The Audience of Matthew: An Appraisal of the Local Audience Thesis 9780567659231, 9780567421739, 9780567664488

This book seeks to establish the inadequacy of readings of the Gospel of Matthew as intended for, and a reflection of, a

185 51 2MB

English Pages [238] Year 2014

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD PDF FILE

Recommend Papers

The Audience of Matthew: An Appraisal of the Local Audience Thesis
 9780567659231, 9780567421739, 9780567664488

  • 0 0 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up
File loading please wait...
Citation preview

To Tserha, John and Mark

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I originally submitted this study in a substantially longer format as my doctoral thesis at the University of Shef�eld. It was the fruit of eight years part-time study, during which it bene�ted from the wise and bene�cial guidance of Reverend Professor Canon Loveday Alexander, Dr Barry Matlock, Professor Keith Whitelam, and Professor James Crossley. Particular thanks go to Loveday, who embarked me on this project, and James, who eased it through to completion. I would also like to thank my examiners, Professor Hugh Pyper and Dr Todd Klutz, for their thorough and instructive feedback. Special thanks go to Library of New Testament Studies editor Professor Mark Goodacre for accepting my thesis for publication, and the team at Bloomsbury T&T Clark for their guidance through the preparation process. In particular, I would thank my copy-editor, Dr Duncan Burns, for his tireless efforts in preparing the �nal manuscript. I served during the �rst four years of my studies as pastor of the Derby district of Seventh-day Adventist churches. They made my time of service an absolute joy. Particular thanks go to Ursula Hubbard, and Ray and Janet Cobb. I would also like to thank all my students and colleagues in the Department of Theological Studies of Newbold College, UK, for their support. My Biblical Studies colleagues, Drs Aulikki Nahkola, Laurence Turner, and Jean-Claude Verrecchia, somehow knew the most appropriate moments to knock on my door with much needed words of distraction. The necessary revisions for the publication of this study were made possible due to a sabbatical awarded by Dr John Baildam and his colleagues in the senior management team at Newbold College. I would like to thank Pastor Robert and Vivienne Vine, Conrad Vine, Duncan Bayliss, and Ed Sammons, who, in each of his or her own way, have patiently served as sounding boards over the years. Finally, my deepest thanks go to my wife, Tserha, and two sons, John and Mark. Without you, Tserha, my thesis and this book would have remained a distant dream. And now to more mundane matters. All quotations of Aristotle, Philo, Josephus, and Eusebius, are from the LCL series. Biblical translations are my own, although, as an admirer of the NRSV, I have retained, where appropriate, the best of its wording.

Chapter 1

THE COMMUNITY THESIS AND THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

1.1. Introduction Three options are typically argued as the intended audience of Matthew: (1) a local audience, often portrayed as a Jewish-Christian (or ChristianJewish) community located in Antioch; (2) a general Jewish-Christian audience; and (3) an unspeci�ed Christian audience � ����������������� ������������� ��������������� �� �������������������������������������������� scholarly reconstructions of local audience scenarios represent inadequate readings of the Gospel. This does not equate to proving that the Gospel was unintended for a local audience. Rather, I will seek to demonstrate that arguments currently employed in support of the local audience option require reappraisal because they are hermeneutically ambiguous, selective in their treatment of plot and characterisation, and ignore how the Gospels would have been experienced aurally by heterogeneous early Christian audiences often aware of other traditions. My critique is speci�cally text and audience focused. It is not my purpose, for example, to further signi�cantly the discussion on the early external attestations to the circumstances of authorship by patristic writers such as Papias and Irenaeus. Such attestations have already received extensive treatment.1 The audience options stated above require quali�cation. First, the ��������������������������������������������������������������������� audience may be de��������������������������������������������������tively speci�c and limited willingness to listen to a discourse��2 In con����������������������������������������������������������������������� identity that may not necessarily be present in an audience. We should 1 See, for example, U. Luz, Studies in Matthew (ET; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), pp.290�312. 2 ��� ��� ����������� ���������������� ������� ������� ����������� ��� Between Author and Audience in Mark: Narration, Characterization, Interpretation (E. S. Malbon, ed.; Shef�eld: Shef�eld Phoenix, 2009), pp.6�28 (10).

2

The Audience of Matthew

not exclude the possibility that a Gospel may have been intended for a local audience without that audience considering itself either an identi�able community or even part of a wider community. In terms of the ��������������������������������������������������������������������� an audience does not necessarily function as a community. Secondly, we may distinguish between a Gospel being intended for an audience and it re�ecting the situation of that respective audience, or as is usually the case in Gospel scholarship, of that speci�c community. Matthew may have written his Gospel for a local audience without the Gospel re�ect����������������������uation. In light of these quali�cations, the purview of this study will focus on those readings that view the Gospel as being both intended for and a re�ection of a speci�c local community.3 The emphasis is on Matthean community reconstructions. However, as any hypothetical community would have also functioned as an audience, I will use the terms interchangeably. In this chapter, I will brie�y review the current scholarly impasse with respect to community reconstructions. This will be followed by an analysis of assumptions and practices that underpin all audience reconstructions, whether local or not. In Chapters 2 to 3, community reconstructions proposed by Andrew Overman, Anthony Saldarini and David Sim will be critiqued from a text-focused perspective. I will argue �������������������������������������������������������������������������� their application of characterisation. In Chapters 4 to 6, I will continue my critique, but from an audience perspective, demonstrating that such reconstructions presume an intention for the Gospel very different from how it would have been experienced aurally. 4 The disciple Peter will be used as a test case due to the prominent role attributed to him in such reconstructions. The methodologically eclectic nature of the various community readings requires a correspondingly eclectic method of analysis. It is beyond the capacity of this study to consider each audience option in depth. My focus, rather, will be on deconstructing arguments currently employed in favour of local community readings. Depending upon how you, dear reader, respond, this will either narrow the �eld of choice to the general Jewish-����������������� ��������������������� 3 ����������������������������������������������������������c town, region, or province. 4 J. A. Overman, ��������� Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); A. J. Saldarini, ��������� Jewish-Christian Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); D. C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998). 1

1. The Community Thesis and the Gospel of Matthew

3

options, or prompt a search for fresh arguments in favour of local community readings. For reasons stated in this chapter, I will neither ������������������������������������������������������������������������� a particular audience for the Gospel. I now turn to community reconstructions. 1.2. The Community Thesis The development of the Matthean community construct in twentiethcentury scholarship has already been comprehensively described by a number of scholars, foremost of whom is Graham Stanton. 5 As such, I will not retread this already familiar ground. Instead, I will start by highlighting a number of challenges that have been made to community readings. This will lead into a review of responses in favour of the community position. I will conclude that there is currently a lack of ������������������������������������������ In 1988, Dale Allison raised serious questions regarding the use of the Lukan community construct.6 He maintained the possibility of Matthean and Johannine communities, but largely rejected the existence of Markan and Lukan communities. He argued that Luke was most likely an ���������� ������������ ���� ����������� �������� ����� ���������� ���������� groups as he journeyed from place to place��7 In addition, the lack of ���������� ���������� ���� ����������� ��� ����� ���� ������ ��� ����ect the ������������������������������ny particular Christian group��8 Although the length of the article in which Allison presented his views was just seven pages, he nevertheless managed to cover many of the issues that were taken up by later critics. In 1992, Stanton, while accepting in more general terms a community construct, remained aware of its limitations. He questioned the validity ������������������������������� ������������������������������������������ Authorial intention may equally well include the desire to challenge or 5 ��� ��� ��������� ����� ������� ���� �������� ��� ���������� �������� ��������� Scholarship from 1945�������� ANRW II. 25.3 (1985), pp.1889����������� ���munities of Mat������� Interpretation 46 (1992), pp.371�91, reprinted in Gospel Interpretation: Narrative-Critical and Social-Scienti�c Approaches (J. D. Kingsbury, ed.; Harrisburg: Trinity, 1997), pp.49����� ������������ ���������� �����������������Society of Biblical Literature 1994 Seminar Papers (E. H. Lovering, ed.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), pp.9����� ��� ��� �������� ����������� �������� ���������������������������������������AUSS 37 (1999), pp.23�38. 6 ���������������������������������������������� ���IBS 10 (1988), pp.62�70. 7 ���������������������������������������� �, p.64. 8 ���������������������������������������� �, p.67. 1

4

The Audience of Matthew

change community norms and values. The impossibility of determining at which points in the text community practice is being challenged or af�rmed should lead to a more circumspect approach in reconstructing the Matthean community.9 Harry Gamble argued in 1995 th��� ������ ����� ������� ��������� something of the viewpoint from which it was written and thus indirectly ����������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������rst century make it unlikely that any of the Gospels was composed for the strictly local and intramural use of a single community��10 Gamble argued on the basis of his analysis of ancient book production that the evangelists would have envisaged a wider dissemination of their works in Christian circles. This position represents a complete reversal of his earlier stance ��������������������������������������������������������������������� directed toward a limited circle of readers and representing a particular theological interpretation of the Jesus traditions tailored to its own immediate context. Thus, each Gospel was at �rst the gospel document for an individual Christian community.�11 In 1998, Richard Bauckham edited the highly in�uential The Gospels for All Christians (hereafter GAC) in which he called for a reassessment of the view that the Gospels were written for speci�c communities.12 Essays within the volume included a description of travel patterns in the ancient world and its implications for inter-church communication (Michael Thompson), an exposition of Christian book production and circulation (Loveday Alexander), an assessment of the Gospels as 9 See G. N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), pp.45���������������������������������12) ��������� ���� ������� ������ ���� �� ������� �������� ��� ������������ ����� �� ����� ������������������� 10 H. Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), ��������������������������������������������������ction �������������������������������������GAC, pp.71�111. 11 H. Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), pp.24�5. 12 Bauckham (ed.), GAC. For positive reactions, see D. N. Peterson, The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate (Leiden: Brill, 2000); W. Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003), pp.26�7; P. G. Bold, ������� ������� ��� ���������������������������������������(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ������� ��� ��� ������ ����� ������� ����������� ����� �r ������ ����������� The Gospel for All Christians ������������ JTS 57.2 (2006), pp.474�86; Henderson, ����������������������������������������������28. 1

1. The Community Thesis and the Gospel of Matthew

5

bibliographies intended for a circulation wider than any single community (Richard Burridge), and a discussion of allegorical reading strategies (Stephen Barton) and hermeneutical issues (Francis Watson). It is in the opening chapter by Bauckham that the main critique of community reconstructions was presented.13 ������������������������������������������������������������ns is twofold. First, he criticises those scholars who read the Gospels in a similar manner to how they would read Pauline epistles. 14 Instead, the Gospels� genre is deemed to be that of Graeco-Roman bios and as such they would have been intended for a wider audience.15 Related to this argument, he posits that Paul never wrote to a church in which he was physically present. When present, he communicated orally. This raises the question as to why an evangelist would act any differently. Why would he seek to write down his message when the option of oral delivery presented itself? Writing down your message would freeze its content in a form that could possibly turn out to be problematic in the future. Oral delivery ensured constant �exibility of presentation. Instead, the process of writing assumed a wider circulation beyond any one local audience. The second key argument involves a reassessment of the nature of the early Christian movement.16 Bauckham criticises the perception of early Christianity as consisting of isolated and independent communities and instead argues for a network of groups that kept in close contact. 17 Evidence for this position includes inter-church communications and the travel itineraries of the early church leaders. Bauckham suggests that the mode of ministry of leaders re�ected that of the itinerant teacher or 13 ��� ���������� ����� ����� ����� �������� ����������� ��� ��������� ������� GAC, pp.9�48. 14 ��������������������W�����������������������������30. So too E. Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983), pp.45�6. 15 ���������� ����� ����� W���� �������� ����������� ��.27�8. I accept the Gospels as Graeco-Roman biographies with a heavy Hebrew narrative �avouring. Cf. R. A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Dearborn: Dove, 2004); L. C. A. Alexander, ������������������������The Cambridge Companion to the Gospels (S. C. Barton, ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp.13�33. 16 ��������������������W�����������������������������43. 17 ���� ����� ��� ��� ��� ����������� ��������� ������ ������������: Acts and the ������ ��� ������ ������� ���������� Interpretation 57 (2003), pp.163�73 (171), for ������� ���������� ��� ���� ������ ������� ��� ����� ��� �� ������� �������� �������� ������ �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������uto����������������������� 1

6

The Audience of Matthew

travelling missionary, a mode eclipsed by that of the local bishop from the end of the �rst century CE.18 If this assessment holds, then it is likely that the evangelists would have perceived themselves as part of a diverse but nevertheless de�nable movement, incorporating this perception in their Gospels. An additional factor indicating close intercommunication ���� ���� ������� ��� ������������ ������� ����������� ���� ���������� ������� letter to the Galatians testi�es to an inter-church movement of individuals cutting across the Pauline/non-Pauline divide. On the basis of these two lines of argument, Bauckham concludes that the evangelists presumed an open audience for their Gospels, an ��������� ��� ���� �����������. Demonstrating weaknesses in the local community thesis, however, remains a separate task from proving an authorial intention, successfully (or unsuccessfully) implemented in the Gospel as the case may be, to target an intended audience. Bauckham has not demonstrated how one could use the Gospel text to differentiate between an intended audience of all Christians, and one, for example, of Jewish-Christians.19 In 2000, Martin Hengel, independently of Bauckham, similarly portrayed the Gospels as representing the views of authoritative teachers directed to all believers: Contrary to a widespread view, none of the four Gospels was written only for one particular community; far less do they simply reproduce the views of one individual community. They give primarily the views of their authors. We cannot even say with certainty whether they ever came into being only in one community, for the missionaries of the early church travelled a great deal and could be authoritative teachers at different �������������������������������������������������������the community of ������������������������������������������������������������������������ for the composition of a Gospel writing and its theology. 20

Hengel appeals to the example of Paul in disassociating the location of authorship from intended audience. 21 The theology of 1 Corinthians should not be associated with its authorial location of Ephesus, neither should the contents of Romans be attributed to its authorial location 18 ��������������������W����������������������������� 19 See C. S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), pp.45������������������������������������������� largely Jewish ideal ������������������������������������������������������Matthew and his Christian Contemporaries (D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski, eds; London: T&T Clark, 2008), pp.104�22 (121). 20 M. Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ (London: SCM, 2000), pp.106�7. 21 Hengel, Four Gospels, p.107. 1

1. The Community Thesis and the Gospel of Matthew

7

of Corinth. Hengel highlights similar factors to Bauckham, such as interchurch correspondence, the early Christian movement as a network of inter-related communities, and the travel patterns of teachers and leaders.22 These various critiques illustrate a serious and growing dissatisfaction with local community reconstructions. They have not, however, won the ����� ����� ��� ���������� ��� ���� ������ ��������� ��� ����������� �������� Signi�cant and well-discussed defences of the community thesis have since been forthcoming from, amongst others, Philip Esler, David Sim, and Margaret Mitchell.23 �������������������������������������������� initially seemed standard fare for any Gospel community reconstruction to include a defence against his thesis. 24 This is now no longer the case.25 The current open state of play on the question of audience was encapsulated in 2010 in a follow-up volume to GAC edited by Edward Klink III.26 An overview of the mixed responses will serve to illustrate this point. ������������������������������������������������������������������� who argue that by restricting the audience discussion to the canonical Gospels, Bauckham has bracketed out the real diversity of early Christian literature in which many extra-canonical Gospels were intended for

22 Hengel, Four Gospels, pp.106�15. 23 ����������������������������������������� Early Christianity: A Response ��� �������� ����������� Gospels for All Christians��� SJT 51 (1998), pp.235�48; J. Marcus, Mark 1�8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1999), pp.25�39; D. ������������������������������������������� ������������������������������� JSNT 84 (2001), pp.3������������������������� Social and Religious Milieu of Matthew: Me��������������������������������������� in Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings (H. van de Sandt and J. K. Zangenberg, eds; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), pp.13�������������������������ristic Counter-Evidence to the Claim that �The Gospels Were Written for All Christians� �, NTS 51 (2005), pp.36�79. 24 See, for example, B. J. Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and ��������������������������(Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp.32�3; P. Foster, Community, ������������������������������������(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), pp.3�6; H. N. Roskam, The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark and its Historical and Social Context (Leiden: Brill, 2004), pp.18�20. 25 See M. Hannan, The Nature and Demands of the Sovereign Rule of God in the Gospel of Matthew (London: T&T Clark, 2006), for a post-GAC uncritical application of the Matthean community construct. 26 E. W. Klink III (ed.), The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity (London: T&T Clark, 2010). 1

8

The Audience of Matthew

speci�c audiences.27 Bird counters that such Gospels as the Gospel of Thomas were written in Greek to appeal to a wider audience, were distributed widely, and presumed a twofold audience that would have included those that held to the particular views of the extra-canonical Gospels as well as those dissatis�ed with proto-orthodox Christianity. Crucially, there is no reason to assume that these two audience groups were restricted to any one locale. A further defence of Bauckham is made by Justin Marc Smith, who provides a relationally oriented typology of the bios genre in an attempt to explicate the various relationships authors had with their subjects and the resulting audience-related implications.28 Smith categorises GraecoRoman biographies according to whether the subject was contemporary or not with the author, and whether the implied audience was focused or ��������������������������������������������������������������������ous potential relationships between author and subject. However, Klink correctly identi��������������������������������������������������tion that speci�c authorial intentions regarding an audience may be extrapolated on the basis of genre. 29 De�ning genre does not equate to establishing authorial intention. Craig Blomberg offers a more quali�ed response in that he seeks to integrate the positions of both Bauckham and Mitchell. He posits a via media ���������������������������������������������c communities but also in hopes [sic] that they would eventually reach as many Christians as possible��30 ���������������������������������������������������-critical beginning that quickly transpired into a more universal ending��31 ���������������������������������������������������������������������� 27 ����������������������������������������������������������������-Canonical �����������������������The Gospels for All Christians�����������������������The Audience of the Gospels, pp.27�48. Contrast T. Kazen, ���������������������������� Christians? Intention and Mirror Reading in the Light of Extra-������������������ NTS 51 (2005), pp.561�78. 28 ��� ��� ������� ������� ��������� ��� ��������� ���� �������� �������Subject Relationships in Contemporary Graeco-Roman Biograp���������������������������The Audience of the Gospels, pp.49�67. 29 ������������������������������������������������������������������������ �����������������������������������������The Audience of the Gospels, pp.153�66 (158). 30 �������������������������els for Speci�c Communities and ����������������� in Klink III (ed.), The Audience of the Gospels, pp.111�33 (133). 31 �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� (ed.), The Audience of the Gospels, pp.68������������������������������������������������������������������������c community in which it was written, but not in such a way as to be signi�cantly ������������������������������������������������ 1

1. The Community Thesis and the Gospel of Matthew

9

in that he argued that the evangelists envisioned universal audiences right from the start.32 Blomberg has simply integrated Bauckham into the previous consensus.33 Lastly, Adele Reinhartz responds to Bauckham by questioning whether his arguments in favour of the Gospels as intended for all Christians really prove the case. She seeks to demonstrate that his arguments can be reversed in favour of the local audience thesis, thus leaving us with the �����culty of drawing any �rm conclusions regarding the intended audience of the Gospels��34 While not all of her arguments are con������������������������������������������������������������������������ of reconstructing local communities does not, in and of itself, establish the alternative thesis of an intended universal audience.35 The open state of play on the question of audience has not hindered the continuing drive for reconstructing the Matthean community with ever-increasing speci�city. Scholars have sought to move beyond a defensible recognition of the possibility of audience-related in������� on the author to reconstructing detailed descriptions of the authorial context based on characters and groups within the narrative. Saldarini states that he wishes to provide us wit����������������������������������� ������������ ��������36 ������ �������� ��� ��� ���� ������� ��� ���� ��������� identi�ed by Overman and Saldarini. This purpose is re�ected in his ��������������������� ���������������� ����������������������������������� delve more deeply into what these might mean in concrete historical �������37 These sentiments have resulted in community constructs that are now little more than detailed allegorical readings of the Gospel. Warren Carter, for instance, posits a small (Antiochene) community on the basis that the Gospel af�rms several images of smallness.38 Anders Runesson suggests a Matthean community of urban Pharisees located in Galilee. 39 32 �����������������om W���������������������������� 33 �������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������CBQ 69 (2007), pp.64�83. 34 ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� The Audience of the Gospels, pp.134�52 (140). 35 ����������� �������� ������������ ������� ��� ���� ������ ����� �������������� pp.162�3. 36 Saldarini, Community, p.4. 37 Sim, Matthew, pp.151�2. 38 W. Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2000), p.27. 39 ��������������������������������������Christian Relations: Matthean Community History as Pharisaic Intragroup Con�������JBL 127 (2008), pp.95�132 (125). 1

10

The Audience of Matthew

Based on the negative characterisation of the Pharisees in the Gospel he argues for a staged process of separation. First, a group of Christ����������� ����������������������������������������������������������� sought to reform fellow Pharisees.40 Secondly, the socioeconomic effects of events of 70 CE ������������������������������-elite lower-��������� ������������������������������������� Pharisaism. Thirdly, these separa���������������������������������������������������������������������Christ-believing) Pharisees was meant for the ears of the Mattheans and ���������������, whom the separatists hoped would join their commu������41 Separatist Matthean Pharisees appeal to non-separatist Matthean Pharisees! In all these reconstructions, characters in the text are assumed to relate ������������������������������������������ ��������������� ����� becomes a mirror of the community and re�ects less the product of an author than the legitimation of community interests. ���� �������������������������� ������������������������������������� development of local audience reconstructions indicate that the question of audience remains open and in need of further consideration. Sim states with a justi�able degree of con�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������42 As such, he continues to use the Matthean community construct as a core element in his own reading strategy. 43 I will now address a number of hermeneutical ambiguities involved in de������������������� audience. 1.3. Problems in De�ning an Audience ������������������������������������������������������������������������� optimistic and con�dent application of terminology and concepts from literary theory.44 I will now argue that in particular three highly ambiguous 40 ��������������������������������������������������������������� 41 Runess��������������������������������������������������������� 42 �������������������������15. 43 ���������������������������������������������������������Matthew and his Christian Contemporaries, pp.1�10. For the continued use of the Matthean community construct, see M. Slee, The Church in Antioch in the First Century C.E.: Communion and Con�ict (London: T&T Clark, 2003); Foster, Community, Law and Mission���������������������������������������according to Matthew, James and ������������������������������������ngenberg (eds), Matthew, James, and Didache, pp.177�200; S. L. Love, Jesus and Marginal Women: The Gospel of Matthew in Social-Scienti�c Perspective (Cambridge: James Clark, 2009). 44 ����������������������������������������������������������������������� (ed.), GAC, pp.173�94 (173). 1

1. The Community Thesis and the Gospel of Matthew

11

hermeneutical distinctions make the very process of reconstructing a ��������������������������������������������������������������������lematic. The �rst is that of the author and reader in the text, often termed the implied author and implied reader. 45 The second is the distinction between the implied reader and the real reader. The third distinction, not speci�c to literary theory, relates to time: Do the values of the text re�ect ����������������������������������������������������������������� 1.3.a. The Implied Author and Implied Reader Turning to the �rst distinction, that of implied author and implied reader, it should be observed that a text might represent any number of possible relationships between an author and his or her readers. First, an author may write without giving any thought or consideration to the reader. The values of the text are attributed to the implied author. In this case, the Gospel would represent a theological treatise on the signi�cance of the life of Jesus. At the other extreme, an author may write with a particular readership in view, seeking to address, point by point, their concerns. In this scenario, the values of the text may be attributed to the implied reader. In between these two extremes lies a continuum in which the origin of the values of the text shifts from being author-determined to reader-determined. It is, of course, quite possible for the interests and identities of the author and readers to align themselves together. This spectrum parallels the differing approaches of literary critics. 46 An earlier attribution of the values of the text to the author is manifested in the concept of the implied author developed by Wayne Booth in The Rhetoric of Fiction. Booth reacted against what he perceived to be the ������������������������������������������������������������������������ text.47 He de������������������������������������������������-���������� asking what it might take to eliminate him or her from the text. 48 The autho���� ��������� ��� ����������� ��� ���� ������� ���������� ��� ���� �������� ����������������������������������������� ������������������������� made by �any dramatized character��49 ������������������������������������������� �����������������sably personal touch, every distinctive literary allusion 45 De�nitions of the implied reader vary depending upon whether the emphasis is placed upon the text, the intended reader, or the contemporary reader. See W. Martin, Recent Theories of Narrative (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986), p.154. 46 R. M. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2001), pp.48�9. 47 W. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961). 48 Booth, Rhetoric, pp.17�20. 49 Booth, Rhetoric, pp.17, 18. 1

12

The Audience of Matthew

or colourful metaphor, every pattern of myth or symbol; they all implicitly evaluate. Any discerning reader can recognize that they are imposed by the author.�50 ��������������������������������-pervading presence who muscles reader-related considerations out of his or her way. ��������������������������������������������������������������������� the role of the reader. He described in The Implied Reader the act of reading as involving a cumulative committing to memory.51 This memory then becomes the context against which further text is assimilated, ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� of the text, though they are not the text itself � for this consists just of sentences, statements, information, etc.��52 The role of the author is largely discarded, reducing the text to a collection of sentences at the ��������� ��������� ������� ����� ���� �������� ��� �� �������ing, motivated, �esh-and-blood author with his or her own imagination. The norms of the text replace their previous Boothian authorial identity with that of the ������������������������������������������������������������������������� should be noted that Iser somewhat moderated this emphasis with his subsequent recognition of the role of the author in his more theoretical work The Act of Reading.53 ������������������Story and Discourse has been particularly in�uential amongst Gospel scholars.54 Heavily in�uenced by French structuralism, Chatman sought to articulate the views of narration proposed by Booth within a semiotic model of communication. Chatman proposed a symmetrical relationship between the sender and receiver, as illustrated by his narrative communication situation. In this situation, the real author communicates to the real reader by means of the text. Within the text, the implied author communicates to the implied reader through the narrative, which itself comprises a narrator telling a story to a narratee. 55

50 Booth, Rhetoric, p.19. 51 W. Iser, The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett (ET; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974). 52 Iser, Implied Reader, p.278. 53 W. Iser, The Act of Reading (ET; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), p.37. 54 S. Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978). Cf. R. A. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), p.6; J. Capel Anderson, ������������������������������������������������������� (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1994), pp.27�30; Fowler, Understand, pp.31�6. 55 Chatman, Story, p.151. 1

1. The Community Thesis and the Gospel of Matthew

13

Chatman developed a progression from minimal to maximum narration, re�ected in the use of purported written records, pure speech records, the soliloquy, records of thought, and, �nally, the stream of consciousness.56 This progression re�ects the shift from showing to telling, from covert to overt narration. He further proposed the narratee as a counterpart to the narrator.57 In concentrating upon the narrator�narratee distinction, Chatman nevertheless fails to provide a clear criterion for the more fundamental distinction inherent to his model, namely that between the implied author and implied reader. What makes his implied reader any different from his implied author? Further literary distinctions in forms of narration made by such critics as Gérard Genette do not hide the fact that once narrators and narratees have been de�ned and assigned their roles, the distinction between implied author and reader remains largely unde�ned.58 This point has been cogently made by Robert Fowler: �������������������������d implied reader, as well as the narrator and narratee, are mirror images of each other. For example, the cluster of authorial values and judgments that is the implied author is manifested in ����������������������������������������������������������������ilarly, the diction of the narrator bounces back like a sonar wave off the outline of the supposed narratee; each re�ects the presence of the other. 59

An alternative approach to those outlined above is that of Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan. She criticises Chatman for assigning an active role to ������������������������������������������������������������������������� 60 Instead, she prefers a de-personi�ed concept of the implied author and reader, rede�ned simply as the norms of the text. 61 This removes any ambiguity inherent in the implied author�reader distinction. In addition, she criticises the assumption that the identity and values of covert narrators and narratees may be distinguished from those of the implied author

56 Chatman, Story, p.181. 57 Chatman based his narratee, with modi������������������������������������ ���������������������������, Neophilologus 55 (1971), pp.117�22. 58 Cf. G. Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (ET; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980); Narrative Discourse Revisited (ET; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988). 59 Fowler, Understand, pp.33�4. 60 S. Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (2nd ed.; London: Routledge, 2002), pp.87�90; Chatman, Story, pp.148�9. 61 Rimmon-Kenan, Fiction, pp.87�90. See also S. ������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������� 21 (1981), pp.89�97 (91�2), for a rejection of the implied author and reader as narrative entities. 1

14

The Audience of Matthew

and reader.62 In such cases, as for example in the Gospel, the identity of the narrator merges with that of the implied author, and the narratee with that of the implied reader. We are again simply left with the implied author and implied reader distinction, which, if we are unable to provide a criterion that clearly delineates their differences as narrative entities, falls, leaving us with the norms of the text. It should be noted that in a Gospel performance situation the narrator and narratee, often dif�cult to distinguish as literary entities, are more readily distinguished in the �esh-and-blood lector/performer-to-audience interaction in which, according to Philip Ruge-Jones, the storyteller adopts the role of narrator and the audience of narratees. 63 In adopting an essentially agnostic stance towards the implied author�implied reader distinction, I am not arguing against audience-related in�uences on the author. For example, a text written in Greek presumes a reader able to read Greek. It is reasonable to conclude that the provision of explicit explanations bene�ts an audience, although the less considered option that such explanations may re�ect an evangelis���������������������������������������������������������������������� Mt. 1.23; 27.33; Mk ��������������������������������������������������������������� Jn 1.38, ����������������������������� Jn 5.2; 19.13, 17, 20; 20.16; Rev. 9.11; 16.16). I am simply highlighting the error of assuming that the critic can, using current literary constructs, distinguish clearly enough between the two in order to avoid the naïve amalgamation of their identities or a concentration on one at the expense of the other. Many scholars have too willingly adopted these constructs from literary criticism based on the assumption that they offer a sure means of distinguishing between the �ngerprints in the text of the real author and audience.64 Ambiguity inherent to the implied author�implied reader distinction has resulted in a number of stances being adopted to both the evangelist and his audience. First, the values of the Gospel have been attributed solely to the real author. This is often the case in older works on Matthew, re�ecting the then emphasis on literary criticism. For 62 �������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���� ���� �������������� ������ ��� ���������� PTL 1 (1976), pp.33�62 (58), quoted in Genette, Narrative Discourse Revisited, pp.136�7. 63 See P. Ruge-������������������������������������������������������������tion �������������������������������������������������������� Between Author and Audience, pp.29�43. 64 D. J. Weaver, ������������������������������������������������������������ (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1990), p.27, represents an example of the uncritical adoption of the implied author and implied reader constructs. 1

1. The Community Thesis and the Gospel of Matthew

15

���������������������s treatment of Matthew as a meticulous rabbi and theologian attributes the structure of the Gospel singularly to the mind of its author.65 ������ ������� ���������-critical study follows a similar trajectory in which he attributes the values of the text consistently to the evangelist.66 Daniel Patte posits an evangelist who seeks to impart new knowledge to his audience. This new knowledge, identi�ed as the faith of the author, is revealed in those parts of the text in which explicit semantic and narrative oppositions are identi�ed.67 In contrast, those parts of the text that do not manifest oppositions are deemed to re���� �������������������������f the beliefs of his audience. Credit should be given to Patte for attempting to differentiate between the author and the audience. However, his criterion for distinguishing between the two is overly simplistic and fails to consider the use of oppositions in the process of legitimisation. In addition, audience beliefs may not always consist of one uni�ed point of view that can be easily reduced into a thematic summary. Secondly, other Matthean scholars have simply fused the identities of the real author and reader.68 ��������������������������������������������� unjüdischen, hellenistischen Elemente der Redaktion legen nahe, den Verfasser den Heidenchristentum zuzuordnen��69 The community re�ects ������������������������������������������������������������ ������christlichen Standpunkt einnehmen��70 Paul Minear suggests that the Gospel was written by a Christian Jew who was a teacher-scribe.71 His motivation for writing was to provide written material for an extremely 65 P. F. Ellis, Matthew: His Mind and his Message (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1974), pp.3�10, 27, 99, 121. 66 O. L. Cope, Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1976), pp.9, 83, 125. 67 D. Patte, The Gospel according to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on ��������������� (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), p.6. 68 See S. H. Brooks, ���������� ����������� ���� ��������� ��� his Special Sayings Material (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1987), p.118, who suggests with ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� A. D. A. Moses, ����������������guration Story and Jewish-Christian Controversy (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1996), pp.17�18, assumes a Jewish-Christian author and a predominantly Jewish community audience. 69 G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthäus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), p.34. 70 Strecker, Der Weg, p.34. 71 P. S. Minear, ������������������������������(London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1984), p.9. 1

16

The Audience of Matthew

��������������������������������������������������������� �����������duced material for other teachers � again, a fusion of author and audience. David Orton similarly vigorously argues for Matthew as an apocalyptic scribe and the disciples as scribes within the Matthean community. 72 Orton does not explicitly identify the Matthean community as a scribal community but does suggest a prominent role for scribal disciples. A similar fusing of author and reader is re�ected in one of the �rst systematic ������������� ��� ���������� �������������� ���������� ��� Matthew, that undertaken by Jack Dean Kingsbury. 73 He adopted the implied author�narrator and implied reader�narratee distinctions, but conceded that in the case of Matthew we encounter a reliable narrator ������������������������������������������������74 Once again the two merge into one. With respect to the implied reader, Kingsbury concedes that his place or position with������������������������������� �������������� identical with the place of Matthew as implied author��75 This practice of fusing the identities of the implied author and implied reader is still alive and well in Gospel studies.76 Thirdly, the norms of the Gospel have been attributed solely to the implied reader. Some scholars, particularly those in�uenced by narrative criticism, have disavowed any interest in the real audience and instead have limited their considerations to a text-based reader construct. For �������������������������s �������������������������������������������������� ������� seeks to avoid any contact with the author, real or implied. Credit should be given to Edwards in that he seeks to de�ne his implied author and reader. Nevertheless, we may observe a weakness in his de�nitions when viewed from the perspective of audience reconstruction.77 Edwards de����� ���� �������� ������� ��� ������ ��� ���� ��������� understanding of the complete narrative and his implied reader as the 72 D. E. Orton, The Understanding Scribe: Matthew and the Apocalyptic Ideal (London: T&T Clark, 2004). Cf. D. ���������������� ������������������������� ��������� �������� ������������� ��� Modelling Early Christianity: Social-scienti�c Studies of the New Testament in its Context (P. F. Esler, ed.; New York: Routledge, 1995), pp.159�82; L. ������������������������������������������Mishnah Abot��� CBQ 63 (2001), pp.241�57; D. C. Allison, Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), pp.173�215. 73 J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), p.1�42. 74 Kingsbury, Story, p.31. 75 Kingsbury, Story, p.38. 76 Cf. Incigneri, Gospel, p.1. 77 R. A. Edwards, �������������������������������������������������������Connoted Reader Is Informed (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997), p.5. 1

1. The Community Thesis and the Gospel of Matthew

17

�������������������������������������������������������������������������� distinction, between a �rst reading (implied reader) and subsequent readings (implied author) re�ects that made by literary critic Karlheinz Stierle.78 It is a distinction pertaining to the reading experience rather than to the identity of the author or reader manifested in the text. As �������������������������������������������������������������������rately describe the reader-experience Edwards seeks to construct. The ambiguity I have identi�ed in the implied author�implied reader distinction challenges any scholar undertaking an audience reconstruction to justify the basis by which the norms of the Gospel are attributed to either the evangelist or his audience. In the absence of such a distinction, it is all too easy to create an audience in the image of the evangelist. The challenge is to provide a criterion to distinguish the �������������������������������������������ects or, as is regularly the case in �rst-century literature, differs from that of the evangelist. 1.3.b. The Implied Reader and Real Reader I will now consider a second and related distinction, that between the implied reader and the real reader. Less needs to be said pertaining to this distinction in that one of its presuppositions is the belief in the possibility, critiqued above, of distinguishing between implied author and implied reader. Two approaches may be identi�ed. First, some scholars maintain a clear distinction between the implied and real readers. Usually the implied reader is given preference over the real reader as this is deemed to offer the critic greater interpretative control. Secondly, other scholars, while paying lip service to the difference between the implied reader and real reader, in practice fuse the two, resulting in readings in which the text is deemed to re�ect the identity of the original reader (or auditor). This is usually the case in applica������ ��� ���� ����������� ������������������� It is to the �rst approach I now turn. In 1950, Walker Gibson made the ����������������������������������������������������������������������uen����������������������������������������������������������� I am arguing, then, that there are two readers distinguishable in every literary experience. First, there is the �real� individual upon whose crossed knee rests the open volume, and whose personality is as complex and

78 �������������������������������������������������The Reader in the Text (S. R. Suleiman and I. Crosman, eds; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), pp.94� 5, quoted in J. L. Staley, �����������������������������torical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp.33�4. 1

18

The Audience of Matthew ultimately inexpressible as any dead ������������������������������ctitious reader � I shall call him the �mock reader� � whose mask and costume the individual takes on in order to experience the language. 79

For Gibson, the real reader, whether twenty-�rst or �rst-century, cannot �����������������������������������������d by the text, or what later �������������������������������������������������������������������������� modi�ed and relabelled, has proved remarkably durable. Mark Allan Powell, for example, maintains the same distinction in his de�nitions of the implied reader and the intended (real) reader. He de�nes the implied reader ������������������������������������������������������������������� assumed to read a given text in the way they are expected to read it, bringing to their reading experience the knowledge, competence, beliefs, and values that appear to be presupposed for the text in question��80 This de�nes the implied reader in terms of the text.81 The distinction between the implied reader and the real reader is re����������������������nition of his second entity, that of the intended reader, which in the case of Matthew constitutes the original, �rst-century audience. For Powell, ���������������������������������������ence remains a secondary task to de�ning the implied reader.82 ��������� ��������� ��� ���� �������� ������� �������� �������� ������ ���������������������������������������������-determined reader entity. Eco helpfully distinguishes between reader entities that emphasise either the intentio operis or the intentio lectoris.83 The nature of this distinction is not clinical in that the intentio operis is only ever a conjecture on the part of the reader.84 Nevertheless, the distinction illustrates a difference in �������������������������������������������������������������������� emphasising the intention of the reader. In this respect, Eco and Powell sit on the same side of the fence, emphasising the intentio operis�������� motivation for this stance is his desire to restrict what he describes as the unlimited semiosis or complete openness associated with radical intentio 79 ��� �������� ���������� ���������� ��������� ���� ����� ���������� College English 11.5 (1950), pp.265�9 (266). 80 M. A. Powell, Chasing the Eastern Star: Adventures in Biblical ReaderResponse Criticism (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), p.64. 81 So too D. B. Howell, ���������������������������������������������������� Rhetoric of the First Gospel (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1990), p.42. 82 Powell, Star, p.86. 83 U. Eco, The Limits of Interpretation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), pp.58�60; Interpretation and Overinterpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp.25, 65. 84 Powell, Star, p.71. 1

1. The Community Thesis and the Gospel of Matthew

19

lectoris approaches.85 The implications of de�ning the implied reader in such terms are two-fold. First, neither approach seeks to identify the ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� role of the real author(s) in the communication situation is treated in a similar manner to that of the real reader � simply ignored. The second approach, in which the real reader is equated in practice with a text-derived reader, is re�ected in applications of Peter Rabino������������������������������������86 Rabinowitz suggests that the author writes with a picture in mind of his or her intended audience, which he terms the authorial audience. The authorial audience does not, of course, equate to the actual audience.87 Nevertheless, Rabinowitz argues that the author seeks as close a match as possible between the actual and authorial audience. The result is a reading strategy that, while paying lip service to the difference, treats the two as one. The real reader is, in effect, assigned the identity of the implied reader. Such a strategy fails to allow for the possibility that different parts of the text may seek to re�ect, af�rm, challenge, or change reader-held norms. Allowing for such possibilities results in the need to maintain clear blue water between the implied and real reader entities.88 ����������������������������������������������������������������st ������ ��������� �������� ��� ���������� �������������� ������������ �������� audiences for the Gospels. Derek Dodson, for example, has recently sought to apply the authorial audience concept to dreams in Matthew.89 He reads the dreams in light of the literary, social, and historical context �����������������rst audience. He comments: Thus, when I contend that an ancient audience would hear or read ����������������������������������������������������������������������cal audience pro�led from data drawn from the literary and cultural context of the ancient Mediterranean world. I am not concerned with authorial intent; I am concerned with a contextualized reading of the Matthean dreams. 90 85 U. Eco, The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979), pp.200�260; Limits, p.52; Interpretation, pp.32�43. 86 P. �����������������������������������������������������������������Critical Inquiry 4 (1977), pp.121�41; Before Reading: Narrative Conventions and the Politics of Interpretation (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987). 87 ����������������������������7. 88 Stanton, New People, p.45. So too Patte, ���������������, p.13; Peterson, Origins, pp.167�70. 89 D. S. Dodson, Reading Dreams: An Audience-Critical Approach to the Dreams in the Gospel of Matthew (London: T&T Clark, 2009), pp.7�11, 134�69. 90 Dodson, Reading Dreams, p.10. 1

20

The Audience of Matthew

��������������������������������������������������������������������ledge base and understanding of dreams in the Graeco-Roman world to produce a theoretical audience that is, essentially, the product of a literary and socio-historical survey. The awareness of dreams in their Graeco-Roman setting that Dodson attributes to his authorial audience could equally well be attributed to the �������������������������������of any interest in authorial intent is somewhat surprising when one considers ��������������������������������e authorial audience construct. In addition, the theoretical authorial audience has a life of its own and is often referred to in terms more appropriate for a �esh-and-blood audience.91 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ study in which she seeks to demonstrate that Graeco-Roman authors, including Luke, intenti������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������92 As part of her �������������������������������������������������������������������� she de����� ���� ���������� ��������� ��� ����� ��������� ��������� ��� ���� a�������������������������������������������������������������������� authorial audience with the �esh-and-blood people who heard the narra�����������93 In effect, the values of the text are attributed to the author and both his imagined and �esh-and-blood audiences! The equating of author and audience is most clearly seen in her assessment of their respective rhetorical competencies: �������������������������������������������������������������������������� determined. Many scholars, however, attribute to Luke a certain measure of skill in the tradition of Hellenistic rhetoric based on the nature of his ������������������������������������������������������������������������� level of education are in the end uncertain. Based in part on the character of Luke and Acts, however, we may cautiously assume that audience members had some appreciation of rhetoric, even if they did not receive systemized training. 94 91 A similar methodological criticism is also applicable to earlier applications of t������������������������������������������������������������������������������ CBQ 55 (1993), pp.54���� ������ ��������� ����-22 and Matthean Discipleship: An Audience-��������� �������������� CBQ 59 (1997), pp.58�75 (59); Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (2nd ed.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), pp.3�5, 66�91; W. Carter and J. P. Heil, ���������� ���������� ��������-Oriented Perspectives (Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1998), pp.1�22. 92 K. R. Maxwell, Hearing between the Lines: The Audience as Fellow-Worker in Luke�Acts and its Literary Milieu (London: T&T Clark, 2010), p.1. 93 Maxwell, Hearing between the Lines, p.14. 94 Maxwell, Hearing between the Lines, p.129. 1

1. The Community Thesis and the Gospel of Matthew

21

In this reading, the author and audience share remarkably similar rhetorical abilities. The unsuitability of gaps in the text as a means of �������������������������������������������������������������������������� in Maxwell relying on the text as a means of determining the nature of the actual audience, thus resulting in a text-derived audience that is in effect the mirror image of the author. A cursory consideration of the different portrayals of audiences within the Gospels indicates that a more sophisticated approach to audiences is required.95 Story-world Gospel audiences may be either static or dynamic, stable or evolving entities. Within Matthew, audiences rarely remain static, as illustrated by the �ve main discourses of Jesus. An example of an expanding audience is found in Mt. 5.1�8.1. Initially, Jesus saw the crowds, and went up the mountain, where he sat, and, after ����������������������������������������������������������������������� audience might, at this point in the narrative, refer either to the disciples on their own or, maybe less likely, to the disciples and the crowds. By the end of the discourse it is clear, however, that the crowds have been part of the audience for an unspeci�ed time period, as indicated by the ����������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� in 10.5�11.1. The audience who heard the parables in Mt. 13.1-53 are categorised by Jesus into two groups � those dull of hearing and those with hearing (vv. 14-18). This audience is mixed. Thus, at least two different story-world responses to the hearing of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are presumed (cf. v. 11). These responses are, of course, distinct from any real audience responses. The audience for ������������������������-35 is identi�ed initially as the disciples and a child in v. 1, subsequently focusing on Peter in vv. 21-22. The eschatological discourse of 24.3�26.1 is delivered in private to a stable audience, the disciples (cf. 24.3; 26.1). Another example presses this point. The ������������������������������initial response of amazement (13.54) to �������������������������������������������������������������������ence is unstable. These examples indicate awareness on the part of the evangelist of different audience dynamics. A particularly good example of a sophisticated treatment of audience dynamics is found in Lk. 15.1�17.10. Jesus directs the parable of the 95 See J. A. Baird, Audience Criticism and the Historical Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), pp.32�53 (32), for a detailed analysis of Gospel audiences that ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� into another, but where the Evangelist rarely allows the reader to lose sight of the particular groups present, and especially the speci�c audience to which a saying of ������������������������������� 1

22

The Audience of Matthew

two sons (15.11-32) to a mixed audience comprised of two groups, the sinners and tax collectors, and the Pharisees and scribes (vv. 1-2). Thus, at least two responses to the parable are presumed. Luke is aware that audiences are not necessarily homogeneous in composition. Attention then switches to the disciples, to whom Jesus addresses the parable of the dishonest manager (16.13). In 16.14, it becomes apparent that, from their �������������������������������������������������������������������������� thus sensitive to the fact that audiences may include uninvited hearers, those to whom a discourse is not directly addressed. Jesus then reverts his address back to the disciples (17.1-10). These �exible approaches to story-world audiences may be used to infer a more sophisticated approach on the part of Matthew and Luke than is often recognised in the audience discussion. The evangelists were aware that audiences were not necessarily static. We should not use these observations, however, to conclude that Matthew presumed a stable, mixed, or expanding audience for his Gospel. Such a conclusion would involve a hermeneutical jump from the relatively accessible story-world of the Gospel to the less accessible intentions of the evangelist. These observations do, however, lead me to question whether we should uncritically assume that the evangelist had a stable, homogeneous audience in mind, whether local or universal. Two approaches to the implied reader�real reader distinction have been identi�ed. In the �rst, the real reader is ignored in preference to the implied reader. In the second, the real audience adopts the identity of the ��������� ��������� ���������� ��� ���ected in the text. This approach clothes the real reader, whether he or she likes it or not, in the norms of the text, clothes which critics previously required the author to wear. In Chapters 4 to 6 of this study, real audiences will be given the opportunity to demonstrate their own sartorial preferences. 1.3.c. The Time of Jesus and the Time of the Church I now turn to an alternative formulation of the audience question that focuses on the referential function of the Gospel that may be expressed in the question: Who do the Matthean characters represent? Responses to this deceptively simple question have been divided into two camps. First, scholars who follow in the footsteps of Georg Strecker perceive a historicising tendency in the Gospel in which the time of Jesus is distinct from the time of the church.96 �������������������������������������� 96 See Strecker, Der Weg, pp.191�������������������������������������������� The Interpretation of Matthew (G. Stanton, ed.; 2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995), pp.81�100; The Theology of the New Testament (ET; New York: W. de Gruyter; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), pp.368�71. 1

1. The Community Thesis and the Gospel of Matthew

23

wie die Person Jesu der unwiederholbaren, heiligen Vergangenheit eingeordnet��97 References to the Matthean Peter, for example, are understood to refer to the disciple during an unrepeatable, holy past during the time of Jesus.98 This reconstructed past is, however, always a product of the present.99 A second response, represented by Ulrich Luz, understands the Gospel as not just the product of a faith community, but rather as a more direct reference to the time of the church. This results in readings that seek, for example, to emphasise the transparent nature of Peter. The Peter of the Gospel represents someone other than the disciple Peter during the time of Jesus. Three transparent approaches may be identi�ed. The ����������������������������������������������������������������������� Peter during his ministry in the early church. 100 Sim situates this ministry in Antioch following the clash between Paul, Peter, and the followers of James, over the issues of circumcision and purity regulations. Alternatively, Peter may refer to a leader within the Petrine tradition operating within a localised Christian community, or lastly, as argued by Kingsbury et al., he may function as a transparent exemplar of the typical disciple.101 The variety within such readings is signi�cant in that certain transparent readings, from the point of view of authorial intention, may be more readily combined with a historicising reading whereas others likely preclude such a combination. A transparent element characterised as a generic exemplar may combine with a historicising reading to produce a Peter that re�ects both the time of Jesus and presents the audience with a didactic typos to imitate, or not to imitate, as the case may be. Eduard ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������� ��������������������������������� war, und zwar im besonderen der ethischen Weisungen Jesu��102 At the 97 Strecker, Der Weg, p.194. 98 See also O. Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (2nd ed.; London: SCM, 1953), pp.32�3. Contrast Overman, ����������������, p.125. 99 Strecker, Theology of the New Testament, p.����� ������� ����� ������������ or unconsciously, the self-understanding of the Matthean church is re�ected in the Jesus narrativ���� ���� ��� ���������� Das wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthäus-Evangeliums (3rd ed.; SANT, 10; Munich: Kösel, 1964), p.20. 100 Sim, Matthew, pp.192�9. 101 J. ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ����������JBL 98 (1978), pp.67�83. 102 E. Schweizer, Matthäus und seine Gemeinde (Stuttgart: KBW, 1974), p.154. Contrast J. ��� ����������� ����� ����� Akolouthein ����� ��������� ��� ��� ������ ��� ������������������h���������������JBL 97 (1978), pp.56�73 (62�70). 1

24

The Audience of Matthew

�������������������������������������������������������������������������103 Michael Wilkins similarly ������� ����� ������ ��� ����� ���� ��������� ��� �� historical person who exercises leadership, but who also exhibits the extremes of negative and positive example��104 This approach does not necessitate a local audience hypothesis. In contrast, transparent readings that understand Peter to be a portrayal of Peter or a community leader during the early church combine less easily with a historicising reading. Simply stated, it is dif�cult for Peter to be in two time periods at once. Any demonstration that the text embodies a historicising aspect will thus challenge those transparent readings that radically prioritise the time of the church over the time of Jesus. Is a dismissal of the historicising element of the Gospel justi�ed? The historicising element has recently been reemphasised by a number of scholars. A selective sample of their arguments will serve to demonstrate the dangers of an overly hasty dismissal of this aspect of the Gospel. ������� ������� ������� ����� ����� ������������� ��� ��� ������� ����������� unreco������������������������������������������������������������������ own��105 They took care to ensure that terminology appropriate to the post-Easter authorial context did not appear in pre-Easter narratives. The pre-Easter kerygma of Jesus never matches the post-Easter kerygma of the disciples.106 ��������� ����������� ���� ����������������� ���������� however, by the fact that the audience of Mark, in contrast to Luke�Acts, is provided with very little direct detail of the post-Easter kerygma. Assuming an ending of Mk 16.8 forces Lemcio to reconstruct his post�������������������������������������������������-Easter comments in 1.1.107 The Matthean post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples provides Lemcio with substantially more data with which to test his thesis. His analysis of the gospel commission highlights important postEaster discontinuities. Nevertheless, this point can only be urged so far in ������������������������������������������������������������everything ���������������������������������8.20) presupposes a degree of preand post-Easter continuity. ��������������������������������������������������������������bered ������ of the Gospels may be deemed to re�ect the historical Jesus by 103 Schweizer, Matthäus und seine Gemeinde, p.155. 104 M. J. Wilkins, ��������������������������������������������as Re�ected in the Use of the Term �������� (Leiden: Brill, 1988), p.203. 105 See also E. E. Lemcio, The Past of Jesus in the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p.1. 106 Lemcio, Past, p.16. 107 Lemcio, Past, pp.32�4.

1

1. The Community Thesis and the Gospel of Matthew

25

suggesting that a shift in focus is required from atomistic exegesis of �������������������������������������������������characteristic within the Jesus tradition, even if only relatively distinctive of the Jesus tradition, is most likely to go back to Jesus, that is, to re�ect the original impact ����� ��� ������� ��������� ���� �������� ��� �������� ��� ������ ��� ���� �rst disciples��108 He identi����������������������������������������������������� concern for law-related issues, his engagement in dialogue and dispute with the Pharisees, Galilee as the primary location for his ministry, his teaching on the kingdom of God and self-������������������������������� power to exorcise and ability to teach, his striking use of the term �������� ���� baptism by John the Baptist as the start of his ministry, ��������������������������������������������������� 109 Dunn somewhat reductively suggests that such features shared by the synoptic accounts ������ ��� �� ������ ����������� ��� ���� ����������� ������ ����� ��on his ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� from the adaptation of traditions through oral performance and trans�����������������������������������������������������110 ���������������� Jesus is perpetuated by the community through repeated performances of Jesus traditions and teachings, the Gospels being records of such performances. Dunn has been criticised for neglecting the social frame of Jesus traditions. Birger Gerhardsson suggests that the disciples of Jesus and other devoted adherents, rather than anonymous performers, would have played the lead role in shaping both institutional and verbalised traditions.111 Samuel Byrskog and Bengt Holmberg both raise the thorny problem of de�ning the role of interpretation within the remembering ���������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������112 In response, Dunn acknowledges both the individual and interpretative elements in the remembering process but maintains his two main arguments re��������������������������������������������������� 108 J. D. G. Dunn, A New Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), pp.69�70. Cf. Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), p.174 (original italics). 109 Dunn, A New Perspective on Jesus, pp.69�78. 110 Dunn, A New Perspective on Jesus, p.77. 111 ����������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������NTS 51 (2005), pp.1��������������������������������������������������� the Jesus Tradition: Re�ections on James D. ����������Jesus Remembered���JSNT 26 (2004), pp.459�71 (464�8). 112 ��������������������������������������������������Jesus Remembered��� JSNT 26 (2004), pp.445����������������������������������������������6. 1

26

The Audience of Matthew

his �rst disciples, [and] (b) as evidenced in the character of the Jesus tradition in its enduring forms��113 Problems in distinguishing the interpretive elements in the remembering process clearly exist. However, they do not eliminate a historical basis, however de�ned and whatever its ��������������������������������� A number of scholars, such as Byrskog, Hengel, and Bauckham, have argued for a measured selection process of eyewitness accounts of those events lying behind the Gospel.114 The fullest expression of this theory is in the work of Bauckham. Both Hengel and Bauckham identify eyewitnesses in the Gospels, citing references in Mark to named individuals such as Alexander and Rufus, the sons of Simon of Cyrene (Mk 15.21; cf. Rom. 16.13), as possible guarantors of personal memories used by the evangelist.115 In contrast, Matthew and Luke omit any reference to the sons of Simon, presumably because they were for them no longer signi�cant living eyewitnesses. Bauckham identi�es two groups of eyewitnesses. The �rst group are those minor characters that were either bene������������������������������ healings and exorcisms, or witnesses to, or participants in, events relating to Jesus, and who, against the normal practice of leaving them unnamed, are named (e.g. Levi, Simon of Cyrene, the relatives of Jesus, Simon the leper). Concerning the omission by Matthew of some names included by ���������������������������������������������������� Luke to omit some of the names we �nd in Mark would be explained if these people had become, by the time Matthew and Luke wrote, too obscure for them to wish to retain the names when they were engaged in abbreviat���� ������� �����������116 If this observation holds, then it indicates a Matthean concern for incorporating references to speci�c individuals 113 J. D. ��� �������������������������� ������������������ ��������������� ������������������������������������JSNT 26 (2004), pp.473�87 (486). 114 S. Byrskog, Story as History � History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp.266��������������������� the Sitz im Leben����������������������������������������������������������������� NTS 52 (2006), pp.319�36 (325�6); M. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (ET; ������������������������-witness Memory and the Writing of the Gospels: Form Criticism, Community Tradition and the Authority of the A������������The Written Gospel (M. Bockmuehl and D. A. Hagner, eds; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp.70�96; R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). 115 Hengel, Mark, p.9; Four Gospels, pp.141�5; Contrast Byrskog, History � History, p.66, who adopts a more cautious approach to identifying speci�c eye������������������������������������������������������������ 116 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, p.46. 1

1. The Community Thesis and the Gospel of Matthew

27

whose fame presumably would have extended beyond the boundaries of any one localised community. In addition, the fame of such individuals is primarily grounded on their involvement in events during the time of Jesus rather than due to their potential status as prominent leaders in the early church. This would establish at least a minimal recognition of the time of Jesus within the Gospel. The second group Bauckham identi�es are those witn���������������� ��������������������������-42), individuals such as Peter who witnessed the ministry of Jesus in its entirety.117 The literary device of the inclusio found in references to Peter in Mk 1.16 and 16.7 signals his value as a ���������������������������������������������118 Despite the dropping of the Markan reference to Peter in Mt. 28.7 (cf. Mk 16.7), the Matthean Peter is one of the �rst two disciples called by Jesus (Mt. 4.18), and his ��������� ��� �������� ��� ���� ��������� �������� ������ ��������� ����� ���witnesses are deemed to have acted as both a source of traditions and a mechanism of control upon the degree of �exibility permitted in the retelling of the traditions.119 The role of eyewitnesses in controlling tradition is contrasted by Bauckham with the attribution of this function to local Christian communities.120 This he criticises on the basis that it ignores the status of eyewitnesses as illustrated by their inclusion in each of the canonical Gospels. 121 ������������������������������������������������������������������ ���������� ��������� ���������� ��������� ��������� ��� ������ ����������� ��� Mark would suggest that, at least in the case of the �rst Gospel, we should not assume uniformity of transparency and historicity throughout the Gospel.122 ���������������������������������������������������������� of historicisation and transparency between different characters.123 The major followers of Jesus (disciples/crowds) generally represent round 117 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, pp.39�66, 114�54, 262. 118 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, p.125. Hengel, Four Gospels, p.80, argues that the acceptance of the Gospel required its association with a known authority in the church. 119 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, pp.257������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������Jesus and the Eyewitnesses���JSNT 31 (2008), pp.195�209. 120 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, pp.252�63. 121 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, p.262. 122 E. S. Malbon, �������������������������������������������������������� Jesus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000). 123 See also R. ������������������������Wr������������������������������� (eds), The Written Gospel, pp.116�34 (132), for transparency and historicising variation in Mt. 10. 1

28

The Audience of Matthew

����������������������������������������������������������������������� that only appear once in the narrative, 124 present the audience with a series of �at and positive transparent exemplars. Examples in Mark include: the man healed of an unclean spirit (Mk 1.21-28); a female healed of a fever (1.29-31); a healed leper (1.40-45); the friends of the paralytic (2.3-5); the Gerasene demoniac (5.1-20); the woman with the haemorrhage (5.25-34); the Syrophoenician woman (7.24-30); the blind man of Bethsaida (8.22-26); the father of the boy with a spirit (9.17-24); blind Bartimaeus (10.46-52); and the woman who anointed Jesus with nard (14.3-9).125 Bartimaeus is a named character who, as observed by Bauckham, breaks the rule of bene�ciar���������������������������������� and exorcisms being unnamed.126 This does not exclude him from functioning as an exemplar for the audience.127 A similar range of exemplars may be identi�ed in Matthew. In both Gospels, these unnamed characters present the audience with transparent exemplars in which historicising factors are minimised. This alternative, though complementary, approach ����������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������yewitnesses. Each of the above arguments is open to critique. Their consistent ��������� ��� ��� ���� ����������� ��� ���� �������� ������� ����� ������ ���������������128 Both are likely present. Nevertheless, such arguments lead me to question the adequacy of those transparent readings that radically prioritise the time of the church and which, consequently, assume the text predominantly re�������������������������������������������������� reconstructions, critics initially acknowledge the time of Jesus in the Gospel, but then proceed in a hermeneutically opaque manner to read selected texts as re�ecting the time of the church. The time of Jesus is ���������� ��� ��� ���� ����� ��� ���� �������� ���� ����� ��� ���� ��������� composition is fused with that of the story-time setting. This hermeneutical move is challenged by the Gospel text itself. Jack Kingsbury has observed that the Matthean implied author addresses the implied reader directly in three instances (Mt. 24.15, 27.8, and 28.15).129 124 Malbon, Company, pp.95�6, 192, 196. 125 Malbon, Company, pp.198�205. 126 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, pp.39�40. 127 So too J. F. Williams, Other Followers of Jesus: Minor Characters as Major �������������������������(Shef�eld: JSOT, 1994), pp.151�71. 128 See also W. H. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q (2nd ed.; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997), p.116. 129 Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, p.147. ����������������������������������� �������������������NTS 34 (1988), pp.442�60. 1

1. The Community Thesis and the Gospel of Matthew

29

These addresses, particularly in the case of 27.8 and 28.15, may be more accurately described as asides on the part of the narrator to a covert narratee. In a tradition unique to Matthew, the evangelist comments in �������������������������������eld has been called the ������������������ ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������st the Jews to this day�� These two asides indicate that the evangelist clearly distinguished between two time periods.130 The �rst is the earlier period when ���� ��������� �eld was renamed the �eld of blood and the Jewish authorities instigated the rumour concerning the stealing of the body of Jesus by the disciples. The second and later time period is that of the ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� time of writing, the �eld was still called the �eld of blood and the Jews �����������������������������������������������������������������������es would indicate a clear distinction on his part between the time of Jesus and the time of the church. Interestingly, both Mt. 27.8 and 28.15 highlight continuities rather than discontinuities between these two time periods, possibly indicating that the evangelist assumed the relationship between the periods to be one of variation rather than of similarity. The self-conscious awareness of the evangelist of the difference between the time of Jesus and the time of the church is one frequently ������������������������������������������������������� 131 References to the disciples are thus interpreted as describing ���������������������� For example, Saldarini, who argues for the audience as being within the �������� ��� ��������� ������� ����� ����� ����������� ��� ���� ���������� ������� gospel narrative echoes the experience of the Matthean group, trying to survive and expand in an unfriendly environment��132 References to the scribes and Pharisees are understood as references to opponents of the Matthean community. Sim follows a similar reading strategy when he ������� ����� ����� ������ ���������� ��� ���������� �������� ���� ����� �� explained on the grounds that the evangelist is describing, whether accurately or not, contemporary opponents��133 Daniel Harrington states ������������������������������������������������������������������ most ����������������������������������������������scribes and Phari������������������������������-39), most likely a symbol or cipher for

130 A similar point is made by ��� ��������������������������� �� Two-Level ���������JSNT 25 (2003), pp.309�22 (319�20), with respect to Jn 2.19-22. 131 Hengel, Four Gospels, p.111. 132 Saldarini, Community, p.100. 133 Sim, Matthew, p.121.

1

30

The Audience of Matthew

what we call Formative or protorabbinic Judaism��134 The Jewish authorities in the Gospel are taken as a direct re�ection of the authorities at the later time of author�����������������������������������������������tion between the two time periods in Mt. 28.15. The clear reference in 28.15 to the Jews at the time of composition as a distinguishable group from those represented in the text suggests a need for a reappraisal of a reading strategy that somewhat naïvely equates the Jews in the narrative with those at the time of composition. Rather than considering such implications, recent treatments of Mt. 28.15 have instead concentrated on determining whether this verse portrays a partial or a complete separation of the Matthean community from the Jewish authorities at the time of authorship.135 So far, I have clari�ed the role of transparency in those readings that posit a local community audience and have suggested that they neglect historicising aspects in the Gospel. In contrast, the ending of Matthew would suggest a position more akin to that of Schuyler Brown and Richard Beaton, who accept a dual function for the Matthean Peter involving both historicising and transparent exemplar aspects.136 To borrow a distinction from literary criticism, that of �rst and second readings, a �rst reading of the Gospel lends itself to a historicising reading, in which Peter, for example, is experienced as the disciple of Jesus located in the geographical setting of Palestine during the time of Pontius Pilate.137 The reader is informed of the role Peter played in the Jesus story. A second reading is invited by Mt. 28.16, in which Peter and the other disciples are transported back to a mountain in Galilee, evoking the geographic setting of the Sermon on the Mount (cf. 5.1). The eleven disciples are instructed by Jesus to make disciples of all nations, teaching others the commands he previously taught them (28.20). This invitation is to a second reading that is transparent in nature, in which the teachings of Jesus are now addressed not just to the historicised disciples but also to all potential new disciples. Thus, as Wolfgang Trilling observed with 134 D. ��� ������������ ��������� ���� ������� ��� ���� ���� ������������ ������� Matthew and his Christian Contemporaries, pp.11�26 (13). 135 Saldarini, Community, p.35; Sim, Matthew, pp.2, 149�50; J. A. Overman, Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel according to Matthew (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996), pp.400�402. 136 S. Brown, ������������������������������������������������������������� �������� ZNW 69 (1978), pp.73�90 (74�5); Sim, Matthew, pp.196�9. Weaver, Discourse, p.23, critiques Brown, arguing that in his approach the transparent reading dominates the historicising reading. 137 ����������������������������������5, quoted in Staley, Kiss, pp.33�4. 1

1. The Community Thesis and the Gospel of Matthew

31

respect to Mt. 28.18-����������������������������������������������������stood.138 The effect is to draw any audience into an ongoing dialogue between these two time horizons, neither of which should be neglected.139 1.4. Summary Three Matthean audience options are typically posited. These include a local Matthean community, usually situated in Antioch, a geographically diverse Jewish-Christian audience, and a non-speci�c audience of ������������������������������������������������������������������������� challenges, continues to dominate Matthean studies. In this chapter, I have identi�ed three audience-related hermeneutical distinctions as signi�cant for any audience reconstruction, whether local or universal. The �rst was the highly ambiguous distinction between the implied author and implied reader. Different authors may write with varying degrees of clarity regarding their intended audience. There is no reason to assume, for example, that the evangelist even had a particular audience in mind. Conversely, audience-related in�uences on the author should not be ruled out. However, the process of determining the degree of this in�uence is problematic for living authors, let alone for readers of works written by long-deceased authors. The absence of any clear criterion for distinguishing between the two literary entities of implied author and implied reader led me to challenge the practice of assigning an active role to such literary entities. This hermeneutical ambiguity has led some Matthean scholars to concentrate exclusively either on the author or the audience, and others to fuse their two identities. Our problem is how to distinguish between the Gospel as re�ecting: (1) a JewishChristian evangelist writing without any consideration for a particular audience (text equals author); (2) a Jewish-Christian author intentionally writing to judaise non-Jewish-Christians (text equals author and challenges the audience), or (3) a Jewish-Christian evangelist writing for and to a Jewish-Christian audience (text equals author and audience). These three options could further include the variable of the different geographical reaches of the audience. 138 Trilling, Das wahre Israel, p.21. 139 �������������������������������������������������������������������-24 for the impossibility of determining whether these verses re�ect the religious practices during the lifetime of Jesus, the period immediately after Easter, a still later time prior to the destruction of the Temple, or even, his preferred option, a post-70 CE �������������������������������������������������������������������the social and ���������������������������������������������������� 1

32

The Audience of Matthew

The second distinction, between the implied reader and real reader, should itself be questioned in light of the problems identi�ed in de�ning the implied reader. Instead, we may maintain the distinction between the norms of the text and the real reader or auditor. This distinction challenges the practice of assuming a direct relationship between the norms of the text and the real audience (i.e., text equals audience). This led me to question those who have argued for a Jewish-Christian audience on the assumption that the text directly reveals the audience. This is not to disprove this audience option. It is simply to say that in the absence of criteria for distinguishing between the implied author and reader, and the need to maintain the distinction between the text and the real reader, the task of establishing or falsifying this thesis awaits solution. The third distinction, between the time of Jesus and the time of the church, is also highly ambiguous. Transparent readings in which characters directly represent individuals or groups in a community setting necessarily downplay historicising elements in the text. The recent work of a number of scholars emphasising historicising elements led me to question this hermeneutical approach and instead to favour a doublehorizon reading strategy in which historicised characters function to varying degrees as transparent exemplar �gures. The implication of these various hermeneutical ambiguities is to shift the search from seeking the ���������������������������������������ned, to determining the suitability of the Gospel for a particular audience scenario. The move is from intention to suitability. I now turn to the treatment of characterisation and plot in Matthean community reconstructions.

1

Chapter 2

CHARACTERISATION AND PLOT IN MATTHEAN COMMUNITY RECONSTRUCTIONS

2.1. Introduction Local community reconstructions are, without exception, the product of close readings of the Gospel. This being the case, we might ask what function the ����������������������������������������������������������� readings. Characterisation has been de�ned as the assembling of various ����������-indicators distributed along the text-continuum�� from which a network of character-traits is either directly or indirectly inferred. 1 The �����������������������������������������������������������������������ful chain of interconnected events��2 The emphasis falls on causality.3 My purpose in this chapter is to demonstrate a tendency in community readings to neglect characterisation and plot. The result is a reading strategy that treats the Gospel as a snapshot of the Matthean commu����������������������������������������������������������������������������� plot-related developments are either ignored or minimised in their signi������������������������������������������������������������������ In this chapter, I will �rst outline the particular local community reconstructions of Andrew Overman, Anthony Saldarini, and David Sim in order to provide the context for my subsequent analysis. Next, the ������������������������������������������������������������������������� characterisation and plot. This will provide me with a suitable yardstick against which I will then compare and contrast the treatment of characterisation and plot in our selected local community reconstructions. 1 S. Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (2nd ed.; New York: Routledge, 2001), p.59. 2 S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1988), pp.93. 3 E. M. Forster, Aspects of the Novel and Related Writings (2nd ed.; London: Edward Arnold, 1949), p.82.

34

The Audience of Matthew

2.2. Matthean Community Reconstructions Numerous local community reconstructions have been posited. John �����������uential thesis of a second-generation Christian (70�100 CE) provenance in Antioch has already received substantial attention from Sim.4 As such, my analysis of Sim will deal indirectly with any pertinent issues raised by Meier. Graham Stanton has suggested that Matthew ������������������������������������������������������������������������ mid-�����5 His rejection of any restriction of the community to a particular locale results in a fundamentally different reconstruction from those of Overman, Saldarini, and Sim. While other reconstructions have been proffered, it is in the reconstructions of Overman, Saldarini, and Sim that we encounter especially detailed and sustained reconstructions �������������������������6 2.2.a. Andrew Overman: A Jewish Community in Palestine In a shift away from more literary approaches, Overman has sought in �������������������������������������� to reconstruct the Matthean community using social-scienti�c methods.7 The Palestinian community 4 J. P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church and Morality in the First Gospel (New York: Paulist, 1978), pp.12�15. 5 G. N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Louisville: Westminster John Knox�� ������� ������� ���� ����� ������������ ��� ���������� Interpretation 46 (1992), pp.371�91, reprinted in Gospel Interpretation: NarrativeCritical and Social-Scienti�c Approaches (J. D. Kingsbury, ed.; Harrisburg: Trinity, 1997), pp.49�62. 6 For other community reconstructions, see S. H. Brooks, ���������� Community: The Evidence of his Special Sayings Material (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1987); D. B. Howell, ���������������������������������������������������� Rhetoric of the First Gospel (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1990), pp.12�15; K. G. C. Newport, The Sources and Sitz im Leben of Matthew 23 (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1995), pp.61�7; W. Carter, Households and Discipleship: A Study of Matthew 19�20 (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1994), pp.15, 35; M. Slee, The Church in Antioch in the First Century C.E. (London: T&T Clark, 2003), p.154; P. Foster, ����������� ���� ���� �������� ��� ���������� ������� (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), pp.36�65, 259; A. M. Gale, Rede�ning Ancient Borders: The Jewish Scribal Framework ��������������������(London: T&T Clark, 2005); A. Runesson, ������������ ������ �������Christian Relations: Matthean Community History as Pharisaic Intragroup Con�������JBL 127 (2008), pp.95�132. 7 J. A. Overman, ��������������������������������������������Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990)�����������������������ism in Second Temple Judaism: Matthew, James, and the Didache in Their Jewish� ������������������Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their 1

2. Characterisation and Plot

35

he observes in the Gospel, which he calls Matthean Judaism, is strictly Jewish.8 The Matthean Jesus is portrayed as a teacher of the law whose legal interpretation is at variance with that of emerging formative Judaism, represented in the Gospel by the scribes and Pharisees. This deviation, re�ected in the praxis of his followers, has resulted in a crisis of con�dence precipitating the production of the Gospel as a means of ������������� ���� ������������ ���������� ��������������� ���� ���������� posture adopted by the evangelist towards the authorities resulted in the further isolation and ultimate demise of Matthean Judaism. 9 Overman starts by drawing on material from Qumran, 1 Enoch 91� 108, Psalms of Solomon, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch to highlight the common contextual horizon of Matthean and formative Judaism in Palestine between 165 BCE and 100 CE.10 He identi�es �ve commonalities: (1) the sectarian nature of Judaism in this period (by sectarian he means a minority group in opposition to a parent body); (2) the language of �������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���� ������������� (3) hostility toward the Jewish leadership; (4) the centrality of the law and true observance as de�ning membership of the community; and (��� ���� ������������ ����������� ��� ������� ��� ������ faithful remnant. He then outlines the nature of formative Judaism, drawing heavily upon the work of Jacob Neusner. 11 Following the events of 70 CE the various sects within Judaism competed for domination, resulting in the �����������������������������������������������������-70 Pharisaism and the scribal profession�� which would later evolve into rabbinic Judaism.12 This process sets the context for the Gospel. Overman brie�y outlines developments within formative Judaism that directly impacted Matthean Judaism. These include the use of the term rabbi, the institutional development of procedures for exclusion, and places of gathering.13

Jewish and Christian Settings (H. van de Sandt and J. K. Zangenberg, eds; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), pp.259�70. 8 For an intended Gentile audience, see G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthäus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), pp.15�35; W. Trilling, Das wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthäus-Evangeliums (3rd ed.; SANT, 10; Munich: Kösel, 1964), pp.41�2, 224. 9 Overman, ����������������, p.160. 10 Overman, ����������������, pp.6�34. 11 Overman, ����������������, pp.35�71. 12 Overman, ����������������, p.38. Cf. R. B. Wright in OTP II.642 on the dif�culties associated with reconstructing formative Judaism. 13 Overman, ����������������, pp.44�62. 1

36

The Audience of Matthew

Other sociological processes are identi�ed, which include the traditionalising of the new movement (claiming a degree of antiquity for current community practices) and the replacement of the temple cult by study of Torah. Overman proceeds by arguing for the Gospel as an exercise in legitimation.14 Matthew seeks to traditionalise the beliefs of his community by validating their interpretation of the law. This is done through the use of ful�lment citations and a distinctly Matthean emphasis on Jesus as an accurate and true interpreter of the law, as manifested in various con�ict stories and programmatic statements relating to law (cf. Mt. 5.17-20). In addition to legitimation, Overman suggests that the community sought to develop their own social structures, values, and norms in opposition to those of formative Judaism.15 These included: (1) an emphasis on righteousness as right actions, as opposed to a Pauline gift from God (cf. the �����������������������������-23);16 (2) the development of a community constitution (Mt. 5�7); (3) disciplinary procedures (Mt. 18); (4) the withdrawal from civil and judicial authorities and the development of parallel internal procedures (Mt. 5.22, 25; 6.12); and (5) a narrowly de����������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� of the roles of scribe, prophet, and missionary, then developing within formative Judaism.17 Up until this point i�������������������������������������������������� speci�cally local audience. It is only in the �nal three pages of his conclusion that he seeks to link his Matthean community with a speci�c geographic locale.18 On the basis that the Gospel portrays an intense struggle with formative Judaism he concludes, all too readily, that a Palestinian provenance is virtually assured. 19 �������������������������

14 Overman, ����������������, pp.72�149. 15 Overman, ����������������, pp.90�113. 16 See also B. Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew and his World of Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). 17 Overman, ����������������, pp.113�24. 18 Overman, ����������������, pp.158�60. 19 Overman, ���������� ������, p.158. For a rejection of a Palestinian provenance, cf. R. E. Brown and J. P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist, 1983), pp.16�19; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew: Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I�VII (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), pp.139�41; F. W. Beare, The Gospel according to Matthew: A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1981), pp.8�9. 1

2. Characterisation and Plot

37

setting of the ministry of Jesus, emphasis on the Pharisees, and a polemic against courts (cf. Mt. 5.22), are deemed to require a setting in Tiberias or Sepphoris, either of which re�ects these characteristics. 2.2.b. Anthony Saldarini: A Christian-Jewish Community in Syria In ����������������-Christian Community, Anthony Saldarini builds upon ���������� ������ ������� ����� ���� ����������� ������� ��� legitimise his Christian-Jewish commu������� ������� ��� ����������� ��� ���������� Judaism.20 He does not pin down his community to a speci�c geographic locale but instead brie�y notes a provenance in greater Syria. 21 As such, ������������������������������������������������������������������������s a somewhat independent exercise to that of establishing the location of the ���������������������������������������������������������������nal form as representative of both the author and the audience. He interprets the text as indicative of the relationship between Matthew, his group, and wider Judaism.22 Here the meaning of the text no longer primarily resides in the events during the time of Jesus the evangelist purports to present. Instead, claims for and against Jesus represent ongoing theological di������������������������������������������������������������������� the church dominates the time of Jesus. First, Saldarini suggests that the break between Christianity and Judaism was not as clear and as sharp as some would make out. 23 He argues that there was persistent and sustained contact between Jews and Christians and that in the 80s and 90s neither movement could be characterised as being represented by an orthodox core. Instead both movements gradually moved apart over a period of three to four centuries. ����������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� God.24 �������������������������������������������������������������� 20 A. J. Saldarini, ����������������-Christian Community (Chicago: University ��� �������� ������� ������� ���� ����� ��� ��� ����������� ����� ������� ��� �������� ���� Jewish�Christian Con����������Social History of the Matthean Community: CrossDisciplinary Approaches (D. L. Balch, ed.; Minnesota: Fortress, 1991), pp.38�67. For an ethnically mixed Christian community, see D. R. A. Hare, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel according to St Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), p.170; Meier, Vision, p.28; and Davies and Allison, Matthew I�VII, p.24. 21 Saldarini, Community, pp.4, 11, 26. 22 Saldarini, Community, p.4. 23 Saldarini, Community, pp.11�26. 24 Saldarini, Community, pp.27�43. Contrast Hare, Jewish Persecution, pp.146� 9, 164�6. 1

38

The Audience of Matthew

own group relates. Saldarini links characters and groups in the Gospel ��������� ��� ���� ��������� ���� ����������� ����� ���������� ������ ���� descriptions of the groups with which Jesus and his disciples had contact and his characterizations of the crowds and the community leaders in Galilee and Jerusalem provide some evidence for his view of his own group by way of apologetic and polemical contrast��25 While he does not argue for a sharp and distinct boundary between his group, represented by the disciples, and Judaism, represented by the Jewish authorities, he nevertheless uses the contrast in the Gospel to hypothesise a similar �������������������������������������������� Saldarini then attempts to refute the view that the evangelist views Israel as rejected, by suggesting a more nuanced reading in which only the leaders are rejected, while groups such as the scribes are treated in a more positive light.26 He rejects those readings that interpret con�ict with the leaders in Matthew 23 as a Jewish-����������������������������� rejection by Israel and for the destruction of the temple.27 Instead he relocates the source of the con�����������������������������������nes it as indicative of intra-communal con�ict.28 Saldarini consequently argues against the view that the Gentiles have superseded Israel as the people of God.29 ����������������������� is deemed to re�ect different groupings within Judaism rather than a Jew�Gentile divide.30 Nevertheless, Gentile characters are interpreted as solely representing non-Jews who are, incidentally, welcomed by the community. Lastly, Saldarini uses sociological and anthropological theories pertaining to deviance, sects, and kinship to interpret the characterisation of the disciples.31 I will discuss this in more detail below. He then advocates a thoroughly Jewish portrayal in the Gospel of the law and Jesus. 32 His basic thesis is that Jesus was a non-divine Jewish �gure whose divine status was later accorded to him by late �rst-century and early secondcentury Christians.33 This line of argument supports his thesis that the Gospel originates from a Jewish community. 25 Saldarini, Community, p.27. ��������������������������40. 26 Saldarini, Community, pp.44�67. 27 Cf. Hare, Persecution, pp.80�96, 149�62; Brooks, Community, pp.59�71, 78�83; Newport, Sources, pp.64, 72�4. 28 Saldarini, Community, p.46. ��������������ic��������� 29 Saldarini, Community, pp.68�83. 30 Contrast Trilling, Das wahre Israel, pp.60�1; Foster, Community, Law and Mission, pp.239�47. 31 Saldarini, Community, pp.84�123. 32 Saldarini, Community, pp.124�93. 33 ����������� ����������� ������ maintains that the major issue in the dispute ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1

2. Characterisation and Plot

39

2.2.c. David Sim: A Christian-Jewish Community in Antioch Sim follows in The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism Overman and Saldarini in arguing for a Christian-Jewish audience for the Gospel. ��������������������������-���������������������������������������������� ��� ���� ����-������ ��������� ��� ����ine Gentile Christianity. He questions the relationship of the Matthean community to other Christian groups and asks whether Gentiles would need to become Jews in order to enter the community and whether followers of Paul would be recognised as fellow believers-in-Jesus.34 Sim initially provides a detailed analysis of the various positions pertaining to the date and location of the Gospel. 35 He differs from Overman, who posits a locale somewhere in Palestine, and instead opts for Syrian Antioch and a later date of composition between 85�95 CE. His dating of the Gospel as post-70 CE, based upon his reading of Mt. 22.7, precludes Palestine as a geographical origin in that he suggests a greater treatment of the Roman�Jewish war (66�70 CE) would be expected if the evangelist had witnessed events. A critique of this dating method will be offered below. Sim then offers a reconstruction of the Antiochene church prior to the composition of the Gospel based on a critical comparison of Acts and Galatians.36 His objective is to establish an emphasis on law in the local church that matches a similar emphasis in the Gospel. The Antiochene church �������������������������������-Christians who �ed Jerusalem following the persecution of Stephen (Acts 8.1; 11.19). The mother church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch, where he sided with Paul and accompanied him on his law-free mission through Asia Minor. The contentious Jerusalem council resulted, which could not have been as amicable as portrayed in Acts 15. James, who had taken over the leadership of the Jerusalem church, then sent a subservient Peter to Antioch. interpretation. He deliberately neglects in his analysis the role of Jesus and suggests ������������������������������������������������������e rupture between Christian �������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Balch (ed.), Social History of the Matthean Community, pp.62�7 (64). 34 D. C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), pp.6� ���������������������������������������������JSNT 57 (1995), pp.19�48. Contrast M. Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ (London: SCM, 2000), pp.161�8; Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003), p.50. 35 Sim, Matthew, pp.31�62. 36 Sim, Matthew, pp.63�107. 1

40

The Audience of Matthew

Paul was defeated (on which Gal. 2.11-21 remains silent) and Barnabas reined in, allowing the church to become a thoroughly law-observant Christian-Jewish congregation during the period of the Roman-Jewish war and the emergence of formative Judaism. ������ ������� ����������� ��� ����������� �������� ��� �������� ������� ��� which, following the confrontation between Paul and Peter in Antioch, Paul departed, leaving a situation in which Peter presided over distinct Jewish-Christian and Gentile-Christian groups within the one church. 37 Peter or the James party imposed a number of kashrut regulations on the Gentiles in order to resolve the issue of table fellowship. The Christian community would have consisted of a number of factions, varying in their degree of law observance. 38 In contrast, Sim adopts a sceptical stance towards the issue of table fellowship in Gal. 2.11-14, and instead posits that the real dispute was that of circumcision as the means of entering the covenant people of God. This allows him to reconstruct the following context to the Gospel: The Matthean community in Antioch was not, as Meier postulates, the successor to an earlier mixed church of law-observant conservatives and law-free radicals held together by the moderating in�uence of Peter. On the contrary, it was the successor to a strictly law-observant Christian Jewish community in the tradition of the Jerusalem church in which Peter played a leading role. 39

Sim argues for two dramatic changes in Antioch, the �rst, a break from Pauline Christianity to that of Peter and James, and the second, the re-emergence of a Pauline mission in Antioch parallel to the anti-Pauline Matthean community.40 What is distinctly unclear in this scenario is the process by which supposedly anti-law Pauline Christians evolved into a deviant Jewish sect � the Matthean community.41 Sim argues that circumcision would have been the key requirement for any Gentile proselytes involved in this process.42 Regarding law observance he states, ���������������������������������������������������������������������d in 37 Cf. Slee, The Church in Antioch, p.43. 38 Sim, Matthew, p.105. 39 Sim, Matthew, p.106. 40 Sim, Matthew, pp.257�87; Contrast G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946), pp.130�1. 41 Contrast Brown and Meier, Antioch, pp.2���� ��� ��� ������� ����� ������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������CBQ 45 (1983), pp.74�9; U. Luz, Matthew 1�7 (ET; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), pp.85� 6; Brooks, Community, pp.20�1. 42 Sim, Matthew, pp.21, 25. 1

2. Characterisation and Plot

41

full (cf. Mt. 23.23), and this must include the de�nitive ritual of circumcision��43 This conclusion fails, however, to account adequately for the absence of such an important issue in the Gospel.44 Overman and Saldarini do not face this problem to the same degree in that neither of them posit an Antiochene provenance.45 This reconstruction also depends on a disputed analysis of developments in Antioch. Sim continues by outlining how, forty years after Paul had departed from Antioch, the law-observant community entered into con�ict with formative Judaism.46 The community observed the entire Torah and kept purity, dietary, Sabbath, and circumcision laws.47 Differences in legal interpretation and belief in Jesus as the Messiah led to persecution by leaders within formative Judaism. Sim is at pains to portray an antagonistic relationship between the groups, testi�ed in the Gospel by disputes conducted at close proximity over issues such as alms, prayer, and fasting (Mt. 6.2, 5, 16). Sim suggests heated meetings in the marketplace (23.7) and active persecution (10.16-23).48 What is somewhat unclear in this scenario is the function of those passages which refer to an itinerant ministry in which persecuted disciples �ee from one city to another (10.23), and who are equally likely to receive a positive as against a negative reception (10.13, 40-42). Sim then argues for a scenario in which, following the deaths of Paul and James, Symeon (the cousin of James) assumed the leadership of the law-observant Jerusalem church while the leadership of the law-free Pauline churches remained unresolved due to dif�culties replacing the highly charismatic Paul.49 Stability within the Jerusalem-led churches allowed them to dominate the law-free churches until the destruction of Jerusalem, after which the Pauline churches once again �ourished. Sim portrays an ongoing hostile interaction between the two factions, represented in law-observant works such as the Epistle of James, the Recognitions, the Ascent of James, and the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and ����-������������������������������������������� 43 Sim, Matthew, p.253. 44 Hare, Jewish Persecution, pp.6, 11; Davies and Allison, Matthew I�VII, pp.492�3; Luz, Matthew 1�7, p.68. 45 Overman, �����������������������������������������������������Community, pp.156�60. 46 Sim, Matthew, pp.109�63. 47 Sim, Matthew, pp.132�5, 139. See J. G. Crossley, ���� ����� ��� ������� Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (London: T&T Clark, 2004), pp.82�124, 183�205, for a law-observant Jesus. 48 Sim, Matthew, pp.151�62. 49 Sim, Matthew, pp.165�213. 1

42

The Audience of Matthew

Sim further suggests that the victory in Antioch of James and Peter over Paul and the Hellenists precipitated in a dramatic drop in the number of Gentiles in the community as a result of the requirements of circumcision and complete Torah observance.50 In addition, the fallout of the Jewish war and subsequent persecution of Jews in Antioch resulted in the adoption of a negative attitude towards Gentiles on the part of �����������������������������������������������������������sus in rejecting any mission to the Gentiles. 51 He emphasises a Jewish mission to be conducted until the parousia (Mt. 10.5-6, 18; 22.1-6; 23.29-36), to the exclusion of a Gentile mission. 52 Thus, he rejects those scholars who emphasise either parallel missions or the replacement of the Jewish mission by a Gentile mission as a result of post-war Jewish hostility.53 Sim interestingly accepts the validation of the Gentile mission in Mt. 24.14 and 28.19 but rejects any involvement on the part of the Matthean community, despite the fact that in 28.19 the command was directed to the disciples, those in the narrative Sim reads as representing the community.54 Sim then outlines a renewed Pauline mission in Antioch after the Jewish war that resulted in a Pauline-Ignatian church independent of ������������������������ty.55 Finally, he offers a number of speculative later histories of the community.56 These do not relate to our central question as to the audience of the Gospel and as such need not detain us. Before I move on to characterisation and plot, I will offer a critique of the frequent use of Mt. 22.7 to date the composition of the Gospel in that ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� of the wedding banquet in Mt. 22.1-10, a king sends out three invitations �������������������� banquet. The �rst call, to those previously invited, ��������������������������� ������������������������������������������� slaves, who delivered the call, were mistreated and killed by the invited 50 Sim, Matthew, pp.215�56. 51 B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London: Macmillan, 1951), p.514; Hare, Jewish Persecution, pp.128, 170�1; J. LaGrand, The Earliest ��������������������������������������������������������������������(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp.235�47; Brooks, Community, pp.79�80, 121; Slee, The Church in Antioch, pp.126�45. 52 Sim, Matthew, p.256. 53 Cf. Beare, Matthew, p.432; U. Luz, Matthew 8�20 (ET; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), pp.66�7; The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp.17�21; Brooks, Community, pp.120�2. 54 Sim, Matthew���������������������������������������������������������������� in light of Mt. 28.18-20 (Das wahre Israel, pp.21�51). 55 Sim, Matthew, pp.257�87. 56 Sim, Matthew, pp.289�302. 1

2. Characterisation and Plot

43

guests. The king responded by ordering the destruction of their city, interpreted as a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, and by sending out a third invitation to those previously uninvited, in the streets, consisting of the good and the bad. The parable ends with the king noticing a man inappropriately attired and throwing him out of the banquet into outer darkness. Scholars are in general agreement that the king and his son respectively represent God and his Son, and the wedding feast the kingdom of heaven.57 Sim af�rms previous readings of the parable that interpret it as a history of the Christian mission. The messengers of the king are Christian missionaries, and those who receive the �rst and second invitations are the Jews. As a result of the mistreatment the missionaries received, God despatched the Romans to destroy Jerusalem, the city of the Jews. 58 In this reading, the previous parable of the wicked tenants (Mt. 21.33-44) ������������������������������������������������������������������������try of Jesus, and the parable of the wedding banquet the subsequent history of the Christian missionary movement. A number of objections may be raised to this reading. First, parallels between the two parables would suggest the delivery of the same basic warning in parabolic form. Both parables involve a series of rejected invitations, three in the case of the wicked tenants, and two in the parable of the wedding banquet. The response to the invitations is uniformly the �������������������������������������������������������������������dered. This leads to the vineyard owner executing the tenants and the king destroying the city of the invited guests. Both parables conclude with a transfer of privilege, from the tenants to a new ������ (Mt. 21.43), and from the invited guests to those brought in off the streets. Both parables conclude with a �nal warning. Jesus warns of the danger of rejecting the cornerstone, while the celebrant without a wedding robe is 57 See Beare, Matthew, p.432; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew: Commentary on Matthew VIII�XVIII (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991), p.197; U. Luz, Matthew 21� 28 (ET; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), p.52. Contrast M. Blickenstaff, ����������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Matthew (London: T&T Clark, 2005), pp.46�������������������������������������� oppressive k��������������������������������������������������������������������� follower of the Matthean community, whose speechlessness parallels that of the innocent Jesus before the high priest (p. 73). 58 Sim, Matthew, pp.34�6. Sim defends his reading against that of R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), pp.602�6, who argues for Mt. 22.7 as an allusion to Isa. 5.24-25. 1

44

The Audience of Matthew

ejected from the wedding banquet. These extensive parallels would suggest a duplication of the same basic warning to the chief priests, elders, and Pharisees. Secondly, both parables share the same context � a confrontation between Jesus and the religious authorities following the earlier cleansing of the temple (Mt. 21.12-13). The blind, lame, children, crowds, tax collectors, and prostitutes (Mt. 21.14-15, 26, 32) remain either directly or indirectly in the background, and represent a contrasting group to that of the chief priests, elders, and Pharisees. If the priests, elders, and Pharisees are represented in the parables by those who reject the warnings and invitations, then the blind, lame, children, tax collectors, and prostitutes would naturally constitute those in the parables who receive the tenure of the vineyard or who respond to the third and �nal invitation to the wedding banquet. This group also receives a warning as illustrated by the fate of the guest found inappropriately dressed. This interpretation �������������������������������������������������������������� ��������� rejection of Israel, but differs in that it rejects his usage of the parable of the wedding banquet as a history of early Christian missionary activity. Thirdly, identifying the destruction of the city in Mt. 22.7 with the destruction of Jerusalem may be criticised as being hermeneutically inconsistent. If such a reference is to be interpreted as referring to events beyond the immediate context of the dispute between Jesus and the authorities, we may ask why this particular detail within the parable has been singled out for this speci�c treatment. Why have other details in the ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� where willing celebrants were �nally found, not been interpreted as referring to speci�c historic events and places signi�cant in the lead up to and aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem? This degree of inconsistency would question the process of attributing additional referential signi�cance to descriptive references in the text.59 More recently Sim has conceded that Mt. 22.7 represents the only allusion in the Gospel to the destruction of Jerusalem and on this basis he pushes for a later dating of 59 A similar criticism may be applied to the use of isolated textual references to ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Matthäus und seine Gemeinde (Stuttgart: KBW, 1974), pp.138�40; Strecker, Der Weg�������������������������������-Sectarian Character of Matthew and its PostWar Setting in �������������������PRS 3 (1976), pp.235����������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� JSNT 3 (1979), pp.18�28; B. T. �������������������������������a�������������������������������CBQ 41 (1979), pp.533������������������������ �������������������������������������������������� Balch (ed.), Social History of the Matthean Community, pp.189�210. 1

2. Characterisation and Plot

45

composition re�ecting a fading importance of Jerusalem�������������� for the evangelist.60 Sim, nevertheless, continues to equate the values of the text with the time of composition. If this critique of the use of Mt. ������������������������������������������������������������������������ So far I have outlined three community reconstructions that to varying degrees suggest a local audience, whether in Palestine, Syria, or Antioch. The objective of each scholar considered is to produce a diachronic reconstruction of the historical context of the genesis of the text. Is such a reading sustainable in light of a synchronic reading focusing on characterisation and plot? To answer this question I �rst need to de�ne ������������������������������������������������������������������������ treatment of these two elements in our respective community reconstructions. 2.3. Characterisat�������������������������������� Characterisation and plot are two sides of the same literary coin. Any ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� plot-related developments, and, likewise, analysis of plot should be grounded on an understanding of characterisation. As such, a degree of overlap in my discussion of these two literary factors is unavoidable. My agenda is not to produce a comprehensive reading of the Gospel, but rather to focus on those characters and aspects of plot pertinent to the issue of local community reconstructions. For clarity of discussion, analysis of characterisation will be broad in scope, including characters or groups involved in both the main plot and subplots of the Gospel. In contrast, plot-related observations will be restricted to the main plot. 2.3.a. Characterisation Literary critics suggest that the nature of characters may be portrayed through two methods: showing and telling. 61 In the case of the Gospel, ��������������������������������reliable narrator to speak directly to the reader��62 ���������������������������������������������������������������� (Mt. 1.19), that John is the one of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke (3.3), 60 ������������������������������������������ ���������� ������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������genberg (eds), Matthew, James, and Didache, pp.13�32 (15�19). 61 M. A. Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism? A New Approach to the Bible (London: SPCK, 1993), pp.52�4. 62 Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism?, p.52. 1

46

The Audience of Matthew

and that Jesus had compassion on the crowd of 5,000 (14.14). However, the preferred method of characterisation in the Gospel is that of showing. A narrator may show through acts, speech, thoughts, beliefs, or values what a character is like, either from his or her own point of view or through that of another character.63 Literary critics have categorised characters as either �at, round, or stock characters.64 Round characters possess a variety of potentially con�icting traits, �at characters possess traits which are consistent or predictable, while stock characters manifest a single trait, as in the case of the exemplar characters highlighted in Chapter 1. Characters tend towards being �at in oral narrative. In contrast, Walter Ong notes: As discourse moves towards greater and greater chirographic and typographic control, the ��������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������rst blush unpredictable but ultimately consistent in terms of the complex character structure and complex motivation with which the round character is endowed.65

���������������������������������������������������������������������������� characteristics may be observed. Many of the characters, or groups with a corporate identity, have varying traits, and thus may be categorised as round. However, J. Capel Anderson observes that character development �����������������������������66 This re���������������������������������� Characters change in terms of the degree or intensity of their traits, even when they exhibit multiple traits, rather than in terms of trait complexity. Consideration will now be given to the characterisation of those different groups within the Gospel that �gure prominently within local community reconstructions. Attention will be paid in particular to any plot-related developments in characterisation. I turn �rst to the group most closely associated with Jesus, the disci�������������������������������������������������������������������������� lack of understanding. Their initial response to the call to discipleship is positive (Mt. 4.18-�������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������-17, 36-43; 15.12-20; 17.1-13; 19.10-���������������������������������������� ministry through preaching the nearness of the kingdom of heaven (4.17; 63 Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism?, p.52. 64 Forster, Aspects of the Novel, pp.65�75. 65 W. J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (3rd ed.; New York: Routledge, 2002), p.148. 66 J. Capel Anderson, �������������������������������������������������� Again (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1994), p.83. 1

2. Characterisation and Plot

47

10.7) and performing exorcisms and healings (4.24; 10.8). They are the ��������������������������������������������������������������������� poured (cf. 9.16-17). These positive traits consistently and increasingly contrast with negative traits. Doublets indicate a persistent and increasing failure to grasp the identity and mission of Jesus.67 The disciples exhibit little faith during a storm on Galilee (8.26), and mistake Jesus for a ghost (14.26, 31). They witness Jesus feeding the 5,000 (14.15-21), but then question the possibility of providing food for a crowd of 4,000 ���������������������������������������������������������������c passion predictions (16.21; 17.22-23a; 20.18-19), they reject his concept of sacri�cial servanthood (16.22), and instead concern themselves with determining which of them is the greatest (18.1-5; 20.20-28). Their ������������������������������������������������������������������������ climactic �������������������������������������-75). Redemption, however, awaits the disciples when they receive their post-resurrection commission, an event likewise previously anticipated (26.32; 28.7, 10). As a group, the disciples repeatedly swing between faith and little faith, understanding and miscomprehension. This characterisation serves two audience-related purposes. First, the positive elements of their characterisation af�rm the status of the earliest followers of Jesus within the Christian community as guardians of his teachings (e.g., 9.16-17; 28.20).68 Secondly, their lack of faith contrasts with, and highlights, the faith and obedience of Jesus to the will of his Father (cf. 26.39, 42). Note that I have not dealt with Peter, the spokesperson for the disciples, as I will focus on his characterisation in Chapter 3. The character group of the Jewish leaders includes sub-groups, which, according to Sjef van Tilborg, should be treated equally as representatives of Israel: ���������������������������������������������������������������������� Israel as a homogeneous group. The many names he eventually gives the Jewish leaders are not meant as further historical information. He does not want to introduce a distinction between Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, high priests and elders. In his eyes they are all equally representative of the one Israel.69

67 J. Capel ���������� �������� ���� ������� ��������� ���� �������� �������� ���� ������������������������Semeia 31 (1985), pp.71�89; Narrative Web, pp.175�84. 68 D. E. Orton, The Understanding Scribe: Matthew and the Apocalyptic Ideal (London: T&T Clark, 2004), pp.140�51. 69 S. van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden: Brill, 1972), p.1. See also Capel Anderson, Narrative Web, pp.97�8. 1

48

The Audience of Matthew

����������������������������������������������������������������������� for combination-formulae such as ��� ���������� ���� ������������ (Mt. 3.7; 16.1, 6, 11, 12), ��� ����������� ���� ���������� (5.20; 12.38; 23.13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29), and ��� ����������� ���� ��� ������������ (���� �����) (21.23; 26.3, 47; 27.1, 3, 12, 20; 28.11-12). Numerous other combinations are employed indicating that the evangelist did not wish to establish a distinction between the different sub-groups.70 The Jewish leadership are characterised as consistently antagonistic towards Jesus, being described by both John the Baptist and Jesus as a brood of vipers facing imminent judgement (3.7; 12.34; 23.33). They are identi�ed by Jesus as evil (12.34), and part of an evil and adulterous generation (12.39). In the ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� root from which other traits such as hypocrisy, spiritual blindness (15.14; 23.16-22, 24, 26), and conspiracy (12.14; 26.3-4; 27.1) spring.71 Early general references to hypocrisy (6.2, 5, 16) are later applied speci�cally to the Jewish leadership (15.7; 22.18; 23.5, 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29; 24.51). ��������������������������������������������eral warning against those who produce bad fruit (7.16), which is likewise applied speci�cally to the Jewish leadership (12.33-37; 21.43). Further, Jesus warns the disciples of the possibility of persecution (10.23) and later identi�es the scribes and Pharisees as persecutors (23.34). Through their words and �������� ���� ����������� ������������� ���������� ������� ���������� ���� ���� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� (5.32; 22.18). A developing hostility may be seen in the Gospel, progressing initially ������������������������������������������������������������������������ concerted questioning of the acts of Jesus and his disciples (9.3, 11; ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� withered hand on the Sabbath (12.9-14). Attitudes continue to harden as illustrated by the doublet of exorcism stories (9.32-34; 12.22-27). In the �rst story, Jesus is accused of exorcising through the power of the ruler of the demons (9.34). Following a second exorcism, the same accusation is made with greater force and intensity (12.24).72 Further indications of increasing hostility are manifested in their repeated requests for Jesus to produce a sign (12.38; 16.1).73 This marks them out as members of ����������������������������������������������������������������������� 70 See van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders, pp.1�7. Contrast Orton, The Understanding Scribe, pp.23�38. 71 Kingsbury, �����������������������������, p.17. 72 Capel �������������������������������������������� 73 Capel ���������������������������������������������80. 1

2. Characterisation and Plot

49

surprise to the audience when Jesus identi������������������������������ who will bring about his death (16.21; 17.22-23a; 20.18-����� ������� predictions become reality and the leadership continue to oppose the resurrected Jesus (28.11-15). In summary, the leadership grow increasingly antagonistic towards Jesus, an observation that will be �eshed out in more detail in my consideration of plot. Crowds play an important role as a foil to the Jewish leadership. 74 They initially respond positively to Jesus. Frequent summary statements inform the audience that crowds spontaneously coalesced in response to ����������������������������������������������������������������������� Jerusalem, Judea, or from beyond the Jordon (e.g., Mt. 4.23-25; 15.30�������������������������������������������������������������34; 23.1) and witness his miracles (8.1), consistently responding with astonishment (7.28; 9.8, 33; 12.23). They follow Jesus, who cares for them as a shepherd would a �ock of sheep (8.1; 9.36; 12.15; 14.13, 15, 19, 22; 15.36). On the negative side, their presence sometimes prompts Jesus to with����������������������������������������������������������������������lent towards Jesus and John the Baptist (11.16). Their attitude to Jesus, though largely positive, is limited to viewing him as a prophet (12.23; 16.13-14; 21.11, 46), and they remain outsiders to whom Jesus talks in parables (13.10-13). Their positive responses serve to highlight the rejection of the Jewish leadership. Their misunderstandings signal to an audience a diminishing likelihood that the crowds will accept Jesus. In the end, a Jerusalem-based crowd falls under the in�uence of the Jewish leadership in both arresting (26.47, 55) and later calling for the cruci�xion of Jesus (27.15-25). Kingsbury suggests that this rejection of Jesus (26.47-���������������������������������������������������������������� 21.45-46 their positive attitude towards Jesus occasions fear in the religious leaders.75 We encounter in the Gospel both individual Gentiles who serve as positive exemplars and the Gentiles as a group in need of reform. Consideration will be given �rst to the positive individual exemplars. The magi from the east respond to the rising of a star and seek out the newborn king of the Jews (Mt. 2.1-2). After �nding and paying homage to the child, they are privileged recipients of a dream warning them not to return to Herod (2.12). They respond with obedience. Later, a centurion in Capernaum appeals to Jesus to help his paralysed servant. 74 ���������������������������������������������CBQ 55 (1993), pp.54�67; J. R. C. Cousland, The Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew (Leiden: Brill, 2002). 75 J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), p.4. 1

50

The Audience of Matthew

������������������������������Truly I say you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I say to you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness, ������ ������ ����� ��� �������� ���� ��������� ��� ������� ����� �����-12, NRSV). The centurion serves as an exemplar to those Gentiles who will �nd inclusion in the kingdom of heaven in contrast to those Israelites who will be excluded.76 A similar exemplar �gure is that of a Canaanite woman from the region of Tyre and Sidon, who persistently requests mercy from Jesus for her demon-possessed daughter (15.21-28). Jesus commends her for her great faith and her daughter is released (15.28). Developments in characterisation are linked to plot developments. Capel ���������������������������������������������������������������������nal characters such as the blind men, women and Gentiles like the Canaanite woman and Roman centurion of 27.54 respond more and more positively to Jesus��77 Certainly we �nd that in the passion narrative the negative treatment Jesus receives from the soldiers (27.27-31) contrasts with the climactic confession of the centurion at the cross that �������� ����� ������ ��� ������ �������� ����� ���� ���� ������ ����� �������� 78 These exemplars anticipate the movement from the pre-Easter mission to the house of Israel (10.5-6; 15.24), to the post-Easter mission to ������ ��� ����� ����� ���� ��������� ��������� ���� ��������� ����������� ����� ������ ������� ��� ���� Gospel such as the disciples and the Jewish leaders. The individual exemplars contrast with Gentiles as a group, who are characterised through the words of Jesus as in need of reform. 79 In the Sermon on the Mount the audience is instructed to love both neighbour and enemy, thus going beyond the practice of the Gentiles who simply love their neighbours (Mt. 5.47). The �������� ����������������������� to be short and to the point, in contrast to the Gentiles who, when they 76 Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, pp.26�9, argue that the contrast ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� (8.11-������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������������p.28). So too D. C. Allison, The Jesus Tradition in Q (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997), pp.176�91. ����������������������������������������������������������������������-29/Matt 8.11-������������������������������NTS 52 (2006), pp.441�57. 77 Capel �������������������������������������������� 78 See D. Catchpole, The Quest for Q (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993), pp.292�3, 307�8, for the centurion as Jewish. 79 I accept the 4,000 (Mt. 15.29-39) as Jewish; ���������������������������� Feeding of the Four Thousand Gentiles in Matthew? Matthew 15:29-39 as a Test �������NovT 41 (1999), pp.1�23. 1

2. Characterisation and Plot

51

pray, heap up empty phrases (6.7-��������������������������������ve �rst for the kingdom of God rather than, as do the Gentiles, for food, drink, and clothes (6.32-33). In leadership, his followers are to imitate servants, slaves, and the example of the Son of Man, rather than the rulers of the Gentiles, who lord their position, sometimes in a tyrannical manner, over their subjects (20.25-28). Gentile cities such as Tyre, Sidon, and Nineveh, were in ancient times the objects of divine wrath, although their situation now positively contrasts with Jewish cities unwilling to repent (11.21-22; 12.41). Sometimes Gentiles respond negatively to the ministry to Jesus, as in the case of the inhabitants of Gadarene who plead with Jesus to leave their neighbourhood after he had cast demons into a herd of swine (8.34; contrast with 4.24-25). Through this mixed characterisation, Gentiles are portrayed as both in need of change and, in certain instances, as already responding in faith to the ministry of Jesus. In a proleptic manner the Gospel anticipates prophetic ful�lment when justice will be ����������� ��� ���� ���������� ���� ����� ����� ��� ���� ����� ��� ��������� servant (12.18, 21, cf. LXX Isa. 11.10).� This analysis of the disciples, Jewish leadership, crowds, and Gentiles af�rms Capel ����������������������������������������������������along ��������������������80 Values intensify as the plot progresses and in this respect characterisation serves the needs of plot. The �uctuating relationship between Jesus and the disciples climaxes in their desertion, reinstatement, and commissioning. The hostility of the Jewish leadership climaxes in them securing the death of Jesus. Crowds remain consistent in their approval of Jesus until the reversal of the Jerusalem crowd. Repeated af�rmations of faith in Jesus by individual Gentiles climax in the cen����������������������������������������������������������������������� question as to whether or not these developments in characterisation are re�ected in local community reconstructions. I now turn to the plot of the Gospel. 2.3.b. Plot Literary critics have produced numerous re���������������������������nition of plot (������) as ���� ��������� ���� ��������� ������������ment ���������������Poetics 6.1450a.3-4).81 �������������������������������poral or sequential element, motivation, or the effects of the arrangement 80 Capel Anderson, Narrative Web, p.83. 81 ���� ����� ��� ��� �������� ����� ����� ��� ���������� ��������� CBQ 49 (1987), pp.233�53 (235�6); Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, pp.2��������������������������� �������� ��� Kingsbury (ed.), Gospel Interpretation, pp.16�26; Howell, ���������� Inclusive Story, pp.93�160; Capel Anderson, Narrative Web, pp.133�91. 1

52

The Audience of Matthew

of events on the reader��82 One popular method of analysing plot derives ����������������������������������������������������������������, and end. A beginning is that which does not itself follow necessarily from something else, but after which a further event or process naturally occurs. An end, by contrast, is that which itself naturally occurs, whether necessarily or usually, after a preceding event, but need not be followed by anything else. A middle is that which follows a preceding event and has further consequences. Well-constructed plots, therefore, should neither begin nor end at an arbitrary point, but should make use of the patterns stated. (Poetics 7.1450b.25-32)

The beginning usually involves a complication and the end a dénouement: These terms have been expanded in speaking of typical plots to include the exposition or introduction (setting the stage), the rising action or complication often involve con�ict between the protagonist and antagonist, the climax, the point to which the rising action has been leading, and the dénouement or conclusion. This rising and falling plot outline is ����������������������������������� 83

It is with critical caution that such a scheme should be employed with �������������������������������������������������������������������������� alien to oral Greek epic poetry: What made a good epic poet was not mastery of a climactic linear plot which he deconstructed by dint of a sophisticated trick called plunging his hearer in medias res. What made a good epic poet was, among other things of course, �rst, tacit acceptance of the fact that episodic structure was the only way and the totally natural way of imagining and handling lengthy narrative, and, second, possession of supreme skill in managing �ashbacks and other episodic techniques. 84

The act of ��������� ��������� �������� ��� ����������� ���������� ��������� [and] the story line develops tighter and tighter climactic structures in place of the old oral episodic plot��85 The episodic nature of the Gospel testi�es to a common oral heritage to those works previewed by Ong. The process of writing, involving the manipulation of episodes from Mark, has permitted Matthew the opportunity of developing, through the use of anticipation and retrospection, a tightly knit plot.86 Thus, characteristics of both orality and literacy are to be found in the Gospel.

1

82 83 84 85 86

Capel Anderson, Narrative Web, p.141. Capel Anderson, Narrative Web, pp.142�3. Ong, Orality and Literacy, p.141. Ong, Orality and Literacy, p.145. Capel Anderson, Narrative Web, p.143.

2. Characterisation and Plot

53

���������������������������������������������������������������������� elements integral to plot, these being narrative �ow (beginning, middle, and end), causality (the resolution relates to the complication), and con�ict. These three factors, identi������������������������������ne������������������������������������������������������������������������� discussion of plot.87 Before consideration is given to these factors, a further methodological distinction deserves mention. Powell has re�ned ������������������������������������������������������ ���������������� con�ict between Jesus and the Jewish leadership, and its subplot, the con�ict between Jesus and the disciples.88 He argues that the con�ict between Jesus and the leadership should rather be reclassi�ed as a subplot, the main plot being the developing con�ict between Jesus, whose ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� and the obstructive Satan.89 ������������������������������������������ he fails to de�ne, beyond citing Mt. 20.28, the means and nature of salvation, nor the speci��������������������������������������������������� sin (1.29). For my purposes it is not necessary to side with either Kingsbury or Powell in ranking con�icts as either plot or subplot. Rather, attention will be focused on the con�ict between Jesus and the Jewish leadership due to its prominence in local community reconstructions. I now turn to the �rst plot-related element for consideration, narrative �ow. Narrative Flow Capel Anderson suggests that the plot of the Gospel combines two common plot types, that of biography and journey. 90 As a biography, the Gospel starts with the birth of Jesus and ends with his death (and resurrection). The movement from birth to death and resurrection corresponds to a journey from Judea (birth), to Galilee (ministry), to Jerusalem (death and resurrection), concluding in Galilee (resurrection commission to the disciples). The speci�c geographic movements are as follows: Jesus is born in Bethlehem of Judea from where he is taken in �ight by his parents to Egypt to escape the threat of Herod (Mt. 2.1, 13-15). Following the death of Herod, Jesus and his family return, not to Judea, but to Nazareth in Galilee (2.19-23). It is from Galilee that Jesus then emerges in the wilderness of Judea to be baptised by John the Baptist (3.1, 13). 87 �����������������������������������������������������������NTS 38 (1992), pp.187�204. 88 Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, pp.3�9. 89 ����������������������������������������8. 90 Capel Anderson, Narrative Web, p.144 n.4. 1

54

The Audience of Matthew

Subsequent to the arrest of John the Baptist, he withdraws to Galilee, where he makes his home in Capernaum (4.12-13). From Mt. 4.17 onwards he ministers in Galilee, the only exceptions being two excursions into the Gentile territories of Gadara (8.28-34) and Tyre and Sidon (15.21-28). Jesus then departs from Galilee, moving to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan (19.1), �nally arriving at his stated destination of Jerusalem in 21.10 (cf. 20.17-19). Following his death at Jerusalem, he returns to Galilee, his stated destination, from where he delivers his Great Commission (26.31-32; 28.5-7, 10). The movement represents a journey from a largely receptive Galilee ���� ������� (4.15, cf. 28.19) to the seat of hostility in Jerusalem. This overview provides a context for a more detailed analysis. A distinction that has proved popular in analysing narrative �ow is that between story and discourse.91 Story has been de�ned as consisting of chronologically ordered events involving characters and settings, their causal interaction comprising that which we call plot. 92 In contrast, the discourse equates to the narrated order of events, how the story is told. This distinction proves most valuable when comparing different discourses covering the same story, as is the case with the Synoptic Gospels. The distinction breaks down, somewhat, when comparative discourses are una�������������������������������������������������������������������� from story. The story�discourse distinction is manifested in the differences between story time, discourse time, ����������������������������������������������� equates to the actual time covered by the events within the narrative. Discourse time relates to the pace at which events in story time are narrated. The evangelist gives preference to ambiguous story time references with events rolling along, one after the other, often introduced with non-speci�c time settings such as ����� ������������������������������������� 27.16), ����� ����� ��������������������������������������� ��� ��������� ���� ������� ��������������������������������������� ��������� ���� ����� ��������������� (18.1), or ���� ��������� ���� ���������� �� �������� ����� ������� �������� ����� when Jesus had �������� ��������� ������ ������� ������� ������ ���� ������ 26.1). The trans�guration story represents an exception to this practice with its setting of ���� �������� ��� ���������������������1), although this may be understood as an intertextual allusion to Exod. 24.16 rather than a desire on the part of the evangelist for chronological accuracy. It is in

91 S. Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978), pp.15�42. 92 Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism?, p. 23. 1

2. Characterisation and Plot

55

the passion narrative that we encounter the most speci�c story time settings: ���� ��� ������� ���� �������� ���� ���� �rst day of Unleavened ������� ��������� ������� ��� ���������� ������ ��� ���� ��������� �������� 27.57); ������� ��� ���������� ����������������������������������� ��� ������ ����� ������������������������������������ ��� ���� �������� ����� ����������� ������������������������� ��� ����������� ����� ������� ����� ���� ����������� ����� ����� ����� ������ ��� ������ ���� ���� ��� ������������� ��������� ���� ����� ��� ���������� ���� �������������� ���� ����� ��������� �������������������������� the ��������������������������������������������������������������������� discourse time is often increased in relation to story time, as, for example, in summary statements in which an extended period of story time is covered in a short period of discourse time (e.g. 4.23-25).93 The reverse does not occur in that the pace of discourse time never drops below that of story time. � A further variable relationship exists between story and discourse times and reading time, the time involved in the reading experience. As mentioned, in most of the Gospel discourse time progresses a great deal more rapidly than story time. In contrast, however, in two instances, in the discourses and the passion narrative, discourse time pace reduces in relation to story time. In the discourses, story and discourse time slow to the same pace as reading time. The rates of all three times converge, inviting the audience to join the crowds and disciples in listening to Jesus in reading time�story time pace. Lengthy discourses thus act as disruptions to the normal pace of discourse time to such an extent that, during the discourses, plot-�������������������������������������������������� own interaction with the teachings of Jesus. The length of the discourses, whether the sermons of Jesus or his dialogues, gives them a certain independence to the plot, an identity of their own that draws in an audience, irrespective of whether or not they know at which point in the plot the material is located. The effect of the discourses on the audience should be noted in relation to plot. The audience, unlike any character in the story, must sit through every discourse and every dialogue. Further, the independent nature of the discourses is con�������������������������� anticipation of a future audience far in excess of that of the original recipients of the disciples, crowds, or Jewish leaders. D. B. Howell notes ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���� ��� ���������� ���� ����� ��� ���� ����������� ���� ���� ��� ���������� �������94 Thus, in his �nal injunction, Jesus commands the disciples to

1

93 94

Capel Anderson, Narrative Web, pp.147�8. Howell, �������������������������, p.98.

56

The Audience of Matthew

������ ���� �������� ���� ����� ����������� ����� �� ����� ���������� ���� (Mt. 28.20). Similarly, in the passion narrative, discourse time slows, although not to such a great extent, in relation to story time. This discourse technique signals to the audience the importance of these sections of the Gospel, further emphasised, as observed by Powell, in the emphasis of structural markers on preaching (4.17) and the passion (16.21).95 Causality Why did Jesus die? From the point of view of Jesus, his death represents ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� him (Mt. 20.22-23; 26.39, 42; cf. Isa. 51.17, 22; Jer. 25.15; Ezek. 23.3133), Jesus makes it possible for his followers to drink the cup of the covenant, ��������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ view of the Jewish leaders in order to remove an unauthorised source of authority that challenges their political and cultic hegemony (21.23, 38). For the disciples, the death of Jesus represents a bewildering act that challenges their preconceptions of greatness (16.22-26; 18.1; 20.20-28), leading to their desertion of Jesus in his hour of need. The search for a ����������������������������������������������������ect the experience of the audience, for whom the motif of promise and ful�lment results in a plot in which suspense is distinctly lacking.96 For example, the identity of Jesus is revealed to the audience from the very start of the Gospel (1.1). Throughout the Gospel, certain events are interpreted as ful�lments of prophesy (cf. 1.22; 2.15; 3.15; 8.17; 12.17; 13.35; 21.4). Happenings are preordained rather than the result of chance encounters. The passion of Jesus likewise comes as no surprise to the audience. They have been repeatedly primed through the anticipation of the fate of Jesus in the life and death of John the Baptist (14.1-����������������������������������� predictions (16.21; 17.22-23a; 20.17-19) as to what will happen.97 The plot by no means keeps the audience in a state of suspense. This audience experience contrasts with the experience of the disciples, for whom the passion climaxes in their incomprehensible acts of betrayal and desertion (16.22; 20.22; 26.33-35).

95 ��������������������������������������� 96 ��������������������������������������� 97 Capel Anderson, Narrative Web, pp.158, 165, 172�4; Howell, ���������� Inclusive Story, pp.96�104. 1

2. Characterisation and Plot

57

Con�ict Analysis At this point consideration will be given to the development of con���� in the Gospel, emphasis being given in particular to the con�ict between Jesus and the leaders. I start by considering the opening chapters, or the exposition, in which ����������������������������������������������ict between Jesus and his opponents is adumbrated, and the plotting devices which are used throughout the narrative are established��98 The main focus of Mt. 1.1�4.16 is the progressive revelation of the identity of Jesus. His identity is revealed by the narrator to be that of the Messiah, the son of David and of Abraham (1.1), by an angel in a dream to Joseph as the one to save his people (i.e., Israel) from their sins (1.21) and ��������������������������������), by the magi from the east as the king of the Jews (2.1-2), by the chief priests and scribes as the ful�lment of prophetic expectations (2.4-6), by John the Baptist as the returning presence of Yahweh inaugurating the kingdom of heaven (3.3), and, �nally, claimed as son by a voice from heaven in which his identity is de�ned in terms of king and servant (3.17; cf. Ps. 2.6-7; Isa. 42.1). The beginning of the complication is a debated matter depending upon how one categorises the various con�icts as plot or subplot. The �rst hint of con�ict encountered in the Gospel is the initial response of fear of Herod and Jerusalem to hearing from the magi of the birth of the child �������������������������������������������������������������������������� (2.14). The audience is invited to distance itself from the chief priests and scribes who assist Herod in his plans.99 A further complication may be viewed in the subplot of John the Baptist, who initially identi�es the �����������������������������������������������������7). As noted in my analysis of characterisation, this assessment is later af�rmed and repeated by Jesus (12.34; 23.33), although, as Howell rightly observes, ������������������������������������� has been given why they deserve such condemnation��100 �������������������������������ict intensi�es with the Jewish leadership, a process well described by Kingsbury. 101 In ch. 9, the leaders �rst oppose Jesus, although at this point in the plot their con������������������ �����������Mt. 9.1-8, Jesus forgives a paralytic his sins. Witnessing this, some scribes conclude that Jesus is blaspheming, arrogating divine 98 Howell, ���������������������tory, p.115. 99 ����������������������������������������������� 100 Howell, �������������������������, p.122. 101 �������������������������������������ict between Jesus and the Jewish ���������������������������������������-�����������������CBQ 49 (1987), pp.57�73; Matthew as Story, pp.5�����������������������������������������25.

1

58

The Audience of Matthew

authority to himself (9.3). They do not, however, voice their misgivings, instead keeping their ����������������������������������������-13, Pharisees observe that Jesus accepts the hospitality of tax collectors and sinners and approach the disciples for an explanation of his behaviour. They do not, however, confront Jesus directly. The crowds respond to the exorcism by Jesus of a mute demoniac with amazement, whereas the ����������������������������������������������������������������������� (9.34). They attack Jesus, but still not directly to his face. In ch. 12, the con�ict intensi�es around issues relating to the Mosaic Law. In Mt. 12.1-8 the Pharisees confront Jesus, not about his behaviour, but rather about that of his disciples who pluck and eat heads of grain on ������������������������������������������������������������������������� (12.2). In 12.9-14, they confront Jesus, this time directly, about his own anticipated behaviour, as to whether he will unlawfully cure on the �������� �� ������ ��������� ������ ��� ��������� ��� ������� ���������� ���� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ (12.14). At this point in the narrative the con�ict takes on a previously ��������������������������������-27, Jesus heals a demoniac who was blind and mute. The crowds respond with amazement, the Pharisees with the accusation that Jesus casts out demons through the authority of Beelzebul. Jesus forcefully counters, accusing the Pharisees of being agents of Satan (12.27), of committing blasphemy (12.31), and of possessing hearts that are evil (12.33-37). At this point in the plot, the possibility of reconciliation between Jesus and the Pharisees evaporates. Having established this mortal con�ict, it is unnecessary for the evangelist to repeat the grouping of con�ict stories as found in chs 9 and 12. This re���������������������������������������������������������������� the disciples.102 Instead, sporadic con�ict accounts, in Mt. 15.1-20 over the tradition of the elders, in 16.1-4 over the desire for a sign from heaven, and in 19.3-��������������������������������������������������� three passion predictions (16.21; 17.22-23a; 20.17-19), maintain the level of con�ict already achieved, while allowing the evangelist to touch on other matters. The con�ict then peaks in chs 21�23, in a series of confrontations revolving around the question of authority and presented against Jesus by a united front comprised of each group that made up the Jewish leadership. In 21.23-27, the chief priests and the elders of the people demand of Jesus by what authority he performs his acts. Jesus de�ects their question by quizzing them on the source of authority of John the Baptist. In 21.33�22.14, Jesus addresses the leaders in the

1

102 Howell, �������������������������, p.145.

2. Characterisation and Plot

59

parables of the wicked tenants and the wedding banquet. He leads them to identify execution and the loss of tenancy as the appropriate punishment for the wicked tenants (21.41). This verdict is then conferred upon the respondents themselves (21.43-44). In 22.15-39, Jesus is the target of a series of challenges over the issues of taxes paid to Caesar, the resurrection, and the reading of the law. He then proceeds to deliver a series of woes upon the leadership and Jerusalem (23.1-39), in which their sins are listed at length, justifying the verdict that through the ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� �lled, thus bringing upon themselves the wrath of the owner of the vineyard (21.33; cf. 21.41-44; 23.36). Jes��������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ In this context the injunction of Mt. 23.2-3 to do whatever the scribes and Ph�������� ����� ���� ���� ��� ������� ������ ���� ���� ��� ��� ��� ����� ���� represents something of a conundrum. Readings that distinguish between the positive words but poor works of the scribes and Pharisees have been criticised by Powell for ignoring instances in which Jesus critiques their teachings (cf. 12.1-14; 15.1-2, 3-9, 10-20; 19.3-9).103 For Powell the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees is itself wrong. 104 Likewise, for Davies and Allison the positive recommendation pertaining to that which the scribes and Ph�����������������������������������������-12 and other passages which counter Pharisaic teaching��105 Numerous solutions have been posited.106 Powell himself suggests that the status of the scribes and ���������������������������������������������������������� be referring to their role as teachers at all, but to their social position as people who control accessibility to Torah��107 The emphasis is on reading rather than ������������������������������������������������������������������������ copies of the Torah, they will be dependent on the scribes and the Pharisees to know what Moses said on any given subject��108 The distinction introduced is that between good reading and poor interpretation and praxis. It remains to be seen whether the ambiguous ����� ���� ��������� 103 ��������������������������������������������������������-�����JBL 114 (1995), pp.419�35 (420). 104 ��������������������������������������������� 105 W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew: Commentary on Matthew XIX�XXVIII (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997), p.269. 106 ����������������������������������������������31. 107 ��������������������������������������������� 108 Powell, ��������������������������������������3.

1

60

The Audience of Matthew

��������� ���������� ����������������������������������lit.��������������� ������������������������������ ������������������������������������������ as a partial solution. Recognition of the interpretative dif�culties surrounding 23.2-3 should not, nevertheless, obscure the increasingly hostile characterisation of the scribes and Pharisees by Jesus through ch. 23. The plot (or subplot?) climaxes with the Jewish leadership initiating and achieving the execution of Jesus in chs 26�27. From the point of view of the Jewish leadership, the scene of greatest signi�cance is that at the cross, in which they align themselves with the point of view of Satan. Their challenge ��� ������ ��� ���� ����� ������������������� ������� (Mt. 27.40), reminds the audience of the earlier tempting of Jesus in the wilderness (4.3, 6). As with the temptations of Satan, the leadership invite Jesus to prove himself to them through an act which, if ful�lled, would require him to disavow the identity assigned by his Father as suffering servant (3.17; 17.5; cf. Isa. 42.1). From the point of view of the Jewish leadership, the death of Jesus represents a climax through which they remove the most signi�cant threat faced so far to their continued tenancy over the vineyard of Israel (21.37-39). Theirs, however, is a Pyrrhic victory that secures, in their own words, a divine sentence in ���������������������������������������������������������������������� vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the harvest ������������� A number of methodological observations deserve to be made regarding this analysis of characterisation and plot. First, the distinction between characterisation and plot is somewhat arti�cial. In the Gospel, characterisation is a servant of plot. My analysis of plot necessarily focused on the con�ict between Jesus and the Jewish leadership and should be supplemented by my earlier analysis of characterisation of other groups, such as the disciples, crowds, and Gentiles. Secondly, in terms of point of view, I have prioritised in my analysis of plot that of the Jewish leadership, rather than, for example, that of the protagonist Jesus. The reason for this distortion lies in my interest in highlighting the role of certain groups signi�cant to local community reconstructions. Thirdly, this analysis has been text-focused and as such has only touched on the effect of characterisation and plot on an audience. Again, the reason for this lies in my purpose, to produce a reading against which I may compare predominantly text-focused local community reconstructions. I have noted, however, that through anticipation, retrospection, repetition, and extensive discourse material the evangelist constructs an audience experience that contrasts starkly with that of any of the characters in the Gospel. 1

2. Characterisation and Plot

61

I now return to the local community reconstructions under evaluation and ask whether or not they have paid due consideration to characterisation and plot in the Gospel. My analysis has raised a number of questions: Do local audience reconstructions recognise both the highs �������������������������������������������������������������������������� plot progresses? Do they acknowledge the distinction between the negative characterisation of the Gentiles as a group and the positive portrayal of individual exemplar �gures? Is the concluding dramatic reversal in the ����������������������������������������������������������������������� taken into account? Is the plot-related build-up in con�ict between Jesus and the Jewish leadership incorporated in their reconstructions? 2.4. Characterisation and Plot in Matthean Community Reconstructions 2.4.a. Andrew Overman ��������������������������������������������������������������������� occupies just twenty-�ve pages in ���������� ������� ���� ���������� Judaism and concentrates on the disciples, Peter, and the Jewish leadership. No consideration is given to the crowds, Gentiles, Sadducees, or other disciples such as Judas. This selective treatment allows Overman to portray an oversimpli�ed scenario of two communities in con�ict, represented respectively by the disciples, and the scribes and Pharisees. ����������������������������������������������������������������������� my analysis shall concentrate on his treatment of characterisation. The Disciples Overman embarks upon his analysis of the disciples by considering ��������������������������������������������������������������ection of the ���������������������������������������������������������������������� past. He opts for the transparent approach and interprets the disciples as the audience of the Gospel.109 Overman compares the Matthean portrait of the disciples with those of Mark and Luke. He makes the following observations.110 First, the ministry of the disciples in Matthew is greatly curtailed geographically. Jesus merely crosses over the border into Tyre �������������������������������������������������������������������� to meet him (Mt. 15.21-������������������������������������������������ (cf. Mk 7.31; Lk. 17.11). Secondly, the evangelist consistently locates

1

109 Overman, ����������������, p.135. 110 Overman, ����������������, pp.126�30.

62

The Audience of Matthew

the ministry of Jesus in Galilee with a particular emphasis upon Capernaum (cf. Mt. 4.13; 9.1). Thirdly, in Mark the disciples are portrayed as ��������������������������������������������������������������������� disciples undertake a less mobile and itinerant nature of ministry with a ����������������������������������������������������������������������� ministry of preaching, healing, and exorcising (cf. Mt. 5.19; 13.52; 28.18-20). Fourthly, Matthew consistently removes the Markan motif of the failure of the disciples to understand (cf. Mk 9.6, 10, 13; Mt. 13.51; 15.16; 16.9-12). Instead the disciples both understand and perceive (Mt. ������������������������������������������������������������������������� the Petrine confession of Mt. 16.13-20. Overman argues that the disci��������������������������������������������������������������������������� in contrast to the Markan disciples, who may be hard-hearted or ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 14.31; 16.8; 17.20). Overman is methodologically correct in highlighting the softening of �����������������������������������������es. However, this emphasis is not altogether consistent. In the exorcism of a boy following the trans�guration, the Matthean Jesus accuses the disciples in private of having �������� �������� �� ������� ����� ��������� �������� ���� ������� �������, and father in the Markan account (Mt. 17.20; Mk 9.29).111 ���������������� softening should not be equated with an overall positive characterisation. Negative aspects of their characterisation clearly remain, but are downplayed or simply ignored by Overman. No mention, for example, is given to the denial and desertion of the disciples in the passion narrative.112 Such a reading strategy fails to take into account the astute observation by David Aune that the negative characterisation of disciples (and the hostility of the authorities) are stock themes in Graeco-Roman revelatory dialogues aimed at enhancing the status of the protagonist. 113 The Jewish Leadership For Overman, the evangelist consistently rejects and attacks the Jewish leadership as primarily evidenced in the seven woes (������) upon the 111 W. L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p.332; J. D. Kingsbury, Con�ict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), p.12; E. K. Broadhead, Mark (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 2001), p.83; Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, pp.720�9. 112 Cf. J. A. Overman, Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel according to Matthew (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996), pp.370�1. 113 D. E. Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), pp.55�6. 1

2. Characterisation and Plot

63

scribes and Pharisees in Matthew ��������������������������������������� sound like a distant struggle that lives on only as a relic in the memory of the community. These leaders are described as murderers (23.29-36), hypocrites (23.13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29), and blind guides and fools (23.16, 24) who inwardly are corrupt and lawless (23.28)��114 This chapter is the lens through which all other references are �ltered, thus downplaying any previous plot developments. As with the disciples, the scribes and Pharisees perform a descriptive ������ ����� ������� ��������� ���� ���� ��������� ������� ����� ������ ���� Jewish leadership is attacked and rejected by Matthew suggest a current and hotly contested struggle which the Matthean community seems to be losing��115 ���������������������������������������������������������� opposition. The cause of the crisis lies in their competing claims to true interpretation of the law. This conclusion may be somewhat premature in that the evangelist refrains from portraying direct inter-communal con�ict. In the one instance when the Pharisees directly address the disciples they question why Jesus eats with tax collectors and sinners (Mt. 9.11). In the context of the Gospel, this represents a relatively low level of con�ict. In 19.10, the disciples even intervene on behalf of the Pharisees in their dispute with Jesus over the issue of divorce. 116 Con�ict rather originates in events relating to Jesus. This distinction is important to maintain and somewhat questions the suggestion that inter-communal con�ict constitutes the dominant motif in the Gospel. Instead a preferable position is that advocated by Aune, that the central issue in the Gospel concerns the identity and mission of Jesus.117 This aspect of the Gospel is downplayed by Overman, who pays little attention to christologically signi�cant events in the Gospel.118 In summary, Overman gives priority to those passages that portray the disciples most positively while giving a corresponding emphasis to the most negative characterisation of the scribes and the Pharisees.119 Plot developments are simply ignored.

114 Overman, ����������������, p.142. 115 Overman, ����������������, p.147. 116 Davies and Allison, Matthew XIX�XXVIII, p.19; Beare, Matthew, pp.389� 90; Luz, Matthew 8�20, p.499. 117 Aune, Environment, pp.54�9. 118 So too, Overman, Church, pp.56�8, 251���������������������������������� p.64. 119 Overman, ����������������, pp.141�9.

1

64

The Audience of Matthew

2.4.b. Anthony Saldarini As with Overman, plot is secondary to character. Saldarini examines in ����������������-Christian Community a number of terms relating to th����������������������������� ��������� ��������� ������� ������������tion�� ���������������������� ������������������������������������������������� analysis on his description of the crowds and on the other characters that �gure most prominently in his community reconstruction, the scribes and Pharisees, Gentiles, and disciples. The Crowds First, I should acknowledge that Saldarini correctly identi�es the mixed ���������������������������������������������������������������eople are ���������� ���� ���� ���� �������� ��������� ��� ���� ���� ������������ ����� ������������������������������������������������������������������������� In a few cases, crowds are negative toward Jesus.�120 Saldarini correctly identi�es a shift in the latter half of the Gospel, chs 14�26, in which the crowds are presented as apart from Jesus, who is instead with his disciples.121 This is the closest we get to an analysis of plot and, while ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� that of Overman. In addition, he draws a sharp distinction between the crowds and the leaders.122 His purpose is to identify them as those within the Jewish community who represent potential converts to the evangel�������������������������������������������t is likely that the author of Matthew meant the crowds to symbolize the Jewish community of his day, which he hoped to attract to his brand of Judaism��123 I shall now consider how Saldarini handles those sections of the narrative in which the crowds are characterised as hostile. A large crowd accompanies the chief priests and elders to arrest Jesus (Mt. 26.47). Later, Jesus rebukes the crowd for earlier receiving his teachings in the temple and only now arresting him (26.55). This crowd is heavily in�uenced by the temple authorities, those who, for Saldarini, represent Jews hostile to Matthew and his group. Under their in�uence the crowd turns on Jesus and requests his execution (27.15-25). At this point Saldarini no longer associates the crowds with potential converts from the Jewish community.124 Instead, he argues that ����� ������ �������� to seem to be the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the scene is thus a

1

120 121 122 123 124

Saldarini, Community����������������������������������4. Saldarini, Community, p.37. ����������������������������4; So too Cousland, Crowds, pp.139�40, 201�2. Saldarini, Community, p.38. Contrast Cousland, Crowds, pp.227�30.

2. Characterisation and Plot

65

foreshadowing of the destruction of Jerusalem and its population in the war against Rome��125 This interpretation distinguishes between the crowds of Galilee and those of Jerusalem, and their corresponding ����������������������������������������������������������������������� those Jews killed in the destruction of Jerusalem. This distinction seems a little forced in that, �rst, the Galilean crowds are likewise prone to adopting a negative attitude towards Jesus (9.23-25; 17.17), and, secondly, it seems reasonable at least loosely to identify the crowds in 26.55 with the sympathetic crowds gathered to celebrate Passover (cf. 21.8-10, 15, 46; 22.33) and those who attended his teaching in the temple (23.1).126 This would suggest a degree of overlap between the two crowds. To be consistent in his approach, Saldarini should distinguish a referential function for the crowd that followed Jesus out of Jericho and which rebuked the two blind men crying out for mercy (20.29-31). This awkward hermeneutical move is forced upon Saldarini by the ��������� ����� ���� ���� ����������� ����������������� ��� ���� ������� ����� high����������������������������������������������������������������������� downplays any plot developments and reads characters as �at, unchang�����������������������������������������������������������������������text.127 Plot developments are ignored in order to avoid any transposition of a process of signi�cant plot-related change onto the relationship between the community and the Jewish authorities. If such a reading strategy took account of plot, it would lead to the conclusion that the evangelist, associ���������������������������������������������������������� predicting his own death and resurrection! In order to avoid such confusing implications, Saldarini has chosen the easier option of ignoring plot developments and instead has reallocated the referential function of the crowds when hostile to a group well away from his Syrian audience. 128 The Jewish Leadership ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� Pharisees. He starts by considering scattered references to them in chs 9� 22 and concludes that though they present Jesus with hostile questions, they present legitimate matters for discussion in �rst-century Judaism.129 They raise questions pertaining to blasphemy (Mt. 9.3), association with 125 Saldarini, Community, p.38; Contrast Cousland, Crowds, p.227. 126 Cousland, Crowds, p.35; Luz, Matthew 21�28, p.421. 127 Contrast Cousland, Crowds, p.239. 128 Saldarini, Community, pp.32�4, performs a similar hermeneutical shift concerning ������������������������������ 129 Saldarini, Community, p.45. 1

66

The Audience of Matthew

sinners (9.11), proper Sabbath ������������������������������������������� authority (12.38; 16.1), divorce (19.3), and taxes (22.15-22). Their one explicitly hostile charge is that of witchcraft (9.34; 12.24). The response �������������������������������������������������������� with a ����������� ������130 Saldarini correctly emphasises the varying approaches of the Jewish leadership to Jesus. He does not, however, acknowledge this variety in his reconstruction of the leadership of formative Judaism. Instead he utilises chs 21�25, with a particular emphasis on ch. 23, as a lens through which he interprets all preceding references.131 Chapter 23 ������������������������������������� ����������������������������������� the leadership�� ����������������������������������������132 Degrees of variation in attitude in earlier chapters are subsumed under the force of argument of ch. 23. As such, plot is neglected. Saldarini seeks to traverse a tightrope with respect to the Jewish leadership and the crowds. On the one hand he seeks to repudiate the idea that the Jews or Judaism have been rejected in favour of Christianity (itself an oversimpli�ed dichotomy), and on the other hand, he is forced to acknowledge the rejection motif in the curse of the �g tree (Mt. 21.1822), the parables of the two sons (21.28-32), the vineyard and tenants (21.33-44), and the marriage feast (22.1-14). He maintains his position by, as noted above, shifting the blame for the hostility of the crowds in 26.47, 55, and 27.15-25 onto the leadership, and arguing that the three pa������������������������������������������������������������������������ not Israel itself.133 ������������������������������������������������������� crowd astray as evidenced in the cruci�xion of Jesus. This shifts any blame away from the crowds and allows them to function as receptive �������������������������������������������������������������������������� must thus present a somewhat simpli�ed characterisation of the crowds as generally open and receptive, and the leaders as consistently hostile. The Gentiles As with the crowds, scribes, and Pharisees, Saldarini reads references to ������������������������������������������������������������������������ some stories, they symbolize the relationship of the later Matthean group with the non-Jewish world and offer hope that gentiles will also become ������������������������������-Jewish group��134 Saldarini portrays a

1

130 131 132 133 134

Saldarini, Community, pp.45, 52. ���������������������������������� Saldarini, Community, pp.53, 64. Saldarini, Community, pp.45, 61. Saldarini, Community, pp.68�9.

2. Characterisation and Plot

67

Jewish group open to Gentiles rather than a mixed corpus or predominantly Gentile community.135 Gentiles in the narrative represent those ������������������������������������������������������������������������� the variety of responses to Jesus. The positive characterisation of the magi (Mt. 2.1) and the guards at the cruci�xion (27.54) is recognised, although Saldarini avoids emphasising their importance in order to maintain his Christian-Jewish community thesis.136 The cure of the centu�������������������-13) and the story of the Canaanite woman (15.21-28) represent further positive examples of Gentile faith, contrasted against pejorative references to the ��������� (5.47; 6.7, 32; 18.17) and the lack of faith on the part of the inhabitants in Gadarene territory following the deliverance of two demoniacs and the destruction of a herd of pigs (8.2834).137 Less positively, the Gentiles must approach Jesus through Israel in order to manifest genuine faith. The Gentile authorities are treated neutrally or even negatively on the basis that they do not interact with Jesus on the substantial level of faith. The mixed characterisation and the preponderance of stories involving individual Gentiles present a dilemma for Saldarini. Whom do they represent in his community scenario? His response is to avoid any speci�c associations with individual characters. This raises questions of consistency in terms of his reading strategy. He is less reticent in suggesting referential associations to groups as against individuals. Jesus speaks of being disciplined by councils and synagogues and being brought before governors and kings (Mt. 10.17-18). Saldarini applies this as a direct reference to the authorial context and envisions a con�ict ������� ���� ������� ���������� ��������� ������ ��� ������ ��������� ��� ���� imperial authorities, on the model of what happened to Jesus��138 In the ������� ��� ����� ��������� ��� ������� ���� ����� ������� ���� ������������ proceeded in a distinctly unfavourable manner leading to his death and the requirement of a reversal of fortune in the resurrection. For obvious reasons Saldarini refrains from pressing the analogy to this degree. Plot is necessarily downplayed. One last point with respect to the Gentiles � in his desire to maintain his thesis of a believing-in-Jesus Jewish subgroup, he devotes a mere parag������������������������������������������ of the Gospel, the command to go and make disciples of all the nations ������������������������������������������������������������������������ 135 Saldarini, Community, p.75. Contrast Hare, Jewish Persecution, p.170; Brown and Meier, Antioch, pp.33�6, 40. 136 Saldarini, Community, p.70. 137 Saldarini, Community, pp.74, 79. 138 Saldarini, Community, p.78.

1

68

The Audience of Matthew

out to fellow Jews rather than to the wider Gentile world. 139 This move is unwarranted if one allows for a development in plot in which the mission to the house of Israel (10.5-6) is later expanded to a mission to all nations (28.19). The Disciples ����������������������������������������������������������������������tion of the disciples: Reading a text in order to understand the group and social situation underlying it is a dif�cult and treacherous procedure. The story of Jesus and his disciples is not an allegory of the experience of the author and his group in the late �rst century. Yet the majority of commentators argue convincingly that the story of Jesus and his disciples re�ects the experi����� ��� ���������� ������ ���� ���� ������� ����������� ����� ����������� ���� disciples serve as a transparency for the later Matthean group and symbolize their attitudes and behavior. The correspondence is not, of course, one-to-one, and so the dynamics of the narrative and the clues ���������������������������������������������������������������������� used to reconstruct his view of his society.140

���������������������������������������������������������������������� disavowal of an allegorical reading strategy and, on the other, his treatment of the text as transparent.141 ������������������������������������������� as allegory results in a reading that minimises plot and characterisation. To include these narrative aspects in his analysis would be to verge on an allegorical reading. As such, no serious consideration of the role of the ������������������������������������������������������ 142 He is forced to deal in generalities with respect to characterisation. The disciples are ��������������������������������������������������������������������� be��143 Their mixed characterisation is acknowledged but not dwelt upon. In order to maintain the text as transparent, Saldarini identi�es key terms or metaphors and undertakes an analysis of their sociological signi�cance. Kinship is identi�ed as the dominant metaphor in Matthew for internal group relationships.144 Saldarini undertakes a detailed examination of father�son, brother-to-brother and master�disciple relationships 139 Saldarini, Community, p.115. Contrast LaGrand, Mission, pp.145�56, 235� 47; Brown and Meier, Antioch, p.23. 140 Saldarini, Community, p.85. 141 ��������������������ict, pp.39�40. 142 Saldarini, Community, pp.84�123. 143 Saldarini, Community, p.95. 144 Cf. S. C. Barton, Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). 1

2. Characterisation and Plot

69

in the Gospel.145 The evangelist uses the terms father, mother, brothers, and sisters both in the normal way for family members and in relation to discipleship (Mt. 4.18, 21; 12.46-47; 19.29). In particular, Jesus identi�������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������-50).146 The use of such kinship metaphors leads Saldarini to portray the Matthean group as small in size. 147 The terms ����������� ���������� �����ekklesia������further considered and interpreted as providing an indication of a small, deviant Matthean group. The methodological emphasis on a few key terms allows Saldarini to avoid a more inclusive analysis of disciple-related material relating to plot and characterisation and the charge that he reads the text allegorically. Note ����� ����� ��� ������������ ��������� ��� ���� ���������� ��� ����������� ����� words uttered by Jesus rather than upon the words and actions of the disciples.148 As such, much of his analysis of the disciples should rather ������������������������������������������������������������������������ reading is more nuanced than that of Overman. While he downplays the role of plot, he nevertheless provides a more comprehensive analysis of characterisation in which both positive and negative aspects are considered. His methodological weakness involves the selective application of his �ndings to his community scenario. Consistent application would result in an allegorical reading, a result he consciously strives to avoid. 2.4.c. David Sim As observed with Overman and Saldarini, Sim exhibits a tendency to ignore plot developments. No explicit treatment of plot is provided in The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism. As such, my analysis will focus on the different characters and the signi�cance attributed to ��������������������������������������� The Jewish Leadership Rather than allowing for a climaxing of tension through the Gospel, Sim treats all references to the scribes and Pharisees as if they represent a snapshot in time of the relationship between the Matthean community and their opponents. To illustrate, I will quote a rather lengthy passage in ����������������������������������������������������������������������� Jesus:

1

145 146 147 148

Cf. Carter, Households, pp.19�22. Saldarini, Community, p.91. Saldarini, Community, p.85. Saldarini, Community, pp.91�4.

70

The Audience of Matthew ����������������������������story, the scribes and Pharisees react to the mission of Jesus in an entirely negative way. They are offended by the teaching of Jesus (15.12), they think evil of him (9.4), they charge him with blasphemy (9.3) and demon possession (9.34; 12.24), they attack him for breaking the law (12.2; cf. 15.1-2) and for eating with sinners (9.11), they test him (19.3; 22.15-16, 34-35) and they plot to kill him (12.14). The Matthean Jesus responds to these events by denouncing the scribes and the Pharisees in the harshest of tones. He describes them as hypocrites (15.14; 22.18; 23.13, 15, 23, 25, 27-29; cf. 6.2, 5, 16; 23.3), blind men (15.14; 23.16, 17, 19, 24, 26), children of Gehenna (23.15) and a brood of vipers (3.7; 12.34; 23.33). In addition to their crimes against Jesus they are guilty of many failings. They fail to practice what they preach (23.3, 27-29), they place intolerable burdens on others (23.4), they solicit admiration (23.5-7), they place their own tradition before the will of God (15.2-3; 23.15-26), they lack righteousness (5.20), and even commit murder (23.29-36; cf. 22.6). As a result of their leadership roles, they lead the people astray (15.14), prevent them from entering the kingdom of heaven (23.13) and so make them twice as much a child of Gehenna as they are (23.15). 149

References to the Pharisees are grouped thematically rather than in narrative sequence. This results in a reading that ignores the increasing antagonism between Jesus and the Pharisees. This atemporal reading leads Sim to conclude ��������������������������������������������������� only be explained on the grounds that the evangelist is describing, whether accurately or not, contemporary opponents��150 He further suggests that the intensity of the con�ict indicates the close relationship between the Matthean community and formative Judaism on the basis of a general sociological rule of thumb that states that the closer the relationship between dissenting groups, the more intense the con�ict and the sharper the resultant polemic.151 This conclusion is heavily in�uenced by the highly polemical material of chs 22�23. Sim appeals to the Sermon on the Mount as additional evidence of the antagonistic but close relationship between the Matthean community and formative Judaism. Jesus recognises that the scribes and Pharisees strive for righteousness, but instructs his followers to achieve a higher degree of righteousness (Mt. 5.20). Similarly, in 6.1-18 he criticises the motivation of those who give alms, pray, or fast, for public recognition. Sim interprets these references simply as further evidence of the con�ict between the Matthean 149 Sim, Matthew, pp.119�20. 150 Sim, Matthew, p.121. 151 Sim, Matthew, p.1������������������������������������������������������ 62.

1

2. Characterisation and Plot

71

community and formative Judaism.152 He fails to observe, however, that these criticisms, while pointed, nevertheless are markedly softer than those of chs 22�23. This would suggest varying levels of hostility at different points in the narrative. ���������������������������������������������������������������������� of Mt. 5.22, in which Jesus details the consequence of being liable to the council as a result of insulting a brother or sister. He suggests that ���� �������� ��� ��������� ��� ��� ������c disciplinary council within the Matthean group which was modelled upon the judicial bodies of the wider society��153 His justi�cation for this conclusion lies in his assertion that the Matthean community was distancing itself from the larger Jewish world. He asserts that the evangelist advises his readers to avoid �����������������������������������������������������������������������stating the prohibition of 5.25, which, rather than undermining the jurisdiction of the authorities, supports the legitimacy of the judicial system by arguing that disciples should resolve their issues prior to resorting to the courts. A simpler explanation may lie in the suggestion ���������������in the NT usually refers, as noted by Davies and Allison, to the Jerusalem Sanhedrin or a local court (Mt. 10.17; Mk 13.9).154 Within the context of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus directs his comments to a mixed audience that includes the disciples and the crowds (Mt. 5.1; 7.28). At this point in the plot, there are just four disciples, called from their nets in 4.18-22, later to be complemented by a further eight (9.9; 10.1-4). There is no indication of any antagonism between Jesus and the Jewish authorities. This is further borne out in 5.24 in which the audience is instructed to leave their gifts at the altar and �rst reconcile themselves with their brother or sister, prior to returning and presenting their gifts. The omission of plot considerations does not re�ect a desire to deal in �������������� ������ �������� ��� ��� ���� ���� �esh of detail to the broad themes identi���������������������������������������������������������� generalisations and sociological abstractions, and delve more deeply into what these might mean in concrete historical terms��155 He seeks to identify how the sectarian status of the Matthean community affected the day-to-day life of its members. The �rst factor Sim considers is the physical proximity of the Matthean community to the Jewish world 152 Sim, Matthew, p.122. So too Brooks, Community, pp.42�6, 78�9, 119. 153 Sim, Matthew, p.140. 154 Davies and Allison, Matthew I�VII, p.514. So too Luz, Matthew 1�7, p.282; Beare, Matthew, p.148. 155 Sim, Matthew, pp.151�2.

1

72

The Audience of Matthew

controlled by its opponents. He argues that the sharpness of the evan��������� �������� �������� ���� ������� ���������� ��������� ����������� proximity rather than distance. The Matthean community has not left the Jewish neighbourhoods of Antioch: Un����������������������������������������������������������������nity and their rivals in the parent body must have been commonplace. The Gospel itself con�rms this supposition. In 6.2 the evangelist refers scornfully to the practice of the hypocrites (i.e. scribes and Pharisees) for publicly parading their alms-giving in the synagogues and in the streets. The very same criticism is made of their prayers, which are done loudly and publicly in the synagogue and on street corners to impress passers-by (6.5). The criticism of their fasting practices in 6.16 also presumes that they are performed in public, though in this case there is no mention of synagogues or the street corners. In these three texts the evangelist presupposes that his readers are familiar with the actions of the Pharisees in the local neighbourhood. 156

In addition to describing the physical proximity between the Matthean community and the mainstream Jewish community, Sim contends that at ��������������������������������������������������������rsecution. He �nds evidence for this in Mt. 5.10-12. Verses 11-12 closely parallel Lk. 6.22-23, while v. 10 is a Matthean redaction. This Matthean addition is deemed to re���������������������������������������������������������� and his group��157 He seeks to identify the cause and the perpetrators of the persecution but, beyond identifying them as Jews, comments ruefully ����������������������������������������������������������������������� should like the nature of the persecution his community suffered at the hand of their Jewish opponents��158 Sim does manage to identify two possible instances of persecution in the Gospel, the �rst being the act of reviling in Mt. 5.11, and the second being the counter-claim of the Jews in 28.11-15. References to a potentially more welcoming reception on the part of �������������������������������������������������������������������������� the persecution motif is illustrated in his analysis of the missionary discourse. In Mt. 10.40-42 the Matthean Jesus delineates the bene�ts to those in Israel who respond positively to the ministry of the twelve. 159

156 Sim, Matthew, p.153. 157 Sim, Matthew, p.154. 158 Sim, Matthew, p.155. 159 D. J. Weaver, ��������������������������������������������������� ��������� (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1990), p.123.

1

2. Characterisation and Plot

73

This positive welcome is contrasted against a potentially hostile reception in 10.12-������������������������������������������������������������������� your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. If anyone does not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.� Interestingly enough, the positive welcome of 10.40-42 is not dealt with directly by Sim.160 The disciples are further instructed in 10.23 to �ee from one town to the next when persecuted.161 This injunction militates somewhat against an overly speci�c scenario of persecution in Antioch. When dealing with the missionary discourse, Sim concentrates on those passages that deal with con�ict but does not refer to the equally emphasised positive reaction the disciples might encounter. 162 The Disciples Sim accepts a mixed characterisation of the disciples. He lists those occasions in which Matthew has depicted the disciples in a less favourable light than they appear in Mark: No less than three times he has Jesus accuse them of having insuf�cient faith. He inserts into the Marcan story of Jesus walking on the water an �����������������s unsuccessful attempt to emulate this feat, for which he is described by Jesus as a man of little faith (14.28-31). In the second feeding of the multitudes the Matthean Jesus, unlike his Marcan counterpart, admonishes the disciples for having little faith. The third example of this Matthean theme appears in the story of the boy possessed by a demon in 17.14-21. Where the Marcan version explains that the demon cannot be expelled by any means but prayer, in Matthew Jesus blames the failure of the disciples on their little faith (17.20). 163

In contrast there are instances where Matthew edits his Markan source to improve the characterisation of the disciples (cf. Mk 9.33-34/Mt. 16.17-������������������������������������������������������������������ teachings, in contrast with Mark, is taken as further evidence of an improved characterisation (cf. Mt. 9.37�11.1; 13.10-23, 36-52; 15.1220; 16.5-12; 17.10-13, 19-21; 18.1-35; 19.23�20.19; 21.18-22; 24.1� 25.46).164 Sim recognises negative as well as positive traits. The disciples are interpreted as representing both the historical disciples as well as the

1

160 161 162 163 164

Cf. Sim, Matthew, p.31. Contrast Hare, Jewish Persecution, pp.105�6. Sim, Matthew, p.161. Sim, Matthew, p.194. Sim, Matthew, p.195.

74

The Audience of Matthew

members of the Matthean community. They are not idealised, and yet they represent a transparent model of the true follower of Jesus in Antioch. In terms of plot, no attempt is made to trace the development of the characterisation of the disciples. The Gentiles Sim recognises the mixed characterisation of the Gentiles. He starts by listing those texts traditionally interpreted as positive references to the Gentiles.165 These include, amongst others, four women in the genealogy � Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba, the Gentile magi in the birth narrative, the Roman centurion (Mt. 8.5-13), the Gentile region of Gadara (8.28-34), the Canaanite woman (15.21-28), and the Gentile centurion at the foot of the cross (27.54). The Gospel even concludes with a command to evangelise all the nations (28.19). Sim suggests that on the basis �����������������������������������������������������������������������ist is completely pro-Gentile��166 This inference, somewhat of a straw man, allows Sim to respond by highlighting what he sees as negative aspects in Gentile characterisation. For example, he disputes the certainty with which the four women in the genealogy are assigned a Gentile identity.167 The Gentile region of Gadara rejects Jesus in its request that he leave the region (8.34) in contrast to the Markan parallel in which, while Jesus is asked to leave (Mk 5.17), the story ends with the amazement of the Decapolis (5.20).168 ����������������������������������� attributed a negative identity (Mt. 15.22) in contrast to Mark, who describes the woman in neutral terms as a respectful Syro-Phoenician Gentile (Mk 7.26).169 Other examples may be cited. Sim interprets Pilate, and the Roman executioners, despite their confession at the foot of the cross (Mt. 27.54), as negatively characterised. 170 General references to Gentiles in 5.46-47, 6.7-8 and 6.31-32 are further interpreted as evidence of a predominantly negative characterisation. Sim is at pains to highlight the Jewish nature of the author, text, and audience and in this respect he is forced into over-emphasising the negative and underestimating the positive in terms of Gentile characterisation. No attempt is made to incorporate plot into his analysis. 165 Sim, Matthew������������������������������������������������������������ pp.19�48. 166 Sim, Matthew, p.217. 167 Sim, Matthew, pp.218�19. 168 Sim, Matthew, pp.222�3. 169 Sim, Matthew, pp.223�4. Contrast Brooks, Community, p.50. 170 Sim, Matthew, pp.225�6.

1

2. Characterisation and Plot

75

���� ������� ������������� ��������� ��� �� �������� ��� ���� �������� presents a dilemma for Sim (Mt. 28.18-20). How does he respond? First, he ignores plot developments that would lead to an interpretation of the commission as the climax to the Gospel.171 Secondly, he resorts to a crude contrast of the volume of text dedicated to the Jewish mission (cf. 9.37�10.42; 22.1-10; 23.29-36) with that of the Gentile mission (24.14; ����������������������������������������������������������������������nd a comparable case where so much has been built upon so little��172 This is a further indication of his neglect of plot. Thirdly, while he accepts that 28.19 af�rms the validity of the Gentile mission, he denies any Matthean community involvement in this mission. 173 Fourthly, the failure of the verse to limit the Jewish mission until after the Jewish war means that the text does not serve the purpose it is often attributed by scholars, of indicating a succession of missions. It is dif�cult to see the basis upon which these conclusions are reached. They re�ect an arbitrary reading strategy in which those texts that support a Jewish mission are cited in support of his Christian-Jewish community thesis, while those concerning a wider mission are deemed secondary to the Matthean community. Upon this shaky and unconvincing foundation he proceeds to explain away factors such as the absence of circumcision in the Gospel. The engagement of the Matthean church in a mission solely to the Jews is deemed to have negated any necessity for a discussion of circumcision in the Gospel.174 ����������������������������������������������������������������������� in that he acknowledges both positive and negative aspects in the characterisation of the Jewish leaders, disciples, and Gentiles. He is less evenhanded, however, in his attribution of signi�cance to these �ndings. Negative aspects are highlighted with respect to the Jewish leadership and Gentiles, while positive aspects, or aspects less negative than those found in Mark, are emphasised in relation to the disciples. Plot plays no signi�cant role in his analysis. Lastly, I should emphasise that Sim has not signi�cantly altered his reading strategy in light of criticisms of community reconstructions. The recognition of the role of Rome in the Gospel is now deemed to re���������������������������������������text and the scribes and Pharisees continue to re����� ��� ����ict with 171 See Hare, Jewish Persecution, p.148; Meier, Vision, p.13; Stanton, New People, pp.137�8; Gundry, Matthew, pp.595�6; D. Hagner, Matthew 14�28 (Dallas: Word, 1995), p.887; LaGrand, Mission, pp.235�47; Luz, Matthew 1�7, pp.84�7. 172 Sim, Matthew, p.243. 173 Sim, Matthew, p.243. Contrast ���������������������������������������� 174 Sim, Matthew, pp.252�5.

1

76

The Audience of Matthew

�������������������175 ������������������������������tian contemporaries have also been invited to the party, ������������������������������� of any of their representatives in the Gospel, their presence is felt in other canonical and non-canonical Christian writings. 176 2.5. Summary In this chapter, I have identi�ed the neglect of characterisation and plot in three Matthean community reconstructions. First, in each reconstruction, plot is ignored, with the Gospel being taken as a snapshot in time of ��������������������������������������������������������������������� by an acknowledgement of plot, which necessitates a corresponding recognition of evolving and variable relationships between different characters in the Gospel. Plot presents community readings with the dilemma as to which stage of the plot should be taken as re�ecting the ����������������������������d we take the earlier chapters of the Gospel, in which case any con�ict is muted and indirect? Alternatively, we may choose the later chapters, such as chs 22�23, where con�ict is intense and direct. This last alternative tends to be preferred as it permits a more engaging and signi�cant community reconstruction. It makes for a better story. Secondly, my analysis of plot highlighted the greater intensity of con�ict between Jesus and the Jewish leadership than that between the leadership as potential representatives of formative Judaism and the disciples as members of the Matthean community. The disciples do their best to get on with the authorities. The incorporation of this observation into community reconstructions would shift attention away from the leadership�disciple relationship and towards the more important con�ict between Jesus and the authorities. The time of Jesus would gain in prominence over the time of the church. Thirdly, in terms of characterisation, Overman provides a very limited reading in which Gentile characters receive scant treatment. Saldarini and Sim provide a more nuanced analysis in terms of the characters covered and the range of attributes identi�ed. Nevertheless, all three open themselves to the charge of selectively applying character attributes in 175 �����������������������������������������������The Gospel of Matthew in its Roman Imperial Context (J. Riches and D. C. Sim, eds; London: T&T Clark, 2005), pp.91�106; ������������������������������������������������������������� p.18. 176 D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski (eds), Matthew and his Christian Contemporaries (New York: T&T Clark, 2008).

1

2. Characterisation and Plot

77

their community reconstructions. Positive attributes of the disciples and negative attributes of the Jewish leaders, scribes, Pharisees, and Gentiles are utilised to the exclusion of other attributes. Characters that do not concur with the conjectured community context are simply ignored. The Gospel is thus read inconsistently. Robert Gundry has rightly observed that other groups that played a minor role in post-70 CE events, such as the Sadducees, are excluded from such community reconstructions despite their presence in the Gospel.177 More recently, Roman characters have been invited to the Matthean community party as scholarly atten����������������������������������������������������������� 178 The more invitees to the party, the more dif�cult it will be to maintain time of the church readings that dominate the time of Jesus. Fourthly, the neglect of plot and selective application of characterisation result in community reconstructions that preference a carefully chosen selection of textual references. This selection is, in effect, deemed the means by which the true intentions of the evangelist are revealed. By implication, we are to take this selection of texts as being more signi�����������������������������������������������������he Gospel than the ������������������������������������������������������������������������ have responded to one of his errant community members who was overly ����������������������������������������������������������������cance of what he was really trying to communi�������������������������������� may indeed have included some who, like the disciples, were slow of understanding and of too little faith as to perceive his true intentions ���������������������������������������������������������������������. A �fth observation is that in the community reconstructions considered, no criterion for distinguishing between the disciples as exemplars from the time of Jesus or as re�ections of the time of the church is ��������������������������������������������in its �nal form allows him to sidestep the historicising aspect of the Gospel with respect to its literary dependence upon previous traditions, most notably Mark and related ���������������������������������������������������������������ences to the disciples as being determined primarily by issues pertinent to his own community. If, however, Markan priority is both assumed and integrated into in our reading strategy, then we would need to question whether the ������������������������������������������ples simply represents a direct description of his community as against a development of Markan 177 �������������������������������������������������������Matthew I�VII, pp.31�2. 178 J. Riches and D. C. Sim (eds), The Gospel of Matthew in its Roman Imperial Context (London: T&T Clark, 2005).

1

78

The Audience of Matthew

tradition. The tension in Matthew between Jesus and the Jewish authorities may not be uncritically read as solely re�ecting tensions between Matthew and Judaism during the time of the church. Instead, such tensions may alternatively be explained with reference to previous ������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������� assigns to events such as the birth, the trial, cruci�xion, and resurrection of Jesus a referential function to the time of Jesus. Other parts of the Gospel, whether they be references in the Sermon on the Mount to those who practise their piety in public (Mt. 6.1-18), warnings of rejection (10.23), or the denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees (23.1-39), are interpreted as primarily referring to the time of the church. The basis of this division is unclear. At a simplistic level, it seems as if the words of Jesus are assigned more readily to a community setting while the acts of Jesus are treated as referring to the vita Jesu. This is somewhat surprising ���������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������ings of Jesus, and especially his ethical teachings, vary much less than the narrative materials about his deeds��179 This would indicate less of a desire to adapt signi�cantly, intentionally or unintentionally, the teachings of Jesus to re�ect particular time of the church circumstances. �����������������������������������������������������������������ence of the Gospel and that of Gospel characters. In contrast to the characters, ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� and observes the entire passion account. These differences should lead to �� �������� �������� ��� ������������ ���� ��������� ��������� ����� ���� ���� character or group in the Gospel. I now turn to the role of Peter in the Gospel and community readings.

179 ���������������The Sayings of Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers and Justin ��������� ��� Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels (D. Wenham, ed.; Shef�eld: JSOT, 1984), pp.233�68 (256).

1

Chapter 3

PETER IN MATTHEAN AND MARKAN COMMUNITY RECONSTRUCTIONS

3.1. Introduction In Chapter 2, I sought to demonstrate the neglect of characterisation and plot in the community reconstructions of Andrew Overman, Anthony Saldarini, and David Sim. The purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, the approach of the previous chapter will be continued, this time focusing on the characterisation of the disciple Peter. I will not deal speci�cally with his role in relation to plot, as little would be added that would �������� ��������� ��� ���� ��������� ���������� ������������� ��� purpose is to demonstrate a practice of selective application of aspects of the characterisation of Peter in reconstruc�������������������������������� My second purpose is to identify the role of Peter in a selection of community reconstructions for the Gospel of Mark. This will provide a context for a critique developed in Chapters 4�6, in which I will argue that Matthean audience hypotheses should take into consideration an early Christian context in which orality and aurality were signi�cant factors, and in which other Jesus-related traditions and texts circulated. Acceptance of Markan priority would indicate that Matthew was aware ����������������������������������������������������������������� 1 This raises the possibility that any audience of Matthew might, to varying ������������������������������������������������������������������������ of Matthean audience reconstructions should not be undertaken in isolation from Markan audience reconstructions. Subsequent implications will be demonstrated through a comparison of the Markan and Matthean Peters. 1 Cf. A. J. Bellinzoni, J. B. Tyson and W. O. Walker (eds), The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1985). If Matthean priority is adopted, the situation is merely reversed.

80

The Audience of Matthew

3.2. Peter in Matthean Community Reconstructions ���������������������������� My initial task is to identify the role Peter plays in the audience reconstructions considered in the previous chapter. As stated above, Overman argues for a Matthean community de�ning itself against formative Judaism, located in either Sepphoris or Tiberias. An exemplar function is posited for Peter that legitimates the local community leadership: The Petrine confession in Matthew contains both elements of designation by Jesus of Peter as community leader and revelation, which supports the assertion that Peter is chosen and sanctioned by God for this role and the ����������������������������������������������� a type or model within the Gospel for a community leader. The successors of Peter within the community enjoy the blessing and authority Matthew claims for Peter. 2 Peter is a divinely inspired and guided leader given authority and insight from God. Peter and his successors in the community are granted this position and the authority it entails by God. Naturally this responds to and rivals claims being made by the dominant leadership, but it also serves to legitimate the role of the leaders within the Matthean community. The portrait of Peter supports and legitimates the role of leaders in the face of those in the community who may doubt the accuracy or viability of the Matthean authorities.3

������������������������������������������������gure with whom the local leadership might identify in order to legitimise their positions. They seek to share his inspiration. There is nothing speci�c to Over��������������� that of necessity demands a local audience thesis. Saldarini develops ��������� basic thesis that the evangelist sought to legitimise his Christian-�������������������������������������������� formative Judaism.4 No detailed analysis of Peter is posited. Instead, ������������������������������������������������������������������������ity.5 The following passage, quoted in the previous chapter, is worth repeating �����������������������������������

2 J. A. Overman, ��������������������������������������������������������� of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), p.140. 3 Overman, ����������������, p.153. 4 A. J. Saldarini, ����������������-Christian Community (Chicago: University �����������������������������������������������������������Christian Con������ in Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches (D. L. Balch, ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), pp.38�67. 5 Saldarini, Community, p.172; See also pp. 100, 119, 121, 163, 196. 1

3. Peter in Matthean and Markan Community Reconstructions

81

���������������������������������������������������������������������� Jesus and his disciples re������������������������������������������������ social situation. Most important, the disciples serve as a transparency for the later Matthean group and symbolize their attitudes and behavior. The correspondence is not, of course, one-to-one, and so the dynamics of the ���������������������������������������������������������������������� general outlook must be used to reconstruct his view of his society. 6

����������������������������������������������������������������������� the gospel narrative echoes the experience of the Matthean group, trying to survive and expand in an unfriendly environment��7 I previously ���������������������������������������������������������������������avowal of an allegorical reading strategy and his treatment of the text as a transparent re�ection of the community.8 This leaves the role of Peter somewhat opaque. Saldarini states that Jesus passes on his authority to ���������������������������������������������������-20)��9 Most likely Saldarini is referring to Peter during the time of Jesus, although, somewhat ambiguously, immediately after making this statement, he applies ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������������������������������ time of the church.10 Thus, whereas the disciples represent the Matthean community, the crowds represent potential Jewish converts, and the Pharisees represent the leaders of formative Judaism, Peter is not assigned a speci�c role within the community. He is a character left in ������������������������������������������������������������������ Sim posits an Antiochene Petrine law-observant community that dominated and stood in opposition to the law-free emphasis of Pauline Gentile-Christianity. Peter is a remembrance by the community, not of Peter during the time of Jesus, but rather of the victorious Peter during his earlier con��������������������������������������������������������� states: ����������������������������������������������������������������������� disciples might be partly explained by the indisputable historical facts that Peter was the �rst to experience the risen Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 15.5) and that Peter was the original leader of the Christian movement (see chapter 2). But it is certain that Matthew was motivated by the further consideration that his own community in Antioch was the heir to the Petrine

1

6 7 8 9 10

Saldarini, Community, p.85. Saldarini, Community, p.100. ������������������������, pp.39�40. Saldarini, Community, p.163. Saldarini, Community, p.163.

82

The Audience of Matthew tradition. Peter had transformed the Antiochene church after the dispute with Paul, and he was doubtless remembered with respect and affection ������������������������������������������������������������������������ therefore be overestimated. He is the key to the validity of the Christian Jewish tradition of the Matthean community in Antioch. 11

The Matthean Peter is primarily the Peter of the time of the church, and speci�cally of the Antiochene church during its transition from lawfree to law-�������������������������������������������������������������� Gospel elevates Peter and not Paul or James.12 He concludes, in line with �������������������������������������������������������������������������ples (and the other leaders of the early Christian movement) constitutes a very strong argument that the Gospel was written in this particular city��13 Sim further reiterates the importance of Peter when, in concluding his discussion, he states: The internal and external evidence dictates that Matthew was written in a large and in�uential eastern city with the following characteristics. Its common language was Greek, it had a large Jewish population, and it was located far enough from Palestine so as not to be involved directly in the Jewish war, but close enough to have been affected by the developments in Yavneh. The Christian community of this city stood in the tradition of Peter and not in the tradition of Paul. Only Antioch ful�ls all these criteria.14

The status of Peter is the clinching argument in favour of Antioch. This conclusion, however, remains problematic. When Sim compares ����������������������������������������������������������������������� comparing apples with oranges. The absence of Paul from the Gospel need not be interpreted as evidence of hostility to a Pauline law-free Gentile-Christianity. A less strained explanation hardly needs stating, that Paul simply did not �gure in the events the evangelist sought to relate. A similar explanation may be applied to the minor characterisation attributed to James. He plainly did not play a signi�cant role in the Jesus movement until long after the events portrayed in the Gospel. 11 D. C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), pp.198�9. For M. Slee, The Church in Antioch in the First Century C.E. (London: T&T Clark, 2003), p.������������������������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������� 12 Sim, Matthew, p.55; B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London: Macmillan, 1951), pp.514�15. 13 Sim, Matthew, p.59. 14 Sim, Matthew, p.61. 1

3. Peter in Matthean and Markan Community Reconstructions

83

In all three reconstructions Peter provides a positive model of leader��������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������ ������������ ���������� ������� ��� ���������� ����������� ��� �������������������������������������������� the Antiochene church. The transparent Peter embodies the ideal leader for the Matthean community, wherever located. 3.2.b. The Characterisation of Peter in Matthew At this point I will undertake an overview of the characterisation of Peter that will act as a control against which the treatment of Peter in local community reconstructions may be compared. The Matthean Peter has received extensive treatment from such scholars as Jack Kingsbury, Michael Wilkins, Arlo Nau, Kari Syreeni, Timothy Wiarda, and Richard Cassidy.15 Nau and Syreeni conclude a negative characterisation of Peter. In contrast, Wiarda and Cassidy opt for a more positive characterisation. All agree that Peter has his ups and his downs. 16 As Chapter 6 will deal with Peter in Matthew and Mark in more depth, a sketch of the Matthean Peter will suf�ce at this point. The �rst three references to Peter may be deemed positive. He is characterised as one who obediently responds to the call of Jesus (Mt. 4.18-22). His family enjoys the special protection of Jesus (8.14-15). He is ������� ���������������isciples (10.2). He is also consistently portrayed as the spokesperson for the other disciples, who takes the initiative when required, and seeks clari�cation from, and presents their interests to, Jesus (15.15; 16.16; 17.4; 18.21-22; 19.27). His role as spokesperson is af�rmed by the collectors of the temple tax (17.24). He, with James and

15 J. D. Kingsbury, ���������������������������������������������������������� ��������� JBL 98 (1978), pp.67�83; M. J. Wilkins, The Concept of Disciple in ���������� ������� as Re�ected in the Use of the Term �������� (Leiden: Brill, 1988), pp.173�216; A. J. Nau, Peter in Matthew: Discipleship, Diplomacy, and Dispraise ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Characterization in the Gospel: Reconceiving Narrative Criticism (D. Rhoads and K. Syreeni, eds; Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1999), pp.106�52; T. Wiarda, Peter in the Gospels: Pattern, Personality and Relationship (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), pp.65�72; R. Cassidy, Four Times Peter: Portrayals of Peter in the Four Gospels and at Philippi (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2007). 16 So too G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthäus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), pp.203�6. See also W. T. Kessler, Peter as the First Witness of the Risen Lord: An Historical and Theological Investigation (Rome: Ponti�ca Università Gregoriana, 1998). 1

84

The Audience of Matthew

John, are the privileged inner core of the disciples, who share important revelatory moments with Jesus such as the trans�guration and Gethsemane (17.1-13; 26.36-46). However, he experiences a consistent series of reversals as the plot progresses. It is as though Peter takes one step forward and two steps back. He alone walks on water, but then subsequently sinks (Mt. 14.2223). He confesses Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God, and is identi�ed as the rock and given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, after which, following his rebuke of Jesus, he is addressed as ������� �������� (16.13-23). On three occasions his point of view is shown to be inadequate, requiring the correction of Jesus (15.1-20; 17.24-27; 18.21-22). His offer of help is ignored during the trans�guration (17.1-13). His declaration of �delity made on the Mount of Olives is reversed in his ensuing denials in the courtyard of the high priest (26.33-35, 69-75). The last direct ref����������������������������������������������������������� after his denial (26.75). This is in contrast to Mark, who somewhat rehabilitates him through the post-resurrection instruction of the young �������������������������������������������������������� ������������������ was going ahead of them to Galilee (Mk 16.7). Matthew pointedly drops this reference to Peter (Mt. 28.10), and instead observes that when the �������������������������������������������������������������������� reminder of the earlier epi������������������������������������������� Jesus chided him for doubting, in contrast to the disciples in the boat who worshiped him (14.31-33). It is also worth highlighting the fact that Peter provides little direction to any audience in terms of identifying the normative point of view towards the authorities. Of the fourteen episodes involving Peter, only two give any indication of his point of view. In the discussion over de�lement in Mt. 15.1-20, Peter, along with the other disciples, defends ������������������������������������������offence�����������-27, Peter proves himself most accommodating to the authorities over the issue of payment of the temple tax. The point of view of Peter towards the Jewish leadership is at considerable variance with that of both the evangelist and Jesus. From a beginning of certainty and prominence, Peter experiences a series of reversals that concludes with a state of ambiguity that leaves the audience guessing as to his �nal state of mind. This characterisation of ���������������������������������������������������������������������� of misunderstanding in Graeco-Roman revelatory dialogues and biographies. Misunderstanding was understood as a characteristic response to di������������������������������������������������������������������������� those in contact with Jesus are literary devices emphasizing the revelatory character of his words and the supernatural power evident in his 1

3. Peter in Matthean and Markan Community Reconstructions

85

deeds��17 We are now in a position to compare the characterisation of Peter in the Gospel with the role attributed to him in local audience reconstructions. 3.2.c. The Characterisation of Peter in Matthean Community Reconstructions �������� ����������� �������� ������� ��� ������� ��������) amongst the disciples (Mt. 10.2), his role as spokesperson (19.27; 26.35, 40), and his pre-������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������-19). Extensive discussion is paid in particular towards his status as the faithful and foundational rock and the authoritative holder of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. He concludes that ����������������������������������������������������������������� and ����������������������������������������������18 Pet������������������������� model within the Gospel for a community leader��19 So far, so good! However, following his relatively lengthy discussion of 16.17-19, no �������������������������������������������������������-26). Likewise, no attention is paid to �������������������������������������������������-31), and his denial of Jesus is merely mentioned but not discussed (26.31-35, 69-75).20 ������������������������������������������������������������sation in his commentary Church and Community in Crisis.21 Following extensive consideration of the dialogue between Jesus, and Peter and the disciples in 16.13-20, the exchange of rebukes following the Son of Man passion prediction in 16.22-23 is completely ignored.22 Instead he swiftly ������ ��� ��� ��������� ������ address to the disciples concerning the nature of discipleship in vv. 24-28. In summary, Overman utilises only ������������������������������������������������������������������������nity reconstruction. It is somewhat surprising the meagre attention Peter receives from Saldarini considering his prominence within the Gospel. In general, Saldarini subsumes the point of view of Peter into that of either Jesus or ������������������������������������������������������������������������ Jesus is the Son of the living God, is deemed to represent the point of 17 D. E. Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), pp.55�6. 18 Overman, ����������������, pp.138, 139. 19 Overman, ����������������, p.140. 20 Overman, ����������������, pp.136�40, 136. 21 J. A. Overman, Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel according to Matthew (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996). 22 Overman, Church, pp.236�46. 1

86

The Audience of Matthew

�������������������������������������������������������������������������� however, understand the answer to the questions [concerning the identity ��������������������������������������������� 23 In his discussion on the dispute over the payment of the temple tax (17.24-27) the point of views of Jesus and Peter are con�ated: Jesus and Peter keep the law, as they always do in Matthew, though a ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ���������� ������ �������� ��� ��������� ��� ���� ���� ���������� (symbolized by Peter) pay, even though they oppose the authorities, both Roman and Jewish, who collect it. 24

This con�ation of points of view underplays the differences between Jesus and Peter, the disciple receiving the mildest of rebukes for his answer to the question of the collectors of the temple tax (17.24-27). When Peter is mentioned, it is usually in relation to other matters. For ����������������������������������������������������������������������� Jesus is trans����������������������������gure, Peter addresses him as Lord (17.4). When he predicts the future, for example, that he will die, Peter rebukes him, addressing him as Lord (16.21-22)��25 A similar ���������������������������������������������������������������������� (14.28-31).26 In summary, Peter is largely overlooked in Saldarin���� analysis. This may well be out of a desire to avoid complicating the neat correspondence between the disciples as the Matthean community, the crowds as potential Jewish converts, and the Pharisees as representatives of formative Judaism. Sim discusses with respect to the characterisation of Peter the suggestion that he is not placed above the other disciples.27 As with the other disciples (cf. Mt. 14.31; 11.25; 13.11; 14.33), Peter exhibits little faith (8.26), receives divine revelations (16.17), and confesses that Jesus is the Son of God (16.16). Sim accepts these parallels but maintains that ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� �����������������-19 is unique to Peter. However, this same appeal to uniqueness could �������� ��� �������� ��� �������� ���������� ����� ��� ���� inability(?) to walk on water (14.28-31), his rejection of the passion prediction (16.21-22), and his thrice denial of Jesus (26.69-75). Sim is uneasy in dispensing with the primacy of Peter, a move that would seriously undermine his community reconstruction. Thus, he allows for

1

23 24 25 26 27

Saldarini, Community, p.170. Cf. p. 57. Saldarini, Community, pp.144, 145. Saldarini, Community, p.187. Cf. p. 257. Saldarini, Community, p.187. Sim, Matthew, p.198.

3. Peter in Matthean and Markan Community Reconstructions

87

the mixed characterisation of Peter but only applies those positive ����������������������������������������������������� Based upon this analysis, I may conclude the inadequate treatment of the characterisation of Peter in all three reconstructions. However, this, in and of itself, does not invalidate transparent readings particular to a localised community. This simply would represent the demolishing of a straw man. This is illustrated by Nau who argues from a redaction-critical ������������ ���� �� ����� ��������� ������ ����������� ����� �������� characterisation of Peter similar to that argued by literary critics. 28 Nau posits a crisis of leadership in a mixed Antiochene Christian community, between those who supported a charismatic understanding of leadership, the evangelist included, and those who preferred an ecclesiastically based leadership established on a memory of Peter. The Gospel is understood to include an encomium of dispr��������������������������embered in ���������� ����� ������ ���� ������ ������� ���������� ������������ ������� �������������������������������������������������������������������������. ������analysis of the Matthean Peter is more nuanced and comprehensive than that of Sim. As such, his criticism of those scholars who prioritise selective references is somewhat justi�ed. What remains to be established, however, and in this respect Nau fails, is whether the characterisation of Peter is necessarily a transparent representation of the ������������������������������������������������������������������������� �gure who may also function as a transparent exemplar, possibly to a non-speci�c audience. 3.3. Peter in Markan Community Reconstructions I have identi�ed a number of scenarios in which the Matthean Peter functions as an exemplar �gure for the leadership within local community settings. For Overman, Peter is an exemplar that legitimises Matthean leadership, for Saldarini, he is an ambiguous source of community authority, and, for Sim, an af�r������������������������������� in the Antiochene church. It is not possible here to engage fully with the discussion concerning the origin of the Gospel of Mark. We may observe, however, that a corresponding range of community readings has been produced involving the Markan Peter. 29 A selection of examples will suf�ce to illustrate this point. 28 Nau, Peter, pp.134�43. Cf. ����������������, p.108 n.8; Wiarda, Peter, pp.22�3. 29 For a survey of Markan community reconstructions, see C. C. Black, The Disciples according to Mark: Markan Redaction in Current Debate (Shef�eld: 1

88

The Audience of Matthew

3.3.a. Theodore Weeden Theodore Weeden in Mark: Traditions in Con�ict ������ ������� community at the beginning of the eighth decade CE.30 He does not geographically locate the community but does repeatedly draw parallels between the crisis faced by Mark and that of Paul with the Corinthians.31 ����������������������������������������������������������������������return of Jesus. ���������������������������������������������������-of����������������������������������������������������������������������� �����32 Interlopers entered his community preaching a theios-aner Christology and a mode of discipleship of Hellenistic persuasion: [T]he canonical measurement for the quality of Christian life for them was determined by the quantity, magnitude, and spectacular character of their miraculous acts and pneumatic experiences. Such a mind-set permits no place for weakness, failure, or second place. The focus is on success against impossible odds and victory where others have failed. One must prove himself entitled to the veneration of his followers by being superior to others in supernatural power and spiritual experience. 33

Mark could not respond as Paul by appealing to his own authority. Instead: ������������������������������������������������������������������������� drama in which Jesus serves as a surrogate for Mark and the disciples �������������������������������������������������reaches and acts out the Markan suffering-servant theology. The disciples promulgate and act out theios-aner theology.34

In the ��������������������������������������������������������������-of����������������������������������������������������theios-aner Chris�������������������������������������������������������������������������� Shef�eld Academic, 1989), pp.54�9. For critiques, see D. N. Peterson, The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate (Leiden: Brill, 2000); M. F. ������������������������������������������������������ The Gospel for All Christians ������������JTS 57.2 (2006), pp.474�86. 30 T. Weeden, Mark: Traditions in Con�ict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), p.159. 31 Weeden, Traditions, pp.61�2, 144��������������������������������� Heresy ���������������������������������� ZNW 59 (1968), pp. 145�58, reprinted in The Interpretation of Mark (W. Telford, ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress; London: SPCK, 1985), pp.64�77 (68). 32 Weeden, Traditions, p.159. 33 Weeden, Traditions, p.60. For Mark a��������������������������������������� ���� ������������ ����� ���������������� ��������� ������������� ���� ��� ����������� Matthäus und seine Gemeinde (Stuttgart: KBW, 1974), pp.13�14. 34 Weeden, Traditions, p.163. Cf. Heresy, p.68. 1

3. Peter in Matthean and Markan Community Reconstructions

89

������� ��� ����� ��� theios-aner ��������35 In contrast, Jesus outlines his ��������������-of-���������������������������������������������������33). In the trans�guration story, Mark subverts a theios-aner tradition of a glorious post-Easter resurrection appearance to Peter by relocating events prior to ����������������������������������������������������������� (9.2-8).36 ����������������������������������������������scores the complete and utter rejection of Jesus and his Messiahship by the disciples��37 The ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� the failure of theios-aner discipleship itself. The disciples are �������������� ���� ����������� ���� ����� ��� ��� ������������ ������� ����� ����� ��� �����������38 Weeden produced a transparent, non-exemplar reading in which there is a direct transparent relationship between Peter and the opponents of Mark.39 Weeden has subsequently updated his thesis regarding Mark. Out goes the subversive theios-aner Christology and in comes another crisis, the experience of persecution by followers of Jesus located in Caesarea Philippi.40 News reaches the believers in villages surrounding Caesarea Philippi, following the destruction of Jerusalem, of the seven-year prophetic ministry of an illiterate peasant, Jesus son of Ananias, and his subsequent arrest by the Jerusalem authorities, his beating and trial before the Roman authorities, his release, and �nally his death by catapult stone during the siege of Jerusalem (cf. Josephus, War 6.300-309). The villages surrounding Caesarea Philippi are deemed to be the location of the Markan community in that they represent a rural Galilean location that mirrors the setting of the ministry of the Markan Jesus and are suf����������������������������������������������������������������� heard about Jesus son of Ananias in the early 70s.41

35 Weeden, Traditions, p.54. Contrast S. Watts Henderson, Christology and Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp.3�15. 36 Weeden, Traditions, p.123. 37 Weeden, Traditions, p.38. 38 Weeden, Traditions, p.164. 39 Weeden, Traditions, p.20, recognises an original animus related to events ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� 40 T. �������������������������������������������������������������������������f ����������Forum, NS 6.2 (2003), pp.137�7������������������������������������������ ����������Forum, NS 6.2 (2003), pp.179�2������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������Forum, NS 6.2 (2003), pp.277�86. 41 ����������������������������������������, pp.277�86. 1

90

The Audience of Matthew

Numerous parallels between the stories of Jesus son of Ananias and Jesus of Nazareth lead Weeden to the conclusion that Mark has incorporated through a process of mimesis the story of Jesus son of Ananias into earlier Jesus of Nazareth traditions to produce the passion narrative: ���������������������������������������������������������������������ec����� ��� ���� ���������� ����������� ����������� ��� �������tion by Jewish ��������������������������������������������������������������ed and exalted Messiah��42 ����������������������������������������������������� Davidic saga of 2 Samuel 5�17; 20, and transformed and transvalued ������������������������� ���� ������������������� ����������������� 43 Within this scheme, Weeden fails to provide adequate justi�cation as to why someone, willing to undergo persecution as a result of their dearly held beliefs pertaining to the identity of Jesus of Nazareth, would take the risk of so radically altering core traditions. Neither does he suf�ciently address pre-70 traditions relating to the betrayal, suffering and resurrection of Jesus (cf. 1 Thess. 2.14-15; 1 Cor. 11.23-26; 2 Cor. 1.5-6; Phil. 2.6-11; 3.10-11), or the social frames of early Christianity. In summary, Weeden has produced a radically transparent reading of a Peter whose passion experiences were created to provide pastoral succour for the Markan (or Weeden) community. 3.3.b. Howard Clark Kee Utilising sociological models, Howard Clark Kee merges the identity of �������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������44 �������������������������������������������������� anti-city stance, and his inaccurate knowledge of Galilean topography suggest to Kee a community location in southern Syria, excluding Antioch.45 The itinerant and charismatic nature of Markan discipleship re�ects a community of Christian itinerants.46 For example���������������� that he and his fellow-disciples have left all reveals community practice (cf. Mk 10.28).47 ��������������-in-law ministered (���������, 1.31) to the 42 ��������������������������, p.175. 43 ��������������������������, p.194. 44 H. C. Kee, ���������������������������������������������������(London: SCM, 1977), p.3 (cf. pp.7�9). See also D. N. Peterson, The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate (Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp.61�104. 45 Kee, Community, pp.102�3, 176. 46 Kee, Community, p.105. Contrast C. Bryan, A Preface to Mark: Notes on the Gospel in its Literary and Cultural Settings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp.156�9. 47 Kee, Community, p.153. 1

3. Peter in Matthean and Markan Community Reconstructions

91

needs of Jesus. This is judged to re�ect the role of ���������� in the Markan community.48 �������������������������������������������������������������ected by Peter, James, �������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� 49 The failure of the historicised disciples to comprehend the secret of the Messiahship of Jesus is transformed into a warning to the community to remain faithful ������������������������������������������������������50 Kee does not read Peter consistently in a transparent manner:� There is, on the other hand, a hint of roles of special favour in the importance attached to Peter, James, and John (8.29; 9.1; 10.35ff.), but there is no way to determine whether their being singled out is simply the result of their prominence in the pre-Markan tradition or whether they indeed enjoyed places of special favour in the life or the memory of the Markan group. Since they �gure in the Markan narrative both as recipients of special insight and as shameful examples of pride and cowardice, they function for Mark as models of the sort of behaviour that is to be avoided rather than as paragons of virtue.51

This observation correctly identi�es the dilemma of the time of Jesus� time of the church distinction. Despite being aware of the problem, Kee nevertheless reads certain texts transparently and others in a historicising sense without revealing on what basis he chooses his reading strategy.52 In summary, Peter functions as both a transparent representative of community leadership and an exemplar �gure. 3.3.c. Werner Kelber While not speci�cally a local audience reconstruction, brief mention �������������������������������������uential thesis in which a reading reminiscent of early-Weeden is offered.53 Kelber replaces the Christo���������������������������������������������������������������������� 48 Kee, Community, p.152. 49 Kee, Community, p.166. 50 Kee, Community, p.174. 51 Kee, Community, pp.152�3. 52 Peterson, Origins, pp.66, suggests Kee employs a paradoxical style in which he �����owledges ���� ���������� ��� ����� ���� ���� ������ ��� ������� �������� ����� ����������� 53 W. H. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q (2nd ed.; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997). For helpful critiques, see Peterson, Origins, pp.46�6�����������������������������������������������������������in Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond the Oral and the Written Gospel (T. Thatcher, ed.; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), pp.71�87. 1

92

The Audience of Matthew

����������������������������������������������������������������54 Their error is the idea of a realised presence of Jesus: �������������������������������������������������������������������������cal simplicity and heroic actuality. It is a mentality that runs afoul of the kind of theological complexities that, according to Mark, characterize the fullness of Jesus. Above all, it is their sense of mytho-poetic presence and ����������������������������������������������������������������������������lizing and paradoxical career.55 It is this oral metaphysics of presence that is objectionable to Mark, writer of the gospel. His elaborately constructed apocalyptic speech � Mark 13 � serves to discredit the prophets and their eg� eimi proclama���������������������������������������������������������������������������� was brutally discon�rmed by war and persecution (13.7-13), the destruction of the temple (13.2, 14), and the dispersion of the people (13.15-20).56

Kelber rejects �������������������������������������������������������� ��������������57 Instead, he suggests a time setting for the Gospel of post70 CE ���������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������ legitimately appointed �������������������������������������������������������������������������� 58 ������������������������������������������������������������, and John, somewhat inconsistently represent speci�c individuals in a non-speci�ed geographic setting.59 Peter functions as a transparent representative of the appointed guarantors of oral tradition, wherever the community is located. 3.3.d. Brian Incigneri Brian Incigneri asserts that the values of the text re���������������������� who fathered it, and the community that mothered it��60 He is noncommittal regarding the speci�c identity of the author, but suggests a compositional context of Rome during the later months of 71 CE.61 He 54 Kelber, Written Gospel, p.97. 55 Kelber, Written Gospel, p.97. 56 Kelber, Written Gospel, p.99. 57 Kelber, Written Gospel, p.115. 58 Kelber, Written Gospel, p.104. 59 Kelber, Written Gospel, p.127. 60 B. J. Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of ��������������(Leiden: Brill, 2003), p.1. 61 Incigneri, Gospel, p.2. So too M. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (ET; London: SCM, 1985), pp.1�3����������������������������������������������� Year 69: Testing Martin ������������������JRH 28.3 (2004), pp.240�59. Contrast 1

3. Peter in Matthean and Markan Community Reconstructions

93

seeks to establish a community fear of persecution during the period between late 69 to mid-71 CE that is re�������������������������������� on cruci�xion. The strong motif of persecution in the Gospel has to be explained, not in relation to random attacks by mobs, but to executions by legal authorities �����������������������������������������������������������������������c mention of the cross in 8.34 shows that it is the prime fear in the community. Indeed, the whole Gospel implies that it is a possibility for the reader, as it graphically depicts Jesus leading the way for all of his followers. In the story, the disciples �ee from the same fate as Jesus � cruci�xion. A reader appearing before a magistrate in the circumstances described in 13.11-13 could only expect the same form of punishment (if he or she was a non-citizen). Any proposed scenario therefore has to demonstrate a plausible threat of cruci�xion. As cruci�xion could only be carried out by Roman authorities throughout the Empire, a setting that involves a legal Roman trial has to be found. Indeed, for a capital offence in the provinces, the governor himself would need to have been involved. The fact remains that we have no evidence at all for Roman executions of Christians in the East at this time.62

Two key factors are deemed to have engendered fear within the Christian community. First, the memory of the persecution of Roman Christians by Nero.63 Secondly, from June 68 to December 69 CE, Rome had �ve emperors, the last of whom was Vespasian. Against this politically traumatic background, Incigneri suggests that in the initial months �������������������������������������� CE, the Roman Christian community would have experienced concern that the new emperor, previously a general of Nero, would implement a period of persecution. 64 It is reasonable to assume a certain concern amongst the Christian community upon the assumption to power of a new emperor. However, Incigneri does not provide suf�cient evidence that this concern differed signi�cantly from possible concerns relating to the previous emperors Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, or that this fear was particular to Christians in Rome. Adela Yarbro Collins counters that the practice of cruci�xion was widespread throughout the Roman Empire, including the east, as demonstrated in the cruci�xion of Jesus. In addition, she judges that the language of cruci������������������� ����������������������� �������� ����������������������������������� Sitz Im Leben ����������JBL 111.3 (1992), pp.441�62 (442�6); J. G. Crossley, ���� ����� ��� ������� ������ (London: T&T Clark, 2004), pp.6�18. 62 Incigneri, Gospel, pp.90, 91�2. 63 Incigneri, Gospel, pp.156�7. 64 Incigneri, Gospel, pp.174�5. 1

94

The Audience of Matthew

�����������������������������������65 The open nature o����������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������� Roman audience thesis remains unconvincing, although it serves the very useful purpose of demonstrating how Mark might have been interpreted in a later Roman context. Wh������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������� disciples is so negative that it amounts to a polemic from which they were never rehabilitated.66 The disciples, includi�������������������������� similar to those of the persecuting society, betraying Jesus, and abandoning the mission��67 ������������������������������������������������������ ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� and in ������ ���������������������������������������������������� ������ denials in Mk 13.66-72.68 Peter is deemed to re�ect the experience of those Roman Christians who faltered in the face of persecution. Within this reconstruction, Jesus is the model of the forgiving community, the ������� �������������� ��� ������� ���� ��������������� ���� �������� ��� ���� ��������������������directed at those who need to forgive others, not to those who need to be forgiven��69 The key to understanding Peter lies not in the text but in the personal experience of the Roman church of the apostle and martyr Peter: ������������������������������������������������������������-sacri�ce, Mark could use him as the exemplar of the repentant sinner. He could depict him as negatively as necessary for the sake of his rhetoric, because here was a man who had been transformed by his experience of the selfsacri�ce of Jesus, demonstrating in himself the love of God and the divine drive to tell people of that saving love. Readers may even have known that Peter used to emphasise his conversion in his preaching, ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� have built �������������������������������������������������������������� as a result, but producing a powerful story of the changed life of the sinner who was warmly welcomed back by Jesus. 70

This emphasis permits Incigneri to disavow the use of literary constructs such as the implied reader and avoid an overly simplistic ���������������������������������������������������������� 71 He further

1

65 66 67 68 69 70 71

A. Y. Collins, Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), p.99. Incigneri, Gospel, pp.315�18. Incigneri, Gospel, p.346. Incigneri, Gospel, p.320. Incigneri, Gospel, p.346 (original italics). Incigneri, Gospel, p.354. Incigneri, Gospel, p.58.

3. Peter in Matthean and Markan Community Reconstructions

95

rejects Peter, James, ����������������������������������st the twelve on ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� and later evangelists may just have drawn on Mark��72 Somewhat reductively, he discards the primacy of Peter and his role as spokesman ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������73 Having rejected the signi�cance of Peter, James and John as deriving from the time of Jesus, he interprets the allusion to the martyrdom of James and John in Mk 10.39 as an indication that they had already been martyred prior to the writing of the Gospel. 74 It is unclear, however, as to why James and John would be included on this basis. If it was the case that the martyrdom of James in Palestine (cf. Acts 12.2) was known by the Roman church, then the same reasoning could be applied to the dissemination of news regard������������������dom beyond Rome, thus negating the necessity of local community knowledge speci�c to Rome as key for the interpretation of the Gospel. ������������������������reading radically prioritises the time of composition over the time of Jesus to such an extent that events were either selected or signi�cantly tailored based on a criterion dominated by community concerns. Peter represents a transparent example of the fallen believer, rehabilitated through an audience awareness of his subsequent martyrdom. 3.3.e. Hendrika Roskam Hendrika Roskam locates the evangelist and his community in Galilee following the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. 75 She asserts, despite the dearth of evidence, that the Jewish authorities in Galilee sought to subdue through persecution any political or religious movement that might threaten their favoured status conferred by their Roman overlords.76 The Roman authorities were very willing to remove this status in the immediate post-war context. M������ ���������� ���������� �����

72 Incigneri, Gospel, p.347. 73 Incigneri, Gospel, p.347. 74 Incigneri, Gospel, p.348. 75 H. N. Roskam, The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark and its Historical and Social Context (Leiden: Brill, 2004). Crossley, �������������������������, pp.159� 205 (208), does not speci�cally locate the provenance of Mark in Galilee, but ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������n �� ������������ ������� ���������� Contrast E. Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983), pp.21�36; B. Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), pp.30�1. 76 Roskam, Purpose, pp.115�37. 1

96

The Audience of Matthew

have constituted just such a threat in that their leader, Jesus, claimed the title Christ, which, in a �rst-century Palestinian setting, had kingly and political overtones associated with the restoration of an earthly Israel. To make things worse, Jesus had been cruci�ed as a political agitator. Roskam is uncommitted as to whether the community was actually ���������������������������������������������������������gelist was of the opinion that such persecution might af�ict his readers��77 This is re�ected in various redactional references to persecution in Mk 4.17, 8.34-35, 10.29-30, and 13.9-13, and the speci������������������������������������ beaten in sanhedrins and synagogues, and will stand before governors and kings�� ��������������������������������������������������������������� are thought to be carried out by Jewish as well as Roman authorities��78 Methodological dif���������������������������������������������������� as Mk 13.9-13 to date Mark. For example, N. H. Taylor and James ����������������������������������������������������������������������� such as persecution, wars, famines, and earthquakes, were standard apocalyptic eschatological motifs not speci��� ��� �� ������ ����������� experience.79 Both scholars demonstrate that, while many motifs in Mk 13 may be read in a setting either shortly before or after the Jewish� Roman war of 66�70 CE, they are equally applicable to the Caligula crisis of 39�41 CE.80 Much of the imagery is of a general nature. Crossley states that it is possible that Mk 13.9-�������ects events of the thirties and the early forties although of course it does not mean that it necessarily does because taken on its own it could theoretically be dated at any time during the �rst century after the death of Jesus��81 ��� ��������� ��������������� ����� ��������� ��� ������������ ������ ��� �����������������������������������������������������������, the identity and mission of Jesus.82 Mark seeks to prove that Jesus was not a subversive, anti-������ ������ ����� ������ ��� ��-establish a free and ��������������������83 Rather, he was cruci�ed due to the ill will of the

77 Roskam, Purpose, p.210. 78 Roskam, Purpose, p.119. 79 N. ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������JSNT 62 (1996), pp.13�41 (27); Crossley, The ���������������������, p.39. 80 N. ��������������������������������nity and the Caligula Crisis. Part I. Social ��������������������������������JSNT 61 (1996), pp.101�24; Crossley, The Date of �������������, pp.19�43. 81 Crossley, �������������������������, p.35. 82 Roskam, Purpose, p.238. 83 Roskam, Purpose, p.216. 1

3. Peter in Matthean and Markan Community Reconstructions

97

Jewish authorities and his identity as the suffering righteous one who expected to establish his kingdom at the parousia. 84 How does this relate to a Christian audience? Probably Mark feared that the threat of persecution might demoralize at �������������������������������������������������ore in his Gospel the evangelist assures his readers, above all, that in becoming Christians they �������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������� ����� ������ ���� ������� ������ �������� ������� ���������� ���� Christians are right to remain faithful to him. 85

Roskam reads the Gospel as primarily re�ecting the time of the church rather than the time of Jesus. This is re�ected in her treatment of Peter. ������������������������������������������������������������������������� as the �������������������������������������������������������� In sum, in Mk 8.31�9.1 Mark has Jesus object to the political interpretation of the title Christ when applied to him. Jesus, the Christ, will not assume power over Palestine as Peter expects him to do. The evangelist thus rejects the idea of the Christ as a royal pretender meeting Jewish nationalist hopes. Instead, Mark states that the Christ, who will inaugurate ������������������������������������������������������������������nitive breakthrough to take care of his followers (Mk 8.31 and 38). 86

Peter serves as a transparent foil that presents an understanding of Messiahship from which the evangelist desires to distance himself. Likewise, it is the evangelist, rather than the historical Jesus, who rejects ���������������������������������������������� 87 In summary, Peter performs a number of roles within the Markan audience-reconstructions considered. For Weeden, he represents the opponents of Mark who hold a heretical theios-aner Christology. For Kee, he re������������������������������������������������������������matic community in southern Syria. For Incigneri, Peter represents those Roman Christians who faltered under persecution, while, for Roskam, Peter holds a false understanding of Messiahship as a ������������������ Galilean community.

84 Roskam, Purpose, pp.189�207. A. Winn, The Pur�������������������������� Early Christian Response to Roman Imperial Propaganda (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), p.34, rightly criticises Roskam for assuming an apolitical Jesus and imposing the secular distinction of the political and religious upon a �rst-century setting. 85 Roskam, Purpose, pp.216�17. 86 Roskam, Purpose, pp.156�7. 87 Roskam, Purpose, p.156. 1

98

The Audience of Matthew

3.4. Summary ��� ����� ��������� �� ����� ���������� ���� ��������� ���������� ��������� ��� highlighting the selective application of characterisation in Matthean community readings. Two observations may be made. First, characters with variable and developing characterisation such as Peter prove a thorny challenge to those seeking to reconstruct a simpli�ed tale of con�ict between a Matthean community and formative Judaism. Similarly, plot-related developments are ignored in preference of thematic readings that permit the Gospel to be read as a snapshot in time of the com������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������ Secondly, I have outlined for comparative purposes different roles ascribed to Peter within a number of Markan community reconstructions. A key question that needs to be addressed in order to sustain the viability of these readings, whether Matthean or Markan, is whether �rst-century aural experiences of the Matthean and Markan Peters would have been suf�ciently distinctive as to allow the identi�cation of their respective transparent functions. From the perspective of aurality, could an auditor distinguish between the two �������������������������������������chene Matthean community on a business visit to Rome perceive any signi�cant difference in the story of Peter when hearing it during a Sabbath �������� ����� ������������ ������ ������� ����������� ��� af�rmative response to this question would indicate the suitability of the Gospels for the intentions suggested. A negative response does not establish the presence or absence of a particular authorial intention. It does not disprove the community thesis. Rather, it simply indicates the poor suitability of the Matthean Peter as a means of communicating a different referential function to that of the Markan Peter in an oral communication setting.88 In the following chapters, I will focus on orality and aurality studies in order to posit a method for identifying plausible �rst-century aural impacts of the Matthean and Markan Peters. A number of potential limitations should be noted with respect to my approach. The �rst is that �rst-century audiences would not have been required to undertake such an intentional comparison in order to make sense of what they heard. The 88 ������������������������������������������������������������������������� Confession: The Implications ��� ������ ���������� ���� ��������� ��������������� ��� Orality, Aurality and Biblical Narrative (L. H. Silberman, ed.; Semeia, 39; Decatur, GA: Scholars Press, 1987), pp.47�68 (56). 1

3. Peter in Matthean and Markan Community Reconstructions

99

�������������������������������������������������������������������������� their particular local setting. However, this cannot be established based on a circular reading strategy that presumes a particular community setting and then reads it back into the text. 89 Preferable is the reconstruction of credible aural impacts that do not presume any particular audience context. A second objection pertains to the inherently speculative nature of the exercise. How does one know how a �rst-century audience might have responded? They might have reacted in any number of ways. This is a valid objection. We cannot assume that a �esh-and-blood audience reacts with the same reveren����������������������������������������������������� responds to his or her implied author. Therein, however, lies the rub. Real audiences are fallible and do not respond in a uniform manner. They over-interpret and under-interpret and contrast starkly with the ������������������������������������������������������������� 90 A range of aural impacts of the two Peters will thus be posited that takes into account audience variability. �� ������ ���������� ��� ����� ��� ����������� ��������� ��� ���� ������ ������� whether Matthean or Markan, constitutes just one element of a more comprehensive aural experience and as such should not be dealt with in isolation. This is a valid objection and highlights a methodological weakness in my approach. Nevertheless, Peter is the leading disciple in both Gospels and plays a major role in many community readings. A particular focus on the aural impact of the respective Peter stories, while limited and somewhat arti�cial, serves the purpose of providing a control against which the Peter of local community reconstructions may be compared.

89 ��� ��������� ��������� ���� ��� �������� ��������� �� �������� �������� ��� ���� Gospe�����������������������GAC, pp.195�217 (207�17). 90 U. Eco, Interpretation and Overinterpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). 1

Chapter 4

ORALITY, PERFORMANCE, AND GOSPEL AUDIENCES

4.1. Introduction A number of community interpretations of the Matthean and Markan Peter were outlined and assessed in the previous chapter. Recognition of Markan priority led me to question w����������������������������������� view, the genre of bios constitutes a suitable medium for conveying these highly detailed, distinct, and subtle readings. I concluded by asking how probable is it that early Christian audiences would have been capable of distinguishing between the supposedly different signi�cances of Peter as embodied in the two Gospels. How would a member of Anthony ��������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������y? The next step in the process of developing an answer to these questions is to de�ne the various elements and dynamics involved in the text�lector�audience communication model in light of orality studies and performance criticism. This will be accomplished through �rst considering Mark and Matthew in light of these two disciplines. Following this, various parameters relating to the nature of the text, the lector, and the audience will be posited. In subsequent chapters, four criteria relating speci�cally to aurality (the settings of time and space, narrative frame, and impact) ����� ��� �������� ��� �� ������� ���� ������������ �������� ��� ��� ����������� potential aural experience pertinent to this critique. Note that it is not the purpose of this methodology to create a comprehensive reconstruction of ��������������������������������, the objective is to highlight certain elements that might lead us to question the suitability of the Gospels as devices for conveying the various community readings outlined in previous chapters.

4. Orality, Performance, and Gospel Audiences

101

4.2. Audience-related Approaches 4.2.a. Orality In 1983, Werner Kelber took up ideas from folkloristic �eldwork developed by linguistic theorists of orality such as Walter Ong in order to promote oral-related factors amongst Gospel scholarship, which he characterised as overly print-oriented.1 Kelber argued for a sharp distinction between oral and print-oriented cultures and called for a reorientation towards orality amongst Gospel scholars. The assumption of a dichotomy between orality and literacy has more recently found its ���������������������������Jesus Remembered, in which Dunn argues that the variation between synoptic accounts is attributable not to tradition variants or different editorial emphases, but rather to different oral performances.2 Dunn appeals to sociology and social anthropology to argue that early groups of Jesus-���������� ������ ����� ��������� ��� foundation story (or stories) to explain, to themselves as well as to others, why they had formed distinct social grouping���3 The telling of these stories was the responsibility of Christian teachers, who served as the repository of the traditions. The particular thesis of the Gospel of Mark as a transcript of an oral performance has gained acceptance amongst a number of scholars beyond Dunn.4 1 W. J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (3rd ed.; New York: Routledge, 2002), pp.31�76; W. H. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q (2nd ed.; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997). For reactions �������������������������� L. Silberman (ed.), Orality, Aurality and Biblical Narrative (Semeia, 39; Decatur, GA: Scholars Press, 1987); J. Dewey (ed.), Orality and Textuality in Early Christian Literature (Semeia, 65; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994); J. ��� ������� �������� ��� ����� ������������ ��� Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory, and Mark (R. A. Horsley, J. A. Draper and J. M. Foley, eds; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), pp.84�96 (84); R. A. Horsl������������������������������������� Implications of The Oral and the Written Gospel, Twenty-����� ������ �������� in Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond the Oral and the Written Gospel (T. Thatcher, ed.; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), pp.45�70. 2 J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), pp.199�204. 3 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, p.175. 4 ��������������������������������������������������������������������� Testament Studies � ���������BTB 36.3 (2006), pp.118�33 (123�5). For the use of Mark as the basis for, rather than transcript of, oral performances, see J. Dewey, ����� ���������� ����� ��� ����� �������������� in Thatcher (ed.), Jesus, the Voice, pp.71�87 (72). For non-literate composition and dictation of Mark, see W. Shiner, �������� ����������� ���� ���� ������������ ��� ������� ��� �������� ��� ��� (eds), 1

102

The Audience of Matthew

The dichotomous relationship between orality and literacy, crucial ����������������������������������������������������������������������ber of scholars.5 Catherine Hezser, in her magisterial study on Jewish literacy in Roman Palestine, rejects a ������������������������������� it is assumed that literacy automatically results in certain outcomes, ����������������������������������������������������� 6 Instead she argues that literacy should be viewed as just one of many inter-related factors that result in a whole variety of orality�literacy combinations. Vernon Robbins similarly argues that the Gospels originated in a rhetorical culture in which, contra Kelber, there was no clear distinction between orality and literacy.7 Along with other scholars, he calls for a decon�������������������������������������������te the recognition of the kinds ����������������������������������������������������������������������� unaware of writing and written texts to those in which written texts are immediately accessible both in their hands and in their minds��8 In response to such criticisms Kelber has recently af���������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������y of a con�ictual relationship between oral and written��9 �������������������������������������������� oral and written, but nevertheless continues unnecessarily to read Mark �������������������������������������������������10 Variation in the relationship between orality and literacy is found when ������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������-8, only Jesus and his interlocutors recite from the writings��11 In contrast to both Matthew and Luke, the Markan narrator refrains from reciting Performing the Gospel, pp.147�65. For a rejection of Mark as performance, see B. J. Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of �������������� (Leiden: Brill, 2003), p.44. 5 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� JSNT 40 (1990), pp.15�32. 6 C. Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), p.11. 7 V. ��� ��������� �Or���� ������������ ���� ��������� ���������� �� ����������� ��� Dewey (ed.), Orality and Textuality, pp.75�91; �������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������� (eds), Performing the Gospel, pp.125�46. 8 ����������������������������� 9 W. ���������������������������� ����������������������������������������: Re�ections on The Oral and The Written Gospel (An Interview with Werner ����������in Thatcher (ed.), Jesus, the Voice, pp.27�43 (30, original italics). 10 ���������������������� ��������������� �, p.39. 11 ����������������������������� 1

4. Orality, Performance, and Gospel Audiences

103

�������� ��������� ��� ���������� ������� ������������� ������������ ��� ���� Hebrew scriptures in Mk 1.1-8 and 11.27�12.12 utilise an internal voice ������������������������������������������������������������������������ Robbins concludes that: This is a phenomenon close to the dynamics of oral speech in a rhetorical culture, when an oral speaker does not, himself or herself, regularly read substantive portions of other literature. Rather than authoritatively presenting recitations from the writings on the basis of his or her own authority as a narrator, like Matthew or Luke (or John), the narrator of the Gospel of Mark attributes �the authority� for recitations to a personage like Isaiah (1.2-4), to Jesus, or to an interlocutor like �the Pharisees� (10.4).12

The oral qualities of Mark contrast with the more literate Matthew. 13 This judgement should be quali�ed by the observation of David Carr that a literary work, in our case Matthew, may incorporate and intensify ����������������������������������� 14 ����������������������������������������������������������������������� audiences and reciters can recognize variation between different versions of the tradition. In response, cultures interested in preserving the integrity of the tradition can use a variety of means to preserve it, including both different uses of writing and intense implementation of older means of aiding recall � formulae, rhyming, link of text to music and movement, use of overarching themes, memory techniques, and so on. 15

������������������������������������������������������������ a heightened level of anxiety about change��16 The result is the production of �������������������������������������������������������������cation may ac��������������������������������than with nonliterate composition, transmission, and performance��17 Certainly this would seem to be the case with Matthew. Caution is thus required that we do not impose a dichotomous understanding of orality and literacy on Matthew in that the �������������������������������������������������������������������tional de�nitions of literate and oral break down. Nevertheless, we may

12 ����������������������������� 13 ��������������������������������� R. K. McIver and M. Carroll, �Experiments to Develop Criteria for Determining the Existence of Written Sources, and their Potential Implications for the Synoptic Problem�, JBL 121 (2002), pp.667�87. 14 D. M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p.8. 15 Carr, Writing on the Tablet, p.7. 16 Carr, Writing on the Tablet, p.8. 17 Carr, Writing on the Tablet, p.8.

1

104

The Audience of Matthew

concur with those scholars who judge that the production of Matthew involved a more literate process than that for Mark. 18 The thesis that Matthew utilised Mark remains a defensible thesis, whereas, in contrast, it is a considerably more problematic task to determine the nature of ������� �������� ���� �������� ���� ������� ��� ����� ��� �� ��������pt of a performance remains a plausible though by no means de�nitive option in that it accords with both the length and episodic nature of the Gospel and early tradition (cf. Eusebius, HE 2.15.1-2). However, David Rhoads, in his analysis of performance criticism, concedes that Matthew was most likely written before it was performed.19 This now widely held assumption has, however, resulted in less of an interest in analysing Matthew with respect to orality than has been manifested with respect to Mark. There is, for example, a large body of work on orality and Mark. 20 In contrast, far less work has been undertaken with respect to Matthew and orality. A brief analysis of studies relating orality to Matthew will highlight this point. One example is found in J. ������������������������������������������ and reader-response analysis of repetition in Matthew in the face of orality and aurality studies. Her defence is not extensive and is limited to a short �nal section in her conclusion. Her analysis focuses upon verbal ����������������������������������������������������� implied author and implied reader��21 Methodologically she assumes the Gospel is read at one sitting by a (implied?) reader with the capacity to note repetitions occurring throughout the Gospel. Capel Anderson defends her approach against Graham Stanton, who has questioned whether a �rst-century audience would have heard the Gospel, which requires approximately 18 F. W. Beare, The Gospel according to Matthew: A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1981), p.5; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew: Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I�VII (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), pp.97�127; U. Luz, Matthew 1�7 (ET; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), pp.73�8. 19 �������������������������������� ���������������� 20 See Kelber, Written Gospel; W. ������������������������������������������ �������������������� (ed.), Orality, pp.7�26; T. ����������������������������������� Polemic or Confession: The Implications of Media Criticism for Biblical Hermeneu�����, in Silberman (ed.), Orality, pp.47�6��� ��� ������� ������ ��� ����������� ���������������������������������������������� ���������, CBQ 53 (1991), pp.221� 36; C. Bryan, A Preface to Mark: Notes on the Gospel in its Literary and Cultural Setting (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp.67�1��������������������������� pp.125����������������������������������6�������������������������������������� 70. 21 J. Capel Anderson, �������������������������������������������������� Again (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1994), pp.218�19. 1

4. Orality, Performance, and Gospel Audiences

105

three hours to read, in one sitting. 22 Rather, they would have heard one portion at a time, thus diminishing the effect of narrative repetitions. Capel Anderson maintains the possibility of one-sitting hearings although she does not suggest a corresponding cultic or community setting. She further asserts that aspects of the text, such as verbal repetition, repetition of labels or epithets for characterization, and double stories with variations, would create the required redundancy that fallible hearers often need.23 Another study relating orality to Matthew is that of Bernard Scott and Margaret Dean, who seek to produce a sound map of the Sermon on the Mount based upon the various aural formulae and repetition of sounds. The dilemma they face with respect to the production of the Gospel is whether to attribute oral-related factors to an underlying oral tradition or �������������������������������������������������������������tic structure of the sentences in individual units with little subordination or the infrequent use of participles might indicate oral tradition, but may just as likely indicate the imitation of orality��24 They choose the latter option, concluding that the a������������������������������������������������������� [who] must imitate ��� ��������25 ������ ���� ������� ������ ����������� �� valuable contribution to the discussion. Their analysis is, however, limited to just three chapters of the Gospel. � Gary Yamasaki d�������� ��� ��������� ��� ������ ���������-oriented ����������� ��� ���� ������ ��� ����� ���� �������� ��� �������� ��� ������ ��� combines narrative criticism with ideas from orality studies. 26 The chief insight he utilises from the �eld of orality is the concept of an au��������� experience of the Gospel as an unfolding, dynamic event. An audience does not interpret with a full knowledge of the text as might be expected in a literary critical analysis based on a third or fourth reading. The text is no longer a static object that might be analysed in its totality in order to construct the literary entities of implied author or reader. As a consequence he rightly concludes that an audience would be unlikely to perceive the structure of the Gospel as a whole, a process requiring a 22 G. N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), pp.54�84; Capel Anderson, Narrative Web, p.222 n.1. 23 Capel Anderson, Narrative Web, p.223. 24 B. B. Scott and M. ��������������������� �������������������������������� Treasures New and Old: Recent Contributions to Matthean Studies (D. Bauer and M. A. Powell, eds; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), pp.311�78 (318). 25 ������������������������������ 26 G. Yamasaki, John the Baptist in Life and Death: Audience-Oriented ���������������������������������(Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1998), pp.33�63. 1

106

The Audience of Matthew

static text.27 Rather, plot is experienced sequentially and character development is cumulative. Yamasaki identi�es a number of related psychological effects. The �������������������������������������������������������� at the beginning of a messag�����������������������������������������28 Thus, special attention should be paid to the beginning of the Gospel and ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� in which previous material sheds light on new material, and new components illuminate earlier ones.29 Yamasaki combines these effects with an analysis of point of view, plot, and characterisation to reproduce the experience of a �rst-time audience. �����������������������������������������������differentiate suf�ciently his critical method from narrative criticism, resulting in a reading that amounts to little more than a literary critical �rst-time reading. This is especially ����������� ��� ������ ��� ���� ����������� ��� �������� ��������� criticism of biblical reader-response critics for neglecting the textually extrinsic real reader, who is often the focus of secular reader-response criticism, and instead focusing on a formalist text-immanent implied reader.30 ��������� �������� ����� ��������� ���������� ���� ����� �������� reader-response criticism: Reader-response criticism, on the other hand, presupposes that there is nothing absolute in the text waiting to be extracted, for meaning will vary from reader to reader as the interaction of each individual reader with the text results in a different meaning. Therefore, for a discipline dominated by a preoccupation with probing the text for insights hidden therein, it only makes sense that reader-response criticism would not be able to make serious inroads, even among biblical literary critics with a pragmatic orientation. The present study shares this prevailing preoccupation ���������������������������������������� 31

The result of discardi��������������������������������������ned as a contemporary reader or a �rst-century audience, is a reading that is text���������������������������������������������������������������ratee. The narrator is �rmly in charge of the communication process, guiding, conditioning, in�uencing, and determining the response of the subservient narratee. It hardly needs stating that the narratee is a literary entity and as such does not equate to a �esh-and-blood audi����������������� approach should more accurately be described as narratee-oriented 27 Yamasaki, John the Baptist, pp.64�80. 28 Yamasaki, John the Baptist, p.53. 29 Yamasaki, John the Baptist, p.55. 30 S. �����������������������������-Response Criticism Caught on in New ���������������������JLT 4 (1990), pp.278�92. 31 Yamasaki, John the Baptist, p.45. 1

4. Orality, Performance, and Gospel Audiences

107

criticism, although even this might be questioned in light of an analysis that predominantly focuses on the narrator. We may thus conclude that orality studies play only a minimal role in his analysis. Clearly, Matthean scholarship has a lot of ground to catch up with respect to orality when compared to the numerous studies on Mark. Material is now being produced with respect to Mark that moves beyond orality/literacy and author-related issues to aurality and audience reception.32 There is little to indicate that a corresponding move is being made to the same degree with respect to Matthew. However, assuming a degree of literary dependence of Matthew on Mark in no way precludes such a move in that from the point of view of audience reception, both Gospels would have been experienced aurally. This is indirectly af�rmed �������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������-century cultic setting (1 Apol. 67.3-4; cf. 63.3). ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� performed aloud to groups of people, not read silently by individuals��33 Thus, principles of aural reception developed with respect to Mark may equally be applied to Matthew. 4.2.b. Performance Performance criticism highlights the role of the performer/lector in presenting the Gospel to an audience.34 As a discipline within Biblical Studies it is still in its infancy and it remains to be seen whether many of its claims will stand the scrutiny of time. As such, a comprehensive discussion or application of its methods is not intended. Nevertheless, certain aspects may be cautiously applied to the Gospel in a manner that corrects those readings that have adopted an overly text-focused approach. My analysis will focus on the work of two scholars, Whitney Shiner and William Shiell. These scholars have postulated early audience 32 Cf. E. S. Malbon, �������������������������������� (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002); D. Rhoads, Reading Mark, Engaging the Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004). 33 R. ��� ��������� �Prominent Patterns in the Social Memory of Jesus and �������������Memory, Tradition and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity (A. Kirk and T. Thatcher, eds; Semeia, 52; Atlanta: SBL, 2005), pp.57�78 (61). 34 �������� ������������� ���������� � ����� ��� pp.118����� ������������� Criticism: An Emerging Methodology in Second Testament Studies � ��������, BTB 36.4 (2006), pp.164�84. For performance criticism and the Gospel of Mark, see P. Ruge-������������������������������������������������������������������onfuses ���������������������������������Between Author and Audience in Mark: Narration, Characterization, Interpretation (E. S. Malbon, ed.; Shef�eld: Shef�eld Phoenix, 2009), pp.29�43; A. Clark Wire, The Case for Mark Composed in Performance (Eugene: Cascade, 2011). 1

108

The Audience of Matthew

experiences for Mark and Acts respectively, based on the assumption that these texts would have been read by lectors utilising Graeco-Roman rhetorical conventions for recitation and delivery, and heard by audiences familiar with such conventions.35 Both scholars adopt a similar approach. While disavowing any ability to recover the particular oral style in which their respective texts were ������������������������������������������������������������������������� the delivery style on the basis of two lines of evidence. The �rst is historical evidence through which they seek to reconstruct an ideal delivery style for the time and culture. Both scholars appeal to rhetorical handbooks that introduced three types of speech: the plain style, the grand or forcible, and the intermediate.36 In order to judge between the ������������������������������������������������������������������������ narrative is intended primarily as instruction or as drama, as addressing the intellect or the emotions��37 Shiner rules out the grand style, and p���������������������������������������������������������������������nate of the meaning of the Gospel in its original setting��38 Shiell adopts a similar position with respect to Acts. 39 Both scholars argue that the lectors of Mark and Acts would have ut������� ����������� ������������� ������� ������� ����� ��������� ������ ������ mannerisms on the same conventions for oratory they had learned in the rhetorical schools or imitated from art and performances��40 This would have involved varying voice intonation according to character, the matching of pace of delivery to the pace of narrative, and the use of rhetorical gestures.41 According to Martin Jaffee, such techniques extended to Second Temple Jewish scribal groups. 42 Concerning gestures, Shiner and Shiell appeal ������������������������������������������� manuscripts of the comedies of Terence. 43 The Terence manuscripts 35 W. T. Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003), pp.1�9; W. D. Shiell, Reading Acts: The Lector and the Early Christian Audience (Leiden: Brill Academic, 2004), pp.1�8. 36 Cf. Shiell, Reading, pp.17�19, 35, 205; Shiner, Proclaiming, pp.19�23, 37� 49, 63�6, 77�88. 37 Shiner, Proclaiming, p.89. 38 Shiner, Proclaiming, p.89. 39 Shiell, Reading, p.169. 40 Shiell, Reading, p.116. 41 Shiner, Proclaiming, pp.57�101, 127�42; Shiell, Reading, pp.34�101. 42 M. S. Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE�400 CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p.8. 43 Shiner, Proclaiming, pp.129�35; Shiell, Reading, pp.47�8, 54�78, 140�1. 1

4. Orality, Performance, and Gospel Audiences

109

contain illustrations of various gestures used on the Roman stage and date from the ninth to twelfth centuries, although they are judged, based on an analysis of hair and clothing styles, to originate from a much older original from the middle of the third century CE.44 Shiell also draws heavily upon the gestures of �gures portrayed in Graeco-Roman sculptures, paintings, and illustrations.45 Reasoning analogically, both scholars utilise such sources to suggest how various gestures may have been used in the delivery of their respective texts. The second line of evidence is the texts themselves. Shiner interprets ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������ around �����������������������������������������46 Shiell likewise assumes that the performances of story-based characters for their audie����������� ������ ����������� ������� ���� ������� ��� �he recitation of the lector for �������������������������������������� 47 In terms of narrative speed, the rhetorical handbooks suggest that the pace of narration should match the pace of the events. Thus, Sh����������������������������������������, both ���������������������������������������������������������������������� accelerated pace to create the impression of many events happening within a short time��48 The lack of detail in Mark 1 also creates a sense of fast tempo. Short episodes and rapid setting changes in Mk 1.9-20 lead to the relatively longer narrative of 1.21-28 (eight verses compared with a previous average of three).49 In contrast, Matthew portrays Jesus as delivering long monologues, often from a seated position. This has led Shiner to posit for Matthew an emphasis on teaching rather than performance. 50 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ Five times, the writer employs an idiom for an explicit gesture, a variation on the phrase, ����������� ��� �������� ���� ������, �He extended the hand to them�. This phrase is found in 12.17, 13.16, 19.33, 21.40, and 26.1. In 24.10, the Roman magistrate signals for Paul to speak, but the wording is different than the other explicit gestures. Each of the examples occurs prior to either deliberative or judicial speeches, and are varying responses to each gesture.51

1

44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Shiner, Proclaiming, p.129; Shiell, Reading, p.37. Shiell, Reading, pp.34�101. Shiner, Proclaiming, p.4. Shiell, Reading, pp.108�11, 138. Shiner, Proclaiming, p.93. Shiner, Proclaiming, pp.93�4. Shiner, Proclaiming, p.48. Shiell, Reading, p.139.

110

The Audience of Matthew

In addition, he suggests a number of implied gestures imitating actions in the narrative.52 ��������������� ��������� ��������� ��� ����� ��������� ��� explicit rhetorical gestures. Instead he must infer gestures that accompany the speech or imitate the deeds of the various characters. 53 Matthew, like Mark, lacks direct rhetorical gestures. Consideration of the main protagonist, Jesus, serves to highlight this fact. With respect to the �ve main Matthean discourses we �������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������-��������moned his twelve disciples, [whom he] se��������������������������������������������������� ����� ����� �� ����� ���� ���� ������� ���� ���� ��� ������� ����� ����� �������� (13.2-������������������������������������������������������������������� �������� ������ ��� ���� �������� ���� ��� ��������� ������ �����-4). Jesus delivers four of his �ve discourses from the seated position of a teacher (cf. Lk. 2.46; 10.39). In the only discourse in which we are not told his delivery position, he directs attention away from himself and towards a child (Mt. 18.2). With respect to intonation, few hints are given. When Jesus speaks he is usually described (seventy-nine times) according to a variation of the phrase �� ��� �������� ������ �������� ����������������������������������������� In these instances no indication is given regarding intonation. Jesus simply speaks. Twenty-nine times his utterances are introduced with variations of the phrase �� ��� ������������ ������ �������������������������� 3.15). Again, no intimation of intonation is given. Jesus introduces his own point of view �fty-four times with a variation of the phrase, ������ ����� ������ ���������������������������������������������������c intonation is noted. Thus, we may conclude that for the vast majority of utterances no direction is given the performer or lector regarding intonation or gesture. In a few instances utterances are linked with actions deriving from the ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� (16.8; 22.18; 26.10). The acts of touching are primarily related to healing rather than rhetorical delivery. Five times he is also described as speaking in parables (10.5; 13.3, 24, 31; 21.1). Once his delivery is associated ����� ���������� ���� ������ ������ ��� ��� ��������� ��� ���������� ��������� (8.10; 9.30; 16.20; 17.9). Three utterances may be deemed to provide a potential performer with oratorical instruction. In Mt. 12.49, Jesus is described as making a

1

52 53

Shiell, Reading, pp.154�69. Shiner, Proclaiming, pp.129�37.

4. Orality, Performance, and Gospel Audiences

111

gesture, ���� ���������� ���� ������ ������� ����� ����� �������� ������� ������ ����� �������������������������������������������������������������������������� interpreted in the NRSV as the act of pointing, may be understood well within the context of oratorical conventions.54 In 20.32, the evangelist �������������������������������������������������������������������������� The call of Jesus is in response to the cries of the two blind men (20.30). His stance and call do not usher in a speech but do, nevertheless, provide minimal instruction to a performer. The last instance is that of 27.46, in ������ ������ ������� ���� ����� �� ����� ������� ������� ����� ������������ �� �������� ������ ��������� ������). This climactic cry represents the only occasion in the Gospel in which an utterance of Jesus is quali�ed adverbially and contrasts against a context in which the delivery of Jesus is consistently unquali�ed. We may thus conclude that Matthew provides potential performers with few oratorical directions. This would argue against an equivalent semi-dramatic style as suggested by Shiner for Mark. Such a position, in which oratorical pointers are implied, parallels the conclusions of Martin Jaffee with respect to oral tradition in Second Temple scribalism. Jaffee surveys Qumranian scrolls, early Christian literature, Josephus, and rabbinic literature, and concludes that there is �������� ��������� ����� ������ ��� ��������� ������ ���� ���������� ��� ����logical commitment to preserving a text-interpretive tradition in an exclusively oral-���������������������55 ��������������nd virtually no shred of interest in the orality of the oral-performative literary tradition as such��56 Any interest in oral performance was implicit rather than explicit. With respect to Matthew, this observation should caution against naïvely projecting explicit oral-performance awareness onto the evangelist. 4.3. Text�Lector�Audience ����������������������������������������������������������������������� �����������������������������������������������������������rk, does not alter the fact that the aural experience of both Gospels involves a shift from the literary communication model of author�text�reader to that of text�lector�audience. Both Gospels, whether read, or memorised and performed, continue to function �������������������������������������ances.

1

54 55 56

Shiell, Reading, pp.95, 98. Jaffee, Mouth, p.39. Jaffee, Mouth, p.61.

112

The Audience of Matthew

Consideration will now be given to the nature of the three elements in the communication process, that is, the text, the lector, and the audience. This will provide the basis for determining my methodology for positing aspects of potential responses to the hearing of the Markan and Matthean Peter narratives. 4.3.a. The Text �������������� �������������������� ������������������� ��������� ��������� Gospel texts are indirectly experienced in a mediated form through the lector, or in the case of Mark, possibly a performer. Jaffee observes with ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����� ���� ������� �������� ����� ����� ����� ���� ������ ��� ���� ���� ��� ���� ������������������������������������������������������������������������� words reached the audience at a given performative reading.�57 From an audience point of view, this is a valid conclusion. Nevertheless, a number of text-related dif�culties deserve recognition independent of audience-related considerations. (1) Scholarship is currently limited to using second- and third-century textual witnesses as the source from which �rst-century reading experiences are conjectured. (2) A related dif�culty is that of explaining manuscript differences. Orality and performance critics have concentrated their efforts on explaining the origins of the different Gospels rather than their related textual variants.58 The origin of such variants has been persuasively explained by scholars as resulting from early scribal practices and the later postsecond-century ecclesiastical desire to standardise texts. 59 The harmonisation process indicates that textual variation remained an ongoing issue for later scribes and lectors. However, for the purposes of this study, two potential scenarios allow for the assumption that textual variants need not play a signi�cant role. The �rst scenario is that we accept the work of textual critics as re�ected in current standard critical editions as the best approximation of the autograph.60 We can thus conjecture that �rstcentury audiences would have experienced one dominant text type and 57 Jaffee, Mouth, p.18. 58 A. ����������������������������� Written or Oral? A Rabbinic Analogy ����������������������������Built Upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland, eds; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), pp.1�23. 59 Cf. B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964), pp.17�21, 186�206; H. Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), pp.71�4. 60 Contrast D. C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). 1

4. Orality, Performance, and Gospel Audiences

113

the issue of textual variation is thus negated. The second scenario is that we envisage a process, as suggested by Harry Gamble, whereby a numbe�����������������������������������������������61 These may well have included small textual variations. However, such variations would not have resulted in suf�ciently differentiated audience experiences as to justify the hypothesis that different textual variants were intended for different audiences. It is not necessary that I choose between these two scenarios as they both allow for the assumption of relatively stable texts to stand. The second text-related observation concerns the structure of the Gospels. Scholars concur that both evangelists utilised compositional techniques in arranging material, this being more pronounced in Matthew than in Mark. These techniques include repetition, contrast, comparison, causation and substantiation, climax, pivot, particularisation and generalisation, statement of purpose, preparation, summarisation, interrogation, inclusio, interchange, chiasm, intercalation or ring composition, and the use of pairs and triads.62 Charles Lohr, in an early study on oral techniques in Matthew, suggested that the structure of the Gospel holds signi�cance for the author/reciter and his audience. 63 Thus, structural �������������������������������������������������������������������������� (2) to build up in it a thematic structure which will focus the various elements of the tradition on his own central interest��64 ���� ��������� �������������-���������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� of the life of Jesus��65 Mary Ann Beavis similarly argues, although from a reader-response perspective, that Mark utilizes various literary tech����������������������������������������������������������66 As with Lohr, Beavis assumes that the talents of the reader are equal to those of the ������������������������������������������������to structural features of the text, e.g., chiasms, inclusio, repetitions, and transitional formulae, which might illumine the meaning and �ow of the narrative��67 61 Gamble, Books, pp.83�5, 93�4, 108�11, 120�1. 62 D. R. Bauer, ������������������������������������������������������������� (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1988), pp.13�20; A. Y. Collins, Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), pp.85�95. 63 C. �����������������������������������������������������CBQ 23 (1961), pp.403�35. 64 ������������������������������� 65 ������������������������������� 66 M. ��������������� Trial before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:53�65): Reader Response and Greco-����������������CBQ 49 (1987), pp.581�96 (581). 67 ����������������������� 1

114

The Audience of Matthew

In contrast, Yamasaki counters that it is improbable that an audience would have perceived the macro-structure of Matthew, whatever it be.68 Each structural analysis presupposes a static text and a reader able accurately to compare and contrast different portions of text. Yamaski ��������������������������������������������������������������������ntially through a narrative, is ever able to discern a structure that encompasses a �����������������69 Yamasaki does not rule out the effect of structure on ������������������������������������������������������������������������ narratee can readily notice while proceeding sequentially through the text��70 ����������������������������������������������������������������� improbability of an audience intentionally seeking and identifying the detailed and varied structural devices as posited in the studies of Lohr and Beavis. It does not follow, however, that audience perception of structure may be totally discounted. In the early use of both Mark and Matthew there was awareness on the part of some of their literary structure. In his much debated statement, P������������������������������������ ������� ������� �����������������������������������HE 3.39.15).71 This compares with the work of Matthew who ��� ������ ����������� ���������� ���� ��������� (Eusebius, HE 3.39.15). Papias is aware of structural issues if we surmise ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� point in question with respect to our discussion is to determine the signi������������������������������������������������-/performer-to-audience exchange. Any effect on the audience is incidental and cannot simply be ������������������������������������������������������������������������� vary from hearer to hearer. It is less problematic to suggest that structure is more important as a guide for the lector, especially those who deliver the text from memory, than as a direct means of conveying signi�cance to the audience. The lector would have invested time and effort in memorising the text, and, for this purpose, the structure of the Gospels would have proved extremely useful. 4.3.b. The Lector/Performer Two variables are left to consider � the ������� ��� ���� ������������ ��� ����������������������������������������������������������������������ited variability might occur between these two elements. The Gospels might 68 Yamasaki, John the Baptist, pp.64�75. 69 Yamasaki, John the Baptist, p.74. 70 Yamasaki, John the Baptist, p.74. 71 ����������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������JSNT 37 (1989), pp.31�41. 1

4. Orality, Performance, and Gospel Audiences

115

have been delivered in any number of styles, to any number of audience types, who might have reacted in any number of ways. It is thus necessary for various historical assumptions to be made in order to limit these sources of variation. In establishing such assumptions there is a danger of falling into the trap of circular reasoning. In the case of this study, it would involve setting assumptions that presume non-local audiences ���������������������������������������������������-viability of community reading strategies. In order to avoid this trap I will minimise the audience-related criteria I intend to apply to the Gospels to those that are common to both local and non-local audience readings. These criteria will be de�ned in more detail in the respective introductions of Chapters 5 and 6. Now I shall consider lector/performer and audience related factors. The �rst point to be made with respect to the lector or performer is that both Gospels would probably have been as����������������������� ����� ������������� �����������72 One suggestion is that the lector (or performer) of a Gospel might have been a slave of a rich member who would have derived authority from the evangelist. 73 This is certainly plausible. We should not rule out the possibility that members of other social classes, whether free men or freed men, would have been able to ��������� ��������� ������������������������������������ ������������������ she?) must have been known by his respective audience in order for the Gospel to have been accepted. Shiner states: ������������������������������������������������������������������������� character and his words continued. Likely the one who read in Christian worship was generally accorded some authority. 74 In fact, character is almost the controlling factor in persuasion. The opinion that the audience holds of the speaker is not itself a part of rhetoric, but it is important for a speech to make the speaker appear to be fair-minded.75

Related to this emphasis on the character of the lector is the stress placed by scholars of literacy, such as Hezser, on the link between the hierarchy of literacy and other hierarchies, whether, wealth, political power,

72 M. Hengel, ����-witness Memory and the Writing of the Gospels: Form Criticism, Community Tradition and the Authority of the A������������The Written Gospel (M. Bockmuehl and D. A. Hagner, eds; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp.70�96 (93). 73 Shiner, Proclaiming, p.26; Shiell, Reading, pp.31�2, 34. 74 Shiner, Proclaiming, p 26. 75 Shiner, Proclaiming, p.23. Cf. Jaffee, Mouth, p.20.

1

116

The Audience of Matthew

cultural in�uence, and occupation. While Jewish scribes scored high in the hierarchy of literacy but poorly in other hierarchies, Hezser suggests ����� ���������� ��� ���� �������� ������ ����� ���� ������� ����� ���� ������� literate would be the people with the most power, authority, and prestige ������� ���� ����������� ���� ����� ���e hierarchy of literacy is usually ������������������������������76 Thus, within a Christian context we cannot rule out the possibility that the lector had considerable status independent of the role of reading the Gospels. The act of reading would also rei���������������������������������������������������������������������� these reasons I will assume readings that embody a sympathetic rather than subversive delivery style (cf. the prologue of Sirach). Secondly, as argued above, it is likely that Matthew would have been read by a lector rather than acted by a performer, as might have been the case with Mark. This distinction is somewhat forced in that, as pointed ������������������������������������������������������������������������ for oratory they had learned in the rhetorical schools or imitated from art and performances��77 There is no clear-cut distinction between the two roles. Nevertheless, a difference in emphasis is to be noted. Thus, Mark may be described as a transcript of an oral performance, although this itself has been disputed by Brian Incigneri.78 In contrast, Matthew represents a more literary work that, while often imitating orality, calls for an emphasis on reading rather than performance. This emphasis is found in the Gospel. In addition to retaining and expanding the three references of the Markan Jesus to the act of reading, the evangelist records three other ����������������������������������������������������������������������� (Mk 2.25/Mt. 12.3; Mk 12.10/Mt. 21.42; Mk 12.26/Mt. 23.31-34; Mt. 12.5; 19.4; 21.16). I will not presume, therefore, a semi-dramatic performance of Matthew, as might have been the case with Mark. In addition, we cannot rule out the possibility that Mark was in many instances read rather than performed. The distinction in usage outlined is supported by the description of early Christian household groups/ associations as meeting together for meals (e.g. ��������, 1 Cor. 11.21), after which, following the libation, the symposium might include either performance or teaching reminiscent of philosophical school practice. 79

76 Hezser, Jewish Literacy, pp.502�3. 77 Shiell, Reading, p.116. 78 Incigneri, Gospel, p.44. Cf. M. A. Beavis, ������������������������������ and Social Setting of Mark 4.11�12 (Shef�eld: JSOT, 1989), pp.172�6. 79 J. D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem: Christianity in the Making, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), pp.608�20. 1

4. Orality, Performance, and Gospel Audiences

117

Thirdly, it is highly probable that both Gospels were read or performed rather than chanted. Gamble has suggested that the Gospels would have been delivered in a cantillated style similar to that found in later synagogue usage.80 Gamble is unable to produce any direct evidence from the �rst two centuries CE and instead bases his judgement on an appeal to Christian psalmody, itself an area in which there is also little early direct evidence. This lack of direct evidence has led Shiner and Shiell rightly ��������������������������81 Martin Hengel suggests that ����������������������������������������������������������������������� preaching, but this Pharisaic ordering was by no means the only one, �����������������������������ed by the profusion of worship songs composed by the Qumran community.82 The abundant use of hymns, often composed for the occasion, also characterised the liturgies of various Graeco-Roman sects.83 One thus cannot rule out the possibility that phrases or portions of the Gospels were put to music in the form of Christ hymns or else incorporated previously composed hymns. 84 Certainly there is strong attestation of the use of hymns in early Christian worship (Acts 26.25; 1 Cor. 14.26; Eph. 5.19; Col. 3.16; Jas 5.13; Rev. 5.9-10).85 Fourthly, I will not assume that Matthew was read in one sitting. In a teaching situation it is unlikely to have been presented in its entirety. It also would have required additional interpretation.86 The implication of this position is that constructing a literary entity such as an implied or intended reader that retains full and complete knowledge of the text does ���������������������������������������������������������������������� noted by Graham Stanton.87 In contrast, if an audience heard Mark in one 80 Gamble, Books, pp.227�8. 81 Shiner, Proclaiming, pp.45�6; Shiell, Reading, pp.126�7, 201�2. 82 M. Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003), p.90. 83 ����������������������������������������������������������i������������ Biblical Research 40 (1995), pp.50�97; W. Burkert, Greek Religion (ET; Oxford: Blackwell, 1985), pp.102�3. 84 H. Taussig, In the Beginning Was the Meal: Social Experimentation and Early Christian Identity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), pp.104�12; J. D. G. Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence (London: SPCK, 2010), pp.38�52. 85 R. P. ������������������������w Testament: An Evolving Pattern of Worship ������������Ex Auditu 8 (1992), pp.33�4��������������������� ������������������ ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ���������������JSNT 30 (2008), pp.319�42. 86 Shiner, Proclaiming, p.48. 87 Stanton, New People, pp.71�6. 1

118

The Audience of Matthew

sitting, they would have bene�ted from an accumulating knowledge of the unfolding story. Fifthly, we should acknowledge the possibility that lectors may have been female. Lynn Cohick presents detailed evidence for the extensive involvement of women in many aspects of Graeco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian cultic practice.88 While no evidence relates directly to the role of female lectors of the Gospels, in the person of Phoebe we encounter a female patron (����������, Rom. 16.2) of Paul likely entrusted with the delivery (i.e., transportation) and possibly the performance of his epistle to the various house churches in Rome (cf. Rom. 16.1). 89 A minimalist interpretation of Rom. 16.1-���������������������������������������� involvement of leading women in the delivery of early Christian manuscripts. How far we extrapolate from this the possibility of female lectors throughout early Christian congregations is debateable. However, the possibility of female lectors cannot be excluded. 4.3.c. The Audience I now turn to the audience. First, I will presume, in line with the majority of both Markan and Matthean scholarship, an initial Christian audience for the Gospels.90 It is not necessary for us to specify a uniquely JewishChristian, Christian-Jewish, or Gentile-Christian audience as this imposes an unjusti�ed degree of ethnic homogeneity on heterogeneous early Christian congregations. This is not to deny the existence of variant positions within early Christian audiences or differences in composition of local groups. Oscar Cullmann adopted a similar stance with respect to the fallout following the establishment of two distinct missions at the Jerusalem council: If con�icts nevertheless occurred at a later time, this was because the separation could not be carried out in practice; the reason was that all of the local churches probably were already of mixed membership at the time of their origin. There naturally were no churches that were solely Gentile Christian, for in all the larger centres there were Jews; indeed, we know that Paul regularly addressed himself to them �rst of all. On the other hand, there were no churches that were solely Jewish Christian, for

88 L. H. Cohick, Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), pp.159�224. Cf. S. L. Love, Jesus and Marginal Women: The Gospel of Matthew in Social-Scienti�c Perspective (Cambridge: James Clark, 2009). 89 Cohick, Women in the World, pp.304�7. 90 Collins, Mark, pp.96�102; Beare, Matthew, p.10; Davies and Allison, Matthew I�VII, pp.144�5; Luz, Matthew 1�7, pp.79�90. 1

4. Orality, Performance, and Gospel Audiences

119

everywhere former pagans joined the existing Jewish Christian churches. This had not been taken into account in the separation decided upon in Jerusalem, and therefore con�ict inevitably arose at once in Antioch. 91

The distinction between Gentile-Christian and Jewish-Christian has been extensively re�ned since Cullmann made these comments. 92 ������� reference to the Hellenists and Hebrews in Acts 6.1 has led to much speculation as to the nature of the two groups. For some scholars the difference is primarily a theological distinction between law-free Hellenists and more conservative law-observant Hebrews.93 Others maintain that the difference was simply linguistic, two Jewish groups of Jesusfollowers distinguished by the Aramaic and Greek tongues. 94 It is beyond the scope of this study to undertake an in-depth investigation of the ethnic composition of speci�c early Christian congregations. Nevertheless, a number of points may be made. First, for those congregations for which we have origin stories, Luke consistently portrays in Acts the proselytising of both Jews, whether Aramaic or Greek speaking, and Gentiles. While responses varied from city to city, there is a marked pattern of the gospel being taken to the Jews �rst, and then to the Gentiles.95 The portrayal is of ethnically diverse churches led by leadership that re�ected this diversity (Acts 6.5; 13.1), and who were in many cases bilingual.96 ������������������������������������������������������� portrayal of the congregations to which he writes with Acts to af�rm that in many of his epistles he addresses either Jew�Gentile relations or issues that were ethnicity related. In 1 Corinthians, for example, the 91 O. Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (2nd ed.; ET; London: SCM, 1962 [1953]), pp.46�7. Cf. Collins, Mark, p.183; Hengel, Between Jesus, p.38; M. Slee, The Church in Antioch in the First Century C.E. (London: T&T Clark, 2003), p.37. 92 J. D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism and their Signi�cance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1991); Hengel, Between Jesus, pp.30�47. 93 Hengel, Between Jesus, pp.30�64. 94 C. C. Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), p.23. Contrast Slee, The Church in Antioch, pp.4�11. 95 Salamis (Jews, Acts 13.5; a Roman proconsul, 13.7-12); Antioch in Pisidia (Jews, 13.14-43; Gentiles, 13.44-49); Iconium (Jews and Gentiles, 14.1-5); Lystra (Gentiles, 14.8-18); Philippi (Jews and a God fearer, 16.13-14; Gentiles, 16.27-34); Thessalonica (Jews and God fearers, 17.1-4); Beroea (Jews, 17.10-12; God fearers, 17.12); Athens (Jews, 17.17; Gentiles, 17.18-34); Corinth (Jews, 18.4-5, 8; Greeks and God fearers, 18.4, 7); and Ephesus (Jews, 18.19). 96 Hengel, Between Jesus, p.40. 1

120

The Audience of Matthew

church consists of those called by God, both Jews and Greeks (1 Cor. 1.24), who form one body (12.13), and who are to avoid giving offence to each other (10.32).97 Paul af�rms his ministry as including both those under the law and those outside the law (9.20-21). In Galatians, Gentiles have been liberated from the powers of the ��������� (Gal. 4.9), whereas those under the law have been redeemed from the curse of the law through the death of one born under the law (3.10-13; 4.4-5). In Romans, the distinction between Gentiles and Jews is largely reduced (Rom. 3.2223), in that both Jews under the law and Gentiles with their consciences (2.11-16) are under the power of sin (3.9), have fallen short of the glory of God, and can now gain equal access to the righteousness of God through faith in the risen Christ (3.22-23). These foundational statements provide a rationale in both epistles for the rejection of circumcision as normative for Gentile believers (Gal. 5.2-6; Rom. 4.9-12). The con�ict over whether Gentile believers should be circumcised testi�es to the dif�cult process of integrating different identities within early Christian communities. Based on such factors I will thus posit potential ethnic-speci�c responses where appropriate without arguing for the dominating presence of any one group, as might be the case if one geographically speci�c audience were the sole focus. A similar approach will be adopted with respect to other sources of difference, whether gender, age, linguistic ability, or socio-cultural and educational backgrounds. Secondly, a group setting for the reading of the Gospels is most likely. Shiner has posited two such settings for the performance of Mark. The �rst is the house church held in private homes where Christians met to hear the recitation of texts, pray, sing hymns, ������������������������� supper, and the second, outside gatherings, for example, at a river or lake for a baptism.98 A third potential setting would be the Graeco-Roman after-meal symposium. 99 The Gospels would have been read or performed within these contexts in a manner similar to the usage of other NT writings. A third observation is that we may identify certain factors 97 On mixed communities in Antioch and Corinth, see K. Wong, Interkulturelle Theologie und multikulturelle Gemeinde im Matthäusevangelium: Zum Verhältnis von Juden- und Heidenchristen im ersten Evangelium (Freiburg, Switzerland: Univ.Verl.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992). 98 Shiner, Proclaiming, pp.51�2. Cf. W. A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), pp.75�7; Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, pp.601�8. 99 Taussig, In the Beginning, pp.36�53. Contrast Meeks, Urban Christians, pp.75�84. 1

4. Orality, Performance, and Gospel Audiences

121

consistently emphasised in early Christian literature from which we may extrapolate commonalities in the experiences of early Christian congregations. One such factor is persecution, or, more likely, the fear of persecution.100 In all four canonical Gospels, Jesus warns his followers that they will face either rejection or persecution, both now and in the future (cf. Mk 4.17; 6.11; 13.9-13; Mt. 10.16-28; 13.21; 24.9; Lk. 10.1012; 21.12-19; Jn 9.22; 15.18-21; 16.2, 33). Similarly, Paul contextualises in his epistles both the fear and experience of persecution encountered by some in his congregations (1 Thess. 1.6; 3.4; 2 Thess. 1.4-6; Gal. 6.12; 2 Cor. 1.3-7). In Acts, followers of Jesus, whether in Palestine or elsewhere, are also characterised as consistently facing persecution (Acts 4.3; 5.18; 6.9�7.60; 8.1-3; 9.1, 23; 12.1-5; 13.45, 50; 14.2, 5, 19; 16.1923; 17.5-9, 13; 18.6; 19.23; 21.27; 23.12). A second and often related factor is that of apostasy, whether highlighted in the Gospels (Mk 13.6, 22; Mt. 24.5, 10-12, 24; Lk. 21.8; Jn 16.1) or the writings of Paul (1 Cor. 10.1-12; 2 Cor. 6.14-17; 11.13-14; Phil. 3.18). Such factors, in addition to the universal life experiences of childhood, multiple marriages, the traumas of childbirth and high infant mortality, the pressures of economic survival, and the certainty of death, would have shaped the response of early Christian audiences to the hearing of the Gospels. Warren Carter rightly encourages that Matthew be read in its Roman ��������������������������������������s audience, which Carter limits ��� ��������� ������ ����� ����� ������ ��� ��� ������������ ������ ��������� inequalities, economic exploita����������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������� non-propertied, male and female, rural a���������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������� of religious institutions and personnel from socioeconomic and political �����������������������������������������������������101 Fourthly, I will presume a largely sympathetic audience, one in which the majority of auditors accept the authority of the lectors/performers on the basis of their authority derived from either the text or a known evangelist. Shiner suggests that public oral performance in the ancient Mediterranean world involved a degree of combativeness and competition that may, in certain situations, have engendered audience heckling

100 D. R. A. Hare, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel according to St Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967). 101 ������������������������������������������������������������������������� The Gospel of Matthew in its Roman Imperial Context (J. Riches and D. C. Sim, eds; London: T&T Clark, 2005), pp.143�65 (150�1). 1

122

The Audience of Matthew

and barracking.102 The NT certainly recounts instances of vigorous audience response. In Lk. 4.28, the audience in the synagogue in Nazareth respond with rage to the teaching of Jesus. In Mk 2.6-7 (cf. Mt. 9.30) some of the scribes question amongst ��������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ taken in drawing parallels between these examples and early Christian behaviour, however, in that such accounts clearly serve a polemical function. In 1 Cor. 14.26, Paul advises the Corinthian Christians that, �������������������������������������������������������aching, a revelation, a tongue, or an explanation�� ������������������������������������� concern is not to exclude it but rather to impose a degree of order (cf. 1 Cor. 14.27-32). In a similar manner, Paul seeks to impose order at Ephesus through Timothy ����������������������������������������������� place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argu������������������������������������������������������������������������ �������� ��� ����� �� ������������ �������� ��� ������ ���������� ��������� 103 ��������������������������������������� ���������������������������������� ����������������������������104 Meeks likewise argues for the development of ritual from the inception of Christianity: The regular meeting of a group at a familiar time and place itself becomes a ritual, in the broad sense of the word we have adopted. And the meeting begets rituals to de�ne and accent its activities, to signal its beginning and end, to separate friendly milling around and gossip from more serious ��������������������������������������������������������������������� 105

Meeks describes how the use of psalms, readings, homilies, prayer and glossolalia was ritualised, resulting in the maintenance of social identity and cohesion.106 Thus, caution is called for in assuming that early worship represented either a free-for-all on the one extreme, or a tightly controlled and regulated ritual on the other. In this context we need not exclude the possibility that audience interruptions and disagreements may have occurred with respect to the reading of the Gospels. The dif�culty we face, however, is identifying those points in each Gospel that might have provoked such a reaction. To determine this we would need to presume a certain audience type, thus falling into the trap of circular reasoning, assuming a speci�c audience type in order to produce a corresponding audience experience. Thus, I will not seek to determine

1

102 103 104 105 106

Shiner, Proclaiming, pp.19�23. Gamble, Books, p.207. Cf. Beavis, Audience, pp.48�9. Gamble, Books, p.221. Meeks, Urban Christians, p.142. Meeks, Urban Christians, pp.140�50.

4. Orality, Performance, and Gospel Audiences

123

possible points of contention in the text, although the potential presence within an early Christian audience of those antagonistic towards Peter should be acknowledged (cf. 1 Cor. 1.12). A �fth audience-related observation is that recognition should be given to varying levels of familiarity with Peter within early Christian audiences. Outsiders �rst entering a Christian audience in response to the public preaching of the apostles may not even have heard of Jesus, let alone Peter.107 ����� ��� ���������� ��� ������� ������������� ��� ����� ���� ���������s response in Lystra in which no mention is made of Jesus, let alone his retinue of followers (Acts 14.15-17). Likewise, in Athens, Paul is portrayed as downplaying the speci�c identity of Jesus, who is presented simply as a divinely appointed ������ (Acts 17.31). At the other extreme, some in early Christian audiences, especially those with Palestinian links, may have known Peter personally. It is certain that established believers would have heard of him. Hengel observes that, ���������������������������������������������������������������������poses that Peter is well known not only to him but also to the communities��108 In addition, Markan priority requires that the possibility cannot ������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������� ��������� �� ����������������������-�������� �rst-century audience. This ��������������������������������������������������Critic�/�Reader� ��109 Steiner develops a �ctional and heuristic critic/reader antithesis in which ��������������������������������������������� ��������������������������� servant to the text��110 The critic assesses the text and declares his or her judgements. In contrast, the reader does neither. The reader does not objectify the text nor pass judgement. Thus, the reader remains silent about the reading process. Such a reader might be described by the critic ���������-expert reader��111 ����������������������������������������������� 107 D. ��������������������������������������������������������������CBQ 69 (2007), pp.64�83 (72). 108 M. Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (London: SCM, 1979), reprinted in Earliest Christianity (London: SCM, 1997), p.86. Cf. P. Perkins, Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000), p.65, and Incigneri, Gospel, pp.34�6. 109 ������������� ����������������� �, NLH 10 (1979), pp.423�52. For discussion, see R. M. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (Harrisburg: Trinity, 2001), pp.27�31. 110 Steiner, � ����������������� �, p.449. 111 This term is used by Fowler, Understand�� ������ ���� ����� ��� ���������� ���������������������������������������������������������The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979), pp.1�21. 1

124

The Audience of Matthew

antithesis serves a polemical purpose in that there is in every critic a reader, and in every reader a critic.112 At dispute is where the emphasis should lie. Fowler, while recognising the value of criticism, prioritises reading over criticism.113 In my analysis I will similarly adopt the rhetorical pose of a critic while positing a non-expert aural experience.114 This is based on the verisimilitude of experience between an audience and a subjectifying non-expert reader. Seventhly, in relation to my sixth audience assumption I should note the Graeco-Roman awareness that audiences included more than the educated and rhetorically trained. In her survey of audiences in ancient rhetoric, Kathy Maxwell cites a number of examples from Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian in which audience members are described either as untrained thinkers, ignorant, lazy, or prone to distraction. 115 In addition, there was awareness of the varying abilities of audiences to recog�������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������� his literary allusions in such a way that those who were not able to �ll those gaps still understood his meaning��116 The process of reconstructing uniform �rst-century early Christian audience experiences is thus challenged in that any such audience would have been aware, to varying degrees, of a body of oral traditions to which we have only limited and indirect access through written sources.117 David Parker states concerning �������������������������������������������������������������������������� differently from us: in the knowledge of a perhaps quite extensive body of oral traditions still circulating��118 There is no question that knowledge of such traditions would have varied both between and in audiences. �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������o suggest two audience �������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6.9-10 he states:

112 Fowler, Understand, p.27. 113 Fowler, Understand, p.31. 114 ���������� ����������������� �, p.433. The very act of delineating an analytical method de�nes me as a critic. 115 K. R. Maxwell, Hearing between the Lines: The Audience as Fellow-Worker in Luke�Acts and its Literary Milieu (London: T&T Clark, 2010), pp.29�37. 116 Maxwell, Hearing between the Lines, p.74. 117 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� Riches and Sim (eds), The Gospel of Matthew, pp.128�42, in which he posits Jewish and non-Jewish audience responses to Mt. 28.16-20. 118 Parker, The Living Text, p.19.

1

4. Orality, Performance, and Gospel Audiences

125

A competent �rst-century auditor would thus have been expected to sense a quotation in Mk 4.12 as a test of different literary competencies within the audience, but only a few would have been ready to play the game of identifying and even manipulating the textual source. 119

�������������������������������������������������������������������� different responses: For part of the Markan audience the riddle of 12.35-37 may be resolved �������������������������������������������������������������������������� For another Markan audience segment, however, whose available specialist Christian encyclopedia is formed more or less by hearing Mark itself, ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� argumentation.120

The distinctions between educated and uneducated, biblically literate and illiterate, are often ignored, argues Henderson, by late modern scholars, �����������������������������-����������������������������������������� ����������121 Recognition of these differences, however, further challenges the presumption of uniform audience experiences. In the absence of primary witnesses to the experience of �rst-century Gospel audiences, any reconstructed response will be based partly upon ������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������122 Thus, the reconstruction of plausible audience responses does not ���������������������������� the text, however technically undertaken. Rather, any reconstruction results from a contemporary process involving both description and interpretation. This being the case, a number of controls may be utilised. The �rst is the wide range of audience responses recorded in the Gospels. These responses should not be utilised as a prescriptive indicator of how an audience would react to hearing certain portions of a Gospel, but ������������������������������������������������������������� awareness of audience dynamics. Indirectly, however, they may be taken as setting the parameters of potential audience responses. A second control is the 119 ��� ��� ����������� ���������������� ������� ������� ����������� ��� ������� (ed.), Between Author and Audience, pp.6�28 (21). 120 H�������������������������������������������������������� 121 ���������������������������������������������������������������������� and E. ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������� ����������� JBL 125.2 (2006), pp.271�97, for a reading of Mark that recognises ethnic and educational audience differences. 122 S. Fish, Is There a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), pp.92�6. 1

126

The Audience of Matthew

various reactions to Peter, or the Peter story, as recorded in early Christian texts. These responses may be taken as a further indicator of potential audience reactions to the Markan and Matthean Peters. These controls will be developed in Chapter 6. 4.4. Summary I started this chapter by restating the question as to whether from an ����������������������������������������������������������������������veying the highly detailed, distinct, and subtle readings found in various community reconstructions. In this chapter, I �rst explored two of the elements involved in this question. My discussion on orality focused on the origin and nature of Mark and Matthew within an environment in which no clear distinction between orality and literacy may be maintained. I af�rmed the possibility that Mark is more likely the result of a performance, or else was intended for performance, whereas Matthew is a more literary text suitable for teaching purposes. Next, I considered the issue of performance, focusing on another element inherent to my �������������������������������������������������������������������������� any explicit performance indicators in Matthew supported my earlier af�rmation that Matthew represents a text more suitable for teaching. Following this discussion, I de�ned in more detail the nature of the text�lector�audience dynamic. Emphasis was placed on those factors deemed to be of a general nature, which, while recognising local variation, may be thought to have been widely present across geographic regions during the initial reception of the Gospels, itself a process that would have spanned a number of years as they spread from church to church. The signi�cance of de�ning the text�lector�audience dynamic is ������������������������������������������������������������������������ from text-based constructs such as implied author, implied reader, and authorial audience. Such constructs are far too limited in their portrayal of the early reception of the Gospels. They ignore the heterogeneous composition of audiences, varying levels of familiarity with the Hebrew Scriptures, Christian traditions and personalities, and the dynamics of aural experience as portrayed in canonical and non-canonical texts. For community readings to remain plausible, they need to incorporate the aural experience of �esh-and-blood members of the community, who hear the Gospel over a number of sessions, interspersed, most probably, with lector-led instruction and expansion. Such an audience reconstruction will always ultimately be text derived. The question is whether to base the reconstruction solely on the Gospel, or to include what we know 1

4. Orality, Performance, and Gospel Audiences

127

of early Christian audiences from non-Matthean sources. Of course, if we retain a Gospel-derived audience, we will always attribute to them a complete understanding of the text. The text always understands the text! For those who prefer the hermeneutical security provided by Matthean text-based reader and audience constructs, the challenge nevertheless remains to estimate the success of the Gospel in communicating the intentions delineated in community readings. We may ask whether ����������������������������������������������������������������������� plot and characterisation, envisage a completely successful communication scenario in which, without exception, all members of the community pick up the intended signi�cance of the Gospel. If not, which �esh-andblood members of the community are likely to vary in their understanding and why? So far in my discussion there has only been a limited focus on aural experience. It is to this I now turn in Chapters 5 and 6.

1

Chapter 5

AURAL EXPERIENCE: SETTINGS AND FRAMES

5.1. Introduction I paid speci�c attention in the previous chapter to the nature of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew and the role of the lector in light of orality studies and performance criticism. In addition, I sought to de�ne common factors in the text�lector�audience situation characteristic of early Christian audiences. In this chapter, I shift my focus to the aural experience of stories involving Peter in Mark and Matthew. My shift to the audience, however, is only partial, in that an emphasis is maintained on the role of the text in shaping audience experience. Linguistic principles pertinent to aurality studies suggest that settings and narrative frames play key roles in shaping an audienc����������������������������� shown that the settings and narrative frames of Markan and Matthean stories involving Peter concur, then I may argue for the increased probability of a common aural experience of the respective Gospels. The greater degree of concurrence, the more similar the aural experience. How does this relate to Matthean community readings? In Chapter 3, a number of highly speci�c community reconstructions for Mark and Matthew were outlined and the speci�c roles of Peter identi�ed. Peter variously functions in those Matthean reconstructions considered as a ������������������������������gure that legitimises Matthean leadership �������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������-Jewish community in Syria, and as an af�rma���������������������������������������������-Christian community in Antioch. In the Markan reconstructions examined he functions as a ����������������������������������������������������������������������� a re��������������������������������������������������������������������matic southern Syrian community, as a representative of those Christians who faltered under persecution in Inci�������������������������������

5. Aural Experience: Settings and Frames

129

�������������������������������������������������������������������� Galilean community. Through my consideration of aural experience, I aim to demonstrate the unsuitable nature of the Gospels for conveying such speci�c messages by arguing that respective audiences would most likely interpret references to Peter as applying to Petrine traditions relating to the time of Jesus, rather than as re�ective of a speci�c community situation during the time of the church. A Matthean audience familiar with Petrine traditions would incorporate Matthew into preexisting time of Jesus mental representations. Similarly, a member of ����������������� ��������� �������������������� ���������rm, and relate to without much dif�culty, Matt������������������������������������ An aural experience of the text as referring to the time of Jesus does not diminish its relevance to the audience, as will be demonstrated in the following chapter. It simply means that relevance is not restricted to a speci�c text-derived community reconstruction. It is to the role of settings and narrative frames in shaping aural experience that I now turn. 5.1.a. Settings Two linguistic principles come into play when a temporal and/or spatial setting is communicated to an audience. The �rst principle, used by Stephanie Black in her discussion of Matthean syntax in light of various linguistic principles, is that of mental representation. This states that �communication is built on the use of mental representations of discourse��1 Black expands her de������������������������������������� communicate with one another they do not tend to remember the exact words and phrases they have heard or read, or they tend to remember them only for a short time. Instead they create what can roughly be called ���������������������������������������������������������������2 This principle pertains to both the immediate aural experience and the later process of remembering. An auditor responds to words by creating mental pictures, whether or ��������������������������������������������������� ����������� �������������3 This mental representation is then either maintained or abandoned depending upon subsequent aural experiences. In a similar vein, April DeConick highlights a number of experiments that indicate that following the reading or hearing of a text, readers and 1 ��� ��� ������� ����� �������� ������ ���� ������� �� ����������� ��proach to ���������� ���������� ��������� ��� Built Upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland, eds; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), pp.24�52 (26, original italics). 2 �������������������������� 3 ��������������������������

1

130

The Audience of Matthew

������������������������������������e, form, order, and arrangement of material, even the general impression of the story��4 Speci�c to our discussion is that readers retained bot�� �� ��������� ����������� ���� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ 5 ������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ��������������.6 In humour a mental representation is created and then is suddenly deconstructed for dramatic effect. In general, however, communicators seek to aid the auditor or reader construct consistent mental representations. An auditor cooperates in this process by constructing a mental representation, based both on the words used and on ������������������������������������������������������������������������ settings used within and between the Gospels under consideration may thus be taken to indicate a degree of order in both the content communicated and the mental representations constructed by the auditors. The aural experience of hearing a certain setting mentioned or described would be recalled not in terms of the exact words used by the lector, but rather in terms of the mental image initially created at the time of hearing and subsequently reinforced in the case of an aural experience involving ��������������������������� The second principle, which follows on from that of mental representation, is that of markedness. Black states: Markedness is the notion that where there are two or more choices in a linguistic system � two or more things that could reasonably have been said at a given point, or two or more ways of saying something � it is often the case that one of those choices is thought to be the normal, or default, choice, the more usual choice which carries less interpretive �weight�.7

The less weighted choice is considered the unmarked choice, while more remarkable choices are considered to some degree marked. The dilemma facing interpreters is that markedness is highly contextual. In one audience a choice may be marked, for an audience in another context that

4 ��������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond the Oral and the Written Gospel (T. Thatcher, ed.; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), pp.135�80 (139). 5 �������������������������������� 6 ��� ������� ����������� ����� ����� ���� ��� ��� ����� Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (3rd ed.; New York: Routledge, 2002), p.167. 7 �������������������������� 1

5. Aural Experience: Settings and Frames

131

same choice may be unmarked.8 In determining the degree of markedness, we encounter once more the danger of circular reasoning, that of assuming a certain audience type derived from the text and then reading the text in light of our text-derived audience construct. A way of avoiding this danger may lie in the �nding of cognitive psychologists that unmarkedness and continuity is the default position in the way people make sense of narratives.9 The degree of unmarkedness may be altered towards markedness through introducing discontinuity. In the absence of any discontinuity, a new sentence in a text will be incorporated within the current unmarked construction. This may be directly related to our discussions on Mark and Matthew. Within each of the two Gospels there is a high degree of continuity in both temporal and spatial settings. Events are consistently set in the early decades of �rst-century CE Palestine. This consistency may be taken as indicating a degree of unmarkedness in terms of settings respective to each Gospel. Further, if we demonstrate that the settings of Matthean stories involving Peter manifest a degree of continuity with respective settings in Mark, then we may infer that continuity speci�c to settings was intended by Matthew with his source Mark, and that the unmarked choices which shaped the mental representations of a Matthean audience would largely re�ect those of a Markan audience. A Matthean audience familiar with Markan traditions would integrate their aural experience of Matthew into existing mental representations resulting from their aural experiences of Mark. 5.1.b. Narrative Frames The linguistic principles of mental representation and markedness may be applied to either complete narratives or their constituent episodes. The principle of mental representation is af�rmed in the observation of a number of scholars that readers and audiences do not remember verbatim, the exception for Walter Ong being song lyrics. 10 It has been observed that whether or not a retelling was deemed true in the ancient world depended upon its adherence to the remembered gist of the story. ������������������������������������������������������������������������ the ancient world people had a different notion of what constituted 8 Marked���������������������������������������������������������������������� from which contextually speci�c meanings may be distinguished. See E. Andrews, Markedness Theory: The Union of Asymmetry and Semiosis in Language (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990), pp.9�43. 9 �������������������������� 10 Ong, Orality and Literacy, pp.62�3. 1

132

The Audience of Matthew

������������������������������������������������������������������atural memory have demonstrated that we are incredibly good at remembering ����������������������������������������������������������11 The concept ������������������������������������������������������������12 In a similar manner, Whitney Shiner balances the maintenance of stable elements within the retelling of a story with that of �exibility. For Shiner, the audience knows the story. A successful retelling of the Gospel would thus be expected to ������������������������������������������������������ as a constraining factor on how the story is retold while permitting a degree of �exibility.13 ��������� ���� ����������� ������� ����������� form-��������� ������� ��� ������ ��������� ������� ����� ������ ��� ����������� were expanded and elaborated through retellings by arguing that in the oral traditioning process Jesus traditions were not expanded, except in ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� onto the ending of the teaching��14 Rather, oral traditions were condensed and remodelled until ���� ����� ������� �xed oral traditions that could easily be passed on intergenerationally with little variation, or b) they entered liturgy, or c) they were copied as sacred texts��15 The process by which oral traditions were condensed and �xed may be explained through the principles of mental representation, in that mental pictures rather than actual words would have been remembered, and through markedness, in which the default unmarked interpretation of a previous tradition would be to communicate without dramatic change the mental representation as remembered. A parallel literary process of condensing may be seen in instances of shared gist or core details �������������������������������������������������������������������ing out a demon in the country of the Gadarenes (Mk 5.1-20) consists of 327 words whereas the equivalent account in Mt. 8.28-34 is condensed to only 135 words (NA27). Shiner argues that �exibility in the performance of individual episodes was taught in the early levels of rhetorical educa��������������� were taught how to expand narratives of various types 11 C. Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), p.205, quoting J. P. Small, Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory and Literacy in Classical Antiquity (New York: Routledge, 1997), p.192. 12 J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). 13 W. T. Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003), p.113. 14 ��������������������������������������������������The History of the Synoptic Tradition (2nd ed.; ET; Oxford: Blackwell, 1972). 15 �������������������������������� 1

5. Aural Experience: Settings and Frames

133

and how to present them in more concise form��16 There is no reason to exclude a similar process whereby Matthew condensed Markan accounts while �xing key elements. This emphasis on �xed elements in tradition transmission is further ���������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������� ��� ���������� ������� ��� ����������� ��� �������� ��� ������ sentences which convey the action of the narrative � that is, all sentences ������������ Gospel excluding exposition attributed to Jesus, reported �������������������������������������� 17 ����������������������������� framework may be deemed more focused than that of gist. The remembered gist would incorporate a narrative frame while allowing for ������������������������������������������������������������������������� �����������18 For my purposes, however, the identi�cation of a narra������� ������� ���� �������� ����� ������ ��� ��� ������ ���������� ��� ������ provides a useful point of comparison between the two Gospels. How does this relate to the experience of an audience? Identifying respective narrative frames helps determine the nature of the relationship between Matthew and Mark. For those in a Matthean audience already familiar with Mark or similar oral traditions, hearing a familiar narrative frame may be considered to have led them to conclude that Matthew remained faithful to the Markan account and was essentially retelling the same story. Similar frames would suggest that auditors of Matthew would interpret his account as unmarked in relation to Mark, and thus integrate their mental representation of Peter stories in Matthew within existing representations created through hearing Mark. Those in a Matthean audience unaware of the Peter story would not, of course, have experienced this effect. 5.2. Settings and Frames in Markan and Matthean Stories of Peter Source analysis of the Matthean references to Peter reveals �ve Markan references omitted by Matthew (Mk 1.35-38; 5.21-24, 35-43; 11.20-25; 13.3-4; 16.7), ten references of Markan origin (Mk 1.16-20/Mt. 4.18-22; Mk 1.29-31/Mt. 8.14-17; Mk 3.14-19/Mt. 10.2-4; Mk 8.27-30/Mt. 16.1314; Mk 8.31-33/Mt. 16.21-22; Mk 9.2-8/Mt. 17.1-8; Mk 10.28-31/ Mt. 19.27-30; Mk 14.26-31/Mt. 26.30-35; Mk 14.32-42/Mt. 26.36-46; Mk 14.66-72/Mt. 26.69-75), those from a source common to Matthew

1

16 17 18

Shiner, Proclaiming, p.113. ����������������������.24 n.2. ��������������������������������

134

The Audience of Matthew

and Luke (Lk. 17.3-4/Mt. 18.21-22), and those unique to Matthew (Mt. 14.28-31; 15.15; 16.17-19; 17.24-27; 18.21-22). References to Peter will be dealt with in the sequence in which they occur in Matthew, regardless of their source. Due to the word limit governing this study, I �������������������������������������������-22; Mk 1.16-20), the healing of his mother-in-law (Mt. 8.14-15; Mk 1.29-31), and the commissioning of the twelve (Mt. 10.1-4; Mk 3.14-19). This will not signi�cantly affect �ndings.19 Each reference will be analysed by comparing Matthew with Mark in order to determine the degree of concurrence with respect to settings and narrative frame. 5.3.a. Peter Walks on Water (Matthew 14.22-33; Mark 6.45-52) It has been frequently observed that prior to Matthew 14, the evangelist redacts freely, rearranging, adding, and subtracting material. 20 As he reaches ch. 6 of his primary source, Mark, his redaction becomes more restrained. From this point on, he follows Mark with a pronounced ������������� ����� ���� ���������� ����� ���������� ���������� ����������� omissions, or alterations do appear naturally assume potentially greater signi�cance as re�ecting a higher degree of uniqueness and redactional intentionality, whatever the bent of that intentionality may be��21 In chs 14�18, the evangelist has included �ve uniquely Matthean Petrine references (Mt. 14.28-31; 15.15; 16.17-19; 17.24-27; 18.21-22) that further emphasise his approach to the characterisation of Peter and begin to explicate for an audience the signi����������������������������Peter (10.2). These additions are set within a redactional emphasis on ecclesiological and community issues.22 The temporal settings of both accounts gain increasing focus as they unfold. Having received a report of the death of John the Baptist, Jesus �rst feeds �ve thousand at a late hour (Mk 6.30, 35; Mt. 14.13, 15), then remains on land during the evening (Mk 6.47; Mt. 14.23), and �nally approaches the disciples at the fourth watch (Mk 6.48; Mt. 14.25). The progression in time re�ects a parallel development in spatial settings. 19 These references to Peter were analysed in my doctoral thesis undertaken at the University of Shef�eld. 20 See, for example, H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (London: SCM, 1990), p.322. 21 A. J. Nau, Peter in Matthew: Discipleship, Diplomacy, and Dispraise (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1992), p.94. 22 ������������������������������������������������������������������������� and H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (2nd ed.; ET; London: SCM, 1983), pp.58�164 (111).

1

5. Aural Experience: Settings and Frames

135

Jesus �rst teaches and feeds a large crowd in a supposedly deserted place (Mk 6.31, 32, 35; Mt. 14.13). The Markan Jesus then sends his disciples ahead by boat to Bethsaida (Mk 6.45), while the Matthean Jesus simply ������������������������������������������������������������������������ mountain to pray (Mk 6.46; Mt. 14.23). 23 He then approaches his disciples in the boat by walking on water (Mk 6.48; Mt. 14.25). The high degree of concurrence in the settings of the two accounts suggests a retelling of the same event. The narrative frames of the two accounts likewise manifest a high degree of concurrence: Mk 6.45-52

Mt. 14.22-33

he compelled (�����������) his disciples (v. 45)

he compelled (�����������) the disciples (v. 22)

get into (���������) the boat (v. 45)

get into (���������) the boat (v. 22)

and go ahead (���������) (v. 45)

and go on ahead (���������) (v. 22)

he dismissed (���������) the crowd (v. 45)

he dismissed (�����������) the crowds (v. 22, see also v. 23)

he went up (���������) (v. 46)

he went up (�������) (v. 23)

to pray (�������������) (v. 46)

to pray (�������������) (v. 23)

he came (��������) (v. 48)

he came (������) (v. 25)

walking (����������) on the sea (v. 48)

walking (����������) on the sea (v. 25)

they saw (���������) him (v. 49)

the disciples saw (���������) him (v. 26)

they thought (�������) it was a ghost (v. 49) and cried out (�����������) (v. 49)

they cried out (��������) (v. 26)

they all saw (������) him (v. 50)

23 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew: Commentary on Matthew VIII�XVIII (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991), p.502; U. Luz, Matthew 8�20 (ET; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), p.318.

1

136

The Audience of Matthew

and were terri�ed (�������������) (v. 50)

they were terri�ed (�������������) (v. 26)

he says to them (������) (v. 50)

Jesus spoke to them (����������) (v. 27) Peter walks on water (vv. 28-31)

he got into (�������) the boat (v. 51)

they got into (�����������) the boat (v. 32)

the wind ceased (����������) (v. 51)

the wind ceased (����������) (v. 32) they worshiped (�������������) him (v. 33)

they were utterly astounded (�����������) (v. 51)

Both accounts include Jesus instructing his disciples to set out in a boat to the other side of the sea (Mk 6.45; Mt. 14.22), his dismissal of the crowd (Mk 6.45; Mt. 14.22), his time of prayer upon the mountain (Mk 6.46; Mt. 14.23), his approach on water to the disciples (Mk 6.48; Mt. 14.25), their perception of him as a ghost (Mk 6.49; Mt. 14.26), their reaction of fear (Mk 6.50; Mt. 14.26), his entry into the boat (Mk 6.51; Mt. 14.32), and the ceasing of the wind (Mk 6.51; Mt. 14.32). These parallels indicate that despite signi�cant redactional differences, we are dealing with variations on a theme. A greater degree of redactional variation is found in this story than encountered in previous parallel Petrine references.24 �������������������� Bethsaida (Mk 6.45; cf. Mt. 14.22) i������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� Mt. 14.26). In Mk 6.48, Jesus approaches the disciples in their boat upon seeing them straining at the oars against an adverse wind. He intended to ���������������������������������������������������������������culty at making headway against a strong wind, but does not identify this as the motive for the approach of Jesus walking on water (Mt. 14.24-25). Instead, his motives remain unstated.

1

24

Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, pp.498�9.

5. Aural Experience: Settings and Frames

137

Another more signi�cant difference is the Matthean account of Peter walking on water. In Mark, the disciples internally perceive Jesus to be a ghost. In Matthew, these thoughts are verbalised (cf. Mk 6.49 and Mt. 14.26). Following this, the wind ceases in Mark, whereas it continues blowing in Matthew, allowing for a further scene in which Peter seeks to con�rm the identity of Jesus by requesting that he be invited to approach on water. Upon seeing the storm, he doubts and sinks, and is identi�ed by Jesus as having little faith (Mt. 14.31; cf. Mk 6.30). The absence in Mark of this event precludes any comparison. Lastly, the two accounts differ in the tone of their conclusion. Mark concludes by ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� hearts (6.52), while Matthew ends positively with the disciples worshiping Jesus and their collective confession that he is the Son of God (Mt. 14.33). This confession both anticipates and pre-empts the later confession of Peter in Mt. 16.16. 5.2.b. De�lement (Matthew 15.1-20; Mark 7.1-23) ���������������������������������������������������������������������� represents a redactional addition to the Markan account. My task is to determine whether the Petrine reference would represent a marked choice for an audience of Matthew that would challenge any mental representations shaped by Mark. In terms of temporal setting, both evangelists situate the exchanges on de�lement as following the accounts of the feeding of the �ve thousand (Mt. 14.15-21; Mk 6.30-44), Jesus walking on water (Mt. 14.22-33; Mk 6.45-52), and the healing of the sick in Gennesaret (Mt. 14.34-36; Mk 6.53-56). Neither evangelist provides a speci�c time period between the healings of the sick and the commencement of the exchange. In terms of spatial setting, Mark describes Jesus as landing at Gennesaret, people from the region rushing to him, and then an extensive healing ministry in which Jesus toured villages, cities, and farms (Mk 6.53-56). In this context, Mark presents the Pharisees and some of the scribes as gathering around Jesus to question him regarding his disciples, who were eating bread with de�led hands (7.1-2). The reference to villages, cities, and farms precludes the identi�cation of a geographic setting any more speci�c than the region of Gennesaret. The ensuing dialogue on de�lement between Jesus and the disciples is located away from the ��������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������� ������������������� ����������������, and ������� ��� ����� ��������� ������ ��� ����� ���������� ��� ���������� ��������� However, Matthew does not locate the Jesus�disciple e���������������� 1

138

The Audience of Matthew

������������������������������������c location open (Mt. 15.12, 15).25 The common context of Gennesaret and the respective ambiguities in the two accounts indicate that we are again dealing with variations on a theme. An audience of Matthew familiar with Mark would integrate the new account within their existing mental representations. The narrative frames of both accounts share a common cast, a dispute between the Pharisees, scribes, ����������������������������������������� observe ritual purity laws (Mt. 15.2-9; Mk 7.2-13),26 a de�nition of de�lement given by Jesus to the crowd (Mt. 15.10-12; Mk 7.14-15), a request for clari�cation by the disciples/Peter (Mt. 15.15; Mk 7.17), and an explanation by Jesus (Mt. 15.16-20; Mk 7.18-23). Strong parallels are found between the beginnings and endings of the two accounts, af�rming for an audience their nature as parallel stories. 27 However, the order of ��������������������������������������������������������������������������

Pharisees and scribes approach Jesus Explanation of de�lement Question regarding the disciples Accusation of hypocrisy Tradition above commandment Explanation to the crowd Disciples defend the Pharisees Response to the disciples

Mk 7

Mt. 15

vv. 1-2 vv. 3-4 v. 5 vv. 6-7 vv. 8-13 vv. 13-15 vv. 12-14 vv. 17-23

v. 1 v. 2 vv. 7-9 vv. 3-6 vv. 10-11 vv. 15-20

Matthew reverses the order of Mk 7.6-13 so that the accusation of hypocrisy follows as a natural climax to the earlier accusation of preferencing tradition over commandment (Mt. 15.3-9).28 Matthew then reverts to the Markan order by proceeding with the calling and instruction of the crowd by Jesus (Mt. 15.10-12; Mk 7.13-15). The narrative frame of the request of Peter in Mt. 15.15 clearly parallels, with slight variations, that of the Markan disciples (Mk 7.17): 25 Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, p.532. 26 Malbon, Company�������������������������������������������traditions of the �������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 27 Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, pp.516�17; Luz, Matthew 8�20, pp.326�7. 28 O. L. Cope, Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1976), pp.52�3; Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, p.525; R. G. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p.305; Luz, Matthew 8�20, p.331. 1

5. Aural Experience: Settings and Frames

139

Mk 7.17-19

Mt. 15.15-17

his disciples asked (����������) him (v. 17)

answering, Peter said (������������ �� ������) to him (v. 15)

he says (������) to them (v. 18)

then he said (������) (v. 16)

The Markan account proceeds with the private question of the ���������������������������������������������������������������������� account of the disciples approaching Jesus in order to inform him of the Pharisees, who have taken offence. Peter is presumably included in this approach. Jesus responds by implying that the Pharisees are plants which were not planted by his heavenly Father and which will in the future be uprooted. In addition, they are blind guides of the blind, whom the disciples are to leave alone (Mt. 15.13-����� ���� ���������� ��� ������� response af�������������������������������������������������������������� Pharisees. Peter then requests an explanation of the parable on behalf of the other disciples (15.15). The question of the Matthean Peter parallels and replaces that of the Markan disciples. In both accounts, Jesus responds by addressing the disciples as a whole, accusing them of being without understanding (Mt. 15.16; Mk 7.18). Matthew strengthens ������� �������� ������ ������������������������������������ ������� ������� (Mt. 15.16).29 Jesus liter�������������������������������������������������� understanding�� Thus, the disciples were worse off than the Pharisees, who at least understood suf�ciently to be offended (Mt. 15.12). While differences are clearly apparent between the two accounts, similarities in settings and narrative frames would suggest that audiences would hear ������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������-28; Mark 8.27�9.1) Mark sets his account in the context of a two-stage healing of a blind man (8.22-26). The two stages re�ect the two perceptions of Jesus identi�ed in 8.27-30.30 No speci�c time setting is provided for the ensuing dialogue. Matthew does not retain the Markan setting, but rather situates the dialogue following a warning about the yeast of the Pharisees (Mt. 16.5-12). As with Mark, he refrains from setting a speci�c time context (16.13). The time ambiguity in both accounts would minimise any con�ict of experience for an audience.

29 Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, p.534. 30 E. K. Broadhead, Mark (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 2001), pp.74�7, 88� 9; Malbon, Company, pp.20, 39�40.

1

140

The Audience of Matthew

Regarding spatial setting, in Mark the dialogue is situated while Jesus and the d�������������������������������������������������������������� to the villages of Caesarea Philippi (Mk 8.22, 27). In Matthew, the ���������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� Again, this allows a degree of ambiguity that minimises con�ict with the Markan setting. Scholars have suggested that Matthew adopts and heightens the narrative dichotomy of Mark, in which Peter initially identi�es Jesus as the Messiah (Mk 8.29) and subsequently rebukes Jesus, leading to his identi�cation as Satan (8.31-33).31 There are clear parallels between the narrative frames of the two accounts: Jesus interrogates the disciples regarding the perceptions of the people (Mt. 16.13; Mk 8.27); the disciples list various opinions (Mt. 16.14; Mk 8.28); Jesus enquires as to their own perception (Mt. 16.15; Mk 8.29); Peter declares him the Messiah (Mt. 16.16; Mk 8.29); Jesus commands them to silence (Mt. 16.20; Mk 8.30); Jesus outlines his future (Mt. 16.21; Mk 8.31); Peter rebukes, and is rebuked by, Jesus (Mt. 16.22-23; Mk 8.31-33); and Jesus teaches about discipleship (Mt. 16.24-28; Mk 8.34-38). The extent of these parallels would indicate that a Matthean audience would integrate its experience of his account within any mental representation that might originate from a hearing of Mark: Mk 8.27-33

Mt. 16.13-23

Jesus went out (���������) (v. 27)

Jesus came (�������) (v. 13)

he asked (��������� ����������) his disciples (v. 27)

he asked (������� ����������) his disciples (v. 13)

and they answered (������ ���� ���������) him (v. 28)

and they said (������) (v. 14)

he asked (���������) them (v. 29)

he said (������) to them (v. 15)

Peter answered (������������ ���� ������) him (v. 29)

Simon Peter answered (������������ ����������) (v. 16)

31 T. Wiarda, Peter in the Gospels: Pattern, Personality and Relationship (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000)��������������������������������������������������� ��� ���� ������� ��� ���������� ��� Characterization in the Gospel: Reconceiving Narrative Criticism (D. Rhoads and K. Syreeni, eds; Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1999), pp.106�52 (130).

1

5. Aural Experience: Settings and Frames

141

Jesus answered (������������ ���� ������) him (v. 17) he ordered (������������) them (v. 30)

he ordered (������������) the disciples (v. 20)

he began (�������) to teach (����������) them (v. 31)

Jesus began (�������) to show (����������) his disciples (v. 21)

and Peter took (��������������) him aside (v. 32)

and Peter took (��������������) him aside (v. 22)

and began (�������) to rebuke (����������) him (v. 32)

and began (�������) to rebuke (����������) him (v. 22)

turning (�������������) and looking at his disciples, he rebuked (������������ ����������) Peter (v. 33)

he turned (���������) and said (������) to Peter (v. 23)

Signi�cant differences exist between the accounts. Are these differences of such a nature that they would annul the effect of the common narrative ������� ��� ��� ����������� ������ �����ience? A brief consideration of redactional differences will enable us to judge the matter. 32 A number of Matthean omissions from the Markan account may be noted. First, in Mark, after Peter had taken Jesus aside and rebuked him, Jesus turned and, while looking at the disciples, rebuked Peter (Mk 8.33). The involvement of the disciples may be either implicitly to include them in the rebuke or publicly to shame Peter in their presence. Matthew 16.23 omits this reference to the disciples. The rebuke of Jesus is directed solely to Peter. A second similar Matthean omission may be observed in ������������������������������������������������������������������������� the audience for the comments of Jesus on the nature of true discipleship (Mt. 16.24; Mk 8.34). The Matthean account removes the crowd from the audience, with the teachings solely addressed to the disciples. The inclusion of both the crowds and the disciples in the Markan account make the teachings of Mk 8.34-38 into a general invitation to both existin������������������������������������������������������������������� disciples, lending the teachings the quality of a rebuke. These two omissions are fundamentally unlikely to distinguish the aural experiences of the accounts in that where Mark cites the dual audiences of Peter and the disciples (Mk 8.33), and then the disciples and the crowd (8.34), 32 Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, pp.603�4, 670; Luz, Matthew 8�20, pp.349�50, 380�1; D. A. Hagner, Matthew 14�28 (Dallas: Word, 1995), p.464. 1

142

The Audience of Matthew

�������������������������������������������������������������������������� from introducing any new characters. Matthew includes a number of additions to Mark. First, the response of the disciples to the initial question of Jesus regarding the views of the populace includes the additional association of Jesus with the prophet ���������������������������������������������������������������������� question regardin�� ���� ���������� �������� �������� ������� ������� ��� �������������������������������������������������������������������� �����������������������������������ed from a declaration of the Messiahship of Jesus to include his status as Son of the living God (Mt. 16.16; Mk 8.29). Fourthly, the internal proleptic prediction of the suffering awaiting the Son of Man is preceded in the Matthean account by the additional warning that Jerusalem would be the locus of events (Mt. ����������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������� �����������������������������������������������������In response, the Matthean Jesus quali�es his rebuke with the additional identi�cation of Peter as a stumbling block (cf. Mt. 16.23; Mk 8.33). This contrasts with the earlier identi��������������������������������������������������������� additions retain their Markan context and would have most probably been experienced by an audience as simply a more detailed account of the same events. Matthew has reshaped his source into the following structure: 33 A1

Question to the disciples concerning the Son of Man (16.13-14) B1

���������������������nd the response of Jesus (16.15-20) C

B2 A

2

��������������������������������������������������� and resurrection (16.21)

����������������������������������������������������-23)

Instructions to the disciples concerning the Son of Man (16.24-28)

The emphatic characterisation of Peter resulting from the additions noted above, and the elimination of the crowds from the audience in Mt. 16.24, highlight this structural shaping. This further involves the moving of the �rst Markan Son of Man reference, included in the teaching of Jesus ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 33 On the triadic repetition of thesis statement plus antithetical couplet in Mt. 16.17�19, see Gundry, Matthew, p.331; Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, p.602; Luz, Matthew 8�20, pp.354�5. 1

5. Aural Experience: Settings and Frames

143

��������������������������������������������������������������������Who ������������������������������W������������������������������������������ (Mt. 16.13; cf. Mk 8.27). There is no indication that in Matthew the populace or the disciples identi�ed Jesus as the Son of Man. Instead the ���������� ��� ���� ��������� ��������� ���� ����� ��� ����� ���������� ��� ��� inclusio device.34 It is unlikely that this redaction would distinguish the ��������������������������������������������������������������������� signi�cantly change either the content or order of the dialogue. Before turning to the impact of the accounts, it is apposite brie�y to consider the Matthean usage of names with respect to Peter. In Mark, up until the appointing of the disciples in Mk 3.16-19, Peter is consistently referred to as Simon (Mk 1.1, 29, 36; 3.16). In Mk 3.16, the narrator quali�es Simon as the one to whom Jesus gave the name Peter. Thereafter, Simon is referred to as Peter (Mk 5.37; 8.29, 32; 9.2, 5; 10.28; 11.21; 13.3; 14.29, 33, 54, 66, 70, 72; 16.7). The exception to this is found when Jesus questions Peter concerning his inability to stay awake in the Garden of Gethsemane (14.37). In this instance, Jesus reverts to the pre-calling use of Simon. For Mark, the renaming of Simon to Peter is implied during the apostolic appointing in 3.16. This reveals a relatively simple distinction between pre- and post-appointing references. Difference in usage represents an intra-narrative time distinction. In contrast, Matthew refers to Simo���������������������� ����� �rst ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� Simon is likewise identi������������������������������������������������ every narrative reference utilises Peter (Mt. 14.28; 15.15; 16.16, 18, 22; 17.1, 4, 24, 26; 18.21; 19.27; 26.33, 35, 37, 40, 58, 69, 73, 75). The ������������������������������������������������������������������������ time context, distinguishing it from the time of Jesus. This is further evidence that the evangelist distinguished between the time of the church and the time of Jesus. Interestingly, at no point in the Gospel, except in ����������������������������������������35 Even in this instance it is more of a declaration than a direct address. The only other instances of Peter b��������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������� ������ ����� ����� ��� ���� ����� ��� ���� �������� ���� ����������� ���������� ��� Simon Peter in 16.16 should also be read in this light. The use of Simon by both the narrator and Jesus in 16.16-17 reveals a strategy intended deliberately ��� ������� ���� ����������� ���������� ����� ����� ������ ���� context and towards the time of events the Gospel purports to recount.

1

34 35

Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, p.617. Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, pp.625�7.

144

The Audience of Matthew

As noted in Chapter 1, the time of Jesus and the time of the church are distinguished by the evangelist and should not be equated as one and the same. This distinction, in addition to the parallels in settings and narra������������������������������������������������������d be accommo������ ������� ���� ��������� ������� ��������������� ������� ��� ������� account. 5.2.d. The Trans�guration (Matthew 17.1-8; Mark 9.2-8) Both trans�������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� 36 This speci�c setting contrasts with a preceding series of unspeci�ed temporal settings.37 It is not necessary for the purposes of this analysis to determine the authorial intention behind this shift. It is simply suf�cient to note the concurrence between the two accounts. In terms of spatial setting, the two accounts situate the trans�guration on a ����� �������� ����������������������������������� 38 Both evangelists avoid identifying a speci�c mountain. This minimises any potential con�ict between the accounts and permits those in an audience conversant with Hebrew writings to attribute a typological function to the setting. Various options have been suggested. An audience might draw parallels with Mounts Moriah or Carmel (cf. 1 Kgs 18), a mountain top throne setting (cf. Pss. 2.6; 48.2; Jer. 8.19; Jub. 1.27-29; 1 En. 18.8), or eschatological traditions (cf. Gen. 7.19-20; Isa. 14.13; 28.4; Ezek. 40.2; T. Levi 2.5; Rev. 21.10). It is more likely, however, that parallels would be drawn with Sinai. Dale Allison summarises succinctly the parallels with Exodus 24 and 34 and the Markan account: [B]oth Mark and the Torah refer to (i) a high mountain (Exod. 24.12, 1518; 34.3; Mark 9.2); (ii) a cloud that descends and overshadows that mountain (Exod. 24.15-18; 34.5; Mark 9.7); (iii) a voice from the cloud (Exod. 24.16; Mark 9.7); (iv) the radiance of the central �gure (Exod. 36 ���������������������� (Mt. 17.1); ����������������������� (Mk 9.2). It is unclear in Matthew as to whether this refers to after 16.13, 21 or 24. See A. D. A. Moses, ���������� ������guration Story and Jewish�Christian Controversy (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1996), pp.26, 30; A. Y. Collins, Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), p.420. 37 Non-speci���������������������������������������������������������������� death include: Mt. 14.13; 15.1, 21, 29; 16.13, 21; Mk 6.30; 7.1, 24, 31; 8.1, 11, 14, 22, 27. See Cope, Matthew, p.100; R. H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), p.457. 38 See Moses, Trans�guration, pp.117������������������������������barung������������������������Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthäus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), p.98. 1

5. Aural Experience: Settings and Frames

145

34.29-30, 35; Mark 9.2-3); (v) the fear of those who saw the radiance (Exod. 34.29-30; Mark 9.6; cf. 1 En. 89.34); (vi) the presence of a special group of three (Exod. 24.16; Mark 9.2); and (vii) occurrence after six days (Exod. 24.16; Mark 9.2).39

�������� ��������� ����� ��� ��������� �������� ����� ����� ���������� ���� ������� coincidental or that they were missed by Matthew. 40 He further argues that such Matthean manipulations as the listing of Moses before Elijah ������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������� emphasise these parallels.41 Whether or not such parallels were noted by an audience does not detract from the fact that both accounts situate events in the same geographic setting. Such parallels simply highlight the fact that both Mark and Matthew would have been integrated within existing mental representations shaped by previous traditions. The narrative frames of the two accounts indicate a number of close parallels: Jesus takes three disciples up a high mountain (Mk 9.2; Mt. 17.1), he is trans�gured before them (Mk 9.2-3; Mt. 17.2), Moses and Elijah appear and converse with Jesus (Mk 9.4; Mt. 17.3), Peter interjects with an offer of help (Mk 9.5; Mt. 17.4), a pronouncement is made from an overshadowing cloud (Mk 9.7; Mt. 17.5), the three disciples react with fear (to the trans�guration, in Mk 9.6, and to the voice from the cloud, in Mt. 17.6); Moses and Elijah disappear (Mk 9.8; Mt. 17.8). Mk 9.2-8

Mt. 17.1-8

Jesus takes (�������������) with him Peter (v. 2)

Jesus takes (�������������) with him Peter (v. 1)

and leads (����������) them up (v. 2)

and leads (����������) them up (v. 1)

he was trans�gured (������������) (v. 2)

he was trans�gured (������������) (v. 2) his face shone (��������) (v. 2)

his clothes became (���������) (v. 3)

his clothes became (���������) (v. 2)

there appeared (�����) to them (v. 4)

there appeared (�����) to them (v. 3)

39 D. C. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), pp.243�4. 40 Allison, New Moses, p.244. 41 Allison, New Moses, p.244.

1

146

The Audience of Matthew

speaking with (�������������) Jesus (v. 4)

speaking with (�������������) him (v. 3)

answering, Peter says (������������ ����������) (v. 5)

answering, Peter said (������������ ����������) (v. 4)

they were terri�ed (�������� [��� ����������) (v. 6) a cloud overshadowed (��������������) them (v. 7)

a bright cloud overshadowed (������������) them (v. 5)

there came a voice (��������� ����) (v. 7)

a voice said (��������) (v. 5) they fell (�������) (v. 6) and were overcome by fear (������������) (v. 6) Jesus came (����������) (v. 7) and touched them (����������) (v. 7) saying (������) (v. 7)

they looked around (���������������) (v. 8)

they looked up (����������� ��������� �����������) (v. 8)

they saw (������) no one (v. 8)

they saw (������) no one (v. 8)

Clearly an audience of Matthew would associate the events described in Mt. 17.1-8 with those recounted in Mk 9.2-8. However, differences remain between the two accounts. 42 I shall concentrate on those that speci�cally relate to Peter. First, John is quali�ed in Matthew as the brother of James (cf. Mt. 4.21). Such quali�cation is absent in both Mk 9.2 and Lk. 9.28. The Matthean redaction stresses the sibling relationship between James and John, thereby emphasising the independent status of Peter. Secondly, Matthew has dramatis��� �������� ������ ��� �������� ���������� ��� ��������� ���� ������� �������� ��� �������� �� �������43 42 Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, pp.684�7; Moses, Trans�guration, pp.48, 114�60. 43 This re�ects the elimination of Markan Aramaic terms such as talitha koum (Mt. 9.25; Mk 5.41), korban (Mt. 15.5; Mk 7.11), ephathatha (Mt. 15.30; Mk 7.34), and Abba (Mt. 26.39; Mk 14.36).

1

5. Aural Experience: Settings and Frames

147

inserting a query regarding the desire of Jesus (��� �������), and refocusing the plural ���������� to the singular ������� (Mt. 17.4; Mk 9.5). The effect is to emphasise the offer as one made speci�cally on the initiative of Peter. Thirdly, as noted, a further difference is the source of the disciples�� fear. In Mark, the disciples react with fear to the trans�guration of Jesus and the appearance of Elijah with Moses (Mk 9.4-����������������������� manifestation of this fear. The cloud then descends, the voice instructs, and the three disciples are left with Jesus, their fear presumably having been somewhat calmed by the instruction to listen to the Beloved Son (9.7). The offer of Peter is a manifestation of their collective fear. Peter speaks as a representative voice. In Matthew, however, the reaction of fear is not in response to the trans�guration, but rather in response to hearing the voice from the cloud (Mt. 17.6). Peter is characterised as self-con�dent, willing to interrupt the conversation between Jesus, Moses, ������������������������������������������������������������������� (17.4). Peter offers personally to get involved with the proceedings. There is no intimation of fear at this point. The interruption of Jesus by Peter is then followed by the interruption of Peter by the voice from the cloud. The instruction to listen to Jesus m������������������������������ earlier desire that Jesus listen and respond to his offer. Following the �����������������������������������������������������that of James and John, one of fear. This fear is only quieted after the disciples have been touched by Jesus and listened to his command to get up and not be afraid (17.7). These changes, while reshaping the role of Peter, do not subvert the common narrative frame or challenge the reliable point of view in the accounts, that of the voice from the cloud. 5.2.e. The Temple Tax (Matthew 17.24-27) The absence of a parallel Markan account (cf. Mk 9.33) precludes any direct comparison with the Matthean temple tax account. However, consideration may be given to determine whether an audience would perceive the characterisation of Peter to be consistent with previous Petrine narratives.44 An additional importance to our discussion of this uniquely Matthean account resides in its portrayal of one of the few instances in which Peter interacts with the Jewish authorities. Peter is approached by the collectors of the temple tax who enquire as to whether his teacher pays the tax.45 Their motive is to ascertain whether Jesus 44 Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, p.737; Luz, Matthew 8�20, p.413. 45 For various positions on the nature of the tax involved, see Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, pp.738�42; Luz, Matthew 8�20, pp.414�15; D. E. 1

148

The Audience of Matthew

perceives his identity and ministry as subordinate to the temple system. Peter is perceived as the authoritative means by which the point of view of Jesus may be accessed. He is also clearly viewed by the collectors to be subordinate to Jesus, identi�ed as his teacher (Mt. 17.24). The response of Peter reveals no hint of hostility or antagonism on the part of either himself or Jesus towards the authorities. Instead, he af�rms that Jesus pays the tax and therefore has an essentially positive stance towards the authorities. This Petrine point of view is gently challenged by the all-knowing Jesus, who, addressing Peter as the pre-confession ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� that as royal children they are not obliged to pay the tax (17.25). Jesus is clearly referring to both himself and Peter, as demonstrated by the predicted miraculous provision of a coin to pay their dues (17.27). Implementation of the miracle is assumed. Payment of the tax is made not out of a sense of duty to the temple but rather out of a desire to avoid offending the authorities (17.27). Self-denial and the avoidance of scandal is the way of discipleship.46 The issue that divides Peter and Jesus, neither of whom seek to antagonise the authorities, is whether Jesus and his disciples are obligated to the temple, as intimated by Peter, or have the right to give or withdraw their support as circumstances dictate. The normative point of view of Jesus proves decisive; the disciples are not obliged. This viewpoint remains consistent as indicated by the later sayings of Jesus on the ����������� �������� to live without the temple (Mt. 21.21-22) and its impending destruction (24.1-2). The progression in the account from rock-like Peter (17.24), to the possibility of giving offence in v. 27, may remind an audience of the earlier Petrine progression from rock to stumbling block in 16.13-23. The way out for Peter is through the ������������������������������������������������������������������������� narrator was less than willing to offer clear-cut solutions��47 The provision of coins in such a manner does not represent a normative practice an audience could follow. Instead, the audience is invited to adopt the point of view of Jesus, to live without the temple, thus negating the need for such face-saving acts. The gentle reversal Peter experiences in this account accords with previous Petrine reversals (cf. Mt. 14.22-33;

������������������������������������������25 and the Principle of not Causing �������������Treasures New and Old: Recent Contributions to Matthean Studies (D. Bauer and M. A. Powell, eds; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), pp.74�87. 46 ������������������������ 47 ������������������������ 1

5. Aural Experience: Settings and Frames

149

16.13-23; 17.1-8) and as such would not present an audience with a marked choice that would challenge previously constructed mental representations relating to Peter. 5.2.f. Church Discourse (Matthew 18.1-35; Mark 9.33-50) As with the reference to Peter in Mt. 17.24-27, I will now seek to determine whether the uniquely Petrine reference in 18.21 would have been understood by an audience as being consistent with previous Petrine references. Matthew 18.21-22 is set within the context of the fourth discourse (18.1�19.1), utilising source material from Mk 9.3350.48 Both accounts utilise a spatial setting of Capernaum, with Mark speci������� ���������� ���� ���������� ���� ���� ������� ����� ��� ������ ���� 17.24). Both time settings follow the second passion prediction, delivered by Jesus to his disciples somewhere in Galilee (cf. Mk 9.30-32; Mt. 18.22-23). Both discourses are given in response to a dispute amongst the disciples as to who is the greatest in the kingdom (Mk 9.34; Mt. 18.1). Helmut Koester rightly suggests that Matthew has used this Markan material in the order he found it, developing material from Mk 9.33-50, while omitting vv. 38-41. Mark is used at the beginning of the discourse, then sources common to Luke follow (cf. Lk. 15.3-7; 17.3), after which special sources dominate. 49 In Luke, the forgiveness saying is placed upon the lips of Jesus (17.4) within a context that includes further parallels to the Matthean discourse (Mt. 18.6-7/Lk. 17.1-2; Mt. 18.15/Lk. 17.3). In contrast, Matthew develops the forgiveness saying into a dialogue between Peter and Jesus, the function of which is to introduce the second section of the discourse. The repetition of the question�answer�discourse structure in Mt. 18.120 and vv. 21-35 would suggest that the point of view of Peter is equated with that of the other eleven disciples.50 The structural parallels between vv. 1-5 and vv. 21-22 are further emphasised in the content of the ������������������������������������������W��������������������������������� �������������������H������������������������������������������������������ conception of discipleship. This would suggest that Peter, who seeks further clari�cation regarding the right �������� ��������������������� 48 W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964), pp.399�400. 49 Koester, Gospels, pp.324�5. 50 Nau, Peter, pp.43�5. Luz, Matthew 8�20, pp.422�3, 465. Contrast D. Patte, ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), pp.247�52; Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, pp.750�1. 1

150

The Audience of Matthew

�������� ����� �������� ����� �������� ����� ������� ��� ����� ��� ������������ essentially the same point of view as that of the other disciples. Further to this, the movement from the disciples (18.1) to Peter (18.21) may remind an audience of the earlier shifts in focalisation from the disciples to Peter in 14.22-33 and 16.13-20. The discourse ends in 18.35 with an appeal to forgive (pl.) every brother from the heart. Jesus clearly does not address Peter alone, but rather widens his appeal to include both the ������� ���������� ���� ���� ��������� ���������� ������������� �������� ����� within this account as that of spokesman represents an unmarked choice for an audience already familiar with previous Petrine interventions. 5.2.g. The Rewards of Discipleship (Matthew 19.23-30; Mark 10.2831) Both accounts of the Peter�Jesus dialogue on the rewards of discipleship are chronologically set following earlier encounters between Jesus and the Pharisees (Mk 10.2-9; Mt. 19.3-12), and Jesus and the rich man (Mk 10.2-9; Mt. 19.16-22). In terms of spatial setting, the Markan Jesus enters ���� ��� ����� ���� ���������� [����] ������ ���� ���������� ���������� ��������������������������������������������������. The inclusion of ��� is disputed in that it is present in Alexandrian texts (�, B, C, et al.), and absent in Western and Antiochian texts (C2, D, W, et al.).51 Mark refers �rst to Judea, even though Jesus will have to approach Jerusalem from the direction of Transjordan (Mk 10.32, 46; 11.1). Robert Gundry ������������������������������������������������������������������������� there (cf. his putting the ultimate goal Jerusalem �rst in 11.1 and then working backward through Bethphage and Bethany � also 7.31, and see ������������������������������������������������������������������52 The ���������� ���������� ������������������������������� �� Matthew who states that Jesus went ���� ��� ����� ���� ���������� ������ ���� ���������� �������������������������������������������������������� 53 Despite this difference, audiences would most likely understand both geographic references as indicating that Jesus went from Galilee to Judea, by way of Perea.54 51 B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964), pp.42�57; B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), pp.87�8. 52 Gundry, Mark, p.529. 53 W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew: Commentary on Matthew XIX�XXVIII (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997), pp.6�7; Luz, Matthew 8�20, p.488. 54 Collins, Mark, p.457; Davies and Allison, Matthew XIX�XXVIII, p.7. 1

5. Aural Experience: Settings and Frames

151

In terms of narrative frames, both accounts achieve a sense of lively dialogue through the use of an alternating sequence of comments and reactions involving Jesus and the disciples: Mk 10.23-31

Mt. 19.23-30

Jesus looked around (���������������) (v. 23) and says (������) to his disciples (v. 23)

Jesus said (������) to his disciples (v. 23)

the disciples were perplexed (������������) (v. 24) answering, Jesus said (������������ ������) (v. 24) the disciples heard (������������) (v. 25) they were greatly astounded (��������������) (v. 26)

they were greatly astounded (��������������) (v. 25)

and said to one another (��������� ����� ���������) (v. 26)

and said (���������) (v. 25)

Jesus looked (����������) at them (v. 27)

Jesus looked (����������) at them (v. 26)

and says (������) (v. 27)

and said (������) (v. 26)

Peter began to say (�������� �������) (v. 28)

Peter said in reply (������������ ���� ������) (v. 27)

Jesus said (����) (v. 29)

Jesus said (������) (v. 28)

The Markan seven-stage sequence of Jesus�disciples�Jesus�disciples� Jesus�Peter�Jesus (Mk 10.23-31) is simpli�ed through the omission of ����������������rst reaction (10.24) into the �ve-stage Matthean sequence of Jesus�disciples�Jesus�Peter�Jesus (Mt. 19.23-30).55 In addition to the various acts of speech, both accounts portray Jesus as speci�cally look�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 55 Gundry, Matthew, pp.391�5; Davies and Allison, Matthew XIX�XXVIII, p.51; Luz, Matthew 8�20, p.510. 1

152

The Audience of Matthew

reaction to his words (Mk 10.26; Mt. 19.25). These similarities and the concurrence in speech content would suggest to an audience that the two accounts represent two retellings of the same dialogue in which Peter plays an equivalent role. Are there any other signi�cant redactional variations that might challenge this conclusion? Two variations will be considered. First, Mark ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������7). He then expands the Markan ������������������������������������������������������������������������ effect on an audience is one of clari�cation. That which is implicit in Mark is made explicit in Matthew. 56 Secondly, Jesus, in response to Peter, outlines the rewards awaiting ����������������������������������������������������������������������� received both in the present and in the future. In the present age, Markan disciples will receive a hundredfold of those things they have left, quali�ed by the observation that they will be accompanied by persecutions (Mk 10.30). In the age to come they will receive eternal life. Likewise, Lukan d������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� disciples are all to be received in the age to come. These include thrones of judgement, a hundredfold of those earthly possessions given up for the cause of Jesus, and eternal life (Mt. 19.28-29). This emphasis on the future is arguably the most signi�cant redactional change made by ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ����� ���������� ��� ����������� ���������� ������� ���� ���������� ���� ������������������������������������������������������������� 57 Thus, any aggrandisement of Peter himself or a Petrine leader within the authorial context is precluded.58 The deliberate bypassing of the time of the church would further argue for its relative signi�cance in terms of local community reconstructions. In conclusion, these two changes clarify and ������� ������� ����� �������� ������� �������� ���� ���� ��� ������������� ����������������������������������������������������

56 Nau, Peter, p.82; Davies and Allison, Matthew XIX�XXVIII, p.54. 57 Gundry, Matthew, p.394; Nau, Peter, p.82; Davies and Allison, Matthew XIX�XXVIII, pp.57�8. 58 Contrast F. W. Beare, The Gospel according to Matthew: A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1981), p.400.

1

5. Aural Experience: Settings and Frames

153

5.2.h. Declaration of Fidelity (Matthew 26.30-35; Mark 14.26-31) ��� ����� ���������� �������� ������������ ��� �delity to Jesus is set at an unspeci�ed location on the Mount of Olives (Mk 14.26; Mt. 26.30). 59 In Mark, this follows the earlier departure of Jesus and his disciples from the large furnished upper room where they had eaten the Passover meal (Mk 14.15). The parallel Matthean account is set in the residence of the mysterious ���� ������ ���-and-��� (Mt. 26.18).60 The time setting of both accounts is that of the evening of the �rst day of the feast of Unleavened Bread (Mk 14.12, 17; Mt. 26.17, 20). In terms of narrative frames, both accounts include Jesus and the ���������� ���������� ���� ���� ������ ��� �������� ������� ����������� ��� ���� ���������� ��� ���� ����������� �������� �������� ���� ������������ ��� �delity, ������� ����������� ��� �������� �������� �������� ������� ���������ion, and �nally the concurrence of the other disciples with Peter (Mt. 26.30-35; Mk 14.26-31): Mk 14.26-31

Mt. 26.30-35

they had sung (������������) (v. 26)

they had sung (������������) (v. 30)

they went out (���������) (v. 26)�

they went out (���������) (v. 30)

and Jesus says (������) (v. 27)

Jesus says (������) (v. 31)

Peter says (����) (v. 29)

answering, Peter said (�����������������������) (v. 33)

Jesus says (������) (v. 30)

Jesus said (����) (v. 34)

[Peter] said vehemently (��������������������) (v. 31)

Peter says (������) (v. 35)

all of them said (�������) (v. 31)

so said (������) all (v. 35)

These extensive parallel acts would allow a Matthean audience to interpret the account within any mental representations shaped by Mark. Do redactional differences challenge this conclusion? Three of the most signi������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� become deserters because of you, I will never (������������������������

1

59 60

Collins, Mark, pp.667�9; Davies and Allison, Matthew XIX�XXVIII, p.484. BDAG, p.215, ������ refers to a person one cannot or does not wish to name.

154

The Audience of Matthew

(Mt. 26.33).61 ��������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� nig��������������������������������������������������������-time setting ������������������������������62 Instead, the Matthean Jesus introduces ����� ��� ���� ������������ ����� ���� ���� ����� ���� ���� ������������ ���� ����� ��������������������������������es the Markan reference to the cock ������������������������������������������������������� These instances are of a minor nature and do not obscure the fact that Matthew, in contrast to Lk. 22.31-34, remains largely faithful to his Markan source. 5.2.i. Prayer in the Garden (Matthew 26.36-46; Mark 14.32-42) There is a high degree of concurrence between the settings of both accounts. They are set ����������� ����������������������������������� 14.32; Mt. 26.36). In terms of time settings, both accounts immediately foll���������������������������delity (Mk 14.27-31; Mt. 26.31-35). The narrative frames likewise indicate a high degree of accord. Jesus goes with his disciples to Gethsemane (Mk 14.32; Mt. 26.36), where he then prays, accompanied from a distance by Peter and the sons of Zebedee (Mk 14.33-34; Mt. 26.37-38). The three disciples are unable to ������������������������������������������������������������-42; Mt. 26.39-46).63 Mk 14.32-42

Mt. 26.36-46

they go (���������) (v. 32)

Jesus went (��������) (v. 36)

he says (������) (v. 32)

and he says (������) (v. 36)

he takes (�������������) with him Peter (v. 33)

he took (����������) with him Peter (v. 37)

and began (�������) to be distressed (��������������) and agitated (�����������) (v. 33)

and began (�������) to be grieved (����������) and agitated (�����������) (v. 37)

and says (������) (v. 34)

he says (������) (v. 38)

61 Davies and Allison, Matthew XIX�XXVIII, p.487, suggest that ���������� ����������������������������� 62 Gundry, Matthew, p.530; Collins, Mark, p.672. 63 Davies and Allison, Matthew XIX�XXVIII, pp.490�1; U. Luz, Matthew 21�28 (ET; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), pp.392�3; Broadhead, Mark, p.109.

1

5. Aural Experience: Settings and Frames

155

and going (���������) (v. 35)

and going (���������) (v. 39)

he threw (��������) himself on the ground (v. 35)

he threw (�������) himself on the ground (v. 39)

and prayed (�����������) (v. 35)

and prayed (��������������) (v. 39)

he said (�������) (v. 36) he comes (��������) (v. 37)

he comes (��������) (v. 40)

and �nds (����������) them (v. 37)

and �nds (����������) them (v. 40)

and he says (������) to Peter (v. 37)

and he says (������) to Peter (v. 40)

he went away (���������) (v. 39)

he went (���������) away (v. 42)

and prayed (�����������) (v. 39)

and prayed (�����������) (v. 42)

saying (�������) (v. 39)

saying (������) (v. 42)

once more he came (�������) (v. 40)

again he came (�������) (v. 43)

and found (������) them (v. 40)

and found (������) them (v. 43) leaving (�������) them (v. 44) he went away (���������) (v. 44) and prayed (�����������) (v. 44) saying (�������) (v. 44)

he comes (��������) (v. 41)

he comes (��������) (v. 45)

and says (������) (v. 41)

and says (������) (v. 45)

This degree of harmony suggests that is it highly probable that an audience of Matthew would incorporate his account into any mental representation shaped by Mark. Do editorial differences challenge this conclusion? A number of Matthean elements require consideration. 64 First, Mark reports in indirect speech the request of Jesus that the hour might pass from him (Mk 14.35), and then in direct speech the plea that 64 Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew XIX�XXVIII, pp.491�3; Luz, Matthew 21�28, pp.393�4. 1

156

The Audience of Matthew

�������������������������������������������������������������������� these two appeals into one entreaty in direct speech (Mt. 26.39). The result is a less verbose and more focused request. Secondly, the Markan ���������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������� deeming it unnecessary due to the narr������� ���������� ����������� of the disciples as asleep (Mt. 26.40). Thirdly, Matthew inserts the �������������������������������������������������������������������������� while I go over there ��������������������������������������������������� ��� �������� ��� ���� ���������� �������� ���������� �������� ������� ������� reference ������������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������������������� ������ ����������������������������������������������������is to highlight the failure of the disciples as relating directly to their relationship with Jesus. ��������� �������� ����������� ���� ������� ������� ��������� ��� ������� ����������� ���� �������� ����� ����� ������������ ��������������������� you not strong enou������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������������������������� injunction to all the disciples. Peter is singled out as the spokesperson but the question and appeal relates to all the disciples (Mt. 26.40-41).65 These differences clarify and re�ne the Markan account. This leaves us with the most signi�cant redactional difference to consider, namely the Matthean repetition of the prayers of Jesus and his questioning of the disciples. The second prayer of the Markan Jesus is described simply ������������������������������������������rst prayer (Mk 14.39). After praying, he came to the disciples who were again sleeping, but who presumab������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ Matthean Jesus is described in direct speech, and consists of an ampli�cation and repetition of his �rst prayer (Mt. 26.39, 42). When Jesus approaches the disciples and �nds them sleeping he does not awake them, but instead leaves them and proceeds with his third session of prayer. This third session is not described by Mark, but is simply implied ���������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������������������������������� �����������������������������������������������������������ed Mar���� 65 See Wilkins, The Concept of Disciple�������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1

5. Aural Experience: Settings and Frames

157

brief description of the second prayer and implied third prayer into a direct speech second prayer and brie�y described third prayer. The result is that focus is maintained on Jesus, in contrast to the shift in the Markan account from Jesus (Mk 14.32-36) to the disciples (14.37-41).66 As with the previous differences, this shift in emphasis, while signi�cant, does �������������������������������������������������������������� 5.2.j. Peter Follows the Arrested Jesus (Matthew 26.58; Mark 14.54) The time setting of both accounts is not speci�cally stated. This is not, ����������� ����������������� ����������������������������������� ������� arrest and relocation to the house of Caiaphas the high priest takes place during the night of the Passover celebration (cf. Mk 14.17; Mt. 26.31). In terms of spatial setting, the Markan Jesus is taken to the high priest, with whom the chief priests, elders, and scribes assemble (Mk 14.53). At this point, the location is unspeci�ed. An audience is then informed that Peter has followed Jesus ���� ���� ������� ���� ����������� ������ ���� courtyard of the high priest� (14.54). Matthew likewise has Jesus being taken to Caiaphas the high priest, with whom the scribes and elders gather (Mt. 26.57). The location is then made explicit through the description of Peter as following Jesus ���� ���� ������� ���� ����������� ���� �������������������������������������������������������������������������� both accounts include Peter following Jesus at a distance and then sitting with the high p����������������������������������������� Do redactional activities negate these similarities? I shall consider the most signi�cant redaction.67 Mark 14.54 uses a combined periphrastic construction, comprised of ������������� ��������������������and ������� �������� �����������������������implicitly to portray Peter as sitting by the �re (��� ����) in order to keep warm. In contrast, the Matthean ������������������������������������������������������������������������ courtyard and sits ������� ��� ������ ���������������� (Mt. 26.58). This difference, while signi�cant, does not subvert the similarities between the two accounts in terms of settings and narrative frames. �������������������������������������������-75; Mark 14.66-72) The time settings in both ���������������������������������������������c in that they are sequential to the parallel events of Mk 14.53-54 and Mt. 26.57-58, and concurrent to the trial of Jesus before the high priest and council (Mk 14.55-65; Mt. 26.59-68). Agreement is likewise found in the spatial setting ��� ���� ������ ��������������������������������������������������

1

66 67

Collins, Mark, p.680. Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew XIX�XXVIII, p.520.

158

The Audience of Matthew

(Mk 14.66; Mt. 26.69). ����� ������� ������ ��� ���� ���������� ��������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������� the sense of exclusion. In Mark, Peter moves from the courtyard into the forecourt (���� ��� ����������, Mk 14.68). Matthew parallels this move, with Peter moving into the porch (���� ���� �������, Mt. 26.71), and then �nally departing (26.75). Both narrative frames involve an increasingly intense thrice-repeated accusation-denial sequence (Mk 14.66-70; Mt. 26.69-73), climaxing in Peter swearing an oath (Mk 14.71; Mt. 26.74), the cock crowing (Mk 14.72; Mt. 26.74), Peter recalling the words of Jesus (Mk 14.72; Mt. 26.75), and weeping (Mk 14.72; Mt. 26.75). Mk 14.66-72

Mt. 26.69-75

Peter was (������) below (v. 66)

Peter was sitting (���������) (v. 69)

one of the servant-girls comes by (��������) (v. 66)

a servant-girl came (����������) (v. 69)

she saw (��������) Peter (v. 67) she stared (�����������) (v. 67)� and says (������) (v. 67)

and said (��������) (v. 69)

he denied (����������) it (v. 68)

he denied (����������) (v. 70)

saying (������) (v. 68)

saying (������) (v. 70)

he went out (���������) (v. 68)

he went out (�����������) (v. 71)

the cock crowed (����������) (v. 68) another servant-girl saw (������) him (v. 71) the servant-girl began (�������) to say (�������) (v. 69)

she says (������) (v. 71)

he denied (���������) it (v. 70)

he denied (����������) it (v. 72) bystanders came up (�������������) (v. 73)

bystanders said (�������) to Peter (v. 70)

1

and said (������) to Peter (v. 73)

5. Aural Experience: Settings and Frames he began (�������) to curse (���������������) (v. 71)

he began (�������) to curse (���������������) (v. 74)

and he swore (���������) (v. 71)

and he swore (���������) (v. 74)

the cock crowed (����������) (v. 72)

the cock crowed (����������) (v. 75)

Peter remembered (�����������) (v. 72)

Peter remembered (���������) (v. 75)

he broke down (����������) (v. 72)

he went out (���������) (v. 75)

and wept (��������) (v. 72)

and wept (���������) (v. 75)

159

These parallels lead me to conclude that it is highly improbable that an audience of Matthew would not associate his account with that of Mark. Do editorial differences challenge this assessment? 68 First, Matthew drops the description of the servant-����������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������� he warmed himself (Mt. 26.69; cf. Mk 14.67). The result is a speeding up �������������������������������������������������������������������������� denial sequence. Secondly, Matthew replaces the Markan servant-���������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������Mt. 26.69; ������������������������������������������������������������������������� second Matthean accusation would suggest that the change in the �rst accusation is made on stylistic grounds rather than for any Christological considerations. Matthew further dramatises the Markan account through the description of the ��������������������������������������������������� Whereas the �rst Markan denial of Peter is made to the servant-girl, the second before the same servant-girl and the bystanders, and the third before the bystanders, in the Matthean account each of the three denials is made in the presence of many witnesses (Mt. 26.71-73; cf. Mk 14.6971). The �rst denial is in response to a servant-girl, the second in response to a second servant-girl and the bystanders, and the third before the bystanders alone. The Markan Peter is hounded by the same girl from the courtyard to the forecourt, while the Matthean Peter makes all his denials publicly before the bystanders and two different servant-girls.69 The shame of the Matthean Peter is thus magni�ed. 68 Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew XIX�XXVIII, pp.543�4. 69 ����������������������������������������������������������������������� Matt. 26:57��������JSNT 13 (1981), pp.52�������������������������������������� How 1

160

The Audience of Matthew

Thirdly, Matthew omits the Markan reference to the �rst of two cockcrows (Mk 14.68, 72). The �rst crow signals to an audience of Mark early in the account that the upper-room prediction of Jesus is being ful�lled (cf. 14.30). A Markan audience may consequently experience ����������������������������������������������������������������� �rst cockcrow. A Matthean audience lacks this signal and instead must wait until the end of the account for the con�rmatory crowing to signal that the transpired events relate to the earlier prophecy of Jesus (Mt. 26.34, 74). ������������������������������������������������������cally represents a denial of Jesus. In both accounts, the opening question relates to whether Peter accompanied Jesus (Mk 14.67; Mt. 26.69). However, the second question differs. In Mark, the emphasis is on the status of Peter as a disciple, with the servant-������������������������������������������������ 14.69).70 In Matthew, the second accusation relates more directly to ���������������������������������������������������������������������� (Mt. 26.71). His denial is reinforced with an oath (Mt. 26.72; cf. Mk ������������������������������������������������������������������������ disassociation from the other disciples, primarily relates to a personal rejection of Jesus. These Matthean differences, while indicating a different emphasis from Mark, nevertheless do not subvert the common settings and narrative frame and would not preclude an audience of Matthew incorporating their experience within mental representations shaped by Mark. 5.2.l. Matthean Omissions Matthew omits a number of Markan references to Peter. Would these differences challenge our initial conclusions made with respect to the accounts considered? Four instances will be brie�y considered. First, in Mk 5.37-42, Peter, James, and John, the brother of James, enter the ������ ��� �������� ���������� ����� �������� ���� ������������� ��� �������s daughter.71 Their involvement is not mentioned by Matthew (cf. Mt. 9.18-26). This omission should not be over-interpreted as a desire to ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������� �������� �������� ��� ���� �������� ����� �� ������ ���� �������� miracle story in which the disciples receive just one, lone mention (9.19). ������ ��� �������� CBQ 52 (1990), pp.467�72; Davies and Allison, Matthew XIX�XXVIII, p.546. 70 Gundry, Mark, p.889. 71 R. Cassidy, Four Times Peter: Portrayals of Peter in the Four Gospels and at Philippi (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2007), p.23. 1

5. Aural Experience: Settings and Frames

161

This approach contrasts with that of Luke, who increases the involvement of Peter by identifying him as the disciple who took it upon himself to deny that anyone in the crowd had touched Jesus (Lk. 8.45). The ef����� ��� ��� ��������� ��� ���������� ���������� ������ ��� ������������ �������������������������������� he is one of three � nor crucial; his role is that of observer. Secondly, the Markan account of the withering of the �g tree is set over a two-day period (Mk 11.12-14, 20-25). On the day following his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (11.1-11), the hungry Jesus and disciples seek sustenance from a distant �g tree. The �g tree, a metaphor for the temple, proves fruitless and is duly cursed. The following morning they observe the �g tree withered, prompting Peter to identify it as the ����������������������������������������������������������g tree that you ������������������������������������������������������������������������ into effect. The response of Jesus is to encourage the disciples to faith. ����������������������������������������������������������������g tree is identi�ed as barren, is cursed, and immediately withers (Mt. 21.19). The disciples collectively question the possibility of the event (21.20). Without this reference to the disciples, they would play no role in the account as Matthew previously only identi�ed Jesus as the lone, hungry ���������� ��� ��������� ��� ������� ������������ ��� ������ ���� ���� ���������� journeying together (cf. Mt. 21.19; Mk 11.20). The questioning of the disciples, as against solely Peter, provides the evangelist with a suitable context for the sayings of Jesus on faith (Mt. 21.21-22). Here stylistic concerns determine both deeds and words. The evangelist is not averse to writing Peter out of a story if deemed necessary. Thirdly, the Markan account of the eschatological discourse portrays one anonymous disciple approaching Jesus with an observation concerning the magnitude of the temple (Mk 13.1). Jesus responds to the disciple �������������������������������������������������������������� explicates the �rst. Jesus is sitting opposite the temple when three of his disciples approach and question him concerning his earlier private prediction (13.3). Jesus then proceeds with his eschatological discourse, presented solely to the three disciples. The discourse relates to a wider ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� will betray Andrew, or James, or his brother John. The signs regarding the destruction of Jerusalem (13.14-23) are speci�cally targeted towards those disciples who would play a prominent role in the Jerusalem church. This part of the discourse is speci�c to Peter, James, and John and may well re�ect early church leadership issues in Jerusalem. The context of the dialogue is shrouded in secrecy, in complete contrast to the public 1

162

The Audience of Matthew

events described. Matthew has expounded the secret approach of the anonymous Markan disciple into a collective but somewhat indirect comment by the disciples as they depart the temple. In Mt. 24.3, the disciples approach Jesus privately in contrast to the Markan account in which the matter is restricted to the inner circle. Matthew expands Je����� audience to include all twelve disciples. Fourthly, the Markan Peter is told by the young man in the empty tomb to go to Galilee along with the other disciples (Mk 16.7). This reference to Peter is omitted in Mt. 28.10. The result is that the portrayal �������������������������������������������������������������������������� Matthew missing.72 Nau makes the following observations with regard to these omissions.73 First, that in none of the omitted Markan references to Peter is he viewed negatively. He is never corrected or rebuked. In three of the �ve references he plays no individual role, instead being listed as one of the inner circle (Mk 1.35-38; 5.37; 13.3). This would suggest that Matthew deliberately declined a number of opportunities to portray Peter favourably. Secondly, none of the omitted segments would have fallen within chs 14�18, the section with the highest concentration of Petrine references. The effect is drastically to reduce the exposure of Peter outside these chapters. Thirdly, th���������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������74 None of these omissions single out �����������������������������-related traditions as being of a marked nature. 5.3. Summary In this chapter, I have undertaken a comparison of settings and narrative frames of traditions relating to Peter in Matthew and Mark. A number of conclusio������������������������������������������������������������� settings for Petrine stories, whether from Mark or other traditions, would have resulted in a �rst-century audience experience of Matthew in which attention was focused away from its own context and to the time of Jesus. Hearing the various Peter stories would clearly have impacted an audience. Auditors would likely have identi�ed points of contact

1

72 73 74

Nau, Peter, p.42. Nau, Peter, pp.61�6. Nau, Peter, p.65.

5. Aural Experience: Settings and Frames

163

between their own situation and the story heard. However, it is unlikely that the impact would be one in which they would have concluded that the lector, in delivering the Gospel, was describing their speci�c situation(s). When they heard about Jesus in Jerusalem, the unmarked interpretation would have been to think about Jesus in Jerusalem, rather than of themselves in Antioch or Rome. Thus, any parallels they might have drawn with their own experience were likely to have been of an indirect, unsystematic, and secondary nature. Awareness of Mark or related traditions would have reinforced this effect. From an audience perspective, they would not have experienced the text as intentionally re�ecting their speci�c situation, an assumption underlying many community readings. Secondly, the consistency in narrative frames in Peter stories means that a Matthean audience already familiar with Mark or related traditions ������ ����� ������������� ���������� ��������� ������� ��������� ������� representations. The common gist would have dominated aural experience. As a result, a Matthean audience would likely have concluded that it was hearing highly familiar stories. This experience of hearing the familiar and the foundational may well have resulted in less interpretive ��������� ��� ���������� ����������� ������������ ���������� ���������� �� member of a Markan community who heard the Gospel of Matthew would probably have concluded on the basis of shared gist that he or she was hearing the same story previously told by Mark. This impact of shared gist on an audience contrasts with community readings that focus on redactional differences, often of a minor nature, between Matthew and his sources. Thirdly, building upon my two previous conclusions, a Matthean audience situated in an environment in which other traditions circulated �����������������������������������������������erences to Peter as transparent references to events during the time of the church restricted to a speci�c locale, but rather as a retelling of traditions from the time of Jesus involving the disciple Peter. In this chapter, I have focused on �xed elements in the two Gospels. In Chapter 6, I will focus on variation in aural experience and argue that hearing the Peter stories would have resulted in multiple impacts within heterogeneous audiences.

1

Chapter 6

AURAL EXPERIENCE: IMPACT

6.1. Introduction My analysis of settings and narrative frames in the previous chapter af�rmed those elements in the Markan accounts that remain �xed in their respective Matthean accounts. From this text-focused exercise I extrapolated the proposition that a Matthean audience familiar with Mark or similar traditions would have integrated their experience of the Matthean Peter stories within existing mental representations. The effect on the audience is to reinf����������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ������������������ local community readings that associate the referent of the text predominantly with the time of the church. In this chapter, I retain contact with the lector while shifting focus to �esh-and-blood audiences. The purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, I will argue that the heterogeneous nature of early Christian audiences implies the possibility of heterogeneous responses to the lector-mediated text. This counters those local community readings that assume too direct a relationship between the Gospel and the experience of its respective audience. Secondly, I will seek to demonstrate that the range of plausible responses to the Matthean Peter stories overlaps those potential to Mark. This reinforces the conclusion of Chapter 5, that Matthean audiences were likely to have integrated their experience of the Peter stories within existing mental representations formed through hearing Mark or similar traditions. The text�lector�audience model collapses the distance between the audience and the lector. An aural experience in which the hearer is �������� ��� ��� ���� ������� ������� ������� ����� ���� ��������� ���ection or a comparison of different Gospel accounts.1 This results, according to 1 W. J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (3rd ed.; New York: Routledge, 2002), pp.39�40.

6. Aural Experience: Impact

165

Whitney Shiner, in a prioritising of emotional impact. He identi�es in Mark a full range of explicit emotions. 2 For example, Jesus is moved with pity (Mk 1.41) and anger (3.5), crowds are amazed (cf. 1.27; 2.12), ����������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ (4.11-13). Such emotions are deemed by Shiner directly to affect the ������������������������������������������������xion scene that there is ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� evokes pity. The arrogance of the mockers evokes anger.�3 While we may hesitate at establishing a direct link between emotions in the text and speci�c audience responses, it may be acknowledged, nevertheless, that when a lector expressively reads about Jesus feeling anger, an audience would identify with it in a more immediate manner than they would through the detached process of silent reading. How does one go about modelling the impact of a particular story upon a �rst-century audience? Shiner adopts a cognitive approach to emotions in which audience emotions are viewed as resulting from the ���������� ��������������� ��� ���� �������s words. Matthew Elliot, and to a lesser extent Karl Allen Kuhn, have also applied cognitive theories of emotions to biblical texts, and it is their understanding that will be adopted.4 In non-cognitive approaches emotions are viewed as physiological sensations or feelings, separate from the intellect, requiring subjugation to reason. As such, emotions cannot be the object of value judgements as they are simply physiological responses. Cognitive approaches view emotions as inseparably linked to cognitive processes ����������������������������������������ings, but rather the results of the interpretations of objects and situations��5 Elliott summarises the cognitive approach as follows: Emotion is always about something; it has an object. Emotion tells us about the beliefs and values of others. Emotions are not necessarily rational, not because they are intrinsically irrational impulses, but because we can be 2 W. T. Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003), pp.68�9. So too B. J. Incigneri, The ����������������������������������������������������������������(Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp.51�6. 3 Shiner, Proclaiming, p.70. 4 M. Elliott, Faithful Feelings: Emotion in the New Testament (Leicester: InterVarsity, 2005), pp.16�55; K. A. Kuhn, The Heart of Biblical Narrative: Rediscovering Biblical Appeal to the Emotions (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), pp.15�28. 5 Elliott, Faithful Feelings, p.29. 1

166

The Audience of Matthew ���������������������������������������������������������ena that rely upon both our conscious and unconscious mind, memories, cultural factors, family upbringing and our personalities. These factors interact and respond to one another in an incredibly complex web of interdependent beliefs and values to produce particular emotions in particular circumstances.6

It would be anachronistic to impose current theories on ancient authors.7 Nevertheless, a broadly cognitive approach to emotions may be observed in the two Gospels in that cognitively appropriate reasons are consistently provided by the evangelists for the experience of various emotions.8 For example, in Mk 1.22 the synagogue crowd react with amazement (����������) to the authoritative teachings of Jesus. In 2.12, a crowd in Capernaum is amazed and gives glory to God in response to the healing of the paralysed man, an event the like of which has never been previously witnessed. In 6.2-3, those in the synagogue in Nazareth respond �rst with amazement (����������) to the teachings of Jesus, and then offence (�����������) as they meditate upon his familial identity. This approach of providing cognitive rationales for emotional responses is consistent throughout Mark (cf. Mk 3.5; 5.20, 42; 6.2, 3, 50, 51; 7.37; 9.6, 15, 32; 10.14, 22, 24, 26; 11.18; 12.17; 15.44; 16.5, 8). A similar phenomenon is found in Matthew. Early in the Gospel, Herod and all of Jerusalem are troubled (��������, Mt. 2.3) by the presence of the magi, who were seeking the newly born king of the Jews. Herod later reacts with great anger (������) at being tricked by the magi (2.16). Other similar examples abound in Matthew (cf. Mt. 2.22; 7.28; 9.8, 33; 12.23; 13.54; 14.26; 15.31; 19.25; 21.20; 22.22, 33; 26.8). These examples ������������������������������������������������������������������������� detected in texts where emotional vocabulary is not used��9 In order to remain consistent with both contemporary cognitive approaches to emotions and the evangelists themselves, only those impacts will be posited that can be plausibly and defensibly demonstrated as potentially resulting from the cognitive interaction between beliefs and values within an early Christian context and the lectormediated Peter stories. This perspective requires quali�cation in light of two audience-related dynamics: �rst, the degree to which impact is

6 7 8 p.54. 9 1

Elliott, Faithful Feelings, p.42. Elliott, Faithful Feelings, pp.57�79. Elliott, Faithful Feelings, pp.124�235; Kuhn, The Heart of Biblical Narrative, Elliott, Faithful Feelings, p.125.

6. Aural Experience: Impact

167

internally experienced and externally demonstrated by the audience; and secondly, the degree to which the wider audience reaction in�uences the response of the individual. Precision on these two issues is impossible. Nevertheless, in light of the �ndings of cultural anthropologists, we should note with respect to the �rst dynamic the increased likelihood of a �rst-century middle eastern audience externally expressing their internal reaction in comparison with a twenty-�rst century Western audience, for whom a response would be of a more internal and psychological nature.10 I will limit my analysis to suggesting how various cognitive processes would have led to particular responses, as it is not necessary for the demonstration of this study to state how particular responses would have been manifested physically. The second dynamic relates directly to the ������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� an early Christian audience the culture-related desires to avoid public shame and to reinforce group identity would play off against a range of weak to strong individual responses. For the purpose of my argument it is not necessary that I posit a dominant audience response. Besides, such a response would have been locally conditioned, and without a direct indication from the text as to whether a particular local audience was presumed, it is impossible for us to determine which response would have dominated. Instead, a range of potential responses will simply be identi�ed without indicating any degree of dominance. A number of controls may be utilised when positing plausible impacts of Markan and Matthean Peter stories according to the audience-related factors identi�ed in Chapter 4. First, a range of audience responses is recorded in the two Gospels. These should not be taken as prescriptive of �������������������������������������������������������������������������� emotional and behavioural responses that might characterise a �rst�����������������������������������k, the disciples and crowds reacted with astonishment (����������, Mk 1.22; 6.2; 7.37; 11.18), amazement (�������, 1.28; 10.24, 32; ����������, 2.12; 5.42), questioning (��������, 1.28; �������������, 2.6, 8), offence (�����������, 6.3), alarm (����������, 9.15), and delight (�������, 12.37). Cro�������������������������������

10 ���������������������������������������������� �����������������������������������������������������������������������������Scribal�Memorial Arts of Com�����������������������������������in Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond the Oral and the Written Gospel (T. Thatcher, ed.; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), pp.235�62 (240). 1

168

The Audience of Matthew

and deeds (1.28, 45), brought people for healing and blessing (1.32; 10.13), gathered to hear him (2.2, 13; 3.8, 20, 32; 4.1; 5.21; 6.33, 55; 10.1), glori�ed him (�������, 2.12), desired to touch him (�����, 3.10; 6.56), and followed him (�����������, 5.24). In Matthew, various crowds reacted with astonishment (����������, 7.28; 13.54), awe (������, 9.8), praise (�������, 9.8; 15.31), amazement (��������, 9.33; 15.31), excitement (����������, 12.23), and offence (����� �������, 13.57). The disciples reacted with questioning (13.36; 18.21; 19.10, 23), distress (������, 17.23), and astonishment (����������, 19.25). The rich young man reacted with grief (������, 19.22). Contrasted with these examples are those instances where no response is recorded to the teachings of Jesus. Major examples include the two discourses on discipleship (10.5�11.1; 18.1-35) and the discourse on the end times (24.1�25.46). Such gaps in the text encourage an audience to respond without the constraint of a prescribed ideal response. A second control in positing potential impacts is the various receptions of Peter as re�ected in early Christian literature. These reactions serve to highlight the various attitudes towards Peter that potentially could have been held by members of an early Christian audience. A dif�culty with ������������������������������������������������� on dating composition, many of these responses postdate the reception of Mark, and possibly that of Matthew. Thus caution is required in that later reactions to the Peter stories may be speci�c to contexts signi�cantly different from that in which Mark and Matthew were �rst heard. Nevertheless, such a control, though indirect, helps to �ll the lacuna of direct evidence of audience reactions. Consideration will now be given to these various reactions. In Luke, the characterisation of Peter is softened in comparison to Mark through the omission of negative comments about the disciples and the addition of explanations of their actions.11 A number of examples may be brie������������������������������������������������������� inclusion of an account of a miraculous catch of �sh (Lk. 5.1-11). He sleeps with James and John during the trans�guration (9.32), and, upon ������������������������������������������������������������������������ offer to make three dwellings (9.33). His reaction of fear is in response to the cloud that overshadowed them, rather than the trans�gured Jesus (9.34; cf. Mk 9.6). The prediction of Jesus that Peter would deny him

11 T. Wiarda, Peter in the Gospels: Pattern, Personality and Relationship (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), pp.99�106; P. Perkins, Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000), pp.84�8.

1

6. Aural Experience: Impact

169

three times is softened through the observation that Satan desired to sift Peter and the other disciples. Jesus then ����������������������������������� fail (Lk. 22.31-34) and commissions him, following his turning back, to ������������������������������������������������������������������������� Markan Jesus speci�cally rebukes Peter (Mk 14.37). No reference is made to Peter in the abbreviated Lukan account (Lk. 22.39-������������� denials are softened in comparison with the Markan Peter, whose three sharp denials climax in the swearing of an oath that he does not know Jesus (Mk 14.71). The Lukan Peter �rst denies knowing Jesus, then rebuts the charge that he is one of his followers, and concludes by protesting that he does not know what they are talking about (Lk. 22.57, 58, 60). In 24.12, Peter runs to the empty tomb to verify the report of the women (v. 10, cf. 24.24). ����� ���������������������������� ����������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������rst seeing the risen Lord.12 In Acts, Peter is no longer the betrayer but rather one of the foremost leaders of the early community through whom the mission initiated by Jesus in the Gospel continues under the direction of the Holy Spirit.13 His �rst act is to initiate the process by which a replacement for Judas is selected (Acts 1.15-22), thus strengthening his brothers as predicted in Lk. 22.32.14 His actions also recall the commissioning of the twelve by Jesus in the Gospel (Lk. 5.1-11; 9.1). Peter performs miracles that corresponded to those of Jesus. He heals paralysed persons (Lk. 13.1113; Acts 3.1-10; 9.32-34), cures the sick (Lk. 6.17-19; 9.11; Acts 5.15), and raises the dead (Lk. 7.11-17; 8.54-55; Acts 9.36-42). His previous denials of Jesus in the Gospel are superseded by his repeated confessions before the high priest and Sanhedrin (Acts 4.5-22; 5.27-32). Successive arrests of Peter testify to his willingness to go to prison and die for his Lord, as he promised during the Last Supper (Lk. 22.33; Acts 4.3; 5.18; 12.6-11).15 Luke records eight speeches of Peter through which the desire ������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���� ��������������������������������������������������������� �nds its ful�lment (Acts 2.38; 3.19-21; 4.12; 5.31; 10.43). Like Jesus, he is full of the Holy Spirit (Lk. 3.22; Acts 2.4; 4.8). He also performs miracles 12 D. P. ����������� �������������������������������������������������Peter, Stephen, Paul Parallels in Luke��������NovT 28.3 (1986), pp.220�56 (244). 13 On Jesus�Peter parallels, see Perkins, Peter, pp.88�95. 14 R. C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke�Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Volume Two: The Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), pp.20�1. 15 On repeated patterns in Acts 4.1�5.42, and the parallels between the trial of Jesus in Luke and those of Peter in Acts, see Tannehill, Luke�Acts, vol. 2, pp.74�7. 1

170

The Audience of Matthew

through the authority of the name of Jesus (Acts 3.6, 16; 4.10). Peter does not hold a position of supremacy over the other disciples and the wider community. On different occasions he is accompanied by John or by various other apostles (3.1; 4.1; 5.18, 29; 8.14-25).16 In addition, he both in�uences, and is accountable to, other believers, who are willing on occasion publicly to criticise him (11.1-18, esp. v. 2; cf. 15.7-21). In ���������������������������������������������s ����������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ that he uses for the Gospel are missing in Acts��17 Luke the evangelist is a sympathetic and understanding hearer of the Peter story. A number of parallels have been observed between the Synoptic traditions and Peter in the Fourth Gospel: 18 �������������������������� (Jn 1.42; cf. Mt. 4.18; 16.18; Mk 3.16; Lk. 6.16); he confesses Jesus to be the Holy One of God in an episode that recalls his confession in the Synoptic Gospels (Jn 6.67-70; cf. Mt. 16.15-20; Mk 8.27-30; Lk. 9.1820); Jesus makes a prediction that Peter will deny him, the veracity of which is later demonstrated (Jn 13.36-38; 18.15-17, 25-27; cf. Mt. 26.34, 69-75; Mk 14.30, 66-72; Lk. 22.34, 54-62). John does not, however, follow the suggestion of the Synoptic Jesus that the other disciples would share his plight. Independent traditions are also apparent. Peter is introduced to Jesus through his brother Andrew (Jn 1.40-42), indicating a somewhat reduced status in comparison with the Synoptic Gospels. In Jn 13.6, his protestation at having his feet washed indicates that he misunderstands the intentions of Jesus.19 He is named as the one who cut off ��������������������������������������������������������-11).20 Traditions re�������� ����� �������� �������� ������ ��� ���� ����� ���� ����-10; cf. Lk. 24.12) and the post-resurrection miraculous catch of �sh, used in Luke as a call story (Jn 21.1-11; cf. Lk. 5.1-11). Finally, Peter is commissioned

16 Perkins, Peter, p.95. 17 Perkins, Peter, p.95. 18 ��� ���������� ������ ���� ���� ����������� ���� ������ ����� ���������� NTS 30 (1984), pp.161�������������������������������������������������������������� NTS 30 (1984), pp.531�48; Perkins, Peter, pp.95�101; Wiarda, Peter, pp.106�17; R. Cassidy, Four Times Peter: Portrayals of Peter in the Four Gospels and at Philippi (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2007), pp.85�108. 19 R. A. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), p.120. 20 ��� ��� ������� ����� ������� ��� ������ ��� ���� ������� �������� �� ����� ��� ����� 18:10������JBL 109.2 (1990), pp.307�11, argues that Jesus no longer counts Peter as a disciple, although to maintain this position he must necessarily diminish the signi�cance of 21.15�19. 1

6. Aural Experience: Impact

171

����������������ock and is informed of his future fate (Jn 21.15-19). Like the good shepherd, he will have to lay down his life for the sheep (10.1416; 21.15-��������������������������������������������������������������� varies between comprehension and misunderstanding. Peter clearly holds a position of authority amongst the disciples. However, he is overshadowed in the second half of the Gospel by the Beloved Disciple.21 During the last supper, Peter seeks the help of the disciple reclining next to Jesus, described as the one ���� ������� �� �������� ������ ������ ������� ���� �����-24). The Beloved Disciple mediates between Peter and Jesus. Later, the Beloved Disciple is the only male disciple not to desert Jesus during his cruci�xion (19.26). He is also witness to the climactic piercing of Jesus and the resultant �ow of blood and water in 19.34-������������������������������������������������������� ���� ���� ����� ������ ������� ������� �������� ��� ���� ������� ��� ����� Magdalene that the stone had been removed from the tomb. The Beloved Disciple outpaces Peter in their dash to the tomb. Peter then arrives and enters the tomb, but fails to comprehend the signi�cance of what he sees. The Beloved Disciple entered and ������ ���� ������������ ��������� ������������������������������������-resurrection miraculous catch of �sh, the Beloved Disciple recognises Jesus from the boat and informs ������������������������������������ 22 The Beloved Disciple is able to see Jesus in a manner as yet unattainable for Peter. 23 Peter is later informed by Jesus of the nature of his death (21.18-19). This leads him to enquire regarding the fate of the Beloved Disciple (21.21). Peter is rebuffed by Jesus and enjoined to follow him (21.22). The active but temporary role of Peter as shepherd (21.15-19) is contrasted with the enduring witness of the Beloved Disciple (21.24-25). Thus, we may conclude that in the ���������������������������������������� Peter in favour of the Beloved

21 For various suggestions of the Beloved Di��������� ����� ���� ���������� ��� J. H. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995), pp.127�224; A. T. Lincoln, �����������������������������������������������������������������������JSNT 85 (2002), pp.3��������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������� ��� ��� ��������� ���� ��� �������� The Gospel of John and Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), pp.120�39. 22 For 21.1-�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������JBL 102 (1983), pp.85�98. 23 �������������������������������������������������������������JTS 40 (1989), pp.481�9. 1

172

The Audience of Matthew

Disciple.24 Peter continues to hold signi�cance for the larger Christian ���������������������������������������������������-19). However, he is no longer the �rst disciple. Here we have a presentation of the Peter story that is sympathetic, but which distinguishes other sources of authority. Peter is to function as shepherd and the Beloved Disciple as witness. ������������������������������������������������������������������������ Galatians and 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 1.12; 3.21-22; 9.5; 15.4-10; Gal. 1.18; 2.7-9, 11-14). The majority of these pe����������������������������� the early church and his relationship to Paul, rather than to those events depicted in the Gospels. In Galatians, the relationship between Peter and Paul is depicted as evolving from a position of Pauline inferiority, to one of parity, to �nally one of Pauline superiority. 25 In Gal. 1.18, Paul refers to a �fteen-day visit to Cephas in Jerusalem during which he restricted ������������������������������������������������������������������������� his motive was ����������� ������ ��� �������������������������������� (1.18).26 In 2.1-10, Paul describes a second visit to Jerusalem in which he met ���� ������� ��� ����� ��������� ������������������������������������������ It is not necessary for our purposes to determine the relationship between this encounter and the Jerusalem Council described in Acts 15. It is suf�cient to note that Paul af�rms Peter as having been entrusted with the Gospel for the circumcised and attributes an equal status to his own mission to the uncircumcised (2.7-9). In 2.11-21, Paul recounts an incident in Antioch. Again, it is not necessary that we determine the precise nature of the dispute.27 �������������������������������������������� Peter. Paul confronts Peter as one self-condemned for drawing back from fellowship with the Gentiles out of fear of the circumcision faction. The behaviour of Peter and those who join him is hypocritical (2.13). In contrast, Paul characterises himself as boldly upholding ���� ���������� ���� ������������ ��������������������������������������������������������������� purpose is to defend his own apostleship and gospel and establish that he ����������������������������������������������������������������������� 24 Culpepper, Anatomy�� ������� ��������� ����� ����� ��� �������� �������6; Perkins, Peter, p.100. 25 Perkins, Peter, p.115. 26 Cf. BDAG, p.483. 27 ������������������������������������������������������������������JSNT 18 (1983), pp.3�57; D. Cohn-Sherbok, ������ ����������� ��� ������ �������� ���� Incident at Antioch (Gal 2.11�������JSNT 18 (1983), pp.68�74; J. G. Crossley, The ���������������������������������������������������������������������(London: T&T Clark, 2004), pp.141�54. 1

6. Aural Experience: Impact

173

by maintaining the truth against extraordinary odds��28 The Epistle does not directly indicate any response to the Peter story of the Gospels. However, the repeated references to Peter indicate his enduring in�uence and status amongst churches that he potentially had not even visited. Four references to Cephas are found in 1 Corinthians. In 1.12 and 3.22, Paul refers to a number of factions in Corinth, one of which claims to belong to Cephas. A number of reasons for the existence of a Petrine faction have been identi�ed. First, Peter might have visited Corinth, after which a faction developed which identi�ed itself with him. In this case, Paul is recognising a reality speci�c to Corinth, that Peter has been intimately involved with the community. Secondly, the Cephas faction might have included converts of Peter from elsewhere who subsequently �������� �����������������������������������������������������uence and impact. Thirdly, identi�cation with Peter might have represented a ������������������������������������������� two local preachers in Corinth, Apollos and Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 3.4-9; 4.6).29 Finally, the faction might have coalesced around the teachings of Peter, whether or not he had visited Corinth. Each of the options suggests a highly in�uential role for Peter, a role recognised by Paul. In 1 Cor. 9.5, Paul favourably compares himself with the example of ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� a sister as wife), as the other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and ��������� ������� �������� ��� ������ �������client privileges may have aroused suspicion amongst the Corinthians (cf. 2 Cor. 11.5-11; 12.13).30 Paul equates Peter with the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and singles him out for special mention. 31 His appeal to ��������������� would indicate the high regard in which he was held by some members in the Corinthian church. It would also indicate that Paul viewed his ministry as of equal standing to that of Peter and the other apostles. A similar appeal to parity with Peter is found in 1 Cor. 15.5-8, in which Paul provides of list of resurrection witnesses. Peter is at the head of the list, re�ecting the kerygmatic tradition that Jesus appeared to him and then to the other disciples (1 Cor. 15.5; Mk 16.7; Lk. 24.34). Paul is clearly aware of the Peter story. His account does not assign a superior

28 Perkins, Peter, p.116. 29 R. E. Brown, K. P. Donfried, and J. Reumann (eds), Peter in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (Minneapolis: Augsburg; New York: Paulist, 1973), p.33 n.74. 30 Perkins, Peter, p.113. 31 Brown et al., Peter, pp.32�3. 1

174

The Audience of Matthew

apostolic status to Peter. Instead, Peter is the �rst in a series of witnesses ����������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� indicates that he is the last in a series of revelations. 32 Paul thus af�rms P������������������������������������������������������������������������� describes the appearance of Jesus to him as ���� ����������� ���� ���� ���������������������������������������������, �������������������������33 Such language may well re�ect a polemic against him. None of these references in 1 Corinthians suggest that Paul rejected the apostolicity of Peter. Rather, Paul both af�rms the apostolicity of, and claims equal status with, his acquaintance Peter.34 The author of 1 Peter,35 who locates himself ��� ����� ����������� 1 Pet. 5.13),36 exhorts Christians living in Asia Minor (1.1; 2.9-10) to remain faithful to their calling and not to revert back to their old lifestyle (1.18-19; 4.3-11). They frequently �nd themselves maligned as evildoers due to their Christian identity and changed behaviour. Those maligning are identi�����������������������������������������������-16 their identity is left open. The author encourages believers to remain faithful even in the face of potential persecution (2.20; 4.1-2, 12-19; 5.8-10). The typos the believers are to imitate is not that of the apostle and Jesus, as ����������� ������ ��� ������� ��������� ����� �� ����� ���6; 11.1; Phil. 3.17; 1 Tim. 1.16; 1 Thess. 1.6; 2 Thess. 3.7, 9), but solely that of Jesus, the suffering Christ (1 Pet. 1.11; 2.21-25; 3.18; 4.1, 13-14, 16; 5.1), whose sufferings were witnessed personally by the author (5.1). The author further appeals to the post-��������������������������������������������� the ����������-4), in a manner consistent with the pattern of the shepherd and guardian of their souls (2.25), the chief shepherd (5.4). This re�ects

32 On the question as to whether �������������������� ������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������TynBul 36 (1985), pp.3�34. 33 H. W. Hollander and G. E. v����������������������������������������������� an Abortion: 1 Cor. 15:8 within the Context of 1 Cor. 15:8������NovT 38 (1996), pp.224�36. 34 Cassidy, Peter, p.113. 35 For authorship, see P. J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter (Hermeneia: Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), pp.1�43; J. H. Elliott, 1 Peter (AB, 37B; New York: Doubleday, 2000), pp.118�30; F. Lapham, Peter: The Myth, the Man and the Writings: A Study of Early Petrine Text and Tradition (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 2003), pp.117�48. 36 O. Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (2nd ed.; ET; London: SCM, 1953, 1962), pp.84�7; Brown et al., Peter, p.151; Lapham, Peter, p.147. 1

6. Aural Experience: Impact

175

other NT traditions of Peter as shepherd (Jn 21.15-19) and the ideal �����������������������������������������Minor (Acts 20.28-35).37 If one adopts the position of Petrine authorship, 1 Peter represents an appeal, possibly in the 60s, to an audience beyond the sphere of his missionary focus in Syro-Palestine.38 Acts and Galatians make no reference to any Petrine mission to Asia Minor, spheres of Pauline and Johannine in�uence, although this should not be taken as conclusive proof as this would be an argument based on the silence of our evidence. In this scenario, Peter feels con�dent that his apostolic authority extends to those churches, many with sizeable Gentile constituencies, established by other apostles. No defence of his apostolicity or past failings is required, as was frequently the case with Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 4.1-5; 9.1-23; 2 Cor. 3.1�5.10; 10.1�������� ����� ������ �������� ���������� ��� ������ difference between 1 Peter and the Gospels and the Pauline treatments of Peter is its lack of ambiguity. The Peter who is presented as the author of this Epistle does not allude to weaknesses or failure.�39 Peter presumes a positive response to his ministry on the part of his audience. Whether this should be used to infer a similar response to his role in the story of Jesus is debateable. Certainly, his failure as a disciple of Jesus did not preclude his later acceptance as apostle. If one views 1 Peter as a pseudonymous letter, then the author and his circle in Rome represent an af�rmative ������������������������������������������������������������������������rst century or �rst quarter of the second century (1 Pet. 5.12-13).40 The ���������� �������������������������������lizing of Peter as a leader for �����������������������������s this is achievable amongst his audience.41 In summary, 1 Peter testi�es either indirectly, if Petrine, or directly if pseudony��������������������������������������������������������������� possibly by extension, his role in the story of Jesus. In 2 Peter, we encounter an author so familiar with early Christian traditions that we are compelled to af�rm a date of composition later to ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������n as a reminder to the audience to pay attention to the teachings of 1 Peter. 42 Awareness of other early Christian textual traditions includes the adaptation of apocalyptic

1

37 38 39 40 41 42

Brown et al., Peter, p.154. Brown et al., Peter, p.149; Lapham, Peter, pp.119, 41�7. Perkins, Peter, p.122. Lapham, Peter, p.142. Perkins, Peter, p.120. Perkins, Peter, p.124.

176

The Audience of Matthew

traditions from Jude in 2 Peter.43 In addition, 2 Pet. 3.15-16 attributes an equival��������������������������������������������������������������������� ��� ���������� ��� ���� ��������� ��� ���� ���������� ���������� ��� ������ ��� ������������for ������������������������������������������������������ author familiar with both Jewish-Christian writings and those associated with the mission to the Gentiles and their reception. The stance of the author with respect to these two streams of tradition is one in which those Jewish-Christian eschatological traditions defended are posited as �����������������mining what Paul intended to teach��44 The author deems himself a stable and intelligent interpreter commissioned to warn his audience against twisted interpretations of Paul by the lawless (3.17). If we assume Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, then we may af�rm a Petrine belief that his apostolic remit includes monitoring and in�uencing the impact of other apostles (3.2). If 2 Peter is deemed to be pseudonymous, then the Epistle reveals an authorial conviction that the memory of Peter, including his role in the story of Jesus (1.16-18), is suf�ciently in�uential amongst his audience as to provide a resolution of the controversy entailed in the interpretation of Paul. Both authorship options indirectly testify to a widespread acceptance of the apostleship of Peter. Later reactions to Peter sit within these various trajectories. For example, in either the late �rst century or the early second century CE, Clement attributes equal status to Peter and Paul due to their shared experience of persecution, describing them as ��� ��������� ���� ������������ ������� �������������������������������������������1 Clem. 5.4; Eusebius, HE 3.16). Ignatius, writing to the Romans in the early second century, likewise assigns equal status to Paul and Peter, both of whom he describes as apostles (Ign., Rom. 4.3). The enduring in�uence of Peter may be found in references to his followers. Ignatius refers ����� ����� ����� ������� �����������������������������, Smyr. 3.2). A similar reference is found in the shorter ending of Mark, potentially dated to the second century, which refers to the women at the tomb proclaiming the resurrection ����� ����� ���� ������� ���������������������������������� 45 In the Acts of Peter, dated by Wilhelm Schneemelcher to 180�190 CE, Peter is por���������������������������������������������Acts Pet. 12), able to make a large dog speak (v. 9), bring smoked �sh back to life (v. 13), give sight to the blind (v. 20), resurrect the dead (vv. 26-28), and defeat 43 Perkins, Peter������������������������������������������������������������ �������������JBL 99 (1980), pp.407�31. 44 Perkins, Peter, p.124. 45 On the dating of this tradition, see A. Y. Collins, Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), pp.802�3. 1

6. Aural Experience: Impact

177

Simon, the agent of Satan (v. 23-29).46 Of particular interest are references within this work to those events in the life of Peter described in the canonical Gospels. These represent later interpretations of the Gospel stories. In the Acts of Peter, Peter recounts his walking on water and his denial (v. 7), his witnessing of the trans�guration (v. 20), and his renaming (v. 23). When recounting his failure at the trans�guration and his denial, stress is placed on his reception of compassion and forgiveness from Jesus. His failure and redemption is provided as an example for his audienc��������������������������������������������������������� strengthened me with his greatness, will also comfort you that you may ������������������������������������������������������������������������� could fall, do not be surprised when tho������������������������������� (v. 7). This interpreter of the early Peter offers him as the prime example of the sinner who has obtained mercy (v. 28). The Gospel of Peter is similarly dated prior to 190 CE.47 Within the extant portions there are �rst-person statements made by the Peter. In the �rst, Peter describes how he and his fellow disciples wept and fasted as they hid from the authorities during the cruci�xion of Jesus (Gos. Pet. 7.26). In the second, Peter recounts a post-cruci�xion �shing trip with fellow disciples Andrew and Levi son of Alphaeus (14.60; cf. Jn 21.111). The weaknesses of Peter and the other disciples are portrayed in both references without embellishment by a largely sympathetic interpreter of Petrine traditions. Consideration will now be given to the range of possible impacts for the Markan and Matthean Peter stories. Please note that I am not seeking to reconstruct a comprehensive aural experience of the Peter stories. This would require far more factors to be taken into account than is possible in a study of this nature. The degree to which the stories of Peter in Matthew re�ect those of Mark varies from case to case. In some instances there is little variation, in others, Matthew signi�cantly develops the role of Peter. Peter is sometimes present in Matthew while absent in Mark, and vice versa. The success of my argument does not depend upon the order in which I analyse the two Gospels. Rather, my objective ������������������������������������������������������������eter stories and to indicate the degree of overlap in the responses of a Markan 46 ����������������������������������������� NTA I, pp.271�321 (283). 47 �����������������������������������������������������, in NTA I, pp.216� 27 (221). This date is based on Eus������s reference (HE 6.12.1-6) to an assessment of the Gospel by Serapion, bishop of Antioch. For further discussion, see T. Kazen, ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� of Extra-������������������NTS 51 (2005), pp.561�78. 1

178

The Audience of Matthew

audience. In those instances in which there is judged to be minimal variation between the respective accounts, priority will be given to determining plausible Matthean audience impacts, while noting any differences or similarities with respect to Mark. Where there is judged to be a greater degree of variance, analysis will focus �rst on Mark, and then on Matthew. Where no comparison is possible, such as in uniquely Matthean references to Peter, emphasis will be placed on my �rst objective�determining a range of plausible impacts the accounts would have provoked. I will consider the same Peter stories as analysed in Chapter 5. 6.2. Plausible Impacts of Peter Stories 6.2.a. Peter Walks on Water (Matthew 14.22-33; Mark 6.45-52) The key issue in terms of the impact of the two accounts lies in determining whether the uniquely Matthean account of Peter walking on water would result in a signi�cantly different range of emotional responses when compared with potential responses to Mk 6.45-52. Due to the differences in the two accounts, speci�c attention will be paid �rst to the potential impacts a hearing of the Markan account would generate. 48 The lector guides an audience to focus their attention on the actions of Jesus. He compels the disciples into their boat and dismisses the crowds, he prays, and then responds to the distress of the disciples as they battle adverse winds.49 At this point in the account, an audience might feel comforted that Jesus is a Lord who takes charge of dif�cult situations, especially those that result from obedience to his commands, in this case the command to the disciples to get into their boat. Next, the audience is ������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������velation to Moses (Exod. 33.19-23; 34.6; cf. 1 Kgs 19.11) might respond with wonder at the thought that Jesus would, unbidden, reveal himself in a similar manner. 50 They might yearn for a

48 The signi�cance of the differences should not be overestimated. Origen, for example, in his exposition of the account of Jesus walking on water, omits any discussion of Peter walking on water (Comm. Matt. 11.5-6). 49 R. H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), p.335, argues that the strong ����������� ����������������� Mt. 14.22) indicates that the disciples got into the boat against their will. 50 Collins, Mark, pp.327, 334�5; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew: Commentary on Matthew VIII�XVIII (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991), pp.504�7. 1

6. Aural Experience: Impact

179

similar revelation in their own situation. A similar impact would be expected for non-Christians in the audience familiar with Graeco-Roman traditions associating walking on water with divine status. 51 Those of an audience unfamiliar with these contexts might respond with puzzlement at the thought that Jesus would approach the disciples as if to help, only to pass them by. The fact that Jesus walked on water may well dis��������������������������������������������������������������������������� in the account, the audience is in a superior position to the disciples in that they know the identity of the one miraculously approaching the boat. An audience is unlikely to share in the reaction of terror on the part of ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� on water (Mk 6.49-50). Instead, havin������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������� the Sea of Galilee to their own contexts. The events that follow build on the positive words of Jesus. Jesus then gets into the boat and the winds cease. Those familiar with Jewish ������������������������������������������������������������������������ sea��52 They may respond with praise. All is well as the story progresses ����������������������������������������������������� ������������������ astonishment due to their lack of understanding about the loaves because �������������������������������������������������������������������prise at this point, in that previous to this statement they would have �������������������������������������������������������������������������� unknown �gure walking on water, and their astonishment, as a natural response to the calming of the storm. 53 Now they are informed that the ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������ure of the relevance of the loaves, might doubt whether they have really understood the story and thus be led to question the state of their own hearts. They would experience a sense of disorientation leading to a process of self-examination.54 Still others might simply ignore the statement and instead focus on the af�rming ability of Jesus to calm the storms of life.

51 See HCNT, pp.98�100, for examples of Graeco-Roman semi-divine or divine beings walking on water. 52 Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, p.503. 53 For the storm as representative of the powers of evil and chaos, see E. Best, Mark: The Gospel as Story (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983), p.61; Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, pp.84, 503. 54 Gundry, Mark, pp.337�8; Collins, Mark, p.336. 1

180

The Audience of Matthew

A similar range of impacts might be generated where the Matthean account re�ects that of Mark. As with Mark, Matthew does not explicitly ������ ���� �������� ��� ������� ������� towards the disciples on water (Mt. 14.25). This allows for a similar range of impacts on the part of an audience. Matthew likewise retains the fear of the disciples and the af�rmation of Jesus. ������������������������������������������������������������������ The walking and sinking of Peter might generate a number of responses.55 First, those that focus on his walking on water might respond positively to his actions, even if he required further help. They would �������������������������������������������������������������������������out ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� power of Jesus.56 The main point is the eagerness of Peter. Timothy Wiarda similarly identi�es Peter as displaying quick initiative, enthusiasm for Jesus, and faith-inspired daring.57 Those who respond in this way might go through a process of self-examination, as they question whether ������������������������������������������������������������ A second response might be to view the acts of Peter as re�ecting a ������������������������������������������������������������������������� an insuf�ciency of faith (cf. Acts Pet. 7).58 Those who respond in this manner would experience a hope-generating af�rmation that, despite �������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������59 �������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������(14.28) might be interpreted as involving an element of doubt. The plausibility of this response is argued ������������������������������������������������������������������������ words in the temptation narrative (��� ������ ��� ���� ������ ������ ����, etc.,

55 Brown et al., Peter, pp.81�������������������������������������������������� ��� ���� ������� ��� ���������� ��� Characterization in the Gospel: Reconceiving Narrative Criticism (D. Rhoads and K. Syreeni, eds; Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1999), pp.106�52 (125�6); M. J. Wilkins, ������������������������������������� Gospel as Re�ected in the Use of the Term �������� (Leiden: Brill, 1988), pp.179�83. 56 Cassidy, Peter, pp.70�3. 57 Wiarda, Peter, p.92. 58 E. Schweizer, Matthäus und seine Gemeinde (Stuttgart: KBW, 1974), pp.154; Beare, Matthew, pp.330�2; R. A. Edwards, �������������������������������� Disciples: How the Text-Connoted Reader Is Informed (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997), pp.54�63. 59 Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, pp.507�9. 1

6. Aural Experience: Impact

181

Mt. 4.3).60 Despite the fact that Jesus is not strictly tempted, the later identi�cation of Peter with Satan in Mt. 16.23 would caution against an overly hasty dismissal of this link, although an audience would be unaware of this later development when experiencing the Gospel aurally. ��� ������� ���� ����� ��� ���� ���������� ��� ������ ������� ��� ���������� �������� initial action of stepping out of the boat would suggest a con�dence that would seem to set him apart. However, his response of fear to the waves and his subsequent sinking leaves him spatially situated below the other disciples, and once more united with them in fear (14.30). Peter is admonished by Jesus for his little faith and for doubting (14.31). We may note that the audience is made aware later that the other disciples likewise exhibited little faith (16.8; 17.20). 61 In Mt. 28.17, a subtle reminder of this incident may be found in the observation that when the eleven disciples saw the resurrected Jesus they worshiped him, but some doubted (��� ��� �����������). Nevertheless, at this point in the account, his faith is clearly identi��������������������������������������������������������� (14.33) who worship Jesus in response to his calming of the storm were those who remained in the boat duri��� �������� ���������� ����� ������ preclude Peter.62 This ambiguous status of Peter at the end of the scene would suggest that the tensions between his bold action, fear, doubt, and little faith, remain unresolved. Those in an audience who focus on �����������ns might respond either critically, emphasising his faults in ������ ��� ����� ������� ������ ������ ���� ��������� ������� ��� ����� ����� ����� ������������������������������������������������������������������������� range of both positive and negative responses matches the variety of responses outlined earlier that would be generated by the respective Markan account. 6.2.b. De�lement (Matthew 15.1-20; Mark 7.1-23) I observed in my analysis of narrative frames that the role of Peter in Mt. 15.15 in requesting an exp����������������������������������������������� request made by the disciples in Mk 7.17. We may thus expect a similar range of responses on the part of an audience to the two accounts. An ��������������������������������������������������������������������or understanding in that a precedent was previously set in Mk 4.10 (cf. v. 34). For a Matthean audience, however, there may be some initial ��������������������������������������������������������������������������to

1

60 61 62

������������������������ Wiarda, Peter, p.93. ���������������������������������Matthew, pp.300�301.

182

The Audience of Matthew

the crowd. The emphasis on Peter is, how������������������������������� ����������������������.) also still without understand���������������������� Origen, Comm. Matt. 11.14). While being singled out in Mt. 15.15 as the one who raises the question, his point of view is equated throughout ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� spokesperson for the other disciples.63 In an aural experience, attention would not dwell on P���������������������������������������������������� Jesus and the group of disciples who earlier intervened (15.12). The impact of the Matthean account relates to a signi�cant shift that occurs in the relationship between the points of view of Jesus and the disciples, including Peter. Initially, Jesus defends the disciples from the criticisms of the Pharisees and scribes (Mt. 15.1-9). The point of view of Jesus supports that of the disciples. The disciples, however, distance themselves from the point of view of Jesus with their warning that he has caused the Pharisees and scribes offence (15.12). 64 Jesus does not back down, but instead, as noted by Margaret Davies, intensi�es his criticisms, identifying the Pharisees as blind guides (15.13-14).65 His response further widens the developing gap between his point of view and that of the disciples.66 It is at this point that Peter intervenes, seeking an explanation for the further criticisms of Jesus. Syreeni correctly observes that ��������������������������������������������.) still without understand�����, suggests that Peter and the other disciples are being associated with the Pharisees and scribes as blind guides. 67 The effect of this shift in point of view is to leave an audience isolated, with the evangelist demanding whether they will side with the Pharisees, scribes, and disciples on the one hand, or with Jesus on the other. While Mark omits any reference to the disciples defending the Pharisees and scribes, they nevertheless hold an unreliable point of view as demonstrated by the ���������������������������������������������������������������������� What impact would such a shift generate? Those who once abided by the ������������������������������������������ 68 or a similar system, might experience the comfort of knowing that their current spiritual, religious, and social practices originated with the one they hold authoritative, Jesus 63 ������������������������ 64 Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, p.532, suggest ����������� has the ������������������������������������������������������������ 65 M. Davies, Matthew (Shef�eld: JSOT, 1993), p.113. 66 Cf. Collins, Mark, p.349. 67 ������������������������ 68 Contrast Beare, Matthew, p.335, and Collins, Mark, pp.346�7 on the extent to which these traditions were observed. 1

6. Aural Experience: Impact

183

himself.69 Those who desire the psychological security attendant with a more prescriptive religious approach might feel somewhat disorientated with the shift in the regulatory process away from tradition to selfappraisal. These two responses illustrate that both accounts, even with the additional inclusion of Peter in Matthew, might generate a range of similar audience responses. ����������������������������������������-28; Mark 8.27�9.1) �������������������������������������������������������������������������� be overstated. The history of interpretation of the two accounts in Catholic and Protestant contexts demonstrates that audience responses are not predetermined but rather re�ect the interaction of text with reader, lector with audience.70 My analysis will compare potential reactions at four points in the narrative frame: (1) The �rst question and answer exchange involving Jesus and the disciples (Mt. 16.13-15; Mk 8.27-28); (2) the second question and answer exchange involving Jesus and Peter (Mt. 16.16-20; Mk 8.29-30); (3) the passion prediction and rebukes of Jesus and Peter (Mt. 16.21-23; Mk 8.31-33); and (4) the teachings on discipleship (Mt. 16.24-28; Mk 8.34-38). The rationale for dividing the accounts into these four sections is to recognise that at different points in the aural experience of the passage as a whole, different responses would result. The impact of hearing the whole account is likely to be shaped by the last words heard. However, this may not re����������������������ence. Some in an audience might focus on earlier portions of the dialogue. (1) Mt. 16.13-15; Mk 8.27-28: The �rst exchange involves Jesus raising the issue of how he is perceived by ��� ���������� (Mt. 16.13; Mk 8.27). One of my audience-related assumptions is that of a predominantly Christian audience. Thus, assuming an audience awareness of the titular application of Son of Man to Jesus, we may surmise equivalent audience experiences of the question of Jesus in the two accounts.71 The question 69 For differences relating to purity laws in Matthew and Mark, cf. Luz, Matthew 8�20, pp.327�9; Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, pp.517�19, 527�31; Beare, Matthew, p.336; J. A. Overman, �������������pel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), pp.82�4; A. J. Saldarini, ����������������-Christian Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), pp.134�41; Sim, Matthew, pp.132�9; Collins, Mark, p.351; Gundry, Mark, pp.348, 353. 70 Luz, Matthew 8�20, pp.370�7; Studies in Matthew (ET; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), pp.165�82. 71 Collins, Mark, pp.401�2; Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, p.617. 1

184

The Audience of Matthew

and the listing of the various perceptions included in the response of the disciples might provoke a number of responses (Mt. 16.13; Mk 8.28).72 An audience would be reminded that their point of view of Jesus is just one of many competing perceptions. It might act as a reminder of their minority status as a community and the peculiarities that mark them out from other segments of society. This might cause a sense of unease as past divisions are remembered. Such a process might also, however, reaf�rm the identity of the community and generate a sense of shared purpose.73 (2) Mt. 16.16-20; Mk 8.29-30: In both accounts Jesus switches attention to the disciples with the question, ������� ��� ����� �� ������� ������� (Mt. ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� the emphatic �������, would emphasise the inclusion of the audience as the target of the question. The question might provoke a confession of faith for those con�rmed in their status as followers of Jesus (cf. Origen, Comm. Matt. 12.10-11, 14). Those undecided might experience discomfort at the knowledge that the identity of Jesus is a de�ning issue over which they cannot remain neutral. The Markan Peter responds by identi������������������������������������������������������������������������� a command to silence.74 ���� �� ���������� ���������� �������� ����������� would be experienced as a positive af�rmation of already held beliefs. 75 �������������������������������������ed as a new revelation. A range of positive impacts might thus result, such as delight, gladness, and satis����������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������� adds to the equivalent positive impact generated by the Markan account. We should also note, as observed by many scholars, that the Matthean ����������������������������������������������������������������������� (cf. Mt. 14.33).76 In Mt. 16.17-19, Jesus responds with a blessing and declares that this knowledge has come through special revelation from 72 The common denominator is the prophetic of�ce, a point of view that one would expect from pre-Easter, sympathetic Jews. See Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, pp.617�18. 73 Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, p.603; Luz, Matthew 8�20, p.360. 74 Gundry, Mark, pp.427�8; Collins, Mark, p.402; Beare, Matthew, p.351. 75 Gundry, Mark, p.427; Wilkins, The Concept of Disciple, pp.185�98; Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, p.620. 76 Beare, Matthew, p.352; Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, p.621; Luz, Matthew 8�20, p.361; M. Hannan, The Nature and Demands of the Sovereign Rule of God in the Gospel of Matthew (London: T&T Clark, 2006), p.138. See J. P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church and Morality in the First Gospel (New York: Paulist, 1978), pp.109�10, for the uniqueness of Mt. 16.13, 16. 1

6. Aural Experience: Impact

185

his Father in heaven. He further informs Peter regarding his true identity, ����������������������������������������������������������������hat he will build his church upon this rock (��������) and that he will give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. 77 Those familiar with Davidic ���������������������������������������������������������������������� 7.4-16; 1 Chr. 17.3-15; cf. Isa. 22.22) in the identi�cation of Jesus as both the Christ and Son of God, the one who builds a new church, and the one who bestows the keys to the kingdom of Heaven.78 These words ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� signi�cantly alter the range of responses experienced to those of Mark.79 (3) Mt. 16.21-23; Mk 8.31-33: In both accounts the tone changes, re��������������������������������������������������������������������������� future suffering, death, and resurrection.80 This might result in a shift in impact on the part of the audience, from joy at the previous confession, to one of either sadness at the thought of the suffering of Jesus, or even �������������������������������������������������������������������������� the risen Lord. The close parallels between the two Gospels would suggest equivalence in the range of impacts they might generate. Peter once more intervenes, this time with a rebuke. An audience is ���� ��������� ��� ���� ������� ��� ���� ������� �������� ������� ���� ������� Isolated, this would l�������������������������������������������������� passion prediction would suggest that his rebuke represented a rejection of the path of suffering.81 Those who experienced suffering due to their association with Jesus might feel frustration with or sympathy for those who, like Peter, have sought to avoid such a path (cf. Origen, Comm. Matt. 12.21-22). Some might feel fear at the prospect of their own persecution.82 Ambiguity in the Markan account is clari�ed by the Matthean ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������������������������� ������ ��������� ������� ���� ����� ��� ����� ������ ����� �������� ��� ������� appeal to stop the predicted events to the one whom earlier had revealed to him the identity of Jesus (16.17). Syreeni notes:

77 For the various interpretive options relating to ������� and �������, see Gundry, Matthew, pp.334�5; Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, p.627; and Luz, Matthew 8�20, pp.358�9, 362�3, 370�5. 78 Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, pp.603, 633�4. 79 ������������������������ 80 Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, pp.656�61. 81 So too Gundry, Mark, p.432. 82 Beare, Matthew, p.358; Luz, Matthew 8�20, p.382. 1

186

The Audience of Matthew ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� expressing his aspiration to loyalty and with the cry ������� ��� (may God spare you) sounding spontaneity and intimacy. Never should those awful things happen to Jesus. This is no malevolent person speaking; Peter is a worried and deeply involved friend. 83

������������������������������������������� ������������������������ does not alter the fact that for the audience, a rebuke is a rebuke. While intensity levels may vary, similar responses are likely to be generated. ����������������������������������������������������rmed when it is understood that his ������������������������������������������������taken from an earthly point of view, marking him out as an accuser. In both ��������� ���� ������� ����� ������� ���� �������� ����� ������� ��� ������ reminds the audience that the point of views of Jesus and Peter, which earlier had been one (Mt. 16.16-20; Mk 8.29-30), have now separated, re�ecting the difference between divinity and humanity. 84 Jesus concludes by informing Peter that he has set his mind on ��� ���� ���������� (Mt. 16.23; Mk 8.33). This reminds an audience of the opening question, ����������� ��������� ��������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������rmly associated with that of those who inadequately understand the identity of Jesus. We may concur with Arlo Nau that an audience is led on a downward journey ��������������������������������������������������������������� 85 Some might experience shock at the extent of his fall. Others, who share ����������������������������ng, would feel a sense of deep unease. Others, knowing themselves to be in a privileged post-Easter position, would re���������������������������������������������������������86 (4) Mt. 16.24-28; Mk 8.34-�������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������������� wondering whether Peter will at a future date truly grasp the nature of discipleship.87 An audience, however, is allowed little time for such speculation. Instead, attention is, without pause, refocused on the issue of the true nature of discipleship. Followers, a group for whom both the disciples and audience need to seek membership, are called to take up their crosses and follow Jesus on his path of suffering (Mt. 16.24;

83 �������������������������2. 84 Beare, Matthew, p.358. 85 A. J. Nau, Peter in Matthew: Discipleship, Diplomacy, and Dispraise (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1992), p.12. 86 Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, p.665. 87 Cassidy, Peter, p.26.

1

6. Aural Experience: Impact

187

Mk 8.34). Both accounts outline a similar path, potentially resulting in equivalent impacts. Some might experience an extension and intensi������������������������������������������������������������������������tion.88 Others, who have experienced suffering, might interpret such experiences as a positive con�rmation of their status as followers. Both accounts conclude with the tantalisingly ambiguous prediction that some followers would not taste death before they see the coming Kingdom (Mt. 16.28; Mk 8.38).89 We should not expect uniformity of response on the part of the audience. While broad contours have been outlined, variations will occur due to background differences within the audience. Key to my analysis, however, is the demonstration that, while Matthew may generate an intensi�ed impact in comparison to Mark, it nevertheless could produce a similar range of impacts. 6.2.d. The Trans�guration (Matthew 17.1-8; Mark 9.2-8) ���������������������������������������������������������������������� different points in the trans�guration account. First, those in either a �������������������������������������������������������������������� context in terms of Mosaic typology might understand the time context as the time required for the reestablishment of friendship between Jesus and Peter (Mt. 17.1; Mk 9.2).90 Some might be surprised at the rapid nature of this reconciliation process, thereby receiving encouragement that, with Jesus, there is still opportunity after failure. Alternatively, others might wonder why it took so long! Key is the observation that both Gospels would generate a similar range of responses. Second, both accounts portray Jesus as being trans�gured. Nonbelievers in an audience might respond with puzzlement, questioning the identity of Jesus in light of Jewish and non-Jewish traditions of individuals shining brightly.91 Some, aware of parallels between the trans�guration and Graeco-Roman accounts of translation and apotheosis,

88 Collins, Mark, p.408. 89 For various interpretive options, see Collins, Mark, pp.409�12; Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, pp.667�81; Luz, Matthew 8�20, pp.386�7. 90 Cassidy, Peter����������������������������������������������������������The Nature and Demands, pp.149�50, for Matthean allusions to Exod. 24.12�18. 91 See, for example, the transformation of Aseneth in Joseph and Aseneth 18.9. For the radiance motif in antiquity, see D. C. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), pp.246�7; HCNT, pp.107�8; Collins, Mark, pp.418�19. 1

188

The Audience of Matthew

might expect the subsequent translation and apotheosis of Jesus.92 Others might conclude that Jesus simply experienced a trance.93 Established believers would probably respond with amazement, adoration, and a desire to witness a similar occurrence. 94 Awareness of Hebrew scripture parallels would only serve to heighten this response. It is unlikely that a believing audience would share the response of fear of the three disciples on the basis that, from a post-resurrection perspective, this account refers �������������������������������������������������������� 95 Thirdly, Peter, along with James and John, is privileged to share a revelation of Jesus that was to remain a secret from the other disciples until after the resurrection (Mt. 17.9; Mk 9.9).96 The fact that an audience is party to the events places them alongside these three favoured disciples. The audience shares a position of external focalisation with Peter, concerning the visual experience of the trans�guration and the appearance of Moses and Elijah. Aurally, however, Peter proves a distraction. An audience is informed of a conversation between Jesus, Moses and ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� the conversation, Peter takes the initiative, interrupting the scene by starting a conversation that is of little interest in comparison with the ongoing conversation between Jesus, Moses, and Elijah (Mt. 17.4; Mk 9.5). The Matthean Peter is not in any way hostile to Jesus, whom he respectfully refers to in the vocative ������ (Mt. 17.4).97 Peter, the one who in Mt. 16.16-17 received a revelation from the Father, is now in need of further revelation. He is the one called to build a church on earth ������������������������������������������� 98 In Mark, the voice from the cloud addresses all three disciples (Mk 9.7). In Matthew, the descending of the cloud and the divine declaration include the other two disciples, but is set in the context of Peter speaking (Mt. 17.5). The effect of the 92 For the trans�guration of Jesus as a declined opportunity for apotheosis, see P. G. Bold, ��������������������������������������������������������(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp.220�4. 93 ������������������������guration of Jesus: An Experience of Alternate Real���������Modelling Early Christianity: Social-scienti�c Studies of the New Testament in its Context (ed. P. F. Esler; London: Routledge, 1995), pp.47�64. Contrast Beare, Matthew, p.361. 94 A. D. A. Moses, ���������� ������guration Story and Jewish-Christian Controversy (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1996), pp.20�49. 95 Beare, Matthew, p.362; Luz, Matthew 8�20, p.400; Gundry, Mark, p.459. 96 ���� �������������������������������������������������������������������ing of his departure, which he was abou������������������������������������� 97 Wiarda, Peter�������������������������������� 98 Luz, Matthew 8�20, p.403. 1

6. Aural Experience: Impact

189

divine declaration is to interrupt Peter, refocusing attention back towards Jesus.99 In both accounts the point of view of Peter, while not hostile, proves inadequate and distracts an audience from the important task of listening to Jesus. The audience has missed out on hearing an important conversation on account of Peter. Some might respond with sympathy towards the weaknesses of Peter (cf. Acts Pet. 20). Others might respond with frustration at a lost opportunity. Alternatively, many would instead ����������������������������������������������heophanic element, signi������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������� 100 Fourthly, despite the narrative context, some in the respective audiences might perceive the divine command ��������� ������� as being directly addressed to them (Mt. 17.5; Mk 9.7).101 Aware of a particular dissonance between their own conduct and the teachings of Jesus, some might respond with feelings of guilt and discomfort. Others, having recently experienced a convergence in their personal behaviour with their understanding of the will of Jesus, might respond with a sense of satisfaction. These potential responses to the two Gospels largely overlap. The most likely difference would have been a variation in the intensity ������������������������������������� 6.2.e. The Temple Tax (Matthew 17.24-27) As stated in Chapter 5, the absence of a parallel Markan account (cf. Mk 9.33) precludes any direct comparison with the Matthean temple tax account (Mt. 17.24-27). However, we may question whether potential impacts of the temple tax dialogue are consistent with those of previous Peter stories. ������������������������������������������-70 CE setting,102 might have responded with a sense of approval at the af�rmation of their ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���� ������ ��������103 Further responses might also have included pity towards the mistaken Peter, and wonder towards the miracle-working 99 Nau, Peter, pp.80�1; Moses, Trans�guration, p.136; Edwards, Disciples, p.81. 100 Collins, Mark, p.425. 101 Luz, Matthew 8�20, p.399; Best, Mark, p.75; Collins, Mark, p.426. 102 D. A. Hagner, Matthew 14�28 (Dallas: Word, 1995), p.511; Luz, Matthew 8�20, pp.415�16. 103 ������������������������������������������������25 and the Principle of �������������������������Treasures New and Old: Recent Contributions to Matthean Studies (D. Bauer and M. A. Powell, eds; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), pp.69�98 (95�7). 1

190

The Audience of Matthew

Jesus who dealt so gently with the collectors (17.25-27). Some might feel a sense of unease for having dealt with those outside their community in a more hostile manner to that depicted of Jesus.104 Others, unable to grasp the dramatic shifts in point of view, might have experienced confusion regarding their status towards the temple. 105 This range of reactions is consistent with those suggested for previous Peter stories. 6.2.f. Church Discourse (Matthew 18.1-35; Mark 9.33-50) ���������������������������������������������������������rch discourse (Mt. 18.1-35), the understanding of the disciples, including Peter, is both limited and secondary to that of Jesus. In this respect, Peter stands ��������� ��� ��������� ����� ���� ������ ������� ���������� ��������� �������� generous offer to forgive seven times temporarily places him in a positive light until the inadequacy of his stance is revealed (18.21-22).106 His offer might well make many in an audience feel extremely uneasy about instances in which they have withheld forgiveness. Limiting forgiveness to seven times would, however, meet with approval from those who have been repeatedly sinned against.107 Such feelings would then intensify in response to the injunction of Jesus to forgive seventy-seven times (18.22). Some might react with incredulity at the idea, and wonder whether they are in fact opening themselves up to repeated abuse. The intensi�cation of these largely negative reactions stands in contrast with the potential impact on those overwhelmed with a sense of their own sin. To such individuals the expansion of forgiveness might engender quiet and peaceful re�ection.108 The characterisation of Peter in �������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������s not yet binding and, as in the previous dialogue concerning taxes (17.2427), requires continued correction by Jesus.109 Once more, a reference to Peter the rock is set within the context of stumbling-block talk (18.6-7). These range of responses indicate the multi-vocal nature of the account.

104 ����������������������7, 90�2. 105 D. Patte, The Gospel according to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on ��������������� (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), pp.246�7. 106 Gundry, Matthew, pp.370�1; Davies and Allison, Matthew VIII�XVIII, pp.792�3; Wiarda, Peter, p.95. 107 Contra Luz, Matthew 8�20, p.465, who argues that Peter was not proposing a limited forgiveness, but rather perfect forgiveness denoted by the number seven. 108 T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1949), p.212. 109 Cassidy, Peter, p.79.

1

6. Aural Experience: Impact

191

6.2.g. The Rewards of Discipleship (Matthew 19.23-30; Mark 10.2831) In both Gospels, the rapid alternation between Jesus and the disciples conveys a sense of desperation on the part of the disciples to clarify matters (Mt. 19.23-28; Mk 10.23-29). Respective audiences are already ������������������������������������������������������������������������ time the lector describes the intervention of Peter and the subsequent response of Jesus (Mt. 19.27-30; Mk 10.28-31).110 Those who perceive wealth to be a sign of covenant-related divine benevolence might share ���� ����������� ������ ��� ���������� ����� ����� ������ ������ ����-14; Pss. 25.13; 144.12-15; 147.12-14; Prov. 11.28; 13.21; 22.4; Jer. 33.6; Tob. 14.2; Sir. 11.17, 22). Others, who have experienced oppression by those more socially advantaged, might instead concur with Jesus as to the perilous spiritual state of the wealthy (cf. Lk. 16.19-31). �������������������������������������������������������������������������� the rich man, have left everything to follow Jesus, would prompt a further range of responses (Mt. 19.27; Mk 10.28). Those who consider themselves disciples and who have already left everything might experience a sense of anticipation as they wait to hear whether they will receive a reward.111 �������������������������������������������������������������� example with that of the rich man. 112 Painful memories of intra-familial con�ict or the loss of possessions might also be recalled. Alternatively, others might respond with joy at the recollection of past discipleshiprelated changes that have proved bene�cial (cf. Phil. 1.3-6; Col. 1.3-6). They have already received a reward and wait in a state of eager antici������������������������������������������������������ease towards Peter, perceiving an ongoing interest in his own status and material bene�t. For them, ������������������������������������������������������������������ ��������������������113 Those who do not consider themselves disciples ��������������������reply, as they assess the costs and bene�ts of discipleship (cf. Lk. 14.28-33). Some might question what Peter has actually left behind, beyond a collection of nets (Mt. 4.20; Mk 1.18). Both Markan and Matthean audiences are afforded little time for detailed re�ection. The respective replies of Jesus (Mt. 19.28-30; Mk 10.29-31) would prompt a similarly broad range of responses. Those disciples in a Markan 110 Patte, ���������������, p.272. 111 G. Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (ET; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), pp.8�23; Luz, Matthew 8�20, pp.513�15. 112 Gundry, Mark, p.557; Collins, Mark, p.481; Luz, Matthew 8�20, p.509. 113 J. D. Kingsbury, Con�ict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), p.109.

1

192

The Audience of Matthew

��������� ���� ����� �������� ���������� ������������ ������ ����� ������� words as an af�rmation of their own experience (Mk 10.30). The statements regarding the hundredfold reward and eternal life might be taken as positive and encouraging promises (10.30). Alternatively, those disciples who have not yet experienced persecution might experience a sense of discomfort and unease at the thought that their situation could deteriorate. Non-disciples might experience a sense of confusion following the realisation that discipleship is not to be undertaken out of a desire �������������������������������������������������������������� ������ prompt similar responses in that it likewise contrasts a sense of ambigu����������������������������������������������������������������������� future age experience (Mt. 19.28-30). The prediction about the holding of positions of judgement further intensi�es this contrast (19.28). In summary, both accounts are likely to prompt a similar range of impacts, any variation being related to the degree of intensity experienced. 6.2.h. Declaration of Fidelity (Matthew 26.30-35; Mark 14.26-31) I will start with a consideration of the Markan account. The issue of the ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� this would cause any great degree of shock or surprise for Christian members of an audience. They are already aware of the story of the desertion of the disciples.114 Hearing the adapted citation of Zech. 13.7b would af������������������������������������������������������������������ was in ful�lment of scripture and that Jesus was in control of events. 115 This might engender a sense of peace amongst some. This response �����������������������������������������������������is resurrection and journey to Galilee (Mk 14.28). Others might instead wonder why it was necessary that the disciples desert and experience a sense of confusion. These suggested responses would hold for an audience hearing Mt. 26.31-32. The Markan Peter ignores the predicted resurrection and diverts attention away from Jesus and towards himself, focusing on the scattering of the sheep. He distances himself from the other disciples, predicting that 114 C. Bryan, A Preface to Mark: Notes on the Gospel in its Literary and Cultural Setting (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p.112. 115 On the use of Zech. 13.7b, see Collins, Mark, pp.669�70, R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p.530; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew: Commentary on Matthew XIX�XXVIII (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997), p.485. 1

6. Aural Experience: Impact

193

������ ��� ���� ����� ������ �� ���������� ����� ����� ���� ����9). An audience might wonder why Peter challenged and resisted the point of view of Jesus.116 A sense of puzzlement might follow as they question why Peter thought himself above the other disciples. Any in the audience hostile to Peter might experience a sense of keen anticipation knowing that his fall is soon to come. Others, who have deserted Jesus in the past, might experience a sense of solidarity with Peter, knowing that good intentions often fail. These reactions would be intensi�ed for a Matthean audience. Syreeni ������������������������������������������������������������������������ of ��� ������/��� ���� (Mt. 26.31, 33), absent from Mk 14.27.117 The disciples will fall away (����������������������������of me��������������������� ������� �������� of you��� ������ ����� ������� ��������� ����� �������� ���� Matthean Peter further emphasises that he will ���������� ���������� �������� �������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������� (Mk 14.29; cf. Mt. 26.35). A literary analysis would indicate that this positively contrasts with the earlier identi�cation by Jesus of Peter as a ���������� (Mt. 16.23) and his ��������������������������������������������������������������������������c�� (��� �������������� ��������).118 Peter has now progressed to the point where he has accepted the nature of discipleship (16.24-28) and is now willing to lay down his own life. Seen in isolation this declaration of ���������������������������������������������������������tthean narrative.119 For an audience, however, such literary parallels might not be ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ The Markan Jesus then predicts the speci���������������������������� (Mk 14.30). This would provoke a similar range of impacts outlined with respect to 14.27-28. Some might interpret this as further clari�cation that Jesus is in control, even in desperate circumstances. Others might question the necessity of singling out Peter to experience not only desertion, but denial.120 �������� ��������������������� ��� ������ ��������������� intensify any emotional responses experienced with respect to 14.29. Anyone hostile to Peter might enjoy his increasingly desperate protestations. Others might instead feel sympathy towards him, recognising the 116 117 118 119 p.184. 120 1

U. Luz, Matthew 21�28 (ET; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), p.389. ������������������������ Nau, Peter, pp.84�5. Luz, Matthew 21�28, p.389; Cassidy, Peter, p.30; M. Davies, Matthew, Luz, Matthew 21�28, p.389.

194

The Audience of Matthew

often-present gulf between confession and practice. Mt. 26.34-35 varies little from Mk 14.30-31 and would probably prompt a similar range of impacts. Both accounts conclude with the other disciples adopting the ���������������������������������������������������������������������� distinguish his point of view from that of the other disciples have failed. 6.2.i. Prayer in the Garden (Matthew 26.36-46; Mark 14.32-42) In Mk 14.33, Jesus takes Peter, James, and John for a period of private prayer, during which he experiences distress and agitation. The focus on the actions, words, and emotions of Jesus might lead many to empathetically share in his sorrow, resulting in little consideration being given to Peter and the two other disciples.121 This is especially the case when, as observed by Adela Yarbro Collins, it is noted that this is the �rst time ��� ���� ������� ����� ������ ���������� ���� ���������� ��� �������� ������ ���� impending suffering and death��122 Others might be surprised at his grief and protest in the light of his foreknowledge and frequent passion predictions.123 Still others might interpret the suffering of Jesus as a sign of his strength and determination to go through the passion.124 Those less emotionally involved in the experience of Jesus might instead wonder why he would share such a private and personal experience with Peter, so soon after their earlier exchange (14.33-35). They would experience a sense of unease as they search for an answer. A few might even be jealous of the intimacy enjoyed by Peter and the two other disciples. In Mk 14.35-36, Jesus addresses his Father. The fast pace of events would give an attentive audience little time for re�ection on anything but the words of Jesus. Little consideration would be given to the accompanying disciples. Some might experience a continued empathetic response towards the suffering Jesus. Others, familiar with early Christian teachings on the suffering of Christ, might respond with praise at the thought that Jesus was willing to go through so much on their behalf (cf. 1 Cor. 15.3-4; Phil. 2.5-8; 3.10-11; Heb. 5.7-8; 13.12; 1 Pet. 2.21, 23; 3.18; 4.1). Non-believers or new followers of Jesus might respond with puzzlement, questioning the nature and purpose of the cup Jesus was called to drink.125 121 Gundry, Mark, p.855. 122 Collins, Mark, p.673. 123 Cf. Luz, Matthew 21�28, pp.394, 398�400. 124 Luz, Matthew 21�28, pp.398�400. 125 Gundry, Matthew, p.553; Davies and Allison, Matthew XIX�XXVIII, p.497. Contrast with D. Senior, The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1985), p.80, and Luz, Matthew 21�28, p.396.

1

6. Aural Experience: Impact

195

The Markan Jesus then addresses the sleeping Peter (Mk 14.37-38) by his pre-������������ ������ �������� ����� ������� ����� ��� ���� ��������� might experience pity for the exhausted Peter.126 Others might respond with sympathy for Jesus, who, while remaining sacri�cially obedient to the will of his Father, has followers who do not support him in his spiritual struggle, but instead care for their own needs. Some might experience a sense of shame, that they, like the disciples, have previously abandoned Jesus (cf. 1 Tim. 1.19). Those who react in this manner might ���������������������������������������������������������������������� into the time of trial; the spirit is willing but ����������������������������� Mt. 24.42; 25.13; 1 Cor. 16.13; Eph. 5.14; Col. 4.2-3; 1 Thess. 5.6; Rev. 16.15). This might generate a degree of worry and anxiety amongst those who fearfully anticipate their own imminent time of trial. They would question the ���������������������������������������������������������ence this state (cf. 1 Cor. 1.12; 3.22; Gal. 2.11-21; 2 Pet. 3.15-16). Those ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� demise. Jesus predicted that Peter would deny him three times and already he has fallen asleep twice (Mk 14.30, 37, 40). In Mk 14.39-42, Jesus returns twice to the sleeping disciples. The �������������������������������������������������������������������� further question their own degree of wakefulness. They are not told how to remain awake except through the repeated interventions of Jesus. 127 Any audience focus on the three disciples or on their own status as �������������������������������������������������������������������������tion of his imminent betrayal (14.42). The concentration of those preoccupied with thoughts about their own discipleship experience might ���������������������������������������������������������������������pied with their own situation might focus on the coming betrayal, and respond with sadness at the suffering their Lord endured. Others might experience a sense of calm satisfaction, knowing that Jesus endured betrayal and cruci�xion, and yet emerged the victor, a victory they will also share (cf. 1 Cor. 15.20-27). A�� ����������� ����������� ��� ���� �����-46 would potentially vary from that of Mk 14.32-42 in one key aspect. The consistent Matthean emphasis on the prayers of Jesus (Mt. 26.39, 42, 44), in contrast with ������������������������������������������������������iples, would lessen the proportion of the audience whose reaction is governed by the �����������������������������������������������������128 Other redactional

1

126 Collins, Mark, p.682. 127 M. Davies, Matthew, p.186. 128 Cf. Senior, Passion, pp.76, 82.

196

The Audience of Matthew

differences relating to the characterisation of Peter would be of secondary importance in that the primary contrast an audience would experience would be that between Jesus and the three disciples, rather than that between Peter and the two sons of Zebedee. 6.2.j. Peter Follows the Arrested Jesus (Matthew 26.58; Mark 14.54) A �����������������������tion is shifted rapidly back and forth between Jesus and the disciples in Mk 14.43-65.129 Following the arrest of Jesus (14.43-49), the audience is informed of the desertion and �ight of the disciples (14.50). Their attention is particularly focused upon a certain young man who follows but then �ees naked when challenged (14.5152). Attention is then refocused back to Jesus, who is brought before the high priest, chief priests, scribes, and elders (14.53). The next switch in attention is to Peter, who, despite deserting, follows at a distance (14.54). In Mk 14.55-65, attention is once more refocused on Jesus and the nefarious attempts to convict him. The effect of these rapid alternations is to leave an audience with little pause for sustained re�ection. The account raises many questions but provides few answers: Why did the disciples �ee? Who is the naked young man? Why did Peter follow at a ���������� ��� ����������� ���������� readily to source answers to these questions, combined with the fast pace of alternation, might leave many experiencing a sense of both helplessness and emotional dislocation. Their experience mirrors that of the confused disciples. Alternative audience impacts include those that focus on either the disciples or Jesus. Those who perceive themselves as currently weak in faith (cf. 1 Cor. 16.13; Heb. 6.4-6; 12.3, 12-13) might emotionally identify themselves with the disciples and Peter. Peter is characterised as ����������������������������������������������������������������������ence to a gap between their respective points of view as well as to their physical separation.130 While Jesus faces the high priest inside, Peter is located outside (Mk 14.54; cf. Mt. 26.58). He is not party to the important events unfolding. Despite being in a crowded environment, he is alone, neither associating with Jesus nor with the establishment. Hearing this con�rms that disciples with good intentions sometimes fail, thus af�rming the normality of their own experience. 131 Peter is, nevertheless, nearer to Jesus ���������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������

1

129 Collins, Mark, p.698. 130 Cassidy, Peter, p.31. 131 Bryan, Preface, p.116.

6. Aural Experience: Impact

197

���������������������������������������������� �����dants.132 Those who follow this line of interpretation might respond with a degree of admiration towards Peter, even though they are aware of his subsequent denials (Mk 14.66-72).133 Some might alternatively focus on the experience of Jesus (cf. Rom. 1.16; Phil. 3.10-11; 2 Tim. 1.8, 12). Well aware of the passion story (cf. 1 Cor. 15.3-8), they identify with and share the calm response of Jesus to the hostile crowds and scheming authorities.134 In the context of these observations, it is unlikely that Peter would be the focus of any more audience attention than that which he receives from those attendants of the high priest sitting at the �re. His presence was, and is, simply noted. ��������������������������������������������������������������pare and contrast with this reconstruction? Matthew likewise alternates between a focus on Jesus (Mt. 26.47-50, 52-56a, 57, 59-68) and the disciples (26.51, 56, 58).135 A similar effect to Mark is thus possible. A tonal difference may be found, however, in that Matthew raises fewer questions than Mark. Gone is the enigmatic reference to the naked young ����������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������� 136 Those in a Matthean audience who recall that these things must occur in order for both the predictions of Jesus and scripture to be ful�lled (16.21; 17.22-23a; 20.17-19; 26.54, 56), would thus most likely experience a similar response to those in a Markan audience who focus on Jesus rather than the disciples, the naked young man, or Peter. �������������� Three Denials (Matthew 26.69-75; Mark 14.66-72) A ��������������������������������������������������������������������� The �rst variable is the degree to which the contrast is picked up between the trials of Jesus and Peter. In both accounts the authorities �ounder in their attempts to implicate Jesus in a crime that deserves death (Mt. 26.59-68; Mk 14.55-65). Throughout, he remains an island of serene composure amidst a chaotic sea of conspiracy and confusion. In 132 Collins, Mark, pp.700�1; Luz, Matthew 21�28, p.424. 133 Contrast Gundry, Mark, p.884. 134 D. ��������������������������������������������������������������������� 26:47���������CBQ 56 (1994), pp.701�14 (711), suggests that Mt. 5.38�42; 10.17� 23; 17.1�8, ���������������������������������������������������������� 135 Davies and Allison, Matthew XIX�XXVIII, p.519. 136 Davies and Allison, Matthew XIX�XXVIII����������������������������������� ��� ����� ��� ��� ���� �������� ��� ��� ����� ��� ��� ��������� ����� ��� ���������� ������ ��� ���� betrayal, would draw this conclusion. 1

198

The Audience of Matthew

contrast, Peter, who faces neither high priest nor council, founders under the cross-examination of a servant-girl.137 Those aware of this contrast might experience a heightening of the already present awareness of the void between Peter and Jesus made explicit in his unfolding denials. Any sympathy or scorn felt towards Peter might be mixed with admiration for Jesus, who both withstood his interrogation and predicted the denial of Peter (Mt. 26.34; Mk 14.30).138 This section of the audience does not respond to Peter per se, but rather to the contrast between Peter and Jesus. The response of those who do not perceive this contrast is likely �������������������������������������������������������������������� might respond positively towards Peter, empathising with him in his discomfort under questioning and intense grief upon hearing the cockcrow (Mt. 26.75; Mk 14.72).139 Those familiar with the later witness of the ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������ �delity to the Lord even in the face of persecution��140 Others, hostile to Peter, might respond negatively to his denials, despising him for his failures.141 A few in a Matthean audience might observe that his oath and denial contravene the earlier anticipatory prohibitions made by Jesus (Mt. 5.34; 10.33), placing him in danger of being denied by Jesus before the Father (10.32-33).142 The second variable relates to the degree to which audiences were ������������������������������������������������������������������������ was a prominent and well-known leader in the early church and the 137 �����������������������������������������ss���������������������������������������������������������before Men: Observations on Matt. 26:57��������JSNT 13 (1981), pp.46�66 (49�64); Cf. R. ��� ����������� ����� ���������� ��� ������ ���� ��������� ��� �� ���������� ������� ��� The Interpretation of Mark (W. Telford, ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress; London: SPCK, 1985), pp.134�57 (151); J. Camery-Hoggatt, �����������������������������������������(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp.171�2; Davies and Allison, Matthew XIX�XXVIII, p.543; Collins, Mark, p.709. 138 Gundry, Mark, p.888; Luz, Matthew 21�28, p.455. 139 Bryan, Preface, p.116; Collins, Mark, p.710; Davies and Allison, Matthew XIX�XXVIII, p.550. 140 Perkins, Peter, p.61. 141 W. H. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q (2nd ed.; Bloomington�������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������� the climax of a Markan anti-disciple polemic. Contrast T. ������������������������� Denial as Polemic or Confession: The Implications of Media Criticism for Biblical ������������������Orality, Aurality and Biblical Narrative (L. H. Silberman, ed.; Semeia, 39; Decatur, GA: Scholars Press, 1987), pp.47�68 (55�60). 142 Luz, Matthew 21�28, pp.454�5. 1

6. Aural Experience: Impact

199

majority of an audience would have been aware of his betrayal. Thus, the element of surprise inherent to the process of a reader-oriented �rstreading experience would have been absent. 143 Their focus would not have been on anticipating the next twist or turn in the plot. Hearing the accounts as an already familiar story would lessen the likelihood of �����������������������������������������������������������, and oath. In addition, both respective audiences hear Peter deny Jesus three times. This repetition highlights the issue of denial and allows time for the ��������������������������������������e familiar account recounted by the lector to their own experience. Those who have denied Jesus (cf. Mt. 24.10-12; 1 Tim. 1.19-20; Heb. 6.4-6; Jas 5.19-20) might experience feelings of guilt, shame, and repentance (cf. Acts Pet. 7).144 The Matthean ��������� ��� �������� ������� ��� �� ��������� ���������� ��� ������ ������ increase the probability of this impact. Those who have remained faithful (cf. Mk 13.11; Phil. 1.3-6; Col. 1.4; 1 Thess. 3.6) would instead hypothesise circumstances in which they themselves might deny Jesus.145 Some might recall situations in which they have confessed the name of Jesus in testing circumstances (cf. Acts 8.1-3) and respond with either gratitude or self-congratulation. Those aware that Peter denied Jesus, but who do not know the speci�c details, might be less likely to focus on their own experience. Instead, their attention would be on the gleaning of information supplementary to ��������������������������������������������������������������������cance for this section of an audience. They might respond by raising any one of a number of questions: Why was Peter not with the other disciples? Why did he follow Jesus into the courtyard? Why was he intimidated by a servant-girl(s) and bystanders? Why did he deny with such vehemence after earlier declaring self-sacri�cing �delity (Mt. 26.33, 35; Mk 14.29, 31)? Why did he forget the earlier warning of Jesus (Mt. 26.34, 75; Mk 14.30, 72)? The nature of these questionings would be shaped by each �������������������������������������������������������������������� question why it took two cockcrows for Peter to remember the words of Jesus (Mk 14.68, 72). In this respect, redactional differences are more signi�cant for this section of an audience than for those already highly familiar with the story. Nevertheless, both Gospels raise a similar range of questions to ponder. It is probable that this section of an audience would have comprised ������������������������������������������������ 143 Perkins, Peter, p.65. 144 For Peter and the cock as an early Christian icon of the remorseful sinner, see Luz, Matthew 21�28, p.457. 145 Cf. Luz, Matthew 21�28, p.455.

1

200

The Audience of Matthew

��� �������� ���� ��� ���� ����� ���� �������� ���� ����������� ��� ���� ���� ����������������������������������������������������������������������� would have circulated. Many elements within early Christianity were mission oriented and so we should allow for a minority within any audience of those expressing initial interest in Christianity (cf. Mt. 28.18-20; Acts 1.8; Gal. 2.7-9). Paul raises just such a possibility with respect to the church in Corinth when he considers the impact of tongues on the ��������� ��������������� ������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� (1 Cor. 14.23-����� ������ ��������� ������ ��� ������ �������� ��� �������� denial. Thus, potential reactions of shock, surprise, disappointment, or ������������������������������������������������������������������������ and actions. These two variables relate to the experience of both Markan and Matthean audiences and as such both Gospels would have produced a similar range of impacts. 6.3. Summary The purpose of this chapter has been two-fold. First, I have sought to demonstrate the plausibility of different early Christian responses to Matthean Peter stories. The oral delivery of a Gospel shapes rather than determines an audie�������������������������������������������������sis to reconstruct a detailed aural experience as any such reconstruction would simply be one of many possible reconstructions and thus would not progress my argument any further than that achieved through identifying plausible impacts. I have not attempted to reconstruct, for example, the speci�c aural experiences of a young Jewish mother nursing her infant or a rich elderly Gentile patron. Nor I have considered the effect of lector interjections or explanations that would probably have occurred if Matthew were being used in a teaching setting. The impacts posited re�ect the text�lector�audience communication setting de�ned in Chapter 4 and the controls outlined earlier in this chapter. The variety of these impacts mirrors the heterogeneous nature of early Christian audiences in which auditors differed in terms of their age, gender, ethnicity, social standing, degrees of familiarity with Jesus and Peter-related traditions, attitudes towards and involvement in the Jesus movement, and experiences of persecution and/or peace. More factors could be added to this list. This high degree of auditor heterogeneity is more signi�cant in shaping aural impact than any particular redactional 1

6. Aural Experience: Impact

201

differences between Matthew and Mark. For these redactional differences to achieve the signi�cance assigned in community readings, we must presume highly literate readers with the necessary access to both Gospels so as to permit a textual comparison, an opportunity afforded contemporary Matthean scholars. Auditor variety challenges the suitability of the Gospel as a means of communicating a particular, locationdependent, transparent identity of Peter, as suggested in the Matthean local community reconstructions under consideration. In such readings too much is demanded of and imposed on a �rst-century early Christian audience. Community reconstructions assume a homogenous impact of the Gospel. Even if we allow for an ethnically homogenous audience of Matthean Jewish-Christians living in Antioch, variations in age, sex, educational background, profession, kinship relations, and attitudinal and personality differences would still result in aural experiences that varied from one person to another. The Gospel is no different from this study, in that both have generated and will generate a variety of impacts. My second purpose in this chapter was to compare potential audience responses to Matthean and Markan Peter stories. While emphases differ, the considerable overlap in potential impacts would suggest that a Matthean audience familiar with either Mark or similar traditions would incorporate their experiences within existing mental representations. ���������������������������������������������������������������������� Peter to justify differing location-speci�c community readings. A Matthean audience aware of Mark would have experienced little that would signal that the stories they were hearing intentionally re�ected their time of the church setting. Most likely they would have understood that Matthew was retelling with additional detail and emphasis Markan stories about Peter during the time of Jesus. This, of course, does not rule out an authorial intention to re�ect a speci�c time of the church settings. It just means that from an audience perspective, the Gospel is unsuitable for communicating such an intention.

1

Chapter 7

CONCLUSION

My purpose in this study has been to establish the proposition that Matthean community reconstructions currently represent inadequate readings of the Gospel. Three audience options are usually posited. These include a local audience, usually Jewish-Christians (or ChristianJews) in Antioch, a geographically diverse Jewish-Christian audience, and a non-speci����������������all �������������I have focused on local community readings that continue to dominate Matthean studies. Consideration has not been given to combinations of these options, such as, for example, the Gospel being intended for both local and universal audiences.1 I will now identify the major conclusions of this study and indicate further avenues of investigation. I analysed, in Chapter 1, a number of hermeneutical constructs that relate to the audience question. The reliance on literary constructs, such as the implied author, implied reader, intended reader, and authorial audience, was challenged on the basis that such constructs fail to incorporate adequately a distinction between the author and the reader in the text, and between the text and �esh-and-blood audiences. This critique is especially applicable in the case of a Gospel with a covert narrator and narratee. Without adequate distinctions, any hypothetical audience reconstruction, whether, local, Jewish, or universal, remains a non-falsi�able thesis. A further problematic text-related distinction was identi�ed, that between the time of Jesus and the time of the church. The dif�culties involved in distinguishing between the two times often leads scholars to pay lip service to the presence in the Gospel of the time of Jesus, while emphasising the time of the church in their community readings. This hermeneutical sidestep was critiqued as being methodologically opaque

1 See, for example, J. Marcus, Mark 1�8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1999), p.28, for Mark as intended for both local and universal audiences.

7. Conclusion

203

and inconsistent. The implication of these various hermeneutical ambiguities is to precipitate a shift in this study from searching for the ������������������������������������������������������������������������ for any proffered audience thesis. The incorporation into future critical approaches of these ambiguities is a prerequisite for any attempt to posit an intended audience for the Gospel. In Chapters ���� I demonstrated that three representative Matthean community readings inadequately incorporate plot-related developments in the Gospel into their reconstructions. In short, there is a mismatch between the Gospel, which portrays sequential, time-related plot developments, and the task of reconstructing a snapshot in time of a commu�������������������������������������������������������������������-hour �lm into a single photograph. Much is lost. In addition, I found that the treatment of characterisation is both selective, emphasising, for example, positive or negative traits of an individual or group with mixed traits, and restrictive, ignoring certain characters in the Gospel when reconstructing ������������������������������������������������������������������������� position as any incorporation in their reconstructions of plot developments and a balanced analysis of all Gospel characters, including such groups, for example, as the pre-70 CE Sadducees, would result in the time of Jesus dominating their use of the text and their community reconstructions losing much of their impact. I gave speci�c attention in Chapter 3 to Peter, whose status as �rst disciple in both Matthew and Mark is often deemed to re�ect his prominent position within local community settings. His pre-eminent status marked him out as a relevant test case for consideration in subsequent chapters. Further, consideration of Matthean community reconstructions in light of Mark was called for, in that Matthean audience familiarity with Mark or similar traditions is highly probable, especially in light of ������������������������������������������� Chapter 4 set the context for Chapters ��� by de�ning the dynamics of the text�lector�audience communication situation for Matthew and Mark. Key to my analysis was the observation that early Christian audiences were highly heterogeneous in terms of ethnicity, gender, age, wealth, familiarity with either Peter or Petrine traditions, experience of persecution, and levels of commitment to Jesus. As such, the presumption should be towards mixed experiences of Matthew by early Christian audiences. In addition, I portrayed aural experience as being, in essence, messy, of a nature in which attention wanders, different associations crowd in, and subjective responses dominate. This contrasts sharply with the compliant and respectful implied readers and authorial audiences 1

204

The Audience of Matthew

created in many Matthean community readings. This position set the context for Chapters ���. In Chapter 5, a comparison of the settings and narrative frames of stories involving Peter in Matthew and Mark found suf�cient overlap for me to conclude that those in a Matthean audience familiar with Mark would incorporate their experience of the Matthean Peter within existing mental representations shaped by Mark. Their dominant experience of the accounts would be as references to events in the time of Jesus, rather than as a re�ection of their own events. This does not, of course, preclude members of an audience being uniquely impacted within their own particular context through the aural experience of the Gospel. It simply means that members of an audience would experience the Gospel as relating to events, times, and places other to their own context. It does ���������������������������������������uencing the author, but it does rule out an audience experience in which the text is experienced primarily as an intentional re�ection of their context. I suggested in Chapter 6 varied responses to Matthean Peter stories using the controls of the text�lector�audience setting and early Christian responses to Peter. My analysis was illustrative rather than comprehensive in nature. The plausibility of the various potential impacts challenges the practice of recreating a uniform and singular experience of the Gospel, as is the case in Matthean local community readings. Parallel impacts with Markan accounts were also highlighted, thus reinforcing ��������������������������������������������������� Matthew would have been incorporated within existing mental representations of events portrayed in a time and place other to that of their own community. Where does this leave us? A number of areas would suggest themselves as fruitful avenues for further investigation. First, I observed in this study awareness on the part of the evangelists of audience dynamics. ������� ���� ��������� ����� ��� ������� ���������� ���� �������� ������� ���� unstable, some are homogeneous, others heterogeneous. While I highlighted some particularly pertinent examples, my analysis was by no means comprehensive. A more complete study would clarify each ���������������������������������������������������������������������� inform the debate concerning the nature of the audience(s) an evangelist might have envisaged for his Gospel. Secondly, further investigation is required into the open nature of ���������������������������������������������������������������������� issues into binary options that require his audience to make choices, or, in his own terms, to bind and loose (Mt. 16.19; 18.18). Such an investigation would challenge the assumption that the Gospel is primarily a 1

7. Conclusion

205

��������������������������������������� There are within the teachings of Jesus certain tensions, contrasts, or contradictions characteristic of wisdom literature (cf. Prov. 26.4-5). These tensions introduce a degree of redundancy that invites audiences to make choices. In Mt. 5.16, Jesus instructs the disciples (and crowds) to let their light shine before others, so that their good works may be seen and glory given to their Father in heaven. In contrast, Jesus then warns them in 6.1 against practicing their righteous deeds before others in order to be seen, the result being the forfeiting of any reward from their Father in heaven. Such seemingly contradictory but related injunctions, indicated by their shared vocabulary, challenge auditors to question their motives and to act accordingly. Similarly, Jesus warns against judging in 7.1-5, but then requires his audience to judge false prophets in 7.15-����������������������������void hypocritical judgements on the one hand, and being overly tolerant on the other. Again, wise binding and loosing is required, shaped by an ����������������������������������������������������������������������� the Sermon on the Mount.2 Decisions are called for elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus informs the twelve in his discourse on discipleship that they will receive either negative or positive receptions as they proclaim the good news (10.13-15, 40-42). All possible receptions are divided into two polar types. Followers of Jesus presumably encountered the occasional ambivalent response, neither overwhelmingly positive nor overtly negative. The effect of presenting all responses in this binary manner is to encourage auditors to judge for themselves the nature of the receptions they encounter. An analysis of such tensions would challenge the practice of selectively interpreting certain injunctions as descriptive of a community setting, while ignoring related but contrasting injunctions. Typically, for examp��������������������������������������������� been deemed to re�������������������������������������������������������� positive receptions has been downplayed. Thirdly, building upon my previous suggestion, a wider investigation is required into the nature of the discipleship (������������ ������ ��� �����, Mt. 28.19) and teaching (������������ ��������, 28.20) activities in which the evangelist invites followers of Jesus to participate. For example, in ch. 13, Jesus presents seven kingdom parables, the �rst two of which he interprets for the disciples. The absence of any explanations for the last �ve parables would indicate that the evangelist expects his audience to provide equivalent interpretations. What would count as a strong or weak interpretation, or are all interpretations equal? Jesus 2 See D. C. Allison, Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), pp. 237�49. 1

206

The Audience of Matthew

subsequently asks whether the disciples have understood his teachings. ������������������������������������������������������������������������� (�����������) who has been discipled (������������) for the kingdom of heaven is like the master of a house, who brings out of his treasury, ������� ���� ���� ����� ��������� ������ �������� ���� ���������� ��� ������ ���� teachings in new and old ways, an ability expected by any �rst-century rabbi of his students. Related to this, the evangelist portrays the words of Jesus as having a potential beyond their setting in the Gospel. In the ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� (13.19, 23). Like the Gospel, it can prompt different responses. A similar image of multiplication is utilised in the parable of the talents, in which faithful disciples are expected to take the talents entrusted them (i.e., the teachings of Jesus), and multiply them as able, while they wait for their ����������������������-���������������������������������������������� very process and would suggest that he would probably have responded positively to the use of his Gospel in a manner similar to how he used Mark. Such an investigation into how the evangelist anticipates the words of Jesus to be taught would challenge those readings in which the meaning of the Gospel, like a buried talent, is restricted to descriptive and legitimation purposes. Fourthly, additional investigation is required into reconstructing plausible reception scenarios of the Gospel that incorporate the �ndings of aurality studies and recognise the heterogeneous nature of early Christianity. It was not uncommon in the 1950s and �60s to �nd Matthean scholars arguing for a Gentile evangelist, and, unsurprisingly, a text-derived Gentile audience. Jewish-Christian community readings presently dominate, re�ecting the very Jewish nature of the Gospel. The �����������������������������������������������ience in the image of the text has bracketed out consideration as to how the Gospel, which itself includes many Gentile characters, would have been received by �eshand-blood Gentiles, those who, in future generations, would preserve and transmit the Gospel. As with many other categories of auditors, Gentile auditors of the Gospel have been neglected. The Gospel concludes with Jesus appealing to his Jewish disciples to make disciples of ������ ��� �����, teaching them his teachings as portrayed in the Gospel (Mt. 28.19). How might the Gospel have functioned, for example, within the mission activities of Jewish-Christians to Gentiles? Early Christians did not hold back from de�ning different social roles and identities, whether of husband and wife, parent and child, or master and slave (cf. the Haustafeln in Eph. 5.21�6.9; Col. 3.18�4.1; 1 Pet. 2.18�3.7). In this context it seems 1

7. Conclusion

207

reasonable to ask how the Gospel might have been experienced by such categories of auditors, whether their attitudes and behaviour aligned or diverged from such de�nitions. How might, for example, a Christian master who abused his slaves or a young girl who sought to honour her parents have heard the Gospel? In summary, local community reconstructions currently represent inadequate readings of the Gospel in that they result from a hermeneutical process that is highly ambiguous, are selective, if not abusive, in their treatment of plot and characterisation, and operate with an overly simplistic conception of the nature of audience experience that fails to incorporate the dynamics of aurality and an audience awareness of other early Christian traditions.

1

BIBLIOGRAPHY Achtemeier, P. J., 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996). Alexander, L. C. A., �������������������������������������������������������������� GAC, pp.71�111. ������������ ������ �������������� ����� ���� ���� ������ ��� ������ ������� ���������� Interpretation (April 2003), pp.163�73. ���������������������������The Cambridge Companion to The Gospels (S. C. Barton, ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp.13�33. Allison, D. C., ������������������������������ ���������������������������������������� CBQ 56 (1994), pp.701�14. ���The Jesus Tradition in Q (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997). ���The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). ���Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005). ���������������������������������� ���IBS 10 (1988), pp.62�70. Andrews, E., Markedness Theory: The Union of Asymmetry and Semiosis in Language (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990). Aristotle, The Poetics (ET; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995). Aune, D. E. The New Testament in its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987). Baird, J. A., Audience Criticism and the Historical Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969). Bar-Efrat, S., Narrative Art in the Bible (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1988). ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (2nd ed.; ET; London: SCM, 1983), pp.58�164. Barton, S. C. ����� ��� ��������� ���� ������� ������������� ��� ��������� ������� GAC, pp.173�94. ���Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Bauckham, R. J., ������������ ������� ������� ����������������� �eloved ������������� R. Bauckham and C. Mosser, The Gospel of John and Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), pp.120�39. ��������������������������������������������������������GAC, pp.9�48. ���Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). ������������������������������-�����������������������������������������������The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity (E. W. Klink III, ed.; London: T&T Clark, 2010), pp.68�110.

Bibliography

209

Bauer, D. R., ������������������������������������������������������������� (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1988). Baum, A. D., �������������������� Written or Oral? A Rabbinic Analogy and Empirical ��������������Built Upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland, eds; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), pp.1�23. Beare, F. W., The Gospel according to Matthew: A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1981). Beaton, R. C., �������������W�����������The Written Gospel (M. Bockmuehl and D. A. Hagner, eds; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp.116�34. Beavis, M. A., ������� ���������� ���� ��������� ���� ������� �������� ��� ����� �����12 (Shef�eld: JSOT, 1989). �����������������������������������������������65): Reader Response and Greco����������������CBQ 49 (1987), pp.581�96. Bellinzoni, A. J., J. B. Tyson, and W. O. Walker (eds), The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1985). Best, E., Mark: The Gospel as Story (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983). Bird, M. F., ������������������������������ �����������������The Gospel for All Christians ������������JTS 57.2 (2006), pp.474�86. ���������������������������ectarian Christians? The Non-Canonical Gospels and �����������The Gospels for All Christians���in The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity (E. W. Klink III, ed.; London: T&T Clark, 2010), p.27�48. ����������mes from the East and the West? Luke 13.28-29/Matt 8.11-12 and the �������������������NTS 52 (2006), pp.441�57. Black, C. C., The Disciples according to Mark: Markan Redaction in Current Debate (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1989). ������������������������������������������������������������������������������JSNT 37 (1989), pp.31�41. ������� ��� ���� ����� �������� ������ ���� ������� �� ����������� ��������� ��� ���������� ����������������������Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland, eds; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), pp.24�52. Blickenstaff, M., ������������������������������������������������������������������ Violence in the Gospel of Matthew (London: T&T Clark, 2005). ����������������������������������������c Communities and ��������������������The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity (E. W. Klink III, ed.; London: T&T Clark, 2010), pp.111�33. Bold, P. G., ������������������������������������������������������s (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �����������������������������������������Orality, Aurality and Biblical Narrative (L. H. Silberman, ed.; Semeia, 39; Decatur, GA: Scholars Press, 1987), pp.47�68. Booth, W., The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961). Broadhead, E. K., Mark (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 2001). Brooks, S. H., ������������������������������������� his Special Sayings Material (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1987). Brown, R. �������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������, CBQ 45 (1983), pp.74�9. 1

210

Bibliography

Brown, R. E., K. P. Donfried, and J. Reumann (eds), Peter in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (Minneapolis: Augsburg; New York: Paulist, 1973). Brown, R. E., and J. P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist, 1983). Brown, S., ���������������������������������������������������������������������ZNW 69 (1978), pp.73�90. Bryan, C., A Preface to Mark: Notes on the Gospel in its Literary and Cultural Setting (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). Bultmann, R., History of the Synoptic Tradition (2nd ed.; ET: Oxford: Blackwell, 1972). Burkert, W., Greek Religion (ET; Oxford: Blackwell, 1985). Burridge, R. A., What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Dearborn, MI: Dove, 2004). Byrskog, S., ����������������������������������������������ections on James D. G. �������Jesus Remembered���JSNT 26 (2004), pp.459�71. ������������������������Sitz im Leben: Social Memory, the Jesus Tradition and the ��������������������NTS 52 (2006), pp.319�36. ���Story as History � History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (Leiden: Brill, 2002). Camery-Hoggatt, J., �����������������������������������������(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). ���������������������������������������������������������������������������undancy in ����������Semeia 31 (1985), pp.71�89. ���������������������������������������������������������� (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1994). Carr, D. M., Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). ����������������������������������������������CBQ 55 (1993), pp.54�67. ���Households and Discipleship: A Study of Matthew 19�20 (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1994). �����������������������������������������������������������������The Gospel of Matthew in its Roman Imperial Context (J. Riches and D. C. Sim, eds; London: T&T Clark, 2005), pp.143�65. ����������������-22 and Matthean Discipleship: An Audience-Oriented Perspec�������CBQ 59 (1997), pp.58�75. ���Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2000). ���Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (2nd ed.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004). Carter, W., and J. P. Heil, ����������������������������-Oriented Perspectives (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1998). Cassidy, R., Four Times Peter: Portrayals of Peter in the Four Gospels and at Philippi (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2007). Catchpole, D., The Quest for Q (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993). Charlesworth, J. H. The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995). Chatman, S., Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978). 1

Bibliography

211

Clark Wire, A., The Case for Mark Composed in Performance (Eugene: Cascade, 2011). Cohick, L. H., Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009). Cohn-���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2.11�1�����JSNT 18 (1983), pp.68�74. Collins, A. Y., Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007). Cope, O. L., Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1976). Cousland, J. R. C., The Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew (Leiden: Brill, 2002). �������������������������������������Gentiles in Matthew? Matthew 15:29-39 as a ������������NovT 41 (1999), pp.1�23. Crossley, J. G., ������������������������������������������������������������������������� (London: T&T Clark, 2004). Cullmann, O., Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (2nd ed.; ET; London: SCM, 1962 [1953]). Culpepper, R. A., Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983). Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964). Davies, W. D., and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988, 1991, 1997). ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������n Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond the Oral and the Written Gospel (T. Thatcher, ed.; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), pp.135�80. Dewey, J., ������������������������������������������in Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond the Oral and the Written Gospel (T. Thatcher, ed.; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), pp.71�87. ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� CBQ 53 (1991), pp.221�36. ���(ed.), Orality and Textuality in Early Christian Literature (Semeia, 65; Decatur, GA: Scholars Press, 1995). Dodson, D. S., Reading Dreams: An Audience-Critical Approach to the Dreams in the Gospel of Matthew (London: T&T Clark, 2009). Dowd, S., and E. ��� �������� ����� ������������ ��� ������� ������ ��� ������ �������ve ���������������������������������JBL 125 (2006), pp.271�97. Droge, A. ��������������������������������������������������������������������1����JBL 109.2 (1990), pp.307�11. �������� ��� ���� ����� ��������� ������������ ���� ��������� �������� ������������� ��� Modelling Early Christianity: Social-scienti�c Studies of the New Testament in its Context (P. F. Esler, ed.; New York: Routledge, 1995), pp.159�82. Dunn, J. D. G., Beginning from Jerusalem: Christianity in the Making, vol. 2. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). ���Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence (London: SPCK, 2010). ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� �����������������JSNT 26 (2004), pp.473�87. ���������������������������������������1�����JSNT 18 (1983), pp.3�57. 1

212

Bibliography

���Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). ���A New Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005). ���The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism and their Signi�cance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1991). Eco, U., Interpretation and Overinterpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). ���The Limits of Interpretation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990). ���The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979). Edwards, R. A., ���������� ���������� ��������� ��� ����������� ���� ���� ����-Connoted Reader Is Informed (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997). Elliott, J. H., 1 Peter (AB, 37B; New York: Doubleday, 2000). Elliott, M., Faithful Feelings: Emotion in the New Testament (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2005). Ellis, P. F., Matthew: His Mind and his Message (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1974). Esler, P. F., ����������� ���� ������� ��� ������ �������������� �� ��������� ��� �������� �����������Gospels for All Christians���SJT 51 (1998), pp.235�48. Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History (2 vols.; LCL, 153, 265; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1926, 1932). Farmer, W. �������������-Sectarian Character of Matthew and its Post-War Setting in �������������������PRS 3 (1976), pp.236�48. Fish, S., Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980). ��������������������������������������������Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory, and Mark (R. A. Horsley, J. A. Draper and J. M. Foley, eds; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), pp.84�96. Forster, E. M., Aspects of the Novel and Related Writings (2nd ed.; London: Edward Arnold, 1949). Foster, P., �����������������������������������������������(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). Fowler, H. N., Plato, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus (LCL, 36; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1914). Fowler, R. M., Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2001). Gale, A. M., Rede����������������������������������������������������������������� Gospel (London: T&T Clark, 2005). Gamble, H. Y., Books and Readers in the Early Church (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995). ���The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). Garland, D. E., ���������������������������������25 and the Principle of Not Causing �������������Treasures New and Old: Recent Contributions to Matthean Studies (D. Bauer and M. A. Powell, eds; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), pp.74�87. Gee, D. ������������������������������������������������������JTS 40 (1989), pp.481�9. 1

Bibliography

213

Genette, G., Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (ET; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980). ���Narrative Discourse Revisited (ET; Ithaca: Cornell University, 1988). ������������������������������������������������������������������������� 26:57� 2������JSNT 13 (1981), pp.46�66. �������� ������� ��� ���� ������������� ��� ���� ���������� ������ ������������ NTS 51 (2005), pp.1�18. �������� ������������������������������������������ ���������� College English 11.5 (1950), pp.265�69. Gundry, R. H., Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993). ���Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Roman Syria������Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches (D. L. Balch, ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), pp.62�7. ������������������������������������-���������������JSNT 25 (2003), pp.309�22. Hagner, D. A., Matthew 14�28 (Dallas: Word, 1995). ���������������������������������������������������������������������������Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels (D. Wenham, ed.; Shef�eld: JSOT, 1984), pp.233�68. Hannan, M., The Nature and Demands of the Sovereign Rule of God in the Gospel of Matthew (London: T&T Clark, 2006). Hare, D. R. A., The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel according to St Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967). ������������������������������������������Matthew and his Christian Contemporaries (D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski, eds; London: T&T Clark, 2008), pp.11�26. ������ ���� ������ ��� �� ������ ��������� ����� ���� ����� ���� �������� ������� ��������� ���������JRH 28.3 (2004), pp.240�59. �������������� ��������������������������������� �������������� Between Author and Audience in Mark: Narration, Characterization, Interpretation (E. S. Malbon, ed.; Shef�eld: Shef�eld Phoenix, 2009), pp.6�28. Hengel, M., Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (London: SCM, 1979), repr. in Earliest Christianity (London: SCM, 1997), pp.1�146. ���Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003). �������-witness Memory and the Writing of the Gospels: Form Criticism, Community Tradition and t���������������������������������The Written Gospel (M. Bockmuehl and D. A. Hagner, eds; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp.70�96. ���The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ (London: SCM, 2000). ���Studies in the Gospel of Mark (ET; London: SCM, 1985). Hezser, C., Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001). Hill, C. C., Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992). Hollander, H. W., and G. E. van der �����������������������������������������������tion: 1 Cor. 15:8 within the Context of 1 Cor. 15:8-1����NovT 38 (1996), pp.224�36. 1

214

Bibliography

Holmberg, B., ������������������������������������� Jesus Remembered���JSNT 26 (2004), pp.445�57. ���������������������������rmance and Mark: Some Implications of The Oral and the Written Gospel, Twenty-����� ������ �������� in Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond the Oral and the Written Gospel (T. Thatcher, ed.; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), pp.45�70. ���������������������������������������������������������������������� Memory, Tradition and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity (A. Kirk and T. Thatcher, eds; Semeia, 52; Atlanta: SBL, 2005), pp.57�78. Howell, D. B., ��������������������������������������������rrative Rhetoric of the First Gospel (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1990). Hurtado, L. �������������������������������������������������������������������JSNT 40 (1990), pp.15�32. Incigneri, B. J., �����������������������������������������������������������s Gospel (Leiden: Brill, 2003). Iser, W., The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (ET; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978). ���The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett (ET; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974). Jaffee, M. S., Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE�400 CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). Jones, P. �������������������������������������������������TynBul 36 (1985), pp.3�34. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities: Books XII�XIV (LCL, 365: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986). ���The Jewish War (3 vols.; LCL, 203, 210, 490: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927, 1928, 1930). ������������������������������������me Christians? Intention and Mirror Reading in the Light of Extra-������������������NTS 51 (2005), pp.561�78. Kee, H. C., ���������������������������������������������������(London: SCM, 1977). Keener, C. S., The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). Kelber, W. H., The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q (2nd ed.; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997). �������� ����-Scribal-Memorial Arts of Commun�������� ��� ������ �������������� in Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond the Oral and the Written Gospel (T. Thatcher, ed.; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), pp.235�62. Kelber, W. H., ������������������ ����������������������������������������: Re�ections on The Oral and The Written Gospel ������������������������������������in Jesus, the Voice, and the Text: Beyond the Oral and the Written Gospel (T. Thatcher, ed.; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), pp.27�43. Kermode, F., The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979). Kessler, W. T., Peter as the First Witness of the Risen Lord: An Historical and Theological Investigation (Rome: Ponti�ca Università Gregoriana, 1998). Kilpatrick, G. D., The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946). 1

Bibliography

215

Kingsbury, J. D., Con�ict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989). �����������������������ict between Jesus and the Jewish ��������������������� Gospel: A Literary-�����������������CBQ 49 (1987), pp.57�73. ����������������������������������������������������������������������� JBL 98 (1978), pp.67�83. ���(ed.), Gospel Interpretation: Narrative-Critical and Social-Scienti�c Approaches (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997). ���Matthew as Story (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988). �������������������������������������Gospel Interpretation: Narrative-Critical and Social-Scienti�c Approaches (J. D. Kingsbury, ed.; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997), pp.16�26. �����������������������������������������������������NTS 34 (1988), pp.442�60. ������������� Akolouthein ����������������������������������������������� his ������������JBL 97 (1978), pp.56�73. Klink III, E. W. (ed.), The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity (London: T&T Clark, 2010). ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity (E. W. Klink, ed.; London: T&T Clark, 2010)pp.153�66. Koester, H., Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (London: SCM, 1990). ����������������������������������������������������������� its Wo�������Biblical Research 40 (1995), pp.50�97. Kuhn, K. A., The Heart of Biblical Narrative: Rediscovering Biblical Appeal to the Emotions (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009). LaGrand, J., ������������������������������������������������������������������������� Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). Lane, W. L., The Gospel according to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974). Lapham, F., Peter: The Myth, the Man and the Writings: A Study of Early Petrine Text and Tradition (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 2003). Lemcio, E. E., The Past of Jesus in the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). Lincoln, A. ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� JSNT 85 (2002), pp.3�26. Lohr, C. ������������������������������������������������CBQ 23 (1961), pp.403�35. Love, S. L., Jesus and Marginal Women: The Gospel of Matthew in Social-Scienti�c Perspective (Cambridge: James Clark, 2009). Luz, U., Matthew (3 vols.; ET; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989, 2001, 2005). ���Studies in Matthew (ET; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). ���The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Malbon, E. S., ���������������������������������(Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2002). ���In the Company ��� ������� ����������� ��� ������� ������� ��� ������ (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000). Manson, T. W., The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1949). ������������������������������������Sitz im Leben ����������JBL 111 (1992), pp.441�62. ���Mark 1�8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1999). 1

216

Bibliography

Martin, R. ���� ������� ��� ���� ���� ����������� ��� ��������� �������� ��� �������� ������������Ex Auditu 8 (1992), pp.33�44. Martin, W., Recent Theories of Narrative (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986). Matera, F. ������������������������������������CBQ 49 (1987), pp.233�53. Maurer, C., ������������������������������������������������NTA I, pp.216�27. Maxwell, K. R., Hearing between the Lines: The Audience as Fellow-Worker in Luke� Acts and its Literary Milieu (London: T&T Clark, 2010). Maynard, A. ����������������������������������������������NTS 30 (1984), pp.531�48. McEleney, N. ���������������������� ���������������������CBQ 52 (1990), pp.467� 72. McIver, R. ��������������������������������������������������������������AUSS 37 (1999), pp.23�38. McIver R. K., and M. Carroll, �Experiments to Develop Criteria for Determining the Existence of Written Sources, and their Potential Implications for the Synoptic Problem�, JBL 121 (2002), pp.667�87. Meeks, W. A., The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983). Meier, J. P., The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church and Morality in the First Gospel (New York: Paulist, 1978). Metzger, B. M., The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964). ���A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994). Minear, P. S., ����������������������� ������ (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1984). ����������������������������������������JBL 102 (1983), pp.85�98. Mitchell, M. ���� ����������� �������-��������� ��� ���� ������ ����� ����� �������� ����� ��������������������������� ���NTS 51 (2005), pp.36�79. Moessner, D. P.��� �������������������������������������������������Peter, Stephen, Paul Parallels in Luke��������NovT 28.3 (1986), pp.220�56. Moses, A. D. A., ����������������guration Story and Jewish-Christian Controversy (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1996). Nau, A. J., Peter in Matthew: Discipleship, Diplomacy, and Dispraise (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1992). ���������� ���� ������ ���� ���� ����������� ���� ������ ����� ���������� NTS 30 (1984), pp.161�87. Neusner, J., In Search of Talmudic Biography: The Problem of the Attributed Saying (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1984). ���Judaism When Christianity Began: A Survey of Belief and Practice (Louisville: WKJ, 2002). ���Why No Gospels in Talmudic Judaism? (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). Newport, K. G. C., The Sources and Sitz im Leben of Matthew 23 (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1995). Neyrey, J. ��������������������������������������������������������� JBL 99 (1980), pp.407�31. Ong, W. J., Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (3rd ed.; New York: Routledge, 2002). 1

Bibliography

217

��������� ��� ���������������� ����� ���� �������� ��� Orality, Aurality and Biblical Narrative (L. H. Silberman, ed.; Semeia, 39; Decatur, GA: Scholars Press, 1987), pp.7�26. �������������������������������, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, vol. 10 (ET; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp.411�512. Orton, D. E., The Understanding Scribe: Matthew and the Apocalyptic Ideal (London: T&T Clark, 2004). Overman, J. A., Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel according to Matthew (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996). ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990). ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ Didache in their Jewish������ ������������Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their Jewish and Christian Settings (H. van de Sandt and J. K. Zangenberg, eds; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), pp.259�70. Parker, D. C., The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Patte, D., The Gospel a���������������������������������������������������������� Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987). �������������� �������������������������������������������� ���������������������tles ����������������������������������������JSNT 30 (2008), pp.319�42. Perkins, P., Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000). Peterson, D. N., The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate (Leiden: Brill, 2000). Philo, Volume VI (LCL, 289; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002). ������� ��� ���� ����� ������guration of Jesus: An Experience of Alternate R��������� ��� Modelling Early Christianity: Social-scienti�c Studies of the New Testament in its Context (ed. P. F. Esler; London: Routledge, 1995), pp.47�64. Porter, S. ����������������������-Response Criticism Caught on in New Testament �����������JLT 4 (1990), pp.278�92. Powell, M. A., Chasing the Eastern Star: Adventures in Biblical Reader-Response Criticism (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001). ���������������������������������������������-�����JBL 114 (1995), pp.419�35. ������������������������������������������������NTS 38 (1992), pp.187�204. ���What Is Narrative Criticism? A New Approach to the Bible (London: SPCK, 1993). Prince, G. ���� ���� �������� ���� ���������� ��� ������������ Neophilologus 55 (1971), pp.117�22. Przybylski, B., Righteousness in Matthew and his World of Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Rabinowitz, P., Before Reading: Narrative Conventions and the Politics of Interpretation (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987). ����������������������������������������������������� Critical Inquiry 4 (1977), pp.121�41. ����������� ���� �������� ����������� ����������� ��� �� �������� ��� The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity (E. W. Klink III, ed.; London: T&T Clark, 2010), ppp.134�52. 1

218

Bibliography

Rhoads, D., �������������������������������������������������������������������� Studies � ���������BTB 36.3 (2006), pp.118�33. ���������������� ����������� ��� ��������� Methodology in Second Testament Studies � ����������BTB 36.4 (2006), pp.164�84. ���Reading Mark, Engaging the Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004). �������� ���� ����������� ����������� ��������� ��� ��������� �������������� ��� ���������� ����������������������������������������������������The Gospel of Matthew in its Roman Imperial Context (J. Riches and D. C. Sim, eds; London: T&T Clark, 2005), pp.128�42. Riches, J., and D. C. Sim (eds), The Gospel of Matthew in its Roman Imperial Context (London: T&T Clark, 2005). Rimmon-Kenan, S., Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (2nd ed.; New York: Routledge, 2002). ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory, and Mark (R. A. Horsley, J. A. Draper and J. M. Foley, eds; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), pp.125�46. ��������������������������������������������������������������������������Orality and Textuality in Early Christian Literature (ed. J. Dewey; Semeia, 65; Decatur, GA: Scholars Press, 1995), pp.75�91. Roskam, H. N., The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark and its Historical and Social Context (Leiden: Brill, 2004). Ruge-���������������������������������������������������������������������������es the �������������� ������������ ��� Between Author and Audience in Mark: Narration, Characterization, Interpretation (E. S. Malbon, ed.; Shef�eld: Shef�eld Phoenix, 2009), pp.29�43. ���������� ���� ������������ ������ �������Christian Relations: Matthean Community History as Pharisaic Intragroup Con�������JBL 127 (2008), pp.95�132. Saldarini, A. J., ����� ������� ��� �������� ���� �������Christian Con������� ��� Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches (D. L. Balch, ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), pp.38�67. �������������������-Christian Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994). Schneemelcher, W.��������������������������NTA I, pp.271�321. ���(ed.), New Testament Apocrypha (rev. ed.; 2 vols.; ET; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991, 1992). �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������JSNT 31 (2008), pp.195�209. Schweizer, E., Matthäus und seine Gemeinde (Stuttgart: KBW, 1974). Scott, B. B., �������������������������������������������������������������Treasures New and Old: Recent Contributions to Matthean Studies (D. Bauer and M. A. Powell, eds; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), pp.311�78. Senior, D., The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1985). Shiell, W. D., Reading Acts: The Lector and the Early Christian Audience (Leiden: Brill, 2004). Shiner, W. T., ����������������������������������������������������Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory, and Mark (R. A. Horsley, J. A. Draper and J. M. Foley, eds; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), pp.147�65. 1

Bibliography

219

���Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003). Silberman, L. H. (ed.), Orality, Aurality and Biblical Narrative (Semeia, 39; Decatur, GA: Scholars Press, 1987). Sim, D. C., ������������������������������������������������������������������JSNT 84 (2001), pp.3�27. ���������������������������������������������JSNT 57 (1995), pp.19�48. ���The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998). ���������������������� Matthew and his Christian Contemporaries (D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski, eds; London: T&T Clark, 2008), pp.1�10. ���������structing the Social and Religious Milieu of Matthew: Methods, Sources, ��������������������������Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their Jewish and Christian Settings (H. Van de Sandt and J. K. Zangenberg, eds; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), pp.13�32. ��������� ��� ���������� �������������� ��� The Gospel of Matthew in its Roman Imperial Context (J. Riches and D. C. Sim, eds; London: T&T Clark, 2005), pp.91� 106. Sim, D. C., and B. Repschinski (eds), Matthew and his Christian Contemporaries (London: T&T Clark, 2008). Slee, M., The Church in Antioch in the First Century C.E.: Communion and Con�ict (London: T&T Clark, 2003). Slingerland, H. �������������������������������������������������������� JSNT 3 (1979), pp.18�28. Smith, J. M., ����������������by Friends, for Others: Author�Subject Relationships in Contemporary Greco-��������������������in The Audience of the Gospels: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity (E. W. Klink III, ed.; London: T&T Clark, 2010), ppp.49�67. Staley, J. L., ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). Stanton, G. N., ������������������������������Interpretation 46 (1992), pp.371�91, in Gospel Interpretation: Narrative-Critical and Social-Scienti�c Approaches (J. D. Kingsbury, ed.; Harrisburg: Trinity, 1997), pp.49�62. ���A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992). ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1������ANRW II. 25.3 (1985), pp.1889�951. ��������������� ���������� �������������� ��� Society of Biblical Literature 1994 Seminar Papers (E. H. Lovering, ed.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), pp.9�23. Stark, R., ��������������������������������������������������������in Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches (D. L. Balch, ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), pp.189�210. �������������� ����������������� ���NLH 10 (1979), pp.423�52. ������������������������������������������������������The Interpretation of Matthew (G. Stanton, ed.; 2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995), pp.81�100. ���Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthäus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962). 1

220

Bibliography

���Theology of the New Testament (ET; Berlin: W. de Gruyter; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000). Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London: Macmillan, 1951). Suleiman, S. ���� ���� �������� ���� ����������� ���� ����������� ��� ��������� ��������� Createur 21.2 (1981), pp.89�97. Syreen��������������������������������������������������������������������Characterization in the Gospel: Reconceiving Narrative Criticism (D. Rhoads and K. Syreeni, eds; Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1999), pp.106�52. Tannehill, R. ���������������������������� ������������������ �������������������� The Interpretation of Mark (W. Telford, ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress; London: SPCK, 1985), pp.134�57. ���The Narrative Unity of Luke�Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Volume One: The Gospel according to Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). ���The Narrative Unity of Luke�Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Volume Two: The Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990). Taussig, H., In the Beginning Was the Meal: Social Experimentation and Early Christian Identity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009). Taylor, N. ���� ������������� ������������� ���� ���� ��������� �������� ����� ��� ������� ���� ����������������������������JSNT 61 (1996), pp.101�24. ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������logical Di����������JSNT 62 (1996), pp.13�41. Theissen, G., Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (ET; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978). Trilling, W., Das wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthäus-Evangeliums (3rd ed.; SANT, 10; Munich: Kösel, 1964). Ulrich, D. �������������������������������������������������������CBQ 69 (2007), pp.64�83. Van Tilborg, S., The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden: Brill, 1972). Viviano, B. ��������������������������a�������������������������������CBQ 41 (1979), pp.533�46. Wats���� ���� ��������� �� �������� �������� ��� ���� ��������� ��� ��������� ������� GAC, pp.195�217. Watts Henderson, S., Christology and Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Weaver, D. J., �����������������������������������iterary Critical Analysis (Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1990). Weeden, T., ����� ����� ���� ��������� ��������� ��� ���� ����������� ���� ���� ������� ������������Forum: Foundations and Facets, NS 6.2 (2003), pp.277�86. �����������������������������������������������������������������������������Forum: Foundations and Facets, NS 6.2 (2003), pp.137�77. �������������������������������������������������ZNW 59 (1968), pp.145�58, repr. in The Interpretation of Mark (W. Telford, ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress; London: SPCK, 1985), pp.64�77. ���Mark � Traditions in Con�ict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971). �������� ������� ������ ���� ������ ���� ���� ��� ���������� Forum: Foundations and Facets, NS 6.2 (2003), pp.179�208.

1

Bibliography

221

������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ in Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in their Jewish and Christian Settings (H. Van de Sandt and J. K. Zangenberg, eds; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), pp.177�200. Wiarda, T., Peter in the Gospels: Pattern, Personality and Relationship (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). Wilkins, M. J., ��������������������������������������������������ected in the Use of the Term �������� (Leiden: Brill, 1988).� Williams, J. F., ���������������������������������������������������������������������� Gospel (Shef�eld: JSOT, 1994). Wills, L. ������������������������������������Mishnah Abot���CBQ 63 (2001), pp.241� 57. Winn, A., ���� �������� ��� ������� �������� ��� ������ ���������� ��������� ��� ������ Imperial Propaganda (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). Witherington III, B., The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001). Wong, K., Interkulturelle Theologie und multikulturelle Gemeinde im Matthäusevangelium: Zum Verhältnis von Juden- und Heidenchristen im ersten Evangelium (Freiburg, Switzerland: Univ.-Verl.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992). Yamasaki, G., John the Baptist in Life and Death: Audience-Oriented Criticism of ��������������������(Shef�eld: Shef�eld Academic, 1998). ���������������������������������������� Matthew and his Christian Contemporaries (D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski, eds; London: T&T Clark, 2008), pp.104�22.

1

INDICES INDEX OF REFERENCES HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 6.12 121 7.19-20 144 13.2 191 Exodus 24 24.12-18 24.12 24.15-18 24.16 33.19-23 34.3 34.6 34.29-30 34.35 37

144 187 144 144 54, 144, 145 178 144 178 145 145 144

Deuteronomy 28.8-14 191 2 Samuel 5�17 7.4-16 20

90 185 90

1 Kings 18 19.11

144 178

1 Chronicles 17.3-15

185

Psalms 2.6-7 2.6 25.13 48.2 110.1 144.12-15 147.12-14

57 144 191 144 125 191 191

Proverbs 11.28 13.21 22.4 26.4-5

191 191 191 205

Isaiah 5.24-25 6.9-10 11.10 lxx 14.13 22.22 28.4 42.1 51.17 51.22

43 124 51 144 185 144 57, 60 56 56

Jeremiah 8.19 25.15 33.6

144 56 191

Ezekiel 23.31-33 40.2

56 144

Zechariah 13.7

192

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 1.1�4.16 57 1.1 56, 57 1.19 45 1.21 53, 57 1.22 56 1.23 14, 57 1.29 53 2.1-2 49, 57 2.1 53, 67 2.3 57, 166 2.4-6 57 2.12 49 2.13-15 53 2.14 57 2.15 56 2.16 54, 166 2.19-23 53 2.22 166 3.1 53 3.3 45, 57 3.5 54 3.7 48, 57, 70 3.13 53, 54 3.15 56, 110 3.17 57, 60 4.1 54 4.3 60, 181 4.6 60 4.10 110 4.12-13 54 4.13 62

223

Index of References 4.15 4.17 4.18-22 4.18 4.20 4.21 4.23-25 4.24-25 4.24 5�7 5.1�8.1 5.1-2 5.1 5.2 5.10-12 5.10 5.11-12 5.11 5.16 5.17-20 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.22 5.23-24 5.24 5.25 5.32 5.34 5.40 5.45 5.46-47 5.47 6.1-18 6.1 6.2 6.5 6.7-8 6.7 6.12 6.16 6.30 6.31-32

54 46, 54, 56, 110 46, 71, 83, 133, 134 27, 69, 143, 170 191 69, 146 49, 55 51 47 36 21 110 21, 30, 46, 49, 71 110 72 72 72 72 205 36 110 62 48, 70 36, 37, 71 31 71 36, 71 48 198 71 48 74 50, 67 70, 78 205 41, 48, 70 41, 48, 70 51, 74 67 36, 71 41, 48, 70 62 74

6.32-33 6.32 7.1-5 7.15-23 7.15-20 7.16 7.28

8.1 8.3 8.5-13 8.10-12 8.10 8.11-12 8.14-17 8.14-15 8.17 8.18 8.19 8.26 8.28-34 8.34 9�22 9 9.1-8 9.1 9.3 9.4 9.8 9.9-13 9.9 9.11 9.13 9.16-17 9.18-26 9.19 9.22 9.23-25 9.25 9.29 9.30 9.32-34

51 67 205 36 205 48 21, 49, 54, 71, 166, 168 49 110 67, 74 50 110 50 133 83, 134 56 49 48 47, 62, 86 54, 67, 74, 132 51, 74 65 58 57 62 48, 58, 65, 70 58, 70 49, 166, 168 58 46, 71 48, 63, 66, 70 53 47 160 160 110 65 146 110 110, 122 48

9.33 9.34 9.36 9.37�11.1 9.37�10.42 9.41 10 10.1-4 10.1 10.2-4 10.2 10.5�11.1 10.5-6 10.5 10.7 10.8 10.12-14 10.13-15 10.13 10.16-28 10.16-23 10.17-18 10.17 10.18 10.23 10.32-33 10.33 10.40-42 11.1 11.16 11.17 11.21-22 11.25 12 12.1-14 12.1-8 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.5 12.9-14

49, 166, 168 48, 58, 66, 70 49 73 75 60 15 71, 134 110 133 83, 85, 134, 143 21, 168 42, 50, 68 46, 110 47 47 73 205 41 121 41 67 71 42 41, 48, 67, 73, 78 198 198 41, 72, 73, 205 54 49 49, 110 51 54, 86 58 59 58 54 48, 58, 66, 70 116 116 48, 58

224 Matthew (cont.) 12.10 66 12.14 48, 58, 70 12.15 49 12.17 56 12.18 51 12.21 51 12.22-27 48, 58 12.23 49, 166, 168 12.24 48, 66, 70 12.27 58 12.30 36 12.31 58 12.33-37 48, 58 12.34 48, 57, 70 12.38 48, 66 12.39 48 12.41 51 12.46-50 69 12.46-47 69 12.46 49 12.49 110 13 205 13.1-53 21 13.2-3 110 13.2 49 13.3 110 13.10-23 73 13.10-17 46 13.10-13 49 13.11 21, 86 13.14-18 21 13.16 62 13.19 206 13.21 121 13.23 62, 206 13.24 110 13.31 110 13.34 49 13.35 56 13.36-52 73 13.36-43 46 13.36 168 13.51 62, 206 13.52 62, 206

Index of References 13.54 13.57 14�26 14�18 14 14.1-12 14.1 14.3 14.13 14.14 14.15-21 14.15 14.19 14.22-33 14.22-23 14.22 14.23 14.24-25 14.25 14.26

14.28-31 14.28 14.30 14.31-33 14.31

14.32 14.33 14.34-36 15 15.1-20 15.1-9 15.1-2 15.1 15.2-9

21, 166, 168 21, 168 64 134 134 56 54 86 49, 134, 135, 144 46 47, 137 49, 134 49 134, 135, 148, 150 84, 137, 178 49, 135, 136 134-36 136 134, 135, 180 47, 136, 137, 166, 181 73, 85, 86, 134 143, 180 181 84 47, 62, 86, 137, 180, 181 136 137, 181, 184 137 138 58, 84, 137, 181 182 59, 70 144 138

15.2-3 15.3-9 15.5 15.7 15.10-20 15.10-12 15.10 15.12-20 15.12 15.13-14 15.14 15.15-17 15.15

15.16-20 15.16 15.21-28 15.21-22 15.21 15.22 15.24 15.28 15.29-39 15.29 15.30-31 15.30 15.31 15.32 15.33 15.36 16.1-4 16.1 16.4 16.5-12 16.6 16.7 16.8 16.9-12 16.11-12 16.11 16.12

70 59, 138 146 48 59 138 110 46, 73 70, 138, 139, 182 139, 182 48, 70 139 83, 134, 137-39, 143, 181, 182 138 62, 139, 182 50, 54, 67, 74 61 144 74 50 50 50 144 49 146 166, 168 110 47 49 58 48, 66 48 73, 139 48 84 62, 110, 181 62 59 48 48

225

Index of References 16.13-28 16.13-23 16.13-20 16.13-15 16.13-14 16.13

16.14 16.15-20 16.15 16.16-20 16.16-17 16.16

16.17-19

16.17 16.18 16.19 16.20 16.21-23 16.21-22 16.21

16.22-26 16.22-23 16.22

16.23

139, 183 84, 140, 148, 149 62, 85, 150 183 49, 133, 142 139, 140, 143, 144, 183, 184 142 142, 170 140, 184 183, 184, 186 143, 188 81, 83, 85, 86, 137, 140, 142, 143, 184 73, 85, 86, 134, 142, 184 86, 143, 185 142, 143, 170 204 110, 140 183, 185 86, 133 47, 49, 54, 56, 58, 140, 142, 144 56, 85 85, 140, 142 47, 56, 142, 143, 185 110, 141, 142, 181, 186, 191, 193

16.24-28

16.24 16.28 17.1-13 17.1-8

17.1 17.2 17.4

17.5 17.6 17.7 17.8 17.9 17.10-13 17.14-21 17.17 17.19-21 17.20 17.22-23 17.23 17.24-27

17.24 17.25-27 17.25 17.26 17.27 18 18.1�19.1 18.1-35

85, 140, 142, 183, 186, 193 141, 144, 185, 186 187 46, 84 133, 144� 6, 149, 187 143�5, 187 145 83, 86, 143, 145, 147, 188 60, 145, 188, 189 145, 147 110, 147 145 110, 188 73 73 65 73 62, 73, 181 47, 49, 56, 58 168 84, 86, 134, 147, 149, 189, 190 83, 143, 148, 149 190 143, 148, 189 143 148, 193 36 149 21, 73, 149, 168, 190

18.1-20 18.1-5 18.1

18.2 18.6-7 18.15 18.17 18.18-20 18.18 18.21-35 18.21-22

18.21

18.22-23 18.22 18.35 19.1 19.2 19.3-12 19.3-9 19.3 19.4 19.10-12 19.10 19.14 19.16-22 19.22 19.23�20.19 19.23-30 19.23-28 19.23 19.25 19.26 19.27-30 19.27

19.28-30 19.28-29 19.28

149 47, 149 21, 46, 54, 56, 149, 150 110 149, 190 149, 150 67 81 204 149 21, 83, 84, 134, 149, 190 143, 149, 150, 168, 190 149 190 150 54, 150 49 58, 150 59 66, 70 116 46 63, 168 73 150 168 73 150, 151, 191 191 168 152, 166, 168 110, 151 133, 191 83, 85, 143, 152, 191 191, 192 152 192

226 Matthew (cont.) 19.29 69 20.17-19 54, 56, 58 20.18-19 47, 49 20.20-28 47, 56 20.22-23 56 20.22 56 20.25-28 51 20.25 110 20.28 53 20.29-31 65 20.32 111 21�25 66 21�23 58 21.1 110 21.4 56 21.8-10 65 21.10 54 21.11 49 21.12-13 44 21.14-15 44 21.15 65 21.16 116 21.18-22 66, 73 21.19 161 21.20 161, 166 21.21-22 148, 161 21.23-27 58 21.23 48, 56 21.26 44 21.28-32 66 21.32 44 21.33�22.14 58 21.33-44 43, 66 21.33 59 21.37-39 60 21.38 56 21.41-44 59 21.41 59 21.42 116 21.43-44 59 21.43 43, 48 21.45-46 49 21.46 49, 65 21.47-56 49 22�23 70, 71, 76 22.1-14 66

Index of References 22.1-10 22.1-6 22.6 22.7 22.15-39 22.15-22 22.15-16 22.18 22.22 22.33 22.34-35 22.46 23 23.1-39 23.1 23.2-3 23.3 23.4 23.5-7 23.5 23.7 23.13 23.14 23.15-26 23.15 23.16-22 23.16 23.17 23.19 23.23 23.24 23.25 23.26 23.27-29 23.27 23.29-36 23.29 23.31-34 23.33 23.34 23.36 24.1�25.46 24.1-2

42, 75 42 70 39, 42�5 59 66 70 48, 70, 110 166 65, 166 70 59 15, 38, 60, 63, 66 29, 59, 78 49, 65 59, 60 70 70 70 48 41 48, 63, 70 63 70 48, 63, 70 48 63, 70 70 70 41, 48, 63, 70 48, 63, 70 48, 63, 70 48, 70 70 48, 63 42, 63, 70, 75 48, 63 116 48, 57, 70 48 59 73, 168 148

24.3�26.1 24.3-4 24.3 24.5 24.9 24.10-12 24.14 24.15 24.24 24.42 24.51 25.13 25.14-30 26�27 26.1 26.3-4 26.3 26.8 26.10 26.16 26.17 26.18 26.20 26.28 26.30-35 26.30 26.31-35 26.31-32 26.31 26.32 26.33-35 26.33 26.34-35 26.34

26.35

26.36-46

26.36

21 110 21, 46, 162 121 121 121, 199 42, 75 28 121 195 48 195 206 60 21, 54 48 48 166 110 54 55, 153 153 55, 153 56 133, 153, 192 153, 154 85, 154 54, 192 154, 157, 193 47 56, 84 143, 154, 193, 199 194 154, 160, 170, 198, 199 85, 143, 193, 194, 199 84, 133, 154, 194, 195 154, 156

227

Index of References 26.37-38 26.37 26.38 26.39-46 26.39

26.40-41 26.40 26.42 26.44 26.47-56 26.47 26.55 26.56 26.57-58 26.57 26.58 26.59-68 26.69-75

26.69-73 26.69 26.70 26.71-73 26.71 26.72 26.73 26.74 26.75

27.1 27.3 27.8 27.12 27.15-25 27.16 27.20 27.25 27.27-31

154 143, 156 156 154 47, 56, 146, 156, 195 156 85, 143, 156 47, 56, 156, 195 156, 195 49 48, 49, 64, 66 49, 64�6 47 157 157 143, 157, 196 157 47, 84�6, 133, 157, 158, 170 158 143, 158� 60 159 159 158-60 160 143 158, 160 84, 143, 158, 198, 199 48, 55 48 28, 29 48 49, 64, 66 54 48 65 50

27.33 27.40 27.45 27.46 27.54 27.57 27.62 28.1 28.5-7 28.7 28.10 28.11-15 28.11-12 28.15 28.16-20 28.16 28.17 28.18-20 28.19

28.20

Mark 1.1-8 1.1 1.2-4 1.5 1.9-20 1.16-20 1.16 1.18 1.21-28 1.22 1.27 1.28 1.29-31 1.29 1.31 1.32 1.35-38

14 60 55 55, 111 50, 67, 74 55 55 55 54 27, 47, 162 47, 54, 84, 162 49, 72 48 28-30 124 27, 30 84, 181 31, 42, 62, 75, 200 42, 50, 54, 67, 68, 74, 75, 205, 206 24, 30, 47, 205

102, 103 24, 143 103 150 109 133, 134 27 191 28, 109 166, 167 165 167, 168 28, 133, 134 143 90 168 133, 162

1.36 1.40-45 1.41 1.45 2.2 2.3-5 2.6-7 2.6 2.8 2.12 2.13 2.25 3.5 3.8 3.10 3.14-19 3.16-19 3.16 3.20 3.32 4.1 4.10 4.11-13 4.12 4.17 4.34 5.1-20 5.12 5.17 5.20 5.21-24 5.21 5.24 5.25-34 5.35-43 5.37-42 5.37 5.41 5.42 6.2-3 6.2 6.3 6.11 6.30-44 6.30

143 28 165 168 168 28 122 167 167 165�8 168 116 166 168 168 133, 134 143 143, 170, 195 168 168 168 181 165 124, 125 96, 121 181 132 165 74 74, 166 133 168 168 28 133 160 143, 162 14, 146 166, 167 166 166, 167 166, 167 121 137 134, 137, 144

Index of References

228 Mark (cont.) 6.31 6.32 6.33 6.35 6.45-52 6.45 6.46 6.47 6.48 6.49-50 6.49 6.50 6.51 6.52 6.53-56 6.55 6.56 7 7.1-23 7.1-2 7.1 7.2-13 7.6-13 7.11 7.13-15 7.14-15 7.17-19 7.17 7.18-23 7.18 7.24-30 7.24 7.26 7.31 7.34 7.37 8.1 8.11 8.14 8.22-26

135 135 168 134, 135 135, 137, 178 135, 136 135, 136 134, 136 134�6, 178 179 136, 137 136, 166, 179 136, 166, 179 137 137 168 168 138 137, 181 137 144 138 138 146 138 138 139 137�9, 181 138 139, 182 28 144 74 61, 144, 150 146 166, 167 144 144 144 28, 139

8.22 8.27�9.1 8.27-33 8.27-30 8.27-28 8.27

8.28 8.29-30 8.29

8.30 8.31�9.1 8.31-33

8.31 8.32-33 8.32 8.33 8.34-38 8.34-35 8.34 8.38 9.1 9.2-8

9.2-3 9.2 9.4-6 9.4 9.5 9.6

140, 144 139, 183 140 133, 139, 170 183 62, 140, 143, 144, 183 140, 142, 184 183, 184, 186 88, 91, 140, 142, 143, 184 140 97 89, 133, 140, 183, 185 97, 140, 142 140 142, 143, 185 141, 142, 186 140, 141, 183, 186 96 93, 141, 187 97, 187 91 89, 133, 144�6, 187 145 143�6, 187 147 145 143, 145, 147, 188 62, 145, 166, 168

9.7 9.8 9.9 9.10 9.13 9.15 9.17-24 9.29 9.30-32 9.31 9.32 9.33-50 9.33-34 9.33 9.34 9.38-41 10.1 10.2-9 10.4 10.13 10.14 10.22 10.23-31 10.23-29 10.24 10.26 10.27 10.28-31 10.28 10.29-31 10.29-30 10.30 10.32 10.35 10.39 10.46-52 10.46 10.52 11.1-11 11.1 11.12-14 11.18

144, 145, 188, 189 145 188 62 62 166, 167 28 62 149 188 166 149 73 62, 147, 149, 189 149 149 150, 168 150 103 168 73, 166 166 151 191 151, 166, 167 152, 166 151 133, 150, 191 90, 143, 152, 191 191 96 152, 192 150, 167 91 95 28 150 62 161 150 161 166, 167

229

Index of References 11.20-25 11.20 11.21 11.27�12.12 12.10 12.17 12.26 12.35-37 12.36 12.37 13 13.1 13.2 13.3-4 13.3 13.6 13.7-13 13.9-13 13.9 13.11-13 13.11 13.12 13.14-23 13.14 13.15-20 13.22 13.66-72 14.3-9 14.12 14.15 14.17 14.18 14.26-31 14.26 14.27-31 14.27-28 14.27 14.28 14.29 14.30-31 14.30

133, 161 161 143, 161 103 116 166 116 125 125 167 92 161 92 133 143, 161, 162 121 92 96, 121 71 93 199 161 161 92, 150 92 121 94 28 153 153 153, 157 192 133, 153, 192 153 154 193 192 192 143, 153, 193, 199 194 154, 160, 170, 193, 195, 198, 199

14.31 14.32-42 14.32-36 14.32 14.33-35 14.33-34 14.33 14.34 14.35-42 14.35-36 14.35 14.36 14.37-41 14.37-38 14.37 14.38 14.39-42 14.39 14.40 14.41 14.42 14.43-65 14.43-49 14.50 14.51-52 14.53-54 14.53 14.54 14.55-65 14.62 14.66-72 14.66-70 14.66 14.67 14.68 14.69-71 14.69 14.70 14.71

193, 194, 199 133, 154, 194, 195 157 154, 156 194 154 143, 156, 194 156 154 194 155 146, 156 157 195 143, 156, 169, 195 156, 195 195 156 156, 195 156 195 196 196 196 196 157 157 143, 157, 196 157, 196 125 133, 157, 158, 170 158 143, 158, 159 159, 160 158, 160, 199 159 160 143, 160 158, 169

14.72

33 6.45-852 72

158, 160, 198, 199 26 14 14 166 166 27, 133, 143, 162 24, 166, 176 141 134 143

Luke 2.46 3.22 4.28 5.1-11 6.16 6.17-19 6.22-23 7.11-17 8.45 8.54-55 9.1 9.11 9.18-20 9.28 9.32 9.33 9.34 10.10-12 10.39 13.11-13 14.28-33 15.1�17.10 15.1-2 15.3-7 15.11-32 16.13 16.14 16.19-31 17.1-10 17.1-2 17.3-4

110 169 122 168�70 170 169 72 169 161 169 169 169 170 146 168 168 168 121 110 169 191 21 22 149 22 22 22 191 22 149 134

15.21 15.22 15.34 15.44 16.5 16.7 16.8

Index of References

230 Luke (cont.) 17.3 17.4 17.11 18.30 21.8 21.12-19 22.31-34 22.32 22.33 22.34 22.39-46 22.54-62 22.57 22.58 22.60 24.10 24.12 24.24 24.34 24.47

149 149 61 152 121 121 154, 169 169 169 170 169 170 169 169 169 169 169, 170 169 169, 173 169

John 1.38 1.40-42 1.41 1.42 2.19-22 5.2 6.67-70 9.7 9.22 10.14-16 13.6 13.23-24 13.36-38 15.18-21 16.1 16.2 16.33 18.10-11 18.15-17 18.25-27 19.13 19.17 19.20 19.26

14 170 14 14, 170 29 14 170 14 121 171 170 171 170 121 121 121 121 170 170 170 14 14 14 171

19.34-35 20.2-10 20.2 20.8 20.16 21.1-25 21.1-11 21.7 21.15-19 21.18-19 21.21 21.22 21.24-25 Acts 1.8 1.15-22 2.4 2.38 3.1-10 3.1 3.6 3.16 3.19-21 4.1�5.42 4.1 4.3 4.5-22 4.8 4.10 4.12 4.36 5.15 5.18 5.27-32 5.29 6.1 6.5 6.9�7.60 6.31 8.1-3 8.1 8.14-25 9.1 9.23

171 170 171 171 14 171 170, 177 171 170�2, 175 171 171 171 171

200 169 169 169 169 170 170 170 169 169 170 121, 169 169 169 170 169 14 169 121, 169, 170 169 170 119 119 121 169 121, 199 39 170 121 121

9.32-34 9.33-42 10.36-42 10.43 11.1-18 11.2 11.19 12.1-5 12.2 12.6-11 12.17 13.1 13.5 13.14-43 13.16 13.44-49 13.45 13.50 14.1-5 14.2 14.5 14.8-18 14.15-17 14.19 15 15.7-21 16.13-14 16.19-23 16.27-34 17.1-4 17.5-9 17.10-12 17.12 17.13 17.17 17.18-34 17.31 18.4-5 18.4 18.6 18.7 18.8 18.19 19.23 19.33 20.28-35 21.27

169 169 27 169 170 170 39 121 95 169 109 119 119 119 109 119 121 121 119 121 121 119 123 121 172 170 119 121 119 119 121 119 119 121 119 119 123 119 119 121 119 119 119 121 109 175 121

231

Index of References 21.40 23.12 24.10 26.1 26.25

109 121 109 109 117

Romans 2.11-16 3.9 3.22-23 4.9-12 16.1-2 16.1 16.2 16.13

120 120 120 120 118 118 118 26

1 Corinthians 1.12 123, 172, 173, 195 1.24 120 3.4-9 173 3.21-22 172 3.22 173, 195 4.1-5 175 4.6 173 4.16 174 9.1-23 175 9.5 172, 173 9.20-21 120 10.1-12 121 10.32 120 11.1 174 11.21 116 11.23-26 90 12.13 120 14.23-25 200 14.26 117, 122 14.27-32 122 15.3-4 194 15.4-10 172 15.5-8 173 15.5 81, 173 15.8 174 15.20-27 195 16.13 195, 196

2 Corinthians 1.3-7 1.5-6 3.1�5.10 6.14-17 10.1�12.19 11.5-11 11.13-14 12.13 Galatians 1.1 1.13 1.18 2.1-10 2.2 2.7-9 2.11-21 2.11-14 2.13 2.14 3.10-13 4.4-5 4.9 5.2-6

121 90 175 121 175 173 121 173

175 94 172 172 172 172, 200 40, 172, 195 40, 172 172 172 120 120 120 120

Ephesians 5.14 5.19 5.21�6.9

195 117 206

Philippians 1.3-6 2.5-8 2.6-11 3.10-11 3.17 3.18

191, 199 194 90 90, 194 174 121

Colossians 1.3-6 1.4 3.16 3.18�4.1 4.2-3

191 199 117 206 195

1 Thessalonians 1.6 121, 174 2.14-15 90 3.4 121 3.6 199 5.6 195 2 Thessalonians 1.4-6 121 3.7 174 3.9 174 1 Timothy 1.16 1.19-20 1.19 2.8

174 199 195 122

Hebrews 5.7-8 6.4-6 12.3 12.12-13 13.12

194 196, 199 196 196 194

James 5.13 5.19-20

117 199

1 Peter 1.1 1.11 1.18-19 2.9-10 2.12 2.18�3.7 2.20 2.21-25 2.21 2.23 2.25 3.14-16 3.18 4.1-2 4.1 4.3-11

174 174 174 174 174 206 174 174 194 194 174 174 174, 194 174 174, 194 174

Index of References

232 1 Peter (cont.) 4.12-19 4.13-14 4.16 5.1-4 5.1 5.4 5.8-10 5.12-13 5.13

174 174 174 174 174 174 174 175 174

2 Peter 1.16-18 3.1 3.2 3.15-16 3.16 3.17

176 175 176 176, 195 176 176

Revelation 5.9-10 9.11 16.15 16.16 21.10

117 14 195 14 144

APOCRYPHA AND SEPTUAGINT Tobit 14.2 191 Ecclesiasticus 11.17 191 11.22 191 OLD TESTAMENT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA 1 Enoch 18.8 144 89.34 145 91�108 35

Joseph and Aseneth 18.9 187 Jubilees 1.27-29

144

Testament of Levi 2.5 144 GREEK AND LATIN WORKS Aristotle Poetics 6.1450a.3-4 51 7.1450b.25-32 52 Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica 3.16 176 2.15.1-2 104 3.39.15 114 6.12.1-6 177 Justin Apologia 63.3 67.3-4

107 107

Origen Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei 11.5-6 178 11.14 182 12.10-11 184 12.14 184 12.21-22 185 APOSTOLIC FATHERS 1 Clement 5.4 176

Ignatius To the Smyrnaeans 3.2 176 Ignatius To the Romans 4.3 176 NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA Acts of Peter 7 180, 199 12 176 12.7 177 12.9 176 12.13 176 12.20 176, 177 12.23-29 177 12.23 177 12.26-28 176 12.28 177 20 189 Gospel of Peter 7.26 177 14.60 177

INDEX OF AUTHORS Achtemeier, P. J. 174 Alexander, L. C. A. 4, 5 Allison, D. C. 3, 16, 37, 41, 43, 50, 59, 62, 63, 71, 77, 104, 118, 135, 136, 138, 139, 141�3, 145�7, 149�55, 157, 160, 178�80, 182�7, 190, 192, 194, 198, 205 Andrews, E. 131 Aune, D. E. 62, 63, 85 Baird, J. A. 21 Bar-Efrat, S. 33 Barth, G. 134 Barton, S. C. 10, 68 Bauckham, R. J. 4�6, 8, 9, 26�8, 171 Bauer, D. R. 113 Baum, A. D. 112 Beare, F. W. 36, 42, 43, 63, 71, 104, 118, 152, 180, 182�6, 188 Beaton, R. C. 27 Beavis, M. A. 113, 116, 122 Bellinzoni, A. J. 79 Best, E. 5, 95, 179, 189 Bird, M. F. 4, 8, 50, 88 Black, C. C. 87, 88, Black, M. 114 Black, S. L. 129�31, 133 Blickenstaff, M. 43 Blomberg, C. L. 8 Bold, P. G. 4, 188 Boomershine, T. 98, 104, 198 Booth, W. 11, 12 Broadhead, E. K. 62, 139, 154 Brooks, S. H. 15, 34, 38, 40, 42, 71, 74 Brown, R. E. 36, 40, 67, 68, 173�5, 180 Brown, S. 30 Bryan, C. 90, 104, 192, 196, 198 Bultmann, R. 132 Burkert, W. 117 Burridge, R. A. 5 Byrskog, S. 25, 26

Camery-Hoggartt, J. 198 Capel Anderson, J. 12, 46�8, 50�3, 55, 56, 104 Carr, D. M. 103 Carroll, M. 103 Carter, W. 9, 20, 34, 49, 69, 121 Cassidy, R. 83, 160, 170, 174, 180, 186, 187, 190, 193, 196 Catchpole, D. 50 Charlesworth, J. H. 171 Chatman, S. 12, 13, 54 Clark Wire, A. 107 Cohick, L. H. 118 Cohn-Sherbok, D. 172 Collins, A. Y. 94, 113, 118, 119, 144, 150, 153, 154, 157, 159, 176, 178, 179, 182�4, 187, 189, 191, 192, 194�6, 198 Cope, O. L. 15, 138, 144 Cousland, J. R. C. 49, 50, 64, 65 Crossley, J. G. 41, 93, 95, 96, 172 Cullmann, O. 23, 119, 174 Culpepper, R. A. 12, 170, 172 Davies, M. 182, 193, 195 Davies, W. D. 36, 37, 41, 43, 50, 59, 62, 63, 71, 77, 104, 118, 135, 136, 138, 139, 141� 3, 146, 147, 149�55, 157, 159, 160, 178� 80, 182�7, 190, 192, 194, 198 DeConick, A. D. 130, 132, 133 Dean, M. E. 103, 105 Dewey, J. 91, 101, 104 Dodson, D. S. 19 Donfried, K. P. 173�5, 180 Dowd, S. 125 Droge, A. J. 170 Duling, D. C. 16 Dunn, J. D. G. 25, 26, 101, 116, 117, 119, 120, 132, 172

234

Index of Authors

Farmer, W. R. 44 Fish, S. 125 Foley, J. M. 101 Forster, E. M. 33, 46 Foster, P. 7, 10, 34, 38 Fowler, H. N. 12, 13, 123, 124 Fowler, R. M. 11

Kazen, T. 8, 177 Kee, H. C. 90, 91 Keener, C. S. 6 Kelber, W. H. 28, 91, 92, 101, 102, 104, 167, 198 Kermode, F. 123 Kessler, W. T. 83 Kilpatrick, G. D. 40 Kingsbury, J. D. 16, 23, 28, 48, 49, 51, 53, 57, 62, 83, 191 Klink III, E. W. 7�9 Koester, H. 134, 149 Krentz, E. 117 Kuhn, K. A. 165, 166

Gale, A. M. 34 Gamble, H. Y. 4, 112, 113, 117, 122 Garland, D. E. 148, 189, 190 Gee, D. H. 171 Genette, G. 13, 14 Gerhardsson, B. 25, 159, 198 Gibson, W. 18 Gundry, R. H. 39, 43, 63, 75, 77, 138, 142, 144, 150�2, 154, 160, 178, 179, 181, 183� 5, 188, 190�2, 194, 198

LaGrand, J. 42, 68, 75 Lane, W. L. 62 Lapham, F. 174, 175 Lemcio, E. E. 24 Lincoln, A. T. 171 Lohr, C. H. 113 Love, S. L. 10, 118 Luz, U. 1, 40�3, 63, 65, 71, 75, 104, 118, 135, 138, 141, 142, 147, 149�51, 154, 155, 183�5, 187�91, 193, 194, 198, 199

Hägerland, T. 29 Hagner, D. A. 75, 78, 141, 189 Hannan, M. 7, 184, 187 Hare, D. R. A. 37, 38, 41, 42, 73, 75, 121 Harrington, D. J. 30 Head, I. 92 Heil, J. P. 20 Henderson, I. H. 1, 4, 125 Hengel, M. 6, 7, 26, 27, 29, 39, 92, 115, 117, 119, 123 Hezser, C. 102, 116, 132 Hill, C. C. 119 Hollander, H. W. 174 Holmberg, B. 25 Horsley, R. A. 101, 104, 107 Hout, G. E. van der 174 Howell, D. B. 18, 34, 51, 55�8 Hurtado, L. W. 102

Malbon, E. S. 27, 28, 107, 125, 138, 139 Manson, T. W. 190 Marcus, J. 7, 93, 202 Martin, R. P. 117 Martin, W. 11 Matera, F. J. 51 Maurer, C. 177 Maxwell, K. R. 20, 124 Maynard, A. H. 170, 172 McEleney, N. J. 159, 160 McIver, R. K. 3, 103 Meeks, W. A. 120, 122 Meier, J. P. 34, 36, 37, 40, 67, 68, 75, 184 Metzger, B. M. 112, 150 Minear, P. S. 15, 171 Mitchell, M. M. 7 Moessner, D. P. 169 Moses, A. D. A. 15, 144, 146, 188, 189

Incigneri, B. J. 7, 92�5, 102, 116, 123, 165 Iser, W. 12

Nau, A. J. 83, 87, 134, 149, 152, 162, 186, 189, 193 Neirynck, F. 170 Newport, K. G. C. 34, 38 Neyrey, J. H. 176

Eco, U. 18, 19, 99 Edwards, R. A. 16, 180, 189 Elliott, J. H. 174 Elliott, M. 165, 166 Ellis, P. F. 15 Esler, P. F. 7

Jaffee, M. S. 108, 111, 112, 115 Jones, P. R. 174

Index of Authors Ong, W. J. 46, 52, 101, 130, 131, 164 Orton, D. E. 16, 47 Overman, J. A. 2, 23, 30, 34�6, 41, 61, 63, 80, 85, 183 Parker, D. C. 112, 124 Patte, D. 15, 19, 149, 190, 191 Peppard, M. 117 Perkins, P. 123, 168�70, 172, 173, 175, 176, 198, 199 Peterson, D. N. 4, 19, 88, 90, 91 Pilch, J. J. 188 Porter, S. E. 106 Powell, M. A. 18, 45, 46, 53, 54, 56, 59 Prince, G. H. 13 Przybylski, B. 36 Rabinowitz, P. 19 Reinhartz, A. 9 Repschinski, B. 76 Reumann, J. 173�5, 180 Rhoads, D. 101, 104, 107 Riches, J. 77, 124 Rimmon, S. 14 Rimmon-Kenan, S. 13, 33 Robbins, V. K. 102�4 Roskam, H. N. 7, 95�7 Ruge-Jones, P. 14, 107 Runesson, A. 9, 10, 34 Saldarini, A. J. 2, 9, 29, 30, 37, 38, 41, 64� 9, 80, 81, 86, 183 Schneemelcher, W. 177 Schröter, J. 27 Schweizer, E. 23, 24, 44, 88, 180 Scott, B. B. 103, 105 Senior, D. 194, 195 Shiell, W. D. 108�11, 115�17 Shiner, W. T. 4, 101, 102, 104, 108, 109, 115, 117, 120, 122, 132, 133, 165 Silberman, L. H. 101 Sim, D. C. 2, 7, 9, 10, 23, 29, 30, 39�43, 45, 70�7, 82, 86, 183 Slee, M. 10, 34, 40, 42, 82, 119 Slingerland, H. D. 44 Small, J. P. 132

235

Smith, J. M. 8 Staley, J. L. 17, 30 Stanton, G. N. 3, 4, 19, 31, 34, 70, 75, 105, 117 Stark, R. 44 Steiner, G. 123, 124 Stierle, K. 17, 30 Strecker, G. 15, 22, 23, 35, 44, 83, 144 Streeter, B. H. 42, 82 Suleiman, S. R. 13 Syreeni, K. 83, 87, 140, 148, 180�2, 185�8, 193 Tannehill, R. C. 169, 198 Taussig, H. 117, 120 Taylor, N. H. 96 Thatcher, T. 102 Theissen, G. 191 Trilling, W. 23, 31, 35, 38, 42 Tyson, J. B. 79 Ulrich, D. W. 9, 123 Van Tilborg, S. 47, 48 Viviano, B. T. 44 Walker, W. O. 79 Watson, F. 99 Watts Henderson, S. 89 Weaver, D. J. 14, 30, 72 Weeden, T. 88�90 Weren, W. J. C. 10 Wiarda, T. 83, 87, 140, 168, 170, 180, 181, 188, 190 Wilkins, M. J. 24, 83, 156, 180, 184 Williams, J. F. 28 Wills, L. M. 16 Winn, A. 97 Witherington III, B. 95 Wong, K. 120 Wright, R. B. 35 Yamasaki, G. 105, 106, 114 Zangenberg, J. 6