Matthew 15:22 to Wisdom 7:20
Matthew 15:22 to Wisdom 7:20
An eighth example, from the Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary:
… Wisdom of Solomon, which was probably written in Egypt in the second century BC, indicates that Solomon knew “virtues of roots” and “powers of spirits,” knowledge associated with exorcism (Wis 7:20). … Based on this evidence, a number of scholars have suggested that the title “Son of David” was part of a Solomon typology that identified Jesus as a healer and particularly as an exorcist. … (p. 389:) By addressing Jesus as “son of David,” the woman [Matthew 15:22: Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil] may have been expressing her confidence in Jesus’s authority over demons. (p. 70-71).
Thus, Jesus would be the fulfillment of the “type” of Solomon—the Divine exorcist Himself, with complete power over demons. Certainly, the Jews saw Solomon as a powerful exorcist: “by the time of Christ, Solomon was recognized as the greatest of all exorcists” (p. 70). In addition, writing long after Christ, Josephus also confirmed that Solomon was a great exorcist.
The Book of Wisdom was the key basis of this Jewish worldview, according to the Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary. And yet estimates are that 97% of Roman Palestine was illiterate (Bart Ehrman, Forged, p. 72-73, citing Catherine Hezser’s “Literacy in Roman Palestine).[1] And that is 3% literacy in Hebrew, not Greek. But the Book of Wisdom is in Greek, not in Hebrew. Ehrman cites the most recent scholarship from Mark Chancey (The Myth of a Gentile Galilee) to conclude that the vast majority of Jews had no facility in even speaking Greek.
And yet somehow, the people learned these things from the Book of Wisdom. Where was that going on and why, if not at the Synagogue? The Book of Wisdom claims to be Divinely-inspired: where else would such a Greek book be read and then explained in Aramaic to the people, and why would that be occurring if it was not accepted?[2]
In fact, the verse leading to this typology occurs right in the middle of the declaration that the Book is Divinely-inspired:
15God hath granted me to speak as I would… 16For in his hand are both we and our words… 17For he hath given me certain knowledge of the things that are, namely, to know how the world was made, and the operation of the elements: 18The beginning, ending, and midst of the times…
20…the diversities of plants and the virtues of roots: …
21And all such things as are either secret or manifest, them I know.
The verse which the Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary sees as part of a “Solomon typology” occurs in the context of a declaration that the Book of Wisdom is Divinely-inspired Scripture. Matthew then describes this episode in his Gospel to the Jews, many of which were converted Priests—i.e., those who performed exorcisms and would know full well which Book provides this basis by which “Son of David” becomes a typological reference to an exorcist. Once again, it is the Gospel to the Jews that provides details that seem to be referencing Apocrypha—Mark does not note the woman’s reference to the Son of David, and Luke does not describe the incident at all. Only the Gospel to the Jews stresses this typological point.
Moreover, this was a woman of Canaan, not a Jew. A gentile woman calls Jesus “Son of David” and express her faith in Him, using typology—typology!—best exemplified in the Book of Wisdom. An Apocrypha in Greek, so widespread and well understood that a Gentile woman makes obscure reference to its concepts in the Gospel to the Jews.
Before this episode, in Matthew 15:19-20, Jesus had taught the Pharisees that “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts … these are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.” Jesus then walked 100 miles out of his way (Jerusalem to Tyre) only to encounter this woman of Canaan and give this practical illustration of that teaching about the “clean” and “unclean,” showing just how great was the faith existing among the “unclean” Gentiles. As part of that, the Gentile woman makes this typological reference, showing that she understands Jesus to be the fulfillment of the type of Solomon. Both immediately before the Pharisees approached him (14:35) and after this show of the woman’s faith (15:30), Jews had presented to Jesus multitudes who needed healing. Matthew’s point is that the Pharisees challenged Jesus immediately after the mass healings precisely because they failed to recognize him as the fulfillment of this Solomon type.
And Jesus did not just fulfill this type. He “blew it out of the water,” as they say. The woman had come to Jesus, not the daughter. Before and after, the Jews brought the sick to him; but this woman came to him without the daughter or the devil that vexed her. And Jesus performed no exorcism at all. He just willed it, and it happened instantly. He showed that He is far greater than Solomon. The Gospel to the Jews makes clear to its audience, just as Jesus made it clear to His own audience on that day, that He performed an exercise of Divine power that far surpassed the Solomon typology to be found in the Book of Wisdom (and which occurs amidst a declaration that the Book of Wisdom was Divinely-inspired Scripture).
And once again, neither Jesus nor Matthew gives any warning about the key Book that this typology is derived from.[3]
[1] HarperCollins 2011.
[2] This is a point often made regarding the New Testament, e.g., “Paul’s insistence that his letters be publicly read… and his readers’ understanding of what public reading would mean within a synagogue context provide good reasons to think that his letters would have been viewed as being in the same category as other “Scripture” read during times of public worship.” Kruger, p. 209.
[3] A “brief” interlude regarding Ehrman’s 97% illiteracy factoid. Ehrman claims that Peter was therefore 97%+ likely to be illiterate in Hebrew (or Aramaic, which I blur together for this discussion), with far worse odds for Greek, and could not have written his Greek Epistles. (He also argues that someone else did not write them for Peter, saying there are no other examples for that practice when that someone else is not named.) Ehrman specifically claims that Peter’s Epistles are forgeries because (in part) the eye witness evidence (the precise linguistic nuance of the exact words spoken by the high priest) shows that the real Peter was illiterate—the “evidence” he cites is Acts (p. 75), which he also alleges is a later fraud by someone who was not a witness (p. 208-9).
But before citing to his proof and then disproving it, Ehrman begins with his 97%+ statistic. The odds of a modern American knowing any form of Hebrew or Greek (ancient or modern) are both less than 1 in 1,000 (per Google) and yet Ehrman alleges that he himself knows both. Are the combined 1 in 1,000,000 odds (orders of magnitude worse than Peter’s) evidence that Ehrman is a fraud who forged all his work? No, in fact, the odds prove that there are hundreds of such scholars and that Ehrman could easily be one of them. Whether Ehrman is a fraud actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the statistic. A court that accepted this kind of statistic as real evidence of fraud would terrify Ehrman, were he facing a prosecutor.
As it is, the living can sue for libel; but when they die, the claim dies, and speculation like Ehrman’s becomes fair game. Ehrman and co. know this full well from personal experience via the Secret Gospel of Mark (which Ehrman claims is “serious evidence,” p. 261). From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark: (1) “when the Swedish historian Per Beskow …wrote that there were reasons to be skeptical about the genuineness of the letter, Smith got upset and responded by threatening to sue …;” (2) “Smith … argued that … no strong argument against it had been presented…;” (3) “The allegations against Smith for having forged the Mar Saba manuscript became even more pronounced after his death in 1991.” So it was a “strong argument” that no one had made allegations against Smith, who had threatened to sue the one who tried; but then he died, at which point allegations promptly became “pronounced.” Funny how that happens.
However, notice the outline of this particular speculation: “Most Jews could not, therefore this Jew did not.” This stereotyping technique is very effective, which is why an opponent should instantly object to it. Recognize that it is prejudicial and can lead you to misunderstand the evidence. Without the prejudicial lead-in to distract us, we have a writing (in fact, many writings) that itself (nay, themselves) may be the proof that this particular group of Jews could indeed write Greek, which in fact might explain why this group of Jews became a group in the first place.
As for the odds: Ehrman’s claim is that Peter had no opportunity to learn Greek. But Peter was not a peasant (contra Ehrman, p. 75), nor a laborer: he owned the boat; Andrew the fisherman also had time to follow John the Baptist, before Christ; and Paul’s tent-making is a side job; etc.
Moreover, Ehrman’s statistical analysis is backwards, what he sees as barriers are actually opportunities. Frederick Douglass was a slave whose violent masters actively worked to stop him from learning how to read and write, including hiding every scrap of writing from him. A statistical study of odds and barriers might say he had no hope at all—but that is misleading. Douglass could still learn English, what he had no hope of learning was Chinese. And the reality is that his odds went from “infinitesimal” to “almost certain” the instant his goal became to read, as he wrote in his autobiography. Where there is a will, there is a way. And notice the way: in a bigoted and hateful environment, he still found help (and had time to learn it as a slave, not even a free owner of a fishing business). The barriers were two inches tall, once he formed the will.
Peter’s barriers were not even two inches tall. If he truly wanted to learn to read and write Greek, there was a way, and it would be easier than Ehrman suspects (someone’s brother’s wife’s cousin knew a guy, and Peter just needed to give him the catch of the day). E.g., Ehrman says the Gentiles (plus God-fearers, converts and Greek speaking Jews, I presume) in Galilee were almost exclusively in only two cities: Tiberias and Sepphoris. He sees that as a barrier. But Tiberias is a simple boat trip away from Peter’s Capernaum (as we read in John 6:23), and that assumes no Greek ever left Tiberias. Peter could not learn Chinese, but he could learn Greek.
Regardless, work would have been involved, and we all hate that. So we are talking Ehrman-level motivation (willing to work hard for years to learn Greek), and not my level. Ehrman’s presupposition is that Peter was solely focused on the Hebrew language, except for proselytizing Greeks late in life. And if we accept that, then (1) possibly Peter wanted to conduct evangelization in written Greek, but (2) what seems very far-fetched is any real desire to read anything from the Greeks. And without that desire to read Greek as the simultaneous/intermediate step, the desire to write fluent Greek is a wistful dream, not a driving motivation (given the work involved: fluency is altering entire mental concepts to fit the Greek concepts, etc.).
Ehrman concludes that the Epistles prove the forgery. But Ehrman’s trust in the literal truth of Peter’s résumé is not even a compelling form of skepticism. Actual revolutionary cult leaders are not open books, even in modern times with modern research (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Wallace_Fard_Muhammad), and it is far more likely that the chief Disciple might not have been quite what the over-literal make him out to be. And if we look at the evidence, the Epistles may prove that the real Peter (fraud or authentic) knew Greek, and Ehrman’s presupposition is wrong.
Ehrman notes six passages in 1 Peter that were taken from the Septuagint and not the Hebrew. The entire New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew. It quotes the Greek Septuagint throughout. It includes hundreds of possible references to Greek Apocrypha. The KJV acknowledges three cross-references between 1 Peter and the Book of Wisdom (only available in Greek), three cross-references between 1 Peter and the Book of Sirach (translated into Greek by Sirach’s grandson), and two cross-references between 2 Peter and the Book of Sirach. And the early Church provides further evidence of the Apostolic teaching of the Apocrypha.
The claim that Peter learned Greek in order to write a few letters is weak, but that is not my claim. My claim is that the Epistles show that he learned Greek to read all his Scriptures. Obsession with every single word of all (not just some, all) the Scriptures might make the work seem feasible and worthwhile. If Peter accepted Apocrypha to that kind of extent, literacy in Greek is a realistic goal, and introduces the possibility of learning Greek at a much younger age, depending on when his obsession formed. In a way, literacy in Greek makes more sense than Hebrew: it would let him read all the Scriptures, including those not in Hebrew. In fact, if Apocrypha were Scripture, it would seem like the leader of the Church might feel obligated to learn Greek so as to read them all (plus he might have seen the Septuagint as Divinely inspired).
I cannot fully discuss the rest of Ehrman’s arguments, but if the group taught its “foremen” to read the Greek Scriptures, that explains why the leaders learned to write to them in Greek. Ehrman notes that the High Priests thought Peter was illiterate, but maybe the joke was that the “man of the people” was educated and literate, just not by the Priesthood and not in Hebrew (spoiler alert: at the end of the episode, the “simple country lawyer” (Matlock) turns out to be a Harvard grad).
And since Ehrman cites to his “later frauds”/the Scriptures, they are now admittedly evidence (the Judge decides which statements to accept from them, not Ehrman). So, Jesus of Nazareth lived within walking distance of Sepphoris (3.7 miles), the other Galilean Greektown, where his mother Mary is traditionally said to have been from. Joseph took the family to Egypt, with its large Greek speaking Jewish population who believed in the Divine inspiration of the Septuagint, and where Wisdom was written and Sirach was translated. James and Jude, possible Brothers of the Lord, wrote Greek Epistles. There is no translator between Pilate and Jesus. Jesus’ mother’s cousin’s husband was a Priest and able to write at least Hebrew (Luke 1:63). And yet his son was named John in defiance of all Hebraic custom, and did not become a Priest, but the Herald. He formed a “cell” outside of official Judaism, and taught disciples including Andrew (and maybe Peter) before they met Jesus (the only question being what was taught). Etc. Etc. Etc.
If we do not start with Ehrman’s presupposition, the best explanation of all the evidence (all, not just the single sentences that Ehrman chooses) is that the Christians themselves are reason for Peter to know or learn Greek. The group’s beliefs gave its members reasons to learn Greek, and a few could (if needed) help the others. How widespread Greek and the Apocrypha were among Jews is debated, and I have changed my mind on it often, but the evidence shows that Greek was involved from the beginning, and the Apocrypha were part of that. That is enough for my beliefs, regardless of the other Jews: the seed need not be identical to the soil in which it grew.
Later I will also discuss the Greek literacy of John the Evangelist—another “poor illiterate fisherman” who was devoted to learning from the Herald, and not the Priests.
