Andrews University

From the SelectedWorks of Felix H. Cortez

2009

Book Review of The Torn Veil: Matthew’s

Exposition of the Death of Jesus by Daniel M.
Gurtner
Felix H. Cortez, Andrews University

Available at: http://works.bepress.com/felix_cortez/15/

RBL 12/2009
Gurtner, Daniel M.

The Torn Veil: Matthew’s Exposition of the Death of

Jesus

Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

139

New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Pp. xxii

+ 297. Hardcover. $90.00. ISBN 052187064X.

Felix Cortez
Universidad de Montemorelos
Nuevo León, Mexico

The Torn Veil is a revision of Daniel M. Gurtner’s dissertation under Richard Bauckham at
the University of St. Andrews. It is an important attempt to shed new light on the study
of the perplexing assertion in Matt 27:51a that “the curtain of the temple was torn in two,
from top to bottom,” by suggesting a new approach. Gurtner suggests that in order to
understand the meaning of the torn veil, “a sort of an hermeneutical algebra” (27) is
necessary, since neither the author of Matthew nor the other Synoptic Evangelists stop to
explain. The torn veil is the unknown element in Matthew’s narrative equation. Gurtner
argues that the analysis of the two elements intimately related to the torn veil in
Matthew’s narrative (the portrayal of Jesus’ death and the temple) will help us discern the
meaning of the unknown element (the torn veil). Gurtner’s analysis provides valuable
insights and methodological clarity to a problem that has intrigued biblical scholars since
ancient times. This review will first provide a general overview of the work as a whole;
then it will examine the argument in more detail.

The book consists of seven chapters that evidence a simple but carefully planned structure.
Each chapter is devoted to one stage of the overall argument. Chapter 1 provides an
analysis of the state of the discussion from the point of view of the methodologies
employed by scholars from ancient times to the present, then describes the new approach

This review was published by RBL 2009 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
to be followed and its methodology. Chapters 2–4 consider the “curtain of the temple”
(part of the unknown element of the equation, the “torn veil”) from lexical, syntactical,
and functional points of view and explore its ideological, theological, or symbolic
developments in Second Temple and rabbinic Judaism. Chapter 5 surveys the two
remaining elements of the hermeneutical equation: Matthew’s portrayal of the death of
Jesus and of the temple. Finally, once every element of the equation has been duly
studied, chapter 6 analyzes the pericope of the “torn veil” (Matt 27:50–54) using
Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus’ death and of the temple as “hermeneutic keys” to unlock its
meaning. It concludes that the torn veil is a double comment on the death of Jesus: it is
an apocalyptic opening of heaven to convey a heavenly vision of the sovereignty of God
and the true identity of Jesus as Son of God despite its tragic death and also a depiction of
the cessation of the separation between God and the people (138). Chapter 7 provides a
brief summary and a helpful prospect for the further development of research on this
intriguing topic.

The book is written in a clear style, and its flow is easy to follow. The structure of the book
is simple and functional. Each section has very helpful introductions and conclusions that
help the reader easily to follow the overall flow of the argument. The book has several
spelling mistakes (e.g., the Hebrew tkrp is written tbrp in the table of contents [2.4],
and tkdp in the respective title in the text [45]) as well as some errors (most notably the
substitution of Moses by Abraham on 69). However, Gurtner should be commended for a
well-done and comprehensive research, as this is attested in the breadth of works included
in the bibliography and the detailed and extensive argumentation in the footnotes. More
important, however, the author is intent at every step to be clear about the methodology
that guides the work. In fact, it is in this area of methodological clarity and innovation
where Gurtner considers his most important contribution to be (28).

I would like now to consider the stages of the argument in more detail. Chapter 1 reviews
the state of the discussion from a methodological point of view. Here Gurtner surveys the
lexical, visibility, apologetic, christological, and other arguments that have been put
forward. He concludes that no argument is conclusive in itself and that a variety of them
should be used. More important, he notes that in all of the studies surveyed there is a lack
of attention to one or more of the following elements: the specific Matthean context; the
referentiality of the symbolism; the Old Testament cultic function of the veil; or the
apocalyptic imagery of the passage.

The Torn Veil is an attempt to correct those methodological shortcomings. Gurtner is

concerned to analyze carefully Matthew’s immediate and broader context of the torn veil
pericope. He explores with patience the Hebrew Bible, Second Temple, and rabbinic
literature to understand the cultic function of the veil and the symbolism attached to it.

This review was published by RBL 2009 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
He correctly recognizes the apocalyptic nature of the events that surround the torn veil in
Matthew and traces their background and meaning in the Hebrew Bible. In this way he
seeks to obtain a solid grasp of each element of the equation in order to provide as much
as possible a precise understanding of the meaning of the torn veil in Matthew.

Early in the book Gurtner acknowledges the work of Joel B. Green on the torn veil in
Luke (“The Death of Jesus and the Rending of the Temple Veil: A Window into Luke’s
Understanding of Jesus and the Temple,” SBLSP 30 [1991]: 543–57) as a methodological
precursor and model for his own work (20–21; cf. 98). The goal for his work is
unpretentious and specific: he “hope[s] to provide an initial word towards a new direction
in examining this issue” specifically in Matthew (28). He may well have accomplished it.

Chapter 2 surveys the use of the term καταπέτασµα katape,tasma in the LXX to find out
which curtain is referred to by the expression τὸ καταπέτασµα τοῦ ναοῦ in Matt 27:51a.
He shows, like others before, that the lexical analysis is inconclusive by itself. There are
three curtains translated καταπέτασµα in the LXX. He argues, however, that καταπέτασµα
is primarily the term for the inner veil and that the LXX provides “syntactical keys” (e.g.,
a locative genitive) to indicate which of the veils is in view when not referring to the
inner veil. Therefore, the absence of these syntactical keys privileges a reference to the
inner veil in Matt 27:51a. It is not clear to me, however, why the author devotes so much
space to describe several curtains of the tabernacle that are not called καταπέτασµα (36–
40; e.g., the layers of the roof of the tabernacle) and is content only to refer to a previous
publication of his for the more important point of the syntactical keys that help identify
which veil is referred to (46).

Chapter 3 studies the καταπέτασµα curtains as regards their function and concludes that
only the inner veil is given a particular cultic function in the Old Testament. Gurtner
carefully studies the markers of the inner veil’s unique cultic function: lexicographical and
etymological features; location; materials; color; workmanship; and the inclusion of
cherubim. He argues that the inner veil executed a “cultic-separation role by prohibition of
physical and visual accessibility to the holy of holies (and thus to God’s presence within)”
(64–65, emphasis original). Gurtner concludes that, since no other veil is given any
explicit function, the inner veil is probably referred to in Matt 27:51a (70). Gurtner
assumes, then, that the torn veil in Matthew must have some kind of cultic or symbolic
significance.

Chapter 4 considers ideological, theological, or symbolic developments of the veil in

Second Temple and rabbinic Judaism. Gurtner shows how the veil developed an ideology
of its own and was especially associated with heaven. He acknowledges, however, that this
was firmly established only in rabbinic literature, which was too late to have influenced

This review was published by RBL 2009 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
Matthew (88). Also, Gurtner correctly notes, against Hofius, that Josephus does not argue
that the veil represents heaven but only “looked like heaven” (95). Thus, by the time of
the New Testament, we have only some indications of a tendency to associate the veil
with heaven.

Chapter 5 considers Matthew’s portrayal of the death of Jesus and of the temple as
hermeneutical keys to understand the meaning of the torn veil. Gurtner concludes that
Jesus’ death is consistently portrayed in Matthew as saving people from their sins.
Regarding the temple, he concludes that Matthew has a “remarkably consistent and
positive portrayal of the temple” (100). Throughout the Gospel Jesus assumes the
legitimacy of both the temple and its sacrifices, although he is critical of their abuse by
corrupt leaders and hypocritical worshipers and is aware of its future destruction. Gurtner
concludes that the lack of a polemic against the temple makes it improbable that the torn
veil is itself a symbolic referent to the destruction of the temple.

Chapter 6 contains the analysis of Matt 27:50–54 for which the previous five chapters
prepared. Gurtner concludes that the events related in verses 51–53 (the earthquake, the
rocks split, the tombs opened) are part of a vision to the centurion and those with him
that explain the meaning of Jesus’ death: Jesus is the Son of God and has opened
humanity’s access to God. Some arguments are stronger than others, but none is
conclusive.

Gurtner correctly shows that the events associated with the torn veil (the earthquake, the
rocks split, the tombs opened) had apocalyptic significance and probably alluded to Ezek
37 (144–52). This does not prove, however, that the events themselves were part of a
vision, just as the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt 24) had apocalyptic significance but was
not part of a vision. Note that, though the author of Matthew is the only one to refer to
Jesus’ transfiguration as a vision (Matt 17:9), he does not identify the events in 27:51–53
as a vision. Gurtner notes that the First Gospel uses the expression καὶ ἰδοὺ to introduce
in several theophanic scenes, but this is true in a minority of cases. This phrase may just be
an expression that expresses surprise, something unexpected (141).

I agree with Gurtner that the best explanation of the meaning of the torn veil in Matthew
is that there is now open access to God for believers by virtue of the ability of Jesus’ death
to cleanse our sins. This can be inferred clearly from the Hebrew Bible context for this
passage and is probably the only sure footing we have to interpret this event, if Matthew
understood that the event had symbolic significance (as he probably did). This does not
make necessary, however, that the veil itself represents heaven or that the rupture of the
veil implies a vision of hidden truths.

This review was published by RBL 2009 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
The relationship Gurtner suggests between the opening of heaven in Matt 3 and the
rending of the veil in Matt 27 is not compelling. This relationship is more probable in
Mark, which uses the verb σχίζω for both events, but that is not the case in Matthew.
Also, in relating Jesus’ reception of the Holy Spirit at his baptism and his “release of the
spirit” at his death, Gurtner is right in affirming only that the “spirit” released at Jesus’
death (Matt 27:50) “may be the Holy Spirit” (139, emphasis original). Gurtner is wise in
asserting that his “study does not pretend to have the final word on a complicated text”
(28), yet his analysis is insightful and illuminating.

The Torn Veil is a welcome addition to the debate of the rending of the veil in Matthew.
It is a well-written and well-researched book. Though some of his conclusions may be less
convincing, Gurtner brings innovation to the discussion and, more importantly, a much-
needed methodological clarity. He does point, in my view, in a healthy new direction in
highlighting the importance of the Old Testament context for the study of this
troublesome passage and has provided valuable insights. From this perspective, the author
may well have achieved his goal of providing “an initial word towards a new direction in
examining this issue.”

This review was published by RBL 2009 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.