Wednesday, November 2, 2022

Jon A. Weatherly on "Jerusalem" in Matthew 23:37//Luke 13:34-35 as a Reference to the City Merely, not a Synecdoche for all Israel

  

Mt. 23.37//Lk. 13.34-35 is clearly a traditional text on either the two-document or multi-stage theories of Synoptic relationships. In the former case, it is taken from Q; in the latter, it belongs to some un-specified pre-Synoptic tradition. The question is somewhat more difficult on the Griesbach theory, according to which Matthew may have composed the passage. There is, however, a clear indication that Matthew did not create this text. Contrary to this universal practice elsewhere, Matthew here uses the Semitic spelling for Jerusalem (‘Ιερουσαλημ). No theological explanation for this spelling is forthcoming, but the assumption that the pre-Matthean tradition used the Semitic form adequately accounts for the anomaly.

 

Most commentators regard the vocative ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem’ in Mt. 23.37 as a synecdoche referring to all Israel. The interpretation depends largely on judgments about Matthew’s theology based on other texts. At the level of pre-Synoptic tradition, however, what is important to note is that Jerusalem is specified as the killer of the prophets despite the fact that it is not so identified in other materials which draw on the killing-of-the-prophets motif. Although the vocative ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem could have functioned in the tradition as a poetic figure for all Israel, it must be asked why such a figure would be used in this context. It could reflect the prophetic usage of Jerusalem as a figure for Israel (e.g., Isa. 51.17; Jer. 6.8). The phrase ‘who kills the prophets.

 

On the other hand, other terms with unambiguously wider denotations were available, and these two have antecedents in the prophetic literature (e.g., ‘Israel’ ‘house of Jacob’, Jer. 2.4). Thus, the juxtaposition of Jerusalem with the killing of the prophets may have been a deliberate variation of the usual killing-of-the-prophets motif in order to call attention to Jerusalem’s distinctive role in the death of Jesus.

 

Thus, there are good arguments for understanding ‘Jerusalem’ to refer specifically to Jerusalem in the pre-Matthean/Lukan tradition. But at this point, the arguments cannot be regarded as decisive. A conclusion can only be drawn when the wider case is considered. If Mt. 23.27//Lk. 13.34 is an isolated instance in the pre-Synoptic tradition, then ‘Jerusalem’ can be taken as a figure for all Israel. But if there are indications elsewhere that Jerusalem was traditionally specified as the agent of the crucifixion, then the reference to Jerusalem in the lament is probably another such specification. At this point the text does not provide a preliminary indication that Jerusalem was isolated in at least part of the pre-Synoptic tradition. Therefore, other texts can be considered in that light. (Jon A. Weatherly, Jewish Responsibility from the Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts [Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 106; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], 197-99)