Fulfillment Quotations Introduction: Chapter 2 (MT 12, 18 - 2)

Mt 12, 18 – 21 and Is 42,1 – 4
4.1 Meaning of Is 42,1 – 4 Masoretic Text and Septuagint
Isaiah 42, 1 – 4 falls into the general structure of Deutero–Isaiah from chapters 40 –
66, which generally narrates the Babylonian captivity of Jerusalem. The people of Israel lost
their promised land and the temple was destroyed and the Jewish people were deported to
Babylon. Deutero–Isaiah exhorts an afflicted people to have faith and patience. He speaks
words of comfort to those who would experience that difficult time of Israel's history. Isaiah
also foretold of a bright future with the coming of the Messiah. God would not forget His
covenant made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David. He would spare a remnant of the nation
of Israel out of which, would come the Messiah and His new kingdom. It is in this context
that there arises the figure of the “Suffering Servant’ as the future glory for people in Is 42, 1
– 4.
Since it is obvious that Matthew cited Is 42 in his fulfilment quotation 12, 18 – 21,
the quest for its significance necessitates the study of its meaning in the Masoretic Text and
Septuagint of Isaiah1. Is 42, 1 – 4 is considered as the first part of the first “Servant Poem”2.
1
Among the prophetic books, Isaiah is particularly significant in covering a range of theological, historical and
thematic materials, such as exile and restoration, new creation, salvation, eschatological views, political
situations, prophecy, the messiah king. Traditionally, Chapters 1 – 66 of the entire book was considered to be a
single unified work by an 8th century BCE Judean prophet. But with the study of Bernhard Duhm in 1892 (Das
Buch Jesaja), the text is divided into three major parts 1 – 39; 40 – 45 and 56 – 66, mostly independent of each
other and were joined at a late date. In general, we name them as Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah,
ascribing the authorship to the first an 8 th century BCE author and of the other two, to a 6th century BCE author.
Each division corresponded respectively to a pre-exilic, exilic and post-exilic author/period. Paba Nidhani DE
ANDRADO, The Akedah Servant Complex: The Soteriological Linkage of Genesis 22 and Isaiah 53 in Ancient
Jewish and Early Christian Writings, Leuven/ Paris/ Walpole/ MA, Peeters, (Contribution to the Biblical
Exegesis & Theology; 69), 2013, p. 6.
2
“Servant songs” in which the servant theme is elaborated in a distinctive way: It is Bernhard Duhm (1892) who
first identified Is 42, 1 – 4; 49, 1 – 6; 50, 4 – 9 and 52, 13 – 53, as the four “Servant songs” (Bernhard DUHM,
Das Buch Jesaia, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, (Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, 1),
1892. As an ongoing development depending on this theme, other scholars show some differences especially on
the number of “Servant songs” and about the delimitation of each of the “Servant songs”. So the passage is
reworked again to 42, 1 – 9; 49, 1 – 7; 50, 4 – 9 (no change to that of Duhm), 52, 13 – 53, 12 (no change to that
of Duhm) and adds one fifth “Servant song”, which is considered as the climax to the whole of the “Servant
songs”. De Andrado admits “these ‘Servant Songs share some theological and literary connections, like the
calling or appointment of the Servant, his being entrusted with a special task of universal scope, being equipped
to carry out his mission, facing challenges, and being vindicated and victorious…The songs also becomes
progressively complex in their portrayal of the Servant’s role. In the first, the Servant is shown as establishing
justice, while showing special concern for the ‘crushed’ and vulnerable, but he faces no personal threat.
However, increasingly in the second and in third songs, his mission results in challenges (i.e. failure, hostility
1
Here we shall analyze the text of Is 42, 1 – 4, highlighting its difference in the Masoretic Text
and Septuagint; its literary context and its significance. We shall start with the literary
translations of both of these texts.
4.1.1 Literary Translation of Masoretic Text
The verse from 18 – 21 is a quotation from Is 42, 1 – 4, recited by Matthew. Since Is

42, 1 – 4 as found in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint is not the same, a literary
translation of Is 42, 1 – 4 given by Masoretic Text and by the Septuagint will help us to see
the differences of both.
ABê–%m't.a, ‘yDIb.[; !hEÜ 1 Behold, my servant, whom I uphold,

wyl'ê[' ‘yxiWr yTit;Ûn" My chosen one, in whom my soul delights;
yvip_ .n: ht'äc.r" yrIßyxiB I have given my Spirit upon him,
3
àyci(Ay ~yIïAGl; jP'Þv.mi He will bring forth justice to the Nations/Gentiles
aF'_yI al{åw> q[;Þc.yI al{ï 2 He will not cry out or lift up (his voice)
Àl*Aq #WxßB; [:ymivî .y:–al{)w> Or cause his voice to be heard in the street.
rABêv.yI al{å ‘#Wcr" hn<Üq' 3 He will not break a crushed reed
hN"B+k< ;y> al{å hh'Þke hT'îv.piW And he will not quench a dimly burning wick;
`jP'v( .mi ayciîAy tm,Þa/l He will bring forth justice/judgment to truth.
#Wrêy" al{åw> ‘hh,k.yI al{Ü 4 He will not grow dim nor be crushed,
jP'_v.mi #r<aB'Þ ' ~yfiîy"–d[; until he will establish justice/judgment on earth,
`Wlyxe(y:y> ~yYIaï i Atßr"Atl.W And for his law, the coastlands will wait.
4.1.2 Literary Translation of the Septuagint
Iakwb o` pai/j mou avntilh,myomai 1 Jacob my servant, I shall uphold him

auvtou/ Israel my chosen, my soul has received him,
Israhl o` evklekto,j mou prosede,xato
auvto.n h` yuch, mou I have given my Sprit upon him,
e;dwka to. pneu/ma, mou evpV auvto,n he will bring forth justice to the
kri,sin toi/j e;qnesin4 evxoi,sei
and even physical danger). Nonetheless, the Servant expresses confidence in God, that he will be supported and
vindicated. in the fourth song, however, the violence escalates, leading to the Servant’s death” - Paba Nidhani
DE ANDRADO, The Akedah Servant Complex: The Soteriological Linkage of Genesis 22 and Isaiah 53 in
Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Writings, Leuven/ Paris/ Walpole/ MA, Peeters, (Contribution to the Biblical
Exegesis & Theology; 69), 2013, p. 8, note 39.
3
~h,yEAG — it has different connotations: a) nations (Gen 10, 31; 17, 6; 18, 18; Zech 2, 15). b) Gentile people in
contrast to Israel (Ex 34, 24; Ezek 5, 6 – 8).
2
Nations/Gentiles.
ouv kekra,xetai ouvde. avnh,sei 2 He will not cry out or raise (his voice),
ouvde. avkousqh,setai e;xw h` fwnh. nor his voice will be heard outside
auvtou
ka,lamon teqlasme,non ouv suntri,yei 3 He will not break a crushed reed
kai. li,non kapnizo,menon ouv sbe,sei And he will not quench a smoking flax, but
avlla. eivj avlh,qeian evxoi,sei kri,sin he will bring forth justice/judgment to truth.
avnala,myei kai. ouv qrausqh,setai 4 He will flame up and not be crushed until he
e[wj a'n qh/| evpi. th/j gh/j kri,sin establishes justice on earth
kai. evpi. tw/| ovno,mati auvtou/ e;qnh
evlpiou/sin And in his name the nations/Gentiles will
hope.
4.1.3 Analysis
As a joint summary to the translation of Masoretic Text and Septuagint, we can

conclude that in 42, 1 – 4, the Lord speaks in the first person about his servant Jacob/Israel.
The main change in the Septuagint 42, 1 is the identification of the servant with Jacob/Israel.
God will uphold his servant Jacob, God’s soul has received Israel, God’s chosen one. It is this
servant and chosen one who will bring justice to the Gentiles. In the Hebrew text, the servant
is unidentified. So the Septuagint replaces the Masoretic Text’s public presentation !hEÜ and in
Greek we find in its place Iakwb and in the second a stichos with Israhl.
The db,[, of MT is translated as pai/j in Septuagint. Three times the word pai/j is
referred to important personalities in Isaiah: in 20, 3 to Isaiah, to the high priest Eliakim in 22,
20 and to David in 37, 35. It refers again to an ordinary servant in 24, 2; 36, 11; 37, 5. By
identifying Jacob/Israel with the unidentified servant of the Hebrew text, the people of Israel
take the vocation of the servant to establish justice/judgment5.
4
The term “e;qnh” can be translated as nations and as Gentiles in contrast to Jewish people as in the case of
“~h,yEAG” in the Masoretic Text.
5
This addition of the names Jacob/ Israel strongly suggests a collective interpretation of the figure of the servant
(Maarten J. J. MENKEN, “Messianic Interpretation of Greek Old Testament passages in Matthew's Fulfilment
Quotations,” in Michael A. KNIBB (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism, Leuven/ Paris/ Dudley/ MA, Leuven
university Press/ Uitgeverij Peeters, 2006, p. 475).
3
There seems to have much debate concerning the translation jP'Þv.mi in the Hebrew text
and of kri,sin in the Septuagint. In v. 1 we read: he will bring forth jP'Þv.mi to the nations and
we see a repetition of this term in v. 4 as and he will establish jP'Þv.mi on earth. In 40, 14, jP'Þv.mi
points to the order of God, that He has given to the whole universe by his creative acts. In 40,
27 it refers to the maintenance of Israel’s position as a nation in a special relationship with
God. Is 41, 1 points to the truth of God, that will silence the false claims of the nations and
their gods and the truth of the Lord will be established. And in the Septuagint kri,sin occurs
47 times, and is used to describe a decision or judgment, namely as a result of a trial (41, 21;
53, 8; 54, 17)6. Meanwhile, the dominant and general meaning of kri,sin in Isaiah is Justice7.
The second part of this quotation narrates the means through which this jP'Þv.mi/kri,sin is
realised. There is one subtle nuance in interpreting 42, 2: according to the Septuagint, people
on the outside are unable to hear the voice of the servant, while in the Masoretic Text, it is the
servant who will not cause his voice to be heard in the street. The Masoretic text presumably
seems to present a meek servant, who will not raise his voice with anger8. He is meek and
non–violent. And in the Septuagint, people are not listening to the message of the Servant.
The Masoretic text and the Septuagint of Is 42, 3 are much closer. While the
expression “smoking flax” is not literally the same as the Masoretic Text’s “a dim wick”, but
it is the closest Greek semantic expression available for this Hebrew expression. And the verb
“crushing” is almost always used to describe the Judgment in Isaiah (1, 28; 8, 15; 10, 33; 14,
5. 12; 21, 9; 42, 13). In contrast the judgment the servant brings does not involve “crushing”.
In addition, the servant Israel “will not put out a smoking flax” (42, 3), unlike the Lord, who
is described as defeating the Egyptians in the sea “as flax that is quenched” (43, 17”9. It seems
literally more reasonable to translate the last part of v. 3 as “He will bring forth
6
Eugene Robert Jr. EKBLAD, Isaiah's Servant Poems According to the Septuagint: An Exegetical and
Theological study, Leuven, Peeters, 1999, (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology; 23), p. 64.
7
Is 1, 17. 23; 5, 7; 10, 2; 11, 4; 28, 17; 32, 1; 35, 4; 40, 27; 56, 1; 59, 11; 59, 14 (Eugene Robert Jr. EKBLAD,
Isaiah's Servant Poems According to the Septuagint: An Exegetical and Theological study, Leuven, Peeters,
[CBET, 23], 1999, p. 64.)
8
Here the reason given by Ekblad seems to be out of the textual context: this is to show the servant’s free
decision to conceal his message or make it harder to hear (Eugene Robert Jr. EKBLAD, Isaiah's Servant Poems
According to the Septuagint: An Exegetical and Theological study, Leuven, Peeters, (Contributions to Biblical
Exegesis and Theology; 23), 1999, p.66).
9
Theological study, Leuven, Peeters, (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology; 23), 1999, p.67.
4
justice/judgment to truth”10. Most of the translations prefer for the adjective an adverb
“faithfully”; rather than an adjective an accusative noun seems to be preferable. Here it is
interesting to cite Is 59, 14 “kai. avpesth,samen ovpi,sw th.n kri,sin kai. h` dikaiosu,nh makra.n
avfe,sthken o[ti katanalw,qh evn tai/j o`doi/j auvtw/n h` avlh,qeia kai. diV euvqei,aj ouvk hvdu,nanto
dielqei/n11”, where the terms kri,sin, dikaiosu,nh and avlh,qeia occur together in one verse,
which eliminates the tendency to translate kri,sin as righteousness and dikaiosu,nh also as
righteousness (hq"dß "c.W jP'êv.mi). And here it is very clear that kri,sin is essential for the truth.
In the first part of the v.4, there seems to be some differences, the Masoretic Text is
accompanied by a negative affirmation “he will not grow dim”, while the Septuagint
contradicts this with an affirmation that he will flame up. Matthew totally omits this part from
his quotation. And the final part of this verse, a small sentence presents a subject of debate
among the scholars. Instead of hr'AT , the Septuagint offers a totally different translation
ovno,mati. A number of scholars argue that ovno,mati is possibly a ‘corrupted form’ of no,mw|.
Ziegler considers ovno,mati to be correction of Greek manuscripts that came from the Mt 12, 21
reading12. Though this position of textual corruption seems plausible, Beaton contradicts this
position for the following reasons: Ziegler does not base his argument on any of the textual
evidence to prove such an alteration; considering the importance of Torah in the Jewish
milieu, it is difficult to accept that such corruption existed unnoticed, for one could imagine a
scribe inserting the word Torah, but not ‘name’13. But this position of Ziegler seems
reasonable: if one accepts ovno,mati the meaning in the general sense becomes problematic.
The referent to the name is the servant, i.e. Israel, so it is in the ovno,mati of Israel, that the
e;qnh will find hope.
The consideration of J. Koenig, based on Ziegler’s opinion that the Septuagint of Is

42, 4 depends on Matthew 12, 21 seems to be more convincing. Koenig insists that the
Christian correction was not an arbitrary action dictated by the religious reasons but rather a
10
In Septuagint this stichos is introduced by a particle avlla., while the Masoretic text lacks a “w>”. So in the
Septuagint this phrase is emphasized more strongly than in Masoretic Text.
11
“Justice/judgment is turned back, and righteousness stands afar off; for truth has fallen in the public squares,
and uprightness cannot enter”
12
Theological study, Leuven, Peeters, (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology; 23), 1999, pp. 68 – 69.
13
Richard BEATON, Isaiah’s Christ in Matthew’s Gospel, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, (SNTSM,
123), 2002, p. 67.
5
legitimate reading performed according to the hermeneutical practices current in Judaism14.
He bases his argument on 1qIsaa 26, 815. Here we can deduce a probability of the relation
between law hr'AT and name ~ve. Meanwhile the translation in the Masoretic Text is “your
name and your renown” and the Septuagint follows the same. We can find the same type of
usage in Psalm 119, 55, which reads “I remember your name O Lord in the night, and keep
your law”16. Though Beaton and Ekblad accept Koenig’s idea as convincing and inventive,
this position is questioned by the fact that the referent of “name” is servant.
When however we take into consideration the historical situation found in the
Masoretic Text, this seems to clarify the issue on the ‘referent’. It refers to God's "act of
justice", which means the liberation of his oppressed people and the destruction of the
oppressor, the Babylonian, through the hand of the divinely appointed liberator, Cyrus17. This
divine act of justice had a worldwide impact: the Babylonian empire was overthrown and the
Persian king Cyrus became the new ruler of the world. But in the Septuagint the question
remains unanswered.
The above analysis of the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Is 42, 1 – 4, first of all
shows that the textual differences between the two are remarkable: each has a distinctive
textual form and interpretation. Even though the subject–matter of the poem is the same
(servant), the identification given to the servant in the Septuagint sparks into more debates.
14
Theological study, Leuven, Peeters, (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology; 23), 1999, p. 69.
15
Jean Koenig states, “1. La nouvelle lecture se dérivait en grec par petite mutation; elle était donc justifiée par
la méthode des analogies verbales formelles. 2. Le changement était encore justifiable comme emprunt à 26, 8
(le « Non »), en vertu de la jonction assurée par les deux verbes valeur de sens à peu près équivalent « espérer »
(26, 8) et « attendre, compter sur » (42, 4). 3. Enfin la variante de la Qa 26, 8 invite à admettre la possibilité
d’une tradition exégétique qui autorisait la substitution de la Loi au Nom (ou équivalent comme en 26, 8) et
inversement…La leçon chrétienne, loin d’être un changement arbitraire, du point de vu critère de l’époque, était
fondée sur l’herméneutique et sur la tradition juives, ce qui lui permettait d’affronter la discussion avec le
judaïsme : une contestation juive était réfutable par les moyens de l’herméneutique reçu dans le Judaïsme ”.
(Jean KOENIG, L'herméneutique analogique du judaïsme antique d'après les témoins textuels d’Isaïe, Leiden,
E. J. Brill, [Supplements to Vetus Testamentum; 33], 1982, p. 233).
16
123), 2002, p. 67.
17
Sweeney adds “Cyrus is mentioned by the name in Is 44, 28 and then again in 45, 1. Before the identification
of Cyrus with the anointed one of God, the text describes the anointed one as ‘his arm’: ‘see, the Lord God
comes with might and his arm rules for him’ (40, 10). In 41, 2, the person is identified as ‘a victor from the
east’… Israel, Jacob is reassured that this victor is going to help them (41, 8 – 10, 14). Then comes the famous
words of 42, 1a – b…Greek translator identifies the servant with Jacob/ Israel. But in the Hebrew text the servant
is not Jacob/ Israel…possibly the pagan Cyrus” (Marvin A. SWEENEY, Isaiah 1–39, Grand Rapids, William B.
Eerdmans, [The Forms of the Old Testament Literature; 16], 1996, p. 48)
6
However the identification given to the Servant in Matthew is beyond any confusion. And
again another important point for the mission of the servant, both the Masoretic Text and the
Septuagint are similar also for the means of establishing this mission. This ‘Servant Song’,
well narrates the figure of a Messiah in a servant. Thus a typical messianic style can be
deduced in its literary construction.
5.3 Literary Translation of Mt 12, 15 – 21
15 ~O de. VIhsou/j gnou.j avnecw,rhsen evkei/qenÅ 15 Jesus, knowing this, withdrew from there.
kai. hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/| Îo;cloiÐ polloi,( kai. And great crowds followed him, and he
evqera,peusen auvtou.j pa,ntaj healed them all,
16 kai. evpeti,mhsen auvtoi/j i[na mh. fanero.n 16 and [Jesus] ordered them not to make him
auvto.n poih,swsin( known.
17 i[na plhrwqh/| to. r`hqe.n dia. VHsai<ou tou/ 17 in order that might be fulfilled, what was
profh,tou le,gontoj\ spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying,
18 "Behold, My “Son–Servant” whom I

18 ivdou. o` pai/j mou o]n h`|re,tisa( o` avgaphto,j have chosen; My Beloved in whom My soul
mou eivj o]n euvdo,khsen h` yuch, mou\ qh,sw to. is well–pleased; I will put My Spirit upon
pneu/ma, mou evpV auvto,n( kai. kri,sin toi/j Him, And He will proclaim justice/judgment
e;qnesin avpaggelei/Å
to the Nations/Gentiles.
19 He will not quarrel, nor cry out; Nor will

19 ouvk evri,sei ouvde. krauga,sei( ouvde. avkou,sei
anyone hear His voice in the streets
tij evn tai/j platei,aij th.n fwnh.n auvtou/Å
20 ka,lamon suntetrimme,non ouv katea,xei kai. 20 He will not break a bruised reed or
li,non tufo,menon ouv sbe,sei( e[wj a'n evkba,lh| extinguish a smouldering wick, until he
eivj ni/koj th.n kri,sinÅ brings justice/judgment to victory.
21 kai. tw/| ovno,mati auvtou/ e;qnh evlpiou/sinÅ
7
21 And in His name the Nations/Gentiles
will hope.
5.4 Immediate Context
Usually, Matthew connects the fulfilment quotation with the preceding passage. But
here, this is debatable. Presumably, Mt 12, 18 – 21 is linked to the three verses of 12, 14 – 16.
Matthew connects the withdrawal of Jesus to the plot of the Pharisees to destroy him; Jesus’s
knowledge of this decision and his consequent withdrawal, the healing of the many crowds
who followed him and the order to silence (mh. fanero.n auvto.n poih,swsin do not make him
known). For many scholars, the immediate context of this fulfilment quotation is given in v.
14 – 1618. However, we can say that the plot to destroy Jesus begins from the invitational call
of Jesus to “bear his yoke” addressed to all those who suffer under the yoke as pefortisme,noi
“heavy laden” (11, 28).
5.4.1Wisdom Invitation and Passages on Sabbath

Controversies
In order to be more clear about the term pefortisme,noi “heavy laden”, we shall
consider its occurrence in Mt 23, 4: “they impose heavy burdens” forti,a bare,a. This would
suggest that the invitation in 11, 25 –30 is addressed to those who are suffering under the
heavy laden forti,on or from the yoke of the burden of halakha. This argument is confirmed
additionally by the two controversies on the halakha of the Pharisees on the Sabbath which
follows this passage. The theme of 11, 25 – 30 sets up the narrative of 12, 1 – 14, as a further
elaboration of the contrasting yokes of the Pharisees and of Jesus.
18
Maarten J. J. MENKEN, “The Quotation from Isaiah 42, 1 – 4 in Matthew 12, 18 – 21: Its Textual Form,” in
Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist, Leuven/ Paris/ Dudley, Leuven University Press/
Uitgeverij Peeters, (BETL, CLXXIII), 2004, p. 68; Jean MILER, Les citations d’accomplissement dans
l’évangile de Matthieu : Quand Dieu se rend présent en toute humanité, Rome, Pontificio Istituto Biblico,
(AnBib 140), 1999; Ulrich LUZ, Matthew 8 – 20, Translated from German by James E. CROUCH, Minneapolis,
Fortress Press, 1989, p. 190.
8
Hence the two pericopes on Sabbath controversies19 are closely related to the passage
Mt 12, 28 – 3020. According to Sandt, these two controversies situated in 12, 1 – 8 and 9 –14
are placed neither accidentally nor incidentally21. Mt 12, 1 begins with the phrase VEn evkei,nw|
tw/| kairw/| (at that time)22. We can notice the same phrase VEn evkei,nw| tw/| kairw/| in the
beginning of the section Mt 11, 25 – 30. This phrase is not intended to supply chronological
information but to serve as a thematic bridge23. There is a relation between Jesus giving
“rest” (avnapau,sw) in Matt 11, 28 – 3024 and the subsequent Sabbath controversies in chapter
12. The rest motif is very closely related to the Sabbath in the Old Testament25 (Deut. 5, 1426).
And even more than the parallel usage, the name Sabbath itself is often even translated in the
Septuagint as rest “avna,pausij”27(Ex 16, 23; 23, 12; 31, 15; 35, 2; Lev. 23, 3. 24. 39; 25, 4. 5.
19
On Sabbath controversies see: Donizeti Luiz RIBEIRO, La double controverse sur le Shabbat selon Matthieu
12, Lille, ANRT, 2009 ; Robert K. McIVER, “The Sabbath in the Gospel of Matthew : A Paradigm for
Understanding the Law in Matthew?” Andrews University Seminary Studies 33, 2 (1995), pp. 231 – 243; Lena
LYBAEK, “Matthew’s Use of Hosea 6, 6 in the Context of the Sabbath Controversies,” in Christopher Mark
TUCKETT (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels, Leuven, University Press/Uitgeverij Peeters, (BETL, cxxxi),
1997, pp. 491 – 499; Boris REPSCHINSKI, The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their
Redaction, Form and Relevance for the Relationship Between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism,
Gottingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments, 189), 2000, pp. 92 – 142; Yong-Eui YANG, Jesus and Sabbath in Matthew’s Gospel, Sheffield,
Sheffield Academic Press, (JSNTSS, 139), 1997.
20
For an elaborate description of this connection see: Huub VAN DE SANDT, “Matthew 11, 28 – 30:
Compassionate Law Interpretation in Wisdom Language,” in Donald P. SENIOR, (ed.) The Gospel of Matthew
at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, Leuven/ Paris/Walpole, Uitgeverij Peeters, (BETL, CCXLIII), 2011, pp.
313 – 337; Lena LYBAEK, “Matthew’s Use of Hosea 6, 6 in the Context of the Sabbath Controversies,” in
Christopher Mark TUCKETT (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels, Leuven, University Press/Uitgeverij Peeters,
(BETL, cxxxi), 1997, pp. 491 – 499
21
Huub VAN DE SANDT, “Matthew 11, 28 – 30: Compassionate Law Interpretation in Wisdom Language,” in
Donald P. SENIOR, (ed.) The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, Leuven/ Paris/
Walpole, Uitgeverij Peeters, (BETL, CCXLIII), 2011, p. 331.
22
In Mark 2, 23 we have Kai. evge,neto auvto.n evn toi/j sa,bbasin (And it came to pass on the Sabbath day).
23
William David DAVIES and Dale C. ALLISON, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
according to Saint Matthew 2: Commentary on Matthew 8 – 18, The International Critical Commentary,
Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1991, p. 305.
24
Even though the term Sabbath does not occur in the passage 11, 25 – 30, we find the verb “avnapau,sw” which
is used to translate the different expressions concerning the Sabbath.
25
Lena LYBAEK, New and Old in Matthew 11 – 13 : Normativity in the Development of Three Theological
Themes, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2002, (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und
Neuen Testaments ; 198), p. 161; Huub VAN DE SANDT, “Matthew 11, 28 – 30: Compassionate Law
Interpretation in Wisdom Language,” in Donald P. SENIOR, (ed.) The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of
Early Christianity, Leuven/ Paris/ Walpole, Uitgeverij Peeters, (BETL, CCXLIII), 2011, p. 331.
26
Deuteronomy 5, 14 th/| de. h`me,ra| th/| e`bdo,mh| sa,bbata kuri,w| tw/| qew/| sou ouv poih,seij evn auvth/| pa/n e;rgon su.
kai. oi` uiòi, sou kai. h` quga,thr sou o` pai/j sou kai. h` paidi,skh sou o` bou/j sou kai. to. u`pozu,gio,n sou kai. pa/n
kth/no,j sou kai. o` prosh,lutoj o` paroikw/n evn soi, i[na avnapau,shtai o` pai/j sou kai. h` paidi,skh sou w[sper kai.
su, : here we can notice the terms sa,bbaton and avnapau,w are used in parallel.
27
Huub VAN DE SANDT, “Matthew 11, 28 – 30: Compassionate Law Interpretation in Wisdom Language,” in
Donald P. SENIOR, (ed.) The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity, Leuven/ Paris/
Walpole, Uitgeverij Peeters, (BETL, CCXLIII), 2011, p. 319.
9
8). Furthermore, the Sabbath commemorates God’s liberation (Deut. 5, 15), and anticipates
future redemption (Zech. 14, 7)28.
5.4.2 Controversy Passages
5.4.2.1 First Controversy Story Mt 12, 1 – 8
Bultmann29 calls these two pericopes dealing with Sabbath controversies

apophthegmes or pronouncement stories30. In the both controversies, the participants are the
same: Jesus and the Pharisees. The two scenes are linked with the catchwords sa,bbasin31 and
e;xestin32. By analyzing the Sabbath controversies one after another in relation to their
parallel synoptic, we can identify redactional changes made by Matthew. Comparison with
the synoptic parallel Mk33 2, 23 – 28 and Lk 6, 1 – 5 shows that Matthew has the longest text.
The first controversy (12, 1 – 834) begins when the disciples pluck grain from the field and eat
it on a Sabbath. The Pharisees accuse them of doing what is not permissible on the Sabbath.
V. 235 implies that the Pharisees considered the plucking of grain as reaping, since the Torah
28
Lena LYBAEK, “Matthew’s Use of Hosea 6, 6 in the Context of the Sabbath Controversies,” in Christopher
Mark TUCKETT (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels, Leuven, University Press/Uitgeverij Peeters, (BETL,
cxxxi), 1997, p. 495; Samuel BACCHIOCCHI, “Sabbatical Typologies of Messianic Redemption,” JSJ 17
(1986), pp. 155 – 167.
29
Rudolf BULTMANN, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, translated by, John MARSH, New
York/Evanston, Harper and Row, publishers, 1963, p. 16: from Greek apophthegma, containing some general or
generally accepted truth.
30
John V. TAYLOR, The Gospel According to St Mark, London, Macmillan and Company, 1963, p. 212
31
Mt 12, 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12
32
12, 2, 4, 10, 12
33
In Matthew’s redaction, the focus is on the conflictual parties, while in Mark, it’s on the Sabbath (Boris
REPSCHINSKI, The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form and Relevance for
the Relationship Between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism, Gottingen, Vandenhoeck
&Ruprecht, (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 189), 2000, p. 106.)
34
Mark TUCKETT (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels, Leuven, University Press/Uitgeverij Peeters, (BETL,
cxxxi), 1997, pp. 491 – 499; Boris REPSCHINSKI, The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their
Redaction, Form and Relevance for the Relationship Between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism,
Gottingen, Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, (FRLANT; 189), 2000, pp. 92 – 142; Dan COHN-SHERBOK, “ An
Analysis of Jesus’ Arguments concerning the Plucking of Grain on the Sabbath,” Journal for the Study of the
New Testament 2 (1979), pp. 31 – 31; David HILL, “Matthew’s Use of Hosea 6, 6 in the Context of the Sabbath
Controversies,” in Christopher M. TUCKETT, (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels, Leuven, University Press,
(BETL, cxxxi), 1997, pp. 491 – 499; David HILL, “On the Use and Meaning of Hos VI, 6 in Matthew’s
Gospel,” NTS 24 (1977 – 78), pp. 107 – 119; Eric OTTENHEIJM, “The Shared Meal : A Therapeutical Device :
The Function and Meaning of Hos 6:6 in Matt 9:10 – 13,” NovT 53, 1, (2011), pp. 1 – 21; Pierre KEITH, “Les
citations d'Osée 6:6 dans deux péricopes de l'Evangile de Matthieu (Mt 9: 9 – 13 et 12:1 – 8),” in Bons
EBERHARD, (ed.), Car c'est l'amour qui me plait, non le sacrifice..." : recherches sur Osée 6:6 et son
interprétation juive et chrétienne, Leiden/Boston, Brill, (JSJSup, 88), 2004, pp. 57 – 80.
35
In v. 2 Matthew introduces Pharisees with contrasting particle “de”.
10
specifies that harvesting on the Sabbath is forbidden36. As a response to this accusation
Jesus introduces a haggadic argument (12, 3 – 4) which is present both in Matthew and
Mark. The haggadic argument appeals to David and his men eating the showbread from the
temple (1 Sam 21, 1 – 6). Matthew adds a second argument which is absent in Mark: "Or
have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the
Sabbath, and are innocent?” The Torah prescribes that sacrifices are to be offered also on
the Sabbath37. So it is clear the priests are exempted from the accusation of violating the
Sabbath. These arguments seem to presuppose the idea of Jesus’ superiority over David and
Old Testament priests. If the great king David had the authority to reinterpret the law, the
greater king Jesus must have that authority to a greater extent38.
Matthew and Luke do not report Mk 2, 2739: “the Sabbath was made for man, not
man for the Sabbath”. The first of the Sabbath controversies in Matthew concludes with the
same sayings found in Mark, stating that the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. In
Mark, the passage (Mk 2, 28) is introduced by w[ste, so that the presupposition for this
conclusion is given in the previous statement, that the Sabbath was made for man, not man
for the Sabbath. Matthew omits this explanatory sentence and introduces a quotation from
Hos 6, 640 “eiv de. evgnw,keite ti, evstin\ e;leoj qe,lw kai. ouv qusi,an( ouvk a'n katedika,sate tou.j
avnaiti,ouj” But if you had known what this means, 'I desire compassion, and not sacrifice,'
you would not have condemned the innocent41. We can notice the presence of this quotation
36
Ex. 34, 21
37
Num. 28, 9 – 10
38
David and his men did not break the Sabbath Law. But they ate something that was not lawful. The rabbinic
tradition inferred that the incident took place on the Sabbath, because of the reference to the shrew bread which
was to be prepared every Sabbath (Lev 24, 5 – 8).
39
David HILL, “On the Use and Meaning of Hos VI, 6 in Matthew’s Gospel” NTS 24 (1977 – 78), p. 114. Hill
also suggests that these verses 5 – 7 of Mt 12, inserted into the Markan Vorlage, were “conceived of, and
probably composed as a unity” by Matthew.
40
Matthew alone includes the quotation from Hos 6, 6 on the lips of Jesus in the controversy aroused by his meal
with tax collectors and sinners and in the dispute about Sabbath - law observance (Willoughby C. ALLEN, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, , [The
International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments], 31951, p. 90).
41
For this subject: David HILL, “On the Use and Meaning of Hos VI, 6 in Matthew’s Gospel,” NTS 24 (1977 –
78), pp. 107 – 119; Lena LYBAEK, “Matthew’s Use of Hosea 6, 6 in the Context of the Sabbath Controversies,”
in Christopher Mark TUCKETT (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels, Leuven, University Press/Uitgeverij
Peeters, 1997, (BETL, cxxxi); Eric OTTENHEIJM, “The Shared Meal : A Therapeutical Device : The Function
and Meaning of Hos 6:6 in Matt 9:10 – 13,” NovT 53, 1, (2011), pp. 1 – 21; Pierre KEITH, “Les citations d'Osée
6:6 dans deux péricopes de l'Evangile de Matthieu (Mt 9: 9 – 13 et 12:1 – 8),” in Bons EBERHARD, (ed.), Car
c'est l'amour qui me plait, non le sacrifice..." : Recherches sur Osée 6:6 et son interprétation juive et chrétienne,
Leiden/Boston, Brill, (JSJS, 88), 2004, pp. 57 – 80.
11
from Hos 6, 6 in Mt 9, 1342, where Jesus exhorted the Pharisees to go and learn the meaning
of the quotation. And here Jesus declares that the Pharisees have not yet learned.
Compassion, e;leoj is a guiding principle of the ministry of Jesus. Using the quotation from
Hos. 6, 6 Jesus condemns the Pharisees43. He demands from them the insight to understand
God’s compassion in Himself. This compassion is further illustrated in the second Sabbath
controversy, where Jesus heals the man with the withered hand. The citation from Hos 6, 6,
therefore, serves also as an introduction to the second Sabbath controversy (Mt 12, 9 –
14)44.
Hos 6, 6 is taken from a whole Oracle of the prophet Hos 6, 1 – 6. When we

encounter an Old Testament citation, it is relevant to see the significance of the citation in its
entirety. The oracle of Hosea from which the text cited arises, starts with an invitation to
conversion. We can find all the surrounding themes and even all the themes in the fulfilment
quotation of 12, 18 – 21. The first verse of the Oracle presents Yahweh as one who heals.
42
There is one basic similarity between these two conflicts, one found in the chapter 9 and another in 12: in
chapter nine the conflict is stated by the question, “why does your teacher eat with tax-collectors and sinners? (9,
11) and in the chapter 12 the problem is stated directly, “and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the
heads of grain and eat” (12, 1). Hence the problem is related to evsqi,ein (eating /food/meal). Here it is important
to notice a redactional change by Matthew where in the first Sabbath controversy Matthew adds the verb
evsqi,ein in v. 12, 1; while it is absent in the Markan version (In Mark, there is no mention that the disciples ate
the grain). Both conflicts are concluded with the quotation from Hos 6, 6. Is there any relation to this conflict
to the conflict over the “Table fellowship” that is narrated in the Epistles of Galatians and which caused division
among Jews and Gentiles? Lohmeyer and Hill (David HILL, “On the Use and Meaning of Hos VI, 6 in
Matthew’s Gospel,” NTS 24 (1977 – 78), p. 112) claim that in 9, 9 – 13 the evangelist has in mind the
fellowship of the Jewish – Christian community with Gentile Christians in the Church - a matter which proved
controversial (cf. Acts 9, 9ff; Gal 2, 11 ff). And further, Hummel links 9, 9 – 13 to 12, 1 – 8. The presence and
intervention of Jewish opponents in both contexts as against the e;leoj of Jesus. The tax collectors and sinners
welcomed by Jesus represent for Matthew the Gentile Christians in his community. This identification is
supported by Mt 21, 31 (“the tax collectors and harlots precede you into the kingdom”) and from the Matthean
use of evqniko.j in close association with telw,nhj (18, 17). Reinhart HUMMEL, Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen
Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium, München, C. Kaiser, 1963, (BETL; 33), p. 40. Is the table-
fellowship of Jews and Gentiles in the Community of Matthew an object of conflict and controversy? Was the
Table-fellowship an issue in any of the earlier Christian communities? These are relevant questions which will
make a link between the texts of Matthew, Acts, Galatians and the Didache. We can underline this remark in
the third part of our study.
43
Pharisees did not understand the priority of mercy and preserved mechanical burdensome regulations. Instead
of showing mercy, they condemned the innocent on the basis of their strict interpretations. For further
elaboration, see: Yong-Eui YANG, Jesus and Sabbath in Matthew’s Gospel, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic
Press, (JSNT, 139), 1997, pp. 161 – 188; Sven-Olav BACK, “ Jesus and the Sabbath,” in Tom HOLMEN and
Stanley E. PORTER, (eds.) Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, Leiden, 2011, pp. 2597 – 2633;
Philipp SIGAL, The Halakah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel to Matthew, Lanham / New York/
London, University Press of America, 1986, pp. 128 – 136.
44
Mark TUCKETT (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels, Leuven, University Press/Uitgeverij Peeters, 1997,
(BETL, cxxxi), p. 493.
12
This theme of healing is everywhere in Mt 12. The term jP;v.mi occurs in Hos 6, 5 ace(yE rAað ^yj,ÞP'v.miW
thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth. We read further in Is 42, 1 ayci(Ay ~yIïAGl; jP'Þv.mi he
will bring forth judgment to the Nations. We can notice the use of the same verb ac'y" and the
term jP;v.mi in both.
5.4.2.2 Second Controversy Story Mt 12, 9 – 13
In the second Sabbath controversy Jesus enters their synagogue and healed a man
with a withered hand45. We have the parallel in Mk 3, 1 – 6 and Lk 6, 6 – 11. In Matthew the
Synagogue is qualified auvtw/n their, while Mark lacks this qualification. And in the Markan
account, there is no question of the opponents, just their watchfulness to see whether Jesus
might heal the man (Mk 3, 2). There is neither any pronouncement of Jesus, merely a
question (3, 4) to which the opponents do not answer. The miracle furthermore provokes
hostile reaction and the plot to kill Jesus. While Matthew, in the beginning of this passage
establishes more clearly the hostility of the opponents’ question (12, 10): whether it is
permissible to heal on the Sabbath? The choice of the verb evphrw,thsan (questioned) instead
of the Markan pareth,roun (watch closely) highlights the gravity of the conflict and the
hostility. The verb has no formal subject, it takes the indefinite “they” of “their synagogue”
as its subject46. The sentence introducing Jesus’ response 12, 11 is identical to that of Mt 12,
3. The first part of Jesus’ response is in the form of a rhetorical question: “what man of you,
if he has one sheep…” The argument is strengthened by adding that he has just one sheep.
Then Jesus asks a rhetoric qal ve–homer47question in 12a: a human being is worth much
more than a sheep. The comparison of a human being to a sheep then leads to the
conclusion introduced with w[ste in the same pattern as the first Sabbath controversy.
Matthew’s w[ste transforms Mark’s words into a conclusion drawn from 12, 11– 12a: if one
may do good to a sheep on the Sabbath, and if human beings are of more value than sheep,
then it is lawful e;xestin on the Sabbath to do good kalw/j poiei/n to a human being. In this
45
The repetition of the term e;xestin (is it lawful) and the sa,bbaton links both pericopes: the question of the
lawfulness to heal on a Sabbath.
46
Mark TUCKETT (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels, Leuven, University Press/Uitgeverij Peeters, 1997,
(BETL, cxxxi), p. 494.
47
“Light and heavy” or “from the greater to the lesser” argument.
13
way a question in Mark has turned into a general rule in Matthew. Thus Jesus has not
violated the law. kalw/j poiei/n48 presumably indicates more concretely in Matthew the love
commandment, i.e. it is to love one’s neighbour, which is a chief commandment (cf. 7, 12;
19, 19; 22, 39 – 40)49. After having justified his action beforehand, Jesus healed the man: an
act of mercy which is weightier in the law.
It is to be noted that Matthew shifted the context for his Controversy passages. The
controversies have been removed from their original context of disputes over purity and
other laws in Mark. Here in Mt 12, 1 –14, Matthew introduces a set of new conflicts with the
Pharisees. With Lybaek, we should assume that this change of context serves a purpose in
the Matthean Gospel narrative. Hence it is reasonable to see the relation between these two
controversy stories with the passages that precede and follow. In the passage immediately
preceding the controversies, we find the Wisdom invitation to the “burdened”, with the
promise of rest and an easy yoke50. Through the Sabbath controversies, Matthew seems to
present a Jesus, who gives rest to the burdened through his word and healing. Real Sabbath
observance should lead to rest and liberation51. The passage that follows is the quotation
cited from Isaiah, as a Christological affirmation: Jesus’ identity as “Son–Servant” and his
praxis with compassion to the “broken”, a theme which concretely parallels with the
controversy stories and Wisdom invitation. In order to underline his compassionate praxis,
Matthew made some redactional change to the Markan material. In Mk 3, 5, we read, “kai.
peribleya,menoj auvtou.j metV ovrgh/j(sullupou,menoj evpi. th/| pwrw,sei th/j kardi,aj auvtw/n ” And
he looked around at them with anger, deeply grieved52 at their hardness of heart. The phrase
metV ovrgh/j53 directly goes against the meekness of Jesus, so that Matthew omitted this
phrase from his redaction, presumably to highlight the meekness of his “Son–Servant”. And
48
Mk 7, 37; Lk 6, 27; Acts 10, 33; 1 Cor 7, 37 – 38; Phil 4, 14; James 2, 8; Pet 1, 19
49
according to Saint Matthew 2 : Commentary on Matthew 8 – 18, The International Critical Commentary,
50
Mark TUCKETT (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels, Leuven, University Press/ Uitgeverij Peeters, 1997,
(BETL, cxxxi), pp. 494 – 495.
51
Sabbath itself is often even translated in the Septuagint as rest “avna,pausij” (Ex. 16, 23; 23, 12; 31, 15; 35, 2;
Lev. 23, 3. 24. 39; 25, 4. 5. 8). Furthermore, the Sabbath commemorates God’s liberation (Deut. 5, 15).
52
Matthew omitted the emotion of Jesus sullupou,menoj = deeply grieved, from his redaction to fit his passage
with 12, 19 ouvde. krauga,sei = will not cry loud.
53
In order to parallel with his fulfilment quotation 12, 19 Ouvk evri,sei “He will not quarrel angrily”, Matthew
seems to omit this phrase from his redaction.
14
Matthew added one image of real compassion (the rescue of the “only”54 sheep fallen into
the pit) as an argument a fortiori.
The denunciation of the Pharisees is twofold: first they have not understood and as a
result of their incomprehension, they have condemned the innocent. In chapter 12 the
quotation is introduced similarly in both contexts, where ti, evstin emphasizes the need for
understanding55. And Jesus demands in 11, 29: ma,qete avpV evmou/ (learn from me). Lack of
understanding or not recognizing the nature of Jesus’ ministry (rejection) is a mainstream
theme in chapters 11 – 13 (Mt 11, 15. 16 – 19. 25 – 30; 13, 14). The repeated use of ginw,skw
in the first 8 verses of Matthew 12: “do you know”, “do you not know”, and “ if you knew
what it means” seems to refer back to 11, 25 – 30, where “these things” are hidden from the
wise, but revealed to children. To those to whom, it has been revealed it is also given to
recognize the Father in the Son. But the Pharisees failed to recognize the Father through the
Son, or through the deeds of the Son56. As a result there occurs a Matthean fulfilment
quotation where the Father57 himself reveals his Son.
5.4.3 The Plot to Destroy and Jesus’ Withdrawal 12, 14 – 16
This passage is related to the preceding passage by the catch word qerapeu,w58. Jesus
healed the man with a withered hand and he healed them ‘all’ who followed him. Matthew,
unlike Mark, also relates this passage to the preceding passage on the Pharisaic plot to
destroy Jesus, by attaching the sentence ~O de. VIhsou/j avnecw,rhsen evkei/qen to his redaction.
54
pro,baton e[n : e[n can be translated as “a” sheep or “only” sheep to reinforce the argument (William David
DAVIES and Dale C. ALLISON, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint
Matthew 2, Commentary on Matthew 8 – 18, The International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh, T & T Clark,
1991, p. 319).
55
Jesus’ reproach in chapter 12, 7: eiv de. evgnw,keite ti, evstin “if you had known” refers back to chapter 9,
where the Pharisees are requested to “go and learn”.
56
Lena LYBAEK, New and Old in Matthew 11 – 13 : Normativity in the Development of Three Theological
Themes, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments; 198), 2002, p. 161
57
Here we can assume a link to the “order to silence” to the crowd by Jesus: the real revelation or witness is
from the God the Father, not from the crowd. Jesus does not need a human witness to confirm his identity. The
order to silence has always been a subject of debate among the scholars. Some scholars would prefer the
“Messianic secret”, and some others try to highlight the character of Jesus who is against publicity.
58
We can find a parallel to Mt 12, 1 – 14 in 8, 1 – 17, where we can find two similar stories (two healings 8, 1 –
4; 5 – 13)which are then followed by a 8, 14 – 17, a healing which serves a summary to Jesus’ healing ministry,
with the citation from the Prophet Isaiah.
15
Even though the Pharisees are present at both incidents, the reaction of the Pharisees to
both of these conflicts is not mentioned until verse 1459. This part narrates the consequence
of Jesus’ teaching and healing: In v. 14 the Pharisees leave the Synagogue to make plans to
destroy Jesus. There is a parallel in Mk 3, 6: the significant change is the silence concerning
the Herodians as the allies of the Pharisees as co–plotters with the Pharisees60. In both
Matthew and Mark, the plot to kill Jesus is the reaction from the two conflicts concerning
the controversies over Sabbath observance (Mt 12, 1 – 8. 9 – 13; Mk 2, 23 – 28. 3, 1 – 561).
The phrase sumbou,lion e;labon presages grave consequences. The phrase will occur again in
another controversy (22, 15) and in the passion narrative (27, 1. 7; and 28, 12)62. It shows
that the Pharisees did not understand nor listen to the teaching of Jesus. It alienates the
Pharisees to the point where they went out and conspired together how to destroy63 Jesus.
59
The plotting response of the Pharisees and Jesus’ decision for the withdrawal are not original to the two
pericopes (O. Lamar COPE Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven, Washington, Catholic
Biblical Association of America, [(CBQ MS, 5], 1976, p. 33)
60
This omission is understandable since the context of Matthew gives emphasis to the Pharisees. The answer
from Repschinski (Boris REPSCHINSKI, The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction,
Form and Relevance for the Relationship Between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism, Gottingen,
Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments; 189),
2000, pp. 112 – 113) is less convincing: the easiest explanation for this omission is the fact that the Herodians
are, up to now, an unknown factor in the Matthean Narrative. In the end, they do not even play a significant part
in the execution of Jesus. But the allusion of Allison – Davies (William David DAVIES and Dale C. ALLISON,
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew 2: Commentary on Matthew 8
– 18, The International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1991, p. 322) seems to be more
reasonable but debatable: Matthew omitted mention of the Herodians in order to concentrate on the opposition of
the Pharisees, showing that the conflicts and issues that we sense in the Matthean Gospel are more religious than
political. It is debatable because of the mention of the Herodians in Mt 22, 16 (Mk 12, 13). For the presence of
Herodians in 22, 16 Gundry puts forward a reasonable proposition: in 22, 16 Herodians together with the
Pharisees ask Jesus a politically charged question on paying taxes. Since it’s a political question, the Herodians
are involved (Robert Horton GUNDRY, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel with Special
Reference to the Messianic Hope, Leiden, Brill, 1975, (NovTSup., 18), p. 228; Maarten J. J. MENKEN, “The
Quotation from Isaiah 42, 1 – 4 in Matthew 12, 18 – 21: Its Relation with the Matthean Context,” in Matthew’s
Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist, Leuven/ Paris/ Dudley, Leuven University Press/ Uitgeverij
Peeters, (BETL, CLXXIII), 2004, p. 57)
61
In Mark these two conflicts have been preceded by three others (2, 1 – 22). Matthew already narrated these
three in 9, 1 – 17 and concludes with Hos 6, 6 demanding the deeds of mercy. And Matthew reintroduced other
frictions between Jesus and Pharisees (11, 7 – 24) to introduce these two Sabbath controversies.
62
Boris REPSCHINSKI, The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form and
Relevance for the Relationship Between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism, Gottingen,
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments; 189),
2000, p. 113. Luz states that for the first time in Matthew’s Gospel, the end of the Jesus story, the passion, comes
explicitly into view (Ulrich LUZ, Matthew 8 – 20, Translated from the German by James E. CROUCH,
Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2001, p. 188).
63
The verb avpo,llumi appears in Mt 2, 13 where Matthew describes Herod’s decision to destroy Jesus.
16
Verse 15 is syntactically connected to the preceding verse: O de. VIhsou/j gnou.j
avnecw,rhsen evkei/qenÅ kai. hvkolou,qhsan auvtw/| Îo;cloiÐ64 polloi,( kai. evqera,peusen auvtou.j
pa,ntaj. With the conjunctive particle “de.” and with the verb in its participle aorist, showing
the continuity from the past “gnou.j” knowing, the sentence is closely connected to the
preceding one. This participle “gnou.j” knowing is a significant redaction by Matthew. By
inserting the participle, Matthew creates a causal relationship between the Pharisees’
actions and Jesus’65. In general, Matthew follows Mark 3, 7 – 10, but he largely shortens it by
omitting all topological precisions66 and the parts Mark ascribes to the disciples and unclean
spirits in their relation with Jesus. It seems to be a Matthean interest to concentrate his
readers’ attention on Jesus’ reaction, which is withdrawal avnacwre,w67 from the scene. This
reaction is causally connected by the participle “gnou.j” knowing the Pharisees’ plan to kill
him68.
5.4.3.1 Order “not to Make Him Known”
In 12, 16 Matthew has in common with Mark (3, 12) his “order to silence”: “not to
make him known”. The Matthean command of Jesus is directed only to the healed and
Matthew has omitted what Mark tells about the unclean spirits. In Mark, the unclean spirits
cried out “You are the Son of God”, and Jesus ordered them “not to make him known”. And
there are some other instances of this “order of silence” in Matthew and Mark. Matthew has
64
Maarten Menken prefers the shorter reading polloi(a. o. a. B lat) rather than the longer one o;cloi polloi,
(Maarten J. J. MENKEN, “The Quotation from Isaiah 42, 1 – 4 in Matthew 12, 18 – 21: Its Textual Form,” in
Uitgeverij Peeters, (BETL, CLXXIII), 2004, p. 58, note 16). But in other Matthean contexts we find the longer
reading o;cloi polloi (4, 25; 15, 30; 19, 2): Bruce Manning METZGER, A Textual Commentary on the Greek
2
New Testament, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/ United Bible Societies, 1994, p. 26.
65
Uitgeverij Peeters, (BETL, CLXXIII), 2004, pp. 58 – 59.
66
This topological precision seems to be very significant for Matthean intent: In Mark we read avnecw,rhsen pro.j
th.n qa,lassan withdrew to the sea. And in Matthew we read, avnecw,rhsen evkei/qen withdrew from there. The
term “from there” seems to have a direct connection with the term sunagwgh.n auvtw/n their Synagogue. The
addition auvtw/n with Synagogue is a Matthean redaction.
67
The verb avnacwre,w seems to be significant, because of its presence in other circumstances that lead to the
formation of a “Church” in the Matthean Gospel (14, 13; 15, 21): Ulrich LUZ, Matthew 8 – 20, Translated from
the German by James E. CROUCH, Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2001, p. 190.
68
This causal connection “gnou.j” knowing is missing in the Markan narrative.
17
four69 of these in common with Mark. Another one addressed to the healed persons, is
presumably a Matthean redaction (9, 30 – 31), which parallels with Mk 1, 43 – 45. The
majority of scholars qualify this trait of Mark, as the “Messianic Secret”70: the tendency to
keep secret the messianic identity of Jesus through Jesus’ commands to demons and to
human beings who have been healed to “be silent”; his commands to his disciples to “tell no
one” about his identity or about the Transfiguration vision until after the Resurrection.
Wrede argues that Mark used these commands in a consistent way to keep Jesus’ identity
secret. There exists still however a debate whether all these instances highlight the
“Messianic Secret”, because in certain instances Jesus’ effort to remain secret is thwarted
within the narrative by the crowd71. Thus recently Heikki Raisanen stated “only the
command to silence addressed to the disciples” concerns the secrecy of Jesus’ identity as
Son of God, and thus belongs to the “Messianic Secret” 72. We introduced this theme of
Markan “Messianic Secret” to analyze, whether there is any relationship between the
Markan “order of silence” which is interpreted as a “Messianic secret” and that of
Matthew73? Compared to Mark, Matthew omitted all of the Markan “orders of silence”
addressed to the demons.
It seems that there should be some relationship between the omission of the crying
out of demons and the addition of the revelation of God the Father in the Matthean
narrative. The four phrases gnou.j avnecw,rhsen. hvkolou,qhsan and evqera,peusen seem to be well
69
Mt 8, 4=Mk 1, 44; Mt 12, 16 = Mk 3, 12; Mt 16, 20 = Mk 8, 30; Mt 17, 9 = Mk 9, 9: the first two addressed to
the healed persons and the last two to the disciples.
70
William WREDE, Das Messiageheimnis in dem Evangeliem, Gottingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901,
William WREDE, The messianic Secret, Translated by J.C.G. GREIG, Cambridge/London, James Clark and
Co., 1971; Heikki RAISANEN, The “Messianic Secret” in Mark, Translated by Christopher TUCKET,
Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1990.
71
Neil ELLIOTT, “The Silence of the Messiah: The Function of “Messianic Secret” Motifs across the
Synoptics” SBL SemP., Washington D.C/Atlanta, 1993, p. 606.
72
Heikki RAISANEN, The “Messianic Secret” in Mark, Translated by Christopher TUCKET, Edinburgh, T. &
T. Clark, 1990, p. 159.
73
When analyzing the command of silence in 12, 16, Menken observes it as an allusion that Jesus can be
publically made known as the Christ as the Son of God only after his death and resurrection. So Menken
connects “gnou.j” with Jesus’ awareness of the plan of the Pharisees to destroy him and the command to
secrecy. The Matthean Jesus withdraws because his time has not come and tells those whom he heals not to
make him known, for he can be made known only after the execution of the plan of the Pharisees, when his
time has come. Menken’s view is unconvincing and debatable since the Matthean order of silence is not
connected with his withdrawal. For us this command to silence is an invitation towards the absolute divine
revelation (Maarten J. J. MENKEN, “The Quotation from Isaiah 42, 1 – 4 in Matthew 12, 18 – 21: Its Textual
Form,” in Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist, Leuven/ Paris/ Dudley, Leuven University
Press/ Uitgeverij Peeters, (BETL, CLXXIII), 2004, pp. 58 – 59).
18
connected. Well aware of the rejection by the Pharisees, Jesus withdrew from there not to
hide himself. As the result of withdrawal, many followed him and he healed them ‘all’. Jesus
commanded them “not to make him known”. It seems that Jesus should not be understood
as a mere ‘healer’. The credibility of Jesus’ identity: his Sonship, Anointing of the Spirit and
his mission is not to be revealed through human witness, but through divine revelation74.
Thus it seems reasonable and significant that Matthew introduces this fulfilment quotation
in parallel with the theophanies of Baptism and of Transfiguration to focus on the revelation
of the God the Father. All the above argumentation leads to the fact that verses 14 –16
summarize the events recounted since 11, 25 and constitute a platform to enounce the
quotation of Is 42, 1 – 4 as a fulfilment.
5.5 Isaiah 42, 1 – 4 and Mt 12, 18 – 21: A Bird’s Eye View
We present here the table which shows the three different versions of the same text.
Mt 12, 18 –21 LXX Is 42, 1 –4 MT Is 42, 1– 4
18 ivdou. o` pai/j mou o]n 1 Iakwb o` pai/j mou yDIb.[; !hEÜ

h`|re,tisa( o` avgaphto,j mou avntilh,myomai auvtou/ AB–%m't.a,e
eivj o]n euvdo,khsen Israhl o` evklekto,j mou yrIyxiB.
prosede,xato auvto.n ht'c.r"
h` yuch, mou\ h` yuch, mou yvip.n:
yTit;n"
qh,sw e;dwka yxiWr
to. pneu/ma, mou to. pneu/ma, mou wyl'['
evpV auvto,n( evpV auvto,n ~yIAGl; jP'v.mi
kai. kri,sin toi/j e;qnesin kri,sin toi/j e;qnesin ayciAy
avpaggelei/Å evxoi,sei
2 ouv kekra,xetai q[;c.yI al

74
Here it is significant to notice two passages of Matthew: 1. Jesus commands his disciples in 16, 20 mhdeni.
ei;pwsin o[ti auvto,j evstin o` cristo,j “to tell no one that he is Christ”. It is remarkable to notice that this order to
silence is just after the ‘divine revelation’ to Peter that ‘Jesus is Christ’ and his public confession. 2. Again in the
Transfiguration passage (17, 9), after the Transfiguration and theophany revealing that Jesus is the ‘son of God’,
Jesus commands his disciples to keep silent (mhdeni. ei;phte to. o[rama e[wj ou- o` uiòj. tou/ avnqrw,pou evk nekrw/n
evgerqh/|). In these two instances there are two precise objects of ‘silence’; in the first instance the object of silence
is ‘that he is Christ’ and in the second instance it is ‘the vision of Transfiguration until the Resurrection’.
Matthew seems to invite his readers to understand these divine revelations in the light of the Resurrection of
Jesus, which seems to be the real identity of Christ and the real meaning of Transfiguration. This observation is
further strengthened by the Matthean redaction of the prophecy of the passion and resurrection just after these
two passages of the commands to silence (16, 21; 17, 12. 22 – 23). The Messiah-ship of Jesus was not that of a
political Davidic Messiah as expected, but Jesus’ Messiah-ship showed another unexpected model, through his
self-emptying, death and resurrection.
19
19 ouvk evri,sei ouvde. avnh,sei aF'yI al{w>
ouvde. krauga,sei( ouvde. avkousqh,setai [:ymiv.y:–al{w>
ouvde. avkou,sei tij e;xw #WxB;
evn tai/j platei,aij h` fwnh. auvtou/ AlAq
th.n fwnh.n auvtou/Å
hn<q'
3 ka,lamon #Wcr"
20 ka,lamon teqlasme,non rABv.yI al{
suntetrimme,non ouv suntri,yei hh'ke hT'v.piW
ouv katea,xei kai. li,non
kai. li,non tufo,menon
kapnizo,menon
ouv sbe,sei avlla. eivj hN"B,k;y> al{
ouv sbe,sei( avlh,qeian evxoi,sei tm,a/l,
kri,sin jP'v.mi ayciAy
4 avnala,myei kai. ouv hh,k.yI al{

qrausqh,setai #Wry" al{w>
e[wj a'n qh/| ~yfiy"–d[;
e[wj a'n evkba,lh| eivj ni/koj evpi. th/j gh/j kri,sin jP'v.mi #r<a'B'
th.n kri,sinÅ
Atr"Atl.W
21 kai. tw/| ovno,mati kai. evpi. tw/| ovno,mati
auvtou/ auvtou/ Wlyxey:y> ~yYIai
e;qnh evlpiou/sinÅ e;qnh evlpiou/sin
The Moulding and Conflation of the Quotation by Matthew
Matthew adopts Isaiah’s quotation (42, 1 – 4) in a polemical context to present his

Jesus as the meek "Son–Servant". The manner in which does so differs from the Masoretic
Text and the Septuagint. As we know, the quotation cited by Matthew has never been fully
attested as coming from “one” source75. This quotation contains several points of agreement
with the Masoretic text and the Septuagint. But we can find several terms which are unknown
to both of these ur texts. So a rigorous analysis of the text of Matthew in comparison with the
Masoretic Text and the Septuagint is desirable. Our aim then, in this chapter, is to highlight
the similarities and divergences of the Matthean text from the Masoretic text and the
Septuagint and to discover the Matthean contribution in order to elucidate more clearly the
“moulding and conflation” of this quotation by Matthew.
75
The studies on the text source of the Matthean fulfilment quotations has not yet succeeded in proving the text-
type, which agrees neither with the Masoretic Text, nor with the Septuagint, nor with any versions we know.
20
6.3 The Vocabulary Chosen by Matthew
We have detected a number of terms typical of Matthew. We propose to

analyze them to see their significance in the Matthean context.
6.3.1 o]n h'|re,tisa Whom I Chose.
The use of ai`reti,zw (18a) shows three particular features compared to the Masoretic
text and the Septuagint. The first is the addition of a relative pronoun; the second is the
introduction of the translation ai`reti,zw by Matthew for the Hebrew verb $mt and the Greek
avntilh,myomai support; and the third, the use of the verb ai`reti,zw in the indicative aorist
form while the Septuagint uses the future and it is in the imperfect in the Masoretic Text.
No known older version shows a different vorlage of the Masoretic text that would
justify the Matthean version76. According to Claude Tassin, thirteen of the twenty–one uses of
ai`reti,zw in the Septuagint translate the root rxb. However this Greek verb is missing from the
Septuagint of Isaiah 25 while rxb is an important term in Deutero–Isaiah. Is 44, 1. 2; 45, 4
regularly puts in parallel the servant Israel (db,[), with the root rxb of election. This fact was
sufficient for the Alexandrian translators to found their collective interpretation of Is 42, 1a.
Let us look at their additions: "Jacob, my servant, whom I support; Israel, my chosen one, in
whom my soul delights"(compare with Is 45, 4). This process of analogical hermeneutics also
plays in Matthew’s option, but in a different direction, by highlighting the connection
repeated by the Septuagint in chapters 40 – 45 between servant and choose. Matthew has a
presentation, deliberately messianic, of the figure of the servant: "my servant whom I have
chosen"77.
However the verb ai`reti,zw does not come from the Septuagint: in the translation of
Isaiah the verb rxb is normally rendered by evkle,gomai/evklekto.j. Equivalence exists in other
books of the Septuagint: Ezekiel 20, 5 (for Israel), Zechariah 1, 17; 2, 16 (for Jerusalem),
76
For a synopse of versions, see Krister STENDAHL, The School of Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament,
Philadelphia, CWK Gleerup – Lund, (ASNU; XX), 1968, p. 108.
77
Claude TASSIN, « Matthieu ‘Targumiste ?’ L’exemple de Mt 12, 18 (= Is 42, 1), » EstB 48, (1990), p. 206.
21
Haggai 2, 23 (for Zerubbabel). We also note that the Septuagint of Chronicles translates
eighteen times rxb by evkle,gomai, and five times by ai`reti,zw. In 2 Chron 29, 11 it is found in a
particularly solemn context of an alliance during the re-assuming of the function of the
Levites. 1 Chron 28, 4. 6. 10; 29, 1 includes four other use of ai`reti,zw. The scene is nothing
less than the testament of David establishing Solomon as his successor to build the Temple. In
the episode, the Septuagint use of the double translation process, alternating evkle,gomai and
ai`reti,zw for the single verb rxb of Masoretic – text, evkle,gomai for the simple idea of choice,
ai`reti,zw for the specific relationship of the King with God and the privileged sign of this
relationship: the project of the construction of the Sanctuary. The relief given by this scene to
the son of David was able to induce the Evangelist to appropriate a verb ai`reti,zw, which,
thanks to this Solomonian context, alludes more strongly than evkle,gomai, to the messianic
interpretation of the figure of the Servant applied to Jesus78.
This affirmation seems possible by postulating our context with 1 Chronicles Chapter
28. The context of the Matthean fulfilment quotation of 12, 17 – 21 reinforces our
proposition: Indeed the scene of Confrontation over the picking corn on the Sabbath (Mt 12, 1
– 7) evokes well David (v. 3) and Temple (vv. 5 – 6); and later, over the discussion on the
sign of Jonah evokes the figure of Solomon (12, 42) and the final kri,sij (compare with Mt
12, 18. 20). Perhaps even the controversy over the expulsion of demons by Jesus (12, 22f)
refers implicitly to the reputation of Exorcist that Judaism had by then given to Solomon.
More generally, studies on Matthew suggest, although occasionally, a certain interest of the
Evangelist for the book of Chronicles. Here, we wish to bring five arguments in support: 1)
we know the importance held by the materials of the book of Chronicles in the genealogy of
Matthew79. (2) Mt 13, 35 (= Ps 78, 2) attributed to a "prophet" a Psalm of Asaph. Krister
Stendahl, recalls that 1 Chron 25, 2 presents Asaph as a prophet80. (3) With its Lukan parallel,
Mt 23, 35 evokes the first murder mentioned by the Bible, that of Abel and the last, that of
Zechariah narrated in 2 Chron 24, 20 – 22. The Matthean specification of "Zechariah son of
Barachias", poses some problems, but the process ('Semitic couple') and the purpose of the
logion are clear: the assassination of the righteous covers all of “biblical history” from
78
Claude TASSIN, « Matthieu ‘Targumiste ?’ L’exemple de Mt 12, 18 (= Is 42, 1), » EstB 48 (1990), p. 207.
79
Andre PAUL, The infancy Gospel of Matthew, Paris, Cerf, 1968, cited by Claude TASSIN, “Matthew
‘Targumiste?’ L’exemple de Mt 12, 18 (= Is 42: 1),” EstB 48 (1990), p. 206.
80
Krister STENDAHL, The School of Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament, Philadelphia, CWK Gleerup-
Lund, (ASNU, xx), 1968, p. 118.
22
Genesis to Chronicles81. (4) On the subject of Matthew’s interest in the Chronicles, Bruce
Malina affirms, as a corollary of his analysis of the Matthean end for the Gospel, for which
the structural model would be the Decree of Cyrus which concludes the work of Chronicles (2
Chron 36, 23)82. In this case, the trajectory of the first Gospel covers all the history of the
Bible (from Mt 1: 1). (5). finally, even the mechanism of Matthean formula quotations can be
found in its origin in its original design in Chronicles’ “fulfilment of the word of the Lord...”
(2 Chron 36, 21: “tou/ plhrwqh/nai lo,gon kuri,ou dia. sto,matoj Ieremiou”)83.
Matthew uses this verb ai`reti,zw only once in his Gospel (12, 18b), and it is not found
elsewhere in the New Testament. Matthew does not use the verb evkle,gomai, which is parallel
in the Septuagint, while he uses evklekto.j84 four times. The use of the hapax ai`reti,zw in 12,
18b therefore seems to have a Matthean theological intent85.
6.3.2 o` avgaphto,j mou My Beloved
Several studies have been conducted for the origin of the title o` avgaphto,j (18a).
According to J. A. Robinson, who based his argument on Mt 12, 18, o` avgaphto,j is
interchangeable with o` evklekto.j86. However it should be noted the nuances that distinguish
81
Martin McNAMARA, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Rome, Pontifical
Biblical Institute, (AnBib, 27), 1966, pp. 160 – 163.
82
Bruce J. MALINA, “Structure and Form of Mt 28, 16 – 20,” NTS 17 (1970), pp. 87 – 103: To our knowledge,
the literary form that most closely parallels Mt 28, 18 – 20 is the royal decree of Cyrus which concludes the
books of Chronicles (2 Chr 36, 23). While the OT canon ends with the decree of Cyrus looking to the
reconstruction of Jerusalem, Matthew ends with the decree of Jesus looking to the expansive growth of the circle
of disciples.
This notion is well explained by Claude TASSIN in his study on the fulfilment quotations of 12, 18 – 21, to
83
show that Matthew is a Targumist. In this article, he elucidates the meaning and the origin of the term ai`reti,zw,
with special emphasis on the citations from Chronicles. Claude TASSIN, «Matthieu ‘Targumiste ?’ L’exemple
de Mt 12, 18 (= Is 42, 1), » EstB 48 (1990), p. 207.
84
Mt 22, 14; 24, 22.24.31.
85
It is remarkable to notice that the “crowd” describe Jesus as “Son of David” for the first time in the Gospel
of Matthew 12, 23, only after this revelation of God the Father on Jesus as “o]n h'|re,tisa” in 12, 18; J. R. C.
COUSLAND, The Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew, Leiden, Boston, Koln, Brill, 2002, (NovTSup., CII), p.
191.
86
J. A. Robinson refers 1 Enoch 37 – 71, where "the chosen one", "Son of God", "the chosen" could be seen as
messianic designations and are interchangeable. But this association does not confirm the linguistic
interchangeability between “the beloved” and “the chosen one”. See John A. ROBINSON, St Paul's Epistles to
the Ephesians: A Revised Text and Translation with Exposition and Notes, Macmillan, London, 1904, pp. 229 –
233.
23
“the chosen” and “the beloved”87. According to Tassin the term avgaphto,j is an apt choice for
the Hebrew yrIyxib. and of o` evklekto.j in the Septuagint. So the view of Robinson who argues for
the interchangeability between o` avgaphto,j and o` evklekto.j cannot be recommended, rather it
points towards a Matthean redaction and intent.
The presence of the term avgaphto,j Mt 12, 18 is often explained by the influence of
the narrative of baptism (3, 17) and of transfiguration (17, 5)88. In general, o` avgaphto,j is
accepted as a designation of a messianic figure. There arises a question here: what biblical
text echoes the New Testament? In other words, what is the source of the narrative of the
baptism and the transfiguration? We shall consider again the heavenly proclamation in Mt 3,
17. We can notice an intertwining of Ps 2, 7 uiò.j mou, Gen 22, 2 o` avgaphto,j and Is 42, 1 evn w-|
euvdo,khsa. There are differences of opinion in selecting the text: there are some who opt for Ps
2 and a majority argues for Is 42, 189. This second solution seems to be preferable, because
the syntactic form of Mt 3, 17 is best explained by Is 42, 1, and its content is conceived as a
succession of interpretative levels through a hermeneutic analogy from Is 42, 1.
On the other hand, we find the word avgaphto,j in Gen 22, 2 in connection with Isaac.
Matthew’s selection also can be influenced by this verse90 presenting Jesus in the line of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and emphasizing his intensive filial relationship to the Father. In
this verse, avgaphto,j is pronounced by a voice that comes from the heavens as in the scenes of
baptism and transfiguration. Isaac is avgaphto,j because he submitted himself with confidence
to the will of his father Abraham. Matthew would thus have us see a Jesus who carries out the
87
The position of J. A. Robinson is criticized by E. Lohse, who said that the Targum underestimates the
designation and is coloured by its anti-Christian rhetoric (Eduard LOHSE, “uiò.j” in TDNT, VIII, p.362).
88
Mt 17, 5; Mk 9, 7 and 2 P 1, 17.
89
On the origin of the title o` avgaphto,j: the more popular concern is the Targum of Ps 2, 7 (Herbert George
WOOD (ed.), “The Baptism of Jesus”, in Amicitiae Corolla, A Volume of Essays Presented to James Rendell
Harris on the Occasion of his 80th Birthday, London, University Press, 1933, p. 248); Thomas Walter
MANSON, “The Old Testament in the Teachings of Jesus,” BJRL 34 (1952), pp. 323 –324; Robert Horton
GUNDRY, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel with Special Reference to the Messianic Hope,
Leiden, Brill, 1967, p. 112. Robinson's position (in Mt 12, 18 yrIßyxiB. is translated by o` avgaphto,j) is supported by
Jeremias (Joachim JEREMIAS "Παῖς (θεοῦ) im Neuen Testament" in Abba: Studien zur Neutestamentlichen
Theologie und Zeitgeschichte, Göttingen, 1966, pp. 191 – 216); by Cullmann (Oscar CULLMANN, Baptism in
the New Testament, Translated by J. K. S. REID, London, SCM Press, [SBT 1], 1969, p. 17); and by Fuller
(Reginald FULLER, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, London /Glasgow, Collins Clear - Type
Press, [FLTP], 1969, p. 170).
90
Claude TASSIN, « Matthieu‘Targumiste ?’ L’exemple de Mt 12, 18 (= Is 42, 1),» EstB 48 (1990), p. 208.
24
will of God his Father. Thus, as in the “targumic” technic, Matthew would have chosen
avgaphto,j in place of evklekto.j.
6.3.3 avpaggelei/ Will Announce
The verb avpaggellw abounds in the Septuagint, often for the hiphil ngd or acy .
According to the Evangelist, the servant “will announce” “justice” to the “nations” and the vv.
19 – 20 specify the modalities of this announcement. Matthew uses this verb eight times in his
Gospel, but in three instances it directly translates its source91; other instances92 seem to be
editorial. Here in 18c, Matthew uses the word avpaggellw to give the meaning “to announce”
and this seems to be a redactional change by Matthew93. The last part of verse 18: e[wj a'n
evkba,lh| eivj ni/koj th.n kri,sin demands a comparison with verse 20b.
6.3.4 evri,sei Will Protest
Instead of the verb kra,zw ‘cry out’ used by the Septuagint, Matthew employs evri,zw
to protest / dispute. The precise explanation of this usage remains more and more ambiguous.
According to Beaton, Matthew has altered this text for a contextual and theological purpose94.
The term evri,zw is not found elsewhere in the Gospel of Matthew and in the New Testament. It
seems therefore a deliberate redactional work of Matthew95 to present his theology of the
91
Mt 8, 33; 11, 4; 14; 12.
92
Mt 2, 8; 28, 8. 10. 11.
93
Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist, Leuven/ Paris/ Dudley/ MA, Leuven University
Press/ Uitgeverij Peeters, (BETL, CLXXIII), 2004, p. 85; Krister STENDAHL, The School of Matthew and Its
Use of the Old Testament, Philadelphia, CWK Gleerup – Lund, 1968, p.111; Claude TASSIN, « Matthieu
‘Targumiste ?’ L’exemple de Mt 12, 18 (= Is 42, 1), » EstB 48 (1990), p.210; William David DAVIES and Dale
C. ALLISON, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew 2. Commentary
on Matthew 8 – 18, The International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1991, p. 326; Daniel J.
HARRINGTON, The Gospel of Matthew, Minnesota, The Liturgical Press, 1991(SPS 1), p. 180.
94
123), 2002, p. 141.
95
Marie-Joseph LAGRANGE, Evangile selon Saint Matthieu, Paris, Gabalda, 1941, p. 239; Krister
STENDAHL, The School of Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament, Philadelphia, CWK Gleerup – Lund,
1968, pp. 111 – 112; William David DAVIES and Dale C. ALLISON, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Gospel According to Saint Matthew 2. Commentary on Matthew 8 – 18, The International Critical
Commentary, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1991, pp. 325 – 326; Daniel J. HARRINGTON, The Gospel of Matthew,
Minnesota, The Liturgical Press, 1991, (SPS 1), p. 180. But there are some who are against this view point:
Maarten J. J. MENKEN, (“The Quotation from Isaiah 42, 1 – 4 in Matthew 12, 18 – 21: Its Textual Form,” in
Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist, Leuven/ Paris/ Dudley/ MA, Leuven University
25
modest "Son–Servant". But Menken contradicts this view by saying, the theme of servant who
is meek is already well established in Isaiah and therefore not a theme newly emerging in
Matthew. Even if we find the analogies for the servant in Is 50, 6 and 53, 7, by analyzing the
context and intention of the Matthean text, we can assume that this word well clarifies the
Matthean intention and his character as a Targumist.
6.3.5 ouvk evri,sei ouvde. krauga,sei ouvde. avkou,sei
Here Matthew chose the verses, which read what the servant will not do, with three
verbs in their negative form. There is a syllabic uniformity at the end of each verb: “sei". Is
42, 2, which reads as follows: ouv kekra,xetai he will not cry, ouvde. avnh,sei nor raise tone, ouvde.
avkousqh,setai e;xw h` fwnh. auvtou/ he will not make his voice heard in the street, becomes in the
Matthean text: ouvk evri,sei ouvde. krauga,sei( ouvde. avkou,sei tij evn tai/j platei,aij th.n fwnh.n
auvtou/ he will not protest/quarrel nor cry aloud and no one will hear his voice in
places/streets. The three verbs indicate the absence of violence. Obviously, by the choice of
terms used, Matthew intended to highlight the character of Jesus as a meek and humble
servant. And this verse is parallel with v. 20: a character who does not break a bruised reed
nor extinguish a smouldering wick.
6.3.6 evkba,llw Drive out
The word evkba,llw is sometimes used in the Septuagint to render acy in hiphil96. Here
Matthew uses it instead of acy (TM) and evxoi,sei (LXX), and as we have already remarked
that this term is completely absent from Isaiah 42. In general, commentators attribute a
particularly negative force to this verb. But its use in Mt 12, 20 seems rather ambiguous and
strange: Why use a negative term to describe the victory of justice? In our analysis, Matthew
uses this word to indicate in a victorious sense. We find the same word in Mt 12, 24 ouvk
evkba,llei ta. daimo,nia for driving out demons. Similarly, Matthew clearly clarifies that it is
the action of Jesus and not the action of a demon or someone else. This verb therefore
Press/ Uitgeverij Peeters, (BETL, CLXXIII), 2004, p. 85), for him, this theme of (Servant) is already well
narrated in Isaiah in his servant hymns.
96
2 Chron 23, 14; 29, 5. 16.
26
seemingly denotes an action which indicates a positive force. In other accounts in Matthew, it
is used to indicate a goal or a positive force97. In the Gospel of Mark, it is a force of the Spirit
(Mk 1, 12). Thus along with Claude Tassin98 we can assume that the victorious tone of this
verb probably forced and influenced the translator to choose evkba,llw, more vigorous than the
hiphil equivalents of acy in the Septuagint, and under the influence of the use of this verb in
this context99.
6.3.7 eivj ni/koj Successfully
As we have observed earlier, e[wj a'n evkba,lh| eivj ni/koj th.n kri,sin is the result of a
merging100. But eivj ni/koj remains outside of this merging process : (a) the term
justice/judgment is common to the two strophes; (b) evkba,llw seems to be assumed from Is
42, 3 c and captures the idea of driving out (TM: hiphil of acy and LXX: evxoi,sei= evkfe,rw); (c)
e[wj a'n points towards LXX – Is 42, 4b and TM (d[); (d) from the lexical point of view the
phrase eivj ni/koj does not match with these two strophes from Is 42, 3 and 42, 4 (TM and
LXX), even though the preposition eivj refers to Is 42, 3c (eivj avlh,qeian). eivj ni/koj expresses a
duration or an outcome, a victory. According to Claude Tassin, since the use of eivj ni/koj
could not be justified by the lexicon, its insertion is to be explained as the result of the
reasoning of the Evangelist: the servant will announce the justice/judgment to the nations,
until the triumph of this justice/judgment101.
The literary translation of eivj ni/koj does not give us a meaning of in or until the
victory, but rather with success (cf. 2 Jeremiah 3, 5; Amos 1, 11; 8, 7)102. In this Matthean
context also we prefer this translation, because it shows the modality of the triumph of justice
“kri,sij” by a meek “Son–Servant”.
97
Mt 12, 35 et 13, 52.
98
Claude TASSIN, « Matthieu ‘Targumiste ?’ L’exemple de Mt 12, 18 (= Is 42, 1), » Est B 48 (1990), p. 210.
99
We can find this verb in chapters 12 and 13 of Matthew, almost four times (Mt 12, 20. 24. 35 and 13, 52)
100
Krister STENDAHL, The School of Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament, Philadelphia, CWK Gleerup –
Lund, 1968, p.113; Claude TASSIN, « Matthieu ‘Targumiste ?’ L’exemple de Mt 12, 18 (= Is 42, 1), » EstB 48
(1990), p. 210.
101
Claude TASSIN, « Matthieu ‘Targumiste ?’ L’exemple de Mt 12, 18 (= Is 42, 1),» EstB 48 (1990), p. 210.
102
According to Saint Matthew 2. Commentary on Matthew 8 – 18, The International Critical Commentary,
27
6.3.8 tw/| ovno,mati In His Name
Even if ovno,mati is not an originality of Matthew, one question remains open: why
Matthew chose the translation of the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text? He preferred
o;noma name rather than hr'AT law of the Masoretic text and e;qnh nations for ~yYIai the
coastlands. We have already seen that the original reading is that of the Masoretic text; an
author who wrote for a community which is based on Judaism has preferred the word o;noma
over hr'AT , a term which is very important and which cannot be replaced in a Jewish milieu.
The analysis of the text of Matthew shows that it is very cleverly achieved by the evangelist in
its context and theology. This topic will be discussed in our third and fourth parts.
6.4 Conclusions: Matthew “Targumist”
Thus Matthew well inserts this first ‘Servant Song’, which conveyed a strong hope for
the people of God under the burdensome ‘yoke’ of exile, in order to inculcate the same strong
hope to a ‘group’ who are in a context of controversies and under the burdensome ‘yoke’ of
the law. However, the above analysis revealed that the Matthean text differs obviously from
the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts. The changes and differences appear to be the result of
an editorial work. The Christian editor of Is 42, 1 – 4 worked on older versions of the text
with a method called “midrashic” which we have tried to describe in the above section.
The results of this analysis can be summarized thus: the text cited by Matthew does
not perfectly match with the Masoretic text nor the Septuagint, but it resembles them. Then it
is possible that Matthew made a choice among the existing textual traditions. Moreover, he
translated himself according to the “targumic” methods103of his time, but always adapting the
103
Marie-Joseph LAGRANGE, Evangile selon Saint Mathieu, Paris, Gabalda, 51941.p. 238 ; Jack Dean
KINGSBURY, Matthew : Structure, Christology, Kingdom, Philadelphia, Fortress Press,1975, p. 94; Birger
GERHARDSSON, The Mighty Acts of Jesus according to Matthew, Lund, CWK Gleerup, (Scripta Minora, 5),
1979, pp. 25 – 27; Francis Wright BEARE, The Gospel according to Matthew, San Francisco, Harper & Row,
Oxford, B. Blackwell, 1981, pp. 274 – 275; Donald J. VERSEPUT, “The Davidic Messiah and Matthew's Jewish
Christianity,” SBL Sem P., 131° Annual Meeting, November 18 – 21, 1995, Philadelphia / Pennsylvania /
Atlanta, Philadelphia Marriott / Pennsylvania Convention Center, 1996, pp. 102 – 116; William David DAVIES
and Dale C. ALLISON, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew 2.
Commentary on Matthew 8 – 18, The International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1991, pp. 323
– 324; Daniel J. HARRINGTON, The Gospel of Matthew, Collegeville, Minnesota, The Liturgical Press, 1991,
(SPS 1), pp. 180 – 181; Maarten J. J. MENKEN, “The Quotation from Isaiah 42, 1 – 4 in Matthew 12, 18 – 21:
28
textual form of the citations to the evangelical context104. Without being quite unique in this
case, Matthew proved great originality in his method of writing, especially through his use of
fulfilment quotations. Some of the techniques employed to present the mystery of Christ,
come directly from the Jewish way of reading the Scriptures. And other methods are an
original extension designed to highlight the novelty of Christianity.
The Evangelist thus gives himself the right to modify the texts of the Old Testament
basing himself on the context of the Gospel narrative. From the above analysis, certain
features of the “sitz im leben” of this text are obvious: 1. simultaneous presence of a mixed
community with Jewish and Gentile elements, which faces a crisis on the mission to the
Gentiles. 2. Knowledge of the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek. 3. A demand to live the
‘weightier matters of the Law’, and rather not to be prejudiced by mere practices and
traditions of the Law 4. Presentation of his Jesus and his Church as a continuation and
fulfilment of the Scriptures.
Thus, Matthew chooses between the Hebrew text, the Septuagint and targumic
translations – and even creates his own translation suited for his milieu, opting for that which
is best fitted for the fulfilment of the prophecies in Jesus Christ105. So, the author of the text of
Mt 12, 18 – 21, as an editor, marked by the interpretative process of his milieu, constitutes a
method of fulfilment quotations, richer than a static comparison of the literary data alone. It is
within the old Jewish exegesis and in continuity with it that Matthew elaborates his project of
the Redaction of Scripture. And it seems to classify his originality as the “Scribe become
disciple of the Kingdom of heaven..., who brings forth out of his treasure, things new and old”
(Mt 13,52).
Its Relation with the Matthean Context,” in Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist, Leuven/
Paris/ Dudley/ MA, Leuven University Press/ Uitgeverij Peeters, 2004, p. 55.
104
Selon C. Tassin, “Matthieu ne s'identifie pas totalement à un ‘targumiste’. D'abord, la traduction matthéenne
reste sobre et ne procède pas par paraphrases, lot habituel des targums. Le Targum se veut l'interprète fidèle des
traditions qui se sont développées depuis la rédaction de l'original hébreu. Telle n'est plus l'ambition du
traducteur chrétien: à lui s'offrent à présent un événement et une personne qui réorientent radicalement le
message biblique; son activité midrashique est au service de cette nouveauté : son exégèse dépend parfois de
traditions interprétatives chrétiennes déjà en vigueur et elle sollicite des textes bibliques que la seule foi en Jésus
Christ aimante entre eux. Il y a donc une réelle audace par rapport à la tradition juive. Comme si, en traduisant
l'Ancien Testament, l'évangéliste participait de cette ‘autorité’ qui, selon lui, rendait Jésus différent de ‘leurs
Scribes’ (Mt 7, 29) ”. Tassin’s differentiation between Targumist ‘Jewish’ and the Targumist ‘Christian’ seems
to be very significant to take position of matthean readaction with the later (Claude TASSIN, « Matthieu
‘Targumiste ?’ L’exemple de Mt 12, 18 (= Is 42, 1), » EstB 48 (1990), p. 213).
105
Claude TASSIN, « Matthieu ‘Targumiste ?’ L’exemple de Mt 12, 18 (= Is 42, 1), » EstB 48 (1990), p. 213.
29
Thus as Matthew as ‘Targumist’ took over Old Testament passages already known in
Christian usage, he reproduced the familiar wording. But when he was the first to apply the
Old Testament as being fulfilled in the life of Jesus, he adapted the wording to best fit his
purpose106. Even though the alteration and modification made to Isaiah’s text could be
justified by this special Matthean ‘style’ of redaction, adapting it to ‘his context, there remain
some prevalent issues: What is the significance of this quotation in the context of conflict and
controversy over the practice of the law between Jesus and the Pharisees? Three reactions
resulting from these controversies also are very relevant: the Pharisees’ plot to destroy Jesus,
Jesus’ withdrawal, the crowd following Jesus and His healing them ‘all’. Jesus’ response and
that of crowd are further underlined in the Isaian quotation such as I will announce
justice/judgment to toi/j e;qnesin to the Gentiles/Nations(12, 18). And the e;qnh
Gentiles/Nations will hope in his name (12, 21). It provokes another issue, why the Gentile
‘factor’ is an essential element in Matthean Christology and Ecclesiology?
106
Graham Norman STANTON, “The Origin and Purpose of Matthew’s Gospel: Matthean Scholarship from
1945 to 1980, in Hildegard TEMPORINI and Wolfgang HAASE, (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang de römischen
Welt, Teil II, Band 25, Teilband 3, New York/ Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, p. 1933
30

Fulfillment Quotations Introduction: Chapter 2 (MT 12, 18 - 2)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Fulfillment Quotations Introduction: Chapter 2 (MT 12, 18 - 2)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Mt 12, 18 – 21 and Is 42,1 – 4

4.1 Meaning of Is 42,1 – 4 Masoretic Text and Septuagint

4.1.1 Literary Translation of Masoretic Text

The verse from 18 – 21 is a quotation from Is 42, 1 – 4, recited by Matthew. Since Is

ABê–%m't.a, ‘yDIb.[; !hEÜ 1 Behold, my servant, whom I uphold,

4.1.2 Literary Translation of the Septuagint

Iakwb o` pai/j mou avntilh,myomai 1 Jacob my servant, I shall uphold him

As a joint summary to the translation of Masoretic Text and Septuagint, we can

The consideration of J. Koenig, based on Ziegler’s opinion that the Septuagint of Is

5.3 Literary Translation of Mt 12, 15 – 21

18 "Behold, My “Son–Servant” whom I

19 He will not quarrel, nor cry out; Nor will

21 kai. tw/| ovno,mati auvtou/ e;qnh evlpiou/sinÅ

5.4 Immediate Context

5.4.1Wisdom Invitation and Passages on Sabbath

5.4.2 Controversy Passages

5.4.2.1 First Controversy Story Mt 12, 1 – 8

Bultmann29 calls these two pericopes dealing with Sabbath controversies

Hos 6, 6 is taken from a whole Oracle of the prophet Hos 6, 1 – 6. When we

5.4.2.2 Second Controversy Story Mt 12, 9 – 13

5.4.3 The Plot to Destroy and Jesus’ Withdrawal 12, 14 – 16

5.4.3.1 Order “not to Make Him Known”

5.5 Isaiah 42, 1 – 4 and Mt 12, 18 – 21: A Bird’s Eye View

Mt 12, 18 –21 LXX Is 42, 1 –4 MT Is 42, 1– 4

18 ivdou. o` pai/j mou o]n 1 Iakwb o` pai/j mou yDIb.[; !hEÜ

2 ouv kekra,xetai q[;c.yI al

4 avnala,myei kai. ouv hh,k.yI al{

The Moulding and Conflation of the Quotation by Matthew

Matthew adopts Isaiah’s quotation (42, 1 – 4) in a polemical context to present his

We have detected a number of terms typical of Matthew. We propose to

6.3.1 o]n h'|re,tisa Whom I Chose.

6.3.2 o` avgaphto,j mou My Beloved

6.3.3 avpaggelei/ Will Announce

6.3.4 evri,sei Will Protest

6.3.5 ouvk evri,sei ouvde. krauga,sei ouvde. avkou,sei

6.3.6 evkba,llw Drive out

6.3.7 eivj ni/koj Successfully

6.4 Conclusions: Matthew “Targumist”

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen