The latest commentary on Matthew is a killer. I’ve churned through 150 pages or so of R. T. France’s The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT), and it’s been a pleasure. Despite the book’s size (lxiv +1169 pp.), France opts out of the “commentary on commentaries” approach and even avoids the bulk of introductory issues normally associated with commentaries, keeping his introduction down to a bare minimum 22 pages in part by referring readers to his earlier works, particularly Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher.

I intend to review a few aspects of this commentary as time permits. In brief however I’m very, very pleased. It’s a true joy to read a commentary written by someone who has spent some forty years hammering away at Matthew (including a previous commentary), and who has also recently completed a major commentary on Mark (NIGTC).

Among important and interesting insights from the introduction:
(1) France is far from exhaustive in his bibliography—for fuller attempts, consult Luz, Keener, Davies and Allison, and Nolland. He does however make use of several works by evangelicals sometimes (perhaps) not given their due in the literature, i.e., the published dissertations of R. Menninger, T. Donaldson and A. I. Wilson. He wades into a few debates in more detail, especially those which he has addressed previously, such as the two-fold structure of the projected events in Matthew 24. I hope to blog on this later .
(2) In structure or outline France takes a very different turn from most others. He does not think the “central structural principle of the gospel” is best reflected by the tripartite scheme on offer in Kingsbury et al, and the five/six-fold alternating blocks of narrative and teaching (though the teaching blocks are an important aspect of Matthew). Instead, he relies on Matthew’s use of Mark’s geographic flow from “north to south.” I’m not satisfied with the outline as it currently stands, but I do believe he is onto something important: geography is very important for Matthew, and this has been inherited (to some extent) from Mark.

Unfortunately France writs too early to address one recent, interesting trend, namely, the question of “overlap” in Matthew’s structure: see e.g., Wim Weren on “hinged texts” in “The Macrostructure of Matthew’s Gospel: A New Proposal,” Biblica 87 (2006), available at http://www.bsw.org/?l=7187; Weren may have similar topological concerns. In addition to Weren, such overlap also may be present elsewhere—see perhaps R. Van Neste on the Pastorals, I think, and especially the very intriguing B. Longenecker volume, Rhetoric at the Boundaries: The Art and Theology of New Testament Chain-Link Transitions, Baker Academic, 2005.

(3) He is less concerned about interpreting minutiae of Matthew based on community theories (and announces his intention to interact critically in the commentary with Sim. I have to agree with this statement (re: Saldarini, Overman, and Sim’s “anti-Gentile” interpretation of Matthew, i.e., a staunchly law-observant, “Jewish-Christian” community): “I suspect that a commentary written in twenty years’ time would not feel obliged to give it so much attention.”

(4) His comments on the “formula-quotations” and on the use of the OT in Matthew generally are excellent, treating them as representative of Matt’s interest in fulfillment rather than an isolated unit of texts in seclusion from the rest of the book.

(5) But by far the most interesting proposal on offer is his insistence that we take seriously the degree of difference between Judean (not Jew!!!) and Galilean culture and characters in multiple categories: race (or at least racial history), geography, politics, economy, culture, language, and religion. This of course plays into his reading of the geographical shifts in Matthew’s structure, not simply because of the historical import of the move down to Jerusalem in light of Israel’s history, but also because of massive sociological differences in the era of Matthew and Jesus. I can’t recall a commentary on any book putting this as front and center (though cf. his Mark NIGTC).

This last reminds me of the interesting “IUDAIOS as Judean or Jew?” debate circling the web (see C. Weimer; follow his link back to Loren Rosson; see comments on both blogs). I’m under the impression that J. H. Elliot will also address this in an article in the forthcoming issue of JSHJ.

The cheapest place to purchase this text, by my reckoning, is buy.com, although Westminster Seminary rivals it (and shipping can be had for a flat fee, so that if one wants to load up, on, say, France and some Word Biblical commentaries for ½ price, www.wtsbooks.com is the best option).

This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007 at 7:22 pm by jbhood and is filed under JB Hood. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.