The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (47 page)

Matthew's special references to sacrifice also make the most sense if written before the fall of Jerusalem. Although Matthew permitted Jewish Christians to offer sacrifices in the temple, he consistently portrayed such sacrifices as gifts that expressed gratitude to God rather than rituals that effected atonement. He further taught that Jesus was the fulfillment of Isaiah 53, the Suffering Servant whose sacrificial death accomplished atonement for sin.
²⁹
Matthew's carefully articulated sacrificial theology and particularly his concern for clarifying the significance of temple offerings fit best with a date of composition before 70 when the temple was destroyed and the sacrificial system ended.

Only Matthew contains Jesus' teaching regarding swearing by the temple or its gold (Matt 23:16–22). Such vows meant, “May the temple or related objects be destroyed if I do not fulfill my promise.” Obviously, such vows would be meaningless if the temple had already been destroyed. These clues and many others suggest a date for Matthew sometime prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70.
³⁰

This early date of Matthew is significant for two reasons. First, an early date is more consistent with Matthean authorship than a late first-century date. Second, an early date tends to confirm the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts. If the accounts of Jesus' life and ministry were transmitted orally for several generations before being written down, some details of these accounts might have changed during this period of oral transmission. But if Matthew wrote his Gospel within a few decades of Jesus' lifetime while eyewitnesses
of Jesus' ministry survived, his Gospel arguably preserves accounts of Jesus' life and teachings that are accurate in detail.

Provenance and Destination

Scholars have proposed a variety of theories regarding possible places of origin for Matthew's Gospel. Suggestions include Jerusalem or Palestine, Caesarea Maritima, Phoenicia, Alexandria, Pella, Edessa, Syria, and Antioch. Allison correctly noted: “Given the nature of the available evidence, it is quite impossible to be fully persuaded on the issue at hand. We shall never know beyond a reasonable doubt where the autograph of Matthew was completed.”
³¹

The theories of origin that have gained the most scholarly support view the Gospel as written in either Palestine or Syria. The early church fathers who insisted on a Hebrew or Aramaic original for Matthew probably assumed that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Palestine. Jerome (c. 345–420) specifically identified Judea as the place of authorship.
³²
But the majority of scholars today opt for Syria, more specifically Antioch of Syria, as the place of origin. Several clues support this location. First, Matthew combined both Jewish and Gentile interest, and Antioch had a large Jewish population while also being the hub of Gentile missionary activity. Second, Matthew was first quoted by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (c. 35–110). Third, Matt 17:24–27 describes the official
stater
(an ancient coin of Greek or Lydian origin) as exactly equal to the
didrachmae
or two drachma (another ancient Greek coin). The only two cities known to have placed this exact value on the
stater
are Antioch and Damascus.
³³

The questions of the provenance and destination of this Gospel are closely linked. Scholars who accept a Palestinian provenance generally see the church in Palestine as the intended audience. Likewise, scholars who accept a Syrian provenance generally see the church in Syria as the intended audience.

Regardless of one's view of the provenance and original audience, Matthew's Gospel clearly circulated widely soon after its composition. This is demonstrated by the geographical distribution of early quotations of the book that appear in the writings of Ignatius (c. 35–110; Antioch), Polycarp (c. 69–155; Smyrna), Pseudo-Barnabas (c. 135?; possibly Alexandria), Justin Martyr (c. 100–165; Ephesus), and
2 Clement
(probably Alexandria) in the late first or early second century.
³⁴

Purpose

In part because Matthew's Gospel itself does not include an explicit purpose statement, scholars have suggested a number of possible purposes. Some have proposed that Matthew should be read as a theological rather than a historical document. M. Goulder and R. Gundry argued that Matthew belongs to a genre of literature known as “midrash,” a non-historical genre that wove together narrative motifs from the OT into an imaginative tale that highlighted Jesus' theological Significance.
³⁵
They also claimed that parallels between Matthew's narrative and OT texts indicate that Matthew created stories about Jesus based on scattered OT texts, stories that had no relationship to actual events in Jesus' life. For example, Gundry claimed that Matthew had an angel announce Jesus' birth to Joseph through a dream not because such a dream actually occurred but in order to conform Joseph's experience to the famous dreams of his OT namesake, Joseph the patriarch.
³⁶

Such an analysis of Matthew faces several serious problems. First, the genre of literature to which Goulder and Gundry assign Matthew is not actually “midrash,” which simply referred to biblical interpretation, but what Paul described as “Jewish myth” (Titus 1:14). Paul's adamant rejection of such myths (1 Tim 1:4) makes it unlikely that Matthew would have been so freely and widely accepted by early Christians if it truly were a mere “theological tale.”
³⁷
Second, midrash critics are frequently guilty of what S. Sandmel called “parallelomania,” the tendency to find parallels where there are none.
³⁸
These critics analyze similarities between Matthew's narrative and OT texts but fail to account adequately for differences between these accounts. These differences often make Matthew's dependence on a particular text highly unlikely. Finally, classifications of Matthew as midrash fail to appreciate important features of the Gospel which suggest that Matthew intended to write a historical narrative. In particular, Matthew's insistence that certain events in Jesus' life happened in order to fulfill the OT indicates that Matthew wrote a careful record of actual events.
³⁹

Goulder attempted to combine his assessment of Matthew as midrash with the theory of Matthew as lectionary.
⁴⁰
He contended that the first-century synagogue used an annual lectionary cycle consisting of prescribed OT readings for each Sabbath. Goulder maintained that Matthew was organized so as to correlate with this lectionary cycle. Goulder argued, for example, that the narrative of Jesus' birth in Matthew was based on the fifth
Sabbath lectionary reading (Gen 23—25:18); the visit of the magi on the sixth Sabbath reading (Gen 25:19—28:8); and the slaughter of the innocents on the seventh Sabbath reading (Gen 28:9—31:55).
⁴¹
Goulder's thesis has failed to convince most scholars for several reasons. Scholars have not yet determined whether any lectionary cycle was used in the first-century synagogue, much less the one that Goulder proposed. Moreover, Goulder's own analysis of OT themes in Matthew did more to demonstrate dependence by Matthew on narrative motifs outside of the lectionary readings than in the proposed readings.

Other recent scholars have demonstrated that Matthew's Gospel shares much in common with ancient biographies of revered figures. Matthew is most similar to ancient biographies about the founding figure of a philosophical school. Such biographies demonstrate that the founder was responsible for the insights that defined the movement. They also portrayed the founder as a person whose example was worthy of imitation.
⁴²

Nolland has suggested that Matthew intended to write an account of Jesus' life that paralleled OT accounts of the lives of key figures in the history of Israel. These OT biographies focused not merely on the human figure but also on God and his dealings with Israel. Nolland stated, “The story of Jesus is told as a continuation—indeed, as some kind of culmination—of the long story of God and his people.”
⁴³
He also offered an important qualification to his comparison. Although such OT accounts were designed to link people to a figure from the past, Matthew's concern was to link them to a figure who was still their contemporary, to lead his readers to an encounter with the risen Christ.

Although Matthew did intend to demonstrate that Jesus was the source of the foundational teachings of the church and to commend Jesus' example to his readers, Matthew's primary focus was Jesus' identity. Matthew's Gospel stressed four aspects of Jesus' identity.
⁴⁴
First, Jesus is the Messiah, the long-awaited King of God's people. Second, Jesus is the new Abraham, the founder of a new spiritual Israel consisting of all people who choose to follow him, including both Jews and Gentiles. Third, Jesus is the new Moses, the deliverer and instructor of God's people. Fourth, Jesus is the Immanuel, the virgin-born Son of God who fulfills the promises of the OT. Thus, although Matthew's Gospel is similar in some ways to ancient biographies, it remains distinct. Matthew was concerned not only to preserve Jesus' teachings, record his deeds, or commend his example, but especially to explain who Jesus was. Matthew's Gospel might best be described as a “theological biography,” a historical account of Jesus' life and teachings that explains his spiritual significance.

Although Matthew's Gospel functions primarily as a theological biography, several scholars have pointed out that it has a secondary purpose. The Gospel was written to serve as a manual for discipleship. The subtitle to R. Gundry's massive commentary on
Matthew describes the Gospel as a “handbook for a mixed church under persecution.” Matthew's topical arrangement of lengthy discourses, his emphasis on the ethical demands of the kingdom of God, and especially the climactic statement regarding teaching new disciples to observe all Jesus commands—all of these combine to offer guidance for Christian living.

LITERATURE

Literary Plan

Papias's comments regarding the authorship of Matthew's Gospel have already been discussed above. Papias also contributed a relevant remark to the literary structure of Matthew's Gospel. According to Papias, “Matthew arranged in order the sayings [of Jesus]” (Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist.
3.39). Most likely, Papias meant that Matthew's Gospel had a more orderly arrangement than Mark's. Since Matthew generally shares the same order of pericopes as Mark when the two overlap, Papias probably referred to the fact that Matthew began with a genealogy and an account of Jesus' birth, gave a more thorough treatment of Jesus' postresurrection appearances, and arranged Jesus' teaching into five major sections.
⁴⁵

As shown below, scholars widely agree that the structure of Matthew's Gospel centers on the five major discourses that present the essence of Jesus' teachings (5–7; 10:5–42; 13:1–52; 18:1–35; and 23–25).
⁴⁶
Hence narrative portions and discourse sections alternate in the flow of Matthew's Gospel. Each of these discourses is set off from the adjacent narrative portions by concluding phrases that read roughly as follows: “When Jesus had finished saying these things” (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1).

In keeping with numerical symbolism, these five “books of Jesus” in Matthew's Gospel appear to correspond to the five books of Moses (Genesis to Deuteronomy).Throughout Matthew's Gospel, Jesus is presented as the new Moses whereby the first discourse, the Sermon on the Mount in chapters 5–7, invokes the memory of Moses' receiving the law at Sinai. Beyond this, it is not necessary or advisable to press the content of Jesus' five discourses in Matthew's Gospel into direct conformity to Moses' parting instructions to Israel in Deuteronomy.

Although portions of Matthew's Gospel are clearly arranged topically, the Gospel follows a general chronological order: genealogy, birth, baptism, Galilean ministry, journey to Jerusalem, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection.
⁴⁷
In addition to the general chronological
arrangement, scholars have observed other markers that appear to divide the book into major sections.

B. W. Bacon found clues suggesting that Matthew intended to divide his Gospel into five major sections plus a prologue (chaps. 1–2) and an epilogue (26:3–28:20).
⁴⁸
Each major section concluded with the statement, “And when Jesus finished” followed by some reference to Jesus' sayings, instruction, or parables (7:28–29; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). These major sections were similarly designed because they contained narrative segments followed by major discourses. Bacon suggested that the organization of Matthew into five major sections was a part of Matthew's attempt to present his Gospel as a new Pentateuch. The five sections mirrored the five books of Moses in the OT.
⁴⁹

J. D. Kingsbury argued that Matthew divided his Gospel into three major sections.
⁵⁰
He introduced new major sections with the words “from that time on Jesus began to” (4:17; 16:21). According to Kingsbury, these transitional statements divide the Gospel into the introduction (1:1–4:16), body (4:17–16:20), and conclusion (16:21–28:20).

Overall, Bacon's analysis of Matthew's structure seems superior to Kingsbury's.
⁵¹
The repetition of the concluding formula after segments of narrative followed by discourse is too consistent to be merely coincidental. Moreover, the division into five sections fits tightly with one of Matthew's major theological emphases, Jesus' identity as the new Moses.
⁵²

In support of the fivefold proposal, Gundry has observed that other ancient books had a five-part arrangement that reflected the influence of the Pentateuch. Such books include the book of Psalms, the Megilloth, the history of the Maccabees by Jason of Cyrene, 1 Enoch, the original Perekim (sayings) that lay behind the Pirke Aboth (“Sayings of the Fathers”), and Papias's
Expositions of the Lord's Sayings.
⁵³
At the same time, Gundry objected that Matthew's five “books” do not parallel the five books of Moses and that Matthew has five major discourses but six major narrative sections.
⁵⁴
But Gundry's concerns notwithstanding, it is best to view the structure of Matthew as centered on five major discourses of Jesus within a framework that oscillates between narrative and discourse.
⁵⁵