Studies in Matthew

Studies in Matthew. By Ulrich Luz. Grand Rapide: Eerdmans, 2005, xii + 385 pp., $30.00 paper.

The work of Ulrich Luz is already well known to students of Matthew's Gospel, though perhaps not yet as widely as it should be. His commentary has now been translated in full (vol. 1 independently by Fortress Press in 1989; vols. 2-3 in Hermeneia), with a fresh translation of the updated first volume in preparation for the Hermeneia series. The scope of the commentary is breathtaking, reaching from philology through the standard critical sieves to brilliantly executed summaries of the history of the influence of Matthew. Luz is no evangelical, but his scholarship is deep, and his determination to understand the tradition influenced by Matthew, the tradition from which we encounter this Gospel, is fruitful. Certainly, mainline biblical scholars must give heed to this work, which is careful and creative in equal measures. More importantly, no one interested in the shift toward theological interpretation (cf. Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of the Bible [Baker, 2005]) should overlook what Luz has done. Among the other fruits of his work can be mentioned his The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge University Press, 1995) and Matthew in History (Fortress, 1994).

The volume presently under review, Studies in Matthew, is a welcome supplement to these other works, representing either earlier attempts to develop his ideas in preparation for the commentary or retrospective summaries of his exegetical work. Only two of the eighteen chapters have appeared previously in English (chaps. 6-7), and two others appear here for the first time (chaps. 17-18, both on hermeneutics). The remaining fourteen chapters have appeared previously in French or German. The dates of the original publications, which Luz has not "modernized" for this volume, run from 1971 to 2003. It is true that, if we leave aside the occasional change of opinion that can be registered (compare, e.g., p. 9 with his Commentary 1.88, n. 167), there is nothing that will surprise anyone who has paid attention to the earlier volumes. Still, Studies not only conveniently collects and translates these essays but serves to flesh out and give perspective on Luz's key ideas. For those unfamiliar with Luz and looking for something in between the massive Commentary and slim Theology, this strikes the right balance.

The essays are grouped unevenly under eight headings (numbers of chapters per section indicated): Matthew's Story (2), Matthew and His Tradition (2), Christology (2), Ecclesiology (3), Ethics (1), Miracles (1), Matthew and Israel (1), and Hermeneutics with Matthew in Mind (6). Given space limits and the richness of the essays, I will restrict myself to general comments from which some of the specific contents of these chapters can be inferred.

First, there is naturally some redundancy when these previously published essays are read together, but Luz's globally informed scholarship, his attention to the history of effects, and his own fruitful but disciplined imagination make the entire volume a profitable read.

second, in general, Luz's theological conclusions are deeply indebted to his source-critical and composition-critical views: Matthew, writing after AD 70 and writing from within and for a particular community (contra Bauckham, The Gospels for All Christians [Eerdmans, 1998]), is not the apostle and had no independent access to the Jesus story outside of Mark and Q. Matthew's composition is decidedly a narrative, meant to be read as a story; it is not merely topical. That his revision of Mark's story into a new, "fictional" story must have been conscious and deliberate is therefore, on this reading, patent. From here we may proceed to speculation as to the literary and historical situation and motives that would have informed and guided his composition. Luz does so boldly and creatively, developing and then building on hypotheses as to the transparency of the Gospel for the history of Matthew's own church community. To be sure, disagreeing with Luz's foundational constructs does not lead directly to dismissing his conclusions as vitiated. For instance, his view of chapter 10-that this chapter is a "disciple discourse," not a "mission discourse," and that it is basic to understanding Matthew's "dynamic ecclesiology"-does not require the full infrastructure of lis particular theories to commend it; I find it very convincing and fruitful. Yet due precisely to the coherence of Luz's thinking, reading him requires that we spend particular time over this question of the relationship between theological conclusions and historical constructs. In that sense, this collection of essays is a vital prolegomenon to his commentary.

Third, Luz's discussion of both the structure and setting of Matthew can be fruitfully placed in conversation with the conclusions of Davies and Allison (ICC). For Davies and Allison, Matthew's Gospel is an "omnibus of genres" and is "structurally mixed." Their overall view of Matthew sees the five discourses as basic. Luz's conclusions are closer to Kingsbury's (Matthew as Story [Fortress, 1986]), subordinating the five major discourses to Matthew's story. This amounts to a transparent retelling of Mark's story in terms of the story of Matthew's own community, a Jewish-Christian community at a crossroads. Grounded in Q, having experienced failure in their mission to Israel, they have now chosen to merge with the Great Church and its universal mission (Luz vacillates on whether the mission in Israel continues or not: contrast Studies 250; Commentary 1.88 with Studies 12, 26) and in so doing have come into contact with the Gospel of Mark. Matthew is advocating this shift and is working out the transition in part, though not finally or perfectly. The story he tells, therefore, has a double meaning: it is Jesus' story (as found in Mark), essential and foundational, and at the same time Jesus' story retold as their story. The differences with Davies and Allison over the setting may be summarized under these questions: (1) whether Matthew's churches have made a clean break with Judaism (Davies and Allison: not yet, and Me.tthew is resisting the attempt of the parent religion to exclude Christians; Luz: yes); (2) whether Jamnia bears on Matthew's work (Davies and Allison: very much so [defining Jamnia as a process]; Luz: not as Davies and Allison believe it does); (3) whether Matthew is writing mainly for Christians or also to his fellow Jews (Davies and Allison: also to fellow Jews; Luz: to Christians).