David, Uriah, Jesus, and Judas: An Intertestamental Pattern of Betrayal

IF 0.1
Daniel J. D. Stulac, D. A. Smith
{"title":"David, Uriah, Jesus, and Judas: An Intertestamental Pattern of Betrayal","authors":"Daniel J. D. Stulac, D. A. Smith","doi":"10.5325/jtheointe.16.2.0223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This essay is a study in typological exegesis across the testaments of the Christian Bible. Specifically, in light of early Christian conviction that Jesus of Nazareth is the anointed son of David, we seek to understand how the story of David’s violent murder of Uriah the Hittite and rape of Bathsheba figure within a canonical framework in which Jesus is presented as David’s heir and yet also as the one in whom the Davidic legacy of violent betrayal reaches fulfillment. Beginning with a literary reading of David’s sins and their legacy in Samuel–Kings, the essay moves to consider the under-studied reference to Uriah and his wife in the Matthean genealogy and its import for Matthew’s presentation of Jesus as a “son of David.” We suggest that in the gospel tradition, David’s violence concentrates in the obscure figure of Judas Iscariot, who, like Uriah the Hittite, appears last in the roll of individuals faithful to their Israelite king (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16; see 2 Sam 23:39). In contrast to Uriah’s fidelity to David—but in step with David’s betrayal of Uriah—Judas’s treachery demonstrates why typological readings of Jesus as the Davidic heir remain necessarily complex. The Gospels identify Jesus as a new son of David, and in so doing, they also present him as one who transforms that scriptural paradigm through his symbolic reversal of David’s sin.","PeriodicalId":53190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Theological Interpretation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Theological Interpretation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/jtheointe.16.2.0223","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This essay is a study in typological exegesis across the testaments of the Christian Bible. Specifically, in light of early Christian conviction that Jesus of Nazareth is the anointed son of David, we seek to understand how the story of David’s violent murder of Uriah the Hittite and rape of Bathsheba figure within a canonical framework in which Jesus is presented as David’s heir and yet also as the one in whom the Davidic legacy of violent betrayal reaches fulfillment. Beginning with a literary reading of David’s sins and their legacy in Samuel–Kings, the essay moves to consider the under-studied reference to Uriah and his wife in the Matthean genealogy and its import for Matthew’s presentation of Jesus as a “son of David.” We suggest that in the gospel tradition, David’s violence concentrates in the obscure figure of Judas Iscariot, who, like Uriah the Hittite, appears last in the roll of individuals faithful to their Israelite king (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16; see 2 Sam 23:39). In contrast to Uriah’s fidelity to David—but in step with David’s betrayal of Uriah—Judas’s treachery demonstrates why typological readings of Jesus as the Davidic heir remain necessarily complex. The Gospels identify Jesus as a new son of David, and in so doing, they also present him as one who transforms that scriptural paradigm through his symbolic reversal of David’s sin.
大卫、乌利亚、耶稣和犹大:背叛的内在模式
这篇文章是对基督教圣经遗嘱的类型学注释的研究。具体而言,鉴于早期基督教认为拿撒勒人耶稣是大卫的受膏之子,我们试图理解大卫暴力谋杀赫梯人乌利亚和强奸拔示巴的故事是如何在一个规范的框架内发生的,在这个框架中,耶稣被尊为大卫的继承人,同时也是大卫暴力背叛遗产得以实现的人。本文从对大卫的罪行及其在《撒母耳-列王记》中的遗产的文学解读开始,考虑到马太家谱中对乌利亚及其妻子的研究不足,以及它对马太将耶稣描述为“大卫之子”的重要性。我们认为,在福音传统中,大卫的暴力集中在加略人犹大这个晦涩的人物身上,像赫梯人乌利亚一样,在忠于以色列国王的个人名单中排名最后(马太福音10:4;马可福音3:19;路加福音6:16;见撒下书23:39)。与乌利亚对大卫的忠诚相反——但与大卫对乌利亚的背叛一致——犹大的背叛证明了为什么对耶稣作为大卫继承人的类型解读仍然很复杂。福音书将耶稣认定为大卫的新儿子,在这样做的过程中,他们也将他描述为一个通过象征性地逆转大卫的罪来改变圣经范式的人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信