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)