The mind of Matthew, or the text?: retrieving Eusebius’ intertextual proposal on the crux interpretum of Matthew 28:1

The translation of Matthew 28:1 is notoriously difficult (ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων). Following a survey of proposals that place the discovery of Jesus’ resurrection at dawn or during the night, and finding these solutions wanting, this article highlights overlooked evidence i...

Description complète

Enregistré dans:  
Détails bibliographiques
Auteur principal: Johnson, Nathan C. 19XX- (Auteur)
Type de support: Électronique Article
Langue:Anglais
Vérifier la disponibilité: HBZ Gateway
Interlibrary Loan:Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany)
Publié: 2020
Dans: Journal of the bible and its reception
Année: 2020, Volume: 7, Numéro: 2, Pages: 147-165
Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés:B Bibel. Matthäusevangelium 28,1 / Bibel. Psalmen 22 / Résurrection de Jésus / Réception <scientifique> / Exégèse / Histoire / Patristique / Intertextualité
Classifications IxTheo:HC Nouveau Testament
KAB Christianisme primitif
Sujets non-standardisés:B Resurrection
B Psalm 22
B Intertextuality
B history of interpretation
B Gospels
B Philology
Accès en ligne: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Description
Résumé:The translation of Matthew 28:1 is notoriously difficult (ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων). Following a survey of proposals that place the discovery of Jesus’ resurrection at dawn or during the night, and finding these solutions wanting, this article highlights overlooked evidence in this passage’s long reception history. Some of this evidence is intratextual, namely, passages which could favor a day-night schema (Matt 4:2; 12:40) or in which Matthew discusses commerce and travel at night (Matt 14:15; 25:1-13). The second, intertextual set of evidence is found in the works of Eusebius, Didymus of Alexandria, Jerome, and Theodoret. These patristic authors provide a forgotten proposal whereby the resurrection is connected with the “dawn” of Ps 21:1 LXX. Since Matthew’s Passion Narrative appeals to this psalm in so many other instances, this patristic insight helpfully reframes the debate on this crux around the text and its reception history (intentio operis) rather than the elusive category of authorial intent (intentio auctoris).
ISSN:2329-4434
Contient:Enthalten in: Journal of the bible and its reception
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1515/jbr-2020-0005