Gospel of Matthew

SBL reviews

2006-08-13T23:14:00.000-05:00

Some new reviews have been posted at SBL though I've note received an email update. There are several in the NT category but there are two substantive reviews of Dale C. Allison's Resurrecting Jesus that might be worth a look.

And congrats to Eddie and Sean on joining forces. Great move.

Francis Watson online

2006-08-03T09:05:00.000-05:00

Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, outline/intro/conclusion available at Prof. Watson's home page: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/divinity/staff/francis-watson.shtml. Watson is not well-known in the states, in my experience at least. But his work is certainly worth a look, though it has to be said that it is almost always rather dense. This particular work picks up on Richard Hays's Echoes and runs with it.

As we shall see, Paul cites individual texts not in an ad hoc manner but on the basis of a radical construal of the narrative shape of the Pentateuch as a whole, highlighting and exploiting tensions between Genesis and Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Many of the apparent contradictions within Paul’s “view of the law” in fact originate within the pentateuchal texts themselves, at least as Paul reads them. Precisely in their canonical form, these texts are not at all the homogeneous and monolithic entity they are often taken to be.

Watson is particularly interesting and cautious on method, e.g., it is "inappropriate to try to reconstruct from divergent sources a single “contemporary Jewish” reading of a particular part or aspect of scripture, which would then serve as a foil for the Pauline reading."

Great Online Articles: Caird's "Jesus and the Jewish Nation"

2006-08-02T12:34:00.000-05:00

I'm starting a list of great online articles. (Drop nominations via comments or email.)

First up is G. B. Caird's Jesus and the Jewish Nation (available in PDF). A must read for beginners, and important for others given Caird's stature as an important point of departure for a major wing of Jesus studies; the man profoundly influenced his student N. T. Wright, to name but one. Already in Caird's writings are the sorts of ideas which argue against the Jesus Seminar on the one hand and American dispensational theology on the other; he takes a different track (more "political") than Ladd and Ridderbos (who were perhaps more theologians than historians) but with similar anti-dispensationalism, anti-liberalist results. Caird is also marvelously readable, with clear arguments and startling originality.

HT: Sean at Primal Subversion, and thanks to Rob Bradshaw (again) for his work getting things like this online. Buy books at Amazon from that man's website (simply go to the relevant area of the website--NT, Gospels, Paul, etc to find links to many books), and peruse his growing collection of online articles.

A Book Meme (Annotated)

2006-07-29T15:48:00.000-05:00

Since The Bible (Protestant) would be the answer to most of these, we'll assume it's the first answer to all but 6, 7, and 12.

1) Two books that changed your life:
Malcolm X (Alex Haley), Autobiography of Malcom X. Extraordinarily well-written apology for anger. Blew up the usual romantic ideas of idyllic American ("Christian") life in the first half of the 20th century.
N. T. Wright, Christian Origins and the Question of God (a series), particularly The New Testament and the People of God and Jesus and the Victory of God. Completely changed the way I view my task as a reader of the Bible.

2) One book that you've read more than once:
Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird. Arguably the best 'story' written.

3) One book you'd want on a desert island:
J. R. R. Tolkein, The Lord of the Rings (trilogy...is that cheating?). Perhaps the smoke ring instruction could help me send signals for help...

4) One book that made you laugh:
Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz

5) One book that made you cry:
Sheldon Vanauken, A Severe Mercy

6) Books that you wish had been written:
Jesus at 30: an Autobiography
Flannery O'Connor, How to Read my Stories
Saul of Tarsus, How to Read my Letters

7) Books that you wish had never been written:
Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth
and the LeHay/Jenkins illiterary masterpiece, the Left Behind series. On the other hand, good things happen when people read crap and learn from mistakes. There's more critical thinking, more careful reading of the Bible, and less face-value acceptance of the judgments of one's authorities. And believers will never see the end of speculation, so learning how to deal with it is a healthy thing I think. Perhaps in the long run these are valuable as a cautionary tale?

8) Books that you're currently reading:
Summer means getting up to speed, reading things I should have read before embarking on a NT PhD, such as
Neill and Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986. Absolutely a brilliant book--sometimes a bit surprising at who gets included/excluded, and a little chummy, but loads of interesting facts and quotes, and a good 'narrative' flow that keeps the reader engaged. Good review and a glance at the big picture; helps one see how one's own academic work is part of a narrative.
Charlesworth and co., OT Pseudepigrapha vol. 1.
David deSilva, Introduction to the Apocrypha. Good read and a helpful/healthy approach for Protestants.

9) One book you've been meaning to read:
Anything in German. It's hard to get past articles, though.

10) Books you hope to read:
Mike Bird's published dissertation, Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission.

11) Another book you love:
Richard Bauckham, God Crucified

12) Books you loved but left unfinished:
Richard Wright, Native Son. I stopped at the end of book 1--simply too intense, like watching 8 consecutive episodes of 24. Very good psychological read of Afr-Amer mind, however, esp in relation to 'white America.'
Numerous commentaries on Matthew, including Davies-Allison and Keener.
Joel B. Green, Narrative Reading, Narrative Preaching. Great first two chapters, but then...
Green's Gospel of Luke Commentary (NICNT). My favorite, I think--on any book; yet I haven't read it cover-to-cover.
Michael J. Gorman, Cruciformity and Apostle of the Crucified Lord. Both great, both regrettably still incomplete.

13) Best book turned into a movie. Tops is To Kill a Mockingbird. Includes some of the best 'movie moments' as well as arguably some of the best child acting in cinema history. The film version of To End All Wars is quite powerful and deserves more pub in my opinion. Not a great film, but a great story.

Rob Bradshaw is Superman

2006-07-29T22:32:00.000-05:00

Loads of great new stuff listed at http://biblicalstudiesorguk.blogspot.com, including articles by Dodd, Chadwick, Caird, Muilenberg, Joyce Baldwin, and C. F. Evans; books by F F Bruce and F Kenyon. This calls for a post on the top ten NT studies articles available freely online. Anyone care to make nominations?

Conrad Gempf

2006-07-25T11:59:00.000-05:00

I'm very much on to other things of late, thus no blogging. I tried to blog and post a comment at Deinde, again to no avail. (Ouch!) Good to see Danny and co. blogging though, as many others are on a summer hiatus. How I wish Tilling and Crossley would focus more on biblical studies than current events and theology (yawn).

I wanted to post on current MidEast events but I've done enough of that with my segment on Land in NT theology. One hopes and prays that Israel's actions (while incredibly unhealthy to say the bare minimum, and yes I do think much much more could be said in that direction) will give moderates reason to challenge extremists/terrorists in their respective nations--at least with those like Hezbollah, whose actions led to escalation that the majority do not want. That is not an endorsemnt of Israel's actions, mind you.

One of the relatively unknown biblioblogs (I think) is Not Quite Art, Not Quite Living. Conrad Gempf is NT lecturer at London School of Theology and runs an interesting blog with a fair bit of diverse material. (Good link to a "Brazilian footballer name manufacturer" for instance.) Here's an excerpt, a post on Mark 6:14ff:

The Gospel reading for this coming Sunday is Mark 6:14-29. The story about how Herod was tricked into beheading John the Baptist should frighten the daylights out of anyone who thinks of themselves as good and honourable and religious.

Take verse 20. Herod (this is Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, by the way) had a great respect for God and his prophet and enjoyed listening to the word of God through John. Sure, he kept him in prison -- today we might call it protective custody: he kept him safe. That way, he could listen to the word of God at his leisure and convenience. Hearing the messages, he was perplexed: what could it mean? He pondered and never acted. Know anybody like that? Aren't you and I a bit like that?

Or take the whole party thing in vv. 21-26. Here is a generous man who gives banquets, who, when pleased, wants to reward others -- who, in other words, places quality of experience above quantity of possessions. And, moreover, a man of his word. He's offered a blank check to his wife's daughter and will not refuse to honour his word when the request is not to his liking.

Simply listening to word, holding it captive and being generous and having integrity toward your family and friends isn't going to cut it. We need to hear and obey God and rearrange our priorities around him. Herod Antipas was a good guy who tried his best to be good and religious given his circumstances. That meant his circumstances were his god. Too often today Christians think along those same lines. God in my circumstances -- kept safe in the prison of my palace to listen to when time and circumstances permit.

Matthew's MySpace?

2006-07-13T09:52:00.000-05:00

Apparently the apostle/evangelist has made it onto MySpace (thanks to GreekGeek for pointing this out. Based on the look of it, there's probably some room for a 'redactor' Matthew on MySpace as well...

NTW on the curse in Galatians 3

2006-07-05T22:33:00.000-05:00

Introduction: NTW argues that, in Galatians 3:10-14, the "curse" referred to is not the universal curse, which comes from original sin, but the more specific curse on Israel for vocational failure which led to Exile. Is he right?

I've nearly finished Paul: Fresh Perspective. It's better than What Saint Paul Really Said--as always a fun read, highly recommended. Of course, it wouldn't be a book by Wright if it didn't mention the Exile about 400 times. Brace yourself. (For a good review, see Scot McKnight's webpage: http://jesuscreed.org/index.php?s=N+T+Wright+Fresh+Perspective.)

I was raised on traditional interpretations of "the curse" in Galatians 3, interps which inevitably connected it to the curse on humanity from Genesis 3 as a result of original human sin. But Wright offers something completely different:

"The point about the 'curse' and the Messiah's bearing it on behalf of others, is not that there is a general abstract curse hanging over the entire human race." He instead limits the 'curse' to Israel, tying it in to his reading of Romans 10, Deut 30, and exile.

Is this correct? Arguments for (without referencing commentaries!):
(1) There is not a lick of proof in the context that a universal curse is in mind, i.e., from Genesis 3.
(2) The pronouns seem to point to an "us" as Jews as Paul reflects on Law and its implications/limitations, all the way to 26, when Paul begins to address Galatians with their status as sons and heirs apart from Law. If this shift in pronouns is important, then it supports NTW's reading.
(3) Thematic coherence--that is, this makes sense. If we can set aside Exile and simply speak of failure to keep the law and (consequential) curse and lack of Abraham's blessings extending through Israel to the Gentiles, then this certainly makes good sense of the context. According to NTW, Gal 3:10-14, in context, is about the more specific curse on Israel for vocational failure which led to Exile; she failed to be the light to the world, and in order for God to bring the promises of Abraham, the chosen vehicle of his servant/son Israel had to be repaired. That is, for God to fix the world, he had to fix Israel--cursed under the Law. Israel herself needed redemption, because of the inability of the Law to provide the light to the nations and deliver the promises of Abraham to the nations (all the more reason not to have one's foreskin removed!!!).

Against? Without going to the commentaries,
(1) It is possible to suggest that the "curse" language picks up the theme of Genesis 3 intertextually, apart from any overt reference. But against this, the curse is "Israel-specific" as it references Deuteronomy, Promised Land, etc....not Genesis or all humanity.

Christianities and Judaisms (late to the game i know)

2006-07-01T07:10:00.000-05:00

A post by the blogfather on whether "Christianities" and "Judaisms" were useful terms prompted widespread discussion on the web and quite a few comments on his post. It seems like posts were nearly unanimous in decrying the trend, which greatly surprised me. Anyway, if we're going to use the plural on anything perhaps N. T. Wright has it right: somewhere in Paul: In Fresh Perspective he uses the term "paganism(s)"; this is more appropriate.

Charlesworth, OT Pseudipigrapha volume 1, xxix, has some nice quotes about diversity and unity. In my mind I'd agree with him (though apply it at least as much to 1c Xianity more than to Judaism): there needs to be more discussion on what early Xianity had in common at present, as the 'diversity' angle has really exploded. It tends to mask what folks had in common, while a better model theologically (i.e., categorization) and sociologically (i.e., conflict, etc) is to chart out what, say, Matthew and Paul had in common, before getting into their differences.

I saw someone engaging with Ehrman's book (not Misquoting Jesus) recently, with some great quotes on this issue. Anyone know who/where this was?

Hebrew Parallelism: synonymous or no?

2006-06-29T20:16:00.000-05:00

Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it.

What do we have in the second part of this verse? How should we describe the parallelism here? Someone asked me recently if there was a difference between breath/spirit. Without consulting commentaries (I'm OT poor) I'm thinking this is parallelism, with no real differentiation in concepts here. That is, breath/spirit are more or less synonyms.

But studying up on the possibility of an allusion to Gen 49:9ff in Matt, I noted this in David Instone-Brewer's article, "The Two Asses of Zechariah 9:9 in Matthew 21," TynBul 54.1 (2003), 90 n.31: "Alter...argues that the second line always contributes something which is not present in the first line, so no parallelism is truly synonymous. Alter says that the second line usually adds specificity or intensification." He cites Art of Biblical Poetry, 18-22. I was taught something like this in grad school with "A, what's more, B" being the rough equation expressing this, as opposed to contrasting parallelism: "A, but B" or equivalent parallelism, "A = B".

Not sure about this one. Can we really say that "the second line always contributes something"? Anyone know for sure? Seems to me that Is 42:5c/d are more or less equivalent.

Then there's the vexing question of how NT and contemporaneous interpreters would have read such lines.

The Danger of Blogs

2006-06-24T12:13:00.000-05:00

http://www.leithart.com/archives/002118.php is well worth pondering, on the danger of blogs in light of C S Lewis's comments on the "tragic farce we call the history of the Reformation." I fear there is much to lose by blogging just as their is much to gain, which is why I'm grateful I have too many things on my plate to, say, refute Seyoon Kim's review of NTW's Paul: Fresh Perspectives. In a world where peacemaking "children of God" (Matthew 5:9) are scarce within the church and without, hostile blogging is very, very costly.

Blogfather on Blogging

2006-06-23T13:15:00.000-05:00

Reading Mark Goodacre on blogging is like listening to Julia Child talk about cooking, or (conversely) getting a seminar from the Olsen twins on weight loss.

Great thoughts by Mark, particularly on writing interaction/criticism as if the person reading your blog will read it (which has already happened to me, despite the low traffic).

I have one objection though; I'm not sure his statement, "We are drinking coffee while we blog and not beer" holds up to scrutiny. Perhaps we could have blogger and typepad install some breathalizers?

PISTIS: Lost in Translation?

2006-06-22T14:18:00.000-05:00

I'm not going to enter the 'pistis [Iesou] Xpristou', debate here, but lexical questions about pistis arise in several places in the NT, Matthew included, and it's worth discussing. In a nutshell, the question is often asked whether the noun pistis should be translated "faith" (i.e., belief, trust) or 'faithfulness' (fidelity). Simliar questions attend the adjective (pistos and pisteuw), more so the verb than the adjective, which seems to be treated as 'faithful'. For those in the 'protestant' world, this might seem a strange question, and there seems to be among many a default to the 'belief' aspect of faith, vs. the fidelity. In fact, under the influence of Lutheranish Paulinism, 'fidelity' is frequently screened out in favor of 'belief', the latter being juxtaposed with 'works'.

In his recent commentary on Matthew, John Nolland notes (along with many other commentators) the similarity between
Micah 6:8 "do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with your God"
and the injunction to do the weightier matters of the Law in
Matthew 23:23 "justice, mercy, and pistis"
Nolland says that the background in Micah 6:8 suggests a "faith" translation here, analogous to Micah's "walk humbly with your God". His major argument for taking 'faith' is that Matthew always means pistis-as-belief when using the word elsewhere.

But the remainder of the uses of pistis in Matthew all come in the context of miracles; thus 23:23 should not necessarily be lined up with Matt's other (7) uses of pistis. Additionally, in the near context those who are pistos are the faithful ones doing what the Master requires (e.g., Matthew 24). Finally, "faith as faithfulness/fidelity" fits the Micah connection much better than "faith as belief/trust", since "walking" implies a life lived in faithfulness, more than "belief." Fourth, 'faithfulness' simply fits the context better than a denuded 'faith'.

I'm increasingly wondering whether we can in most instances actually separate the faith and faithfulness aspects of pistis and related words. Some exceptions might be the 'miracle'-related uses of pistis in Matthew. But the adjective pistos is probably always 'faithful'; and the implication seems to be that this is ultimately what is expected and required of God's people in the NT. I think it may be more profitable to lean toward a sort of de facto plenary reading of pistis in such passages, i.e., unless the context really does not call for 'faithfulness', as in the healing passages of Matthew.

Perhaps in this regard it is helpful to see James 2 and Hebrews 11 as lexical lessons: it ain't about 'raw belief', it's about praxis and fidelity. What do you all think? Should we see both aspects operating most of the time?

Apologies for the title. Is it just me, or does everyone use that phrase "lost in translation" now?

A Whole New Level

2006-06-21T21:59:00.000-05:00

http://jamesthejust.oldinthenew.org/2006/03/baby-got-bible.html is about the best thing I've seen on the web in a long, long time. If you have no background in 1990s rap music, then this might be of less value, but should still do you right. Enjoy.

And thanks to all of you who blogged on the World Cup. Tomorrow is the day of reckoning. I'm going to the doctor right before the US game to have my blood pressure checked (I'm not making this up). My German Reading class starts almost the very moment our game ends (and the probably vital match between Italy and Czech Republic). Whatever shall I do...

I also figured out how to add a "title" to each post. Amazing.

2006-06-20T16:12:00.000-05:00

The Macrostructure of Matthew’s Gospel: A New Proposal
in the latest edition of Biblica, by Wim Weren.
ABSTRACT: The weakness of the proposals concerning the macrostructure of Matthew’s Gospel made by Bacon and Kingsbury is that they depart from rigid caesuras, whilst a typical characteristic of the composition of this Gospel is the relatively smooth flow of the story. On the basis of the discovery that the various topographical data are clustered together by means of three refrains we can distinguish three patterns in the travels undertaken by Jesus. This rather coarse structure is further refined with the use of Matera’s and Carter’s distinction between kernels and satellites. Kernels are better labelled as “hinge texts”. The following pericopes belong to this category: 4,12-17; 11,2-30; 16,13-28; 21,1-17; 26,1-16. Each of them marks a turning point in the plot and has a double function: a hinge text is not only fleshed out in the subsequent pericopes but also refers to the preceding block. It is especially these “hinge texts” that underline the continuity of Matthew’s narrative and should prevent us from focussing too much on alleged caesuras.

2006-06-19T16:59:00.000-05:00

Ich Liebe German: Advice on Language Training

I sometimes hear that one should take German (or French) as a course of study, rather than attempting to learn "reading" only. There seem to be two arguments for this: (1) You might as well learn to speak it. (2) Most people learn better when the "oral" accompanies the written.

Don't fall into this trap!

Today marked the beginning of the third week of Reading German at the University of Memphis (five days a week for five weeks, 1.5 hours a day plus mild homework). I highly, highly recommend such a course, particularly if you can find a teacher as good as Nele Hempel (she's transferring to UC Santa Barbara--a little too late for Brandon W, though). I've taught languages before (Spanish and English), so I've a leg up I suppose, but I really do think this is the way to go. The professor illustrated today how we are already ahead of her fourth semester German students in grammatical/syntax comprehension, paritcularly in sentence structure, phrases, and verb formation, which is by far the most difficult aspect of translating German. Granted we're all postgrads, but still, this is vastly superior to taking a huge amount of time to learn the language proper.

All we need know for reading at speed is vocabulary, and this can be added on one's own time. Translate a few times a week, add some vocab over a summer or semester or two, and wham, you can translate German for life.

We're using the expensive text German for Reading Knowledge, 5th ed., by Jannach and Kolb. I've heard April Wilson is also good, though much larger. While these are useful for individual study, I think the communitarian nature of a course, with the help of an authority make a good reading course very much worthwhile.

2006-06-15T16:11:00.000-05:00

Around the Web

http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/>Loren Rosson will be looking at some parables from the 'peasant' perspective in an upcoming series. Should be worthwhile. I queried, and he'll involve Ken Bailey. Bailey is intriguing though mercurial, as he tends to rely quite heavily on his own experience in Arabic and Syriac texts, as well as in "oral" and honor/shame cultures (some 40 years in the Middle East), to interpret the parables and other biblical material. He may be more famous for his theories on http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_tradition_bailey.html>oral transmission and reliability, I think he lightly influences NTW there; but I think his parable material may be more valuable, if eclectic. For a sample, his website offers http://www.shenango.org/kbarticle1.htm on Luke 16:19-31.

James Crossley has some football action (finally).
Crouch may be wasteful, but he's more useful than Owen. Beckham proved his value--playing three back and having Becks and Lennon on the wing (one to raid, one to cross) from the start would be ideal if you get Carrick, maybe, to play a holder's role in midfield for cover. Beckham is much maligned but England desperately need his crosses. Alternatively, they could play small, lose Crouch and Beckham and see what happens.
Whatever the case, I think someone in England should do a parody of Sven as the coach for Brazil; bringing in a large center forward (Brazil has some 6'8" basketball players), limiting the fluid poetry by insisting on long balls, stickign with Ronaldo till he hits 20 stone, ruining the beautiful game as we know it for yet another country. Then he gets caught chatting to Colombian drug lords ("Yes, Ronaldinho is ugly..."; "Yes, Ronaldo is quite fat..."; "Yes, I could come to Bogota and coach your squad...") on a Caribbean cruise.
I will pay to finance such a film...unless England win it all. Then hang it.

Fellow Memphian Chris Weimar has an interesting, broad spectrum blog going. An interesting post on Lucretius right now, and a http://neonostalgia.com/weblog/?cat=12>section on Matt's Gospel, including recent posts on historicity and genre. These aren't my primary interest, but I think Chris has some useful remarks on the front end. I'm not so sure it's easy to write off an interest in historicity in the opening chapters (certainly not a 'parable'!) based on the text (though many have tried!) or an interest in Jesus-as-Moses. Maybe more on that later.

2006-06-15T16:07:00.000-05:00

Matthew Commentaries update

Professor David L. Turner (Grand Rapids Seminary) reports via email that the manuscript of his BECNT commentary on Matthew is off to Baker (shouldn't have been a long trip!). It should be released in late 2007. He also notes Bock's Matt and Mark contribution for Cornerstone Biblical Commentary is now out. Which begs a question: how many scholars have done commentaries on all three synoptics?

Thanks to Prof. Turner for the notice.

2006-06-12T16:29:00.000-05:00

What I want:

(1) The best anagram for 'Gospel of Matthew' or related phrases.

(2) More importantly, I'm interested in tracking down some good biblio on "Matthew as a reader of Mark'. Anyone have any of this? Not just standard redaction-critical stuff, which usually focuses on isolated changes; but attention to systematic change, especially if coupled with analysis or hypothetical discussion of the ways in which Matthew wasor might have been inspired by Mark. I think there's good ground for a hypothetical discussion on how Mark could have influenced or inspired Matthew in many areas, including:
cost of discipleship; use of Zechariah; narrative alignment of JnBapt with Jesus.

Mark's interest in geography viz. Matthew has been studied but perhaps less successfully. I've also seen some good stuff on Matt as an editor (tends to shorten Mark's wordier phrases). But I'd love to see more, perhaps even Matthew as wirkungsgeschichte of Mark, "Matthew and the Earliest Reception History of Mark."

(3) Match-fixing for this Saturday's game viz. Italy...

UPDATE: Turns out the Blogfather had something similar to say in a more comprehensive fashion on Matt as reader of Mark: http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2006/06/whats-wrong-with-redaction-criticism.html. "Redaction criticism tends not to allow sufficiently for the effect that a source gospel might have had on a given evangelist. What if Mark fundamentally altered Matthew's views? Gospels are works of propaganda or persuasion and were presumably designed to persuade others, yet we tend to imagine Matthew taking up an utterly critical stance to Mark as if his (Matthew's) views were all fully formed before he came across Mark. My view is that Mark has a profound and overwhelming effect on Matthew, changing and developing his thinking on all sorts of fronts." He goes on to cite Matt's use of Mk's John-as-Elijah portrayal.

2006-06-11T21:12:00.000-05:00

Bock Blog and other news

No, it's not about beer; Darrell Bock is blogging online (as noted by Mark D. Roberts and others). Looks like he's keeping his blogposts shorter than his Luke commentary. Good analysis of DaVinci Code but give us something else, something unique! (Like the updates on IBR activity!)

The US will be on the field tomorrow for their World Cup opener. The Czechs are a bit banged up, but they are loaded with talent. The US will have to play the game of their lives to win, although a draw would not be impossible. Biggest question is, will the midfield hustle and flow?

I will be in German class, but will be following on the webcast of the game.

Other observations: England looked tepid and less than thrilling despite their talent in the middle 3/4s of the field. Owen was ineffective and made me long for Rooney; I'm frankly not sure Sven knows how to use his midfield. Their defense is superb but they can't count on even one goal in every game, I'm afraid, on this evidence. Robben looked amazing for Holland, but he needs to get his team involved more--too many shots, I'm afraid. They need better teamwork in the final 1/3 of the field, imo.
I've been proud of our CONCACAF neighbors--Costa Rica nabbing goals against Deutschland; Trinidad with a miracle draw (=tie!) with Sweden; Mexico taking out Iran 'con fuerza'. All loads of fun.

2006-06-05T06:57:00.000-05:00

Kostenberger on the Purpose and Occasion of John's Gospel

[[I tried to submit the following at Deinde, but couldn't manage it.]]
Andreas Kostenberger http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=47 posts on the purpose and occasion of John's Gospel.

AK (no word if he wears number 47 during intramural sporting events) posts based largely on a large, recent article of his on the topic, available in PDF online at his website: "The Destruction of the SecondTemple and the Composition of the Fourth Gospel, " TrinJ 26NS (2005): 205-42.

Particularly astute in regards to 'occasion' is this quote from Peter Walker, Jesus and the Holy City (Eerdmans, 1996, p. 197): "As a result, if any of his readers felt bereft of the Temple and of the spiritual focus provided by Jerusalem, John would have encouraged them not to mourn the loss of the city, but rather to see what God had done for them in Jesus. . . . The Evangelist, writing after the Temple's destruction, does not bemoan its loss. . . . The presence of God has not been withdrawn, for Jesus has taken the place of the Temple. Jesus gives more than the Temple had ever given. . . . Jesus stands in the place of everything that Israel has lost."

I like this a lot, although I shouldn't like to drive too much of an analytical wedge between occasion and purpose...

2006-05-31T21:40:00.000-05:00

A Question of Method: on requiring the presence of exact verbal correspondence for qualification as an allusion

From Scot McKnight, via Deinde (my future virtual home?) "The bread of the Synoptic accounts is nearly always called artos and not azuma, the more specific word for 'unleavened bread' " (p.269), Jesus and his Death. Scot notes this as part of his argument that John, not the synoptics, is more correctly or more exactly detailing the sequence of the Last Supper in relation to Passover.

Two specific problems arise if we rely too heavily on the lack of direct parallels to disprove allusions: (1) We don’t know the origin of such allusions, and often have no access in any case to the Gk translation from which the writers were working. This is due to the shifting of the LXX in its various recensions—perhaps in response to Christian and NT usage; or in an effort to improve accuracy, or bring into line with more popular translations. (2) In at least Matthew’s case he often simply translated from Heb/Aramaic on his own, so that there is no guarantee his Greek reference/allusion will match any that we presently have.

In such cases, thematic and theological parallels are all we have to rely on. Therefore, as a matter of method I’m not convinced that a failure to find any significant, exact verbal correspondence can necessarily indicate a failure to find an allusion. It’s no stretch to imagine in Scot’s example above, that Mark and Matthew simply didn’t know enough Greek to come up with azuma; or that Mark didn’t bring it to mind (in foreign language it’s frequently easier to come up with the most common word, even when a more technical term would be more precise), and it didn’t seem out of place when Mt/Lk copied it. Or perhaps the LXX copies used by the synoptic writers (or just by Mark!) was a relatively impoverished translation which didn’t use this word.

If any of this is the case, it’s also easy to see how John, with his PASXAL emphasis, might pay more attention to an exact term than Mk/Mt. Finally, the synoptics are interested in linking the Last Supper to the feeding of the multitudes in Mk 6, 8 and parallels, where artos is present (is it Mark who links this scene verbally as well? Take, bless/thanks, broke, give). Thus the lack of verbal correspondence in the synoptics in this instance could have another explanation altogether.

There is a tendency for NT scholars to over-rely on common (thus borrowed, according to the argument) vocabulary as an indicator of the presence of an intentional verbal allusion. I suspect this as I’m reading through Nolland’s commentary, as he attempts to stab at possible allusions and “echoes”; although let me hasten to add I’m enormously grateful that he is trying, and that he has paid attention to the narrative turn in biblical and matthean studies, though without abandoning his redaction critical roots. All part of the danger and excitement of living in a post-Hays world, I suppose, where scholars regularly stretch texts by intertexting (I coin a verb) to within an inch of their lives.

But here’s my present point: I’m not sure the lack of a certain LXX verb can prove an allusion is not present. I’m not judging Scot’s point—I find it interesting—just noting a methodological problem. Am I wrong on this one?

2006-05-25T22:13:00.000-05:00

Thanks

to Danny of Deinde for the kind offer. I'm mulling it over...I want to give the present blog a fair shake before I jump ship.

2006-05-25T21:39:00.000-05:00

Matthew and his Canon of Scripture

Which writings were considered "Scripture" for the NT writers? A tricky question for sure. Matthew has more possible allusions to IT lit than most, though some of this could simply be the "milieu" instead of conscious allusion. In general, however, I think Matt has some idea of the canon of Scripture.

Some have noted that the end of Matt resembles the end of 2 Chr, which is the end of the traditional Heb Scriptures (Frankemolle esp., though he himself stressed the Chronicler's begin. with genealogy and ending with the commissioning, I think, not the shape of the canon). Form critics don't have much to work with IMO, and important verbal parallels are lacking. But I do think the first two words of Gk Mt ("biblos genesews," or "book of Genesis"--a title by which the first book of Moses was already known in Matt's day) are intentional pointers to Genesis, and it does not seem a stretch to have a conclusion like Matt's which might point to the end of a hypothetical canon as well. Other evidence? "the blood of Abel to Zechriah" in Mt 23:35. This is of course fun in English because it's "A to Z," which should warn us that coincidence is possible and not necessarily helpful. There's some doubt as to which Zechariah ("son of Berechiah" in the better mss) this is, as there are three choices biblically.

Strack-Billerbeck notes later Jewish confusion or interpretive equation of Zechariah the son of Berechiah (the biblical book's namesake) and Zechariah in 2 Chr 24:20. For more on this exegetical technique in Matthew, see Bauckham, "Tamar's Ethnicity and Rahab's Marriage," NovT 37 (1995). Nolland (2005) cites Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew's Gospel: The Rejected Prophet Motif in Matthean Redaction, JSNTSS 68; SB; and M. McNamara, who discusses the parallel with Tg.Lam 2.20. The upshot of these opinions is that Matt is citing the first and last person in his canonical Scriptures to die because of righteousness, just as later Jewish authors may have done. This can't be proven, but it seems possible Matthew has done this. Since Matthew elsewhere has a knack for working allusions to Zechariah (the biblical prophet) into his material, as in 27:3-10 and 21:5, this wouldn't be surprising. I'd love to hear what Clay Alan Ham does with this in his new monograph on Zechariah in Matthew, but I have been unable to find a journal that is reviewing it (RBL isn't!) and has not already obtained a willing soul.

Any thoughts on "Matthew's canon" or the use of Zechariah?

2006-05-25T16:10:00.000-05:00

Backdoor

Sometimes broken links still allow a backdoor access. Moyise's material online went offline (reported by Blogfather) when his institution changed their web address. But you can still access some at least, if you Google search for it and then choose not to download as PDF or .doc, but view as HTML. I found his interesting ‘The Wilderness Quotation in Mark 1:2-3’ in Sugirtharajah (ed), Wilderness: Essays in Honour of Frances young (T&T Clark: 2005) this way. The opening verses of Mark 1 are intriguing to me; I'm not sure I follow Watts or Joel Marcus all the way, though I think they're on the right track. I'm inclined to cut them more slack than Moyise does.