This paper will seek to interpret one of the most problematic passages in intertextual studies. Matthew 2:23 does not have a clear Old Testament referent, and this presents a problem. How can an unknown prophecy be fulfilled; where is the text cited to be found? However, by keeping the original in mind during interpretation, it seems that Matthew was intentionally creating a hermeneutic of suspicion creating a deliberate rhetorical effect. This paper will seek to determine how Matthew artistically arranged and derived the significance of the Old Testament for his contemporary readership in light of the Christ event. It will be argued that the unknown citation of Matthew 2:19-23 can be found in the next identical citation formula resolving the suspense created by the allusion citation of Matthew 2:23 highlighting the narrative material between the two passages as a sort of inclusio.
McIntyre This argument likely has the strongest evidence of the following proposals for a few reasons. First, the Davidic branch theme was well known. Second, assonance was a popular literary device in Jewish culture. Finally, historical setting shows an expectation of the Davidic branch being raised up. If this interpretation cannot be bested, it would be preferred. However, this interpretation fails to explain how Matthew could associate a town with Davidic expectations through assonance when the Messiahs expected genesis was from the town of Bethlehem. Though his apologetic nature is at play, and evident in the text in many places, assonance as an apologetic is probably too shaky a foundation to build upon. It is for this reason other options must be, and indeed have been, assessed. Representatives of this first option include Nolland and Hagner, though Osborne combines this with the second option listed immediately below.29
id: befe9e3bbe241aeae0a0a03cbd010c4c - page: 10
Critique of Second Option Blomberg asserts that The fact that this is the only place in the entire Gospel where Matthew refers to prophets in the plural (rather than a singular prophet) as the source of an OT reference suggests that he knows that he is not quoting one text directly but rather is summing up a theme found in several prophetic texts.30 This textual observation is a strength which must be reckoned with. Adherents to this option include August (who bases his interpretation on the argument of France), D. A. Carson (who also allows for the first option to have some influence on the wording), Blomberg, Davies and Allison, and Luz.
id: a6110bfa16faa884742e28b01bc22fd4 - page: 10
The problem with this attractive observation, however, is that it provides no solution to the lack of a clear referent for the introductory formula. Instead, it simply gives the interpreter the freedom to seek a biblical theology which justifies their own conclusions. This has led to speculation that builds upon the cultural rejection associated with the Galilean territory which was noted well above via way of Johns gospels and Matthews direct speech citations of Jewish intelligentsia. These arguments allude to the despised nature of the Messiah from the Isaianic servant songs being similar to the despised nature of Nazarenes and Galileans living in Gentile communities. If Matthew provides clear scriptural referent for his other nine of the ten passages, nine of ten passages, and all five of the you have heard it said formula quotations then the weight of evidence seems to imply that there is a clear referent to be found for the two which do not have a clear scriptural referent.31
id: 8815a91fb7f747c2e05b591c97c34d36 - page: 10
29 Nolland, 131; Hagner, 40; and Osborne 102. 30 Blomberg, Matthew, in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 11. 31 Turner, Matthew, 19. These ten are distinct grammatically, noted on p. 20, All ten of the preceding formulas have the verb with the substantive participle (to rhthen, Volume 7 Issue 2 December 2023 Page 62
id: 7635a81049a6338131e5d685324dd708 - page: 10