UECF logoUnited Evangelical Christian Fellowship Church (UECF)130 Ferris Pl, Westfield, NJ
Chapter 5 of 20

14. Structure And Outline

14. Structure And Outline

Structure

As a skilled literary craftsman, Matthew gave his gospel structure, form, and rhythm. Two of his larger chiasms are indicated in the below. But the structure of the gospel as a whole is still disputed. With minor variations, there are three main views.

First, some have detected a geographical framework. Matthew 1:1–2:23 is the prologue; 3:1–4:11 is Jesus’ preparation for ministry; 4:12–13:58 finds Jesus in Galilee; 14:1–20:34 pictures him around Galilee and heading toward Jerusalem; and 21:1–28:20 finds him at Jerusalem. The divisions are neither precise nor helpful, for the result tells us nothing of Matthew’s purposes.

Second, Jack Dean Kingsbury, taking a hint from Lohmeyer and Stonehouse, argues for three sections. The first he titles “The Person of Jesus Messiah” (1:1–4:16), the second “The Proclamation of Jesus Messiah” (4:17–16:20), and the third “The Suffering, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Messiah” (16:21–28:20). Immediately after the two breaks comes the phrase apo tote (“from that time on”). Kingsbury further notes that the last two sections each contain three “summary” passages—4:23–25; 9:35; 11:1 and 16:21; 17:22–23; 20:17–19 respectively—and he suggests that this outline does justice to the centrality of Matthew’s Christology.

Though this outline has gained adherents, it has serious weaknesses. It is not at all clear that apo tote is so redactionally important for Matthew. He also uses it in 26:16 without any suggestion of a break in his outline. One could argue that there are four passion summaries in the third section, not three (add 26:2). Kingsbury’s outline not only breaks up the prime Peter passage in an unacceptable way (see

), but at both transitions Matthew may have been more influenced by the order of Mark than by “structural” considerations. The most important weakness, however, is the artificiality of the topical headings. The person of Jesus (section 1) is still a focal point in sections 2 and 3 (e.g., 16:13–16; 22:41–46). Why the proclamation of Jesus should be restricted to section 2 when two of the discourses (chs. 18; 24–25) and several important exchanges (chs. 21–23) await the third section is not clear. The last heading, “The Suffering, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Messiah,” though it accurately summarizes the increasingly dominant theme of 16:21–28:20, seems an inadequate designation of much in those chapters (e.g., most of 18; 21–25). Considerably more sophisticated variations of this narrative outline have been advanced, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. For example, the one by Ulrich Luz finally depends heavily on the assumption that the narrative flow is analyzable on the assumption that Matthew depends only on Mark and Q.

The third scheme makes the book center on the five main discourses (see below). Each begins by placing Jesus in a specific context and ends with a formula found nowhere else in the gospel (see

) and a transitional pericope with links pointing forward and backward. Benjamin Bacon believed the five discourses correspond to the five books of the Pentateuch; but there is little in favor of this refinement, since Moses typology is very weak in this gospel and the links between the five discourses and the five books of Moses minimal.

Two frequently raised difficulties must be overcome.

1. Why restrict oneself to five discourses when ch. 11 could fall into that category? This objection misses the mark. The fivefold sequence of discourses does not assume that Jesus is not portrayed as speaking in the narrative sections. He may do so, even extensively (see

). The point is that the five discourses are sufficiently well defined that it is hard to believe Matthew did not plan them as such.

2. Does this not relegate the birth narrative (chs. 1–2) and the passion and resurrection (chs. 26–28) to a sort of secondary status outside the central outline? There is little difficulty in seeing chs. 1–2 as a prologue anticipating the opening of the gospel, a formal opening common to all the canonical gospels (see

). But certainly Matthew 26–28 must not be dismissed as an epilogue; this section is too much the point toward which the gospel moves for that to be true. On the other hand, chs. 26–28 do not constitute an ordinary “conclusion,” for the final verses are purposely open-ended and anticipatory. It seems best to take 26:6–28:20 as constituting an exceptional sixth narrative section, with the corresponding teaching section being laid on the shoulders of the disciples (28:18–20).

But no outline should be taken too seriously. The Gospels use vignettes—organized ones, doubtless, but vignettes nonetheless. The following organizes Matthew’s gospel and reflects some demonstrable structure—a structure, however, that provides a guide to its contents, not a comprehensive explanation.

Outline

(References in outline are tied to commentary)

  • I. Prologue: The Origin and Birth of Jesus the Christ (1:1–2:23)
    1. A. The Genealogy of Jesus (1:1–17)
    2. B. The Birth of Jesus (1:18–25)
    3. C. The Visit of the Magi (2:1–12)
    4. D. The Escape to Egypt (2:13–15)
    5. E. The Massacre of Bethlehem’s Boys (2:16–18)
    6. F. The Return to Nazareth (2:19–23)
  • II. The Gospel of the Kingdom (3:1–7:29)
    1. A. Narrative (3:1–4:25)
      1. 1. Foundational steps (3:1–4:11)
        1. a. The ministry of John the Baptist (3:1–12)
        2. b. The baptism of Jesus (3:13–17)
        3. c. The temptation of Jesus (4:1–11)
      2. 2. Jesus’ early Galilean ministry (4:12–25)
        1. a. The beginning (4:12–17)
        2. b. Calling the first disciples (4:18–22)
        3. c. Spreading the news of the kingdom (4:23–25)
    2. B. First Discourse: The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29)
      1. 1. Setting (5:1–2)
      2. 2. The kingdom of heaven: its norms and witness (5:3–16)
        1. a. The norms of the kingdom (5:3–12)
          1. (1) The Beatitudes (5:3–10)
          2. (2) Expansion (5:11–12)
        2. b. The witness of the kingdom (5:13–16)
          1. (1) Salt (5:13)
          2. (2) Light (5:14–16)
      3. 3. The kingdom of heaven: its demands in relation to the OT (5:17–48)
        1. a. Jesus and the kingdom as fulfillment of the OT (5:17–20)
        2. b. Application: the antitheses (5:21–48)
          1. (1) Vilifying anger and reconciliation (5:21–26)
          2. (2) Adultery and purity (5:27–30)
          3. (3) Divorce and remarriage (5:31–32)
          4. (4) Oaths and truthfulness (5:33–37)
          5. (5) Personal injury and self-sacrifice (5:38–42)
          6. (6) Hatred and love (5:43–47)
        3. c. Conclusion: the demand for perfection (5:48)
      4. 4. Religious hypocrisy: its description and overthrow (6:1–18)
        1. a. The principle (6:1)
        2. b. Three examples (6:2–18)
          1. (1) Alms (6:2–4)
          2. (2) Prayer (6:5–15)
            1. (a) Ostentatious prayer (6:5–6)
            2. (b) Repetitious prayer (6:7–8)
            3. (c) Model prayer (6:9–13)
            4. (d) Forgiveness and prayer (6:14–15)
          3. (3) Fasting (6:16–18)
      5. 5. Kingdom perspectives (6:19–34)
        1. a. Metaphors for unswerving loyalty to kingdom values (6:19–24)
          1. (1) Treasure (6:19–21)
          2. (2) Light (6:22–23)
          3. (3) Slavery (6:24)
        2. b. Uncompromised trust (6:25–34)
          1. (1) The principle (6:25)
          2. (2) The examples (6:26–30)
            1. (a) Life and food (6:26–27)
            2. (b) Body and clothes (6:28–30)
          3. (3) Distinctive living (6:31–32)
          4. (4) The heart of the matter (6:33)
          5. (5) Abolishing worry (6:34)
      6. 6. Balance and perfection (7:1–12)
        1. a. The danger of being judgmental (7:1–5)
          1. (1) The principle (7:1)
          2. (2) The theological justification (7:2)
          3. (3) An example (7:3–5)
        2. b. The danger of being undiscerning (7:6)
        3. c. Source and means of power (7:7–11)
        4. d. Balance and perfection (7:12)
      7. 7. Conclusion: call to decision and commitment (7:13–27)
        1. a. Two ways (7:13–14)
        2. b. Two trees (7:15–20)
        3. c. Two claims (7:21–23)
        4. d. Two builders (7:24–27)
      8. 8. Transitional conclusion: Jesus’ authority (7:28–29)
  • III. The Kingdom Extended under Jesus’ Authority (8:1–11:1)
    1. A. Narrative (8:1–10:4)
      1. 1. Healing miracles (8:1–17)
        1. a. A leper (8:1–4)
        2. b. The centurion’s servant (8:5–13)
        3. c. Peter’s mother-in-law (8:14–15)
        4. d. Many at evening (8:16–17)
      2. 2. The cost of following Jesus (8:18–22)
        1. Reflections: “The Son of Man” as a Christological Title
      3. 3. Calming a storm (8:23–27)
      4. 4. Further demonstration of Jesus’ authority (8:28–9:8)
        1. a. Exorcising two men (8:28–34)
        2. b. Healing a paralytic and forgiving his sins (9:1–8)
      5. 5. Calling Matthew (9:9)
      6. 6. Eating with sinners (9:10–13)
      7. 7. Fasting and the dawning of the messianic joy (9:14–17)
      8. 8. A resurrection and more healings (9:18–34)
        1. a. Raising a girl and healing a woman (9:18–26)
        2. b. Healing two blind men (9:27–31)
        3. c. Exorcising a dumb man (9:32–34)
      9. 9. Spreading the news of the kingdom (9:35–10:4)
        1. a. Praying for workers (9:35–38)
        2. b. Commissioning the Twelve (10:1–4)
    2. B. Second Discourse: Mission and Martyrdom (10:5–11:1)
      1. 1. Setting (10:5a)
      2. 2. The commission (10:5b–16)
      3. 3. Warnings of future sufferings (10:17–25)
        1. a. The Spirit’s help (10:17–20)
        2. b. Endurance (10:21–23)
        3. c. Inspiration (10:24–25)
      4. 4. Prohibition of fear (10:26–31)
        1. a. The emergence of truth (10:26–27)
        2. b. The nonfinality of death (10:28)
        3. c. Continuing providence (10:29–31)
      5. 5. Characteristics of discipleship (10:32–39)
        1. a. Acknowledging Jesus (10:32–33)
        2. b. Recognizing the gospel (10:34–36)
        3. c. Preferring Jesus (10:37–39)
      6. 6. Encouragement: response to the disciples and to Jesus (10:40–42)
      7. 7. Transitional conclusion: expanding ministry (11:1)
  • IV. Teaching and Preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom: Rising Opposition (11:2–13:53)
    1. A. Narrative (11:2–12:50)
      1. 1. Jesus and John the Baptist (11:2–19)
        1. a. John’s question and Jesus’ response (11:2–6)
        2. b. Jesus’ testimony to John (11:7–19)
          1. (1) John in redemptive history (11:7–15)
          2. (2) The unsatisfied generation (11:16–19)
      2. 2. The condemned and the accepted (11:20–30)
        1. a. The condemned: woes on unrepentant cities (11:20–24)
        2. b. The accepted (11:25–30)
          1. (1) Because of the revelation of the Father (11:25–26)
          2. (2) Because of the agency of the Son (11:27)
          3. (3) Because of the Son’s gentle invitation (11:28–30)
      3. 3. Sabbath conflicts (12:1–14)
        1. a. Picking heads of grain (12:1–8)
        2. b. Healing a man with a shriveled hand (12:9–14)
      4. 4. Jesus as the prophesied Servant (12:15–21)
      5. 5. Confrontation with the Pharisees (12:22–45)
        1. a. The setting and accusation (12:22–24)
        2. b. Jesus’ reply (12:25–37)
          1. (1) The divided kingdom (12:25–28)
          2. (2) The strong man’s house (12:29)
          3. (3) Blasphemy against the Spirit (12:30–32)
          4. (4) Nature and fruit (12:33–37)
        3. c. Continued confrontation (12:38–42)
          1. (1) Request for a sign (12:38)
          2. (2) The sign of Jonah (12:39–42)
        4. d. The return of the evil spirit (12:43–45)
      6. 6. Doing the Father’s will (12:46–50)
    2. B. Third Discourse: The Parables of the Kingdom (13:1–53)
      1. 1. The setting (13:1–3a)
      2. 2. To the crowds (13:3b–33)
        1. a. The parable of the soils (13:3b–9)
        2. b. Interlude (13:10–23)
          1. (1) On understanding parables (13:10–17)
          2. (2) Interpretation of the parable of the soils (13:18–23)
        3. c. The parable of the weeds (13:24–30)
        4. d. The parable of the mustard seed (13:31–32)
        5. e. The parable of the yeast (13:33)
      3. 3. Pause (13:34–43)
        1. a. Parables as fulfillment of prophecy (13:34–35)
        2. b. Interpretation of the parable of the weeds (13:36–43)
      4. 4. To the disciples (13:44–52)
        1. a. The parable of the hidden treasure (13:44)
        2. b. The parable of the expensive pearl (13:45–46)
        3. c. The parable of the net (13:47–48)
        4. d. Interlude (13:49–51)
          1. (1) Interpretation of the parable of the net (13:49–50)
          2. (2) On understanding parables (13:51)
        5. e. The parable of the teacher of the law (13:52)
      5. 5. Transitional conclusion: movement toward further opposition (13:53)
  • V. The Glory and the Shadow: Progressive Polarization (13:54–19:2)
    1. A. Narrative (13:54–17:27)
      1. 1. Rejected at Nazareth (13:54–58)
      2. 2. Herod and Jesus (14:1–12)
        1. a. Herod’s understanding of Jesus (14:1–2)
        2. b. Background: Herod’s execution of John the Baptist (14:3–12)
      3. 3. The feeding of the five thousand (14:13–21)
      4. 4. The walk on the water (14:22–33)
      5. 5. Transitional summary of constant and unavoidable ministry (14:34–36)
      6. 6. Jesus and the tradition of the elders (15:1–20)
      7. 7. More healings (15:21–31)
        1. a. The Canaanite woman (15:21–28)
        2. b. The many (15:29–31)
      8. 8. The feeding of the four thousand (15:32–39)
      9. 9. Another demand for a sign (16:1–4)
      10. 10. The yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees (16:5–12)
      11. 11. Peter’s confession of Jesus and its aftermath (16:13–23)
        1. a. The confession (16:13–20)
        2. b. The first passion prediction (16:21–23)
      12. 12. The way of discipleship (16:24–28)
      13. 13. The Transfiguration (17:1–13)
        1. a. Jesus transfigured (17:1–8)
        2. b. The place of Elijah (17:9–13)
      14. 14. The healing of an epileptic boy (17:14–20 [21])
      15. 15. The second major passion prediction (17:22–23)
      16. 16. The temple tax (17:24–27)
    2. B. Fourth Discourse: Life under Kingdom Authority (18:1–19:2)
      1. 1. Setting (18:1–2)
      2. 2. Humility and greatness (18:3–4)
      3. 3. The heinousness of causing believers to sin (18:5–9)
      4. 4. The parable of the lost sheep (18:10–14)
      5. 5. Treatment of a sinning brother (18:15–20)
      6. 6. Forgiveness (18:21–35)
        1. a. Repeated forgiveness (18:21–22)
        2. b. The parable of the unmerciful servant (18:23–35)
      7. 7. Transitional conclusion: introduction to the Judean ministry (19:1–2)
  • VI. Opposition and Eschatology: The Triumph of Grace (19:3–26:5)
    1. A. Narrative (19:3–23:39)
      1. 1. Marriage and divorce (19:3–12)
      2. 2. Blessing little children (19:13–15)
      3. 3. Wealth and the kingdom (19:16–30)
        1. a. The rich young man (19:16–22)
        2. b. Grace and reward in the kingdom (19:23–30)
      4. 4. The parable of the workers (20:1–16)
      5. 5. Third major passion prediction (20:17–19)
      6. 6. Suffering and service (20:20–28)
      7. 7. Healing two blind men (20:29–34)
      8. 8. Opening events of Passion Week (21:1–23:39)
        1. a. The Triumphal Entry (21:1–11)
        2. b. Jesus at the temple (21:12–17)
        3. c. The fig tree (21:18–22)
        4. d. Controversies in the temple court (21:23–22:46)
          1. (1) The question of authority (21:23–27)
          2. (2) The parable of the two sons (21:28–32)
          3. (3) The parable of the tenants (21:33–46)
          4. (4) The parable of the wedding banquet (22:1–14)
          5. (5) Paying taxes to Caesar (22:15–22)
          6. (6) Marriage at the resurrection (22:23–33)
          7. (7) The greatest commandments (22:34–40)
          8. (8) The son of David (22:41–46)
        5. e. Seven woes on the teachers of the law and the Pharisees (23:1–36)
          1. (1) Warning the crowds and the disciples (23:1–12)
          2. (2) The seven woes (23:13–32)
            1. (a) First woe (23:13 [14])
            2. (b) Second woe (23:15)
            3. (c) Third woe (23:16–22)
            4. (d) Fourth woe (23:23–24)
            5. (e) Fifth woe (23:25–26)
            6. (f) Sixth woe (23:27–28)
            7. (g) Seventh woe (23:29–32)
          3. (3) Conclusion (23:33–36)
        6. f. Lament over Jerusalem (23:37–39)
    2. B. Fifth Discourse: The Olivet Discourse (24:1–26:5)
      1. 1. Setting (24:1–3)
      2. 2. The birth pains (24:4–28)
        1. a. General description of the birth pains (24:4–14)
        2. b. The sharp pain: the fall of Jerusalem (24:15–21)
        3. c. Warnings against false messiahs during the birth pains (24:22–28)
      3. 3. The coming of the Son of Man (24:29–31)
      4. 4. The significance of the birth pains (24:32–35)
      5. 5. The day and hour unknown: the need to be prepared (24:36–41)
        1. a. The principle (24:36)
        2. b. Analogy of the days of Noah (24:37–39)
        3. c. Two in the field; two with a mill (24:40–41)
      6. 6. Parabolic teaching: variations on watchfulness (24:42–25:46)
        1. a. The homeowner and the thief (24:42–44)
        2. b. The two servants (24:45–51)
        3. c. The ten virgins (25:1–13)
        4. d. The talents (25:14–30)
        5. e. The sheep and the goats (25:31–46)
      7. 7. Transitional conclusion: fourth major passion prediction and the plot against Jesus (26:1–5)
  • VII. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus (26:6–28:20)
    1. A. The Passion (26:6–27:66)
      1. 1. Anointed at Bethany (26:6–13)
      2. 2. Judas’s betrayal agreement (26:14–16)
        1. Reflections: Chronological Considerations
      3. 3. The Lord’s Supper (26:17–30)
        1. a. Preparations for the Passover (26:17–19)
        2. b. Prediction of the betrayal (26:20–25)
        3. c. The words of institution (26:26–30)
      4. 4. Prediction of abandonment and denial (26:31–35)
      5. 5. Gethsemane (26:36–46)
      6. 6. The arrest (26:47–56)
      7. 7. Jesus before the Sanhedrin (26:57–68)
      8. 8. Peter’s denial of Jesus (26:69–75)
      9. 9. Formal decision of the Sanhedrin (27:1–2)
      10. 10. The death of Judas (27:3–10)
      11. 11. Jesus before Pilate (27:11–26)
      12. 12. The soldiers’ treatment of Jesus (27:27–31)
      13. 13. The crucifixion and mocking (27:32–44)
      14. 14. The death of Jesus (27:45–50)
      15. 15. Immediate impact of the death (27:51–56)
      16. 16. The burial of Jesus (27:57–61)
      17. 17. The guard at the tomb (27:62–66)
    2. B. The Resurrection (28:1–15)
      1. 1. The empty tomb (28:1–7)
      2. 2. First encounter with the risen Christ (28:8–10)
      3. 3. First fraudulent denials of Jesus’ resurrection (28:11–15)
    3. C. The Risen Messiah and His Disciples (28:16–20)
      1. 1. Jesus in Galilee (28:16–17)
      2. 2. The Great Commission (28:18–20)

    • B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1924).

    See, e.g., Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. J. Marsh (Oxford: Blackwell, 1963).

    Vincent Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark (2nd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1966).

    For a convenient history of the criticism of Matthew up to this point, see, in addition to some of the major introductions, W. G. Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems (trans. S. McL. Gilmour and H. C. Kee; Nashville: Abingdon, 1972); Stephen Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861–1986 (2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1988).

    G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946).

    Günther Bornkamm, “The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew,” in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (ed. G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, and H. J. Held; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 52–57.

    Bornkamm, Barth, and Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew.

    Pierre Bonnard, L’Évangile selon Saint Matthieu (2nd ed.; Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1970).

    David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972).

    Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (2nd ed.; Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1954).

    Wolfgang Trilling, Das wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthäus-Evangeliums (München: Kosel, 1964); Georg Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit (FRLANT 82; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962); O. Lamar Cope, Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1976); D. R. A. Hare, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel according to St. Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1967); Hubert Frankemölle, Jahwebund und Kirche Christi: Studien zur Form und Traditionsgeschichte des “Evangeliums” nach Matthäus (Munster: Aschendorff, 1974); G. Kunzel, Studien zum Gemeindeverständnis des Matthaus-Evangeliums (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1978); for a survey of Matthean studies, see R. P. Martin, New Testament Foundations (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–78), 1:224–43, and esp. the careful essay by Graham N. Stanton, “The Origin and Purpose of Matthew’s Gospel: Matthean Scholarship from 1945 to 1980,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (New York: de Gruyter, 1982), 2:25.

    See, e.g., B. F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1979); R. Latourelle, Finding Jesus through the Gospels (trans. A. Owen; New York: Alba, 1979); and the writings of such scholars as M. Hengel and H. Schürmann.

    Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading (Bible and Liberation 204; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001) and Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004); Stephen Westerholm, Understanding Matthew: The Early Christian Worldview of the First Gospel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006).

    Ulrich Luz, Studies in Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005); R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007); for further survey of the direction of Matthean studies, see Donald Senior, “Directions in Matthean Studies,” in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study (ed. David E. Aune; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 5–21.

    The various periods described are not completely sealed off from the other ones, and some scholars did run against the tide of their age. From rather different perspectives, Adolf Schlatter (Der Evangelist Matthäus [6th ed.; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1963]) and Ned B. Stonehouse (The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1944]) anticipated the more useful and reliable elements of redaction criticism, pointing out distinctive themes in Matthew’s gospel with deliberate caution and precision. On the other hand, when William Hendriksen produced his large commentary (The Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973]), he took relatively little note of recent developments; yet his work is doubtless of considerable help to pastors. Compare also the independent stances of Gerhard Maier (Matthäus-Evangelium [2 vols.; Neuhausen: Hanssler, 1979–80]) and of W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann (Matthew [Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday, 1971]).

    On these and similar questions, see E. E. Cairns, God and Man in Time: A Christian Approach to Historiography (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979); G. H. Clark, Historiography: Secular and Religious (Nutley, N.J.: Craig Press, 1971); C. T. McIntyre, ed., God, History and Historians: An Anthology of Modern Christian Views of History (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1977); J. A. Passmore, “The Objectivity of History,” in Philosophical Analysis and History (ed. W. H. Doty; New York: Harper, 1966), 75–94; A. C. Thiselton, The Two Horizons (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980); Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament History? (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1986); and esp. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).

    Contrast G. Vos, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus: The Modern Debate about the Messianic Consciousness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), and G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels (London: Collins, 1973); or, again, contrast N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1996), and many of the writings of John Dominic Crossan (e.g., The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991]).

    Cf. H. Palmer, The Logic of Gospel Criticism (London: Macmillan, 1968); Meyer, Aims of Jesus, esp. 76–110; Robert H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, with Special Reference to the Messianic Hope (NovTSup 18; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 189ff.; Birger Gerhardsson, The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001); Barry D. Smith, “The Historical-Critical Method, Jesus Research, and the Christian Scholar,” TJ 15 (1994): 201–20; and many essays in E. Earle Ellis, History and Interpretation in New Testament Perspective (Leiden: Brill, 2001).

    See David Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1970). A fine example is Eduard Schweizer’s statement (The Good News according to Matthew [Atlanta: John Knox, 1975], 11) that “the evangelist’s intent ... was theological rather than historical.”

    K. Tagama, “People and Community in the Gospel of Matthew,” NTS 16 (1969–70): 149–62.

    This is dealt with at some length in Martin Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1979), 35–68; D. A. Carson, “Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel—After Dodd, What?” in Gospel Perspectives (ed. R. T. France and D. Wenham; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980–81), 2:115–21.

    Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies.

    See D. A. Carson, “Unity and Diversity: On the Possibility of Systematic Theology,” in Scripture and Truth (ed. D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 65–95.

    Carter, Matthew and the Margins and Matthew; Stanton, “Origin and Purpose,” ch. 3; Dale C. Allison Jr., Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005).

    See Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).

    Graham N. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1974).

    See Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels (2nd ed.; Nashville: Broadman, 2009); Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1999); and esp. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

    D. A. Carson, “Redaction Criticism: On the Legitimacy and Illegitimacy of a Literary Tool,” in Scripture and Truth (ed. Carson and Woodbridge), 119–42.

    See R. T. France, “The Authenticity of the Sayings of Jesus,” in History, Criticism and Faith (ed. C. Brown; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1976), 101–43; R. H. Stein, “The ‘Criteria’ for Authenticity,” in Gospel Perspectives (ed. France and Wenham), 1:225–63; Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, esp. 3–34; Stanley E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (JSNTSup 191; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000); Simon J. Gathercole, “Redaction Criticism, Tradition-History and Myth in New Testament Theology: In Response to Georg Strecker,” Them 28/3 (2003): 40–48.

    See H. Riesenfeld, “The Gospel Tradition and Its Beginnings,” SE 1 (1959): 43–65; B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (Lund: Gleerup, 1961); and esp. Samuel Byrskog, Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community (ConBNT 24; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994); Samuel Byrskog, Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (Tübingen: Mohr, 2000).

    See W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1963), 464ff.; Peter H. Davids, “The Gospels and Jewish Tradition,” in Gospel Perspectives (ed. France and Wenham), 1:75–99; Peter Head, “The Role of Eyewitnesses in the Formation of the Gospel Tradition,” TynBul 52 (2001): 275–94.

    E. Guttgemanns, Candid Questions Concerning Gospel Form Criticism (trans. W. H. Doty; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1979).

    See E. E. Ellis, “New Directions in Form Criticism,” in Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie (ed. G. Strecker; Tübingen: Mohr, 1975), 299–315.

    F. Neirynck, “La rédaction Matthéenne et la structure du premier évangile,” in De Jésus aux evangiles (ed. I. de la Potterie; Gembloux: Duculot, 1967), 41–73, esp. 51.

    See Morna D. Hooker, “Christology and Methodology,” NTS 17 (1970–71): 480–87.

    Stewart C. Goetz and Craig L. Blomberg, “The Burden of Proof,” JSNT 11 (1981): 39–63, esp. 52, emphasis theirs.

    Ibid.

    Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 3.39.16.

    For general discussion of this difficult question, see the NT introductions and the literature cited below. For arguments against the view that canonical Matthew uses translation Greek, see Nigel Turner, Style (vol. 4 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, ed. J. H. Moulton; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1976), 4:37–38.

    For more discussion, see Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (3rd ed.; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1970), 34–37.

    T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1949), 18ff.

    Cf. J. R. Harris, Testimonies (2 vols.; rev. ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1920); F. C. Grant, The Gospels: Their Origin and Their Growth (New York: Harper, 1957), 65, 144.

    So, among others, C. S. Petrie, “The Authorship of ‘The Gospel According to Matthew’: A Reconsideration of the External Evidence,” NTS 14 (1967): 15–32.

    J. Kürzinger, “Das Papiaszeugnis und die Erstgestalt des Matthäusevangeliums,” BZ 4 (1960): 19–38. The argument above diverges from Kürzinger at one or two minor points.

    See Schlatter, Matthäus; P. Gaechter, Das Matthäus Evangelium (Innsbruck: Tyrolia-Verlag, 1963); J. W. Wenham, “Gospel Origins,” TJ 7 (1978): 112–34; see also below.

    LSJ, 401.

    See the full discussion of the problem in W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–97), 1:7–17.

    See Christopher M. Tuckett, “The Argument from Order and the Synoptic Problem,” TZ 36 (1980): 338–54.

    In addition to the standard NT introductions, see esp. Ned Stonehouse, Origins of the Synoptic Gospels: Some Basic Questions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 48–77; G. M. Styler, “The Priority of Mark,” in The Birth of the New Testament (C. F. D. Moule; 3rd ed.; London: Black, 1981), 285–316. For a convenient summary and recent bibliography, see D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 77–133.

    See Hill, Matthew, 28.

    Roland Mushat Frye, “The Synoptic Problems and Analogies in Other Literatures,” in The Relationships among the Gospels: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue (ed. W. O. Walker Jr.; San Antonio, Tex.: Trinity Univ. Press, 1978), 261–302.

    Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.39.15.

    A. Gaboury, La structure des évangiles synoptiques (NovTSup 22; Leiden: Brill, 1970); X.-Léon Dufour, “Redaktionsgeschichte of Matthew and Literary Criticism,” in Jesus and Man’s Hope (ed. D. Miller; Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1970), 9–35.

    So H. Benedict Green, The Gospel according to Matthew (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1975); A. M. Farrer, “On Dispensing with Q,” in Studies in the Gospels (ed. D. E. Nineham; Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), 55–88; M. D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974); Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin, eds., Questioning Q (London: SPCK, 2004). This is quite different from B. C. Butler (The Originality of St Matthew [Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1951]), who argued that Matthew was prior, Mark abridged Matthew, and Luke was dependent on Matthew for what we call Q material and on Mark for what Matthew and Mark had in common.

    Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981); 2nd ed. titled Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994).

    See

    ; D. A. Carson, “Gundry on Matthew: A Critical Review,” TJ 3:1 (1982): 71–91.

    J. M. Rist, On the Independence of Matthew and Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1978); Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Matthew 1:1–11:1 (Concordia Commentary; St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 2006).

    See J. W. Wenham, “Gospel Origins,” 112 n. 45; Pierson Parker, The Gospel before Mark (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1953); L. Vaganay, Le problème synoptique—une hypothèse de travail (Tournai: Desclée, 1954). Somewhat similar is the view of J. A. T. Robinson (Redating the New Testament [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], 97–98). Others think the alleged Semitic original was written in Hebrew rather than Aramaic (e.g., Gaechter, Matthäus; Jean Carmignac, Recherches sur le “Notre Père” [Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1969], 33ff.). Johannes Munck (“Die Tradition über das Matthäusevangelium bei Papias,” in Neotestamentica et Semitica [NovTSup 6; Leiden: Brill, 1962], 249ff.) disposes of the entire problem by supposing Papias was in error and that the early assumption of a Semitic source for Matthew developed in connection with the formation of the canon as a way to resolve the Synoptic Problem. Munck’s proposal confuses content and purpose. Even if Papias and others were interested in explaining synoptic differences (a doubtful point), it does not follow that their “facts” are historically incorrect. It would be necessary to show they invented their “facts” in order to offer an explanation.

    David Wenham (“The Synoptic Problem Revisited: Some New Suggestions about the Composition of Mark 4:1–34,” TynBul 23 [1972]: 8–17) exposes some of the weaker arguments—though not all of his criticisms are equally telling.

    Gundry, Use of the Old Testament.

    Occasionally Gundry’s judgment regarding textual affinities may be called into question, especially when he deals with brief allusions to the OT rather than explicit quotations, though the thrust of his argument is not lessened by these few points. D. Wenham (“Synoptic Problem”) unsuccessfully attempts to reduce the cogency of Gundry’s argument. Wenham points out that Mark almost always cites the OT on the lips of participants in his narrative, not in his own descriptions, and that Matthew normally uses the LXX when his participants cite the OT, even though his own use of the OT betrays a much broader array of textual affinities. Therefore it is possible, Wenham reasons, that Mark depended on Matthew; and Mark’s consistent appeal to the LXX is explained by his decision to use OT (and therefore LXX) quotations primarily when they are on the lips of participants in his narratives. Wenham’s critique, though clever, is not convincing. Not only are there exceptions to his observations, but more importantly, Wenham deals only with explicit OT quotations, not with OT allusions that, though harder to handle, are more widely distributed.

    See Palmer, Logic of Gospel Criticism, 112–74.

    For instance, we speak of Q with little consensus of what is meant (cf. S. Schulz, Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten [Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972]; M. Devisch, “Le document Q source de Matthieu. Problematique actuelle,” in L’Évangile selon Matthieu: Rédaction et Théologie (ed. M. Didier; BETL 29; Gembloux: Duculot, 1972), 71–97. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays [Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978], 1ff., 85ff.) offers wise counsel on method in the search for Aramaic substrata underlying sayings of Jesus in the NT.

    See esp. E. P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS 9; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1969).

    See Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 71–72.

    See the restrained summary in John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 4–9.

    Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. Howard Clark Kee; Nashville: Abingdon, 1975), 121.

    Ibid.

    Kilpatrick, Origins of the Gospel according to Matthew, 138–39.

    Ernest L. Abel, “Who Wrote Matthew?” NTS 17 (1970–71): 138–52.

    See John P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel (New York: Paulist, 1979), 17–23; Strecker, Weg der Gerechtigkeit, 34; Sjef van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 171.

    See, e.g., Hill, Matthew.

    Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 121.

    Not a few contemporary biographies treat certain parts of their subject’s life in topical arrangements (e.g., A. Fraser, Cromwell: Our Chief of Men [St. Albans: Panther, 1975], esp. 455ff.).

    So Meier, Vision of Matthew, 17–23.

    Kilpatrick, Origins of the Gospel according to Matthew.

    Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 178–85.

    C. F. D. Moule, “St. Matthew’s Gospel: Some Neglected Features,” SE 2 (1964): 98.

    Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 108–12.

    See Michael J. Kruger, review of Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, WTJ 69 (2007): 413–17.

    See E. J. Goodspeed, Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist (Philadelphia: Winston, 1959); Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 33–44; Maier, Matthäus-Evangelium; very cautiously, E. F. Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 176–77, and esp. Gundry, Matthew, 609–22; Stonehouse, Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, 1–47.

    See E. Masseaux, Influence de l’Évangile de Saint Matthieu sur la littérature chrétienne avant Saint Irenée (Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1950).

    Cf. esp. A. J. Mattill Jr., “The Date and Purpose of Luke-Acts: Rackham Reconsidered,” CBQ 40 (1978): 335–50.

    See Stonehouse, Origins of the Synoptic Gospels, 35–42.

    See Bo Reicke, “Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem,” in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature (ed. D. E. Aune; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 123.

    See Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 103–5, esp. 103: “Matthew’s gospel shows all the signs of being produced for a community (and by a community) that needed to formulate, over against the main body of Pharisaic and Sadducaic Judaism, its own line on such issues as the interpretation of scripture and the place of the law, its attitude to the temple and its sacrifices, the Sabbath, fasting, prayer, food laws and purification rites, its rules for admission to the community and the discipline of offenders, for marriage, divorce and celibacy, its policy toward Samaritans and Gentiles in a predominantly Jewish milieu, and so on. These problems reflect a period when the needs of co-existence force a clarification of what is the distinctively Christian line on a number of practical issues which previously could be taken for granted.” (See further .) This view differs from that of Douglas Hare and others who think a decisive break had already come about by the time this gospel was written.

    Reicke, “Synoptic Prophecies,” 133.

    Gundry, Matthew, 599ff.

    Similarly France, Matthew, 18–19.

    Van Tilborg, Jewish Leaders in Matthew, 172.

    Benjamin W. Bacon, Studies in Matthew (London: Constable, 1930), 15, 36, 51; R. E. Osborne, “The Provenance of Matthew’s Gospel,” SR 3 (1973): 22–25.

    E. Schweizer, Matthäus und seine Gemeinde (Stuttgart: KBW, 1974), 138–39f.

    Kilpatrick, Origins of the Gospel according to Matthew, 130ff.

    B. T. Viviano, “Where Was the Gospel According to Matthew Written?” CBQ 41 (1979): 533–46.

    See Stanton, “Origin and Purpose,” ch. 5; Hill, Matthew.

    H. Dixon Slingerland, “The Transjordanian Origin of St. Matthew’s Gospel,” JSNT 3 (1979): 18–28.

    So Filson, Gospel according to St. Matthew; Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 119–20; France, Gospel of Matthew [NICNT]; Hill, Gospel of Matthew.

    There are many other reconstructions. For example, K. W. Clark (“The Gentile Bias in Matthew,” JBL 66 [1947]: 165–72) argues that the evangelist or final redactor must have been a Gentile addressing a Gentile Christian church. Schuyler Brown (“The Matthean Community and the Gentile Mission,” NovT 22 [1980]: 193–221) locates the Matthean church in a Greek-speaking area of Syria, after AD 70, when much Jewish Christianity was forced to move to Syria and therefore new crises in evangelism and conflicts with the Pharisees arose.

    Rolf Walker, Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967).

    Frankemölle, Jahwebund und Kirche Christi.

    Ibid., 394.

    Ibid., 351.

    Goulder, Midrash and Lection.

    P. Carrington, The Primitive Christian Calendar (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1952); Kilpatrick, Origins of the Gospel according to Matthew, 100.

    See Leon Morris, The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries (London: Tyndale, 1964).

    See Stanton, “Origin and Purpose,” ch. 4.

    Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 1.67.

    See critical reviews of Goulder’s Midrash and Lection in Matthew in Int 30 (1976): 91–94; in JBL (1977), 453–55; and in J. D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1977), 141–48.

    See esp. David C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998).

    See France, Gospel of Matthew [NICNT], 17.

    See Richard Bauckham, ed., The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).

    See Moule, Birth of the New Testament, 91.

    This does not rule out debate over whether some documents are actually dependent on Matthew. See, esp., Huub van de Sandt, ed., Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005).

    See Gordon D. Fee, “Modern Text Criticism and the Synoptic Problem,” in J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies, 1776–1976 (ed. Bernard Orchard and Thomas R. W. Longstaff; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1978), 154–69; more broadly, cf. C. M. Martini, “La problématique générale du texte de Matthieu,” in Didier, L’Évangile selon Matthieu, 21–36. See Matthew C. Williams, Two Gospels from One: A Comprehensive Text-Critical Analysis of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006).

    G. M. Styler, “Stages in Christology in the Synoptic Gospels,” NTS 10 (1963–64): 398–409.

    See Hill, Matthew, 64–66.

    See Brian M. Nolan, The Royal Son of God: The Christology of Matthew 1–2 in the Setting of the Gospel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979).

    See Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).

    See the telling critique by David Hill, “Son and Servant: An Essay on Matthean Christology,” JSNT 6 (1980): 2–16. Kingsbury maintains, for instance, that “Son of God” dominates the thought of one section of six chapters where the title does not once appear.

    See the bibliography in J. W. Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1954), and in Craig Blomberg, “Matthew,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 1–109; Gundry, Use of the Old Testament; Richard S. McConnell, Law and Prophecy in Matthew’s Gospel (Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt, 1969); Wilhelm Rothfuchs, Die Erfüllungszitate des Matthäus-Evangeliums (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969); George M. Soares-Prabhu, The Formula Quotations in the Infancy Narrative of Matthew (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976); Stendahl, School of St. Matthew; Strecker, Weg der Gerechtigkeit.

    See M. J. J. Menken, Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist (BETL 173; Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 2004).

    See Stendahl, School of St. Matthew.

    See Strecker, Weg der Gerechtigkeit.

    See Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 193–204.

    See, e.g., Stendahl, School of St. Matthew, 203; Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 143.

    See F. F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 16–17.

    See Stanton, “Origin and Purpose,” ch. 4.4.

    Bacon, Studies in Matthew; Kilpatrick, Origins of the Gospel according to Matthew, 107–9.

    See, e.g., Barth, “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law,” in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (ed. Bornkamm, Barth, and Held), 74–75.

    Several have pointed out the pun between ḥalāqōt (“smooth things”) and halākōt (“legal decisions affecting conduct”), the latter the aim of the Pharisees.

    See, e.g., E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).

    Phillip Sigal, The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth according to the Gospel of Matthew (rev. ed.; Studies in Biblical Literature 18; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2007).

    For a convenient summary of recent literature, see Stanton, “Origin and Purpose,” ch. 4, section 2. Stanton neglects to mention the extraordinarily important work by B. F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (see

    ).

    Alexander Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism in the Making: A Chapter in the History of the Halakah from Ezra to Judah I (Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1970).

    Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions of the Pharisees (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1971). For a simplified treatment, see his From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973).

    Ellis Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution: The Pharisee’s Search for the Kingdom Within (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978).

    Sigal, Halakhah of Jesus; see also his The Emergence of Contemporary Judaism, Part I and II: The Foundations of Judaism from Biblical Origins to the Sixth Century AD (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980). A somewhat similar dichotomy is adopted by John Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973).

    See Stephen Westerholm, Jesus and Scribal Authority (CBNTS 10; Lund: Gleerup, 1978), 26–39.

    See B. Lindars, “Jesus and the Pharisees,” in Donum Gentilicium (ed. E. Bammel, C. K. Barrett, and W. D. Davies; Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 51–63, esp. 62–63.

    The most seminal of these works is that of David Instone-Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE (TSAJ 30; Tübingen: Mohr, 1992).

    L. Gaston, “The Messiah of Israel as Teacher of the Gentiles,” Int 29 (1975): 34.

    Cf. D. A. Carson, “Jewish Leaders in Matthew’s Gospel: A Reappraisal,” JETS 25 (1982): 161–74. For a concise presentation of the data, see David E. Garland, The Intention of Matthew 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 218–21.

    S. Legasse, “L’ ‘antijudaisme’ dans l’Évangile selon Matthieu,” in Didier, L’Évangile selon Matthieu, 417–28.

    Luz, Studies in Matthew, 260–61.

    See Paul Foster, Community, Law and Mission in Matthew’s Gospel (Tübingen: Mohr, 2004).

    See Albright and Mann, Matthew, cxxiv–cxxxi.

    Heinz Joachim Held, “Matthew as Interpreter of the Miracle Stories,” in Bornkamm, Barth, and Held, 210.

    Barth, “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law,” in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (ed. Bornkamm, Barth, and Held), 105ff.

    See D. A. Carson, “Christological Ambiguities in the Gospel of Matthew,” in Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie (ed. Harold Rowdon; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1982), 97–114.

    Andrew H. Trotter, “Understanding and Stumbling: A Study of the Disciples’ Understanding of Jesus and His Teaching in the Gospel of Matthew” (PhD diss.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1986).

    C. H. Talbert, What Is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).

    D. E. Aune, “The Problem of the Genre of the Gospels,” in Gospel Perspectives (ed. France and Wenham), 9–60; cf. R. H. Gundry, “Recent Investigations into the Literary Genre ‘Gospel,’” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study (ed. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 97–114.

    Aune, “Problem of Genre,” 48.

    Perhaps the most important work is that of Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004).

    Goulder, Midrash and Lection.

    J. D. M. Derrett, Studies in the New Testament (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1977–78).

    Klyne R. Snodgrass, “Streams of Tradition Emerging from Isaiah 40:1–5 and Their Adaptation in the New Testament,” JSNT 8 (1980): 40.

    See Jacob Neusner, Judaism and the Interpretation of Scripture: Introduction to Rabbinic Midrash (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004).

    See Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery Peck, eds., Encyclopedia of Midrash: Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2005).

    See Maurya P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretation of Biblical Books (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1979).

    Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 32.

    Douglas J. Moo, The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives (Sheffield: Almond, 1983).

    See Gundry, Matthew, 63ff.

    Moo, Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives, 66.

    See Daniel Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine (Missoula, Mont.: SBL, 1975), 49ff.

    See D. A. Carson, “Gundry on Matthew: A Critical Review,” TJ 3 n.s. (1982): 71–91.

    See, e.g., Alan Hugh McNeile, The Gospel according to St. Matthew (London: Macmillan, 1915).

    Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Matthäus; Stonehouse, Witness of Matthew, 129–31.

    Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975).

    See, e.g., Ulrich Luz, both in his commentary, Matthew, and in his Studies. See also Wim J. C. Weren, “The Macrostructure of Matthew’s Gospel: A New Proposal,” Bib 87 (2006): 171–99, who argues for a large structure grounded in topographical data, and then refined by various “kernels” and “satellites.”

    Benjamin Bacon, “The ‘Five Books’ of Moses Against the Jews,” Expositor 15 (1918): 56–66.

    ↑ Back to top

    ↑