JETS 51/2 (June 2008)
Matthew 1–7. By Ulrich Luz. Hermeneia.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007, xxxviii + 432 pp., $75.00.
The translation of volume 1 of
Ulrich Luz’s commentary on Matthew, based on the revised fifth edition of the
German, is “in many parts . . . a new book” (p. xvii) relative to the earlier
English edition (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989). In terms of interaction with
secondary literature, the revision for the introduction and chapters 1–2 was
completed by the summer of 2000; chapters 3–7 by 1998. More generally Luz
states, “In this new edition the basic concept of the commentary has not
changed, but it has become clearer. At many points I have sharpened my previous
position or have clarified it; in a few cases I have corrected it [e.g. p. 50].
I have given more attention to the results of literary criticism and of
sociological and reader-oriented exegeses. However, in its exegetical parts the
commentary is not bound to a single methodological approach; it offers instead
an attempt to integrate various methodological approaches [cf. p. 15, in
response to W. Carter’s criticism of Luz’s earlier publications to the effect
that Luz has failed fully to take on board narrative criticism].” The “basic
position of the commentary” is summarized in a sentence: “the story of Jesus
that Matthew reinterprets and actualizes is an approach to his communities in a
totally concrete historical situation” (p. xvii). Seeing what he means by this
is a vital ingredient in understanding the whole of his work, but space
restrictions require me simply to refer back to my earlier review of his Studies in Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005)
in JETS 49 (2006) 420–22.
From that historical reconstruction, it is possible
to make a very direct hermeneutical move “to the history of the text’s influence (Wirkungsgeschichte),” which he understands “as
consisting of all of the reflections on and receptions and actualizations of the
gospel in new historical situations” (p. xvii; see pp. 60–66 and Luz’s Matthew in History [Minneapolis: Fortress,
1994]). Matthew’s Gospel, as Exhibit A, itself registers just one in a
continuous history of such receptions and actualizations of Jesus’ history.
Further, in our own readings of Matthew we must recall (Luz points out) that we
are never stationary and objective observers of an historical stream as it
moves by but are “rather like people who have to examine the water of a stream
while they are sitting in a boat that is carried along by that very stream” (p.
63). Moreover, “a living relationship to the ‘substance’ of the texts is
essential for the modern understanding of all fundamental human texts” (p. 61
n. 313). Thus, tracing the Wirkungsgeschichte of Matthew is not merely an addendum to exegesis
but an essential aspect of it (p. 65). Where historicalcritical interpretation
has failed in part of its task, “the history of the text’s influence can help
and can make clear to the interpreters (1) who they are in their confrontation with
the texts, and (2) who they might become in their confrontation with them” (p.
63). Indeed, Luz states that he has “written this commentary primarily for
priests, pastors and teachers of religion” (p. xv).
Even a commentary of this
length that undertakes to incorporate a biblical text’s 2000-year history of
influence will of necessity be selective (among other things, Luz remains
within the orbit of “interpretations that influenced the Catholic and
Protestant churches as confessions” and “sources concentrated on European
history”). A goal, which partially warrants the effort, is to “lead the
biblical texts into the present.” This is not done by Luz in the form of theses
or directives; “instead I try to speak of the direction in which the texts point for
today in order, on the one hand, to sketch the space and the direction in which
the texts might direct us today, but, on the other hand, to leave the users of
this commentary the space they need to seek with the texts their own avenue of
understanding” (p. 65). Likewise, at various points in the course of the
commentary, Luz emphasizes the way the author of Matthew himself moves his
received tradition in a particular direction and the “openness of the texts” themselves,
prohibiting restrictive and exclusive interpretations (e.g. pp. 190, 197, 248,
373).
There are, however,
hermeneutical limits, so that we may speak of “successful and unsuccessful
realizations of biblical texts” (p. 65). Elsewhere (Studies 265–89) he proposes as
criteria for truth in interpretation a “correspondence criterion”
(correspondence to the history of Jesus); a “pragmatic criterion” (does it
bring about love?); and a “consensus criterion” (recognizing that
interpretation is not a private task but the task for the church). The author
of Matthew is himself not above being subjected to these criteria (e.g.
Matthew’s anti-Judaism in Matthew in History 33–34; but see also Studies 257–61).
After a 66-page introduction,
the commentary on Matthew 1–7 fills another 331 pages. There are six excursuses
(Fulfillment Quotations; Righteousness; Son of God; Disciple; Preaching,
Teaching, and Gospel in Matthew; False Prophets). The volume closes with
indices for primary sources; Greek words (highly selective); subjects (brief and
selective); and authors.
Treatments of units of text
begin with bibliography and a translation of the passage. Following this is
“analysis,” comprising varying selections from a menu of sub-sections (e.g.
structure and form, redaction, fulfillment quotations, historicity, origin).
Those with weak stomachs for rather fine analyses (dicing down individual words
into layers of tradition, etc.) will appreciate Luz’s occasional refusal to
speculate. More often, however, they will grow queasy (e.g. pp. 261–62,
375–76). Nevertheless, it is readily apparent that and how all these aspects of
analysis have their role in the historical-literaryhermeneutical thesis
(singular) of the commentary; the level of integration is one of the most
impressive aspects of Luz’s work as a whole. Given the desire to include the Wirkungsgeschichte of Matthew as well as sections
on the meaning of Matthew for today (and given that his intended readership is
primarily “priests, pastors and teachers of religion”), Luz is and had to be
fairly concise in all these analytical sections. Some may wish for more
discussion, but normally there is at least some indication of the reasoning behind
his judgments.
The commentary proper
(“interpretation”) likewise employs a fluid outlining procedure. He sometimes
intersperses the history of interpretation/influence with his exposition,
sometimes reserves it for the end; at times he divides the exposition into its
distinct interpretations at the levels of Jesus/Community/Q/Matthew (thus
outlining these stages in the on-going Wirkungsgeschichte of the basic history of
Jesus), sometimes just Jesus and Matthew or just Matthew; etc. For all that it
flows well and is quite readable. Setting aside agreement and disagreement,
Luz’s views are thoroughly informed, sensible (given his working theories), and
well defended (or transparently defensible, given that this is not a commentary
for beginners).
My own decision to give a
broader review of this volume leaves no space for interactions with Luz’s
specific arguments and conclusions; for a little more of that I refer again to
my earlier review. Here I simply highlight a few observations and criticisms.
It is understandable but
unfortunate that this volume was not able to include chapters 9–11, given Luz’s
outline of Matthew. It is Luz’s judgment that our Matthew was known to 1 Peter
(e.g. pp. 59, 204). The running treatments of grace and law in Matthew and in
relation to Paul are excellent. On occasion one is startled by the assertion
that a text in Matthew is in substance simply not Matthean (e.g. p. 256 on
5:32b). In commenting on 7:6, he writes, “I am going to permit myself not to
interpret the logion in its Matthean context. Matthew was a conservative
author; out of faithfulness to his tradition he included the saying simply
because it appeared in his copy of Q. . . . My advice is radical: one should
not use it as a biblical word [given its history of influence]” (p. 356).
Obviously this is fair play in the historical-critical game, but, for all that,
seemingly an admission of failure of imagination and a kind of lack of charity
due Matthew,
rather than boldness. Lastly,
it is not finally clear how Luz’s own general hermeneutic underwrites his
confidence in determining a kind of timeless understanding of the original
meaning of strata of traditions. Yet this is what he seems to believe
historical criticism does (e.g. pp. 61, 63, 190, 197, 373). It gives us a
reference point by which all later readings can be measured, not in terms of
truth (which is “always situational”; p. 269) but at least in terms of plotting
the Wirkungsgeschichte. Again, the point of this observation
is simply with reference to Luz’s own hermeneutical approach. Why should the
results of historical criticism not be viewed as, for the most part, a
breathing of our own culture through its own methodological construct (itself a
product of our time), simply another movement in the inexorable stream that is
taking us all for a boat ride? Why or how is historical criticism able to get
to shore and watch the stream from there? I am not saying there are no answers,
but it is not clear from what Luz writes what his answers are. One wonders if
there are ways of answering these questions that would require some reworking
of Luz’s whole approach.
The “history of
interpretation” and “meaning for today” sections are worth the (high) price of
the book. Good examples abound; almost at random I cite pp. 266–69, 291–94,
348, 395–99. One disturbing lesson that plays out repeatedly before our eyes is
the domestication of the Sermon through time. The praise of these sections is
not intended to diminish the significance of Luz’s verse-by-verse commentary,
which is consistently insightful, provocative, persuasive, morally bracing
(e.g. p. 286), and sometimes humorous. As a pure historical-critical study,
Luz’s work ranks with that of Davies and Allison (ICC). Yet it is in the fruit
of his Wirkungsgeschichte
investigations and
in his own attempt to understand Matthew (“a responsible and binding new stating of
what has concerned the author of the text”; p. 64, citing Barth) that his work
stands apart. Certainly, Luz’s conclusions on the meaning of Matthew for today
proceed along the lines of his own assumptions, with which many will disagree.
Obviously, some conclusions do not require these particular arguments. Yet as I
stressed in the earlier review of Studies, it is in fact a strength of Luz’s work that there is such a strong
organic relation between his theological conclusions and his historical-literary
theories, and that is a two-edged sword. Regardless, his reviews of the history
of influence and his own struggles with what Matthew means in our context are
clearly grounded in a deep pastoral concern for the modern (European,
Protestant-Catholic) world and an equally deep desire for faithfulness to the
Sermon as he understands it. In whatever ways Luz’s own theological (e.g. Jesus
was wrong about the way in which the kingdom would come; pp. 239, 280, 360;
note p. 393) and cosmological (e.g. p. 241) assumptions may vitiate his
reading, his sympathetic listening to the history of influence has everywhere
shaped his ultimate understanding.
Returning to Luz’s concern for
the usefulness of his commentary to priests, pastors and teachers of religion,
I can only say that I have used his work heavily myself in teaching Matthew and
have recommended it strongly to my pastors.
Jon C. Laansma
Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten