Last time we looked at Matthew’s use of Isaiah 40.3 in Matthew 3.3. At the beginning of chapter 4 we find Matthew’s temptation narrative. There Jesus quotes three passages from Deuteronomy (8.3, 6.13, 16) to combat the temptations of the accuser. The narrative then follows something that should be familiar to the reader at this point: Matthew places Jesus in a geographical location and then explains the theological importance of that location with a quote from the Old Testament prophets.
In this instance, Jesus leaves Nazareth after hearing about John the Presbyterian’s arrest and makes him home in Capernaum (4.13). Matthew makes sure to mention that Capernaum is in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali. The reason that Jesus moved from Nazareth and made his home in Capernaum is so that he would fulfill a prophecy made by Isaiah in Isaiah 9.1-2.
The prophecy as recorded by Matthew is: “Land of Zebulun, land of Naphtali, on the road by the sea, across the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—the people who saw in darkness have seen a great light, and for those who sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned.”
The theological importance of the Christ making his home in Capernaum, as Matthew points out by quoting Isaiah, is that salvation has reached those who are in exile. Isaiah 9 is written to the Jewish community who is going into exile. The “way of the sea” (9.1) is in reference to the road that many exiles would have traveled on their way home to Israel. It was a road that ran from Damascus in Syria southwest along the Jordan, and through Capernaum. The exiles were walking in darkness, and now they see the great light of redemption in the person of Christ, their Messiah.
So Matthew makes his theological point and he makes it well. But what about his quotation? If it seems different from what you remember Isaiah 9.1-2 saying, then you win today’s prize (offer limited to those readers who also give me a prize).
The prophecy in Isaiah 9.1-2 reads: “But there will be no gloom for those who were in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he will make glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who lived in a land of deep darkness—on them light has shined.”
The context in which this quote is found in Isaiah 9 is definitely Messianic, both in Jewish and Christian traditions. So the context of the OT passages fits what Matthew is now saying about Jesus: namely, he is Israel’s Messiah. But (and this is a big but, I cannot lie, other brothers can deny…ok, I’m done), the text that Matthew is using is drastically different from the text we find in Isaiah 9. It does not follow the MT, it does not follow the LXX, and it does not follow the Targums. Most scholars believe that Matthew relied on the LXX, but made corrections at key points, such as changing the tenses of the verbs back into past-tense indicative and restructuring the parallelism of the MT by adding “land” before both Zebulun and Naphtali.
Although this explanation might sit well with some, it does not with me. What is the pay off of saying that Matthew follows the LXX, but then corrects it or “improves” it at certain points, especially in changing verbal tenses? How is that not the same thing from saying, “Matthew doesn’t follow the LXX?”
The fact of the matter is that Matthew butchered this quote. He begins his quotation in the middle of Isaiah 9.1 and then picks and chooses what words to use in Isaiah 9.1 to fill out the rest of his quote. He completely deletes “but in the latter time he will make glorious” and then keeps on trucking with his quotation.
By modern standards, Matthew might get an A for noticing the contextual similarities between Christ making his home in Capernaum and the return from exile theme of Isaiah 9, but he definitely would get an F on the way he quotes the OT.
My question here (and in all of these posts on Matthew’s use of the prophets) is this: how does Matthew’s use of the prophets shape the way we look at hermeneutics? Matthew definitely feels justified in writing what he wrote and I have enormous doubts that his audience would be raising the same questions that we raise today. They, more likely than not, would have understood him much better than we do. So what does that tell us about our methodology for reading the OT in light of Christ?
21 February 2008 at 4.59 pm
Art: Question is there any possibility that Matthew works from an oral tradition?
D
21 February 2008 at 5.00 pm
I meant:
Art: A Question for you. Is there any possibility that Matthew works from an oral tradition?
D
Darn punctuation.
21 February 2008 at 6.14 pm
D: It is more likely than not that the Gospel authors used eyewitness, oral accounts to piece together the life of Christ (this is an argument made very well by Richard Bauckham in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and is supported by the work of our dear Bishop N.T. Wright in Jesus and the Victory of God). So there is a possibility that Matthew is either quoting from memory or working from an oral source.
I would have two problems with this view:
1. It cannot be proved or disproved, so it is relegated forever the the level of a theory.
2. If Matthew is using oral sources to quote Isaiah 9.1-2 and yet he differs so greatly from both the MT and LXX, then it does not give me much confidence in his history, which was also based on oral sources.
21 February 2008 at 10.50 pm
But have you not else where (and correctly) argued that Matthew’s history is a history with a theological purpose? He is making use of Isaiah to make his theological point…
What can be proved? I mean a good deal of scholarship is forever theory, the issue is whether the theory is tenable…or likely.
21 February 2008 at 11.00 pm
D: Your first paragraph is correct. My second point in my last comment was not well argued nor well supported. I apologize for that.
I think you are right in saying that some parts of scholarship will forever be theory and the real meat of the issue is what is more tenable. The period in which Matthew is writing is one from which we have much textual evidence concerning the Hebrew Bible. Evidence from the DSS and from Jewish documents of the time period show that writing Scripture was, at this point in history, the rule rather than the exception. Based on that evidence, it seems that Matthew’s quotations would have, more likely than not, come from a written source.
Had his gospel been written during a period where the norm was orally transmitting Scripture, then his quote coming from an oral source would be more teneable. But Matthew, being a Jew and writing to Jews, would have most likely quoted a written document.
But everything I just said flies in the face of the “Nazorean” passage in Matthew which is not found in any written document that is still extant.
One more reason Matthew’s gospel is so confusing, yet so exciting to study.
22 February 2008 at 2.54 pm
So…here is my second theory…it comes from Jesus’ use of the prophets in Luke (where essentially he does the same thing)…is it not possible that Matthew as a companion of Jesus, is repeating a teaching that he heard from Jesus?
22 February 2008 at 5.28 pm
D: Perhaps. But the formula used in Matthew seems distinct from the Lukan narrative. Matthew is purposefully placing Jesus in geographical locations and then explaining the theological importance of those locations via an quotation of a prophetic text. He does this earlier in Jesus’ infancy narrative, which seems to work against him hearing it from Jesus…since Jesus was a mere baby when he came from Egypt. Of course, Jesus might have explained this to Matthew during their travels. The problem is that we just don’t know for sure. We do know that Matthew consistently uses the prophets in a strange way (strange, at least, from our modern point of view). It seems like the ’strangeness’ lies with Matthew and the way he is constructing his narrative, not with his sources. Although, I could be wrong.
22 February 2008 at 6.36 pm
But of course between the events and when Matthew writes there is time for theological introspection. Time for him to consider, how Jesus fulfilled various prophecies. And if he had heard Jesus own references to himself (using the prophets), and was trained in Jesus’ way of thinking about prophecy it does not to me seem that strange…Luke is written after Matthew, so this understanding of Jesus was certainly around at the time the Jesus writes. I am not speaking so much to how Luke presents the materials, but of how Jesus himself, uses prophecy to refer to himself.
22 February 2008 at 9.54 pm
Geerhardus vos. His formula: prophecy – fact – interpretation.
Could this apply here?
22 February 2008 at 10.24 pm
D: Could you clarify a little regarding this point. I didn’t quite follow: “Luke is written after Matthew, so this understanding of Jesus was certainly around at the time the Jesus writes. I am not speaking so much to how Luke presents the materials, but of how Jesus himself, uses prophecy to refer to himself.”
david: I think the Vosian formula does work here in regard to Matthew’s interpretation. I am more curious about Matthew’s source material for his quote. Either it was a badly botched version of the MT or LXX, or something else. I’m wondering what that “something else” might be. Or at least why he begins his quotation in the middle of the verse, deletes sections, and changes verb tenses.
22 February 2008 at 11.06 pm
Art, I am not plowing as deep as you are. I am only thinking on the surface here. Thinking of how Paul takes the singular “offspring” as opposed to a plural and directs it to Messiah. Who in the world would have ever thought of that? But isn’t that what the interpreter does?
Liberties?
I know that is probably a poor comparison. Are you concerned that the source material of the interpreter would invalidate what he says?
You are really smart and I am way over my head.
22 February 2008 at 11.53 pm
david: I certainly agree that the NT authors take liberties with the text (like your example in Paul) and that those liberties are justified.
” Are you concerned that the source material of the interpreter would invalidate what he says?”
Not at all. Rather my question regarding the source material is three fold (and all rely on what one’s view of the source material actually is):
1. If Matthew used the MT or the LXX, why did he not quote it word for word? He does in other places in his gospel, so why not here? Based on that answer, my next question would be how this relates to our modern ideas of Scripture quotation. The ends (seeing a Christotelic nature of the OT) seem to justify the means (misquoting the OT) in Matthew. Does that mean we do the same? If not, why not?
2. If Matthew was working from a text that is no longer extant, why did he chose to quote from that text in this instance? Like I said in point 1, Matthew shows that he is familiar with the MT, the LXX, and the Targums. Why quote from a manuscript that he would know differs from the MT, LXX, and Targums so greatly? Again, how does this relation to our modern understanding of Scripture quotation? In the face of so many texts, do we simply chose the one that better suites our purpose (like Matthew seems to have done).
3. Tangentially related to 2, if Matthew was working from an oral tradition, he would have known that the oral tradition from which he is working differs from the MT, LXX, and Targums. Again, why go with a version that differs so greatly from texts that one already knows?
Another interesting point Matthew brings up is the state of the canon at this point in church history. Matthew uses the MT, LXX, Targums, and (apparently) something else. I wonder if this raises questions about Christianity accepting the Jewish canon when the NT authors show so much familiarity with both the LXX and literature from Jewish traditions (such as Jude quoting 1 Enoch 1.9, seemingly, authoritatively).
If I was going to do future work on the NT, I would definitely choose Matthew. His work brings up so many questions. (Side note: he also reveals a lot through his narrative and weaves a very interesting and rich story. I don’t just want to focus on the questions, but also the positive nature of what Matthew reveals.)
“You are really smart “
Oh man, do I have you fooled!
23 February 2008 at 1.13 am
Art: I am just saying that I see a certain consistency between how Luke presents Jesus as seeing himself (and his use of prophecy)…and how Matthew presents Jesus.
(if I would have proof read it would have been clearer as I was trying to say “when Luke wrote” not “when Jesus wrote”…)
Also: I know this may seem simplistic but I would stand by the argument that 1 Enoch is authoritative because Jude quotes it…not the other way around. I have no problem saying that God, who in his wisdom inspired scripture, by that same spirit guided the canonization.
23 February 2008 at 9.20 am
Would word for word copying of the LXX or MT be as important for Matthew as it is for us? Could he be making a choice to paraphrase/loosen the words?
23 February 2008 at 9.45 am
Wouldn’t you like to have in your possession all that Jesus told those two guys on the road to Emmaus?
I think of how Jesus handled the O.T. in Matt.22:32. His proof text for the resurrection. Was that really the point that God was making to Moses?
I think we do have the mind of Christ in the O.T. because of Jn.14:25,26.My take is that this is the promise which we call the N.T.
Under the influence of men like Keller and Driscoll more preaching is focusing on Christ in all of scripture. Not to the exclusion of expository but away from that painful parsing of every word.
So I say yes Art, as a member of the school of prophets you have measured liberty to find Jesus anywhere in the O.T. as well as the New.
We will not take what you say and inscripturate it. Is that a word? But we will definately take you seriously. Thanks
10 May 2008 at 3.08 pm
[...] 2008 by aboulet There is quite a jump in Matthew’s explicit quotation of the prophets. The last text we looked at was Matthew 4.15-16. The text we will look at today is Matthew 11.10 where Matthew presents Jesus as connecting John [...]