Ethnicity, ethnocentrism, and the Matthean ethnos

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Winter, 2005 by Dennis C. Duling

Abstract

In the light of the horrors of war and ethnic conflict, ethnicity has become a subject of increasing scholarly investigation, which now includes the field of religion and the Bible. I begin by surveying and commenting on important studies on ethnicity in Matthew by David Sim and John Riches. Then I offer a brief overview of ethnicity theory and create a simple model of ethnicity. After exploring the model linguistically and conceptually with literature from antiquity, I show how modern ethnicity studies can offer insights into ethnicity in Matthew and in particular how priestly voluntary associations called ethne might help to interpret the special fruit-bearing ethnos of Matthew 21:43 in terms of an alternative leadership to the priests of Jerusalem.

**********

Ethnic cleansing is one of the horrible tragedies of modern times. Not surprisingly, ethnicity and ethnic conflict have become a subject of modern scholarly investigation and there has been an explosion in literature (e.g., Scott; Jenkins: 1994; 1996; 1997; Sollors; Hutchinson & Smith; P. Q. Yang). Researchers in the field of religion have been quick to see it as a significant area of research (Buell) and specialists in Biblical interpretation have begun to explore its importance in antiquity and for the Bible (Brett; Denzey; Esler; Duling: 2003; forthcoming; Matlock). In the last decade two scholars, David Sim and John Riches (chs. 7, 8), have addressed the topic in relation to the Gospel of Matthew. In this article I shall summarize their views, offer a brief overview of modern ethnicity theory, and develop a simple model for interpreting ethnicity. Then I shall briefly explore the model linguistically and conceptually for both antiquity in general and the Gospel of Matthew and its context. In passing, I offer my own views on the work of Sim and Riches and conclude with my own observations about the Matthean ethnos in relation to an overall perspective.

Previous Study of Ethnicity in Matthew: Sim and Riches

David Sim's excellent article (1996) can be briefly summarized in three points:

1. To be considered ethnically "Jewish" in the first century, a person had either to be born Jewish or to become a full proselyte which, within the framework of "covenantal nomism" (Sanders 1977 passim; 1992: 190-240) and its privileges, meant strict Torah observance according to the norms of one's sect. For males this included the requirement of circumcision. By this legal standard uncircumcised male "God-rearers" were not considered to be fully Jewish. With rare exceptions--Josephus and Philo mention instances in which proselytes to Judaism were not circumcised--circumcision was thought to be the primary ritual boundary marker for Jewish (male) ethnic identity.

2. Diaspora Jewish and Pauline groups did not require strict Torah observance for Gentile proselytes. Thus, circumcision was not an absolute requirement. In both Pauline letters and Acts Paul's opponents are called "the circumcision party" (Gal 2:12; Acts 11:12; cf. Titus 1:10). Paul attacks such persons as "mutilators of the flesh" (Phil 2:3). This group (or one like it) is also behind the conflict about eating with Gentiles at Antioch (Gal 2:9). In contrast, the writer of Matthew required strict Torah observance, at least until the parousia (Matt 5:18; 28:20); the Matthean debates are not about the Torah itself, but rather the correct interpretation of the Torah (Matt 5:17-20). Thus, says Sim, the Matthean writer, in contrast to Paul, considered his group to be ethnically Jewish.

3. The writer of Matthew never mentions circumcision--baptism is the only explicit entry rite (28:19)--but Sim deduces that Matthew's "Christian Jewish" group must have required circumcision for male Gentile proselytes. The reason that it is not mentioned is that the Matthean mission included non-believing Jews (10:6) as well as Gentiles. This is the best meaning of the gospel's being preached to "all the nations [ethne]" in the final scene (29:19). This also explains why it was not at issue between Matthew and his Pharisaic opponents. For Sim, "circumcision for male Gentiles is simply taken for granted" (Sim 1996: 193), just as it is, argues Sim, in passages about admitting proselytes to the Qumran sect (CD 14:4-6: IQS 6:13-23--the latter text, however, is about admitting those in "Israel"--6:13).

John Riches' goal is to illumine the "sense of identity" of the Matthean community by stressing two ethnic markers, kinship and place (Riches 2000: chs. 7, 8). His different approach yields a different result. With respect to kinship, the Matthean writer, building on Mark, holds that true discipleship is not based on family status, but on following the itinerant, homeless Jesus (cr. Davies 1991; 1994). Descent in the gospel matters only in one instance, the genealogy of Jesus, where Matthew stresses putative "Jewish" descent from Abraham and David (Matt 1:1-17; cf. Riches: 291). However, Riches says, this genealogy actually "flaunts" Jesus' Gentile ancestry because the prototypical wanderer Abraham and the four women have Gentile background. Ironically, claims Riches, Jesus' apparent Jewish roots imply universalism (231). So much for kinship!