23. About referring to Jesus as a teacher, Riesner (“Jesus as Preacher and Teacher,” 185) claims, “It seems not too risky to assume that this was quite the way in which many contemporaries could have looked at Jesus.” All four times when Jesus uses “teacher,” he speaks to his disciples (10:24, 25; 23:8; 26:17–18). Jesus never speaks of himself directly as a teacher except to the disciples. However, outsiders also identify Jesus as a teacher twice to his disciples (9:10–11; 17:24).
24. Josephus (Ant. 18.63) writes, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, . . . a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.” Early church fathers also recognized the emphasis on teaching in Matthew’s Gospel. Ignatius said in To the Ephesians 15.1, “There is then one teacher who spoke and it came to pass.” Clement of Alexandria said, “God’s first begotten Son, through whom God created all things and whom all prophets call Wisdom, is the teacher of all created beings” (Strom. 6.58.1).
25. Celia Deutsch (“Wisdom in Matthew,” 46) argues that as wisdom is hidden and revealed, so too Jesus presents the secrets of the kingdom of heaven; as wisdom is a teacher who says her yoke is light, so too Jesus calls followers to discipleship; as wisdom is a prophet calling people to come to her and providing warnings, so does Jesus; as wisdom has agents through whom she works, so Jesus sends prophets, wise men, and scribes.
26. Many of these categories could even be combined. The error is to separate them.
27. See Dunn’s fivefold argument for Jesus as a teacher of wisdom. Dunn, “Jesus: Teacher of Wisdom or Wisdom Incarnate?,” 82–85.
28. For an overview of Jesus as teacher and sage, see Keener, Historical Jesus of the Gospels, 186–95. John Yieh (One Teacher, 327) says, “My literary critical study of the Gospel has shown that, while presenting Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, the Son of Man, and Lord, all such titles can be found in other Gospels, Matthew features his Jesus, most extensively and most distinctively, as an authoritative Teacher of God’s will with eschatological significance.” Yieh argues that this is supported by the narrative, plot, and characterization.
29. The Jesus Seminar and those associated with it describe Jesus as a cynic sage. A notable exception is Ben Witherington (Jesus Quest, 185–96).
30. The nature of “wisdom” and “Wisdom literature” is much debated. Pemberton (Life That Is Good, 10) speaks of wisdom as a skill or expertise on one level, the second level builds on the first and expands the first meaning to include living a life that is good. When I speak of Jesus as a teacher of wisdom, I am arguing that wisdom is more of a macrogenre that fits over the whole of the Scriptures and punches its way through every genre in the Scriptures. Though Jesus teaches on wisdom—like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job—in an explicit way, his entire ministry can and should be labeled as wisdom. In some sense this means wisdom should be understood not as a genre but more as a concept similar to holiness or righteousness. Wisdom is thus more of a skill, which Jesus passes on to his disciples. The genre of Wisdom literature is being questioned for a number of reasons. The literary form and content of Wisdom literature does not represent a clear genre distinction. Job, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs have very little overlap in literary characteristics. They also fail to present unified teaching on the nature of wisdom. The only thing that brings the typically labeled “Wisdom books” together is that they “deal explicitly with wisdom questions and themes on a persistent basis” and have somewhat of a unique way of writing. See Jeff Dryden’s appendix (Hermeneutic of Wisdom, 243–64), on which I am largely dependent in this footnote. See also Kynes, Obituary for “Wisdom Literature.” Wisdom 7:24–28 says,
For wisdom is more mobile than any motion; because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things. For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness. Although she is but one, she can do all things, and while remaining in herself, she renews all things; in every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets; for God loves nothing so much as the person who lives with wisdom.
31. Van Leeuwen, “Wisdom Literature.” Dunn (“Jesus: Teacher of Wisdom or Wisdom Incarnate?,” 80) claims that wisdom is “simply a way of speaking about God’s presence among his people and about God’s activity on their behalf.”
32. Barton, “Gospel Wisdom,” 94.
33. Early Jewish and Samaritan literature indicates that Jews expect the messiah to be a teacher of godly wisdom. CD 6.11; 7.18; 4QFlor. 1.11; 11QMelch. 18–20; T. Jud. (A) 21.1–4; T. Levi 18.2–6; Pss. Sol. 17.42–3; 18.4–9; 1 En. 46.3; 49.3–4; 51.3. See this note in Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 180.
34. For a discussion of wisdom Christology, see Dunn, Christology in the Making, 163–209.
35. In Gospel of Thomas 13, Jesus is compared to “a wise man of understanding.” For a wisdom perspective on Matthew, see Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom; Deutsch, Lady Wisdom; Suggs, Wisdom, Christology, and Law.
36. On ancient literacy, see Keith, Jesus’ Literacy, who provides a more nuanced and helpful view of different levels of literacy and writing. He argues that “Mark and Matthew . . . place Jesus outside the scribal-literate culture” (141). Though I don’t have time to respond to his argument in full, this does not work against my thesis. The “scribes of the law” would be particularly incensed by Jesus if he was not educated like them.
37. Winter, “Messiah as the Tutor.” Derrett (“Matt 23:8–10”) argues that the text is a midrash on Isa. 54:13 and Jer. 31:33–34. In Isa. 54:13 the result of the servant’s work is that “all your children shall be taught by the Lord.”
38. Witherington, Jesus the Sage, 351.
39. Eight of the twenty-two references to scribes occur in Matt. 23.
40. Byrskog, Jesus the Only Teacher, 201.
41. I agree with Sneed (“Is the ‘Wisdom Tradition’ a Tradition?”), who pushes back against the concept that Hebrew Wisdom literature represents a worldview, tradition, and movement distinct from those of the priests and prophets. Part of my argument is that Jesus as the prophet-king is also the sage. The titles don’t conflict but coalesce.
42. Murphy, Wisdom Literature, 49.
43. Byrskog (Jesus the Only Teacher, 270–75) argues that the healing is teaching.
44. Carter (Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist, 243), Patte (Gospel according to Matthew, 136), and J. Brown (Disciples in Narrative Perspective, 139) have all argued that the portrayal of discipleship in Matthew must include an analysis not only of the disciples as they are but also a consideration of discipleship reflected in Jesus’s teaching—the disciples as they should be. In other words, one must pay attention to the “actual disciples” and the “ideal disciples.”
45. For support of this statement, see Pennington, Sermon on the Mount.
46. Witherington, Jesus Quest, 191.
47. Suggs (Wisdom, Christology, and Law) has a long discussion of 11:19’s relation to wisdom.
48. Deutsch (Hidden Wisdom) argues Matt. 11:25–30 has prominent wisdom themes related to Jewish texts.
49. In 8:19–22 a scribe comes to Jesus, asking if he can follow Jesus, and Jesus replies with a word about his homelessness. Homelessness is a well-known characteristic of wisdom (1 En. 42.1–3; Job 28:20; Prov. 1:28).
50. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 206. For other studies on wisdom Christology, see Suggs, Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew’s Gospel; Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke; Witherington, Jesus the Sage; Gench, Wisdom in the Christology of Matthew; Singsa, “Matthew’s Wisdom Christology”; Wainwright, Shall We Look for Another?; Gathercole, Preexistent Son; Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom.
51. Add to this that if Matthew is viewed through the narrative of Israel (as will be argued in the last chapter), then chap. 13 is instructing readers to read this section through the lens of the wisdom traditio
n.
52. David Wenham (“Structure of Matthew 13”) argues for a chiastic structure in Matt. 13.
53. Though the word hidden is not always used in these contexts, the concept is regularly connected to treasures, since treasures would be hidden in ancient times.
54. Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom.
55. Deutsch, Hidden Wisdom, 22–23.
56. From an oral perspective, wisdom is not only a form of literature but a mode of speaking as well.
57. Sneed, “Is the ‘Wisdom Tradition’ a Tradition?,” 71.
58. Aune, “Oral Tradition and the Aphorisms.”
59. In ancient Mesopotamia, kings presented themselves as accomplished scribes and scholars. Assurbanipal (668–627 BCE) says, “I have learned the hidden secrets of the complete scribal art. With my own eyes I have seen the tablets of heaven and earth.” See van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 54.
60. In Dan. 2:27–28, Daniel answers Nebuchadnezzar and says, “No wise men [σοφῶν] . . . can show the king the mystery [μυστήριον] that the king has asked, but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries.” In the LXX, the word μυστήριον occurs over twenty times, but over half of them are found in Dan. 2. The word is used favorably to describe the way of divine wisdom in Wis. 2:22 and 6:22. As NIDNTTE says, “In almost every case where μυστήριον occurs in the NT, the term is found with vbs. denoting revelation or proclamation” (354).
61. Suggs, Wisdom, Christology, and Law, 18. For a response to Suggs, see M. Johnson, “Reflections on a Wisdom Approach to Matthew’s Christology.”
62. France (Gospel of Matthew, 544) asserts, “All that we are told about the background from which the Twelve have come gives us no ground to believe that any of them was a ‘scribe’ in the normal NT sense.” My analysis in this chapter suggests otherwise. In BDAG (206) γραμματεύς is defined as one who has special functions in connection with documents, but it also includes as a subcategory “an expert in matters relating to divine revelation.”
63. Duling, A Marginal Scribe, 263–67.
64. Witherington, Jesus the Sage, 346.
65. McKane, Prophets and Wise Men, 40–47.
66. E. P. Sanders (Judaism: Practice and Belief) doubts that the Torah scribe exists. In HALOT, the Hebrew soper has four meanings: (1) scribe, secretary; (2) royal official, secretary of state; (3) secretary for Jewish affairs; (4) scholar of Scripture.
67. See Rollston, Writing and Literacy, 88.
68. Seraiah was the scribe for David (2 Sam. 8:17); his sons Elihoreph and Ahijah were scribes for Solomon (1 Kings 4:3); Shebnah was the scribe for Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:18); Shaphan was the scribe for Josiah (2 Kings 22); Elishama was the scribe for Jehoiakim (Jer. 36); Jonathan was the scribe for Zedekiah (Jer. 37).
69. Orton (Understanding Scribe, 161–62) comes to a similar conclusion when he says the ideal scribe includes the following elements: (1) the exercise of wisdom and the gift of special understanding; (2) the notion of authority; (3) the notion of righteous teaching, including the right interpretation of the law and the prophets; (4) a close association with true prophecy; and (5) a sense of inspiration. Later in the Christian tradition, scribes were known mainly for their copying, but this is not the picture presented by the OT or Matthew.
70. Horsley (Scribes, Visionaries, 72) says, “Asking for advice about upcoming events or plans, the scribes searched their repertoire for earlier predictions that might bear on the future events. By interpreting ominous things, wise scribes predicted the future for the king.”
71. On the education of scribes, see van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 51–108. For Greek education from the time of Alexander the Great to the end of the Roman period, see Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind. For Roman book publishing, see Winsbury, Roman Book.
72. Horsley, Scribes, Visionaries, 71.
73. Witherington, Jesus the Sage, 12. Witherington adapted this from Crenshaw, “Acquisition of Knowledge.”
74. Wisdom can be understood both as a learned skill and as the way a person can teach this practical intuition to another person. When I refer to Matthew’s wisdom, I include his learned skill in interpreting both the new and the old. Matthew’s and Jesus’s wisdom intertwine. We get a sense of Jesus’s wisdom only through Matthew’s account (and that of the other evangelists).
75. In some ways Jesus and Matthew can be compared to Jeremiah and Baruch. Jesus is the prophet like Jeremiah; Matthew is the scribe like Baruch. Baruch’s role as a scribe is an extension of the prophetic activity of Jeremiah. When Jeremiah is instructed to write a prophecy on a scroll (Jer. 36:2, 28), it is Baruch who writes at Jeremiah’s dictation. Baruch must have played some role in the formation of the book of Jeremiah, and this was compatible with the profession of a scribe. In the same way Matthew shapes and forms Jesus’s life as the scribe. Scribes are not merely redactors and compilers of tradition; they also shape tradition.
76. In 13:52 διὰ τοῦτο, then, isn’t merely a literary device introducing a saying. Rather, Matthew is using it in a position of climax, linking the two verses together.
77. In the OT, the common Hebrew term for a scribe, סֹפֵר, is derived from the Semitic root ספר, which means a message that is sent. In the NT, the Greek term for scribe, γραμματεύς, comes from γράμμα, meaning something drawn, most commonly with letters. While one needs to be wary of anachronism and recognize the priority of orality in the first century, scribes were the ones who would certainly have produced the more complex written texts. In David Carr’s discussion of Wisdom literature in ancient Israel scribal education (Writing on the Tablet, 126–28), he sketches an “oral-written” process in which the oral medium is primary, but writing is still central. Michael Bird (Gospel of the Lord, 46–47) notes that it was quite common among the literary elites of the Greco-Roman world to take notes, and Gerhardsson (Memory and Manuscript, 160–62) asserts the same for the Jewish context. See also Alan Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus.
78. My argument does not depend on Matthew being the actual copyist. The “literacy” of Matthew is hard to know for sure. Matthew could have used a scribe for his work but still be the “voice” behind the tradition. This coheres with what we see in Paul and Peter’s Letters: “By Silvanus . . . I have written briefly to you” (1 Pet. 5:12, emphasis added).
79. See S. Charlesworth, Early Christian Gospels.
80. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 9.
81. Van der Toorn (Scribal Culture, 115) asserts, “We may say that scribes, even in their most instrumental roles, impose their style, language, and ideas on the text. Acting as secretaries and transcribers, they are not phonographs in writing; they mold the material that reaches them orally.” Matthew 2:4–6 gives some evidence of interpretation. According to Matt. 7:29, scribes also seemed to teach and therefore interpret. In Matt. 17:10, the saying that Elijah must come first is attributed to the scribes. Matthew 23:2 says that the scribes sit on Moses’s seat, implying some sort of interpretation and teaching.
82. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 7.
83. Orton, Understanding Scribe, 168. Some may be nervous about this language of creativity, assuming that it contradicts the “correct” sense of the OT text. But by using the term “creative,” I am simply asserting something similar to Moo and Naselli. “NT authors do not always use OT language as authoritative proof. . . . So when they appear to deduce a meaning from the OT or when they apply it to a new situation, they are not necessarily misusing the text or treating it as errant” (“Use of the Old Testament,” 706). Later (709) they say, “It is unfair to apply a rigid concept of meaning to . . . an OT law and then charge him with misinterpreting the OT for going beyond what the OT specifically intends.”
84. See Westerholm, Jesus and Scribal Authority. In Matt. 2:4 Herod asks “the chief priests and the scribes of the people where the Christ was to be born” (emphasis added). “They told him, ‘In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the proph
et’” (2:5). They not only copied texts but also answered questions about the texts and therefore interpreted them.
85. Aelius Theon, Progym. 2.61–62 (ed. Leonhard von Spengel); Kennedy, Progymnasmata, 6–7.
86. A vast amount of literature exists on the transmission of oral and written material, which I don’t have the space to develop here. A good place to start is to look at Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript.
87. Penner, “New Testament Scribe,” 16.
88. Byrskog (Jesus the Only Teacher, 245.) asserts that we learn more about the transmission of Jesus’s teachings in Matt. 16:13–20, where Peter is given authority to bind and loose. For the best explanation of what this means, see Leeman, Political Church.
89. This teaching was oral in nature. I don’t want to give the false impression that the first-century culture was a reading culture, for it was mainly an oral culture. Thus Isa. 29:18 predicts a time when “the deaf shall hear the words of a book.” See the first chapter of van der Toorn, Scribal Culture. Phillips (“Casting Out the Treasure,” 12–13) even argues that the verb ἐκβάλλω in Matt. 13:52 could have the sense of “speaking” or “expelling” words.
Matthew, Disciple and Scribe Page 6
