356

]ournal o f Biblical Literature

e.g., that the Law was debated among and between Jewish groups and that charismatic leaders were not unknown in first-century Judaism. But conflicts over Law or charisma need not lead to death sentences. It is not unexpected that the last line of the volume reads: "tragically the central mysteries of the gospel, the Messiah who suffers death on a cross and the centrality of that death to the realization of the kingdom, violated Jewish preconceptions and thus prohibited their reception of the gospel (cf. Rom 9:32- 33)." Hagner presents an erudite, thoughtful, close reading. His passion is evident, and his commentary is enjoyable to read. To literary-critical, sociological, or cultural-anthropological studies of Matthew, particularly if undertaken within an evangelical context, Hagner provides a good companion volume. To those interested in the Christian good news, Hagner provides rich details while at the same time offering well-placed warnings of the dangers of dispensationalism and triumphalism. To those who would teach and preach this Gospel, such warnings need to be juxtaposed to the volume's presentation of Judaism. Commentaries are by their nature conservative, and Hagner's work is true to the various connotations of that term. Amy-Jill Levine Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235

The New Moses: A Matthean Typology, by Dale C. Allison, Jr. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Pp. xvi+396.N.P.
Scholars will welcome Allison's book as the most thorough treatment to date of the theme of the "new Moses" in Matthew's Gospel. The thesis he propounds is that Matthew, through his use of traditions and for his own historical and theological reasons, consciously imbued his narrative about Jesus with a host of allusions to Moses and thus constructed an extensive Moses typology. Allison begins with the familiar argument that Matthew was a Jewish rabbi turned Christian teacher who wrote his Gospel as a catechetical aid. As Matthew saw it, history is not a random flux of events with no predetermined end but a redemptive process guided by divine providence that exhibits the pattern of type and antitype. Key to this pattern is the notion that the "end of time" will be like the "beginning of time." Also, the situation of Matthew was that of the Christian mission and the influx of Gentile converts into a Jewish church. Hence, to construct a communal history that would enable this "mixed church to preserve its identity, Matthew used typology to anchor it to its roots in ancient Jewish history. He thus presents Jesus, the son of David and of Abraham, as fulfilling the prophecies of the Jewish Bible and being like Moses. The upshot is that Matthew, in depicting Jesus as the new Moses and heir of Jewish religion, likewise validates the church as heir. Allison notes that before, during, and after the age of Matthew, Moses served in Jewish literature as a "type" for other religious figures. Indeed, Moses-typology, Allison asserts, was already embedded in the traditions Matthew inherited. Add to this the observation that Matthew was no literary innovator and that he and his readers were steeped in the Jewish Bible, and one must conclude that it is those scholars inclined to play down the presence of Moses-typology in Matthew's Gospel who have thus far erred. Moses-typology, Allison insists, can be found throughout Matthew's Gospel: it

Book Reviews

357

gives shape to chapters 1-7 and is apparent in the great thanksgiving (11:25-30), the narrative of the transfiguration (17:l-9), and the great commission (28:1620). Very likely, it is also detectable in the feeding stories (14:13-22; 15:29-39) and in the pericopes on Jesus' entry into Jerusalem (21:l-17) and the last supper (26:17-25). What these texts reveal is that, in Matthew's purview, Jesus is, like Moses of old, "many things": leader and king, savior and deliverer, teacher and revealer, intercessor and suffering prophet. Most especially, one should observe that Matthew begins his Gospel with Moses-typologyand ends with it. The result is that Moses-typology sets the tone for the whole of Matthew's Gospel and is prominent as it reaches its conclusion. Alison's book is instructive and repays careful reading. In the application of typological method to Matthew's Gospel, however, it claims more for itself than it can deliver. For example, although Allison provides guidelines for finding and marking typology, readers may often sense that they are at sea in discerning how typological method can be applied with much certainty. There are two reasons for this. For one thing, the nature of typology in ancient Jewish literature is "allusive" and Matthew's text is said to be a "catena of allusions." For another thing, most of the literary devices that signal the presence of typology in a text-the indication that one event is meant to recall a previous event, the use of key words or phrases, the similarity of narrative structure, and the existence of patterns in word order, syllabic sequence, or poetic resonance--can be notoriously difficult to pin down. The upshot is that whether or not one has in fact discovered the existence of typology in a text seems in large measure to reside in the judgment of the interpreter. Because Allison is aware of this, he suggests more than once that his readers will not be able to appreciate his labors unless they are as adept as he at spotting Matthew's use of typology. This may be true, but it is likewise true that to take a position like this compels the interpreter not only to adopt a condescending attitude toward readers but also to concede that one cannot make one's case unless readers are disposed simply to take one at one's word. Readers will find this aspect of Allison's study unsatisfpg. Allison does not own up to the bane of his study until the end: the fact that, within his Gospel, Matthew refers explicitly to Moses only seven times and never once either compares Jesus to Moses or contrasts him with Moses. This does not mean that Mosestypology does not exist in Matthew's Gospel; it does mean, however, that, Allison's protestations notwithstanding, caution is in order when one attempts to assess the potential significance of such typology. This brings us to the next point: Allison, in contending that 1:1-8:1 of Matthew's Gospel was "shaped" by Moses-typology, that in the grand conclusion of his Gospel Matthew colors Jesus in the hues of Moses (28:1620), and that throughout his Gospel Matthew presents Jesus, after the example of Moses, as leader and king, savior and deliverer, teacher and revealer, and intercessor and suffering prophet, claims much too much for the evidence he musters. To begin with assertions two and three, the notion that 28:1620 exhibits Moses-typology requires no little imagination and, except for "king," the designations just cited are not those by virtue of which Matthew invites readers to know Jesus. Anyone who peruses Matthew's Gospel itself will quickly discover that Matthew is at pains to persuade readers to understand and confess Jesus not as "new Moses" but as "Messiah," "Son of David," "Son of Abraham," "King of the Jews [Israel]," and, above all, "Son of God." These latter constitute Matthew's "explicit Chris-

358

Journal of Biblical Literature

tology." Moreover, precisely because this explicit Christology stands out so strikingly in 1:14:16, one demurs at accepting Allison's assurances that Moses-typology is what has "given shape" to 1:1-8:1. But should the latter not be the case, the further argument that Moses-typology "sets the tone" for the whole of Matthew's Gospel loses its cogency. In saying all this, I am not arguing that Allison's exegetical observations have no merit. But given the circumstance that Matthew nowhere expressly compares Jesus either with or to Moses and that the explicit Christology Matthew does develop reaches its climax in Jesus as the "Son of God," I find it necessary to question not only the extent to which Allison has uncovered Moses-typology in Matthew's Gospel but also the exalted function he ascribes to it. My own view is that the way Matthew uses Mosestypology is better explained if one assumes that he found new-Moses Christology to be too "low" to give it the prominence Allison wishes, a view that Allison would vigorously reject. Still, if I am correct about this, then the company of theologians among whom Matthew has his place would be good indeed: apparently Paul, and without question John and the author of the epistle to the Hebrews. Allison's book is learned and provocative. Its weakness, however, is that it presses an otherwise worthy case to extreme. Jack Dean Kingsbury Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, V A 23227

The Gospel and the Sacred: Poetics of Violence in Mark, by Robert G. Hamerton-Kelly. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Pp. xvi + 175. N.P. (paper). In an earlier book (Sacred Violence:Paul's Henneneutic of the Cross [Minneapolis: Fortress, 19921) Hamerton-Kelly applied the mimetic theory of Ren6 Girard to Pauline texts. In the present book, with a glowing foreword by Girard, Hamerton-Kelly turns this theory of sacred violence to practically the whole of Mark's Gospel. Girard's foreword proposes: 'Whenever the theory is used intelligently as it is in this book, it tends to disappear behind the text," and ". . . the language of 'application' falters" (p. xi). In my reading I experienced the intelligence but found the theory very present in front of the text and the language of "application" entirely applicable. The work is presented in an introduction, six chapters, and an appendix. The introduction is crucial for understanding what follows, for it presents "The Theory of Sacred Violence as a Method of Interpretation." For the reader not familiar with the work of Girard, this material offers a challenging but successful initiation. New initiates would do well to follow the tip given in the Preface and read the Appendix (on "The Generative Mimetic Scapegoating Mechanism" [GMSM throughout the text]) before beginning chapter 1. The appendix leads one through the steps of the theory-from mimetic desire, to scapegoating, to the double transference, to the sacred, ritual, and myth. The GMSM is the social (natural?) process by which scapegoating occurs. "Scapegoating in the GMSM is the psychological propensity to relieve frustration by lashing out at someone defenseless, or to avoid responsibility by blaming someone; it is the group's propensity to rescue or cement its solidarity by making an enemy, or the mob's propensity, especially at a time of social unrest, to fall upon a victim" (p. 131). Hamerton-Kelly begins his analysis of the Markan text not at the beginning of the