- including the use of precise antilhetic parallelism - from teachers similar to those in Abot, but dramatically redirected it. Yet the force of the precise antithetic parallelism is still present in both. The requirements laid before the audience - the ethos that will lead to righteousness before God - are remarkably simple, so simple that they do not need adornment, and should not be made complicated. There isx andnot-x. To paraphrase Shab. 31a. the 1'est is commentary.

MI. 13.52 iO\•o lves both old trndi1ion and new. btu on p. 97 follows Johnson. ' Rc:Rcctions on a \Visdom Approach'. in minimil'.ing any wisdom inflw:nccs on Matthew. 37. Mic-hael Fishbane. TIJi•GantwltsojToroh: fs.suys in Biblico/ J./entlt'm'Uti<s(lndisnuStudies in BibliClll Litcrntuw. Bloomington: lndillna Uni\·c:rsity Press. t 989). pp. M- 78. 3S. Motives nnd inner dispositi-ons are ~-agucly addressed mAbot l.3: 2.2, 4. 9: 4.21 : 5.13. 16. 19. while actions nrec:mphasizochtrongly nl 1.2. 15. 17~ 1.1. 14. 15: 3.9. 15. 17; 4.2. I I. 17: 5.8. 9. 14: 6.7.

BIBLIOGRAI'HY

Abrnmowski. L. 'The...Memoirs of the Apostles'' in Ju..'">lin' . in Peter S!Uhfmacher (cd.). The

GosJX>/ and the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eadmans. 1991). pp. 323- 35. Adna. J .• 'The Servant of Isaiah 53 as Triumphant and lntcrcx:ding MCS5iah: T1le R«cption of Isaiah 52:13- 53: 12 in dt< Tar<~'Um oflsaklh with Spcc.ial Attention to the Concept of the Messiah'. in B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmachc-r (cd:i). The S•iffering Serw1111: /saialt jJ in Jeu·isltamiChristitnt Snurees (trans. D.P. Bailey: Grand Ra))ids: William B. Ec-rdmans.. 2004}. pp. 189-224. AlbI. M. C.• 'AndScripture CamKtiiN Brok£w': The FomtOJJdFmu:timtofthe Early Chrisriwt Tcsti.monio Col/ecticms (NovTSup. 96~ Lc.i dcniBos.~on'KOin : E. J. Brill. 1999). Alkicr. S.. ' From Text to lntcrtcxt: lmencxtuality as a Paradigm for Reading Manhcw•. HeTWJt"tude Ti!ologi.se Studies 61 (2005). 1-18. Alle-n. C. D.• Rttl'e lalion, Tr11th. Canona,dlml!rprewtkm: Srudi~·s In JuJrin ,!.Jartyr 's Diftlogut• with Tr)t7Jho (VCS. 64: lcidc-n!Boston fJ
Argyle. A. W.. 'The Influence of the Testaments of lllc Twel,·c Piltriarchs upon d!<- NcwTcstn· m-mt', EJ.:pT 63 (195 1- 52). 256-8. ArnaL W. E. and W. Bmun. ·social Formation and Mythmaking: Tbescs on Key Terms' in R. Cameron and M.P. Milkr(eds). RedescrlbiiJg Christiau Origi1u (Adanla: Society of Biblical Literature. 2004). pp. 459--67. Aune. D. E.. ·Justin Martyr's Use of the Old Testament'. Bulltttit1ojthe £wmgdi('(ll Thc!()/ogi·

cal Society 9 ( 1966). 179- 97. - ·Th-e Problem ofthe Genre ofthe Gospels: A Critique ofC. H. Talben's What Is a Gospttf.>', in R. T. Fmnoc-and D. Wenham(eds). Studies ofHistmyamJTradilion (Gospel Per-spec~ rives 2: ShcAlcld: JSOT Press. 19&1). pp. 9~0. - Prophecy in Early Cl~ristiaJiily aJitf tlte Anciem ,l.,{edilerrcmetm World (Grand Rapids. tvll: Ee-nlmnns. 1983). - ·crcco·Roman Biography', in D. E. Aunc (cd.). Greca-Romw1 LiterVJJure 01/d 1he New TeJta· m~·111: Selected Form.s and Genres (Atlnntn: Scholars Press. 1988). pp. I 0 7- 26. - 'Th< Gospels: Biogrnphy or Theology?'. Bible R~vieu· 6 ( 1990). 14-2 1. B:.ilc.y. D. P.. ·concepts ofStttll\'er1retung in Lhe hucrprclillion oflsuioh 53'. m W. H. Bellinger and \V. R. F:.rme.r (eds),Je.stu and t!Jtt Sl{l]i.·ring Sernmt: /.miall .B attdChrisu'tmOrigins (Horrisburg. PA: Trinity Press International. 1998). pp. 223- 50. Baird. R.. Ct11eg01~1 Formatio11 mtd the Nistory of Religitm (The Hot,'UC: Moulon. 197 1). &khtin. M. M.. ·f~wms of Time and Chronocypc-in the Novel'. in M. Holquist (cd.). Tlte Dialogic Imagination ( trans. C. Emerson and M. Holq uist .-\ustin: University of Texas Press. 198 I ). pp. 84- 258. Barnard. L\V.. Justill Martyr. flis Lifo tmdTJmugltt(Cambrid!,'-C'·. UK: Cambridge University Press. 1967). Eklrdoy. J. M. G.. Je11·s in lite MediJenrntron DitJspom}i'om Ale.wmder to Tro)utt (123 BC£117 CF.) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1996).

Bibliography

199

Eklrr. J.• The Semtmlics qfBiblical Language (London: Oxford University Press. 1961). Barth. G.. ·oas Gcsctzcs,..c-rstlindnis des Evang.elistc:n Mauh§us' in G. Bomkamm, G. Banh t~nd H.·J. Held. Ober!iefonmg mtd Au.(/eg1111g im ,l.,{uultiiu.sewmge/ium (Neukirchen: Neukirchen Verlag. 1961. 2nd cdn). pp. 54- 154.

Bsnhes. R.. M•1ltologies {trans. A. Ltlvcrs: Ne\'... York: The. Noonday Press. 1972). - 'Tcxtc (thOOric du)', in £ncyc/opnedia Uulwr:fttlis. volume 17 (Paris: Seuil. 1985). pp. 9961000.

- Writi11g fkf:,'1'ee Zem (New York: Noonday. 19 68). Bauc.kham. R., GoJpi•l Women: Swdies nj'tlte Named Womeu luthe Gospv?l.s (Grand Rspids: Eerdmans. 2002). 17-46.

83uct. D. R.. 'The Maj or Charnc.~tcrs ofMatthcw's Story: Their f unction and Signific-ance' .Int. 46 ( 1992). 35 7-67.

Baumst:ui:.. A.• ' Die Zil!ltc des MI-Evtln,geliums aus dcm ZwOlfpropbetcnbuc-h' . Biblico 37 (1956). 296-313. Bcal. T. K .• ' lntc-nexttl::llily•. in A . K. M. Adam (ed.). HomibookojPostmodem Bibllctll Inter· _pn!latimt (Sl Loujs., MO: Chalice Press. 2000). pp. I 28- 30. lknrc. F. W.. The Gospt'l According{() Mcllthew: Trartslatiott,lntroductkm. andConmwntary (San Francisco: Harpe--r & Row. 1981). Beasley-Murray. G. R .. Jesus am/ tl~ Ln.ct Days: The lnterpretatNm oftlw 0/h-et Dl(CO!Irse ( Pct~body. MA: Hendrickson. 1993). Beaton. R.•lsaialt's Cltrfst In .r\lauhew's Gospf!!(SNTSMS. 123: Cnmbridg.c. UK: Cambridge University Press. 2002). - l:;.oiah ·.( Text i11 Mnttlrtrh':f Gospe/(SNTSMS, 123: Cnmbridge. UK: Cambridge University Press. 20ll3). Bcllinzoni. A. L The Sayi11gs ofJesus lrt the Writings of./ustin Mart)'r (NovTSup. 17: Lcidcn: E. J. Brill. I 967). - ·T1tc Gospel of Matthew in the Second CcntUJy•. Secoud Centlll)l9 (1992). 197- 258. B-cn-PomL Z .. 'The Pocticsoflitemry Allusion'. PTL: A Jmmmljar D~·scrlptl\'e PiWtics and Theory qfLit!!roture I ( I976). I05-28. Ekrger, K.. ·zu sogcnnanten sar..:en hciligen Rcchts' . l\iJS 17 (1970). lo-40. lff.-rtin. A.. n1e D_VtKmti<'s of Biblical Pamllelism (Bioomint'1on: Indiana University Press, 198:>). Bertrand. l · M .. Imcriptions Hiswriqlles Grt-"<'qtles (Paris: Lcs Belles Letttes. 1992). (ktt. H. D .. £ssay.Hm tlw Sermmtoll the Mmmt(trons. L L. Welborn: Philadc.lphia: Fortress. 1985).

Bdz. 0 .. 'Jesus and Isaiah 53'. in W. H. Bellinger and W. R. Fnrmc-r (o:-ds). Jems and the Suf foriug Sen 'ant: lsala)J 53 011d Cltdstian Origins (Harrisburg. PA: Trinity Press lntema tiona!. 1998). pp. 70-87. Bingham. D. J.. ln ·11twus' Use(if"Maflhew's Gospel in Adversus Uacrcscs (Traditio Exe,gctiea Grace-a. 7: louvain : Peeters. 1998). Block. M . C .. 'The-Rejected and Slain Messiah who is Coming with his Angels: The Messianic ExegeSISofZechariah 9- 14 in the P!ISSion NaJTalives• (PhD diS'iCrtotlon. Emo1y Uni,•cr sity. 1990). Blumenberg. H.. fflork 011 Myth (Cambridge. MA: MIT Press. 1985). Boda. M. J.. f.faggai. Z«hariah (The NIV Applieution Commcnta1y : Grand Rapids: Zondcr...-nn. 4

4

2004).

- 'Quotation. Allusion•. inS. E. Poner (cd.). DlctiOttary of Biblical Critidsm mtd lmerpretation (New York: Rou tledge~ 2005). pp. 296-S. S-oda. M. J. and S. E. Potter. "Literature to the Third Degree: Prophecy in Zechariah 9-14 nnd the Passion of Christ'. in M. Jinbac.hian and R. Onvid (eds). Tradttire Ia Biblelt~hmi'que.

200

Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels De Ia SeptatrJeiJ Ia Nouwlle Bible Si>goud(Scicn<:cs biblique.o;. 15; Montreal: MCdias· paul. 2005). p p. 2 15- S·t

Boring. M. E.• The Continuing Yoic(• ojJes/1.(: Chris/ian Prophec')' UIId lhe Gospel TriJdillon (Louisville: Wes~minster/J ohn Knox. J991). Braun. W. and R. T. M c:Cut<.~hoon. Guide Iii the Swdy of Religi<m (london and New York: C-nssdl. 2000).

Brccch. E. J.• 'Crt~c ifixion us Orde-al: Trlldition and Inte-rpretation in Manhcw26-28' (PhD dis. sccuttion. Ha.-vord Uni\'ersity. 1976). Brodie. T. L The Cmdal Bridgt>: n1e [;{ijah-£/isl!a Narmtiw as an lnterpnttb-e 5):mflesi.s of Gem?JiJ- Kings mKia /Jterary Mode/for the Gospe/,o;(Collcgevillc: Liturgical Press. 2000). Brooks. 0 .• 'The Function of the Double l.o••c-Command in Matthcw22:3440'. Andtt •\ f S Uni~-ersity Semitrary S!udies 36 ( 1998). pp. 7 - 22. Bro"n . R. E.. The Binh qfthe Messiah A Comnumlmy on Jhe lnfaucy N(IJTaliws i11 .4{attlww mtd Luke (G-orden City: Ooublccby (l n13gc Books). 1977). - 'R(tc/utb in Ml 1.5 Probably is Rahab of Jericho', Bib 63 ( 1982), 79-80. Brown. S .. 'The Matthc-on Apocal)'psc'. JSNT4 ( 1979), 2- 27. Bru<:e. F. F.. 'The Book ofZechorinh and the Ptlssion Narrutivc-S'. BJRL4J ( 1960-61). 336-53. - New Te.~tcummt Dewlopm~·m ofOld Tesllfmt-111 Th~?mes (Grond Rapids: Ecrdmans. 1968). Bryon. C .. A Preface lo Mark Noles on tlte Go.\ pd i11 /Is L ift•rw:v (lJid Cui/ural Sellirtg.-; (New Yock and Oxford: Oxford University Press.. 199.3). Buck, P. L . ' Justin .Martyr'sApo/ogit·s: T heir Number. Dc~ ination. and Fonn•.JTS 54(2003), 45- 59. Bullmann. R.. The J./i.Huty nj'1he SynaptiC' Tmdil/011 (trons. J. Marsh: New York: Harper & Row. l963). Burehard. C.. UJtli!I'SIK'Iwngett :m JtJJeplt undA.fl!tteth: Ober!ieferung·Ortbestimnumg (WUNT. 8: Tlibingen: Mohr. 1965). BurnelL F. W.. ' Prolegomenon to Reading Matthew's Eschatological Discourse: Redundancy and tile Education ot' the Reade-r in Matthew•. Semela 31 ( 1985). 91- 109.

- 'Exposing the A•ni-Jcwish Ideology ofMatthe.w's Implied Amhor. The Characterization of God as Father'. Semeia59 (1992). 155- 91. - 'Characterization and Reade-r Construction o f Characters in the Gospels.'. Semt>ia. 63 (l993). 1- 28. Bumc.y. C. F .. 17te POi!IIY ofOur l..onf(Oxlb rd: Clarendon. 1925). Burridge.• R. A . What Are dw Gospels? A Compari.(OJI with Graero-Romart Biogmplry (SNTSMS. 70: Cambridge. UK: Ct~mbri dgc University Press. 19 92: Grand Rapids: William B. Ecrdnums Publishing C.ompnny. 2nd cdn. 2004). Cndbury. H. L "The. Titles ofJ esus in Ac•s'. in F. J. F. J ocks.on t~nd K. Lake (cds). Tlw Begitt· niJtg.( ofChristiartllp. pan l: T/w ANs ofthe Apasdes. \'OI. 5: AddititJttcll Noles to tire Commettlary (ed. K. ltlke and H. 1. Cadbury; London: Macmillan. 1933), pp. 354-75. Ct~mpbell. J .. Tl~e Power of Myth (New York: D~lubfeday. 1988). Cnrson. D. A . Mallhew. in Frank E. Gtlebclein (ed.). Expositor's Blblo! Commenuuy. XIII. M(lflhell'. Mat'k. Luke (Grand R-opids: Zonderwn. 1984). pp. 1- 599. C.-oncr. W .. ·Norrativcllit erory Approoches to Mauhe~m Theology: T he .. Reign ofthe H~vens'' as an Ext~mple (Mt 4.17- 5.12)'. JSNT 67 (1997). 3-~7. - 'Evoking lsaioh: Motthean Soterio logy and an l n tencx ttu~ l Reading of l sa~h 7 - 9 nnd Matthew 1:23 and 4: 15-J6•.JBL 119:3 (1000). 5.03- 20. - Maiihew and the Margitts: A Sodopnlilical mW Religious Reoding (J SNTSup 204: r..·laryknoll: Orbis and She.llid d: Sheffield Acnde.mic Press. 2000). - Mallhew all(/ Empire: lnilial ExploraliotJS (Harrisburg. PA: l'rinily Pre-ss lntematiooal. 2 001).

Bibliography

20 1

- ·Are There Imperio! Texts in the Cltl:;s? hucnc.xwal Engles and Mauhean Eschatology as "'Lighls O ut.. Time for Imperial Ro nle (Matthew 24:27-3 1)'. JBL 122 (2003). 467-87. - Polftius Pilatt•: Portraits ofa Roukm GolW"ttor(CoUegcvlllc: Litutg1e-al. 2003). - Mallhel,·: Storyteller.lntelpreler. £wmgelisl (Peabody. MA: Hendrickson. rev. cdn. 2004). - ·Mauhcan Christology in Ronum Imperial Key: Mauhew 1: I '. in J. Riches and D. C. Sim (cds). The Go.1pi!l ofMaJthew in Its Roman Imperial G:mtert(London: T&T Cbrk. 2005). pp. 143-65. Chania.:is... A .. Histm·ie umf J.liJtoriker in fflm grkchisdu'!l lnschrifitw (Heidelberger uh historisc.he Bc itragc und cpigraphische SIUdien 4~ SIUttgn.rt: Ste-iner Ve-rlag Wicsbadcn 4

1988).

Charlesworth. J. H. (ed. ). TIN.• Old Tesumttmt P.wmd(!pigraplw (2 \'Ois: Garden City: Doubleday. 1983). Chesnuu. R. D.. 'From Text to Context: The Social Matrix of Joseph and Ase-neth'. SBL !996. Seminar Papers (Atlanto. GA: Schol.'lrs Press, 1996). pp. 285-302. Chilton. B. D.• iltt' Isaiah Targum: lntmduction. Tram;/ation. ApporaJu.s mu/ Notes(The Arntmie Bible. I I: Wilmington. DE: Michad G!t17ier. 1987). - Rabbi J~sus: An Jmimme Biography- TheJewi.dt Lijf. and Teaclling 1hm lnspiredChriJtlanity (New York: Doubkday. 2000) Clork. K. W. The G(!lltif(! Bias ond Ollter £ .\'SU)'S (Lciden: E. J. Brill. 1980). Clarke. J. J .• /11 St•fm•h ofJung: Historical mid Philosopltica/ £nqw'ries(London: Roudcdge. 1992).

Clements. R. E.. 'Isaiah 53 and the Restomtion oflsta('-1'. in W. f-1. Bellinge-rand W. R. Fann
Collins. R. F.. 'Mauhew's ~vro),o:t: Towards an Unde.~andingofthe Commandments in the First Gospel'. in F. Van Segbro~k. C. M . Tuckett, G. "an Belle and J. Vcrbcydc:--n (eels), The Pour Gospt~l.s (vol. 2: Lcuven: l.euvm University Press. 1992). pp. 1325-48. Conzdmann. H .. Til(! Tlteo/ogy ofSt Lukl! (trons. G. Buswell: l ondon: Faber & Faber, 1960). CookS. L.. 'The Metamorphosis of a Shepherd : The Trodition History of Z«htlriu.h I I : 17 + 13:7-9 ' . CBQ 55 (19'13). 45.H;<;. Cope, 0. L.. ...To the Close of the Age'' : The Role of Apocalyptic Thought in the-Gospel of Matthew'. in J. ~·J oreus and M . L. Soords (c:ds). Apocai>J)fic cmd tlw New Te.~lament: £u~•·~f in HonourofJ. Louis Mar~m (ISNTSS. 24: Sheffield: Shd'fld d Academic. Press. 1989). pp. I t 3- 24. Cosgrove. C. H .. · Justin Monyr alld the. Emaging Chri:Uian Canon. Obsel'\•ations on the Purpose nnd Dc:s1itwlion of the Dialogue with Trypho·. VC 36 ( 1982). 2 09-32:. Cousland. J. R. C .. Tlt~Cru'l!.'tlf i111he Go.,·pd<Jj'MaJtlli"lv(NovTSup. 102: l.e.idcn and New York: E. J. Brill. 2002). Cox. P•. BitJgmplty hr L(ll~ Antiquity: A Quest for the Noly Mtm (Ekrkeky: Uni"crsity ofCalifornia Press. 1983). Crossan. J.D.. The Birlhoj Chrisrkmity: Discrw·(!riug Whtrl J./11ppetted i111lte Years Jmm~'lliutely qfter 111('- £rf!culitm ofJe.ms (San Francisco: HarperSanFroneisco. l998). - ·v irgin Mother or Bnsltlrd Child?'. in Amy-Jilll.evine (ed.). A Feminist Companio11 ro Mariology (Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 2005). pp. 37- 55. Csapo. E.. Theories of.'.lytlwlag,Y (Oxford and Malden. MA: Blackwe-ll Publishing. 2005). Culler. L ' Pr<:supposilion and lntenextuality'. in J. CUller. 17ze P11rs111t ll/Signs: Semiotics. Litemture. DecrmJtrllt'tiort (Ithaca. NY: Cornell University Press., 2001). pp. l00-18.

202

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

Cunis, l. B.• ·An lnvestigalion oft~ Moun.! of Olives in the Judaeo-Chris1ion Tradition· . HUCA 2&(l9S7). 137-80. D:miCiou. J .• Gospel Mt>.f.mge and Nt>llenlstic Cu/iure: A HisiOI'J' of£ar~y Cllri.ffi(/11 Doc-tritlt' «.tOre the Counl'il q{Nic£Ji!a (tmns. J. A Baker: 2 vals: London and Philadc.-lphia: Danoo. Loogm:m & ToddfWestmillSicr. 1973). Danow, 0 . K.. 'Lotlll3n and Uspcn:>l:y: A Perfusion of Models'. Semiotica64 (1987}. 343-57. Davie$. W. D.• T1u,Sermono11 thl! Momti(Cambridgc. UK: Cambridge Unh•crsity Press. 1966). Davies. W. D. and D. C. Allison. The Gospt·l Accordi1tg It' Sohtl Matthew (ICC: 3 vols: Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1988- 97).

De Jong.e. M . L 77te Testam('lllsq{tlw Tll'eb-e Patrio,.i'hs: A Stmlyq{Tiwir Te.\'1, Cmnpo.fllion a11d Oright (Asscn: Goccum. 1975). Dcissm:mn. G. A.• Bjble S;udle.f: Cm11rihutlcms chir.iflyji·om Papyri and bucriprions to the /lislmyojlhe LmJgllttgi', the Li1eratrm!, anti/he ReligiMq{Hdleni.tlic Judaismcmd Pnmiliwt Christicmi(V(Lr.tns. A. Grieve: Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 190 I). Ockor. M.. ·un probiCme de critique «extuellc et d'cxtges.t: Zad t 12.10 C1 aspieicnt ud me quem oonfixerunt'. RB 58 ( 195 1). I 89- 99. Oenaux. A, 'Oer Spnu:h von den Zwci Weg.en im Rahmen des Epilog;;dcr Bcrgprcdig,t (Mt 7, 1.3·1 4 par. U: 13.2.3-24): Tradition und Redabion•, in J. Ddobcl(ed.). Logia: Lesparoles de Jesus- The Sayin~ tifJe.w s: Memoridl Joseph Coppens (BETL. 59: Lcuvcn: l euve-n Un i ve:r~ity Press. 1982). pp. 305-35. Denham. R. D. (ed.). Nort)mJp F')'i' :f Notebook.( and U.·- c-mrestm 1Jw BiblelmdOdJer Rdi-giou.s Texf.\· (Collected Works of Northrop F.-ye, Volume 13: Toronto: University ofToro111o Press. 200.3). - Northmp FryY.:·: Religious ViJimral)' ami Ardli1er:1 oflite Spirit11trl World (Charfottesville: Un i ve:r~ity of Virginia Press. 2004). Deutsch. C. M.. lAdy Wi.fdom. Jesus, andthe Sage.\·: MmrphorantlSocial Comt•xt h• Mauhe•••S GtJspe/ (Valle)' Forge-. PA: Trinity Prcss International. 1996). Dille.-y. L 'Grccl: Sacred Histo.-y•. American Journal ofPhiltJiogy 126 (2005). 505- 26. Dodd. C. ~L Acrordi11g In tlte Scriptures: Th~ Sub.Strucwre of New Testament Tlwo/ogy (London: Nisbet. 1952). Donaldson, T. L. Jesus 011 the Mmmtain: A Stud.!' in Matthecm Tlwo/ogv(JSNTSup. S: Shefileld: JSOT Press. 1985). - 'The Vindtcate-d Son: A Narrative- Approach to Matthenndnistology'. in R.N. Longened:er. (ed.). Gmumrs of ChriJtology i11the lv'ew Tesltrm~·"' (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans. 2005). pp. I 00-2 L Dudky. G .. Rt'ligimro11 Trial: Mirce(r £/iade attd /lis Critic:s(Phib
Bibliography

203

Ellwood. R. S .. ilw Politics of ,J,(y!h: A Surdy of C. G. Jung. Mircea fllode. cmd Joseph Ccmtpbell (Albany: State University of New Yo~ Press. 1999). - 'Is. Mythology Obsolete-·?'. Jounml qltlw Amerk:on Academyo/Religlcm 69 (2001). 673-86. Erhman. B. D.. ' Jesus and the Ad ulteress '. NTS 34 (1988). 24-44. Evans. C. A .. 'Jesus. and Zechariah's Messianic Hope' . in B. Chilton and C . A. Evans (eds). Amhentlcatiug the ActMties of.Jesu:> (l\TJIS. 2&.2: Lcid en: E.l BrilL 1999). pp. 373-88. - ·Mark's lncipit and the Prienc~ Cak-ndar Inscriptio n: From Jewish Gospel to Greco- Roman Gospd '. JGRCIIJ I (2000). 67- 81. Evans. C. F.. ' I Will Go before You into Golilee•. JTS NS 5 (1954). 3- 18. Fnitl'$tein. M. M .. 'Why do the Scribes Say dt:ll Elijah Mus.t Come First?'. JBL 100 ( 198 I), 75- 86.

Farmer. W. R.. ' Reftoc:•ions on lsnioh 53 :md Christian Origins•. in W. H. Bellinger and W. R. Farmcr(eds). Jesus ond 1he St{ffering Serwmt: Isaiah 53 and Christian OrigiJJS (Horris.burg. PA: Trinity Press lnternatiorml. 1998). pp. 260-80. Farrer. A.. St Matth.eiV llrtd S1 Murk (The Edward Cadbury Loc.turcs 1953- 54; Westminster: Dacre. 1954). Finkelstein. L.. ' Introductory Study to Pirte Abot'. JBL 51 ( 1938.). 13-50. - MalxJ fe· Ma.\'St'klot Abotw··Abot d'Ruhhi Nuum(New York: Iewis.h Theological Se-minary. I 950).

Fishbanc. M .. The Garnreftts ·thmaking (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005). Fitzmye-r. J. A .. · Anti·Semitism and Matthew 27:2.5 '. T1•eological Stu.die.~ 26 ( l965). 667- 71. - ·More About Elijah Coming Firs•". JBL 104 (1985). 29H. Foley. J•• lmmanent Art: From Slrucmre 10 Meaning in Traditional Oral £pic(Bioomington. IN: Indiana University Press. 1991). Fomara. C. \\' .. The Nature ofHistory in Ancient G,-eece mul Rome (Berkeley: Uni\·crsity of CaliiOrnia Press. 1983). Foster. P.. 'The Use ofZechariah in Monhe.w'$Gospc:1'. in Christopher M. Tuckett (cd.). T/r(' Book oflechtrriah amllts hiflueJK.V! (Burlington. VT: Ashgate. 2003). pp. 65- 85. -Community, Law and .~ fission in M(IIJIIew 's Gospel (WUNT. 177: Tilbmgen: ~'1ohr Sieboc:k, 2004).

Fowler. R.. Let tlw RelWer Under.uand: Rooder-Re.\ponse Critt'cism lDJd the Gtupel oj'Mudt (Minneapolis: Fonress. 1991). Fox. R. L.. Pagons mul Chrislians (San Francisco: Harper & Row. 1986). Fmncc. R. T.. Jt·:w.~ (11/d the Old T(•Jtament: Hi~ Applkl10on of Old T(·starnent P(wtrges to Him.wlj'and Nls Missitm (London: Tyndale. 1971). - Mallhew: £vaug.e/i.~t and Tf'lwher (Exeter: Patem0$tc-r. 1989). - n1e Gospel ojMalflwiV (NICNT: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2007). FmnkcmOlle, H.. Jaln1vtbund wul Kircl•eChristi: St1Klitm zur Fom.,.. tmd TroditlmJSgesclriclue de.\· ·£wmgeliums' Jutc/1 MaiiiKius (MUnster: Aschcndorf. 1974). - Malllu1tt.f: Kommt'trtar (2 vols: Diissddorf: Pt~tmos. 1994-97). Frye. N.. Fmrful Symmerr~1: A Stud)'(J/JYilliam Blake (Princ.ccon: Princeton University Press. 1947). - Titt! Critical Path: An £~say on lh(! Social Confexi ofL.JkroryCriticism (Bloomington: lnchan.n

University Prt:SS. l97 1). - Myth mrd Metaphor: Selt'cted Essays. 1974- 1988 ( c(L Robert D. Denham: Chtufoctesvillc: University of Virginia Press. 1990). - Words with Poll·er: Bei11g a Second Study of 'Tite Bib/(' and Literature' ( Toromo: Penguin. 1992).

204

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

Fuller. R.. 'The Double Commandment of Love: A Test Cas.c for theCrit«iaof Authentic-ity'. in R. Fuller el al. (cds:), fsst~r:s m1 the Lo~'f! [QmmaJWmem (Phihaddphi:a: Fonr<:ss Pr<ss., 1978). Furnish. v .. Tire

r

Low~ ComiJI
Beyond•. inN. Luroghi (cd.). The J.listorkm 's Craft i111/te Age of1/erodo/us (Oxford: Oxford Uni\'CI's ity PrC$S. 2001). pp. 286-313. Gcncue. G.• Palimpsestes: La lilthatureou sectmd deyre (Paris: S
nnd R. Sc.roggs (cds).Jc:·ws. GN!cks. atld ChriJtians (leiden: E. J. Brill. 1976). Gill. G. R.• Ntmhrop Fiye and Jhe Plu:llmm·Jm!ogl' of sllydt (Toronto: Univctsity of Toronto Press. 2006). Good. D. J .• Jesus 1f1e' Meek Ki11g (HaiTisbur<.;. PA: Trinity Press l ntemationa~ 1999). Goodm·re. M .. ·Fatigue in the Synoptjcs'. !vTS 44 ( 1998). 45-S&. - nteC(ISe Agaii/Jt Q: Studies 111 Mari:an Priority and the S.•:rwptic Probli.w1 (Harrisburg. PA: Trinity Press International. 2002). - ·The Rock on Rocky Ground: Monhe.w. Murk :md Pc-tcras skc'.mthlon'. in P. McCosker(ed..). Wfl(ll is it that the Scripture Says? Es.str)'$ in Bih/ica/Jnterpretall'on. Tratulori<m. and R~-ct·ptioniJJ Nonour rifJlemy Wcnuhrough OSB (Library of New Testament Studies: London and New Yo~: Continuum. 2006). pp. 61-73. Goodenough. E. R.. The Tlu'OIOt,'V oj'Jw:tit1 Martyr (re.pr.. Amsterdam: Philo Press. 1968 (1923)).

GothOni. R. (ed.). How 10 do Comparative Re/igio1J? Tlwe W~vs. ,\.limy Gtmls (Re-ligion nnd Reason. 44: Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyte-r. 2005). Goukl. E... ,l.f)'lltical/numtitms In M-otkm Literature (Prin<:eton: Princeton UnJ\'crsily Press. 198 1)

Gouldcr. M. D.. Midmslt (Ill(/ Lt..Y timt in.\1uu)lt'w(The Speaker's l «lures in Biblical Studies., 1969-7 1: London: SPCK. l974). - ·on Pulting Q to the Test'. NTS24 (1978), 218--34. - 'Elijah with Moses. or. a Rift in the Pre-r-.·lorkan Lute'. in 0 . G. HoiTell and C. M. Tuckett ( cds). Christolr>g>•. Contrmwsy mJd Commtmi(v: New Tesurmem £.~.wy:.· in Honour af Dm•id R. C~tchpole rs (Oxford: Oxford Uni\·e•-sity Press. 2005). pp. 6 1-82. Gross.. R. M.. 'Methodology - Tool orT•~p·r . in Re-ne Goth6ni (cd.). How tndo Compur'(lfiw Religiott? 111roe IVO)•s. Many Goals (Bertin: Waller de-Gruyte-r. 2005) pp. 149-66. Guillaume. G .. Tlw Life of Mulurmmad: A Trmulation/slj{tq ·s Sirot Rcwil Alliih (Oxford: Oxi'OJd Uni\'e1-sity Pr~. 1955). Gulick. W. B.. 'The Thousand and Finot Fa<:<'. in D. C. Noel (cd.).Pmhs to the Powerof Myth: Joseph Compbe/1 (UJd tlw StudytifReligion (New Yo~ : Crossroads. 1994). pp. 29-44. Gundry. R. H., The u~et,j'lhe Old Testamem iu S1. Malllu~h' ·s. Go.~pel ,.,-;,/,Special Rotfermce to the Messianic Nope (NovTSup. 18: leiden: E. J. BrilL 1967). - Mnrk: A Commentnrytm Nis Apology for lf1e Cro.<s (Grand Rapids. Ml: Ecrdmans. 1993).

Bibliography

205

- MatrMw: A Comment(lry 011 /lis Hmulhockfor a ,\.fixed Ch11rclt Under Persi!CIIIitm (2nd cdn; Grand Rapids. Ml: Ecrdtlltlns. 1994). Hagner. 0 .• · Apoc.alyptic-Motif..; in •he Gospe-l of Matthew: Continuity and Discontinuity'. Hori:tms ;, Biblical TheoiO!,,'V1 (1984). pp. 53-82. - Maulww /- 13 (WBC. 33A: 1);1llas: Word. 1993).

- Mallhew /4-18 (WBC.l4B: Ot~tlas: Word. 1995). - 'Matthew's E.sdttllology'. in T. E. Schmidt t~nd M. Silva (cds). To Tell du· My:W!Y)': £rsoy:o 011 Nf!••· Testamem J.'.o;<'hotology in 1/ooorofRoben G. Gund1~' (JSNTS-up. 100: Shctlidd: JSOT Press. 1994). pp. -49-71. Reprinted in SBLfiP 35 ( 1996). 163-81. - 'Matthew: Apostate. Rcformc:r. Rcvolulionary?'. N1S 49 (2003), 193- 20&. Hahlen. M. A. and C. A. Ham. Minor Prophets ) : Nahum- .4{alttelti (The-College Press NIV Commentory: Joplin. MO: College Pre;.s. 2006). Ham. C . A.• ·The Last Supper in Matthew'. BBR 10: I (2000). pp. 53-69. - nte Coming Ki11g lmdthe Rejecu'll Shepht·rd: .\f.attlww :o; Reading oflechariolt 's Mess ianic Hope (New Testament Monographs. -4: Sheffield: Shcffic.ld Phoeni:t Press. 2005). Hanson. K. C. and D. Oakman. Palesl/'11e in the Time ofJe.ms (Minn.capolis: Fonrcss.. 1998). Hare.. D. R. A.. Maulrew: lnterpn~tation - A Bible Cormmmlqryfor Ttmchlttg and Preaching (Lousvilk. ~John Kno:t. 1993). Harrington. D. L The G(}spe/ of.J,{auJtew(Sncm Pagina. I: Collegeville. MN: Limrgical Press.. 1991).

Hatina. T . R. 'lntencxtuality and Historical Cri1icism in New Testament Studies: Is there a Relationship?'. Bibbtt 7 ( 1999). 28-43. - lit StNm:h ofa Comext: The FuncJion lif'Scripture in Mlwk 's Narrati~-e (JSNTSup. 232: SSEJC. 8: London: Sheffield Academic Press. 2002). - ·Who Will Soc the ..Kingdom of God Coming with Pow«" in Mark 9: 1- Procagonists or Anlogonists?'. Bihlica 86 (2005). 20- 34. - 'Embedded ScripcurcTcxts and the PlurolityofMcaning: The-Announcement ofthe ..Voice from HCilvcn·• in M:u~ 1.1 1 as a Cnsc Stud)''. in T. R. H:uina (cd.). Bih/iro/lmerprelatkm ill Ear~yChris.tlmt Gospels: Volume I: The Gol·pel a/Mark (lh.'TS. 304: London: T&T Clark. 2006). pp. 81- 99. Hatina. T.R. (cd.). Bih/iro/ bJterpretation ir1 Ear·~·~ Cltri.(t/an Gospels. Volume 1: The Gospel(}/ Mltrk (ll\"TS, 304: London: T&T Clark. 2006). Haucrwas. S.. Mtrlllte'lv( Brt~zos Thcolo<~ical Comme-ntatyon dtc Bible: Grond R31)ids: Brazos Press. 2007). Hays.. R. B.. fclrot~s ofScr·iplllre in tht· Leuer·s <1/ Ptml (New Ha\'en: Yale University Press, 1989).

Hegcrmann. H.. Jesqja 53 Frt 11e:wpla. Targum rmd Pescltilla (BfCT. 11/56: Giitctsloh: C. Bcrtclsmann V«la.g. 1954). Held. R J.. 'Mouhew as Interpret« ofthe Mirade S1orics'. in G. Bornkanun. G. Barth 3nd H. J. Held (cds). Tradition and luterprotmkm in Maultew (uans.. P. Scott: London: SCM Press. 1963). Hengel. M .. The Atmwme11t: TMOr~s;in ofthe Doctrhk' ill dte Neh' Testmm•JJI (loodoo: SCM: Pbilodclphin: Fonrcss Press. l 981). - ·zur mntthiiischcn Bcrgpredict und ihre-mjUdisdtcn Hintcrg:rund'. TR 52 ( 1987). 327- 400. - ·s ital my Right Hand!'. in Studies ilt £m~v C/Jri.(/olugv(Edinburgh: T&T Clati:. 1995). pp. I t 9- 26. - nte Fou,. Gospels and the One Grupe/(}/Jt·sus Clrrist (tmns. J. Bowden: Horrisburg. PA: Trinity Press lntctnauonal. 2000). - nte Septuagint liS CltriJtkm Scripture(trons. M. E. Biddle: Grand Rspids: Baker Academic. 2002).

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

206

Hengel. M. wilh D.P. &ilcy. 'The Eft¢ccivc Historyoflsainh 53 in the Pre-Christian Period'. in B. Janowski and P. Stuhlnmchcr(eds). Tile Suffering Scrwmt: Jsal(lh 53 inJe'lvishand Christian Sources (trans. D. P. &ilcy: Grand Rtlpids: William B. Ecn l:mans. 2004). pp. 75- 1~6.

Hcns-PillJ'.za. G.• ' Lyotnrd'. in A. K. M..o\dam (ed.).I.J<mdboolwjPostmodern Biblica/ lnterp rel(lt/mt (St Louis. MO: C halice. 2000). p p. 1 60~.

Herbst A.. Ober dil! ~'On Sehaslicm Mt1nster tmd Jean du Tillet hem.mgegehenen ltt•bniisclum Oberst!lzungett des £wmgeliums Mallluu!i (GOtti.ngcn: DiL1crichs. 1879). Hcnnisson, H.-J .. ·vorciligcr Ab..~hicd \ 'On den Goueskncchts.licdcrn•. TR 49( 1984). 209-22. Higbie. C.. The Lindian Chnmlclt· and the Gn-'t·k Crmtitm(!/Their P(tst (Oxford: Ox ford Uni ve.n;ily Pr<ss.. 2003). Hill. 0 .. ·Son :md :krvant: An Essay oo Manhcan Christology'. JS!YT 6 { 1980). 2-16. Hillc-naar. H .. RolandBw1lres: £-ristenrialisme. 5~.->ruiotiek Psycltow1afyse (Punlkomma·Rceks: Literntuur ro Kommunikasie: Assen: Van Gor~u m. 1982). Hinds. S.. Alht:>ion and lnterle\·t {Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Pr<ss. 1998). Hollander. H. W .. Joseph m: an £thiCcn'S Me: Prophets. PerfomraJii'('(lfU/ Tmdition ht Q{lhrrisburg. PA: Trinity Press. International. 1999). - ·Jose-phus and the Btmdils'.JS.I 10 ( 1979). 37- 71. - ·Ancien I Jcwis.h Banditry and the Revolt Against Rom< A.D. 66-70'. CBQ43( 1981). 409- 3 2. Howard. G .. The Gospel ofMauht·woccOJ'ding too Primirive Nehrew Test {Macon. GA: Mci\.'\Cf Univ«sity Press-. 1987). Howell. D. B.. Marlltew 's /nc/u.\·h·e Slory: A Swdy it~ the Nwrcllin! RJwtoricq{rhe Fin·t Gt1spe/ (JSNTSup. 4 2: Shdficld: JSOT Press. 1990). Hultgrouble Love ComrMnd in Matt 22.34-40: Its Sources and Composition·. 4

CBQ 36 ( 1974). 3733- 7&. Humme-L R.• Die Atu·dnmzdersei:JIJig : wisehen Kirche tmdJudentmu im M~Jtthiiusnmtge/ium (Bc-iuigc :rur Evangdischcn Thc.ologic.: Theologischc Abh:indlungcn. 33: Munich: Kaise-r. 1963). Jcrcmins, J.. ·nai) 6EoV'. TDNT 5 (1907). pp. 677- 717. - New 7 estament Tht'(J/01._'l' J: Tire Prot'lmn(ltitm ofJe.w:; {l\Tf'L: New York: Scribne-r's.. 191 1). Johnson. M. D.. T1tt! Purpose ofth(;• Biblical Gem•alt1gi~·s: With Spedal RiferettcetoJhe Setting afthe GMt!tllogies ofJesus (SNTSMS. 8; Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Pre-Ss.. 1969).

- 'Rc.Aections on a Wisdom Appro.1ch to Matthew's Christolog:y'. CBQ 36 (1974). 44-64. Joyn<s.. C. E.. · A Qut"SSion ofldentity: "Why do people say that I am?" Elijah. John the Baptist and Jcs.us in Ma.rk's Gospd '. in C. Rowland and C. H. T . Flccchcr-Louis (cds). U11d!'r Jl011ding. Swdying tltld Retl(/ing: New Tesrament Essays i11 flmtam· of John Ashton {JSNTSup. 153: Sllc-ffidd: Sheffield Academic Press. 1998). pp. 15--29. Juel. D•. Messiani« £xegt!sis: Christo/ogit'al lnterprt!tafimr of the Old Teslamer~l in £ar~v Christianity (Philadelphia: Fonr<ss. 1988). 4

Bibliography

207

Jung. C. G .. £ncoumeri11g Jung <m M1-tho/ogy (cd. R. Segal: Princoe:ton: NJ: Prin<:ctoo Univers ity Press. 1998). Kiisemann, E.. ' Scntro~s of Holy La'"' in the New TcsLt'lmcnt' . mE. Kiiscmann (cd..). New TesutmeJJI Qut'.~tiattt of Today (Philadelphia: Fo rtress. 1969). pp. 66-S I. - ·T1tc Beginnings ofChristian Theology'. inNt'h' Teslafll('l/1 Q11es1ious ofToday(trans.. W. J. Montague: l\tcwTcstament Library: L-ondon: SCM Pre-s s. 1969). pp. 82-107.

Katz. P.• 'JUSiin's Old Testamrnt Quototions and the Gree-k Dodckapropheton Scroll'. Sutdia PaMslica I ( 1957). 343- 53. Kautsl:y. J .. The Politics o/Aristncratfc Empires (Chapel Hill: University ~,r Nonh C.srofina Press. 1982). Keener. C. S.. A Commentmy ott 1l1e Go.,pel of Mallhew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1999). Kermode. F., nte Gen.eJi:> ofSecrecy: On the lnterpn·wtitm of Narratiw:- (Cambridge. MA: HaJVard University Press. 1979). Kerrigan. W.. 'The R:1w. The Cooked. and the Half-B..'lkcd '. Virghtla Quar/et~V R£-.,·iew 51 (1975). 651-5.

KiljXltrick. G. D.. The Origins of the Grupe/ Accordirtg 10 St. M<11thew (Oxford: Clare-ndon Press. 1946 ). Kim. S.. 'Jesus.-The Son of God. the Stone, the Son of Man. and the Se-rvant: The Role of Zochariah in dte Sdf-ldent:ifie-lltion o f Jesus•. in 0 . lk-tz and G. F. Hawthorne-(eds). Tmditionmtd btletprelation irt I he New TestameJ/1: Essays iu /.Jmmr of£. Earle £/lisfor His Si" in Matthew's Gospe-l: A l ite-rnry-Oitical Study•. CBQ 49 ( 1987). 57- 73. - ·11tc Significtlncc ofthe-E:mhly Jesus in the.Gospd of Matthew'. £:cAud 14 (1998). 59-65. Kirk. G. S .. Myth: It:>Meum'ug and Fmrctions ht Atrcient and Other Cultures (Sather Classical l octurcs, 40: London: Cambridge Univel'$ily Press.: Be-rkeley: Uni\'el'$ity of California Press. 1970). Klar. M .. 'Stories of the Prophets' in Andrew Rippin (cd.). nrt> Blac:kwdl Companion w lire Qur'cin (Molden. MA: Bbckwdl Pt1hlishing. 2 006). pp. 338-49. Kloppenborg Vcrbin. J. S.. £w·m'atiJJg Q: The HistOY)'OJJdSelliugoftJteSoying.s GtJ.S,rk'I(Minn~polis. MN: Fortress. 2000). Knowles. ~·1. P.. 'Seripcurc. History. Me-ssiah: Scripcuml Fulfilment and the FullnessofTime in Matthew's Gospel'. inS. E. Porter (cd.)./.JeariJJS tire Old Testament in the New Testam(.'JI/ (Grnnd Rapid.;: Ecrdmans.. 2006). pp. 59-82. Koch. K.. Spuren des hehriiis('hell Df•,Jkens: Bdtriige : ur alllc>tmuemlichenTheo/ogie (ed. B. JanO\I.'Ski and ~·1. Krause: Gest~mmdtc Aufsiitze. I: Neukirchcn- Vluyn: Neukirchene-r Verlag.. 1991). Koester. H.. Synoptisclte Obedi4errmg bei den aptJsloli.w•hen V(item (TU. 65: Ekrli:n: Akadcmie.-Vcrlug. 1957). - ·fNOMAI LliAOPOI: 11tc.Origin and Noture of Divcrsiticauoo in th~:- History ofE.'lrly Chris.tianity'. J.ITR 58(1965). 279- 3l8. - Tmje-ctories Tltmuglt Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress.. 1971). - Ancient Christiart GtJ.Spe!s (l ondon/Philode-lphia: SCM/Trinity Press lnt« national. 1990). - ·Gospels and Gospe.l Troditions in the Second Century'. in A. F. Gregory and C. Tuckett (eds). Tra}eclories through the Nl!w Teswm~nt trllchhcAposto/ic Fallters (Oxford: Oxford Unive:r.>il)' Press.. 2005). pp. 27-44.

208

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

KOhle-r. W.·D.. Die Re:zeptiou dt>-s Mauhau.\~emngelium.s in der Z<'it mr ln.miius (WUNT. 24: Tlibingcn: Mohr Sieboc-.k). p. 187. Krcntz. B.• 'The Extent ofMauhcw's Prolol.'Ue•.JBL 83 0964). 409- 14.

Kriste-va. J.• SJmeiotikl!: R£'r."herclres potrr •me semmwlyse (Paris: ScuiL 1969). Kugel, J•• The ld!!a of Biblical PfK•try: }f.\· Paral!eli.m t and its Hi.\'tot)' (New Haven: Yale Univ«sity Press-. 1981). laato. A . Tire Sen'Ottl qlYHWN and CyrrLf (ConBOT. 35; Stoc.kholm: Almqvist & Wikscll International. 1992). l altin. K. J. A.. Tlw £.w~ha10/ogy of Seoo11d lf'C/I(Jr/ah: A Sltldy of the Fam~atltm of a

Mamolttgical Wiscklm Amlwlab,-v(CBET. 6; Kampen: Kok Pharos. 1994). Lenski. G.. PtMer'OJtd Privilege: A TltemyofSoda/ Stmtifo:aOon (Chapel Hill: Uni\'crsity of North Carolioo Press. rev. odn. 1984). Levene. N. K.. ·sources of History: M>1h and Image'. JAAR 1~ (2006). 79- 101. Le\'ine. A. J.. Soria/ and £tlmic Dilm•Juious of.Matthetm SfX'ial Uistory (Lc-wi~on : Edwin Mellen. 1988). Lieu. 1.. Image and Reality: Tlw Jews in the Wodd of1he ClrriJtitms of the Sl!oond Centm:1• (Edinbui"P,: T&T Clork. 1996). Lincoln. B .. nu~ori:ing Myth: Narrotiw:. ldi'OitJgy. tmd ScholarJhip (Chicago: Uni.,·crsity of Chirogo Press. 1999). Lindars. B.. New Tesurmem Apologetic: n1e DoctriJw! SJgnificm•ceofthe Old T4>JtamenJ Quota-tions (London; SCM Press. 1961). Lis1.ka. J. J .. A Genera/Introduction 10 tl~ Semeiotlcq[Charles Sm•der:s Peirce(Bioomington: Indiana University Press. 1996). Lohr. C. IL ·oral Tec.hniqucs in chc Gospel of Man~w · . CBQ 23 ( 1961). ~03-25. locm.an. J. M.. 'Point of View i:n a Text•. New Utenuy Hi.·amy 6 ( 1974). 339- 52. UihlllUlnn. 0 .. Die R£Waktion der Logienquelle: A,h.: Zur weitenm Oberofiejerrmg dt!r Logienquel!t• (WMANT. 33: Ncukirchcn-VIuyn: Neuki n.~hc-nc-r. 1969). Luz. U.. Mallhew 1- 7 (trtlns. W. C. Linss: Minneapolis: Aup;burg. 1989). - M«irMw 8- 20 (Lmns. J. E. Crouch: Hermeneia: Minneapolis: Fo11ress. 2001 ). - ·Jntenc.xtu:didit im M:uthliusevangdium·. p:qxr re.-1d to the Gospel ofM:utJ1ew Seminar. Studtonunl\ovi Testamc-nti Soeiews. 57th General Mcxting. Bonn. Gc-nnany. 29 July- 2 August 2003. - 'Intenc-xts in the-Gospe-l of M:llthcw'. HTR 97:2 (200-l). 119--37. - Mallh!M 1/- 18 (trans. J. E. Crouch: Hermene-in: Minne-apolis: Fonress. 2005). - Studies in Mattllell' (trans. R. Selle: Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdnmns. 2005). Lyotnrd. J.·F .. The Postmodem CoJidilion (trans. G. Bennington and B. Massumi: Theory and History of Lite-rature. 10: Minne-apolis. MN: University of Minnesota Press. 1984). - 'Lessons in Pragmaticism'. in A. Benjamin (cd.). The Lyowrd Re-ader (trans.. D. Mocey: Oxford: Bnsil Blackwe-ll. 1989). pp. 122- 54. Mac-h. M., ·Justin Martyr's Dia/og11s cum Trjiphmre Judaoo and the-Developme-nt of Christian Anti-Judaism•. in 0. Limor and G. G. Stroumsa (cds). Conim l11daeos: Ancier11 mid Medie\'al Polemics betu·een Cl•rlstiwu tmdJelt's (TSMJ. I0: TUbingen: Mohr Sicbcck. 1996). pp. 27--47.

Mack. B.. 'Soc.iol F~'>mlm ioo". m W. Braun and R. T. McCmcheon (cds). Guide to the Study(if Religitms (london and New York: Cassc.ll, 2000). pp. 283-96. - nJt!ChriJtkm.4·1)NI•: Origins, Logic. tmdLt.·gacy(L~mcton and New Yoli:: Continuum. 2001). Mailer. N.. The Go.\ pe/ Acrordir.g to tl1e Snn (New York: Random House. 1997). Marcovieh. M. (cd.). Ills/lui Mm·l)ris. Apo/ogiae pm Chrislianis (Pnuistische Te-xte und Studien. 38: Berlin and New York Walter de Gruytcr. 1994). - Justi11i Marl)•rls Dittlogus l'/Jm 7in1110111'(Pntristiscbe. Texte und Studien. 4 7: Berlin and New York: Waller de Gruyter. 1997).

Bibliography

209

Marcus.. J .. The Wayq[tlw Lcrd: Cllri.slologit'ol Exegesis ofthe Old Testament in the Gospelof Mark (Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1992) . - '11tc Old T<"SLu.mc:nt and the De-4th of Jesus: The Role ofScnpcure In d~ Gospel Passion NaiTali ~·es' . in J. T. Carroll and 1. B. Gr«n (N.s). TJJe Death ofJesu.s in Early Cltri.d i(U/ity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. 1995). pp. 218-20. Martin. F.. ' The Image of Shepherd in the Gospd ofSaint Mntthew',Scf'.s27 (19?5).261- 30 1. M:u1incz. F. G. and E. J. C. Tigchdaar. The Dead S~o Scrolls Study Edllion (2 vole;; Lcidcn: E. J. Brill: Grond Rapids: William B. Ec-rdmans. 2000). Massaux. E.. The hif/lumc£• lJjt)w Gospel ofSaim .t\lanlrew ott Christian Literature ~jure SailII bv1UWUS (trnns. N.J. Be-Ivai and S. Hecht: 3 vok Macon. GA: McrC<"r Unive-rsity Press, 1993).

Massebieau. E.. £umum des citations d~· /'Ancien TestameJ/1 d<ms J'i!wmgile selon Saim Mallhieu (P:uis: Librairie Fisc.hlx:tcher. 1885). Matcta. F. J .• New TeJtCiment C!IJ'iJtoloJ,.~ (louisville: WcstminstedJohn Knox. 1999). Matheus. F.. Si1Jgl dem Hen·eitt neues Lied: Die Nym11e11 DeutemjesajCI (SBS. 141: Stuugart: Kath(,lisches Bibdwerk. 1990). Mc-Cutcheon, R. T.• 'Myth'. in W. Brnun and R. T. McC\atchcon (eds.). Guide 10 the Study of Rcligiort (lolldon: Cassell. 2000). pp. 190-20&. McKnight. S.. '/\ Loyal Critic: Mauhc:w's Polemic with Judaism inThcologtcal Perspective·. in C. A. Evans and D. A. Hagner (cds.). Anti-Semitism and Early Christiani(v: b·.wes of Polemic ond Fairh (M i nn~polis: Fotuc:ss, 1993) pp. 55- 79. Meier. 1. P.. ·satvation·History in Mntth<w: In &.arC"h of n Stoning Point'. CBQ 37 ( 1975). 203-15. - Lttu' and Histm~; In Matllww's Gospel: A Redoi'tltmal Study of Mt. 5: J7-48 (AnBib. 71: Rome: Bi blict~llnstitute. 1976). Mcnken. M. J. J .• 'The Souree of the Quotation from Isaiah 53:4 in M:ttthew S:J?•. NovT39 (1997). 313- 27. - 'FuUilmcnt ofSeriptureasa Propaganda Tool in En.rly Christianity'. in P. Vande-r Horst. etal. (cds). Per.nuuio11 and Dissuasitm in £m·~vChr1JtJ'aJJity. Anc-ient Judaism, andJlelle~ti.fm (leuvcn/Paris/Dudley. MA: Pc<:ters. 2003). pp. 179-98. - Matthew's Bible: Tlw OldTt·stmmmt Text ofthe £wmge#.ft (BETL. 173~ Lcuven: Lcuven University Press.. 2004). Mercnlah1i. P.. Poetil's for the Gospels? Rethhtldng Narratiw G ·itidsm (Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 2002). Metti:nger. T. N. D.• A Far~11-ell m tlz.e Se1wtm Songs: A Critical £\'Omilwtion of(m £xegetit-(J/ Axiom (lund: Glcerup. 1983). Meu:g:er. Brue< M.. A Textual Commert/ary 011 the Greek New Testammt (Stuttgan: De-Uische Bibdg:cscllschaft. 200 cdn. 1994). Meyers. C. L. and E. M. Meyers. Zecltarialt 9- 14 (AB. 25C: New Yorlc Doubleday. 1993). Miler. J.. Les d tations d•(l('complissement dans /'ewmgileck Matthitm (AB, 140: Rome: PonLifieo lstituto Blblico. 1999). Milk-r. R. J•• Bom Divi1te: The Births ofJesi/J & 01/wr Sons o/GtJd(Santa Rosa. CA: Pole· bridge Press. 2003). Mohrlang. R.• ,tfattlwu>attd Pmll: A Comparison q{£thicol Pel'.\'fk"'Ciiws (Sl\'TSMS. 48: C.ambtidg:c. UK: Cambridge University Press. 1984). Mornig:liaoo. A.• The DewltJptmuu ofCreek Biogrophy(Cambridge~ ~·1A: Hatvard University Press. rev. edn. 1993). MontgOOlct')'. J. A.. A Critical and Exegeticol Comme11/my mt the Boolt ofDwtiel (ICC: New York: C. Scribner's Sons.. 192'7). Moo. D. J.. T1z.e Old Testam~·lll i11 the GoJp~·l PaJslott Narratirt·s (Sheffie-ld: Almond Press.. 1983).

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

210

Moran. W. L. "The Ancient Ncar Eastem Background of the love ofGod in Deuteronomy•. CBQ25 ( 1963). ?7-37. Mosko. M.S .. ·on ··virgin Binh'', Comparability. nnd Anthropologic.al Mcchod'. Currem AIJ/hropo/ogr 39:5 (1998). 685-7.

Moyisc-. S.. 'lntcnc-xtuality and th-e SIUd)' ofthe Old Testament mthc. New'. inS. Moyisc (cd.). T/1(' Old TestCIInent in lite New Teslamenl: Essays itt Hurumr ofJ. L North (JSNTSup. 189: Sheffie-ld: Sheffield Act~dcmi c Press. 2000). pp. 14-41 . Ncusncr. J .. 'The Fom1ation of Rabbinic Judaism: Yavnch (Jomni.a] from A.D. 70 to 100'. in H. Tcmporini and W. H~asc (cds). At(.ftieg m•dNkdergongdt·rriimisclltm Welt 11. 19.2. (Berlin: de Gnayter. 1979). pp. 3-42. -Judai:om: The Evidence tJ/Ifte Mish1wh (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1981 ). Newman. B. M .• ,f Co,dse Greek·fllglish Dictim1myojllre New Tesltmumt(london: United Bible Societies. 1971). Nie-kelsburg.. G. W. E .. Resum:-"Ciiorr. Immortality, (Uid Eternal Life in brterte.ftamemulJudaism (Horvard Thcologict~ l Studies. 26: Cambridge. MA: Horvard Univen;ity Press. 1972). - ·Tbc Genre nnd Function of the Morkan Passion Nnrrotive.'. NTR 73 ( 1980). 153- 84. - AIIC'ielll Judaism audCirriJikm Origi,s: Di\·er.fi~l', Cmrti1111ity. andTnnr.~IOrmation (Minne· apolis: Fonrcss Press. 2003). NichoO'. M .. Tl1e Fig11re of.Joseph in Po.~I·Biblic:alJ~hi~h Literat11,.e (Arbeitc:n zurGc:sc-hichte des Antiken Judc:ntums und des Un.· hristc:ntums. 16: lcidc:n: E. J. Brill. 1992). Nollond. J., " Ge-nrologict~l Annotation in Gc:.nc:sis as Background lOr the Mauhc:t~n Gc:n
- nre Gospel q{Matthew (NIGTC. I ; Gmnd Rnpid!t"Bletchlcy: Eerdmans!Patcrnos.tcr. 2005). No..·akovic, L. Mes.fiaJJ. th~· llealer oflire Sick: A Study ofJesus ns 1/w StJ, of /)(n·id inlhe GoJpel q{MauhC!h" (WUNT/1 1. 170~ Tlibingcn: Mohr Siebcck 2003). Obcrwc:is. M.. · Bcobac:h1ungcn :rum AT--Gcbrauch in dc:t MmthO.ischen Kindhe-itsgcschiclue' . NTS35 ( 1989). 131-49. Ocpl:e. A .. · rrapot10ia•. TD/If7 v. pp. 858- 71 . O'leary. A . M .. Mafllte'h" 's JIIdai:atimtof.~ladt f'X(tmined in the Conle ft oftl~e Use ofSow-ce.s in Gmeco-Roman A~tliq111ty (LBS. 323: London and Nc:.w York: T&T Claric. 2006). Onon. D. E., Tile UttdeJ'Jtmtding Scr·ihe: Matthew mrd Jhi! Apoca(~1Jfic ldcml (JSNTSup. 25: Shdllc:ld: Sheffie-ld Acade-mic Press, 1989). Overman. J. A.. Ma11/1ell' 's Gospel mtd Fonnmiw! Jud
Bibliography

21 1

Po11cr. S. E.. "The Use of the Old Testamc:nt in the New Testame-nt: A Brief Comment on Method and Tc-m1inology'. in C. A. Evons nnd J. A. Sand-ers (cds). £ar~1' Clwistian /11/etprelati<m q{the Scriplures oflsrttt'l: lm't'sllgations cmd PropMals (JSNTSup. 148; SSEJC. 5: Shdlidd: Shclllcld Awdcmic Pre-s s. 1997). pp. 79-96. - ·The. Use of Authoritative.Citations in Mark's Gospel and Ancient Biogruphy: A Study ofP. Oxy. I t16', in T. R. Hat ina (ed.), Biblioollnterprotcuiott in Ec1rl)' ClmStim1 G(J.fjJelf: JltJ!ume J: The Gospel of Mart (LNTS. 304: London: T&T Clark. 2006), pp. 116-30. Poll«. 0 . S.. Litemry TexL( wtd tlte Rormm l.fistorl<m (Approac.hing the Ancient World: London: Routledge, 1999). Powe-ll. M.A. "The Plot and Subpl()(s of Matthew's Gospe-l'. NTS 38. (1992). pp. 181- 204. -God Willr Us: A PtiSUmll Theology ofM(llfht!h' 's Gospel (Minncapoli:;: Fortrc:;s, 1995). - ·Toward a Narnuivc-Critical Understanding of1\·1mthcw'. in J.D. Kingsbury (cd.). Gospel brletprelatkm: Nan-alive-Critical and Sociai-Sck>nt!fic Appr(}(IC/Ies ( Hm isburg. PA: Trinity. 1997). pp. 9--15. Preg.c-a.nt. R.. 'The Wisdom Passages in ~·1otthcw's Story•. in D. Lull (cd.). SBL Semitrar Ptrper.\· 1990 (Atlanta: Scholars.. 1990). pp. 469-93. Price, R. M., ' Implied Reader Rcspon:>e and the Evolution of Genres: Transitional Stages Ektwc-en the Ancient Novel:; and Apot.•.ryphal Aces•. Hervormde Tt"'iogise S!Julies 53.4 (1997). 9<>9- 38. Prigcnl. P.. JuJiin e1 f'Ancicn Teslamet~l (Etudes Bibliques: Pari:;: Librairic. Lccotlic-. 1964). Puceh. E.. 'Pngments d' un apocryphc de-Lto.·i etle J>c:rsonnagc e~Mtologiquc-: 4QTc~ Levt"{'.)) cc 4QAJa•. in J. T. Bnrrcrn ond LV. Montaner (ods). nre MtrdJ·id Qumran Congre.\·s: Proceedltrg:> oj tile lntemational Cmlb,Tf'I!SS on the Dl'ftdSea Scrolls MatMd 18-11 ,,.fareft. 1991 (Studies on the Texts ofLhc Desert ofJudah. I I: \'OI. 2.: lciden: E. J. Brill. 1992). PI>· 449-501.

Rohner. H.. Gn-ek Mphs and Chrisria11 Mptery (trans. B. Baucrshaw: New Yo1i:: Ha1pcr & Row. 1963). Riiisinen. 1-1.. Marc/on, Mt,hammodand the Mahmma: £regetical Perspi.-'CtiW!SWI thP fnCtnmter ofCulwr~s and Faiths (London: SCM Press. 1997). Rnjak. T.. 'Talking at Trypho: Christi-on Apologetic as Ami-Judaism m Jus lin's Dialugue 1rith T1~;pho thi! Jew. in Edwards.. Goodmanond Price(eds).Apologetics irt the Roma11 £mp/r(•: Pagans. }f!II'S, at~d Christiaru (O!(ford: Oxford Uni\'ersil)' Press. 1999). pp. 59- 80. R~ese. J. M .. · How Manh~w Po1irays the Communication of Chrisl's Authority'. BT9 7 ( 1977). pp. 139-44. Rcn,gstorf. K. H .• ·6rlJJfiov'. TDNTVII, pp. 200-69. R~nnie. S.. RecotUII'Itcling £1Uule: Making SenseofRe!iglon(Aibrut)': Slate Univ~rsi tyofNcw York Press.. 1996). Reps~·.hin ski . B.. 'Tnkingon dt~ Elite: The Mauhc.an Contro..-c:tsy Stories'. in Sodel)•o/Bihlical l.ilemfure J999Semhtar Papers (Atlnnltl: Soci-ety of Biblical L i t~•·:uurc. l 999). pp. 1- 23. Revcntlow. H. G.• ' Basic Issues in the Interpretation oflsaiah n•. in W. H. Bdlingcrond W. R. Farmer (cds). JestLf and the Suflen'ng Senrmt: l.faiah 53 a11d Christian 01·igim (Hani:;burg. PA: Trinity Press huem:uiOMI. 1998). pp. 23- 38. Riches. J. and D. C. Sim. n1e Gtupel ofMaflh(!h' In //.( Romanlmperk1l Context (london: T&T Clark. 2005}. Robinson. H. W.. ''T'h~. Hebrew Conception ofCorporate Pc-I'S¢nality', in P. Vob•_ F. Stumm~r ond J. Hempel (cds), Wtnlen Jmd Wesen des Alws Te.\·taments (BZA W. 66: Berlin: A. TOpc-lmann. 1936). Robinson. J. A. T... ' Eiijoh. John and Jesus: An Essay Ill Dcte<:tion'. in J. A . T. Robinson (ed.). Twelve N~w Tes1mmu11 Studies (S1udiC$ in Biblical Theology. 34: London: SCM. 1962), pp. 28-52. Robinson. J. M.. 'J.OGOI SOPHON: On the Gauung ofQ'. in J. M. Robinson ond 1·1. Koester (eds). Trajecron'es Througlt farlyChrisliarJity(Philodclphia: Portn:-ss. 191 1). pp. 7 1-1 13.

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

212

Roth fuchs. W.. Dle £1jlillmrgs:iro1e des Mallhiius-£wmgdimns: Eir~e hihlisch-lheo/ogisclre Urttet:fuchmtg (BWANT. &8: Stungart: W. Kohlh.nmmt'r Verlag, 1969). Rubin. U.• "Pre-E:otistem Light: Aspects ofdt< Concept ofNUr Mu~ammad' . Jsrffl!l Oriental

St11die.s 5 ( 1975). 62- 119. - Eye ofthe Belro/ckr: TJJe Lffe ofMuhammad as Vie\\--ed by the Ear~v Mu.f/ims - A Text1wl A11n(y.fi.f (Pnnceton: Dal"'vin Press. 1995). - ·Prophets and Prophelhood'. in Andrew Rippin (ed.). The Blackwell Comp<mlon to the Qur'cin (Molden. MA: Blockwdl Pt1blishing. 2006). pp. 2J..I-I7. Rykcn. L J. Wilhoit nnd T. Longman Ill (cd:,;). Dictio11my of Biblical Imagery (Downc.cs Grove. ll : lntcrVorsity Press. 2000). Soldarini, A. J .• 11te End of the Rabbinic CMin of Tradition'. JBL 93 (1974). 97-106. - Phari.Wt's. St:r·ilws ami Satld11cees in Pale.~fi11ian Socjety: A Sodologica/.4ppnKtwi.flt Community (Chicago Studies in the HistmyofJudaism: Cht~go: Univc.rsity ofChicago Press. 1994). Sand. A, ·zur Fmgc nach dtm ..Sit7. in leben,. der apokalyptisehcn Textc des Ncucn Testa· mans' NTS 18(1972- 73}. 167-77. Snndc-rs. E. P.. Ttmdet~ejt!s ofthe Syttoptic7nrditjmt(SNTSMS. 9~ Cambridge. UK: Cambridge Univcrsity Press. I 969}. Snndc-rs. E. P. and M. Davies. Studying the Synoptic Gospels (Harris.burg. PA: Trinity Prt$.S International; London: SC~·J. 1989}. Sd t:.bcrg. L 7/Je 11/egilim<wy ofJesus: A Feminist Theological htltUJ>relati<m of tlte lv'ew Testamcmi h!fancy Narmri\>es (BibScm, 18: repc•. Shetlidd: Sheflk-ld Academic Press. 1995).

- 'Feminist lnte-.-pretations of the Infan-cy Narrilliv-c- of Matthew'. in Amy·Jill le\~ne. (ed.}. A FeminiJt Comportion to ,\.fariology (Clev-eland: The P-ilgrim Press. 2005}. pp. 15- 36. Schlau« . A .. Der Ewmgelist Afotthiill.'i: Seine Sprache. seitt Zdr. seir• Selbsliimligkeir (Stuttgan: C-nJwer. 6th edn. 1963). Schnnd:enburg. R .. Jesu.( intltt' Gospe!.f: A Biblical Christnlogy (unns. 0 . C. De-an, J r. Louis.· ville: Westminster!J-ohn Knox. 1995). SchUssle-r Fiorenza. E.. ·Miroeks. Misstoo. and Apologetics: An Introduction'. m SchiiS!ilc-r Fiorenza (ed.). .4Jpects ofReligious Propaganda in Judaism and £ar(v Christkmily(Nom: Dame/london: Unive.rsity of Notte Dame Press. 1976). pp. 1- 25. --Jes11s and Jhe P<)litics oflmerpt't'tatiM (london and New York: Continuum, 2000). Schwam_ B., Abrah<mt Unroln and the Forge ofNatjoual Memmy (Chicago: University of Chic-ago Press. 2000). - ·The.Social CootextofCommetnoration: A SIUdy i nColl~ i ve Memory'. Social Forces ()I (1982). 374-402. Schweizer. E.. ·obscJvan<:e ofthe Low and Cbarismatic Acti\'ity in Matthew·. NTS 16 (1970). 226-7. Scott, B. B.. ·The Gospel of Matthew: A Snpientlal Performance ofan Apocalyptic Discourse'. in B. B. Sco11. L G. Perdue-and W. Johnston Wiseman (eds). In Sean•h of Wi.sdorn: f..uays in Memnt)' ofJolm G. Cammie (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox. l 993). PI) . 245-62. Scott. L Weapons oft!Je Wmk: Ewrr:rday Forms of Peasartl Resistmrce (New Hnven: Yale Univctsity Press. l 985}. Se~'tl l. R. A. (cd). £rtcmm1eri11g lung on .J.(~·tholtJgy( Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press. 1998).

- nteori:ing Alxmt Myth (Amhersl: Univetsity ofMasst~chuseus. l999}. - ·Myth and Politics: A Response to Robcn Ellw001.i'. JAAR 10 (2002). 611- 20. - Myth: A Very· Slum lutroduclion (Oxford: Oxford Uni.,.crsity Press. 2004}.

Bibliography

213

- "Mylh •. in R. A. Segal (ed. ). The Blac.kwe/1 Comp<mlon to lite Swdy of Rc/igimt (Malden. MA: Blackwell Publishing. ::!006). pp. 337- 5$. - nte B/acA-we/1 Cmnpankm to the Stml)• q{ Religion (Malden. MA: Blnckwell Publishing. 2006).

Senior. D.. "The Lure of the Formula Quotations: Re-Assessing Matthew's Usc of Lhe Old Testament with the Passion Narm1ive as Test Case'. in C. M. Tuckct{ed.). The Scriptures i111he Gospels (leuvcn: Lc.uvcn Univc:rsity Press. 1997). pp. 89-1 15. - Maulww (Abingdon New Tcst:unc111 Commctuaries: Nnshvitfe: Abingdon. 199&). Shotwell. W. A.. The Blb/i('(tl £w-'gl!Jis ofJuJtin Martyr (london: S PC K, 1965). Sim . D. C.. "The Meaning of rta~tyyEvfol~ in M:mhew 19:28'. JSNT 50 ( 1993), 3-12. - ·T1tc Gospel of Mntthcw and the Gentiles'. JSNT 57 {1995). 19-48. -ApocO~fplic Esthalology ht the Gospel of MmthC!h' (SNTSMS. 88: Cnmbridge. UK: Cnmbridge University Press.. t996).

- 'flte Gospel q{MaullewmtdCIIristianJudaism: TM HistO(Ytutd SO<"ia l Se11i1tg qfthe Motthe(IJ/ Commmtity(S!Ud les of the NewTesttunent and Its World: Edinburgh: T&T Cla1k. 1998).

- ·Malthew's Anti Paulinism· . Hen'Ormtk Teologise Studies 58:2 (2002). 767-83. Skarsau~-. 0 .. The Prooffrom PrtJpltec,l'· A Smdy in lu.\·tin .l.,{artyr 's Proc~ T~txl Tnldilimt T~txt4 Typl!. Pron•mtt/Ct!. Tlwo/ogico/ Prq/ile (NovTSup. 56: lcidcn: E. J. Brill, J987). -J(!stu attd Go.~ptd (Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press. 2004). Sklar. H . W .. ·The Fighte-rofHorizons: The.StoryofJoscph asn Model fOr Social and Spiritual Rccoo<:iliation'. MA thesis. Graduate Thoologi<:al Union. Berke-ley. CA. 1994. Smith, J. Z.. To Tok(! Place: Tmwud Thi'OfY in Rima/ (Chicago: Univc:rsityofChicago Press. 4

1987). - Drudgery DiviJte: Ott the Compt1risou ofEt1rfy Clwistitmities (IJid Ihe Religions ofLtlle Ant~ q11ity (Chicago: The-University ofChic:ago Press. 1990).

Soorcs Prnbhu4 G. M.. The Fommla Q11otmions in the ht/cnu:y Narmtkeof Malllu•ll': An Inquiry into the Troditi011 f.li.tTOJyojMott 1-1 (AnBib. 63: Rome: Biblicsl lnstilute Press. 19?6). Sommer. B. D.. A Prophet Read\· Scripture: Alluskm in /S(IiWI40-66 (Sianford: Stanford Unive.rsity Pres~ 1998). Standartinger. A .. Das Fnnrettbild im Judenwm der lwl/enistiscltt'fl Zeit: £in Beitrag anlumd wm ·Joseplt & Ase1wlh · (Arbciten r.ur Gcschichtc des Antikcn Judentums und des Urehristcntums~ Le-idcn: E. J. Brill. 1995). - 'From Fic-tional Tcx1to Soci.rHiSiorical Context Some Considcmtions from a Text<:rhical Perspective on Joseph and Ase-neth. in SBL !996Semill
-Jesu.s m1
nw

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

214

Stuhlmachc-r. P.. 'Isaiah 53 in the Gos.pelsnnd /\cl:i'. in B. lanow!:ki and P. Stuhlmachcr (cds). The s.ifj'ering Sen'UIII: l.mla)J 53 iu Jewish and Cltri.ftitm Source-s (trans. D. P. Bailey: Grond Rapids: William B. Ecrdmans. 2004). pp. 147-62. Suggs.. M. J.. Wi.fdom. Clfristologva11d Lmd11 M,1trhew's Gmpe/ (Cambridge. MA: Harvard Univas ity Prcs.s. 1970). Swanson. D. N .. · Basic FomlS of Christian Prophetic Speech•. (fbD d1sscrtotion. Harvard Divinity School. 198 I). Syrceni. K.. 'Peter as C hal\lCtcr and Symbol in the Gospel of Matthew' . in 0. Rhoads and K. Syrecni (cds). ChumclerizaJion intire Gospds: Recmf{'~·Mug Nt1rmtire Criticism

(JSNTSup. 1&4: Sheffie-ld: Sheffield Acade-mic Press. 1999). pp. 106-52. Talbrn. C. H.• Whot i.~o Gospttl? The Gem·l! ofthe Umonical Gospel~ (Philnd<:fpbin: Fonrcss. 1977).

Tannehill. R. C .• T1:e Swordq{J/is Momh(Philadclphia: Fortrcss/Mi~ooula. MT; Scholats. 1975). Taylor. C.. Sayings ofthe Jewi.fh Fmhet:s. romprising Pirqc A both in Hebrew and £tlg!i.f!t, wilh Note.f and f.\·cur.w.~es (2nd c-dn: New York: Ktav. 1969). Taylor. J. E .. Tlw lmnrcrser: Jolm the Baptist wllhln Second Temple Judaism (Studying the Historical Jesus: Grt~nd Rnpids: Eerdmans. 1997). Taylor. V•. 'flte Formatlon oftlwGaspeiTroditkm: Eight Let:tures(loodon: Mocmill'ln. 1960). Thiessen. G .• A nuow yojPn'miliwt Christianity(trans. J. Bowden: London: SCM Press. 2003). Thisehon, A. C.,· A Recrosepctivc Reappraisal: Postmodcmity.langtwgc and Hem1eneutics'. in A C. Thisehon (<:d.}. Thiselton in Hermeneutic.f: The Collected Wt.wks tmdNe•w £.uaysof AmhoiiJ' Tltisf!llmt (AshgatcContemporary Thinkers on Religion: Collected Wor\:s: AlJt UYJdt:TS in .J.'k1tthe11' (Lc-idcn: E. J. Brill. 1972). Touoli. R .. ' Narrative Litcrtlture'. in Andrew Rippin (00.). The Blackwell Comprad's History'. BTB28.1 ( 1998). 16-26. - ·The Historicit)' of the Circk of tile Twelve: All Roads Lead to Jerusalem·. Jlen10rmd~· Tet~!ogise St,di~s 55:2- 3 ( 1999). 795- 826. - ·Jesus and Joseph in Matthew's Gospel and Other Texts•. Ni-'Oteswmemfc-a3 5 (2000). pp. 1- 2 1.

- ·IHIOYI. the Oa\'idic Messiah.ns Political Sa\~oor in Mauhcw's Hi:aory'. in J. G. Vander Wmt (cd.). Salvathm in the Ne'lv Tesf(mumt: Perspc<•thoes on Smeriology(SupNovT. 121: l eiden: E. J. Brill. 2005). pp. 7- 3 1. - ·Jesus· .Mis~ion to All oflsmel Em plotted. in Mauhe.w·sstocy' .Neou•stam<-lltica 43:2 (2007). Van Ookkum. A .. ' Bd iefSystcms about Virgin Sinh: Structure and Mutual Comparobility•. Cun-em AnthropoluJ..'V 38: I ( 1997). 99- 104. Van Scgbrocd:. F.• 'Lcs ciu.t:ions d 'acoomplisscmen1 dans t·E,•angilc. scion ~ai:nt Matthicu d 'aprCs trois ouvmges ricems'. in M. Didier (ed.). J'£mngile selo11 saim Maulrieu. RtWnction ellh{'O/ogi~ (BETL. 29; Ge-mbloux: J. Duculot. 1972}. pp. 107- 30. Vanhoozer. K.. ls There a Mcarting in This Te.rt? Tlw Bible. Ihe Rmder. fllld tlw Af.orality of Litt•ra(Y Kr~owledge (Gmnd Rapids: Zondcrvan. 1998).

Bibliography

215

Verheyden. J.. · ASS<:ssing Gospel Quot.<1tioos in Justin Martyr\ in A. Ocnaux (cd.). New Testa· mt'l/1 a11d Texrmr/ Criticism a11d Exegesis: Festschrifi J. Delobe/ (BETl. 16 1: Leu\'cn: Lcuvcn Uni\'en>ity P\'<$siP.cctcrs. 2002). pp. 361 - 77. Visocly. B. L . ' Midr.u h. Christian Exege$is. and Hellenistic Herme-neutiC$'. in C. Bakhos (ed. ). Current Trends itt dte St11dyoj.~lidrash(SupJSJ. I 06: Lcidcn: E. J. Brill, 2006). pp. l ll- 3 L

Vorstcr. W.. 'The Function of the Usc of the Okl Testament in M:ui:'.lv'eo/ 14 (1981). 62- 72. Vorstcr. W. S .• ·A Reader-Response A pproach to Matthew 24.3-28'. Hl•TS/47 (1991). 1099108. Wainwright E.. Tou·<mls o F emilti.ft Critic
1967).

Wallaoc. D. B.. 'Rcoonsick.ring ..Tile Story of ksusnnd !.he-Adulteress Reconsid¢red"•.NTS39 (1993). 290-6. Wansbrough. J.. nte &warian Milie1': Gmt(;mt cmd Ct.>mpo.~t'!ion ofIslamic Sah·c1ticm flistcu~· (Oxford: Oxford Unin:-rsily Press. 1978). Weber. K.. 'The Image ofShoecp and Go:us in Malt 2 4:31-46•. CBQ 59 (1997). 657- 78. Wcren. W. J. C .. 01! Broetkrs l'tm de Me11settzoou: MI. 15, 3/-46 als Toegcmg tot dt• £sdta-tol(>gle m11 MctJUdls (AmsterOOm: Uitge\'erij Ton Bolland. 1979). Wheder. B.. ' Moses'. in A. Rippin (ed.). TIN! Blackwell Crmqxmiouto the Q11r'6n (Malden. MA: Blackwell Publishing. 2006), pp. 248-65.

- Pmplwts i11 lite Qunm: Au lntradtK'tlon to the Quran ami Muslim £-:egesis (london and New York: Conlinuum. 2002). Wilson. S. G .. Relau·d Strmtgt~rs: Je-ll'S a11d Christi(IIIS 70-170 C. E. (Minneapolis: Fortress. 19%).

Wink. W.. 'Beyond Ju~ War and Pac-ifism: Jesus' Non-Violcru Way'. Revieh'(IIW £\'fJOSitor 89 (1992). 197- 214.

-Jesus m1nt(Minncai>Oiis:fOI1CCSS-. 1994). - 'Isaiah 53:1- 12 (Scp1uugin1)'. in A.-J. Levine. D. C. Alhson. Jrand J. D. Crossan (cds). Thtt Historical Je.ms in Context (Princc:con Readings in Religions: Princcton and Oxford: Princeton Uni\'crsity Press. 2006). pp. 400-4. Zerbe. 0 . M.. Non -Retaliation in Early JewiJhantl N£>tl' Testcmwm TextJ(Sheffield: JSOT PlC$$... 1992).

INDEX OF R EFERENCES

BIDU

Old Testament G~lti!Jis

1.27

50

2.2-3

35

2.4 2.24

64, 66 51 66 64. 66 66 65- 6 66 65- 6 94 86 95 81 70 9. 190 95 94 51 70

5

5.1 5.3-32

6.9 6.10 10.1 12.3

14.10 15.9

17 19.30-7 27.29 32.1 4~ 1 5

28.14

38.8 38.12-30 4 1.45 4 1.50

49.11

172 172

86

E:wdu.s 1.15- 2. 10

2.11- 15 2.15 2.19-2 1 3.6 1-9

19.13 19.16 19.19 19.20

20.1- 17 20.1-7 20 .3- 17

68 68 68 68 51 109 141 92. 141

141 68 32 39 68

20.7 20.&.11 20. 13 20. 14 20. 18 21.12 21.23-4 23.20 24.8

127

Numbers

39

3.1 12.3 13. 17 18.21-32 24. 17

65-6

127 50. 123

27.1 7

134

90. 133.

/Hmeronomy 41 4.1 5-6 42

127 127 141

127

141

24. 16

127

Lc\'ilk lu

139

179 39 98. 110

5

3. 30.41

5.1

41 41 32 41 127 127 41 41 41 41 32

1- 16

42

5.6

2.13 3.2 II 15. 19-30

90

5.10

90

5.16-2 1

169 ISO

17- 26 19

42

5.17 5.18 6 6.1

19.3

42

6 .2

19.9-10

42

6.3

19. 11-12

42

6 .4-9

19. 12

127

6.5

19.1 3 19. 14 19. 15

42

42 42

6.6

41

6.1 3

19. 16

42

19. 17-IS

42

19.1 8

31- 2. 413. 51.127 42 42 42 42

6.16 8.3 10.12

50.53 50. 125 50. 123

19. 19-31 19.32 19.33-4 19.35-7 21.7

21.14 24. 19-:W 27..1().3

3. 30. 42- 3

31- 2.40-I. 51

32

11.1

32

11.22

32 169 39 127 127 23 70-1 39 127

14

71 71

14.22-9 17.5 19.21 22.23-7

127

?_ .,, " .)•

39

23.23

24.1-4

Judex ofRcforences 24.1 24.3 25.5

39.51. 169 169 51

25.6-10 26.12-1 5

43

31.1 31.24-5 LX.~ 31.24 32.45 34.1·4 35

J9 6S 127

68. 126 6S 6S <3

Josll11a 2.1-2 1 6 .25

70 70

Judges 6.36 13.5 13.15 15.1 16.7 16.11 16.17

179 69 95 95 156 156 156

I Kings 11.1 I U2 14.8. 17. 17-N 19. 10 19.14 22.17

8S-6 161 161 83

so so 134

1 Kings I 1.8 1. 10-1-l 4. 1&-37 8.19

13.14-19 19J4 20.6 23.13 23.29

iS 15 83 83 161 140 161 161 SS-6 92

I C!lrolliC'Ies

112 17.4 17.7

134 161 161

Ruth 3.6-9

3.7 4.13

70 69 70

1 CluYJIIide.\·

185 179 179 179 86

2 2.2 2.7 7. 11 S.J 15 17.7 18.14 22.1 22.2 22.& 22.9 22.19

1 Samuel 2.30 10.19 II.B 14.39 11.3

15

7.8 7.13-14 11 .2-27 12.15-25 15.30

ISS 92

Psalms

1 Samuel 3.18 5.1-3 5.2

15.2 35.25

160 ISO 50. 52.

134. 138. 161 160 160 160 70 70 85-6

46.6 LXX

41.5 6922

74.13-14 74.14 78.2

36 36 6. 36.1 21 179 51. 124 31 179 92 51 51. 116 51 51 51 141 141 51 ISO ISO

50. 54

217 78.71-2 89.3 89. 10-11 89. 10 89.20 89.3940 91.11 107.23-30 II 0. 1 118.22 118.25

134 161 ISO ISO 161 160 50 ISO 51. 125- 6

51 ISO

Prowrbs 10. 1 13.20

IS9 IS9

lsoioh 1.1-5 S6 51 5.1 43 S.S·IO 6.9·10 124 6.9 50 7- 9 24 7.2 24 7. 13 24 2. 14-15. 22~. 19. 50-2. 122 7. 17 69 8.4 53-4 8.8 122 8.21- 9.1 50.54 8.23- 9. 1 24 43 10.1-3 11.1 50 13. 10 51 14.13 so 14. 15 50 18.3 141 140 20. 1 ~ 189- 90 12.22 27.12-13 141 2"7. 13 141 18.8 120 51 28. 16 19. 13 42. 50. 53. 124 33. 1 185 33. 15-16 32 35.5 50 37.35 161

218 l.fUiah (cont.) 3&.21 40 40.3 40.24 4 1.8- 10 41.16 42.1-4 42.1

43.10 44.1·2 44.21 45A 46.1J 47.12·1 5 48.9· 10

48.20 49.3 49.1-6 49.6 52.7 52.13- 53. 12 52.13 52.15 53

53.1 53.2 53.3 53 A

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels Jeremia!• 136 78 50. so. 125 156 150 156 50. 52. 149. 158 6. 121. 130. 152 153 150 150 150

30. 16 31.15

1J9

Ezekiel

109 151 150 I"' 149 151 149

1.13 2. 1-7 1.2-4

,_

149. 153 152-3 151 s. 147. H9- 51. 153. 157. 160-1 149 p

..,_,_,

8. 50. 54. 147- 9. 155. 157-

57.13 58.6-10 59.20·1 6 1.7-8

62 149 149 149 149 151. 156 149 141 51,120. 124 156 44 141 141

62.11

51.138

535 53.6 53.7-S 53.9 53.11 53.12 55.3 56.1

1.5-7 7. 11 13.1 7 17.5-S 23. 1-6

31.3 1-4

32.6-9 32.9-15 34.4

4. 1- 5.1 7

6. 1-7 6. 11 -14 11.23 12. 1-7 16.
34.2.3-4 34.2.3 37.14-S 37.14 43.1

H (W>(t

120 34. 120. 124 142 9. 190 135 185 50. 52- 3. 69 141 54 140 156

92 110 120 140 &6 &6

3.1-5 6.6 11.1 11.6

Amos 2.6·1

5.4 5.10-12

141

43 140

15

185

Jmwll 1.17

50

Miroil

69. 134.

5.3 5.4 6.8 1.6

138 50 IJ4 32 50

16 1 161 136. 161 134 134 134 134

Nalmm 1.1

3.11

160- 1

Haggai

134. 161 -2 141 161

1.1 1

lt-'<'huri(lh

ll6

1.1

..,.,

109 94 51. 53. 93. 126 156 51

10.6

92

12.3

1Sl 151

62

J./ob<JJ:.kr& 2.4

2.13

8.11 9.11

161 50.52

2.6 5.1 5.2

8, 141- 1.

Vall if!/ 2.5 l.X); 7. 13-14 7.13

43 32 43

Obodioh

SS-6

140

140 50 50.53-4. 69. 122 156

3.8 4.14 6.5

6.7 8.1 8.20-3 9-14 9-11 9

32 92

86

140 95 153. 160 95 95 95 179 95 7. 90-1 . 94. 133-4 144 141

Judex ofRcforences 9.4 9.6 9.9-10 9.9

133 71 7. 138-9. 144 5. 7. 51-2.

12.6 12.&-9 12.9 12.10- 13. 1 11.10-14

91.96 96 91 94 89-91.93-

3. 1 3.24

4. 97

Apocrypha

12.10-12 12.10-11 12.10

51.53 91 91. 93. 140. 145-6 95 96 92 91. 133. 140 140 92 96 94 96 87. 90. 144-S 5. 51.54. 86-7. 89. 125. 133. 140. I H . 144-5 142 5. &9. 9~7

54.86- 7. 89. 133-4. 137-41.

9.10 9.11-12

9.11 9.14-1 5 9.14 9.16 10.1-3 10.2-3 10.2-6 10.2 10.3-6 10.3 10.6 IO.S 10.10 11- 13 II 11.1-3 II .13 II .17 11.10 I 1.11 11.12-1 3

11 .12 II .13 11.15- 11 11.15

11.16-11 II .16 11.17 12- 14 1 2.1-1 ~.2 1

12.1·9 12.2 12.3-4 12.3 12A

144 86. 95. JJS- 9 141 90. 133. 141 141 92. 141 96. 141 90 134 136 133- 6 135 134-5. 142 135 141 141 144 135. 143. 145 90 145 144 140 96 133 89 51. 54.89. 142-4 144 137 142 133. 135-

7. I·B. 1 ~5 90 91.1H 91 91 91 96 91 91

219

12.11-14 12.11 11.12-14 12.1! 12.14 13.1-6 13.1-2 13.2-6

13.4 13.7-9 13.7

13.8-9 14 14.1-5 14.1 142 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.6-7 14.7 14.&-12 14..& 9 14.9 14.13-21 14.13 14.17 14.20-1 24.30 4

TtJbit 1.1

62

Judith 10. IS

92

Wisdom 2.13 5.3-6 Sir(l('h 11.12-13 17.28 18. 13 30. 14

151

136 135 136

&mC'h 1.1

62

1 M(t('NJfx.e-,_s

8. 12 3 M(t('NJfx.e-,_s

95 95 95 SS-6. 9S6. 133. 140 5. 94--5. 133. 142 96 95 5. 96 95 96 95 95 96 95. 140 96 141

3. 17

i9

152 152 152

1. 13·20

86. 88. 95

Ma/(f('hi 3

4.5-6 t:NG

4.6 f:N(j

50. so. 12.~ 80-2 15 I 80--2.151

92

92

1 Esdras 1.1 13.6

62 85

13.49

177

14 14. 1-6 14.22 l.f.24 14.37 14.42

67 67 67 67 67 67

New Ten :unt nt

Matthew 1-4 1- 2 I I . 1- 4.12 1.1-4.16 1.1-11

24 28 30. us 170 170 23-4

220

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

MaJtht<w (c-Oni.} 1.1 36. 59. 623. 138, 175 1.2-16 4, 63. 66. 69 1.3 70 1.5 70 1.6 70 1.16 70 1.17 36. 71 1.18- 2.23 100 23, 69 1.18-25 us 130 1.20-1 122 1.20 24. 122. 130 1.21-3 28 1.11 163. 179 I. 22. 47. 1.22-3 50, 122 1.12 22. 123. 125. 155 1.23

1.24 2

2. 14-15.

22. 2~. 131 122 5. 35. JS. 98- 100. 110. 112.

2.11-18 2. 17 2. 18. 2. 19-20 2.20 2.2 1-23 1.23

3 3. 1 3.3

3.4

3.5·6 3. 7-10 3.9 3. II 3. 12 3.13 3. 16-17 3.17 4 4. 1 4.3 4.4

115-16.

4.6 4.7

2.4-6

138 68 69 41 l OS 172

2.4

34- 6.38

4. 10

2.5·6

22, 38. 47. 50.52

4. II

2.5 2.6

123

2.1-18 2.1-6

2.2 2.34

2.7-S

2.8 2.11 2.13-15 2.13 2.15

2.16-18

50, 133. 135. 138. 145. 161

38

.,

38. 4 1

4.8 4.9 4.9

4.13 4. 14-16 4. 14 4. 15 4. 15-16 4. 17- 16 .20

69

4.17

122 1. 22.47. 50. 122- 3. 125. 155 38, 69

4. 18.-22 4.23- 7.29 4.23-51 4.23-5

1. 22. 41. 52 123. 155 50. 53

4.23

156

4.24 5-7 5

156-7

122

5.1-7.18

4 1.1 11 69 I. 22.47. 50. 54.

5.1 -2 5.1

122- 3. 155

5.3-12 5.1 I

3$

174 47. 50. 123. 115. 118 78. 83 78 35. 78 12 156 36 47 130 6. 36. 121 30 36. 130 36 50. 123. 127 47. 50 50. 123. I H . 128

;.12

5.14 5.1 7-18

;JJ 5.19 5.20-4& 5.20

67 197 126 96 68.86. 92. 96. 135. 170 44.6S 129 129 86

68 32. 127 175 44

35.68

5.214&

39

5.21 -6 5.21-2 5.27-32 5.27-.8 5.31 5.33-7 5.334 5.38-42 5.38·9 5.39 SAO 5.43-8

42.68 127 68 127 127 40.6S 127

43.68 127 39 156 68

11 3 1. 22. 41. 50. 53

6.9

42. 127 43 43 43 43 43 44 12 I 130

6.14- 15

42. 187

123

6.16- 1&

197

178

6.19-24

9. 184. 187. 192

184 41

110

6.19-20 6 .21 6 .24 6 .25 6 .34

41 38

110

7.12

32.44

5. 43. 98

7.13-14

9. 184-5

5.-13-4

36. 68. 86

S.H-5

41 36

5A4

36. 50. 53. 123 121

5.45 5.47

5.45-6

6.1 · 1& 6 .9-13

24 170 44. l :!iJ.

170 135

43-4

Judex ofRcforences 7.22-3 1.21 7.24-7

175 96

7.28-9

9, 184. 187

10.5- 11.1

126

10.5-6

17<

119 137. 161

170

10.5 10 .6

7.28

67. 126

10.7-S

44

8-9

43. 159. 161 170 86. 96

10.7 10 .8

119

8.1-9.35 8.1 S.< 8 .5-13 8.10 8.11 8.14 8.16 8 .1 7

127

10. 17

174 38

10. 18-20 10.22

177

1025 1028 10.32-3 10.3$

11 3 155. 157

I. 8.22. 47.50. 123. 147.

155. 158-9 iU S-27 8.19 8.25

8..29 9 9 .1- 13 9 .1-S 9 .1 9.2-3 9 .2 9.< 9.10 9.11 9.12 9 .13 9 .1-l 9 .18 -26 9 .20·2 9.27 31 9.27 9 .28 9 .32-4 9 .34 9 .35 4

9 .36-11. 1 9 .36

9 .37 10 10 .1

10.16-23 10.17-25

ISO 35

10.38-9 10 39 10.31-3 11.1-19 11.1

137. 163 179 35

35.44 <0

109. 113 39 38 96 11 3 35 38 50 41 180 163. ISO 159 138 113

112- 11.50 11.2-19 11 2 -6 112 IU 11.6 11.10 11.1 1-13

11.13-14 11.13 11.14 1123 11 25-7 I 125·6 1129

12

35 35

12 .1-32 12.1·1-l 12 .1-S

156-7. 161. 170 170 35. 133-6. 143. 145. 159. 161 170 67. 176 156. 170

11.5 11.6 12 .7 11.9 -14 12 .9 11.10· 13 12.1:! 12 .13

P' - J

129. 156 44 129 181 130 181 130 41 186

50 119 41 9. 184 78-9

67. 126. 170 170 80 43 138. !59

50. S4. 13>-6 141

so. 79. 123 119 78-9 78. I 74 78. 83

50 95 121. 130 41. 139 35 179 39-40. 44 118 123 113 40. 127 JS. 38 43 135 136 35 136

22 1 11.14 11. 17-2 1 12. 17 12:. 18-2 1 11. 18 12:.20 11.22-4 11.23 12.24-32 12:.24 12.25 11.28 11.30 12.33 11.34 12.35 11.38-45 12:.38 11.40

35

22.47.158 I. 123 50.52 38. 130 38 159

138 40 35 96 35. 130 36 9. 184 41 183-4 35

35

11.42 11.46-50

50 127 121 44

12.46 13

67

12.41

13.1-53 13. 1-52 13. 1-3 13. 1-2 13. 1 13.2 13. 10 13. 12 13. 13-14 13. 14 15 13. 15 13. 17 13. 18-23 13.22 13.24-5 13.30 13.35 4

13.36 I 3.47 13.52 13.53- 17.:!7 13.53 13.57

113

126 170 96

92 113.135 36. 170 170

Sl 124 47.50 41 196 44 43 109 36 1.9.22. 47. 50. 54. 123. 155 113 36 171.179. 196 170 67. 126. 170 129. 142

222

Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

MaJtht<w (c-Oni.} 14 lSI 14.1- 12 5. 43. 78 14.13-21 43- 4 14.14 43. 136 14.23 68. 86. 96 14.24 163. 18 1 14.28-33 181 p · 14.28-30 14.30 181 14.62 109 15 54 15.1-20 35 15.1- 14 128 15.1 34 15.3-9 39-40 15.4·6 117 15.4 123 42 15.5-9 15.6 113 124 15.7-S 15.8-9 50. 53 41 15.8 15.12 35. 142 15.13 35 15.18-19 41 159. 174 15.21-8 15.22 IJS 15.24 129.13~ 7, 161. 174 15.26 137. 156 15.27 IJ7 15.28 m 15.29-39 43 15.29-31 135 15.29 68. 86. 92. 96. 135 15.30 135 15.30· 1 IJJ. 136-7 15.31 43. 136- 7. I·B. 145 15.32 136 16 54. lSI 16.1- 12 35 16.1 36 16.5 169 16.11-12 35 16.12 71 16.13-20 IJS 16.16 59

_,

16. 19 16.2 1- 28.20 16.2 1 16.24-5 16.25-6 16.25 16.27-S 16.28 17. 1 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.9·13 11.9 17. 11-13 17. 12-13 17. 12

17.13 17.20 17.22-3 17.24· 1 17.25 IS 18.1- 19.1 IS. I 18.2 18.12 18. 17 18. 18 18.20 18.35 19. 1 19.2- 22.46 19.3-9 19.3 19.4 19.5 19. 1·9 19.1 19. 16 19. 11· 19 19. 19 19.2 1 19.12 19.23 19.25

9. 184. 186. 188-9 170 35. 96. 170 129 41 163. 181 92:. 95-6 81 68. 86. 96 82. 127 IH 6,36. 121. 127 15-6. 83 1!6. 96 82 129 35. 80 17- 9 86 35 169. 177 36. 113 61 126. 170 110 110 S6 149 9. 184. 186. 189 36. 131 41 6&. 116. 110 170

19.28 20.5 20. 17-19 20. 18-19 20.20-9 20.21 20.26 20.28 20.29-34 20.29 20.30 20.31 21- 7 2 1- 1 ll 2 1.1 -17 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4-5 2 1.4

21.5

21.7 21 .8-9 21.9 21.10 21.12·11 21.12-16 21.13 21.14 21.15 21.16

40

36

21.21

50 . 123

51 127 51 35 43 43 181

21.23-7 21.23 21.28- 22.14 21.33 21 .42 21.45 21.46

43-4

22.1 21.10 22.15-22

163 181

178 37 35 96 138 138 37 37.41 37.43.159 138 179 138 133 34 35 34 5. 85-6 140 140 1.22.47. 50-I. 126 123. 155 5. 86. 8990. 91- 3. I.B. 137. J.l5 140 138 92, 125. 138. ISO 138 40 124 51. 120 43 34. 138 51. 123. 128 86. 133. 140. 146 34 34 34 51 51. 123 34-5 35 171 36 35. 171

223

Judex ofRcforences 22.15-16 22.15

3.

23.39

35- 6

24-25

22.16

35 35-6 35 3. 35.51 (?' 117 51 30- 1.33. 40- 2 3.-6 36 31 32 51

21.18 22.23-33

22.23

21.24 22.31-2 22.31 22.32

22.34-40 22.34

22.35 22.36 22.37-8 22.37 21.39 22AO 22.41-46

21.41-45 22AI 22.43-5 22.45

22A6 23

B .l-25.46 23.1-2 2.3.1 23.2 23.3 13.6 23.8·10 23.8 13.10 13.12 23.13-36 13.13 23.15 13.16·21 23.16 23.23

_,

23.34

.,. -"'·-;)

13.21 13.29-30 23.29 13.35 23.37

24.1-36 24.1-14 24.1·2

:?4.3-26.1 24.3 :?4.4 24.5 24.9 24.13 24.14

42.51 32 36. 125 125 35- 6 118 36 31 31.36- 7. 197 170 128 170 92. ISO 128 ISO 175

128 128 9. 184. 187 ISO 35 35 40 39 35-6. 38.

40 .,~

N

129- 30 35 35 196 35 89.1.0 129. 142

92. 130 s. 36. 67. 92. 95--7. 1. 1 s. 8.9. 92. 97 91 181 96 126 S. 68. 8S8. 92. 96 92 91 129 181 95. 163.

H .B 15.27

92,96

15.3 1-46

42.44 5. 92. 178

25.31 25.32

26. 1- 28.10

36. 95.97 9. 184, 187. 190 95-6 156 95 156 95 95 176 37 170

16. 1

68. 126.

15.33-46

25.34 25.36 15.37 25.39 15.40 15.44

25.45

26-27

181

24.15-28 24.15-22 24.15 24.16 24.19

24.22 24.27-31 24.27-9

24.27-S 24.27 24.28-9 24.28

24.29-31 24.29 24.30-1 24.30

24.31

24..36 24.37-25.46 24.37 2439 24.42-4 14.42 24.44 24.46 24.50

_,

? "

25.2 2:5.10

181 141 4i. 51 86 174 li4. 181 37. 92 94 181

26.3 16. 15 16.24 26.28

16.30

26.31

91. 96 93 36 181 St. 174 94-S 51. 53. 89-95. 97. lB. 140- 1 31.94-5. lB. 141. 146. 181 s. 89. 96

92. 94 92. 96

26.32 26.36 26.39 26.42 26.54 26.56 26.51 26.64 27. 1·26 21.9-10

92

2"7.9

96 92

96 92 141 92

170 36 89- 90 I" 89- 90. 133. 141. 146 5. 85-6. 96. 142 5. 51.86-7. 89- 90.

"'

93. 123.

92. 96

92. 96

92

17. 10 27. 17 27.25 27.21

125. 133. 140-2. 144 87 85 121. 130 121. 130 22. 126 22. 89. 126 36 51. 126 36 22.89- 90. 93. 126. 133. 1423. 146 1.47.51. 54, 123. 155 125 36 173 36

224

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

MaJtht<w (c-Oni.} 27.34 51 27.35 27.39-40 27.39

27.41-.3 27.43 17.46 27.48

27.49 27.52 27.53

27.62 28

28.2-7 28..7 28..12 28.16-20 28.16 28.18-20

28.20

51 163. 18 1 51 163 51

51, 121. 116 51 163 133. 142. 146 IJJ. 143. 146 36

44 122 121 36 97.173. 176 68, 86. 96

69. 94. 130 182

7. 14-23 7. 17 8. 12

169 35. 113

10.25

35

828

l!2 169 76 186 119 7S-6. 79&0. 83 75-. 83 &0

13. 16 13.24 13.28

8.29 8.30 8.38 9.7 9.9 ·13 9. 11 ·13

9. 12 9. 13

9.33 10. 1-12 10. 10 10.3545 10.47 11. 1 11.25

12.12 12. 15 11.28-34 12.34 13. 1·37

Mark 1.1

63

1.2-3 1.5 1.6

so

1.1 1 1.13

1.24 2.1 2.16 3.5

3.6 3.20- 1 3.20 3.22 3.31-5 4.1·2

5.7 6.1·5 6 .3 6 .14·29 6.14· 16 6.15 6 .17·29

78

14-5. 778. 83 119

13.3 13.26 14.24 14.26 14.32 15.2541 16.16

Utke

35

3.7-9 3.8 4.4 4.25·7 6.20.6

136

35 169 113

35 169 169 179 169 71 5. 74-5. 78 75. 83 78.82 83

1.17

6.43 6.41 7. 11 35 4

7. 11 · 17 7. 16 9.1 9 9..30 9.51·6 10.25·8 4

14. 11

185 177 187

16.24 19.9

72 72

19 .29

85

19.37

85

20.19

35 93

85

113 113. 169 169 113 169

22.30

178

22.37 22.39

147. 149

li9 85

1.2 1 7.53-S.II 8.1 8.33 8.37 8.39 8.53

187

35 35 33 36 92

85 93

90

85 85 169 190

112 179 113

72

21.27 21.37

11. 19

9.28

11 .42

35 40

John

8.56 9 .28 9 .34 12.28

82 83

33

72

72 72 72 72 71

190. 194

8.32-3

83 83 83

72

20.23

72 123 83

187 78

85

19 .37

12.38 15.23 19.36

Acl.s

191

83 85

119 149 27 91 145

83-4 35

18.4

85

1.12

85 149

RomatiS 2.12 8.28 10 . 15-16

ISS 40 149

I Corint!limu 2.9 3.17 6.2 8.3 16 .22

40 185 178 40 40

Judex ofRcforences f!ebre<~rs

1 CcrintMaw 9.6 ISS

S.IO

1 Thrssoloni<ms

I Paer

3.13 5.1-2

95 96

1 Tht•SS(Jionions 1.7 95

1.13 2.2 1-5

5.20

41

41

Rn>elation 1.7 41 149

I Jolm 4.20-1

225

3.7

91.93-4. 145 190. 194

10.4 22. 18-19

178 185

/Q54/ frg 9 frg 9i.2-.3 frg 9i 5~

151 151 151

40

OTUER ANCIENT SOURCES

Old Testament PS<>udl'pigrapba

1 Bamdt 29A 70.9 72.3-6 &3.1

ISO 160 177 18 1

Teslam
tn 171

Pbilo

TcstaJtumt <~/Dan

De Ahrohwt1o

5.3

I

32

66-7

1 f11och

Testament (JjGad

106-1

1 f11och

24

Jonnes ond Jamhres 1.1

2.1 2.3-4 4. 1·2 6.3-4

171 112 111 171

62

De oeu·rniWJe mundi 19 66-7 De COitgiY!J.m graJia 124-6

~ruditio11is

69

Testamem oflssachor Joseph and A.muuh

5.2

15.7-8 11.9

7.6b-7n

172 172

Jubilees 12.16-24

109

34.4-7

32

Psalms ofSolomon 11 17.21 11.38-40 11.38 17.40

16 1 72 160 160 160

Pseml:o-Pflilo Liber ontiquitatum 1.1

hibficunm1 66

24. 179

Trstamenl ofJob 1.1

62

32 32

De decologo 106-10

32

Testament ofNophtoli 86

De po:>t~ritme Coini 117 66

Testament ofZebulon

De :>perialibus h-gihus

6.5

2.63

7.3

111 171

33

Ot>ad Sea Scrolls

QJ1od De11s sil immutahilis 136-7 69

4Q/i4 frg 1- 2

[k ~·irMihus

frg 2l i l0· 11

160 160

4Q540 frg 1.1 frg 1.2 frg 15

69

De ~·ito Mcsis

4Q151 5.3·-*

220-2

160

l SI 152 152

1. 1 !93

62

109

J ostphus Anliquitat~!ijudaime

1.281 1.205-6

92 179

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

226 2.210-11 2.15- 16

13.292 13.372-3 15.387

179 179 92 92 92 69 69 69 181 92 71 71 35

16 .JII

11.41·2 18.17 18.284 20.2-19-51 20.251

3.80 3.203 4 .180

5.9- 1.5 5.318-37 5.328 9 .1J 9.55

L 320 2.·U I

l AI4 6 .289 6 .312- 14

3. 15 J. l7 4.2 4.5 4.6

192

Qiddushin

194

2 .3

192. 197

3.12-13 4.8

192 197

191. 197

S.ta

197 191

4 .1 S.J

191. 194.

8..5

35.38

4. 17

197

Yebomot

109 J8 92 38 38

4.20 4.2 1 5.8.

191

lA-5 4.12-13 6.2 1.5

5.9 5.13 5. 14

197 197 197

197

53n

197

9 .1-J 10 . 1

5. 16 5. 17

191. 197

10.3-4

5. 18

192 191. 197

Talmud

197

38b

5. 19 6.7

12b

l.JS-9

53a

71 71 71 71 71 71 71

b. Bobo Qammo 69

b. Sanhedrin 192

£mri11

Comro .4pionem

192

191

Babtr Bo!ra

Bb 21b

67

71 71 71

Suklrah

192. 196 191. 194. 196-7

38 J4 34 34 JS J8 JS 109 109

71 71 71

196 4.9 4. 11

Be/hun judakum 2.197 2.228-31 2.234-40 2.253-7

3.5 3.9 -10 J .9 3. 10

71

10 6n

b. Yoma 187. 192 196 191

4:r~

72

Targum

lsoioh Mishuab

Amt 1.2 l.J 1.15 1.17 2.1 2.2 2.4 1.9

2.14 2.15

3.1- 10

., '·3.3

197

192. 197 197 197 197 197

192. 197 192. 197 197 197 194

192 192. 194. 196

Gilfin 8.5 9.2 9. 10

71 19 4

Otber Rabbinic Writings

Aw.ll q(Robbi ."loJhon 22 24

flagiga!l 1.7

177

2.2 11

192 192

11

Ge11eJis Rubbah Kewhbot 1.9 J. 1 11.6

8.5. 1 71

85.8

71 11

Mel:illa E~od 18.1

69 69

69

.4f~·gilla!J

14.2

179

Sepller h(t·Rmim 1

63

Judex ofRcforences Apostolic F1tther-s

1 Clement 10.3

9<

Didadw 16.6...S

16.7

35 9< 95

35.5 35.11

92

38.4 38.6 48.1 49 50

Diq;nelu.\·

7.6

SlwpllimfofNernub·,

Similitudes 191

10.4. 1

32.6 33.1 34.1-4 34.1

50.& 51.9 52.11

86 SO-l 50 52 Sl. 54

51 51 51 51 54 54 50 54

95 93

New Testament Apo('rypba and Pwu d~pigrapb a

GoJpel of T11ot/1as 43 184 Papyri. Inscription.\ :tnd

Fr11gmeots FGrHisl 2T5

11 5

2T6

11 5

Diulogu.s CltPI Tryp/Jolle 14.8. 93 14.44-5 51 17.3 51 17.2i-S 51 20.1 27.4

66 50

31.3

51 93

3" .. -~ 362 39~

OG/S 458

63

P. O.t:-'· 1021 2

63 63

48.2

Greek and l:ttin Writings Augustine

De ci~itate Dei

50.3-5 ., ,_ 53 53.5 53.29-30 64.1 662 69~

69.6 78 78.1

19.14

Cassius Dio Roman HisWf)' 6 1.2. 1 110

58

105.5

107.9 108.9 110. 10..11 114.2 115. 1

120.24 IH.S 115. 1 115.4 126. 1 135.2

140.2

54 51 51 51 51.54

54 54 54 50 54 51 54 54 51 50.52

54 50 51 50.52

50

lamblichus 11•e Pyrhagoreon L!fe .l-5 24 7- 10 24 lrcnaeus

Adw:rsus 1/uereses 4.33.11

93

Origc-n De orolione

51 93 51

13.2

50 54 50. 53 so. 51

GrmrciOf! descripti<m

Vl.ll.2·3

24

PhiJosumus Villi Apoll<mii

52

1.2 1.45-9'n 1.5

50 54 50 50

66

P:lus.1nius

53 53

802

31.7-8

103.8 10<.1-2

78.7 78.& 78.11 80.4 8<

Apologia/

99.3 99.5 101.3

53

De 11rucydick 5.1 115 Mart)'r

51 54

99.1-2 99.1

78.4 78.7-8

Dionysius of Hnltcarnwus

J ~in

54 50 50 50 54

227

24 110

Plinr

Nalllralis hisroriu 26.9

84.1

51

97.1 97.3

54 51. 54

Alexomkr

98.6-7

51

1.1

109

Plutnrch

62

Blblica/ lnterpretatio11 in Early Cltristian Gospels

228 Jlkr..J.T (CON.)

l.l-0

24

1.1·9

l4

TacitliS A....lo-s !.21 2.32

109 109

SCJK'CI

AJl(JI()()'IIM.JI.f 109 3

1/iJton·or 5.13

Suc1ooiu~

Virgil

Dinu Alt,~ll.fflrl

Ae~w

')4

106

1.118·9

1<.2

109

lS

J'apmionul 4

bbmk \\ rtdq.~

110

109

:a

11.1~0

:6

18.13

24, 110

r-

3.65-8 3.81 5.44 11.100

16 26

20

zo

42. 13

lo 20

61.6

26. 28

20.99

ibo ls~q

SiYa 9-10

{/>v""" 1.1211

28

101

7.101 :!.136

lo lo

H 9--50

11-11

27 !7 27 27

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Abmmowsl:i. L 55 Adnn. J. I 53. 160 Albl..\1. C. 57 Alkicr. S. 166 Allen. C. D. 45. 46,48- 9.53.55 Allison. C. D. 22. 33-4.40.42. 47. 50.623. 66-7. 82. 8:&. 92. 94. 96, 108. 12 1. 123. 14&. 152. 156. 158. 183. 186. 1% Antes. P. 15. 17 Apodnca, M.A. 2. 12 Argyle. A. W. 172 Amal. W. E. 21 Arp. T. R. 87 Aunc:. o. E. 21. 46. ~s. 101. 185

Baile)'. D. P. 148. 150- 2. 154 Baird. R. 103 Bakhlin. M. M. 116 Barnard. L W. 49 Bare-la)·. J. M.G. 31 Barr. J. 7. 8. 147 Banh. G. 157.1 73 Banhcs. R. 19-21. 167 Bauckham. R. 69 Bauer. D. R. 118 Baumstark. A. JO Be11l. T. K. 181 Bcnrc. F. \V. 185 Bcasfey-Murrny. G. R. 97 Benton. R. 47- 8. 132 Bcllinzoni. A. J. 46. 49. >6 Bcn-Porat. Z. 87 Berger. K. 185

Bc-riin. A. 189 Bcnr.md.J .•).t. 11 6 Bel%. H. 0 . 193 Bcb:. 0 . 8.9. 148 Bingham. D. J. I Black. M. C. SS. 90

Blumenberg. H. 18

Boda. M. J. 88. 90--1 Boring. M. E. 185 Braun. W. 17. 11 Hr«ch. E. J. 196 Brodie. T. L. 82 Brooks.O. 41 Brown. R. E. 42.46- 7.50. 55.69- 70,100, 107. 109- 11 Brown. S. 94. 97 Bruce. F. F. 88 Uryan. C. 63 Buck. P. L 45 Buhmann. R. 184 Burchard. C. 182 Burnett. F. W. 92. 96. Ill Burney. C. F. 18.3 BurTidgc. R. 21, 101

Cadbmy. fl. J. 148 Campbdi.J. 19. 103 Carson. D. A. 87 Curter. W. 3. 24 • .30-1. 35-41. 6 1. 93-4. lOS. 128.158. 173. 17~7

Chaniotis. A. I I 5 Charlesworth. J. H. 32 Chesnutt. R. D. 172 Chihon. B. D. 71. 88. 153 Clark. K. W. 37 Clur~c. I . J. 103 Ck maus. R. E. 150 Cohen. S. I . D. 193-4 Collins. R. F. 31.33 Conzclnt.1nn. H. 173-4 Cook, S. L. 103. 144 Cop~·-. 0. L. 175 Co:>gro\'C. C. H. 55 Cou:>lond. J. R. C. 3. 12.45. 57. 59 Co~. P. 22. 101-2 Cro:>san. J. D. 14. 152. 165. 170 Csapo. E. IS, 20-1. liS

Bib/ical/nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

230

Culkr. J. 164- 5. 177 Cunis. J. B. 86

Fuller. R. .33. 67. 113 Furnish. V. 31

D.'lnielou. 1. 46. 5&

Gcctb:. A. W. 1.5

D<~now.

D. K. 165

Davies. W. D. 22- 3. 33-4. 40. 42. 4 7. 50 .

62- 3. 66-7.80.87.92. 94. 96. lOS. 12 1. 123. 148. 156.158.183. 186. 193. 196 De: Jongc. M. J. 172 Dc:issmann. G. A. 156 Dclcor. M. 91 Denau.x. A. 56. 183 Denham. R. D. I OS. 112 Deutsch. C. M. 195-6. 202 Dillc.ry. J. I 15-6 Dodd. C. H. 7. SS. 90. 147 Dolltlldson. T. L 59. 86 Dudley. G. 47. 103 Dugui d. I. M . 88 Duhm. B. 149

Dungnn. D. L 90 Eagkton. T. 20-1

Eco. U. 166-7 Edwards. M. J. 48. 57 Eliack. M. 19 . 102- J . 106-7. 11 4 Ellwood. R. S. 17- IS. 21 . 10 3

Ethmnn. B. D. 8.5 Evans. C. A. 3-4,6 1. 63. 65. 61. 69. 71. 878 . 133 Evans. C. F. 8:8.

Fnicrstc:in. (I.-f. M. 82 Fa.nncr. W. R. 148- 50 Farrer. A. 77. 80 Finkelstein. L 191-2. 194 Fishbanc. M. liS. 197

Fil7.myc:r. J. A 82 Foley. J. 3. ~4. 30. .J.O Fornara. C. w. 102.114-15 Foster. P. S&. 11. 88-90. 93-t 96. 133

Fowler. R. 73-4. 79 Fox. R. L 107 France. R. T. 20. 87. 95. 99. 101

FrankemOik, H. 87. 173 Fl)"':". N. 6. 98-9. 103- S. 10&. 110--12. 116. 118

Gehrke. H.- J. 115 Gcncltc.. G. 164. 168

Gcrhardsson. B. 33-4.36 Gill. G. R. 103-4 Good. D. J. lOS Goodocrc~ M. -1-S. 13--5. 1'7. 19. 81. 83 Goodenough. E. R. 54. 51 Goodman. M. 61 GodtOOi. R. 16-17 Gould. E. IOJ Gouldcr. ~i. D. 80. 8! . 183 Gntnl. R. M. 88. 10 2. 114. 125 GI'C"gory. A. F. 4 5. 55 Gross. R. M . 16 Guilloume. G. 26-1 Gulick. W. B. 10 3

Gundry. R. H. 30. 40. 75. 18. S I. 93. 95. 10 1. 147-8. 155- 7. 160

l·lngncr. D. 31. 33. 48. 58-61. 69. 173. 175 1-lnhlcn. M.A. 86. 92. 95- 7 Hnm. C.A. 5. 86.88- 90 .9'2, 95- 7. 133-4 1-lanson. K. C. 34 l·lm·e. 0 . R. A. 113 HnrTinglon. D. J. 32. 34. lSI Hotino. T. R. 13. IS. 88. 98-9. 10 1. 103. 10 5. 107. 109. Ill. 113. 115. 11 7

1-laucrwa.s. S. 88 Hays. R. B. 89 1-lcgennann. H. 155 l·ldd. H. J. I 57. 173 H engel. ~~ - 48-9. 56-7, 150-2. 154. 178 Hcns- Pial7!1. G. 171 l·lcrbst A. 64 1-ligbie. C. 115 Hill. D. 157 Hille1U111r. H. 167 l·linds..S. 115 Hollander. H. W. 172 Holmes. M. W. 94 !-looker. M. n. 8. 1 ~8-9, 1 5~. 157. 159

1-lorsley. R. A. 34. 178 Howard. G. 64 Howell. D. B. 174

Index ojAulhors

23 1

Hultgren. A. H ~l ummeL R. Ii4. 194

McKnight S. 6 1

Jcrcmias. J. 98.148. 154. 183 Johnson. M.D. 69--70, 196- 7 Joynes. C. E. 74- 5 Jud . D. 58.. 14 8-9. 154. 159. 162 J \Ulg. C. G. 19. I OJ

Marcus.. J. 80. 81. 89. 175 Manin. F. 48. 56-7. 93. ISO. 151. 161. 193 ~fartincz. F. G. 151

Kiiscmann. E. 115. 178. 18.5-6. 197 K11tt- P. 49 K11utsky. J. 37 Ktrmode. F. II 0 Km ignn. W. 103 Kilp.1trid:. G. D. 110 Kim. S. 88. 117 Kingsbuty. J. D. 125. 12 8.. 16 3-4. 173-4 Kitk.G. S. 103. 1 16-17 Kl
Lilhnnnnn. D. 186 Luz, U. 1- 2. 22- 3. 45. 47. 58-9. lOS. Ill. 12 1. 127. 158-9. 164 . 166-8.. 175 Lyotard.J.-F. 171

McCutcheon. R. T. 17. 19-2 1 Moc:h. M. 57 Mack. B. 11. 21

Maik r.N. 6. 11 9--21.129. 132 ~fan:ovich. M. 45. 48. 53. 56

Massaux. E. 4 5-6. 4 9- 52. 60

Masscbi.cau. E. 47.53 Matera. F. J. 59 ~1athcus. F. 149 Meicr.J. P. 174.193 Mcnken.M. J. J. 57- lt 52. 54 . 9 3. 156-7 Merenlahti. P. Il l Melling«. T. N. D. 149 Metzger. B. M. 85 Me)>crs.C. L 91. 96 ~ie)·crs.. E. M. 91. 96

Mikr. J. 48 Miller.~~- P. 17 Miller. R. I. 25 ~1ohrlang. R. 175-6 Momigliaoo. A. 22. 102 Montgomery. J. A. 151 ~ioo. D. J. 89 Mosko. S. 19 Moylse. S. 8.& Myers. C. L 135. 144 Ntusner. J. 195

Newman. B. M. 180 Nickdsburs. G. \V. E. 32. 196 Niehoff. M. 172 Nolla1Ki. J. 7. 47- 8. 67.70. 127. U5- 6. 139-41. 143. 145 Nov<~ko\'ic. L. 7. 8. 147- 8. 160 Ot~kllllln. D. 34 Obcrweis:. M. 30 Ocpkc, A. 196 O' leary. A.M. 58

Orton. D. E. 19 3. 19 5-6 Overman. J .A. 61.186. 193- 4 Parsons. t>.,l. C. 149 Pcircc. C. S. 166 Perrine. L 87

Pcterscn. D. L. 92 P~crscn. N. R. 163 Philoocnko. M. 172

232

Bib/ical /nterprelalion in Early Christian Gospels

Poncr.S. E. 87-S. 90-1. 124

Potter. D. S. 101. 125. 133 Powdl. .\i.A 41.111, 128 PrcgcanL R. 196 Pritt.R. M. 172 Pritt. S. 57

Prigcnl. J>. 51 Puoch. E. I 52 Rahncr. H. 107 Ri is:irn:n. H. 17 Rajak. T. 57-s Roese-.. J. M. 130 Rengstorf. K. H. 93 Rennie. S. I 03 Reps:chinsl:i. B. 34 Revcntlow. H. G. 150, 154 Riches. J. 173 Robinson. H. w. 150 Robinson. J. A. T. 15

Stnnton. G. !1- 3. 46-7. 52. 55-6. II J Stc:ndahL K. 1.30. 52. 98. 110. 155. 157. 195 Stevenson. W. T. 106 Stn'Ckcr. G. 4S. 112- 3. 155. 173-4. 193 Stuhlmachcr. P. 55. 148- 9. 151, 158 Sugg:;. M. J. 195-6 Swanson, D. N. 185 Syr«ni. K. 127

Robinson. J. M. 193

Talbcn. C. H. 10 1 Tannc:t.ill. R..C. 1&3 Taylor. C. 192 Taylor. J. E. 82 Taylor. V. 183 Thies!iJCn. G. 17 ihischon. A. C. 171 Tigchdnsr. E~ l C. 151 Tottoli. R. 26 Trilling, W. 173 Tuckelt. C. M. 45. 55. 82. 87. 93. 133

Rothfuch.s. W. 30. 47. 51.1 55. 157 Rubin. U. 26-8

Uspcnski. B. 165

Ryl
Saldarini. A. J. 34.39.61.191-4.196 Sand. A. 176

Sanders. E. P. 78-80

Sand-ers. J. :\. 87 Schab~~rg.

J. 23. 69- 70 Sc-hlatter. A. IS6 Sc.hn.-'lckcnburg. R. 59

Sc.hiisslcr Fiorenzn. E~ 15. 48

Von Aorde. A. G. S, 13. 128. 131. 163. 169. 175 Vnn Dokkum. A. 18 Van Sc:gbrottk. F. 46 Van Tilborg. S. 34 Vanhoozer. K. SS Vcrhcydc:n.l 56 Visotd:y. B. L 13 Yorster. W. S. 91. 131

Sc.hwnrlz. B. 107

Sc-hweizer. E. 158 Soon. B. B. 196 Scott. 1. 39

Segal. R. A. 14. 17- 19 Senior. D. 22- 3.30.34 Shotwell. W. A. 46. 52. 55 Sim. D. C. 61. 173- 5 Skarsaunc. 0 . 46.48-51.55.57 Sklar. H. W. 172 Smith. J. Z. 16-1 7.25 Soa.rc:; Prabhu. G. M. 13. 30. 4 i. 52. Ill . 111. 155 Sommer. B. D. 87 Stnndaning
Wainwright. F_ 180 Wolk~'T. R. 173-4 Wnllncc:, D. B. 8.5 \Vonsbrough.. J. 28. 74 Weber, K. 95 \Vcrcn. W. J. C. 176 Whc:dc:r. ll 26 \Vilhoit. J. 86 \Vilson. S. G. 55 Wink. W. 39. 43 \Vi!hcrington Ill. B. 152. 154. 196 Zerbe. G. M. 17