Matthean Sets of Parables [Illustrated] 316151730X, 9783161517303

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie † (Marburg) Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)

340

Peter Yaw Oppong-Kumi

Matthean Sets of Parables

Mohr Siebeck

Peter Yaw Oppong-Kumi, born 1964; studied Philosophy and Theology; 1996 ordained priest; 2010 PhD in Tübingen; currently Chaplain and Lecturer at Catholic University College of Ghana, Fiapre.

D 21 e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-152149-2 ISBN 978-3-16-151730-3 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de © 2013 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

To my parents (†John-Paul Kwaku Nyame and Veronica Ama Kumi), my brothers and sisters and ‘everyone who does the will of God’ (Mt 12:50)

Preface

Preface

This book is a revised version of my doctoral thesis, which was presented to the Catholic Theological Faculty of the Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen in May 2010. For publishing purposes and for smoother reading, the work has been reduced and edited. A few works, which appeared after the presentation have been incorporated. I would like to thank all those without whose support and prayers this study would never have been completed. I must express my thanks to my grandmother (Elizabeth Akua Dapaah) of blessed memory, parents, brothers and sisters for their love and support and especially for their sacrifices and the opportunities given to me. I acknowledge with gratitude to †Most Rev. James Kwadwo Owusu, who arranged for me through Prof. Dr. Peter Hünermann (emeritus) to study at Tübingen University. I am highly indebted to my current Bishop, Most Rev. Dr. Matthew Kwasi Gyamfi for supporting and encouraging me through this study. I owe much gratitude to Msgr. Dr. Seth Osei-Agyemang and Msgr. Dr. George Kwame Kumi who have been very instrumental in my life. My sincerest gratitude goes to Prof. Dr. Michael Theobald (Department of New Testament, Tübingen) for the scholarly manner in which he moderated this dissertation; his fatherly care and support was a great source of encouragement. I must say, I was in many ways privileged to study under such a fine scholar and I thank him in a special way for his contribution to my life and career. I hereby express my profound gratitude to his wife Maria Theobald and children (Johannes and Markus) for their friendliness and assistance. To Prof. Dr. Walter Groß, Prof. Dr. Ottmar Fuchs, Prof. Dr. Bernd Jochen Hilberath I owe a debt of gratitude for their various contributions. I thank Dr. Christoph Schäfer (assistant of Prof. Theobald), Prof. Dr. Hans-Ulrich Weidemann of the University of Siegen, Prof. Dr. Wilfried Eisele of the University of Münster, Dr. Sandra Hübenthal, Dr. Adrian Wypadlo and all the student colleagues of the department of New Testament for their advice and contributions during our regular seminars. Writing a dissertation also involves a debt to authors of numerous publications one has read through the years. To such scholars (especially Prof. Dr. Ulrich Luz) I say thank you. I would like to express my sincerest thanks to Prof. Dr. Hans-Josef Klauck, Prof. Dr. Jörg Frey (first editors) and Dr. Henning Ziebritzki (the-

VIII

Preface

ology editor at Mohr Siebeck) for accepting this work in the second series of the Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament (WUNT II). Many thanks also to Bettina Gade (production manager) and the staff of the publishing house Mohr Siebeck for their excellent work. Great friends are always a great source of encouragement in such an endeavour. To you, Paul Agyei, John Effah-Awiti, Nicholas Kwame Afriyie, Grace Adwoa Ampomah Fokuo (Okuo), Ignatia Safoaa Boabeng, Christiana Akoeso, Dr. Simon Kofi Appiah, Gabriel Kofi Dente, Dr. Robert Charles Snyper, Dr. George K. A. Bonnah, Dr. Gerald Tanye, James Afoakwah, Anthony Kofi Sackey, Augustine Oppong-Tabiri, Margret Schäfer-Krebs, Evelyn Appiah-Kubi and many other friends out there, I express my sincerest gratitude. Many thanks to Anthony Kofi Sackey for reading through parts of the script and Nicole Martinson who proofread the entire work at its early stage. I thank in a special way Dr. Claus-Jürgen Thornton, who finally read through the work with meticulous care. I thank the Diocese of Rottenburg-Stuttgart warmly for offering me ardent support and a cordial atmosphere that enabled me pursue my studies. My work in various parishes in the Diocese of Rottenburg-Stuttgart brought me into contact with many great men and women. To the priests (Michael Holl, Kilian Höhnle and Hubert Rother), to the parishioners of the parishes and stations (Mulfingen, Kiebingen, Mössingen, Bodelshausen, Dußlingen and Gomaringen) where I served as a priest during my study, I say thank you for your moral support. You have been fantastic! In a special way, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my benefactors for giving me a home away from home: †Irmgard Wellhäuser, Maria and Georg Stopper, Maria and Eberhard Becker, Otto Bold, Anna Kraft, Eva Förstner, †Theresia Hammel, Maria and Raimund Kirschniak, Anne and Gerhard Sturm, Peter Stadler, Karl Heinz Herbst, Maria and Gottfried Mayer, †Maria Weiß, Gertrud Fuchs, Andreas Becker, Stefan Becker, Berthold Müller, and Tobias Müller. In many ways, you have been more than friends; you have been parents, sisters and brothers to me! Finally, I thank in a special way the Salesians of Don Bosco in Bonn and Essen-Borbeck who gave me the foundation to enable me to stay and study in Germany. There are many others to whom I am deeply indebted who cannot be mentioned here due to space. I thank each one of you! Although I drew immensely on the experience of others while writing this dissertation, I take full responsibility of all the mistakes and views expressed in this work. Preface

Tübingen, 13 September 2011

Peter Yaw Oppong-Kumi

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Preface .................................................................................... VII Abbreviations......................................................................... XIII Chapter 1: Critical Questions ..................................................... 1 A. Introduction........................................................................................1 B. Matthew’s Sets of Parables: Strategic or Jumbled Thoughts?..............2 C. Matthew: the Grammateu,j ...................................................................4 D. Parable Theory: Does Matthew Have One? ........................................6 E. Conclusion........................................................................................ 12

Chapter 2: The Methodology ................................................... 13 A. Introduction...................................................................................... 13 B. Rhetorical Criticism ......................................................................... 15 C. Narrative Criticism ........................................................................... 17 D. Our Method of Interpretation............................................................ 20 E. Status Quaestionis ............................................................................ 21 F. Conclusion........................................................................................ 26

Chapter 3: Matthewʼs Sets of Parables: Strategy and Theory ... 27 A. Introduction...................................................................................... 27 B. The Parable Sets as a Rhetorical Argument and as a Story................ 27 I. Rhetorical Features in Matthew’s Sets of Parables........................... 28 II. Matthean Parabolic Compositions as a Story .................................. 34 III. The Matthean parabolh,, ................................................................ 35 C. Matthew’s Parable Theory................................................................ 37 I. What Constitutes Matthew’s Parable Theory?.................................. 37 II. The Layout of Matthew’s Parable Theory....................................... 39 III. The Situation of the Crowd/Disciples and the Reasons for It ......... 43

X

Table of Contents

IV. The Nature of Matthew’s Parable Theory...................................... 45 V. The Characteristics of Matthew’s Parable Theory .......................... 46 VI. The Structure of Matthew’s Parable Theory.................................. 53 VII. The Difference Between Mark’s and Matthew’s Parable Theories59 VIII. Reasons for Matthew’s Parabolic Speech ................................... 64 IX. The Purpose of Matthew’s Parables .............................................. 66 D. Conclusion ....................................................................................... 67 Table of Contents

Chapter 4: Israel’s Response to the Dawning Kingdom of Heaven..................................................................................... 69 A. Introduction...................................................................................... 69 B. Synchronic Analysis ......................................................................... 69 I. Context Analysis ............................................................................. 69 II. The Structure of Mt 13 ................................................................... 91 III. The Structure of the Main Discourse (13:3–52)............................. 99 C. Diachronic Analysis of Mt 13 ......................................................... 117 D. The Main Message of the Composition .......................................... 124 E. The Narrative and Rhetorical Function of Mt 13 ............................. 131 F. Conclusion...................................................................................... 132

Chapter 5: The Mustard Seed and the Hidden Treasure as Sample Parables ..................................................................... 135 A. Introduction.................................................................................... 135 B. The Parable of the Mustard Seed .................................................... 135 I. Synchronic Analysis ...................................................................... 136 II. Diachronic Analysis of the Mustard Seed..................................... 156 III. Interpretation of the Mustard Seed .............................................. 159 C. The Parable of the Hidden Treasure ............................................... 164 I. Synchronic Analysis ...................................................................... 164 II. Diachronic Analysis ..................................................................... 175 III. The Interpretation of Our Parable................................................ 177 D. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 179

Chapter 6: Church and Israel: The Background...................... 181 A. Introduction.................................................................................... 181 B. The Text of Mt 21:28–22:14........................................................... 182 I. The Two Sons (21:28–32) ............................................................. 182

Table of Contents

XI

II. The Wicked Tenants (21:33–46)................................................... 183 III. The Wedding Feast (22:1–14) ..................................................... 184 C. The Text Critical Problems .......................................................... 186 I. The Text Critical Problem of Mt 21:29–31 .................................... 186 II. The Text-Critical Problem of 21:44.............................................. 200 D. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 203

Chapter 7: Church and Israel: Context and Structure of Mt 21:28–22:14 ........................................................................... 205 A. Introduction.................................................................................... 205 B. The Context of Our Trilogy............................................................ 205 I. The Macro Context ....................................................................... 205 II. The Micro Context ....................................................................... 207 C. The Structure of the Trilogy ........................................................... 209 I. The Structure of the Two Sons (21:28–32) .................................... 212 II. The Structure of the Wicked Tenants (Mt 21:33–45).................... 215 III. The Structure of the Wedding Feast (22:1–14)............................ 221 D. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 228

Chapter 8: Church and Israel: Meaning and Theology of Mt 21:28–22:14 ........................................................................... 229 A. Introduction.................................................................................... 229 B. Matthew’s Semantic Strategy in the Trilogy ................................... 229 I. The Main Matthean Semantic Features .......................................... 231 II. Matthew’s Use of Invitational Motifs ........................................... 243 III. The Use of Similar Words and Syntagmata ................................. 244 IV. Matthew’s Use of Similar Constructions ..................................... 254 V. The Use of Common Theological Syntagma................................. 255 VI. Concluding Observations ............................................................ 264 C. Interpretation of the Trilogy ........................................................... 264 I. The Trilogy as a Set of Parables .................................................... 264 II. The Individual Parables of the Trilogy (21:28–22:14) .................. 270 D. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 282

Chapter 9: The Eschatological Discourse (Mt 24–5) .............. 285 A. Introduction.................................................................................... 285 B. The Context and Message of the Parousia Parables......................... 285

XII

Table of Contents

I. Setting the Boundaries................................................................... 285 II. The Macro and Micro Contexts .................................................... 289 III. The Structure and the Themes of 24:3–25:46 .............................. 290 IV. Part N (Mt 24:3) ......................................................................... 295 V. Jesus’ Answer (24:4–25:46) ......................................................... 298 C. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 328

Chapter 10: The Ten Virgins as a Sample Parousia Parable ... 331 A. Introduction.................................................................................... 331 B. Synchronic Analysis ....................................................................... 332 I. Text and Translation...................................................................... 332 II. The Context of the Parable........................................................... 333 III. The Structure of Mt 25:1–13....................................................... 334 IV. The Narrative and Rhetorical Strategy of 25:1–13 ...................... 339 C. Diachronic Analysis ....................................................................... 356 I. The Source of Our Parable............................................................. 356 II. Tradition Historical Analysis ....................................................... 357 D. Interpretation.................................................................................. 360

Chapter 11:Summary and Conclusions................................... 367 A. Introduction.................................................................................... 367 B. The Function of Matthew’s Sets of Parables ................................... 367 I. Their Rhetorical and Narrative Functions ...................................... 367 II. The Theological Function of Matthew’s Sets of Parables ............. 372 III. The Pragmatic Functions of Matthew’s Sets of Parables ............. 375 C. Does Matthew Have a Parable Theory? .......................................... 376 D. The Source of Matthew’s Parabolic Compositional Style ............... 377

Appendix ............................................................................... 379 Bibliography .......................................................................... 385 Index of Ancient Sources ....................................................... 405 Index of Modern Authors....................................................... 417 Index of Subjects ................................................................... 419

Abbreviations AncBD = Anchor Bible Dictionary ExpT = Expository Times GGNT = Griechische Grammatik zum Neuen Testament JLs = Jewish leaders rF1, rF2, rF3 = reading Form 1, 2, 3 STR.–B 1 = Strack−Billerbeck All other abbreviations, see Schwertner, S. M. IATG2

Chapter 1

Critical Questions

1. Critical Questions

A. Introduction

Introduction

In an excursus on Matthew’s parable interpretation, Ulrich Luz writes:

There are many monographs on the parables of Jesus but practically no literature that has Matthew’s interpretation of parables as its subject. Therefore, the following attempt is to be regarded as an initial exploration of an area that deserves further treatment...There are in the Gospel of Matthew three blocks of parables: 13:3–52; 21:28–22:14, and 24:42– 25:30. They have been shaped by the evangelist, in each case on the basis of models in the Markan source.1

Obviously, Luz is making a vital observation that needs further attention. Building on Luz’s contribution, we intend to give Matthew’s parabolic compositions an in-depth and cohesive treatment. We begin our study of Matthew’s parables by asking certain critical questions. One such question is why Matthew created two more parabolic compositions (cf. 21:28–22:14 and 24:32–25:30) in addition to the one found in his Markan source (Mk 4:1–34 par. Mt 13:1–52)?2 Another question is, do Matthean compositional activities around the Markan parables constitute a rewriting of his Markan source? Keeping in mind that Mark remains the primary source for all these compositions (cf. Mk 4:1–34; 12:1–12 and 13:28–31 and par.) both in context and content, there is justification to speculate further whether Matthew perhaps found the Markan single parables (Mk 12:1–12/4:3– 34/13:28–31) not up to the task of fulfilling the rhetorical role Matthew wanted them to play. If this is the case, what is the task? This leads to more questions, for example, why does Matthew himself in 18:23–35 and

1

Luz, Matthew 8–20, 289. Unlike Luz, our last block begins with the Fig Tree and the Deluge (24:32–41) while keeping in mind that the Fig Tree is the basis of Matthew’s parabolic compositions of 24–5 whereas Mk 4:3–34 and 12:1–12 form the basis of the parables of 13:3–52 and 21:28–22:14 respectively. 2 Jones sees this as one of the major differences between the Gospels of Mark and Matthew and as the reason why the latter contains so many parables. To him, Matthew’s parables are a very significant corpus, and one way of monitoring the shift that takes place between Mark and Matthew, is by examining that body of material (Jones, Matthean Parables, 55).

2

1. Critical Questions

20:1–16 narrate single parables and not parabolic compositions yet elsewhere turn Markan single parables into parable sets? What do Matthew’s parabolic compositions do that the single parables do not? Are these compositions in any way strategic or are they simply born out of the sheer joy of bringing common materials together? If these compositions were born out of the sheer joy of bringing common materials together, why would the Matthean author reorganize his Markan source by adding, omitting, and expanding his sources and not simply put his materials together? If his parabolic compositions were strategic, could there be any persuasive intention behind this compositional style? Is there any connection between the compositions? The questions continue, for example, do Matthew’s parabolic compositions present any parabolic understanding coherent enough to be called Matthew’s parable theory? Does Matthew have a parable theory at all? If yes, where and how is his parable theory defined? Questions such as these and many others drive this research with the main focus placed on Matthew’s parabolic compositions. This does not mean, though, that his other parables will not be considered. Attention is also given to those Matthean single parables where necessary.

B. Matthew’s Sets of Parables: Strategic or Jumbled Thoughts?

B. Matthew’s Sets of Parables: Strategic or Jumbled Thoughts?

Mark hands down to us a single parable set (cf. Mk 4:1–34). Matthew, on the other hand, puts together three parable clusters (13:1–52; 21:28–22:14; and 24:32–25:30). A closer look at the various compositions reveals ample evidence to support the thesis that Matthew’s sets of parables have a strategic intention. To understand these compositions it is necessary to look at them as such. Thanks to comparative, source, tradition and redaction critical approaches, we now understand many critical questions about the parables, their compositions and their uniqueness. Questions about their rhetorical and narrative plots are what still remains unanswered. In this study, all three Matthean parable sets will be placed under the scrutiny of this research to examine the communicative intention of the various compositions. While Mark’s style of cluster parables may have captivated the imagination and attention of Matthew, with Mk 4 being the prime source for Mt 13, the question remains, though, whether Mark was the only motivating source for this compositional style. A careful study of Rabbinic parables from various periods reveals similar traits. From Rabbinic sources3 con3

The Rabbis continued to teach after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. Their works, however, were collected and edited between the third and fifth centuries. This

B. Matthew’s Sets of Parables: Strategic or Jumbled Thoughts?

3

temporaneous to the Synoptics,4 we get the sense that composing cluster parables may not be a Markan creation but most probably a writing style quite common at the time. The Rabbis’ parables, as found in Pesiqtā deRav Kahanā (PesK), Bereschit Rabba (BerR) and Schemôt Rabba (ShemR) from the later 5/6th century C.E.5 differ in many ways from their Synoptic parallels.6 However, their style of narrating double,7 triple,8 quintuplet,9 six-fold,10 eleven-fold,11 and even more12 is something similar to the Synoptics’ narrative style.13 The question is whether this style of composing sets of parables, as found in Mark and Matthew as well as among the Rabbis could be traced to an earlier common source. Most Matthean parables, especially those of the parabolic set of Mt 13, have features in common with Rabbinic parables.14 However, because no composition of the sort in pre-Synoptic writings is extant, this question cannot be answered with any certainty. What can be said, though, is that the style of composing parable

makes the parables of Jesus the earliest transmitted and written form of ancient Jewish parables, even though parables existed in the OT (cf. Jdg 9:7–15; 2Sam 12:1–12; 14:4–7; 1Kgs 20:37–40; 2Kgs 14:9; Isa 5:1–7; Ezek 17:3–10; 19:1–9; 24:3–5). These are literarily different Rabbinic and NT parables (so Hezser, ‚Rabbinische Gleichnisse‘, 217). 4 Rabbinic parables differ, though, from Jesus’ parables in that the former serve as exegetical tools. However, their form and the way their analogies work are quite similar to the parables of Jesus (so Snodgrass, ʻStories with Prophetic Intentʼ, 153). 5 Cf. Thoma/Lauer, Gleichnisse der Rabbinen I, 12. 6 Cf. Snodgrass, ʻStories with Prophetic Intentʼ, 153. According to Snodgrass, Rabbinic parables are different from Jesusʼ parables in that they serve as exegetical tools although their form and the way their analogies work are similar. 7 Cf. Snodgrass, ʻStories with Prophetic Intentʼ, 170–1. For examples of double parables, see PesK 10:7, Thoma/Lauer, Gleichnisse der Rabbinen I, 168, 189, 193, 326–7; II, 54, 57, 64, 103,105 or Thoma/Ernst, Gleichnisse der Rabbinen III, 28, 31, 110–1, 154. 8 Cf. Thoma/Lauer, Gleichnisse der Rabbinen II, 102–4. 9 Cf. Thoma/Ernst, Gleichnisse der Rabbinen III, 180f. 10 Cf. Thoma/Lauer, Gleichnisse der Rabbinen II, 168. 11 Cf. Thoma/Ernst, Gleichnisse der Rabbinen III, 58f. 12 Cf. Thoma/Ernst, Gleichnisse der Rabbinen III, 246f. 13 To Snodgrass, the OT prophetic parables are the one clear source of Jesusʼ own parabolic method. Matthew saw the connection between Jesusʼ use of parables and his prophetic stance, for he viewed Jesusʼ speaking in parables as fulfillment of what was spoken through the prophet in Ps 78:2 (Mt 13:35), so Snodgrass, ʻStories with Prophetic Intentʼ, 154. The question remains whether the prophets also knew the style of composing parable sets. 14 Cf. Kingsbury, Parables, 136. His common parable features include a transitional statement, introductory formula, a proper parable culminating at the end and in some instances an application. According to Kingsbury, Matthew’s parables are like Rabbinic meshalim designed for parenetic use: for instruction, assurance, exhortation, and debate. See also Jones, Matthean Parables, 114, who views the Two Sons as a classical Rabbinic morality parable.

4

1. Critical Questions

sets was a compositional technique employed in the Synoptic and postSynoptic periods. Our interest is in knowing under what circumstances Matthew employed the parabolic composition. The parables’ relationship to one another in their various compositions is more than a simple narrative position indicating a story’s place within a set of parables. They often have a relationship, which ranges from verbal and structural features to content and message. This shows that such a compositional style may not be the result of sheer coincidence but a calculated attempt with communicative intentions.

C. Matthew: the Grammateu,j

C. Matthew, the Scribe

Matthew’s parabolic compositional skills are not the only technique pointing to an affinity with contemporaneous Rabbinism. The scribal tendencies in Matthew’s Gospel reveal this same phenomenon. In 1928, E. von Dobschütz suggested that Matthew was a converted Rabbi,15 a thesis that according to Goulder has been criticized in recent years.16 Instead, some scholars have proposed that perhaps the author of Matthew’s Gospel was himself a Christian grammateu,j/sôphēr (scribe).17 Rabbinic style has been found to have influenced the Gospel’s language.18 Bacon, for example, describes Matthew’s style as “synagogue Greek”.19 Likewise, Luz suggests that Matthew writes a Jewish, occasionally Rabbinically influenced Greek, with his language sometimes standing in clear relation to linguistic developments in Rabbinic Judaism of his day. 20 However, unlike others who think that Matthew himself was a scribe, Luz proposes that a tradition of Christian scribes was behind the writing of the Matthean Gospel. In his view, 13:52 and 23:34 speak of Christian scribes.21 Accordingly, the ‘school’ visible behind the fulfillment quotations, for instance, is not identical with the evangelist, who is very much influenced by the LXX, but the

15

Cf. Dobschütz, ‚Matthäus als Rabbi und Katechetʻ. ZNW 27, 328–48. Cf. Goulder, Midrash, 5. 17 Hoh, ‚Der christliche grammateu,jʻ .BZ 17, 256–69; Jeremias, Art., grammateu,j, .TDNT 1, 740–2. To Jeremias, Matthew’s proof from Scriptures points to “this scribe at work” (742); Strecker, Der Weg, 35–41. According to Strecker, Matthew is a non-Jewish Christian grammateu,j (39). Goulder, Midrash, 3–27, 375–6; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium I, 511; Davies/Allison Jr., Matthew II, 445–6; Orton, Understanding Scribe, 165–74; contra Luz, Matthew 8–20, 286. 18 Cf. Luz, Matthew 1–7, 44. 19 Cf. Bacon, Studies, 497–9. 20 Cf. Luz, Matthew 1–7, 22. 21 Luz, Matthew 1−7, 44. 16

C. Matthew, the Scribe

5

fulfillment quotations are reflections of the scribes of Matthew’s community. 22 Hence, Matthew, Luz writes, “follows the heritage of his fathers and the liturgical and scribal traditions of his church”.23 Could the Gospel’s author have been one such community scribe? Goulder suggests that Matthew himself was a scribe, a provincial schoolmaster.24 According to him, identifying Matthew as a Jewish-Christian grammateu,j lies not so much in Matthew’s familiarity with the Jewish Torah or with the Rabbis’ sayings or his scribal theology but rather in “the thoroughly Rabbinic manner in which he sets out his book”.25 He cites twelve points to show “the scribal cast of Matthew’s mind”.26 Strecker, however, dismisses any suggestion of the author of the Gospel of Matthew as a Christian Rabbi. In his view, the evidence of Rabbinism in the Gospel of Matthew does not mean that the author was a Jewish Christian, it only points to a pre-Matthean tradition that Matthew committed into writing.27 A consensus among scholars that the author of the Gospel of Matthew was in some way influenced by Rabbinic Judaism of his time can be identified behind these divergent views. In fact, the views differ only in the details. This is true if one takes the Matthean author to be a Jewish-Christian

22

Cf. Luz, Matthew 1−7, 44. Luz supports this with the Matthean use of ʻtheir synagogue(s)ʼ (4:23; 9:35; 10:17; 12:9; 13:54), ʻyour synagogueʼ (23:34) and ʻtheir scribesʼ (7:29). In his view, Matthew’s programmatic claim to the OT does not happen without prior preparation. Accordingly, he identifies other areas where the activity of such scribes is presumably present. In his view, the pre-Matthean addition to the story of plucking grain in 12:5–6 or the traditional ʻRabbinicʼ argument of the sheep that has fallen into the ditch (12:11–2) point to the fact that Mark was also a subject of reflection in the Matthean church. Likewise, the ʻtargumizingʼ of Jesus’ last cry on the cross (27:46) may go back to the Matthean community scribes. Thus, the additions in Q Mt such as 7:6, 18:15–20 and 23:16–22 may also go back to the halakic tradition of scribes. Using 13:52, Luz maintains that scribes who give new interpretations to ‘old’ biblical texts were highly esteemed in the Matthean community, though he does not believe that the verse is a self-portrait of Matthew as some scholars suggest (44, n. 184). 23 Luz, Matthew 1−7, 44. 24 Cf. Goulder, Midrash, 5. Goulder compares Mark’s hostile usage of grammateu,j to the usage of the word in Matthew and concludes that Matthew consistently rescues the reputation of the scribes by omitting or glossing some Markan usages and lessens the blackness of the scribal image, or contrasts ‘their’ scribes with presumably ‘ours’ (13–4). He argues that Matthew’s sympathy for the scribes is shown plainly in his omission or change of their names in two thirds of the hostile Markan references (15). To Goulder, the citations from the Scriptures, the occurrence of no,moj (5:17; 12:5; 15:3, 22:36.40), the insertion of ‘nor the Sabbath’ in 24:20, the emphasis on prayer, almsgiving and fasting, which are the backbone of Rabbinic piety (17), point to the author’s Rabbinic connection. 25 Goulder, Midrash, 24. 26 Cf. Goulder, Midrash, 24–7. 27 Cf. Strecker, Der Weg, 15–35 (17–8).

6

1. Critical Questions

grammateu,j as Goulder does or a non-Jewish Christian grammateu,j as in Strecker’s view28 or as Luz suggests, a group of Christian grammatei/j behind the Gospel. The bottom line is that the language, theology, style, and Matthean redaction of Mark in matters relating to scribes and the halakic interpretations of Matthew’s sources show a close connection between Matthew and Rabbinic Judaism. Thus, not just the Matthean compositional skill of bringing common materials together (a sign of the mishnaic tractate style) suggests Rabbinic affinity, but other important internal evidence including the assumption that possibly the Gospel’s author himself was a grammateu,j, also establishes this same fact.

D. Parable Theory: Does Matthew Have One?

D. Parable Theory: Does Matthew Have One?

For many years Matthean scholars have posed the question whether Matthew has a parable theory. And the answers have varied. To some, Matthew has a parable theory but they find it extremely difficult to explain where Matthew’s parable theory is defined in his Gospel, how it is defined there or what exactly constitutes his parable theory. 29 To a great number of them, the answer is simply, no, Matthew does not have any consistent parable theory.30 However, a careful study of Matthew reveals that there is ample and credible evidence in Matthew’s parabolic compositions, which suggests an existence of a clearly defined parable theory in the Gospel. In this study, we posit that Matthew has a parable theory and we address exactly what his parable theory is in chapter 3, pp. 37f. But before we discuss our understanding of the Matthean parable theory, we want to examine first the claims for and against a Matthean parable theory. Such an appraisal will give us a better picture of the problem at hand. Considering the question whether Matthew has a parable theory in his book on Mt 13, Kingsbury writes:

28 Though Strecker does not accept that the Matthean author is of Jewish-Christian origin, he thinks that Rabbinic Judaism influenced the Gospel (Strecker, Der Weg, 17, 35). 29 For example, Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, 145, thinks that the parables (referring to those of Mt 13 with interpretations) and their allegorical explanations complicate the investigation. Lambrecht, however, falls short in explaining how exactly the parables and their allegorical explanations complicate the investigation. See also Münch, Die Gleichnisse Jesu, 88. On parable theory and the problems associated with it, see 85−8. 30 Cf. Kingsbury, Parables, 49–50; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 246; Marxsen, ‚Parabeltheorieʻ. ZThK 52, 255–71. Here Marxsen even suggests that it is also a misnomer to refer to Mark’s statement on parables (Mk 4:11–2) as a parable theory (271).

D. Parable Theory: Does Matthew Have One?

7

Over the years, scholars have vigorously debated the question as to whether 13.10b, 13 admit of a Matthaean theory of parables. In our opinion, this is not the case. The best indication of this is the fact that if we examine the whole of the first Gospel, we find that Matthew has incorporated a double tradition into his book regarding the perspicuity, and therefore the nature, of the parables of Jesus. One tradition is found here in chapter 13, where Matthew argues that while the disciples, i.e., his church, can comprehend the parables of Jesus, the Jews cannot, for they stand before them as before riddles. At the same time, Matthew records elsewhere in his Gospel that the Jews are able to master parables of Jesus... But since we find two traditions in the first Gospel with respect to the intelligibility of the parables of Jesus, we conclude that Matthew does not reduce his views on this matter to any unified concept. Yet this is something we should certainly expect were Matthew’s remarks concerning parables subject to a fixed theory of parables.31

There are a couple of points to scrutinize in Kingsbury’s assertion. Firstly, though important for understanding the Matthean parable theory, 13:10b and 13:13 do not define or contain it. The reasons are that 13:10b, which contains the question of the disciples, ‘why do you speak to them in parables’ (dia. ti, evn parabolai/j lalei/j auvtoi/jÈ) only leads to the initial answer of Jesus (13:11b–2), which contains the reason why he speaks to the crowd in parables. The author’s introductory commentary of v. 11a and the o[ti of v. 11b affirm such an understanding.32 Likewise, because v. 13 is partly a deduction from 13:11b–2, affirmed by the use of dia. tou/to (‘for this reason’, ‘on account of this’),33 and partly an expansion of 13:11b–2,

31 Kingsbury, Parables, 49–50, 135f. Thus, “we have a parable tradition that openly conflicts with that of chapter 13” (50), where the people are depicted as those who do not understand Jesus’ parables. 32 The o[ti of v. 11b is not an o[ti recitativum, but causal, which should be translated as ‘because’ or ‘for’ since it gives the reason for what precedes. In our context, the question in v. 10b and not the author commentary of v. 11a is the preceding issue. That said, it has to be noticed that the entire initial answer of Jesus in Matthew (vv. 11b–23) is recitative, which is signaled by the use of o`` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen auvtoi/j (cf. 13:11a). In addition, as Gundry rightly suggests, Matthew usually deletes the recitative o[ti (Matthew, 255). Thus, o[ti here does not indicate the direct speech which follows; it instead forms part of the direct speech, in fact, it begins it. 33 Could Kingsbury’s assertion, that v. 13 gives the reason for Jesus’ parabolic discourse, possibly originate from the semantic value scholars assigned to dia. tou/to which has often been considered to make the ‘seeing and not seeing, hearing and not hearing’ the reason for Jesus’ parabolic speech? (cf. Gundry, Matthew, 256). However, such an interpretation is incorrect because it does not consider the context. There is a logical sequence in the Matthean use of dia. ti, (‘why’, v. 10b), o[ti (‘because’, v. 11b) and dia. tou/to (ʻfor this reasonʼ). The prepositional phrase dia. tou/to does not refer prospectively to the o[ti-clause of v. 13b but retrospectively to the preceding o[ti (v. 11b). To prospectively interpret the phrase is incorrect and distorts the sense in the context (so or similarly Jülicher, Gleichnisreden Jesu, 128–9). The second o[ti (v. 13b) complements the first (v. 11b); it does not give another reason why Jesus speaks to the crowd in parables, but rather has an epexegetical sense, though syntactically not.

8

1. Critical Questions

affirmed by the second causal o[ti (‘because’, ‘for’),34 it is not logically sound to give vv. 10b.13 a central role. These two verses are not as central as the two verses they enclose, namely vv. 11–2 for understanding Matthew’s parable theory. Secondly, Kingsbury’s suggestion that Matthew has incorporated a double tradition in his book regarding the perspicuity and therefore, the nature of the parables of Jesus – as if Mt 13 presents one tradition and elsewhere another tradition contrary to that of Mt 13 – is not a true reflection of the facts in the first Gospel. If our assessment is correct then Kingsbury misconstrued 7:28–9 and the rhetorical plot of 21:45. On one hand, 7:28–9 relates to the entire Sermon on the Mount and not only its closing parables (7:24–7). The crowd was amazed at his entire teaching35 and not only his parables at the end of the Sermon on the Mount. On the other hand, 7:28–9 does not say that the crowd understood his teachings, but rather ‘the crowds were amazed by his teaching’ (evxeplh,ssonto oi` o;cloi evpi. th/| didach/| auvtou/) – perhaps by his rhetoric. On this 7:29 is very clear, contrasting the way he taught them (w``j evxousi,an e;cwn) with the way the scribes taught them (kai. ouvc w`j oi` grammatei/j auvtw/n). This does not contradict the picture we get about the crowd in Mt 13 nor does 7:28–9 demonstrate any contradiction of an existence of two traditions in Matthean parables. Additionally, for Matthew, the goal is not to exclaim how great a teacher Jesus is, which is important, but rather to do that what this great teacher teaches (cf. 7:21–7). Mt 7:28–9 should be read in this context. Thirdly, Kingsbury fails to make a distinction between ginw,skein in the sense of: (1) ‘to arrive at the knowledge of someone or something’, or ‘to know’, or ‘to know about’, or ‘to make acquaintance of’, (2) ‘to acquire information through some means’, or ‘to learn (of)’, or ‘to ascertain’, or ‘to find out’ (21:45), (3) ‘to come to an understanding of’, or ‘to grasp the meaning of something’ (13:11).36

34 According to Gundry, 13:13a was created to provide a dependent clause on which the o[ti clause may rest, because the insertion of v. 12 breaks up the sentence of v. 11b, which in his view, echoes v. 10b, “which itself was a Matthean construct drawn in its essentials from v. 3a” (Gundry, Matthew, 256). 35 Both tou.j lo,gouj tou,touj and evpi. th/| didach/| auvtou/ refer to his entire speech and not only to the parables at the end of his teaching. 36 See Louw/Nida, Semantic Domain I, 382 §32:16 and 334 §28:1 for the different semantic domains. In Louw’s view, 13:11 can be interpreted either as ‘to come to understand, comprehend’ or ‘to know about’. Bauer, however, prefers the nuance ‘knowing, knowing about in 13:11’ (GELNT, 199). The use of ginw,skein (13:11) with suni,hmi

D. Parable Theory: Does Matthew Have One?

9

In the context of 21:45, the JLs perhaps ‘found out’ or ‘discovered’ the rhetorical plot of Jesus’ parabolic speech through deductions from 21:28– 44. This meaning of ‘knowing’ in the sense of ‘finding out’, ‘learning (of)’ or ‘ascertaining something’ is not deep enough to reach the knowledge of ‘coming to an understanding’ as mentioned in 13:11.37 Fourthly, the grammatical object of the verb ginw,skein is not the parables but the o[ti-dependent clause. Linguistically, scholars twist 21:45 to suit an apparent contradiction. The verse does not say that the JLs understood Jesus’ parables; it says that they knew ‘after hearing his parables’ (avkou,santej)))ta.j parabola.j auvtou/) that he was talking about them (e;gnwsan o[ti peri. auvtw/n le,gei, 21:45). Consequently, ta.j parabola,j auvtou/ is the direct object of the verb avkou,ein and not ginw,skein. The sense is that perhaps they understood his rhetoric. Considering the sequence of the Matthean Jesus’ presentation of his arguments, it has to be stated that the referenced JLs would have been extremely unintelligent, if after 21:43, they still could not grasp that Jesus was speaking about them. In fact, the confirmation by the JLs’ awareness of Jesus speaking to and about them is part of the author’s rhetorical strategy. 38 We should distinguish between knowing in the sense of ‘understanding’ his parables and knowing that Jesus spoke about the leaders in the sense of uncovering the speaker’s rhetorical plot. From 21:41–4, it is obvious that the author commentary of 21:45 does not say anything else than to point out the JLs’ reactions to Jesus’ comments, keeping in mind that u``mi/n and avf’ u``mw/n of 21:43 refer to nobody else than the JLs. Adding the possibility that Jesus pointed towards them, addressing them as ‘you’, only strengthens the argument that the leaders had to have known that he was speaking to and about them. This is the context of 21:45. Mt 21:45 is about knowing that the discourse was about the JLs, which the immediate context (21:41–4) influenced greatly. Kingsbury appears to have dwelt too much on the word e;gnwsan (‘they knew’) without paying attention to what they knew, which is the direct object, the declarative o[ti-clause (o[ti peri. auvtw/n le,gei).39

Lastly, the account of 21:28–22:14 forms the climax of the context of Jesus’ speaking in parables to the crowd. Mt 13:12b is finally applied to both the JLs and their disciples in 21:43 as well as to the Matthean community

(13:13.14.15.19.23.51) in that context seems to suggest the meaning the Matthean redactionist attached to ginw,skein. 37 Contra, Bauer, ginw,skw ad loc. (3), GELNT, 200. 38 Cf. Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, 26–7. 39 Supporting Kingsbury Luz says, “In 21:45–6 the Jewish leaders ‘knew’ (e;gnwsan) that ‘the parables’ were about them, but they drew the wrong conclusions from this knowledge. In our text, on the other hand, following Mark it is precisely the not knowing that is characteristic of the people” (Luz, Matthew 8–20, 246). Apparently, however, our text talks about JLs who knew the rhetorical plot of the Matthean Jesus. Moreover, it would be unimaginably insensible, if after 21:41–3, the JLs did not know that Jesus was talking about them. Certainly, Matthew is not saying anything more than this in 21:45−6.

10

1. Critical Questions

members who fail to do the will of God (cf. 22:10–3).40 With the help of three parables, the Matthean redactionist demonstrates in 13:24–33 that the crowd lacks understanding, although they see and hear the dawning Kingdom of Heaven revealed in Jesus. He uses the transitional statements, ‘he placed another parable before them’ (a;llhn parabolh.n pare,qhken auvtoi/j le,gwn, 13:24.31.33) to underscore this point. In the trilogy, the Matthean Jesus leads the JLs to appreciate their failure to fulfill the will of God (cf. 12:46–50), which in our understanding, provides the background to the parables of Mt 13 and the other sets of parables. Thus, there is evidence of a connection closer than ever imagined between Mt 13 and the trilogy through the central verse (cf. 13:12). The JLs have failed to take Jesus’ invitation to follow (cf. 11:28a: deu/te pro,j me pa,ntej) and learn from him (11:29: ma,qhte avp’ evmou/) seriously. Their persistent rejection has led to rejecting Jesus’ authority as someone greater than the Temple (12:6, cf. 21:12–7). They have failed to recognize him as someone who has the authority to restore the dignity of God’s house as a place of prayer (cf. 21:13c; Isa 56:7; 60:7), which the JLs had turned into a den of robbers (21:13d; cf. Jer 7:11). Like the people, the JLs have failed to understand and to accept that being the son of God, Jesus’ authority comes from God (21:23–22:14) and to turn to Jesus so that he will heal them (cf. the kai. evpistre,ywsin kai. iva ,somai auvtou,j of 13:15). They have even reached the point of planning to arrest and kill the son of God (cf. 21:38.46) in order to become the heirs of the Kingdom of God – which is God’s vineyard, of which the JLs are only tenants. Thus, 21:45 does not contradict 13:11 or v. 13 but rather complements it. Their refusal to fulfill God’s will, which is here equivalent to producing their fruit at the appointed time (21:33–40) has made them comparable to ‘someone who does not have’ (cf. the o[stij de. ouvk e;cei of 13:12b). Thus, what they have will be taken away from them (cf. 21:43).

Commenting on v. 13, Luz endorses Kingsbury’s position as correct, saying, “Thus Matthew takes over the apocalyptic and Markan understanding of the ‘parable’ as encoded, riddling speech. He does not, however, have a coherent ‘theory of parables.’”41 One basic fact about Matthew’s parables, which Luz fails to emphasize, is that most of the Matthew’s parables from his Markan source no longer carry the Markan accent. The Matthean redactionist has reinterpreted most of them either through the context (cf. 25:30–46), additional parables (cf. 13:24–30.33.44–8.52; 21:28–32; 22:1– 14; 24:37–25:30), new material (cf. 13:35.36–43.49–50.51; 21:43–4; 22:10–4), rearrangement of the material (cf. Mt 13:8 par. Mk 4:8; Mt 13:12 par. Mk 4:25) or omissions (cf. Mk 4:21–4.26–9). Thus, the assertion that Matthew takes over the Mark’s understanding of the parables as encoded, riddling speech is evidently incorrect. This makes the argument that Matthew does not have a coherent parable theory too far-fetched.

40 41

Cf. the avvrqh,setai-doqh,setai antithesis (cf. 13:12/21:43). Luz, Matthew 8–20, 246, n. 116. See also Jülicher, Gleichnisreden Jesu I, 147.

D. Parable Theory: Does Matthew Have One?

11

The evidence Kingsbury and later Luz provide is not convincing enough. Apparently, they give little attention (1) to the context of 21:45, (2) to the different meanings of ginw,skein, and (3) to the different objects of avkou,ein and ginw,skein presumably making ta.j parabola,j the object of ginw,skein instead of avkou,ein. Additionally, Kingsbury and Luz fail to recognize that rhetorically, the trilogy (21:28–22:14) and the parables about the Kingdom of Heaven (13:1–52) play different roles in their various contexts. In Mt 13, the rhetorical plot is to demonstrate the crowd’s lack of understanding, which is the result of not having been given the knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom (13:24–35). The disciples’ special status, as a result of a divine gift, is the knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom (13:36– 51). Mt 13:51 underscores the author’s rhetorical plot to strengthen the conclusion, when the disciples openly declared to have understood everything (tau/ta pa,nta).42 In the trilogy, the rhetorical strategy is to get the JLs to recognize the implications of their rejection of Jesus and his message. The Matthean Jesus in 21:45 convinced his opponents to appreciate that the argument in question was about them. Thus, the verse is part of the author’s persuasive intent and does not contradict the author’s argument. Most importantly, Kingsbury and Luz fail to recognize that Matthean parable theory is defined by Mt 13’s central verse (cf. 13:11–2), which makes Matthew’s parabolic compositions a network (cf. 13:12; 21:43 and 25:29). The underlying argument against a Matthean parable theory seems to be that since the Matthew’s parable theory does not correspond to that of Mark, Matthew does not have a parable theory. This argument is false. It seems that scholars who suggest that Matthew does not have a parable theory still consciously or unconsciously understand Matthew’s parables in the light of Mark. The Matthean parable theory, which we propose is completely different from that of Mark,43 though his Markan source remains

42 Cf. Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, 27. Referring to Fusco Vittorio’s book, Oltre la parabola: Introduzione alle parabole di Gesù, Lambrecht outlines the rhetorical strategy of speaking in parables: “Through the parable the speaker is in dialogue with the hearer; the intention is to convince. Only when the ‘point’ of the story is understood, when, therefore, agreement is reached, can a transposition take place: the application of the image to the intended reality. Hence a distinction is made between the ‘sense’ of the subsistent narrative and its ‘meaning’ for real life. The parable story is then a kind of strategic detour; the parable is sometimes compared with a tactically arranged ‘trap’ into which the hearer is lured and then tricked.” This is the point in 21:45, which does not contradict the Matthean parable theory but reveals the author’s persuasive strategy. 43 Erlemann also observes such a difference. In his view, Jesus’ speech in parables „dient damit der Schilderung zwischen Insidern und Outsidern“ (Erlemann, Gleichnisauslegung, 95–6). This is still Markan. Why should Matthew specifically avoid the Markan e;xw ‘outside’ (Mk 4:11) if he still wants to emphasize insider and outsider?

12

1. Critical Questions

the basis for his parabolic compositions (see p. 1). In sum, the assertion that Matthew does not have any consistent parable theory is inconsistent with the facts in the Gospel. In fact, Matthew does not omit the Markan idea of a parable theory but changes his understanding of it in his parabolic discourses. Apart from those who utterly reject a Matthean parable theory out of misunderstanding there is for instance Lambrecht, who thinks Matthew has a parable theory but cannot hide his frustration about apparent complications.44 For although Lambrecht acknowledges a Matthean parable theory, his suggestion as to what constitutes it, excluding the explanations to the parables, does not represent the Matthean parable theory. The so-called allegorical interpretations are part of Matthew’s parable theory, a fact we demonstrate in our explanation of what Matthew’s parable theory is (see pp. 37f). Avoiding to begin his discussion with Mt 13 because of apparent complications reveals Lambrecht’s misunderstanding of the Matthean parable theory. To begin from anywhere else outside of Mt 13 turns the discussion upside down, because Mt 13 defines, explains and offers the course of the Matthean parable theory. Thus, though Lambrecht recognized a Matthean parable theory he apparently misunderstood what constitutes it.

E. Conclusion

Conclusion

While many important issues evolve around the Gospel of Matthew, the critical issues investigated in this research are the Matthean parable sets, whether they have any rhetorical and narrative strategy and if they have one, what exactly this strategy is. Our initial investigation demonstrates that the parabolic compositions have rhetorical and narrative plots that this study seeks to uncover. This is one aspect of Matthew’s parabolic compositions. Another aspect of Matthew’s sets of parables is the source of their compositional style. In our view, the technique originates not only from Mark, but from a dominant style of the time no longer extant today but also evident in Rabbinic sources. We are also confronted, though, with the questions whether these compositions contain a consistent Matthean parable theory, and what exactly this parable theory is. Again, our initial observations indicate that these parabolic compositions contain a Matthean parable theory. The nature and form of this parable theory will be discussed in chapter three (see pp. 37f.). With the study’s scope established, let us now turn to our methodology.

44

Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, 145.

Chapter 2 2. The Methodology

The Methodology A. Introduction

A. Introduction

This study assumes that the original contexts of Matthew’s parable sets are no longer accessible to us. Did Jesus himself narrate the series of parables found in Mk 4 or is Mark the author responsible for its construction? Such a question cannot be answered with any certainty. To appreciate the parables’ original values, we have to reconstruct the texts through traditionhistorical analysis, where applicable, because the stories as we have them in the NT are only reconstructed pieces.1 In addition, to appreciate the literary value of the parabolic compositions, we have to turn to the evangelists to find out the roles the compositions were assigned to play in their repective Gospel. We have to rely heavily on what the evangelists provide us in accordance with source theory. This study thus assumes the source theory. With its reliance on a rigorous approach to biblical texts, the tradition-historical method to Scriptures has undoubtedly produced remarkable results in biblical scholarship. D. B. Howell gives two reasons why historical criticism remains indispensable for the literary interpretation of biblical narratives: firstly, because historical criticism helps to bridge the cultural and linguistic gap between us and the Bible, and secondly, because of the way it reminds the readers of the ‘otherness’ of the Gospel text.2 Form, tradition and redaction criticisms, however, have often failed to expose the compositional strategy and the persuasive intention of the Synoptic authors. This is because they have either often atomized the biblical story into unrelated literary pieces3 or in certain cases, regrouped materials according to theme or content for comparative analysis, and by so doing, for the most part, damaged the interconnectedness of such texts as a literary whole. This is particularly true in its application to Matthew’s parables.4 As Kingsbury rightly observed,

1

Cf. Jeremias, Parables, 23–114. Cf. Howell, Matthew’s Inclusive Story, 28–9. According to Howell, historical criticism helps biblical literary critic rule out fanciful interpretations (29, n. 2). 3 So, Petersen, Literary Criticism, 11–20. 4 See, for example, Dodd’s regrouping of the parables into Parables of Crisis and Growth (Dodd, Parables of the Kingdom, 115–45). Mention could also be made here of Alfons Weiser’s Die Knechtsgleichnisse der synoptischen Evangelien, (München 1971); see also Crossan’s regrouping of Jesus’ parables into the Parables of Advent, Parables of Reversal or Parables of Action in his book, In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (New York: Harper and Row, 1973). 2

14

2. The Methodology

“literary-critically, Matthew’s Gospel is a unified narrative, or ‘artistic whole’”. 5 Furthermore, the overarching emphasis of source and redaction criticisms has often led to Matthew’s parables being understood and interpreted by their sources but not in the context of their literary setting. Thus, in an attempt to get to the original words of Jesus, Matthew’s parables are often understood and interpreted along the lines of either Mark or Q. This has not only led to Matthew’s parables being misunderstood, but also being misrepresented.

Describing the nature of the first Gospel, D. B. Howell observes, “the text of the Gospel is narrative, and it can be read as a story with its own integrity rather than as a collection of traditional units and pericopae”.6 This study not only considers Matthew as a narrative, but also looks at Matthew’s parabolic compositions as a narrative – ‘a narrative within a narrative’ – that can be read as a story on its own merit. However, since telling a story involves what Robert Tannehill calls ‘narrative rhetoric’ because the story is constructed to influence its readers or hearers and because there are particular literary techniques used for this purpose,7 we begin our study from a rhetorical and narratological critical point of view. We adopt this approach, because we view Matthean parables as interconnected stories presented with rhetorical function(s). Besides, we employ rhetorical criticism, because as Kennedy put it, “Of the four Gospels, Matthew’s makes the widest use of all aspects of rhetoric. He arranges his Gospel into distinct parts which perform specific rhetorical functions, and he is concerned not only to establish the ethos of Jesus’ authority and the pathos of his suffering, but consistently to provide his reader with something close to logical argument.”8 Kennedy’s assertion finds expression in Matthean parabolic compositions perhaps more than in any other part of the Gospel. In the trilogy, the author emphasizes the ethos of Jesus’ authority and the pathos of his suffering (cf. 21:37–40) to arrive at the emotion of indignatio in his audience (cf. 21:41).9 Similarly, the other Matthean

5

Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 1f, n. 3. Howell, Matthew’s Inclusive Story, 13, n. 2. 7 Cf. Tannehill, Narrative Unit of Luke-Acts, 8. 8 So Kennedy, NT Interpretation, 101-2. 9 According to Lausberg, the gentle emotional levels ascribed to delectare and sympathy, which are appropriate for enduring impact and which also occur as a lasting emotional state are called h=qoj (Quint. Inst. 6.2.8) = ethos. Ethos is part of delactare, which in addition to docere and movere, constitutes persuasion (Lausberg, Handbook, §257, 113–7). Ethos and variatio are the two main parts of delectare (§257, 2ab) and important for the exordium. Lausberg defines pathos as the emotional shock in the audience, which aims at moving them to side with the speaker’s party (Quint. Inst. 6.2.8). The devices for arousing pathos (pa,qoj) are threefold: 1) the presentation of the physical evidence, e.g., blood-stained clothes of the murder victim, and his young children etc.; 2) the presentation of graphic pictures [the father approaching the first son to go and work in his vineyard and the impolite response of the son (Mt 21:28–30), or in the case of the Wicked Tenants, the killing of the servants and the throwing out of the son and killing him (21:37–40)] or the killing of the servants of the king who were sent to invite the people to 6

B. Rhetorical Criticism

15

parabolic discourses are composed to solve particular rhetorical problems, e.g., the delay of the Parousia (24:32–25:30) or the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah despite the expectation of the Messiah and his message of the dawning Kingdom of Heaven (13:1–52).

The above notwithstanding, the best methodological approach to any biblical text is not an exclusive approach but an all-inclusive one. Good exegesis cannot ignore tradition-historical criticism. Keeping in mind though that some of these critical approaches are theoretically incompatible, serious exegesis must make use of all the available tools where necessary, which this research intends to do. This does not suggest, however, ‘methodological mayhem’, but instead an all-inclusive approach to the Scriptures with preference for rhetorical and narratological criticisms. Let us briefly look at the two main methods of our research shedding more light on the methods themselves and the various aspects, which will be applied in our analysis.

B. Rhetorical Criticism

B. Rhetorical Criticism

Applying rhetorical criticism to the NT is nothing new.10 Rhetorical criticism, as a subject, is well studied and we will not take pains here to repeat those studies.11 Since our interest is more in its application than in its development, we are more concerned with how rhetorical criticism could be applied to Matthew’s parabolic compositions. As Kennedy observes, there are three universal factors in any rhetorical or persuasive situation: a speaker or writer, an audience, and a discourse. Today, rhetoricians add a

the wedding party of the son (22:3–6) and finally, the intellectual-linguistic method, which consists in the emotive portrayal of circumstances that truly arouse pathos (§257, 3abc). 10 Church fathers trained in rhetoric read NT texts in order to analyze their persuasive style so that contemporary preachers could imitate this biblically sanctioned rhetoric (cf. Stamps, ʻRhetorical and Narratological Criticismʼ, 221). For a good summary of the history of rhetorical criticism in biblical studies, see Watson/Hauser, Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible, 101–9. 11 See Betz, ‘Literary Composition and Function’, 353–79; also in his Galatians: A Commentary. In these works, Betz suggested that the Letter to the Galatians should be approached as a rhetorical discourse, an apologetic letter, which uses traditional ancient rhetorical categories of speech. Betz’s attempt of applying rhetorical criticism to a whole range of NT literature is developed in Kennedy’s application of rhetoric to scriptures. Kennedy suggests that the ultimate goal of rhetorical analysis should be the discovery of the author’s intention and of how that intention is transmitted to an audience through the text (see Kennedy, NT Interpretation, 12). Cf. Wuellner, ‘Where is Rhetorical Criticism Taking us?’, 448–63; or idem, ‘Hermeneutics and Rhetoric’, 1–54. For more contributors to rhetorical criticism, see Olbricht, ‘Flowering Rhetorical Criticism’, 99.

16

2. The Methodology

fourth factor – the occasion or the context in which the work is composed or delivered.12 Using Kennedy’s five-step approach,13 we first determine the rhetorical unit, which must have a beginning, middle, and an end.14 In our case, the rhetorical units are the parabolic compositions and their various contexts. Secondly, we define the rhetorical situation. Following Lloyd F. Bitzer,15 Kennedy defines rhetorical situations as a “complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence”,16 which precipitates the rhetorical response. He defines ‘exigence’ as a situation, where an individual is called upon to make some response.17 Applying this to our parabolic compositions, we will discuss three different situations that evoked the rhetorical response. Thirdly, we will determine the species of rhetoric (judicial, deliberative or epideictic)18 and the rhetorical problem or stasis.19 Fourthly, we will analyze invention,20 arrangement,21 and

12

So Kennedy, NT Interpretation, 15. Cf. Kennedy, NT Interpretation, 33–8; see also Stamps, ʻRhetorical and Narratological Criticismʼ, 224. 14 Cf. Kennedy, NT Interpretation, 33. 15 Cf. Bitzer, ‘The Rhetorical Situation’, 4–6. 16 Kennedy, NT Interpretation, 35. 17 Cf. Kennedy, NT Interpretation, 34–5. 18 The species of rhetoric is a theory formulated by Aristotle (Rhet. 3.1.1358a) and generally found in subsequent writers as judicial, deliberative and epideictic. According to Kennedy though, these categories specifically refer to the circumstances of classical civic oratory and are in fact applicable to all discourse. For him, the species is judicial, when the author seeks to persuade the audience to make a judgement about events occurring in the past. It is deliberative, when he seeks to persuade them to take some action in the future. Finally, it is epideictic, when he seeks to persuade them to hold or reaffirm some point of view in the present, as when he celebrates or denounces some person or some quality. According to Kennedy, praise or blame is taken by Aristotle to be the characteristic feature of epideictic speech. Kennedy further observed that in a single discourse, there is sometimes the utilization of more than one species, and the definition of the species as a whole can become very difficult. A discourse, though, usually has a dominant species that reflects the author’s major purpose in speaking or writing (Kennedy, NT Interpretation, 19). 19 Cf. Kennedy, NT Interpretation, 36. 20 Thus, by analyzing the external proof, i.e., quotation of scriptures, evidence of miracles, and naming of witness, John the Baptist or the disciples, and internal or artistic proofs, i.e., the argument by ethos, pathos, and logos (Kennedy, NT Interpretation, 14). According to Aristotle (Rhet. 1.2.1356a), ethos, pathos and logos are three modes of artistic proof, which are categories found in the speech of all cultures. They inhere in speaker, audience, and discourse (15). Agreeing with Kennedy, we define first ethos, which means ‘character’ as “the credibility that the author or speaker is able to establish in his work”. The audience is induced to trust what he says because they trust him, as a good man or an expert on the subject. According to Kennedy, ethos is something entirely internal to speech in Aristotelian theory, but in practice, the authority that the speaker brings to the occasion is an important factor, which is especially true in the NT. Kennedy argues that pathos inheres in the audience and may be defined as the emotional reactions 13

C. Narrative Criticism

17

style.22 Finally, we will evaluate the rhetorical effectiveness of the rhetorical response in addressing the rhetorical situation.

Since the historical paradigm still governs exegesis, the historicalrhetorical approach dominates the NT.23 The rhetoric of the text, from this historical perspective, is a recovery of the original author’s use of GrecoRoman rhetoric to persuade the original reader in the context of the original historical setting or rhetorical situation.24 Therefore, in this research, we look at the Matthean parabolic compositions as apologetic texts intended to persuade a certain audience. Our goal is to discover the Matthean redactionist’s intent in composing these parable sets and the transmission of this intent to the audience through the text. Our task is to identify the classical rhetorical units, to classify them, to discern their rhetorical function in relation to the original situation, the original author, and the original audience.

C. Narrative Criticism

C. Narrative Criticism

Narratological criticism complements our rhetorical approach because Matthew’s Gospel is a story.25 Secondly, a greater part of the material we the hearers undergo as the orator “plays upon their feelings”. Applying pathos to our parabolic compositions, the trilogy offers the best example where pathos is brought into play (Mt 21:41). Logos is understood as the logical argument found within the discourse. According to Kennedy, logos is ordinarily regarded as a probable argument, not as logical certainty in classical rhetoric, but Christians came to regard the arguments from the Scripture as divinely revealed and thus certain. For all these, see Kennedy, NT Interpretation, 15–6. 21 By arrangement, we mean the ordering of the argument according to the components, such as the exordium or introduction, the narratio or statement of facts, the probatio or main body of the argument, and the peroratio or conclusion. 22 The style includes the figures of speech and other such devices used to shape the speech according to the needs of the invention. For more on these three parts of the rhetorical unit, see Kennedy, NT Interpretation, 37. 23 Cf. Stamps, ‘Rhetorical and Narratological Criticism’, 224. Such an historical approach seeks to correlate the text with its supposed original historical context, specifically ancient Greco-Roman rhetoric. But this is not the only reason why we chose this historical approach. Such an approach also seeks to reconstruct the rhetorical form and function of the parable discourses in their historically reconstructed situations. 24 Stamps, ‘Rhetorical and Narratological Criticism’, 224. 25 Cf. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 1f.; Luz, Matthäus I, 32f. Agreeing with Chartman (see Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 3, n. 6), Kingsbury understands the Gospel of Matthew as a unified narrative with two parts – a ‘story’ and a ‘discourse’, the story being life, death and resurrection of Jesus and the discourse being the means by which this story of Jesus is told (cf. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 2f.).

18

2. The Methodology

deal with in this work concerns parables and parables are narrative texts, often short narratives.26 Although the narratological approach to the Scriptures is not something new,27 the sustained effort to apply modern secular literary critical theories of narratives to the Gospel literature is recent.28 Thanks to the efforts of literary critics, today, there is a well-established discipline of the literary and narratological interpretation of the Scriptures within biblical research.29 Like all narrative critics who focus on the final form of the text, our approach is based on the following assumptions: Firstly, we do not only concentrate on the coherence of the text, but also on the text as an end in itself. Accordingly, we will focus on the text as a communication event within a specified context. As a device or component, we will analyze the references of the text to the world outside the text. Secondly, we will attempt to interpret the text in reference to the implied author and the implied reader as opposed to the real author and the real reader. The implied author and reader are figures within the narrative, implicitly or explicitly, which are presupposed and constructed by the narrative itself.30 Thirdly, we will look at the parables as a product of a composition process in which the parabolic compositions are a form of communication through which a message is passed from the author to the reader(s).

In terms of the reading process, we will encounter parabolic discourses in sequential order, and generally understand the narrative as a unified whole, connecting the parts to a larger narrative scheme. With these basic assumptions,31 we will examine the various narrative elements or devices and con-

26

Cf. Zimmermann, ‚Parabeln – sonst nichts!‘, 410–1. The 1960s saw attempts to examine the parables from a modern literary perspective. The 1970s saw a continuation in the effort to apply modern literary critical methods to the biblical texts, especially the Gospels. For more on these efforts, see such works as: W.A. Beardslee, Literary Criticism of the NT (GBS; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969); D. Rhoads /D. Michie, Mark as a Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982); J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986); R. A. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983); R. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: Literary Interpretation (2 vols., Philadelphia and Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986, 1990). 28 Cf. Stamps, ‘Rhetorical and Narratological Criticism’, 227. 29 Cf. Stamps, ‘Rhetorical and Narratological Criticism’, 229. 30 According to E. S. Malbon, the implied author is a hypothetical construction based on the requirements of knowledge and belief presupposed in the narrative. The same is true of the implied reader. The implied author is the one who would be necessary for this narrative to be told or written. The implied reader is the one who would be necessary for this narrative to be heard or read (see Malbon, ‘Narrative Criticism’, in Anderson/Moore (eds.), Mark and Method, 27; cited also by Stamps, ‘Rhetorical and Narratological Criticism’, 229–30. Thus, the implied author is Jesus, whereas the early Christians are the implied audience; see Baldick, Literary Terms, 123. 31 Cf. Stamps,‘Rhetorical and Narratological Criticism’, 229–30. 27

C. Narrative Criticism

19

sider their role and effects in constructing a narrative whole (the story) and their effects on how the story is told or the story’s rhetoric (discourse).32 We will then relate the various narrative elements to the more general narrative concepts of structure or plot, characterization, point of view and setting. Each of these general concepts can be broken down into several narrative features or devices.33 We will look at structural patterns34 as ordered events, which may be ordered chronologically or topically by using prediction, foreshadowing or flashback. By examining parts of the structure, attention will be paid to the duration and frequency of the events.35 In Matthew, the narrative structure: Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5–7), constituting teaching; the miracles narratives (Mt 8–9), referring to Jesus’ works; the mission of the apostles (Mt 10); the conflict with the JLs (Mt 11–2) etc, lures the reader to try to discern an implicit plot in Mt 13. Because characters are crucial to a story’s development, another important narrative concept that will receive attention is what is known as character and characterization. How are the people presented in the story? What do others in or outside the story say about them? How are the crowd, the JLs and the disciples characterized in our parabolic compositions?

In narrative criticism, point of view is a persuasive technique in that the story is always being presented or told from some perspective that has an evaluative consequence. Most narratives are dominated by a narrator who generally is related to the implied author and is usually considered to have a reliable perspective.36 Again, our initial findings indicate that the parables told to the crowd in Mt 13 have transitional statements that are completely absent from those told to the disciples. Author commentaries drive the account of the trilogy within its narrative context.37 Also important in

32

Cf. Stamps, ‘Rhetorical and Narratological Criticism’, 230, n. 34. So Stamps, ‘Rhetorical and Narratological Criticism’, 230, n. 35; for a useful discussion on narrative features, see Powell, What is Narrative Criticism, 23–82. 34 Structural patterns of interest to us include devices such as repetition, chiasm, contrast (antithesis) or comparison and summary often used to organize and develop the story and shape the discourse – devices, which are heavily employed by the author of the first Gospel in his parabolic compositions. 35 Cf. Stamps, ‘Rhetorical and Narratological Criticism’, 231. Following Stamps, we define duration as the amount of ‘ink’ or emphasis an incident is given over other incidents. By frequency, we mean the number of times an incident is referred to in the story. Equally important is to identify the Matthean redactionist’s plot. Therefore, we will seek to discover the causal links between various events. The plot often suggests that a reader implicitly seeks a connective link between events, especially where no cause is given. 36 So Stamps, ‘Rhetorical and Narratological Criticism’, 231. 37 Cf. le,gousin introducing the JLs’ response (21:31) or le,gei auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j introducing Jesus’ response to the answer of the JLs (v. 31) or le,gousin auvtw/| introducing the JLs’ answer to Jesus’ second question in 21:41 or introducing the response of Jesus (le,gei auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j) in v. 42. Mention could also be made here of 21:45–6 and the 33

20

2. The Methodology

our narratological approach is to analyze the settings of our compositions.38 Other important narrative devices such as symbolism, irony, and intertextuality are also given attention.39

D. Our Method of Interpretation

D. Our Method of Interpretation

As we outlined above, our approach to the parables regarding interpretation is first to look at them in light of their narrative-rhetorical context in the first Gospel. Our objective in this research is for the most part to understand the Matthean author on the basis of the text he has put together and whether the story he narrates can speak for itself. By ‘adding, blotting out, inserting, etc’ as found in Matthew’s editing of Mark’s parables, the author obviously sought to reinterpret his sources. Thus, without disputing the importance of the historical background for understanding the parables, it does not speak exclusively for the parables. Their redactional, rhetorical and narrative contexts, without doubt, play even a greater role in understanding the author. This is especially applicable to Matthew’s reorganization of his Markan source into almost distinct compositions. Certainly, the newly composed sets of parables before us have something more and perhaps new to communicate that their sources did not have. What motivated the author to compose these sets of parables, what he did with his sources, how he influenced them, the extent to which he influenced them in order to achieve the final compositions and whether his reorganization brought forth meanings different from what is found in his sources are things we want to know. Sticking to this hermeneutical program is undoubtedly a challenging task. We shall do our best, however, to first avoid any allegorical reading of Matthew’s parables and try to see whether the text can ex-

introductory commentary to the Wedding Feast in 22:1. All such transitory commentaries are missing in the parabolic compositions addressed to the disciples – at least in their narrative settings. Another area where an author’s perspective is greatly felt is the author’s presentation of the disciples. Do these observations perhaps hint at the Matthean redactionist’s point of view? This is what we intend to unearth. 38 Setting refers to the spatial, temporal and social locations of narrative events or simply, ‘the where and when’. Different settings have different implications for the plot and rhetoric of the narrative. We will try to find out whether the narrative settings of our parabolic discourse have been manipulated and what these settings could communicate to the reader/audience. 39 In Matthew, intertextuality is at work in the OT allusions and quotations that riddle the story and provide implicit commentary on the significance of the plot’s events. It is interesting to note that in Matthew’s parabolic compositions, the intertextuality device is employed only in those parables addressed to the crowds and their leadership.

E. Status Quaestionis

21

plain itself within the textual context. Our initial observation is that in most cases the text and its context have answers to most of the difficulties we are faced with in Matthew’s parables and parabolic compositions. Among scholars, Matthew is often viewed as the author who allegorizes his parables the most.40 Such a view is not completely dismissed by our research. This research rather calls for caution to understand Matthew’s parables as allegories. For, in most cases the allegorical tendencies in Matthew are grossly abused and made to provide too many answers. The danger is, instead of looking for answers first from the text before us, one may quickly jump to allegories for answers over and against very good answers hidden in the text itself. Since attempts at various forms41 of interpretation have already been made, we want to till new fields by letting the author and his story speak for themselves. This does not mean, however, that we give such important forms of interpretation little scholarly attention. In fact, we see them as providing us with a new platform for new questions and answers. Certainly, the authors of the NT texts and especially those of the Synoptics wanted their stories to be understood in light of the salvation history. We may not have it all right, if we seek to find corresponding elements to every single aspect of the stories they tell in the story of Israel’s salvation history. In fact, some of these aspects of the story, which are often interpreted allegorically, belong to the nature of the story they tell. Although the texts of the NT are reconstructed stories, that is what we have before us and that must be allowed to speak. Ignoring this essential fact will not do justice to the text.

E. Status Quaestionis

E. Status Quaestionis

Of greater interest to us and for that matter to be examined under this subtitle are a few authors, whose studies deal with Matthew’s parables either in part or in whole. We begin with Kingsbury’s monograph, The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13, in which he describes the function of Mt 13 as

40 Cf. Jeremias, Parables, 85; Luz, Matthew 8–20, 290. According to Luz, though, the degree of allegorization varies greatly: it is very high in 13:24–30; 21:33–43; 22:1–14 and very low in 13:44–5; 18:23–35; 20:1–16. 41 See Hans Weder’s tradition-redactional critical analysis and interpretation of Matthew’s parables in his Gleichnisse Jesu als Metaphern or Joachim Jeremias’ attempt to strip off the parables’ allegorical interpretations in his Gleichnisse Jesu, or most recently, Ulrich Luz’s ‘history of interpretation’ in his four-volume commentary on Matthew [Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (EKK)] or Christian Münch’s search for the form and function of Matthew’s Parables in his book Die Gleichnisse Jesu im Matthäusevangelium and many others.

22

2. The Methodology

signalling the Gospel’s great ʻturning pointʼ.42 In this book, Kingsbury also rejects the thesis that Matthew has a parable theory, suggesting that Matthew has incorporated a double tradition into his Gospel regarding the nature of parabolic speech.43 These two key positions of Kingsbury are critically examined in this research. Another study which dwells solely on Mt 13 and which we briefly discuss, is Anthony O. Ewherido’s doctoral thesis published in 2006.44 In his book, the author looks at the placement of Mt 13 within the social context of the first Gospel and concludes that at the time the Gospel was written, the Matthean community existed in extramural relationship to the parent group.45 In his view, Mt 13 marks a turning point in the Gospel’s definition of a new orientation of a community that finds itself outside the synagogues of Israel.46 However, such a view is questionable, since the literary order of the Gospel as well as the evidence gathered from Mt 13 do not support it.47 This notwithstanding, Ewherido offers good contributions to the discussion of Mt 13. Alongside those monographs on Mt 13, attention is given to Wesley G. Olmstead’s work, which dwells solely on the parabolic trio of 21:28–22:14 from a narrative and redactional perspective. Guided by the single question of what the author intended to elicit from his reader,48 Olmstead also examines the trilogy of parables on the assumption that they are components

42 Cf. Kingsbury, Parables, 130. In his view, the great turning point has to do with the flow of events in the ministry of Jesus as Matthew presents in his dependence on Mark. In response to the Jewsʼ rejection of Jesusʼ teaching, preaching and healing ministry as well as Jesus as Messiah and inaugurator of God’s eschatological Kingdom, Jesus turns against them. This turning away from the Jews towards the disciples is the great turning point. 43 Cf. Kingsbury, Parables, 49f.; 135f. 44 The book is entitled, Matthew’s Gospel and Judaism in the Late First Century C.E.: The Evidence from Matthew’s Chapter of Parables (Matthew 13:1–52). 45 Ewherido, Matthew’s Gospel and Judaism, 25–6. 46 Cf. Ewherido, Matthew’s Gospel and Judaism, 25–6. 47 Read together, 13:1–2 and 13:10, which leaves the disciples and the crowd together at the shore and then subsequently let them (the disciples) approach Jesus (prose,rcomai), graphically and perhaps symbolically, underscore the disciples’ origin from and their belonging to the broader Jewish community. Secondly, in the Parable of the Darnel, the servants being restrained from weeding out the darnel (cf. 13:30: a;fete sunauxa,nesqai avmfo,tera e[wj tou/ qerismou/), which would have been the normal thing to do, further deemphasizes any understanding of a separation at this time. Likewise, in the Parable of the Net, the separation of the good from the bad fish is left to the angels and is interpreted eschatologically. Finally, the command to the one who has ears to hear [o` e;cwn w=ta avkoue,tw (13:9.43)] underscores the fact that on the literary level the separation has not yet taken place. 48 Cf. Olmstead, Matthew’s Trilogy of Parables, 4.

E. Status Quaestionis

23

of the evangelist’s wider communicative action49 and concludes that from the narrative perspective and the trilogy itself, the reader is given ample reasons to conclude that the judgement announced by Jesus will be directed solely against the JLs.50 To him, “The positive characterisation of the Gentiles in deliberate and sustained contrast to Israel (or sub-groups within Israel) prepares the reader for the judgement that is about to fall on God’s people and the blessing that awaits the nations.”51 In his view, Matthew manipulated his tradition to let his readers understand the nature and gravity of Israel’s failure, most especially its leadership’s failure.52 In spite of Olmstead’s good assessment of the trilogy, his study offers us only a partial picture of what appears to be Matthew’s network of parables. A greater number of monographs/commentaries on Matthew treat Matthew’s parables in their entirety or partially. In his four-volume commentary – a magnum opus on Matthew – Ulrich Luz provides a detailed commentary on various aspects of the Gospel including all Matthean parables. In his second volume (31999), Luz draws the scholars’ attention to the lack of study on Matthew’s interpretation of parables and undertakes “an initial exploration of an area that needs further treatment”.53 In this ‘initial exploration’, he looks at the three blocks of Matthew’s parables (13:1–52; 21:28–22:14; 24:32–25:30) and observes that whereas the first two blocks, which are public discourses, perform important functions in the flow of the Matthean narrative, the third does not follow the plot of the Matthean story.54 Examining Matthew’s parables of the Kingdom of Heaven, his methods of interpretation (allegory, repetitions, insertion of his parables into the context etc), the tendencies of Matthew’s parables (salvation history and parenetic messages), and finally Matthew’s parables as parables of judgement,55 Luz concludes that Matthew has expanded his sources (by increasing the number of Kingdom of Heaven parables),56 reinforced salvation history and parenetic tendencies,57 and in some cases shifted the message of his parables (by making judgement their main theme).58 Influenced

49

Cf. Olmstead, Trilogy, 3–21, 97. Cf. Olmstead, Trilogy, 68. 51 Cf. Olmstead, Trilogy, 96–7. 52 So Olmstead, Trilogy, 128. 53 Luz, Matthew 8–20, 289. 54 Luz, Matthew 8–20, 289. On this point, this research has a different view. Indeed, the last set of parables follows the overall story Matthew tells with his parables, making Matthew’s parables a network with different, but strongly connected tendencies. 55 Luz, Matthew 8–20, 290. 56 Luz, Matthew 8–20, 290. 57 Luz, Matthew 8–20, 292. 58 Luz, Matthew 8–20, 294. 50

24

2. The Methodology

by U. Luzʼs initial exploration, our study offers further treatment of Matthewʼs parable compositions. Other monographic studies on Matthew’s parables of importance to us include those of Ivor Jones, Jan Lambrecht and Christian Münch. In his commentary on The Matthean Parables, Ivor Jones offers a comprehensive study, which he believes can shed more light on the structure, purpose, and genre of Matthew’s gospel.59 To Jones “The parables can help to clarify if and to what extent Matthew has moved away from the Marcan genre”.60 Evaluating the functions of Matthew’s parables, Jones identifies the ‘replacement motif’ as a common theme of the trilogy, a theme that is not a redactional addition but “it is more likely that the grouping of ‘replacement’ parables took place in advance of Matthew’s work”.61 Comparing the trio of 24:42–25:13 with their parallels in Luke, Jones points out that Matthew brings the same combination of Q and Mark together, with the “watchfulness motif” as their theme. In his view, the pre-Lukan concern was reward for watchfulness, whereas the pre-Matthean concern was watchfulness as obedience.62 Jones concludes that Mt 13, 20–1 and 24–5 are the witnesses to the existence of groups of parables at earlier stages of the Synoptic tradition.63 While Jones’ extensive and holistic treatment of the parables is to be praised, his idea that the regrouping of replacement parables (21:28–22:14) took place prior to Matthew’s work is only hypothetical. Approaching Matthean parables from a rhetorical standpoint though not chronologically, Jan Lambrecht64 treats the parables in 18–20,65 21–2, 13, 24–5 and the Last Judgment.66 In his view, “By means of the parable story,

59

Jones, Matthean Parables, 1. Jones, Matthean Parables, 55. 61 Jones, Matthean Parables, 113–4. To Jones, “replacement” was already a feature of the Parable of the Feast (so 114, 409–10, 412). 62 Cf. Jones, Matthean Parables, 115. Here, Jones believes that the trio has a very significant feature, exhibiting variations in the agreement in wording between Matthew and Luke. 63 Cf. Jones, Matthean Parables, 115. 64 Cf. Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, 21, 145. He does not begin with Mt 13, because both the parabolic theory and the allegorical interpretation complicate the investigation. Does this perhaps suggest that Lambrecht failed to see the importance of Mt 13 for Matthew’s parabolic compositions? This may not be the case because title of his book originates from Mt 13 (14). 65 In Mt 18 and 20, he examines/interprets the Parable of the Lost Sheep (18:12–4), the Unforgiving Servant (18:23–35) and the Laborers in the Vineyard (20:1–16). For more on this, see Lambrecht, Out of Treasure, 32f. 66 Cf. Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, 21–2. 60

E. Status Quaestionis

25

the teller forces his hearers to agree”67 bringing the speaker and hearer into dialogue with the intention to convince the hearer. A transposition takes place when that point of convincing is reached. The parable is thus, “a kind of strategic detour”, as compared with “a tactically arranged ‘trap’ in which the hearer is lured and then tricked”.68 To Lambrecht, “in its deepest essence the parable is argumentation and demonstration.”69 Discussing the trilogy, he argues that Matthew is here reflecting “on past history”70, directing the parables to Israel’s guilt and to the church.71 For Lambrecht, Mt 13 bears the stamp of Matthew’s personality72 suggesting that the number of parables (7) here is not accidental but rather plays a role elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel.73 According to him, Matthew depicts Jesus as urging his disciples to be ready for his unexpected return using mainly parables from Q in the Parousia discourse.74 For Lambrecht, 24–5 is both a vision of the future and a testament. His focus is on how the parables explain Israel’s history with God and on his emphasis on the rhetorical value of the parables, examining the parables within the context of Matthean theology: salvation history, ecclesiology, and eschatology are commendable. His difficulty with Mt 13 is unwarranted. Finally, Christian Münch’s approach to Matthew’s parables from the perspective of their form and function75 is worth looking at. His objective was to examine linguistic and literary features in Matthew that make “Gleichnisse als Gleichnisse” (literally, “parables as parables”), and to find out how these features trigger and direct the reference process and the symbolization of the parable.76 Münch examines the use of parabolh, and concludes that Matthew uses the term to signal the special form of this speech because this speech is difficult to understand.77 In his view, the se-

67

Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, 27. Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, 27. 69 Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, 27. 70 Cf. Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, 136. Citing 21:41.43 and 22:7 in the trilogy, he argues that Matthew writes retrospectively about Israel’s unbelief, about its guilt and lack of fruit and about the judgement, which has already been executed. 71 Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, 137. 72 Cf. Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, 149. 73 Cf. Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, 150. 74 Cf. Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, 185. 75 Cf. Münch, Gleichnisse Jesu, 3, 58. 76 Cf. Münch, Gleichnisse Jesu, 58–60. 77 Cf. Münch, Gleichnisse Jesu, 81, 84, 127. According to Münch, the meaning of Jesus’ parables is not obvious; to understand them is difficult. The difficulty lies not in the form but in the fact that they deal with the Kingdom (as in 127). The Verstockungsaussage in 13:10–7 is only intended to be a statement about the parables because the parables of Mt 13 are parables about the Kingdom of Heaven (127, n. 266). 68

26

2. The Methodology

mantic observations of the term reveal a relatively consistent parable theory that is not necessarily pinned down to Mt 13.78 Thus, to him Matthew has genre appreciation of parables. In his view, the introductory and concluding formulas of Matthew’s parables hold meaning for understanding the parables.79 He further observes that Matthew’s parables are one form of Jesus’ teachings.80 Münch’s defining contribution is his search for the understanding of a Matthean understanding of the term parabolh,. This is a positive step towards freeing Matthew’s parabolic understanding from his main sources Mark and Q. This notwithstanding, the author’s difficulty to definine what exactly Matthew’s parable theory is, is obvious. Thus, while many things have been achieved in the Matthean scholarship, many remain to be resolved. This study seeks to contribute to that.

F. Conclusion In summary, our method for this work is a multi-methodological approach with emphasis on rhetorical and narratological criticism. Thus this study will make use of all the tools available to us where applicable. We will emphasize, however, rhetorical-narrative criticism because our parable sets have been constructed as a rhetorical and narrative device, as a story, and in the form of an argument as proof of persuasion. Besides, these two critical approahes operate on the same turf and for that matter, complement each other. This notwithstanding, a multi-methodological approach is the best approach with which to examine Matthew’s parables since rhetorical and narrative criticisms depend on other critical methods of exegesis for their strength and clarity. Our method of interpretation of Matthew’s parabes, which allows the text before us and its author to speak for themselves, has been carefully chosen to combine with our critical approaches to achieve the research’s objective. The preceding short survey on the state of the research with reference to Matthew’s sets of parables has shown how many importance issues remain to be addressed. This study seeks to unearth some of such issues.

78 79 80

Cf. Münch, Gleichnisse Jesu, 88. Cf. Münch, Gleichnisse Jesu, 296–8. Cf. Münch, Gleichnisse Jesu, 293–5.

Chapter 3

Matthewʼs Sets of Parables: Strategy and Theory 3. Matthewʼs Sets of Parables: Strategy and Theory

A. Introduction In the first two chapters of our study, we outlined two main critical issues of this research: the question whether Matthew’s parabolic compositions are a jumble of material drawn from different sources or calculated compilations of sources with a rhetorical and narrative plot, and whether Matthew’s parables presupposes a parable theory. Our attention, in this chapter, moves from defining the question and the methodological approach to analyzing two issues common to Matthew’s sets of parables. The first section of this chapter is reserved for Matthew’s parabolic compositions as rhetorical arguments and narrative pieces and the second deals with the constituents of Matthean parable theory, its nature, and characteristics (see pp. 37f).

B. The Parable Sets as a Rhetorical Argument and as a Story

B. The Parable Sets as a Rhetorical Argument and as a Story

Like all rhetorical arguments, Matthew’s sets of parables have been composed to persuade their audience. The speaker of all Matthean parables is Jesus – the rhetorical figure. All Matthean parabolic compositions are preceded in some form by a question (cf. 12:48; 21:23; 24:3).1 Interestingly,

1

Mt 12:48 is a rhetorical question, which the rhetorical figure (Jesus) briefly answers in 12:49–50. The issue, though, is far from over. This question and its short exposition introduce Mt 13. The question of the JLs in 21:23 and the double question of Jesus (21:25) introduce 21:28–22:14. The disciples’ question in 24:3 introduces the eschatological discourse of 24–5 in which Matthew’s last set of parables is imbedded. The Matthean author most probably uses such questions as rhetorical devices. Some interpret this and the fact that his parables are introduced by a question, to be a signal that Jesus – the parables’ narrator – is a teacher. This is quite possible, but the fact that Matthew omits Mark’s dida,skein (Mk 4:1), evdi,dasken and evn th|/ didach/| (Mk 4:2) in 13:1–2, makes such an assertion questionable. Perhaps the Matthean author wanted Jesus’ parabolic speeches to be understood as dramas about the situation of the crowd/disciples, which function as revelation to those who have been given the ability to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. 13:11.35). Such introductory questions are of rhe-

28

3. Matthewʼs Sets of Parables: Strategy and Theory

some Matthean single parables are also introduced by similar questions from Peter (cf. 18:21–2; 19:27). In Matthew’s parabolic settings, Jesus often assumes a rhetorical posture.2 Matthew also relies on some kind of proof, either external or internal.3 In addition to the figures, postures of the rhetorical figure and the questions introducing his parabolic compositions, the overall rhetorical situation of these compositions reveals a calculated and systematic rhetorical response.4 This notwithstanding, we take Burridge’s call for caution in our application of classical rhetoric to the Gospels5 seriously, and apply rhetorical criticism cautiously to our sets of parables. I. Rhetorical Features in Matthew’s Sets of Parables Matthew’s Parable Sets as Rhetorical Units: A closer examination of Matthew’s parabolic compositions reveals that though his parable sets are spread over the Gospel, they are closer to each other in their plot, function, and message than the distance of their places in the Gospel suggests. Broadly speaking, they have one main rhetorical situation, namely acceptance/rejection of the Matthean Jesus. Despite this, each composition has its own rhetorical problem, which illuminates the larger rhetorical situation. In 13:1–52, the Matthean author demonstrates who accepts or rejects the Matthean Jesus and his dawning Kingdom and the consequences of acceptance/rejection. Whereas acceptance of Jesus constitutes doing the will of the Heavenly Father, Jesus’ rejection means repudiation of God’s will. While acceptance opens the door to more knowledge about

torical importance. They do not only define the underlying themes of the parabolic compositions they introduce, they also provide hints at the entire plot of the Matthean redactionist. 2 In two of his parable introductions, Jesus sits and speaks to his audiences (13:1–2; 24:3; cf. also 5:1). In the Temple, he presumably stands or sits while teaching (21:23) and perhaps when delivering the trilogy of parables (21:28–22:14). 3 In almost all of the Matthean Jesus’ parabolic speeches the disciples are present, either actively (as main audience: 13:36–50; 24:32–25:30) or passively (as bystanders: 13:3–9; 13:24–35). In such a case, they act as witnesses. In addition, from 21:18–22 one could deduce that the disciples accompanied Jesus into the Temple (21:23) and were most probably present, when Jesus was confronted with the question of his authority by the chief priests and the elders of the people and when Jesus addressed them in parables (21:28–22:14). 4 Each of these three parabolic compositions looks at this same rhetorical situation from a different perspective and thus, has its own rhetorical problem or stasis employing at least one dominant rhetorical species. The invention, arrangement, and style of Matthew’s parabolic compositions reveal a rhetorical strategy born out of a calculated approach. 5 Burridge, ʻGospel and Actsʼ, in Porter, Handbook of Classical Rhetoric, 514.

B. The Parable Sets as a Rhetorical Argument and as a Story

29

God’s mysteries, rejection causes one to lose even the little that one has (cf. 13:11–2). In Mt 13, the reader/hearer gets the sense that the status of the disciples as ‘brothers’, ‘sisters’ and ‘mother’ of Jesus is born out of choice. Discipleship is not defined by consanguinity but by choosing to ‘do the will of his father in heaven’ (cf. 7:21; 12:50). Mt 13 thus defines and demonstrates the status of the disciples based on their response to Jesus’ message of the dawning Kingdom of Heaven and their commitment to that response. Such a committed response bears fruit (cf. 13:8) and makes the disciples blessed to see and hear what they see and hear (cf. 13:16–7). On the other hand, Mt 13 also defines the status of the crowd based on their failure to respond to Jesus’ call, not in word (cf. 7:28– 9; 21:46) but in deeds (cf. 7:21; 25:11). Thus, this parable set deals with God’s will revealed in Jesus, which finds acceptance among the disciples but disappointingly nonacceptance among the Jews. The trilogy of 21:28–22:14 seeks to answer the question of Jesus’ authority for doing ‘these things’ (tau/ta cf. 21:23), which in its context undoubtedly refers to his teaching in the Temple (v. 23) as well as the cleansing of the Temple and the subsequent healings there on the previous day (21:12–7). By questioning Jesus’ authority, the JLs have not simply challenged Jesus, but also the will of God (21:28f). In the trilogy, the reader/hearer learns that by rejecting the authority of Jesus, the JLs risk being overtaken (21:31), losing their authority over God’s vineyard (21:41–3) and being declared unworthy to attend the eschatological wedding feast (22:8–9; cf. v. 2; cf. Rev 19:7–9). A rejection of Jesus’ authority constitutes a rejection of God’s authority, which in turn constitutes a rejection of his will. It is evident that although 21:28–22:14 deals unequivocally with the question of Jesus’ authority to cleanse, heal, and teach in the Temple, the question is very much connected to the Gospel’s major stasis – the JLs’ rejection of Jesus – as a result of which they risk losing their authority over God’s vineyard (cf. 21:43) and being left out of the wedding feast. Thus, in the trilogy of 21–2, Matthew reflects on the separation between church and Israel as being the consequence of acceptance/rejection of the reign of God. The story turns to the negative response of the JLs to the call to do God’s will, and the positive response of the church within which those who fail to do the will of God will be thrown out as well, though (22:11–3). The last unit of our parabolic compositions in the eschatological discourse (24:32– 25:30) turns the reader/hearer’s attention to the issues within the Jesuanic community itself. Of central stage is the question of when the Parousia will occur, which could be seen as the ultimate reward for discipleship. Here, the disciple is informed that the time of the Parousia is and will remain unknown and that the only antidote to the unknown is readiness. Being ready does not mean simply to be awake at all times, but instead to do God’s will (cf. 24:46–7), making sure to be prepared (25:1–13) and making use at all times of one’s talents (25:14–30). This is what defines true discipleship. The choice to accept Jesus will not be enough if it does not pass the test of time. It is in the last Matthean parabolic composition that the question of not just the ‘when’ of the Parousia but also its possible delay (cf. 24:45–51; 25:1–13; 25:14–30) as well as the reward for discipleship receive detailed consideration. Doing the will of God must have no deadline because one does not know the when of the end of this age. The deadline for doing God’s will is in the consummation of this age (cf. 24:3; 28:20). Only those who pass this test will be rewarded (cf. 10:23b; 24:13). Failure to learn from the wisdom of nature [sign of the fig tree (24:32–5)], from the wisdom of biblical history [the sign of the deluge (24:37–42)], or from the wisdom of this world (24:43–4; 25:1–30) could be disastrous. Again, here as in other parabolic compositions preceding it, this set of parables tells a story about rejection/acceptance of the Matthean Jesus, but this time from within the Jesuanic community itself. Thus, in 24:32–25:30, doing the will of God receives a new

30

3. Matthewʼs Sets of Parables: Strategy and Theory

interpretation. Being faithful to God means to be faithful to the end, a time no one exactly knows (24:32–44). Those who do the will of their master also in his absence, those who readily await the bridegroom, as well as those who put the entrusted talents of their master to good and profitable use are those who will be rewarded by their master upon his return. Doing the will of God defines the brotherhood of Jesus (cf. 12:45–50). Doing something good to one of the least of such brothers also becomes the measure for entrance into eternal life at the last judgement (25:40.45).

In the face of this, it is essential to emphasize that Matthew’s parabolic compositions with their various different individual units and their accents, are to be seen as one rhetorical unit with a single rhetorical situation; namely, to demonstrate who accepts or rejects Jesus and his message of the dawning Kingdom of Heaven.6 Thus, the overall structure of Matthew’s parables reveals a single rhetorical situation being rhetorically but variously responded to by the Matthean author. Another area where Matthew shows bearings of rhetoric is his use of invention (eu[resij).7 The first concern of Matthew, like all the other Gospels, is to establish the sta,sij or status of his book. According to Burridge, since our Gospel writers chose to write prose narrative accounts exhibiting all the generic features of bi,oj, it is assumed that the key issue is Jesus – the protagonist of his story.8 However, the Gospel writers approach this key issue differently. For Matthew, Jesus Christ is the Messianic son of David, the son of Abraham (1:1), thus making Jesus’ identity clear from the onset, unlike Mark who keeps a Messianic secret. In Mt 1:21.23, the angel introduces Jesus to the reader as the savior of his people from their sins and as VEmmanouh,l – meqV h`mw/n o` qeo,j (Emmanuel – God with us) respectively. He is, so to speak, ‘the face of God on earth’. Jesus’ role in the story, which the author intends to tell is to save his people.9 Accordingly, his proclamation of the Kingdom issues in a call to repentance (4:17) and radical obedience (cf. 4:18–22).10 Further identifi-

6 Acceptance of Jesus, his message of the Kingdom and its messengers constitute ‘doing the will of God’ who sent him (cf. 10:40–2). Rejection, on the other hand, constitutes the rejection of God’s will. The questions of who rejects the will of God, how one rejects and the implications of rejecting the will of God receive treatment in Matthew’s parabolic compositions. The parabolic compositions thus play a major rhetorical role in the entire plot of Matthew’s story of Jesus. 7 Cf. Lausberg, Handbook, 3. Lausberg defines inventio (Rhet. Her. 1.3; Quint., Inst. 3.3.1) as the “discovery” of ideas. It is also a process of exhaustive productivity: it extracts from the res the possibilities for the development of ideas (§260–1, 119f). Thus, we understand invention as the treatment of the subject matter, the use of evidence (external and internal proof), the argumentation, and the control of emotion. 8 Cf. Burridge, ʻGospel and Acts’, 521. Luz, however, thinks Matthew only reminds his reader of a Hellenistic bi,oj but in actual fact, the idea of a biography is quite remote (Luz, Matthew 1–7, 15). 9 So Howell, Matthew’s Inclusive Story, 128. 10 So Howell, Matthew’s Inclusive Story, 128.

B. The Parable Sets as a Rhetorical Argument and as a Story

31

cation is found in 2:2.11. Through words and actions (cf. v. 11), the reader learns from the wise men that Jesus is indeed the newborn king of the Jews (o` tecqei.j basileu.j tw/n VIoudai,wn). In these first two chapters, Jesus is preeminently portrayed as the son of God.11 Thus, the origin of Jesus can be traced back to God with this filial relationship reaffirmed in the story (2:15; 3:16–7). Nevertheless, obedience to God’s will is central to the sonship of Jesus (4:1–11).12 This could be a clue to the reader’s expected response. Obedience to the will of God is central for admission into the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. 7:21).

Thus, in his Gospel, the author of Matthew makes the identity of Jesus as the protagonist clear through the genealogy and the infancy narratives (1:1–2:23), but also through words (5–7), and deeds (8–9). The question for the Matthean author to address in developing his story is no longer ‘who is Jesus?’, but ‘how his Jesus and the Kingdom of Heaven13 he seeks to reveal are accepted’?14 In the Gospel’s opening chapters, the Matthean Jesus and John find acceptance from the crowd (3:5–6; 4:24–5) and the Gentiles15 and rejection and opposition from the JLs and Jerusalem (cf. 2:3b).16 These two opposing poles run parallel throughout the Gospel. Those who accept Jesus respond to his call without reservations (cf. 4:18– 22). These are represented by the disciples. Accordingly, D. B. Howell 11

So Howell, Matthewʼs Inclusive Story, 127. Citing 1:16.18.20, Howell argues that the origin of Jesus can be traced to God. The meaning will be evident as the narrative evolves. The accent, however, shifts as we shall argue below, from presentation to acceptance/rejection of Matthew’s protagonist as the story evolves. 12 Cf. Luz, Matthäus I, 215, 225, 230. 13 The number of times (12 times) basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n occurs in Mt 13 supports the assumption that indeed, the Gospel’s most important theme (occurring some 33 times), is also the subject matter of Mt 13. This further supports our assumption that Mt 13 is indeed the turning point because it deals with one of the important staseis, if not the most important stasis of the Gospel – the question of who accepts or rejects Jesus and the Kingdom of Heaven he reveals. 14 Luz expresses a similar view in his treatment of Matthean repetitions, where he appears to suggest that repetitions call the reader’s attention to what the real issue is, “the separation of the disciples of Jesus from Israel, the founding of the church, and its way to the Gentiles” (Luz, Matthew 8–20, 177). The Gospel’s real issue, though, among other things, is not the result but rather the cause. Since arguments generally offer proof, they tend to emphasize causes rather than effects. In addition, since Matthew’s parabolic compositions play rhetorical functions in their various contexts, they tend to emphasize the cause rather than the effect. The separation is the result of Israel’s continuous rejection of doing the will of God as revealed in Jesus – its rejection of the revealed Kingdom of Heaven and the revealer is the crux of the matter. We must admit however, that the two are strongly connected. 15 The visit of the Wise Men from the East (2:1–12) and the flight to Egypt (2:13–5), which immediately follows, could indicate his acceptance by the Gentiles from the onset. 16 Herod’s failed attempt to kill Jesus and his subsequent killing of the innocent children (2:16–8) already hints at a strong opposition from the JLs.

32

3. Matthewʼs Sets of Parables: Strategy and Theory

identifies two main themes central in Matthew’s plot: the first being the correlatives promise/fulfillment, which tie Matthew’s story of Jesus to the previous history of Israel portraying Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel’s Messianic hope, and the second found in the correlatives acceptance/rejection.17 In his literary study of Matthew, Kingsbury argued that the element of conflict is central to the plot of Matthew.18 To be precise, “the conflict on which the plot of Matthew’s story turns is that between Jesus and Israel”.19 As Howell rightly observed, whereas the importance of conflict in the plot of Matthew cannot be overstated, it seems as if the correlatives acceptance/rejection give a more precise statement of this plot element than Kingsbury’s category of conflict.20 Having received his stasis – acceptance/rejection of Jesus and his Kingdom – the first Gospel’s author decided to find ‘places’ (to,poi) where he might ‘discover’ useful material for his work. A closer look at Matthew shows that the rejection/acceptance antithesis of the Messianic nature of Jesus is expressed in the infancy narratives (1–2), in the central part of the Gospel (11–6) and finally, in his final days in Jerusalem (21–8). It is perhaps not all that surprising that Matthew does not use the term parabolh, until Mt 13, where in the true sense of the word these two aspects of one of his major staseis are ‘set side by side’ or ‘compared’ (paraba,llein). Here the antithesis acceptance/non-acceptance appears to have reached a turning point, and to become the subject of discussion. Finally, as it is often the case in bios, dearth is another good place to demonstrate the subject’s character.21 This is also the case in the Matthean story about Jesus. Rejection/acceptance reaches its climax in the passion and resurrection narratives (26–8). This notwithstanding, one major to,poj in the story where Matthew makes use of this particular stasis is in his parabolic compositions. Here, Matthew does not only assert the essential fact of Jesus’ nonacceptance/acceptance by various groups, but he insists on proving it. A good example is found in Mt 13, where Matthew not only says that the crowd does not understand, but demonstrates it by giving the crowd only a passive role in the discourse or by using some formulaic configurations to give the reader/hearer a hint at proof (cf. the transitional statements of 13:24.31.33). Matthew also employs the internal proof of logical argument. This could be inductive using a series of examples to point to a general conclusion, or deductive, which enunciates premises probably acceptable to an audience, and draws a

17

Cf. Howell, Matthew’s Inclusive Story, 110–1. Cf. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 3f, n. 9. According to him, the conflicts are with Satan (4:1–11), demons (12:28), the forces of nature and illness, civil authorities, Gentiles, Israel, and above all Israel’s religious leaders. To him, Jesus sometimes enters into conflict with his disciples and even, on one occasion, with himself (26:36–46) and the nations (24:14; 25:31–46). Here Kingsbury cites many places in Matthew to support the various conflicts Jesus encounters in the story of Matthew. For more, see 3, nn. 10–5. 19 Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 4 20 Cf. Howell, Matthew’s Inclusive Story, 113. 21 So Burridge, ʻGospel and Acts’, 523. 18

B. The Parable Sets as a Rhetorical Argument and as a Story

33

deductive conclusion from the premises.22 Broadly speaking, the parables of Jesus are inductive in nature. Further, the author does not reason with the truth of what he presents in his presentation of parable sets, but the characters involved, including Jesus, do.23 He has them speak in enthymemes,24 which are deductive proof in rhetoric: they regularly support an assertion with a reason, which helps to make it more comprehensible.25 Linguistically, these are expressed through Matthean o[ti ‘because’, ga,r ‘for’, and dia. tou/to ‘for this reason’ (cf. 13:11.12.13.52; 21:32.43; 22:14). Externally, the NT relies on three common forms of proof: quotations from Scripture, the evidence of miracles, and the naming of witnesses, such as John the Baptist, the disciples or Jesus.26 Matthew relies heavily on the evidence from the OT (13:14–5//Isa 6:9–10; 13:35//Ps 78:2; 21:42//Ps 118:22–3; 21:44//Dan 2:34.44) as proof (pi,steij) to demonstrate or confirm his narrative. He also relies on naming of witnesses, such as the disciples (13:10.36.51) or John the Baptist in 21:32. Another important point is the way he represents his stasis, relying largely on argumentation. Where Matthew relies on Mark, he often tends to present his facts as argument (cf. 13:11–3) using o[ti instead of the Markan i[na and supporting it with ga,r and dia. tou/to. In his treatment, invention is based on both external and internal proof by ethos, pathos and logos. The external proof is applied to the people and their leadership in Matthew’s parabolic discourses. Both scriptural quotations (except the reference to the days of Noah 24:37–9//Gen 6:11–3) and naming of witnesses are almost completely absent in his parables addressed to the disciples, even though he applies the internal proof to both audiences. In his Jerusalem controversy stories with the JLs, Matthew employs the trilogy to win the pathos of his audience (21:28–22:14). Mention should also be made of the description of the ten virgins as five wise and five foolish ones. By doing so, the Matthean Jesus seeks to win the pathos of the implied audience because the foolish virgins were denied entrance into the wedding feast due to their own folly. Thus, the narrative style, the language, and the story’s plot are constructed to arouse the emotions of Jesusʼ audience to condemn these five virgins as foolish. One other tool Matthew employs in dealing with invention is amplification (au;xhsij). This involves to develop at length or repeat a certain theme or idea to ensure that the audience understands its importance. Expanding the Markan parabolic composition (Mk 4:1–34) structurally and in terms of its material, Matthew sought to amplify the importance of Jesus’ parabolic speech within the Gospel’s rhetorical plot. Repetition of themes such as evn parabolai/j lalei/n (cf. 13:3.10.13.34), ouv suni,hmi and suni,hmi (cf. 13:13.14.15.19.23.51), avkou,ein and ouv avkou,ein [cf. 13:9.13(2x).14.15(2x).16.17(3x).18– 20(3x).22.23.43)], ble,pein and ouv ble,pein [cf. 13:13(2x).14(2x).16.17], and h` basilei,a

22

Cf. Kennedy, NT Interpretation, 16. Cf. Kennedy, NT Interpretation, 16. 24 An enthymeme commonly takes the form of a statement or a supporting reason. The Greek particle o[ti or ga,r in the sense of ‘for’ is commonly the indication of an enthymeme. Behind enthymeme stands a logical syllogism or epicheireme in rhetoric, as found in 13:11–3. According to Kennedy enthymeme is often supported by maxim (gnome or sententia). So Kennedy, NT Interpretation, 16. 25 See the answer of Jesus in 13:11–2 and the answer of the disciples in 13:51; the questions of the disciples in 13:10 and 13:36; the answer of the JLs in 21:31 and 21:41. 26 Kennedy, NT Interpretation, 14. 23

34

3. Matthewʼs Sets of Parables: Strategy and Theory

tw/n ouvranw/n (cf. 13:11.24.31.33.44.45.47.52) dominate Mt 13. Likewise, poiei/n to. qe,lhma tou/ patro,j ‘doing (and not doing) the will of God’ and its judgement overtones dominate the trilogy, although the term appears only once (21:31). The Parousia of the Son of Man, the uncertainty of the day and hour of its occurrence, which calls for watchfulness, its possible delay, which calls for readiness at all times amplify the theme of Parousia in the parable set of 24−5. The principle of taking from those who do not have the little they have (cf. 13:12; 21:43; 25:29) not only connects the three parabolic compositions, but also shows amplification of the dominant theme. The emphasis on ʻhaving oilʼ and the decisive role it finally plays in the story of the Ten Virgins could be viewed as flashback to 13:12a. The characterization of Jesus as the revealer of the Kingdom of Heaven (13:35) and presenting him as someone whom the crowd follows (4:25; 8:1; 12:15; 13:2; 14:13; 15:30; 19:2; 21:9) underscores the importance of the acceptance/nonacceptance stasis of the Gospel.

Other aspects of rhetoric which Matthew probably knew and made use of are arrangement (ta,xij or dispositio)27 and style (le,xij/elocutio)28 though these are not as widely used as invention. Considering all the difficulties of applying classical rhetoric to the Gospel narratives, Matthew’s parabolic discourses could be cautiously described as rhetorical pieces. Thus, our parable sets show certain influence of conventional rhetoric, though strictly speaking, Matthew’s parables draw from both Hellenistic and Jewish backgrounds.29 II. Matthean Parabolic Compositions as a Story Matthew presents his Gospel’s parabolic discourses in a narrative style. Broadly speaking, his arguments are told in story form relying heavily on similitudes, parables, and allegories. As pointed out above, the structure of the entire parabolic compositions reveals an interconnected story, which is ordered chronologically (with 13:24–35 to the crowd; 13:36–51 to the disciples; 21:28–22:14 to the JLs; 24:32–25:30 to the disciples). Structural patterns used include devices such as antithesis (crowd or JLs/disciples), parallelisms, repetitions (cf. 13:12/21:43/25:29) and comparisons. In narrating the parabolic discourses, emphasis is given to the implied author (Jesus) and the implied audience (crowd, disciple, JLs). There is thus a plot, which suggests a link between events. Characterization is another tool of Matthew’s narrative strategy within his parabolic discourses. The main

27

Cf. Lausberg, Handbook, §§443–452, 209; Burridge, ʻGospel and Acts’, 514. Cf. Lausberg, Handbook, §453, 215; cf. Burridge, ʻGospel and Acts’, 529–30. Matthew generally tends to improve the cumbersome Markan Greek, abbreviating the stories, rearranging Markan materials for clarity, replacing Markan kai, with the more conventional de,, constructing antitheses and parallelisms and developing arguments through his reliance on o[ti, ga,r, dia. tou/to, which makes his arguments lucid and comprehensible. 29 Cf. Burridge, ʻGospel and Acts’, 531. 28

B. The Parable Sets as a Rhetorical Argument and as a Story

35

actors are often figures relatively familiar to his audience: o`` spei,rwn (13:3)/ a;nqrwpoj (tij) (13:24.31; 21:28; 25:14); oivkodespo,thj (13:27; 21:3 3; 24:43); gunh, (13:33); ku,rioj (24:45); basileu,j (22:2); numfi,oj (25:1). There are other human actors involved in the story: dou/loi (13:24–30; 21:33–40; 22:1–14; 24:45–51; 25:14–30)/ui``o,j/te,kna (21:28–30.37–9; 22:2)/gewrgoi, (21:33−46), and de,ka parqe,noi (25:1−13). These characters are, in many ways, very important for the development of the story. The characterization of the implied audience and implied author is important to the story’s reception. The persuasive technique of point of view, often associated with a narrator who is related to the implied author, is often considered to provide a reliable perspective. In his parabolic discourses, the real narrator is Matthew, hiding behind Jesus – the implied author. In some cases, the implied author’s narrative is supplemented by the real author’s commentary (13:24.31.33; 21:31.45–6; 22:1). Elsewhere, the implied author’s narration is left almost completely untouched (13:36–51; 24:32– 25:30). Finally, the settings of Matthew’s parabolic discourses: at the beach of the lake (13:1–2), in the house (13:36), in the Temple (21:23), and on the Mount of Olives (24:3), reveal the rhetorical and narrative plot of the Matthean redactionist. Narratively, Matthew’s parabolic discourses form one well-connected and continuous story. It is a story about the reaction of Israel to the proclamation of the ‘dawning Kingdom of Heaven’ (3:2; 4:17; 10:7). It is a story with two sides: one, which tells about rejection of Jesus among the Jewish people and their leadership, and the other about the acceptance of Jesus and his message among both Jews and Gentiles – a group represented by his disciples. Why Matthew chose to use the parabolic discourse to tell this story is anyone’s guess. It is plausible, though, to suggest that Matthew might have chosen the parables because of their rhetorical force and their effective dramatic, narrative style. III. The Matthean parabolh,, Scholars generally agree that the use of parabolh, in the NT corresponds fully to the broad use of lv'm' – parabolh, in OT and Rabbinic literature.30 This notwithstanding, NT parables could be viewed as unique in that unlike the OT and Rabbinic parables, NT parables have narratively one single narrator – Jesus. This is especially true with the synoptic parables. Broadly speaking, though, OT, Rabbinic and NT parables have a lot in common. Though the etymology of the Hebrew lv'm' is unclear, its root meaning sug-

30 Cf. Hauck, Art. Parabolh,, TDNT V, 751, 753. Scott, Hear Then, 7–19, thinks that the scope of lv'm' is broader than that of the Greek parabolh, (in Ewherido, Matthew’s Gospel and Judaism, 92, n. 16).

36

3. Matthewʼs Sets of Parables: Strategy and Theory

gests ‘to be like or similar’.31 Thus, to Geraint Jones, lv'm' is a comparison, parable, gnomic saying (cf. 24:28), satire, byword; mishel is ‘to speak in parables’; hitmashel is ‘to become like’.32 Accordingly, in its original sense lv'm' – parabolh, is not a fixed literary form, but rather used to describe a wide variety of literary forms, such as proverbs (1Sam 10:12; Prov 1:1.6; 10:1; 26:7–9; Lk 4:23), riddles (Judg 14:10–8), taunt songs (Mic 2:4; Hab 2:6), allegories (Isa 5:1–7; Ezek 17:3–24) and, in the intertestamental literature, long revelatory discourses such as the similitudes of Enoch (1Enoch 39–71).33 This is also the impression one gets from the NT regarding the Gattung parabolh,. NT parables are more than a mere metaphor such as ‘salt of the earth’, ‘light of the world’ (5:13–4) or ‘leaven of the Pharisees’ (16:6) or a simile such as ‘clever as serpents’ (10:12) or ‘shine as sun’ (13:48). They include also, and are in most cases, short and extended narrative stories as well as allegories. While acknowledging the broad meaning of parabolh, Dodd attempts a definition that seems to find acceptance by many scholars: “at its simplest a parable is a metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought.”34 The term parabolh, occurs 48 times in the Synoptic Gospels and twice in Hebrews (Heb 9:9; 11:19). John (10:6; 16:25.29) and 2 Peter (2:22) use the synonym paroimi,a.35 Matthew uses parabolh, 13 times, with 8 of the occurrences in Mt 13 alone. In Matthew, the term first occurs in 13:3.36

31

Donahue, Gospel in Parable, 5. Jones, Art and Truth, 58. 33 So Donahue, Gospel in Parable, 5, n. 5; Jones, Art and Truth, 58–9; STR.–B I, 653; cf. Meier, Matthew, 142. 34 Dodd, Parables, 5. 35 According to Theobald, the word paroimi,a which is translated as parable, can also refer to a proverb. However, in the context of Jn10:6 citing Bauer, Theobald maintains paroimi,a is „die verhüllende Rede, d. h. Rätselrede, in der sich der Allgemeinheit unverständliche Gedanken verbergen“ (so Theobald, Johannes 1–12, 670). 36 However, the above statistics is not the complete picture of the scope and the use of the literary form in the NT. The number of times the term occurs in the NT could be misleading. For there are many stories in the NT, which are in form and in content parables, but never captioned as such (cf. Mt 7:24–7; Lk 10:29–37; 16:1–8; the parables of Mt 13:44–50; 18:23–34; 20:1–16 as well as the parables of 24:36–25:30). For this reason the meaning of the genre should never be pinned down to the use of the term. The term parabolh, is a derivative of the Greek verb paraba,llein (‘to set beside’, ‘to put alongside’, ‘to compare’). This etymological sense is highly present in the parables of the NT, where in most of the stories two or three things are ‘set beside each other for comparison’ (paraba,llein) without necessarily directly employing ‘like’, ‘as’ or ‘compare’ etc. (cf. Mt 21:28–46). On this the Synoptics agree. 32

C. Matthewʼs Parable Theory

37

Alongside the use of the word parabolh, is the Synoptic Gospels’ understanding of ‘speaking in parables’ as a rhetorical device (see p. 48). The phrase evn parabolai/j lalei/n is used in connection with Jesus’ parabolic compositions even though sometimes they are found in contexts where only one parable is narrated (Mk 4:10 par. Mt 13:10; Mk 12:1–12 par. Mt 21:33–46 or 22:1–14). In such instances, as we have argued in this research, ‘speaking in parables’ refers to a set of parables Jesus spoke in those settings, of which the author is offering us a summary for the purpose of his rhetorical argument. On the rhetorical value of Jesus’ parables the Synoptic differ among themselves in their understanding and interpretation. Mark and Luke agree by emphasizing the purpose of Jesus’ parabolic speech (cf. Mk 4:12; Lk 8:10b) as against Matthew who emphasizes the reason for Jesus’ parabolic speech (13:11–3).37 Perhaps such an understanding is also behind the reason, why Matthew chose to employ the term for the first time in Mt 13. Strictly speaking, this is where the crowd and the disciples are placed side-by-side (paraba,llein) for the first time.

C. Matthew’s Parable Theory C. Matthewʼs Parable Theory

In the introduction (see pp. 6f.), we argued against any suggestion that Matthew does not have parable theory. In this section, we provide proof of Matthew’s parable theory by describing its constituents, nature, layout, structure, and features. Through our analysis, we hope to identify what Matthew’s parable theory says, where it is expressed in the Gospel, how it is expressed and rhetorical and narrative functions which it serves. I. What Constitutes Matthew’s Parable Theory? If Matthew indeed has a parable theory, what constitutes it? According to 13:11–3, which could be viewed as a direct answer to the disciples’ question (cf. 13:10), Jesus speaks to the crowd in parables because they have

37 For Mark/Luke, Jesus’ parables are encoded, riddling speech. For Matthew, they are not encoded riddling speech (cf. 13:34–5), they rather offer a rhetorical argument to describe and explain the author’s characterization of his parables’ audience. In his sets of parables addressed to the people and their leadership, the Matthean author sets the people and their leaders beside other group(s) – the disciples or the nation (e;qnoj poiou/ntoj tou.j karpou.j auvth/j, cf. 21:43) for comparison. Jesus speaks to the people in parables because they have not been given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven; the disciples do not need ‘speaking in parables’, because they have been given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. Such an author characterization defines the use of ‘speaking in parables’ in Matthew’s Gospel.

38

3. Matthewʼs Sets of Parables: Strategy and Theory

not been given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven (13:11c). Moreover, because the axiom o[stij de. ouvk e;cei( kai. o] e;cei avrqh,setai avpV auvtou/ (13:12b) holds, the situation of the crowd is such that they see but do not see, hear but do not hear nor understand (13:13). The Matthean redactionist finds external biblical proof in Isa 6:9–10 to support his observation.38 On the other hand, because the disciples have been given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, and because for them also the saying o[stij ga.r e;cei( doqh,setai auvtw/| kai. perisseuqh,setai (13:12a) holds, Jesus does not speak directly to his disciples evn parabolai/j. Instead, he explains parables to them so that they will understand more of the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven (13:18‒23.36‒43). Apparently, Matthew’s parable theory discusses the Gospel’s rhetorical situation of the correlatives acceptance/rejection by placing the situation of the disciples (cf. 13:11b) and that of the crowd (cf. 13:11c) side by side (paraba,llein). Thus, a simple answer to the question of what actually constitutes Matthew’s parable theory is found in these two verses. The emphasis on the causative o[ti of 13:11b39 does not only hint at the rhetorical nature of the argument, but also at the descriptive nature of Matthew’s parable theory.

38

Walter Groß’ comparative analysis (cf. Groß, Finsternis und Unheil, 25f.) of the citation in the Hebrew OT, the Septuagint, the Targum, Mark (4:10–2), Matthew (13:13–5, esp. v. 13), Acts (28:25–8, cf. 13:46; 18:6) and John (12:37–41) reveals that the Markan text depends on the Targum (28.30); Matthew and Luke depend on the Septuagint (31, n. 12), in the case of Luke especially in Acts 28:25–8, whereas John depends on the Hebrew OT in Isa 6:9–10. An important point Groß makes here, is that the early Christians did not act as exegetes, who sought to explain Isaiah’s message like the authors of the Septuagint and Targum did to the Hebrew text, but instead as theologians who sought to use Isaiah’s message to address a pressing problem of the time. This is precisely what Matthew does in his citation of Isaiah, who does not see hardness of heart as something of the future but something present (cf. 31), similar to his source. In their dependence on the Hebrew OT or Targum or the Septuagint, the NT authors did not only adopt texts, but naturally adopted their exegetical interpretations as well. So for Matthew, Isa 6:9–10 is external proof of what Jesus is experiencing from the people. It is a rhetorical device to point out that what the author observed in 13:13b finds support in the OT. It is thus likely that the Matthean Jesus in 13:13 is not quoting Isaiah but making an observation, which finds verbal support in Isa 6:9–10. Important though, is that the Matthean author avoids the Markan i[na in Mt 13:13‒5. 39 There are only a few areas, three to be precise, where such causative o[ti – a subordinating conjunction – begins a sentence (7:13; 13:11; 20:7), and twice in the combination o[ti eiv ‘because if’ or ‘for if’ (11:22b par. 23c par. Lk 23:31). Mark uses such a construction beginning with the subordinating causative o[ti once in Mk 14:2. In Mk 9:28 (cf. Jn 16:17) the question begins with the sense ‘why’. Luke uses the construction as well (Lk 1:37; 2:30; 11:32; 14:11; 16:8b.15.18; 19:31.43; 20:37; 22:22), so also John (Jn 1:16.17.50; 15:19; 17:8a). Perhaps the closest affinity to Matthew’s construction is found in Jn 8:43 where dia. ti, and o[ti are brought into play as found in Mt 13:10–1.

39

C. Matthewʼs Parable Theory

II. The Layout of Matthew’s Parable Theory40 Mt 13:10–341

Mk 4:10–2.25 10a

10a

Kai. proselqo,ntej oi` maqhtai. ei=pan auvtw/|\

b

dia. ti, evn parabolai/j lalei/j auvtoi/jÈ o` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen auvtoi/j \ o[ti u`mi/n de,dotai gnw/nai ta. musth,ria th/j basilei,aj tw/n ouvranw/n( evk ei,noij de. ouv de,dotaiÅ

11a b

c

12a b c d e

o[stij ga.r e;cei( doqh,setai auvtw/| kai. perisseuqh,setai\ o[stij de. ouvk e;cei( kai. o] e;cei avrqh,setai avpV auvtou/Å

13a

dia. tou/to evn parabolai/j auvtoi/j lalw/( o[ti ble,pontej ouv ble,pousin kai. avkou,o ntej ouvk avk ou,o usin ouvde.

b c

b

Kai. o[te evge,neto kata. mo,naj( hvrw,twn auvto.n oi` peri. auvto.n su.n toi/j dw,deka ta.j parabola,jÅ

Lk 8:9–10.18

9a

Ephrw,twn de. auvto.n oi` maqhtai. auvtou/

b

ti,j au[th ei;h h` parabolh,Å o` de. ei=pen\

11a

kai. e;legen auvtoi/j\

10a

b

u`mi/n to. musth,rion de,dotai th/j basilei,a j tou/ qeou/\

b

u`mi/n de,dotai gnw/nai ta. musth,ria th/j basilei,aj tou/ qeou/(

c

evk ei,noij de. toi/j e;xw evn parabolai/j ta. pa,nta gi,netai(

c

toi/j de. loipoi/j evn parabolai/j(

18a

Ble,pete ou=n pw/j avk ou,ete\ o]j a'n ga.r e;ch|( doqh,setai auvtw/|\

25a b

o]j ga.r e;cei( doqh,setai auvtw/|\

b c

c d

kai. o]j ouvk e;cei( kai. o] e;cei avrqh,setai avpV auvtou/Å

d e

kai. o]j a'n mh. e;ch|( kai. o] dokei/ e;cein avrqh,setai avpV auvtou//Å

12a

i[na kai. kai. kai.

10d

i[na ble,pontej mh. ble,pwsin kai. avkou,o ntej mh. suniw/sinÅ

b c

ble,pontej ble,pwsin mh. i;dwsin( avkou,o ntej avkou,w sin mh. suniw/sin(

e

40 The EvThom’s version of Mk 4:25 goes like this: ‘Jesus says: “he who has (something) in his hand (something) more will be given to him. And whoever has nothing, even the little he has will be taken from him”’ (EvThom Log. 41). 41 Notable in this synopsis are the additions (13:10a.c.12c.14–7), the omissions (cf. Mk 4:10a and part of 11c.12c) and the changes (13:10b//Mk 4:10b; 13:11b//Mk 4:11b; 13:13b//Mk 4:12a) the Matthean author made to the Markan text. Important but also interesting are the agreements between Matthew and Luke: on their use of oi` maqhtai ‘the disciples’ (13:10a//Lk 8:9a), on the infinitive construction (u`mi/n de,dotai gnw/nai) and the plural ta. musth,ria (cf. 13:11b//Lk 8:10b), on various omissions (cf. kai. o[te evge,neto kata. mo,naj Mk 4:10a or e;xw … ta. pa,nta gi,netai, v. 11c and mh,pote evpistre,ywsin kai. avfeqh/| auvtoi/j , v. 12). Finally, Matthew’s arrangement of the material that mirrors a structure of an argument deserves attention.

40

3. Matthewʼs Sets of Parables: Strategy and Theory suni,o usin(

mh,pote evpistre,ywsin kai. avfeqh/| auvtoi/jÅ

Mt 13:14−7 kai. avnaplhrou/tai auvtoi/j h` profhtei,a VHsai hnE[', is introduced here as a Septuagintal formula to express this continuation. The formula was used most probably to introduce one of Jesus’ conclusions. For we notice that no one besides the king utters a word in the third parable.55 Also, in its literary context, the Matthean Jesus simply narrates the story (cf. 22:1). Not a single actor in the parable itself pronounces a word except for the king. Perhaps this is the reason why Matthew presents the man without the wedding garment (mh. e;cwn e;nduma ga,mou) as remaining speechless (o` de. evfimw,qh) after the king’s question, in order not to distort this strategic presentation. We believe that here, as elsewhere, Matthew used the strategy of linking the three parables together by weaving

50

Cf. Luz, Matthäus III, 197; Gundry, Matthew, 432. Pa,lin occurs about 139 times in the NT; 17 times in Matthew and 28 times in Mark. Luke only uses the adverb 3 times in his Gospel and 5 times in Acts. John has the majority of the usages with 43 occurrences. In the trilogy alone, Matthew uses pa,lin 3 times in 21:36; 22:1.4. 51 Cf. Gundry, Matthew, 432; Davies/Allison Jr., Matthew III, 197. Gundry thinks this may have been suggested by the omitted material leading up to the parable (see Lk 14:7). Luz suggests that this may not have been Matthew’s priority at all, as it was in 13:10.13. Important for Matthew was „das Grundsätzliche an Jesu Parabelrede“ the fact that the JLs do not understand nor notice the consequence of their action in order to react appropriately (Luz, Matthäus III, 239; cf. Matthäus II, 366f). 52 Cf. Davies/Allison Jr., Matthew III, 197. 53 Mt 22:11–3 originates from a special Matthean source and has no parallel in Luke or the Thomas logion. It also appears to be a separate parable all together with an apparent Rabbinical parallel (ShemR 19:5 – The parable that concentrates on the admission into the feast; cf. Thoma/Ernst, Gleichnisse der Rabbinen III, 289). This has led some scholars like Beare to suggest that evn parabolai/j stood as a caption for a group of parables in Matthew’s special source (Beare, Matthew, 434; cf. Davies/Allison Jr., Matthew III, 197). It is most probable that this was influenced by Mk 12:1. 54 The formula itself is typically Matthean (see Olmstead, Trilogy, 134, n. 11). For details on its different usages and forms, see Olmstead, Trilogy, 134 n. 11. For the formula’s various usages see Bauer, GELNT, 113–4. 55 Cf. Luz, Matthäus III, 231. The king in our story is the only one who speaks; there is no dialogue in contrast to the Lukan interruption in 14:22. He is the one who determines everything. 22:5–10 consists only of his actions and commands.

B. Matthew’s Semantic Strategy in the Trilogy

247

their openings together. In sum, the usage of doke,w with questions does not simply demand an opinion, but also, the obligatory judgement of the audience.56 It has a sort of juridical function for the questioner, which demands a juridical judgement from the addressee. This and the imperative statement of 21:33 correspond to each other and support each other. Pa,lin of 22:1 combines with kai. avpokriqei.j o` VIhsou/j pa,lin ei=pen to denote the continuation of the confrontation between Jesus and his opponents. Another point of narrative importance is that the main actors in the trilogy are all referred to as a;nqrwpoj (‘a man’). Still intriguing, however, is Matthew’s distinction between the three men. In the Two Sons, the father is referred to as a;nqrwpoj. What was simply a;nqrwpoj in the Markan Wicked Tenants, has been changed to a;nqrwpoj h=n oivkodespo,thj57 (‘a man who was a householder’) by Matthew. In a similar fashion, Matthew’s account of the wedding feast recounts a story of a man, a king (a;nqrwpoj basileu,j)58 who organized not simply a party but a wedding feast for his son, an account which was probably originally about an a;nqrwpoj tij. The Gospel of Thomas likewise only talks about a;nqrwpoj in both parables in log. 64/65. Worthy of note is first the progression of the main actor involved in our parables. Matthew has not only reinforced the Wicked Tenants’ message by adding other sources, but has also done so by increasing the social status of the parable’s main actors. Why this progression: a;nqrwpoj → a;nqrwpoj h=n oivkodespo,thj → a;nqrwpoj basileu,j? Obviously, this progression is not accidental, but instead Matthew deliberately chose

56

Cf. G. Schunack, EDNT I, 340–1; see also Schenk, Sprache, 197. Hubaut considers the term as evidence of a Semitic origin (see Hubaut, Vignerons, 26, in Jones, Matthean Parables, 373, n. 100). We believe that Matthew’s choice of this oivkodespo,thj was motivated by the social context of the entire story. Who but a householder could build a vineyard, prepare it, even build a tower in it and lease it to tenants, and then travel to a far away country? No simple farmer could do that. Matthew’s use of oivkodespo,thj most probably emphasizes the sense of ownership vaguely expressed in v. 34 (labei/n tou.j karpou.j auvtou/). It denotes ‘a master of the house’ who has control over the oi;koj in the wider sense (cf. Rengstorf, Art. ‘oivkodespo,thj’, TDNT II, 49). In the Matthean parables, which illustrate God’s action through that of an oivkodespo,thj, there is often the emphatic addition of a;nqrwpoj (13:27; 20:1.11; 21:33; cf. Lk 14:21). For Rengstorf, the term has a Semitic parallel, if not a model, in the common tyIB;h; l[;B;, which like the NT oivkodespo,thj denotes the owner of the house in the most comprehensive sense. See also Münch, Gleichnisse Jesu, 199–200. 58 ‘King’ is an OT metaphor for God (Isa 6:5; Ps 24:7–9; 29:9f.; 47; 93; 96–9). The Rabbinic tradition contains many royal parables (cf. D. Stern, Parables in Midrash, 19– 21). Matthew’s use of ‘king’ metaphorically refers to God (cf. Mt 5:34f; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium I, 174). Stern affirms that in Rabbinic tradition, the character of a king symbolizes God (Stern, Parables, 19). See also Münch, Gleichnisse Jesu, 199. 57

248

8. Church and Israel: Meaning and Theology of Mt 21:28−22:14

this progression because of the metaphoric character of the personalities59 and their settings, which he uses to communicate a very essential message to the audience.60 The entire setting of the trilogy moves from a family setup to a business milieu and ends in the king’s palace, with each setting represented by a corresponding main actor. In all three cases, these personalities represent God, according to Matthew. With this, Matthew seems to suggest that God who has fathered humanity and partnered hamanity’s leadership, will be humanity’s king-judge at the close of the age (cf. 25:31f.). The centrality of the term ‘Kingdom’ in our parable set is a matter of consensus among scholars. From a purely statistical point of view, the phrases basilei,a tou/ qeou//basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n occur three times (21:31.43; 22:1), once each in the three parables. In spite of a difference in meaning,61 these syntagmata have a lot in common. Entrance into the

59 Cf. Münch, Gleichnisse Jesu, 197–201. Münch examines the figures: king (199), householder (200), etc., and affirms the metaphoric character behind Matthew’s usage. 60 The Two Sons’s setting is within a family and has the family head as its main actor (a;nqrwpoj ei=cen te,kna du,o). The family set-up is meant to highlight the father’s authority and the sons’ obedience. Obedience/disobedience here, is not understood in the mere sense of saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but it is action-oriented (cf. v. 31). Obviously, the family’s father is God, who gives each one of his sons the opportunity to respond to his call. This is why the father approaches all his two sons, not just one of them. In the Wicked Tenants, the setting is also logical and appropriate. It describes a certain householder’s planting of vineyard and leasing it to tenants. Such a man must be a householder/landowner (cf. oivkodespo,thj of 20:1). Karl Heinrich Rengstorf (Art. oivkodespo,thj, oivkodespote,w, TDNT II, 49) and Hengel (Son of God, 17), think that Matthew added this word in this parable as a typical parable expression. Snodgrass disagrees and postulates that the word is used more frequently in Matthew because of the author’s interest in similitudes (cf. Snodgrass, Parable, 46, n. 8). For us, the Wicked Tenants is about partnership and responsibility. V. 33 describes in detail the householder’s responsibility in his business partnership with the tenants. The description of the vineyard’s preparation taken from Isa 5:1‒2 is aimed at underscoring the landowner’s fulfillment of his part of the entire agreement. The o[te de. h;ggisen o` kairo.j tw/n karpw/n of v. 34 unexpectedly introducing the harvest time, accentuates a crucial point of the story that the time has arrived for the tenants to fulfill their responsibility as well. The account demonstrates how the tenants refused to fulfill their part of the agreement, leading to the collapse of the partnership, giving the owner of the vineyard convincing reasons to hand over the vineyard to other tenants who will respect the terms of the agreement at the appointed time. For Matthew, who understood the setting of the third parable to be in the eschatological realm, the man of the third parable could be none other than a king who organizes a wedding party for his son. For Matthew, it is always the setting that determines the person. In the story itself, Matthew allows the king’s majesty to be made evident. The account is constructed as a monologue, in which the king is the sole commander. He does in the strictest sense of the word, ‘everything’ in honor of his son. 61 The object of the Kingdom is not the same in all three instances. Matthew talks twice about the basilei,a tou/ qeou/ (‘Kingdom of God’) and once about basilei,a tw/n

B. Matthew’s Semantic Strategy in the Trilogy

249

Kingdom of God and eventually into the eschatological Kingdom of Heaven demands accomplishment of certain conditions: firstly, that God’s will be done (21:31‒2); secondly, that a disciple responds at all times to the demands of his commitments’ (21:41f.) i.e., producing fruit befitting his calling. Thirdly, that God’s invitation (22:2–9) be answered with an action-oriented response (22:11–3). Anyone who fails to meet these conditions belongs to neither Kingdom of God nor Kingdom of Heaven. Anyone who takes these conditions for granted will be thrown out at the last minute (22:11–3), for the saying is true: ʻhe who does not have even the little that he has will be taken away from himʼ (13:12b). In addition to having many things in common, for Matthew, both realms of God’s Kingdom are perceived as being under the sovereignty of God. It is God, who controls, overseas and reigns in both Kingdoms. Hence, even though these terms differ in their theological contents, Matthew is using them to highlight the fact that God’s judgement has no spatial boundaries. His judgement cuts across the earthly as well as the eschatological realm – exclusion from the Kingdom of God implies exclusion from the Kingdom of Heaven and vice versa. Thus, while Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven convey different meanings and refer to different realms of dominion, they have one common ruler – God, and therefore are interconnected. The heavenly Kingdom, which through Jesus has come and dwelt among men in the vineyard of God (Israel/the world), is the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is thus simply the heavenly Kingdom in human history, with Israel and the world as the field of this historical appearance or experience. Another striking common feature of the trilogy is that the parable set is marked by kinship terms: father/children, father/son, king/son. The son

ouvranw/n (‘Kingdom of Heaven’) (cf 21:31.43 and 22:1 respectively). We believe that Matthew intended these syntagmata to be understood differently, than what the traditional position purports (Cf. Trilling, Das Wahre Israel, 143; Frankemölle, Matthäus I, 79). We believe that Matthew intended the term Kingdom of God to be understood as God’s saving act here on earth, whereas Kingdom of Heaven refers to God’s reign in Heaven in relation to humanity. In other words, the field of God’s saving action defines our two syntagmata. In its Sitz im Leben, the field of activity in the first and second parables is a vineyard (avmpelw,n). We know from Isa 5:1–7 that the vineyard of God is Israel (Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium II, 227; Luz, Matthäus III, 222; Davies/Allison Jr., Matthew III, 179) and that the vine metaphorically refers to the people of Israel (Jer 2:21; Hos 10:1; Ezek 15:1f.; 19:10f.; Ps 80:9f.). The use of basilei,a tou/ qeou/ in the context of a vineyard draws the reader’s attention to the topic under discussion – God’s saving action on earth. This is also the sense of the use of the syntagma in 12:28 and even the doubtful text-critical addition of tou/ qeou/ in 6:33. Similarly the use of basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n in combination with ga,moj in the third parable carries the reader to the eschatological realm of God’s Kingdom, where the wedding feast of the lamb is the central topic. The phrase Kingdom of Heaven refers to God’s reign in Heaven, with Heaven as his field of activity.

250

8. Church and Israel: Meaning and Theology of Mt 21:28−22:14

who does the will of the father is analogous to the son who follows his father’s instruction and subsequently suffers death outside the vineyard (21:38–9). It is this son in whose honor a wedding feast is organized (22:2). This is most probably the reason for inserting tw/| ui`w/| auvtou/ in 22:2. For Matthew this son is primarily Jesus. He is the son who fulfills every righteousness (3:15) and therefore, o` ui`o,j mou o` avgaphto,j( evn w-| euvdo,khsa (3:17; 17:5), as the obedient son of God, who fulfills God’s will even to his death (26:42). However, for Matthew, o` ui`o,j also refers to any disciple, who by virtue of his response to follow Jesus has the similar fate as that of the son (10:24–5; cf. 12:24‒5). Therefore, Matthew’s omission of avgaphto,j in 21:37 (par. Mk 12:6; Lk 20:13) “cannot be regarded as something insignificant”.62 Nevertheless, we do not think that the absence of avgaphto,j provides strong enough evidence to postulate Matthean priority in the Wicked Tenants.63 In an attempt to resolve this puzzle, Leroy Andrew Huizenga suggests that the omission of avgaphto,j in the Wicked Tenants could be explained by Matthew’s knowledge of the existence of Isaac typology in the Akedah tradition: VAgaphto,j is omitted in the Matthean version of the Wicked Tenants (21:33–46). The omission here – as well as the addition in 12:18 – proves that Matthew knew this meaning and he is not simply copying from Mark. It is omitted because in this parable the main point is not the sacrifice of the beloved son, but the planned killing of his brothers. This parable is found in the context, in which there is a strong animosity against Jesus, which culminates in the planning to kill Jesus under Caiaphas, the High priest and the elders of the people (26:3–5). Consequently, we have in the Wicked Tenants no Isaac typology but rather a Joseph typology. It is worthy of note that 21:38 has an allusion to Gen 37:20. The Wicked Tenants speak to one another in the parable: ‘This is the heir; come let us kill him’ (deu/te avpoktei,nwmen auvto,n). The brothers of Joseph see him coming and said to one another, ‘Come, let us kill him’ (deu/te avpoktei,nwmen auvto,n)… The omission of avgaphto,j in the parable emphasizes the fault of the High priest, the Pharisees, and the elders of the people concerning the death of Jesus.64

62

Snodgrass, Parable, 58. Cf. Snodgrass, Parable, 58. 64 Huizenga, ‘Jesus des Matthäusevangeliums’, 85–6. The original text is, „VAgaphto,j wird in der matthäischen Version des Gleichnisses von den bösen Weingärtnern ausgelassen (Mt 21,33–46). Die Auslassung hier – sowie die Einfügung in Mt 12,18 – beweist, dass Matthäus sich dieser Bedeutung bewusst ist, und dass er nicht einfach von Markus abschreibt. Es wird ausgelassen, weil in diesem Gleichnis nicht die von seinem Vater verfügte Opferung des geliebten Sohns im Mittelpunkt steht, sondern der von seinen Brüdern geplante Mord. Dieses Gleichnis ist in einem Abschnitt des Matthäusevangelium[s] zu finden, in dem es große Feindseligkeit gegen Jesus gibt, die in einer tödlichen Verschörung unter Kaiphas, dem Hohepriester, und den Ältesten des Volkes kulminiert (Mt 26,3–5). Folglich haben wir im Gleichnis von den bösen Weingärtnern keine IsaakTypologie, sondern eine Joseph-Typologie. Es ist zu bemerken, dass Mt 21,38 eine An63

B. Matthew’s Semantic Strategy in the Trilogy

251

Huizenga’s suggestion is probable but difficult to ascertain, because apart from this hortative phrase, there are few contextual agreements. On the other hand, we agree with Huizenga in suggesting that the omission of avgaphto,j in 21:37 has a purpose. We think, however, that what led Matthew to omit avgaphto,j is the meaning he attaches to the use of ui`o,j and o` klhrono,moj in our parable set. For Matthew, like for Mark and Luke, ui`o.j avgaphto,j is a Christological title, which refers to Jesus alone. The phrase is used in this sense in the baptism and transfiguration narratives (3:17; 17:5) and in the application of Isa 42:1 (Mt 12:18 par.). This is also the sense of the usage of ui`o.j avgaphto,j in both the Markan and Lukan accounts of the Wicked Tenants. Here the title refers specifically to Jesus and only to him.65 Matthew also knew that his audience understood this Christological title as well. Because the Matthean redactionist did not want to betray his plot, i.e., to lure the JLs to answer his subsequent question as they had previously done, he omitted avgaphto,j. Including avgaphto,j leads ui`o,j to be understood as referring to Jesus alone, which would have eventually led the JLs to avoid his question, since they would have uncovered his trap. The Matthean redactionist appears to have learned his lesson in 21:25–7 about Jesus’ question to the JLs regarding John. Because the JLs could figure out the implications to their answer, they refused to give Jesus any concrete answer and simply said they did not know. This time, Matthew filled all the gaps in such a way that the leaders would not detect Jesus’ plan to have them incriminate themselves like Nathan did in the parable to David (2Sam 12 1–14). If this suggestion is correct, then this is probably why Matthew omits avgaphto,j. The use of te,knon (‘child’) in the first parable is most probably meant to emphasize the familial love the father has for both sons. This is why he addresses them each as te,knon (21:28.30). Matthew most probably used this word to underscore God’s unconditional love for human beings, establishing God’s fatherly affection towards all. This is why the father of our

spielung auf Gen 37,20 enthält. Im Gleichnis reden die Weingärtner untereinander: ‚Das ist der Erbe; kommt, lasst uns ihn töten (deu/te avpoktei,nwmen auvto,n)‘. Die Brüder Josephs sehen ihn kommen und sagen einander: ‚Kommt, lasst uns ihn töten (deu/te avpoktei,nwmen auvto.n)‘… Die Auslassung von avgaphto,j im Gleichnis betont die Schuld der Hohepriester, der Pharisäer und der Ältesten des Volkes am Tod Jesu (Mt 21,23.45; vgl. Mt 26,3– 5 das die Pharisäer auslässt)“. 65 On this, Snodgrass disagrees. According to him, it is questionable that avgaphto,j was strictly a Christological title since it is used quite frequently throughout Acts and the Epistles as a designation for individual Christians (cf. Snodgrass, Parable, 58).

252

8. Church and Israel: Meaning and Theology of Mt 21:28−22:14

story approaches each of them with the same imperative request.66 God’s judgement does not spring out of hatred for any of the two children, but out of the individual’s own decision to do or not to do God’s will. Here as elsewhere in Matthew’s theology, Jesus is the community’s teacher par excellence. He embodies and mirrors Matthew’s understanding of doing the will of God. This is the path of righteousness, which John also walked; it is also the righteousness that John the Baptist and Jesus fulfill (3:15). The true disciple of Jesus does not only attain the ordinary status of child but also that of heir (cf. 21:38); he becomes a new e;qnoj, who will inherit the Kingdom of God. Matthew’s arrangement of the three parables and the meaning he attaches to his usage of te,knon/ui`o,j in the trilogy is perhaps the reason why he keeps silent about any role of the son in the third parable in the organization or execution of duties both before and during the wedding feast. This is because the entire celebration is in his honor and the honor of all who embrace the invitation of God. The Matthean tactic in using te,knon/ui`o,j from the family field involves an attempt to underpin God’s unconditional relationship with humanity; giving humanity the status of child and assigning blame for the dawn of judgement – and in a way ‘to exonerate God’ – by pointing to Israel’s leadership as the cause of the entire debacle. Finally, the conclusion Jesus draws after each of the proceedings in all three parables is captivating. In the Two Sons, the message of the Matthean Jesus to his opponents (cf. v. 31) with the introductory words of avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n is that the telw/nai (‘tax collectors’) and the po,rnai (‘harlots’) ʻenterʼ/ʻgo beforeʼ/ʻprecedeʼ (proa,gousin) ‘you’ (u`maj) into the Kingdom of Heaven. Scholars are divided as to the exact meaning of this verb.67 Apparently, the intricacy is not with the meaning of the verb, but with the understanding attached to the syntagma ‘Kingdom of God’. Scholars’ apparent misunderstanding of the nuance of Matthew’s basilei,a tou/ qeou/ makes it difficult to figure out the meaning of proa,gousin. The Matthean basilei,a tou/ qeou/ is not the ‘heavenly Kingdom’ but the earthly community of disciples established through Jesus. The entrance of the tax

66 This is probably the reason why the father of our parable approaches his two sons, not because of the first son’s refusal, as some scholars have argued, in their attempt to resolve the textual problem of 21:29–30 (so also Luz, Matthäus III, 210, n. 44). 67 According to Gundry proa,gousin surely indicates the exclusive displacement of the JLs and not merely their late entrance into the Kingdom [cf. Gundry, Matthew, 422. This, to Davies/Allison Jr. appears to be the consensus of modern scholarship (cf. Davies/Allison Jr., Matthew III, 168)]. To Luz, this is a relative and not an absolute lead (Luz, Matthäus III, 211). For Chrysostom, the word ʻgo before youʼ does not indicate that people were following, but indicates having hoped that they were willing to follow (cf. Chrysostom, in Schaff, Chrysostom, 412).

B. Matthew’s Semantic Strategy in the Trilogy

253

collectors and sinners ahead of the JLs is thus not into the ‘eschatological heavenly realm’ but rather into the ‘community of disciples’. Whereas the ‘unworthy’ tax collectors and prostitutes become disciples, the JLs challenge Jesus’ authority. Thus, proa,gousin means entrance of tax collectors/prostitutes into ‘the community of disciples’ before the JLs. Proa,gein as used in 21:31 might be considered as synonymous with eivse,rcomai.68 The reason Matthew offers why the tax collectors and prostitutes enter the Kingdom of God before the Pharisees and the scribes is Israel’s failure to do God’s will. This message is picked up again in the Wicked Tenants. Matthew extends Jesus’ message in 21:42 by inserting v. 43 into it. This verse is generally considered redactional.69 Here, Matthew has strategically inserted this verse to align it with v. 31. The topic is no longer entering into the Kingdom of God (basilei,a tou/ qeou/) ‘before you’ (proa,gousin u`maj), but the Kingdom of God (basilei,a tou/ qeou/) ‘will be taken away from you’ (avrqh,setai avfV u`mw/n). Notice here that u`maj and u`mw/n refer to the same group of people – Jesus’ opponents. Taking away (ai;rw) the Kingdom of God from the JLs and giving it to another e;qnoj, alienates them and leaves them extra muros as does proa,gousin u`ma/j. The reason given for this state of affairs is that they failed to produce the fruits of the harvest. Thus, in the Two Sons, the perception of the JLs is from a standpoint of sonship, whereas in the Wicked Tenants they are viewed as leaders of the people. In the third parable, the invited (keklhme,noi),70 the initial heirs of the Kingdom are described as not worthy (ouvk h=san a;xioi, 22:8) enough to attend the wedding feast (ga,moj). This is the reason for the invitation of the new group. This is Matthew’s explanation of why the invited guests did not attend the wedding feast. However, the question that remains to be asked is, were the people unworthy of attending the wedding feast (22:8) or did they bluntly refuse to attend (cf. 22:3)? We think that 22:8 is the Matthean interpretation of 22:3. The rejection of the first group of guests is taken to mean unworthiness, which provides a good reason for the invitation of the second group. Therefore, 22:8 is Matthean and strategic. Here, the king’s authority is felt. The insulting rejection of the invited guests is 68

Cf. for example its usage in 5:20, where entrance into the basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n is associated with a higher/better righteousness (perisseu,sh| u`mw/n h` dikaiosu,nh plei/on). 69 Cf. Hultgren, Parables, 222. 70 On the issue of who the first guests are and why there was a change of guests, Luz tries to determine who these guests could be: a) the religious establishment (the rejection of Jesus by the Pharisees, scribes and chief priests) and the acceptance of the normal people; b) Israel, in which case, the people on the street refers to the pagans or c) the first group of guests refers to the rich, while the people on the street refers to the poor. For him, the last suggestion has force behind it. For more see Luz, Matthäus III, 237–8.

254

8. Church and Israel: Meaning and Theology of Mt 21:28−22:14

squarely punished. The king simply declares the guests unworthy and proceeds to invite a new group to replace them. Notice how Matthew sets the two groups of guests antithetically against each other. The unknown guests (cf. pa,ntaj ou]j eu-ron), the people on the street corners (cf. evpi. ta.j diexo,douj tw/n o`dw/n), the bad and the good (ponhrou,j te kai. avgaqou,j) respond to the invitation, replace the original group and conspicuously fill the wedding feast. The ponhroi, te kai. avgaqoi, replace the keklhme,noi and become the evklektoi, (22:14) and the oi` euvloghme,noi tou/ patro,j mou in the eschatological age (25:34). Thus, Matthew uses three different replacement motifs or imageries in the trilogy to present Israel’s and its leadership’s state and the reasons why God’s judgement has come upon them. The phrases proa,gousin u`ma/j/avrqh,setai avfV u`mw/n/keklhme,noi ouvk h=san a;xioi communicate the displacement and eventual replacement of the various audiences. IV. Matthew’s Use of Similar Constructions Besides using similar words and phrases, Matthew also employs similar constructions in the trilogy to align his sources. The most glaring are the two constructions in the Wicked Tenants and the Wedding Feast, namely, avpe,steilen tou.j dou,louj auvtou/ (‘he sent his slaves’ – 21:34; 22:3) and pa,lin avpe,steilen a;llouj dou,louj (‘again he sent other slaves’ – 21:36; 22:4). In both parables, each of these constructions occurs twice and is beautifully aligned with the other. Mark records the sending of one slave three times and sending the son once. Matthew has shortened it to the sending of several slaves twice in addition to the sending of the son. Matthew also adds that the second group of servants numbered more than the first (plei,onaj tw/n prw,twn). Most scholars interpret these changes as strategic – as a way to align his account with the salvation history of Israel – where tou.j dou,louj auvtou/ refers to prophets and the messengers of God killed in Israel.71 This is probable. It is plausible, however, that Matthew purposely made these changes to strengthen his conclusions. The main actors of our two parables made relentless efforts to get the tenants und the guests to reconsider their decision. Sending only one slave to gather the the fruits of the owner does not have the same strength behind it as sending several slaves to do the same task. The conclusion of the parable (cf. 21:41‒4) is justified as God’s efforts to obtain his fruits is in vain, there-

71

Cf. Luz, Matthäus III, 223; see Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6; Jer 7:25; 25:4; Moses (Josh 14:7); David (2Sam 3:18); 1Kgs 19:10.14; Neh 9:26; 2Chr 24:19–22 (stoning of the prophet Zechariah ben Jehoiada during the reign of Jehoash of Judah); 36:16; Jub 1:12; Mt 23:34–9; 1Thes 2:15.

B. Matthew’s Semantic Strategy in the Trilogy

255

fore the Kingdom of God will be given to another e;qnoj. In much the same way, inviting the new group to fill the wedding feast is justified after the first group refuses twice to attend the already prepared feast even after the king sent several of his men to persuade them to come. In both parables, the constructions are strategic, intended to support the conclusion. V. The Use of Common Theological Syntagma The Matthean strategy in the trilogy is not limited to his structural adjustments and constructions or to his use of similar vocabulary. It also extends to his theology. Matthew makes use of several syntagmata of theological importance in the trilogy: poiei/n to. qe,lhma tou/ patro,j (‘to do the will of the father’); evn o`dw|/ dikaiosu,nhj (‘on the way of righteousness’); poiw/n tou.j karpou,j (‘to bear fruit’); basilei,a tou/ qeou//tw/n ouvranw/n (‘Kingdom of God’/‘Kingdom of Heaven’). The phrase poiei/n to. qe,lhma tou// patro,j occurs three times (7:21; 12:50; 21:31) out of the six occurrences of the noun qe,lhma, mostly with tou// patro,j. The phrase is Matthean and often considered redactional.72 Although in 21:31 the phrase has a contextual meaning of ‘going to work in the vineyard of the father’, it has a broader theological meaning in Matthew, which is evident in the application of the parable in v. 32. We noted above that the father in our parable is God, and the vineyard is Israel (cf. Isa 5:7). In the Two Sons itself, failing to do the will of the father has no punishment(s) attached to it. Within the broader perspective of Matthew’s Gospel, though, the consequence of refusing to do the will of the father is colossal. The immediate mention of such a reward/punishment perspective of fulfilling or failing to fulfill the will of God is speculated in v. 32, where telw/nai kai. ai` po,rnai are mentioned as entering into the Kingdom of God ahead of the JLs. The Matthean application of the parable thus provides an important clue to understand not only the father’s will, but also the implication of ‘doing’ the father’s will and vice versa. Even though the phrase poiei/n to. qe,lhma tou// patro,j is mentioned only once in the Two Sons, the concept of doing the will of the father and its implications are strongly present in the other parables and dominate the entire trilogy. In the Wicked Tenants, the will of the oivkodespo,thj was to receive his fruits (oi` karpoi. auvtou/) at harvest time (o` kairo.j tw/n karpw/n). The tenants’ refusal to give the landowner his fruits constitutes ‘failure to do his will’ as stipulated in 21:34. Their subsequent abuse – killing of some of his servants, and eventually his son – is a gross act of contempt. As in the Two Sons, the story does not mention the repercussion of the actions of the gewrgoi, within the parable itself. The consequence of their actions is first mentioned in the application (vv. 41–4). In the

72

Luz, Matthäus I, 64; for Matthew, the will of God is often ‘the will of the father’ in Heaven (cf. 6:9‒10; 7:21; 12:50; 18:14; 21:31; 26:42).

256

8. Church and Israel: Meaning and Theology of Mt 21:28−22:14

Wedding Feast, the king’s wish was to see the wedding hall filled with keklhme,noi, to celebrate a unique wedding feast for his son. This is evident in the act of sending his servants to call the keklhme,noi in 22:3.4 and 8–10. In order to underscore the refusal of the keklhme,noi, Matthew does not record any excuses, as Luke does (cf. Lk 14:18–20), which would make the refusal tenable. Matthew even states in v. 5 that they disregarded (avmele,w) the call and went about doing their own business. Some even went as far as killing the king’s servants. All these Matthean additions demonstrate how the keklhme,noi acted with avnomi,a . Therefore, Matthew has a reason to insert the consequences of their actions within the parable itself, specifically, their destruction and the destruction of their city (avpw,lesen tou.j fonei/j evkei,nouj kai. th.n po,lin auvtw/n evne,prhsen) at the hands of the king’s soldiers (ta. strateu,mata auvtou/). Likewise, Matthew has reasons to insert the replacement of the group within the parable itself. This sequence brings the reader’s mind back to self-incriminating comments on the part of Jesus’ opponents’ in 21:41 (cf. kakou.j kakw/j avpole,sei auvtou,j). For Matthew, the destruction of the invited guests and their city conforms to a normal reaction to such lawless behavior, with which Jesus’ opponents would agree. The kingʼs war expedition meant to quell the insurrection in his kingdom leads to the invitation of the second group comprised of o[souj eva .n eu[rhte – ponhrou,j te kai avgaqou,j to replace the first group, who is now said to be not worthy (ouvk h=san a;xioi).

Within the Gospel of Matthew, doing the will of God is an essential Matthean theological concept. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount in 7:21– 3, the reader’s attention is drawn to the meaning of ‘doing the will of the father’ (poiei/n to. qe,lhma tou// patro,j) and the consequences of acting contrary to the will of God. 7:22–3 establishes that failing to fulfill the will of God constitutes a lawless act (avnomi,a – 7:23; 13:41; 23:28; 24:12), which leads to alienation. Accordingly, in Matthew’s theology, those who do not do the will of God but choose to act with avnomi,a bring judgement upon themselves. As fulfilling the will of God guarantees one’s entrance into the Kingdom of God (basilei,a tou/ qeou/, 21:28–32), so doing God’s will in 7:21 is the gateway to the Kingdom of Heaven (basilei,a tw/n ouvranw/n). However, what essentially constitutes the will of God? To Limbeck, 7:21– 3 leaves no doubt that for Matthew – as for Judaism – the will of God is identical with the Torah,73 but especially the Torah as interpreted by Jesus (Mt 5:17–48). Jesus’ problem with the JLs is that they have failed to fulfill God’s will revealed in him and, therefore, their replacement is eminent. The meaning of the phrase poiei/n to. qe,lhma tou// patro,j is spelled out in the use of another phrase of central theological importance to the first Gospel: evn o`dw/| dikaiosu,nhj. The syntagmatic ‘way of righteousness’ itself is a Matthean hapax legomenon, but the term dikaiosu,nh74 appears 7 times in Matthew (3:15; 5:6.10.20; 6:1.33; 21:32) and the

73

Cf. Limbeck, EDNT II, 137; cf. also Kingsbury, Parables, 104‒5. In Hellenism, the term dikaiosu,nh relates closely to no,moj (see how Matthew explains the question of Jesus relationship to the law in 5:17–20; 13:41; and 22:34–40); see 74

B. Matthew’s Semantic Strategy in the Trilogy

257

corresponding adjective di,kaioj75 occurs 17 times. The occurrence of the term in Matthew is a bit deceptive because it does not equal its theological and ethical importance in the Gospel. ~Odo,j,76 on the other hand, is quite frequent in the NT. The word appears together with other words or phrases forming syntagmata like, o`do.j tou/ qeou/ (22:16) or o`do.j tou/ kuri,ou (3:3) or auvtou/ or evn o`dw|/ dikaiosu,nhj. The phrase evn o`dw/| dikaiosu,nhj, as it appears in Matthew, is „zwar wörtlich keine biblische Formel, wohl aber eine all-

also Kretzer, Herrschaft, 270–1. VAnomi,a appears in the LXX around 11x as an opposite term of dikaiosu,nh (cf. Kretzer, Herrschaft, 269, n. 26). So also Kingsbury, who sees ‘lawlessness’ in Matthean categories as “the contrary of righteousness (dikaiosu,nh)” (Parables, 105). Referring to Mt 7:15.21 and 24:12 respectively, Kingsbury suggests that Matthew’s concept of lawlessness has two closely related aspects: firstly, not doing the will of God and secondly, lovelessness, a state of affairs that will grow at the approach of the eschatological age (104–5). Josephus and Philo emphasize, on the other hand, the community aspect of the term and consider it to be a civil virtue pro.j avllh,louj (cf. Schenk, TDNT II, 194). The term dikaiosu,nh obtains, however, its theological accent in the LXX and could refer to the righteousness (‫ ) ְצ ָד ָק ה‬of God in reference to God’s saving act and covenantal faithfulness to his people (cf. Isa 5:7), which is understood as God’s righteous (‫ ) ֶצ ֶד ק‬conduct (i.e., e;leoj, avlh,qeia, are closely linked with righteousness). Terms such as swth,r, swthri,a and swth,rion are used to explain dikaiosu,nh (see Ps 64:5; 70:15; 97:2.6; Isa 46:12‒3; 51:5; 59:17; 61:10‒1). Righteousness could also mean the demand expected of men in the sense of uprightness (cf. Isa 5:7) often linked with avlh,qeia (cf. LXX Tob 14:7: avgapw/ntej to.n qeo.n evn avlh,qeia kai. dikaiosu,nh and Wis 5:6, where o`do.j avlhqei,aj and fw/j dikaiosu,nhj are parallel. Righteousness is one of the fundamental signs of the final consummation (see Isa 5:16; 32:16‒7 and Mt 13:41; 25:46). Sitting beside God, the Messiah will judge all nations in righteousness (cf. Ps 9:5.9). According to Mt 13:41, those who act lawlessness (tou.j poiou/ntaj th.n avnomi,a n) will falter on judgement day, as will Israel according to Isa 5:7. The reverse will be the case for the righteous who will shine like the sun in their father’s Kingdom (Mt 13:43). The term dikaiosu,nh receives its special accent in the Qumran community, where the community refers to itself as ‘the sons of righteousness’ (1QS III 20:22; IX 14) and its leader as ‘the Teacher of Righteousness’ (CD 35–6). 75 The adjective is never used as an attribute of God (see Schenk, Sprache, 195). 76 In the lexicons, o`do,j has first, the literal sense of ‘a means of traveling’ or ‘moving from one place to another’ and thus, denotes ‘the path’, ‘road’ or ‘highway’ often used by people or impersonal entities (see Mt 2:12.18ab; Mk 11:8; Lk 3:5). It sometimes also refers to ‘the act of traveling’ and means ‘way’, ‘trip’ or ‘journey’ in a figurative sense. It may also have other meanings such as ‘on the way’ (evn th|/ o`dw|/) Mk 10:17; Gen 45:24; Josephus, Ant., 6.55; Mt 15:32; 20:7, etc. For more, see Bauer, GELNT, 691–2). Among others, the term denotes a course of behavior in the sense of a way (see Mt 10:5; 7:13.14) or a way of life (see 21:32). Here ‘way’ refers to either the way of life of the Baptist or the type of conduct he demanded), or may refer to the entire way of life from a moral and spiritual perspective in the sense of a path or teaching (see Acts 9:2; 18:25‒6; 19:23; 22:4, etc. See also Bauer, GELNT, 691–2). It is a figurative extension of the first and the second senses but often with a picture of a way predominantly in mind (cf. Bauer, GELNT, 691; cf. SibOr 3.233). The syntagmatic use of the ‘way of righteousness’ probably means the figurative sense of ‘a way of life of righteousness’.

258

8. Church and Israel: Meaning and Theology of Mt 21:28−22:14

gemein an Bibelsprache erinnernde Wendung“. 77 Various forms of o`do,j-combinations appear in the wisdom literature. The singular form of the phrase o`do.j th/j dikaiosu,nhj (hq"ïd"c.-xr:ao)B, cf. Prov 8:20; 12:28; or with %r