David R. Bauer

The Major Characters of Matthew's Story: Their Function and Significance

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW is a story about Jesus. This simple observation implies two highly significant things about Matthews Gospel. First, the recognition that Matthew is a story suggests the importance of the persons, or characters, within it, for every story contains characters and every storyteller uses characters to communicate to the reader. Second, the recognition that Matthew is a story about Jesus suggests both that Jesus is the central character in the Gospel and that the reader must understand all other characters in terms of their relationship to him. Thus, an analysis of the person of Jesus, and of other persons and groups of persons in their interaction with Jesus, will provide insights into the message of Matthews Gospel, especially as this message pertains to God, Christ, and discipleship.

Book Review: Hebrews

LIKE ALL VOLUMES IN the Paideia Commentary series, this book employs cultural, literary, and theological considerations in order to explain the meaning of the final form of the text for students who wish to explore its theological significance. James Thompson agrees with the recent scholarly consensus that Hebrews was written by a secondgeneration Christian who combines the traditions of the Jewish synagogue and Platonic philosophy to reorient a community that has been disoriented by the chasm between the Christian confession of triumph and the reality of suffering that it has experienced (p. 20). Consequently, the writer of Hebrews presents the theological argument of Christs superiority over the first covenant not in order to offer an abstract Christology nor to warn against the dangers of regression into Judaism, but rather to urge the readers to be faithful to the Christian gospel, which in spite of Christians persecutions and suffering is the one supreme reality. Thompson carefully traces the flow of the argument and meticulously relates passages to the broader context of the book. He also discusses in detail the rhetorical and cultural background of passages, and consistently explores the relevance of the writers argument for the situation of the original readers. While Thompsons interpretation is generally compelling, he offers little in the way of new insights into Hebrews. Perhaps this is to be expected, since he writes for students and not for the guild. But he includes a great deal of material that is of interest to academicians and does not assist students in understanding the theological message of the book. He repeatedly cites at length Jewish and GrecoRoman parallels without drawing out their interpretive significance. He discusses rhetorical categories and features, but these discussions often provide little insight beyond what could be gleaned by a careful reading of the text itself. Moreover, the discussion of theological issues is always brief and usually offers suggestions regarding contemporary application rather than robust theological reflection. Finally, the emphasis upon the communitys situation and its need to embrace faithfulness leads to a reduction of the function of Jesus in Hebrews, largely to that of an example of faithfulness rather than the object of faith. This is a truncated construal of the Christology of Hebrews, which presents Jesus not only as the great example of obedience but also as the agent of Gods eschatological salvation; and thus Christians are called to place their confidence in Christs work. In Hebrews, faithfulness is the expression of faith in Gods salvation through Christ. In spite of these shortcomings, this commentary offers students a helpful introduction to the Hebrews, for it provides a clear and generally compelling interpretation of the thought of this difficult and complex book.

Book Review: Jesus, Matthew's Community: The Evidence of His Special Sayings MaterialMatthew's Community: The Evidence of His Special Sayings Material, by BrooksStephenson H.. JSNT Supplement Series16. JSOT Press, Sheffield, 1987. 212 pp.

hermeneutics and eschatology. (Borg concludes that Jesus dissent scarcely impugned the validity of Torah and was implicitly noneschatological insofar as it disclaimed an imminent judgment, pp. 14, 123, 157, 160.) Some eyebrows will also be raised by the latitude of historical reliability at times accorded to the Tendenz-iaden Synoptics: Their depiction of Jesus internal experience, while not psychologically impossible, is not for that reason historically verifiable (cf. pp. 41—54). None of this depreciates the authors achievement, which is most impressive. With wit and limpid eloquence, Borg renders a portrait that is coherent and convincing. His assessment of primary evidence is closely reasoned and carefully nuanced; his distillation of scholarship is judicious and insightful. The force of the books argument is amplified by its in t e rd i sc ip l ina ry conversation with the social sciences and the general study of religions (pp. 33-38, 79-97). With integrity and discernment, Borg grasps the nettle of what faith can know and needs to know (pp. 13-14, 201-02). In short, Jesus, A New Vision casts fresh light upon one of the darkest and most important of New Testament problems. Of its kind, there is no work that I would more readily deliver into the hands of a beginning student, a busy pastor, or a jaded academic than this.

37.50.

queries (the third of which is more carefully expressed as Has modern scholarship made belief in the resurrection more difficult? [po 53]). The Evidence for Jesus is a clear, cogent, and superbly written volurne by a committed churchman and internationally recognized New Testament scholar whose previous work on Christology (Christology in the Making) and Christian origins (Unity and Diversity in the New Testament) eminently qualify him for this task. Though the American reader who has not seen the British series (and I am one) will feel slightly hampered, Dunn is an able guide; and, after all, the landscape is altogether too familiar! To quibble with certain of Dunns positions (e.g., the identity of the referents in Phil. 3:2 [po 86]) would be to miss the point. More importantly, Dunn has avoided the temptation to present idiosyncratic views as typical of modern scholarship-a temptation to which the TV series evidently succumbed. Despite such unstinted praise for this book, the crucial question still lingers whether or not Dunn has accomplished his aim of bridge-building between the scholars study and the pew. In question here for the more rigidly conservative is the validity of the historicalcritical method itself, not just the results of such work. Dunns approach differs from that of more radical critics considerably, but the difference is one of degree. Although many readers will find The Evidence for Jesus extremely satisfying, it is doubtful that those of a more traditionalist bent will be able to say the same. Has Dunn succeeded (or is he likely to succeed) in his bridgeShorter Reviews and Notices

Book Review: Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies: Interpreting the Synoptics Through Their Passion StoriesInterpreting the Synoptics Through Their Passion Stories, by MateraFrank J.. Paulist Press, New York, 1986. 256 pp.

himself to his people as Messiah, (2) that the people of Israel did not reject Jesus, and (3) that Jesus never repudiated his people. Accordingly, for them, no Christian anti-Judaism can appeal to the history ofJesus for any warrant or encouragement. As Luz himself notes, scholars will find little new in Lapides conclusions and will want to argue more over which texts provide access to the Jesus of history (in this respect Lapides method is flimsy). Claiming a general critical consensus, Luz well reminds us that one of the tasks of Jewish and Christian dialogue is yet to translate the fruits of criticism into the vernacular of synagogues and churches so that scholarly agreement might influence popular disposition. Lapides references to Charlotte Kleins Anti-judaism in Christian Theology, however, rightfully warrant continued criticism of the critics as well. Though the promised two perspectives never really emerge, the Jewish scholar, Lapide, and the Protestant, Luz, do provide an instance of the dialogue they would promote among their communities. Their exercise of a joint criticism on a common issue is to be affirmed; their shared understanding ofJesus should prove useful, especially for general audiences. With Peter Stuhlmacher, Lapide has written a similar study on Paul. There remains a need for a comparably useful volume examining the theologies of the evangelists and the extent to which they impede or encourage a humane Jewish and Christian interrelatedness.