R.T. France - The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT)

[Ploutos]

Pg. 8:

"[Matthew's five discourses] are not so much transcripts of actual sermons as anthologies of the remembered sayings of Jesus organized around some of the central themes of his ministry."

Pg. 155, on the "Sermon on the Mount":

"This discourse is thus properly described as an anthology of the teaching of Jesus relating to discipleship, compiled by Matthew into his own distinctive structure... but aiming to provide an overview of the authoritative teaching of the Messiah himself."

I am initially uncomfortable with this view of the Matthean discourses, as it seems to place too much separation between the historical reality and what is written. I can grant that Biblical narrative is often not chronological and that speeches are not given to us as a verbatim recounting of the event. But this highly "synthetic" view reminds me of absurdities like the "JEDP" theory and presents me with a picture of Matthew sitting with a list of Messianic one-liners, figuring out how to make something coherent of them. It seems to make Matthew more the author of this sermon than Jesus. I prefer to think that, at least as regards the Sermon on the Mount (yes, I know Dr. France calls it by a different name), that it is a summary of an actual historical sermon that Jesus gave, and that it presents the teaching as Jesus himself presented it in that sermon, organized in the way Jesus organized it. Whether or not it's the same event that Luke records - well, in three years of ministry it's quite plausible that Jesus presented the same teaching on multiple occasions.

Thoughts? Am I being too skeptical of him here? I'm still early on in my journey through this commentary; so far I really appreciate Dr. France's honesty about his approach and his willingness to buck the higher-critic consensus on other issues like the dating of Matthew rather than uncritically going along.

 

[MW]

Thoughts? Am I being too skeptical of him here? I'm still early on in my journey through this commentary; so far I really appreciate Dr. France's honesty about his approach and his willingness to buck the higher-critic consensus on other issues like the dating of Matthew rather than uncritically going along.

I don't think it falls into the category of the documentary hypothesis or higher criticism since it grants Matthean (apostolic) authorship. Like that hypothesis, though, different literary units can be identified. They key is to see them as a literary unity. I think the five teaching blocks equivalent to the five books of Moses is a little too "nice," as Calvin might put it. You are right to be concerned for the historical context of the narrative. That can easily be overlooked. Issues will arise as you go through the commentary, especially concerning the duplication of material in other gospels. There can be a tendency among scholars to suppose that similar sayings or actions are actually different accounts of the same thing, whereas it is perfectly reasonable to suppose the duplication of events and sayings. Any time spent in the ministry will make this evident. I can't recall Dr. France's position on this.

 

[Ploutos]

I don't think it falls into the category of the documentary hypothesis or higher criticism since it grants Matthean (apostolic) authorship. Like that hypothesis, though, different literary units can be identified. They key is to see them as a literary unity. I think the five teaching blocks equivalent to the five books of Moses is a little too "nice," as Calvin might put it. You are right to be concerned for the historical context of the narrative. That can easily be overlooked. Issues will arise as you go through the commentary, especially concerning the duplication of material in other gospels. There can be a tendency among scholars to suppose that similar sayings or actions are actually different accounts of the same thing, whereas it is perfectly reasonable to suppose the duplication of events and sayings. Any time spent in the ministry will make this evident. I can't recall Dr. France's position on this.

Sure - I meant specifically with regard to the view of the Matthean discourses as given in his quotes. He seems to be saying that Matthew put together quotes without regard to when or where Jesus said them, so long as they advance the point Matthew is trying to make. That might be a slightly hyperbolic presentation of his point but at any rate it seems too "synthetic" to me - as if I went through every post of @RamistThomist and picked out everything he said about Christology, put it in a book, and published it with his name. "I sat down with him today and here is what he had to say about Christ to me and the other people in the room."

 

[MW]

as if I went through every post of @RamistThomist and picked out everything he said about Christology, put it in a book, and published it with his name. "I sat down with him today and here is what he had to say about Christ to me and the other people in the room."

If you did that we wouldn't see you again for a long time.

I agree with you that there is a major problem with historically decontextualising the sayings of Jesus. This is called redaction criticism. I've never been comfortable with it; and yet, from a historical point of view, the Evangelists have collected and selected material with a view to making a specific presentation of Jesus with discernible themes running through each of their books.

 

[Ploutos]

Do you think the Sermon on the Mount was a real and particular historical event at which Jesus presented the teachings that Matthew summarizes in Matthew 5-7? Possibly according to the same general outline Matthew follows in those chapters?

 

[RamistThomist]

as if I went through every post of @RamistThomist and picked out everything he said about Christology, put it in a book, and published it with his name.

Anything after 2009 and I give you permission.

 

[Ploutos]

Anything after 2009 and I give you permission.

 

[MW]

Do you think the Sermon on the Mount was a real and particular historical event at which Jesus presented the teachings that Matthew summarizes in Matthew 5-7? Possibly according to the same general outline Matthew follows in those chapters?

Yes, and have preached on it accordingly, regarding it as a different sermon to that delivered on the plain.

 

[Ploutos]

Yes, and have preached on it accordingly, regarding it as a different sermon to that delivered on the plain.

Then that's generally the view I have held in my uneducated status as a layman. It seems to me that Dr. France's view is quite different.

 

[arapahoepark]

Pg. 8:

Pg. 155, on the "Sermon on the Mount":


I am initially uncomfortable with this view of the Matthean discourses, as it seems to place too much separation between the historical reality and what is written. I can grant that Biblical narrative is often not chronological and that speeches are not given to us as a verbatim recounting of the event. But this highly "synthetic" view reminds me of absurdities like the "JEDP" theory and presents me with a picture of Matthew sitting with a list of Messianic one-liners, figuring out how to make something coherent of them. It seems to make Matthew more the author of this sermon than Jesus. I prefer to think that, at least as regards the Sermon on the Mount (yes, I know Dr. France calls it by a different name), that it is a summary of an actual historical sermon that Jesus gave, and that it presents the teaching as Jesus himself presented it in that sermon, organized in the way Jesus organized it. Whether or not it's the same event that Luke records - well, in three years of ministry it's quite plausible that Jesus presented the same teaching on multiple occasions.

Thoughts? Am I being too skeptical of him here? I'm still early on in my journey through this commentary; so far I really appreciate Dr. France's honesty about his approach and his willingness to buck the higher-critic consensus on other issues like the dating of Matthew rather than uncritically going along.

I know what you mean. It follows the conventions of the day however. When I read Luke for instance, he does very similar things albeit not necessarily all into one single discourse, though he has it. They are lumped up typically by theme and it emphasizes certain things Jesus has done or foreshadowing what he will do.
I don't have a problem with it. I have Keener's Christobiography. I will look into it for you. I know Mike Licona has written a similar book (and has another one due out soon) but unlike Keener he's a rather hesitant, if he is at all, inerrantist.

 

[Ploutos]

I know what you mean. It follows the conventions of the day however. When I read Luke for instance, he does very similar things albeit not necessarily all into one single discourse, though he has it. They are lumped up typically by theme and it emphasizes certain things Jesus has done or foreshadowing what he will do.
I don't have a problem with it. I have Keener's Christobiography. I will look into it for you. I know Mike Licona has written a similar book (and has another one due out soon) but unlike Keener he's a rather hesitant, if he is at all, inerrantist.

I just don't understand the necessity of arguing that Matthew put together the speech as a pastiche, when Jesus could have easily given that speech on that topic organized on that fashion - no real great leap of faith or suspension of disbelief required.

 

[arapahoepark]

I just don't understand the necessity of arguing that Matthew put together the speech as a pastiche, when Jesus could have easily given that speech on that topic organized on that fashion - no real great leap of faith or suspension of disbelief required.

Academicese I suppose.

 

[Ploutos]

It would have been nice if I remembered to state this in the opening post, but I am planning to post in this thread with thoughts and questions that I have as I work my way through R.T. France's NICNT commentary on Matthew. While I am reading it alongside Matthew Henry's commentary, and occasionally consulting other sources, I will restrict posts here to matters directly pertaining to Dr. France's commentary.

As always, I really benefit from the input I get, for those who have time to answer any questions I might post here. I learn a lot (and it often keeps me in check when my thoughts start to wander in questionable directions!).

 

[Ploutos]

Pg. 44:

While angels and dreams are not a common feature of Matthew's gospel, they are no more out of the ordinary than the healings, exorcisms, and nature miracles which occur throughout the story, and a virginal conception is hardly more miraculous than a physical resurrection. A philosophy which rules out such happenings will have equally great problems with the whole of the gospel tradition (and, one might add, with the essence of Christian faith), and it is not obvious why these chapters should be singled out for suspicion on this ground.

Emphasis mine.

No particular question here - I just appreciate hearing this perspective from an academic "modern" commentary. Earlier in this commentary, Dr. France noted that he rejects the hermeneutic of suspicion which characterizes much modern scholarship on Scripture. It's nice to see him put some teeth to that statement by indirectly calling out the inconsistency of those who attempt to analyze Christianity under the pretense of objectivity and interest while discarding its most fundamental and integral tenets.

 

[Ploutos]

Pg. 46, n. 13 - dealing with Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ vs. Τοῦ δὲ χριστοῦ in the manuscripts (note that due to lack of proficiency with a Greek keyboard layout, I haven't copied out his accents completely):

I have followed the reading Τοῦ δὲ χριστοῦ, supported by all the early Latin and Syriac versions (which were translated before our earliest Greek MSS were written), against the reading Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, found in all Greek MSS[...] The definite article with the combination Ἰησοῦς χριστος reads awkwardly, and occurs nowhere else in the NT, whereas it is normal with χριστος alone. It is much more likely that the familiar term Ἰησοῦς χριστος would be introduced in place of an original χριστος than that the early Latin and Syriac tradition would consistently remove the name "Jesus".

The full footnote shows that there are two components to Dr. France's choice: the manuscript tradition and the internal evidence. It is his approach to the manuscript tradition that struck me.

Part of the reason I can't throw my weight behind the CT approach more broadly, and more specifically behind the idea of giving disproportionate weight to the age of a surviving manuscript, is that it belies an implicit and maybe even unintentional hubris. It conflates the available body of manuscripts with the actual body of manuscripts. It would work well as an approach if we had every ancient manuscript, or a completely representative pool of surving manuscripts from which to choose (think affirmative-action quotas, only for NT manuscripts). But we don't.

The simplicity and "common-sense" nature of Dr. France's argument is such that it surprises me that this type of reasoning is not more common. A newer manuscript or body of manuscripts may point to a manuscript older than any currently extant. The existence of a large number of manuscripts following a now-lost manuscript may, and in my mind should, hold as a reliable indicator that the manuscript tradition they follow was widely deemed as being a reliable and authoritative one. In that case, the "missing" manuscript behind that tradition could credibly be given more weight than surviving manuscripts of comparable age.

I can't knowledgeably argue much beyond that basic premise. Dr. France's reasoning just strikes me as a good example of the type of argument that leads me to incline more toward the Byzantine tradition and a MT-ish approach. I'm not arguing that the Byzantine text is monolithic or that a specific English translation is the best representation of that. When you have a body of Latin and Syriac manuscripts older than the oldest Greek ones, it makes sense, especially in light of the internal evidence arguments provided, to give more weight to that reading. And as an extension of that line of argument, if you have hundreds of manuscripts across a few centuries and geographical areas all largely agreeing - to discard them in favor of a very small number of older MS might not be prudent.

 

[Ploutos]

Any thoughts on the textual criticism issue are welcome - in particular, if there are any "common sense" or otherwise obvious arguments that I might be missing that would weigh AGAINST Dr. France's opinion or reasoning.

 

[Ploutos]

Dr. France has some fascinating insights into the story of the Magi.

Pg. 61-2:

Most obviously, the visit of foreign dignitaries to Jerusalem to see the son of David recalls the story of the Queen of Sheba (1 Kgs 10:1-10)[...] as well as other OT passages which take her visit and gifts as a model for the future glory of the Messiah (Ps 72:10-11,150[...]).

This was an interesting parallel that I hadn't thought of before. My mind is further drawn to the idea of Solomon as a type of Christ in thinking about Proverbs 8. Foreign powers were drawn from the ends of the earth to see Solomon because of his wisdom. In Proverbs 8, Christ is spoken of as Wisdom personified, with Solomon himself writing about that of which he was merely a type.

Pg. 62:

Thirdly, the likely influence of Balaam's prophecy suggests that perhaps Balaam himself, the man who "saw" the messianic star rise (Num 24:15-17), may also be in mind as a model for the magi[...] He, like them, was a non-Israelite "holy man" and "visionary" from the East[...] He, like the magi, was pressurized by a king (Balak) intent on destroying the true people of God, but refused to cooperate and instead took the side of God's people.

France states elsewhere (see p. 65, n. 24) that some carry this parallel farther and view the magi "not as positive witnesses but as opponents of true religion who are here depicted as bowing in (reluctant) submission to the conquering Messiah". France himself does not endorse this view (see p. 67, n. 35), but the parallel between the star here and in Num. 24 is new to me.

I have read somewhere* of a tradition that states that Daniel's messianic prophecies were passed on to subsequent generations of Babylonian or Persian sages, and it was through study of Daniel's prophecies, or a later iteration of them, that the magi were led to head westward to see the Messiah. I don't know how one could prove this one way or the other.

*I can't remember where, so if someone is able to help me out with a source, I'd be very thankful!

 

[Ploutos]

Dr. France provides some new (to me) insights on how we approach NT quotations of the OT and also on our own meditation and study of Scripture as he discusses Matthew's quotation of Micah 5:2 in Matthew 2:6.

Pg. 73:

In a number of ways, therefore, Matthew has adapted Micah's words to suit what he can now see to be their fulfillment, and to advance his argument for the scriptural justification of the Messiah's origins. This relatively free and creative handling of the text (not unlike that found in contemporary Aramaic targums) differs little from the practice of many modern preachers who, if not reading directly out of the Bible, will often (probably quite unconsciously) quote a text in an adapted form which helps the audience to see how the text relates to the argument. No one is misled, and the hermeneutical procedure is well understood.

What Dr. France doesn't reference is the idea of the Spirit-granted authority that NT writers possessed in quoting and interpreting Scripture. Just because the NT writers freely paraphrased OT passages and gave typological and sometimes less-obvious interpretations does not mean we have free license to do the same. Aramaic targums and patristic allegorizations are not inspired nor are the practices and methods inherently authoritative outside of the direct inspiration at work in the writing of the NT.

Nonetheless, I have many times, in my own Bible reading and discussions, had the experience where one verse or passage will bring another strongly to mind. I would then locate that passage only to find that it didn't say exactly, word-for-word, what I thought it said - yet it was a valid rendering of the sense of the passage and the allusion still seemed to hold, albeit not being as verbally close or exact.

Not being an inspired writer of Scripture, or even an ordained minister, or even formally trained theologically, I of course have to hold any such thoughts and comparisons up against the light of Scripture, and any conclusions drawn need to be in accord with the teachings of our creeds and confessions. Nonetheless, it was still interesting to see Dr. France describe a process which I had long chalked up to nothing more than a bad memory or an overly-free imagination. After reading this passage, I don't think I need to feel guilty about that mental process anymore.

This also gives me some new insight into some of the more challenging OT references in the NT, such as the quotation of Ps 68 in Eph 4 - I feel as if the puzzle of why Paul would have exchanged a word for its exact opposite has been made somewhat simpler.

 

[arapahoepark]

Dr. France provides some new (to me) insights on how we approach NT quotations of the OT and also on our own meditation and study of Scripture as he discusses Matthew's quotation of Micah 5:2 in Matthew 2:6.

Pg. 73:


What Dr. France doesn't reference is the idea of the Spirit-granted authority that NT writers possessed in quoting and interpreting Scripture. Just because the NT writers freely paraphrased OT passages and gave typological and sometimes less-obvious interpretations does not mean we have free license to do the same. Aramaic targums and patristic allegorizations are not inspired nor are the practices and methods inherently authoritative outside of the direct inspiration at work in the writing of the NT.

Nonetheless, I have many times, in my own Bible reading and discussions, had the experience where one verse or passage will bring another strongly to mind. I would then locate that passage only to find that it didn't say exactly, word-for-word, what I thought it said - yet it was a valid rendering of the sense of the passage and the allusion still seemed to hold, albeit not being as verbally close or exact.

Not being an inspired writer of Scripture, or even an ordained minister, or even formally trained theologically, I of course have to hold any such thoughts and comparisons up against the light of Scripture, and any conclusions drawn need to be in accord with the teachings of our creeds and confessions. Nonetheless, it was still interesting to see Dr. France describe a process which I had long chalked up to nothing more than a bad memory or an overly-free imagination. After reading this passage, I don't think I need to feel guilty about that mental process anymore.

This also gives me some new insight into some of the more challenging OT references in the NT, such as the quotation of Ps 68 in Eph 4 - I feel as if the puzzle of why Paul would have exchanged a word for its exact opposite has been made somewhat simpler.

I thought it was this thread but it looks like I am mistaken. I read something recently, and now it's bugging me that I don't remember where, that said Matthew built the Gospel around 5 or 6 OT fulfillments and they were emphatic that they weren't taken out of context.

 

[Ploutos]

"Fulfillment" is France's one-word summary for the driving force behind Matthew's gospel. But I don't think he's said exactly what you're referencing. Though, now I'm curious!

 

[MW]

What Dr. France doesn't reference is the idea of the Spirit-granted authority that NT writers possessed in quoting and interpreting Scripture. Just because the NT writers freely paraphrased OT passages and gave typological and sometimes less-obvious interpretations does not mean we have free license to do the same. Aramaic targums and patristic allegorizations are not inspired nor are the practices and methods inherently authoritative outside of the direct inspiration at work in the writing of the NT.

Dr. France was reflecting a fairly standard evangelical viewpoint of the time. It is more in the line of apologetic than hermeneutic. We've since had some major contributions on the NT use of the OT, and that has brought out some major biblical-theological insights, including a tighter view of typology. Beale's Handbook on this is very useful.

I find the concept of "the fulness of the time" to be quite important for limiting what the NT writers were doing. It is not that they are stretching the OT to make it apply to Jesus. They were effectively writing in terms of retrospection. As Peter says in Acts 2, "this is that." Readers of the NT need to be aware that the "last times" is not a future category but a present reality for the 1st century. They are "these" last times, reflecting an OT eschatology.

 

[Ploutos]

Dr. France was reflecting a fairly standard evangelical viewpoint of the time. It is more in the line of apologetic than hermeneutic. We've since had some major contributions on the NT use of the OT, and that has brought out some major biblical-theological insights, including a tighter view of typology. Beale's Handbook on this is very useful.

I find the concept of "the fulness of the time" to be quite important for limiting what the NT writers were doing. It is not that they are stretching the OT to make it apply to Jesus. They were effectively writing in terms of retrospection. As Peter says in Acts 2, "this is that." Readers of the NT need to be aware that the "last times" is not a future category but a present reality for the 1st century. They are "these" last times, reflecting an OT eschatology.

Thank you for these thoughts. Can you elaborate on the "standard" view that he is holding to? And do more recent developments supplement or supplant his viewpoint?

 

[MW]

Possibly the best I can do is say that the older view was a little light on typology and a little heavy on over-emphasising grammatico-historic exegesis. I say that without wanting to disparage the need we have for both. But so far as the way this impacted their view of the NT writers it seems they found them wanting so far as the "literal" sense of Scripture is concerned, and so had to have recourse to the miracle of "new revelation" to explain what they were doing. As far as I can see new revelation is a revelation of something that exists. It either exists or it doesn't; and it is either a fulfilment of what was expected in the OT or it isn't. New revelation does not itself explain the pheonomena in what the NT writers did. We are bound to include the typological in the "literal" sense of Scripture, and not confine it to grammatico-historic exegesis.

 

[Ploutos]

My assessment of what France is saying so far is that Matthew is freely handling the OT to further his idea of fulfillment. This is consistent with his emphasis in Matthew's free organization of disparate materials into the discourses - it's all about Matthew creatively assembling his gospel with a looser approach to historicity than I'd care for. He does point out - and heavily emphasizes - OT types for what happens in Matthew: Balaam, Solomon, etc. While he doesn't so far give explicit mention to the inspiration of the Spirit, he does state that Matthew freely goes beyond the intent of the original authors. This is well in line with a sound doctrine of inspiration and with 1 Peter 1 and to me a welcome relief from the tyranny of authorial intent. But, on the flip side, by not mentioning the work of the Spirit explicitly, he gives the impression that this is all Matthew's work, as opposed to Matthew's inspired description of God's sovereign hand over all the historical types and parallels which he describes. Matthew may be going beyond the author's intent but he is well within the OTHER author's intent.

That said, given France's emphasis on fulfillment and the plethora of OT tie-ins that he draws into his discussion, can you describe what you mean by "light on topology"? Maybe I don't understand the proper use or meaning of that word.

 

[MW]

It has been too long since I read France on Matthew to be able to give anything like a fair assessment of him in particular. Dealing with Matthew you are nearly forced to handle typology to some degree. It presents the life of Jesus as a recapitulation of Israel in order to show us Israel's true king, the son of David the son of Abraham. I can't recall if France takes up this metanarrative. You are in a better position to do this. I would only remark that these kinds of typological themes are essential for grasping the writer's understanding of the OT. It is what Christ is, as the all in all, which gives the inspired writer a proper retrospect to interpret Israel's history and the prophetic word. And we basically follow their lead.

 

[Ploutos]

Thank you for your thoughts, @MW . This is my first time reading through a serious exegetical commentary cover to cover, so I bring a lot of ignorance to the table as I try to glean insights (of which there are many!) while sifting out elements of a higher-critical approach. But I don't want to dismiss, out of ignorance or unwarranted suspicion, what may be excellent thoughts on the text.

 

[MW]

You are doing an excellent job in sifting through the material. NICOT/NT is a good series to do this with. It falls within your standard evangelical scholarship leaning in a conservative direction. At the same time from a conservative reformed point of view it leaves a little to be desired; but this just presents an opportunity to sharpen one's own thinking.

 

[Ploutos]

Dr. France discusses the phenomenon of the "star" of Bethlehem.

Pg. 69 (emphasis mine):

Despite the fascination of astronomical explanations, it may in the end be more appropriate to interpret Matt 2:9 as describing not a regular astronomical occurence but the miraculous provision of what appeared to be a star which uniquely moved and then stopped (or at least which appeared to observers on the ground to do so), though of course there is no improbability in a natural astronomical phenomenon being the basis on which the magi made their initial deductions[...]

Pg. 74:

[...]their extravagantly expressed joy (see p. 60, n. 9) is hard to explain unless the star somehow indicated the actual house rather than just the village as a whole. It seems, then, that the star's movement gave them the final supernatural direction they needed to the specific house "where the child was."

How refreshing these thoughts were to me! Here I really feel the force of Dr. France's goal (referencing the notes on the dust jacket) that this not be a "commentary on commentaries" but rather one that seeks to draw out the meaning from the text itself - true exegesis. I don't always sense that he hits the mark, but here he does. Of course, Scripture does not give us crystal clear certainty that the star was some miraculous phenomenon, but how easy it would be to de-mythologize the story. Instead, he shows from the text itself that this must be allowed as a distinct possibility - and one which, to read between the lines, he himself rather seems to favor. "The text says it; who am I to argue?" I can hear him saying.

 

[Ploutos]

Pg. 81:

As usual, Matthew's christological interpretation consists not of exegesis of what the text quoted meant in its original context, but of a far-reaching theological argument which takes the OT text and locates it within an over-arching scheme of fulfillment which finds in Jesus the end point of numerous prophetic trajectories.

To this I would only add the idea - for which his statements pose no problem whatsoever and of which the omission is therefore not a serious problem for me now that I am growing accustomed to his approach - that Matthew's gospel, though it has a different author than the OT prophecies to which he alludes, also has the same author.

I could simply say "Amen". The prophets themselves longed to see and understand more deeply that of which they wrote, and of its fulfillment. David himself sensed in Psalm 16 that he spoke of something beyond the ordinary. Who knows whether Matthew himself even fully understood what he was writing as he saw in these OT prophecies things that the authors themselves only glimpsed through a glass darkly? For all Dr. France's talk about Matthew weaving this and that together and Matthew's agenda - it is not Matthew, but the Holy Spirit, who is the weaver of this tapestry.

 

[Ploutos]

NICOT/NT is a good series to do this with. It falls within your standard evangelical scholarship leaning in a conservative direction. At the same time from a conservative reformed point of view it leaves a little to be desired; but this just presents an opportunity to sharpen one's own thinking.

Thank you! That's a really helpful overview of the series.