Footnotes 101
FOOTNOTES
1. E.g., C. H. Lohr proposes a giant chiasm ("Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew,” CBQ 23 [1961]: 403-35), but there are too many tenuous pairings to convince many scholars that Matthew had this in mind. M. D. Goulder attempts to tie the structure of this gospel to a lectionary cycle (Midrash and Lection in Matthew [London: SPCK, 1974]). So little is known about first-century lectionary cycles, however, that the proposal is long on speculation (cf. L. Morris, "The Gospels and the Jewish Lectionaries,” in GP 1:129-56), quite apart from the extraordinary diversity of lection lengths that Goulder proposes.
2. E.g., A. H. McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (London: Macmillan,
1915).
3. Ned B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1944), pp. 129-31. Ernst Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Matthaus, ed.
W. Schmauck (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956); E. Krentz, "The Extent of Matthew’s Prologue,” JBL 83 (1964): 409-14.
4. J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1975).
5. B. W. Bacon, "The ‘Five Books’ of Moses Against the Jews,” Exp 15 (1918): 56-66. The idea is then worked out in detail in Bacon’s Studies in Matthew (London: Constable, 1930).
6. See D. A. Carson, Matthew, EBC 8:303-4, 331-33, and sources cited there.
7. Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), pp. 6484. Cf. the admirable discussion in R. T. France, Matthew—Evangelist and Teacher (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), pp. 50-80.
8. Tertullian, Against Marcion. 4.2.
9. Hengel, Mark, pp. 170-72 n. 57.
10. Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew (London: Robert Scott, 1909), p. vii.
11. In addition to the literature cited in connection with John, see the following discussions that focus on the Matthean connections, all of them arguing against Eusebius: C. Stewart Petrie, "The Authorship of ‘The Gospel According to Matthew’:
A Reconsideration of the External Evidence,” NTS 14 (1967-68): 15-32; France, Matthew—Evangelist and Teacher, pp. 53-56; Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), pp. 609ff. Gundry points out, among other things, that Eusebius had earlier (H.E. 3.36.1-2) associated Papias with Ignatius, who died not later than A.D. 110,
12. For the bearing of this Papias passage on the synoptic problem, see chap. 1 above.
13. E.g. C. F. Burney, The Poetry of Our Lord (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925); C. C. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels (London: Hodder & Stoughton, n.d.); A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthaus: Seine Sprache, sein Ziel, seine Selbstandigkeit, 6th ed. (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1963); P. Gaechter, Die literarische Kunst im Matthausevangelium (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1966); J. W. Wenham, "Gospel Origins,” TrinJ 7 (1978): 112-34. In very recent times, a small number have argued that Hebrew (not Aramaic) underlies the canonical gospels, but this proposal
has been rightly dismissed by the overwhelming majority of those who have looked into the matter.
14. In modern linguistic theory, the term "Semitism” is rightly applied only to phenomena in the Greek New Testament where sense can be made of an expression only by appealing to a Semitic underlay. "Semitic enhancement” refers to literary phenomena that do occur elsewhere in purely Greek texts but whose frequency of occurrence in some New Testament book is most easily explained by observing that the construction or expression is common in one or more of the Semitic languages.
15. See Moule, pp. 276-80.
16. This view was made popular by T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1949), pp. 18ff.
17. J. R. Harris, Testimonies, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1920);
F. C. Grant, The Gospels: Their Origin and Their Growth (New York: Harper, 1957), pp. 65, 144.
18. J. Kurzinger. "Das Papiaszeugnis und die Erstgestalt des Matthausevangeliums,” BZ 4 (1960): 19-38; idem, "Irenaus und sein Zeugnis zur Sprache des Matthausevangeliums,” NTS 10 (1963): 108-15.
19. Gundry, Matthew, pp. 619-20.
20. These and other passages are conveniently summarized in France, Matthew— Evangelist and Teacher, pp. 60-62. For the fullest account of the use of Matthew in the early church, see Edouard Massaux, Influence de l’evangile de Saint Matthieu sur la litterature chretienne avant Saint Irenee, BETL 75 (Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1986).
21. For a competent treatment of the sources, see P. Vielhauer in Hennecke 1:118-39.
22. R. Pesch, "Levi-Matthaus (Mc 214/Mt 99 103): Ein Beitrag zur Losing eines alten Problems,” ZNW 59 (1968): 40-56.
23. F. W. Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew (Oxford: Blackwell, 1981), pp. 22425.
24. W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew, AB 26 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981), pp. clxxvii-clxxviii, clxxxiii-clxxxiv.
25. See W. L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 100-101 n. 29.
26. See Gundry, Matthew, pp. 620-21.
27. C. F. D. Moule, "St. Matthew’s Gospel: Some Neglected Features,” SE 2 (1964): 90-99; Moule, pp. 94-95.
28. E. J. Goodspeed, Matthew: Apostle and Evangelist (Philadelphia: J. C. Winston, 1959).
29. Even contemporary biographies commonly treat certain parts of their subject’s life in topical arrangements; see, e.g., Antonia Fraser, Cromwell: Our Chief of Men (St. Albans: Panther, 1975), pp. 455ff.
30. D. A. Carson, "Christological Ambiguities in the Gospel of Matthew,” in Christ the Lord, Fs. Donald Guthrie, ed. Harold Rowdon (Leicester: IVP, 1982), pp. 97-114.
31. E.g. John P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel (New York: Paulist, 1979), pp. 17-23; G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), p. 34; Sjef van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden: Brill, 1972), p. 17.
32. On this particular passage, see Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic (London: SCM, 1961), p. 114; Carson, Matthew, pp. 436-40.
33. See France, Matthew—Evangelist and Teacher, pp. 70-73.
34. G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1946).
35. K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968).
36. For an excellent survey, see W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), pp. 138-47.
37. B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1930), pp. 500-23.
38. Davies and Allison, Matthew, p. 144.
39. H. D. Slingerland, "The Transjordanian Origin of St. Matthew’s Gospel,” JSNT 3 (1979): 18-29.
40. Davies and Allison, Matthew, pp. 142, 420.
41. "Virtually unanimous” because some have suggested that the fact Papias treats Mark before he treats Matthew (at least as Eusebius represents Papias) indicates that Papias thought Mark was written first.
42. See K. H. Rengstorf, "Die Stadt der Morder (Mt 227),” in Judentum Urchristentum, Kirche, Fs. J. Jeremias, ed. Walther Eltester (Berlin: Topelmann, 1960), pp. 106-29;
B. Reicke, "Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem,” in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Fs. A. P. Wikgren, ed. D. E. Aune (Leiden: Brill, 1972), pp. 121-34.
43. J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), chap. 2.
44. Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), pp. 189-91. See also France, Matthew—Evangelist and Teacher, pp. 242ff.
45. Some add Matt. 11:12, but that passage is relevant only if an anachronism is read into the text; see Carson, Matthew, pp. 265-68.
46. Probably this version was in use in Palestine at the end of the first century. For discussion of the various versions, including the Babylonian version still in use today (in which the "doers of wickedness” are not identified), see SchQrer 2:455-63.
47. See Moule who argues that the period before A.D. 70 is "the most plausible dating” of Matthew’s gospel (p. 242).
48. Taking the έξοδος (exodos, G2016) of Peter and Paul to refer to their death.
49. See Robinson, Redating, pp. 107-15; contra Hengel, Mark, pp. 2-6.
50. Josephus Wars 7.218; Dio Cassius, 65.7.2; Suetonius, Domitian Hist. Rom. 12. Cf. E. M. Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule (Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 371-76.
51. Gundry, Matthew, pp. 602-6.
52. Kilpatrick, Origins, pp. 129-30.
53. Davies and Allison, Matthew, pp. 147-48 n. 127, to which must be added C. M. Martini, "La problematique generale du texte de Matthieu,” in L’evangile selon Matthieu: Redaction et Theologie, BETL 29, ed. M. Didier (Gembloux: Duculot, 1972), pp. 21-36.
54. See the commentaries by Albright and Mann (1981), Beare (1981), Gundry (1982), Carson (1984), France (1985), and vol. 1 of Davies and Allison (1988).
55. Stanton, "Origin and Purpose.”
56. France, Matthew—Evangelist and Teacher.
57. G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, and H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (ET London: SCM, 1963).
58. R. Walker, Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967).
59. Hubert Frankemolle, Jahwebund und Kirche Christi: Studien zur Form- und Traditionsgeschichte des “Evangeliums” nach Matthaus (MQnster: Aschendorff,
1974).
60. Bornkamm, Barth, and Held, Tradition and Interpretation, pp. 105-16.
61. See esp. Andrew H. Trotter, "Understanding and Stumbling: A Study of the Disciples’ Understanding of Jesus and His Teaching in the Gospel of Matthew” (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1987).
62. The most detailed study is that of Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977).
63. See among other studies the bibliographical entries under Doeve, France (Jesus and the Old Testament), Gundry, McConnell, Moo, Rothfuchs, Soares Prabhu, Stanton ("Matthew”), Stendahl, and Westerholm.
64. See esp. the bibliographical entries under Meier (Law), Banks, and Carson (Matthew, pp. 140ff.).
65. See discussion of the options in D. A. Carson, "Jewish Leaders in Matthew’s Gospel: A Reappraisal,” JETS 25 (1982): 161-74.
66. A point perhaps not sufficiently observed in the important article by G. M. Styler, "Stages in Christology in the Synoptic Gospels,” NTS 10 (1963-64): 398-409.
67. The best-known instance is the argument of Kingsbury (Matthew) that "Son of God” is for Matthew the controlling title, under which all others must be subsumed. See the important response by David Hill, "Son and Servant: An Essay on Matthean Christology,” JSNT 6 (1980): 2-16.
68. See David Duling, "The Therapeutic Son of David: An Element in Matthew’s Christological Apologetic,” NTS 24 (1978): 392-410.