Abstract
This chapter presents an alternative reading of Jesus’ crucifixion as ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων in Matthew’s passion narrative. The argument, in short, is that Jesus is minoritized as an ethnoracial-other. Just as important as its substance, however, is the basis for the alternative narrative. The reading is pursued in light of the experiences of US minority groups, drawing on four conventional tropes that have been historically used against Native Americans (“being proud”), African Americans (“being inferior”), Latino/a Americans (“being illegal”), and Asian Americans (“being foreign”). These four tropes—alternatively summarized as beyond, below, between, and besides the normative center of whiteness—furnish a critical lens to reframe the politics of race/ethnicity. Accordingly, the title ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων is not a positive messianic designation. It is an ethnoracial slur that signifies Jesus’ death on a Roman crucifix as a grotesque act of minoritization—specifically, Judean ethnoracialization.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This is a fairly common objection raised against minoritized groups. See: Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (New York: New York University Press, 2012), 99–107.
- 2.
Tina Chen, Double Agency: Acts of Impersonation in Asian American Literature and Culture (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005), xviii.
- 3.
Randall C. Bailey, Tat-siong Benny Liew, and Fernando F. Segovia, “Toward Minority Biblical Criticism: Framework, Contours, Dynamics” in They Were All Together in One Place: Toward Minority Biblical Criticism (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 3–46; here 31.
- 4.
One estimate is that Jerusalem’s population of 50,000 quintupled during Passover. See: Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 617.
- 5.
Wongi Park, “Her Memorial: An Alternative Reading of Matthew 26:13,” Journal of Biblical Literature 136.1 (2017): 131–144.
- 6.
Concerning Matthew 26:58, W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison observe (The Gospel According to Saint Matthew [ICC; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark Limited, 1988], vol. 3, 522): “This, a sort of parenthesis which prepares for vv. 69ff., invites the reader to keep Peter in mind throughout the following story. The upshot is contrast between faithful Lord and unfaithful servant. The contrast is all the more painful because Peter has already answered the high priest’s question in the affirmative; that is, he has confessed Jesus to be the Messiah and Son of the living God.”
- 7.
Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. Frederick William Danker (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 583.
- 8.
See: Davies and Allison, vol. 3, 548: “Matthew does not help the reader understand why Peter’s accent betrays him. Certainly all Galileans in Jerusalem for the feast are not Jesus’ followers. Probably the thought is that Peter is already suspected on other grounds of following Jesus. His accent is simply supporting evidence.”
- 9.
For further discussion, see: Jonathan M. Watt, “Of Gutturals and Galileans: The Two Slurs of Matthew 26.73” in Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Linguistics, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 107–120.
- 10.
See: France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1048: “But it is the term ‘king’ which is deliberately sensitive: a Roman governor dare not ignore a claim to political leadership among the Jews, whose last official ‘king’ was Herod, now replaced by the direct rule of the Roman prefect of Judea.”
- 11.
Josephus, Jewish War 7.203 (ET, H. St. J. Thackeray, 1928; 3.563). For a description of the torture of crucifixion, see: Gerard S. Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 14–18.
- 12.
See: Howard W. Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers: A Historical Introduction to the First Gospel (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 207: “In archetypal terms of hero-myth, a feast and a marriage traditionally end a success story, so Jesus’ life can also be seen—with some effort of the imagination—as a reenactment of a hero’s progress to kingship in which he survives an imperiled infancy; is initiated in the desert; takes a journey in the course of which he performs marvelous deeds; overcomes various foes, including a dragon (Satan) and death itself; and emerges victorious as a new king with his bride, the church.”
- 13.
R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 1070.
- 14.
Daniel Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991), 396. This distinction may hold true in the Matthean narrative, but that is not the same as equating the “King of the Jews” title with “King of Israel.” It does not logically follow that the “Gentiles” and “Jews ” of Matthew’s context would have understood the titles in the same way.
- 15.
John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 109. See also: David R. Bauer, “The Kingship of Jesus in The Matthean Infancy Narrative: A Literary Analysis,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57.2 (1995): 306–323.
- 16.
Joel Marcus, “Crucifixion As Parodic Exaltation,” Journal of Biblical Literature 125.1 [2006]: 73–87; here 73.
- 17.
Martin Hengel, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 46.
- 18.
Craig Evans, “The Procession and the Crucifixion,” in Jesus and Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ: The Film, the Gospels and the Claims of History (eds., Kathleen E. Corley, Robert L. Vebb; London: Continuum, 2004), 128–139; here 134: “The epithet ‘King of the Jews’ is Roman and was originally applied to Herod the Great. This detail’s claim to authenticity is strengthened when it is remembered that ‘King of the Jews’ was not the way early Christians spoke of Jesus, nor was it the usual title of the awaited Jewish Messiah. An epithet of Christian invention would probably refer to Jesus as ‘Son of God’ or as ‘Savior of the world,’ not ‘King of the Jews.’”
- 19.
Warren Carter, Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001), 145: “Many interpreters deny or minimize any political and Roman aspects of the scene, and focus almost exclusively on so-called religious and Jewish dimensions. That it should have to be argued, as I will do in this chapter, that Pilate is not invisible or inconsequential to the scene, or that Jesus’ condemnation to crucifixion by a Roman provincial governor has profound implications for interpreting this Gospel in relation to the Roman Empire, or that religious and political matters cannot be separated, indicates just how de-Pilatized and de-politicized is much contemporary scholarship on this scene.”
- 20.
Carter, Matthew and Empire, 16. Cf. Warren Carter, Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2003), 118ff.
- 21.
One notable exception is Richard Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), who suggests that “the modern imperial metropolis” (45) of Western readers, and in particular the modern theological schema that pits “Christian universalism” against “Jewish particularism,” has led to certain misreadings. One such misreading Horsley points to in Mark is the translation of Ioudaioi as “Jews ”—what Horsley regards as “a vague, essentializing translation” (46). Horsley prefers “Judean ” because it conveys a regional, not religious, reference (47). He writes (46), “Indeed, Mark’s only use of the term Ioudaioi outside of the episodes of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus appears to be a regional reference to ‘Judeans ,’ in connection with the Pharisees and scribes ‘who had come from Jerusalem’ (7:1–3). The title ‘king of the Judeans’ in the episodes of the trial, beating, and crucifixion of Jesus is used only by outsiders, the Roman governor and soldiers (Mark 15:2, 9, 18), who lumped all Israelites together as ‘Judeans ,’ The chief priests use instead the pan-Israelite term ‘the Messiah, the king of Israel’ (15:32).” For further critique of translating Ioudaioi as Jews, see: Steve Mason, “Jews, Judaens, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007): 457–512.
- 22.
See: Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 396: “Nevertheless, the basic thrust of the Markan and Matthean accounts is the same: Jesus who is mocked as King of the Jews really is the Messiah (= King of the Jews), and so the soldiers unwittingly speak the truth in deed and word”; Yarbro Collins, “Mark’s Interpretation of the Death of Jesus,” 553: “It should be recalled that ‘messiah’ was insider language and the equivalent outsider term was ‘king of the Jews.’”
- 23.
See Daniel B. Wallace’s discussion in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 73ff.
- 24.
Carter, Matthew and Empire, 158.
- 25.
Adela Yarbro Collins, “Mark’s Interpretation of the Death of Jesus,” Journal of Biblical Literature 128.3 (2009): 545–554; here 552.
- 26.
Herbert Box, Philonis Alexandrini: In Flaccum (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1939), xl–xliii, 91–2; Herbert A. Musurillo, The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon, 1954), cited in Yarbro Collins, “Mark’s Interpretation of the Death of Jesus,” 552.
- 27.
For a description of the primary source material, see: Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, ed. Harold W. Attridge (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 723–729.
- 28.
For a discussion of how these festivals parallel Mark’s passion narrative, see: Nicole W. Duran, The Power of Disorder: Ritual Elements in Mark’s Passion Narrative (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 79–87.
- 29.
Walter G. Headlam and A. D. Knox, The Mimes and Fragments (London: Bristol Classical Press, 2001).
- 30.
Donald G. Kyle, Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome (London: Routledge, 1998), 53: “Used earlier in the Near East and probably invented by Persia, crucifixion at Rome seems to have developed from a form of punishment (the public carrying of a cross, being bound to it, and whipped) to a form of execution (being attached to a cross and suspended). Usually this form of execution was authorized by the Roman court; the victim was stripped and scourged; a horizontal beam was placed on his shoulders; and he was marched to the execution site, usually outside the city walls, where a vertical stake was set in the ground and the man was bound or nailed to the cross. The normal form of execution for criminal slaves, crucifixion was used frequently against rebellious Jews and Christians. For exemplary effect, crucifixions were held at well-travelled public roadways, offering a stark contrast to the hallowed burials of good citizens nearby.”
- 31.
Davies and Allison, vol. 3, 615.
- 32.
R.T. France, “Matthew and Jerusalem” in Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, 114: “The translation of Ἰουδαίος is controversial. To those outside the Jewish context (such as the Magi and Pilate) it is probably simply a general ethnic term for all those who claim descent from Abraham, but to those in the know it has a more limited geographical sense, and there are some scholars who insist that the default translation should be ‘Judean’ (as opposed to Galilean, Samaritan, etc.), not ‘Jew .’”
- 33.
Richard Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 47.
- 34.
Josephus, Ant. 16.311; cf. 17.271–4.
- 35.
Concerning Matt 27:17, see: Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 561.
- 36.
Concerning Matt 27:37, see: Frederick D. Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 735.
- 37.
Pace, Davies and Allison, vol. 3, 583: “Because Pilate believes Jesus unworthy of death he schemes to set him free by offering an amnesty. The ploy fails…Here we begin to learn that Pilate’s title is ironic: the governor leaves the governing to others.” Cf. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1047: “The intervening verses focus not on the trial of Jesus as such but on Pilate’s abortive attempts to find a convenient way to avoid pronouncing the sentence demanded on a man he has apparently concluded is not guilty from a Roman point of view but who is clearly anathema to the Jewish establishment.”
- 38.
For discussion on the dubious historicity of this custom, see: Keener, Matthew, 668ff.
- 39.
For an argument of the likelihood that “Jesus Barabbas” is a reliable reading, see: Robert E. Moses, “Jesus Barabbas, a Nominal Messiah? Text and History in Matthew 27.16–17,” New Testament Studies 58.1 (2012): 43–56.
- 40.
Derek S. Dodson, Reading Dreams: An Audience-Critical Approach to the Dreams in the Gospel of Matthew (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 165.
- 41.
See: Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 1172: “The statement is made in terms of the interests of Pilate and his wife and not in terms of the interests of Jesus.”
- 42.
This small phrase πᾶς ὁ λαὸς (“all the people”) has generated much anti-Semitism in the history of interpretation. For an alternative interpretation of this text, see: Catherine Sider Hamilton, “‘His Blood Be upon Us’: Innocent Blood and the Death of Jesus In Matthew,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70.1 (2008): 82–100.
- 43.
See: Gundry, Matthew, 545; quoted in Davies and Allison, vol. 3, 529.
- 44.
Matthew L. Skinner, The Trial Narratives: Conflict, Power, and Identity in the New Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 58: “The verb Ἐξορκίζω in 26:63, in its syntactical context (κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ), does not mean that Caiaphas orders Jesus to reply to the council ‘under oath,’ as if Jesus must swear upon a higher authority. Rather, the high priest himself brings the interrogation before God, for the oath language calls for Jesus’ answer to be made in God’s hearing, perhaps so God might bear witness to the answer’s truth … The question lays a trap; it makes it doubtful that Jesus could give any kind of a positive answer that would not be considered blasphemous in this setting.”
- 45.
Or as Skinner (The Trial Narratives, 58) renders the phrase, “so you said.”
- 46.
With reference to Mark 15:2, Yarbro Collins (Mark, 713) writes, “Jesus’ answer, ‘You say (so)’ (σὺ λέγεις). It is neither a denial nor an affirmation. W.C. Allen argued that Jesus answered ambiguously because ‘He claimed to be the Messiah, but in a sense different from any current meaning attached to the title.’ Although the notion of the Davidic messiah or the messiah of Israel is reinterpreted in Mark, the reason for Jesus’ ambiguous answer may lie in its similarity to his response to the question about paying the taxes to Caesar. His answer there is equally evasive. He avoided saying anything that would provide grounds for a charge against him before the Roman governor. Mark portrays Jesus as replying boldly, clearly, and fully to the high priest in 14:62. The ambiguous answer here may be due to the evangelist’s, or more likely his source’s, recognition of the social reality that provincials needed to be wary when dealing with the representatives of imperial power.”
- 47.
Pace, Davies and Allison, vol. 3, 581–2: “‘You have said so’—σύ answers σύ—is seemingly ambiguous and yet in fact marks courageous agreement: Pilate has unwittingly spoken the truth and Jesus does not deny it. It is thus odd that, to judge from his response, Pilate does not take the treasonous affirmation to be a threat to Rome. Evidently Pilate views Jesus with incredulous contempt: he is too important to be dangerous.” A similar tension is present in Carter’s reading in Pontius Pilate, 88 and 118.
- 48.
So concerning the use of Σὺ εἶπας, see: Davies and Allison, vol. 3, 528: “This expression, absent from Mark, has already been used in v. 25, where an affirmative sense is demanded. The related σὺ λέγεις of 27.11 is also positive: Pilate unwittingly speaks the truth: Jesus is the king of the Jews; see p. 581. So even if the rabbinic parallels are ambiguous, Matthean usage encourages one to think the words positive.”
- 49.
The ambiguous nature of Σὺ λέγεις/εἶπας can also be seen in the reactions of Pilate and Caiaphas. In the Roman trial, Jesus’ discrete response engenders more accusations to be hurled upon him by the chief priests and elders (Matt 27:12–13). On Pilate’s part, he does not respond with an accusation of his own, but is amazed by Jesus’ silence. In any case, Jesus has not said much to lead to a clear affirmation or denial, and that is my point about the ambiguity of this phrase. In the Judean trial, Jesus’ response, as we have seen, contrasts what Caiaphas says to what Jesus says. Presumably, then, Caiaphas’ response of blasphemy (Matt 26:65) is a response not to Σὺ λέγεις, but to the threat of eschatological judgment that Jesus issues.
- 50.
The minor variation is Mark’s ελωι to Matthew’s ηλι, which is closer to the Aramaic אלהי/אלי.
- 51.
Frederick E. Greenspahn, An Introduction to Aramaic (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 8.
- 52.
Bruce Chilton, Darrell L. Bock, and Daniel M. Gurtner, eds., A Comparative Handbook to the Gospel of Mark: Comparisons with Pseudepigrapha, the Qumran Schrolls, and Rabbinic Literature (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 512. See also Martin McNamara, “Targumim,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, ed. Michael D. Coogan (2 vols.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 342–356; here 349.
- 53.
See the extensive redactional and text-critical discussion of this saying in Donald Senior, The Passion Narrative According to Matthew: A Redactional Study (Louvain: Leuven University Press, 1982), 295–299. For the Markan saying, see: Stephen P. Ahearne-Kroll, “Challenging the Divine: LXX Psalm 21 in the Passion Narrative of the Gospel of Mark,” in The Trial and Death of Jesus: Essays on the Passion Narrative in Mark, eds. Geert Van Oyen and Tom Shepherd (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 119–148.
- 54.
For Matthew, see: Maarten J. J. Menken, “The Psalms in Matthew’s Gospel,” in The Psalms in the New Testament (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 61–82; Davies and Allison, vol. 3, 624–5. For Mark, see: Ahearne-Kroll, “Challenging the Divine,” 120–32; Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 172–5; Holly J. Carey, Jesus’ Cry from the Cross: Towards a First-Century Understanding of the Intertextual Relationship between Psalm 22 and the Narrative of Mark’s Gospel (London: T&T Clark, 2009).
- 55.
See: Donald Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 115: “The priority of the Aramaic is underscored by Matthew’s alterations. He has tried to make a clearer connection between the ‘Eloi’ and Elijah’s name by changing the opening words to Hebrew (‘Eli, Eli…’), but the rest of the saying is preserved in Aramaic.”
- 56.
Claus Westermann’s classic study identifies the following constituent parts in the structure of the individual lament genre: address, lament, confession of trust, or assurance of being heard, petition, vow of praise. While not every psalm contains all of these components, these represent the basic scheme of the individual lament genre. See: Praise and Lament in the Psalms (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981), 64. For an excellent, recent history of scholarship of the cause, function, and nature of the change of mood in the lament psalms in general, see: Federico G. Villanueva, The Uncertainty of a Hearing: A Study of the Sudden Change of Mood in the Psalms of Lament (Leiden: Brill, 2008); Sung-Hun Lee, “Lament and the Joy of Salvation in the Lament Psalms” in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, eds., Peter W. Flint, Patrick D. Miller, Aaron Brunell, and Ryan Roberts (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 99; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 224–247; here 224–225; LeAnn Snow Flesher, “Rapid Change of Mood: Oracles of Salvation, Certainty of a Hearing, or Rhetorical Play?” in My Words Are Lovely: Studies in the Rhetoric of the Psalms, eds. Robert L. Foster and David M. Howard (London and New York: T&T Clark International, 2008), 33–45.
- 57.
As John Nolland (The Gospel of Matthew, 1208) writes, “There has been no end of Christian embarrassment about Jesus’ questioning of God in this way and of Christian theological reflection about the place of his being abandoned by God his Father in the atonement wrought by Jesus on the cross.” For further discussion and history of scholarship, see: Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 1205ff.; Davies and Allison, vol. 3, 624ff. For Markan scholarship on the same passage, see: Matthew S. Rindge, “Reconfiguring the Akedah and Recasting God: Lament and Divine Abandonment in Mark,” Journal of Biblical Literature 131.4 (2012): 755–774.
- 58.
See: George W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative” Harvard Theological Review 73.1–2 (1980): 153–184; idem., Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972).
- 59.
See: Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 1208: “But Matthew also makes use of Ps. 22 in this respect. Ps. 22 does not deny the difficulty, but it finds solace in recognizing that the situation is only temporary. And so it will be with Jesus.”
- 60.
See: Senior, Matthew, 332: “In the spirit of the psalm, Jesus prays to his Father even in the midst of abject desolation, remaining the obedient Son of God to the end.”
- 61.
See: Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 399: “While not downplaying the mental and emotional sufferings of Jesus, it is necessary to read the whole psalm and to recognize the profession of trust in God’s power that forms its climax (see Ps 22:22–31).” Also Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 535: “The cited verse from the beginning of Ps 22, though, indicates that this is not the final word. The Psalmist’s sentiments change through the course of the Psalm; God’s deliverance and goodness are encountered again, just as Jesus will subsequently encounter God’s vindication.”
- 62.
See: France, The Gospel of Matthew, 1076–7: “But it is surely also significant that Jesus, like the abandoned psalmist, still addresses God as ‘my God’; this shout expresses not a loss of faith, but a (temporary) loss of contact.” It should also be noted that, among all of these readings, France’s comes the closest to acknowledge the force of Jesus’ utterance. For France also writes with respect to Psalm 22, “In the end, the psalm turns to joyful thanksgiving for deliverance in vv. 22–31, and some interpreters have suggested that it is the latter part of the psalm that Jesus has in mind as well as its traumatic beginning, so that this is in effect a shout of defiant trust in the God whom he fully expects to rescue him. But that is to read a lot between the lines, especially after Gethsemane where Jesus has accepted that he must drink the cup to the full: he did not expect to be rescued. The words Jesus chose to utter are those of unqualified desolation, and Matthew and Mark (who alone record this utterance) give no hint that he did not mean exactly what he said” (1076).
- 63.
The repeated use of the divine passive throughout the First Gospel also lends itself toward reading παραδίδοται as a divine passive. Referring to the second passion prediction in Matthew 17:22–23, John Meier (Matthew, 195) writes, “The passive voice of ‘delivered’ (paradidosthai) may indicate that God is the chief agent of the passion (divine passive), just as he is the agent hidden in the passive voice of ‘he will be raised.’” On the same passage, see: Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 450. For further discussion of the passion predictions and the use of the divine passive, see: Davies and Allison, vol. 2, 655–61. The use of the divine passive in Matthew is not uncommon. The divine passive also occurs in the genealogy (ἐγέννησεν) of Matthew 1 (Richter, Enoch and the Gospel of Matthew, 129), the Beatitudes (παρακληθήσονται, etc.) of Matthew 5 (Hare, Matthew, 28), Jesus’ teaching to ask and it will be given (δοθήσεται) in Matthew 7 (Evans, Matthew, 167), the miracle stores in Matthew 9 (Grant R. Osborne and Clinton E. Arnold, Matthew [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010], 327), and the resurrection scene (ἠγέρθη) that concludes the Gospel in Matthew 28 (David D. Kupp, Matthew’s Emmanuel: Divine Presence and God’s People in the First Gospel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996], 211), and so on.
References
Ahearne-Kroll, Stephen P. 2006. Challenging the Divine: LXX Psalm 21 in the Passion Narrative of the Gospel of Mark. In The Trial and Death of Jesus: Essays on the Passion Narrative in Mark, ed. Geert Van Oyen and Tom Shepherd, 119–148. Leuven: Peeters.
Bailey, Randall C., Tat-Siong B. Liew, and Fernando F. Segovia, eds. 2009. They Were All Together in One Place: Toward Minority Biblical Criticism. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Bauer, David R. 1995. The Kingship of Jesus in the Matthean Infancy Narrative: A Literary Analysis. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57 (2): 306–323.
Bauer, Walter. 2000. In A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. Frederick William Danker. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Box, Herbert. 1939. Philonis Alexandrini: In Flaccum. London/New York: Oxford University Press.
Bruner, Frederick D. 2004. Matthew: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Carey, Holly J. 2009. Jesus’ Cry from the Cross: Towards a First-Century Understanding of the Intertextual Relationship Between Psalm 22 and the Narrative of Mark’s Gospel. London: T&T Clark.
Carter, Warren. 2000. Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-Political and Religious Reading. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
———. 2001. Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International.
———. 2003. Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor. Collegeville: Liturgical Press.
Chen, Tina. 2005. Double Agency: Acts of Impersonation in Asian American Literature and Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Chilton, Bruce, Darrell L. Bock, and Daniel M. Gurtner, eds. 2010. A Comparative Handbook to the Gospel of Mark: Comparisons with Pseudepigrapha, the Qumran Schrolls, and Rabbinic Literature. Leiden: Brill.
Clarke, Howard W. 2003. The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers: A Historical Introduction to the First Gospel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Collins, Yarbro. 2009. Mark’s Interpretation of the Death of Jesus. Journal of Biblical Literature 128 (3): 545–554.
Davies, W.D., and Dale C. Allison. 1988. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. The International Critical Commentary, 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark Limited.
Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. 2012. Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York: New York University Press.
Dodson, Derek S. 2009. Reading Dreams: An Audience-Critical Approach to the Dreams in the Gospel of Matthew. London: T&T Clark.
Duran, Nicole W. 2008. The Power of Disorder: Ritual Elements in Mark’s Passion Narrative. London: T&T Clark.
Evans, Craig. 2004. The Procession and the Crucifixion. In Jesus and Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ: The Film, the Gospels and the Claims of History, ed. Kathleen E. Corley and Robert L. Vebb, 128–139. London: Continuum.
Flesher, LeAnn Snow. 2008. Rapid Change of Mood: Oracles of Salvation, Certainty of a Hearing, or Rhetorical Play? In My Words Are Lovely: Studies in the Rhetoric of the Psalms, ed. Robert L. Foster and David M. Howard, 33–45. London/New York: T&T Clark International.
France, R.T. 2007. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans.
Greenspahn, Frederick E. 2003. An Introduction to Aramaic. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Gundry, Robert H. 1994. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hamilton, Catherine Sider. 2008. His Blood Be Upon Us’: Innocent Blood and the Death of Jesus in Matthew. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70 (1): 82–100.
———. 2017. The Death of Jesus in Matthew: Innocent Blood and the End of Exile. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hare, Douglas. 1993. Matthew. Louisville: John Knox Press.
Harrington, Daniel J. 1991. The Gospel of Matthew. Collegeville: Liturgical Press.
Headlam, Walter G., and A.D. Knox. 2001. The Mimes and Fragments. London: Bristol Classical Press.
Hengel, Martin. 1995. Studies in Early Christology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Horsley, Richard A. 2001. Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
Josephus, Antiquities and Jewish War.
Juel, Donald. 1988. Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Keener, Craig S. 1999. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Kupp, David D. 1996. Matthew’s Emmanuel: Divine Presence and God’s People in the First Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kyle, Donald G. 1998. Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge.
Lee, Sung-Hun. 2005. Lament and the Joy of Salvation in the Lament Psalms. In The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, ed. Peter W. Flint, Patrick D. Miller, Aaron Brunell, and Ryan Roberts, vol. 99, 224–247. Leiden: Brill.
Luz, Ulrich. 2001. Matthew 8–20: A Commentary (trans: Crouch, James E.). Minneapolis: Fortress.
———. 2005. Matthew 21–28: A Commentary (trans: Crouch, James E.). Minneapolis: Fortress.
———. 2007. Matthew 1–7: A Commentary (trans: Crouch, James E.). Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.
Marcus, Joel. 2006. Crucifixion as Parodic Exaltation. Journal of Biblical Literature 125 (1): 73–87.
Mason, Steve. 2007. Jews, Judaens, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History. Journal for the Study of Judaism 38: 457–512.
McNamara, Martin. 2011. Targumim. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, ed. Michael D. Coogan, 2 vols., 342–356. New York: Oxford University Press.
Meier, John P. 1978. The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church and Morality in the First Gospel. New York: Paulist.
Menken, Maarten J.J. 2004. The Psalms in Matthew’s Gospel. In The Psalms in the New Testament, 61–82. London: T&T Clark International.
Morris, Leon. 1992. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids/Leicester: Eerdmans/InterVarsity Press.
Moses, Robert E. 2012. Jesus Barabbas, a Nominal Messiah? Text and History in Matthew 27.16–17. New Testament Studies 58 (1): 43–56.
Nickelsburg, George W.E. 1972. Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
———. 1980. The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative. Harvard Theological Review 73 (1–2): 153–184.
Nolland, John. 2005. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Rindge, Matthew S. 2012. Reconfiguring the Akedah and Recasting God: Lament and Divine Abandonment in Mark. Journal of Biblical Literature 131 (4): 755–774.
Senior, Donald. 1982. The Passion Narrative According to Matthew: A Redactional Study. Louvain: Leuven University Press.
———. 1998. Matthew. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Skinner, Matthew L. 2010. The Trial Narratives: Conflict, Power, and Identity in the New Testament. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
Sloyan, Gerard S. 1995. The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Villanueva, Federico G. 2008. The Uncertainty of a Hearing: A Study of the Sudden Change of Mood in the Psalms of Lament. Leiden: Brill.
Wallace, Daniel B. 1996. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Watt, Jonathan M. 2000. Of Gutturals and Galileans: The Two Slurs of Matthew 26.73. In Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Linguistics, ed. Stanley E. Porter, 107–120. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Westermann, Claus. 1981. Praise and Lament in the Psalms (trans: Crim, Keith R., and Richard N. Soulen). Atlanta: John Knox Press.
Yarbro Collins, Adela. 2007. In Mark: A Commentary, ed. Harold W. Attridge. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Park, W. (2019). Proposing an Alternative Narrative: An Ethnoracial Reading of Matthew 26–27. In: The Politics of Race and Ethnicity in Matthew's Passion Narrative. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02378-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02378-2_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02377-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02378-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)