What was Mark for Matthew?: An Examination of Matthew's Relationship and Attitude to his Primary Source (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161525360, 9783161525384

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie † (Marburg) Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg)

344

J. Andrew Doole

What was Mark for Matthew? An Examination of Matthew’s Relationship and Attitude to his Primary Source

Mohr Siebeck

J. ANDREW DOOLE, born 1984; 2007 BA (Hons) in Theology at the University of Oxford; 2011 Doctoral Thesis submitted to the Theology Faculty at the University of Marburg.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-152538-4 ISBN 978-3-16-152536-0 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2013 by Mohr Siebeck Tübingen. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

In memory of Mary Wilson 6th April 1923 ‒ 10 th November 2010

Preface This monograph is a revised version of my doctoral thesis, which was submitted to the Fachbereich Evangelischer Theologie at the Philipps-Universität Marburg in January 2011. I would like to thank everyone at the faculty for their support, guidance, friendship and instruction during my ‘exile’, for Marburg quickly became my home away from home. The Graeca reading group, Aramaic courses and Syriac classes proved a welcome distraction from the world of gospel commentaries and synoptic parallels which otherwise dominated my life for the past few years. My thanks extend to my teachers at Oxford who not only introduced me to the texts of ancient Judaism and early Christianity, but also nurtured the aspiring young academic within me and helped me to hone my critical reading of religious literature with their own unique insights and observations. Rev. Peter Southwell guided me through my degree and was truly a rôle model for me in both his accomplished scholarship and genteel conduct. It was Fr. Nicholas King S.J. with his “Greek Lunch” who taught me both how to read between the lines of my synopsis and how to ask questions not only of my teachers, but of the texts themselves. The excursion to the Holy Land with him and our group was a life-changing experience. Finally, I thank my New Testament tutor David Wenham, whose wisdom, honesty, knowledge and faith led me to a greater love of the gospels of Jesus Christ. The research I undertook, the ideas I came up with, and the proposals I presented, were all discussed and assessed critically and honestly by my friends and colleagues at the Exegetischer Arbeitskreis in Marburg. The relaxed yet professional manner in which these sessions were and still are conducted provides the student who is presenting his or her research with helpful guidance concerning the approach, wording, flow and value of the the paper in question. Of greatest importance for me was the feedback I received from the very beginning until the very end from Prof. Angela Standhartinger. Her knowledge of ancient literature was matched by her ability to see both the problems and potential in the ideas I put forward, and her kindness and humour were always reassuring and supportive. I am also thankful for the opportunity afforded me to consult two of the most accomplished Matthean scholars in the German-speaking world and to discuss my thesis with them. Prof. Ulrich Luz in Laupen (Bern) and

VIII

Preface

Prof. Matthias Konradt in Heidelberg both accepted my requests for feedback and listened kindly and patiently while I outlined my thoughts on what is, after all, a well-documented area of New Testament criticism. I was and remain fully aware that the goal I have set myself is to disagree with these two great minds, and was not surprised to receive an immediate response from both, focussing on the weaknesses and difficulties of my argument. The conversations I had with both were friendly and demanding, and I am grateful to them for their interest and advice. I must also thank Prof. Helmut Koester in Harvard, whose enthusiasm for my work and invitation to Cambridge afforded me the opportunity not only to benefit from the library facilities at the Divinity School but to see how things are done on the other side of the pond and to discuss my work with young American scholars. It was during my time at Harvard that I formulated the central tenet of my thesis on Matthew’s relationship to Mark and Q. I must also thank those at the Dr. Wolff ’sche Stiftung in Marburg for funding my brief but valuable stay in the United States. Prof. Jörg Frey kindly accepted my dissertation for publication in this series, and I am grateful to Dr. Henning Ziebritzki and his staff, foremost Tanja Idler, for professionalism and expertise in helping me to prepare this book for the printers. None of this would have been possible without the love and patience of my parents, Alan and May, who never once gave voice to any concerns they might have had about sending their only son overseas. Only when the curtains were finally hung in a small flat in central Marburg did it finally cease to be a family holiday and became a new chapter in our family history. The little university town on the Lahn soon became the favourite holiday resort of the Dooles, and I am always grateful that they shared with me the warmth, love and joy of a Christian family. I was always the most important person in the world to my grandmother, Mary Wilson. She was my ‘granny’, and I her only grandson. I soon became her ‘big’ grandson, and she was as proud of me as it is possible for a humble, wise, Christian lady to be. I owe her more than I can show, and it is therefore to her memory that this book is lovingly dedicated. I would finally like to thank the most important person behind this book, although it is too late to do so. My Doktorvater, Prof. Friedrich Avemarie, supervised my research on Matthew’s use of his sources from day one. It was he who accepted my request to complete research under him in Marburg, although we had never met. It was he who brought me to a foreign country and looked after me like a father. It was he who welcomed me into his home to discuss what contribution I could make to modern gospel scholarship, and whose own interests and insights guided my work in its early stages. It was he who continued to demand more detailed

Preface

IX

exegesis, more thorough consideration of possible alternatives, more refined explanation of the implications of my proposals. It was he whose approval I sought when I looked for the little pencilled-in ‘O.K.’s in the margin of my manuscripts. It was he who was with me right until the end, and who first congratulated me on the successful completion of my examen rigorosum. It was he who oversaw the improvements I had to make to my dissertation before it could be published in this series. It is he whom I shall now miss as my journey in life continues without him. Friedrich was a teacher, a supporter, a paragon and a friend. It was a joy to work under him and a joy to know him. Thank you, Friedrich.

Marburg, Jan. 2013

J. Andrew Doole

Contents Preface ......................................................................................................... VII Abbreviations .............................................................................................. XV

Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................ 1 1.1. Statement of the Problem ....................................................................... 1 1.2. Point de départ ........................................................................................ 1 1.3. Forschungsgeschichte ............................................................................. 4 1.4. Thesis ..................................................................................................... 10 1.5. Method ................................................................................................... 12

Chapter 2. Matthew’s Sources ............................................................. 14 2.1. Mark ....................................................................................................... 15 2.1.1. The Text of Mark ........................................................................ 15 2.1.2. The Genre of Mark ...................................................................... 17 2.1.3. The Status of Mark ..................................................................... 23 2.2. Q ............................................................................................................. 26 2.2.1. The Text of Q .............................................................................. 26 2.2.2. The Genre of Q ........................................................................... 28 2.2.3. The Status of Q ........................................................................... 30 2.3. M ............................................................................................................ 32 2.3.1. Independent Tradition or Dependent on Mark? ........................ 33 2.3.2. Oral or Written? .......................................................................... 35 2.3.3. The Rôle of M in Matthew ......................................................... 36 2.4. The Jewish Scriptures ........................................................................... 38 2.4.1. Version(s) ..................................................................................... 39 2.4.2. Scripture References in Matthew’s Copy of Mark ................... 40 2.4.3. Prophecy ...................................................................................... 42 2.4.4. Law .............................................................................................. 43 2.4.5. Matthew’s Use of the Jewish Scriptures as a Source ................ 44 2.5. Matthew’s Sources: A Summary .......................................................... 45

XII

Contents

Chapter 3. Mark or Q? ........................................................................... 47 3.1. A ‘Q’ Submission? ................................................................................ 48 3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3-11 ..................................................... 51 3.3. Matthew’s Use of Q .............................................................................. 69 3.4. Matthew in the Markan Tradition ........................................................ 78 3.5. The Matthean Trajectory ...................................................................... 79

Chapter 4. A New Edition of Mark ..................................................... 81 4.1. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 12-28 ................................................... 82 4.2. Aspects of Matthew’s Edition of Mark .............................................. 100 4.2.1. Additions ................................................................................... 100 4.2.2. Omissions .................................................................................. 107 4.2.3. Amendments .............................................................................. 112 4.2.4. Continuity .................................................................................. 118 4.3. Matthew as a New Edition of Mark ................................................... 128

Chapter 5. A Conventional Scribe .................................................... 129 5.1. Technique ............................................................................................ 130 5.1.1. Review of Previous Contributions ........................................... 130 5.1.2. Ancient Convention .................................................................. 136 5.2. Examples from Ancient Authors ........................................................ 144 5.2.1. Josephus: Contra Apionem ....................................................... 144 5.2.2. Paul: Quotations from the Jewish Scriptures .......................... 149 5.2.3. The Temple Scroll ..................................................................... 157 5.3. Writing a Gospel ................................................................................. 164 5.3.1. Sources and Paperwork ............................................................ 164 5.3.2. Content ...................................................................................... 169 5.4. The Conventional Evangelist ............................................................. 173

Chapter 6. Mark in the Eyes of Matthew ........................................ 175 6.1. Matthew’s Proximity to Mark ............................................................ 175 6.2. Matthew’s Development of Mark ...................................................... 178 6.3. Matthew’s Continuity with Mark ....................................................... 183

Contents

XIII

6.4. The Authority of Mark ........................................................................ 186 6.5. The Replacement of Mark .................................................................. 189 6.6. Matthew’s Attitude to Mark: What was Mark for Matthew? ........... 193

Results ....................................................................................................... 195 Bibliography ............................................................................................... 197 Index of Ancient Sources ........................................................................... 211 Index of Modern Authors ........................................................................... 219 Index of Subjects ........................................................................................ 222

Abbreviations Mt Mk Lk Jn Q NTG OT MT LXX LAB CD

The Gospel of Matthew The Gospel of Mark The Gospel of Luke The Gospel of John The ‘Sayings Source’ Q Novum Testamentum Graece The Hebrew Bible (‘Old Testament’) Masoretic Text Septuaginta The Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo The Damascus Document (Qumran)

AJEC ALGHJ ANRW ANTZ ASNU BETL BFcT BhT BibT BPC BZNW CBQ CSCT EKK NT ExpT FRLANT GP HNT HThK NT HZ ICC JBL JGRChJ JHS JRS JSNT JSNTSup JSPSup JThSt LCL

Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis Bibliotheca ephemeridium theologicarum lovaniensium Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Bible Today Biblical Performance Criticism Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quaterly Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Expository Times Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des alten und neuen Testaments Gospel Perspectives Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Historische Zeitschrift International Critical Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Roman Studies Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Loeb Classial Library

XVI LNTS NovTSup NTOA NTS ÖTK NT PAAJR RHPR SBB SBL MS SBS SE SJT SNTS MS STDJ ThR NF ThLZ ThZ TSAJ UNT WdF WMANT WUNT ZNW ZPE

Abbreviations Library of New Testament Studies (formerly JSNTSup) Novum Testamentum: Supplement Series Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus New Testament Studies Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge Society of Biblical Literature: Monograph Series Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studia Evangelica Scottish Journal of Theology Society of New Testament Studies: Monograph Series Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Theologische Rundschau Neue Folge Theologische Literaturzeitung Theologische Zeitschrift Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Wege der Forschung Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Chapter 1

Introduction 1.1. Statement of the Problem The gospel of Mark appears to have proven an overnight success. Not only has its early record of Jesus’ life been handed down to posterity, but it was adopted by two subsequent evangelists, who may indeed have been inspired by its popularity and suitability. However its appeal was limited; both latter evangelists showed some degree of dissatisfaction with the text, and following the publication of their longer works, Mark’s popularity would inevitably wane.1 The brief period of Mark’s unparalleled success and its zenith in the ancient world remain shrouded in mystery. It is hoped that Matthew, one of Mark’s earliest witnesses,2 may shed some light on the influence of this enigmatic gospel and its reception in the early Christian community.

1.2. Point de départ In the study of the synoptic gospels the term ‘redaction’ is used of the work undertaken by Matthew and Luke upon their sources,3 while ‘redaction criticism’ seeks to reveal the trends in the work of these evangelists. Yet what is ‘redaction’? What is happening when an author adopts and adapts an inherently religious text? It is the ambiguity of this phenomenon which has provided the motivation for the following study. The pivotal text is the Gospel of Mark. Many features common to the ‘synoptic’ gospels derive to a large extent from common dependence on Mark, rather than from generic Christian tradition or accepted literary 1 Cf, e.g., LÜHRMANN, Markus, p.1, who notes the scarce manuscript evidence for Mark and ibid., p.16, the rare citation of Mark in patristic literature. Cf. also P ETERSEN, “Evangelienüberschriften”, p.255‒257. 2 FREYNE, “Jewish Contexts”, p.192‒193: “Matthew’s gospel is our best indicator of how Mark was received.” 3 KIRK , “Orality, Writing, and Phantom Sources”, p.22, provides the following definition: “Redaction is the means by which written tradition is articulated for new or altered contexts of reception; its wide range may be understood as the effect of the persistence of oral practices and habits into the scribal cultivation of the written tradition in a mixed media cultural environment of pervasive orality.”

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

function. It is Mark and John who are equals in their creativity; 4 furthermore, they are not alone. 5 Mark however has the title τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, the gospel.6 Luke (Lk 1:1‒4) informs us of previous accounts (διηγήσεις) by other authors (πολλοί); he posits no claim to absolute originality. It is Matthew however whose early appearance on the literary scene is of interest to this study; his work may clearly be said to follow the example of Mark, even without a specified aim. 7 Although the two were originally believed to have emerged independently, 8 their similarity is now generally accepted as attributable to Matthew’s faithful reproduction of his source text Mark. 9 This study is based on the following generally accepted theories concerning the Matthean context.10 Its conclusions will seek to support such proposals concerning the genesis of Matthew’s Gospel. If my conclusions convince, the theories, for such they remain, are supported, and perhaps strengthened; if they fail to convince, it is not to the detriment of such proposals. I follow the general consensus concerning the date and location of Matthew, positing a date between CE 70‒100, probably within the frame CE 80‒95,11 and a Syrian provenance. 12 As with all Christian movements at 4 STANTON, Gospels and Jesus, p.20: “Mark and John have both developed what is, at least in part, a new form of writing.” In the course of this study I have no reason to postulate as to the possibility of John having been familiar with the Gospel of Mark, cf., e.g., B AUCKHAM, “John for Readers of Mark”; KIEFFER, “Jean et Marc”, &c. 5 Cf. Q, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter &c. 6 The term εὐαγγέλιον is almost always presented with the article, both in the New Testament (on 74 of 76 occasions) and in the apostolic fathers (Didache, Ignatius, Polycarp, 2 Clement). This may be because the Christian audience is familiar with the good news in question (A UNE, “Genre Theory”, p.162). See further discussion of this title in 2.1.2. The Genre of Mark. 7 In both Luke and John we are provided with a motive (Lk 1:4, Jn 20:31); AUNE, Literary Environment, p.59: “Neither Mark nor Matthew provides an explicit statement of his literary intentions.” 8 Papias (Eusebius Hist. Eccl. III 39:15‒17); Irenaeus (ibid. V 8:2‒3); Origen (ibid. VI 25:4‒5). 9 BECKER & RUNESSON, “Introduction”, p.9: “One could perhaps even say that this literary and theological interaction created the phenomenon of what may be called ‘Christian literary culture’. However, this fails to take into account the central position of Paul in early Christian literature.” 10 ROBINSON, “Trajectory”, p.122: “The future of synoptic criticism does in fact lie in moving forward upon the basis of the progress that has been made, not in returning to rightly discarded alternatives.” 11 DAVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, I, p.138; SIM , Matthew, p.40; LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.76; GNILKA, Matthäusevangelium, II, p.250; MEIER, Antioch, p.17; VIVIANO , Matthew and his World, p.4; O’LEARY, Judaization, p.106‒107. Cf. BECKER, “Dating Mark and Matthew as Ancient Literature”, for the most recent discussion. 12 DAVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, I, p.143‒147; SIM , Matthew, p.51‒62; LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.73‒75; SCHWEIZER , Matthäus und seine Gemeinde, p.138‒140; B ACON, Studies in Matthew, p.15‒23; GNILKA, Matthäusevangelium, II, p.515; VIVIANO, Matthew and his World, p.4; STARK, “Antioch as the Social Situation for Matthew’s Gospel”.

1.2. Point de départ

3

this time, Matthew’s community remains “within the orbit of Judaism”. 13 The originality of Mark is assumed on literary grounds, as I agree with LUZ: “Die Zwei-Quellen-Hypothese ist m.E. diejenige Grundhypothese, auf deren Basis sich die synoptische Frage am leichtesten lösen läßt.” 14 Even in a study which is generally critical of assumptions on the synoptic tradition, SANDERS admits, “Mark has most closely followed the sequence of events in the Ur-gospel.” 15 So Markan priority appears most probable. 16 The task before Matthew 17 is not inconsiderable, yet it is his ability as a scribe which determines the course of his Christian vocation.18 Matthew may be one of a small class of early Christian scribes (Mt 13:52). In New Testament literature the scribal profession is not in itself shunned, but is by no means honoured as a central ministry in the new Christian movement. 19 Matthew thus betrays his identity in listing ‘scribe’ as among the valid ecclesial positions (Mt 23:34). 20 Finally, we must take care to distinguish between the evangelist and his traditions. ‘Matthew’ is for us the skilful redactional hand at work in the composition of the gospel.21 Once Mark’s status as a source text for Matthew is generally accepted, 22 we encounter a variety of studies which seek to explain the redactional work of the latter, especially since a key essay by BORNKAMM in 1946: “Matthäus ist nicht nur Tradent der Erzählung, sondern auch ihr ältester 13 SIM , Matthew, p.5‒6; therefore, ibid., p.25: “It is more appropriate to speak of Christian Judaism than of Jewish Christianity.” V IVIANO , Matthew and his World, p.7‒8; OVERMAN , Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism; Senior, “Between Two Worlds”. SALDARINI, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community, p.7: “Israel is the concrete community of Jews from which Matthew has been banned, but to which he still thinks he belongs.” However LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.89: “Hinsichtlich ihrer Grundrituale unterscheidet [...] sich [die Gemeinde] also nicht von den meisten anderen Jesusgemeinden, obwohl es zu diesen Grundritualen jüdische Konkurrenzrituale gibt.” SIM , “Current State of Research”, p.38‒40, provides an overview of scholars who advocate either position on Matthew’s community. 14 LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.49. 15 S ANDERS, Tendencies, p.277. 16 Cf. STREETER, Four Gospels, p.149‒332; T UCKETT, Revival, p.186‒187; WOOD, “The Priority of Mark”. 17 Discussion of a possible connection to the disciple Matthew is not necessary, nor is the number of Matthews at work on the gospel important. The thesis concerns the attitude of the redactor(s) towards Mark, whoever and however many they may have been. 18 For discussions of the nature of the title ‘scribe’ applied to Matthew, see O RTON, The Understanding Scribe; COPE, Scribe; GOULDER, Midrash, p.5 and p.13; BACON, Studies in Matthew, p.497. 19 Cf. e.g. 1 Cor 1:20, where Paul appears to mock the profession, and 1 Cor 12:28 // Eph 4:11, where the scribe is not listed among the early Christian ministries. 20 Of course, scribes are nonetheless portrayed very much as among the opponents of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel. 21 As HAINES-EITZEN, Guardians of Letters, p.106, points out, while in Roman society scribes tended to be slaves, early Christian scribes were the very users of their own texts. 22 Usually, but not always, under the two-document hypothesis.

4

Chapter 1: Introduction

Exeget.”23 Matthew is, according to Redaktionsgeschichte, the exegete or interpreter of the gospel of Mark and the Q and M traditions, and the study of this aspect of gospel criticism provides much useful insight into the question of Matthew’s attitude to his principal source.

1.3. Forschungsgeschichte Nearly four decades of redaction critical studies have shown that Matthew has placed his own stamp firmly on the traditions he uses. 24

The considerable success of redaction criticism in determining the Matthean viewpoint provides the framework for this study; however the need for such an investigation is based on the apparent failure of previous attempts to determine the very nature of Matthew’s attitude to Mark. A brief outline of some major contributions towards a statement of the problem at hand will reveal the context of the issue and the current lack of a tenable solution. ALLEN, in his 1907 commentary, begins with a lengthy analysis of Matthew’s adaptation of Mark, 25 yet provides no explanation of our redactor’s motivation. His approach, originally designed purely in support of the Two-Document Hypothesis,26 allows a key insight into the mechanics of gospel redaction, involving the rôle of memory in the rearrangement of pericopae without recourse to the unrolling of scrolls. 27 VON DOBSCHÜTZ (1928) suggested that Matthew took the idea of composing a more comprehensive gospel from Luke: Der Gedanke, die Darstellung der öffentlichen Wirksamkeit Jesu (Markus) durch das Voranschicken einer Jugendgeschichte zu einem Bios auszuweiten, entspricht ganz der Art des literarisch gebildeten Hellenisten Lukas. Es ist nicht eben wahrscheinlich, daß die beiden Evangelisten, die eine Kindheitsgeschichte bieten, ganz unabhängig voneinander auf diesen Gedanken gekommen sind. Matthäus dürfte die Anregung dazu von Lukas bekommen haben, wenn er in seiner Ausführung auch ganz eigene Wege geht. Auch der Gedanke, einer Erzählung des Markus den Redestoff von Q einzuarbeiten, scheint mir bei

BORNKAMM, “Die Sturmstillung im Mattäusevanglium”, in Idem, Überlieferung, p.51. HELD, ibid., p.155, describes Matthew as a “zielbewußter Interpret”. Indeed G OODACRE , “Intertextual Reading”, p.73, remarks, “In a great deal of New Testament Scholarship, there is a love affair going on with Mark alongside a polite and patient disdain for his first interpreter, Matthew.” 24 STANTON, A Gospel, p.326. 25 A LLEN, Matthew, p.xiii‒xl. 26 ALLEN, Matthew, p.xxxv: “It is hoped that the facts collected above will be sufficient to convince the reader that of the two Gospels, that of S. Mark is primary, that of S. Matthew secondary.” 27 See below, 3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11 and 5. A Conventional Scribe. 23

1.3. Forschungsgeschichte

5

Lukas seine erste Stelle zu haben [...] während Matthäus eine weit komplizierte Verarbeitung der beiden Quellen darstellt.28

This position requires Matthew’s familiarity with Luke, if not with his gospel content per se, then certainly with his approach. 29 However, it may be that Matthew’s inspiration came from Mark alone. BACON, who views Matthew as five ‘books’, 30 argues, “Mt frames his gospel as though expressly [...] to supplement Mk as [...] an ‘orderly’ syntax of the Lord’s logia.”31 However, such a desire for an ‘orderly’ account again suggests more a Lukan concern (Lk 1:3) than a Matthean.32 The order of Matthew’s gospel is essentially that of Mark, with a decoration of supplementary traditions, as STREETER observes, “The narratives peculiar to Matthew [...] stand to Mark as misteltoe to the oak.” 33 Matthew often simply adds logia or teaching material to the Markan context. However this theory of ‘supplementation’ does not explain sufficiently Matthew’s adoption of Mark, as he also edits the Markan content. He expands Mark, while not content to leave his major source in its received form. BORNKAMM takes steps towards a more thorough description. He describes Matthew’s work as a “charakteristische Abwandlung des überlieferten Stoffes”.34 In the same publication, HELD explains the dual nature of Matthew’s redaction, viz. ‘tradition and interpretation’ (Überlieferung und Auslegung): Der Interpret ist hier sozusagen zugleich Tradent. Er bringt nicht eigentlich einen neuen Gedanken an die Überlieferung heran, vielmehr beweist er sich im genauen Sinn des Wortes als ihr Exeget, der ausführt, was in ihr enthalten ist. 35

We now see that Matthean redaction reflects at the same time a desire to impart the tradition and a perceived need to provide correct interpretation. Thus BONNARD notes the paradox of Matthew’s use of Mark:

V ON DOBSCHÜTZ, Matthäus als Rabbi und Katechet, p.345‒346. Cf. e.g. HENGEL, Vier Evangelien, p.274‒353, who argues for Matthew drawing on both Mark and Luke. 30 B ACON, Studies in Matthew, p.82: “No attempt to define the nature and purpose of Mt’s revision of Mk is adequate which does not bring into true perspective this constructive feature of the work.” 31 B ACON, ibid., p.80. Cf. GOULDER, Midrash, p.27. 32 I am inclined to agree with G UNDRY, Matthew, p.10: “We should avoid imposing an outline on Matthew. It is doubtful that the first evangelist thought in terms of one.” Cf. the review in B AUER, Structure, p.136‒142, where various colourful attempts to define the structure of the gospel are outlined. 33 S TREETER, Four Gospels, p.502. 34 B ORNKAMM, Überlieferung, p.11. 35 HELD , Überlieferung, p.284. 28

29

6

Chapter 1: Introduction

Même là où il y a eu dépendance littéraire directe d’un évangile par rapport à un autre, cette dépendance s’est effectuée dans un esprit étonnant de profonde fidelité en même temps que de grande liberté. C’est ce deuxième point qui nous a surtout frappés.36

He continues: Nous pensons qu’il est incontestable que Mat. a utilisé Mc. (et que Mc. n’a pas connu un proto-Mat. araméen); mais il l’a précisément utilisé; il ne l’a pas recopié; il ne le considérait donc pas comme un texte sacré, intouchable, [...] le rendant plus clair [...] le reproduisant parfois mot pour mot (surtout lorsqu’il s’agit d’une déclaration de Jésus). 37

This surprising use of Mark demands some explanation. DAVIES and ALLISON note Matthew’s conservative tendencies and his desire to replace his source: The author of Matthew does, in our judgement, deserve the label ‘conservative redactor’. This is because the vast bulk of his book was to hand in the tradition[. However] Matthew found it did not suffice to be simply a channel for tradition: he had to become a source.38

One alternative is provided by GOULDER, who, in his magnum opus ‘Midrash and Lection in Matthew’ (1974), suggested that Matthew was “adapting Mark by midrash and through lection”. 39 This has been the most comprehensive effort to answer the key question of Matthew’s attitude to Mark; while it proves for many somewhat unsatisfactory, especially in its reliance upon the Farrer Hypothesis,40 an analysis of GOULDER’s proposals will be necessary for the present investigation. 41 A further contribution is provided by B AUCKHAM, who observes, “No one imagines all three evangelists belonged to the same local Christian community.”42 Mark’s gospel clearly circulated, and Matthew, in his attempt to supersede Mark, presumably also wrote his gospel with a view to quite widespread circulation.43 It seems unlikely that the new edition would BONNARD, Matthieu, p.8. Ibid.. 38 DAVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, I, p.95‒96. Cf. HECKEL, Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium, p.76,79 and SIM , “Matthew’s Use of Mark: Did Matthew intend to supplement or to replace his primary source?” 39 GOULDER, Midrash, p.475. 40 I.e. Luke’s familiarity with Matthew, see FARRER, “On dispensing with Q”, p. 55‒ 88. 41 See below, 6.2. Matthew’s Development of Mark. 42 BAUCKHAM , “For whom were the gospels written?”, p.12. 43 BAUCKHAM therefore contests the entire notion of a gospel addressing directly and uniquely the concerns of a local community, ibid., p.28: “[I]t seems unlikely that anyone would expect a bios to address the very specific circumstances of a small community of people [...] its relevance would be pitched in relatively broad terms for any competent reader.” He provides as evidence the shift from oral to written testimony, ibid., p.30: “[T]he very act of writing a book would naturally suggest the possibility of communicating with Greek-speaking Christians everywhere.”. The theory is supported by 36 37

1.3. Forschungsgeschichte

7

serve only ‘the Matthean community’. Its resemblance in both form and content to its predecessor would allow it in turn to travel and influence other Christian communities, as an improved and more comprehensive gospel. Such similarity allows STANTON to describe Matthew as “inspired by his sources”44 and LUZ stresses Matthew as “eine Neufassung des Markusevangeliums”45, “eine Neuausgabe des Markusevangeliums”, 46 a “neues Markusevangelium”.47 It is also LUZ who comes closest to posing the question at the heart of this thesis: Wichtiger als die Frage, welche Quellen der Evangelist benutzt hat, ist die Frage, wie er sie benutzt hat. Die Analyse des Aufbaus ergab, daß der Evangelist kein freier Schriftsteller war, sondern sich in hohem Maß vor allem von seiner Hauptquelle Markus bestimmen lassen wollte. Die Analyse der Einzeltexte wird zeigen, daß Matthäus das Markusevangelium sehr gut kennt, auch vorausschauend redigiert und in vielen Fällen Worte aus weggelassenen Markusversen an anderer Stelle wiederverwendet. Es ist, als ob der Evangelist trotz seiner erheblichen Kürzungen soviel Markustext wie möglich verwenden wollte!48

Matthew goes to great length to include as much of Mark as possible, and thus renders it no longer necessary.49 LUZ then provides a fitting background account for the generation of the gospel, as Q communities fled to BURRIDGE, “Gospel Genres and Audiences”, p.126: “Unlike static communities, authors move around, collecting ideas and developing their understanding. Their ideas get refined by wider experience and by the collection of source material [...]. This process is acknowledged by Luke in the preface to his Gospel.” Also, F REYNE, “Jewish Contexts”, p.179: “The idea espoused by some scholars that behind every text there is a discreet community, hermetically sealed from all others and thus free to engage in its own mythmaking in glorious isolation, is patently false.” However, later he qualifies this, advising against the idea of general publication for all Christian communities as early as the first century (ibid., p.194). LAST, “Communities That Write”, considers the issue with particular interest in the collective process of writing in ancient associations, and concludes, p.195‒196, “[W]riters intending to publish would want to ensure that their names were firmly associated with their works. [...] The gospels [...] were not originally meant to be released from their community's control, or, in other words, published.” Cf. E SLER, “Community and Gospel in Early Christianity”. 44 STANTON, “Origin and Purpose”, p.1900. Cf. NEIRYNCK, “La rédaction matthéenne”, p.71: “[L]e rédacteur pouvait s’inspirer de ses sources.” 45 LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.80, and ibid. “nicht eine Neufassung von Q”. Cf. GOULDER, Midrash, p.34: “It is neither a free paraphrase of Mark, nor a mere commentary, but a free re-writing, a second edition.” 46 LUZ, Jesusgeschichte, p.19. 47 LUZ, ibid.. SIM , “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, p.192, suggests that Matthew saw Mark as “an inadequate prototype of the Jesus story that had exceeded its use-by-date”. I will however argue that Matthew’s adoption of Mark reflects a far more positive attitude than this. 48 Luz, Matthäus, I, p.78. 49 F RANKEMÖLLE, Matthäus, p.126‒127, posits, “[W]enn die Leser gleichsam in der linken Hand die Bibel hielten und in der rechten Hand das MtEv” as a suggestion of “eine angemessene Lektüre seines Werkes mittels der Heiligen Schrift”. This again leaves no hand free for Mark!

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

Syria following the Jewish War, where they came under the influence of the Gentile church with its gospel of Mark. 50 ROBINSON agrees, “Matthew shifts from his loyalty to Q and goes over to subservience to Mark.” 51 He suggests that in Mt 3‒11 the author is erecting “a monument to [...] the Q community, [...] before [...] yielding to the unremitting pressure of the Gentile Christian community and its Gospel Mark.” 52 Thus, generally stated, “Matthew 3‒11 seems to reflect the Q community perfecting its last will and testament, before moving via Mark into the mainstream of Christianity.”53 So in gauging the extent of Mark’s success in early Christianity, we may have direct evidence in the Gospel of Matthew, “Matthew 3‒11 is the last stand of Q, Matthew 12‒28 the first victory of Mark.”54 A more recent article by LUZ, with a similar Fragestellung to that of this paper, concerns the nature of Matthew’s treatment of Q: “How was Q perceived by Matthew the Evangelist? How did he receive and react to Q as a whole?”55 Thus we come once again to Matthew’s contrasting use of his two principal sources: “For him, the Gospel of Mark had an entirely different status from that of Q.” 56 Matthew was nonetheless “convinced of the fundamental ‘one-ness’ of his two principal sources”. 57 So we have here the proposal that the Q-Matthean community encounters the Gentile Gospel of Mark, which “significantly influenced and modified their perspective”.58 This statement requires some refinement, as indeed is shown in ROBINSON’s question: How is it that the Q community, now become the Matthean community, could give up its own Q priorities so readily, to become just a new concept of Mark? 59

50 LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.90; cf. LUZ, “Looking at Q through the Eyes of Matthew”, p.589. 51 ROBINSON, “Trajectory”, p.124‒125. 52 Ibid., p.126. 53 Ibid., p.130. 54 Ibid., p.133. 55 Luz, “Looking at Q through the Eyes of Matthew”, p.584. 56 Ibid., p.585. 57 Ibid., p.589; cf. p.590: “He perceives his two principal sources as a harmonious unit rather than as fundamentally different interpretations of Jesus.” This despite the disparity of the two in many respects, as MACK, “Q and the Gospel of Mark”, p.21, observes: “If Mark is right about Christian origins, the tradents of Q certainly got it wrong.” M ACK thus argues that Mark’s gospel must be a later development or reaction, if Q is seen as evidence of an earlier stage of Christian belief. 58 LUZ, ibid., p.589. 59 ROBINSON, “Trajectory”, p.124.

1.3. Forschungsgeschichte

9

This is the problem for which no-one has yet found a suitable solution. 60 Redaktionsgeschichte, or redaction criticism, has produced today’s comprehensive proposals concerning Matthean theology. 61 The absence of a proposal concerning Matthew’s attitude to the text of Mark is therefore all the more striking. It has long been asked, “What unique theological views does the evangelist present which are foreign to his sources?” 62 I now ask, “What (unique?) theological view of his sources does the evangelist present?” The persistent focus of redaction criticism on Matthew’s changes to Mark has served to obscure his almost complete reliance on the gospel. 63 This is picked up by O’LEARY, who devotes a monograph to the issue and introduces her study thus: “This book is a study of Matthew’s use of Mark as a source.”64 She notes the following lacuna in modern scholarship: [W]hile some commentaries provide details of Matthew’s modifications of the verses and pericopae of Mark that he uses, we did not find any in-depth study of Matthew’s overall strategy in using Mark as a source. It appears that once the priority of Mark was reestablished by and large in the twentieth century and, subsequently, that Matthew had used it as a source, the broader examination of how and why he did so did not capture the imagination of scholars. 65

Her study seeks “to demonstrate the thesis that Matthew used Mark as a literary source, and that the way in which he did so was in accord with the literary conventions of Graeco-Roman antiquity.”66 This contribution has 60 The problem has recently been reformulated by Y OUNGQUIST, “Matthew, Mark and Q”, p.233: “One of the anomalies of this discussion is that, while the general outline of the social history of clear, the evidence of Matthew’s literary activity seems to lead in another direction. Most scholars agree that Matthew used two main sources, Mark and Q, and that of the two, the starting point for Matthew’s story was Mark.” He continues, ibid., p.239: “The result is the apparent disparity between [the] social history of Matthew, which emphasizes the community’s Jewish roots, and the literay history that suggests that the community’s sacred text, Mark, was essentially against the Jewish nation.” 61 E.g. Matthew’s attitude to the Law, Matthew’s Jesus, Matthew’s Church &c.; BACON, Studies in Matthew, p.132: “Much can be determined concerning the general characteristics of our first canonical evangelist by mere observation of the structure and salient traits of his compilation, and in particular his treatment of Mk.” Yet a note of caution comes from TAGAWA, “People and Community in the Gospel of Matthew”, Abstract: “[T]here is no agreement among scholars on the fundamental problem of what is the essential concern of Matthean theology.” For a concise summary of the modern consensus on Matthean thought, see, e.g., STANTON , A Gospel, p.41‒45. 62 S TEIN, “What is Redaktionsgeschichte?”, p.54. 63 G OODACRE, “Intertextual Reading”, p.74: “[We are] indebted to the legacy of redaction-criticism, with its perennial stress on scrutinizing the elements distinctive in each gospel.” 64 O’LEARY, Judaization, p.1. 65 Ibid., p.2. 66 Ibid., p.2. She declines interest in working within the terms of ‘Rewritten Bible’ and ‘midrash’ and indeed redaction criticism in general, rather her approach is “inner-critical” (p.3). She explains (p.4): “[I]t marks a very significant contribution in terms of offering a new methodological approach which we hope shall be further used, refined and/or

10

Chapter 1: Introduction

been helpful,67 but it still fails to explain Matthew’s attitude to Mark as his central religious text, the account of the life of Christ. The paradox of loyalty and liberty must be examined; Matthew’s attitude to Mark remains unexplained, and yet it must provide insight into the earliest reception of the first written gospel. Redaction criticism has shown what Matthew has done to his primary source and, to an extent, why he may have made such corrections, without an explanation of how he is able to do so.68 It has thus warranted the criticism of LINNEMANN, who writes: Jede Art literarischer Abhängigkeit unterliegt bestimmten Bedingungen oder Voraussetzungen für ihr Zustandekommen. Sie ist durch eine spezifische Geisteshaltung des Urhebers bedingt. 69

An explanation of Matthew’s attitude, viz. ‘specific mentality’, concerning Mark 70 would surely help to reveal the earliest reaction to this mysterious Christian gospel. And that is the goal of this paper, to place Matthew within the context of the reception history of Mark and to show not simply what he has done with Mark’s traditions, but how the earlier gospel was read and edited by one of its greatest beneficiaries. 71

1.4. Thesis The arguments I will bring forth in each chapter will seek to stress the proximity and loyalty of Matthew to Mark. The proposal is that Matthew is essentially a Markan Christian. He does not choose to ‘accept’ Mark, and in doing so bring to an end a period of Q-Christian Judaism, as suggested in the aforementioned essays of LUZ and ROBINSON. LUZ argued that the Q communities had fled to Syria and “here they learned of the Gospel of Mark, which significantly influenced and modified their perspective.” 72 modified by other scholars toward advancing the thesis of Matthew’s dependence on Mark.” SIM , “Current State of Research”, p.49, notes: “A method that appears to be gaining momentum is that of intertextuality, which is concerned with the relationship between precursor and successor texts.” 67 See further discussion in 5.1.1. Review of Previous Contributions. 68 O’LEARY, Judaization, p.3: “The analysis of Matthew’s use of Mark as a source unravels some literary and theological issues that have heretofore gone unnoticed.” 69 LINNEMANN, Synoptisches Problem?, p.132. 70 H ELD, Überlieferung, p.155, asks: “Wie soll man es verstehen, daß Matthäus die ihm vorliegende Überlieferung nicht einfach weitergibt, sondern neu erzählt? Was veranlaßt ihn, an zahlreichen Stellen im Großen und im Kleinen eigene Wege zu gehen?” 71 HAINES-EITZEN, Guardians of Letters, p.108, argues: “Placing the scribes who were behind the copies of early Christian texts into the foreground simultaneously advances our understanding of the processes of text transmission in the earliest church and restores the identities and functions of early Christian scribes to our historical narratives.” Matthew was one such (early) scribe. 72 LUZ, “Looking at Q through the Eyes of Matthew”, p.589.

1.4. Thesis

11

This description of the reception of Mark proves both vague and problematic.73 Similarly, ROBINSON’s proposal reads: “Matthew’s point is: though we will have to do it Mark’s way, one can never say we were unfaithful in having done it so long in Q’s ‒ and Jesus’ ‒ way.”74 Is this portrait of Matthew really credible? Is not this new edition of the gospel better written by a follower of Mark, who sees in Q the teaching of Jesus so often referred to in the narrative but not always spelled out? Matthew is therefore, while an heir to both Mark and Q, 75 a successor in the Markan line and a witness to the Markan account of the life of Jesus. Inasmuch as the message of the gospel of Matthew is indeed a story of the important events in Jesus’ life, as in Mark, and not simply an embellished record of his teachings, as in Q, Mark’s Gospel is the sine qua non of Matthew’s. This shows more than has hitherto been appreciated that Matthew is not Q,76 nor indeed a representative of a Q community or a Q theology. Matthew is the ‘new edition’ of Mark, 77 and he inherits this gospel as the record of Jesus’ life. Matthew’s ‘choice’ is the incorporation of Q (and M), and thus this is his first undertaking. The early focus on such independent material before an almost complete submission to the dominance of the Markan tradition is more easily explained by positing his allegiance to Mark and interest in Q, than vice versa. That Mark’s gospel is for Matthew the accepted record of Jesus’ life is shown in his general adherence to its order and content, and his interest in adding a birth narrative and an epilogue. Matthew tells the events as they had happened in Mark’s account, and these are justified through reference to the holy authorities: law and prophecy. Mark is not (yet) a sacred text,78 on a par with such authorities, rather an account which may be re-told, paraphrased or summarized: Matthew adopts from Mark the story, if not 73

LUZ confessed this when I discussed the issue with him. Of course, the burden then lies upon me to propose an alternative. 74 R OBINSON, “Trajectory”, p. 128. 75 LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.79: “Matthäus ist der Schüler oder besser: der Erbe seiner theologischen ‘Väter’ Markus und Q.” 76 The link between the name Matthew and a collection of the sayings of Jesus, as attested in Papias (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.15) must not distract us from the evidence that Matthew’s gospel is certainly a new Mark. That Papias, or someone before him, linked the apostle Matthew with such a collection of Hebew logia, and that the first gospel of the New Testament canon received the title ‘Matthew’, does indeed suggest that this book brought together the gospel format and the sayings of the Lord. That ‘Matthew’ became the title of this gospel does not however show that the editor is a Q-Christian. 77 Hence the lack of references to Mark in apostolic and patristic literature. The early church fathers referred rather to the new, better known edition of the gospel, “the Gospel according to Matthew” as it later became known. 78 M ACK, “Q and the Gospel of Mark”, p.24: “[I]t is questionable to regard all scribalauthorial activity in early Judaism and Christianity on the model of the transmission of sacred texts.”

12

Chapter 1: Introduction

the story-telling.79 The gospel is nonetheless, as a source of the words and deeds of Jesus, on its way to becoming a (or perhaps even the) central text in the worshipping community. 80 The amendments Matthew does make to his principal source do not reflect primarily a theological dissatisfaction with the message and content of the gospel tradition, his gospel tradition, rather an acceptance of its account of the life of the Christ, a suitable object for scribal activity. I thus hope to show that ‘Mark’s Gospel was Matthew’s gospel’, and that Matthew thus succeeds Mark and confirms it as the central text in the growing Christian movement.

1.5. Method The task before us is not inconsiderable. Matthew’s gospel is plagued with issues and there is much to take into account. 81 The sources adopted by Matthew will first be examined as to their form, content and apparent status at the time of his work, to provide a suitable setting for the process of redaction which our scribe undertakes. 82 This discussion then raises the question of his proximity to his sources, and which is the most potent influence on our evangelist. Arguments will be presented to show that Matthew is firmly within the Markan tradition, and not simply an advocate of the Q position. This will be demonstrated in examination of the way Matthew incorporates the two traditions early in his gospel and how Q is used later in the text. 83 We shall then see how he has gone about developing Mark itself, with other traditions, comments and scriptural references all worked into the framework of Mark’s account of the life of Jesus. 84 It is this examination of the texts themselves that must reveal to us Matthew’s attitude to his sources.85 In approaching the texts we will for the most part rely on the parallels in ALAND’s Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum and the observations in commentaries such as DAVIES and ALLISON’s International Critical ComA maxim suggested to me by my Doktorvater. 2 Clement, in its appeal to C2nd Christians, expounds upon Matthean traditions, without reference to Paul or John. This shows the centrality of this gospel in certain central areas of Christian communal life. 81 ALLISON, New Moses, p.xi: “Entire books have been written on single paragraphs of Matthew, even individual verses.” 82 2. Matthew’s Sources. 83 3. Mark or Q? 84 4. A New Edition of Mark. 85 FRANCE, “Where have we got to?”, p.290: “What does the study of the gospels themselves indicate as to their attitude to tradition [...]?” and ibid., p.295: “[T]here is an inevitable element of speculation in our view of what ‘must have been’ their attitude. Ultimately the only solid evidence for the historical interests of first-century Christians is the sort of history they did in fact write, in the gospels.” 79

80

1.5. Method

13

mentary in English and LUZ’ Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament in German, among others. The way in which Matthew incorporates Q material into the Markan storyline and the various aspects of his reproduction of Markan traditions will provide evidence for the theory of Matthew’s overwhelming allegiance to Mark and his interest in the teachings of Jesus which he finds available in Q. In focussing on Matthew’s progression through his copy of Mark I may be accused of neglecting the ‘oral’ elements of the Jesus tradition. However, I am convinced that Matthew was working with written versions of Mark and Q and note that when he is following these he does so very accurately. He may draw on oral traditions mostly in his brief additions to the narrative, but for the rest he appears to be using written sources.86 There follows an appraisal of Matthew’s methods with regard to contemporary scribal conventions, in which I draw on the results of recent studies on ancient practice and consider the guidelines and evidence of ancient authors.87 Any proposal concerning the attitude of our evangelist to the phenomenal gospel of Mark must be supported not only by the evidence of the gospels themselves but also by the apparent standards of contemporary convention; the portrait of our evangelist at work must be credible within his first-century context. We are then finally in a position to lay claims as to Matthew’s relationship to Mark’s account of the life of Jesus, and to his readiness to support and develop this account. 88 In all of this my aim is to shed some light on the beliefs and practices of the earliest Christian communities, and in particular on how they treated their religious texts.89

86 KIRK, “Orality, Writing and Phantom Sources”, is however critical of the dichotomies of ‘oral’ and ‘written’ sources, noting the problems associated with, p.2, “a media dualism that in its strong form considers writing and orality to be virutally autonomous modes”, whereby, ibid., “variability is viewed as the index property of oral tradition, whereas writing supposedly gives the tradition a fixed form subject only to copying and editing”. He concludes, p.11: “Within this framework, Q and Mark can be seen to lead their existence at the boundary of the oral and the written medium, but with their material, written forms the sustaining substratum of their existence and utilization.” 87 5. A Conventional Scribe. 88 6. Mark in the Eyes of Matthew. 89 While working on this doctoral dissertation I was delighted to discover the recent articles of LUZ (“Looking at Q through the Eyes of Matthew”) and SIM (“Matthew’s Use of Mark”), treating this very same subject. I was thus reassured and glad that these prolific scholars also see the relevance and necessity of such investigations into Matthew’s use of his sources. The publication of WUNT’s Mark and Matthew I is further evidence of the continued interest in such issues, and this volume provided much of value for my own research.

Chapter 2

Matthew’s Sources 2.1. Mark Matthew’s own views are reflected, not only in the changes he makes to his sources, but also in his choice of the traditions he incorporates. 1

While redaction criticism reveals Matthew’s touch through the changes he makes to his materials, it completely overlooks the attitude which underlies the choice of these sources in the first place. As SIM explains: [W]hat would Matthew have thought of alternative Christian traditions, and how would he have reacted to them[...]? A number of Christian traditions existed well before the evangelist wrote his Gospel, and it is important to consider whether and in what ways he may have responded to them. [...] The most obvious candidates here are Mark and Q. 2

Before he may begin to write his gospel, Matthew must know what material to incorporate into his work. The traditions he adopts often come in pre-cast units, such as those of Mark itself, while others may be almost itinerant, such as many of the Q logia. 3 Matthew’s task is to transfer such traditions from their current context to the appropriate section of his narrative.4 There is also a certain degree of conscious effort on the part of the redactor to provide flow, consistency and continuity to his compilation of traditions. 5 Matthew’s creativity will allow the synthesis of disparate sources with equally disparate backgrounds; the wealth and variety of traditions present in the gospel surely betrays an innate desire in the redactor to bring together the “liberal, moderate and conservative”. 6 MatSTANTON, A Gospel, p.45. SIM , “Current State of Research”, p.45. 3 No matter how much of a narrative framework had been developed in the final edition(s) of Q, logia and episodes are by their very nature flexible and transferable. 4 ALEXANDER, “Rabbinic Biography”, p.26: “An anecdote is formulated for some purpose, even if only for entertainment, and so presumably there is never a stage in its development when it does not have some kind of setting. [...] So when we speak of using a pre-existing anecdote we are really speaking of its transfer from one context to another.” Matthew’s heavy reliance upon material from pre-existing sources allows ALLEN , Matthew, p.lxxxv, to criticise him for “the lack of distinction which characterises any narrative compiled from previous sources by an editor who contents himself with dovetailing together rather than rewriting the sources before him.” 5 See, e.g., the table given in 4.2.3. Amendments. 6 SIM , Christian Judaism, p.11. He notes, for example, ibid., p.119, “it must be acknowledged that a good deal of Matthew’s anti-scribal and anti-Pharisaic material stems from his sources.” 1

2

2.1. Mark

15

thew’s collection comprises all of these, and his task is to compile a single, coherent gospel.7 Evidence suggests that Matthew was an early Christian scribe who showed interest in the gospel of Mark, the ‘sayings collection’ (Q), (oral?) traditions unique to him (M/Sondergut), and the Jewish Scriptures. There is no evidence that Matthew was influenced by any other literature.8 The general continuity of the gospel, though not without several apparent contradictions within the text, 9 is thus testament to Matthew’s mastery of his sources, which we shall now consider: Mark, Q, M and the Jewish Scriptures.

2.1. Mark We are lucky enough to have in our Mark the matrix from which [Matthew] worked. 10

Mark is without doubt Matthew’s principle source, and in this study I shall attempt to show that Matthew is closest to Mark literarily and theologically.11 Our first task is to consider the content of the text of Mark that Matthew had before him, and then we may begin to discuss the issues surrounding the ‘genre’ and ‘status’ of Mark within the early Christian movement. 2.1.1. The Text of Mark It is difficult to know what changes the text of Mark underwent from the time of composition until the third century, when its textual attestation begins. 12 H ENGEL, Vier Evangelien, p.128, n.371, also stresses the variety and comprehensiveness at which an evangelist aims: “Die Erwähnung der πολλοί (Lk 1,1) ist durchaus ernst zu nehmen. [...] Wenn einer [...] ein Evangelium schrieb, wird er so viele ‘Quellen’ wie möglich gesammelt haben, schriftliche und mündliche Materialien.” 8 LUZ, Jesusgeschichte, p.19: “[...] weil Matthäus abgesehen vom Markusevangelium, der Logienquelle und der Bibel in griechischer Übersetzung keinerlei Literatur gekannt zu haben scheint, an der er sich formal orientieren konnte und von der er sich inspirieren ließ.” MACDONALD , Homeric Epics, proposed a series of connections between Mark and Homer, which both Matthew and Luke missed (see especially p.187‒190). 9 STRECKER , Gerechtigkeit, p.16, argues of Matthew’s content: “Es ist nicht zu harmonisieren.” 10 G OULDER, Midrash, p.5. 11 They are perhaps even socially and geographically close, but these aspects must remain outside the confines of this examination. See, however, especially FREYNE, “Jewish Contexts”, who allows for the possibility that Matthew, Mark and Q all have Syrian origins, and thus (p.194), “Suddenly, Southern Syria/Upper Galilee appears to be getting quite crowded with evangelists and their writings!” 12 C OLLINS , Mark, p.125. CROSSLEY, “The Date of Mark’s Gospel”, p.209, describes the modern scholarly consensus as “a chaotic view of the pre-Markan traditions, a combination of literary and oral traditions, mixed with traditions that underwent very little secondary editing, perhaps recorded in writing by an eyewitness immediately after the event, and traditions of full-blown creative writing.” 7

16

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Sources

It seems most likely that Mark has its origins in Syria. 13 Its Semitic tone and key concerns 14 fit well within a Syrian (Galilean) context, and the author of Mark certainly assumes his audience is familiar with ‘Galilee’. However, even if Mark were written elsewhere (perhaps Rome? 15), it clearly circulated throughout the empire, allowing it to be read by both Matthew and Luke. If Matthew is as close to Mark as far as literary and theological aspects are concerned, this may also suggest rather a Syrian provenance for Mark. Yet the key issue at this point is not the origin of Mark but rather its written content. What did Matthew, Luke, and other contemporaries read when they opened τὸ εὐαγγέλιον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ? It is not for me now to provide an estimation of a “Mk Mt”, or guidelines on how to reconstruct the version of Mark that Matthew read. It seems most prudent to follow the text of the NTG while attempting to avoid the pitfalls of an overzealous examination of minor differences. 16 Any conclusions which can be drawn from the examination of this modern edition of the gospels will surely prove much more convincing than conjecture on an ideal but unavailable, hypothetical version of Mark which might suit my purposes.17 We must then be content to assume, with B ROWN, that “Matthew knew our Mark essentially as it stands”. 18 The minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark prove the constant thorn in the side of Two-Documentarians. Their existence is undeniable. That they remain ‘minor’ however, reveals their weakness in contributing to an alternative theory. They may be attributed to “coincidental editing, oral tradition, and textual corruption”. 19 Indeed BROWN remarks, with the example of Mk 1:40‒45 and parallels, “The agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark are seldom more extensive than the variants in the text of Mark itself.”20 And similarly, KOESTER: It is hardly possible to argue that all these minor agreements can be explained by the assumption that Matthew and Luke used a Markan text that differed from the one 13 KEE, Community, p.102‒105; T HEISSEN, The Gospels in Context, p.238‒239; MARCUS, “The Jewish War and the Sitz-im-Leben of Mark”; ROHRBAUGH, “The Social Location of the Markan Audience”; FREYNE, Galilee and Gospel, p.286‒298. 14 FREYNE notes the Galilee/Jerusalem tension in Mark and John in Galilee and Gospel, p.287‒298, following the proposals of LOHMEYER , Galiläa und Jerusalem. 15 COLLINS , Mark, p.8, admits: “The external evidence thus points to Rome.” However, internal evidence is inconclusive, yet see, e.g., H ENGEL, Jesus und die Evangelien, p.478‒525. 16 One does well to heed the warning of D ESCAMPS, “Rédaction et christologie”, p.360: “On pourrait aussi nous blâmer d’avoir sans cesse raisonné comme si Matthieu avait écrit exactement le texte que nous lisons aujourd’hui dans Nestle, et comme s’il avait lu Mc dans [...] le même édition; en effet, en raison de leur minutie même, certaines des observations de la Redaktionsgeschichte prêtent le flanc à cette critique.” 17 As KECK, “Oral Literature and the Gospels”, p.120, points out, an Urmarkus is simply a theory of multiple ‘Marks’, and each is appropriated to serve the needs of the critic. 18 BROWN, “An Early Revision of the Gospel of Mark”, p.216. 19 DAVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, I, p.114. 20 BROWN, “An Early Revision of the Gospel of Mark”, p.220.

2.1. Mark

17

preserved in the canonical manuscript tradition. A large number of the minor agreements are due to common stylistic and grammatical corrections of the sometimes awkward Markan text or are caused by accidental common omissions.21 So again there is no need to posit a common source behind the phenomenon of such agreements.22 Matthew is not the only one to have read Mark, and similarly he is not alone in his improvement: “Scribes had trouble with Mark’s Greek very early, and [...] Matthew and Luke found [...] corrections already made. [...] Mark’s Greek was very rough, scribes corrected it early.” 23 Therefore we might expect a good deal of variation in individual copies of Mark, so that no two copies, e.g. that read by Matthew and that read by Luke, would be the same as each other, or as any earlier version. At the same time Mark’s account of events and his associated commentary prove no mundane record, rather were for the early Christian communities of paramount importance, so we might expect the key aspects to be fairly consistent. 24 Thus the issue of minor agreements should not affect the idea of Matthew’s use of Mark and Q and independent sources, as understood under the Two Source Hypothesis.

2.1.2. The Genre of Mark The literary genre chosen by Matthew indicates to his readers or listeners the expectations they should have.25

The genre or Gattung of Mark has unfortunately proven difficult to determine.26 It was long thought that the Christian kerygma had begotten an unprecedented genre.27 Indeed it may be Mark’s general resemblance to the 21 K OESTER, Gospels, p.275. Ibid.: “There is also the possibility that later scribes altered the text of Luke under the influence of the better-known text of Matthew, thus creating secondary agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark.” 22 Although we may in some instances have evidence of a Mark-Q overlap, cf. e.g. FLEDDERMANN, Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts. Each case must however be judged on its own merits. 23 B ROWN, “An Early Revision of the Gospel of Mark”, p.226‒227. 24 COLLINS , Mark, p.125: “[M]any details of the text of Mark were remarkably fluid. [...] The major elements of the text, however, seem to have been well transmitted and preserved.” 25 S TANTON, A Gospel, p.45. As KECK, “Oral Traditional Literature and the Gospels”, p.103, n.1, observes, a genre can be determined when we know what purpose a text serves: “If we knew what a gospel ‘did’ we might be able to correlate the differences among the gospels with the different early Christian constituencies. We might also understand why one gospel was not deemed competent to ‘do’ what had to be done and it was felt that another should be written.” However LUZ , “Fiktivität”, p.175, is hesitant in seeing Matthew’s edition of Mark as dependant on a particular view of the genre of the gospels: “Matthäus kennt die markinische Jesusgeschichte, aber er wird sie kaum als Repräsentantin einer Gattung wahrgenommen haben.” 26 A thorough examination of the problem was undertaken by V INES, The Problem of the Markan Genre. Cf. the discussion of AUNE, “Genre Theory”. 27 SCHNIEWIND , “Zur Synoptiker-Exegese”, p.129‒189; cf. TALBERT, What is a Gospel?, p.7 and p.18; DODD, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, p.106. However there are important elements of the kerygma which are all but absent from the gospel, e.g. miraculous birth, exaltation of Christ, parousia, frequent and direct appeal to faith.

18

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Sources

kerygma which afforded it the title εὐαγγέλιον; 28 the story begins (ἀρχή; cf. also John 1:1) with the ministry of the baptist, which is also the mark of the inauguration of the kerygma in the ‘mini-gospels’ in Acts (Acts 10:37‒ 42, 13:24‒31). The Gospel of Mark is the ‘story’, ‘tradition’, or ‘good news’ of Jesus in the form of a historical narrative 29 and while “Mark does not exhibit ancient literary qualities as obviously as the other gospels”, 30 it is nonetheless a written account, not without certain literary calibre. 31 In format it strives to appear chronological. Much thematic arrangement is however evident, such as the placement of the two Sabbath controversies side by side (Mk 2:23‒3:6), the collection of (mostly seed) parables (Mk 4:1‒34), the eschatological discourse (Mk 13:1‒37) &c. There is nonetheless some variation: feeding miracles are not together and healing miracles are interspersed, so there is no deliberate thematic framework. Besides the initial kerygma element we have traditions of parables (e.g. Mk 4), miracles (interspersed throughout Mk; cf. John), sayings (again throughout the text; cf. Q), apocalyptic oracles (Mk 13) and the individual episodes and details within the passion narrative (Mk 14‒15). 32 There is therefore a range of elements present in a single text, and any theory of a genre for Mark must account for each of these. 33

As attested in Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 3.11.7, and Clement of Alexandria, Quis dives salvetur? 5.1. 29 A UNE, Literary Environment, p.25, suggests the gospels may have been written to provide “historical legitimation” for the kerygma. 30 AUNE, Literary Environment, p.46; cf. the gospel as Klein- or Urliteratur in OVERBECK , “Über die Anfänge der patristischen Literatur”, p.417‒472; also SCHMIDT, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu. 31 In contrast to Q, M and L, which remain hypothetical sources, the literary qualities of which can not easily be examined. ALEXANDER notes the literary calibre of Markan accounts in a comparative study with Rabbinic literature, “Rabbinic Biography”, p.42: “[T]he Markan versions of the pericopae are often more literary in character than the Rabbinic stories.” 32 Also among early Jesus traditions, though absent from Mark, were the material of the birth and youth narratives (Mt 1‒2, Lk 1‒2) and accounts of resurrection appearances (Mt 28, Lk 24, Jn 20‒21, and the longer ending of Mark in Mk 16:9‒20). 33 KOESTER, Gospels, p.46: “The Gospels of the New Testament appear [...] rather complex literary products in which [...] sources are blended together in various and distinctive ways.” 28

2.1. Mark

19

Proposals of an appropriate literary ‘genre’ or template include the gospel as a lectionary text,34 a Greek-style drama 35 or βίος,36 or a ‘prophet’ or ‘sage’ story.37 We also have more vague designations 38 of gospel genre, such as “a guide to Christology in narrative form” 39 or “a narrative of an event from the past in which interests and concerns of the past, present and future have flowed together.” 40 These proposals each highlight important aspects of the phenomenon of gospel literature, yet each stresses a certain element at the expense of the others, and there is as yet no comprehensive model and no general consensus. While many parallels to individual eleE.g. LEVERTOFF, A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, III, p.128‒129; FINCH, The Synagogue Lectionary and the New Testament; CARRINGTON, The Primitive Christian Calendar; GOULDER , Midrash; cf. also GUILDING, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship. There is however no certainty concerning Jewish lectionary traits in the first century CE, and theories vary on whether the gospel of Mark was to be read in a six or twelve month cycle, a Sabbath or Festal cycle, or in a manner similar to that of the Torah. Indeed MORRIS , “The Gospels and the Jewish Lectionaries”, p.134: “[N]o one knows what the synagogue did about readings in the first century.” Comparison with the Torah, which was centuries old, proves difficult; to what extent could the gospel text have become similarly sacrosanct in such a short time (AUNE, Literary Environment, p.25‒27)? BOWMAN, The Gospel of Mark, p.99, rules out the possibility: “It is asking too much to believe that the gospel writers, or those behind the gospel writers, so early put wine in the old bottles.” Granted that not all texts to be read aloud must exhibit lectionary traits (cf. Col. 4:16), the lectionary theory requires a very high degree of respect for the text in question. Is the format and content of Mark even appropriate for a lectionary? Although indeed any text may essentially be divided into lections, this is a secondary development for most books. Mark is written as a kerygma with narrative, ‘historical’ accounts. We must consider it as a whole, and it must exist as such, before it may later be divided into lections, cf. MORRIS, “The Gospels and the Jewish Lectionaries”, p.135: “[T]he working out of a lectionary cannot be assumed to be the first task to be undertaken.” 35 E.g. BELZIKIAN, The Liberated Gospel: A Comparison of the Gospel of Mark and Greek Tragedy; BEAVIS , Mark’s Audience; KLUMBIES, Der Mythos bei Markus. However, the gospel is not a play, and lacks many elements which would confirm its identity as a traditional tragedy. There is no chorus (John the Baptist may function as such, but only at the very beginning; he quickly becomes a character). There are too many characters and too much narrative. The gospel was not aimed at a wealthy, theatre-going audience. The most we can say is that Mark is more like a classical Greek play than either Matthew or Luke. Is the theatrical tone of Mark perhaps a vulgar (indeed, κοινή) replica of classical Greek tragedy? The dramatic nature of Greek theatre may have played a subconscious rôle in the format of Mark in its early stages. In the text as we have it, however, it is not a central motif. 36 E.g. DIHLE , “Die Evangelien und die griechische Biographie”; B URRIDGE, What are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography; O’LEARY, Judaization, p.91‒102. Biographies were part of the literature of the educated class. The Gospel of Mark was not a book-gospel, a contemporary literary masterpiece. Matthew and Luke move closer to expectations of a biography. Was Mark so unfashionable? It certainly proved popular. And does its being unfashionable account for Matthew’s work? Luke was clearly taking Mark, among other source material, to a higher literary class. Matthew however is often as ‘unclassy’ as Mark, and in any case his programme can surely not be attributed to a desire to render the gospel a work of highest literary calibre. A UNE, “Genre 34

20

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Sources

ments have been discovered, there is no suitable precedent or precursor for the phenomenal gospel of Mark, as COLLINS concludes her survey of scholarly debate on the subject, “All this is not to say that Mark can be entirely explained by analogy with historical works.”41 BECKER is forced to the same conclusion: Die Bestimmung der Gattung des Markus-Evangeliums läßt sich im Kontext der Vergleiche mit Texten antiker Historiographie ebenfalls präzisieren. Dabei lassen sich literarische und gattungsspezifische Analogien wahrnehmen. Trotzdem bleibt das MarkusEvangelium mit den aus der antiken Geschichtsschreibung bekannten historiographischen Typen und Formen letzlich inkommensurabel, d.h. es stellt einen eigenen Typus von PräHistoriographie dar. 42

THOMAS proposes ‘subculture’ as an explanation for the various forms of early Christian literature: [The Gospels] were products of a particular period of transition in the cultural development of the Roman empire, as the empire absorbed its subject peoples in the east, along with their highly developed cultural heritages. The Gospels [...], for the audiences and authors that read and treasured them, were histories of their particular subculture within the larger empire, histories focusing their pride in their past and hopes for the future. 43

What then can we say of the genre of Mark? It is primarily a combination of the kerygma format and material from ‘older’ tradition. 44 The perceived need to record such tradition due to the deaths of important apostles 45 and Theory”, p.147,167‒169, describes Mark as a “parody” of Graeco-Roman biography. This may prove helpful in classifying the vulgar nature of Mark. 37 E.g. BALTZER, Die Biographie der Propheten; cf. the collection and commentary by SCHWEMER, Vitae Prophetarum. However, as AUNE, Literary Environment, p.36‒43, points out, there are no Jewish parallels which suffice as a precedent for gospel literature. Similarly, there is no βίος of a rabbinic sage; cf. LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.42: “[M]an berücksichtigt, daß eine Lebensbeschreibung eines Menschen von der Geburt bis zum Tod im Rahmen jüdischen Schrifttums etwas Ungewöhnliches war.” SCHULZ , “Die Bedeutung des Markus für die Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums”, p.137, concludes: “[D]ie Nötigung zur Konzeption des Markus-Evangeliums kann niemals im apokalyptischen, pharisäischen und qumranessenischen Judentum gelegen haben.” 38 AUNE, “Genre Theory”, p.146, n.4, criticizes the “hermeneutical circle” of “essentially inventing a new [...] subgenre to fit [...] interpretation”. 39 KOESTER, Gospels, p.292. 40 PERRIN , “The Literary Gattung ‘Gospel’”, p.7. 41 COLLINS , Mark, p.42. 42 BECKER, Markus-Evangelium, p.410. 43 T HOMAS, The Acts of Peter, Gospel Literature, and the Ancient Novel, p.104. 44 Of course, KÄHLER, Der sogenannte historische Jesus, p.59‒60, (in)famously described the Gospel of Mark as a “Passionsgeschichte mit ausführlicher Einleitung”. 45 KELBER , The Oral and the Written Gospel, p.207‒210, posits Mark as a “counterform to oral speech”. This interesting theory opposes the idea of the written gospel as a vessel for oral traditions. He argues: “Nowhere in early Christianity is it more obvious than in the gospel Mark that preservation of oral tradition is not a primary function of writing. [...] Both in form and content the written gospel constitutes a radical alternative

2.1. Mark

21

the threat of false accounts over time were certainly factors, but not the primary motivation behind Mark. Mark was written to be read, not stored. 46 Matthew would soon seek to usurp Mark, and this influence is perhaps key; AUNE reminds us, “There are, of course, a number of genre-theorists who maintain that it is precisely the critic who determines or creates the genre of the text.”47 As a written account of Jesus’ ministry it may be read aloud,48 copied and handed down through both the local region and successive generations. The principle of supply and demand may help us to our best solution: What did Mark provide that others (such as Q?) did not? Mark was popular as a story of Jesus’ ministry. 49 Regardless of whatever model(s) upon which the text was based, it is its content, not only its format, which determines its success. The early incorporation of specific teaching material, individual miracle accounts and various prophecies into a general storyline was an important early development. Mark’s originality both provided its initial appeal50 and almost condemned it to literary oblivion.51 However, unlike Q, Mark survived the test of time: a collection of logia could not compete with this attribute of the written gospel, the storyline format lending credibility to the account and ensuring its triumph over the more flexible yet less stable oral traditions. Therefore, regardless of the genre we might ascribe to Mark today, Matthew clearly saw Mark as a ‘life’ of Jesus, or rather, as a ‘death’ of Jesus, the historical account of events in the months leading up to the crucifixion. What clues to the nature of the text lie in the title: τὸ εὐαγγέλιον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ? Is SCHULZ correct in asserting, “Evangelium meint jetzt ‒ grob gesagt ‒ bei Markus nicht to the oral gospel.” He cites as evidence the gospel’s “reserved attitude toward sayings”, “displacement of all oral authorities” (viz. Jesus’ disciples and family), “extensive narrative” and “the silence it ascribes to the risen Lord”. The theory has much to commend it, but the link he suggests with the destruction of the temple (ibid., p.211) proves tenuous. 46 Was Mark originally a ‘performance’? See especially W IRE, The Case for Mark Composed in Performance; HORSLEY, DRAPER & FOLEY (ed.s), Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory, and Mark; SHINER, Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark. 47 A UNE, “Genre Theory”, p.146. In our case, the critic in question is Matthew, who read Mark’s gospel, “which he apparently considered a βίος” (ibid., p.170). 48 At least sporadically, at most liturgically. NB Mk 13:14 (‘the reader’), Mk 4:9 (‘he who has ears’). 49 W ISCHMEYER, “Identity”, p.378, notes that the primary purpose of Mark was, of course, to provide a Jesus narrative. 50 BULTMANN , Tradition, p.394: “Der Typus des Evangeliums tritt uns in Mk entgegen; und man wird sagen dürfen, daß er ihn geschaffen hat. Auf keinen Fall ist eine seiner Quellen als ein Evangelium zu bezeichnen. Daß es nicht neben ihm und vielleicht vor ihm Schriftsteller gegeben hat, deren für uns verlorene Werke auch als Evangelien zu bezeichnen wären, kann man natürlich nicht beweisen [...] aber sehr wahrscheinlich ist es nicht. Denn weder Mt noch Lk haben ein solches Werk benutzt; beide legen den MkAufriß zugrunde.” 51 That is, following the ‘publication’ of the longer gospels of Matthew and Luke.

22

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Sources

mehr die mündliche (und briefliche) Frohbotschaft, sondern eine Geschichte.”52 The verb εὐαγγελίζεσθαι appears in the LXX as a translation of ‫בשר‬, and the nouns εὐαγγέλιον and εὐαγγελία for ‫בשרה‬.53 The term ‫ בשר‬simply means ‘to announce news’; such news may be good or bad.54 The implication is however often that it is good news that is to be announced.55 A Graeco-Roman precedent is the Priene Calendar Inscription (9CE) referring to the coming of Augustus, the divine saviour (σωτήρ). 56 The term εὐαγγέλιον appears not infrequently in Paul, and often stands on its own. It is however also found qualified as the gospel τοῦ Χριστοῦ.57 Thus an understanding appears to be assumed in Christian circles; 58 the addressees know of the ‘good news’ of Jesus’ death and resurrection. 59 Mark uses the term τὸ εὐαγγέλιον in the following instances: Mk 1:1 60: The title, which is followed by the prologue (v2‒3) and then ἐγένετο... (Mk 1:4).61 Mk 1:14‒15: Jesus preaches the ‘good news’ to the people of Galilee. This is absent in Mt 4:17 but possible echoes occur in Mt 4:23 and 9:35 (cf. Lk 8:1). This occurrence is crucial; it provides a precedent for Mk 1:1 and a possible ‘genre’, so to speak, for the text, as KENNEDY explains: If one asks how a gospel is formulated [...] the answer would seem to be, by proclaiming it (keryssein) [...]. In this sense, the gospels can be regarded as a nonliterary genre generated, as were the Socratic dialogues, out of the method of the Master.62 Mk 8:35 and 10:29: καὶ [ἕνεκεν] τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. This is absent from Mt 16:25 // Luke 9:24 and Mt 19:29 // Lk 18:29 respectively, therefore we may be dealing with later interpolations. 63 Mk 13:10b: πρῶτον δεῖ κηρυχθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. This is absent from Mt 24:18b and Lk 21:13. Again, the gospel is to be ‘preached’. Mk 14:9: ὅπου ἐὰν κηρυχθῇ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. The account is absent from Luke. Matthew adds τοῦτο (Mt 26:13).64 52 SCHULZ, “Bedeutung”, p.136. PETERSEN, “Evangelienüberschriften”, p.274, argues: “Titel [sind] von erheblicher Konsequenz für die Lektüre und Interpretation eines Textes.” 53 E.g. 2 Sam 18:19‒31, 2 Kings 7:9, Is 40:9. 54 E.g. the bad news of 1 Sam 4:17. NB the addition of ‫( טוב‬ἀγαθά) to stress the ‘good’ nature of the news in Is 52:7 (LXX) and subsequently in Rom 10:15. 55 E.g. Is 61:1, present in Q (Mt 11:5 // Lk 7:22) and programmatic in Luke (Lk 4:22). 56 Discussed by SCHNIEWIND, “Euangelion”; STUHLMACHER , Das paulinische Evangelium; FRANKEMÖLLE , Evangelium ‒ Begriff und Gattung; EVANS, “Mark’s Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription”. Idem. “‘The Book of the Genesis of Jesus Christ’: The Purpose of Matthew in Light of the Incipit”, p.63. 57 But also κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν µου διὰ Χριστοῦ Ιησοῦ (Rom 2:16). 58 Cf. KOESTER, Gospels, p.1‒9; HENGEL, Vier Evangelien, p.2‒5. 59 A prime example of Paul’s use of the term is found in 1 Cor 15:1‒8. 60 SCHMITHALS, Markus, p.73‒74, argues that this is a later, scribal title, not present in the text which Matthew read. However we have no text-critical reason to dismiss this ‘title’ as absent from the earliest gospel texts. 61 Cf. Luke’s prologue (Lk 1:1‒4), which does not contain the term εὐαγγέλιον but is also followed by ἐγένετο... (Lk 1:5). 62 KENNEDY, “Classical and Christian Source Criticism”, p.137. 63 Yet why is the phrase not added to Mk 13:9, for example? 64 Is this perhaps a reference to this, i.e. his, gospel text? Such allusion is however absent in the more appropriate Mt 1:1 and 28:18‒20. See commentaries ad loc.

2.1. Mark

23

Despite its appearance in Mk 1:1, there is no evidence that εὐαγγέλιον was seen as a generic title for the text of Mark; 65 Papias is not quoted as using the term in reference to the work. 66 Neither John nor Luke uses the term, the latter speaking of other διηγήσεις, reserving the term εὐαγγέλιον for the teaching of the apostles in Acts. This may suggest that the term was of particular importance to Mark, or rather that it was used in a particular way by him. The εὐαγγέλιον of the preaching of the apostles is transferred to the lips of Jesus to show the continuity of the pre- and post-Easter missions. The resulting anachronism is the presence of εὐαγγέλιον as a terminus technicus within the pre-Easter narrative. And if the term εὐαγγέλιον can apply to the ministries of both the apostles and Jesus, it is certainly an appropriate title for the account of the life of the latter as preached by the former. In this way it may have been intended as a title for Mark. 67 However, if this was the case, subsequent evangelists, including Matthew and Luke, either did not approve or did not realise. 68 Matthew calls his work a βίβλος. 69 The title εὐαγγέλιον therefore, specifically due to its absence in Luke and John, and Matthew’s failure to adopt it as a title for his work, provides few clues as to the early perception of a ‘genre’ for Mark. All we can say is that Mark’s gospel was the text which effected the later classification. 70 So, as HENGEL concludes, “In diesem Sinne könnte man sagen, daß nur das Werk des Markus den Titel εὐαγγέλιον wirklich zu Recht trage.” 71

2.1.3. The Status of Mark [D]id Mark enjoy the kind of status that would attract Matthew? 72

A key aim of this study is to contribute to an understanding of the unique position that the gospel of Mark enjoyed at the time of Matthew. 73 Here 65 A UNE, “Genre Theory”, p.158, argues: “Mark is certainly referring to his own narrative as τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, though not in the sense of a specific literary genre.” 66 KOESTER, “From the Kerygma Gospel to the Written Gospels”, p.374: “It is evident that Papias did not think of Matthew and Mark as ‘gospels’.” 67 As HENGEL, Vier Evangelien, p.2: “Das Wort muß daher [...] für Markus eine ganz besondere Bedeutung besessen haben.” Pace KOESTER, “From the Kerygma Gospel to the Written Gospels”, p.381: “Not one of the authors of a gospel writing understands his work as a ‘written gospel’.” 68 Cf. HENGEL, “Die Evangelienüberschriften”, p.542. Cf. AUNE, “Genre Theory”, p.172. 69 See below, 6.2. Matthew’s Development of Mark. Cf. HENGEL, Vier Evangelien, p.139, who speculates that Matthew may also have used the title εὐαγγέλιον: “Vermutlich hat der unbekannte judenchristliche Lehrer in einer der Städte im syrisch-palästinischen Grenzgebiet sein Werk nach dem Vorbild des älteren Markus bereits als εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μαθθαῖον in Umlauf gebracht.” He also suggests the possibility of a now-missing “Begleitbrief” (ibid.) for the Matthean gospel. 70 E.g. in Justin, Apol. 66.3. It is noteworthy that even when the texts were all deemed ‘gospels’ and eventually given titles, the designated authors were assigned with κατά and not with the genitive, revealing an innate tendency to view the gospel as one gospel, in different accounts (AUNE, Literary Environment, p.18; P ETERSEN, “Evangelienüberschriften”, p.252); cf. also the title διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (HOLMES, Apostolic Fathers, p.344. 71 H ENGEL, “Die Evangelienüberschriften”, p.542. 72 O’LEARY, Judaization, p.110. 73 W ISCHMEYER, “Identity”, p.355: “The literary impact of Mark’s Gospel as the first Jesus-book is often undervalued.”

24

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Sources

some preliminary remarks and observations are necessary to show how much we can already determine, and how the study of Matthew may enlighten us further. Mark’s success can be measured by its apparently widespread reception:74 Matthew and Luke, our key witnesses besides the fragments and codices of Mark’s gospel, were authors from quite disparate backgrounds.75 That Mark was a major source for both authors, and the fact that their re-working of the text must have taken a considerable amount of time, provide an indication of the high regard and popularity which this gospel enjoyed. That Mark’s Gospel is the primary source text for Matthew is seen in the fact that it is almost wholly reproduced, rarely neglected, constantly improved and consistently followed. 76 This priority is all the more striking when one considers that much of its content may not even be as old as that of other traditions, e.g. Q; the traditions of Jesus‘ sayings in Galilee were surely considered older than the account of his death in Jerusalem. 77 It is not revered for its apparent age (for we cannot know what Matthew, Luke and other early Christians had learned of how old Mark’s traditions were) rather for its established status in the Christian community. Mark exerts more influence on Matthew than is commonly supposed by redaction critics; indeed it was “[l]a source qui a été détérminante pour la rédaction et la théologie de l’évangile de Matthieu”. 78 That he rewrites Mark at all is foremost evidence of its status, as O’LEARY observes: “The likelihood of one text being dependent on another is increased if the former text was held in high regard or was popular in the tradition of the later author.”79 It is furthermore for our redactor the definitive text, although ap74

That other gospels flourished independently of the gospel of Mark is undoubted (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas). However, we deal with Mark as the sine qua non gospel in the Matthean community, and cite Luke as a witness to its popularity elsewhere. 75 G AMBLE, Books and Readers, p.102: “[Mark] must have circulated widely within ten to twenty years of its origin.” As O’LEARY, Judaization, p.109, reminds us: “We know from the letters of Paul that many churches knew what was happening within other churches in other cities.” 76 See further 4. A New Edition of Mark. I must nonetheless disagree with STREETER, Four Gospels, p.524: “The written gospel, Mark, had been in use long enough, not only to become the starting point of the development of new tradition of a Haggadic origin, but by its superior value and prestige to dry up the stream of genuine independent tradition.” Although it is unclear what S TREETER might have meant by ‘genuine’, the array of material current within the early communities is considerable, and both Matthew and Luke feel the need to incorporate some of these traditions into an accepted ‘gospel’ format. 77 What are the earliest traditions? The death and resurrection account was probably subsequent to many of the logia of Mk and Q. The birth narratives, nowadays quickly dismissed as later developments, nonetheless enjoy the tone of being the first elements of the tradition with the accounts of Jesus’ earliest days. 78 DEVISCH, “Le Document Q”, p.97. For my demonstration of this, see 4.2.4. Continuity and 6.3. Matthew’s Continuity with Mark. 79 O’LEARY, Judaization, p.110.

2.1. Mark

25

peal will be made to the much older, accepted authorities of the Law and the Prophets, and also the sayings of Jesus in Q, surely not without highest religious significance. Regard for Mark can not be said to lie in its content alone, for Matthew constantly corrects and appends material to the Markan tradition. The Markan format may indeed have contributed to its success, as G OULDER argues: “[Mark] is a document of the very highest authority. [...] Its simple and detailed narrative is self-authenticating. [...] Mark is bound to hold priority.”80 The format of the simple kerygma-plus-story combination may remain a subconscious factor in the appeal of the gospel.81 It is, however, the presence of reliable, apostolic witnesses throughout the gospel which proves crucial: “For Papias’ time, all emphasis lies upon the apostolic names, no matter what title appeared in the incipit of a particular book.”82 Unlike Q, Mark has references to Peter, James and John, present at the start of the gospel and at the key events recorded. It is this, not simply the book’s content or format, which would have given it authority in the early Christian movement.83 Although a very different text to the Jewish holy scriptures and indeed the logia of the Christ as recorded in Q, it is the vastly successful, apostolically attested, life-story of Jesus. These three attributes must have given it a prime position in the early Christian community, and a subsequent evangelist must emulate Mark if he wishes his gospel to enjoy similar success. The final evidence of its early dominance lies in its continued esteem despite a later decline in popularity. 84 It appears that Mark, although superseded by Matthew and Luke, enjoyed the memory of the position it once held as the gospel.

G OULDER, Midrash, p.453. NB here GOULDER is describing the authoritative appeal of Mark as the simple gospel in contrast to Matthew, which determines Luke’s choice when reading the two under the Farrer Hypothesis. 81 However, DRURY, Tradition and Design in Luke’s Gospel, p.83, doubts the Markan format is liable to command great appeal, rather must appear quite untidy: “If there are connections in many stretches of Mark’s book they strain the poetic ingenuity of Austin Farrer to uncover. The ordinary reader is soon lost.” 82 K OESTER, “From the Kerygma-Gospel to written Gospels”, p.375, n.6. 83 See further, 6.4. The Authority of Mark. 84 HENGEL, Vier Evangelien, p.125, notes, “daß das Markusevangelium, trotz der hinter ihm stehenden Petrusautorität, im 2. Jahrhundert rasch an Bedeutung verlor, wie die so dürftige frühe Papyrusüberlieferung zeigt. Die ‘besseren’, das heißt ausführlicheren Evangelien haben Markus im kirchlichen Gebrauch weitgehend verdrängt.” Nonetheless as ROBINSON, Redating the New Testament, p.109, explains: “It is a curious phenomenon that for the gospel that was least read or esteemed in the early church there is more tradition relating to its date of composition than any other.” KEALY , Mark’s Gospel, p.13, points to the reaction to Marcion in Rome, following his disapproval of the Gospel of Mark, as evidence for its continued status in the church. 80

26

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Sources

2.2. Q Ces traditions palestiniennes conservées dans le milieu matthéen ont également influencé le récit définitif de Mc.85

The Logienquelle (Q86) is a much-contested work in New Testament scholarship.87 The content and format of Q are by its very nature uncertain. 88 Nevertheless, the evidence suggests this was a major source for Matthew. It too has strong links to Syria/Galilee, 89 and is often described as representative of a particular ‘community’ or ‘movement’ within early Christianity. 90 Yet as far as Q as a source for Matthew is concerned, we again need to address three main aspects: its content, its genre and its status. 2.2.1. The Text of Q KLOPPENBORG provides an outline of the nature of the quest for the text of Q.91 He reaches the conclusion that Q was a single document written in Greek,92 and seeks thereby to fortify the Two-Document Hypothesis against the Farrer Hypothesis that Luke read Matthew’s Gospel. 93 Now as we are here concerned with pre-Lukan Christianity, it may be argued that all non-Markan traditions in Matthew be grouped together as ‘independent’ BONNARD, Matthieu, p.9. The nature of the Matthean additions to Mark remains disputed. Opinions vary from a tendency to attribute each element to Q or M as independent sources, to a delight in ascribing all to Matthean redactional creativity. For the purposes of conventionality and ease of comprehension I shall continue to speak of Matthean additions to Mark as evidence of Q (common with Luke) and M (unique to Matthew) traditions. 87 For a brief summary see TUCKETT, Q and the History of Early Christianity, p.83‒ 106; cf. FLEDDERMANN, Q, p.3‒39. 88 HENGEL, Vier Evangelien, p.300, for example, argues: “[E]ine ‘Logientradition’ hat es zwar gewiß gegeben, meines Erachtens aber nicht in der Form einer, sondern mehrerer ‘Quellen’.” LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.48, describes Q as, “nicht ein literarisches Dokument. Diese Hypothese erklärt zwei Sachverhalte: Sie macht erstens verständlich, warum Matthäus (und in geringerem Umfang auch Lukas) die literarische Integrität von Q weniger respektieren als die des Markusevangeliums. [...] Sie erklärt zweitens, warum Q nicht erhalten ist: Nach ihrer Integration in die Großevangelien brauchte man diese Materialsammlung nicht mehr.” 89 K LOPPENBORG, Excavating Q, p.255‒261. However FLEDDERMANN, Q, p.160: “Q could have been written anywhere in the Greek speaking world. [... W]e should frankly admit that we do not have sufficient evidence to say where Q originated.” 90 K LOPPENBORG, Excavating Q, p.352: “Q tells in the first place about one particular section of the Jesus movement, its literary and theological expressions, and its eventual transformation.”; cf. ibid., p.166‒213. 91 KLOPPENBORG, Excavating Q, p.55‒111. 92 K LOPPENBORG’s epochal The Formation of Q outlined three major stages in the composition of the document, namely the sapiential teaching of Jesus, an apocalyptic response to contemporary religious conflict, and biographical narratives. 93 KLOPPENBORG, Excavating Q, p.111; cf. also FLEDDERMANN , Q, p.155‒157. 85 86

2.2. Q

27

material which Matthew adds to his gospel, much in the style of GOULDER’s Midrash and Lection in Matthew.94 Yet the strength of the TwoDocument Hypothesis, despite its many modern dissenters, means one cannot hope simply to dismiss the distinction between Q material, in common with Luke, and Sondergut ‘M’ traditions, those of which Luke shows no knowledge.95 Luke’s subsequent testimony shows us that much of the nonMarkan material in Matthew appears to have been gleaned from a Greek document mostly comprising the sayings of Jesus and the baptist. Alongside these logia are some accounts of the life of Jesus, such as the temptation narratives and a single event from his Galilean ministry, his encounter with the centurion in Caphernaum. This aspect of Q leads ALLISON to ask, “[W]ere the deeds of Jesus reported and passed down alongside Q or the Gospel of Thomas?”96 The question will prove important in determining the distinct rôles of Mark and Q in Matthew in the following chapter of this thesis. For now, however, we must simply acknowledge the possibility of oral narrative traditions associated with the logia as recorded in Q.97 The content of Q, however, is to be reconstructed solely on the basis of material shared by Matthew and Luke but foreign to Mark, the ‘double tradition’. This principle will not prove entirely satisfactory without qualification, for we have distinct evidence hinting at a Mark-Q overlap, e.g. the preaching of the Baptist (Mk 1:7‒8 par.), the mission of the Twelve (Mk 6:7‒13 par.), the demand for a sign (Mk 8:11‒13 par.), &c. To dismiss such overlaps merely because they do not fit the ‘double tradition’ equation is to approach the gospels geometrically. These texts, rather, were written in real-life communities, and overlaps such as those examined by F LEDDER98 MANN cannot be dismissed for the sake of the system. They point rather to the possibility that Mark was familiar with a few of the so-called ‘Q’ traditions,99 and vice versa. Furthermore these various points of connection can 94 Cf. SIM , “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, p.177: “This disagreement among Marcan priorists need not detain us further since in this study our primary concern is Matthew’s use of Mark and not his utilisation of Q or any other source.” 95 Similarities do however emerge in ‘M’ and ‘L’ traditions, e.g. Bethlehem, the angels and Joseph in the birth narratives, the Field of Blood where Judas dies, and possibly even the parables of ‘two sons’. 96 ALLISON, Studies in Matthew, p.145, n.29. 97 Cf. LUZ, “Looking at Q through the Eyes of Matthew”, p.581: “[O]ne cannot posit a strict ‘either-or’ alternative between the written Q and the oral tradition.” 98 F LEDDERMANN, Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts. 99 F LEDDERMANN, Mark and Q, p.16; NEIRYNCK, “Recent Developments”, p.425‒426. GUNDRY, Mark, I, p.183, concludes: “On the whole, though it is likely that Mark knew sayings which Q incorporated, it is unlikely that he knew Q.” F LEDDERMANN, Mark and Q, p.216, proposes in great detail: “Mark never takes over a Q passage unchanged. He tones down radical Q statements. He abbreviates Q discourses. He can take a Q text and split it, using it in two different contexts [...]. He conflates Q. He takes over a Q discourse but saves a verse for another context. Mark alters his source Q just as radically as

28

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Sources

only have helped in the process of bringing the two traditions together, for how can one argue that the two are not complementary when one notes that both, at points, contain the same material? Therefore when an apparently Markan (‘triple tradition’) logion appears in the midst of Q material in Matthew (e.g. the Beelzebul controversy in Mt 12:22‒30), one must suspect an overlap. 100 However, when a Q-like logion appears in a Markan setting in Matthew (e.g. the sign of Jonah in Mt 16:1‒4), and there are no text-critical grounds to deem it originally part of Matthew’s copy of Mark, it is usually attributed to the hand of the redactor. Furthermore, there is the possibility, as with Mark, of various versions of Q, no two the same, circulating the churches.101 With these difficult areas in mind it seems again prudent simply to adhere to the same principle as with Mark, in accepting a modern edition of Q as a reasonable basis for discussion of Matthew’s use of it as a source. Reference will therefore be made to Q using the Lukan verse numbers as convention dictates.102 2.2.2. The Genre of Q Determining Q’s theological outlook and genre has considerable importance. From the standpoint of drawing the map of the theological landscape of the Jesus movement, it is clear that Q represents an important and distinctive moment in early Christian theologizing in particular. 103

The scope of this study has unfortunately no room for detailed speculation as to the extent of the redactional layers in Q and the people behind these various editions.104 I wish simply to determine what type of document Q may have been when read by Matthew, so as to see how this factor of ‘genre’ may have played a rôle in determining Matthew’s attitude to his sources. It is SATO who posits Q as a Prophetenbuch,105 with the baptism as a prophetic ‘call’ and its associated ‘vision’, followed by a series of pronouncements, oracles, invectives, woes, admonitions and parables. There is no account of the prophet’s death, another common factor of such books: Matthew and Luke change Mark.” Thus L AMBRECHT, “Markan Redaction of Q?”, p.381‒ 382, believes: “Once we accept Q as his source text, Mark’s way of redacting and composing can be much better understood.” Yet M ACK, “Q and the Gospel of Mark”, p.26, for example, argues: “Since Mark was not at all interested in depicting Jesus as a teacher whose teachings were understood and accepted by those who heard him, he ‘deleted’ the Q 1 material.” It can therefore be seen that there is still no consensus on Mark’s acquaintance with and possible use of Q traditions. 100 Cf. the list of overlaps in FLEDDERMANN, Q, p.75‒77. 101 Cf. KLOPPENBORG, Excavating Q, p.104‒110, on the possibility of multiple recensions of Q. 102 Cf. ROBINSON, HOFFMANN & KLOPPENBORG, The Critical Edition of Q, p.lxxxix, n.1. 103 KLOPPENBORG, Excavating Q, p.164. 104 See, e.g., KLOPPENBORG, Excavating Q, p.135,143‒153. 105 SATO , Q und Prophetie, p.390.

2.2. Q

29

“Die Quelle Q, die wohl bewußt in Analogie zum Prophetenbuch gestaltet worden ist, hat also wahrscheinlich deswegen keine Passionserzählung enthalten, weil sie ein Prophetenbuch sein wollte.”106 Yet Q also contains the preaching of a deuteragonist, John,107 and the words of Jesus, not proclaimed directly as those of God.108 KLOPPENBORG describes Q as an “expanded instruction”.109 He must then revert to a model of several strata in which prophetic or apocalyptic utterances and narrative elements such as the temptations reflect later developments, nonetheless in line with an ‘instruction’ model.110 Of course, neither the Prophetenbuch nor the Instruction Manual models for Q resemble the format of Mark, and may indeed prove complementary to Mark, which is an account of the ministry of this prophet or teacher respectively. However, D OWNING notes the elements of Q itself which reflect βίος literature: the focus on a protagonist, the series of pronouncements, and a topical, not necessarily chronological organization.111 Q is similar in length to the βίοι of Lucian’s Demonax and Diogenes Laertius’ Diogenes (of Sinope).112 Thus in many ways it may have struck its wider audience as a βίος of a teacher. However, if this is the case, then it must be argued that Matthew was either not convinced of its biographical qualities in comparison with the account provided in Mark, or that he favoured Mark’s account to such a degree as to destroy almost completely the Q version of the βίος Ἰησοῦ. NEIRYNCK thus argues for maintaining the original designation ‘sayings source’, as distinct from the narrative framework of a ‘gospel’.113 FLEDDERMANN dislikes the term ‘source’, for this shifts the focus from the original document to how it was used by others,114 and further argues that the prophetic and wisdom models

106 S ATO, Q und Prophetie, p.383. Ibid., p.382, SATO argues that the Passion cannot have been omitted on theological grounds: ”Es ist also kaum denkbar, daß eine Passionsgeschichte der theologischen Grundrichtung von Q widersprechen würde.“ It remains nonetheless a notable omission in early Christianity. 107 As noted by SATO, Q und Prophetie, p.79 and K LOPPENBORG, Excavating Q, p.140. 108 K LOPPENBORG, Excavating Q, p.142. 109 K LOPPENBORG, Excavating Q, p.143‒154. 110 K LOPPENBORG, Excavating Q, p.161. Cf. idem., The Formation of Q, especially p.317‒328. 111 DOWNING, “A Genre for Q”; cf. also D OWNING, “Quite like Q: A Genre for ‘Q’: The ‘Lives’ of Cynic Philosophers”. LAMBRECHT, “Markan Redaction of Q?”, p.384: “If Q in its final stage contained all the units postulated, then it can no longer be taken as a pure sayings source. It is on the way to becoming a story of events.” S TANTON, A Gospel, p.68: “In terms of their literary genre, Mark and Q are not as far apart as might be supposed, for [...] in antiquity biography and collections of sayings of an individual were closely related.” 112 D OWNING, “A Genre for Q”, p.10. 113 N EIRYNCK, “Q: From Source to Gospel”. 114 F LEDDERMANN, Q, p.101.

30

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Sources

cancel each other out.115 Q is rather itself a ‘gospel’. 116 WRIGHT comments on the development of the “new ‘Q school’” 117 that, “Q has become not just a hypothesis, but a source; not just a source, but a gospel; not just a gospel, but the key theological document of a very early Christianity.” 118 While I still agree with the consensus view that Q was a source common to Matthew and Luke, and with FLEDDERMANN that there are important Mark-Q overlaps, I feel one does well to heed the warning of W RIGHT et al. that Q is fast developing into a house built on sand, 119 one hypothesis based upon on another. Q may be safely described as a ‘source’ for Matthew, but then, so too may Mark. The difference is that Q to a large extent is truly a ‘source’ which may be exploited when necessary. Mark’s gospel is the backbone of Matthew’s, and as such is to be followed and developed. At times Matthew will be able to rearrange Markan pericopae, but they remain self-contained narrative units and often come in pairs according to their position in Mark.120 Q logia on the other hand are rarely self-contained narratives, 121 and in Matthew find their context within a Markan pericope. The Sermon comes close to being designated a self-contained discourse, but even if it is so, it requires the mountain of Mk 3:13 and a degree of redactional creativity. The distinction is therefore a fine one, and one which is sure to invite criticism, but in this sense Mark is, for Matthew at least, a ‘gospel’ in the same way that Matthew’s work is, while Q is a ‘source’, something which Matthew exploits but does not emulate. If Q may also be considered a ‘gospel’ as, for example, Thomas is a ‘gospel’, it must be said that Matthew failed to use it as such, rather in incorporating it into his Markan Vorlage, drew on its supply of material as one does with a ‘source’. Therefore we must again follow convention in referring to Q, as far as Matthew is concerned, as a Quelle, a source. 2.2.3. The Status of Q It could be, of course, that Q was initially produced by and performed only among a very restricted circle of friends; but that seems somewhat unlikely. The authority Matthew and Luke appear to accord its contents [...] certainly suggests otherwise. 122 M

By the time Q landed on the desks of Matthew and Luke it was clearly a considerably authoritative source of the words of Jesus. As such a collectFLEDDERMANN, Q, p.101. FLEDDERMANN, Q, p.109; cf. KLOPPENBORG, “The Sayings Gospel Q”. H EIL, Lukas und Q, p.213‒218, refers to Q as a “Spruchevangelium”, and J ÜLICHER, Einleitung, p.347, as a “Halbevangelium”. 117 WRIGHT, Foreword to GOODACRE & P ERRIN, Questioning Q, p.xi. 118 Ibid., p.xii. 119 An analogy borrowed from Q itself: Mt 7:26‒27 // Lk 6:49. 120 See below, 3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11. 121 Exceptions include the temptations and the encounter with the centurion. 122 DOWNING, Doing Things with Words, p.88 115 116

2.2. Q

31

ion, the respect it commanded is certainly unsurprising. 123 Yet although the success of its format would subsequently wane following its incorporation into the Markan-style gospels of Matthew and Luke, 124 in this early period Q travelled just as far as Mark had done to reach the hands of both later evangelists, and, as DOWNING observes above, was accorded considerable respect. We have evidence for this in the way in which Q material (albeit rarely) affects the reception of Markan traditions in Matthew. For example, Mt 12:38‒42 // Lk 11:29‒32 gives us the Q account of the Demand for a Sign. Matthew later adds to Mark’s account (Mk 8:11‒12 // Mt 16:1‒4) the Q material he deems relevant: the Jonah clause. 125 This may be an attempt at consistency, given that Matthew has already promised the people this ‘sign of Jonah’ in Mt 12:39.126 Here we have evidence of Matthew’s respect for Q: Mark’s Jesus tells the Pharisees in Dalmanoutha that this generation will be given no sign; Matthew’s Jesus promises the Pharisees and Sadduccees of Magadan only the sign of Jonah, as he had promised the scribes and Pharisees during his earlier tour of Galilean synagogues. For the most part, Matthew’s additions to Mark are parenthetical and complementary. This brief example alone, however, shows the degree to which a non-Markan tradition, the Jonah material, can impose, albeit briefly (six words!), upon the flow and message of the pericope. Matthew will also omit the logion of Mk 9:40 as it contradicts that of Q 11:23 (Mt 12:30a). 127 The fact that these remain the exceptions, however, proves the rule: Q remains either an afterthought to the Markan pericope (e.g. Mk 1:4‒8 // Mt 3:1‒12 and Mk 12:1‒12 // Mt 21:33‒22:14) or a parenthetical comment within a Markan pericope (e.g. Mk 9:33‒37 // Mt 18:1‒5). In these cases the Markan message remains intact. 128 Q is therefore certainly an authority on the teachings of Jesus, but for Matthew it does not usually exert 123 H ECKEL, Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium, p.77, notes the difference between ascribing authority to the words of Jesus as found in Q and to Q as an authoritative document per se. He concludes: “Auch wenn man sich auf eine Rekonstruktion der Logienquelle verständigt, läßt sich kaum etwas Gesichertes sagen über die Autorität, die Matthäus dieser Quelle zumißt.” 124 It survived in so-called Gnostic literature. 125 F LEDDERMANN, Mark and Q, p.133‒134, argues that Mark is here himself drawing on Q. Even if he were, we have no evidence that Matthew might have had a version of Mark with the Jonah clause included. Matthew possibly also adds the meteorological comments of Q (Mt 16:2b‒3 // Q 12:54‒56), if these are original to his gospel (see NTG ad loc.). 126 Cf. the later ‘sign’ in Mk 13:26 // Mt 24:30. Despite the arguments for evidence of contradictions in Matthew’s gospel, one must notice the evangelist’s attempts at consistency. 127 For detailed discussion of both these examples, see 3.3. Matthew’s Use of Q. 128 It is arguable that even in the case of the ‘sign of Jonah’ the Markan message is not radically altered: one is not to expect a sign from heaven for this will not happen; if any sign should come, it will be that of Jonah in the belly of the κῆτος (the son of man in the belly of the earth).

32

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Sources

sufficient pressure to affect the equally authoritative teachings of Jesus in Mark. Can Mark on the other hand be said to influence the reception of Q in Matthew? That Q must find a foothold for its inclusion in the Markan narrative is understandable, given the itinerant (i.e. non-storyline) nature of many Q logia. This fact alone shows the dominance of Mark: Q must be integrated into what is already a narrative unit. Now we not only know what Jesus said (in Q), but also when and often even to whom and why. While such narrative details were rarely already to hand in Q, as when characters approach Jesus with a question (e.g. the centurion, Q 7:2‒5; the Pharisees, Q 11:15), we now know what Jesus had been doing before this incident, and what he went on to do thereafter. The same applies to the Q preaching of the baptist, which is given context by reference to the location, dress, diet and ministry of the baptist as recorded in Mark. Mark therefore influences the reception of the Q traditions by providing the context in which the logia are to be read and understood. There is some evidence that, “Matthew rearranges Mark’s order, partly under the influence of the structure of [...] Q.” 129 While Matthew’s rearrangement of Markan miracles, for example, cannot be tied to any Q scheme,130 his mission discourse is brought forward and includes much to suggest an original Q framework.131 Nonetheless, the context is always supplied by material from Mark (here an introduction from Mk 6:7). Q often disrupts the Markan narrative, but it is this narrative which gives context to the words of Jesus from Q and, of course, to the words of Jesus from Mark. The relationship of Mark and Q in Matthew’s work will be discussed in more detail in the following chapter. This brief outline shall suffice to posit that Q was an important source of the teachings of Jesus, important enough to warrant inclusion and often focus in the authoritative account of the life of Jesus, but not powerful enough to challenge the predominance of the Markan narrative.

2.3. M Although this material has sometimes been called the ‘M’ source, it is so diverse that it does not come from one written source. 132 FLEDDERMANN, Q, p.184. See also Robinson, “Trajectory”, p.123‒126. See 3.3. Matthew’s Use of Q. 131 See 3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11. 132 STANTON, Gospels and Jesus, p.63, against STREETER, Four Gospels, p.227‒270, who argues for M as a written source. Cf. D AVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, I, p.124: “There is no good reason to think of M as a unified composition.” LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.50: “Das Sondergut hat m.E. keine einheitliche literarische Gestalt.” 129

130

2.3. M

33

There is much material in Matthew which is unique to his gospel (Sondergut) and reflects earlier traditions incorporated into his work by the redactor. Such traditions cannot be ascribed simply to the invention of our Matthew, as some are attested elsewhere,133 yet often the hand of our redactor upon the earlier traditions becomes evident. 134 Due to the difficult nature of the M traditions,135 for which we have no other direct record, a slightly different approach to that for Mark and Q will be required. First we must seek to distinguish the independent M traditions on the one hand and, on the other, M material which appears directly dependent on the Markan context. Then we will seek to discern whether these materials reflect oral traditions or written sources, before we can say something of the rôle of M in Matthew. 2.3.1. Independent Tradition or Dependent on Mark? Matthew’s programme is one of incorporating the other traditions he knows into the framework of the Markan story of Jesus. We can see from his gospel the extent to which he has been successful, by noting the general continuity of the material and the popularity it came to enjoy within the church(es). There is however a distinction which can be made, although judgement in many of these cases is quite arbitrary and subjective. The following, for example, are M traditions whose connection to the Markan narrative is rather loose: Mt 1‒2 Mt 9:27‒34 Mt 13:51‒52 Mt 17:24‒27 Mt 27:3‒10 Mt 27:51b‒53 Mt 28:16‒20 M parables M logia

133

the birth narratives two miracle accounts the scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven payment of temple tax the death of Judas the earthquake and the appearance of the dead the Great Commission e.g. Mt 13:44‒50, 21:28‒31, 25:1‒13,31‒40. e.g. Mt 15:13, 24:10‒12,26

E.g. Mt 5:37a // Js 5:12b and the field of ‘blood’ in Mt 27:8 // Acts 1:19. M (and Q) traditions in the Gospel of Thomas may have been taken in turn from our Gospel of Matthew. 134 D AVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, I, p.125: “[C]ontemporary interpreters rightly perceive a much larger contribution from Matthew’s own hand.” K OESTER, Gospels, p.328: “[T]he traditional materials lost the beauty of their legendary narrative structure and became fragmentary records confirming the theological theory of scriptural fulfilment in historical events.” 135 D AVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, I, p.125: “Unfortunately, any attempt to be more precise, that is, to reconstruct in detail the content and scope of the presumed pre-Matthean sources, necessarily involves indulging in conjecture.”

34

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Sources

Some of these are worked into the Markan tradition through thematic correspondences or certain links created to allow the interruption of Mark, while others simply embellish the story of Jesus with little or no connection to what precedes or follows. There is however certain M material which, I believe, does not appear to enjoy an existence outside the Markan tradition. The following examples betray a reliance on knowledge of the content of the Markan gospel: Mt 12:5‒6 Mt 14:28‒31 Mt 15:23‒24 Mt 16:17‒19 Mt 17:6‒7 Mt 18:3‒4 Mt 19:10‒12 Mt 21:10‒11 Mt 26:25 Mt 26:42b Mt 26:52‒54 Mt 27:19 Mt 27:24‒25 Mt 28:2

the example of priests working on the Sabbath Peter walks on the water the disciples appeal on behalf of the Gentile woman Peter is blessed at Caesarea Philippi the disciples fall to the ground in fear the command to become like children the question regarding celibacy Jesus is identified upon arrival in Jerusalem Jesus confirms Judas’ question the words of Jesus’ second prayer Jesus’ words to the disciple with the sword Pilate’s wife’s dream Pilate’s hand-washing and the crowd’s response another earthquake and an angel moves the stone

Each of these presupposes knowledge of the events of Mark’s narrative. 136 Some are side-events which supplement the Markan account of what happened, others are words addressed within the context of the of the Markan gospel. The possibility of a redactional (or ‘midrashic’) origin for many of these additions must remain open. 137 However, is it credible to ascribe to our evangelist, otherwise so faithful to his sources, such a degree of creativity? Furthermore, given the early Christian context of Matthew’s adaptation of Mark, what motivation could have driven him to compose his own Jesus traditions? Is this perhaps the approach of a scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven, reproducing the ‘old’ and composing the ‘new’ (Mt 13:52)? It is surely much more reasonable to think of Matthew as the loyal tradent of both his written template Mark and the traditions which have emerged alongside this account of the life of Jesus. They are traditions 136

The account of the Guard at the Tomb (Mt 27:62‒66, 28:4,11‒15) might also be counted among these M traditions based on the Markan narrative, although the points of connection are not immediately obvious. H ECKEL, Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium, p.66: “Mt erweitert mit seiner Erzählung von bezahlten Falschmeldern den markinischen Ablauf, ohne durch Mk dazu angeregt zu werden.” 137 GUNDRY, Matthew, p.3: “Thus we may feel free to attribute unparalleled passages either to unshared but edited tradition or ‒ given enough evidence of his favorite diction, style and theology ‒ to the first evangelist himself.” See critical discussion in 6.2. Matthew’s Development of Mark.

2.3. M

35

with which the Christian community, which will act as a check on Matthew’s account, must be familiar. If Matthew were writing for the unevangelized on the outskirts of the empire he might well get away with the invention of his own Jesus traditions. Yet the dominance of Mark and the influence of Q, both more potent than the sporadic appearance of M, and all set against the backdrop of scriptural cross-referencing, suggest that Matthew was writing in a community already familiar with the rich Jesus tradition. The additions to Mark, particularly those which betray their dependence on knowledge of the events of Mark, rather reflect developments within a church that knew Mark, and Matthew’s gospel emerged as the record of what else Mark’s Jesus was saying and doing. 2.3.2. Oral or Written? Due to this apparent dependence on Mark, it is unlikely that much of the M material came to Matthew as a written document. Its brevity and apparent inconsistency at first suggest an oral nature. 138 However, many of the M apophthegms are similar in form to those of Q, and if we may posit Q as a written source, why not at least some elements of M? LUZ suggests, for example, that some of the M logia may have been present in Q Matt, if one accepts such an edition of Q.139 Similarly, a written commentary of the traditions may lie behind the frequency of Matthew’s fulfillment citations in M material: Da viele Erfüllungszitate mit denjenigen Überlieferungen, in denen sie heute stehen, zusammengehören und da Mt nicht ihr Verfasser ist, ist zu vermuten, daß in seiner Gemeinde viele Überlieferungen, besonders solche des Sondergutes, von Schriftgelehrten im Licht der Bibel reflektiert worden sind.140

138 DESCAMPS, “Rédaction et christologie dans le récit matthéen de la passion”, p.391: “Quant aux additions, elles [...] sont trop moléculaires pour faire songer à des documents-sources; ils s’expliquent aisément par des traditions orales courantes.” L ORD, “The Gospels and Oral Traditional Literature”, p.59: “I find it unusual for a writer to choose passages from several documentary sources as if from a buffet. The sporadic nature of the positioning of some of the elements seems more liklely to be an indication of an oral traditional relationship.” K IRK, “Orality, Writing, and Phantom Sources”, p.9, notes a tendency “to assume a fixed order for the oral gospel, in other words, to impute to the oral gospel the properties of the written medium, that is, documentary properties”. D UNN, Jesus Remembered, p.88, remarks generally: “[One must] break out from the centuriesold cultural conditioning of a literary, print-dominated mindset which has determined how the early transmission of the Jesus tradition has been conceived by New Testament scholarship generally.” Thus, as M EIER, Matthew, p.xi, argues: “[Matthew] recast and combined the two major documents of his church [i.e. Mark and Q]. These two documents were already steeped in the oral traditions of the author’s church.” 139 LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.51. 140 LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.83.

36

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Sources

The potent Matthean vocabulary and style present in the M traditions probably indeed indicates the recording of oral traditions by a consistent, if somewhat repetitive, redactor. No sweeping classification may be made, and we must judge each case on its own merits. 141 All that we may therefore conclude is that M is not a single, written entity, 142 but evidence of the development of the Markan tradition, the addition of almost entirely independent material, the inclusion of logia possibly from Q Matt or a source similar to Q, and commentary based on the relationship of the events recorded to the promises of the texts of the Law and the Prophets. M remains a hodge-podge of unique Jesus material. 2.3.3. The Rôle of M in Matthew There are three key elements of the Matthean gospel which suggest that the M material is of considerable importance to our redactor: (i) M provides the pro- and epilogue.143 This is primarily a literary, structural consideration: Matthew’s story begins and ends with material unique to his gospel. This is of course a question of chronology. If the birth narrative Matthew knows is to be included, it must come first; if Matthew’s gospel is to have a climax (or rather if the empty tomb is the climax, then a postscript), it must come last. Matthew provides no account of Jesus’ childhood and adolescence, or of where Jesus went or what he did following his resurrection appearance in Galilee. He is not creating a timeline of Jesus’ life, simply rounding off the tradition with an appropriate introduction of where Jesus came from and conclusion on what happens now. These ‘bookends’ are therefore an important redactional frame for the events of Jesus’ ministry as taken from Mark, but one must not become distracted in focussing on the frame, rather notice the portrait it contains. (ii) M provides much of the material for the programmatic Sermon on the Mount. As any synopsis will show, most of the sermon has parallels in Lukan material, indeed much of which is to be found in the ‘Sermon on the Plain’ (Lk 6:17‒49).144 It is therefore very likely that a ‘sermon’ was already to be found in Q. The Matthean redaction of the Q sermon thus comprises his amendments to the logia and his addition of M material. As As G AMBLE, Books and Readers, p.23, points out, the genealogies, for example, are unlikely to have an oral background. ROBINSON, Jesus and Man’s Hope, I, p.102, indicates the general problem: “[T]he pre-redactional status of oral sources is always of necessity more conjectural than is that of surviving written sources. [... T]he redactional hand is much less discernible in the case of oral sources than in the case of surviving written sources.” 142 FOSTER, “The M-Source”, notes the failure of the various proposals of a written M. 143 It is difficult to argue that Mt 1‒2 draws upon Q, pace GUNDRY, Matthew, p.5: “[A]t times Matthew redacted it so freely that his drawing on Q has gone unrecognized and separate traditions have wrongly been posited.” 144 See BETZ, Sermon, p.44‒70. 141

2.3. M

37

the sermon is rightly considered the programmatic statement of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew, indeed his first and most general teaching in the gospel, the inclusion of M logia may well reflect their centrality to the message of the gospel. There are, in contrast, few points of connection to Markan logia in the sermon.145 However, in this first half of the gospel, despite its Markan backdrop of Galilean ministry, the focus is very much on Q.146 To stress the rôle of M traditions at this point is to overlook this attention to Q, to which M proves merely a supplement. The sermon begins (Mt 5:3‒12) and ends (Mt 7:21‒27) with Q, and much of the M material is a development of Q logia (e.g. Mt 5:17‒20, 7:16‒20) or serves as an introduction to Q traditions (Mt 6:5‒8). Its importance is clear in the so-called ‘antitheses’.147 Otherwise it merely comprises a series of unconnected teachings on, for example, almsgiving (Mt 6:1‒4), fasting (Mt 6:16‒18) and profanity (Mt 7:6). If Matthew felt that Mark referred to the ‘teaching’ of Jesus without much hint at its content, he then supplemented Mark with teaching material. Therefore, just as the pro- and epilogues can be adjudged secondary in importance to the content of the Markan narrative, the M material in the sermon is likewise very much supplementary. (iii) The mission of the Twelve is in line with the policy of Mt 10:5‒6. The Matthean mission discourse is problematic. 148 The introduction appears to have been taken from Mk 6:8‒11, around which Matthew builds with material from Mk 3:13‒19, M and Q. What follows draws primarily upon Q, but also upon some of Mk 13. The discourse in its final form is therefore a complex combination of a variety of traditions, all bound up to epitomize the mission of the Twelve149 to Israel:

145 Perhaps there is a trace of Markan logia suggested by a catchword or thematic association: ἀφίηµι (Mt 6:12‒15 draws on Mk 11:25) and κρίνειν / µετρεῖν (Mt 7:1‒6 draws on Mk 4:24), although in these cases we may have evidence of a Mark/Q overlap or of tertiary level interpolations. 146 As will be discussed in 3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11. 147 B ETZ, Sermon, p.200‒214; BETZ argues for a pre-Matthean redaction of the anitheses. Cf. DAVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, I, p.505, who suggest a negative community reaction to the antitheses as a reason for Matthew’s introductory claims of Mt 5:17‒20, defending Jesus’ adherence to Torah. See also the arguments of SCHALLER , “Antitheses”, and KONRADT, “Erfüllung”, as to the Matthean Jesus’ position on Torah exegesis. Parallels to rabbinic method are examined in VAHRENHORST, Matthäus im halachischen Diskurs. 148 D AVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, II, p.163: “Mt 10.5‒25 is one of the many reasons the synoptic problem is in fact a problem.” 149 KONRADT, Israel, Kirche und die Völker, p.82, reminds us that Matthew links the mission to Israel (twelve tribes) with the appointment of twelve disciples; ibid., p.83: “Matthäus verstärkt also mit der Einstellung der Zwölferliste an dieser Stelle kompositorisch den Israelbezug der Aussendung und verweist darauf, dass es bei ihr um die endzeitliche Restitution des Zwölfstämmevolkes geht.”

38

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Sources

Τούτους τοὺς δώδεκα ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς παραγγείλας αὐτοῖς λέγων, Εἰς ὁδὸν ἐθνῶν µὴ ἀπέλθητε, καὶ εἰς πόλιν Σαµαριτῶν µὴ εἰσέλθητε: πορεύεσθε δὲ µᾶλλον πρὸς τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἀπολωλότα οἴκου Ἰσραήλ.150

In this case the M element of a mission to Israel alone influences the structure of a mission discourse which draws on both Mark and Q. Nonetheless, the M materials themselves remain tertiary; Matthew will build mainly from his two other sources, Mark and Q. Therefore the M traditions, whether written down in Q Matt or purely oral, provide simple asides and peripheral details to supplement the accounts of the life of Jesus as taken from Mark and the teaching of Jesus as taken from Q. This is seen in the ‘block’ additions of the pro- and epilogues, and the smaller integrated additions of parables and narrative which are often directly dependent on, yet sometimes apparently only loosely connected to, the account of Mark. We therefore have no grounds to consider M as a written unity, as which it surely would have shown more influence on the organization of the gospel. The only important rôles M traditions play in the formation of Matthew’s gospel are the structuring of the pro- and epilogue, the extended record of the teaching of Jesus (foremost among which the Sermon on the Mount), and the requirement of an early mission of the disciples to Israel. The rest proves by and large elaboration of the Markan gospel, a development rooted in the community which knew and accepted Mark as the authentic account of the life of Jesus.

2.4. The Jewish Scriptures The evangelist is deeply indebted to many parts of the Old Testament as well as to both Mark and Q.151

While not a ‘source’ in the sense of a Jesus-tradition, the Jewish Scriptures are nonetheless an important reference point for our Matthew, often reproduced in his gospel. Moreover, our redactor assumes a degree of familiarity with the text on the part of his audience. It may be that his audience is already familiar with much if not all of Mark and Q, but certainly they must recognize the prophets, if not the specific quotations then certainly the names and their relevance. Thus, as S TENDAHL posits: “For the Synoptics the study of quotations is an essential to the understanding of the [...] composition of the gospels.”152 The scriptures play a 150 DAVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, II, p.164, ascribe the verse to Q; GUNDRY, Matthew, p.184‒185, considers the verse purely redactional. 151 STANTON, “Origin and Purpose”, p.1940‒1941. 152 STENDAHL, School, p.41. SANDERS , “The Gospels and the Canonical Process”, p.233: “Scripture, or the Old Testament, was the first reference authority for all New Testament writers.” Cf. VIVIANO, Matthew and his World, p.3.

2.4. The Jewish Scriptures

39

key rôle in determining not only the content but also the tone of the gospels.153 Thus we must include in our consideration of Matthew’s choice of sources the Jewish scriptures of the Law and the Prophets. Matthew is well known for his direct citations of scripture, which, however, remain parenthetical to the plot of the gospel, and do not affect the progression of the storyline. The citations added by our redactor may indicate something of the degree to which elements of the traditions require authoritative support. That M traditions, for example, require frequent reference to prophecy may indicate a need for validation which is less strongly felt for Markan traditions.154 Yet some important questions arise: What version(s) of the scriptures are used or assumed by our redactor? And what of the references already present in his sources? What rôles do the Prophets on the one hand and the Law on the other play in Matthew’s work? And, finally, what can be said of Matthew’s use of the scriptures as a source? 2.4.1. Version(s) One would expect [...] that these quotations are representative of the biblical text that Matthew knew and used. In slightly different words: one would expect the fulfilment quotations to come from Matthew’s Bible.155

Matthew shows a rather creative approach to scripture.156 GUNDRY notes an “abundance of hypotheses attempting to account for the peculiarities of the Matthean quotations”.157 Thus it is not clear whether Matthew is reliant upon a now-lost Greek version (or several) of the scriptures, or whether he refers to and translates a Hebrew original himself. 158 There have been a range of studies on the form of Matthew’s scriptural text.159 MENKEN has recently argued that Matthew is making use not of a collection of testimon153

A famous example is the influence of Ps 22 upon the Markan Passion account. Cf. the summary of recent investigations into the rôle of the Old Testament in Matthew in KONRADT, “Die Rezeption der Schrift im Matthäusevangelium in der neueren Forschung”. 154 Fulfillment citations are found in M traditions at Mt 1:22‒23, 2:5‒6,15,17‒18,23b, (25:54) and 27:9‒10, a frequency much in excess of those he adds to Mark. 155 MENKEN, Matthew’s Bible, p.3. 156 NORTH, “Reactions in Early Christianity to some References to the Hebrew Prophets in Matthew’s Gospel”, p.273: “[I]t is he who deals with some of Judaism’s prophetic figures in an arbitrary manner. [Matthew] could make Micah contradict himself, blend two Zechariahs, perpetuate the Jeremiah pastiche, and accept a pair of animals instead of the other evangelists’ singleton.” 157 G UNDRY, Use of the OT, p.2. 158 G OULDER, Midrash, p.126, claims, “Matthew goes back to the Hebrew.”; D AVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, I, p.33: “Matthew knew Hebrew.” 159 E.g., STENDAHL, School, p.127; GUNDRY, Use of the Old Testament, p.172; VAN SEGBROECK, “Les citations d’accomplissement dans l’Évangile selon Saint Matthieu d’après trois ouvrages récents”, p.107‒130. See the review in M ENKEN, Matthew’s Bible, p.3‒10

40

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Sources

ies or proof-texts, but of a continuous biblical narrative unit, 160 and that he tends to cite the passage as he knows it, with little re-phrasing or editing. 161 The image of the traditionstreue evangelist is reinforced. What is clear is that he shows no reliance upon the Septuagint.162 Where Matthew’s scriptural citations resemble the text of the Septuagint, he is often relying upon those familiar to him from his other sources; so when citing a passage which is also referred to in Mark, Matthew follows the version of the quotation he knows from Mark.163 The relevance of Matthew’s use of the scriptures to this study lies therefore in the way in which Matthew himself quotes from and alludes to the the texts on the one hand and how he reproduces the scriptural citations and allusions he finds in Mark on the other. These will be examined in what follows, as we look at Matthew’s reproduction of references from the Markan tradition and from his own knowledge of the prophets and the law, for this is the only evidence we have for the shape of the Jewish scriptures with which Matthew was familiar. 2.4.2. Scripture References in Matthew’s Copy of Mark Matthew continues the exercise of legitimizing Jesus as the Christ by reference to Scripture ‒ an exercise begun by Mark. 164

There appears little difference in Matthew’s reworking of the main text or narrative from his sources and the scriptural quotations they contain. When we consider Mk 1:2‒6 // Mt 3:1‒6, for example, we see how Matthew has twice changed the order of Mark, first with the fulfillment prophecy, then in the narrative:

MENKEN, Matthew’s Bible, p.279. MENKEN, Matthew’s Bible, p.280: “It seems that the Matthean contribution to the wording of the fulfilment quotations was generally very modest.” The exception to this is Mt 27:9‒10. 162 Although G OULDER, Midrash, p.125: “Matthew knows the LXX well.” 163 MENKEN, Matthew’s Bible, p.281: “Matthew’s procedure in presenting OT quotations in the course of his narrative becomes clear: if he borrows quotations from his sources (Mark, Q, other materials), he simply copies them or edits them in the usual way; if he himself inserts quotations into his sources, he makes use of a revised LXX text.” 164 O’LEARY, Judaization, p.138; cf. Mk 1:2‒3, 7:6‒12, 8:18, 11:9‒10, 12:11, 14:49. This exercise was, of course, already undertaken by such as Paul and the author of Hebrews, among others, and was apparently one of the earliest forms of Christian thought. 160

161

41

2.4. The Jewish Scriptures Mark 1:2‒6

Matthew 3:1‒6

12 Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ, Ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν µου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου:

(cf. Mt 11:10 // Q 7:27)

3

φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήµῳ, Ἑτοιµάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ.

31 Ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡµέραις ἐκείναις παραγίνεται Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστὴς κηρύσσων ἐν τῇ ἐρήµῳ τῆς Ἰουδαίας 2 καὶ λέγων, Μετανοεῖτε, ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν.

ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης [ὁ] βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήµῳ καὶ κηρύσσων βάπτισµα µετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁµαρτιῶν.

3

οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ῥηθεὶς διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος, Φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήµῳ, Ἑτοιµάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ.

4

5

καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτὸν πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα καὶ οἱ Ἱεροσολυµῖται πάντες, καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταµῷ ἐξοµολογούµενοι τὰς ἁµαρτίας αὐτῶν.

4

καὶ ἦν ὁ Ἰωάννης ἐνδεδυµένος τρίχας καµήλου καὶ ζώνην δερµατίνην περὶ τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐσθίων ἀκρίδας καὶ µέλι ἄγριον.

τότε ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτὸν Ἱεροσόλυµα καὶ πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία καὶ πᾶσα ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, 6 καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταµῷ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐξοµολογούµενοι τὰς ἁµαρτίας αὐτῶν.

6

Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Ἰωάννης εἶχεν τὸ ἔνδυµα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τριχῶν καµήλου καὶ ζώνην δερµατίνην περὶ τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ, ἡ δὲ τροφὴ ἦν αὐτοῦ ἀκρίδες καὶ µέλι ἄγριον.

5

The quotation of Mk 1:2 is dropped, as Matthew knows this reference to be from the lips of Jesus himself (Q 7:27), and he will give it later in his gospel (Mt 11:10). The rest is taken from Mark, but given a new order. Matthew treats Mark’s tradition as a unit, and does not see need to alter his quotations, as STANTON: In a dozen or more passages Matthew retains, with little or no alteration, Mark’s strongly Septuagintal quotations. This is not surprising since throughout his gospel he usually follows his sources closely. Matthew does make some modifications, but they can be shown to be closely in line with the redactional changes he makes to his sources elsewhere.165

Thus Matthew’s familiarity with his traditions causes him to reproduce their often strongly Septuagintal references as he knows them: 165 S TANTON, A Gospel, p.355. KENNEDY, “Classical and Christian Source Criticism”, p.146: “[T]he Greek text of an earlier gospel was a more potent influence on the translator than was the Septuagint itself.”

42

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Sources

[H]e treats the OT quotations found in his sources in the same way as he treats the sources themselves. Matthew’s primary allegiance is to the textual form of the quotations in his sources rather than to the LXX as such. 166

He also explains references that are not so explicit in Mark, such as the desolating sacrilege in Mk 13:14 // Mt 24:15, 167 and deletes Mark’s incorrect reference to Aviathar (Mk 2:20 // Mt 12:4). 168 Likewise he notices the influence of Ps 22 upon the Markan Passion account (Mk 15:24,29‒30 // Mt 27:35,39‒40) and extends the allusion in Mt 27:43. So he is aware not only of the direct quotations in Mark, but also of the implicit allusions of the gospel narrative.169 We may conclude, therefore, that Matthew treats the scriptural citations and allusions in Mark in much the same way that he treats the narrative of Mark; with rearrangement and extension, but with consistent loyalty to the text as it stands. 2.4.3. Prophecy Matthew seeks to explain the events of the text of Mark to his audience by reference to prophecies.170 Mark, though far from free of prophetic citations and allusions, does not stress the ‘fulfillment’ aspect of Jesus’ ministry to the same extent as does Matthew. 171 The traditions may then be influenced by the references, but are not founded on these: tradition dominates reference. 172 Matthew supports the tradition with an appropriate appeal to prophecy. STANTON, A Gospel, p.358. He also reinforces Mk 4:12 through explicit reference to scripture in Mt 13:13‒15. This is however possibly a post-Matthean interpolation, see D AVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, II, p.394; STENDAHL, School, p.129‒132; STANTON, A Gospel, p.349; STRECKER , Gerechtigkeit, p.70, n.3. However, in favour of Matthean origin are LUZ, Matthäus, II, p310‒ 311; GUNDRY, Use of the Old Testament, p.116‒118; B ONNARD, Matthieu, p.195; VAN SEGBROECK, “Les citations”. 168 Luke does likewise, yet neither later evangelist provides the correct name of the High Priest (Ahimelech). 169 It may be argued in a similar vein that Matthew’s Christology is a development of the scriptural typology of Mark: as Mark’s Jesus is greater than Elijah, so Matthew’s Jesus is greater than Moses, cf. ROTH, “Moses and Matthew”, p.363. 170 That these fulfilment citations are redactional is supported by the following principle: PAYNE, “Midrash and History in the Gospels”, p.200: “Delete all the OT passages and the structure and narrative continuity of Matthew is not altered.” And FRANCE, “Scripture, Tradition and History”, p.249: “To remove each of these quotations with its introductory formula from the surrounding narrative would leave a coherent, indeed in most cases a more flowing, story.” 171 Matthew exhibits what could almost be called an obsession with fulfillment, with his pivotal use of πληροῦν; MENKEN, Matthew’s Bible, p.2: “Matthew apparently found this use of the verb in Mark [Mk 14:49] [...], but he considerably developed it.” While Matthew insists that Jesus fulfills both the law and the prophets (Mt 5:17), the prophets are cited three times more often than the Law. 166 167

2.4. The Jewish Scriptures

43

The additions to Markan material comprise the following: 173 dkdo

Mk 1:1‒14

(Is 9:1)

Why Jesus’ ministry is based in Caphernaum

[Mk 1:32‒34] Mt 8:16‒17

Mt 4:12‒17

(Is 53:4)

Prophecy of Jesus’ healing miracles

Mk 2:13‒17

Mt 9:9‒13

(Hos 6:6)

Jesus appeals to God’s desire for mercy

(Hos 6:6)

Jesus again appeals to God’s desire for mercy

Mk 2:23‒28

Mt 12:1‒8

Mk 3:12

Mt 12:16‒21 (Is 42:1‒4) Jesus brings hope to the Gentiles

Mk 4:33‒34

Mt 13:34‒35 (Ps 78:2)

Why Jesus teaches in parables

Matthew was evidently written for an audience hungry for such references.174 Yet while their prevalence in Matthew suggests an audience thoroughly familiar with the prophetic texts, their absence from Mark does not preclude the possibility that Mark had a similar audience in mind. Thus Matthew’s use of fulfillment citations does not mark a break from the Markan tradition, rather a continuation of Mark’s method. 2.4.4. Law Matthew’s respect for the Law is undeniable (Mt 5:17‒19), and there is no room here for a detailed explanation of the intricacies of Matthew’s Torah theology. Suffice it to say, there is the inevitable conflict between law observance and liberty, a prevalent theme in early Christianity. COPE describes “a genuine struggle in Matthew himself to maintain allegiance both to the Torah and to Jesus”. 175 This may however reflect rather a genuine struggle in Matthew himself to maintain allegiance both to the Torah and to Mark. Here is a fine example of Matthew’s sources demanding reconciliation: the Jesus of Mark’s Gospel, and the ‘narrator’ in the tradition, often reveal controversial tendencies regarding Law observance. The example of the πορνεία clause (Mk 10:11 // Mt 19:9) shows how Matthew can qualify a Markan claim in order to clarify what is for Matthew a highly 172 MOO, “Tradition and the Old Testament”, p.161: “[T]he tradition has exerted considerable influence on the quotation.” PAYNE , “Midrash and History in the Gospels”, p.183: “[T]he more forced the event and the prophecy which is applied to it, the less likely it is that the event was fabricated.” The link to and relevance of the reference are often tenuous, as BENOIT, “The Death of Judas”, p.206, with reference to Mt 27:3‒10, comments: “[T]he tradition recorded by Matthew in his gospel cannot be explained by reference to the biblical texts alone, since on the contrary it governs the disconcerting use of them.” 173 Besides the examples already mentioned in 2.4.2. The Old Testament in Matthew’s Copy of Mark (Mt 13:13‒15, 21:1‒5, 24:15‒16, 27:43). For a full list of Matthew’s scriptural references see BORING, “Matthew”, p.151. 174 Such fulfillment texts may have served as a means of propaganda in mission to Jews, but that does not preclude a Gentile Christian audience keen on such references. 175 COPE, Scribe, p.125; cf. Mt 13:52, the reference upon which C OPE, among others, bases his portrait of the evangelist.

44

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Sources

important legal issue (and of course to prove consistent with Mt 5:32). Yet the fact that this Markan passage is neither contradicted nor omitted, rather simply qualified, shows Matthew’s loyalty to the tradition. The same may be said for the account of Jesus’ comments on the purity of foods (Mk 7:18‒23 // Mt 15:17‒20) in which Matthew follows Mark carefully, merely avoiding Mark’s conclusion, referring rather to the original issue of handwashing in an attempt to distract the reader from any debate on food law. 176 These examples are often cited as evidence for Matthew’s loyalty to Torah against the libertine Jesus of Mark. The more subtle aspect of this short πορνεία clause and the veiling of the kosher issue is however the considerable power exerted on Matthew by Mark, whose free-spirited Messiah is only made to adhere to Torah by dint of restrictions and vague conclusions. The Jesus of Mark’s Gospel is not suppressed by Matthew, rather embraced with a single legal caveat: his controversy must remain a law-abiding controversy. 177 The Law therefore casts a foreboding shadow over Matthew’s presentation of Jesus, but it is this Jesus, Mark’s Jesus, who is the interpreter of the Law and the Prophets, and thus the ultimate authority (Mt 5:17‒18). As DEINES explains: “Den Weg in die universale Basileia ermöglicht im ersten Evangelium jedoch allein Jesus.” 178 Matthew therefore again reflects not a reaction to but a development of the Markan tradition, providing a clear picture of Jesus and the direction of his teachings. The Law does not dominate Matthew’s thinking at the expense of the teachings of Jesus as found in Mark. 179

2.5. Matthew’s Sources: A Summary 2.4.5. Matthew’s Use of the Jewish Scriptures as a Source MENKEN admits in his conclusion that, “The amount of OT text available in Matthew is extremely limited.”180 This is the difficulty for MENKEN’s study of “Matthew’s Bible”, yet it tells us something important about Matthew’s use of his sources: the parenthetical references to the scriptures remain few and far between; the gospel narrative may proceed. The evangelist provides his account of the life and teachings of Jesus, and these are paramount. References to the Law and Prophecy are no doubt important in many instances, but are by no means essential to defend every aspect of the See more detailed discussion in 4.2.4. Continuity. Matthew can portray Jesus as law-abiding, but how can he hope to avoid the issue of food purity in an age that had seen the ardent preaching of Paul on this subject? Furthermore, it should also be noted that Matthew completely avoids the very Pauline issue of circumcision, as does Luke, who only records that Jesus himself was circumcised (Lk 2:21,39). 178 DEINES, Gerechtigkeit, p.649. 179 The best example of this is Matthew’s retention of the conclusion of the first sabbath controversy: κύριος γάρ ἐστιν τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (Mt 12:8). See however, 4.2.4. Continuity, for further discussion. 180 MENKEN, Matthew’s Bible, p.282. 176

177

2.5. Matthew’s Sources: A Summary

45

tradition. Matthew may revert to quoting scripture to support his cause when necessary, but does not have to rely on this practice alone to defend his traditions; the traditions themselves are often enough. When these traditions already include quotations, these are reproduced without recourse to verification, as MENKEN explains: “[B]iblical scrolls belonged to his sources, but not in such a way that he checked OT quotations found in Mark, Q or his other traditional materials against these.”181 It is therefore important to notice that the increased rôle of the scriptures in Matthew does not lead to a radical alteration of the gospel. 182 Matthew’s citations do not directly effect the Markan (or M) content, 183 rather prove merely supportive asides, parenthetical comment to explain the importance of the events recorded in the accounts. Thus the background rôle of the scriptures is clear; they alone are referred to as separate entities, either as a ‘word’ or as associated with a particular prophet. However the pertinent selections are incorporated into the text and it is therefore unnecessary for the reader to consult a copy of the relevant passage for further details.184 It is in this way that Matthew is a direct development of Mark: what in Mark is often allusive or indeed simply tradition, becomes for Matthew the basis for an exegesis of the prophets. Matthew does not however encourage the audience now to turn to the rest of the text of the prophets, rather focus remains on the gospel and its message. In this sense the scriptural citations, though few, are also incorporated into Matthew’s gospel and constitute a final redactional flourish in support of the traditions of Jesus found in his other sources.

2.5. Matthew’s Sources: A Summary We have seen the various factors governing Matthew’s choice of source material for his gospel. His written sources include primarily the gospel of Mark, which he makes the basis for his own book, and the source (Q) of logia and some events in the life of Jesus which he can integrate throughout his gospel, but mostly in the first half where he is focussed on this task. The oral traditions (in M material) which pervade the gospel, and no doubt also overlap with some of the double and triple traditions, are mostly developments of the story of Mark. The Law and the Prophets are cited as external points of reference, but only infrequently and not in contradiction to Ibid., p.283. G UNDRY, Use of the Old Testament, p.5. 183 The notable exception is Matthew’s understanding of Zech 9:9 in Mt 21:2,7. See commentaries, ad loc. This of course is the exception which proves the rule. 184 G AMBLE, Books and Readers, p.26, suggests that ancient Christians were not very concerned with the original context of cited passages ‒ short, pithy sayings would be accepted on their own merit. Indeed, is it not so even today? 181 182

46

Chapter 2: Matthew’s Sources

the controversial portrait of Jesus, rather in support of his radical teaching and fulfillment of prophecy. Matthew’s project is however first of all the integration of Mark and Q. It is the crucial question of his allegiance to these two early Christian texts which now requires a more detailed examination.

Chapter 3

Mark or Q? On ne peut définir la structure de Mt qu’en tenant compte de ses sources. 1

The confluence of Mark and Q in the Gospel of Matthew, alongside the addition of M materials and prophetic proof texts, effects a key development in early Christian (gospel) literature. Yet the stimulus for Matthew’s great effort must be something more significant than the discovery of two complementary textual traditions which, in his eyes, appear to lend themselves to integration. Rather, Matthew’s gospel surely reflects a development in the community, where the two elements are brought together and harmonized, as LUZ proposes: Das Matthäusevangelium entstand, indem die Q-Überlieferung in den Markusfaden eingearbeitet wurde. Diesen literarischen Vorgang muß man m.E. auf die Geschichte der matthäischen Gemeinde zurückbeziehen: Die Verbindung dieser beiden Quellen spiegelt ein Stück der Geschichte der matthäischen Gemeinde. 2

However I disagree with LUZ, who maintains that the evidence leads one to conclude: Viel spricht m.E. dafür, daß die Vorgeschichte der matthäischen Gemeinde in besonderer Weise mit der Logienquelle verbunden ist [...], dagegen, daß das Markusevangelium das eigene Evangelium der dann gemischten syrischen Mt-Gemeinde war, und dafür, daß es eher von außen in eine judenchristliche Gemeinde gekommen ist, deren eigene Traditionen im wesentlichen durch die Logienquelle repräsentiert wurden. Dort wurde es rasch wichtig.3

Rather Matthew is closer to Mark than has often been argued, and it is his early, detailed redaction of Q which reveals not his affiliation with a ‘Q community’, but rather his concern to incorporate this collection of auth-

1

N EIRYNCK, “La rédaction matthéenne”, p.68‒69. LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.89. Cf. M ACK, “Q and the Gospel of Mark”, p.16, who discusses the same question. 3 LUZ , Matthäus, I, p.89‒91. Reasons for proximity to Q are given ibid., p.89‒90 (prophets, sages, scribes and itinerants in the community), and those for Mark as a foreign body ibid., p.91 (possible Roman origins, edited by Jewish-Christian scribes, Torah observance, mission to Israel alone in Jesus’ lifetime). Y OUNGQUIST, “Matthew, Mark and Q”, p.239‒244, also provides a summary of the themes linking Matthew to Q, such as the Son of Man, the coming judgement, and the rôle of this ‘generation’. See further, 3.1. A Q Submission? 2

48

Chapter 3: Mark or Q?

entic Jesus traditions into the text of Mark, which after all provides the punchline, and which lies closest to his heart and to his desk. 4 My arguments for Matthew’s proximity to Mark rather than Q will be based to a large extent on the result of observations on a macro-level, rather than the product of a study of the details of Matthean changes to the text of Mark itself, for Matthew develops the Markan tradition itself on a micro-level.5 Studies of Matthew’s overall approach in his redaction are rare. 6 ALLEN’s Introduction to his 1907 commentary, 7 ROBINSON’s article (1998), 8 and O’LEARY ’s monograph (2006),9 remain notable exceptions. In most redaction-critical work a focus on changes forces the dismissal of continuities. For Matthew it is often simply a case of retelling the same story. But for now it is the general technique of the incorporation of traditions into his main framework, which will provide insight into the way in which Matthew viewed his source materials. 10

3.1. A ‘Q’ Submission? The position of LUZ and ROBINSON is that the Matthean community with its Q traditions submits to the hegemony of Mark. Thus, LUZ: To account for the emergence of Matthew’s Gospel, I have presented the thesis that (parts of) these communities had to flee toward Syria during the first Jewish War. And here they learned of the Gospel of Mark (pagan-Christian in origin, probably coming from Rome),

LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.42: “Vor allem aber hat er sich am Markusevangelium als seinem Grundtext orientiert.” HENGEL, Vier Evangelien, p.127: “Dem griechischen Matthäusevangelium liegt die Erzählung des Markus zugrunde, die Matthäus zu etwa 80 Prozent wiedergibt. Darüber hinaus ist darin Markus um die Geburtsgeschichten erweitert und durch fünf theologisch beeindruckende, große Redenkomplexe ergänzt.” (three of which, HENGEL admits, are also obviously influenced by the text of Mark: Mt 10, 18 and 24‒25) 5 See 4. A New Edition of Mark. 6 DERRENBACKER , Ancient Compositional Practices, p.215: “‘Redactional’ treatments of Matthew on a micro level abound; however, a detailed description of Matthew’s macro-redactional treatments of Mark and Q are few and far between.” 7 A LLEN, Matthew, p.xiii‒xvii. 8 R OBINSON, “The Matthean Trajectory from Q to Mark”. 9 O’LEARY, Judaization. 10 STANTON, A Gospel, p.52: “Even when the evangelist incorporates earlier traditions without significant modification, re-interpretation takes place by the dint of the immediate context in which they are placed and also by dint of the framework and distinctive thrust of the whole gospel.” NEIRYNCK, “La rédaction matthéenne”, p.51‒52: “L’étude de la rédaction ne peut négliger la structure de l’évangile. En effet, n’est-ce pas dans l’ordonnance qu’il impose à la matière évangelique que le redacteur exprime sa conception fondamentale?” G ABOURY, La structure des évangiles synoptiques, p.3: “L’ordonnance jouera le rôle décisif qui donne ou refuse son dernier appui aux résultats de la récherche sur les phénomènes littéraires.” 4

3.1. A ‘Q’ Submission?

49

which significantly influenced and modified their perspective. The Matthean communities themselves, in my view, were descendants of the Q-communities.11

Matthew’s community is obviously acquainted with both Mark and Q, 12 yet it is Mark’s gospel which proves the dominant force. Matthew adopts the Markan gospel as his general format, incorporates the Q material and his own sources, but lets Mark tell the story of Jesus’ ministry, miracles, travels, death, and empty tomb. There is little evidence that Matthew was following a Q ‘format’13 in the early part of his gospel, even if the focus is here on the Q material. 14 There is certainly nothing Q-like in the final product itself; Matthew’s gospel format is based on Mark. 15 LUZ argues for “eine sprachliche und theologische [...], kirchensoziologische und historische Kontinuität”16 between Matthew and Q: both know of scribes 17 and prophets, itinerant, local and ‘false’.18 The community only adopts the mission to the Gentiles “unter dem Einfluß des Markusevangeliums”. 19 Yet if Matthew was a representative of the Q tradition, why the sudden complete submission to Mark? How is it that the Q community, now become the Matthean community, could give up its own Q priorities so readily, to become just a new concept of Mark? 20

11 LUZ, “Looking at Q through the Eyes of Matthew”, p.589; cf. L UZ, Matthäus, I, p.90 and STECK, Israel, p.310‒311. 12 LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.86: “Die matthäischen Quellen, Markus und Q, sind vor der Niederschrift des Matthäusevangeliums in einer judenchristlichen Gemeinde tradiert und bearbeitet worden.” 13 Only the Sermon on the Mount can be argued to resemble a Q ‘format’, in that it comprises a collection of teachings without much hint at their context; cf. STANTON, A Gospel, p.68: “The Matthean discourses like Q itself, are collections of sayings of Jesus which are linked together sometimes by catchwords, sometimes by the literary form of the individual units, sometimes by theme.” 14 R OBINSON, “Trajectory”, p.125. See further, 3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11. 15 Pace YOUNGQUIST, “Matthew, Mark and Q”, p.239, who claims, “Matthew’s ‘bible’ was Q. As the conflict between Matthew’s community and other Jewish groups escalated, Matthew created a new story of Jesus by supplementing Q with Mark.” He describes Matthew as a new edition of Q (p.244‒251), yet is forced to confess Q’s apparent secondary nature, even in the programmatic Sermon on the Mount. His explanation of the editing of Mt 8‒9 based on two now barely traceable “sequences”, one to support Q 7:22, one to support Q 10 (p.251‒260), is complicated and unrealistic. The final claim (p.200), that “Matthew is not retelling Mark’s story but narrating the one implied in Q”, is weakened by his failure to explain the entire second half of Matthew’s gospel, Mt 12‒28! 16 LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.89. 17 LUZ, “Looking at Q through the Eyes of Matthew”, p.589. 18 LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.89‒90. 19 LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.91. 20 R OBINSON, “Trajectory”, p.124; cf. LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.90‒91: “Sehr viel schwieriger ist es, die Stellung des Mk-Evangeliums in der Geschichte der mt Gemeinde zu bestimmen.”

50

Chapter 3: Mark or Q?

Under ROBINSON’s scheme the Q community incorporated its own material into the Markan context of Jesus’ primary Galilean ministry (Mt 3‒11) before almost complete submission to the account of Jesus’ life as accepted by the ‘mainstream’ (Gentile) church (Mt 12‒28): Rather than the Markan text simply dominating the Q-Matthean community, its Evangelist first took over what was needed from Mark within Q’s own framework [...] and only from then on yielded to the overpowering Markan framework. [... This] may well reflect an important transition in the Q-Matthean community that should not be overlooked. [...] Matthew 3‒11 seems to reflect the Q community perfecting its last will and testament, before moving via Mark into the mainstream of Christianity. 21 3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11

LUZ speaks of a Q community being “significantly influenced” 22 by the gospel of Mark. Yet the evidence suggests the overwhelming dominance of Mark at the expense of the Q traditions, so how credible is this portrayal of a faithful Q community suddenly capitulating to the sovereignty of Mark? 23 If such an appropriate social context is to be posited, 24 and the incorporation of Q into the (more mainstream?) gospel of Mark is to be explained, surely a more suitable editor is one from the very tradition that dominates: this new gospel is not one of submission, rather one of succession. 25 The problem with the portrait of a Q community capitulating to the dominance of Mark will be demonstrated in the following on a literary level; 26 Mark is far more for Matthew than the text of a ‘mainstream’ Christianity 21

ROBINSON, “Trajectory”, p.129‒130. LUZ, “Looking at Q through the Eyes of Matthew”, p.589. 23 LAST, “Communities That Write”, p.197: “Outside communities somehow gained access to Mark, but, as we would expect given communal practices of writing, these churches did not accept the foreign document as authoritative.” 24 KIRK, “Orality, Writing, and Phantom Sources”, p.22: “Moreover, when we contemplate Mark and Q and then Matthew and Luke, we must probably think less of a continuum of constant redactional modifications of the written tradition and more in terms of a very few but programmatic redactions that mark great crisis and transitional moments in early Christianity, turning points that have called forth fresh consolidations and re-articulations of the tradition itself.” 25 It should also be borne in mind that religious groups tend to split, not to merge. Thus the portrait of a Q-Christian community adopting a foreign gospel goes against what we know of the development of religious communities. The portrait of Matthew as a Markan Christian who inherits a wealth of dominical logia with which to supplement his own tradition is therefore less problematic as a social construct. 26 However, there are also theological problems with positing a sudden and major Q shift to Mark: for example the climax of the Markan gospel is the death and resurrection, a theme hidden in Q, or perhaps originally foreign to the composition of Q. As M ACK, “Q and the Gospel of Mark”, p.19, explains: “This means that the death of Jesus, though known and possibly reflected upon by his Q followers, was not seen as an intellectual offense unbecoming the Messiah, was not regarded as a founding event, was not observed as a martyrdom for their cause, was not invested with vicarious significance, and was not interpreted by means of sacrificial mythologies. The Q people were not kerygmatic Christians.” This ‘theological’ observation gives reason enough to doubt the proposal that Matthew was a Q-Christian adopting Mark for his own ends. 22

3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11

51

which he must accept alongside his own traditions. It will be seen that Matthew’s knowledge of Mark’s traditions and his use of the Markan framework reveal a closer relationship than this Q-Matthean community model can explain. Yet the emergence of the gospel must be rooted in a certain socio-historical context.27 It is therefore my task to demonstrate that the context for Matthew’s work was a community rooted in the traditions of the Gospel of Mark.

3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11 ROBINSON argues convincingly that Matthew’s early focus is on the incorporating and editing of Q into his new gospel.28 From Mt 12 our evangelist will follow Mark’s order, and we may well ask, “Why not follow Mark from the start?”29 Yet Mk 2:23 (//Mt 12:1) is almost the beginning of Mark, and as I shall seek to show here, Matthew does follow Mark from the beginning, while at the same time revealing a considerable familiarity with the content of the gospel. Mark is his starting point, his basis, his familiar ground, and if indeed he is concentrating on his Q traditions in the early part of his gospel, he does not always need to consult Mark directly, and may recall the Markan tradition either from memory alone or from notes. 30 In doing so, he is liable not only to ‘abbreviate’ the detail of the Markan tradition but to colour the account with his own language and concerns. He joins Mark for Jesus’ baptism and journey to Caphernaum, yet he then enjoys a certain flexibility with regard to the Markan arrangement of the early miracle accounts. So he is to some extent free to place Markan content without its original Markan context. 31 Here is an outline of the rearrangement of Mark in Mt 3‒7. The account of the leper is brought forward, displacing Simon’s mother-in-law, and the later sections of Mk 4:35‒5:43 are included in the miracle series.

As LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.94, explains, “daß hinter der Entstehung des Matthäusevangeliums nicht einfach irgendeine literarkritische Operation steht, sondern daß ein seiner Gemeinde verpflichteter Autor ihre eigenen normativen Traditionen bearbeitet”. 28 R OBINSON, “Trajectory”, p.123‒126. 29 D AVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, I, p.71. 30 DERRENBACKER , Ancient Compositional Practices, p.258: “[O]ften Matthew appears to be following either Mark or Q, and may, in fact, be recalling the wording of the other from memory.” For further discussion on the use of memory and notes in ancient composition, see 5.3.1. Sources and Paperwork. 31 G OULDER, Midrash, p.38: “[Matthew] is doing his freer work in the first part of the book.” 27

52

Chapter 3: Mark or Q? Mt

3‒7

Mk omits

omits 8:1‒4 (centurion [Q]) v5‒13 v14‒17 v18‒34 9:1‒17 9:18‒26 (Beelzebul [Q]) 9:27‒38 10:1‒16 12:1 onward

1:1‒22 (baptist, baptism, Galilee) 1:23‒28 (demoniac) 1:29‒34 (Simon’s mother-in-law) 1:35‒39 (Jesus departs) 1:40‒45 (leper)32

[Mk 4:35‒5:20] (the storm / Gadara) 2:1‒22 (paralytic and Levi) [Mk 5:21‒43] (Jairus episode) [Mk 3:16‒19 & 6:6‒11] (The Twelve) 2:23 onward33 (disputes)

A detailed examination of the composition of Mt 3‒11 will provide much insight into Matthew’s approach to his two major sources. He begins with Mark’s portrait of the baptist. 34 He then follows Mark to Jesus’ baptism, 35 and inserts Q’s temptation narratives (Mt 4:3‒11a) within the Markan framework (Mk 1:12‒22 // Mt 4:1‒2,11b‒23), where Jesus is served by the angels, hears of John’s imprisonment and moves to Galilee where he begins to preach, calls his first followers, and teaches in synagogues. Mt 3:

Mt 4:

1‒6 7‒12 13‒17 1‒11 12‒17 18‒22 23

Mk 1: (v7‒10 Q) (v14‒15 M) (v3‒11a Q) (v13‒16 M)

3‒6 7‒8 9‒11 12‒13 14‒15 16‒20 21‒22

Introduction of the Baptist The Preaching of the Baptist Jesus’ Baptism The Temptations Jesus moves to Galilee Jesus calls the first disciples Jesus’ synagogue ministry

So we see that each of the insertions of non-Markan material (in parenthesis) is framed within the Markan narrative and Matthew is already following Mark. Matthew then introduces his Sermon with his own summary of Jesus’ ministry (Mt 4:24‒5:2) in the Markan fashion. 36 He omits

32 The leper is brought forward (before the Centurion, who follows the sermon in Lk 7:1‒10, and Simon’s mother-in-law); this is therefore the only pericope from Mk 1‒2 to be moved. 33 Omitting the passages already used, viz. Mk 3:16‒19 and 4:35‒5:43. I thus agree with LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.4 (and ROBINSON, “Trajectory”) that Matthew follows Mark essentially from the start but specifically from Mt 12, and not that he begins to follow Mark only in Mt 14:1 (ALLEN, Matthew, p.xiii‒xviii; BEATON, “How Matthew Writes”, p.120, n.6; DAVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, I, p.100‒103). 34 See the texts given 2.4.2. Scripture References in Matthew’s Copy of Mark. 35 Adding only the Q preaching of the baptist (Mt 3:7‒10) and his own ‘M’ tradition of ‘righteousness’ (Mt 3:14‒15). 36 Parallels to Mk 3:7‒13a are minimal but notable: people come from Galilee, Judea and Jerusalem and Jesus climbs a mountain.

3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11

53

the account of the demoniac in the Caphernaum synagogue, 37 rather has Jesus tour Galilee and attract crowds, until at last he ascends the mountain for his first major discourse. The sermon comprises much Q and M material, before Matthew returns to the Markan narrative with a series of miracles, beginning with Jesus’ coming down from the mountain, followed by the crowds (Mt 8:1). Let us now observe the way in which Matthew develops the Markan tradition, as we follow him in his progression through his edition of Mark’s miracle accounts. The key to the following synoptic parallels is as follows: re-written from Mark (plain), taken directly from Mark (bold), omitted by Matthew (strikethrough), and added material (italics). Mark 1:40‒45 140 Καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν λεπρὸς παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν καὶ γονυπετῶν καὶ λέγων αὐτῷ ὅτι Ἐὰν θέλῃς δύνασαί µε καθαρίσαι. 41 καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι: 42 καὶ εὐθὺς ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ ’ αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα, καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη. 43 καὶ ἐµβριµησάµενος αὐτῷ εὐθὺς ἐξέβαλεν αὐτόν, 44 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Ὅρα µηδενὶ µηδὲν εἴπῃς, ἀλλὰ ὕπαγε σεαυτὸν δεῖξον τῷ ἱερεῖ καὶ προσένεγκε περὶ τοῦ καθαρισµοῦ σου ἃ προσέταξεν Μωϋσῆς, εἰς µαρτύριον αὐτοῖς. 45 ὁ δὲ ἐξελθὼν ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν πολλὰ καὶ διαφηµίζειν τὸν λόγον, ὥστε µηκέτι αὐτὸν δύνασθαι φανερῶς εἰς πόλιν εἰσελθεῖν, ἀλλ’ ἔξω ἐπ’ ἐρήµοις τόποις ἦν: καὶ ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτὸν πάντοθεν .

Matthew 8:2‒4 82 καὶ ἰδοὺ λεπρὸς προσελθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων, Κύριε, ἐὰν θέλῃς δύνασαί µε καθαρίσαι. καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἥψατο αὐτοῦ λέγων, Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι: καὶ εὐθέως ἐκαθαρίσθη αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα. 3

καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ὅρα µηδενὶ εἴπῃς, ἀλλὰ ὕπαγε σεαυτὸν δεῖξον τῷ ἱερεῖ, καὶ προσένεγκον τὸ δῶρον ὃ προσέταξεν Μωϋσῆς, εἰς µαρτύριον αὐτοῖς.

4

We see that our editor is already ‘abbreviating’ Mark; the omissions of σπλαγχνισθείς and ἐµβριµησάµενος are easily explained as theologically motivated38 and the complete absence of v45 may also be explained as due to theological convictions (the leper disobeys Jesus) or literary considerations (Matthew does not want Jesus to have to retreat to the wilderness just yet, for he has other miracles to perform first). What Matthew does take directly from Mark are the crucial plot elements: the character λεπρός, See 4.2.2. Omissions. E.g. DAVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, II, p.9; B ONNARD, Matthieu, p.113; commentaries ad loc. 37 38

54

Chapter 3: Mark or Q?

the description of the healing, and the words of the dialogue. 39 The high level of continuity in the texts, of an albeit brief pericope, shows that Matthew is here faithfully reproducing, with only minimal rephrasing, the Markan tradition. Following the Q account of the centurion in Caphernaum, Jesus proceeds to Simon’s house. Mark 1:29‒34

Matthew 8:14‒17

1 29 Καὶ εὐθὺς ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς ἐξελθόντες ἦλθον εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Σίµωνος καὶ Ἀνδρέου µετὰ Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωάννου. 30 ἡ δὲ πενθερὰ Σίµωνος κατέκειτο πυρέσσουσα, καὶ εὐθὺς λέγουσιν αὐτῷ περὶ αὐτῆς. 31 καὶ προσελθὼν ἤγειρεν αὐτὴν κρατήσας τῆς χειρός: καὶ ἀφῆκεν αὐτὴν ὁ πυρετός, καὶ διηκόνει αὐτοῖς. 32 Ὀψίας δὲ γενοµένης, ὅτε ἔδυ ὁ ἥλιος , ἔφερον πρὸς αὐτὸν πάντας τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας καὶ τοὺς δαιµονιζοµένους: 33 καὶ ἦν ὅλη ἡ πόλις ἐπισυνηγµένη πρὸς τὴν θύραν. 34 καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν πολλοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας ποικίλαις νόσοις, καὶ δαιµόνια πολλὰ ἐξέβαλεν, καὶ οὐκ ἤφιεν λαλεῖν τὰ δαιµόνια, ὅτι ᾔδεισαν αὐτόν .

8 14 Καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Πέτρου εἶδεν τὴν πενθερὰν αὐτοῦ βεβληµένην καὶ πυρέσσουσαν: καὶ ἥψατο τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῆς, καὶ ἀφῆκεν αὐτὴν ὁ πυρετός: καὶ ἠγέρθη καὶ διηκόνει αὐτῷ. 16 Ὀψίας δὲ γενοµένης προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ δαιµονιζοµένους πολλούς: καὶ ἐξέβαλεν τὰ πνεύµατα λόγῳ, καὶ πάντας τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας ἐθεράπευσεν: 15

ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος, Αὐτὸς τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡµῶν ἔλαβεν καὶ τὰς νόσους ἐβάστασεν.

17

The omission of the introductory εὐθὺς ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς ἐξελθόντες is easily explained: Jesus was not just now in the synagogue, rather in the street. This statement does not necessarily belong to the tradition itself, rather to the narrative framework of Mark, and here Matthew is still showing a relative liberty in creating his own sequence of events despite Mark. The omission of Andrew, James and John may be attributed to a desire for brevity and increased focus on Jesus. 40 This leads to the change from αὐτοῖς to αὐτῷ in v15. Similarly the omission of καὶ εὐθὺς λέγουσιν αὐτῷ περὶ αὐτῆς is due to the shift of subject to Jesus (εἶδεν). So all the ‘abbreviations’ may be grounded in Matthew’s own literary style. The account is reduced to its main points, and there is of course no dialogue. It is indeed possible that Matthew can reproduce this tradition without the need to consult his copy of Mark at all at this point. 39

Of which only τὸ δῶρον is a re-writing. DAVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, II, p.33; on the name ‘Peter’ for ‘Simon’ see ibid., where it is proposed that perhaps a ‘Simon’ was prominent in Matthew’s community, and Peter was after all the name by which the apostle was widely known (in Greek). 40

3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11

55

He continues, as night falls (for they have just eaten following a day of preaching and three miracles), and mentions the demoniacs and the ill. He omits the details of the sun setting41 and the whole town gathering at Simon’s door. Matthew’s conclusion is also different to that of Mark: where Mark gives Jesus’ command that the demons should not identify him, Matthew reverts to a prophecy to show how Jesus is the fulfilment of the words of Isaiah. So the only features he takes from Mark are the evening, the casting out of demons and the healing of the sick. These may be considered the bare essentials of the account.42 In these pericopae there is no real need to suggest Matthew is reading Mark directly. However, little can be concluded on the evidence of these alone (the leper, Simon’s mother-in-law and the summary), as Matthew’s copy of Mark is apparently open at Mark 1, and he may consult Mark concerning either or both accounts: It is also possible to assume that Matthew, despite occasionally deviating from the order of Mark, still has visual contact with Mark’s absolute order [...]. These two pericopes could conceivably be found on the same page of a codex, or on opposite pages, or both open to Matthew in a scroll.43

Stronger evidence for Matthew’s familiarity with Mark follows now, as he recounts a scene from later in the gospel, apparently without feeling the need to consult his copy for a direct reproduction. Mark 4:35‒41 435 Καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ὀψίας γενοµένης, ∆ιέλθωµεν εἰς τὸ πέραν.

Matthew 8:18‒27 818 Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὄχλον περὶ αὐτὸν ἐκέλευσεν ἀπελθεῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν. [v19‒22 added material]

36 καὶ ἀφέντες τὸν ὄχλον παραλαµβάνουσιν αὐτὸν ὡς ἦν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ, καὶ ἄλλα πλοῖα ἦν µετ’ αὐτοῦ. 37 καὶ γίνεται λαῖλαψ µεγάλη ἀνέµου, καὶ τὰ κύµατα ἐπέβαλλεν εἰς τὸ πλοῖον, ὥστε ἤδη γεµίζεσθαι τὸ πλοῖον. 38 καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ἐν τῇ πρύµνῃ ἐπὶ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον καθεύδων: καὶ ἐγείρουσιν αὐτὸν καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ, ∆ιδάσκαλε, οὐ µέλει σοι ὅτι ἀπολλύµεθα;

Καὶ ἐµβάντι αὐτῷ εἰς τὸ πλοῖον ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ. 24 καὶ ἰδοὺ σεισµὸς µέγας ἐγένετο ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, ὥστε τὸ πλοῖον καλύπτεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν κυµάτων: 23

αὐτὸς δὲ ἐκάθευδεν. καὶ προσελθόντες ἤγειραν αὐτὸν λέγοντες, Κύριε, σῶσον, ἀπολλύµεθα. 25

41 Which Luke retains (Lk 4:40). In Mark and Luke, Jesus had been teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath, and so the people must wait until nightfall to carry their sick. Dusk is therefore another remnant from the Markan gospel which Matthew doesn’t really need, but such is his loyalty that he continues the tradition. 42 B ONNARD, Matthieu, p.117: “[T]out détail anecdotique est rigoureusement écarté.” 43 D ERRENBACKER, Ancient Compositional Practices, p.253.

56

Chapter 3: Mark or Q? Mark 4:35‒41 v40

καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίµησεν τῷ ἀνέµῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, Σιώπα, πεφίµωσο. καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεµος, καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη µεγάλη. 40 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Τί δειλοί ἐστε; οὔπω ἔχετε πίστιν; 41 καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον µέγαν, καὶ ἔλεγον πρὸς ἀλλήλους, Τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἄνεµος καὶ ἡ θάλασσα πακούει αὐτῷ; 39

Matthew 8:18‒27 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Τί δειλοί ἐστε, ὀλιγόπιστοι; τότε ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετίµησεν τοῖς ἀνέµοις καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ,

26

καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη µεγάλη. v26 οἱ δὲ ἄνθρωποι ἐθαύµασαν λέγοντες, Ποταπός ἐστιν οὗτος ὅτι καὶ οἱ ἄνεµοι καὶ ἡ θάλασσα αὐτῷ ὑπακούουσιν;

27

Matthew takes another evening scene from his knowledge of Mark, the crossing of lake Galilee εἰς τὸ πέραν, and brings it forward to the very same evening on which Jesus is healing the sick and casting out demons. 44 Does he now peruse his copy of the gospel to find the apposite pericope, or does he rely on his own knowledge of the tradition? A consideration of the parallels may help guide us to a conclusion. Jesus departs because of the crowd. Again some detail is missing from Matthew’s version: there are no ‘other boats with him’ and Jesus is not ‘in the stern on a cushion’. The command σιώπα, πεφίµωσο is also absent, as is the reference to the wind dying down. Otherwise the narrative is much rephrased and once re-ordered, but again Matthew knows the basics of the account: the crowd, the crossing, the storm (λαῖλαψ/σεισµός), Jesus’ sleeping, the disciples’ appeal, Jesus’ reply and action, the resulting calm, and the reaction of astonishment at Jesus’ command of the elements. Unless Matthew deliberately sat and thought of ways to rephrase and rearrange the narrative of Mark, his version must be attributed to his recalling the pericope from memory, something very credible given the new placement of the account and the distraction of adding v19‒22. In this pericope, famously discussed by BORNKAMM,45 we see Matthew’s personal emphases come to the fore. This is only possible because he is re-writing Mark’s account as he recalls it, and not consulting his copy of Mark. And so he continues with the visit to the far side of the lake, which he knows follows the calming of the storm in Mark, so even here Mark’s associations are influencing Matthew, despite his rearrangement. Mark 5:1‒21 5 1 Καὶ ἦλθον εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γερασηνῶν. 44

Matthew 8:28‒9:1a 828 Καὶ ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ πέραν εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γαδαρηνῶν

Was this simple connection of ‘evening’ the crucial link for Matthew? BORNKAMM, “Die Sturmstillung im Matthäusevangelium”, in Idem, Überlieferung, p.48‒53. 45

3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11 Mark 5:1‒21 καὶ ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου εὐθὺς ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν µνηµείων ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύµατι ἀκαθάρτῳ, 3 ὃς τὴν κατοίκησιν εἶχεν ἐν τοῖς µνήµασιν: καὶ οὐδὲ ἁλύσει οὐκέτι οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο αὐτὸν δῆσαι, 4 διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν πολλάκις πέδαις καὶ ἁλύσεσιν δεδέσθαι καὶ διεσπάσθαι ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ τὰς ἁλύσεις καὶ τὰς πέδας συντετρῖφθαι, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἴσχυεν αὐτὸν δαµάσαι : 5 καὶ διὰ παντὸς νυκτὸς καὶ ἡµέρας ἐν τοῖς µνήµασιν καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσιν ἦν κράζων καὶ κατακόπτων ἑαυτὸν λίθοις. 6 καὶ ἰδὼν τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπὸ µακρόθεν ἔδραµεν καὶ προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ, 7 καὶ κράξας φωνῇ µεγάλῃ λέγει, Τί ἐµοὶ καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ υἱὲ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου; ὁρκίζω σε τὸν θεόν, µή µε βασανίσῃς. 8 ἔλεγεν γὰρ αὐτῷ , Ἔξελθε τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἀκάθαρτον ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. 9 καὶ ἐπηρώτα αὐτόν, Τί ὄνοµά σοι; καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Λεγιὼν ὄνοµά µοι, ὅτι πολλοί ἐσµεν. 10 καὶ παρεκάλει αὐτὸν πολλὰ ἵνα µὴ αὐτὰ ἀποστείλῃ ἔξω τῆς χώρας. 11 ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ πρὸς τῷ ὄρει ἀγέλη χοίρων µεγάλη βοσκοµένη: 12 καὶ παρεκάλεσαν αὐτὸν λέγοντες, Πέµψον ἡµᾶς εἰς τοὺς χοίρους, ἵνα εἰς αὐτοὺς εἰσέλθωµεν. 13 καὶ ἐπέτρεψεν αὐτοῖς. καὶ ἐξελθόντα τὰ πνεύµατα τὰ ἀκάθαρτα εἰσῆλθον εἰς τοὺς χοίρους, καὶ ὥρµησεν ἡ ἀγέλη κατὰ τοῦ κρηµνοῦ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, ὡς δισχίλιοι, καὶ ἐπνίγοντο ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ. 14 καὶ οἱ βόσκοντες αὐτοὺς ἔφυγον καὶ ἀπήγγειλαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν καὶ εἰς τοὺς ἀγρούς: καὶ ἦλθον ἰδεῖν τί ἐστιν τὸ γεγονός. 15 καὶ ἔρχονται πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν, καὶ θεωροῦσιν τὸν δαιµονιζόµενον καθήµενον ἱµατισµένον καὶ σωφρονοῦντα, τὸν ἐσχηκότα τὸν λεγιῶνα, καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν . 16 καὶ διηγήσαντο αὐτοῖς οἱ ἰδόντες πῶς ἐγένετο τῷ δαιµονιζοµένῳ καὶ περὶ τῶν χοίρων.

57

Matthew 8:28‒9:1a

2

ὑπήντησαν αὐτῷ δύο δαιµονιζόµενοι ἐκ τῶν µνηµείων ἐξερχόµενοι, χαλεποὶ λίαν, ὥστε µὴ ἰσχύειν τινὰ παρελθεῖν διὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ ἐκείνης.

29

καὶ ἰδοὺ

ἔκραξαν λέγοντες, Τί ἡµῖν καὶ σοί, υἱὲ τοῦ θεοῦ; ἦλθες ὧδε πρὸ καιροῦ βασανίσαι ἡµᾶς;

ἦν δὲ µακρὰν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν ἀγέλη χοίρων πολλῶν βοσκοµένη. 31 οἱ δὲ δαίµονες παρεκάλουν αὐτὸν λέγοντες, Εἰ ἐκβάλλεις ἡµᾶς, ἀπόστειλον ἡµᾶς εἰς τὴν ἀγέλην τῶν χοίρων. 32 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Ὑπάγετε. οἱ δὲ ἐξελθόντες ἀπῆλθον εἰς τοὺς χοίρους: καὶ ἰδοὺ ὥρµησεν πᾶσα ἡ ἀγέλη κατὰ τοῦ κρηµνοῦ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, καὶ ἀπέθανον ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν. 33 οἱ δὲ βόσκοντες ἔφυγον, καὶ ἀπελθόντες εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἀπήγγειλαν πάντα καὶ τὰ τῶν δαιµονιζοµένων. 34 καὶ ἰδοὺ πᾶσα ἡ πόλις ἐξῆλθεν εἰς ὑπάντησιν τῷ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν 30

58

Chapter 3: Mark or Q?

Mark 5:1‒21 καὶ ἤρξαντο παρακαλεῖν αὐτὸν ἀπελθεῖν ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων αὐτῶν. 18 καὶ ἐµβαίνοντος αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ πλοῖον παρεκάλει αὐτὸν ὁ δαιµονισθεὶς ἵνα µετ’ αὐτοῦ ᾖ . 19 καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκεν αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ λέγει αὐτῷ, Ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου πρὸς τοὺς σούς, καὶ ἀπάγγειλον αὐτοῖς ὅσα ὁ κύριός σοι πεποίηκεν καὶ ἠλέησέν σε . 20 καὶ ἀπῆλθεν καὶ ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν ἐν τῇ ∆εκαπόλει ὅσα ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ πάντες ἐθαύµαζον. 21 Καὶ διαπεράσαντος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ πάλιν εἰς τὸ πέραν συνήχθη ὄχλος πολὺς ἐπ’ αὐτόν, καὶ ἦν παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν. 17

Matthew 8:28‒9:1a παρεκάλεσαν ὅπως µεταβῇ ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων αὐτῶν. 91a Καὶ ἐµβὰς εἰς πλοῖον

διεπέρασεν

Matthew knows what happened (in Mark) once Jesus had crossed εἰς τὸ πέραν, εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γερασηνῶν/Γαδαρηνῶν:46 he encountered someone from the tombs. Our evangelist’s ‘doubling’ of characters has received much attention,47 yet there seems to be no consensus on the phenomenon. 48 It may be a device to make the characters less important, 49 but why then is it this afflicted persona dramatis who is doubled, and not the leper or the paralytic? A tenable solution yet eludes us, but for now the ‘doubling’ of certain minor characters in the Markan tradition must simply be noted as a trait of Matthew’s redaction. 50 What follows is a much abbreviated or indeed paraphrased account of the situation, 51 until the cry of τί ἐµοὶ/ἡµῖν καὶ σοί, (Ἰησοῦ) υἱὲ τοῦ θεοῦ. Matthew then retains the reference to the 46 See the discussions of the issue of these names in all three synoptic gospels in, e.g., DAVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, II, p.78‒79, and in Matthew specifically in LUZ, Matthäus, II, p.31‒32. Of course, in either case, as B ONNARD, Matthieu, p.121, notes: “On est en pays païen.” FREYNE, “Jewish Contexts”, p.187, notes here that, “Mark, it would seem, is quite aware of the Jew/Gentile divide as this expressed itself geographically.” 47 See, e.g., BRAUMANN, “Die Zweizahl und Verdoppelungen im Matthäusevangelium”, p.255‒266. 48 For possible reasons for two demoniacs in this pericope, see D AVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, II, p.80. 49 OLRIK, “Epische Gesetze der Volksdichtung”, p.63: “Ferner machen wir die Beobachtung, daß wenn zwei Personen in derselben Rolle auftreten, beide als klein und schwach gelten.” 50 See further 4.2.3. Amendments. 51 LUZ, Matthäus, II, p.31: “Mk 5,1‒21a ist stark gekürzt, wodurch einerseits die Geschichte einfacher und klarer, anderseits aber auch unanschaulicher wird.” HELD , Überlieferung, p.162: “Die Dämonenaustreibung von Gadara ist ein bezeichnendes Beispiel für die Art des Evangelisten Matthäus, einen knappen Bericht an die Stelle der reich gegliederten Darstellung des Markus zu setzen.” B ONNARD, Matthieu, p.121: “Mat. a soigneusement concentré le récit sur l’essentiel. [...] Mat. a renoncé à la description haute en couleurs de Mc.” GATZWEILER, “Les récits”, p.218: “Il élimine du récit tout ce qu’il juge accessoire pour concentrer l’attention sur l’essentiel, la figure de Jésus.”

3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11

59

herd of swine, which rushes down the embankment into the sea, causing the shepherds to flee to the town to report. The townsmen come out (in Mk to see the demoniac, in Mt to see Jesus), and appeal to Jesus to leave their homeland, which he then does. There is no mention of the dialogue with the cured demoniac. Matthew retells the story as he knows it from Mark: Jesus arrives, encounters the demoniac(s) from the tombs, they cry out in appeal, Jesus casts the demons into a nearby herd of swine, which then rushes into the sea, the shepherds report to the townsfolk who come to see Jesus and ask him to leave, which he does. 52 There is very little of the detail found in Mark. Matthew is not consulting Mark, rather is confident enough to retell the story himself: In view of the brevity of Mt. as compared with Mk. [...] it seems not improbable that when the editor came to Mk 145 and was proposing to pass on to Mk 4 35‒5 20, he did not unroll Mk.’s Gospel to these verses, but summarised them from memory. 53

Now, however, Matthew will pick up where he left off in his copy of Mark: the account of Jesus’ return to Caphernaum.54 Mark 2:1‒12 21 Καὶ εἰσελθὼν πάλιν εἰς Καφαρναοὺµ δι’ ἡµερῶν ἠκούσθη ὅτι ἐν οἴκῳ ἐστίν . 2 καὶ συνήχθησαν πολλοὶ ὥστε µηκέτι χωρεῖν µηδὲ τὰ πρὸς τὴν θύραν, καὶ ἐλάλει αὐτοῖς τὸν λόγον . 3 καὶ ἔρχονται φέροντες πρὸς αὐτὸν παραλυτικὸν αἰρόµενον ὑπὸ τεσσάρων . 4 καὶ µὴ δυνάµενοι προσενέγκαι αὐτῷ διὰ τὸν ὄχλον ἀπεστέγασαν τὴν στέγην ὅπου ἦν, καὶ ἐξορύξαντες χαλῶσι τὸν κράβαττον ὅπου ὁ παραλυτικὸς κατέκειτο. 5 καὶ ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν πίστιν αὐτῶν λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ, Τέκνον, ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁµαρτίαι. 6 ἦσαν δέ τινες τῶν γραµµατέων ἐκεῖ καθήµενοι καὶ διαλογιζόµενοι ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν, 7 Τί οὗτος οὕτως λαλεῖ; βλασφηµεῖ: τίς δύναται ἀφιέναι ἁµαρτίας εἰ µὴ εἷς ὁ θεός;

Matthew 9:1b‒8 91b καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν.

2 καὶ ἰδοὺ προσέφερον αὐτῷ παραλυτικὸν ἐπὶ κλίνης βεβληµένον.

καὶ ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν πίστιν αὐτῶν εἶπεν τῷ παραλυτικῷ, Θάρσει, τέκνον: ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁµαρτίαι. 3 καὶ ἰδού τινες τῶν γραµµατέων εἶπαν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, Οὗτος βλασφηµεῖ.

52 Thus, as KONRADT, Israel, Kirche und Völker, p.61, observes: “Jesu Landgang an das Ostufer des Sees bleibt damit ohne jedes positive Echo.” 53 A LLEN, Matthew, p.84. 54 In Mark, Jesus had left Caphernaum to go off on his own (Mk 1:35‒39) and then healed the leper (Mk 1:40‒45).

60

Chapter 3: Mark or Q?

Mark 2:1‒12 καὶ εὐθὺς ἐπιγνοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῷ πνεύµατι αὐτοῦ ὅτι οὕτως διαλογίζονται ἐν ἑαυτοῖς λέγει αὐτοῖς, Τί ταῦτα διαλογίζεσθε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑµῶν; 9 τί ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον, εἰπεῖν τῷ παραλυτικῷ, Ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁµαρτίαι, ἢ εἰπεῖν, Ἔγειρε καὶ ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ περιπάτει; 10 ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀφιέναι ἁµαρτίας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ, 11 Σοὶ λέγω, ἔγειρε ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου. 12 καὶ ἠγέρθη καὶ εὐθὺς ἄρας τὸν κράβαττον ἐξῆλθεν ἔµπροσθεν πάντων, ὥστε ἐξίστασθαι πάντας καὶ δοξάζειν τὸν θεὸν λέγοντας ὅτι Οὕτως οὐδέποτε εἴδοµεν . 8

Matthew 9:1b‒8 καὶ ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὰς ἐνθυµήσεις αὐτῶν εἶπεν, Ἱνατί ἐνθυµεῖσθε πονηρὰ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑµῶν; 5 τί γάρ ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον, εἰπεῖν, 4

Ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁµαρτίαι, ἢ εἰπεῖν, Ἔγειρε καὶ περιπάτει; ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀφιέναι ἁµαρτίας τότε λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ, Ἐγερθεὶς ἆρόν σου τὴν κλίνην καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου. 7 καὶ ἐγερθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ. 8 ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ ὄχλοι ἐφοβήθησαν 6

καὶ ἐδόξασαν τὸν θεὸν τὸν δόντα ἐξουσίαν τοιαύτην τοῖς ἀνθρώποις.

Jesus returns to Caphernaum (as Matthew puts it, εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν) and heals a paralytic (in Mark this specifically takes place in Jesus’ own house). 55 The man is brought to Jesus (in Mark by four men) and Jesus’ reaction is taken (almost) directly from Mark. Certain scribes react: βλασφηµεῖ. Jesus’ reply is again straight from Mark, and the crowd then praises God, as in Mark. This is the first miracle in both gospels where Jesus encounters criticism and has to react. One notices immediately the high correlation of Jesus’ words in Matthew to those in Mark, particularly here in Mk 2:5,9‒11 // Mt 9:2b,5‒6. While Matthew is apt to reduce the detail of the Markan narrative, as shown in his decision to recount the trip across the sea of Galilee by himself, he shows a great loyalty in citing the words of Jesus directly from Mark. This is presumably a reflection of Matthew’s penchant for dominical logia, a trait revealed both in his incorporation of Q and in his extended discourses. Thus it appears that when Jesus speaks in the Markan tradition, Matthew copies Mark directly. He continues through his copy of Mark with the calling of the taxcollector and the resultant debate on fasting.

55 Luke also neglects to mention the house, but does include the roof scene (Lk 5:17‒ 19). Matthew omits the references to Jesus’ ‘home’ in Mk 2:1, 3:20, 7:17, 7:24, 9:28 and 10:10. This may of course be Peter’s house, if that is where Jesus is based in Caphernaum (see DAVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, II, p.99‒100).

3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11 Mark 2:13‒22 213 Καὶ ἐξῆλθεν πάλιν παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν: καὶ πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος ἤρχετο πρὸς αὐτόν, καὶ ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς . 14 καὶ παράγων εἶδεν Λευὶν τὸν τοῦ Ἁλφαίου καθήµενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον, καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Ἀκολούθει µοι. καὶ ἀναστὰς ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ. 15 Καὶ γίνεται κατακεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ , καὶ πολλοὶ τελῶναι καὶ ἁµαρτωλοὶ συνανέκειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς µαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ: ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοὶ καὶ ἠκολούθουν αὐτῷ. 16 καὶ οἱ γραµµατεῖς τῶν Φαρισαίων ἰδόντες ὅτι ἐσθίει µετὰ τῶν ἁµαρτωλῶν καὶ τελωνῶν ἔλεγον τοῖς µαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, Ὅτι µετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν καὶ ἁµαρτωλῶν ἐσθίει; 17 καὶ ἀκούσας ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτοῖς ὅτι Οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν οἱ ἰσχύοντες ἰατροῦ ἀλλ’ οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες:

οὐκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁµαρτωλούς. 18 Καὶ ἦσαν οἱ µαθηταὶ Ἰωάννου καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι νηστεύοντες. καὶ ἔρχονται καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ, ∆ιὰ τί οἱ µαθηταὶ Ἰωάννου καὶ οἱ µαθηταὶ τῶν Φαρισαίων νηστεύουσιν, οἱ δὲ σοὶ µαθηταὶ οὐ νηστεύουσιν; 19 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Μὴ δύνανται οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ νυµφῶνος ἐν ᾧ ὁ νυµφίος µετ’ αὐτῶν ἐστιν νηστεύειν; ὅσον χρόνον ἔχουσιν τὸν νυµφίον µετ’ αὐτῶν οὐ δύνανται νηστεύειν: 20 ἐλεύσονται δὲ ἡµέραι ὅταν ἀπαρθῇ ἀπ’ αὐτῶν ὁ νυµφίος, καὶ τότε νηστεύσουσιν ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡµέρᾳ. 21 οὐδεὶς ἐπίβληµα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἐπιράπτει ἐπὶ ἱµάτιον παλαιόν: εἰ δὲ µή, αἴρει τὸ πλήρωµα ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τὸ καινὸν τοῦ παλαιοῦ, καὶ χεῖρον σχίσµα γίνεται.

61

Matthew 9:9‒17

99 Καὶ παράγων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐκεῖθεν εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον καθήµενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον, Μαθθαῖον λεγόµενον, καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Ἀκολούθει µοι. καὶ ἀναστὰς ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ. 10 Καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτοῦ ἀνακειµένου ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ, καὶ ἰδοὺ πολλοὶ τελῶναι καὶ ἁµαρτωλοὶ ἐλθόντες συνανέκειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς µαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ. 11

καὶ ἰδόντες οἱ Φαρισαῖοι

ἔλεγον τοῖς µαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, ∆ιὰ τί µετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν καὶ ἁµαρτωλῶν ἐσθίει ὁ διδάσκαλος ὑµῶν; 12 ὁ δὲ ἀκούσας εἶπεν, Οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν οἱ ἰσχύοντες ἰατροῦ ἀλλ’ οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες. 13 πορευθέντες δὲ µάθετε τί ἐστιν, Ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν: οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁµαρτωλούς. 14 Τότε προσέρχονται αὐτῷ οἱ µαθηταὶ Ἰωάννου λέγοντες, ∆ιὰ τί ἡµεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι νηστεύοµεν πολλά, οἱ δὲ µαθηταί σου οὐ νηστεύουσιν; 15 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Μὴ δύνανται οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ νυµφῶνος πενθεῖν ἐφ’ ὅσον µετ’ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ὁ νυµφίος; ἐλεύσονται δὲ ἡµέραι ὅταν ἀπαρθῇ ἀπ’ αὐτῶν ὁ νυµφίος, καὶ τότε νηστεύσουσιν. 16 οὐδεὶς δὲ ἐπιβάλλει ἐπίβληµα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἐπὶ ἱµατίῳ παλαιῷ: αἴρει γὰρ τὸ πλήρωµα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱµατίου, καὶ χεῖρον σχίσµα γίνεται.

62

Chapter 3: Mark or Q? Mark 2:13‒22

καὶ οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς εἰ δὲ µή, ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος τοὺς ἀσκούς, καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἀπόλλυται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοί ἀλλὰ

22

οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινούς.

Matthew 9:9‒17 οὐδὲ βάλλουσιν οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς: εἰ δὲ µή γε, ῥήγνυνται οἱ ἀσκοί, καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἐκχεῖται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπόλλυνται: ἀλλὰ βάλλουσιν οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινούς, καὶ ἀµφότεροι συντηροῦνται.

17

Matthew omits Mark’s introductory v13 and rewords some of the narrative, but these changes are minimal. The only major change here is the renaming of Levi son of Alphaeus as ‘Matthew’, presumably in line with what our author knows of the names of the Twelve (Μαθθαῖος ὁ τελώνης, Mt 10:3).56 The account continues with the challenge of the Pharisees (in Mark, the Pharisees’ scribes), who see what is happening and question the disciples. Matthew follows Mark’s account of the dialogue, even as the disciples of John join the debate, adding his own v13 (a reference to Hos 6:6) and the explanatory καὶ ἀµφότεροι συντηροῦνται. Matthew is even now following Mark directly and showing his straight-forward approach to the re-writing of the gospel. Again, however, he will recall an episode from the Markan tradition and place it here, earlier than in the gospel of Mark. He has followed Mark to the debate in Jesus’ house 57 and will not proceed just yet to the debates on the Sabbath in Mk 2:23‒3:6. He has first of all two agenda: (i) the completion of the series of healing miracles he has undertaken to describe, and (ii) the mission discourse as the Twelve are appointed to evangelize Israel. Mark 5:22‒43

Matthew 9:18‒26

5 22 καὶ ἔρχεται εἷς τῶν ἀρχισυναγώγων , ὀνόµατι Ἰάϊρος, καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν πίπτει πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ 23 καὶ παρακαλεῖ αὐτὸν πολλὰ λέγων ὅτι Τὸ θυγάτριόν µου ἐσχάτως ἔχει, ἵνα

918 Ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς ἰδοὺ ἄρχων εἷς ἐλθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ

ἐλθὼν ἐπιθῇς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῇ ἵνα σωθῇ καὶ ζήσῃ. 24 καὶ ἀπῆλθεν µετ’ αὐτοῦ. Καὶ ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ὄχλος πολύς, καὶ συνέθλιβον αὐτόν .

λέγων ὅτι Ἡ θυγάτηρ µου ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν: ἀλλὰ ἐλθὼν ἐπίθες τὴν χεῖρά σου ἐπ’ αὐτήν, καὶ ζήσεται. 19 καὶ ἐγερθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ καὶ οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.

56 Although it is James who is associated with Alphaeus in the synoptic tradition. See also the other suggestions for the name-change listed in D AVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, II, p.98‒99. 57 Mk 2:15 // Mt 9:10 are imprecise in saying whose house it was. Luke (Lk 5:29) says Levi gave the banquet, but again the location is uncertain. For Mark and Matthew however we may fairly safely assume it was Jesus’ house: the tax-collector follows Jesus, the scribes are on hand to observe and in Matthew the ruler of Mt 9:18 knows where to seek Jesus.

3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11 Mark 5:22‒43 καὶ γυνὴ οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει αἵµατος δώδεκα ἔτη 26 καὶ πολλὰ παθοῦσα ὑπὸ πολλῶν ἰατρῶν καὶ δαπανήσασα τὰ παρ’ αὐτῆς πάντα καὶ µηδὲν ὠφεληθεῖσα ἀλλὰ µᾶλλον εἰς τὸ χεῖρον ἐλθοῦσα, 27 ἀκούσασα περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ , ἐλθοῦσα ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ὄπισθεν ἥψατο τοῦ ἱµατίου αὐτοῦ: 28 ἔλεγεν γὰρ ὅτι Ἐὰν ἅψωµαι κἂν τῶν ἱµατίων αὐτοῦ σωθήσοµαι. 29 καὶ εὐθὺς ἐξηράνθη ἡ πηγὴ τοῦ αἵµατος αὐτῆς, καὶ ἔγνω τῷ σώµατι ὅτι ἴαται ἀπὸ τῆς µάστιγος . 30 καὶ εὐθὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐπιγνοὺς ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ δύναµιν ἐξελθοῦσαν ἐπιστραφεὶς ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ἔλεγεν, Τίς µου ἥψατο τῶν ἱµατίων ; 31 καὶ ἔλεγον αὐτῷ οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ , Βλέπεις τὸν ὄχλον συνθλίβοντά σε, καὶ λέγεις, Τίς µου ἥψατο; 32 καὶ περιεβλέπετο ἰδεῖν τὴν τοῦτο ποιήσασαν. 33 ἡ δὲ γυνὴ φοβηθεῖσα καὶ τρέµουσα, εἰδυῖα ὃ γέγονεν αὐτῇ, ἦλθεν καὶ προσέπεσεν αὐτῷ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν . 34 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῇ, Θυγάτηρ, ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε: ὕπαγε εἰς εἰρήνην, καὶ ἴσθι ὑγιὴς ἀπὸ τῆς µάστιγός σου. 35 Ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἔρχονται ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου λέγοντες ὅτι Ἡ θυγάτηρ σου ἀπέθανεν: τί ἔτι σκύλλεις τὸν διδάσκαλον; 36 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς παρακούσας τὸν λόγον λαλούµενον λέγει τῷ ἀρχισυναγώγῳ, Μὴ φοβοῦ, µόνον πίστευε. 37 καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκεν οὐδένα µετ’ αὐτοῦ συνακολουθῆσαι εἰ µὴ τὸν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰακώβου. 38 καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου, καὶ θεωρεῖ θόρυβον καὶ κλαίοντας καὶ ἀλαλάζοντας πολλά, 39 καὶ εἰσελθὼν λέγει αὐτοῖς, Τί θορυβεῖσθε καὶ κλαίετε; τὸ παιδίον οὐκ ἀπέθανεν ἀλλὰ καθεύδει. 40 καὶ κατεγέλων αὐτοῦ. αὐτὸς δὲ ἐκβαλὼν πάντας παραλαµβάνει τὸν πατέρα τοῦ παιδίου καὶ τὴν µητέρα καὶ τοὺς µετ’ αὐτοῦ , καὶ εἰσπορεύεται ὅπου ἦν τὸ παιδίον: 25

63

Matthew 9:18‒26 Καὶ ἰδοὺ γυνὴ αἱµορροοῦσα δώδεκα ἔτη

20

προσελθοῦσα ὄπισθεν ἥψατο τοῦ κρασπέδου τοῦ ἱµατίου αὐτοῦ: 21 ἔλεγεν γὰρ ἐν ἑαυτῇ, Ἐὰν µόνον ἅψωµαι τοῦ ἱµατίου αὐτοῦ σωθήσοµαι.

22

ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς

στραφεὶς

καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὴν

εἶπεν, Θάρσει, θύγατερ: ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε. καὶ ἐσώθη ἡ γυνὴ ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ἐκείνης.

Καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἄρχοντος καὶ ἰδὼν τοὺς αὐλητὰς καὶ τὸν ὄχλον θορυβούµενον 24 ἔλεγεν, Ἀναχωρεῖτε, 23

οὐ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν τὸ κοράσιον ἀλλὰ καθεύδει. καὶ κατεγέλων αὐτοῦ. 25 ὅτε δὲ ἐξεβλήθη ὁ ὄχλος,

εἰσελθὼν

64

Chapter 3: Mark or Q?

Mark 5:22‒43 καὶ κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ παιδίου λέγει αὐτῇ, Ταλιθα κουµ, ὅ ἐστιν µεθερµηνευόµενον Τὸ κοράσιον, σοὶ λέγω, ἔγειρε . 42 καὶ εὐθὺς ἀνέστη τὸ κοράσιον καὶ περιεπάτει, ἦν γὰρ ἐτῶν δώδεκα. καὶ ἐξέστησαν εὐθὺς ἐκστάσει µεγάλῃ. 43 καὶ διεστείλατο αὐτοῖς πολλὰ ἵνα µηδεὶς γνοῖ τοῦτο, καὶ εἶπεν δοθῆναι αὐτῇ φαγεῖν . 41

Matthew 9:18‒26 ἐκράτησεν τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῆς,

καὶ ἠγέρθη τὸ κοράσιον.

καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἡ φήµη αὕτη εἰς ὅλην τὴν γῆν ἐκείνην.

26

A certain ruler (in Mark a synagogue ruler called Jairus) falls at Jesus’ feet and appeals for Jesus to come and lay his hand upon his dying/dead 58 daughter, so that she may live. Jesus follows with his disciples. 59 Now Matthew begins to omit details: the crowd and its pressure, the background of the woman’s problem, the sudden healing, Jesus’ surprise and question, the disciples’ rebuke and Jesus’ repeating his question, the woman’s fear, approach and confession, and even Jesus’ words “Go in peace.” 60 Matthew knows the story from Mark and re-tells it quickly: a woman who has bled for twelve years comes behind Jesus and touches the hem of his garment, thinking that if she touches it she shall be cured; Jesus turns and sees her, speaks to her, and she is healed. Matthew gives an account of the Markan tradition without consulting his copy of Mark for the details. 61 And so he continues: Jesus reaches the ruler’s house without the intervening report of Mk 5:35‒37, sees a similar commotion (but not exactly the same) and makes a similar claim that the girl is asleep. Matthew also recalls what must have been an essential of the account in his eyes: καὶ κατεγέλων αὐτοῦ. Jesus goes in alone, takes the girl’s hand, and she is raised from the 58 Matthew omits the report of Mk 5:35‒39. As DAVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, II, p.216, explain: “The man believes not that Jesus can heal his sick daughter but that Jesus can raise her from the dead.” LUZ, Matthäus, II, p.52: “Er stellt die Bitte an Jesus so, wie sie Jesus in V25 erfüllen wird.” 59 In Mark it is Jesus who is followed! For all that is said of Matthew’s making Jesus more divine or authoritative than he is in Mark, Matthew here has him follow the man, as anyone would in this situation. 60 DAVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, II, p.124: “Matthew offers little more than an outline of what is in Mark.” LUZ, Matthäus, II, p.51: “Gegenüber Mk 5,21‒43 fallen die zahlreichen Kürzungen auf. Sie haben u.a. zur Folge, daß der Zusammenhang der beiden Geschichten von der Tochter des Jairus und von der Blutflüssigen vorlorengeht.” H ELD, Überlieferung, p.168, describes Matthew as offering only “das nackte Gerippe” of the Markan account, and explains, ibid., p.169: “Wir haben nur noch die Begegnung eines kranken Menschen mit Jesus vor uns, ohne daß Ort, Zeit und die näheren Umstände mitgeteilt werden.” BONNARD, Matthieu, p.135, remarks on “une sécheresse telle que le lecteur ne saurait se passer du texte de Mc. pour bien comprendre celui de Mat.” 61 ALLEN, Matthew, p.95: “The shortening may [...] be due to the method adopted by the compiler, who, instead of unrolling his copy of Mk. from 2 22‒520, may have summarised 5 20‒43 from memory.”

3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11

65

dead. A much less detailed account than that of Mark. 62 Furthermore, his conclusion is completely different: Jesus does not appeal for secrecy and request something for the girl to eat, rather it is simply stated that his fame spread ‘throughout the land’, i.e. Galilee. 63 Here, once again, Matthew is bringing forward a Markan miracle and in doing so he does not consult the original, rather records it as he recalls it: It is certainly noticeable that the sections in which Mt. is considerably shorter than Mk., viz. Mk 435‒41, 51‒20. 21‒43, are just those to obtain which the editor must be supposed to have unrolled his copy of Mk. if he wished to see them before him. 64

Matthew has now recounted several miracles from the Markan tradition, to which he will add two of his own to complete the series. In both of these there are traces of the style and content of Mark, but both remain nonetheless Sondergut traditions, perhaps indeed creations of the evangelist himself.65 Mark’s Blind Men (1046b ὁ υἱὸς Τιµαίου Βαρτιµαῖος τυφλὸς προσαίτης ἐκάθητο παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν. 47 καὶ ἀκούσας ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζαρηνός ἐστιν ἤρξατο κράζειν καὶ λέγειν, Υἱὲ ∆αυὶδ Ἰησοῦ, ἐλέησόν µε.)

(823b ἐπιθεὶς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῷ, ἐπηρώτα αὐτόν, Εἴ τι βλέπεις;) (1052 καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ὕπαγε, ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε. καὶ εὐθὺς ἀνέβλεψεν, καὶ ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ.) (826 καὶ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν εἰς οἶκον αὐτοῦ λέγων, Μηδὲ εἰς τὴν κώµην εἰσέλθῃς.)

Matthew 9:27‒31 927 Καὶ παράγοντι ἐκεῖθεν τῷ Ἰησοῦ ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ δύο τυφλοὶ κράζοντες καὶ λέγοντες, Ἐλέησον ἡµᾶς, υἱὸς ∆αυίδ. 28 ἐλθόντι δὲ εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν προσῆλθον αὐτῷ οἱ τυφλοί, καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Πιστεύετε ὅτι δύναµαι τοῦτο ποιῆσαι; λέγουσιν αὐτῷ, Ναί, κύριε. 66 29 τότε ἥψατο τῶν ὀφθαλµῶν αὐτῶν λέγων, Κατὰ τὴν πίστιν ὑµῶν γενηθήτω ὑµῖν. 30 καὶ ἠνεῴχθησαν αὐτῶν οἱ ὀφθαλµοί. καὶ ἐνεβριµήθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων, Ὁρᾶτε µηδεὶς γινωσκέτω. 67 31 οἱ δὲ ἐξελθόντες διεφήµισαν αὐτὸν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ γῇ ἐκείνῃ.

62 H ELD, Überlieferung, p.163: “Es bleibt im Großen und Ganzen der Eindruck, daß Matthäus das Wesentliche der Markuserzählung bewahrt.” This he describes as, ibid., p.164, “Mittel der Interpretation”. 63 See further, 4.2.2. Omissions. 64 A LLEN, Matthew, p.95. 65 D AVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, II, p.98‒99; GUNDRY, Matthew, p.176; GNILKA, Matthäusevangelium, I, p.344. 66 Jesus also touches the eyes of the blind men at Jericho in Matthew’s account (Mt 20:34). 67 The wording of this warning is closer to that given to the leper in Mk 1:43‒44a: καὶ ἐµβριµησάµενος αὐτῷ εὐθὺς ἐξέβαλεν αὐτόν, καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Ὅρα µηδενὶ µηδὲν εἴπῃς...; (Mt 8:4 simply has καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ὅρα µηδενὶ εἴπῃς...).

66

Chapter 3: Mark or Q?

As in the Bartimaeus episode (Mk 10:46‒52) Matthew has the motif of a blind man who cries out, “Have mercy, son of David!” and the rôle of faith. 68 As in the tradition of the blind man at Bethsaida (Mk 8:22‒26), which Matthew omits,69 he has the act of Jesus touching the afflicted and a warning against letting people know. Matthew also refers to Jesus’ house, 70 the faith of the blind, 71 and the spread of Jesus’ fame, 72 all generic motifs for an early miracle story. As LUZ explains, “So präsentiert die Geschichte sich fast wie ein Flickenteppich [...]. Jesus heilt hier ‘typisch’.” 73 Matthew is therefore now at his most creative; he has no need to consult Mark for an account of the healing of blind men, he knows how it goes. And so it continues with a demoniac: Mark’s Beelzebul

(212c Οὕτως οὐδέποτε εἴδοµεν.) 3 22 καὶ οἱ γραµµατεῖς οἱ ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύµων καταβάντες ἔλεγον ὅτι Βεελζεβοὺλ ἔχει, καὶ ὅτι ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιµονίων ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιµόνια.

Matthew 9:32‒34

Luke 11:14‒15 1114 Καὶ ἦν ἐκβάλλων

932 Αὐτῶν δὲ ἐξερχοµένων ἰδοὺ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ74 ἄνθρωπον κωφὸν δαιµονιζόµενον: 33 καὶ ἐκβληθέντος τοῦ δαιµονίου ἐλάλησεν ὁ κωφός. καὶ ἐθαύµασαν οἱ ὄχλοι λέγοντες, Οὐδέποτε ἐφάνη οὕτως ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ. 34 οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι ἔλεγον,

15

Ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιµονίων ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιµόνια.

Ἐν Βεελζεβοὺλ τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιµονίων ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιµόνια

δαιµόνιον, καὶ αὐτὸ ἦν κωφόν: ἐγένετο δὲ τοῦ δαιµονίου ἐξελθόντος ἐλάλησεν ὁ κωφός. καὶ ἐθαύµασαν οἱ ὄχλοι:

τινὲς δὲ ἐξ αὐτῶν εἶπον,

68 Cf. likewise Mt 8:13 (Q): καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῷ ἑκατοντάρχῃ, Ὕπαγε, ὡς ἐπίστευσας γενηθήτω σοι. καὶ ἰάθη ὁ παῖς αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐκείνῃ; and Mt 9:22: ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς στραφεὶς καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὴν εἶπεν, Θάρσει, θύγατερ: ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε. 69 Perhaps because he already has this miracle here; cf. 4.2.2. Omissions. 70 Jesus heals the paralytic in his own house in Mark (Mk 2:1) but Matthew simply tells us they met in his home town (Mt 9:1). The only other event Matthew (following Mark) situates in Jesus’ house is the aforementioned debate concerning his association with sinners (Mk 2:15 // Mt 9:10). 71 Jesus also asks concerning the belief of the recently healed blind man in Jn 9:35. 72 As, similarly, Jesus’ fame spread following the raising of the ruler’s daughter (Mt 9:26, not in Mark). 73 LUZ, Matthäus, II, p.57. 74 Προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ is a standard Matthean phrase for the bringing of the sick to Jesus (Mt 4:24, 8:16, 14:35) and once even a denarius (Mt 22:19)!

3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11

67

Matthew knows the Q/Markan Beelzebul controversy, so following Q’s style75 he describes a deaf-mute demoniac, whose demon departs and allows him to speak. This amazes the crowd, which then declares the novelty of the miracle (cf. Mk 2:12c 76). Matthew then introduces his favourite opponents, the Pharisees, to deliver the critical accusation, which he gives without the name ‘Beelzebul’; he later includes this in his account of the Markan episode in Mk 3:22‒27 // Mt 12:22‒30.77 This Matthean miracle is thus essentially a version of the Q episode, written to fit into the Markan series. Thus in his creative moment he first gives a Markan style account of the healing of blind men, and then a Q-influenced episode of casting out demons. Matthew closes this section with an account of Jesus’ itinerant ministry in Mt 9:35‒38, almost identical to that of Mt 4:23, 78 with the added simile of Mk 6:34,79 of the people as sheep without a shepherd (which he will consequently omit from his account of the 5000, Mt 14:14 80). There follows the Q logion of the harvest workers. 81 His discourse begins with the introduction from Mk 6:7, but before proceeding he gives a list of the disciples’ names. He is recalling the list of Mk 3:16‒19, and does so correctly and logically.82 Yet would we expect any less from a self-respecting first century member of the Jesus-movement? As I have argued, Matthew is in this early part of his gospel not always drawing directly on his copy of Mark, for he has not yet reached Mk 2:23; he recalls the disciples’ names here because he associates their appointment with their first mission. This is certainly logical: the Twelve are appointed and commissioned at the same time. Matthew then summarizes their mission (Mt 10:5‒8):83 Τούτους τοὺς δώδεκα ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς παραγγείλας αὐτοῖς λέγων, Εἰς ὁδὸν ἐθνῶν µὴ ἀπέλθητε, καὶ εἰς πόλιν Σαµαριτῶν µὴ εἰσέλθητε: πορεύεσθε δὲ µᾶλλον πρὸς τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἀπολωλότα οἴκου Ἰσραήλ. πορευόµενοι δὲ κηρύσσετε λέγοντες ὅτι Ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. ἀσθενοῦντας θεραπεύετε, νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, λεπροὺς καθαρίζετε, δαιµόνια ἐκβάλλετε: δωρεὰν ἐλάβετε, δωρεὰν δότε. LUZ, Matthäus, II, p.63, n.4: “Mt verfährt mit Q ebenso wie mit Mk 10,46‒52.” Absent in Matthew’s account of the paralytic (Mt 9:8); cf. the words of Jesus in Mt 8:10 (Q): Ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν, παρ’ οὐδενὶ τοσαύτην πίστιν ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ εὗρον. 77 Or is it possible that ‘Beelzebul’ is here a Lukan insertion to the Q tradition, following Mark? 78 Cf. Mk 1:39 and 6:6b. 79 Or does he find this logion in Q? 80 This is surely prime evidence of Matthew’s great care as an editor, for why not indeed repeat the sheep metaphor here where it belongs? 81 Luke employs this in his mission of the seventy-two (Lk 10:2). 82 Is this list present in the Q tradition? The minor agreement of placing Andrew beside his brother might suggest this (however, it is a logical amendment to expect from our later evangelists). Matthew alone inverts Matthew and Thomas, and Luke alone has ‘Judas son of James’ in place of Thaddaeus. 83 See 2.3.3. The Rôle of M in Matthew. 75 76

68

Chapter 3: Mark or Q?

Then comes what he knows of Mark’s and Q’s accounts of the commissioning (Mk 6:8‒11 and Q 10:1‒12) in a complex combination of his sources. 84 This procedure continues as he draws on Q 12:2‒12, 85 and possibly also recalling divers elements from memory of the traditions, e.g. Q 6:40, 14:26‒27, 17:33, Mk 9:41, Mt 10:40‒41. He closes with his own conclusion (Mt 11:1): Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς διατάσσων τοῖς δώδεκα µαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, µετέβη ἐκεῖθεν τοῦ διδάσκειν καὶ κηρύσσειν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν αὐτῶν.

In the mission discourse the focus is still clearly on Q, and this will become even more potent in what follows. In Mt 11 our author is focussed solely upon Q traditions. He has until now taken first the beginning of Mark’s story and added his Q sermon, then Markan miracles and added his Q miracle, and Mark’s appointment of the Twelve and added his Q discourse; now he sets to work on Q (Q 7:18‒35, 10:12‒15,21‒22) to reproduce the account of Jesus’ report to and review of the baptist (Mt 11:2‒19), the woes on Galilee (Mt 11:20‒24) and a thanksgiving to the father (Mt 11:25‒27). That these traditions are not naturally linked with one another is shown in the editor’s vague connectives: τότε ἤρξατο ὀνειδίζειν τὰς πόλεις ἐν αἷς ἐγένοντο αἱ πλεῖσται δυνάµεις αὐτοῦ, ὅτι οὐ µετενόησαν (Mt 11:20) and ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν (Mt 11:25a). Thus Matthew completes what he knows of Q which applies to John’s lifetime, Jesus’ Galilean ministry and his private devotion to God in the absence of the Twelve. He then closes this section, and indeed this first ‘half’ of his gospel, with an invitation to others to become his disciples (Mt 11:28‒30): 3.3. Matthew’s Use of Q

∆εῦτε πρός µε πάντες οἱ κοπιῶντες καὶ πεφορτισµένοι, κἀγὼ ἀναπαύσω ὑµᾶς. ἄρατε τὸν ζυγόν µου ἐφ’ ὑµᾶς καὶ µάθετε ἀπ’ ἐµοῦ, ὅτι πραΰς εἰµι καὶ ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ, καὶ εὑρήσετε ἀνάπαυσιν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑµῶν: ὁ γὰρ ζυγός µου χρηστὸς καὶ τὸ φορτίον µου ἐλαφρόν ἐστιν.

Before continuing with Mk 2:23 and following Mark faithfully onward, Matthew here enjoys his only Mark-free moment, in bringing to a conclusion the Q traditions of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee. Thus we see can see indeed that there is a certain focus on Q in Mt 3‒ 11, but that Matthew draws on Mark for traditions with which he is very familiar. Matthew’s use of Mark in Mt 3‒11 is very instructive for the portrait of an evangelist steeped in the Markan traditions, reproducing and retelling the stories of Jesus’ miracles in Galilee and adding to this storyline the logia and episodes previously lacking in Mark, in an often complex composition of Jesus’ words. In all of this, however, Jesus does as he 84 Luke keeps the accounts of Mark and Q separate, and thus has first the mission of the Twelve (Lk 9:1‒6) and then that of the Seventy-Two (Lk 10:1‒12). 85 Another Mark/Q overlap (cf. his reproduction of Mk 13:9‒13 in Mt 24:9‒14).

3.3. Matthew’s Use of Q

69

does in Mark, as he proceeds around the countryside healing the same people and provoking the same reactions.

3.3. Matthew’s Use of Q In Matthew 3‒11, Matthew is presenting an idealized version of the traditional Q kind of Christianity, so as to have it on the record, an archaic archive vindicating the first major period of the [Q] community’s own way of being Christian. 86

Q is not the first major source to be incorporated into the Matthean gospel (Matthew begins with his own birth narrative, and then the portrait of the baptist from Mark), but it quickly becomes the dominant force. It has an account of the teaching of the baptist and the temptations, with which Mark begins (and indeed perhaps Q itself also). 87 Matthew follows Mark to Galilee where the first disciples are chosen, yet rather than begin with Mark’s miracles, Matthew takes the reference to ‘teaching’ in Mk 1:21‒22 and begins Q’s sermon. Following the sermon comes the series of Markan (and other) miracles, before the disciples are appointed and commissioned, earlier than in Mark. As the disciples are sent off a delegation of baptists arrives, and Jesus responds to John, curses the villages of Galilee, praises the providence of his heavenly father and invites everyone to join his movement (all from Q). Although the general context and narrative setting is taken from Mark, the early focus is certainly on Q: “Mark is hence only a subordinate factor in Matthew 3‒11, just as Q is only a subordinate factor in Matthew 12‒28.”88 Matthew’s first task therefore appears to be the introduction of Q into Mark, and this observation must effect any conclusions we make on his attitude to both sources. That Q is thus almost confined to the first half of Matthew’s gospel is often taken as evidence of Matthew’s affiliation to the Q teaching, which is itself permeated with M traditions. However, as Q is almost exhausted halfway through Matthew’s gospel and as it fails to exert significant influence on the reception of Mark in Matthew, we have to ask how close Matthew really is to Q. If he were representative of a Q community, he may understandably take to writing his gospel with the incorporation of Q traditions as his first project. Yet once finished this, would a self-respecting Q-Christian resort to rote copying of the gospel of Mark, and leave no Q stamp on the Markan account? Insofar as Matthew knows the story of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee and Judea, he knows that of Mark. He chooses to place the Q traditions, based for the most part in Galilee, at the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry; once this testament to the message of Q is com86

R OBINSON, “Trajectory”, p.128. Q 3:7‒4:13. 88 R OBINSON, “Trajectory”, p.126. 87

70

Chapter 3: Mark or Q?

plete, he can turn to Mark for the account of Jesus’ travels, controversies and fatal visit to Jerusalem. 89 These early Q traditions emerged independently of Mark (perhaps with their translation from Aramaic90), and received great interest from both later evangelists. As Matthew revels in the teachings of Jesus, giving shape and thematic order to his collected sayings materials, it is little surprise that he should rejoice in the incorporation of Q into his Markan tradition, and undertake this as his first major project. Therefore the editing of Q is the focus of this first half of the gospe1, and it will have only minimal effect on the firmly established account of the life of Jesus as taken from Mark, begun in Mt 3 but followed faithfully from Mt 12. So the early concern for the incorporation of much Q material need not necessarily reflect a theological or social proximity to Q on the part of our redactor. Rather, with Mark as his primary source and the one with which he is most familiar, he sets to work on the addition of this secondary source as early as possible, before reverting to reproduction of the main account of the life of Jesus as provided in Mark. The focus on the sayings source Q is inevitably broken following the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew’s Jesus will make another speech soon (the mission discourse of Mt 10), but first we have an interlude of narrative activity. Q, of course, makes various claims about the ministry of Jesus, without much explanation of what exactly Jesus was doing alongside teaching. The pertinent example is Mt 11:5 (Q 7:22): τυφλοὶ ἀναβλέπουσιν καὶ χωλοὶ περιπατοῦσιν, λεπροὶ καθαρίζονται καὶ κωφοὶ ἀκούουσιν, καὶ νεκροὶ ἐγείρονται καὶ πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται.

This describes the effects of the kingdom for which Matthew knows there is ample evidence in Mark. He therefore turns to Mark where there are various miracles which will verify Jesus’ words to the baptist’s disciples in Mt 11. 91 Yet in doing so he appears to select not individual miracle accounts but pairs of traditions, and changes their Markan order to give a new sequence of the collected early miracles of Jesus:

89

ROBINSON, “Trajectory”, p.128: “Matthew had to compress most Q material, especially its older parts, into Matthew 3‒11, so as to leave the space of Matthew 12‒28 to work his way faithfully through Mark to evolve into the Gentile Mission he proclaims at the very end.” 90 There is, after all, surely something behind the Papias tradition. Cf. LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.86; DAVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, I, p.17; MANSON, Sayings, p.15‒20. 91 NEIRYNCK, “La rédaction matthéenne”, p.68: “[L]e texte de la Quelle [...] peut avoir suggéré l’idée d’une série de miracles de Jésus [...]. Mais c’est à Mc qu’il devait emprunter les récits.”

71

3.3. Matthew’s Use of Q

The Leper & The Centurion’s Boy Simon’s Mother-in-Law & Many Others The Storm & (two) Demoniac(s) The Paralytic & The Tax Collector 92 The Haemorrhaging Woman & The Girl (two) Blind Men & the Mute Demoniac

Matthew 8:1‒13 8:14‒17 8:18‒34 9:1‒17 9:18‒26 9:27‒34

Sources Mk 1:40‒45 & Q 7:1‒10 Mk 1:29‒34 Mk 4:35‒5:20 Mk 2:1‒22 Mk 5:21‒43 Generic Mark and Q

The rôle of the Q logion in determining this series of miracles is not to be overstated. Admittedly, each of the claims of the prophecy is fulfilled: the blind, lame, leprous, deaf and even dead are healed and the poor are evangelized. However, what of the demoniacs, the woman with the haemorrhage, Peter’s mother-in-law, the centurion’s servant and the storm at sea? Matthew may well have been prompted to add the blind and deaf-mute to his account of the miracle-working ministry of Jesus by this Q logion, but in compiling his series he defers to the Markan tradition, where miracles are often associated with each other. Nevertheless this early collection of miracles, especially with the addition of the blind men and deaf-mute at Mt 9:27‒34, suggests Matthew was under the influence of Q. He shows a certain deference to Q in this quite considerable rearrangement of the order of Mark. However, at most this may be said to be an attempt to validate the claims of the sayings source with reference to the well-known and commonly accepted miracle accounts of what was for Matthew the primary tradition of the events of Jesus’ ministry: Mark. 93 So here in this mid-section of the gospel we see Matthew’s freedom begin to wane. He has until now, after his own unique prologue, followed the general structure of Mark and added the Q-dominated sermon. He will soon submit completely to the order of Mark. Yet here, at this mid-point, he is still to some extent free to impose his own scheme. 94 His liberty with Markan miracles is even noteworthy: 92 Of course, this is not a miracle account, but in both Mark and Matthew follows immediately after the story of the paralytic. 93 I therefore agree with ROBINSON, in his sifting of the evidence, but not in the conclusion he draws, “Trajectory”, p.132: “Matthew could simply interpolate into the sermon important clusters of archaic sayings that were available to him in Q and in his other sources. But to produce healing narratives comparable to the list of Q 7:22, he could not build primarily on Q [...] but had to turn to Mark, not primarily out of loyalty to Mark, but rather out of loyalty to Q, to bolster its decisive claim.” This is not a case of loyalty, but a validation of the teachings of Q through direct reference to the accepted, dominant tradition of Mark. Once more I feel the editor best suited to undertake this task is one steeped in the Markan tradition, not one who feels he must concede to it. 94 N EIRYNCK, “La Rédaction matthénne”, p.60: “On a peut-être tort de postuler pour l’ensemble de l’évangile un édifice raisonné, porteur de conceptions matthéennes. Dans la mésure où celles-ci sont exprimées dans la structure, c’est surtout dans Mt. IV‒XIII qu’il faudra les chercher.” He continues, ibid., p.71: “[L]’on devra conclure que la section IV,23‒XI,1 est la seule de tout l’évangile à laquelle Matthieu a donné une ordonnance vraiment originale.”

72

Chapter 3: Mark or Q?

Matthew, usually quite conservative regarding the tradition, here not only shifted healings out of their Markan order in a rather capricious way, clearly not interested in presenting them in their historical or even their Markan sequences, but even took a single healing such as that of Blind Bartimaeus, changed it into the healing of two anonymous blind persons, and then told the story twice, once at Jericho where it belongs, and once here at Matt 9:27‒31, where Matthew desperately needed it, so desperately as to resort to this disturbing procedure. 95

This is therefore evidence of the only lull in the dominance of Mark, where Matthew uses Mark’s pairs of miracles without regard to their general Markan order, also adding his Q miracle and two generic healings. With these last miracles Matthew is concluding the series suggested by the claims of Q in Mt 11:5, but determined to a large degree by the dominant Markan tradition. Matthew then proceeds to follow Mark more faithfully; the non-Markan traditions incorporated into the gospel will now merely add support or clarification to the Markan account. 96 While discussion of the editing of Mark in Mt 12‒28 will follow in the next chapter, attention will now be given to the elements of Mt 12‒28 where Q intrudes upon the direct reproduction of Mark. This will help show the extent to which Q has influenced the reception of Mark in Matthew’s context. The first aspect of Matthew’s use of Q is in clarification of the message of the Markan tradition. Where the Markan content is ambiguous or controversial, an appropriate gloss may help to explain the matter: Mark 3:28‒30 3 28 Ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι πάντα ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τὰ ἁµαρτήµατα καὶ αἱ βλασφηµίαι ὅσα ἐὰν βλασφηµήσωσιν: 29 ὃς δ’ ἂν βλασφηµήσῃ εἰς τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον οὐκ ἔχει ἄφεσιν

εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ ἔνοχός ἐστιν αἰωνίου ἁµαρτήµατος 30 ὅτι ἔλεγον, Πνεῦµα ἀκάθαρτον ἔχει .

95

Matthew 12:31‒37 12 31 ∆ιὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑµῖν, πᾶσα ἁµαρτία καὶ βλασφηµία ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ἡ δὲ τοῦ πνεύµατος βλασφηµία οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται. 32 καὶ ὃς ἐὰν εἴπῃ λόγον κατὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ: ὃς δ’ ἂν εἴπῃ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύµατος τοῦ ἁγίου, οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ µέλλοντι.

ROBINSON, “Trajectory”, p.144. HENSHAW, New Testament Literature, p.114: “The material from Q [...] is introduced into the Marcan narrative at points where something in ‘Mark’ suggests its suitability.” NEIRYNCK, “The Gospel of Matthew and Literary Criticism”, p.55: “Only two important Q blocks in Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount and the sayings of the baptist, have no connection with a Markan discourse.” The preaching of the Baptist does however have a basis in Markan narrative, so it is the sermon alone which is novel. 96

73

3.3. Matthew’s Use of Q Mark 3:28‒30

Matthew 12:31‒37 Ἢ ποιήσατε τὸ δένδρον καλὸν καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ καλόν, ἢ ποιήσατε τὸ δένδρον σαπρὸν καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ σαπρόν: ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ καρποῦ τὸ δένδρον γινώσκεται. 34 γεννήµατα ἐχιδνῶν, πῶς δύνασθε ἀγαθὰ λαλεῖν πονηροὶ ὄντες; ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ περισσεύµατος τῆς καρδίας τὸ στόµα λαλεῖ 35 ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ ἐκβάλλει ἀγαθά, καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ θησαυροῦ ἐκβάλλει πονηρά. 36 λέγω δὲ ὑµῖν ὅτι πᾶν ῥῆµα ἀργὸν ὃ λαλήσουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἀποδώσουσιν περὶ αὐτοῦ λόγον ἐν ἡµέρᾳ κρίσεως: 37 ἐκ γὰρ τῶν λόγων σου δικαιωθήσῃ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν λόγων σου καταδικασθήσῃ. 33

Matthew explains the difficult Markan passage by including a Q logion on the same subject (v32),97 and then avoiding Mark’s cryptic conclusion ὅτι ἔλεγον, πνεῦµα ἀκάθαρτον ἔχει, replacing it with the Q passage on a tree and its fruit compared to a good man and a bad man (v33,34b‒35) and a conclusion on the rôle of one’s words in one’s judgement (v36‒37). 98 These changes may not appear to us to clarify the strange message of Mark, but Matthew clearly felt they explained the teaching more appropriately. A similar phenomenon crops up somewhat later in the gospel: Mark 9:28‒29 928 καὶ εἰσελθόντος αὐτοῦ εἰς οἶκον οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ κατ’ ἰδίαν ἐπηρώτων αὐτόν, Ὅτι ἡµεῖς οὐκ ἠδυνήθηµεν ἐκβαλεῖν αὐτό; 29 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς,

Τοῦτο τὸ γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθεῖν εἰ µὴ ἐν προσευχῇ.

Matthew 17:19‒20 1719 Τότε προσελθόντες οἱ µαθηταὶ τῷ Ἰησοῦ κατ’ ἰδίαν εἶπον, ∆ιὰ τί ἡµεῖς οὐκ ἠδυνήθηµεν ἐκβαλεῖν αὐτό; 20 ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐτοῖς, ∆ιὰ τὴν ὀλιγοπιστίαν ὑµῶν: ἀµὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑµῖν, ἐὰν ἔχητε πίστιν ὡς κόκκον σινάπεως, ἐρεῖτε τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ, Μετάβα ἔνθεν ἐκεῖ, καὶ µεταβήσεται: καὶ οὐδὲν ἀδυνατήσει ὑµῖν. [21 τοῦτο δὲ τὸ γένος οὐκ ἐκπορεύεται εἰ µὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ.]

97 The reference to the ‘Son of Man’ in this logion precludes Matthew from using the Aramaic ‘οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων’ ( ‫ )בנינשא‬in v31; he is sufficiently competent in Greek, however, to know to render this Aramaism simply as ἄνθρωποι in his account. 98 Possibly in Q Matt.

74

Chapter 3: Mark or Q?

Again Matthew explains a difficult Markan passage through use of a Q logion. The disciples’ inability to perform the miracles is due to a lack of faith. 99 In this way Matthew is able to provide a helpful conclusion to an ambiguous Markan pericope. So the the Markan tradition is merely explained, not contradicted, through Q. Matthew’s intentions are similarly evident in his second (the Markan) account of the demand for a sign. Here, however, Q does affect the Markan tradition. Mark 8:11‒13

Matthew 16:1‒4

8 11 Καὶ ἐξῆλθον οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ ἤρξαντο συζητεῖν αὐτῷ, ζητοῦντες παρ’ αὐτοῦ σηµεῖον ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, πειράζοντες αὐτόν. 12 καὶ ἀναστενάξας τῷ πνεύµατι αὐτοῦ λέγει, Τί ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ζητεῖ σηµεῖον; ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν, εἰ δοθήσεται τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ σηµεῖον.

41 Καὶ προσελθόντες οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ Σαδδουκαῖοι πειράζοντες ἐπηρώτησαν αὐτὸν σηµεῖον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐπιδεῖξαι αὐτοῖς. 2 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, [3 ] 4 Γενεὰ πονηρὰ καὶ µοιχαλὶς σηµεῖον ἐπιζητεῖ, καὶ σηµεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ εἰ µὴ τὸ σηµεῖον Ἰωνᾶ. καὶ καταλιπὼν αὐτοὺς ἀπῆλθεν.

καὶ ἀφεὶς αὐτοὺς πάλιν ἐµβὰς ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸ πέραν.

13

While the clause εἰ µὴ τὸ σηµεῖον Ἰωνᾶ may not be classified as a Q logion in itself, it is part of the Q tradition of the demand for a sign in Q 11:29 (Mt 12:39). That its influence extends to the Markan account, which Matthew reproduces here, shows the considerable weight of this qualification. Q has promised a sign, and Mark must do so too; Matthew strives for consistency. 100 A similar phenomenon occurs in Matthew’s omission of Mk 9:38‒41 (The Strange Exorcist) because of the conflict between the following logia: Mark 9:40 ὃς γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν καθ’ ἡµῶν, ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν ἐστιν.

Matthew 12:30a (Q 11:23) ὁ µὴ ὢν µετ’ ἐµοῦ κατ’ ἐµοῦ ἐστιν.

These are therefore the exceptions to the rule that Q does not generally effect the reception of Mark in Matthew. Q material may also be included because it is deemed relevant to the current discussion:

99 Matthew nonetheless retains the Markan reference to ‘prayer’, and even adds ‘fasting’, if v21 is deemed original to our gospel (see NTG and commentaries ad loc.). 100 As discussed in 2.2.3. The Status of Q.

75

3.3. Matthew’s Use of Q Mark 4:10‒12

Matthew 13:10‒17

410 Καὶ ὅτε ἐγένετο κατὰ µόνας, ἠρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ περὶ αὐτὸν σὺν τοῖς δώδεκα τὰς παραβολάς. 11 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Ὑµῖν τὸ µυστήριον δέδοται τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ: ἐκείνοις δὲ τοῖς ἔξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὰ πάντα γίνεται,

13 10 Καὶ προσελθόντες οἱ µαθηταὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ, ∆ιὰ τί ἐν παραβολαῖς λαλεῖς αὐτοῖς; 11 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὅτι Ὑµῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ µυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἐκείνοις δὲ οὐ δέδοται.12 ὅστις γὰρ ἔχει, δοθήσεται αὐτῷ καὶ περισσευθήσεται: ὅστις δὲ οὐκ ἔχει, καὶ ὃ ἔχει ἀρθήσεται ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ. 13 διὰ τοῦτο ἐν παραβολαῖς αὐτοῖς λαλῶ, ὅτι βλέποντες οὐ βλέπουσιν καὶ ἀκούοντες οὐκ ἀκούουσιν οὐδὲ συνίουσιν: 14 καὶ ἀναπληροῦται αὐτοῖς ἡ προφητεία Ἠσαΐου ἡ λέγουσα, Ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε καὶ οὐ µὴ συνῆτε, καὶ βλέποντες βλέψετε καὶ οὐ µὴ ἴδητε. 15 ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου, καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν βαρέως ἤκουσαν, καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλµοὺς αὐτῶν ἐκάµµυσαν: µήποτε ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλµοῖς καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν ἀκούσωσιν καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ συνῶσιν καὶ ἐπιστρέψωσιν, καὶ ἰάσοµαι αὐτούς.16 ὑµῶν δὲ µακάριοι οἱ ὀφθαλµοὶ ὅτι βλέπουσιν, καὶ τὰ ὦτα ὑµῶν ὅτι ἀκούουσιν. 17 ἀµὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι πολλοὶ προφῆται καὶ δίκαιοι ἐπεθύµησαν ἰδεῖν ἃ βλέπετε καὶ οὐκ εἶδαν, καὶ ἀκοῦσαι ἃ ἀκούετε καὶ οὐκ ἤκουσαν.

ἵνα βλέποντες βλέπωσιν καὶ µὴ ἴδωσιν, καὶ ἀκούοντες ἀκούωσιν καὶ µὴ συνιῶσιν, µήποτε ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἀφεθῇ αὐτοῖς.

12

Mark’s Jesus tells the disciples that they have been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, whereas the crowds see, yet do not see, and hear, yet do not understand. Matthew knows that this is a reference to Isaiah, so he proceeds to give the original citation; he also knows that Jesus declared the eyes and ears of his witnesses blessed, in a Q logion which refers to the prophets and the righteous (v16‒17). This tradition fits well with the account of ‘seeing’ and ‘hearing’.101 Matthew includes it because it complements the message of the Markan pericope. Thus the Markan tradition often builds to a climax in a Q logion, or, as above, in a Markan logion with incorporated Q elements. The Q sayings, often pithy and clear, do not radically alter the message of the Markan pericopae, rather explain any anomalies or difficulties in the text, or add certain conditions or restrictions to Markan vagaries or excesses.102 These 101

Luke includes it in his mission discourse, Lk 10:23‒24. ROBINSON, “Trajectory”, p.129, describes the process thus: “Matthew simply copies out Mark in Matthew 12‒28, only toning down unobtrusively here and there what seemed 102

76

Chapter 3: Mark or Q?

Mark-Q combinations are the most intricate elements of Matthew’s redaction of his two major sources. He can blend the two together within an individual pericope, to allow new apophthegm-collages which do not detract from either the Markan storyline or the Q instruction. Q’s influence continues to wane until at last it provides little more than a parenthetical supplement to the Markan record: Mark 7:14‒17 7 14 Καὶ προσκαλεσάµενος πάλιν τὸν ὄχλον ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Ἀκούσατέ µου πάντες καὶ σύνετε. 15 οὐδέν ἐστιν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσπορευόµενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὃ δύναται κοινῶσαι αὐτόν: ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόµενά ἐστιν τὰ κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον. [16] 17 Καὶ ὅτε εἰσῆλθεν ε ἰς οἶκον ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου , ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ

τὴν παραβολήν.

Matthew 15:10‒15 15 10 Καὶ προσκαλεσάµενος τὸν ὄχλον εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Ἀκούετε καὶ συνίετε: 11 οὐ τὸ εἰσερχόµενον εἰς τὸ στόµα κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐκπορευόµενον ἐκ τοῦ στόµατος τοῦτο κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 12 Τότε προσελθόντες οἱ µαθηταὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ, Οἶδας ὅτι οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον ἐσκανδαλίσθησαν; 13 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Πᾶσα φυτεία ἣν οὐκ ἐφύτευσεν ὁ πατήρ µου ὁ οὐράνιος ἐκριζωθήσεται. 14 ἄφετε αὐτούς: τυφλοί εἰσιν ὁδηγοί τυφλῶν: τυφλὸς δὲ τυφλὸν ἐὰν ὁδηγῇ, ἀµφότεροι εἰς βόθυνον πεσοῦνται. 15 Ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Πέτρος εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Φράσον ἡµῖν τὴν παραβολήν ταύτην.

The Q logion in this pericope (v14) forms an intermission, in which Jesus criticizes the teaching and leadership of the Pharisees. Matthew then returns to Mark for Jesus’ explanation of his parable, and this critique is not given any further significance. It is merely an intermission in the Markan action. The same may be said of the promise of twelve thrones to the disciples: Mark 10:23‒31 10 28 Ἤρξατο λέγειν ὁ Πέτρος αὐτῷ, Ἰδοὺ ἡµεῖς ἀφήκαµεν πάντα καὶ ἠκολουθήκαµέν σοι. ἔφη ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν,

29

Matthew 19:27‒30 1927 Τότε ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Πέτρος εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ἰδοὺ ἡµεῖς ἀφήκαµεν πάντα καὶ ἠκολουθήσαµέν σοι: τί ἄρα ἔσται ἡµῖν; 28 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι

to him and his constituency to be Markan excesses.”

77

3.3. Matthew’s Use of Q Mark 10:23‒31

Matthew 19:27‒30

οὐδείς ἐστιν ὃς ἀφῆκεν οἰκίαν ἢ ἀδελφοὺς ἢ ἀδελφὰς ἢ µητέρα ἢ πατέρα ἢ τέκνα ἢ ἀγροὺς ἕνεκεν ἐµοῦ καὶ ἕνεκεν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 30 ἐὰν µὴ λάβῃ ἑκατονταπλασίονα καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονοµήσει. 30 Πολλοὶ δὲ ἔσονται πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι καὶ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι.

ὑµεῖς οἱ ἀκολουθήσαντές µοι, ἐν τῇ παλιγγενεσίᾳ, ὅταν καθίσῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὐτοῦ, καθήσεσθε καὶ ὑµεῖς ἐπὶ δώδεκα θρόνους κρίνοντες τὰς δώδεκα φυλὰς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. 29 καὶ πᾶς ὅστις ἀφῆκεν οἰκίας ἢ ἀδελφοὺς ἢ ἀδελφὰς ἢ πατέρα ἢ µητέρα ἢ τέκνα ἢ ἀγροὺς ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόµατός µου ἑκατονταπλασίονα λήµψεται καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονοµήσει. 30 Πολλοὶ δὲ ἔσονται πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι καὶ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι.

While the promise of the thrones (v28) fits well in such a context, it merely interrupts the message of Mark, and does not effect what follows: Matthew’s conclusion is as it was in Mark.103 Thus is becomes clear that Matthew has his account of Jesus’ life from Mark, and there is little indication that Q influenced the reception of Mark in Matthew’s community, rather that Matthew saw in Q something complementary to the accepted Jesus tradition. Thus towards the end of the gospel Q proves little more than an elaboration of Mark, appended to the Markan pericope and mixed with M material with little attempt at fluidity: Mk 9:33‒50 // Mt 18:1‒35

Matthew adds Q’s lost sheep (v12‒14) and teaching on forgiveness (v15,22), and the M traditions of church discipline (v16‒20) and parable of the Unforgiving Servant (v23‒35).

Mk 12:1‒12 // Mt 21:33‒22:14

Matthew adds the Great Supper (22:1‒14).

At last, Q vanishes altogether: it has no effect on the climax of the Matthean gospel, and indeed none on the Passion account at all. The dominance of Mark’s account of Jesus’ miracles, debates, travels, teaching and passion is hard to explain if Matthew is representative of a Q community, to whom this gospel is a foreign influence, the text of another branch of the church. The portrait of a member of the Q community reworking the early part of Mark according to his own traditions, and then ceding to Mark completely, with no Q influence on the travels and passion of Jesus at all, is hardly credible. Matthew betrays his position through his programme of redaction. He knows the teachings of Jesus; he knows those in Mark and Q. He also knows the account of Jesus’ Galilean ministry, travels with his disciples and passion in Jerusalem; he knows the story of Mark. While Q provides a standard of dominical teaching and a mandate 103 Matthew does not address the conflict of Q’s promise of twelve thrones with the tradition of Judas’ subsequent betrayal of Jesus in Mark.

78

Chapter 3: Mark or Q?

for divine miracle-working, it is Mark, though not without occasional development, which provides the narrative framework for all independent material and the decisive evidence in support of the claims of Q. While Q is Matthew’s early priority, it bears no influence on the progression of the storyline, remaining subservient to the dominant Markan framework and to the Markan portrayal of Jesus. Matthew includes Q traditions primarily in order to supplement Mark, though there are also certain Q elements which at first appear to contradict, and certainly qualify, what has been claimed in Mark. Matthew, however, was no doubt convinced of the continuity of the traditions and their complementary nature, 104 but while his early focus is on Q, his allegiance is always with Mark.

3.4. Matthew in the Markan Tradition Matthew’s dependence on Mark is often stated in introductions to commentaries and essays on source critical issues, 105 yet once redaction criticism gets its claws into Matthew, one is quickly convinced of the editor’s dissatisfaction with his primary source. In general, however, Matthew’s loyalty to Mark is remarkable. Matthew develops Mark, but he is developing the tradition he wishes to justify. He does not condemn Mark’s Jesus for his controversial teaching; the teaching remains controversial, and its controversy is justified with reference to scripture and tradition. The Jesus of Matthew’s gospel faces the same debates, the same accusations and the same threats as that of Mark, and confronts them in the same way, with the same results. Mark’s account of Jesus is supported by Matthew. It is not an account which he must accept in order to become integrated into the Gentile ‘mainstream’ of Christianity, rather it is his story as well, and for the most part he will tell it as it is.106 Matthew’s early rearrangement is generally thematic, as he brings together teaching material, certain miracle accounts and the appointment and mission of the disciples. However, his evident desire for thematically arranged discourses is not matched in his collection of Jesus’ miracles; these remain separate units, linked only by their associations with each other in the Markan tradition. That he begins to follow Mark from Mk 2:23, omitting only the traditions he has already accounted for, is evidence 104

LUZ,“Looking at Q through the Eyes of Matthew”, p.590. E.g. DAVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, I, p.71: “[W]hen Q is almost exhausted, Matthew is forced to change his procedure. And up against the necessity occasioned by diminishing sources, he opts to get into line and follow his worthy predecessor Mark.” R OBINSON, “Trajectory”, p.132: “Matthew [...] recognized [Q’s] decisive importance [...] before turning away from Q to a rather rote copying out of Mark.” 106 See 4.2.4. Continuity and the summary in 6.3. Matthew’s Continuity with Mark. 105

79 of a change in focus from the now almost exhausted Q to the yet rich gospel of Mark, the primary account of the events Jesus’ ministry. It is perhaps almost inevitable that it is in the first half of his work that Matthew is creative with his sources, given the relative fixity of the passion account107 and the principle of editorial fatigue. Yet his freedom begins to wane long before the Passion. He has given himself over to the Markan sequence as early as Mt 12. Can it be editorial fatigue alone which drives Matthew to such servility, adding to the Markan account only a discourse here, a parable there, and a brief hermeneutical comment inbetween? Matthew follows Mark faithfully, merely correcting details and supplementing the account without drastic alteration to the plot. Without Mark, it appears, Matthew could not have written his gospel. He certainly could have made a good attempt without Q, drawing on his own M traditions and making changes to Mark as he proceeded. This applies equally if he knows Q but not M. Matthew needs Mark to write. His ‘choice’ of Mark is therefore simple: he takes Mark as the account of Jesus’ life, and any independent traditions must find incorporation into this work if they are to continue. It is the way in which Matthew builds independent material into his gospel which reveals the dominance of the Markan framework; despite the appendage of brief pro- and epilogues, Mark is followed from start to finish, with only minor omissions and an early delight in slight rearrangement which, however, soon abates. Matthew’s story is that of Mark.

3.5. The Matthean Trajectory These arguments seek to show Matthew’s foremost proximity to Mark, and not to Q: Matthew is a new edition of Mark. He supplements Mark with a wealth of teaching material and traditions, some of which depend directly on the Markan account. Matthew does not ‘choose’ Mark as a vehicle for his programme of Q-teachings, rather chooses to incorporate these complementary materials into the Markan tradition he accepts. 108 Q is attractive to our editor because it provides a first-hand record of Jesus’ teaching, some of which overlaps with what he knows from Mark, yet much of which is ‘new’. That some of Matthew’s theological priorities resemble those of Q only supports the proposal that he ‘chooses’ to incorporate Q to help to expand and expound the message of Mark; much harder to explain is a sudden submission to a controversial gospel, if Matthew were a loyal 107 The gospels tend to resemble each other more in the Passion, and prove quite different in their early chapters; SENIOR, “The Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Matthew, p.343: “[T]he chronological continuity and the homogeneity of the passion narrative among the four evangelists are unique in the gospel literature.” 108 AUNE, “Genre Theory”, p.172, suggests Matthew could have incorporated Q into his gospel in “a variety of ways”, but does not outline possible options.

80

Chapter 3: Mark or Q?

advocate of the Q position. Matthew’s attitude to Mark is therefore one of acceptance of the received tradition, while he rejoices in the opportunity of adding the collection of teaching material in Q. 109 Yet while he revels in this incorporation, his allegiance remains with the central and authoritative account of Mark. Matthew reveals his proximity to Mark through his loyal reproduction of almost all of the gospel and his familiarity with the tradition, which allows him at times to retell the events of Mark without consulting his copy. The early focus of his work is indeed on Q, until the first ‘half’ of the gospel ends with the invitation of Mt 11:28‒30, δεῦτε..., while the subsequent Mark-dominated section ends with the command of Mt 28:19‒20, πορευθέντες.... This Come/Go scheme proves a very suitable summary of the rough division of the gospel into the mission to the Jews (Mt 10:5‒6) and to the Gentiles (Mt 28:19‒20), 110 and also shows that while Q has been there from the very start, the post-Easter message is that of Mark, of the death and resurrection of Jesus. 111 Nevertheless, the disciples are instructed to evangelize the Gentiles not with news of the resurrection but with teaching. It is here that Matthew reveals his motivation in adding so much teaching material: the disciples, now become the apostles, are to instruct the Gentiles on everything they have been taught (πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάµην ὑµῖν). 112 This includes Q and M traditions, but most important of all the exemplary and miraculous deeds and teachings of Jesus found in the Markan tradition. Mark's message is thus the final and crucial element in Matthew’s gospel.

109 LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.81: “Neu ist [...] vor allem die Einordnung der Q-Stoffe in die Geschichte Gottes mit seinem Sohn.” A UNE, “Genre Theory”, p.173, maintains that Matthew “used the Q document as a collection of material for expanding and embellishing his reading of Mark.” 110 KONRADT, Israel, Kirche und die Völker, p.348: “Das Nacheinander der beiden Missionsbefehle in Mt 10,5f und 28,19 ist integraler Bestandteil der narrativen Konzeption, durch die Matthäus die messianische Identität Jesu als Sohn Davids und Sohn Gottes entfaltet.” 111 DEINES, Gerechtigkeit, p.450‒451: “In der Zeit nach Ostern wurde diese Tätigkeit mit einer veränderten Botschaft fortgesetzt, indem Jesus selbst Inhalt der Verkündigung wurde.” 112 As HECKEL, Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium, p.71‒73, points out, Matthew thus removes any question of esoteric or private instruction. Matthew’s Jesus tells his disciples, and the gospel audience, everything they need to know. This is therefore, HECKEL argues, Matthew’s reference to his own gospel.

Chapter 4

A New Edition of Mark What is the extent of redaction in the Gospels? 1

We come now to discuss Matthew’s redaction of Mark in Mt 12‒28 in more detail. In producing a new, extended version of Mark, Matthew is not only concerned with the addition of non-Markan traditions, although these appear, as discussed, to be his priority in Mt 1‒11. 2 Rather he also engages in the re-telling of the Gospel of Mark, with a few omissions and many detailed amendments. Attention has heretofore been focussed on these amendments and their interpretation, but, as O’LEARY explains, “Matthew’s use of Mark is far more creative and sophisticated than is often presented by scholars who comment on Matthew’s modifications of his Markan source.”3 It will become clear that while Matthew is not afraid to interrupt Mark for some teaching or a brief episode, he will return to Mark where he left off. Mark is thus ‘base-camp’ for Matthew’s project. The most direct way to discovering an author’s general plan for his work is of course to consider the outline of the text as a whole. Much ink has been spilled on the quest to describe the structure of Matthew’s gospel,4 yet the lack of agreement among scholars reflects the difficulty of the task. LUZ asks, “Hat Matthäus überhaupt eine Gliederung seines Buches geplant? Oder war er durch seine Quellen zu stark gebunden?” 5 Yet Matthew generally follows the outline of Jesus’ ministry as presented by Mark.6 He has concentrated on the composition of five extended discourses and has some other minor rearrangements, but for the rest he follows Mark.7 1

ALEXANDER , “Rabbinic Biography”, p.43. ROBINSON, “Trajectory”, p.123: “The hold of Q on Matthew did not give way easily, but held on tenaciously through chapter 11, only then surrendering to the hegemony of Mark.” 3 O’LEARY, Judaization, p.2. 4 For a general summary, see DAVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, I, p.58‒72. Cf. also ALLISON , Studies in Matthew, p.135‒142. BAUER, Structure. 5 LUZ , Matthäus, I, p.22. He continues, ibid., p.25: “Für die Gattungsbestimmung und die Deutung des Mt-Evangeliums ist das nicht ohne Folgen.” 6 B ULTMANN, Tradition, p.378: “Der Gesamtaufriß des Lebens Jesu aber ist durch Mt nicht wesentlich anders gestaltet worden, als er bei Mk vorlag.” 7 S TANTON, Gospels and Jesus, p.62: “While it is clear that the evangelist has taken great care over the composition of the five major discourses and of numerous shorter sections, he does not seem to have developed a broad overall structure as a way of underlining his main purposes.” Therefore, again, STANTON, “Origin and Purpose”, p.1905: 2

82

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

STRECKER explains the gospel-writing process, and notes, “daß die Abfassung des Evangeliums [...] von einem Plan bestimmt ist, der in der Verarbeitung des Traditionsstoffes ‒ durch Auswahl, Kürzung und Erweiterung ‒ zum Ausdruck kommt.”8 These features, employed so successfully by redaction critics, will allow us to see the changes Matthew makes to Mark and at the same time to highlight the ways in which he agrees with Mark. This will allow judgement concerning the editor’s attitude to his principal source.

4.1. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 12‒28 Matthew has, as discussed, followed Mark from its beginning, with John in the wilderness, Jesus’ baptism, John’s arrest and Jesus’ ministry in Caphernaum and around the sea of Galilee. Matthew’s Jesus then commissions the disciples (earlier than in Mark) and brings some non-Markan teaching to the crowds (e.g. Mt 5‒7, 10‒11). Now Matthew returns to the Markan tradition to tell the story of Jesus’ debates with the authorities, travels throughout the greater region and eventual fatal pilgrimage to Jerusalem. As we will see, he is now expanding upon Mark, while progressing through the gospel, always taking up where he has left off. In what follows we can proceed with Matthew in reading and editing Mark in Mt 12‒28, examining episodes and sections as they arise in the text. We begin with Mt 12. Mark

Matthew

2:23‒3:6 3:7‒12 (3:13‒19) 3:20‒21 3:22‒27 3:28‒30 3:31‒35

12:1‒14 12:15‒21 (10:2‒4) ‒ 12:22‒30 12:31‒45 12:46‒50

Two Sabbath Debates Jesus heals many The Twelve Jesus at home The Beelzebul Debate Sin against the Spirit Jesus’ mother and brothers

Matthew begins his reworking of Mark by following Mark’s pairing of the two Sabbath debates. He abbreviates the subsequent account of healings by the sea of Galilee 9 and omits the list of the Twelve (which he has already “[T]he evangelist has been influenced more strongly by Mark than by ‘structural’ considerations.” Pace B AUER, Structure, p.35: “[I]t is methodologically inappropriate to begin an examination of literary structure with an investigation into Matthew’s use of Mark.” 8 STRECKER, Gerechtigkeit, p.100. 9 A much shorter account than in Mark, but Matthew has already listed where the crowds came from to hear Jesus in Mt 4:24‒25. We know Matthew is nonetheless following Mark at this point because he has the same conclusion (Mk 3:12 // Mt 12:16), to which he adds a fulfilment citation (Mt 12:17‒18).

4.1. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 12‒28

83

given in Mt 10) and the account of Jesus at home, 10 yet continues with a pastiche of Mark and Q in the Beelzebul controversy and teaching on sins against the spirit. Then he proceeds through Mark with the arrival of Jesus’ family and a series of parables, as in Mk 4. Mark

Matthew

4:1‒9 4:10‒12 4:13‒20 (4:21‒25) 4:26‒29 4:30‒32 4:33‒34 (4:35‒5:43)

13:1‒9 13:10‒17 13:18‒23 ‒ [13:24‒30] 13:31‒33 13:34‒52 (8:18‒34, 9:18‒26)

The Sower The Reason for Parables The Interpretation of the Sower Various Logia The Seed Growing Secretly [Tares] The Mustard Seed [and Leaven, Q] Summary: Jesus teaches in Parables The Journey to Gerasa and the Leader’s Daughter

Matthew’s Jesus begins to teach in parables, following Mk 4. The first parable and an explanation for teaching in parables he takes from Mark but expands with a fulfilment citation (Mt 13:14‒15) and Q material (Mt 13:16‒17). He then omits the logia of Mk 4:21‒25 (all of which have parallels already used in Mt 11) and the parable of the seed growing secretly (an omission in common with Luke 12). In place of this latter he has his own M parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Mt 13:24‒30).13 The next parable is again from Mark, the mustard seed, and to this he again adds a Q tradition (The Parable of the Leaven, Mt 13:33). Matthew then returns to Mark for the summary of Jesus’ teaching in parables, to which he adds a fulfilment citation (Mt 13:35), but Mk 4:34b (κατ’ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς ἰδίοις µαθηταῖς ἐπέλυεν πάντα), which in Mark completes the series, prompts Matthew to an explanation of the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Mt 13:36‒43). He then adds his own parables (The Parable of the Hidden Treasure, v44; The Parable of the Pearl, v45‒46; The Parable of the Dragnet, v47‒50) and his own conclusion on the merits of ‘a scribe trained for the Kingdom of Heaven’ (Mt 13:51‒52). Only now is his parable discourse complete. He adopts Mark’s format, begins with Mark’s material, adds his own parable which resembles Mark’s in both theme and content, and finally lists the (three) other brief kingdom parables he knows. In all this he is not reveal10 This incident in Mk 3:20‒21 explains the appearance of Jesus’ family in v31‒35 (COLLINS, Mark, p.226), but Luke and later copyists of Mark had problems with this reference (ALLEN , Matthew, p.131). Matthew uses the verb ἐξίστηµι for the crowds of Mt 12:23, see the commentaries, ad loc. 11 Mt 5:15, 7:2, 10:26 and 13:12. 12 D AVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, II, p.407, suggest that both later evangelists have reasons for omitting this parable; STREETER , Four Gospels, p.171, argues that the parable was perhaps not in their copies of Mark. 13 D AVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, II, p.408‒410, provide a discussion of whence Matthew might have this parable; G UNDRY, Matthew, p.261‒263, attributes the parable to a creative redactional conflation of elements of Mark’s Sower and Seed Growing Secretly.

84

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

ing a dissatisfaction with Mark as insufficient, rather building upon Mark as a framework for a discourse including other parables. Mark presents him here with the ideal opportunity to include other parables in a collection, with Mark’s foremost and the lesser, more concise illustrations clumped together at the end. If there is editorial fatigue in Matthew, it is surely in cases such as this that it is to be found, with the concise kingdom parables lumped together at the end. 14 He then comes to Mk 4:35‒5:43, which he passes over, having already given account of the visit to Gadara and the leader’s daughter earlier in his gospel. He thus arrives at Mk 6. Mark

Matthew

6:1‒6a (6:6b‒13) 6:14‒31 6:32‒44 6:45‒52 6:53‒56 7:1‒23 7:24‒30 7:31‒37 8:1‒10 8:11‒13 8:14‒21 8:22‒26

13:53‒58 (10:1,7‒10,14) 14:1‒12 14:13‒21 14:22‒33 14:34‒36 15:1‒20 15:21‒28 15:29‒31 15:32‒39 16:1‒4 16:5‒12 ‒

Jesus is rejected in Nazareth (The Mission of the Twelve) John and Herod Feeding 5000 Jesus walks on water Healings at Gennesaret Clean and Unclean A Foreign Woman More miracles Feeding 4000 The Demand for a Sign The Leaven of the Pharisees Bethsaida

Matthew follows Mark to Nazareth, where Jesus is rejected, 15 then omits the mission of the disciples, which again he has already given. He follows Mark’s account of the death of John, 16 which he abbreviates considerably. 17 He closes with a report to Jesus (Mt 14:12b) rather than the return of the disciples (Mk 6:30‒31), thus losing Mark’s ‘flashback’ motif.18 Jesus then immediately leaves Galilee by boat because of John’s death and feeds 5000 in the wilderness, as in Mark. 19 Then the disciples depart, again by boat, and Jesus will follow, walking on the water. It is in this pericope where we begin to see Matthew expanding upon the Markan narrative.

14

Cf. Mt 7, which provides a miscellany of teachings at the end of the Sermon. See 4.2.4. Continuity. 16 Including the ‘plot-spoiler’ of Mk 6:14b ὅτι Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτίζων ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν // Mt 14:2b Οὗτός ἐστιν Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστής: αὐτὸς ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν. 17 This results in a loss of continuity, i.e. he omits mention of Herod’s respect for John in Mk 6:20 but retains the reference to Herod’s being upset from Mk 6:26 (Mt 14:9). 18 DAVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, II, p.403. 19 Matthew omits the reference to the crowd’s being as sheep without a shepherd in Mk 6:34 (which he has used in Mt 9:36) and the dialogue of Mk 6:37b‒38a; he also unfortunately forgets the distribution of the fish (Mk 6:41 // Mt 14:19). 15

4.1. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 12‒28 Mark 6:45‒52 645 Καὶ εὐθὺς ἠνάγκασεν τοὺς µαθητὰς αὐτοῦ ἐµβῆναι εἰς τὸ πλοῖον καὶ προάγειν εἰς τὸ πέραν πρὸς Βηθσαϊδάν , ἕως αὐτὸς ἀπολύει τὸν ὄχλον. 46 καὶ ἀποταξάµενος αὐτοῖς ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸ ὄρος προσεύξασθαι. 47 καὶ ὀψίας γενοµένης ἦν τὸ πλοῖον ἐν µέσῳ τῆς θαλάσσης, καὶ αὐτὸς µόνος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 48 καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτοὺς βασανιζοµένους ἐν τῷ ἐλαύνειν, ἦν γὰρ ὁ ἄνεµος ἐναντίος αὐτοῖς, περὶ τετάρτην φυλακὴν τῆς νυκτὸς ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτοὺς περιπατῶν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης: καὶ ἤθελεν παρελθεῖν αὐτούς. 49 οἱ δὲ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης περιπατοῦντα ἔδοξαν ὅτι φάντασµά ἐστιν, καὶ ἀνέκραξαν: 50 πάντες γὰρ αὐτὸν εἶδον καὶ ἐταράχθησαν. ὁ δὲ εὐθὺς ἐλάλησεν µετ’ αὐτῶν, καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰµι:µὴ φοβεῖσθε.

85

Matthew 14:22‒33 14 22 Καὶ εὐθέως ἠνάγκασεν τοὺς µαθητὰς ἐµβῆναι εἰς τὸ πλοῖον καὶ προάγειν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ πέραν, ἕως οὗ ἀπολύσῃ τοὺς ὄχλους. καὶ ἀπολύσας τοὺς ὄχλους ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος κατ’ ἰδίαν προσεύξασθαι. ὀψίας δὲ γενοµένης µόνος ἦν ἐκεῖ. 24 τὸ δὲ πλοῖον ἤδη σταδίους πολλοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἀπεῖχεν, βασανιζόµενον ὑπὸ τῶν κυµάτων, ἦν γὰρ ἐναντίος ὁ ἄνεµος. 25 τετάρτῃ δὲ φυλακῇ τῆς νυκτὸς ἦλθεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς περιπατῶν ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν. 23

οἱ δὲ µαθηταὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης περιπατοῦντα ἐταράχθησαν λέγοντες ὅτι Φάντασµά ἐστιν, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ φόβου ἔκραξαν.

26

εὐθὺς δὲ ἐλάλησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς αὐτοῖς λέγων, Θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰµι: µὴ φοβεῖσθε. 27

28 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Πέτρος εἶπεν, Κύριε, εἰ σὺ εἶ, κέλευσόν µε ἐλθεῖν πρὸς σὲ ἐπὶ τὰ ὕδατα: 29 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν, Ἐλθέ. καὶ καταβὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ πλοίου ὁ Πέτρος περιεπάτησεν ἐπὶ τὰ ὕδατα καὶ ἦλθεν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν. 30 βλέπων δὲ τὸν ἄνεµον ἰσχυρὸν ἐφοβήθη, καὶ ἀρξάµενος καταποντίζεσθαι ἔκραξεν λέγων, Κύριε, σῶσόν µε. 31 εὐθέως δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἐπελάβετο αὐτοῦ καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Ὀλιγόπιστε, εἰς τί ἐδίστασας;

καὶ ἀνέβη πρὸς αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ πλοῖον, καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεµος. καὶ λίαν ἐκ περισσοῦ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἐξίσταντο, 52 οὐ γὰρ συνῆκαν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄρτοις, ἀλλ’ ἦν αὐτῶν ἡ καρδία πεπωρωµένη. 51

καὶ ἀναβάντων αὐτῶν εἰς τὸ πλοῖον ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεµος.

32

33 οἱ δὲ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ λέγοντες, Ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς εἶ.

86

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

Matthew has not only changed the conclusion of the account to have the disciples proclaim Ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς εἶ,20 but has also added the Peter episode. 21 So Matthew is indeed now expanding the content of the Markan narrative, where previously he has added logia and parables. This phenomenon will re-occur in Matthew. Matthew then follows Mark to Gennesaret, until a delegation arrives from Jerusalem to question Jesus on hand-washing. He follows the Markan account with only slight variation 22 and the inclusion of two logia in Mt 15:13‒14. He famously omits Mk 7:19b (καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώµατα) in favour of his own conclusion to the pericope in Mt 15:20b (τὸ δὲ ἀνίπτοις χερσὶν φαγεῖν οὐ κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον), which gives a more rounded account, as the initial question was after all on hand-washing. 23 He continues through Mark with the account of the Gentile woman in Tyre, and again expands upon Mark with the supplication of the disciples and a consequent logion: Mark 7:24‒30 7 24 Ἐκεῖθεν δὲ ἀναστὰς ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὰ ὅρια Τύρου. καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς οἰκίαν οὐδένα ἤθελεν γνῶναι, καὶ οὐκ ἠδυνήθη λαθεῖν: 25 ἀλλ’ εὐθὺς ἀκούσασα γυνὴ περὶ αὐτοῦ, (v26) ἧς εἶχεν τὸ θυγάτριον αὐτῆς πνεῦµα ἀκάθαρτον, ἐλθοῦσα προσέπεσεν πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ: ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἦν Ἑλληνίς, Συροφοινίκισσα τῷ γένει: καὶ ἠρώτα αὐτὸν ἵνα τὸ δαιµόνιον ἐκβάλῃ ἐκ τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς. 27 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτῇ, 26

20

Matthew 15:21‒28 1521 Καὶ ἐξελθὼν ἐκεῖθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνεχώρησεν εἰς τὰ µέρη Τύρου καὶ Σιδῶνος.

καὶ ἰδοὺ γυνὴ Χαναναία ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων ἐκείνων ἐξελθοῦσα ἔκραζεν λέγουσα, Ἐλέησόν µε, κύριε, υἱὸς ∆αυίδ: ἡ θυγάτηρ µου κακῶς δαιµονίζεται. 23 ὁ δὲ οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῇ λόγον. 22

(v25) καὶ προσελθόντες οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἠρώτουν αὐτὸν λέγοντες, Ἀπόλυσον αὐτήν, ὅτι κράζει ὄπισθεν ἡµῶν. 24 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Οὐκ ἀπεστάλην εἰ µὴ εἰς τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἀπολωλότα οἴκου Ἰσραήλ.

A statement with which Mark would surely agree (Mk 15:39), even if he does not ascribe such a confession to the mouths of the disciples. On the portrayal of the disciples in Mark and Matthew, see below, 4.2.4. Continuity. 21 For discussion of the significance of Peter in Mark and Matthew, see 6.4. The Authority of Mark. 22 Matthew omits Mk 7:3‒4, the explanation of the ‘tradition of the elders’. Is he here reckoning with an audience already familiar with ‘the tradition of the elders’? Or alternatively, one already familiar with the traditions of Mark? 23 For fuller discussion of this episode, see below, 4.2.4. Continuity.

4.1. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 12‒28 Mark 7:24‒30 Ἄφες πρῶτον χορτασθῆναι τὰ τέκνα,

οὐ γάρ ἐστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ τοῖς κυναρίοις βαλεῖν. 28 ἡ δὲ ἀπεκρίθη καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Κύριε, καὶ τὰ κυνάρια ὑποκάτω τῆς τραπέζης ἐσθίουσιν ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων τῶν παιδίων. 29 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ, ∆ιὰ τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ὕπαγε, ἐξελήλυθεν ἐκ τῆς θυγατρός σου τὸ δαιµόνιον. 30 καὶ ἀπελθοῦσα εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτῆς εὗρεν τὸ παιδίον βεβληµένον ἐπὶ τὴν κλίνην καὶ τὸ δαιµόνιον ἐξεληλυθός.

87

Matthew 15:21‒28 ἡ δὲ ἐλθοῦσα προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγουσα, Κύριε, βοήθει µοι. 26 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Οὐκ ἔστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ βαλεῖν τοῖς κυναρίοις. 27 ἡ δὲ εἶπεν, Ναί, κύριε, καὶ γὰρ τὰ κυνάρια ἐσθίει ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων τῶν πιπτόντων ἀπὸ τῆς τραπέζης τῶν κυρίων αὐτῶν. 28 τότε ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῇ, ὦ γύναι, µεγάλη σου ἡ πίστις: γενηθήτω σοι ὡς θέλεις. 25

καὶ ἰάθη ἡ θυγάτηρ αὐτῆς ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ἐκείνης.

Matthew describes the woman as Χαναναία ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων ἐκείνων for Mark’s Ἑλληνίς, Συροφοινίκισσα τῷ γένει.24 There have been several proposals for this,25 but the fact remains that she is a woman from Tyre and not a Jew. Matthew gives Jesus’ reply in Mt 15:23b‒24 that he is sent ‘only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’. 26 In doing so, he is again developing Mark’s own motif of Jesus’ initial reluctance to the woman’s request.27 He then follows Mark to a mountain by the sea of Galilee 28 for the account of the deaf-mute in Mark, which becomes however for Matthew a summary of many healings, in line with the logion of the Markan pericope (Mk 7:37b): καὶ τοὺς κωφοὺς ποιεῖ ἀκούειν καὶ τοὺς ἀλάλους λαλεῖν. He may have theological reasons to omit this miracle, 29 or simply prefer a reference to ‘many’ in order to introduce the feeding miracle 24 G UNDRY, Matthew, p.310, points out that it is important to consider these full titles for the woman, and not simply the individual elements of each. 25 D AVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, II, p.547, provide a summary of the various proposals: (i) Matthew draws on a non-Markan tradition, (ii) Matthew is playing on the words Χαναναία/κυνάρια, (iii) Matthew is simply using the Amaraic designation, (iv) Matthew himself is possibly from Phoenicia and thus prefers the local term (cf. LUZ , Matthäus, II, p.432), (v) Matthew is drawing on scriptural tones of opposition and subordination, just as he refers to Tyre ‘and Sidon’ in v21 (cf. LUZ, Matthäus, II, p.432; KONRADT, Israel, Kirche und die Völker, p.65). Of course, these arguments are not mutually exclusive. 26 G UNDRY, Matthew, p.312‒313, considers the verse purely redactional; BULTMANN, Tradition, p.38,155,168, posits an Aramaic logion behind the reference; D AVIES & ALL ISON, Matthew, II, p.550‒551, see no conclusive evidence either way. 27 Cf. LUZ, Matthäus, II, p.434; KONRADT, Israel, Kirche und die Völker, p.67. 28 Omitting the now apparently superfluous reference to ‘Sidon’. KONRADT, Israel, Kirche und die Völker, p.57‒58, however, notes Matthew’s omission of the reference to the Decapolis (Mk 7:31) as a device by which Matthew brings Jesus’ ministry back to a Jewish audience in Galilee. 29 The magical motif, Jesus’ groaning, the ‘Messianic Secret’, the man disobeys Jesus (cf. DAVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, II, p.561).

88

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

which follows.30 In any case, he has already had the healing of a deaf-mute (demoniac) in Mt 9:32‒34. His account of the feeding of the 4000 resembles his account of the feeding of the 5000, 31 but he follows the Markan tradition loyally in the account of ‘four thousand’ 32 until Jesus departs by boat 33 and is again met by the authorities. There follows an account of the demand for a sign, which Matthew concludes in a Markan logion with a Q ‘clause’, 34 before following Mark in again crossing the sea (Mk 8:13 // Mt 16:4c‒5a). When Jesus warns the disciples of ‘the leaven of the Pharisees’, Matthew reduces the question-and-answer dialogue of Mk 8:18b‒20 to a monologue (Mt 16:9‒10) and omits Mk 8:18 (ὀφθαλµοὺς ἔχοντες οὐ βλέπετε καὶ ὦτα ἔχοντες οὐκ ἀκούετε), presumably to remain consistent with Mk 4:11‒12 // Mt 13:11‒13, in which it is only those outside who have eyes and do not see, who have ears and do not hear. Yet despite this minor abbreviation, Matthew again expands upon Mark with the explanatory Mt 16:11b‒12, in which the disciples understand. 35 He then omits the Bethsaida episode 36 and proceeds with Mark to Caesarea Philippi. Mark

Matthew

8:27‒30 8:31‒33 8:34‒9:1 9:2‒13 9:14‒29 9:30‒32 9:33a 9:33b‒37 9:38‒41 9:42‒50

16:13‒20 16:21‒23 16:24‒28 17:1‒13 17:14‒20 37 17:22‒23 17:24‒27 18:1‒5 ‒ 18:6‒35

Peter’s Confession First Passion Prediction On Discipleship The Transfiguration A Boy Possessed Second Passion Prediction Return to Caphernaum The Disciples’ Competition An Unknown Exorcist Community Discourse

In the first episode Matthew is once more elaborating on the Markan pericope: 30 Cf. the introduction of the crowds at the previous feeding miracle in Mk 6:33‒34 // Mt 14:13b‒14. Matthew thus follows Mark in portraying Jesus as the ideal host (see the discussion in M ACDONALD , Homeric Epics, p.83‒90). 31 In contrast to Luke, who only provides one feeding miracle (Lk 9:10b‒17), Matthew keeps Mark’s two feeding miracles, rather than conflate them or bring them together. He then follows Mark’s story to the point of Jesus’ questioning his disciples οὔπω συνίετε; (Mk 8:21) // πῶς οὐ νοεῖετε; (Mt 16:11). 32 In Matthew these are ‘men’, with woman and children besides. 33 For Μαγαδά (Mt 15:39) not ∆αλµανουθά (Mk 8:10). 34 As discussed in 3.3. Matthew’s Use of Q. 35 On Matthew’s portrait of the disciples, see below 4.2.4.Continuity. 36 Does he do so for theological reasons (SIM , “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, p.180)? Or because he has already had the generic healing of two blind men (Mt 9:27‒31)? Or was the pericope absent from his copy of Mark (cf. Luke’s omission)? 37 Mt 17:21 is absent in ‫ *א‬B Θ 33. 579. 788. 892*

4.1. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 12‒28 Mark 8:27‒30 827 Καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς κώµας Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου: καὶ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ἐπηρώτα τοὺς µαθητὰς αὐτοῦ λέγων αὐτοῖς, Τίνα µε λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι; οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ λέγοντες ὅτι Ἰωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν, καὶ ἄλλοι, Ἠλίαν, ἄλλοι δὲ ὅτι εἷς τῶν προφητῶν. 29 καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπηρώτα αὐτούς, Ὑµεῖς δὲ τίνα µε λέγετε εἶναι; ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Πέτρος λέγει αὐτῷ, Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστός. 28

καὶ ἐπετίµησεν αὐτοῖς ἵνα µηδενὶ λέγωσιν περὶ αὐτοῦ.

30

89

Matthew 16:13‒20 1613 Ἐλθὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὰ µέρη Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου ἠρώτα τοὺς µαθητὰς αὐτοῦ λέγων, Τίνα λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; 14 οἱ δὲ εἶπαν, Οἱ µὲν Ἰωάννην τὸν βαπτιστήν, ἄλλοι δὲ Ἠλίαν, ἕτεροι δὲ Ἰερεµίαν ἢ ἕνα τῶν προφητῶν. 15 λέγει αὐτοῖς, Ὑµεῖς δὲ τίνα µε λέγετε εἶναι; 16 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίµων Πέτρος εἶπεν, Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. 17 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Μακάριος εἶ, Σίµων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷµα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι ἀλλ’ ὁ πατήρ µου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδοµήσω µου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ἅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. 19 δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεµένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυµένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. 20 τότε διεστείλατο τοῖς µαθηταῖς ἵνα µηδενὶ εἴπωσιν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός.

He adds the blessing of ‘Simon son of Jonah’ yet concludes, following Mark, with the appeal to secrecy. Matthew knows that Jesus blessed Simon specifically, giving him the name Peter, and finds this a suitable opportunity to include the blessing, as Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, which means, of course, for Matthew, that he is ‘the son of the living God’.38 As with the walking-on-water scene, Mark is not wrong, rather provides the main story, into which shorter complementary traditions such as this one may be inserted. Matthew then follows Mark’s first Passion prediction almost exactly, including the rebuking of Peter, who, according to Matthew, has just been blessed! Such is the degree of his loyalty to the Markan tradition that Matthew will here follow Mark in spite of what he has written only mom38 DEINES, Gerechtigkeit, p.635: Matthew portrays Jesus “als den verheißenen und erwarteten Messias und Gottessohn”.

90

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

ents beforehand. The pericope on discipleship is likewise taken directly from Mark.39 Matthew follows Mark’s ‘six days’ before Jesus ascends a mountain with Peter, James and John. This tradition he also expands with his own account of the disciples’ reaction (Mt 17:6‒7, καὶ ἀκούσαντες οἱ µαθηταὶ ἔπεσαν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον αὐτῶν καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα. καὶ προσῆλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἁψάµενος αὐτῶν εἶπεν, Ἐγέρθητε καὶ µὴ φοβεῖσθε) and his own conclusion (Mt 17:13, τότε συνῆκαν οἱ µαθηταὶ ὅτι περὶ Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς).40 Jesus then returns to public view, as in Mark, and meets a man whose son is a ‘lunatic’. 41 Matthew omits many details of this account: the scribes, the initial pressing of the crowd, the boy’s symptoms, the dialogue with the father, Jesus’ words to the demon, the boy’s stillness. He retains only the minimal essentials: a father and his son, the disciples’ inability, Jesus’ lament (ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος καὶ διεστραµµένη, ἕως πότε µεθ’ ὑµῶν ἔσοµαι; ἕως πότε ἀνέξοµαι ὑµῶν;), the act of healing and the disciples’ question in private. In his conclusion he also replaces Mark’s logion with one from Q (Q 17:6). 42 It seems that here Matthew is still not averse to reducing the details of the tradition where they are deemed not pertinent to the issue at hand: the message of the pericope does not, after all, concern Jesus’ miracle-working per se or the affliction in question; it shows Jesus’ frustration with the unbelief of his generation and his reassurance that faith will allow the impossible. To affirm this Matthew draws on an appropriate Q logion rather than on Mark’s reference to prayer. 43 The story continues with the second Passion prediction, of which Matthew changes only the disciples’ reaction. Mark 9:32 οἱ δὲ ἠγνόουν τὸ ῥῆµα, καὶ ἐφοβοῦντο αὐτὸν ἐπερωτῆσαι.

Matthew 17:23c καὶ ἐλυπήθησαν σφόδρα.

39 There is no sufficient evidence for a Q influence here; the minor agreements are “insignificant” (DAVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, II, p.669, n.3). 40 He omits Mk 9:10 (the disciples do not know what being raised from the dead is), whether due to his own ‘defence’ of the disciples or consistency with what they have already witnessed in Mt 9:25 (the leader’s daughter is raised). Cf. also the understanding of the disciples in Mt 16:12: τότε συνῆκαν ὅτι οὐκ εἶπεν προσέχειν ἀπὸ τῆς ζύµης τῶν ἄρτων ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ τῆς διδαχῆς τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων. See further discussion of the disciples in 4.2.4. Continuity. 41 In Mark he is a deaf-mute. 42 As discussed in 3.3. Matthew’s Use of Q. 43 This account of the boy possessed follows the Transfiguration in all three synoptic gospels, and there is no reason to posit a Q recension. Matthew is evidently following Mark in the disciples’ question (absent in Luke). It is possible that an earlier version of Mark was less verbose, but again we have no text-critical evidence for such. D AVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, II, p.719, suggest the shortened accounts of both Matthew and Luke result from coincidental editing of Mark.

4.1. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 12‒28

91

The Matthean development of this tradition clearly shows a hesitation to the idea that the disciples fail to understand Jesus. It will be seen however (4.2.4. Continuity) that Matthew nonetheless follows Mark’s portrait of the disciples to a considerable degree. When, for example, they later arrive in Jerusalem, the disciples will not hesitate in carrying out Jesus’ commands and thus helping him towards his fate. Under the Markan scheme this is presumably because, as here, they do not understand and are afraid to ask for an explanation. Matthew wishes to show the disciples as distressed at this reiteration of the prediction given in Mt 16:21, dismissing the possibility that at this stage of the ministry of Jesus the disciples should still be so clueless. His loyalty to the Markan tradition however means that he must have the disciples (i) distressed and (ii) continuing as they do in Mark. We then return to Caphernaum and to the house. Mark 9:33a,bα Καὶ ἦλθον εἰς Καφαρναούµ. καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ γενόµενος ...

Matthew 17:24a,25b Ἐλθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν εἰς Καφαρναοὺµ [...] καὶ ἐλθόντα εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν.

Matthew here includes the tradition of the payment of temple tax. 44 He must then overlook the reference to the disciples’ discussion on the way, rather has them, already in Caphernaum, approach Jesus directly: 45 ksks

Mark 9:33bβ,c‒34 [...] ἐπηρώτα αὐτούς, Τί ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ διελογίζεσθε; οἱ δὲ ἐσιώπων, πρὸς ἀλλήλους γὰρ διελέχθησαν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ τίς µείζων.

Matthew 18:1 Ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ προσῆλθον οἱ µαθηταὶ τῷ Ἰησοῦ λέγοντες, Τίς ἄρα µείζων ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν;

He here omits Mk 9:35 (with Luke),46 adds his own logion (Mt 18:3‒4, καὶ εἶπεν, Ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν, ἐὰν µὴ στραφῆτε καὶ γένησθε ὡς τὰ παιδία, οὐ µὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. ὅστις οὖν ταπεινώσει ἑαυτὸν ὡς τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ µείζων ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν.), yet concludes, as we might now expect, with the words of Mark (Mk 9:37a // Mt 18:5).47 GOULDER, Midrash, p.395‒397, and GUNDRY, Matthew, p.355‒357, consider the account purely redactional. DAVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, II, p.737, prefer “oral tradition retouched by Matthew”, for why, after all, would a post- CE70 Christian compose a lesson on paying for the upkeep of the Jerusalem Temple? 45 In this way he also avoids Jesus’ ignorance as to their discussion. 46 The minor agreements are however “not impressive” (D AVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, II, p.752). 47 Omitting the perhaps superfluous Mk 9:37b: καὶ ὃς ἂν ἐµὲ δέχηται, οὐκ ἐµὲ δέχεται ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀποστείλαντά µε. 44

92

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

Now that he has begun his discourse on ‘community’ issues with the comparison to childhood, he is keen to continue, and will omit the reference to the unknown exorcist (Mk 9:38‒40), and the logion of Mk 9:41, which he has included in his mission discourse (Mt 10:42). The message of the Markan pericope is in any case in conflict with that of Q 11:23 (Mt 12:30).48 The tradition is thus dropped, and Matthew proceeds to Mk 9:42, where the ‘small’ are once again mentioned. He follows Mark, adding Q (Mt 18:7,12‒15,21‒22) and M (Mt 8:10,16‒20,23‒34) traditions. Here again we see Matthew’s delight in adding longer stretches of teaching material to what is already a Markan ‘discourse’, but as I have argued, when he has finished his monologue, he returns to where he left off in Mark: Mark 10:1

Matthew 19:1‒2

Καὶ ἐκεῖθεν ἀναστὰς ἔρχεται εἰς τὰ ὅρια τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, καὶ συµπορεύονται πάλιν ὄχλοι πρὸς αὐτόν, καὶ ὡς εἰώθει πάλιν ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς.

Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοὺς λόγους τούτους, µετῆρεν ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς τὰ ὅρια τῆς Ἰουδαίας πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. καὶ ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ ὄχλοι πολλοί, καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖ.

Thus he follows Mark to Judea and to Jerusalem. Mark

Matthew

10:2‒12 10:13‒16 10:17‒31 10:32‒34 10:35‒45 10:46‒52 11:1‒10

19:3‒12 19:13‒15a 19:15b‒20:16 20:17‒19 20:20‒28 20:29‒34 21:1‒9

Teaching on Divorce Jesus blesses the Children The Rich Man Third Passion Prediction The Request of James and John The Blind at Jericho The Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem

Matthew follows Mark’s account of Jesus’ teaching on divorce, merely switching the sequence of citation/questioning and adding the clause µὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ, 49 which comes in a logion declared to the Pharisees, not as in Mk 10:11 only to the disciples. The reference to private instruction in Mk 10:10 (Καὶ εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν πάλιν οἱ µαθηταὶ περὶ τούτου ἐπηρώτων αὐτόν) is developed in Mt 19:10‒13, discussion on the issue of celibacy. Matthew continues with the children being brought to Jesus to be blessed, and omits Mk 10:15, which although consistent with the teaching of Mt 18:3 is not entirely relevant to the blessing of children themselves. 50 Jesus is then met by a rich man, 51 and the discussion is taken straight from the Markan trad48

Luke does not mind/notice the inconsistency, Lk 9:50, 11:23. Consistent with Mt 5:32. 50 Although Luke retains it (Lk 18:15‒17). 51 In Mark, the man has kept the commandments ‘since his youth’ (Mk 10:20, cf. Lk 18:21), while in Matthew he is a ‘young man’ (Mt 19:22). 49

4.1. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 12‒28

93

ition, as is the conclusion: the rich young man leaves disappointed, as he has many possessions. Jesus therefore teaches the disciples on riches and rewards, and Matthew omits only the disciples’ surprise (Mk 10:24a) and adds the Q tradition of the twelve thrones (Mt 19:28), 52 before concluding, with Mark: πολλοὶ δὲ ἔσονται πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι καὶ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι. This prompts a further parable (The Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard, Mt 20:1‒16), which Matthew feels reinforces Mark’s logion: οὕτως ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι (v16). Here again, Matthew is developing Mark, there follows the third Passion prediction, and the appeal of the mother of James and John. The content and conclusion are taken directly from Mark; only the instigator, the mother, is new.53 Then comes a reference to Jericho: Mark 10:46a Καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Ἰεριχώ. καὶ ἐκπορευοµένου αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ Ἰεριχὼ καὶ τῶν µαθητῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ ὄχλου ἱκανοῦ

Matthew 20:29 Καὶ ἐκπορευοµένων αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Ἰεριχὼ ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ ὄχλος πολύς.

Matthew has two anonymous blind men for Mark’s Βαρτιµαῖος, but he otherwise follows Mark’s account closely, omitting only the rôle of the crowd in Mk 10:49b‒50 and the words of Jesus in Mk 10:52: Ὕπαγε, ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε.54 And so Jesus arrives at Jerusalem. Mark 11:1a Καὶ ὅτε ἐγγίζουσιν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυµα εἰς Βηθφαγὴ καὶ Βηθανίαν πρὸς τὸ Ὄρος τῶν Ἐλαιῶν

Matthew 21:1a Καὶ ὅτε ἤγγισαν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυµα καὶ ἦλθον εἰς Βηθφαγὴ55 εἰς τὸ Ὄρος τῶν Ἐλαιῶν

Matthew again follows Mark, adding a fulfilment citation (Mt 21:4‒5) and abbreviating the account of the disciples’ quest for a donkey (Mk 11:4‒6 // Mt 21:6). He also omits the cry εὐλογηµένη ἡ ἐρχοµένη βασιλεία τοῦ πατρὸς ἡµῶν ∆αυίδ (Mk 11:9‒10), 56 though not without compensating with τῷ υἱῷ ∆αυίδ in Mt 21:9, in line with Christian theology and liturgy. 57 52 Which provides a good pretext for the subsequent request on behalf of James and John (Mk 10:37 // Mt 20:21). 53 Perhaps in line with Mt 18:1‒5, 19:30, 20:16, where the disciples have already been warned against the desire for greatness; Matthew at this point shifts the ‘blame’ from the Twelve. 54 He could easily have transferred this logion to the plural, but does not. 55 Matthew omits ‘Bethany’, perhaps due to his geographical awareness (D AVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, III, p.114, n.16); he may of course simply avoid Bethany for now, as Jesus will be there in Mk 11:11 // Mt 21:17 and in Mk 14:3 // Mt 26:6. 56 Luke also omits this phrase (Lk 19:38). 57 G UNDRY, Matthew, p.411; DAVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, III, p.126. BONNARD, Matthieu, p.304, claims: “Hosanna devait déjà faire partie de la terminologie du culte chrét-

94

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

Now Jesus begins his Jerusalem ministry, and again Matthew follows Mark: Mark

Matthew

11:11‒26 11:27‒12:37a 12:37b‒40 12:41‒44 13:1‒37

21:10‒22 21:23‒22:46 23:1‒39 ‒ 24:1‒25:46

Arrival in Jerusalem Debates with the Authorities Against the Scribes and Pharisees The Widow’s Mite The Eschatological Discourse

Jesus proceeds (as in Mark) into Jerusalem, and the reaction is described by Matthew (Mt 21:10b‒11): ἐσείσθη πᾶσα ἡ πόλις λέγουσα, Τίς ἐστιν οὗτος; οἱ δὲ ὄχλοι ἔλεγον, Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ προφήτης Ἰησοῦς ὁ ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲθ τῆς Γαλιλαίας.

He replaces the conspiracy of the High Priests and scribes with a complaint: Mark 11:18‒19

1118 καὶ ἤκουσαν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραµµατεῖς,

καὶ ἐζήτουν πῶς αὐτὸν ἀπολέσωσιν: ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ αὐτόν, πᾶς γὰρ ὁ ὄχλος ἐξεπλήσσετο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ . 1

9 Καὶ ὅταν ὀψὲ ἐγένετο, ἐξεπορεύοντο ἔξω τῆς πόλεως.

Matthew 21:14‒16 2114 Καὶ προσῆλθον αὐτῷ τυφλοὶ καὶ χωλοὶ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτούς. 15 ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραµµατεῖς τὰ θαυµάσια ἃ ἐποίησεν καὶ τοὺς παῖδας τοὺς κράζοντας ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ καὶ λέγοντας, Ὡσαννὰ τῷ υἱῷ ∆αυίδ, ἠγανάκτησαν 16 καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ, Ἀκούεις τί οὗτοι λέγουσιν; ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτοῖς, Ναί: οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε ὅτι Ἐκ στόµατος νηπίων καὶ θηλαζόντων κατηρτίσω αἶνον; 17 Καὶ καταλιπὼν αὐτοὺς ἐξῆλθεν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως.

He reorders Mark’s fig-tree ‘sandwich’ construction, omitting the teaching on forgiveness in Mk 11:25, for which he has already given account in Mt 6:14, and thus arrives at Jesus’ debates with the temple authorities, where he again follows Mark, adding in-between the parable of the Two Sons (Mt 22:28‒32), and then a logion on the kingdom (Mt 22:1‒14). He stays with Mark for the teachings on tribute (Mt 22:15‒22), resurrection (Mt 22:23‒ 33), the commandments (Mt 22:34‒40)58 and David’s Son (Mt 22:41‒46), 59 ien au moment de la rédaction de l’évangile.” Cf. H ENGEL, Christologie, p.515‒517, for further discussion of this text. 58 From which he omits Jesus’ positive comment οὐ µακρὰν εἶ ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ (Mk 12:34). 59 In the first two of these pericopae, Matthew follows Mark in noting Jesus’ opponents (first the Pharisees, then the Sadducees), while in the third and fourth he refers to the Pharisees where Mark had ‘scribes’ (Mk 12:28,35).

4.1. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 12‒28

95

merely delaying the summary of Mk 12:34b (καὶ οὐδεὶς οὐκέτι ἐτόλµα αὐτὸν ἐπερωτῆσαι) until the end of the debates (Mt 22:46, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο ἀποκριθῆναι αὐτῷ λόγον, οὐδὲ ἐτόλµησέν τις ἀπ’ ἐκείνης τῆς ἡµέρας ἐπερωτῆσαι αὐτὸν οὐκέτι). He is then prompted by Mark’s few verses on the ‘scribes’ (Mk 12:37b‒ 40) to compose a thirty-eight verse discourse on ‘the scribes and the Pharisees’, comprising firstly M traditions (Mt 23:2‒5,7‒22) and then Q material (Mt 23:23‒29). Following this lengthy speech, he returns to Mark to find the eschatological discourse preceded by a brief account of a poor widow giving her money to the temple treasury. He apparently sees no reason to include this passage (which exemplifies the abuse of the poor and needy, cf. e.g. Mt 23:23‒26), rather passes over it and begins the next discourse.60 The Matthean eschatological discourse finds its setting in Mark’s account: Mark 13:1

Matthew 24:1

Καὶ ἐκπορευοµένου αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ λέγει αὐτῷ εἷς τῶν µαθητῶν αὐτοῦ, ∆ιδάσκαλε, ἴδε ποταποὶ λίθοι καὶ ποταπαὶ οἰκοδοµαί.

Καὶ ἐξελθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἐπορεύετο, καὶ προσῆλθον οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπιδεῖξαι αὐτῷ τὰς οἰκοδοµὰς τοῦ ἱεροῦ.

Matthew then follows Mark through Mk 13:2‒32 // Mt 24:3‒36:61 the signs of the end time, persecution, the judgement on Judea, false prophets, the parousia and the explanation of the fig-tree episode. He adds a few Q logia (Mt 24:26‒28), and continues with longer Q parables (Mt 24:37‒25:30), 62 concluding with an M tradition (Mt 25:31‒46). In doing so, he overlooks Mark’s conclusion (Mk 13:35b‒37), but returns to Mark for what will follow: the Passion. Mark

Matthew

14:1‒2 14:3‒9 14:10‒11 14:12‒17 14:18‒25 14:26‒52

26:1‒5 26:6‒13 26:14‒16 26:17‒20 26:21‒29 26:30‒56

The Plot against Jesus Jesus in Bethany Judas’ Betrayal Preparation for the Passover The Last Supper The Mount of Olives

Matthew again expands the Markan tradition:

60 GUNDRY, Matthew, p.474, notes that the omission of this pericope allows Matthew to unite the two discourses. 61 Again omitting traditions he has already accounted for in his mission discourse, namely those which apply to evangelizing the Jews. 62 With parallels in Mk 13:33‒35.

96

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark Mark 14:1‒2

14 1 ἦν δὲ τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὰ ἄζυµα µετὰ δύο ἡµέρας. καὶ ἐζήτουν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραµµατεῖς

πῶς αὐτὸν ἐν δόλῳ κρατήσαντες ἀποκτείνωσιν: 2 ἔλεγον γάρ, Μὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ, µήποτε ἔσται θόρυβος τοῦ λαοῦ.

Matthew 26:1‒5 26 1 Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς πάντας τοὺς λόγους τούτους, εἶπεν τοῖς µαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, 2 Οἴδατε ὅτι µετὰ δύο ἡµέρας τὸ πάσχα γίνεται, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται εἰς τὸ σταυρωθῆναι. 3 Τότε συνήχθησαν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως τοῦ λεγοµένου Καϊάφα, 4 καὶ συνεβουλεύσαντο ἵνα τὸν Ἰησοῦν δόλῳ κρατήσωσιν καὶ ἀποκτείνωσιν: 5 ἔλεγον δέ, Μὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ, ἵνα µὴ θόρυβος γένηται ἐν τῷ λαῷ.

He then follows Mark’s account of the visit to (the leper) Simon’s house in Bethany63 and his ‘aside’ of Judas’ consorting with the High Priests, before preparations are made for the Passover festival. 64 When the time comes for the meal, Matthew continues to follow Mark’s tradition: Jesus first predicts his betrayal,65 then breaks bread and shares the cup with his disciples, before they sing, and eventually proceed to the Mount of Olives. Matthew sticks faithfully throughout to the Markan tradition. The following excerpt should help to show the level of loyalty with which our evangelist now follows Mark. Such agreement continues throughout Mt 26‒27. Mark 14:18‒26

Matthew 26:21‒30

14 18 καὶ ἀνακειµένων αὐτῶν καὶ ἐσθιόντων ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, Ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι εἷς ἐξ ὑµῶν παραδώσει µε, ὁ ἐσθίων µετ’ ἐµοῦ. 19 ἤρξαντο λυπεῖσθαι καὶ λέγειν αὐτῷ εἷς κατὰ εἷς, Μήτι ἐγώ; 20 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Εἷς τῶν δώδεκα, ὁ ἐµβαπτόµενος µετ’ ἐµοῦ εἰς τὸ τρύβλιον. 21 ὅτι ὁ µὲν υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὑπάγει καθὼς γέγραπται περὶ αὐτοῦ, οὐαὶ δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ δι’ οὗ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται: καλὸν αὐτῷ εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος.

2621 καὶ ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν εἶπεν, Ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι εἷς ἐξ ὑµῶν παραδώσει µε. 22 καὶ λυπούµενοι σφόδρα ἤρξαντο λέγειν αὐτῷ εἷς ἕκαστος, Μήτι ἐγώ εἰµι, κύριε; 23 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Ὁ ἐµβάψας µετ’ ἐµοῦ τὴν χεῖρα ἐν τῷ τρυβλίῳ οὗτός µε παραδώσει. 24 ὁ µὲν υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὑπάγει καθὼς γέγραπται περὶ αὐτοῦ, οὐαὶ δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ δι’ οὗ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται: καλὸν ἦν αὐτῷ εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος.

63

Luke has a Pharisee’s house; John has Lazarus, Mary and Martha living in Bethany. Matthew omits only the details of Mk 14:15: καὶ αὐτὸς ὑµῖν δείξει ἀνάγαιον µέγα ἐστρωµένον ἕτοιµον: καὶ ἐκεῖ ἑτοιµάσατε ἡµῖν. 65 Matthew again adds a line, this time to show that Jesus knows the identity of his betrayer: ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Ἰούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν εἶπεν, Μήτι ἐγώ εἰµι, ῥαββί; λέγει αὐτῷ, Σὺ εἶπας. (Mt 26:25). 64

4.1. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 12‒28 Mark 14:18‒26

97

Matthew 26:21‒30 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Ἰούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν εἶπεν, Μήτι ἐγώ εἰµι, ῥαββί; λέγει αὐτῷ, Σὺ εἶπας. 26 Ἐσθιόντων δὲ αὐτῶν λαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἄρτον καὶ εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ δοὺς τοῖς µαθηταῖς εἶπεν, Λάβετε φάγετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶµά µου. 27 καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων, Πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες, 25

Καὶ ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ εἶπεν, Λάβετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶµά µου. 23 καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες. 24 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷµά µου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόµενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν: 25 ἀµὴν λέγω ὑµῖν ὅτι οὐκέτι οὐ µὴ πίω ἐκ τοῦ γενήµατος τῆς ἀµπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡµέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ. 22

Καὶ ὑµνήσαντες ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸ Ὄρος τῶν Ἐλαιῶν.

26

τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷµά µου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόµενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁµαρτιῶν. 29 λέγω δὲ ὑµῖν, οὐ µὴ πίω ἀπ’ ἄρτι ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γενήµατος τῆς ἀµπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡµέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω µεθ’ ὑµῶν καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ πατρός µου. 30 Καὶ ὑµνήσαντες ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸ Ὄρος τῶν Ἐλαιῶν.

28

Besides the insertion of the Judas dialogue (v25) the only notable additions are the reference to ‘forgiveness of sins’66 and the presence of the disciples in the kingdom. And so it continues with Jesus’ prayers and arrest. The developments of Mark are the explicit references to Jesus’ praying a third time (Mt 27:44) and remaining in control despite circumstances (Mt 27:50a,52‒54). The mysterious young man of Mk 14:51‒52 is not included, rather the passage ends with the definitive τότε οἱ µαθηταὶ πάντες ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἔφυγον. And so Jesus’ trial begins. Needless to say, Matthew continues to follow Mark’s account. Mark

Matthew

14:53‒15:1 ‒ 15:2‒15 15:16‒41 15:42‒47 16:1‒8

26:57‒27:2 27:3‒10 27:11‒26 27:27‒56 27:57‒66 28:1‒20

Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin The Death of Judas Jesus before Rome The Crucifixion Jesus’ Burial The Empty Tomb

66 Matthew here shows a focus on the blood of the covenant as the means of ‘forgiveness of sins’. In Mt 3:1‒2 he did not refer to John’s baptism as ‘for the forgiveness of sins’ (Mk 1:4 // Lk 3:3). Likewise in the reference to the baptism of Gentiles (Mt 28:19) there is no reference to the forgiveness of sins (cf. Luke’s position in AVEMARIE , Tauferzählungen, p.109).

98

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

Jesus is brought before the High Priest, whom Matthew identifies as Caiaphas;67 Peter remains outside with the servants. The trial proceeds with the false witnesses and the claim concerning the temple; 68 Jesus remains silent. Matthew adds the High Priest’s exhortation: ἐξορκίζω σε κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος ἵνα ἡµῖν εἴπῃς εἰ... (Mt 26:63) and replaces Mark’s ἐγώ εἰµι with σὺ εἶπας (Mt 26:64), 69 the very answer Jesus gives Pilate in Mk 15:2 (σὺ λέγεις).70 He then gives Mark’s portrait of the Son of Man, upon hearing which the High Priest tears his cloaks and they lay the verdict of blasphemy and the death sentence, before beating and mocking Jesus. 71 Peter, meanwhile, is challenged by a maidservant, and denies knowing Jesus, despite the three accusations. 72 We then have Jesus brought to Pilate. It is here that Matthew leaves Mark to give his own account of the fate of Judas (Mt 27:3‒10), now that we know how Jesus’ trial has resulted. 73 This brings a break from the flow of Mark, but he returns to where he left off, and even reminds the reader: ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐστάθη ἔµπροσθεν τοῦ ἡγεµόνος (Mt 27:11a). Jesus is questioned and again remains resiliently silent. There follows the note concerning the custom of releasing a prisoner. Matthew agrees with Mark that the other captive is Barabbas, but adds the name ‘Jesus’ and omits his history (Mk 15:76). The question Pilate asks is then changed from Θέλετε ἀπολύσω ὑµῖν τὸν βασιλέα τῶν Ἰουδαίων; (Mk 15:9) to Τίνα θέλετε ἀπολύσω ὑµῖν, Ἰησοῦν τὸν Βαραββᾶν ἢ Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόµενον Χριστόν; (Mt 27:17). This gives the crowd, or rather ὁ λαός (Mt 27:25),74 a straightforward ‘A or B’ choice, before the Markan question is asked in Mt 27:22, and the reply comes from all gathered: ‘Let him be crucified!’ Matthew follows Mark in blaming the Jewish authorities for Jesus’ death (e.g. in Mk 15:11 // Mt 27:20), but intensifies this with his 67

Cf. Mt 26:3; there is however no name in the Judas traditions, merely the generic “high priests”. 68 Matthew omits only the references to ‘hand-made’ and ‘not-hand-made’ in Mk 14:58. 69 LUZ, Matthäus, IV, p.178, explains how this answer for Matthew means ‘yes’. It may furthermore have been an ancient oath formula (STRACK & B ILLERBECK, Kommentar, p.1006). 70 LUZ, Matthäus, p.529, 594. Cf. Jesus’ answer to Judas in Mt 26:25. 71 Matthew omits the reference to Jesus’ face being covered; see the list of possible reasons in D AVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, III, p.535. Luke has the reference, and the subsequent question τίς ἐστιν ὁ παίσας σε (Lk 22:64), possibly reflecting antique “BlindeKuh-Spiele” (LUZ, Matthäus, IV, p.204). 72 Matthew omits the cock’s first crow; cf. Mt 26:34. 73 Is Matthew here attempting to defend Judas in his story of the disciple’s remorse (µεταµεληθείς)? This is doubtful, as he is happy to include Mark’s curse of the betrayer (Mk 14:21 // Mt 26:24). 74 In Mk 15:8 an ὄχλος had gathered, but Matthew here writes πᾶς ὁ λαός, ergo the entire house of Israel, the Jews (L UZ, Matthäus, IV, p.278‒279). KONRADT, Israel, Kirche und die Völker, p.176, points out that in Mt 27:64 the authorities will conspire to avoid the disciples telling the λαός that Jesus has been raised from the dead.

4.1. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 12‒28

99

own traditions of intrigue and skulduggery. In parallel to his vilification of the high priests Matthew also develops Mark’s exoneration of Pilate, whose innocence is emphasized in the traditions of his wife (Mt 27:19), 75 his act of hand-washing (Mt 27:24) and the crowd’s ironic self-judgement τὸ αἷµα αὐτοῦ ἐφ’ ἡµᾶς καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τέκνα ἡµῶν (Mt 27:25). He closes the scene, however, with Mark. Jesus is then taken away and abused by guards in the praetorium, 76 before being led out to be crucified. A certain ‘Simon’ 77 carries the cross to Golgotha where Jesus is crucified as the ‘king of the Jews’. 78 There follows an account of two λῃσταί, one on either side, and the crowd and leaders mock Jesus. To this derision Matthew adds only πέποιθεν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν, ῥυσάσθω νῦν εἰ θέλει αὐτόν: εἶπεν γὰρ ὅτι Θεοῦ εἰµι υἱός (Mt 27:43). At noon there were three hours of darkness, as Jesus cries out and the crowd misunderstands (Matthew even alters Mark’s ελωι ελωι to ηλι ηλι to substantiate the misunderstanding). 79 Matthew follows Mark until Jesus expires and the temple veil is rent in two. At this point he again adds an independent tradition of an earthquake and the resurrection of the ἅγιοι who appear in ἡ ἅγια πόλις (Mt 27:51b‒53). It is in response to this that Mark’s centurion80 declares: Mark 15:39c Ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν.

Matthew 27:54c Ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος.

Matthew follows Mark’s reference to the women at the cross who had followed and served Jesus since Galilee, 81 including ‘the mother of the sons of Zebedee’ (cf. Mt 20:20). 82 Jesus is buried at nightfall, as only Mark explains: ἐπεὶ ἦν παρασκευή, ὅ ἐστιν προσάββατον (Mk 15:42). Matthew follows Mark’s reference to nightfall and the character Joseph from Harimathea, omitting Pilate’s surprised reaction and demand for confirmation (Mk 15:44‒45a). He retains Mark’s reference to the women (Mk 15:47 // Mt 27:61) before adding a further tradition of the guard at the tomb (Mt 27:62‒66).

75

Another divine dream, cf. the M traditions of Mt 1‒2. Matthew adds an earlier reference to the staff (καὶ κάλαµον ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ) and the act of kneeling (καὶ γονυπετήσαντες ἔµπροσθεν αὐτοῦ) in Mt 27:29. 77 In Mk 15:21, ‘of Cyrene, coming from the field, the father of Alexander and Rufus’. 78 In Mk 15:25 it is the third watch (9am). 79 D AVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, III, p.624. 80 F REYNE, “Jewish Contexts”, p.191, toys with the idea that this soldier may have been a Syrian, like our evangelists. 81 But not καὶ ἄλλαι πολλαὶ αἱ συναναβᾶσαι αὐτῷ εἰς Ἱεροσόλυµα (Mk 15:41b). 82 Mark has ‘Salome’ (Mk 15:40, cf. 16:1). 76

100

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

It is at this point that his use of Mark becomes unclear, as we are uncertain how indeed Mark’s gospel originally ended. 83 He begins, as Mark, with the evening following the Sabbath, when the two Marias 84 visit the tomb. He gives no account of their purchase of ointments (Mk 16:1b) or their doubt as to how to get past the stone (Mk 16:3). He rather has a sudden earthquake and an angel who rolls away this stone (Mt 28:2), and then sits there, much as the boy in Mark. 85 Matthew’s description of the angel is more detailed than Mark’s of the boy, and it is not the women who are shocked, but the guard, who become like the dead (Mt 28:4). The message to the women is as it was in Mark, 86 and they leave in fear and joy. Mark’s comment καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν, ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (Mk 16:8c) becomes ἔδραµον ἀπαγγεῖλαι τοῖς µαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ (Mt 28:8b). The story continues with a sudden appearance of Jesus, whose message is similar to that of the angel (compare Mt 28:5‒7 with v10), then another interlude (the Report of the Guard, Mt 28:11‒15), before Matthew closes off his gospel with his own unique and brief 87 ‘Great Commission’ (Mt 28:16‒20). Thus the new edition of Mark is complete, and now that we have seen Matthew at work, we can describe the main aspects of his revision of Mark to help us to understand what he is doing and why.

4.2. Aspects of Matthew’s Edition of Mark The examination of Matthew’s new gospel has shown ways in which he has developed Mark through additions, omissions and amendments; but most importantly and frequently overlooked is the continuity of the Matthean and Markan accounts. 88 I shall therefore discuss each of these aspects in turn, to show how each is to be explained and how each reveals something of Matthew’s attitude to the Markan tradition. 4.2.1. Additions Matthew’s addition of extensive material to the Markan tradition explains the length of his new gospel. Alongside the independent traditions and Cf., e.g., COLLINS, Mark, p.806‒807. Again, no mention of Salome (Mk 16:1). 85 The two men in Lk 24:2 remain standing. 86 Luke on the other hand begins with the question τί ζητεῖτε τὸν ζῶντα µετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν; (Lk 24:5b). 87 Cf. the later, longer ending of Mark (Mk 16:9‒20), and the accounts of Luke (Lk 24:13‒33) and John (Jn 20:19‒21:25). 88 ALAND, “Abschreiben”, p.123, describes the purpose of text criticism in a similar fashion to my own explanation of Matthew’s use of Mark: “Textkritik hat [...] von allen relevanten Quellen auszugehen und deren Varianten und ihre Zahl, aber auch deren Wortlautübereinstimmungen vernünftig zu bedenken.” 83

84

4.2. Aspects of Matthew’s Edition of Mark

101

teachings of Q and M, and the citations of the prophets, Matthew adds his own comments and reveals his distinct vocabulary. Yet the first additions Matthew makes to the Markan tradition betray structural considerations: his prologue and epilogue. The Matthean introduction (Mt 1‒2) is, conversely, his first ‘addition’ to the gospel format. The only element the gospels share is in their headlines, which both give the name and title of the protagonist, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. 89 The Matthean prologue comprises two chapters of independent tradition on the divine birth of Jesus, which end with his settlement, with his family, in Nazareth.90 Despite the subsequent hiatus before the adult ministries of both the baptist91 and Jesus himself, the scene has been set: Jesus, ‘God with us’,92 conceived by the holy spirit and heir of David, is born in Bethlehem and grows up in Nazareth. In his epilogue he adds the special appointment of guards at the tomb (Mt 27:62‒66, 28:4) in connection with the collusion of the Jewish leadership (Mt 28:11‒15), a brief appearance of Jesus (Mt 28:9‒10)93 and, famously, the Great Commission (Mt 28:16‒20). While there are some consistent themes in pro- and epilogue (e.g. µεθ’ ἡµῶν ὁ θεός and ἐγὼ µεθ’ ὑµῶν εἰµι, the plottings of firstly Herod and then the High Priests), there is no attempt at circularity on behalf of the redactor: motifs re-occur, but there is no explicit cross-reference. 94 The introduction and ending fail to resemble each other sufficiently to be considered complementary. Matthew rather betrays an element of gospel writing we also know from Luke, in expanding both the abrupt beginning and anti-climactic ending of Mark.95 The community developed an account of where this Messiah came from, and produced a very ‘biblical’ portrait of the birth of Jesus, with angels, dreams, pious parents and a tyrannical king. 96 These traditions, despite what form criticism has taught us in the last century, have the app89

Contrast Luke and John, who do not begin with the name. Quintilian, Inst. Or. 4.1.5., provides guidelines for a good introduction to a work. I doubt that he would have approved of an introduction involving such a list of foreign names. For a discussion of what was deemed appropriate in the development of textual traditions, see 5.3.2. Content 91 The baptist appears without much introduction in Matthew (in contrast to Luke), yet the audience is surely already familiar with the character from their knowledge of the traditions. The same applies to the character Σατανᾶς (Mk 1:13) / ∆ιάβολος (Q 4:2). 92 It is interesting that the name ‘Immanuel’ is translated (Mt 1:23), and thus explained, while ‘Jesus’ is not (Mt 1:21). 93 Cf. John 20:14‒18. 94 The ending has no dreams, no Joseph or family traditions, no prophecy fulfilment &c. Furthermore, I doubt that early communities would have been as quick as modern NT scholars to spot a parallel in ‘with us’ / ‘with you’, or to think back, when hearing πάντα τὰ ἔθνη to the µάγοι of Mt 2. 95 S TANTON, A Gospel, p.66: “By his addition of infancy narratives and his fuller passion and resurrection narratives, Matthew links his gospel even more closely to the ancient biographical tradition.” 90

102

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

earance of being the oldest, and Matthew would certainly have seen them as such. His epilogue on the other hand is, as mentioned, brief to say the least. Jesus’ post-Easter message is limited to sixteen words to the women and three verses of instruction to the disciples; no explanation is necessary. 97 In his epilogue therefore Matthew is doing little more than giving an account of the ‘eleven’ 98 themselves meeting Jesus in Galilee (as promised in Mk 16:7), and receiving a direct commission to evangelize, baptize 99 and teach the Gentiles, 100 something which Matthew knows must have had Jesus’ direct order. This mission can only happen now, because at this point Jesus has been given ‘all authority in heaven and on earth’ (Mt 28:18). Jesus’ last words are then a promise: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ µεθ’ ὑµῶν εἰµι πάσας τὰς ἡµέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος (Mt 28:20). Matthew ends his gospel with this definitive reassurance to Christians everywhere among τὰ ἔθνη. 101 There is no evidence of ‘what happened next’; the Markan tradition has no account of Jesus’ resurrection ministry, and so neither does Matthew.102 Thus the prologue, answering the question of the origins of this Markan Jesus, and the epilogue, justifying the promise of the Markan tradition and the decades of Gentile mission, are no more than ‘additions’ to the life of Jesus according to Mark. 103 96

The addition of such a prologue also gives the audience information not known to the main characters. This standard dramatic use of irony is however surely implicit in Mark: the audience knows what the disciples and crowds do not. There is, most importantly, no hint of the crucifixion in Matthew’s introduction, so he is not consciously aiming at such audience participation, rather is simply giving an answer to the question of Jesus’ provenance. 97 Luke (Lk 24:52‒53) is similarly abrupt and inconclusive, a cliff-hanger which leads into Acts. 98 For Matthew, unlike Luke, has already told us of Judas’ suicide (Mt 27:5). 99 Although there has been no indication of Jesus or the disciples baptizing others (Matthew even omits the (metaphorical) reference to ‘baptism’ from Mk 10:38‒39), Matthew clearly knows that the apostles’ mission included a full programme of baptism; cf., e.g., AVEMARIE , Tauferzählungen, p.88, with reference to Acts: “Die Unverzüglichkeit und Selbstverständlichkeit, mit der es jedesmal zur Taufe kommt, lässt sie als die unmittelbare, erste Konsequenz des Gläubigwerdens erscheinen.” 100 For a discussion on whether πάντα τὰ ἔθνη includes the Jews, see, e.g., K ONRADT, Israel, Kirche und die Völker, p.334‒347. 101 Perhaps with one last liturgical ἀµήν (see NTG ad loc.). 102 The later ending of Mark and the traditions known to Luke and John provide more detailed accounts of the post-Easter Jesus. 103 The way in which Matthew developed the ending of Mark was examined by HECKEL, Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium, p.62‒76, who argues that this provides the clearest evidence of Matthew’s own theological position (p.62, cf. references on p.69, n.155), and creativity with regard to both Mark and other traditions (p.66‒67), in order to correct false impressions of Mark’s climax (p.70). He is not countering the teachings of false prophets, i.e. those other than ‘the eleven’ (p.73), rather completing what he saw as Mark’s portrait of the disciples as witnesses to Jesus’ instruction (p.76). Thus Matthew would not have considered his epilogue as divergent from the Markan gospel, rather as a conclusion to its overall message.

4.2. Aspects of Matthew’s Edition of Mark

103

The discourses comprise the second most significant Matthean addition to the Markan gospel. They find their setting within the Markan framework and take their cue from Markan content, although the Sermon (Mt 5:1‒ 7:29) is set only vaguely in Galilee104 and the Mission Discourse (Mt 10:5‒ 11:1) is brought forward to earlier than in Mark, yet still begins with Markan content. The material usually progresses in this certain order of priority: Markan content is copied first and is followed by any pertinent Q material, which is then supplemented by M traditions and editorial comment.105 Arrangement of these discourses is broadly based upon theme. 106 Jesus’ speeches are thus collected in thematic units, an approach Matthew may have inherited in part from his sources, but which he certainly makes his own. Such discourse is brought to a close with the formulaic ending found in Mt 7:28,107 11:1, 13:53, 19:1 and 26:1.108 Because Matthew takes his cue from Mark, it seems unwise to lay much stress on the discourses as part of Matthew’s structural concerns. It seems rather that the greatest, longest traditions which Matthew adds to Mark are parables and logia, which it is of course easiest to incorporate into thematic monologues, rather than into individual events in Jesus’ life. So it is in his discourses, including those he develops from Mark, that Matthew is able to add the greatest amount of independent (teaching) material to the life of Jesus. Matthew also has knowledge of events in the life of Jesus which are not attested in Mark, but, as we have seen, are nonetheless mostly developments of Mark and can not be understood outside of the Markan tradition. Matthew’s miracle accounts, for example, come for the most part from 104 NEIRYNCK, “La rédaction matthéenne”, p.67: “La conclusion du sermon sur la montagne [...] permet de penser que la première mention de l’enseignement de Jésus en Mc. I,21 fut l’occasion d’insérer le discours inaugural.” 105 KOESTER, Gospels, p.322: “Except for the first of the five major speeches [...] he begins a speech with the reproduction of some Markan materials, then adds sayings from Q, and concludes with materials drawn from his special source or other contexts and traditions.” ROBINSON, “Trajectory”, p.135, argues that the Sermon proves the exception, as it is firstly a Q framework which is then expanded by relevant thematic traditions, p.136: “a disparate hodge-podge of sayings brought into the Q Sermon from elsewhere to enlarge it into the Sermon on the Mount.” 106 DAVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, I, p.88: “And this, incidentally, largely explains why it is so easy to summarize so succinctly the subject matter of the major Matthean discourses.” TAYLOR, “The Order of Q”, suggests that Matthew scanned Q for passages pertinent to each discourse, selecting them in the order they were found in Q. Cf. also, interestingly, the comment of KENNEDY, “Classical and Christian Source Criticism”, p.142: “In his ministry, Jesus surely repeated himself far more often than the individual gospels indicate, but not necessarily in exactly the same words.” 107 Cf. Lk 7:1. 108 ALLEN, Matthew, p.xix: “[T]hese bodies of discourse, formed by interweaving some other source or sources with the shorter discourses found in Mk [...] are closed by a formula [...], one of the most striking features of this gospel.” The tirade against the Pharisees and scribes (Mt 23) does not end with such a formula, and is thus not traditionally counted among the great discourses of Matthew’s gospel.

104

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

Mark, and once from Q (Mt 8:5‒13), yet he does have generic miracle accounts of his own, the two blind men (Mt 9:27‒31) and the deaf-mute demoniac (Mt 9:32‒34). The first of these may be described as a ‘development’ of the Markan miracles, such as Bartimaeus in Mk 10:46‒52 109 and possibly the blind man of Bethsaida in Mk 8:22‒26. The second is more Qlike in form (Q 11:14‒15). 110 The accounts may be heavily dependent on oral tradition, if not present in Matthew’s written sources. 111 It is difficult to accuse Matthew, the faithful transmitter of his traditions, of inventing brief miracle accounts towards the end of his series. Yet L UZ describes these as “die narrativen Fiktionen im Matthäusevangelium, die merkwürdig mit der im ganzen sehr großen Traditionstreue des Evangelisten kontrastieren.”112 Yet whether ‘oral traditions’ or ‘narrative fictions’, for now we need simply to recognize that these miracles, still early in Matthew’s reworking of Mark and Q, show the limits of his creative freedom in his treatment of the traditions in his sources, and are the exceptions which prove the rule that otherwise Matthew is the loyal tradent of the Markan miracles. Examples of narrative traditions which appear to have existed outside of Mark include the Q account of the centurion in Caphernaum and the M tradition of the payment of Temple tax (Mt 17:24‒27). Yet the miracle account fits easily within the Markan series of Galilean wonders and even the temple tax episode has a precedent in the question on tribute to Caesar (Mk 12:13‒17). There is therefore in the main body of Matthew’s gospel113 no ‘tradition’ of the life of Jesus which cannot be described as an elaboration of the story as presented in Mark. Matthew has made several additions to the Markan passion narrative: the names Caiaphas (Mt 26:3,57) and ‘Jesus’ Barabbas (Mt 27:16‒17), the death of Judas (Mt 27:3‒10), Jesus’ response to the High Priest (Mt 26:63‒ 64), the Pilate material (Mt 27:19,24‒25), the wonders in Jerusalem (Mt 27:51b‒53) and the guards (Mt 27:62‒66, 28:4,11‒15). These again prove complementary, and do little to alter the Markan account. Such M traditions appear to have grown alongside Mark, for they supplement the Markan Passion, and do not suggest the existence of an independent pass109

Cf. Matthew’s parallel in Mt 20:29‒34. See discussion of both in 3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11. 111 LORD, “The Gospels as Oral Traditional Literature”, p.78: “[T]he healings of the blind men in the gospels are excellent examples of oral traditional multi-forms.” 112 LUZ, “Fiktivität”, p.153. Cf. ibid., p.159: “Der traditionstreue Evangelist Matthäus scheut sich also nicht, an entscheidenden Punkten seine Jesusgeschichte mit neuen Erzählungen zu versehen.” And ibid., p.162: “Diese Fiktionen waren ihm durchaus bewußt. In einigen Fällen nähert er sich dabei der historischen Groteske, was ihm auch nicht verborgen gewesen sein kann.” A UNE, “Genre Theory”, p.165‒166, demonstrates that ancient authors were very aware of the distinction between fact and fiction, even in religious circles. 113 We have discussed the pro- and epilogues and will consider the Passion account presently. 110

4.2. Aspects of Matthew’s Edition of Mark

105

ion account.114 Many of them betray folkloric elements and thus reveal a basic oral development of Mark. Here, Matthew is not drawing on Q or anything like a written collection of traditions; he is rather recording the Markan Passion as it is known in his community, complete with the oral developments we see in these instances. Links to Jerusalem emerge: the characters Caiaphas, Jesus Barabbas and Pilate’s wife, 115 the field of blood, the appearance of the dead in the city and the conspiracy of the authorities. Yet in any case, Matthew shows no awareness of a Passion account independent of that of Mark. Q disparaît ici de la documentation matthéenne; en outre, le Sondergut est assez limité, et il est probablement très rédactionnel: même là où Matthieu ne compose pas de toutes pièces, il semble dépendre parfois de simples traditions orales plutôt que de sources écrites. C’est donc une caractéristique de la Passion matthéenne que de nous permettre de surprendre son auteur en dialogue assez exclusif avec Marc.116

Matthew knows one account of Jesus’ death in Jerusalem: Mark. 117 Matthew also provides us with many short asides which seek to give some explanation of the Markan text.118 Matthew reveals his loyalty to the tradition through clarification of the issue at hand. 119 Matthew’s additions are here given in bold. Mk 2:25‒26 // Mt 12:3‒7

Matthew adds material to clarify the justification of plucking grain on the Sabbath.

ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε τί ἐποίησεν ∆αυὶδ ὅτε ἐπείνασεν καὶ οἱ µετ’ αὐτοῦ; πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγον, ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν οὐδὲ τοῖς µετ’ αὐτοῦ, εἰ µὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν µόνοις; ἢ οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ἐν τῷ νόµῳ ὅτι τοῖς σάββασιν οἱ ἱερεῖς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τὸ

114 The death of Judas is accounted for by Luke, but the traditions are not the same (Mt 27:3‒10 // Acts 1:18‒19) and it is Matthew who draws more heavily on the events of Mk 14:10‒11 in his version. Papias’ account of Judas’ death(s) is preserved in a fragment from Apollinaris of Laodicea, see K ÜRZINGER, Papias, p.104‒105. 115 Although Alexander and Rufus (Mk 15:21), the boy in the garden (Mk 14:51‒52) and Salome (Mk 15:40, 16:1) are all omitted in the Matthean Passion. 116 D ESCAMPS, “Rédaction et christologie”, p.360. 117 It would of course help to reinforce my portrait of Matthew’s adherence to Mark if sufficient evidence were found that Matthew was following Mark’s Passion despite awareness of an independent account (I am indebted in this observation to the comments of A. Standhartinger). The Matthean passion, however, does not indicate this. 118 D AVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, I, p.75‒80; LUZ , Matthäus, I, p.57‒75. B YRSKOG, “A New Perspective on the Jesus Tradition”, suggests we may here be dealing with “specific didactic functionaries” (p.467) whose work included “a transmission that preserves and elaborates in order to convince the audience about the Jesus of the past” (p.471). 119 These include also the fulfilment citations with which Matthew justifies the Markan tradition.

106

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark σάββατον βεβηλοῦσιν καὶ ἀναίτιοί εἰσιν; λέγω δὲ ὑµῖν ὅτι τοῦ ἱεροῦ µεῖζόν ἐστιν ὧδε. εἰ δὲ ἐγνώκειτε τί ἐστιν, Ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν, οὐκ ἂν κατεδικάσατε τοὺς ἀναιτίους.

Mk 3:4 // Mt 12:11‒12

Matthew adds a (Q?) passage in justification of “doing good” on the Sabbath.

ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Τίς ἔσται ἐξ ὑµῶν ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἕξει πρόβατον ἕν, καὶ ἐὰν ἐµπέσῃ τοῦτο τοῖς σάββασιν εἰς βόθυνον, οὐχὶ κρατήσει αὐτὸ καὶ ἐγερεῖ; πόσῳ οὖν διαφέρει ἄνθρωπος προβάτου. ὥστε ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν καλῶς ποιεῖν.

Mk 8:12 // Mt 16:4

Matthew is consistent with his account of the Q tradition in Mt 12:38‒42.

Γενεὰ πονηρὰ καὶ µοιχαλὶς σηµεῖον ἐπιζητεῖ, καὶ σηµεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ εἰ µὴ τὸ σηµεῖον Ἰωνᾶ.

Mk 8:21 // Mt 16:11‒12

Matthew’s Jesus explains what he πῶς οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι οὐ περὶ ἄρτων εἶπον ὑµῖν; προσέχετε δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς means, and the disciples understand. ζύµης τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων. τότε συνῆκαν ὅτι οὐκ εἶπεν προσέχειν ἀπὸ τῆς ζύµης τῶν ἄρτων ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ τῆς διδαχῆς τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων.

Mk 9:13 // Mt 17:12‒13

Matthew again notes that the disciples understand.

λέγω δὲ ὑµῖν ὅτι Ἠλίας ἤδη ἦλθεν, καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνωσαν αὐτὸν ἀλλὰ ἐποίησαν ἐν αὐτῷ ὅσα ἠθέλησαν: οὕτως καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου µέλλει πάσχειν ὑπ’ αὐτῶν. τότε συνῆκαν οἱ µαθηταὶ ὅτι περὶ Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς.

Mk 10:11 // Mt 19:9

Matthew is consistent with his logion of Mt 5:32.120

λέγω δὲ ὑµῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ µὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαµήσῃ ἄλλην µοιχᾶται.

Mk 14:21 // Mt 26:24‒25

Matthew shows that Jesus knows which disciple will betray him, and that he even confirms this with Judas.

ὁ µὲν υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὑπάγει καθὼς γέγραπται περὶ αὐτοῦ, οὐαὶ δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ δι’ οὗ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται:

120 STRECKER, Gerechtigkeit, p.17: “Es ist ja nicht anzunehmen, daß Matthäus diese besondere Regelung der Ehescheidung neu einführen wollte ‒ dann wäre eine ausführliche Begründung notwendig gewesen. Wahrscheinlicher ist daher, daß der Redaktor schon in einer Tradition lebte, die die Ehescheidung in dieser Form praktizierte, und daß er sie hier als Einfügung in seine Vorlagen schriftlich niederlegte.”

4.2. Aspects of Matthew’s Edition of Mark

107

καλὸν ἦν αὐτῷ εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Ἰούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν εἶπεν, Μήτι ἐγώ εἰµι, ῥαββί; λέγει αὐτῷ, Σὺ εἶπας.

We have therefore seen Matthew add prologue and epilogue, teaching in parables and logia, dependent oral traditions and explanatory comments and quotations to the Markan tradition. Mark is therefore subject to additions such as these, and Matthew will not hesitate to improve upon the text with new material and commentary. However, it must not be forgotten that the ‘new’ teachings and traditions, while not inconsiderable at certain points, remain brief in contrast to the narrative of Mark, which Matthew follows with comment when it is required. His focus is not on such traditions, but on the reproduction of Mark, supplemented by complementary material at various points in the progression of the narrative. As we shall see, Matthew is not concerned only with the expansion of Mark with new material, thus his programme is not simply one of addition. 4.2.2. Omissions A second important factor of Matthean redaction is the omission of certain passages, narrative detail (‘abbreviation’) and potent themes in the Markan tradition. Again each of these aspects should contribute to a clearer understanding of the Matthean attitude to Mark. The following Markan pericopae are notable by their absence in Matthew: (a) Mk 1:21‒22 The Caphernaum synagogue (b) Mk 1:23‒28 A man with an unclean spirit (c) Mk 1:35‒38 Jesus goes off alone to pray (d) Mk 4:26‒29 The parable of the seed growing secretly (e) Mk 7:32‒37 The healing of a deaf man in the Decapolis 121 (f) Mk 8:22‒26 The healing of a blind man in Bethsaida 122 (g) Mk 9:38‒41 The unknown exorcist (h) Mk 12:41‒44 The widow’s mite

Examination of the texts123 has shown possible reasons for the omission of these traditions. Accounts (a), (e) and possibly (d) 124 were at least considered by our evangelist in his composition, yet their reworking to such a deg121

Matthew uses a general summary (Mt 15:29‒31) which is nonetheless heavily influenced by the vocabulary of this Markan passage. 122 Also omitted by Luke. 123 In 3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11 and 4.1. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 12‒28. 124 Matthew may have this in mind in his parable of the Wheat and Tares, Mt 13:24‒ 30; for discussion of this possibility see GOULDER, Midrash, p.58; DAVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, II, p.409‒410; LUZ, Matthäus, II, p.322; GUNDRY, Matthew, p.262‒263; B ONNARD, Matthieu, p.198.

108

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

ree as to render them almost unrecognisable reveals Matthew’s dissatisfaction with their position or relevance; Matthew is free to take the main theme and then completely rework the account. (c) is omitted as it would interrupt his series of miracles. The miracle accounts (b) and (f) are omitted altogether, yet there may be a degree of compensation on behalf of the redactor, who accounts for the healings of similar sufferers elsewhere in his gospel (Mt 9:27‒34). The exorcist of (g) is presumably omitted because of the interruption of discourse and the conflict of Mk 9:40 with the Q saying of Mt 12:30. The widow of (h) is perhaps overlooked simply because of her position amid a polemic against the Jewish leadership and the temple institution and its exploitation of the poor. So each of the omissions can be explained on the basis of literary and not theological concerns. Nonetheless, the fact remains: Matthew is at liberty to omit whole episodes of the Markan tradition. 125 In a gospel of so many individual traditions, however, the disappearance of these eight accounts may not have been given much notice; yet how could the community, if familiar with the Markan tradition, fail to ask itself upon hearing Matthew’s account: What of the synagogue in Caphernaum, Jesus’ first miracle? 126 And did Jesus not visit Bethsaida? 127 It is easy to be distracted by Matthew’s lengthy discourses, which fall at precisely those moments when some pericopae are omitted: at (a) and (b) the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5‒7), for (d) of course the parable discourse (Mt 12), for (g) the community discourse (Mt 18) and for (h) the woes to the scribes and Pharisees (Mt 23) and the apocalypse (Mt 24). As suggested, (c) comes amid a series of miracles, 128 and (e) is itself re-worked by Matthew. But why omit (f), a Bethsaida episode en route to Caesarea Philippi? That a solution continues to evade us means we must simply accept that Matthew, in composing a new, replacement gospel, consigns to oblivion these events in the life of Jesus, despite their fame in communities such as his own and that of Luke which knew and used Mark’s gospel. Gospel composition not only entailed the addition of complementary traditions to form a compendium of Jesus stories, but the omission of several self-contained episodes which, for whatever reason, are thus soon to be forgotten. Matthew, in his work, is not collecting everything; there is a selection of material, and these eight traditions fail to make the cut. 125

We have no reason to assume that Matthew’s copy of Mark lacked these episodes, rather indeed evidence that Matthew was often influenced by these ‘disappeared’ traditions. 126 Comparison may here be drawn to the wedding at Cana (Jn 2:1‒11), which, insignificant as it may be, every good churchgoer knows was ‘Jesus’ first miracle’. 127 Bethsaida is mentioned in Matthew only in the Q ‘woes’ (Mt 11:20‒24); of course, there is in the gospels no account of Jesus visiting Chorazin, which is also denounced in this passage. 128 Yet so does the calling of the tax-collector, which is retained.

4.2. Aspects of Matthew’s Edition of Mark

109

Matthew therefore includes Markan traditions which prove relevant to his own concerns; that he includes almost all of Mark must then be taken as evidence that, for the most part, he shared common concerns with Mark. But what then of the tensions in Matthew which arise from the continuance of contradictory traditions, e.g. Mt 10:5‒6 // Mt 28:19‒20? In this case, as ROBINSON argues, “The flat contradiction between the Mission Instructions in Matthew 10 and the Great Commission in Matthew 28 proves that nolonger-valid traditions do get interpolated into Matthew.” 129 Yet, there is ample evidence that, “Matthew’s faithfulness to his tradition did not include the passing on of incomprehensible matter.” 130 Certain elements of the tradition were deemed inappropriate or irrelevant at this early stage in the development, e.g.:131 s

(i) Mk 6:48c καὶ ἤθελεῖν παρελθεῖν αὐτούς\ (j) Mk 9:49‒50 πᾶς γὰρ πυρὶ ἁλισθήσεται (k) Mk 11:16 καὶ οὐκ ἤφιεν ἵνα τις διενέγκῃ σκεῦος διὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ (l) Mk 14:51‒52 νεανίσκος τις συνηκολούθει αὐτῷ περιβεβληµένος σινδόνα ἐπὶ γυµνοῦ καὶ κρατοῦσιν αὐτόν. ὁ δὲ καταλιπὼν τὴν σινδόνα γυµνὸς ἔφυγεν. (m) Mk 15:21b ἐρχοµένον ἀπ’ ἀγροῦ τὸν πατέρα Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Ῥούφου s

We must conclude from this that anything retained by Matthew was deemed relevant and worthy of inclusion, for he is not one to transmit the cryptic. Thus any apparently no-longer-valid traditions which Matthew continues must have some relevance to the Matthean gospel and its message, as STANTON: Perhaps Matthew was a rather naïve anthologist who simply juxtaposed divergent traditions. [...] Or perhaps the evangelist expected that his readers would discern from the thrust of his gospel as a whole, and from their own experience and self-understanding, that some saying belonged to an earlier stage of their history. The latter view is surely the more plausible.132

Thus Matthew in his two-mission structure 133 shows that he does retain elements of his traditions which are no longer strictly speaking relevant, 134 and so the omission of any of these comments or traditions must be due to their difficulty or mystery, not because they are out-dated.135 129

ROBINSON, “Trajectory”, p.149. DAVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, I, p.74. STANTON, Gospels and Jesus, p.75: “[I]t is difficult to believe that Matthew has retained teaching with which he himself does not agree.” 131 All are also absent from Luke. 132 STANTON, A Gospel, p.47. 133 As discussed in 3.5. The Matthean Trajectory. 134 Including, for example, the tradition of the payment of temple tax (Mt 17:24‒27). 135 This principle applies to the examples (i)‒(m) listed above and perhaps to the pericope of the unknown exorcist (g); but certainly (h) can not be omitted purely because there is no longer a temple, and (a)‒(f) are not difficult or cryptic passages, rather appear in line with the portrait of Jesus in Mark and in Matthew. 130

110

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

Another major element of omission is the reduction of narrative detail. This phenomenon, evident also in the redactional work of Luke, may be a general trend in the synoptic tradition. 136 Many of the rich details of Mark are dropped by Matthew (and by Luke), e.g. the wild beasts of Mk 1:13, the cushion of Mk 4:38, the green grass, ranks and numbers of Mk 6:39‒ 40, &c. Matthew also consistently removes references to the pressure of crowds (Mk 1:33, 1:45, 2:2‒4, 3:9‒10, 3:20, 6:31). He drops the names ‘Jairus’ (Mk 5:22 // Mt 9:18), ‘Bartimaeus’ (Mk 10:46 // Mt 20:29‒30a), Salome (Mk 15:40, 16:1 // Mt 27:56, 28:1), 137 and of course ‘Levi’ to whom he gives the apostolic name ‘Matthew’ (Mk 2:14 // Mt 9:9). 138 He almost constantly reduces Markan grammatical redundancy. 139 This (perhaps subconscious) tendency probably reflects a desire to concentrate on the main aspects of each account. However with Matthew it is almost an attempt to purge the Markan tradition of all superfluous narrative. H ELD writes of the Matthean miracles: “Was bei ihm fehlt, ist das erzählerische Beiwerk. Er bietet statt dessen so etwas wie eine schmucklose Strichzeichnung.”140 Matthew indeed appears to focus the narrative upon the figure of Jesus, his words and his actions. It is a natural aspect of drama to focus on the words and actions of the characters, especially those of the protagonist.141 Matthew is not producing a play, rather developing Mark in a very literary manner. Nonetheless it seems that a similar principle is at work: the details are reduced to allow increased focus on the main character and to provide more a paradigm than a novel. 142 Matthew’s interest is

But a note of caution comes from SANDERS, Tendencies, p.272: “There are no hard and fast laws of the development of the Synoptic tradition. On all counts the tradition developed in opposite directions. It became both longer and shorter, both more and less detailed, and both more and less Semitic [.... T]he tradition has no tendencies apart from the sum of the tendencies of the individuals who transmit it.” 137 Does Matthew identify Salome as the mother of James and John? 138 He keeps, however, the names of the Twelve, Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Simon who carries the cross and Simon the leper of Bethany. Indeed others he adds, Joseph (Mt 1:18) and Caiaphas (Mt 26:3,57). 139 ALLEN, Matthew, p.xxiv‒xxvi. 140 HELD, Überlieferung, p.163. Ibid., p.192: “Die Schilderung der äußeren Umstände wird auf das Notwendigste eingeschränkt.” 141 If the Markan tradition were acted out by the early communities, we would expect the disappearance of details which cannot be acted. Cf. also K LOPPENBORG, Excavating Q, p.60, with reference to the scripta continua format: “Reading itself was an act of interpretation insofar as the reader prepared in advance for performance, deciding how to break the continuous string of letters into words and sentences, where to place ‘paragraph breaks’, and which portions to emphasize. This implies that the written text was never a separate entity but always existed in the content of oral performance, functioning more like a musical script than a modern book.” 142 GATZWEILER, “Les récits”, p.212: “Le genre novellistique se transforme en paradigmatique.” 136

4.2. Aspects of Matthew’s Edition of Mark

111

not in the details of the narrative but in the words and deeds of the protagonist. In focussing on the main character Matthew also runs the risk of overlooking some of the ‘themes’ brought out by Mark in his narrative. In reworking the words of Jesus and his disciples, Matthew tones the tradition so as to reduce or remove some Markan motifs. One example is that of the so-called ‘Messianic Secret’: Matthew retains Jesus’ commands to silence addressed to the leper (Mk 1:44 // Mt 8:4), the deaf man / the crowds (Mk 3:12 // Mt 12:6), and the disciples at both Caesarea Philippi (Mk 8:30 // Mt 16:20) and the transfiguration (Mk 9:9 // Mt 17:9). He also adds his own in the account of the two blind men (καὶ ἐνεβριµήθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων· ὁρᾶτε143 µηδεὶς γινωσκέτω, Mt 9:30b), yet omits it from his account of the leader’s daughter (Mk 5:43 // Mt 9:26). 144 However, the most notable aspect is the complete absence of a battle for secrecy with demons. W REDE famously noted: “Gewiss ist aber, dass die Zeugnisse der Dämonen für Jesus, die Betonung ihrer Erkenntnis und die an sie gerichteten Verbote keinen besonderen Wert für Matthaeus mehr haben.”145 This major theme is thus not expressed in Matthew yet nor is it completely lost. 146 Matthew continues to transmit elements of the tradition pertaining directly to the secrecy of Jesus’ identity, yet fails to give this motif the potency it enjoys in Mark. Reference to the disciples’ incomprehension 147 is omitted in the series of parables (Mk 4:13 // Mt 10:32b) and the discussion on riches (Mk 10:24 // Mt 19:24), while changed to one of fear-following-understanding in the second passion prediction (Mk 9:32 // Mt 17:33). He retains the negative commentary on the disciples’ inability in the accounts of the stilling of the storm (Mk 4:40 // Mt 8:26), the debate concerning purity (Mk 7:18 // Mt 15:16) and the leaven of the Pharisees (Mk 8:17‒18 // Mt 16:8‒9a), although in the last case Matthew clarifies that the disciples do ultimately understand (Mt 16:12). Das [...] beweist [...], dass Matthaeus es nicht vermocht hat, die Beweise der Schwäche und Unfähigkeit der Jünger, die er in seiner Quelle fand, ganz auszutilgen. [...] Es kann 143 An appropriate imperative for the two men who have just miraculously received sight(!). Cf. the wisdom of blind seers in Greek traditions, e.g. Tiresias, who in Sophocles’ Oedipus, line 413, proclaims to the protagonist: σὺ καὶ δέδορκας κοὐ βλέπεις ἵν’ εἶ κακοῦ. 144 As MACDONALD , Homeric Epics, p.50, points out, Jesus does not appeal for secrecy in Mark when the Jewish leaders themselves are present (e.g. Mk 1:23‒28), which would suggest that these leaders were the very people from whom Jesus sought to keep his activity secret; this becomes impossible when they themselves are witnesses. The man who appeals to Jesus on behalf of his daughter is one such leader. 145 WREDE, Messiasgeheimnis, p.154. 146 Its lack of importance in Matthew cannot be attributed to abbreviation alone, see WREDE, Messiasgeheimnis, p.153. 147 Cf. ALLEN, Matthew, p.xxxiii‒xxxiv.

112

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

aber nicht darin irre machen, dass er prinzipiell eine andere Auffassung von ihnen hat als Markus.148

That is to say, for Matthew the disciples, who became the apostles, must be shown to have understood Jesus’ teaching correctly. 149 And so the omission of certain passages, narrative detail, and literary ‘themes’ from Mark shows that despite his general loyalty to the Markan tradition, Matthew is not tied to telling the story exactly as Mark told it; his own concerns, priorities and style will determine that certain elements of the Markan tradition are lost in this new edition, and these losses are not without consequence for our portrait of an evangelist in succession of Mark. Yet their infrequency and the evidence that Matthew also adds to, changes and often simply copies Mark, show that Matthew’s new edition of the gospel is not primarily one of selection and reduction, rather this is merely a rare but significant aspect of his work. 4.2.3. Amendments The element of Matthean redaction which has always received the most attention is that of the changes which our evangelist has made to Mark. Thus reference will be made to many redaction-critical studies and commentaries, without the need to provide evidence for each well-known instance of Matthew’s changes to Mark; Matthew’s changes to Mark are well documented and commentated, and need not all be repeated now. Yet it is the detailed focus on minor amendments which distracts from the continuity of the two gospels and, I feel, one need not delight in finding a deep theological basis behind each change of structure in a sentence or spelling in a word. 150 A balance must be found between the significance of the changes made and the level of continuity maintained. However as Matthew progresses through the Markan gospel with remarkable loyalty to the tradition, he delights in minor improvements and amendments which reflect his own literary style and theological viewpoint. Matthew’s literary amendments are various. He writes accomplished Greek 151 with a certain Semitic flavour. 152 The Semitic tone of his gospel can be attributed to several factors: his sources, an imitation of the LXX, WREDE, Messiasgeheimnis, p.159. DAVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, II, p.393, suggest: “The result is that the Christian reader may identify more readily with the disciples. Also, the stress on understanding well serves Matthew’s view of the apostles as the authoritative bearers of Jesus’ teaching.” See further discussion of the portrayal of the disciples in 4.2.4. Continuity. 150 STEIN, “Redaktionsgeschichte”, p.54: “[N]ot every change or stress will involve a major problem, concern or purpose.” ALEXANDER, “Rabbinic Biography”, p.33: “Not every variant may have a subtle point; some may have arisen simply because the tradents were unable to reproduce the tradition in precisely the words in which they received it.” STANTON, Gospels and Jesus, p.26: “All too often theological reinterpretation has been discerned in what are simply literary modifications.” 148

149

4.2. Aspects of Matthew’s Edition of Mark

113

direct translation of Semitic traditions and an Aramaic mind-set. 153 He develops his own system,154 often avoiding the vocabulary of Mark, such as the repetitive use of καί, καὶ εὐθύς and πάλιν, the historic present, 155 ἤρξατο with an infinitive, εἶναι with a participle, the double negative and a compound verb and preposition. He also replaces Mark’s unusual vocabulary with the more commonplace,156 and there are further changes of prepositions and adverbs which allow for ease of construction and conformity.157 Matthew also improves the transliteration of Mark, e.g. Ἰσκαριώτης (Mt 10:4) for Ἰσκαριώθ (Mk 3:19) and ηλι ηλι (Mt 27:46) for ελωι ελωι (Mk 15:34). 158 Yet he follows the language of Mark: “Matthäus verfährt zwar mit markinischer Redaktion relativ frei; es fällt aber auf, daß er im ganzen die markinische redaktionelle Diktion aufnimmt.” 159 Matthew is quite free to make a variety of improvements: “[L]es retouches de vocabulaire [...] font déjà naître le soupçon que Matthieu met un point d’honneur à ne pas recopier son modèle tel quel: il s’ingénie à le retoucher, même quand il ne veut pas l’altérer vraiment.” 160 His stylistic improvements are therefore to be expected; as we have seen in the comparison of the texts, he often delights in the rephrasing of Mark. He also makes many attempts to 151 LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.52: “Der Evangelist schreibt gutes, nicht aber literarisch gehobenes Koine-Griechisch.” M OULE, Birth of the New Testament, p.219, describes Matthew as “an educated person commanding sound Greek with a considerable vocabulary”. 152 A prime example of such is Mt 5:22 and 18:9: εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός, a Semitic genitivus qualitatis. DAVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, I, p.85, conclude: “Although Matthew’s Greek is much better than Mark’s, it is not that much less Semitic.” However, LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.52: “Es ist differenzierter, geschliffener und gehobener als das volkstümlich-semitisierende Griechisch von Markus oder Q.” Yet GOULDER , Midrash, p.119: “Matthew thought more Aramaically than Mark.” Examples of Semitisms in Matthew include the casus pendens, asyndeton, parataxis, use of pronouns, articles, and ὅτι for ‫ד‬. 153 GOULDER, Midrash, p.121: “Matthew is a Greek-speaking Jew, whose own personal Aramaic thinking shines through his Greek. [Matthew’s] Greek is at the same time more educated than that of Mark.” 154 DAVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, I, p.80: “The frequency of conditional, explanatory and inferential conjunctions (e.g. γάρ, ἐάν, ὅπως, οὖν, ὡς καί, ὥστε; cf. also διὰ τοῦτο) reflects an orderly mind.” 155 ALLEN, Matthew, p.xx: “Mt. generally avoided the historic present when reproducing Mk. [...] In reproducing other sources he seems to have avoided the present, except in the case of λέγει and λέγουσιν.” 156 See ALLEN, Matthew, p.xxvi‒xxvii; e.g. εἶδεν σχιζοµένους τοὺς οὐρανούς (Mk 1:10) to ἰδοὺ ἠνεῴχθησαν οἱ οὐρανοί (Mt 3:16). 157 ALLEN, Matthew, p.xxx: “Many of these changes are without significance.” 158 SANDERS, Tendencies, p.28: “The multi-lingual character of the early [...] tradition provided a source of variation.” Furthermore, as WISCHMEYER, “Identity”, p.376, points out, both Mark and Matthew considered themselves more acquainted with Judaism and semitisms than their audience(s). 159 LUZ, Matthäus, Mt, I, p.78; cf. examples ibid., p.79. 160 DESCAMPS, “Rédaction et Christologie”, p.368; e.g. his rewording of the issue of Peter’s accent in Mk 14:70 (καὶ γὰρ Γαλιλαῖος εἶ) // Mt 26:73 (καὶ γὰρ ἡ λαλιά σου δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ).

114

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

give flow to the narrative by providing connectives between the traditions:161 a

Mt 3:1

ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡµέραις ἐκείναις

a vague reference, taken from Mk 1:9162

Mt 4:12

ἀκούσας δέ ...

links Jesus’ activity to the news of John’s imprisonment

Mt 4:12

καὶ καταλιπὼν τὴν Ναζαρὰ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς Καφαρναοὺµ τὴν παραθαλασσίαν ἐν ὁρίοις Ζαβουλὼν καὶ Νεφθαλίµ

explains Jesus’ departure from Nazareth and ministry in Caphernaum with reference to prophecy

Mt 5:1‒2

ἰδὼν δὲ τοὺς ὄχλους ἀνέβη εἰς the introduction to the Sermon material τὸ ὄρος, καὶ καθίσαντος αὐτοῦ προσῆλθαν αὐτῷ οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ στόµα ἐδίδασκεν αὐτοὺς λέγων

Mt 8:1

καταβάντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ ὄχλοι πολλοί

transition back to Mark

Mt 8:5

εἰσελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ εἰς Καφαρναούµ

brings Jesus back into the town for the subsequent Q miracle

Mt 8:18

ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὄχλον περὶ αὐτόν

gives a reason for the sea-crossing occuring earlier in Matthew

Mt 9:18

ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς links the account of the leader’s daughter to the previous account on fasting

Mt 9:26

καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἡ φήµη αὕτη εἰς ὅλην τὴν γῆν ἐκείνην

replaces the exhortation to secrecy in Mk 5:43

Mt 9:27

καὶ παράγοντι ἐκεῖθεν τῷ Ἰησοῦ

the generic healing of two blind men occurs somewhere along the road163

Mt 9:31‒32 οἱ δὲ ἐξελθόντες διεφήµισαν αὐτὸν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ γῇ ἐκείνῃ. αὐτῶν δὲ ἐξερχοµένων ... Mt 11:1

καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς διατάσσων τοῖς δώδεκα µαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, µετέβη ἐκεῖθεν τοῦ διδάσκειν καὶ κηρύσσειν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν αὐτῶν

a generic statement to allow progression to the next generic miracle (cf. Mt 9:26) concludes the mission discourse

161 He simply adds τότε in 3:5, 3:13, 4:1, 4:11, 12:22, 12:38, 15:1, 16:21, 16:24, 23:1, 26:14, 26:36 and 27:27. 162 Contrast the more verbose Lk 3:1‒2. 163 This rural encounter is quite within the Markan motif of a countryside Jesus, who roams along villages, deserts, lakes and roads, and avoids larger towns and cities. As FREYNE, “Jewish Contexts”, p.188, points out, there is no mention of Sepphoris or Tiberias in Jesus’ Galilean tours, the Jericho incident occurs outside the city, and when he arrives in Jerusalem Jesus quickly withdraws to Bethany.

4.2. Aspects of Matthew’s Edition of Mark

115

Mt 11:20

τότε ἤρξατο ὀνειδίζειν τὰς an introduction to the Q woes on Galilean πόλεις ἐν αἷς ἐγένοντο αἱ towns πλεῖσται δυνάµεις αὐτοῦ ὅτι οὐ µετενόησαν

Mt 12:46

ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος τοῖς ὄχλοις

a transition from Q logia back to Mark

Mt 13:1

ἐν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ

the parable discourse occurs on that same day

Mt 13:53

καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὰς παραβολὰς ταύτας

the end of the parable discourse and transition back to Mark

Mt 14:1

ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ

an aside about the death of the Baptist

Mt 14:12b‒ καὶ ἐλθόντες ἀπήγγειλαν τῷ explains how Jesus learns of John’s death 13 Ἰησοῦ. ἀκούσας δέ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ... Mt 19:1a

καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοὺς λόγους τούτους, µετῆρεν ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ...

Jesus finishes the community discourse and turns, with Mk 10:1, to Judea

Mt 22:23

ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡµέρᾳ

Matthew emphasizes that the Sadduccees arrive on the same day

Mt 26:1

καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς πάντας τοὺς λόγους τούτους

the end of the apocalyptic discourse; transition back to Mark164

Mt 27:11a

ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐστάθη ἔµπροσθεν transition back to Mark following the τοῦ ἡγεµόνος ‘meanwhile’ of Judas’ death

Therefore Matthew’s concern for the ‘flow’ of his gospel narrative from one account to the next is clear. 165 However, while he makes these small attempts to give flow to the storyline, providing a fluid progression of the action is not one of his priorities. 166 Nor can Matthew be described as attempting to make chronological sense of Mark;167 rather, he takes the order of events mainly from his principal source, and adds connectives when necessary to help bridge the gap between discourse and storyline, between one tradition and another.

164

SENIOR , “The Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Matthew”, p.354: “By his use of this transition formula Matthew intimately links the entire preaching activity of Jesus with its final confirmation in the events of the passion. In effect, he unites in an explicit way both [the] logia tradition with the more passion-kerygma tradition of Mark.” 165 The consistent use of particles, such as δέ, as seen in these examples, shows that Matthew was aware of the purpose of such particles as “boundary markers” (PORTER, “Recent Linguistic Thought”, p.118). 166 STANTON, Gospels and Jesus, p. 65: “Whereas in Mark the teaching of Jesus is usually woven into the narratives (and is very much less extensive), in Matthew the story-line stops in the five major discourses and in the several other shorter discourses.” 167 BONNARD, Matthieu, p.118: “[L]a chronologie exacte lui importe peu.”

116

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

Material is often gathered according to theme and receives reinforcement in doublets 168 and pairings.169 This applies equally to Markan characters: Matthew counts two where Mark has one demoniac and one blind man.170 Indeed Matthew delights in almost anything involving numbers. 171 The repetitive summary statement is also a favourite of Matthew. It adds to the sense of closure at the end of a pericope or discourse. 172 He is furthermore not one to fear repeating himself. 173 He neglects Markan narrative and amplifies the dialogue. 174 The literary attributes of his reworking of Mark, according to HELD, include: a) Das Zurücktreten des Erzählerischen und das Vorherrschen von formelhaften Wendungen, vor allem am Anfang und am Ende. b) Das Fortfallen aller Nebenpersonen und Nebenhandlungen. c) Die hervortretende Bedeutung des Gesprächs zwischen dem Bittsteller und Jesus. d) Die Rolle des Glaubens, der im Gespräch entfaltet wird.175

Such emphasis on brevity, clarity and meaning are revealed clearly in Matthew’s adaptation of the Markan parable: In general we find a higher allegory content in the Matthean than in the Marcan parables. [...] Matthew’s greater interest in the meaning of the story, over against Mark, results in the breakdown of the story. 176

In all of this, the literary reworking of Mark is purely stylistic; the message remains the same. 177 GOULDER, Midrash, p.36‒38. GOULDER, Midrash, p.98: “Matthew’s mind is basically antithetical. [...] He tends at every point to think of a pair to the image he has inherited from Mark.” 170 BRAUMANN, “Die Zweizahl und Verdoppelungen im Matthäusevangelium”, p.256: “[E]s handelt sich um eine rein literarische Änderung von der Hand des ersten Evangelisten.” 171 Cf. DAVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, I, p.85‒87. O’LEARY, Judaization, p.119, n.11, writes of Matthew’s fondness for the numerals two, three, five, seven and twelve (ibid., p.119‒136), which leaves us wondering which numbers Matthew shunned! 172 GOULDER, Midrash, p.78: “This balance of a sentence is a favourite with Matthew for closing a paragraph.” LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.52: “Der Evangelist kennt ausgesprochen viele Formeln, die er wiederholt.” 173 DAVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, I, p.88‒92. 174 DESCAMPS, “Rédaction et christologie”, p. 370: “[L]a prédilection de Matthieu pour les discours de Jésus le pousse à transformer en paroles de Jésus des éléments narratifs du texte marcien.” E.g. the transfer of narrative detail to the lips of Jesus: ἦν δὲ τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὰ ἄζυµα µετὰ δύο ἡµέρας (Mk 14:1 ) // οἴδατε ὅτι µετὰ δύο ἡµέρας τὸ πάσχα γίνεται (Mt 26:2) and ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες (Mk 14:23) // πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες (Mt 26:27). HELD, Überlieferung, p.169, argues: “Die matthäische Neuerzählung will nicht eigentlich erzählen, sondern belehren.” 175 HELD, Überlieferung, p.213. 176 GOULDER, Midrash, p.58‒59. 177 GOULDER, Midrash, p.62: “The central doctrines of the Matthean parables are those of Mark.” DESCAMPS, “Rédaction et christologie”, p. 361: “Matthieu a sous les yeux un modèle qu’il suit pas à pas, sans s’interdire de le retoucher: ces traits seront donc, con168

169

4.2. Aspects of Matthew’s Edition of Mark

117

Matthew’s theological reworking of Mark also has apparent effect. His amendments to the Markan portrayal of Jesus have long been examined and explained.178 Similarly, his apparently sectarian attitude to the Jewish leaders and ‘their synagogues’ has been the subject of much debate. 179 And so Matthew is said to provide us with a Jesus more in tune with the prescriptions of Jewish law than his Markan counterpart. Is Matthew attempting to reconcile the libertine Jesus of Mark’s Gospel with the law-abiding element of early Christianity, viz. S IM’s “Christian Judaism”? If so, this is not evidence of Matthew’s theological distance from Mark, but rather of his adherence to the Markan tradition to such a degree as to defend it with minor qualifications180 and quotations from the Jewish scriptures. 181 Matthew is not, as GOULDER claims, “embarrassed by the radical position taken towards the Law, especially the ceremonial law and the oral traditions, which he found evidenced in Mark.” 182 Rather, he seeks to show, as GOULDER must confess, that, “You can have a radical Jesus and the authority of the Law at the same time.” 183 So Matthew is indeed an heir to the radical Markan tradition, even if in his defence of Mark he must effect some changes to the details of the tradition. Matthew’s greatest theological achievement is his reconciliation of the radical position of Mark with the continued validity of the full Torah.184

Matthew defends Mark’s Jesus and condemns Mark’s Pharisees, and in doing so he shows that Jesus not only adheres to Torah, but also fulfills it.185 That there is only the one debate on food purity, and no reference at all to circumcison,186 shows that Matthew’s programme was not primarily one of addressing early Christian legal issues. Jesus’ legality is merely one crètement, des réactions de Matthieu sur Mc. Effectivement, Matthieu modifie fréquemment Mc sans que le contenu de celui-ci s’en trouve affecté: Matthieu n’appauvrit en rien son modèle.” 178 See, e.g., DAVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, I, p.104‒105; ALLEN , Matthew, p.xxxi‒ xxxiii. 179 See the review in SIM, Christian Judaism, p.117‒123. 180 E.g. the simple addition of the πορνεία clause (Mt 19:19 cf. 5:32), the distraction from the purity issue (Mt 15:20b), and the re-worked conclusion to the sabbath controversies (Mt 12:12). This is discussed further in 4.2.4. Continuity. 181 The same technique of justification is of course used in the Qumran Damascus Document, e.g. CD IV.13: ... ‫ ;כאשר דבר אל ביד‬CD III.21: ... ‫ ;הקים אל להם ביד‬CD VII.19: ... ‫כאשר כתוב‬. 182 GOULDER, Midrash, p.15; ibid., p.17: “Matthew simply does his best to gloss the relevant stories so as to minimize the radicalism.” 183 GOULDER, Midrash, p.18. 184 GOULDER, Midrash, p.19. 185 Mt 5:17. 186 The circumcision of Jesus is recorded in Lk 2:21,39, but there is no debate on the issue. In Jn 7:21‒23 circumcision features in a Sabbath argument similar to that of Mt 12:5, but again the early Christian issue is not addressed.

118

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

of many factors in Matthew’s redaction of Mark, and to stress this over the agreement between the two is to overlook much of the evidence. 4.2.4. Continuity [A]ttention must be given to the traditions which are incorporated with little or no changes, for by accepting them Matthew makes them his own. 187

I have discussed the changes Matthew has made to Mark, and have sought throughout to stress the consistency between the two gospels in Matthew’s reproduction of Markan traditions, since, “Any attempt to shape a comprehensive view of the nature of the early Christian tradition will have to consider both the facts of change [...] and the factors making for continuity.”188 Yet the level of continuity between the gospel accounts of Mark and Matthew, while easy to demonstrate, is difficult to explain. Any parallels from a gospel synopsis, but especially those from Mk 8:27 par. onwards, show Matthew following the text of Mark most faithfully. 189 In order to demonstrate the extent of continuity between the two gospel accounts it is simply necessary to consult any of the majority of pericopae in which Matthew has followed Mark. In order to underline my claim that this continuity is however often overlooked in the quest to spot the differences between the two evangelists, I have decided to examine two passages which have been important in the discussion of Matthew’s legal reworking of Mark, the Sabbath controversies (Mk 2:23‒3:6 // Mt 12:1‒ 14) and the debate on ritual purity (Mk 7:1‒13 // Mt 15:1‒20), before considering Matthew’s Nazareth episode, his portrait of the disciples and the rôle he ascribes Jesus’ family. 190 j

Mark 2:23‒3:6 2 23 Καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν παραπορεύεσθαι διὰ τῶν σπορίµων,

Matthew 12:1‒14 121 Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἐπορεύθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς σάββασιν διὰ τῶν σπορίµων:

187 STANTON, A Gospel, p.52; cf. ibid., p.41: “[H]e frequently uses his traditions with little or no modification simply because he accepts them and wishes to preserve them.” FREYNE, “Jewish Contexts”, p.201, notes “Matthew’s respect for tradition and hence the presence in the finished work of material which not merely comes from an earlier source, but which also reflects that source’s point of view.” ALAND , “Abschreiben”, p.76, describes the work of later Christian copyists: “Der Schreiber schreibt ab ‒ was nicht heißt, dass er nicht auch zum Theologen werden könnte. Aber es geschieht äußerst selten.” Comparison with Matthew is surely appropriate. 188 SANDERS , Tendencies, p.27. 189 I have already accounted for literary variation, minor omissions and brief interruption by new additions. 190 YOUNGQUIST, “Matthew, Mark and Q”, p.234‒237, provides a list of references to similar subjects and concludes: “Matthew disagreed with Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ relationship with his disciples as well as Jesus’ attitude toward purity laws and the role of the law in general.” I hope to show that this was not the case.

4.2. Aspects of Matthew’s Edition of Mark Mark 2:23‒3:6 καὶ οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες τοὺς στάχυας. 24 καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἔλεγον αὐτῷ, Ἴδε τί ποιοῦσιν τοῖς σάββασιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν; 25 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε τί ἐποίησεν ∆αυίδ, ὅτε χρείαν ἔσχεν καὶ ἐπείνασεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ µετ’ αὐτοῦ; 26 πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ µὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν; 27 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Τὸ σάββατον διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐγένετο καὶ οὐχ ὁ ἄνθρωπος διὰ τὸ σάββατον :

ὥστε κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου. 31 Καὶ εἰσῆλθεν πάλιν εἰς τὴν συναγωγήν. καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ ἄνθρωπος ἐξηραµµένην ἔχων τὴν χεῖρα: 2 καὶ παρετήρουν αὐτὸν εἰ τοῖς σάββασιν θεραπεύσει αὐτόν, ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτοῦ. 3 καὶ λέγει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τῷ τὴν ξηρὰν χεῖρα ἔχοντι, Ἔγειρε εἰς τὸ µέσον. 4 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, 28

Ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν ἀγαθὸν ποιῆσαι ἢ κακοποιῆσαι, ψυχὴν σῶσαι ἢ ἀποκτεῖναι; οἱ δὲ ἐσιώπων . 5 καὶ περιβλεψάµενος αὐτοὺς µετ’ ὀργῆς, συλλυπούµενος ἐπὶ τῇ πωρώσει τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν, λέγει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, Ἔκτεινον τὴν χεῖρα. καὶ ἐξέτεινεν, καὶ ἀπεκατεστάθη ἡ χεὶρ αὐτοῦ. 6 καὶ ἐξελθόντες οἱ Φαρισαῖοι εὐθὺς µετὰ τῶν Ἡρῳδιανῶν συµβούλιον ἐδίδουν κατ’ αὐτοῦ ὅπως αὐτὸν ἀπολέσωσιν.

119

Matthew 12:1‒14 οἱ δὲ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπείνασαν, καὶ ἤρξαντο τίλλειν στάχυας καὶ ἐσθίειν. 2 οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι ἰδόντες εἶπαν αὐτῷ, Ἰδοὺ οἱ µαθηταί σου ποιοῦσιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν ἐν σαββάτῳ. 3 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε τί ἐποίησεν ∆αυὶδ ὅτε ἐπείνασεν καὶ οἱ µετ’ αὐτοῦ; 4 πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγον, ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν οὐδὲ τοῖς µετ’ αὐτοῦ, εἰ µὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν µόνοις; 5 ἢ οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ἐν τῷ νόµῳ ὅτι τοῖς σάββασιν οἱ ἱερεῖς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τὸ σάββατον βεβηλοῦσιν καὶ ἀναίτιοί εἰσιν; 6 λέγω δὲ ὑµῖν ὅτι τοῦ ἱεροῦ µεῖζόν ἐστιν ὧδε. 7 εἰ δὲ ἐγνώκειτε τί ἐστιν, Ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν, οὐκ ἂν κατεδικάσατε τοὺς ἀναιτίους. 8 κύριος γάρ ἐστιν τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. 9 Καὶ µεταβὰς ἐκεῖθεν ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτῶν: 10 καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος χεῖρα ἔχων ξηράν. καὶ ἐπηρώτησαν αὐτὸν λέγοντες, Εἰ ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν θεραπεῦσαι; ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτοῦ. 11 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Τίς ἔσται ἐξ ὑµῶν ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἕξει πρόβατον ἕν, καὶ ἐὰν ἐµπέσῃ τοῦτο τοῖς σάββασιν εἰς βόθυνον, οὐχὶ κρατήσει αὐτὸ καὶ ἐγερεῖ; 12 πόσῳ οὖν διαφέρει ἄνθρωπος προβάτου. ὥστε ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν καλῶς ποιεῖν.

τότε λέγει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, Ἔκτεινόν σου τὴν χεῖρα. καὶ ἐξέτεινεν, καὶ ἀπεκατεστάθη ὑγιὴς ὡς ἡ ἄλλη. 14 ἐξελθόντες δὲ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι

13

συµβούλιον ἔλαβον κατ’ αὐτοῦ ὅπως αὐτὸν ἀπολέσωσιν.

120

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

Matthew has just now begun to follow Mark faithfully through to its conclusion (having adapted much of Q/M in Mt 10‒11). The first accounts we have are two debates with the authorities over legal issues. It is obvious that Matthew changes several elements of Mark’s version: ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒

The disciples pluck grain because they are hungry,191 not in order to clear a path. There is no mention of Aviathar.192 Matthew adds to the argument the precedent of priests working on the Sabbath, a logion on ‘something greater than the temple’ and a word of prophecy from Hos 6:6. He omits the saying on the Sabbath being made for man (Mk 2:27) 193 He replaces Mk 3:4 with a logion (Mt 12:11‒12) 194 and a simpler conclusion: it is lawful to good on the Sabbath. He omits Jesus’ angry reaction. There is no the reference to the Herodians.

However at the same time, Matthew is faithfully following Mark’s story: d

‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒

It is the Sabbath. Jesus and his disciples are in the fields. The disciples begin to pluck grain. The Pharisees appear and launch an accusation. Jesus uses the analogy of David (hunger, temple, bread offering, colleagues, priests). Matthew closes this pericope with the Markan logion: the son of man is lord of the Sabbath. They proceed to the synagogue, where they encounter a man with a withered hand. The authorities seek to trap Jesus. Jesus answers them about doing good on the Sabbath. He quickly cures the man. The Pharisees leave and plot to kill Jesus.

Matthew’s changes to Mark are less significant when seen in light of the way in which he follows and expands the tradition, seeking to tell the same story and to reach the same conclusion. The second passage comes upon Jesus’ return to Gennesaret after his brief retreat following the death of John (Mk 6:30‒56 // Mt 14:13‒36): Mark 7:1‒23 7 1 Καὶ συνάγονται πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καί τινες τῶν γραµµατέων ἐλθόντες ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύµων 2 καὶ ἰδόντες τινὰς τῶν µαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ὅτι κοιναῖς χερσίν, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἀνίπτοις, ἐσθίουσιν τοὺς ἄρτους

Matthew 15:1‒20 15 1 Τότε προσέρχονται τῷ Ἰησοῦ ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύµων Φαρισαῖοι καὶ γραµµατεῖς

191 Something Matthew has taken from Mark’s analogy of David (Mk 2:25); LUZ, Matthäus, II, p.230, also notes that this justifies their actions on the Sabbath. 192 An infamous Markan blooper, as the high priest in question was Ahimelech (1 Sam 21:1). 193 As does Luke (Lk 6:5). 194 From Q? Cf. Luke’s concern for an ox, donkey, or son (Lk 13:15, 14:5).

121

4.2. Aspects of Matthew’s Edition of Mark Mark 7:1‒23 οἱ γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐὰν µὴ πυγµῇ νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, κρατοῦντες τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων , 4 καὶ ἀπ’ ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν µὴ βαπτίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν, βαπτισµοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων καὶ κλινῶν 5 καὶ ἐπερωτῶσιν αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραµµατεῖς, ∆ιὰ τί οὐ περιπατοῦσιν οἱ µαθηταί σου κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ἀλλὰ κοιναῖς χερσὶν ἐσθίουσιν τὸν ἄρτον; 6 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Καλῶς ἐπροφήτευσεν Ἠσαΐας περὶ ὑµῶν τῶν ὑποκριτῶν, ὡς γέγραπται ὅτι Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν µε τιµᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ’ ἐµοῦ: 7 µάτην δὲ σέβονταί µε, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλµατα ἀνθρώπων. 8 ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 9 Καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Καλῶς ἀθετεῖτε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα τὴν παράδοσιν ὑµῶν στήσητε. 10 Μωϋσῆς γὰρ εἶπεν, Τίµα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν µητέρα σου, καί, Ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ µητέρα θανάτῳ τελευτάτω: 11 ὑµεῖς δὲ λέγετε, Ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ µητρί, Κορβᾶν, ὅ ἐστιν , ∆ῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐµοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, 12 οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ µητρί, 13 ἀκυροῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παραδόσει ὑµῶν ἧ παρεδώκατε: καὶ παρόµοια τοιαῦτα πολλὰ ποιεῖτε.

Matthew 15:1‒20

3

λέγοντες, 2 ∆ιὰ τί οἱ µαθηταί σου παραβαίνουσιν τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων; οὐ γὰρ νίπτονται τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν ὅταν ἄρτον ἐσθίωσιν.

v7‒9

3 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, ∆ιὰ τί καὶ ὑµεῖς παραβαίνετε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ὑµῶν; 4 ὁ γὰρ θεὸς εἶπεν, Τίµα τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν µητέρα, καί, Ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ µητέρα θανάτῳ τελευτάτω: 5 ὑµεῖς δὲ λέγετε, Ὃς ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ µητρί, ∆ῶρον ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐµοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, 6 οὐ µὴ τιµήσει τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ: καὶ

ἠκυρώσατε τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ὑµῶν. ὑποκριταί, καλῶς ἐπροφήτευσεν περὶ ὑµῶν Ἠσαΐας λέγων, 8 Ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσίν µε τιµᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ’ ἐµοῦ: 9 µάτην δὲ σέβονταί µε, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλµατα ἀνθρώπων. 7

v6‒7

Καὶ προσκαλεσάµενος πάλιν τὸν ὄχλον ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Ἀκούσατέ µου πάντες καὶ σύνετε. 15 οὐδέν ἐστιν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσπορευόµενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὃ δύναται κοινῶσαι αὐτόν: ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόµενά ἐστιν τὰ 14

Καὶ προσκαλεσάµενος τὸν ὄχλον εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Ἀκούετε καὶ συνίετε: 11 οὐ τὸ εἰσερχόµενον εἰς τὸ στόµα κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐκπορευόµενον ἐκ τοῦ στόµατος 10

122

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

Mark 7:1‒23 κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον. [16] 17 ὅτε εἰσῆλθεν εἰς οἶκον ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου, ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ µαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ

τὴν παραβολήν. καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Οὕτως καὶ ὑµεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόµενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι, 19 ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλ’ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται; καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώµατα . 20 ἔλεγεν δὲ ὅτι Τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόµενον ἐκεῖνο κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον: 21 ἔσωθεν γὰρ ἐκ τῆς καρδίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων οἱ διαλογισµοὶ οἱ κακοὶ ἐκπορεύονται, πορνεῖαι, κλοπαί, φόνοι, 22 µοιχεῖαι, πλεονεξίαι , πονηρίαι , δόλος , ἀσέλγεια , ὀφθαλµὸς πονηρός, βλασφηµία, ὑπερηφανία, ἀφροσύνη: 23 πάντα ταῦτα τὰ πονηρὰ ἔσωθεν ἐκπορεύεται καὶ κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 18

Matthew 15:1‒20 τοῦτο κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 12 Τότε προσελθόντες οἱ µαθηταὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ, Οἶδας ὅτι οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον ἐσκανδαλίσθησαν; 13 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Πᾶσα φυτεία ἣν οὐκ ἐφύτευσεν ὁ πατήρ µου ὁ οὐράνιος ἐκριζωθήσεται. 14 ἄφετε αὐτούς: τυφλοί εἰσιν ὁδηγοί τυφλῶν: τυφλὸς δὲ τυφλὸν ἐὰν ὁδηγῇ, ἀµφότεροι εἰς βόθυνον πεσοῦνται. 15 Ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Πέτρος εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Φράσον ἡµῖν τὴν παραβολήν ταύτην. 16 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν, Ἀκµὴν καὶ ὑµεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; 17 οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ εἰσπορευόµενον εἰς τὸ στόµα

εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν χωρεῖ καὶ εἰς ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκβάλλεται; τὰ δὲ ἐκπορευόµενα ἐκ τοῦ στόµατος ἐκ τῆς καρδίας ἐξέρχεται, κἀκεῖνα κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 19 ἐκ γὰρ τῆς καρδίας ἐξέρχονται διαλογισµοὶ πονηροί,

18

φόνοι, µοιχεῖαι, πορνεῖαι, κλοπαί, ψευδοµαρτυρίαι, βλασφηµίαι. 20 ταῦτά ἐστιν τὰ κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον, τὸ δὲ ἀνίπτοις χερσὶν φαγεῖν οὐ κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον.

Again, Matthew’s changes to Mark are evident: x

‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒

He omits Mark’s explanation for the accusation (Mk 7:2‒4). He changes ‘Moses’ to ‘God’ (Mk 7:10 // Mt 15:4). He omits the Aramaic κορβᾶν. He delays Mark’s citation until the reference to the ‘word of God’ (Mk 7:13 // Mt 15:6b). He adds the disciples’ first question and Jesus’ response (Mt 15:12‒14) ... ... and the subsequent reference to ‘Peter’ specifically (Mt 15:15). He omits part of the argument from Mk 7:18b‒19a: οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλ’...195

195 DAVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, II, p.535, describe this simply as a “shortening” of Mark. GUNDRY, Matthew, p.308, notes that it “reads much as in Mark”, with increased parallelism. However LUZ, Matthäus, II, p.426: “Seine Kürzungen sind m.E. inhaltlich zu

4.2. Aspects of Matthew’s Edition of Mark ‒ ‒ ‒

123

He omits certain qualities from the Markan list. Most famously, he drops Mark’s comment in Mk 7:19b: καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώµατα. He concludes with a reference to hand-washing: τὸ δὲ ἀνίπτοις χερσὶν φαγεῖν οὐ κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον.

Nonetheless, he again shows considerable consistency with Mark: s

‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒

Pharisees and scribes arrive from Jerusalem. The disciples contravene the tradition of the elders in eating bread with unclean hands. Jesus argues with the example ‘honour thy father and thy mother’. The Pharisees and scribes are ‘hypocrites’. A quotation from Isaiah. Jesus calls the crowd to hear and understand. He keeps the logion of Mk 7:15 (Mt 15:11). The disciples question Jesus in private. Matthew has a similar but shorter explanation.

h

It is however the dropping of Mk 7:19b which is most discussed as a reaction against the message of Mark in favour of Torah observance. 196 Three arguments can be given which, while not contradicting this observation, limit the extent to which it can be taken to reflect Matthew’s distance from Mark. (i)

Luke has a similar scenario (Lk 11:37‒41) with the same motifs (washing, inner and outer purity), but neither does he claim that Jesus declared all foods clean. Matthew’s interests are therefore apparently closer to Mark’s than are Luke’s. (ii) Mark’s comment in Mk 7:19c is a narrative interruption to the flow of the pericope and not part of the tradition itself. It is the traditions of Mark that Matthew is keen to preserve. 197 (iii) Matthew not only drops this brief comment but closes with a distracting reference to hand-washing, leading one to the conclusion that he is not happy with the Markan Jesus abrogating the Torah, but will gladly dismiss the Pharisaic customs such as hand-washing, which are not part of the Law itself. However, to what extent does he suppress Jesus’ comments on purity issues? He keeps, for example, the following two controversial Markan logia:

einheitlich, als daß sie als bloße Straffungen erklärt werden.” A VEMARIE, “Jesus and Purity”, p.267, says of Mark: “He does not say that defilement by impure food does not matter, but he argues that such a defilement does not at all take place.” The same cannot be said for our evangelist: Matthew notes this contrast between inner and outer purity without dismissing the latter as ultimately as Mark does. Both however show (ibid., p.279) “the positive interest in purity, which the early Jesus movement shared with all other strands of ancient Jewish piety.” 196 See commentaries, ad loc. 197 AVEMARIE , “Jesus and Purity”, p.263: “The statement that a person is not defiled by what comes in but by what goes out is embedded within Mark 7 in a twofold context. At first Jesus discusses with some Pharisees and scribes about the custom of washing hands before eating, and afterwards he explains his view to the disciples.” These are the elements Matthew retains.

124

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark Mark 7:15

οὐδέν ἐστιν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσπορευόµενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὃ δύναται κοινῶσαι αὐτόν: ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόµενά ἐστιν τὰ κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον. Mark 7:18‒19 Οὕτως καὶ ὑµεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόµενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλ’ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται;

Matthew 15:11 οὐ τὸ εἰσερχόµενον εἰς τὸ στόµα κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐκπορευόµενον ἐκ τοῦ στόµατος τοῦτο κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. Matthew 15:16‒17 Ἀκµὴν καὶ ὑµεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ εἰσπορευόµενον εἰς τὸ στόµα

εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν χωρεῖ καὶ εἰς ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκβάλλεται;

In both of these Markan logia Jesus is critical of the view that what one eats determines whether one is clean or not, for after all, what is eaten is eventually excreted.198 Matthew agrees with Mark that moral standards are paramount, and that, “ce qui souille l’homme, ce sont ses désobéissances à cette Loi”. 199 Matthew may have a tendency to make Jesus avoid directly contravening the Torah, but the Markan teaching remains nonetheless.200

A further famous example is the Nazareth episode, in which Matthew follows Mark faithfully through until the very end of the pericope, where he makes one apparently important change: Mark 6:5‒6a καὶ οὐκ ἐδύνατο ἐκεῖ ποιῆσαι οὐδεµίαν δύναµιν, εἰ µὴ ὀλίγοις ἀρρώστοις ἐπιθεὶς τὰς χεῖρας ἐθεράπευσεν, καὶ ἐθαύµαζεν διὰ τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν.

Matthew 13:58 καὶ οὐκ ἐποίησεν ἐκεῖ δυνάµεις πολλὰς διὰ τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν.

It is not that Jesus couldn’t perform many miracles (εἰ µὴ ὀλίγοις...) in Nazareth, but simply that he didn’t perform many (πολλάς).201 The tradition nonetheless remains: the people of Nazareth did not believe (διὰ τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν) and therefore only a few were healed. Matthew is not 198

Thus I must disagree with SIM, “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, p.181, who claims: “In Matthew’s version of this pericope, there is no indication at all that Jesus undermined the Jewish rules regarding clean and unclean foods.” Matthew distracts from the issue with his conclusion, but this part of the teaching is retained. 199 BONNARD, Matthieu, p.230. 200 An episode which reinforces this point is the Transfiguration, in which a voice from Heaven (Mk 9:7 // Mt 17:5) directs the disciples to heed the teachings of Jesus, despite the presence of the greatest of all teachers, Moses. Matthew has no problem with this Markan statement. 201 After all, in a preceding verse (Mk 6:2 // Mt 13:54) the Nazarenes are amazed at Jesus’ miracles.

4.2. Aspects of Matthew’s Edition of Mark

125

changing Mark’s story, rather merely glosses over the word ἐδύνατο.202 After all, Jesus is able to perform miracles in the face of unbelief, as is shown in the tradition of the boy with an unclean spirit / demon (Mk 9:14‒ 29 // Mt 17:14‒20). In both of these cases Matthew agrees with Mark. Elsewhere he develops Mark with even less obvious difficulty (the examples given are among the most famous in showing Matthew’s changes to the tradition in spite of his loyalty). Matthew develops Mark’s parables but remains in agreement with the sentiment of Mark (Mk 4 // Mt 13), and his Jesus is more ‘divine’ in many, but not all, aspects of his behaviour, so is a development of the divine Messiah in Mark.203 Matthew’s portrait of ‘understanding’ disciples in contrast to the more negative rôle they are given in Mark is another possible issue, yet once again it must be stressed that the level of continuity between the two is considerable: The disciples pluck grain on the Sabbath.

(Mk 2:23 // Mt 12:1)

They do not fast.

(Mk 2:18 // Mt 9:14)

One wishes to bury his father.

(Q // Mt 8:21)

A disciple is under his teacher.

(Q // Mt 10:24)

They receive private instruction.

(Mk 4:34 // Mt 13:10,36; Mk 7:17 // Mt 15:15; Mk 13:3 // Mt 24:3)

They remain uncertain.

(Mk 6:35 // Mt 14:15; Mk 8:4 // Mt 15:33)

They think they see a ghost.

(Mk 6:49 // Mt 14:26)

They eat with unclean hands.

(Mk 7:2,5 // Mt 15:2)

Jesus consults them on the people’s opinions. (Mk 8:27 // Mt 16:13) Jesus warns them.

(Mk 8:30 // Mt 16:20)

Jesus rebukes Peter.

(Mk 8:33 // Mt 16:23)

Peter, James and John accompany Jesus.

(Mk 9:2 // Mt 17:1)

They question Jesus on Elijah.

(Mk 9:11 // Mt 17:10)

The rest fail to cure a possessed boy.

(Mk 9:18,28 // Mt 17:16,19)

Jesus thrice predicts his death to them.

(Mk 8:31, 9:31, 10:32 // Mt 16:21, 17:22, 20:17)

The disciples react negatively.

(Mk 9:32 // Mt 17:23c)

They desire greatness.

(Mk 9:34 // Mt 18:1)

202 Contrast Lk 4:16‒30, where Jesus first reads from Isaiah and is warmly received, before speaking of the rejected prophet and bringing scorn upon himself. Luke’s account has no reference to unbelief (perhaps the brief question of Lk 4:22) or few miracles. 203 E.g. Jesus does not perform such material miracles (Matthew omits Mk 7:32‒35, 8:22‒26), knows from the start that it is Judas who shall betray him (Mt 26:25) and is in control even at his arrest (Mt 26:52‒54).

126

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

They are warned against Pharisees.

(Mk 8:15 // Mt 16:6)

Another private question.

(Mk 10:10 // Mt 19:10)

They chastise people for bringing children.

(Mk 10:13 // Mt 19:13)

They are amazed at Jesus’ teaching.

(Mk 10:20 // Mt 19:25)

‘Two’ are sent for the donkey(s).

(Mk 11:1,4 // Mt 21:1,6)

They witness the fig tree (in Mt ‘amazed’).

(Mk 11:21 // Mt 21:20)

They discuss the temple.

(Mk 13:1 // Mt 24:1)

They prepare for the Passover.

(Mk 14:12‒16 // Mt 26:17‒19)

They receive the bread and wine.

(Mk 14:22‒24 // Mt 26:26‒28)

They promise not to abandon Jesus.

(Mk 14:31 // Mt 26:35)

They sit in the garden ...

(Mk 14:32 // Mt 26:36)

... and fall asleep.

(Mk 14:37 // Mt 26:40)

They abandon Jesus.

(Mk 14:50 // Mt 26:56)

The women are to inform the disciples.

(Mk 16:7 // Mt 28:7)

Although not all of these examples bear directly on the issue of their understanding of Jesus’ teaching, this list shows that in the main, Matthew’s disciples are the same as those in Mark; they are just as loyal, confused, blessed, rebuked and ultimately cowardly as they are in Mark, 204 only for the caveat that they ultimately do understand, and are reunited with Jesus in Galilee and commissioned to evangelize the nations. 205 The same may be said of Matthew’s treatment of Jesus’ family: he adds the idyllic portrait of the holy pair in Mt 1‒2 and omits the claims of οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ in Mk 3:20‒21, yet he nonetheless keeps the tradition of Jesus’ family in Mk 3:31‒35 // Mt 12:46‒50, indeed stressing the indication of ‘the disciples’, not just ‘those around’ Jesus (Mk 3:34 // Mt 12:49). Therefore defending the mother and brothers of Jesus is not one of his aims. 206 In his continuity with Mark Matthew develops the story and follows several themes.207 SIM notes that Matthew tends “to intensify the opp204 It is even they in Matthew (not in Mark) who complain about the woman in Bethany (Mk 14:4 // Mt 26:8). 205 DEINES, Gerechtigkeit, p.654: “[D]ie Jünger sind die Repräsentanten der vorösterlichen Gemeinschaft, die Jesus um sich versammelte und die schon zu seinen Lebzeiten in ihm den Messias erkannten. Als mehr oder weniger toratreue Juden fanden sie den Weg in die Nachfolge Jesu.” 206 Pace SIM, “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, p.187: “Matthew substantially rehabilitates the disciples and the family of Jesus. By doing so he not only betrays his allegiance to the tradition of the Jerusalem church, but he also corrects Mark’s implication of their unworthiness to lead the early Christian movement.” 207 STANTON, Gospels and Jesus, p.64: “Matthew is rarely an innovator: nearly every one of his distinctive themes and emphases can be seen as his elaboration and elucidation of an earlier tradition.”

4.2. Aspects of Matthew’s Edition of Mark

127

osition between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees” and increases the focus on “eschatological matters”;208 these are two examples of his following the direction of Mark’s motifs. Therefore: [I]t can be conceded at once that on many theological and Christological issues the two evangelists shared much in common. [...] These agreements are by any measure substantial and significant and they should not be ignored or played down. They testify that Matthew and Mark shared a common Christian narrative and that the former was content to adopt and often expand these themes when they appeared in his source. 209

When he adds new traditions he returns to Mark where he left off. When he omits a passage from Mark he continues where this passage ends. When he reorders Markan traditions he is still influenced by their immediate context (e.g. the pairs of accounts in Mt 8:14‒9:26). When he reorders narrative within a Markan pericope he still tells the same story, e.g. the appearance of the baptist (Mk 1:4‒6 // Mt 3:4‒6), the debate on purity (Mk 7:6‒15 // Mt 15:3‒11) and the fig tree and the temple (Mk 11:1‒24 // Mt 21:20‒22). Indeed his determination to retell the story of Mark results in certain ambiguities with his other traditions, 210 e.g. the accounts of Jesus’ family in Mk 3:31‒35 // Mt 12:46‒50 and Mk 6:1‒6a // Mt 13:53‒58, which conflict rather with the portrait of Mt 1‒2. Matthean redaction is often simply a case of collecting a series of traditions with minimal reworking of the wording.211 Matthew is writing for an audience which is apparently already familiar with the traditions of Mark’s gospel, for indeed he is a member of such a community, and so assumes that his audience already knows much of the content, including vocabulary, themes and message, of Mark. The presence of so many Markan themes in the Matthean gospel is a good indicator of the level of continuity the gospels enjoy due to almost direct reproduction. Both provide a story of Jesus with focus on the disciples, who follow and witness miracles and disputes with authorities; the titles used of Jesus and his key logia form the basis of their mission, following the Passion and resurrection. Mark’s literary themes, theological convictions and christological ideas are thus inherited by Matthew. 212 I have 208

SIM , “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, p.181. SIM , “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, p.184. 210 HERBERT, “The Problem of the Gospel according to Matthew”, p.409: “Matthew is very faithful to the gospel tradition as he received it, even though there are discrepancies between his sources which he cannot reconcile.” 211 CARTER , Matthew, p.35, speaks of “the process of assembling pericopes or individual and somewhat self-contained units into a new, larger unit.” HERBERT, “The Problem of the Gospel according to Matthew”, p.403: “[T]he Evangelist, while reproducing with great care the testimony of the sources which he accepts as authoritative [...], does not attempt to reconcile them.” However B ACON, Studies in Matthew, p.133: “[Matthew] is more than a skilful compiler and editor. He has blended diverse elements together into a unit, a whole which is more than a mosaic.” 212 STANTON, A Gospel, p.381‒382: “Most of his major Christological themes are deeply embedded in the Marcan and Q traditions on which he drew; they have been 209

128

Chapter 4: A New Edition of Mark

argued that insufficient attention has been paid to the continuity between Mark and Matthew’s accounts, and sought to show in my discussion of additions, omissions and amendments that Matthew is constantly aiming at consistency and loyalty. In this brief explanation I hope to have shown that this very continuity can be demonstrated from the text and that in drawing conclusions on Matthew’s attitude to his principal source we must consider all aspects of his redaction, including this level of continuity.

4.3. Matthew as a New Edition of Mark The multiformity of the texts was the very factor that created a world of self-referential texts, a library of previous oral and written versions. [...] Instead of continuing a universal historical narrative, the authors within these subcultures simply rewrote the same narrative again and again. 213 a

Matthew exhibits a degree of creative freedom with his traditions. 214 This includes the reworking of Markan and Q material and the addition of his own traditions and comment. His decision also to omit a handful of passages and details in Mark is therefore all the more remarkable; Matthew delights in expansions. His rearrangement of Mark is minimal: while there is evidence that Matthew sorts much teaching material thematically, by no means is all material ordered according to theme. Matthew is willing to follow Mark in the progression of the story from one tradition to the next. His reworking of the details of Mark is also notable in its consistency with the original: “Time and again, Matthew reworks, corrects and reacts to the Markan text. [...] This dependence becomes particularly convincing in view of Matthew’s faithfulness to the Markan text even in the midst of an alteration.”215 This loyalty to Mark is the hallmark of Matthew’s approach; Matthew provides us with ‘a new edition of Mark’, but while the stress has hitherto been on the new, I have sought to demonstrate the crucial rôle of Mark as the central factor in Matthew’s new edition. sharpened and extended (but not created de novo) in the light of the social circumstances of the evangelist’s day. Many of the other distinctive themes of this gospel also have their root in the sources on which Matthew drew [...,] sayings of Jesus are re-shaped and extended creatively, but nearly always as an interpretation of earlier traditions [...]. The ten ‘formula’ introductions to Matthew’s ‘set piece’ quotations of scripture have a Markan base [...]. Even Matthew’s distinctive phrases ‘their synagogue(s)’, ‘your synagogues’, have a Markan root.” 213 THOMAS , The Acts of Peter, Gospel Literature, and the Novel, p.104. 214 DAVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, I, p.95: “Despite [...] the heavy dependence upon sources, Matthew must also be considered a creative writer. Not only did he reorder many events found in Mark and further feel free to distribute Q material wherever he willed, but, even more notably, he on occasion expanded dominical sayings and created a few of his own.” 215 SENIOR , “The Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Matthew”, p.353.

Chapter 5

A Conventional Scribe Matthew [has] followed the conventional ancient approach to biographical and historical composition.1

This claim concerning Matthew’s technique is what we shall now consider. Is my portrait of Matthew at work in editing Mark credible within the context of contemporary redactional methods? By examining the ways in which the ancients edited texts we can place Matthew in the appropriate context and show furthermore that the Gospel of Mark was his main focus, his major project, and thus the most important source for his work. Matthew composed his gospel in Greek.2 Graeco-Roman literature, although often of a more educated standard than Matthew’s gospel, provides key insights into the conventions of ancient redaction and the approaches which Matthew may in turn adopt. The closest colleague of Matthew is of course Luke, who was not only a close contemporary and fellow Christian,3 but indeed also shared common sources with Matthew, which makes any similarities and contrasts all the more noteworthy. 4 So we will look at evidence of ancient convention from Graeco-Roman literature (including Josephus and Paul) and from the Qumran library (the Temple Scroll), before considering the paperwork involved in compiling a work from major sources, and finally what was appropriate to write in a gospel. The examination of each of these issues should shed much light on Matthew’s approach and attitude to Mark, and indicate to what extent Matthew was indeed ‘a conventional scribe’.

AUNE, Literary Environment, p.65. Despite traditions linking Matthew’s gospel to something originally in Aramaic (e.g. Papias’ Ἑβραίδι διαλέκτῳ), Matthew’s major sources are in Greek and he is more than comfortable in this language. 3 FRANCE, “Jewish Hagiography, Midrash and the Gospels”, p.112, suggests that just like the author of 1 Maccabees, Matthew will inevitably adopt “the appropriate style and language for writing the history of the people of God”. 4 Let us not forget that Luke and Matthew are more similar than thorough redaction criticism might have us believe: both adopt the same major sources (Mark and Q) and often edit these in a similar manner. O’LEARY, Judaization, p.111, mentions Luke’s Gospel and Tatian’s Diatessaron as analogues only briefly. 1 2

130

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

5.1. Technique Much has already been written on the issues involved in the editing of ancient texts, its relevance to the study of the synoptics and indeed with specific interest in Matthew’s use of Mark. The task that remains before us is to show the plausibility of our Matthew’s editing Mark in the way I have proposed, taking one text (Mark) as the backbone for his gospel, adding new material where it is deemed appropriate, reordering and reworking several aspects of the story but always returning to his primary source where he left off. Is Matthew’s operating in this way credible? In order to answer this question we shall look first at recent research into the issue and guidelines and examples from ancient authors. We will then consider the practicalities of working with sources, and the paperwork involved, to see how an evangelist goes about writing a gospel. 5.1.1. Review of Previous Contributions It is surprising how long biblical scholars managed to avoid considering the issues of ancient composition when discussing the development of the New Testament canon and the methods adopted by the evangelists and other early Christian writers. 5 There have of course been exceptions, and now we have a broader and deeper discussion of ancient scribal conventions, epitomized in modern research by the works of G AMBLE6 and DOWNING.7 This allowed DERRENBACKER8 to examine specifically the issue of the synoptic problem, and O’LEARY9 to compare Matthew’s use of Mark as a source to the techniques of other ancient authors. We shall therefore consider each of these four contributions in turn, to show the current state of research and the benefits it brings to this study of Matthew’s use of Mark. In 1995 HARRY GAMBLE addressed the issues of literacy, 10 literature, and book production in early Christianity. He notes that education in the arts was associated with pagan culture and non-Christian philosophy, and was therefore not immediately embraced by Christian communities. Thus while educated people often became Christians, it was unusual for a Christian to DAVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, I, p.12, in their comprehensive commentary on Matthew, mention only briefly “contemporary historians, who used previously written works somewhat freely, imitating their style, grammar, phrases and techniques.” 6 G AMBLE, Books and Readers. 7 D OWNING, Doing Things with Words. 8 D ERRENBACKER, Ancient Compositional Practices. 9 O’LEARY, Judaization. 10 GAMBLE , Books and Readers, p.3, asks to what extent early Christians were literate and indeed multilingual. He notes, ibid., p.4, the peculiarity that “Christianity originated in the Aramaic-speaking environment of Judaism while its earliest extant literature was in Greek.” 5

5.1. Technique

131

undertake a classical education.11 However, Christianity arose under the aegis of Judaism, a religion with a penchant for literature, which encouraged competence in reading Hebrew. 12 Finally, in any case, illiteracy itself does not preclude contact with current literature, aspects of which pervaded all areas of public life.13 Christian literature itself is certainly a noteworthy phenomenon. 14 The texts produced were not assessed for literary worth and by academic standards,15 though with Christianity’s growing influence, criticism soon arose. 16 GAMBLE provides an overview of the prevailing modern consensus on the development of Christian literature, including the contributions of O VER17 BECK and DEISSMANN, form and redaction criticism, and stresses the central rôle of literature in the developing church: [F]rom the beginning Christianity was deeply engaged in the interpretation and appropriation of texts. [... T]he many allusions in the earliest Christian writings to the study and comprehension of scripture suggests that it was among the major occupations of the primitive church. 18

11 GAMBLE, Books and Readers, p.6. He notes furthermore, ibid., p.9, that 1 Tim 3:13 reveals the following: “If literacy was never a requirement of membership in the Christian community, it was undoubtedly a primary desideratum of Christian leaders and teachers.” Thus educated converts to Christianity tended to become clergy and climb quickly within the church hierarchy (ibid., p.10). 12 Ibid., p.7. Cf. HEZSER, Literacy in Roman Palestine. 13 Ibid., p.8. 14 G AMBLE, ibid., p.18, notes the relative lack of concern for literature in Graeco-Roman religion. HURTADO, “Earliest Christian Manuscripts”, p.180, similarly argues: “I must emphasize the important place of texts as a distinguishing feature of earliest Christianity. Indeed, in the Roman religious environment, early Christianity seems to have been unexcelled, and perhaps unique, in the comparative scale of the production, use, and distribution of texts, devoting impressive personnel and financial resources to the activities involved.” It is noteworthy that strong evidence comes from the literature found at Oxyrhynchus: texts from across the empire collected in an obscure corner. A note of caution, however, from GAMBLE , ibid., p.4: “[T]he literature that survives reflects the capacities and viewpoints of Christian literati, who cannot be taken to represent Christians generally.” 15 G AMBLE, ibid., p.11. 16 GAMBLE , ibid., p.1, notes the critic Celsus, and observes: “[T]he level of education and literary culture in early Christianity were already the subjects of criticism in the late second century.” And generally, ibid., p.103: “[N]on-Christians were reading Christian scriptural books.” 17 Ibid., p.11‒20. 18 Ibid., p.27‒28. This despite the fact that “copies of whole scriptural books were not easy to come by in antiquity and neither individual Christians nor Christian congregations are likely to have had copies of the full corpus of Jewish scripture to consult” (ibid., p.27).

132

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

A preference for first-hand oral accounts does not preclude a high regard for the written word. 19 Literature was from the very beginning an essential element of Christianity. The next issue which GAMBLE takes up is that of the format20 of Christian literature, namely the development and use of the codex.21 His analysis 22 includes the proposals that the codex was not adopted for financial reasons, but rather that it was of benefit due to its size as a handheld book, its comprehensiveness, ease of reference and general practicality. He disagrees with the theories of ROBERTS23 and SKEAT24 that either the Gospel of Mark or a Q-like collection of dominical logia would have been the defining codex, so to speak, of the early Christian literary scene. Rather, it is more likely, so GAMBLE, that the Pauline corpus circulated as a codex, due to its size, format and contents. If the codex format gained popularity due to its use for an authoritative work of Christian literature, the collection of epistles is the more likely candidate. The gospel, due to its length and format, would be equally at home on a scroll: A Gospel was brief enough to be easily contained in a roll of normal length, and as a narrative it was meant to be read from beginning to end. 25

Finally, Gamble contributes to the discussion of the ‘publication’ of Christian texts, and the flexibility that existed in a world unchecked by copyright and royalties: [C]opies multiplied and spread seriatim, one at a time, at the initiative of individuals who lay beyond the author’s acquaintance. Since every copy was made by hand, each was unique, and every owner of such a copy was free to do with it as he or she chose. 26

Thus GAMBLE concludes that gospels were written for general, not local use.27

Ibid., p.30‒32. GAMBLE demonstrates that Papias himself values Christian texts. GAMBLE, ibid., p.42‒43, stresses that this is a very important question in New Testament criticism. 21 Cf. HURTADO, “Earliest Christian Manuscripts”, p.183: “[I]t is noteworthy that early Christians seem to have preferred the codex book form especially for those literary texts that they regarded most highly and used as Scripture.” He continues, p.187: “We should also note that the commitment to use of the codex for serious literary purposes required copyists to acquire and develop skills beyond those typically involved in copying on rolls.” 22 GAMBLE , ibid., p.43‒66. 23 ROBERTS , “The Codex”. 24 ROBERTS & SKEAT, The Birth of the Codex. 25 GAMBLE , ibid., p.63. 26 Ibid., p.85. Cf. O’L EARY, Judaization, p.11: “In antiquity, subject matter was regarded as common property.” 27 GAMBLE , ibid., p.102. 19

20

5.1. Technique

133

DOWNING28 makes the bold claim: We are in a position to tell with a considerable degree of certainty what compositional procedures for making use of existing writings would have been readily available in the first century. [... E]ven the most highly literate and sophisticated writers employ relatively simple approaches to their ‘sources’. 29

His conclusions are as follows: Livy operates, much like Luke, by alternating between his two principal sources in ‘blocks’. 30 Attempts he makes to conflate two accounts of the same episode are not very successful. 31 In his Lives Plutarch draws on a wide range of material, yet it appears that for the most part he relies on his one principal source (Pollio) for the facts. 32 When Josephus is confronted with two conflicting accounts, 33 he “seems simply to lose his patience, and writes his own third version”. 34 Classicists have mostly distanced themselves from any theory of ‘conflation’ of two independent sources.35 Simplicity is key; any more complex approach than the simple integration of sources in sections appears unlikely. 36 Given the paucity of resources it is the basic method of incorporating a secondary 28

In articles published in the 1980s and collected essays in 2000. D OWNING, “Compositional Conventions”, p.70. 30 Cf. LUCE, Livy, p.140. TALBERT, “Oral and Independent or Literary and Interdependent?”, p.99, agrees: “In Mediterranean antiquity an author could select from several sources and alternate between them in patches or blocks without any hesitation.” 31 Cf. LUCE, Livy, p.xix. Livy’s account of the Spanish campaign corrects Atias by reference to Cato (See LUCE, Livy, p.164), and he conflates two separate scenes from Polybius into one (banquet and private interview, see LUCE, Livy, p.212‒214). Cf. DOWN ING, “Compositional Conventions and the Synoptic Problem”, p.70: “Conflation was itself only rarely attempted, and then very simply effected.” Idem, Doing Things with Words, p.176: “[P]resent-day classical scholars seem unanimous in agreeing that any conflation [...] would most often have been done simply, using just one author at a time, in blocks. Any close conflation of, say, two parallel accounts of ‘the same’ event would be very uncommon.” 32 Cf. PELLING, “Plutarch’s Method of Work”, p.91. 33 E.g. in Ant. 6.368‒377: the death of Saul from 1 Sam 31:1‒13 and 1 Chron 10:1‒12, David’s coronation and the capture of Jerusalem from 2 Sam 5 and 1 Chron 11, and the census, plague and site of the temple in 2 Sam 24 and 1 Chron 21 (DOWNING, Doing Things with Words, p.160‒161). 34 D OWNING, Doing Things with Words, p.161. 35 D OWNING, Doing Things with Words, p.162: “[T]here seems to be [...] a strong preference for ascribing [...] parallels to the influence of [a] ‘lost’ common source [...] rather than supposing that a first century author might have written with his eye on two texts.” DOWNING himself disagrees with this approach, proposing a theory of genuine conflation in his examination of three accounts (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Livy, Plutarch) of the siege of Veii, ibid., p.163‒168. 36 Thus, ibid., p.176, DOWNING criticizes the Farrer Hypothesis as espoused by G OULDER: “[GOULDER ’s] Luke seems to follow a very complex (and so, amateurish?) procedure indeed, one for which no available precedent prepares us.” Thus DOWNING, ibid., p.195, argues: “The simplicity of a hypothesis about literary interdependence can not be assessed solely on the basis of the number of conjectured sources involved.” 29

134

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

text into the primary, and not a detailed reworking of both, or either, which predominates the ancient method. DERRENBACKER (2005) follows DOWNING in examining how consideration of ancient scribal practices can inform proposed solutions to the synoptic problem. We suffer from, “a modern understanding of editing or redaction, for theological and community reasons, as opposed to [...] the specific ways in which ancient authors dealt with source material, the procedure of ‘editing’, and more generally, the ancient production of written texts.”37 He warns against the twin pitfalls of (i) simply ignoring the issue, or (ii) painting incredible portraits of the evangelists. 38 A discussion of contemporary literacy39 reveals that there can be no single literary culture, and the irony is that even the illiterate can be highly familiar with literature. Also, it may be purely coincidental that the codex developed alongside the emergence of Christianity, but its benefits over the scroll proved decisive.40 There follows a sketch of the scribe at work, either squatting or sitting, balancing his work on his knee, or possibly standing. 41 In his evaluation of the compositional process, 42 DERRENBACKER follows DORANDI:43 a scribe takes notes, writes a draft, revises this, produces a final copy, has this piece performed (read aloud to an audience), and allows it to be copied and disseminated. References to sources are rare, 44 and memory plays a key rôle.45 He argues, “There is no reason to assume that the production of the Gospels was any different than the conventional production of texts in antiquity.”46 The conclusion that the Two-Document Hypothesis has the fewest problems is only tempered by the intricate conflation of Mark and Q by Matthew.47 However, such conflation is infrequent (Matthew operates largely in blocks), and can be explained by the evangelist’s relying on his memory of one account, or both.48 Thus DERRENBACKER’s conclusion pertains directly to the synoptic problem, and further contributes to a greater understanding of the possible methods undertaken by our evangelist in his re-working of Mark in a conventional manner. DERRENBACKER , Ancient Compositional Practices, p.8. Ibid., p.19. 39 Ibid., p.21‒30. 40 Ibid., p.30‒37. 41 Ibid., p.37‒38. 42 Ibid., p.39‒49. 43 DORANDI, “Den Autoren über die Schulter geschaut”. 44 Examples of exceptions are given in D ERRENBACKER, ibid., p.44‒45. 45 DERRENBACKER, ibid., p.46‒47, refers to SMALL, Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory and Literacy in Classical Antiquity. 46 DERRENBACKER , ibid., p.48. 47 This is for DERRENBACKER the more difficult problem, more so than that of minor agreements. 48 Ibid., p.257‒258. 37

38

5.1. Technique

135

O’LEARY (2006) considers specifically Matthew’s use of Mark in the context of classical use of sources.49 She argues: While redaction-critics have done much by way of tracing the additions, omissions and extensive modifications of Matthew’s and Luke’s re-writing of Mark in order to discern the evangelists’ respective theological purposes, they say little about how Matthew incorporates his Markan source, that is, the ancient literary techniques he uses. 50

She stresses the rôle of “positivization” 51 (i.e. making the story and characters more palatable), thus for Matthew “Judaization”. 52 She studies the “intertextuality” 53 of several ancient texts, adopting as her criteria: date (Which texts were earlier?), accessibility (Which texts were available for use?), status (Which texts were important for the author?) and analogues (Did anyone undertake similar work?). 54 The literature considered includes: ‒ the use of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey and Apollonius’ Argonautica in Virgil’s Aeneid55 ‒ the use of Euripides’ Hippolytus and Bacchae and Ovid’s Heroides and Metamorphoses in Seneca’s Phaedra56 ‒ the use of Genesis and the Odyssey (and Deuteronomy) in Tobit57 ‒ Paul’s use of the Torah for his argumentation in his epistles.58 #

When we find, in the reliance of authors upon their sources, “parallel vocabulary, themes and events, in parallel order, and distinctive details”, 59 we 49 O’LEARY, Judaization, p.2: “The aim of this book is to demonstrate the thesis that Matthew used Mark as a literary source, and that the way in which he did so was in accord with the literary conventions of Graeco-Roman antiquity.” 50 Ibid., p.111. 51 Ibid., p.114‒115. 52 Ibid., p.5. 53 Ibid., p.9. MACK, “Q and the Gospel of Mark”, p.24, provides the following helpful definition and comment: “Intertextual composition is a modern notion, coined to designate the way in which a given piece of literature treats its precursor texts and relates to contemporary patterns of discourse. Creative borrowing is involved, as well as the resignification of signs, the rearrangement of symbols, the manipulation of genres, and the freedom to produce from traditional images novel configurations. Intertextual composition is a critical category entirely appropriate to the analysis of first century texts, including such documents as Q and the Gospel of Mark.” 54 Ibid., p.20. 55 Ibid., p.25‒38. 56 Ibid., p.38‒45. 57 Ibid., p.58‒70, with reference to W EITZMAN, “Allusion, Artifice, and Exile in the Hymn of Tobit”. Unfortunately, O’LEARY’s contention of Tobit’s conflation of Gen 29 with Odyssey 4 (p.69) proves vague and is mentioned only briefly. 58 Ibid., p.70‒87. However, it is odd that O’LEARY gives Deuteronomy, Chronicles, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Testament of Abraham and the Life of Adam and Eve as “analogues” to Paul in their use of the Torah (ibid., p.73). 59 Ibid., p.57.

136

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

can see their dependence and imitation. Thus the author is writing “something new, yet familiar”. 60 The detail and care shown in O’LEARY’s examination of classical compositional techniques adopted when making use of sources of differing age, status and genre, support the portrayal of Matthew’s conventionality in his focus on Mark as a main source, as examined earlier. Matthew’s programme is concentrated on improving Mark, and this not because of its faults; the authors examined by O’LEARY did not take up Homer and Euripides because of their perceived failings! Rather, Mark was an early, important and well-known account of the life of Jesus. 61 It is these qualities which make it a suitable template for Matthew as a conventional author. Thus we have seen the major recent contributions made to the issue at hand, yet now we must turn to the ancients themselves to see what guidelines and suggestions they provide for a budding young author. 5.1.2. Ancient Convention A true convention in any age is accepted without comment. In the main, we cannot expect our authors to tell us what their conventions were. 62

What did ancient authors advise on the selection of sources? What was their general approach to editing and composing? And how did they go about composing new texts? How can we know the conventions of any generation of literati when conventions are by and large followed 63 but rarely stated? Let us therefore consider evidence from ancient literature which addresses directly the questions of composition, use of sources, and publication, that we may glean some understanding of the attitudes and methods of classical authors. 64 Livy, in the preface to his history of Rome (Ab urbe condita), explains the motivation of an author in undertaking to write a new version of a wellknown account: Ibid., p.45. These factors correspond to O’LEARY’s criteria of date, status and accessibility. Matthew’s analogue is, of course, Luke. 62 JONES, Saints’ Lives and Chronicles in Early England, p.53. 63 There are of course no set rules for authors, redactors or copyists, and a certain fluidity is unavoidable. H AINES-EITZEN, Guardians of Letters, p.106, stresses that the fate of texts lay ultimately in the hands of scribes. TALMON, “The Textual Study of the Bible”, p.381, notes: “[I]n ancient Hebrew literature no hard and fast lines can be drawn between authors’ conventions of style and tradents’ and copyists’ rules of reproduction and transmission.” Yet evidence from across the ancient Mediterranean world suggests an unregulated standard of scribal activity, even in the more secluded communities, as again TALMON, “Textual Transmission”, p.227: “There is obviously nothing specifically sectarian in the external appearance of the Qumran Scrolls, nor in the scribal customs to which their copyists adhered.” 64 Translations are my own. 60 61

5.1. Technique

137

novi semper scriptores aut in rebus certius aliquid allaturos se aut scribendi arte rudem vetustatem superaturos credunt. New writers always believe that they will either discover something in the facts or in their style of writing excel their uncultivated predecessor.

Josephus, in the preface to his history of the Jews (Antiquitates Iudaicae), likewise agrees on the principle of a quest for the facts, yet does not mention a desire to excel in literary style, rather to counter the false testimony of rivals or predecessors: εἰσὶ δ’ οἵτινες ἐβιάσθησαν ὑπ’ αὐτῆς τῆς τῶν πραγµάτων ἀνάγκης οἷς πραττοµένοις παρέτυχον ταῦτα γραφῇ δηλούσῃ περιλαβεῖν. [...ἐγὼ] µαθὼν ἐβιάσθην ἐκ διηγήσασθαι διὰ τοὺς ἐν τῷ γράφειν λυµαινοµένους τὴν ἀλήθειαν.65 There are some who are compelled to commit these things to writing because they are concerned with reporting the things which have happened. [... I] have learned that others have perverted the truth in their writings.

Cicero, discussing the art of public speaking (De Oratore), also emphasizes a need for the truth: Nam quis nescit, primam esse historiae legem, ne quid falsi dicere audeat? 66 For who does not know that it is the first law of history not to dare say anything that is untrue?

He furthermore provides an interesting first guideline for a historical account: Rerum ratio ordinem temporum desiderat, regionem descriptionem. 67 The account of the subject requires a chronological order and geographical description.

In other words, it is important to ‘set the scene’. In the creation of a new version of a historical event, especially of a ‘life’ of a historical character, the ancients were very aware of the possibility of invention. Aristotle, in his discourse on rhetoric (ἡ τέχνη ῥητορική / Ars rhetorica), notes the following tendency: τὰ δ’ ἔργα σηµεῖα τῆς ἔξεώς ἐστιν, ἐπεὶ ἐπαινοῖµεν ἂν καὶ µὴ πεπραγότα, εἰ πιστεύοιµεν εἶναι τοιοῦτον.68 Deeds are evidence of worth, for we may praise someone for something he has not done, if we consider him the type of person to do such things.

65 His promise is as follows: τοῦτο γὰρ διὰ ταύτης ποιήσειν τῆς πραγµατείας ἐπηγγειλάµην οὐδὲν προσθεὶς οὐδ’ αὖ παραλιπών (I have promised to do this throughout this undertaking: to add nothing and to omit nothing.) 66 Cicero, De Or., II.62. 67 Cicero, De Or., II.64. 68 Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1.9.33.

138

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

Plutarch, similarly, in his unabashedly ahistorical symposium (Ἑπτά σοφῶν συµπόσιον / Septem sapientium convivium) has one of his characters remark: πολλά [...] πιστεύεται ψευδῶς, καὶ χαίρουσιν οἱ πολλοὶ λόγους ἀνεπιτηδείους περὶ σοφῶν ἀνδρῶν αὐτοί τε πλάττοντες καὶ δεχόµενοι παρ’ ἑτερων ἑτοίµως. 69 Many things are falsely believed, and many [or ‘the masses’] delight in creating unfounded accounts of wise men themselves or in readily accepting such accounts from others.

So we see that the explicit desire to uncover the facts belies a firm awareness that much tradition is often rather creative. Both an honest quest for the truth and a creative authorial impulse were prevalent factors in ancient literature. Two more comprehensive works providing guidelines for the ancient student of literature are Quintilian (Institutio Oratoria) and Lucian (Πῶς δεῖ ἱστορίαν συγγράφειν).70 The first strongly advocates the imitation of a model,71 stating: Nam qui hoc agit ut prior sit, forsitan, etiamsi non transierit, aequabit. 72 For whoever strives to be superior to his predecessor, even if he does not surpass him, may equal him.

This of course means we must chose whom to imitate 73 and we may indeed chose to follow more than one model. 74 The ideal result is described thus: Nam erit haec quoque laus eorum, ut priores superasse, posteros docuisse dicantur. 75 For this glory shall also be theirs: it will be said that they surpassed their predecessors and taught their successors.

Lucian agrees: ὅλως πῆχυς εἷς καὶ µέτρον ἀκριβές ἀποβλέπειν µὴ εἰς τοὺς νῦν ἀκούοντας ἀλλ’ εἰς τοὺς µετὰ ταῦτα συνεσοµένους τοῖς συγγράµµασιν.76 In short, the one standard and reliable guideline is to keep in view not your present audience, but those who will encounter your writings at a later date.

Plutarch, Dinner, 151F. Lucian was, of course, a famous satirist, so anything which he advocates must be taken with a pinch of salt. (Again I am indebted to the comments of A. Standhartinger.) 71 Quintilian, Inst. Or., II.2. 72 Quintilian, Inst. Or., II.10. 73 Quintilian, Inst. Or., II.14: “Primum, quos imitemur?” (First of all, whom shall we imitate?). 74 Quintilian, Inst. Or., II.24. 75 Quintilian, Inst. Or., II.28. 76 Lucian, History, 40. 69 70

5.1. Technique

139

His guidelines include: εἴπωµεν [...], ἔπειτα οἷς χρώµενος οὐκ ἂν ἁµάρτοι τῆς ὀρθῆς καὶ ἐπ’ εἰθὺ ἀγούσης ‒ ἀρχήν τε οἵαν αὐτῷ ἀρκτέον καὶ τάξιν ἥντινα τοῖς ἔργοις ἐφαρµοστέον καὶ µέτρον ἑκάστου καὶ ἃ σιωπητέον καὶ οἷς ἐνδιατριπτέον.77 Let us say [...] what means he must use so that he does not wander from the correct, straight path ‒ how to begin, how to order his material proportionally, what to leave out and what to develop. τὰ δὲ πράγµατα αὐτὰ οὐχ ὡς ἔτυχε συνακτέον ἀλλὰ φιλοπόνως καὶ ταλαιπώρως πολλάκις περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀνακρίναντα, καὶ µάλιστα µὲν παρόντα καὶ ἐφορῶντα, εἰ δὲ µή, τοῖς ἀδεκαστότερον ἐξηγουµένοις προσέχοντα καὶ οὓς εἰκάσειεν ἄν τις ἥκιστα πρὸς χάριν ἢ ἀπέχθειαν ἀφαιρήσειν ἢ προσθήσειν τοῖς γεγονόσιν. κἀνταῦθα ἤδη καὶ στοχαστικός τις καὶ συνθετικὸς τοῦ πιθανωτέρου ἔστω. καὶ ἐπειδὰν ἀθροίσῃ ἅπαντα ἢ τὰ πλεῖστα πρῶτα µὲν ὑπόµνηµά τι συνυφαινέτω αὐτῶν καὶ σῶµα ποιείτω ἀκαλλὲς ἔτι καὶ ἀδιάρθρωτον· εἶτα ἐπιθεὶς τὴν τάξιν ἐπαγέτω τὸ κάλλος καὶ χρωννύτω τῇ λέξει καὶ σχηµατιζέτω καὶ ῥυθµιζέτω.78 He should not collect the facts themselves as though at random, rather after much hard work and painstaking investigation. It is best if he was there and witnessed what happened, but if not, he should consult the most impartial accounts and those who seem least likely to add or to omit something of the events, whether out of grace or malice. Then he should be skilful and astute in composing what is credible. And when he has collected all or most of the facts he should first make them into notes, a collection yet without order or beauty. After arranging them into order he may add flair and decorate his work with idioms, themes and rhythms.

Again, a desire for facts is evident, yet alongside concerns for literary artistry. The author is encouraged to read, to take notes, to plan his composition and finally to write something beautiful. The ancients also provide advice for the revision of one’s work. Quintilian appeals: redeamus ad iudicium et retractemus suspectam facilitatem79 Let us revise critically and consider [each] dubious formulation.

He also warns of the drawbacks of dictation 80 and advises the aspiring author to leave space for additions or corrections. 81 Pliny, in his correspondence with Tacitus, writes: Librum tuum legi et, quam diligentissime potui, adnotavi, quae commutanda, quae eximenda arbitrarer.82 I have read your book, and noted as carefully as I could the things I believe should be changed or deleted. Lucian, History, 6. Lucian, History, 47‒48. 79 Quintilian, Inst. Or., III.7. 80 Quintilian, Inst. Or., III.18‒22. 81 Quintilian, Inst. Or., III.32‒33 82 Pliny, Briefe, 7.20.1. 77 78

140

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

It is also Pliny who gives us an insight into the stage of oral performance in the publication of a work. He writes to Celer: Cogito quam sit magnum dare aliquid in manus hominum, nec persuadere mihi possum non et cum multis et saepe tractandum, quod placere et semper et omnibus cupias. 83 I feel it is important to submit a work into the hands of the public; I cannot but be persuaded that many frequent consultations contribute to a work that aims to please everyone forever.

Lucian, finally, provides some other interesting insights into what was considered appropriate for the writing of history. He admits that many are consumed with the (financially motivated) need to praise the subjects of their account. He warns against a misplaced focus on praise at the expense of truth, but does allow for ἔπαινοι in historical composition. 84 He also advocates a via media between the coarse language of the marketplace and the highfalutin and often incomprehensible style of the poet: one should write “ὡς µὲν τοὺς πολλοὺς συνεῖναι”. 85 In all of this, he admits that there are no concrete rules, and talent is key. 86 The ancients, in their advice to one another, therefore provide us with the following guidelines for composition: h

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

seek to give a true (hence eyewitness) account of the facts convince your audience in the face of contradictory accounts set the scene for your account if you are inventing certain aspects, write appropriately so as to be credible follow the most suitable model(s) and imitate your successful predecessor(s) review and revise your work a little praise of your subject does not go amiss, but don’t get carried away write so that we can all understand what you are saying allow the public to review your work if you are successful, your work will equal or excel that of your predecessor(s)

It becomes quite clear that much (if not all) of this advice pertains to our Matthew. He gives an apparently first-hand account of the private life of Jesus (1), setting the scene with his introduction and the ministry of John (3). The dubious miracle accounts of Mt 9:27‒34 are certainly written so as to be credible (4), his Greek is readable and understandable (8), and he has 83 84 85 86

Pliny, Briefe, 7.17.15. Lucian, History, 9. Lucian, History, 44. Lucian, History, 34.

5.1. Technique

141

very much followed Mark in order to equal or excel this older gospel (5, 10). We of course have no evidence of Matthew’s potentially facing down rival gospels (2), revising his work (6) or responding to the public reception of his gospel (9).87 We will therefore do well to bear such guidelines in mind when considering Matthew’s attitude and approach to Mark, since he appears, as far as we can see, to have done what was expected of him by contemporary standards. Now let us consider Christian gospel literature itself. As RICHARD BURR88 IDGE has argued, a gospel resembles in many ways an ancient biography. Biographers were, as indeed they are today, primarily interested in the life of their main character, as MOMIGLIANO explains: [M]en did not write biography because they were philosophically minded or because they were engaged in some kind of intellectual or political controversy. The educated man of the Hellenistic world was curious about the lives of famous people. He wanted to know what a king or poet or a philosopher was like and how he behaved in his off-duty moments.89

This by no means excludes the possibility of various political, philosophical or religious undertones pervading the text or indeed polemical treatises interrupting the progression of the narrative (indeed, such partiality is to be expected). Matthew chooses for his main frame the story of Jesus’ ministry and death, which, itself abundant in religious and political comment, he expands with often polemical logia. 90 Furthermore he fashions five great discourses, each directed at certain target audiences, e.g. the new Christian communities, missionaries, Christian leaders. Matthew seeks to develop and reinforce the position of this central religious document in the growing religious community. This may be compared to the development of the Community Rule by the Qumran scribes: “The purpose of this redaction [...] was to strengthen the self-understanding of the community, and with the aid of Scriptural proof-texts to provide a theological justification.”91 Yet let it not be forgotten that Matthew wrote a story. 92 Matthew’s closest analogue and peer, the evangelist Luke, provides us with a preface to his gospel (Lk 1:1‒4): 87 The final guideline (7), warning against excessive praise, can not be raised in objection to the gospels, which despite their subject matter never veer off into encomia or hymns to the divine characters involved (i.e. Jesus the Christ, God the heavenly voice, or the spirit in the form of a dove). 88 B URRIDGE, What are the Gospels? 89 M OMIGLIANO, The Development of Greek Biography, p.120. 90 E.g. the woes to the Galilean towns (Mt 11:20‒24) and the tirade against the scribes and Pharisees (Mt 23). 91 M ETSO, Textual Development, p.144. 92 Not a set of teachings in the style of the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas. Whatever final shape one posits for Q, it too fails to compare to Mark and Matthew in their narrative form and detail.

142

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορηµένων ἐν ἡµῖν πραγµάτων, καθῶς παρέδοσαν ἡµῖν οἱ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόµενοι τοῦ λόγου, ἔδοξε κἀµοὶ παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι, κράτιστε Θεόφιλε, ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. Since many (others) have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as the initial witnesses, who became servants of the word, handed them down to us, so too I, having researched everything carefully from the beginning, thought fit to write to you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the validity of that which you have been taught.

This delightfully formulated single sentence introduction to his first major work shows both Luke’s education and motivation. BECKER writes: In seinem Evangelien-Prolog (Lk 1,1‒4) äußert sich Lukas zu seinen historiographischen Methoden und Zielen im Vergleich zu seinen ‘Vorgängern’. Dieser Umstand ist für die Interpretation des Markus-Evangeliums bedeutsam. Denn in Lk 1,1ff. liegt m.E. die früheste Beurteilung bzw. der zeitlich und literaturgeschichtlich erste Reflex auf die Wirkungsgeschichte und die literarische und historiographische Leistung des MarkusEvangeliums vor: Lukas reflektiert hier in Auseinandersetzung mit seinen Quellen und den Vorgängerwerken den Anspruch und die Intention, die er mit der Abfassung seines Evangeliums verfolgt. 93

Since we do not have such an introduction from Matthew, 94 we may only glean by analogy his shared motivation in producing a new gospel. Of course, the absence of an introduction to his gospel must tell us something of Matthew’s style. His approach is not necessarily comparable to that of Luke; he gives us no clues as to his purpose or predecessors. Perhaps the reader/audience is to infer these from the text; more likely, Matthew assumes his audience shares his own views and awareness of the traditions he records. This is of course most likely if Matthew is writing principally for his own (wider) Christian community. 95 So what can Luke’s introduction to his gospel tell us about possible motives for Matthew in writing his own? f

‒

Luke acknowledges πολλοί, his predecessors who have also written accounts; 96 Matthew of course provides no indication that his gospel has a precedent.

BECKER , Markusevangelium, p118‒199. For a consideration of Luke’s introduction with regard to contemporary convention, see D OWNING, “Redaction Criticism (II)”. 94 ALLISON, Studies in Matthew, p. 118: “Matthew has this apparent defect, that its author did not trumpet all his intentions.” 95 Cf. CHILTON, “La plate-forme de travail de Marc”, p.501, claims the same of Mark’s relationship with his audience: “[L]es sources en question étaient suffisament connues des destinataires pour que Marc ne soit pas en position de s’adonner à la libre invention.” 96 Is this a positive review (N OLLAND, Luke, I, p.5‒6; ALEXANDER , The Preface to Luke’s Gospel, p.115‒116,133‒136)? Or a criticism (B OVON, Luke, I, p.19; SHELLARD, New Light on Luke, p.261‒262; STANTON, “Fourfold Gospel”, p.342; B AUCKHAM, “For Whom Were the Gospels Written?”, p.13)? 93

5.1. Technique

‒

‒

‒ ‒

143

Luke continues with a reference to οἱ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόµενοι τοῦ λόγου; in relying upon Mark and Q (and M) for accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings Matthew is surely similarly convinced of the reliability of these ‘first-hand’ sources. 97 Luke too felt he should write a gospel (ἔδοξε κἀµοί ... γράψαι); this very personal note seems far removed from our Matthew, who gives little indication as to his personality or position in the community, 98 yet the author of our gospel also felt called to provide an account of the life of Jesus, even if he does not explain his motivation as clearly as does Luke. Nor does Matthew name a patron, such as Luke’s κράτιστε Θεόφιλε; there is no indication that Matthew is writing for a benefactor. Luke ends with a ἵνα clause, a goal for his gospel; 99 Matthew again has nothing similar, but it seems he reveals his own aims in his closing lines (Mt 28:19‒20a): πορευθέντες οὖν µαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος, διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάµην ὑµῖν.

Luke’s concern to write an account ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς is reflect by Papias, who says of Mark: Μάρκος [...] ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ µέντοι τάξει100

Thus both these later Christians considered Mark’s order somewhat unsatisfactory.101 Matthew, it must be said, appears to have been far less critical. He rearranges a few of the early Markan miracles, but in the main follows Mark’s account loyally. In this respect, therefore, Matthew and Luke differ in their estimation of Mark. If Mark is in any way deficient in Matthew’s eyes, it is certainly not with regard to its order in accounting for the life and ministry of Jesus. Here Matthew takes almost everything from Mark. Matthew furthermore, again following Mark, feels no need to explain or justify his work. He surely assumes that his gospel will serve the same 97 However BAUCKHAM, Eyewitnesses, p.9, notes that, “Good historians were highly critical of those who relied largely on written sources.” B YRSKOG, Story, p.154, explains the importance of the author’s being an eyewitness in ancient historiography: “Involvement was not an obstacle to a correct understanding of what they received as historical truth. It was rather the essential means to a correct understanding of what had really happened.” 98 Famously the possible allusion in Mt 13:52; see C OPE, A Scribe. 99 Cf. Jn 20:31: ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται ἵνα πιστεύητε ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατι αὐτοῦ. 100 Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., III.39.15. 101 Although Papias’ opinion may have been shaped by familiarity with other gospels, especially that of Matthew.

144

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

purpose as Mark’s had done, and indeed replace Mark. Therefore all he has to do is follow Mark’s example. Thus it is clear: Matthew must imitate Mark in order to enjoy whatever success and position Mark has hitherto commanded in the early Christian community. This summary of ancient guidelines and the method espoused by Luke shows how Matthew in many ways followed the convention of an ancient scribe, despite revealing almost nothing of his own approach and attitude.

5.2. Examples from Ancient Authors Pertinent examples from the works of ancient authors will now be considered in more detail in order to show some of the factors at work in the composition of a text of a religious nature with the use of sources. I have chosen: ‒ Josephus, who works from one source at a time ‒ Paul, who often appears to quote scripture from memory ‒ The Temple Scroll, which collates of Mosaic laws according to theme. Each text will be introduced and discussed on its own merits before its relevance to our study of Matthew’s technique is explained. Based, however, on the three broad statements indicated above I hope to show that Matthew is not alone in his working upon one source at a time, relying on his own memory of Markan traditions, and developing and linking traditions by theme. 5.2.1. Josephus: Contra Apionem Josephus’ Contra Apionem is the last of his great works, an apology following the historical works of The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities.102 He is now surely at the peak of his career. 103 Yet the way in which he works with his sources is still rather straight-forward. In sum, the method adopted by Josephus exhibits the following factors: “literal quotes from sources”, “quotes from sources”, “criticisms of the sources”, “personal contributions of the historian” and “comparison of sources”. 104 We are never in doubt that Josephus is making use of ‘published’ works, to which he explicitly 102 This latter work is considered a prime example of Josephus’ “rewritten Bible”; see the summary of FELDMAN, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, p.539‒570. 103 See BARCLAY, Against Apion, p.xxii‒xviii (“Apion in the Context of Josephus’ Literary Career”); for a discussion of Josephus’ intellectual development, see SCHWARZ, Josephus and Judaean Politics, p.55‒57, and RAJAK , Josephus: The Historian and his Society, p.46‒64. 104 The list compiled by VILLALBA I VARNEDA, The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus, p.272.

5.2. Examples from Ancient Authors

145

refers and which he can cite and criticize in the public domain. 105 There are nonetheless several elements of Josephus’ work that bear on the question of ancient use of sources and may be considered here. 106 Josephus introduces his sources as such. The first of these γράµµατα is that of Manetho,107 for whose work Josephus provides an introductory note: αὐτὰ µὲν οὖν οὐχ οἷόν τε παρατίθεσθαι τἀκείνων, [...] Μανέθως δ’ [...] γέγραφεν γὰρ Ἑλλάδι φωνῇ τὴν πάτριον ἱστορίαν ἐκ δέλτων ἱερῶν, ὥς φησὶν αὐτός, µεταφράσας [...]. οὗτος δὴ τοίνυν ὁ Μανέθως ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ τῶν Αἰγυπτιακῶν ταῦτα [...] γράφει. παραθήσοµαι δὲ τὴν λέξιν αὐτοῦ.108 It is however not possible to present these things in the original, for Manetho wrote the history of his nation in Greek, translating, so he says, from the priestly tablets. Now, this Manetho, in the second of his books on Egypt, writes these things. I shall present his wording.

We can see that not only does Josephus acknowledge the use of sources, 109 but seeks to stress that he is quoting verbatim. 1.93: ὑπογράφω (I shall quote) 1.103: ταῦτα µὲν ὁ Μανέθως (So Manetho) 1.112,116,134: παραθήσοµαι (I shall present) 1.176: ἔστι δὲ οὕτω γεγραµµένον (It is written thus) 1.237: κἄπειτα κατὰ λέξιν οὕτως γέγραφεν (And then he wrote in these words)

He also sometimes gives more exact references. 110 1.74 ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ τῶν Αἰγυπτιακῶν (in his second book on Egypt) 1.91 ἐν ἄλλῃ δέ τινι βίβλῳ τῶν Αἰγυπτιακῶν (in one of his other books on Egypt) 1.146 λέγει γὰρ οὕτως διὰ τῆς τρίτης (says thus in his third book) 1.168 ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ βίβλῳ (in the second book) ;

105 For a thorough description of the process of citation in antiquity, see I NOWLOCKI, Eusebius, p.33‒47. 106 Again, all translations are my own. 107 For an explanation of who this Manetho is, see, e.g. BARCLAY, Against Apion, Appendix 1, p.335‒337. 108 Josephus, Contra Apionem, 1.73‒74. For δέλτων an alternative reading is τόµων (GUTSCHMID , Kleine Schriften, IV, p.420). In either case, Josephus is referring to sources written in the Egyptian language, which neither he nor his audience will tackle. 109 In the case of Manetho, he even ‘graciously’ admits that the texts quoted are translations of originals. 110 There is even a reference to “another copy” (ἐν ἄλλῳ ἀντιγράφῳ, 1.83), although this may be part of an interpolation, see B ARCLAY, Against Apion, p.56‒57, n.316: “This section must count as the most puzzling in the whole treatise.”

146

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

However, he often simply paraphrases his sources. This begins in 1.84, with indirect speech (and the Accusativus cum infinitivo):111 τούτους κρατῆσαι τῆς Αἰγύπτου, φησὶν, ἔτη πρὸς τοῖς πεντακοσίοις ἕνδεκα ... These, he says, controlled Egypt for 511 years ...

He engages in scholarly criticism of his sources, for example in stating that Manetho provides misinformation, 112 and commenting on the status of the ancient, publicly available and well-maintained records of Tyre. 113 We also know that Josephus is writing directly from his copies of his sources, as the accounts he provides from Dios, Menander and Berossus match almost word for word the citations of the same works he had given in Antiquitates Judaicae.114 BARCLAY suggests that Josephus, at least in the case of Menander, might have made use of a collection of quotations. 115 If this is the case for Menander, it may also be the case for the other authors Josephus cites. 116 Josephus was doubtless familiar with the works of his anti-Semitic Alexandrine critics, yet he may be citing some sources through Apion.117 Josephus himself probably believed in the reliability and accuracy of his sources. 118 Nonetheless, REINACH concludes, “En définitive, on voit que Josèphe n’a utilisé de première main qu’une faible partie des documents qu’il allègue.”119 With his quotation of Herodotus we at last have a source we can independently verify.

BARCLAY, Against Apion, p.57, n.317: “Without signalling the transition, Josephus now moves into paraphrase, although the repeated ‘he says’ (4 times in 1.84‒87) gives this passage strong Manethonian authentication.” 112 Josephus, Contra Apionem, 1.105,229. 113 Josephus, Contra Apionem, 1.107. 114 For Dios, Ant. Jud. 8:147‒149 // C. Apionem 1.113‒115; for Menander, Anti. Jud. 8:144‒146 // C. Apionem 1:117‒120; for Berossus, Ant. Jud. 10:220‒226 // C. Apionem 1:135‒141. 115 B ARCLAY, Against Apion, p.72, n.394: “Josephus says nothing more about Menander ‒ his date or the title of his works [...]. This, with the unmarked citation of his work in Apion 1.156‒158, probably suggests that Josephus is dependent on a compilation of Menander excerpts.” 116 There may have been collections of references to Jews in classical texts available to both Jewish scholars and anti-Semites writing in the ancient world (REINACH, Contre Apion, p.xxiv). 117 R EINACH, Contre Apion, p.xxiii. 118 R EINACH, Contre Apion, p.xxix. 119 R EINACH, Contre Apion, p.xxxviii. 111

5.2. Examples from Ancient Authors

147

Herodotus II:104

Josephus: C. Apionem 1:169‒170

ἀλλὰ τοῖσιδε καὶ µᾶλλον, ὅτι µοῦνοι πάντων ἀνθρώπων Κόλχοι καὶ Αἰγύπτιοι καὶ Αἰθίοπες περιτάµνονται ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς τὰ αἰδοῖα. Φοίνικες δὲ καὶ Σύροι οἱ ἐν τῇ Παλαιστίνῃ καὶ αὐτοὶ ὁµολογέουσι παρ᾽ Αἰγυπτίων µεµαθηκέναι, Σύριοι δὲ οἱ περὶ Θερµώδοντα καὶ Παρθένιον ποταµὸν καὶ Μάκρωνες οἱ τούτοισι ἀστυγείτονες ἐόντες ἀπὸ Κόλχων φασὶ νεωστὶ µεµαθηκέναι. οὗτοι γὰρ εἰσὶ οἱ περιταµνόµενοι ἀνθρώπων µοῦνοι, καὶ οὗτοι Αἰγυπτίοισι φαίνονται ποιεῦντες κατὰ ταὐτά. αὐτῶν δὲ Αἰγυπτίων καὶ Αἰθιόπων οὐκ ἔχω εἰπεῖν ὁκότεροι παρὰ τῶν ἑτέρων ἐξέµαθον·120

s µοῦνοι δὲ πάντων, φησί, Κόλχοι καὶ Αἰγύπτιοι καὶ Αἰθίοπες περιτέµνονται ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς τὰ αἰδοῖα. Φοίνικες δὲ καὶ Σύροι οἱ ἐν τῇ Παλαιστίνῃ καὶ οὗτοι ὁµολογοῦσι παρ᾽ Αἰγυπτίων µεµαθηκέναι. Σύριοι δὲ οἱ περὶ Θερµώδοντα καὶ Παρθένιον ποταµὸν καὶ Μάκρωνες οἱ τούτοισιν ἀστυγείτονες ὄντες ἀπὸ Κόλχων φασὶ νεωστὶ µεµαθηκέναι. οὗτοι γάρ εἰσιν οἱ περιταµνόµενοι ἀνθρώπων µοῦνοι, καὶ οὗτοι Αἰγυπτίοισι φαίνονται ποιοῦντες κατὰ ταὐτά. αὐτῶν δὲ Αἰγυπτίων καὶ Αἰθιόπων οὐκ ἔχω εἰπεῖν ὁπότεροι παρὰ τῶν ἑτέρων ἐξέµαθον·

As we can see, “he is almost entirely faithful to Herodotus, even in keeping some of his Ionic forms”. 121 Thus we can applaud Josephus for his honesty in quoting from his copies of classical authors. He does so reliably and honestly, copying word for word the text of his written source. His confidence can be seen in his invitation to his readers to check sources for themselves:122 1.82 1.205

ἔνεστι δὲ τοῖς βουλοµένοις ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὸ πλέον γνῶναι τοῦ βιβλίου. For those who wish, it is possible to know more from the book itself. τοῖς γὰρ βουλοµένοις πλείω µαθεῖν τῷ βιβλίῳ ῥᾳδιόν ἐστιν ἐντυχεῖν. For those who wish to learn more, it is easy to consult the book.

Certainly Josephus’ opponents were well-read, and would surely notice misquotations or misrepresentations.123 This may also be the case for his supporters, including his mysterious patron Epaphroditus. 124 Generally, then, it may be said that Josephus acknowledged the independence of his 120 The text of Herodotus, and thus that of Josephus, translates thus: “But also still more because of all humankind only the Colchians, Egyptians and Ethiopians have practised circumcision from the very beginning. The Phoenicians and the Syrians who live in Palestine themselves admit having learned it from the Egyptians, and the Syrians around the rivers Thermodon and Parthenios, and the Macronians, who are their neighbours, say that they learned it recently from the Colchians. These are the only people who practise circumcision, and they appear to do so in the Egyptian way. Of the Egyptians themselves however and the Ethiopians, I am unable to say which learnt it from the other.” 121 BARCLAY, Against Apion, p.99, n.557. 122 BARCLAY, Against Apion, p.103, n.581: “If this is not an empty gesture, it suggests some confidence that he knew what it contained.” 123 REINACH, Contre Apion, p.xxix. 124 Who was this Epaphroditus? See BARCLAY, Against Apion, p.3‒4, n.3, and the references given.

148

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

sources, access to which remains readily available to those with the relevant resources. The more important aspect of Josephus’ approach comprises his consideration of each author one after the other. 125 He introduces his source, quotes it verbatim, continues with a paraphrase of the contents and concludes with a criticism of its testimony and value. He makes no attempt to compare and contrast witnesses or to weigh several witnesses at the same time on, say, a certain topic. He proceeds methodically from one source to the next. That is his style. We can take away from this brief examination of Josephus’ use of his sources in Contra Apionem much that pertains to Matthew’s use of his sources in composing his gospel. (i) Josephus introduces his sources as such; Matthew does no such thing, so his gospel appears completely original. (ii) Josephus both copies directly and paraphrases his material; our investigation of Matthew’s use of Mark showed that Matthew too sometimes copies from his Vorlage, sometimes recalls its contents from memory. 126 (iii) Josephus surely had access to editions of works of certain authors, but may have made use of collections of references; Matthew had both a ‘complete’ gospel story and a sayings collection upon which he could draw. (iv) Josephus allows his readers the opportunity to consult their own copies of his sources; although Mark’s gospel was certainly available to other Christian communities, Matthew does not encourage them to check his testimony against others. (v) Josephus tackles one source at a time; Matthew too, as I hope I have shown, proceeds from one of his sources (Mark) to the other (Q), and back again. Josephus therefore, although operating in quite a different social and cultural milieu, and writing a treatise much different to that of an evangelist, has much to show us on the credibility of Matthew’s use of his sources in composing his gospel, most of all in points (ii) and (v) above: Matthew copies directly or paraphrases his sources, and operates for the most part in blocks.

125 First the nationalities in series, then the Greek authors he considers follow one after the other: Pythagoras, Theophrastus, Herodotus, Choerilus, Clearchus, Hecataeus, Agatharchides. 126 See 3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11 and 4.1. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 12‒28. When paraphrasing Mark, however, Matthew does so in the indicative, giving no sign (such as Josephus’ φησίν + AcI) that he is reproducing a source.

5.2. Examples from Ancient Authors

149

5.2.2. Paul: Quotations from the Jewish Scriptures Of the three texts under consideration in this section it is certainly Paul’s letters that prove the closest to Matthew in historical, socio-cultural and theological contexts. Paul, like Matthew, was a Christian well-versed in the Jewish scriptures and familiar with Jesus traditions. 127 It is his use of the scriptures, however, which is to be considered here. I do not seek to compare Paul’s use of proof texts to that of Matthew, rather to demonstrate that one important element of Paul’s reproductions of his sources informs us on Matthew’s use of Mark and Q in the composition of his gospel: Paul often simply recalls verses from memory.128 Paul often quotes the version of a verse from the Jewish scriptures concurrent with that of the Septuagint. 129 However, it is the contention of KOCH that Paul often cites simply from memory. 130 This is not to say that Paul ‘misquotes’ by accident or through forgetfulness; the changes Paul effects reflect his theology and the point he wishes to make. 131 None127

A lengthy introduction to Paul and a discussion of his familiarity with Jesus traditions is neither possible nor necessary here. 128 When I use the term ‘memory’ I of course imply great ‘familiarity’ (cf. WAGNER, Heralds, p.356), not that Paul had once long ago read the scriptures and now remembers what they say. Paul is so familiar with the references he wishes to include that he can cite them ‘from memory’ (as to say ‘from familiarity’ would be to transgress accepted use of English). 129 According to KOCH, Schrift, p.93, on thirty-seven out of ninety-three occasions. He lists as examples the quotation of Is 54:1 in Gal 4:27, Prov 25:21‒22 in Rom 12:20, Ps 31:1‒2 in Rom 4:7‒8, Ps 18:5 in Rom 10:18, Hos 2:1b in Rom 9:26, Is 1:9 in Rom 9:29, &c. WAGNER, Heralds, p.344, also suggests Paul must have been using a Septuagint-like text, which (p.345) he adapted for his own purposes. 130 KOCH, Schrift, p.92‒93. He continues, ibid., p.95‒96, to explain that Paul does so despite access to the originals: “Es ergibt sich also, daß nicht durch globale Erwägungen, sondern nur durch eine Sichtung der einzelnen Zitate geklärt werden kann, ob Paulus aus dem Gedächtnis oder unter direkter Benutzung eines schriftlichen Textes die Zitate in seinen Briefen anführt ‒ wobei nicht vorausgesetzt werden kann, daß für sämtliche Zitate jeweils die gleiche Zitierweise anzunehmen ist. [...] Für die Masse der übrigen insgesamt 74 Schriftworte ist die Zitierweise zwar grundsätzlich offen, doch zeigen die [...] nicht aus dem Gedächtnis angeführten Zitate, daß Paulus [...] der schriftliche Text [...] zur Verfügung stand.” The proposal had already been made by MICHEL, Paulus und seine Bibel, p.80: “Oft weichen die paulinischen Zitate nur deshalb vom Texte der LXX ab, weil der Apostel aus dem Gedächtnis und daher ungenau zitiert.” 131 KOCH, Schrift, p.93‒94: “Die Abweichungen sind als Abänderungen durch Paulus verständlich, und die Annahme, hier liege jeweils ein reiner Gedächtnisirrtum vor, ist eine unbewiesene Vermutung.” WAGNER, Heralds, p.6‒7, summarizes the (similar) proposals of KOCH, STANLEY, and T IMOTHY H. LIM , and concludes, ibid., p.13‒14: “Though differing (sometimes significantly) with respect to the details, Koch, Stanley, and Lim all agree that Paul adapted the wording of his scriptural text to conform more closely to his own understanding of its meaning as well as to serve his immediate rhetorical purposes.” This is understandable, given that Paul and his team were surely given to checking and revising their letters before sending them, see, e.g. RICHARDS , Paul and First-Century Letter Writing, p.93.

150

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

theless, Paul’s liberty is noteworthy and we can test and demonstrate this in the following examples.132 The way in which he quotes a verse from the scriptures can often be explained if he is relying upon his own knowledge of the texts, not consulting a copy for a verbatim quotation. Hab 2:4

Gal 3:11

ἐὰν ὑποστείληται οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή µου ἐν αὐτῷ·

ὅτι δὲ ἐν νόµῳ οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ θεῷ δῆλον, ὅτι

ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς µου ζήσεται.

Ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται.

Rom 1:17 δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀποκαλύπτεται ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, καθὼς γέγραπται, Ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται.

Paul in both cases omits µου; Heb 10:38a provides a variant reading: ὁ δὲ δίκαιός µου ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται.133 It appears nonetheless that the maxim “ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς ζήσεται” is known to Paul in this form, 134 and he writes it as such without recourse to consulting Habakkuk for the original. For such a brief reference this was hardly necessary. Paul surely loved this quotation, so consistent with his own theology, that he simply quoted it as he thought of it in the throes of his passionate appeal to the Galatians and his introduction to his letter to the Romans. He continues his exhortation of Galatian Christians with another quote pertaining to the law and faith. Lev 18:5 καὶ φυλάξεσθε πάντα τὰ προστάγµατά µου καὶ πάντα τὰ κρίµατά µου καὶ ποιήσετε αὐτά, ἃ ποιήσας ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς.

Gal 3:12 ὁ δὲ νόµος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ πίστεως, ἀλλ’

Ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς.

Rom 10:5 Μωϋσῆς γὰρ γράφει τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ τοῦ νόµου ὅτι a ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς.

In Rom 10:5 he is citing a written source (Μωϋσῆς γὰρ γράφει), in contrast to a spoken source (ἡ δὲ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη οὕτως λέγει) in the following verse.135 The verse is known to Paul in its current form with αὐτά and αὐτοῖς,136 evidence that it comes from Lev 18:5; there is no precedent for this neuter plural in either the Galatians or Romans context. It is the omiss132

The Greek text of the Hebrew scriptures is that of the LXX. See the text-critical discussion in S TANLEY, Scripture, p.83, n.2. 134 STANLEY, Scripture, p.83‒84, suggests Paul must omit µου to make his point about righteousness through faith as a concept, though I find the difference negligible. 135 See, e.g. JEWETT, Romans, p.622; TOBIN, Paul’s Rhetoric, p.343; LINDEMANN , “Textgeschichte von Römer 10,5”; W ILCKENS, Brief an die Römer, II, p.224: “Dagegen (δέ) setzt er die Stimme der Glaubensgerechtigkeit, die hier gegen Mose personifiziert auftritt. Was sie sagt, zitiert Paulus allerdings ebenfalls aus der Mosetora, nämlich aus Dtn 30,12f.” 136 STANLEY, Scripture, p.127‒128, argues for reading here αὐτῇ. 133

151

5.2. Examples from Ancient Authors

ion of ἄνθρωπος in Gal 3:12 however which betrays Paul’s freedom with the reference.137 In Rom 10:5, on the other hand, he is in the midst of a discussion on Israel and the Christians (Rom 9‒11) in which he cites various proof texts, which he perhaps first collated and planned. 138 Whether the citation in Romans is from a direct copy or simply recalled more accurately than in Galatians, viewing both references together shows that memory was a factor. A similar case can be demonstrated from passages not far apart in the epistle to the Romans. Is 28:16

Rom 9:33 139

διὰ τοῦτο οὕτως λέγει κύριος, Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐµβαλῶ εἰς τὰ θεµέλια Σιὼν λίθον πολυτελῆ ἐκλεκτὸν ἀκρογωνιαῖον ἔντιµον εἰς τὰ θεµέλια αὐτῆς, καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ’ αὐτῷ οὐ µὴ καταισχυνθῇ.

καθὼς γέγραπται, Ἰδοὺ τίθηµι ἐν Σιὼν λίθον προσκόµµατος καὶ πέτραν σκανδάλου,

λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή,

καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ’ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται.

Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ’ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται.

Rom 10:11

In Rom 10:11 Paul presents πᾶς as though it were part of the citation.140 While KOCH,141 STANLEY142 and WAGNER143 consider this evidence of Paul being creative with the biblical text, I must stress that the addition of πᾶς proves more introductory and emphatic, and does not constitute a change to the quotation he is adducing. 144 In any case, the references in Rom 9:33 137 STANLEY, Scripture, p.244‒245, suggests the omission may have been influenced by the previous verse, to allow a parallelism of ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς ζήσεται / ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς. 138 KOCH, Schrift, p.97, argues that the central rôle of quotations in clearly planned discussions shows, “daß der überwiegende Teil der Schriftzitate nicht auf spontane Gedächtnisleistungen des Paulus zurückgeht, sondern daß ihnen bewußte Arbeit am Text der Schrift vorausgegangen ist.” This issue is discussed further below. 139 This section comprises a Mischzitat of Is 28:16 and 8:14 (see, for example, WILCKENS, Brief an die Römer, II, p.213‒214. W ILK , Bedeutung, p.54‒56. WAGNER, Heralds, p.126‒131.). The combination of these two passages is probably pre-Pauline, as it also appears in 1 Peter 2:6‒8. See especially WAGNER, Heralds, p.131‒136. 140 See J EWETT, Romans, p.631, n.99 for references to the discussion of this issue. 141 KOCH, Schrift, p.133: “Paulus kennt also nicht nur den Text des Schriftwortes und ändert ihn bewußt ab, sondern er bemüht sich auch nicht, die Abänderung vor dem Leser zu verschleiern.” 142 STANLEY, Scripture, p.134: “[T]he fact that he can quote the same verse in different forms within a span of only twelve verses shows how little Paul was concerned to hide from his readers the freedom with which he could handle the wording of the biblical text.” 143 WAGNER, Heralds, p.169, sees it as “a deliberate modification” reflecting Paul’s “christological convictions”. 144 WILK, Bedeutung, p.47, notes: “Zudem hebt πᾶς die universale Gültigkeit der Verheißung Jesajas hervor.” Ibid., n.2: “Paulus dürfte jedoch diesen Aspekt als im Prophetenbuch angelegt begriffen haben.”

152

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

and 10:11 show that Paul knows the verse as οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται; his creativity lies in his developing it in Rom 10:11 to read πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων. Again, there is nothing to suggest Paul is copying a text directly, rather in 10:11 reproduces the verse off the cuff; it is unlikely therefore that his quotation of the verse in 9:33 was any different. We have a pastiche of references in Rom 3:10‒18: 145 Psalms / Isaiah Ps 13:1‒3 εἶπεν ἄφρων ἐν καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν θεός διέφθειραν καὶ ἐβδελύχθησαν ἐν ἐπιτηδεύµασιν οὐκ ἔστιν ποιῶν χρηστότητα οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός κύριος ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ διέκυψεν ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων τοῦ ἰδεῖν εἰ ἔστιν συνίων ἢ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν. πάντες ἐξέκλιναν ἅµα ἠχρεώθησαν οὐκ ἔστιν ποιῶν χρηστότητα. οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός

Rom 3:10‒18 καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι Οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἷς, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ συνίων, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν. πάντες ἐξέκλιναν, ἅµα ἠχρεώθησαν: οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ποιῶν χρηστότητα, οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός.

Ps 5:10b τάφος ἀνεῳγµένος ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν, ταῖς γλώςαις αὐτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν,

τάφος ἀνεῳγµένος ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν, ταῖς γλώσσαις αὐτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν,

Ps 139:4b ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν

ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν,

Ps 9:28a οὗ ἀρᾶς τὸ στόµα αὐτοῦ γέµει καὶ πικρίας καὶ δόλου Is 59:7‒8a οἱ δὲ πόδες αὐτῶν ἐπὶ πονηρίαν τρέχουσιν ταχινοὶ ἐκχέαι αἷµα καὶ οἱ διαλογισµοὶ αὐτῶν διαλογισµοὶ ἀφρόνων σύντριµµα καὶ ταλαιπωρία ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης οὐκ οἴδασιν

ὧν τὸ στόµα ἀρᾶς καὶ πικρίας γέµει.

ὀξεῖς οἱ πόδες αὐτῶν ἐκχέαι αἷµα,

σύντριµµα καὶ ταλαιπωρία ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν, καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης οὐκ ἔγνωσαν.

Ps 35:2b φησὶν ὁ παράνοµος τοῦ ἁµαρτάνειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν φόβος θεοῦ ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλµῶν αὐτοῦ.

οὐκ ἔστιν φόβος θεοῦ ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλµῶν αὐτῶν.

145 WAGNER, Heralds, p.347, says of the conflations of scriptural references in Paul: “The striking number of these conflations and the variety of texts involved ‒ Isaiah, Hosea, Deuteronomy, Psalms ‒ suggests that they are the product of a mind steeped in Israel’s scriptures.” Yet are they (ibid.) “a deliberate interpretive association” or “an unconscious fusion of similar texts [...] in Paul’s memory”?

153

5.2. Examples from Ancient Authors

Paul skips the introductory references to the ἄφρων and παράνοµος; these are not appropriate to his “indictment of all humanity”. 146 The use of δίκαιος is surely Pauline, and he rewords the section on the Lord looking down from heaven ‒ Paul generalizes for rhetorical effect: οὐκ ἔστιν..., οὐκ ἔστιν..., οὐκ ἔστιν..., οὐκ ἔστιν..., οὐκ ἔστιν.... He then reproduces his other references fairly accurately, abbreviating only the verses of Isaiah, and ends with a final οὐκ ἔστιν clause from the Psalms. 147 Is this evidence of “eine planvolle Komposition”148 or a free-flowing dictation 149? There is no scholarly consensus, but it is now generally accepted that it is not extemporaneous.150 Whether Paul did it all himself or drew on a current Christian composition,151 the choice of words is free and intentional: one can draw on thematic and verbal associations to link different traditions, and does not have to follow a written source word for word. 152 For my part, I find it difficult to see Paul working directly with written texts at this juncture. We can see that the shorter, pithier statements taken from the Psalms are quoted verbatim, something very possible for a man so wellversed in the scriptures. It is the longer quotations that exhibit more deviation from the text of the LXX, and thus it is more likely that the differences are not due to Paul’s drawing on other versions (for why should he do so only for longer quotations?), rather to his recalling their wording from memory. Paul can even simply paraphrase a verse from scripture, while nonetheless ascribing it to a written source.153 h

Jer 9:23a ἀλλ’ ἢ ἐν τούτῳ καυχάσθω ὁ καυχώµενος, συνίειν καὶ γινώσκειν ὅτι ἐγώ εἰµι κύριος.

1 Cor 1:31 ἵνα καθὼς γέγραπται, Ὁ καυχώµενος ἐν κυρίῳ καυχάσθω.

146 STANLEY, Scripture, p.89; ibid., p.90: “Only those parts of the Psalm that speak in broad terms of the sinfulness of ‘all’ (v.3a) have been included in the present ‘quotation’; irrelevant materials have simply been set aside.” 147 STANLEY, Scripture, p.99, describes this as “so magnificent a rhetorical effect”. 148 KOCH, Schrift, p.94. STANLEY, Scripture, p.89, agrees. 149 MICHEL, Paulus und seine Bibel, p.80. 150 See STANLEY, Scripture, p.88‒89; W ILK, Bedeutung, p.8‒9; JEWETT, Romans, p.259: “It is widely accepted today that a carefully constructed catena of LXX quotations was used in 3:10‒18.” 151 VOLLMER, Citate, p.40‒41, suggested a pre-Pauline origin for this collection. WAGNER, Heralds, p.288, n.216, admits uncertainty. 152 This rhetorical approach has its similarities but remains much different to the conflation undertaken in the Temple Scroll; see 5.3.3. The Temple Scroll. 153 STANLEY, Scripture, p.187‒188. KOCH, Schrift, p.36, however, argues that the abbreviation is pre-Pauline.

154

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

One no longer boasts in understanding and knowing that God is Lord ( ‫יהוה‬ or κύριος), but one now boasts “in the lord” (perhaps ‘God’, but probably ‘Christ’). In any case, it is not a direct quote: Paul ‘remembers’ the verse, and writes it down. Further evidence of Paul’s recalling scripture from memory comes again in Rom 9‒11,154 so if indeed the progression of the argument had been carefully planned, verses were still not copied directly. h

Is 10:22‒23

Rom 9:27‒28

καὶ ἐὰν γένηται ὁ λαὸς Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄµµος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ κατάλειµµα αὐτῶν σωθήσεται. λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέµνων ἐν δικαιοσύνη , ὅτι λόγον συντετµηµένον ποιήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ οἰκουµένῃ ὅλῃ.

Ἠσαΐας δὲ κράζει ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, Ἐὰν ᾖ ὁ ἀριθµὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄµµος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ ὑπόλειµµα σωθήσεται. λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέµνων ποιήσει κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

Paul’s referring to “the people of Israel” as “the sons of Israel” is hardly surprising, 155 and his choice of verb (ᾖ) and noun (ὑπόλειµµα) again betray that he is recalling the verse from memory. 156 Arguments that the omission of the words in strikethrough above resulted from haplography (either by Paul himself157 or his source158) fail to convince,159 and thus memory seems the more plausible factor. The quote is one of Paul’s own, 160 and not taken from a written collection. 161 The closing words, however, cannot be attributed purely to a lapse in memory, as they again prove a paraphrase of the LXX version.162 Such a paraphrase reiterates Paul’s flexibility in quoting scripture. The evidence from Rom 9‒11 continues: 154

The use of Isaiah in this section of Romans was studied in great detail by W AGNER, Heralds, p.43‒306. W ILK, Bedeutung, p.404, likewise stresses, “Vor allem aber fließen im Römerbrief fast alle in den früheren Briefen angelegten Deutungslinien zum Jesajabuch zusammen. So stellt dieses Schreiben als Höhepunkt der paulinischen Jesajarezeption zugleich ihre Summe dar.” It is therefore all the more interesting that Paul should continue to operate in this creative manner in what is a writing of great thought and reflection, following a career as an apostle and epistolarian. 155 Paul is surely influenced by the text of the LXX for Hos 2:1, which reads καὶ ἦν ὁ ἀριθµὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄµµος τῆς θαλάσσης. 156 STANLEY, Scripture, p.114, suggests a “memory lapse” might lie behind Paul’s reference to “sons of Israel”, and, p.116, a “memory slip” as the reason for his use of ὑπόλειµµα (cf. JEWETT, Romans, p.602, n.166, who notes that no-one has been able to explain this change of noun). W ILK, Bedeutung, p.38, attributes it to Paul’s Vorlage. WAGNER , Heralds, p.96, stresses the lack of a “significant change in meaning” and, ibid., n.166, explains: “Paul rings the changes on the λείπω word group in Romans 9‒11.” 157 KÜHL, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, p.338. 158 KOCH, Schrift, p.83, n.11. 159 See STANLEY, Scripture, p.117‒118. 160 KOCH, Schrift, p.167‒168. 161 Pace LINDARS, Apologetic, p.243. 162 Is it, as STANLEY, Scripture, p.119, suggests, that “Paul feels compelled to tone down the language of Isaiah”?

155

5.2. Examples from Ancient Authors Is 52:7a

ὡς ὥρα ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρέων , ὡς πόδες εὐαγγελιζοµένου ἀκοὴν εἰρήνης, ὡς εὐαγγελιζόµενος ἀγαθά

Rom 10:15 πῶς δὲ κηρύξωσιν ἐὰν µὴ ἀποσταλῶσιν; καθὼς γέγραπται, Ὡς ὡραῖοι οἱ πόδες τῶν εὐαγγελιζοµένων τὰ ἀγαθά.

Paul changes the one bringing good news to the plural, surely to fit in with what he is discussing: the apostles (Rom 10:8). 163 This factor might also explain the omission of ‘on the mountains’; the apostles are spreading the good news throughout the known world, not just in the mountainous Judea to which the prophecy originally referred. 164 The change of ὥρα to ὡραῖοι may have already been effected in Paul’s Vorlage,165 but in whatever version Paul knew this verse, he quoted it briefly and freely, applying it to his apostolic context, without recourse to copying out an original. 166 The next example, again from this same section of Romans, comprises a Mischzitat,167 probably due to the common theme of the forgiveness of sins and the link word ‘Jacob’. Isaiah

Rom 11:26‒27

Is 59:20‒21a καὶ ἥξει ἕνεκεν Σιὼν ὁ ῥυόµενος, καὶ ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ. καὶ αὕτη αὐτοῖς ἡ παρ’ ἐµοῦ διαθήκη, εἶπεν κύριος. Is 27:9a διὰ τοῦτο ἀφαιρεθήσεται ἡ ἀνοµία Ἰακώβ, καὶ τοῦτο ἐστιν ἡ εὐλογία αὐτοῦ, ὅταν ἀφέλωµαι αὐτοῦ τὴν ἁµαρτίαν.

καὶ οὕτως πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται: καθὼς γέγραπται, Ἥξει ἐκ Σιὼν ὁ ῥυόµενος, ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ. καὶ αὕτη αὐτοῖς ἡ παρ’ ἐµοῦ διαθήκη,

ὅταν ἀφέλωµαι τὰς ἁµαρτίας αὐτῶν.

We can see that Paul not only refers to a saviour ‘from’ Zion, and not ‘for’ Zion,168 but that he closes his quotation with a phrase from elsewhere in the book of Isaiah; the freedom Paul shows here is decisive ‒ he can mix Cf. J EWETT, Romans, p.639‒640, n.41; KOCH , Schrift, p.113‒114; STANLEY, Scripture, p.140‒141. 164 WILK , Bedeutung, p.46. 165 JEWETT, Romans, p.639; KOCH, Schrift, p.68‒69; STANLEY, Scripture, p.134‒137. 166 WAGNER, Heralds, p.173: “[I]t is far simpler to imagine that Paul knew a Septuagint text of Isaiah 52:7 that had already been revised toward a proto-masoretic text and that he altered it further to fit his purposes in Romans 10.” 167 See, for example,W ILK, Bedeutung, p.56‒58; WAGNER, Heralds, p.280‒186. 168 The MT has ‫לציון‬, which the LXX follows. Does Paul have a variant reading in his Vorlage (JEWETT, Romans, p.703, n.87; W ILCKENS, Brief an die Römer, II, p.256, n.1153)? We cannot know. 163

156

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

quotes.169 This is, of course, easily explained by recourse to memory and creativity; the first verse reminded him of the second. This creativity allows such conflation even in in this reference of pivotal importance in Paul’s argument.170 Finally, towards the end of Romans and thus of Paul’s epistolary career, we have a reference to Isaiah 171 in connection with Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. Is 11:10 καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἡ ῥίζα τοῦ Ἰεσσαί, καὶ ὁ ἀνιστάµενος ἄρχειν ἐθνῶν, ἐπ’ αὐτῷ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν, καὶ ἔσται ἡ ἀνάπαυσις αὐτοῦ τιµή.

Rom 15:12 καὶ πάλιν Ἠσαΐας λέγει, Ἔσται ἡ ῥίζα τοῦ Ἰεσσαί, καὶ ὁ ἀνιστάµενος ἄρχειν ἐθνῶν, ἐπ’ αὐτῷ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν.

He omits the apocalyptic ἐν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ, either because he has a reason to do so, 172 or again because he was recalling the reference from memory and forgot this adverbial aspect due to his focus on the subject of the prophecy; this also accounts for his omission of the following statement regarding ‘his resting place’, which does not immediately spring to mind in the context of hope for the Gentiles. In any case, it would ruin his climax: Paul can choose where to finish his quotation, and quotes what he wants, when he wants. This freedom requires a great familiarity with the scriptures cited, and Paul certainly knew both Isaiah and the Psalms very well. This means, of course, he does not need to unroll his copy or consult his notes to check the wording of the verse in question. He is too learned a Jewish scholar and too skilled a rhetorician to have recourse to consulting originals.173 KOCH proposes that Paul collected a series of useful scriptural quotations relevant to his mission and message, so by the time he wrote Romans he was much more prepared: 169 WAGNER, Heralds, p.280‒281, n.196, discusses the possibility of a pre-Pauline conflation, yet concludes, “it is far simpler to suppose that he has made the conflation himself”. 170 WAGNER , Heralds, p.351: “[I]ts distance from other quotations enhances the rhetorical weight of the citation in Romans 11:26‒27, allowing it to stand alone as the climactic moment of Paul’s entire argument in chapters 9‒11.” 171 Certainly Paul’s favourite prophet. See WILK, Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus. 172 STANLEY, Scripture, p.183, argues that none can be sustained. WILK, Bedeutung, p.46, suggests, “Diese Zeitangabe kann entfallen, da nach Meinung des Apostels [...] die verheißene ‘Wurzel Isais’ mit Jesus Christus bereits erschienen ist.” W AGNER, Heralds, p.318, agrees. 173 Unlike Josephus, of course, Paul was not writing for scholars and literary critics, rather for congregations and pastors. Thus his arguments must be convincing, but need not be impermeable.

5.2. Examples from Ancient Authors

157

Allerdings hat er bei Abfassung von 1 Thess einen [...] Überblick noch nicht besessen. Hier stand ihm offensichtlich kein einziges für ihn verwendbares Zitat zur Verfügung. In Röm sind es dagegen 59 verschiedene Schriftworte, die er anführen kann, von denen 53 gegenüber den bisherigen Briefen neu sind. Verständlich wird das unter der Annahme, daß Paulus im Zuge seiner eigenen Beschäftigung mit der Schrift auch dazu übergegangen ist, planmäßig geeignet erscheinende Schriftworte zu sammeln, auf die er dann bei Abfassung seiner Briefe zurückgreifen konnte.174

If this was indeed the case, Paul’s use of scripture is comparable to Matthew’s use of Q, a collection of statements ready to be integrated into the main body of the text (for Paul, his discursive letter; for Matthew, his storyline gospel), where appropriate. More importantly, the evidence shows that Paul was flexible with quotations, a flexibility most easily explained if he is relying upon his memory and not constantly consulting and reproducing the original wording. He knows the scriptures too well, just as Matthew knew the Jesus traditions he rewrote from memory. 175 5.2.3. The Temple Scroll The third and final piece of literature to be considered within the context of ancient scribal convention belongs to an even smaller social circle. We have come from a well-read and ‘well-written’ Jewish-Roman historian and apologist, through a well-travelled and well-known (in the right circles) Jewish-Christian preacher and correspondent, to a mysterious and poorly attested text in Hebrew from a distant corner of the empire. Copies of this work were only to be found in an isolated collection of caves in the Judean desert,176 not distributed among growing religious communities in Asia Minor or addressed to beneficent patrons and erudite Alexandrian scholars and critics. Nonetheless, this minority interest text is of relevance to our consideration of Matthew’s technique: as with Josephus and Paul, its author is Jewish and concerned with issues of Jewish identity and theology. His focus, however, is the Pentateuch (whereas Josephus concentrated on historical and Paul on prophetic issues); he collates the laws of Moses in a fresh composition: “He worked through the Pentateuch, arranging all the pertinent material around the first occurrence of a topic. In this way he reKOCH, Schrift, p.98‒99; he also points out, ibid., p.96, that in Paul’s prison correspondence (Phil 1‒2, 4:4‒23; Phlm), Paul has no quotations of scripture. As I feel that it is incredible to posit that Paul was unable to quote scripture without access to a Hebrew Bible, a copy of the LXX, or his notes, there must be a better explanation for the lack of quotation in these letters, pace KOCH, Schrift, p.96: “Dieser Befund wird sofort verständlich, wenn man davon ausgeht, daß Paulus nicht nur gelegentlich, sondern in der Regel unter direkter Benutzung schriftlicher Texte zitierte und dies bei den erschwerten Abfassungsbedingungen der Haft nicht möglich war.” 175 See especially the discussion of Matthew’s reproduction of Mk 4:35‒5:43 in 3.2. Matthew’s Use of Mark in Mt 3‒11. 176 See SCHIFFMAN, The Temple Scroll, p.1‒2. 174

158

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

edited and re-redacted the Pentateuchal legislation.”177 He thus produces “a composite document incorporating previously independent documents”. 178 The comparison with Matthew is surely apt. The discovery of the Temple Scroll at Qumran does not of course require that it is a product of the Dead Sea sectary. S TEGEMANN argues that it is a sixth book (not a replacement) of the Torah 179 and that it must surely have originated outside the Qumran community. 180 He lists as its sources: a literary introduction, a text on the temple complex, a festival calendar, purity laws, and polity laws.181 However, it is the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible which must serve as our base source for examination of the scribal technique. YADIN observes, “The author achieved his purpose by merging commands that treat of the same subject ‒ either by quoting virtually verbatim or by combining the passages into a single flowing text.” 182 I shall demonstrate both of these in the following: the collection of laws from various sources in blocks and the conflation of similar laws to produce a new version. In the first example to be examined, complementary laws from Deut 12, Deut 23 and Num 30 are arranged together: Col LIII 01‒08 09‒10 11‒14 14‒21

Deut 12:20‒25 Deut 12:26 Deut 23:22‒24 Num 30:3‒6

SCHIFFMAN, The Temple Scroll, p.3. SWANSON, The Temple Scroll and the Bible, p.227. 179 STEGEMANN, “Composition and Status”, p.127; SWANSON, The Temple Scroll and the Bible, p.232, describes it as a commentary on scripture, but ibid., p.12‒13, designates it as a new Torah, noting that no references are made to the sources incorporated. 180 STEGEMANN, “Composition and Status”, p.127‒128. Others (MAIER , SCHIFFMAN , B ROOKE, DAVIES) agree that the document is unlikely to have originated at the Dead Sea community (ibid., p.18); each has an article in the same collection: B ROOKE (ed.), Temple Scroll Studies. 181 STEGEMANN, “Composition and Status”, p.132‒142. Cf. also W ILSON & WILLS , “Literary Sources of the Temple Scroll”, p.275‒288; SWANSON, The Temple Scroll and the Bible, p.237. 182 YADIN, The Temple Scroll, I, p.73. The only exception to such combination of materials is the War Laws (Deut 20), included twice in the Temple Scroll (56:12‒59:21 // 60:16‒66:11). SCHIFFMAN, The Courtyards of the House of the Lord, p.506, proposes that the Law of the King was already a current, Hellenistic period unit, while the Deuteronomic section was compiled by our author, yet: “The author/redactor of the scroll made no effort at all to bring these two sections together as would have been appropriate.” Cf. SWANSON, The Temple Scroll and the Bible, p.24; SCHIFFMAN, “The King, his Guard, and the Royal Council in the Temple Scroll”; Idem, “The Laws of War in the Temple Scroll”. 177 178

159

5.2. Examples from Ancient Authors Col LIV 01‒07 Num 30:7‒10 183 08‒21 Deut 13:1‒7

We have here a wonderful example of the way in which an author proceeded from one tradition to another based on the topic at hand, as YADIN comments: [These lines] are good examples of the editorial method of the author. Deut. xii:26, which concludes the previous section, provides the author with grounds for launching the discussion of vows with an amalgam of all relevant commands in a unified whole; Deut. xxiii:22‒24 and Num xxx:3‒16 are his sources. Once that discussion was over, he reverted to Deut. xiii:1, skipping over Deut. xii:29‒21, verses which, indeed, are not germane to the section in which they appear. 184

The author proceeds from one text to the next, adapting both from third to first person monologue. The following sample takes the last verse of the Deut 12 section as its starting point and omits some of the Num 30 passage (indicated with square brackets) for the sake of brevity. 185 h

MT

11QT

... Deut 12:26

Col. LIII Line 09 ‒ Col. LIV Line 07 ...

‫רק קדשיך אשר יהיו לך ונדריך תשא ובאת‬

‫רק קודשיכה וכול נדריכה תשא ובאתה‬

You shall take your sacraments and offerings and go

You shall take your sacraments and offerings and go

‫אל המקום אשר יבחר יהוה‬

‫אל המקום אשר אשכין שמי עליו‬

to the place which the LORD has chosen.

to the place where I shall set my name.

‫וזברחתה שמה לפני‬ And you shall sacrifice there before me

‫כאשר הקדשתה או נדרתה בפיכה‬ as you have made holy or promised by your words.

Deut 23:21‒23

‫כי תדר נדר ליהוה אלהיך לא תאחר לשלמו‬

‫וכי אם תדור נדר לוא תאחר לשלמו‬

If you make a vow to the Lord your God do not delay in fulfilling it

And indeed if you make a vow, do not delay in fulfilling it

‫כי דרש ידרשנו יהוה אלהיך מעמך‬

‫כי דרוש אדורשנו מידכה‬

for the LORD your God will require it of you

for I will require it from your hand

‫והיה בך חטא‬

‫והיה בכה לחטאה‬

and it will be a sin unto you.

and it will be as a sin unto you.

183 Possibly elements of Num 30:11‒16 in Lines 01‒03, depending on their reconstruction. 184 YADIN, The Temple Scroll, II, p.237. 185 The text of the MT is from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, that of the Temple Scroll from SCHIFFMAN , Temple Scroll. Again, translations are my own.

160

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe MT

11QT

‫וכי תחדל לנדר לא יהיה בך חטא‬

‫ואם תחדל ולוא תדור לוא יהיה בכה חטא‬

Yet if you refrain from vowing it will not be a sin unto you.

And if you refrain and do not vow, it will not be a sin unto you.

‫מוצא שפתיך תשמר ועשית כאשר נדרת‬

‫מוצא שפתיכה תשמור כאשר נדרתה‬

Keep to what comes out of your lips, and do as you have vowed

Keep to what comes out of your lips, as you have vowed

‫ליהוה אלהיך נדבה אשר דברת בפיך‬

‫נדבה בפיכה לעשות כאשר נדרתה‬

to the LORD your God willingly, as you have spoken with your mouth.

willingly in your mouth, to do as you have promised.

Num 30:3‒10

‫ואיש כי ידור נדר לי או ישבע שבועה‬ ‫לאסור אסר על נפשו‬

‫איש כי ידר נדר ליהוה או השבע שבעה‬ ‫לאסר על נפשו‬

A man who vows to the LORD or swears an oath And a man who surely vows to me or swears an oath bound on his life on his life

‫לא יחל דברו ככל היצא מפיו יעשה‬

‫ולוא יחל דבריו ככול היוצא מפיה ו יעשה‬

shall not break his word. He shall do everything shall not break his word. He shall do everything that comes out of his mouth. that comes out of his mouth .

[...]

[...]

‫ונדר אלמנה וגרושה כל אשר‬ ‫אסרה על נפשה‬

‫וכול נדר אלמנה וגרושה כול אשר‬ ‫אסרה על נפשה‬

And every vow a widow or divorcee makes upon her life

And every vow a widow or divorcee makes upon her life

‫יקום עליה‬

‫יקוםו עליה‬ will stand against her

will stand against her.

‫ככול אשר יצא מפיה‬ according to everything that comes out of her mouth.

Deut 13:1

‫כול הדברים אשר אנכי מצו)כ (ה‬ ‫אות )מ (ה היום‬

‫את כל הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם אתו‬ Everything that I have commanded you

All the things that I have commanded 186 you today

‫תשמרו לעשות לא תסף עליו‬ ‫ולא תגרע ממני‬

‫תשמור לעשות לוא תוסיף עליהמה‬ ‫ולוא תגרע מהמה‬

you must do carefully, and do not add to them or detract from them.

you must do carefully, and do not add to them or detract from them.

...

...

We can see that he closes the first series with his own comment (doublyunderlined), flows seamlessly between Deut 23 and Num 30, then adds a final comment (again doubly-underlined; cf. the underlined texts earlier in the passage) to close this section. He can then return to Deut 12, where he omits the passage on idolatry and picks up at Deut 13:1. This process, exe186

See SCHIFFMAN, Temple Scroll, p.136, n.799.

161

5.2. Examples from Ancient Authors

cuted here with expertise, is not beyond our evangelist Matthew, as I hope to have demonstrated in his returning to where he left off in Mark after a brief digression into Q and M traditions (e.g. the Baptist in Mt 3:1‒17, the Judas episode in Mt 27:1‒14, &c.). In our second example, two related laws are directly conflated.187 Deut 22:28‒29

‫כי ימא איש נער בתולה‬

Temple Scroll Col. LXVI, Lines 08‒11

Ex 22:15

‫כי יפתה איש נערה בתולה‬

‫וכי יפתה איש בתולה‬

If a man meets a girl, a virgin If a man seduces a girl, a virgin

If a man seduces a virgin

‫אשר לא ארשה ותפשה‬

‫אשר לא ארשה‬

‫אשר לא ארשה‬

who is not betrothed and seizes her

who is not betrothed

who is not betrothed

‫והיא רויה לו מן החוק‬ and she is suitable for him according to the law

‫ושכב עמה ונמצאו‬

‫ושכב עמה ונמצא‬

and lies with her and they are found,

and he lies with her and they are found

‫ונתן האיש השכב עמה‬

‫ונתן האיש השוכב עמה‬

the man who lay with her shall give

the man who lay with her shall give

‫לאבי הנער חמשים כסף‬

‫לאבי הנערה חמשים כסף‬

to the girl’s father fifty [shekels of] silver

to the girl’s father fifty [shekels of] silver

‫ולו תהיה לאישה‬

‫ולוא תהיה לאישה‬

and she shall be his wife.

and she shall be his wife

‫תחת אשר ענה‬

‫תחת אשר ענה‬

because he has violated her.

because he has violated her.

‫לא יוכל שלחה‬

‫לוא יוכל שלחה‬

‫ושכב עמה‬ and he lies with her,

‫מהר ימהרנה‬ he will buy her with a dowry

‫לו לאשה‬ to be his wife

He shall not be able to send He shall not be able to send her her away away

‫כל ימיו‬

‫כול ימיו‬

all his days.

all his days.

The editor follows Deuteronomy, but takes his legal pretext from Exodus.188 He replaces ‘meets and seizes’ in Deuteronomy with ‘seduces’ from Exodus (underlined) and adds his own comment (doubly-underlined).189 YADIN observes:

The example discussed here is cited by YADIN, The Temple Scroll, I, p.76‒77. He also, ibid., p.75, refers to examples of conflation at Col. XLVII:7‒10 (Lev 21:5, Deut 14:1‒2, Lev 19:28), Col. XLIX:7‒10 (Lev 11:33‒34, Num 14:15), Col. LI:11‒18 (Ex 23:6, Deut 1:16‒17, Deut 16:18‒19), Col. LII:11‒12 / Col. LIII:5‒6 (Deut 12:23‒24, Lev 17:13). He furthermore writes that there are “many other examples” (ibid., p.77). 188 See YADIN, The Temple Scroll, I, p.369, for detailed discussion. 189 See the discussion of this addition in YADIN, The Temple Scroll, I, p.369. 187

162

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

This, then, is a most instructive example of the method employed by the author of the scroll in editing the biblical verses and in attempting to prescribe an inclusive law for two verses which appear to contradict one another or to deal with different matters, as well as in seeking to clarify his laws by an addition of his own, which undoubtedly relies upon the legal terminology in vogue at that time. 190

Such is the skill of the scribe in conflating independent traditions. The parallels with the conflations in Matthew (e.g. the mission discourse in Mt 10, the demand for a sign in Mt 12:38‒42) are very informative. Neither is here as free as writers such as Paul or Josephus; both are bound by loyalty to their sources. 191 They then produce sections of integrated materials (conflated according to theme) to give a sense of comprehensiveness: the Temple Scroll contains the ‘complete’ law, 192 Matthew’s gospel the ‘complete’ life of Jesus. I have shown that Matthew, like Josephus, works on one text at a time and draws from his memory of the other, like Paul, in order to integrate the two. In the detailed conflation of independent traditions, Matthew uses a base text with which he begins and to which he returns; the author of the Temple Scroll does the same. As SWANSON observes, “There is a consistent use of a base text which is of primary importance.” 193 His method is remarkably similar to that we observed in Matthew; SWANSON examined this method in more detail and found additions, omissions and amendment of the traditions in question, 194 two texts influencing each other,195 and connected either by a theme 196 or by a key word. 197 As with gospel redaction criticism, it is observed that the views of the editor are best observed in those statements which we find difficult to attribute to a source. 198 All of these factors found by S WANSON show the similarity in the work of the author of the Temple Scroll and that of Matthew. The most compelling, however, is the use of a base text: “Often the base text begins and conYADIN, The Temple Scroll, I, p.371. SWANSON, The Temple Scroll and the Bible, p.227: “The composition is not just a free and wide-ranging use of biblical language to give the sound of scripture, but is a careful construction drawing on specific and identifiable sources to create a new whole.” 192 SCHIFFMAN, The Courtyards of the House of the Lord, p.4, observes that the editor sorts material according to theme, and appends the miscellaneous at the end (as with Mt 5‒7?). Yet, ibid.: “[T]he redactor is both organized and consistent.” 193 SWANSON, The Temple Scroll and the Bible, p.228; however, the choice of base text changes depending on the issue. 194 Ibid.: “The author’s interpretation of the base text is revealed in the re-working of the biblical text (by omission, addition, changed word-order) and by the influence of secondary or supplementary texts.” 195 Ibid.: “[T]he base text conforms to the particular aspect of the secondary text which is used.” 196 Ibid., p.234. 197 Ibid., p.230. 198 Ibid., p.231. 190

191

5.2. Examples from Ancient Authors

163

cludes a section.”199 In writing his gospel account Matthew begins with a Markan tradition, incorporates material from independent sources, and then returns to Mark at the point at which he had left off. We saw the legal scribe do the same thing in our first example. Secondly, when traditions are conflated, it is not in order to provide a happy medium: “[T]he texts are not all harmonized to each other for the purpose of removing contradictions or ambiguities. Only the base text is affected.” 200 So too Matthew, when incorporating Q into Mark, is providing us with an adapted version of the Markan gospel, not a hybrid gospel harmony ‒ the storyline and message remain that of Mark, and it is only the content of certain (mostly early) traditions which is expanded and qualified. While the similarities between the two can not be overstated, as Matthew was of course writing a gospel and the Temple Scroll provides a cultic law, the convergence in apparent technique is instructive. The Temple Scroll shows how an author can work upon a valued and respected text, indeed a holy, religious document, with the same methods as Matthew worked upon Mark. As SWANSON again comments: “The Temple Scroll is a product of the imperceptible shift in understanding of the relationship between authority and exegesis.” 201 The redaction and incorporation of texts does not reveal a dissatisfaction with their contents, but a respect and honour for them and the importance they signify. This too remains the only option for Matthew’s attitude to Mark ‒ one of respect and focus, and one on which he can set to work with the skill of a scribe. 202 The Temple Scroll thus informs us on Matthew’s use of a base text and both one-at-a-time integration of blocks of material and direct conflation of traditions with a common theme. This all takes place despite the high degree of respect and honour for the authority of the texts in question, and thus Matthew, in his similarity to the editor of the Temple Scroll, is not doing anything unprecedented. In each aspect of his work our evangelist is employing techniques attested elsewhere in the ancient world, as can be demonstrated in the examination of base texts and new compositions from authors as divers as Josephus, Paul and the editor of the Temple Scroll.

Ibid., p.233. Ibid., p.229. 201 Ibid., p.243. 202 Ibid., p.15: “We are in fact presented in the Scroll with an example of the consummate skill of the ancient scribes in drawing from their deep and intimate knowledge of the scriptures to weave together the various strands [...] into a new unity which [...] respects the tradition drawn on.” 199 200

164

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

5.3. Writing a Gospel The authors and texts discussed above provide much of interest and relevance to the issue of Matthew’s use of Mark as a source in composing his gospel. Two issues remain, however, to be considered: the actual paperwork involved in working from sources and the content which it is appropriate for an ancient evangelist to edit and develop. These factors will now be examined to see how an early Christian can go about writing a gospel. 5.3.1. Sources and Paperwork We do not know just how a later evangelist would rewrite an earlier gospel. Did he have the convenience of a codex or did he have to unroll a scroll from time to time? And did he always look at a written text or might he sometimes have depended on his memory of it? 203

Ancient convention allowed for the alternation between sources in blocks, and complex conflation is not a common precedent. The key element of redaction was the integration of sections of material into a pre-set narrative to provide a seamless new account. Matthew, following Mark, constructs a series of pericopae with only a few set units (i.e. his discourses and the main Passion narrative). He has made some (albeit minimal) attempt to provide ‘flow’ to the storyline. 204 Yet BAUCKHAM notes a contrast between the gospels, with their “independent pericopae which the evangelists have done relatively little to bind together”, and the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo, which provides “continuous, developing narrative, consisting of relatively long narrative sections which comprise a sequence of events in close historical connexion.” 205 The episodic nature of the gospel pericopae betrays their origins as short, oral traditions, 206 and indeed their perpetuity in such relative independence. 207 This appears very much the case for the Markan miracles, the position of which is considered flexible by our Matthean redactor. For the most part an editor must rely on the given order in one of his sources, except where the sources agree in their order of events, and his work is made easier. 208 This appears to be the case early in Matthew’s gospel, where Mark and Q both testify to the ministry of the baptist, the temptation in the wilderness, authoritative teaching and healing miracles. Yet even here Matthew will focus on one account and JOHNSON, The Griesbach Hypothesis and Redaction Criticism, p.41. As discussed in 4.2.3. Amendments. 205 BAUCKHAM , “Pseudo-Philo and the Gospels”, p.62. 206 So form criticism. 207 How many of us today can recall the order of events in each of the synoptics? 208 DOWNING, Doing Things with Words, p.182: “Plausibility is gained where sources agree [...]. One may suspect that such agreement in sources is also welcome because work is then that much easier.” 203

204

5.3. Writing a Gospel

165

draw on the other only peripherally, thus he follows Mark, taking from Q in blocks (e.g. Mt 3:7‒12, 4:3‒10). Adherence to one major source with minor additions from secondary traditions is the most straight-forward method of conflation, and was adopted by even the most learnèd of scholars,209 even when they may claim otherwise.210 Thus Matthew can build his gospel on its biographical basis, and add independent traditions as he chooses, most obviously and most easily when they involve somewhat connected traditions or logia. Yet this simple cut-and-paste portrait of an evangelist, drawn perhaps from an overzealous emphasis on form criticism, is honed by the contribution of redaction critics. We can certainly see the traits of the author himself despite his loyalty to the traditions which he receives and imparts. An editor will leave his mark on the work he has written, even if much of his material was previously available. This is very much the case with Josephus, who adds his own touch to long-established and well-known accounts of history.211 Yet for Matthew, Mark, although well-known in the right circles, remains a recent account of modern events. Thus Matthew’s reworking of Mark is not a case of ‘re-written Bible’ as in Josephus or Pseudo-Philo. Furthermore, could Matthew not have expected that someone elsewhere was using the same traditions to produce a quite different account of the same events? Luke, as we have addressed, provides us with a preface to his gospel. He is in no doubt that others (πολλοί) have done, and presumably will continue to do, exactly what he is doing. Unless we suppose that Matthew is naïve, or lived in an isolated community, he must also have been aware of this possibility. That he edited Mark so carefully must have left him aware of the possibility that any successor might do the same to his work. At this early stage of Christian literature this may have been conHORNBLOWER , Hieronymus of Cardia, p.280: “He followed his single main source, supplemented by additions which could, in principle, be distinguished.” 210 PELLING, “Plutarch’s Method of Work”, p.93: “Time and again we find Greek and Roman historians claiming a wide range of reading, [...] yet, time and again, we find them demonstrably basing their narrative of individual episodes on a single source.” SHINER, “Memory Technology”, p.155, argues: “Why could a rhetorician drawing largely on existing material create a brand new coherent whole while historians, biographers and philosophers often created serial paste jobs? [...] It appears to me that the answer lies in the way the two groups used their memory in composition. The rhetoricians’ method of composition [required that t]he preexisting material was broken down into various quotations, figures of speech, arguments and speech outlines so that [...] they could weave the new composition out of existing parts. [...] The patchwork authors, on the other hand, either relied more directly on written sources or had not deconstructed their sources into their individual parts.” This argument may provide insight into the ways in which Matthew constructs his great discourses on the one hand and his narrative episodes on the other. 211 FOAKES -JACKSON, Josephus and the Jews, p.257: “As we saw in his treatment of [...] sources, his individuality [...] appears in everything he touches.” 209

166

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

sidered an inevitable development of the Jesus tradition. However, the roundedness of Matthew’s gospel, with its beginning with Abraham and its conclusion in the Great Commission, strengthen its claim to finality. Matthew, in his church in Syria, was a compiler of the authentic Jesus traditions he knew. There is no concession such as that of the closing words of John’s Gospel (Jn 21:25), rather a command in which appeal is made to all that has been taught (Mt 28:20). 212 In this respect Matthew is not in line with the convention of the evangelists Luke and John, and so many other authors who saw their work as a new contribution to an on-going tradition, but fully in line with Mark, who tells the story of the ministry and death of Jesus without hinting at sources, forerunners or possible successors. He includes material from all his valued sources, yet relies on Mark, his main source, for both his content and approach. Matthew must now sit down (or indeed stand!) and write his gospel. How can he go about this? This question is crucial to our portrait of Matthew, for we otherwise run the risk of creating an impossible evangelist. DOWNING warns against the needlessly complex and impractical portrayals of the evangelists’ methods as proposed in various solutions to the synoptic problem. 213 In the process of determining what Mark was for Matthew, we here have the two at a crucial point. Matthew has Mark’s Gospel in front of him; he has read it before and is very familiar with its contents. Yet his task is to add other traditions, and while he can abbreviate certain Markan narrative excesses, he must be aware that his work will be longer. He must plan and limit his composition, as HENGEL explains: [A]n author was compelled to keep his material within strict limits. He had to make careful plans in advance so that his work would be the right length, since there was comparatively little room on papyrus scrolls and they were very expensive indeed. 214

LUZ provides us with an image of the scribe at work: According to representations of the period, [the scribe] did not use a desk but rather sat in a chair and balanced wax tablets or a sheet of papyrus or parchment on his knees. 215

PELLING describes the difficulties involved: HECKEL, Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium, p.71, notes the fourfold use of πᾶς in the Great Commission: “Alle Vollmacht, alle Völker, alles, was ich euch gelehrt habe, alle Tage.” 213 DOWNING, Doing Things with Words, p.75: “Discussions of the synoptic Gospels, their sources, interrelationships and composition, still tend to ignore the pragmatics of compositional methods prevalent in the first-century Mediterranean world.” I cannot help but fear that CHILTON, “La plate-forme de travail de Marc”, has fallen into this trap in his portrait of Mark’s complex use of five major traditions (ibid., p.503‒505). 214 HENGEL, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, p.5. 215 LUZ, “Looking at Q through the Eyes of Matthew”, p.580 (see ibid., n.20, for references). 212

5.3. Writing a Gospel

167

A writer would not normally refer back to [earlier] reading to verify individual references, and would instead rely on his memory, or on the briefest of notes. [...] Stray facts and additions would be recalled after the preliminary available reading, but it would be a very different matter to recall the detail of an episode’s presentation. [...] Such a procedure seems less perverse in view of the physical difficulties of working with papyrus rolls [... with] non-existent or rudimentary [...] indexing, chapter-headings, line- and column-numbering. [...] Even if, for example, a slave held a second roll for an author to compare accounts, or the author himself used a book-rest, combining versions would be awkward.216

The practical demands of ancient redaction therefore restrict any detailed ‘unpicking’ and ‘reworking’ of two or more sources, and that is why this is uncommon. Integration of other sources is often pictured as the rolling and unrolling of scrolls, a slow and tiresome project, 217 especially for one so familiar with the traditions in question. It is therefore with good reason that one may turn to proposals such as that of RUSSELL: “The process of composition is likely to have involved much less ‘paper-work’ than a modern scholar likes to think.”218 Matthew’s comprehensive reproduction of his sources betrays a level of familiarity which requires merely the consultation of notes or memory alone in the grafting of Q into Mark. 219 Such reliance on memory and notes, so often stressed in the classics, 220 is all too often ignored in biblical studies. KENNEDY refers to the Lukan prologue, which again provides us with insight into the apparent method of a budding evangelist: In the passage, there is repeated emphasis on the fact that the order of the incidents has been arranged both by those who have previously written gospels and by Luke himself. This suggests that the raw material of gospel-writing was notes [...], and the major act of composition by a gospel writer was thus the rearrangement of such repetitive material into a narrative order.221

If Matthew, as an ancient scribe, took notes on his traditions before sitting down to record them in his gospel, this will affect both how he re-orders the events of the Markan tradition and the way in which he retells Mark 216 PELLING, “Plutarch’s Method of Work”, p.92‒93. We have seen, of course, in 5.2.3. The Temple Scroll, that such close conflation may have been difficult, but was certainly possible. 217 As, however, apparently undertaken by Josephus, see 5.2.1. Josephus: Contra Apionem. 218 RUSSELL, “Plutarch’s Life of Coriolanus”, p.22. 219 SHINER, “Memory Technology”, p.152‒153, describes the process of memorization, and suggests, p.155: “[Matthew] almost certainly carried much if not all of the material in his mind.” 220 KENNEDY, “Classical and Christian Source Criticism”, p.141, refers to the preliminary “stages of collecting the information in notes and regrouping the material into an organized text”. FULLER, “Classics and the Gospels”, p.187: “[A]ncient authors were not much given to checking their references and usually quoted either from memory or from notes.” 221 KENNEDY, “Classical and Christian Source Criticism”, p.152.

168

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

when consulting only his notes and not his copy. 222 DERRENBACKER supports the proposal of SATO223 that Q came to Matthew in codex form: Matthew [...] provides a unique set of problems for the source critic, particularly one who is cognizant of the compositional methods of Greco-Roman writers. Instead of taking over Q and Mark (in part) in blocks like Luke, Matthew rearranges his sources (particularly Q) and rebuilds them into alternating blocks of narrative and discourse. As a result, Matthew frequently deviates from the order of Q, and on several occasions early in his Gospel, deviates from the order of his Markan source as well. Given this phenomenon, one should begin to draw the following conclusions based on the features and limitations provided by the variety of ancient media. If Matthew’s use of Q whose order is best reflected by Luke is to be taken seriously, one is compelled to imagine Matthew’s Q in the form of a codex. Again, a codex would provide Matthew with random access to Q [... which] would [have been] a 20 page codex. 224

If Matthew is working with a codex of Q he will have random access to the logia and parables, and may use notes to facilitate his selection. Likewise, as DERRENBACKER continues: [M]emory and mnemonic techniques should not be ignored for the sake of traditional source critical understanding of later Gospel writers consistently having visual contact with their written sources. 225

Notes are, of course, simply aide-mémoires, a series of keywords to trigger the memory of the author. 226 It is this which allows him to reproduce apparently heavily abbreviated portions of his source. The abbreviation of reordered pericopae (e.g. those from Mk 4:35‒5:43) is most easily explained by this practice. 227 Matthew as a scribe, and as a Christian well versed in the Markan tradition, must therefore be allowed to use notes and his own

222 Cf. the discussion of Matthew’s treatment of Mk 4:35‒5:43 and his mission discourse in Mt 10 (3.2. Matthew’s use of Mark in Mt 3‒11). 223 SATO , Q und Prophetie, p.62‒65. 224 DERRENBACKER, Ancient Compositional Practices, p.253. O’LEARY, Judaization, p.108, posits the same however for Matthew’s copy of the gospel of Mark. 225 DERRENBACKER , ibid., p.254. 226 Or the student revising for an examination. 227 DERRENBACKER, Ancient Compositional Practices, p.215: “[O]ften Matthew appears to be following either Mark or Q, and may, in fact, be recalling the wording of the other from memory.” Cf. FULLER, “Classics and the Gospels”, p.190‒191, with reference to KENNEDY “Classical and Christian Source Criticism”: “[E]arly Christian writers may, at times, have reproduced previously written sources from memory, rather than by direct copying, and [...] memorization may thus have played a significant role in the development of the gospel tradition.” This factor should come as no surprise to us, as these texts were surely read a lot!

5.3. Writing a Gospel

169

recollection of the content of Mark in writing his own gospel. 228 In doing so he is fully in line with the practice of his contemporaries. Thus if we are to consider Matthew a realistic first century scribe, we must allow him to operate within these parameters, to introduce Q and M traditions in ‘blocks’ and to use notes and rely upon his memory in the reproduction of Markan passages. 5.3.2. Content With this sketch of Matthew at work, firmly rooted in his ancient Mediterranean world, we now must seek to determine how the various elements of his gospel can be evaluated in light of the conventions of his contemporaries. The first Matthean additions to the Markan gospel which we discussed were his pro- and epilogue. The addition of a prologue should come as no surprise. An extensive prologue was also fixed to the Qumran Community Rule,229 and Pseudo-Philo provides birth narratives for many scriptural figures.230 Most relevant, however, are Luke’s introductory chapters, which resemble those of Matthew in theme if not in style: a genealogy, the pious family, the rôle of angels and a miraculous birth. Matthew alone suggests the threat of infanticide, an all too common motif in ancient literature. 231 A prologue is often expected to answer the question Quis et Unde? 232 In this respect Matthew is fully within the standards of contemporary scribal acitivity. His epilogue, on the other hand, is highly enigmatic. His Great Commission shows the vocabulary and concerns of our evangelist. Jesus’ last words promise: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ µεθ’ ὑµῶν εἰµι πάσας τὰς ἡµέρας ἕως συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος. Matthew has nothing to add. He closes his gospel with the words of Jesus. It seems his concern was to provide an account of 228 SHINER, “Memory Technology”, p.156: “Since Matthew shows little concern for word-for-word fidelity to the written Mark in his Gospel, it seems reasonable to assume that he would be equally free in his memorized version.” SHINER continues, p.156, to suggest that Matthew proceeded by firstly reading a section of Mark, and then composing his own version of that section. Similarly, ROBBINS , “Interfaces of Orality and Literature”, p.126, with reference to Aelius Theon of Alexandria’s Progymnasmata, proposes: “The Synoptic Gospels, in particular, show how first-century Christian writers composed in a progymnastic manner, rather than in a mode of scribal copying or oral transcribing. The amount of verbatim similarity, in a context of substantive variations, shows that they composed without returning either their eyes or their ears to a manuscript source as they composed.” 229 METSO, Textual Development, p.146. 230 See especially HARRINGTON, “Birth Narratives”. 231 E.g. Oedipus (Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, v994‒1046), Cyrus (Herodotus, I, 108‒113), Zeus (Hesiod, Theogony, 453‒479), and of course, most decisively here, Moses (Ex 2:1‒10). 232 STENDAHL, “Quis et Unde?”, p.56‒66. Cf. the literary examination of Mt 1‒2 in MAYORDOMO-MARÍN, Den Anfang hören.

170

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

the fulfilment of Jesus’ promise to meet the disciples in Galilee. He is finishing his gospel not with material from his sources but with his own conclusion. Luke ends with an anti-climax (Lk 24:50‒52) in anticipation of his account of the apostles in Acts, and John implies there is much more to be told (Jn 2:25); of course, Mark too famously finishes with an anticlimax (Mk 16:9). Each gospel finishes differently, so all we can say is that convention had no guidelines for how best to conclude. For the various minor additions Matthew makes to Mark, R ICHARD BAUCKHAM drew comparisons with Pseudo-Philo, whose contributions involve explanation of the original,233 plays-on-words, 234 the additions of psalms of praise235 and lamentations,236 cross-references and prophecy fulfilments.237 Indeed, like Matthew, “Pseudo-Philo’s ingenuity in this field of exegesis is displayed not in creating events to fit prophecies, but in finding prophecies to fit events.” 238 In general it may be noted that his additions need little basis in the original source.239 While Matthew may be accused of this at certain points, e.g. the temple tax-collectors who appear in Mt 17:24‒27, he is usually inspired or reminded to include independent material by a common theme.240 Matthew’s digressions, such as the additions of completely new parables, resemble those of the scribes at Qumran editing the Community Rule, for whom a catchword was sufficient grounds for fresh insertions: There was no ready-made scheme in the minds of the redactors which they would have followed when arranging the material and editing the text. A vague association prompted by a key-word was sufficient to provide the impetus for composing a new sentence or including a new passage. 241 233 E.g. (from BAUCKHAM , “Pseudo-Philo and the Gospels”, p.37) the family of Lamech (LAB 2:6‒10); Moses prayer (LAB 10:4) in anticipation of God’s answer (Ex 14:15 // LAB 10:5); Baalam’s background (LAB 18:2); an angel prevents Saul and Abner from recognizing David (LAB 61:9); Saul’s reasons for legislating against witchcraft (LAB 64:1). BAUCKHAM, ibid.: “He must have seen his additions as making explicit what is implicit in the biblical account.” 234 E.g. (from BAUCKHAM, ibid., p.38) Abraham and Jair experience the fiery furnace because Ur (Gen 11:31, 15:7) means ‘fire’ and Kamon (Judges 10:5) means ‘furnace’. 235 E.g. (from BAUCKHAM , ibid., p.39) David’s psalms (LAB 59:4, 60:2‒3). 236 E.g. (from BAUCKHAM, ibid., p.39) the laments of Joshua (LAB 24:6), Deborah (LAB 33:6) and Jephthah’s daughter (LAB 40:5‒7). 237 E.g. (from BAUCKHAM , ibid., p.60) LAB 9:8, 12:3, 21:5, 25:5, 51:6. 238 BAUCKHAM , “Pseudo-Philo and the Gospels”, p.60. 239 BAUCKHAM, “Pseudo-Philo and the Gospels”, p.39: “Pseudo-Philo substitutes fresh compositions which make only rare contact with their biblical models.” F RANCE, “Jewish Historiography, Midrash and the Gospels”, p.102, notes “the addition of sometimes quite considerable sections of narrative and/or sayings for which the biblical text apparently supplies no warrant”. 240 E.g. the Q account of the centurion’s servant amid a series of miracles (Mk), and immediately after the sermon (Q). 241 METSO, Textual Development, p.148.

5.3. Writing a Gospel

171

For Josephus too, a ‘theme’ would often determine what would follow.242 He most often relies on “a cue for the choice of an item to follow”. 243 There is thus a precedent in ancient literature for adding a passage because it is brought to mind by a key word or theme in the main text. Matthew receives the bulk of his material from his sources, adding merely the framework, speeches, and scriptural citations, for all of which there is abundant precedence. He shies from the addition of lengthy narrative or editorial comment, and is therefore not as creative as many of his secular peers. All of his additions to Mark are however to be expected given the evidence of contemporary literature. In considering Matthew’s omissions of passages from the Markan tradition we again turn to Luke. Luke also omits passages from Mark, sometimes the same tradition (e.g. the Bethsaida episode, Mk 8:22‒26, possibly absent in Luke’s copy of Mark244) but mostly passages which Matthew has kept (and likewise Matthew has passages from Mark which Luke has dropped). The phenomenon is clear: an evangelist who follows the account of his major source is not compelled to include every tradition. The ‘abbreviation’ of detail is also a factor Matthew and Luke have in common. The narrative is reconstructed according to the taste and style of each evangelist. Neither is compelled to tell the story precisely as it is told in Mark. This results in the loss of motifs in Mark for the sake of the themes preferred by the redactor. Thus in the omission of passages, narrative detail and themes, Matthew is in line with Luke. So just as we saw with Matthew’s additions to his primary source, so in his omissions of aspects of the Markan tradition he is not alone. The changes Matthew makes to the Markan tradition are a further aspect of editing religious literature.245 Matthew, like Luke,246 saw fit to improve the language of Mark; such improvements of style are surely to be expected in the edition of any text. Yet the changes made to religious literature often have their roots in theological issues. 247 Yet, as THACKERY explains, variation was often simply a reason in itself: 242

DOWNING, “Redaction Criticism (I)”, p.56‒57, gives numerous examples. DOWNING, ibid., p.57. 244 BOVON, Lukas, I, p.20: “Allerdings übergeht er unerklärlicherweise Mk 6,45‒8,26.” 245 METSO, Textual Development, p.153, describes the redaction of the Qumran Community Rule: “The redaction of the document not only involved joining passages together but also entailed more radical editing of the passages.” 246 CREED, Luke, p.lxi‒lxii. 247 TALMON, “Textual Transmission”, p.230, speaks of “the deliberate insertion of textual alterations into scripture for various reasons of dogma, style etc., the uncontrolled infiltration of haphazard changes due to linguistic peculiarities of copyists, or to their characteristic concepts and ideas.” A famous example is the Book of Jubilees, which makes changes to traditions for theological, not linguistic reasons (cf., e.g., VANDER KAM, Jubilees, p.120‒133). DOWNING, “Redaction Criticism (I)”, p.50, also notes Josephus’ disapproval of witchcraft, for example. 243

172

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

Now, while it was customary for ancient historians to make free and unacknowledged use of the published work of their predecessors, without any sense of what we would call ‘plagiarism’, it was almost a point of honour with them to vary the phraseology. 248 5.4. The Conventional Evangelist

Changes and improvements of textual traditions were thus commonplace in ancient scribal convention. It is Matthew’s adherence to Mark in spite of these amendments which proves most striking. The loyalty Matthew shows to his sources, especially Mark, allows for the very high level of continuity in the tradition. This attribute of Matthean redaction does however have grounds in ancient convention. For the tradent of Hebrew Scripture, adherence to the tradition was of course the status quo: The limited flux of the textual transmission [...] appears to be a legitimate and accepted phenomenon of ancient scribal tradition and not a matter which resulted from sheer incompetence or professional laxity. 249

Continuity was a key factor in religious literature. Yet even for the educated Graeco-Roman public-speaker it was a matter of practical importance to stress common ground: Even when you were attempting to move your audience in some fresh direction, most of what you said had to be familiar, commonplace, echoing the present ideas and opinions of those listening. 250

And just as the public-speaker and the scribe of Hebrew Scriptures have need for continuity, so too does the historian: Josephus, in many ways free in his redaction, remains nonetheless bound to the traditions. 251 If, as DOWNING suggests, “[w]ord-processing in the ancient Mediterranean world will have been consistently oral and collaborative”,252 then continuity is the result of such oral collaboration, which acts as a check on any developments in the traditions. Finally, the edition of the Qumran Community Rule provides further support for the proposal that Matthew is in the Markan tradition; an editor at Qumran is certainly a member of the community, not an outsider who will adopt their literature for his own use. Matthew is a new edition of Mark and not a new edition of Q, and Mark is not a foreign entity to him. THACKERY, Josephus: The Man and the Historian, p.107. TALMON , “The Textual Study of the Bible”, p.326. GOULDER , Midrash, p.132, speaks of “Matthew’s restraint with, and the Covenanters’ liberties with, Holy Writ.” There is of course the phenomenon of textual variants which end up incorporated completely into a new edition of a text, as TALMON, ibid., p.230, explains: “[W]hen the variant initially had been noted [...] outside the normal text-base, it easily could be transferred into the text by a subsequent copyist who used the annotated MS as his Vorlage.” 250 DOWNING, Doing Things with Words, p.78. Cf. Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1.5.1‒6 and 2; also Cicero, De Oratore 14.47. 251 DOWNING, “Redaction Criticism (I)”, p.60: “There is freedom to select, arrange, paraphrase and preach; but there is little if any room for his own interpretation, and probably none for invention. The tradition remains in control.” 252 DOWNING, Doing Things with Words, p.83. 248

249

5.4. The Conventional Evangelist

173

In providing a new edition of the accepted document Matthew is in line with the contemporary practice of the religious group responsible for the Community Rule. Continuity is therefore a key factor in determining the content, method and identity behind the edition of an ancient document, and is the final aspect of Matthew’s edition of Mark which can be seen to be in line with the practices of other authors and editors of religious texts.

5.4. The Conventional Evangelist Livy, Polybius, Dionysius, Josephus, Plutarch and the rest just go ahead and write, mostly on the basis of a single prior text in front of them, paraphrasing, précising, expanding, omitting, while relying otherwise for the most part only on unchecked memories of other sources and even of the one in front of them. 253

This summary of the approach of several ancient authors allows a certain comparison with Matthew to be drawn: although clearly not as classically educated as the authors mentioned, Matthew can only adopt the methods prevalent in his time. To describe his redaction of his sources as more complex than the approach of the greats is to render him incredibly and needlessly complex, and indeed unrealistic. While there are of course no established rules for the redaction of sources in the ancient world, the fact that Matthew’s work as described in my examination of his use of Mark resembles so consistently the traits of his contemporaries should encourage this portrait. The evidence gathered by DOWNING was put forward as an argument in favour of the Two-Document Hypothesis, against any claims that Luke knew Matthew, or that Mark was conflating Matthew and Luke; for, if this were the case, the editors would be working with unattested and thus improbable methods of redaction. The evidence from ancient authors continues to inform our awareness of the approach of the evangelists, so we not only have evidence supporting the claims of source critics, 254 but indications of how the ways in which Matthew and Luke worked upon their sources reveals aspects of their attitudes to these central religious texts.255 Matthew’s priorities are not those of the ancient historian, apologist, missionary, or lawyer. His interest lies in the collection of various DOWNING, Doing Things with Words, p.182. DOWNING, Doing Things with Words, p.196: “[A] careful consideration of our evidence for first-century compositional techniques seems to rule out as impossibly complex the procedures presupposed but unstated in every proposed ‘solution’ of the synoptic problem other than the Two-Documentary Hypothesis.” 255 Yet regarding the similarities of contemporary convention to the proposed model of redaction undertaken by Matthew, D OWNING, “Contemporary Analogies”, p.56, adds a note of caution: “A few parallels with such theoretical models in [...] Matthew tells us little of his likely intention or method in writing.” 253 254

174

Chapter 5: A Conventional Scribe

Jesus traditions for the benefit and instruction of the Christian community: Jesus’ life-story is the best medium for the transmission of his authoritative teaching and Jesus’ authoritative teaching is best set in the context of his life-story. 256 In his approach, while not stated explicitly, Matthew appears to be in line with his contemporaries. We have seen from ancient literature that authors tend to limit their sources, copy in blocks, and that conflation is, when rarely attempted, simply executed. This coheres with the portrait of an ancient scribe at work with his papyrus, following one major source and relying on his extensive memory and notes. We have also seen precedence from contemporary literature for the content of Matthean additions, omissions, amendments and continuity. Thus Matthew in his choice of Mark, imitation of Mark’s style, development of Mark’s ideas and additions to Mark’s account, remains within the Markan tradition as a conventional editor of this central Christian text. h

The final issue we must consider here is the future rôle of Matthew’s sources. Q, as a collection, perhaps transmitted in a codex, is almost immediately destined to obscurity. That Luke relies on an edition of Q similar to that used by Matthew suggests that Luke was writing around the same time as our evangelist. He knows Q before its decline, and indeed, may himself be accused of contributing to its demise. Yet Luke is ready to admit the presence, and presumably the continuance, of other accounts of the life of Jesus. He therefore adds his own to the list (κἀµοί), and does not dismiss the others. 257 Matthew, on the other hand, in his almost complete reproduction of his sources in one single, coherent whole, renders them redundant. There is now no longer need for Mark or Q as they stand. Yet Mark has survived the test of time. Was it perhaps maintained even after the publication of Matthew by the very same community, 258 or was it forwarded to other groups at the same time as Matthew’s gospel was spreading throughout the area? Indeed, it would seem needless to destroy one’s sources, even following the publication of their new ‘edition’. So Mark, and perhaps also Q, may have continued to circulate in the early Christian communities after our redactor was ‘finished’ with them. Matthew’s gospel will replace Mark in the community, and there is also no further need for Q. Yet both these sources will for a while continue to be stored or circulated, as older copies of authoritative texts.

256 LUZ, “Looking at Q through the Eyes of Matthew”, p.590: “Matthew thus perceives his two principle sources as a harmonious unit rather than as fundamentally different interpretations of Jesus.” 257 However SIM , “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, p.189: “Mark had no role at all to play in the Lucan community once Luke had composed and circulated his two-volume work. The earlier gospel had been made redundant.” He says the same of John, ibid., p.191, if indeed John was familiar with Mark; cf. W INDISCH, Johannes und die Synoptiker: Wollte der vierte Evangelist die älteren Evangelien ergänzen oder ersetzen? and HENGEL, The Johannine Question, p.193‒194, n.8. 258 METSO, Textual Development, p.148: “The evidence of the manuscripts 4QS b,d indicates that the community continued to copy an earlier version of the text even though a more extensive version of 1QS was already available.”

Chapter 6

Mark in the Eyes of Matthew We are now in a position to consider the evidence gathered and the contribution it makes to the question of the attitude of Matthew to his primary source. Source and redaction criticism have shown how Matthew is using Mark, Q and other traditions as material to produce a gospel permeated with his own theological emphases. There has however to date been no concrete attempt at explaining the importance of Mark’s gospel to our evangelist, the relationship between the two, and thus Matthew’s attitude to Mark.1 I discussed the key aspects of each of Matthew’s sources, including M material and the Jewish scriptures, and examined both Matthew’s use of Mark and Q in Mt 3‒11 and how he continues to edit Mark in Mt 12‒28. I also argued that the portrait I have painted of the evangelist at work is credible given what we know of ancient literature and what we can learn from the guidelines and examples of Matthew’s contemporaries. The final task is to bring together the results of each aspect of the study to bear on the relationship and attitude of the evangelist to the Markan tradition. We shall consider the issues as follows: Matthew’s proximity to Mark, the ways in which he develops Mark in producing his new edition, the continuity which remains, the authority of the Gospel of Mark, and the perspective we now have on Matthew’s replacement of Mark’s gospel with his own. Then finally we may say something of the relationship between Matthew and Mark and our evangelist’s attitude to his principal source.

6.1. Matthew’s Proximity to Mark If we accept that Matthew has incorporated most of Mark into his gospel then an important corollary follows: Matthew has accepted and modified the genre of Mark. [...] Matthew is undoubtedly closer to Mark than to any other ancient biography. 2

I have argued that it is implausible to suggest that Matthew is a Q Christian whose position is significantly influenced by acquaintance with the Mark1 O’LEARY, Judaization, p.175, suggests something similar as a desideratum: “Despite detailed research on the matter of the similarities and differences between Matthew and Mark as found in commentaries, it was discovered that there has been little in-depth analysis of Matthew’s overall literary and theological agenda in his rewriting of Mark. It is recommended that this continue to be addressed in future research.” 2 S TANTON, A Gospel, p.66.

176

Chapter 6: Mark in the Eyes of Matthew

an gospel. Although the incorporation of Q and M materials into the Markan framework is a priority for Matthew, it is not his main project. Matthew’s new edition of Mark is rather a justification and improvement of the Markan gospel, with which he is well versed. Mark is not new for Matthew. He shows in his reworking of Markan miracles, his additions within individual Markan pericopae and his general summaries (such as that introducing the Sermon3), a great awareness of the tone and content of the Markan tradition. It is Mark’s, and not Q’s, account, which will shine through in Matthew’s gospel. In working Q into Mark Matthew is replacing the Q-less gospel with one rich in logia and parables; his book, however, must be written Mark’s way. Matthew therefore reveals to us in his work a preference for the narrative gospel over the collection of individual or thematic teachings. 4 Yet Matthew surely respects both his sources, to the extent that he will reproduce and seek to usurp and replace both.5 The victory of the narrative over the discourse gospel is of course only evidence for the dominance of the Markan format, not the Markan tradition. Yet here too we have signs that the story of the Gospel according to Mark is central for Matthew. He follows Mark from beginning to end with only brief interruptions for extended discourse and (in)dependent traditions, the omission of a handful of rather minor events in the narrative story, and the rearrangement of a few miracles and the mission of the disciples. Most importantly, however, Matthew’s Passion is that of Mark. In this most crucial part of the story of Jesus, his visit to Jerusalem, trial 3 NEIRYNCK, “La rédaction matthéenne”, p.67‒68, comments regarding the Sermon on the Mount: “Pour l’introduire, Matthieu a composé un sommaire très solennel dans lequel il [...] s’est servi des différents sommaires des premiers chapitres de Mc. [...] C’est une vraie synthèse, bien charactéristique du premier évangile, qui révèle une très grande familiarisation avec l’évangile de Mc et un style personnel dans son utilisation.” 4 SCHULZ, “Die Bedeutung des Markus für die Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums”, p.140, sees here a victory of the Hellenizers over the Judaizers: “[I]n dieser alles entscheidenden Subsumierung ‒ Einarbeitung der Q-Halacha in das Evangelium und nicht Einarbeitung des Markusevangeliums in die Q-Halacha ‒, in dieser kopernikanischen Wende wird der prinzipielle Sieg des hellenistischen Christentums über den apokalyptisch-nomistischen Sprachraum des Judenchristentums evident.” 5 S IM, “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, p.190, n.49: “It is tempting to speculate that the fate of Q could have been analogous to the early demise of Mark. Given the existence of Q as a single and cohesive source or text and its subsequent disappearance from history, there is nothing to preclude the possibilty that Matthew and Luke [...] believed that this source too needed to be revised and replaced. If that was their intention, then they were more successful in this instance than in the case of Mark. Mark’s apostolic connections with Peter prevented it from sliding completely into obscurity, but Q presumably had no such associations to protect it from that fate.” BECKER, “Dating Mark and Matthew as Ancient Literature”, p.143, notes that Matthew gives no precise indication that would allow his gospel to be dated later than Mark’s (and thus arises the synoptic problem!). This is, however, yet a further sign of Matthew’s continuity with Markan tradition, his replacement of the earlier gospel with his own, equally timeless account.

6.1. Matthew’s Proximity to Mark

177

and crucifixion, Matthew knows only an extended version of the account given by Mark. His M traditions are not evidence of an independent Passion account, such as those we notice in Luke’s or John’s Sondergut. Matthew testifies to developments of the Markan Passion traditions, and Mark was normative to him.6 Matthew shows a direct development of the Markan passion;7 he does not seek to contradict Mark’s story, rather follows it and succeeds it faithfully. Nor does his reliance upon Mark stop there. He is interested in the gospel as more than simply a vessel for Q material and M traditions. He constantly improves upon Mark’s Greek style, portrayal of characters and theological message. The mere fact that he is in direct dialogue with Mark supports the proposal that they are in very close contact, but moreover the way in which he changes Mark also reflects their consistency and proximity more than has often been acknowledged at the expense of stress on theological and community differences. 8 That Matthew found Mark’s Gospel congenial in the first place, suggests they may have been theologically, socially, and possibly even geographically9 rather close.10 Therefore the way in which Matthew has developed the Markan account must reflect his attitude to this text as the (at least locally) accepted account of Jesus’ ministry.

6 I have continually sought to avoid attributing Matthew’s accretions to Matthean creativity, as, e.g. G UNDRY, Matthew, consistently does. I find it difficult to attribute such creativity to a pious early Christian scribe, unless Matthew prove rather to be a charlatan and confidence-trickster of an evangelist. 7 D ESCAMPS, “Rédaction et christologie”, p.410: “Par rapport à la christologie de Marc, celle de Matthieu marque une étape dans la même direction. [...] La passion selon Matthieu [...] accentue la dignité de Jésus prolongeant en cela [...] les suggestions de Mc.” 8 Against KEALY, Mark’s Gospel, p.11, who speaks of, “the rewriting of the Markan tradition by Matthew and Luke for their own communities, inasmuch as they were evidently not satisfied with Mark’s tradition as an adequate solution to their problems.” And SIM , “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, p.185: “Whatever value Matthew placed on Mark, he still viewed it as an inadequate presentation of Jesus’ story that required correction, improvement and expansion, and which needed to be updated to meet the needs of his intended readership.” 9 F REYNE, “Jewish Contexts”, p.193: “Thus the two works may not have been as far apart theologically, socially and even geographically, as some construals of their relationship would have it.” 10 B ECKER & RUNESSON, “Introduction”, p.2, provide a rather wordy description of this close relationship: “In [...] processes of identity formation, Mark and Matthew played different but overlapping roles. Sometimes they supported each other, and sometimes they competed. [...] In other words, one may say that the heuristics of a sustained comparative approach lies interwoven within the interconnectedness of a competitive companionship.”

178

Chapter 6: Mark in the Eyes of Matthew

6.2. Matthew’s Development of Mark Matthew is by no means compelled to follow Mark in every detail, rather is free to make a variety of what at first appear minor changes to the way in which the tradition is handed down. SIM notes both “the evangelist’s debt to Mark” and “the serious failings that he identified in the gospel” (“its crude language, short length, offensive features and the fact that Mark was simply inadequate”).11 I find this critical view of Mark too harsh to describe Matthew’s attitude, and would thus like to consider once more the changes Matthew makes to his Markan Vorlage, and to explain how these reflect a much more positive relationship than that posited by many redaction critics.12 Redaction criticism has over many years found credible, if sometimes contradictory, explanations for almost every word which Matthew writes. 13 Yet surely it is possible that the changes Matthew effects do not reflect primarily a criticism of the tradition, but an approval of the story and message. RIST notes that GOULDER’s ‘statistical proof’ that Matthew exhibits on average 18% redactional activity on a Markan pericope and 28.5% on that of M or Q, 14 indicates not evidence that the non-Markan traditions constitute ‘midrash’, but that Matthew treated the text of Mark with greater respect than he did his copy of Q. 15 The evangelist works with his source in order to clarify and reinforce what he feels the tradition is saying about Jesus. 16 Matthew’s improvement of Mark’s language, for example, is not evidence of his dissatisfaction with what Mark has to say. Similarly, his expansion of Mark does not tell us that Matthew found Mark too short. 17 11 SIM , “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, p.178. Ibid., p.182: “[D]espite the fact that Matthew owed a considerable debt to his Marcan source, he was none the less dissatisfied with and critical of the earlier gospel.” 12 See however the helpful comments of HAGNER, Matthew 1‒13, p.lx: “Since Matthew takes over so much of Mark, we may expect that he shares Mark’s theology.” And B EATON, “How Matthew Writes”, p.120: “The implication is that when Matthew adopts Mark, even though adjustments are made, he embraces the Marcan tradition and theological commitments.” 13 The words which Matthew does not write, i.e. his omission of many details and a few complete pericopae of Mark, prove more difficult, but again possible theological or literary reasons are found which explain Matthew’s decisions. 14 Cf. GOULDER, Midrash, p.474‒475. 15 RIST, Independence, p.111: “A Two-Documentarian could observe that the ‘proof’ merely shows that Matthew had more respect for Mark than for Q or M.” Cf. FRANCE, “Scripture, Tradition and History in the Infancy Narratives of Matthew”, p.249: “[It is] unlikely that Matthew used other written sources comparable to Mark in the same way that he used Mark.” 16 S ANDERS, Tendencies, p.280: “No hesitation was felt toward expanding or abbreviating the material to make it clearer or more useful.”

6.2. Matthew’s Development of Mark

179

There are however aspects which must tell us something of Matthew’s reaction to the account of Mark. The portrayal of Jesus, for example, is refined: ‒ the development of certain aspects of Jesus’ divine character, e.g. his calm authority in Gethsemane (Mt 26:53) ‒ the omission of less divine aspects of Jesus’ miracle-working, e.g. his use of spittle in Mk 7:32‒35 and 8:22‒25 Similarly, the disciples have slightly more to commend them: ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒

they specifically are identified as Jesus’ ἀδελφοί in Mt 12:4918 their eyes and ears are blessed in Mt 13:16 (Q) Peter is blessed in Mt 16:17‒19 they themselves do not contend for precedence (Mt 20:20‒21)19 they ultimately understand (Mt 16:12, 17:13)

Matthew’s Christology and portrait of the disciples are therefore two of the more obvious elements of the ways in which he develops Mark. Mark is his first source for so much material, and thus the primary object of changes. STANTON asks, “But why should it be assumed that an evangelist would be reluctant to alter [...] his primary source, however highly he valued it?”20 A mere preference for Mark provides sufficient grounds for meticulous edition. Matthew’s choice of Mark as a basis for his work does not preclude heavy revision, rather demands it. He is fixed on Mark as his primary tradition, the main account of Jesus’ ministry and thus the focus of his edition of the gospel. GOULDER, in Midrash and Lection in Matthew (1974), suggested that Matthew is engaging in ‘midrash’ upon Mark. The term is however highly problematic, not least because of the blatant anachronism involved. 21 GOULDER is keen to highlight the fact that ‘midrash’, as suggested by its etymology in ‫דרש‬, is not an exercise in creative writing. Matthew is a ‘midrashic’ expansion of Mark in that, “It is neither a free paraphrase of

As Matthew is not concerned with length per se (often abbreviating the accounts of Mark), rather with the inclusion of traditions absent from Mark, which he provides because they are important for his community, not because he feels the need to write a longer gospel. 18 It is ‘those seated around Jesus’ in Mk 3:34. Matthew does not explain which of them, or indeed whom, Jesus is indicating when he refers to ἡ µήτηρ µου! 19 But they had done so earlier, in Mt 18:1 (Mk 9:33‒34). 20 S TANTON, “Origin and Purpose”, p.1901. 21 Despite the appearance of the term in the Old Testament (2 Chron 13:22, 24:27), it is here an ‘account’ (LXX βίβλος, γραφή). While there are possible Qumran parallels, the classical period of midrashim is in the 5th‒7th centuries, CE. 17

180

Chapter 6: Mark in the Eyes of Matthew

Mark, nor a mere commentary.” 22 He dispenses with Q,23 and is therefore a champion of Matthean creativity: “Matthew is much more a free reworking of Mark, and much less an edited compendium of traditions, than has been commonly supposed.” 24 PAYNE summarizes GOULDER’s proposal that, “Matthew did not consistently intend to portray what actually happened in Jesus’ life but freely embellished his sources midrashically with events that never happened.”25 What sort of con-man has our evangelist become? This portrait of Matthew establishes a paradox of copying Mark faithfully and interrupting this with his own fantasies. It is therefore untenable. GOULDER’s explanation of Matthew’s ‘midrash’ does however provide much which is helpful,26 and there is a certain similarity between the loyal evangelist and the later midrashist: “The dynamo which drives midrash forward is located not in pure and disinterested meditation on scripture, but in the need to validate the tradition.” 27 The term ‘midrash’ however fails to prove sufficient. Matthew, in re-working Mark, essentially destroys the original; for the darshanim, scripture remains coherent, self-consistent, polyvalent and inerrant. 28 For Matthew, Mark no longer remains! 29 MatGOULDER, Midrash, p.34. Under the Farrer Hypothesis, as GOULDER, Midrash, p.5: “We are better without putative documents which have disappeared, and whose contents are disputed and heterogenous.” On GOULDER’s lectionary proposal for Luke, STANTON, “Origin and Purpose”, twice remarks (p.1902 and 1938): “With a wave of the lectionary wand, Q is assigned to oblivion.” 24 G OULDER, Midrash, p.6. The argument is supported by an appeal to the fluidity of the final product, ibid., p.9: “How can we reconcile the apparently free, smoothlyrunning flow of the book, the activity of whose editor has been so convincingly described, with the harsh fact assumed that the material of the Gospel came to him in precast units?” I hope I have demonstrated that Matthew clearly operates in blocks, and is only free-flowing where Mark has been similarly fluid before him. 25 PAYNE, “Midrash and History in the Gospels”, p.177. 26 DERRENBACKER, Ancient Compositional Practices, p.257, on GOULDER’s proposal: “What Matthew is said to do with Mark is feasible, although many would likely disagree with Goulder’s description of Matthew’s motivation for such an adoption.” Yet B AUCKHAM , “Pseudo-Philo and the Gospels”, p.75: “It is a fault of Goulder’s comparison of Matthew with Chronicles [...] that it appears to be only interested in similarities.” 27 GOULDER, Midrash, p.8. 28 B AUCKHAM, “Pseudo-Philo and the Gospels”, p.63, also argues against the idea that an evangelist could have invented a Jesus tradition on the basis of a prophecy: “Any ‘midrashic’ development using Old Testament material must always have had a startingpoint and stimulus in the traditions about Jesus. [This] would lead us to expect that OT influence on the formation of Gospel narratives would not normally have gone beyond relatively minor embellishment of stories whose main outlines already existed.” Thus, in summary of his criticism of GOULDER, ALEXANDER, “Midrash and the Gospels”, p.14, writes: “Goulder is attributing to [...] Matthew [...] a degree of originality which cannot be easily paralleled in the Rabbinic midrashim.” 29 SIM , “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, p.192: “Once Matthew had produced and circulated his own gospel there was simply no need for Mark’s inferior narrative.” 22

23

6.2. Matthew’s Development of Mark

181

thew’s programme is therefore not one of midrashic interpretation of Mark.30 Rather, as FRANCE simply explains, “Christian tradition, like Jewish, was subject to pious elaboration, and a writer such as Matthew would be the last to resist such a development.”31 Here the similarity ends. What Matthew is doing is developing, changing and replacing Mark, not providing a commentated Mark with his own invented traditions. Mark was key for Matthew in its direct account of Jesus’ death, and he follows Mark in so many respects that if we call the new gospel a midrash, so too must Mark have been a midrash on an Ur-gospel, and so on ad infinitum. Matthew’s gospel is therefore not to be described as a midrash on Mark. Perhaps Matthew himself can provide us with a clue as to his development of the gospel of Mark, in that he does give his work a title; as E VANS argues: “[T]he incipits of the New Testament Gospels and Acts are not always sufficiently appreciated by interpreters.”32 Matthew follows Mark in the format of his title,33 but calls his work a βίβλος, in contrast to Mark’s εὐαγγέλιον.34 The title must surely have been understood to refer to the whole gospel, and not simply to the genealogy of Mt 1:2‒17.35 What 30

A LEXANDER, “Midrash and the Gospels”, p.11‒12, on the use of the term ‘midrash’ in Matthew: “The only effect of such total lack of discrimination is to evacuate midrash of any real meaning: midrash becomes simply a fancy word for ‘Bible interpretation’.” Furthermore, ibid., p.5, “[M]any of [the Rabbis’] methods were common to scholarship in late antiquity and can be paralleled in the exegetical practice of the Greek schools.” In a study of contemporary literature with ‘midrashic’ tendencies, FRANCE, “Jewish Historiography, Midrash, and the Gospels”, p.117, concludes, “So while individual traditions may indeed be recorded in the midrashim [...] which are relevant to the assessment of first-century Jewish approaches to historiography, the midrashim as literary works are not likely to aid us in reconstructing the literary milieu of the gospels. In fact we have seen that quite a full picture of the relevant Jewish literary milieu can be reconstructed without invoking the later phenomenon of the midrashim as a literary genre at all.” Similarly, PAYNE, “Midrash and History in the Gospels”, p.200, concludes: “To call Matthew a midrash genre work because it comments on Mark and Q, even if when Matthew was written they were venerated as Scripture by a small minority of Jews, would not be in accord with standard use of the term ‘midrash’.” 31 F RANCE, “Scripture, Tradition and History”, p.246. 32 EVANS, “‘The Book of the Genesis of Jesus Christ’”, p.62. 33 The first words of both certainly comprise a title, lacking a verb; L UZ, Matthäus, I, p.117: “Er besteht aus einer Angabe des Buchtyps im Nominativ und einer Inhaltsangabe im Genitiv.” AUNE , “Genre Theory”, p.171‒172, notes that ἀρχή and γένεσις are semantically related and both provide double entendre. 34 This may reflect an actual physical format of the work rather than indicate any sort of shift in ‘genre’; a βίβλος is of course a papyrus scroll, while a ‘εὐαγγέλιον’ is not a physical entity. 35 D AVIES & ALLISON, Matthew, I, p.151: “[T]he βίβλος of 1.1 most naturally encompasses the gospel as a whole.” LUZ, Matthäus, I, p.118: “βίβλος als erstes Wort des Buches weist also recht eindeutig darauf hin, daß sich der folgende Titel auf das ganze Buch bezieht.” GAECHTER, Das Matthäusevangelium, p.34‒35; FRANKEMÖLLE , Matthäus, p.363. Cf. the arguments in LUZ , Matthäus, I, p.117, n.3 & 4; ALLISON, Studies in Matthew, p.157‒162; EVANS, “‘The Book of the Genesis of Jesus Christ’”, p.66. An alternative

182

Chapter 6: Mark in the Eyes of Matthew

Matthew understood in Mark’s use of εὐαγγέλιον36 and whether he read Mark as a βίβλος are questions which may prove helpful in determining their relationship. The term evokes the Jewish Scriptures in a way in which εὐαγγέλιον cannot. βίβλος (for ‫ )ספר‬was not infrequent in titles of Jewish literature37 and indeed in references such as those in the New Testament. 38 Matthew’s βίβλος γενέσεως reminds the Greek-speaking audience of the first book of the Jewish scriptures.39 Thus Matthew is “opening his gospel with another book’s title”.40 That the term βίβλος had such strong associations with holy scriptures, and that an obvious allusion is made to the first and foremost of these, may indicate that our editor had high hopes for his new work. Thus Matthew’s book is one of considerable importance, perhaps indeed on a par with the other βίβλοι. A βίβλος, as a written papyrus scroll, may contrast with Mark’s εὐαγγέλιον which, although also a written text in front of Matthew, was essentially a designation for a spoken or preached word. Mark was written to be heard, and one can announce a εὐαγγέλιον, as Jesus indeed does in Mark and Matthew’s gospels (e.g. Mk 1:14 // Mt 4:23), while one cannot announce a βίβλος. Matthew has thus followed Mark in the development from the oral tradition to the written gospel, and cemented this with the designation of this gospel as a βίβλος.41 6.3. Matthew’s Continuity with Mark

perspective is given by SMITH, “Narrative Beginnings”, p.5, who notes that gospels were not likely read in one sitting, and that this has repercussions on the theory of the use of βίβλος γενέσεως as a title for the entire book. 36 KOESTER, Gospels, p.10‒12. 37 See DAVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, I, p.152. 38 E.g. Mk 12:26 (the Book of Moses); Acts 1:20 (the Book of the Psalms); Acts 7:42 (the Book of the Prophets); cf. also the ‘book’ in Acts 19:19 and ‘the Book of Life’ in Phil 4:3. 39 Especially given the βίβλος γενέσεως of Gen 2:4 (the creation account) and that of Gen 5:1 (a genealogy). 40 DAVIES & ALLISON , Matthew, I, p.151; cf. ALLISON , Studies in Matthew, p.161, n.13. His closing words (Mt 28:18b: Ἐδόθη µοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς) also remind one of the words of Cyrus which may have been the last in the Jewish scriptures (2 Chron 36:23 [LXX]: Πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τῆς γῆς ἔδωκέν µοι κύριος ὁ θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ...). 41 HENGEL, Vier Evangelien, p.170, proposes that Matthew went one step further, in giving his own κατά title to the gospel: “Sehr wahrscheinlich wurde auch dieses Werk zwischen 90 und 100 n. Chr. nach dem autoritiven Vorbild des aus der Petrustradition stammenden kürzeren Markusevangeliums unter dem Titel εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μαθθαῖον [...] in Umlauf gebracht.” This is of course possible, although we have no firm evidence one way or the other. What we can observe is that for Matthew the title βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ renders any other title, e.g. εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μαθθαῖον, superfluous; in replacing Mark, he has no need to distinguish between his gospel and that of his predecessor.

6.3. Matthew’s Continuity with Mark

183

Regarding the question of ‘genre’ it is obvious that Matthew is in line with Mark.42 His is a biography of Jesus, 43 a development of Mark not dissimilar to that of Luke.44 ALLISON sees Matthew’s choice of imitating Mark as a consequence of his decision to write a life of Jesus: Matthew is [...] something that looks much more biographical. Why? It will not do to answer that our author just follows Mark. That begs the question, for is it not Matthew’s choice of genre, determined by his goal for writing, that makes him imitate Mark, not vice versa?45

Rather it appears that Matthew’s proximity to Mark was indeed the determining factor; Matthew had no choice in the matter, and thus, “He adopted fully the Gospel genre that Mark had seemingly initiated.” 46 Matthew’s book, βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ ∆αυὶδ υἱοῦ Ἀβραάµ, is directly descendent from Mark’s book, ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ, in more ways than one. 47 His choice of title reflects a step further in the same direction as Mark, creating literature from the traditions of Jesus. The ‘good news’ is still present in both Jesus’ message and the message of Jesus, and is now to be found in a book which is fast becoming a central religious text for the emerging church. In all of this it must be clear that Matthew is clearly a direct development of Mark.

6.3. Matthew’s Continuity with Mark We have to acknowledge both that Matthew develops a fresh viewpoint quite creatively and also that he is a faithful transmitter of his traditions. 48

I have sought throughout this study to stress the continuity between Mark’s Gospel and Matthew’s.49 This is because I feel it is inappropriate to de42

AUNE, “Genre Theory”, p.170, warns: “Many who discuss the genre of Matthew ignore the literary and social significance of the shared generic features of the two texts.” 43 A LLISON, Studies in Matthew, p.142‒143, argues that Matthew is a biography, in contrast to the other early forms of Christian literature such as the sayings collection, epistle, apocalypse or rule. 44 AUNE, “Genre Theory”, p.175, argues that Matthew and Luke missed “the parodic character” of Mark, to produce more standard βίοι. 45 ALLISON, Studies in Matthew, p.143‒144. 46 S IM, “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, p.178. 47 S IM, “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, p.179: “Matthew was largely indebted to Mark in terms of genre, order and content.” 48 STANTON, “Origin and Purpose”, p.1898. Stanton describes this, ibid., as, “an inconsistency par excellence!” 49 A LAND, “Abschreiben”, p.75, notes: “Die Rezeptionsgeschichte hat es mit dem Wirken von gestaltenden Theologen zu tun, die Textkritik mit dem von Schreibern, die zu kopieren den Auftrag haben und kopieren wollen.” This dichotomy is very blurred in Matthew, who should of course be considered under the first rubrik, but, as I hope to have shown, is not unlike a tradent of the gospel of Mark.

184

Chapter 6: Mark in the Eyes of Matthew

scribe Matthew as simply a correction of “the inadequate and incorrect Marcan account”.50 Matthew does provide a more complex picture of the rôle of the Torah in Jesus’ teaching than does Mark, and the question of Law-observance was a central point of conflict in the early church; 51 however, this is by no means a central and consistent angle for Matthew, and there is a level of continuity in the gospels which permeates all issues of Christian identity. Matthew’s successful understanding of Mark was the subject of an essay by GOODACRE on the issue of Elijah’s connection to John the Baptist. He explains: Matthew may be seen as a successful reading of Mark, [...] that understands what Mark is doing but underlines it for his own readers by strengthening the stronger connections, deleting the weaker ones and clarifying the remainder. 52

It appears we have to do with a perceived difficulty and subtlety in the Markan account,53 and Matthew approaches the task of clarifying the issue in a spirit of continuity with Mark; he understands, maintains and explains the allusions in Mark’s gospel: “[T]he first reading of Mark to which we have direct access not only sees what Mark is doing but clarifies it, extends it, underlines it.” 54 This principle not only applies in the accounts of the baptist and Jesus’ explanation in Mk 9:11‒13 // Mt 17:10‒13, but throughout the gospel. In his developments of the Markan tradition he brings out what he understands to be the main message of each pericope, not contradicting what Mark has to say, but adding explanatory comments, fulfilment citations and Q/M traditions that complement Mark. As S ENIOR explains: The Matthean redactor is, as repeatedly witnessed in our examination of the text, a faithful transmitter of the message of his source. The coloration of individual scenes is guided in major part by the material provided by Mark, and varies according to this received data. Seldom, if ever, does Matthew subvert the Markan material to such an extent that an entirely new message would be imposed on the account. [... T]he basic message of the pericope is a ‘given’ respected by the redactor. 55 50

SIM , “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, p.178. SIM , “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, p 185: “[I]t is questionable whether they shared a similar theological position in the context of a diverse early Christian movement” And ibid., p.186: “[T]he claim that Matthew simply embraced Mark’s theological agenda ignores not only their different views concerning the Law but also the importance of this disagreement within its broader Christian context.” 52 GOODACRE, “Intertextual Reading”, p.74. 53 GOODACRE , ibid., p.77: “But there is a potential difficulty with reading Mark. It is too complex, too subtle, its message much too easily missed, especially by the person reading or hearing Mark’s Gospel for the first time.” 54 G OODACRE, ibid., p.77. He continues, ibid., p.84: “Mark sees the potential of identifying John with Elijah as much more conducive to his key [...] agenda. Matthew [...] in large part shares that agenda, and [...] enjoys the thrill of untangling the message that for him is presented all too subtly.” 51

6.3. Matthew’s Continuity with Mark

185

If we take a step back to consider the wider context of the gospels, indeed all four, we note that they are all ‘Jewish’ books, 56 in that they treat the life of a Galilean who travels to Jerusalem, and that they are all written by Christian authors. It has long been observed that Matthew, with his abundance of Q material, is apparently making Mark ‘more Jewish’. 57 However, does he not by the same token in incorporating Q into Mark make Q more ‘Markan’?58 Whatever his position on Jewish traditions, he is certainly no less ‘Christian’ than Mark, and in his use and development of Mark falls into line with most, if not all, of the main Markan tenets of Christian belief. In SIM’s portrait of Matthew he describes how “a compelling picture emerges for Matthew’s motivation to replace his primary source. It lacked important narrative material [...,] it was deficient in terms of teaching material, it contained offensive pericopes, it was stylistically crude, and it did not meet the needs of Matthew’s post-70 Jewish Christian community.”59 It is however noteworthy that four of these five aspects are developments of Mark in the same direction, i.e. the addition of narrative traditions and teaching material, the improvement of Greek and making Mark relevant for a modern Christian community. The omission of “offensive pericopes” alone accounts for a break in continuity with Mark, and constitutes a difficult element in our explanation of Matthew’s method. Matthew has at some points chosen to drop rather than to rewrite and improve Markan pericopae, yet he does so only rarely, and not in those cases where Law observance or controversial claims on Jesus’ identity are involved. The passages Matthew does omit from Mark are themselves peripheral, and thus do not eo ipso show a Matthean dissatisfaction with the Markan theology. 55 SENIOR, “The Passion Narrative according to Matthew”, p.335. Ibid.: “Matthew’s contribution consists not in supplementing the account of his source, nor in imposing a unified perspective, but in highlighting and developing the themes and ideas already inherent in the account.” This despite the proposal of AUNE, “Genre Theory”, p.175, that, “The discourse community within which Matthew transformed Mark differed markedly from the discourse community of the latter.” Rather, as FREYNE, “Jewish Contexts”, p.180, argues, Matthew and Mark address problems “at slightly different historical moments”. The use here of “slightly” is key. 56 O’LEARY, Judaization, p.118, n.1, notes that all the gospels are ‘Jewish’, so, “Speaking of Matthew as a Jewish Gospel is a misnomer.” 57 O’LEARY’s monograph entitled Matthew’s Judaization of Mark is a prime example of this with all the relevant references to previous works. She explains the term ‘Judaization’ on p.118, n.1: “By claiming that Matthew judaizes Mark, we wish to emphasize the literary process by which Matthew, in rewriting Mark, increases the density of explicit and implicit references to Judaism and OT scriptures.” 58 If Q indeed indicates conservative Judeo-Christianity and Mark the (Gentile) mainstream Christian position, then, as O’LEARY, Judaization, p.175, admits: “Matthew’s strategy in his use of Mark as a source was toward christianizing Judaism.” 59 S IM, “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, p.187‒188.

186

Chapter 6: Mark in the Eyes of Matthew

We do well however to note an important factor in early Christian ‘gospel criticism’, the question of order. BAUCKHAM explains: From later patristic discussions of the differences among the Gospels, we know that the differences in order among the Synoptic Gospels did not generally matter to ancient readers by comparison with the more obvious differences between John and the Synoptics. 60

The discrepancies in detail were not as difficult for the early Christian exegetes as such differences in order, which were most stark between John and the synoptics. The concern for an orderly account is also reflected in Luke (ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς) and Tatian.61 Matthew tends to agree with Mark; even when he changes Mark’s order he tends to maintain ‘pairs’ of Markan accounts (Mt 8:14‒16,23‒34; 9:1‒17,18‒26) or to follow a theme (Mt 10:1‒15). The associations which link Markan traditions exert influence on our evangelist. Therefore, as far as the ancient criterion of ‘order’ is concerned, Matthew is very much the true successor to the Markan gospel. It is thus essential that the evidence gathered from Matthew’s additions, omissions and amendments be considered only in the broader context of Matthew’s loyalty to Mark whose tradition he inherits. In his reworking of Mark he not only reproduces the story of Jesus’ baptism, disciples, miracle-working, teaching, travels, debates, trial and crucifixion as given in Mark, but also draws out the allusions, develops several themes, improves upon the language and adds traditions, parables and logia, all the while following the commanding order of Mark. It seems that in view of all this, it is not entirely appropriate to emphasize the subtle ways in which Matthew differs from Mark in his portrait of Christ, the disciples or the Torah at the expense of the evidence that Matthew is for the most part a successor to the story of Jesus as told in Mark.

6.4. The Authority of Mark The question of Mark’s position in the earliest Christian communities, including those of Matthew and Luke, raises the question of (apostolic) authority. STREETER suggested that, “When Matthew wrote, Mark was authoritative, but so far from being scripture, was, as yet, hardly a classic.” 62 BAUCKHAM, Eyewitnesses, p.226. He refers to Origen, Commentary on John, 10.2, 6, 14‒15; Epiphanius, Panarion, 17‒18, 21‒22, 28, 30, 51; Tertullian, Adv. Marcionem, IV.2.2. 61 BAUCKHAM , ibid., p.227: “Tatian’s Diatessaron [...] was no doubt also motivated more by discrepancies in order among the Gospels than by differences among them in parallel pericopes.” 62 S TREETER, Four Gospels, p. 524. Cf. GOULDER, Midrash, p.32: “Mark was to him an authoritative book.” And ibid., p.35: “Mark is authoritative to him, but it is clearly not yet scriptural.” 60

6.4. The Authority of Mark

187

This has an important corollary: the changes a text will undergo and the continuity which remains will be determined to a large extent not principally by its form or content but rather by the authority it exerts over the editors.63 RICHES suggests that Mark was an ‘authority’ for Matthew,64 and MEIER goes further to contend that Mark was the central liturgical text for the Matthean community.65 There may be good reason for such hypotheses; Matthew accepts the Markan story as though it were the definitive account of the life of Jesus; yet he also draws on Q for what appears to be the definitive record of the sayings of Jesus. Thus it seems Matthew saw each of the traditions he used as authentic, original testimony to the Messiah. 66 As far as Mark is concerned, we have of course to consider the connection to Peter.67 HENGEL suggests Matthew sought to propagate his gospel “nach dem autoritativen Vorbild des aus der Petrustradition stammenden kürzeren Markusevangeliums.”68 GOULDER too, despite the high level of creativity he ascribes to Matthew, reaches the same conclusion. 69 Peter obviously plays a central rôle in Mark: he is first and foremost among the disciples and (often along with James and John) is present at certain private moments in Jesus’ life.70 Peter is thus an eyewitness, indeed the eyewitness to the events of Jesus’ life in Mark. Matthew will follow suit, acknowledging the central rôle of Peter in the account. Indeed he adds to Peter’s character, with scenes such as Peter’s walking on water (Mt 14:28‒ 31), request for an explanation (Mt 15:12), blessing (Mt 16:17‒19), encounter with the tax-collectors (Mt 17:24), question about forgiveness (Mt 18:21) and second promise to Jesus (Mt 26:35). However, Peter is not singled out in the post‒Easter narrative in Matthew, as he is in Lk 24:12 and Jn 20:2‒10, 21:1‒23. The last mention he receives in Matthew, as in Mark, is in his remorse at having denied knowing Jesus (Mk 14:72b // Mt 63 ALEXANDER ,“Orality in Pharisaic Judaism”, p.182: “What preserved a text ‒ whether written or oral ‒ against substantial change was not the medium of its transmission, but a prior attitude towards its nature and authority which dictated that it should not be changed.” 64 R ICHES, Conflicting Mythologies, p.305. Cf. also HILL, The Gospel of Matthew, p.30. 65 MEIER, “Antioch”, p.51‒52. Cf. STREETER , The Four Gospels, p.503: “Mark must have been known in the Church where Matthew wrote long enough to have become an established authority.” 66 TAGAWA, “People and Community in the Gospel of Matthew”, p.151: “[T]here existed for the evangelist Matthew no question of principle whether the scribal traditions are in themselves right or not.” 67 Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., III.39.15. And subsequently the connection to Rome. 68 H ENGEL, Vier Evangelien, p.170. 69 G OULDER, Midrash, p.135: “Matthew himself wished to be loyal to the PetrineMarcan Gospel, which he took as his own outline, and followed faithfully.” 70 E.g. the transfiguation (Mk 9:2), Gethsemane (Mk 14:33), Jesus’ trial (Mk 14:54), and the episodes where he is rebuked (Mk 8:32‒33), when he states that the disciples have given up everything (Mk 10:28), and when he promises not to abandon Jesus (Mk 14:29).

188

Chapter 6: Mark in the Eyes of Matthew

26:75). Peter is nonetheless just as important a character for Matthew as he had been for Mark, and his central rôle is by no means diminished in Matthew’s gospel, rather restated and underlined. 71 The implicit appeal to the testimony of Peter is surely an attempt to guarantee the validity and the authenticity of the account. Luke does the same;72 he would, BAUCKHAM argues, as a respectable historian ideally seek access to eyewitness accounts. 73 Mark of course enjoyed such authority; it was the tradition associated with Peter, 74 and in developing it Matthew maintained this connection. Peter may indeed have been the apostle behind the account of the Gospel of Mark, but Matthew is sure to continue this line by positing Peter as the foremost of the disciples until that fateful night in Jerusalem. Matthew, in his ‘new edition’, thus assumes the authority which Mark enjoys. The use of Mark is therefore an indication of its foremost position in the early Christian community. Mark may be the authority on the life of Jesus but it is the Jewish scriptures which enjoy the claim to divine origins. As the holy scriptures of the Jewish religion, the Law and the Prophets must hold sway over Matthew as a Jewish-Christian scribe. When we see Matthew at work on his gospel, quoting scripture, we see a comparison with the way in which he works with Mark: 6.5. The Replacement of Mark

Matthew was a fairly conservative editor. He carefully selected the amount of text he wished to quote, and omitted, when necessary, words or clauses from this piece of text, but he did not interfere much with its wording. This way of proceeding is not very different from the way Matthew treated the words of Jesus which he found in Mark or Q, although it seems that with the latter he permitted himself some more liberty. This difference probably has to do not with a difference of authority, in Matthew’s view, between scripture and the words of Jesus, but with a different degree of fixity. 75

Matthew is rarely very liberal in his writing, and treats the words of Jesus in a similar manner to the way in which he treats words of scripture. He never quotes Mark as an independent text, rather quotes Jesus on the one 71 It is noteworthy that despite the increased importance of the rôle of Peter in Matthew’s gospel it is Mark which is associated with Peter’s authority and Rome, while Matthew is associated with the Hebrew dialect and, of course, with the apostle Matthew. 72 B AUCKHAM, Eyewitnesses, p.127: “In [...] imitating Mark’s inclusio of eyewitness testimony with reference to Peter, Luke has acknowledged the extent to which his own Gospel is indebted to the Petrine testimony he recognized in Mark.” 73 B AUCKHAM, Eyewitnesses, p.292: “The [evangelists] would know that the traditions as transmitted by authorized tradents in communities which had no eyewitnesses as members themselves referred back to the eyewitnesses as their authority. Gospel writers would certainly not be content to record the traditions as transmitted in such a church. They would want to get closer to the source if possible. This would especially be the case if, as is certainly true in Luke’s case, they envisaged their work as historiographic and knew anything of the methods and standards enjoined by ancient historians.” 74 There is no apparent apostolic authority behind Q, unless it is ‘Matthew’ in the traditions of Papias (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. III.39.16) and Irenaeus (ibid. VI.8.2.). 75 MENKEN, Matthew’s Bible, p.283.

6.5. The Replacement of Mark

189

hand and the prophets on the other. This raises the issue of which is more authoritative, the prophecies of the scriptures or the account of events in the life of the Messiah who fulfills these. Perhaps the development of the method, so prevalent in the apologists, of defending Christ by reference to scripture, was preceded by the technique of Christian scribes, who defend the claims of the scriptures with the evidence of the traditions of Jesus, as MÜLLER suggests: “[I]t became necessary to legitimise scripture by reference to the Christ faith in order to establish its specific Christian significance.”76 The possibility exists, however tenable one considers the proposal. This very ambiguity (Which text is justifying, which is justified?) shows a very high respect for the Jesus traditions which are either so important as to fulfill the promises of yore, or indeed so dominant as to validate those promises.77 In short, Matthew shows a similar respect for both his scripture references and his Jesus traditions, which rather than displacing the scriptures, elevates the gospel (βίβλος) which he is writing. In replacing Mark he can no longer make reference to it as an independent source of the words of the Christ, but he shows how the story of Jesus has become a central religious text for a community familiar with the Greek scriptures, and an authority on a par with the words of the prophets.

6.5. The Replacement of Mark Matthew’s gospel was well received in antiquity: All that we know of Christian antiquity leads us to suppose that whatever weaknesses we may see in Matthew’s descriptions of events in Jesus’ life, the ancients were unaware of them: they liked Matthew’s gospel.78

M ÜLLER, Reception, p.315. CHILTON, “Varieties and Tendencies of Midrash”, p.27: “The account in itself is obviously of more importance to the narrator than the allusion.” 78 R IST, Independence, p.11. MEREDITH, “The Evidence of Papias for the Priority of Matthew”, p.188: “In the second century Matthew was the most and Mark the least used of the gospels.” HOLTZMANN , Einleitung, p.385, n.376: “Soweit man aber zurückgehen kann, ist Mt das gebrauchteste Buch.” H ENGEL, Vier Evangelien, p.120: “Matthäus [war] diejenige Evangelienschrift, die [...] sich besonders rasch in der Kirche durchsetzte, weil sie das enthielt, was die werdende Kirche für ihr Ethos und ihre Ordnung brauchte.” Ibid., p.138: “Die rätselhaft knappe Notiz des Papias [...] über die aramäische Logiensammlung des Matthäus und ihre unterschiedlichen Übersetzungen hat dem ersten Evangelium keinen Abbruch getan.” For examples of the success of Matthew’s Gospel, cf. BETZ, Sermon, p.9‒10. 76

77

190

Chapter 6: Mark in the Eyes of Matthew

Thus whatever motivation lay behind his work, he was certainly successful.79 Although a tendency for harmonization would develop, 80 we are still at the point in the emergence of Christian literature where one text is reworked by an editor who does not expect that his gospel will later be held in comparison to that of his predecessor. 81 Was Matthew so confident to believe that his gospel will replace that of Mark, the gospel, which appears to have enjoyed such widespread popularity? 82 Matthew’s success was extraordinary, as LUZ observes: “Das MtEv wurde nicht nur in der Großkirche zum wichtigsten Evangelium, sondern es hat darüber hinaus eine besondere Nachgeschichte in judenchristlichen Kreisen gehabt.” 83 Matthew’s popularity shows the extent of his success in replacing Mark as the gospel for πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (Mt 28:19). Matthew’s replacement of Mark with his comprehensive and updated edition met with great success, and that Mark survived at all shows us the respect it was accorded by other less creative scribes and tradents, despite the best attempts of Matthew and Luke to provide alternative or rival gospels. 84 Matthew successfully usurped Mark’s position in the early Christian community where it circulated, was read and heard.85 Mark was for Matthew evidently the sole account of Jesus’ ministry and therefore it alone could be subject to correction and replacement. 86 It forms 79 SALDARINI, “Reading Matthew without Anti-Semitism”, p.168: “[H]is gospel succeeded with Gentiles in the next generation beyond his wildest dream.” It is interesting that ‘Matthew’ features alongside Peter in The Gospel of Thomas 13, The Dialogue of the Saviour 124, The Wisdom of Jesus Christ 92‒94. 80 E.g. Tatian’s Diatesseron. 81 Gospel redaction is thus as much a phenomenon as gospel literature itself. H ENGEL, “The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ”, p.15: “[I]n this early period the texts of the gospels could still be changed.” Cf. H ECKEL, Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium, p.80. 82 How did Matthew manage to masquerade as the oldest, original gospel and for a long time prove the most popular? S TANTON, “Origin and Purpose”, p.1890, highlights an important factor: “The firm belief that, unlike Mark and Luke, Matthew was written by a disciple of Jesus partly accounts for its popularity.” H ENGEL, Vier Evangelien, p.145, suggests, “daß sich diese ganz neuartige urchristliche Schrift in den Gemeinden nur deshalb durchsetzte, [...] weil dahinter eine erkannte frühchristliche Autorität und nicht ein heidenchristlicher Anonymus stand.” He also suggests, ibid., p.171, “daß er seine wesentlich umfangreichere Schrift direkt unter dem Namen und damit der Autorität eines wirklichen Apostels aus dem Zwölferkreis, Matthäus, verbreitete.” 83 Luz, Matthäus, I, p.87; cf. ibid., p.87‒88. 84 SIM, “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, p.192: “That Mark sits within the New Testament amidst the other Gospels and right next to the Gospel of Matthew is [...] more than a touch ironic.” AUNE , “Genre Theory”, p.170, sees this as possible evidence to support the theory of STREETER’s local gospels, as opposed to BAUCKHAM’s gospels for all Christians. 85 SIM , “Matthew’s Use of Mark”, p.182‒183; STANTON, “The Fourfold Gospel”, p.341; BAUCKHAM, “For Whom were the Gospels Written?”, p.13. 86 AUNE, “Genre Theory”, p.171, describes Matthew’s gospel as “a textual performance of Mark”.

6.5. The Replacement of Mark

191

the backbone for the incorporation of teaching, prophecy and various sayings, which Matthew may integrate either into discourses already found in Mark or (less frequently) into individual pericopae. 87 It is also the text which can be developed with traditions which complement and indeed often depend upon its account of Jesus. To do so Matthew always begins with Mark: to Mark’s portrait of John he adds Q teaching, to Mark’s baptism account the Q temptations, to Mark’s Galilean ministry the Sermon, to Mark’s series of miracles his Q (and own) miracles, to Mark’s parables his own collection, and so on. Mark is home ground for Matthew. Following Mark (and in this case also Q) Matthew produces a Greek document for a Greek-speaking community. 88 This factor also contributed to his ultimate success, as “a Gospel intended for more than local circulation might reasonably be composed in Greek.”89 And so Matthew built on Mark as the key text in his hellenophone community within the multilingual empire. Thus Matthew’s ‘choice’ was no choice at all. 90 Mark is the accepted gospel text, and Matthew must remain loyal to its tradition if he is to succeed Mark: Christians [...] are unlikely to have become acquainted with Matthew by means of an oral performance of the whole gospel. They are much more likely to have heard shorter sections. They may well have been acquainted with Mark’s gospel before Matthew’s. In other words, for most of the first recipients, Matthew’s gospel was an extended commentary on what the original readers and listeners already know. Hence the story-line and plot contained few surprises.91

Only the more obscure and minor references in the Markan tradition may be omitted and their absence barely noticed (e.g. Aviathar, the naked youth), while the more controversial elements are subtly addressed and 87

In one instance he merely takes a reference to ‘teaching’ (Mk 1:21‒22) as a cue to include the programmatic Sermon. This is however the first and only case, early in his gospel. 88 Despite what KENNEDY, “Classical and Christian Source Criticism”, p.150, claims: “Matthew’s Gospel was only known in Aramaic for a considerable period of time and [...] there was considerable variation in the Greek versions of it that were read out in Christian assemblies. This is exactly the situation in which the well-known Greek text of Mark, which had established itself in the meantime, might be expected to exert a strong literary influence.” Matthew did not write for an Aramaic audience, and Q too was apparently a Greek text (ROBINSON, HOFFMANN & KLOPPENBORG, The Critical Edition of Q, p.8) 89 BACON, Studies in Matthew, p.497. HENGEL, Vier Evangelien, p.171: “Dabei nahm er sich das ältere Werk des Markus, das er so intensiv verwendet hatte, zum Vorbild.” 90 As H ECKEL, Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium, p.78‒79, points out, Q and Mark are two very different types of document and to some extent defy comparison. Nonetheless, regardless of the genre we, or Matthew, ascribed to Q, it is clear that for him the Markan format proved more attractive. 91 STANTON , A Gospel, p.76. I myself have here highlighted the words ‘commentary on’ as I find the term misleading and would prefer the more neutral ‘version of’.

192

Chapter 6: Mark in the Eyes of Matthew

clarified. Matthew applies his trade to reveal the true meaning of the text he knows so well, as STANTON explains: If [...] the evangelist is constantly attempting to draw out the significance of his traditions, then it is unlikely that he intended to modify radically Mark’s presentation of the story and significance of Jesus. 92

Was this development of Mark provoked by a perceived false interpretation of the gospel? 93 An interesting comparison may here be drawn with the thesis by JENNIFER MACLEAN concerning the composition of The Epistle to the Ephesians.94 The author of the epistle was keen to read that addressed to the Colossians with the correct interpretation: [I]n addition to viewing Colossians as a problematic text in need of correction, the author of Ephesians also apparently considered Colossians a cryptic text, whose grammatical ambiguities and difficult syntax were an opportunity for interpretation and revelation of hidden meaning. 95

The original epistle to the Colossians enjoys an important and authoritative rôle in the community. Its position is however guaranteed only by its status as an established, if ambiguous, text. The paradox of authority and the need for correction is apparent: The author’s constant attempt to redefine or interpret these words reveals that although he may have acknowledged Colossians’ authority, he also considered Colossians to be a potentially misleading and dangerous text. 96 6.6. Matthew’s Attitude to Mark: What was Mark for Matthew?

While the comparison does not extend fully to the redactional work of Matthew on the Markan text, the principle must be considered crucial. We have to do with a respected, apostolic work which is not without problems. Mark may sometimes be ambiguous or difficult, but its success is undeniable; Matthew capitalises on the latter in order to address the former. As a loyal tradent he effects the changes he deems essential to the formulation of the text, to bring about a correct understanding of the tradition. 97 STANTON, A Gospel, p.344. FISHBANE, Exegesis, p.34: “Exegesis arises out of a practical crisis of some sort.” STANTON, A Gospel, p.331: “Matthew is expanding his Marcan traditions in order to expound them.” Cf. HELD, Überlieferung, p.298. 94 MACLEAN, “Ephesians and the Problem of Colossians”. 95 MACLEAN, ibid., p.207. 96 MACLEAN, ibid., p.208. Ibid.: “Colossians’ authority stems most clearly from its status as a cryptic text, whose import could only be revealed through a type of exegesis that capitalized upon its ambiguities [...]. From this [different] redactional practice one may conclude that the words of Colossians were very authoritative for the audience of Ephesians.” In her Abstract she summarizes: “Neither oral traditions nor Pauline texts were simply ‘authoritative’ or ‘problematic’ for the author of Ephesians; authority is found in their proper interpretation.” 97 KIRK, “Orality, Writing, and Phantom Sources”, p.22, notes both “one side of the scribal ethos ‒ the preservation and copying of texts, the consolidation and transmission of an authoritative tradition” and “the other side: cultivation of a living tradition, bring92

93

6.6. Matthew’s Attitude to Mark: What was Mark for Matthew?

193

Mark appears to have enjoyed a position in the Matthean community which surpassed that which it held in Luke’s circles. 98 Its primacy for Matthew dictated that any separate traditions must be incorporated into the Markan account, following both its order and its content. At the same time, Matthew sets to work in correcting the difficult elements of Mark. A more direct and simple general approach is hard to imagine. A first-century Christian who brings such rich tradition to his work is nonetheless compelled to follow Mark, not because it exerts overbearing foreign influence on him, but because he knows no other authoritative account of the events in the adult ministry of Jesus. Mark is the basis of almost all the traditions of Jesus, and the context for all the sayings of Jesus, that Matthew knows. Matthew’s gospel replaces Mark in a spirit of respectful succession,99 as a pious Christian scribe develops his own Jesus story with the wealth of traditions present in a community which remains firmly rooted in Mark.

6.6. Matthew’s Attitude to Mark: What was Mark for Matthew? Matthew has replaced Mark, the authoritative tradition with which he has long been familiar, with a gospel which both agrees with Mark and develops Mark in the same direction that the Jesus story had been taking. Thus Matthew shared a common aim with Mark, 100 and provided a gospel very much in agreement with Mark’s portrayal of events. 101 Luke, in his attempt to produce an account ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς, reveals explicitly his dissatisfaction with earlier works (Luke 1:3). Was Matthew similarly dissatisfied? He followed Mark’s order almost without question, so his attitude was in this respect different from that of Luke. 102 Nonetheless both ing the tradition constantly into engagement with the realities and predicaments of its tradent community”. 98 Luke is able to provide a much different gospel than that in Mark, stating his reasons for doing so and without fear that this divergence from his predecessors will be criticised. 99 SIM , “Current State of Research”, p.51, asks: “Is the Gospel of Matthew a distinctive early Christian document?” The conclusions of this study would lead one to answer, ‘No’, for Matthew is far too close to Mark to be considered unique. 100 PAYNE, “Midrash and History in the Gospels”, p.203: “Mark provided a paradigm for Matthew’s gospel. Mark’s probable historical intent favours similar intent in Matthew.” This factor will also effect any judgement on the genre of both works, ibid., p.210: “[T]he establishment of an author’s intention is closely related to the genre of his writing.” STRECKER, Gerechtigkeit, p.184, in his Zusammenfassung, concludes: “Die bisherige Untersuchung hat gezeigt, daß Matthäus nicht zufällig für die Gestalt seines Werkes den Aufriß des Markusevangeliums wählte. [Er] suchte [...] einen Bios Jesu darzustellen.” 101 C OPE, Scribe, p.17, uses a suitable metaphor: “Matthew attempts to paper over the cracks.” 102 Pace BOWMAN, The Gospel of Mark, p.91, who sees Matthew as liberal with Mark’s order: “Matthew and Luke use Mark, but with a certain liberal attitude. Matthew

194

Chapter 6: Mark in the Eyes of Matthew

Matthew and Luke set out to rework the gospel of Mark as they knew it, which shows us not only that they saw the possibility of rewriting the life of Jesus, but that they were surely aware that their own gospels may not last in perpetuity: “[W]hat [Matthew and Luke] had done to Mark would have alerted them to the futility of attempting to reach a general audience.”103 Yet this observation requires one caveat: it is Luke who acknowledges his antecessors and thus in his very wording leaves open the possibility of future accounts. Matthew is on the other hand a direct development of Mark and under this method the gospel story develops in new editions. Thus Matthew is well aware not of the futility of attempting to reach a general audience, but rather of the opportunity he has to propogate his version of the story of Jesus, an opportunity afforded him by the previous success of the gospel he is editing. Matthew develops the Gospel of Mark, the story of Jesus, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. It is his programme of the alignment of traditions which reveals not only his ‘theological’ viewpoint, but also his positive attitude to the traditions in question. Matthew must have had not only a reason to edit Mark as he did, but the confidence and understanding to do so. 104 Matthew felt he understood what Mark was saying about Jesus, and he made this clear in his edited version of the gospel. Thus Mark was for Matthew the only authentic account of the ministry, travels and Passion of Jesus, a document worthy of study and one fast becoming a central religious text not unlike the Hebrew scriptures, which have pointed to the events recorded in this βίβλος, the book of Jesus Christ (Mk 1:1 // Mt 1:1).

as to order, Luke as to what he will use of the contents.” G OULDER, Midrash, p.25, notes that with reference to authorial comments, “Compared to Matthew Luke treats the Marcan source with very great respect.” Whereas, ibid., p.32, concerning the inclusion of material: “Matthew shows a respect for Mark which surpasses the respect of Luke for either of his documents.” (NB “either of his documents” refers to Mark and Matthew, under the Farrer Hypothesis). 103 ESLER, “Community and Gospel in Early Christianity”, p.241. 104 FARRER, St. Matthew and St. Mark, p.39.

Results I asked the question: “What was Mark for Matthew?” In examination of the fruit of recent redaction-critical studies of Matthew it became clear that a lacuna in modern scholarship was the failure to describe in specific terms what Matthew’s ‘dependence’ on Mark really means, how Matthew encountered the Markan tradition and how he was in a position to edit Mark so comprehensively and so successfully. I propose that Mark was the authoritative account of Jesus’ life and death in the community and context in which Matthew was working. Matthew thus approves of the Gospel of Mark, and produces a new edition for the continued instruction of Christians within his reach as an evangelist. This study is thus an attempt to gain insight into the ways in which the earliest Christians developed their traditions; real people, in real life, dealing with real texts of great importance to their own identity and belief. The results of decades of redaction criticism have certainly been of great benefit to our understanding of the views of each evangelist, particularly those of Matthew and Luke. However, concentration on the differences in synoptic accounts skews the focus of the gospel historian; the high level of continuity in the gospels as a whole, and in individual pericopae (even those where redaction critics have rejoiced in the identification of apparently major theological differences), indicates that the evangelists were not as ideologically opposed as one is given to think. Therefore I decided to examine afresh Matthew’s sources, and how he uses each, but especially the balance of Mark and Q in his gospel. The evidence suggests that Matthew cannot have been a Q-Christian who has recently come into contact with an overbearing Gentile gospel. Matthew’s use of Mark shows that he not only followed it loyally but even re-told certain Markan traditions without the need to consult his copy. He is keen to add most of his Q source early, before proceeding to edit Mark from Mk 2:23 // Mt 12:1 onward, drawing on other sources from time to time, but mostly within discourses. His edition of Mark comprises the addition of complementary material, the omission of a handful of inappropriate passages or details, and stylistic changes to the way in which the tradition is told. Throughout all this and indeed despite all this Matthew remains consistent with the tone and message of the gospel of Mark, which accounts for the high level of continuity between the two. Matthew adopts

196

Results

Mark as a suitable model for his own new gospel, and in doing so reveals its centrality and importance within his Christian society. Is this portrait of Matthew at work credible within his first-century context? Modern research on the production of early Christian literature, guidelines from prolific ancient authors and the examples of Josephus’ use of sources, Paul’s use of memory and the Temple Scroll’s conflation of associated legal traditions verified the portrayal of Matthew as a conventional scribe, who must work with sources, notes, scrolls and codices to edit the gospel appropriate to the context in which he lived and worked. The result of this approach has been the following (hopefully helpful) contribution to the discussion of early Christians’ use of religious literature, and specifically Matthew’s attitude to Mark. Matthew is the heir of Mark who draws on Q (and not vice versa), and he provides a direct development of Mark’s story of Jesus. He is interested in Mark as more than simply a vessel for the continuance of independent teachings; he desires an edition of Mark which reflects a complete and appropriate account of the ministry and teachings of Jesus for the growing Christian church at the end of the first century. He develops Mark as a work of literature (βίβλος) and produces not a commentary but a new edition which incorporates both the more conservative elements of the Jesus movement and the more liberal. He uses the Jewish Scriptures to explain his traditions, and defends one with the other, thus revealing that both had important rôles to play in his community. It is possible that Mark’s authority came from its connection to Peter, who acts as an eyewitness throughout the account. Matthew adopts this authority and continues it with more Peter traditions, underscoring the claim to authentic and comprehensive testimony. In all of this it seems unavoidable to conclude that Mark was the gospel text in Matthew’s early Christian circles, the primary account of Jesus’ life, teaching, and death. Matthew does not simply accept Mark because it is convenient, he had to develop Mark with his knowledge of other traditions because it was the common, popular, recognized account. In producing a new edition he does not, as Luke and John, envisage his gospel as yet another on the market. He wrote what he considered the definitive account of Jesus’ teaching (πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάµην ὑµῖν, Mt 28:20). Matthew is a loyal tradent of the Markan tradition, and Mark is Matthew’s tradition. This new edition of Mark was thus an affirmation of its central position in the Christian movement.

Bibliography A. Primary Sources Biblical Texts Novum Testamentum Graece. Post Eberhard et Erwin Nestle communiter ediderunt K. ALAND et al., Stuttgart, 27th edn, 1993. Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. Locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum et patrum adhibitis edidit K. ALAND , Stuttgart, 6th edn, 1969. The Critical Edition of Q. Synopsis including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas, J.M. ROBINSON ‒ P. HOFFMANN ‒ J.S. KLOPPENBORG, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. K. ELLIGER ‒ W RUDOLPH, Stuttgart, 2nd edn, 1983. Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes edidit A. RAHLFS, Stuttgart, 1935.

Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period Josephus. Antiquitates Iudaicae, in B. NIESE , Flavii Iosephi Opera (5 vols), I, III. Berlin: Weidmann, 1888‒1892. ‒: Contra Apionem, in B. NIESE, Flavii Iosephi Opera (5 vols), V. Berlin: Weidmann, 1889. The Temple Scroll: SCHIFFMAN , LAWRENCE H. ‒ GROSS , ANDREW D. ‒ RAND, MICHAEL C. ‒ MILGROM, J. ‒ DAVIS, M. T. ‒ RONDE VAN KIRK, A. DE LA. Temple Scroll and Related Documents. CHARLESWORTH, JAMES H. (ed.) ‒ MORISADA RIETZ, HENRY W. ‒ J OHNS, LOREN L., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations 7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck / Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011. YADIN , YIGA’EL . The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Soc., 1977‒ 1983. The Damascus Document: in CHARLESWORTH, J AMES J. (ed.) ‒ BAUMGARTEN, J. M. ‒ DAVIS, M. T. ‒ DUHAIME, J. ‒ OFER, Y. ‒ RIETZ, H. W. L. ‒ ROBERTS , J. J. M. ‒ SCHWARTZ, D. ‒ STRAWN , B. A. ‒ W HITAKER, R. E., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck / Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995.

198

Bibliography

Graeco-Roman Authors Aristotle. The Art of Rhetoric. J. H. FREESE, LCL 193. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959. Cicero. De Oratore. Books I‒III (2 vols). E. W. SUTTON & H. RACKHAM, LCL 348‒349. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977, 1988. Diogenes Laertius. Diogenes, in Lives of Eminent Philosophers (2 vols). II, R. D. HICKS, LCL 185. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979. Herodotus. (4 vols), I (Books I & II), A. D. G ODLEY, LCL 117. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966 2. Hesiod. Theogony. GLENN W. MOST, LCL 57. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. Livy, (14 vols), I (Books I & II), B. O. Foster, LCL 114. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. Lucian. Demonax, in Lucian (8 vols), I. A. M. HARMON , LCL 14. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996. ‒: How to Write History, in Lucian (8 vols), II. K. KILBURN , LCL 430. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. Pliny (Gaius Plinius Caecilous Secundus). Briefe. H. KASTEN (ed.). München: Heimeran, 1979 4. Plutarch. The Dinner of the Seven Wise Men, in Moralia (15 vols), II. F. C. B ABBITT, LCL 222. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962. Quintilian. The Institutio Oratoria (4 vols). H. E. B UTLER, LCL 124‒127. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958‒1968. Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, in Sophocles (2 vols), I. H. LLOYD -JONES, LCL 20. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.

Early Christian Writings Apostolic Fathers: HOLMES, MICHAEL W. The Apostolic Fathers. Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd edn. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Clement of Alexandria. Quis dives salvetur? in O. STÄHLIN ‒ L. FRÜCHTEL (eds.), Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 17 2. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1970. Epiphanius, Ancoratus & Panarion (3 vols), in Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 25. Leipzig: Hinrich, 1913‒1931. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (2 vols). K. LAKE ‒ J. E. L. OULTON, LCL 153 & 265. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926, 1932. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses (5 vols). Fontes Christiani 8,1‒5 . N. B ROX. Freiburg: Herder, 1993‒2001. Justin, Apologies, in The Apologies of Justin Martyr, Basil. L. Gildersleeve, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877. Origen, Commentary on John (Commentaire sur Jean), Books VI & X. Source Chrétiennes 157. C. B LANC. Paris: Du Cerf, 1970. Tertullian. Adversus Marcionem (2 vols). Oxford Early Christian Texts. E. EVANS. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. The Nag Hammadi Texts (English): The Gospel of Thomas, The Dialogue of the Saviour, The Wisdom of Jesus Christ, in MEYER, M. (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: the International Edition. The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2008.

Bibliography

199

B. Secondary Literature ALAND, B ARBARA . “Was heißt Abschreiben? Neue Entwicklungen in der Textkritik und ihre Konsequenzen für die Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühesten christlichen Verkündigung”, in B ECKER, E.-M. and RUNESSON, A. (eds.), Mark and Matthew I, WUNT 271 (2011), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, p.55‒76. ALEXANDER , LOVEDAY C. A. “Orality in Pharisaic Judaism at the Turn of the Eras”, in WANSBOROUGH, H. (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition. ‒: “Rabbinic Biography and the Biography of Jesus. A Survey of the Evidence”, in JSNTSup 7 (1984), Sheffield: JSOT Press, p.19‒50. ‒: The Preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1‒4 and Acts 1.1. SNTS MS 78 (1993). ALLEN, W ILLOUGHBY C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 3rd edn, 1951. ALLISON , DALE C. Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005. ‒: The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press ‒ Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993. AUNE , DAVID E. The New Testament in its Literary Environment. Philadelphia, PN: Westminster Press: 1987 ‒ Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 1988. ‒: “Genre Theory and the Genre-Function of Mark and Matthew”, in B ECKER, E.-M. and RUNESSON, A. (eds.), Mark and Matthew I, WUNT 271 (2011), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, p.145‒175. AVEMARIE , FRIEDRICH. Die Tauferzählungen der Apostelgeschichte: Theologie und Geschichte. WUNT 139 (2002), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ‒: “Jesus and Purity”, in B IERINGER, R. et al. (eds.), The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, JSNTSup136 (2010), Sheffield: JSOT Press, p.255‒279. BACON, B. W. Studies in Matthew. New York, NY: Henry Holt, 1930. BALTZER , KLAUS. Die Biographie der Propheten. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975. BARCLAY, J OHN M.G. Against Apion, in MASON, S. (ed.) Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. X. Leiden: Brill, 2007. BAUCKHAM, RICHARD (ed.). The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1998. ‒: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2006. ‒: “John for Readers of Mark”, in BAUCKHAM, R. (ed.), The Gospels for All Christians, p.147‒172. ‒: “For whom were the gospels written?” in BAUCKHAM, R. (ed.), The Gospels for All Christians, p.9‒48. ‒: “The Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo and the Gospels as ‘Midrash’”, in GP 3 (1983) Sheffield: JSOT Press, p.33‒76. BAUER, DAVID R. The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. JSNTSup 31 (1988), Sheffield: JSOT Press. BEATON, RICHARD C. “How Matthew Writes”, in BOCKMUEHL, M. ‒ HAGNER, D. A. (eds.), The Written Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p.127‒134. BEAVIS, MARY ANN. Mark’s Audience: The literary and social setting of Mark 4.11‒12. JSNTSup 33 (1989), Sheffield: JSOT Press. BECKER , EVE-MARIE. Das Markus-Evangelium im Rahmen antiker Historiographie. WUNT 194 (2006), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

200

Bibliography

‒: “Dating Mark and Matthew as Ancient Literature”, in BECKER, E.-M. and RUNESSON, A. (eds.), Mark and Matthew I, WUNT 271 (2011), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, p.123‒ 143. ‒: and RUNESSON, A. (eds.), Mark and Matthew I. WUNT 271 (2011), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. B ECKER, HANS-J ÜRGEN. Auf der Kathedra des Mose: rabbinisch-theologisches Denken und antirabbinische Polemik in Matthäus 23,1‒12. ANTZ 4 (1990), Berlin: Institut Kirche und Judentum. B ENOIT, P. “The Death of Judas”, in BENOIT, P. (ed.), Jesus and the Gospel, vol. 1. New York: Seabury Press, 1973, p.189‒207. B ETZ, HANS DIETER. The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Including the Sermon on the Plain. Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995. B ILEZIKIAN, GILBERT. The Liberated Gospel: A Comparison of the Gospel of Mark and Greek Tragedy. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977. B ONNARD, PIERRE. L’Évangile selon Saint Matthieu, CNT 1, Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1963. B ORING, M. EUGENE. “The Gospel according to Matthew”, in B ORING, M. E. ‒ CRADDOCK, F. B. (eds.), The People’s New Testament Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004. BORNKAMM, GÜNTHER ‒ B ARTH G. ‒ HELD H. J. Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium. WMANT 1 (1960), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 7th vol. (1975). B OVON, FRANÇOIS. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. EKK NT 3, 4 vols. Zürich: Benziger, 1989‒2009. ‒: Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1‒9:50. Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002. B OWMAN, JOHN. The Gospel of Mark: The New Christian Jewish Passover Haggadah. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965. B ROOKE, G. J. (ed.). Temple Scroll Studies. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. B RAUMANN, G. “Die Zweizahl und Verdoppelungen im Matthäusevangelium”, in ThZ 24 (1968), Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt Verlag, p.255‒266. B ROWN, JOHN P. “An Early Revision of the Gospel of Mark”, in JBL 78 (1959), Society of Biblical Literature, p.215‒227. B ULTMANN, RUDOLF. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. FRLANT 29, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 10th edn, 1995. B URRIDGE, RICHARD A. “About People, by People, for People: Gospel Genre and Audiences”, in B AUCKHAM R. (ed.), The Gospels for All Christians, p.113‒145. ‒: What are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. SNTS MS 70 (1992), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. B YRSKOG, SAMUEL. “A New Perspective on the Jesus Tradition: Reflections on James D. G. Dunn’s Jesus Remembered”, in JSNT 26.4 (2004), Sheffield: JSOT Press, p.459‒ 471. ‒: Story as History ‒ History as Story. WUNT 123 (2000), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. CARRINGTON, P HILIP. The Primitive Christian Calendar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952. CARTER , WARREN. Matthew and the Margins: A Socio-Political and Religious Reading. JSNTSup 204 (2000), Sheffield: JSOT Press. CHILTON, B RUCE D. “Varieties and Tendencies of Midrash: Rabbinic Interpretation of Isaiah 24.23”, in GP 3 (1983), Sheffield: JSOT Press, p.9‒32. ‒: “La plate-forme de travail de Marc et le caractère achevé de son œuvre”, in RHPR 91/4, Strasbourg: Faculté de Théologie Protestante, 2011, p.481‒506.

Bibliography

201

COLLINS, ADELE YARBRO-. Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007. ‒: (ed.). Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Bible and Culture: Essays in Honor of Hans Dieter Betz. SBL Symposium Series. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. COPE, O. LAMAR . Matthew: a scribe trained for the kingdom of Heaven. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1976. CREED, J.M. The Gospel according to St. Luke: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indices. London: Macmillan & Co., 1930, 1965. CROSS , FRANK M. ‒ TALMON, S. (eds.). Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975. CROSSLEY, J AMES G. “The Date of Mark’s Gospel. Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity”, in JSNTSup 266 (2004), Sheffield: JSOT Press. DAVIES, W. D., ‒ ALLISON, DALE C., J R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. ICC. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988‒2000. DEINES, R OLAND. Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias: Mt 5.13‒20 als Schlüsseltext der matthäischen Theologie. WUNT 177 (2004), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. DEISSMANN, ADOLF. Licht vom Osten: das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt. Tübingen: Mohr, 1908. DERRENBACKER, R. A. Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem. BETL 186 (2005), Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters. DESCAMPS, ALBERT. “Rédaction et christologie dans le récit matthéen de la Passion”, in BETL 29 (1972), Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters, p.359‒415. DEVISCH, M. (ed.). John and the Synoptics. BETL 101 (1992). Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters. ‒: “Le document Q”, in BETL 29 (1972), Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters, p.199‒219. DIHLE, ALBRECHT. “Die Evangelien und die griechische Biographie”, in S TUHLMACHER, P. (ed.), Das Evangelium und die Evangelien: Vorträge vom Tübinger Symposium 1982. WUNT 28 (1983), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. DITTENBERGER, W ILHELM. (ed.) Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1903‒1905. Reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1960. DOBSCHÜTZ, ERNST VON. “Matthäus als Rabbi und Katechet”, in ZNW 27 (1928), Berlin: de Gruyter, p.338‒348. DODD, C.H. The Apostolic Teaching and its Developments. New York, NY: Harper, 1936 ‒ Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980. DORANDI, T. “Den Autoren über die Schulter geschaut”, in ZPE 87 (1991), Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, p.20‒30. DOWNING, F. GERALD. “A Genre for Q and a Socio-Cultural Context for Q: Comparing Sets of Similarities with Sets of Differences”, in JSNT 55 (1994), Sheffield: JSOT Press, p.3‒26. Reprinted in D OWNING, Doing Things with Words, p.95‒117. ‒: “Compositional Conventions and the Synoptic Problem”, in JBL 107.1 (1988), Society of Biblical Literature, p.69‒85. Reprinted in DOWNING, Doing Things with Words, p.152‒173. ‒: “Contemporary Analogies to the Gospels and Acts: ‘Genres’ or ‘Motifs’?”, in JSNTSup 7 (1984), Sheffield: JSOT Press, p.51‒66. ‒: Doing Things with Words. JSNTSup 200 (2000), Sheffield: JSOT Press. ‒: “Quite like Q: A Genre for ‘Q’: The ‘Lives’ of Cynic Philosophers”, in BibT 69 (1998), p.196‒225. ‒: “Redaction Criticism: Josephus’ Antiquities and the Synoptic Gospels (I)”, in JSNT 8 (1980), Sheffield: JSOT Press, p.46‒65.

202

Bibliography

‒: “Redaction Criticism: Josephus’ Antiquities and the Synoptic Gospels (II)”, in JSNT 9 (1980), Sheffield: JSOT Press, p.29‒48. DRURY, JOHN. Tradition and design in Luke’s Gospel: A study in early Christian Historiography. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1976. DUNN, J. D. G. Jesus Remembered. Christianity in the Making, I. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2003. ESLER, P HILIP F. “Community and Gospel in Early Christianity: A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Gospels for All Christians”, in SJT 51 (1998), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.235‒248. EVANS, CRAIG, A. “Mark’s Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription: From Jewish Gospel to Greco-Roman Gospel”, in JGRChJ 1 (2000), Sheffield: Phoenix, p.67‒81. ‒: “‘The Book of the Genesis of Jesus Christ’: The Purpose of Matthew in light of the Incipit”, in LNTS 310.2 (2008), London: T & T Clark, p.61‒84. FARRER, AUSTIN M. “On dispensing with Q”, in NINEHAM, D.E. (ed.), Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot. Oxford: Blackwell, 1955, p.55‒88. ‒: St. Matthew and St. Mark. London: Dacre, 1954. FELDMAN, LOUIS H. Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1998. FINCH, R. G. The Synagogue Lectionary and the New Testament. London: SPCK, 1939. FISHBANE, MICHAEL. “Inner Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel”, in HARTMAN, G. (ed.), Midrash and Literature. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1986. FLEDDERMANN, HARRY T. Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts. BETL 122 (1995), Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters. ‒: Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary. Biblical Tools and Studies 1. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters, 2005. FOAKES-JACKSON, F. J. Josephus and the Jews: The Religion and History of the Jews as explained by Flavius Josephus. New York, NY: Richard R. Smith, Inc., 1930. Reprinted Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977. FOSTER, P. “The M-Source: Its History and Demise in Biblical Scholarship”, in FOSTER, P. ‒ G REGORY, A. ‒ KLOPPENBORG, J.S. ‒ VERHEYDEN, J., New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008. BETL 239 (2011), Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters, p.591‒616. FRANCE, R. T. “Jewish Hagiography, Midrash and the Gospels”, in GP 3 (1983), Sheffield: JSOT Press, p.99‒127. ‒: “Scripture, Tradition and History in the Infancy Narratives of Matthew”, in GP 2, Sheffield: JSOT Press, p.239‒266. ‒: “Where have we got to and where do we go from here?”, in GP 3 (1983), Sheffield: JSOT Press, p.289‒299. FRANKEMÖLLE, HUBERT. Matthäus: Kommentar. 2 vols. Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1994 / 1997. ‒: Evangelium ‒ Begriff und Gattung: Ein Forschungsbericht. SBB 15 (1988), Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk. 2nd edn, 1994. FREYNE, SEÁN. Galilee and Gospel: Collected Essays. WUNT 125 (2000), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ‒: “Matthew and Mark: The Jewish Contexts”, in B ECKER, E.-M. and RUNESSON, A. (eds.), Mark and Matthew I, WUNT 271 (2011), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, p.179‒203. FULLER, REGINALD H. “Classics and the Gospels: The Seminar”, in WALKER, W. (ed.), The Relationships Among the Gospels, p.173‒192. GABOURY, ANTONIO. La structure des evangiles synoptiques: la structure-type à l’origine des synoptiques, NovTSup 22 (1970), Leiden: Brill. GAECHTER, P. Das Matthäus Evangelium: Ein Kommentar. Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1963.

Bibliography

203

GAMBLE, HARRY Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1995. GATZWEILER, K. “Les recits de miracles dans l’Évangile selon saint Matthieu”, in BETL 29 (1972), Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters, p.208‒220. GNILKA, JOACHIM. Das Matthäusevangelium. 2 vols. HThK NT 1.1‒2. Freiburg ‒ Basel ‒ Wien: Herder, 1988/1992. GOODACRE , MARK S. “Mark, Elijah, the Baptist and Matthew: The Success of the First Intertextual Reading of Mark”, in GOODACRE , M ‒ P ERRIN, N. (eds.), Questioning Q. ‒: ‒ PERRIN, N. (eds.) Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique, London: SPCK ‒ Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2004. GOULDER, MICHAEL D. Midrash and Lection in Matthew. Speaker’s Lectures in Biblical Studies 1969‒71. London: SPCK, 1974. GUILDING, AILEEN. The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960. GUNDRY, ROBERT H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (2 vols), Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1993. ‒: Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1994. ‒: Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel with Reference to Messianic Hope. NovTSup 18 (1967), Leiden: Brill. GUTSCHMID, ALFRED VON. Kleine Schriften, Band IV: Schriften zur griechischen Literatur und Geschichte, BÜHL, F (ed.). Leipzig: Teubner, 1893. HAGNER, DONALD A. Matthew 1‒13. WBC 33a. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1995. HAINES -EITZEN, KIM . Guardians of Letters. Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. HARRINGTON , D. J. “Birth Narratives in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities and the Gospels”, in HOGAN, M. P. ‒ KOBELSKI, P. J. (eds.), To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. New York, NY: Crossroad, 1989, p.316‒324. HECKEL, T HEO K. Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium. WUNT 120 (1999), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. HEIL, CHRISTOPH. Lukas und Q: Studien zur lukanischen Redaktion des Spruchevangeliums Q. BZNW 111 (2002), Berlin: de Gruyter. HENGEL, MARTIN. Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity. London: SCM Press, 1979. ‒: “Die Evangelienüberschriften”, in WUNT 211 (2007), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, p.526‒567. ‒: Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus. WUNT 224 (2008), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ‒: Jesus und die Evangelien: Kleine Schriften V. WUNT 211 (2007), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ‒: Studien zur Chrisologie: Kleine Schriften IV. WUNT 201 (2006), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ‒: The Johannine Question. London: SCM Press, 1989. HENSHAW, T HOMAS. New Testament Literature in the Light of Modern Scholarship. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1963. HERBERT, G. “The Problem of the Gospel according to Matthew”, in SJT 14 (1961), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.403‒413. HEZSER, CATHERINE. Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine. TSAJ 81 (2001), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. HILL, DAVID . The Gospel of Matthew. NCeB. London, 1972.

204

Bibliography

HOLTZMANN, HEINRICH J. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Frieburg i.B., 1885. 3rd edn, 1892. HORNBLOWER, J. Hieronymus of Cardia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981. HORSLEY, R. A., DRAPER , J. A., FOLEY, J. M. (eds.). Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory, and Mark. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006. HURTADO , LARRY W. “What do Earliest Christian Manuscripts Tell Us About Their Readers?”, in EVANS, C. A. (ed.), The World of Jesus and the Early Church: Identity and Interpretation in Early Communities of Faith. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2011, p.179‒192. INOWLOCKI, SABRINA. Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context. AJEC 64. Leiden: Brill, 2006. J EWETT, ROBERT. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007. J OHNSON, SHERMAN E LBRIDGE. The Griesbach Hypothesis and Redaction Criticism. SBL MS 41 (1991), Society of Biblical Literature. J ONES, C. W. Saints’ Lives and Chronicles in Early England. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1948. JÜLICHER, ADOLF. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 7th edn (E. FASCHER). Tübingen: Mohr, 1931. KÄHLER, MARTIN . Der sogenannte historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, biblische Christus. Theologische Bücherei 2. 4th edn, 1969. KEALY, SEÁN P. Mark’s Gospel: a History of Its Interpretation: From the Beginning Until 1979. New York: Paulist Press, 1982. KECK, LEANDER E. “Oral Literature and the Gospels: The Seminar”, in WALKER, W. (ed.), The Relationships Among the Gospels, p. 103‒122. KEE, HOWARD CLARK. Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark’s Gospel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977. KELBER , W ERNER H. The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press, 1997. KENNEDY, GEORGE. “Classical and Christian Source Criticism”, in WALKER, W. (ed.), The Relationships Among the Gospels, p.125‒155. KIEFFER R. “Jean et Marc: Convergences dans la structure et dans les détails”, in BETL 101 (1992), Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters, p.109‒125. KIRK , ALAN . “Orality, Writing, and Phantom Sources: Appeals to Ancient Media in Some Recent Challenges to the Two Document Hypothesis”, in NTS 58/1 (2012), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.1‒22. KLOPPENBORG, J OHN S. Excavating Q: the history and setting of the sayings gospel. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press: 2000. ‒: The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1987. ‒: (ed.) Q-Thomas Reader. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1990. KLUMBIES, PAUL-GERHARD . Der Mythos bei Markus. BZNW 108 (2001), Berlin: de Gruyter. KOCH, DIETRICH-ALEX . Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. BhT 69 (1986), Tübingen: Mohr. KOESTER, HELMUT. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. Philadelphia, PN: Trinity Press International, 1990. ‒: “From the Kerygma Gospel to the Written Gospels”, in NTS 35 (1989), p.361‒381. KONRADT, MATTHIAS . “Die Rezeption der Schrift im Matthäusevangelium in der neueren Forchung”, in ThLZ 135 (2010), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, p.920‒932.

Bibliography

205

‒: “Die vollkommene Erfüllung der Tora und der Konflikt mit den Pharisäern im Matthäusevangelium”, in KONRADT, M. ‒ SÄNGER, D. (eds.), Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im Neuen Testament, NTOA 57 (2006), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, p.129‒152. ‒: Israel, Kirche und die Völker im Matthäusevangelium. WUNT 215 (2007), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. KÜHL, ERNST. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, 1913. KÜRZINGER, J OSEPH . Papias von Hierapolis und die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments. Eichstätter Materialien 4. Regensburg: Pustest, 1983. LAMBRECHT, J AN. “John the Baptist and Jesus in Mark 1.1‒15: Markan Redaction of Q?”, in NTS 38 (1992), p.357‒384. LAST, RICHARD . “Communities That Write: Christ-Groups, Associations, and Gospel Communities”, in NTS 58/2 (2012), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.173‒ 198. LINDARS , B ARNABAS. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations. London: SCM, 1961. LINDEMANN , ANDREAS . “Die Gerechtigkeit aus dem Gesetz: Erwägungen zur Auslegung und zur Textgeschichte von Römer 10,5”, in ZNW 73 (1982), Berlin: de Gruyter, p.231‒250. LINNEMANN, ETA. Gibt es ein synoptisches Problem? Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hänssler, 1992. LOHMEYER, ERNST. Galiläa und Jerusalem. FRLANT 34 (1936), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. LORD, ALBERT B. “The Gospels as Oral Traditional Literature”, in WALKER, W. (ed.), The Relationships Among the Gospels. LUCE, T.J. Livy: The Composition of his History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977. LÜHRMANN , DIETER. Das Markusevangelium. HNT 3 (1987), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. LUZ, ULRICH. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. EKK NT 1, 4 vols. Zürich: Benziger, 1985‒2002. ‒: Die Jesusgeschichte des Matthäus. Zürich ‒ Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993. ‒: “Fiktivitat und Traditionstreue im Matthäusevangelium im Lichte griechischer Literatur”, in ZNW 84 (1993), Berlin: de Gruyter, p.153‒177. ‒: “Looking at Q through the eyes of Matthew”, in FOSTER, P. ‒ GREGORY, A. ‒ KLOPPENBORG, J.S. ‒ VERHEYDEN, J., New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008. BETL 239 (2011), Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters, p.571‒590. MACDONALD , DENNIS R. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000. MACK, BURTON L. “Q and the Gospel of Mark: Revising Christian Origins”, in Semeia 55 (1991), p.15‒40. MACLEAN, J ENNIFER K.B. “Ephesians and the Problem of Colossians: Interpretation of Texts and Traditions in Ephesians 1:1‒2:10”. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Harvard, 1995. MANSON, T.W. The Saynings of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1937, 1949, 1950. MARCUS, J OEL. “The Jewish War and the Sitz-im-Leben of Mark”, in JBL 111/3 (1992), Society of Biblical Literature, p.441‒462. MAYORDOMO-MARÍN, MOISÉS. Den Anfang hören: Leserorientierte Evangelienexegese am Beispiel von Matthäus 1‒2. FRLANT 180 (1998), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

206

Bibliography

MEIER, J OHN P. “Antioch”, in R.E. BROWN ‒ J. P. MEIER, Antioch and Rome. New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity. London: Chapmans, 1982. p.12‒86. ‒: Matthew. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1980. MENKEN, M. J. J. Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist. BETL 173 (2004), Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters. MEREDITH, ANTHONY. “The Evidence of Papias for the Priority of Matthew”, in JSNTSup 7 (1984), Sheffield: JSOT Press, p.187‒196. METSO, SARIANNA. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. STDJ 21. Leiden: Brill, 1997. MICHEL, OTTO . Paulus und seine Bibel. BFcT, Series II:18, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1929. MOMIGLIANO, ARNALDO. The Development of Greek Biography. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971. Paperback edn 1993. MOO, DOUGLAS J. “Tradition and Old Testament in Matt 27:3‒10” in GP 3 (1983), Sheffield: JSOT Press, p.157‒175. MORRIS, LEON. “The Gospels and the Jewish Lectionaries”, in GP 3 (1983), Sheffield: JSOT Press, p.129‒156. MOULE, CHARLES FRANCIS DIGBY. The Birth of the New Testament. London: Black, 1962. 3rd edn, 1981. MÜLLER, MOGENS ‒ T RONIER, H. (eds.). The New Testament as Reception. JSNTSup 230 (2002), Sheffield: JSOT Press. NEIRYNCK, FRANS. “La rédaction matthéenne et la structure du premier évangile”, in BETL 43 (1967), Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters, p.41‒73. ‒: “Q: From Source to Gospel”, in BETL 71 (1995), Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters, p.421‒430. ‒: “Recent Developments in the Study of Q”, in BETL 59 (1982), Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters, p.29‒75. ‒: “The Gospel of Matthew and Literary Criticism: A Critical Analysis of A. Gaboury’s Hypothesis”, in BETL 60 (1982), Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters, p.691‒ 723. NOLLAND, J OHN. Luke. WBC. 3 vols. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1989‒1993. NORTH, J. LIONEL. “Reactions in Early Christianity to Some References to the Hebrew Prophets in Matthew’s Gospel”, in NTS 54.2 (2008), p.254‒274. O’LEARY, ANNE M. Matthew’s Judaization of Mark: Examined in the Context of the Use of Sources in Graeco-Roman Antiquity. LNTS 323 (2006), London: T & T Clark. OLRIK, AXEL. “Epische Gesetze der Volksdichtung”, in Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 51 (1909), p.1‒12. Reprinted in HARNISCH, W. (ed.), Gleichnisse Jesu: Positionen der Auslegung von Adolf Jülicher bis zur Formgeschichte. WdF 575 (1982), Darmstadt : Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, p.58‒ 69. ORTON, DAVID E. The Understanding Scribe: Matthew and the Apocalyptic Ideal. JSNTSup 25 (1989), Sheffield: JSOT Press. OVERBECK, FRANZ. “Über die Anfänge der patristischen Literatur”, in HZ 48 (1882), p.417‒472. Reprinted 1954, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. OVERMAN, J. ANDREW. Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: A Study of the Social World of the Matthean Community. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990. PAYNE, P HILIP B. “Midrash and History in the Gospels with special reference to R. H. Gundry’s Matthew”, in GP 3 (1983), Sheffield: JSOT Press, p.177‒215. P ELLING, C. B. R. “Plutarch’s Method of Work in the Roman Lives”, in JHS 99 (1979), London: Macmillan, p.74‒96. P ERRIN, NORMAN. “The Literary Gattung ‘Gospel’ ‒ Some Observations”, in ExpT 82 (1971), London: SAGE, p.4‒7.

Bibliography

207

PETERSEN, SILKE . “Die Evangelienüberschriften und die Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons”, in ZNW 97 (2006), Berlin: de Gruyter, p.250‒274. PORTER, STANLEY E. “Matthew and Mark: The Contribution of Recent Linguistic Thought”, in B ECKER, E.-M. and RUNESSON, A. (eds.), Mark and Matthew I, WUNT 271 (2011), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, p.97‒119. RAJAK, T ESSA. Josephus: The Historian and his Society. London: Duckworth, 1983. REINACH , T HÉODORE. Flavius Josèphe: Contre Apion. Paris: Belles Lettres, 1930. RICHARDS , E. RANDOLPH. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing. Secretaries, Composition and Collection. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2004. RICHES , JOHN K. Conflicting mythologies: Identity Formation in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000. RIST, J OHN M. On the Independence of Matthew and Mark. SNTS MS 32 (1978), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ROBBINS, VERNON K. “Interfaces of Orality and Literature in the Gospel of Mark”, in HORSLEY, R. A., DRAPER, J. A., FOLEY, J. M. (eds.). Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory, and Mark. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006, p.125‒146. ROBERTS , COLIN H. “The Codex”, Proceedings of the British Academy 40. London: Oxford University Press, 1954, p.169‒204. ‒: and SKEAT, T. C. The Birth of the Codex. London: Oxford University Press, 1983. ROBINSON, J AMES M. Jesus and Man’s Hope. Vol. 1. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1970. ‒: “The Matthean Trajectory from Q to Mark”, in COLLINS (ed.) Ancient and Modern Perspectives. ROBINSON, J OHN A. T. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia, PN: Westminster Press, 1976. Reprinted, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2000. ROHRBAUGH, RICHARD L. “The Social Location of the Markan Audience”, in NEYREY, J. H. ‒ STEWART, E.C. (eds.), The Social World of the New Testament: Insights and Models, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008. ROTH, WOLFGANG. “Moses and Matthew”, in BibT 30 (1992), Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, p.362‒366. RUSSEL, D. A. “Plutarch’s Life of Coriolanus”, in JRS 53 (1963), Camrbidge: Cambridge University Press, p.21‒28. SALDARINI, ANTHONY J. Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community. Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. ‒: “Reading Matthew without Anti-Semitism”, in AUNE, D. E. (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1999, p.168‒184. SANDERS, E. P. The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition. SNTS MS 9 (1969), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SANDERS, J AMES A. “The Gospels and the Canonical Process: A Response to Lou H. Silberman”, in WALKER, W. (ed.), The Relationships Among the Gospels, p.219‒236. SATO, MIGAKU. Q und Prophetie. WUNT 2.29 (1988), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. SCHALLER, B. “The Character and Function of the Antitheses in Matt 5:21‒48 in the Light of Rabbinical Exegetic Dispute”, in BECKER, H.-J. ‒ RUZER, S. (eds.), The Sermon on the Mount and Its Jewish Setting, Paris, 2005, p.70‒88. SCHIFFMAN , LAWRENCE H. The Courtyards of the House of the Lord: Studies on the Temple Scroll. STDJ 75, Leiden: Brill, 2008. ‒: “The King, His Guard and the Royal Council in the Temple Scroll”, in PAAJR 54 (1987), American Academy for Jewish Research, p.247‒249. ‒: “The Laws of War in the Temple Scroll”, in Revue de Qumran 49‒52 (1988), p.299‒ 311. SCHILDGEN, BRENDA D. Power and Prejudice: The Reception of the Gospel of Mark. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1999.

208

Bibliography

SCHMIDT, KARL LUDWIG. Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zur ältesten Jesusüberlieferung. Berlin: Trowitzsch und Sohn, 1919. SCHMITHALS, WALTER. Das Evangelium nach Markus. ÖTK NT 2/1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 1979. SCHNIEWIND, J ULIUS. Euangelion: Ursprung und erste Gestalt des Begriffs Evangelium. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1931. ‒: “Zur Synoptiker-Exegese”, in ThR NF 2 (1930), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, p.129‒189. SCHULZ, S. “Die Bedeutung des Markus für die Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums”, in SE 2 (1964), Berlin: Akademie Verlag, p.135‒145. SCHWARTZ, SETH. Josephus and Judaean Politics. CSCT 18, Leiden: Brill, 1990. SCHWEIZER, EDUARD. Matthäus und seine Gemeinde. SBS 71 (1974), Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk. SCHWEMER, ANNA MARIA . Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum. TSAJ 49 (1995) and 50 (1996), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. SEGBROECK, FRANS VAN. “Les citations d’accomplissement dans l’Evangile selon Matthieu d’apres trois ouvrages recents,” in BETL 29 (1972), Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters, p.107‒130. SENIOR, DONALD. “Between Two Worlds: Gentiles and Jewish Christians in Matthew’s Gospel”, in CBQ 61 (1999) New York: Catholic Biblical Association of America, p.1‒ 23. ‒: “The Passion Narrative in the Gospel of Matthew”, in BETL 29 (1972), Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters, p.343‒357. SHELLARD, BARBARA. New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context. JSNTSup 215 (2002), Sheffield: JSOT Press. SHINER, W HITNEY. Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 2003. SIM, DAVID. The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998. ‒: “Matthew’s Use of Mark: Did Matthew intend to supplement or to replace his primary source?”, in NTS 57 (2011), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.176‒192. ‒: “Matthew: The Current State of Research”, in B ECKER, E.-M. and RUNESSON, A. (eds.), Mark and Matthew I, WUNT 271 (2011), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, p.33‒51. SMALL, J OCELYN P ENNY. Wax Tablets of the Mind: Cognitive Studies of Memory and Literacy in Classical Antiquity. London: Routledge, 1997. SMITH, D. E. “Narrative Beginnings in Ancient Literature and Theory”, in Semeia 52 (1991), p.1‒9. STANLEY, CHRISTOPHER D. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. SNTS MS 74 (1990), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. STANTON, GRAHAM N. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 2002. ‒: A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992. ‒: “The Fourfold Gospel”, in NTS 43 (1997), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.317‒346. ‒: (ed.), The Interpretation of Matthew. Issues in Religion and Theology 3. London: SPCK ‒ Philadelphia, PN: Fortress Press, 1983. ‒: “The Origin and Purpose of Matthew’s Gospel: Matthean Scholarship from 1945 to 1980”, in ANRW II 25.3. Berlin ‒ New York: de Gruyter, 1985. STARK, R. “Antioch as the Social Situation for Matthew’s Gospel”, in B ALCH, D.L. (ed.), Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991, p.189‒201.

Bibliography

209

STECK, ODIL HANNES. Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum. WMANT 23 (1967), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. STEGEMANN , HARTMUT. “The Literary Composition of the Temple Scroll and Its Status at Qumran,” in B ROOKE, G. J. (ed.), Temple Scroll Studies. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989, p.123‒148. STEIN, ROBERT H. “What is Redaktionsgeschichte?”, in JBL 88 (1969), Society of Biblical Literature, p.45‒56. STENDAHL, KRISTER. “Quis et Unde? An Analysis of Mt 1‒2”, in STANTON, G. (ed.), The Interpretation of Matthew. ‒: The School of St. Matthew. ASNU 20 (1954) Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup. STRACK, HERMANN L. ‒ B ILLERBECK, PAUL. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch: Bd. 1: Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. München: Beck, 1922. STRECKER, G EORG. Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit. Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthäus. FRLANT 82 (1962), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 3rd edn, 1971. STREETER, B. H. The Four Gospels. London: Macmillan, 1956 9. STUHLMACHER , P ETER. Das paulinische Evangelium: Vorgeschichte, vol. 1. FRLANT 95 (1968), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. SWANSON, DWIGHT D. The Temple Scroll and the Bible: The Methodology of 11QT. STDJ 14. Leiden: Brill, 1995. TAGAWA, KENZO. “People and Community in the Gospel of Matthew”, in NTS 16 (1969‒ 70), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.149‒162. TALBERT, CHARLES H. “Oral and Independent or Literary and Interdependent?: A Response to Albert B. Lord”, in WALKER, W. (ed.), The Relationships Among the Gospels, p.93‒102. ‒: What is a Gospel?: the Genre of the Canonical Gospels. Philadelphia, PN: Fortress Press, 1977. TALMON, SHEMARYAHU. “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of Qumran Manuscripts”, in CROSS, F.M. ‒ TALMON, S. (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, p.226‒263. ‒: “The Textual Study of the Bible ‒ A New Outlook”, in CROSS, F.M. ‒ TALMON, S. (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, p.321‒400. TAYLOR, V. “The Order of Q”, JThSt 4 (1953), Oxford: Clarendon Press, p.27‒31. Reprinted in TAYLOR, V., New Testament Essays, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1972, p.90‒94. THACKERY, H. ST. J OHN. Josephus: The Man and the Historian: Hilda Stich Lectures 1928. New York, NY: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1929. Reprinted New York, NY: KTAV Publishing House Inc., 1967. THEISSEN, G. The Gospels in Context. London: Continuum, 2004. THOMAS, CHRISTINE M. The Acts of Peter, Gospel Literature, and the Ancient Novel: Rewriting the Past. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. TOBIN, T OMAS H. Paul’s Rhetoric in its Context: The Argument of Romans. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. TUCKETT, C.M. Q and the History of Early Christianity. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996. ‒: The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis: An analysis and appraisal. SNTS MS 44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. VAHRENHORST, M. “Ihr sollt überhaupt nicht schwören”: Matthäus im halachischen Diskurs. WMANT 95 (2002), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. VANDER KAM , JAMES C. The Book of Jubilees. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

210

Bibliography

VIVIANO, B ENEDICT T. Matthew and His World: The Gospel of the Open Jewish Christians: Studies in Biblical Theology. NTOA 61 (2007), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. VILLALBA I VARNEDA, P ERE . The Historical Method of Falvius Josephus. ALGHJ 19. Leiden: Brill, 1986. VOLLMER , HANS ARTHUR . Die Alttestamentlichen Citate Bei Paulus: Textkritisch Und Biblisch-theologisch Gewürdigt. Freiburg im Breisgau: 1895. WAGNER, J. ROSS. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans. Leiden: Brill, 2003. WALKER, W ILLIAM O. J R. (ed.) The Relationships Among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue. Trinity University Monograph Series in Religion 5. San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press, 1978. WANSBOROUGH, H. (ed.) Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition. JSNTSup 64 (1991), Sheffield: JSOT Press. W EITZMAN, STEVEN. “Allusion, Artifice, and Exile in the Hymn of Tobit”, in JBL 115/1 (1996), Society of Biblical Literature, p.49‒61. W ILCKENS, ULRICH . Der Brief an die Römer. EKK NT 6, 3 vols. Zürich: Benziger, 1978‒ 1993. W ILK, FLORIAN . Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. W ILSON A. M. ‒ W ILLS L. “Literary Sources of the Temple Scroll”, in HTR 75 (1982), p.275‒288. W INDISCH, HANS . Johannes und die Synoptiker: Wollte der vierte Evangelist die älteren Evangelien ergänzen oder ersetzen? UNT 12 (1926), Leipzig: Hinrichs. W IRE, ANTOINETTE CLARK . The Case for Mark Composed in Performance. BPC 3, Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011. W ISCHMEYER, ODA. “Forming Identity Through Literature: The Impact of Mark for the Building of Christ-Believing Communities in the Second Half of the First Century, C.E.”, in B ECKER, E.-M. and RUNESSON, A. (eds.), Mark and Matthew I, WUNT 271 (2011), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, p.285‒308. W OOD, H. G. “The Priority of Mark”, in ExpT 65 (1993), London: SAGE, p.17‒19. W REDE, WILLIAM. Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums. Göttingen, 1901. W RIGHT, N. T. Foreword to GOODACRE, M. ‒ P ERRIN, N. (eds.) Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique, London: SPCK ‒ Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2004. YOUNGQUIST, LINDEN . “Matthew, Mark, and Q”, in B ECKER, E.-M. and RUNESSON, A. (eds.), Mark and Matthew I, WUNT 271 (2011), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, p.233‒261.

Index of Ancient Sources A. Jewish Scriptures Genesis 2:4 5:1 11:31 15:7 29

182 182 170 170 135

Exodus 2:1‒10 14:15 22:15 23:6

169 170 161‒162 161

Leviticus 11:33‒34 17:13 18:5 19:28 21:5

161 161 150 161 161

Numbers 14:15 30:3‒10 30:11‒16

161 158‒161 159

Deuteronomy 1:16‒17 161 12:20‒26 158‒161 13:1‒7 158‒161 14:1‒2 161 22:28‒29 161‒162 23:22‒24 158‒161 30:12‒13 150 Judges 10:5

170

1 Samuel 4:10

22

31:1‒12

133

2 Samuel 5 18:19‒31 24

133 22 133

2 Kings 7:9

22

1 Chronicles 10:1‒12 133 11 133 21 133 2 Chronicles 13:22 179 24:27 179 36:23 182 Psalms 5:10 9:28 13:1‒3 18:5 22 31:1‒2 35:2 78:2 139:4

152 152 152 149 39, 42 149 152 43 152

Proverbs 25:21‒22

149

Isaiah 1:9 8:14 9:1 10:22‒23

149 151 43 154

212 11:10 27:9 28:16 40:9 42:1‒4 52:7 53:4 54:1 59:7‒8 59:20‒21 61:1

Index of Ancient Sources 156 155 151 22 43 22, 155 43 149 152 155 22

Jeremiah 9:23

153

Hosea 2:1 6:6

149, 154 43, 62

Habakkuk 2:4

150

Zechariah 9:9

45

B. New Testament Matthew 1‒2 1:1 1:1‒17 1:18 1:21‒23 2:5‒6,15‒23 3:1‒12 3:1‒6 3:7‒12 3:13‒17 4:1‒23 4:1‒11 4:2‒17 4:18‒22 4:23 4:24‒25 4:24‒5:2 5:1‒7:29 5:3‒5:12 5:15 5:17‒20 5:22 5:32 5:37 6:1‒8 6:12‒15 7:1‒6 7:2 7:16‒20 7:21‒27 7:28 8:1‒4 8:5‒13

33, 36, 99, 101, 127, 169 22, 181‒183, 194 181 110 39, 101 39 21‒161 40‒41, 52, 97, 114, 127 52, 165 52, 113‒114, 161 52 52,114, 165 22, 43, 52, 114 52 22, 52, 67, 182 66, 82 52, 114 103, 108 37 83 37, 42‒44 113 44, 92, 117 33 37 37 37 83 37 37 103 52‒53, 65, 71, 111, 114 52, 66, 71, 92, 104, 114

8:14‒17 8:16‒20 8:18‒34 125, 9:1‒17 9:1 9:8 9:9‒13 9:10 9:18‒26 9:22 9:24 9:25 9:26 9:27‒38 9:32‒34 9:35‒38 10:1‒16 10:3 10:5‒11:1 10:5‒8 10:7‒14 10:24 10:26 10:32 10:40‒41 10:42 11:1 11:2‒30 11:5 11:10 11:20‒24 11:28‒30

43, 52, 54, 71, 186 66, 92 52, 55‒59, 71, 83, 111, 115, 186 52, 59‒62,71, 125, 186 58‒59, 66 67 43, 110 62, 66 52, 62‒65,71, 83, 110, 114 66 22 90 111, 114 33, 52, 65‒67, 71, 88, 101, 108, 111, 114 88 22, 67, 84 52, 82, 113, 186 62 103 37‒38, 67, 80, 109 84, 186 125 83 111 68 92 68, 103, 114 68 22, 70, 72 41 108, 115, 141 80

Index of Ancient Sources 12:1‒14 12:1 12:3‒7 12:15‒21 12:22‒30 12: 30 12:31‒45 12:31‒37 12:38‒42 12:39 12:46‒50 13:1‒9 13:10‒17 13:11‒13 13:13‒15 13:18‒33 13:34‒35 13:36 13:44‒50 13:51‒52 13:53‒58 14:1‒12 14:13‒36 14:13‒21 14:13‒14 14:15 14:19 14:22‒33 14:34‒36 15:1‒20 15:10‒15 15:16 15:17‒20 15:21‒28 15:29‒31 15:32‒39 6:1‒4 6:5‒12 16:13‒20 16:21‒28 17:1‒13 17:14‒23 17:24‒27 17:33 18:1‒35 18:1‒5 18:9 19:1‒2

34, 42‒44,82, 106, 117‒120 51‒52, 125 105, 111 43, 82 28, 31, 67, 82, 114 74, 108 82 72‒73 31, 114 74 82, 115, 126‒127, 179 83, 115 74, 83 125,179 83, 88 42‒43, 83 83, 107 43, 83 125 33, 83 3, 33‒34, 43, 83, 143 84, 103, 115, 124, 127 84, 115 120 84 67, 88, 115 125 84 34, 85‒86, 125, 187 66, 84 84, 114, 118, 120‒125, 127 33, 76, 86, 125, 187 111 44, 86, 117 34, 84, 86‒87 84, 107 84, 88, 125 28, 31, 74, 84, 88, 106 84, 88, 90, 106, 111, 125, 179 34,88, 89, 111, 125, 179, 187 22, 88, 91, 114, 125 34, 88, 90, 106, 111, 124‒ 125, 179 73‒74, 88, 125 33, 88, 90‒91, 104, 109, 170, 187 111 77, 88, 92, 108, 187 31, 34, 88, 91‒93, 125, 179 113 92, 103, 115

19:3‒12 19:9 19:10‒12 19:13‒15 19:15‒20:16 19:19 19:24 19:25 19:27‒30 20:1‒16 20:17‒19 20:20‒28 20:29‒34 21:1‒9 21:1‒5 21:2,7 21:10‒22 21:10‒11 21:14‒16 21:17 21:20‒22 21:23‒22:46 21:33‒22:14 22:1‒46 22:19 22:23 22:28‒32 23:1‒39 23:2‒5,7‒22 23:23‒29 23:34 24:1‒25:46 24:1 24:3 24:9‒14 24:15‒16 24:18 24:26 24:30 25:1‒13 25:31‒40 25:54 26:1‒5 26:6‒13 26:14‒16 26:17‒20 26:21‒30 26:24‒25 26:30‒56 26:34 26:35

213 92 43, 106 34, 126 92, 126 92‒93 117 111 126 22, 76‒77 93 92, 125 92‒93, 99, 179 65, 92‒93, 104, 110 92‒93, 126 43 45 94 34, 94 94 93 126‒127 94 31, 33, 77 94‒95 66 115 94 94, 108, 114 95, 141 95 3 94‒95, 108 95, 126 125 33, 68 42‒43 22 33 31 33 33 39 95, 98, 103‒104, 110, 115‒ 116 22, 93, 95, 126 95, 114 95, 126 95‒97, 116, 126 34, 96, 98, 106, 125 95 98 114, 126, 187

214 26:36 26:40 26:42 26:52‒54 26:56 26:57‒27:2 26:63‒64 27:3‒10 27:11‒26 27:16‒17 27:19 27:24‒25 27:27‒56 27:35‒43 27:44 27:46 27:50‒54 27:56 27:57‒66 27:62‒66 28:1‒20 28:2‒15 28:16‒20

Mark 1:1 1:1‒22 1:1‒14 1:1‒8 1:1‒4 1:9‒11 1:12‒13 1:14‒15 1:16‒20 1:21‒22 1:23‒28 1:29‒34 1:35‒39 1:40‒45 2:1‒22 2:1 2:12 2:13‒17 2:15 2:18 2:23‒3:6 2:20 2:23 2:25‒26

Index of Ancient Sources 126 126 34 34, 125, 179 126 97, 104, 110, 113, 161, 187‒188 98, 104 33, 39‒40, 43, 97‒98, 101, 104‒105, 161 97‒98, 115, 161 104 34, 99, 104 34, 99, 104 97, 99, 114 42‒43, 99 97 113 33, 97, 99, 104 110 97‒99 34, 99, 101, 104 97, 110, 126 34, 100‒101, 104 22, 33, 36, 80, 100‒102, 109, 143, 166, 182, 196

22‒23, 181‒183, 194 52 43, 110, 127, 182 27, 31, 40‒41, 52 22 52, 114 52‒101 22, 52 52 52, 69, 107, 191 52, 107, 111 43, 52, 54, 71, 110 52, 59, 67, 107 52‒53,59, 65, 71, 110‒111 52, 59‒62, 71, 110 60, 66 67 43, 110 62, 66 125 18, 43, 62, 82, 118‒120 42 51‒52, 67‒68, 78, 125 105

3:4 3:7‒13 3:12 3:13‒19 3:20‒21 3:22‒27 3:22 3:28‒30 3:31‒35 4:1‒34 4:1‒9 4:9 4:10‒12 4:13‒20 4:21‒25 4:24 4:26‒29 4:30‒32 4:33‒34 4:35‒5:43 4:40 5:22 5:43 6:1‒6 6:6‒13 6:14‒31 6:30‒56 6:32‒44 6:34 6:35 6:45‒52 6:53‒56 7:1‒23 7:3‒4 7:6‒12 7:14‒17 7:18‒23 7:24‒30 7:24 7:31‒37 8:1‒10 8:11‒13 8:14‒21 8:22‒26 8:27‒30 8:31‒33 8:34‒9:1 9:2‒13 9:14‒29 9:28

106 30, 43, 52, 82, 110, 113 82, 111 37, 52, 67,82 60, 82‒83, 110, 126 67 66 72‒73, 82 82‒83, 126‒127, 179 18, 43 83 21 74, 83, 88 83, 111 83 37 83, 107 83 83, 125 51‒52, 55‒59, 62‒65, 71, 83‒ 84, 168 111 110 111, 114 84, 124, 127 27, 32, 37, 52, 67‒68, 84 84, 100 120 84, 88, 110 66, 84 125 84‒86, 109, 125 84 84, 118, 120‒125, 127 86 40 60, 76, 125 44, 86 84, 86‒87, 111 60, 179 84, 87, 107, 125 84, 88, 125 27, 31, 74, 84, 88, 106 40, 84, 88, 106, 126 65‒66, 84, 104, 107, 111, 125, 179 88‒89, 111, 118, 125 88, 125, 187 22, 88 88, 90, 106, 111, 124‒125, 187 88, 125 60, 125

215

Index of Ancient Sources 9:28‒29 9:30‒32 9:33‒50 9:38‒41 9:42‒50 10:1 10:2‒12 10:10 10:11 10:13‒16 10:17‒31 10:23‒32 10:29 10:32‒34 10:35‒45 10:38‒39 10:46‒52 11:1‒10 11:9‒10 11:11‒26 11:11 11:18‒19 11:25 11:27‒12:37 12:1‒12 12:11 12:12 12:13‒17 12:26 12:28 12:34‒35 12:41‒44 13:1‒37 13:1 13:3 13:9‒13 13:9 13:10 13:14 13:26 13:33‒35 14:1‒2 14:3‒9 14:3 14:4 14:9 14:10‒11 14:12‒17 14:15 14:18‒26 14:21 14:26‒52

73‒74 88, 90, 111, 125 31, 77, 88, 91, 125, 179 31, 68, 74, 88, 92, 107‒108 88, 92, 109 92 92 60, 92, 126 43, 92, 106 92, 126 92‒93, 126 76‒77, 111, 187 22 92, 125 92‒93 102 65‒67, 92‒93, 104, 110 92‒93, 126‒127 40 94, 109, 126 93 94 37, 94 94‒97 31, 77 40 66 104 182 95 94‒95 94, 107 18, 37, 94‒95 95, 126 125 68 22 22 21, 42 31 95 95‒96, 116 95 93 126 22 95, 105 95, 126 96 95‒98, 116, 126 106 95, 126, 187

14:49 14:51‒52 14:53‒15:1 15:2‒15 15:16‒41 15:21 15:24‒30 15:34 15:39 15:40‒41 15:42‒47 15:76 16:1‒8 16:1 16:9‒20

40, 42 97, 105, 109 97, 113, 187 97‒98 97, 99 105, 109 42 111 86, 99 99, 105, 110 97, 99 98 97, 99‒101, 126 100, 104, 110 18, 100

Luke (/Q) 1:1 1:1‒4 1:5 2:21,39 3:1‒2 3:3 3:7‒4:13 4:2 4:16‒30 4:22 4:40 5:17‒19 5:29 6:5 6:17‒49 6:40 6:49 7:1‒10 7:2‒5 7:18‒35 7:22 7:27 8:1 9:1‒6 9:10‒17 9:50 10:1‒12 10:2 10:12‒15 10:21‒22 10:23‒24 11:14‒15 11:21 11:23 11:29‒32

15 2, 5, 22, 141‒143, 186, 193 22 117 114 97 69 101 125 22, 125 55 60 62 120 36 68 30 52, 71, 103 32 68 22, 70, 71 41 22 68 88 92 68 67 68 68 74 32, 66, 104 31 74, 92 31

216

Index of Ancient Sources

11:29 11:37‒41 12:2‒12 12:54‒56 13:15 14:5 14:26‒27 17:6 17:33 18:15‒17 18:21 18:29 19:38 21:13 22:64 24:2 24:5 24:12 24:23‒33 24:52‒53

74 123 68 31 120 120 68 90 68 92 92 22 93 22 98 100 100 187 100 102

John 2:1‒11 7:21‒23 9:35 20:2‒10 20:14‒18 20:18‒21:25 20:31 21:1‒23 21:25

108 117 66 187 101 100 2, 143 187 166

Acts 1:18‒19 1:20 7:42 10:37‒42 13:24‒31 19:19

33,105 182 182 18 18 182

Romans 1:17 2:16

150 22

3:10‒18 4:7‒8 9:26 9:27‒28 9:29 9:33 10:5 10:8 10:11 10:15 10:18 11:26‒27 12:20 15:12

152‒153 149 149 154 149 151‒152 150‒151 155 151‒152 22, 155 149 155‒156 149 156

1 Corinthians 1:20 3 1:31 153 12:28 3 15:1‒8 22 Galatians 3:11‒12 4:27

150‒151 149

Ephesians 4:11

3

Philippians 4:3 182 Colossians 4:16

19

1 Timothy 3:13

131

Hebrews 10:38

150

James 5:12

33

C. Early Christian Writings Apostolic Fathers Didache 141

Shephard of Hermas 141

217

Index of Ancient Sources Clement of Alexandria Quis Dives Salvetur 5.1 18 Epiphanius Panarion 186 Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15‒17 2, 11, 129, 143, 187‒188 5.8.2‒3 2, 188 6.25.4‒5 2 Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.11.7 18 Justin 1 Apology 66.3

Origen Commentary on John 10.2 186 6 186 14‒15 186 Tertullian Against Marcion 4.2.2 186 Nag Hammadi The Gospel of Thomas 13 190 The Dialogue of the Saviour 124 190 The Wisdom of Jesus Christ 92‒94 190

23

D. Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period Josephus Jewish Antiquities Preface 137 8:141‒146 146 8:147‒149 146 10:220‒226 146 Against Apion 1:73‒74 145 1:82 147 1:83‒84 145‒146 1:91 145 1:93 145 1:103 145 1:105 146 1:107 146 1:112 145 1:113‒115 146 1:116 145 1:117‒120 146 1:135‒141 146 1:146 145 1:156‒158 146 1:168 145 1:169‒170 147 1:176 145 1:205 147

1:229 1:237

146 145

Pseudo-Philo Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 2:6‒10 170 9:8 170 10:4‒5 170 12:3 170 18:2 170 21:5 170 24:6 170 25:5 170 33:6 170 40:5‒7 170 51:6 170 59:4 170 60:2‒3 170 61:9 170 64:1 170 Qumran The Damascus Document 3.21 117 4.13 117 7.19 117

218 The Temple 47:7‒10 49:7‒10 51:11‒18 52:11‒12

Index of Ancient Sources Scroll 161 161 161 161

53:5‒6 53:1‒54:21 56:12‒59:21 60:16‒66:11 66:8‒11

161 158‒160 158 158 161

E. Graeco-Roman Authors Aristotle Rhetoric 1.5‒6 1.9.33 2

172 137 172

Cicero On Public Speaking 2.62 137 2.64 137 14.47 172 Diogenes Laertius Diogenes of Sinope 29 Herodotus History 1.108‒113

169

Hesiod Theogony 453‒479

169

Livy History of Rome Preface 136‒137 Lucian Demonax 29

How to Write History 6 139 9 140 34 140 40 138 44 140 47‒48 139 Pliny Letters 7.17.15 7.20.1

140 139

Plutarch The Dinner 151F 138 Quintilian The Institutes of Oratory 2.2 138 2.10 138 2.14 138 2.24 138 2.28 138 3.7 139 3.18‒22 139 3.32‒33 139 4.1.5 101 Sophocles Oedipus the King 413 111 994‒1046 169

Index of Modern Authors Aland, B. 100, 118, 183 Alexander, L. 14, 18, 81, 112, 142, 180‒ 181, 187 Allen, W. 4, 48, 52, 59, 64‒65, 83, 103, 110‒111, 113, 117 Allison, D. 12, 27, 81, 142, 181‒183 Aune, D. E. 1, 18‒21, 23, 79, 104, 129,181, 183, 185, 190 Avemarie, F. 97, 102, 123 Bacon, B. W. 2‒3, 5, 9, 127, 191 Balzer, K. 20 Barclay, J. M. 144‒147 Bauckham, R. 2, 6, 142‒143, 164, 170, 80, 186, 188, 190 Bauer, D. 5, 81 Beaton, R. 52, 178 Beavis, M.A. 19 Becker, E.-M. 2, 20, 142, 176‒177 Benoit, P. 43 Betz, H. D. 36‒37, 189 Belzikian, G. 19 Bonnard, P. 5‒6, 26, 42, 53, 55, 58, 64, 93, 107, 115, 124 Boring, M. E. 43 Bornkamm, G. 3‒5, 56 Bovon, F. 142, 171 Bowman, J. 19, 193 Braumann, G. 58, 116 Brooke, G. J. 158 Brown, J. P. 16‒17 Bultmann, R. 21, 81, 87 Burridge, R. 7, 19, 141 Byrskog, S. 105, 143 Carrington, P. 19 Carter, W. 127 Chilton, B. 142, 166, 189 Collins, A. 15‒17, 20, 83, 100 Cope, O. L. 3, 43, 143, 193 Creed, J. M. 171 Crossley, J. 15

Davies, W. D. & Allison, D. C. 2, 6, 12, 16, 32, 33, 37‒38, 42, 51‒54, 58, 60, 62, 64‒65, 70, 78, 81, 83‒84, 87, 90‒ 91, 93, 98‒99, 103, 105, 107, 109, 112‒113, 116‒117, 122, 128, 130, 158, 181‒182 Deines, R. 44, 80, 89, 126 Derrenbacker, R. A. 48, 51, 55, 130, 134, 168, 180 Descamps, A. 16, 35, 105, 113, 116, 177 Devisch, M. 24 Dihle, A. 19 Dobschütz, E. von 4‒5 Dodd, C. H. 17 Dorandi, T. 134 Downing, F. G. 29‒30, 130, 133, 142, 164, 166, 171‒173 Drury, J. 25 Dunn, J. D. G. 35 Esler, P. 7, 194 Evans, C. 22, 181 Farrer, A. 6, 194 Feldmann, L. 144 Finch, R. G. 19 Fishbane, M. 192 Fleddermann, H. 17, 26‒32 Foakes-Jackson, F. J. 165 Foster, P. 36 France, R.T. 12, 42, 129, 170, 178, 181 Frankemölle, H. 7, 22, 181 Freyne, S. 1, 7, 16, 58, 99, 114, 118, 177, 185 Fuller, R. 167‒168 Gaboury, A. 48 Gaechter, P. 181 Gamble, H. 24, 36, 45, 130‒132 Gatzweiler, K. 58, 110 Gnilka, J. 2, 65 Goodacre, M. 4, 9, 30, 184

220

Index of Modern Authors

Goulder, M. D. 3, 5‒6, 15, 19, 25, 39, 51, 91, 107, 113, 116‒117, 133, 172, 178, 180, 186‒187,194 Guilding, A. 19 Gundry, R. H. 5, 27, 34, 36, 42, 45, 65, 83, 87, 91, 93, 95,107, 122 Gutschmid, A. von 145 Hagner, D. 178 Haines-Eitzen, K. 3, 10, 136 Harrington, D.J. 169 Heckel, T. 6, 31, 34, 80, 102, 190‒191 Heil, C. 30 Held, H. J. 4‒5, 10, 58, 64‒65, 110, 116, 192 Hengel, M. 5, 15‒16, 23, 25‒26, 48, 94, 166, 174, 182, 187, 189, 190 Henshaw, T. 72 Herbert, G. 127 Hezser, C. 131 Hill, D. 187 Holtzmann, H. 189 Horsley, R. & Draper, J. & Foley, J. 21 Hurtado, L. 131‒132

Linnemann, E. 10 Lohmeyer, E. 16 Lord, A. 35, 104 Luce, T. J. 133 Lührmann, D. 1 Luz, U. 2‒3, 7‒8, 10‒11, 13, 15, 20, 26‒27, 32, 35, 42, 47‒52, 58, 64, 66‒67, 70, 78, 80‒81, 87, 98, 104, 107, 113, 116, 120, 122, 166, 174, 181, 190

Inowlocki, S. 145

MacDonald, D. 15, 88, 111 Mack, B. 8, 11, 28, 47, 50, 135 Maclean, J. 192 Marcus, J. 16 Mason, T. W. 70 Mayordomo-Marín, M. 169 Meier, J. P. 2, 35, 158, 187 Menken, M. 39‒40, 42, 44, 188 Meredith, A. 189 Metso, S. 141, 169‒171, 174 Michel, O. 153 Momigliano, A. 141 Moo, D. 43 Morris, L. 19 Moule, C. F. D. 113 Müller, M. 189

Jewett, R. 150‒151, 153‒155 Johnson, S. E. 164 Jones, C. W. 136 Jülicher, A. 30

Neirynck, F. 7, 27, 29, 47‒48, 70‒72, 103, 176 Nolland, J. 142 North, J. L. 39

Kähler, M. 20 Kealy, S. 25, 177 Keck, L. 16‒17 Kee, H. C. 16 Kelber, W. 20 Kennedy, G. 22, 41, 103, 167‒168, 191 Kieffer, R. 2 Kirk, A. 1, 13, 35, 50, 192 Kloppenborg, J. 26, 28‒30, 110, 191 Koch, D.-A. 149, 151, 153‒155, 157 Koester, H. 17‒18, 20, 22‒23, 25, 103, 182 Konradt, M. 37, 39, 59, 80, 87, 98, 102 Kühl, E. 154 Kürzinger, J. 105

O’Leary, A. 2, 9‒10, 19, 23‒24, 40, 48, 81, 116, 129‒130, 132, 135‒136, 168, 175, 185 Olrik, A. 58 Orton, D. 3 Overbeck, F. 18 Overman, A. 3

Lambrecht, J. 28 Last, R. 7, 50 Lindars, B. 154 Lindemann, A. 150

Payne, P. 42‒43, 180‒181, 183 Pelling, C. B. R. 133, 165, 167 Perrin, N. 20 Petersen, S. 1, 22‒23 Porter, S. 115 Rajak, T. 144 Reinach, T. 146‒147 Richards, E. R. 149 Riches, J. 187 Rist, J. 178, 189 Robbins, V. 169

Index of Modern Authors

221

Roberts, C. H. 132 Robinson, James M. 2, 8, 11, 28, 36, 48‒52, 69‒72, 75, 81, 103, 109, 191 Robinson, John A. T. 25 Rohrbaugh, R. 16 Roth, W. 42 Russell, D. A. 167

Stein, R. H. 9, 112 Stendahl, K. 38‒39, 42, 169 Strack, H. & Billerbeck, P. 98 Strecker, G. 15, 42, 82, 106, 193 Streeter, B. H. 3, 5, 24, 32, 186‒187, 190 Stuhlmacher, P. 22 Swanson, D. 158, 162

Saldarini, A. 3, 190 Sanders, E. P. 3, 110, 113, 118, 178 Sanders, J. A. 38 Sato, M. 28‒29, 168 Schaller, B. 37 Schiffman, L. 157‒162 Schmidt, K. L. 18 Schmithals, W. 22 Schniewind, J. 17, 22 Schulz, S. 20, 22, 176 Schwarz, S. 144 Schweizer, E. 2 Schwemer, A. M. 20 Segbroeck, F. van 39, 42 Senior, D. 115, 128, 185 Shellard, B. 142 Shiner, W. 21, 165, 167, 169 Sim, D. 2‒3, 6, 10, 13‒14, 27, 88, 117, 124, 126‒127, 174, 176‒178, 180, 183‒185, 190, 193 Small, J. 134 Smith, D. E. 182 Stanley, C. 149‒156 Stanton, G. 2, 4, 7, 9, 14, 17, 29, 32, 38, 41‒42, 48‒49, 81, 101, 109, 112, 115, 118, 126‒127, 142, 175, 179‒180,183, 190‒192 Stark, R. 2 Steck, O. 49 Stegemann, H. 158

Tagawa, K. 9, 187 Talbert, C. H. 17, 133 Talmon, S. 136, 171‒172 Taylor, V. 103 Thackery, H. St. J. 172 Theissen, G. 16 Thomas,C. 20, 128 Tobin, T. 150 Tuckett, C. 3, 26 Vahrenhorst, M. 37 Vander Kam, J. 171 Viviano, B. 2‒3, 38 Villalba i Varneda, P. 144 Vollmer, H. A. 153 Wagner, J. 149,151‒156 Weitzmann, S. 135 Wilckens, U. 150‒151, 155 Wilk, F. 151‒156 Wilson, A. M. & Wills, L. 158 Windisch, H. 174 Wire, A. C. 21 Wischmeyer, O. 21, 23, 113 Wood, H. G. 3 Wrede, W. 111‒112 Wright, N. T. 30 Youngquist, L. 9, 47‒48, 118

Index of Subjects Mark’s Gospel ‒ text 15‒17 ‒ status 1, 11‒12, 23‒25, 47‒51, 78‒80, 117‒128, 186‒189, 190‒194 Matthew ‒ the scribe 1‒4, 45‒46, 128 The Baptist 18, 27, 32, 40‒41, 52, 68, ‒ M material 32‒38, 101‒107 72, 84, 101, 127, 161, 164, 184 ‒ attitude to Mark 7‒12, 78‒80, 117‒128, 173‒174, 183‒186, 190‒194 Citation of Written Sources Miracle Accounts ‒ In Contemporary Literature 144‒163 ‒ Markan 52‒67 ‒ Rôle of Memory 4, 35‒36, 51, 55‒59, ‒ Q 54, 65‒67, 104 62‒65, 68, 134, 148, 149‒157, 162, ‒ M 65‒67, 86, 104 164‒169, 174 The Mission Discourse 27, 32‒33, 37‒38, 62, 67‒70, 75, 77, 80, 84, 92, 95, 109, 114, Early Christian Communities 1‒3, 6‒8, 12, 16, 24‒26, 35, 38, 47‒51, 69, 77, 101, 162, 164, 168, 176 105, 108, 127, 141‒144, 165, 172‒174, Parables 18, 83‒84 176‒177, 185, 187‒193 The Passion 18, 20, 42, 77, 79, 95‒100, 104‒105, 164, 176‒177 Gospels Peter 25, 34, 54, 60, 85‒86, 89‒91, 98, 113, ‒ εὐαγγέλιον 21‒23, 181‒182 122, 125, 176, 179, 187‒188 ‒ genre 17‒23, 28‒30, 183 ‒ composition 1, 4, 14‒15, 38‒42, Q 44‒46, 81‒82, 100‒128, 129, 141‒144 ‒ text 26‒28 ‒ status 30‒32, 47‒51, 69‒72, 79‒80 Jewish Scripture in Matthew ‒ logia 31, 70, 72‒78 ‒ the Law 43‒44, 117‒124, 184‒185, 188 Redaction Criticism 1, 4‒10, 14‒15, 24, 48, ‒ the Prophets 39, 42‒43, 54‒55, 62, 78, 82, 112, 129, 131, 135, 162, 165, 175, 75, 122‒123 178 John 2, 16, 18, 23, 66, 96, 100‒102, 108, 117, 143, 166, 170, 174, 186 The Sermon 30, 36‒37, 49, 52‒53, 68‒72, 84, 103, 114, 176, 191 Luke ‒ Evangelist 1‒2, 4‒5, 21, 22‒25, 129, 166, 174, 176‒177, 186, 193‒194 ‒ Prologue 101, 141‒144, 165, 169, 193, 186 ‒ Redaction of Mark 16‒17, 44, 55, 60, 62, 66‒68, 75, 83‒84, 90‒92, 96, 98, 100, 170‒174, 188 Ancient Literature ‒ Guidelines from Authors 136‒141 ‒ Modern Research 130‒136 ‒ Book Production 164‒169