A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Vol III: Matthew XIX-XXVIII

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Mar 2000 by Lamerson, Samuel

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Vol. III: Matthew XIX-XXVIII. By W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, dr. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997, xviii f 789 pages, $69.95.

Students of the Gospel of Matthew have been anxiously awaiting the last volume of Davies and Allison's three-volume commentary. This set, produced over a ten-year period, takes the place in the ICC of W. C. Allen's work. Those who have waited will not be disappointed. This volume is as good as, if not better than, the previous two.

The work begins with a preface in which the contribution of each of the authors is put forward. The plan was for Allison to produce a draft of each chapter and for Davies to then comment on these drafts in detail. While apparently this plan worked for vol. I, in vols. II and III, "W. D. D. was not able to contribute as much as he had hoped" (p. ix). This does not seem to have adversely affected the quality of the work.

The commentary begins with an excursus an the arrangement of Matt 1.9:1-23:39 and then moves straight into the comments upon the text of Matthew 19. The comments consist of five sections per pericope: (1) structure, in which the passage is set forth visually to represent the structure of the pericope; t2) sources; which is concerned with source and redaction criticism (Markan priority is assumed, but there is allowance for other theories, p. 31); !3) exegesis, in which the text proper is dealt with on a phrase-by-phrase basis; (4) concluding observations, in which many insights are drawn together from the preceding work; and d5) bibliography, which will be mentioned later in the review.

There are many fine points in this work, but only five will be noted here. f 1) There is an incredible attention to detail. Even the smallest points are the subject of very substantive comments. For an example, see the comments on 19:24 (camel through the eye of the needle), where the attention to detail and scope of literature surveyed is excellent. In any passage where there are a myriad of options, Davies and Allison lay out the options clearly and argue for a particular one. (2> Davies and Allison's interaction with the literature is a model of scholarship. Not only do they interact with modern scholars of all stripes (from Bultmann to Blomberg), but with ancient writers as well. (3) The bibliographies that occur at the end of each section are very good. While the proliferation of the American Theological Library Associations databases has made searches for journal articles easier, these bibliographies include many pieces that would not be found by such a search and are a wonderful entry point for further research on a particular topic. (4j The commentary ends with a chapter called "Matthew: A Retrospect," in which many of the big issues of Matthean scholarship are revisited and put into perspective. This chapter is a fine overview of many of the current debates. (5) There are two indexes, covering all three volumes.

Despite the above praises, evangelicals will nevertheless have some concerns with the work. Most of these concerns will center upon the fact that the authors simply hold a different view of Scripture from many of the readers of this Journal. One example will suffice. On Matt 27:51 (the resurrection of the saints at the time of Jesus' death), Davies and Allison point out that while a literal interpretation has been generally held in Christian history, they "discern in vv. 51-3 not history but a poetic or mythological expression of the profound meaning of Jesus' death" (p. 633). One might ask what textual indications exist in this passage to indicate the poetic or mythological nature of this pericope. It seems that the narrator of Matthew's Gospel is presenting this as a historical incident, which may explain why this passage was seen as historical for most of Christian history.

Davies and Allison do not simply reject out of hand all historically difficult passages, however. In commenting on the release of Barabbas as prisoner at the time of the passover, they concede that there is no historical data outside the NT for a release of prisoners at that time of year. Yet they still see Barabbas's release as having a historical core that "Christian imagination subsequently dramatized" (p. 583). While one might rightly be concerned about the extent of the "dramatization," the incident is considered historical. On Matt 24:1-2 (a passage that many have questioned as a result of the prophecy? Davies and Allison have no problem stating that readers "need not doubt that Jesus like Micah (Mic. 3.12)> Jeremiah (Jer. 7.8-15; 9.10-11; 26.6, 18) and Jesus bar Ananias (Josephus, Bell 6.300ff ), foretold the destruction of Jerusalem and her temple" (p. 335?. This position is taken despite the fact that the authors argue strongly for a post-70 nn date for Matthew's Gospel (p. 700, cf. 1.127--138):

Any set of books this large would offer many opportunities for disagreement and nitpicking. However, the depth of detail and breadth of scholarship in these volumes offer fewer of these opportunities than most other works of this size. Despite the concerns mentioned above, anyone making a serious study of the Gospel of Matthew cannot afford to be without this set. As a student writing a dissertation on the Gospel, I would like to offer a heartfelt "thank-you" to Davies and Allison for a commentary that will he a landmark for years to come and a treasure to students of this Gospel.

Samuel Lamerson Knox Theological Seminary/Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Ft. Lauderdale, FL/Deerfield, TL