The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament (7 page)

(4)
The Farrer Hypothesis.
Still another solution proposes the order Mark-Matthew-Luke. This view accepts the priority of Mark as the first written Gospel but dispenses with the hypothetical Q document as unnecessary. Instead of Matthew and Luke independently borrowing material from Mark and Q, supporters hold that Matthew relied upon Mark (and other traditions), while Luke, writing third, made use of Mark in establishing the chronological backbone of his Gospel and then inserted sayings and episodes about Jesus taken from Matthew. This solution to the Synoptic Problem takes its name from the twentieth-century scholar who pioneered it (Austin Farrer) and claims a moderate following among Gospel specialists today.

Supporters of the Mark-Matthew-Luke sequence argue their case along the following lines.
(a)
The arguments made by Two-Source theorists for Mark writing first are accepted by this hypothesis as well (noted above as
a, b, c,
and
d
).
(b)
On this paradigm, the material that Luke allegedly copied from Q is more likely to have come from Matthew. In fact, the narrative elements that are typically included in Q are found in Luke in the same order in which they appear in Matthew 3-11, which differs somewhat from Mark (e.g., the appearance of John the Baptist at the Jordan, the Baptism of Jesus, the three temptations of Jesus in the wilderness, the healing of the centurion's son, the messengers sent to Jesus from the Baptist).
(c)
Oftentimes Matthew and Luke agree with one another over against Mark in places where all three Gospels record the same episode. For instance, in the parable of the Mustard Seed, Luke's version agrees with Matthew's in four descriptive details that are entirely absent from Mark (compare Mt 13:31-32 and Lk 13:18-19 with Mk 4:30-32). Positing the existence of Q is unnecessary if one allows that Luke simply acquired these details from Matthew.
(d)
There are sayings in Luke's Passion narrative that are identical to those found in Matthew's Passion narrative (e.g., "Who is it that struck you?" in Mt 26:68 and Lk 22:64). This is significant because such sayings do not appear in Mark, and scholars are universally agreed that Q, if it existed, had no Passion narrative. Thus it appears that Luke was familiar with Matthew's Gospel and made use of it in the composition of his own Gospel.

In the end, it is fair to say that the Synoptic Problem remains a problem. No solution, ancient or modern, has yet provided a satisfactory explanation of the total evidence. This may never be achieved. Nevertheless, our interpretation of the Gospels must ultimately focus on the inspired texts as the Church has received and canonized them, regardless of what sources may have been utilized in their composition.

INTRODUCTION TO

Author
  Christian tradition unanimously identifies the Apostle Matthew as the author of the first Gospel. Virtually all ancient manuscripts that preserve the title of the work give some form of the heading "According to Matthew" (Gk.
Kata Maththaion
). The same consensus can be found in the writings of the Church Fathers who address the issue: St. Irenaeus (
A.D.
180), Origen (
A.D.
250), St. John Chrysostom (
A.D.
390), St. Jerome (
A.D.
398), and St. Augustine (
A.D.
400) affirm the apostolic authorship of the Gospel of Matthew. No traces of a rival tradition attributing the work to a different author have survived from Christian antiquity.

Modern scholarship, however, is largely disinclined to accept this tradition. Some would allow that the Apostle Matthew is the authority behind the work but is not its literary author in the strict sense. Most biblical scholars, however, reject the early tradition as a mistaken indication of authorship. Though it is commonly held that Matthew's Gospel was written by a Jewish Christian, only a minority today ascribe the work to Matthew the former tax collector (9:9) who became an apostle (10:2-3). One reason for this change in perspective is the widespread view that the writer of Matthew relied upon the Gospel of Mark as one of his primary sources of information about Jesus. There is no dispute that Mark's Gospel was written by a non-apostle, and many scholars therefore reason that the author of Matthew must not have been an apostle, either. Were the evangelist an eyewitness of the Messiah, he would more likely have drawn upon personal memories than the hearsay reports of Mark. Such is the basis of the modern objection.

For various reasons, the argument against Matthean authorship is not as strong as some proponents assert. The evidence can be read and interpreted otherwise. For example, if the author of the Gospel of Matthew did rely upon the Gospel of Mark, he could have done so with the awareness that Mark's Gospel was reputedly based on the preaching of Peter. In this case, it is neither unreasonable nor improbable to suppose that one apostle made use of the testimony of another, especially when the apostle in question was Peter, whose authority and favored position among the Twelve are among the themes of Matthew's Gospel (10:2; 16:17-19; 17:24-27). Why would the evangelist feel compelled to produce his account from scratch if such a document, known to represent the apostolic witness to Jesus, was already in circulation? Furthermore, the hypothesis that Mark was written before Matthew and was used as a source by Matthew is not proven. A number of scholars hold the opposite, i.e., that Matthew was written before Mark and was used as a source by Mark. Though this alternative position remains a minority position among contemporary scholars, it dovetails with the tradition of the early Church that the Gospel of Matthew was the first of the four canonical Gospels to be written.

Also, there is a broad correspondence between the profile of the author that emerges from the Gospel and the tradition of Matthean authorship. First, because the evangelist is clearly steeped in the biblical and religious traditions of Israel, it is probable that he was a Jewish believer in Jesus. Second, because the author demonstrates a bilingual competence in writing accurate Greek and translating quotations directly from the Hebrew OT, it is probable also that he was either native to Palestine or educated there, for Greek was widely known in Palestine, especially in Galilee, and Hebrew was hardly known outside of Israel. Third, Matthew's Gospel features multiple references to currency, debts, business transactions, and other financial matters (17:24-27; 18:23-35; 20:1-16; 25:14-30; 26:25; 27:3-10). Taken together, these three aspects of the Gospel suggest that the author was Jewish, that he knew Hebrew and Greek, that he was probably from Palestine, and that he had some interest in episodes and teachings of Jesus involving money.

Of course, Matthew the tax collector and apostle from Galilee is not the only person who may be said to fit this general description. But the converging lines of correspondence do make him a suitable candidate for authorship. For this reason, the apostolic authorship of Matthew remains a defensible position. The external evidence of early Christian tradition offers considerable support for it, and the internal evidence of the Gospel can be read as compatible with its testimony.

Date
   There is no consensus regarding the date when Matthew was written. Most interpreters place its composition in the 80s or 90s of the first century, while some prefer to date it in the 50s or 60s. All things considered, a date in the middle of the first century seems more likely than a date near the end of the first century. Two major factors underlie this judgment.
(1)
Matthew records two sayings of Jesus that predict the fall of Jerusalem, one that refers to the burning of the city (22:7) and one that foretells the demolition of the Temple (24:2). Both predictions were fulfilled when Jerusalem fell before the conquering Romans in the year 70. Significantly, there is no indication in the Gospel that this catastrophe had yet occurred, even though Matthew makes it a point to stress how events of the past have a lasting significance for the Church in his day (27:8; 28:15).
(2)
Matthew refers to the Sadducees seven times, more frequently than the other Gospels combined (two times). He makes it a point to underscore, not only their opposition to Jesus, but also the danger their teaching poses to disciples (3:7; 16:1, 6, 11-12; 22:23, 34). Assuming that Matthew wrote with an eye to the situation of his audience, it is reasonable to suppose that his readers were threatened by the persecution and propaganda of the Sadducees, whose opposition to Christianity is historically documented in the NT (Acts 4:1-3; 5:17-18; 23:6). Of course, a similar inference can be made regarding the Pharisees, who also appear frequently in Matthew and come up for even more severe criticism (see 23:1-36). But there is a difference between the two that impinges on the question of dating: whereas the Pharisees were locked in a struggle with the Church throughout the first century, the Sadducees were a factor to be reckoned with only in the decades between
A.D.
30 and 70, for the sect was entirely wiped out with the Roman conquest of Jerusalem. Hence, though it remains difficult to fix a precise date for the Gospel of Matthew, there is good reason to think that it was composed before the critical date of
A.D.
70.

Destination
   Matthew seems to have written his Gospel for Jewish Christians in and around Palestine. Ancient scholarship came to this conclusion partly on the basis of a widespread tradition that Matthew's Gospel was originally written in a Semitic language, either Hebrew or Aramaic. Some modern scholars have argued that the canonical text of Matthew is indeed a translation from a Semitic original; but most Scripture scholars today remain unconvinced. In any case, apart from how one deals with the linguistic issue, a Palestinian readership would explain why Matthew addresses multiple Jewish concerns, why he refers to Jewish customs and institutions without explanation, and why he works nearly two hundred references to the Jewish Scriptures into his narrative in order to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah of Jewish expectation. Modern scholarship tends to locate Matthew's original audience north of Palestine in the Syrian city of Antioch. In the first century, this city was home to a large Jewish (and Christian) community that lived in the midst of a predominantly Gentile population. The Gospel's Jewish outlook, combined with its openness to Gentiles (4:15; 28:19), is said to favor such a setting.

Structure
   Matthew's Gospel consists of alternating panels of narrative and discourse. There are five story-collections separated by five main speeches, and these are all framed by an introductory prologue (chaps. 1-2) and a climactic epilogue (chaps. 26-28). This skeletal structure is revealed in a repeated expression—"when Jesus [had] finished . . ."—which occurs at the end of each of the five discourses and serves as a transition back to the storyline (see 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). At the very least, this literary technique highlights the dual significance of the works and words of Jesus. Some scholars go a step farther and suggest that Matthew presents us with five "books" about the Messiah, parallel to the five books of Moses. The idea is that Matthew offered his Gospel as a new Torah for the new People of God.

Themes
   The content of Matthew's Gospel has as its central theme "the kingdom of heaven". This keynote expression appears more than thirty times throughout the book and sounds forth in the preaching of Jesus (4:17), John the Baptist (3:2), and the twelve apostles (10:7). The kingdom is not reducible to a purely spiritual or otherworldly realm, nor is it exclusively linked with the future blessings of eternal life. It is a claim that God the Father is now working through the Messiah to establish his will on earth, as it is in heaven (6:10).

Jesus himself is the focus of this divine and kingly activity. Through his ministry, the kingdom of heaven is proclaimed and its power is made present in the lives of ordinary people (4:23; 9:35; 12:28). Jesus sows the kingdom in this world as a hidden grace that slowly exerts its influence over time (13:33, 36-43). The kingdom stands in our midst wherever the messianic King (25:34) is invoked by his gathered disciples (18:20).

Though the expression "kingdom of heaven" is not attested in Jewish or Christian texts before Matthew's Gospel, it is not an altogether novel idea. It is rooted in OT expectations for the messianic age. One can speak, for instance, of its apocalyptic background in the Book of Daniel, where it is said that the God of heaven will triumph over the kingdoms of this world by establishing his royal dominion over the whole earth (Dan 2-7). Daniel foresees in a vision that God will exercise his divine kingship through "one like a son of man" (Dan 7:13-14). Several times, Jesus identifies himself in Matthew with Daniel's royal figure (24:30; 26:64; 28:18). One can speak also of a historical background to the kingdom of heaven in the ancient Davidic monarchy and in prophetic hopes for its restoration. The basis for such a hope was the Davidic covenant, in which the Lord swore an oath to establish the kingdom of David for ever (2 Sam 7:12-17; Ps 89:3-4). Since the eclipse of Davidic kingship in the sixth century b.c, the prophets envisioned the coming of a new David to restore his kingdom for all time (Is 9:6-7; 11:1-5; 55:3-5; Jer 23:5-6; Ezek 34:23-24; Hos 3:4-5; Amos 9:11-12). Matthew sees Jesus as this messianic "son of David" (1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30; 21:9, 15). Incorporated into the royal line of David (1: 2-16) and now enthroned in heaven (26:64), Jesus has achieved, not the re-founding of Israel's political empire, but a transcendent fulfillment that brings the ancient Davidic ideal to its perfection. In the risen Jesus, Davidic rule is for ever restored and given universal extension over heaven and earth and all nations (28:18-19).

Within the text of the Gospel, the "kingdom of heaven" is a theme that branches out in several directions. Starting from Christ as its center, it develops along lines that are ethical, ecclesial, and eschatological.
(1)
The kingdom of heaven is
ethical
in the sense that it calls for a human response to Jesus. It summons hearers to repentance (4:17), followed by a lifetime of discipleship, in which seeking the surpassing righteousness of Christ (5:20) is the highest priority (6:33). The righteousness of the kingdom is spelled out in practical terms by the actions and attitudes praised by Jesus in the Beatitudes (5:3-10) and further explicated by his deepened interpretations of the Mosaic Law (5:21-48). Other requirements for fellowship in the kingdom include observance of the Golden Rule (7:12), an effort to live with childlike humility (18:1-4), and a willingness to forgive those who offend us (6:14-15; 18:23-35). A commitment to prayer (6:5-13), fasting (6:16-18), and works of compassion also is essential (6:2-4; 25:35-40). In the end, disciples who build their lives upon the teaching of Jesus (7:24-27) will come safely to the blessedness of eternal life (25:31-46).
(2)
The kingdom is also
ecclesial
in that its saving power is made present in the world through the Church. It is noteworthy that the Gospel of Matthew, which stresses the importance of the kingdom more than any other, is likewise the only Gospel to make explicit reference to the Church (16:18; 18:17). The authority to bind and loose in the kingdom is given to Peter, who is made the kingdom's chief steward and the guardian of its "keys" (16:19). Similar royal authority is conferred upon the other apostles as a group (18:1819). Sent forth by Jesus, they extend the kingdom of heaven through their preaching (10:7) and sacramental actions (28:18-20).
(3)
Ultimately, the kingdom will have an
eschatological
fulfillment in the future. Its presence in the world through the Church is therefore a prelude to its full and final manifestation at the end of time. In this sense, the "coming" of the kingdom awaits the return of Christ in glory (16:28). This is the great hope of the Church on earth; for that, she prays to the Father (6:10) and makes wise preparation (25:113). When at last the Son of man comes, he will send the righteous and the wicked their separate ways; and the everlasting inheritance of the kingdom will be given to the faithful (25:31-46). «