J. R. C. Cousland The Crowds in The Gospel of Matthew Supplements To Novum Testamentum Supplements To Novum Testamentum 2001 PDF
J. R. C. Cousland The Crowds in The Gospel of Matthew Supplements To Novum Testamentum Supplements To Novum Testamentum 2001 PDF
J. R. C. Cousland The Crowds in The Gospel of Matthew Supplements To Novum Testamentum Supplements To Novum Testamentum 2001 PDF
THE GOSPEL OF
MATTHEW
J.R.C. COUSLAND
BRILL
NTS-102 Cousland.vwi
15-10-2001
12:35
Pagina 1
NTS-102 Cousland.vwi
15-10-2001
12:35
Pagina 2
SUPPLEMENTS TO
NOVUM TESTAMENTUM
EDITORIAL BOARD
VOLUME CII
NTS-102 Cousland.vwi
15-10-2001
12:35
Pagina 3
THE CROWDS IN
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
BY
J.R.C. COUSLAND
BRILL
LEIDEN BOSTON KLN
2002
NTS-102 Cousland.vwi
15-10-2001
12:35
Pagina 4
ISSN 0167-9732
ISBN 90 04 12177 3
Cousland 01 versie 4
10-10-2001, 12:52
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface ...........................................................................................
Abbreviations .................................................................................
:
A The Nature of the Problem ....................................................
B J. D. Kingsbury ......................................................................
C Sjef Van Tilborg .....................................................................
D Paul S. Minear ........................................................................
E Warren Carter .........................................................................
F Anthony Saldarini ...................................................................
G Summary .................................................................................
H Proposal ...................................................................................
I Presuppositions and Methodology ..........................................
3
9
12
14
16
18
20
21
23
:
A Matthews Sources ..................................................................
B Use of the term oxloj in Matthew .........................................
C Singular Crowds? ....................................................................
D The Distinctiveness of Matthews oxloj .......................................
E The Crowds as a Literary Construct .....................................
F Conclusion ...............................................................................
31
35
37
39
43
50
A The Ethnic Constitution of the Crowds ................................
B Matthews Geographical References ......................................
C Syria .........................................................................................
D The Decapolis .........................................................................
E Beyond the Jordan ..................................................................
F Matthews Geographical Rationale ........................................
G Matthew 7:29 ..........................................................................
H Israel and the Crowds .............................................................
I Conclusion ...............................................................................
53
53
54
58
61
63
68
70
72
Cousland 01 versie 4
10-10-2001, 12:52
A The Relation of the Crowds to Israel ....................................
B oxloj and lao/j .........................................................................
C The Crowds as Sheep .............................................................
D Conclusion ...............................................................................
75
75
86
97
: ....................................................................... 97
:
Cousland 01 versie 4
A Jesus Ministry to the Crowds ................................................
B The Character of the Ministry ...............................................
C khru/ssw ..................................................................................................
D dida/skw ...................................................................................................
E qerapeu/w ................................................................................................
F Feeding ....................................................................................
G Jesus Shepherding of the Sheep ...........................................
H Conclusion ...............................................................................
101
101
102
103
108
117
120
122
A The Response of the Crowds to Jesus ...................................
B e)kplh/ssomai ...........................................................................................
C qauma/zw ..................................................................................................
D e)ci/sthmi ..................................................................................................
E fobe/omai .................................................................................................
F doca/zw .....................................................................................................
G The Responses of the Crowds in Oratio Recta ..........................
H Matthews Use of the Responses ............................................
I Conclusion ...............................................................................
125
126
129
130
130
132
136
140
143
A a)kolouqe/w ..............................................................................................
B The Crowds and the Demands of Jesus ................................
C The Call of Jesus .....................................................................
D Discipleship in Matthew .........................................................
E Jesus Summons of Individual Disciples ................................
F Comfortable Words ................................................................
G Following and Miracles ...........................................................
H Sheep and Shepherd ...............................................................
I Conclusion ...............................................................................
145
148
153
154
156
159
163
169
172
10-10-2001, 12:52
A A Son of David? ......................................................................
B Son of David as a Messianic Title? ........................................
C The Royal Son of David ........................................................
D The Therapeutic Son of David ..............................................
E The Crowds and the Son of David........................................
F The Son of David and the Lord ............................................
G Conclusion ...............................................................................
175
176
181
184
191
195
198
: ...................................................................... 201
:
A Prophet ....................................................................................
B The Eschatological Prophet ....................................................
C The Eschatological Prophet at 21:11? ...................................
D The Violent Fate of the Prophets ..........................................
E The Crowds and Jesus the Prophet .......................................
F Conclusion ...............................................................................
207
208
213
217
222
225
A The Volte-Face of the Crowds ..................................................
B The Crowds in the Barabbas Episode (27:15-26) ..................
C The Crowds after the Passion ................................................
D Conclusion ...............................................................................
227
231
237
239
A Matthew Chapter 13 ..............................................................
B The Crowds and the Great Discourses ..................................
C The Portrait of the Crowds in Chapter 13............................
D Parables ...................................................................................
E Matthew 13:10-18 ...................................................................
F Matthew 13:18-23 ...................................................................
G Matthew 13 in the Context of Matthews Narrative .............
H Conclusion ...............................................................................
241
241
247
249
252
256
257
259
: ...................................................................... 261
:
A Historicized Groups in Matthew? .......................................... 265
B The Transparent Crowds ....................................................... 270
Cousland 01 versie 4
10-10-2001, 12:52
C
D
E
F
Matthews Dual Economy ...................................................... 281
The Function of Matthews Narrative of the Crowds ........... 288
Matthews Sitz-im-Leben .............................................................. 294
Conclusion ............................................................................... 296
: ....................................................................... 299
: .................. 301
: ................................ 305
:
A Reference Works ..................................................................... 309
B Commentaries on Matthew .................................................... 310
C Monographs and Essays ......................................................... 311
:
Index of References ...................................................................... 333
Index of Authors ........................................................................... 351
Index of Subjects ........................................................................... 357
Cousland 01 versie 4
10
10-10-2001, 12:52
PREFACE
This book had its genesis as a doctoral thesis at the University of St.
Andrews, written under the supervision of Professor Ronald Piper.
Since completed the thesis, however, my views about the character
and role of the crowds have evolved considerably, and the present
work offers quite a different assessment from that presented in the
dissertation.
My central contention is that Matthews crowds represent the people of Israel as distinguished from their leaders. The gospel crowds
emerge as a theological entity, and the bulk of the book examines
them from that perspective. I conclude that while Matthew has categorically broken with the leadership of formative Judaism, he has
not fully severed his ties with the Jewish people, and still entertains
the prospect of their conversion. It is my hope that the analysis and
conclusions offered here will contribute a fresh perspective to the
perennial problem of Matthews relationship to the Judaism of his
day.
As this problem continues to be one of the most contentious features of the so-called Matthean renaissance, I have tried to take
account of recent discussion as much as possible. Unfortunately, I did
not become aware of Martin Meisers fine study, Die Reaktion des Volkes
auf Jesus, until after I had submitted the book for publication.1 It is
encouraging to find, however, that we agree in a number of essentials, even if (inevitably!) not in every respect.
Over the course of writing the dissertation and this book I have
had cause to be thankful to a great many people. My family Anne,
Ian, Irene and Alastair have provided sustained encouragement and
support over the years, for which I am especially grateful. Ron Pipers
characteristic insight added much to the dissertation, and in its production I owe a very great deal to the unstinting help of Hugh
Scheuermann, as well as to David Whelan, David Leman and Boyne
Hill.
In writing the book, I have particularly profited from the percipient advice of James Hume, and I also need to thank Phillip Harding,
1
Martin Meiser, Die Reaktion des Volkes auf Jesus. Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung
zu den synoptischen Evangelien (BZNW 96; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1998). For his
discussion of Matthew, see especially pp.223-61.
Cousland 01 versie 4
11
10-10-2001, 12:52
Christopher Beall and Alan Rawn for their careful reading of the MS
and the valuable suggestions they offered. I must also thank my colleagues and the support staff at both the University of Calgary and
the University of British Columbia for their ongoing help and encouragement.
Last of all, I need to thank the Thomsons, who made me so much
a part of their family when I lived in Scotland; it is to them that this
book is dedicated with love and affection.
Cousland 01 versie 4
12
10-10-2001, 12:52
ABBREVIATIONS
The abbreviations conform to those in Patrick H. Alexander et al.
(eds.), The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody, MA., 1999), with the addition of the following abbreviations. Unless otherwise indicated, citations of classical authors are from the Loeb Classical Library (LCL),
citations of the Mishnah from H. Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford, 1933),
citations of the Dead Sea Scrolls from Michael Wise, Martin Abegg
Jr. and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San
Francisco, 1996), citations of the pseudepigrapha from J. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City,
1982) and the Babylonian Talmud from the Soncino Edition (London, 1952).
DA
EWNT
HJP
Cousland 01 versie 4
13
10-10-2001, 12:52
PART I
INTRODUCTION
Cousland 02 versie 3
08-10-2001, 11:41
CHAPTER ONE
A The Nature of the Problem
Almost 1750 years ago Origen devoted a section of his Commentarius in
Matthaeum1 to a discussion of the different roles played by the disciples
and the crowds in the Gospel of Matthew.2 Although Origen did not
go on to dilate in detail upon these differences except in a
spiritualized sense, his distinction between the two groups remains a
characteristically insightful one and raises some questions that have
not, as of yet, been definitively resolved. Why is it that Matthew
differentiates between the two groups? Who are the crowds, and what
role do they have in the Gospel of Matthew? And why has Matthew
accorded a prominent place in his gospel to such apparently minor
characters?
The intention of this study is to answer precisely these questions. It
will identify the crowds and explain their role and function within the
gospel. In so doing, it will demonstrate that the crowds are, in fact,
not a minor character, but rather are emblematic of the people of
Israel as distinct from their leaders. This identification accounts for
their prominence within the gospel. To my knowledge, the thesis
stated above has not been argued before. Nor has a full-length examination of the crowds been undertaken before, and one is long overdue. The crowds in Matthew have been very largely overlooked by
biblical scholars. The following study, therefore, is an attempt to
redress this oversight.
Ironically, part of this oversight can probably be attributed to the
rise of New Testament scholarship over the last century. After
Matthews erstwhile primacy in the Christian tradition, the two-document hypothesis gave Mark a certain ascendancy. As a consequence,
Matthews crowds have come to be read largely through a Markan
lens. Since the crowd(s) feature in many of the same episodes in the
1
Cousland 02 versie 3
08-10-2001, 11:41
two gospels, it has been natural to suppose that Matthew has simply
appropriated the crowd from Mark wholesale, just as he has adopted
so much else.3 Because the crowd in Mark has a relatively minor role,
the same assumption has been made of the crowds in Matthew.4
Even when the crowds have commanded the attention of scholars,
it is safe to say that no consensus has emerged concerning their place
in the gospel. Rather, the reverse is true: the spectrum of opinions
about the crowds role, character and function is exceptionally
diverse, as even a brief, representative sampling of opinion should
make evident. To Vincent Mora, for example, the crowds assume an
enormous role in the gospel.5 To Georg Strecker, by contrast, the
crowds constitute nothing more than a laudatory backdrop to the
ministry of Jesus.6 For Donald Verseput, the crowds are
historicizedwrapped in a cloak of unrepeatability,7 and denote
only the Jews of Jesus own day. Yet, for Joseph Comber, the crowds
3 On the place of the crowd in the Gospel of Mark see: Ernest Best, The Role of
the Disciples in Mark, NTS 23 (1977) 390-393; Elizabeth Struthers Malbon,
Disciples/Crowds/Whoever: Marcan Characters and Readers, NovT 28 (1986)
104-130; Paul S. Minear, Audience Criticism and Marcan Ecclesiology in H.
Baltensweiler and B. Reicke (eds.), Neues Testament und Geschichte: Historische Geschehen
und Deutung im Neuen Testament (Zrich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972) 79-90; A. W.
Mosley, Jesus Audiences in the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, NTS 10 (1964)
139-149; David Rhoads and Donald Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 134-135; Kenzo Tagawa, Miracles et
vangile: La pense personelle de lvangliste Marc (Etudes dHistoire et de Philosophie
Religieuses 62; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1966) 55-73; C. H. Turner,
Notes, 225-240; Osmar Zizemer: Das Verhltnis zwischen Jesus und Volk im
Markusevangelium (Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwrde der EvangelischTheologischen Fakultt der Ludwig-Maximilians Universitt Munich, 1983).
4 The same assumption has not been made for the role of the disciples in
Matthew simply because it is evident that they are not minor characters. As a result,
they continue to garner a fair amount of attention. See, for two recent examples,
Richard A. Edwards, Matthews Narrative Portrait of Disciples: How the Text-Connoted
Reader is Informed (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1997) and Michael J.
Wilkens, Discipleship in the Ancient World and Matthews Gospel (2nd Ed.; Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1995).
5 Vincent Mora, Le Refus dIsral: Matthieu 27, 25 (LD 124; Paris: Editions du Cerf,
1986) 135.
6 Georg Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthus (3.
Auf.; FRLANT 82; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 107. Alexander
Sand (Das Matthus-Evangelium [Ertrge der Forschung 275; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1991] 79) is of a similar opinion: oxloj in Matthew is kein
theologisch relevanter Begriff.
7 Donald J. Verseput, The Rejection of the Humble Messianic King: A Study of the Composition of Matthew 11-12 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1986) 48. See, too, David E. Garland, The Intention of Matthew 23 (NovTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1979) 38-39.
Cousland 02 versie 3
08-10-2001, 11:41
of the gospel narrative are a cipher for the Jewish people of Matthews time.8 Robert Gundry agrees with Comber that they reflect
the realities of Matthews day, but maintains that they are not Jewish,
rather, the masses in the Church...the result of extensive evangelism
among the Gentiles.9
The same lack of concord is evident in literary evaluations of the
crowds as characters in the gospel. J. D. Kingsbury claims that,
the crowds...may be dealt with as a single, flat character. They are
not rich in traits, and the ones they possess tend not to change until
the end of Matthews story, when they suddenly appear with Judas to
arrest Jesus.10 Clifton Black, however, insists that the crowds be
regarded as rather round characters: albeit [sic] their minimalist
representation, they are rather lifelike in their unpredictable
vacillation and divided loyalty to Jesus.11
In short, there is no agreement among these scholars about the
crowds in Matthews gospel. According to these scholarsand their
judgements are not unrepresentativethe crowds could be Jewish or
gentile, historicized or transparent,12 and important or relatively
minor figures within the gospel framework. While a broad spectrum
of opinion is not uncommon within New Testament scholarship, the
case of the crowds, with their chameleon-like capacity to fit a variety
of interpretations, is out of the ordinary.
The reasons for such a multiplicity of interpretations are not
difficult to isolate. Pre-eminent is the fact that the crowds have usually
8
433.
9 Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 64-65, cf. 8-9. Hans Dieter Betz (The Sermon on the
Mount [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995] 81) similarly describes the crowds as
the pool from which new church members are to be recruited, but does not specify
whether he regards these prospective converts as Jews or Gentiles.
10 Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (2nd Ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 24.
11 C. Clifton Black II, Depth of Characterization and Degrees of Faith in Matthew, SBL 1989 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 619. According to
Kingsbury (Story, 10, and cf. Black, Depth, 605), Round characters are those
who possess a variety of traits, some of which may even conflict, so that their behaviour is not necessarily predictable; round characters are like real people....Flat
characters are those who possess few traits and are therefore highly predictable in
their behaviour.
12 For the expression transparent, see Ulrich Luz, The Disciples in the Gospel
according to Matthew in G. Stanton (ed.), The Interpretation of Matthew (London:
SPCK, 1983) 98. The term transparent refers to elements in the gospel account
that can be understood as allusions to the post-Easter situation of Matthews community. See, further, the illuminating remarks by Gerhard Lohfink, Wem gilt die
Bergpredigt?, TQ 163 (1983) 266#13.
Cousland 02 versie 3
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
08-10-2001, 11:41
posed toward Jesus. They are astonished at his words and deeds
(7:28; 9:33; 12:23; 15:31; 22:33). They follow him (4:25; 8:1; 12:15;
14:13; 19:2; 20:29; 21:9), and acclaim him as a prophet (21:11; cf.
21:46), and, more importantly, as the Son of David (21:9; cf. 12:23).
Yet, the crowds can just as readily be portrayed unfavourably. They
are described by Jesus in chapter 13 as being devoid of understanding
(13:10-17). More tellingly, it is they who come later in the gospel to
arrest Jesus (26:47), and ultimately join with their leaders in accepting
responsibility for his death (27:24-25).
These Jekyll and Hyde features sit together uneasily in
Matthews gospel. If the crowds are indeed devoid of understanding
at chapter 13, what is to be made of their confession of Jesus as the
Son of David during the Triumphal Entry (21:9)? And why should
their fundamental insight into Jesus identity then be followed by a
complete volte-face, where they take up with their malign leaders and
reject him? Such questions are not resolved easily, and the solution
that has generally prevailed has been to accentuate either the crowds
favourable or unfavourable traits to the exclusion of the others.16 On
occasion, the crowds are also described as being neutral, but this is
a solution only in name, and its proponents usually forbear to say
precisely how the crowds are neutral.17
A factor that has further compounded the problem has been the
tendency for some scholars to interpret the role of the crowds in light
of Matthews contemporary situation, after paying only cursory attention to the crowds role at the historical or narrative level of the
gospel.18 It is obvious that such an imbalanced methodology is going
to produce skewed resultssomething that may help to explain why
16 One exception is the suggestive article by Luise SchottroffDas geschundene
Volk und die Arbeit in der Ernte Gottes nach dem Matthusevangeliums in L. and
W. Schottroff, Mitarbeiter der Schpfung (Munich: Kaiser, 1983) 155.
17 Wilkens (Discipleship, 229-30) gives an indication of the difficulties inherent in
this approach when he asserts in the same sentence that the crowds are basically
neutral but at various times either positively or negatively oriented towards him
[sc. Jesus]. Cf., further, Robert Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for
Understanding (Waco: Word, 1982) 59 and Krieger, Publikum, 108, who both also
describe the crowds as neutral.
18 By historical I do not refer to a factual relation of events (Von Rankes history
as it actually happened), but to Matthews relation of events, with i(stori/a understood in the sense of story or narrative. Cf. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott
and Henry Stuart Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edition with a revised supplement
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), s.v. def. II. (hereafter LSJ). That being said, I
would agree with Grard Genette (Fiction & Diction [Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 1993] 82) that the two regimes [sc. fiction and nonfiction] are not as far
apartas might be supposed from a distance. The historical level then, refers to
Matthews story of Jesus as opposed to the transparent level, which would refer to
Cousland 02 versie 3
08-10-2001, 11:41
the post-Easter situation of Matthews church. In using the word level, I follow
Raymond E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (London: Geoffrey Chapman,
1984) 125.
19 Jack D. Kingsbury, The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13: A Study in Redaction Criticism
(London: SPCK, 1969).
20 Sjef Van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden: Brill, 1972).
21 Paul S. Minear, The Disciples and the Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew,
AThR Sup. 3 (1974) 28-44.
22 Carter, Crowds, 54-67.
23 Saldarini, Christian-Jewish Community, 37-40, 230-32 and idem, Boundaries and
Polemics in the Gospel of Matthew, Biblical Interpretation 3 (1995) 247. Saldarinis
essayThe Gospel of Matthew and Jewish-Christian Conflict in David L. Balch
(ed.), Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1991) 38-61is also pertinent.
24 Kingsbury, Parables, 22-92, especially 24-28. Kingsburys argument has had
a considerable impact on Matthean studies. Most recently, Donald Hagner
(Matthews Parables of the Kingdom (Matthew 13:1-52) in R. N. Longenecker (ed.),
The Challenge of Jesus Parables [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000] 122) echoes
Kingsburys argument that Matthew 13 is a major turning point in the ministry of
Jesus. Kingsburys study is also quoted with approval by Comber, Verb, 431;
John Drury, The Parables in the Gospels: History and Allegory (New York: Crossroad, 1985)
83; David B. Howell, Matthews Inclusive Story: A Study in the Narrative Rhetoric of the First
Gospel ( JSNTSup 42; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990) 141#2; T. J.
Keegan, Formulae, 423-24, and Dan O. Via, Jr., Self-Deception and Wholeness in Paul
and Matthew (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 100, among others.
25 Kingsbury, Parables, 130.
Cousland 02 versie 3
08-10-2001, 11:41
26
Cousland 02 versie 3
10
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
11
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
12
08-10-2001, 11:41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Cousland 02 versie 3
Van
Van
Van
Van
Van
Van
Tilborg,
Tilborg,
Tilborg,
Tilborg,
Tilborg,
Tilborg,
Leaders,
Leaders,
Leaders,
Leaders,
Leaders,
Leaders,
13
164, 171.
164.
164.
171.
164.
159; 148-149 (on Matt 27:20) and 161-162 (on ch. 13).
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
14
08-10-2001, 11:41
55
56
57
58
59
Cousland 02 versie 3
Minear,
Minear,
Minear,
Minear,
Minear,
Crowds,
Crowds,
Crowds,
Crowds,
Crowds,
15
41.
30.
30.
30.
30.
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
16
08-10-2001, 11:41
of roles. They are the objects of Jesus and later the disciples ministry. The crowds recognize that God is in some way active in Jesus,
but their response falls midway between the faith demonstrated by
the disciples and the antipathy characteristic of the Jewish leaders.
Ultimately, the crowds lack of faith prevails when they join with their
leaders in assuming responsibility for Jesus death.64
Carter isolates two functions for this portrayal of the authorial
audience (and thereby the actual audience). Both are related to mission. The first function is to provide a model for the mission charge of
the audience. Like the disciples, the authorial audience are to teach
and to heal, to serve the needy, and to demonstrate the mercy and
compassion of Jesus. The second function is didactic. The reactions of
the crowds are designed to educate the audience about the realities of
mission. The crowds failure to understand Jesus indicates that the
mission enterprise is often beset by rejection. On the other hand, the
openness of the crowds to Jesus, especially when contrasted with the
obduracy of their leaders, offers encouragement to the audience.65 In
short, the authorial audience can expect a mixed reaction to its message. The ambivalence of the crowds corresponds to the situation
confronting the gospels audience: While the mission commanded
by the risen Jesus would more often than not bring negative
responses, the assurance was given that the task was not hopeless, that
there would also be some positive response.66
One inevitable shortcoming of Carters paper is its brevity. Given
the constraints imposed by the essay format, he is forced to paint with
a broad brush and deals with some issues too summarily. A case in
point is his treatment of the christological title Son of David. He
assumes without discussion that the audience knows that the
crowds designation of Jesus as the Son of David is inadequate, since
the disciples only confess Jesus as the Son of God.67 His observation overlooks the fact that Matthew himself sanctions the title Son of
David at the outset of the gospel (1:1). Surely, Carter does not mean
to imply that the evangelist is himself an unreliable narrator.68
A more serious objection emerges from his conclusions. Is the
entire portrayal of the crowds to be reduced to a paradigm for mis64
Cousland 02 versie 3
17
08-10-2001, 11:41
sionary activity? While there is little doubt that Jesus serves as the
prime exemplar for missionary service, and that his message
provoked a variety of responses, are we to stop there? Carters
analysis says nothing about the crowds from the perspective of
Christology or salvation history.69 What is to be made of the crowds
identifications of Jesus? What of their (otherwise unprecedented)
association with their leaders at 27:25? Why do the crowds, who
usually appear favourably disposed toward Jesus, ultimately reject
him? To say that the crowds simply demonstrate the maxim that
many are called and few are chosen glosses over too many other
questions. Carters solution, in other words, is too limited.70
F Anthony Saldarini
Anthony Saldarini does not offer a full-scale discussion of the crowds,
but his viewpoint warrants consideration because of its distinctive
approach. He furnishes elements of a historico-sociological assessment of the crowds, describing them as an incipient social movement which had not reached the level of differentiation required for a
social movement organization.71 That is to say, given the crowds
shifting and diffuse character, they lack the type of organization
typical of coalitions, reform movements, or political interest groups.
Instead, the crowds are sociologically typical of the lower classes in
antiquity.72 These lower classes were constituted predominantly of
artisans and peasants. They were largely illiterate, without social
mobility and direct access to power, and because of these deficiencies
they were attracted to Jesus promises of reformed societal relationships.73
Unlike some of the authors mentioned above, Saldarini does not
consider the crowds to be a distinctive unit. They are subgroups of
Israel, a fact that helps to explain their differing dispositions to Jesus.
While they are generally welcoming, certain crowds are marked by
their antipathy, such as the crowd that arrests Jesus and the one that
69 By salvation-history, I mean a schematic understanding of Gods dealings
with men that emphasizes continuity-yet-difference. The definition is that of John P.
Meier (Law and History in Matthews Gospel: A Redactional Study of Mt 5:17-48 [AnBib 71;
Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976] 22).
70 It is rather telling that in Carters substantial book (Matthew) he hardly has
occasion to mention the crowds, even though a quarter of the book (Chapters 13-16)
is dedicated to Matthews characters.
71 Saldarini, Christian-Jewish Community, 39.
72 Saldarini, Christian-Jewish Community, 38.
73 Saldarini, Christian-Jewish Community, 38-39.
Cousland 02 versie 3
18
08-10-2001, 11:41
74
75
76
77
Cousland 02 versie 3
Saldarini,
Saldarini,
Saldarini,
Saldarini,
19
08-10-2001, 11:41
G Summary
Cousland 02 versie 3
20
08-10-2001, 11:41
78
Nor is this, evidently, an uncommon means of proceeding. Gundry (Matthew, 89, cf. 64-65) simply informs his readers at the outset of his commentary that the
Jewish crowds symbolize the international church, including the many Gentiles who
were later to become disciples. J. C. Fenton (The Gospel of Saint Matthew [Pelican
Gospel Commentaries; Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963] 74) does the same: the
crowds foreshadow the members of the Church whom Jesus will heal and teach
through his disciples.
79 Meier, Law, 30#13. He is commenting on Minears study.
80 These remarks tacitly assume that for the crowds there is a second horizon of
the churchs present state, an assumption that would not be held by some of the
scholars mentioned above.
Cousland 02 versie 3
21
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
22
08-10-2001, 11:41
83 Stanton, New People, 168. See further Donald Hagner, The Sitz im Leben of the
Gospel of Matthew in David R. Bauer and Mark Allan Powell (eds.), Treasures New
and Old: Contributions to Matthean Studies [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996] 63), and, most
recently, Donald Senior Between Two Worlds: Gentile and Jewish Christians in
Matthews Gospel, CBQ 61 (1999) 1-23 and Douglas R. A. Hare, How Jewish Is
the Gospel of Matthew? CBQ 62 (2000) 264-77. Senior remarks that there is a
scholarly consensus that Matthews interface with Judaismis the fundamental key
to determining the social context and theological perspective of this gospel (p. 5).
84 This approach is similar to that advocated by Ulrich Luz in The Theology of the
Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge: University Press, 1995) 1-10.
85 It goes without saying that Matthews crowds could be fruitfully approached
from a variety of other methodological points of view; see, for instance, the recent
social-scientific examination by Jerome Neyrey (Honor and Shame in the Gospel of
Matthew [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998] 42-44), who shows how the
crowds are, among other things, utilized by the evangelist to enhance Jesus status:
by brokering Gods benefactions to the people, Jesus has earned their respect and
achieved great honour (p. 44).
Cousland 02 versie 3
23
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
24
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
25
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
26
08-10-2001, 11:41
complained of this neglect almost a decade ago, and the situation has
been slow to change.105
Finally, the focus of the present study moves beyond the ambit of
narrative criticism. As the above survey has indicated, much of the
scholarly interest in the crowds has concentrated on their transparent
role in the gospelhow the crowds cast light on the evangelists own
circumstances. Yet, as Carter has recently explained, narrative
criticism does not address the question of extra-textual figures.106
Because the final section of this study will address the question of the
transparent crowds, it is necessary to employ a method that allows for
the possibility of extra-textual figures. Here an approach that is not
based on narrative criticism commends itself.
For these reasons, an eclectic method makes good sense. The one
outlined above should prove effective for an analysis of Matthews
crowds, while avoiding some of the pitfalls associated with using
either redaction or narrative criticism in isolation.
Cousland 02 versie 3
27
08-10-2001, 11:41
PART II
Cousland 02 versie 3
29
08-10-2001, 11:41
CHAPTER TWO
A Matthews Sources
As the last chapter made evident, one of the most fundamental questions concerning the crowds in Matthew is their identity. Before this
can be established, however, it needs to be asked whether such an
enterprise can even be undertaken. While the studies by Minear and
the scholars mentioned above do seem to suggest that the crowds
represented a distinctive entity within the gospel, it is safe to say
that the issue would profit from a more concerted examination.1
Accordingly, the first part of this chapter will begin with a discussion
of Matthews terminology for the crowds. It will then present a
detailed evaluation of Matthews descriptions of, and ascriptions to,
the crowds in his gospel. The second part of the chapter will consider
these changes in more detail to ascertain the distinctive features of the
Matthean portrayal of the crowds.
Before doing either, however, it is necessary to address the
question of Matthews sources. Where does Matthew come by his
references to the oxloj or oxloi?2 Do they occur in his sources, and, if
so, which ones?
The word oxloj itself occurs more frequently in Matthew than in
either Mark or Luke.3 Matthew appears to have drawn at least two of
1
Minear (Crowds, 35), for instance, actually posits two crowds, since he is
unwilling to identify the crowds of the Passion Narrative with the crowds of Jesus
public ministry.
2 As oxloj is, by far, Matthews preferred designation for the crowds, this discussion will begin with it, and consider the question of related terms below.
3 Matthew50, Mark38, Luke41. See Kurt Aland et al. (eds.), Vollstndige
Konkordanz zum Griechischen Neuen Testament, Band II Spezialbersichten (Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 1978) s.v. Robert Morgenthaler (Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes [3.
Auf.; Zrich: Gotthelf Verlag, 1982] 127), by contrast, emerges with only 49
references, probably because he omits 12:15, which has variant readings (polloi/ B pc
lat / oxloi N* / oxloi polloi/ C D L W Q (s 0233 pc) 02811.13 33, 892, 1006, 1342,
1506, f h (q) syp.h. samsbo and the Majority text). Although B. Metzger (A Textual
Commentary on the Greek New Testament [2nd Ed; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/
United Bible Societies, 1994] 26) does not incline to the view, it is still preferable to
assume that oxloi dropped out by homoioteleuton at 12:15 than to regard it as a
later addition. Metzger observes that the presence of oxloi polloi/ at 4:25; 8:1; 13:2;
15:30 and 19:2 may have influenced the scribes, but his argument cuts both ways,
since this would be the only instance in the gospel where Matthew refers to the
crowds as polloi/. Nor is the reading of polloi/ here at all dependent on Mark 3:7
(polu\ plh=qoj). One might further add that the reading of polloi/ at 12:15 also runs
Cousland 02 versie 3
31
08-10-2001, 11:41
these references from Q.4 The first is a passage (// Luke 11:14-15)
that he has incorporated into his gospel twice, once at 9:32-34, and a
second time at 12:22-24. The reaction of the crowds to Jesus wonder-working at 9:33 is identical with Luke 11:14: the mute spoke and
the crowds marvelled (e)la/lhsen o( kwfo/j kai e)qau/masan oi oxloi),5
while 12:23 is a paraphrase (kai e)cistanto pa/ntej oi oxloi).6 Given
the verbal agreement between Luke 11:14 and Matthew 9:33, it is
probable that the crowds in this instance were mentioned in Q.
Much the same can be said for Jesus address to the crowds about
John the Baptist (Matt 11:7-11 // Luke 7:24-28). Both Matthew and
Luke state that Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning
John. While there are one or two slight variations between the two
accountsLuke has le/gein pro\j tou\j oxlouj where Matthew has toij
oxloijthey are minor, and do not really call the crowds presence
into doubt.7
Apart from these two instances, Matthew does not appear to have
appropriated any other occurrences of the word oxloj from Q. It is,
of course, entirely possible that there were no other occurrences of
the word. Although Matthew has not included them, passages such as
Luke 7:9 and Luke 12:54 do mention the crowds and have partial
parallels in Matthew. Should the inclusion of the crowds be ascribed
to Luke, or has Matthew simply chosen to eliminate them?
How difficult a question this can be may be determined from a
third instance, where Luke mentions the crowds and Matthew does
not. The passage in question is Luke 3:7-9 // Matt 3:7-10, an
counter to Matthews tendency to identify his subject. As E. P. Sanders observes (The
Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition [SNTSMS 9; Cambridge: University Press, 1969]
183), Matthew is clearly the most specific Gospel in the category of making the
subject of a sentence or clause explicit. For a list of these changes, consult Frans
Neirynck, The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke Against Mark: with a cumulative list
(BETL 37; Leuven: University Press, 1974) 261-264.
The textual tradition of 8:18 is also diverse, but all the variant readings include oxloi
or oxloj: pollou\j oxlouj 2 C L Q 13 0233, 892, 1006, 1342, 1506, lat syrh. the
Majority text; polu\n oxlon(s W pc c g1) W 1424 al sams mae; oxlouj )* 1 pc bo oxloj B
samss.
4 For the purposes of this discussion, I assume that Q was a source common to
Matthew and Luke written in Greek. For a justification of this position, see John
Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1987) 41-64.
5 Cf. the related narrative in Mark 3:22-26, which does not, however, contain any
mention of the crowd.
6 Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthus: Mt 8-17 (EKKNT 1/2; Zurich:
Benziger, 1990) 63.
7 See John Kloppenborg, Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes & Concordance (Sonoma:
Polebridge, 1988) 54.
Cousland 02 versie 3
32
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
33
08-10-2001, 11:41
14 Mark 2:4; 2:13; 3:9; 3:20; 5:21; 5:24; 5:27; 5:30; 5:31; 7:17; 7:33; 8:1; 8:34;
9:15; 9:17; 9:25; 11:18; 12:41; 15:8; 15:15.
15 Matthew has retained Mark 3:32; 4:1(bis); 4:36; 5:38; 6:34; 6:45; 7:14; 8:2;
8:6(bis); 9:14; 10:1; 10:46; 11:32: 12:12; 12:37; 14:43; 15:11.
Cousland 02 versie 3
34
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
35
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
36
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
37
08-10-2001, 11:41
singular (Matt 15:33 no //; 15:35 // Mark 8:6), once more moves to
the plural at 15:36 (15:36 pl. // Mark 8:6 sing.). As with the passage
above, the same group is being described. Further, the verses in Mark
upon which Matthew is reliant have the singular in each instance.28
Why Matthew should suddenly shift to the plural is obscure to say the
least.
Minear has suggested that the singular is indicative of Matthews
incorporation of material from Mark,29 but Matthew does not adhere
to this pattern with sufficient frequency for it to be an instructive
distinction. T. J. Keegan has proposed a more far-reaching discrimen:
whenever Matthew uses the plural, he wants to designate the crowds
in the technical sense as the object of Jesus (and the disciples) ministry.30 He goes on to suggest that every use of the singular is either
found in traditional material and lacking special significance for
Matthew or is used by Matthew in a clearly non-technical sense.31
One must question the legitimacy of Keegans criteria here. If, as his
sentence appears to imply, some of the occurrences lack special
significance by virtue of being traditional material, his view must be
gainsaid.
Nor, for that matter, is the distinction always valid, as can be
adjudged from his treatment of 13:2a and 13:2b: And great crowds
(oxloi polloi/) gathered about him [sc. Jesus], so that he got into a
boat and sat there; and the whole crowd (pa=j o( oxloj) sat on the
beach. Keegan attempts to distinguish oxloi polloi (13:2a) from pa=j
o( oxloj (13:2b) by appealing to Matthews structure, claiming that the
conclusion to be drawn from the plural and singular in Matthew
13:2a and 2b is not that there is no difference in meaning but that it
is the occurrence in 13:2a and not in 13:2b that is of structural
significance for Matthew.32 Are the crowds to be regarded as the
object of Jesus ministry in only one of these instances? It certainly
would seem unlikely. Although it would have been a helpful distinction, Keegan is unable to support his position. It is best, therefore,
Cousland 02 versie 3
38
08-10-2001, 11:41
33 This presupposes the correctness of the argument advanced above for the
reading oxloi polloi/ at 12:15. Matthews use of lao/j will be considered below.
34 Mark 3:7,8; Luke 6:17; 23:27. It is worth noting that Luke, unlike the other two
Synoptic Gospels, sometimes uses oxloj or plh=qoj with a qualifying genitive. A good
example of this is Luke 6:17: kai plh=qoj polu\ tou= laou= ktl. (cf. Luke 23:27). Luke also
uses plh=qoj with a qualifying genitive in reference to disciples (Luke 19:37), elders of
the people (Luke 23:1), and even of fish (Luke 5:6). See further, J. Zmijewski,
plh=qoj EDNT III 103-05; G. Delling, plh=qoj ktl TDNT VI 274-283; and Zingg,
Wachsen, 65-67.
35 Mark 6:33 cf. Mark 6:34 and possibly Mark 11:8 (in conjunction with alloi).
Minear (Audience, 81) also takes Mark 2:15b as a reference to the crowd, as well
as the polloi telw=nai kai a(martwloi/ of Mark 2:15a. In my view, he stretches the
crowd a bit too far. See, in preference, C. H. Turner (Notes, 239), who argues that
Mark 2:15b refers to the disciples.
36 Luke 7:29; 8:47; 9:13; 19:48; 20:6; 20:19; 20:45; 23:13; 23:14.
37 Minear, Luke, 86. Minear also detects some differences in nuance between
oxloj and lao/j (84, 87). Conzelmann (Mitte, 153#1), however, notes at least three
instances in Luke where [pa=j o(] laoj is used interchangeably with oxloi or oxloj
(Luke 9:12): Luke 7:29/7:24; Luke 8:47/8:42; Luke 9:13/9:12. For further discussion
of Lukes use of lao/j, see Jerome Kodell, Lukes Use of Laos People especially in
the Jerusalem Narrative (Lk 19:28-24:53), CBQ 31 (1969) 327-343.
38 While Luke does not confine his use of oxloj to the crowds, he does not use it
with the genitive construction when he refers to them, and in this respect his usage
conforms to that of Matthew and Mark. On oxloj in Luke, see Minear, Luke, 81109 and Zingg, Wachsen, 61-63.
Cousland 02 versie 3
39
08-10-2001, 11:41
during Jesus ministry,39 and appears, with one exception, not to use
oxloj of any other group.
The one occasion where Matthew does appear to use oxloj of
another distinct group is the pericope of the rulers daughter (9:1826). At 9:23 mention is made of the flute players and the crowd
making a tumult (tou\j au)lhta\j kai to\n oxlon qorubou/menon 9:23).
Several factors suggest that a more proscribed group than the crowds
is in view here. First, the crowds elsewhere normally follow Jesus.
Here, however, the group is already there. Second, this oxloj is
conjoined with flute players, a feature that appears to demarcate
them as a special funerary group.40 Finally, in his pericope Matthew
has excised three of Marks references to the crowd following Jesus
(Mark 5:24, 27, 31) so that in his account only Jesus and his disciples
follow the ruler (9:19).41 Taken together, these features suggest that
Matthew is distinguishing between the two crowds.42
The above observations indicate that Matthew presents a more
definite and delimited conception of the crowds than is found in the
other two Synoptic Gospels. The fact that Mark uses different expressions to characterize the crowd is indicative of their relatively amorphous character in his gospel,43 and Luke is similar to Mark in this
respect. Further, Marks use of polloi/ tends to emphasize the sheer
numbers of people flocking to Jesus, as does Lukes use of plh=qoj with
a genitive construction. While Matthew, too, undoubtedly stresses
their numbers, he does so by modifying oxloj or oxloi with a
qualifying adjective. In other words, identifying the crowds appears to
39 It has been suggested by J. Gnilka (Die Verstockung Israels: Isaias 6, 9-10 in der
Theologie der Synoptiker [SANT 3; Munich: Kosel-Verlag, 1961] 101#57) that lao/j is
also used to depict the crowds in Matthew. This question will be taken up in more
detail in Chapter Four.
40 William G. Thompson, Reflections on the Composition of Mt 8:1-9:34, CBQ
33 (1971) 386#52; Gundry, Matthew, 175; Dennis C. Duling, The Therapeutic Son
of David: An Element in Matthews Christological Apologetic, NTS 24 (1978)
400#6.
41 Thompson, Reflections, 386#52. Also noteworthy is Matthews consistent
designation of the group in the singular 9:23,25, no parallels.
42 If this argument is valid, it would help to unify Matthews conception further.
Lohmeyer (Matthus, 77#1) says of the crowd that Die Zahl der oxloj kann so gross
sein, dass Jesus sich vor ihnen in ein Boot rettet (13:3) oder so klein wie die Schar die
Klagefrauen bei einem Todesfall. With this incident removed, the oxloi appear as a
more uniformly large group. The smallest group Matthew describes then is a houseful of the oxloi (12:46, cf. 13:1), and after that the crowds in the temple (26:55; 22:33;
21:26). Otherwise, one gets the impression of large groups, especially in the feeding
accounts. As shall emerge below, however, the size of the crowds is largely
immaterial to Matthew (except insofar as they aggrandize the depiction of Jesus).
43 To this, one can add Marks frequent employment of impersonal constructions,
many of which have the crowd as their implied subject.
Cousland 02 versie 3
40
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
41
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
42
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
43
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
44
08-10-2001, 11:41
J.-P. Vernant, Myth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece (New York: Zone Books, 1988)
23.
64 This is not to suggest that Matthews portrayal of the crowds is in any way
indebted to Greek tragedy, as there are very considerable differences between
Matthews crowds and the Greek chorus. In all the tragedies, especially those of
Aeschylus, the chorus was a major actor and was endued with lines far in excess of
those of the crowds. E. A. Phoutrides (The Chorus of Euripides, Harvard Studies in
Classical Philology 27 (1916) 79-81) estimates that the average choral component in
Aeschylus is about 43%, in Sophocles, 20% and in Euripides, 21%.
65 This particular characteristic of the crowds will be dealt with in more detail
below in Chapter Six.
66 For a contrary view, see Alexander Sand, Das Matthus-Evangelium (Ertrge der
Forschung 275; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1991) 79, who does
not explain why it is that Matthews crowds are made to comment on Jesus identity.
Cousland 02 versie 3
45
08-10-2001, 11:41
Gibbs (Purpose, 451) has noticed that Matthews heightened role for the
Cousland 02 versie 3
46
08-10-2001, 11:41
lowers.70 They are represented thus from their first appearance and
do not fundamentally change.71 Their stylization is developed by
Matthews recurring use of various derogatory epithets to categorize
the Jewish leaders or, more often, the Pharisees as the representatives
of the Jewish leaders. In the first gospel, u((pokritai/ (15:7 // Mark 7:6;
22:18; 23:13, (14); 15, 23, 25, 27, 29), tufloi/ (23:17, 19, 26) or o(dhgoi/
tufloi/ (15:14; ~ 23:16, 23:24), ponhroi/ (12:34 cf. 9:4; 22:18 cf. 12:39,
45; 16:4) have all, with the exception of 15:7, been introduced by
Matthew.72 These epithets, when conjoined with other characteristic
traits and actions on the part of the leaders, present a distinctive and
highly stylized portrait of the Jewish leaders.73
This stylization is very much evident in his representation of the
disciples as well.74 Not only are they in some measure idealized,75
they are, like the Jewish leaders, endued by Matthew with various
characteristic qualities. Two of the most distinctive of such traits are
little faith and understanding,76 although, as Zumstein has determined, many of their other actions are also formalized.77 The crowds
differ from both of the aforementioned groups in that virtually all of
70
Cousland 02 versie 3
47
08-10-2001, 11:41
78
Cousland 02 versie 3
48
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
49
08-10-2001, 11:41
need to recognize that Matthews crowds are largely literary constructs.90 The crowds are not, like Josephus plh=qoj, primarily
mimetic, but instead, literary and theological.91 There is no doubt
that Matthews literary depiction of the crowds inevitably reflects
some of the verities of the first century lower classes; their need, and
yearning for leadership not least among them. Yet, to focus on these
features without recognizing the influence of Matthews theological
concerns is to misinterpret them fundamentally.92 Matthews crowds
are (to paraphrase Paul) a new creation. It now remains to examine
precisely how Matthew has (re)constructed his crowds. The next
chapter will begin this process by examining their ethnic constitution.
F Conclusion
In comparison with Mark and Luke, Matthew has produced a more
consistent and unified conception of the crowds. Eschewing other
words, he commonly uses oxloi (singular or plural indifferently) to
refer to the crowds, and almost without exception to the crowds
alone. These crowds are strikingly different from Marks crowd.
While the main lineaments are similargroups who are associated
with Jesus both in his public ministry and Passionthe distinctive
features are as different as the two gospels are from each other.
Matthew has appropriated the features he wanted from Marks crowd
and refashioned them considerably. The result is that where Marks
crowd is largely occasional, variegated, and intrusive, Matthews is
constant, uniform, and unobtrusive. Where Marks crowd appears to
function largely as an instant, if ephemeral, setting for Jesus ministry,
Matthews functions as an ongoing foil to that ministry. The first
evangelist has largely jettisoned those features in Marks gospel that
would mark them out as a crowd. Instead, he has endued his crowds
with various characteristic traits and endowed them with a definite
90
Cousland 02 versie 3
50
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
51
08-10-2001, 11:41
CHAPTER THREE
A The Ethnic Constitution of the Crowds
The purpose of this chapter is to determine what Matthew sees as the
ethnic makeup of his crowds. Are they Jewish, gentile, both, or does
it vary depending on the particular point in Jesus ministry? None of
these options can be categorically ruled out. While it is evident from
passages like 4:25 and 9:33 that at least some of the crowds are
considered to be Jewish, other passages, such as 15:29-39, are seen to
intimate the presence of gentile crowds in Jesus ministry or at the
least, a gentile stratum in the Jewish crowds.1 The following examination will take into account the variety of the Matthean data, and
begin by considering Matthews geographical referencesspecifically
the references to Syria, the Decapolis, and Beyond the Jordan.
From there, it will move to a consideration of other indices that the
gospel furnishes about the crowds make-up, including the feeding of
the four thousand (15:29-39).
B Matthews Geographical References
The chief locus for determining the crowds ethnic constitution is
4:23-25:
4:23 Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and
proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and curing every disease and
every sickness among the people. 4:24 So his fame spread throughout all
Syria, and they brought to him all the sick, those who were afflicted with
various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics, and he
cured them. 4:25 And great crowds followed him from Galilee, the
Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and from beyond the Jordan.
Cousland 02 versie 3
53
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
54
08-10-2001, 11:41
6 This position finds its classical exponent in Streeter, The Four Gospels, 500-507.
Syrias resident urban Jewish population has made it a commonplace to regard Syria
as the area where Matthews gospel originated. J. Meier has made a strong case for
Antioch in R. E. Brown and J. P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of
Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist Press, 1983) 18-27. More recently, the question
has been explored in detail by contributors to Balch, Social History of the Matthean
Community, and forcefully advocated by David C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and
Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1998).
7 For the origin of the term Syria and the regions history prior to the NT, see
Emil Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC-AD 135),
rev. and ed., G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 197987) I 244-66 (hereafter HJP ). For a recent and detailed account of the province see:
Robyn Tracey, Syria in D. Gill and C. Gempf (eds.), The Book of Acts in its First
Century Setting. Volume 2: Graeco-Roman Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 22378.
8 See the following references in the Mishnah: Dem. 6:11; Shebi. 6:2,5,6; Maas.
5:5; Hall. 4:7,11; Orl. 3:9; B. K. 7:7; A. Zar. 1:8; Ohol. 18:7. Two passages in
Josephus (BJ 3.35 and 7.43) are sometimes understood in this sense.
9 DA I 417.
10 bGitt. 44b; cf. Adolphe Neubauer, La Gographie du Talmud (Hildesheim: Georg
Olms, 1967) 9.
11 H. D. Betz (Galatians [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979] 79#220) has plausibly argued that these two regions are not to be understood as Roman provinces, but as
territories. He finds confirmation for this point in Pauls mention of Judea at
Galatians 1:22. Since the context indicates that Paul does not account Judea part of
Syria (given its juxtaposition with Syria and Cilicia in Galatians 1:21), it follows that
he does not regard Syria as a province but as a more proscribed area (p. 80#221).
Betz does, however, take Matt 4:24 as a reference to the province.
Cousland 02 versie 3
55
08-10-2001, 11:41
12
Cousland 02 versie 3
56
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
57
08-10-2001, 11:41
D The Decapolis
Matthew only mentions the Decapolis once, at 4:25, and has likely
taken his reference from Mark (Mark 5:20; 7:31). As its name suggests, the region was a grouping of ten Greek cities, although the
ancient sources are not unanimous about the constituent poleis. Pliny
relates that not all writers, keep to the same towns in the list; most,
however, include Damascus...Philadelphia, Raphana ...Scythopolis
...Gadara ...Hippo ...Dion, Pella...Galasa, Canatha.19 Josephus adheres to a different grouping since he implicitly excludes Damascus
by accounting Scythopolis the largest of the cities in the Decapolis.20
The cities were largely Hellenized and were probably popularly
regarded as such.21 Although Alexander Jannaeus had conquered
Dion, Scythopolis and Gadara, and attempted to impose Jewish customs upon them, they were re-established as Greek cities by Pompey
and granted municipal autonomy ( Josephus, Ant. 13.393-397; 14.7476). Pella was destroyed for its refusal to accept Jewish customs.
Hippo is also included in the list of those cities re-established by
Pompey. While Hippo and Gadara were at one time possessions of
Herod the Great, they regained their independent status upon his
death and became attached to the province of Syria (Ant. 17.320).
That the Jewish people regarded them as pagan is suggested by the
fact that during the first Jewish revolt, the Jews, after the massacre in
Caesarea, attacked Gerasa, Philadelphia, Pella, Scythopolis, Gadara
and Hippo.22 The references in Mark also appear to presuppose a
gentile population; the presence of swine in the vicinity of the
Decapolis (Mark 5:20) would suggest that Mark perceives it as
pagan.23
Cousland 02 versie 3
58
08-10-2001, 11:41
Having said that, Josephus also supposes that some of the cities
contained a substantial Jewish population. In his account of the
reprisals that were exacted against their Jewish residents during the
first Jewish revolt, Josephus claims that upward of thirteen
thousand Jewish Scythopolitans were massacred by their fellow
citizens (BJ 2.468; cf. Vita 26), while, in Damascus, 10,500 Jews were
slaughtered.24 Although Josephus does not give their numbers, Jewish
residents at Hippo and Gadara were imprisoned or executed, and so
with the remaining cities of Syria (BJ 2.478). Gerasa was exceptional
in sparing its Jewish citizenry (BJ 2.480).
What proportion of the citizenry he supposed the Jews to represent
is extremely hard to determine because, historically, it is difficult to
gauge the actual size of individual cities in the Decapolis.25 A very
rough indication of the size of cities in Syria can be ascertained from
cities north of the Decapolis such as Apamea and Antioch. With
respect to Apamea, a famous inscription refers to the census
undertaken there by Sulpicius Quirinus in 6-7 CE: Iussu Quirini censum
egi Apamenae civitatis millium hominum civium CXVII.26 Cumont, in his
examination of the inscription, estimates that when the slaves, rural
proletariat, and workingmen of the city are factored in, the total for
the territory of Apamea included at least four to five hundred
thousand souls.27 It is not evident, however, how Cumonts estimate
relates to estimates for the population of the city of Antioch, even if
Apamea was accounted one of the four largest cities in Syria (Strabo
16.2.4). Estimates of the total population of Antioch emerge with
figures that are substantially less than those for Apamea,28 which is
surprising given Antiochs later reputation as the fourth largest city in
the empire.29 Strabo (16.2.5) attests that it does not fall much short,
Cousland 02 versie 3
59
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
60
08-10-2001, 11:41
portrays the crowds as partly gentile. What then of the crowds from
beyond the Jordan?
E Beyond the Jordan
In Matthew and Mark, the phrase beyond the Jordan (pe/ran tou=
'Iorda/nou) functions as an indeclinable proper name (4:25 cf. 4:15 (Isa
8:23); Mark 3:8 cf. Mark 10:1; Josephus, Ant. 7.198; 12.222),34 the
Greek being based on established Hebrew usage.35 Usually it is taken
to refer to the region of Perea, which bordered on the Decapolis and
was situated across from Judea and Samaria on the eastern side of the
Jordan River.36 Josephus sets its parameters as follows: Peraea extends in length from Machaerus to Pella, in breadth from Philadelphia to the Jordan. The northern frontier is Pellathe western frontier is the Jordan; on the south it is bounded by the land of Moab, on
the east by Arabia, Heshbonitis, Philadelphia, and Gerasa (BJ
3.46,7).
If beyond the Jordan refers to Perea, the region was popularly
considered to be Jewish in the First Century CE. Josephus
delineation of the regions boundaries presupposes it to be a Jewish
region,37 as does his account of the revolt, where the Pereans and
Perea were subdued by the Romans (BJ 4.413-439). The Mishnah
also considers it to be Jewish territory, which, together with Judea
and Galilee, comprised the main Jewish enclaves in Palestine.38
Recently, however, Klaus-Stefan Krieger has argued that
Matthew understands the region differently.39 Krieger contends that,
at 4:25, Perea cannot be regarded as the other side of the Jordan,
since Perea was a part of the province of Judea, which is mentioned
in this same verse. He allows that at 19:1 Matthew does mean Perea,
but only because he describes it as the region of Judea beyond the
Jordan (ta\ oria th=j 'Ioudaiaj pe/ran tou= 'Iorda/nou 19:1). At 4:25 and
4:15, however, Matthew understands beyond the Jordan differently
since he does not specify that it was a part of the region of Judea.
34
Cf. John 1:28; 3:26; 10:40, which may have this sense.
F. Brown, S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979) s.v. rb( (hereafter BDB).
36 A variant reading of Luke 6:17 contains the only occurrence of the name Perea
in the NT: kai [thj W] Peraiaj )*W ff2.
37 Josephus, BJ 3.47 with the remarks in HJP II 6.
38 Shab. 9:2; Bikk. 1:10; Taan. 3:6(?); Ket. 13:10; B.B. 3:2; Makk. 2:4; Eduy. 8:7;
Men. 8:3.
39 Klaus-Stefan Krieger, Publikum, 98-119.
35
Cousland 02 versie 3
61
08-10-2001, 11:41
40
Cousland 02 versie 3
62
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
63
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
64
08-10-2001, 11:41
59 Krieger, Publikum, 105. He notes that Matthew does not adopt the kai from
Mark 10:1 (ta\ oria th=j 'Ioudaiaj [kai] pe/ran tou= 'Iorda/nou), which puts the two into
apposition. Marks text, however, is textually uncertain.
60 Krieger, Das Publikum, 104.
61 S. Freyne, Galilee (Hellenistic/Roman) in D. N Freedman (ed.), The Anchor
Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992) II 896 (hereafter ABD).
62 Tacitus, Annals 12.54; Josephus, BJ 2.247. On the discrepancy between the two
sourceswhether Ventidius Cumanus and Antonius Felix governed concurrently or
successivelysee HJP I 459#15.
63 E. M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian (SJLA 20;
Leiden: Brill, 1981) 200#72.
64 Freyne, Galilee, 896.
Cousland 02 versie 3
65
08-10-2001, 11:41
65 Ulrich Luz (Das Evangelium nach Matthus: Mt 18-25 (EKKNT 1/3; Zrich:
Benziger Verlag, 1997] 92#17) observes that Matthew sich fr geographische
Fragen wenig interessierte.
66 Lucian (Deorum Concilium 4) describes Cadmus, the founder of Thebes, as a
Surofoi/nic; cf. Diodorus Siculus 19.93.7h( Foini/kh Suri/a.
67 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 71-2.
68 For other, less-satisfactory explanations of Matthews substitution of
Canaanitess for Syrophoenician woman, see the overview in DA II 547.
69 Doron Mendels, The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature
(Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 15; Tbingen: Mohr, 1987) 121.
Cousland 02 versie 3
66
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
67
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
68
08-10-2001, 11:41
(e)ceplh/ssonto e)pi tv= didaxv= au)tou= Mark 1:22). Matthew makes the
crowds the subject of the verb, and adds their to Marks scribes.
The result is that Matthews text now refers to their (i.e., the
crowds) scribes (oi grammateij au)tw=n). That the crowds should be
described as having scribes finds an analogue at 2:4, which mentions
the scribes of the people (grammateij tou= laou=). Even if this reference
is not to Galilean scribes,76 but to those in Jerusalem, both verses
nonetheless refer to Jewish experts in scripture. Orton suggests that in
each instance the Pharisaic scribes are in view.77 Whether this is so
or not, the possessive pronoun associates the crowds with Jewish legal
experts.
This use of possessive pronouns with a possible ethnic connotation
forms part of a larger pattern within the gospel. The pronoun au)tw=n
is repeated with frequency, chiefly in conjunction with synagogues
(4:23; 9:35; 10:17; 12:9; 13:54 cf. 23:34), but also once with cities
(11:1). Their synagogue(s) is also found in Mark (Mark 1:23; 1:39;
cf. Luke 4:15),78 but, as is so often the case, Matthew has expanded
considerably on his source.
France has sought to discount the ethnic connotation by appealing
to grammatical antecedents, even where the antecedents are not,
strictly speaking, grammatical. He suggests that 4:23, 9:35; 12:9, and
13:54 refer to the particular geographical area of the next phase of
ministry, 10:17 and 23:34 refer to those who oppose the Christian
movement, and 7:29 refers to the crowds just mentioned.79 While
his analysis holds in some instances, it is very difficult to discern in a
passage such as 12:9: And he [sc. Jesus] went on from there, and
entered their synagogue. When Matthew has not even ventured to
specify a locale, it seems odd that he should then add that it was
their synagogue. To what particular geographical area is the
evangelist referring? The pronouns at 4:23 and 13:54 are likewise
without proper grammatical precedent.80 Nor does France explain
why the pronouns should occur with such regularity in the gospel. On
76
On the presence of scribes in Galilee prior to 70 CE, cf. mShab. 16:7; 22:3 and
HJP II 329.
77 David Orton, The Understanding Scribe: Matthew and the Apocalyptic Ideal (JSNTSup
25; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) 30-31. E. P. Sanders (Judaism: Practice and Belief
63BCE66CE [London: SCM, 1992] 172-182) argument for priestly scribes need not
call Ortons findings into question.
78 Here these pronouns are best regarded as a local or geographical specification;
cf. L. Michael White, Crisis Management and Boundary Maintenance: The Social
Location of the Matthean Community in Balch, Social History, 215-16.
79 France, Matthew, 107.
80 DA I 413.
Cousland 02 versie 3
69
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
70
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
71
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
72
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
73
08-10-2001, 11:41
CHAPTER FOUR
A The Relation of the Crowds to Israel
If, as the last chapter maintains, the crowds are indeed Jewish, how
do they function within the gospel as a whole? Are they to be construed as the anonymous backdrop to Jesus ministry or do they
assume a more prominent role? Given Matthews refashioning of the
crowds mentioned above, it is, perhaps, not unexpected that they
should assume somewhat more prominence in his gospel. For one
thing, the crowds are no longer anonymous. Matthew has accorded
them an identity: they constitute a part of the people of Israel. Yet, in
what sense are they a part of the people of Israel? The Gospel of
Matthew uses the term people (lao/j) with some frequency.1 Are the
crowds distinguished from the people, and if so, how? The following
chapter sets out to assess the interrelationship between the crowds
and the people in Matthew.
B oxloj and lao/j
One of the reasons why the crowds need to be associated with the
lao/j is that Matthew himself does so.2 After the prophetic passages in
the first two chapters of the gospel, which predict Jesus ministry to
his people (1:21; 2:6; 4:16), the word lao/j is next used in reference
to Jesus actual ministry. Jesus is described as healing every sickness
and every weakness amongst the people (e)n t% la%= 4:23). Precisely
at this juncture (4:25) Matthew suddenly begins to refer to the crowds
and, barring formula citations, he, as narrator, does not use the word
lao/j in an unqualified sense again until 27:25, where the crowds join
their leaders in assuming responsibility for Jesus death. This verse
follows immediately upon Matthews last use of the word oxloj. Once
the crowds have joined with their leadersliterally or symbolically
they are not heard from again.3 What this means is that the entirety
1 The word lao/j occurs with the following frequency in the Synoptic Gospels:
Matt 14 Mark 2 Luke 36.
2 For the opposite position, cf. Mora (Refus, 38), who claims that le mot peuple, chez
lui, nest jamais synonyme de foule (italics his).
3 Note, however, the presence of the qualifying genitive laou= in elders of the
people (21:23; 26:3) and the chief priests and elders of the people (26:47; 27:1).
Further, at 26:5 reference to the people is put in the leaders mouths. Whether the
leaders do join with the crowds at 27:25 will be discussed further below.
Cousland 02 versie 3
75
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
76
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
77
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
78
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
79
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
80
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
81
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
82
08-10-2001, 11:41
tact with the legal terminology of the Mosaic law.40 For instance,
Leviticus 24:10-16 stipulates that a blasphemer is to be put to death
by the whole community. Since Jesus is convicted of blasphemy by
the chief priests and the whole council (26:65-6), all the people
would indicate that the whole community had joined in the verdict
of blasphemy.41
An even more notable parallel in the Torah is to be found in the
repeated mention of all the people at Deuteronomy 27:14-26.42
Moses stipulates that the Levites are to declare a number of curses to
Israel, to which all the people ([hlk) shall say, Amen. (Deut
27:15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26). The twelve occurrences of
this formula are striking. More striking yet is the exact verbal agreement between part of this formula as it occurs in the LXX and the
peoples response at 27:25: kai a)pokriqeij pa=j o( lao\j e)rou=sin ge/noito
(LXX) compared to kai a)pokriqeij pa=j o( lao\j eipen ktl. It is difficult to
avoid the impression that Matthew is deliberately alluding to these
references in Deuteronomy, and to the underlying notion of
corporate responsibility.43
For this reason, Saldarinis refusal to acknowledge the passages
theological character is perplexing. If the term has theological import
in its first four occurrences in the gospel, why, given the above
echoes, should it be absent here? Does a literal reading categorically
preclude a symbolic one? In this instance, it very probably does not.
All the people means all Israel.44
Cousland 02 versie 3
83
08-10-2001, 11:41
45
Cousland 02 versie 3
84
08-10-2001, 11:41
the people to whom he has given the kingdom, the people whose sins
he has forgiven ( Jesus people).
Yet, the above interpretation ignores the context of the verse. As
seventeen of the verses that precede 1:21 are devoted to an
elaboration of Jesus genealogy, it seems rather unnecessary to
propose a people other than the one Matthew has alreadyand
lengthilyfurnished. That the angel appears to Joseph precisely to
guarantee Jesus adoption by Joseph and his identity as a son of
David makes a rival interpretation superfluous.
In addition, while there is no doubt that Jesus forgiveness is most
clearly instantiated in the context of the church through the
Eucharist, at the same time Matthew indicates that Jesus forgiveness
and salvific acts were lavished upon Israel first. The pericope at 9:18, transpiring in Jesus own city, for instance, is the only one in the
gospel where Jesus expressly saves someone from his sins. Surely,
Jesus came to save Israels sins. It may well be that this authority was
later imparted to the community, as 9:8 suggests, but only after the
community became the new people of God. That is to say, the overall
narrative context of the passage does not preclude an interpretation
at the historical level of the gospelit positively encourages one.
Most telling of all, however, is the language that Jesus uses to
describe this new people of God. Verse 21:43 is generally regarded as
the locus classicus of this transaction. Remarkably, though, the passage
uses the word eqnoj. The verse does not say, I will give the kingdom
to a lao/j producing the fruits of it, but, to a nation (eqnei)
producing the fruits of it. As the entire verse is a Matthean creation,
the choice of terminology is evocative. The fact that he makes no
reference to lao/j argues that Matthew does not understand his
community as a new Israel, a new lao/j, but as a third race
(tertium genus) over against both Jews and Gentiles.48 As this new
eqnoj is effectively equivalent to the church, the latter is to be
distinguished from the lao/j. As a consequence, Matthew 1:21 is best
taken as a reference to the Jewish people.49
In conclusion, therefore, it is possible to say that the dominant
interpretation of lao/j in Matthews gospel is an ethnic one. The
people in Matthew are, explicitly or implicitly, Israelites. There is
48 Stanton, New People, 11-12; cf. B. Charette, The Theme of Recompense in Matthews
Gospel (JSNTSup 79; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992) 137-38; Harvey, True
Israel, 237; Luz, Theology, 119-20; Alan F. Segal, Matthews Jewish Voice in Balch,
Social History of the Matthean Community, 23-24; Strecker, Weg, 33.
49 See further the careful discussion of Miler (Citations, 27-9) who concludes that
Le lao/j est donc le peuple dIsral (p. 29).
Cousland 02 versie 3
85
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
86
08-10-2001, 11:41
the parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15:4,6 cf. Luke 12:32), usually
figurative,52 the converse is true for Matthew. Only Matthew 12:1112 refers to sheep in a literal sense. The nine other occurrences of
pro/baton in the gospel are metaphorical, and it is evident that Matthew has drawn from the common store of pastoral imagery in the
Hebrew Scriptures, and appropriated similes, metaphors and phrases
that were very familiar.53
In the Hebrew Bible, for the great majority of cases, the sheep
represent Israel,54 as the sheep of his pasture,55 with the shepherd
as God,56 or his representatives, the king or leaders.57 While some of
these passages address the idyllic relationship between shepherd and
flock, more commonly, the images are used to depict the afflictions
suffered by the sheep, often at the hands of worthless shepherds.58
The sheep are lost and scattered (Ps 44:11; Is 53:6; Jer 10:21; 23:1-2;
50:6; Ezek 34:4-6; Zech 11:16), sick (Ezek 34:4), maimed (Ezek 34:4;
Zech 11:16), weak (Ezek 34:4), unfed (Ezek 34:8; Zech 11:16), slaughtered (Ps 44:22), devoured (Jer 50:7; Ezek 34:3,5,8; Zech 11:16), and
perishing (Zech 11:16).59
The above metaphor pervades the Scriptures,60 but is most
prominent in the account elaborated in Ezekiel 34, a passage that
52
Cousland 02 versie 3
87
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
88
08-10-2001, 11:41
mission charge in Q (Luke 10:2).66 It, too, serves to provide a basis for
the mission, and explains the reference to laborers in the next
verse.67 Matthew then constructs the beginning of the Mission discourse from Mark 6:7and Mark 3:13-19a, and adds Matt 10:5-6, a
passage unique to his gospel.68
What is particularly suggestive about the construction of this passage, therefore, is the contiguity of 9:36 with 10:5.69 The arrangement must be attributed to Matthews editing. Even if, as Schrmann
maintains, 10:5b-6 functioned as the introduction to Luke 10:8-11
an assumption that does not seem overly probableMatthews activity is still sufficiently evident with respect to the placement of 9:36.70
66 Matthew has taken the passage from the mission charge in Q // Luke 10:2-3
(cf. D. Lhrmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle [WMANT 33; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchner Verlag, 1969] 59-60) so that here the urgent need of labourers is expressly related to the crowds.
67 B. Charette (A Harvest for the People? An Interpretation of Matthew 9.37f.,
JSNT 38 (1990) 29-35) makes the attractive proposal that Matthew has reinterpreted
the passage in light of Hosea 6:11 to suggest that the labouring disciples are not so
much harvesters as emissaries who bring the blessings of the messianic age to Israel.
Charette is surely correct in his claim (against Daniel Patte, The Gospel According to
Matthew: A Structural Commentary on Matthews Faith [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987] 142)
that the theme of judgement is not a feature of the harvest metaphor here.
68 As is well known, the references to a particularist mission at 10:5-6 and 15:24
are unique to Matthew. Not surprisingly, there is a broad spectrum of opinion concerning the provenance of these passages. Some scholars regard one, or both, as dominical
utterances. Joachim Jeremias ( Jesus Promise to the Nations (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1982) 19-21, 26-28), for instance, has supported this view in his claim to have found
traces of Aramaic underlying the Greek. See further, Klein, Bewhrung, 202-3.
A second group of opinion holds that these passages were composed by Matthew
himself. Heinrich Kasting (Die Anfnge der urchristlichen Mission: Ein historische
Untersuchung [BevTh 55; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1969] 110), for instance, argues that
Jeremias alleged Aramaicisms can be explained just as well in light of Septuagintal
Greek. Graham Stanton (Matthew as a Creative Interpreter of the Sayings of Jesus
in P. Stuhlmacher (ed.), Das Evangelium und die Evangelien [WUNT 28; Tbingen:
Mohr, 1983] 276-277) has, in addition, pointed out the Matthean characteristics of
these verses, arguing that they represent Matthews creative interpretation of
Mark. See further: Frankemlle, Jahwebund, 137-138.
Of these two positions, the latter appears the more promising. With the former,
one has to ask why so many Mattheanisms occur in the reputed ipsissima vox Jesu.
Acceptance of the latter position explains them, without precluding thereby an underlying awareness of tradition on Matthews part.
69 This contiguity is remarked upon by Beare, Matthew, 242; Carson, Matthew, 244;
DA II 147-48; Keener, Matthew, 309; Amy-Jill Levine, The Social and Ethnic Dimensions
of Matthean Salvation History (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 14; Lewiston:
Edwin Mellen, 1988) 40; Luz, Matthus 8-17, 90, and Schottroff, Volk, 158, among
others.
70 Heinz Schrmann, Mt 10, 5b-6 und die Vorgeschichte des synoptischen
Aussendungsberichtes in idem, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen
Evangelien: Beitrge (Dsseldorf: Patmos-Verlag, 1967) 148.
Cousland 02 versie 3
89
08-10-2001, 11:41
71 Cf. DA II 147: Matthew has moved the words [sc. 9:36b] from their place in
Mark (6:34) because they link up so well with the imperative in 10:6.
72 Note that 9:35, unlike its counterpart at 4:23, makes no mention of Galilee. It
speaks simply, if hyperbolically, of all the cities and villages. The impression it
affords is of a ministry that begins to encompass all Israel (cf. 10:23).
73 Num 27:17; 2 Sam 24:17 // 1 Chron 21:17; Ps 77:20; 78:52; Isa 63:11; Jer
13:20. The sheep imagery will be treated more fully below.
74 Jeremiah 50:6 [LXX 27.6] reads: pro/bata a)polwlo/ta e)genh/qh o( lao/j mou oi
poime/nej au)tw=n ecwsan au)tou/j e)pi ta\ orh.
Cousland 02 versie 3
90
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
91
08-10-2001, 11:41
78
Cousland 02 versie 3
92
08-10-2001, 11:41
82 On the role of the shepherd in Ezekiel 34, see Jean Rembry, Le theme du
berger dans loeuvre dEzechiel, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 11 (1960/61) 113-44.
83 See, as well, Charette, Recompense, 72-75.
Cousland 02 versie 3
93
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
94
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
95
08-10-2001, 11:41
PART II
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this section of the work has been to explore the
identity and constitution of the crowds. Chapter Two establishes
several points. It determines that the crowds are a relatively consistent
and coherent entity in the gospel, denoted by the term oxloj.
Building on the depiction of the crowds in Mark and, to a much
lesser extent, in Q, Matthew fashions a group to serve as a backdrop
to the ministry of Jesus. While he appropriates several features from
Mark, such as the following of the crowds, he changes them
substantially. Some of the casual actions of the multitude in Mark are
refashioned so that they become the defining characteristics of the
Matthean oxloj. Leaving largely to one side the realia associated with
the formation and break up of throngs of people, Matthew endues his
crowds with distinctive traits. In so doing, he largely transforms the
crowds into a literary creation with a decided theological cast. That
the crowds refer to Jesus as the Son of David and prophet testifies to
this transformation.
The third chapter demonstrates that the crowds are to be regarded
as Jewish. Matthew 4:24-25 describes the crowds as coming from a
number of regions, but only the Decapolis can be regarded as a
distinctively gentile territory. Even here, it is highly probable that
Matthew has interpreted it as a Jewish region, given its one-time
inclusion in the Davidic kingdom. Certainly other indications of the
crowds ethnic identity in the gospelthe reference to the crowds
scribes at 7:29, as well as the crowds references to Israel and the God
of Israelestablish that Matthew regards them as Jewish.
The fourth chapter argues that the crowds are not only Jewish, but
can be symbolic of all Israel apart from their leaders. The association
of the oxloi with lao/j demonstrates that the terms are conceptually
related. The crowds represent the people of Israel as distinct from
their leaders over the course of Jesus ministry. The same point is
brought out by the conjunction of 9:36 with 10:5-6. The employment
of the sheep image from the Hebrew Scriptures makes the association
explicit. While there is no denying that the oxloi still figure as the
great (or not so great) masses on some occasions, they can and do
assume a more profound and representative significance elsewhere in
the gospel.
Cousland 02 versie 3
97
08-10-2001, 11:41
Hence, the most determinative feature of Matthews identification
of the crowds is the fact that they are Jewish. By making them Jewish,
Matthew is able to characterize them using images drawn from the
Hebrew Bible. His use of a topos that represents the crowds as lost
sheep and sheep without a shepherd becomes programmatic for
Matthews portrayal of the crowds. It means that Matthew has added
a diachronic (or salvation-historical) point of view to Marks
synchronic perspective. The crowds are no longer simply the
fortunate bystanders to Jesus public ministry. They are also the
present exemplars of the covenant people of God, who, like their
forbears, have suffered from bad leadership and await divine
intervention. Just what the crowds precise role and function as the
people of Israel will be dealt with more fully in the sections below.
Cousland 02 versie 3
98
08-10-2001, 11:41
PART III
REX ET GREX
The previous section set out to establish the identity of the crowds,
and determined that they were Jewish. The present section plans to
address the ambiguous or ambivalent role of the crowds by concentrating upon the favourable portrayal of the oxloi in relation to
Jesus, while the next section will treat the unfavourable portrayal.
As was noted in Chapter One, this favourable portrayal includes
almost all of the crowds sayings or the attributions made about them
over the course of Jesus public ministry. As these attributions and
sayings are almost invariably responses to Jesus and his ministry, this
section will begin with an overview of Jesus ministry to the crowds. It
will be followed by a chapter devoted to the crowds reactions to
Jesus ministry, either astonishment or responses in direct speech. The
next chapter will explore the crowds following of Jesus, and consider whether it signifies allegiance to Jesus. The final chapter of the
section will examine the crowds use of the christological title Son of
David to determine why it is put in the mouth of the crowds. Taken
as a whole, the section will attempt to explain why it is that the
crowds figure in such a sympathetic role within the narrative of Jesus
ministry.
As this sympathetic representation has led some scholars to
suppose that the crowds behaviour is not fundamentally different
from that of the disciples, one purpose of this section will be to
establish whether the role of the crowds ought to be distinguished
from the disciples, and, if so, precisely how it is to be distinguished. In
addition, since there exists no agreement among scholars concerning
the import of terms such as following or Son of David, or, for
that matter, the various words denoting astonishment that Matthew
employs, a considerable part of our discussion will be devoted to
establishing an appropriate Matthean context for these terms. Once
this has been determined, it will be possible to assess how these terms
apply to the crowds in specific instances.
Cousland 02 versie 3
99
08-10-2001, 11:41
CHAPTER FIVE
A Jesus Ministry to the Crowds
The previous section determined that the crowds are both constituent
and representative of Israel. The next question that emerges concerns
Jesus precise relationship to Israel, and specifically, the parameters
and focus of his ministry. Notoriously, Matthews gospel contains two
missionary charges. Typically, the tension between 10:5-6 on the one
hand, and 28:19 on the other, has been resolved in two ways. One
solution has been to attribute the opposing views to opposing groups
or traditions within Matthews church.1 The other has been to
reconcile the antithetical positions within the context of Heilsgeschichte.
Since it was assumed above that 10:5 and 15:24 are actually editorial
creations, the second alternative emerges as the more satisfactory.
Matthew conceives of the post-Easter phase, where all authority has
been granted to Jesus, as being different from the pre-Easter period.
The disparity between the two phases accounts for the difference in
mission charges: they are to be reconciled within the framework of
salvation history. Given that the heilsgeschichtlich view is by far the
more influential in Matthean studies, there is little need to defend it
fully here.2
B The Character of the Ministry
As was just noted above, the crowds sayings and actions are almost
entirely responses to Jesus ministry. An appreciation of Jesus
ministry to the crowds will, therefore, make it easier to assess their
responses, and should have the additional benefit of helping to
characterize the crowds by using Jesus actions toward them as a sort
of mirror. This chapter will consider four of Jesus characteristic
actionsproclamation, teaching, healing, and feedingin relation to
the crowds, and will finish with a discussion of Jesus role as shepherd.
1
Cousland 02 versie 3
101
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
102
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
103
08-10-2001, 11:41
the nature and the quality of the response that is required of the one
who heeds the proclamation. Since preaching and teaching are
interrelated, it needs to be asked whether the two should, in fact, be
distinguished.11 Davies and Allison argue that a distinction is
unnecessary, since both have as their content the Messiahs words
and deeds.12 Strictly speaking, however, this is not always the case,
as 4:3 and 4:17 demonstrate; Jesus can hardly be equated with the
kingdom, even if his advent signals the kingdoms arrival. In fact, the
arrival of the kingdom inaugurated by Jesus is part of the substance of
the good news of the kingdom proclaimed at 4:23, 9:35 and 10:7.13
In any case, Davies and Allison likely underestimate the
preparatory quality of preaching. That Matthew intends to
distinguish teaching from preaching can be established from the fact
that in both of the above summaries Jesus is described as teaching in
synagogues. Friedrich has noted that in the Synoptic Gospels Jesus
teaching usually takes place in the synagogue, while his proclamation
occurs anywhere in the open.14 His observation holds well for
Matthew. Jesus teaches in synagogues at 4:23; 9:35; 13:54 and in the
temple 21:23; 22:16; 26:55. At 11:1 he teaches e)n taij po/lesin au)tw=n,
which may reflect an abbreviation of the two previous summaries.
The one instance where teaching takes place out of doors is the
Sermon on the Mount. Here, though, one might argue that its
situation on a mountain brings out the parallels with Mosaic
halachah. Jesus law, like that of Moses, is presented to the people of
Israel on a mountain.
Having said this, it is evident that preaching and teaching are
related. Preaching summons individuals to repentance and to life,
while teaching specifies the way of life.15 This halachic tenor of
dida/skw is related to the exposition of the law,16 or, to put it more
precisely, the law is the object of teaching.17 Teaching makes the
demands of God explicit for the crowds.
11 Strecker (Weg, 127) does recognize a distinction but contends that it is not a
deep-seated one.
12 DA I 415. See, as well, Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 80; Luz, Matthew 1-7, 206-8;
Graham Twelftree, Jesus: The Miracle Worker (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,
1999) 107.
13 Hahn, Mission, 122.
14 Friedrich, khru=c, 713, of the Synoptic Gospels.
15 Luz, Matthew 1-7, 208.
16 Gnther Bornkamm, End-Expectation and Church in Matthew, Tradition,
38#1; Charles E. Carlston, The Things That Defile (Mark VII.14) and the Law in
Matthew and Mark, NTS 15 (1968) 83#6; Dupont, Le point de vue, 255; Hahn,
Mission, 121; Lange, Erscheinen, 316-17; Normann, Didaskalos, 26.
17 Dupont, Le point de vue, 253-54.
Cousland 02 versie 3
104
08-10-2001, 11:41
It is evident from their amazed responses that the crowds are often
regarded as recipients of Jesus teaching (7:28,29; 22:33). Do they
continue to be its recipients over the course of Jesus ministry? J. D.
Kingsbury and several others have called this assumption into question.18 As was mentioned in Chapter One above, Kingsbury contends
that chapter 13 is the turning point of the gospel after which Jesus
withdraws from the crowds and no longer teaches or preaches to
them.19
Unfortunately, this contention does not hold up to detailed
scrutiny. To be sure, references to Jesus teaching are not so
numerous as they are in Mark,20 but Matthew gives his readers no
reason to suppose that Jesus has ceased teaching the crowds. In the
passages just mentioned, the crowds repeat almost verbatim at 22:33
the exclamation that they had made at 7:28. As Matthew has not
scrupled to remove Marks statements about the crowds elsewhere,21
his retention of this passage would be rather unexpected if
Kingsburys surmise were correct.22
A quick overview of other passages will confirm that this reference
to Jesus teaching the crowds is no isolated example. At 21:23,
Matthew has actually added teaching (dida/skonti) to his account.23
That the crowds comprised at least part of the audience is evident
from the leaders manifest fear of them at 21:26: we are afraid of the
multitude. A further instance of Jesus teaching can be seen at 22:16,
where the disciples of the Herodians and Pharisees say to Jesus, You
teach the way of God in truth (no // in Mark; cf. Luke 20:21-22). As
the context and setting are the same as those at 21:26, the crowds
form part of the audience here as well. Last of all, Jesus reproach to
Cousland 02 versie 3
105
08-10-2001, 11:41
the crowds who have come to arrest him likewise suggests that they
have continued to figure as the recipients of his didach: Day after
day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me (26:55).
Matthews sequence follows that of Mark 14:49 closely except that
Jesus simply speaks to them (au)toij) in Mark, while Jesus speaks
expressly to the crowds (eipen o( 'Ihsou=j toij oxloij) in Matthew.
These passages demonstrate, therefore, that Matthew regards Jesus
teaching of the crowds as a feature of his entire public ministry.24
To his credit, Kingsbury has not overlooked the force of such
objections. He contends that:
even though the word [sc. dida/skw] itself occurs in several instances
where Jesus is engaged in discussion with Jews, it is never used positively
in the sense that Matthew provides us with an elaboration of the message
of Jesus (cf. 5:2; 7:28f.), nor does it ever appear in a situation where the
Jews seem receptive to him. On the contrary, this term either finds its
place in the scenic framework of a pericope (13:54, 21:23, 22:16, 26:55),
or is employed negatively in a denunciation of Jewish doctrine (15:9; cf.
16:12), or occurs where there is debate with Jews who are manifestly
obdurate already (13:54, 22:16).25
24 Cf. Meier, Law, 28#9: Jesus is presented as teaching from the very beginning to
the very end of his public ministry (italics his); cf. Keegan, Formulae, 419.
25 Kingsbury, Parables, 29. The methodological problem implicit in designating the
crowds as the Jews has already been addressed above in Chapter One.
26 Even if these instances were not present, why would Matthew need to provide
yet another example of Jesus teaching after the extensive one that he has already
furnished in the three chapters of the Sermon on the Mount?
Cousland 02 versie 3
106
08-10-2001, 11:41
27 Robert L. Brawley, Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology and Conciliation (SBLMS
33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 11.
28 Kingsbury allows 4:23; 5:2; 7:28-29; 9:35; 11:1 and discounts 13:54; 21:23;
22:16; 22:33; 26:55. See, in addition, the criticisms tendered by Dupont, Le point
de vue, 255-256#82.
Cousland 02 versie 3
107
08-10-2001, 11:41
29 This feature naturally speaks against Kingsburys (Story, 76) assertion that at
11:2-16:20, Israels response to his ministry is one of repudiation.
30 Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 81.
31 The Jewish leaders are not present for any of Jesus discourses.
32 On qerapeu/w, cf. Comber, Verb, 431-34; W. Grimm, qerapeu/w EDNT II
143-144; Kingsbury, Story, 68-70; Schenk, Sprache, 293-4. On the place of healing in
the first gospel, cf. J. P. Heil, Significant Aspects of the Healing Miracles in
Matthew, CBQ 41 (1979) 274-287, as well as the extensive discussion in Held,
Tradition, esp. 259-264.
Cousland 02 versie 3
108
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
109
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
110
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
111
08-10-2001, 11:41
47 Matthew 10:1 reads: e)cousian pneuma/twn a)kaqa/rtwn wste e)kba/llein au)ta\ kai
qerapeu/ein pa=san no/son kai pa=san malakian.
48
That these are not insignificant changes can be adjudged from the place of both
Cousland 02 versie 3
112
08-10-2001, 11:41
51 As Held (Tradition, 250) observes, the only task that Jesus performed that is not
replicated here is the healing of the blind at 9:27-31. As Luz (Disciples, 120#17)
has shown, Matthews additions to the miracle sequence are designed to relate to
10:1,8 and 11:5. See, further, Eduard Schweizer, Observance of the Law and
Charismatic Activity in Matthew, NTS 16 (1970) 219-20, and idem, Gemeinde, 20-21.
52 Held, Tradition, 252, cf. S. Freyne, The Twelve: Disciples and Apostles. A Study in the
Theology of the First Three Gospels (London: Sheed and Ward, 1968) 171.
53 This list of miracles is from Q (Kloppenborg, Q Parallels, 52) and can be said to
follow a more natural sequence in Luke (Luke 7:18-22), since it is placed right after
the healing of the centurions servant (Luke 7:1-10 // Matt 8:5-13) and the raising of
the widows son at Nain (Luke 7:11-17). On the mimetic quality of the disciples
ministry, see Allison, Biographical Impulse, 1217.
54 That Jesus does eventually heal her daughter can be attributed, like the healing
of the Centurions servant, to the supplicants exceptional faith (15:28; cf. 8:10).
Cousland 02 versie 3
113
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
114
08-10-2001, 11:41
John Collins notes that much of the imagery is derived from Psalm
146, with the notable exception of the mention of the Messiah.61
While the fragmentary nature of the text makes certainty impossible,
it does appear as if healing and the raising of the dead are associated
with the time of the Messiah.62 Even if Abegg has urged caution in
evaluating the messianic character of this passage,63 its remarkable
similarity to Matthew 11:2-5 (=Luke 7:22) suggests that there were
some traditions within Judaism that did associate miracles
particularly healingswith the inbreaking of the messianic age.64
This connection is further suggested by the programmatic
statement at Matthew 1:21for he will save his people from their
59 H. C. Kee, Medicine, Miracle and Magic in New Testament Times (SNTSMS 55;
Cambridge: University Press, 1986) 79. Cf. Isa 29:18-19; 61:1.
60 Quoted from John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1995) 117.
61 Collins, Scepter, 117.
62 John Collins, The Works of the Messiah, Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994) 110;
Florentino Garca Martnez and Julio Trebolle Barrera, The People of the Dead Sea
Scrolls: Their Writings, Beliefs and Practices (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 170.
63 Martin G. Abegg, The Messiah at Qumran: Are We Still Seeing Double?,
Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995) 142-43.
64 Martnez and Barrera, People of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 169. Given that references to
resurrection are exceptional in the Qumran literature, Collins suggests that 4Q521
may not be sectarian. He even entertains the possibility that the author of Q was
acquainted with 4Q521 (Scepter, 122).
Cousland 02 versie 3
115
08-10-2001, 11:41
sins (Cf. Ps 130:8).65 Even if this passage does not expressly mention
healing, the pericope of the healing of the paralytic (9:1-8) demonstrates that the forgiveness of sins is closely allied with healing.66
Foerster has remarked that the remission of sins is not a central
theme of the Messianic salvation or deliverance,67 but there are,
nevertheless, indications in the Targum of Isaiah that forgiveness did
come to be associated with the Messiah, the Servant of the Lord,
even if the Messiah was merely an intercessor who did not himself
forgive.68 The targumic reformulation of Isaiah 53:4 is particularly
striking: Then he will beseech concerning our sins and our iniquities for his
sake will be forgiven; yet we were esteemed wounded, smitten before the
LORD and afflicted. The intercessory aspect of the entire chapter is
marked, though it is apparent that the Messiah is not a suffering
servant figure.69
Naturally, the dating of the levels of tradition within the Targum is
problematic, but Chilton posits a time frame of ca. 70-135.70 He
contends that, for the meturgeman writing after the disaster in 70,
the gospel of Jesus was not yet of sufficient concern to make him
alter his interpretation for apologetic reasons, and it is permissible to
infer that, in his messianic understanding of the Isaian servant, the
meturgeman attests a primitive exegesis common to Judaism and
Christianity.71 If Chiltons inference is permissible, then the forgive65 Hans Walter Wolff (Jesaja im Urchristentum [4. Auf.; Giessen: Brunnen, 1984] 74)
relates the Reflexionszitat at 8:17 to 1:21: die Heilungen folgen aus seinem
Knechtsdienst, in dem er mit der Macht der Snde und des Todes ringt (original
italicized).
66 It should also be remarked that sw/zw can mean free from disease especially in
the passive: cf. BAGD 1c and Matt 9:21 // Mark 5:28; Matt 9:22a // Mark 5:34a;
Matt 9:22b no //. For the link between sin and sickness, see: John 9:1-3; Pss 32:3-5;
103:2-3; 1 Enoch 95:4; Sir 38:9-11,15; 1Q GA 20:12-29; 4Q OrNab. See, as well,
bNed. 41a: A sick man does not recover from his sickness until all his sins are
forgiven him, and bMeg. 17b: redemption and healing come after forgiveness. Cf.
the discussion in Kee, Medicine, 19-20, 24-26, 72.
67 W. Foerster et al., sw//zw ktl TDNT VII 991.
68 The passages cited above allude to the Messiah mentioned at 52:13: Behold,
my servant, the Messiah shall prosper.... The translations of the Targum given here
are from Bruce D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum (The Aramaic Bible 11; Wilmington:
Michael Glazier, 1987). The italics represent the innovative wording of the
Targum, the roman type, the rendering of the Hebrew.
69 K. Koch (Messias und Sndenvergebung in Jesaja 53Targum. Beitrag zu der
Praxis der aramischen Bibelbersetzung,Journal for the Study of Judaism 3 (1972) 147)
opines that Von allen Taten des Messias wird am nachdrcklichsten sein Wirken
zur Sndenvergebung herausgestellt (his italics).
70 Bruce D. Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah
Targum ( JSOTSup 23; Sheffield: JSOT, 1983) 95.
71 Chilton, Glory, 94.
Cousland 02 versie 3
116
08-10-2001, 11:41
ness of sins may well have come to be associated with the inbreaking
of the messianic age and representative of eschatological blessing.
In any case, Matthew likely understands Jesus therapeutic
ministry to the crowds as the outworking of 1:21. As was shown in the
previous chapter, the phrase his people (to\n lao\n au)tou=) at 1:21 is
best taken as a reference to Israel. Matthew demonstrates through the
crowds responses not only that Jesus ministry was confined to Israel,
but also that scripture (Ps 130:8; Is 53:4) had found its fulfilment in
his ministry. The crowds function, therefore, as the fortunate
recipients of the Messiahs promised visitation to his people. They
cannot help but recognize in him, and particularly in his healing,
something otherwise unprecedented, namely, the advent of Gods
promised eschatological blessings.
F Feeding
In addition to the programmatic deeds of Jesus outlined in the
editorial summaries, Jesus is twice described as feeding the crowds.
The two feeding episodes, in fact, account for over a fifth of the
references to the crowds in the gospel (14:13,14,15,19,22,23;15:32,33,
35,36,39).72 That Matthew has almost double Marks number is, in
part, attributable to his tendency to identify the actors in his gospel.73
Yet, it is not unlikely that it has additional significance. As was just
demonstrated with respect to healing, Matthew tends to emphasize
Jesus care, not simply for the spiritual needs of the crowds, but also for
their physical well-being. The fact that the second feeding narrative
(15:32-39) has actually been appended to the editorial healing
summary at 15:29-31 suggests how closely the two are allied.74
Theissen classifies the multiplication of the loaves under the rubric
gift miracles, which are distinguished from other miracles, such as
healings, in being unsought. Such miracles provide an abundance of
material goods entirely at the initiative of the miracle-worker.75 They
also differ from other miracle stories in lacking their central motifs,
and for this reason, there is no acclamation or wonderment on the
72 Mark, in contrast to the 11 references in Matthew, has only six: Mark 6:34, 45;
8:1,2,6bis.
73 E. P. Sanders, Tendencies, 183.
74 In Mark the second feeding is preceded by the healing of a deaf and dumb man
(Mark 7:31-37), which, as was just noted, Matthew has not included in his gospel.
The two pericopae in Mark are also separated by the indefinite temporal indicator
in those days (Mark 8:1).
75 Theissen, Miracle Stories, 103-6. Compare 1 Kings 17:8-16; 2 Kings 4:1-7; 4:424 and John 2:1-11 (which does, however, include a request at John 2:3-4).
Cousland 02 versie 3
117
08-10-2001, 11:41
part of the crowds at what transpires, even though gift miracles are
intrinsically more noteworthy.76
As the feeding of the crowds is common to all four canonical
gospels (Matt 14:13-21; 15:32-39; Mark 6:32-44; [7:31-37;] 8:1-9
Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-15), some have detected a common
underlying source.77 On balance, however, the minor agreements
between Matthew and Luke can be explained adequately without
recourse to the supposition of an additional source.78 Both of
Matthews accounts simplify and abbreviate the versions given in
Mark. The two miraculous feedings have been assimilated to each
other and have been recast in order to emphasize the involvement of
the disciples.79 The disciples become joint-givers with Jesus and act as
ministrants to the crowds. He gives the bread to them and they, in
turn, distribute it to the multitudes.
In the feeding of the five thousand, Matthew differs from Mark in
having Jesus compassion result in the act of healing instead of
teaching.80 In the feeding of the four thousand, Matthew omits the
healing of the deaf mute (Mark 7:32-37) and fashions instead his
healing summary on a mountaintop (15:29-31). The summary retains
several features of Marks healing account, including the reaction of
the multitudes. Where it differs, of course, is in its expansion of the
healing narrative to include the crowds in general. Matthew begins
both of his feedings, with healings of the crowds, and the feeding
narratives suggest, as a consequence, that healing is again Jesus
primary mandate. Strikingly, teaching does not even figure in either
of Matthews feedings.
As with Jesus healings, his feedings of the crowds are expressive of
eschatological blessings, and, in particular, an anticipation of the
messianic banquet at the end of days. While some of the more
characteristic features of the banquet, such as the themes of
76
Theissen, Miracle Stories, 103. For a catalogue of typical motifs, cf. 47-72.
Theissens taxonomy explains the absence of the crowds acclamation better than
Helds supposition (Tradition, 182) that the multiplication of the loaves was an
epiphany imparted only to the disciples.
77 Ernst Bammel, The Feeding of the Multitude in Bammel and Moule, Politics,
214-215.
78 DA II 478-80.
79 Held, Tradition, 181-87.
80 Luke also describes Jesus as healing, but instead of having compassion on the
crowds, Jesus welcomed them and spoke to them of the kingdom of God (Luke
9:11).
Cousland 02 versie 3
118
08-10-2001, 11:41
judgement and the triumph over Gods enemies, are absent,81 there
are still considerable points of overlap. Most notable is the satisfaction
of hunger: those who are hungry will enjoy themselves and eat
manna (2 Bar 29:6-8) or other divinely provided sustenance (Isa 25:6;
SibOr 3.620-623, 744-751; 5.282-83). Bread is not mentioned with
great frequency in such accounts, but this is doubtless because it pales
next to more divine fare such as manna, the bread of the angels.82
The Community Rule at Qumran speaks of bread and wine (1 QSa
2:17-20), but this is probably because the meal described is a regular
community meal anticipating the coming messianic banquet.83
Not unexpectedly, communion with the Messiah is also a typical
feature of the messianic banquet (1 QSa 2:11-22; 2 Bar 29:3; 1 Enoch
62:12-14), and the narratives may also point back to Israels time in
the wilderness, where God miraculously provided them with
manna.84 In fact, Allison argues convincingly that, in Matthew, the
feeding narratives simultaneously evoke the past, present and future
in the form of the provision of manna, the Eucharist and the
messianic banquet.85 Jesus, therefore, recapitulates the career of
Moses in feeding his people in the wilderness, but also anticipates the
final gathering of all nations on Zion.86 The important feature is that
the Messiah is with his people, providing for their every need. The
Pharisees and other Jewish leaders are notably absent. This time in
the wilderness, therefore, represents a messianic idyll. The people of
Israel are with their Messiah, and, for the time being, all their woes
are taken away. It is no wonder that they glorify God (15:31).
Cousland 02 versie 3
119
08-10-2001, 11:41
G Jesus Shepherding of the Sheep
Cousland 02 versie 3
120
08-10-2001, 11:41
[to them as the ga]rment to [their] sk[in]
90
Cousland 02 versie 3
121
08-10-2001, 11:41
crowds have been tended by Jesus, who has not merely undertaken to
shepherd them himself, but has set shepherds over them who will
care for them ( Jer 23:4) in the person of his disciples. Now that the
disciples have been commissioned to go to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel, the crowds are no longer without shepherds to care
for them. The emphasis on the disciples involvement in the feeding
miracles helps to emphasize this very point.
In all of these functions, Jesus acts as the emissary of God. Like
God, he gives them their daily bread (6:11). In Ezekiel 34, it is God
himself who will act on behalf of the sheep. In particular, he responds
with compassion and mercy. The reason such qualities receive such
emphasis in Matthew is that they are seen to epitomize Gods own
concern for his people. Jesus is the shepherd whom he has raised up
for the sheep.
H Conclusion
In the above discussion of the characteristic elements of Jesus
ministry, preaching emerges as something related to, but distinct
from teaching. Jesus preaching confronts the individual with the
approach of the kingdom and its demands, while his teaching makes
the nature of those demands explicit. Healing and feeding are also
essential components of Jesus ministry to the crowds.
While previous studies have sought to categorize the importance of
the various aspects of Jesus ministry in absolute terms, the above
analysis has shown that it is more fitting to evaluate his ministry in
terms of its recipients. As far as the crowds are concerned, healing
emerges as the most fundamental element of Jesus activity amongst
them. It is of more immediate concern to the crowds than either
preaching or teaching, as can be adjudged from their receptive
response to it. Matthew is very likely using the responses of the crowd
to demonstrate that the Messiah did in fact come to heal his people
and forgive their sins, as was prophesied in the Scriptures. This would
further explain why no healing ministry is required of the disciples
when they expand their mission to include all nations. It is an aspect
of ministry reserved for Israel.
The character of Jesus entire ministry can be used to limn a rough
image of the crowds. Their chief trait is an overwhelming need. That
Jesus undertakes to heal them before all else suggests that they need
to be restored to a position of wholeness before they can fully
appropriate the other aspects of his ministry. Healing comes before
teaching and even before feeding. Obviously, Jesus therapeutic
Cousland 02 versie 3
122
08-10-2001, 11:41
ministry is best suited to assuage it, but his teaching and feeding of
the crowds, and even his proclamation are all calculated to remedy
their deficiencies and give them the care and guidance they require.
That they should be in such straits in the first place is an oblique
commentary on the inadequacy of their leadership. The feeding
episodes, in particular, reveal that once the crowds do appropriate
the leadership and benefits provided by Jesus, they move very close
indeed to the messianic age.
Cousland 02 versie 3
123
08-10-2001, 11:41
CHAPTER SIX
A The Response of the Crowds to Jesus
The next chapter will focus on the crowds reactions to Jesus. This
will include a consideration of individual reactions attributed to
theme)kplh/ssomai, qauma/zw, e)ci/sthmi, fobe/omai, doca/zwas well as
the statements they make regarding Jesus and his activity.1 It will not
be necessary to discuss the background of these expressions in detail,
since Matthew is entirely indebted to Mark or Q for his terminology.2
Each one of the terms used to describe the crowds finds at least one
analogue in Matthews sources.3
What is without analogue in his sources is the extent to which
Matthew comes to associate these terms with the oxloi. With one
exception, none of these terms is expressly ascribed to the oxloj in
Mark,4 and only once to the crowd in Q.5 To be sure, the crowd is
often the implied actor in the narrative in Mark, but Matthew makes
this connection far more explicit.6 In Matthew, Jesus acts and the
crowd reacts. As was argued above, they function as the customary
foil to Jesus words and deeds.
1 This analysis will exclude 21:9, 11 and 46, all of which will be treated in more
detail below.
2 For Hellenistic parallels to the terms used in Mark, see B. Blackburn, Theios Anr
and the Markan Miracle Traditions (WUNT 2/40; Tbingen: Mohr, 1991) 225-27.
While the associations of these terms with pagan epiphanies ought not to be
overlooked, Kenzo Tagawa (Miracles et vangile, 100) rightly emphasizes that dans la
monde de tradition juive ltonnement et la crainte sont un motif assez gneral et qui
ne relve pas exclusivement de la terminologie particulire de la thophanie.
3 It is instructive to note that Matthew is selective and sparing in those terms that
he employs. According to Timothy Dwyer (The Motif of Wonder in the Gospel of Mark
[JSNTSup 128; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996] 20-21), Matthew uses
wonder terminology 27 times (versus 32 places in Mark) and only follows Mark 11
times. Matthew has omitted all Marks references to qambe/omai: Mark 1:27 // Luke
4:36 (qa/mboj); Mark 10:24 (disciples); 10:32 (disciples? crowds?); e)kqambe/omai Mark
9:15 cf. Matt 17:14; Mark 14:33; 16:5; e)ceqau/mazon 12:17. Nor does Matthew employ the words e)kqau/mazw (Mark 12:17), tro/moj (Mark 16:8), ekstasij (Mark 5:42;
16:8), or ekfoboj (Mark 9:6).
4 The one exception is Mark 11:18: pa=j ga\r o( oxloj e)ceplh/sseto e)pi tv= didaxv=
au)tou=. Cf. Mark 9:15, where pa=j o( oxloj i)do/ntej au)to\n e)ceqambh/qhsan.
5 Matthew 9:33 // Luke 11:14 relate that: kai e)qau/masan oi oxloi.
6 On the following words as typical crowd responses in healing stories, see
Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, 225-226. Theissen (Miracle Stories, 69) notes that
Matthew almost always gives a specific subject to those who were seized with
amazement; cf. Dwyer, Wonder, 21.
Cousland 02 versie 3
125
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
126
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
127
08-10-2001, 11:41
13 Both changes are typical of Matthew. For the addition of au)tw=n, cf. 4:23; 9:35:
10:17; 11:1; 12:9; 13:54. On the omission of Mark 1:21 and Mark 1:23-28, see John
M. Hull, Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition (SBT 28; London: SCM, 1974) 13738.
14 Streeter, The Four Gospels, 262.
15 Karpinski, ECOUSIA, 9.
Cousland 02 versie 3
128
08-10-2001, 11:41
C qauma/zw
This word qauma/zw is used of a variety of groups and in a variety of
situations in Matthew.16 It is twice used of the crowdsat 9:33 and
15:31. In both instances, it describes their response to deeds of
Jesushis casting out of a demon (9:33) and his multiple healings
(15:31). Intriguingly, it is also used of the Herodians and disciples of
the Pharisees (22:22albeit in dependence on Mark 12:17), who
marvel at Jesus reply to their trick question. Pilate also wonders at
Jesus silence before his accusers (27:14).
In addition, the disciples marvel at the withering of the fig tree
something unique to Matthews account. Matthew has added the
word to Marks version, and, what is more, suggested that it
represents an inadequate reaction on the part of the disciples. Jesus
answer (21:21)Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and never
doubtcould signal an inadequate doubtful response on their part.
As Bertram observes, the reply of Jesus shows that this astonishment
contains an element of critical questioning, of enquiry and even of
doubt.17 Just as in the passages where they are reproached for their
little faith (8:26; 16:8; 17:20 cf. 14:31), the disciples astonishment
betrays an insufficient appreciation of Jesus identity.
These findings are highly suggestive. If, on the one hand, the
Jewish leaders marvel, and on the other, it is considered a deficient
reaction on the part of the disciples, the implication is clear. The
reaction as such denotes no commitment or faith on the part of the
beholder.18 As with e)kplh/ssomai, the crowds response is, perhaps,
best regarded as a spontaneous, uncritical reaction to something that
is inexplicable or overwhelming. For the crowds, however, as will
become evident below, it also serves as the basis for more elaborate
responses.
16 qauma/zw is found five times in Matthew: 8:10 // Luke 7:9; 8:27 // Luke 8:25
// (Mark 4:41 fobe/omai); 9:33 // Luke 11:14; 15:31 // (Mark 7:37 e)kplh/ssomai);
21:20 no parallels; 22:22 // Luke 20:26 // (Mark 12:17 e)kqau/mazon); 27:14 // Mark
15:5. Matthew omits Mark 5:20; 6:6 and 15:4 as well as Luke 11:14 Q (for which he
uses e)ci/sthmi instead 12:23). At 15:31, qauma/zw occurs with doca/zw.
On the term, see F. Annen, qauma/zw EDNT II 134-35; Georg Bertram, qau=ma
ktl TDNT III 37-40; W. Mundle, Miracle, etc., NIDNTT II 620-26; Schenk,
Sprache, 281-82; Zizemer, Verhltnis, 127-128.
17 Bertram, qau=ma 38; Barth, Tradition, 119#3; R. A. Edwards, Uncertain
Faith: Matthews Portrait of the Disciples in Fernando Segovia (ed.), Discipleship in
the New Testament (Philadephia: Fortress, 1985) 58.
18 This is also the opinion of Mundle (Miracle, etc., 624)such amazement, of
course, in no way presupposes faith, though it may well presuppose an inkling of the
presence of divine authority (Mundle is speaking of the way the word is used in the
Synoptic Gospels account of the Jewish leaders amazement).
Cousland 02 versie 3
129
08-10-2001, 11:41
D e)ci/sthmi
This verb e)ci/sthmi occurs only once in Matthew, and its presence can
likely be attributed to his appropriation of Marks use of the word at
Mark 3:21.19 Matthew, however, has applied it to the crowds instead
of to Jesus.20 The expression denotes being beside oneself through
astonishment or fear,21 in this case, as a result of being confronted
with one of Jesus mighty acts. In essence, however, the reaction is
probably very similar to that of qauma/zw, because this pericope is a
doublet of 9:32-34, where qauma/zw is used of the crowds reaction.22
That it represents, once more, a preliminary reaction is borne out by
the observation that Matthew does not use it of the disciples response
to Jesus in the walking on the water pericope (Matt 14:22-33; Mark
6:45-52). Where the disciples in Mark kai lian [e)k perissou=] e)n e(autoij
e)cistanto: (Mark 6:51) at Jesus, in Matthew they worship
(proseku/nhsan) him and confess that he is the Son of God (14:33).23 In
Matthew, the disciples do not normally express astonishment at Jesus
words or deeds. Because they are endowed with understanding, they
are able to recognize Jesus and worship him. The crowds, by
contrast, never worship Jesus or confess him to be the Son of God,
and amazement appears to be one of their characteristic responses.
E Fobe/omai
As with the verb e)kplh/ssomai, fobe/omai24 comes into Matthews
vocabulary by way of Mark and the LXX.25 Matthew uses it more
19 The word occurs once in Matthew12:23 // Matt 9:33 qauma/zw // Luke
11:14 qauma/zw. Matthew omits Mark 2:12 in favour of fobe/omai and similarly excises
it and its cognates at Mark 5:42 and Mark 6:51 (of the disciples).
On the word itself, consult: Dwyer, Wonder, 100; J. Lambrecht, e)ci/sthmi EDNT
II:7-8; W. Mundle, Ecstasy, etc., NIDNTT I 527-528, and A. Oepke, e/)kstasij
ktl TDNT II 459-460; Schenk, Sprache, 282.
20 Lambrecht, e)ci/sthmi, 8.
21 At Mark 3:21 it is used of Jesus being beside himself.
22 Held, Tradition, 247; E. Schweizer, Observance, 213.
23 On proskune/w, see John Paul Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea: Meaning and Gospel
Functions of Matt. 14:22-33, Mark 6:45-52 and John 6:15b-21 (AnBib 87; Rome: Biblical
Institute Press, 1981) 66; W. G. Thompson, Matthews Advice to a Divided Community:
Matthew 17:22-18:35 (AnBib 44; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970) 214-215.
24 The verb fobe/omai is found 18 times in Matthew. Where Matthew uses it of the
crowds (with doca/zw) 9:8, Mark has e)ci/sthmi (Mark 2:12) and Luke e/)kstasij (Luke
5:26). Matthew likewise omits Mark 5:15 // Luke 8:35. Instances of fobe/omai not
expressly related to the crowds or disciples fear of God or Jesus are not discussed here.
25 Blackburn, Traditions, 226, notes that he knows of no instances in secular
Hellenistic literature where fear is given as the response to a miracle. For instances in
the LXX, cf. Exod 14:31; 1 Sam 12:16-18; Jonah 1:16; Dan 6:26.
Cousland 02 versie 3
130
08-10-2001, 11:41
sparingly than Mark, and only applies it to the crowds once at 9:8,
where it describes their reaction to the healing of a paralytic. In this
instance, it suggests awe or fear arising from a confrontation with the
divine or numinous: the fear typically associated with an epiphany.26
In this case, however, it could signify a reaction subsequent to
amazement, or a reaction that is more profound.27 There is a textual
variant on 9:8 with e)qau/masan as the variant reading,28 apropos of
which Metzger remarks: Superficial readers and copyists, failing to
see the deep meaning of were afraid (i.e., people felt a profound
sense of awe and alarm in the presence of One who had the right to
forgive sins), substituted for e)fobh/qhsan what seemed to be a more
appropriate word, e)qau/masan (marvelled, or were astonished).29
Metzgers observation does accord with the use of the word in
relation to the disciples (14:27; 17:6,7). On the other hand, Matthew
appears to indicate that fear is an inadequate response to Jesus on at
least one occasion.30 In the pericope of the stilling of the storm,
Matthew transforms Marks fearful disciples (e)fobh/qhsan fo/bon me/gan
Mark 4:41) into wondering men (oi de\ anqrwpoi e)qau/masan 8:27), who
ask the very same question that Marks disciples had. The probable
explanation for this change is Matthews wish to place the disciples in
a better light by depicting them as individuals with true insight into
Jesus identity.31
Matthews desire to characterize the disciples as those who
understand is probably also responsible for his omission of Mark
9:32 and Mark 10:32 (if it refers to the disciples).32 Thus, it seems
better to suppose that, for the disciples at least, fear is an
26 For discussions of fobe/omai see: H. Balz, fobe/omai EDNT III 429-32; H. Balz,
fo/boj ktl TDNT IX, esp. 189-219; W. Mundle, Fear, Awe, NIDNTT I 621-624;
Schenk, Sprache, 455-57; Zizemer, Verhltnis, 124-125.
27 Cf. Luke 5:26: ekstasij elaben apantaj kai e)do/cazon to\n qeo/n kai e)plh/sqhsan
fo/bou. Cf., further, Schenk, Sprache, 456.
28 C, L, Q and a number of miniscules read e)qau/masan.
29 Metzger, Textual, 24-25.
30 Luz (Disciples, 121#30) goes considerably further. He maintains that in
Matthews, redaction fear is consistently understood as the expression of human
unbelief and little faith.
31 Gnilka, Verstockung, 35; and contrast Gundry (Matthew, 157), who tries
unconvincingly to argue that the men are the disciples. Thompson (Reflections,
374#26 and esp. 315-316#51) offers a more satisfactory discussion of the identity of
the men on the beach.
32 Frankemlle (Jahwebund, 152) makes the general observation that ber Jesu
Worte gert wohl das Volk, aber nicht die Jnger in grosse furcht. This is because
the disciples understand the words and deeds of Jesus. Both Frankemlle (Jahwebund,
152-3) and Strecker (Weg, 192) account for the disciples understanding as part of
Matthews tendency to idealize the disciples.
Cousland 02 versie 3
131
08-10-2001, 11:41
33 Two of the three occasions where the disciples are said to fear in Matthew
(17:6,7) refer to fear in the presence of God at the transfiguration. This leaves 14:27
(cf. 14:26).
34 Doca/zw occurs 4 times in Matthew. It is twice used of the crowds9:8 // Mark
2:12 // Luke 5:26 and 15:31no //, and occurs twice in the Sermon on the Mount
(5:16; 6:2). On the word itself, see: H. Hegermann, doca/zw EDNT I 348-49;
Gerhard Kittel, doke/w ktl TDNT II 232-235; Schenk, Sprache, 198.
35 H. J. Klauck, Die Frage der Sndenvergebung in der Perikope von der
Heilung des Gelhmten (Mk 2,1-12 parr), BZ 25 (1981) 246-247.
36 Cf. Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, 14-16; Theissen, Miracle Stories, 162-3.
37 Held, Tradition, 176.
38 On the first of these changes, cf. Klauck, Frage, 246. On the relative
infrequency of the second, see Sanders, Tendencies, 256-262.
Cousland 02 versie 3
132
08-10-2001, 11:41
sins.39 This surmise seems unlikely though, both because of the deliberate repetition of e)cousi/a from verse 6, and because fobe/omai, being
used of no other healings, might here indicate a more profound sort
of awe on the crowds part.40
It appears, therefore, that Jesus exercise of authority prompts their
reaction, even if it is not at all clear that the crowds have any insight
into his identity. As it stands, toij a)nqrw/poij would make Jesus primus
inter paresone among perhaps many similarly gifted men.41 For this
reason, Schenk has attempted to argue that the dative here ought to
be regarded as a dativus commodi, indicating that Jesus authority is
given on behalf of men.42 His proposal, although attractive, is also, in
Thyens words, highly improbable.43 It cannot be said that the
crowds attitude expresses anything more than admiration for Jesus.
They have recognized something laudable and they praise God for it.
At this point, however, one must recognize that some scholars find
it difficult to confine verse 9:8 to the historical narrative,44 arguing
that 9:8b is an indication of the churchs authority to forgive sins,45 a
theme developed explicitly elsewhere in Matthew (cp. 16:17-19 and
18:15-18). It is possible, then, that the evangelist has given the crowds
a remark that pertains to the historical and transparent levels of the
gospel.
Matthews reformulation of the pericope prompts several other
observations. First, the scribes again figure in the narrative and, as at
7:29, are seen to lack Jesus authority. He, however, is able to demonstrate his e)cousi/a, and this elicits praise from the crowds. Matthews
39 Paul Gaechter, Das Matthus Evangelium (Innsbruck: Tyrolia-Verlag, 1963) 289;
Lohmeyer, Matthus, 169.
40 Allen (St. Matthew, 88) describes it as more appropriate to the forgiveness of
sins; cf. DA II 96; Senior, Matthew, 114. On the repeated use of e)cousi/a, see Held,
Tradition, 176, and W. Trilling, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (2 vols.; New York:
Herder and Herder, 1969) I 160.
41 Luz, Matthus 8-17, 38. One should not see a qualification of the Son of Man in
toij a)nqrw/poijcf. M. J. Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Matthieu (Paris: Libraire Victor
Lecoffre, 1923) 179. Even less should one assume with Gundry (Matthew, 165) that
Jesus is the God whom the crowds glorify. The crowds query about the Son of
David at 12:23 indicates that they do not understand Jesus to be God.
42 Wolfgang Schenk, Den Menschen Mt 9:8, ZNW 54 (1963) 272-275.
43 Hartwig Thyen, Studien zur Sndenvergebung im Neuen Testament und seinen
alttestamentlichen und jdischen Voraussetzungen (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1970) 243: hchst unwahrscheinlich. W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann (Matthew [AB
26; New York: Doubleday, 1971] 103) do countenance Schenks view.
44 Strecker, Weg, 221.
45 Among others, see: Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, 16; DA II 96; Frankemlle,
Jahwebund, 217#113; Gerhardsson, Mighty, 76; Klauck, Frage, 247; Luz, Matthus
8-17, 38; Schweizer, Matthew, 224; Thompson, Reflections, 376; Thyen, Studien, 242.
Cousland 02 versie 3
133
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
134
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
135
08-10-2001, 11:41
55
Cousland 02 versie 3
136
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
137
08-10-2001, 11:41
The crowds reference to Israel also calls to mind their own status
as the people of Israel. As was noted earlier, they stand in a continuum with their forebears, who witnessed and marvelled at the
deeds of those empowered and sent by God. Now the crowds function as the current representatives of the people chosen by God and
speak in that capacity. As such, they are able to pronounce with a
certain authority on Jesus activity. The whole episode, therefore,
assumes a larger significance through its implicit reference to salvation history.
Still, at this point the crowds have not moved much beyond
situating Jesus marvels within the framework of Heilsgeschichte. While
their astonishment leads them to remark on the healings and
exorcisms they have witnessed, they have not yet begun to consider
the identity of the one performing the healing,64 a fact that is well
brought out by the Pharisees rejoinder, which likewise concentrates
on Jesus therapeutic activitye)n t%= arxonti tw=n daimoniwn e)kba/llei ta\
daimo/nia (9:34). It is Jesus healings and exorcisms that produce the
polarized responses to Jesus. While the Pharisees dismiss his exorcism,
the crowds appear to be on the right track. They ascribe Jesus
actions to God, and situate them within the salvation-historical
framework of Gods dealings with his people. It must be said, though,
that if there is a christological interest on the part of the crowds, it is
certainly a veiled one.65
The same cannot be said, though, of the crowds second
exclamation (12:23).66 The crowds interest has shifted from the
activity of Jesus to Jesus himself, and Burger is certainly correct when
he discerns a clear intensification67 in this pericope as compared
with 9:32-34. The crowds appear to be moving toward nascent
christological awareness. It remains to ask, though, how much of an
awareness? Some commentators have understood their question
mh/ti outo/j e)stin o( uio\j Dauid;as tantamount to an identification with
the Son of David.68 On the other hand, the force of the mh/ has
sometimes been pressed, so that the crowds question is understood to
64 David, Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (New Century Bible; London: Oliphants,
1972) 181.
65 Held, Tradition, 248#2.
66 This verse is probably composed by Matthew; cf. Burger, Davidssohn, 79; Fuchs,
Sprachliche, 97. Against this view, cf. E. Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu (Berlin: Alfred
Tpelmann, 1966) 151-152.
67 Burger, Davidssohn, 78: eine deutlich Steigerung; cf. Held, Tradition, 248#2.
68 Burger, Davidssohn, 77-79; Hummel, Auseinandersetzung, 118-119; Alexander
Sand, Das Gesetz und die Propheten. Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Evangeliums nach
Matthus (Biblische Untersuchungen II; Regensberg: Friedrich Pustet, 1974) 146.
Cousland 02 versie 3
138
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
139
08-10-2001, 11:41
76
The discussion in the next chapter will argue that Son of David is, in fact, an
appropriate title for Jesus.
77 Dwyer (Wonder, 22) also notes considerable differences between Matthew and
Mark. He observes that Both use such reactions, but there are crucial differences.
Matthew is more stereotyped than Mark, less intensive, less varied and less mysterious. The motif is more frequent in Mark.
78 On the wonder motif, see Blackburn, Traditions, 225-227; Bultmann, Synoptic
Tradition, 225-226; Dwyer, Wonder, 26-91; Theissen, Miracle Stories, 69-71.
79 Bultmann (Synoptic Tradition, 225-226) uses the term miracle story, while
Martin Dibelius (From Tradition to Gospel [London: Ivor Nicholson and Watson, 1934]
57, 71) prefers the expression paradigm.
Cousland 02 versie 3
140
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
141
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
So, too, Twelftree, Miracle Worker, 139, 141; Vledder, Conflict, 232.
142
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
143
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
144
08-10-2001, 11:41
CHAPTER SEVEN
A a)kolouqe/w
The previous chapter established that the crowds astonishment and
glorification of God does not mark them out as disciples, even if they
display a laudable openness to Jesus and his ministry. What then is to
be said about the crowds predilection for following Jesus?1 It is one of
their most distinctive traits in the first gospel, and for this reason, it is
also one of the most controverted. Does the crowds following of Jesus
demonstrate any allegiance on their part, or has Matthew
emphasized it for different reasons? The examination below will
consider the various passages where the crowds are described as
following Jesus, and explain why this motif is such a pervasive one in
the gospel. In so doing, it will determine whether the crowds
following does disclose any disciple-like commitment to Jesus.2
As with many of the traits he attributes to the crowds, Matthew
has appropriated a single instance from Mark and elaborated upon it
considerably. Of Matthews nine insertions of the word a)kolouqe/w,
four are associated with the crowd(s),3 and the ascription of following
1 According to K. Aland (Spezialbersichten, 12), a)kolouqe/w is found in Matthew 25
times, Mark 18 times, and Luke 17 times. Of the gospels 25 occurrences of the word,
nine are inserted by Matthew: 4:22 (cf. Luke 5:11); 8:1; 8:23; 9:27; 10:38; 14:13 (cf.
Luke 9:11); 19:2; 19:28 and 20:29. Matthew has taken 8:10 (Luke 7:9) and 8:19
(Luke 9:57) from Q, and has not adopted a number of Marks uses of the word: Mark
2:15; 6:1; 8:34; 9:38; 10:32 and 14:13.
2 On a)kolouqe/w, see: T. L. Aerts, Suivre Jsus: Evolution dun thme biblique
dans les vangiles synoptiques, ETL 42 (1966) 476-512; H. D. Betz, Nachfolge und
Nachahmung Jesu Christi im Neuen Testament (BHT 37; Tbingen: Mohr, 1967) 33-36; C.
Blendinger, Disciple, NIDNTT I 480-483; Warren Carter, Matthew 4:18-22 and
Matthean Discipleship: An Audience-Oriented Perspective, CBQ 59 (1997) 58-75;
W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: University Press, 1964)
95-96; G. Eichholz, Bergpredigt, 23; Fuchs, Untersuchungen, 63-83; M. Hengel, The
Charismatic Leader and His Followers (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1981) 40#9, 59#84, 85;
Jones, Matthean Parables, 235; Kingsbury, AKOLOUTHEIN, 56-73; Gerhard
Kittel, a)kolouqe/w TDNT I 210-216; Minear, Crowds, 30; Murphy OConnor,
Structure, 376#44; Russell, Image, 429; Schenk, Sprache, 347-49; Gerhard Schneider, a)kolouqe/w EDNT I 49-52; Anton Schulz, Nachfolgen und Nachahmen: Studien
ber das Verhltnis der neutestamentliche Jngerschaft zur urchristlichen Vorbildethik (SANT 6;
Munich: Ksel Verlag, 1962) 63-64; Strecker, Weg, 230-232; Thysman, Communaut,
20#5; C. H. Turner, Notes, 238-240; Van Tilborg, Leaders, 164.
3 Only one of the inserted passages (9:27) is not concerned with either the crowds
or the disciples. The four insertions relating to the crowd(s) are: 8:1 oxloi polloi/;
14:13 oxloi polloi/; 19:2 oxloi polloi/; 20:29 oxloj polu/j. All four passages are editorial.
Cousland 02 versie 3
145
08-10-2001, 11:41
4 From his sources, Matthew has retained the following of the crowds at 4:25 and
12:15 (cf. Mark 3:7 v.l.) and 21:9 (cf. Mark 11:9). To these one might add the toij
a)kolouqou=sin of 8:10 from Q (cf. Luke 7:9), as the verses proximity to Matthew 8:1
could suggest that Jesus is addressing the crowds mentioned there. Cf. Grundmann,
Matthus, 252; Gundry, Matthew, 144.
5 Schenk, Sprache, 347.
6 Jesus is always the object of the following, except at 9:19 where he follows the
ruler. While the verb at 9:27 (au)t%= v.l.) and the participles at 8:10 and 21:9 are used
absolutely, Jesus is the implicit object. Otherwise, the verb always occurs with the
dative, except for the kai a)kolouqei o)pisw mou at 10:38, a phrase that is probably
meant to recall Elishas following of Elijah at 1 Ki 19:20: kai a)kolouqh/sw o)pisw sou.
7 Schenk, Sprache, 347.
8 Russell, Image, 430. Presumably he is speaking metaphorically here.
9 Minear, Crowds, 30; cf. Draper, Paraenesis, 45.
10 Van Tilborg, Leaders, 164. Twelftree (Miracle Worker, 384#117) maintains that
Matthew is portraying the masses following him with at least some positive, even if
limited, understanding and discipleship.
Cousland 02 versie 3
146
08-10-2001, 11:41
There are some grounds for their supposition. The same word,
after all, is employed to characterize the relation of both the crowds
and disciples to Jesus. Why should a)kolouqe/w be regarded as literal in
one instance and metaphorical in the other, when both the crowds
and disciples do much the same thing? As Van Tilborg remarks, the
crowds do the same as the disciples have done: they follow Jesus.11
Nor is it simply the case that the same word happens to be used of the
two groups; the association between the two has been emphasized by
the evangelist in other ways.
First, there is explicit parallelism between the following of Jesus
disciples and that of the crowds. Both groups not only appear for the
first time in Matthews chapter four, but also appear in episodes
proximate to each other. The crowds are described as following Jesus
(4:25) a scant few verses after the very same is said of Peter and
Andrew (4:20) and of John and James (4:22). The conjunction of
these pericopae (4:18-22 with 4:23-25) is unique to Matthew. The
effect is further enhanced by the inclusion of a)kolouqe/w at 4:22,
which establishes a thematic link between the two episodes, anticipating what will be said of the crowds. No sooner do the disciples follow
Jesus than the crowds do so as well.
Schenk has argued that this parallelism between the disciples and
the crowds holds true for Jesus entire public ministry. Matthews
editorial inclusions help to promote the theme of discipleship.12 The
reference to the crowds following of Jesus at 8:1, for instance,
anticipates passages concerned with discipleship such as the complex
at 8:18-22 (cf. 8:10). Similarly, the crowds following of Jesus at 19:2
and 20:29 frames the discussion of discipleship prompted by the rich
young rulers disinclination to become an adherent of Jesus
(19:21,28). Although the ruler decides against following Jesus (19:2122), the crowds who have followed Jesus thus far continue to do so.
The parallel episode in the second gospel also mentions the gathering
of the crowd (Mark 10:1 gathered to him; Mark 10:46 leaving),
but it is described as following Jesus only once, during the Galilean
ministry (Mark 5:24 cf. Mark 3:7). The crowds in Matthew, by
contrast, are said to follow him right into Jerusalem (19:2; 20:29;
21:9), displaying an adherence to Jesus very much akin to that of his
disciples.13
11
12
13
Cousland 02 versie 3
147
08-10-2001, 11:41
Further support for this position comes from the observation that
the references to the following of Jesus are closely linked to miracle
stories.14 Luz has recognized that it is strikingthat frequently it is
the crowds who follow Jesus, and secondly in the redactional passages
without exception the experience of the miracle follows only after the
mention of discipleship.15 These observations prompt him to query
whether discipleship might not be intimately connected with miracle
working: Does Matthew mean that discipleship to Jesus leads to the
experience of his power to do miracles?16 Luz merely poses the
question, so it is not apparent whether he regards the crowds as
participants in Jesus e)cousi/a, and, if so, how such participation would
occur. What matters for Luz is that the crowds, in following Jesus,
resemble the disciples in being proximate to Jesus miracle working.
He suggests that they, by following, belong together with the
disciples.17
The issue, however, is perhaps not so straightforward as the above
analysis would suggest. One factor in particular militates against such
an understanding, and that is the problem of Jesus call. If the crowds
are to be regarded as nascent disciples of Jesus, how is it that he never
enjoins them to follow him? Can it really be said that the crowds do
what they have been asked to do by Jesus? Does he, in fact, demand
anything of the crowds?
B The Crowds and the Demands of Jesus
In terms of Jesus day-to-day directives to them, the crowds appear to
do what Jesus requires of them. They come when he summons them
(15:10), leave when he dismisses them (14:22, 23; 15:39), sit on the
ground when he bids them to do so (14:19; 15:35), and listen when he
addresses them (11:7,14,15; 13:9; cf. 11:7-12:50; 13:3-34; 23:1-39).
Yet, in Matthews gospel this is all that Jesus requires of them. They
are not, expressly at least, asked to do more.
On the other hand, Matthew gives several indications that the
crowds perceptions are deficient, and that they are in want of
understanding. Such an impression is conveyed by 11:14-15. Both
Cousland 02 versie 3
148
08-10-2001, 11:41
18
Cousland 02 versie 3
149
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
150
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
151
08-10-2001, 11:41
performing the will of the Father, they necessarily disregard their own
fathers (8:21-22) and acknowledge the fatherhood of God in a new
sense. Similarly, when they carry out the will of the Father they
necessarily become kinsmen of Jesus. They gain a new family, and
this is doubtless a large part of the manifold (or hundredfold)
eschatological blessings the disciples are to receive for having given
up their own families and possessions (19:29). Those who follow Jesus
as disciples become members of Jesus family.
Evidently, this does not apply to the crowds. They are not part of
Jesus family because they do not do the will of the Father. This
circumstance suggests, therefore, that their following is not connected
with discipleship. If it were, then presumably they would be
performing the will of the Father. Further, if the following that
Matthew imputes to them were considered normative for
discipleship, it is unlikely that Matthew would have changed Marks
pericope as drastically as he has. The very fact that he has virtually
eliminated the crowds and stressed the disciples kinship to Jesus
indicates that a)kolouqe/w has a different signification for the crowds
from what it has for the disciples. For the latter it denotes
discipleship, for the crowds, something different.
Nevertheless, the crowds are not categorically excluded from the
prospect of discipleship. That they are included among Jesus auditors
conveys the impression that they could choose to heed Jesus call.36
The impression is confirmed, in some measure, by the indefinite construction used at 12:50: whoever (ostij ga\r an poih/sv) does the will of
my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother. Its
formulation as a conditional relative clause leaves open the possibility
that the crowds may yet undertake to perform the will of God. Even
if they are not presently among Jesus kinsmen, they now know how
to become such. At the same time, however, they are not directly
summoned by Jesus to become his disciples. Does he do so elsewhere
in the gospel?
36 Even here, it needs to be asked how much the presence of the crowds should be
stressed. Pryzybylski (Righteousness, 113) has argued that righteousness is related in
meaning to doing the will of the Father. The two concepts are distinguished in the
gospel on the grounds that the former is exoteric and the latter esoteric, and suggests
that Jesus refers to righteousness in the Sermon on the Mount (5:6,10,20; 6:1,33)
because the crowds are among Jesus hearers. If this distinction is valid,
Jesusreference to doing the will of the Father may indicate that the presence of the
crowds counts for very little in this pericope.
Cousland 02 versie 3
152
08-10-2001, 11:41
37
Cousland 02 versie 3
153
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
154
08-10-2001, 11:41
71.
44 On the background, cf. DA II 222-223; on its interpretation in Matthew, cf. J.
Schneider, stauro/w TDNT VII 578-579.
45 Schneider, stauro/w, 579. H.-W. Kuhn (stauro/j EDNT III 269) speaks of
imitatio in suffering.
46 On the vexed question of the context of Matthew 10:39, see Ronald Piper,
Wisdom in the Q-Tradition (SNTSMS 61; Cambridge: University Press, 1989) 151.
47 Here Matthew prefers Mark to Q, the same passages being found in both of his
sources. For an overview and discussion of the doublet, cf. Sir John Hawkins, Horae
Synopticae (2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909) 86-88.
Cousland 02 versie 3
155
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
156
08-10-2001, 11:41
52
Cousland 02 versie 3
157
08-10-2001, 11:41
58 BDF 306(2). Davies and Allison (DA II 568) remark that e(te/rouj pollou/j serves
to increase the range of illnesses.
59 Gundry, Disciples, 434.
60 Allen (St. Matthew, 82) notes that eteroj is also used loosely for alloj at 10:23
and 12:45. Robertson (Grammar, 748-50) offers a very different assessment of some of
the passages to which Gundry appeals.
61 So Aerts, Suivre, 507. The literal sense of the word is found at 9:19 where
both Jesus and the disciples follow the ruler. At 8:10, toij a)kolouqou=sin are the
crowds.
Cousland 02 versie 3
158
08-10-2001, 11:41
promise at 26:35, Even if I must die with you I will not deny you.
He denies Jesus, not once but three times. He is not demonstrating
discipleship, but its obverse. Malbon has detected irony in the
Marcan account of Peters following,62 and it is to be discerned in
Matthews account as well. The harsh contrast between Jesus
resolution when he is in the hands of the chief priests and Peters
irresolution before his accusers stresses the antitypical character of
Peters discipleship. All that Peter is prepared to sacrifice is his
integrity and commitment to Jesus. At Jesus instigation Peter can
even walk on water; when he is left to his own initiative, he can do
nothing other than deny his master.
Even if 26:58 and 8:19 are interpreted differently from the way
they have been here, Matthews gospel is still remarkable for the
extent to which it has downplayed the individual initiative of the
disciples. Virtually all of the following done by the disciples is initiated
by Jesus.63 When this finding is joined with the findings above, a
generally consistent picture emerges. It is the disciples who do the will
of God, and the disciples who are called upon to follow Jesus. The
crowds, on the other hand, do not yet perform the will of the Father,
nor are they ever summoned by Jesus to follow him. They are not
called to the sacrificial lifestyle practised by the twelve, and thus they
cannot be said to follow in the same sense that the disciples do. Are
the crowds, then, entirely excluded from the proceedings? Is the
oblique, conditional invitation at 12:50 all that has been accorded
them?
F Comfortable Words
There is one passage in the gospel that does invite the crowds to
come to Jesus, although it does not expressly mention following. Can
this invitation be construed as a summons to discipleship? At 11:2830, Jesus invites all who labour and are heavy laden to come to him
and find rest. His invitation, as is well known, is part of a larger
sequence of verses that also includes a thanksgiving (11:25-26) and a
revelation saying (11:27).64 While the provenance of these passages
62
Cousland 02 versie 3
159
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
160
08-10-2001, 11:41
works the crowds gain insight into Jesus nature, and come to
recognize him as the Son of David.
Where this interpretation fits less well is with chapter 13, which
distinguishes the disciples from the crowds as recipients of revelation
(13:10-16). Nevertheless, the two passages need not be seen as
absolutely contrary. The crowds do not come to a complete
understanding of Jesus true nature, but what understanding they do
achieve comes through his miracle working. While this would not be
decisive on its own, at 11:28 the fact that Jesus extends his invitation
to all (pa/ntej) who labour is more compelling. The likeliest
supposition is that all Israel is included in his purview.72
If it does apply to all Israel, why should they be weary and heavy
laden?73 Apart from Stantons suggestion above, two answers are
frequently given: one is that Israel is overborne with the burden of the
Pharisaic interpretation of the Law, and the other that it is the load of
sin that weighs upon Israel.74 As Davies and Allison urge, both
possibilities need to be taken into account.75 The first is suggested by
the use of the word burden (fortion) at both 11:30 and 23:4.76 The
latter passage condemns the scribes and Pharisees for binding heavy
burdens on mens shoulders. As this is the only other verse in the
gospel where burdens are explicitly mentioned, it is a reasonable
inference to assume some connection.77 The fact that 11:28-30 is
immediately followed by a controversy with the Pharisees about
plucking grain helps to substantiate the point.78 Deutsch makes the
attractive suggestion that Matthew is not so much opposed to
Pharisaic legal interpretation as to the Pharisees lack of solidarity
with the people who follow them.79
72 Christ, Jesus Sophia, 84; Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom, 41; Lgasse, Jsus et lEnfant
(Paris: Gabalda, 1969) 237; Luz, Matthus 8-17, 219. Deutsch, in her more recent
work (Lady Wisdom, 118), however, sees Jesus invitation as directed to the Pharisees
disciples.
73 Following BAGD s.v. kopia/w is translated here as weary. The above two
terms are best regarded as synonymous.
74 See the extensive list of scholars cited by Jacques Dupont, Les Batitudes, II La
Bonne Nouvelle (Paris: Gabalda, 1969) 193#3, who favour the first interpretation.
75 DA II 287-89.
76 11:28 has the cognate form pefortisme/noi. Apart from Luke 11:46, which features both the verb and noun, these words do not occur elsewhere in the Synoptic
Gospels.
77 The burden is that of the halachic interpretation of these teachers (Deutsch,
Lady Wisdom, 59).
78 Knzel, Gemeindeverstndnis, 89-93.
79 Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom, 41.
Cousland 02 versie 3
161
08-10-2001, 11:41
The passage also suggests the burden of sin. Jesus comes to save his
people from their sins (1:21). The people are weary and burdened
with sin and sickness, a depiction that accords well with other
descriptions of the crowds as scattered and helpless, plagued with
numerous illnesses. It also accords with the portrayal of Jesus as the
humble servant who cares for the helpless. Stanton has rightly
emphasized that the wisdom elements of the passage have been
subordinated to the depiction of Jesus as servant.80 The description of
Jesus as gentle and lowly in heart (11:29b) has marked affinities
with the fulfilment citations in the gospel. The inclusion of Zechariah
9:9 in the narration of the Triumphal Entry establishes the triumph
of Jesus humility, and the same holds true with the citation of Isaiah
42:1-4 at 12:18-21. It is not Sophia who addresses the people so
much as their servant-king.
What is most remarkable about 11:28-30, however, is the form of
Jesus invitation. The invitation to discipleship at 4:19 is prefaced by
deu=te, just as it is here. In each case, the adverb serves as the basis of
a divine call (cf. 22:3; 25:34) demanding an immediate response.
Where the two passages differ profoundly, however, is in Jesus
requirements of the people. They are not charged to follow him or
come after him (deu=te o)pisw mou 4:19 cf. 19:21) as the disciples are,
but, rather, to come to him (deu=te pro/j me). The focus is upon Jesus
himself and not upon discipleship. They are invited to come to him
for what he can do for them, as is evident from a consideration of the
consequences of their actions. When the people assume the yoke of
Christ (which many would understand as the Christ-mediated Torah)
they also secure rest for themselves.81 Rest is twice mentioned, and
connotes, among other things, eschatological blessing.82 As with the
eschatological blessings of healing and the eschatological banquet, the
people of Israel can partake of divine rest now,83 and it is the
possibility of acquiring rest that provides them with the motivation
for accepting the invitation. While it remains paradoxical how the
increased stringency of Jesus interpretation of the Torah should be
light and easy to bear, it iswhatever rationale may underlie the
suppositionsimply assumed by the evangelist to be the case.84 The
80 G. Stanton, Comfortable Words?, 371-72. Contrast Christ, Jesus Sophia 119.
Stantons case is even stronger if 11:29b is, in fact, Matthean.
81 For various understandings of the yoke, see Christ, Jesus Sophia, 110-111.
82 Betz, Logion, 23; Lgasse, Jsus et lEnfant, 239.
83 Betz, Logion, 23; Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom, 41-42; Lgasse, Jsus et lEnfant,
242.
84 For various explanations of this paradox, cf. DA II 291-92.
Cousland 02 versie 3
162
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
163
08-10-2001, 11:41
14:13b,14
kai a)kou/santej oi oxloi h)kolou/qhsan au)t%= pezv= a)po\ tw=n po/lewn. 14 kai
e)celqwn eiden polu\n oxlon kai e)splagxnisqh e)p au)toij kai e)qera/peusen
89 Gnilka, Matthusevangelium, II 11. Strecker (Weg, 198-99) argues for an underlying piece of oral tradition based on the analogy with John 21:7, but his argument is
hardly compelling.
90 Strecker, Weg, 203-6.
91 Of course, Peter ultimately begins to sink because of his little faith. Yet his
ability to walk on the water at all is also central to the narrative.
92 Luz, Disciples, 124#64.
93 Luz, Disciples, 124#64.
Cousland 02 versie 3
164
08-10-2001, 11:41
19:2
kai h)kolou/qhsan au)t%= oxloi polloi, kai e)qera/peusen au)tou\j e)kei.
Cousland 02 versie 3
165
08-10-2001, 11:41
sequent upon following Jesus. The same elements are evident at 4:245, although the order is reversed. The reason for this, however, is that
the crowds have not previously been mentioned in the gospel. Verse
4:24, a verse unique to Matthew, is in all likelihood, designed not
only to indicate part of the constitution of the crowds (all the sick,
those afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics,
paralytics as well as those who brought the sick), but also their
grounds for following Jesus. Of course, Jesus preaching and teaching
are also prominent, but the chiastic arrangement of this passage is
surely significant. Those mentioned in verse 24 are situated between
two generalized references to Jesus healing activity (4:23 healing
every disease and infirmity among the people; and 4:25c and he
healed them). The crowds following is then alluded to in another,
this time a geographical, reference to the constitution of the crowds.
Once the correlation becomes established, the order of the terms is
reversed.
The same feature is evident in the remaining three crowd
passages, if not so immediately striking. All three (8:1; 8:10; 20:29)
occur in the context of the healing of individuals who are not
members of the crowds. In the healing of the centurions servant (8:513), for instance, the centurion appears to approach Jesus when Jesus
and the crowds enter Capernaum (8:5). At 20:29-34, the two blind
men are seated at the side of the road as Jesus passes (20:30), while
the leper appears to approach Jesus and the crowds as they descend
from the mountain (8:1).
The healing accounts themselves differ in some respects from the
summaries listed above. In the healing account at 20:29-34, the two
blind men follow Jesus after they have been healed (20:34), just as
happens with Bartimaeus in Mark (Mark 10:52). One likely reason
for their inclusion in the crowd following Jesus is that they may
thereby form part of the procession in the Triumphal Entry. As
supplicants, they repeatedly called upon the Son of David to be
healed of their blindness (20:30,31), and were healed by Jesus. It is
fitting, therefore, that they should join the crowds and celebrate the
arrival of the Son of David in Jerusalem. They are eyewitnesses, so to
speak, of his compassion.
Taken as a whole, these factors are highly suggestive. In a few
instances Matthew has simply associated healing and following, but in
the remaining passages the healing of the crowds is related to their
following of Jesus. The implication would seem to be that healing is
one of the dominant motifs in the crowds following of Jesus. Nor
would one be remiss in saying it is one of their dominant motives.
Naturally, the crowds illnesses are not their only reason for following
Cousland 02 versie 3
166
08-10-2001, 11:41
Jesus. Clearly there are others, such as Jesus teaching (and manner of
teaching 7:28), his proclamation of the gospel, and perhaps even his
feeding of the crowds (14:13-21; 15:32-39 cf. John 6:26).
Nevertheless, just as healing predominates in the list of signs Jesus
gives John the Baptist (11:5), one could say that a desire to be healed
is a central motive for the crowds following of Jesus. And he heals
them not because of their implied discipleship, but because they are
needy. The crowds follow Jesus, at least in part, in order to be healed.
Hence, their actions are a consequence of the ministry, particularly
the healing ministry, which Jesus has embarked upon in Israel.
Thus, the following of the crowds is largely supplicatory. They
follow Jesus in order to be ministered to; they are sheep without a
shepherd and they follow out of their need. The same cannot be said
about the twelve disciples. They follow Jesus because he has
commanded them to, and because they are able to help Jesus assuage
the needs of the crowds. Just how different the two groups situations
are can be ascertained from a consideration of what following Jesus
entails for the crowds and the disciples. For the former, their
following of Jesus results in an experience of his compassion. He
allays their suffering and heals their illnesses. He delivers them from
their distress and restores them to a normal mode of existence.98 For
the disciples, however, the reverse is true. They are called from their
normal mode of existence to one that, by its very nature, entails
suffering. They have to forego their attachment to their families and
take up their cross to follow Jesus. They experience persecution on his
account as a matter of course, and give up everything to follow him.
One could almost say that their starting point, as it were, a normal
life with all its attachments (family, jobs), is the finishing point for
those who are healed. The crowds resume the normal life that has
been disrupted by illnesses.
Where the disciples do resemble the crowds is in their response to
Jesus. Both the following of the disciples and that of the crowds can
be regarded as a response to divine initiative, and this is the reason
why the following of the two groups is so frequently correlated in the
gospel. When Jesus begins his public ministry, both the disciples and
crowds respond in characteristic fashion. The disciples immediately
(4:20,22) follow when Jesus has summoned them to sacrificial
discipleship, while the crowds first action is to bring all their sick to
him. Yet both are responses to the person of Jesus. Initiative on the
98 Gerd Theissen (Social Reality and the Early Christians: Theology, Ethics, and the World
of the New Testament [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992] 84) regards illness as a contributing
factor to the social uprootedness of Jewish-Palestinian society.
Cousland 02 versie 3
167
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
168
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
169
08-10-2001, 11:41
Cousland 02 versie 3
170
08-10-2001, 11:41
flock gather itself to Jesus and follow him. Unlike Luke and Mark,
who both introduce the crowds without much explanation,108
Matthew begins at 4:23 by enumerating their provenance in detail.
Their dispersal is patent: they come from areas as widespread as the
Decapolis, Judaea, Galilee, and the Transjordanterritories
representative of the Davidic kingdom.109 Yet, in response to his
healing they assemble and form the audience for the Sermon on the
Mount. The advent of Jesus is the catalyst that brings them all
together in one massed group. Jesus person has effected the
gathering together of the scattered flock of Israel, even if he has not
overtly summoned them. The gathering process, therefore, is
employed by Matthew as the precise antithesis of the dispersal of the
flock that ensues when a shepherd is removed (26:31 // Zech 13:7).
Where the scattering of the sheep once indicated that they were
without a shepherd, their flocking together now demonstrates that
they are sheep with a shepherd, a shepherd whom they follow.
Their assembling from all Israel has a significant correspondence
with the behaviour of Israel at the inception of Davids rule. At the
outset of Davids reign, all the tribes of Israel came to David at
Hebron to acknowledge Gods choice of David as shepherd of my
people Israel (2 Sam 5:1-2). In the same way, the crowds follow Jesus
to Jerusalem and proclaim him the Son of David (21:11). Matthews
repeated description of the following of the crowds, especially at the
Triumphal Entry, is meant to suggest a king and his peoplethe Son
of David is united with the rank and file of Israel and acclaimed by
them.
In sum, the following motif is used of the crowds to show that, like
the disciples, they also have a definite relationship to Jesus. It is not
that of disciple and master, but of subject and king. This too helps to
explain the prominence of the following motif in relation to the
crowds. Matthew has the crowds follow Jesus to disclose both his
royal status and his subjects dependence upon him as the source of
their salvation. As suggested above, at 11:28 Jesus invites all of his
subjects to come to him and experience rest for their souls. His
ministry to themhis healing, teaching, feedingare constitutive of
his role as humble king, and as the shepherd of his people. The
precise nature of his kingly status will be the subject of the next
chapter.
108 Luke 3:10 (Q); Mark first introduces the crowd by name at 2:4, but the presence
of different crowds is evident as early as 1:21; cf. 1:32-34, 43.
109 If the Decapolis is indeed viewed as part of the Davidic kingdom as argued
above, in Chapter Three.
Cousland 02 versie 3
171
08-10-2001, 11:41
I Conclusion
Cousland 02 versie 3
172
08-10-2001, 11:41
come to him so that he might assuage their need and shepherd them
into the messianic age. The crowds instinctive gravitation to Jesus,
therefore, implicitly reveals the relationship between the crowds and
Jesus. Their following of Jesus identifies him as their shepherd king,
the Son of David. He is their rightful king and they are his rightful
if needysubjects.
Cousland 02 versie 3
173
08-10-2001, 11:41
CHAPTER EIGHT
A A Son of David?
Given the fact that the crowds twice mention the Son of David
(12:23; 21:9), it is obvious that a proper appreciation of the title is
necessary for a proper appreciation of the crowds. Since Matthews
deployment of the title is considerable,1 and continues to engender
debate, it will be worth exploring the use of the appellation in the
gospel before examining its specific reference to the crowds.
The first question to settle is whether one should distinguish
between the title Son of David when it appears with an article and
the anarthrous Son of David.2 Suhl, for one, has argued that there
is a far-reaching distinction between the two. He claims that the
occurrence of the title with article betrays a false messianic
understanding.3 By contrast, he regards the use of the appellation
without the article is typical of the suppliants whom Jesus commends
for their faith.
Although Suhls approach is attractive at first glance, several
factors weigh against it. The first is the extent to which a distinction
actually exists between the two forms. It is possible that uio\j Dauid is
anarthrous at Matthew 9:27 and 20:30,31 under the influence of the
Hebrew construct state.4 Certainty about the matter is difficult,
however, because it is difficult to gauge the extent to which these
passages are semitized.5 If they do, in fact, reflect the influence of the
construct state, then the variation between the arthrous and
anarthrous titles is simply a difference in form, rather than one that is
theologically motivated.6
1
Son of David occurs nine times in Matthew (1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30;
20:31; 21:9; 21:15) versus three times in Mark (10:47; 10:48; 12:35), three times in
Luke (18:38; 18:39 and 20:41), and none in Q.
2 The above discussion concentrates on the use of the title with reference to Jesus.
At 1:20 Joseph is also described as son of David.
3 Suhl, Davidssohn,73: falsches Messiasverstndnis.
4 Moulton, Grammar, III 34; cf. BDF 147(3).
5 Duling, Therapeutic,400. The Vorlage for both pericopae is Mark 10:48,
where the best texts have uie\ Dauid. A number of sources, however, have uio\j: DK
f 13 565 pc or o(( uio\j: A W f1.
6 W. R. G. Loader (Son of David, Blindness, Possession and Duality in
Matthew, CBQ (1982) 571#4) finds a related phenomenon with the use of the
appellation Son of God.
Cousland 03 versie 3
175
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
176
08-10-2001, 11:42
emphasizes the kingship of Jesus and his place in Davids royal line.13
On the other hand, a substantial number of passages stress the role of
Son of David as healer. The disciples do not use the title of Jesus, nor
is it one of Jesus self-appellations. The title is confined to Jesus
earthly ministry, and even then, to delimited groups.14
Because of these anomolous features, some scholars have sought to
impugn the importance of the title. Raymond Brown, for one has
deemed it a correct but inadequate title of the Jesus of the Matthean
ministry.15 Others have suggested that the title Son of David is subordinate to other christological titles. With respect to the genealogy,
for instance, it has been argued that the Son of David concept needs
to be set in relation to the Son of God motif,16 and, further, that the
Son of David controversy (22:41-46) reveals that Jesus Messiah is
greater than Jesus Son of David.17 The following discussion will
evaluate these arguments, beginning with the genealogy and then the
Son of David controversy.
Kingsbury and R. Pesch argue that the account of the virginal
conception of Jesus (1:18,20) gives particular prominence to Jesus qua
Son of God over Jesus Son of David. That Jesus is implicitly the Son
of God, is made evident by the e)gennh/qh at 1:16, and through the
virginal conception by the Holy Spirit.18
The problem with such an interpretation is that it subordinates
something that is explicit in the text, to something that is largely
latent. The term Son of God nowhere occurs in chapter one, while
Son of David occurs twice (1:1; 1:20 of Joseph) and David himself
is mentioned four additional times (1:6bis; 1:17bis). Nor does such an
argument account for the prominence given to the title Son of David
at the incipit of the gospel: Bibloj gene/sewj 'Ihsou= Xristou= uiou= Dauid.19
13 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30,31; 21:9,15; cf. 22:42,43,45 (Son of David
controversy) and 1:20 (Joseph).
14 See Jack D. Kingsbury (Son of David, 593), who also points out that the title
does not occur in the death or resurrection narratives.
15 Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in
Matthew and Luke (2nd Ed. New York: Doubleday, 1993) 134.
16 A. D. A. Moses, Matthews Transfiguration Story and Jewish-Christian Controversy
(JSNTSup 122; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 195-97. Moses draws on
arguments propounded by Kingsbury (Son of David, 591-602) and R. Pesch (Der
Gottessohn im matthischen Evangelienprolog (Mt 1-2): Beobachtungen zu den
Zitationsformeln der Reflexionszitate, Bib 48 (1967) 411, 416).
17 Kingsbury, Son of David, 596; Moses, Transfiguration Story, 199-201.
18 Kingsbury, Son of David, 594; R. Pesch, Gottessohn, 411, 416.
19 Both Marshall Johnson (The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to
the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus [2nd Ed.; SNTSMS 8; Cambridge: University Press,
1988] 225) and Pesch (Der Gottessohn, 416) regard this as a reworking of Mark 1:1.
Cousland 03 versie 3
177
08-10-2001, 11:42
20 This is well brought out by David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in
Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973) 116.
21 Davies, Matthews Messianism, 500.
22 A. Vgtle (Messias und Gottessohn, 18) identifies three christological strands here.
Cf. David R. Bauer, The Literary and Theological Function of the Genealogy in
Matthews Gospel in Bauer and Powell, Treasures, 141.
23 Cf. K. Stendahl, Quis et Unde? An Analysis of Matthew 1-2 in Stanton,
Interpretation, 60, who remarks that in 1:6 the royal status of David, and only of
David, is stressed. The name of David assumes additional importance if the
gematria on David (dwd 4 + 6 + 4 = 14) is assumed to underlie the scheme of 3 x 14
generations mentioned at 1:17. On this, see Davies, Matthews Messianism, 499;
Schweizer, Gemeinde, 17#36.
24 Reginald Fuller (The Foundations of New Testament Christology [London:
Lutterworth Press, 1965] 191) observes that the title o( xristo/j (the Christ) and o(
basileu\j tw=n 'Ioudai/wn (the King of the Jews) seem to be here [sc. 2:1-12] (uniquely)
used as equivalent for the Davidic sonship. It is also likely that the title at 27:11
reflects the Son of David, and it is certainly true of 21:5.
25 Siegfried Schulz, Die Stunde der Botschaft: Einfhrung in die Theologie der vier
Evangelisten (Hamburg: Furche Verlag, 1970) 198.
26 Kingsbury, Son of David, 594.
27 Cf. Johnson, Genealogies, 218. Of course, the angel is applying the title to Joseph
in this particular passage.
Cousland 03 versie 3
178
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
179
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
180
08-10-2001, 11:42
41 David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: The Athlone
Press, 1956) 158-159, 163.
42 Daube, Rabbinic, 163 speaking of both Mark and Matthew. Cf. DA III 255.
43 Daube suggests he is Davids son according to the flesh, but his Lord according
to the spirit, Rabbinic, 163. Bornkamm, End-Expectation, 33, suggests in his
earthly lowliness he is Davids son, but as the Exalted One he is Lord. Strecker,
Weg, 120 speaks of a theological gleichzeitiges Nebeneinander, and is followed by
Frankemlle ( Jahwebund, 169#53), who prefers to speak of a theologischliterarisches Ineinander. Streckers view seems most promising in seeing the
distinction as a Nebeneinander. The distinction between the two titles is best
described in terms of a healing-servant Son of David sent to Israel on the one hand,
and an authoritative lord sent to all people.
44 A number of scholars maintain that Matthews portrait differed from the
common expectation of the Son of David. Leonhard Goppelt (Theology of the New
Testament, II 220) remarks that what Matthew says about the Son of David was not
what Judaism was expecting in regard to ben-dawid. See further, Burger, Davidssohn,
44; Gundry, Matthew, 231; Lohse, ui(o/j, 490.
Cousland 03 versie 3
181
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
182
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
183
08-10-2001, 11:42
Matthew has omitted dikaioj kai s%/ zwn au)to/j to give prominence to the term
prau/j .
53 On the ritual exclusion of the blind and lame from the temple, cf. Lev 21:18-19;
mHag 1:1; and from the Congregation, cf. 1QSa 2:5-22; CD 15:15-17.
54 P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel (AB 9; Garden City: Doubleday, 1984) 135-40.
Cousland 03 versie 3
184
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
185
08-10-2001, 11:42
61 Cf. Ant. 8.45-49, where Josephus recounts how he, Vespasian and others had
witnessed an exorcism performed by a certain Eleazar, who, following Solomons
precepts, drew a demon out of a possessed mans nostrils. For other sources dealing
with exorcisms, cf. 11Q11 col 1.
62 Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 184.
63 See Klaus Berger, Die kniglichen Messiastraditionen des Neuen Testaments,
NTS 20 (1974), 3-9; Broer, Christologie, 1261; DA III 718; Deutsch, Lady Wisdom,
84-85; Loren R. Fisher, Can This be the Son of David? in Trotter, Historian, 82-97;
and, recently, Moses (Transfiguration Story, 197-98), who maintains that Matthews use
of the title Son of David is more Solomonic than Davidic.
64 The Qumran document 4Q560, for instance, cites the male Wasting-demon
and the female Wasting-demon as well as the Fever-demon, Chills-demon and
Chest Pain-demon.
65 As is recognized by Dennis C. Duling, Solomon, Exorcism and Son of David,
HTR 68 (1975) 235-252.
66 Cotter, Miracles, 246; DA II 561; Hull, Magic, 116-41; Morton Smith, Jesus the
Magician (New York: Harper and Row, 1978) 145.
Cousland 03 versie 3
186
08-10-2001, 11:42
67 Philo (Agr. 41) remarks that so full of dignity and benefit has the shepherds task
been held to be, that poets are wont to give to kings the title of shepherds of peoples
(poimena/j law=n), a title which the lawgiver bestows on the wise. They are the only real
kings, and he shows them to us ruling, as a shepherd does his flock.
68 John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (London: Darton,
Longman & Todd, 1975) 95.
69 Psalm 151A:1,4 (5ApocSyrPs 4); Psalm 152:3 and implicitly in Psalm 153,
where David is delivered from a lion and wolf, and at Sirach 47:3, where he plays
with lions and bears.
Cousland 03 versie 3
187
08-10-2001, 11:42
and he anointed me with holy oil, and he made me leader for his
people, and ruler over the sons of his covenant. Pseudo-Philo includes the episode of Samuels anointing of David, and gives particular prominence to Davids humble status. The Lord directs Samuel to
seek out the least shepherd of all and anoint this one.70
The identification also figures in the Qumram material; 4Q504
(col. 4) reads: You have established your covenant with David,
making him a princely shepherd over Israel. It is certainly striking
that this conception is even evident in the Psalm of Solomon 17.40:
Faithfully and righteously shepherding the Lords flock, he will not
let any of them stumble in their pasture,71 even if the Psalm
obviously represents a triumphal depiction of the Son of David by
referring to him as mighty in his actions.
Although Matthew may well be cognizant of such traditions, a
more probable source for his understanding of the title is Ezekiel.72
As mentioned above in earlier chapters, a future Davidic shepherd is
strongly in evidence at Ezekiel 34. This chapter includes the
prediction of a future David in Ezekiel 34:23 (cf. Ezek 37:24), where
the Lord states, I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant
David (ywr yrn[ dja h[r), and he shall feed them: he shall feed
them and be their shepherd.73 It is not unlikely, therefore, that this
chapter informs Matthews conception of the therapeutic Son of
David.
Nevertheless, two objections spring to mind: first, the passage says
nothing about a therapeutic ministry, and, second, it makes no
mention of the son of David. To the first objection, it can be said that
the passage in Ezekiel does indicate that he will shepherd them.
Precisely what shepherding entails is spelt out earlier in the
chapter, where God says that he will act as a shepherd. Not only does
he promise to feed them (Ezek 34:13, 14), God also goes on to
70 LAB 59.3. Note the difference in emphasis from the LXX account: o( mikro\j i)dou\
poimainei e)n t%= poimni% (1 bas 16:11). Here Davids slaying of the lions preying upon
Cousland 03 versie 3
188
08-10-2001, 11:42
promise, I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I
will bind up the crippled, and I will strengthen the weak.74 The
chapters depiction of shepherding is further supplemented by its
condemnation of the shepherds of Israel. The Lord reproaches them
because the weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not
healed, the crippled you have not bound up (Ezek. 34:4).75 What
these passages provide, therefore, is a brief for shepherding that
expressly includes healing. David will not only feed his flock he will
also heal them.76 It is true that exorcism is not mentioned here,
although it is a feature of Jesus ministry, but it is evident from the
editorial summaries Matthew provides that it would be included as a
part of healing every disease and infirmity (4:23; 9:35). It is healing
and not exorcism that is emphasized by the gospel.
The second objection depends on how literally one understands
Son of David. The passage does not mention a Son of David at all,
but simply David. Zimmerli has pointed out that such references to a
future David are rare in the Hebrew Bible, and are found only twice
elsewhere.77 Is the reference, perhaps, to be regarded as David
redivivus, whom God will again raise up? While some have thought
so,78 this interpretation has largely been abandoned.79 Duguid has
noted that Ezekiel employs the hifil of wq here, which is characteristic
of the promises made to David (2 Sam 7:12,25; 1 Kings 9:5; Jer
33:14; Amos 9:11) to establish his line forever.80 Yet the reference to
David cannot be taken simply as a general allusion to the re-
Cousland 03 versie 3
189
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
190
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
191
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
192
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
193
08-10-2001, 11:42
103 9:36; 14:14; 15:15. Compare Mark 1:41 (individual); 9:22 (father and son) 6:34;
8:2 (crowds).
104 This doubtless also reflects Matthews tendency to abbreviate; cf. Held,
Tradition, 224-26.
105 Gibbs, Purpose, 459; Patte, Matthew, 286. Howell (Matthews Inclusive Story,
149) sees it as proleptic for the crowds rejection of Jesus.
106 Cf. Moses (Transfiguration Story, 198-9), who claims that the childrens praise at
21:15 demonstrates the inadequacy of the title Son of David, gives insufficient weight
to Jesus approbation.
107 Trilling, Einzug, 303. George M. Soares Prabhu (The Formula Quotations in the
Infancy Narrative of Matthew [AnBib 63; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976] 157)
observes that everything that can heighten the impression of the public and popular
character of the acclamation is carefully explicated and emphasized.
Cousland 03 versie 3
194
08-10-2001, 11:42
all of Israel (2 Sam 5:1), Jesus is acclaimed by all of Israel. The crowds
are no longer simply the obtuse retinue accompanying Jesus: they, as
the people of Israel, acknowledge Davids son.108
For this reason, analyses that see Matthews use of the title Son of
David as a condemnation of Israel are fundamentally mistaken.
Loader, for instance, concludes that the title Son of David is used by
Matthew to highlight Israels unbelief.109 Kingsbury goes so far as
to claim that Matthew utilizes the title in order to underline the
guilt that devolves upon Israel for not receiving its Messiah.110 Yet
Matthew is surely doing the opposite. Both Kingsbury and Loader
mistakenly attempt to group the crowds together with their leaders
and contrast them with the faith of the suppliants.
If anything, however, the crowds use of the title reveals the
profound disjunction between the crowds and their leadership (just as
it did earlier at 12:22-24). During the public ministry, the crowds
identification of Jesus as the Son of David is, apart from 21:11, the
last thing the crowds say (in direct speech) about Jesus. The Pharisees,
however, are left speechless after Jesus question about the Son of
David (22:46). The contrast is obvious: the people of Israel perceive
what their leaders do not.111 Jesus accepts the crowds adulation (as
can be inferred from 21:16), just as he reduces the Pharisees to
silence.
In fact, the crowds at this point in the gospel are far closer to the
suppliants than to their leaders. Despite the disinformation provided
by their leadership, the crowds have begun to penetrate the mystery
of Jesus identity. Matthew is showing that the rank and file of Israel
did recognize Jesus as messiah. Where Kingsbury and Loader are
quite right is in drawing attention to the exceptional understanding
and faith of the suppliants.
F The Son of David and the Lord
If the crowds display some knowledge of Jesus identity, the suppliants
reveal a profounder understanding. Matthew highlights their insight
by having them advert to another christological titlenamely ku/rioj.
108
Cousland 03 versie 3
195
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
196
08-10-2001, 11:42
with proskunesis. Further, if ku/rioj were merely honorific, its use alone after Son of
David would represent a denouement. Yet the context in the stories suggests an
intensificiation. Kingsbury (Title, 253) has missed the force of this. He (albeit
tentatively) suggests that kyrie is meant to refer beyond itself to Son of David as the
primary title. Yet if this were so, one would expect Son of David in the ultimate
positioninstead, the intensification is expressly associated with ku/rioj.
117 At 20:30, the motif is replaced by a reference to Jesus compassion.
118 Gerhardsson, Mighty, 88.
119 A. J. Hultgren, Liturgy and Literature: The Liturgical Factor in Matthews
Literary and Communicative Art in T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm (eds.), Texts and
Contexts: Biblical Texts in their Textual and Situational Contexts (Oslo: Scandinavian
University Press, 1995) 664-66.
Cousland 03 versie 3
197
08-10-2001, 11:42
120
Cousland 03 versie 3
198
08-10-2001, 11:42
heir to it and the culmination of it. Because of this heritage (and its
juxtaposition with Son of Abraham 1:1) the title is a public one and
characterizes Jesus in his ministry to Israel. Matthews depiction of
the Son of David reveals not a triumphant ruler, but a servant and
healer par excellence.
The crowds reaction to Son of David can best be described as a
continuation of their response to his miracles and healings discussed
in Chapter Six. It represents a clear development or progression on
their part, in that their interest has begun to centre on Jesus. The
tentative identification at 12:23 of Jesus with the Son of David
becomes a messianic confession in the Triumphal Entry.
An element of this recognition is clearly christological. Their use of
the title not only draws attention to Jesus but also, along with the
suppliants use of it, gives content to Matthews conception of the Son
of David. Being Israelites, they are the people he has come to serve,
and, being sick and in need, the people he has come to heal. The
crowds cry at 21:9 is particularly instrumental in drawing attention
to the primacy of healing in Matthews messianic portrayal. The
suppliants insight into Jesus divine nature is even more profound.
Their use of the title ku/rioj reveals that they not only recognize Jesus
in his role as messiah to Israel, but also as the authoritative Lord.
Cousland 03 versie 3
199
08-10-2001, 11:42
PART III
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this section was to examine the favourable
characterization of the crowds in the gospel. As was mentioned in
Chapter One, this portrayal includes most of the crowds words and
actions during Jesus public ministry. Accordingly, the section began
with an assessment of Jesus ministry to the crowds to see how Jesus
own actions were represented in the gospel. The role of the crowds is
partly modelled on the picture inherited from Marks gospel. They
are the receptive masses who respond to Jesus ministry. They react
to his teaching, his healings, and they follow him about. In Matthew,
however, there is a distinctive globalizing of these features. The
crowds react at key intervals, such as the conclusion of the Sermon on
the Mount, the close of the Messiah of Deeds sequence, and at the
Triumphal Entry.
The Role of the Crowds: Their Situation The above chapters indicate that
the crowds are to be situated in their approach to Jesus midway
between the disciples and their leaders. On the one hand, the crowds
are to be distinguished from the disciples. The crowds respond with
amazement and wonder at Jesus thaumaturgy, while the disciples are
usually portrayed as being unmoved, simply because they
understand. When the disciples do react, they worship Jesus. The
crowds do not worship Jesus, but they praise God because of him,
and evince an increasing penetration of Jesus identity, even if it stops
well short of the understanding displayed by the disciples.
As lost sheep, the crowds are the object of Jesus and the
disciples ministry. The disciples are specifically enlisted to aid Jesus
in the feedings of the crowds; they figure as Jesus coworkers precisely
because he has commanded them to renounce themselves and follow
him as disciples. Here the disciples perform the will of the Father.
This cannot be said of the crowds following, as it is not initiated by
Jesus. They follow Jesus as needy subjects, who look to Jesus and his
disciples to requite their needs. The situations of the disciples and
crowds are, therefore, categorically different.
Yet, the crowds are also categorically different from their leaders.
Where the crowds demonstrate an instinctive openness to Jesus
words and deeds, the reactions of the Pharisees and other leaders is
entirely negative. Throughout Jesus public ministry, the leaders of
Cousland 03 versie 3
201
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
202
08-10-2001, 11:42
(and to their leaders) the advent of the Son of David. Thus, the
behaviour of the crowds, in their instinctive recognition of Jesus as
Son of David serves to confirm what Matthew has already made
explicit at 1:1 and in the genealogy: Jesus is indeed the long-expected
and awaited Son of David. The function of the crowds, as the people
of Israel, is to ratify this identification.
The Function of the Crowds: Heilsgeschichte The above summations have
just dealt with Matthews portrayal of the crowds and of Jesus. Yet
the real import of this section has been to show the two of them
together: rex et grex, the visitation of God among his people.
Matthews portrayals of Jesus and the crowds are, quite literally,
made for each othera match made in heaven. That is to say,
Matthews characterizations of Jesus and the crowds have been
developed with each other in mind. The crowds need healing, and
Jesus is the divine healer, they want leadership, and Jesus is the very
royal Davidid whom they require. Jesus, the Son of David, is
specifically sent to minister to his people, the children of Israel.
Matthew, in other words, is giving content to Jesus (and the
disciples) exclusive ministry to Israel. It is very unlike the generalized
ministry of the gospel of Mark, where all alike are the recipients
of Jesus largesse. Here, Matthew is deliberately sketching out the
parameters of a customized ministry to Israel. Jesus, the Son of
David, has come specifically for them, and his ministry corresponds
to their needs. This ministry is calculated, therefore, to give content
to Jesus particularist ministry to Israel mentioned at 10:6 and 15:24.
Matthews appeals to the fulfilment of prophecy help to establish the
matrix of Jesus activity. The result evokes a messianic idyll when the
people are joined with their godsent leader. King and flock are united
at last.
The Function of the Crowds: Apologetic The favourable role of the crowd
also has a manifest apologetic function. For one thing, it makes it
incontrovertible that the Davidic messiah came deliberately to
minister to his people and was both recognized and acclaimed by
them. For another, it reveals the perfidy of the crowds leadership,
and shows them to be entirely deserving of the rubric evil
shepherds.
Cousland 03 versie 3
203
08-10-2001, 11:42
PART IV
DEATH AND THE PROPHET
Just as the mandate of the previous section was to examine the
favourable role of the crowds, this sections objective will be to
consider their unfavourable role. Naturally, this examination will
include the crowds involvement in the Passion of Jesus, but it will
also include some less obviously negative features, such as their
identification of Jesus as a prophet. It will also discuss Jesus
interaction with the crowds in the Parable discourse of Matthew 13.
The rationale for dealing with both subjects here, and not in the
previous section will be made evident in the chapters themselves.
The purpose of this particular segment is to determine whether
Matthew is simply reliant upon tradition for his negative
representation of the crowds, or whether he himself is responsible. If
Matthew is responsible, it will attempt to determine why he has
portrayed the crowds in such a light. The first chapter (Chapter 9)
will address the crowds acclamation of Jesus as prophet, and will be
followed by an examination of the crowds role in the Passion
(Chapter 10). The final chapter of this section will consider the place
of the crowds in the Parable discourse (Chapter 11).
As in the previous section, it will sometimes be necessary to sketch
out other questionssuch as Matthews understanding of parables
in order to determine their pertinence to the portrayal of the crowds.
Cousland 03 versie 3
205
08-10-2001, 11:42
CHAPTER NINE
A Prophet
The intention of this chapter is to assess the crowds identification of
Jesus as a prophet at 21:11. As mentioned in the last section, the
crowds response to the people of Jerusalem that This is the prophet
Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee (outo/j e)stin o( profh/thj 'Ihsou=j o( a)po\
Nazare\q th=j Galilaiaj 21:11) occurs immediately after Jesus entry
into Jerusalem. Given the prominence accorded to the question and
to the crowds answer, it is obviously of considerable significance for
assessing the reaction of the crowds. The following discussion, therefore, will first consider the provenance of the passage and the place of
the eschatological prophet in Matthew. It will then proceed to
examine 21:11, and conclude with an examination of the implications
of the verse for an understanding of the crowds.
The first question to consider is whether the crowds response at
21:11 should be construed as an integral part of the Triumphal Entry
scene. While it is generally regarded as such, Van Tilborg and
Walker have argued that the crowds in the unit at 21:10-11 ought to
be distinguished from the crowds in 21:9. Both scholars maintain that
the former groups insight into Jesus nature is considerably more
profound, and, therefore, must represent the perspective of a different
crowd.1 Their surmise is doubtful, however, when the form of the
passage is taken into account. The genitive absolute ei)selqo/ntoj au)tou=
ei)j Ieroso/luma (21:10) correlates Jesus entrance with the stirring up of
the city and indicates that Jesus entry is still in view at 21:10. For that
matter, the narrative does not even allow for a second group. If the
entire city is asking who Jesus was, where would this second set of
crowds have come from, and, more to the point, how would they
know Jesus identity? Instead, the ongoing reference to the crowds,2
as well as the recurring use of direct discourse with its express focus
on Jesus indicate that the episode is an integral element of Matthews
version of the Triumphal Entry, and that there is only one group of
crowds.
Cousland 03 versie 3
207
08-10-2001, 11:42
Both verses (21:10-11) are also best regarded as a Matthean composition.3 Meyer has sought to argue on the basis of a difference in
style and tenor that Matthew is reliant on tradition here, but neither
the style nor the tenor of the passage support his claims.4 Quite apart
from the overwhelming Matthean vocabulary5 and the typical use of
the genitive absolute, the reminiscences of Matthew 2:1-3 are also
thoroughly Matthean.6 Prabhu concurs with this judgement, except
that he detects a traditional datum in the word profh/thj itself because, as he claims, profh/thj is not a Matthean title for Jesus.7
Prabhu, however, overlooks the frequency with which the word
profh/thj and its cognates are found in the gospel.8 More significantly,
he also overlooks the frequency with which the word prophet is associated with the crowds in material that Matthew has reduplicated
(14:5; 21:26; 21:46).9 Since 21:46, a Matthean construct, indicates
that the crowds regarded Jesus as a prophet, it seems safe to suppose
that prophet is a Matthean title for Jesus, at least so far as the
crowds are concerned. In light of the above features, therefore, the
Matthean character of the passage becomes evident.
B The Eschatological Prophet
If Matthew composed the account, what did he mean by it? Is
Matthew simply having the crowds say, This is the prophet from
DA III 126-7.
Rudolf Meyer, Der Prophet aus Galila: Studie zum Jesusbild der drei ersten Evangelisten
[Leipzig:1940] 137#71: Unterschied in Stil und Tenor. See also Rudolf Meyer,
oxloj 587#27 and Burger, Davidssohn, 85. Van Tilborg (Leaders, 145) is uncertain
whether the passage is Matthean.
5 Gundry (Matthew, 411) rightly regards e)sei/sqh, pa=sa, po/lij and le/gousa in 21:10
and outoj e)stin, crowds, prophets, Jesus name, and Nazareth and Galilee in 21:11 as
part of Matthews special vocabulary. Prabhu (Formula, 152) and Schnider (Prophet,
102-4) both consider 21:11 a redactional composition.
6 Prabhu, Formula, 152.
7 Prabhu, Formula, 152. In contrast, Knzel (Gemeindeverstndnis, 63#47) speaks of
die redaktionelle Kennzeichnung Jesu als Prophet in 21,11,46.
8 Gundry (Matthew, 647) lists the occurrences of profh/thj in the Synoptic Gospels
as: (37 6 29), while for the profh lexical form it is: (45 9 32).
9 J. C. Hawkins (Horae Synopticae, 169 italics his) categorizes this as one of the
repeated formulae, which are used once by a Synoptist in common with one or both
of the others, and are also used by that Synoptist independently in other parts of his
narrative. Matthew apparently derives the formula from Mark 11:32.
4
Cousland 03 versie 3
208
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
209
08-10-2001, 11:42
obtrude,12 and in some instances, the questions that are asked about
the prophet have already determined what the answer will be.13
Recently, Allison has attempted to examine afresh the role of Moses
and the prophet like Moses in Matthew. He begins by isolating
a number of relatively discreteif inevitably overlapping
interpretations:
1. Deuteronomy is referring to a number of prophets like Moses
2. A series of prophet-kings over Israel
3. An eschatological individual figure (in addition to the Davidic
Messiah or the priestly Messiah)
4. The Messiah14
Allison considers each of these alternatives, and identifies the last
of these interpretations as the view of Matthew: Matthew and
Mark plainly identify Jesus with the prophet like Moses.15
While this viewpoint is certainly possible, it has to be queried whether
Matthew does plainly identify Jesus with the prophet like Moses.16
Allison appears to assume that the mere presence of Mosaic typology
in Matthew is sufficient to establish a connection between Jesus
and the prophet like Moses.17 Do examples of Mosaic typology
Cousland 03 versie 3
210
08-10-2001, 11:42
Jeremias, Mwush=j 870-871. On the typology associated with the Sermon on the
Mount, see Davies, Setting, 25-108 and the list in Donaldson, Mountain, 253#27.
Allison (The New Moses, 140-270) does not stop at these two passages, but, in a richly
modulated discussion, detects Mosaic allusions and echoes in the entire fabric of the
gospel. Even if his treatments of individual passages are not always convincing, he
does build a cumulative case. In addition to Allison, see the works by P. Josef M.
Kastner (Moses im Neuen Testament [Inaugural-Dissertation; Munich: LudwigMaximilians Universitt, 1967]) and Tadashi Saito (Die Mosevorstellungen im Neuen
Testament [Bern: Peter Lang, 1977]), who both examine Mosaic typology in Matthew.
Of the two, Kastners is the more nuanced. Saito tends consistently to underestimate
the force of the Moses motif in Matthew.
18 See e.g., Allison, The New Moses, 249. Allison himself (p. 92) rightly recognizes
that Matthews reasons for associating Jesus with Moses were probably multiple.
19 Howard M. Teeple, The Mosaic Eschatological Prophet (Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 10; Philadelphia: SBL, 1957).
20 Teeple, Prophet, 88. It is noteworthy that Teeple does not take 17:5 into account.
As will be shown shortly, some scholars do detect a reference to Deut 18 in the
transfiguaration narrative.
21 Teeple, Prophet, 83.
22 In Matthew, only 21:11 is definite; the tw=n profhtw=n of 16:14 refers to a distinct
group.
23 Teeples attempt to identify the eschatological prophet at 10:41 is questionable.
The verses context in the Mission discourse suggests that it is better understood as
positing a correlation between Jesus and Matthews community. See, in particular, S.
Brown, Mission to Israel, 77. Whether the eschatological prophet is in view at
21:11 will be considered below.
Cousland 03 versie 3
211
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
212
08-10-2001, 11:42
emphasizes that Jesus is left alone (au)to\n 'Ihsou=n mo/non 17:8) after
Moses and Elijah leave. Further, Matthew draws attention to Jesus
capacity to command by placing the disciples epiphany after the bath
ql and not before it (17:6).31 Most decisive, though, is the bath ql s
identification of Jesus as my beloved son. Jesus eclipses Moseshe
is o( uio/j mou o( a)gaphto/j (17:5; cf. 3:17). So even if there is some
identification with the teaching role of the prophet intended here, it is
an identification that is ultimately superseded. Matthew indicates that
Jesus is far more than the prophet, just as, in the antitheses, Jesus
teaching transcends that of Moses. For this reason, it is better simply
to concur with David Aunes assertion that Matthew never attempts
to identify Jesus with the eschatological prophet.32
In conclusion, Matthew does not demonstrate much appreciable
interest in the Mosaic eschatological prophet. In the one place where
there may be a reference to the eschatological prophet as such,
Matthew focusses attention on Jesus divine sonship. Jesus is not the
prophet like Moses, he is something quite different.
C The Eschatological Prophet at 21:11?
If there is little evidence for the eschatological prophet elsewhere in
the gospel, what about at Matthew 21:11oi de\ oxloi elegon, Outo/j
e)stin o( profh/thj 'Ihsou=j o( a)po\ Nazare\q th=j Galilaiaj? The question is a
contentious one, and scholars remain considerably divided on the
issue.33 Of those who do discern the eschatological prophet at 21:11,
31
Cousland 03 versie 3
213
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
214
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
215
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
216
08-10-2001, 11:42
grammatical form that is identical to 21:46 except that w(j is used with
the accusative predicate instead of ei)j.53 Both have the same
meaning.54 How, then, is John to be differentiated from Jesus? Surely,
Matthew does not envision two eschatological prophets. If he did see
21:11 as a reference to the eschatological prophet, one would have
expected him not to use the anarthrous profh/thn at 21:46, precisely
because of its similarity to the crowds description of John at 21:26
just twenty verses earlier.
All told, therefore, it is preferable to conclude that at 21:11 there is
no reference to the eschatological prophet, at least on the crowds
part. Whether Matthew intends his readers to make the connection,
of course, cannot be categorically excluded.
D The Violent Fate of the Prophets
If the crowds do not see in Jesus the eschatological prophet, why then
has Matthew introduced this designation at 21:11 and 21:46? There
are several compelling reasons. The first is to signal Jesus relation to
Jerusalem, and the second to anticipate Jerusalems relation to him.
In the former instance, Matthew has re-arranged the account of the
Triumphal Entry to highlight Jesus very first action in Jerusalem
the cleansing of the temple. Unlike Marks gospel, which has Jesus
enter the temple only to look around and depart for Bethany,
Matthew has Jesus purify the temple immediately. As soon as the
crowds identify Jesus as prophet, he cleanses the temple: the crowds
said, This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee. And Jesus
entered the temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in
the temple(21:11-12). It would be difficult to unite the two ideas
more closely. Jesus very first action after being acclaimed prophet is
to perform a prophetic act in the temple.
As Aune has demonstrated in his discussion of Marks version of
the temple cleansing, Jesus cleansing must be construed as a prophetic
action.55 Typically, prophetic actions have two components: the
report of the symbolic action, and its interpretation.56 Both are
present in Matthews narrative. Jesus eviction of the buyers and
53
Cousland 03 versie 3
217
08-10-2001, 11:42
sellers and his overturning of the tables constitute the symbolic action.
Jesus provides the interpretation (and his implicit authorization) by
citing scripture: It is written, My house shall be called a house of
prayer; but you make it a den of robbers (Is 56:7; cf. Jer 7:11).
Aune has detected in Marks version a symbolic overthrow of the
temple that would be fulfilled in the future,57 and such an import
also likely underlies Matthews version. Given that Matthews gospel
has at 22:7 the clearest allusion of any of the gospels to the
destruction of Jerusalem, the judgemental significance of Jesus
actions is patent. His deeds portend the destruction of the temple and
the city as a whole. That the final words of Jesus public ministry are
a woe over the city itself (23:37-39) cannot help but consolidate this
impression. Matthews crowds, therefore, identify Jesus as a prophet
so that he can, in his very first action, predict the templesand
Jerusalemscoming destruction. Jesuss departure from the city
immediately after cleansing the temple (21:17) signifies that he has
prophetically condemned both the temple and the city, and
abandoned them to their fate.
The consequence of Jesus prophetic treatment of Jerusalem is that
Jerusalem treats him as a prophet. In fact, such an identification is
made by the evangelist prior to the Triumphal Entry, implicitly at
least, in the parallelism between Jesus and John the Baptist. The fact
that John is popularly accounted a prophet at 21:26 and Jesus one at
21:46 suggests a deliberate attempt to parallel the two on the part of
the evangelist. This parallelism has often been noted in other
elements of their respective ministries, such as the use of identical
exhortations, and is, indeed, a characteristic feature of Matthews
portrayal as a whole.58
The decisive feature of this parallelism, however, is the fate of
Jesus and John. Each dies a violent death. Johns death assumes special significance in this regard since Matthews introduction of
profh/thj at 14:5 (against Mark)59 transmutes the Baptists death into a
prophets death. Johns death, in turn, prefigures Jesus own.60 Instead of placing Johns body in a tomb as happens in Mark (Mark
6:29), Johns disciples come and announce the Baptists death to
Jesus, whereupon Jesus withdraws. The entire episode is calculated to
57
Cousland 03 versie 3
218
08-10-2001, 11:42
foreshadow Jesus own impending fate. As Meier well puts it, when
the Baptists disciples announce Johns death to Jesus, they are announcing Jesus death as well.61 This correlation, in fact, seems to be
the whole point of the parallelism between the twoto bring out the
fate of John and Jesus as prophets of Israel.62
The same theme is clearly in evidence at 17:12. Matthew retains
Marks basic idea concerning the Baptist (e)poihsan e)n au)t%= osa
h)qe/lhsan cf. Mark 9:13), but goes on to speak of the suffering of the
Son of Man: outwj kai o( uio\j tou= a)nqrw/pou me/llei pa/sxein u(p' au)tw=n.
Johns and Jesus suffering are again set side by side, with the initial
allusion to Johns death illustrating what Matthew means by pa/sxein
with respect to Jesus.
Why then has Matthew introduced this concern with the violent
fates of Jesus and John the Baptist into his gospel? In all likelihood he
is drawing upon the topos of the violent fate of the prophets, the
notion that the disobedient people of Israel put all true prophets to
death. The concept is first expressed at Nehemiah 9:26
Nevertheless they were disobedient and rebelled against thee and
cast thy law behind their back and killed thy prophets, who had
warned them in order to turn them back to thee, and they committed
great blasphemiesand grew to be very influential.63 Features of
this pattern can be seen to underlie a number of canonical and extracanonical writings, and by the time of the First Century CE, it
appears that the topos had gained wide currency.64
Odil Steck, in an extensive monograph devoted to the subject,
isolates a distinctive pattern associated with the violent fate of the
prophets:
A Israel, prior to the exile, was unremittingly disobedient
B Yahweh patiently sent prophets to his people to urge them to
repent.
61 Meier, John, 400; Schnle, Jesus, 147; Trilling, Tufertradition, 274; Wink,
John the Baptist, 27.
62 Meier, John, 402; Trilling, Tufertradition, 274.
63 Hans Kessler, Die theologische Bedeutung des Todes Jesu. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung (Dsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1970) 232. On the motif in general, see J.
Dupont, Les Batitudes II 287-317; H. A. Fischel, Martyr and Prophet, JQR 37
(1946-1947) 265-280; H. J. Schoeps, Die jdischen Prophetenmorde in idem, Aus
frhchristlicher Zeit. Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Tbingen: Mohr, 1950) 126-143.
64 Cf. 1 Kgs 19:10,14; 2 Chr 24:19-22; Jer 2:30; 26:20-23; cf. 2 Chr 36:14-16 as
well as Jub 1:12; MartIs 5:12-13. The pseudepigraphical Lives of the Prophets (first
quarter of the First Century C.E.?) mentions the deaths of six prophets, but does not
stress the corporate involvement of Israel in their death, except in the case of Jeremiah (cf. LivPro 1:1Isaiah; 2:1Jeremiah; 3:1Ezekiel; 6:2Micah; 7:2
Amos; 23:1Zechariah son of Jehoiada).
Cousland 03 versie 3
219
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
220
08-10-2001, 11:42
72
Pauls assertion at Acts 22:4 makes this correlation explicit: tau/thn th\n o(do\n
Cousland 03 versie 3
221
08-10-2001, 11:42
death, Matthew has the crowds call John the Baptist a prophet. And,
since Jesus identifies John the Baptist with Elijah in the first gospel
(17:11-13), Elijah too, suffers a prophets death.77
Modifications such as these, therefore, hardly constitute
embellishments. Matthew has altered his sources in such a way as
to evoke the theme of salvation history, and more particularly, the
fate of the prophets at the hands of their countrymen. Matthews
emphasis on the prophetic character and violent deaths of the Baptist
and Jesus certainly indicates that he wished to align both with this
tradition.78 As this tradition has its origin in Nehemiah, Matthew
evidently regards it as topos that has been mediated by the Hebrew
Scriptures.
E The Crowds and Jesus the Prophet
What then are the implications of the crowds use of profh/thj? Until
Jesus arrest, their response to the prophets appears favourable. Their
belief that John and Jesus were prophets consistently holds the leaders
in check, the latter fearing the oxloi (14.5; 21:26, 46). For most of
the gospel, therefore, their response is one that is favourable toward
Jesus and the Baptist. They recognize the prophetic character of the
ministry of both, and are, instinctively at least, far closer than their
leaders to a true appreciation of Jesus and his Elijah.
For this reason, it is mistaken to suppose that the crowds
designation of Jesus (and John) is incorrect.79 While the appellation
hardly discloses the full spectrum of Jesus identity, their remark is
accurate. Allison rightly observes that the crowds which hail Jesus as
the Son of David speak the truth while those in the guilty capital hold
no opinion.80 The crowds identification here and at 21:46 helps to
establish more fully the correlation that Matthew develops between
John the Baptist and Jesus. Further, it helps to situate Jesus in the
continuum of the prophets of Israel, as well as in the future
77 To these examples can be added Matthew 23:34-36, which situates Christian
prophets within this continuum. See further, Deutsch, Lady Wisdom, 68-73; Steck,
Geschick, 28-34.
78 Edwards (Sign, 98) finds an interesting correlation between Jesus and Jonah
(Iwna= tou= profh/tou 12:39 Matthews addition): the mention of the fact that Jonah
was a prophet in that pericope where Matthew stresses the suffering of Jonah and
Jesus . . . would point to the passion of Jesus as the signficant element in the Jonah
comparison.
79 Kingsbury (Comprehension, 374) claims that the crowds incorrectly identify Jesus as a prophet.
80 Allison, The New Moses, 314. Allison (pp. 311-14) provides a detailed refutation
of Kingsburys position.
Cousland 03 versie 3
222
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
223
08-10-2001, 11:42
84 Here, Bar Kochba would serve as a useful analogue. On the contrasting notions
of a human versus a divine messiah, see Martin J. Selman, Messianic Mysteries in
Satterthwaite et al. Lords Anointed, 292-95.
Cousland 03 versie 3
224
08-10-2001, 11:42
F Conclusion
From the foregoing, it can be concluded that Matthew shows little
discernible interest in the notion of the eschatological prophet, and it
is probable that this idea is not in view at 21:11. Instead, Matthew
uses the designation prophet to invoke the established scriptural
topos of the violent fate of the prophets. The crowds identification
of Jesus as a prophet situates him within the continuum of the
prophets, and adumbrates his death. Thus, the reluctance of many
scholars to take the crowds designation of Jesus as o( profh/thj
christologically is well founded. Matthews use of the term is not
chiefly intended to contribute to his Christology, but to evoke
salvation history. He identifies both Jesus and John as prophets to
situate them inalbeit as the culmination ofthe long line of
prophets sent to Israel.
For these reasons one might justly regard the Triumphal Entry as
something of a narrative hinge, joining the two disparate qualities
of the crowds behaviour: the designation prophet joins the
Triumphal Entry to the Passion Narrative. Verse 21:11 plays a
cardinal role in the Triumphal Entry, and one that ultimately stands
in opposition to Son of David. On the one hand, Son of David in
the crowds mouths encapsulates much of the interaction between the
crowds and Jesus prior to the Triumphal Entry. On the other hand,
the crowds use of prophet anticipates the Passion narrative and
suggests that the very moment of the crowds clearest perception of
Jesus identity is immediately followed by a movement away from it.
As soon as they get close, they begin to withdraw again. Just how
complete their withdrawal is will be examined in more detail in the
next chapter.
Cousland 03 versie 3
225
08-10-2001, 11:42
CHAPTER TEN
A The Volte-Face of the Crowds
The following chapter will examine the place of the crowds in the
Passion Narrative. Its chief purpose will be to consider the nature of
Matthews editorial modifications. Has he attempted to absolve the
crowds of responsibility for Jesus death, to emphasize their
involvement, or neither?
For those who argue that the portrayal of the crowds in Matthew
is uniformly favourable, the part played by the oxloi in the Passion
Account is problematic. Minear and Saldarini, for instance, attempt
to posit a different crowd or crowdsnon-Galilean crowds associated
with the chief priests and elders of the people.1 This is difficult. Are
the crowds mentioned at 22:33 (a)kou/santej oi oxloi e)ceplh/ssonto e)pi tv=
didaxv= au)tou=), who are described as raptly listening to Jesus in the
temple,2 to be construed as Galileans as well? Instead, even if
Matthew does not make the connection explicit, it would seem better
to identify the crowds at 22:33 with those at 26:55. Such, at least, is
the implication of Jesus words: Have you come out as against a
robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in
the temple teaching and you did not seize me (26:55).
This correlation is also supported by Matthews indifferent use of
the plural and singular to characterize the crowds that come to arrest
Jesus (26:47 oxloj polu/j // Mark 14:43 oxloj; 26:55 toi=j oxloij no
//).3 On the one occasion where Matthew apparently depicts a
crowd distinct from the masses (9:23,25), he uses the singular in both
instances, emphasizing thereby the singular character of the group.4
One would anticipate that if Matthew were intent on distinguishing
this one group from the crowds as a whole, he would have made this
same distinction here.5 One can further add that Matthew moves
1
Minear, Crowds, 35; Blomberg (Matthew, 412) would distinguish Galilean
crowds from Jerusalem natives, while Saldarini (Christian-Jewish Community, 38)
would associate one crowd with the arrest and another with the trial before Pilate.
2 It is presupposed from 21:23 to 24:1 that Jesus is in the temple. Verse 21:26 also
presupposes an audience composed of the crowdsotherwise the leaders would not
have been afraid to reply to Jesus concerning Johns baptism.
3 Brown, Death I 282.
4 Both 9:23 and 9:25 are editorial.
5 Obviously, the point cannot be pressed too far.
Cousland 03 versie 3
227
08-10-2001, 11:42
6 The same vacillation is evident in the trial sequence: Matthew refers to the
crowd at 27:15 and 27:24 and to the crowds at 27:20.
7 Van Tilborg, Leaders, 159.
8 Davies and Allison (DA III 588#42) draw attention to the change in attitude of
the people towards Jeremiah in Par. Jer 9.1-3. They finally stone him.
9 So too DA III 588.
Cousland 03 versie 3
228
08-10-2001, 11:42
10
Cousland 03 versie 3
229
08-10-2001, 11:42
the act of betrayal and the deliverance into the hands of sinners the
entire Passion is defined.17
Both the immediate and the broader application of the phrase
have a bearing on the crowds as such. Matthews treatment of them
here and in the later Passion Narrative makes it abundantly clear that
their actions are to be explained as the fulfilment of scripture.18 Like
Mark, he refers to Jesus hour being at hand (hggiken h( w=ra 26:45
// Mark 14:41), but goes on to add in that hour (en e)keinv tv= wr#
26:55) precisely at the moment when Jesus addresses the crowds.19
The effect is to provide an implicit answer to the question that Jesus
poses to the crowdswhy is it that they did not seize him in the
Temple?it was because the fore-ordained hour had not yet arrived.
Now, however, with Judas arrival, the hour has also arrived, and in
full accordance with the scriptures Jesus is seized by the crowds and
betrayed into the hand of sinners.20
Thus, in the first gospel, it is Gods foreordained economy that
ultimately helps to account for the disposition of the crowds. Both
their receptivity to Jesus and their later repudiation of him become
understandable within the context of Gods divine plan. Their
reactions simply reflect Gods timing and Gods purposes. Matthew
indicates that Jesus is well aware of the fact, which is why, at 26:54,
he rebukes the disciples for using swords. The moment had arrived,
the time for the Scriptures to be fulfilled, and Jesus would have
nothing interfere with their fulfilment.21 Gods plan, as reflected in ai
grafai tw=n profhtw=n, must transpire in Gods time. In Matthews
gospel it does, and under the influence of the Jewish leaders the
crowds join with Judas and arrest Jesus.
17 Senior, Passion, 154; DA III 516. This can also be inferred from the relative
scarcity of Reflexionszitate in the actual Passion Account (cf. Rothfuchs, Erfllungszitate,
176), which effectively places more emphasis on this passage and its relation to the
Passion.
18 It goes without saying that the role of the oxloi is but one strand of the nexus of
events to which olon refers. Nevertheless, the fact that Jesus addresses these remarks
to the crowds is telling.
19 In Matthew, e)n e)keinv tv= w
r# is only used once, at 18:1, to indicate a temporal
transition, with no previous reference to wra. Otherwise, the phrase occurs most
frequently in healing accounts (8:13; 9:22; 15:28; 17:18), and indicates that the healing took place immediately. At 10:19 in that hour refers back to 10:18 and the
moment when the disciples would be dragged before governors and kings to give
testimony.
20 Note Matthews use of e)ggi//zw to signify both the arrival of Judas (26:46) and the
arrival of Jesus wra (26:45). When one has arrived so has the other. Cf. Brown,
Death, I 245.
21 Frank Matera, Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies: Interpreting the Synoptics through
their Passion Stories (New York: Paulist, 1986) 97.
Cousland 03 versie 3
230
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
231
08-10-2001, 11:42
27 Mark 15:9 reads: qe/lete a)polu/sw u(min to\n basile/a tw=n 'Ioudaiwn as against
Matthew 27:17: tina qe/lete a)polu/sw u(min, [)Ihsou=n to\n] Barabba=n h 'Ihsou=n to\n lego/menon
Xristo/n.
28 Walker, Heilsgeschichte, 47. As part of this Entweder-Oder, Matthew has also
remodelled Marks framework so that Jesus and Barabbas are not discussed
alternately, but as a pair. See Senior, Passion, 241.
29 Gundry, Matthew, 563; J. Wellhausen, Das Evangelium nach Matthus (Berlin: G.
Reimer, 1904) 137.
30 Walker, Heilsgeschichte, 47. Davies and Allison (DA III 585) note that if e)pi/shmon
(27:15) is to be translated as notorious, then this translation makes the crowds
choice all the more odious.
31 Probably, as Senior suggests (Passion, 236), this reflects dependence on Mark
15:8.
32 Gundry, Matthew, 560; Trilling, Israel, 73; Senior (Passion, 236) remarks that,
the tonality between the two words is decidedy different. In a sense to choose
(qe/lw) is prior to and determinative of what one demands or requests (ai)te/w) . . .
the verb qe/lw is more subjective and decisionalit refers to a persons choice or
desire. The verb ai)te/w is used as the expression of that choice.
33 Brown, Death I 795#13.
Cousland 03 versie 3
232
08-10-2001, 11:42
34 Senior, Passion, 240 also mentions Marks threatening kai a)naba\j o( oxloj hrcato
ai)teisqai ktl (Mark 15:8a), which Matthew replaces by sunhgme/nwn ou)=n au)tw=n
(27:17), but the threatening character of Marks phrase is, at best, ambiguous.
35 Cf. Matthews inclusion of eipan at 27:21. See, as well, Lohmeyer, Matthus,
385; Trilling, Israel, 73.
36 Trilling (Israel, 74) asserts that Matthus zeichnet nicht eine tumultarische
Volksszene sondern einen fast nchternen, klaren, doch gerade deshalb
erschreckend kalten, fast gesetzmssig verlaufenden Vorgang. Zwischen Pilatus und
dem Volk findet weniger ein dramatisches Ringen um Freigabe und Verurteilung, als
ein trockenes Zwiegesprch statt.
37 Trilling (Israel, 73) does, however, recognise these details.
38 Lagrange, St. Matthieu, 522 and Senior, Passion, 248#2. Strangely, Senior seems
to miss the distinction between pei/qw and a)nasei/w. He claims (Passion, 248) that
pei/qw is a much more common word for invite or persuade. Yet, pei/qw is by no
means a more common word for invite, as both BAGD and LSJ attest.
39 Gundry, Matthew, 562, and see Ogawa, Lhistoire, 221#128.
40 As Hill (Matthew, 351) would argue. See Burnett, Testament, 407-408, as well.
Cousland 03 versie 3
233
08-10-2001, 11:42
41
Gundry (Matthew, 563) notes that Matthew reserves the historical present of
le/gw for sayings he wants to emphasize. See also Van Tilborg, Leaders, 94. Mark has
the aorist ekracan (Mark 15:13).
42 Harrington (Matthew, 389,391) suggests that the crowds response is phrased in
the language of a legal decision.
43 Senior (Passion, 251) relates that Matthew takes pains to note that the choice of
Barabbas over Jesus has been ratified by all the people.
44 See Fenton, Saint Matthew, 435; Gundry, Matthew, 564; Ogawa, Lhistoire,
445#115; Strecker, Weg, 116; Trilling, Israel, 74 (who sees in it only the exculpation
of Pilate). Against this view, cf. Albright and Mann, Matthew, 345. It may also be that
Matthew simply used the passive out of force of habit, as Senior urges (Passion, 251).
45 Cf. Van Tilborg, Leaders, 94, and Gundry (Matthew, 564) remarks: Atypically he
turns Marks aorist into the imperfect to stress that they repeatedly yelled for Jesus
crucifixion.
46 DA III 589.
47 The crowds reply to Pilate three times in direct speech: 27:21 To\n Barabba=n,
27.22: staurwqh/tw, 27.23: staurwqh/tw.
Cousland 03 versie 3
234
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
235
08-10-2001, 11:42
53
Cousland 03 versie 3
236
08-10-2001, 11:42
DA III 592.
Hans-Jrgen Becker, Die Zerstrung Jerusalems bei Matthus und den
Rabbinen, NTS 44 (1998) 61-62; Brown, Death I 62.
61 Levine, Anti-Judaism, 34.
62 Brown, Death I 62. Stanton (New People, 254) has drawn attention to the standard
pattern of Sin, Exile and Return (S-E-R) to be found in Matthew and other early
Christian writings.
63 The Testament (16:5) goes on to say: You shall have no place that is clean, but
you will be as a curse and a dispersion among the nations until he will again have
regard for you, and will take you back in compassion.
64 One need only consider Peters prophesied abandonment of Jesus. Peter forsakes Jesus, even though he has a far more profound understanding of Jesus than the
crowds ever do.
60
Cousland 03 versie 3
237
08-10-2001, 11:42
gospel (18:21-22). Cargal, for one, has argued that the cry at 27:25
has a double significationthat the crowds call leaves open the
possibility of forgiveness by virtue of Jesus redemptive blood
(26:28).65
The other feature that indicates that the crowds are still in
contention is the narrative of the guard on the tomb (27:62-66; 28:24, 11-15). While the crowds are not specifically mentioned after
27:25, they are apparently alluded to at 27:62-4. There, the chief
priests and Pharisees go to Pilate and ask that a guard be posted on
Jesus tomb so that the disciples would not steal the body and tell the
people (lao/j) that Jesus had risen from the dead (27:64).66 Here, as
Dunn notes, there is a clear distinction between leaders (including
Pharisees) and people.67 Even if the people have joined with their
leadership, they are still distinguished from them.
The second part of the account also appearsinitially, at leastto
presuppose a similar sort of distinction. At the instigation of the chief
priests and elders the guards are counselled (and bribed) to claim that
Jesus disciples had stolen his body while they were asleep (28:1115).68. Here the leaders, having styled Jesus as a deceiver, themselves
assume the role. Even when they recognize that Jesus has risen from
the dead, they buy off the guards (as they had bought off Judas) and
promulgate their lie. Verse 28:15 relates that this lie has been spread
among the Jews (para\ I))oudai/oij) to this day. The passive perfect
diefhmisqh does not allow one to say just who promulgates this lie, but
there is no doubt that, initially, it is the chief priests and elders who
are the instigators. Thus, it would also be safe to say that initially, at
least, it is the people who figure as the dupes of their leaders.
Thus, even though the crowds are no longer explicitly mentioned
after the Barabbas episode, it is evident that they continue to be
manipulated by their leaders. The narrative suggests that there is a
continuing de facto distinction between the people and the leaders of
the people, even if there is not a terminological one. Even after the
symbolic merging at 27:25, Israel is not viewed by Matthew as a
single massa perditionis. The leaders carry on with their wonted deceit,
while the people continue to figure as their uncomprehending
victims.
65
Cousland 03 versie 3
238
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
239
08-10-2001, 11:42
CHAPTER ELEVEN
A Matthew Chapter 13
The next component of the gospel to be examined is Matthews
treatment of the crowds in chapter 13. Most of chapter 13 (verses 152) consists of one of the so-called great discourses, the five
assemblages of Jesus teaching in Matthew that end with the formula
kai e)ge/neto ote e)te/lesen o( 'Ihsou=j tou\j lo/gouj tou/touj7:28; 11:1; 13:53;
19:1; 26:1.1 As the relation of the crowds to these discourses has yet to
be examined, our discussion will begin with that. It will then consider
the place of the crowds in the first portion of the chapter. The
analysis of the crowds up until this point has not taken account of the
Parable discourse in its assessment of the crowds character, even
though the discourse is situated in the heart of Jesus public ministry
and in the very midst of the gospel. The justification for this omission
will be provided below.
B The Crowds and the Great Discourses
Chapter 13 is unique amongst the five great discourses in Matthew
insofar as it is the only one that is directed at the crowds alone. Yet
even if they are the express recipients here, it has been argued that
the crowds are also frequently the tacit recipients of other discourses.
In fact, the question has provoked more discussion than one would at
first anticipate, simply because the presence of the crowds is often
regarded as a marker signalling the onset of one of the discourses.
Other related markers are the appearance of the disciples (maqhtai/),
their approach (prose/rxomai) to Jesus, and their questioning of him.
The designation great discourses is at least as old as Streeter (The Four Gospels,
261). Luz s suggestion (Matthew 1-7, 455#5) that the formula might derive from Q is
perhaps worthy of consideration given Matthews penchant for repeating phrases
from his sources; cf. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 169 -72.
Articles about the discourses and their relation to Matthews overall structure are
legion. For a recent discussion, appraisal and bibliography, see DA I 58-72, though
the triadic arrangement they themselves propose does not quite convince either. It is,
perhaps, best simply to recognize the presence of the five discourses in Matthew and
leave it at that. The very profusion and variety of theories seeking to account for the
gospels structure are themselves compelling arguments against there being one overarching structural rationale.
Cousland 03 versie 3
241
08-10-2001, 11:42
2 For a helpful chart of these markers see DA I 411. Davies and Allison do not,
however, include changes of auditors as one of these markers.
3 David Barr, The Drama of Matthews Gospel, TD 24 (1976) 351.
4 Barr, Drama, 358#14.
5 Keegan, Formulae, 423-24. Keegan is interested in how the crowds are
associated with the discourses. It is not surprising, given his findings, that he relates
them to Kingsburys turning point theory, where, after the parable chapter, Jesus
turns away from the crowds and turns to his disciples.
6 Keegan (Formulae, 416#6,7) observes that the start of the Missionary
discourse has been situated by various commentators over a stretch of nine verses
(9:35-10:5) with similar problems affecting the other discourses: (the Sermon on the
Mount (placed variously at 4:23, 4:25, or 5:1), the Community discourse (variously at
17:22, 17:24, 18:1), and the Final discourse (variously at 23:1, 24:1, 24:3)).
7 Keegan, Formulae, 428-29.
8 France, Matthew, 142-43. As the chart indicates, these features extend over a
wide range of verses proximate to (or part of) each of the discourses and for this
reason do not offer an unequivocal indication of the beginning of the discourses. For
an attempt to tie Matthews narrative to the discourses, cf. Smith, Fivefold
Structure, 544-51.
Cousland 03 versie 3
242
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
243
08-10-2001, 11:42
17 The le/gei at 9:37 is probably derived from Q (cf. Lukes elegen 10:2 to the 70);
cf. Polag, Fragmenta Q, 44-45. Matthews proskalesa/menoj 10:1 // Mark 6:7
proskaleitai, // Luke 9:1 sugkalesa/menoj. The conclusion at 11:1 is without parallel.
18 J. Dupont (Le Chapitre des Paraboles, NRTh 89 (1967) 816) remarks that ici
[sc. 13:34] du moins, Mt a pris soin dajouter le mot foules, qui se ne trouvait pas
dans le parallle Mc.
Cousland 03 versie 3
244
08-10-2001, 11:42
19 Matthew appears to forget that Jesus was on a boat, even if one commentator
has suggested that the disciples were on the boat with Jesuscf. Grundmann,
Matthus, 340. Gnilka (Matthusevangelium, I 483) is probably right, however, in saying
that nicht die historische Situation diktiert die Feder...sondern der Inhalt von Frage
und Antwort.
20 Hans-Josef Klauck (Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten [NTAbh 13;
Mnster: Aschendorff, 1978] 244) remarks Doch markiert Matthus 13,10 durch
proselqo/ntej eine Distanzierung der Jnger von der Volksmenge. Cf. Carter and
Heil, Matthews Parables, 66; Gnilka, Verstockung, 90.
21 Robertson (Grammar, 707) and Moulton (Grammar III 45) indicate that e)keinoij
in this configuration is commonly used to refer to those who are absent.
22 Donahue, The Gospel in Parable (Fortress, 1988) 66-67. Matthews practice of
bringing certain characters to the foreground suggests that they alone are being
singled out for discussion (except, that is, when he introduces others later who are
also said to have heard, such as the disciples at 13:10, who had not previously been
mentioned).
23 Barr (Drama, 352) is not alone in regarding chapter 23 as part of the Final
Discourse. See also Edgar Krentz, Community and Character: Matthews Vision of
the Church in SBL 1987 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 567; Luz,
Matthew 1-7, 44; and Kari Syreeni, Making, 96.
24 The disciples have been added; Mark only mentions the great crowd (Mark
12:37).
Cousland 03 versie 3
245
08-10-2001, 11:42
13:3) at 24:3. Once more, the crowds, as in Chapter 13, would only
be present for part of the discourse.25
Having said this, chapter 23 should probably not be regarded as a
constituent of the Final discourse. Those who do consider it to be
such contend that the changes of audience and setting are not
uncommon in Matthews discourses, since the very same thing
happens in chapter 13. Krentz has further argued that Matthews
omission of Marks pericope of the widows mite (Mark 12:41-44)
indicates that Matthew has created a direct link between chapters 23
and 24. The resulting discourse could then be considered a
commentary on the temple controversies and their implications for
the disciples. This may be so, but it is based on a faulty comparison.
While there is a change of setting and auditors at 13:36, the narrative
intrusion into the discourse is brief. And apart from the narrative
elements at 13:10, which are minimal, the only other intrusion of
narrative into one of the discourses is at 18:21aThen Peter came
up and said to him...,which is not so much a resumption of
narrative as a mechanism for introducing the parable of the
unforgiving servant. In all of these instances, the narrative has been
kept to a minimum. At 24:1-3a, however, the narrative interlude is
far more extensive. Nor is it simply a case of a change of setting and
auditors, since there is also a change in subject matter. While there is
a certain uniformity between chapters 23 and 24-25, one can adduce
as much uniformity between chapter 23 and any of the four
remaining discourses.26 For these reasons, it is more probable that
chapter 23 is not part of the Final discourse, and that the crowds are
not auditors.
To sum up, of the five discourses, the crowds were likely among
the intended recipients of the Sermon on the Mount, (part of) the
Parable discourse, and chapter 23, which, however, should not be
regarded as a part of the Final discourse.27 The implications of these
findings are considerable, and tend to fit with the findings made in
the previous section. The first is that Jesus teaching as represented by
the discourses is imparted to the crowds in a very limited way. While
they are considered recipients of Jesus halachah in chapters 5-7 and
25
Cousland 03 versie 3
246
08-10-2001, 11:42
of Jesus warnings about the Pharisees, they are notably absent from
the other discourses. As they are the implicit object of the Mission
discourse, it does not surprise that they are not included there. More
notably, they are not auditors of the Community discourse.
C The Portrait of the Crowds in Chapter 13
There are four explicit mentions of the crowd(s) in the thirteenth
chapter of Matthew: two at the beginning (13:2 oxloi polloi ... pa=j o(
oxloj // Mark 4:1 oxloj pleistoj ... pa=j o( oxloj) and two in the middle
of the discourse, where the change in auditors takes place. Jesus
speaking in parables to the crowds (tau=ta pa/nta e)la/lhsen o( 'Ihsou=j e)n
parabolaij toij oxloij 13:34) is regarded as a fulfilment of Psalm 78:2.
After imparting this Reflexionszitat, Matthew indicates that Jesus then
leaves the crowds and goes into a house (to/te a)feij tou\j oxlouj hlqen
ei)j th\n oi)kian).
The four verses neatly encapsulate the portion of the discourse
directed at the crowds. In addition to these explicit references,
Kingsbury has argued that there are many more indirect references
to the crowds between 13:2 and 13:36 in the form of the pronoun
au)toij (13:3,10,13,24,31,33,34) or, on one occasion, e)keinoij (13:11).28
Still, Kingsbury overstates his case in claiming that Matthew here
makes of au)toij a terminus technicus designating the Jews.29 At 13:11
au)toij refers to the disciples, while at 13:31-34, as Sanders and Davies
remark, the word is just as likely to refer to both the crowds and the
disciples.30 Certainly the disciples demand for an explanation of the
parable of the Tares (13:36) would tend to support such a view. What
is important for determining the status of the crowds is how au)toij is
used in relation to Jesus disciples.
It has long been recognized that chapter 13 develops a major
contrast between the crowds and the disciples.31 Dupont and Klauck
have observed that Matthew anticipates and prepares for this contrast
in the pericope of Jesus true family (12:46-50), which immediately
precedes the Parable discourse.32 It is here that the antithesis between
the disciples and the crowds is first expressly developed, anticipating
the distinctions to come. As was shown above, the Matthean crowds,
28
Kingsbury, Parables, 13, 47. Cf. 13:3 // Mark 4:2 au)toij; 13:11 // Mark 4:11.
Kingsbury, Parables, 47.
30 Sanders and Davies, Studying, 204.
31 Dupont, Le point de vue, 221.
32 Cf. Dupont, Le point de vue, 239-40; Klauck, Allegorie, 244#296. Of course,
the distinction between the crowds and disciples is made as early as 5:1.
29
Cousland 03 versie 3
247
08-10-2001, 11:42
unlike the crowd in Marks gospel, are not yet doing the Fathers will.
While this does not preclude their coming to do the will of the Father,
it does demonstrate a notable deficiency on their part. Thus, at the
very outset of the discourse, Matthew has introduced a major
distinction between the two groups.
Matthew agrees with Mark in having Jesus direct parables at the
crowd, even if Matthews Jesus is described as speaking to them
rather than teaching them (13:3 kai e)la/lhsen au)toij polla\ e)n
parabolaij, versus Mark 4:2 kai e)didasken au)tou\j e)n parabolaij polla/
kai elegen au)toij e)n tv= didaxv= au)tou= ktl).33 Matthews departure from
Mark can be attributed to a more circumscribed view of teaching34
or, possibly, to less optimistic expectations about the messages
effect.35 Alternately, it may simply stem from a certain disinclination
to style the discourses as teaching.36 In any event, this speaking is
directed at them. This is not to say that the disciples are not tacitly
included, as 13:10 makes evident, but here the crowds are the chief
recipients (cf. 13:34).
Specifically, the crowds are the recipients of parables. Matthew
emphasizes this fact by having the disciples ask Jesus directly why he
speaks to the crowds in parables (13:10). This question is suggestive,
because it might imply, as Jlicher argues, both that the disciples are
familiar with the parabolic method of instruction, and that they find
it a difficult one.37 Yet the difficulty associated with the method is
debated,38 particularly over the question of the disciples own
33
dida/skw as a sign of the turning point of Jesus away from the Jews.
34 For Matthew, dida/skein is related to the exposition of the law.
35 Sanders and Davies (Studying, 209) remark that teaching has the narrower
connotation of enabling someone to learn, whereas speaking may fall on deaf ears,
and that is part of the situation to be described in the rest of the chapter. Their
observation fits well with the use of lale/w at 23:1, where Jesus warnings about the
Pharisees are directed at both the disciples and the crowds.
36 Keegan (Formulae, 420#26) observes that Matthew uses dida/skw at the
beginning of the first discourse and never again at any point in any of the
discourses. The same holds true for didaxh/, which is found at the end of the first
discourse and not in any of the other discourses.
37 A. Jlicher (Die Gleichnisreden Jesu [Freiburg: Mohr, 1899] II 32) accounts it so
eine schwere, vielverlangende Lehrweise. In Mark, those who were about him with
the twelve asked him concerning the parables (Mark 4:10). Most of 13:10 is a
reformulation of 13:3, though Matthews customary prose/rxomai is in evidence.
38 See Bastiaan Van Elderen, The Purpose of Parables according to Matthew
13:10-17 in R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney (eds.), New Dimensions in New
Testament Study (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974) 189. He opines that for Matthew,
parables are not intended to conceal truth from the masses but to clarify and
illustrate.
Cousland 03 versie 3
248
08-10-2001, 11:42
capacity to understand it.39 Is parabolic speech a propaedeutic designed to enable the hearer to penetrate the mysteries of the kingdom,
or is it enigmatic speech intended to confound its auditor? What can
be said for certain is that Matthew attaches considerable significance
to the word parabolh/. Even though the word is not found in the
gospel prior to chapter 13, it suddenly occurs eleven times within the
compass of the chapter.40 How then does Matthew understand the
word?
D Parables
As is well known, parabolh/ is derived from paraba/llw meaning, I
throw beside or by, a sense that suggests its typical meanings in
classical Greek of comparison, illustration or analogy.41
Traditionally, however, parabolh/ in the New Testament has been
regarded as semantically more akin to the lvm of the Hebrew
Scriptures.42 John Sider, however, has contested this insight, and
argued that analogy is the decisive component of the synoptic
parables. He claims that From all the gospel applications of parabol
to particular sayings, it is clear that the center of the field of meaning
is still just what it was for Aristotleillustration by analogy.43
39 In Kingsburys view (Parables, 48-49), for instance, the disciples comprehend the
parables as a matter of course, while for Dan O.Via (Matthew on the
Understandability of the Parables, JBL 84 (1965) 432) the disciples have understanding because they have the special privilege of private explanations.
40 Though this emphasis is more pronounced in Matthew, with 11 of the 16
instances of the word occurring in the chapter, it is also strongly evident in Mark with
7 of 12 instances of the word present in Marks chapter 4.
41 LSJ s.v. parabolh/. This is the sense in which Aristotle uses it in the Rhetoric
(1393a-b), where it is defined (along with the fable) as being one of the two kinds of
paradei/gmata. E. M. Cope, in his commentary on Aristotles Rhetoric (The Rhetoric of
Aristotle with a Commentary, rev. J. E. Sandys, [New York: Arno (1877) 1973] II 198),
suggests that Aristotle distinguishes parable in general from fable by this; that the
former depicts human relations (in which the New Testament parable coincides with
it); it invents analogous cases, which are not historical, but always such as might be so;
always probable, and corresponding with what actually occurs in real life. The fable
is pure fiction, and its essential characteristic is that it invests beasts, birds, plants, and
even things inanimate with the attributes of humanity.
42 Jlicher, Gleichnisreden, II 33-42; J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (Rev. Ed.
London: SCM, 1972) 20; Donahue, Gospel, 5; Keener, Matthew, 371-5. For an
indication of the semantic breadth of the term lvm, see the overview in Madeline
Boucher, The Mysterious Parable: A Literary Study (CBQMS 6; Washington: C.B.A.A.,
1977) 87-88.
43 John W. Sider, The Meaning of Parabol in the Usage of the Synoptic
Evangelists, Bib 62 (1981) 453-70. Curiously, Sider does not discuss (nor even refer
to) Aristotles Rhetoric. He suggests (470) that the usage of Matthew and Mark is
confined to analogy of equation describing an event.
Cousland 03 versie 3
249
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
250
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
251
08-10-2001, 11:42
55
Cousland 03 versie 3
252
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
253
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
254
08-10-2001, 11:42
75
Cousland 03 versie 3
255
08-10-2001, 11:42
81
For a useful recent discussion of Matthews parable of the Sower and its
interpretation, see Hultgren, Parables, 180-202.
82 The verb suni/hmi is not found in Marks or Lukes version. Given the words
prominence in Matthew (Matthew 9 Mark 5 Luke 4), its presence here is best taken
as editorial. Cf. Hultgren, Parables, 195.
83 Van Tilborg (Jewish Leaders, 43) would identify those sown on the path with the
Jewish leaders. Yet given their association in the gospel with the term ponhro/j (9:4;
12:34; 22:18; cf. 12:39,45; 16:4) it is more likely that the leaders are to be connected
with the activity of o( ponhro/j (contrast Marks o( Satana=j Mark 4:15).
84 Cf. Jesus emphatic introduction to the interpretation: umeij oun a)kou/sate th\n
parabolh\n tou= speirantoj (no //).
Cousland 03 versie 3
256
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
257
08-10-2001, 11:42
88 Levine, Salvation History, 255. By the previous narrative section, she means
chapters 11 and 12. Lambrecht (Treasure, 155) tries to make the same point by
associating the crowds with Jesus condemnation of the Pharisees at 12:34. It can be
said, however, that Matthew 13:1-23 does follow smoothly as a continuation of
12:46-50.
89 Luz (Theology, 2, 86-7; Matthus 8-17, 311-12) remarks on this problem.
90 This shift in emphasis is largely derived from Mark since, in the second half of
the gospel, Matthew conforms to Marks order far more closely than he does in the
first half.
Cousland 03 versie 3
258
08-10-2001, 11:42
There are several reasons for adopting this evaluation. The first, as
Zumstein argues, is that the distinction between the disciples and
crowds is so sharp that it requires a later situation in the life of the
church (post 70 CE) to be explicable.94 His view finds confirmation in
the fact that the interpretation of the parable of the Sower presents an
unequivocal judgement on the status of the crowds. The very fact that
such a judgement could be ventured suggests a measure of distance
on the part of Matthew and his community. The people of Israel
have received the word, but have failed, thus far, to respond to it.
This is to presuppose, however, that there is a transparent portrayal
of the crowds. Whether such an assumption is actually warranted will
be the focus of the next section.
H Conclusion
The discussion of the five discourses concluded that the crowds were
among the intended recipients of the Sermon on the Mount, (part of)
the Parable discourse, and chapter 23, though this chapter is not part
of the Final discourse. That the crowds do not figure among the
recipients of the Mission, Community or Final discourses provides
Cousland 03 versie 3
259
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
260
08-10-2001, 11:42
PART IV
CONCLUSION
The Role of the Crowds: Their Situation In many respects, this portrayal of
the crowds is the antithesis of the portrayal of the crowds in the
previous section. There they understood something of Jesus; here
they do not. There they acclaimed him; here they revile him. There
they followed the Good Shepherd; here they follow the evil
shepherds. Nevertheless, their fundamental identity has not changed.
For Matthew, the crowds are still representative of Israel. He has
simply drawn upon another characterization of the people of Israel
already present in the Scriptures. Here he employs the topos of the
people of Israel that characterizes them as deficient in understanding
and hostile to the messengers sent by God. Where the narrative in the
previous section showed them moving ever closer to a proper
understanding of Jesus, this part of the narrative displays a profound
move in the opposite directionby the gospels end they have joined
with their leaders, even if a tacit distinction between the crowds and
their leadership remains.
The Role of the Crowds: Their Unfavourable Portrayal Two features
contribute to the unfavourable depiction of the crowds. The first is
their complicity in Jesus arrest and death. This negative
characterization is, apart from chapter 13, first adumbrated in the
crowds formal declaration of Jesus as a prophet in the Triumphal
Entry. Yet, where their declaration of Jesus as Son of David had
commemorated the Messiahs advent, their declaration of Jesus as a
prophet portends his violent departure. The crowds rejection of Jesus
becomes explicit in the Passion Narrative, where, under the sway of
their leadership, they reject the prophet Jesus and call for his death.
The crowds second unfavourable trait is their deficient
understanding. Matthews Jesus indicates that it has not been given to
them to penetrate the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven (13:10-23).
Just as the prophets of old had not been fully understood by Israel, so
now do the crowds fail to appreciate fully Jesus words and his person.
The Function of the Crowds: Christology The unfavourable role of the
crowds also serves to develop Matthews Christology. The crowds
declaration of Jesus as prophet does not evoke the Eschatological
Cousland 03 versie 3
261
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
262
08-10-2001, 11:42
PART V
TRANSPARENT CROWDS
As was pointed out in Chapter One above, the crowds in Matthew
have frequently been regarded as transparent for the situation in
Matthews own day. In addition, the last chapter assumes that the
oxloi in Matthew 13 are best regarded, not as historical, but as
transparent crowds. The purpose of the present section is to test the
legitimacy of these assumptions. Is it warranted to interpret the
crowds transparently? If it is, for whom are the crowds transparent
Jews, Gentiles, or members of the church? The following
examination will consider each one of these possibilities in turn. It
will close with a consideration of the functions of the crowds within
the gospel, particularly in relation to the transparent crowds.
Cousland 03 versie 3
263
08-10-2001, 11:42
CHAPTER TWELVE
A Historicized Groups in Matthew?
The two preceding sections have analyzed the two antinomous
portrayals of the crowds. Both the favourable and unfavourable
features are deliberately emphasized by the evangelist. Paradoxically,
the crowds adulation of Jesus as the Son of David at the Triumphal
Entry and their acceptance of responsibility for his death at 27:25 are
both entirely characteristic features of Matthews authorial activity.
This paradox naturally raises the question why Matthew should have
heightened both aspects of the crowds so markedly. Why does he
introduce two topoi that present an inherently contradictory
portrayal of the people of Israel (i.e., the crowds)?
One explanation is to interpret the crowds historically and
dispense with any transparent interpretation.1 On this reading,
Matthew takes the crowds as an exemplar of the outworking of the
Deuteronomistic ethic. Just as Moses presented the people of Israel
with a choice between the way of life and the way of death, so too
does Matthew depict the people of Israel choosing first the way of life
and then the way of death. His gospel consistently and relentlessly
blocks out the logic of the two ways. The crowds, on one level,
elucidate the perils of making the wrong choice. From a messianic
idyll, where all their needs were cared for, the crowds end up in a
position of helplessness, with eschatological woe soon to be visited on
them. In the person of the crowds, therefore, Matthew presents every
one of his readers with the same choice. The narrative of the crowds
furnishes an historical object lesson.
To interpret the crowds thus would be to assume that Matthews
portrayal of the crowds is entirely a historicized one. This view, which
is particularly associated with Georg Strecker, argues that the groups
in the gospel ought not to be interpreted transparently, but as figures
belonging to the unrepeatable past.2 Strecker contends that both the
1
Cousland 03 versie 3
265
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
266
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
267
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
268
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
269
08-10-2001, 11:42
25
Cousland 03 versie 3
270
08-10-2001, 11:42
27 Gundry, Matthew, 65. Van Tilborg (Jewish Leaders, 160,161#1,171) also implies
that they were gentile converts.
28 Gundry, Matthew, 318. Cf. Blomberg, Matthew, 245-7; Carson, Matthew, 356-9;
Jeremias, Promise, 35.
29 S. Gibbs, Torah, 45; S. Lgasse, Les miracles de Jsus selon Matthieu in
Leon Dufour (ed.), Les Miracles de Jsus selon Le Nouveau Testament (Parole de Dieu;
Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1977) 246; Luz, Matthew 1-7, 206; idem, Theology, 68; Minear,
Crowds, 39-42. See also Aerts, Suivre, 506; Fenton, St. Matthew, 197; Lohmeyer,
Matthus, 78; Twelftree, Miracle Worker, 108.
30 Aerts, Suivre, 506; Legasse, Miracles, 245-46.
Cousland 03 versie 3
271
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
272
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
273
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
274
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
275
08-10-2001, 11:42
coheres well with Matthews approach toward the Jewish leaders and
disciples, where, mutatis mutandis, the groups do not qualitatively
change. So, too, with the crowds. They remain poised midway
between two groups, except that now the two groups are the church
and emergent Pharisaism.47
Some commentators have questioned the legitimacy of making
such a pat identification. Stanton, for instance, argues that any one
to one correspondence between the crowds and the Jewish
community of Matthews day is too simplistic.48 His objection,
however, overlooks the fact that Matthew has already produced a
simplistic one-to-one correlation in his association of the
historical crowds with the lost sheep of Israel of the Hebrew
Scriptures. Stanton, by overestimating the gentile component to the
crowds, does not recognize that Matthew has already identified the
crowds with the people of Israel,49 and if he has already employed
this sort of typology once, why should he not do so again?50
How then do the transparent crowds figure in the gospel? Not
unexpectedly, perhaps, they are seemingly most in evidence in the
gospel as recipients of the churchs ministry, particularly its healing
ministry. In the Gospel of Matthew, healing is confined to Israel; the
great commission does not include healing in its mandate. The
community apparently undertakes its therapeutic ministry as one
both established and empowered by Jesus Immanuel. Several features
in Matthew would support such an inference, most notably, the openended character of the mission to Israel. While in the other two
Synoptic Gospels the disciples return and tell Jesus what they have
done (Mark 6:30-31; Luke 9:10, cf. 10:17), it does not happen in
Matthew. The mission to Israel is construed as an ongoing one.51
47 In the past few decades it has become conventional to regard Matthews gospel
as the product of a single community, written for that specific community. Graham
Stanton (The Communities of Matthew, Int 46 (1992) 371-91 and Revisiting
Matthews Communities, 9-23) has rightly questioned the legitimacy of this assumption. I would follow him in his suggestion that Matthews gospel is a foundation
document for a cluster of Christian communities (Revisiting, p. 17).
48 Stanton, Revisiting Matthews Communities, 14. His remarks are a direct
response to Anthony Saldarini (Christian-Jewish Community, 38), who states that it 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. Cf. Kupp
(Emmanuel, 68#53), who adopts a mediating position.
49 Stanton, Revisiting Matthews Communities, 15.
50 Matthews typological explanation would also explain why and how he is able to
overlook the various first century Judaisms in his schema.
51 DA II 190; Gnilka, Matthusevangelium, I 403; Sim, Christian Judaism, 158.
Cousland 03 versie 3
276
08-10-2001, 11:42
The same inference can be drawn from the changes Matthew has
made to the Q pericope at 11:2-4. As Schweizer has noted, Matthew
gives Jesus reply to Johns disciples in the present tense. Unlike Luke,
who gives the reply in the aorista eidete kai h)kou/sate (Luke 7:22),
Matthew has the present tensea a)kou/ete kai ble/pete (11:4).52 The
differences in tense and verbal aspect may suggest that preaching and
healing are ongoing in the post-Easter church. The community continues to exercise the e)cousi/a imparted to them by Jesus in their
dealings with Israel.
Some of the pericopae involving the historical crowds are also
suggestive of post-Easter controversies. Obviously, it is
methodologically problematic to take the same narrative to speak to
the historical and transparent levels of a gospel. It may be that there
is no straightforward correspondence, or, indeed, no correspondence
whatever. Sanders and Davies rightly argue that without
independent evidence about each community, it is hazardous to
infer the social context from the text alone.53 Since, however, no
such evidence exists, our only option is to work from the text alone,
while recognizing full well the speculative and tentative character of
such a proceeding.
With this caveat, there are two pericopae that point to the
therapeutic activity of Matthews church amongst transparent
crowds: the cognate exorcisms of 9:32-34 and 12:22-24. The fact that
Matthew has emphaiszed the passage by transforming the Q episode
into a doublet is itself suggestive. Several features in the two
narratives indicate a post-Easter purview. The explicit introduction of
the Pharisees as Jesus antagonists is noteworthy; they are not
mentioned by either Mark or Luke (Mark 3:22 has the scribes from
Jerusalem, while Luke 11:15 has some of them). In Matthew, the
Pharisees have become the chief disputants with Jesus, and, as argued
above, figure as transparent symbols of the rabbis and synagogue
leaders of Matthews day.54 Their Streitgesprche with Jesus may
additionally mirror ongoing controversies between the church and
Jewish authorities, and, in particular, christological controversies.
52 Schweizer, Gemeinde, 21. Christoph Burger (Jesu Taten nach Matthus 8 und
9, ZTK 70 (1973) 287) sees in the miracle chapters themselves (8:1-9:34) an outline
of the activity of the church: Matthus bietet nicht einfach eine Sammlung von
Wundertaten Jesu. Mit Hilfe berlieferter Taten und Worte Jesu umreisst er das
Wunder der Kirche Christi.
53 Sanders and Davies, Studying, 221.
54 DA II 139. In the discussion that follows, it will be assumed that the Pharisees
represent the rabbis and synagogue leaders of Matthews day, and the crowds the
transparent crowds.
Cousland 03 versie 3
277
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
278
08-10-2001, 11:42
61 On only one occasion do the crowds respond to Jesus healing activity when the
Jewish leaders are absent (15:31). The one miracle where the crowds do not figure is
the healing on the sabbath 12:9-14 // Mark 3:1-6 // Luke 6:6-11.
62 E. P. Sanders (Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah [London: SCM, 1990] 240)
contends that the historical Pharisees seem to have had a very appreciable public
following and to have been admired and respected. Oppenheimer (The Am HaAretz, 159-60) similarly argues for cordial relations between the Pharisees and the am
ha-aretz, but he only adduces one text, which does not, of itself, support the weight he
places on it.
63 Brown, Death II 1431. There is also one reference to the Pharisees at John 18:3.
64 Cf. John 7:12, where some members of the crowds say of Jesus: he is leading
the people (plan#= to\n oxlon) astray. Matthews gospel also eliminates those features
of Mark, which might make Jesus look like a magician. His very care to eliminate
these features might suggest that he had reasons, apart from his Christology for doing
so. See further, Wilson, Related Strangers, 53.
65 Morton Smiths (Jesus the Magician, 31-33) views on this question are suggestive,
if overstated.
Cousland 03 versie 3
279
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
280
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
281
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
282
08-10-2001, 11:42
simply in Matthew, but in the entire NT, where the word almost
always signifies a nation or people.81 Saldarini rightly observes
that that in the Hellenistic period the word eqnoj has other specialized
meanings apart from people and nation, but he is quite unable,
apart from the verse in question, to adduce a single instance where
Matthew employs one of these specialized meanings.82 Nor is
Saldarinis reluctance to classify Christians as an eqnoj warranted.
1 Peter, which may be roughly contemporaneous with Matthews
gospel or slightly later, is able to address its readers with the following
paraphrase of Exodus 19:6: But you are a chosen race, a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, Gods own people (umeij de\ ge/noj
e)klekto/n, basileion iera/teuma, eqnoj agion, lao\j ei)j peripoihsin 1 Peter
2:9).83 If the author of this epistle appears to have no reservations
about describing Christians as a distinct nation and people, it should
hardly be problematic for Matthew to do so. Jesus statement at
21:43, therefore, is best understood as marking the transference of the
Kingdom of God from the Jewish leadership to a new nation.
This still leaves the question of the parables recipients. Can the
Jewish leaders be understood, as Wilson suggests, pars pro toto, as
representative of all Israel? The reservations of Sim and Saldarini
would carry some weight were it not for the fact that Matthew does, in
fact, furnish an additional economy that concerns the crowds:
Matthew 13:10-23 functions as a comparable pronouncement.
Matthews gospel contains not one but two accounts of Gods divine
economy, which symbolically encompass all Israel: one for the crowds
(13:10-23), and one for their leaders (21:33-43).
These two accounts have extensive points of overlap in their
respective economies. A detailed comparison reveals very
substantial similarities, not only in vocabulary, but also in conception.
13:11-13
21:43
dia\ tou=to
u(min
a)rqh/setai a)f' u(mw=n
h( basileia tou= qeou=
doqh/setai
poiou=nti tou\j karpou\j84
81
Cousland 03 versie 3
283
08-10-2001, 11:42
85
Cousland 03 versie 3
284
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
285
08-10-2001, 11:42
88
Cousland 03 versie 3
286
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
287
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
288
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
289
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
290
08-10-2001, 11:42
110 Cf. Donaldson, Making Disciples, 41: Within the story of Jesus, the disciples
function primarily as a model of what is involved in being a member of Jesus
people.
Cousland 03 versie 3
291
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
292
08-10-2001, 11:42
111
Cousland 03 versie 3
293
08-10-2001, 11:42
E Matthews Sitz-im-Leben
Cousland 03 versie 3
294
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
295
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
DA III 586.
296
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
297
08-10-2001, 11:42
PART V
CONCLUSION
The Identity and Situation of the Crowds As Chapter One indicated,
scholars have identified the transparent crowds in various ways. Some
argued that no identification is required, since the crowds are
historicized figures and not transparent. Others argued that they
represented members of Matthews community, while others yet held
that they were figurative for the Jews. None of these views is
entirely accurate. The crowds do indeed represent Jews who have not
joined Matthews community. Nevertheless, they are perceived as
being distinct from their leadership, and are regarded as having the
potential to join the church. While their leadership has been
categorically rejected, the people of Israel may yet be granted the
understanding they lack. Their final status remains undetermined.
The Function of the Crowds: Heilsgeschichte Matthews elaboration of a
distinct economy for the people of Israel at 13:10-23 serves to justify
the ongoing ministry to the people of Israel. Where the parable of the
Vineyard indicates that the kingdom has been withdrawn from the
Jewish leadership, the same does not hold true for the people. They,
in contrast to their leaders, are not malign. They are simply without
understanding. Thus, what emerges from the portrait here is largely
the continuation of the salvation-historical trajectory already
established at the historical level. It remains up to the people of Israel
to choose which of their established trajectories they will follow.
Yet, if the peoples final status remains in doubt, Matthew leaves
no doubt about the status of the church. Regardless of whichever of
the two trajectories the Jewish people choose, Jesus church constitutes the fulfilment and culmination of all Gods dealings with Israel.
Matthew represents the transparent crowdsthe people of Israelas
being co-heritors with the church. Yet, whether the people come to
acknowledge that they are heirs, or remain oblivious of the fact does
not appreciably alter the status of the church. It is the true heir.
The Function of the Crowds: Invitation and Apologetic Matthews understanding of the crowds place in salvation history means that he uses
them for two main ends. First, Matthew uses the dual representations
of the historical crowds to invite and admonish the people of Israel.
Cousland 03 versie 3
299
08-10-2001, 11:42
They are urged both directly and obliquely to come to a true understanding of the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, and to
recognize Jesus as Lord. Second, Matthew uses the negative
representation of the crowds to legitimate the churchs status. The
crowds furnish an apologia for the privileged position of the church
within salvation history.
Cousland 03 versie 3
300
08-10-2001, 11:42
PART VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this work has been to provide a detailed examination
of the crowds within Matthews gospel. Its overall mandate was to
determine their identity, role and function within the gospel. To
address these issues, the first section set out to identify the crowds,
and established that they are a distinct and relatively consistent entity,
figuring, along with the disciples and Jewish leaders, as one of the
main groups in the gospel. They are portrayed as being Jewish, and
on occasion, as representative of Israel as distinct from its leaders.
Sections Two and Three addressed the roles of the crowds within
the gospel, and specifically, the ambivalent portrayal of the crowds.
Section Two assessed Jesus ministry to the crowds, and their
apparently favourable responses to this ministry. It concluded that
Matthew draws on the familiar scriptural picture of Israel as a needy
and leaderless flock to give content to the situation of the crowds.
Jesus is depicted as the promised shepherd of Israel who will
shepherd his people (2:6) and care for the ravaged flock of God
(Ezek 34). The two images are designed to complement one another.
In the company of Jesus, the crowds are marked by an increasing
awareness of Jesus identity, which effloresces in their identification of
Jesus as Son of David in the Triumphal Entry. This narrative of the
crowds shows them to be favourably disposed toward Jesus. Their
attitude, however, is not expressive of any commitment to Jesus;
rather, it arises out of their need. It also emerges from their identity as
the people of Israel. They are attracted to Jesus because, as their
promised, God-given leader, he is able to impart to them the
blessings of the messianic age.
Section Three examined the unfavourable depiction of the crowds.
Matthew again invokes a familiar scriptural topos, this time, one of a
misunderstanding Israel that kills the prophets sent by God. The
crowds spontaneously recognize Jesus as a prophet, but under the
influence of their malign leaders in Jerusalem, they arrest him, and
are persuaded to demand his crucifixion. They finish by joining with
their leaders in assuming collective responsibility for Jesus death.
Here Matthews narrative intensifies their complicity to illustrate their
continuity with the image of prophet-killers. At the same time,
Matthew has Jesus emphasize the crowds lack of understanding. The
Cousland 03 versie 3
301
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
302
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
303
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
304
08-10-2001, 11:42
PART VII
APPENDIX
4.25 kai h)kolou/qhsan au)t%= oxloi polloi a)po\ th=j Galilaiaj kai
Dekapo/lewj kai Ierosolu/mwn kai 'Ioudaiaj kai pe/ran tou= 'Iorda/nou.
5.1 'Idwn de\ tou\j oxlouj a)ne/bh ei)j to\ oroj, kai kaqisantoj au)tou= prosh=lqan
au)t%= oi maqhtai au)tou=:
7.28 Kai e)ge/neto ote e)te/lesen o( 'Ihsou=j tou\j lo/gouj tou/touj, e)ceplh/ssonto
oi oxloi e)pi tv= didaxv= au)tou=: 7.29 hn ga\r dida/skwn au)tou\j wj e)cousian exwn
kai ou)x wj oi grammateij au)tw=n.
8.1 Kataba/ntoj de\ au)tou= a)po\ tou= orouj h)kolou/qhsan au)t%= oxloi polloi.
8.18 'Idwn de\ o( 'Ihsou=j oxlon peri au)to\n e)ke/leusen a)pelqein ei)j to\ pe/ran.
9.8 i)do/ntej de\ oi oxloi e)fobh/qhsan kai e)do/casan to\n qeo\n to\n do/nta
e)cousian toiau/thn toij a)nqrw/poij.
9.23 Kai e)lqwn o( 'Ihsou=j ei)j th\n oi)kian tou= arxontoj kai i)dwn tou\j au)lhta\j
kai to\n oxlon qorubou/menon
9.25 ote de\ e)ceblh/qh o( oxloj ei)selqwn e)kra/thsen th=j xeiro\j au)th=j, kai
h)ge/rqh to\ kora/sion.
9.33 kai e)kblhqe/ntoj tou= daimoniou e)la/lhsen o( kwfo/j. kai e)qau/masan oi
oxloi le/gontej, Ou)de/pote e)fa/nh outwj e)n t%= 'Israh/l.
9.36 'Idwn de\ tou\j oxlouj e)splagxnisqh peri au)tw=n, oti hsan e)skulme/noi
kai e)rrimme/noi wsei pro/bata mh\ exonta poime/na.
11.7 Tou/twn de\ poreuome/nwn hrcato o( 'Ihsou=j le/gein toij oxloij peri
'Iwa/nnou, Ti e)ch/lqate ei)j th\n erhmon qea/sasqai; ka/lamon u(po\ a)ne/mou
saleuo/menon;
[12.15] O de\ 'Ihsou=j gnou\j a)nexw/rhsen e)keiqen. kai h)kolou/qhsan au)t%=
[oxloi] polloi, kai e)qera/peusen au)tou\j pa/ntaj
Cousland 03 versie 3
305
08-10-2001, 11:42
12.23 kai e)cistanto pa/ntej oi oxloi kai elegon, Mh/ti outo/j e)stin o(
uio\j Dauid;
12.46 Eti au)tou= lalou=ntoj toij oxloij i)dou\ h( mh/thr kai oi a)delfoi au)tou=
eisth/keisan ecw zhtou=ntej au)t%= lalh=sai.
13.2 kai sunh/xqhsan pro\j au)to\n oxloi polloi, wste au)to\n ei)j ploion
e)mba/nta kaqh=sqai, kai pa=j o( oxloj e)pi to\n ai)gialo\n eisth/kei.
13.34 Tau=ta pa/nta e)la/lhsen o( 'Ihsou=j e)n parabolaij toij oxloij kai xwrij
parabolh=j ou)de\n e)la/lei au)toij
13.36 To/te a)feij tou\j oxlouj hlqen ei)j th\n oi)kian. kai prosh=lqon au)t%= oi
maqhtai au)tou= le/gontej, Diasa/fhson h(min th\n parabolh\n tw=n zizaniwn tou=
a)grou=.
14.5 kai qe/lwn au)to\n a)pokteinai e)fobh/qh to\n oxlon, oti wj profh/thn au)to\n
eixon.
14.13 'Akou/saj de\ o( 'Ihsou=j a)nexw/rhsen e)keiqen e)n ploi% ei)j erhmon to/pon
kat' i)dian: kai a)kou/santej oi oxloi h)kolou/qhsan au)t%= pezv= a)po\ tw=n
po/lewn.
14.14 kai e)celqwn eiden polu\n oxlon kai e)splagxnisqh e)p' au)toij kai
e)qera/peusen tou\j a)rrw/stouj au)tw=n. 14.15 o)yiaj de\ genome/nhj prosh=lqon
au)t%= oi maqhtai le/gontej, Erhmo/j e)stin o( to/poj kai h( w=ra hdh parh=lqen: a)po/
luson tou\j oxlouj, ina a)pelqo/ntej ei)j ta\j kw/maj a)gora/swsin e(autoij
brw/mata.
14.19 kai keleu/saj tou\j oxlouj a)nakliqh=nai e)pi tou= xo/rtou, labwn tou\j
pe/nte artouj kai tou\j du/o i)xqu/aj, a)nable/yaj ei)j to\n ou)rano\n eu)lo/ghsen kai
kla/saj edwken toij maqhtaij tou\j artouj, oi de\ maqhtai toij oxloij.
14.22 Kai eu)qe/wj h)na/gkasen tou\j maqhta\j e)mbh=nai ei)j to\ ploion kai
proa/gein au)to\n ei)j to\ pe/ran, ewj ou a)polu/sv tou\j oxlouj.
14.23 kai a)polu/saj tou\j oxlouj a)ne/bh ei)j to\ oroj kat' i)dian proseu/casqai.
o)yiaj de\ genome/nhj mo/noj hn e)kei.
15.10 Kai proskalesa/menoj to\n oxlon eipen au)toij, 'Akou/ete kai suniete:
15.30 kai prosh=lqon au)t%= oxloi polloi exontej meq' e(autw=n xwlou/j,
tuflou/j, kullou/j, kwfou/j, kai e(te/rouj pollou/j kai erriyan au)tou\j para\
tou\j po/daj au)tou=, kai e)qera/peusen au)tou/j:
Cousland 03 versie 3
306
08-10-2001, 11:42
15.39 Kai a)polu/saj tou\j oxlouj e)ne/bh ei)j to\ ploion kai hlqen ei)j ta\
oria Magada/n.
17.14 Kai e)lqo/ntwn pro\j to\n oxlon prosh=lqen au)t%= anqrwpoj gonupetw=n
au)to\n
19.2 kai h)kolou/qhsan au)t%= oxloi polloi, kai e)qera/peusen au)tou\j e)kei.
20.29 Kai e)kporeuome/nwn au)tw=n a)po\ 'Ierixw h)kolou/qhsen au)t%= oxloj
polu/j.
20.31 o( de\ oxloj e)petimhsen au)toij ina siwph/swsin: oi de\ meizon ekracan
le/gontej, 'Ele/hson h(ma=j, ku/rie, uio\j Dauid.
21.8 o( de\ pleistoj oxloj estrwsan e(autw=n ta\ ima/tia e)n tv= o(d%=, alloi de\
ekopton kla/douj a)po\ tw=n de/ndrwn kai e)strw/nnuon e)n tv= o(d%=.
21.9 oi de\ oxloi oi proa/gontej au)to\n kai oi a)kolouqou=ntej ekrazon
le/gontej, Wsanna\ t%= ui%= Dauid: Eu)loghme/noj o( e)rxo/menoj e)n o)no/mati
kuriou: Wsanna\ e)n toij u(yistoij.
21.11 oi de\ oxloi elegon, Outo/j e)stin o( profh/thj 'Ihsou=j o( a)po\ Nazare\q
th=j Galilaiaj.
Cousland 03 versie 3
307
08-10-2001, 11:42
21.26 e)a\n de\ eipwmen, 'Ec a)nqrw/pwn, fobou/meqa to\n oxlon, pa/ntej ga\r wj
profh/thn exousin to\n 'Iwa/nnhn.
21.46 kai zhtou=ntej au)to\n krath=sai e)fobh/qhsan tou\j oxlouj, e)pei ei)j
profh/thn au)to\n eixon.
22.33 kai a)kou/santej oi oxloi e)ceplh/ssonto e)pi tv= didaxv= au)tou=.
23.1 To/te o( 'Ihsou=j e)la/lhsen toij oxloij kai toij maqhtaij au)tou=
26.47 Kai eti au)tou= lalou=ntoj i)dou\ 'Iou/daj eij tw=n dw/deka hlqen kai met'
au)tou= oxloj polu\j meta\ maxairw=n kai cu/lwn a)po\ tw=n a)rxiere/wn kai
presbute/rwn tou= laou=.
26.55 'En e)keinv tv= w=r# eipen o( 'Ihsou=j toij oxloij, Wj e)pi lvsth\n e)ch/lqate
meta\ maxairw=n kai cu/lwn sullabein me; kaq' h(me/ran e)n t%= ier%= e)kaqezo/mhn
dida/skwn kai ou)k e)krath/sate/ me.
27.15 Kata\ de\ e(orth\n ei)w/qei o( h(gemwn a)polu/ein ena t%= oxl% de/smion on
hqelon.
Cousland 03 versie 3
308
08-10-2001, 11:42
PART VIII
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A Reference Works
Aland, K. et al. (ed.). The Greek New Testament. 4th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies, 1993.
Aland, Kurt (ed.). Vollstndige Konkordanz zum Griechischen Neuen Testament.
Band II Spezialbersichten. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1978.
Bachmann, H. and W. A. Slaby. Computer-Konkordanz zum Novum Testamentum
Graece von Nestle-Aland 26 Auflage, und zum Greek New Testament. 3. Auf.
Institut fr Neutestamentliche Textforschung und vom Rechenzentrum
der Universitt. Mnster. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980.
Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testamentand other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. London/Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.
Balz, Horst and Gerhard Schneider (eds.). Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. 3 Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990-93 (Exegetisches Wrterbuch
zum Neuen Testament. 3 Vols. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1981-83).
Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Cambridge: University Press., 1968.
Brown, Colin et al., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 3
Vols. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1975-8.
Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.
Charlesworth, J. H. (ed.). The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 Vols. Garden
City: Doubleday, 1983.
Freedman, David N. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 Vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Kittel, G. and G. Friedrich (eds.). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10
Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1964-76.
Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott and Henry Stuart Jones. A GreekEnglish Lexicon. 9th Edition with a revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1996.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies, 1994.
Morgenthaler, Robert. Statistik des Neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes. 3. Auf.
Zrich: Gotthelf Verlag, (1958) 1982.
Moulton, James Hope. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. 4 vols. Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1906-1976.
Nestle E. and K. Aland. Novum Testamentum Graece. 26. Auf. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1979.
Robertson, A.T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical
Research. 3rd ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919.
Strack, Hermann L. and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus
Talmud und Midrasch. 5 Vols. 5. Auf. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1965.
Cousland 03 versie 3
309
08-10-2001, 11:42
Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A
New Translation. San Francisco: Harper, 1996.
Wissawa G. (ed.). Paulys Realencyclopdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft.
Neue Bearbeitung. Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmller, 1958.
B Commentaries on Matthew
Albright, W. F. and C. S. Mann. Matthew. AB 26. New York: Doubleday,
1971.
Allen, Willoughby, C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According
to St. Matthew. ICC. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907.
Beare, Frank W. The Gospel According to Matthew. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1981.
Betz, Hans Dieter. The Sermon on the Mount. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. The New American Commentary 22. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
Carson, D. A. Matthew. The Expositors Bible Commentary. 2 vols. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
Davies, Margaret, Matthew. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison Jr. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew.
ICC. 3 Vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988, 1991, 1997.
Fenton, J. C. The Gospel of Saint Matthew. Pelican Gospel Commentaries.
Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963.
Gaechter, Paul. Das Matthus Evangelium. Innsbruck: Tyrolia-Verlag, 1963.
Garland, David E. Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the
First Gospel. New York: Crossroad, 1993.
Gnilka, Joachim. Das Matthusevangelium. 2 Vols. HTKNT. Freiburg: Herder,
1986, 1988.
Grundmann, Walter. Das Evangelium nach Matthus. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament I. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt
(1968) 1981.
Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
Hare, Douglas R. A. Matthew. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1993.
Harrington, Daniel J. The Gospel of Matthew. Sacra Pagina I. Collegeville;
Liturgical Press/Michael Glazier, 1991.
Hagner, Donald. Matthew 1-13 and Matthew 14-28. WBC 33A,B. Dallas:
Word, 1993, 1995.
Hill, David. The Gospel of Matthew. New Century Bible. London: Oliphants,
1972.
Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Lagrange, M.-J. Evangile selon Saint Matthieu. Paris: Libraire Victor Lecoffre,
1923.
Lohmeyer, Ernst, and Werner Schmauch, (ed.). Das Evangelium des Matthus.
4. Auf. Meyer Kommentar. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, (1956)
1967.
Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1-7. A Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989.
Cousland 03 versie 3
310
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
311
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
312
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
313
08-10-2001, 11:42
Brawley, Robert L. Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology and Conciliation.
SBLMS 33. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.
Broer, I. Versuch zur Christologie des ersten Evangeliums in F. Van Segbroeck et al. The Four Gospels. Vol 2. 1251-1282.
Broshi, Magen. The Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 236 (1980) 110.
Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke. 2nd Ed. New York: Doubleday, 1993.
, The Death of the Messiah. 2 Vols. New York: Doubleday, 1994.
, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1984.
, The Semitic Background of the New Testament MYSTERION. Bib 39
(1958) 426-481.
Brown, Raymond E. and John P. Meier. Antioch and Rome. New Testament
Cradles of Catholic Christianity. New York: Paulist Press, 1983.
Brown, Schuyler. The Matthean Community and the Gentile Mission.
NovT 22 (1980) 193-221.
, The Mission to Israel in Matthews Central Section (Mt 9:35-11:1).
ZNW 69 (1978) 73-90.
, The Two-fold Representation of the Mission in Matthews Gospel. ST
31 (1977) 21-32.
Bultmann, R. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Revised Ed. with 1963
suppl. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968.
Burger, Christoph. Jesus als Davidssohn: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung.
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970.
, Jesu Taten nach Matthus 8 und 9. ZTK 70 (1973) 272-87.
Burnett, Fred W. The Testament of Jesus-Sophia: A Redaction-Critical Study of the
Eschatological Discourse in Matthew. Washington: University Press of America, 1981.
Burridge, Richard A. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman
Biography. SNTSMS 70. Cambridge: University Press, 1992.
Cargal, Timothy B. His Blood be Upon Us and Upon Our Children.
NTS 37 (1991) 101-112.
Carlston, Charles E. Christology and Church in Matthew in Van Segbroeck et al.,
The Four Gospels. Vol. 2, 1283-1304.
, The Parables of the Triple Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.
, The Things That Defile (Mark VII.14) and the Law in Matthew and
Mark. NTS 15 (1969) 75-96.
Carter, Warren. The Crowds in Matthew Gospel. CBQ 55 (1993) 54-67.
, Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996.
, Matthew 4:18-22 and Matthean Discipleship: An Audience-Oriented
Perspective. CBQ 59 (1997) 58-75.
, Narrative/Literary Approaches to Matthean Theology: The Reign of
the Heavens as an Example (Mt. 4.17-5.12). JSNT 67 (1997) 3-27.
Carter, Warren and John Paul Heil, Matthews Parables: Audience-Oriented Perspectives. CBQMS 30. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1998.
Cousland 03 versie 3
314
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
315
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
316
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
317
08-10-2001, 11:42
Frankemlle, Hubert. Jahwebund und Kirche Christi. Mnster: Verlag Aschendorff, 1974.
, lao/j. EDNT II 339-44.
Freyne, Sen. Galilee (Hellenistic/Roman). ABD II 895-899.
, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian. 323 BCE to 135 CE. A Study of
Second Temple Judaism. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1980.
, The Twelve: Disciples and Apostles. A Study in the Theology of the First Three
Gospels. London: Sheed and Ward, 1968.
Friedrich, G. khru=c. TDNT III 683-718.
Friedrich, G. et al. profh/thj ktl. TDNT VI 781-861.
Friedrich, J. H. pro/baton. EDNT III 152-53.
Fuchs, Albert. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Matthus und Lukas. Ein Beitrge zur
Quellenkritik. AnBib 49. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971.
Fuller, Reginald H. The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1971.
, The Foundations of New Testament Christology. London: Lutterworth Press,
1965.
Garland, David E. The Intention of Matthew 23. NovTSup 52. Leiden: Brill,
1979.
Gaston, Lloyd. The Messiah of Israel as Teacher of the Gentiles: The
Setting of Matthews Christology. Int 29 (1975) 24-40.
Genette, Grard. Fiction & Diction. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press,
1993.
Gerhardsson, Birger. The Mighty Acts of Jesus According to Matthew. Scripta
Minora: Regiae Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis, 1978-79.
Lund: CSK, Gleerup, 1979.
, The Testing of Gods Son: An Analysis of Early Christian Midrash. CBNT 2:1.
Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1966.
Gibbs, James M. Purpose and Pattern in Matthews Use of the Title Son of
David. NTS 10 (1964) 446-64.
, The Son of God as the Torah Incarnate in Matthew. SE IV=TU 102
(1968) 38-46.
Giesen, Heinz. Jesu Krankenheilungen im Verstndnis des Matthusevangeliums in Ludger Schenke (ed.), Studien des Matthusevangeliums. Stuttgart:
KBW, 1988, 79-106.
Gils, Flix. Jsus prophte daprs les vangiles synoptiques. Orientalia et Biblica
Lovaniensia. Louvain: Publications Universitaires, 1957.
Gnilka, Joachim. Die Verstockung Israels: Isaias 6, 9-10 in der Theologie der Synoptiker. SANT 3. Munich: Ksel-Verlag, 1961.
Goodman, Martin. Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple
in Dunn, Jews and Christians, 27-38.
Goodspeed, E. J. Problems of New Testament Translation. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1945.
Goppelt, Leonhard. Theology of the New Testament. 2 Vols. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1981, 1982.
Goulder, Michael D. Midrash and Lection in Matthew. London: SPCK, 1974.
Grsser, Erich. Jesus in Nazareth (Mark VI.1-6a). Notes on the Redaction
& Theology of St. Mark. NTS 16 (1970) 1-23.
Green, William Scott. Messiah in Judaism: Rethinking the Question in J.
Cousland 03 versie 3
318
08-10-2001, 11:42
Neusner et al. (eds.), Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian
Era. Cambridge: University Press, 1987, 1-13.
Grimm, W. qerapeu/w. EDNT II 143-144.
Gubler, Marie-Louise. Die frhesten Deutungen des Todes Jesu: Eine motivgeschichtliche Darstellung aufgrund der neueren exegetischen Forschung. Freiburg: Universittsverlag, 1977.
Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1-8:26. WBC 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989.
, The Sermon on the Mount. A Foundation for Understanding. Waco, Texas:
Wood, 1982.
Gundry, R. H. Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans, 1993.
, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthews Gospel. NovTSup 18. Leiden:
Brill, 1967.
, On True and False Disciples in Matthew 8:18-22. NTS 40 (1994) 43341.
Gutbrod, Walter et al. 'Israh/l. TDNT III 356-91.
Haas, Peter. The Am HaArets as Literary Character in J. Neusner et al.
(eds.), From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism: Intellect in Quest of Understanding.
Vol. 2. BJS 173. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989, 139-53.
Haenchen, Ernst. Der Weg Jesu. Berlin: Alfred Tpelmann, 1966.
Hagner, Donald. Matthews Parables of the Kingdom (Matthew 13:1-52) in
R. N. Longenecker (ed.), The Challenge of Jesus Parables. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2000, 102-24.
, The Sitz im Leben of the Gospel of Matthew in David R. Bauer and
Mark Allan Powell (eds.), Treasures New and Old: Contributions to Matthean
Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996, 27-68.
Hahn, F. Christologische Hoheitstitel: ihre Geschichte im frhen Christentum. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964.
, Mission in the New Testament. London: SCM, 1965.
Hare, Douglas R. A. How Jewish Is the Gospel of Matthew? CBQ 62
(2000) 264-77.
, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St.
Matthew. SNTSMS 6. Cambridge: University Press, 1967.
Hare, Douglas R. A. and Daniel Harrington. Make Disciples of All the
Gentiles (Mt 28:19). CBQ 37 (1975) 359-69.
Harvey, A.E. Jesus and the Constraints of History. Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1982.
Harvey, Graham. The True Israel: Uses of the Names Jew, Hebrew and Israel in
Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Literature. AGJU 35. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Hawkins, Sir John. Horae Synopticae. 2nd Ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909.
Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. SBLMS
18. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.
Head, Peter M. Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Markan
Priority. Cambridge: University Press, 1997.
Heard, Warren J. Magadan. ABD IV 463.
Hedinger, Ulrich. Jesus und die Volksmenge. TZ 32 (1976) 201-206.
Hegermann, H. doca/zw. EDNT I 348-49.
Heil, John Paul. The Death and Resurrection of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress,
1991.
Cousland 03 versie 3
319
08-10-2001, 11:42
, Ezekiel 34 and the Narrative Strategy of the Shepherd and the Sheep in
Matthew. CBQ 55 (1993) 698-708.
, Jesus Walking on the Sea: Meaning and Gospel Functions of Matt. 14:22-33,
Mark 6:45-52 and John 6:15b-21. An Bib 87. Rome: Biblical Institute
Press, 1981.
, Significant Aspects of the Healing Miracles in Matthew. CBQ 41
(1979) 274-87.
Held, Heinz Joachim. Matthew as Interpreter of the Miracle Stories in G.
Bornkamm et al., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, 165-299.
Hengel, Martin. The Charismatic Leader and His Followers. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1981.
, The Geography of Palestine in Acts in R. Bauckham (ed.), The Book of
Acts in its First Century Setting. Volume 4: Palestinian Setting. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995, 27-78.
, The Hellenization of Judaea in the First Century after Christ. London: SCM,
1989.
, Zur matthischen Bergpredigt und ihrem jdischen Hintergrund. TRu
52 (1987) 327-400.
, The Zealots. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989.
Hill, David. New Testament Prophecy. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979.
, Son and Servant: An Essay on Matthean Christology. JSNT 6 (1980)
2-16.
Hitzig, F. Der Prophet Ezechiel erklrt. Leipzig, 1847.
Hoffman, Paul et al. (eds.). Orientierung an Jesus. Freiburg: Herder, 1973.
Hooker, Morna D. The Gospel according to Saint Mark. BNTC. London: Hendrickson, 1991.
Horsley, Richard A. Galilee: History, Politics, People. Valley Forge: Trinity Press
International, 1995.
, Like One of the Prophets of Old: Two Types of Popular Prophets at
the Time of Jesus. CBQ 47 (1985) 435-63.
, Popular Prophetic Movements at the Time of Jesus. Their Principal
Features and Social Origins. JSNT 26 (1986) 3-27.
Howell, David B. Matthews Inclusive Story: A Study in the Narrative Rhetoric of the
First Gospel. JSNTSup 42. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990.
Hubaut, Michel. La Parabole des Vignerons Homicides. Paris: Gabalda, 1976.
Hbner, Hans. Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition. 2. Auf. Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986.
Hull, John M. Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition. SBT 28. London:
SCM, 1974.
A. J. Hultgren. Liturgy and Literature: The Liturgical Factor in Matthews
Literary and Communicative Art in T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm
(eds.), Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in their Textual and Situational Contexts.
Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995, 659-73.
, The Parables of Jesus. A Commentary. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans,
2000.
Hummel, R. Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum in MatthusEvangelium. 2. Auf. BEvT 33. Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1966.
Iersel, B. Van. Die wunderbar Speisung und das Abendmahl in der synoptischen Tradition. NovT 7 (1964) 167-94.
Cousland 03 versie 3
320
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
321
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
322
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
323
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
324
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
325
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
326
08-10-2001, 11:42
Roberts J. J. M. The Old Testaments Contribution to Messianic Expectations in Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah, 39-51.
Rothfuchs, W. Die Erfllungszitate des Matthus-Evangeliums. WMANT V 8.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag, 1969.
Russell, E. A. The Image of the Jew in Matthews Gospel. SE VII=TU
126 (1982) 428-42.
Ryan, Thomas J. Matthew 15:29-31: An Overlooked Summary. Horizons
5 (1978) 31-42.
Sabbe M. John 10 and its relationship to the Synoptic Gospels in Beutler
and Fortna, The Shepherd Discourse, 75-93.
Safrai, Zeev. The Description of the Land of Israel in Josephus Works in
Louis H. Feldman and Hata Gohei (eds.), Josephus, the Bible, and History.
Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989, 295-324.
Saito, Tadashi. Die Mosevorstellungen im Neuen Testament. Europische Hochschulschriften. Reihe xxiii, Bd. 100. Bern/Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang, 1977.
Saldarini, Anthony J. Boundaries and Polemics in the Gospel of Matthew.
Biblical Interpretation 3 (1995) 239-65.
, Delegitimation of Leaders in Matthew 23. CBQ 54 (1992) 659-80.
, The Gospel of Matthew and Jewish-Christian Conflict in D. Balch
(ed.), Social History of the Matthean Community, 38-61.
, Matthews Christian-Jewish Community. Chicago/London: University of
Chicago Press, 1994.
Sand, Alexander. Das Gesetz und die Propheten. Untersuchungen zur Theologie des
Evangeliums nach Matthus. Biblische Untersuchungen II. Regensberg: Friedrich Pustet, 1974.
, Das Matthus-Evangelium. Ertrge der Forschung 275. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1991.
Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. London: SCM, 1985.
, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies. London: SCM, 1990.
, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63BCE 66CE. London: SCM, 1992.
, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition. SNTSMS 9. Cambridge: University
Press, 1969.
Sanders, E. P. and Margaret Davies. Studying the Synoptic Gospels. London:
SCM Press, 1989.
Sattherthwaite, Philip E. et al. (eds.). The Lords Anointed: Interpretaion of Old
Testament Messianic Texts. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995.
Schelkle, Karl Hermann. Die Selbstverfluchung Israels nach Matthus
27,23-25 in Eckert, Antijudaismus, 148-156.
Schenk, Wolfang. Die Sprache des Matthus: Die Texte-Konstituenten in ihren makround mikrostructurellen Relationen. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1987.
, Den Menschen Mt 9:8. ZNW 54 (1963) 272-75.
Schiffman, Lawrence. The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls: A
Study of the Rule of the Congregation. SBLMS 38. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1989.
Schmidt, Karl Ludwig. eqnoj. TDNT III 369-72.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Die Erwartung des Propheten nach dem Neuen
Testament und den Qumran-Texten. SE I=TU 1963, 622-39.
Cousland 03 versie 3
327
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
328
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
329
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 03 versie 3
330
08-10-2001, 11:42
Thompson, W. G. Matthews Advice to a Divided Community: Matthew: 17:2218:35. AnBib 44. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970.
, Reflections on the Composition of Mt. 8:1-9:34. CBQ 33 (1971) 365-88.
Thyen, Hartwig. Studien zur Sndenvergebung im Neuen Testament und seinen alttestamentlichen und jdischen Voraussetzungen. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970.
Thysman, Raymond. Communaut et Directives Ethiques: La catchse de Matthieu:
thologie morale du Nouveau Testament essai de synthse. Gembloux: Editions
Duculot, 1974.
Tooley, Wilfred. The Shepherd and Sheep Image in the Teaching of Jesus. NovT 7 (1964/5) 15-25.
Townshend, John T. The Gospel of John and the Jews: The Story of a
Religious Divorce in Alan T. Davies (ed.), Antisemitism and the Foundations
of Christianity. New York: Paulist, 1979, 72-97.
Tracey, Robyn. Syria in D. Gill and C. Gempf (eds.), The Book of Acts in its
First Century Setting. Vol. 2. Graeco-Roman Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1994, 223-78.
Trilling, Wolfgang. Der Einzug in Jerusalem Mt. 21:1-17 in J. Blinzler et
al. (eds.), Neutestamentliche Aufstze. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1963,
303-9.
, Die Tufertradition bei Matthus. BZ 3 (1959) 271-89.
, Das Wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthus-Evangeliums. 3. Auf.
SANT 10. Munich: Ksel-Verlag, 1964.
Tuckett, Christopher M. Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q.
Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996.
Turner, C. H. Notes and Studies: Marcan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical on the Second Gospel, Contd. V: The movements of Jesus and
his disciples and the crowd. JTS 26 (1925) 225-40.
Turner, John D. The History of Religions Background of John 10 in
Beutler and Fortna, The Shepherd Discourse, 33-52.
Twelftree, Graham. Jesus: The Miracle Worker. Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 1999.
, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus. Tbingen:
Mohr, 1993.
Tyson, J. B. The Jewish Public in Luke-Acts. NTS 30 (1984) 574-83.
Van Tilborg, Sjef. The Jewish Leaders in Matthew. Leiden: Brill, 1972.
Vermes, Geza. Jesus the Jew. London: SCM, 1983.
Vernant, Jean-Pierre and Pierre Vidal-Naquet. Myth and Tragedy in Ancient
Greece. New York: Zone Books, 1988.
Verseput, Donald J. The Davidic Messiah and Matthews Jewish Christianity. SBL 1995 Seminar Papers. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995, 102-16.
, The Rejection of the Humble Messianic King: A Study of the Composition of Matthew 11-12. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1986.
Via, Dan O., Jr. Matthew on the Understandability of the Parables. JBL
84 (1965) 430-32.
, Self-Deception and Wholeness in Paul and Matthew. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1990.
Vledder, Evert-Jan. Conflict in the Miracle Stories: A Socio-Exegetical Study of Matthew 8 and 9. JSNTSup 152. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Cousland 03 versie 3
331
08-10-2001, 11:42
Vgtle, Anton. Messias und Gottessohn: Herkunft und Sinn der matthischen Geburts
und Kindheitsgeschichte. Dsseldorf: Patmos, 1971.
Volz, Paul. Die Eschatologie der jdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter.
Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1966.
Wacholder, B. Z. Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature. Cincinnati: Jewish Insititute of Religion, 1974.
Walker, Rolf. Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium. FRLANT 91. Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967.
Walter, N. splagxnizomai. EDNT III 265.
, spla/gxnon. EDNT III 265-6.
Watson, D. F. People, Crowd in Joel Green et al. (eds.), Dictionary of Jesus
and the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992, 605-9.
Weaver Dorothy J. Matthews Missionary Discourse: A Literary Critical Analysis.
JSNTMS 38. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.
Weber, Kathleen. The Image of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew
25:31-46. CBQ 59 (1997) 657-78.
Weiss, H.-F. dida/skw ktl. EDNT I 317-19.
, farisai=oj. TDNT IX 35-48.
Werner, Eric. Hosanna in the Gospels. JBL 65 (1946) 97-122.
White, L. Michael. Crisis Management and Boundary Maintenance: The
Social Location of the Matthean Community in Balch, Matthean Community, 211-47.
Wilkens, Michael. Discipleship in the Ancient World and Matthews Gospel. 2nd Ed.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.
Wilson, Stephen G. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians 70-170 C.E. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
Willmes, Bernd. Die sogenannte Hirtenallegorie Ez 34: Studien zum Bild des Hirten
im Alten Testament. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1984.
Windisch, Hans. The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1951.
Wink, Walter. John the Baptist in Gospel Tradition. SNTSMS 7. Cambridge:
University Press, 1968.
Winter, Paul. On the Trial of Jesus. 2nd Ed. SJ 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972.
Wolff, Hans Walter. Jesaja im Urchristentum. 4 Auf. Giessen: Brunnen Verlag,
1984.
Wrede, Wilhelm. Das Messiasgeheimnis in der Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum
Verstndis des Markusevangeliums. 3 Auf. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (1901) 1963.
Zahn, Theodor. Introduction to the New Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1909. Vol. II.
Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel II. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.
Zingg, Paul. Das Wachsen der Kirche. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1974.
Zizemer, Osmar. Das Verhltnis zwischen Jesus and Volk im Markusevangelium.
Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwrde der Evangelisch-Theologischen Fakultt der Ludwig-Maximilians Universitt Munich, 1983.
Zmijewski, Josef. plh=qoj. EDNT III 103-05.
Zumstein, Jean. La condition de croyant dans lvangile selon Matthieu. OBO 16.
Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1977.
Cousland 03 versie 3
332
08-10-2001, 11:42
INDEX OF REFERENCES
1 Hebrew Scriptures
27:22
27:23
27:24
27:25
27:26
Genesis
48:15
49:24
87, n56
87, n56
83
83
83
83
83
Exodus
3:1
4:20
12:37
14:31
15:25-26
15:26
19:6
19:7
87, n57
70, n86
49, n89
130, n25
135
135
283
77, n12
Judges
13:4-7
16:17
215
215
1 Samuel
12:16-18
17:34-35
17:45
130, n25
87, n57
192
Leviticus
13:45-46
21:18-19
24:10-16
15
184, n53
83
Numbers
11:16
11:24
27:12
27:17
34:6
77,
77,
90
87,
67,
n12
n12
n54, 90
n72
2 Samuel
5:1
5:1-5:2
5:2
5:8
7:7
7:12
7:12-14
7:25
24:17
66, 194-195
171
78
184
87, n57
189
182
182, 189
87, n54, 90, n73
1 Kings
Deuteronomy
18
18:15
18:18
27:14-26
27:15
27:15-26
27:16
27:17
27:18
27:19
27:20
27:21
Cousland 04 versie 3
333
4:24
9:5
16:11 (LXX)
17:8-16
17:17-24
19:10
19:14
19:20
22:17
62, n46
182, 189
188, n70
117, n75
137
219, n64
219, n64
146, n6
90, 91
2 Kings
4:1-7
117, n75
08-10-2001, 11:42
4:25-37
4:42-4
5:1-14
137
117, n75
137
118:22-3
129:8 (LXX)
130:8
146
284
84
84, 116, 117
115
1 Chronicles
17:6
21:17
87, n57
87, n54, 90, n73
90, 91
219, n64
219, n64
Ezra
4:10
5:3
62, n46
62, n46
Nehemiah
9:26
219
Psalms
8:3
23:1
23:2
23:3
28:9
32:3-5
41:13
44:11
44:22
59:5
68:35
69:6
72:18
74:1
76:21 (LXX)
77:20
78:2
78:25
78:52
78:70-72
79:13
80:1
89:3-4
95:7
100:3
103:2-3
106:48
110
Cousland 04 versie 3
9:3
221, n73
Isaiah
2 Chronicles
18:16
24:19-22
36:14-16
Proverbs
160, 176
87, n56
169
169
87, n56
116, n66
71, n94
87
87
71, n94
71, n94
71, n94
71, n94
87, n55
169
87, n54,57, 90, n73, 169
247
119, n82
87, n54, 90, n73
187
87, n55,56
87, n56
182
87, n55
87, n55
116, n66
71, n94
179-180
334
3:13-15
6:9
6:9-10
6:10
8:23
9:6-7
11:1
25:6
29:13
29:18-19
35:5
35:5-6
40:11
42:1
42:1-4
53:4
53:6
56:7
56:11
61:1
62:11
63:11
281, n74
79
255, 284
290
61, 62
182
182, 215-216
119
79
115, n59
135
110, n39, 113, 115
87, n56
212, n27
162, 190
117
87, 91, n77
218
87, n57
113, 115, n59
183
87, n54, 90, n73
Jeremiah
2:8
2:30
3:15
7:11
7:25-26
10:21
13:20
22:22
23:1
23:1-2
23:1-4
23:4
23:5
25:4
25:34-36
26:20-23
27:6 (LXX)
30:8-9
87, n57
219, n64
87, n57
218
221, n73
87
87, n54, 90, n73
87, n57
87, n55
87
87, n57
122, 170, n107
182
221, n73
87, n57
219, n64
90, n74
188, n73
08-10-2001, 11:42
30:9-10
31:6-7
31:10
33:14
33:15
50:6
50:7
189, n77
215, n46
87, n56
189
182
87, 90, 90, n74, 91, n77
87
Daniel
Amos
Ezekiel
34
34:2-10
34:3
34:4
34:4-6
34:5
34:5-6
34:6
34:8
34:11
34:11-16
34:11-22
34:13
34:13-14
34:14
34:16
34:17-22
34:23
34:23-24
34:30-31
37
37:24
37:24-25
6:26
130, n25
Hosea
3:4-5
3:5
6:11
9:11
188, n73
189, n77
89, n67
182, 189
Jonah
1:16
130, n25
Micah
5:1
5:2-4
5:4
7:14
78
78
189, n80
87, n56
Zechariah
3:8
9:9
9:16
10:3
11:4-17
11:16
13:7
2 New Testament
Matthew
1-2
1:1
1:6
1:16
1:17
1:18
1:18-21
1:20
1:21
1:22
1:23
Cousland 04 versie 3
335
2:1
2:1-3
2:1-12
2:2
2:3
2:4
2:6
2:20-21
2:23
3:1-2
3:1-12
3:2
3:5-6
3:7
215
208
178, n24
275, n44
223, n81
69, 77-78, 80
70, 75, 77, 78, 79, n26,
81, 82, 93, 292, 301
70, n86
214-216
102
84
102
103
33, 76, 267
08-10-2001, 11:42
3:7-10
3:11-12
3:17
4:3
4:12
4:15
4:15-16
4:16
4:17
4:18-20
4:18-22
4:19
4:20
4:21-22
4:22
4:23
4:23-25
4:23-27:25
4:24
4:24-25
4:25
5-7
5:1
5:2
5:6
5:10
5:10-11
5:12
5:16
5:20
6:1
6:1-18
6:2
6:5
6:10
6:11
6:16
6:30
6:33
7:21
7:21-22
7:22-23
7:28
Cousland 04 versie 3
32
103
213
104
107
61, 63
78
75, 77, 81, 82
102, 104, 111, n46
156
147
162
147, 167
156
145, n1, 147, 167
57, 65, 69, 75, 76, n5,8,
81, 82, 90, n72, 93, 102104, 107, n28, 109, 128,
n13, 166, 171, 189, 242,
n6
53, 54, 111, 147
94
54, 55, 57, 109, 166
97, 165-66, 169
8, 31, n3, 33, n13, 35,
n19, 36, 43, 44, 53, 56,
57, 58, 60, 61-63, 65, 75,
94, n84, 102, 103, 146,
n4, 147, 163, n86,
164, 166, 242, n6
246
33, n13, 35, n19, 134,
242, n6, 243, 247, n32
106, 107, 243, n10
152, n36
152, n36
220
220
132, n34, 135
152, n36, 267, 290, n108
152, n36
246, n26
132, n34, 290, n108
290, n108
150, n25, 151, 272
122
290, n108
47, n76
152, n36
150, n25; 196, n116
272
110
8, 15, 33, n13, 35, n19,
36, 43, 44, 68, 105-108,
336
7:28-29
7:29
8:1
8-9
8:2
8:2-4
8:3
8:5
8:5-13
8:7
8:8
8:10
8:13
8:14-16
8:16
8:16-17
8:17
8:18
8:18-19
8:18-22
8:19
8:19-20
8:21
8:21-22
8:23
8:23-27
8:25
8:26
8:27
8:28-34
8:34
9:1
9:1-8
9:3
9:3-4
9:4
9:6
9:8
9:9
08-10-2001, 11:42
9:10
9:10-13
9:11
9:11-13
9:12-13
9:14-15
9:18-26
9:19
9:21
9:22
9:23
9:25
9:27
9:27-31
9:28
9:29
9:30
9:32-34
9:33
9:34
9:35
9:35-10:5
9:36
9:37
10:1
10:1-5
10:1-42
10:5
10:5-6
10:6
10:6-7
10:7
10:8
10:16
10:17
10:17-25
10:18
10:19
Cousland 04 versie 3
275, n46
120
92
183
170
101, n2
40, 41, 112
40, 146, 158, n61
116, n66
116, n66, 230, n19
35, n19, 40, 93, 227
35, n19, 40, n41, 93, 227
145, n1,3, 146, n6, 163,
n86, 164, 175, 177, n13,
184, 196
112, 113, n51
196
193, 197
193, n102
32, 92, 110, n39, 114,
130, 136, 138-140, 277
8, 32, 33, n13, 35, n19,
42, n52, 43, 53, 70, 125,
n5, 129, 130, n19, 136137, 141, 228
136, 137, 138, 141, 142,
278
69, 88, 90, n72, 91-93,
102, 104, 107, n28, 109,
120, 128, n13, 189
242, n6
33, n13, 35, n19, 86,
88-91, 97, 102, 109,
121, 194, n103, 243-244,
271
244
109, 112, 113, n51, 153,
244, 278
172
88, 156
89, 91, 101, 153, 275,
n45
89-90, 97, 101
70, n83, 88-92, 112, 113,
203, 271
112
102, 104, 111
112, 113, n51
170, n107, 272
69, 77, n13, 128, n13,
289, n104
280, n68
230, n19
230, n19
337
10:23
10:24-39
10:25
10:27
10:34-36
10:37
10:37-39
10:38
10:38-39
10:39
10:41
11
11:1
11:2-4
11:2-5
11:2-16:20
11:3
11:4
11:5
11:6
11:7
11:7-11
11:7-12:50
11:9
11:14
11:14-15
11:15
11:20
11:21
11:23
11:25
11:25-26
11:25-27
11:25-30
11:27
11:28
11:28-30
11:29
11:30
12
12:7
12:9
12:9-14
12:10
12:11-12
12:15
12:18
08-10-2001, 11:42
12:18-21
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:22-24
162, 190
109, n36, 183, 191, n88
183
109, n36,37, 136
10, 32, 92, 114, 136,
190, 195, 277
12:23
8, 32, 33, n13, 35, n19,
42, n52, 43, 44, n58, 49,
129, n16, 130, n19, 133,
n41, 136, 138, 141, 142,
175, 177, n13, 184,
191, 199, 228
12:24
137, 142, 278
12:27
278
12:31
140
12:31-2
92
12:34
47, 256, n83, 258, n88
12:38
267
12:39
47, 80, n27, 222, n78,
256, n83
12:45
47, 158, n60, 256, n83
12:46
11, n33, 35, n19, 40,
n42, 42, n50, 151
12:46-50
16, 150, 154, 247-258
12:46-13:52 260
12:47
42, n50, 150, n28
12:48
151
12:50
150, n25, 151, 152, 153,
159, 272
13
9-11, 13, 16, 20, 94, n84,
105, 107, 150, 161, 205,
241, 246, 249-250, 253,
n64, 258-259, n91, 261263, 284285
13:1
14, n53, 40, n42
13:1-2
79
13:1-23
258, n88
13:1-35
10, 11
13:1-52
22
13:2
31, n3, 35, n19, 36, 38,
42, 247
13:3
40, n42, 247, 248
13:3-34
148
13:9
148
13:10
14, n48, 245-248, 252,
254, n73, 255
13:10-11
79
13:10-13
11
13:10-15
286, n91
13:10-16
161
13:10-17
8, 149, n24, 244-245,
253, n67, 256-257, 260
13:10-18
252-56
13:10-23
257-258, 261, 283, 288,
Cousland 04 versie 3
338
13:11
13:11-13
13:12
13:12-13
13:13
13:13-15
13:14
13:14-15
13:15
13:16
13:16-17
13:16-18
13:17
13:18
13:18-23
13:19
13:20
13:22
13:23
13:24
13:31
13:31-34
13:33
13:34
13:36
13:36-43
13:44
13:44-46
13:45
13:47
13:49-50
13:51
13:52
13:53
13:54
13:54-58
13:56
13:58
14:5
14:9
14:13
14:13-14
14:13-21
14:14
08-10-2001, 11:42
14:15
14:19
14:20
14:21
14:22
14:22-33
14:23
14:26
14:27
14:28
14:28-29
14:30
14:31
14:33
14:34
15:1
15:5
15:7
15:8
15:9
15:10
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:21
15:21-28
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:29-31
15:29-39
15:30
15:30-31
15:31
15:32
15:32-39
Cousland 04 versie 3
339
15:33
15:35
15:36
15:39
16
16:1
16:2
16:4
16:5-12
16:6
16:8
16:11
16:12
16:13
16:14
16:16-20
16:17-19
16:17-20
16:18
16:24
16:24-25
16:25
17
17:5
17:6
17:7
17:8
17:9
17:9-13
17:11-13
17:12
17:13
17:14
17:17
17:18
17:19
17:20
17:22
17:24
17:24-27
18
18:1
18:10-14
18:12
18:14
18:15-18
18:21
18:21-22
18:25
18:27
18:31
18:37
19
08-10-2001, 11:42
19:1
19:1-2
19:2
19:16-30
19:21
19:21-22
19:25
19:27
19:27-30
19:28
19:29
20
20:19
20:29
20:29-34
20:30
20:31
20:33
20:34
21
21:1-3
21:4
21:5
21:8
21:9
21:10
21:10-11
21:11
21:11-12
21:14
21:15
21:16
21:17
21:20
21:21
Cousland 04 versie 3
61, 62, n42, 63, 65, 128,
241, 245
43, n55
8, 31, n3, 35, n19, 37,
43, 109, n37, 110, 145,
n1,3, 147, 163, n86, 164165, 245
15
147, 162
147, 156
126
127, 154
155
145, n1, 147, 153, 154
151, 152, 154-155
258
43
8, 35, n19, 36, 43, n55,
44, 145, n1,3, 147, 163,
n86, 164, 166
109, n35, 166,
166, 175, 177, n13, 184,
194, 196, 197, n117
35, n19, 166, 175, 177,
n13, 184, 193, 194, 196
196
109, n34,35, 163, n86,
164, 166, 169, 193, n102
223
229, n15
229, n15
178, n24, 183
35, n19, 193, n101, 207,
n2
8, 35, n19, 42, n52, 43,
46, 48, 125, n1, 136,
n55, 142, 146, n4,6, 147,
160, 175, 177, n13, 184,
185, n55, 193, n101,
194, 199, 207, 228, 234
207, 208, n5, 223
207-208
8, 22, n82, 33, n13, 35,
n19, 42, n52, 43, 125,
n1, 136, n55, 171, 195,
207, 211, 213- 217, 225
217
111
175, n1, 176, 177, n13,
184, 193, 194
160, 176, 195
218
129, n16
129
340
21:23
21:26
21:28-32
21:31
21:33
21:33-44
21:33-44
21:34-36
21:37
21:42
21:43
21:45
21:46
22:1
22:1-14
22:3
22:6
22:7
22:16
22:18
22:22
22:23
22:33
22:34
22:41-46
22:42
22:43
22:45
22:46
23
23:1
23:1-22
23:2
23:4
23:13
23:14
23:15
23:16
23:17
23:19
23:23
23:24
08-10-2001, 11:42
23:25
23:26
23:27
23:29
23:29-36
23:31
23:33
23:34
23:34-36
23:34-39
23:35
23:37
23:37-39
23:39
24
24:1
24:1-2
24:1-3
24:3
24:14
24:32
24:32-36
25
25:31-46
25:32-33
25:34
26:1
26:3
26:5
26:13
26:17
26:28
26:31
26:35
26:42
26:45
26:46
26:47
26:54
26:55
26:56
26:58
26:65-6
26:69
26:69-75
26:71
27:1
Cousland 04 versie 3
341
27:3-10
27:4
27:9
27:11
27:14
27:15
27:15-26
27:16
27:17
27:19
27:20
27:20-25
27:21
27:21-23
27:22
27:23
27:24
27:24-25
27:25
27:29
27:37
27:58
27:62
27:62-64
27:62-66
27:64
28:2-4
28:9-20
28:11-15
28:13
28:15
28:17
28:18
28:19
28:20
34, 236
235, n52
70, n83
178, n24, 275, n44
129
35, n19, 228, n6, 232
231
231
82, n39, 231, 232
235, 236, n58
13, n47, 35, n19, 42,
n52, 81, 228, 232-233
13, 14
42, n52, 232, 233, n35,
234, n47
136, n55
42, n52, 80, n32, 233234
42, n52, 233-234
33, n13, 35, n19, 44,
n61, 81, 228, n6, 233,
235
8, 16, 33, n13, 235, n51
11, 16, n63, 18, 75, 76,
77, 79, 81-83, 84, 86, 94,
235-238, 239, 265, 288
275, n44
275, n44
157, n53
229, 268, n13
238
34, 238
76, 77, 80-81, 157, n53,
235, 238, 274, 279
238
34
238
229
11, 76, 79, n25, 80, n29,
235, 238, 274, 275, n45,
285
47, n76, 135
112, n48
101
113
Mark
1:1
1:4
1:21
1:21-22
1:22
177, n19
84
128, 171, n108
128, 243, n9
68, 69, 126, n9, 128,
141, n81
08-10-2001, 11:42
1:23
1:23-28
1:27
1:28
1:32-34
1:34
1:39
1:41
1:43
2:1
2:1-12
2:2
2:4
2:7
2:12
2:13
2:15
3:1-6
3:2
3:7
3:7-8
3:8
3:9
3:10
3:13-19
3:15
3:19
3:20
3:21
3:22
3:22-26
3:31-35
3:32
3:34
4
4:1
4:2
4:10
4:11
4:12
4:15
4:25
4:26-29
4:33
4:36
4:41
5:15
5:20
Cousland 04 versie 3
69
128, n13
42, 43, n55, 114, n55,
125, n3, 141, n81
55
171, n108
109, n37
53, 69
194, n103
171, n108
36, 43, n55
34, 132
42
34, n14, 41, n46, 42,
171, n108
132
42, n52, 130, n19,23,
132, n34, 134, 137, 141,
n81
34, n14
39, n35, 145, n1, 146,
157
279, n61
109, n34,37
31, n3, 39, n34, 146, 147
53
39, n34, 54, 61
34, n14, 41, n46, 42
109, n37
89
112
43, n55
34, n14, 36, 41, n46, 42,
43, n55
130
136, 137, 139, 277
32, n5
150
34, 42, n50,52, 151, n32
150, 151, n32
259, n91
34, 42, 247
38, n32, 247, n28, 248
248, n37
247, n28, 252, n61
14, n48
256, n83
252, n61
251, n52
244
34, n14, 37
129, n16, 131
130, n24
43, n55, 54, 58, 129, n16
342
5:21
5:21-43
5:24
5:27
5:28
5:30
5:31
5:34
5:38
5:42
6:1
6:2
6:6
6:7
6:14-29
6:20
6:24
6:29
6:30
6:30-31
6:32-44
6:33
6:34
6:45
6:45-52
6:51
7:6
7:7
7:14
7:17
7:21-27
7:24-30
7:26
7:28
7:31
7:31-33
7:31-34
7:31-37
7:32
7:32-37
7:33
7:37
8:1
8:1-9
08-10-2001, 11:42
8:2
8:6
8:10
8:22-26
8:27
8:28
8:34
8:34-35
9:6
9:13
9:14
9:15
9:17
9:22
9:25
9:26
9:32
9:38
10:1
10:2
10:17
10:24
10:26
10:28
10:29
10:32
10:46
10:46-52
10:47
10:48
10:49
10:52
11:8
11:9
11:9-10
11:10
11:18
11:27
11:32
12:6
12:12
12:17
12:18
12:35
12:37
12:41
12:41-44
Cousland 04 versie 3
343
13:3
13:28
13:28-32
14:2
14:13
14:24
14:33
14:41
14:43
14:49
14:67
14:70
15:4
15:5
15:6
15:8
15:9
15:11
15:13
15:14
15:15
16:5
16:8
245
250
251, n51
76, n6, 80, n28
145, n1
84
125, n3
230
34, 227
106, 229, n13
214
214
129, n16
129, n16
232
34, n14, 233, n34
232
34, 42, n52, 234
42, n52, 233, 234, n41
42, n52, 234
34, n14
125, n3
125, n3
Luke
2:2
2:8
2:15
2:18
2:20
3:7
3:7-9
3:10
4:15
4:16-30
4:23
4:36
4:40
5:6
5:11
5:17-26
5:26
6:6-11
6:7
6:17
6:18
6:22-23
6:23
7:1-10
7:3
7:9
56
87, n52
87, n52
87, n52
87, n52
33, 76
32
171, n108
69
107
250
125, n3
109, n37
39, n34
145, n1
132
130, n24, 131, n27, 132,
n34
279, n61
109, n37
39, 61, n36
109, n37
221
220
113, n53
77, n13
32, 33, n10, 129, n16,
145, n1, 146
08-10-2001, 11:42
7:11-17
7:18-22
7:22
7:24
7:24-28
7:29
8:25
8:35
8:42
8:47
9:1
9:2
9:10
9:10-17
9:11
9:12
9:13
9:23
9:35
9:42
9:57
10:2
10:2-3
10:8-11
11:14
11:14-15
11:15
11:46
12:28
12:32
12:54
14:16-24
14:25
14:27
15:4
15:6
17:7
18:28
18:29
18:38
18:39
18:40
19:37
19:38
19:48
20:1
20:6
20:19
20:21-22
20:26
20:41
Cousland 04 versie 3
113, n53
113, n53
115, 277
39, n37
32
39, n36
129, n16
130, n24
39, n37
39, n36
112, 244, n17
112
276
118
109, n37, 118, n80, 145,
n1, 146, 165
39, n37
39, n36
153, 154
212, n29
109, n37
145, n1
89
89, n66
89
32, 109, n37, 125, n5,
129, n16, 130, n19, 136,
139, n74
32, 136, n56
139, n74, 277
161, n76
47, n76
87
3
221
153
155
87
87
87, n52
154
154
175, n1
175, n1, 193, n101
157, n53
39, n34
193, n98
39, n36
105, n23
39, n36
39, n36
105
129, n16
175, n1
344
20:45
22:28-30
23:1
23:13
23:14
23:27
39, n36
154, n41
39, n34
39, n36
39, n36
39, n34
John
1:28
1:46
2:1-11
2:3-4
3:26
4:29
6:1-15
6:26
7:12
7:52
9:1-3
10:1
10:4
10:5
10:16
10:27
10:40
11:33
11:38
12:13
18:3
21:7
21:16
61, n34
215, n40
117, n75
117, n75
61, n34
139
118
167
279, n64
215, n41
116, n66
170
169, n103
169, n103
170
169
61, n34
193, n102
193, n102
193, n98
279, n63
164, n89
272
Acts
3:10
3:17-26
3:22
4:2
5:12-18
7:37
7:52
15:23
15:41
18:18
22:4
27:35
28:25-6
28:26-27
280
210,
212,
281
281
212,
220,
56
56
56
221,
274
290
253,
n16
n29
n29
n67
n72
n64
Romans
9-11
11:3
285
220, n67
08-10-2001, 11:42
11:7-8
11:25-6
285
285
1 Thessalonians
2:14-15
1 Corinthians
11:1
11:24
220, n67
Hebrews
172
273, n33
11:37
220, n67
1 Peter
Galatians
1:21
1:22
2:9
55
55, n11
283
3 Jewish Literature
a) Apocrypha
29:6-8
Tobit
Enoch
11:7-15
137, n63
Judith
1:9
11:19
62, n42
90
62:12-14
62:12-16
88-90
95:4
9.30.3-5
16:20
4 Ezra
119, n82
1 :19
Sirach
120,
116,
116,
187,
n88
n66
n66
n69
Psalm 151
151:1 (A)
151:7 (A)
119
119, n81
87
116, n66
Eupolemus
Wisdom of Solomon
18:13
38:9-11
38:15
47:3
119
67, n70
119, n82
187, n69
187, n69
16:16
119, n82
Jubilees
b) Pseudepigrapha
1:12
Apocryphon of Ezekiel
1:9
1:1
2:1
3:1
6:2
7:2
120-121
2 Baruch
29:3
Cousland 04 versie 3
119
345
219, n64
219,
219,
219,
219,
219,
n64
n64
n64
n64
n64
08-10-2001, 11:42
23:1
219, n64
Martyrdom of Isaiah
1QapGen
5:12-13
20:12-29
20:16-29
219, n64
116, n66
137, n63
228, n8
1QS
9:11
216
1Q Sa
(1Q28a)
2:5-22
2:11-22
2:17-20
184, n53
119
119
1QSb
(1Q28b)
5:20
191, n89
Psalms of Solomon
17:4
17:5-10
17:21
17:21-3
17:21-27
17:22
17:23
17:24
17:26
17:40
17:40-41
17:44
18:6
182
182
183
182-183
182
183
183
183
183
188
188, n71
255, n80
255, n80
1QM
3:16
5:1
191, n89
191, n89
4Q161
59:3
59:5
60
60.1
5-6
191, n89
4Q OrNab
(4Q242)
1-3
188,
188,
137,
185,
n70
n70
n63
n59
Sibylline Oracles
3.620-623
3.744-751
5.282-283
119
119
119
CD
7:20
15:15-17
Testament of Levi
4Q266
16:3-4
16:5
3 iv 9
237
237, n63
191, n89
184, n53
191, n89
4Q285
Testament of Solomon
1:1
185
4 2, 6
54
62
191, n89
191, n89
191, n89
4Q376
l iii 1
3
Cousland 04 versie 3
346
191, n89
191, n89
08-10-2001, 11:42
Bellum Judaicum
4Q401
23 1
191, n89
4Q432
53
191, n89
4Q504
1-2; 4; 6-7
188
4Q521
2; 13
4Q560
1; 1 1-6
186, n64
11Q11
2.43
2.247
2.458
2.468
2.478
2.480
2.561
3.35
3.46-7
3.47
3.446
4.413-39
5.401
5.412
7.1-4
7.38-40
7.43
7.112-15
7.143-45
7.368
7.407-46
7.408
1
4
27
186, n61
185, n59
185, n59
11QPs a
(11Q5)
27 (1-11)
137, n63
11QpsAp a
(11Q11s)
e) Philo
2; 1-12
137, n63
De agricultura
Vita
26
417-21
41
59
294
187, n67
d) Josephus
De vita Mosis I
Antiquitates Judaicae
6.166-69
7.61
7.198
8.45-48
8.45-49
8.404
12.222
13.257-8
13.393-397
14.74-76
15.254
17.320
60-65
185, n59
184
61
137, n63
185-186
90
61
63, n51
58
58
63, n51
58
87, n57
f) Mishnah
Abodah Zara (A. Zar.)
1:8
55, n8
61, n38
Cousland 04 versie 3
347
55, n8
08-10-2001, 11:42
Berakoth (Ber.)
Shabbat (Shab.)
6:7
8:7
Bikkurim (Bikk.)
6:1
9:2
16:7
22:3
1:10
61, n38
Shebiith (Shebi.)
55, n8
6:2
6:5
6:6
273
273, n38
Demai (Dem.)
6:11
67,
61,
69,
69,
55, n8
55, n8
55, n8
Eduyyot (Eduy.)
Taanith (Taan.)
8:7
3:6
61, n38
Hallah (Hall.)
4:7
4:8
4:11
61, n38
f) Babylonian Talmud
55, n8
67, n72
55, n8
Berakoth (Ber.)
35a
46a
Ketubbot (Ket.)
13:10
n72
n38
n76
n76
61, n38
Erubin (Erub.)
Makkot (Makk.)
53b
2:4
Gittin (Gitt.)
61, n38
44b
2:15
5:5
Hullin (Hull.)
67, n72
55, n8
273, n38
273, n38
7b
215, n41
55, n10
273, n38
Menahot (Men.)
8:3
61, n38
Megillah (Meg.)
17b
116, n66
Nedarim
(Ned.)
41a
116, n66
Nedarim (Ned)
2:4
215, n41
Oholot (Ohol.)
18:7
55, n8
273, n38
Orlah (Orl.)
3:9
55, n8
Sanhedrin (San.)
107b
Cousland 04 versie 3
348
280
08-10-2001, 11:42
g) Jerusalem Talmud
i) Targums
Berakoth (Ber.)
Targum of Isaiah
8
11a (41)
52:13
53
53:4
273, n38
273, n38
116, n68
190, n86
116
h) Tosefta
Hallah (Hal)
2:11
67, n72
4 Christian Literature
Clement of Alexandria
Paedagogus
1:9
Clement of Rome
1 Clement 8:3 121
Eusebius
Praeparatio Evangelica
9.30.3-5
67, n70
Gospel of Thomas
55
153, n38
290,
289,
289,
290,
290,
290,
290,
290,
280,
290,
290,
289,
290,
290,
290,
290,
290,
290,
290,
n107
n103
n103
n107
n107
n107
n107
n107
n66
n107
n107
n103
n107
n107
n107
n107
n107
n107
n107
Origen
Commentarius in Matthaeum
Hilary of Poitiers
Commentarius in Matthaeum 15:7 72
XI.4-5
Contra Celsum
Justin Martyr
Praef. 6
1.28
289, n103
289, n103
Apology
67.3
Cousland 04 versie 3
289, n103
349
08-10-2001, 11:42
5 Classical Literature
Aristotle
Plutarch
Poetics
12-13
Rhetoric
1393a-b
7-9
26
Moralia
249, n41
Ausonius
671C
275, n45
Pompeius Trogus
Philippic Histories
2.22
36
59, n29
Diodorus Siculus
Ptolemy
17.52.6
19.93.7
Geographia
60
66, n66
5.15.22
71, n92
58, n19
Lucian
Strabo
Demonax
26
Deorum Concilium
4
66, n66
16.2.1
16.2.4
16.2.5
16.2.34
16.23.34
56, n14
59
59
54, n3, 63, n51
54, n3, 63, n51
Justin
Tacitus
Epitome
2.1-5
71, n92
Annals
12.54
65, n62
Cousland 04 versie 3
58, n19
60
350
08-10-2001, 11:42
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Abegg, M.G. 115, 191
Achtemeier, P.J. 281
Aerts, T.L. 145, 158, 271
Aharoni, Y. 62
Aland, K. 31, 86, 145
Albright, W.F. and Mann, C.S. 133,
234, 243
Allen, W.C. 42, 102, 133, 158
Allison, D.C. 26, 113, 119, 210-212,
214, 216, 218, 222, 286
Alt, A. 60
Anderson, J.C. 26, 47
Annen, F. 129
Arens, E. 192
Arnal, W. 33
Ascough, R. 6
Ashton, J. 27
Aune, D.E. 210, 213, 217-218, 220
Avi-Yonah, M. 60
Balz, H. 6, 7, 47, 126, 139
Bammel, E. 88, 118, 121
Barr, D.L. 242-243, 245
Barrett, C.K. 169
Barth, G. 47, 48, 149, 151, 156, 191
Bartlett, J.V. 179-180
Bauckham, R. 267
Bauer, D.R. 25, 178
Bauer, W., Arndt, W.F., Gingrich,
F.W. and Danker, F. W. 35, 56,
63, 116, 150, 161, 233 , 251, 283
Beare, F.W. 83, 89, 126, 135
Beaton, R. 92 , 190
Becker, H.-J. 237
Berger, K. 186, 255
Bertram, G. 129
Best, E. 4
Betz, H.D. 5, 55, 198, 120, 145, 159,
162, 243, 290
Betz, O. 254
Bietenhard, H. 6, 59
Birdsall, J.N. 136
Black, C.C 5, 48
Blackburn, B. 125, 130, 140
Blass, F., Debrunner, A. and Funk,
R.W. 63, 139, 158, 175, 195, 216,
255
Blendinger, L. 145
Cousland 04 versie 3
351
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 04 versie 3
352
08-10-2001, 11:42
132-33, 136-138, 156-157, 163, 168,
191, 194, 273
Hengel, M. 54, 58, 60, 145, 268-269,
295
Hill, D. 138, 149, 160, 168, 180, 213,
233, 254, 275
Hitzig, F. 189
Hooker, M.D. 157, 185
Horsley, R.A. 57, 78, 210
Howell, D.B. 9, 25, 194, 266
Hubaut, M. 216
Hbner, H. 110
Hull, J.M. 128, 186
Hultgren, A.J. 87, 197, 251, 253, 256
Hummel, R. 46, 71, 78, 138, 229,
267-268, 278
Iersel, B. Van 273
Jeremias, J. 57, 78, 89, 91, 211, 249,
251, 253, 271
Johnson, M.D. 177-178
Jones, A.H.M. 58
Jones, I.H. 79, 105, 145, 250, 253,
286
Jouon, P. 6
Juel, D. 190
Jlicher, A. 248-249
Ksemann, E. 101
Kaminsky, J.S. 82
Karpinsky, R. 126
Kasting, H. 89
Kastner, P.J.M. 211-213
Kee, H. 115-116, 135
Keegan, T.J. 6, 9, 38, 106, 242-243,
248
Keener, C.S. 24, 62, 83, 89, 249, 281
Kessler, H. 219
Kilpatrick, G.D. 35, 218, 231, 235
Kingsbury, J.D. 5, 7, 9-12, 19-20, 25,
48, 84, 86, 92, 103, 105-108, 139,
145,148, 177-180, 195-197, 210,
222, 236, 242, 247-250, 253-254,
257-258
Kittel, G. 132, 145
Klauck, H.-J. 132-133, 245, 247, 252,
254, 259
Klein, H. 33, 89
Klein, R.W. 189
Kloppenborg, J.S. 32-33, 113, 153,
155, 220
Koch, K. 116, 190
Kodell, J. 39, 76, 83
Cousland 04 versie 3
353
Koester, H. 109
Kopp, C. 215
Kosmala, H. 81-82
Krentz, E. 245-246
Kretzer, A. 83, 103, 149, 253-254, 284
Krieger, K.S. 6, 8, 61-62, 64-65, 68
Knzel, G. 47, 149, 160-161, 185,
208, 223
Kuhli, H. 70
Kuhn, H.-W. 155
Kupp, D. D. 6, 276
Lachs, S. T. 273, 280
Lagrange, M.-J. 133, 139, 233
Lambrecht, J. 94, 130, 243, 252, 254,
258
Lange, J. 103-105, 110
Lgasse, S. 161-162, 271
Le Moyne, J. 267
Leon-Dufour, X. 105-106, 231
Levine, A.-J. 86, 89, 101, 237, 258,
281
Liddell, H.G., Scott, R. and Jones,
H.S. 8, 35, 233, 249
Lightfoot, R.H. 37
Lindars, B. 176, 190, 212-213
Loader, W.R.C. 175, 185, 193, 195
Lodge, D. 50
Lohfink, G. 5, 63-64
Lohmeyer, E. and Schmauch, W. 37,
40, 133, 233, 271
Lohse, E. 139, 181, 192
Loos, H. van der 135
Lovsky, F. 81
Lhrmann, D. 89
Luz, U. 5, 23-24, 32, 47-48, 57, 64,
66, 76, 78, 83, 85, 88-89, 102, 104,
113, 131, 133, 136-137, 148, 161,
163- 165, 168, 212, 241, 245, 250,
252, 258-259, 268, 270-272, 274,
278, 283
Malbon, E.S. 4, 41, 153, 159
Marcus, J. 41, 58, 157
Martin, F. 86
Martnez, F.G. and Barrera, J.T. 115
Martyn, J.L. 265
Matera, F.J. 102, 139, 195, 230
McCarter, P.K. 184
McHugh, J. 187
McNeile, A.H. 139, 149, 231, 243,
273
Meier, J.P. 18, 21, 55, 101, 106, 149,
218-219, 267, 287
08-10-2001, 11:42
Mendels, D. 66
Menken, M.J.J. 221
Menninger, R.E. 6, 272, 287
Merk, O. 102
Metzger, B. 31, 131, 136, 195, 231
Meye, R.P. 151
Meyer, R. 6, 208, 213
Miler, J. 10, 78, 85, 235
Millar, F. 58, 82
Minear, P.S. 4, 6-7, 9, 14-16, 19-21,
31, 38-39, 44, 126, 134, 145-146,
227, 271-273
Moessner, D.P. 7, 33
Moore, G.F. 114, 215
Mora, V. 4, 6, 75-76, 81
Morgenthaler, R. 31
Moses, A.D.A. 177, 186, 194
Mosley, A.W. 4, 7, 243
Moule, C.F.D. 196, 288
Moulton, J.H. 36, 63, 139, 175, 217,
245, 275
Mller, D. 87
Mueller, J.R. 121
Mundle, W. 129-130
Murphy-OConnor, J. 7, 134, 145
Neirynck, F. 24, 32, 274
Neubauer, A. 55, 67
Neyrey, J.H. 23
Nolan, B.M. 180
Nolland, J. 33, 179
Normann, F. 103-104
Oegema, G.S. 176, 182
Oepke, A. 130
Ogawa, A. 6, 83, 233-234, 236, 253
Oppenheimer, A. 275, 279
Orton, D. 69
Overman, J.A. 68, 110, 250, 269, 282,
287
Patsch, H. 183
Patte, D. 89, 193-194, 243
Pedersen, S. 149
Perels, O. 135
Perrot, C. 210
Pesch, R. 14, 177
Phoutrides, E.A. 45
Piper, R.A. 155
Polag, A. 33, 153, 155, 243-244
Pomykala, K. 182
Powell, M.A. 25
Prabhu, G.M.S. 194, 208, 210, 215,
229
Cousland 04 versie 3
354
08-10-2001, 11:42
Schweizer, E. 16, 113, 130, 133, 149,
178, 215, 243, 277-278
Segal, A.F. 85, 163
Segbroeck, F. van 103, 105, 126, 253,
255
Selman, M.J. 224
Senior, D.P. 23-24, 41, 81, 83, 101,
133, 180, 229-236, 287-288, 293
Sider, J.W. 249-250
Sim, D.C. 55, 62, 64, 275-276, 282283, 285, 287-288, 294
Slingerland, H.D. 62-63
Smallwood, E.M. 65
Smith, C.R. 26, 242
Smith, D.E. 119
Smith, M. 186, 279
Springer, M.D. 49
Stanton, G. 6, 14, 23-27, 57, 68, 85,
89, 136, 160-162, 176, 180, 214,
237, 246, 265, 276, 282, 286
Steck, O.H. 219-220, 222
Stemberger, G. 62, 215
Stendahl, K. 62, 178, 215, 253
Strack, H.L. and Billerbeck, P. 114,
192, 254
Strathmann, H. 76
Strecker, G. 4, 47, 103-104, 110-111,
131, 133, 145, 164, 179, 181, 192,
215, 229, 234, 243, 253, 265-267,
269-270, 281-282, 286
Streeter, B.H. 33, 55, 241
Suhl, A. 76-77, 80-81, 84, 139, 175176, 193, 196, 229
Syreeni, K. 6, 245
Tagawa, K. 4, 125
Tannehill, R. 7, 268, 281
Tatum, W.B. 180
Teeple, H.M. 211-212
Theissen, G. 57, 63, 66, 117-118, 125,
132, 136-137, 140, 167
Thompson, W.G. 40, 130-131, 133,
254
Thyen, H. 133
Thysman, R. 6, 145
Tooley, W. 86
Townshend, J.T. 287
Tracey, R. 55-56
Trilling, W. 6, 56, 64, 133, 139, 149,
Cousland 04 versie 3
355
08-10-2001, 11:42
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Acts 280-281
Agrippa I 65
Agrippa II 62, 64
Alexander Jannaeus 58, 64
Alexandria 60
Am HaAretz 50, 279
Ammon 64, 67
Andrew 147, 156
Antioch 55, 59-60, 294
Apamea 59-60
Apology 203, 262, 292, 299-300, 303304
Arabia 61
Aramaic 89
Aristotle 249-250
Astonishment 13, 15, 99, 105, 108,
110, 126, 132
Bar Kochba 224
Barabbas 321-234, 238-239, 296
Beelzebul 278-279
Bethlehem 70, 215
Bethsaida 107
Beyond the Jordan 53, 61-63, 65,
171
Blasphemy 83
Caesarea 58
Canaanite woman 66, 113
Canatha 58
Capernaum 36, 43, 68, 107
Celsus 289
Chararacterization 5, 48-49
Chief Priests 78, 159
and elders of the people 77, 78, 8082, 92, 227-229, 233-234, 236, 268
and Pharisees 80-81, 84, 238, 250
and scribes of the people 77, 268
Chorazin 107
Christology 18, 23, 37, 138, 143, 168,
172, 178-180, 198, 202-203, 225,
261-262, 277-278, 303
Clement of Alexandria 120
Clement of Rome 121
Community, Matthews (=Matthews
Church) 9, 70, 76, 84, 111, 133,
197-198, 259, 263, 266-267, 269275, 281, 289-293, 297, 299-300,
304
Cousland 04 versie 3
357
08-10-2001, 11:42
16, 21-22, 205, 261-262, 265, 289,
291-292, 301-302
Dalmanutha 72
Damascus 58-60
David 66-68, 70, 78, 171, 181-185,
187, 192, 194, 202, 216, 295
Davidic kingdom 64, 67-68, 73, 97
Davidic Messiah, see Messiah, Davidic
Decapolis 53, 57-61, 63-64, 68, 72-73,
97, 103, 171
Diodorus Siculus 60
Dion 58
Disciples 12, 47-48, 80-81, 90, 93,
108, 111-118, 120, 131, 143, 157159, 193, 238, 243-245, 251-252,
258, 270, 275, 291
Astonishment of 126-127, 129-130
Characterization of 47-48, 266, 269270
Commissioning of 88-89, 109, 111113, 120, 122, 153
Ministry of 112-113, 118
Transparent 266, 269-270, 296
Understanding of 47-48, 130-131,
143, 149, 201, 251, 254-257, 269
Discipleship 145-148, 151-152, 154160, 162, 167-168
Discourses 14, 26-27, 128, 241-247,
259, 274
Community Discourse 242, 245,
247, 259, 274
Final (Eschatological) Discourse 245247, 259
Mission Discourse 88-89, 111-113,
153, 164, 242-244, 247, 259
Parable Discourse 22, 79, 205, 241260, 262, 274, 290
Sermon on the Mount 45, 68, 104,
106, 108, 110-111, 120, 135, 220,
242-243, 259, 274, 290
Divine Economy 257, 262, 283-288,
296, 303-304
Cousland 04 versie 3
358
Gadara 58-59
Galasa 58
Galilee 56-57, 61, 64-65, 69, 81, 103,
171, 207, 214, 294
Galilee of the Gentiles 78-79
Galilee, Sea of 71-72
Genealogy 68, 85, 176-177
Gentiles 53, 58, 60-61, 68, 71-73, 78,
81, 84, 90-91, 109, 170, 181, 263,
270-271, 275, 285, 287-288, 293
Gerasa 58-59, 61
Glorification of God 15, 71, 119, 132136, 142, 201, 278
God of Israel 71-72, 97, 135
Gospel Genre 25-27
Bios 25-27
Composite 26
Gospel of Peter 235
Great Commission 113, 271, 288
Greek Chorus 44-46
Haggadah 181
Halachah 92, 104, 246, 274, 289-290
Healing (therapeu), see Jesus, Healings
by
Hebrew Scriptures 66, 71, 82, 87, 9091, 93, 97-98, 169, 181-182, 189191, 202, 215, 222, 229, 236, 249,
262, 284, 292-293, 302
Herod the Great 58, 70, 77
Herodians 105-106, 124, 129
Heshbonitis 61
Hippo 58-59
Historical Level 4-5, 8-9, 85, 133,
277
Historicizing Narrative 8, 12, 197,
265-270
Hosanna 191-192
08-10-2001, 11:42
Idumea 53-54, 63-64, 67
Israel 22, 64, 66, 70-73, 75, 77-84, 9095, 97-98, 101, 104, 106, 113, 117,
136-138, 142, 161, 171, 181-182,
194-195, 198, 201-203, 209, 219,
223-225, 238-239, 259, 261, 265,
277, 280-283, 285, 291-294, 297,
299, 301-302
House of Israel 90-91, 95
Idealized Israel 66-68
James and John 147, 156
Jebusites 184
Jeremiah 221
Jerusalem 60, 64, 69, 77, 82, 93, 103,
171, 184, 202, 207, 217-218, 223224, 294
Destruction of 83, 218, 237, 262,
294-296
Jesus
as Deceiver 238, 279-280
As Shepherd 120-22
Authority of 112, 127-128, 132-133,
163
Call of 148-154, 156-159, 168
Compassion of 12, 93, 109, 122,
167, 202
Family of 150-152, 154
Feedings by 12, 101-102, 109, 117119, 121
Healings by 101-102, 108-118, 122,
138, 141, 158, 164-167, 184-191,
199
Proclamation of 101-104, 113, 120,
122-123, 166
Public Ministry of 75-76, 94, 98,
101-123, 198, 203, 241, 292
Teaching of 101-108, 110-111, 113,
120, 122, 128, 141, 166, 246-248
Jewish Leaders 10, 12, 46, 75-77, 7980, 82, 86, 93, 97, 108, 129, 149,
201-202, 222-223, 228, 235-236,
262, 279-282, 304
Characterization of 46-47, 266-269
Role of, 3
Transparent 266-269, 296
Jewish Revolt 65, 294-296
Jews 9-12, 76, 79, 106-107, 181, 238,
263, 274
John, Gospel of 11, 169-170, 272,
274, 287
John the Baptist 32, 76, 84, 102-103,
113, 115, 149, 167, 216-218, 221223, 262, 277
Cousland 04 versie 3
359
08-10-2001, 11:42
Cousland 04 versie 3
360
08-10-2001, 11:42
230, 239, 262, 281, 292-293, 299,
303-304
Samaria 61, 64, 90-91
Samson 215
Samuel 188
Sanhedrin 77
Scribes 68-70, 73, 79-80, 92, 97, 133134, 157-158, 290
Scythopolis 58-60
Seleucia 60
Septuagint (LXX) 62, 79, 83, 130,
184, 221
Sermon on the Mount, see Discourses
Servant of God 116, 162, 168, 190191, 199
Sheep/Shepherds 70, 86-95, 97-98,
120-122, 169-173, 272
Davidic Shepherd 93, 170, 187-190,
301
Evil Shepherds 87, 92, 143, 189,
202-203, 229
Jesus as Shepherd 93, 224
Lost Sheep 88, 90-91, 98, 112-113,
224
Sheep without a Shepherd 86, 9091, 93, 98, 302
Solomon 67, 185-186
Son of David 17, 22, 45, 66, 68, 85,
97, 99, 138-139, 166, 171-172, 175199, 202-203, 216, 222, 225, 234,
258, 261, 291-292, 301, 303
Therapeutic Son of David 184-191,
295-296
Son of God 17, 130, 177-181, 213,
224, 293
Strabo 56, 59
Sulpicius Quirinus 59
Suppliants 184, 195-199, 202
Cousland 04 versie 3
361
08-10-2001, 11:42
15-10-2001
12:36
Pagina 1
2. Strobel, A. Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzgerungsproblem auf Grund der sptjdische-urchristlichen Geschichte von Habakuk 2,2 ff. 1961. ISBN 90 04 01582 5
16. Pfitzner, V.C. Paul and the Agon Motif. 1967. ISBN 90 04 01596 5
27. Mussies, G. The Morphology of Koine Greek As Used in the Apocalypse of St. John. A
Study in Bilingualism. 1971. ISBN 90 04 02656 8
28. Aune, D.E. The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity. 1972.
ISBN 90 04 03341 6
29. Unnik, W.C. van. Sparsa Collecta. The Collected Essays of W.C. van Unnik Part 1.
Evangelia, Paulina, Acta. 1973. ISBN 90 04 03660 1
31. Unnik, W.C. van. Sparsa Collecta. The Collected Essays of W.C. van Unnik Part 3.
Patristica, Gnostica, Liturgica. 1983. ISBN 90 04 06262 9
34. Hagner, D.A. The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome. 1973.
ISBN 90 04 03636 9
37. Reiling, J. Hermas and Christian Prophecy. A Study of The Eleventh Mandate. 1973.
ISBN 90 04 03771 3
43. Clavier, H. Les varits de la pense biblique et le problme de son unit. Esquisse dune
thologie de la Bible sur les textes originaux et dans leur contexte historique.
1976. ISBN 90 04 04465 5
47. Baarda, T., A.F. J. Klijn & W.C. van Unnik (eds.) Miscellanea Neotestamentica. I. Studia ad Novum Testamentum Praesertim Pertinentia a Sociis Sodalicii Batavi c.n.
Studiosorum Novi Testamenti Conventus Anno MCMLXXVI Quintum Lustrum
Feliciter Complentis Suscepta. 1978. ISBN 90 04 05685 8
48. Baarda, T., A.F. J. Klijn & W.C. van Unnik (eds.) Miscellanea Neotestamentica. II.
1978. ISBN 90 04 05686 6
50. Bousset, D.W. Religionsgeschichtliche Studien. Aufstze zur Religionsgeschichte des
hellenistischen Zeitalters. Hrsg. von A.F. Verheule. 1979. ISBN 90 04 05845 1
52. Garland, D.E. The Intention of Matthew 23. 1979. ISBN 90 04 05912 1
53. Moxnes, H. Theology in Conflict. Studies in Pauls Understanding of God in
Romans. 1980. ISBN 90 04 06140 1
56. Skarsaune, O. The Proof From Prophecy. A Study in Justin Martyrs Proof-Text Tradition: Text-type, Provenance, Theological Profile. 1987. ISBN 90 04 07468 6
59. Wilkins, M.J. The Concept of Disciple in Matthews Gospel, as Reflected in the Use of the
Term Mathetes. 1988. ISBN 90 04 08689 7
64. Sterling, G.E. Historiography and Self-Definition. Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic
Historiography. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09501 2
65. Botha, J.E. Jesus and the Samaritan Woman. A Speech Act Reading of John
4:1-42. 1991. ISBN 90 04 09505 5
66. Kuck, D.W. Judgment and Community Conflict. Pauls Use of Apologetic Judgment
Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5-4:5. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09510 1
67. Schneider, G. Jesusberlieferung und Christologie. Neutestamentliche Aufstze 19701990. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09555 1
68. Seifrid, M.A. Justification by Faith. The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09521 7
15-10-2001
12:36
Pagina 2
15-10-2001
12:36
Pagina 3