Introduction

That Matthew wrote a “church book” par excellence might lead one to suspect that the distinctions maintained so valiantly by Mark would surely fall by the wayside here. Who can deny that Matthew enhances the disciples' and Jesus' images, both by upgrading their status and also by removing the unflattering warts which Mark for whatever reason retained? Surely, in the only gospel to contain “church,” one could expect to see these and other ecclesiastical concerns of a later age being justified by their anachronistic presence during the time of Jesus.

It is not the purpose of this chapter to deny an editorial Tendenz in Matthew any more than to deny it to Mark. My only plea is that, whatever clear data and strong argument may lead us to believe about the First Evangelist's redactional activity, due notice be taken of those instances where his sense of before and after restrained urges to make Jesus the spokesperson for post-resurrection Christian doctrine and practice. This, of course, challenges what I have described in chapter 1 as perhaps the most influential redaction-critical interpretation. Its expression so far as Matthew is concerned may be summarized in the words of its erstwhile American spokesperson, Jack Dean Kingsbury: