^{page 446 note 1} But see John vii. 42, discussed below in p. 447, n. 1.

^{page 446 note 2} Luke has additional Davidic allusions in chs. i and ii, but no other passages witnessing to the adult Jesus as Son of David apart from calling him king when he enters Jerusalem (xix. 38), appears before Pilate (xxiii. 2 f.), and is crucified (xxiii. 37f.).

^{page 446 note 3} ‘Son of God’ occurs thirteen times in Matthew to six times at the most in Mark (i.e. including Mark i. 1) and eight in Luke. But since a son in both the O.T. and N.T. is primarily to show forth the character of his father, this Matthean filial emphasis may be seen even more clearly in the references to God as Father. In the words of H. F. D. Sparks, ‘Whereas Mark (in what would appear to be the true text [i.e. omitting xi. 25]) has only three references to God as Father, the material shared in common by St Matthew and St Luke nine, and Luke seventeen, Matthew has no less than forty-four references. Since Matthew is only about half as long again as Mark, and is not quite as long as Luke, these figures indicate that the author had a special interest in the Divine Fatherhood’ (‘The Doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood in the Gospels’, Studies in the Gospels, ed. by Nineham, D. E. [Oxford, 1955], p. 251).Google Scholar

^{page 446 note 4} See Sparks, op. cit. pp. 251–4Google Scholar, and also Manson, T. W., The Teaching of Jesus ² (Cambridge, 1935), PP. 95 f., 98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 447 note 1} Montefiore, C. G., in The Synoptic Gospels edited with an Introduction and a Commentary ² (London, 1927), vol. ii, p. 3Google Scholar, strenuously rejects Jesus' Davidic descent, taking Mark xii. 37 as showing that Jesus ‘was conscious that he could make no such claim’, not even on the basis of family tradition. Cullmann, O., in The Christology of the New Testament (London, 1959), pp. 129 f.Google Scholar, cites Hegesippus' account as reported by Eusebius (H.E. III, 19f.) of the denouncing and arrest of the grandson of Judas, a brother of Jesus, because he was a descendant of David and hence a potential focus of Jewish messianic revolt. Cullmann takes this as showing ‘that the Davidic tradition in Jesus’ family was not contested' (p. 130), and he argues that Rom. i. 3 indicates that the primitive Christian confession generally included that Jesus was Son of David ‘according to the flesh’. The Fourth Evangelist does not even deign to comment when the question of Jesus' birthplace is raised (John vii. 42). In C. K. Barrett's words: ‘We may feel confident that John was aware of the tradition that Jesus was born at Bethlehem…; he writes here in his customary ironical style. The critics of Jesus ignorantly suppose that because he was brought up in Galilee he was also born there. But John's irony goes far deeper than this. The birthplace of Jesus is a trivial matter in comparison with the question whether he έκ τ̃ων άνω or έκ τ̃ων κάτω (viii. 23), whether he is or is not from God' (The Gospel According to St John [London, 1955], p. 273)Google Scholar. But all this aside, Montefiore has obviously missed the point of Mark xii. 37 and its parallels. See below, p. 460, J VIII.

^{page 448 note 1} See Bennett, W. H., ‘Family’, A Dictionary of tile Bible, ed. by Hastings, J. (Edinburgh, 1898), i, 849Google Scholar, and James, Strahan, ‘Family (Biblical and Christian)’, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. by Hastings, J., v (Edinburgh, 1912), 725.Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 2} In Luke Mary is told to name the child (i. 31).

^{page 448 note 3} See Ezek. xxxiv. 1–6 for the description of the inverse of the good shepherd-king. Ezek. xxxiv. 23 ff. and Jer. xxiii. 4–8 describe the ideal shepherd-king of David's line. On this see Mowinckel, S., He That Cometh (Oxford, 1956), pp. 177–179.Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 4} ‘The prevailing view is that the heathen will yield to him voluntarily; for the Messiah is the prince of peace; and when the heathen have been overcome, he has put an end to war. His kingdom is a kingdom of peace and prosperity for both Israel and the other peoples. He will be the good shepherd to his people’ (Mowinckel, , op. cit. p. 316)Google Scholar. He cites in support of this summary Sib. v, 429 ff.; cf. III, 706ff.; Jub. xxxi. 20; II Bar. lxxiii. 1; Test. Judah xxiv; Ps. Sol. xvii. 44–6; Exodus Rabbah ii (68b).

^{page 449 note 1} Section numbers for readers' convenience from Albert, Huck, Synopsis of the First Three Gospels² revised by H. Lietzmann, English edition by Cross, F. L. (New York, 1935).Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 2} Held, H. J., ‘Matthew as Interpreter of the Miracle Stories’, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, by Bornkamm, G., Barth, G. and Held, H. J. (London, 1963), p. 263.Google Scholar This book will be cited as Trad. and Interp. Its contents are: G. Bornkamm, ‘End-Expectation and Church in Matthew’ (to be cited as ‘Church’), ‘The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew’; G. Barth, ‘Matthew's Under-standing of the Law’ (to be cited as ‘Law’); and Held's essay (to be cited as ‘Miracle Stories’).

^{page 450 note 1} ‘Church’, Trad. and Interp. p. 41.Google Scholar

^{page 450 note 2} Ibid. pp. 42 f.

^{page 450 note 3} ‘The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew’, Trad. and Interp. p. 55.Google Scholar

^{page 450 note 4} John uses όχλος (which occurs twenty times in the singular, never in the plural, if ⁶⁶ D latt sy are to be followed at vii. 12) for the ‘am hā-’ārets according to Rudolf Meyer (T. W.N. T. v, 587−90). John's όχλος however, unlike Matthew's, remains blind to Jesus throughout his whole ministry, as is evidenced by the two direct statements of the crowd at John vii. 20 and xii. 34 and the one indirect statement at xii. 29. In Matthew Jesus has a large fringe following in addition to the disciples; in John the fringe element is excluded after vi. 66.

^{page 451 note 1} Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford, 1963), p. 333. (This work is cited as Synoptic Tradition below.)Google Scholar

^{page 451 note 2} Compared with Mark's one pl., thirty-seven sing.; Luke's sixteen pl., twenty-five sing.

^{page 451 note 3} Rudolf Meyer seems to have missed all this in Matthew, for he ascribes a significant meaning and character to the crowd itself only in the Entry Pericope of Matt.(T. W.N. T. v, 586, lines 33–8).Google Scholar

^{page 452 note 1} Cf. Luke xi. 15: τıνές έξ αύτ̃ων, that is, part of the crowds.

^{page 452 note 2} In Luke's version one might almost say that Jesus obliges the messengers by doing a number of representative healings for their benefit (vii. 21) and then telling them to report what they ‘have seen and heard’ (v. 22). Unlike Matthew's account, this sounds more like an objective and disinterested reporting of physical events. Luke may have meant the same thing as Matthew, but Matthew's version is, in that case, the clearer one.

^{page 453 note 1} Up to this point Held reaches the same conclusions (‘Miracle Stories’, Trad. and Interp. pp. 2191.)Google Scholar. The material he sets forth parallels some of what follows. See also Bultmann, , Synoptic Tradition, pp. 212, 214.Google Scholar

^{page 453 note 2} It is simply taken for granted by most commentators. See, for example, Allen, W. C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew (Edinburgh, 1907) p. 218Google Scholar, Klostermann, E., Das Matthäusevangelium ² (Tübingen, 1927), p. 164Google Scholar, and Bultmann, , Synoptic Tradition, p. 316.Google Scholar

^{page 453 note 3} This word order, the cry for mercy and then the title ‘Son of David’, is invariable in Matthew and peculiar to him. See Held, , ‘Miracle Stories’, Trad. and Interp. p. 220.Google Scholar

^{page 453 note 4} Held points out that a renewing of the request must be implied in Matt. ix. 28 when the blind men come to Jesus at the house (ibid. p. 219, n. 1).

^{page 453 note 5} Luke has κύρıε as well at this point (xviii. 41) probably because it is more intelligible to the Gentiles in his audience.

^{page 454 note 1} Held recognizes this as a Matthean borrowing from Mark, (‘Miracle Stories’, Trad. and Interp. p. 209, n. 1).Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 2} The alternative verb παρελθείν occurs in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but with Jesus as its subject only at Mark vi. 48 where Jesus walks on the water in a situation pertaining to the disciples' defective faith and understanding, and in Luke xviii. 37 where παρέρχεταı parallels Mark's έστίν (ix. 47) and Matthew's παράγεı (xx. 30) in the healing of the blind man outside Jericho who calls Jesus ‘Son of David’ and, when healed, follows him in all three accounts, that is, becomes his disciple (see below).

^{page 454 note 3} The only exception is Matt. ix. 19 where Jesus follows the ruler of the synagogue, but the ruler has already worshipped Jesus (ix. 18) so there is no question of Jesus', becoming the ruler's disciple.

^{page 454 note 4} T.W.N.T. i, 214, lines 7f.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 1} Schmidt, K. L. merely concludes that ‘the identical καί παράγων Mark i. 16; ii. 14; John ix. 1 may be appraised as a pericope's beginning' (T.W.N.T., i, 129, lines 3f.)Google Scholar. True as this is, it does not seem to do full justice to the contexts, which imply that Jesus' passing by is of the nature of a Christophany, as was shown by Lohmeyer, Ernst in ‘Und Jesus ging vorüber’, Nieuw Theologisch Tijdschrft, 1934, pp. 206–24.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 2} Retaining the αύτῷ as a ‘stylistically clumsy second dative’ whose removal by B, D and k is more easily understandable than would be its later insertion into other mss. (Held, ‘Miracle Stories’ Trad. and Interp., p. 220, n. I).Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 3} Allen, , S. Matthew (I.C.C.), p. 97.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 4} A view favoured by Klostermann, E., Das Matthäusevangelium ², p. 83.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 5} Either there is a direct literary dependence between Matthew and Luke, whichis.unlikely, or it is very probable that both authors found the materials behind Luke xi. 14–16 already a unit which included the accusation of Mark iii. 22.

^{page 456 note 1} Arndt, W. F. and Gingrich, F. W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago and Cambridge, 1957), έξίστημı 2b.Google Scholar

^{page 456 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 456 note 3} Bultmann, (Synoptic Tradition, p. 212)Google Scholar recognizes ix. 32–4 as a variant of xii. 22–4 and thinks both passages were created by Matthew for the purpose of providing illustrations of the healing of τυφλοι and κωφοι mentioned in Matt. xi. 5. He thinks ix. 34 is a ‘wholly literary’ ‘later insertion’ from xii. 34 which ‘tells us nothing about the style of miracle stories’. This suggestion fails to explain why the supposed addition is abbreviated and lacks the name of Beelzebub. But Held, noting that Bultmann's stylistic traits for miracle stories (as set forth in the latter's Synoptic Tradition, pp. 221 ff.) are found least of all in Matthew, rightly remarks on ‘the inadequacy of the form-critical category of miracle stories’ for doing justice to Matthew, (‘Miracle Stories’, Trad. and Interp. p. 211)Google Scholar. Both here and in other places Bultmann's perception seems to be a prisoner of his own form-critical methods.

^{page 456 note 4} Filson, Floyd V., A Commentary on the Gospel According to St Matthew (London, 1960), p. 123.Google Scholar

^{page 456 note 5} Synoptic Tradition, pp. 315 f.Google Scholar N. Walker, on the contrary, argues with even less reason than Bultmann that Matthew's use of ‘two’ in these passages makes it likely that he was not copying Mark and had a more original version at hand (‘The Alleged Matthaean Errata’, N.T.S.Ix [1963], 394).Google Scholar

^{page 457 note 1} Des Matthäusevangelium², pp. 83, 164Google Scholar. On p. 79 Klostermann expresses the same views on viii. 28ff.

^{page 457 note 2} Peter's confession must have been too well known for Matthew to modify it much even if he wished to. But he does add ‘Son of God’ to ‘Christ’ as being more adequate for his purposes. Even so, Jesus' question is addressed to all the disciples, and Peter appears to answer as their inspired spokesman. Further, in Matthew they all have worshipped and confessed him as Son of God at the earlier stilling of the storm (Matt. xiv. 33), in contrast to their hardened heart in Mark's version (Mark vi. 52).

^{page 457 note 3} Sifré on Num. xxxv. 30 and Rosh ha-Shanah iii. i; see John viii. 17. This rule is made part of Jesus' teaching at Matt. xviii. 16 and is respected at II Cor. xiii. t; I Tim. v. 19; Heb. x. 28; I John v. 6ff. See Leaney, A. R. C., A Commentary on the Gospel According to St Luke (London, 1958), p. 8, where its influence on Luke-Acts is also dealt with.Google Scholar

^{page 457 note 4} At the least, this is reminiscent of Matt. vii. 21: ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.’

^{page 458 note 1} προσφέρεıν is used in the Gospels and Acts of the bringing of the sick to be healed only once in Mark (ii. 4= Matt. ix. 2), where this action is recognized by Jesus as faith, but further in Matthew at iv. 24; viii. 16; ix. 32; xii. 22; xiv. 35; xvii. 16. In all these further examples faith in Jesus is tacitly assumed because of this action, and healing by Jesus immediately follows without question. See Held, ‘Miracle Stories’, Trad. and Interp. p. 279.Google Scholar Held notes that in the whole Synoptic tradition, apart from the healing of Peter's mother-in-law (Matt. viii. 1 Mark i. 29–31; Luke iv. 38f.-this might be vicariously based on Peter's faith in following Jesus) and the widow's son in Nain (Luke vii. 11–17), ‘Jesus only heals when people come to him or expressly ask him’, that is, manifest some degree of faith (ibid. p. 169, n. 2). He excludes exorcisms from consideration as not healings in the actual sense of the word, but, as we have seen, Matthew tends to bring even these into line, probably because of his care to present Jesus in terms of personal relationships (to God and to men, and as the one to be followed) as opposed to a Hellenistic wonder-worker conceived in terms of power rather than personality (compare Matthew's use of δύναμıς with that of Mark and Luke; on Hellenistic ‘sons of god’ see Nock, A. D., ‘Studies in the Graeco-Roman beliefs of the Empire’, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, XLV [1925], pp. 84–101).Google Scholar

^{page 458 note 2} Note how the Pharisees are called spiritually blind in John ix. 39–41 after their rejection of the blind man healed who becomes Jesus' disciple (ix. 1–38).

^{page 459 note 1} Although in Matt. xiv. 14 the disciples have already recognized Jesus as ‘Son of God’, Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi is the first recognition of him as the Messiah by the disciples, care-fully linked alone by Matthew with ‘Son of God’, the greater recognition; see Huck 122. The Passion prediction in this section is followed in the Synoptics by the demands of discipleship (Huck 123): ‘Let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me’- καί άκολουθείτω μοı (Mark viii. 34; Matt. xvi. 24; Luke ix. 23, who has ‘take up his cross daily’). Thus recognition of Jesus as Messiah demands discipleship: demands a following of Jesus. This pattern seems to be especially apparent in Matthew's handling of the two accounts of the healing of the blind men.

^{page 459 note 2} See above, p. 448, n. 3. Cf. John x. 11, 14: ‘I am the good shepherd.’

^{page 459 note 3} This is in contrast to the contextually smoother and more likely original ‘crumbs of the children’ in Mark vii. 28.

^{page 459 note 4} ‘Miracle Stories’, Trad. and Interp. p. 200.Google Scholar

^{page 459 note 5} Between Matthew's accounts of this event and of the second healing of two blind men comes Peter's Messianic confession at Caesarea Philippi (xvi. 16), but Peter's confession moves in a different direction: the Messiah not as Son of David but as Son of God. See above, n. 1.

^{page 460 note 1} For examples see the lexica of Liddell and Scott⁹ and Arndt and Gingrich (also obviously Bauer⁵); see also Moulton, J. H. and Milligan, G., The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London, 1930), S.V.Google Scholar

^{page 460 note 2} Held maintains this view (‘Miracle Stories’, Trad. and Interp. p. 221).Google Scholar

^{page 460 note 3} As, for example, Montefiore, C. G. thinks likely (see above, p. 447, n. 1) and alsoGoogle ScholarBultmann, R. (Theology of the N. T. 1 [London, 1932], 28).Google Scholar

^{page 461 note 1} Bartlett, J. Vernon, ‘S. Mark’ in Century Bible (1922), quoted byGoogle ScholarMontefiore, C. G., The Synoptic Gospels², 1, 289, on Mark xii. 35–7.Google Scholar Montefiore characterizes this view as ‘unnatural and awkward’, ‘much too subtle, if not too sophistic, to be probable’. But then, the force of Matt. i. 21 (Joseph to name Mary's son) was incomprehensible to his way of thinking as well, for his commentary preceded the rise of modern biblical theology and thus his views tend to be those of a liberal classicist.

^{page 461 note 2} Although the title is superseded, the position is still claimed for Jesus throughout the Passion narratives of all four Gospels by the repeated references to Jesus as ‘Christ’ and ‘King of Israel’ (in Matthew and Mark) and as ‘King of the Jews’ (in all four Gospels).

^{page 461 note 3} So understood by Barnabas xii. 10f.; see Bultmann, , Theology of the N.T. 1, 28, n.Google Scholar

^{page 463 note 1} See in Mark Jesus' application to the disciples as blind and deaf (Mark viii. 18) of the healings of the blind man of Bethsaida (Mark viii. 22–6) and of the deaf man with a speech impediment (Mark vii. 31–7); cf. Held, , ‘Miracle Stories’, Trad. and Interp. pp. 207 f.Google Scholar Matthew shifts this attack to the Pharisees, for, unlike Mark, Matthew grants pre-Resurrection (albeit imperfect) under-standing to the disciples (Barth, G., ‘Law’, Trad. and Interp. p. 109)Google Scholar. However, he makes a stronger accusation of defective faith and obedience against them (ibid. 119 f.).

^{page 463 note 2} G. Barth has shown that for Matthew πıστεύεıν has as its necessary presupposition αυνıέναı (‘Law’, Trad. and Interp. p. 116; cf. pp. 105–16).Google Scholar

^{page 463 note 3} Barth seems to have overstated it when he says that it is Matthew's ‘intention to portray the multitude as obdurate as a whole’ (ibid. p. 108, n. 2). It is rather his intention to show that the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders actively nipped in the bud their (albeit slowly) growing recognition of Jesus.

^{page 463 note 4} Bornkamm, G. views Matt. iii.Google Scholar 15 as referring to Jesus' obedience and v. 17 to his teaching (‘Church’, Trad. and Interp. p. 50, n. 4)Google Scholar, but the shift can be no more than that of moving from one focus of an ellipse to the other: both foci, word and deed, are required to establish the perimeter of Jesus' person, and both are contained within that one perimeter.

^{page 463 note 5} Since their interpretation of the Law was distorted and disfigured, and they made the Law itself unapproachable by the masses. Perhaps it is their interpretation itself which is characterized as κυλλός and λεπρός. But all this is by way of conjecture.