/HDGHUVKLSDQG'LVFLSOHVKLS$6WXG\RI/XNHUHYLHZ-RKQ76TXLUHV

Hebrew Studies, Volume 37, 1996, pp. 199-202 (Review)

3XEOLVKHGE\1DWLRQDO$VVRFLDWLRQRI3URIHVVRUVRI+HEUHZDOI: 10.1353/hbr.1996.0022

For additional information about this article

Access provided by Uppsala universitet (28 Apr 2015 17:51 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hbr/summary/v037/37.squires.html

Hebrew Studies 37 (1996) 199 Reviews

the first century. he allows that culture no voice at all in the deliberations over Matthew's content or meaning. For example, Matthew's meaning for "Lord" is discovered by a search for instances of the tille in the Septuagint and intertestamental texts but takes no note of the popular ideas connected to the title in the larger world. These common images need to be tested against scenes in the gospel where Matthew shows Jesus as "Lord." As another example. Saldarini notes the popularity of clubs all over the em-pire, but only to exclaim over Matthew's choice of the Septuagint term ekklesia. But this word would have been meaningful to Gentiles too, since it is also commonly used in hellenic texts to indicate public assemblies of the people. Saldarini does not seem inclined to test for the uniqueness of Matthew's group by comparing membership expectations like Matt 18:15-20 with extant club rules. for example. Without a Greco-Roman backdrop. and given only Jewish literature for reference. Matthew's images and lan-guage about Jesus cannot represent the ideas available to his Jewish membership.

Saldarini makes a persuasive case that Matthew's membership is proba-bly Jewish and also Torah observant, but his argument that it is a deviant group embedded in the Jewish community and still supporting a Jewish mission is weakened by its dependence on special pleading. Nevertheless. this book provides a scholarly challenge to the presuppositions that con-tinue to dominate reconstructions of the Matthean community and offers important observations on the gospel evidence. Saldarini has provided a valuable and welcome contribution to Synoptic studies.

Wendy Cotter Loyola University Chicago.IL 60626

LEADERSHIP AND DISCIPLESHIP: A STUDY OF LUKE 22:24-30. By Peter K. Nelson. SBL Dissertation Series 138. Pp. xvii + 330. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Paper, $19.95.

This book is based on a Ph.D. thesis written under the supervision of John Nolland. Nelson's aim is "to discern the Lukan significance of Luke 22:24-30." a passage that includes both Jesus' exhortation to his disciples for them to serve and his promise to his disciples of kingship and authority.

Hebrew Studies 37 (1996) 200 Reviews

Nelson's exploration of this passage makes good use of a wide range of ex-egetical methods; he takes care that the fruits of these methods are always related back to the primary text, which remains his focus throughout the book. Nelson wants to read these seven verses as a whole and to draw from them some significant conclusions regarding the nature of discipleship as Luke understands it. Overall, the book succeeds in achieving these aims.

The book comprises two substantial parts framed by an Introduction and a Conclusion. In the 100 pages of Part One (chapters 2-5) Nelson explores four "background perspectives" for this passage. The first two arise from the content of the passage and concern authority and subordination as well as table motifs. The third background context is the motif of reversal, which Nelson argues is fundamental to the form of the passage; the fourth context is the literary testamentary genre, which is the literary type for a substantial part of Luke 22. In each case, Nelson summarizes the scholarly consensus in relation to the Hellenistic and Jewish contexts, explores the oc-currences of the theme in the New Testament as a whole, and then turns specifically to Luke-Acts as the final "background perspective" for Luke 22:4-30. These summaries of scholarly opinions are clear and concise; he has covered much material and presented his conclusions clearly. I espe-cially found his treatment of each theme as it is found in Luke-Acts to be a rewarding aspect of his work.

In the 130 pages of Part Two (chapters 6-8), Nelson moves into a de-tailed phrase-by-phrase consideration of the passage. He declares that the background perspectives will provide the platform from which this detailed consideration takes place. This promise is fulfilled at times, although most of the content of this part of the book revolves around individual word studies, points of grammar, and exegetical argument in the commentaries. In two closely argued chapters, Nelson reveals his exegetical judgments about matters such as the relationship between the Lukan text and Mark (in the case of Luke 22:24-27) and Matthew (for Luke 22:28-30), the cause and seriousness of the dispute among the apostles (22:24), the nature of the service of which Jesus speaks (22:27), the nature of the trials endured by Jesus (22:28), the meaning of kingship that is conferred by Jesus (22:29), and a host of details besides these. The denseness of the argument makes for slow, sometimes hard reading; however, this is balanced by Nelson's refusal to be sidetracked for too long in apparently interesting byways and his insistence that the exegetical task must always shed light on the meaning of the text. Helpful in this regard are the clear introductory and concluding summations that punctuate these exegetical explorations.

Hebrew Studies 37 (1996) 201 Reviews

Nelson's attempt to provide an overall "Summary and Synthesis" in the last chapter was valuable. especially what he claims regarding "pivot point discipleship" (i.e . disciples are people who both lead and are led) and the nature of discipleship (i.e., a disciple ought to expect that highs, as well as lows. are integral to following Jesus). Yet my experience in reading this book was that. despite the frequent provision of summaries of the argu-ment. the broad picture was swamped, again and again, by the numerous details treated by Nelson. At times it was hard to see that some of these de-tails had relevance to the thesis other than that they ought to be treated for the sake of completeness. The thesis that the book argues is valuable and insightful; however, I felt that it would have been more helpful had Nelson found a better balance between the exegetical details and the broader ramifications of the overall case that he argued. There is virtually no consideration of how this passage fits in the literary structure of Luke's Gospel (or. indeed. Luke-Acts). nor any attention given to the relationship between this passage and the purpose of Luke-Acts as a whole. My inclina-tion, for example. would be to consider the way in which this "pivot point discipleship." validating both downward and upward movements, is related to the use of the phrase "the plan of God" as a means of validating not only the upward movement of the successful mission of the early church. but also the downward movement of the crucifixion of Jesus. No doubt other such links could be traced.

A reading of the biblical text as an integral whole. such as Nelson aims for. is both necessary and desirable. However. it was only in a footnote buried on page 236 that it became evident that Nelson was aware of what assumptions this kind of reading makes and how they relate to the insights of form and tradition criticisms regarding the separate origins of 22:24-27 and 22:28-30. Had this explanation been given at the start of the book. I may well have found that some of the questions that recurred as I read might have been laid to rest. As it was, I was caught in a perpetual dialogue with Nelson along the lines of "yes, but..." or "O.K . but what about.. .. " I would have appreciated a clearer locating of the enterprise in the context of the wider scholarly activity (apan from close scrutiny of individual words and phrases).

Finally. I note that the kind of readership that would be likely to pur-chase and use this book is rather unclear to me. The book functions largely at a technical "reference" level. It provides many more details than does a commentary (even a thorough, technical commentary). but treats only seven verses. Surely most preachers and exegetes would want a broader

Hebrew Studies 37 (1996) 202 Reviews

sweep in one volume than we find here. Although Nelson has done a good job of integrating a number of "background themes," the work ultimately reads like a collation of technical word studies and grammatical discus-sions. I think that further broad thematic and theological discussions would have enhanced the quality of this monograph.

John T. Squires United Theological Col/ege North Parramatta, N.S.W. 2151 Australia

A KEY-WORDINCONTEXT CONCORDANCE TO TARGUM NEOFITI: A GUIDE TO THE COMPLETE PALESTINIAN ARAMAIC TEXT OF THE TORAH. By Stephen A. Kaufman and Michael Sokoloff. The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. Pp. 1494. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993. Cloth.

The Aramaic Bible translations, known as the Targumim, have been of immense interest since their introduction during the second Temple period. The Talmud (b. Ber. 8a) encouraged Jews to read the biblical portion of the official literal Targum (Onqelos) weekly. A later, more prolix, and also complete Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan has been and continues to be mined fre-quently by scholars and lay readers for midrashic and other post-biblical material. Other existing targum texts include various fragmentary largu-mim, Tosejla Targumim to some Pentateuchal books, the "sectarian" Peshitta, the Syro-Palestinian translation, and Samaritan Aramaic versions.

The manuscript of yet another complete targum, somewhat more expansive than Tg. Onqelos but less so than Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan, was dis-covered in 1949 in the Vatican Library by Professor Jose Maria Millas Vallicrosa and Alejandro Diez Macho. Codex NeoJiti 1 was labeled "Item 1" among a group of manuscripts that came to the Vatican Library from the Pia Domus Neophytorum in Rome, hence its name. Though its origin is uncertain, the colophon to the manuscript dates the copy to 1504 C.E. The manuscript may have been donated to Pia Domus Neophytorum in 1602 C.E. along with a text of the fragmentary targum. The Codex itself has many marginal glosses containing corrections and different interpretations, probably drawn from Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan. The occasional interlinear glosses, with the same apparent purpose, were likewise apparently derived from other, now non-existent, targum texts.