THE ILIFF SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

MATTHEW AND SIRACH: AN INTERTEXTUAL EXPLORATION

SUBMITTED TO DR. PAM EISENBAUM IN PARTIAL COMPLETION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BS 3850: FORMATION OF THE CANON

BY NICK ELDER MAY 19, 2012

There can be no doubt that neither Jesus, Paul, nor any of the earliest leaders of the Jesus movement handed down a canon (2)1 to their followers. The common trope in canon scholarship in recent years is that a closed list of scripture did not exist or function until at least Athanasius 39th Festal Letter in 367 CE, though even this is now contested.2 Scholars, however, are quick to recognize the importance of certain writings to NT authors. The historical-critical project of detecting allusions of the HB/LXX in the NT is a field that continues to grow; this is in no small thanks to the likes of Richard B. Hays, Steve Moyoise, and Christopher Stanley, who have led a resurgence in the Old Testament in the New school of interpretation. While the tripartite canon of the HB was likely not set until circa 130 CE, the textual evidence demonstrates that every NT author was either quoting or alluding to HB/LXX texts. This is intuitive based on the fact that the Jesus movement was most certainly a Jewish movement in the first century and beyond. If the texts of the HB/LXX were functioning as canon (1) for these Jewish communities it is no great surprise that the NT writers would utilize them in some way. The recognition that these texts held authority for the NT writers is as old as the NT writings themselves; this is an unquestioned assumption in scholarship. Canon scholarship has The semantics around the term canon are widely discussed in scholarship. Some claim that scholars ought to only use canon in the sense of a fixed and closed list of scripture. See especially David Brakke, Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria's Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter, HTR 87 (1994): 397-399 and David L. Dungan, Constantine's Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 1. Others distinguish between the use of the term canon as Scriptures that are functioning authoritatively or those that are contained within the fixed list of canon from the fourth and fifth centuries CE. In this paper I will distinguish between canon as authoritative Scripture and canon as a closed list of writing by using Lee Martin McDonalds distinction between canon 1 and canon 2, which itself is dependent on G.T. Sheppard. For McDonald, canon 1 consists of those books that were used and thought of as authoritative, while canon 2 is a term used for the closed canon established much later. (Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], 55-58.) 2 Brakke, Canon Formation and Social Conflict. 1
1

2 begun to move beyond detecting quotations and allusions to the HB/LXX in the NT to detecting quotations and allusions to various non-canonical literatures. Lee Martin McDonald states: Jesus parallels in language and allusions to the so-called apocryphal or pseudepigraphal literature in the canonical Gospels are often remarkably similar to allusions or citations that appear in other New Testament writings and in other early church writings as well. These allusions, citations, and verbal parallels indicate that Jesus was influenced to some extent and informed by religious literature that was not later included in the Hebrew Bible as well as by a common tradition or expression of wisdom in the Jewish communitythe multiplicity of these parallels points toward direct influence and dependence.3 McDonald and others4 who are broadening their search for what texts influenced the NT writers are opening a door that scholarship has left shut for some time; in this way what they are doing is of utmost importance. However, based on the primary texts, especially in their Greek forms, these parallels are not nearly as strong as McDonald would lead his readers to believe. McDonald follows the above quotation by listing 16 intertextual relationships (what he calls citations or allusions, making no distinction between the two) that he sees between the canonical and non-canonical texts. He compares verbal and ideological resonances between the texts by italicizing the English translation in the places where the texts seem to reflect some kind of correlation.5 McDonald is probably not trying to be misleading in presenting these English ideological and verbal parallels. In fact, he subsequently states that some of the citations and allusions he demonstrates may result from shared knowledge and perspectives in 1st century

Lee Martin McDonald, Forgotten Scriptures: The Selection and Rejection of Early Religious Writings (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), Loc. 1987 on Amazon Kindle. 4 See also P. Stuhlmacher, The Significance of the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha for the Understanding of Jesus and Christology, in The Apocrypha in Ecumenical Perspective: The Place of the Late Writings of the Old Testament among the Biblical Writings and Their Significance in the Eastern and Western Church Traditions (ed. S. Meurer; trans. P. Ellingworth; United Bible Societies Monograph Series 6; New York: United Bible Societies, 1991), 1-15. 5 McDonald, Forgotten Scriptures, Loc. 2002-2049 on Amazon Kindle.

3 Judaism.6 The issue I take with McDonald is that he does not clearly define his use of citation and allusion, which are two entirely different phenomena, and comes to conclusions based on large lists of citations and allusions of non-canonical texts in the NT.7 He is not heeding his own advice as stated in The Biblical Canon: only after carefully examining each context can we draw responsible conclusions about how such ancient references were viewed by their users.8 In this paper I will attempt to heed McDonalds advice and carefully examine the use of Sirach in Matthews gospel. I am limiting myself to one canonical gospel and one non-canonical text due to the nature of this project. The purported use of even one non-canonical text in the entirety of the NT would in itself be a task far too great for a term paper, and perhaps even a thesis. I have chosen Matthews purported use of Sirach for a number of reasons. First, is the number of times Matthew is allegedly citing Sirach: in Appendix D of The Biblical Canon McDonald lists 25 citations or allusions to Sirach in the gospel.9 Second, McDonald specifically draws out two connections between these texts in the sixteen he lists (Sir 29.10-11 with Matt 6.20 and Sir 24.19-22; 51.23, 26 with Matt 11.28-30), viewing them as in an especially strong intertextual relationship.10 Finally, based on Sirachs genre it would be a text likely to be utilized by Matthew who portrays Jesus as personified wisdom.11 I will not be able to draw overarching conclusions that will demonstrate how noncanonical texts were used in canonical texts generally. Nor will I be able to draw definitive McDonald, Forgotten Scriptures, Loc. 2121 on Amazon Kindle. He is especially dependent on B. Aland et al., eds., Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993), 800-806 and C.A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005), 342-409. 8 McDonald, The Biblical Canon, 192. 9 McDonald, The Biblical Canon, 452-454. 10 McDonald, Forgotten Scriptures, Loc. 2,002-2,049 on Amazon Kindle. 11 Celia M. Deutsch, Lady Wisdom, Jesus, and the Sages: Metaphor and Social Context in Matthew's Gospel (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), 1.
7 6

4 conclusions as to how Matthew uses all apocryphal texts. Rather, I will be able to explore the use of a singular non-canonical text as it may or may not have been used by Matthew and draw conclusions based on that exploration. To claim that this use is representative of the NTs, the gospels, or even Matthews use of non-canonical literature would not be prudent. Rather, this paper will take first steps in exploring the intertextual relationships that NT texts have with noncanonical texts, revealing that each text must be explored on its own right before any definitive conclusions are drawn. In the case of Matthew I will demonstrate that McDonald overstates his case: there is not textual or ideological grounds to demonstrate that Matthew is directly dependent on or influenced by Sirach. My hunch is that the conclusions drawn from the intertextual relationships explored in this paper would reflect similar inferences in regards to the NTs usage of non-canonical texts generally, but those conclusions cannot be made hereit would be necessary to explore each of those relationships on their own. There are a number of ways an interpreter or reader can approach intertextual relationships between two texts. Historically biblical scholars have taken a diachronic approach in exploring these relationships in the NT. Recently a number of scholars have taken up the poststructuralists notion of intertextuality12 more seriously and have taken a synchronic approach to the biblical text, comparing the biblical literature with modern texts and

The term intertextuality was first coined in 1969 by Julia Kristeva who deemed the idea that texts were closed structures as problematic. For Kristeva this did not allow all the discourses that entailed the production and reception of a text to speak. Therefore, she broadened the scope of what consists of text. All text then interact an produce meaning in the space before and between author and reader. See Word, Dialogue, and Novel in Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Language and Art (ed. by Leon S. Roudiez, trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine, and Leon S. Roudiez; New York: Columbia University Press, 1980) for the genesis of this intertextual trajectory.

12

5 abandoning authorial intent as an irrecoverable mirage.13 I have no desire to situate myself permanently on either the diachronic or synchronic side of the intertextual spectrum; both of these approaches are consequential and tenable. It would be viable to take a reader-centered approach and demonstrate that a first-century hearer of Matthews gospel would likely recall Sirach as an intertext based on ideological resonances between the two texts. However, the objective of this paper necessitates that I approach the text in a diachronic manner, with an eye on the ever-allusive authorial intent. McDonald claims that non-canonical texts directly influenced NT writers on a level similar to the HB/LXX. It is one thing to demonstrate that a hearer recalls a text; it is a completely different thing to demonstrate that an author is directly dependent on and influenced by a text. The latter indicates that the evoked text has more authority than the former. In considering Matthews use (or lack thereof) of Sirach in an authorcentered approach I will be able to draw conclusions regarding Sirachs authority in a manner a reader-centered approach would not provide. I will examine the two strongest and most prominent purported intertextual connections between the texts, highlighting the similarities and difference and arguing that Matthew is not directly dependent on or influence by Sirach.

See Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga, eds., Reading the Bible Intertextually (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009) for a number synchronic approaches.

13

6 SIRACH 29.10-11 AND MATTHEW 6.19-20

Lose silver on account of a brother or a friend And dont allow it to rust under a stone to its destruction Give your treasure according to the command of the Most High And it will be more advantageous for you that gold

Matthew 6.19-20 , , , .

Do not store up treasure on earth, where moth and rust ruin and where thieves break in and steal. Rather, store up for yourself treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor beetle ruin and where thieves neither break in nor steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart also will be.1

Similarities Matthews text is overwhelmingly concerned with treasure and where it should be possessed. He uses three nominal forms of the word ; two of these function as the object of the imperatival verbal form, , which he utilizes twice. In v. 21 he uses the nominal form a third time as the subject of the sentence, bringing the wisdom saying to a pithy close with the connotation that treasure should not be kept on earth. Sirach is likewise concerned with (treasure) in 29.11. He, in a manner similar to Matthew, uses the word in the accusative case as the object of an imperative verb (). Here we have one example of verbal resonance. However, it is important to note that this is the only word the two texts have in common and, furthermore, where Matthew uses a form of the word five times, Sirach only uses it once. The other similarity between the two texts is more ideological than verbal: both note that earthly valuables are often ruined or destroyed by forces outside of an individuals control. Sirach 29.10 reminds that silver () will rust to its destruction if it is left under a rock; in this case it is better to be given as an almsgiving. Matthew warns that treasure stored on earth

7 may be eaten by at least two different genera of insects or looted by thieves who break in. Presumably Matthew is thinking of boxes of clothing as treasure in this case, as excessive and ornate clothing was characteristic of the rich but also an easy target for bugs and burglars alike, being stored in large wooden chests.14 The destruction of riches by natural causes is, by no means, a theme restricted to these two texts. It occurs frequently in wisdom literature and prophetic texts lambasting the rich. In fact, the theme of riches being moth-eaten is the most recurrent method for the decay of assets in a number of biblical texts. When compared to texts such as Isa 51.815 and Job 13.28,16 which make specific mention of garments and riches being destroyed by moths (cf. also Isa 50.9; Prov 25.20), it becomes striking that Sirach, lacking this observation, is put forward as an allusion. Differences The differences between the two texts far outweigh the similarities and demonstrate that the texts are not in a causal relationship. To begin, the semantic differences between the two texts are weighty. They indicate that Sirach is concerned with what the individual is to do, whereas Matthew is concerned with what the community is not to do. Sirach uses two positive imperatives to command the individual to give alms ( and ). Matthew makes use of a different negative imperative ( ) to instruct the community what not to do, which will implicitly inform them to take the opposite action in v. 20. Furthermore, where Sirach uses the second person singular throughout: (v. 10), (v. 11), Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (ed. Helmut Koester; trans. James E. Crouch; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 331. 15 , (for it will be eaten as a garment by time and it will be eaten as wool by a moth; but my righteousness is forever and my salvation goes to every generation) 16 (who wears out like a wineskin or as a moth-eaten garment)
14

8 (v. 11), Matthew uses the second person plural:17 (v. 19), (v. 20). If Matthew were directly dependent on Sirach he would have remained consistent with Sirachs positivistic approach, word choice, and use of the second person singular. While the semantic differences between Matthew and Sirach demonstrate the improbability of a causal relationship between the two texts in themselves, the overall view of riches in the literary contexts of both of these respective texts differs and further substantiates this improbability. The overall context in Sirach is concerned with whether or not someone ought to give loans to their neighbor(s). The chapter opens, introducing the theme that will be carried through its entirety in verse one: those who do mercy lend () to their neighbors. The verb here has a clear connotation of lending money with the expectation that it will be repaid, often with an excessive interest rate.18 In lending money to ones neighbor the individual is keeping a divine command, presumably from the precedent set in Torah.19 Sirach repeatedly uses words that resonate with loans and their repayment throughout the chapter.20 He continues to build on this theme until the verses in question, where he will specifically command individuals to give away their silver and treasure in fulfillment of the command to loan ones neighbor money. Matthew has a completely different orientation to treasure and its use in 6.19-21. In these verses of Matthew, Jesus is more concerned about the overall dispensation of his followers towards treasure and general wealth than he is with how they ought to use this treasure and wealth. He is not concerned with whether or not his followers should lend money to their v. 21 is the exception where is used twice. However a number of textual variants exist utilizing the plural . 18 BDAG, , 212. 19 Cf. Exod 22.24-26; Lev 25.35-37; Deut 25.7-22; 23.20-21; 24.10-13 20 cf. 29.1; 29.2; 29.2; 29.4; 29.5; 29.5; (x2) 29.6; 29.10; 29.11; 29.11; 29.11
17

9 neighbors as Sirach is. In fact, the ability to lend wealth may not even be in the realm of possibility in Jesus thinking, as his followers are commanded to not gather earthly capital. Here Jesus is emphasizing the urgency of seeking the kingdom of heaven above all earthly distractions.21 This is further demonstrated by the example of bugs and burglars, both of which were a symbol of impermanence,22 and further validated by v. 21, which serves as an intensified strengthening of the warning against earthly treasures.23 Thus, the overall concern of the two texts are disparate: Sirach is concerned with how to use impermanent wealth, and may even implicitly be encouraging his audience to store up treasure so that it can be lent to a neighbor; Matthew is concerned with denouncing wealth as a distraction to the kingdom of heaven. McDonald does not explicitly categorize what kind of intertextual relationship these texts are in, but broadly designates a number of relationships as citations or allusions. Richard B. Hays, an (or perhaps the) expert in the field of NT intertextuality, understands citation, allusion, and echo as on a spectrum moving from the obvious to the subliminal: allusion is used of obvious intertextual references, echo of subtler ones.24 He continues to present seven criteria for detecting intertextual echoes in NT texts.25 Even if we give McDonald the benefit of the doubt and assume that when he says citation and allusion he really means echo, Sirach 29.10-11 falls desperately short of qualifying as an echo in Matt 6.19-21. The texts dont meet any of the semantic or ideological criteria Hays has put forth. The only real intertextual connection between these texts is that they are both concerned with money, though they have diverging judgments on Thomas C. Long, Matthew (WBC; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 73. Scot McKnight, The Letter of James (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011), 386. 23 Luz, Matthew 1-7, 332. 24 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 29. 25 These are availability, volume, recurrence, thematic coherence, historical plausibility, history of interpretation, satisfaction. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 29-31.
22 21

10 the topic. The semantic similarities of the text are minimal: they only share one word of verbal resonance. Surely it is an overstatement to claim that these parallels point to direct influence and dependence,26 as McDonald does. The same will prove to be true of 51.23-26 in Matt 11. SIRACH 51.23-26 AND MATTHEW 11.28-30
Sirach 51.23-26 , , . ; . , . . Draw near to me, those uninstructed And you shall dwell in the house of instruction Why do you say that you lag in these things? And why do your souls thirst greatly? I opened my mouth and spoke Acquire for yourselves without gold Place your neck under the yoke And let your soul receive instruction It is close to be found.

Matt 11.28-30 , . , , .

Come to me all who are weary and who have been burdened and I will refresh you. Take my yoke upon yourself and learn from me because I am gentle and humble in heart and you will find rest for your souls. Because my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

In his text McDonald actually identifies citations/allusions to both Sirach 24.19-22 and Sirach 51.23-26 in an allusive mash-up of sorts. He does not determine if one is more allusive than the other, but lists both, purportedly because of the ideological resonances contained in both. Here I will only explore Matthew 11.28-30 with Sirach 51.23-26 in order to remain true to McDonalds suggestion that each text should be considered in its own right and also because he would have a stronger case in claiming that Sirach 51 is echoed in Matthew 11 as the similarities between these two texts are stronger than with Sirach 24. Similarities

26

McDonald, The Forgotten Scriptures, Amazon Kindle Loc. 1987.

11 The pericopes share instances of verbal resonances sprinkled throughout their respective texts. After the opening imperative we find the phrase in each text, however they each follow different imperative verbs: and . A plural form of with the plural also occurs in both texts, though in Matthew the syntactical function is as the object of the verb and in Sirach the function is as the subject. Finally, they both utilize a form of the lexeme : this is Jesus yoke in Matt, as explicitly indicated by the possessive pronoun in v. 30, while the yoke in Sirach 51 belongs to wisdom. The number of verbal resonances between these two texts are more plentiful than those explored in Matt 6 and Sir 29. At first glance this seems to make McDonalds case for direct dependence more likely. However the instances of verbal resonances are all separated by a number of other words. All but one of the similarities are single words, never phrases or sentences. The one exception is the common prepositional phrase , a phrase that occurs 429 times in the LXX, making it impossible to specify or argue for a single allusion on the basis of this construction. Differences In exploring Matt 6 use of Sir 29 I demonstrated that the supposed ideological resonances between the texts did not hold up upon closer inspection; that the two texts actually provided decidedly contrastive conclusions on the topic of treasure and wealth. The same cannot be said of Sir 51 and Matt 11; the two do share ideological resonances. Both speak of coming to an entity (personified wisdom in Sirach and Jesus in Matthew) and being given a specific reward for doing so. Once again, at first glance this would seem to lend credence to McDonalds conclusion that Matthew is dependent on Sirach in his composition in these verses. However, recognizing that

12 these are common tropes in wisdom literature demonstrates that the ideological similarities merely come from a wider, popular, and recurrent theme in the wisdom genre. is frequently used throughout the Septuagint to speak of a burden and its lightening/removal. Isa 9.4 (LXX, 9.3 MT) provides but one example of this characteristic use of throughout the LXX. 27 In this case the yoke of the nation is removed by the LORD and they receive exceeding joy because of the action. Just as in Sirach 51 and Matt 11 the removal/lightening of the yoke in Isa 9 results in positive benefits for those whom receive this lightening. As Davies and Allison conclude: Mt 11.25-30 and Ecclus 51 exhibit certain similarities because they incorporate Torah and Wisdom motifs.28 The use of in both accounts is reflected consistently throughout the LXX, as is the overall structure of the imperative and the conditional found here. This trope, though using different terminology, is taken up time and time again in the wisdom literature. The Proverbs are ripe with imperatives that result in advantages for those who are obedient to their commands. A brief overview of the Proverbs demonstrates this reality clearly. The Hebrew utilizes the conditional particle on 39 occasions, which is most often translated in the LXX using the 3rd class conditional, namely the particle with the subjunctive mood. This structure was the modus operandi in wisdom literature and indicates that these verses in Matthew and Sirach are comfortably situated within the wisdom tradition, not in a causal relationship with one another. Another element which demonstrates the improbability of Matthews direct use of Sirach here, and perhaps the most damning to McDonalds position, is the fact that Sirach 51 is in fact a cf. also Lev 26.13; Isa 10.27; Isa 14.25; Jer 28.2, 4; Ezek 34.27 W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (3 vols; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988-1997), 2:293.
28 27

13 composite of two different wisdom traditions.29 11QPsa has demonstrated that Sirach 51 is the amalgamation of an extant acrostic poem and thanksgiving hymn. The verbal evidence and the common structures present in wisdom traditions make it unlikely that Matthew is intentionally alluding to Sirach 51.23-26 here. The verbal resonances, while greater in quanitity than those explored in Matt 6 and Sirach 29, do not exhibit the explicit repition of words30 that are required to argue for even an echo in regards to Hays criteria. Even if there were enough verbal and sytactical repitition between the two texts, based on the evidence from the DSS, Matthew would be invoking an intertextual referent set in an earlier wisdom tradition than Sirach.

CONCLUSION For one reason or another it has become fashionable in biblical scholarship to utilize culinary analogies to draw conclusions. Eugene Ulrich has employed baklava to discuss the composition and collection of scriptural texts and a number of scholars have followed him in using this palatable correlation: the books were the result of a long literary development, whereby traditional material was faithfully retold and handed on from generation to generation, but also creatively expanded and reshaped to fit the new circumstances and new needs that the successive communities experienced through the vicissitudes of history. So the process of the composition of the Scriptures was organic, developmental, with successive layers of tradition. Ezekiel was commanded to eat a scroll and found that it was as sweet as honey (Ezek. 3:1-3), so perhaps I may be permitted to use the image of baklava for the composition of scriptural texts: many layers were laid on top of earlier ones by successive generations over the centuries, as the traditions were handed on faithfully but creatively adapted, and formed into a unit of the honeysometimes heatedof the lived experience of the community over time.31

Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:293. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 30. 31 Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids, MI: 1990), 23.
30

29

14 We may ask what ingredients were present in the baklava Matthew inherited, or at least the ingredients we can detect by examining his gospel. Matthew seems to have the strongest affinity with Isaiah, directly quoting the prophet on seven different occasions.32 In this way we could say that Isaiah functions as the phyllo dough onto which the other ingredients are laid upon. The other prophets, also cited frequently33, are the various nuts without which baklava would cease to be baklava. Torah adds the honey that gives baklava its characteristic sweetness.34 Finally, the Psalms function as the cinnamon that gives the dessert its slight spice.35 What ingredient then does Sirach bring to Matthews baklava? Based on the intertextual analysis above, it does not seem that Sirach exerts the direct influence that other LXX texts do, as McDonald claims. Based on this analysis we cannot say that Sirach represents any of these base ingredients, but perhaps has affinities with some of the flavors experienced. It may be that we should compare Sirach to the optional cloves in the baklava recipe: Sirach was available to Matthew in the composition of his gospel and was likely used and considered authoritative by many of his Jewish contemporaries. However, Matthew receives a recipe that has chosen to omit this spice, though some interpreters continue to mistake the zest from the other spices to come from intertextual allusions to Sirach. On closer inspection these turn out to be flavors from a different ingredient altogether.

Matt 1.22-23: Isa 7.14; Matt 4.14-16: Isa 8.23-9.1; Matt 8.17: Isa 53.5; Matt 12.17-21: Isa 42.1-4; Matt 11.5: Isa 26.19; 29.18; 35.5-6; 42.7; 61.1; Matt 3.3: Isa 40.3; Matt 21.13: Isa 56.7; 33 Matt 2.15: Hos 11.1; Matt 2.17-18: Jer 31.15; Matt 17.10: Mal 3.22; Matt 21.4-5: Zech 9.9; Matt 21.13: Jer 7.11; Matt 24.15: Dan 9.27; 11.31; 12.11; Matt 27.9-10: Zech 11.13 34 Matt 4.7: Deut 6.16; Matt 4.10: Deut 6.13; 10.20; Matt 15.4: Exod 21.17; Lev 20.9; Matt 19.4: Gen 1.27; 5.2; Matt 22.39: Lev 19.18 35 Matt 4.6: Ps 91.11-12; Matt 13.35: Ps 78.2; Matt 21.9: Ps 118.25-26; Matt 21.42: Ps 118.2223; Matt 23.39: Ps 118.26 Matt 26.38: Ps 42.6; 43.5

32

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aland, B., K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C.M. Martini, and B.M. Metzger, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Bauer, W., F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Beentjes, Pancratius C. "Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom" (Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 47. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Brakke, David. Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria's Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter. Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994): 395419. Davies, W.D., and Dale C. Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991. Deutsch, Celia M. Lady Wisdom, Jesus, and the Sages: Metaphor and Social Context in Matthew's Gospel. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996. Dungan, David L. Constantine's Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Evans, C.A. Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005. Harrington, Daniel J. Jesus Ben Sira of Jerusalem: A Biblical Guide to Living Wisely. Interfaces. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005. . The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Early Church and Today. Pages 196 210 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Hays, Richard B., Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga, eds. Reading the Bible Intertextually. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. Kristeva, Julia. Word, Dialogue, and Novel. Pages 6491 in Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Language and Art. Edited by Leon S. Roudiez. Translated by Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine, and Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980. Long, Thomas C. Matthew. Wesminster Bible Companion. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1-7: A Commentary. Edited by Helmut Koester. Translated by James E. Crouch. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. McDonald, Lee Martin. The Biblical Canon. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. McDonald, Lee Martin and James A. Sanders, eds. The Canon Debate. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002. McKnight, Scot. The Letter of James. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011. Meurer, S., ed. The Apocrypha in Ecumenical Perspective: The Place of the Late Writings of the Old Testament among the Biblical Writings and Their Significance

15

16 in the Eastern and Western Church Traditions. Translated by P. Ellingworth. United Bible Societies Monograph Series 6. New York: United Bible Societies, 1991. Stuhlmacher, P. The Significance of the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha for the Understanding of Jesus and Christology. Pages 115 in The Apocrypha in Ecumenical Perspective: The Place of the Late Writings of the Old Testament among the Biblical Writings and Their Significance in the Eastern and Western Church Traditions. Edited by S. Meurer. Translated by P. Ellingworth. United Bible Societies Monograph Series 6. New York: United Bible Societies, 1991. Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999.