canon paper

7/30/2019 Canon Paper

1/17

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


2/17

1

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 Letterin 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

1The 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. Seeespecially 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 thatare 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 authoritativeScripture 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, canon1 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.


3/17

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 similarto allusions or citations that appear in other New Testament writings and in otherearly church writings as well. These allusions, citations, and verbal parallels

indicate that Jesus was influenced to some extent and informed by religiousliterature 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 ofthese 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

3Lee 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 andPseudepigrapha 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 BiblicalWritings 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 BibleSocieties, 1991), 1-15.5

McDonald,Forgotten Scriptures, Loc. 2002-2049 on Amazon Kindle.


4/17

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 ofThe 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 non-

canonical texts were used in canonical texts generally. Nor will I be able to draw definitive

6 McDonald,Forgotten Scriptures, Loc. 2121 on Amazon Kindle.7

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.


5/17

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 non-

canonical 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

12 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 thatentailed 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 andbetween author and reader. See Word, Dialogue, and Novel inDesire in Language: A Semiotic

Approach to Language and Art(ed. by Leon S. Roudiez, trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine, andLeon S. Roudiez; New York: Columbia University Press, 1980) for the genesis of this

intertextual trajectory.


6/17

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 author-

centered 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.

13See 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.


7/17

6

SIRACH 29.10-11 AND MATTHEW 6.19-20

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 functionas 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

Sirach 29.10-11

, .

,

Lose silver on account of a brother or a friendAnd dont allow it to rust under a stone to its destruction

Give your treasure according to the command of the Most HighAnd 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


8/17

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),

14 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 bytime 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 amoth-eaten garment)


9/17

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

17 v. 21 is the exception where is used twice. However a number of textual variants existutilizing the plural .18 BDAG, , 212.19

Cf. Exod 22.24-26; Lev 25.35-37; Deut 25.7-22; 23.20-21; 24.10-1320

cf. 29.1; 29.2; 29.2; 29.4; 29.5; 29.5;(x2)29.6; 29.10; 29.11; 29.11;29.11


10/17

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

21 Thomas C. Long,Matthew (WBC; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 73.22 Scot McKnight, The Letter of James (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans PublishingCo., 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.


11/17

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

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

26McDonald, The Forgotten Scriptures, Amazon Kindle Loc. 1987.

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.


12/17

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 ofwith 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


13/17

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

27cf. also Lev 26.13; Isa 10.27; Isa 14.25; Jer 28.2, 4; Ezek 34.27

28W.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.


14/17

13

composite of two different wisdom traditions.29

11QPsahas 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 traditionalmaterial was faithfully retold and handed on from generation to generation, but

also creatively expanded and reshaped to fit the new circumstances and new needsthat 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 permittedto 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, asthe traditions were handed on faithfully but creatively adapted, and formed into a

unit of the honeysometimes heatedof the lived experience of the communityover time.31

29Davies and Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:293.

30Hays,Echoes of Scripture, 30.

31Eugene 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.


15/17

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.

32 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 11.1334

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 19.1835

Matt 4.6: Ps 91.11-12; Matt 13.35: Ps 78.2; Matt 21.9: Ps 118.25-26; Matt 21.42: Ps 118.22-

23; Matt 23.39: Ps 118.26 Matt 26.38: Ps 42.6; 43.5


16/17

15

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 ofthe New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3. Chicago: University ofChicago 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 GospelAccording to Saint Matthew. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.

Deutsch, Celia M.Lady Wisdom, Jesus, and the Sages: Metaphor and Social Context inMatthew'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 BackgroundLiterature. 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 196210 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 UniversityPress, 1989.

Hays, Richard B., Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga, eds.Reading the BibleIntertextually. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009.

Kristeva, Julia. Word, Dialogue, and Novel. Pages 6491 inDesire in Language: ASemiotic Approach to Language and Art. Edited by Leon S. Roudiez. Translated byThomas 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 NewTestament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011.

Meurer, S., ed. The Apocrypha in Ecumenical Perspective: The Place of the LateWritings of the Old Testament among the Biblical Writings and Their Significance


17/17

16

in the Eastern and Western Church Traditions. Translated by P. Ellingworth. UnitedBible 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 WesternChurch Traditions. Edited by S. Meurer. Translated by P. Ellingworth. UnitedBible 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 DeadSea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999.

canon paper

Documents