Examples of Jesus' Miracles (8:1-9:38)
Examples of Jesus' Miracles (8:1-9:38)
After completing Jesus' sermon, Matthew begins recounting signs reported in both Mark and some other source(s) Matthew shares with Luke. Thus, for example, he begins with the first miracle story he reports from Mark (8: l-4//Mk 1:40-45) and proceeds next to the first miracle story following Luke's Sermon on the Plain (8:5-13; Lk 7:1-10).1 Matthew has saved these examples for this section of his Gospel, having narrated previously only a general summary of miracles (4:23-25). He arranges this material in a special way, and scholars generally accept one of two views about this section's arrangement, or both.
Scholars frequently count the narration of ten specific miracles in this section, although others insist that Matthew was not counting (Gundry 1982: 138). Some scholars emphasize that this points to the ten signs of a new Moses (Teeple 1957: 82; cf. Sanders 1993: 146). It may be significant that Matthew opens this section with the descent from the mountain (8:1; Ex 19:14; Gundry 1982: 138), although perhaps merely Matthew's special setting for the sermon of chs. 5-7 may have demanded the geographical transition. Others may count ten specific miracles (e.g., Kingsbury 1975: 63), but emphasize the section's structure as a whole: because two of the miracles appear in one miracle story, Matthew narrates a total of nine miracle stories (Meier 1980: 79). These nine stories break into sets of threes, separated by blocks of Jesus' teaching (Meier 1979: 67; idem 1980: 80). Davies and Allison 1991: 4 attribute this merely to Matthew's love for triads. Interestingly, however, Exodus also arranges all but the last of Moses' ten plagues in three sets of three (Allison 1993b: 211).
Matthew 8:1-17 shows Jesus' authority over sickness; 8:23-28 shows his authority over nature, demons, and paralysis; and 9:18-34 demonstrates his authority over disabilities and death.2 Whereas these narratives demonstrate how much authority Jesus has in creation, the intervening sections teach that people — the only ones with a choice — should acknowledge Jesus' rightful authority over them (8:18-22; 9:9-17). The concluding summary of miracles (9:35) contains another declaration of Christ's authority: disciples must ask the Lord to send out workers to demonstrate Jesus' authority over these needs (9:36-37). This becomes the bridge to the following section when Jesus sends out his disciples to demonstrate the reality of his kingship (10:7-8).3
Jesus' Willingness to Cleanse a Leper (8:1-4)
Cf. Mk 1:40-45; Lk 5:12-16. As Davies and Allison 1991: 9 point out, arguments against the historical kernel of this passage are not compelling; the narrative also fits Jesus' own testimony that he healed lepers (11:5, with a strong case for authenticity) and other evidence that Jesus "lived his life within the confines of the Torah."
Even the best of ancient historians was interested in the meaning of history, its moral, as well as its data; most biographers especially explored their characters as positive or negative examples. (Ancient writers, unlike many modern ones, had a sense of responsibility to their societies; many also included remarks more cynical about the depravity of their own time than this parenthetical comment.) The Gospel writers are interested in more than listing all Jesus' deeds (as if that were possible anyway — cf. Jn 21:25); they select examples from their materials to emphasize relevant points for their own readers (cf. Jn 20:30-31). In narrating events like Jesus healing people, Matthew encourages his audience that the Lord to whom they pray for provision for their needs in the present demonstrated his ability to meet those needs during his earthly ministry. Matthew's narratives call not only for obedience to lists of ethical demands but also for active faith. While Matthew addresses particularly trusting Jesus to heal, the principles can apply to other desperate needs among the members of his community.4
They might hear in this narrative various principles, especially about prayer. First, like many other suppliants whose faith is praised in the narratives (e.g., 9:2, 18, 20), the leper was not approaching Jesus with merely cavalier interest. The leper was in a desperate and apparently permanent situation. Biblical leprosy was probably not what we call leprosy today (Hansen's disease, caused by Mycobacterium leprae), but an assortment of serious skin problems that isolated the leper from the rest of society (Trapnell 1982: 459; Gundry 1982: 139; Matthews and Benjamin 1991a; Mull 1992; Malina 1993: 14; but for the view that this disease did exist in Jesus' day, see Zias 1989; on skin diseases in the Qumran Scrolls, see Baumgarten 1990). Social isolation may have constituted one of the most painful components of the disease, a custom among Gentiles as well as Jews (cf. Jos. Apion 1.229, 233). Leprosy was incurable apart from God's intervention (cf. Num 12:12-14; 2 Kings 5:14; Ex. Rab. 1:23), and was compared with the uncleanness of death (Jos. Ant. 3.264; b. Sanh. 47a; Gen. Rab. 71:6; Ex. Rab. 5:4; inferred from Num 12:12; 2 Kings 5:6-7). The leper's desperation contributes to the picture of holy chutzpah that may appear more clearly in some other texts (cf. 9:20-21).5
Second, the leper approaches Jesus with perfect trust in his power. He knows Jesus is able to make him clean if he wants to (8:2); this is not a false sort of faith that uses "if God wills" as an excuse to evade genuine trust (cf., e.g., Is 7:12), but the sort of genuine yet humble confidence in God's power that Matthew's community knew from the biblical record (e.g., 2 Kings 19:15-19). That the language resembles that of Jesus' submission to the Father's will (26:39; cf. 6:10) indicates Matthew's approval of this prayer. Yet while the text teaches the leper's faith, it distinguishes trust in Jesus' power from presumption.
Third, the leper approaches Jesus with humility and the acknowledgment that the choice belongs to Jesus (8:2). Bowing down before another person was an act of respect for the other's dignity or power to deliver one from urgent distress (e.g., Diod. Sic. 36.15.2; Hom. II. 1.427; Herodian 7.5.4), especially for a Jewish person (e.g., Test. Abr. 3-4, 9, 16A). In biblical tradition, acknowledging that God has the right to grant or refuse a request is not lack of faith (cf., e.g., Gen 18:27, 30-32; 2 Sam. 10:12; Dan 3:18; even at times in paganism, PGM 4.648-49: "If it is your will"; cf. regrets at answered prayers in Babrius 23.8-10); it is the ultimate act of dependence on God's compassion, which takes great trust and commitment for a desperate person to utter.
Fourth, Matthew teaches his community about Jesus' character: Jesus wanted to make the man whole (8:3). Although Matthew, in abbreviating Mark's account, omits mention of Jesus' "compassion" here (Mk 1:41), he plainly views compassion as a primary motivation in Jesus' acts of healing (Mt 9:36). In 8:17 Matthew will develop this theme: Jesus was ready to pay a high price himself to bring healing for his people.
Fifth, Jesus is prepared not only to heal but to touch the untouchable, though in the eyes of others this meant he shared the leper's uncleanness (8:3). Although large crowds followed Jesus (8:1) — the sort of circumstance that would draw the attention of the Romans' aristocratic agents (e.g., Jos. War 2.259-60) — Matthew focuses not on the masses but on a desperate man excluded from society. Jewish law forbade touching lepers (Lev 5:3) and quarantined lepers from regular society (Lev 13:45-46; Jos. Ant. 3.261, 264), and people avoided contact with them (2 Kings 7:3; Jos. Ant. 9.74; Apion 1.229, 233,281; Sifra Neg.; Sifra Mes. par. 1-5).6 Some ruled that the defilement of leprosy was one of the greatest defilements, for a leper could communicate it even by entering a house (m. Kelim 1:4; cf. Num. Rab. 7:8). By the third century one rabbi even warned against coming within a hundred cubits downwind of a leper, lest one contract defilement (Lev. Rab. 16:3).
It is thus no small matter for Jesus compassionately to touch the man (Patte 1987: 113; Gundry 1982: 139; Lane 1974a: 87), as he likewise touches some others who are unclean (e.g., 8:15; 9:21-22, 25).7 Yet by touching Jesus does not actually undermine the law of Moses, but fulfills its purpose by providing cleansing (5:17-48; cf. Lev 13:3, 8,10, 13,17; Gundry 1982: 140). Like many religious people in most cultures, some ancient Jews probably needed theological rationalizations for others' misfortune so that they could exempt themselves from the fear that they, too, were vulnerable; hence some later teachers decided that leprosy was divine punishment (m. Sheqal. 5:3; Lev. Rab. 17:3; Num. Rab. 7:5), especially for slander (Sifre Deut. 275.1.1; ARN 9A; 16, §36; 41, §116B; b. 'Arak. 16a; Ex. Rab. 3:13; Lev. Rab. 16:6-7; Num. Rab. 7:4; 16:6; Deut. Rab. 6:8; see Bonsirven 1964: 109; Urbach 1979: 1:372 for earlier sources).8
Sixth, Jesus does not seek human honor for himself (8:4). This healing would be viewed as no small miracle. As noted above, some Jewish teachers, following Numbers 12:12 and 2 Kings 5:7, regarded leprosy as akin to death, and cleansing a leper as akin to raising the dead (b. Sanh. 47a; cf. Jos. Ant. 3.264). Moreover, whereas some contemporary holy men effected healing by prayer, Jesus cleansed directly, evidencing greater authority (Davies and Allison 1991: 13, citing b. Ber. 34b). Yet Jesus not only refuses to take advantage of the opportunity for publicity; he attempts to suppress it.
Various reasons have been offered for the messianic secret in the Gospels (it is most prominent in Mark).9 Wrede contended that Mark invented the messianic secret to explain why some traditions denied that Jesus claimed Messiahship (Wrede 1971: 17-18, 228), but most scholars today judge this thesis to be inadequate because it dismisses too much of the data.10 Others suggest that Jesus rejects the title initially due to its military connotations (Cullmann 1956b: 26); no public acclamation of Jesus' Messiahship could be understood accurately until after the crucifixion and resurrection (Mk 15:26; Hurtado 1983: xxiii; Marshall 1990: 89-90). Indeed, some scholars argue that Jesus was only Messiah-designate till after the resurrection anyway (Longenecker 1981: 68-73). Thus messianic acclamations could and did lead the authorities wrongly to classify Jesus as a revolutionary and seek his execution; Jesus delays his death until the appropriate time by seeking to reduce publicity. Undue publicity drew uncontrollable crowds (e.g., Mk 1:45; 2:2; 3:9-10, 20); the crowds and the rumors they might spread could invite further "incriminating charges" that Jesus sought to delay until the appropriate time (see Rhoads and Michie 1982: 87; cf. Augustine Tractates on John, Tractate 113, ACCS, 55).11
Wrede's thesis falters not only on literary-critical grounds but also from comparative studies. Contemporary messianic figures usually avoided claiming their own messiahship, depending instead on others to acclaim them (Witherington 1990: 265-67). In the broader culture, self-testimony may have seemed inappropriate, especially in view of the sentiment against self-boasting in the first-century Mediterranean world (cf. Isoc. Nic./Cypr. 46, Or. 3.36; Plut. Praising Oneself Inoffensively, Mor. 539A-547F, especially 15, Mor. 544D; Quint. Inst. Or. 11.1.17-19; Lyons 1985: 44-45, 68-69). Some prominent biblical prophets often worked clandestinely, endeavoring to accomplish their mission without seeking their own honor (e.g., 1 Kings 11:29; 13:8-9; 21:18; 2 Kings 9:1-10), partly because they were investing their time especially in a small circle of disciples they were training (1 Sam 19:20; 2 Kings 4:38; 6:1-3; Keener 1993: 134).
But because the "secrets" of the kingdom extend far beyond Jesus' Messiah-ship (13:11), solutions addressing only a "messianic secret" may be too narrow.12 One may further consider an apologetic literary function: if Jesus is the Messiah, why did Israel as a whole not embrace him (cf. Rom 9:6)? Mark emphasizes that Jesus' identity is hidden to those who fail to believe (Hooker 1983: 61); Jesus' works testified of him (cf. Jn 5:36; 10:25, 37-38; 14:10-12; 15:24), but God allowed Israel to be blinded through their hardness of heart (cf. Rom 11:25). Whatever the other reasons, Jesus is not interested in getting "credit" with others for his power with God (cf. 6:1-18).
Finally, Jesus honors the requirements of the law of Moses (8:4). Although this testimony comes to Matthew from earlier tradition (Mk 1:44), it accords well with his own emphasis that Jesus upholds the law (Mt 5:17-20): the law commanded lepers who thought they were cleansed to submit to priestly inspection and offer sacrifice to thank God (Lev 14:1-9; CD 13.6-7; Jos. Ant. 3.264; m. Neg.; cf. b. Yoma 30b).13 Jesus may not seek "credit" for the miracle, but his faithfulness to the law takes precedence over his personal prohibition against announcing the work. It is possible that the man's obedience required two separate steps. Priests lived throughout Palestine and came to Jerusalem only during their courses (Lk 1:8; Sandmel 1978: 133; Jeremias 1969: 72, 199); some Jewish traditions thus expect a leper to submit to local priests' inspection (cf. Jeremias 1969: 206) before offering the sacrifice in the temple (Lev 14:2-3). Miracle stories often concluded by sending the healed person away (Theissen 1983: 67-68).
A Roman Exception (8:5-13)
Cf. Mk 2:1; Lk 7:l-10.The motif of one entreating on another's behalf occurs in various ancient healing stories (see Theissen 1983: 49); Jn 4:46-54 bears some resemblance to the present account but is most likely a different story.
The Gentile mission was at most peripheral to Jesus' earthly ministry: he did not actively seek out Gentiles for ministry (10:5), and both Gentiles he heals are from a distance (8:13; 15:28; Blauw 1962). The Gentile mission became central to the early church, however, and early Christians naturally looked to the Jesus tradition for what examples of ministry to the Gentiles they could find there (cf. 1:3, 5-6; 2:1-2, 11; 3:9; 4:15). When the Gospel writers seek examples for the Gentile mission in Jesus' ministry, however, they have available only two healing stories to which they may turn (with the possible exception of Mk 5:1-20; Matt 8:28-34; Lk 8:26-39); although all three Synoptic Gospels emphasize the Gentile mission (Mt 28:19; Mk 13:10; Lk 24:47), only Matthew includes both full stories (8:5-13; 15:21-28; Mk 7:24-30; Lk 7:2-10).
The account of the Roman centurion constitutes the only clear miracle story in Q. If, as Theissen thinks, Q was edited in the 40s, the story of the Syrian legate Petronius's dangerous intervention on behalf of the temple may have rendered the story of a "good" Roman officer more palatable than at some other times (Theissen 1991: 226). But why would Q, which is not against Jesus' miracles (cf. 11:5-6) but normally expends no space recounting them, include this particular narrative?14 Although the healing of the centurion's servant is a miracle story, Jesus' climactic pronouncement about Israel's privilege in 8:11-12 is more critical to this account than the healing itself (with Bultmann 1968: 209).
To comprehend the full significance of the passage one must grasp some basic information about Roman centurions and what they represented to Jewish people in the first century. In this period, soldiers in the Roman legions served twenty years (Ferguson 1987: 39) and could not join unless they were Roman citizens (noncitizens could work as auxiliaries — Jones 1971: 205-6; Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 31). Unlike aristocrats who immediately could become tribunes or higher, most centurions achieved their position from the ranks and became members of the equestrian (knight) class when they retired (Jones 1971: 201-3; Friedlander 1965: 1:194); demotion was a grievous insult (Dion. Hal. 9.39.1). Each of the ten cohorts in a legion included six centurions (Ferguson 1987: 38), each of them commanding a "century" of roughly eighty troops (Jones 1971: 194; cf. B.G.U. 696.11-15).15 Roman soldiers participated in pagan religious oaths to the divine emperor (Jones 1971: 212).
Matthew here demonstrates that properly discipling the nations (28:19) demands a prior abandonment of ethnic and cultural prejudice (cf. 5:44). When Matthew is writing (especially if somewhere in the decade following 70), his Jewish readers in the vicinity of Syria or Palestine would be tempted to hate Romans passionately, especially Roman soldiers, and perhaps especially their basic officers. (Centurions were the officers ordinary citizens of other lands most frequently had to confront; e.g., CIJ 2:132, §920; Sifre Deut. 309.1.1.) This situation would be harshest in the two decades immediately after A.D. 66, however. Many in Matthew's audience undoubtedly had relatives or knew of close relatives of friends who had died in the siege of Jerusalem or whom the Romans enslaved after Jerusalem's fall.16
Jesus' teaching about not resisting a Roman soldier's unjust request (5:41), paying taxes to a pagan state that used the funds in part for armies (22:21), or paying a temple tax that the Romans now confiscated for pagan worship (17:24-27) would seem intolerable to anyone whose allegiance to Christ was not greater than one's allegiance to all the people one knew and cared about. But Jesus is unsatisfied that a disciple should treat an enemy respectfully; he demands that one actually love that enemy (5:44). No one challenges prejudices — and sometimes provokes antagonism — more than a "good" member of a group that has unjustly treated one's people. This narrative challenges such prejudice in a number of ways.
First, the centurion humbles himself before Jesus not on behalf of himself but for a servant. For Matthew's audience, the servant's social status might be akin to that of some Jews enslaved after a.d. 70.17 Luke paints the picture of ethnic reconciliation even more clearly (Lk 7:4-5),18 but even in Matthew this Roman soldier was one that Jewish people would have to count as an exception. As in the case of the synagogue leader (9:18), one with societal power must humble himself before Jesus as a patron or advocate for one with little social power (cf. Levine 1996: 395).
This slave was probably the centurion's entire "family" (ancients reckoned household slaves as part of their household; see, e.g., Barrow 1968: 22-64; Ver-ner 1983: 30, 33).19 Roman soldiers were not permitted to have legal families during their two decades of military service (see, e.g., Jones 1970: 155-56; Llewelyn 1992: 148). Although many soldiers took unofficial concubines (e.g., Fabius Maximus 4 in Plut. Sayings of Romans, Mor. 195EF; B.G.U. 140.10-33; Livy 43.3.2; Herodian 3.8.5; Gardner 1986: 58, 143; O'Rourke 1971: 182), centurions were frequently transferred from one legion to another, preventing permanent ties with local women (cf. Jones 1971: 203); a code of dignity may also have lessened the likelihood of their liaisons with concubines (among higher officers, cf. Scipio the Elder 2, Plut. Sayings of Romans, Mor. 196B). But this centurion regards the servant as perhaps the only member of his family in this land. His interest in the servant's welfare is certainly not merely ecomonic: whereas the average slave would have cost roughly one-third of the annual pay of the highest paid legionary (Verner 1983: 61; cf. Speidel 1992; data in Lewis 1983: 208 may suggest a significantly higher percentage for the average legionary), the base pay of a centurion was fifteen times that of a rank-and-file soldier, and a senior centurion (pilus primus) made some four times that base pay (Jones 1971: 202-3).
Second, the centurion humbles himself by acknowledging his inferior status as a Gentile (8:8; cf. 15:27). The centurion's initial announcement of the need (8:6) is an oblique form of request; one rarely simply presumed on others' favor (cf. Lk 24:28-29; Jn 1:38-39), and one of higher social status rarely would utter a direct request unless desperate (cf. Jn 2:3). But Jesus forces the centurion to admit his status as a suppliant.
The emphatic Greek "I" in 8:7 suggests that Jesus' words there are probably better translated as a question: "Shall / come and heal him?"20 Most Palestinian Jews, after all, considered entering Gentile homes questionable (cf. Acts 10:28; m. Pesah. 8:8; Ohol. 18:7; Jos. War 2.150; Safrai 1974/76c: 829; Wright 1992a: 239-40), though this custom primarily grew from the hatred of idolatry (cf. ARN 8A; b. Pesah. 9a). In this case, Jesus erects a barrier between the centurion and himself as he does with the Canaanite woman (15:24, 26); an outsider who would entreat his favor must first acknowledge the privilege of Israel, whom their peoples had oppressed or disregarded (cf. Jn 4:22). Such initial rejection was a not uncommon ploy for demanding greater commitment (see comment on 19:16-22). One might implicitly demand (Judg 11:7) and the suppliant accept the demand (11:8) to humble oneself and reverse a previous allegiance, and the obstacle or test might include an emphatic "I" (11:9).
Rather than protesting, the centurion acknowledges his questionable merit before Jesus (cf. Lk 7:4, 6), adopting the appropriate role of a suppliant totally dependent on a patron's benefaction, a role centurions often filled for local populations (Malina 1981: 78; Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 70). If we do not read 8:7 as a question (so Meier 1980: 83), the point remains much the same, except that the centurion offers the act of faith without Jesus' provocation: he recognizes that it is inappropriate for Jesus to enter his home as long as the centurion remains a Gentile who has not become Jewish. One might question whether some guest was worthy of full hospitality (cf. 2 Jn 10), but in this case the centurion, conscious of his Gentile status, questions whether he is worthy to show hospitality to Jesus (cf. 10:8). Jesus' only reported long-distance healings are with two Gentiles (8:13; 15:28) and with an aristocratic partisan of Rome or Herod whom Jesus also initially rejects (Jn 4:49-53; France 1977: 258).
Third, the centurion recognizes Jesus' unlimited authority to heal, even from a distance (8:8-9). The centurion clearly has heard of Jesus, along with most of Capernaum, and respects him. The title with which he greets Jesus, "Lord" (8:6, 8; cf. 8:2), can read as weakly as "Sir" (e.g., P. Giess. bib. 21.11; P. Oxy. 123.1, 26; Select Papyri 1:338-39; Test. Abr. 2, 15, 18A; 8B) or as strongly as deity; in this context, the centurion at the least acknowledges Jesus as one of authority superior to his own in the matter at hand (France 1977: 255; Ladd 1974: 171; Charlesworth 1985: 88; for the comparable Latin expression, Friedlander 1965: 4:81-87). Despite Matthew's emphasis on Jesus as a teacher, only his enemies call him this (26:25, 48); others grant him the greater title that Matthew's community would understand retrospectively as "Lord" (Meier 1979: 49).
The man shows faith not only by acknowledging his own unworthiness but also by recognizing that Jesus' power is so great that this request is nevertheless small to him. Most of the centurion's contemporaries would have balked at such faith. Jewish people considered long-distance miracles especially difficult and rare, the domain of only the most powerful holy men like Hanina ben Dosa (Bonsirven 1964: 128-29; Manson 1979: 65; Vermes 1984: 7-8; cf. b. Ber. 34b). Stories of sages who could simply speak a decree and it happened (e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:16; cf. Mt 21:21; Bultmann 1968: 222) were rare (for deities, e.g., Virg. Aen. 1.142).
The centurion reasons, however, from what he knows: he himself can issue commands and receive obedience because he is "under authority," that is, backed by the full authority of the Roman Empire that he represents to his troops (cf. Haslam 1985); cf. Plut. Praec. Ger. Reip. 813EF: those taking office must remind themselves that they, too, are subjects, governing under the authority of Caesar's agents. In the same way, the authority of Israel's God backs Jesus, and a mere command from his lips banishes powers in subjection under him, such as sickness. (Saying "Go," and one goes, and "Come," and one comes, was a standard summary statement of one's authority — Epict. Disc. 1.25.10-11.)21 This principle of delegated authority stands behind the ministry of the disciples as well (10:8, 40).
Fourth, Jesus accepts this attitude as one of faith — greater than the faith of his own people (8:10). This text provides a twofold lesson: a general lesson about the nature of faith (the centurion recognized Jesus' unlimited authority and Jesus did heal the servant — 8:13) and a lesson about prejudices that seemed justly founded. Surrounding narratives rehearse the first lesson repeatedly (8:13; 9:2, 22; 15:28; 18:6; 21:21; unbelief in 6:30; 13:58; 14:31; 17:17; 23:23; 27:42). Some ancient miracle stories emphasized faith (e.g., Epidauros inscriptions 3-4 in Grant 1953: 56-57); but it is far more common in Matthew. (That the Synoptics address faith directly less than any other part of the New Testament except Revelation does, however, renders doubtful the idea that Matthew's emphasis on faith is purely redactional; see Jeremias 1971: 160-61.) The recurrent theme of the Gentile mission in Matthew reinforces the second theme, which bears more special comment here.
Matthew, who writes for Jewish Christians, expresses Jesus' response toward Israel more harshly than Luke does. In Luke, Jesus has not found such faith "even" in Israel, where he expected it (Lk 7:9); Matthew omits the concession "even," emphasizing the raw charge in Jesus' words (France 1977: 259; Martin 1978: 18). Jesus "marvels" (NRSV "was amazed"; NIV "was astonished") only twice in the Gospel traditions, here at a Gentile's faith (8:10) and in Mark 6:6 at his hometown's unbelief (France 1977: 259).22 In Matthew's theology, those closest to the truth often take it for granted whereas those who have had the least exposure to it often recognize its power (2:1-12).
Finally, Jesus regards this exceptional Gentile as the promise of more Gentiles to come (8:11-12). Strong evidence supports 8:11-12 as an authentic saying of Jesus (Semitisms and background in Jeremias 1958: 55-62). Matthew may draw Jesus' words here from another context (Lk 13:28-29) to reinforce the point that this story prefigures the Gentile mission, which Jesus endorsed in advance (France 1977: 260).
"Sons of the kingdom" (cf. 13:38; 23:15) refers to Jewish people — those who expected salvation based on their descent from Abraham (3:9); "sons of' sometimes means "those destined for" (France 1977: 262; Abrahams 1924: 187). Outer darkness plainly signified damnation (13:42; 22:13; 25:30; 1 Enoch 10:4-6; 62:11; 63:6, 11; 92:5; 108:14; 2 Enoch 25:4-5; 26:3; Ex. Rab. 14:3; Sib. Or. 2:291-92; cf. Ps. Sol. 14:9; 15:10), and sometimes is conjoined with burning (1QS 4.12-13; Sib. Or. 4.43; 1 Enoch 103:8; 2 Enoch 10:2; Apoc. Peter Eth. 9/Akhmim 27; cf. Ex. Rab. 14:2);23 a Greek reader might also think here of eternal separation from all other people (cf. Diog. Laert. 8.1.31). Weeping indicates mourning over damnation (Jdt 16:17; Test. Jud. 25:5; cf. Mt 13:42; 22:13); gnashing of teeth might indicate anger or strong emotion similar to it (e.g., Ps 112:10; Acts 7:54; Edersheim: 253), but it probably signifies primarily anguish (Sib. Or. 2:203, 305; 8.86, 105, 125; Ex. Rab. 31:5; Qoh. Rab. 1:15, §1; cf. Derrett 1973: 70; Mt 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Lk 13:28).24 The damnation of those who thought themselves destined for the kingdom sounded a sober warning to nationalist Jews of Matthew's day, just as it would sound a warning to complacent Christians today (Goldingay 1977: 254).25
Jesus could originally have referred to Diaspora Jews as those who would come from the east and the west (Sanders 1985: 220; Allison 1989), but given the pointed theological contrast with his hearers, he more likely refers to the eschatological ingathering of Gentiles promised in the prophets (Is 56:3-8; see more fully data in Jeremias 1958: 56-61; Sanders 1985: 213-15), especially if
Isaiah 25:6-8 is in view (Sanders 1993: 185).26 Jesus necessarily knew this promise in the Bible even if he were isolated from other Jewish speculation that developed it, and such attitudes on his part would more readily explain why his followers within a matter of decades began a Gentile mission on terms that quickly transcended those of other Jewish groups (e.g., Acts 11:20-21; 15:14-21). Because no one questioned whether Diaspora Jews as a whole would inherit the kingdom, they would make little sense in "an example of surprising inclusion in contrast with surprising exclusion" (Gundry 1982: 145).
Whereas we can affirm that Jesus very probably meant Gentiles, that Matthew means the Gentiles is clear: Rome was the great power that lay to the west, and Matthew had earlier illustrated the coming of pagans from the east (2:1). These would recline at table (the standard posture for feasts and banquets, e.g., in Qoh. Rab. 9:8, §1) in the kingdom with the patriarchs — the messianic banquet Israel expected for themselves (5:6; 22:2; Lk 16:23; 4 Macc 13:17; 1 Enoch 70:4; 3 Enoch 48A:10; Test. Asher 7:7; Test. Benj. 10:6-9; p. Ta'an. 4:2, §12; cf. Koenig 1985: 16). The key to the request, as for many healings, was the man's faith (cf. 9:29; 15:28), the characteristic that also gained him entrance into the kingdom. As the first converts of a province might embody hope for that region (1 Cor 16:15; Minear 1960: 112), so this Gentile functions as a foretaste of the fruits of the Gentile mission yet to come. His audience for now must love their enemies (5:44-45; cf. 5:44; 22:21).
Jesus the Healer (8:14-17)
Cf. Mk 1:29-34; Lk 4:38-41. Although Matthew employs Jesus' past healings as an apologetic, as a proof of Jesus' messianic claim, he undoubtedly regarded the continuing signs of his community's missionaries as apologetic testimony as well (see comment on 12:24). Matthew spends much of his narrative presenting Jesus as a healer because he expects his audience to experience Jesus as a continuing healer, as one who now holds all authority in heaven and on earth (28:18; cf. 9:35-38; 10:1; Rom 15:19; 1 Cor 12:9; 2 Cor 12:12; Gal 3:5; Jas 5:14-15).
First, Jesus healed not only in the course of public ministry but also when needs arose in daily situations (8:14). Jesus healed not just in synagogues but also in home settings, in this case one posed by fairly typical living arrangements for the family of one of his disciples. Despite ancient mother-in-law comedies (e.g., Terence The Mother-in-Law, second century B.C.; cf. Juv. Sat. 6.231-32), ancient Jewish literature presupposes close ties with one's in-laws (e.g., p. Mo'ed Qat. 3:5, §28), and concern for Peter would carry over to concern for his household (cf. Malina 1993: 67). Newlyweds might initially live with the husband's family (Derrett 1973: 38; Blue 1994: 185n.25 5),27 sometimes in a second-story room atop their roof; apparently Peter, away from his native Bethsaida (Jn 1:44), is now well enough established to own his own home.28 But this would not mean that only his nuclear family could live with him. Fathers were normally older than their wives to begin with (admittedly less so in Palestine), and often died early in their offspring's adulthood (Sailer 1987). If a father died, children might need to take in an aged mother (cf. 15:5-6; 1 Tim 5:4, 8; Hierocles Duties. Marriage 4.22.21-24; Duties. Conduct toward Parents 4.25.53; Quint. 6.6.5; Sir 3:16; Sib. Or. 2.273-75; Moore 1971: 2:170), as Peter has done with his mother-in-law here. Some archaeologists think they have found relatively secure evidence for Peter's house in Capernaum, where this and other miracles (Mk 2:1-2) probably occurred.29
Hagner 1993: 208-9 points out a minor chiastic structure in 8:14-15, in which Jesus first ministers to Peter's wife's mother, and she in turn ministers to him.30 This structure may make emphatic the model for discipleship: after Jesus transforms a person, the person serves him. If so, this is not the only text where Matthew chooses women disciples as a paradigm for discipleship in general (27:55-61; 28:1-10). That Jesus touches her to cure her may also indicate the way he values people over traditions, given the reported prejudice against touching people with fevers (Witherington 1984: 67; Hagner 1993: 209; Carson 1984b: 204; following Strack-Billerbeck 1:479-80); cf. 8:3; 9:20, 25.31
Second, as word of the healing spread, others came seeking healing, and Jesus healed all who came (8:16). Ancient Mediterranean culture valued openness or harmlessness exhibited by having a home always open to others in the community (Malina 1981: 78). Although their arrival in the evening may have interfered with Jesus' early sleep, Mark informs us that the suppliants had to await sunset because the day had been the Sabbath (Mk 1:21, 29, 32). Matthew's abbreviating technique leads him to omit this law-honoring detail, though he also omits the more offensive healing of Peter's mother-in-law and her serving them on the Sabbath. Further, Matthew is more explicit than Mark that Jesus healed all who came to him (Filson 1960: 112). Having heard of his power, those who were diligent enough to come to him at evening undoubtedly had faith, removing the primary obstacle to his healing activity (cf. 13:58). As throughout the Book of Acts (and in many Jewish and pagan miracle traditions), signs both met people's needs directly and drew public attention to the message the signs attested.
Third, that Jesus healed and expelled demons with a mere word demonstrates his incomparable power (8:17). Like people in many non-Western cultures, Jesus' contemporaries recognized the reality of spirit-possession (for examples, cf. Kiev 1964, passim; Goodman 1988), but sought to relieve it by means of incantations, pain compliance techniques like smelly roots, or invoking higher spirits to get rid of lower ones (Tob 6:7-8, 16-17; 8:2-3; Jos. Ant. 8.45-49; Jub. 10:10-13; Apul. Metam. 3.15).32 Jesus instead expelled demons simply by his word (8:16; cf. Twelftree 1986: 383; Vermes 1973: 23, 63-65), fitting the picture of Jesus' absolute authority Matthew's reader has just encountered (his "word" in 7:24; 8:8; cf. 8:13, 16, 22, 32; 9:9; 28:19).
Although the miracles of Elijah and Elisha provide the role model for many of Jesus' miracles, the closest Old Testament model for exorcisms would be David in 1 Samuel 16:14-23 (cf. Betz 1968: 66; Barrett 1966: 53; Ps-Philo 60); early Judaism viewed David's son Solomon as exorcist par excellence (e.g., Test. Sol. 5.10; Aramaic incantation text 47:1-2; p. Ketub. 12:3, §11; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:3). Curing disease with a mere word (8:3, 8) was also quite unusual, contrasting with most of the popular magicians of the day (Anderson 1976: 97; cf. some threats against demons in Theissen 1983: 63-64).
Finally, Matthew informs his audience that healing was part of Jesus' mission, which God provided at great cost to Jesus (8:17). Matthew bypasses the spiritualized reading in the Greek version and translates the Isaiah passage directly from the Hebrew.33 The context in Isaiah 53 suggests that the servant's death would heal the nation from its sin (53:4-6, 8-9; cf. 1 Pet 2:22-25), a figurative usage (along with judgment) frequent in the prophets (13:15; Is 6:10; 57:18; Jer 3:22; 6:14; 8:11; 14:19; Hos 14:4; cf. 1QH 2.8-9; Sir 28:3; Pesiq. R. 44:8). But the broader context of Isaiah (assuming either Isaiah's unity, as Matthew's own audience would, or that a later "Isaiah" drew on the earlier one, as some contemporary scholars think) shows God's eschatological concern for his people's complete wellness (29:18; 32:3-4; 35:5-6), suggesting secondary nuances of physical healing in 53:4-5 as well (Gundry 1982: 150; cf. France 1985: 158). The servant's suffering would restore to Israel eschatologically the benefits lost through sin (cf. Deut 27-28). Thus Matthew cites Isaiah 53:4 to demonstrate that Jesus' mission of healing fulfills the character of the mission of the servant, who at the ultimate cost of his own life would reveal God's concern for a broken humanity. Matthew himself also recognizes that genuine physical healings can illustrate principles about spiritual healing (9:5-7, 12; 13:15). (On the servant, see comment on Mt 12:18-21 .)34 Jesus' sacrifice to bear others' infirmities may also provide a model for his disciples; it appears elsewhere in early Christian parenesis (Rom 15:1-3; 1 Pet 2:20-24).
Following Where Jesus Leads (8:18-22)
Cf. Mk 4:35; Lk 9:57-62. The key discipleship term "follow" (4:20; 9:9; 10:38; 16:24; 19:21; 20:34; 27:55; cf. the crowds in 4:25; 8:1, 10; 12:15; 19:2; 20:29; 21:9; Diog. Laert. 7.1.3) connects the two short pericopes of 8:18-20 and 8:21-22, demonstrating that not all would-be followers of Jesus (even "disciples," 8:21) have yet counted the genuine cost of being Jesus' followers. The same Jesus who has authority over nature (8:23-27), demons (8:28-34), and paralysis (9:2-8) is the one whose authority his disciples must acknowledge over their lives.35
Jesus' encounters here fit the logic of their Matthean context: Jesus is leading his disciples to a boat for their journey when one wishes to "absent himself temporarily" to bury his father. Jesus, however, expects the man to "follow" him — beginning by boarding the boat with him (8:23; Kingsbury 1988a: 56).
First, following Jesus may cost a disciple even the most basic security such as a place to live (8:18-20). A "scribe" (Matthew's clarification; cf. Lk 9:57) no doubt supposes that he is paying a high price in volunteering to follow Jesus; such a decision will cost popularity in some circles, and going through the process of discipleship after already being a scribe would be a humbling and time-consuming experience.
Jesus, however, warns his prospective disciple that even such a sacrifice may well prove inadequate. Jesus is, after all, the "son of man" who must suffer before his exaltation (cf. Dan 7:13-22; pace Bultmann 1958: 49). As the Arab Christian commentator Ibn Sa'id remarked on this passage, the disciple "does not understand that 'follow' means Gethsemane, and Golgotha, and the tomb" (Bailey 1980: 24). Although Jesus presumably had made a good wage as a carpenter before he began itinerant ministry (cf. Freyne 1988: 241) and still retained a home base in Capernaum (4:13), his traveling ministry left him and his disciples at the mercy of others' hospitality. In practice, then, Jesus was essentially homeless (regarded by some as the hardest of sufferings for humans — Hom. Od. 15.343), even more dependent on others than were the Levites in biblical law. In contrast to antisocial persons such as the Cynics or prophetic figures like John, mainstream society normally regarded such a lifestyle as wretched (e.g., Pub. Syr. 182), though it was sometimes depicted as the temporary lot of righteous heroes (e.g., Eurip. Electra 202-6, 234-36). Anyone who followed Jesus full-time during his earthly ministry would find himself or herself in the same situation. Jesus may employ biblicizing language, like the righteous sufferer who must flee like a bird (Ps 11:1; cf. 84:3; 102:6-7; 124:7) or perhaps foxes who lurk in desolate places (Lam 5:18: Ezek 13:4), but if he intends any specific allusion, it is most likely to David's attempt to send away a volunteer lest he become a wanderer with him (2 Sam 15:19-20); the proper response, however, is for the volunteer to follow anyway (2 Sam 15:21-22).36 Matthew records Jesus' words not merely as a matter of historical interest but as a call to his own generation: were they ready to follow Jesus even at the cost of all securities (10:5-14; cf. Heb 11:38)?
Yet while Jesus' traveling ministry identified him in one sense with the homeless, hence of low status in the eyes of others, his depiction of his ministry might also allude to rejected divine Wisdom without a dwelling place on earth (1 Enoch 42:2; Marshall 1978: 410; Witherington 1990: 52-53). If so, Jesus' words to this scribe, like his words to the would-be disciple in Matthew's following lines, imply a status higher than the society would grant to a mortal teacher.
Second, following Jesus takes precedence over all social obligations, even those family obligations one's society and religion declare to be ultimate (8:21-22).37 "Let the dead bury their dead" may represent a typically sagelike sort of catchy saying (cf. Ps-Phocyl. 147-48) probably meaning, "Let the 'spiritually dead' (cf. Lk 15:24, 32; p. Ta'an. 3:8, §2; see further Hengel 1981b: 7-8; Davies and Allison 1991: 56n.l68; Vermes 1993: 29) see to such concerns."38 Others suggest, "Let the other physically dead in your father's tomb see to your physically dead father," a manifest impossibility characteristic of Jesus' typically shocking and graphic style to emphasize that this is no business of the living disciple's (cf. Gundry 1982: 153; McCane 1990: 41).39
Jesus' demand may prove less harsh in some respects than it sounds at first. The "disciple" (he has already acknowledged Jesus as his teacher; cf. Lk 9:59; by calling him "disciple" Matthew makes the narrative explicitly relevant for his community's commitment) is probably not asking permission to attend his father's funeral later that day; his father more likely either was not yet dead or, most likely, had been buried once already. When a person died, mourners would gather, the body would be prepared, and a funeral procession would take the body to the tomb immediately (cf. 27:59-60; Mk 5:35, 38; Lk 7:12), leaving no time for family members to be away talking with rabbis; for a week afterward, the family would remain mourning at home and not go out in public (Sir 22:12; Jdt 16:24; Safrai 1974/76b: 782; Apoc. Mos. 43:3; cf. b. Sanh. 47b; Jn 11:19-20; Sandmel 1978b: 200-201; though cf. Life of Adam 51:2).40 But father and son might wish to be together before the father died (Jos. Life 204), and current Semitic idioms show that "I must first bury my father" can function as a request to wait until one's father dies — perhaps for years — so that one may fulfill the ultimate filial obligation before leaving home (Bailey 1980: 26; cf. Vermes 1993: 29).41
A custom practiced only in the decades immediately surrounding the time of Jesus may illumine this passage more directly, however. In Jesus' day the eldest son would return to the tomb a year after the father's death to "rebury" his father by neatly arranging his now bare bones in a container and sliding it into a slot on the wall. If the father has died, this young man cannot refer to his father's initial burial, and hence must be asking for as much as a year's delay for a secondary burial (see McCane 1990).42
Then again, Jesus' demand also proves harsher than it sounds to us at first. The offense lies not in the immediacy of the demand but in the priority the demand takes over family obligations (10:21, 35-37; cf. Hengel 1981b: 13), the kind of demand God made of biblical prophets (Hengel 1981b: 11-12). Many Jewish people considered honoring parents the supreme commandment (Ep. Arist. 228; Jos. Apion 2.206; Ps-Phocyl. 8; Moore 1971: 2:132), and regarded burial of one's parents as one of the most important implications of that commandment regardless of the circumstances (Tob 4:3-4; 6:14; 1 Macc 2:70; 4 Macc 16:11).43 A few teachers did insist that one should honor one's teacher above one's parents (m. B. Mes. 2:11; p. Hag. 2:1, §10),44 but for a young man in his thirties (as Jesus apparently was; Lk 3:23) to seek such honor would be considered presumptuous and shameful (Bailey 1980: 29).45 When sages figuratively placed demands for the honor of sages higher than those of one's parents, it was to emphasize the importance of Torah study, but they would never have placed even the urgency of Torah study above the urgency of burying a parent who had died (cf., e.g., m. Ber. 3:1), and presumably would have avoided dishonoring or disobeying living parents by any means possible (see references on 15:4-6).
In most current interpretations of biblical law, only one person's honor took precedence over the honor shown to parents: God's (Deut 13:6; 4 Macc 2:10-12; Jos. Apion 2.206; Ps-Phocyl. 8; b. Meg. 3b). Jesus does insist on honoring parents (15:4-6); yet he demands greater affection toward himself. A disciple cannot simply "move on" from him after several years as with some other teachers and count it a profitable learning experience (Jos. Life 12). Jesus scandalously claims the supreme position of attention in his followers' lives. And lest anyone doubt that Jesus could demand the sort of immediate abandonment of family obligations so that this passage need not imply, Luke adds a third account that requires just that (Lk 9:61-62; cf. Keener 1993: 215; Meier 1980: 87).
Third, Jesus' purpose is to weed out would-be disciples who are weak in commitment. Jesus wanted people to follow him and welcomed the masses; nor did Jesus actually want prospective disciples to abandon him. Mark reports that Jesus loved a prospective disciple (Mk 10:21) — just before he effectively discouraged the man from following him (Mk 10:22). But those who would genuinely be disciples of the king must count the cost before they begin following him (Lk 14:26-35). (Parallels from some other radical ancient teachers demonstrate that commitment rather than harshness was Jesus' intent; see comments on Mt 19:16-22.)
Jesus' Authority over Nature (8:23-27)
Cf. Mk 4:36-41; Lk 8:22-25. This passage affirms Jesus' authority over nature (8:26). Yet if we are right in thinking that Matthew addressed a predominantly Jewish urban congregation, most of his readers rarely faced life-threatening storms at sea. Matthew may encourage his readers that as Jesus has power over nature, so he has power over whatever natural crises they may face, whether persecution (10:28-31), provision (14:32-38), the winds of eschatological judgment (7:25), or anything else; compare the similar example of Elijah in James 5:14-18. (In this case we ask how Matthew's audience might apply the story, rather than suggesting that he allegorizes it, against Bornkamm or Borg.)46
The tradition behind this particular story is very likely Palestinian, describing in traditional Galilean (but contrary to foreign) fashion the Lake of Galilee as a "sea" (v. 24; see Mk 4:39; also Theissen 1991: 105-8). The story's setting is also plausible. Over six hundred feet below sea level, the Lake of Galilee is surrounded by ravine-marked hills that can abruptly pull strong winds onto the lake, leading to unexpected storms (Mounce 1985: 75; Paterson 1982: 404). Galilean fishing boats were on average small, holding only a few men (cf. Jos. War 3.523; Sanders 1993: 102). Contracts show that those renting boats agreed to return them undamaged except in acts of God beyond their control such as storms (Llewelyn 1992: 82-83). The account of disciples being caught in a storm is not, therefore, implausible; whether one deems the rest of the story plausible involves one's presuppositions about Jesus and about what is possible.
Most scholars today recognize that Jesus performed healings and exorcisms (often because they wish to explain them psychosomatically) but view the nature miracles as legendary embellishments.47 But most legendary miracle stories in antiquity (cf., e.g., Smith 1978: 119) surrounded characters of the distant past (Grant 1986: 62) rather than arising when eyewitnesses remained. The Western prejudice against nature miracles, like the increasingly less common prejudice against miracles in general, may reveal more about the Enlightenment presuppositions of many twentieth-century Western academicians than about first-century history. 48 Nor would the tradition have taken note of a mere customary stirring of the sea stopping in a customary manner at the moment Jesus "co-incidentally" ordered it to do so (Klausner 1979b: 269). Those of us who move in circles where we have witnessed significant miraculous acts (including some nature miracles) are much more disposed to accept the biblical accounts as reasonable as they stand than are those whose Enlightenment skepticism of such phenomena remains absolute.
First, Jesus reproves the disciples for their fear (8:26). Jesus' peace (8:24) contrasts starkly with the disciples' fear (8:25); they are "of little faith" (8:26), just like those who are anxious for tomorrow (6:30) or who doubt his power to work extraordinary miracles (14:31; 16:8; 17:20). Ability to sleep during trouble was often a sign of faith in God (Ps 3:5; 4:8; Anderson 1976: 144), and Greeks also praised philosophers who demonstrated consistency with their teaching by maintaining a serene attitude during a storm (Diog. Laert. 1.86; 2.71; 9.11.68; Aul. Gel. 1.2.11; 19.1.4-6, 11-21; Brawley 1987: 56). Just as Jesus expects his disciples to trust God for material provision (6:25-34), he expects them to trust him for safety (cf. 10:29-31).49 By this point in the narrative, the disciples appear without excuse for their unbelief (cf. Rhoads and Michie 1982: 93), like Israel in the wilderness; "Jesus expects them to have taken charge of the storm themselves" (Rhoads and Michie 1982: 90). Yet the narrative also indicates that when their faith remained imperfect, Jesus nevertheless responded to their need.
Second, this account reminds Matthew's community of Jesus' power and consequently Jesus' identity. Against Bornkamm (1963b: 57), who focuses on discipleship here, the primary function of this narrative is christological (Feiler 1983).50 Surely the disciples did not expect the boat to sink with this mighty teacher aboard who had not yet completed his mission? Faith in Jesus' authority flows from conviction concerning his true identity (cf. 8:8; 9:6). His power over the sea, however, forces them to grapple afresh with that question (8:27). Jesus' true identity and works repeatedly exceeded his contemporaries' expectations for him (7:28; 9:9; 12:23; 22:33).
Some stories about nature miracles circulated in antiquity, although they were less frequent than healing stories. The Pythagorean Empedocles could reportedly control winds and rain (Diog. Laert. 8.2.59); Orpheus, Abaris, Epimenides, Pythagoras, Apollonius, and others were also said to do such works (Porphyry Life of Pythagoras 29; Iamb. Pythagoras 135; Philost. Apoll. 4.13; Blackburn 1986: 190; Boring 1995: 67). A number of charismatic Jewish sages also were able to produce rain (e.g., t. Ta'an. 2:13; cf. Paus. 2.29.8), and some later traditions recount storms becoming calm at sea (e.g., b. B. Bat. 73a; B. Mes. 59b; p. Ber. 9:1; Urbach 1979: 1:126; Lohse 1976: 178; Boring 1995: 66, 68). Most of these accounts are considerably later than the characters they depict, however, and when pagans spoke of contemporary nature miracles, they nearly always ascribed them directly to the gods, especially Zeus (Grant 1986: 62).51
Parallels to the Jonah story (Cope 1976: 96-98) can link the disciples' amazement at Jesus' stilling of the storm to God's stilling the storm in the Jonah story (Jonah 1:15-16); other backgrounds in the Hebrew Bible also point to Jesus' identity with God (cf. in Lane 1974a: 176). In biblical tradition, it was God whom the seas obeyed (e.g., Job 38:8-11; Ps 65:5-8; 89:8-9; France 1985: 162).52 The astonishment of Jesus' disciples at his nature miracles is therefore understandable (Mk 4:41; 6:51; cf. a similar response to Apollonius in Greek tradition in Robbins 1992: 149; amazement at miracles, wonders, or deity is standard; see, e.g., P. Lond. 1912.8-9; 1 Enoch 26:6; Sib. Or. 1.32; Test. Abr. 3; 6A).
Their cry for Jesus to "save" them (8:25; not in Mk 4:38; cf. Mt 1:21; 9:21-22; 14:36) reflects a perfectly good use of the Greek term "save" ("deliver safely" — Keener 1992: 130-3In. 124; sometimes addressed to deities at sea — cf. 14:30; Acts 27:20, 31; Diod. Sic. 4.43.1; Ach. Tat. 3.5),53 but it probably also alludes on a literary, Matthean level to Jesus' broader mission (1:21). It may also reflect the biblical motif of people crying out to the Lord in distress (Ps 44:23; 78:65), including when he would still a storm for them (Ps 107:25-30; cf. Hooker 1983: 44). Jesus "rebukes" the sea (8:26) just as he would any spirit (17:18).54
Third, Jesus' exhausted slumber in the boat passage incidentally illustrates Jesus' statement that the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head (8:20). Jesus had been a refugee from his early youth (2:13-23), and his ministry now demanded the same lack of security. As if to underline the point, Matthew's omission of Mark's mention of the makeshift cushion (Mk 4:38; for sleeping in the higher stern, cf. Virg. Aen. 4.554-55) may represent more than his usual abbreviation technique. Matthew also purposely emphasizes that his true disciples "followed" him (8:23).
Jesus' Authority over Demons (8:28-34)
Cf. Mk 5:1-20; Lk 8:26-39. Although Matthew, abbreviating his accounts to get all of them onto his single scroll, omits many details concerning the "strong man" that "no one could bind" from Mark 5:1-20 (cf. Mk 3:27), his account nevertheless makes clear that Jesus overcomes extremely powerful demoniacs ("no one could pass that way" — 8:28; for unnatural strength involved in some possession trances, see, e.g., Murphy 1964: 58; for demonstrable physiological changes during possession trance, see Goodman 1988: 20, 126). Such suspense-building techniques were as common in exorcism stories (Theissen 1983: 52) as in other stories.
Details in the story both build suspense and bring out the significance of Jesus' power. Matthew's readers may also have heard of the healing sanctuary at Gadara (Wilkinson 1978: 102) — which clearly had not done these demoniacs much good. That tombs (in this region, see A. B. Bruce 1979: 145) were unclean (e.g., m. Nazir 3:5; 7:3; t. B. Bat. 1:10-11; Kelim B. Qam. 3:7; Sheb. 3:13; Mek. Pisha 1.83-84; ARN 41 A) and considered usual haunts of demons and magic (PGM 101.1-3; Nineham 1977: 153; Alexander 1980: 29; cf. Jub. 22:17; ARN 3A; b. Ber. 18b; Test. Sol. 8:9; Apul. Metam. 2.20; Lewis 1983: 96) increases the audience's suspicion that these demons are inordinately powerful — hence the narrative's opening suspense and christological impact.55
Matthew also clarifies Jesus' power against potential magical misinterpretations of Mark (Gundry 1982: 159) and adds a note of eschatological conquest: "before the appointed time" (8:29). Ascertaining a demon's name was important in magical exorcism (Test. Sol. 5:2, 6-7, 9; cf. 11:5), but Matthew omits the words in Mark that could be thus interpreted (Mk 5:9). In 8:29 Matthew omits Mark's horkizo ("implore," Mk 5:7), though adding the cognate exorkizo in 26:63, perhaps because oath invocations had magical associations in other exorcisms — PGM 1.80-82, 167; 36.307, 347-48; 39.19-20; Test. Sol. 11:6; cf. the inscription in Kotansky 1995. "Go" (8:32) may bear verbal reminiscence to formulas used by other exorcists (Bultmann 1968: 232; "come out from" in Barrett
1961: 34; "rebuke" in Kee 1968: 246; it was, after all, a common goal to get the spirit to depart), but the other parallels generally derive from contexts of lengthy magical incantations, whereas Jesus casts out spirits merely "with a word" (8:16).56
Two minor critical issues warrant comment. Matthew's "Gadarenes" (8:28) represents a different city than Mark's "Gerasenes" (Mk 5:1). Historians freely corrected earlier historical claims in light of better geographical evidence (Diod. Sic. 4.56.7-8), and some suppose that Matthew does so with Mark here. Gerasa was larger and more powerful in Mark's time,57 hence Mark used the more prominent city to identify the region (cf. Vander Broek 1983: 89-102); Matthew, probably writing to Christians in Syria who knew the region better, clarifies the matter by naming the prominent city nearer the lake itself (six miles away as opposed to thirty — Anderson 1976: 147-48).58 In both Gospels, the writer is simply identifying the region; Gadara and Gerasa were both parts of the Decapolis, a primarily Gentile area with a large Jewish population (Jos. War 1.155; cf. Ant. 15.354; Gen. Rab. 65:20; not the Perean Gadara of Jos. War 4.413-15). It probably had connections with the east as well as with Greek culture (Bowsher 1987). The presence of pigs further underlines the Gentile character of the region, since observant Jews would avoid raising pigs (e.g., Lev 11:7; Deut 14:8; m. B. Qam. 7:7). The largely Gentile location fits Matthew's emphasis on the Gentile mission, though he develops it less than one might expect.
The other issue is that Matthew doubles Mark's demoniacs (Mt 8:28//Mk 5:2), as he later doubles his blind men (Mt 9:27-31; 20:29-34//Mk 10:46-52; cf. perhaps 21:2; 26:60). That doubling is a Matthean stylistic feature thus follows (Meier 1980: 230), but one must ask why it is a Matthean characteristic. Some propose that he desires two witnesses to fulfill the requirements of Jewish law (26:60; France 1985: 163), but this proposal would render doubtful why he does not double characters more consistently. In both other instances of doubling he has omitted one of Mark's accounts (the demoniac of Mk 1:23-26; the blind man of Mk 8:22-26), hence he feels justified compensating here; such a literary practice would not have been unusual in his day (cf. Holtzmann in A. B. Bruce 1979: 145; Goulder 1974: 44-45; Gundry 1982: 158).
Excursus: On Demons and Exorcism
Greeks could picture gods (Hom. II. 17.210-11) or other spirits (Epict. Disc. 1.14.14) entering a person, but the Greek term translated "demon" is not in itself negative, although at times it could refer to an evil spirit (e.g., P. Grenf. 2.76.3-4, but this is a.d. 305-6), to the spirits of the dead (PGM 4.1965-69), or to one touched by madness (also among Persians; cf. Olmstead 1959: 53). Greeks often applied it to deities or demigods, ranging from Olympians to suprahuman spirits (Hom. II. 1.561; Ps-Plato Epinomis 984DE; Dion. Hal. 1.31.1; Plut. Isis 26, Mor. 361 A; Obsolescence of Oracles 10-22, Mor. 415B-422C; Sign of Socrates 10, 24, Mor. 580C, 593D; Socrates Ep. 1; Epict. Disc. 3.22.53; Ach. Tat. Clit. 3.10.1; Orphic Hymn 17.8; 50.2; 73.1-2; Paus. 9.22.7), and sometimes even the equivalent of the Roman genius (Epict. Disc. 1.14.12). Not everyone concurred with this intermediary category between gods and mortals, but it was widely held (Dion. Hal. 1.77.3). Josephus freely employs this hellenistic language for the divine (Isaacs 1976: 33-34).
But Persian demonology bears some resemblance to the Jewish and Christian perspective (Olmstead 1959: 18, 96, 195, 232), and on a popular level Greeks close to the early Christian period applied the term increasingly often to the many forces between gods and nature (see Nilsson 1948: 170-72; Puiggali 1983; Sanchez 1976). Many Jewish people believed that the gods of the pagans were demons in any case (Bar 4:7; 1 Enoch 19:1; Jub. 22:17; Test. Sol. 5:5; 6:4; Sifre Deut. 318.2.1-2); some Middle Eastern religions demonized the deities of those they supplanted (Gordon 1965b: 246-47; Alexander 1980: 19; for fallen angels, cf. the fallen gods of Enuma Elish, the Greek Titanomachy, and the Hittite account in Gurney 1977: 15). Such demons could prove hostile (cf. Char. Chaer. 3.1.4; 6.2.9, though these may be divine). From such demons even pagans recognized the need for exorcism (PGM 4.3007-86; see Ferguson 1987: 185; comment on 8:16-17). Exorcism was common in early Judaism (Jos. Ant. 8.46-48; accepted at Qumran, 4QNab 1.4; Kirchschlager 1976). It might involve smoking a demon out with a special substance (Tob 6:7-8, 16-17; 8:2-3; cf. Test. Sol. 5:13; Parshall 1983: 85), invoking other spirits to expel it (incantation text 3.8-9; 50.7-8; Test. Sol. 2:4; 5:5; 8:5-11; 18), or even laying on one's hands in prayer (lQapGen 20). As in paganism, the visible proof of departure by some outward act often remained important (Jos. Ant. 8.48; in modern times, Hes 1964: 376). Various forms of exorcism have continued among some traditional Jewish groups into the modern period (cf., e.g., Hes 1964: 376, 380), as in many cultures (Kaplan and Johnson 1964: 211; Fuchs 1964: 135-37; Mbiti 1970: 106).
A variety of Jewish conceptions of demonology developed, probably most of them overlapping in popular religion, although it is difficult to know at what period various strands originated. Some Jewish traditions adapted Greek concepts, such as reference to avenging spirits resembling the Greek Furies (Sir 39:28); elsewhere, however, angels of destruction appear to be spirits serving the evil prince of darkness (1QM 13.11-12; perhaps p. Shebu. 6:6, §3). A few later texts may also reflect the late Platonic notion (cf. Dillon 1977: 317-19) of demons as disembodied (or in this case, simply nonembodied) souls (Gen. Rab. 7:5). Magical texts reflecting some folk religion specify among other types of demons groups such as "liliths" (Aramaic incantation texts 1.6, 8; 3.14; 6.11; 10.2; 11.1-3,9; 12.2, 8; cf. 2 Bar. 10:8; Hes 1964: 376; in older Canaanite religion, see Kaiser 1973: 131); others might expect deceased giants to remain on earth as evil spirits (1 Enoch 15:9). Some texts also call demons "unclean spirits" (Test. Sol. 3:7; cf. Jub. 10:1), as at times in the Gospels (10:1; 12:43; Mk 1:23-27; "unclean" might indicate "evil," as apparently in lQpHab 8.13). Demons also occasionally are associated with particular sins, like demons of deceit associated with witchcraft and divination (Test. Jud. 23:1). Named demons appear early (4Q560; Penney and Wise 1994; cf. Mk 5:9).
Demons could also cause physical afflictions (Test. Sol. 1:1-4; 18), as at times in the Gospels. Some sources suggest a special unleashing of demons in the eschatological time before the end (2 Bar. 27:9), perhaps relevant to the views concerning their prevalence in the time of Jesus; for the possible linking of exorcism with eschatology, cf. Test. Sim. 6:6; with the kingdom, see 4Q510, 1.4 (Vermes 1993: 130).
In popular culture people sought various means of protection from hostile spirits; though much of our documentation comes from one or more centuries after the first century when these means became pervasive, enough attests that demons were a matter of practical concern to popular folk religion already by the first century. Amulets were widespread (see MacMullen 1966: 103-4); common enough in the Republic (Varro 7.6.107), they became even more widespread under the Empire (Nilsson 1948: 167; cf. Greek magic against demons in Betz 1980). Magical practices designed to protect against the influence of demons in Sassanian Babylonia (third to seventh centuries) crossed religious boundaries, as popular syncretism typically does (Gordon 1978b: 231). Superstition readily crossed folk boundaries and from there would naturally permeate more sophisticated systems as well; for example, Mesopotamian rabbis' fears about even numbers rendering one susceptible to demons (b. B. Mes. 86a; Qidd. 29b; Pesah. 110a, bar.) reflect a broader ancient superstition (Virg. Eel. 8.75; Plut. R.Q. 102, Mor. 288D).
Later magical amulets in Israel (e.g., Rahmani 1981) and incantation texts guaranteeing protection from specific demons (texts 17.1-2; 19.2; 34.1, 6; 47.1) indicate how widespread such views became: beginning no later than the third century many rabbis thought that the very air around them was crowded with demons (b. Ber. 6a; Deut. Rab. 4:4; Midr. Ps 17:8). Demons were thought to attack people (1 Enoch 69:12; Tr. Shem 2:9), but at least the rabbis usually viewed them as mortal (b. Pesah. 111b). Before the first century some Jews believed particular medicines could protect people from evil spirits (Jub. 10:10-13), and later rabbis used various folk remedies to ward off such spirits (b. Ber. 6a); some might even hope for warriors to protect them (Song Rab. 3:7, §5; Pesiq. R. 15:3).
Sages came to urge proper precautions against demonic assaults. Drinking water at night rendered one susceptible to demons (b. 'Abod. Zar. 12b, bar.); going out on particular nights of the week was dangerous (b. Pesah. 112b, bar.; other peoples also recognized unlucky days, e.g., Aul. Gel. 5.17); different demons exercised their dangers during different times of the year (Num. Rab. 12:3). One kind of evil spirit dwelt in reed stalks (Gen. Rab. 56:6), and others might be found in palm and other trees (b. Pesah. 111a, bar.; 11 lab); various trees and bushes harbored various sorts of demons (b. Pesah. 111b), as did most vegetables (b. Sanh. 101a, bar.). Rabbis reportedly learned some of these traditions from reports offered by demons themselves (b. Pesah. 1 10ab), a source, one might think, of dubitable veracity, however firsthand its information (though perhaps obtained by interrogation; cf. Fuchs 1964: 135-36).
Demons might be found in ruins (b. Ber. 3ab), in bathhouses (t. Ber. 6:25; b. Ber. 62a; Qidd. 39b-40a; Shab. 67a; Qoh. Rab. 2:8, §1; Song Rab. 3:7, §5), and elsewhere; because of their association with the dead, spirits remain associated with burial grounds in some cultures today (Schmidt 1964: 147). Rabbinic piety suggested that prayer could render many demons impotent or destroy them, though dealing with them was never pleasant (b. Qidd. 29b). Other pious acts, like the erection of the tabernacle, could destroy demons (Num. Rab. 12:3; Pesiq. R. 5:10); fear of God could protect one from them (Gen. Rab. 36:1). Later rabbis thought that some kinds of demons could look like people (b. Git. 66a). Some even felt that particular demons might prove helpful (b. Me'il. 17b; Gen. Rab. 24:6; 63:8). But of course such spirits were subject to and recognized God's sovereignty (Jub. 49:2; CD 8.2-3; lQapGen 20.16-17; 1QM 14.9-10; Test. Adam 1:1; Num. Rab. 14:3; cf. VanderKam 1978: 245). Perhaps relevant to the crowds' application of "son of David" to Jesus in Mt 12:23 (perhaps also 15:22) is the longstanding association between Solomon and exorcism (Jos. Ant. 8.45-49; CIJ 1:394, §534; 2:374, §1448; PGM 4.850-929, 3039-41; Test. Sol. Greek title; 5:10; incantation text 47.1-3; 48.4-5; Pesiq. R. 5:3; cf. p. Ketub. 12:3, §11); for David himself, see Ps-Philo 60 (cf. 1 Sam 16:23).
Although many modern students of the Gospels doubt the reality of spirit-possession, they admit that the ancients believed it and acted accordingly, as in many gospel accounts (Wrede 1971: 26-27); others challenge the presuppositions that produce skepticism toward such phenomena (Yamauchi 1986: 142-47; cf. Borg 1987: 62, 72n.l6). (Some explain the deviant possession phenomena in terms of their social function; cf. Hollenbach 1981; Crossan 1991a: 318; but the phenomena seem too widespread in too many cultures to allow a reductionist interpretation.) Anthropologists note spirit-possession in many unrelated cultures (see Crapanzaro and Garrison 1977: 7; Goodman 1988: 1-24, 126; Mbiti 1970: 106, 111, 113, 249-50; Lewis 1971; Alexander 1980: 105-6). In various cultures where it has been observed in the modern world, spirit-possession sometimes yields superhuman strength that makes restraint difficult or impossible (e.g., Kaplan and Johnson 1964: 208; cf. Mk 5:4) and often yields destructiveness (Eliade 1958: 71; Gelfand 1964: 165, 170; Schmidt 1964: 145; Kaplan and Johnson 1964: 227; Mt 8:28), including at times self-laceration (Fox 1964: 185; Mk 5:5; 1 Kings 18:28).
Most scholars concur that Jesus historically gained a reputation as an exorcist (Sanders 1993: 149, 154; Meier 1994: 646-77; Dunn 1975: 44; Michaels 1981: 174; Twelftree 1986). The lack of most contemporary magical techniques such as rings, roots, incantations, and so forth is noteworthy (Justin Dial. 85; Kee 1968: 239;The narrative articulates various principles for Matthew's missionary community. First, even demons are sensitive enough to know who their Lord and Judge is (8:28-30). In Matthew's larger narrative structure, this implies that disciples, who receive positive benefits for obedience, should obey willingly (8:18- 22; 9:9-13, 37-38). Whereas demons confess from fear, others (16:16) confess from faith or love (Augustine On the Psalms 50.2, ACCS, 40). The demoniacs ran to him (8:28), and the demons protested his coming to torture them (cf. Test.Sol. 5:5) in advance (8:29). Jesus' presence also reduced them to entreating permission just to enter some pigs (8:30). Supernatural beings alone recognize Jesus' true identity, which fits the Matthean and Markan story worlds (Kingsbury 1983: 86-87), but also the language of ancient magical texts (Witherington 1990:170, citing, e.g., PGM 8.13). In ancient texts, demons who encountered someone more powerful would plead for mercy (Test. Sol. 2:6; Twelftree 1986: 381; Theissen 1983: 57) and might scream as here (Test. Sol. 1:12; 3:4); they also appear to have preferred to remain in the same region where they had been active, as here (Tob 8:3; Twelftree 1986: 381). "What is there between us and you?" (8:29) reflects a Semitic idiom creating or recognizing distance between the speaker and addressee (e.g., Judg 11:2; 2 Sam 19:22; 1 Kings 17:18; cf. also Epict. Disc. 2.19.16, 20.11; Mart. Epig. 1.76.11-12).59
Second, the kingdom is "already" as well as "not yet" (8:29). Matthew's redaction ("before the time," missing in Mark) allows him to underline this point. Because the king of the future age arrived almost unannounced before the future age, his kingdom also invaded the present age in a way hidden to people but recognized by the evil one and his forces (cf. Cullmann 1950: 71). Demons who believed they were free to torment people until the final day (references in Gundry 1982: 159; cf. Test. Sim. 6:6) and expected eternal torment only in the day of judgment recognized that their judge had appeared ahead of schedule.60 While Matthew's community awaited God's ultimate intervention, they could still depend on his power over the evil one in the present transitional period.
Third, Jesus values people more than property (8:30-32). In ancient ex-orcism traditions demons typically made a scene when they departed, melodramatically indicating their protest and the exorcist's power (e.g., Jos. Ant. 8.48-49; Philost. V.A. 4.20; Alexander 1980: 144; Theissen 1983: 66-67); but rarely did they make this much of a scene! Although most Jewish traditions about demons spoke of binding them in a pit (see on 12:29), others suggested the destruc-tibility of some kinds of demons (e.g., ARN 37A; Aramaic incantation text 3.17; Alexander 1980: 33), and many of Matthew's Jewish readers may have interpreted this narrative accordingly. That the demons who lived in humans were willing to subsist in pigs (for parallels, see Bultmann 1968: 225) suggests that they preferred a domicile of some sort to simply wandering; this preference in turn suggests that the destruction of the herd was Jesus' idea, not theirs (cf. Gundry 1982: 160), although the act may have employed and revealed their own destructive impulses (cf. Mk 5:5; Lane 1974a: 186; Chrysostom Discourse Against Judaizing Christians 8:6, ACCS, 70-71). Pigs could normally swim for some distance if necessary (Alexander 1980: 214); some demons reportedly feared water (Test. Sol. 5:11-12), but others could reportedly survive there (Test. Sol. 25:7) or even live there (Twelftree 1986: 382). Perhaps the demons were thus banished to hell (cf. Gundry 1982: 160); at the very least this account suggests that they were disabled. In some Jewish traditions they were mortal (e.g., Aramaic incantation text 3.17; Jub. 10:5; ARN 37A).61
The earliest Jewish hearers of this story would have nodded knowingly that demons wished to enter unclean pigs and that Jesus let the herd perish,62 but to the owners of the swine the destruction of their herd meant serious financial loss. The deliverance of the demoniacs mattered more to Jesus than the fate of the swine (also Jerome Homily 54, ACCS, 70; Hooker 1983: 39).63
Fourth, one should expect opposition for such priorities, because most people value property more than they value God's delivering activity (8:33-34). Gentile wonder-workers were often "magicians," whose power others perceived as malevolent more often than not (e.g., Apul. Metam. 2.5,20, 30; 3.16-18; 9.30).64 Ignoring the men's deliverance and focusing on the destruction of the property, the Gadarenes viewed Jesus as dangerous to their interests.65 Though pigs normally grazed without much oversight (Cary and Haarhoff 1946: 109), at least some herdsmen were likely (8:33); such herdsmen, responsible to the owners for the safety of their pigs, would naturally prove particularly hostile (cf. Eurip. Iphig. Taur. 296-310). (Perhaps merely due to abbreviating the narrative, Matthew omits Jesus' commissioning the man to return to his Gentile community and set the record straight — Mk 5:19; cf. Mt 10:5.)
Since miracles could conceivably derive from more than one source (9:34; 12:24; 24:24), they may draw attention without demonstrating the authenticity of their worker (thus Aristotle distinguished between witnesses to facts and those who understood the point of the facts — Trites 1977: 178); but, probably like some witnesses of the Matthean missionaries' signs, the nearby community exhibits no interest in exploring matters further. Early Christians sometimes faced a backlash due to the economic consequences of their activity (Acts 19:23-28; Pliny Ep. 10.96). Jesus apparently withdraws without protest (8:34; cf. 12:19-20).66
Authority to Forgive Sins (9:1-8)
Cf. Mk 2:1-12; Lk 5:17-26. The "boat" (9:1) connects this narrative with preceding paragraphs (8:18, 23, 28; Fenton 1977: 134). In abbreviating Mark, Matthew omits the memorable event of letting the paralytic through the roof, possibly the very reason tradition had preserved this story.67 Nevertheless, Matthew preserves the main point of the story: Jesus' authority to heal the body testifies to his authority to forgive (9:6-7; cf. 9:12). Jesus' "authority" (9:6, 8) is a central focus of the context (7:29; 8:9, 27; cf. 28:18). This narrative presents a number of lessons.
First, Jesus is moved by suppliants' faith, even on behalf of others (9:2). The paralytic was not alone in his faith; his friends who brought him believed, too.68 The narrative hints at a theology of intercession also assumed by their contemporaries: disciples may pray for others, not merely for themselves. Mark's fuller narrative recounts the character of their faith: they were so persistent and determined to reach Jesus, so confident that their friend would be healed if they reached him, that they dug through the roof (Mk 2:4-5). But by this point in Matthew, Matthew's readers also know that genuine faith is a very serious matter, involving humble commitment (8:8-10, 20-22, 26).
Second, Jesus knows that suppliants need forgiveness even more than physical healing (9:2). Although Jesus' miracles teach about his power to heal physically, these signs are especially meant to turn attention to the kingdom of God (6:33; 9:12). Similarly, in the Book of Acts signs and wonders constitute the primary method of drawing attention to the claims of the gospel, but it is the gospel itself that is paramount (e.g., Acts 14:3). In this narrative, physical healing certainly draws the crowd's attention (9:8), as miracles in miracle stories normally did (e.g., 8:27, 34; 9:26, 31, 33).
Thus Jesus turns his attention to forgiveness first. The Gospels do not argue that sickness was always a direct personal result of sin (2 Kings 13:14; Jn 9:3), as many people in Jesus' day, both Jewish (Ps 103:3; Jn 9:2; 4Q510; 4QPrNab; m. 'Abot 2:7; t. Ber. 6:3; Mek. Nez. 18.55-58; Abrahams 1917: 108-12; Lachs 1987: 166; Davies and Allison 1991: 89) and Gentile (Plut. Profit by Enemies 5, Mor. 88F; van der Horst 1975: 157-58), thought. That Jesus did not always pause to forgive sins shows that he did not always connect disease and sin in a causal relationship (pace Montefiore 1968: 1:43; cf. Dibelius 1949: 112-13); but Jesus' healing of the human body also functions as a dramatic illustration of healing for the human character (13:15). The Gospels do, however, suggest that when these problems are intertwined, God wishes to deal with both (Jas 5:14-16).
Third, Matthew may warn that speaking for God usually invites opposition, especially from others who wrongly suppose that speaking for God has been their role (9:3). Jesus' unique authority on earth to forgive sins sets him apart from other people, a claim that disturbed the "teachers of the law" (9:3). One rare sectarian document reports an exorcist "forgiving sins" (4QNab 1.4; cf. Vermes 1984: 10; Sanders 1985: 273), and priests may have exercised delegated authority to pronounce forgiveness of sins (Sanders 1990: 62; idem 1985: 240); Jesus' passive voice also declares that it is God rather than Jesus himself who is forgiving the man's sins (Sanders 1990: 61; Vermes 1993: 192). But Jesus not only speaks on God's behalf to forgive sins for which no clear atonement has been made — an act the teachers present could equate with impious presumption (Sanders 1990: 62-63), but before the narrative concludes he proceeds to announce publicly that he has authority from the Father to forgive sins, an attribute Jewish people did not even associate with the Messiah (Gundry 1982: 163).
Thus the scholars decided that Jesus was "blaspheming," which in the general sense simply meant "reviling (in this case, God)," and in the most technical sense meant "using God's name in vain." Although Matthew omits Mark's "only
God can forgive sins," in this instance the religious teachers probably use "blaspheme" in an intermediate way: Jesus brings reproach on God's name by usurping divine prerogatives for himself (cf. Sanders 1990: 58-60; Lane 1974a: 95).69 This assumes, of course, that God did not delegate his authority to Jesus (cf. 28:18), an assumption the narrative suggests is unlikely by the fact that Jesus knows their thoughts (9:4; cf. 12:25). Jewish people believed that only God knew everything about human hearts (e.g., Jub. 15:30; 1 Enoch 84:3; Ps. Sol. 9:3; 14:8; Ep. Arist. 132-33; Test. Zeb. 5:2; m. 'Abot 2:1; t. B. Qam. 7:2; Sanh. 8:3), and that he shared only some of that knowledge with great prophets (Jos. and Asen. 23:8; 26:6; Lives of the Prophets 17.2; p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Sanh. 6:6, §2; cf. the Messiah in Ps. Sol. 17:25).70 The opposition Jesus' act generates will be familiar to audiences familiar with either the biblical prophets or the Socratic tradition of hellenistic philosophers, leading the way to the teacher's martyrdom (cf. Robbins 1992: 109, 147). Yet the reader will ultimately find these leaders' charge ironic, for soon Matthew informs his audience that the leaders' opposition to Jesus itself is blasphemous (cf. 12:31).
Fourth, Jesus' authority to heal demonstrates his authority to forgive (9:6-7). Because healing as opposed to forgiveness is empirically verifiable, the teachers of the law would conclude that it is easier to say, "Your sins are forgiven" (Meier 1980: 91). By performing a sign that is empirically verifiable, however, Jesus argues that he is God's authorized agent and therefore has authority to forgive sins. The argument runs like a traditional Jewish qal wahomer argument: if God would authorize Jesus visibly to heal the effects of humanity's fallenness, would he not send him to combat that fallenness itself? Jesus implies that his mission is so dramatic by alluding to Daniel 7:13, the "Son of Man's authority" (Hamerton-Kelly 1973: 62); but if his adversaries recognized the allusion, it nevertheless remained subtle enough to sabotage attempts at public retaliation (cf. Rhoads and Michie 1982: 84-85).71 In the broader Matthean context, Jesus' authority "on earth" in this passage prepares the way for his universal authority in 28:18.
Finally, in the end Jesus' signs of authority brought God glory, despite the opposition (9:8).72 God vindicated his work despite opposition (cf. 7:28; 8:27; 9:33; 12:23).
Sinners Need a Physician (9:9-13)
Cf. Mk 2:13-17; Lk 5:27-32. On a positive use of the criterion of dissimilarity (see Sanders 1985: 174), most scholars concur that Jesus sometimes ate with those whom others considered sinful.73 While scholarly reconstructions diverge at this point (e.g., whether the "sinners" were, with Jeremias, the 'am haares or, as most scholars hold today, were more actively outside the scope of the biblical commandments), most scholars concur that Jesus' actions would have struck his contemporaries as radical (R. Zera in b. Sanh. 37a is exceptional).
Whereas the preceding narrative introduces the notion that forgiveness is a primary focus of Jesus' mission (9:9), this narrative carries that point further and uses Jesus' healing ministry as an acted parable of his most important mission: repairing lives broken by sin (9:12). (Matthew also retains Mark's use of "save" for rescue and healing in the Greek text ossf 8:25 and 9:22; the term's familiar theological nuances from 1:21 reinforce the notion of parabolic action here.) Matthew's more biblically literate readers would already have caught the connection in Matthew's dependence on Isaiah 53 in 8:17.
Surrounding narratives also demonstrate that it is the broken, such as paralytics, blind people, lepers, and those in mourning, who recognize their need for God's help (cf. 11:5). Matthew here seems to imply that the morally and socially reprobate also often humble themselves more readily than religious people.
First, Jesus was not ashamed to call to be a disciple a probable collaborator with Palestinian Jewry's common enemy (9:9). Jesus' call to follow was a call to be his disciple, that is, a future teacher in training (4:19; 8:22; 10:38; 16:24; 19:21). But whereas Jesus warned a scribe who was a would-be follower about the cost (8:19-20), he openly invited a despised tax gatherer to join his circle (cf. 18:17)! The common people and nonaristocratic pietists despised tax gatherers as agents of the Romans and their aristocratic pawns (Sanders 1985: 178; cf. Capito in Philo Leg. Gai. 199-202), perhaps — though usually to a lesser extent — like the hatred the Dutch or French felt toward local collaborators with the Nazis or Africans felt toward the slatees, African assistants to European slave traders.74
Rabbinic texts contrast tax gatherers and Pharisees, the least and most pious people one might expect to meet in daily life (e.g., t. Dem. 2:17; 3:4; b. Bek. 31a, bar.). Later rabbinic tradition continues the common people's disdain for the profession (b. Sanh. 25b; p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Abrahams 1917: 54; Jeremias 1971: 110; idem 1969: 311); they were as unclean as lepers, communicating impurity to a house by entering it (p. Hag- 3:6, §1; cf. b. Hag. 26a).75 Perhaps not surprisingly, those directly involved with taxation were not popular elsewhere in the Empire either (Cic. De Ojfic. 1.42.150; Diogenes Ep. 36 to Timomachus; Epict. Disc. 3.15.12).76
The average Jewish person in ancient Palestine had several reasons to dislike tax gatherers. First, Palestine's local Jewish aristocracies undoubtedly arranged for this tax collection (Sanders 1990: 46-47; see Jos. War 2.405; cf. Herrenbruck 1981; Hoehner 1972: 77-78).77 Second, that the Empire sometimes had to take precautions against tax gatherers' overcharging people (Lk 3:12-13; Carmon 1973: 105, 226) suggests that some tax gatherers did just that (Hoehner 1972: 78; cf. Philo Leg. Gai. 199). Abuses by tax farmers before and during this period in rural Egypt reportedly included torturing and killing for the sake of locating tax fugitives (Philo Spec. Leg. 3.30; Lewis 1983: 161) or beating an old woman because her relatives were behind on taxes (B.G.U. 515, a.d. 193). Extant documents indicate that to avoid such problems people sometimes paid tax gatherers bribes, in one case as high as 2,200 drachmas "for extortion" (Lewis 1983: 161-63; a drachma was close to an average worker's daily wage).78
Further, nearly all scholars concur that taxes were exorbitant even without overcharging; many contend that those who paid both taxes and tithes were paying between 30 and 40 percent (Stern 1974/76: 332; Neusner 1984: 22; F. F. Bruce 1972: 40; Hoehner 1972: 75-77; Wilkinson 1978: 25; Borg 1984: 31-32; idem 1987: 84-85). In some parts of the Empire taxation was so oppressive that laborers fled their land, at times depopulating entire villages (P. Graux 2; P. Thead. 17; Lewis 1983: 164-64, citing P. Oxy. 2669; P. Ryl. 595; SB 7462, and most significantly PSI 101, 102; Llewelyn 1998: 97-105, §6). Most would not have time, but traditional tax farmers could legally search almost anything but the person of a Roman matron, and seize undeclared property (Quint. Declamations 359; Lewis 1983: 142).
Matthew's office would have made him locally prominent, possibly as a customs official. Matthew probably either taxed local fishermen or acted as a customs agent charging levies on merchandise that was leaving Philip's tetrarchy and entering that of Herod Antipas (Gundry 1982: 166). Because Capernaum was ideally located for significant customs revenue, many commentators today lean toward the view that Matthew here is a customs officer.79 Not only ports but boundaries of cities and tetrarchies charged customs duties, raising the price of imported goods (Applebaum 1974/76a: 686; Lewis 1983: 140; IGRR 1.1183). Tolls and customs tariffs were usually less than 3 percent for a given city, and the money collected went not to Rome itself but to municipal treasuries overseen by the municipal aristocracies with whom Rome was allied (Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 74; cf. Lewis 1983: 141). Customs officers demanded written declarations of travelers' possessions, searched baggage (Casson 1974: 290-91), and may have collected some other government revenues as well (Stern 1974/76b: 333). Jewish texts condemn customs officers as well as other tax gatherers (cf. Edersheim: 236), though some appear to have become benefactors to local populations (Jos. War 2.287-88), and they probably were not considered collaborators with the Romans to the extent other tax collectors were.80
Eating with sinners connoted approval of them; by contrast, a pious person normally preferred to eat with scholars (cf. Jeremias 1966a: 236).81
Excursus: Who Were the "Sinners"?
Some take "sinners" here to mean the 'am haares, common people whom the Pharisees despised for their lack of adherence to Pharisaic food laws (e.g., Jeremias 1972: 132; Lane 1974a: 103). Others respond that the Pharisees did not despise the common people, at least not as sinners (Sanders 1985: 176-99; Witherington 1990: 73). Later rabbis did look askance at them (m. 'Abot 3:11; b. Pesah. 49b) and apparently felt that they communicated uncleanness to scrupulous Pharisees (m. Demai 2:2; Ma'as. Sh. 3:3; Hag. 2:7; Tohar. 4:5, 8:3, 5; t. Ahilot 5:11; p. Hag. 2:6, §13; Lev. Rab. 18:1). Conversely, the rabbis tolerated them (m. Git. 5:9; Urbach 1979: 1:632-34) and viewed them negatively primarily in relation to the law as the rabbis had come to understand it (Urbach 1979: 1:633). Some scholars believe that the Pharisees considered them "sinners" (Jeremias 1971: 118; idem 1972: 132), and they certainly did fail to tithe according to the standards of the Pharisaic fence around the law.82
The nonpejorative biblical sense of 'amme haares (cf. de Vaux 1961: 70-71; Nicholson 1965) had changed considerably by this period, at least among the voices reported in rabbinic sources. So great was the division between haberim, who observed (probably Pharisaic) scruples about purity and tithing, and the nonobservant 'amme haares, that the distinction overrode class distinctions (m. Hor. 3:8; Goodman 1983: 77). Later rabbis felt that a scrupulous person should not eat with a priest of the 'amme haares lest he provide unconsecrated food (ARN 32, §72B). The primary problems with 'amme haares involved their lack of scrupulousness in purity concerning food, tithes, and other matters (t. 'Abod. Zar. 3:8, 10; Dem. 2:14-15; Ma'as. 2:5; ARN 41A; b. 'Abod. Zar. 69a; Ber. 47b, bar.; Pesah. 42b). An 'am haares could become scrupulous, but would be accepted by Pharisaic standards only if he embraced all the standards of the Pharisees (t. Dem. 2:5; this must mean in principle, since Pharisees themselves debated details — see comment on 23:23). Some texts report that some later rabbis wished to limit business and banquet dealings with 'amme haares (m. Dem. 2:2; 4:5; Ma'as'. 5:3; Ma'as. Sh. 3:3; b. Ned. 20a).
Hillel reportedly doubted their piety (m. 'Abot 2:5). Perhaps because all were expected to study Torah (Sifre Deut. 48.4.1), at least some later rabbis felt they were ignorant of Scripture (b. Ber. 61a), probably the same way many members of the educated religious elite today feel about the religious masses (but it is possible that the 'amme haares also include wealthy but less scrupulous landholders — Smith 1963: 172). Some said that sitting among them would deprive one from the coming world (m. 'Abot 3:10/11; cf. ARN 36A; b. Ber. 43b). Nevertheless, the later isolated claim that it was permissible to "stab" an 'am haares even on a doubly holy day (b. Pesah. 49b, with other harsh reports) is, of course, hyperbole; 'amme haares may not be scrupulous in purity by what became rabbinic standards, but one should still treat them properly (p. Ter. 6:1).
The view of total separation between the Pharisees and other members of Palestinian Jewish society, however, is a modern construct, suited more for the wilderness Essenes than for the Pharisees or the haberim. Pharisees must have done business with 'amme haares, or they would not have had to rule concerning what to do with demai, untithed produce (Sanders 1990: 238). Members of the 'amme haares could work for or be apprenticed to a scrupulous person and be trusted under his supervision (t. Dem. 2:19); the wife of a haber may share appliances and work in company with the wife of an 'am haares for the sake of communal peace (m. Git. 5:9). A father could also have some children who were 'amme haares and bequeath some things to them (t. Dem. 6:8, giving no indication of disowning them; though in marriage, cf. p. Ketub. 7:6, §1). Haberim would want to supervise purity at any banquet sponsored by an 'am haares (t. Dem. 3:6); scrupulous people might attend the banquets of the nonscrupulous, but would need to take proper precautions against their own impurity (t. Dem. 3:7). Even in later times, an 'am haares could listen to and learn from rabbis (Gen. Rab. 78:12); an 'am haares and a Samaritan were more trustworthy than a Gentile (b. Bek. lib). One must not hate them, though one should hate apostates and sectarians (ARN 16A); some texts explicitly distinguish an 'am haares from the wicked (ARN 40A). The 'amme haares were probably often religious by their own standards and surely identified with their national heritage (even their detractors do not report any mass apostasy to paganism), whatever the haberim may have thought of them. Many of them apparently also tithed, at least by their own standards (cf. b. Besa 35b; a minority opinion in Ned. 84b).
If the 'am haares comprised the vast majority of Palestinian Jewry in the first century (Simon 1967: 15; cf. m. Qidd. 4:14), the Pharisees could hardly have viewed them as excluded from the covenant (m. Sanh. 10:1). While the Pharisees probably looked down on those uneducated in the law no less than much of the modern intellgentsia tends to be impatient with the "masses" (cf. m. 'Abot 2:6, 3:11; ARN 36A; b. Ber. 61a; Pesah. 49b, including bar.), however, there is no reason to assume that "sinners" bears such a narrow meaning here; the term more likely specifies blatant violators of the law (Tob 4:17, MSS; Ps. Sol. 2:34; 13:1; 14:6-7; Sib. Or. 3.304). (Though it can include any human who sins, as in, for example, Test. Abr. 9A; 4 Ezra 7:138-40, Pharisaic opposition in this context demands a stronger sense of the term here.). Further, Mark leaves the general title "sinners" for his partly or largely Gentile Roman readers who would not naturally grasp this sense of "sinner" (2:17; see Best 1965: 139), rather than availing himself of an opportunity to portray the Pharisees explicitly as class-conscious snobs (a portrayal that might have put off Mark's readers and thus suited Mark's purpose well). In any case, Pharisees were concerned about with whom they ate, and if they were careful merely about meals with 'am haares, one can be certain that they would suspect a teacher who ate with blatant "sinners."83
Second, Matthew indicates that the collaborator was ready to follow Jesus (9:9) and other sinners were ready to listen to him (9:10). Jesus, for his part, was ready to eat with people with whom many pious Jews would not associate; widespread attestation and the criterion of dissimilarity strongly favor that Jesus did eat with those the Pharisees and other pietists considered sinners (Sanders 1985: 174-75).84 Indeed, the term "recline" indicates that this was no ordinary meal (Palestinian Jews normally sat on chairs) but a banquet (when people reclined), probably in the teacher's honor (cf. Jeremias 1966a: 20-21). There are many people with whom most Christians today would not eat (for reasons of either spiritual or social incompatibility); the Pharisees went even farther in having special rules governing with whom they would eat (e.g., ARN 31, §68; 32, §72B). By emphasizing again the inclusion of outsiders, Matthew may support the Gentile mission while undermining the status of his community's prestigious opponents.
Third, religious people complained when Jesus brought into the kingdom people whose faith they did not trust (9:11). Jesus was eating with sinners, which to his contemporaries signified acceptance of them (Borg 1987: 101); the Pharisees, for whom pure table fellowship was a primary defining characteristic (Goodman 1983: 77),85 would have been most disturbed by one claiming greater powers than they who nevertheless ignored their traditions. This thoroughly violated his contemporaries' understanding of holiness (Syr. Men. Sent. 148-53, 333-35; cf. Sir 12:4, 7; Borg 1984: 78-95). Jewish literature indicates that, for all of early Judaism's heavy emphasis on repentance and divine mercy (e.g., ARN 39A; b. Ber. 34b; Pesah. 54; Sanh. 99a; 103a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 25:3; Deut Rab. 2:24; in Joseph and Aseneth, see Dschulnigg 1989), Jesus' act of actively pursuing sinners as a human teacher was unheard of (Ladd 1974: 83).
The sages desired edifying talk (Sir 9:15; m. 'Abot 3:2; ARN 26, 29A; 32, §68B; 35, §81; p. Ta'an. 3:11, §4),86 including at meals (Ps 154:14; p. Hag. 2:1, §9; 2:2, §5; Safrai 1974/76a: 968-69). Discussion was a common feature of banquets (e.g., Jos. Life 222), though most banquets emphasized music over lectures (Sir 35:3-4; cf. Horn. Od. 1.153-55, 325-26; 9.3-6; 17.270-71; Plut. Table-Talk 1.1.5, Mor. 614F-615A). Some sages recognized that one would either conform to the social intercourse at banquets or conform others to one's own practice (e.g., Epict. Disc. 3.16; 4.2; Encheir. 33.6).
The Bible had clearly stated that one should not fellowship with sinners (Ps 1:1; 119:63; Prov 13:20; 14:7; 28:7); the point in each instance was to warn against being influenced by sinners. Jewish tradition properly developed this warning against improper association with the wicked (Sir 6:7-12; 12:13-18; 13:1; Ep. Arist. 130; m. 'Abot 1:6-7; 2:9; Sifre Deut. 286.11.4; ARN 16, §36B; Ps-Phocyl. 134; 1 Cor 15:33).87 Yet in Jesus' case the influence was going one way — from Jesus to the sinners (9:9, 13; Lk 15:1; cf. Ps 25:8); and as an early Cynic philosopher reportedly explained when charged with visiting unclean places, "the sun too visits cesspools without being defiled" (Diog. Laert. 6.2.63, LCL 2:64-65; contrast Mek. Pisha 1.40-41). Those who controlled society in David's day had forced him to keep such company as well (1 Sam 22:1-2).
Although later Jewish tradition remarks that it would be difficult for a publican to repent (because it would be hard to make restitution; see, e.g., t. B. Mes. 8:26), it allowed that God can forgive this sin like any other (Abrahams 1917: 58) and emphasized God's love toward the repentant (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:12; Young 1995: 145); Jewish tradition already warned not to reproach one who had turned from sin (Sir 8:5). But Pharisees, like modern churchgoers, were presumably not always what their official ethics called them to be. In the total context of Matthew's Gospel, the informed reader ultimately recognizes that the religious establishment themselves are "sinners" (26:45; though the term could refer to Gentiles, its immediate contextual referent is probably the priestly aristocracy).
Finally, Jesus declared that his mission was to reach only those who acknowledged their sinfulness (9:12-13; cf. Jer 2:35). In an honor-and-shame based culture like the ancient Mediterranean, a public complaint such as the one the Pharisees had issued constituted a challenge. Quick repartee in the face of such a challenge would not only silence the challenge but shame the challengers (e.g., Plut. Agesilaus 21.4-5; Diog. Laert. 6.2.33; for quick response, cf. also Ep. Arist. 295-96); despite the potential to alienate further the object of one's satire, radical Greek teachers, including Cynics, used humor, shock, and incongruity to hold attention (see Branham 1993); so did the biblical prophets. Jesus shames his opponents with some traditional and biblical wisdom. Jewish teachers often exhorted hearers to "Go and find," that is, search the Scripture for examples (Sifre Num. 76.2.1), or "Go and learn," that is, understand the point of a given text (Sifre Num. 115.5.6; cf. Sib. Or. 3.562-63; Stendahl 1968: 129; cf. Epict. Disc. 1.20.14). But when Jesus introduces his quote from Hosea with "Go and learn" in the context of a response to a challenge, he is insultingly suggesting his interlocutors' ignorance of the point of Scripture; he implies that perhaps they have never even read Hosea (cf. 12:5; Ex. Rab. 21:6). Hosea addressed a people satisfied with their ritual but displeasing to God (cf. Hos. 6:3-6; 8:2-3).
Jesus' response would have been clear enough. Jesus' many acts of healing made him a "physician," but sometimes he applied the language of healing figuratively (13:15). Others in the ancient Mediterranean also used health as a metaphor for spiritual or moral wholeness and disease as a metaphor for vice or folly (Plato Rep. 4.444E; Diog. Laert. 10.138; Epict. Disc. 4.8.29; Diog. Ep. 29); philosophers and teachers saw themselves as physicians of the soul (Anacharsis to Croesus 9; Crates Ep. 17; Diog. Ep. 49; Lucian Demonax 7; Diog. Laert. 2.70; 6.1.4; 6.2.30; Livy 42.40.3; Diod. Sic. 12.13.4; Cic. Tusc. Disp. 3.3.5; 3.10.22; 4.13.28; Epict. Disc. 2.14.21; Philo Prob. 12; Malherbe 1970: 207n.6; Tiede 1972: 47); statesmen might also view themselves as curers of their society's sickness (Dion. Hal. 9.53.3). Some Jewish teachers apparently viewed their work in similar terms (ARN 23A; p. Ketub. 7:7, §3; Qidd. 4:12, §2), although they could also apply the image in other ways (Johnston 1977b: 593). Thus it was not unusual for the image to become proverbial (Lane 1974a: 104n.43; Witherington 1990: 77).88 Mere decades after Matthew's writing, Dio Chrysostom indicated that as the "good physician" goes where he is most needed, so does the sage go where fools are most abundant (8th Disc., On Virtue 5). Writing after the spread of Christianity, Diogenes Laertius reports a much earlier philosopher who, "when he was censured for keeping company with evil men," responded, "physicians are in attendance on their patients without getting the fever themselves" (Diog. Laert. 6.1.6, LCL 6-9).
Jesus came to "call" sinners — that is, to "invite" them to God's final banquet (22:3, 14), a foretaste of which the present table fellowship with them may have represented (cf. Lk 14:13-14, 23; as is often held; see, e.g., Becker 1978). Jesus' demand for mercy (translating directly the Hebrew of Hos 6:6; cf. Burkitt 1910: 23) is so critical that it recurs in 12:7 (cf. 23:23).89 This was not a repudiation of physical sacrifice, for Jesus elsewhere assumes that practice, and his earliest followers continued it (5:23-24; Acts 21:26; Sanders 1985: 67; pace Meier 1980: 94). Many of Jesus' contemporaries who offered sacrifice also emphasized the priority of mercy over physical sacrifice (e.g., Sir 35:1 -7; Pr Azar 16-17; cf. Davies 1966b: 88; Hill 1977: 119; Sanders 1990: 42-43); later rabbis emphasized the virtue of mercy as well (e.g., p. Ketub. 11:3, §2). Borg argues that Jesus' mercy paradigm replaces the holiness paradigm of the Pharisees (1984: 123-43; cf. Patte 1987: 129; Snodgrass 1996: 125); yet the Pharisees would have agreed with the principle of mercy in theory, and particularly the school of Hillel emphasized it in legal interpretation. That Jesus' opponents agreed with his principle in theory yet invited his reprimand (cf. 23:3-4) suggests that Matthew wished not merely to condemn opponents but to warn his community against being like them. If Matthew writes to a community in or near Antioch, we should recall that the Jerusalem hard-liners had clashed with progressives there several decades before; probably following Jesus' precedent, Paul had insisted on continuing table fellowship with Gentile "sinners" (Gal 2:11-16; Stanton 1995a: 149).
A Time for Everything (9:14-17)
Cf. Mk 2:18-22; Lk 5:33-39. Some members of the socioreligious elite were disturbed that Jesus would eat with sinners (9:11); other religiously committed persons were disturbed that he ate (9:14) — or more particularly, that they did not observe his disciples fasting. For some, holiness meant avoiding eating with ungodly people; for others, holiness meant religious practices of self-discipline like fasting. For both, Jesus undoubtedly appeared self-indulgent (11:19). Thus Jesus responds with three illustrations about appropriateness: it is rude for the wedding party to fast during a wedding banquet when they must share the groom's joy; likewise, though new cloth and wine are good, they are inappropriate for vessels they will not fit. The celebration of sinners returning to God through Jesus' ministry is an inappropriate time for fasting.90
First, Jesus stands up for his disciples (9:14-15). Ancient literature regularly assumes that teachers had to answer for the behavior of their disciples (e.g.,Socrates for Alcibiades; Daube 1972: 3-4). Jesus also had to defend his disciples on other occasions (12:2-3). Early Christians probably took courage from this model of Jesus' advocacy when they faced persecution (cf., e.g., 10:18-20; Jn 9:34-41; 16:7-11; Acts 7:55-56).
Second, while fasting is good, there are appropriate times for everything (9:15-17). Rather than appealing to his own fast (4:1-11), Jesus avoids risking human honor for what he did before God in secret (6:16-18), and makes his point instead by three illustrations. Jesus had also taught his disciples to fast privately (6:16-18), behavior that may have led to the assumption that they did not fast at all (cf. Pilch 1992: 130).91 Jesus responds not by citing his fast, but by noting that some times were inappropriate for fasting, which frequently connoted mourning.
It was inappropriate for groomsmen to fast until after the wedding banquet had ended. Weddings generally lasted seven days, and participants — the NRSV's "wedding guests" and the NIV's "guests of the bridegroom" means either the groomsmen (cf. Jn 3:29) or the guests (Edersheim: 306; Nineham 1977: 103) — were expected to participate joyfully. Everyone was expected to be joyful and to bring joy to the couple being married (p. Ketub. 1:1, §6; Safrai 1974/ 76b: 759); indeed, weddings took precedence over many religious obligations (m. Ber. 2:5, 8; t. Ber. 2:10; b. Sukk. 25b; p. Sukk. 2:5, §1), and sages were said frequently to interrupt their schools to hail passing bridal processions (ARN 4A). Weddings were a matter of joy with which any signs of sorrow seemed conspicuously incongruent (1 Macc 1:27, 39; 9:39-41; 3 Macc 4:6; Test Abr. 10A; Jos. War. 6.301; b. Ber. 6b, 30b-31a; Lev. Rab. 20:3; Qoh. Rab. 2:2, §4; Appian R.H. 3.4.7). The Gospels' readers would probably catch an allusion that Jesus' first hearers missed:92 Jesus is the groom of God's people in the coming messianic banquet foreshadowed in their table fellowship (22:2; 25:10-13).93 The "taking" of the bridegroom, of course, is a veiled reference to the impending crucifixion.94
New cloth had not yet shrunk, and when it began to shrink after being patched onto a garment that had finished its shrinking, the patch would tear loose from the garment, "making the tear worse" (9:16; Hurtado 1983: 31; cf. Steinhauser 1976). In the same way, old wineskins had been stretched to the limit as wine had fermented and expanded in them. Because old wineskins had already been stretched to the limit, if they were filled with new wine it would ultimately burst them when it expanded (Hurtado 1983: 31-32).95 (People regularly used animal skins, especially goatskins, for liquid containers, normally sewing two or three skins together — Lewis 1983: 132. Bedouins in the Negev still use goatskins for fluid containers today; see Glueck 1960: 232 and fig. 4.)
Luke adds the commonplace that people prefer old, that is, aged wine (Lk 5:39; cf. Sir 9:10; m. 'Abot 4:20; ARN 35, §§89-90B; but both old and new were better than medium wine — Aul. Gel. 13.31.14-17), perhaps to explain why traditionalists could not consider Jesus' new ways. Matthew, however, adapts the tradition in a different direction; whereas in Mark failure spells the loss of both the new wine and the old wineskin (Mk 2:22), Matthew develops the corollary: success spells the preservation of both (9:17; Hagner 1993: 244). Matthew's community hears in the newness an appreciation for the climactic salvation-historical event in Christ, not a denigration of the old (cf. 13:52; 26:29).96 Matthew will not allow Jesus' words to be appropriated in an antinomian direction, whether by Jesus' followers or by their opponents (5:17).
Extraordinary Miracles of Compassion (9:18-26)
Cf. Mk 5:21-43; Lk 8:40-56. When Jesus allows a ritually impure woman to touch him and touches the hand of a corpse, he appears to contract ritual impurity under the law (Lev 15:19-33; Num 19:11-12) 97 One might argue that Jesus contracted no uncleanness in actuality; as in the case of his contact with sinners, the influence moved from him to them rather than the reverse (9:11-13). Yet in the eyes of those present, Jesus assumes the status of uncleanness (see the fuller account in Mk 5:33, where Jesus even invites public attestation of the touch). He is willing to share suppliants' brokenness that they might be made whole (cf. the vicarious mission indicated in 8:17, an editorial aside).98
We should also note that many of the evangelists' positive stories surround women whose faith exceeded that of the male disciples 99 In a world where women were generally second-class citizens and where women who were trotted forth as examples of heroism were viewed as exceptions (e.g., Plut. Bravery of Women), the greater balance in the Gospels is intriguing. Yet this balance fits what we know of women's status in antiquity, Jesus' teaching, and an emphasis in Matthew's Gospel: it was the socially powerless who most readily embraced him.
First, Matthew again emphasizes Jesus' willingness to heal and even to restore to life (9:18-19).100 Mark tells us that the father did not yet know that his daughter had died; again Matthew abbreviates the account, omitting intermediaries (cf. Mt 8:5//Lk 7:3; Marshall 1977: 131), but this does not materially affect the main point of the text.101
Second, he presents the woman with the flow of blood positively as an example of scandalous faith (9:20-21). Because Matthew's language probably alludes to the Scriptures, he probably assumes that his audience will immediately think of the woman's impurity under levitical law.102 Because of her continual flow of blood (the medical term is menorrhagia — Tasker 1961: 102), she was not permitted to move about in crowds; anyone she touched or whose cloak she touched became unclean. Those who were most pious seem to have been most concerned to avoid unnecessarily exposing themselves to impurity (e.g., m. Nid.), even if it was impossible for married men to avoid that totally (Sanders 1992: 228-29).103 Still abbreviating, Matthew omits Mark's crowds (Mk 5:27), but retains the woman's intention: she is so desperate that she will touch the teacher, knowing full well that under the law this will make him unclean (Lev 15:25-27). Indeed, at least in theory any strict Jewish man must learn whether a woman who touched his clothing or sat in a boat with him was unclean and therefore had rendered him unclean (m. Tohar. 5:8). (Despite his abbreviation elsewhere, Matthew clarifies her touch of Jesus' cloak; she touched his "fringe," which appears in the LXX of the Pentateuch only at Num 15:38-39; Deut 22:12, as a reminder to observant Israelites of God's commandments; see comment on 23:5.)104 Seizing the edge of someone's robe was a gesture of fervent entreaty in biblical and Near Eastern tradition (Hutter 1984; 1 Sam 15:27).
Her condition is desperate both for medical reasons and because of its social consequences; her partial ostracism would extend especially to her private life.105 Her ailment probably had kept her from marriage if it started at puberty, and almost surely would have led to her divorce if it began after she was married (which would have been within a few years after puberty), since intercourse was prohibited under such circumstances (Lev 18:19) and childlessness normally led to divorce (Keener 1991a: 75). The stigma of childlessness (cf. Lk 1:24-25; 1 Enoch 98:5), the pain of feeling "left over" (although Palestine did not have a surplus of marriageable men as Greece did, neither did they have a shortage of men), the economic consequences of being unable to earn sufficient income, yet having neither husband nor children for long-term support, probably would have made her condition seem almost unbearable. Still, her desperation also begets a confidence that Jesus is an absolutely certain source of her healing. In desperation, she presses her way to Jesus with the determination of faith, regardless of the consequences.
Third, Jesus embraced her need (9:22). Both by calling her "daughter" (perhaps welcoming her as a dependent — 9:18; cf. 15:22) and by his following word of encouragement (tharsei, which the NRSV renders "Take heart"), he addresses her fear.106 More critically, he acknowledges her act as an act of faith. By failing to offer a rebuke he demonstrated both that the healing came by God's power and not automatic magic (Hooker 1983: 61; cf. Lane 1974b: 160-61), and that he was unashamed to be identified with her uncleanness (more clearly in Mk 5:30-34), which her touch would have communicated in the eyes of the public. This fits Matthew's portrait of Jesus (cf. 8:17), who embraced humanity's ultimate humiliation and shame on the cross (3:15), perhaps refusing even a simple narcotic to deaden the pain (27:34).
Fourth, Jesus exercises authority over even death itself (9:23-26).107 Children often died young (e.g., CIJ 1:308, §399; Plut. Consolation to Wife, Mor. 608C, 609D, 61 ID; Dixon 1988: 113); in poorer parts of the Empire perhaps half of the live births did not survive past their mid-teens (cf. Lewis 1983: 54; Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 84; in other traditional societies, cf. Mbiti 1970: 153). Mourning was of great importance (e.g., Gen. Rab. 100:4, 7; Virg. Aen. 11.148-50), and because bodies decomposed rapidly, mourners gathered quickly (e.g., b. Sanh. 47a). Women mourners (according to the rabbis; Jos. War 3.437 includes male keeners) were hired to display grief as ostentatiously as possible (e.g., Jos. War 2.6; Ant. 4.320; b. Meg. 3b; Sanh. 47a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:4; Lam. Rab. Proem 2; Safrai 1974/76b: 778; cf. women's lamentation in Horn. II. 18.30-31, 50-51; 19.284-85), and flutists normally accompanied them (11:17; Jos. War 3.437; m. Ketub. 4:4), as Matthew adds here (Hill 1972: 179, citing also b. Ketub. 7a). Later texts probably reflect the earlier view of many religious people in regarding at least two or three mourners (two flutists and one professional mourning woman) mandatory for the funerals of the poorest person, but a prominent local person like this "ruler" (9:18) would probably be able to afford more (m. Ketub. 4:4; Gundry 1982: 175; France 1985: 171).108 His wealth and status contrast him starkly with the ailing woman earlier in the story, but his grief has reduced him to the same position of dependence on Jesus.
If Jesus intended his assertion that the girl was merely asleep (9:24) to keep word about her resucitation from spreading, the tactic failed (9:26). "Sleep" was a common euphemism for death in antiquity (e.g., 1 Thess 4:13; Horn. II. 14.231; Soph. Oed. Col. 1578; Plut. Condolence to Apollonius 12, Mor. 107D; Jub. 23:1; 36:18; Ps. Sol. 2:31; 4 Ezra 7:31-32; 2 Bar. 11:4; 21:25; 36:11; CIJ 1:8, 12, 17-19 and passim; b. Shab. 30b) as in many other cultures (Mbiti 1970: 204-5), but Jesus' contrast between sleep and death here suggests that he wished them to understand that she was not truly dead. Long-term professional mourners would recognize the difference, however (Harris 1986: 309),109 so they seem not to have believed him (9:26).110 That their grief quickly turns to the laughter of derision (9:24) need not underline their insincerity, but given the striking contrast between the two emotional states, it might suggest it (cf. ridicule of pretended grief in Mart. Epig. 1.33).
Corpse-uncleanness was the most serious uncleanness anyone could contract, rendering a person unclean for seven days (Num 19:11; see further Sanders 1990: 184-92); Jesus thus showed his exceptional kindness and commitment to help by taking the girl's hand when he raised her up.111
Astonishing Cures for Disabilities (9:27-34)
Cf. 12:22-24; 20:29-34; Mk 3:22; 10:46-52; Lk 11:14-15; 18:35-43. The tradition behind this narrative can make a good claim for authenticity.112 Many educated writers ridiculed gullibility about supernatural stories (cf. Petron. Sat. 62-63) and doubted the authenticity of some miracles (Plut. Isis 8, Mor. 353F), but those skeptical about most or all miracles (Lucian Alex.; Marc. Aur. 1.5; Diog. Laert. 8.1.41) were far fewer in antiquity than they are in modern Western society. Most ancients would have regarded substantial cures like opening blind eyes as of the highest evidential value (e.g., Jn 9:32; Epidauros inscr. 9); thus the crowds react with amazement (Mt 9:31, 33), and members of the religious elite redouble their efforts to prove that Jesus' genuine miracles are not of God (9:34).113
First, Jesus responds to faith (9:27-31). Their initial act of faith was approaching Jesus with a plea for mercy (5:7; 20:31; Mk 10:47; cf. Test. Zeb. 2:2; Test. Sol. 20:1; Gk. Ezra 1:8-10; Epict. LCL: xxvi; healing in Tob 8:17; 11:15), recognizing that they were dependent on his kindness rather than on any merit of their own (contrast much Greek prayer — comment on 6:7). Their initial faith also includes a recognition of Jesus' identity. By moving their acknowledgment of Jesus as "Son of David" forward to this point in the narrative (20:31; Mk 10:47), Matthew allows two blind beggars (the usual occupation of blind men) to confess Jesus' messianic identity before Peter does (16:16; cf. Jn 4:25-26). (Charlesworth 1997 thinks that the blind suppliant in Mk 10:47 means, not "Messiah" but one like Solomon, who was probably associated with exorcism of demons that could cause sickness, including blindness. These associations are reasonable but probably not what Matthew's audience would first assume — cf. 1:1.) But while Mark also reports how crucial faith was to their healing (Mk 10:52 = Mt 9:29), Matthew emphasizes it further (9:28; drawing from the Jesus tradition — cf., e.g., Mk 5:34; 9:23; 11:23). Despite their initial acts of faith, Jesus forces them to clarify that they not only seek his help and recognize his identity, but acknowledge his ability to heal this otherwise irreversible disability (9:28). Jesus refuses to heal without faith; he is not a magician, but one who seeks to glorify his Father (cf. 13:58).
This account in Matthew occurs at a different point in the story in Mark (10:46-52); Matthew preserves that story in the appropriate place as well (Mt 20:29-34; on the literary function of "doublets" see Satterthwaite 1993: 363), but repeats it here to list it among Jesus' ten signs.114 This repetition, like Matthew's others, reinforces the point he wishes to make (cf. Anderson 1985). He probably doubles the healings of the blind men for the same reason that he doubled the demoniacs delivered in 8:28 (cf. Mk 5:2); he had omitted one elsewhere (Mk 8:22-26) as part of his abbreviating technique and so compensates by simply adding one in this story (Harrington 1982: 43; Meier 1980: 99; cf. Goulder 1974: 44-45). Matthew elsewhere emphasizes spreading the word (4:24; 9:26, 31; 14:35; cf. 28:19), a motif rooted securely in the Jesus tradition (e.g., Mk 1:28, 37, 45; 3:8; 5:20); the messianic secret here (Mt 9:30) comes from Mark 8:26. (Matthew omits it in 20:34, following Mk 10:52; but here the secondary allusion to the healing of Mk 8 takes precedence.)
Second, Jesus has adequate authority to cure any ailment. This includes both natural ailments (9:27-30) and demonically induced ailments (9:32-33), which in the Gospels are not always distinguishable on the basis of symptoms alone. Jewish law went beyond that of many other societies in protecting weak members of society, such as deaf-mutes and minors (m. B. Qam. 8:4), but Jesus could actually strengthen the weak. Matthew probably relates these narratives in large measure to encourage his audience concerning the character and power of their Lord.
Third, ridicule was the only tactic left to Jesus' opponents (9:34). Not all responses to Jesus' ministry were favorable (9:33). Jewish wisdom recognized that a person without a more adequate answer might resort to simple ridicule or slander (Prov 29:9), and in Matthew's view Jesus' most religiously committed contemporaries were reduced to explaining his works as emanating from a source other than God (12:24; cf. Mk 3:22; Jn 7:20; 8:48,52; 10:20). Matthew not only writes to encourage his community that Jesus can meet their needs, but to remind them that the opposition they were facing was not new; Jesus himself had to confront it. That Matthew reports this charge in the direct context of the disciples' carrying on Jesus' mission (9:35-11:1) and again (12:24) shortly after the Pharisees had criticized Jesus' disciples (12:1-2) suggests that he sees the charge as relevant to his own community. (Matthew brackets the entire section from 9:32 to 12:24 with the Pharisaic charge in response to Jesus' healing a mute demoniac.)
Even aside from Euhemerus and others who denied supernatural activity altogether, many ancient rationalists preferred nonsupernatural explanations when they were possible (e.g., Diod. Sic. 4.47.3-4). But the Pharisees were hardly modern antisupernaturalists; they believed miracles could happen. The consensus seems to have arisen, however, that though some might seek to adduce miracles in support of their claims (e.g., b. B. Mes. 59b; p. Sanh. 6:6, §2; Baumgarten 1983), scholarly tradition took precedence over miracles (t. Yebam. 14:6; cf. p. Sanh. 11:4, §1; Vermes 1973: 80-81); the Matthean community itself recognized that charlatans and false prophets could also perform signs and wonders (24:24). If they were like many of their modern counterparts, one can understand the religious people's sentiments in Jesus' day; after all, if God were still doing miracles like those he had done through Elijah and Elisha, surely he would have been doing it through them. Were they not the ones with correct doctrine? Matthew's community probably experiences analogous opposition from their contemporaries.
More Laborers for the Harvest (9:35-38)
Cf. Mk 6:6, 34; Lk 8:1; 10:2; Jn 4:35. Matthew adds a summary statement similar to 4:23-25 (which also precedes a kingdom discourse), making clear that the incidents he has reported are merely prominent examples of Jesus' many works and teachings. At this strategic point, however, Matthew also emphasizes that Jesus' mission is not his alone. On the historical level, Jesus' ministry to Galilean villages (9:35) undoubtedly paved the way for his disciples' subsequent Galilean mission by providing Galilee a positive foretaste of his ministry (cf., e.g., Acts 9:32-43). On the historical level, Jesus' ministry must also have prepared his disciples to carry on that ministry by example; such were the customary roles of teachers and disciples.
This section, which introduces Jesus' mission discourse in chapter 10, places in parallel Jesus and his disciples who must carry on his works.115 As Jesus perpetuated John's message concerning the kingdom (3:2; 4:17, 23; 11:1; cf. chs. 5-7), his followers will do the same (10:7). As Jesus demonstrated the kingdom by compassionately healing (9:35; cf. chs. 8-9), his disciples must do the same (10:8). In short, this is the point in the Gospel at which Matthew clarifies the suggestion of 3:11 and 16 that much of Jesus' mission is likewise the church's mission. Matthew rearranges material from various sections of his sources in chapter 10 not merely to emphasize a past, historical mission with little current significance, but to provide a model for his audience (cf. S. Brown 1978).116 If Matthew purposely adapts Mark's "in Christ's name" (Mk 9:41) to "in a disciple's name" (Mt 10:42), he underlines further the need for the mission to continue in his own day (cf. Overman 1990b: 120-21).
First, Matthew teaches that Jesus' motivation was compassion (9:36). Although some commentators press the literal sense of "had compassion" as "he was moved inwardly," "his bowels were moved," the metaphoric associations of the term had long since vanished and by the first century it simply represented compassion (Thiselton 1977: 81). "Compassion" reflected Jesus' character (14:14; 15:32; 18:27; 20:34; cf. Phil 2:1).117
When lacking God-appointed leaders God's people are often presented in the Hebrew Bible as "sheep without a shepherd" (Num 27:17; 1 Kings 22:17; 2 Chron 18:16; Ezek 34:5; cf. Mt 26:31; 4 Ezra 5:18), inviting the compassionate Lord to shepherd his people himself (Ezek 34:11-16) by feeding them (Ezek 34:2-3; Mt 14:19-20), healing them (Ezek 34:4; Mt 9:35; cf. "torn" in 9:36), and bringing the lost sheep back (34:4-6; Mt 18:12-14) — performing miracles for them as at the first exodus (Mic 7:14-15). Matthew's audience already knows that Jesus fulfills this mission (Mt 2:6; Mic 5:2; cf. Mt 25:32). This implies that the religious leaders of Israel who purported to be their shepherds had failed to obey God's commission (Ezek 34:2-10; Mt 23). The disciples (sheep themselves; cf. 7:15; 10:16) will carry on Jesus' mission to these sheep (10:6).118
Second, Matthew emphasizes the need for more workers to complete Jesus' mission (9:37). Jewish teachers understood that they each could handle only so many students by themselves, even if the students were yet minors (Safrai 1974/76a: 957). Miracle-working teachers sometimes expected their disciples to work miracles, although the disciples were not always successful (p. Ta'an. 3:8, §2; cf. 2 Kings 2:14; 4:31); Jesus' disciples sometimes fell short of their teacher, too (17:16; Malina 1993: 131). The term Jesus uses for "workers" here recurs in 10:10 (cf. 20:1), indicating that the workers Jesus wished to send forth into the harvest were his own disciples. Gathering the wheat in the harvest has eschatological ramifications in view of the approaching kingdom (3:12; 13:30), and the urgency of harvest (often emphasized in ancient texts, e.g., Babrius 88.11-19) was a potent image that provided other Jewish teachers similar analogies (a late first-century teacher made nearly the same statement in m. 'Abot 2:15, probably concerning study and teaching of Torah, m. 'Abot 2:16).119
Third, before Jesus sends laborers out he summons them to pray that he will raise up laborers (9:38).After commissioning them to pray for "workers," Jesus commissioned them as "workers" (10:10). Some have argued that the "master of the harvest" is God (Weaver 1990: 79), which would fit comparable Jewish parables; it is interesting, however, that it is Jesus who sends the workers forth (10:5; cf. 13:37-43).
———————————————————
1. The term "build" in Lk 7:5 might suggest the close connection between this story and its preceding context in Luke (6:48).
2. Cf. Empedocles, who claims "power over sickness, nature, and even death" (Empedocles On Nature fr.; in Boring 1995: 79-80).
3. Kingsbury 1978 suggests that 8:1-17 address Christology; 8:18-34 discipleship; 9:1-17 separation from Israel; and 9:18-34 faith. Moiser 1985b suggests that Mt 8-9 reflects the same basic structure as the Sermon on the Mount (possibly stretching in both cases).
4. Pagan aretalogies and other lists of healing miracles (e.g., in Horsley 1982: 21-25; Epidauros inscriptions; Paus. 2.27.3) generally served to reinforce suppliants' faith for experiencing miracles themselves. The late fourth-century-a.d. Epidauros inscriptions clearly postdate many of the accounts they include, some of which contain significant legendary accretions (Boring 1995: 65); but the period of oral transmission is much longer than for the Gospel accounts.
5 . Desperation in other cases drove suppliants to their knees before those whom they thought could grant miracles; see, e.g., Tac. Hist. 4.81 and other sources in Theissen 1983: 53. Seeking healing from a sage also appears in Jewish tradition, as in the biblical Elijah and Elisha accounts and b. B. Bat. 116a (Lachs 1987: 155).
6. Following m. Nega'im passim, Davies and Allison 1991: 11 show that their isolation was not total; they also suggest (from a targum and llQTemple 46:16-18) that they may have congregated in leper "colonies" as in the Middle Ages, though this is unclear. (Sometimes, at least, they traveled in bands — 2 Kings 7:3; Lk 17:12 — probably a corollary of their general isolation.)
7. Some early Gentile commentators opined that Jesus touched the leper to show that he was not bound by the law (Chrysostom Gospel of Matthew, Homily 25.2; cf. Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron, ACCS, 26) or externals (Origen Healing of the Leper, ACCS 25-26). Touching is common in other early Christian healing accounts (Theissen 1983: 62) and could also symbolize healing in a few other ancient traditions (see Tac. Hist. 4.81; Bultmann 1968: 222); for other parts of the body, cf. Theissen 1983: 62), but it was usually associated only with deities, not human miracle workers (cf. Aune 1980: 1533; Gen. Apoc. 20.21-22 and b. Ber. 5b are exceptions). Boring 1995: 78 notes that people wanted to touch rulers to share in their good fortune (Plut. Life of Sulla 35, 474c; Arrian Anab. 6.13.3). Some also believed that particles emanated from people for good or harm (Boring 1995: 78-79 cites Plut. T-T5.7.1-2, Mor.; cf. commentaries on Lk 8:44; Acts 5:15), but one could also simply accept a suppliant by giving one's hand (Dion. Hal. 8.2.1); for this gesture as a greeting, alliance, or agreement, see, e.g., Ezra 10:19 LXX; 2 Macc 12:12; Ep. Arist. 179; Jos. and Asen. 5:7/11; Gal 2:9; Dion. Hal. 6.84.4; Diog. Ep. 33 (further, it could function therapeutically nonmagically, as in modern medicine — Yamauchi 1986: 135-36).
8. Herod. Hist. 1.138 indicates that the Persians and probably some other peoples also viewed lepers as unclean because of some fault on their part (Boring 1995: 64).
9. That one should not communicate secret magical formulae (e.g., PGM 1.130-32, 192-94; cf. Acts 19:18; Theissen 1983: 68-69, 141-42) is probably irrelevant (Boring 1995: 64); so also commands to keep the secrets of the Mysteries (Lucian Lexiphanes 10; Apul. Metam. 11.23) or some other kinds of divine encounters (PGM 4.2474-90; Orphic Hymn 30.3,7; Philost. V.A. 1.1; Philo Det. 175-76; Cher. 48; Jos. Apion 2.94; 2 Cor 12:4) secret.
10. E.g., Ellis 1975; Burkill 1972: 1-38; idem 1960; Anderson 1976: 46; Wright 1992a: 104.
11. On a literary level, one may add the obduracy of disciples, particularly in Mark, as a foil for Jesus (in John, cf. Braun 1956). This pattern appeared elsewhere in ancient texts (e.g., 4 Ezra 5:34-35; Herm. Vis. 3.6, 10; Comm. 12.4; Sim. 9.12); see further Robbins 1992: 167-68; Aune 1987: 34, 55-56; Lemcio 1978.
12. Compare "mysteries" in apocalyptic texts, especially in Daniel and the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g., 1QS 5.11-12; 9.18; 11.3-5; 1QM 3.9; 14.14; 17.9; lQpHab 7.4-5, 8, 13-14; 1QH 2.13; 9.23-24; 11.9-10, 16-17; 12.11-13,20; 13.2, 13-14); cf. 4 Ezra 14:45-47; etc. For the sake of brevity here, I refer to Gibbard 1956: 109-11; Brown 1959; Ellis 1977: 208; Longenecker 1975: 41-42; and most thoroughly Caragounis 1977.
13. The testimony could be "against" them (23:31), but in view of the language from Leviticus it almost certainly simply means "to" them (10:18). "Go" sounds redundant to contemporary ears but was common then and is typical of Matthean diction (cf., e.g., 8:13; 19:21; 21:28; 27:65; 28:10).
14. Manson 1979: 63 suspects that only the dialogue was present in Q, and Matthew and Luke overlap otherwise through oral tradition; France 1977: 253-54 suspects dependence on oral tradition. I believe that Q included more than Jesus' sayings (Mt 3:7-4:ll//Lk 3:7-4:13), that the location of the pericope in both Matthew and Luke indicates a written source, and that the writers simply felt more freedom to diverge in retelling the story than in recounting their master's words. Luke structures his account to parallel that of Cornelius in Acts 10-11, whether by adding details (Wilson 1973: 31) or simply by including them (cf. F. F. Bruce 1977a: 215; had Matthew and Luke felt free to modify the story radically, would they have retained Jesus' initial resistance to the Gentile's request?). Matthew typically abbreviates — a standard rhetorical practice — by omitting intermediaries like messengers (Mt 9:18//Mk 5:35; pace Gagnon 1994), though they were intrinsically likely (Plut. Consolation to Wife 1, Mor. 608B). This was typical ancient writing style (see the example in Gundry 1982; 141).
15. A similar first-century structure stands beneath a second- or third-century Roman bathhouse in Capernaum (Horsley 1995: 193-94; cf. a late second-century Roman villa near Jerusalem in Edelstein 1990), and we now appear to have evidence for a Roman presence in first-century Capernaum (Stanton 1995a: 115; Laughlin 1993; earlier doubted, cf. Sanders 1990: 15). Yet even if we lacked this evidence we should not argue from silence against the presence of some Romans. Although no legions were stationed in Palestine in Jesus' day, we know of contingents of soldiers in Caesarea and Jerusalem (we also know of places where soldiers passed through; cf. Dar and Kokkinos 1992; and of pagan presence in Jewish areas; see, e.g., di Segni 1991). Capernaum, being a customs station, may have included some military personnel as well (Reicke 1974: 117; Gundry 1982: 141), if Antipas had arranged this with the Roman prefect. One could suppose a retired centurion with a land grant there, but his title and probable lack of family militate against this suggestion.
16. As early as the Maccabean period texts indicate resentment toward Gentiles in general, not merely Rome (cf. Goodman 1987: 76-108); but Jewish literature is also replete with complaints about Roman oppression (e.g., rabbinic complaints about the "four kingdoms"). The object of the Kittim in the Qumran scrolls (1QM 1.2, 6, 10, 12; 15.2; 16.3; 18.2-3; lQpHab 2.12-14; 3.4, 9; 4.5, 10; 5.1-2; 6.1, 10; 9.7; 4QpNah 1.3; Jub. 24:28-29; cf. Silberman 1961-62: 342) is debated and may have changed from one period to the next (some contend for the Romans — e.g., Burrows 1955: 123-42; idem 1958: 194-203; Rabin 1956; others, perhaps less plausibly, for Greeks or Seleucids — cf. Avi-Yonah 1952: 5; Michel 1954; Rowley 1956b; Treves 1958: 420; for "sons of darkness" in general, North 1958: 86-87; Carmignac 1955: 748; van der Ploeg 1959: 24-25; cf. Yadin 1962: 25), but the Romans are clearly in view in the latest texts. Early Jewish texts portrayed Rome as Babylon, the place of the new captivity (Sib. Or. 5.143, 159;2Bar. 11:1; 67:7; 4 Ezra 3:1-2, 28; Rev 14:8), and the Amoraim frequently nicknamed Rome "Edom" (e.g., b. Mak. 12a; Gen. Rab. 37:2; 44:15, 17; 63:7; 76:6; Ex. Rab. 1:26; 18:12; 23:6; 31:17; 35:5; Lev. Rab. 13:5; 23:6; Num. Rab. 11:1; 14:1; 15:17; Deut. Rab. 1:16; Qoh. Rab. 5:7, §1; 11:1, §1; 11:5, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:14; Pesiq. R. 10:1; 13:2; 14:15; 15:20; cf. Hadas-Lebel 1984).
17. Bultmann claims that the term here means "son" in contrast to "servant" in Lk 7:2 (cf., e.g., CIJ 1.369-70, §505; Char. Chaer. 3.5.4; for the ambiguity, see Theon Progymn 5.104-6), but of 24 uses in the NT, the present term means "servant" in all but one (France 1977: 256; pace also Hagner 1993: 204, though he is more tentative). Matthew does use pais for "son" in his source in 17:18 (Mk 9:17//Lk 9:38), but Luke's doulos makes it impossible for "son" to stand explicitly in Matthew's source here, suggesting that Matthew simply liked the former term. Matthew depicts some elements of the illness missing in Luke and perhaps in Q, possibly to connect this narrative with that concerning the paralytic (9:2) as well as the general crowds in 4:24. Thus this man provides an illustration of miracles demonstrating the kingdom (4:24) and (as in 9:1-8) an example of the faith of others (8:10; 9:2) leading to forgiveness.
18. On the centurion's patronal role in the synagogue community, see Moxnes 1991: 252; Overman 1996: 115; cf. the praise accorded to synagogue sponsors (e.g., CIJ 2:99-100, §861) and the analogous role of the archisynagōgon the centurion's patronal role in the synagogue community, see Moxnes 1991: 252;gos in some communities (CIJ 1:522, §722; 2:332-35, §1404).
19. The exception would be if the "centurion" were retired; veterans tended to get land grants in colonies (e.g., ILS 9059; CIL 16.146 in Sherk 1988: 145-46, 161; Ferguson 1987: 32; O'Rourke 1971: 175) or in larger, wealthier settlements where they outranked most locals in status and wealth (Lewis 1983; 22, 24). This would also explain why he was not stationed in Caesarea; but one might perhaps then expect more qualification of the title "centurion."
20. Often noted, e.g., in Jeremias 1958: 30; Martin 1978: 15; France 1977: 257; Carson 1984b: 201.
21. Jeremias's reconstruction of the Aramaic so that the centurion speaks of his own authority over troops (1958: 30) misses the mark; unless the centurion were a Syrian recruit, Jesus undoubtedly speaks with him in Greek, the common language of the eastern Mediterranean (Hooke 1957). Closer is the concept of spoken blessings and curses by God's authorized agents in the Hebrew Bible (in Jewish tradition, cf. Moore 1971: 1:414).
22. On the criterion of embarrassment, Meier 1994: 725 thinks that this element of the Q tradition is probably authentic. While he may well be right (if it was not simply the tradition's inference from Jesus' words), so palpably quantifiable a nonverbal expression would have had to have made a profound impression on the earliest disciples from whom the tradition stems.
23. Lachs 1987: 156 also finds the "darkness" of Gehenna in the late Ex. Rab. 14:2; Lev. Rab. 27; one may add Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:1; pagans typically associated darkness with the realm of the dead (e.g., Virg. Aen. 6.545; Georg. 4.497; Ovid Metam. 10.54). God would reward Israel with eschatological separation from the Gentiles (e.g., Sifre Deut. 315.1.1).
24. People in the ancient Mediterranean sometimes expressed their anguish by painful gestures such as tearing out of hair (e.g., Hom. II. 22.77, 405-7).
25. On the lostness (Jdt 16:17; 1 Enoch 99:4; 1QM 11.12-13; 14.7; 15.1-2; 17.1-2; t. Sanh. 13:2; b. Rosh Hash. 17a; Lev. Rab. 13:2; Num. Rab. 19:32; Qoh. Rab. 1:9, §1; Pesiq. R. 10:5; 11:5) and evil (e.g., 1 Macc 5; Jub. 1:9; 15:34; 22:16-18, 20-22; 23:24; 24:25-33; 4QpNah 1.1; Ps-Philo 7:3; 12:4; m. 'Abod. Zar. 2:1; t. 'Abod. Zar. 8:5; Sifre Deut. 213.1.1; Gen. Rab. 80:7) of the Gentiles in some Jewish traditions and the emphasis on the righteous Gentiles (e.g., Ep. Arist. 279; Sifra A.M. pq. 13.194.2.15; b. Hul. 92a; Yoma 71b; Lev. Rab. 1:3) and hope for them (1QH 6.12-14; 1QM 12.14; Sib. Or. 1.129; 3.710-26; Ps. Sol. 17:30; Test. Zeb. 9:8 MS; t. Ber. 6:2; Sifre Deut. 307.4.2; Sanh. 13:2; Num. Rab. 1:3) in others, see the data summarized in Keener 1997b: 62-63, 84-85; Sanders 1977: 206-12; idem 1985: 214-15; Bonsirven 1964: 65-68. Jeremias 1958: 40 may be too severe. In practice, probably few Gentiles met the criterion of "righteous" (Sanders 1992: 270), but undoubtedly Jewish teachers generously hoped for more. Positive treatment of Gentiles was partly for witness's sake (Tob 13:3; CD 12.6-8; Qoh. Rab. 11:1 §1, cf. Ps-Phocyl. 39-40; Isoc. To Nic. 22, Or. 2). Views varied considerably from hellenistic Jewish writers such as Josephus, Philo, and Aristeas to more rigid sectarian sources like the Qumran Scrolls (Boccaccini 1991: 176-79, 251-65).
26. Davies and Allison 1991: 27-28 tentatively object that no passage in the Hebrew Bible has both nations coming to Zion (Is 2:2-4) and banqueting (25:6-8). This objection, however, ignores the synthetic way Jesus and others read Isaiah; even if he drew from only a single text, his understanding of that text would be informed by others. Theissen 1991: 45 suggests uncertainly that both Diaspora Jews and Gentiles could be involved.
27. The practice was clearest in Egypt (Horsley 1987: 92). Then again, unusual circumstances are possible: Peter might have moved from Bethsaida (Jn 1:44) to Capernaum to work in his wife's family business or if his father-in-law had passed without sons; the husband and bride's father decide the new marital residence in P. Eleph. 1.5-6 (311 b.c.). Village endogamy was probably common, but cementing relations with a nearby town was no less feasible (Horsley 1995: 199; cf. Ilan 1996: 75-79; Hanson and Oakman 1998: 32-34).
28. His own home may be another sign of his relatively comfortable economic status (see comment on 4:18-22); impoverished peasants in places like rural Egypt, e.g.. might still be renting very cramped, small homes at age 50, which for them might be near the end of life (see Lewis 1983: 70, on one Kronion in a.d. 114; on the severe cramping and sometimes renting fractions of one-room dwellings, see Lewis 1983: 53, 65, 67, citing, e.g., B.C.U. 115 = W. Chr. 203). Peter's wife appears in 1 Cor 9:5, his alleged daughter in the first section of Acts of Peter.
29. Cf. Loffreda 1971; Strange and Shanks 1982: 26-37; Hengel 1974b: 27; Blue 1994: 138. The relatively late date of the evidence might bring this conclusion into question (Taylor 1989).
30. Though Pilch 1989 may also be correct that healing signified appropriate state of being more than, as today, restored ability to work. Carson 1984b: 204 suggests that the fever might be malaria, but notes that the text speaks of "fever" because people considered it a disease itself at the time (cf. also Trapnell 1982: 459). B. Shab. 66b-67a lists various cures (mainly magical) for fevers (Davies and Allison 1991: 35).
31. A later rabbinic tradition emphasizes that divine intervention to heal fever is greater than protecting God's servants in the fiery furnace (b. Ned. 41a in Boring 1995: 64-65).
32 . On the magical practice in Tob 8:2-3, see Kollmann 1994. Other texts concerning the magical expulsion of demons include late rabbinic sources purporting to depict an account of Johanan ben Zakkai (Num. Rab. 19:8; Pesiq. R. 14:14). For other accounts, cf. lQapGen 20; Justin Dial. 85; Test. Sol. 5:13; for name invocation of spirits to counter other spirits, as in pagan magical texts, cf. PGM 101.38-39; Aramaic incantation text 3.8-9; 50.7-8; Test. Sol. 2.4; 5.5; 8.5-11; ch. 18; on named demons in 4Q560, see Penney and Wise 1994. For more detail, see Alexander 1980: 126-28; from a purely anthropological standpoint, Goodman 1988: 125 comments that exorcism actually is the one effective transcultural method for relieving spirit-possession. On demons as "spirits" Davies and Allison 1991: 36 cite 1 Sam-16:23 LXX; CD 12.2; 1 Enoch 15:4-16:1; 99:7; Ps-Philo 60. Certainly Jewish consciousness of demons had developed considerably beyond anything found in the Hebrew Bible (perhaps stimulated by Persian thought — cf. Olmstead 1959: 18, 53, 96, 195, 232); one conservative scholar suggests that in view of the predicted nearness of the kingdom, Satan's kingdom had initiated a counteroffensive raising the visibility of demon-possession in this period (Alexander 1980: 249).
33. Longenecker 1975: 147-48; Best 1965: 107; Meier 1980: 85; Gundry 1982: 150.
34. Carson 1984b: 207 provides insights for those who wish to apply the text: "This text and others clearly teach that there is healing in the Atonement; but similarly there is the promise of a resurrection body in the Atonement, even if believers do not inherit it until the Parousia .. . this does not mean that all such benefits can be secured at the present time on demand" (cf. similarly Blomberg 1992a: 145). Ancient readers would more likely take the text as a general principle than as a contractual certainty (cf. Mek. Vay. 1.172ff. in Laut. 2.96-97).
35. The form of a series of questions and responses (cf. Diog. Laert. 1.36-37) is probably original, but Matthew and Luke develop it differently (Mack and Robbins 1989: 83-84). Matthew 8:20 has the three-beat Aramaic rhythm Jesus and other sages used to emphasize important maxims (Jeremias 1971: 23). Theissen 1978: 10 suggests that 8:20 addressed "wandering charismatics," but see comments above on 4:17-22.
36. Radical philosophers also demanded readiness to abandon possessions (Epict. Disc. 2.2.15; 4.8.31); the destitute peasants had little choice (cf. again Kronion in Lewis 1983: 70). The founder of the Qumran community mourned that enemies had banished him into the wilderness "like a bird out of the nest" (Betz 1968: 72; cf. Prov 27:8). Following E. Nestle, Bultmann and Hagner suggest a popular proverb in Plut. Tiberius Gracchus 9.4-5, but the parallel is not close enough to warrant assuming it is a proverb (Marshall 1978: 410). If "son of man" means generic person here, Jesus would be commenting cynically on God's provision for the animals, but that people, including himself, were often rootless (Chilton 1994: 91, 97-98; cf. Vermes 1993: 87). A generic usage, however, does not cohere well with his usual use of "Son of Man" (see the Introduction or his teaching in 6:25-30).
37. 8:21-22 are widely accepted as authentic (Hengel 1981b: 13-15; Sanders 1985: 252, 254, who interpret the passage quite differently), particularly due to the positive application of the criterion of dissimilarity; it does not fit the mainstream of early Judaism, Christianity, or Greco-Roman thought. (Witherington 1990: 118 does, however, see a parallel in Iamb. Pythag. 17.73.) Hengel envisions an eschatological context for the demand (cf. Mt 10:34-35; Hengel 1981b: 13); McCane briefly suggests an imminent eschatology in the direction of Schweitzer (1990: 42-43).
38. Ancient texts can refer to the severely deprived as virtually dead (Dio Cassius R.H. 45.47.5; b. Besa 32b, bar.; Ex. Rab. 5:4; see comment on 8:1-4). More significantly, "dead" is analogous to "fool" in Sir 22:11 -12, and elsewhere it functions as a spiritual or moral analogy (Lucretius Nat. 3.1046; Epict. Disc. 1.5.4; Jos. and Asen. 8:9/11; 4 Ezra 7:92; Eph2:l). A sentence of death hung over the disobedient (Gen 2:17; 9:4-5; Deut 4:1), so that the wicked were as dead already (Gen. Rab. 39:7; Qoh. Rab. 9:5, §1; cf. Epict. 1.13.5; Diog. Laert. 2.35; Buchanan 1970: 201; Sanders 1977: 317).
39. The suggestion of an original mistranslation from the Aramaic such as "Let the waverers or gravediggers bury their dead" (Abrahams 1924: 183; Black 1967: 207-8; Schwarz 1981), perhaps based on public responsibility for the burial of the poor or unidentified (cf. Moore 1971: 2:176), is improbable; cf. Gundry 1982: 154. Hengel 1981b: 7 and Sanders 1985: 254 take the saying as escha-tologically conditioned rather than proverbial.
40. Whereas Jewish mourners completed their mourning that year, the more somber Romans prohibited even women from mourning longer than this (Sen. Ep. Lucil. 63.13).
41. Cf. similarly the curse in PGM 40.3-4 against a father who apparently robbed his own daughter's tomb: "May he not. . . bury his parents," i.e., may he die before them; a parent's final request might be burial by her son (thereby guaranteeing that he outlived her, Ap. Rhod. 1.280-83). Cf. also Char. Chaer. 3.5.4-6; 8.6.10, requesting the son not to depart until the father has died. For burial as a metonymy for death, Pesiq. R. 22:6.
42. On reburial after the wasting of the flesh, see further m. Mo'ed Qat. 1:5; Pesah. 8:8; Sanh. 6:6; Meyers and Strange 1981: 29; Finegan 1969: 217. McCane 1991 contrasts Jewish ossuaries and later Christian reliquaries. A year's mourning period also appears in Eurip. Alcestis 336 (cf. 430-31).
43. Cf. Test. Job 39:10/39:7; Hengel 1981b: 8; Sanders 1985: 253-55; Harvey 1982: 60; compare also Beare 1981: 214. Burial of the dead was an urgent duty throughout Mediterranean antiquity (e.g., Tob 1:17-20; 2:7-10; 2 Macc 4:49; 13:7; 1QM 7:2; Ps-Phocyl. 99-101; 1 Enoch 98:13; Jos. Apion 2.201; Eurip. Suppliants passim; Plut. Nicias 6.5-6; Epict. Disc. 4.7.31; Diog. Laert. Lives 6.2.52; Char. Chaer. 1.5.25; 4.1.3), and failure to bury one's father was a heinous offense (Demosth. Against Aristogeiton 54). Even a priest should bury a corpse if no one else was available to bury it (Sanders 1993: 225-26).
44. Cf. Diod. Sic. 10.3.4. Also, when no son was available, a leading disciple would bury a teacher, as with John's disciples in 14:12: Diog. Laert. Lives 6.2.78; Diod. Sic. 10.3.4. That one should honor one's teacher as one honors God (m. 'Abot 4:12) was a graphic way of increasing the honor due a teacher without diminishing that due God (as with disciples, etc., in the same saying).
45. Josephus claims that his command of Galilee at the young age of 30 aroused envy (Life 80).
46. It is doubtful that the story should be explained or allegorized in terms of the Qumran hymns' ship's facing the storm, depicting the sufferings of the elect in the end time, but if this image were familiar it would encourage Matthew's audience to identify with the struggle of those in the boat in view of their own situation (cf. Davies and Allison 1991: 69; for figurative uses see Plut. Chance 2, Mor. 97F; Precepts of Statecraft 19. Mor.). "Waves" also had a figurative usage (Davies and Allison 1991: 71 cite Is 57:20; Wis 14:1; 1QH 2.12-13, 27-28; 6.23; Jude 13; positively, cf. Plut. Oracles at Delphi 21, Mor. 404E). Matthew also introduces the term "earthquake" (8:24), which sometimes was used for storms at sea and is a term he likes (24:7; 27:51,54; 28:2; Hagner 1993: 221; for specifying earthquakes, see Jos. Ant. 6.27).
47. E.g., Taylor 1952: 141; cf. Crossan 1991a: 404; see summary in Aune 1980: 1524. Even Meier 1994: 874-1038 is skeptical of the nature miracles, although this may in part be because, having parceled them into four other categories (877-78), he has too few remaining to defend them on grounds of multiple attestation (contrast Habermas 1995: 129, listing a broader range of sources, but therefore with less substantial evidence). He doubts the authenticity of this particular story because of the prominence of OT themes here to articulate Christology (1994: 924-33). Yet I would suggest that a genuine miracle of this magnitude would have lent itself to christological development in light of the Hebrew Bible, and that if the miracle is authentic, Jesus may stand behind the Christology as well.
48. For questions about Enlightenment philosophical presuppositions concerning miracles see Craig 1986: 43; Benoit 1973/74: 1:39; France 1976: 105-7; cf. Abogunrin 1980; Kee 1983: 3-12; Goppelt 1981/82: 1:145; Borg 1987: 33-34; Davies 1991: 62-65; Meier 1994: 11, 519-21; Brown 1994: 143-44: Boyd 1995: 113-28). Cf. Johnson 1996: 145: "For those living in a community where 'signs and wonders' done in the name of Jesus are a regular occurrence, hearing of such deeds attributed to Jesus in the Gospel narratives is no surprise or scandal."
49. Early Christians probably continued to trust God for "nature miracles" when necessary (cf. Jas 5:16-18; Mk 11:23), but unlike Jesus, they apparently did not view their authority in such situations as automatic or unlimited (see Acts 27:10-26; because Luke-Acts heavily emphasizes signs, it is unlikely that Luke would tone down a stronger early Christian emphasis on nature miracles).
50. In general Held 1963 thinks that Matthew often redacted Mark to present more christological and other theological interpretations of the miracles. But in this narrative Mark's focus is also christological.
51. Pagans often ascribed safety at sea to the Dioscuri (Varro Latin Language 5.10.58; Plut. Pleasant Life Impossible 23, Mor. 1103C; Lucian Ship/Wishes 9; Epict. Disc. 2.18.29; Artem. Oneir. 2.37; Greek Anthology 6.149; Acts 28:11), who appear abundantly in ancient literature (e.g., Euhemerus Sacred History 6; Hor. Ode 3.3.9-10; 4.5.35-36; Epode 17.40-44; Paus. 3.13.6; 3.16.2-3; 4.3.1; 5.15.5; Persius Sat. 5.49; Greek Anth. 4.1.24). When in trouble at sea, one might call on Poseidon (Ach. Tat. Clit. 3.4; cf. Virg .Aen. 1.142; Boring 1995: 69); in this narrative, however, Jesus does not call on the Lord but acts as the Lord.
52. Davies and Allison 1991: 70 compare both Greco-Roman (Herod. 7.191; Virg. Aen. 4.553-83; Pliny N.H. 37.142, 155; Plut. Caesar 38; Ael. Arist. Or. 42.10; 45.29, 33; Philost. V.A. 4.13; Clem. Alex. Strom. 6.3; lamb. Vit. Pyth. 135) and Jewish (ARN 3; b. B. Mes. 59b, noting that Bultmann 1968: 237-38 favors a Palestinian origin) sea miracles and deliverances, but argue that the closest parallels are those of the Jonah story, originally emphasizing that Jesus was "one greater than Jonah" (Mt 12:41). They note that Jesus acts not as a mere prophet, but as Yahweh (citing Ps 65:7; 89:8-9; 93:3-4; 106:8-9; 107:23-32; Is 51:9-10; 2 Macc 9:8; 4Q381).
53. For "salvation" in terms of physical rescues from distress in Greek, see, e.g., LXX Ex. 14:13, 30; Sir 46:1; Jdt 8:17; 9:1; 11:3; 1 Macc 4:25; Ps. Sol. 16:5; Jos. Am. 2.339; 3.1; 11.282; War 5.415; 6.310; Life 244, 259; Philo Decal. 53, 60, 155; 4 Macc. 15:8; Test. Job 19:2/1; Demosth. On the Crown 324; Or. 60, Funeral Speech 10, 23; Letter 1, §2; Diod. Sic. 11.24.2; Dion. Hal. 12.1.8; Apul. Metam. 6.28; Char. Chaer. 2.7.6; 2.8.1. For Greek deities and the emperor as "saviors," see, e.g., Sail. Letter to Caesar 13.6; Arrian Indica 21.2; 36.3; Paus. 1.40.3; 2.20.6; 4.34.6; 8.31.2; 9.26.8; Plut. On Borrowing 7, Mor. 830B; Epict. Disc. 1.22.16; Athenaeus 7.288F; Orphic Hymns 14.8; 27.12; 74.4; inscription in Grant 1953: 30. For rulers, including emperors, Mart. Epig. 2.91; CP] 1:185-86, §38; 2:31, §151; SEG 11.923 in Sherk 1988: 58; SB 3924 in ibid.: 61; OGIS 90 in Grant 1953: 68; for Israel's God, see, e.g., 1 Macc 4:30; Sib. Or. 1:73, 152, 167; 2:28; 3:35; Odes Sol. 5:11; Nock 1933b: 132; Longenecker 1981:142-43 (cf. Test. Dan 5:10, of a messianic figure). Note especially the Jewish inscription praising God for deliverance at sea in Horsley 1987: 113. There is thus no need to allegorize the text.
54. This need not imply that he addressed the angel over the sea (as in Jub. 2:2; 1QM 10.11-12; 1 Enoch 66:2; 2 Enoch 19.3-4; b. Pesah. 118b), although it is interesting that in later tradition God slew that angel during the exodus (b. B. Bat. 74b; Num. Rab. 18:22). The term for "rebuke" here expresses authority in a different manner in 12:16, and negatively in 16:22; 20:31.
55. Exorcisms served the epideictic purposes of much biography by emphasizing the exorcist's authority (cf., e.g.. the third-century Philost.<i> V.A.</i> 4.20), but both the christological context and the intensity of demonic bondage here allow Matthew to imply more for Jesus than for another exorcist. The LXX sometimes associates demons with idolatry, further increasing Jewish apprehension of Jesus' encounter with spirits in Gentile territory (Deut 32:17; Ps 96:5 [LXX 95:5]; 106:37 [LXX 105:37]; Bar 4:7). Matthew omits Mark's description of their masochism (Mk 5:5), which seems to have characterized some eastern Mediterranean rites (1 Kings 18:28; Roberts 1970; Sen.<i> Dial. </i>7.26.8; references to the Galli in Keener 1991a: 175 n. 21) and other religions (e.g., Jochim 1986: 154; Mbiti 1970: 106, 225-26). For spirit-possession and trance behavior see, e.g., Henney 1974; Pressel 1974; Goodman 1974.</p>
56. MYamauchi 1986: 133. For parallels with contemporary exorcists and differences (especially regarding his distinctive expressions of authority), see Twelftree 1993: 172-73.
57. It grew tremendously between a.d. 22 and 76, and may even have served as the capital of the Decapolis for awhile (Theissen 1991:109), hence an understandable way to identify the region. Despite what he takes to be Mark's geographical error, Theissen concludes that the story "fits well within the tensions between the Decapolis and its Jewish neighbors," hence undoubtedly circulated originally in a Palestinian milieu (Theissen 1991: 109; but would not a southerly Syrian milieu be just as effective?). Some suggest that Mark intended not Gerasa (modern Jerash) but a relatively insignificant Gergesa identified with modern Kursi, which lies directly on the lake (Finegan 1969: 62; France 1985: 162), a view already held by third-century-a.d. Christians (Tzaferis 1989).
58. Gadara in the Decapolis was also near the river Yarmak (Pliny N.H. 5.16.74), hence connecting it directly to the lake. Some scholars have disputed its proposed "colony" status (cf. Dvorjetski and Last 1991).
59. For demons speaking through humans, see, e.g., Philost. V.A. 3.38; cf. 1 Sam 18:10;1 Kings 22:22.
60. In various traditions the fallen angels were presently tormented while awaiting the final judgment or free to roam while awaiting the final judgment, or some were assigned to each station(e.g., 1 Enoch 10:4-6, 12-13; 15-16; 19:1; 69:28; Jub. 5:6, 10; 10:8-9; Ps-Philo 60:3; Test. Sol. 6:3;Hagner 1993: 227). Augustine Tractate on John 7.6.2 suggests that demons knew that Jesus would
eventually come, from prophets and angels (ACCS, 21).
61. For questions about the mortal status of some partly divine beings in Greek thought, see, e.g., Eurip. Cyclops 231, 321; Ap. Rhod. 4.1679-80; even Ares in Horn. II. 5.385-91. An allusion to Ex 14-15 (Derrett 1979a) is possible (albeit not likely) in Mark, but Matthew omits many of the allusions that would even make the suggestion plausible in his account.
62. Jewish distaste for pigs was widely known and disdained (e.g., Juv. Sat. 6.160), even though various other cultures also held food taboos (ANET 391; Herod. Hist. 2.41; Diod. Sic. 1.11.4; 2.4.3). The Egyptians may have also abstained from swine (ANET 10; Herod. Hist. 2.47; Plut. Isis and Osiris, Mor. 353F; Jos. Apion 2.141), though swine were used in other cults, especially for underworld deities (ANET 351; Aristophanes Peace 1.372; Moyer 1969: 96, 127; but even here, see ANET 209; Moyer 1969 106; idem 1983: 29).
63. Given the direct relevance of exorcism to a first-century missionary audience, connecting the "legion" (which shows the demons' numerical strength, Mk 5:9) and the pigs (unclean animals, many of which would be raised in this area) with the Syrian tenth legion Fretensis, whose insignia included (among other things) the image of a boar, is stretching the evidence (pace, e.g., Theissen 1991: 110). Twelftree 1993: 72-87 argues that Mark probably preserved the story in close to its original form.
64. Cf. further Smith 1978: 75-76; Theissen 1983: 239-42; Yamauchi 1986: 90; Schmidt 1982; Remus 1982; Raynor 1984: 225.
65. The pre-Christian Callimachus Aitia 3.75 does, however, report the transfer of epilepsy from a woman to wild goats (Boring 1995: 72-73); but Jesus had transferred demons to domestic stock.
66. Overman 1996: 120 suggests that Jesus is accommodating the colonial situation; Jews in the Decapolis had to remain careful in their relations with their neighbors (cf. Jos. War 2.461, 466-68).
67. The proposal that "letting down through the roof' has a Greco-Roman milieu related to those once thought dead not entering through the door (Boring 1995: 73-74, citing Plut. R.Q. 5, Mor.)is farfetched; one might as well parallel the Pharisees' letting down their companions to remove Herod's eagle (Jos. War 1.651). Luke's "tiles" portray northern Mediterranean roofs (Lk 5:19), despite their incompatibility with the story (such a roof would collapse — cf. Aristoph. Clouds 1486-89)!
68. Some have applied the principle in this text to infant baptism (e.g., Richardson 1958: 360-62); others would be more skeptical of that application unless more explicit apostolic evidence supports it.
69. Sanders 1993: 214 doubts that the claim to know God's mind would be particularly offensive, but cites Honi the Circle-Drawer to make his case. Whereas the rabbis accepted rare accounts of supernatural knowledge within their own circles (t. Pisha 2:15), various tales express some suspicion toward the less traditional works of Hanina and Honi. According to later tradition, some wanted to place Honi under the ban for his use of God's name (Boring 1995: 76-77, citing b. Ta'an. 23a).
70. To "say in one's heart" was good Semitic idiom for thinking, and Jewish people generally located "thoughts" in the heart, as here (e.g., Jub. 12:16-17; cf. Sib. Or. 1:134; internal "reasonings" in 1 Macc 2:63; Test. Job 2:3-4). "Evil" (9:4) often applies to the leaders in Matthew (12:33-35, 38-45; 16:1-4; 22:18; Van Tilborg 1972b: 27-38). Many church fathers thought that Jesus' forgiveness of sins here identified him as divine (Iren. Haer. 5.17; Novatian The Trinity 13; Chrysostom The Paralytic Let Down through the Roof 6, ACCS, 27-28), which differs from a mere Christian pastor pronouncing forgiveness in the name of the Godhead rather than his own (Ambrose The Holy Spirit 3.18.137). Chrysostom saw Jesus' knowledge of the scribes' hearts, like his authority to forgive sin, as a demonstration of deity (Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily 29.1, ACCS, 28).
71. "Son of man" can mean human being generically, although in this context it must mean more than that (Kiimmel 1957: 46n.93; pace Montefiore 1968: 1:44). Hagner 1993: 234 suggests that as Son of Man Jesus brings the blessings of the eschatological time, which include forgiveness (Is 33:24; Jer 31:34; CD 14.19; llQMelch 4-9).
72. Matthew and Luke both change Mark's word for "bed," perhaps independently due to its colloquial overtones (Thiselton 1977: 93). (Without questioning Markan priority, the other options are that Mark modified a source like Q or, not at all likely, that Matthew and Luke here used an earlier version of Mark.) The Markan term can denote "a 'poor man's bed'" (Horsley 1982: 15).
73. Mack 1988: 80 is exceptional, thinking the meal stories derive from an etiological legend based on the Christ cult ritual outside the Q community. His supposition that a later hellenistic meal is read into the narratives fails to explain (1) why hellenistic storytellers would have done so much research to construct Palestinian Jewish details for the Last Supper (see comment on 26:17-30); (2) why the narratives, which make sense in their own milieu given the frequency of discussions during meals, focus on conflicts but provide little more detail on the meal settings themselves except that people ate there; (3) why one should appeal to meals as a common gathering in hellenistic culture (Mack 1988: 81) but not in Jewish Palestine; and (4), given the commonness of banquets, why even a Greek meal connoted a cultic focus. A better case could be made for Luke's hellenistic construction of his symposium section (Lk 14:1-24), to which Luke connects eating with sinners (Lk 15:1), but even this is not cultic per se.
74. Thus, e.g., ancients might slay fellow citizens who had allied themselves with enemy conquerors (Diod. Sic. 19.66.6).
75. Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992: 83 point out that though tax gatherers render a Pharisee's house unclean (m. Tohar. 7:6), so would any nonobservant person who handled things in the person's home (in this case, to assess wealth).
76. MacMullen 1974: 16; Best 1965: 139. Overman 1996: 126 includes some of our references plus Dio Chrys. Or. 14.14 and, among Jewish sources, m. Ned. 3:4; Tohar. 7:6.
77. KJV's "publicans" is a mistranslation, since the Romans rarely still collected taxes in the provinces through publicanoi, well-to-do Roman businessmen (Ramsay 1904b: 394; Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 77-78; Badian 1972; 11; White 1971: 230). In some areas of Palestine much of the grain (or perhaps the land on which it was grown) belonged to Caesar (Jos. Life 71, Upper Galilee); some tax gatherers belonged to members of the aristocracy like Bernice (Life 118-19).
78. Interestingly, the problem continued into the Byzantine period, when Copts fled exorbitant taxes by joining monasteries; see Bianquis 1988: 164. For further examples of abuse and corruption, see Llewelyn 1998: 68-74, §4.
79. E.g., Stern 1974/76: 333; Manson 1979: 253-54; Lane 1974a: 101-2; Anderson 1976: 104; Witherington 1990: 78; contrast Ramsay 1904: 394, who reasonably doubts that customs officers would incur such hatred. For customs toll receipts, cf., e.g., P. Grenf. 2.50 c; P. Ryl. 197 a; Select Papyri 2:28-29. Hanson and Oakman 1998: 106 suggest that telonai means "brokers," who bought fishing rights from local rulers and contracted with fishers.
80. Building on Jos. War 2.285-88, Sanders 1993: 228-29 rightly notes that people would not have viewed customs officers as negatively as other tax collectors, but in view of the Gospels' portrayal of pietists' reactions (9:11; 21:31-32), he may infer too much from this single passage (indeed, John had much to lose, and is mentioned in addition to the leading men). Galilean townspeople undoubtedly preferred their municipal aristocracies to Rome and resented direct taxation of their resources far more than commercial tolls that profited Galilee, but those inclined to accept no ruler but God may have classed them together; the Gospels' terminology certainly does not differentiate them.
81. Inviting scholars for dinner was good — one would be blessed on their account (ARN 11,§27B; p. Ter. 8:7; Urbach 1979: 1:434; Jeremias 1972: 126). Some think that Matthew changed Mark's "Levi" (Mk 2:14) to "Matthew," one of the Twelve (Mk 3:18; Mt 10:3), because his Gospel was associated with that person (Meier 1980: 93-94) or for a wordplay with the Greek words for "disciple" and "learn" (9:10-11, 13; Kiley 1984). But many people in antiquity had double names (see Acts 1:23; CIJ 1:24, §30; 2:111, §879; C/V 2:143, §261; 2:151, §298; 3:9, §453; cf. Leon 1960: 107, 111-13), including double Semitic names (France 1985: 166), and the tradition may have preserved its author's other name (especially if this Gospel is associated in any way with Matthew, as later tradition suggests); see especially Gundry 1982: 166.
82 . Exorbitant tithes were probably favored by the priestly aristocracy and others besides Pharisees; cf., e.g., Jos. Ant. 4.240. Taxes rendered tithes more difficult (Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 4:2), and teachers became particularly adamant against eating untithed food even inadvertently (e.g.. Gen. Rab. 60:8; Lam. Rab. 1:3, §28).
83. Although evidence clearly indicates that the Pharisees were careful with whom they ate (e.g., some references above), the idea that they ate food in priestly purity is a different matter; Sanders 1990: 166-84 makes a good case that the latter thesis overstates the case.
84. Sanders 1985: 205 suggests that this may represent "the priority of grace to repentance,"but insists that Pharisaic distaste for the practice would not be strong enough to seek his death. None of Jesus' deeds or teachings should have provoked his death according to Pharisaic ethics, but we may suspect that many Pharisees, like many unregenerate Christians, do not always live the values they profess (12:14). While the conflict stories in their current form may represent later developments(Sanders 1985: 265) and Markan arrangement (Hooker 1983: 22; Dewey 1973: 400; idem 1980: 115-16), Christian origins are not comprehensible without some such conflicts (cf. Gal 1:13-14; 1 Thess 2:14-15; Montefiore 1968: 1:42); in these narratives Jesus clashed with the Pharisees over issues that were defining features of Pharisaism (Stambaugh and Balch 1986: 100-101); and first-century Palestinian Jewish groups frequently clashed seriously (albeit generally not violently)
85. 1 do not argue here that they intended to follow a priestly level of purity, as some have argued; see Sanders 1990: 131-254.
86. The Essenes took the matter further (cf., e.g., CD 11.4; Jos. War 2.128, 132-33; Philo Every Good Man Is Free 76, 81-82).
87. For the warning in Greco-Roman tradition, see, e.g., Gnomologium Vaticanum 460 in Malherbe 1986: 110; Crates Ep. 12; Socratics Ep. 24; Diod. Sic. 12.12.3; 12.14.1; Diog. Laert. 1.60; Babrius 9-12; in terms of skill rather than ethics, cf. Isoc. Demon. 20, Or. 1; Plut. Educ. 6, Mor 4A.
88 . Rhetoricians could also compare themselves with physicians (among other analogies; Quint. 2.17.25), especially if they were moralists (Isoc. Peace 39, Or. 8.167); the image applied also to a general (Appian R.H. 6.14.87) or anyone who provided aid (Eurip. Electra 70). Jewish people could use a physician as a metaphor for God as well (p. Ta'an. 3:6, §1). In biblical tradition, see the spiritual use of "physician" and "sickness" in, e.g., Jer 8:22; 46:11; 51:8; see further references under Mt 8:17. Literal physicians appear negatively, however, in m. Qidd. 4:14; b. Pesah. 113a.
89. Goulder 1974: 37 also notes rabbinic use of repetition for reinforcement. "Doublets" more likely represent an authorial strategy than layers of sources, as Genesis scholarship has also concluded (Satterthwaite 1993: 363). Cope 1976: 127 thinks that Matthew here uses Scripture to justify the apparent unorthodoxy in Torah of Jesus in his tradition. Matthew frequently emphasizes "mercy" (9:27; 12:7; 15:22; 17:15; 20:30; 23:23), just as historians and biographers regularly praised the clemency of rulers toward vanquished foes (e.g., 1 Macc 2:57; Dion. Hal. 3.54.2; Arrian Alex. 1.17.12; 4.19.6; Appian R.H. 10.4.24; Corn. Nep. 8 [Thrasybulus], 2.6; Herodian 1.2.4; cf. also Jos. Life 353; Sifre Deut. 323.4.1; despite Achilles' usual demeanor, Horn. II. 24.507-8, 665-70).
90. Whereas Mark has Pharisees and John's disciples together approach Jesus, Matthew allows only John's disciples to approach Jesus, though mentioning Pharisaic practice; the Pharisees may be too remote from the Matthean community for the community to picture dialogue with them.
91. Lachs 1987: 169 reports without comment Zeitlin's view that Jesus could make national fast days no longer mandatory, since Zechariah promised that they would be turned to joy (Zech 7:3; 8:19). Even if this suggestion concerning corporate fasts proves relevant, however, one cannot doubt that the early Christians continued to fast at times (Acts 13:2); the issue remained appropriateness (cf. 1 Sam 14:28-30).
92. Because Mark does not avail himself of the opportunity to make the connection explicit, Witherington suggests that he authentically preserves a saying of Jesus (1990: 72). In Jewish texts, the "bridegroom" was most often God himself (Hos 2:16-23; Payne 1981: 11-12; Blomberg 1992a: 158).
93. Cf. Wrede 1971: 21-22; Anderson 1976: 107-8; Meier 1980: 95; Kingsbury 1983: 15-16; Wimmer 1982: 101; Ziesler 1973a; Batey 1971: 67; France 1985: 169.
94. Although most scholars concur that Jesus' disciples were charged with not fasting (Safrai 1974/76c; 816; Via 1975: 102) and that the core saying is authentic (Burkill 1972: 39-47), many speculate that the evangelists added features like the disciples' later fasting (e.g., Via 1975: 102) and perhaps the conjunction of Pharisees with John's disciples (Burkill 1972: 47). These features are, however, possible in Jesus' life-setting, rendering such suspicions somewhat speculative.
95. Most other interpretations of either parable are too obscure, e.g., that the Gospels allude to Qumran's new wine festival versus old wineskins as regular religious observances (Brooke 1984).The evidence for the allegorical interpretation in Jeremias 1972: 117-18 likewise will not bear its weight. The difficulty of reconstructing its sense in this context might support the thesis that the tradition in Mt 9:16-17//Mk 2:21-22 was originally independent of the narrative (Witherington 1990:71).
96. Some comment that the term for "new" in wine means "recent in vintage," whereas the different terms for "new" in wineskins mean "fresh, new in quality, previously unused" (Richardson 1958: 244-45; Barclay 1978: 76); but the Gospel tradition may vary the terms for variety's sake (variation being a standard literary device — Cadbury 1980: 92). A survey of the abundant use of "new" with "wine" in the papyri (courtesy of Duke's computer concordance of papyri) also indicates that one term was nearly always used with wine and thus was simply part of the idiom (also Sir 9:10).
97. Menstruation also produced ceremonial impurity in other traditions, e.g., a stele of Isis and Sarapis regarding a sanctuary (in Horsley 1987: 110). Cf. spirit-induced corpse-uncleanness in traditional Polynesia (Radcliffe-Brown 1965: 73, 75). Nevertheless, various Jewish groups, including the
Sadducees, appear to have rejected Pharisaic strictness on the issue (see Ilan 1996: 100-105, 227).
98 . Meier 1994: 777-88 argues from various criteria for the authenticity of this narrative in pre-Markan tradition. One might also suggest that early Jewish-Christian traditionaries, accustomed to linking biblical texts with keywords (what the rabbis called gezerah shewah), would originally have enmeshed the two stories homiletically here on the basis of their common "twelve years" (Mk 5:25, 42). The tradition preserved the duration of sickness, however, to emphasize the power of the healer (e.g., Jn 5:5; Acts 4:22; Test. Job 26:1; 27:6/9; 28:1; further references in Lake and Cadbury 1979: 45; Theissen 1983: 51-52). and, in the girl's case, possibly to emphasize pathos for her dying unmarried (tomb inscription in Lefkowitz and Fant 1982: 11, §21; Judg 11:37-39; Soph. Antig. 891; Eurip. Hecuba 416; Children of Heracles 579-80, 591-92; Hipponax, Fr. 68, in ibid.: 16. §31; Paus. 3.19.4; for young men, cf., e.g., Lk 7:12; Demosth. Against Leochares 18).
99 . Cf. also Schierling 1980; Selvidge 1984; Borsch 1990; Kopas 1990; Schineller 1992; cf. Schottroff 1991 on Q.
100. Multiple attestation from Mark, Q (Mt 11:5//Lk 7:22), and John suggest that Jesus and his followers did believe that he raised the dead (Meier 1994: 773-873). Resuscitation stories also appear in Greco-Roman sources (e.g., Paus. 2.26.5; 2.27.4), sometimes in a hesitant or skeptical vein, and, without the skepticism, in the Elijah-Elisha cycles in the Hebrew Bible (Meier 1994: 773).
101 . Nor does Matthew's omission of Mark's Aramaic (Mk 5:41) suggest that his community is Gentile (pace Meier 1980: 98, especially if one accepts Matthew's likely Syrian provenance); Matthew simply abbreviates as thoroughly as possible and may simplify his style (cf. [Virgil] Catalepton 7). (Both Jesus and the family may have spoken Aramaic as a first language — cf. Goodman 1983: 66; Mark's preservation of Aramaic does not represent magical words — Aune 1980:1534-35; Riesenfeid 1970: 23; pace Smith 1978: 95; Theissen 1983: 61.) Omanson 1991 thus rightly critiques the 1973 NIV's original harmonization ("at the point of death").
102. Levine 1996: 384 doubts that Matthew indicates or implies vaginal bleeding, noting that Mark's language is closer to the LXX. While Matthew could have revised Mark to avoid the impression that Jesus violated ritual law (cf. 15:1-20), however, Matthew does not believe that even Jesus' direct touch violated that law (8:3). Mark's pēgē tou haimalos (5:29) in the LXX is clearly genital in every occurrence (Lev 12:7; 20:18), as is his rysei haimatos (Mk 5:25; Lev 15:19, 25; 20:18). But though Matthew abbreviates the narrative considerably (omitting the phrase from Mk 5:29 and reducing the phrase in Mk 5:25 to one word), his haimorroed (Matt 9:20) appears only once in the LXX (with no cognates), plainly vaginal (Lev 15:33). When the two Hebrew terms for "flow" appear with"blood" or are limited to women, they apply almost exclusively to genital flows. Pace Levine 1996: 383, the implied author need not state explicitly social conventions he shared with his audience, and Lev 15, like the rest of written Torah, would be among their most fundamental shared assumptions. Given their ingrained distaste for menstrual blood (illustrated, e.g., in the later text, Pesiq. Rab Kah.17:6), disgust would probably be among their first reactions.
103. Cf. Jos. Ant. 3.261. Davies and Allison 1991: 128 list Jewish texts displaying restriction or abhorrence regarding women's menstruation (Ezek 36:17; CD 4.12-5.17; HQ Temple 48.15-17; Jos. War 5.227; Apion 2.103-4; m. Zab. 4:1). Levine 1996: 386-88 contends that because uncleanness was so pervasive and inevitable, first-century Jews probably did not attend much to the matter; but even if we lacked other explicit documentation, the plain statements of Lev 15 (regardless of their earliest social context, which would be foreign to first-century interpreters) suggest that it can be assumed and that lack of attention to the matter, rather than more attention, is what would require explicit documentation.
104. The "edge of his cloak" she touches would have included a tassel in accordance with Jewish custom — 14:36; 23:5; Num 15:37-41; Deut 22:12; cf. Ep. Arist. 158; t. Ber. 6:10; Pesiq. R. 29/30A-.3; Safrai 1974/76c: 797-98; M. Cohen 1992. Vermes 1993: 16n.6 perhaps relevantly compares the insistence of children seizing the fringe of Hanan's garment (perhaps because they could reach it); his other example, however, is not a "miraculous intervention," but a praise of tassels.
105. Levine 1996: 389-90 is right to challenge the view that menstruation required quarantine, and rightly notes lenient texts permitting participation in some activities of the synagogue. Nevertheless, the requirements for washing in Lev 15:19-27 surely suggest that those who were "clean" would seek to avoid unnecessary direct physical contact with the unclean.
106. Sages sometimes addressed disciples as "sons," and elders could view those who were younger in such terms (see comment on 23:9), but the broader cultural concepts of patronage and dependency may be close at hand even in these cases.
107. Levine 1996: 396 points to literary connections between this account and 14:1-12, where a different authority figure responds differently to a "girl," there producing death as this narrative leads to life.
108. Such "rulers of the synagogue," a post frequent in the Diaspora (CIJ 1 :xcvii-xcix; 1:187-88, §265; 1:297-98, §383; 1:369, §504; 1:409, §553; 1:428, §584; 1:433, §596; 1:457, §638; 1:492, §681; 1:522, §722; 2:10, §741; 2:12, §744; 2:27-28, §766; 2:55-56, §803-4; 2:175, §991; 2:332-35, §1404; 2:339, §1414; Leon 1960: 171-72), often became prominent because of their wealth and benefactions for the community (cf. Goodman 1983: 119, 123; Rajak and Noy 1993). This rosh ha-knesset was often the highest office in the synagogue (Applebaum 1974/76b: 492). Pace Bultmann 1968: 241, in Matthew the tradition omits rather than adds a name (in Mark, the fairly common "Jairus" — CIJ 2:312-13, §1367-68).
109. One doubts that certification of death was quite as emphatic as with the taxation bureaucracy in Egypt, however, where as many as four physicians would attest a person's death (Horsley 1982: 16). That she was truly dead differs from the story line of one stopping the premature burial of one not truly dead (Celsus On Medicine 2.6; cf. Pliny N.H. 7.37; 26.8; Apul. Florida 19; Boring 1995: 79).
110. Matthew stresses the spread of news about Jesus (9:26), probably drawing on Mk 1:28, 45, as Gundry notes (1982: 176); Goulder considers the borrowing of features from one narrative for another to be midrashic practice (e.g., 1974: 37). Matthew also omits here some details important to Mark's "secret" motif, such as taking only a select group with him and the charge to silence.
111. Levine 1996: 385 doubts that corpse-uncleanness is in view because Matthew does not mention it. While a purely formalist reading could settle for only textual clues, however, the implied author and audience share fundamental common assumptions of a shared milieu, particularly their knowledge of Torah, including Num 19 (cf., e.g., Jos. Ant. 3.262; Apion 2.205).
112. See Meier 1994: 686-90. One particularly cogent argument for pre-Markan tradition is the fact that Mark must explain "Bar Timaeus" (Mk 10:46; Meier 1994: 688). Witherington 1990: 170 argues that multiple attestation supports Jesus' healings of the blind: Mark (8:22-26; 10:46-52); Matthew (15:30, but this summary could derive from his use of Markan accounts); John (ch. 9); and Q (Mt 11:5//Lk 7:22, alluding to Is 35 and 61).
113. See Horn. II. 6.139; Davies and Allison 1991; 135 for examples in ancient literature of blindness as a punishment. Whereas pagan sources sometimes recount healers of blindness (e.g., Tac.Hist. 4.81 and Suet. Vesp. 7, of Vespasian; but also by deities, e.g., SIG 3.1168 in Asclepius' temple), Davies and Allison note (ibid.) that Jewish reports of analogous healings (Tob 2:10; 3:16-17; 11:10-14; Ep. Arist. 316; Ps-Philo 25:12; b. B. Mes. 85b) never include a personal intermediary. This may be coincidence, but it does suggest how dramatic the miracle appeared.
114. Matthew's doublets may follow the midrashic principle of borrowing features from one narrative and repeating them in a similar narrative (Goulder 1974: 36-38).
115. This principle is often noted; cf., e.g., Carson 1987; 119; Davies and Allison 1991:411-12; Allison 1993b: 138-39; Stanton 1993: 81.
116. Grassi 1977 is probably correct that 9:35-11:1 reflects "succession" language, but the specifically testamentary background he suggests, and especially the suggestion of rooting it in Gen 49:1-33, is too narrow; better, though still too narrow, is the suggestion of Morosco 1984, which roots it in Moses' commission in Ex 3-4 (see, e.g., the critique of Allison 1993b: 217). Some Jewish teachers stressed that disciples must do some of the master's works during his lifetime lest they face undue hostility later (Sifre Deut. 305.1.1).
117. Malina 1993: 24-25 points out that showing emotion fits honor in the Mediterranean world, citing as examples Plut. Caesar 5.2; 11.3; 41.1; 48.2; Cicero 47.2; cf. also Test. Abr. 3; 5A; 3B. (These examples are more relevant than the philosophical model I previously cited in Keener 1993: 385.)
118. The shepherd motif in Matthew (2:6; 9:36; 10:6, 16; 15:24; 18:12-14; 25:32; 26:31) may draw especially on images from Ezek 34 (see especially Heil 1993), though Matthew midrashically weaves various other biblical passages into this framework (Mic 5:2; Zech 13:7).
119. R. Tarfon's saying may have been understood eschatologically until Bar Kochba (Silberman 1989). Flusser's parallel from Hippocrates, fifth century b.c. (Young 1989: 36), may suggest a proverb, though the language may be coincidental, based on an idea natural to the urgency of harvest. Rabbinic tradition often recalls Jesus' followers, as well as Jesus himself, as miracle-workers (cf. e.g., Lachs 1987: 178).