Oral Transmission and the Dream Narratives of Matthew 1–2

An Exploration of Matthean Culture Using Memory Techniques

Alistair N. Shaw

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN:
  9781532670343
  9781532670350
• eBook ISBN:
  9781532670367
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

The first Gospel has traditionally been considered a very Jewish work. Recent scholarship has suggested some Hellenistic influence. The issue is explored in this work with attention focused on the dream narratives of the first two chapters. An investigation is carried out using a new methodology. The memory techniques used in an oral or semi-literate society are explored. A search is made for such techniques in Matthew and these are then compared with similar devices in a wide range of literature, Old Testament, contemporary Jewish, Greek and Roman. The intention is that literary practice should help to clarify the cultural setting in which Matthew functions. This is a work which will interest New Testament scholars with a focus on Gospel studies and oral transmission. It may also appeal to some classical scholars or those with a specialized interest in Josephus.

1

The Problem

Introduction

The aim of this monograph is to try and clarify where Matthew stands in relation to his cultural background. The task will be carried out through examination of the dream narratives in the first two chapters of the gospel and comparison of these with dream narratives in the OT, contemporary Jewish writings, as well as Greek and Roman literature.

It is now widely accepted through the writing of Martin Hengel that by the first century CE Judaism was subject to significant Hellenistic influence.1 This being so, we may expect Matthew to reflect the intermingling of Judaism and Hellenism. What is being proposed here is an attempt to see whether aspects of one of the underlying cultural traditions is more evident in Matthew’s work.

Some clarification of terms would be helpful at this stage. “Culture” has a wide range of meanings, but we shall be using it in the sense of “literary practice.”2 Although this may carry wider implications, we shall be drawing our conclusions from the use of devices used in oral and written communication. We have become increasingly aware of just how complex Judaism was in the first century CE. The Qumran scrolls have indicated a real diversity of beliefs and practices. However, there was a common set of Scriptures and it is these that will play an important role here in the representation of Judaism.

It seems that Matthew was aiming his gospel at a readership whose first or only language was Greek, for that is the language of his gospel. It is clear that sufficient numbers of them did not understand Hebrew as to make it necessary for him to render Hebrew expressions such as “Immanuel” into Greek. At 1:23 he quotes Isa 7:14 where the coming child is to be called Ἐμμανουήλ (אל עמנו). He duly renders this as μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός (“God with us”).3 This may suggest that Matthew himself was sufficiently comfortable with Hebrew to make that translation, but we cannot be certain, for it is equally possible that he may have used someone else’s translation.4 We also have the instance of 2:15 where he wants to identify Jesus with Israel as God’s son, quoting Hosea 11:1, “Out of Egypt have I called my son.” There he carefully avoids the Septuagint rendering: καὶ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου μετεκάλεσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ (“and out of Egypt have I called his children”). Although it is possible that he used a different Greek translation, no longer extant, it seems to me more likely that he may have rendered himself the Hebrew לבני קראתי וממצרים. If this is correct, it may suggest some Hebraic influence in his background.

The way in which we propose to explore Matthew’s cultural background is through an examination of the dream narratives in his account of Jesus’s infancy. There are six dreams referred to in Matthew’s gospel (Matt 1:20–25; 2:12, 13–15, 19–21, 22; 27:19). They all use the expression κατ’ ὄναρ, “in a dream,” a phrase that is found nowhere else in NT and indeed not at all in LXX. However, it does occur in classical writings and is frequent in later Greek.5 The last of Matthew’s dreams comes near the end of the gospel at 27:19.6 It was experienced by Pilate’s wife and made such a significant impact upon her that she interrupted her husband’s official duties to warn him in relation to “that righteous (δικαίῳ) man.” We will concentrate here on the remaining five dreams, which are all to be found in the infancy narrative. Two are narrated in outline without any detail. Both issue warnings, the first at 2:12 urging the Magi not to return to Herod and the second at 2:22 leading Joseph to settle in Galilee. The other three involve an appearance of an angel of the Lord who issues Joseph with commands. At 1:20 Joseph is told not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife and to name her child Jesus. In the next two he is told to take the child and his mother with the aim of fleeing to Egypt at 2:13, and of returning to the land of Israel at 2.20. Although the dream references at 2:12 and 2:22 will be taken into account, more attention will be focused on the fuller dream narratives at 1:20–25; 2:13–15, 19–21.

The Contribution of Others

Examination of these narratives has already been carried out by others, most notably Raymond Brown, George Soares Prabhu, Robert Gnuse and Derek Dodson.7 While the first three see an OT background to the dream narratives, Dodson interprets them in light of the conventions of Greco-Roman literature.

In The Birth of the Messiah Brown comprehensively covers the infancy narratives of both Matthew and Luke. He takes the view that the dreams in Matthew may have been inspired by the dreams of Joseph in Genesis 37; 40–41.8 His argument is based on certain facts: first the father of Jesus was called Joseph and little seems to have been known about him; secondly Joseph was also the name of a famous patriarch in Genesis, who experienced dreams and had an ability to interpret them; furthermore the patriarch Joseph went down to Egypt, as Jesus’s father did, and was involved with the Egyptian ruler, the Pharaoh. However, the parallels are not exact. While it is said that an angel appeared, we are told nothing about what Jesus’s father saw and so his dreams were largely auditory, while those of the patriarch were visual. The former did not interpret dreams—he simply acted upon their message. The patriarch did not travel to Egypt to escape trouble—he was taken there as a slave, sold by his brothers.9 The Pharaoh with whom he dealt was a benevolent figure. On the other hand, the father of each Joseph is called Jacob (Gen 35:22–26; Matt 1:16). Moreover, in Genesis 45 Joseph was responsible for Israel travelling to Egypt to escape a crisis, in this case fami...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Chapter 1: The Problem
• Chapter 2: Orality
• Chapter 3: Memory
• Chapter 4: Methodology
• Chapter 5: Dreams
• Chapter 6: Matthew
• Chapter 7: Comparison of Memory Patterns
• Chapter 8: Conclusion
• Bibliography