/HDGHUVKLSDQG'LVFLSOHVKLS$6WXG\RI/XNH

UHYLHZ
-RKQ76TXLUHV
Hebrew Studies, Volume 37, 1996, pp. 199-202 (Review)
3XEOLVKHGE\1DWLRQDO$VVRFLDWLRQRI3URIHVVRUVRI+HEUHZ
DOI: 10.1353/hbr.1996.0022

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hbr/summary/v037/37.squires.html

Access provided by Uppsala universitet (28 Apr 2015 17:51 GMT)

Hebrew Studies 37 (1996)

199

Reviews

the first century. he allows that culture no voice at all in the deliberations
over Matthew's content or meaning. For example, Matthew's meaning for
"Lord" is discovered by a search for instances of the tille in the Septuagint
and intertestamental texts but takes no note of the popular ideas connected
to the title in the larger world. These common images need to be tested
against scenes in the gospel where Matthew shows Jesus as "Lord." As
another example. Saldarini notes the popularity of clubs all over the empire, but only to exclaim over Matthew's choice of the Septuagint term
ekklesia. But this word would have been meaningful to Gentiles too, since
it is also commonly used in hellenic texts to indicate public assemblies of
the people. Saldarini does not seem inclined to test for the uniqueness of
Matthew's group by comparing membership expectations like Matt 18:1520 with extant club rules. for example. Without a Greco-Roman backdrop.
and given only Jewish literature for reference. Matthew's images and language about Jesus cannot represent the ideas available to his Jewish
membership.
Saldarini makes a persuasive case that Matthew's membership is probably Jewish and also Torah observant, but his argument that it is a deviant
group embedded in the Jewish community and still supporting a Jewish
mission is weakened by its dependence on special pleading. Nevertheless.
this book provides a scholarly challenge to the presuppositions that continue to dominate reconstructions of the Matthean community and offers
important observations on the gospel evidence. Saldarini has provided a
valuable and welcome contribution to Synoptic studies.
Wendy Cotter
Loyola University
Chicago.IL 60626

LEADERSHIP AND DISCIPLESHIP: A STUDY OF LUKE

22:24-30. By Peter K. Nelson. SBL Dissertation Series 138. Pp. xvii +
330. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Paper, $19.95.
This book is based on a Ph.D. thesis written under the supervision of
John Nolland. Nelson's aim is "to discern the Lukan significance of Luke
22:24-30." a passage that includes both Jesus' exhortation to his disciples
for them to serve and his promise to his disciples of kingship and authority.

Hebrew Studies 37 (1996)

200

Reviews

Nelson's exploration of this passage makes good use of a wide range of exegetical methods; he takes care that the fruits of these methods are always
related back to the primary text, which remains his focus throughout the
book. Nelson wants to read these seven verses as a whole and to draw from
them some significant conclusions regarding the nature of discipleship as
Luke understands it. Overall, the book succeeds in achieving these aims.
The book comprises two substantial parts framed by an Introduction and
a Conclusion. In the 100 pages of Part One (chapters 2-5) Nelson explores
four "background perspectives" for this passage. The first two arise from
the content of the passage and concern authority and subordination as well
as table motifs. The third background context is the motif of reversal,
which Nelson argues is fundamental to the form of the passage; the fourth
context is the literary testamentary genre, which is the literary type for a
substantial part of Luke 22. In each case, Nelson summarizes the scholarly
consensus in relation to the Hellenistic and Jewish contexts, explores the occurrences of the theme in the New Testament as a whole, and then turns
specifically to Luke-Acts as the final "background perspective" for Luke
22:4-30. These summaries of scholarly opinions are clear and concise; he
has covered much material and presented his conclusions clearly. I especially found his treatment of each theme as it is found in Luke-Acts to be a
rewarding aspect of his work.
In the 130 pages of Part Two (chapters 6-8), Nelson moves into a detailed phrase-by-phrase consideration of the passage. He declares that the
background perspectives will provide the platform from which this detailed
consideration takes place. This promise is fulfilled at times, although most
of the content of this part of the book revolves around individual word
studies, points of grammar, and exegetical argument in the commentaries.
In two closely argued chapters, Nelson reveals his exegetical judgments
about matters such as the relationship between the Lukan text and Mark (in
the case of Luke 22:24-27) and Matthew (for Luke 22:28-30), the cause
and seriousness of the dispute among the apostles (22:24), the nature of the
service of which Jesus speaks (22:27), the nature of the trials endured by
Jesus (22:28), the meaning of kingship that is conferred by Jesus (22:29),
and a host of details besides these. The denseness of the argument makes
for slow, sometimes hard reading; however, this is balanced by Nelson's
refusal to be sidetracked for too long in apparently interesting byways and
his insistence that the exegetical task must always shed light on the meaning
of the text. Helpful in this regard are the clear introductory and concluding
summations that punctuate these exegetical explorations.

Hebrew Studies 37 (1996)

201

Reviews

Nelson's attempt to provide an overall "Summary and Synthesis" in the

last chapter was valuable. especially what he claims regarding "pivot point
discipleship" (i.e . disciples are people who both lead and are led) and the
nature of discipleship (i.e., a disciple ought to expect that highs, as well as
lows. are integral to following Jesus). Yet my experience in reading this
book was that. despite the frequent provision of summaries of the argument. the broad picture was swamped, again and again, by the numerous
details treated by Nelson. At times it was hard to see that some of these details had relevance to the thesis other than that they ought to be treated for
the sake of completeness. The thesis that the book argues is valuable and
insightful; however, I felt that it would have been more helpful had Nelson
found a better balance between the exegetical details and the broader
ramifications of the overall case that he argued. There is virtually no
consideration of how this passage fits in the literary structure of Luke's
Gospel (or. indeed. Luke-Acts). nor any attention given to the relationship
between this passage and the purpose of Luke-Acts as a whole. My inclination, for example. would be to consider the way in which this "pivot point
discipleship." validating both downward and upward movements, is related
to the use of the phrase "the plan of God" as a means of validating not only
the upward movement of the successful mission of the early church. but
also the downward movement of the crucifixion of Jesus. No doubt other
such links could be traced.
A reading of the biblical text as an integral whole. such as Nelson aims
for. is both necessary and desirable. However. it was only in a footnote
buried on page 236 that it became evident that Nelson was aware of what
assumptions this kind of reading makes and how they relate to the insights
of form and tradition criticisms regarding the separate origins of 22:24-27
and 22:28-30. Had this explanation been given at the start of the book. I
may well have found that some of the questions that recurred as I read
might have been laid to rest. As it was, I was caught in a perpetual dialogue
with Nelson along the lines of "yes, but..." or "O.K . but what about.. .." I
would have appreciated a clearer locating of the enterprise in the context of
the wider scholarly activity (apan from close scrutiny of individual words
and phrases).
Finally. I note that the kind of readership that would be likely to purchase and use this book is rather unclear to me. The book functions largely
at a technical "reference" level. It provides many more details than does a
commentary (even a thorough, technical commentary). but treats only
seven verses. Surely most preachers and exegetes would want a broader

Hebrew Studies 37 (1996)

202

Reviews

sweep in one volume than we find here. Although Nelson has done a good
job of integrating a number of "background themes," the work ultimately
reads like a collation of technical word studies and grammatical discussions. I think that further broad thematic and theological discussions would
have enhanced the quality of this monograph.

John T. Squires
United Theological Col/ege
North Parramatta, N.S.W. 2151 Australia
A KEY-WORDINCONTEXT CONCORDANCE TO TARGUM
NEOFITI: A GUIDE TO THE COMPLETE PALESTINIAN
ARAMAIC TEXT OF THE TORAH. By Stephen A. Kaufman and
Michael Sokoloff. The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. Pp. 1494.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993. Cloth.
The Aramaic Bible translations, known as the Targumim, have been of
immense interest since their introduction during the second Temple period.
The Talmud (b. Ber. 8a) encouraged Jews to read the biblical portion of
the official literal Targum (Onqelos) weekly. A later, more prolix, and
also complete Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan has been and continues to be mined frequently by scholars and lay readers for midrashic and other post-biblical
material. Other existing targum texts include various fragmentary largumim, Tosejla Targumim to some Pentateuchal books, the "sectarian"
Peshitta, the Syro-Palestinian translation, and Samaritan Aramaic versions.
The manuscript of yet another complete targum, somewhat more
expansive than Tg. Onqelos but less so than Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan, was discovered in 1949 in the Vatican Library by Professor Jose Maria Millas
Vallicrosa and Alejandro Diez Macho. Codex NeoJiti 1 was labeled "Item
1" among a group of manuscripts that came to the Vatican Library from
the Pia Domus Neophytorum in Rome, hence its name. Though its origin is
uncertain, the colophon to the manuscript dates the copy to 1504 C.E. The
manuscript may have been donated to Pia Domus Neophytorum in 1602
C.E. along with a text of the fragmentary targum. The Codex itself has
many marginal glosses containing corrections and different interpretations,
probably drawn from Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan. The occasional interlinear
glosses, with the same apparent purpose, were likewise apparently derived
from other, now non-existent, targum texts.