Matthew 4:12-17 describes the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry in Galilee. After Jesus departs from Nazareth and settles in the town of Capernaum, Matthew states that Jesus’ move fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah that “the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light.” The original context and meaning of Isaiah’s prophecy relate to the Assyrian exile. However, the text quoted by the Evangelist Matthew does not precisely match either the Septuagint or the Hebrew (Masoretic Text) of Isaiah 8:23-9:1. A detailed analysis reveals that Matthew seems to bring some expressions and idioms from the Septuagint while referring to the Hebrew text as well. Regarding the geographical information in Matthew 4:15, although the original meaning in Isaiah referred to the region occupied by the Assyrian empire, Matthew reinterprets this meaning, applying it to the area of Jesus’ public ministry. Moreover, in Matthew 4:16, Matthew deliberately modifies four verbs to emphasize his unique theological perspective. This editorial approach suggests that Matthew’s intent is to emphasize the “light” and “rising” of Jesus as the fulfillment of messianic prophecy, even though the original context and expression of Isaiah did not necessarily possess messianic characteristics. The Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 8:23-9:1 adds significant modifications from the Hebrew text. The Targum interpreter meturgeman added some words “Egypt”, “Red Sea”, and “the House of Israel” into the two verses. According to the meturgeman’s theological perspective, these expressions highlighted the hardship that the people had endured. In the Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 9:5, the word “Messiah” was added to the verse, clearly marking it as a messianic prophecy. However, the meturgeman also inserted the word “before” into the divine titles in 9:5, such as “Wonderful Counselor” and “Mighty God” in order to clarify monotheism, and deny the deity of the Messiah. In the view of meturgeman, the messiah is just a human, not a god, even though Matthew’s portrayal of the Messiah is more ambiguous. Although the direct relationship between the Targum and the Gospel of Matthew at the time of their composition is uncertain, both texts independently interpret Isaiah 8:23-9:1 as a messianic prophecy.

View full abstract

This paper examines the history of research that situates the epistle of James within the tradition of the so-called “Diaspora letters/Diasporabriefe,” Jewish and Christian letters written by an authoritative figure typically in Jerusalem and addressed to the Diaspora. The theories that associate James with Diaspora letters differ significantly in their details. The distinction should be made between studies that regard James as a genuine Diaspora letter and a fictional Diaspora letter, namely, a letter disguised as a Diaspora letter. Next, the examination of the Diaspora letters shows that these letters vary significantly in length and content and that there is no fixed preface. Finally, the exegesis of James 1:1 shows that author “James” is not necessarily the Lord’s brother and therefore is not presented as an authoritative figure in Jerusalem. “The twelve tribes in diaspora” refer to those who have Jewish identity and reside outside Palestine, including Christian Jews. In conclusion, in order to argue that the epistle of James is an encyclical addressed to Jews outside Palestine, it is unnecessary to resort to the dubious idea of the Diaspora letter. It is doubtful that when James was written, the genre of the Diaspora letter was known to both the author and the reader. It is unlikely that the epistle of James was written or fictionalized as a Diaspora letter. Instead, James is better understood as a circular letter, written by a Christian Jew to fellow Jews living outside of Palestine.

View full abstract