Dead Sea Scrolls
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 53, No. 1 – Fall 2010
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
Edited by Thomas R. Hatina. Library of New Testament Studies. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. 256 pages. Hardcover, $130.00.
This collection of essays addresses Matthew’s extensive use of the Old Testament and the difficulties associated with it. The twelve contributors integrate narrative, social-scientific, and historical methods in their attempt to clarify how Matthew employs Scripture texts and comprehends them in light of Jesus and non-scriptural traditions.
M. Anthony Apodaca opens with a theoretical discussion on the use of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew. He argues that the early Christian “community” used Isaiah 7:14 as a mythmaking agent, embedding the text into a new narrative to legitimize Jesus’ origin and dual identity simultaneously with their identity in him (14–15, 24).
Warren Carter examines Jesus’ Old Testament citations in Matthew 22:34–40 in view of the socio-political climate of the imperial world in Jerusalem and the “metonymic intertextuality” that was present in oral cultures (30–31). Carter reasons that Jesus proclaims God’s “societal vision” from Deuteronomy 5–6 and Leviticus 19, which demands adherence to aggressive neighbor-love in opposition to the practice of Jerusalem’s elite (41, 43).
J.R.C. Cousland utilizes Justin Martyr’s scriptural citations as effective history to clarify Matthew’s aim in his fulfillment quotations (45). Cousland finds that Justin’s apologetic goals lead him to interpret the Old Testament with Jesus as his starting point whereas Matthew’s starting point is not Jesus, but the Old Testament (59). For Cousland, Matthew’s fulfillment quotations portray an inductive presentation of Jesus (60).
Craig Evans’ chapter explores the contribution Matthew’s “incipit” makes in identifying the purpose of his Gospel. By following his incipit with a genealogy likened to several scriptural antecedents in Genesis, Matthew presents the story of Jesus as a new “beginning” in God’s history of redemption (67).
Mark Goodacre responds to the guild’s negative outlook on Matthew’s reading of Mark. Goodacre classifies Matthew as a “successful reader” of Mark, who underscores the points Mark’s Gospel develops (74). This he illustrates using Matthew’s redactive clarification of Mark’s Elijah theme (77).
Clay Alan Ham examines the relationship of Matthew’s Olivet Discourse to Zechariah on two fronts. Allusion focuses on how antecedent texts relate to authorial intent (87). Intertextuality focuses on how later texts provoke the informed reader of the Old Testament regardless of authorial intent (88). For Ham, both connections enable Matthew’s readers to recognize the parallel of Jesus’ Parousia with the coming of Yahweh (97).
Hatina’s contribution echoes Apodaca’s. However, Hatina outlines the actual process of mythmaking, which involves moving from the historical event to the event’s mythologization to the historical legitimization of the myth (110–11). The embedded texts of Matthew 2 reflect this latter transition for Hatina. The Matthean community, then, applies Old Testament texts to Jesus’ infancy narrative in order to historicize a “hero myth” for their own social legitimization (112).
Michael P. Knowles demonstrates that God’s voice, though seemingly silent in Matthew’s Gospel, resounds via Scripture and the mouth of Jesus. Matthew’s character and plot development clarifies this as all competing voices—like those of angels, scribes, or Moses—pale in comparison to the “divine voice” behind Scripture (122).
John Nolland explores the role Deutero-Zechariah plays in Matthew’s development of Jesus as God’s appointed shepherd-king (133). Using thematic similarities with, textual allusions to, and direct quotations from Deutero-Zechariah, Matthew argues that Jesus fulfills the Davidic-shepherding role and plays “counterpart” to the disastrous shepherds mentioned by the Prophet (134, 138, 145).
Lidija Novakovic challenges C.H. Dodd’s thesis that the apostles remained faithful to the contexts of their Old Testament citations (147). By way of example, she argues that, unlike early Judaism, Matthew strips Isaiah 53:4 from its context of the Suffering Servant and applies it to Jesus’ healing ministry atomistically (148). Matthew only cares to use a text relevant to Jesus’ healing miracles, not his redemptive suffering (159).
Andries G. van Aarde investigates the texts that may inform Matthew’s use of σῴζω in presenting Jesus as the Healer-Messiah (163). With Mark as his base text, Q as his intertext, and the Joshua story as his background text, Matthew’s use of σῴζω reveals his orientation toward Jesus as the Davidic Messiah gifted with Joshua-like leadership to save Israel from their sins and establish God’s kingdom (173, 177, and 179).
Lawrence M. Wills closes with a comparative study of Matthew’s usage of religious traditions and that of Pirkei Abot. Wills finds that where Matthew appropriates statements of contrast from Mark and Q, he chooses also to reformulate them into a “precise antithetic parallelism” (183). Positive statements accompany negative ones repeated word for word to distinguish those included in the righteous community and those excluded (195).
Two of this volume’s contributions also become reasons for concern. First, several essays stress the hermeneutical significance of viewing the Gospel as a complete narrative. With a whole-narrative approach, seeming contradictions or redundancies become intentional devices the author uses to communicate his purpose, not warrant to divide his text according to reconstructed Sitzen im Leben. Nolland’s essay exemplifies this well by tracing Matthew’s narrative development of Jesus as the shepherd-king that so-called Deutero-Zechariah foresees.
However, some of the contributors’ narrative emphases minimize the historicity of the Gospel’s message and the controlling influences of its broader canonical context. Apodaca’s notion, that the meaning of Jesus’ virgin birth replaces concern for its historicity, ignores the historical question and is unfaithful to the nature of the object of his study (24). Matthew expects his readers to trust he is referring to real events, the real God-man, and the effects of his real work. Furthermore, both Apodaca and Novakovic argue that the meaning of Matthew’s embedded texts depends solely on their place in the new narrative context (24, 158). If meaning lies solely in the new context without regard for the old, new and even contradictory meanings could evolve and eventually question the coherence of the canon’s testimony. Novakovic approaches this claim by arguing Matthew separates the Suffering Servant’s healing ministry from his redemptive suffering, when this is not the case at all (e.g., Matt 20:28 [Isa 53:10–12]; 26:28 [Isa 53:12]; 27:12 [Isa 53:7]).
Second, there is constant awareness among the contributors that the New Testament writers shared a common knowledge of particular texts with their readers. Furthermore, they recognize the need to refine how to speak rightly of the author, his readers, and their respective texts and pre-texts. They find these intertextual relationships also serve to emphasize the noticeable continuity between the Testaments. Carter’s essay exemplifies these qualities, though on social-scientific grounds.
Nevertheless, aspects of Van Aarde’s and Ham’s intertextuality should raise concern for Christian interpretation at three levels. Ham’s intertextuality minimizes authorial intent and allows for possible abandonment of determinate meaning. Van Aarde includes the author in his approach, but reconstructs the author’s intent by distinguishing it from the “voices” of other text sources he used (167). The reconstruction closely resembles those of source criticism. For van Aarde, intertextuality is open-ended since every text is an inter-text (181). Identification of textual interdependence, then, is unlimited and does not truly consider the author’s intent.
Other places worthy of more brief criticism could be mentioned, such as Apodaca’s claim that any interpretation with distinctly Christian presuppositions restrains current New Testament scholarship from soaring to new heights of theoretical dialogue (16). He is correct in that Christian interpretation functions within its orthodox framework. He is wrong, however, in that belief in the exclusivity of Christ hinders understanding the Old Testament in the New Testament. The New Testament itself says just the opposite (e.g., John 5:39; 2 Cor 3:14–16).
Despite these shortcomings, this volume will still prove useful to scholars, teachers, and post-graduate students as they contemplate Matthew’s use and understanding of the Old Testament. Its diverse scope will grant them a measure of exposure to an array of literary, historical, and sociological implications involved when Scripture interprets Scripture. Its openness to methodological integration will surely stimulate further reflection on the role of hermeneutics, linguistics, and theology in New Testament studies; however, let us hope it does not lead to any further fragmentation.
