No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
It seems singularly unfortunate that in the twentieth century Matthew's Gospel has so often been studied with more attention being given to the Marcan source than to the Matthean narrative.1 Nowhere is this tendency more evident than in the account of the visit of the women to the tomb of Jesus (Matt. 28. 1; Mark 16. 1–2; cf. Luke 24. 1). A survey of the commentaries on Matthew quickly reveals how pervasive this interest in the Marcan narrative is.2 But while it may well be a reasonable exegetical procedure to compare one Gospel with another, the way in which the perspective described above can also hinder an understanding of Matthew's Gospel is strikingly apparent in M. D. Goulder's treatment of this passage in a recent article in New Testament Studies. Goulder writes:
The motive for the women's visit to the tomb is coherent in Mark. Joseph has rolled Jesus' body in linen, but it is not said that he anointed it: the women come to supply this need – they see where he is laid (xv. 47), and come to anoint him (xvi. 1). Matthew's story is incoherent: he does not mention the ointments throughout, and the women, having sat opposite the tomb (xxvii. 61), come, weakly, to see the tomb (xxviii. 1). On Marcan priority this is easily understood: Matthew has introduced a guard on the tomb, so an anointing venture must seem impossible. But, on Matthaean priority, what would they want to come and see the tomb for at first light?3
1 This statement remains true despite the excellent redaction-critical studies of Matthew which have greatly advanced our understanding of that Gospel. Representative of thi, interest in the Matthean redaction are such studies as Bornkamm, Gunther, Barth, Gerhard, and Held, Heinz Joachim, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, tr. by Percy, Scott (London: S.C.M., 1963)Google Scholar; Hummel, Reinhard, Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium (Munchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1963)Google Scholar; Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964)Google Scholar; Stendahl, Krister, The School of St Matthew (2nd ednPhiladelphia: Fortress Press, 1968)Google Scholar; Cope, O. Lamar, Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven (CBQMS 5) (Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1976)Google Scholar; and Kingsbury, Jack Dean, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (London: S.P.C.K., 1976).Google Scholar
2 See, for example, Allen, Willoughby C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St Matthew (ICC) (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907), 300 ff.Google Scholar; Micklem, Philip A., St Matthew (Westminster Commentaries) (London: Methuen, 1917), 279 ff.Google Scholar; Robinson, Theodore H., The Gospel of Matthew (Moifatt New Testament Commentary) (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928), 234 ff.Google Scholar; Argyle, A. W., The Gospel According to Matthew (Cambridge Bible Commentary: NEB) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 220 ff.Google Scholar; Albright, William F. and Mann, C. F., Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (Anchor) (Garden City: Doubleday, 1971), 358 f.Google Scholar; and Green, H. Benedict, The Gospel According to Matthew (New Clarendon Bible) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), 227.Google Scholar Cf. also the study by Bacon, Benjamin W., Studies in Matthew (London: Constable, 1930), 250–61.Google Scholar
3 Goulder, M. D., ‘Mark xvi., 1–8 and Parallels’, N.T.S. 24 (1978), 235.Google Scholar Goulder presents these comments as one of three points intended to show that Matthew is dependent upon Mark. It seems to me, however, that his reasoning is circular, as the rhetorical question at the end of the paragraph shows.
4 Cope, op. cit. 5.
5 Ibid. 6.
6 Johnson, Sherman E., ‘The Gospel According to St. Matthew: Introduction and Exegesis’, The Interpreter's Bible, VII (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1951), 613.Google Scholar Johnson's interpretation seems preferable to the view that this detail is a defence against the accusation that the women later found an empty tomb because they went to the wrong tomb.
7 I am indebted to Professor Eric M. Meyers for the suggestion (made in a seminar at Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem in 1974) that Semahot 8: 1 might explain the visit of the women to the tomb on the third day. In considering this possibility I have become convinced that it provides the key to understanding Matt. 28. 1 but not the Marcan and Lucan narratives, where it is clearly stated that the women came to anoint the body of Jesus. As an aside it may be noted here that according to the Mishnah (Sabbath 23: 5) it was permissible to anoint a body on the Sabbath, although the purchase of the necessary materials would not have been allowed.
8 Zlotnick, Dov, The Tractate ‘Mourning’ (Śĕmahot) (Regulations Relating to Death, Burial, and Mourning) (Yale Judaica Series xvii) (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), 1.Google Scholar Cf. also his comments in ‘Semabot’, The Encyclopaedia Judaica, xiv (Jerusalem: Keter, 1971), col. 1138.Google Scholar Zlotnick's book is the most important and exhaustive modern study of this tractate known to me Also important, however, is the translation and notes of Rabbinowitz, R. J., ‘'Ebel Rabbathi named Masseketh Semaboth: Tractate on Mourning’, The Minor Tractates of the Talmud, 1, ed. by Cohen, A. (London: The Soncino Press, 1971), 325–400.Google Scholar
9 Zlotnick, ‘Semalot’, op. cit. Col. 1139. See the complete discussion in The Tractate Mourning, op. cit. 1–9.
10 Rabbinowitz, op. cit. v.
11 Calloway, J., ‘Burials in Palestine: From the Stone Age to Abraham’, B.A. 26 (1963), 74–91.Google Scholar
12 Perhaps the most important study of Jewish burial practices through the Roman period is Meyers, Eric M., Jewish Ossuaries: Reburial and Rebirth. Secondary Burials in Their Ancient Near Eastern Setting (Biblica et Orientalia, No. a) (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971).Google Scholar This book has an excellent and exhaustive bibliography. Also noteworthy is Meyers' more popular treatment of the topic in ‘Secondary Burials in Palestine’, B.A. XXXIII (1970), 2–29.Google Scholar A clear picture of the type of tomb most common in Jerusalem and its environs in the Herodian period may be obtained by reading Rabmani, L. Y., ‘Jewish Rock-Cut Tombs in Jerusalem’, ‘Atiqot, 3, English Series (1961), 93–120;Google ScholarTzaferis, V., ‘Jewish Tombs at and near Giv 'at ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem’, I.E.J. 20 (1970), 18–32Google Scholar; and Strange, James F., ‘Late Hellenistic and Herodian Ossuary Tombs at French Hi II, Jerusalem’, B.A.S.O.R. 219 (1975), 39–67.Google Scholar It may be noted that the frequency with which oil lamps are found in such tombs (cf. Tzaferis' comment that Herodian lamps ‘are found in nearly every Jewish tomb of the period between the rise of the Herodian dynasty and the destruction of the Second Temple’, p. 26) is onsistent with (although not proof of) the practice of periodic visitation and inspection which we are positing here.
13 See Strange, op. cit. 64 and Tzaferis, op. cit. 30.
14 Cf the discussion in Meyers, Jewish Ossuaries, op. cit. and Raḥmani, op. cit. Note especially the arguments presented by Rabmani in note 4 (pp. 116–17) for his conclusion that ossuaries were not used in Jewish tombs prior to the reign of Herod I.
15 Rabbinowitz, op. cit. 363.
16 This verse was copied from 
(Wien: Jacob Schlossberg, 1867).
17 While recognizing the strength of the reading ‘until the third day’, Zlotnick prefers to read ‘for thirty days’ with some manuscripts of the Talmud. His arguments, however, are not convincing. It would not be at all likely that a person would survive for such a long period of time in a burial chamber without food, water, or the other necessities of life. A three-day period, however, is not excessive. Further, reference may be made to the tradition attributed both to R. Levi (Jerusalem Talmud, M.K. 3 5, 82 b; Yev. 16: 1, 15c) and to Bar Kappara (Midrash Rabbah, Genesis C. 7) that the soul hovers about the body for three days hoping to be reunited with it. After three days there was no longer any hope of revival! John II. 17, 39 may reflect this belief and confirm our view that it is not a late development (see the notes on John II. 39 in Strack, Hermann L. und Billerbeck, Paul, Kommentar zum Jfeuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash, II (Das Evangelium nach Markus, Lukas, und Johannes und die postelgeschichte) (München: C. H. Beck'che Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1956), 544).Google Scholar Thus visiting the tomb ‘until the third day’ is to be preferred to the reading ‘for thirty days’.
18 It would undoubtedly strengthen our argument here if there were clear evidence that women could carry out the inspection described in Semahot.8: i. Unfortunately this is the only text known which describes the practice in any detail. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence to indicate that women could not perform this inspection and since they did perform many other tasks associated with burial (anointing, etc.) it seems safe to assume that they could perform this particular task as well.
19 This line of interpretation is to be found in many of the commentaries on Matthew. See, by way of example, Montefiore, Claude J. G., The Synoptic Gospels, II (London: Macmillan, 1909), 351 f.Google Scholar; Johnson, op. cit. 613; and Green, op. cit. 226.
20 Goulder, M. D., Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: S.P.C.K. 1974), 447 f.Google Scholar; and Goulder, M. D., ‘The Empty Tomb’, Theology 79 (1976), 209 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 The details of Matt. 28. 11–15 make some element of controversy seem likely.
22 Cope, op. cit. 230.