A Closer Look At Matt 2:6 And Its Old Testament Sources -- By: A. J. Petrotta

Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 28:1 (Mar 1985)
Article: A Closer Look At Matt 2:6 And Its Old Testament Sources
Author: A. J. Petrotta


A Closer Look At Matt 2:6 And Its Old Testament Sources

A. J. Petrotta*

The identification of midrashic exegesis in the NT is a sensitive subject to be sure. In a recent article Homer Heater1 challenges Moises Silva’s2 classification of Matt 2:6 as one possible example. He specifically takes issue with Silva’s assertion that “whether or not we can give persuasive reasons why Matthew seems to alter the text, the fact remains that such use of Scripture is foreign to us.3 Heater questions whether the Jewish community was “abusing” the Bible by quoting it in the manner that they did (which, he notes, Matthew evidently approved of since he makes no explicit attempt to correct the quotation). He argues that the scribes were not quoting Mic 5:1 [English versions 5:2, and throughout this article]; they were utilizing “cumulative exegesis” from three OT passages. (The passages are Mic 5:1, the most immediate link in the chain; 2 Sam 5:2, 4 which is appended to the quotation of Micah; and Gen 49:105 which starts the whole process of cumulative exegesis.)

Heater’s examination, however, is rather selective. He correctly observes that the Targum on Mic 5:1 has “Messiah” for the MT “ruler” and that the end of the “quotation” of the prophet comes from 2 Sam 5:2, where the idea of “shepherding” serves to link the two passages. He further states that by rendering “clan” by “leader” the scribes “are not playing games with ʾl(w)py.” In a note, Heater cites Gundry’s explanation that “clan” should be taken as a personification, and therefore a repointing is unnecessary.6

*A. J. Petrotta is assistant professor of Bible at Sterling College in Kansas.

Other items in the text of Matthew require explanation, and a closer look at those items that Heater addresses warrants a modification of what has been stated. First, Heater has overlooked the substitution of “land of Judah” for “Ephrathah” of the MT. The phrase is influenced by both geographical considerations and...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()