AUTHORSHIP

In the Preface to his Second Edition, K. Stendahl has a valuable summary of his findings on provenance and authorship which serves as a bridge between this section and the preceding. Part of this summary

is as follows:

’’The Hellenistic setting of the gospel is clear from its language, its interest in ethics rather than halaka, its positive familiarity with Hellenistic christology. The Jewish setting is equally clear, from our quotations, from stylistic peculiarities, and perhaps also from the intense preoccupation with those Jews, who had not accepted Jesus as the Messiah of whom the Scriptures spoke. These two sets of data add up to a church which grew out of Hellenistic Judaism, but which had still its contact with Jewish learning in the person of at^least one of its members; a church which had learned to make the transition to an

increasing gentile constituency without suffering much tension or problem in that process. And now it existed in sharp contrast to the Jewish community in town. For in this church things Jewish meant Jewish and not Jewish Christian versus gentile Christian. In such a setting traditions could be preserved and elaborated in a style which in other communities had become suspect or outdated. On the basis of such traditions and in such a milieu Matthew brings his gospel to completion. That he once was a Jew cannot be doubted. • That he had had Jewish training in Palestine prior to the War

is probable. That he belongs to a Hellenistic community is obvious. That this community includes gentiles is sure.

This is a comprehensive and nicely balanced statement but it is curious that he shrinks from the two-editor hypothesis though he seems to be on the brink of it. Rather he claims that Matthew was certainly a Jew and probably "had had Jewish training ...’’. There is evidence pointing in this direction. Some examples given by Stendahl may be

given. •

In Mk. 13-14 the masculine ) refers the sign to a person. The parallel in Mt. 24.15 uses the neuter (t>W5 ) which is "more in

1. Kirster Stendahl, The School of Matthew, Second Edition, Philadelphia, 1967, p- xiii.

accordance with the Jewish interpretation,”1

’’The adapting of O.T. by Matthew in 2.6 renders the citation of Micah 5.15 2 Sam. 5.2 more appropriate.”~ Matthew had a ’’specific object”, to point out ’’the fulfilment in Christ”. This makes his

2

interpretation ’’tendentious” . We may compare this with an example from the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the Commentary on Ps. 37»30b, where

’’those who hate the Lord shall be like the pride of pastures” is altered to ’’those who love the Lord”, for obvious reasons. So the manner of treating the O.T. text is similar.

3 .

Thirdly, Stendahl takes one of the Qumran scrolls containing the Habbakuk commentary as evidence of the pesher type of interpretation

4

found also m Matthew. He begins this section by pointing out: "Just as Mt.’s formula quotations are expressly interpreted as fulfilled by the words or deeds of Jesus, so the Habbakuk Commentary (DSH) applies the first two chapters of Habbakuk verse by verse to the Teacher of Righteousness and the events which surround him.”

-■

One of his best examples of a pesher type of interpretation is 2.23, the prophecy that Jesus should be called a Nazarene ). It was not accompanied by an explanation as was Emmanuel in 1.23. Its form shows that it was known to the readers. A Semitic milieu is

demanded. The reason for its insertion is to explain the puzzling fact that Jesus did not come from Bethlehem, the town of David. But Stendahl fails to note the possibility that all of this could be contrived

Jewishness.

1 Kirster Stendahl, The School of Matthew, First Edition, Uppsala, 1954, p. 80. (All subsequent references to this book are from the First Edition.)

2 Op. cit., pp. 99, 100. 3 Op. cit., p. 183. 4 Op. cit., p. 199*

There are other bits of evidence which could occur to any careful reader of the Synoptics. For instance, in Mt. 12.39 Matthew adds, "of the prophet" (cf. Lk. 11.29). A Jew would plainly prefer it to be emphasized that Jonah was the right type and that Jesus was following in the right train.

In 27-3-10, the pericope about Judas’ guilt and its results is peculiar to Matthew. Only a Jew would have understood the dread of Judas arising from the curse of Deut. 27-25 on anyone who takes reward to slay an innocent person. Suicide appeared to Judas the only way to rid himself of his curse.

• Matthew is so well versed in Jewish customs and law that he could well have been a converted rabbi. The verse "every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old" (13-52) could be a pointer to his identity.

Stendahl is of the opinion that Matthew was a "converted rabbi, not working entirely alone". The saying forbidding Jesus’ disciples to be called rabbi (23-8-10) is only "significant if something similar to the schools of the rabbis existed".^

2

Although most of Mark’s Aramaisms are omitted Matthew shows a knowledge of Hebrew. Matthew 5-18 mentions which is absent from the parallel in Lk. 16.17- To be apposite, the uL-ra must be the yod of the Hebrew alphabet. In Mt. 1.23shows a knowledge of Hebrew.

1 Loc. cit., p. 98. .

2 Black writes: "In the non-Marcan narrative portions of Mt. and Lk., apart from the sayings of Jesus, there are far fewer

indications of Aramaic influence". Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, Third Edition, Oxford, 1967» 4 • p. 272. The probability that Mt. did make use of more Aramaic

originals for part of his sources is indicated by cases in which Black points out that ambiguity in the Aramaic accounts for the

variant readings in Greek. Examples of this are: 13.13(par Mk.4.12) where Mt. has orc and Mk.tv* which.are "both different inter­

- ' pretations of Aramaic " (loc. cit., p. 213) "An Aramaic could be rendered either Lk. 11.48, ‘you are building’or 23-51 ’you are children of”’ (loc. cit., p. 12f.).

According to Goodspeed , the author was the tax collector of 9-9- He has a few quite appealing reasons for saying so, for instance:

Matthew’s love of figures, the three fourteens in his genealogy and the fact that in 18.23 we are in the world of high finance. On the other hand, tax collectors are not the only people who like figures or who move in the world of high finance. A banker or a Roman civil servant,

especially a provincial treasurer, would have these interests too, but at that time would be unlikely to have been converted to Christianity. To some extent this also applies to a wealthy entrepreneur and yet, if we are correct about the Phoenician provenance of the Gospel, the possibility of a wealthy convert is there (cf. Mt. 19-26).

2

Goodspeed has also observed that Greeks were accustomed to designate the man who put a book into Greek as the author. He cites the LXX, Mark’s Gospel and Euclid as examples, though Euclid was in part creator of the science of geometry, as Goodspeed admits, besides its Greek collector and translator. But there could have been exceptions and it is possible that the first Gospel was known initially, simply as the Gospel. Later it was felt desirable to associate it with someone. Why not the author of part of it?

Another reason for the author being the tax collector advanced by Goodspeed is the abruptness of Matthew’s call, the only individual call in the Synoptics. His call comes after a crisis, the first sign of hostility

(9-3,9)3.

1. Edgar J. Goodspeed, Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist, Philadelphia, Toronto, 1959» Chap. 7­

2. Op. cit., p. 137­

3. Goodspeed (loc. cit., p. 43) likens Jesus* calling of Matthew to the action of Isaiah who, he claims, employed a secretary in the foreboding that he himself would be destroyed. The secretary would write down Isaiah’s words so that they should be preserved. Actually the text he quotes in support (Is. 8.16) does not neces­ sarily involve writing. The message could have been bound and sealed in the hearts of the disciples. Jeremiah would have been a much better example for we know the name of his scribe (Jer. 36.4, etc.) and we know how he defeated the reckless penknife of Jehoiakim

(Jer. 36.23)- However, Jeremiah would not suit Goodspeed so well because he was not quoted fifteen times by Matthew and he could not have been said to be so obviously in the mind of Matthew’s

Taking Goodspeed’s points with the early connexion of Matthew’s name with the First Gospel^", might we not say that Matthew, the tax collector, is to be associated with part of M? Goodspeed’s evidence is in fact all from M.

But much of Matthew’s material cannot be attributed to the Apostle. It is impossible to understand why Matthew, the Evangelist, chose to borrow so much from Mark if he had been Matthew the Apostle, himself an eye witness. For this reason we must agree with McNeile that the

• 2

Evangelist was ’’certainly not Matthew, the Apostle” , at any rate if this Matthew is taken to be the author of all of the book. Sherman E. Johnson

agrees with this opinion and states: •

”A careful reading of Matthew especially when it is compared with Mark, shows it cannot have been written, by an eye

witness* It is a compendium of church traditions, carefully . edited, not the personal observations of a participant.”3

Chapter 23 is a substantial testimony against wholly Jewish authorship I feel that while it is not impossible that a Jew wrote such scorching

denunciations and plenty of O.T. precedents can be found, e.g. Num. 14.11, 12a; Is. 1.2-6, 10-15; Amos 2.4 ff., we miss the vital doctrine of the faithful Remnant e.g. Num. 14.12b; Is. 1.9j 4.2 ff.; 6.12; Amos 3*12, though an entire community could be annihilated (Jer. 11.21-23)* The

1 Kilpatrick, op. cit., p. 3.

2 A. H* McNeile, The Gospel According to St Matthew, London, 1915, p. xxvi i i.

3 The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick, New York:

Nashville, 1957 (12 Vols.) Vol. 7, P* 242. .

4 It is not impossible on religious grounds. An ex-Jew could have been hard on his own race because he was so conscious of their privileges (20.2; 22.3,4 - Jews were the first invitees). It is not psychologically impossible. The fearful scathings could as fairly be ascribed to righteous Jewish-Christian indignation against' those who had rejected God’s Son, as due to Gentile venom. If one were to argue that a Jewish Christian could not make such denunciations against Jews one would have to assume his patriotism to be greater than his love for Christ. There is no reason to say that the utterance of woes means that the utterer hates the people against whom he inveighs them. He may well be proving his real love and concern for them. The cry of 23*37 is one of yearning rather than of hatred and could have been recorded by a Jew or a

Remnant may be implicit in the faithfulness of at least some of'the twelve

1 .2

Apostles but one may suppose that a Jew would have made it explicit. It is unlikely that an ex-Jew, however zealous a Christian, would have allowed no exceptions among the condemned leaders of his own race. One can hardly

imagine that Matthew, the Apostle, knew nothing of Nicodemus’ sympathy for Jesus (Jn. 3.2; 19-39)- Matthew does mention Joseph of Arimathaea, but

calls him simply "a rich man" and "a disciple of Jesus" (27.57) whereas Mk. 3

15.43 has: "a respected number of the council". Matthew does seem unwilling to admit that any Sadducee, as well as Pharisee, was a disciple.

Matthew' does allow' that the dregs of Jewish society w’ould enter the 4

Kingdom of God (21.31, 32). On the other hand there is the call of a tax collector named Matthew (9-9) and we have to agree with Goodspeed to the effect that it is hard to account for the unique record of this call,

if it did not originate from Matthew', the Apostle.

Ernest L. Abel is convinced that two editors, first a Jew, then a Gentile worked on Matthew. He writes: "The question is whether a Jew'ish Christian like Matthew w'ould have composed a gospel the tenor of w’hich is

the rejection of Israel by its God?" He cites 27-25; 21.43; 20.1-16, and continues:

"the last, the Gentiles, are now the first, the true Israel; (21.28-32) the son who said *1 go sir’, but did not, represents the Jews. ... A great deal of the narrative material peculiar to Matthew' is due to someone’s penchant for fashioning history out of O.T. statements: 27-24, 25 is reminiscent of Deut. 21.7-8; 26.15b is deliberately taken from Zech. 11.12. In 21.1-7 the author is guilty of deliberately twisting his sources so as to agree w'ith Zech. 9-9 and has Jesus riding on two animals at the same time."5 See further on this pp. 342 ff., below.

1 See pp. 271 ft-, below.

2 Cf. Rom. 11 passim. For a contrary opinion based on 23.39 and my answer to it see p. 342, below’.

3 Lk. 23.50 calls him "a member of the council", though Jn. 19-38

does not refer to this. .

4 Since the term as such occurs nowhere in the O.T. and Matthew' does not favour it, the use of it here may be ascribed to a Gentile editor. However, as Paul, "a Pharisee of the Pharisees", never writes "Kingdom of heaven", it seems more likely that the term is related to the

readers (mostly Gentiles) rather than to the author. For a fuller • and better explanation of the phrase in this context,, see Green,

op. cit., ad. loc., Green’s argument tends to support the view that Matthew excludes all Pharisees from the Kingdom. ■ See also Fenton, op. cit., ad. loc.

Abel imagines that the Jews had largely died out of the population in Antioch (sic) and that a Gentile editor had to be found.

Evidence for a Gentile editor may be gained in the universalist note struck in 2.1-12; 4.14-16; 12.14, 21z; 28.19* Abel also sees it in ’’the

use of the word Xp <-#70$ as a surname for Jesus (l.l, 16, 18; 11.2; 27.17, 22) which would be unthinkable in a Jew. Since the change from ’kingdom of God' to 'kingdom of heaven' seems to have been deliberate one can only assume that the phrase 'Son of God’ (4.3, 6; 14.33; l6.l6; 26.13; 27.43, 54) is an editorial phrase in Matthew which clearly denotes Gentile influences” .

,3

Abel’s strongest argument is based on the clash in Matthew between the universalist and particularist elements. But the main thrust could be

4

universalism as in 2.1-12; 4.14-16; 8.11; 12.18, 21; 28.19, with particularism (10.5; 15*24) only as temporary tactics. The principle is

”to the Jew first” for obvious reasons, but the long term aim is the inclusion 5

of all. So the clash is a strong but not conclusive argument.

G. Strecker also contends for a Gentile redactor to account for the Loc. cit., p. 151*

Loc. cit., p. 147 ff* We must object when he renders 12.6 as "something greater than the Law is here”. His substitution of "Law” for Temple distorts the main sense of the passage. Although the law disallowed David’s action (12.3? k) it permitted work by the priests (12.5) and the quotation from Hosea (12.7) contrasts mercy (shown by Jesus) with sacrifice (made in the Temple). Thus the immediate context before and after 12.6 is not between Jesus and the law.

Loc. cit., p. 148.

There is moreover a comparable duality in the O.T. succinctly put by W. D. Davies The Gospel and the Land, Berkeley: Los Angeles: London, 1972, p. 45: "There is a core of particularism in the most universal of the prophets.”

See Joachim Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations, London, 1958, passim.

Georg Strecker, Per Weg der Gerechtigkeit Untersuchung zur Theologie Matthaus, Gottingen, 1962, p. 15 ff.

See also Kirster Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles, London, 1977, p. 128, i.e. ten years later than the Second Edition of The School of Matthew. I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, Cambridge, 1924, Second Series, p. 29f. puts forward an interesting point which could indicate a Gentile editor, as at any rate someone not well acquainted with Jewish burial customs. In Mt. 23.27? 28 the words: ’which outwardly appear beautiful’ are "regarded by most critics as a gloss ... The gloss would be much more likely to

apparent contradiction between the. universalist and particularist elements in Matthew. So Abel is in good company.

The aim of Stendahl in The School of St Matthew (passim) is mainly to prove that such a school existed and thdt MSftthew is a handbook issued by that school. This he argues effectively. Assuming that this is established may we not envisage it as a school for Gentiles with a Gentile teacher or teachers* Its object would be to train Gentiles in the Gospel and in the O.T. and anti-Jewish controversy using the rabbinic style of O.T. interpre­ tation. This would explain the paradox whereby Zech. 9.9 is quoted (21.5) yet the parallelism of Hebrew poetry is not understood in that two asses are believed to be present (21.2, 3, 6, 7)^ •

We may conclude that the hypothesis of two editors is the one which best accounts for the facts. As the Gospel probably arose out of Jewish controversy the Gentile would be compelled to research deeply into Jewish thought. Certainly much and probably most of the material cannot have

2

come from the pen of Matthew the Apostle. The early association of his

. 3

name with it is probably due to some parts , certainly 9-9, that can be traced to him. Thus we may have a critique of Judaism from two points of view, the Gentile one erring by too wholesale a condemnation of Jewish leaders, but throwing some objective light on their typical sins of evasiveness

(15-1 ff-)j blindness (16.1-4); 23-16*, 17; externality (23.25) etc. which to some extent sharpen the criteria of judgement .

1 This passage contradicts Stendahl’s claim that Matthew had probably been trained in Palestine. Whatever may be said (see Appendix I) about the possibility that Matthew nonsensically believes Jesus to ride two asses at once, he certainly believes that two are " present in contrast with Mk. 11.2, 3, 5, 7; 4k. 19-3O-35;

Jn. 12.14, 15- .

2 Papias (A.D. 130-150) quoted by Eusebius, History of the Church, . trans, with notes by H. S. Lawlor and J. E"? L. Oulton (2 Vol s.) , London, 1954, III.XXXIX, 16: ”... Matthew compiled the oracles in the Hebrew language ...”

. 3 These would belong to M and possibly include some Q sayings cf. Sayings, pp.* 17 ff. This being what I believe, I use the word