WEMTC - TM201B - MatthewGloucester, 15 January 2004

‘The genesis of the book: an introduction to Matthew’s Gospel’

HOW?SourcesHow to explain the pattern of similarities and differences that is found in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke - so called because you can view them laid out in parallel columns: syn - with, opsis = look at)? Why does this matter for Matthew - because if we have a better idea of the sources Matthew has we can understand much more clearly what Matthew does to them and why.

Consensus is that there is a literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke. Why?1

Similarities of wording - look at the two examples below:

Triple Tradition (stories shared by Matthew/Mark/Luke)2

Matthew 9. 9 Mark 2.14 Luke 5. 27

And having passed on And having passed on Andfrom there, Jesus saw a he saw Levi son of he saw a tax-collectorman Alphaeus named Leviseated in the tax-office, seated in the tax-office, seated in the tax-office,named Matthew, and he and he and hesays to him, 'Follow me'. says to him, 'Follow me'. said to him, 'Follow me'.And And And having left everythinghaving arisen, he having arisen, he and having arisen, hefollowed him. followed him. followed him.

Double Tradition (stories shared by Matthew/Luke)

Mt 3.7-10 Luke 3. 7-9'Offspring of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Bear fruit therefore worthy of repentance and do not presume to say in yourselves, "We have Abraham as father"; for I say to you that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Already the axe is laid at the root of the trees; for every tree not producing good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire'.

'Offspring of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Bear fruit therefore worthy of repentance and do not begin to say in yourselves, "We have Abraham as father"; for I say to you that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Already the axe is laid at the root of the trees; for every tree not producing good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire'.

1 See Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: a way through the maze, Sheffield Academic Press 2001.

2 If by some unusual turn of chance you ever want to know more about the relative ordering of triple tradition material in Matthew and Mark see Davies and Allison, Matthew, (Vol. 1), pp. 100-101. 80% of Mark's verses are in Matthew. Matthew lacks only: Mk 1.23-28 (synagogue at Capernaum); 1.35-38 (withdrawal of Jesus); 3.20-21 (crowd presses); 4.26-29 (seed growing secretly); 5.4-5 (demoniac's fetters); 8.22-26 (blind man of Bethsaida); 9.15-16 (exchange between Jesus and crowd); 9.21-24 (exchange between Jesus and father); 9.38-40 (strange exorcist); 9.49-50 (salt); 12.41-44 (widow's mite); 14. 51-52 (young man at arrest).

Jacob Knee 9/1/04

1

Similarity of order - i.e. way that Matthew, Mark and Luke place one story after another in their texts

An example that covers a little above chapter in Matthew and shows agreements in ordering Triple Tradition material.

Matthew Mark Luke Event

16.13-20 8.27-30 9.18-21 Peter's Confession16.21-23 8.31-33 9.22 Prediction of the Passion16.24-28 8.34-9.1 9.23-27 On Discipleship17.1-8 9.2-8 9.28-36 Transfiguration17.9-13 9.9-13 Coming of Elijah17.14-20 9.14-29 9.37-43a Healing of an Epileptic17.22-23 9.30-32 9.43b-45 Second Passion Prediction17.24-27 Temple Tax18.1-5 9.33-37 9.46-48 Dispute about Greatness

9.38-41 9.49-50 Strange Exorcist18.6-9 9.42-48 On Offences

The relative placing of Double Tradition material (i.e. the stories that Matthew/Luke only share) is much more varied.3 We'll see this when we look at one of the most famous of the stories that Matthew and Luke only share - namely the Sermon on the Mount/Sermon on the Plain.

Explanation

Numerous theories have attempted to account for the extremely complicated literary relationships between Matthew, Mark and Luke (the Synoptic Problem). By far the most common in contemporary scholarship is

The Two Source Theory

Matthew

2

Luke3

3 If you ever want a list of the double tradition material (sometimes called Q material) and it's placement in Matthew and Luke see Davies and Allison, Matthew, (Vol. 1), pp. 117-118. We will also be looking at it when we think together about the Sermon on the Mount.

Jacob Knee 9/1/04

Its principal competitor in the United States is

The Griesbach Theory

Matthew

Mark

Luke

Whilst in England it is given a run for its money by

The Farrer Theory

Mark

Luke

Mattheww

Nevertheless the consensus position for most of the last 100 years has been the Two Source Theory.

What is the upshot?

In Matthean studies it can matter greatly what decision you come to on these source issues (i.e. it will strongly affect you view of the date, provenance, and theology of Matthew as well as deeply influence the way you might use it to reconstruct the 'historical Jesus').

a. if you argue Mark wrote first (i.e. Markan Priority) and Matthew then used him(Two Source and Farrer)

b. if you argue Matthew was the first Gospel (i.e. Matthean Priority) and Markthen used him(Griesbach)

By far the majority position is the former and I'll assume it from now on.4 However feel free to argue otherwise if you like!

4 For what its worth I am minded to agree with this quote, sharply describing the pattern of Markan redactional omissions and additions that result if you accept the Griesbach theory, from W. D. Davies and D. Allison, Matthew, (Vol 1), p109:

Can one seriously envision someone rewriting Matthew and Luke so as to omit the miraculous birth of Jesus, the sermon on the mount, and the resurrection appearances, while, on the other hand, adding the tale of the naked young man, a healing miracle in which Jesus has trouble healing, and the remark that Jesus family thought him mad?

Jacob Knee 9/1/04

Other Sources

Material in Matthew that is not shared either with Mark or Luke is usually called Special Matthew (M).5

These are the stories and sayings that are unique to Matthew's Gospel and if you were to look in a Synopsis you would find them printed in Matthew's column only.

Earlier scholars (eg Streeter) proposed that M was a single written document but this is rarely affirmed in contemporary scholarship due to:

1. the understanding that there almost certainly oral, and most likely written, sources thatMatthew used that, at the moment, we have no knowledge of,

2. the heightened contemporary awareness of the Gospel authors themselves as creativewriters and

3. the dissimilarity among the sayings in material unique to Matthew so that it becomesdifficult to imagine them as part of a single coherent text.

A non-biblical example

In November 1990 Roy Hanney was tried for alleged offenses relating to the Poll Tax riot earlier that year. Two police constables submitted statements they swore were written independently on 31 March 19906.

The following are the beginnings of their accounts

PC EGAN: We were deployed on a short shield cordon attempting to push a violent crowd of 500 plus north in Charing Cross Road, WC1. All the timewe were under prolonged attack of missiles consisting ofbricks, bottles, pieces of concrete and coins. The order was given to charge into the extremely violent crowd. As we moved forward I saw a man whom I now know to be Roy Hanney. He was wearing an army-type jacket which was zipped up, and he had closely shaven fair hair. As he came to the front of the crowd I saw him shouting something at us which I could not hear, due to the noise of the crowd. I then saw Hanney pull his right arm back and throw what appeared to be a lump of concrete into the police cordon.'

PC RAMSAY: 'We were deployed as a short shield unit forming a cordon attempting to push a violent crowd of about 500 plus north in Charing Cross Road.

We were under constant fire from numerous missiles including bricks, bottles, sticks and metal bars. The order was given to charge into a violent crowd, as we moved forward, I noticed a man I now know to be Roy Hanney. He had a close-cropped head and an army combat jacket on.

He came to the forefront of the crowdshouting and swearing at us.I could not make out what he was saying buthe shouted it in an aggressive manner.I then noticed him draw back his right armand throw what appeared to be abrickinto the police cordon.Myself and PC Egan ran forward with otherofficers towards Hannev.'

5 If you are feeling spectacularly keen and want to glance at a list of M material see Davies and Allison, Matthew (Vol 1), pp.122-124 (see bibliography)

6 Observer 11/11/1990 reprinted in John Riches, Matthew (see bibliography)

1. If you were a member of the jury how much weight would these statements carry in deciding the guilt or innocence of Roy Hanney?

2. Would you agree with someone who argued that having two statements that are so similar more strongly confirms Mr. Hanney's guilt?

3. How would you be inclined to explain the pattern of similarities and differences in the two accounts?

Forms

As scholars examined the sources of the Gospel texts they became increasingly aware that behind the written texts of the Gospels and they presumed behind the written texts of their sources lay the oral traditions of early Christians. They couldn't use source criticism to analyse them and yet if it were possible to explore these oral taditions and their development it would permit us:

1. to greatly increase our understanding of the ways early Christians used traditions about Jesus. The pre-Gospel settings in which oral 'forms' of early Christian tradition were used is know in scholarship as its sitz im leben ('setting in life').

2. to have a method with which to understand better the origin of Christian traditions - and so open the possibility to better understanding 'the historical Jesus'.

New Testament form criticism was developed by German scholars in the years after World War One. 7

They identified varieties of internal literary structure shared across the various kinds of material in the synoptic Gospels. It was these structures that they called 'form'. To give an example, there are a good number of stories in which an opponent is presented as putting a question to Jesus or challenging him. Jesus then responds and the reader is left understanding that the response was effective. These passages collectively constitute the form which is called 'controversy dialogue'.

So form criticism demands:

1. a comparison of all the examples of the form in the synoptic gospels (and in relevant comparable literature - eg controversy dialogue in rabbinic literature)

2. analysis of each individual passage noticing its component parts in 'formal terms'. Is it unitary or is it a mixed form?

3. Suggestions for possible early contexts? (i.e when would this kind of form have been useful to early Christians and could it have arisen in the life of Jesus)

Fundamental Assumptions

A great many gospel traditions can be separated from the narrative framework whichintroduces and concludes them (eg to pick a saying: 'if a blind man leads a blind man both willfall into a pit' (Matt. 15.15//Lk. 6.39) is in Matthew directed against the Pharisees and set in thecontext of a debate over Pharisaic tradition whilst in Luke is directed to the disciples and set inthe context of the 'sermon on the plain'). So it looks as if many traditions circulated separately inearly Christian communities before being combined by the Gospel writers or by the writtensources they used. The Gospels shouldn't been seen, for the most part, as chronological

biographies but rather collections of disparate kinds of material. Viewed in this way formcriticism, so to say, disassembles the Gospels to try to learn more about the history of what camebefore them.

7 Principal authors were Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (E.T. from second German edition, 1933; first edition 1919); Martin Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, (E.T. from second German edition, 1931, first edition 1921) and, with Karl Kundsin, Form Criticism: Two Essays on NewTestament Research (1934)

Each 'form' serves a function. Early Christians preserved traditions about Jesus because theyfound them useful. (Hence the absence of stories about Jesus' looks or about his childhood oradult life prior the beginning of his ministry). The 'forms' arise because they suit typical (i.e.repeated) situations in the life of early Christian communities.

Bultmann and Dibelius thought that the 'forms' begin as 'pure' (either in the life of Jesus or in the life of the church) and over time acquire other material according to regular patterns (almost in the way a ship acquires barnacles as it sails through the ocean). By understanding these patterns the form critics claimed to be able to scrape off what was 'formally' later - like cleaning the hull of the ship.9 So form critics claimed to be able to lay out the tradition-history of passages. (This process is sometimes called tradition criticism).

What is the upshot

Reminder not to interpret the Gospels out of context. Relevant parallels may be 'formal' as well as linguistic, thematic and historical. The 'form' of different stories, sayings, dialogues, miracles (etc) needs to be respected when trying to understand what the text is saying, (eg story of rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. 19-31 in formal terms very similar to parable - may be mistaken to interpret it as an event that happened or as a painstakingly accurate description of the afterlife).

Gospels not necessarily structured chronologically - forms teach us to look for topical, thematic, catchword or formal structuring.

Assumptions of form critics invite us to ask - why and how did early Christians transmit traditions. What about the presence of eye witness testimony?

Contemporary comparison

a. Do you think that spoken jokes might be a kind of parallel to the kind of oral tradition thatthe form critics are trying to explain? Some jokes seem to have been shaped according to aregular structure (eg the 'how many ...to change a lighbulb' jokes or the jokes that begin'two men walked into a pub...'). For other jokes the preamble seems more or less irrelevantthe whole point is the punch line. Do some jokes work because we expect a certain 'formalstructure' that the joke subverts - e.g. a joke where we expect a punchline - that has nopunchline. What do you think?

b. What about urban myths or the stories that do the rounds on the internet? Do you think itmight be possible to categorise them according to various shared forms? Why do you thinkthey are told and re-told? Do you think the telling of them actually shapes the story?

c. Can you think of any better modern parallels?

8 It's worth noting that the leading British form critic, Vincent Taylor, argued exactly the opposite. He though that, like pebbles washed smooth in a stream, the stories, sayings (etc) start as 'impure forms' (i.e. rough stones) and only through usage were conformed to well known and popular forms. Does this fairly fundamental disagreement undermine the use of form criticism - what do you think?9 There is no universally agreed list of form critical categories - though there are broad similarities. For an excellent brief introduction have a look at Joel B. Green (et. al.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, pp. 243 - 244

Jacob Knee 9/1/04

Redaction10

Building upon source criticism and form criticism in the years following World War Two, German biblical scholars11 came to recognise that it was useful and interesting to ask not only about:

the sources of the Gospels, (source criticism)

the forms of the individual elements and their histories, (form criticism) but also about

why the final editors (often called redactors in the scholarly literature) of the Gospels created their stories as they did. Why they combined their sources in the particular way that they did (redaction criticism).

Form critics had imagined the final stage of Gospel production in passive terms as an almost mechanical stitching together done by anonymous communities.

The redaction critics came to see

the final stage of Gospel production as creative as each Gospel author (redactor) synthesised thetraditions from the past with the aim of speaking to the present

So redaction criticism concerns itself with

understanding the intention of the final editor of the Gospel as seen in their creative reworking oftraditional materials.

so throwing light on the situation of the Christian community for which it is presumed they wrote.

How?

Redaction critics have generally worked by presuming a solution to the problem of the sources of the Gospel text (the synoptic problem) - most commonly the Two Source Theory.12

This allows them to study the alterations13 which the Evangelists have made to their sources.

They then ask why have such alterations been made? There will be many reasons - eg stylistic improvements, linguistic preferences or competences - but redaction critics are especially interested in discovering consistent patterns in the editorial activity of the Evangelists and using them to suggest theological interests of the Evangelist (and/or the community for which the Gospel is being written).

Identification of such patterns and the theological and practical interests they serve will permit a deepened understanding of the context of the local Christian community that the Gospel is intended to speak to.

10 Redaction is the English form of the word German redaktion. It means editing. Its use is a sign of the enormousprestige and influence of German biblical scholars at this period in biblical scholarship.11 The most important early redaction critics wrote in the wake of Bultmann's work on form criticism and bothpresumed and built on his 'results'. If you are curious about early redaction critics work in relation to Matthew see G.

Bornkamm, G. Barth and H.J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, ET 1963 (from second German edition1961; first edition 1960).12 Thus if you argue for the Griesbach theory redaction criticism on Matthew becomes more difficult as you have noprior sources to hand with which to compare Matthew's editorial activity. It may not be impossible to do but it certainlyis rarely attempted.13 As redaction criticism has developed it has moved from only identifying patterns of change as indicators of theEvangelist's interests and theological tendencies to studying both what is kept from sources unchanged and what isaltered and asking why. This is sometimes called composition criticism.

Jacob Knee 9/1/04

What's the upshot

Redaction criticism was the beginning of the contemporary move towards wholistic interpretation ofthe Gospels as we have them. Rather than dis-assembling the texts into sources or forms, redaction critics asked why was the text we have, the way it is.

Emphasised the Evangelists are creative theological writers and the Gospels are theological texts.Reminded both church and scholars that 'story' is itself a deeply important theological category.

Continued the search to contextualise the Gospels in the life of early Christian communities. So theGospels not seen as abstract ideals but speaking to real communities and their needs.

Matt 15.10-2010And

he called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: nnot what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." 12Then the disciples

came and saidto him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?" 13 He answered, "Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. 14Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit." 15But Peter said to him, "Explain the parable to us."And he said, "Are you also stillwithout understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth

passes into the stomach,and so passes on?

18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man.19 For out of the heartcome evil thoughts,murder, adultery, fornication, theft,false witness,

slander.20 These are

what defilea man; but to eat with unwashed handsdoes not defile a man.

Mark 7.14-23

14And he called the people to him again, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him." 17And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him

about the parable.18And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him,19 since it enters, not his heart but

his stomach,and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20And he said, "What comes out of a man

is what defiles a man.21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts,fornication, theft, murder, adultery, 22cov-eting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23A11 these evil things come from within, and they defilea man

Luke

6.3939He also told them a parable:

"Can a blind man leada blind man? Will they not both fall intoa pit?

Read each story separately:

What would you say Mark's story is about?

What would you say Matthew's story is about?

Look at them together and notice both what's different and what's similar:

What are the differences you notice between the story as it's told in Matthew, Mark and Luke

Assume (for arguments sake!) Matthew knows and has used Marks's version of the story.

Do the similarities and differences help you to understand more about Matthew's theologyor the situation of the community he or she is writing for?

Narrative/Literary

Source, form and redaction criticism all originated in the desire to understand more deeply the historical circumstances of the gospel texts. They aim to cast light upon the setting (sitz im leben) of Christian tradition at the various stages of its production and use:

1. in the life of Jesus2. in the oral traditions of early Christian communities3. in the communities in which the final gospel text was produced

But redaction criticism's claim that the Evangelists should be understood as creative synthesisers of tradition, not just mechanical compilers, maybe not even just editors but, in some sense, creative authors14 opened the door to understanding the texts they produced as being, in themselves, capable of literary analysis.

Literary critics began to look at the texts with an eye not to answering historical questions but literary ones, such as:

what is the story's plot? how are characters developed? what effect does the story have on its readers? why does it have this effect?

Literary critics took further redaction criticisms analysis of the final form of the text - no longer viewed as a way of throwing historical light on early Christian communities and their theologies - but instead seen as coherent narratives in themselves to be interpreted in their own terms (i.e. in terms of plot, character, literary structure, etc..)

How?

There are a multiplicity of methods used to interpret the gospels in ways that that could be called literary structuralism deconstruction reader response narrative criticism

Broadly they share the characteristics of focusing on the finished form of the text seeing the text as an end in itself interpreting the text as an act of communication

An example - narrative criticism:

Narrative critics have argued that it is impossible for us to know either the intention of the original ('historical') author of the text nor the reactions of its first ('historical') readers/hearers. As historical facts these are outside the limits of our knowledge - because we simply cannot know what was going on in their minds.

Nevertheless we can speak of an implied reader who is presupposed by the narrative and whose anticipated responses the narrative points towards (e.g the implied reader is anticipated to trust the words of Jesus - the

responses of actual readers seem to have varied!)

Likewise we can speak of an implied author who is also presupposed by the narrative - whose intentions can be discerned in the way the narrative works (whereas the intentions of the real historical author are lost to us forever).

14 Not in the sense they thought of themselves as writing fiction but rather that the texts they produced can be thought of as whole creative works, rather than mechanical assemblage.

Jacob Knee 9/1/04

The goal of narrative criticism is to read the text as the implied reader. To ask the questions he or she15 asks; to assume what the narrative assumes he or she knows.

In respect of any interpretation the question to be asked is, is there anything in the text that indicates the reader is expected to respond this way?

What's the upshot

1. Literary criticism returns us to the text. As the policemen in films almost used to say it's - 'just the text please, just the text'. It is a text centred method and tries to understand the Bible in its own terms. It might seem more helpful and appropriate to the ways the Bible is actually often used in church communities.16

2. It takes one step further the emphasis on 'story' as a most, perhaps even the most, appropriate category when interpreting the gospels.

3. It can be complementary to historical questions - many critics argue there is no reason why it can't be both/and rather than either/or.

15 Do you think an implied reader could have a specific gender? Could a narrative be written in such a way it's clear the implied reader is male or female (regardless of the gender of the actual reader?). Can you think of any parts of the Bible where the gender of the implied reader is an issue?16Critics have claimed it rescues the 'plain sense' of Scripture. Do you think the 'plain sense' includes a reference to history - i.e to real people and events outside the text?

Jacob Knee 9/1/04

WHO, WHEN, WHERE, WHAT?

Who?

The early church universally attributed the gospel to Matthew the Apostle

What seems to be a quote of the earliest reference to Matthew's Gospel says that:

'Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could'17

What this means isn't at all clear but problems seem to be

a. The Gospel of Matthew isn't written in Hebrew - was Papias referring to another text?

b. Matthew isn't a translation from Hebrew - if the two source theory is right both its majorsources (Mark and Q) are themselves in Greek.

Beyond this

c. The scholarly consensus is that the creative redeployment of tradition that source, form and redaction criticism seem to indicate, very strongly hint that none of the Evangelists was an eyewitness to the events the gospels describe. (This says nothing about whether the gospels contain transmitted eyewitness testimony - how might we recognise eyewitness testimony?) However unless something fundamentally wrong about last 90 years of biblical study then to many seems implausible that any Evangelist was an eyewitness to Jesus life.

If this is right - Matthew the Apostle was probably not the author of the Gospel of Matthew.

Modern consensus that gospels were originally anonymous but relatively shortly after their creation attributed to figures from the past.

Nevertheless maybe the text itself tells us something about the author (the real author not just the implied author!)

Raymond Brown, probably the leading Roman Catholic biblical scholar of the last 30 years, described contemporary scholarship as about four to one in favour of the Evangelist being a jewish-christian (or maybe Christian jew might be better?) Why?

From Matthew's use of the OT it looks likely that he understood Hebrew

Presence of Jewish debates and theology in Gospel18 (e.g. genealogies, infancystories, Moses typology, Sermon on Mount's view of Law, polemic against Jewishleaders)

17 Found in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (3.39), (published 311 - 324 A.D.) but quoting a now lost work by Papias,a Bishop in Hierapolis (in modern Turkey) written somewhere between 125 - 150 A.D. 18 see earlier redaction critical study!

When?

External evidence Some traditions that are only in Matthew or reflect distinctive Matthean redaction of earlier

tradition seem to appear in the Didache (often thought to be late first or early second centuryand from Syria) which seems to know Matthew's version of the Lord Prayer19 and theLetters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (early second century)

So - maybe around 100 A.D. is the cut off point for the final composition of Matthew

Internal evidence

If Matthew used Mark as a source then Matthew has to be after Mark. Mark isoften dated 60 - 70 A.D.

Does Matthew know about the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D). Consensus is that heprobably does (see the Parable of the Great Feat - shared by Luke - into whichMatthew inserts this slightly surprising account of what happened to those guestswho don't come to the wedding: Matt. 22.7, 'The king was angry and sent histroops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city)

If this right then cannot have been written until after 70 A.D.

Summary

Consensus is that Matthew written probably sometime between 70 - 90 A.D.

Where?

No direct evidence either from external or internal sources. Suggestions as varied as Jerusalem, Palestine, Caesarea Maritima, Sepphoris or Tiberias in Galilee, the east of the Jordan at Pella, Edessa, Antioch, and Syria.

Based on text scholars argue that place where text composed

Must have had large enough Jewish population to accommodate both Matthean communityand their Pharisaic rivals

Must be place in which Greek was used as first language

Contemporary consensus is Antioch-on-the-Orontes20. But it's just an educated guess. Might allow us to explain why the earliest apparent references to Matthew are in Ignatius and Didache.

19 And is the first evidence we have for the addition of a doxology at the ending of the Lord's Prayer. It isn't in Matthew. In the Didache it goes, "For yours are the power and the glory for ever". 20 It's now called Antakya and is in the southernmost part of Turkey

What?

Genre

Understanding of genre21 is important in interpreting correctly. In a way, it's just trying to find out more about what sort of book Matthew actually is. A communication that begins 'Dear...' and ends 'Yours sincerely' we expect to be a letter. We interpret 'Vicar gives directions to Queen. Just the opposite' quite differently if we know it to be a crossword clue rather than an account of a conversation

When Matthew's first readers/hearers encountered his text what genre would they have thought it to be and what expectations would they have found affirmed or challenged in what Matthew did?

Would they have made a mistake if they interpreted it as belonging to the genre 'historical fiction' - I think so!22

But do we make a mistake if we interpret it as belonging to the modern genre 'biography'?23

a. because it leads us to expect a chronological narrative from birth to death.Whilst chronology is clearly part of the Gospel narrative (there is a broad flowfrom birth, baptism, call of disciples etc. but there is almost no detailed chronologyuntil the the Passion - which in a way points up its absence in much of the rest of thegospel material) - source, form, redaction and narrative criticism alert us to other waysthat the Evangelists have chosen to structure their material.

b. because we expect biography to give us an insight into the background to anddevelopment of the hero's character, views, and inner life.

For most of the twentieth century scholars claimed that the Gospels were not biographies but that they belonged to a unique genre of gospel. In the last 20 years, with the deepened interest in the narrative and literary qualities of the gospels, several scholars have argued that their genre is Greco-Roman bioi24 or if you want ancient biography.

The problem is that they are similar in some ways (e.g. ancient biographies, like the gospels - but also like most ancient literature - are hardly concerned with character development or psychology - but instead with deeds) but not in others (e.g. the implied reader in Matthew is expected to have a different relation to Jesus that the implied readers do to the subjects of most Greco-Roman biographies).

At the moment there is no consensus and the answer you give may depend on the flexibility of your definition of genre and of your analysis of comparable literature.

Nevertheless it's important to remember that the Gospels would have been both written and received in a literary context - Greco-Roman biography, OT narrative, Mark's Gospel (if you accept the two source theory).

21 You might give a working definition of genre as 'a group of writings that share a set of conventions within a social context'. So genres change, mutate, are born and die over time. F. Kermode has described genre as 'a context of expectation'.22 Interpreting the gospels as 'historical fiction' might seem to be an interpretation that didn't actually listen enough to the otherness of the text.23 People sometimes talk about 'literal' interpretation. One of the strengths of modern biblical scholarship is that it helpsus see that people are often not 'literal' enough. They don't take seriously enough the literary forms and genre of thetraditions that the gospels contain.24 Singular bios, plural bioi. It means Life in Greek.

Structure

Redaction criticism has reminded interpreters, what was always obvious, that gospels are heavily structured documents. The materials are selected, edited, and arranged

Yet there is no consensus on the overall structure of Matthew. This doesn't mean the author didn't have one in his mind (we have no way of knowing if he did or didn't). It just means that if you let hundreds of highly attentive scholars pour over your book for decades - they'll manage to find quite a few structural patterns.

Here are some of the most interesting:

1. Matthew's Gospel is divided into five main teaching discourses26 - each ending with the phrase 'and when Jesus had finished/finished....'. (Notice how it alternates narrative with discourse).

Preamble1 - 2 The birth narrative

3.1-4.25 Narrative5.1 - 7.27 Sermon on the Mount

(7.27 'And when Jesus had finished these sayings...')

8.1-9.35 Narrative9.36 - 10.42 Discourse on mission and martyrdom

(11.1 'And when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples... ')

11.2 — 12.50 Narrative and debate material13.1 - 13.52 Teaching on the kingdom of heaven

(13.53 'And when Jesus had finished these parables...)

13.54 - 17.21 Narrative and debate material 17.22 -18.35 Discourse on the church

(19.1 'Now when Jesus had finished these sayings...)

19.2 - 22.46 Narrative and debate material23.1 - 25.46 Discourse on eschatology; farewell address

(26.1 'When Jesus finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples....)

Epilogue26.3 - 28.20 Last supper to resurrection

The originator of this influential scheme (B.W. Bacon) argued that Matthew structured his Gospel as a deliberate counterpart to the five books of the Torah. Just as Genesis -Deuteronomy consists of 5 books of mixed narration and discourse so Matthew ordered his materials to imitate this structure (and so produce a new Pentateuch?).

See what you think about this as we study the Gospel. But just an initial thought - it looks as if the crucifixion and resurrection is a structural afterthought. Can this be right - you might want to say they are the climax of the gospel?

25 But notice that both Matthew and Luke are in one way very, very conservative editors. If this were not so, tripletradition material and double tradition material would not exist. What they have received seems to have a massivesignificance for both. Yet if we understand anything about their editing and arranging they both also felt free tocreatively adapt, rearrange, and insert.26 Unlike Luke, Matthew inserts most of his double tradition material into these five great chunks. Why might he dothat?

Jacob Knee 9/1/04

2. J. D. Kingsbury agues that key to Matthew's structure is the three times repeated 'fromthat time, Jesus' (at 4.17 and 16.21) that marks the transition from one section to the next 1.1 - 4.16 = person of Jesus Messiah 4.17 - 16.20 = proclamation of Jesus Messiah 16.21- - 28.20 = suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Messiah

Again see what you think as we go on. But is it true that 4.17 and 16.21 mark turning points in the structure of Matthew’s story (rather than more turning points in the life of Jesus) and what do you make of the fact that essentially the same phrase is also used at 26.16?

3. Matthew seems to love threes (not three kings though, they aren't in Matthew's gospel atall). Look out for threes when you read his Gospel - when he can he seems to love tocreate patterns of three eg three sections of his opening genealogy, three threes in thebeatitudes that start the sermon on the mount, three warnings that bring it to an end;three healings plus a comment that start chapter 8, three sayings on little ones that startchapter 18, followed by three sayings on reconciliation, three long eschatologicalparables in ch. 25 and so on). Like any good preacher and appropriately for a gospel thatclimaxes with an instruction to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit -Matthew knows that the best things come in threes!

Next week - Matthew and the Scriptures of Israel

Please read Matthew 1 - 2. It may be helpful to have pen and paper to hand just to jot down your thoughts. If you're really keen you may want to glance at Luke's account of Jesus' birth and his genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3. 23 - 38) just to see things told with different emphases.

These questions may (or may not!) be helpful:

What points does Matthew want to get over in these opening chapters (or if you want interms of narrative criticism what affect does he expect them to have on the implied reader)

Can you see the beginnings of any themes, plots, or theologies that look distinctivelyMatthean.

What's the genealogy all about - could you ever preach on it or use it in a bible study! Howwould you do it?

Jacob Knee 9/1/04