The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (54 page)

FOR FURTHER STUDY

Allison, D. C., Jr.
The New Moses: A Matthean Typology
. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

________.
Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present
. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Aune, D. E., ed.
The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study
. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

Blomberg, C. L.
Matthew
. New American Commentary 22. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Brown, R. E.
The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives
. Garden City: Doubleday, 1977.

Carson , D. A. “Matthew.” Pages 3–602 in
Matthew, Mark, Luke
. Vol. 8 of
The Expositor's Bible Commentary
. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Davies, W. D., and D. C. Allison.
Matthew
. 3 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–1997.

Donaldson, T. L.
Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Typology
. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 8. Sheffield: JSOT, 1985.

France, R. T.
Matthew
. Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

________ .
Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher
. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Gundry, R.
Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution
. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

Gurtner, D. M., and J. Nollands, eds.
Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew
. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

Hagner, D. A.
Matthew
. 2 vols. Word Biblical Commentary 33. Dallas: Word, 1993.

Keener, C. S.
A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Kingsbury, J. D.
Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom
. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.

Luz, U.
Matthew in History: Interpretation, Influence, and Effects
. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.

________.
Matthew 1–7
. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.

McKnight, S. “Matthew, Gospel of.” Pages 526–41 in
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.

Morris, L.
The Gospel According to Matthew
. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

Nolland, J.
The Gospel of Matthew
. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Stanton, G., ed.
The Interpretation of Matthew
. Issues in Religion and Theology 3. Philadelphia: Fortress/ London: SCM, 1983.

Stanton, G. N.
A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew
. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992.

__________. “Matthew.” Pages 205–19 in
It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture
. Cambridge: University Press, 1988.

Turner, D. L.
Matthew
. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.

Wilkins, M. J.
Matthew
. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.

¹
R. V. G. Tasker (
The Gospel According to St. Matthew
, TNTC [London: Tyndale, 1961], 15–16) pointed out that this is probably due to more than a conviction that Matthew's Gospel was the first to be written. The priority of Matthew in the canon was inspired by the conviction that Matthew formed an appropriate bridge between the Testaments.

²
R. T. France,
Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 16.

³
L. Morris,
The Gospel According to Matthew
, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 1.

⁴
See France,
Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher
.

⁵
M. Hengel argued that the Gospels have always had their headings and that “according to”
(kata)
implies authorship. See Hengel,
The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels
, trans. J. Bowden (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 48–53, 77. Compare with France,
Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher
, 50–80; and the discussion of objections to Hengel's proposal in D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo,
An Introduction to the New Testament
, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 141–42.

⁶
W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison Jr.,
Matthew
, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 1988–1997), 1:8.

⁷
Papias's works have not survived but are quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea in his
Ecclesiastical History
from the early fourth century. Although many scholars date Papias's original work to 130–140 (based on a statement of Philip Sidetes who wrote in the early fifth century), Eusebius, who wrote 100 years earlier and was generally more reliable than Philip, stated that Papias was well-known during the time of Ignatius (c. 35–110) and Polycarp (c. 69–155). Moreover, Eusebius recounted the testimony of Papias that precedes his description of Christian persecution under Trajan between 98 and 117. This suggests that Papias's testimony dates most likely to the early second century. See especially the discussion in R. Gundry,
Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution
, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 610–11, who argued that Philip depended on Eusebius for his information about Papias but garbled the testimony of his source. For an excellent examination of evidence for both the late and early dating of Papias with a defense of the early dating and a discussion of its implications for Gospel research, see R. W. Yarbrough, “The Date of Papias: A Reassessment,”
JETS
26 (1983): 181–91.

⁸
See the discussion in Gundry,
Matthew
, 611–17. For the argument that Papias had actually heard the teachings of two eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry, see R. Bauckham,
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 12–38.

⁹
Irenaeus,
Against Heresies
5.33.4.

¹⁰
Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist.
3.39. Our translation.

¹¹
This does not mean to suggest that Papias
was
likely wrong, however. For a defense of Papias, see C. L. Blomberg (
Matthew
, NAC 22 [Nashville: B&H, 1992], 40), with reference to R. Glover, “Patristic Quotations and Gospel Sources,”
NTS
31 (1985): 234–51; A. C. Perumalil, “Are Not Papias and Irenaeus Competent to Report on the Gospels?”
ExpTim
91 (1980): 332–37; and G. Howard,
The Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text
(Macon: Mercer Univ. Press, 1987). Compare with D. A. Hagner (
Matthew 1–13
, WBC 33A [Dallas: Word, 1993], xliii–xlvi), who suggested that Matthew may have collected Jesus' sayings in Aramaic or perhaps even the body of Jesus' teachings in the form of five major discourses, which is one of Matthew's most distinctive contributions.

¹²
Davies and Allison,
Matthew
, 1:16.

¹³
E.g., G. D. Kilpatrick,
The Origins of the Gospel of Matthew
(London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1946), 138.

¹⁴
D. Guthrie,
New Testament Introduction
, rev. ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990), 52–53.

¹⁵
In our affirmation of Matthean authorship, we go against the prevailing winds of scholarship that prompt commentators to reject the apostle Matthew as author of this Gospel or at least to limit his role in the process. E.g., R. Bauckham's rejection of Matthean authorship led him to neglect Matthew's Gospel almost completely in his otherwise excellent work
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
; and U. Luz (
Matthew 1–7
, Continental Commentary [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989], 94–95) also rejected Matthean authorship—though he also noted that Matthew as the author is too flippantly dismissed and evidence for Matthean authorship ignored with “gratuitous silence.” More cautious were Davies and Allison (
Matthew
, 1:7–58), who did not explicitly reject Matthew as the author but who nonetheless could muster only the minimalistic conclusion that the author was Jewish and whose preference for a date between 80 and 95 seemed to all but preclude Matthean authorship. C. S. Keener (
A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], 40), who at one time rejected Matthean authorship but who rethought his view while writing his commentary and “presently [is] inclined to accept the possibility of Matthean authorship on some level, although with admitted uncertainty,” viewed as the most probable scenario “the presence of at least a significant deposit of Matthean tradition in this Gospel, edited by the sort of Matthean school scholars have often suggested.” Hagner (
Matthew 1–13
, xliii–xlvi) suggested that Matthew may have been responsible for the collection of the major discourses of the Gospel not contained in Mark or that Matthew collected the sayings now known as “Q.”

¹⁶
See the discussion in Keener,
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
, 42–44.

¹⁷
R. Schnackenburg,
The Gospel of Matthew
, trans. R. R. Barr (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 6. See the summary and critique in Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 152–56.

¹⁸
Nolland,
Matthew
, 14. Nolland did not affirm a pre-70 date for Matthew out of a desire to defend Matthean authorship, which he rejected. Nolland argued that Jesus' prophecy contained exaggerations that were not completely and literally satisfied through the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem and that Matthew would have softened them if he wrote after 70.

¹⁹
Palestinian recension. See P. L. Mayo, “The Role of the
Birkath Haminim
in Early Jewish-Christian Relations: A Reexamination of the Evidence,”
BBR
16 (2006): 325–44.

²⁰
E. P. Sanders,
Jesus and Judaism
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991), 98–106.

²¹
E.g., compare Matthew 2 with Ignatius,
To the Ephesians
19:1–3; Matt 3:15 with Ignatius,
To the Smyrnaeans
1.1; and Matt 10:16 with Polycarp,
To the Philippians
2.2. When Ignatius referred to “the Gospel” in
To the Philippians
5:1–2; 8:2, he was likely referring to Matthew's Gospel. Compare also Matt 6:9–11 with
Didache
8:2.

²²
Compare Matt 5:3, 10; and Polycarp,
To the Philippians
2.3. See also C. L. Quarles, “The Use of the Gospel of Thomas in the Research on the Historical Jesus of John Dominic Crossan,”
CBQ
69 (2007): 517–36; and H. Koester,
Synoptische Überlieferung bei den apostolischen Vätern
, TU 65 (Berlin: Akademie, 1957), 13, 116–18. Some recent research suggests that the
Didache
may be even earlier. J. P. Audet (
La Didache, Instructions des Apôtres
[Paris: Gabalda, 1958]) and M. W. Holmes (
The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations
, 3d ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007], 337–38) suggested that the
Didache
reflects a time closer to Paul and James (both died in the 60s) than Ignatius (died c. 110). If this date of composition of the
Didache
is correct, this would require a pre-70 date for Matthew's Gospel on the assumption of the
Didache
's dependence upon Matthew, though this is less than conclusive (see the discussion in Holmes,
Apostolic Fathers
, 338).

²³
Compare
Barn.
4.14 with Matt 24:14.

²⁴
See C. L. Quarles, “The Gospel of Peter: Does It Contain a Pre-canonical Passion Narrative?” in
The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue
, ed. R. Stewart (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2006), 106–20, especially 110–18.

²⁵
See the discussion of Markan priority in the previous chapter.

²⁶
Irenaeus,
Against Heresies
3.1.1.

²⁷
Josephus,
Jewish War
7.218; Dio Cassius, 65.7.2; Suetonius,
Domitian
12. Consequently,
m. Sheq.
8.8 taught that the shekel laws applied only as long as the temple stood.

²⁸
Gundry,
Matthew
, 606.

²⁹
See section on theological themes in Matthew.

³⁰
See the extensive and compelling defense of the early date of Matthew in Gundry (
Matthew
, 599–609), who concluded that Matthew was probably written during the 50s or early 60s.

³¹
Davies and Allison,
Matthew
, 1:139.

³²
For a defense of a Palestinian provenance, see J. A. Gibbs,
Matthew 1:1–11:1
, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia, 2006), 67.

³³
B. H. Streeter,
The Four Gospels
(London: Macmillan, 1951), 500–23. U. Luz (
Matthew 1–7
[Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1983], 1:91, n. 184) recently challenged Streeter's claim.

³⁴
Koester noted that the early church suggested that the Epistle of Barnabas was composed in Alexandria. But the church based its opinion on the Alexandrian mode of interpretation used in the book. Koester later stated that modern scholars know almost nothing about the provenance of the book (
Introduction to the New Testament: History and Literature of Early Christianity
[Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982], 2:220, 277). Koester dated the Epistle of Barnabas to the end of the first century since in his opinion it did not refer to any NT books.

³⁵
M. D. Goulder,
Midrash and Lection in Matthew: The Speaker's Lectures in Biblical Studies 1969–71
(London: SPCK, 1974); Gundry,
Matthew
. Gundry's commentary was originally subtitled, “A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art.” For summaries of these two volumes, see C. L. Quarles,
Midrash Criticism: Introduction and Appraisal
(Lanham: University Press of America, 1998), 7–15.