Reconstructing the Social and Religious Milieu of Matthew: Methods
RECONSTRUCTING THE SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS
MILIEU OF MATTHEW: METHODS, SOURCES,
AND POSSIBLE RESULTS
David C. Sim The social and religious milieu of Matthew! has been the dominant theme in Matthean scholarship over the last two decades or so. Interest in this fascinating issue shows no sign of waning soon; in fact, it appears to be intensifying as scholarly discourse becomes polarized on a number of fundamental questions.
In this study I wish to examine a number of issues that are directly pertinent to this theme. The first concerns whether or not it is permissible even to engage this subject. The challenge to the consensus view of "the Matthean community" by Richard Bauckham and others has the potential to bring to an abrupt halt all inquiry into the Gospel's social and religious contexts. The evidence suggests, however, that the attack by Bauckham has not won the day.
Following this preliminary discussion, I will move to the question of the Gospel's date. Because most scholars date the Gospel in the same general period, this is not an issue that significantly occupies scholarly attention. Yet, as I will argue, there may well be grounds for dating Matthew some decades later. If this policy were to be entertained or even accepted, it would impact in important
1. For the sake of convenience and with due reference to convention, I use the term "Matthew" to denote both the Gospel and its author. I agree with the scholarly consensus that the author of this Gospel was not the disciple Matthew. The only serious and sustained attempt in recent times to demonstrate that he was this disciple has come from Robert Gundry, who has tried to substantiate the tradition transmitted by Papias that is preserved in the writings of Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.39.3-16). See Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Community under Persecution (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 609-22 and, more recently, "The Apostolically Johannine Pre-Papian Tradition concerning the Gospels of Mark and Matthew," in The Old Is Better: New Testament Essays in Support of Traditional
Interpretations (ed. R. H. Gundry; WUNT 178; Tibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 49-73. For a critique of Gundry's arguments, see David C. Sim, "The Gospel of Matthew, John the Elder and the Papias Tradition: A Response to R. H. Gundry," Hervormde Teologiese Studies 63 (2007):
283-99.
=[35-
MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE
ways how we perceive the social and religious settings of this document. Another matter that requires attention is the location of the Gospel. The consensus view that it was composed in Antioch has come under challenge from those who suggest a Galilean provenance. The credentials of this alternative hypothesis have rather inexplicably not been tested fully in the scholarly arena, but I will attempt to demonstrate that it suffers from serious weaknesses. Related to the question of the Gospel's location is the issue of whether it is possible to write a history of the Matthean community. This is certainly possible if that community is situated in Antioch because we know a lot about the history of the Christian movement in that particular city, but it becomes more difficult if the Gospel is located elsewhere. I will also examine another method of reconstructing the history of the evangelist's group, one that uses the layers of tradition in the Gospel itself, and conclude that this approach faces serious difficulties.
In terms of the social and religious milieu of Matthew's community, the point will be made that scholars have largely focused on its Jewish setting and that opinions are sharply divided on this question. But the Jewish context for this
Gospel, while doubtless important, is simply one of its settings, and scholars need to broaden the discussion to take these other contexts into account. A start has been made on the Roman imperial context of the Gospel, but much more needs to be done in terms of its Christian setting and its relationship with the Gentile world.
1. THE GOSPEL FOR ALL CHRISTIANS OR FOR THE MATTHEAN COMMUNITY?
Up until a decade or so ago, it was common practice to assume that Matthew was the spokesperson for a particular Christian community, and that he had written his Gospel and edited his sources to address the particular needs of that group. Working with that assumption, it was a short step from noting the peculiar themes and emphases in the Gospel to reconstructing the social and religious setting of the addressees. But the certainty associated with this approach came to an abrupt end when Richard Bauckham called the underlying assumption into question and argued to the contrary that all of the Gospels were written for much broader Christian readerships, possibly all Christians in fact.2 Bauckham's work was potentially explosive for scholarly reconstructions of any Gospel community because it denied that the evangelists had composed their Gospels to meet the needs of their home communities. For Bauckham there were no Gospel communities at all. Therefore all reconstructions of the social setting of Matthew's group,
2. Richard Bauckham, "For Whom Were Gospels Written?," in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (ed. R. Bauckham; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998),
9-48. The other contributions in this volume attempted to support Bauckham's hypothesis by examining related themes,
THE SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS MILIEU OF MATTHEW
for example, were based upon a false assumption and were to be rejected as a scholarly fiction.
Bauckham's study had an immediate and influential impact, especially in more conservative scholarly circles, but it was not long before the inevitable challenges to it saw the light of day. The debate initiated by Bauckham continues to engage the attention of scholars,' although the intensity of the initial exchanges has arguably lessened over time. But even though this issue has not yet been resolved, it is true to say that Bauckham's work has not had a major impact on studies of the Gospel communities. In the specific case of the Matthean community, the fact that a number of doctoral dissertations on this theme have recently been published testifies that the new generation of Matthean scholars has sided with Bauckham's critics. The study of the religious and social milieu of this
Gospel and its underlying community, despite the critics of this approach, can be deemed legitimate.
2. DATE I want to begin the discussion of this theme with an issue that is usually taken as a given, the date of Matthew's Gospel. This is a matter of fundamental importance because the date of any given text directly governs the manner in which we understand its background and the context(s) in which it took shape. The vast majority of scholars continue to date Matthew in the 80s or the 90s, that is, in the decades following the Jewish revolt against Rome.> That the Gospel was written after this conflict is based largely on two arguments.® First, the evangelist used
Mark as a major source, and that Gospel was composed in the late 60s or the early
70s. Secondly, in his heavily redacted version of the parable of the wedding feast
(Matt 22:1-10), Matthew reveals his knowledge of the destruction of Jerusalem 3. See in particular, Philip F. Esler, "Community and Gospel in Early Christianity: A Response to Richard Bauckham's Gospels for All Christians," SJT 51 (1998): 235-48; David C.
Sim, "The Gospels for All Christians? A Response to Richard Bauckham," JSNT 24 (2001): 3-27;
Wendy E. Sproston North, "John for Readers of Mark? A Response to Richard Bauckham's
Proposal," JSNT 25 (2003): 449-68, and Margaret Mitchell, "Patristic Counter-Evidence to the Claim that 'The Gospels Were Written for All Christians," NTS 51 (2005): 36-79.
4. For a full survey of the debate up to 2004, see Edward W. Klink, "The Gospel Community Debate: State of the Question," Currents in Biblical Research 3 (2004): 60-85.
5. There are occasional attempts to demonstrate an earlier date prior to 70 c.g. In more recent times, see Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook, 599-609; Richard T.
France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Exeter: Paternoster, 1989), 82-91, and John L.
Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2005), 14-17.
6. See the detailed discussion of these arguments in David C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (Studies of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 31-40.
MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE
(verse 7). The evidence that Matthew must be given a date no later than the first century is derived from the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius shows some familiarity with the written Gospel, and his epistles can be dated to the first or second decade of the second century.
All of these arguments require some comment. The Gospel of Mark provides no unambiguous clues as to its date, despite the ingenious scholarly reconstructions that attempt to link Mark's apocalyptic discourse with the Jewish war, and some Marcan scholars have argued that this Gospel belongs to a much earlier period." The witness of Matt 22:7, which does seem to be a direct reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, poses a further problem of its own that is not usually acknowledged. If Matthew composed his Gospel relatively soon after the Jewish war and saw fit to refer to the fate of Jerusalem in this text, then why does he include only this single allegorical reference to this event? It is instructive to compare this allusion to Luke's much more clear statements about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. In the unique material of Luke 19:41-44, Jesus weeps when he approaches Jerusalem as he foresees the siege and destruction of the city. A little later Luke refers again to the siege and desolation of Jerusalem in his redaction of Mark (Luke 21:20; see Mark 13:14). Luke's great interest in the Jewish war remains puzzling given that this Gospel was probably written somewhere in Greece and was therefore far removed from the arena of the conflict. By the same token, Matthew's comparative disinterest is striking if, as most Matthean scholars accept, Matthew was located much closer to the war zone.
But we may pursue this point a little further, Most Matthean scholars argue that in one way or another the Jewish conflict with Rome and its disastrous aftermath radically affected the evangelist and his readers. It is commonly accepted that Matthew's Christian group came into conflict with the leaders of formative Judaism after the Jewish revolt when a struggle for power ensued within the Jewish community. Other scholars have suggested that Matthew's group underwent a fundamental change because of the influx of refugees after the war. Yet others have made a case that this community suffered persecution by Gentiles as a direct result of the Jewish war, while another view maintains that the evangelist hardened his view against Roman imperialism in the light of Roman excesses both during and after the conflict. Almost all Matthean scholars, therefore, would argue that the events of 66-70 had a dramatic and lasting impact on the Matthean community.
Yet, despite the supposedly crucial consequences of these events, the evangelist was content to refer to them on a single occasion and even then in an allegorical way. One cannot escape this difficulty by claiming that there are further references to the Jewish war in the apocalyptic discourse of chapters 24-25. a 7. See James G. Crossley, The Date of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity JSNTSup 266; London: T&T Clark, 2004), who dates Mark to the mid-40s at the latest.
THE SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS MILIEU OF MATTHEW
As with all material of this nature, it is open to a variety of interpretations, and it is true to say that most scholars apply parts of this material to the Jewish revolt on the grounds that they assume beforehand that Matthew is post-70. If it were presumed instead that Matthew was a pre-war document, other interpretations of this material would be adopted. So the problem remains. Scholars who argue that Matthew wrote after the revolt and that his community was heavily influenced by these events are required to explain why he says so little about it.
One way to avoid the difficulty would be to date the Gospel somewhat later than we currently do. A date in the early decades of the second century, when memories of the terrible events of 66-70 C.£. were receding, might explain the evangelist's failure to emphasize these events. Needless to say, any attempt to posit a later date would seem to be precluded by the evidence of Ignatius of Antioch who, on the accepted chronology, refers to the written text of Matthew at precisely this time. But this response may not be as convincing as it first seems.
Ignatian studies have undergone a major development in recent times, and Matthean scholars must take this into account.
Some years ago a debate exploded between those scholars who accepted the traditional view that Ignatius should be dated to the time of the emperor Trajan, and those who argued that the letters were in fact pseudonymous and should be dated to the 160s or the 170s. Reinhard M. Hiibner has argued that the epistles were written in the name of Ignatius by a follower of Noetus of Smyrna around the years 165-175 c.£. in order to combat the growing threat of Gnosticism. In a similar vein Thomas Lechner has claimed that the Ignatian corpus was written in this period as a direct response to the heretical notions of Valentinus.° Replies to these views were quick to appear, and all of them criticized the claim of pseudonymity and/or the late dating of the Ignatian letters.!° While there is no necessity here to enter into the details of this debate, it is legitimate to ask what affect it might have on the reconstruction of Matthew's social setting. If it could be shown that the Ignatian epistles were indeed later than the reign of Trajan, and even one critic of Hiibner and Lechner concedes that they have established this much,!!
8. Reinhard M. Hiibner, "Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien," ZAC 1 (1997): 44-72.
9. Thomas Lechner, Ignatius Adversus Valentinianos? Chronologische und theologiegeschichtliche Studien zu den Briefen des Ignatius von Antiochen (VCSup 47; Leiden: Brill, 1999).
10. For responses to Hiibner, see Andreas Lindemann, "Antwort auf die Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien," ZAC 1 (1997): 185-94; Georg
Schéllgen, "Die Ignatianen als pseudepigraphisches Briefcorpus: Anmerkung zu den Thesen von Reinhard M. Hiibner," ZAC 2 (1998): 16-25; Mark J. Edwards, "Ignatius and the Second
Century: An Answer to R. Hiibner," ZAC 2 (1998): 214-26, and Hermann J. Vogt, "Bemerkungen zur Echtheit der Ignatiusbriefe," ZAC 3 (1999): 50-63. For a rejoinder to Lechner, see the review of his book by A. Lindemann, ZAC 6 (2002): 157-61.
11. See Lindemann, "Antwort auf die Thesen zur Echtheit," 193-94.
MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE
then there is no reason to set the latest date for the Gospel in the first century; it might be the case that it was written in the early part of the second century. Such a view would have a considerable impact on the setting of the Matthean community in many ways. I shall mention some of these in due course, but it is pertinent to discuss one now.
That Matthew's Gospel, especially the material openly critical of the scribes and Pharisees, reflects a conflict with formative Judaism is a well-established opinion in the field. This view, however, becomes progressively less likely the earlier we date the Gospel. Many decades ago, it was accepted that the transition from Pharisaism to an authoritative and powerful rabbinic Judaism took place almost immediately after the Jewish war. The Pharisees, under the leadership of Johanan ben Zakkai, managed to fill the power vacuum left by the revolt, and to force their own brand of Judaism on the remainder of the Jewish population.
This was the view of William D. Davies in his seminal work on the Sermon on the Mount. In a long and detailed discussion of the Matthean Sermon and the Pharisaic developments at Yavneh, Davies concluded that the Sermon on the Mount was the Christian answer to Yavneh.!? On this view we can date Matthew with confidence to the 80s or the 90s because this proto-rabbinism emerged and established its authority very soon after the war.
But the problem with this line of argument is that we now know, thanks in large measure to the pioneering work of Jacob Neusner, that this developmental process from Pharisaism to rabbinic Judaism was much more complex and took much longer to achieve than was earlier thought. Neusner coined the term
"formative Judaism" to describe the complicated and lengthy transitional phase between the pre-war Pharisees and the much later Judaism of the rabbis.!3 In the light of Neusner's work, which has largely been accepted, it is not so easy to see Matthew's community, on the consensus dating, in conflict with the proponents of formative Judaism. Would the scribes and Pharisees, two of the leading groups of formative Judaism, have been sufficiently powerful and influential by the 80s or the 90s to have caused the problems for Matthew's group that we identify in the Gospel? In sociological parlance, could an embryonic or even fledgling formative Judaism have constituted the "parent body" with which the sectarian
Matthean community was in dispute? The difficulty remains even if Matthew is located in the heartland of formative Judaism, Galilee, and it becomes progres12. William D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1964), 256-315. In his later commentary on Matthew, in association with Dale C, Allison, Davies presented the same thesis, though in an abridged form. See William D.
Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (3 vols; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988, 1991, 1997), 1:133-38.
13. Neusner has presented his views in a multitude of publications. A concise summary of his overall position is found in Jacob Neusner, "The Formation of Rabbinic Judaism: Yavneh from A.D. 70-100," ANRW 19.2:3-42.
THE SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS MILIEU OF MATTHEW
sively more problematic the further Matthew is placed beyond that location. To his credit, William D. Davies noted the problem that Neusner's work created, and he responded by continuing to argue that formative Judaism in Yavneh was a sufficiently cohesive and authoritative movement by the 90s.!4 Unlike Davies, however, many other scholars have not really addressed this issue at all. Their work has proceeded largely on the assumption that formative Judaism had achieved some degree of cohesion and authority by that time, albeit with the cautions and qualifications necessitated by the work of Neusner.!5
Yet this problem can be overcome to a large extent by dating the Gospel to a later time. A date for Matthew and his community some decades later in the second century would allow a much longer period for the establishment of formative Judaism as a cohesive and dominant force in the evangelist's setting. In raising this point I am not calling for an immediate redating of Matthew to the 120s or the 130s. That proposition may itself contain serious flaws. What I am suggesting is that Matthean scholarship may need to revisit the question of the Gospel's date. If the evidence that constrained us to a first-century dating (the date of the epistles of Ignatius) is now itself in doubt, then we may at least entertain the notion that Matthew too may be later than previously considered. A later date would certainly be more consistent with the evidence of the conflict between the Matthean community and formative Judaism, and it would open up further possibilities in terms of the social and religious setting of the Gospel.
3. LOCATION
The location of the Gospel is also of major importance in terms of reconstructing the social and religious milieu of the evangelist and his underlying community. By contrast with the dating of the Gospel, there is no agreement at all on its provenance. As is well known, Matthean scholars have been especially
14. See Davies and Allison, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 3:692-704.
15. See especially J. Andrew Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); Anthony J. Saldarini,
Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community (CSHJ; Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1994);
Boris Repschinski, The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form and Relevance for the Relationship Between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism
(FRLANT 189; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000) and, most recently, Anthony O.
Ewherido, Matthew's Gospel and Judaism in the Late First Century C.E.: The Evidence from Matthew's Chapter on Parables (Matthew 13:1-52) (SBL 91; New York: Lang, 2006). Similar views are found in, amongst others, Sim, Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism, 109-50; Graham
N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992), 14445; Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (SP 1; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1991),
14-16; Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1999), 46-48, and Aaron M. Gale, Redefining Ancient Borders: The Jewish Scribal Framework of Matthew's Gospel (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 15-30.
MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE
creative in proposing possible locations for this Gospel. Among these suggestions, we find Alexandria,!6 Caesarea Maritima,!7 Caesarea Philippi,!§ Transjordan,!?
Damascus,2° Phoenicia,2! and Edessa.2? None of these suggestions, however, has gained wide support. In the current climate, there are only two favored locations.
The first is Antioch on the Orontes, the capital of the Roman province of Syria and one of the largest metropolises in the Roman Empire. The second is the general region of Galilee, with some advocates offering a more precise location of either Sepphoris or Tiberias.
The Antiochene hypothesis was first presented by Burnett H. Streeter in his classic study of the origins of the four Gospels,?3 and it quickly attracted support. By the 1980s it had firmly established itself as the consensus view,*4 and it still enjoys this prominent position in current Matthean scholarship.?> The 16. Samuel G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of the Jewish Overthrow of A.D. 70 on Christianity (London: SPCK, 1951), 217-43, and Sjef van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 172.
17. Benedict Viviano, "Where Was the Gospel according to St. Matthew Written?" CBQ
41 (1979): 533-46.
18. Georg Kiinzel, Studien zum Gemeindeverstdandnis des Matthdus-Evangeliums (Calwer
Theologische Monographien A/10; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1978), 251.
19. H. Dixon Slingerland, "The Transjordanian Origin of Matthew's Gospel," JSNT 3
(1979): 18-28.
20. Joachim Gnilka, Das Matthdusevangelium (2 vols; HTKNT 1; Freiburg: Herder, 1986,
1988), 2:515, and Petri Luomanen, Entering the Kingdom of Heaven: A Study on the Structure of Matthew's View of Salvation (WUNT 2/101; Tibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 275-76.
21. George D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946), 130-34.
22. Benjamin W. Bacon, Studies in Matthew (London: Constable, 1930), 15-23; J. Spencer
Kennard, "The Place of Origin of Matthew's Gospel," ATR 31 (1949): 243-46, and Robert E.
Osborne, "The Provenance of Matthew's Gospel," SR 3 (1973): 220-35.
23. Burnett H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London: Macmillan, 1924),
500-523.
24. See the discussion in John P. Meier, "Antioch," in Raymond E. Brown and John P.
Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist,
1983), 22-26. See too Davies and Allison, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 1:143-47, though these authors are more tentative.
25. Although acknowledging different degrees of probability in their opinions, proponents of this view in the last dozen years or so include Sim, Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism,
53-62; Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook, 609; Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 41-42; Ewherido, Matthew's Gospel and Judaism, 11; Donald A. Hagner,
Matthew (2 vols; WBC 33A-B; Dallas: Word Books, 1993-1996), 1:lxxv; Donald Senior, The Gospel of Matthew (Interpreting Biblical Texts; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1997), 82; Warren
Carter, Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International,
2001), 36-37; Michelle Slee, The Church in Antioch in the First Century C.E.: Communion and Conflict (JSNTSup 244; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 118-22, and Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 56-58.
THE SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS MILIEU OF MATTHEW
arguments in favor of Antioch are well known and can be mentioned briefly. The internal evidence of the Gospel itself suggests that it was written in a large eastern urban center where Greek was the major language. This city contained a substantial Jewish population in addition to the Gentile majority, and it was not directly involved in the Jewish war. Many cities of course satisfy these criteria, but what points to Antioch to the exclusion of other possibilities are the following. Peter is prominent in the Gospel and he was an important figure in the church of Antioch
(Gal 2:11-14) and the first citation of this Gospel appears in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch.76
The major weakness of the Antiochene hypothesis is that this location seems too far away to have been the site of the conflict between Matthew's Christian
Jewish group and formative Judaism. Since the scribes and Pharisees were based in Galilee, it is much more likely that the Gospel was composed either in Galilee or nearby. At first glance this is a forceful and compelling argument, and it must be acknowledged that it causes some difficulty for the Antiochene hypothesis. But it is not conclusive or definitive. If it can be demonstrated or at least rendered plausible that those people who were responsible for the emergence of formative
Judaism in Galilee were also present in Antioch, then the difficulty is considerably reduced. I have argued previously that it is certainly possible that Pharisees were found in Antioch prior to the Jewish war, and probable that they were there after the conflict when many refugees fled their homeland to find a new life in Diasporan Jewish centers.2" Moreover, if we postulate a later date for the Gospel, then this increases the likelihood of Antioch for the Gospel's location. Such a revision would allow for the consolidation of formative Judaism in Galilee and its expansion into other Jewish communities.
We may now move to the alternative hypothesis that Matthew was composed in Galilee. This possibility was first raised by J. Andrew Overman, and has attracted some support in the ensuing years."? The strongest argument in favor of this thesis is the Matthean community's conflict with formative Judaism.
Since the latter movement was based in Galilee, we should expect that Matthew's 26. The issue of the date of the Ignatian corpus, as discussed above, does not radically affect this point. A later date for the letters of Ignatius may be offset by a later date for the Gospel, in which case it is still important that the Bishop of Antioch was the first to cite the Gospel.
27. Sim, Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism, 60-61.
28. Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism, 158-59. Overman later restated his views in his Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel According to Matthew (The New
Testament in Context; Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1996), 16-19.
29. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 9-10; Anthony J. Saldarini, "The Gospel of Matthew and Jewish-Christian Conflict in the Galilee," in The Galilee in Late Antiquity (ed. L. I.
Levine; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992), 26-27, and Paul Hertig, "Geographical Marginality in the Matthean Journey of Jesus," SBL Seminar Papers, 1999 (SBLSP 36;
Atlanta: SBL, 1999), 479. The most detailed defense of this position has come from Aaron M.
Gale, Redefining Ancient Borders, 41-63.
MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE
Christian group was located here as well.*? A second argument that is often proposed is that Matthew emphasizes Galilee in his Gospel narrative. He knows the region well and basically limits the mission of Jesus to Galilee (and to Capernaum in particular). This reflects the actual setting of the evangelist and his community.3! Related to this is Matthew's depiction of the Pharisees. They are essentially restricted to Galilee, and the debates between them and Jesus also reflect the conflict between them and Matthew's group in Galilee.*?
In terms of a more specific location, Anthony J. Saldarini contends that it must have been a large city and he suggests Sepphoris, Tiberias, Capernaum, and Bethsaida as possibilities.>7 Overman speculates that the Gospel was written in a city that was large enough to contain a court. Since the seat of the Sanhedrin was located at different stages in both Tiberias and Sepphoris, these cities are the most likely candidates, and Overman leans more towards the latter.*4 Sepphoris is also the preferred location of Aaron M. Gale, who provides more information about this city.45 Gale notes that Sepphoris was the largest city in Galilee and was wealthy and cosmopolitan. Its population was largely Jewish and its Jewish residents were rather conservative. For Gale the location of the Gospel in the city of Sepphoris is entirely consistent with what we can reconstruct of the Matthean community and its conflict with formative Judaism.
To my knowledge the Galilean hypothesis has never really been subjected to intense scrutiny or to a detailed critique. While this is a task that needs to be done, all that can be offered here are some brief responses to the arguments in favor of this location. The contention that Galilee is dictated by the conflict with formative Judaism is in and of itself a reasonably strong argument but, as Overman concedes,>° it cannot stand alone. It requires additional support, and it is here that the hypothesis begins to unravel. While it is certainly true that Matthew restricts the mission of Jesus to Galilee, is it feasible to maintain that he does so because his community resides there? Surely it is more likely that he does so because of his view that the mission of Jesus was restricted to the people of Israel
30. So Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism, 158; idem, Church and Community in Crisis, 17-18; Gale, Redefining Ancient Borders, 51-52; Saldarini, "Gospel of Matthew and Jewish-Christian Conflict," 27, and Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 10.
31. Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism, 159 and idem, Church and Community in Crisis, 17, See too Gale, Redefining Ancient Borders, 56-57; Saldarini, "Gospel of Matthew and Jewish-Christian Conflict," 26-27, and Hertig, ""Geographical Marginality in the Matthean Journey of Jesus," 479.
32. Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism, 159, and Gale, Redefining Ancient
Borders, 57.
33. Saldarini, "Gospel of Matthew, and Jewish-Christian Conflict," 27.
34. Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism, 159, and idem, Church and Community in Crisis, 17-19,
35. Gale, Redefining Ancient Borders, 57-63.
36. Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism, 158.
THE SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS MILIEU OF MATTHEW
(10:5-6; 15:24). The limitation of this mission to the Jews necessitated a restriction of his travels to Jewish territory. We can add to this the additional point that, if the Gospel was written in either Tiberias or Sepphoris, why is neither city mentioned in the text? It seems odd that Matthew would emphasize the general region of Galilee but avoid mentioning his own city. This would be all the more remarkable had the historical Jesus visited these cities, as Gale suggests as a distinct possibility.37
With regard to the Pharisees in the Gospel narrative, it is simply not the case that their conflict with Jesus is restricted to Galilee. They appear as a major opposition to Jesus when he is in Jerusalem, especially when he is in the temple
(21:23-24:1). Jesus tells the parable of the wicked tenants (21:33-43) and the chief priests and the Pharisees believe he is speaking about them (21:45). The parable of the wedding feast that follows (22:1-10) is directed at them as well, and the Pharisees then plot how to trap Jesus (22:15). After Jesus silences the Sadducees, the Pharisees again test him (22:34-35). Jesus then asks them about the relationship between David and the Christ (22:41-46). Then, while still in the temple, Jesus delivers his stinging polemical attack on the Pharisees (23:1-39). Finally, it is the Pharisees along with the chief priests who approach Pilate to request that a guard be placed over the tomb of Jesus (27:62-66). The evidence is clear. The Pharisees are not a Galilean movement in Matthew's narrative, nor is their conflict with Jesus restricted to that region. It is significant that Overman and Gale overlook almost all of these passages. While they do acknowledge that Matt 27:62-66 is an exception to the usual depiction of the Pharisees as residents of Galilee,?* they are inexplicably silent on the remaining passages.>? We may conclude then that none of the supplementary arguments supports a Galilean provenance.
Let us now consider the other side of the coin. What are the arguments that testify against a Galilean location for Matthew? There are many. The first is the issue of language. It is widely acknowledged that the major language of Galilee was Aramaic. This was the language of Jesus and his disciples. We would therefore expect a Gospel from Galilee to be written in Aramaic, but Matthew was written in Greek and was based upon Greek sources.*9 Aaron M. Gale attempts to dilute the importance of this objection by pointing out from inscriptional and numismatic evidence that Greek was also spoken and read in Galilee.4! He claims "It
37. Gale, Redefining Ancient Borders, 57.
38. Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism, 156 n. 13. See too Gale, Redefining
Ancient Borders, 57.
39. It is no surprise that Anthony J. Saldarini does not propose this argument, since he is well aware that the scribes and Pharisees oppose Jesus in both Galilee and Jerusalem. See Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, 44.
40. Meier, "Antioch," 18-19, and Davies and Allison, Critical and Exegetical Commentary,
1:140.
41. Gale, Redefining Ancient Borders, 49-51.
MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE
is not true that Aramaic was the only language spoken throughout Palestine,"4? and concludes that "The idea that only Aramaic was spoken and written in Galilee is false."43 It is clear from these quotations that Gale has not fairly represented the argument of his opponents. No one has ever claimed that Aramaic was the sole language of Galilee and that Greek was never used there. There is, as Gale demonstrates, plenty of evidence to the contrary. But establishing the presence of Greek in Galilee does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Greek Gospel of Matthew was written there. The point stands that Aramaic was the dominant language of the region, even if it was not the sole language. Given that it was the language of Jesus, we should expect that a Christian community hailing from the same area as him would have written an account of his mission in the language that Jesus himself used.
The Jewish war presents a second and even greater difficulty for the Galilean hypothesis. The Jewish homeland, including Galilee, suffered greatly at the hands of the Roman army as it reconquered the territory it had lost. Whole cities and towns were destroyed and depopulated. In the aftermath of such a disastrous conflict, is it likely that a Christian community would have had the resources or even the will to compose a long and complex text such as Matthew?*# It might be said in reply that the destruction that affected so much of Galilee did not apply to Sepphoris, which sided with the Romans and therefore was spared the vengeance of the imperial army. But Sepphoris did not escape the conflict completely unscathed. Josephus reports that at the beginning of the war he heard that the citizens of Sepphoris had approached the Romans for protection. He then led his Galilean forces in a major assault on the city. The Galilean soldiers were so intent on destroying Sepphoris utterly that Josephus was forced to trick them into retreating, but not before they had inflicted significant damage (Life 373-380;
War 2.645-646). Neither Overman nor Gale addresses this difficulty.
Moreover, the Jewish war is significant in another way. A Galilean Matthean community in Sepphoris or elsewhere must have witnessed firsthand the disastrous and devastating effects of the conflict. But if this was the case, why do the war and its aftermath not occupy more the attention of the evangelist? As noted above, there is but a single allegorical reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in this Gospel. Matthew's comparative lack of interest in the war is more consistent with a location that was somewhat removed from the arena of conflict.45 This point too receives no mention in any of the studies by the advocates of the Galilean hypothesis. This objection could be obviated to some extent if it were argued that Matthew was composed at some point in the second century, since we would
42. Ibid., 49 (emphasis added).
43. Ibid., 51 (emphasis added), 44. Meier, "Antioch," 18.
45, Davies and Allison, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 1:140-41.
THE SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS MILIEU OF MATTHEW
not expect a Gospel far removed in time from the conflict to focus much attention on it.
The view that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Galilee does not therefore stand up to close examination. Its advocates need to present more and better evidence in its favor in addition to the primary argument that Galilee is suggested by the conflict with formative Judaism. Further, they need to engage and counter the difficulties that their view involves. Until this is done, it is doubtful whether the Galilean hypothesis will ever seriously threaten its Antiochene rival.
4. THE HISTORY OF THE MATTHEAN COMMUNITY
One consequence of locating Matthew in Antioch is that it allows the possibility of reconstructing the history of the evangelist's community. We know a good deal about the Christian movement in Antioch both before the time of the Gospel and in the period following its composition. This enables us not merely to describe the social and religious settings of the Matthean community at the time the Gospel was composed, but to plot all the social and historical forces that shaped his particular church over many decades. However, arriving at some sort of consensus on what that history was like is much more difficult. It is interesting to note that the two major reconstructions of the Matthean community in its
Antiochene context offer completely different accounts.
In his important discussion of the Antiochene church,*® John P. Meier argued that the Christian community was founded by the Hellenists and later included Paul. After the dispute in Antioch between James and Paul on the status of the Gentile Christians, Peter played a moderating role between the liberal and conservative factions of the church. This moderating Petrine influence is found in the Gospel of Matthew a generation later. The evangelist also desired to bring together the different factions in his church by synthesizing the liberal and conservative sources at his disposal. In the next generation we find Ignatius of Antioch who also faced extremist groups, docetists, and judaizers, and who brought together a number of disparate sources to advance his own mediating position. Meier's reconstruction can be compared with my own, which differs from it in almost every respect.4" The original church in Antioch that the Hellenists founded was indeed "Law-free," but James managed to impose the Torah on all members of the Antiochene church. The Matthean community of next generation was the heir to this "Law-observant" Christian tradition initiated by James and overseen by Peter. The Pauline church of Ignatius of Antioch was not directly related to the Matthean community, but had an independent origin. And 46. Meier, "Antioch," 12-86.
47. Sim, Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism, passim. For a similar view, though differing on some major points, see Slee, The Church in Antioch, passim.
MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE
there is good evidence in the Ignatian epistles that Matthew's Christian Jewish group was in conflict with the church of Ignatius.
Even though Meier and I understand the history of the Antiochene Christian community and the place of Matthew within that history quite differently, we are in agreement on one fundamental point. Any reconstruction of the Matthean community in Antioch necessitates as well a reconstruction of the history of the Antiochene church. This must be done so that the interpretation of the Matthean community is consistent with the events that happened previously in Antioch and those that transpired later. In other words, the reconstructed community must make sense within its local Antiochene setting. The absence of this methodological necessity means that the suggested interpretation of the Matthean community has no checks or balances and no firm historical anchor. In my opinion many reconstructions of the Matthean community in Antioch suffer from this deficiency in so far as the Christian group reconstructed from the Gospel is often alien to the history of the Christian movement in that city. It looks nothing like it should in the light of earlier events, and nothing like it should in the light of later events.
In making this point, I wish to comment on an alternative approach to understanding the history of the evangelist's community. Some scholars accept that we can reconstruct the history of this community not by identifying its city of origin and proceeding from there, but by stratifying different parts of the Gospel and using this material to plot a coherent historical sequence. A recent attempt to do this is that of Wim Weren.48 Weren begins by noting the tension between the older and newer layers in the Gospel and, while conceding the hypothetical nature of his enterprise, distinguishes three phases in the history of Matthew's community. The first is the pre-70 period when the members of this group still considered themselves to be within the Jewish community. The second phase concerns the period between 70 and 80 and reflects the losing conflict with the Pharisees. In the third period, between 80 and 90, these Jewish Christians came into contact with other Christian groups who had included Gentiles in their number. Matthew writes during this time and reflects a community that had become alienated from its Jewish roots.
This method seems to me to be fraught with considerable difficulties. While it can be acknowledged that Matthew's Gospel contains layers of material from different periods, ranging from the time of Jesus to the time of Matthew himself, I remain unconvinced that we can move from this observation to a realistic reconstruction of the Matthean community's history, especially when the time-frames are so short. Even Weren has to acknowledge that there is considerable overlap
48. Wim Weren, "The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community," in Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents From the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? (ed. H. van de
Sandt; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005), 51-62,
THE SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS MILIEU OF MATTHEW
between the second and third phases, and that Matthew as the redactor seems to have been active during both periods.49 Weren's analysis also draws too rigid a distinction between tradition and redaction. We know from Matthew's redaction of Mark that he altered or omitted sections he did not like, so why does the evangelist retain some earlier traditions, the anti-Gentile statements for example, when in Weren's view he was keen to recruit Gentiles? Finally, Weren's reconstruction involves a complex scenario whereby the original Matthean community began life in lower Galilee and later moved to upper Galilee and southern Syria.
But why need we posit this? Why could not the Matthean community in Antioch or elsewhere have come into possession of Galilean traditions just as it inherited
Roman traditions from Mark? More needs to be done to demonstrate that the provenance of some early Gospel traditions reflects the location of Matthew's group in an earlier phase.
All in all 1 remain unconvinced that only the text of the Gospel itself is a sufficient resource for reconstructing the history of the evangelist's community. A better approach is to determine if possible the location of the Gospel, and to use the available information to reconstruct its prior and later history.
5. THE SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS MILIEU
When Matthean scholars have considered the question of the social and religious milieu of Matthew, they have usually focused on a single issue, the Jewish context of the Gospel and its community. The attention here has been primarily on the conflict with formative Judaism, and Matthean scholarship owes a large debt to the early work of William D. Davies and to the later works of Overman, Saldarini, and Stanton. These later scholars in particular have shown how the methods of social-scientific criticism have proved an invaluable resource in delineating the precise relationship between the evangelist's group and the larger Jewish body with which it was in dispute. It is now common to view the Matthean community as a sect or deviant group in opposition to its more powerful rival, though of course there is no agreement on what this actually entails. For Overman and Saldarini, this community constitutes a sect within Judaism, while for Stanton it is a sect outside the borders of the Jewish faith, and I shall say more about this divergence of opinion shortly. But whatever their differences in detail, these scholars and others as well have demonstrated that much light can be shed on the social setting of this community by the careful application of sociological principles. The real impact of the social sciences in this field can be measured by the fact that the terms "sect," "parent body," "legitimation," "conflict theory,"
"deviance association," "symbolic universe," and many other sociological terms are now firmly established in the lexicon of Matthean scholars.
49. Ibid., 52-53.
MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE
The acknowledgment that there was a conflict between formative Judaism and Matthew's group inevitably raises a further question: What was the relationship between this Christian community and the religion of Judaism? Did
Matthew's group still identify itself as a part of the Jewish world, in which case the conflict with formative Judaism was an internal Jewish debate? Or had it broken in some definitive sense with its Jewish heritage so the conflict was in reality one between Christianity and Judaism? As we all know, Matthean scholarship is much divided over this issue. One side are those who see the evangelist's group as a minority and distinctive type of Judaism,>° and on the other side are those who argue that it had rejected the Jewish faith and can therefore be described as a type of Christianity.>! The issues involved in this important debate are too diverse and too complicated to be addressed here, but they involve matters such as our understanding of first-century Judaism, the role of the Torah in the Matthean community, the number and the status of any Gentiles in that community, the use of the term "the church" in the Gospel, and the evangelist's high Christology.
This debate, which has dominated studies of this Gospel for nearly two decades, is far from resolution and will continue to command the attention of scholars.
Yet, as important as this question is, it would be a mistake to confine the social setting of Matthew's community to this single theme. The Gospel of Matthew took shape in a complex world and we should expect the setting of the Gospel to reflect this complexity. One such aspect of the evangelist's milieu that has recently and correctly come to prominence is its Roman imperial context. The evangelist and his community lived in a world dominated by the might and power of Rome,
50. See Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism, passim; Saldarini, Matthew's
Christian-Jewish Community, passim; Davies and Allison, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 3:692-704; Sim, Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism, 12-27, 109-63; Repschinski,
Controversy Stories, 343-49; Daniel J. Harrington, "Matthew's Gospel: Pastoral Problems and Possibilities," in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study (ed. D. E. Aune; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 66-69, and more tentatively Alan F. Segal, "Matthew's Jewish Voice," in Social
History of the Matthean Community: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches (ed. D. L. Balch; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 36-37.
51. So Stanton, A Gospel for a New People, 113-45; Luz, Matthew 1-7, 52-56; Ewherido,
Matthew's Gospel and Judaism, 20-26; Weren, "Matthean Community," 53, 58; Robert H.
Gundry, "A Responsive Evaluation of the Social History of the Matthean Community in Roman
Syria," in Balch, ed., Social History of the Matthean Community, 62-67; Douglas R. A. Hare,
"How Jewish is the Gospel of Matthew?," CBQ 62 (2000): 264-77; John K. Riches, Conflicting
Mythologies: Identity Formation in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew (Studies of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 202-25; Donald A. Hagner, "Matthew:
Apostate, Reformer, Revolutionary?," NTS 49 (2003): 193-209; idem, "Matthew: Christian
Judaism or Jewish Christianity?," in The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent
Research (ed. Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 263-82, and Paul Foster, Community, Law and Mission in Matthew's Gospel (WUNT 2/177; Tubingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2004), passim, Petri Luomanen can also be included in this category, though he is more tentative on this issue. See his Entering the Kingdom of Heaven, 263-65.
THE SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS MILIEU OF MATTHEW
and this reality dominates his Gospel narrative; Jesus after all lived under Roman occupation and was executed by Roman soldiers at the express command of the local Roman governor. The first scholar to draw our attention to the importance of the Roman context of Matthew was Warren Carter, who was critical of earlier scholarship for ignoring such an obvious setting for the Gospel.5? Carter argued, amongst other things, that the evangelist disputed Rome's imperial claims and presented Jesus as totally opposed to Roman arrogance, power and exploitation, as well as its idolatrous imperial theology. In reading Matthew in this way, Carter offered fresh interpretations of certain Matthean passages. While Carter perhaps at times overemphasizes the Roman setting for Matthew, there is still no doubting the importance of his work. He has opened up a whole new area of research that awaits further fruitful exploration.3
But it would be wrong to stop at this point. The social and religious setting of the Gospel encompasses much more than its Jewish and Roman contexts.
Other neglected features that require serious scholarly attention are the relationship between Matthew's community and the Gentile world, and the place of this community within its broader Christian context.>4 Let us briefly examine these subjects in turn.
In earlier scholarship it was simply accepted without question that Matthew was a pro-Gentile Gospel. The evangelist depicted the Gentiles favorably in his narrative, he embraced a universalistic outlook, and the Matthean community was engaged in a Gentile mission that the risen Christ had commanded (28:1620). This mission demanded baptism and not circumcision as the rite of initiation
(28:19).55 In the 1990s, however, other views began to surface, particularly from those scholars who emphasized the thoroughly Jewish nature of the Gospel and its community. J. Andrew Overman, for example, contended that the Matthean community probably contained only a few Gentiles, though he conceded that it was beginning to turn to the Gentile world.* For his part, Anthony J. Saldarini argued that the Gentile characters in Matthew's narrative are peripheral, and the emphasis remains throughout his story on the Jews and Jewish matters. Like
52. See Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading
(Maryknoll, N.Y.; Orbis, 2000), 36-43, and especially, idem, Matthew and Empire, passim.
53. One attempt to build upon the work of Carter is the collection of essays in John K.
Riches and David C. Sim, eds., The Gospel of Matthew in Its Roman Imperial Context (JSNTSup
276; London: T&T Clark, 2005).
54. See the discussion of the necessity of these issues in David C. Sim, "The Social Setting of the Matthean Community: New Paths for an Old Journey," Hervormde Teologiese Studies 57
(2001): 268-80.
55. The most detailed statement of this position is that of Guido Tisera, Universalism according to the Gospel of Matthew (European University Studies 23/482; Frankfurt: Peter Lang,
1993).
56. Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism, 157-58.
MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE
Overman, Saldarini also accepted that the evangelist's community was in the process of widening its missionary endeavors to include the Gentiles.5"
In a long article I published on this very theme, I tried to take the discussion in new directions.58 To this end I questioned much of the prevailing scholarly consensus on the subject of the place of the Gentiles in the Gospel and in the Matthean community. The major points I made were that the evangelist did not depict all Gentiles positively in his narrative, that scholars have not taken seriously the anti-Gentile statements in the Gospel (5:46-47; 6:7-8, 31-32; 7:6;
18:15-17), that Matthew's community had probably been persecuted by Gentiles at the time of the Jewish war, that it was not certain this community was engaged in a comprehensive Gentile mission, and that any Gentiles in the evangelist's group would have been circumcised (if male) and obedient to the Torah. This rather different account of the Gentile question evoked a good many responses, which tended to criticize my arguments and make a case for the traditional understanding of this issue.5?
There are many complex themes involved in this debate, but it seems to me that scholars need to attend to a number of central questions. Did the Matthean community experience Gentile persecution, and, if so, under what circumstances?
How does this persecution affect our understanding of this community's mission to the Gentiles? But the most important question of all concerns the nature of any Gentile mission. Were the Gentiles in the Matthean community expected to observe the Mosaic Law, or were they exempt from this requirement? This question depends upon where one places the emphasis on two key Matthean texts.
Matthew 5:17-19 appears to demand obedience to all of the Torah by followers of Jesus, yet the risen Christ mentions baptism and not circumcision in his commission to the disciples to evangelize all the nations (28:19). Is the necessity of circumcision assumed for Gentile converts in this concluding pericope, or is it now replaced by baptism? The debate continues on this issue.®°
57. Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, 68-83.
58. David C. Sim, "The Gospel of Matthew and the Gentiles," JSNT 57 (1995): 19-48. The arguments in that article were developed and refined in my Matthew and Christian Judaism,
215-56, Other studies of mine that relate to this general theme include "The 'Confession' of the Soldiers in Matthew 27:54," HeyJ 34 (1993): 501-24, and "The Magi: Gentiles or Jews?,"
Hervormde Teologiese Studies 55 (1999): 980-1000.
59. See especially, Donald Senior, "Between Two Worlds: Gentile and Jewish Christians in Matthew's Gospel," CBQ 61 (1999): 1-23, and Brendan Byrne, "The Messiah in Whose Name
'The Gentiles Will Hope' (Matt 13:21): Gentile Inclusion As an Essential Element of Matthew's
Christology," ABR 50 (2002): 55-73. The Byrne article is followed by my response to it; David
C. Sim, "Matthew and the Gentiles: A Response to Brendan Byrne," ABR 50 (2002): 74-79. For a different approach to the whole question, see Warren Carter, "Matthew and the Gentiles:
Individual Conversion and/or Systemic Transformation?" JSNT 26 (2004): 259-82.
60. For the view that circumcision and Law-observance is assumed in this text, see Sim,
Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism, 247-54. In agreement is Slee, The Church in Antioch,
THE SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS MILIEU OF MATTHEW
In the past Matthean scholars have devoted too much attention to the question of whether the Great Commission advocates the Gentile mission at the expense of the Jewish mission, but it is now generally agreed that both missions are enjoined. We need therefore to move forward to examine the nature of each mission in practical terms. Was observance of the Torah expected of Jewish converts alone or was it integral to both missions? If obedience to the Mosaic Law was expected of Jews but not of Gentiles, how would such a mission be conducted by the same community? Where are the parallels in the early Christian movement of the same community conducting two such diverse missions?
This point brings us to the issue of Matthew and the broader Christian world. Just as the Matthean community did not live in a vacuum vis-a-vis the Jewish world, the Roman world and the Gentile world, so too did it not live in a vacuum within the movement of believers in Jesus. The Matthean Christian
(Jewish) tradition existed alongside other forms of the Christian tradition, and it is reasonable to ask what Matthew would have thought of these alternative Christian groups. For example, what would the evangelist have made of Paul and his version of the gospel? Does Matthew's narrative about Jesus contain information about this issue? For the most part, Matthean scholars have tended to avoid these questions.®! They often note that Matthew is non-Pauline, but they are content to leave the matter there. But this position is hardly satisfactory. Paul was a wellknown and controversial figure in the early decades of the Christian movement, and his writings were probably widely distributed when Matthew composed his
Gospel. Matthew was clearly non-Pauline, but he must have had some opinions about Paul, either positive or negative, and it is entirely legitimate to look for these in his Gospel.
I have argued in a number of publications that the evangelist, who accepted that both Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus needed to observe the Torah in its entirety, stood diametrically opposed to the theological tradition of Paul, and that he saw fit to air his views within the context of his narrative.® I do not wish to repeat any of that discussion here. What I wish to highlight is that this matter requires serious and immediate attention in the field. Matthean scholars can no longer ignore the evangelist's Christian context. One way or another Matthew must be placed within the broader Christian movement, and his relationship with the Pauline tradition and other Christian traditions must be investigated. Until
140-42. The alternative position is best represented by Riches, Conflicting Mythologies, 216zee
61. See the review of scholarly literature dealing with Matthew and Paul in David C. Sim,
"Matthew's Anti-Paulinism: A Neglected Feature of Matthean Studies," Hervormde Teologiese
Studies 58 (2002): 767-83.
62. In addition to the article cited in the previous note, see Sim, Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism, 188-211, and David C. Sim, "Matthew 7.21-23: Further Evidence of Its
Anti-Pauline Perspective," NTS 53 (2007): 325-43.
MATTHEW, JAMES, AND DIDACHE
this is done, no scholar can claim that they have considered or reconstructed the totality of the social and religious setting of this Gospel.
6. RESULTS
In this study I have attempted to raise some pertinent issues in terms of the social and religious milieu of Matthew's community. One matter that needs to be revisited is that of the Gospel's date. Since there may be no valid reason to restrict Matthew to the late-first century C.E., it might pay dividends to explore the possibility that the Gospel could be some decades later than we currently believe. As I have tried to show, a later dating seems to be more consistent with some of the social settings that have been postulated for Matthew's group. On the important question of provenance, the location of the Gospel in Antioch on the Orontes is still the most probable hypothesis. The Galilean alternative seems to me to suffer from a number of serious weaknesses. There is very little in the Gospel itself that points to a Galilean provenance, and there are real problems created by considerations external to the text. The location of the Gospel may or may not afford the opportunity to write a history of the Matthean community.
This is certainly possible if the Antiochene hypothesis is accepted, and it may be the case for other suggested locations. But if we are to reconstruct such a history, then a firm grounding in a given provenance is necessary. I remain unconvinced that simply the text itself with no real external factors considered provides sufficient reliable evidence for such an undertaking.
Finally, the scholarly study of the Matthean community has yielded firm results. There is little doubt that the most obvious setting of this community is the conflict with formative Judaism, though there is little agreement over the implications that follow from this. The precise relationship between Matthew's
Christian group and the religion of Judaism is still to be resolved. But more too needs to be done on other issues. We have made a start on the Gospel's Roman setting, but the question of the Gentiles in this community needs more concrete discussion. On what basis were they converted, and what was their status within this group? And where do we situate the Matthean community within the general Christian movement? What did Matthew think of alternative Christian traditions, and was he in conflict with them? We may conclude that, while much important work has been done in reconstructing the social and religious milieu of Matthew, there is still much to occupy our attention in the years to come.