The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (45 page)

²³⁶
See Stein,
Introduction to the Synoptic Problem
, 91–95.

²³⁷
For an extensive discussion of the minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark, see F. Neirynck,
Evangelica II
, BETL 99 (Leuven: University Press, 1991), 1–138.

²³⁸
Stein,
Introduction to the Synoptic Problem
, 70. But J. K. Verbin (
Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel
[Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000]) found agreement in order in the double tradition in 27 or 67 pericopes (40 percent).

²³⁹
H. J. Holtzmann, “Zur synoptischen Frage,”
Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie
4 (1878): 145–88, 328–82, 533–68, especially 553–54.

²⁴⁰
A. M. Farrer, “On Dispensing with Q,” in
Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot
, ed. D. E. Nineham (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), 55–88.

²⁴¹
M. Goulder,
Luke: A New Paradigm
, JSNTSup 20 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989).

²⁴²
R. Vinson, “The Significance of the Minor Agreements as an Argument Against the Two-Document Hypothesis” (Ph.D. diss.; Durham: Duke Univ., 1984). For a summary of the research, see Vinson, “How Minor? Assessing the Significance of the Minor Agreements Against the Two-Source Hypothesis,” in
Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique
, ed. M. Goodacre and N. Perrin (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 151–64. For criticisms of Vinson's research, see T. A. Friedrichsen, “The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke Against Mark: Critical Observations on R. B. Vinson's Statistical Analysis,”
ETL
65 (1989): 395–408.

²⁴³
See Stein,
Introduction to the Synoptic Problem
, 113–28; id., “Synoptic Problem,” 791.

²⁴⁴
See especially R. T. Fortna,
The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel
(Cambridge: University Press, 1970); id.,
The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessors: From Narrative Source to Present Gospel
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988). Compare G. van Belle,
The Signs Source in the Fourth Gospel: Historical Survey and Critical Evaluation of the Semeia Hypothesis
, BETL (Leuven: University Press, 1994).

²⁴⁵
Helpful resources include F. G. Downing, “Redaction Criticism,” in
Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation
, ed. S. E. Porter (London/New York: Routledge, 2007), 310–12; N. Perrin,
What Is Redaction Criticism?
(London: SPCK, 1970); and G. R. Osborne, “Redaction Criticism,” in
Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues
, ed. D. A. Black and D. S. Dockery (Nashville: B&H, 2001), 128–49.

CHAPTER 4

CORE KNOWLEDGE

Basic Knowledge:
Students should know the key facts of Matthew's Gospel. With regard to history, students should be able to identify the Gospel's author, date, provenance, destination, and purpose. With regard to literature, they should be able to provide a basic outline of the book and identify core elements of the book's content found in the Unit-by-Unit discussion. With regard to theology, students should be able to identify Matthew's major theological themes.

Intermediate Knowledge:
In addition to mastery of the core content identified in Basic Knowledge above, students should be able to present the arguments for historical, literary, and theological conclusions. With regard to history, students should be able to discuss the evidence for Matthean authorship, date, provenance, destination, and purpose. With regard to literature, they should be able to provide a detailed outline of the book. With regard to theology, students should be able to discuss Matthew's major theological themes and the ways in which they uniquely contribute to the NT canon.

Advanced Knowledge:
In addition to mastery of the core content identified in Basic Knowledge and beyond the Intermediate Knowledge noted above, students should be able to discuss whether Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, to compare Matthew's and Mark's structure, and to interact critically with alternative proposals regarding Matthew's structure and the role of the five discourses. In addition, students should be able to discuss the function of the fulfillment quotations and the Great Commission in Matthew's Gospel.

INTRODUCTION

I
T IS LITTLE wonder that Matthew's Gospel quickly became the favorite Gospel of the early church. Matthew's Gospel is one of only two Gospels written directly by one of the 12 disciples, and it is also richly theological with a great emphasis on such truths as Jesus' identity as the virgin-born Immanuel. With its frequent citations of the OT, Matthew's Gospel emphasizes Jesus' fulfillment of God's messianic promises.

It is no accident that lists of Gospel books and collections of Gospel texts in the early church always place Matthew first despite differences in order of the other Gospels.
¹
It provided a connecting link between the OT and the NT. Matthew's Gospel is also a remarkable piece of literature. Matthew communicated his message not only through explicit statements but through his structure, literary devices, and
gematria
.

Although modern scholars tend to prefer Mark over the other NT Gospels based on the opinion that it was the earliest to be written, Matthew was the favorite Gospel of the early church. R. T. France wrote, “It is a fact that mainstream Christianity was, from the early second century on, to a great extent Matthean Christianity.”
²
Matthew's Gospel contains rich material on Jesus' infancy, the Sermon on the Mount (only partially paralleled in Luke), and a valuable collection of Jesus' parables.

Moreover, Matthew's Gospel demonstrates with special clarity that Jesus' death was sacrificial and that he rescued his disciples from the penalty for their sins. Thus it is no surprise that E. Renan identified Matthew's Gospel as the most important book ever written.
³
Careful study of Matthew uncovers a message of such theological depth and literary artistry as to convince the reader that Renan's assessment was hardly an exaggeration.

HISTORY

Author

Before engaging the particular issues raised by a discussion of the authorship of Matthew's Gospel, it is helpful to note that the modern notion of “authorship” fails to do justice to the sense in which Matthew (or anyone else, for that matter) should be regarded as the author of the first canonical Gospel. In our day authorship entails a degree of autonomy, originality, and independence that was largely absent from first-century notions of authorship. Most likely Matthew and the other evangelists, even those who, like Matthew, were eyewitnesses of the events they reported, did not see themselves in a highly individualistic sense but as servants of the church. In this sense the role of “scribe” may be closer to Matthew's role in that scribes carefully recorded important information with an attention to detail and a high degree of fidelity.

At the same time, calling the First Evangelist a “compiler,” “collector,” “editor,” or “redactor” does not accurately characterize his role. Rather than merely acting as a passive editor of preexisting source material who approached his task in some sort of cut-and-paste fashion, the Gospel writer put his personal imprint on his book in a variety of ways: he selected material in keeping with the needs of his first intended audience; he arranged his material in the most persuasive, useful, memorable, and compelling way possible; and he presented the ministry of Jesus and the gospel of his salvation from his own unique perspective while remaining faithful to the underlying historical, cultural, and intercanonical connections that were part of the fabric of the story of Jesus in first-century Palestine. Hence the First Evangelist's role may best be understood as that of scribe and theologian (13:52).
⁴

Like the other canonical Gospels, Matthew is formally anonymous, since the author of this Gospel did not explicitly identify himself in the body of the book. However, the title that ascribes the Gospel to Matthew is clearly early if not original.
⁵
The title would have been necessary to distinguish one Gospel from the other Gospels when the four Gospels began to circulate as a single collection. Especially if the author were aware of an earlier Gospel and used it in the composition of his own work as most scholars suspect, he may have felt that a title was necessary to distinguish his book from the earlier writing (Mark, on the assumption of Markan priority). Although D. Allison suggested that the ascription
to Matthew may date as early as 125, he argued that the title
KATA MATHTHAION
(“According to Matthew”) is not indisputable evidence of Matthew's authorship of the Gospel since other titles appear in the manuscript tradition.
⁶
But since all variations of the title of the Gospel in the early manuscripts ascribe the Gospel to Matthew, the early titles remain important evidence regarding the identity of the author.

The earliest external evidence—that is, evidence derived not from the document itself (internal evidence) but from sources outside the Gospel, such as attributions of authorship by the early church fathers—for the authorship of the Gospel is from a statement of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, in his
Expositions of the Lord's Sayings.
⁷
Papias's testimony is especially significant because he claims to have received his information directly from those who personally heard Jesus' closest disciples, including Matthew.
⁸
Irenaeus (c. 130–c. 200) claimed that Papias was a disciple of the apostle John who had direct access to John's testimony regarding the early years of the Christian church.
⁹
Papias wrote: “Therefore, on the one hand Matthew arranged in order the sayings in the Hebrew dialect; on the other hand, each translated these as he was able.”
¹⁰

Even if Papias or other early church fathers were wrong about the original language of Matthew's Gospel, this does not necessarily mean that they were mistaken regarding the identity of the author.
¹¹
Also, Matthew's role as an apostle would not make his use of Mark's Gospel implausible, especially since the early church recognized Mark's Gospel as a transcription of Peter's reminiscences of Jesus' life and Peter was the recognized leader of the Twelve.

SIDEBAR 4.1: DID MATTHEW WRITE HIS GOSPEL IN HEBREW?

A close examination of Papias's statement that Matthew “therefore” arranged Jesus' sayings “in the Hebrew dialect” leads to several observations. First, the expression “therefore” closely linked the statement regarding Matthew's authorship of his Gospel to the preceding discussion in Papias. In Eusebius's quotation the statement immediately follows a description of the authorship of Mark's Gospel which mentioned that Mark wrote his Gospel based on Peter's reminiscences of the Lord's ministry but that he did not attempt to provide an ordered arrangement of the teachings of Jesus. If Eusebius quoted Papias in order without skipping any material, the “therefore” links the statement about Matthew's composition to the preceding description about Mark's composition and implies that Matthew wrote his Gospel to provide an account characterized by the order that Mark's Gospel lacked. If so, Papias's statement implies that Mark's Gospel was written first and that Matthew wrote later, possibly utilizing pericopes from Mark but giving them a new order.
¹
Moreover, such a connection would indicate that the account of the composition of Matthew, like the account regarding the composition of Mark, was attributed by Papias to a still earlier source called “the elder,” most likely John the elder.
²
According to other statements by Papias quoted in Eusebius, this elder was at least an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry, a bearer of important traditions in the early church, and likely the apostle John, son of Zebedee.
³

Second, Papias claimed that Matthew wrote his Gospel “in the Hebrew dialect.”
⁴
Recently some scholars have argued that Papias's language merely implies that Matthew wrote “in the Semitic style of composition.”
⁵
Others have contended that the context strongly implies that Matthew actually wrote his Gospel in either the Hebrew or Aramaic language.
⁶
Many modern scholars have disputed Papias's testimony regarding the authorship of Matthew. They have argued that Papias was clearly wrong about the original
language of the Gospel since the Greek of Matthew does not appear to be translation Greek. Some scholars who affirm Markan priority question whether an author would have utilized Marks Greek Gospel at all in producing a Hebrew or Aramaic Gospel. They further argue that if Papias were wrong about the original language of the Gospel, he was likely incorrect about the author as well. Many scholars dismiss Papias's claim regarding Matthean authorship because they view an apostle's reliance on a Gospel written by a nonapostle as inconceivable.
⁷

However, the excellent Greek of Matthew could have been produced by a skilled translator of an original Hebrew text. Allison noted that many of the early church fathers who affirmed Matthews authorship of a Hebrew Gospel were native Greek speakers who knew Greek better than most, if not all, modern scholars and were in a better position to determine whether the Greek Gospel could have been a translation of a Hebrew original.
⁸
Moreover, hints of Hebraic influence appear in this Gospel, suggesting that Papias could have been correct about a Hebrew original. Many commentators, for example, believe that the emphasis on the number 14 in Matt 1:17 is due to
gematria
(numerical symbolism) in which 14 is the numerical equivalent of the Hebrew name
David?
⁹
Yet the
gematria
works only in Hebrew since the Greek transliteration of the name “David” has a different numeric value. The onomastic play on the name
Jesus
(“Yahweh saves”) in Matt 1:21, with the explanation “because he will save his people from their sins,” likewise, works only in Hebrew, not in Greek (see also Matt 1:23).