8/13/2019 Dale C. Allison - Review of 'Matthew 14-28' by Donald Hagner

1/4

ookReviews 363which simply confuses those two questions (d ie or i), and can therefore only con-clude, tautologously, that Jesus had to die because too many people, leaders bothRoman an d Jewish, opposed the nature of his ministry (p . 181). Of course. But legalexecution always indicates authoritative opposition. More to th e point is this question :Did Jesus oppose the m and, if so, how and why? A historical answer demands that lifeand de ath be considered togethe r. Tha t last chapter has, throughout it, a regular oscilla-tion betw een atonement theology and the salvific death of Jesus (pp . 257 and 276,for example). It shows very clearly that A nselm's understanding is only one interp reta-tion of atonem ent, but is atone ment itself only one interpre tation of the salvific meaningof Jesus' passion? A theological answer demands that life and death be consideredtog eth er. W he the r in history or theology, the n, should Jesus' life-and-death always beconsidered together?

This book is about an absolutely valid subject called The Theology of the Passion i nth e Neu: T estament. It is not actually abou t The D eath of Jesus in Early Christ ianity .Tha t unwritten book would also dem and th ree parts. The first part would be abou t thehistoricity of that life, that death, an d why one led to the o the r. Th e second part w ouldbe abou t sources and traditions concerning that execution, and about their origins, rela-tionships, and purposes. The third part would be about the comm on faith and divergenttheologies born of interaction between those events and traditions. I criticize this pre-sent book, not because it fails to be that other one, but because it claims that it is.John D ominic CrossanDePaul University, Chicago, IL 60604

M a t t h e w 14-28 by Donald Hagn er. WBC 33B. Dallas: Wo rd, 1996. Pp . xi 529 .$28.99.This volume completes H agner's impressive two-volume commen tary on M atthew(t he first volume of which was reviewed by Amy-Jill Levine in J B L 115/2 [1996]3 5 4 4 6 ) . It m ore than holds its own next to the othe r commentaries that recent yearshave given us. It is more readable than Robert H . Gundry's (1982 ), more critical thanFrederick Dale Bruner's (1987, 1990 ), and more detailed than the contributions of F.

W. Beare (1982), R. T. France (1985), Alexander Sand (198 6), Daniel J. Harrington(199 1), Craig Blomberg (1992), David E . Garland (199 3), Douglas R. A. Hare (1993),and A ugustine Stock (1994). Hagner's comm entary reminds one of Joachim Gnilka's(1986, 1988), not just because both occupy two volumes. Th e nua nced and maturenature of the exegetical judgments are similar. All of which is to say: Hagner's com men-tary is among the most comprehensive and u seful in any language.Th e format is as follows. Matthew is divided into pericopae or paragraphs. C hapte r21, for example, is separated into six units-the ent ry into Jerusa lem, the Son of Davidin the te mp le, the cursing of the fig tree , the question about Jesus' authority, the parableof the two sons, and the parable of the ren ted vineyard. Each unit is introduced by a bib-liography. (The bibliographies are excellent.) Th en come Hagner's translation and tex-tual no tes, and t hen the commentary proper. This last consists first of a section calledForm/Structure/Setting, which looks at a passage's relationship to the rest of the

8/13/2019 Dale C. Allison - Review of 'Matthew 14-28' by Donald Hagner

2/4

64 Journal of Biblical LiteratureGospel, Matthew's editorial changes (M arkan priority is assume d), structu re, historicity,and other introductory matters. Th ere follows a section called Comm ent, which con-tains the verse-by-verse analysis. Finally ther e is the Explanation, a sort of summ ariz-ing conclusion, often plainly theological. On e guesses that pastors an d theologians w house Hag ner may want to start with the Explanation and move backward.

What impresses one most about the commentary is its depth and detail. There ismore than a page-all of it small prin t--on the identity of the Zech ariah of 23:35. Twopages-again of small print-are given over to the historicity of the events in 27 :5 1 b53 .And the discussion of 28:17, with its difficult reference to some doubting, covers por-tions of three pages. All too often one reaches for a commentary to learn about this ortha t point an d discovers nothing on it. On e will not often have this experience with H ag-ner's c ommentary.

Among the more noteworthy of Hagner's views are the following. Against Kings-bury and many since, 4:17 and 16:21 are not the structural keys to Matthew. AgainstJohn Meier, cha pter 15 , although it contains a revolutionary understand ing of the law(p . 432), does not overthrow the law, even the ritual law. Neither does 19:l-12. AgainstGraham Stanton, 24:20 probably shows that Matthean Christians still observed th e Jew-ish Sabbath. Against Anthony J. Saldarini (whose important 1994 book evidentlyappe ared too late to be used; it is not cited), udgment has fallen upon Israel, and Israelhas bee n replaced by the new people of God, the c hurc h, consisting of Jew and Gen tile.Against most com mentators, Matthew was probably written not after but before t hedestruction of the tem ple an d Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Of these positions the last seem s most vulnerable. In volume Ha gne r wrote of hisinclination toward an early date (p . lxxiv). But on e detects m ore tha n a n inclinationhe re in volume 2. Ha gner urges that th e refere nce in 22:7 to the king sending troops todestroy those murderers and bu rn their city is not solid evidence for a date after 70CE; tha t a pre-70 dat e makes especially good sense of 17324-27; an d that the immedi-ately of 24:29 strongly suggests the early dat e (a point insisted upon long ago by Plum-mer).Ha gne r is surely right that our dating of the Gospels is less certain tha n we like toimagine. The re a re, however, reasons for thinking that the long-standing con sensus,which holds to a date in the last two decades of the first century, is correct. First,Matthew contains many materials that o n any view were originally composed before 70C E (su ch as all th e au the ntic sayings of Jesus) ; so could not 5:23-24; 17:24-27 an d23:16-22 just reflect the traditional, that is, pre-70 natur e of those m aterials? Ho windee d cou ld one rew rite those passages, assuming their traditional natur e, to makethem reflec t the destruction of the tem ple? Could one really expect a post-70 compilerto introd uce awkw ard past tenses, or to insert some needless parenthetical comm ent-(of course the temple was still then standing) ? Surely it was more natural to pass onsuch materials without much altering them . Second, post-70 Jewish literatur e is filledwith present-tense speech about the temple. T he temple remained a literary and theo-logical reality long after it physically ceased to be. For the eternal Torah is filled withimmutable laws about the tem ple; and those laws remain to be pond ered and discussednotwithstanding all historical contingencies. Third, 22:7 remains an embarrassment forHagner's theory. As he himself notes, th e problem is that t he details of the king's

8/13/2019 Dale C. Allison - Review of 'Matthew 14-28' by Donald Hagner

3/4

Book Reviews 65destruc tion of murde rers and their city just seem rather farfetched for the story of theparable itself and, on the othe r hand, correspond remarkably to the destruction ofJerusalem in AD 70 so that it is easy (though hardly necessary) to see tha t ev ent here.Hagn er appeals to the studies of Rengstorf and Reicke, which do inde ed show us thatthe motifs of 22:7 were conventional. But the question remains: Why insert those motifsprecisely he re?Th ere rema ins the problem of 24:29, but perhaps t he verses immediately preced-ing we re not thought applicable to the events surrounding 70 CE but ra ther to events yetto com e. Th e objection that this leaves the question in 24:3 about th e tem ple un-answered is not decisive. Fo r ( i) even in M ark th ere is no direct answer to the questionof the temple's destruction. So one might think Matthew's a pparen t failure partly inher-ited. (ii) T he temple's destruc tion was past a nd so the answer was known to all. Wh atwas not known was the eschatological future, so maybe that is why only that issue isaddre ssed. (iii) Ma tthew elsewhere leaves narrative end s dangling (see , e. g. , 14:l-13,which begins as a flashback but does not so end ). (iv) Th e evangelist may nonethelesshave expected the temple to be rebuilt again before the end (cf. Apoc Elijah 4:3-6;b Suk 41a). (v) Perhaps h e took Jesus' prophecy literally and knew that the site of thetem ple ruins still attracted pilgrims and devotion. A futu re desecration would then bethinkable. (vi) Then again, maybe Matthew already held the view Ephrern the Syrianreporte d: It is said that he [Jesus] was speaking of the punishment in Jerusalem and atthe same time referring to the end of this w or ld (Comm. Diat 18:14). In this case theimmediately might apply to the former but not the latter.

Aside from th e inevitable disagreement on the meaning of this or tha t verse, I expe-rienced only two minor disappointments when reading Hagner's second volume. Thefirst is that Hag ner interacts almost exclusively with the mod ern secondary literature.One usually looks in vain for what Origen or Jerome or Augustine or Chrysostom orT h eo p h ~ lac tor Aquinas or Luther or Calvin mad e of Matthew's text. Luz's co mm entaryhas shown us how illuminating such Wirkungsgeschichte can be.

My second small disappointment is that H agn er does not offer sufficient justifica-tion for his expansive confiden ce in Matthew's historical value. He affirms th e proba-bility that th ere we re two animals at the en try to Jerusalem ( p. 594). He speaks of thepossible historicity of the core of the story of the gua rd at the tom b (p . 86 2). H Eappe ars to affirm t he essential authenticity of the great commissioning in 28:18-20(p . 883; her e I was surprised to learn that I myself believe the words rest upon some-thing Jesus said; I d o not and can not discover what I wrote that would have m isled some-one to think so). Hag ner writes that it is an assumption of the present com men tary thatthe miracles record ed by M atthew were historical events (p . 417), and he goes on toask, If, as the Bible claims, God works in history and unique ly an d supremely in JesusChrist, may not such events have actually happe ned? (p . 418). Th ere se ems, however, alimit: Hagn er thinks that th e story of the saints rising in 27 :5 1 5 3 is a piece of theologyset forth as history (p . 851)-although even here he believes there may have bee n anearthqu ake. In coming to this conclusion H agner says, in effect, that although God cando anything, we m ust still ask th e question of historical plausibility (p . 85 1) . But why isthis not the question when Jesus seemingly rides two donkeys, or when Pilate appointsguards to prevent proclamation of the resurrection, or when Jesus comm ands baptism inthe name of the F ath er and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? I am not sure why the one

8/13/2019 Dale C. Allison - Review of 'Matthew 14-28' by Donald Hagner

4/4

366 Journal of Biblical Literaturetradition is judged incredib le but the o thers are not. Fo r like 27:51-53 these last are(i) full of theological or apologetical meaning , (ii) unattested in M ark, Luke, or John, a nd(iii)not brimming with historical plausibility.In the end , however, my quibbles with H agner ar e wholly outweighed by his com-mentary's many virtues. He is kind enough in his preface to express regret that he didnot have the third volume of Davies-Allison when writing his second volum e. shouldlike here to voice my own regret that his first volume appeared after the first two vol-umes of the I CC on Matthew had b een pu blished, and that his second was available onlyafter the third ha d bee n sent to the prin ter. My work is the poorer for it.

Dale C . Allison, Jr .Frie nds U niversity, Wichita, KS 67213

Luk e and the Restoration of Israel by David Ravens. JSNT Sup 119. Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic P ress, 1995 . Pp . 287. 39.00/$58.50.T he work begins with an introduction th at briefly presen ts the range of opinionsregarding Luke's audience and his attitude toward the Jews. On the first issue Ravensconclude s that Luke's aud ienc e was compose d of former Jews, as well as Gentiles whoha d at least eno ugh familiarity with Judaism a nd especially the W that they couldund ersta nd and app reciate Luke's work. On the second issue Ravens discusses the stale-mate between scholars who believe that Luke is negative toward Jews and those who

believe that he is positive. Ravens then lays out his own plan for showing that Luke'sidea of the restoration of Israel is the best way to unders tand his attitude toward th eJews.Chapter discusses the portrayal of Israel in Luke's infancy narrative. It concludesthat the salvation of Israel and the continuity betw een Israel's past and th e prese ntevents of the Gospel are dominant them es throughou t these two chapters. Particularattention is paid to the role of John the Baptist and the tem ple.Chapter 2 then discusses the portrayal of Israel's past in Stephen's speech (Acts7:2-50). Ravens briefly reviews the source problems posed by th e s peech, concludingthat t he spe ech as it now stands expresses Luke's own thought, regardless of its possiblesources. In th e accusations against Step hen , Luke has continued to portray Jesus and hisfollowers as positively disposed toward th e temple. The se positive attitudes ar e pres enteven in Stephen's spee ch itself. Ravens believes any criticism contained in th e speech isdire cted toward the divisiveness and exclusivity of only some Israelites, most especiallySolomon, who is portrayed here as a Lukan villain or scapegoat.Chapte r 3 explores the role of the Samaritans in Luke-Acts. Ravens begins with areview of the history of the Samaritans and their relations to the Jewish community. H ethen analyzes in detail the treatment of the Samaritans in Luke-Acts, especially in thecentral section of the Gospel (Luke 9:51-18:14) and in Stephen's speech. Ravens dis-cusses the alleged Samaritanisms in Stephen's speech and finds the evidence inconclu-sive, thoug h suggestive. Whatever the source( s)of the Samaritan material in Luke-Acts,Ravens concludes that it is consistent with an d even essential to Luke's idea of therestoration of Israel. Ravens believes th at for L uke th e Samaritans are the legitimate

http:///reader/full/%E3%B3%B9.00/$58.50http:///reader/full/%E3%B3%B9.00/$58.50