Jesus as New Moses in Matthew 8–9: Jewish Typology in First Century Greek Literature 9781463233327

Citation preview

Jesus as New Moses in Matthew 8–9

Perspectives on Philosophy and Religious Thought 4

Perspectives on Philosophy and Religious Thought (formerly Gorgias Studies in Philosophy and Theology) provides a forum for original scholarship on theological and philosophical issues, promoting dialogue between the wide-ranging fields of religious and logical thought. This series includes studies on both the interaction between different theistic or philosophical traditions and their development in historical perspective.

Jesus as New Moses in Matthew 8–9

Jewish Typology in First Century Greek Literature

Michael P. Theophilos

9

34 2013

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2013 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2013

‫ܘ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0086-2

ISSN 1940-0020

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Theophilos, Michael, 1979Jesus as new Moses in Matthew 8-9 : Jewish typology in first century Greek literature / by Michael P. Theophilos. p. cm. -- (Perspectives on philosophy and religious thought, ISSN 1940-0020 ; 4) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. 1. Bible. N.T. Matthew VIII-IX--Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Jesus Christ. 3. Typology (Theology) 4. Moses (Biblical leader) in the New Testament. I. Title. BS2575.52.T44 2011 226.2’06--dc23 Printed in the United States of America

tantus labor non sit cassus

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract/Outline .....................................................................................ix Introductory Issues .................................................................................xi Method ............................................................................................xii Assumptions..................................................................................xiii Chapter 1. Scholarship on Mosaic Typology in Matthew..................1 I. Introduction..................................................................................1 II. Survey...........................................................................................1 Early Developments ..............................................................1 B.W. Bacon..............................................................................2 A. Farrer...................................................................................5 W.D. Davies ............................................................................6 M.D. Goulder..........................................................................7 J.D. Kingsbury ........................................................................9 T.L. Donaldson.....................................................................12 O. Betz. ..................................................................................15 T. Saito and U. Luz ..............................................................16 D.C. Allison Jr.......................................................................17 III. Context of this Study .............................................................18 Chapter 2. Mighty Deeds of Jesus, Moses and the Jewish Sign Prophets ..........................................................................................21 Introduction ..........................................................................21 Moses in the Greco-Roman World ...................................22 Moses in Contemporary Judaisms .....................................26 Hellenistic Judaism........................................................................27 Palestinian Judaism...............................................................29 Rabbinic Judaism..................................................................31 Moses as Prototypical Prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15–18)......32 Moses’ Signs and Wonders ..........................................................35 Jewish “Sign Prophets” ................................................................40 Israel’s Continuing Exile ..............................................................48 Jesus à la Moses .............................................................................50 v

vi

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

Chapter 3. Structure and Meaning .......................................................53 Introduction ...................................................................................53 The Structure of Matthew 8–9 within Matthew as a Whole ..53 Arrangement of Matthew 8–9 .....................................................61 Conclusion......................................................................................74 Chapter 4. The First Cycle (Mt 8:1–22) ..............................................75 Introduction ...................................................................................75 Mighty Deed 1: The Cleansing of a Leper ................................75 Mighty Deed 2: The Centurion’s Paralyzed Servant (Mt 8:5–13)....................................................................................84 Mighty Deed 3: The Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-Law (Mt 8:14–15)..................................................................................88 Scripture Fulfillment: Isaiah 53:4 in Mt 8:17.............................94 Textual form of Quotation .................................................94 Old Testament Context of Matthew’s Isaianic Quotation......................................................................97 The Task of the Servant ...............................................................98 The Identity of the Servant........................................................102 The First ‘Call’ Narrative: Mt 8:18–22 .....................................118 Conclusion for First Cycle .........................................................119 Chapter 5. The Second Cycle (Mt 8:23–9:17) ..................................121 Introduction .................................................................................121 Mighty Deed 4: Jesus Stills the Storm (Mt 8:23–27)..............121 Mighty Deed 5: Exorcisms at Gadara (Mt 8:28–9:1).............127 Mighty Deed 6: Jesus Heals a Paralytic (Mt 9:1–8) ................132 The Second Call Narrative (Mt 9:9–13)...................................137 Conclusion....................................................................................138 Chapter 6. The Third Cycle (Mt 9:18–10:4) .....................................139 Introduction .................................................................................139 Mighty Deed 7: Girl Restored to Life (Mt 9:18–19, 23–26).139 Mighty Deed 8: The Hemorrhaging Woman (Mt 9:20–22)..141 Mighty Deeds 9 & 10: The Blind Men (Mt 9:27–31) & the Possessed Mute (Mt 9:32–34)...........................................145 The Blind Men ....................................................................145 The Demon Possessed Mute............................................146 The Response...............................................................................148 Final Summary Statement (Mt 9:35–38) ..................................152 The Third Call Narrative (Mt 10:1–4)......................................155

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

Conclusion....................................................................................157 Chapter 7. Summary, Rationale and Conclusion.............................159 Summary .......................................................................................159 Rationale for Typological Association .....................................160 Conclusion....................................................................................165 Appendix 1 ............................................................................................167 Appendix 2: A Synopsis of Matthew 8:1–10:4 in Greek................169 Selected Bibliography...........................................................................203

ABSTRACT/OUTLINE Chapter 1 surveys modern scholarship on Mosaic typology in Matthew, concentrating on the more extensive and significant contributions. Chapter 2 is devoted to an assessment of the historical recollection of Moses, in which his mighty deeds and the part he plays in Israel’s deliverance from Egypt forms the basis for Israel’s future hopes. Chapter 3 argues that Matthew’s structural arrangement of material on both the macro-level (chs. 1–28) and on the micro-level (chs. 8–9) display Mosaic influence. Chapter 4 contends that within Matthew’s first cycle of mighty deeds Jesus is alluded to as a Mosaic figure in several regards; 1) Moses’ connection with leprosy, 2) Moses’ stretching out of his hand, 3) imagery used to refer to Israel’s final eschatological return from ‘Egyptian’ exile, 4) Jesus’ healing of conditions which find their antecedent in the Mosaic legal suit against Israel in Deut 28–30, and most significantly 5) Matthew’s explicit citation of Isa 53, in which the Servant is predominantly, although not exhaustively, envisioned as a Mosaic figure. Chapter 5 proposes that Matthew continues this trajectory by drawing on the memory of Moses at the Red Sea, yet goes beyond it in one significant regard. Instead of Jesus appealing to Yahweh, he acts on his own authority and speaks directly to the storm. In this way, Jesus is presented as a ‘greater than Moses.’ This theme is also developed by presenting Israel’s enemies as drowning in the sea of chaos. As a result Jesus offers ‘forgiveness of sins,’ which in Israel’s prophetic literature was another way of saying ‘return from exile.’ Chapter 6 argues that the final cycle of mighty deeds builds on the former allusions to Moses in presentation of Jesus who reverses Israel’s covenantal curses. Additionally both the Pharisee’s response (9:34) and Matthew’s presentation of Jesus’ appointment of the twelve (10:14) brings the proceeding material (both mighty deeds and call narratives) to a climax in that a Mosaic figure reconstituting the ix

x

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

twelve tribes of Israel through the restoration of her patriarchs/phylarchs is recalled. Chapter 7 explores the rationale for Matthew’s typological association of Jesus with Moses.

INTRODUCTORY ISSUES The most famous piece of religious art is arguably Michelangelo’s 1471–1484 Sistine Chapel, wherein, amongst other items, a series of frescos decorate the central section of the walls. These are a cycle of depictions from the life of Moses (south side) and Jesus (north side), chosen and arranged to display their paralleled distinctives. Jesus is portrayed as the typological fulfillment of several key Mosaic events: 1. whereas Moses is depicted as delivering the law on Sinai, Jesus delivers the sermon on the mount, 2. Moses’ final worldly deeds and his death is opposite the portrayal of Jesus celebrating the last supper with his disciples, 3. the temptations of Moses and Jesus are paralleled, 4. the punishment of Korah and his rebels is paralleled by the punishment of those who do not accept Christ’s words and deeds. Elizabeth Flynn concludes that our Renaissance artists tried to incorporate as many scenes as possible …to give us a more complete story and an even greater sense of the fullness of Moses’ life and his mission as the prophet and precursor of Christ. This of course is the aim of the entire program of the Sistine Chapel, for the typological program is understood not as story-telling but as a continuation and fulfillment of the Old Testament in the New Testament.1

1

Elisabeth Flynn, “Moses in the Visual Arts,” Interpretation 44 (1990): 265–276. Similar typological association is apparent in several medieval stained glass programs. Within the fifteen interior top windows of the 67 foot high Royal Sainte Chapelle of Paris, built in 1248, there are

xi

xii

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

This visual association of Jesus with Moses reflects a rich literary tradition, in which Jesus is typologically portrayed as a new-Moses figure by virtue of multiple allusions to prominent Mosaic features. The primary significance of this study will be to propose a revised model for understanding Matthew 8–9, which takes serious consideration of the Mosaic allusions within. Within the horizon of NT Christology Jesus is typologically portrayed as a ‘New-Adam’ (Rom 5:12ff.; 1 Cor 15:15ff.), an ‘Abel’ (Heb 12:24), a priestly ‘Melchizedek’ (Heb 7:1ff.), a ‘Jacob’ (John 1:51), a ‘greater than Solomon’ (Mt 12:42), a New-David (Mt 1:17; 2:25; 11:10; Lk 1:32; Rev 3:7) and a ‘greater than Jonah’ (Mt 12:39). These multifaceted typological associations are most plausibly understood as multidimensional rather than mutually exclusive. As such, their contribution to Christology is piecemeal, with each contributing a unique perspective on the person of Jesus. In this regard, this volume seeks to contribute to the ongoing academic discussion concerning the use of Christological typology.

METHOD While citations are fairly apparent,2 it is notoriously difficult to define what is and what is not an allusion. Furthermore, in the assessment of a proposed allusion, the method is not mechanical, but rather requires the appropriate conceptual understanding of the intended aesthetic parallel. Often the modern reader, attempting to straddle the hermeneutical chasm, errs in either identifying multiple scenes where Moses is pictured with Christ, both wearing the same green tunics and red robes. 2 One scholar suggests that “a quotation will normally have an introductory formula…Should this formula be lacking, evidence that it is the intention of the author will suffice. This evidence could take the form of several words identical to an OT text,” D.S. New, Old Testament Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels, and the Two Documentary Hypothesis. SBLSCS 37 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 14. H.B. Swete concludes, “By passages formally cited we understand 1) an introductory formula or 2) those which, not announced by a formula, appear from the context to be intended as quotations or agree verbatim with some context in the O.T.” The Gospel According to St.Mark (London: Macmillan, 1902), 24.

INTRODUCTORY ISSUES

xiii

allusions where they are not, or missing allusions where they are. Amid this maze, there are several features which, when taken together, help to identify an intended parallel.3 They include: 1) key words or phrases (including order, meter and patterns), 2) similar circumstances, 3) similar narrative structure, 4) the proposed source is congruent with the theological trajectory of the document, 5) the author uses a similar or related allusion elsewhere in their work, 6) if there is a similar application of the OT source in other documents outside the one considered and 7) that there is appropriate rationale for the allusion or typological association. It is also important to note that typological association of Jesus and Moses is cumulative, not resting on the strength of any one argument but rather on the entire narrative’s literary impression. Thus we proceed with caution, cognizant that texts are “deliberatively interactive and full of allusive reciprocal discourse.”4

ASSUMPTIONS For the purposes of clarity and argumentation there are certain assumptions which have been adopted in the writing of this monograph. First, without necessarily implying the author’s identity, for ease of reference and the sake of convenience the author of “Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κτλ...” is referred to as ‘Matthew.’ Second, where the hypothetical ‘Q’ source is referred to, it does not necessarily assume Christian Hermann Weisse’s 1838 two source hypothesis, but rather that the most plausible solution to the synoptic problem is Markan priority, with Matthew and Luke drawing on other written and oral traditions. Thirdly, although certain Rabbinic material was compiled several centuries after Matthew’s writing, it is quite possible that they reflect oral tradition circulating in the first century. Finally5, within much theological 3

For several of the following points I am indebted to R.E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1997), 1997, 8 and Dale Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 16ff. 4 Allison, New Moses, 16. 5 For the following I am indebted to personal conversations with R.E. Watts, of Regent College, Vancouver.

xiv

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

discussion the term ‘miracle’ has frequently been employed to refer to a ‘supernatural’ or ‘divine’ event which contravenes the ‘laws of nature.’ In such circumstances the ‘unusual’ event has God, as creator of the ‘law,’ breaking the ‘law’ and working against himself in contradiction. However, the horizon of the OT did not even have a word for ‘nature’ as an independent entity. Rather than the Greek idea of ‘φύσις’ (‘nature’), the biblical writers’ vocabulary was focused on signs (twO) [Gen 1:14; 9:12–17; 17:11; Exod 12:13; Isa 37:30], tp'wOm [Exod 7:3; Deut 34:11; Jer 31:20; Ps 135:4]) or the power of the act itself (hrFw@bg@: [Deut 3:24; Isa 63:15; 1 Kings 16:5, 25]). In this way, God’s interaction with the space-time fabric of the universe can be more plausibly understood as relational and dynamic. Therefore in place of the traditional vocabulary of ‘miracles’ for Jesus’ activities, this work utilizes ‘mighty deed.’ 6

This also equates well with modern developments in Einsteinian physics and the Heisenberg principle of indeterminacy, where a more accurate way of understanding the ‘laws of nature’ are as probabilities. “Where there are certain pairs of variables that specify what is happening at the level of the then smallest known particles, such as electrons, peculiar relationships are operative; the more accurately one of the quantities is known the less accurately can the other quantity be predicted. An example is as follows: When measuring the position of an electron in an experimental setup, the greater the certainty of its position, the greater the uncertainty of its velocity. The errors of measurement cannot be eliminated by improving the sensitivity of the apparatus, they are inherent in the structure of matter.” M. Jeeves, Human Nature and the Millenium: Reflections on the Integration of Psychology and Christianity (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1997), 216. 6

CHAPTER 1. SCHOLARSHIP ON MOSAIC TYPOLOGY IN MATTHEW I. INTRODUCTION This chapter surveys modern scholarship on Mosaic typology in Matthew, concentrating on the more extensive and significant contributions. What becomes immediately apparent is the strong and diverse, early tradition of Mosaic influence in the opening chapters of Matthew’s gospel. Putative Mosaic elements in chapters 1–7 include: 1. the genealogical sequence of Abraham-David-Exile which awaits a figure who is able to deliver Israel from Exile, 2. the birth and infancy narratives, 3. the temptation narrative, and 4. the new interpretation of the Law on the mountain (the first of five blocks of teaching). Given this context of Mosaic allusion in the preceding chapters, it certainly stands to reason that Matthew may be employing similar allusion in his presentation of Jesus in chapters 8–9.

II. SURVEY Early Developments From the earliest extant literature of the Church Fathers there is a strong exegetical tradition which interprets various aspects of Matthew’s presentation of Jesus as Mosaic. Figures such as Irenaeus, Chrysostom and others have noted the typological

1

2

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

association of Moses with Jesus in Matthew’s temptation narrative,1 or in Eusebius’ case, in discussion of Mt 5–7, associating Jesus on the mount with Moses on Sinai.2 In more recent times commentators have similarly made the association. One initial voice in this regard was H.J. Holtzmann in his work entitled Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament,3 who, writing in 1892 found parallels in the infancy narratives of Moses and Jesus, specifically in regard to their political adversary.4 It was only twenty years later (1912) with the publication of the first edition of the prestigious International Critical Commentary on St. Matthew by W.C. Allen that the issues were readdressed.5 Allen particularly drew attention (as did Irenaeus) to Jesus’ forty-day fast in Mt 4:1 as reminiscent of Moses in Exod 34:28. B.W. Bacon However, it is Benjamin Weisner Bacon who has been credited as the pioneering exegete in proposing Mosaic typology in Matthew. In his 1918 article “The Five Books of Matthew Against the Jews,”6 a concept which found latter expression in his expanded work entitled Studies in Matthew,7 Bacon argued that Matthew as a whole recalls the figure of Moses primarily through his division of the Gospel into five large blocks of teaching indicated by the recurring phrase καὶ  ἐγένετο  ὅτε  ἐτέλεσεν  ὁ  Ἰησοῦς  τοὺς 

See Irenaeus Adv haer. 5:21:2; Chrysostom, Hom. on Matt 13:2; Augustine, Serm. 252:11; Ep. 55:28. References from Allison, New Moses, 166, n56. 2 Eusebius Dem ev. 3:2 “Moses and Jesus our Lord acted in closely similar ways.” Reference from Allison, New Moses, 104. 3 Holtzmann 1892, 379. Cited by Allison, New Moses, 293. 4 Pharaoh and Herod respectively: Mt 2:20/Exod 4:19; Mt 2:21/Exod 4:20. 5 W.C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Edinburgh: Clark, 1912). 6 B.W. Bacon, “The ‘Five Books’ of Matthew against the Jews,” Expositor 15.8 (1918): 56–66. 7 B. Bacon, Studies in Matthew (London: Henry Holt, 1930). 1

SCHOLARSHIP ON MOSAIC TYPOLOGY IN MATTHEW

3

λόγους  τούτους,8 thus reflecting Mosaic Torah. This, he argued,

presented Jesus as a new-Moses figure delivering a new Torah to Israel. Amid both praise9 and criticism10 for this proposal, Bacon further argued that each block of teaching corresponded with a book of the Pentateuch,11 a proposal which has often been criticized for its apparent arbitrariness in arrangement of corresponding events.12 Nevertheless, Bacon’s appraisal of alternating sections of narrative and discourse throughout the Pentateuch (i.e. a body of law introducing a longer narrative section) did attract more support. However, even this had significant weaknesses in that the book of Genesis is mostly narrative and Leviticus is predominantly legal. It is only in Exodus and Deuteronomy where this hypothesis most plausibly accounts for structural arrangement.13 Bacon is also one of the first commentators to suggest that the ‘ten mighty works’ in Mt 8–9 were contributive to the Mosaic schema. However he concluded that this did not supply the “key

Or some slight variation in Mt 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1 and 26:1. M.J. Lagrange, Evangile selon saint Matthieu, 7th ed. (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1948), 85; A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthaus 3rd ed. (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1948), 125; G.D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (Oxford: University Press), 135f.; K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 24f.; F.L. Godet, Introduction to the New Testament: The Collection of the Four Gospels and the Gospel of Saint Matthew (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1899), 182; A. Feuillet, “Les perspectives propres à chaque évangéliste dans les récits de la transfiguration,” Biblica 39.3 (1958): 292; J. Green, Jesus and Moses: The Parallel Sayings (Berkeley, California: Seastone, 2002). 10 A.D. McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (London: Macmillan, 1957); C.G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (London: Macmillian, 1930); Manson, T.W. The Teaching of Jesus. (Cambridge: University Press, 1935). 11 Bacon, Studies, 81. 12 See below (chapter 3) for further discussion of the arrangement of Matthew’s Gospel. 13 See diagrammatic summary of Matthew’s structure in chapter 3. 8 9

4

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

motive for the composition of the whole.”14 Similarly, both H.J. Schoeps (Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums)15 and J.M. Kastner (Moses im Neuen Testament)16 also found precedent for a limited Moses typology in the ten mighty deeds, yet neither developed their proposal. H.M. Teeple’s major study entitled The Mosaic Eschatological Prophet17 took up and developed this basic suggestion by proposing that there was a prior prophetic expectation for Mosaic miracles in the messianic days, as is evident in Micah 7:15, “As in the days of your coming forth out of the land of Egypt, I will show them wonders.” Teeple also refers to Pirke Abot 5:5 “Ten wonders were done for our fathers in Egypt,” which he suggests is evidence that the ten Mosaic miracles were prevalent in the Jewish mind in the first century. Bacon’s pioneering work opened the floodgates for studies of Mosaic typology in Matthew. The following decades saw many writers exploring this seemingly pervasive theme.18 Particular attention was paid to Jesus’ infancy narrative by M.M. Bourke in his discussion entitled The Literary Genus of Matthew 1–2,19 for its close association with the Mosaic birth story: predominantly the similar use of vocabulary in description of the adversary’s (Pharaoh/Herod) desire to ἀναιρέω [kill/do away with] the infant Bacon, Studies, 189. H.J. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1949), 93–97. 16 J.M. Kastner, Moses im Neuen Testament (Münich: Ludwig Universität, 1967), 165–169. 17 H.M. Teeple, The Mosaic Eschatological Prophet. SBLMS 10 (Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature Publications, 1957), 82–83. 18 Another discussion which derived its momentum from Bacon’s work was H. Milton’s article entitled “The Structure of the Prologue to St. Matthew’s Gospel,” JBL 81 (1962): 175–181. Expanding earlier suggestions that the Sermon on the Mount recalled Moses on Sinai, he argued that the new and greater Moses is prefigured, in that the law and prophets attest Jesus as the messiah as he recapitulates and fulfills the past. 19 M.M. Bourke, “The Literary Genus of Matthew 1–2,” CBQ 22 (1960): 160–175. 14 15

SCHOLARSHIP ON MOSAIC TYPOLOGY IN MATTHEW

5

(Moses/Jesus),20 and the response on behalf of the protagonist described by the identical term ἀνεχώρησεν  (flee/went away), in both narratives. Without denying the historical veracity of Mt 1–2, Bourke concluded that this delicate weaving of Mosaic overtones involved substantial reflection on Israel’s liberation from Egypt and subsequent reinterpretation and apprehension of it for the first century reader of Matthew. P.A. King argued later that year in his shorter but significant article Matthew and Epiphany21 that this typological association in the infancy narrative established the continuity between the former covenant (OT) and its latter counterpart (NT). A. Farrer In Austin Farrer’s 1954 work entitled St Matthew and St Mark,22 he developed the thesis that the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5–7) was extensively modeled on Exod 20–24. In this schema the Decalogue in Exod 20 functioned as a summary of what follows in 20:22– 23:19; similarly he argued that the beatitudes in Mt 5:3–12 function as a programmatic introduction of what follows in 5:13–7:28, which in this sense is an exposition of beatitudes. Farrer’s acceptance of the Western and Syriac order and arrangement of beatitudes further supports his hypothesis by offering a 2–3–3 pattern reflected in 5:17–48; 6:1–19 and 6:19–7:27. While not wanting to dismiss the influence of the Exodus account on Mt 5–7, Farrer’s suggestion has several significant weaknesses. First, Farrer’s composition of a neat chiasmus formed in the body of Mt 5:13–7:28, apparently reflecting the material in the beatitudes, breaks down when it is suggested that 5:8 corresponds to 5:21–4, and 5:9 corresponds to 5:23–48. As several others have noted,23 one would expect 5:23–48 to precede 5:21–24. Furthermore, the teaching of prayer seems not to have any Exod. 2:15 and Mt 2:16. P.A. King, “Matthew and Epiphany,” Worship 36(1962): 89–95. 22 A. Farrer, St. Matthew and St. Mark (Westminster: Dacre Press, 1954), 165f. 23 W.D. Davies, Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1964, reprinted 1989), 11. 20 21

6

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

antecedent in the beatitudes.24 In this light, Farrer’s conclusions must be nuanced with the appropriate amount of caution. W.D. Davies Chronologically, the next tour de force discussion on Mosaic typology in Matthew was W.D. Davies’ Setting on the Sermon on the Mount.25 In Davies’ initial discussion of the context of Mt 5–7 in the Gospel as a whole, he argues against Bacon’s fivefold Pentateuchal division and hence denies the Mosaic macrostructure of Matthew’s Gospel which many commentators had accepted. Davies does argue, however, that in some sense Mt 5–7 is a new Torah (the ‘law of Christ’), and not a discourse delivered all at one time by Jesus. The latter of these points emphasizes the authorial intention in arranging the material in this manner. Davies states that Matthew was “no unimaginable compiler or slavish editor” but a “formulator of the tradition, concerned to present it in a specific way.”26 Furthermore, Matthew may have introduced the Mosaic motif into the material he borrowed from his sources (namely Mk and Q); however “such new Exodus motifs as have been detected in these sources are preserved, though hardly emphasized in Matthew.”27 Davies goes on to argue that Jesus himself is not portrayed as a new Moses, nor is the mount of beatitudes a new Sinai. In this regard he concludes that “not antithesis but completion expresses the relationship between the Law of Moses and the teaching of Jesus.”28 He expresses particular doubt in regard to Mosaic typology by noting that “Matthew was well aware of that interpretation of Christ which found his prototype in Moses, and that, at certain points, he may have allowed this to colour his gospel. But the restraint with which the New Exodus and New In this case, alternative solutions are to be preferred. Davies, Setting, 11 suggests the tripartite section on almsgiving, prayer and fasting functions as a threefold illustration of righteousness in Mt 6:1. 25 Davies, Setting. 26 Ibid., 13. 27 Ibid., 61. 28 Ibid., 107. 24

SCHOLARSHIP ON MOSAIC TYPOLOGY IN MATTHEW

7

Moses motifs are used is noticeable.”29 Similarly in his discussion of the mighty deeds in Mt 8–9 he concludes that “apart from the number ten, which itself may be a literary convenience, there is no indication that the shadow of Moses falls on viii.1–ix.34.”30 Davies then concludes that Jesus “is not Moses come as Messiah…so much as Messiah, son of Man, Emmanuel, who has absorbed the Mosaic function,”31 and in this sense transcends Mosaic categories. In response to Davies, although one might argue that ‘mosaic categories’ displayed enough variation in the first century to incorporate a very high estimation of Moses,32 it seems more apt to question why, in his discussion of Jesus as new-Moses, other NT material was not considered as one possible background for Matthew’s Gospel. Significant conclusions in this regard would be suggested through a comparison of Jesus and Moses as presented in the sermons of Peter and Stephen in Acts. Furthermore, Mosaic motifs are attested so early in the Lukan tradition of the early church that it is nearly insurmountable to concur with Davies when he concludes that it was only with the Apostolic Fathers that “the interpretation of the Faith as a new law [and hence Jesus as new Moses] emerges without ambiguity.”33 Additionally, Davies’ suggestion that Jesus acts as one who has “absorbed the Mosaic function,”34 is not antithetical to Mosaic typology per se. Rather it suggests that the composition of Matthean Christological motifs are multifaceted, one of which is discernibly Mosaic. M.D. Goulder In the year of Davies’ publication, Goulder released his own research on the book of Acts entitled Type and History in Acts35 in which he discusses various typological schemas in Luke’s work, Davies, Setting, 92–93. Ibid., 90. 31 Ibid., 93. 32 In one case bestowing divine status to the prophetic messenger (Vita Mos. II.2.3.187). 33 Davies, Setting, 414. 34 Ibid., 93. 35 M. Goulder, Type and History in Acts (London: SPCK, 1964). 29 30

8

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

particularly Paul’s journey to Rome.36 His introductory comments, however, offer a case study in Matthew.37 In addition to noting the various parallels of the Exodus narrative with Mt 2:16–5:1,38 Goulder’s unique contribution to identifying Pentateuchal typology in the first Gospel centers on the similarities between Mt 1:1–2–15 and the latter narratives of Genesis. In preparation for the sequence of events in Mt 2:16–5:1, Goulder argues that Matthew establishes a broader literary connection with the meta-narrative of the Pentateuch. His argument runs as follows: In Gen 37–50 the narrative involves the dreams of Joseph (Gen 37:2–10), stars (Gen 37:9), wise men (Gen 41:8), and a journey from Israel to Egypt (Gen 45–50). Likewise Matthew’s narration of Jesus’ infancy narrative involves a Joseph (Mt 1:18), a star (Mt 2:1–2), wise men (Mt 2:1–12) and a journey from Israel to Egypt (Mt 2:13–18) and thus, Goulder argued Matthew employed typological association between the two stories. The strength of Goulder’s claim lies in its general culminative strength, an aspect which he deems indispensable for typological association between texts.39 However, the lack of similarity in expression between Gen 37–50 and Mt 1:1–2:15, especially with the Matthean choice of μάγοι in Mt 2:1 given the ἐξηγητής and  σοφοί attested in Gen 41:8, is curious to say the least. Other commentators would prefer to see the extra-biblical traditions of Moses’ father Amram form the conceptual background to Mt 1–2,40 an idea which more plausibly accounts for Matthew’s vocabulary and expression.

Goulder, Type. Goulder, Type, 3–8. 38 Herod/Pharaoh massacring infants [Exod 1; Mt 2:16]; Journey from Egypt to Israel [Exod 12; Mt 2:21]; Desert scene and passing through water [Exod 14; Mt 3]; Three temptations in wilderness for forty periods of time [Exod 16; Mt 4]; and gathering disciples/elders and giving commandments on a mountain [Exod 18–19; Mt 4:17–5:2]. 39 Goulder, Type, 2. 40 R.E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City: Doubleday, 1977), 111f.; Allison, New Moses, 140–165, 311. 36 37

SCHOLARSHIP ON MOSAIC TYPOLOGY IN MATTHEW

9

J.D. Kingsbury J.D. Kingsbury’s Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom,41 published in 1975, offered a new and fresh approach to Matthean studies. His initial discussion entails a critique of the traditional Baconian Pentateuchal division of the Gospel and proposal of an alternative structure based upon the dual redactional phrase Ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο  ὁ  Ἰησοῦς (“from that time on Jesus began…”) in 4:17 and 16:21, which forms three main divisions in Matthew’s Gospel: 1:1–4:16 ‘The Person of Jesus Messiah’; 4:17–16:20 ‘The Proclamation of Jesus Messiah’; and 16:21–28:20 ‘The Suffering, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Messiah.’ Kingsbury then goes on to argue that the primary Christological title in Matthew is ‘Son of God’ and this is reflected in not only Matthew’s structure, but also in its leading theological concept, the ‘kingdom of heaven.’ In this way Kingsbury offers a twofold critique of former Matthean scholarship, first in terms of challenging writers such as Bornkamm and Frankemölle who argued for ‘Son of David,’ ‘Lord’ and ‘Son of Man’ as of primary interpretive significance, and second against the likes of Bultmann et al. who envisaged Matthew’s primary concern with the church rather than the person of Jesus.42 Kingsbury concludes that Matthew “poses for his church the central question of who Jesus Messiah is.”43 After a long discussion of the ‘Son of God’ designation, Kingsbury considers other minor Christological titles including ‘Son of Abraham,’ ‘The Coming One,’ and ‘Prophet.’ Within this latter category Kingsbury denies Matthean concern for a newMoses figure and argues that it is ‘Son of God’ Christology which

J. Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress), 1975. 42 This has also been concluded by the more recent works of R.A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Greco-Roman Biography. SNTSMS 70 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) and R. Bauckham, The Gospels for All Christians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerd. Publishing Co, 1998). 43 Kingsbury, Structure, 126. 41

10

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

shaped Matthew’s Gospel, both structurally and thematically.44 Two main arguments are offered for the subordination of this newMoses schema. First, the title ‘prophet’ is inadequate. Kingsbury notes that when Matthew applies ‘prophet’ to Jesus “he does not even raise it to the rank of what may properly be construed as a Christological title.”45 He offers the analogy of John the Baptist, even for whom, the title was inadequate. Kingsbury also argues that the title has “only negative value”46 because it is frequently found on the lips of “some men” (16:13b–14) or the “crowds” (21:11, 46), even attributing it to a title of “scorn which Matthew imbues.”47 Second, Kingsbury argues that at the traditional junctures where many have suggested Mosaic influence upon the narrative,48 Matthew has in fact gone to “pains to develop his Sonof-God Christology:”49 for example, the identification of the child who escapes death as “my son” (2:15) or the temptation of the “Son” in chapter 4. Furthermore, Matthew’s editorial activity with the term “Moses,” Kingsbury argues, advises against seeing Mosaic typology present.50 In two passages in particular (Mt 15:4 = Mk 7:10; Mt 22:31 = Mk 12:26), Matthew replaces Mark’s reference to Moses with references to God, a phenomenon which seems counter-productive in forming a Mosaic portrait of the subject. On the basis of these objections, Kingsbury concluded that the interpretation of the Jesus “as a ‘new Moses’ is to import into Matthean Christology a category Matthew himself repeatedly refused to make.”51 What can be said to these criticisms of Jesus as new-Moses in Matthew? In regard to Kingsbury’s first objection, it is important to Matthew’s concern is “not with a new Moses…but with the Son of God.” Kingsbury, Structure, 92. 45 Kingsbury, Structure, 88. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 48 Particularly the Infancy narrative, Temptation and the Sermon on the Mount. 49 Kingsbury, Structure, 90. 50 Ibid., 91. 51 Ibid. 44

SCHOLARSHIP ON MOSAIC TYPOLOGY IN MATTHEW

11

note that Jesus does in fact refer to John as a prophet (11:9), but that he also states that John transcends this prophetic category, fulfilling the role of the expected return of Elijah (Mal 4:5). Furthermore to argue that the title ‘prophet’ is in some way diminished by being offered as a confession of the ‘crowds’ denies the positive role of the ‘crowds’’ confession in 21:9 “Hosanna to the Son of David,” which immediately precedes their further designation of Jesus as “prophet” in 21:10–11. There need not be any antithesis which denies the possibility of a multifaceted portrait of Jesus, in which the titles function complimentarily. In Kingsbury’s attempt to identify Jesus as ‘Son of God,’ he collapses all Matthean Christological titles into one monolithic entity. One wonders if these concerns have not caused him to overdraw its place within the entire gospel. Furthermore, no rationale seems to be provided for the understanding that his one Christological title needs to be understood as “most exalted,” “foremost,” “principal” or “pre-eminient,”52 yet Kingsbury seems simply to assume this is the case without further argument.53 On at least three occasions this adversely influences his exegetical discussion. In reference to Mt 1:16b, Kingsbury argues that the neutral ἐγεννήθη should be interpreted as “was born (by a special act of God).”54 Second, in discussion of Mt 5:1 and 15:29 the mention of a mountain is taken “to point to Jesus as Son of God,”55 with nothing other than its claim to support it. And in regard to Mt 27:46, Kingsbury precariously suggests that “Matthew proposes to construe ‘my God’ as synonymous with ‘my Father,’”56 again a claim which cannot bear the interpretive weight Kingsbury attempts to attribute to it.57 See Kingsbury, Structure, 67, 99, 101, 162. Given that the title ‘Son of God’ does not appear in Mt 1:1, one may ask to what extent it can be made normative for Matthew’s Christology. 54 Kingsbury, Structure, 43. 55 Ibid., 57. 56 Ibid., 75. 57 See critiques of Brown 1976, 299–300 and Murphy-O’Conner 1976, 306–7. 52 53

12

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

In regard to Kingsbury’s second objection, has Matthew in fact gone to “pains to develop his Son-of-God Christology”58 at those points where several have maintained Mosaic influence? Unique Matthean additions, such as “and forty nights” to the temptation narrative (Mt 4:2), or the reference to Jesus ascending a mountain to give a new interpretation of the law (5:1) before descending to perform ten mighty deeds (8:1ff.) must be given their due weight. In this regard it seems that Matthew’s redaction of material would suggest exactly the opposite of Kingsbury’s ‘prophet-to-Son’ Christological evolution. The three passages which Kingsbury notes Matthew’s substitution of ‘God’ for ‘Moses,’59 seems to be more of a stylistic alteration which aids rhetorical effect and sharpens the distinction between “the commandments of God and ‘your tradition.’”60 In support of this conclusion are the unaltered designations in Mt 8:4 (=Mk 1:44) and Mt 19:7 (=Mk 10:3). Kingsbury also fails to demonstrate how the ten mighty works in Mt 8–9 are related to the Son of God Christology which he sees as controlling this entire section. One may legitimately wonder why ‘Son of God,’ mentioned only in 8:29, should be given prominence over other titles which occur in the same section, two of which occur more frequently, (Lord [8:8, 21,25], Son of Man [8:20; 9:6]). Furthermore, in what way ‘Son of God’ Christology mitigates against a potential prophetic new-Moses theme a priori is assumed by Kingsbury and not argued for. T.L. Donaldson Mosaic typology in Matthew has traditionally been affirmed on the basis Matthew’s references to τὸ ὄρος  as typologically referring to Sinai and Jesus subsequently occupying the position of new-Moses, 58 59

Kingsbury, Structure, 90. Mt 15:4 = Mk 10:7; Mt 19:4b, 7–8 = Mk 10:3b–6; Mt 22:13 = Mk

12:26 R.H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution (William B.Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, 1982), 304. This is facilitated by the context of the passage concerning the traditions of the fathers and Torah. 60

SCHOLARSHIP ON MOSAIC TYPOLOGY IN MATTHEW

13

specifically as law-giver in Mt 5–7. T.L. Donaldson’s revised dissertation entitled Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Typology61 challenges this hypothesis by an exploration of the Matthean mountain motif through redaction-critical lenses.62 After a survey of sacred mountains and symbolism in Second Temple Judaism and the OT,63 it is noted that Mt refers to six mountain scenes (temptation [4:1–11]; teaching [5:1–8:1]; feeding [15:29–31]; transfiguration [17:1–9]; Olivet discourse [24:1ff.]; and the commissioning [28:16–20]), three of which are taken over from Mk or ‘Q’ and three of which are redactional additions. Donaldson argues that in these contexts, τὸ  ὄρος primarily functions as ‘eschatological Zion,’ a literary device and theological symbol which locate Jesus’ activity on the mountain(s) as demonstrative of his fulfillment of eschatological expectations associated with Zion and the place where “the eschatological community is gathered and… age of fulfillment is inaugurated.”64 Several features of Donaldson’s work are commendable, not to mention his helpful survey of the religious significance of mountains in Israel’s history. Particularly commendable is his chiastic interpretation of the first and last mountain scenes in Mt, in that it highlights the literary brackets of Jesus’ initial temptation to inherit the world through demonic means and his latter vindication and inheritance of the world through Yahweh’s agency. However there are some serious limitations to Donaldson’s work. In arguing for Zion as the conceptual background to the mountain scenes in Mt, he deems it necessary to set this against Sinai and hence Mosaic typology.65 Levenson has ably demonstrated that in

T.L. Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Typology. JSNTSS 8 (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1985). 62 Donaldson’s analysis is a development of W. Schmauch’s earlier work, see Donaldson, Jesus, 7–9. 63 Donaldson, Jesus, 25–83. 64 Ibid., 197. 65 Although he does not eliminate the possibility that certain echoes are possible and that “Sinai overtones may be detected,” on the whole he expunges them of any interpretive significance. Donaldson, Jesus, 178. 61

14

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

both the OT66 and latter Jewish tradition,67 both Sinai and Zion were closely associated. Isa 2:3 unmistakably makes the comparison in recording “out of Zion shall come forth Torah.” As such Zion is envisioned as the eschatological Sinai and consequently Donaldson’s false antithesis of Sinai or Zion is to be rejected (in this sense it does not militate against Mosaic typology in Matthew). Nonetheless, Donaldson argues that Matthew consciously subordinated Moses typology to son Christology. However, an instance where this is almost certainly the antithesis of Matthean redaction is in Matthew’s addition of “καὶ  νύκτας  τεσσε‐ ράκοντα” (“and forty nights”) in Mt 4:268 to the temptation narrative of ‘Q’ which in fact overlays/combines the existing Israel/Son schema69 with elements which recall the figure of Moses.70 Ps 89; Ezek 40 Liv. Proph. Jer 11–19; Tg. Neofiti on Exod 4:27; Midr. Rab on Ps 68:9. Cited in Allison, New Moses, 52. 68 Not found in Lk 4:1ff. or Mk 1:12–13. 69 Not only does Jesus answer Satan from texts which all come from passages concerning the testing of Israel in the wilderness (Deut 8:3; 6:16; 6:13) but even the nature of temptation is echoed in Israel’s forty year (cf. Mt 4:2) wilderness wandering. Israel was tempted by hunger (Exod 16:2– 8), tempted to put God to the test (Exod 17:1–3) and tempted to idolatry (Exod 32). See Allison, New Moses, 166. 70 The phrase “forty days and forty nights” in reference to fasting recalled two figures in Israel’s history, Moses on Sinai (Exod 24:18; 34:28; Deut 9:9, 11, 28, 25; 10:10) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19:8), in which it can be seen Moses plays a much more prominent role (nonetheless Elijah presented as fasting for this period of time is attributed to a typological association with Moses by R.A. Carlson, “Élie à l’Horeb,” VT 19(1969): 432–435. Furthermore, Moses was not only vividly remembered for his ‘forty day and forty night fast’ but it was a celebrated achievement, as is evident from Philo De. som. 1:36; Josephus Ant. 3:99; I Clement 53:2; Barn. 4:7; 14:2; Eusebius Dem ev. 3:2; Epiphanius Haer 77:16 and Siphre Deut § 131b. Cited in Allison New Moses, 166. It is important to emphasize at this point that the two typologies (Israel/Mosaic) are not mutually exclusive, just like the Sinai/Zion motifs are not mutually exclusive. 66 67

SCHOLARSHIP ON MOSAIC TYPOLOGY IN MATTHEW

15

In discerning a thematic ‘Zion-eschatological’ link between the mountain scenes, it seems that this is over-read for the Gospel as a whole. It fails to hold the compositional key for the entire work and yet Donaldson attempts to interpret nearly every aspect of Matthean theology through its lens. At one point, even he admits to ambivalence in this regard, “these may well be fragile threads with which to weave an argument…”71 There is one mountain scene in 14:23 which does not contribute significantly to his argument, and hence cautions against Donaldson’s allencompassing conclusions of the mountain motif in Mt. It seems more plausible that a nuanced position be adopted which does justice to the eschatological expectations Donaldson suggests were circulating in the first century (even though several Jewish sources are unfixed at this point), yet does not overemphasize this to the detriment of other significant factors, for example Sinai traditions. Donaldson also argues for the interpretive significance of 28:16–20 for the other five ὄρος passages and states, “the mountain fellowship into which the Gentiles are being invited is to be seen against the background of Zion eschatology.”72 However the limitation of this argument is that the concluding verses of the Gospel (Mt 28:19–20) refer to God’s people going, not gathering, as was expected in Zion eschatology. This again displays a crucial weakness in Donaldson’s argument. O. Betz. Otto Betz’s Bergpredigt und Sinaitradition. Zur Gliederung und zum Hintergrund von Matthäus 5–7,73 argues that the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5–7) is patterned on Exod 19–24. Perhaps finding impetus from Farrer’s earlier work, Betz develops the parallel on a different basis. Betz suggests that the mountain scenes of both Exod 19:1–3 and Mt 5:1–2 are paralleled on the basis of a prophet Donaldson, Jesus, 97. Ibid., 183. 73 O. Betz, “Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus,” in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, ed. L.H. Feldman and Goher Hata (Detroit: Wayne State University, 1987), 212–35. Summary and notes used from available secondary sources. Allison, New Moses, 325–28. 71 72

16

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

of God speaking to Israel while on a mountain. Furthermore the summary statement of Yahweh’s past saving acts of deliverance in Exod 19:4 is reapplied in the promises of Yahweh’s future intervention in the Beatitudes (Mt 5:2–13), and the effect of these are both described as God’s people becoming his children (Exod 19:4, 5; Mt 5:8–9). Betz also traces the similarities in the various ‘laws’ given in both contexts, including murder (Exod 20:13; Mt 21:21–26), adultery (Exod 20:14; Mt 5:27–32), oaths (Exod 20:7; Mt 5:33–37) and issues related to the lex talionis principle ‘eye for eye’ (Exod 21:24; Mt 5:38–42). While there is support for the broader setting of the sermon as being typologically understood as Sinai,74 other aspects of Betz’s study are less convincing, especially in his ordering and arrangement of parallel discourses on law. Not only are there other places in the Pentateuch which regulate matters such as murder (cf. Deut 5:17; Exod 20:13), adultery (cf. Deut 5:18; Exod 20:14) or oaths (Num 30:2; Lev 5:4), but the order Betz suggests for the correspondence is out of sequence. In Exod 20–23 the order of laws is 1. oaths, 2. murder, 3. adultery, and 4. eye for eye; however in Matthew the order is 1. murder, 2. adultery, 3. divorce, 4. oaths, 5. eye for eye and 6. loving neighbor and enemy. There is no apparent reason for Matthew’s unique inversion of oaths and eye laws at this point. T. Saito and U. Luz Saito and Luz are grouped together here because they both are relatively recent commentators on Matthew who deny anything more than a superficial employment of Mosaic typology in Matthew. With the exclusion of Mt 1:18–2:23, Saito finds no other Mosaic typological influence on Matthean Christology. Furthermore, even in that single passage which he does admit contains Mosaic overtones, he expunges Matthean influence by

74

See discussion below.

SCHOLARSHIP ON MOSAIC TYPOLOGY IN MATTHEW

17

attributing it to a pre-existing Jewish-Palestinian tradition which was inadvertently employed.75 Luz’s celebrated 1985 commentary Das Evangelium Nach Matthäus, translated into English in 1989,76 argues, in similar vein to Saito, against Mosaic typology in Matthew. With regard to the possibility of Mosaic overtones in Jesus’ forty day fast in the wilderness, he states “the circumstances are too different to interpret Jesus typologically as the new Moses,”77 concluding that the allusion is due more to the “extraordinary”78 nature of the fast. Luz also concludes that elsewhere, “the Gospel of Matthew does not emphasize…any personal correspondence between Jesus and Moses.”79 D.C. Allison Jr. It is in this rather skeptical climate of Mosaic typology in Matthew that D.C. Allison, co-author of the detailed International Critical Commentary (ICC) on Matthew,80 has offered the most comprehensive analysis and defense of Mosaic typology in Matthew. In his monograph entitled The New Moses: A Matthean Typology,81 he sees the ‘new-Moses’ theme permeating Matthew’s presentation of Christology. By way of introduction, Allison provides a superb 84 page discussion of ancient Jewish figures to whom were attributed Mosaic characteristics, either for the exaltation of the figure or for a recalling of the significant events surrounding the exodus. In the case of the prophet Samuel, Allison concludes that the reason for identification was his operation at a transitional point in Israel’s history, from a theocracy with judges to T. Saito, Die Mosevorstellungen im Neuen Testament. Europäische Hochschulschriften Series 23, Theology v100 (Bern: Peter Lang, 1977), 51–72. 76 U. Luz, Matthew 1–7 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985). 77 Ibid., 186. 78 Ibid. 79 Ibid., 186 n18. 80 W.D. Davies, and D.C. Allison, The Gospel According to Matthew (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, Vol 1:1988; Vol 2:1991; Vol 3:1997). 81 Allison, New Moses. 75

18

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

a monarchy with kings. Just as Moses inaugurated the time of the Torah,82 so too does Samuel participate in Israel changing the course of her history, and it is this historical transition which accompanies Samuel as leader of the ‘new Exodus.’ Allison goes on to establish Mosaic typology as a legitimate genre before, during and after Matthew was written, concluding that “not only did Jewish tradition supply precedent for Matthew’s execution of a Moses typology, but such precedent was to hand in documents the evangelist studied, treasured and probably knew by heart.”83 The places where Allison argues for strongest Mosaic influence are in the Infancy narrative, Temptation, Sermon on the Mount, Transfiguration and in Jesus’ appointment of a successor.84 Yet in regard to Matthew 8–9 Allison “doubt[s] the presence of a Moses typology”85 per se. It is important to note that his skepticism in this regard is not based necessarily on a long list of objections (although there are several which deserve attention), but rather that he fails to find enough compelling evidence within the text itself to merit Mosaic influence. His denial is particularly surprising, given the preliminary Mosaic elements he attributes to the ‘suffering servant’ of the so-called Deutero-Isaiah passages,86 and Matthew’s reference to this figure in the midst of chs. 8–9. To this issue we will return.

III. CONTEXT OF THIS STUDY While recognizing the critique of Davies et al. that Bacon overstated the nature of Mosaic influence on Matthew’s gospel, which has no doubt negatively influenced other commentators, there are nevertheless those putative Mosaic elements in chapters 1–7 (1. the genealogical sequence of Abraham-David-Exile, 2. the birth and infancy narrative, 3. the temptation narrative, and 4. the Allison, New Moses, 35. Ibid., 95. 84 The finer details of Allison’s arguments will be interacted with when we come to sketching the trajectory of Matthew’s thought through the first seven chapters. 85 Allison, New Moses, 213. 86 Ibid., 70f. 82 83

SCHOLARSHIP ON MOSAIC TYPOLOGY IN MATTHEW

19

new interpretation of the law on the mountain [the first of five blocks of teaching]) which adequately prepare the reader for the Mosaic allusions in chapters 8–9. As will become apparent, Matthew’s rationale for non-explicit Mosaic typology may lie in his broader Christological presentation of Jesus operating not only as a new-Moses, but a ‘greater than Moses.’ Of specific concern will be the more recent developments in scholarship regarding the so called ‘servant songs’ in ‘Deutero-Isaiah’ and the Mosaic overtones which have been noted therein (cf. Mt 8:17; Isa 53:4). But this is to get ahead of ourselves. We must first assess the validity of a Mosaic understanding of chapters 8–9 within Matthew’s first century context.

CHAPTER 2. MIGHTY DEEDS OF JESUS, MOSES AND THE JEWISH SIGN PROPHETS INTRODUCTION Few would doubt the central role of mighty deeds in the life of Jesus. Even his enemies, in stating that “Jesus of Nazareth practiced magic and led Israel astray,”1 conceded that his mighty deeds played a central role in his life, message and mission. Of the thirty five individual deeds attested in the canonical material, Matthew devotes over one seventh of his gospel to covering twenty of them, the highest numerical percentage of mighty deeds when compared with the other gospels.2 Similarly, there is a sizable body of Jewish, biblical and extra-biblical sources which attribute or associate Moses with wonder working and mighty deeds.3 Thus, the aim of this chapter is to sketch the first century literary and historical environment, which would plausibly provide Matthew with the appropriate context to refer to Jesus as a Mosaic figure. 1

b. Sanh. 107b; cf. t. Shabb. 11:15; b. Sanh. 43a: b. Shabb. 104b; b. Sota.

47a. Percentages of the thirty five miracles distributed in the canonical gospels are as follows. Mt has 20/35, i.e. 57% to which he devotes 143 verses out of a total 1071 [13.5%]; Mk has 18/35, i.e. 51% to which he devotes 177 verses out of a total 661 [26.8%]; Lk has 19/35, i.e. 55% to which he devotes 147 verses of a total 1151 [12.8%]. Jn has 8/35, i.e. 26% to which he devotes 129 verses out of 879 [14.7%]. Also see G. H. Twelftree, Jesus: The Miracle Worker (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999). 3 See discussion below. 2

21

22

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

Significant for our discussion is the substantial body of extrabiblical literature which draws a comparison between Jesus and Moses based on their mighty deeds. In this regard P. J. Achtemeier states that “any discussion of ‘signs’ or ‘wonders’ related to Jewish traditions must begin with the figure of Moses.”4 Indeed throughout the history of the church, Christians have frequently compared the mighty deeds of Moses with the mighty deeds of Jesus.5 We will begin our assessment with Moses in the GrecoRoman world and then proceed by considering his place in the Jewish world, of which Deut 18 and 34 played a significant part. Furthermore, the elements of 1. Israel believing herself to still be in exile in her own land and 2. the presence of Jewish prophets promising Mosaic signs of deliverance, plausibly provide the framework for Matthew’s presentation of Jesus as a new-Moses.

MOSES IN THE GRECO-ROMAN WORLD Moses as a distinct figure in the Greco-Roman world was thoroughly explored by J.G. Gager in his 19726 publication which expanded the former research carried out by I. Heinemann and E. Norden.7 Gager found that one of the main streams of Moses’ estimation in pagan literature was that of “lawgiver.” For example, Aegyptiaca of Hecataeus of Abdera §3 recounts the expulsion of the Jews from Egypt and credits Moses as “a man…highly distinguished in practical wisdom and courage…[who] founded a number of cities, among them the one named Jerusalem…and legislated and regulated the political affairs.”8 Similarly, Pompeius Trogus’ Historiae Philippicae §11 offers a brief historical survey of Moses, “whose physical beauty commended him as much as the wisdom which he inherited from his father.” Moses’ reputation as a wise man was strong enough so that Pseudo-Galen could cite him P.J. Achtemeier, “Omne verbum sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity,” JBL 109(1990): 3–27. 5 See examples below. 6 J.G. Gager, Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism. JBLMS XVI (New York: Abingdon Press, 1972). 7 Review by Gager, Moses, 7ff. 8 Gager, Moses, 25-26. 4

MIGHTY DEEDS OF JESUS, MOSES

23

in support of his philosophical position that the soul does not enter the embryo until the moment of birth.9 However, this positive portrayal as wise lawgiver was counter-balanced by several significant ancient works which characterized Moses as a deficient lawgiver. Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria Book 3.7.21 attributes to Moses the derogatory title “creator of the Jewish superstition.”10 Tacitus’ Histories Book 5 §4–5 refers to Moses as introducing practices “which are opposed...[and] which we abhor.” Moses falls into particular disrepute in regard to the law of Sabbath which Tacitus claims fosters laziness; “These practices…are foul and perverse and have survived only by their depravity.”11 Important to note is that the stories of the Exodus enjoyed particular popularity in Greco-Roman sources, with Moses not only as the champion of an unjustly oppressed people or esteemed hero of the Exodus, but as a rebellious Egyptian priest who discarded his former upbringing of culture and religion and who was consequently rejected by the gods.12 Most subsequent anti-Moses polemics originated from Rome, which is not surprising given the volatile relationship of Romans and Jews between the time of Pompey in 63BC and the destruction of the temple in 70AD. What is of significance for our present discussion is the extensive knowledge of the figure of

To the citation of the theatrical reenactments of the Promethean creation story (Pseudo-Galen 11:1 states “As I have witnessed in the theatre, those who play Prometheus are forced to make the soul enter the body while it is lying on the ground ; the ancients probably did not intend the myth to represent the entrance of the soul as something forced but rather to show that the entrance of the soul took place after birth and when the body was formed.”) Pseudo Galen adds, “The theologian of the Hebrews too seems to signify this when he says that when the human body was formed and had received all its bodily workmanship, God breathed the spirit upon it for a living soul.” Cited in Gager, Moses, 74. 10 Cited in Gager, Moses, 17–18. 11 Histories 5:4. Cited in Gager, Moses, 80f. 12 Also mentioned in Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.227–50; Gager, Moses, 17–18. 9

24

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

Moses in the ancient Greco-Roman world, be it positive or negative.13 In addition to Moses’ renown among the Hellenistic and Roman intelligentsia, there is a sizable body of literature which indicates that Moses was perhaps even better known in the realm of popular magical theory and practice.14 His name appears frequently in magical and alchemical papyri,15 either as a recipient of divine wisdom or as the author of spells and incantations.16 Much of this latter association of Moses within the realm of magic found its antecedent in the contest between the magicians of Pharaoh and the magicians of Yahweh (Moses and Aaron) in Exod 7:11–13, where Moses was vindicated against his Egyptian adversaries. The Egyptian magicians received the names Jannes and Jambres in both Jewish and early Christian traditions.17 Knowledge of Moses as wonderworker is also attested in the wider GrecoRoman world in the encyclopedic work of Pliny the Elder’s Natural History which in offering a brief synopsis of magic states that “there is another magical group deriving from Moses…”18 Furthermore Apuleius’ Apology also acknowledges Moses’ status as a magician when he attempts to refute the charge that he has married the widowed Pudentilla for financial gain through his cunning as a magician. If you find one trivial reason that might have led me to woo Pudentilla for the sake of some personal advantage, if you can See Mantheo’s Aegyptica; Lysimachus cited in Josephus Ap. I.309; Chaeremon’ Aigyptike Historia; Apion’s Aegyptica; Diodorus Siculus preserved in Photius’ Bibliotheca; Nicarchus, Ptolemy Chennos, Helladius. Additional references cited in Gager, Moses, 129–133. 14 Gager, Moses, 134ff. 15 See discussion below for the attribution of magical literature to Mosaic authorship. For Alchemical writings attributed to Moses see The Diplosis of Moses, The Chemistry of Moses, The Maza of Moses, Two Moses Amulets and A Moses Phylactery. 16 Moses’ name also appears on several amulets and phylacteries. 17 Respectively Zadokite Document (4Q271) and 2 Tim 3:8. 18 HN 30.2.11. Interestingly there is no conflict mentioned between Moses and the Egyptians. 13

MIGHTY DEEDS OF JESUS, MOSES

25

prove that I have made the very slightest profit out of it, I am ready to be Carmendas, Damigeron, that Moses whom you know, Johannes, Appolbex, Dardanus himself or any other magician of note since to time of Zoroaster and Ostanes.19

In a different account of Moses’ encounter with the Egyptian magicians and the plagues on Egypt, Numenius notes the following in On the Good: Next are Jannes and Jambres, Egyptian sacred Scribes, men judged to be inferior to none in magic, when the Jews were expelled from Egypt. They were chosen by the people of Egypt to stand up to Mousaios, the leader of the Jews, and a man most powerful in prayer to god; and of the disasters which Mousaios brought upon Egypt they appeared able to turn away even the most violent.20

The reality of Moses’ fame as a magician is also confirmed by more than a dozen magical literary works attributed to Moses in the intertestamental period and beyond. The Eighth Book of Moses, The Supposed Tenth Book of Moses, The Key of Moses, The Archangelical Book of Moses and The Secret Moon Book of Moses all contain incantations, charms and recipes for magical use. Although some of these literary works are post first century AD, they nonetheless illustrate the interest and connection of Moses and magic in the Greco-Roman world. The Diadem of Moses contains one notable concoction credited to Moses’ magical genius when it attributes him the following, Take a kynokephalidion plant, place it under your tongue when you lie down to sleep; in the morning, before you speak, pronounce the names and you will be invisible to all. And when you speak over a drinking cup and give it to a woman she will love you, as this charm works in every case.21

Chapter 90. See Gager, Moses, 138. On the Good § 18. 21 Papyri Magicae Graecae 2:1. Cited in Gager, Moses, 1972. 19 20

26

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

These references to Moses in Greco-Roman literature demonstrate that his renown as a magician or wonderworker was already in wide circulation and well established in and before the first century. Could this then provide possible incentive for Matthew to associate Jesus with one who was so well known for his miraculous wonders? That this is so is supported by Moses’ portrayal in the various contemporary Judaisms.

MOSES IN CONTEMPORARY JUDAISMS No other human figure dominates the literature of the Old Testament as does Moses. His presence is felt in the Torah as giver, in the Nebim as prophet par exellence, and in the Ketubim as Israel’s first writer. His thoroughgoing importance was primarily established through his role as the founding figure who established the nation and its community law. Subsequent intertestamental discussions and writings about Moses, including pseudepigraphical works attributed to Moses, were undertaken due to several esoteric moments in his life. His encounter with Yahweh at the bush (Exod 3) and reflection on what might have taken place in Moses’ time on Sinai in Exod 33:12–23 provided ample material for subsequent discussion. Additional speculation was kindled by Moses’ mysterious death in a secluded place (Deut 34).22 Several of these themes contributed to Moses being the most developed human figure in Judaism in the first century.23 The intensity of emotion felt toward Moses is vividly depicted when Stephen is arrested and eventually stoned because he spoke “blasphemous words against Moses and God” and apparently “changed the customs which Moses delivered to us.”24 Both space and necessity preclude a full discussion of the figure of Moses in all its complexity and depth. Sufficient for our purposes is to point out several documents in various settings These speculations are noted by Josephus in Ant. 3.96–97; 4:326. See W.H. Harris III, The Descent of Christ: Ephesians 4:7–11 and Traditional Hebrew Imagery AGAJU 32 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 66–142; W.A. Meeks “Moses as God and King” in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough. Ed. Jacob Neusner. SHR 14 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968), 345–371. 24 Acts 6:11, 14. 22 23

MIGHTY DEEDS OF JESUS, MOSES

27

which illustrate Moses’ importance in Jewish theological reflection.25 Hellenistic Judaism The earliest Hellenistic Jewish view of Moses appears in a fragment from the writings of Eupolemos in the mid-second century BC, where Moses is depicted as the first sage and inventor of the alphabet.26 Additionally, Moses is envisaged as the interpreter of the sacred letters of the Egyptians, and the ‘father’ of Egyptian sailing, architecture, armaments, politics and worship, in effect, the author of Egyptian civilization.27 However, two writers within Hellenistic Judaism stand out as offering an apologia for the figure of Moses and the Torah. Philo of Alexandria’s Vita Mosis attempts seamlessly to intertwine the threads of Torah and Greek philosophy, both he argued, being mutually compatible. Indeed Philo envisioned the Torah as Greek philosophy’s historical antecedent. Within this schema Moses was esteemed as the philosopher par excellence. The opening line of Philo’s Vita Mosis I states that Moses was “…the greatest and most perfect man that ever lived.” The rest of the work can be plausibly understood as an elaboration of this basic premise. At one point Moses comes close to being deified “…for having judged him deserving of being made The subsequent division of the contemporary Judaisms into Hellenistic, Palestinian and Rabbinic sectors is not intended to suggest that they were watertight theological categories in which there was no fluidity. In many ways, given the pervasive influence of Alexander the Great’s conquests in the centuries leading up to the time of Jesus, there is no such thing as a non-Hellenistic Judaism. Even early Rabbinic Judaism shows signs of Hellenistic influence, including archeological artifacts of temples and gymnasiums. This would indicate that there was a much more fluid mix of geographic boarders and theological ideas than has commonly been acknowledged. However, for convenience and clarity, our discussion will proceed along the common designations for the various forms of Judaism in the first century. 26 Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 9.26. For Moses in Philo, I am indebted to Jeremias TDNT “Moses,” 830 ff. 27 Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 9.27. 25

28

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

partaker with himself in the portion which he had reserved for himself, he gave him the whole world as a possession suitable for his heir.”28 Interestingly Philo also notes Moses’ almost divine control over the natural elements, a matter to which we will return in our discussion of Jesus calming of the storm, “…therefore, every one of the elements obeyed him as its master, changing the power which it had by nature and submitting to his commands.”29 Admiration for Moses is represented in Philo’s devotion to understanding the Mosaic Torah and Philo’s role of interpreting it for a wider general audience. I venture to study not only the sacred commands of Moses, but also with an ardent love of knowledge to investigate each separate one of them, and to endeavor to reveal and explain to those who wish to understand them, things concerning them which are not known to the multitude.30

The second significant Hellenistic Jewish author who esteemed Moses was Flavius Josephus. Moses is presented as one who “surpassed in understanding all men that ever lived and put to noblest use the fruit of his reflections.”31 In similar vein to Philo, Josephus also envisaged Moses as the ideal philosopher who found favor “chiefly through his thorough command of his passions.”32 In addition, Josephus claimed that Moses was the most ancient of lawgivers, and that the wisest Greek philosophers—Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Plato, and the Stoics—were all dependent on him.33 In his discussion of Moses as Israel’s lawgiver, Josephus praises Moses for his ability to be a legislator of the ideal society.34 Particular recognition of Moses’ leadership ability is noted in the Egyptians appointment of Moses as general of the army in a crusade against Philo, Vita Mos. I 28.155. Ibid., 38.156. 30 Philo, On the Special Laws 3.1–6. 31 Jos. Ant. 4.49. 32 Ibid. Also the one on whom Greek philosophy is based. See Jos., Ag. Ap. 2.281. 33 Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.154; 2.168. 34 Ibid., 2.165. 28 29

MIGHTY DEEDS OF JESUS, MOSES

29

the Ethiopians.35 As a reward for his victory, Josephus notes that Moses married an Ethiopian princess.36 In Josephus’ eulogy for Moses, he affirms his particularly outstanding character, “As general he had few to equal him, and as prophet none, insomuch that in all his utterances one seemed to hear the speech of God Himself.”37 Palestinian Judaism In a reinterpretation of Deut 31–34, the Testament of Moses38 records Moses telling Joshua that Yahweh has made known to him that from the beginning of the world and that he had been appointed as mediator of the covenant. “He did design and devise me, who [was] prepared from the beginning of the world, to be mediator of his covenant.”39 Interestingly, Moses then explains to the people what will happen after the nation divides in two and suffers exile, a point which includes an element of suffering. Moses’ predictions will cause the people to remember me (Moses) … Is this not what was made known to us in prophecies by Moses, who suffered many things in Egypt at the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years [when] he solemnly called heaven and earth as witnesses against us that we should not transgress God’s commandment of which he had become the mediator for us.40

Jos, Ant. 2.238–253. Jos, Ant. 2.238–253. This could have been a possible extrapolation from Num 12:1 when it is noted that Moses married a Cushite wife. 37 Jos, Ant. 4.49 38 Collins, Apocalyptic, 129, argues that this work was initially composed in the second century B.C. but later underwent revision after the death of Herod in 4 B.C. 39 T. Mos. 1.14. 40 T. Mos 3.10–12. Also attributing a mediating role to Moses is Sifre Deut 34:5 § 357 See D.L. Bock, Blasphemy in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus: A Philological-Historical Study of the Key Jewish Themes Impacting Mark 14:61–64. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. 2 Reihe, 106 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1998), 136. 35 36

30

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

Words of admiration for Moses are also found on the lips of Joshua who laments Moses’ death and declares that it would be inappropriate to bury Moses anywhere for “the whole world is his sepulcher.”41 He further describes Moses as a “sacred spirit, worthy of the Lord, manifold and incomprehensible, master of leaders, faithful in all things, the divine prophet for the whole world, the perfect teacher in the world.”42 Similarly, the book of Jubilees, an attempt to rewrite the biblical narrative of Genesis to Exodus 12, also attests Moses’ aggrandized stature in Palestinian Judaism by stressing the importance of Moses’ encounter with Yahweh on Sinai and offers a detailed account of that theophany. In addition to this growing portrait of Moses as a remarkably important figure, the Qumran Community (Essenes), while “preparing the way of the Lord” (Isa 40:3) in the desert, ardently devoted themselves to study of the Mosaic Torah. The Essenes venerated Moses in their adoption of the solar calendar, which was composed of 364 days four seasons of ninety days each plus one day added to each season, as opposed to the ‘gentile’ lunar calendar.43 The Apocryphal Sirach presents Moses as both well known and venerated. Sirach 45:2 esteems Moses as having attained a status which is “equal in glory to the holy ones,” possibly a reference to the angelic host. The following verses (v5ff.) then proceed to note Moses’ unique encounter with Yahweh “face to face.” Additionally, in a legend of Moses’ infancy, he is described in lavish praise. At the moment of the child’s appearance, the whole house was filled with radiance equal to the splendor of the sun and the moon. A still greater miracle followed. The infant was not yet a day old when he began to walk and speak with his parents, and T. Mos. 11:8 T. Mos. 11:16 43 Jub. 4:17, 12; 6:35–38. “Now you command the Israelites to keep the years in this number—364 days. Then the year will be complete and it will not disturb its time from its days or from its festivals because everything will happen in harmony with their testimony. They will neither omit a day nor disturb a festival.” Jub. 6:32. 41 42

MIGHTY DEEDS OF JESUS, MOSES

31

as though he were an adult, he refused to drink milk from his mother’s breast.44

Rabbinic Judaism Rabbinic Judaism held Moses in high esteem, particularly as the model of all great teachers. This is partly the reason Hillel and other respected rabbis were portrayed as bearing attributes of Moses.45 Moses was understood to have acquired forty-nine of the fifty gates of understanding (b. Ned. 38a) and to have seen God in a translucent mirror or through a dark glass (b. Yebam. 49b).46 In addition to this, rabbinic admiration for Moses is seen in the somewhat hyperbolic statement, that the entire world was made only for Moses’ sake (Lev. Rab. 36:4). Some traditions also record the belief that rather than die, Moses continued to stand and serve God on Sinai (b. Sotah 13b). This portrayal is also balanced with a more human and at times fallible figure whose temper is said to have caused him to forget wisdom (b. Pesah 66b). He is however, correspondingly presented as one who readily admits his mistakes (b. Zebah 101a),47 and thus overall clearly presented as a central and esteemed figure within Rabbinic Judaism.

Cited in L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Bible (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1956), 288–89. 45 Hillel is patterned on the person of Moses in regard to similar chronological circumstances. Tradition in both Jewish and Christian literature records Moses as living for one hundred and twenty years, with a different phase in each forty year period (Deut 31:2). Likewise, in Siphre Deut § 357, Hillel is recorded to have lived one hundred and twenty years with three equal length phases, 1. arrival in Jerusalem at age forty, 2. study of Torah until age eighty, and 3. leader and teacher of rabbinic school until his death at age one hundred and twenty. Akiba and Yohanan b. Zakkai are all recorded to have lived one hundred and twenty years in similar forty year divisions. See Allison, New Moses, 1993, 71. 46 Cited in J. Neusner, Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period (London: Prentice Hall International, 1996), 2.438. 47 Cited in Neusner, Judaism, 2.438. 44

32

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

MOSES AS PROTOTYPICAL PROPHET (DEUTERONOMY 18:15–18) As can be seen, Moses’ well known status in the Greco-Roman and Jewish thought worlds of the first century is indispensable for our discussion of an author’s motivation and rationale in constructing a new-Moses typology. It is in this trajectory that we assess Deut 18:15–18 and the role it played in later literary circles.48 Deut 18:15–19 records Moses words: The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet. This is what you requested of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said: ‘If I hear the voice of the LORD my God any more, or ever again see this great fire, I will die.’ Then the LORD replied to me: ‘They are right in what they have said. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command.’

The expectation of a future Mosaic figure(s) can be understood in two broad categories. von Rad49 argues that the passage envisions a single fulfillment of a figure in the future, that is, the coming of an individual eschatological figure. A.F. Gfrörer argues that “there is no verse in the books of the old covenant which…refers so definitely…to the Messiah as Deut 18:15, 18.”50 K. Bornhäuser more cautiously states “opinions vacillated whether the prophet and the Messiah would appear in one person or not.”51 Although this seems to draw support from the indefinite It seems significant that Deut 18:15–18 is set within the context of prohibiting any means of divination which was common among people of the surrounding nations (vv. 9–14). It is ironic that the latter connotation of Moses as a figure trained in magic is denounced immediately before the promise of a Mosaic prophet. 49 G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 123. 50 Gfrörer 1838, 324 cited in Jeremias, TDNT, “Moses,” 868. 51 Jeremias, TDNT, “Moses,” 868. 48

MIGHTY DEEDS OF JESUS, MOSES

33

translation ‘a prophet,’ one must hesitate in leaning too heavily on this as the original Hebrew )ybinF has no indefinite article and as such its absence does not necessarily mean it is indefinite.52 Most scholars envision the ‘prophet’ contemplated not as a single individual belonging to a distant future, but Moses’ representative, whose office it would be to supply Israel, whenever historical occasion should arise, with a prophetic guiding figure, of which Moses was the prototype.53 V.R. Steuernagel’s translation, “will raise up from time to time,”54 seeks to reflect this distributive interpretation of MyqIyF (v.15) and MyqI)f (v.18). In this sense, ynImok@f (v.15) and K1wOmk@f (v.18) serve to illustrate Moses as the model for these prophets.55 Therefore, validation of prophetic legitimacy stems from continuity with Moses as the canon of authenticity. This could then be interpreted as either a continuous line of prophets, with each being succeeded by the next, in similar fashion to the monarchy, or a series of prophets emerging at specific moments in Israel’s history to address a particular concern. It seems somewhat dubious to suppose, as Krause56 has suggested, that an institutional office of direct succession is in view, given that there are no Similarly in the LXX (Deut 18:15, 18) προφήτην, although lacking the article is not necessarily indefinite. 53 S.R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1916), 229; H.J. Krause, Worship in Israel (Oxford: University Press, 1966), 105–12. Meeks has documented various Palestinian and diaspora materials which envision not a series of prophets but a series of prophet kings. This is seen in Eupolemus, apud Eusebius, Praep. ev 9:30:1–3. “Moses prophesied forty years; then Joshua, the son of Nun, prophesied thirty years. Joshua lived one hundred and ten years and pitched the holy tabernacle in Shiloh. After that, Samuel became a prophet. Then by the will of God, Saul was chosen by Samuel to be king, and he died after ruling twenty one years. Then David his son ruled…” W.A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and Johannine Christology (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 189. 54 C. Steuernagel, Das Deuteronomium (Göttingen: n.p., 1923), 121. 55 R.P. Carroll, “The Elijah-Elisha Sagas: Some Remarks on Prophetic Succession in Ancient Israel,” VT 19(1969): 400–415. 56 Krause, Worship, 106. 52

34

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

indications that such a specified prophetic role was in operation. It is more plausible to suppose that Deut 18 anticipated specific individuals at specific moments for specific purposes being portrayed with specific Mosaic characteristics. This is also in accordance with the extant OT biblical text which D.C. Allison has noted is replete with Mosaic figures.57 Confirmation of this is also found in various intertestamental Jewish documents. Tg. Jonathan. II Exod. 15:18 notes that Moses will come out of the wilderness and the king Messiah will come out of Rome; the one will lead [the wilderness generation] at the head of a cloud, the other will lead the [diaspora] at the head of the cloud, and the memra of Yahweh will lead between both, and they will come in together, and the children of Israel will say ‘to Yahweh belongs royal dominion in this world, and it is his in the world to come.’58

Within the documents found at Qumran there were several texts which indicated expectations of an eschatological individual in Mosaic terms. 1QS 9:11 notes that the future prophet would arise from the “anointed ones of Aaron and Israel.” 4QTest quotes Deut 5:28–29 followed by Deut 18:18–20; Num 24:15–17 and Deut 33:8–11 for the contribution they make to the portrait of the future eschatological figure who embodies Moses as prophet. Moses is so dominant within Samaritan thought as an Allison, New Moses, 1–95. It is important to note that the acceptance of Deut 18:15, 18 in reference to a series of Mosaic prophets does not rule out the possibility that it was also understood that there would be, in addition to this, a Mosaic messianic figure par exellence. See Str.-B II, 480 where it is stated that the “expectation of a prophetic Messiah…is mostly and correctly traced back to Deut 18:15, 18.” Bultmann 1937, 61 claims that a messianic interpretation of Deut 18:15, 18 was a Christian innovation. However this can no longer be substantiated in light of the large Samaritan tradition in which the Messiah is portrayed in Mosaic terms (Eus Theoph. 4.35; Ps Cl. Recg 1.54, 5; 57.1 and 5; Orig Cels 1:57 ‘Christ is the prophet unto Moses.’). 58 Also see 4 Ezra 6:26; 7:28; Frag Tg on Exod 12:42; Pal Tg on Deut 33:21 for the future coming of Moses. 57

MIGHTY DEEDS OF JESUS, MOSES

35

eschatological figure, that when one assesses the body of Samaritan literature it is evident that they are expecting not only a restorer who is a Mosaic figure, but Moses redivivus—back to life!59 These dominant expectations for a future Mosaic prophet, most plausibly finding antecedent in Deut 18, can be summed up in a later Rabbinic phrase which anticipates a prophet of Mosaic stature, “As the first redeemer, so the last redeemer.”60

MOSES’ SIGNS AND WONDERS From the above analysis, it is evident that in several early Jewish traditions a prophet ‘like Moses’ was expected in the eschatological age. However, questions arise as to which Mosaic qualities or characteristics were in view. Was it the Mosaic mediatorial role as Yahweh’s prophet? Or as leader over Israel and lawgiver? The predominant genus for the Mosaic figure is seen in the strong remembrance of his mighty deeds. The recollections of Moses as sage, lawgiver and teacher, and the general remembrances Moses enjoyed in Greco-Roman Paganism for his association with the magical realm, are eclipsed by the attestations in Jewish literature of Moses as doer of mighty deeds.61 It is this latter category of Moses’ signs and wonders which, based on the available literary documents in and around the first century, form the clearest defined characteristics of the anticipated Mosaic prophet. In this regard, the vivid memory of Moses as doer of mighty deeds provided the conceptual framework for future hope of Yahweh’s intervention. In the Deuteronomist’s summary of Moses’ life it is recorded that

In Samaritan thought, at Moses’ death his soul returned to God and now awaits the appropriate time to be reborn for the restoration. J. Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans. (Great Britain: The Westminster Press, 1964), 443. 60 Eccl. Rab. 1:18. The joint coming of Moses and Elijah in the ‘lasttimes’ is attested in Deut. Rab. 3,17 on 10:1 where Yahweh states “One day when I cause the prophet Elijah to come, you shall both [ie Moses and Elijah] come together.” 61 See discussion below. 59

36

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9 Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face. He was unequaled for all the signs and wonders (Mytip;wOm@haw: twOt)ohf / σημείοις  καὶ  τέρασιν) that the LORD sent him to perform in the land of Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his servants and his entire land, and for all the great wonders (lwOdg%Fha )rFwOm@ha /  τὰ  θαυμάσια  τὰ  μεγάλα) and the mighty hand62 which Moses displayed before all Israel. (Deut 34:10–12)

Celebration of Moses performing mighty deeds in Egypt is also attested in Psalm 105 (MT), a Hymn History-Psalm (Geschichtspsalm) which is generally understood to have been used in a liturgical context.63 Verses 26–27 record that “He [the Lord] sent Moses his servant, and Aaron, whom he had chosen. They performed his miraculous signs (wytfwOt)o yr"b;d@I / τοὺς λόγους τῶν  σημείων) among them, his wonders (Mytip;mo / τῶν  τεράτων) in the land of Ham.”64 This Psalm, which celebrates the salvation history of Israel, is also utilized by the Chronicler in 1 Chron 16:8– 22 in another celebratory event in Israel’s past, the Ark’s installation in Jerusalem. This wide and varied liturgical use of Psalm 105 lends further credence that Moses’ mighty deeds in Egypt were kept in vivid Israelite memory, a reality which would naturally enhance later typological association. Within the second temple period several documents surface which indicate particular interest in Moses as a doer of mighty

Some translations have ‘hand’ others have ‘power.’ See discussion chapter 4. 63 A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms (Great Britain: Purnell & Sons Ltd, 1972), 725–726. Anderson suggests that the Psalm would have been used in the ceremony of the renewal of the covenant (cf 1QS 1.16–2.1). 64 MT Psalm 105:26–27, . wOb@-rxab@f r#$e)j Nrohj)a wOd@b;(a h#$emo xla#$f 62

.Mxf CrE)eb@; Mytip;mow% wytfwOt)o yr"b;d@I Mbf-w%m#&f

LXX Ps 104:26–27, ἐξαπέστειλεν Μωυσῆν τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ Ααρων  ὃν ἐξελέξατο αὐτόν ἔθετο ἐν αὐτοῖς τοὺς λόγους τῶν σημείων αὐτοῦ  καὶ τῶν τεράτων ἐν γῇ Χαμ.

MIGHTY DEEDS OF JESUS, MOSES

37

deeds. Accordingly, Pseudo-Philo65 has God himself declare before Moses’ birth that by him “I will do wonders (mirabilia) in the house of Jacob, and I will perform through him signs and wonders (signa et prodigia) for my people that I have not done for anyone else; and I will perform in them my glory (gloriam meam) and declare unto them my ways.”66 This identical promise is also attested in the vision of Miriam, “Go and say to your parents: ‘behold who will be born of you shall be cast into the water, for by him water shall be dried up, and by him will I do signs (signa), and I will save my people, and he shall exercise leadership always.”67 In both these cases Jacobson argues that miribilia and signa reflect Mytip;wOm@haw: twOt)ohf, typical traditional language used for the mighty deeds performed in Egypt for Israel’s sake.68 Nicole notes several instances where ‘the prophet’ in Jewish eschatological expectation is frequently associated with mighty deeds. According to Pirke Maschiach 72, it was believed that Israel would be shown seven signs “like Moses” to convince them to believe, including resuscitation.69 Likewise, Mekhilta Exod 16:33 talks of Elijah performing mighty deeds which are reminiscent of Moses in the wilderness, and links it with his return stated in Mal 3:1f. and his renown for wonderworker in the OT (Mal 4:5). In Samaritan sources, Moses is also associated with mighty and Although the date of Pseudo-Philo has been variously debated, Jacobson notes the reasonably stable current general consensus of mid to late first century A.D. See H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Leiden: E.J. Brill), 1996, 1.199. 66 Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 9.7. Reference from Meeks, Prophet-King, 162. English translation from Jacobson, Pseudo-Philo, 105. 67 Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 9.10. Reference from Meeks, Prophet-King, 162. English translation from Jacobson, Pseudo-Philo, 105. 68 Compare Ps 106:22; 78:43; Deut 6:22. Also see b. Sotah 49b; p. Scheq 47c; cited in W. Nicole, The Sêmeia in the Fourth Gospel (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 81 n2. 69 Nicole, Sêmeia, 81. For a discussion on dating, see above comments regarding earlier oral tradition. 65

38

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

wonderful deeds in Memar Markah 6:9 when it is stated that “This is the prophet…he is the father of wonders, the store of miracles…like whom there is no prophet from the whole human race.”70 Further evidence of Moses being associated with the delivering deeds of Egypt is illustrated from Wisdom of Solomon. Chapter 10:15–16 states that it is only when wisdom indwells Moses that he can withstand “terrible kings [Pharaohs] by wonders and signs (τέρατα  καὶ  σημεῖα)” in order that he might deliver Israel from a nation of oppressors (ἐξ  ἔθνους  θλιβόντων).71 Likewise in Wisdom of Ben Sira 44:23b–45:5 Moses is referred to as one who performed “swift miracles” in the “presence of kings,”72 a reference, Di Lella argues, to the wonders performed in Egypt before Pharaoh.73 In the LXX of Ben Sira (i.e. Ecclesiasticus), the translator additionally describes Moses as one who “by his words he caused signs to cease” (ἐν  λόγοις  αὐτου  σημεῖα  κατέπαυσεν).74 Both Snaith and Oesterley argue that the use of κατέπαυσεν (to cease an activity) highlights Moses’ ability to both inflict and eliminate the plagues on Egypt.75 70 71

Memar Markah 6:9. Cited in Macdonald, Samaritan, 149. Wisdom of Solomon 10:15–16: “Αὕτη  λαὸν  ὅσιον  καὶ  σπέρμα 

ἄμεμπτον  ἐρρύσατο  ἐξ  ἔθνους  θλιβόντων∙  εἰσῆλθεν  εἰς  ψυχὴν  θεράποντος  κυρίου  καὶ  ἀντέστη  βασιλεῦσιν  φοβεροῖς  ἐν  τέρασι  καὶ  σημείοις.” Translated as “A holy people and blameless race wisdom

delivered from a nation of oppressors. She entered the soul of a servant of the Lord, and withstood dread kings with wonders and signs.” Cited in Meeks, Prophet-King, 162. 72 Sirach 45:3. See J. Lierman, The New Testament Moses: Christian Perceptions of Moses and Israel in the Setting of Jewish Religion (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 35 for reconstructed Hebrew text. 73 A.A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira. (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 511. 74 Ecclusiasticus 45:3. 75 N.H. Snaith, Five Psalms (1; 27; 52; 107; 134) (London: Epworth, 1938), 221; W.O.E. Oesterley, The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus in the Revised version with Introduction and Notes Cambridge: University Press, 1912), 304, n3.

MIGHTY DEEDS OF JESUS, MOSES

39

Meeks notes that in Greek literature of a similar period, Artapanus is recorded to have stated that the Egyptian priests described Moses as Hermes, and attributed to him all the traditional functions of Hermes-Thoth in multiplying his mighty deeds with various exaggerations.76 Likewise, Ezekiel the Tragedian emphasizes the role of Moses in the Exodus narrative by noting that God said to Moses, “With this rod you will work all these plagues.”77 He later reports that an Egyptian eyewitness reported that “their leader Moses, taking the rod of God, with which before he had contrived evil signs and wonders (σημεῖα  καὶ  τέρατα) against Egypt, struck the surface of the Red Sea…”78 Therefore, on the basis of 1. the specific remembrance of Moses for his signs and wonders in the summary of his life in Deuteronomy, 2. the Psalter’s celebration of Moses’ deeds in Egypt within a liturgical context, 3. various other Jewish documents which have such an vivid interest in the Mosaic wonders, including Samaritan sources, and 4. Moses’ renown for his mighty deeds referred to in Greco-Roman sources,79 this strongly suggests that this feature played a dominant, if not defining, role for the prophet to come in several streams of Jewish tradition. On the basis of the above material, Hahn sees the demand and performance of signs in the Synoptic Gospels, not as a reflection of the Davidic hope in which there is apparently “no room for miracles,”80 but rather a Mosaic eschatological prophet.81 Meeks concludes that “the

Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 9.27. Cited in Meeks, Prophet-King, 163. Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 9.29. Cited in Meeks, Prophet-King, 163. 78 Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 9.29. Cited in Meeks, Prophet-King, 163. 79 Possibly the antecedent of Moses’ association with the magical realm. See above discussion. 80 F. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel; Ihre Geschichte im früen Christentum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), 219. Cited in Meeks, Prophet-King, 163 81 Hahn, Christologische, 219. Also see J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel (New York: Macmillan, 1955), 505–514. Cited in Meeks, Prophet-King, 163. 76 77

40

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

performance of ‘signs and wonders’ must have been a fundamental characteristic of the mission of the prophet like Moses.”82 If, however, this is a faithful reconstruction of a prominent aspect of the Jewish mindset, one would naturally expect, given the intense eschatological mindset of several Jewish groups, to find prophetic figures in and around the first century who were making prophetic claims that echo this sentiment. It is to this that we now turn our attention.

JEWISH “SIGN PROPHETS”83 Several figures and groups concerned with revolution against Roman occupation of Judea are discussed by Josephus. These individuals, finding considerable support in local villages, often present themselves as prophets, claiming ability to perform signs and wonders which were reminiscent of Moses in Egypt. Josephus mentions seven prophetic figures who operate on this level. During the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus (44–48 AD), Theudas persuaded the people “to take up their possessions and follow him to the Jordan River.”84 Upon marching to the Jordan, Theudas claimed he would command the waters to part, thus allowing him and his faithful followers safe passage to the other side, at which point they would turn and besiege Rome. Upon hearing rumors of these matters, Fadus, appropriately suspicious, dispatched cavalry against Theudas and his followers who were then attacked by surprise, and captured or killed the perpetrators. Theudas was decapitated and carried to Jerusalem not only as a military trophy, but also as a severe warning against insurrection against Rome. The importance of this event is sufficient to require quotation in full. Meeks Prophet-King, 163. Frankfurter concludes that there is “considerable evidence that a popular folklore of the Mosaic prophet and his signs played a large part in Palestinian Jewish beliefs.” Cited in Meeks Prophet-King, 163. 83 The title “sign prophets” is a modern designation adopted from the work of P. W. Barnett, “The Jewish Sign Prophets: A.D. 40–70,” NTS 27 (1981): 679–97. 84 Ant. 20.97 82

MIGHTY DEEDS OF JESUS, MOSES

41

Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem.85

As was the case at Herod the Great’s death (4BC) and Archelaus’ exile (6AD), the most opportune time for political insurrection was during the transition of leadership, in Theudas’ case the substitution of Jewish Kings for Roman Procurators.86 Josephus refers to these failed revolutionary prophets with particular distaste. Not only are they described as the diseased parts of the Jewish body,87 but Josephus terms Theudas88 (and others as will be seen below) as both charlatans and deceivers. The term used is γοήτες, which P.W. Barnett suggests recalls Josephus’ own description of the Exodus where terms such as γοητεία and μαγεία refer to Pharaoh’s court magicians.89 This does indeed lend support for a Mosaic Sitz im Leben of this and related descriptions of prophetic activity. This is confirmed in an investigation of how Josephus employs γόης, γοητεία or γοητεύω elsewhere in his work. Of the fourteen uses, six refer to Jewish sign prophets such as Theudas,90 which firmly establish this as a favored description of these individuals. A further four are related to Moses, 1. in defense

Ant. 20.97–98. Barnett, Jewish, 681. 87 War 2.264. 88 Ant. 20.97. 89 Ant. 2.286, 302, 332, 336. Barnett, Jewish, 681. 90 War 2.261, 264; Ant. 20.97, 160, 167, 188. 85 86

42

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

of mighty deeds being of God,91 2. in the description of Pharaoh’s mortification that he had allowed the Hebrews go “ὡς  κατὰ  γοητεία  τὴν  Μωυσέος” (through Moses’ deception),92 and 3. in defense of Moses and his law as “excellently designed to promote piety”93 against Apollonius Molon and Lysimachus. These phenomena support Barnett’s conclusion regarding Mosaic tone, for they are used in connection with Moses and the Exodus. Of the four remaining references, all are related to leadership in the Jewish War and three are specifically linked with insurrection.94 Although some may object that the apparent Mosaic typology is more in keeping with a new-Joshua schema, it can be simply said that as Allison,95 Alter,96 Blenkinsopp,97 Fishbane,98 and other commentators have demonstrated, Joshua’s presentation as a “new-Moses” is one of the most clearly developed biographical literary typologies in the available corpus of ancient Jewish literature. And thus an event, such as the parting of the Jordan, which bears such close similarity with Moses’ parting the Red Sea, must be given its due.99 Ant. 2.286 Ant. 3.320 93 Ag. Ap. 2.145, 161 94 John incited Gischala to revolt War 4.85; Castor the Jew deceived a Roman invasion War 5.317; and Justus, son of Pistis, incited a faction of the inhabitants of Tiberias to revolution through what Josephus calls ‘deception’ (Vita 40). Josephus’ description of the appointment of additional generals for the Jewish War refers to Eleazar, son of Simon, who is said to partake in deception. War 2.565 95 Allison, New Moses, 23–28. 96 R. Alter, The Pleasures of Reading in an Ideological Age (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989), 118. 97 J. Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins (Notre Dame: University Press, 1977), 48f. 98 M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 359. 99 For example, in the ‘Song of Moses,’ which praises Yahweh for His wonders ()lepe Exod 15:11), Moses describes the parted waters as dn' “a heap.” (Exod 15:8). Likewise, the waters of the river Jordan are described 91 92

MIGHTY DEEDS OF JESUS, MOSES

43

Josephus also notes that an unnamed person(s) during the reign of Antonius Felix, procurator in 52–60 AD, “called upon the mob to follow him to the desert,”100 where he promised to perform “unmistakable marvels”101 and “signs of freedom.”102 Furthermore, in Ant. 2.286 Moses speaks of the signs (σημεῖα) he performed before Pharaoh in Egypt as “κατὰ  . . .  θεοῦ  πρόνοιαν  καὶ  δύναμιν” (from God’s providence and power.) It is significant to note that the signs promised by prophetic pretenders under Felix are described in Ant. 20.168 as “τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα κατὰ τὴν τοῦ  θεοῦ  πρόνοιαν  γινόμενα” (marvels and signs which would be wrought in accordance with God’s providence). Although Barnett concedes that no certain answer is possible in regard to what signs these prophets were expected to perform,103 given 1. the close verbal parallel between Ant. 2.286 and 20.168, 2. Josephus’ previous employment of the phrase τὴν  ἐλευθερίαν  αὐτοῖς  σημείων in description of Israel at the Red Sea when they turned against Moses “forgetful of all those signs wrought by God in token of their liberation,”104 and 3. our above discussion on Josephus’ use of ‘γοητ‐’ as a description of activity in Egypt, it seems most plausible that the promised activities of the sign prophets would recall the Exodus event. This sentiment is also affirmed by Nicole who concludes that the expression “τέρατα  καὶ σημεῖα, the repeated appearance of desert, the content of the signs—all make it clear that in some way or other all these prophets had in mind the Jewish expectations concerning the return of Mosaic times.”105

as “rising up in a single heap (dn')” in Josh 3:16. Assimilation is also strengthened by the explicit reference to and connection of the Red Sea event and the Jordan crossing in Josh 4:23. 100 Ant. 20.167–168; War 2.258–259. 101 Ant. 20.167–168 102 War 2.258–259 103 Barnett, Jewish, 683. He does not, however, rule it out. 104 Ant. 2.327. 105 Nicole, Sêmeia, 82.

44

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

During the same period an Egyptian prophet arose and led thousands out into the wilderness,106 after which they traveled to the Mount of Olives, where their leader claimed the walls of Jerusalem would collapse at his command. This apparently would facilitate the wholesale destruction of the Roman garrison and legitimize his own ascension to power. Given that Felix is described by Tacitus as practicing “every kind of cruelty and lust,”107 it is no surprise that he attacked, slaughtered and scattered the Egyptian’s followers before they even attempted their act of revolution.108 On the basis of the presence of 1. wilderness, 2. a mountain and 3. deliverance from oppression, Schürer’s affirmation of a Mosaic scene is strongly supported.109 This particular figure is unique in that, in addition to laying claim to the title prophet, he also attempts to “set himself up as tyrant of the people” τοῦ δήμου τυραννείν.110 Meeks argues that this is a kingly designation, and as such also supports Mosaic allusion.111 In this regard Strack and Billerbeck conclude that both cases are concerned with an attempt to bring the people to a revolt against the Romans. The men who pretend to be prophets desire to play the role of liberators, deliverers of Israel. From this one recognizes how closely related in the The number of followers varies. According to Acts 21:38 it is 4,000 (Paul is confused with the leader of this particular group), yet according to War 2.261 it is 30,000. No figure is given in Ant. however Josephus does say that four hundred were killed and two hundred were captured (Ant. 20.171). 107 His 5.9. Cited in Barnett, Jewish, 1982, 683. 108 Ant. 20.169–172. War 2.261–63 adds the detail of wilderness wanderings before the ascension on the Mount of Olives. Barnett notes 4QTest, where Joshua’s curse on anyone who rebuilds Jericho (Josh 6:26) is reapplied to Jerusalem. In this way the “destruction of Jerusalem is an act of judgement on an apostate people.” Barnett, Jewish, 683. 109 Schürer, 2.180. Cited in Jeremias, TDNT, 873. 110 Barnett, Jewish, 683. 111 For Moses as king see Meeks, Prophet-King, 1967, 146f; J.T. Porter, Moses and Monarchy: A Study in the Biblical Tradition of Moses (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963) and Lierman, Moses, 79–123. 106

MIGHTY DEEDS OF JESUS, MOSES

45

thought of the people in the last century before the destruction of Jerusalem is the conception of ‘a prophet who would come’ and the redeemer…112

Approximately a decade later, during the Procturatorship of Porcius Festus (60–62 AD), another unnamed individual promised (ἐπαγγελλομένου) salvation (σωτηρίαν) and rest from troubles (παῦλαν  κακῶν) if the Israelites followed him into the wilderness.113 Although there is no reference to signs, all three terms are used in Josephus’ description of the redemption from Egypt.114 In addition to σωτηρίαν being promised by most of the sign prophets,115 Ant. 3.64 states that “Aaron and his family took Raguel, and sung hymns to God as the author and procurer of their salvation (σωτηρίας) and their liberty (ἐλευθερίας).” This indicates that these terms were, to some extent synonymous and interchangeable. Furthermore, in Ant. 2.276 and 3.219, trouble (κακῶν) is the opposite to salvation (σωτηρία), in that God delivers (saves) Israel and brings judgement/disaster (κακοῖς) on her enemies, in this case, upon Egypt. In this light Barnett concludes that “παῦλαν  κακῶν is to be equated with σωτηρία and ἐλευθερία.”116 It seems inevitable to go one step further, in agreement with J. L. Martyn, and conclude that “the signs referred to appear Mosaic…they are, so to speak, wilderness signs,”117 and hence acknowledge the Exodus typology which plays such a significant role in Josephus’ description of these individuals. This is also confirmed in August of 70AD when, during the temple’s destruction through fire, six thousand people fled to the only remaining portico in the outer court because they had been told by a “prophet” that they would receive “miraculous signs of

H.L. Strack, and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum New Testament (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1986), 2.480. 113 Ant. 20.188. 114 Barnett, Jewish, 685. 115 Ant. 2.237; 20:188; War 2.259; 6:286. 116 Barnett, Jewish, 682. 117 Martyn cited in Barnett, Jewish, 682. 112

46

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

their deliverance” and “help from God” at such a time as this.118 Josephus calls this individual a “ψευδοπροφήτης” (false prophet), and in light of his presentation of Moses as legitimate prophet elsewhere,119 suggests that he most plausibly is understood as a false-Mosaic typological figure, that is, one who claims and attempts to operate in a Mosaic capacity, yet fails to do so. This also may be a clue as to why Josephus would pattern such deplorable individuals (in his view) on a type (i.e. Mosaic Exodus) which in all his other writing he reveres.120 In two specific cases, Josephus notes that these ‘γοητες’ claim prophetic status. In Ant. 20.97 it is said of Theudas that he “προφήτης γὰρ ἔλεγεν εἶναι.” Likewise in Ant. 20. 169 the Egyptian claimed “προφήτης  εἶναι  λέγων γὰρ ἔλεγεν.”121 Despite their claims, Josephus reveals their inauthenticity, because their failure to enact their promised signs automatically characterizes their non-belonging to the legitimate Mosaic-Exodus traditions. J. Lierman,122 following R. Grey’s123 analysis of ‘σημεῖον’ in Josephus, suggests that in Antiquities and Jewish Wars, it is specifically employed in reference to the authentication of a prophet. Lierman concludes that σημεῖον functions as a “terminus technicus denoting the authenticating miracle of a prophet.”124 This finds general support in Ps 74:9 where the post-exilic complaint is that “we do not see our signs (σημεῖα); there is no longer any prophet.” This by no means diminishes Mosaic remembrance but intensifies it, as the would-be prophet is evaluated in the light of Moses’ activities in Egypt. The legitimacy of his own prophet-hood War 6.284–286. Ant. 2.327; Ap 2.145, 161. Barnett, Jewish, 687. 120 It is also conceivable that Josephus here merely records the prophet’s activities. However, the problem still remains that Josephus would include, in his mind, deplorable figures who attempt to pattern themselves on an event which he reveres. 121 This is echoed in War 2.261 “προφήτου  πίστιν  ἐπιθεὶς  ἑαυτῷ.” See Barnett, Jewsih, 683. 122 Lierman, Moses, 57. 123 Grey 1993, 128–152, cited in Lierman, Moses, 58. 124 Lierman, Moses, 58. 118 119

MIGHTY DEEDS OF JESUS, MOSES

47

is affirmed with reference to Moses as prototype. This is confirmed by Sifre. Deut 18:19 where it is stated that the words of a prophet may be accepted if he performs mighty deeds. Nicole argues that the passage from Sifre must have a fixed form in the first century because R. Akiba and R. Jose are attested to have a discussion which presupposes it.125 This strongly suggests that a literary category of Mosaic typology, based on his mighty deeds, was utilized by writers contemporary with Matthew. Our discussion at this point could continue to document the shared features of other prophetic pretenders in Josephus.126 However it is sufficient to note that the undercurrent of prophetic activity has one common denominator: the promise of ‘wondrous signs,’ ‘mighty deeds,’ ‘signs of liberation,’ and ‘rest from troubles.’ These were understood, by at least one Jewish historian, as reminiscent of not only Israel’s liberation from oppressive Egyptian slavery but specifically the figure of Moses. Barnett suggests that the wonders promised by the sign prophets were intended to act as pledges of future divine action.127 This, he argues, was not considered as vague fulfillment in the distant future, but just as the “Exodus signs”128 were chronologically close Nicole, Sêmeia, 83. Sanh. 89b, 90a; Sifre Deut 13:3; p. Sanh 18 (30c). To the above can be added the example of Jonathan the weaver who in 73AD promised to accomplish ‘signs and apparitions’ (σημεῖα καὶ  φάσματα) in the wilderness (ἔρημος), War 7.438. a scenario which again recalls the figure of Moses and the scenario of the Exodus. Cited in Meeks 1967, 163. Furthermore, an unnammed Samaritan in 36 AD attempted to persuade large numbers of Jews to go with him to Mt. Gerizim where, he promised the temple vessels which Moses had hidden would be revealed (War 18.85–87). Samaritans believed that when these vessels were recovered this would signal the inauguration of the eschatological age. See Macdonald, Samaritan, 443. Also robbers (under Nero) persuaded a multitude to come to the desert to show them signs and wonders (τέρατα  καὶ  σημεῖα) in Ant. 20.167; War 2.259 has the phrase “signs of freedom” (σημεῖον ἐλευθερίας). 127 Barnett, Jewsih, 688. He points out Ant. 2.327 as characteristic in this regard. 128 Barnett, Jewish, 688. 125 126

48

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

to their fulfillment in the Exodus from Egypt, so too was it expected that Israel would be speedily redeemed when the “the wheels of God…[were] set in motion for a re-run of his great saving act.”

ISRAEL’S CONTINUING EXILE Before we conclude, it is important to note one final matter. All of what has been argued throughout our discussion is confirmed and advanced by the acknowledgement that within the first century, Israel considered herself to still be in exile, and thus in need of a Mosaic deliverer and restorer. There are at least three lines of support for this ‘exilic’ first century Jewish mindset.129 First, even though Israel had geographically returned from Babylon and hence theoretically ‘returned from exile,’ there is no known Jewish festival which celebrates this return.130 Second, not only was there no festival commemorating Israel’s return from Babylon, but there are This idea has not been met with universal acceptance. J.D.G. Dunn 1998, 730 says “I remain unconvinced that the thought of Israel as still in exile formed the principal metanarrative governing either the thought of the time or Jesus’ understanding of his own ministry.” Similarly, A.E. Harvey 1997, 296 states “I am not yet convinced that…most Jews thought of themselves as being in exile and awaiting a true return.” 130 One of the most important aspects of Jewish religious life was the past remembrance and social celebration of Yahweh’s saving acts. Such annual celebrations included the Exodus from Egypt, (Passover involved the slaying and eating of a lamb, together with bitter herbs (recalling the bitter slavery) and bread made without yeast (to recall the hasty Israelite departure). See Exod 12; 13:3–10; 23:15; 34:18; Lev 23:5–8; Num 9:1–14; 28:16–25; Deut 16:1–8.); thankfulness for the productivity of Canaan (The feast of Tabernacles; See Exod 23:16b; 34:22b; Lev 23:33–36a, 39–43; Num 29:12–34; Deut 16:13–15; Zech 14:16–19), and Israel’s national deliverance during the time of Esther (Purim; See Est 9:18–32). Yet in regard to Israel’s return from Babylon, there is no reference in any extant Jewish literature that this event was celebrated with a thanksgiving feast, a phenomenon which is particularly unusual given Israel’s strong history of celebrating Yahweh’s saving acts. By implication Jews in the first century still considered themselves to be in exile. 129

MIGHTY DEEDS OF JESUS, MOSES

49

several intertestamental texts which anticipate Israel’s final deliverance from exile (Tob 13:5, 13; 14:5; Bar 4:36–37; 5:5; 2 Macc 1:27–29; 2:17 ). In later years131 the New Moon festival looked forward in anticipation to Israel’s redemption on the basis of their Exodus experience. In this regard, the monthly reappearance of the moon became a symbol of Israel’s restoration from exile: “He who wrought miracles for our fathers, and redeemed them from slavery to freedom, may he speedily redeem us and gather our exiles.”132 It was thought that just as the moon emerged from its total eclipse into brightness, so would Israel be redeemed from exile and restored to the land of her fathers. Third, the actions of the sign prophets and other Jewish factions in the first century indicate that they considered themselves to be still in exile. The Essenes had retreated to the desert (where God meets his people) and were fervently anticipating God’s intervention.133 4Q462 is reminiscent of the exodus deliverance when it states of the restored Israel that it will be “changed into brilliance …[and] Yahweh will remember Israel.” Furthermore, one can hardly doubt that the revolutionary fervor of the Zealots, chafing under Roman occupation, could be conceived of in a context which envisioned Israel as having finally been restored from exile.134 Thus it can be seen that liberation from exile was not only an aspect in Israel’s story in the first century, but the definitive motif. The golden years of David and Solomon’s rule had been marred by the division of the kingdom and the Babylonian exile in 587 BC. The promises of a new Exodus which arose under Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah, “ran out without a sense of an ending, except one

Although this is attested in the fourth century it no doubt had prior antecedent. 132 Cited in Millgram 1971, 265–266. Also see Isa 66:23. 133 2Q24 [2QNJ ar]; 4Q554 [4QNJa ar]; 4Q555 [4QNJb ar]; 5Q15 [5QNJ ar]; 11Q18 [11QNJ ar]; 134 M. Hengel, The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod 1 until 70 A.D (Edinburgh Press, 1989). 131

50

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

projcted into the future.” 135 In this sense, first century Jewish thought was a “story in search of a conclusion.”136 It was anticipated that the Creator would act again as he had done previously “to deliver Israel from her plight and deal with evil in the world.”137 It is precisely this hope that Matthew focuses on in presenting Jesus as the ‘liberator’ and ‘deliverer.’138 Matthew’s story claims to be the continuation (and proper completion) of Israel’s history.

JESUS À LA MOSES Given 1. Moses’ renown in the Greco-Roman world in his association with the magical realm in the papyri, 2. that Moses was the most esteemed and reflected upon figure in the contemporary Judaisms, 3. his prototypical genus as a future redeemer, 4. the strong, early and sustained tradition of Jewish material which emphasizing his signs and wonders, 5. Mosaic prophetic imitators attested in Josephus, and 6. the first century Jewish hope for deliverance from exile, it seems not unlikely that Matthew’s presentation of Jesus performing ten mighty deeds in chapters Mt 8–9 was intended to recall the former Mosaic figure. Within this context, it should therefore be no surprise that Jesus should become identified with Moses. In this regard several have noted that in the early Christian interpolations of Josephus’ record in the Slavonic version, some Jews are presented as saying of Jesus after War 2.174, that “this is our first legislator who has risen from the dead and who has shown many signs and wonders of his knowledge.”139 Likewise, the later Pseudo-Clementine Homiles, Recognitions 1:57 says “As Moses did signs and miracles, so N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (London: SPCK, 1993), 216. 136 Wright, People, 217. Also see Sirach 50:1–21; Jubilees 36:6; PseudoPhilo 51:6 137 Wright, People, 219. 138 This is reflected in the genealogy (1:1–17), in which Jesus is presented as the seventh seven and in 1:18–21 where Jesus is said to save his people from their sins. 139 Cited in Meeks, Prophet-King, 163. 135

MIGHTY DEEDS OF JESUS, MOSES

51

also did Jesus. And there is no doubt but that the likeness of the signs proves him [Jesus] to be that prophet of whom he [Moses] said that he should come ‘like myself.’” Eusebius makes a similar comparison noting that “Moses, by wonderful works and miracles authenticated the religion that he proclaimed; Christ likewise using his recorded miracles to inspire faith in those who saw them, established the new discipline of the gospel teaching.”140 Finally, of note is Nicodemus speaking in Acts of Pilate 5:1. What do you intend to do with this man? This man does many signs and wonders, which no one has done or will do. Let him alone and contrive no evil against him. If the signs which he does are from God, they will stand; if they are from men they will come to nothing. For Moses also when he was sent by God into Egypt, did many signs which God commanded him to do before Pharaoh.141

In many ways this identification was somewhat inevitable, based on the role of ‘mighty deeds’ in both the lives of Moses and Jesus. However, the question may be asked: to what extent do the mighty deeds of Jesus in Matthew 8–9 recall Moses’ activity in the Exodus? Is there a closer parallel than a basic recollection? Is there any correspondence between the types of mighty deeds, and does Matthew himself specifically present Jesus in Mosaic terms? These questions can only be adequately addressed in the context of a more detailed exegetical analysis of Matthew 8–9, and to this we now turn our attention.

Dem ev. 3:2. Cited in Allison, New Moses, 104. Cited in Allison, New Moses, 103. Other more general comparisons between Moses and Jesus, based on their life and death, include Niceta of Remesiana, De symbolo 1; Aphraates, Dem. 21.10; Sib Orac. 8.251–54. 140 141

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURE AND MEANING INTRODUCTION Matthew’s construction of chapters 8–9 displays Mosaic typology on several levels. After initially discussing the ‘Mosaic’ structural arrangement of Matthew’s Gospel on the macro-level (chs. 1–28), attention will be directed toward the structural parallels on the micro-level between Mt 8–9 and the Exodus plague narrative. This analysis will then be evaluated for its contribution in understanding Matthew’s larger narrative plot.

THE STRUCTURE OF MATTHEW 8–9 WITHIN MATTHEW AS A WHOLE Matthew 8–9 reveals Mosaic structure on 1. the macro level of the Gospel as a whole, and 2. the micro-level with the specific arrangement of the ten mighty deeds within chapters 8–9. In regard to the structure of Matthew’s gospel, much scholarly endeavor has been undertaken in attempting to discern a structural arrangement of material. As noted in our historical survey, one of the earliest and most influential structural hypotheses was B.W. Bacon’s Pentateuchal theory,1 in which he proposed that Matthew’s gospel was composed of five main sections, alternating between narrative and discourse material. This structure was employed, Bacon proposed, to present Matthew’s gospel as a counterpart to the five-part Mosaic Torah. The main divisions of Bacon’s proposal were as follows: Preamble (1:1–2:23); Book 1 (3:1–7:29); Book 2 (8:1–11:1); Book 3 (11:2–13:53); Book 4 (13:54–19:1a); Book 5 (19:1b–26:2) and Epilogue (26:3–28:20). The strength of this hypothesis resides in the fivefold refrain which concludes each main section of discourse. 1

Bacon, Studies, 187–89.

53

54

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9 7:28 Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς   τοὺς λόγους τούτους, 

11:1 Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς  διατάσσων τοῖς δώδεκα μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ,  13:53 Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς   τὰς παραβολὰς ταύτας,  19:1 Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς   τοὺς λόγους τούτους  26:1 Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς   πάντας τοὺς λόγους τούτους. 

In each summary statement the first six words are identical. The second half then refers to Jesus’ teaching: words in 7:28; 19:1; 26:1; instruction to the twelve in 11:1; parables in 13:53, and are thus linked by their summary of Jesus’ spoken activity. Bacon finds additional support for this in an early second century Greek fragment first published in 1917 which consisted of “six iambic verses apparently designed as a prologue to Matthew.”2 The first two read as follows,3 Ματθαῖος εἴργει τῶν  Ἰουδαίων θρασος

Matthew curbs the audacity of the Jews

Ὥσπερ χαλινοις πέντε  φιμωσας λόγοις

Checking them in five books as it were with bridles

This ancient tradition lends support to an early interpretation which envisioned Matthew’s Gospel as a fivefold counterpart to the Pentateuch. The strength of this structural analysis is the fivefold structural marker, which commends itself a fortiori beyond the tripartite division proposed by Kingsbury et al. on the basis of the repeated phrase ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς in 4:17 and 16:21.4 Bacon, Studies, xvi n8, xv. Greek text from Bacon, Studies, xvi, n8; translation from Davies, Setting, 18. 4 Kingsbury, Christology, 2–7. It stands to reason that if Kingsbury finds significance in the replication of a phrase as determinative for structure which is both shorter and less frequently attested (i.e. 3 vs 5), then it is difficult to argue that a fivefold hypothesis is less convincing. Other 2 3

STRUCTURE AND MEANING

55

Although not developing an alternative, Davies argues against Bacon’s structural analysis and questions the validity of reoccurring words as a significant connecting formula; he skeptically concludes, “can they bear the structural strain imposed upon them by Bacon?” To which his answer is a definitive no!5 His reasoning for adopting such a position is based on the earlier research carried out by Hawkins in his work entitled Horae Synopticae,6 in which Hawkins identified other ancient literature bearing a fivefold division. Examples offered are 1. the Psalter (Ps 1–41; 42–72; 73–89; 90– 106; 107–150) in which the books conclude with a similar formula (Ps 41:13; 72:18–19; 89:52; 106:48; 150),7 2. the five Megilloth,8 3. the five divisions of Ecclesiasticus, 4. the five divisions of Proverbs (Pro 1–9; 10–24; 25–29; 30; 31), 5. the five sections of Enoch (En 1–36; 37–71; 72–82; 83–90; 91–108), and 6. the original five tractates of the Mishnah. As such the fivefold division is a common literary convention, employed out of convenience in arranging material. What is one to make of these other works which display a fivefold division? On first reading, this seems to tell strongly against a Mosaic schema for Matthew’s fivefold division. However upon closer inspection, rather than tell against Mosaic recollection, it is enhanced. Such is the case with the Psalter, which in Jewish tradition, typologically portrays David as a Mosaic figure on the basis that the fivefold division of the Mosaic Torah provided the impetus for fivefold divisions.9 Furthermore, Philo designates the structural hypotheses have been proposed including, Stonehouse’s theological/biographical division and Goulder’s lectionary hypothesis. See D.A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13 (Dallas, Texas: Word Book Publisher, 1993), 1–2. 5 Davies, Setting, 17. 6 Hawkins, 1899, 132ff.; cited in Davies, Setting, 15. 7 Davies, Setting, 16. 8 Esther, Ruth, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes. 9 Midrash Ps 1:1 states “For this is the law of man: Scripture does not say here “for this is the law of Abraham, of Isaac or of Jacob,” but “for this is the law of man.” But what man? He who is foremost among the prophets; he who is foremost among the kings. The foremost among the prophets- he is Moses…[and] foremost among the kings—he is David.

56

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

psalmists as τῶν Μωυσέως γνωρίμων τις (disciples of Moses) in Conf. 39, which again suggests a link between the speaker/writer of the Psalms and Moses. In this way, Hawkins’ original objection (followed by Davies) to the Mosaic fivefold division of Matthew’s gospel, based upon a similar division in the Psalms does not necessarily negate Mosaic typology, but rather opens up the possibility for Mosaic allusion. In regard to the Megilloth, Ecclesiasticus, Proverbs and Enoch, the conspicuous absence of any transitional formula and at times, the somewhat arbitrary division, especially in regard to Proverbs, concerning which there is significant disagreement,10 caution against hastily attributing the fivefold division as a common literary motif You find that whatever Moses did, David did. As Moses led Israel out of Egypt, so David led Israel out of servitude to Goliath. As Moses fought the battles of the Lord against Sihon and Og, so David fought the battles of the Lord in all the regions around him, as Abigail said “My lord fighteth the battles of the Lord” (1 Sam 25:28). As Moses became king in Israel and in Judah, for it is said “And he became king in Jeshura, when the heads of people…were gathered together” (Deut 33:5), so David became king in Israel and in Judah. As Moses divided the Red Sea for Israel, so David divided the rivers of Aram for Israel, as it is said “David…divided the rivers of Aram (Ps 60:1, 2). As Moses built an altar, so David built an altar. As the one brought offerings, so the other brought offerings. As Moses gave five books of law to Israel, so David gave five books of Psalms to Israel…Finally, as Moses blessed Israel with the words “Blessed art thou, O Israel” (Deut 33:29), so David blessed Israel with the words “Blessed is the man.”” This reinforces the idea that the five books of Torah were given by God through Moses and reciprocally the five books of the Psalms came from David. David as a new-Moses figure has been proposed by various commentators. However the most recent full investigation is Allison, New Moses, 35f. 10 Various proposals for the structure of Proverbs have been suggested. R.E. Murphy, Proverbs (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998) proposes a ten fold division based on the speakers of the Proverbs. W. McKane, Proverbs (London: SCM Press, 1970) alternatively proposes an eightfold division which can be grouped in three larger sections of 1. Instruction genre, 2. Sentence literature and 3. Poems and Numerical sayings.

STRUCTURE AND MEANING

57

devoid of Mosaic significance. Furthermore, the Mishnah was a compendium of largely legal, Rabbinic discussion on hermeneutical application of the Mosaic Torah, and hence division into five sections may intend to recall the divisions of the Torah. In this sense the Mishnah, as the Psalms, are divided into five sections in assimilation of the Torah as a prototypical fivefold document. Davies nonetheless attempts to expunge any residual Mosaic typology suggested by the fivefold division of Matthew’s gospel on the basis of his supposition that the transitional formulas were present in one of Matthew’s sources, a document which he calls ‘proto-Matthew.’11 Davies, following Godet, suggests that the similarity of Lk 7:1 with Mt 7:28, both of which are located after the extended sermon discourse, supports a common origin for both, and as such nothing can be uniquely attributed to Matthew in the implementation of this phrase. He concludes that “[this] division, if it be derivative, cannot be of dominant significance in deciphering the intention of the evangelist.”12 However in this regard three things may be said. First, Davies’ argument seems to be weakened by the simple fact that a hypothetical source ‘proto-Matthew’ is not known to exist. Second, this single similarity may be somewhat stretched. Apart from different Greek constructions used for introduction ([Mt Καὶ  ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν] [Lk ἐπειδὴ ἐπλήρωσεν]) Jesus’ speech is variously described as τοὺς λόγους τούτους (Mt) and τὰ ῥήματα  αὐτοῦ (Lk), which again cautions against too close an association. It is in this sense that Kurt Aland designated the parallel to a small font text in his Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum indicating that the association is possible but not substantially persuasive.13 Similarly, Luz concludes, “How far Matthew followed Q can hardly be recognized, since Luke 7:1a is completely Lukan.”14 Third, in addition to there being no direct evidence for a ‘proto-Matthew’ document, such documents as do remain, namely canonical and Davies, Setting, 18. Ibid., 19. 13 K. Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1970), 73. 14 Luz, Matthew, 455. 11 12

58

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

other gospels, indicate that the other four insertions of the transitional formula into Matthew’s gospel are unique to Matthew. A fascinating additional phenomenon commends investigation as the possible impetus for Matthew’s textual marker. As noted above, the repetitive transitional formulae are common in ancient Jewish literary works.15 Allison notes that the book of Deuteronomy has a most striking formula which appears three times (31:1,24; 32:45), in which the first half is more stable than the second.16 Deut 31:1

καὶ συνετέλεσεν Μωυσῆς  λαλῶν πάντας τοὺς  λόγους τούτους

When Moses had finished speaking all these words

Deut 31:24

ἡνίκα δὲ συνετέλεσεν  Μωυσῆς γράφων πάντας  τοὺς λόγους τοῦ νόμου  τούτου

When Moses had finished writing down in a book the words of this law

Deut 32:45

καὶ συνετέλεσεν Μωυσῆς  λαλῶν παντὶ Ισραηλ

When Moses had finished speaking to all Israel

Several commentators have suggested that Matthew’s formula was written with the Deuteronomistic texts on the horizon.17 Support for this is seen in the phrase τοὺς  λόγους  τούτους, occurring twice in the Deuteronomic formulae (Deut 31:1, 24) and thrice in the Matthean formulae (Mt 7:28; 19:1; 26:1).18 Furthermore, in only one other instance (Num 16:31) does καὶ introduce [συν]τελω attached to a subject (either Ἰησοῦς or Μωυσῆς)

To the above examples given by Davies in the Psalter can be added Judges 2:11; 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1 “the Israelites (again) did what was evil in the sight of the Lord.” Allison, New Moses, 192. 16 Allison, New Moses, 193. 17 Dabeck 1947, 176; Frankemölle 1984, 334, 370; Gnilka 1989, 1.283– 284; Ogawa 1979, 115–116; Teeple 1957, 82. Cited in Allison, New Moses, 193 n124. 18 Allison, New Moses, 193. 15

STRUCTURE AND MEANING

59

functioning as a description of the type of authoritative speech delivered.19 In this regard Luz asks, “Is he [Matthew] influenced by Old Testament formulations?…Does he want to recall Deuteronomy deliberately?”: to which he responds that due to the lack of specific literary connections, when they “could have been formed easily,”20 and suggests that a direct parallel is not in view. It seems inevitable to concur with Luz on this point due to vocabulary dissimilarities such as τελέω  cf. συντελέω.21 These verbal considerations, in addition to the expanded five (cf. three) references in Matthew tell against a direct comparison with the transitional formula quotations in Deuteronomy. Nonetheless, it is quite possible that Matthew works with a general recollection of this Mosaic phrase and it provided the impetus for his modification and integration of the expanded fivefold form into the textual fabric of his own work. In this regard, Matthew’s gospel displays significant features which favor Bacon’s original fivefold division. Bacon, however, went on to argue that each one of these five sections directly corresponds to its Pentateuchal counterpart.22 However, as Wright et al. have noted,23 too much is claimed for this parallel for it is somewhat strained and distorted because various elements are found in the ‘wrong’ corresponding book.24 The most serious Allison, New Moses, 193. Luz, Matthew, 455. 21 Mt uses τελέω seven times (7:28; 10:23; 11:1; 13:53; 17:24; 19:1; 26:1). Although Mt does not use συντελέω, other NT writers employ the term (Mk 13:4; Lk 4:2, 13; Acts 21:27; Rom 9:28; Heb 8:8). 22 Bacon proposed that Book 1 (Mt 3:1–7:29) parallels themes in Genesis; Book 2 (Mt 8:1–11:1) parallels themes in Exodus; Book 3 (11:2– 13:53) parallels themes in Leviticus; Book 4 (Mt 13:54–19:1a) parallels themes in Numbers; and Book 5 (19:1b–26:2) parallels themes in Deuteronomy. 23 Wright, People, 387. W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, The Gospel According to Matthew: Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,1988), 61f. 24 Another suggestion includes the five part division based on the law code in Deuteronomy 12–26 falling into five parts (12:2–8; 12:29–17:13; 17:14–18:22; 19:1–25:19; 26:1–15). 19 20

60

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

weakness of this kind is the description of the birth narrative in explicit Exodus-like structure and imagery (see below) in Bacon’s proposed ‘first book’, which he argues corresponds to Genesis. Wright25 however, alternatively develops Bacon’s proposal more plausibly by integrating Lohr’s chiastic analysis26 which focuses attention on the climactic thirteenth chapter of Kingdom parables. Wright proposes that the first and last blocks of teaching (5–7 [111vv.], 23–25 [136vv.]), each of which are substantially longer than the three intervening teaching blocks (10:1–42; 13:1– 52; 18:1–35) contribute to this chiastic schema.27 The initially repeated phrase in each section (blessed x 9; woe x 7) prepares the reader for Mathew’s intended comparison, not of direct Pentateuchal correspondence, but of the Deuteronomistic renewal of the covenant summarized in Deut 27–30. These chapters form part of Moses’ speech addressing Israel as they gather on the east of the Jordan. Before going in to possess the land, the covenant is set out in terms of curses and blessings corresponding to fidelity to Yahweh.28 In this light, Matthean structure may be represented as follows: see pages 62–63 for diagrammatic summary. Some have criticized this fivefold analysis on the basis that it marginalizes the crucifixion and resurrection as mere epilogue. While this remains somewhat problematic, perhaps a more helpful Wright, People, 387. C.H. Lohr, “Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew,” CBQ 23 (1961): 403– 435. 27 Wright, People, 387ff. 28 We will return to this issue in our discussion of Matthew’s use of Isa 53:4 in 8:17. Wright notes that the sixteen curses, set out in Deut 27:15– 26 and 28:16–19 and amplified in Deut 28:20–68, conclude with the threat of exile should the Israelites not keep the covenant. The four blessings which are set out in Deut 28:3–6 and amplified in 28:1–2, 7–14 (summarized again in Deut 29) demonstrate that Israel will be her own judge in this matter, bringing blessing or cursing on herself dependent on her response to Yahweh. It is significant to note that in Deut 30 Moses promises that, even if the curses come on them because of their sin, they will be rescued and the covenant will be renewed. See N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1996), 357ff. 25 26

STRUCTURE AND MEANING

61

way of understanding the so-called ‘epilogue’ would be as ‘climax,’ and in this way, the proposed fivefold chiastic structural arrangement does not merely reduce the important events of crucifixion and resurrection to ‘epilogue’ but concentrically builds towards them throughout the entire gospel.29 Furthermore, in a work which claims on so many levels to fulfill the scripture (explicit citation, paradigmatically, thematically and use of vocabulary), this sequence of five can hardly be ignored. In this sense Matthew’s structure can be understood as typologically expounding his Christology. The fivefold division lends itself to a ‘Pentateuchal’ reading in which Jesus is presented as the new Moses who gives a new Torah in the context of blessings and cursing dependent on Israel’s response.

ARRANGEMENT OF MATTHEW 8–9 How then does Matthew 8–9 fit into this larger Mosaic schema and how is it structured? As is evident from our diagrammatic structural summary, chapters 8–9 form the narrative section at the beginning of Matthew’s second large block of teaching material (8:1–11:1). For the purpose of the following discussion we accept the general consensus in synoptic studies that Matthew and Luke used Mark, their own special material (M, L) and the hypothetical ‘Q’ while drawing on a body of oral tradition.30 From an analysis of the synoptic relationships, it is evident that Matthew has specifically arranged his material into its present form,31 a form which displays special significance for his Mosaic schema. Matthew’s redaction of Mark can be expressed in the

Additionally, one could argue that the criticism is misdirected since it fails to note that the five blocks concern Jesus’ teaching, none of which occur during his infancy or crucifixion. 30 See introduction for further discussion of synoptic presuppositions for this work. 31 Note Beare’s comment that Matthew “drastically alters” Markan order. F.W. Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew (Oxford, Blackwell, 1981), 202. 29

62

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

STRUCTURE AND MEANING

63

64

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

following chart.32 Dark shading denotes material unique to Matthew, medium shading denotes Mt and Lk’s hypothetical Q source, light shading denotes material shared by all three synoptics in similar order, and bold reference denote where Matthew has changed Mark’s order in constructing chapters 8–9.33 As a result, the more dark and bold boxes in Matthew’s column, the more evident it is that that he was not mechanically relaying a large body of tradition, but rather shaping it for a theological purpose, a schema which will be revealed to demonstrate specific remembrance of the Mosaic Exodus. Mark

Matthew

Luke

8:1 1:29–31

8:14–15

4:38–39

1:32–34

8:16–17

4:40–41

1:40–44

8:2–4

5:12–14

2:1–12

9:1–8

5:17–26

2:13–17

9:9–13

5:27–32

2:18–22

9:14–17

5:33–39

4:35–41

8:23–27

8:22–25

5:21–43

9:18–26

8:40–56

6:7, 13–19a

10:1–4

9:1; 6:12–16

6:34

9:35–38

10:2–3

8:5–13

7:1–10

8:18–22

9:57–62

9:27–31 9:32–34 The arrangement of material in Luke is also included to demonstrate that both Mt and Lk used Mk differently to aid their theological purpose. 33 This diagrammatic summary obviously cannot highlight many of the more detailed literary tendencies of each writer. This analysis will be explored below in the exegetical discussion below (cf. Appendix 2). 32

STRUCTURE AND MEANING

65

From this synoptic analysis it can be seen that Matthew selectively places Mark’s narration of Jesus’ fourth mighty deed first, and as such deserves special attention (an issue to which we will return). Then after following Mark from 1:29–1:34, Matthew proceeds to 4:35 and follows the material until 5:20, before returning to Mk 2:1ff. Matthew then picks up where he left off in chapter 5 (v.21) and rearranges Mark’s material in chapter 6, substituting earlier for later material (i.e. Mk 6:7, 13–19a in Mt 10:1–4 and Mk 6:34 in Mt 9:35–38). All this to say that Matthew did not merely reproduce Mark’s ordering of the narration of Jesus’ mighty deeds but carefully and selectively structured chapters 8–9 into a schematized whole. Allen divides Mt 8–9 into a series of nine mighty deeds, grouped together in three triplets:34 1. three miracles of healing 8:1– 15; 2. three miracles of power 8:23–9:8; and 3. three miracles of restoration 9:18–34. This division is only possible by including the healing of the bleeding woman (9:20–23) within the larger story of the healing of Jairus’ daughter (9:18–26), an enumeration Allen justifies by claiming that 9:18–26 contains “a miracle within another, and may be counted as one. And the fact that there are two previous series of three miracles suggests that the editor reckoned this last series as three not four.”35 There are two considerations which render Allen’s conclusions dubious. First, Allen’s categories of ‘healing,’ ‘power’ and ‘restoration’ lack the specificity required to appropriately designate each section with any real clarity. Davies similarly notes in regard to the third grouping that “restoration seems quite insufficient to distinguish them as a special class.”36 Second, it is somewhat circular to argue that the two healing stories in 9:18–26 should be coalesced into the same event on the basis of Matthew’s prior use of grouping material together in triplets.37 Mt 9:18–26 should be understood as two separate healing stories by virtue of the two different requests, two Allen, Critical, a. 73, b. 80, c. 94. Allen, Critical, 94. For similar analysis, see J.P. Meier, Matthew (UK: Wilmington Press, 1980), 79–80. 36 Davies, Setting, 87. 37 Although it may provide some precedent, it does not on its own establish this as the case. 34 35

66

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

different locations, two different actions of healing and two different people being healed, in sum, two mighty deeds. Furthermore, as Davies and Allison have noted, Matthew’s gospel is replete with series of triplets: including the tripartite genealogy (1:2–17), the three infancy stories (1:18–25; 2:1–12; 2:13–23), the successive three parts of John’s ministry (3:1–6, 7–12, 13–17), the three temptations in the wilderness (4:2–4, 5–7, 8–10) and the Sermon on the Mount (5–7) which abounds with tripartite structure.38 Given this, (contra Allen) the pericope of Mt 9:18–26 could function to alert the reader, when instead of a group of three, Matthew inserts a fourth story and unbalances his previous tripartite divisions. It is in this sense that Matthew displays peculiar emphasis on the ten deeds accomplished by Jesus in Mt 8–9. These may be diagrammatically represented as follows: a series of ten mighty deeds punctuated with three call narratives.39 1. Mt 8:1–4

Cleansing of a leper

2. Mt 8:5–13

Centurions’ paralyzed servant

3. Mt 8:14–17

Peter’s mother in law Call narrative Mt 8:18–22 (Scribe)

4. Mt 8:23–27

Stilling of the storm

5. Mt 8:28–9:1

Gadarene Demoniacs

6. Mt 9:2–8

Paralytic Call narrative Mt 9:9–17 (Matthew)

7. Mt 9:18–19, 23–26

Girl restored to life

8. Mt 9:20–22

Woman with hemorrhage

9. Mt 9:27–31

Blind men

10. Mt 9:32–34

Mute demoniac

Call narrative Mt 9:35–10:4 (Twelve disciples)

For example, three lots of three beatitudes (5:3–12). See Davies and Allison, Matthew, 63. 39 Technically the first is not a call issued by Jesus, but rather focuses on the cost of responding to Jesus. In this light some commentators prefer to call these intermittent units ‘discipleship words.’ 38

STRUCTURE AND MEANING

67

According to Schoeps,40 Matthew deliberately structured his narrative in this fashion to parallel the ten wonders associated with Moses at the first Exodus, in fulfillment of Mic 7:15, “As in the days of your coming forth out of the land of Egypt, I will show them wonders.” Affirming this, Teeple complimented Schoeps’ research, by pointing out an additional reference in m. Avot 5:5 which states that “ten wonders were done for our fathers in Egypt.” Teeple suggests that this is evidence that the ten Mosaic miracles were prevalent in the Jewish mind in the first century.41 As such, this constitutes strong incentive for interpreting the ten mighty deeds in Mt 8–9 as a reinterpretation/application of the Exodus within the context of Jesus’ healing activity.42 Although Davies admits that in chapters 8–9 Matthew has “radically departed from the Markan order”43 and as such one would expect there to be some kind of significance to his rearrangement of material, he concludes (with Bultmann et al.) that the series of die große Wunderserie ‘great wonders’ is “purely literary convenience.”44 Davies, following Allen, argues that the number ten is not used exclusively of Exodus wonders in Jewish literature.45 Examples cited include Avot 5:1 ten utterances of creation; Avot 5:2–3 ten generations; Avot 5:4 ten temptations of Abraham; Avot 5:8 ten things created on the eve of the Sabbath and B. Rosh ha Sh 18a ten things through which the world was created. In light of these references, which seem to downplay the significance of Matthew’s tenfold collection of mighty deeds, Davies concludes “the incidence of ten miracles cannot be assumed to point to the Exodus.”46

Schoeps, Theologie, 93 n3: wonders as mark of new exodus motif. Teeple, Eschatological, 82–83. 42 In fact one commentator (Loisy) was so impressed by Matthew’s tenfold pattern that he relegated the last two mighty deeds to Matthean invention. Cited in Davies, Setting, 88. 43 Davies, Setting, 87. 44 Davies, Setting, 87. 45 Allen, Critical, 94. 46 Davies, Setting, 89. 40 41

68

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

Two comments are in order before we proceed. First, it has long been noted that the number ten in Jewish literature often functions as the number seven, to indicate fullness, completion or perfection,47 and hence on its own, is not necessarily associated with mighty deeds. However, the preliminary connection identified in Matthew by Schoeps and Teeple, given other Jewish works which specifically recall the ten mighty deeds done in Egypt (e.g. Avot 5:4a, 5a), it is at least a possibility that Matthew also intended to recall these events. Second, as is evident from Allen’s listing of material which utilizes the number ten (either metaphorically or literally), a significant proportion refer to creation. Even the ten praise Psalms of David (B. Rosh ha Sh 32a), offer praise to Yahweh on the basis of his creative and sustaining omnipotence. Significant for our discussion is that, as M.N. Sarna has noted, in several ways the Exodus from Egypt was envisioned as a ‘new creation’ event,48 and if Matthew appeals to a number which is not only explicitly recorded as associated with the delivering deeds of the Exodus but also creational activity, then this provides additional momentum for Jesus’ portrayal as a new-Moses figure in chapters 8–9.49

Gen 1 ‘ten words of creation.’ Gen 16:3; 18:32; 32:15; Exod 26f ‘tabernacle measurements.’ 1 Sam 1:8; Job 19:3; 2 Chron 30;24; Ps 33:2; 68:17; 91:7; Eccl. 7:19; Song 5:10; Is. 5:10; 38:8; Jer. 41:1–2,8; Jub 19:8; Tob. 1:14; 4:20; Wis. 7:2; 12:22; Sir. 23:19; 41:4; 1 Macc. 4:29; 10:74; Philo, Mos 1:96 (ten as a ‘perfect number.’); Matt 25:1–13; Rev 2:10; Josephus, Ant. 4.304. 48 Features of the Exodus which suggest it is a new creation event include 1. plagues of judgement reduce Egyptian world to chaos, 2. the Red Sea deliverance involving water, wind and the appearance of dry land (cf Gen 1), 3. Construction of the cuboidal tabernacle as perfect microcosm (Exod 25–31). See M.N. Sarna, Exploring Exodus (New York: Schocken, 1986). 49 Also to note are the strong Mosaic/Exodus motifs in Mt 1–7, including 1. the genealogical sequence of Abraham-David-Exile, 2. the birth and infancy narratives, 3. the temptation narrative, and 4. the new interpretation of the law on the mountain. See above discussion in chapter 1. 47

STRUCTURE AND MEANING

69

Nonetheless, in addition to the numerical parallel, a similar pattern appears in the grouping of the material in Mt 8–9 and the plagues in Exod 7–12.50 Samuel ben Meir, the French Tosaphist, notes in his twelfth century commentary on Exodus that the firstsecond, fourth-fifth and seventh-eighth plagues are preceded by warnings, whereas the third, six and ninth, which are briefer, are not.51 To this preliminary threefold subdivision, Greenberg adds several other aspects of structural sophistication, primarily through “an invariably recurring order of introductory clauses.”52 The first (Exod 7:15), fourth (Exod 8:16) and seventh (Exod 9:13) plagues involve a divine command for Moses to stand before Pharaoh at the Nile to warn him of the coming calamity, in which in each case a form of bcn ‘station yourself’ is used. Furthermore, as is evident from Exod 7:15; 8:20 and 9:13 the first, fourth and seventh plagues occur rqEb@ob@a ‘in the morning.’ No time indication is given in respect to the other two.53 In the second (Exod 7:26), fifth (Exod 9:1) and eighth (Exod 10:1) plagues, God commands Moses to enter Pharaoh’s own residence and issue the warning with the recurring phrase h(or:p@a-l)e )Ob@ “Go in to Pharaoh.” The third, sixth and ninth plague are initiated with divine command, yet without warning or common formula. Tripartite design can also be discerned through the human instrumentality.54 The first triplet of plagues is enacted by Aaron in stretching out Moses’ staff, the third triplet involves Moses stretching forth his hand, yet the middle triplet displays no characteristic pattern.55 Lest we doubt that other ancient writers were aware and made use of the 3 x 3 + 1 pattern of the plague narrative in Exod 7–12, it is prudent to note that Philo’s triadic Two other accounts of the plague narrative are recorded in the Psalter, (78:42–51; 105:27–36), both of which have unique number and order. See Sarna, Exodus, 75. 51 Samuel ben Meir; cited in Allison, New Moses, 210. 52 M. Greenberg, “Exodus,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Macmillan Company, 1971), 13:606. 53 Greenberg, Exodus, 13:606; Sarna, Exodus, 75. 54 Sarna, Exodus, 75. 55 See discussion below for Aaron’s role in the plagues. 50

70

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

assessment of the Egyptian events also displays a grouping together of three lots of three. [God] distributed the punishments in this way: three belonging to the denser elements, earth and water, which have gone to make our bodily qualities what they are , he committed to the brother of Moses; another set of three, belonging to air and fire, the two most productive of life, he gave Moses alone; one, the seventh, He committed to both in common; and the other three which go to complete the ten He reserved to Himself.56

Indeed, early recognition of this tripartite division is also apparent in R.Judah’s mnemonic recorded in the Haggadah.57 This structural symmetry has caused several modern commentators to posit that the first nine plagues should be grouped together in three sets of three with an additional tenth as climactic. Goldberg argues that the plagues gradually intensify “beginning with nuisances, passing through destruction of livestock and crops and ending with the death of human beings.”58 However, it is not entirely clear that there is gradual intensification given that Philo (Mos. 1.98) describes the plague of blood (first plague) as a fatal pestilence and Josephus (Ant. 2.293ff.) describes the plagues of lice, swarms, ulcers and darkness as causing a “miserable perishing”59 of life. Nonetheless, on the basis of warning, time, instruction formula and agent, Sarna summarizes Exod 7–12 literary artistry in the following diagrammatic summary.60

Philo Mos 1:97ff. Cited in Allison, New Moses, 210. Cited in Greenberg, Exodus, 13:606. Also see Rashbam to 7:26; Bahya 10 10:1. 58 Greenberg, Exodus, 13: 606; Also see Sarna, Exodus, 75. 59 Ant. 2.300. 60 Sarna, Exodus, 76. References are from the MT. Also reproduced in Allison, New Moses, 212. 56 57

STRUCTURE AND MEANING

Plague

First series

Second series

Third Series

Climax

71

Source in Exodus

Warning

Time

Instruction formula

Agent

1. Blood

7:14–24

Yes

‘in the morning’

“station yourself”

Aaron

2. Frogs

7:25–8:11

Yes

None

“Go to Pharaoh”

Aaron

3. Lice

8:12–15

None

None

None

Aaron

4. Insects

8:16–28

Yes

“in the morning”

“station yourself”

God

5. Pestilence

9:1–7

Yes

None

“Go to Pharaoh”

God

6. Boils

9:8–12

None

None

None

Moses

7. Hail

9:13–35

Yes

“in the morning”

“station yourself”

Moses

8. Locusts

10:1–20

Yes

None

“Go to Pharaoh”

Moses

9. Darkness

10:21–23

None

None

None

Moses

Yes

None

None

God

10. Death of 11:4–7 Egyptian first 12:29–30 born

This elaborate structural pattern is impressive and thus it is within this context that the structural parallel with Matthew is formed.61 In like manner to the plague narrative, Matthew arranges his unique collection of Jesus’ mighty deeds (3x3+1 format) in order to mirror the wonders of Moses in number and structure.

It certainly tells against Davies’ and Allison’s conclusion that “there is nothing corresponding to this [i.e. structure of Mt 8–9] in Exodus.” Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.1. 61

72

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9 Plagues in Egypt

Jesus’ Mighty Deeds

First series

First series

Second series

Second series

Third Series

Third Series

Allison has formulated three objections to the comparison of Jesus and Moses on the basis of this structural parallel. 1. He questions the legitimacy of whether destructive plagues of judgement and bountiful deeds of mercy “naturally invite comparison.”62 2. In Matthew, unlike the Exodus, the final mighty deed is neither separated from the others nor is it climactic. And finally, 3. Matthean material is commonly grouped in triplets and therefore is a common way of organizing the traditions he works with.63 On this basis, Allison concludes that “I here doubt the presence of a Moses typology.”64 What then can be said in response to these limitations Allison attempts to put on Matthew’s paradigmatic use of the structural whole of Exod 7–12 in his narration of the events in chapters 8–9? In regard to Allison’s first objection, although it is true that deeds of judgement and deeds of mercy do not naturally invite comparison, as will become evident in the discussion regarding Mt 8:17’s explicit citation of Isa 53:4, this ironic reversal is the very

Allison, New Moses, 211. Allison, New Moses, 423–445; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.58–72. 64 Allison, New Moses, 213. 62 63

STRUCTURE AND MEANING

73

thing that Matthew intends to highlight.65 This vital step Matthew employs in developing the theme of reversal was first introduced in the blessings of Mt 5:3–12 and is later to be contrasted with the cursings/woes of Mt 23:1f.66 It will become apparent in our ensuing investigation that the differentiation between deeds of judgement and mercy are not antithetical but rather exhibit the same two aspects of Yahweh’s invitation to Israel. In regard to Allison’s second objection, that the final mighty deed is not climactic and hence does not facilitate a typological association with the plagues of Exodus, two things may be said in addition to the softening of the ‘gradual intensification’ argument (see above). First, implicit in the use of any pattern or paradigm is the abandoning of some features to highlight or represent others. The criticism that not all features are carried over (in this instance the climactic tenth deed) is tantamount to demanding that a typology reproduce, in every regard, the material it draws upon. This seems to defeat the purpose of typological association which invariably uses parts of the former scheme to help interpret the latter. In this regard Chrysostom concludes, “The type must not have nothing in common with the antitype, for then there would be nothing typical. Nor on the other hand must it [the type] be identical with the other [the antitype], or it would be the reality itself.”67 Second, although the last mighty deed in Mt 8–9 does not display any real developmental sense of climax, as will be argued below, Matthew develops climactic momentum in the intervening “call narrative” material. After the first triad of mighty deeds, Jesus articulates the cost of following him to a scribe (perhaps representative of Israel) in Mt 8:18–22. To this there is no stated response, presumably falling on deaf ears. After the second triad of mighty deeds another call is offered, this time to Matthew the tax collector, who does indeed respond positively (Mt 9:9–12), and for this reason the episode builds on the former in that a positive response is elicited. The next ‘call narrative’ is placed immediately See discussion below on the use of Isa 53:4 in Mt 8:17. See above reference to Wright’s discussion regarding the chiastic nature of these two main blocks of teaching. 67 PG 51:248 65 66

74

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

after the tenth mighty deed (Mt 9:35–10:4). Matthew presents Jesus as climactically reconstituting the twelve tribes of Israel in the appointment of twelve disciples, and in this way weaves his version of the climax expressed in the plagues of Egypt into the message of Israel’s final restoration and liberation, exactly the function and purpose of the first Exodus. Allison’s third objection, that of common tripartite Matthean use, while validly highlighting a general literary convention, fails to convince for several reasons. First, the above analysis has demonstrated that both the mercy/judgement dilemma and the climactic elements are developed by Matthew in a unique formulation which does not deny typological use of Exod 7–12 but rather affirms it. Second, it is somewhat surprising that Allison argues so vehemently for Mosaic typology in Mt 5–7 yet is skeptical of its presence in 8–9, when the entire section is enveloped by near identical summary statements (4:23; 9:35), which would support a common Mosaic literary theme throughout the entire section (chs 5–9). It is in this regard that the Matthean use of the tripartite presentation of material in chapters 8–9 finds particular meaning. It is most plausible to see the structural and thematic framework of Mt 8–9 as reflecting the plague narrative in Exod 7–12, and consequently affirming Matthew’s presentation of Jesus as a new-Moses figure.

CONCLUSION Thus it can be seen that chapters 8–9 display Mosaic typology in and of themselves, as well as forming part of the larger fivefold discourse of Matthew’s Gospel, and in this sense the microcosm of 8–9 finds confirmation in the macrocosm of 1–28. However, the question may be asked: Is there a closer parallel than a basic structural recollection? To what extent do the mighty deeds of Jesus in Matthew 8–9 recall Moses’ activity in the Exodus? Is there any correspondence between the types of mighty deeds and does Matthew himself specifically present Jesus in Mosaic terms? These questions can only be adequately addressed in the context of a more detailed exegetical analysis of Matthew 8–9, and to this we now turn our attention.

CHAPTER 4. THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22) INTRODUCTION This chapter will be devoted to Matthew’s introductory triad of mighty deeds and accompanying material which is specifically related to his presentation of Jesus as a new-Moses. Discussion of the individual mighty deeds is only undertaken in this regard. Thus, for other important interpretive issues the reader is directed to the many helpful Matthean commentaries.1 As will become evident, several features of the narrative suggest that Matthew develops the structural parallels with Moses’ role in the Exodus (see ch.3) in an attempt to present Jesus as the new-Moses with more clarity. Crucial for our own discussion is Matthew’s citation of Isa 53:4, a point on which most commentators are peculiarly brief, given that it is an explicit quotation of a text with significant Mosaic overtones.

MIGHTY DEED 1: THE CLEANSING OF A LEPER The first mighty deed introduced by Matthew in his gospel is the cleansing of the λεπρὸν in 8:2–4. It has often been noted in other gospels that the first miracle has significance for the message of the others and indeed the entire work. R.E. Watts has persuasively argued that Mark structurally placed Jesus’ healing of the demonized man (Mk 1:21–28) as his first mighty deed, in order to McNeile, Gospel; J. Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica: Matthew—I Corinthians (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1979); R.H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, 1982); Davies and Allison, Matthew; Hagner, Matthew; L. Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992). 1

75

76

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

“alert the reader to a key feature of Jesus’ ministry.”2 Likewise in John, the act of turning water into wine during the Wedding Feast at Cana (Jn 2:1–11) has often been noted as the introductory sign of Jesus’ inauguration of the new age.3 Matthew decides to initiate his narration of Jesus’ mighty deeds with the ‘cleansing of the leper.’ As noted above, this healing constitutes Jesus’ third mighty deed in Mark (Mk 1:40–44) where it is performed on the Galilean circuit, before the return to Capernaum.4 Matthew draws upon Mark and specifically selects this deed to stand at the head of his series of ten, which suggests that it has interpretive significance for others.5 What characteristics does this mighty deed portray, which then might indicate Matthew’s thematic focus in chapters 8–9? There are two aspects which weigh in favor of understanding this deed as Mosaic in nature. First, the one healed by Jesus is a λεπρός.6 In the LXX, λεπρός translates the Hebrew term (wrc; however, it is somewhat

R. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1997), 154; also see 163ff., 343. 3 For the significance of a wedding feast and the liberality of wine in God’s eschatological age, see Isa 54:4–8; 55:1; 62:4–5, 8–9; Amos 9:13f.; Jer 31:12; Hos 14:7; 2 Bar 29:5; 1 Enoch 10:19. 4 Lk (5:12) places this incident ἐν μιᾷ τῶν πόλεων and precedes the ‘Sermon on the Plain.’ 5 Commentators have often suggested that its primacy of position is “an illustration of the principle that Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Mt 5:17)”…“The story is placed here primarily because of the reference to what Moses commanded. Jesus’ injunction to follow the Pentateuchal legislation happily illustrates one of the central themes of the sermon on the mount: Jesus did not come to do away with Moses.” Davies and Allison, Matthew, 10. Or that “it is significant that Matthew places this particularly marginal person at the head of his series of miracles…Matthew is trying to say something.” Bruner, Matthew, 299. 6 Outside the synoptics, neither the Gospel of John nor the rest of the NT canon makes any reference to lepers or their healing. Lk has ἀνὴρ  πλήρης  λέπρας (a man full of leprosy) implying the gravity of the disease. 2

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

77

ambiguous as to what specific ailment is in view.7 The first mention of this condition in the OT is related to Moses’ authentication as Yahweh’s true representative. Ambivalent as to whether Israel would “believe or listen” to him (Exod 4:1), Moses receives three signs which confirm his legitimate status. The second of these involves Moses’ hand initially becoming leprous but then being restored to normality upon following God’s command (Exod 4:6– 7). A further connection of Moses with leprosy is found in Num 12:1–16, where Miriam and Aaron challenge Moses as the From its description in Leviticus 13–14, it is apparent that symptoms include swelling (t)'#)&; , scabbing (txap@as)a , and bright spots (trEheb)a . This caused some Rabbis to suggest there are different types of leprosy—SB IV 2.746. See H. van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 468 n2. These descriptions are rather vague and as such do not equate with the scientific precision of modern leprosy (Hansen’s disease or Elephantiasis Graecorum) which has been identified as Bacillus leprae (D.A. Heffernan, The Australian Biology Dictionary (Malaysia: Longman Cheshire, 1993), 152). Rather, they should be understood as a description of a range of skin infections which were considered to be highly contagious. Following G. Dalman (1901, 368a) and J. Levy (4.220b), Browne (1979, 8) has argued that t(rc derives from h(fr:ci (wasp/hornet), i.e. flesh which has been bitten by a wasp/hornet and subsequently swollen with infection. In this light the Septuagint’s choice of λεπρός seems to be motivated by the desire to portray symptoms of a range of skin deformities which are described as generic conditions typified by infected “scaly, rough skin eruptions” (2001, 68). Further confirmation of this more generic sense is seen in the works of both Hippocrates (Aphorisms 3.20; Epidemics 2.43) and Philo, who use the term λεπρός in reference to ‘scabs and sores.’ (See additional references in Liddell & Scott 1996, 1039). Philo makes this equation in The Special Laws 1.80 when, in talking of the requirements of priestly purity, he states “…Nor must the skin have been changed into a λέπραν (leprous) state…[with] warts or any other eruptive growth.” Thus one may affirm, with Ebstein who concludes that “biblical leprosy is used as a collective title for every form of skin complaint,” cited by Loos 1968, 491. As will become clearer with our following discussion, the description and use of the term ‘leprosy’ in the biblical canon was not in the scientific interests of dermatology, but rather the theological significance of such a condition. 7

78

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

legitimate leader of Israel and as a result Miriam is afflicted with leprosy. Aaron petitions Moses for intercession on Miriam’s behalf (Num 12:11–12), to which Moses responds positively and effects God’s healing for her restoration into the community (v.14). The only other healing of a leprous person in the OT occurs in 2 Kings 5:1–27, where Naaman, plagued with leprosy, calls on Elisha for a cure.8 Of significance in this story is that in 2 Kings 5:8 Elisha understands the ability to heal leprosy as an authentication sign of a legitimate Israelite prophet. This fairly clearly recalls Moses’ encounter with Yahweh and his authentication through the removal of leprosy from his own hand. Thus it is most plausible to understand Moses’ healing of leprosy operating as a prototype which is adopted in 2 Kings 5:8 in reference to legitimate prophets of Israel. As a result, any suggestion of Elijah/Elisha typology in Matthew must take seriously the Mosaic influence which several commentators have noted.9 Based on this understanding, leprosy within the OT tradition is most strongly associated with the figure of Moses, in his prophetic authentication, his healing of Miriam and subsequent interpretation of these events as a common feature of Israelite prophets (2 Kings 5:8).

Upon Naaman’s healing, (This occurs by washing in the Jordan seven times. b. Ket. 77b claims that the water of the Euphrates was beneficial against leprosy) he offered a gift to Elisha which was not accepted (2 Kings 5:15–16). Seizing the opportunity, Elisha’s servant Gehazi, surreptitiously returned to Naaman and demanded silver and clothing (v.22). Elisha, aware of Gehazi’s actions subsequently pronounced that “Naaman’s leprosy will cling to you and your descendants for ever” (v.27). 9 Allison, New Moses, 39ff. Carlson, Élie à l’Horeb, 432 notes that 1 and 2 Kings have a “Mosaic atmosphere.” Kastner (Moses, 30) and F.M. Cross, Canannite Myth and Hebrew Epoch (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard, 1973), 192, suggests Elijah is portrayed as a ‘second Moses’ or ‘new Moses’ respectively; also see Carroll, Elijah, 41. In regard to the broader narrative, R.D. Nelson First and Second Kings (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1987), 128, says that 1–2 Kings offers “an intentional comparison between Elijah and Moses.” 8

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

79

The second main feature which recalls the figure of Moses in Mt 8:2–4 is Matthew’s reference to Jesus “stretching out his hand.” Typically, attention to the phrase ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ... αὐτοῦ has largely been devoted to sociological discussions of Jesus crossing boundaries within society. Van Der Loos is characteristic when he says “by this touch Jesus made it clear to all that he did not hesitate to break through the whole cultic and ritual system.”10 Similarly, B.J. Malina and R.L. Rohrbaugh conclude that “touching a diseased person violated purity rules and would have rendered Jesus unclean.”11 While not wanting to deny the positive role of the socialscientific method in interpretation, there seems to be a plausible echo of OT intertextuality which has not been thoroughly explored in the commentaries or other relevant literature. Could it not be that Matthew’s retention of the Markan note of Jesus stretching out his hand to cure the man of leprosy is intended to recall the figure of Moses’ outstretched hand in the plague narratives of the Exodus? I suggest that it does. In the Deuteronomist’s summary of Moses’ life it is stated that Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face. He was unequaled for all the signs and wonders (σημείοις  καὶ  τέρασιν)12 that the Lord sent him (ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν) to perform in the land of Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his servants and his entire

Loos, Miracles, 485. B.J. Malina and R.L. Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 71. Plummer comments that “Jesus touched the leper on the same principle as that on which he healed on the Sabbath: the ceremonial law gives place to the law of charity when the two come into collision.” Cited in Loos, Miracles, 485, n3. 12 These terms are synonymous in Isa 8:18 ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ καὶ τὰ παιδία ἂ  μοι ἔδωκεν ὁ θεός καὶ ἔσται εἰς σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα (Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are signs and wonders in Israel from the Lord). 10 11

80

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9 land, and for all the great wonders and the mighty hand (τὴν  χεῖρα  τὴν  κραταιάν) which Moses displayed before all Israel.13

Among other things, this text recalls Moses as the figure who performed the signs of Israel’s emancipation from Egypt. Within the plague narrative itself, Moses’ instrumentality is specifically described in reference to his outstretched hand. However, before reviewing some of these texts more closely, it is important to note how Moses’ own call narrative (Exod 3:1ff.) has several elements of similarity with the ‘hand+outstreched’ motif. Of the three authentication signs of legitimate prophet-hood revealed to Moses (Exod 4), the first two include a reference to Moses’ hand. After laying his staff on the ground, which subsequently was transformed into a snake, Moses is instructed, ἔκτεινον  τὴν  χεῖρα  καὶ  ἐπιλαβοῦ  τῆς  κέρκου (stretch out your hand, and seize it by the tail) (Exod 4:4). Likewise, in the second sign, Yahweh tells Moses to εἰσήνεγκεν τὴν χεῖρα... αὐτοῦ (draw out your hand) in order to effect the removal of leprosy (Exod 4:6–7). The additional reference to the earliest canonical OT reference to leprosy increases the potential connection between Mt 8:1–4 and the figure of Moses. Although the third sign has no reference to Moses stretching out his hand in reference to the deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage, the summary statement in Exod 4:21 has Yahweh promise to Moses that “When you go back to Egypt… perform before Pharaoh all the wonders (πάντα  τὰ  τέρατα) that I have placed in your hand (ἂ ἔδωκα ἐν ταῖς χερσίν  σου).”14 It is no surprise then, in the description of the plagues which fall upon Egypt in the subsequent chapters of Exodus, that Moses’ human instrumentality is often described in terms of an ‘outstretched hand.’ As discussed above, the plagues are structured Deut 34:10–12. Some mss have ‘hand’ others have ‘power.’ See discussion below. 14 Additionally, in Exod 4:17 God declares that with the rod ἐν  τῇ  χειρί σου ἐν ᾗ ποιήσεις ἐν αὐτῇ τὰ σημεῖα) (in your hand you will do these signs). 13

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

81

in a ‘3 x 3 + 1’ pattern, where the tenth is climactically performed by Yahweh himself. The first tripartite cycle of plagues is performed by Aaron,15 Yahweh performs the next two plagues and Moses closes the second tripartite cycle with the plague of boils (Exod 9:8–12). The three plagues in the third cycle are performed entirely by Moses. Thus it is seen that four plagues are directly attributed to Moses’ personal activity. Of the four plagues directly attributed to Moses’ instrumentality (plagues 6–9), all have similar language describing the onset of the plague as a result of Moses’ outstretched hand. The first of these is the plague of the boils (Exod 9:8–12), in which Moses is commanded to take a handful of soot (the LXX renders the MT’s Mkeyn"p;xf literally as πλήρεις  τὰς  χεῖρας [‘a full hand’]) and scatter (wOqrFz:w% /  καὶ πασάτω) it toward heaven before Pharaoh (Exod 9:8). The image is one which has Moses casting forth the soot heavenward from his outstretched hand. Similarly, in Moses’ second mighty deed (the seventh plague of hail [Exod 8:13– 25]), he is commanded by God to “Stretch out your hand (ἔκτεινον τὴν χεῖρά σου) toward heaven so that hail may fall on the whole land of Egypt, on humans and animals and all the plants of the field in the land of Egypt.” The significance of the outstretched hand motif is seen in Moses’ promise in Exod 9:29 to Pharaoh that it will be by the ἐκπετάσω  τὰς  χεῖράς  μου (outstretching of my hands) that the plague will cease, a promise fulfilled in v.33 with the accompanying results. The eighth and ninth plagues (respectively Moses’ third and fourth mighty deeds) also involve Moses’ outstretched hand. Exod 10:1–20 narrates the plague of the locusts inflicted on Egypt through Moses’ agency. Yahweh commands Moses to “Stretch out your hand (ἔκτεινον  τὴν  χεῖρα) over the land of Egypt, so that the locusts may come upon it and eat every plant in the land, all that the hail has left” (v.12). Similarly in the brief account of the plague of darkness in Exod 9:21–23, Yahweh commands Moses with the identical phrase ἔκτεινον  τὴν  χεῖρά (stretch out your hand). See above discussion of Aaron’s role in enacting the plagues with reference to Pharaoh’s magicians as representatives. 15

82

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

The remembrance of this prominent Mosaic feature in enacting the plagues upon Egypt is utilized in typological portrayal of Joshua as a new-Moses figure. In addition to the other numerous parallels within the biblical canon which envision the association between Joshua and Moses,16 Ecclesiasticus 46:1 states of Joshua that “ἐν χειρὶ αὐτοῦ ἐνεποδίσθη ὁ ἥλιος” (by his hand the sun was restrained). Two points are to be noted here. First, several commentators have noted a possible parallel between Joshua’s prolonging of the day (Josh 10:12–13) and Moses’ prolonging of the darkness (Exod 10:21–23) in the well attested tradition of Joshua/new-Moses typology.17 Second, and more importantly, the writer of Ecclesiasticus breaks with the common tradition of having Joshua speak to the sun and moon at Gibeon in performance of the mighty deed, and instead has Joshua perform the deed with his hand, described in the LXX with the instrumental dative ἐν  χειρὶ. Given the prominence of Moses’ outstretched hand in the plague narratives in performing Yahweh’s wonders, this description seems to recall and celebrate Yahweh’s dealing with Egypt through his servant Moses.18 Additionally, in Israel’s experience at the Red Sea, both her vindication (Exod 14:16b, 21) and her pursuers’ punishment (Exod 14:26, 27) are described in terms which envision Moses’ outstretched hand effecting Yahweh’s wonderful works. In Exod 14:16b God commands Moses to “stretch out your hand (ἔκτεινον  τὴν χεῖρά σου) over the sea and divide it, that the Israelites may go into the sea on dry ground.” After a concise pericope foretelling Egyptian obduracy (Exod 14:17f.), Moses faithfully responds by stretching out his hand (ἐξέτεινεν  δὲ  Μωυσῆς  τὴν  χεῖρα) over the sea (Exod 14:21). Similarly, Exod 14:26–27 contains a dual command/response reference to Moses’ outstretched hand effecting judgement on Israel’s enemies.

See page 42. Alter, Pleasures, 1989, 118; Aurelius 1988, cited by Allison, New Moses, 23. 18 In this sense Israel’s enemies are also typologically portrayed as the defeated Egyptians. 16 17

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

83

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand (ἔκτεινον τὴν χεῖρά σου) over the sea, so that the water may come back upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots and chariot drivers.” So Moses stretched out his hand (ἐξέτεινεν  δὲ  Μωυσῆς  τὴν  χεῖρα) over the sea, and at dawn the sea returned to its normal depth. As the Egyptians fled before it, the Lord tossed the Egyptians into the sea. 19

Of particular significance in this regard is Israel’s response, which given 1. their monotheism, and 2. that it was Yahweh who actually performed the mighty deed, even if it was through a human intermediary, one would expect that God alone would be the recipient of reverence and praise. However, in Exod 14:31, after seeing the ‘mighty hand’ (τὴν  χεῖρα  τὴν  μεγάλην) Israel stands in awe of God and Moses his servant, which functions to highlight the role of Moses’ participation, specifically in regard to the ‘outstretched-arm’ motif in the Red Sea deliverance and accompanying material.20 Conclusion for first Mighty Deed Moses’ hand played an exceedingly significant role in the instrumentation of the plagues and the events at the Red Sea which culminated in Israel’s freedom from Egyptian bondage. Likewise, Jesus’ healing of the leper through an outstretched hand is presented by Matthew in 8:2–4 as functioning as a new Moses on two accounts, 1. Moses is one of only two individuals who heal someone afflicted with leprosy in the OT, and 2. Jesus’ outstretched hand recalls Moses’ activity in Israel’s redemption from Egypt. Additional weight should be afforded to this mighty This scenario of deliverance through Moses’ outstretched arm is contrasted with Exod 14:30 where Israel is delivered from the ‘hand’ of the Egyptians. The picture is of hand to hand battle, one being Pharaoh’s and the other Moses, empowered by Yahweh himself. 20 Further support of this motif is attested in the narration of Israel’s subsequent experiences where Moses’ outstretched/lifted hands (τὰς  χεῖρα) enabled Israel to prevail over their Amalakite adversaries. See Exod 17:11ff. 19

84

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

deed, for it has been placed at the head of Mt 8–9 and thus suggests that it has interpretive significance for the following material.

MIGHTY DEED 2: THE CENTURION’S PARALYZED SERVANT (MT 8:5–13) Most significant for the recollection of Jesus as new-Moses in Mt 8:5–13 is the unique Matthean phrase in Mt 8:11, “λέγω  δὲ  ὑμῖν  ὅτι  πολλοὶ  ἀπὸ  ἀνατολῶν  καὶ  δυσμῶν (many will come from east and west.).” In most discussions of this phrase commentators assume all too quickly, perhaps on the basis of the mention of Abraham’s name (cf. Gen 12:1–3 ‘so that you will be a blessing’), that the phrase refers to Gentiles without appreciating its original context in earlier Jewish literature. Psalm 107 introduces the fifth book of the Psalter with a thanksgiving hymn for Yahweh’s deliverance from the enemy (v.2). This is envisioned in the diaspora communities’ return from exile “from the east and from the west, from the north and from the south” (v.3, cf the later Mid. Ps. 107:2–3). Similarly, in Isaiah’s redemptive vision of Israel’s return from exile, Yahweh states “Do not fear, for I am with you; I will bring your offspring from the east, and from the west I will gather you,” (Isa 43:5) and in this way also envisions the return from exile in “east/west” language. Furthermore, after Zechariah’s eight night visions, Yahweh himself promises, “I will save my people from the east country and from the west country; and I will bring them to live in Jerusalem. They shall be my people and I will be their God, in faithfulness and in righteousness” (Zech 8:7–8). To this may be added the similar theme from Baruch: “Look, your children are coming, whom you sent away; they are coming, gathered from east and west, at the word of the Holy One, rejoicing in the glory of God” (Bar 4:37) and “Arise, O Jerusalem, stand upon the height; look toward the east, and see your children gathered from west and east at the word of the Holy One, rejoicing that God has remembered them” (Bar 5:5).

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

85

As these and other references in Jewish literature indicate,21 the primary meaning in the crowds coming from “ἀνατολῶν καὶ  δυσμῶν” (east and west) refers to Israel’s return from exile and not to the eschatological gathering of Gentiles grafted in as God’s new people. This seems appropriate given that 1. the region of Assyria/Babylon was considered synonymous with ‘the east,’22 and 2. the region of Egypt was considered to be the antithesis of the ‘east’ and hence ‘west.’23 In this regard Hagner concludes that the original source of the image in Mt 8:11–12 “was understood as the return of diaspora Jews to Israel.”24 Allison takes this one step further by stating that there are no known Jewish documents before the first century which use the ‘east/west’ language in reference to the eschatological gathering of Gentiles, and hence concludes that the image is exclusively one of Jews returning to their homeland.25 In Matthew’s retelling of Jesus’ words and activities there is one significant twist. As described above, the reference to ‘east/west’ was a metaphor for Jewish exiles (not Gentiles) returning Deut 30:4 LXX; Isa 27:13; Ezek 37:9; Hos 11:10–11; Zech 10:10; Ps.Sol. 11:2–4; 1 Enoch 57:1; Sib. Orac 5.113. References from Davies and Allison 27 n77–78. Also see 2 Kings 17:1–6; Ant. 11.131–133; 2 Macc 1:27–28; 2:18; Sir 36; 40:10; 1QM 2:1–3; 4QpIsad line 7; 11Q Temple 18:14–16; 57:5–6; Ps.Sol. 8:28; Philo De Praem 117, 165–172; 4 Ezra 13:32–50; 2 Baruch 77:17–87; T. Jos [Armenian] 19:2–12; m. San 10.3; t. San 13:10; b. San 110b. References from Allison 1989, 163. See discussion in chapter 7 for the significance of these references for Mt 10:1–4 where Jesus chooses twelve disciples. 22 Isa 46:11; Sib Or. 5.13; Ass. Mos. 3:1, 13–14. References from D. C. Allison, “Who will come from East and West? Observations on Matt. 8.11–12 = Luke 13.28–29,” IBS 11 (1989):162. 23 1 Kgs 4:30; Sib. Or. 5.112–113. References from Allison, East and West, 162. 24 Hagner, Matthew, 205. 25 Allison, East and West, 162. However, although Isa 26:5 does not explicitly refer to Gentile-exiles coming from east and west, it does cast some doubt on Allison’s categorical ruling out of any reference to Gentiles’ participation in the eschatological era. 21

86

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

to celebrate Yahweh’s final victory with their patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in a great messianic banquet,26 meaning which seems more apt to Luke’s context in Lk 13:23–30.27 However in Mt 8:5–13 it seems clearly to be a reference to the eschatological gathering of Gentiles. This perceived deviation in usage has caused Allison to follow McNeil28 and conclude that Matthew “unfortunately placed the logion [Mt 8:11–12] in the middle of a pericope which contained a Jew/Gentile contrast.”29 However, within the prophetic tradition, there is some evidence that casts significant doubt on Allison’s categorical ruling out of an eschatological return of the Gentiles. Isaiah 2:2–3 states In days to come the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; all the nations shall stream to it. Many peoples shall come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

Furthermore, although in less explicit terms, Malachi’s rebuke of faithless priests in his second oracle (1:6–2:9) envisions a connection between the ‘east+west’ motif and the Gentiles. Mal 1:11 states “from the rising of the sun [east] to its setting [west] my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great SB 4:1154–56. See Isa 25:6; Exod Rab. 25, 10; b. Pesah 119b. Also see in the NT: Mt 22:1–14; 25:10; Rev 19:9; Lk 14:15–16. 27 The context warns of the consequences of not entering the house before the master shuts the door. 28 McNeil, Matthew, 105 says “the original context of these words is doubtful. Mt, in placing them here, understands them to refer to the admission of Gentiles into the Kingdom; the centurion’s faith is interpreted as a ‘faith unto salvation.’ Lk places them, more suitably, after the passage which is parallel with Mt vii 21f., in a context which contains no mention of Gentiles.” 29 Allison, East and West, 167. 26

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

87

among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.” The image of the sun’s east-west movement indicates the totality of place in which the “literary figure of distribution specifies the territorial extent of the nations paying homage to Yahweh.”30 This also indicates that Malachi affirms that legitimate ritual outside Israel can occur. In this sense Peterson concludes that “whether or not appropriate ritual occurs in Jerusalem, Yahweh’s name will be appropriately venerated in other venues.”31 Significantly, J.Baldwin,32 Verhoef,33 and M.Rehm34 find precedent for understanding v.11 not only in the context of the current series of events portrayed by Malachi but also to the eschatological age. Conclusion Based on this understanding, it seems most plausible to understand Mt 8:11–12 not as a Matthean theological embellishment which has misinterpreted ‘Q’, but rather as a legitimate appropriation (cf. Isa 2; Mal 1) of an exilic/Exodus image which envisions the oppressed (including both tribes and nations) being led out of exile.35 As such, Jesus is being presented as a new-Moses figure based on Moses’ former role as Israel’s prototypical deliverer from exile.

D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew. The New Century Bible Commentry. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1981), 186. 31 D.L. Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 & Malachi. Old Testament Library. (UK: SCM Press, 1995), 184. 32 J. Baldwin, “Mal 1:11 and the worship of the Nations in the Old Testament,” TynBul 23(1972):117–124. 33 Verhoef 222–232, cited in Baldwin, Worship, 124. 34 M. Rehm, “Das Opfer der Volker nach Mal 1:11,” in Lex Tua Veritas: Festschrift fur Hubert Junker, ed. H. Gross and F. Mussner. (Germany: Trier, 1961), 144–235. 35 See Luz, Matthew, 11. This could also involve an element of ironic reversal. 30

88

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

MIGHTY DEED 3: THE HEALING OF PETER’S MOTHER-IN-LAW (MT 8:14–15) The third mighty deed in Matthew’s first cycle involves Jesus’ healing of Peter’s mother in law of a ‘πυρετός’ (fever). Matthew draws from his Markan source (Mk 1:29–31), and abbreviates the pericope into what Hagner terms a “terser narrative.”36 Matthew omits Mark’s introductory “καὶ  εὐθὺς  ἐκ  τῆς  συναγωγῆς  ἐξελθόντες” (and immediately after leaving the synagogue…), a phenomenon which D.J. Harrington suggests was catalyzed by Matthew’s “hostility towards the Jewish leaders.”37 However, given the specificity of Mark’s earlier note of Jesus in the synagogue (Mk 1:21), Matthew’s omission can more simply be accounted for by his different literary precursors to 8:14–15.38 Matthew also omits Mark’s mention of the four accompanying disciples (Peter, Andrew, James and John) and has no superfluous discourse. These abbreviations of Mark’s longer account focus Matthew’s reader on Jesus as the central figure. Theissen describes this Christological motif in Matthew as the reduction of the “character field,”39 with the overall effect of more clearly focusing on Jesus. Harrington similarly comments that “the effect of Matthew’s editing is to place the spotlight directly on Jesus.”40 This is also confirmed by Matthew’s redaction of Peter’s mother-in-law’s response. In Mark she is said to ‘wait on them,’ i.e. presumably the disciples who accompany Jesus. However in Mt 8:15, Mark’s plural ‘αὐτοῖς’ (Mk 1:31) is changed to the singular ‘αὐτῷ’ (on him). In regard to commentators’ evaluation of the theological significance of this healing, there have been several proposals. Howard suggests that “this short pericope seems to be quite Hagner, Matthew, 207. Harrington, 1991, 114. Cited in Davies and Allison, Matthew, 223. 38 See page appendix 2 for Matthean redaction of chapters 8–9. 39 Theissen, 177, cited in Hagner, Matthew, 208. 40 Harrington 1991, 114. Cited in Davies and Allison, Mattthew, 224. Matthew also substitutes Mk and Lk’s ‘Simon’ for Peter. In other places it is evident that Matthew has a special interest in the name Peter (4:18; 10:2; 16:8). 36 37

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

89

unrelated to the rest of the ministry and is set out without any obvious theological significance.”41 He also concludes on the basis of Peter’s association with Mark’s Gospel that in Mark “it may be assumed that it has been included for personal reasons.”42 However, if this is the case, one may legitimately wonder why both Matthew (8:14–15) and Luke (4:38–39) have included Mark’s “personal story” of Peter’s mother-in-law. Nonetheless, Howard is content to conclude that the evangelists “do not develop any overt theological significance out of this healing, but merely record it.”43 At the other end of the spectrum, M. Van Leeuwen and G. Dehn44 find historical precedent for the hypothesis that there may have been tension between Jesus and Peter’s mother-in-law because of Jesus’ call to abandon all when one became his follower (Mt 10:38; 16:24). Leeuwen and Dehn conclude that this would have rendered Peter incapable of providing income to support his family. While this is a somewhat ingenious hypothesis, the lack of any literary evidence suggests that this is a more speculative attempt and as such does not commend itself as self evident. What then can be said about this abbreviated narration of events at Peter’s house? The key seems to lie in the description of the illness as ‘πυρετός’ (fever). In M.L. Rigato’s analysis of ‘fever’ in the ancient world,45 she refers to Lev 26:16 and Deut 28:22 as possible indicators that the ailment was considered to be a punishment from God.46 Although Lev 26:16 LXX has ‘ἴκτερον’ J.K. Howard, Disease and Healing in the New Testament (New York: University Press of America, 2001), 64. 42 Howard, Disease, 64. 43 Howard, Disease, 65. 44 Cited in Loos, Miracles, 555. 45 Rigato 1969, 159 cited by J.G. Cook, “In Defense of Ambiguity: Is There a Hidden Demon in Mark 1.29–31?” NTS 43(1997): 192, n34. 46 Other believed causes of fever include, 1. astrological influence as attested in the writings of Ptolemy (Tetrabiblos 1.2.9), Homer (Iliad 22.29– 30 ‘τε κύν᾿ Ωριωνος ἐπίκλησιν καλέουσι. Λαμπρότατος μὲν ο γ᾿ ἐστί  41

κακὸν  δέ  τε  σῆμα  τέτυκται,  καί  τε  φέρει  πολλὸν  πυρετὸν  δειλοῖσι  βροτοισιν·’[the star that men call by name the Dog of Orion. Brightest of

all is he, yet withal is he a sign of evil, and bringeth much fever upon

90

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

(jaundice), it translates the same Hebrew word (txdq) that πυρετός renders in Deut 28:22. Rigato’s interpretation finds antecedent in Calvin’s theological reflections47 when he writes “for fever and other sickness, famine, plague and every other distress are officers of God through whom he executes his judgements.”48 Yet in this regard, no commentators have developed the possibility of a more thoroughgoing intertextuality between the synoptic tradition (particularly Mt) and the attestation of ‘πυρετός’ in the Pentateuch. Strack and Billerbeck list fifteen different Hebrew and Aramaic names which refer to fever.49 Important for our discussion is txdq which occurs only twice in the MT, translated as πυρετός in Deut 28:22 LXX and ἴκτερον in Lev 26:16 LXX. Both these references occur within Moses’ prophetic lawsuit against Israel (i.e. covenantal curses). The significance of this is as follows. In the Exodus from Egypt, Yahweh’s deliverance entailed plagues / diseases falling on the Egyptians to free the Israelites. After crossing the Red Sea, Moses led the Israelites to the waters of Marah Elim and Yahweh promised that “If you will listen carefully…and do what is right…and give heed to…[my] commandments…I will not bring upon you any of the diseases (πᾶσαν  νόσον) that I brought upon the Egyptians, for I am Yahweh who heals you” (Exod 15:26b). As the introductory ἐὰν / M)i indicated, this promise was conditional on Israel’s fidelity to Yahweh. Should Israel live in blatant disregard of her covenant obligations then she can expect the νόσοι of Egypt. This is particularly developed in the covenant curses and blessings of Deut

wretched mortals.]) and Vettius Valens (Anthologie 3.4); 2. other divine influences, including Asclepius (P. Oxy. 1381) and Pluto (Lucian Pluto 25), and 3. demonic or angelic influence is attested in Pliny’ Natural History (8:32; 22:14; 28:16). See Cook, Defense, 190f. 47 Calvin is followed, among others, by Greydanus 1940. Cited in Loos, Miracles, 552. 48 Translation from Loos, Miracles, 1965, 552, n4. 49 Strack and Billerbeck, 1.479.

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

91

27–30.50 Deut 27:11–26 contains the initial Dodecalogue51 of covenantal curses for those who do not keep Yahweh’s commandments. A brief section on blessings (Deut 28:1–14) prefaces a comparatively long discourse (Deut 28:15–67 [–29:1 EVV]) on potential curses to be placed on Israel should she disobey Yahweh. P. Craigie has noted that the curses section seems “excessively long”52 compared to blessings. Although this may have been because of contemporary ANE methods of covenantal treaties,53 it nonetheless provided needed “incentive for wholehearted commitment in renewing the covenant.”54 After the general introductory statement of curses in vv.15– 19, in which Exod 15:26’s conditional nature of fidelity is reiterated, vv.20–24 record the first section of curses. Verse 22 lists seven afflictions, four related to humans (tpexe#@$a [consumption], txad@Aq@A [fever], tqEl@ed@A [inflammation], rxur:xa [raging fever]) and three related to agricultural life (brExeba [drought], NwOpd@F#@$i [scorching], NwOqrFy," [mildew]).55 Significantly, all these are related to heat, burning or fire, which forms the conceptual etiological basis for the word ‘fever.’56 Verses 25–26 continue this image of exile and death in description of a devastating defeat in battle. What was previously implied in remembrance of the Egyptian plagues, is explicitly referred to in v.27, “The Lord will afflict you with the boils of Egypt, with hemorrhoids, eczema, and scabies, of which you cannot be healed” (cf. v.35). Several commentators have noted This displays a broad chiastic arrangement: a. Covenant Curses (Deut 27:11–26); b. Covenant Blessings (Deut 28:1–14) a’. Covenant Curses (Deut 28:15–67 [–29:1 EVV]) 51 P.C. Craigie, Deuteronomy (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1976), 331. 52 Craigie, Deuteronomy, 331. 53 In the Lipit-Ishtar laws, the curses to blessing ratio are 3:1, in the Law Code of Hummurabi it is 20:1. Cited in Craigie, Deuteronomy, 340. 54 Craigie, Deuteronomy, 340. 55 The connection of agriculture with human existence is not difficult to see. For a second time the ground will be cursed (cf Gen 3) if humanity is unfaithful to God’s commands. 56 See Loos, Miracles, 552; Weiss 1968, TDNT 6.956–959. 50

92

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

the similar dermatological symptoms of these four ailments,57 and the similarity of symptoms with the ancient understanding of leprosy.58 In this light, the plague of ‘skin disease’ which God inflicted on the Egyptians in Exod 9:19 was a precarious warning to Israel not to act in ways which dishonored her privileged status as Yahweh’s child (cf. Exod 4:22). Verses 30–34 prepare for vv.36–46 which describe an exiled nation and hence also heighten the association of impending exile and consequent judgements on an unfaithful people. Deut 28:36 offers the exhortation that “The Lord will bring you, and the king whom you set over you, to a nation that neither you nor your ancestors have known, where you shall serve other gods, of wood and stone.” In this regard Craigie concludes that the Israelites “could still remember their servitude in Egypt, and now the threat of a similar experience is held before them again.”59 The remaining material in description of the covenantal curses finds exposition in the further details of the horrors of exile by the foreign power (vv.47–57), and a final summary of the curses in the renewal of the covenant (vv.58–69).60 Conclusion Based on this understanding, Matthew presents Jesus operating within the framework of Deuteronomy’s renewal of the covenant and hence recalls the figure of Moses. Yet this occurs with a significant twist. Rather than cursing Israel for her rebellious state, Jesus offers one last period of opportunity for repentance before laying out the consequences of Israel’s rejection in Mt 23–25. Nonetheless, in demonstration of this offer of deliverance from the plagues of Egypt, which have come about because of previous Craigie, Deuteronomy, 344 says “all four diseases are…diseases of the skin, or at least have dermatological symptoms.” Vv. 28–29 could also be referring to skin disease, for as Craigie notes, the tertiary stage of syphilis includes blindness and insanity. 58 Cf. first mighty deed. 59 Craigie, Deuteronomy, 344. 60 The later Baruch 1:19–20 works within this Deuteronomistic context of blessings and curses in reference to the Exodus. 57

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

93

infidelity to Yahweh, Jesus heals those who have fever, leprosy and other ailments which echo the curses in Deut 27–30.61 Exactly how this deliverance from exile through healing will take place is addressed in Matthew’s explicit quotation of the OT in 8:17.

A healing similar to that in Mt 8:14–15 is attested in Acts 28:8 “It so happened that the father of Publius lay sick in bed with fever and dysentery. Paul visited him and cured him by praying and putting his hands on him.” It could be argued that this offers support for commentators (such as D.W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (Siebeck: Mohr, 2000); J. Sanders, “Isaiah in Luke,” Int 36 (1982): 144– 155) who have suggested that the Luke-Acts narrative envisions a reversal of the curses/diseases of Deuteronomy within the context of an Isaianic new Exodus. Also notable in regard to Mosaic allusion is Matthew’s summary statement. Mt 8:16 initially follows Mark’s introductory ‘ὀψίας  δὲ  γενομένης’ (When evening had come) (Mk 1:32), yet, in typical abbreviating fashion, Matthew omits the further reference to the setting of the sun (ὅτε  ἔδυ  ὁ  ἥλιος). Presumably Matthew considered this tautology as incidental to the pericope. Matthew also omits Mark’s reference to the ‘whole town gathered at the door’ (Mk 1:32), and the demonic secrecy motif (cf. Mk 1:34). Within this condensation of Markan narrative Matthew makes one editorial addition, the insertion of the instrumental dative λόγῳ (by a word). This refers to the manner in which Jesus performed his mighty deeds and recalls Mt 8:5–13 where Jesus’ mere word accomplished the healing of the Centurion’s son. Several commentators note that this emphasizes Jesus’ authority and subsequent “ease with which… [he] works wonders” Davies and Allison Matthew, 2.36. However, it is apparent that there is more to Matthew’s unique addition of ‘λόγῳ’ to his Markan source. Significantly, tradition in Wisdom of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus; Sirach) 44:23b–45:5 refers to Moses as accomplishing his mighty deeds ‘by his words.’ In 45:3 it is recorded that Moses “ἐν  λόγοις  αὐτοῦ  σημεῖα  κατέπαυσεν  ἐδόξασεν  αὐτὸν  κατὰ πρόσωπον βασιλέων”(By his words he caused signs to appear; he [the Lord] glorified him in the presence of kings). Given that an author’s redaction provides insight into their literary intentions, it seems plausible to suggest that Matthew may have added the reference to Jesus healing ‘λόγῳ’ (by a word) to enhance the Jesus-Moses typology. 61

94

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

SCRIPTURE FULFILLMENT: ISAIAH 53:4 IN MT 8:17 Matthew’s explicit quotation of Isa 53:4 at the conclusion of the first cycle of mighty deeds presents a unique problem in that the ‘Isaianic Servant,’ who is usually associated in Christian theology with the suffering and death of Jesus,62 is referred to in the context of his daily activities. Additionally, several commentators have not hesitated to suggest that Matthew illegitimately ‘twisted’ scripture to suit his own theological agenda.63 It will be argued in this following section that this conclusion does not do justice to the broader context of Isa 53, in which the Isaianic servant is predominantly, although not exclusively, portrayed as a Mosaic figure. Textual form of Quotation Matthew prefaces the only explicit synoptic quotation of Isa 53 in the following manner: “ὅπως  πληρωθῇ  τὸ  ῥηθὲν  διὰ  Ἠσαΐου  τοῦ  προφήτου  λέγοντος” (This was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah). This is the sixth of ten64 Reflexionszitate (formula quotations)65 used to introduce OT material in Matthew’s Gospel. The Matthean quotation of Isaiah reads “αὐτὸς  τὰς  ἀσθενείας  ἡμῶν  ἔλαβεν  καὶ  τὰς  νόσους  ἐβάστασεν” (he took our infirmities and bore our diseases). Matthew’s use of the OT has typically been recognized as the Septuagint (LXX).66 However in 8:17 he departs from the wording Justin Dialogue with Trypho1 40:1ff.; First Apology 50. 1 Clement. S.V. McCasland, “Matthew Twists the Scriptures,” in The Right Doctrine From the Wrong Texts: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Edited by G.K. Beale. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994), 146. 64 1:22–23; 2:15, 17–18, 23; 4:14–16; 8:17; 12:17–21; 13:35; 21:5; 27:9– 10. 65 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3.574, n2. 66 Davies and Allison Matthew, 3.574. However as Carr notes, in citations from the OT a distinction can be made in Matthew’s usage. Quotations which closely parallel the synoptics are generally from the LXX, as opposed to material unique to Mt where they are closer to the 62 63

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

95

of Isa 53:4 LXX67 in one significant respect, the substitution of ἀσθενείας (sicknesses) for the LXX’s ἁμαρτίας (sinfulness). The LXX’s interpretation finds agreement in the Aramaic Targum’s which “NqFbta#$yI hyl'ydIb; )nFtayFwF(;wA y('byI )w%h )nFbawOx l(a Nyk'b;” B.D. Chilton translates as “Then he will beseech concerning our sins and our iniquities for his sake will be forgiven.”68 This however stands in contrast to the tradition of the MT which reads “Mlfbfs; w%nyb')ok;maw% )#&fnF )w%h w%ny"lfx/ Nk')f” (yet it was our sickness that he was bearing, our suffering that he endured).69 Interestingly the MT’s w%ny"lfx/ is reflected in the Greek textual traditions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodocian, which reads “ὄντως αὐτὸς  τὰς νόσους ἡμῶν ὰνέλαβεν καὶ τούς πόνους ἡμων ὑπέμεινεν” (surely he has taken up our illnesses and endured our pains). J. Kenedy70 maintains that a change from the specific (sickness) to the general (sinfulness) could have occurred through resemblance of p in )+fxf (sinfulness) with the l in ylix/ (sickness). However, a more plausible explanation for the textual change is in its exegetical insight into Isaianic theology which envisions sickness as a result of Israel’s sin (cf. Isa 1:5–6).71 Nonetheless, as noted above it is apparent that Matthew’s citation bears much closer resemblance to the MT than the LXX. This is apparent in Matthew’s rendition of the Hebrew personal pronoun )wh as αὐτὸς which is more Hebrew. A. Carr, The Gospel According to Matthew (Cambridge: University Press, 1896), xxii. 67 οὗτος  τὰς  ἁμαρτίας  ἡμῶν  φέρει  καὶ  περὶ  ἡμῶν  ὀδυνᾶται (he bears our sins and is pained for us). Both the Cambridge and Götingen editions of the LXX agree on this reading. 68 B. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clarke, 1987), 104. 69 Similar tradition attested in 1QIsaa and 1QIsab “Mlbs wnybw)kmw )#n h)wh wn y ylwx Nk)” (Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows). 70 J. Kenedy, An Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928), 77. 71 The interpretive nature of the LXX is typical of its paraphrastic tendencies [except chs. 36–39]. P.K. McCarter, Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 122.

96

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

accurate than the οὗτος attested in the LXX,72 and the aforementioned adoption of ἀσθενείας.73 Likewise, ἔλαβεν, in translating )#&n is also accurate as the Greek aorist usually translates the Hebrew perfect with past reference.74 In this regard Matthew’s citation is an acceptable translation of the MT.75 While much additional discussion has been generated regarding the source of Matthew’s quotation,76 the more significant issue is the actual translation adopted and the implications this has for understanding the first evangelist’s purpose. In this regard the Old Testament context of Isa 54:3 will be assessed.

Additionally, whereas Nk) in the MT follows the object, in Matthew, the equivalent αὐτὸς  precedes the object and adds emphasis to the subject of the verb. However, pronouns can sometimes have a demonstrative sense. 73 Although ἀσθενεῖα (7 times in LXX) never renders ylx, it is used for ylx’s equivalent hlx ‘to grow weak, ill’ in Jud 16:7, 11, 17; Hos 11:6; Ezek 34:4; Dan 8:27; Sym. Isa 39:1. 74 J.J. Menken, “The Source of the Quotation From Isaiah in Matthew 8:17,” Novum Testamentum 34 (1997): 317. 75 Menken, Source, 319. The only ambiguity is τὰς  νόσους, which is more an approximation than translation. However, explanation may be in its close connection with the bracketing vv. of 4:23 and 9:35 which enclose the Sermon on the Mount and the Miracles Section. Also note βαστάζω in Mt 3:11 ‘τὰ  ὑποδήματα  βαστάσαι.’ Cf. Mk 1:7; Lk 3:16 with a different image ‘λῦσαι  τὸν  ἱμάντα  τῶν  ὑποδημάτων  αὐτοῦ’ (untie the thong of his sandals). 76 Some suggest a fragment of a revision of the LXX, other say testimonia, while others say Matthew modified the LXX. See New, Quotations, 105. Euler suggests that Matthew’s text reflects an original LXX and later is a Christian substitute. K.F. Euler, Die Verkündigung vom leidenden Gottesknecht aus Jes. 53 in der Griechischen Bibel (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1934), 59–63. Menken objects that this lacks argument (Menken, Source, 315). Either Matthew translates from the Hebrew, or Matthew used/edited an existing Greek translation. 72

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

97

Old Testament Context of Matthew’s Isaianic Quotation There is an enormous amount of literature pertaining to the socalled ‘fourth servant song’ of Isa 52:13–53:12,77 and thus even a summary of literary approaches is not feasible within the context of this volume. Attention will be devoted to the political and social situation of Isa 53 and its broader literary context with specific attention to the Exodus-type language which recalls the figure of Moses and the experiences of Israel in Egypt. The prophetic writing traditionally attributed to Isaiah has been subdivided into a tripartite entity. Chapters 1–39, while portraying some aspects of hope, mainly describe Israel’s disobedience and corresponding judgement. This basic theme of Israel’s disobedience is especially emphasized in Isaiah’s opening chapters (1:2–4, 15–16, 19–20; 2:5–9; 3:8–9; 5:5–7). Chapters 40– 55 describe the hope of restoration as an imminent reality, and chapters 56–66 continue to deal with the post-exilic community and their disappointment with the apparent ‘return’ from exile.78 Isa 53:4 obviously falls within the middle section (DeuteroIsaiah) and as such deserves further comment. The notion of divine election, celebrated in Israel’s wisdom literature (Pss 89; 110; 132) and elsewhere, was brought into serious question as a result of the Babylonian exile. The events of 587-586 BC threw the Israelite mind into chaos. Not only had Jerusalem been destroyed, but the fundamental substructure of Israel’s worldview had been called into question. The pressing issue was whether Israel would

The four servant songs are 42:1–4; 49:1–6; 50:4–9; 52:13:53:12. Duhm was the first to isolate these from the surrounding material. Hanson 1998, 15. See E.J. Young The Book of Isaiah (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 3, for the bibliography on this subject. 78 In 56:1 the people are still awaiting the Lord’s salvation. There is still the future hope of restoration, in which one will come and execute divine redemption and vengeance (63:1–6), at which point Jerusalem will be the center of the New Earth (Isaiah 65:17–25). See Motyer, Isaiah, 18. Isa 66 ends on such a dark note that Jewish interpreters have added a verse to make it sound more appealing. Young, Isaiah, 3.537 77

98

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

conclude, as the inhabitants of Ur did when they were exiled, that their god had fallen out of favor with the divine assembly.79 Within this context Isa 40–55 can be divided into two parts. Chapters 40–48 begin with reference to preparation for Yahweh’s return and restored presence with his people (vv.3, 5, 9, 10, 11). Yet Israel’s obduracy prevents her from accepting Cyrus, the pagan Persian king, as the instrument of her restoration and liberation.80 The increasing tension over Yahweh’s choice of Cyrus and Israel’s stubbornness in not accepting Yahweh’s wisdom comes to a climax in chapters 49–55 which describe the new Exodus plan which will be realized through a new ‘faithful and true servant.’81 It is significant in this respect, as Watts notes ,that all traces of Cyrus’ name disappear from chapter 49 onwards.82

THE TASK OF THE SERVANT Crucial for our understanding of Isa 53 is to note that most of the material is concerned with the servant’s task rather than his identity.83 The task of the servant, plainly stated, is to enact Yahweh’s new Exodus and redeem Israel from Exile by bearing the sicknesses which resulted from her sinfulness (Isa 53:4; cf. 1:5–7). In this regard, Hanson states that it was the infirmities and diseases, caused by Israel’s rebellion which accumulated and “dragged the nation to the brink of extinction.”84 See P.D. Hanson, “The World of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 40–55,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant. Ed. W.H. Bellinger Jr. and W.R. Farmer (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1998), 14. 80 Watts, Consolation, 31. 81 Watts, Consolation, 31. In this sense Isaiah is typical of other prophetic writers who appeal to the Exodus tradition. Hos 2:16–17; 11:1; 12:10, 14; 13:4–5; Am 2:9f.; 3:1f.; 9:7; Mic 6:4; Jer 2:6f.; 7:22, 25; 11:4, 7; 16:14f.; 31:20f.; 34:13f.; Ezek 20:5–10. 82 Watts, Consolation, 31ff. 83 A.R. Ceresko, “The Rhetorical Strategy of the Fourth Servant Song (Is 52:13–53:12): Poetry and the New Exodus,” CBQ 56(1994): 42–55. 84 Hanson, World, 17. Also see above discussion on covenantal curses of Deut 28f.; cf. Exod 15:26. 79

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

99

A.R. Ceresko, in his 1994 article entitled “The Rhetorical Strategy of the Fourth Servant Song,”85 suggests that both the vocabulary and concentric structure of the fourth servant song indicates an Exodus/new-Exodus pattern. First, in regard to the type of language used in description of the servant’s task of deliverance, Ceresko notes the several points of convergence with the Exodus event. These links are most clearly seen in the common words and motifs used in describing the suffering of the servant in Isa 53 and the pre-exodus suffering in Egypt.86 Isaiah contends that just as the pre-exodus sufferings were a result of Israel’s sinfulness (Isa 1:5–7), the bearing of these sufferings by the servant will lead to Israel’s future restoration and deliverance.87 In this way, the task of the fourth servant is described in language saturated in Exodus type imagery, not so much the actual departure from Egypt per se, but as Ceresko notes, “the persecution and the condition of servitude imposed on the Hebrew people by the ruling elites of Egypt.”88 Ceresko notes four linguistic parallels. First, the unjust punishment referred to in Isaiah 53:8a of the servant being ‘taken away’ (xq@Flu) is used in the previous chapter (52:4–5) by Yahweh to refer to Israel’s imprisonment in Egypt, “Long ago, my people went down into Egypt to reside there as aliens…my people are taken away (xq@Fl)u without cause?”89 In this sense, the Babylonian conditions of exile were patterned on Israel’s previous experience in Egypt. Second, the words (aw%gnF (to afflict) and hnE(jnA (‘he was afflicted’) in Isaiah 53:4d and 7a, in description of the servant’s suffering find antecedent in the description of Israel’s oppression in Egypt. Exod 1:11–12 records that “the Egyptians set taskmasters over them [Israel] to oppress them (wOtn%O(a N(amal); with forced labor…but the more they were oppressed (w%n%(ay:) the more they Ceresko, Rhetorical, 42–55. Ibid., 47. 87 It has often been noted that the Exodus theme in Isaiah is prominent, in this regard C. Stuhlmueller echoes N. Snaith in saying that the “Exodus is the one theme and all else [in Isaiah] is subservient to it.” Cited in Ceresko, Rhetorical, 47. 88 Ceresko, Rhetorical, 48. 89 Isa 52:4–5. 85 86

100

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

multiplied and spread.90 Third, the vocabulary used to describe the burden of the servant, ()#&fn)F ‘to bear a heavy load’ forms a parallelism with(Mlfbfs;) ‘to carry’ in Isa 53:4.91 Surely he has borne ()#&fnF) our infirmities and carried (Mlfbfs;) our disease

Ceresko indicates that nouns from the same Hebrew root occur a number of times in describing the burden borne by the Hebrews while slaves in Egypt. Exod 1:11 states “They set taskmasters over them to oppress them with forced labor (MtfOlb;sib)@; ” (cf. Isa 53:4b, 11d). Similarly, Exod 2:11 (cf Exod 6:6; Ps 81:7) describes Moses going out to his people and seeing their forced labor (MtfOlb;sib)@; . Fourth, the term “yd@Ib;(”a (my servant) which brackets the fourth servant song (Isa 52:13; 53:11) has the root dby and often denotes compulsory servitude, as is evident from the early chapters of the Exodus narrative.92 The Egyptians became ruthless in imposing servitude (…w%dbi(jy,AwA) on the Israelites, and made their lives bitter with hard service (h#$fqF hdFbo(jb@a) in mortar and brick and in every kind of field service (hdE#@&fb@a hdFbo(j-lkfb;w%). They were ruthless in all the services (MtfdFbo(j-lk@f) that they imposed on them.93

The way Ceresko gives these otherwise dislocated verbal similarities meaning, is in the context of Deuteronomy’s language of covenant curses. In Moses’ affirmation of the election of Israel, he conditionally states in Deut 7:1594 that “The Lord will turn away from you every sickness (ylixo-lk@)f and all the dread diseases (yw"d:ma-lkfw): of Egypt which you experienced, he will not inflict on Ex 1:11–12. See Ceresko, Rhetorical, 49. Also note the similar parallelism in Isa 53:11d, 12e. And he shall bear (lb@os;yI) their iniquity Yet he bore ()#&fnF) the sins of many. 92 Ceresko, Rhetorical, 49. 93 Exod 1:13–14. 94 Also see Exod 15:26; 23:25 which uses the same root word to describe the plagues suffered by the Egyptians. See Ceresko, Rhetorical, 49. 90 91

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

101

you.” This description is very similar to the description of the internal suffering endured by the servant in Isa 53:3b “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and aquatinted with sickness (ylixo (aw%dywI).” Of further significance is Isaiah’s description of the afflicted servant in terms which recalls Deuteronomy’s threat of Egyptian plagues/curses. Isa 53:4 records “Surely he has borne our infirmities (w%ny"lfx)/ …yet we considered him smitten (hk@'m)u by God” (Isa 53:4). Likewise Deut 28:59–61 states “The LORD will overwhelm both you and your offspring with severe and lasting afflictions (K1t;k@oma) and grievous and lasting maladies (Myilfx/w)F . He will bring back upon you all the diseases (hw'd:ma-lk@)f of Egypt …every sickness also and every affliction (hk@fma-lkfw: ylix/-lk@)f . Therefore, within the immediate context of Isa 53, the suffering of the servant prepares for a new Exodus as he bears the afflictions of a “reversed exodus.” The result of this process is the healing and restoration of Israel, from captivity (Is 52) to the new Jerusalem (Isa 54–55).95 Isaiah 52 Israel exiled in Babylon

Isaiah 53 The work of the Servant

Isaiah 54ff. The New Jerusalem

The New Exodus

In the Isaianic reinterpretation of the Exodus event, infidelity to Yahweh’s covenant had resulted in “a reversal of the Exodus.”96 In this light Matthew’s quotation of Isa 53:4 is apt, for the similarity in vocabulary, language and phrasing strongly suggest an intended recollection of the pre-exodus sufferings in Egypt. Important in this regard is the position which Isa 53:4 occupies within the fourth servant song as a whole. Following Muilenburg’s See discussion below for expansion of this theme. G.P. Hugenberger, “The Servant of the Lord in the ‘Servant Songs’ of Isaiah: A Second Moses Figure,” in The Lord’s Annointed. Edited by P.E. Satterthwaite, R.S. Hess, G.J. Wenham (Michigan: Paternoster, 1995), 128. 96 Blenkinsopp, cited in Ceresko, Rhetorical, 50. 95

102

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

division of the Song into five strophes [1. 52:13–15; 2. 53:1–3; 3. 53:4–6; 4. 53:7–9; 5. 53:10–12],97 Ceresko develops the significance of the concentric structure of the poem which chiastically focuses on 53:4–6, on the basis of the repetition of key words and motifs.98 Therefore, when Matthew quotes Isa 53:4 he strikes at the heart of the fourth servant song and typologically presents Jesus as the one who will heal Israel of her Egyptian servitude and enact a new Exodus.

THE IDENTITY OF THE SERVANT Although Isaiah’s hope of a new Exodus “presupposes the schema of the first Exodus,”99 and as such would recall a Mosaic figure of deliverance, the identity of the servant has evaded scholarly consensus.100 The collective interpretation of the servant as Israel, either as a nation or a faithful remnant, has been the dominant view within Judaism since Rabbi Rashi (1040–1105AD).101 Supporting this interpretation, it has been noted that the terms yd@Ib;(a (my servant), wOd@b;(a (his servant), and dbe(e (servant) refer to Israel collectively in twelve of the twenty five occurrences in Isaiah.102 However, there are several telling critiques of the Cited in Ceresko, Rhetorical, 50. For details see Ceresko, Rhetorical, 50–54. 99 Watts, Isaiah, 74. 100 For a summary of approaches see C.R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah. An Historical and Critical Study (London: Oxford University Press, 1956); C.G. Kruse, “The Servant Songs: Interpretive Trends since C.R. North,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 8.1 (1978): 3–27. 101 H.G. Revetlow, “Basic Issues in the Interpretation of Isaiah 53,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant. Ed. W.H. Bellinger Jr. and W.R. Farmer (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1998), 23. 102 For example Isa 41:8–9 makes the following identification, “But you, Israel, my servant (yd@Ib;(a), Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, “You are my servant (yd@Ib;(a), I have chosen you and not cast you off.” The collective interpretation is also supported in Isa 49:3, the third ‘servant song,’ where l)'rF#&;yI appears in apposition with dbe(e “And he said to me, “You are my 97 98

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

103

corporate understanding of the servant as national Israel. In Isa 53:9 the servant is described as one who is blameless and upright, “…he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth…”103 Yet in all other discourses on the state of Israel’s fidelity to Yahweh in Deutero-Isaiah, the writer reprimands them sternly for their rebellion and sin, which in fact is the cause of their suffering.104 Isa 42:18–25 graphically depicts Israel as blind, deaf and incapable of understanding Yahweh’s wisdom. This is clearly contrasted with the servant who is faithful and obedient to Yahweh’s wisdom (50:4f.). As such, the identification between Israel and the servant seems antithetical.105 A second prominent interpretation of the servant is that he is the prophet himself or another ideal individual, such as a royal servant or priestly figure.106 In addition to dbe(e frequently referring

servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” See R.E. Clements, “Isaiah and the Restoration of Israel,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant. Edited by W.H. Bellinger Jr. and W.R. Farmer (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1998), 40, for further details. Also see Isa 44:1, 10, 21; 45:4; 48:20, in which similar phrases are used in description of Israel and the servant. Cited in Hugenberger, Servant, 107, n6. 103 Isa 50:5 similarly attests to the servant’s righteousness. 104 Isa 40:2; 43:22–28; 47:7; 48:18; 50:1; 54:7; 57:17; 59:2 References from Hugenberger, Servant, 108. Hugenberger also notes that this rebuke is directed towards the remnant (43:22; 46:3, 12; 48:1, 8; 53:6, 8; 55:7; 58:1ff; 63:17; 64:5–7). 105 Furthermore, on several occasions, the role of the servant is distinguished from Israel, even the faithful repentant remnant. Envisioned in the second servant song (Isa 49:1–6) is the re-gathering of Israel’s scattered exile. Verse 5, in particular anticipates that it will be the assignment of the servant to restore Yahweh’s exiled people. Although other similar examples could be elaborated upon (Isa 42:3, 6; 49:8; 53:8), it is sufficient to note that with the mission of the servant directed toward national Israel, identification of the servant with Israel is tenuous. 106 R.N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66 (London: Morgan and Scott, 1975), 71, 171–183. Cf. Acts 8:34.

104

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

to prophets in other canonical literature,107 support for this identification is found in Isa 20:3 which records Yahweh as saying “…my servant Isaiah (w%hyf(;#$ay: yd@Ib;()a has walked naked and barefoot for three years as a sign and a portent against Egypt and Ethiopia.”108 Furthermore, Bentzen et al. often point to the first person pronominal references in the Servant passages, such as Isa 49:1 “Yahweh called me before I was born…”109 Against this however, Hugenberger, following North, has noted that this approach still “leaves unexplained the use of the third person references for the servant in the first and fourth songs.”110 Moreover, the exultation of the servant in 52:13, “See, my servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high” and subsequent influence on “many nations” and “kings” (Isa 52:15) seems to stretch the interpretation beyond plausibility. Although the prophetic voice of promised redemption could point to an initial trajectory of restoration through prophetic activity, the ultimate failure of Israel’s restoration (Isa 55–56) seems to overshadow any initial attempts. As such, it would be difficult to understand why the material concerning the servant was preserved if it was understood as Isaiah the prophet in toto. In this regard, H.W. Wolff suggests that the vagueness of the servant’s identity heightens anticipation for future fulfillment.111 D.J.A. Clines maintains that the apparent vagueness with which the servant is described, especially within Isa 52:13-:53:12, is intentionally employed to conceal the identity of the servant. He states “the force of the poem…lies in its very unforthcomingness, its refusal to be precise and give information, its stubborn Ahijah in 1 Kgs 14:18; Elijah in 1 Kgs 18:38; Jonah in 2 Kgs 14:25. Cited in Hugerberger, Servant, 112, n20. 108 Also see Isa 44:26 109 Cited in Hugenberger, Servant, 1995, 112 n21. 110 Hugenberger, Servant, 1995, 113. 111 Wolff 1962, 338–342, cited in Hugenberger, Servant, 119, n43. Hanson suggests that this ambiguity is the reason for the vivid symbolism of the servant poem where “poetic creativity reaches its apex in the image of the servant of the Lord,” (Hanson, World, 21) and as such propositional assertions are insufficient. 107

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

105

concealment of the kind of data that critical scholarship yearns to get its hands on.”112 Without wanting to deny the rich complexity and depth of the poetry of the servant songs, there are in fact multiple indications that the servant is portrayed as a Mosaic figure, as several recent studies have shown.113 This motif was comprehensively explored in G.P. Hugenberger’s 1995 article entitled The Servant of the Lord in the ‘Servant Songs’ of Isaiah: A Second Moses Figure.114 As his starting point, Hugenberger affirms the pioneering work of T.N.D Mettinger who, arguing against B. Duhm’s attempts to sever the songs from their context, suggests that the servant songs/poems are “integral to their context”115 and in such light “provide compelling evidence for the servant’s Mosaic identity.”116 The context of which he speaks is Isa 40–55 whose “controlling and sustained theme …is that of a second Exodus.”117 Hugenberger is certainly not alone in claiming that Isa 40–55 display this schema; several other scholars have noted this pervasive theme within these chapters, explicitly so in 40:3–5; 41:4, 9, 17–20; 42:13, 14–16; 43:1–3, 14–21; 44:2, 7f, 27; 46:3f 48:8, 20–21; 49:8–12; 51:9–11; 52:4, 11–12; 54:3, 13; 55:12– 13.118 The focus on the vocabulary of salvation in Isa 40–55 caused E.J. Young to conclude that “when one turns from the thirty ninth chapter to the fortieth chapter [of Isaiah] it is as though…[one] Clines 1976, 25, cited in North, Servant, 56. Hugenberger, Servant, 105–140. Fischer 1916, 191–193; Bentzen 1954, 66, 108; Kraus 1954, 116. Ackroyd 1968, 126–128; Coats 1988, 132–133. Sellin argued that the suffering servant is “Moses come to life.” Cited in North, Servant, 53–55. 114 Hugenberger, Servant, 105–140. 115 Hugenberger, Servant, 122. 116 Hugenberger, Servant, 122. 117 Hugenberger, Servant, 122. 118 B.W. Anderson, “Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage. Ed. B.W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962), 177–195; von Rad, Theology, 2.261–262; C. Stuhlmeuller, Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah (Rome Biblical Institute, 1970); G.S. Ogden, “Moses and Cyrus,” VT 28(1978): 195–203; Watts, Consolation, 31–59; Watts, Isaiah, 1997, ch. 3. 112 113

106

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

steps out of the darkness of judgement into the light of salvation.”119 Sufficient for our purposes is to note the general context of Isa 40–55 which is conceived as a new Exodus and as such would recall the figure of Moses, for as has been noted, the second Exodus was to “reflect pattern of the original.”120 That this was anticipated by the Israelites amid their disappointing years within the post-exilic community is attested by Isa 63:11–19 in which Israel’s prayer for redemption is expressed in specifically Mosaic categories,121 Then they remembered the days of old, of Moses his servant…who divided the waters before them…Like cattle that go down into the valley, the spirit of Yahweh gave them rest…. Thus you led your people, to make for yourself a glorious name…Look down from heaven and see, from your holy and glorious habitation. Where are your zeal and your might? The yearning of your heart and your compassion?… O Yahweh, you are our father; our Redeemer from of old is your name…Turn back for the sake of your servants, for the sake of the tribes that are your heritage. Your holy people took possession for a little while; but now our adversaries have trampled down your sanctuary. We have long been like those whom you do not rule, like those not called by your name.

In this regard von Rad concludes, Does not this message [of a new Exodus] actually demand the foretelling—as antitype—of a prophetic mediator who is to be greater than Moses in the same degree as the new Exodus is to outdo the old? He ought not, of course, to be spoken of as…Moses redivivus, but as a prophet ‘like Moses.’ DeuteroIsaiah stood within a tradition which looked for a prophet like Moses…This would also close the uneasy gap which makes

Young 1972, 17; Watts, Isaiah, 79. Hugenberger, Servant, 122. 121 Hugenberger, Servant, 129. 119 120

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

107

itself felt between the Servant Songs and the rest of the message of Deutero-Isaiah.122

In addition to the broad context of new Exodus which would naturally recall the figure of Moses, Isa 40–55’s four servant songs are positioned in such a way in which an even closer association between Exodus/new-Exodus and Moses/Servant is achieved. C. Chavasse explores this motif through an assessment of the material which closely surrounds each song.123 The first Servant Song (Isa 42:1–4) is followed by verses 6–7 in which it is stated that the servant will be given as a “covenant to the people…to bring out the bound and them that sit in darkness out of bonds and the prison-house.” Thus within the immediate context of the servant’s work, the escape from Babylon is portrayed in terms of Israel’s bondage in Egypt. The second servant song (Isa 49:1–6) is preceded in 48:21 by terms (thirst, desert, water, rock) which recall the wandering years of the Israelites under Moses’ rule. Chavasse deems it not insignificant that the description of the servant follows.124 Likewise, the third servant song (Isa 50:4–11) is also preceded by memories of Mosaic activity including his mighty deeds at the Red Sea, the plague of the Nile and the plague of Darkness (Isa 50:2–3). Although we have already discussed the context of the fourth servant song and suggested that it is surrounded by material which evokes a paradigm of deliverance,125 it is also significant that between the third and fourth songs, 51:9– 11 depicts Israel’s current Babylonian exile in explicit126 and implied127 Egyptian imagery. In this light it is difficult to account von Rad, Theology, 2.261. C. Chavasse, “The Suffering Servant and Moses,” CQR 165 (1964): 157–58. 124 Chavasse, Suffering, 158. 125 See diagram on p. 101. 126 Isa 51:10, where the drying up of the sea and making the depths a way is an obvious allusion to the crossing of the Red Sea. 127 The reference to Rahab and Dragon (Isa 51:9) are often noted as referring to the crocodile and as such nicknames for Egypt. Chavasse, Suffering, 157–58. 122 123

108

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

for the doubts of those typified by S. Mowinckel who conclude that the identity of the Isaianic servant in Deutero-Isaiah does “not refer to any new Exodus and the servant is not thought of as a new Moses.”128 Rather Davies notes that in “Deutero-Isaiah, where the theme of the New Exodus is most apparent, the instrument of deliverance, the servant of the Lord, has long been connected with Moses,”129 and as such, this suggests that the prototype of the servant is found in Moses. The second consideration for a Mosaic understanding of the servant is its consistency with early Jewish interpretation. Although the Aramaic Targums are documented in the fifth century AD, they are based on oral traditions which could date back into or even before the first century.130 As noted in our discussion of textual issues, the Targum’s translation of Isa 53:4 focuses on an interpretive ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν rather than the Hebrew’s more literal w%ny"lfx./ This may have conceptually formed the basis of the Babylonian Talmud’s association of Moses with the servant figure. R. Simlah expounded: Why did Moses our teacher yearn to enter the land of Israel? Did he want to eat of the fruits or satisfy himself with its bounty? But thus spake Moses “Many percepts were commanded to Israel which can only be fulfilled in the land of Israel. I wish to enter the land that they may all be fulfilled by me.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “it is only to receive the reward (for obeying the commandments) that thou seekest? I ascribe it to thee as if thou didst perform them; as it is said: Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great And he shall divide the spoil with the strong; Because he hath poured out his soul unto death; And was numbered with the transgressors; Yea, he bare the sins of many Cited in Chavasse, Suffering, 152. Davies, Setting, 117. 130 The targum associated with the prophets is attributed to Jonathen bar Uzziel. R.A. Aytoun, “The Servant of the Lord in the Targum,” JTS 23 (1922): 172. 128 129

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

109

And make intercession for the trangressors” Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great—it is possible (to think that his portion will be) with the (great of) later generations: therefore there is a text to declare, And and he shall divide with the strong, i.e. with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who were strong in the Torah and commandments. Because he poured out his soul unto death—because he surrendered himself to die, as it is said “And if not blot me, I pray thee” etc. And he was numbered with the transgressors—because he secured atonement for the making of the Golden Calf. And he made intercession for the transgressors- because he begged for mercy on behalf of sinners in Israel that they should turn in penitence. 131

The themes of Moses’ suffering and ideas of atonement will be discussed below. For the time being it is sufficient to note that the Servant envisioned as a Mosaic figure is attested at an early stage in Jewish exegetical tradition. 132 There are at least nine other considerations which support the association of the Servant with Moses. First, as is evident from Tractate Sotah 14a; cited in Chavasse, Suffering, 159–160. Additionally, later Mosaic interpretations of the servant, spanning the twelfth to sixteenth centuries have been noted by S.R. Driver and A. Neubauer in their encyclopedic work entitled The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters (New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1969). They include Kimchi, Yalqut 2:338; Zohar, section [)ct yk]; Moses el-Shaikh and Sh’lomoh Levi. S.R. Driver and A. Neubauer 1876, Vol 2.10, 15f, 56, 261, 270–274, 287–289. Other indications of a Mosaic servant include Hugenberger’s suggestion, following N.A. Dahl (1992, 386), that 11Q Melch 18–25 associates the messenger who is ‘the Anointed of the Spirit’ in Isa 52:7 with the prophet like Moses; cited in Hugenberger 1995, 119 n44. Likewise, Allison, New Moses, 68 suggests that there could also be earlier traces of this interpretation in T.Mos 3:11 which refers to “Moses, who suffered many things (multa passus est) in Egypt and at the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years.” This particular theme is picked up in Acts 3 and applied to Jesus who is both Yahweh’s servant and the prophet like Moses. 131 132

110

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

Exod 2, Moses experienced a providential birth which included successful evasion of Pharaoh’s decree that “Every boy that is born to the Hebrews shall be thrown into the Nile” (Exod 12:1). Furthermore, Moses was nurtured by the daughter of the one which sought his life (Exod 2:5–10). Similar providential birth is attested in Isa 49:1 in which it is said of the servant that “Yahweh called me before I was born, while I was in my mother’s womb he named me.”133 Second, developing this hypothesis noted previously by Chavasse,134 Hugenberger notes the similarities in the ‘call narratives’ of Moses and the servant.135 Both figures express hesitancy to their divine call (Exod 3:11f; Isa 49:1; 53:1), to which Yahweh responds in similar fashion. In Exod 4:11 Yahweh says to Moses “Who gives speech to mortals? Who makes them mute or deaf, seeing or blind? Is it not I, Yahweh?” Likewise in Isa 49:1–2; 50:4–5, the servant is said to have been called by Yahweh who “made his mouth” (v2) and has given the servant “the tongue of a teacher.” (vv4–5). Third, three titles contribute to a paralleling of the servant and Moses—‘servant,’ ‘my chosen,’ and ‘Israel.’ As several commentators have noted,136 Moses is attributed the title ‘db(’ forty times within the OT. 137 Num 12:6–8 is typical, And he said, “Hear my words: When there are prophets among you, I the LORD make myself known to them in visions; I speak to them in dreams. Not so with my servant

Hugenberger, Servant, 120ff. Chavasse, Suffering, 153. 135 Hugenberger, Servant, 133. 136 Jeremias, TDNT, 4.853; P.D. Miller, “Moses My Servant: The Deuteronomic Portrait of Moses,” Int 41(1987): 253; Chavasse, Suffering, 159; Hugenberger, Servant, 132; Allison, New Moses, 68. 137 Exod 4:10; 14:31; Num 11:11; Deut 3:24; 34:5; Josh 1:1, 2, 7, 13, 15; 8:31, 33; 9:24; 11:12, 15; 12:6 (x2); 13:8; 14:7; 18:7; 22:2, 4, 5; 1 Kgs 8:53, 56; 2 Kgs 18:12; 1 Chron 6:49 [34]; 2 Chron 1:3; 24:6, 9; Neh 1:7, 8; 9:14; 10:29 [30]; Ps 105:26; Isa 63:11; Dan 9:11; Mal 4:4. Also see Heb 3:5; Rev 15:3. 133 134

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

111

Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak face to face— clearly, not in riddles; and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”

Furthermore, there are multiple references in extra-biblical literature referring to Moses as the servant of Yahweh. Chavasse138 notes that Wisdom of Solomon 10:16 says of Moses that “She [wisdom] entered into the soul of the Servant of the Lord.”139 Likewise, in Baruch 1:20, 28, Moses is Yahweh’s παῖς, in Josephus Ant. 5.39 he is Yahweh’s δοῦλος, and in the Babylonian Talmud yoma 2.1 he is the db(.140 Additionally, both Moses and the Servant are said to be Yahweh’s chosen, explicitly so in Isa 42:1 and Ps 106:23. Finally, through synonymous parallelism in Isa 49:3 the servant is identified as ‘Israel.’141 Hugenberger notes that although Moses is never explicitly called Israel, on three occasions Yahweh offers to start afresh with Moses as his new Israel because of the sins of Israel.142 Fourth, identification is strengthened between the servant and Moses through the common motif of bearing the Spirit. Isa 42:1 says “Here is my servant…I have put my Spirit on him.” Similarly, Num 11:17 and Deut 34:9 record Moses as not only one who bore the Spirit but who could distribute it according to Yahweh’s will.143 Fifth, assimilation between the servant and Moses is seen in their sufferings and submissive response.144 The sorrows of the Chavasse, Suffering, 159. Cf. Isa 52:13 “servant shall deal wisely.” 140 Jeremias, TDNT, 4.853. Other extra-biblical reference to Moses as servant include Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 20:2; 1 Clem 4:12; 51:3, 5; Barn 14:4; Apoc Moses preface; Clement of Alexandria, Paed 1:7.59; Apos Const. 7:33.6; Acts Pilate 16:8; m.Yoma 3:8; 4:2; 6:2; Siphre Deut § 357; Tg. Ps-Jn on Num 16:34; b. Sabb 89a. Cited in Allison, New Moses, 56, n121. 141 See above discussion of servant’s identity. 142 Hugenberger, Servant, 131. Golden Calf incident in Exod 32:9f; The incident at Kadesh Barnea in Num 14:12; and the rebellion of Korah, Datham and Abiram in Num 16:20ff. 143 Chavasse, Suffering, 153; Hugenberger, Servant, 1995, 132. 144 Hugenberger, Servant, 135–136; Jeremias, TDNT, 4.853. 138 139

112

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

Servant are hinted at in the first song when it is stated that he “will not grow faint or be crushed” (Isa 42:4). In the second song the difficulties of the Servant are initially unspecified (49:4) but are later elaborated in v.7 to describe him as one who is “deeply despised, abhorred by the nations.” This theme is developed in the third song, which Chavasse entitles as a “Song of Courage and Trust in the Face of Opposition,”145 wherein it is stated that of the servant that he “gave [his] back to those who struck [him], and [his] cheeks to those who pulled out the beard; [He] did not hide [his] face from insult and spitting.”146 Full expression of suffering is expressed in the fourth song where the servant suffers not only at the hands of wicked evildoers but by God himself, “struck down by God, and afflicted.”147 These are not private acts of insult, Deut 25:9; Neh 13:25 suggests that the actions of beating and pulling out one’s hair were actions of criminal sanctions and as such the context is a legal case which requires adjudication.148 This then provides the context for understanding similar sufferings of Moses, who was not only rejected by those to whom he was sent,149 but at Rephidim, the Israelites brought a byr against Moses. Exod 17:2–4 states The people brEy,fwA Moses, and said, “Give us water to drink.” Moses said to them, “Why do you Nw%byrIt@; me? Why do you test Yahweh.”But the people thirsted there for water; and the people grumbled against Moses and said, “Why did you bring us out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and livestock with thirst?” So Moses cried out to the LORD, “What shall I do with this people? They are almost ready to stone me.150

145 146

Chavasse, Suffering, 154. Isa 50:6. First person changed to third person for the sake of

clarity. Isa 53:4b. Also see similar practices in the ANE in MAL A§18–19. Cited in Hugenberger, Servant, 135. 149 Exod 2:14; 4:1; 15:24; 16:2–12; 17:2f.; Num 12:1f.; 14:2; 16:2f.; 16:41; 20:2f.; 21:5; 26:9. 150 The incident in Num 20 similarly describes an incident of byr brought against Moses by the Israelites. 147 148

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

113

B. Childs argues that within this context, byr refers to the conduct of a legal case or lawsuit.151 This is supported by the frequent use of byr in similar ‘legal’ settings,152 and the judicial action which Israel threatened to take; “They are almost ready to stone me” (Exod 17:4). It is perhaps in this regard that Ass Mos 3:11 states that “Moses suffered many things in Egypt, the Red Sea and the forty years in the wilderness.” Furthermore, both the servant (Isa 42:2–3a) and Moses (Exod 15:24f; 16:3f; Num 16:41ff.; 20:2–6; 21:5) are described as humble, because they were silent before their accusers within this judicial context and entrusted vindication to Yahweh (Isa 53:7; Num 12:5ff.).153 Where the parallel between the servant and Moses comes into particular focus, and indeed is emphasized by the aforementioned Babylonian tradition (Sotah 14a), is the element of redemption that came through this suffering. There are five occasions in Israel’s history in which, after they had sinned, Moses attempted to make atonement for their rebellion; 1. worship of the Golden Calf (Exod 32:11–13, 30–32; 34:8–9; Deut 9:18–21, 25–29; Deut 10:10); 2. the rebellion of Miriam and Aaron (Num 12:11–12); 3. the return of the spies from Canaan (Num 14:13–20); 4. the rebellion of Korah (Num 16:22); and 5. the fiery serpents in the wilderness (Num 21:7).154 In light of three passages in particular (Deut 1:34–37; 3:23–28; 4:21–22), P.D. Miller suggests that Moses appears as “God’s suffering servant.”155 Deut 1:37 explicitly accounts for Moses’ exclusion from the promised land on account of Israel’s rebellion, “Even with me [Moses] the Lord was angry on your account, saying, ‘You also shall not enter there.’” Deut 3:26 expresses similar sentiment in stating that “the Lord was angry with B. Childs, The Book of Exodus (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), 445. 152 1 Sam 24:16; 25:39; Job 9:3 40:2; 13:19 23:6; Ps 35:1; 43:1 74:22; 103:9; 119:154; Pro 22:23; 23:11; 25:8, 9; Isa 3:13; Isa 50:8; 57:16; Jer 2:9; 50:34; 51:36; Hos 4:4; Mi 7:9. 153 For a first century Jewish understanding of Moses’ rejection see Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:35. 154 These five incidents are noted by Chavasse, Suffering, 156. 155 Miller, Moses, 253. 151

114

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

me [Moses] on your [Israel’s] account and would not heed me. The Lord said to me, ‘Enough from you! Never speak to me of this matter again!’” Similarly Deut 4:21–22 states that “The Lord was angry with me [Moses] because of you [Israel], and he vowed that I should not cross the Jordan and that I should not enter the good land that the Lord your God is giving for your possession. For I am going to die in this land…” Although Num 20:11 accounts for Moses’ exclusion from the promised land on account of his disobedient action of striking the rock twice at Keddish, this is not the ultimate cause. Rather, as is evident in the Deuteronomistic portrait, it is Israel’s rebellion which led to Moses’ suffering and exclusion from the promised land. This is especially highlighted in the Golden Calf incident (Exod 32:30–32) where Moses even offers his own place in the covenant community for the sake of Israel. Thus in many ways Israel’s redemption occurred through Moses’ ‘suffering.’ In addition to the Babylonian tradition156 which interprets Moses’ life in reference to Isa 53, several other sources attest to the belief in later Judaism that Moses’ death was seen as having atoning power. Pesikt. R. Ad. 3.199a (par. Pesikt., 159b) records the following, “Why did Moses die in the wilderness? In order that the wilderness generation should return and rise again through his merits.” Similarly, Midrash h#$m trytp concludes by stating, “the death of Moses is an expiatory altar (hrpk xbzm) for all Israel, as our teachers, their memory be blessed, have said, says R. Jicchaq.”157 It is in this sense that Moses’ office of intercessory prayer and atonement is echoed in the Servant’s task. Isa 53:12 notes that the Servant was “numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” Isa 53:4 states “Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted,” and in similar vein to Deut 1:37; 3:26; 4:21–22 (in reference to Moses) affirms that it is not the sin of the Servant which attracts

156 157

See full quotation of b.Sota 14a above. Cited in Jeremias, TDNT, 4.854.

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

115

punishment, but rather it is his mediatorial role as Israel’s representative which ordains him for such a task. Although Miller concedes that “we do not have here a full blown notion of the salvation and forgiveness of the many brought by the punishment of the one,”158 the wording “on account of you” (Deut 1:37; 3:26) and “because of you” (Deut 4:21–22), coupled with Moses’ intention to surrender his own life for Israel’s sake (Exod 32:30–32) strongly suggests that such a figure, even if only in its early developmental stages, is in view. Jeremias concludes that Moses “vicariously sought to take to himself the sin with the golden calf, [Exod 32:32]”159 and it is in this sense that he formed the mold for the Isaianic Servant.160 The sixth point of comparison between Moses and the Servant are similarities in their respective roles. Isa 42:1–4 describes the Servant’s call to 1. bring forth justice to the nations; 2. establish justice in the earth; and 3. to teach those on the coastland. The universal scope of the Servant’s activity is also attested in 49:6, where Yahweh declares “I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” In several places in the Pentateuch Moses is noted as establishing justice and law for Israel. Similar universal scope is evidenced in Exod 12:38, where on Israel’s departure from Egypt, a “mixed crowd also went up with them.” Num 11:4 also refers to those in the wilderness as Psup;sa)hfw: in the MT and as ἐπίμικτος in the LXX, both of which mean a mixed multitude. On two other occasions foreigners are

Miller, Moses, 253. Jeremias, TDNT, 4.853. von Rad similarly claims that Moses “die[d] vicariously for the sins of the people.” von Rad, Theology, 2.261. This is an “anticipation, a beginning point in the stream of innocent servants who receive the judgements who rightly belong on others.” Miller, Moses, 254. 160 Hugenberger similarly agrees, and suggests that the degree of “escalation” between Moses and the Servant, in regard to the extent of bearing other people’s burdens, is accounted for in the movement from type to antitype. Hugenberger, Servant, 137. 158 159

116

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

grafted into Israel under Moses’ leadership, the Midianites in Num 10:29 and the Kenizzites in Num 32:12; (cf. Josh 15:13).161 In addition to the Servant being given the task of re-gathering the tribes of Israel (Isa 49:6; cf. Moses in Exod 24:4; 28:21),162 Yahweh declares in Isa 42:6; 49:8 that he is given as a “covenant to the people.” As Hugenberger notes, although this is not used specifically of Moses, in Exod 34:27 Moses is identified with Israel so closely that “the covenant was deemed to have been made with [him].”163 Moses and the Servant also share the office of healing. Isa 53:5 notes that it is through the Servant that “we are healed.” As noted above, the theme of Mosaic healing was one of the most remembered and celebrated aspects of Moses’ life (Num 12:13; 21:9; Deut 34:11). G.W. Coats, in his 1998 article entitled ‘Healing and the Moses Traditions,’ has developed the theme of Mosaic healing, specifically the bronze serpent incident in Num 21:8 as a reversal of the serpent motif in the creation stories. This may also suggest at least a conceptual link between Moses removing the curse of Eden and the Servant removing the curse of Deuteronomy (Isa 53:5; cf. Exod 15:26; Deut 28:60). One of the most attractive features of understanding the Isaianic servant as Mosaic is its ability to incorporate the various prophetic, priestly and kingly features into its rubric. The Servant displays prophetic (Isa 44:26; cf. 20:3), priestly (Isa 42:1; cf. Zech 3:8; Ps 105:26) 164 and kingly (Isa 37:35; 42:1[cf. Ps 89:3 MT v.4])165

See Allison, New Moses, 61; Hugenberger, Servant, 132 for further discussion. 162 von Rad, Theology, 261; Davies, Setting, 117. 163 “The Lord said to Moses: Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” Hugenberger, Servant, 134. 164 Priestly characteristics also include teaching Isa 42:4 (cf Mal 2:6–9), establishing justice (Isa 42:1; cf. Dt 17:9ff.; 2 Kings 17:27; 2 Chron 19:8) and sprinkling the nations (Isa 52:15 cf. Exod 29:21; Lev 4:6, 17.) Hugenberger, Servant, 1995, 118. 161

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

117

attributes. Similarly, Moses is remembered as a prophet par exellence (Num 12:6–8; Deut 18:15, 18), a priestly mediator (Exod 33:9; 39:43) who makes intercession and atonement (Exod 32:30; Num 14:5), sacrifices (Exod 24:6–8; Lev 8) and blesses the people (Exod 39:43; Lev 9:23), and whose job description was “hardly distinguishable from that of a king.”166 It is important to observe two further considerations. As E.J. Young has noted, the Servant being ‘stricken’ ((aw%gnF), has often been interpreted as affliction with leprosy, such as b. Sanh 98a, 98b.167 In this regard E.W. Hengsterberg has suggested that the term (gn in Lev 13–14 in is a nomen proprium for leprosy.168 Furthermore, 2 Kgs 15:5 supports this interpretation in stating of Azariah that “The Lord struck ((g%AnAy:wA) the king, so that he was leprous to the day of his death.”169 The possibility of association with leprosy here seems to echo, as previously mentioned, the figure of Moses who had several accounts of contact with leprosy (Exod 4:6–7; Num 12).170 Finally, Hugenberger has noted that the fate of the Servant echoes that of Moses.171 Isa 53:9 states that the grave of the Servant was “with the wicked (My(i#$fr: / πονηρούς).” Likewise, Moses’ burial was in the wilderness where Israel had Also see Ps 18:1; 36:1; 1 Sam 23:10. For more on this see Hugenberger, Servant, 114–115; Beuken 1972, 2–4; Clifford 1988, 575. Cited in Hugenberger, Servant, 115 n30. 166 Hugenberger, Servant, 130. Although Moses is nowhere referred to as King per se, the manner in which he led, directed and had responsibility to judge (Exod 18:13; Num 27:16 cf 1 Kgs 3:7–9). Several commentators have taken this to signify a Davidic typology in the servant’s identity. This is not antithetical to the predominant Mosaic pattern. 167 Young, Isaiah, 346. See also Strack-Billerbeck 2.291 168 Cited in Young, Isaiah, 346 n15. 169 The significance of this within Isaianic theology is a similar scenario in 1:6, where Israel is described as a body with festering sores (leprosy), which bears the punishment of the exile. See discussion above regarding the connection of this with the first mighty deed in Matthew 8. 170 Allison notes that Jerome cites Aquila in Isaiah ad loc at Isa 53:4 as translating (aw%gnF with ἀφημένον (leprous). Allison, New Moses, 69. 171 Hugenberger, Servant, 133. 165

118

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

done evil ((rAhf / τὰ  πονηρὰ) Num 32:13; cf. Deut 4:21; Num 32:13. Given that the Servant was 1. providentially birthed, 2. experienced a ‘Mosaic’ call narrative, 3. has the titles ‘servant’, ‘my chosen’ and ‘Israel’, 4. bears Yahweh’s spirit, 5. endured suffering, 6. responded submissively offering himself as an atonement, 7. taught and was a light to the nations, 8. had prophetic, priestly and kingly features, and 9. was considered to have leprosy and die ‘with the wicked,’ all within the context of a promise of a new Exodus in Isa 40–55, recalls only one figure in Israel’s history, Moses. In this sense G.W. Coats concludes that “the Moses figure functions as a model for the suffering servant of Second Isaiah.”172 This however does not exhaustively account for the Servant figure in Mosaic terms, only that by “recognizing the servant as predominantly a second Moses figure can justice be done to the integrity of the Servant songs within their context, which is dominated by second Exodus imagery.”173 Thus Matthew explicitly quotes Isa 53:4 in interpreting the ministry Jesus was currently undertaking. Further discussion of the rationale and motivation for this typological association will be expanded in our concluding chapter. Sufficient for our current purposes is to appreciate the pervasive Mosaic themes running through the opening cycle of mighty deeds and specifically the explicit OT citation.

THE FIRST ‘CALL’ NARRATIVE: MT 8:18–22 The material in chapters 8–9, which does not relate to Jesus’ mighty deeds has often been thought of as some kind of superfluous filler. Typical in this sense is F.W. Beare’s comment that “these brief passages” are merely “non-miraculous anecdote.”174 J.P. Meier suggests that they function as “buffer

G.W. Coats, “Metanoia in Ancient Israel: Clues for Unity and Change,” Midstream 23 (1984):185–188. 173 Hugenberger, Servant, 139. 174 Beare, Matthew, 201. 172

THE FIRST CYCLE (MT 8:1–22)

119

pericopes.”175 Similarly D.A. Hagner claims that “v23 could easily follow immediately after v18.”176 However, as noted in our previous discussion of the macro-structure of chapters 8–9, Matthew has editorially inserted three call narratives after each cycle of mighty deeds for theological reasons which are climactically expressed in Jesus’ choosing of the twelve disciples (Mt 10:1–4). Sufficient to note, is that the initial invitation with a scribe, perhaps representative of Israel, to respond to what they have heard Jesus say (ch. 5–7) and now begun to see him do (8:1– 17) is not appropriated with the level of commitment Jesus requires. We will return to this theme as it surfaces in the text, and specifically in our discussion of 10:1–4.

CONCLUSION FOR FIRST CYCLE Within Matthew’s first cycle of mighty deeds Jesus is alluded to as a Mosaic figure in several respects: 1. Moses’ connection with leprosy; 2. Moses’ stretching out of his hand; 3. imagery used to refer to Israel’s final eschatological return from ‘Egyptian’ exile; 4. Jesus’ healing of conditions which find their antecedent in the Mosaic legal suit against Israel in Deut 28–30; and most significantly 5. Matthew’s explicit citation of Isa 53, in which the Servant is predominantly, although not exhaustively, envisioned as a Mosaic figure.

175 176

Meier, Matthew, 80. Hagner, Matthew, 219.

CHAPTER 5. THE SECOND CYCLE (MT 8:23–9:17) INTRODUCTION In the previous chapter it was argued that several key elements in Matthew’s presentation of Jesus recalled the figure of Moses. The purpose of this chapter is to further this investigation and assess to what degree this thematic motif of Jesus as new-Moses is apparent in Matthew’s second cycle of Jesus’ mighty deeds.

MIGHTY DEED 4: JESUS STILLS THE STORM (MT 8:23–27) Matthew’s narrative of Jesus’ stilling of the storm has been variously described by commentators as “a kerygmatic paradigm of the danger and glory of discipleship,”1 a rescue miracle “similar in nature to the provision of loaves and wine,”2 or even an “epiphanic sea-rescue.”3 What then can be said of this fourth mighty deed at the head of Matthew’s second cycle? Whereas in Mark the disciples take (παραλαμβάνουσιν) Jesus into the boat (Mk 4:36), in Matthew’s narrative, this is reversed so that the disciples follow (ἠκολούθησαν) Jesus into the boat (Mt 8:23). Much has been made of this Matthean redactional change by Bornkamm et al. who thus envision the pericope to be solely concerned with discipleship. Held is typical when he G. Bornkamm, “The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew,” in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew. Edited by Gerhard Barth, Heinz Joachim Held (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 57. 2 R. Latourelle, The Miracles of Jesus and the Theology of Miracles (New York: Paulist Press, 1988), 102. 3 J.P. Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea (Romae: E Pontifico Instituto Biblico, 1981), 94–103. 1

121

122

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

concludes “it is no longer Jesus and the elements which constitute the theme of the narrative but… his disciples who are in peril.”4 This conclusion, however, is discordant with Matthew’s explicit Christological focus at the conclusion of the narrative. He records that those who had just witnessed Jesus’ mighty deed say “ποταπός ἐστιν οὗτος ὅτι καὶ οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ ἡ θάλασσα αὐτῷ  ὑπακούουσιν.” R.H. Gundry argues that the initial ‘ποταπός’ is to be understood as an exclamation “how wonderful,” based on the “many other stresses of Jesus’ majesty.”5 However, in addition to lacking any direct textual support in Matthew for this translation, in every other usage in the NT ‘ποταπός’ functions as an interrogative question of class or kind.6 Thus verse 27 is more plausibly translated as “What sort of person is this that even the winds and the seas obey him?” On this basis D.A. Hagner concludes that Bornkamm has been “misdirected”7 in attempting to expunge all Christology from Matthew’s pericope.8 This is not to say that the motif of discipleship is entirely absent from Matthew’s story, but only that it is subservient to the larger motif of Christology.9 In the OT, dominion and command over the oceans is often the sole prerogative of Yahweh, as is seen in His creation of seas Held 1963, 204, cited in Latourelle, Miracles, 104. Latourelle also notes several picturesque details of Mark’s account that are absent in Matthew. He suggests that this supports Markan priority and hence the validity of Held’s conclusion: v.35 when evening had come; v36 the presence of other boats; v.37 the description of the storm; v38 Jesus asleep on a cushion in the stern; v38 the greater emphasis on the panic of the disciples; v.39 the address to the wind—peace be still. 5 Gundry, Commentary, 157. 6 Mk 13:1; Lk 1:29; 7:39; 2 Pet 3:11; 1 Jn 3:1. See BDAG, 856. 7 Hagner, Matthew, 202. 8 Ibid., 222. 9 Heil concurs and further suggests that the question raised in verse 27 is answered in 14:22–23 where Jesus is described as “Son of God.” Heil argues that the audience is “left hanging in suspense for an answer” p. 91. However given 1:18–25; 2:15; 3:17; 4:1–11 the reader knows that Jesus is God’s son. See Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.68. 4

THE SECOND CYCLE (MT 8:23–9:17)

123

and rivers,10 stilling the roaring sea,11 and using the oceans and winds to inflict punishment.12 In this way, J.P. Heil has suggested that Jesus “rebuking the winds and the sea is a uniquely divine activity, made known to Israel through her scriptures.”13 Although there are some Greco-Roman figures, both human and divine, who are said to control the wind and sea,14 in Jewish literature it is Yahweh who responds to the prayer of the individual in deliverance from tumultuous winds and waters.15 One of the most Gen 1; Ps 95:5; Amos 5:8; 9:6. Ps 33:7; 65:7; 77:16; Job 12:15. 12 Exod 14:26ff.; Jos 24:7; Jonah 1:4. The ἀνεμος (wind) is also used in similar fashion. Ps 107:25–30; 147:18; Prov 30:4; Job 28:25; Amos 4:13; Nah 1:3, 4. The motif of Yahweh’s punishing wind is present in Isa 27:8; Hos 13:15; Jonah 1:4. See Van der loos, Miracles, 644 for further discussion. 13 Heil, Walking, 101. 14 Poseidon Hom Od. 5.291–96; Serv. Aen 3.116–120; The Dioscuri Hom Hymn 33; Diod. Sic 4.43.1f; Asclepius P.Oxy 1381, col 10, II. 214f. Ael. Aristid Or 42:1, 10; Sarapis, Plut Is. Et Os. 61; Ael; Aristid. Or, 45.29, 33; Venus/Aphrodite/Cypris Ath. Grae 5.11; 9.143ff. In addition to Loos 1964, see Watts, Notes, 8a. For Medea see Ovid, Meta 7.197–202; for Orpheus see Ap. Rhod Argon. 1.492–518. For Persian magi see Hdt 7.191; for Pythagoras and Epimenides see Nico in Proph Vit. Pyth. 29; for Empedocles see diog Laert. 8.59. Empedocles of Agrigentum aquired the nickname “averter of the winds.” A wind was once blowing from Mt. Agrigentum which made the women of a particular city infertile; it is recorded that he stopped the wind from blowing. Clement of Alexandria Strom VI.III.30 “κωλυσάμενας.”; for Apollonius of Tyana see Philos. Vit. Ap. 4.13, 15. It was said of Apollonius that people liked to travel with him when the weather was bad for “they all thought him to be a man superior to tempest and to fire and to peril of every nature; so they begged him to take them as his shipmates.” Vita Apol 4.13. Translation Eells, cited in Loos, Miracles, 644, n1. References from Loos, Miracles, 1964 and Watts, Notes. Also see Clement of Alexandria Strom VI.III.29; Cicero, De Imperio Cn Pompei ad Quirites oratio 48. Cited in Loos, Miracles, 641n5. 15 Baba Mezi’a 59b; p. Ber. 13b; Phineas b. Jair is said to have divided the Ginnai River in b. Hul 7a. For further references of this sort, see 10 11

124

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

significant texts in this regard is found in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. The Greek text of Naphtali 6:1–1016 contains the second of two visions and concerns a ship which encounters a sea storm to the point of catastrophe, but which is rescued at the last moment through prayer. And again after seven days I saw our father Jacob standing at the Sea of Jamnia and we, his sons, with him. And behold, a ship came sailing by without sailors and pilot, and the ship was inscribed ‘Jacob.’ And our father said to us, “let us climb into our ship!” As we entered there came a violent storm, and a tempest of strong wind. And our father who was holding the helm, was taken from us. And overtaken by the storm, we were driven over the sea. And the ship was filled with water, beaten here and there by the waves, so that it was also shattered. And Joseph fled upon a little boat. And we also were divided on ten planks. And Levi and Judah were together. We were all scattered to the ends of the earth. But Levi, girt about with sackcloth, prayed for us all to the Lord. And the storm ceased, the ship came upon the land as in peace. And behold, our father came, and we all rejoiced with one accord.

E. Hilgert has convincingly argued that the ‘ship of Jacob’ represents Israel and her experience of exile followed by Strack and Billerbeck, Vol. 1:452. Some have also suggested that Matthew’s story specifically recalls the story of Jonah in the OT (Davies and Allison, Matthe, 1.70). Although there are some similarities, 1. a storm threatens the ship, 2. Jonah is asleep (Jonah 1:5), 3. he is awakened and told to call upon his god so that they do not perish (1:6), the differences outweigh the similarities, 1. Jesus in no way is disobediently running from Yahweh, 1. Instead of being thrown overboard Jesus speaks a word to calm the storm, and 3) even if Mark does envisage this as the OT horizon, Matthew does nothing to develop it. See Hagner, Matthew on Mt 23–27 for further criticisms. 16 The Hebrew text differs significantly from the Greek. In the Hebrew the main point is not the deliverance and restoration of the ship Israel but the apostasy of Joseph. It is not the storm which breaks the ship but the failure of Joseph to guide it properly. Cited in Heil, Walking, 19.

THE SECOND CYCLE (MT 8:23–9:17)

125

restoration.17 This reading is supported by the reference to those on board being “scattered to the ends of the earth” (v.6). M. De Jonge has traced the theme of sin-exile-restoration throughout The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs and has similarly concluded that Israel is metaphorically portrayed as the ship delivered through storms, and as such promised deliverance from exile.18 Therefore it is seen that in at least one Jewish interpretation,19 a story of a ship buffeted by waves and wind, denotes Israel’s state of exile and, under Yahweh’s mediation through a human figure, Israel is united and restored. Within the horizon of the OT, the prototypical event which influenced texts like Naphtali 6:1–10, was Israel’s deliverance through the Red Sea. Thus we will turn to a closer investigation of these events. The narrative in Exod 14 brings to conclusion Israel’s wondrous deliverance from Egyptian exile. After the bombardment of plagues upon Egypt, Pharaoh sets Israel free, who at their camp in Etham (Exod 13:20), have Yahweh reveal himself to them as a cloud during the day and fire at night for the purposes of guiding his people’s journey. During their circuitous journey (Exod 13:18), the people of Israel find themselves trapped between Migdol and the Red Sea (Exod 14:2), being pursued by “all the chariots of Egypt” (Exod 14:8). It is here that the reader is introduced to the grumbling motif which will play such a dominant role in the following series of events. Nonetheless Yahweh instructs Moses in Ex 14:16 to “lift up your staff, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it, that the Israelites may go into the sea on dry ground.” It is clear, from the qal imperfect masculine singular w%h('qFb;w% in the MT and the singular aorist active imperative ῥῆξον in the LXX, that Moses is the one who will carry out Yahweh’s salvific action. Even though it is Yahweh who actually “drives the sea back with a strong east wind” (Exod 14:21), Moses, his representative, offers no prayer or petition. He responds in simple Hilgert 1962, 34–39. Cited in Heil, Walking, 20 n17. De Jonge 1953, 83–86. Cited in Heil, Walking, 20. 19 See also 1QH Hodayot, where the image of a ship in distress similarly metaphorically describes eschatological danger followed by God’s rescue: 1QH 3:6, 12–18; 6:22–25; 7:4–5. See Heil, Walking, 22. 17 18

126

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

obedience and his outstretched arm (v.21) is honored with the accompanying deliverance. Similarly, in the drowning of the Egyptian pursuers, Moses is commanded in verse 26, “Stretch out your hand over the sea, so that the water may come back upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots and chariot drivers.” The fulfillment of this action is recorded with comparable simplicity in Exod 14:27–28: “So Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and at dawn the sea returned to its normal depth…The Lord tossed the Egyptians into the sea…and covered the chariots and the chariot drivers [and] the entire army of Pharaoh.” Moses’ role in these events is similarly celebrated in Isaiah’s prophetic remembrance of Yahweh’s first Exodus, and as such forms the basis for the future hope of a new Exodus. Isa 63:11–13 records Moses acting on behalf of Yahweh in leading the procession of the Israelites through the Red Sea.20 Then they remembered the days of old, of Moses his servant. Where is the one who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock? Where is the one who put within them his holy spirit, who caused his glorious arm to march at the right hand of Moses, who divided the waters before them to make for himself an everlasting name, who led them through the depths? Like a horse in the desert, they did not stumble.

Conclusion for the Fourth Mighty Deed The primary human figure in Jewish thought, who was instrumentally employed by Yahweh to control the wind and sea

Lest one suppose that the tradition of Moses’ role in the dividing of the Red Sea had somehow vanished from remembrance in the first century, it is helpful to recall Philo’s words in Vita Moses 1.156: ὡς  20

κληρονόμῳ  κτῆσιν  ἀρμόζουσαν.  τοιγαροῦν  ὑπήκουεν  ὡς  δεσπότη τῶν  στοιχείων  ἕκαστον  ἀλλάττον  ἣν  εἶχε  δύναμινγ  καὶ  ταῖς  προστάξεσιν ὑπεῖκον (just as every one of the elements obeyed him as

its master, changing the power which it had by nature and submitting to his commands.)

THE SECOND CYCLE (MT 8:23–9:17)

127

was Moses at the Red Sea.21 The significant twist in Matthew’s narration of Jesus’ fourth mighty deed is that there is no divine appeal or prayer offered. To the amazement of the disciples, Jesus controls the sea through his own agency. In this regard, Matthew uses the Moses story as the conceptual horizon for Jesus’ mighty deed, but goes beyond it in affirming that Jesus is not only a newMoses, but a greater than Moses. What Moses did, through Yahweh’s power to the Red Sea, Jesus does on his own authority to the storm. As such, Jesus inaugurates Israel’s long awaited new Exodus with a deed which recalled her initial deliverance. That the Christological focus is Matthew’s central concern is illustrated in the question which is left on the lips of those who witnessed Jesus’ mighty act, “What sort of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?” To this one can only respond that Jesus is not only a Mosaic ‘sort of man’ but one who has absorbed and surpassed all previous Mosaic function.

MIGHTY DEED 5: EXORCISMS AT GADARA (MT 8:28–9:1) It is important to note the possible connection of the previous mighty deed with Jesus’ activity at Gadara.22 In the OT the sea frequently functioned as a symbol of evil or its dwelling place (Ps 89:8–9; 65:5; 107:29). Given this symbolism and Jesus’ almost personified rebuke (ἐπετίμησεν) of the sea in 8:26, some commentators have suggested that the mighty deed functions an exorcism.23 If this is the case, then it adequately prepares the reader for Jesus’ encounter with the demoniacs at Gadara in Mt 8:28–9:1.

Even though it is Yahweh’s mediated power, the Exodus narrative affirms Moses’ central role. Several later figures are assimilated to Moses on this basis. Joshua parts the Jordan (Josh 3:16ff.); Elijah and Elisha part Jordan by striking it with their cloak (2 Kgs 2:8; 14); Elisha causes an axe head to float (2 Kgs 6:1–7); cf Ps 89:25. See Allison, New Moses, 1ff. 22 See B. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1998), 18, for discussion of textual issues relating to the geographic location. 23 D. Carson, Matthew (Grand Rapids Michigan: Eerdmans, 1984); Gundry, Matthew; Kilpatrick, Origins; Stendahl, School, 1954. 21

128

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

Matthew 8:28f. records that after crossing the sea of Galilee, two possessed individuals24 emerged from the tombs at Gadara and confronted Jesus, at which point he exorcised the demons into a large herd of swine. Significant for our discussion here is the unique linking of swine and tombs in Isa 65:1–7. One of the first commentators to notice this was H. Sahlin, who suggested that Mt 8:28–9:1 (Mk 5:1–20; Lk 8:26–39) was originally a Midrash on Isa 65:1–7.25 Although the synoptic triplet lacks the characteristic Midrashic features of an exegetical analysis, several commentators have seen Isa 65 as the OT horizon on which Jesus’ ministry occurs.26 Isa 65:1–16 in this sense functions as, 1. an oracle of judgement for idolatry after the failed return from Babylon (vv1–7) and 2. as a word to sustain the future hope of promised redemption (vv.8–16). It is this theme of restoration which dominates 65:17–66:24 and concludes Isaiah’s prophetic work in the envisioning of Zion’s future as a new heaven and a new earth.27

Mt 8:28 records two demoniacs, whereas Mk 5:2 only mentions once such individual. 25 Cited in J.D.M. Derrett, “Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Demoniac,” JSNT 3(1972): 10. 26 C.H. Cave, “The Obedience of Unclean Spirits,” NTS 11 (1965): 93–97; Derrett, Contribution, 2–17; Watts, Isaiah, 157–158. The link in Isaiah is also formed on the basis that swine (Lev 11:7; Deut 14:8) and tombs (b. Nidda 17a; j. Terum 40b, 23) were both considered as unclean. Cited in Watts, Isaiah, 157 n102. 27 In relation to Mt 8:28ff. a pertinent issue is whether the ones ministered to are Jews or Gentiles. Loos argues that the pigs “point to us being in a pagan environment, since the pig was an unclean animal” p. 389. However, given 1. Josephus’ note that the population on the east coast of the Sea of Galilee was mixed (War 3.51–58), 2. Lk 15:11–32 which has a Jew tending swine, and 3. Matthew clearly indicating when Jesus ministry extends beyond Israel (Mt 8:5–13; 15:21–28), one may safely assume the individuals were Jewish and hence recalled Isaiah’s vision. However, it is possible that if the figures are gentiles, then this also conforms to the Isaianic emphasis of Israel being a light to the nations (Isa 42:6; 49:6; 51:4; 60:3). 24

THE SECOND CYCLE (MT 8:23–9:17)

129

Given that Isa 65–66 functions in this climactic sense, the manner in which this alludes to a Mosaic figure is implicit in how the ‘servant’ is conceptually understood. If the Servant is the one who finally accomplishes Yahweh’s restoration28 and, as was argued above, the servant is strongly reminiscent of a Mosaic figure, then this suggests that the final vision of restored Israel should be understood, at least in part, through a Mosaic lens.29 There is one further feature which both confirms and enhances this schema. One of the peculiar aspects of this mighty deed is Jesus’ granting of the demons’ request to be cast into the herd of swine. Calvin suggests that this action was intended to test the peoples’ fidelity to Jesus and his message.30 A. Schweitzer develops this by arguing that the Gadarenes were being tested in regard to their value system, that is, whether they valued human or animal life.31 Alternatively, Plummer contends that it was a demonstration of the seriousness of the demoniacs’ possession and was recorded by Matthew for the purpose of increasing faith in Jesus’ authority to heal. Taking the lead from J.D.M. Derrett,32 this section will argue that Jesus’ granting of the demons’ request to be cast into the swine was indeed a demonstration, but in a different sense than Plummer suggests. In aiding Matthew’s presentation of Jesus as a new Moses figure, delivering Israel from Egyptian bondage, Jesus is presented

See discussion above, especially of note is the structure of Isa 52 [exile]—53 [servant]—54 [restoration]. 29 Also in support of this conclusion is the link between demons and idolatry. Cf. MT Deut 32:17; Ps 95:5 with LXX. See J.W. Watts, Isaiah, 2.343, 356; R.E. Watts, Isaiah, 158, who notes that this theme is particularly evident in the trials and anti-idol polemics in Isaiah 41:1–5, 21–29; 43:8–13; 44:6–8; 45:18–25; 47:1ff. 30 See Comm. in Quattuor Evangelistas on Mt 8:31. Cited in Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.83. 31 Schweitzer, 1952. Greydanus suggests that it was to emphasize the guilt of those Jews who were tending unclean animals. Cited in Loos, Miracles, 1965, 395. 32 See discussion below. 28

130

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

as acting out Israel’s first Exodus deliverance from Pharaoh’s army at the Red Sea. Before drawing some of the parallels between these events, it is important to see how Mark’s three hundred and forty words (Mk 5:1–20) have been condensed by Matthew into one hundred and forty seven words (Mt 8:28–9:1).33 Davies and Allison suggest that the abbreviating of Mark’s narrative was primarily to aid “more focus on purely Christological themes.”34 One significant alteration is that which occurs in Matthew’s redaction of Mk 5:15. Where as in Mark the townspeople “came to Jesus and saw (θεωροῦσιν) the demoniac” (v.15), in Mt 8:34 the same townspeople come to Jesus and “ἰδόντες αὐτὸν” see him (i.e. Jesus). Given this prominent Christological focus, how then does this pericope specifically recall Moses’ role in Israel’s deliverance from Egypt? Derrett has noted that within this synoptic triplet the Greek “vocabulary contains words which bear… military undertone[s].”35 Amongst these terms are ἀπόστειλον (v.31), which in other literature connotes the meaning of a military dispatchment of troops.36 Similarly, ἀγέλην [herd] (v.31) can refer to a band of trainees,37 and ὥρμησεν often refers to troops rushing into battle.38 Derrett, in a similar vein to C.H. Cave,39 concludes on the basis of Exod 14–15 that “there is a parallel in the rush of the troops of Pharaoh into the sea after the Israelites,” 40 and as such, this facilitates a closer typological association between the first and

Matthew’s word total would be even less if 9:1 is judged to belong to the next pericope. 34 Davis and Allison, Matthew, 2.76. 35 Derrett, Contributions, 5. 36 See Herod 5.32; Judith 6:3; 1 Macc 3:35; also see examples of Josephus cited in Derrett, Contributions, 5. 37 War 4.326; 4 Macc 5:4; 2 Macc 3:18; 14:14. Cited in Derrett, Contributions, 5. 38 Aschylus Per 394; Xen. Cyrop. 7.1.17; 2 Macc 10:16; 12:20. Cited in Derrett, Contributions, 5. 39 Cave, Obedience, 95. 40 Derrett, Contributions, 6. 33

THE SECOND CYCLE (MT 8:23–9:17)

131

last redeemer.41 Furthermore, Josephus specifically uses the term ὡρμάω in his description of Pharaoh’s army at the Red Sea in pursuit of the Israelites. Ant. 2.340 says Now, while these Hebrews made no stay, but went on earnestly, as led by God’s presence with them, the Egyptians supposed at first that they were distracted, and were going rashly upon manifest destruction. But when they saw that they were going a great way without any harm, and that no obstacle or difficulty fell in their journey, they made haste (ὡρμήκεσαν) to pursue them, hoping that the sea would be calm for them also. They put their horses foremost, and went down themselves into the sea…42

In light of these impressive parallels,43 Watts is justified in concluding that “given the military connotations, and the memory of the first Exodus, where Israel witnessed the drowning of a large hostile force…the drowning of the swine is…intended to recall the 41 42

Derrett, Contributions, 2 “Jesus was visualized as a second Moses.” Ant. 2.340 Τῶν  δ᾿  οὐκέτ᾿  ὀκνούντων,  ἀλλ᾿  ἱεμένων  μετὰ 

σπουδῆς ὡ συμπαρόντος αὐτοῖς τοῦ θεοῦ, μαίνεσθαι μὲν αὐτοὺς τὸ  πρῶτον  Αἰγύπτιοι  ἐδόκουν  ὡς  ἐπὶ  πρόδηλον  ὄλεθρον  ὁρμωμένους,  ἐπεὶ δὲ ἑώρων ἀβλαβεῖς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ προκεκοφότας καὶ μηδὲν αὐτοῖς  ἐμπόδιον μηδὲ δυσχερὲς ἀπαντῆσαν, διώκειν ὡρμήκεσαν αὐτοὺς ὡς  κἀκείνοις  ἠρεμήσοντος  τοῦ  πελάγους,  καὶ  προτάξαντες  τὴν  ἵππον.

Compare similar account and vocabulary in Philo’s description of the exodus in Vita Mos 2.254. Cited in Derrett, Contributions, 6. Cave, Obedience, 96 notes that these similarities in vocabulary may account for Luke’s changing of Mark’s ‘ἔξω  τῆς  χώρας’ (out of the country) to ἄβυσσον (abyss) in Lk 8:31 on the basis of Aquilla, Symmachus and Theodocian’s reading of in ἄβυσσον Exod 15:5. 43 Several additional features may also provide helpful points of contact between Moses and Jesus. 1. Just as the townsfolk ask Jesus to leave their region (Mt 8:34), so too is Moses asked to leave after the ten plagues of destruction (Exod 12:31), 2. Just as swine and tomb dwelling recalled Isa 65, it may be that the combination of this with the Exodus traditions in Exod 14:11 with reference to graves Matthew selectively included this mighty deed into his presentation of Jesus as new Moses.

132

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

defeat of Pharaoh during Israel’s deliverance.”44 Watts also points out the common motif in Isa 40–55 of the drowning of Pharaoh’s hosts which subsequently formed “the basis of the supplication for a similar intervention.”45 It is in this sense that Matthew ties together the themes of Isaiah’s hope for redemption and the original remembrance of Moses’ role at the Red Sea. Then Yahweh said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand over the sea, so that the water may come back upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots and chariot drivers.” So Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and at dawn the sea returned to its normal depth. As the Egyptians fled before it, Yahweh tossed the Egyptians into the sea. The waters returned and covered the chariots and the chariot drivers, the entire army of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea; not one of them remained (Exod 14:26–28).

MIGHTY DEED 6: JESUS HEALS A PARALYTIC (MT 9:1–8) As was previously noted, Matthew was seen to go from Mark 1, for mighty deeds 1–3, to Mark 4, for mighty deeds 4–5. In this sixth mighty deed, we see Matthew return to Mark 2 and in typical abbreviating style, he condenses his Markan source of the paralytic, and concludes his second cycle of Jesus’ mighty deeds in chapters 8–9. The factor which further contributes to our discussion is Jesus’ offer of forgiveness of sin in 9:2. The idea of the ‘forgiveness of sins’ (ἀφίενταί... αἱ ἁμαρτίαι) within the history of Christianity has frequently been assumed to be a concept exclusively related to the individual person.46 N.T. Wright has noted that this often Watts, Isaiah, 159. In support of Egypt being understood as typologically represented by the swine, it is important to note that Israel has often described her enemies as swine (b. San 93a; Ber. R. 63:8; 65:1). Cited in Cave 1965, 96. Also see Mt 7:6; 2 Pet 2:22. For the prominent role of swine in Egyptian culture, see Urk. 1.3.2; 4.1797.2; 4.75.15 in Breasted 1906 and Eloquent Peasant (B.ii.138) in Pritchard 1969. Cited in E. Firmage 1990, 5.1119. 45 Watts, Isaiah, 160. Isa 51:9f 13ff.; cf Exod 14:25, 28; 15:10, 21. 46 Wright, Victory, 268. 44

THE SECOND CYCLE (MT 8:23–9:17)

133

expressed itself as the ‘sense of forgiveness’ in pietistic settings or the ‘fact of forgiveness’ in the abstract categories of the systematicians’ discourse.47 Wright goes on to argue, on the basis of OT and intertestamental literature that the claim to forgive sins was “another way of saying ‘Return from Exile.’”48 This has important implications for understanding why Matthew would include such a detail. If, as has been argued thus far, there are significant echoes and allusions employed in Matthew’s retelling of Jesus’ mighty deeds in chapters 8–9 in recollection of a Mosaic figure, then the declaration that the ‘forgiveness of sins’ is actually taking place in Jesus’ life and ministry attests that Jesus is re-enacting the main role of his predecessor Moses: deliverance from exile. Particularly important for understanding the connection between ‘forgiveness of sins’ and ‘return from exile’ are the writings of Lamentations, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah. We will assess each one in turn. The writer of Lamentations explicitly links sin and exile in 4:22 when he records “the punishment of your iniquity, O daughter Zion, is accomplished, He will keep you in exile no longer.” D.R. Hillers notes that the verb Mt@a (is accomplished/complete) introduces the final portion of the alphabetic acrostic and refers to ‘past time’ in which Israel can take solace that the worst of her punishment is over.49 Jeremiah, another contemporary prophet of Israel’s deportation, envisions the return from exile as ‘forgiveness of sins’ in stating that The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was Wright, Victory, 268. Ibid. 49 D.R. Hillers, Lamentations (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 152. Bergant, cited ibid. concludes that this verse “proclaims that Zion’s cup of suffering is now filled to the brim; it is completed, finished. Her exile will be no more.” 47 48

134

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9 their husband, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, “Know the LORD,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.50

In this light, Wright validly points out that the forgiveness of sins “is not simply one miscellaneous blessing which will accompany covenant renewal”51 but rather the decisive event where Israel is pardoned and returns from exile. Ezekiel likewise accounts for Israel’s exiled state because of her rebellion against Yahweh. The opening chapters of his work are a scathing rebuke of Israel for her being a “rebellious house” (3:9), “not willing to listen… hardened and obstinate” (3:7). As a result Ezekiel is told in chapter 4 to symbolically portray Jerusalem’s destruction and Israel’s exile on a clay tablet (4:1–5). Chapter 5 continues the divine rebuke in stating that “I myself am against you, Jerusalem, and I will inflict punishment on you in the sight of the nations” (v.8). This punishment is portrayed in terrifying and horrific imagery in the following verses: “Parents shall eat their children…and children shall eat their parents…and any of you who survive I will scatter to every wind…I will cut you down; my eye will not spare, and I will have no pity” (vv.10–11). At one point, Yahweh the divine warrior who had protected Israel thus far from calamity, turns in holy war against His own rebellious child (5:16–17). After thirty tumultuous intervening chapters, Ezek 36–37 envisions Israel’s return and restoration from exile in the language of forgiveness and pardon. Ezek 36:24–25 has Yahweh declare “I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all the countries, and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses.” Verse 33 goes on to note, “On the day that I 50 51

Jer. 31:31–34; cf. 33:4–8. Wright, Victory, 269.

THE SECOND CYCLE (MT 8:23–9:17)

135

cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the towns to be inhabited, and the waste places shall be rebuilt.” Chapter 37 similarly contains a promise of redemption from exile in terms of Israel’s pardon from iniquity. Thus says the Lord God: I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all. Never again shall they be two nations, and never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms. They shall never again defile themselves with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions. I will save them from all the apostasies into which they have fallen, and will cleanse them. Then they shall be my people, and I will be their God.52

Thus, as with Lamentations and Jeremiah, Ezekiel similarly accounts for Israel’s exile on the basis of her rebellion/sin and her restoration in ‘forgiveness of sins’ type language. However, it is in the writings of Isaiah that this theme is most developed. In C. Westermann’s discussion of the Lamentations text noted above, he concludes that “Judah is told that she has suffered enough. In this, the words correspond to the very beginning of the proclamation of Deutero-Isaiah.”53 Indeed, several commentators have noted that Isa 40ff. envision Israel’s return from exile in the hope of a new Exodus and corresponding forgiveness of sin.54 Isa 40:1–2 records Yahweh himself calling to Israel “Comfort, O comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that she has served her term, that her penalty is paid, that she has received from the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.” This theme is picked up and developed throughout the opening chapters of Isa 40–55 (43:25; 44:22). However, the idea of Ezek 37:21–23. Reference from Wright, Victory, 269. C. Westermann, Lamentations. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 206. 54 In addition to discussions above discussion of Isa 53:4 in Mt 8:17, see Anderson, Exodus, 177–195; Bruggemann 1998, 17; K. Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2001), 51–53; Childs, Isaiah, 298. 52 53

136

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

Yahweh’s forgiveness of transgressions and Israel’s consequent deliverance comes particularly into focus in chapters 52–55 (52:1, 3, 9; 53:5–6, 11–12; 54:1, 3, 8; 55:7, 12).55 However, as several commentators have noted, it is not only within chapters 40–55 of Isaiah that the themes of redemption from exile are promised.56 Particularly significant in this regard is Isa 33:23b–24 which states, “Then an abundance of spoils will be divided and even the lame will carry off plunder. No one living in Zion will say, “I am ill”; and the sins of those who dwell there will be forgiven.” The importance for our discussion is not only the connection of forgiveness of sins and return from exile (cf. Ps 103:3), but the additional feature of the lame participating in Yahweh’s redemption. As R.E. Watts has noted, the only text in the OT which links the lame with forgiveness of sins is Isa 33:23b– 24.57 The significance of this is that it occurs all within the context of promises to Israel regarding her future return from exile. Although Matthew does not employ the LXX’s Isaianic word for lame (χωλός) in his narration of Jesus’ sixth mighty deed (Mt 9:1–8), he does employ it in Jesus’ response to John the Baptist in Mt 11:5, “The blind receive their sight, the lame (χωλός) walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them.” This acts as a summary of Jesus’ mighty deeds in chapters 8–9 and thus can plausibly be understood to be referring to Jesus’ healing of the παραλυτικὸν in Mt 9:1–8. In this way the last reference of χωλός  in the OT (Isa 33:23b) is followed by the first reference in the NT, at a point which portrays Jesus as the eschatological fulfillment of Israel’s salvation history.58 Wright, Victory, 270. Fishbane, Pleasures, 121–151; M.A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–4 and the PostExilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988), 19. In addition to discussion below see also Isa 64:8–12. 57 Watts Isaiah, 174. Jer 31:8 states that the lame will be included in the returnees, “among them the lame,” but there is no indication that they will be healed at this point. 58 Additionally, Wright, Victory, 271–273 has noted several other OT and intertestamental passages which envision Israel’s sin as the cause for 55 56

THE SECOND CYCLE (MT 8:23–9:17)

137

Conclusion for Sixth Mighty Deed The material in Lamentations, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel strongly suggests that the language of ‘forgiveness of sins’ in the NT has as one of its OT antecedents the hope for redemption from exile. In this light, Jesus’ offer in Mt 9:2 cannot only refer to a private individual blessing,59 but rather is more plausibly understood, in B.F. Meyer’s words, within Israel’s “eschatological horizon,”60 a horizon which envisions a second and final return from exile. In this way, Matthew, having already introduced Jesus in 1:21 as one who will “save his people from their sins,” declares in Jesus’ forgiveness of sin that the new Exodus under the new Moses is occurring in the very life of Jesus.

THE SECOND CALL NARRATIVE (MT 9:9–13) Jesus’ mighty deeds in Matthew’s second cycle are linked by their common emphasis on highlighting the response of their respective audiences.61 In 8:23–27 Jesus’ stilling of the waters brings forth ‘ἐθαύμασαν’ (wonder) from those present with him. In 8:28–34, although negative, the response to Jesus is emphasized through the town’s plea for Jesus to “leave their region” (v.34). Similar emphasis on response is evident in 9:1–8 where, upon witnessing Jesus’ offer to forgive sins and heal, those present “were filled with awe/fear (ἐφοβήθησαν) and praised God.” This theme finds expression in Jesus’ calling of Matthew the tax collector in 9:9–13, her exiled state. This is apparent in the prayers for return and restoration in Dan 9:16–19; Ezra 9:6–15; Neh 9:6–37. The significance of the latter two, is that they are uttered by those in an apparently post exilic setting, yet there is still the hope of further redemption; cf 11QMelch 2:6ff; 1QS 2:9; CD 3:18; 1 Enoch 10:10–22; Ps Sol 17; T.Levi 18:9. References from Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2. 90 and Watts, Isaiah, 175, n191. 59 Wright, Victory, 268 validly highlights that it was this as well (cf. 1QS 11.11–14), but only that this is not a category wide enough to appreciate its OT meaning. He goes on to explain on p. 273 that there is no tension between the personal and the corporate, because it is on the basis of the grand scheme that the individual experiences her/his own return from exile. 60 B.F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1979), 162. 61 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.66.

138

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

with the corresponding focus on the response of the person who encountered Jesus. Sufficient for our discussions here is to note in what way this second call narrative builds on the first in 8:18–22, and thus provides momentum toward 10:1–4 where the intervening pericopes find their structural meaning. The calling of Matthew builds on the former call narrative primarily by means of positive response. As Jesus’ three intervening mighty deeds have illustrated, people responded differently to what he was proclaiming and living—some positively and some negatively. As opposed to the ambiguous outcome of the teacher of the law’s response to Jesus in 8:18ff, here in 9:9ff. Matthew the tax collector responds appropriately to Jesus by ‘following him’ (v9).62

CONCLUSION How then does Matthew’s second cycle recall Moses? In Jesus’ fourth mighty deed the storm stilling draws on the memory of Moses at the Red Sea, yet goes beyond it in one significant regard. Instead of Jesus appealing to Yahweh, he acts on his own authority and speaks directly to the storm. In this way, Jesus is presented as a ‘greater than Moses.’ The fifth deed continues this Exodus imagery by presenting the story of the healed demoniacs who represent Israel’s idolatrous situation and subsequent deliverance. Specifically in this regard, Israel’s enemies (swine/Romans/Pharaoh’s army) are drowned in the sea of chaos as ‘Israel’ is emancipated from Egyptian oppression. This trajectory of restoration is continued in Jesus’ sixth deed where he offers ‘forgiveness of sins,’ which in Israel’s prophetic literature was another way of saying ‘return from exile.’

Jesus’ response to the Pharisees may also allude to Exodus / Deuteronomistic context of the covenantal curses and blessings; compare Mt 9:12, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick” with Mek on Exod 15:26 “If they are not sick, why do they need a physician?” 62

CHAPTER 6. THE THIRD CYCLE (MT 9:18–10:4) INTRODUCTION Matthew’s final cycle of mighty deeds builds on the former allusions to Moses in presentation of Jesus who 1. reverses Israel’s exiled state (9:18–19, 23–26), 2. cleanses Israel from impurity which has caused her exilic state (9:20–22), 3. reversed the covenantal curses (9:27–31), and 4. delivers from foreign oppression (9:32–34). Additionally both the Pharisees’ response (9:34) and Matthew’s presentation of Jesus’ appointment of the twelve brings the proceeding material (both mighty deeds and call narratives) to a climax in that a Mosaic figure reconstituting the twelve tribes of Israel through the restoration of her patriarchs/ phylarchs is recalled.

MIGHTY DEED 7: GIRL RESTORED TO LIFE (MT 9:18–19, 23–26) Matthew’s third and final cycle of Jesus’ mighty deeds is introduced with a story of a young girl being resuscitated to life.1 The question that naturally arises is, what would be catalyzed in the minds of those who witnessed or heard of such an event? In terms of literary antecedents, commentators often refer to three stories in the OT: Within this context the word ‘resuscitation’ is preferred to ‘resurrection’ because the latter is a specifically an eschatological event which the NT attests uniquely happened to Jesus. This is to be differentiated from resuscitation (Mt 9:18–26; Lk 7:11–17; Jn 11:1–44; Acts 9:36–43; 20:9–12) where the recipient is expected to eventually face death. 1

139

140

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

1. Elijah raising the widow of Zarephath’s son (1 Kgs 17:17–24), 2. Elisha raising the Shunamite’s son (2 Kgs 4:18–37), and 3. the man who was revived after touching the sepulcher of Elisha (2 Kgs 13:20f.). However, a much neglected aspect of discussion concerning Jesus’ resuscitations is the possible connection with the prophetic development of the motif of life/death. I suggest that the later prophetic developments more plausibly account for Matthew’s interpretation and use. Fundamental in this regard are the several OT prophetic texts which envision Israel’s deliverance from exile as a movement from death to life. One of the most prominent is the vivid metaphor used for Israel in exile in Ezek 37:1–14 (cf Isa 26:19). Depicted therein is a “valley full of dry bones” (vv.2–3), with which Israel is equated. Ezek 37:11 has Yahweh himself say to Ezekiel, “Mortal, these bones are the whole house of Israel.” Eichrodt describes this initial picture as a place where only “death holds triumph.”2 This recalls the terrible situation Jeremiah spoke of when “the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be brought out of their tombs, and they shall be spread before the sun and the moon and all the host of heaven” (Jer 8:1–2). Yet Ezekiel’s vision goes on to describe the revivification of this scene of death using creational terms such as xaw%r (wind / spirit [Ezek 37:5; cf. Gen 1:2]) and #$b'yF (dryness; Ezek 37:2, 4; cf. Gen 1:9–10) which among other things points forward to a reunification of the twelve tribes (cf. Ezek 37:15ff.).3 Exile is metaphorically understood as death, and Israel, “estranged from both Yahweh and their land,”4 is offered a vision which envisions her national restoration and deliverance from exile as restoration from death. W. Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 506. 3 Blenkinsopp suggests the scene is a “reenactment of the primal act of creation, when God formed humanity from the dust of the ground and breathed into its nostrils the breath of life,” Ezekiel, 173. Also see Allen 1990, 187 who shares similar sentiment in saying “the leitmotif of the vision…‘breath, and you shall live/and they lived’ loudly proclaims Yahweh to be the creator of new life.” 4 L.C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48 (Texas: Word Books), 187. 2

THE THIRD CYCLE (MT 9:18–10:4)

141

How the motif of death-to-life recalls a Mosaic figure is evident on a number of levels, and is best understood cumulatively. First, given Moses’ central and prominent role in the emancipation of Israel from Egyptian bondage, he is naturally recalled in any subsequent Exodus schema. Second, N.T. Wright has noted that Deut 30:1–10 could have influenced this text by providing the framework for understanding the promises of return from exile as “life in place of death.”5 As was noted above, Deut 30 forms the concluding section of the covenantal curses delivered by Moses in the renewal of the covenant at Mt. Ebal, and as such, any later metaphorical expansion (e.g. Ezek 37) should take serious consideration of the person who was initially associated with such an idea.6 Third, the author of 4 Macc 18:17–19 links 1. Ezekiel’s vision (ch. 37), 2. Israel’s Exodus from Egypt, and 3. ‘making alive’ (ζῆν ποιήσω), with Israel’s future hope, “He confirmed the query of Ezekiel, ‘Shall these dry bones live?’ For he did not forget to teach you the song that Moses taught, which says, ‘I kill and I make alive: this is your life and the length of your days.’”

MIGHTY DEED 8: THE HEMORRHAGING WOMAN (MT 9:20–22). All three synoptics include the healing of the hemorrhaging woman and set it within the context of Jesus’ restoring to life of the synagogue ruler’s daughter.7 The question naturally arises as to whether the connection between the two mighty deeds was simply the historical course of events and was thus remembered as such, N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 120. 6 This also supports the idea that Jesus, as Mosaic Servant, reverses the covenantal curses. 7 Mk 5:25–9; Lk 8:43–48. Luke identifies this individual as Jairus in 8:41. Eusebius H.E. 7.18 identifies the woman as being from Caesarea Philippi. Acts of Pilate 7 notes that her name was Bernice. References from Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.127, n20. See commentaries for the traditions associated with identifying the women as ‘Bernice’ in Christian history. Hagner, Matthew; Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. 2; Harrington, Matthew. 5

142

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

or whether the enveloping of one story within the other was theologically motivated. It seems inevitable that with the current amount of knowledge (textual and otherwise), that the former of these questions is difficult to answer. However, the theological contribution of pairing these deeds together is discernable and indeed crucial in understanding the way in which Jesus is portrayed. In characteristic style Matthew abbreviates Mark’s account of Jesus’ healing, reducing it by approximately one third.8 Mt 9:20 identifies the woman’s ailment as αἱμορροοῦσα hemorrhages/ bleeding. On the basis of “common sense and general medical knowledge,” Derrett concludes that “dysentry is too serious, and piles…too minor.”9 Instead he, among others,10 suggests the sickness points to menorrahagia,11 that is, abnormally heavy or prolonged bleeding during menstruation. Several OT and intertestamental texts attest to the unclean state of the woman under Jewish law (Lev 15:25; m.Zabim 5:6 a–c; m.Aboda Zara 3:6);12 however, most important for our discussion is Mark’s sixty nine words are condensed into Matthew’s forty eight. J.D.M. Derrett, “Mark’s Technique: The Hemorrhaging Woman and Jairus’ Daughter,” Bib 63(1982): 478. 10 Loos, Miracles, 509–510; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.120. 11 Derrett, Woman, 478. 12 Also to note is Ezekiel. Chapters 33–48 of Ezekiel’s announcement contain a series of oracles of Israel’s hope and consolation. The fourth of these (36:16–38) pertains to the restoration of Yahweh’s honor throughout the land. Ezekiel describes Israel’s former dishonoring of Yahweh’s name in the following manner: “Mortal, when the house of Israel lived on their own soil, they defiled it with their ways and their deeds; their conduct in my sight was like the uncleanness of a woman in her menstrual period” (Ezek 36:17). In this way Israel’s behavior is typologically portrayed as being an unclean hemorrhaging woman. See also Shabb 9:1; Pesah 9:4. CD 5:6–7: “They also defile the sanctuary, for they… lie with a woman during her menstrual period.” 11QT 48:15–17 “whether leprosy or affliction or scab, so that they do not enter your cities and defile them. Also, you must make places for men suffering from a genital emission and for women during menstruation and after giving birth. Thus they will not defile your houses with their menstrual 8 9

THE THIRD CYCLE (MT 9:18–10:4)

143

the Isaianic tradition which utilizes a metaphor/parable of an unclean bleeding woman to characterize rebellious Israel. What is of greater significance is that in Isa 64:6–7 it is found in an eschatological context.13 We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy menstrual rag. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. There is no one who calls on your name, or attempts to take hold of you; for you have hidden your face from us, and have delivered us into the hand of our iniquity.

The imagery is particularly clear. Israel’s attempt to meet Yahweh’s holy standards are castigated as futile, for her actions are deemed to be )m'+@f / ἀκάθαρτοι (unclean) and Myd@I(i dgEbek;w% / ὡς  ῥάκος (like a filthy menstrual rag).14 Significantly, )m'+@f is a technical designation used in the Levitical code in reference to a legal impurity,15 and in this sense Isaiah affirms that the people were under the law’s condemnation. In further connection of Isaiah with Matthew’s pericope, the similar motif of ‘taking hold’ is apparent in both texts (cf. Mt 9:20). Isaiah 64:7 laments that the uncleanness. As for the person suffering from a skin disease, whether old leprosy or scab, let the priest declare him unclean.” Ag.Ap. 2.103–104 “for it had four several courts, encompassed with cloisters round about, every one of which had by our law a peculiar degree of separation from the rest. Into the first court everybody was allowed to go, even foreigners; and none but women, during their courses, were prohibited to pass through it; (2.8.104) all the Jews went into the second court, as well as their wives, when they were free from all uncleanness; into the third went the Jewish men when they were clean and purified; into the fourth went the priests, having on their sacerdotal garments,” cf. War 5.227. 13 In this and the following discussion, I am indebted to Watts, Mighty, 8b. 14 Young, Isaiah, 3.496. 15 Lev. 5:3; 11:24–28, 31–36, 39–40, 43–44; 12:2, 5; 13:3, 8, 11, 14–15, 20, 22, 25, 27, 30, 44, 46, 59; 14:36, 46; 15:4–11, 16–24, 27, 31–32; 17:15; 18:20, 23–25, 27–28, 30; 19:31; 20:3,25; 21:1, 3–4, 11; 22:5–6, 8. See discussion in Young, Isaiah, 3.496

144

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

people do not “attempt to take hold of (ἀντιλαβέσθαι) Yahweh.”16 Based on this understanding, Matthew’s ironic reversal is to present the unclean woman as being saved (σέσωκέν) through her attempt to grasp hold of Jesus. Furthermore, although Davies and Allison merely note the common omission of any reference to the duration of a sickness in healing stories,17 L.W. Hurtado suggests that Matthew’s note in 9:20 of the woman suffering for δώδεκα  ἔτη (twelve years) functions to enhance her role as representative of Israel.18 Given the infrequency of this type of detail, and Israel commonly conceived to be composed of twelve constituent tribes, one may plausibly assume that δώδεκα  ἔτη functions as Hurtado suggests. In this sense, the woman, although initially symbolizing Israel’s judgement, functions as a positive image of redemption.19 How then does this contribute to our discussion? In our previous discussions, it was seen that Matthew’s explicit recollection of the Isaianic Servant figure (Isa 53:4 in 8:17) had significant Mosaic overtones. The task of this Servant was to enact Yahweh’s restoration, the culmination of which is described in Isa 64–66. Given the numerous connections of Mt 9:20–22 with Isa 64:6–7, it seems most plausible to regard Isaiah’s vision of a new Cf. Gen 48:17; Lev 25:35; 1 Kgs 9:9,11; 1 Chr 22:17; see Watts, Mighty, 8b. The removal of uncleanliness was also anticipated in Isa 35:8 17 Mk 9:21; Lk 13:11; Jn 5:5; 9:1. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.128. 18 L.W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 86–88. 19 There is also the possible assimilation between the concepts of son/daughter-ship in Isaiah and Matthew. Isa 64:8 goes on to appeal to Yahweh as loving and loyal paternal figure who will not abandon his creation, “O Yahweh, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.” The concept of Israel as God’s child in biblical history first emerged in the events surrounding the Exodus from Egypt. Israel is promised deliverance from Egypt because she is Yahweh’s child, as Exod 4:22 has Yahweh himself declare “l)'rF#&;yI yrIkob; ynib@; (Israel is my firstborn).” Similarly, in Matthew, Jesus responds in reassuring paternal language to the woman in 9:22, “θάρσει,  θύγατερ” (take heart, daughter). 16

THE THIRD CYCLE (MT 9:18–10:4)

145

Exodus, led by the new-Moses finding final expression in Matthew’s Jesus healing one who represents Israel of impurity and uncleanness.

MIGHTY DEEDS 9 & 10: THE BLIND MEN (9:27–31) & THE POSSESSED MUTE (9:32–34) Matthew’s concluding narration of Jesus’ ninth and tenth mighty deeds include the healing of two blind men (9:27–31) and a possessed mute (9:32–34). Because there is no direct parallel in Mark or Luke, E. Klostermann concludes that Matthew has composed these mighty deeds from secondary variants from other healing stories.20 Similarly J.K. Howard argues that “a variant from the story of at Mt 20:29–34… [is] in itself a variant of …blind Bartimaeus.”21 However, based on the substantial differences between any extant variations of Mt 12:22–24 or 20:29–34, one may conclude with van Der Loos when he says, “what is the objection to accepting the report as it stands?”22 Aside from the complex redactional issues pertaining to the authenticity of Mt 9:27ff.,23 our concern is Matthew’s overall canonical form and the motifs therein. Thus we turn to assess Jesus’ ninth mighty deed of healing the two blind men at Capernaum. The Blind Men Although blindness was considered as one of the natural results of becoming old,24 and a state for which humanitarian concern is encouraged,25 it was frequently regarded as divine punishment for

Klostermann 1929. Cited in Loos, Miracles, 1965, 418. Howard, Disease, 141. 22 Loos, Miracles, 418. 23 See Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.133ff.; R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963), 214; J.C. Fenton, Saint Matthew (Baltimore: Penguin, 1963), 144; Gundry, Matthew, 176. 24 Gen 27:1; 1 Kgs 14:4. 25 Lev 19:14; Deut 27:18. 20 21

146

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

wrongdoing.26 One of the most prominent texts in this regard is Deut 28:28–29 which declares that Yahweh himself will “afflict you with … blindness … You shall grope about at noon as blind people grope in darkness, but you shall be unable to find your way; and you shall be continually abused and robbed, without anyone to help.” As was previously noted, Deut 27–30 comprises the covenantal curses of the renewal of Yahweh’s relationship with Israel at Mt. Ebal. Within this context the healing of blindness is most plausibly understood as a reversal of the Deuteronomistic curses.27 A similar theme is evident in Psalm 146 (LXX 145) when it promises that those whose help is God will be blessed (yr"#$;)a /μακάριος) [v.5] and will have their eyes opened [v.8]. The Demon Possessed Mute Building on the former mighty deed, Matthew introduces the element of δαιμονιζόμενον (demon possession). Within the LXX δαιμόνιον occurs seven times. The Hebrew words it translates are often rare hapax legomena and as such the meanings are not entirely clear.28 Several commentators have noted the difficulty of reconstructing Israel’s early and classical beliefs concerning demons.29 R.E. Watts has noted that although the MT hints that Gen 19:11; Exod 4:11; 2 Kgs 6:18; Zech 12:4; Ep. Arist. 316; Mt 12:22; Jn 9:2; Acts 13:11; b. Hag 16a; b. Sabb 108b–109a. Cited in Davies and Allison 1989, 134. The extension of this is the prohibition of blind joining the priesthood (Lev 21:20) and the unacceptability of blind animals for sacrifice (Lev 22:22; Deut 15:21; Mal 1:8). 11QTemple 45:12– 14 has Yahweh say of Jerusalem, “no blind people may enter it all their days lest they defile the city in whose midst I dwell.” In 1QS 2:3–11 (cf. 1QM 7:14) the blind are forbidden to participate in the final battle. 27 Cf. Mt 5:3ff μακάριοι  οἱ [blessed are they…]) Also see Deut 29:4 where blind Israel did not recognize or respond appropriately to the Exodus deliverance. 28 MydI#@$' in Deut 32:17; Ps 106:37; MyrIy(i#&; in Isa 13:21; 34:14; see also Ps 91:6; 95:5; Isa 65:3, 11. 29 Within the intertestamental period, belief in and the functions of demons are much more developed. 1 Enoch 15; Jub 10:1–8; See Strack Billerbeck IV, 1, 509ff.; Loos, Miracles, 351. 26

THE THIRD CYCLE (MT 9:18–10:4)

147

idols and demons were connected (cf. Deut 32:17; Ps 106:37), this becomes explicit in both the LXX and the Targums.30 For example, in the LXX translation of Isa 65:3, 11, there is an additional reference to demons to which no counterpart is found in the Hebrew, “[they] offer incense on bricks τοῖς  δαιμονίοις” and “[they] set a table τῷ δαίμονι.”31 This is also affirmed by G. Theissen when he concludes that within the first century, “[a] battle against demons was a renewal of the battle against foreign idols.”32 Ps 95:5 is instructive in this light when the MT’s “For all the gods of the peoples are idols (Myliyli))v ” is translated in the LXX as “For all the gods of the heathen are devils (δαιμόνια).” In this regard W.E. Mühlmann comments that Oppression by a foreign ruling people sometimes appears in codes as ‘possession’ by a foreign spirit…the emphasis on the Shaman’s task may be connected with this. The situation of Judaism in the time of Jesus is somewhat similar. There had been centuries of foreign rule and oppression. The revolt of the Maccabees against alien Hellenistic culture lay only a few generations in the past. Roman rule was even more recent. Such a situation creates demons.33

Watts, Isaiah, 157–59. See also Tg. Isa 65:3, 11. This trajectory is also apparent in the NT, where in similar vein to the apostle Paul (1 Cor 10:20 “pagans sacrifice… to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons”), W. Wink concludes that “Acts… and Revelation…refers to demons worshipped as gods.” Wink 1984, 26 n41. This trajectory is also followed in intertestamental literature, see 1 Enoch 19:1; 80:7; 99:7; Jub 1:11; 2:17; 11:4; 12:20; 22:17. References from Wink, Naming, 24 n33, who on the basis of these references, concludes that “idol worshippers worship demonic powers.” 32 G. Theissen, The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 255. 33 Mühlmann 1961, 252, cited in Theissen, Miracle, 256. 30 31

148

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

That the presence of demons can be referred to in regard to Israel’s foreign political rule,34 has significant implications for our discussion. If Jesus is presented in Matthew’s narrative as one who heals the sick and casts out demons, then by implication Jesus acts as Yahweh’s instrument to deliver his people from exile, and is as such, a Mosaic figure. The connection between demons as foreign rule and Jesus’ exorcisms as Yahweh’s power is evident in Mt 12:28 where Jesus, having exorcised a demoniac (12:22ff) says, “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you.”

THE RESPONSE In response to all that has been narrated thus far in chapters 8–9, those who have witnessed Jesus mighty deeds respond as follows, “the crowds were amazed and said, ‘Never has anything like this been seen in Israel.’ But the Pharisees said, ‘By the ruler of the demons he casts out the demons.’”35 What then, if any, relation does this have for understanding Jesus as a new Moses figure? Van For the demonic powers of evil which ultimately stand behind Israel’s oppression, see 1 Enoch 54:4–5; 1QS 4; 1QM, passim; 11Qmelch 4–6; Jubilees 48; T.Levi 5.10; 6:4; 18:12; T.Zeb 9:8; T.Asher 7:3; T.Benj 3:3; T.Sim 6:6; T.Dan 5:10–13. References from Watts, Mighty, 4. 35 Mt 9:33b–34. The Pharisaic response in v34 is omitted from some manuscripts (D, ita, d, k syrs Juvencus Hilary) and as such, W.C. Allen 1912, 97–98, followed by Zahn and Klostermann (cited in Metzger, Textual, 20) have argued that the text is a scribal assimilation from Mt 12:24 or Lk 11:15. Against this, however, the inclusion of v.34 is preferred on two grounds. First, it prepares the reader for the note of conflict with the religious rulers in 10:17 and 25; Metzger, Textual, 20. Second, the external attestation of the omission, consisting of the late fifth century Codex Bezae (D) with some old Latin and Syriac versions, all of which are from the Western tradition, are comparatively meager when compared to the early and widespread geographic support of manuscripts which include v.34. The longer text is attested in ) B C L W Δ Θ f1, 13 28 33 157 180 205 565 579 700 892 1006 1010 1071 1243 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz [E F G N Σ] Lect itaur, b, c, f, ff1, g1, h, l, μ, q vg syrp, h, pal copsa, meg, bo arm eth geo slav Chrysostom; Jerome Augustine. 34

THE THIRD CYCLE (MT 9:18–10:4)

149

Der Loos claims that “it is more or less immaterial whether this pronouncement of the Pharisees is an addition or not,” for in it he sees no significant bearing on Matthew’s narrative.36 D.J. Harrington is a little bit more optimistic regarding the theological significance of 9:34 when he states “one gets the impression that Matthew’s real interest lay in contrasting the reactions of the crowd (9:33b) and the Pharisees (9:34).”37 While this is no doubt the case given the close proximity of the two polar responses, there seems to be a more profound connection within the context we have sketched thus far. W.D. Davies argues that the concluding reference to the series of Jesus’ ten mighty deeds in Mt 8–9 “are brought to a close with words which are hardly appropriate if the intention were to draw a parallel between Jesus and Moses.”38 His reasoning for this can be expressed in the following way; 1. In the Exodus narrative the Egyptian sorcerers are led to recognize Yahweh’s activity in Moses’ mighty deeds (Exod 8:19), 2. in Matthew’s narrative, not only do the Pharisees not recognize divine power, but they attribute it to the prince of demons, 3. Therefore, there can be no typological association with Moses or the Exodus.39 In response, several points are relevant. It seems more plausible (contra Davies) that Matthew’s intended point of comparison is not the Egyptian magicians’ recognition of the authenticity of Moses’ mighty deeds,40 but Israel’s rejection of Moses as Yahweh’s legitimate representative. That Moses will face opposition from Israel (as opposed to opposition only from

Loos, Miracles, 408. Harrington, Matthew, 133. 38 Davies, Setting, 91. 39 Ibid., 91f. 40 This may account for Matthew’s substitution of Spirit for finger in Mt 12:28 “But if it is by the Spirit (πνεύματι) of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you,” cf. Luke 11:20, “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you.” (cf. Exod 8:19). 36 37

150

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

Pharaoh) is introduced as early as Moses’ call at the burning bush.41 In Exod 3:13ff. three things are promised to accompany Moses in order to convince Israel that Yahweh is with him. First, the true revelation of God’s name (Exod 3:13–22), to which Moses responds, “But suppose they [Israel] do not believe me or listen to me, but say, ‘The Lord did not appear to you.’” God then offers Moses a second aid in convincing the Israelites of his legitimate status as prophet: the performance of miraculous signs (Exod 4:1– 9). Again foreseeing Israel’s stubbornness in accepting him as their leader, Moses attempts to decline Yahweh’s commissioning by noting that he has “never been eloquent, neither in the past nor even now that you have spoken to your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue” (Exod 4:10). For this deficiency Yahweh provides the assistance of Aaron as Moses’ spokesman (4:10–17). The reality of Moses’ fears regarding Israel’s unwillingness to accept him surface immediately in the narrative to follow. Upon returning to Egypt, Moses confronts Pharaoh with Yahweh’s demand for Israel’s emancipation (Exod 5:1ff.). No doubt offended by Moses’ insolence, Pharaoh ordered the taskmasters that they were no longer required to supply the Israelite slaves with straw; rather the slaves were to gather their own materials, without any reduction in the quota of bricks made per day. The elders of Israel respond to Moses with particular distaste, “The Lord look upon you and judge! You have brought us into bad odor with Pharaoh and his officials, and have put a sword in their hand to kill us.”42 This theme of rejection is continued and sustained throughout Moses’ life. At the Red Sea, Israel says to Moses,

An even earlier ironic reference is also discernible from Exod 2:14, “Who made you a ruler and judge over us? Do you mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?” 42 Exod 5:21. Ironically the word used to refer to God in the indictment against Moses is the special revelation of God’s name which was supposed to function as a sign for Israel of Moses’ legitimacy. 41

THE THIRD CYCLE (MT 9:18–10:4)

151

Was it because there were no graves in Egypt that you have taken us away to die in the wilderness? What have you done to us, bringing us out of Egypt? Is this not the very thing we told you in Egypt, ‘Let us alone and let us serve the Egyptians’? For it would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the wilderness (Exod 14:11–12).

The concluding verse of this narrative exults Moses, almost as if he is the one who has been vindicated; 14:31 states “Israel saw the great work that the Lord did against the Egyptians. So the people feared the Lord and believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses.”43 Israel’s disavowal of Moses’ leadership comes to a climax in the actions of the recalcitrant Reubenite leaders Dathan and Abiram in Num 16:12–15, 25–34. Their taunt against Moses, “Is it too little that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the wilderness?”44 echoes Israel’s previous ungrateful response in Exod 2:14, “Isn’t it enough that you brought us up from the land flowing with milk and honey [Egypt!] to kill us off in the wilderness? Must you continue to exult yourself as ruler over us?” (v.13). S.D. McBride notes that according to Rabbinic lore, Dathan was 1. the Hebrew whom Moses had delivered from the Egyptian taskmaster (Exod 2:11–12), and 2. the brother Abiram, who together, are identified as the quarrelling pair first to question Mosaic authority (2:13).45 Within the ensuing narrative of Numbers, Moses’ legitimacy as Yahweh’s representative is confirmed by the spectacular display of judgement (Num 16:31–34) where the ground opens to swallow those who have rebelled against Moses. Thus, the well-attested and sustained tradition of Israel’s negative response to Moses seems to augment Matthew’s association of Jesus with Moses through the portrayal of Israel’s Cf. the Israelite complaints of their provision in the wilderness; Exod 17:2. 44 Num 16:13. 45 Exodus Rabbah 1.29; cited in S.D. McBride, “Polity of the Covenant People: The Book of Deuteronomy,” Int. 41 (1987): 233, n11. 43

152

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

similar rejection of Jesus as legitimate instrument of Yahweh in the new Exodus. In this light, the positive/negative dichotomy which Davies suggests argues against a new Moses typology in chapters 8–9, when considered from the perspective of Israel’s response to Moses, could instead be seen to support a Matthean allusion to Moses’ life.46

FINAL SUMMARY STATEMENT (MT 9:35–38) Matthew’s final summary statement in chapter 9 includes two features which display Mosaic characteristics. First, Matthew refers to Jesus as going about “all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the good news (εὐαγγέλιον) of the kingdom, and curing every disease and every sickness.” Although in the OT ‘εὐαγγέλιον’ (Heb. r#&b ) and its derivatives can refer to good news in general (1 Kgs 1:42; Jer 20:15.), in the majority of cases it has eschatological connotations.47

If the positive response of the magicians is still urged as a significant event in the Exodus proceedings, then perhaps the positive response from the apparent outsiders (οι˚ ὄχλοι) in Mt 9:33b could parallel the Egyptian ‘outsiders’ recognizing Yahweh’s activity. See Appendix 1. The significance of the audiences ‘response’ to a mighty deed is emphasized through understanding the event as an enacted parable. In this sense mighty deeds can function the same way parables do (cf. Mt 13; Mk 4), in that how one responds to them designates where one stands in relation to Jesus. In regard to the Pharisaic response (Mt 8:34, cf 19:8 ‘σκληρο‐ καρδίαν’ where Moses is explicitly cited), one is reminded of the process of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in Exod 7:13, 14, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 12, 34. For understanding Jesus mighty deeds as parabolic events see also C. Blomberg, “The Miracles as Parables,” in Gospel Perspectives 6: The Miracles of Jesus Edited by D. Wenham and C. Blomberg (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986), 327–359; R.H. Fuller, “The Mission and Achievement of Jesus,” in Studies in Biblical Theology 12.63(1956): 143–144; A. Richardson, The Miracle Stories of the Gospels (Great Britain: Morrison and Gibb Ltd, 1941), 48–49; M. Boucher, The Mysterious Parable (Washington: Catholic Biblical Commission, 1977), 79–83; Watts, Isaiah, 162–63. 47 For the following I am indebted to Watts, Mighty, 8a. 46

THE THIRD CYCLE (MT 9:18–10:4)

153

G. Friedrich has argued that the “most significant [aspect] for an understanding of the NT concept εὐαγγέλιον, is Deutero Isaiah.”48 Similarly, R.E. Watts has pointed out that the verbal form r#&b occurs “almost twice as often in Isaianic N[ew] E[xodus] contexts as in the rest of the OT.”49 Significantly, Isa 52:7 records the following “as a season of beauty upon the mountains, as the feet of one preaching glad tidings (εὐαγγελιζομένου) of peace, as one preaching good news (εὐαγγελιζόμενος): for I will publish thy salvation, saying, O Zion, thy God shall reign (βασιλεύσει σου  ὁ  θεός).”50 As previously argued, Isa 52–54 envisions: exile [52]servant [53]-restoration [54], and as such the hope in chapter 52 finds final expression in chapter 54, through the role of the servant in chapter 53. Could it not be, given Matthew’s identification of Jesus with the Servant (Mt 8:17), that he sought to recall the prominent, yet not exhaustive Mosaic overtones? I suggest he does. In support of this Mosaic allusion is Psalm 67:12 (LXX), which recalls the mighty deeds of the Exodus as ‘εὐαγγελιζομένοις.’51 The second significant feature of Matthew’s summary statement is his reference to Jesus as one who, “when he saw the crowds, had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd (ὡσεὶ πρόβατα μὴ ἔχοντα 

Friedrich TDNT, 2.708. Isa 40:9; 41:27; 52:7; 60:6; 61:1. Watts, Isaiah, 96ff. See Tg.Jeremiah 4:15; Tg.Ezekiel 21:12 and T.Isaiah 53:1 for prophetic connotations. cf. Ps.Sol. 11:1 (σαλπίσατε  ἐν  Σιων  ἐν  σάλπιγγι  σημασίας  ἁγίων  48 49

κηρύξατε  ἐν  Ιερουσαλημ  φωνὴν  εὐαγγελιζομένου  ὅτι  ἠλέησεν  ὁ  θεὸς Ισραηλ ἐν τῇ ἐπισκοπῇ αὐτῶν) which envisions the eschatological

messenger as announcing Yahweh’s intervention; cited in Watts, Mighty, 98. See similar themes in 1QH 18:14; 11QMelch. 50 The LXX translation is from by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851. In addition to the dual reference to εὐαγγέλιον, connection with Matthew’s summary statement is enhanced through the similar themes of ‘βασιλεύσει σου ὁ θεός’ (Isa) and ‘τῆς βασιλείας’ (Mt). 51 Although other examples could be generated (Isa 40:9; 41:27; 60:6; 61:1), sufficient for our purpose here is to note the pervasive thematic connection with Isaiah and the promise for eschatological salvation.

154

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

ποιμένα).”52 One of the texts which is immediately relevant is

Num 27 which is not only associated with Moses, but involves his appointment of Joshua, which compares well with Matthew’s Jesus’ subsequent calling of the disciples (10:1–4). Moses spoke to the Lord saying, “Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint someone over the congregation who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in, so that the congregation of the Lord’s may not be like sheep without a shepherd (ὡσεὶ  πρόβατα οἷς οὐκ ἔστιν ποιμήν) (Num 27:15–17).

Davies similarly argues that Matthew’s text supports the idea of “Jesus the shepherd is taking up a Mosaic office when he seeks out the lost sheep of Israel.”53 On the other hand, Allison points out that other texts envision various figures as shepherds of Israel and hence it is not a unique Mosaic category.54 However, when one considers that 1. Moses was the earliest mentioned ‘shepherd figure,’ and 2. Malchus is likened to Moses on the basis of being a shepherd,55 then later reference may have been employed in the interests of Mosaic comparison, with Moses as prototype. Second, although other figures have been referred to as ‘shepherds of Israel,’ there are none so closely associated with mighty deeds as Moses. Third, Num 27 is not alone in attesting that Moses was the shepherd of Israel. Various other Jewish traditions, including biblical (Ps 77:20 cf. Exod 3:1), Palestinian (Mek on Exod. 14:31; Est. Rab. 7:13) and Hellenistic writings (Philo Mos. 1.60–66; Josephus, Ant. 2:263–264; cf. LAB 19:3, 9) celebrate Moses’ shepherding role.56 In this regard, Davies’ suggestion of a Mosaic

Other references to Jesus as shepherd of Israel in Mt are 2:6; 25:32; 26:31. 53 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.148. 54 1 Kgs 22:17 = 2Chr. 18:16; Judith 11:19 (Judith to Holofernes); Allison, New Moses, 215. 55 Clement of Alexandria, Strom 1:23; Jerome, Life of Malcus 5. 56 Cited in Ginzberg, Legends, 2.301 for references to additional Jewish literature; cf. 2.302; 4.308, 309, 416; 5.414; 6.397, 468. 52

THE THIRD CYCLE (MT 9:18–10:4)

155

background to the present pericope is more convincing than the skepticism expressed by Allison.

THE THIRD CALL NARRATIVE (MT 10:1–4) Matthew concludes his cycle of Jesus’ mighty deeds with a third call narrative, wherein Jesus selects twelve disciples57 to carry on his work of healing and restoration. Davies notes that within both ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman documents, the literary collation of a teacher’s pupils or disciples into a list was common. For example, the Mishnah, in Avot 2:8 states that “Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai…had five disciples, and these are they: R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, R. Joshua b. Hananiah, R. Yose the priest, R. Simeon b. Netanel, and R. Eleazar b. Arakh.”58 Is Matthew’s presentation of Jesus’ selection of twelve Jewish men merely neutral literary convention or does it have greater theological significance to aid his schematization thus far? From the following analysis the latter presents itself as a more plausible option. W. Horbury points out that in the book of Numbers (chs. 1, 4 and 7), Moses is directed by Yahweh to choose twelve men to be his associates in the compilation of Israel’s census.59 What is of particular significance is the connection between Moses’ helpers and the patriarchs in certain first century documents. In Philo’s work Fug et Inv 73, he speaks of the Patriarchs as “rulers of the nation twelve in number… customarily called φυλάρχους (Phylarchs).” In Ant. 3.169, Josephus similarly refers to the Patriarchs as φυλάρχους. The connection of the patriarchs with Moses’ selection of helpers is evident in Ant. 3.220 where Josephus refers to the Mosaic princes of the tribes as the φυλάρχους. The phrase Matthew uses in 10:1 (δώδεκα  μαθητὰς) finds attestation in 11:1; 20:17 and 26:20. Elsewhere Matthew refers to ‘the twelve’ (Mt 10:5; 26:14, 47 [cf. Mk 3:14; 4:10; 6:7; 9:35; 10:32; 11:11; 14:14, 17, 20, 43; Lk 8:1; 9:1, 12; 18:31;22:3, 47; Jn 6:67, 70–71; 20:24; Acts 6:2]), and also to the (δώδεκα  ἀποστόλων) ‘twelve apostles’ (Mt 10:2 par Lk 6:13). 58 See Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.150 for other references. 59 W. Horbury, “The Twelve Phylarchs,” New Testament Studies 32 (1982): 503. 57

156

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

Horbury concludes that, at least for one prominent Jewish historian of the first century, the Mosaic representatives and the Patriarchs were referred to interchangeably with the “similar honorific title.”60 Thus we have connection between Moses and the Patriarchs who originally represented Israel.61 In regard to Jesus’ selection of twelve Jewish men, A. Farrer suggests that this is modeled upon the twelve Mosaic representatives and hence twelve patriarchs of Israel.62 Similarly, E.P. Sanders argues that within Jewish eschatological hopes in the first century, the number twelve “would necessarily mean restoration.”63 N.T. Wright concurs in stating that “the call of the twelve…is Yahweh at last restoring his people Israel.”64 That this is so, is confirmed later in Matthew’s gospel where Jesus says to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have

Horbury, Phylarchs, 503. Also see Pseudo-Jonathan on Lev 4:15. In the War Scroll ‘the prince of the whole congregation’ heads 12 ‘princes of God’ who command the tribes 1QM 3:3; 5:1–2. 61 For additional association between the lawgiver and the phylarchs see Exod 16:22; 22:27; 34:31; 35:27; Lev 4:22–26; Num 7:1–88; 10:4, 14– 28; 17:16–28; 21:18; 27:2; 31:13; 32:2; 34:16–29; 36:1; Josh 9:15–21; 14:1; 21:1; 22:9–34; 1 Kgs 8:1; Ezek 45:8; Alexander Polyhistor in Eusebius Praep. ev. 9:30. In Aegyptiaca of Hecataeus of Abdera section 3, Moses “divided the people into twelve tribes because it corresponded to the number of months in the year.” Cited in Gager, Moses, 27. This indicates that the number twelve was seen as a number of fullness or completion. 62 A.M. Farrer, “The Ministry in the New Testament” in The Apostolic Ministry, edited by K.E. Kirk (London:Hodder and Stoughton, 1946), 120–124; St. Matthew and St. Mark (Westminster: Dacre Press, 1954), 21– 24. There is further connection between Jesus and Moses in that Mt 10:2 introduces the names of the twelve (τὰ  ὀνόματά  ἐστιν  ταῦτα) in very similar language as Num 1:5 introduces Moses’ helpers (καὶ  ταῦτα  τὰ  ὀνόματα). 63 E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM, 1985), 98. 64 Wright, Victory, 430–431. 60

THE THIRD CYCLE (MT 9:18–10:4)

157

followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mt 19:38).65 As is evident from 4 Ezra 13:39–45; 2 Bar 78 and T. Napht. 6–7, in later Jewish eschatological expectation, the important event of the end time was to be the re-unification of Israel’s the twelve tribes.66 The Psalms of Solomon, at several points emphasize that Yahweh and his royal representative would re-gather Israel’s tribes. 8:28 records the following prayer, “Bring together the dispersed of Israel with mercy and goodness, for your faithfulness is with us.” Ps.Sol 17 is replete with promises of this nature, “your servant will gather a holy people whom he will lead in righteousness…He will distribute them upon the land according to their tribes” (17:26–28). Verse 44 goes on to declare, “Blessed are those born in the days to see the good fortune of Israel which God will bring to pass in the assembly of the tribes.” It is in this regard that Davies and Allison conclude that Jesus’ choice of the twelve created “a prophetic symbol…[of] the eschatological gathering of scattered Israel.”67

CONCLUSION Mt 9:14–10:4 was seen to have several significant Mosaic features. Jesus’ resuscitation of the dead girl contributed by being an enacted parable of the prophetic development of the motif of Israel in exile, i.e. death. As such one who heals this condition delivers from exile. This is illustrated by three further images of restoration, cleansing from impurity (9:20–22), reversal of covenantal curses In addition to Pirqe R. El. on Ps 77:20, the idea of ‘return from exile’ is also apparent in the motif of the reference to Zerubbabel and his eleven companions at the head of the list of returning exiles in Ezra 2:1–2 (cf. Neh 7:7), which states “these were the people of the province who came from those captive exiles whom King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had carried captive to Babylonia they returned to Jerusalem and Judah, all to their own towns. They came with Zerubbabel…” 66 G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and The Mishnah (London: Fortress Press, 1981), 315. 67 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.152. This image is also enhanced by the former reference to Jesus as shepherd gathering the stray sheep of Israel (Mt 9:36). 65

158

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

(9:27–31) and deliverance from foreign oppression (9:32–34). The appointment of the twelve disciples brings the proceeding material (both mighty deeds and call narratives) to a climax in that Jesus is presented as a Mosaic figure reconstituting the twelve tribes of Israel through the restoration of her patriarchs/phylarchs.

CHAPTER 7. SUMMARY, RATIONALE AND CONCLUSION SUMMARY That Jesus is portrayed as a new Moses figure in Matthew 8–9 is evident on a number of levels. Our initial investigation found that given 1. Moses’ prototypical status as a future redeemer (Deut 18), 2. Moses’ esteemed status in Jewish reflection, 3. the sustained Jewish tradition which emphasized Moses’ signs and wonders, 4. the Mosaic prophetic imitators attested in Josephus, and 5. the lucid remembrance of Moses in Greco-Roman magical papyri for his association with healing and wonderworking, this strongly suggests that there is much to support Matthew’s typological association of Jesus with Moses. Furthermore, our subsequent analysis found that both the macro fivefold structure of the gospel and the microstructure of chapters 8–9 (3x3+1) recalls Moses as giver of the fivefold Torah and his role in the Exodus plagues (3x3+1). In assessment of Jesus’ first mighty deed, the combination of 1. Moses’ close association with leprosy in OT traditions, and 2. Jesus’ outstretched hand, find their most plausible understanding within this broader scheme of Mosaic typology. In the second mighty deed, the re-gathering of the Israel’s tribes support Matthew’s schema of exile and subsequent restoration. Jesus’ third healing continues in similar trajectory when it describes Peter’s mother-in-law as suffering from a πυρετός’ (fever), which given its background in Lev 26:16 and Deut 28:22, most plausibly refers to the Deuteronomistic covenantal curses. In this sense, Jesus as the new Moses, blesses those who are suffering the curses of rebellion against Yahweh. This comes into focus most clearly when Matthew 159

160

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

attributes to Jesus the office of enigmatic Isaianic servant (Isa 53:4 in Mt 8:17), which has significant Mosaic overtones. Within the second cycle of healings, Jesus’ storm stilling draws on the memory of Moses at the Red Sea. The fifth deed continues this Exodus imagery by presenting the story of the healed demoniacs who represent Israel’s idolatrous situation and subsequent deliverance. Specifically in this regard, Israel’s enemies (swine/Romans/Pharaoh’s army) are drowned in the sea of chaos as ‘Israel’ is emancipated from oppression. This trajectory of restoration is continued in Jesus’ sixth deed where he offers ‘forgiveness of sins,’ which in Israel’s prophetic literature was another way of saying ‘return from exile.’ Similar imagery of Israel’s restoration from exile forms the conceptual basis for Matthew’s third cycle of Jesus deeds, particularly in relation to Isaiah’s hope of eschatological salvation, wherein the dead are restored to life (Isa 26:19; cf. Ezek 37), the disgrace of Israel’s hemorrhaging is healed (cf. Isa 64:6–7), the vision of the blind is restored (Isa 29:18) and the tongue of the mute is loosed (Isa 29:18). This elaborate collection and arrangement of material in chapter 8–9 finds its climax in Jesus’ reconstitution of Israel’s twelve tribes. This occurs through Jesus’ selection of twelve Jewish men who are invited to continue Jesus’ ministry within Israel.

RATIONALE FOR TYPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION The question of an author’s motivation for typological association, although addressed in some degree in our discussion thus far, deserves further consideration. D.C. Allison summarizes Plato’s pedagogical maxim as being a process where “the new is invariably apprehended through the old.”1 Ludwig Josef Wittgenstein, a philosopher of a more recent century, approaches human understanding in like fashion, arguing that the human mind can only grasp the nature of the present in terms of his/her experience Allison, New Moses, 12. This involves a person being educated through their remembering of the immutable truths once known in their immortal soul. This was pointed out to me in private discussion with R.E. Watts May 2004. 1

SUMMARY, RATIONALE AND CONCLUSION

161

of the past.2 In the theological realm, Ernst Troeltsch expressed similar sentiment when he reasoned that historians or theologians, ancient or modern, can only narrate events which have some kind of analogy in their own, or community’s experience.3 It seems quite evident that one need not accept the totality of Platonic, Wittgensteinian or Troeltschian thought to appreciate their contribution on this pedagogical matter. These three writers validly highlight one of the important facets of human understanding, which in many respects is molded on prior memory. It is no surprise then that both historical and biographical authors typologically recall prior concepts, persons or events to communicate their message. Documents from the Ancient Near East, particularly those from Mesopotamian sources, frequently reconstruct history on the basis of prior memory. In one place, the invasion of Babylon by the Seleucids, is described in similar language to the Guti invasion of Ur and the corresponding lament expressed by Samaria.4 In regard to Greco-Roman literature, D.C. Allison notes there was even a technical term for biographical comparison, συγκρίσις.5 In one such case Porphyry esteems Pythagoras by noting his Odyssean features and Socratic disposition.6 Within the realm of Biblical Studies, M. Fishbane has traced this theme of literary typology throughout the OT in various

N. Malcolm, “Wittgenstein, Ludwig Josef Johann,” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Paul Edwards (London: Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc & The Free Press, 1967), 327–340; Heal, Water, 756 states in regard to Wittgenstein’s philosophy of mind, specifically in relation to language, that “for a word to have meaning there must be some extended practice in which its use has a point.” 3 Troeltsch, 1912–25, 2.732; cited in Wright, Resurrection, 16–18. 4 Pinches 1901, 196–199; cited in M. Fishbane Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 360, n109. For historical assimilation in Cuniform literature see J.H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982), 81– 103; 170–174. 5 Allison, New Moses, 12. 6 Vita Phythagorae; cited in Allison, New Moses, 12. 2

162

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

directions: Noah as a new Adam,7 David as a new Abraham,8 and Joshua, Elijah and Eziekiel as ‘new Moses’ figures.9 Y. Zakovitch also points out that many of these biographical assimilations are confirmed in extrabiblical Jewish paraphrases.10 It is to this last category of ‘new Moses’ that D.C.Allison devotes 134 pages of meticulous research, highlighting the prevalence of ancient authors who typologically portray figures with Mosaic characteristics. These include, 1. early biblical figures (Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, David), 2. prophets (Elijah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Baruch), 3. Rabbis (Hillel), and 4. later Christian figures (Anthony the Great, Constantine, Ephrem the Syrian). Significant in the latter category is that Gregory Thaumaturgus, James of Nisibis and Benedict of Nursia are all compared to Moses on the basis of their miraculous deeds.11 Allison’s work establishes Mosaic typology as a legitimate genre before, during and after the time when Matthew was written. He concludes that “not only did Jewish tradition supply precedent for Matthew’s execution of a Moses typology, but such precedent was to hand in documents the evangelist studied, treasured and probably knew by heart.”12 Furthermore, the legitimacy of Matthew’s association of Jesus and Moses is strengthened by Israel’s continued memory of the Exodus throughout her later religious experience. Several authors have pointed out the formative nature of Israel’s Exodus deliverance under Moses.13 Indeed, numerous texts envision the Gen 1:26–31/9:1–9; Gen 3:17/5:29. See Fishbane, Interpretation, 372f. Gen 17:6; cf 1 Kgs 3:14; 9:4; 11:4, 6, 38; 15:11; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2; 18:3; 22:2. Fishbane, Interpretation, 373. 9 Fishbane, Interpretation, 373. 10 Zakovitch, Assimilation, 177. 11 Allison, New Moses, 1–134. 12 Ibid., 95. 13 W. Bruggemann, “The Exodus Narrative as Israel’s Articulation of Faith Development,” in Hope Within History (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1987), 10; M.A. Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. B.W. Anderson (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1971), 47–50; L. Baeck, This People Israel: The Meaning of Jewish Existence, trans. Albert H. Friedlander (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 7 8

SUMMARY, RATIONALE AND CONCLUSION

163

Exodus as Israel’s creation (Lev 25:42, 55; 26:45; Deut 7:8, 18–19; 29:1–4).14 In this regard, it is no surprise that the Exodus became the basis of Israelite self identity.15 S.C. Keesmaat notes that this is reflected in the covenantal obligations derived from the “liberating context of the exodus.”16 Deut 10:19 states “Love the sojourner, for we were sojourners in the land of Egypt;” similarly Deut 15:15 uses Israel’s deliverance as the basis for her obligations to release Hebrew slaves every seven years, “You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you this today.”17 Similarly, R.E. Watts has pointed out that the vivid memory of the Exodus deliverance was kept alive in the Jewish worldview through celebration of the annual feast of Passover.18 The question which thus remains is ‘Why does Matthew portray Jesus as a new Moses?’ and ‘What significance does this have?’ The answer to these related questions seem to lie in the distinction which arose between early Jewish and latter (post second century) Christian/Greek apprehensions of biographical typology. On the one hand, the later Christian and Greek biography typically attempted to portray a virtuous figure typologically for his/her veneration.19 Jewish literature, on the other hand, frequently used typology, not only to venerate the

1964); S.C. Keesmaat, Paul and His Story: (Re)Interpreting the Exodus Tradition. JSNTSS 181. (England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 34–48. 14 Also see Josh 2:10; 9:9; Judg 6:8–9, 13; 1 Sam 10:18; 12:6–8; 2 Sam 7:23; Ps 80:8–11; Jer 31:32; Ezek 20:5–10; Hos 11:1; 12:13; 13:4; cited in Keesmaat, Exodus, 34 n66. 15 Bruggemann, Exodus, 25; Baeck, People, 28; Noth, Pentateuchal, 47– 48. 16 Keesmaat, Exodus, 37. 17 See also Deut 5:15; 6:20–25; 10:19; 15:15; 16:12, 20; 23:8; 24:18, 22; Lev 19:34; Exod 20:2; 22:20; 23:9. Sarna, Exodus, 3. 18 Watts, Isaiah, 29–52. 19 Cf. Constantine, Anthony the Great. See discussion in Allison, New Moses, 112–121, 131–137.

164

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

figure,20 but to recall the historical circumstances and to invest the present with similar significance. As was noted above, utilization of a new Moses type often accompanied a significant crux or climax in Israelite history. In the case of the prophet Samuel, Allison concludes that the reason for identification was his operation at a transitional point in Israel’s history, from a theocracy with Judges to a monarchy with Kings.21 Just as Moses inaugurated the time of the Torah, so too does Samuel participate in Israel changing the course of her history, and it is this historical transition which envisions Samuel as leading the ‘new Exodus.’22 In this way, Matthew invites the reader to interpret Jesus’ activities not as the Pharisees had done (9:34), or merely with the superficial wonder of the onlooking crowds (9:33b), but rather with devoted trust in Yahweh that Jesus was Israel’s deliverer. In doing this, Matthew appeals to the OT, and portrays Jesus as one who fulfills, and goes beyond, Israel’s former redeemer.23 There are some instances where the protagonist is typologically portrayed for his/her negative characteristics. 21 Allison, New Moses, 35. 22 Ibid., 35. 23 Given that certain people among the recipients of Matthew’s gospel were not Jewish, the question arises as to whether a Gentile community would be capable of understanding these OT parallels. In some respects it is difficult to know how perceptive people would have been. However, given 1. the relatively simple (10 mighty deeds) basis of comparison and 2. that many of the first converts were God-fearers and hence would have some familiarity with the OT scriptures (Acts 2:5; 10:2, 22; 13:26, 50; 17:4, 17), it is not altogether unlikely that the similarities would not be noticed. Confirmation of this interpretive trend is evident in several extra-biblical sources including Nicodemus speaking in Acts of Pilate 5:1 “What do you intend to do with this man? This man does many signs and wonders, which no one has done or will do. Let him alone and contrive no evil against him. If the signs which he does are from God, they will stand; if they are from men they will come to nothing. For Moses also when he was sent by God into Egypt, did many signs which God commanded him to do before Pharaoh.” Often it is the modern reader who lacks an appropriate interpretive grid to understand Matthew’s Jewish literary work. 20

SUMMARY, RATIONALE AND CONCLUSION

165

CONCLUSION Amid the sorry saga of Israel’s covenantal infidelity and the consequences endured at the exile, the conviction arose that God would, in his great love, have mercy on Israel and heal them of their diseased state. The reality of this is seen not only in the aforementioned historical circumstances which strongly suggest Israel’s exilic ‘post-exilic’ state, but also in the manner in which Matthew introduces his Gospel. After tracing Jesus’ lineage through Abraham and David, Matthew portrays Israel as still experiencing the curses of the Babylonian exile.24 Jesus is thus the figure who comes and saves Israel from the curses of covenantal infidelity (Mt 1:21). The implication of this is that Matthew employs a paradigmatic typology, in which Jesus leads a new chapter in Yahweh’s salvation history. This overarching pattern, which spans the Old and New Testaments, affirms both the continuity and consistency of Yahweh’s saving acts in His “holy history,”25 and as such, invites readers and hearers to embrace Jesus as Yahweh’s wonderful eschatological means of deliverance.

Also see the many significant Mosaic allusions in Jesus’ infancy, temptation and sermon pericopes. See chapter one for commentators who have explored these issues thoroughly. 25 Allison, New Moses, 16. 24

APPENDIX 1 Davies’ Argument Exodus Magicians

Experience of Mighty Deeds

leads to

Recognition of Yahweh

Matthew Pharisees

Experience of Mighty Deeds

leads to

Attributing Yahweh’s work to the demonic

Revised Understanding Exodus Israel (apparent insiders)

Magicians (apparent outsiders)

Experience of Mighty Deeds

Rejection of Moses

leads to

Experience of Mighty Deeds

leads to

Recognition of Yahweh

Matthew Pharisees (apparent insiders )

Crowds (apparent outsiders)

Experience of Mighty Deeds

Rejection of Jesus

leads to

Experience of Mighty Deeds

Positive recognition

leads to

167

APPENDIX 2: A SYNOPSIS OF MATTHEW 8:1–10:4 IN GREEK.1 Key to Synopsis: Unique to Mark Unique to Matthew Unique to Luke Common to Matthew and Mark Common to Matthew and Luke Common to Mark and Luke Common to Matthew, Mark and Luke

1

This synoptic analysis has been compiled with the aid of the following: K. Aland (ed.), Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1976); Kurt Aland (ed.), Synopsis of the Four Gospels: Greek English Edition of the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993); Albert Huck, Synopsis of the First Three Gospels, 13th ed., rev. by Heinrich Greeven (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck], 1981); S.C. Carlson, http:// hypotyposeis.org/ accessed Dec 2010; B.H. Throckmorton, Jr., Gospel Parallels: A Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels (Nashville, Tenn.: Nelson Pub., 1992); M. Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (London: Sheffield University Press); J.C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem. (Oxford: Clarendon Press); A. Barr, A Diagram of Synoptic relationships, in four colours. (London: T&T Clark, 1938); B. Smith http://www.textexcavation.com/ accessed Dec 2010; X. Leon-Dufour, Concordance des évangiles synoptiques. (Lausanne: Bridel, 1956); F. Neirynck, “A Concordance of the Synoptic Parallels” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 63 (1987): 375–83; P. Hoffman et al., Synoptic concordance: a Greek concordance to the first three gospels in synoptic arrangement, statistically evaluated, including occurrences in Acts. 4 volumes. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter); R.B. Vonson, “A study of Matthean doublets with Marcan parallels,” Studies in Biblical Theology 12 (1982): 239–59.

169

170

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9 Matthew 8:1–4

Mark 1:40–45

Luke 5:12–16

  1 Καταβάντος δὲ  αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ  ὄρους ἠκολού‐ θησαν αὐτῷ ὄχλοι  πολλοί.   2 καὶ ἰδοὺ     λεπρὸς προσελθὼν    προσεκύνει   αὐτῷ λέγων∙   κύριε, ἐὰν θέλῃς  δύνασαί με   καθαρίσαι.    3 καὶ   ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα  ἥψατο αὐτοῦ   λέγων∙   θέλω, καθαρίσθητι∙    καὶ εὐθέως   ἐκαθαρίσθη   αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα.            4 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ   ὁ Ἰησοῦς∙   ὅρα μηδενὶ   εἴπῃς,   ἀλλὰ ὕπαγε   σεαυτὸν δεῖξον   τῷ ἱερεῖ καὶ  προσένεγκον   τὸ δῶρον   ὃ προσέταξεν  

            40 Καὶ   ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν  λεπρὸς   παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν   καὶ γονυπετῶν   καὶ λέγων αὐτῷ ὅτι  ἐὰν θέλῃς   δύνασαί με   καθαρίσαι.     41 καὶ  σπλαγχνισθεὶς  ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα   αὐτοῦ ἥψατο   καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ∙   θέλω, καθαρίσθητι∙   42 καὶ εὐθὺς   ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ᾿   αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα,   καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη.   43 καὶ  ἐμβριμησάμενος  αὐτῷ εὐθὺς   ἐξέβαλεν αὐτὸν   44 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ∙     ὅρα μηδενὶ   μηδὲν εἴπῃς,   ἀλλὰ ὕπαγε   σεαυτὸν δεῖξον   τῷ ἱερεῖ καὶ   προσένεγκε περὶ   τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ σου  ἃ προσέταξεν  

  12 Καὶ ἐγένετο   ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτὸν   ἐν μιᾷ τῶν πόλεων       καὶ ἰδοὺ     ἀνὴρ πλήρης  λέπρας∙ ἰδὼν δὲ  τὸν Ἰησοῦν, πεσὼν  ἐπὶ πρόσωπον  ἐδεήθη αὐτοῦ  λέγων∙ κύριε, ἐὰν  θέλῃς δύνασαί με   καθαρίσαι.   13 καὶ   ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα  ἥψατο αὐτοῦ   λέγων∙   θέλω,  καθαρίσθητι∙   καὶ εὐθέως     ἡ λέπρα ἀπῆλθεν  ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ.   14 καὶ αὐτὸς         παρήγγειλεν αὐτῷ     μηδενὶ   εἰπεῖν,   ἀλλὰ ἀπελθὼν  δεῖξον σεαυτὸν   τῷ ἱερεῖ καὶ   προσένεγκε περὶ   τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ  σου καθὼς 

APPENDIX 2: A SYNOPSIS OF MATTHEW 8:1–10:4

Μωϋσῆς, εἰς   μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς.            

Μωϋσῆς, εἰς   μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς.     45 ὁ δὲ ἐξελθὼν   ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν  πολλὰ καὶ   διαφημίζειν   τὸν λόγον,   ὥστε μηκέτι αὐτὸν  δύνασθαι φανερῶς   εἰς πόλιν   εἰσελθεῖν,   ἀλλ᾿ ἔξω         ἐπ᾿ ἐρήμοις   τόποις ἦν∙   καὶ ἤρχοντο   πρὸς αὐτὸν  πάντοθεν.  

Matthew 8:5–13   5 Εἰσελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ   εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ προσῆλθεν   αὐτῷ ἑκατόνταρχος   παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν   6 καὶ λέγων∙ κύριε, ὁ παῖς   μου βέβληται ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ  παραλυτικός, δεινῶς   βασανιζόμενος.                    

171

προσέταξεν  Μωϋσῆς, εἰς   μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς.   15 διήρχετο δὲ   μᾶλλον       ὁ λόγος περὶ  αὐτοῦ,   καὶ συνήρχοντο   ὄχλοι πολλοὶ   ἀκούειν καὶ  θεραπεύεσθαι   ἀπὸ τῶν   ἀσθενειῶν αὐτῶν∙   16 αὐτὸς δὲ   ἦν ὑποχωρῶν   ἐν ταῖς ἐρήμοις   καὶ  προσευχόμενος.    

Luke 7:1–10; 13:28–29    1b εἰσῆλθεν   εἰς Καφαρναούμ.   2 Ἑκατοντάρχου δέ τινος     δοῦλος   κακῶς ἔχων   ἤμελλεν τελευτᾶν,   ὃς ἦν αὐτῷ ἔντιμος.   3 ἀκούσας δὲ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ  ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτὸν   πρεσβυτέρους τῶν Ἰουδαίων   ἐρωτῶν αὐτὸν ὅπως ἐλθὼν   διασώσῃ τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ.   4 οἱ δὲ παραγενόμενοι   πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν παρεκάλουν   αὐτὸν σπουδαίως λέγοντες   ὅτι ἄξιός ἐστιν ᾧ παρέξῃ 

172

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

        7 καὶ λέγει   αὐτῷ∙   ἐγὼ ἐλθὼν   θεραπεύσω αὐτόν.   8 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ   ἑκατόνταρχος ἔφη∙   κύριε, οὐκ   εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς ἵνα μου   ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰσέλθῃς,       ἀλλὰ μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ,   καὶ ἰαθήσεται ὁ παῖς μου.   9 καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι   ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν,   ἔχων ὑπ᾿ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας,  καὶ λέγω τούτῳ∙ πορεύθητι,   καὶ πορεύεται, καὶ ἄλλῳ∙   ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται,   καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου∙   ποίησον τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ.     10 ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ   Ἰησοῦς ἐθαύμασεν   καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς   ἀκολουθοῦσιν∙     ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, παρ᾿   οὐδενὶ τοσαύτην πίστιν   ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ εὗρον.                

τοῦτο∙   5 ἀγαπᾷ γὰρ τὸ ἔθνος   ἡμῶν καὶ τὴν συναγωγὴν   αὐτὸς ᾠκοδόμησεν ἡμῖν.   6 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐπορεύετο   σὺν αὐτοῖς.   ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ οὐ μακρὰν   ἀπέχοντος ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας   ἔπεμψεν φίλους ὁ   ἑκατοντάρχης λέγων αὐτῷ∙   κύριε, μὴ σκύλλου, οὐ   γὰρ ἱκανός εἰμι ἵνα ὑπὸ   τὴν στέγην μου εἰσέλθῃς∙   7 διὸ οὐδὲ ἐμαυτὸν ἠξίωσα   πρὸς σὲ ἐλθεῖν∙   ἀλλὰ εἰπὲ λόγῳ,   καὶ ἰαθήτω ὁ παῖς μου.   8 καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι   ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος   ἔχων ὑπ᾿ ἐμαυτὸν  στρατιώτας,   καὶ λέγω τούτῳ∙ πορεύθητι,   καὶ πορεύεται, καὶ ἄλλῳ∙   ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται,   καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου∙   ποίησον τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ.   9 ἀκούσας δὲ ταῦτα ὁ   Ἰησοῦς ἐθαύμασεν αὐτὸν   καὶ στραφεὶς τῷ   ἀκολουθοῦντι αὐτῷ   ὄχλῳ εἶπεν∙   λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐδὲ   ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ   τοσαύτην πίστιν εὗρον.     13:28 ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς   καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων,   ὅταν ὄψησθε Ἀβραὰμ   καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ   καὶ πάντας τοὺς προφήτας   ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ,  

APPENDIX 2: A SYNOPSIS OF MATTHEW 8:1–10:4

11 λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν   ὅτι πολλοὶ ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν   καὶ δυσμῶν ἥξουσιν   καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται μετὰ  Ἀβραὰμ   καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ   ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν,   12 οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας  ἐκβληθήσονται εἰς τὸ σκότος   τὸ ἐξώτερον∙   ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς   καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων.   13 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς   τῷ ἑκατοντάρχῃ∙ ὕπαγε,   ὡς ἐπίστευσας γενηθήτω σοι.   καὶ ἰάθη ὁ παῖς αὐτοῦ   ἐν τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐκείνῃ. 

173

ὑμᾶς δὲ ἐκβαλλομένους ἔξω.   29 καὶ ἥξουσιν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν   καὶ δυσμῶν καὶ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ   καὶ νότου καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται       ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ.             10 Καὶ   ὑποστρέψαντες   εἰς τὸν οἶκον οἱ πεμφθέντες   εὗρον τὸν δοῦλον   ὑγιαίνοντα.    

Matthew 8:14–15

Mark 1:29–31

Luke 4:38–39

  14 Καὶ     ἐλθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς   εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν   Πέτρου   εἶδεν       τὴν πενθερὰν   αὐτοῦ   βεβλημένην   καὶ πυρέσσουσαν∙       15 καὶ     ἥψατο τῆς χειρὸς   αὐτῆς,   καὶ ἀφῆκεν αὐτὴν   ὁ πυρετός,  

  29 Καὶ εὐθὺς   ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς  ἐξελθόντες ἦλθον   εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν   Σίμωνος καὶ  Ἀνδρέου  μετὰ Ἰακώβου   καὶ Ἰωάννου.   30 ἡ δὲ πενθερὰ  Σίμωνος κατέκειτο    πυρέσσουσα,   καὶ εὐθὺς λέγουσιν   αὐτῷ περὶ αὐτῆς.   31 καὶ προσελθὼν  ἤγειρεν αὐτὴν   κρατήσας τῆς  χειρός∙    καὶ ἀφῆκεν αὐτὴν  

  38 Ἀναστὰς δὲ   ἀπὸ τῆς  συναγωγῆς  εἰσῆλθεν   εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν   Σίμωνος.       πενθερὰ δὲ   τοῦ Σίμωνος   ἦν συνεχομένη   πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ   καὶ ἠρώτησαν   αὐτὸν περὶ αὐτῆς.   39 καὶ ἐπιστὰς       ἐπάνω αὐτῆς  ἐπετίμησεν τῷ  πυρετῷ 

174

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

καὶ   ἠγέρθη καὶ     διηκόνει αὐτῷ.  

ὁ πυρετός,   καὶ     διηκόνει αὐτοῖς. 

καὶ ἀφῆκεν αὐτήν∙  παραχρῆμα δὲ  ἀναστᾶσα   διηκόνει αὐτοῖς. 

Matthew 8:16–17

Mark 1:32–34; 3:11b

Luke 4:40–41

  16 Ὀψίας δὲ  γενομένης            προσήνεγκαν   αὐτῷ         δαιμονιζομένους  πολλούς∙ καὶ         ἐξέβαλεν   τὰ πνεύματα λόγῳ  καὶ πάντας   τοὺς κακῶς  ἔχοντας    ἐθεράπευσεν.                      

  32 Ὀψίας δὲ  γενομένης,  ὅτε ἔδυ ὁ ἥλιος,           ἔφερον   πρὸς αὐτὸν   πάντας   τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας  καὶ τοὺς  δαιμονιζομένους∙   33 καὶ ἦν ὅλη ἡ   πόλις ἐπισυνηγμένη  πρὸς τὴν θύραν.         34a καὶ         ἐθεράπευσεν  πολλοὺς  κακῶς ἔχοντας   ποικίλαις νόσοις     καὶ δαιμόνια   πολλὰ   ἐξέβαλεν     3:11b καὶ   ἔκραζον λέγοντες  

    40 Δύνοντος δὲ τοῦ  ἡλίου ἅπαντες  ὅσοι  εἶχον  ἀσθενοῦντας  νόσοις ποικίλαις   ἤγαγον αὐτοὺς   πρὸς αὐτόν∙                     ὁ δὲ     ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ αὐτῶν   τὰς χεῖρας  ἐπιτιθεὶς  ἐθεράπευεν  αὐτούς.       41 ἐξήρχετο δὲ   καὶ δαιμόνια   ἀπὸ πολλῶν        κραυγάζοντα  

APPENDIX 2: A SYNOPSIS OF MATTHEW 8:1–10:4

                17 ὅπως πληρωθῇ   τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ  Ἠσαΐου   τοῦ προφήτου   λέγοντος∙ αὐτὸς   τὰς ἀσθενείας   ἡμῶν ἔλαβεν καὶ  τὰς  νόσους ἐβάστασεν.  

ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς   τοῦ θεοῦ.      34b καὶ οὐκ ἤφιεν   λαλεῖν τὰ δαιμόνια,   ὅτι ᾔδεισαν   αὐτόν.    

Matthew 8:18–22   18 Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς   ὄχλον περὶ αὐτὸν ἐκέλευσεν   ἀπελθεῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν.    19 καὶ προσελθὼν εἷς  γραμματεὺς εἶπεν αὐτῷ∙   διδάσκαλε, ἀκολουθήσω σοι   ὅπου ἐὰν ἀπέρχῃ.   20 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς∙   αἱ ἀλώπεκες φωλεοὺς ἔχουσιν   καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ  κατασκηνώσεις, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς   τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἔχει   ποῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν κλίνῃ.   21 ἕτερος δὲ τῶν μαθητῶν   αὐτοῦ   εἶπεν αὐτῷ∙   κύριε, ἐπίτρεψόν μοι   πρῶτον ἀπελθεῖν καὶ θάψαι   τὸν πατέρα μου.  22 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτῷ∙  

175

καὶ λέγοντα   ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς   τοῦ θεοῦ.   καὶ ἐπιτιμῶν   οὐκ εἴα   αὐτὰ λαλεῖν,   ὅτι ᾔδεισαν τὸν   χριστὸν αὐτὸν   εἶναι.    

Luke 9:57–62           57 Καὶ πορευομένων αὐτῶν  ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ εἶπέν τις πρὸς  αὐτόν∙ ἀκολουθήσω σοι   ὅπου ἐὰν ἀπέρχῃ.   58 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς∙   αἱ ἀλώπεκες φωλεοὺς  ἔχουσιν καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ  οὐρανοῦ κατασκηνώσεις, ὁ  δὲ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ  ἔχει ποῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν κλίνῃ.   59 Εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς ἕτερον∙   ἀκολούθει μοι.   ὁ δὲ εἶπεν∙   κύριε, ἐπίτρεψόν μοι  ἀπελθόντι πρῶτον θάψαι   τὸν πατέρα μου.   60 εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ∙  

176

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

ἀκολούθει μοι καὶ   ἄφες τοὺς νεκροὺς θάψαι   τοὺς ἑαυτῶν νεκρούς.    

Matthew 8:18, 23–27     18 Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς  ὄχλον περὶ αὐτὸν  ἐκέλευσεν   ἀπελθεῖν   εἰς τὸ πέραν.  23 Καὶ       ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ   εἰς τὸ πλοῖον  ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ  οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.                   24 καὶ ἰδοὺ  

  ἄφες τοὺς νεκροὺς θάψαι   τοὺς ἑαυτῶν νεκρούς,   σὺ δὲ ἀπελθὼν διάγγελλε   τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.   61 Εἶπεν δὲ καὶ ἕτερος∙   ἀκολουθήσω σοι, κύριε∙   πρῶτον δὲ ἐπίτρεψόν μοι  ἀποτάξασθαι τοῖς εἰς   τὸν οἶκόν μου.   62 εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν   ὁ Ἰησοῦς∙   οὐδεὶς ἐπιβαλὼν τὴν χεῖρα   ἐπ᾿ ἄροτρον καὶ βλέπων   εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω εὔθετός ἐστιν   τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ. 

Mark 4:35–41   35 Καὶ λέγει   αὐτοῖς   ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ  ὀψίας γενομένης∙  διέλθωμεν   εἰς τὸ πέραν.   36 καὶ ἀφέντες τὸν  ὄχλον  παραλαμβάνουσιν  αὐτὸν ὡς ἦν   ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ,   καὶ ἄλλα πλοῖα   ἦν μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ.                   37 καὶ γίνεται  

Luke 8:22–25     22 Ἐγένετο δὲ   ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν         καὶ       αὐτὸς ἐνέβη  εἰς πλοῖον   καὶ   οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ   καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς  αὐτούς∙ διέλθωμεν   εἰς τὸ πέραν   τῆς λίμνης,   καὶ ἀνήχθησαν.   23 πλεόντων δὲ   αὐτῶν  ἀφύπνωσεν.   καὶ κατέβη  

APPENDIX 2: A SYNOPSIS OF MATTHEW 8:1–10:4

σεισμὸς μέγας   ἐγένετο   ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ,         ὥστε τὸ πλοῖον  καλύπτεσθαι   ὑπὸ τῶν κυμάτων,  αὐτὸς δὲ       ἐκάθευδεν.   25 καὶ  προσελθόντες  ἤγειραν αὐτὸν   λέγοντες∙   κύριε,   σῶσον,   ἀπολλύμεθα.   26 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς∙  τί δειλοί ἐστε,  ὀλιγόπιστοι;   τότε ἐγερθεὶς   ἐπετίμησεν   τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ   τῇ θαλάσσῃ,         καὶ ἐγένετο   γαλήνη μεγάλη.         27 οἱ δὲ ἄνθρωποι  ἐθαύμασαν   λέγοντες∙     ποταπός ἐστιν  οὗτος  

λαῖλαψ μεγάλη   ἀνέμου     καὶ τὰ κύματα  ἐπέβαλλεν   εἰς τὸ πλοῖον,   ὥστε ἤδη γεμίζεσθαι  τὸ πλοῖον.     38 καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν   ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ ἐπὶ   τὸ προσκεφάλαιον   καθεύδων.   καὶ     ἐγείρουσιν αὐτὸν   καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ∙  διδάσκαλε,   οὐ μέλει σοι ὅτι  ἀπολλύμεθα;         39 καὶ διεγερθεὶς  ἐπετίμησεν   τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ   εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ∙  σιώπα, πεφίμωσο.   καὶ ἐκόπασεν   ὁ ἄνεμος   καὶ ἐγένετο   γαλήνη μεγάλη.   40 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς∙   τί δειλοί ἐστε;   οὔπω ἔχετε πίστιν;   41 καὶ   ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον  μέγαν καὶ ἔλεγον   πρὸς ἀλλήλους∙   τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν   ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἄνεμος  

177

λαῖλαψ   ἀνέμου   εἰς τὴν λίμνην   καὶ  συνεπληροῦντο   καὶ ἐκινδύνευον.                 24 προσελθόντες  δὲ   διήγειραν αὐτὸν  λέγοντες∙   ἐπιστάτα  ἐπιστάτα,  ἀπολλύμεθα.         ὁ δὲ διεγερθεὶς  ἐπετίμησεν   τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ   τῷ κλύδωνι   τοῦ ὕδατος∙   καὶ ἐπαύσαντο     καὶ ἐγένετο   γαλήνη.   25 εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς∙   ποῦ ἡ   πίστις ὑμῶν;   φοβηθέντες δὲ  ἐθαύμασαν   λέγοντες   πρὸς ἀλλήλους∙   τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν   ὅτι καὶ τοῖς 

178

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

ὅτι καὶ οἱ ἄνεμοι   καὶ ἡ θάλασσα  αὐτῷ ὑπακούουσιν;   

καὶ   ἡ θάλασσα   ὑπακούει αὐτῷ;    

ἀνέμοις  ἐπιτάσσει καὶ   τῷ ὕδατι, καὶ  ὑπακούουσιν  αὐτῷ;  

Matthew 8:28–34

Mark 5:1–20

Luke 8:26–39

  28 Καὶ ἐλθόντος   αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ πέραν     εἰς τὴν χώραν   τῶν Γαδαρηνῶν             ὑπήντησαν   αὐτῷ δύο  δαιμονιζόμενοι   ἐκ τῶν μνημείων  ἐξερχόμενοι,                       χαλεποὶ λίαν,                

  1 Καὶ ἦλθον   εἰς τὸ πέραν   τῆς θαλάσσης   εἰς τὴν χώραν   τῶν Γερασηνῶν.         2 καὶ ἐξελθόντος   αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου  εὐθὺς ὑπήντησεν   αὐτῷ     ἐκ τῶν μνημείων  ἄνθρωπος ἐν   πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ,      3 ὃς τὴν   κατοίκησιν εἶχεν   ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν,   καὶ οὐδὲ ἁλύσει   οὐκέτι οὐδεὶς   ἐδύνατο αὐτὸν δῆσαι  4 διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν   πολλάκις πέδαις   καὶ ἁλύσεσιν   δεδέσθαι   καὶ διεσπάσθαι   ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ   τὰς ἁλύσεις   καὶ τὰς πέδας  συντετρῖφθαι,  

  26 Καὶ  κατέπλευσαν     εἰς τὴν χώραν   τῶν Γερασηνῶν,   ἥτις ἐστὶν  ἀντιπέρα   τῆς Γαλιλαίας.   27 ἐξελθόντι δὲ   αὐτῷ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν  ὑπήντησεν     ἀνήρ τις   ἐκ τῆς πόλεως   ἔχων δαιμόνια   καὶ χρόνῳ ἱκανῷ   οὐκ ἐνεδύσατο   ἱμάτιον καὶ   ἐν οἰκίᾳ   οὐκ ἔμενεν ἀλλ᾿   ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν.                          

APPENDIX 2: A SYNOPSIS OF MATTHEW 8:1–10:4

ὥστε μὴ ἰσχύειν   τινὰ παρελθεῖν   διὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ   ἐκείνης.             29 καὶ ἰδοὺ           ἔκραξαν       λέγοντες∙   τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί,   υἱὲ τοῦ θεοῦ;   ἦλθες ὧδε   πρὸ καιροῦ   βασανίσαι ἡμᾶς;                                      

καὶ οὐδεὶς ἴσχυεν   αὐτὸν δαμάσαι∙   5 καὶ διὰ παντὸς   νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας   ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν   καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσιν   ἦν κράζων   καὶ κατακόπτων   ἑαυτὸν λίθοις.   6 καὶ ἰδὼν   τὸν Ἰησοῦν   ἀπὸ μακρόθεν   ἔδραμεν καὶ  προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ  7 καὶ κράξας     φωνῇ μεγάλῃ   λέγει∙   τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί,   Ἰησοῦ υἱὲ τοῦ θεοῦ   τοῦ ὑψίστου;   ὁρκίζω σε τὸν θεόν,   μή με βασανίσῃς.   8 ἔλεγεν γὰρ   αὐτῷ∙       ἔξελθε   τὸ πνεῦμα   τὸ ἀκάθαρτον   ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.                      

179

                  28 ἰδὼν δὲ   τὸν Ἰησοῦν         ἀνακράξας   προσέπεσεν αὐτῷ   καὶ φωνῇ μεγάλῃ   εἶπεν∙   τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί,   Ἰησοῦ υἱὲ τοῦ θεοῦ   τοῦ ὑψίστου;   δέομαί σου,   μή με βασανίσῃς.   29 παρήγγειλεν  γὰρ   τῷ πνεύματι   τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ   ἐξελθεῖν       ἀπὸ τοῦ  ἀνθρώπου.  πολλοῖς γὰρ  χρόνοις  συνηρπάκει αὐτὸν   καὶ ἐδεσμεύετο   ἁλύσεσιν   καὶ πέδαις  φυλασσόμενος   καὶ διαρρήσσων   τὰ δεσμὰ 

180

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

                                30 ἦν δὲ μακρὰν   ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν   ἀγέλη χοίρων   πολλῶν  βοσκομένη.     31 οἱ δὲ δαίμονες  παρεκάλουν αὐτὸν  λέγοντες∙   εἰ ἐκβάλλεις ἡμᾶς,  ἀπόστειλον ἡμᾶς   εἰς   τὴν ἀγέλην   τῶν χοίρων.   32 καὶ εἶπεν   αὐτοῖς∙ ὑπάγετε.   οἱ δὲ ἐξελθόντες      ἀπῆλθον εἰς   τοὺς χοίρους∙   καὶ ἰδοὺ ὥρμησεν   πᾶσα ἡ ἀγέλη   κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ   εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν  

      9 καὶ ἐπηρώτα   αὐτόν∙   τί ὄνομά σοι;   καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ∙   λεγιὼν ὄνομά μοι,   ὅτι   πολλοί ἐσμεν.     10 καὶ παρεκάλει   αὐτὸν πολλὰ ἵνα μὴ  αὐτὰ ἀποστείλῃ   ἔξω τῆς χώρας.     11 ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ   πρὸς τῷ ὄρει   ἀγέλη χοίρων   μεγάλη   βοσκομένη∙     12 καὶ   παρεκάλεσαν αὐτὸν  λέγοντες∙   πέμψον ἡμᾶς     εἰς τοὺς χοίρους,   ἵνα εἰς αὐτοὺς  εἰσέλθωμεν.   13 καὶ ἐπέτρεψεν  αὐτοῖς.   καὶ ἐξελθόντα   τὰ πνεύματα   τὰ ἀκάθαρτα   εἰσῆλθον εἰς   τοὺς χοίρους,   καὶ ὥρμησεν   ἡ ἀγέλη   κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ   εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν,  

ἠλαύνετο   ὑπὸ τοῦ δαιμονίου   εἰς τὰς ἐρήμους.   30 ἐπηρώτησεν δὲ  αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς∙   τί σοι ὄνομά ἐστιν;   ὁ δὲ εἶπεν∙   λεγιών,   ὅτι εἰσῆλθεν   δαιμόνια πολλὰ   εἰς αὐτόν.   31 καὶ παρεκάλουν  αὐτὸν ἵνα μὴ   ἐπιτάξῃ αὐτοῖς   εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον  ἀπελθεῖν.   32 ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ     ἀγέλη χοίρων   ἱκανῶν   βοσκομένη   ἐν τῷ ὄρει∙   καὶ   παρεκάλεσαν  αὐτὸν   ἵνα ἐπιτρέψῃ  αὐτοῖς   εἰς   ἐκείνους   εἰσελθεῖν∙   καὶ ἐπέτρεψεν   αὐτοῖς.   33 ἐξελθόντα δὲ   τὰ δαιμόνια   ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου   εἰσῆλθον εἰς   τοὺς χοίρους,   καὶ ὥρμησεν   ἡ ἀγέλη   κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ   εἰς τὴν λίμνην  

APPENDIX 2: A SYNOPSIS OF MATTHEW 8:1–10:4

  καὶ ἀπέθανον   ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν.   33 οἱ δὲ   βόσκοντες   ἔφυγον,   καὶ ἀπελθόντες     εἰς τὴν πόλιν    ἀπήγγειλαν   πάντα καὶ τὰ τῶν  δαιμονιζομένων.     34 καὶ ἰδοὺ πᾶσα   ἡ πόλις ἐξῆλθεν   εἰς ὑπάντησιν   τῷ Ἰησοῦ   καὶ ἰδόντες                                   αὐτὸν  παρεκάλεσαν       ὅπως μεταβῇ ἀπὸ  τῶν ὁρίων αὐτῶν.  

ὡς δισχίλιοι,   καὶ ἐπνίγοντο   ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ.   14 Καὶ οἱ   βόσκοντες αὐτοὺς   ἔφυγον   καὶ   ἀπήγγειλαν   εἰς τὴν πόλιν καὶ   εἰς τοὺς ἀγρούς∙     καὶ ἦλθον   ἰδεῖν τί ἐστιν   τὸ γεγονὸς   15 καὶ   ἔρχονται     πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν   καὶ θεωροῦσιν   τὸν δαιμονιζόμενον  καθήμενον       ἱματισμένον καὶ  σωφρονοῦντα,   τὸν ἐσχηκότα   τὸν λεγιῶνα,   καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν.   16 καὶ διηγήσαντο  αὐτοῖς οἱ ἰδόντες   πῶς ἐγένετο   τῷ δαιμονιζομένῳ   καὶ περὶ   τῶν χοίρων.   17 καὶ ἤρξαντο  παρακαλεῖν αὐτὸν        ἀπελθεῖν ἀπὸ   τῶν ὁρίων αὐτῶν.  

181

  καὶ ἀπεπνίγη.     34 Ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ  βόσκοντες τὸ   γεγονὸς ἔφυγον   καὶ   ἀπήγγειλαν   εἰς τὴν πόλιν καὶ   εἰς τοὺς ἀγρούς.     35 ἐξῆλθον δὲ   ἰδεῖν   τὸ γεγονὸς   καὶ   ἦλθον     πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν   καὶ εὗρον   καθήμενον   τὸν ἄνθρωπον   ἀφ᾿ οὗ τὰ δαιμόνια  ἐξῆλθεν   ἱματισμένον καὶ   σωφρονοῦντα   παρὰ τοὺς πόδας   τοῦ Ἰησοῦ,   καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν.   36 ἀπήγγειλαν δὲ   αὐτοῖς οἱ ἰδόντες   πῶς ἐσώθη   ὁ δαιμονισθείς.       37 καὶ   ἠρώτησεν αὐτὸν   ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος   τῆς περιχώρου   τῶν Γερασηνῶν  ἀπελθεῖν ἀπ᾿   αὐτῶν,  

182

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

    18 Καὶ ἐμβαίνοντος   αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ πλοῖον     παρεκάλει αὐτὸν   ὁ     δαιμονισθεὶς   ἵνα μετ᾿   αὐτοῦ ᾖ.   19 καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκεν  αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ   λέγει αὐτῷ∙   ὕπαγε εἰς   τὸν οἶκόν σου   πρὸς τοὺς σοὺς   καὶ ἀπάγγειλον   αὐτοῖς ὅσα   ὁ κύριός σοι   πεποίηκεν καὶ   ἠλέησέν σε.   20 καὶ ἀπῆλθεν   καὶ ἤρξατο   κηρύσσειν   ἐν τῇ Δεκαπόλει   ὅσα ἐποίησεν   αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς,   καὶ πάντες   ἐθαύμαζον.  

           

Matthew 9:1–8   1 Καὶ ἐμβὰς   εἰς πλοῖον   διεπέρασεν   καὶ ἦλθεν   εἰς   τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν.      

ὅτι φόβῳ μεγάλῳ  συνείχοντο∙   αὐτὸς δὲ ἐμβὰς   εἰς πλοῖον   ὑπέστρεψεν.   38 ἐδεῖτο δὲ αὐτοῦ   ὁ ἀνὴρ ἀφ᾿ οὗ   ἐξεληλύθει   τὰ δαιμόνια   εἶναι   σὺν αὐτῷ∙   ἀπέλυσεν δὲ   αὐτὸν   λέγων∙   39 ὑπόστρεφε εἰς   τὸν οἶκόν σου     καὶ διηγοῦ   ὅσα   σοι   ἐποίησεν   ὁ θεός.  καὶ ἀπῆλθεν   καθ᾿ ὅλην   τὴν πόλιν   κηρύσσων   ὅσα ἐποίησεν   αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς. 

Mark 2:1–12

Luke 5:17–26

  1 Καὶ       εἰσελθὼν   πάλιν εἰς   Καφαρναοὺμ     δι᾿ ἡμερῶν ἠκούσθη  

  17 Καὶ             ἐγένετο   ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν  

APPENDIX 2: A SYNOPSIS OF MATTHEW 8:1–10:4

                                          2 καὶ ἰδοὺ   προσέφερον   αὐτῷ       παραλυτικὸν   ἐπὶ κλίνης   βεβλημένον.                          

ὅτι ἐν οἴκῳ ἐστίν.                 2 καὶ συνήχθησαν  πολλοὶ ὥστε μηκέτι  χωρεῖν μηδὲ τὰ   πρὸς τὴν θύραν,   καὶ ἐλάλει   αὐτοῖς τὸν λόγον.                 3 καὶ   ἔρχονται φέροντες   πρὸς αὐτὸν      παραλυτικὸν     αἰρόμενον   ὑπὸ τεσσάρων.         4 καὶ μὴ   δυνάμενοι   προσενέγκαι αὐτῷ   διὰ τὸν ὄχλον  ἀπεστέγασαν   τὴν στέγην   ὅπου ἦν,   καὶ ἐξορύξαντες  

183

  καὶ αὐτὸς   ἦν διδάσκων,   καὶ ἦσαν  καθήμενοι  Φαρισαῖοι καὶ  νομοδιδάσκαλοι   οἳ ἦσαν   ἐληλυθότες             ἐκ πάσης κώμης   τῆς Γαλιλαίας   καὶ Ἰουδαίας   καὶ Ἰερουσαλήμ∙   καὶ δύναμις κυρίου   ἦν εἰς τὸ   ἰᾶσθαι αὐτόν.   18 καὶ ἰδοὺ   ἄνδρες φέροντες     ἐπὶ κλίνης   ἄνθρωπον ὃς ἦν  παραλελυμένος     καὶ ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν    εἰσενεγκεῖν καὶ   θεῖναι αὐτὸν   ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ.   19 καὶ μὴ   εὑρόντες ποίας  εἰσενέγκωσιν  αὐτὸν   διὰ τὸν ὄχλον,  ἀναβάντες   ἐπὶ τὸ δῶμα   διὰ τῶν κεράμων 

184

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

          καὶ ἰδὼν   ὁ Ἰησοῦς   τὴν πίστιν αὐτῶν   εἶπεν   τῷ παραλυτικῷ∙   θάρσει, τέκνον,   ἀφίενταί σου   αἱ ἁμαρτίαι.   3 καὶ ἰδού τινες     τῶν γραμματέων       εἶπαν   ἐν ἑαυτοῖς∙   οὗτος     βλασφημεῖ.           4 καὶ   ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς     τὰς   ἐνθυμήσεις   αὐτῶν   εἶπεν∙   ἱνατί ἐνθυμεῖσθε   πονηρὰ ἐν   ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν;  5 τί γάρ ἐστιν  εὐκοπώτερον,   εἰπεῖν∙    

χαλῶσι   τὸν κράβαττον ὅπου  ὁ παραλυτικὸς   κατέκειτο.     5 καὶ ἰδὼν   ὁ Ἰησοῦς   τὴν πίστιν αὐτῶν   λέγει   τῷ παραλυτικῷ∙   τέκνον,   ἀφίενταί σου   αἱ ἁμαρτίαι.   6 ἦσαν δέ τινες     τῶν γραμματέων   ἐκεῖ καθήμενοι   καὶ διαλογιζόμενοι   ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις   αὐτῶν∙   7 τί οὗτος   οὕτως λαλεῖ;   βλασφημεῖ∙   τίς δύναται   ἀφιέναι   ἁμαρτίας εἰ μὴ   εἷς ὁ θεός;   8 καὶ εὐθὺς   ἐπιγνοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς   τῷ πνεύματι αὐτοῦ   ὅτι οὕτως   διαλογίζονται   ἐν ἑαυτοῖς   λέγει αὐτοῖς∙   τί ταῦτα   διαλογίζεσθε ἐν   ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν;   9 τί ἐστιν   εὐκοπώτερον,   εἰπεῖν τῷ   παραλυτικῷ∙  

  καθῆκαν αὐτὸν  σὺν τῷ κλινιδίῳ   εἰς τὸ μέσον   ἔμπροσθεν   τοῦ Ἰησοῦ.   20 καὶ ἰδὼν   τὴν πίστιν αὐτῶν   εἶπεν∙     ἄνθρωπε,   ἀφέωνταί σοι   αἱ ἁμαρτίαι σου.   21 καὶ ἤρξαντο  διαλογίζεσθαι   οἱ γραμματεῖς   καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι      λέγοντες∙   τίς ἐστιν οὗτος   ὃς λαλεῖ   βλασφημίας;   τίς δύναται  ἁμαρτίας  ἀφεῖναι εἰ μὴ   μόνος ὁ θεός;   22 ἐπιγνοὺς δὲ   ὁ Ἰησοῦς     τοὺς   διαλογισμοὺς   αὐτῶν ἀποκριθεὶς  εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς∙   τί   διαλογίζεσθε ἐν  ταῖς  καρδίαις ὑμῶν;   23 τί ἐστιν  εὐκοπώτερον,   εἰπεῖν∙  

APPENDIX 2: A SYNOPSIS OF MATTHEW 8:1–10:4

ἀφίενταί σου   αἱ ἁμαρτίαι,   ἢ εἰπεῖν∙   ἔγειρε καὶ     περιπάτει;   6 ἵνα δὲ   εἰδῆτε ὅτι   ἐξουσίαν ἔχει   ὁ υἱὸς   τοῦ ἀνθρώπου     ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς   ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας   τότε λέγει   τῷ παραλυτικῷ∙    ἐγερθεὶς ἆρόν   σου τὴν κλίνην   καὶ ὕπαγε   εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου.   7 καὶ ἐγερθεὶς           ἀπῆλθεν εἰς   τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ.     8 ἰδόντες δὲ   οἱ ὄχλοι   ἐφοβήθησαν καὶ  ἐδόξασαν τὸν θεὸν  τὸν δόντα       ἐξουσίαν τοιαύτην   τοῖς ἀνθρώποις.    

ἀφίενταί σου   αἱ ἁμαρτίαι,   ἢ εἰπεῖν∙   ἔγειρε καὶ ἆρον   τὸν κράβαττόν   σου καὶ περιπάτει;   10 ἵνα δὲ   εἰδῆτε ὅτι   ἐξουσίαν ἔχει   ὁ υἱὸς   τοῦ ἀνθρώπου     ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας   ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς   λέγει   τῷ παραλυτικῷ∙   11 σοὶ λέγω,   ἔγειρε ἆρον   τὸν κράβαττόν σου   καὶ ὕπαγε   εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου.   12 καὶ ἠγέρθη   καὶ εὐθὺς     ἄρας   τὸν κράβαττον   ἐξῆλθεν ἔμπροσθεν  πάντων,     ὥστε ἐξίστασθαι   πάντας καὶ     δοξάζειν τὸν θεὸν      λέγοντας ὅτι   οὕτως   οὐδέποτε εἴδομεν. 

185

  ἀφέωνταί σοι   αἱ ἁμαρτίαι σου,   ἢ εἰπεῖν∙   ἔγειρε καὶ   περιπάτει;   24 ἵνα δὲ   εἰδῆτε ὅτι     ὁ υἱὸς   τοῦ ἀνθρώπου   ἐξουσίαν ἔχει   ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς   ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας   εἶπεν   τῷ παραλελυμένῳ∙   σοὶ λέγω,   ἔγειρε καὶ ἄρας   τὸ κλινίδιόν σου  πορεύου   εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου   25 καὶ   παραχρῆμα   ἀναστὰς ἐνώπιον  αὐτῶν, ἄρας ἐφ᾿   ὃ κατέκειτο,   ἀπῆλθεν εἰς   τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ  δοξάζων τὸν θεόν.   26 καὶ ἔκστασις   ἔλαβεν ἅπαντας  καὶ  ἐδόξαζον τὸν θεὸν   καὶ ἐπλήσθησαν   φόβου   λέγοντες ὅτι   εἴδομεν   παράδοξα  σήμερον.    

186

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9 Matthew 9:9–13

Mark 2:13–17

Luke 5:27–32

                  9 Καὶ παράγων   ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐκεῖθεν   εἶδεν   ἄνθρωπον     καθήμενον   ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον,  Μαθθαῖον  λεγόμενον,  καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ∙  ἀκολούθει μοι.   καὶ   ἀναστὰς   ἠκολούθησεν  αὐτῷ.   10 Καὶ ἐγένετο     αὐτοῦ ἀνακειμένου  ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ,   καὶ ἰδοὺ   πολλοὶ   τελῶναι καὶ   ἁμαρτωλοὶ  ἐλθόντες  συνανέκειντο   τῷ Ἰησοῦ   καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς   αὐτοῦ.       11 καὶ  

 

  27 Καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα  ἐξῆλθεν               καὶ     ἐθεάσατο τελώνην  ὀνόματι Λευὶν    καθήμενον   ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον,       καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ∙   ἀκολούθει μοι.   28 καὶ καταλιπὼν   πάντα ἀναστὰς  ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ.     29 Καὶ ἐποίησεν   δοχὴν μεγάλην   Λευὶς αὐτῷ   ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ   αὐτοῦ, καὶ   ἦν ὄχλος πολὺς   τελωνῶν καὶ   ἄλλων οἳ ἦσαν   μετ᾿ αὐτῶν   κατακείμενοι.             30 καὶ ἐγόγγυζον  

13 Καὶ   ἐξῆλθεν πάλιν   παρὰ τὴν  θάλασσαν∙   καὶ πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος   ἤρχετο πρὸς αὐτόν,   καὶ ἐδίδασκεν  αὐτούς.  14 Καὶ παράγων     εἶδεν   Λευὶν   τὸν τοῦ Ἁλφαίου  καθήμενον   ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον,       καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ∙  ἀκολούθει μοι.   καὶ   ἀναστὰς   ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ.    15 Καὶ γίνεται    κατακεῖσθαι αὐτὸν   ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ   αὐτοῦ, καὶ   πολλοὶ   τελῶναι καὶ   ἁμαρτωλοὶ    συνανέκειντο   τῷ Ἰησοῦ   καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς   αὐτοῦ∙ ἦσαν γὰρ   πολλοὶ καὶ   ἠκολούθουν αὐτῷ.   16 καὶ  

APPENDIX 2: A SYNOPSIS OF MATTHEW 8:1–10:4

  ἰδόντες   οἱ Φαρισαῖοι           ἔλεγον   τοῖς μαθηταῖς   αὐτοῦ∙     διὰ τί   μετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν   καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν   ἐσθίει ὁ   διδάσκαλος ὑμῶν;   12 ὁ δὲ ἀκούσας   εἶπεν∙    οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν   οἱ ἰσχύοντες   ἰατροῦ ἀλλ᾿   οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες.   13 πορευθέντες δὲ  μάθετε τί ἐστιν∙   ἔλεος θέλω καὶ   οὐ θυσίαν∙   οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον   καλέσαι δικαίους   ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς.   

Matthew 9:14–17         14 Τότε   προσέρχονται   αὐτῷ οἱ   μαθηταὶ Ἰωάννου  

187

οἱ γραμματεῖς   τῶν Φαρισαίων   ἰδόντες ὅτι     ἐσθίει μετὰ τῶν  ἁμαρτωλῶν   καὶ τελωνῶν   ἔλεγον   τοῖς μαθηταῖς  αὐτοῦ∙     ὅτι   μετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν   καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν   ἐσθίει;     17 καὶ ἀκούσας   ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει   αὐτοῖς ὅτι   οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν   οἱ ἰσχύοντες   ἰατροῦ ἀλλ᾿   οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες∙           οὐκ ἦλθον   καλέσαι δικαίους   ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς. 

  οἱ Φαρισαῖοι     καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς   αὐτῶν       πρὸς τοὺς  μαθητὰς   αὐτοῦ λέγοντες∙     διὰ τί   μετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν   καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν   ἐσθίετε   καὶ πίνετε;   31 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς   ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν   πρὸς αὐτούς∙   οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν   οἱ ὑγιαίνοντες   ἰατροῦ ἀλλὰ   οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες∙           32 οὐκ ἐλήλυθα   καλέσαι δικαίους   ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς   εἰς μετάνοιαν. 

Mark 2:18–22

Luke 5:33–39

  18 Καὶ ἦσαν οἱ   μαθηταὶ Ἰωάννου   καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι  νηστεύοντες.   καὶ ἔρχονται      

  33 Οἱ δὲ              

188

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

λέγοντες∙     διὰ τί ἡμεῖς             καὶ   οἱ   Φαρισαῖοι   νηστεύομεν πολλά,  οἱ δὲ μαθηταί σου  οὐ νηστεύουσιν;     15 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς   ὁ Ἰησοῦς∙   μὴ δύνανται   οἱ υἱοὶ   τοῦ νυμφῶνος   πενθεῖν ἐφ᾿ ὅσον   μετ᾿ αὐτῶν ἐστιν   ὁ νυμφίος;               ἐλεύσονται δὲ   ἡμέραι ὅταν   ἀπαρθῇ ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν  ὁ νυμφίος, καὶ   τότε νηστεύσουσιν.              16 οὐδεὶς δὲ  

καὶ λέγουσιν   αὐτῷ∙   διὰ τί οἱ   μαθηταὶ Ἰωάννου           καὶ   οἱ μαθηταὶ   τῶν Φαρισαίων   νηστεύουσιν,   οἱ δὲ σοὶ μαθηταὶ   οὐ νηστεύουσιν;     19 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς   ὁ Ἰησοῦς∙   μὴ δύνανται   οἱ υἱοὶ   τοῦ νυμφῶνος     ἐν ᾧ ὁ νυμφίος   μετ᾿ αὐτῶν ἐστιν  νηστεύειν;   ὅσον χρόνον   ἔχουσιν τὸν νυμφίον μετ᾿ αὐτῶν   οὐ δύνανται   νηστεύειν.   20 ἐλεύσονται δὲ   ἡμέραι ὅταν   ἀπαρθῇ ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν   ὁ νυμφίος, καὶ   τότε νηστεύσουσιν   ἐν ἐκείνῃ   τῇ ἡμέρᾳ.           21 Οὐδεὶς  

εἶπαν   πρὸς αὐτόν∙   οἱ   μαθηταὶ Ἰωάννου  νηστεύουσιν  πυκνὰ   καὶ δεήσεις   ποιοῦνται   ὁμοίως καὶ   οἱ   τῶν Φαρισαίων,     οἱ δὲ σοὶ   ἐσθίουσιν   καὶ πίνουσιν.   34 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς   εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς∙   μὴ δύνασθε   τοὺς υἱοὺς   τοῦ νυμφῶνος     ἐν ᾧ ὁ νυμφίος   μετ᾿ αὐτῶν ἐστιν   ποιῆσαι  νηστεῦσαι;             35 ἐλεύσονται δὲ   ἡμέραι, καὶ ὅταν   ἀπαρθῇ ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν   ὁ νυμφίος,   τότε νηστεύσουσιν   ἐν ἐκείναις   ταῖς ἡμέραις.   36 Ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ  παραβολὴν πρὸς   αὐτοὺς ὅτι   οὐδεὶς  

APPENDIX 2: A SYNOPSIS OF MATTHEW 8:1–10:4

ἐπιβάλλει  ἐπίβλημα  ῥάκους ἀγνάφου     ἐπὶ ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ∙          αἴρει γὰρ τὸ   πλήρωμα αὐτοῦ   ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱματίου       καὶ χεῖρον   σχίσμα γίνεται.   17 οὐδὲ βάλλουσιν    οἶνον νέον εἰς   ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς∙   εἰ δὲ μή γε,   ῥήγνυνται   οἱ ἀσκοὶ   καὶ ὁ οἶνος   ἐκχεῖται καὶ οἱ   ἀσκοὶ ἀπόλλυνται∙   ἀλλὰ βάλλουσιν   οἶνον νέον εἰς   ἀσκοὺς καινούς,   καὶ ἀμφότεροι  συντηροῦνται.            

Matthew 9:18–26      

ἐπίβλημα   ῥάκους ἀγνάφου  ἐπιράπτει   ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον   παλαιόν∙   εἰ δὲ μή,         αἴρει τὸ   πλήρωμα   ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ   τὸ καινὸν   τοῦ παλαιοῦ   καὶ χεῖρον   σχίσμα γίνεται.   22 καὶ οὐδεὶς   βάλλει  οἶνον νέον εἰς   ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς∙   εἰ δὲ μή,   ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος   τοὺς ἀσκοὺς   καὶ ὁ οἶνος   ἀπόλλυται καὶ οἱ   ἀσκοί∙   ἀλλὰ   οἶνον νέον εἰς   ἀσκοὺς καινούς.                

Mark 5:21–43   21 Καὶ  διαπεράσαντος 

189

ἐπίβλημα ἀπὸ   ἱματίου καινοῦ   σχίσας ἐπιβάλλει   ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον  παλαιόν∙   εἰ δὲ μή γε,   καὶ τὸ καινὸν   σχίσει καὶ   τῷ παλαιῷ   οὐ συμφωνήσει   τὸ ἐπίβλημα τὸ   ἀπὸ τοῦ καινοῦ.           37 καὶ οὐδεὶς  βάλλει  οἶνον νέον εἰς   ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς∙   εἰ δὲ μή γε,   ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος ὁ   νέος τοὺς ἀσκοὺς   καὶ αὐτὸς   ἐκχυθήσεται καὶ οἱ   ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται∙   38 ἀλλὰ   οἶνον νέον εἰς   ἀσκοὺς καινοὺς   βλητέον.   39 καὶ οὐδεὶς   πιὼν παλαιὸν  θέλει  νέον∙ λέγει γάρ∙   ὁ παλαιὸς   χρηστός ἐστιν. 

Luke 8:40–56   40 Ἐν δὲ   τῷ ὑποστρέφειν  

190

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

                    18 Ταῦτα αὐτοῦ   λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς,   ἰδοὺ ἄρχων   εἷς ἐλθὼν               προσεκύνει αὐτῷ           λέγων   ὅτι ἡ θυγάτηρ   μου   ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν∙   ἀλλὰ ἐλθὼν   ἐπίθες   τὴν χεῖρά σου   ἐπ᾿ αὐτήν,    καὶ ζήσεται.             19 καὶ ἐγερθεὶς  

τοῦ Ἰησοῦ   ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ   πάλιν   εἰς τὸ πέραν   συνήχθη ὄχλος   πολὺς     ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν,   καὶ ἦν παρὰ   τὴν θάλασσαν.     22 Καὶ   ἔρχεται εἷς   τῶν  ἀρχισυναγώγων,  ὀνόματι Ἰάϊρος,       καὶ   ἰδὼν αὐτὸν   πίπτει   πρὸς τοὺς πόδας  αὐτοῦ   23 καὶ παρακαλεῖ  αὐτὸν πολλὰ   λέγων   ὅτι τὸ θυγάτριόν   μου   ἐσχάτως ἔχει,   ἵνα ἐλθὼν   ἐπιθῇς   τὰς χεῖρας   αὐτῇ   ἵνα σωθῇ   καὶ ζήσῃ.             24 καὶ ἀπῆλθεν 

τὸν Ἰησοῦν   ἀπεδέξατο αὐτὸν       ὁ ὄχλος∙   ἦσαν γὰρ πάντες   προσδοκῶντες  αὐτόν.         41 καὶ ἰδοὺ   ἦλθεν   ἀνὴρ   ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰάϊρος   καὶ οὗτος ἄρχων   τῆς συναγωγῆς  ὑπῆρχεν,   καὶ     πεσὼν   παρὰ τοὺς πόδας   τοῦ Ἰησοῦ   παρεκάλει   αὐτὸν           εἰσελθεῖν   εἰς τὸν οἶκον   αὐτοῦ,         42 ὅτι θυγάτηρ  μονογενὴς ἦν   αὐτῷ ὡς ἐτῶν   δώδεκα καὶ   αὐτὴ ἀπέθνῃσκεν.   Ἐν δὲ τῷ ὑπάγειν 

APPENDIX 2: A SYNOPSIS OF MATTHEW 8:1–10:4

ὁ Ἰησοῦς   ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ  καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ   αὐτοῦ.     20 Καὶ ἰδοὺ γυνὴ     αἱμορροοῦσα   δώδεκα ἔτη                             προσελθοῦσα     ὄπισθεν ἥψατο   τοῦ κρασπέδου   τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ∙   21 ἔλεγεν γὰρ   ἐν ἑαυτῇ∙   ἐὰν μόνον ἅψωμαι   τοῦ ἱματίου  αὐτοῦ σωθήσομαι.                   22 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς  

μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ.   καὶ ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ   ὄχλος πολὺς καὶ  συνέθλιβον αὐτόν.     25 Καὶ γυνὴ   οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει  αἵματος   δώδεκα ἔτη   26 καὶ πολλὰ   παθοῦσα ὑπὸ  πολλῶν  ἰατρῶν καὶ   δαπανήσασα τὰ   παρ᾿ αὐτῆς πάντα   καὶ μηδὲν  ὠφεληθεῖσα  ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον   εἰς τὸ χεῖρον  ἐλθοῦσα,  27 ἀκούσασα   περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ,  ἐλθοῦσα   ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ   ὄπισθεν ἥψατο     τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ∙   28 ἔλεγεν γὰρ     ὅτι ἐὰν ἅψωμαι   κἂν τῶν ἱματίων  αὐτοῦ σωθήσομαι.   29 καὶ εὐθὺς   ἐξηράνθη ἡ πηγὴ   τοῦ αἵματος αὐτῆς   καὶ ἔγνω   τῷ σώματι   ὅτι ἴαται   ἀπὸ τῆς μάστιγος.  30 καὶ εὐθὺς   ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐπιγνοὺς  

191

αὐτὸν     οἱ ὄχλοι   συνέπνιγον αὐτόν.     43 Καὶ γυνὴ   οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει   αἵματος   ἀπὸ ἐτῶν δώδεκα,   ἥτις ἰατροῖς   προσαναλώσασα   ὅλον τὸν βίον   οὐκ ἴσχυσεν   ἀπ᾿ οὐδενὸς  θεραπευθῆναι,                 44 προσελθοῦσα    ὄπισθεν ἥψατο   τοῦ κρασπέδου   τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ             καὶ παραχρῆμα   ἔστη ἡ ῥύσις   τοῦ αἵματος αὐτῆς.           45 καὶ εἶπεν   ὁ Ἰησοῦς∙  

192

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

        στραφεὶς                                     καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὴν                                      

ἐν ἑαυτῷ   τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ  δύναμιν   ἐξελθοῦσαν   ἐπιστραφεὶς   ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ   ἔλεγεν∙   τίς μου ἥψατο   τῶν ἱματίων;       31 καὶ ἔλεγον αὐτῷ   οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ∙  βλέπεις   τὸν ὄχλον  συνθλίβοντά σε   καὶ λέγεις∙     τίς μου ἥψατο;         32 καὶ περιεβλέπετο  ἰδεῖν τὴν τοῦτο  ποιήσασαν.   33 ἡ δὲ γυνὴ  φοβηθεῖσα καὶ     τρέμουσα,   εἰδυῖα ὃ γέγονεν   αὐτῇ,   ἦλθεν καὶ   προσέπεσεν  αὐτῷ       καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ      πᾶσαν τὴν  ἀλήθειαν.  

              τίς ὁ ἁψάμενός  μου;  ἀρνουμένων   δὲ πάντων   εἶπεν   ὁ Πέτρος∙   ἐπιστάτα,   οἱ ὄχλοι   συνέχουσίν σε   καὶ ἀποθλίβουσιν.   46 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς  εἶπεν∙ ἥψατό μού  τις, ἐγὼ γὰρ ἔγνων  δύναμιν ἐξελη‐ λυθυῖαν ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ.         47 ἰδοῦσα δὲ ἡ  γυνὴ   ὅτι οὐκ ἔλαθεν,  τρέμουσα       ἦλθεν καὶ  προσπεσοῦσα   αὐτῷ   δι᾿ ἣν αἰτίαν   ἥψατο αὐτοῦ   ἀπήγγειλεν  ἐνώπιον  παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ  καὶ ὡς ἰάθη  παραχρῆμα.  

APPENDIX 2: A SYNOPSIS OF MATTHEW 8:1–10:4

εἶπεν∙   θάρσει,   θύγατερ∙   ἡ πίστις σου   σέσωκέν σε.           καὶ ἐσώθη ἡ γυνὴ   ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας   ἐκείνης.                                                           

34 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῇ∙    θυγάτηρ,   ἡ πίστις σου   σέσωκέν σε∙   ὕπαγε εἰς   εἰρήνην   καὶ ἴσθι ὑγιὴς ἀπὸ  τῆς μάστιγός σου.         35 Ἔτι αὐτοῦ   λαλοῦντος ἔρχονται  ἀπὸ   τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου  λέγοντες ὅτι   ἡ θυγάτηρ σου  ἀπέθανεν∙   τί ἔτι σκύλλεις   τὸν διδάσκαλον;   36 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς  παρακούσας   τὸν λόγον   λαλούμενον   λέγει   τῷ ἀρχισυναγώγῳ∙  μὴ φοβοῦ,   μόνον πίστευε.     37 καὶ     οὐκ ἀφῆκεν   οὐδένα   μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ  συνακολουθῆσαι   εἰ μὴ τὸν Πέτρον   καὶ Ἰάκωβον   καὶ Ἰωάννην   τὸν ἀδελφὸν  Ἰακώβου.  

193

48 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῇ∙     θυγάτηρ,   ἡ πίστις σου   σέσωκέν σε∙   πορεύου εἰς  εἰρήνην.              49 Ἔτι αὐτοῦ   λαλοῦντος ἔρχεταί   τις παρὰ τοῦ  ἀρχισυναγώγου   λέγων ὅτι   τέθνηκεν   ἡ θυγάτηρ σου∙   μηκέτι σκύλλε   τὸν διδάσκαλον.   50 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς   ἀκούσας ἀπεκρίθη         αὐτῷ∙   μὴ φοβοῦ,   μόνον πίστευσον,   καὶ σωθήσεται.   51 ἐλθὼν δὲ   εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν  οὐκ ἀφῆκεν   εἰσελθεῖν τινα   σὺν αὐτῷ     εἰ μὴ Πέτρον   καὶ Ἰωάννην   καὶ Ἰάκωβον      

194

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

      23 Καὶ ἐλθὼν   ὁ Ἰησοῦς   εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν   τοῦ ἄρχοντος   καὶ ἰδὼν   τοὺς αὐλητὰς   καὶ τὸν ὄχλον  θορυβούμενον             24 ἔλεγεν∙   ἀναχωρεῖτε,       οὐ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν   τὸ κοράσιον   ἀλλὰ καθεύδει.     καὶ κατεγέλων   αὐτοῦ.       25 ὅτε δὲ ἐξεβλήθη   ὁ ὄχλος               εἰσελθὼν       ἐκράτησεν   τῆς χειρὸς  

      38 καὶ ἔρχονται     εἰς τὸν οἶκον   τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου,  καὶ θεωρεῖ       θόρυβον   καὶ κλαίοντας   καὶ ἀλαλάζοντας  πολλά,     39 καὶ εἰσελθὼν   λέγει αὐτοῖς∙   τί θορυβεῖσθε   καὶ κλαίετε;   τὸ παιδίον   οὐκ ἀπέθανεν     ἀλλὰ καθεύδει.     40 καὶ κατεγέλων  αὐτοῦ.       αὐτὸς δὲ   ἐκβαλὼν πάντας  παραλαμβάνει   τὸν πατέρα   τοῦ παιδίου   καὶ τὴν μητέρα   καὶ τοὺς   μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ   καὶ εἰσπορεύεται   ὅπου ἦν τὸ παιδίον.     41 καὶ κρατήσας   τῆς χειρὸς  

καὶ τὸν πατέρα   τῆς παιδὸς   καὶ τὴν μητέρα.                   52 ἔκλαιον   δὲ πάντες   καὶ ἐκόπτοντο  αὐτήν.     ὁ δὲ εἶπεν∙     μὴ κλαίετε,     οὐ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν     ἀλλὰ καθεύδει.     53 καὶ κατεγέλων  αὐτοῦ   εἰδότες   ὅτι ἀπέθανεν.                       54 αὐτὸς   δὲ κρατήσας   τῆς χειρὸς  

APPENDIX 2: A SYNOPSIS OF MATTHEW 8:1–10:4

αὐτῆς,                     καὶ ἠγέρθη     τὸ κοράσιον.                                       26 καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἡ  φήμη αὕτη εἰς ὅλην  τὴν γῆν ἐκείνην.  

Matthew 9:27–31        

τοῦ παιδίου   λέγει αὐτῇ∙   ταλιθα κουμ, ὅ ἐστιν  μεθερμηνευόμενον∙   τὸ κοράσιον,   σοὶ λέγω,   ἔγειρε.   42 καὶ εὐθὺς       ἀνέστη     τὸ κοράσιον   καὶ περιεπάτει∙   ἦν γὰρ   ἐτῶν δώδεκα.   καὶ ἐξέστησαν   εὐθὺς   ἐκστάσει μεγάλῃ.   43 καὶ διεστείλατο  αὐτοῖς   πολλὰ ἵνα μηδεὶς   γνοῖ τοῦτο,   καὶ εἶπεν  δοθῆναι αὐτῇ   φαγεῖν. 

Matthew 20:29–34      

αὐτῆς   ἐφώνησεν λέγων∙       ἡ παῖς,     ἔγειρε.   55 καὶ   ἐπέστρεψεν   τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτῆς   καὶ ἀνέστη   παραχρῆμα                         καὶ διέταξεν   αὐτῇ δοθῆναι   φαγεῖν.   56 καὶ ἐξέστησαν   οἱ γονεῖς αὐτῆς∙   ὁ δὲ παρήγγειλεν  αὐτοῖς μηδενὶ   εἰπεῖν τὸ γεγονός.   

Mark 10:46–52   46 Καὶ   ἔρχονται    

195

Luke 18:35–43   35 Ἐγένετο δὲ  ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν  αὐτὸν  

196

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

  27 Καὶ  παράγοντι   ἐκεῖθεν τῷ  Ἰησοῦ  ἠκολούθησαν  αὐτῷ      δύο τυφλοὶ                                     κράζοντες καὶ  λέγοντες∙   ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς,   υἱὸς Δαυίδ.                      

  29 Καὶ ἐκπο‐ ρευομένων  αὐτῶν ἀπὸ  Ἰεριχὼ   ἠκολούθησεν  αὐτῷ  ὄχλος πολύς.   30 καὶ ἰδοὺ   δύο τυφλοὶ   καθήμενοι   παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν         ἀκούσαντες               ὅτι   Ἰησοῦς     παράγει,   ἔκραξαν   λέγοντες∙   ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς,  κύριε, υἱὸς  Δαυίδ.   31 ὁ δὲ ὄχλος    ἐπετίμησεν  αὐτοῖς   ἵνα  σιωπήσωσιν∙   οἱ δὲ   μεῖζον    

εἰς Ἰεριχώ.   Καὶ ἐκπορευο‐ μένου  αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ  Ἰεριχὼ   καὶ τῶν  μαθητῶν  αὐτοῦ καὶ   ὄχλου ἱκανοῦ   ὁ υἱὸς Τιμαίου  Βαρτιμαῖος,  τυφλὸς  προσαίτης,  ἐκάθητο παρὰ  τὴν ὁδόν.   47 καὶ  ἀκούσας               ὅτι   Ἰησοῦς   ὁ Ναζαρηνός   ἐστιν ἤρξατο   κράζειν   καὶ λέγειν∙   υἱὲ Δαυὶδ  Ἰησοῦ,   ἐλέησόν με.   48 καὶ     ἐπετίμων  αὐτῷ   πολλοὶ ἵνα  σιωπήσῃ∙   ὁ δὲ   πολλῷ   μᾶλλον 

εἰς Ἰεριχὼ                   τυφλός τις   ἐκάθητο   παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν  ἐπαιτῶν.         36 ἀκούσας δὲ  ὄχλου δια‐ πορευομένου  ἐπυνθάνετο τί   εἴη τοῦτο.   37 ἀπήγ‐ γειλαν δὲ  αὐτῷ ὅτι  Ἰησοῦς   ὁ Ναζωραῖος   παρέρχεται.   38 καὶ ἐβόησεν   λέγων∙   Ἰησοῦ υἱὲ  Δαυίδ,  ἐλέησόν με.   39 καὶ οἱ  προάγοντες  ἐπετίμων  αὐτῷ   ἵνα   σιγήσῃ,   αὐτὸς δὲ  πολλῷ  μᾶλλον 

APPENDIX 2: A SYNOPSIS OF MATTHEW 8:1–10:4

          28 ἐλθόντι δὲ   εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν                    προσῆλθον  αὐτῷ   οἱ τυφλοί,             καὶ λέγει  αὐτοῖς  ὁ Ἰησοῦς∙  πιστεύετε  ὅτι δύναμαι  τοῦτο ποιῆσαι;  λέγουσιν  αὐτῷ∙ ναὶ  κύριε.         29 τότε ἥψατο   τῶν  ὀφθαλμῶν  αὐτῶν  λέγων∙ κατὰ  

ἔκραξαν  λέγοντες∙   ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς,  κύριε, υἱὸς  Δαυίδ.   32 καὶ στὰς   ὁ Ἰησοῦς   ἐφώνησεν     αὐτοὺς                               καὶ     εἶπεν∙   τί θέλετε   ποιήσω ὑμῖν;     33 λέγουσιν  αὐτῷ∙  κύριε, ἵνα   ἀνοιγῶσιν οἱ   ὀφθαλμοὶ  ἡμῶν.   34 σπλαγ‐ χνισθεὶς δὲ   ὁ Ἰησοῦς   ἥψατο τῶν  ὀμμάτων 

ἔκραζεν∙   υἱὲ Δαυίδ,   ἐλέησόν με.       49 καὶ στὰς   ὁ Ἰησοῦς  εἶπεν∙  φωνήσατε  αὐτόν.   καὶ φωνοῦσιν   τὸν τυφλὸν   λέγοντες  αὐτῷ∙  θάρσει, ἔγειρε,  φωνεῖ σε.   50 ὁ δὲ  ἀποβαλὼν   τὸ ἱμάτιον  αὐτοῦ  ἀναπηδήσας  ἦλθεν  πρὸς τὸν  Ἰησοῦν.   51 καὶ  ἀποκριθεὶς  αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς  εἶπεν∙   τί σοι   θέλεις  ποιήσω;   ὁ δὲ τυφλὸς   εἶπεν αὐτῷ∙   ῥαββουνί, ἵνα  ἀναβλέψω.     52 καὶ   ὁ Ἰησοῦς        

197

ἔκραζεν∙   υἱὲ Δαυίδ,   ἐλέησόν με.       40 σταθεὶς δὲ   ὁ Ἰησοῦς  ἐκέλευσεν    αὐτὸν                           ἀχθῆναι   πρὸς αὐτόν.  ἐγγίσαντος δὲ  αὐτοῦ  ἐπηρώτησεν   αὐτόν∙   41 τί σοι   θέλεις  ποιήσω;   ὁ δὲ   εἶπεν∙   κύριε, ἵνα   ἀναβλέψω.     42 καὶ   ὁ Ἰησοῦς        

198

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

τὴν πίστιν  ὑμῶν   γενηθήτω  ὑμῖν.   30 καὶ  ἠνεῴχθησαν   αὐτῶν οἱ  ὀφθαλμοί.   καὶ  ἐνεβριμήθη  αὐτοῖς  ὁ Ἰησοῦς  λέγων∙   ὁρᾶτε μηδεὶς   γινωσκέτω.   31 οἱ δὲ  ἐξελθόντες  διεφήμισαν  αὐτὸν   ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ γῇ   ἐκείνῃ.  

αὐτῶν,         καὶ εὐθέως     ἀνέβλεψαν  καὶ   ἠκολούθησαν  αὐτῷ.            

εἶπεν αὐτῷ∙   ὕπαγε, ἡ  πίστις σου  σέσωκέν σε.   καὶ εὐθὺς     ἀνέβλεψεν   καὶ  ἠκολούθει  αὐτῷ   ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ.   

εἶπεν αὐτῷ∙   ἀνάβλεψον∙ ἡ  πίστις σου  σέσωκέν σε.   43 καὶ  παραχρῆμα  ἀνέβλεψεν   καὶ   ἠκολούθει  αὐτῷ   δοξάζων τὸν  θεόν.   καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς   ἰδὼν ἔδωκεν   αἶνον τῷ θεῷ.    

Matthew 9:32–34

Mark 3:22

Luke 11:14

  32 Αὐτῶν δὲ  ἐξερχομένων ἰδοὺ  προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ  ἄνθρωπον κωφὸν   δαιμονιζόμενον.   33 καὶ ἐκβληθέντος  τοῦ δαιμονίου     ἐλάλησεν ὁ κωφός.  καὶ ἐθαύμασαν   οἱ ὄχλοι λέγοντες∙  οὐδέποτε ἐφάνη   οὕτως ἐν τῷ  Ἰσραήλ.   34 οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι      

                              22 Καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς  οἱ ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων  καταβάντες  

  14 Καὶ ἦν  ἐκβάλλων  δαιμόνιον καὶ αὐτὸ   ἦν κωφόν∙     ἐγένετο δὲ   τοῦ δαιμονίου   ἐξελθόντος   ἐλάλησεν ὁ κωφὸς   καὶ ἐθαύμασαν   οἱ ὄχλοι.         15 τινὲς δὲ   ἐξ αὐτῶν    

APPENDIX 2: A SYNOPSIS OF MATTHEW 8:1–10:4

ἔλεγον∙     ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι   τῶν δαιμονίων   ἐκβάλλει τὰ  δαιμόνια. 

ἔλεγον ὅτι   Βεελζεβοὺλ ἔχει καὶ   ὅτι ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι   τῶν δαιμονίων   ἐκβάλλει τὰ  δαιμόνια.  

199

εἶπον∙   ἐν Βεελζεβοὺλ   τῷ ἄρχοντι   τῶν δαιμονίων   ἐκβάλλει τὰ  δαιμόνια∙  

Matthew 9:35–38

Mark 6:6b, 34b

Luke 13:22; 8:1b; 10:2

  35 Καὶ περιῆγεν   ὁ Ἰησοῦς   τὰς πόλεις πάσας   καὶ τὰς κώμας   διδάσκων ἐν ταῖς   συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν  καὶ       κηρύσσων   τὸ εὐαγγέλιον   τῆς βασιλείας   καὶ θεραπεύων   πᾶσαν νόσον   καὶ πᾶσαν  μαλακίαν.   36 Ἰδὼν δὲ     τοὺς ὄχλους  ἐσπλαγχνίσθη   περὶ αὐτῶν,   ὅτι ἦσαν   ἐσκυλμένοι   καὶ ἐρριμμένοι   ὡσεὶ πρόβατα   μὴ ἔχοντα ποιμένα.      37 τότε λέγει   τοῖς μαθηταῖς  αὐτοῦ∙  

  6b Καὶ περιῆγεν       τὰς κώμας κύκλῳ  διδάσκων.                         34 Καὶ ἐξελθὼν  εἶδεν  πολὺν ὄχλον καὶ  ἐσπλαγχνίσθη   ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς,   ὅτι ἦσαν       ὡς πρόβατα μὴ  ἔχοντα ποιμένα, καὶ  ἤρξατο διδάσκειν  αὐτοὺς πολλά.    

  22 Καὶ διεπορεύετο     κατὰ πόλεις   καὶ κώμας   διδάσκων     καὶ πορείαν   ποιούμενος   εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα.  8:1b κηρύσσων καὶ  εὐαγγελιζόμενος   τὴν βασιλείαν   τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ   οἱ δώδεκα   σὺν αὐτῷ.                             10:2 ἔλεγεν δὲ   πρὸς αὐτούς∙   

200

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

ὁ μὲν θερισμὸς   πολύς, οἱ δὲ  ἐργάται ὀλίγοι∙   δεήθητε οὖν   τοῦ κυρίου   τοῦ θερισμοῦ   ὅπως ἐργάτας   ἐκβάλῃ εἰς τὸν  θερισμὸν αὐτοῦ. 

ὁ μὲν θερισμὸς   πολύς, οἱ δὲ  ἐργάται ὀλίγοι∙   38 δεήθητε οὖν   τοῦ κυρίου   τοῦ θερισμοῦ   ὅπως ἐκβάλῃ   ἐργάτας εἰς τὸν  θερισμὸν αὐτοῦ.  

Matthew 10:1–4 {5:1a}

Mark 3:13–19; 6:7

Luke 6:12–16: 9:1

  1 Καὶ προσκαλεσά‐ μενος  τοὺς δώδεκα   μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ     ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς     ἐξουσίαν   πνευμάτων   ἀκαθάρτων ὥστε  ἐκβάλλειν αὐτὰ   καὶ θεραπεύειν   πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ   πᾶσαν μαλακίαν.     5:1a Ἰδὼν δὲ   τοὺς ὄχλους   ἀνέβη   εἰς τὸ ὄρος                   

  7 Καὶ προσκαλεῖται     τοὺς δώδεκα   καὶ ἤρξατο αὐτοὺς   ἀποστέλλειν δύο δύο  καὶ ἐδίδου αὐτοῖς    ἐξουσίαν   τῶν πνευμάτων   τῶν ἀκαθάρτων             13 Καὶ     ἀναβαίνει   εἰς τὸ ὄρος           καὶ   προσκαλεῖται        

  9:1 Συγκαλεσά‐ μενος δὲ  τοὺς δώδεκα       ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς   δύναμιν καὶ   ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ  πάντα   τὰ δαιμόνια     καὶ νόσους   θεραπεύειν       6:12   Ἐγένετο δὲ   ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις   ταύταις ἐξελθεῖν   αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ ὄρος  προσεύξασθαι, καὶ   ἦν διανυκτερεύων   ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ   τοῦ θεοῦ.   13 καὶ ὅτε ἐγένετο  ἡμέρα, προσεφώ‐ νησεν τοὺς  μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ,  καὶ ἐκλεξάμενος  

APPENDIX 2: A SYNOPSIS OF MATTHEW 8:1–10:4

        10:2 Τῶν δὲ   δώδεκα ἀποστόλων  τὰ ὀνόματά   ἐστιν ταῦτα∙                 πρῶτος Σίμων ὁ  λεγόμενος Πέτρος   καὶ Ἀνδρέας   ὁ ἀδελφὸς   αὐτοῦ,   καὶ Ἰάκωβος   ὁ τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου   καὶ Ἰωάννης ὁ   ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ,             3 Φίλιππος   καὶ Βαρθολομαῖος,  Θωμᾶς   καὶ Μαθθαῖος   ὁ τελώνης,   Ἰάκωβος ὁ   τοῦ Ἁλφαίου   καὶ Θαδδαῖος,   4 Σίμων ὁ   Καναναῖος      

οὓς ἤθελεν αὐτός,   καὶ ἀπῆλθον   πρὸς αὐτόν.   14 καὶ ἐποίησεν   δώδεκα, οὓς καὶ  ἀποστόλους  ὠνόμασεν  ἵνα ὦσιν μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ   καὶ ἵνα ἀποστέλλῃ  αὐτοὺς κηρύσσειν   15 καὶ ἔχειν   ἐξουσίαν ἐκβάλλειν   τὰ δαιμόνια∙   16 καὶ ἐποίησεν   τοὺς δώδεκα,   καὶ ἐπέθηκεν ὄνομα  τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρον,         17 καὶ Ἰάκωβον   τὸν τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου   καὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν  ἀδελφὸν τοῦ  Ἰακώβου καὶ  ἐπέθηκεν αὐτοῖς  ὀνόματα βοανηργές,  ὅ ἐστιν υἱοὶ βροντῆς∙  18 Καὶ Ἀνδρέαν   καὶ Φίλιππον   καὶ Βαρθολομαῖον   καὶ Μαθθαῖον   καὶ Θωμᾶν     καὶ Ἰάκωβον τὸν   τοῦ Ἁλφαίου   καὶ Θαδδαῖον   καὶ Σίμωνα τὸν  Καναναῖον      

201

      ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν   δώδεκα, οὓς καὶ  ἀποστόλους  ὠνόμασεν∙                  14 Σίμωνα ὃν καὶ  ὠνόμασεν Πέτρον,   καὶ Ἀνδρέαν   τὸν ἀδελφὸν  αὐτοῦ,   καὶ Ἰάκωβον     καὶ Ἰωάννην               καὶ Φίλιππον   καὶ Βαρθολομαῖον   15 καὶ Μαθθαῖον   καὶ Θωμᾶν     καὶ Ἰάκωβον   Ἁλφαίου     καὶ Σίμωνα τὸν  καλούμενον  ζηλωτὴν    

202

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

καὶ Ἰούδας ὁ   Ἰσκαριώτης ὁ καὶ  παραδοὺς αὐτόν.  

19 καὶ Ἰούδαν   Ἰσκαριώθ, ὃς καὶ  παρέδωκεν αὐτόν.  

16 καὶ Ἰούδαν   Ἰακώβου   καὶ Ἰούδαν   Ἰσκαριώθ, ὃς   ἐγένετο προδότης.  

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Achtemeier, P. J. “Omne verbum sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity.” JBL 109 (1990): 3–27. Aland, K. Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1970. Allen, L. C. Ezekiel 20–48. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 29. Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1990. Allen, W. C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. ICC. Edinburgh: Clark, 1912. Allison, D. C. The End of the Ages Has Come. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. ________. “Jesus and Moses (Mt 5:1–2).” ExpT 98 (1987): 203– 205. ________. “The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount.” JBL 106 (1987): 423–45. ________. “The Son of God as Israel: A Note on Matthean Christology.” IBS 9 (1987): 74–81. ________. “Two Notes on a Key Text: Matthew 11:25–30.” JTS 39 (1988): 472–80. ________. “Who will come from East and West? Observations on Matt. 8.11–12 = Luke 13.28–29.” IBS 11 (1989): 158–70. ________ . “The Baptism of Jesus and a New Dead Sea Scroll.” BAR 18 (1992): 58–60. ________ . “Matthew: Structure, Biographical Impulse, and the Imitatio Christi,” in The Four Gospels. Edited by C. M. Tuckett et al. BETL 100; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992, Vol. 2, 1203–21. ________. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Alter, R. The Pleasures of Reading in an Ideological Age. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989. 203

204

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

Anderson, A. The Book of Psalms. 2 Vols. Great Britain: Purnell & Sons Ltd., 1972. Anderson, B. W. “Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage. Edited by B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962, 177–195. Aytoun, R. A. “The Servant of the Lord in the Targum.” JTS 23 (1922): 172–80. Bacon, B. W. “The ‘Five Books’ of Matthew against the Jews.” Expositor 15.8 (1918): 56–66. ________. The Story of Jesus and the Beginnings of the Church. New York Press, 1927. ________. Studies in Matthew. London: Henry Holt, 1930. Baeck, L. This People Israel: The Meaning of Jewish Existence. Translated by Albert H. Friedlander. New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1964. Baldwin, J. “Mal 1:11 and the Worship of the Nations in the Old Testament.” TynBul 23 (1972): 117–124. Baltzer, K. Deutero-Isaiah. Hermeneia. Translated by M. Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. Barnett, P. W. “The Jewish Sign Prophets: A.D. 40–70.” NTS 27 (1981): 679–697. Bauckham, R. The Gospels for All Christians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992. Beare, F. W. The Gospel According to Matthew. Oxford: Blackwell, 1981. Betz, O. “Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus,” in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Edited by L. H. Feldman and Goher Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University, 1987, 212–235. Blenkinsopp, J. Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins. Notre Dame: University Press, 1977. ________. Ezekiel. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990. Blomberg, C. “The Miracles as Parables,” in Gospel Perspectives 6: The Miracles of Jesus. Edited by D. Wenham and C. Blomberg. Sheffield: JSOT, 1986, 327–59. Bock, D. L. Blasphemy in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus: A Philological-Historical Study of the Key Jewish Themes Impacting Mark 14:61–64. Wissenschaftlighe Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. 2 Reihe, 106. Tubingen: Mohr, 1998.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

205

Bornkamm, G. “The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew,” in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew. Edited by Gerhard Barth, Heinz Joachim Held. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 52–57. ________. “Der Aufbau der Bergpredict.” NTS 24 (1978): 419– 432. Boucher, M. The Mysterious Parable. CBQMS 6. Washington: Catholic Biblical Commission, 1977. Bourke, M. M. “The Literary Genus of Matthew 1–2.” CBQ 22 (1960): 160–175. Brown, R. E. “The Messianism of Qumran.” CBQ 19 (1957): 53– 82. ________. The Gospel According to John (i–xii). 2 Vols. Anchor Bible 29. Garden City: Doubleday, 1970. ________. “Jesus and Elisha.” Perspective 12 (1971): 85–104. ________. The Birth of the Messiah. Garden City: Doubleday, 1977. Bruggemann, W. “The Exodus Narrative as Israel’s Articulation of Faith Development,” in Hope Within History. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1987, 7–26. ________. Isaiah 40–66. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998. Bultmann, R. History of the Synoptic Tradition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963. ________. Evangelium des Johannes. English. Translated by G. R. Beasley-Murray; general editor, R. W. N. Hoare and J. K. Riches. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971. Burridge, R. A. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Greco-Roman Biography. SNTSMS 70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Carlson, R.A. “Élie à l’Horeb.” VT 19 (1969): 432–435. Carr, A. The Gospel According to Matthew. Cambridge: University Press, 1896. Carroll, R. P. “The Elijah-Elisha Sagas: Some Remarks on Prophetic Succession in Ancient Israel.” VT 19 (1969): 400– 415. Carson, D. A. Matthew. Vol. 8, 1–599. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by F. E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1984. ________. Showing the Spirit. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1987.

206

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

Cave, C. H. “The Obedience of Unclean Spirits.” NTS 11 (1965): 93–97. Ceresko, A. R. “The Rhetorical Strategy of the Fourth Servant Song (Is 52:13–53:12): Poetry and the New Exodus.” CBQ 56 (1994): 42–55. Chavasse, C. “The Suffering Servant and Moses.” Church Quarterly Review 165 (1964): 152–63. Childs, B. The Book of Exodus. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974. ________. Isaiah. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. Chilton, B. The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes ArB 11. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clarke, 1987. Clements, R. E. “Isaiah and the Restoration of Israel,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant. Edited by W. H. Bellinger Jr. and W. R. Farmer. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1998, 39–54. Coats, G. W. “Metanoia in Ancient Israel: Clues for Unity and Change.” Midstream 23 (1984): 185–188. ________. “Healing and the Moses Traditions,” in Canon, Theology and Old Testament Interpretation. Edited by G. M. Tucker et al. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988, 132–143. ________. Moses: Heroic Man, Man of God. JSOTSup 57. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1988. Cook, J. G. “In Defense of Ambiguity: Is There a Hidden Demon in Mark 1.29–31?” NTS 43 (1997): 184–208. Craigie, P. C. Deuteronomy. NICOT. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1976. Cross, F. M. Canannite Myth and Hebrew Epoch. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard, 1973. Davies, W. D. Setting of the Sermon on the Mount. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1964. Davies, W. D., and D. C. Allison, The Gospel According to Matthew. International Critical Commentary, Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988. ________. The Gospel According to Matthew. International Critical Commentary, Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. ________. The Gospel According to Matthew. International Critical Commentary, Vol. 3. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

207

Derrett, J. D. M. “Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Demoniac.” JSNT 3(1972): 2–17. ________. “Mark’s Technique: The Hemorrhaging Woman and Jairus’ Daughter.” Bib 63 (1982): 474–505. Di Lella, A. A. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. New York: Doubleday, 1987. ________. “The Wisdom of Ben-Sira,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol 6. Edited by David Noel Freedman. London: Doubleday, 1990, 931–945. Donaldson, T. L. Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Typology. JSNTSS 8: Sheffield: Academic Press, 1985. Driver, S. R. Isaiah: His Life and Times. New York: Anson D. F. Randolph & Co., 1887. ________. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1916. Driver, S. R. and A. Neubauer, The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters. New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1969. Eichrodt, W. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970. Euler, K. F. Die Verkündigung vom leidenden Gottesknecht aus Jes. 53 in der Griechischen Bibel, BWANT 4/14. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1934. Farrer, A. M. “The Ministry in the New Testament,” in The Apostolic Ministry. Edited by K. E. Kirk. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1946, 113–182. ________. St. Matthew and St. Mark. Westminster: Dacre Press, 1954. Fenton, J. C, Saint Matthew. Baltimore: Penguin, 1963. Feuillet, A. “Les perspectives propres à chaque évangéliste dans les récits de la transfiguration.” Biblica 39.3 (1958): 281–301. Fishbane, M. “The ‘Exodus’ Motif/The Paradigm of Historical Renewal,” in Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts. Edited by K. Knight. New York: Schocken Books, 1979, 121–140. ________. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Flynn, Elisabeth. “Moses in the Visual Arts.” Interpretation 44 (1990): 265–76.

208

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

Fuller, R. H. “The Mission and Achievement of Jesus,” in Studies in Biblical Theology 12.63 (1956): 143–144. Gager, J. G. Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism, JBLMS XVI. New York: Abingdon Press, 1972. Ginzberg, L. The Legends of the Jews. 6 Vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1942. ________. “The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant.” VT 3 (1953): 400–404. ________. Legends of the Bible. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1956. Godet, F. L. Introduction to the New Testament: The Collection of the Four Gospels and the Gospel of Saint Matthew. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899. Goulder, M. Type and History in Acts. London: SPCK, 1964. ________. Midrash and Lection in Matthew. London: SPCK, 1974. Gundry, R. H. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel with Special Reference to the Messianic Hope. Leiden: Brill, 1967. ________. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982. Green, J. Jesus and Moses: The Parallel Sayings. Berkeley, California: Seastone, 2002. Greenberg, M. “Exodus,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica. The Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem: Macmillan, 1971 13.603–613. Hagner, D. A. Matthew 1–13. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 33a. Dallas, Texas: Word Book Publisher, 1993. Hahn, F. Christologische Hoheitstitel; Ihre Geschichte im früen Christentum. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, LXXXIII. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. Harris III, W. H. The Descent of Christ: Ephesians 4:7–11 and Traditional Hebrew Imagery. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Hanson, P. D. “The World of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 40– 55,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant. Edited by W. H. Bellinger Jr. and W. R. Farmer. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1998, 9–22. Heffernan, D. A. The Australian Biology Dictionary. Malaysia: Longman Cheshire, 1993. Heil, J. P. Jesus Walking on the Sea. Analecta Biblica Vol 87. Romae: E Pontifico Instituto Biblico, 1981.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

209

Hengel, M. The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod 1 until 70 A.D. Translated by D. Smith. Edingurgh: Edinburgh Press, 1989. Hill, D. The Gospel of Matthew. The New Century Bible Commentry. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981. Hillers, D. R. Lamentations. Anchor Bible 7a. New York:Doubleday, 1992. Horbury, W. “The Twelve Phylarchs.” New Testament Studies Vol 32 (1982): 503–27. Howard, J. K. Disease and Healing in the New Testament. New York: University Press of America, 2001. Hugenberger, G. P. “The Servant of the Lord in the ‘Servant Songs’ of Isaiah: A Second Moses Figure,” in The Lord’s Annointed. Edited by P. E. Satterthwaite, R. S. Hess and G. J. Wenham. Michigan: Paternoster, 1995, 105–140. Hurtado, L. W. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Jacobson, H. A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquarium Biblicarum. 2 Vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996. Jeeves, M. A. Human Nature and the Millenium: Reflections on the Integration of Psychology and Christianity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1997. Jeremias, G. Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit. SUNT 2. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. Kastner, J. M. Moses im Neuen Testament. Münich: LudwigMaximillians-Universität, 1967. Keesmaat, S. C. Paul and His Story: (Re)Interpreting the Exodus Tradition. JSNTSS 181. England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Kenedy, J. An Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928. Kilpatrick, G. D. The Origins of the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Oxford: University Press, 1946. King, P. A. “Matthew and Epiphany.” Worship 36 (1962): 89–95. Kingsbury, J. Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. ________. Matthew. Proclamation Commentary. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.

210

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

Klausner, J. The Messianic Idea in Israel. Translated by W. F. Stieespring. New York: Macmillan, 1955. Krause, H. J. Worship in Israel. Oxford: University Press, 1966. ________. Psalms 60–150. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Kruse, C. G. “The Servant Songs: Interpretive Trends since C. R. North.” Studia Biblica et Theologica 8.1 (1978): 3–27. Lagrange, M. J. Evangile selon saint Matthieu, 7th ed. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1948. Latourelle, R. The Miracles of Jesus and the Theology of Miracles. Translated by M. J. O’Connell. New York: Paulist Press, 1988. Lierman, J. The New Testament Moses: Christian Perceptions of Moses and Israel in the Setting of Jewish Religion. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Lightfoot, J. A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica: Matthew—I Corinthians. Vol. 1. William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1979. Lohr, C. H. “Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew.” CBQ 23 (1961): 403–435. Luz, U. Matthew 1–7. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985. ________. Matthew 8–20. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. Macdonald, J. The Theology of the Samaritans. London: The Westminster Press, 1964. Malcolm, N. “Wittgenstein, Ludwig Josef Johann,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by P. Edwards. London: Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc. & The Free Press, 1967, 8.327– 340. Malina, B. J., and R. L. Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1992. Manson, T. W. The Teaching of Jesus. Cambridge: University Press, 1935. McBride, S. D., “Polity of the Covenant People: The Book of Deuteronomy.” Int. 41 (1987): 229–244. McCarter, P. K. Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. McCasland, S. V. “Matthew Twists the Scriptures,” in The Right Doctrine From the Wrong Texts: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Edited by G. K. Beale. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994, 146–152.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

211

McKane, W. Proverbs. The Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press, 1970. McNeile, A. D. The Gospel According to St. Matthew. London: Macmillan, 1957. Meeks, W. A. The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and Johannine Christology. Leiden: Brill, 1967. ________. “Moses as God and King,” in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough. Edited by Jacob Neusner, SHR 14. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968, 345–371. Meier, J. P. Matthew. London: Wilmington Press, 1980. Menken, M. J. J. “The References to Jeremiah in the Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 2,17; 16,14; 17,9).” ETL 60 (1984): 5–24. ________. “The Source of the Quotation From Isaiah in Matthew 8:17.” Novum Testamentum 34 (Oct, 1997): 313–27. Metzger, B. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994. Meyer, B. F. The Church in Three Tenses. Garden City: Doubleday, 1971. ________. The Aims of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1979. Miller, P. D. “Moses My Servant: The Deuteronomic Portrait of Moses.” Int 41(1987): 245–255. ________. Deuteronomy. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1989. Milton, H. “The Structure of the Prologue to St. Matthew’s Gospel.” JBL 81 (1962): 175–181. Montefiore, C. G. Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings. London: Macmillian, 1930. Morris, L. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992. Murphy, R. E. Proverbs. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998. Nelson, R. D. First and Second Kings. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1987. Neusner, J. Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period. 2 Vols. London: Prentice Hall International, 1996. New, D. S. Old Testament Quotations in the Synoptic Gospels, and the Two Documentary Hypothesis. SBLSCS 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.

212

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

Nickelsburg G. W. E. Jewish Literature Between the Bible and The Mishnah. London: Fortress Press, 1981. Nicole, W. The Sêmeia in the Fourth Gospel. Leiden: Brill, 1972. North, C. R. The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah. An Historical and Critical Study. London: Oxford University Press, 1956. Noth, M. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated by B. W. Anderson. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1971. Oesterley, W. O. E. The Evolution of the Messianic Idea. London: London Press, 1908. ________. The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus in the Revised version with Introduction and Notes. The Cambridge Bible for schools and Colleges. Edited by A. Fkirkpatrick. Cambridge: University Press, 1912. Ogden, G. S. “Moses and Cyrus.” VT 28 (1978): 195–203. Pao, D. W. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. WUNT, 130. Siebeck: Mohr, 2000. Petersen, D.L. Zechariah 9–14 & Malachi. Old Testament Library. SCM Press, 1995. Porter, J. R. Moses and Monarchy: A Study in the Biblical Tradition of Moses. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963. Rad, G. von. Old Testament Theology, 2 Vols. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Rehm, M. “Das Opfer der Volker nach Mal 1:11,” in Lex Tua Veritas: Festschrift fur Hubert Junker. Edited by H. Gross and F. Mussner. Stuttgart: Trier Publishers, 1961, 144–235. Revetlow, H. G. “Basic Issues in the Interpretation of Isaiah 53,” In Jesus and the Suffering Servant. Edited by W. H. Bellinger Jr. and W. R. Farmer. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1998, 23–38. Richardson, A. The Miracle Stories of the Gospels. London: Morrison and Gibb Ltd, 1941. Saito, T. Die Mosevorstellungen im Neuen Testament. Europäische Hochschulschriften Series 23, Theology 100. Bern: Peter Lang, 1977. Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. London: SCM, 1985. Sanders, J. “Isaiah in Luke.” Int 36 (1982): 144–155. Sarna, M. N. Exploring Exodus. New York: Schocken, 1986. Schlatter, A. Der Evangelist Matthaus. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1948. Schoeps, H. J. Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1949.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

213

Snaith, N. H. Five Psalms (1; 27; 52; 107; 134). London: Epworth, 1938. Stendahl, K. The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. Steuernagel, C. Das Deuteronomium. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament. Göttingen, 1923. Strack, H. L., and P Billerbeck. Kommentar zum New Testament. 4 Vols. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1986. Stuhlmeuller, C. Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970. Sweeney, M. A. Isaiah 1–4 and the Post-Exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition. BZAW 171. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988. Swete, H. B. The Gospel According to St.Mark. London: Macmillan, 1902. Teeple, H. M. The Mosaic Eschatological Prophet. SBLMS 10; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature Publications, 1957. Theissen, G. Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. ________. The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Tigay, J. H. The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982. ________. Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Twelftree, G.H. Jesus: The Miracle Worker. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999. van der Loos, H. The Miracles of Jesus. Leiden: Brill, 1965. Watts, R. E. “Consolation or Confrontation? Isaiah 40–55 and the Delay of the New Exodus.” Tyndale Bulletin 41 (1990): 31–59. ________. Jesus and His Mighty Deeds. Regent College, 2002. ________. Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1997. Westermann, C. Isaiah 40–66. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1969. ________. Lamentations. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994. Whybray, R. N. Isaiah 40–66. London: Morgan and Scott, 1975. ________. Thanksgiving for a Liberated Prophet. An Interpretation of Isaiah Chapter 53. JSOTSup. 4. England: Sheffield, 1978.

214

JESUS AS ‘NEW MOSES’ IN MATTHEW 8–9

Whybray, R. N. Isaiah 40–66. The New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981. ________. The Second Isaiah. Old Testament Guides. England: JSOT Press, 1983. Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. London: SPCK, 1993. ________. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. ________. “The Servant and Jesus,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant. Edited by W. H. Bellinger Jr. and W. R. Farmer. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1998, 281–297. ________. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Young, E. J. Studies in Isaiah. London: The Tyndale Press, 1955. ________. The Book of Isaiah. 3 Vols. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.