Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T05:05:23.056Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Formula-Quotations of Matthew 2 and the Problem of Communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

R. T. France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper takes its cue from L. Hartman's study of ‘Scriptural Exegesis in the Gospel of Matthew and the Problem of Communication’,1 and more specifically from two comments on that paper made by Professor M. D. Hooker.2 The first was to the effect that the title of Hartman's study involved a promise which was not fulfilled, in that he did not in fact deal significantly with ‘communication’, in the sense of discussing what the ordinary reader might have been expected to get out of Matthew's scriptural quotations and allusions. The second was the related question whether the ordinary Jew of New Testament times, as opposed to the professional theologians or the exegetes of Qumran, could be expected to have as full an acquaintance with the Old Testament as Hartman assumed. This last point reminded me of a principle set out in a recent article by Humphrey Palmer, which neatly articulated a persistent doubt which I have felt when reading suggestions of sophisticated midrashic developments in the Gospels: ‘The complexity of allusion intelligible to a modern scholar with lots of books and little else to do is much greater than that accessible to any member of Jesus' audience.’3 A civilization based on the printed book may be in danger of forgetting that a scroll of even one Old Testament book was in the first century an inconvenient and expensive luxury, and so of assuming an ease of reference which is more appropriate to the age of the ‘pocket Bible’ than to primitive Christianity.

Type
Short Studies
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , January 1981 , pp. 233 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In Didier, M. (ed.), Ľ Evangile selon Matthieu: rédaction et théologie (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium XXIX. Gembloux: Duculot, 1972), pp. 131–52.Google Scholar

2 At a meeting of her New Testament Seminar in Cambridge, October 1977. The present article represents a paper read to the same seminar in the following month.

3 Nov.T. XVIII (1976), 257.Google Scholar

4 For a further (or alternative) suggested use of the traditions about Jacob and Laban see Daube, D., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: Athlone Press, 1956), pp. 189–92Google Scholar; idem, N. T. S. v (1958/1959), 184–6. I have discussed these and other suggested models for the Matthean account in my paper ‘Herod and the Children of Bethlehem’, Nov. T. xxi (1979), pp. 1–23.Google Scholar

5 Stendahl, K., ‘Quis et Unde?: an analysis of Mt. 1–2’ in Eltester, W. (ed.), Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: Festschrift für J. Jeremias (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960), pp. 94–105.Google Scholar

6 I have discussed elsewhere the question of external attestation for one particular incident, Herod's killing of the children. See section II of my article, referred to in note 4, pp. 17–22.

7 The Formula-Quotations in the Infancy Narrative of Matthew: an enquiry into the tradition history of Mt. 1–2 (Analecta Biblica 63. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976), pp. 15 f.Google Scholar

8 Cf. Stendahl, K., The School of St. Matthew and its use of the Old Testament (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis XX. Uppsala, 1954), pp. 196 f.Google Scholar

9 This is not of course to deny the pre-existing unity of the traditional material used by the evangelist, as argued, for example, by Vögtle, A., ‘Die matthäische Kindheigeschiclte’ in L'Evangile scion Matthieu(see note i), pp. 156 ff.Google Scholar, and by Brown, R. E., The Birth of the Messiah. A cornmentasy on the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1977), pp. 96–119.Google Scholar Cf. Nellessen, E., Das Kind und seine Mutter. Struktur und Verkündigung des 2 Kapitels im Matthäusevangeiiurm (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 39. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969), pp. 77–80.Google Scholar

10 See Brown, op. cit. (note 9), pp. 190–6.

11 For this point see further Stendahl, K., ‘Quis et Unde?’ (note 5), pp. 97–9.Google Scholar

12 Art. cit. (note 1), pp. 138 f.

13 Ibid. p. 139.

14 Ibid. p. 140.

15 Ibid. p. 141.

16 Ibid. p. 141.

17 So Stendahi, , The School of St. Matthew, pp. 263 f.Google Scholar

18 For defence of the hypothesis of a variant text see Gundry, R. H., The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel (Supplements to Novum Testamentum xviii. Leiden: Brill, 1967), p. 92 n. 3Google Scholar; G. M. Soares Prabhu, op. cit. (note 7), pp. 263 f.

19 Cf. Brown, op. cit. (note 9), p. 185. The addition of a qualifying ℶ in the Targum goes part of the way in the same direction.

20 An earlier correlation of Micah 5. 1 with the Davidic dynastic oracles is suggested by the use of in II Chron. 7.18 (replacing in I Kings 9. 5). See the discussion by H. C. M. Williamson in an article to be published in Tyndale Bulletin 28.

21 Art. cit. (note 1), p. 138.

22 See, for this addition, Pesch, R., ‘Der Gottessohn im matthäischen Evangelienprolog(Mt. 2–2)’, Biblica 48 (1967), 397 ff.Google Scholar

23 This observation does not, however, necessitate the rendering of έξ AΙγúπτου by ‘since Egypt’ and the consequent belittling of an Exodus reference both in Hos. 11. 1 and in Matthew's use of it, pace Gundry, op. cit. (note 18), pp. 93 f. It is rather that the έξ is simply not important for the primary use of the quotation.

24 Without this agreed terminology the relevance of the quotation to Jesus would be quite obscure. Thus the divine sonship of Jesus, which Pesch (art. cit., esp. pp. 421–24) presents as the main point of the quotation, is rather its presupposition.

25 Thus Davies, W. D. assumes it as self-evident that here ‘Matthew sees in the history of Jesus a recapitulation of that of Israel’ (The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge University Press, 1963), p. 78).Google Scholar

26 See e.g. Dupont, J., N.T.S. 3 (1956/1957), 287–304Google Scholar; Thompson, G. H. P., J.T.S. 11 (1960), 1–12Google Scholar; Robinson, J. A. T., Twelve New Testament Studies (London: SCM Press, 1962), pp. 53–60Google Scholar; Gerhardsson, B., The Testing of God's Son (Lund: Gleerup, 1966).Google Scholar

27 Josephus, , Ant. 2. 205 ff.Google Scholar (cf. Ex. Rab. I. 18); Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Exod. 1. 15. The parallels are conveniently set out by Bourke, M. M. in C.B.Q. 22 (1960), 161–6.Google Scholar

28 See Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, pp. 78–82Google Scholar; G. M. Soares Prabhu, op. cit. (note 7), pp. 288–92.

29 Cf. Strecker, C., Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthäus (FRLANT 82. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht, 1971), p. 58Google Scholar, who sees the ‘biographische Aspekt’ (by which he means the geographical movements) as ‘das wesentliche Motiv der redaktionellen Emfugung, wenn sich auch die Christusprädikation (υΙòυ∼ θεου∼) selbstverständlich der theologischen Konzcption des Verfassers einpasst’.

30 Gen. 35. 16–20, 48. 7 locates it ‘some distance from Ephrath’ (identified with Bethlehem in 35. 19) on the way from Bethel, and I Sam. so. 2 specifics that it was in the territory of Benjamin; the resultant site must be somewhere near Ramah, though Jer. 31. 15 is the only evidence for this specific location.

31 See Jeremias, J., Heiligengräber in Jesu Umwelt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht, 1958), pp. 75 f.Google Scholar

32 Gen. Rob. 82. 10.Google Scholar

33 This vocalization is adopted also by Aquila, the Targum (though with a mention of Ramah later in the verse) and the Peshitta, and is accepted as original by Simons, J., The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament (Leiden: BriII, 1959), p. 446.Google Scholar

34 So for example Bourke, M. M., C.B.Q. 22 (1960), 171 f.Google Scholar; Gundry, op. cit. (note 18), p. 210; Brown, op. cit. (note 9), pp. 216 f. Note that in Lam. R. Proem 24 (end) Rachel's protestations have become the cause of the return from exile.

35 Art. cit. (note 1), p. 141; they are set out on pages 138–41.

36 Cf. also the exegetical tour de force by which Vögtle (art. cit. (note 9), pp. 173 f.), following Rothfuchs, W., Die Erfullungszitate des Mauhäus-Evangeliums (BWANT 88. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969), pp. 64 f.Google Scholar, identifies Herod's action as representing Israel as a whole (on the strength of 2. 3 b) and the massacre therefore as Israel's rejection of the Messiah, resulting in their loss of their status as the people of God, for which ‘loss’ Rachel is weeping! For further discussion of this exegesis see section 1 (c) of my article referred to in note 4, pp. 14–16.

37 Schweizer, E., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (NTD 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht, 1973), p. 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar, thinks that Matthew too believed this!

38 Op. cit. (note 36), pp. 66 f. This is apparently also the view of G. Strecker, op. cit. (note 29), pp. 62 f., though he does not make it so explicit; see note 40 below.

39 Cf. Ezra 9. ii ‘by thy servants the prophets’, introducing a ‘quotation’ made up of various scriptural elements. Cf. also 26. 56, where again no direct quotation is given.

40 Cf. Strecker, op. cit. (note 29), pp. 61 f., though Strecker declines to identify the source of this theme in the Old Testament, preferring to speak enigmatically of Matthew ‘filling the gap himself’ by the use of the term NαЗωραΙος.

41 So the commentaries of T. Zahn, pp. 112–17 (cf. his Einleitung in das NT, 11, 294Google Scholar); M.-J. Lagrange, p. 39; R. V. G. Tasker, p.45; P. Bonnard, p. 30. Cf. Leuba, J.-L., New Testament Pattern (London: Lutterworth Press, 1953), pp. 36–9.Google Scholar For some earlier supporters see Lyonnet, S., Biblica 15 (1944), 196 n. 3Google Scholar; he refers to them as 'Ia majorité semble-t-il aujourd‘hui’. (This interpretation does not depend on Zahn's questionable translation of ⊙ΤΙ as causal.)

42 See the discussion in G. M. Soares Prabhu, op. cit. (note 7), pp. 193–201.

43 See, for example, John 1. 46 (and cf. Gundry, op. cit. (note 18), p. 103). That this derogatory Connotation was quickly lost in Christian writings is natural: cf. the history of ‘Methodist’, or indeed, probably, of ‘Christian’.

44 Gundry, op. cit. (note 18), pp. 103 f., who argues for an allusion to Isa. 11. 1, points out that the ‘Branch’ passages were interpreted in Qumran, the Targums and Rabbinic literature ‘as meaning the Messiah will come out of obscurity and a low estate’, and believes that Matthew therefore saw the fulfilment of Isa. 11. 1 in the contemptuous use of NαЗωραĨος for Jesus.

45 So, for example, Billerbeck, P., Kommentar, 1, 92 ff.Google Scholar; Stendahl, K., The School of St. Matthew, pp. 103 f., 198 f.Google Scholar; Gundry, op. cit. (note 18), pp. 103 f.

46 Zuckschwerdt, E., ‘Nazōraïos in Matth. 2, 23’, T.Z. 31 (1975), 71Google Scholar, argues rightly that καλεīσθαΙ can approximate in meaning to εĪναι (see Arndt Gingrich, p. 400 a, § δ), but can only explain Matthew's use of κληθήσεταΙ rather than the more obvious LXX εσταΙ by the suggestion that in so doing ‘schloss er zugleich das von ihm ebenfalls beabsichtigte Moment der Namensgebung mit ein’ – a ‘Moment’ which he in fact recorded at 1. 21–5, and to which there has been no reference throughout chapter 2, not to mention that NαЗωραĨος bears no relation to the names in 1. 21–5.

47 Apart from the fifteenth-century MS 59! Zuckschwerdt, art. cit. (note 46), pp. 71–6 explains the form as a hybrid of the consonants with the vowels of a presumed Qere .

48 So, for example, Schaeder, H. H., TDNT 4, 878 f.Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche (see note 5), pp. 90–3Google Scholar; Sanders, J. A., J.B.L. 84 (1965), 169–72Google Scholar; Goulder, M. D., Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974), pp. 240 f.Google Scholar; Soares Prabhu, op. cit. (note 7), pp. 205–7; Zuckschwerdt, art. cit. (note 46). Brown, op. cit. (note 9), pp. 218 f. (and for details pp. 209–13) wants to allow both the and Nazirite derivations as intended by Matthew, but sees the primary ‘quotation’ as a combination of Isa. 4. 3 and Judg. 16. 17, connected by the Nazirite theme.

49 It may be questioned, however, whether there would b e many such readers. How many who had the education to read Matthew would be so lacking in scriptural knowledge? Palmer's very just caution against assuming too much exegetical sophistication in Jesus’ hearers (see page 233 above) is not likely to be so applicable to Matthew's readers.

50 Moule, C. F. D., The Origin of Christology (Cambridge, University Press, 1977), p. 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 Ibid. p. 129.

52 Cf. Moule's argument, ibid, chapter 5 (‘The Fulfilment Theme in the New Testament’), where he goes behind what he terms the ‘vehicular’ use of Scripture in the New Testament (‘the arbitrary use of words as a vehicle, simply, for something that is derived from elsewhere’) to a ‘relational’ understanding of the significance of Jesus as 'the Fulfiller in a supreme sense’.