^{page 442 note 1} In this connection, one might recall again the comments made, for example, by Schweitzer, A. (Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1901] 7–IX):Google Scholar ‘Der Unterschied zwischen dem vierten Evangelium und den Synoptikern besteht gerade darin, dass das erstere ein “Leben Jesu” bietet, während die Synoptiker von seinen öffentlichen Wirksamkeit berichten’; and ‘Die Bergpredigt, die Aussendungsrede und die Würdigungsrede über den Täufer sind keine “Redekompositionen”, sondern sie sind in der Hauptsache so gehalten, wie sie uns überliefert sind.’

^{page 443 note 1} In the current discussion of the genre of the Gospels, scholars who take the position that the canonical Gospels are indeed of the nature of biography differ noticeably from their predecessors at the turn of the century by insisting that the understanding of biography with which one operates should conform to ancient, not modern, notions of biography. Cf., e.g., Stanton, G. N., ‘The Gospel Traditions and Early Christian Reflection’, Christ, Faith and History (ed. Sykes, S. W. and Clayton, J. P.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1972) 191–204.Google Scholar For a survey of recent works on biography as a genre of ancient literature which also have a direct bearing on the study of Matthew, cf. Kingsbury, J. D., Matthew (Proclamation Commentaries; 2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 9–13.Google Scholar Cf. further Guelich, R., ‘The Gospel Genre’, Das Evangelium and die Evangelien (ed. Stuhlmacher, P.; WUNT 28; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1983) 183–219.Google Scholar

^{page 443 note 2} Das Evangelium des Matthäus (KNT 1; 3. Auflage; Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1910) 42.Google Scholar

^{page 444 note 1} The interpretation by Zahn (Matthäus, 153–62)Google Scholar of Jesus' temptation (Matt, 4. 1–11)Google Scholar is a chaste reminder of the lengths to which one must go if one takes a pericope like this to be a historical report and treats it as such.

^{page 444 note 2} On this last point, cf. especially 10. 18.

^{page 445 note 1} Cf. especially Luz, U., ‘The Disciples in the Gospel according to Matthew’, The Interpretation of Matthew (ed. Stanton, G.; IRT 3; London and Philadelphia: SPCK and Fortress, 1983) 98–128;Google Scholar also Strecker, G., Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit (FRLANT 82; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962) 206;Google ScholarHahn, F., Das Verständnis der Mission im Neuen Testament (WMANT 13; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1963) 108;Google ScholarBrown, S., ‘The Mission to Israel in Matthew's Central Section (Mt 9. 35–11. 1)’, ZNW 69 (1978) 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 446 note 1} Cf., e.g., Trilling, W., Das wahre Israel (SALAT 10; 3. Auflage; München: Kösel, 1964) 159;Google ScholarBaumbach, G., Das Verständnis des Bösen in den synoptischen Evangelien (ThA 19; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1963) 85;Google ScholarBrown, R. E., Donfried, K. P. and Reumann, J., eds., Peter in the New Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1973) 82–3, 106.Google Scholar

^{page 446 note 2} Barth, G. (‘Das Gesetzesverständnis des Evangelisten Matthäus’, Ueberlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäus-Evangelium [G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, and H. J. Held; WMANT 1; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960] 103)Google Scholar speaks of ‘Gleichsetzung’ and Minear, P. S. (Matthew [New York: Pilgrim, 1982] 10–12)Google Scholar of what I have termed ‘simultaneity’.

^{page 446 note 3} On this point, cf. especially the remarks of Luz (‘Disciples’, 110–14) and Minear (Matthew, 10–12).Google Scholar

^{page 446 note 4} Apparently, Bornkamm, G. (‘Enderwartung und Kirche im Matthäusevangelium’, Ueberlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium [G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, H. J. Held; WMANT 1; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960] 38–39)Google Scholar was the first scholar to call attention in an indelible way to this dimension of Matthean christology.

^{page 446 note 5} Cf., e.g., Kilpatrick, G. D., The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946) 113, 120–21;Google ScholarBarth, , ‘Gesetzesverständnis’, 70–88,104;Google ScholarHummel, R., Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium (BEVT 33; München: Chr. Kaiser, 1963) 12–22;Google ScholarStendahl, K., The School of St. Matthew (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968) xi;Google ScholarSand, A., Das Gesetz und die Propheten (BU 11; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1974) 76–84;Google ScholarMeier, J. P., The Vision of Matthew (ThI; New York: Paulist, 1979) 27, 102, 162 n. 176;Google ScholarMinear, Matthew, 10–12;Google ScholarLuz, U., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (EKK 1/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn and Zürich: Neukirchener Verlag und Benzinger Verlag, 1985) 148.Google Scholar

^{page 446 note 6} Cf., e.g., Barth, , ‘Gesetzesverständnis’, 103–4;Google ScholarHummel, , Auseinandersetzung, 63;Google ScholarTrilling, , Israel, 159;Google ScholarPesch, W., Matthäus der Seelsorger (SBS 2; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1966) 68–76;Google ScholarThompson, W. G., Matthew's Advice to a Divided Community: Mt. 17, 22–18, 35 (AnBib 44; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970) 258–64;Google ScholarLuz, , ‘Disciples’, 98–128;Google ScholarFrankemölle, H., Jahwebund und Kirche Christi (NTAbh 10; Münster: Aschendorff, 1974) 84–5, 90–1;Google ScholarKünzel, G., Studien zum Gemeindeverständnis des Matthäus-Evangeliums (CThM 10; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1978) 149–56;Google ScholarBrown, S., ‘Matthew's Central Section’, 80, 90;Google ScholarMinear, Matthew, 10–12.Google Scholar With reservations, cf. also Strecker, (Weg, 193–4, 205–6).Google Scholar

^{page 447 note 1} Apparently, Barth (‘Gesetzesverständnis’, 103–4) was one of the first to stress this point. Cf. also Luz, , ‘Disciples’, 111.Google Scholar

^{page 447 note 2} Cf. Kingsbury, J. D., Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (London and Philadelphia: SPCK and Fortress, 1975) 128–37.Google Scholar

^{page 447 note 3} Cf., e.g., Kilpatrick, Origins, 121;Google ScholarHummel, , Auseinandersetzung, 53–5;Google ScholarSand, Gesetz, 76.Google Scholar

^{page 447 note 4} Cf. Held, H. J., ‘Matthäus als Interpret der Wundergeschichten’, Ueberlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäus-Evangelium (G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, H. J. Held; WMANT 1; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960) 275–8;Google ScholarGerhardsson, B., The Mighty Acts of Jesus according to Matthew (SHVL 1978–9: 5; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1979) 50–1, 64–5.Google Scholar

^{page 447 note 5} Perhaps the programmatic essay on the ‘transparency’ of Jesus' great speeches for the present of the church is Bornkamm's, G. ‘Enderwartung und Kirche im Matthäusevangelium’ (Ueberlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäus-Evangelium [G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, and H. J. Held; WMANT 1; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960] 13–21).Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 1} Matt, 3. 7;Google Scholar 16. 1, 6, 11, 12 (note further 22.34).

^{page 448 note 2} On this point, cf. especially Hummel, (Auseinandersetzung, 18)Google Scholar and Walker, R. (Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium [FRLANT 91; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967] 11).Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 3} This has been noted in particular by Hummel, (Auseinandersetzung, 19)Google Scholar, Tilborg, S. Van (The Jewish Leaders in Matthew [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972] 2)Google Scholar, and Meier (Vision, 20).Google Scholar

^{page 448 note 4} Cf., e.g., Reicke, B., New Testament Era (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968) 152–63, 266–7.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 1} Cf. especially Hummel, (Auseinandersetzung, 19)Google Scholar, Walker, (Heilsgeschichte, 15)Google Scholar, and Meier (Vision, 20).Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 2} Cf. above n. 5, p. 446. While the great majority of scholars ascribe a date of post AD. 70 to Matthew, a handful argues vigorously for a dating that is pre A.D. 70 (cf., e.g., Gundry, R. H., Matthew [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1982] 453, 602).Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 3} Cf., e.g., Kilpatrick, Origins, 106, 113, 121;Google ScholarHummel, , Auseinandersetzung, 14–15;Google ScholarSand, Gesetz, 81–2;Google ScholarMeier, Vision, 162 n. 176Google Scholar (note also the remark by Trilling, , Israel, 90).Google Scholar The opposite view according to which the Jewish leaders in Matthew are in no way transparent for the present of the post-Easter church but serve a purely literary function within the story being told is espoused by Walker (Heilsgeschichte, 11–38)Google Scholar and, following him, by Tilborg, Van (Leaders, 1–6)Google Scholar and Frankemölle (Jahwebund, 203).Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 4} Cf. Hummel, , Auseinandersetzung, 15;Google ScholarMeier, Vision, 162 n. 176;Google ScholarGundry, , Matthew, 454;Google Scholar also Sand, Gesetz, 81–2.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 5} Cf. Hummel, , Auseinandersetzung, 20–1;Google ScholarSand, Gesetz, 81;Google ScholarLuz, Matthäus, 148.Google Scholar Cf. further the remarks of Strecker, (Weg, 81–2, 115–16, 140)Google Scholar and Trilling, (Israel, 91).Google Scholar

^{page 450 note 1} Kilpatrick, Origins, 120–1.Google Scholar

^{page 450 note 2} Hummel, , Auseinandersetzung, 19–20.Google Scholar

^{page 450 note 3} Tilborg, Van, Leaders, 3;Google Scholar also Hummel, , Auseinandersetzung, 20.Google Scholar

^{page 450 note 4} Meier, Vision, 18–21.Google Scholar

^{page 450 note 5} Luz, Matthäus, 148;Google Scholar cf. also Trilling, , Israel, 90–1.Google Scholar

^{page 450 note 6} Strecker, , Weg, 140.Google Scholar

^{page 451 note 1} Walker, , Heilsgeschichte, 11–16;Google ScholarFrankemölle, , Jahwebund, 203–4.Google Scholar

^{page 452 note 1} Cf. above n. 6, p. 446.

^{page 452 note 2} ‘The Two-fold Representation of the Mission in Matthew's Gospel’, ST 31 (1977) 23, 28–32;Google Scholaridem, ‘Matthew's Central Section’, 79–87.

^{page 452 note 3} Brown, , ‘Two-fold Representation’, 21–32;Google Scholaridem, ‘Matthew's Central Section’, 73–90; idem, ‘The Matthean Community and the Gentile Mission’, NouT 22 (1980) 193–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 453 note 1} Cf. Brown, , ‘Matthew's Central Section’, 90;Google Scholaridem, ‘Matthean Community’, 213–21.

^{page 453 note 2} Brown, , ‘Two-fold Representation’, 30.Google Scholar

^{page 453 note 3} Ibid., 29.

^{page 453 note 4} Brown, , ‘Matthew's Central Section’, 90.Google Scholar

^{page 453 note 5} Trilling, , Israel, 138.Google Scholar Cf. further Kilpatrick, Origins, 119;Google ScholarHahn, F., Mission, 109–111;Google ScholarWalker, , Heilsgeschichte, 75–7;Google ScholarFrankemölle, , Jahwebund, 108.Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 1} Cf. Chatman, S., Story and Discourse (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1978).Google Scholar On the application of principles of narrative criticism to Matthew, cf. Kingsbury, J. D., Matthew as Story (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) esp. 1–40.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 1} For a diagram illustrating narrative-critical theory concerning author(s) and reader(s), cf. Chatman, (Story and Discourse, 151)Google Scholar and also Petersen, N. R. (‘The Reader in the Gospel’), Neot 18 (1984] 39).Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 2} For a helpful survey of six approaches to reader-response criticism, cf. Suleiman, S. R., ‘Introduction: Varieties of Audience-Oriented Criticism’, The Reader in the Text (ed. Suleiman, S. R. and Crosman, I.; Princeton: University Press, 1980) 3–45.Google Scholar Cf. further Tompkins, J. P., ‘An Introduction to Reader-Response Criticism’, Reader-Response Criticism (ed. Tompkins, J. P.; Baltimore: John Hopkins University, 1980) ix–xxvi;Google ScholarFowler, R. M., ‘Who is “the Reader” in Reader Response Criticism?’ Semeia 31 (1985) 5–23.Google Scholar

^{page 456 note 1} Cf. Suleiman, , ‘Audience-Oriented Criticism’, 8, 14.Google Scholar

^{page 459 note 1} On this point, cf. the pertinent remarks of Rabinowitz, P. J., ‘“What's Hecuba to Us?” The Audience's Experience of Literary Borrowing’, The Reader in the Text (ed. Suleiman, S. R. and Crosman, I.; Princeton: University Press, 1980) 245.Google Scholar