¹ An earlier version of this paper was originally read at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, March 12, 1998.

² Cf. D.C. DULING, "The Therapeutic Son of David: An Element in Matthew’s Christological Apologetic", NTS 24 (1978) 392-410; for a more recent version of his work from a social scientific perspective and with up-to-date bibliography, see D.C. DULING, "Matthew’s Plurisignificant ‘Son of David’ in Social Science Perspective: Kinship, Kingship, Magic, and Miracle", BTB 22 (1992) 99-116.

³ I refer to the author of the first Gospel as Matthew throughout without implication or speculation as to his identity. I follow the same convention with regards to Mark and Luke. Throughout I also assume the two-source hypothesis, or Matthew’s use of Mark and Q. For a recent defense of this in the case of Matthew, see W.D. DAVIES – D.C. ALLISON, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3 vols., (Edinburgh 1988) I, 97-121.

⁴ Sixty-five of the 109 words in Matt 26,6-13 are taken over from Mark 14,3-9 (60%). Cf. F.V. FILSON, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (London 1960) 333: "...their accounts agree on all important points"; F.W. BEARE, The Gospel according to Matthew (San Francisco 1981) 504: "Matthew keeps closely to the Markan form of the story, making only minor changes of wording".

⁵ Cf. Luke 7,36-50; John 12,1-8.

⁶ 1 Sam 10,1; 2 Kgs 9,6; see also DAVIES – ALLISON, Matthew, III, 442; D.J. HARRINGTON, The Gospel of Matthew (Sacra Pagina 1; Collegeville 1991) 362.

⁷ Cf. Matt 10,1; on the connection of anointing with healing, cf. also Luke 10,34; Jas 5,14.

⁸ Cf. DAVIES – ALLISON, Matthew, III, 664: "Mark’s explanation - to anoint Jesus (Mk 16.1) - is missing. Did our evangelist believe that 26.12 stood in tension with Mark’s account?".

⁹ The main irony in the plot at this point is the contrast between the treachery of the chief priests and Judas and the love of the unnamed woman: cf. E. SCHWEIZER, The Good News according to Matthew (Atlanta 1975) 487; R.H. GUNDRY, Matthew. A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids 1982) 519-523. On the irony of Matt 6,17, see DAVIES – ALLISON, Matthew, I, 619.

¹⁰ Cf. HARRINGTON, Matthew, 364: "From these many ironies associated with institutions and characters Jesus emerges as knowing what is happening and why it must happen. And the reader of Matthew’s passion account is able to share Jesus’ privileged perspective on the events of the passion".

¹¹ The two formal types, healing and exorcism, are clearly very similar, but seem distinguishable: see T.A. BURKILL, "The Notion of Miracle with Special Reference to St. Mark’s Gospel", ZNW 50 (1959) 33-48, esp. 43-44; G. THEISSEN, The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (Edinburgh – Philadelphia 1983) 85-90; R. LATOURELLE, The Miracles of Jesus and the Theology of Miracles (New York 1988) 243-245.

¹² On Mark’s focus on Jesus’ exorcisms and power over the demons, see H. C. KEE, "Aretalogy and Gospel", JBL 92 (1973) 402-422, esp. 416-419. On Matthew’s redaction of Mark in these pericopae, see DULING, "Therapeutic Son of David", 393-399.

¹³ Matthew has qerapeu/w 16 times (Matt 4,23.24; 8,7.16; 9,35; 10,1.8; 12,10.15.22; 14,14; 15,30; 17,16.18; 19,2; 21,14), while Mark has it only 6 times (Mark 1,34; 3,2.10.15; 6,5.13); Matthew has i)a/omai four times (Matt 8,8.13; 13,15; 15,28), while Mark has it only once (Mark 5,29).

¹⁴ The situation is, as usual, much harder to determine in relation to Q. Of the four "changes in Q" listed by DULING, "Therapeutic Son of David", 398, n. 6, one is really from Mark (Matt 17,18 // Mark 9,26-27); and in two qerapeu/w may be original to Q (Matt 8,7 // Luke 7,3; Matt 10,1 // Luke 10,1, but cf. Luke 9,1). In the Beelzebul controversy (Matt 12,22 // Luke 11,14), it does seem that Matthew has substituted his preferred term qerapeu/w for e)kba/llw.

¹⁵ On Matthew’s use of Mark here, see R. BULTMANN, History of the Synoptic Tradition (rev. ed.; Peabody, MA 1963) 213; GUNDRY, Matthew, 317-319; DAVIES – ALLISON, Matthew, II, 561-562.

¹⁶ Cf. DULING, "Therapeutic Son of David", 402.

¹⁷ Cf. GUNDRY, Matthew, 290-291; DAVIES – ALLISON, Matthew, II, 479. However, Luke does omit any reference to Jesus’ emotions here, as usual in his Gospel: see K. PAFFENROTH, Story of Jesus according to L (JSNTSS 147; Sheffield 1997) 107, with references.

¹⁸ Cf. GUNDRY, Matthew, 376; DAVIES – ALLISON, Matthew, III, 7.

¹⁹ See DAVIES – ALLISON, Matthew, III, 140.

²⁰ See J.D. KINGSBURY, "The Title ‘Son of David’ in Matthew’s Gospel", JBL 95 (1976) 591-602, esp. 598: "Matthew intends this scene (21:14-16), the final time in the Gospel that Jesus acts in his capacity as the Son of David, to ‘sum up’ in a climactic way his ministry of healing". (See below on Son of David.) Cf. DAVIES – ALLISON, Matthew, III, 140.

²¹ Cf. DULING, "Therapeutic Son of David", 393: "It is possible from observing Mark’s summaries to propose that the Second Evangelist has a twofold view of Jesus’ activity: he preaches and he casts out demons".

²² Matthew’s chapters 5–7, 10, 13, 18, 23–25. For finer distinctions, see DAVIES – ALLISON, Matthew, I, 58-72.

²³ Cf. DULING, "Therapeutic Son of David", 394-395, who takes them as an inclusio around the discourse and narrative block of chapters 5–9.

²⁴ The omission is seldom noted, though cf. GUNDRY, Matthew, 190, who notes it not for the uniqueness of Jesus’ healing, but for the focus on Jesus’ teaching rather than on the disciples’ obeying: "Matthew omits even a cursory comment of this sort and will never make up the omission. For him the actuality of the disciples’ mission pales before Jesus’ instructions".

²⁵ Besides the articles by DULING and KINGSBURY already cited, see e.g. J. M. GIBBS, "Purpose and Pattern in Matthew’s Use of the Title ‘Son of David’", NTS 10 (1964) 446-464; J. M. JONES, "Subverting the Textuality of Davidic Messianism: Matthew’s Presentation of the Genealogy and the Davidic Title", CBQ 56 (1994) 256-272. For other titles in Matthew, see B. MALINA – J. NEYREY, Calling Jesus Names. The Social Value of Labels in Matthew (New Haven 1988).

²⁶ Matt 1,1.20; 9,27; 12,23; 15,22; 20,30-31; 21,9.15.

²⁷ Mark 10,47-48; 12,35.

²⁸ Cf. FILSON, Matthew, 52.

²⁹ On Jesus’ adoption, see R.E. BROWN, The Birth of the Messiah (Philadelphia 1977) 138-143; JONES, "Genealogy and the Davidic Title", 259-261. The Davidic line is traced through Joseph, who is also referred to as a Son of David at Matt 1,20.

³⁰ But cf. B. CHILTON, "Jesus ben David: reflections on the Davidsohnfrage", JSNT 14 (1982) 88-112, who believes that Matthew’s emphasis is genealogical throughout.

³¹ Cf. D. HILL, The Gospel of Matthew (NCB; Grand Rapids – London 1981) 215: "...miraculous healing was not associated in Judaism with the Davidic Messiah".

³² Cf. DULING, "Plurisignificant ‘Son of David’", 109.

³³ See J.A. FITZMYER, "David, ‘Being Therefore a Prophet...’ (Acts 2:30)", CBQ 34 (1972) 332-339.

³⁴ Though in later tradition, based in part on Biblical traditions, the king would be associated with healing: see M. BLOCH, The Royal Touch: Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and France (London – Montreal 1973). (I have Dr. Abigail Firey to thank for this observation.)

³⁵ Probably the most prevalent association for him, and the one most important to Q: see K. PAFFENROTH, "The Testing of the Sage: 1 Kings 10:1-13 and Q 4:1-13", The Expository Times 107 (1996) 142-143.

³⁶ See D.C. DULING, "Solomon, Exorcism, and Son of David", HTR 68 (1975) 235-252; DAVIES – ALLISON, Matthew, I, 157.

³⁷ Cf. D. SENIOR, The Gospel of Matthew (Nashville 1997) 153.

³⁸ On Matthew’s reference to 2 Sam 5,8 here, see J.C. FENTON, Saint Matthew (Pelican New Testament Commentaries; Baltimore 1963) 334; SCHWEIZER, Matthew, 408; GUNDRY, Matthew, 413; T.Y. MULLINS, "Jesus, the ‘Son of David’", Andrews University Seminary Studies 29 (1991) 117-126; HARRINGTON, Matthew, 294; DAVIES – ALLISON, Matthew, III, 140. But cf. D. PATTE, The Gospel according to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on Matthew’s Faith (Philadelphia 1987) 288-290, who argues that Matthew is indeed referring to the verse, but is not contrasting David and the Son of David.

³⁹ The title is not explicitly used this time.

⁴⁰ Cf. MULLINS, "Son of David", 124.

⁴¹ David anoints himself after the ordeal (2 Sam 12,20).

⁴² The story of the Canaanite woman (Matt 15,21-28) clearly makes the title universal, pace KINGSBURY, "Son of David", 598. Cf. also the pagan magi looking for the "king of the Jews" at the beginning of the Gospel (Matt 2,2).

⁴³ Pace GIBBS, "Son of David", 463; KINGSBURY, "Son of David", 593, 601; MULLINS, "Son of David", 125.