Hays’s
Criteria Revised: Echoes of Scripture and Tradition
would propose, then, that Hays’s
criteria should be revamped in the following ways:
Availability can no longer
be taken for granted but is now the decisive criterion. Which facets of the
Akedah were present in the Jewish encyclopedia at the time of the composition
of the Gospel of Matthew? Was the concept of a willing, active Isaac available?
Was Isaac’s deed understood as salvific in some sense prior to its composition?
Here we come upon the difficult but necessary historical task of reconstructing
a small part of the ancient Jewish encyclopedia potentially relevant for the
Gospel of Matthew.
Volume retains its
importance, but perceived syntactic similarities to a proposed Old Testament
text must be evaluated not solely on the basis of its coherence with the
putative content of the precursor text itself but also in light of possible
coherence with traditions of interpretation attached to that text in the Jewish
encyclopedia. Further, the significance of the “precursor text” is to be judged
not only in terms of the prominence of the text itself within Scripture but by
the prominence of the traditions of interpretation attached to it. (Of course,
we often determine the importance of an Old Testament text precisely by means
of its significance in Jewish interpretive tradition.)
Recurrence or Clustering
is expanded to include allusions to postbiblical traditions. If we can conclude
that there are allusions to traditions of the Akedah in the Gethsemane and
arrest sequence, we may be more certain that such is the case in other, less
certain passages, such as the baptism or transfiguration. Note that this
involves a coherent, holistic view of a Gospel; since redaction criticism largely
ignores narrative factors, the principle of recurrence or clustering is seldom
taken seriously.
Thematic Coherence helps
confirm perceived syntactic allusions. It must include extrabiblical traditions
under its purview. Most commentators can make no sense of potential references
to Isaac in the Gospels precisely because they do not take extrabiblical
traditions of the Akedah fully into consideration. It is also important to note
here that different facets of an interpretive tradition such as the Akedah
develop over time. Thus, an allusion to Gen 22 in Matthew could produce echoes
of a single aspect of the Akedah present in the encyclopedia; that
certain aspects developed later in the tradition does not mean that other
aspects were not available earlier. Further, the text can actualize one
particular aspect without actualizing others.
Historical Plausibility
becomes more important. It implicitly acknowledges the role and importance of
the Jewish cultural encyclopedia, for it explicitly considers “what might have
been intended and grasped by particular first-century [C.E.] figures.” It
recognizes the particular historical location in which the New Testament texts
were produced and read, and thus necessitates the inclusion of traditions of
interpretation attached to the biblical texts. Since it concerns the presence
of traditions in the encyclopedia, it is now intimately connected to
availability.
History of Interpretation
remains a most helpful guide but is not ultimately decisive. In the same way
that early Christian interpreters may have lost Paul’s sense of urgency about
relating the gospel to Israel, many may have lacked the intimate knowledge of
Jewish traditions of interpretation likely familiar to many New Testament
writers. Thus, the import of Hays’s judgment with regard to Paul stands with
regard to the possibility of the presence of Isaac in various passages in the
Gospel of Matthew: “this criterion should rarely be used as a negative test to
exclude proposed echoes that commend themselves on other grounds.” That said,
many Fathers see connections between Isaac and Jesus that prove fruitful for
the interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew, as examined in the excursus below.
Satisfaction. This
criterion still concerns the sense of the whole. Given its broad scope and
generality, we may move into the realm of questions concerning general
typological relationships and narrative coherence. Does the Matthean
presentation of Jesus require a typological model, particularly that of Isaac?
Does the intertextual frame of the ready martyr, of which Isaac is the
paradigmatic example, support underlying narrative coherence? Might the Akedah
help smooth the narrative transition and Christological relationship between
Jesus the teacher and Jesus the God-ordained sacrifice? (Leroy A. Huizenga, The
New Isaac: Tradition and Intertextuality in the Gospel of Matthew [Supplements
to Novum Testamentum 131; Leiden: Brill, 2009], 63-65)
