!"#$"%&'()*+$+,"-.

/)+012345&'67'87'9,,$1++
!"#$"%"-'%12:345&
;0"'<14=",'>??12-$*@'+1'A>$*+'B>++0"%7'3;0"'C*+"2*>+$1*>,'D2$+$?>,'D1EE"*+>2F5'GF'H7'I7
I>#$"4'J'I>,"'D7'/,,$41*K'627
A1)2?"&'L1#)E';"4+>E"*+)EK'M1,7'NOK'P>4?7'Q'3/=27K'ORRR5K'==7'OSRTORO
U)G,$40"-'GF&'V!CWW
A+>G,"'X!W&'http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561159
/??"44"-&'QYZ[QZQ[[R'O\&[O
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOK REVIEWS

189

Adulterae
was already part of the Fourth Gospel by the second half of the
Pericope
second century, but that it provides evidence for a form of the story which includes
these words having already come into existence by then. Now, the significanceof
this is that a number of hypotheses have been offered which reach a different
conclusion. One theory is that there were two forms of the story, one found in
Adulterae.
Another is that the form found in the
Papias and another in the Pericope
Adulterae
is a later development of a simpler story, represented in Papias.
Pericope
Petersen's conclusion casts doubt on these possibilities, for he provides evidence
for a form of the story already in the second century which contains precisely the
features which should be either separate or not yet all in existence.
He is not willing to go far beyond this. He need not, for in this paper he brings
together a great deal of evidence, clears the ground and-most dramaticallyfinds evidence that the Pericope
Adulteraewas already known by the period 150200.
There is more in this collection, in the essays which have been described as
well as in those which have not, which merits attention. It is to be hoped that
this review will encourage the reader to turn from this appendage to the book
itself.
D.C. PARKER
1582, which Petersenlists among the tenth-centurymanuscripts,is a member of
family 1.
2
With regard to the Latin version, it is worth adding to the argumentthat the
presenceof the story in the Palatinus(e), a representativeof the Africantext-type,suggests that this version of the story is very much older than the manuscript,which is
of the fifth century.For this is a text of the type alreadyused by Cyprianin the third
century.An examinationof the translationtechnique(styleand vocabulary)of the passage may clarifywhether the passageis of the same date as the rest of the version.
3 But note that Codex Gigas (Old Latin in Acts) reads lumenmagnum
at 22:6 (lux
copiosaVulgate).This is the wording of the Old Latin MS g' at Matt. 3:16, where it
insertsthe referenceto the light at Jesus' baptism(lumeningensis read by Lvt (a)).

W.D. DAVIEs and DALE C.

ALLISON

Jr., The Gospel accordingto Saint Matthew

and Commentaty
(Edinburgh:T&T Clark). Three volumes: I (1988) Introduction
on
on MatthewI-VII, xlvii + 731 pp. ISBN 0567094812; II (1991) Commentary
MatthewVIII-XVIII,xvii + 807 pp. ISBN 0567095452; III (1997) Commentaty
on MatthewXIX-XXVIII,xviii + 789 pp. ISBN 056708518X. ?39.95 each.
CriticalCommentaty)
(The International
Long commentaries are becoming the norm. Several of the other new commentariesin this series are running to two volumes, for instance those on Jeremiah,
on Acts, on Romans and on 2 Corinthians. David Aune's Wordcommentary on
the book of Revelation is to run to three volumes. Thus Davies and Allison's ICC
on Matthew is in line with recent trends. They have taken over 2,400 pages to
do justice to Matthew's twenty eight chapters, and even this is not space enough.
In the Preface the authors state that considerationsof cost and exigencies of printing have required constraint. They write (vol. I, p. x): "We would have wished
for more expansive treatments of many aspects of the text but we have had to
prefer leanness to fullness both in the introductory sections and in the body of
the commentary." We can understand the authors' complaint after their having
read so much, having amassed so much material, and having so many fertile views
? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 1999

Novum TestamentumXLI, 2

190

BOOK REVIEWS

and opinions to disseminate. Readers will not share those complaints. Few will
cavil at twelve pages on verse 1:1 alone, at over fifty pages in the Introduction
on the question of authorship, or at thirty pages in the Introduction (incorporating meticulous lists) relating to the sources of Matthew. Throughout the commentary "leanness"is not the description that most readily comes to mind!
This commentaryis intended to replace the earlierICC Matthew by W.C. Allen,
although even now the enduring importance of Allen's full treatment in the
Introduction of Matthew's use of Mark (which has continued to be used by several recent scholars of Gospel origins and the Synoptic Problem) will remain.
Davies and Allison acknowledge their continuing debt to Allen in this regard, but
agree (I, p. 73) not to reproduce his lengthy lists. So, we must not neglect the
"old" ICC Matthew: it has not been superseded entirely!
There are two indexes at the end of vol. III, "Index of subjects" and "Index
of Authors and Works." In the latter we note that W.C. Allen's is one of the
most frequentlycited commentaries.Thus the strong links with its predecessorare
maintained. Other scholars, who are referred to regularly, are Beare, M. Black,
R.E. Brown, Bultmann, Dodd, Fitzmyer, Gnilka, Gundry, D. Hill, J. Jeremias,
Kummel, Lindars,Luz, McNeile, Manson,J.P. Meier, Pesch, Schlatter,E. Schweizer,
Streeter, V. Taylor and Zahn. A multitude of other names appear in the Index
and in the rich bibliographiesthat accompany each section of the books. Volumes
II and III add supplementarybibliographicalinformation:the authors have kept
abreast of work published as the commentary progressed, and it is to their credit
that these works are to be found in the later parts of this commentary.
From earlier centuries the names of Calvin and Bengel appear frequently in
the commentary. And, in keeping with this learned series, patristic sources are
well to the fore-these references alone merit our turning to the ICC Matthew.
The Gospel is dealt with in eighty nine sections of varying lengths. Each section is divided into five subheadings:structure,sources, exegesis, concluding observations and bibliography. The resumes are most useful in enabling the reader to
see the wood, after having studied the trees in great detail. (The final volume
ends with an overview called "A Retrospect" of the Gospel as a whole, its theology, itsJewish setting, its Messianism etc. This is a further, useful, summing up.)
The section on the structure of a small unit is often supplemented by a separate
excursus on the structure of its wider context. There are twenty seven excursus
throughoutthe three volumes, especiallyin vol. II. Many are concerned with structural issues, but others deal with topics like the Beatitudes (twelve pages), the
Paternoster,the Son of Man (ten pages), Miracles and the historicalJesus, Peter,
Parables,Jesus as Messiah, and the formula quotations.
Exegetical comments are thorough, taking other scholars' views fully and fairly
into account, but our authors do not shrink from making their own position clear.
Throughout, they affirm Markan priority, and Matthew's use of Mark, but they
are alert to arguments where contrary views may equally fit in certain places.
They do not always subscribe to prevailing views about Q (as in Section LXVIII:
Seven Woes). They adopt a proper, detached academic enquiry into historical
questions. They take fully into account text critical variants, and, occasionally, are
not afraid to favour readings not supported by the Nestle edition.
The final volume contains a helpful essay by William Horbury on the Hebrew
text of Matthew in Shem Tob's EbenBohan.
The authors' meticulous and accurate scholarship, the breadth of their reading, their careful and essentially sensibleopinions and judgements are the constant
reactions readers should have when consulting this commentary. For any serious
scholar of the Gospel of Matthew this new ICC must be the first port of call, not
only for its own exegetical treatment of Matthew, but for alerting us to a vast
range of previous comment, patristic,medieval, and moder, and also to an impres-

BOOK REVIEWS

191

sively full bibliography of recent articles, monographs and studies on all aspects
of this Gospel. There is no realistic substitute in English for this commentary if
one is at work on the Greek text of Matthew. That the authors (and their publisher) accomplished their task of producing the three volumes in ten years is itself a prodigious feat. They are deserving of our warmest congratulationsfor this
monument to scholarship and learning, and, in addition, for having been able to
market it at a realistic price.
J.K. ELLIOTT
KIMPAFFENROTH,
The StoryofJesus according
to L (JSNTSup 147; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 200 ISBN 1 85075 675 9. ? 35
Discussion of the possible sources used by the synoptic evangelists continues
apace. In this monograph (originally a dissertation at the University of Notre
Dame), Paffenroth discusses the status of the material peculiar to Luke, the socalled "L" material. He distances himself from the older "proto-Luke"theories of
Streeter and Taylor, and seeks to establish the theory that the bulk of the "L"
material alone (i.e. without Q) formed a unified source used by Luke.
is followed by a delineation of the contours of
An introductory Forschungsbericht
the possible "L" source: Paffenroth includes virtually all the material peculiar to
Luke in chs. 3-21, but excludes the birth narratives and also any elements from
the passion narrative. Three subsequent chapters argue the case for this material
being both un-Lukan and unified. Paffenroth argues that some of the vocabulary
here may be uncharacteristicof Luke, and that certain stylistic features indicate
a pre-Lukan source (a high frequency of Kcai,use of numbers, use of historic presents and optatives in verbs);formal structuressuch as the use of dialogue/monologue, questions, and contrasting charactersin L may show the same; and finally
some of the contents of L may also be slightly uncharacteristicof Luke (e.g. attitudes to wealth, to women, and to eschatology). A concluding chapter suggests
that L may have been a written source, generically similar to Q, and emanating
from a Jewish-Christian milieu from c. 40-60 C.E.
The argument is always conducted sensibly and fairly, with full awareness of
the provisional nature of the conclusions. There is here a wealth of detail, and it
is impossible to consider any more than a tiny part in a single review. Inevitably
some arguments are stronger than others, and it may be unfair to pick on some
details. Nevertheless, some difficultieswith the overall thesis remain, at least in the
mind of this reviewer.
The contents of L here are in some ways a little surprising.Paffenroth seems
ready to accept what he regards as a consensus view on a number of occasions
(though, as in all NT studies, any consensus may not be quite so universally
accepted by those not cited in one's footnotes!).Thus some might find it strange
that the birth narrativesare dismissed from a potential "L" quite so quickly (and
ascribed largely to Lukan redaction: p. 28). In any case, the assertion that the
birth narratives are rather unlike other L material (ibid.)may simply show that
the L material is rather more heterogeneous. So too the possibility of independent traditions in Luke's passion narrative is dismissed (p. 29) rather more swiftly
than some would be happy with (mostly just with a reference to Neyrey and
Soards). Similarly the genealogy will be seen by some as not so clearly due to
Luke himself as is taken here (p. 54). In a sense, one wonders if the alleged unity
of the material is already being presupposed and used as a criterion for determining what belonged to "L." Further, if clearly Lukan elements in the gospel
are (as here) excluded from potentially belonging to L, it is scarcely surprisingthat
L emerges as rather less Lukan than other parts of the gospel.
? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 1999

Novum TestamentumXLI, 2