^{page 407 note 1} Exceptions are rare. Lai, P.H., ‘Production du sens par la foi. Matthieu 27, 57–28, 20’, Rech. Sc. Rel. LXI (1973), 65–96 begins with Matt, xxvii. 57, but assumes what should first be proved by literary analysis.Google ScholarFuller, R. H., The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York, 1971), p. 7, andGoogle ScholarLéon-Dufour, X., Résurrection de Jésus et Message Pascal (Paris, 1971), pp. 187–90, begin with xxvii. 62;Google Scholarbut cfRigaux, B., Dieu l'a ressuscité Exégèse et théologie biblique (Gembloux, 1973), pp. 199 f.Google ScholarThe correspondence between xxvii. 62–6 and xxviii. 11–15 is more solidly grounded by Neirynck, F., ‘Les Femmes au Tombeau: Étude de la rédaction Matthéenne (Matt, xxviii. 1–10)’, N.T.S. XV (1968 f.), 168–90, p. 173.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 1} Lohmeyer, Ernst, Das Evangelium des Matthäus, ed. Schmauch, W. (Göttingen, ³ 1962), p. 399.Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 1} Cf. Neirynck, art cit. p. 171. But his view should be nuanced. In Mark, the stone figures as an obstacle to access for further services; it is the object of a main verb describing Joseph's action, but is later unexplainably rolled back, huge as it was. In Matthew, the stone simply closes the doorway to the women's view of the interior; the angelic appearance occurs outside the tomb (cfMarxsen, W., The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth [Philadelphia, 1970], pp. 44 f.) in connection with the removal of the stone by the Angel of the Lord himself, who invites the women to enter and see. Also, Matthew is interested more in the location of the tomb (‘which he had hewn in [⋯ν] the rock’, xxvii. 60) than, as Mark is, in the material of the tomb (‘which had been hewn out of [⋯κ] rock’, Mark xv. 46).Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 2} Schniewind, J., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Göttingen, ¹¹ 1964), p. 272.Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 3} Trilling, W., Das Wahre Israel. Studien zur Theologie des Matthäus-Evangeliums (Munich, ³ 1964), pp. 79, 94.Google Scholar

^{page 408 note 4} Klostermann, E., Das Matthäusevangelium (Tübingen, ⁴ 1971), p. 277.Google Scholar

^{page 409 note 1} Cf. Neirynck, art. cit. pp. 170, 176, 180 for this twofold development of the Matthean text, and also (pp. 176 f.) for a convincing defence of the shorter reading in xxviii. 9a.

^{page 409 note 2} CfGrundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Berlin, 1968), p. 571.Google ScholarFreyne, Seán, The Twelve: Disciples and Apostles (London, 1968), pp. 156–9, unfortunately ignores Matt, xxviii. 10, and insists on ‘observance, deeds’.Google Scholar

^{page 410 note 1} The main point is adoration, not supplication; cf. Neirynck, art. cit. p. 178.

^{page 410 note 2} There is no exact parallel to the twofold description of the Angel given by Matthew, particularly the description of his εἰδ⋯α (‘appearance’, a later spelling of ἰδ⋯α and not to be equated with πρ⋯σωπον, contra Rigaux, op. cit. p. 202). There are partial parallels: Dan. vii. 9 (Theod.) and I Enoch xiv. 20. IV Ezra x. 25 treats rather of the transfiguration of an earthly figure. Perhaps Dan. x. 6 is closest (⋯στραπ⋯), but it seems more relevant to the transfiguration account (esp. in Matt.); cfKee, H. C., ‘The Transfiguration in Mark: Epiphany or Apocalyptic Vision?’ in: Understanding the Sacred Text, ed. Reumann, J. (Valley Forge, 1972), 135–52, esp. p. 149. The correspondence of σεισμ⋯ς μ⋯γας and ⋯σε⋯σθησαν (Matt, xxviii. 2a, 4a) suggests an apparition of God himself (cp. Ezek. xxviii. 19–20 [LXX]).Google Scholar

^{page 410 note 3} E.g., in the ‘approach’ of Jesus (προσ⋯ρχομαι of Jesus in Matthew only in xxviii. 18 and xvii. 7), and the commission in xxviii. 18 b–20, for which the best OT parallels are those discussed by McCarthy, Dennis J., ‘An Installation Genre?’ J.B.L. XC (1971), 31–41.Google Scholar

^{page 411 note 1} In effect, C would be reduced to the arrival and departure (vv. 1, 8) focusing on the appearance and message of the Angel. The encounter with Jesus (vv. 9–10) would be left standing alone, with no clear, introductory remarks about time, place or other persons concerned, unlike the other recognized episodes in xxvii. 57 ff.

^{page 411 note 2} Other concentric structures in Matthew have been discussed by Vanhoye, A., Structure and Theology of the Accounts of the Passion in the Synoptic Gospels (Collegeville, Minn., 1967), pp. 19–20 (= article in N.R.T. LXXXIX [1967], 135–63, pp. 147 ff.)Google Scholarby Thompson, W. G., Matthew's Advice to a Divided Community. Mt 17, 22–18, 35 (Rome, 1970), p. 244 and passim, and byGoogle ScholarLohr, C. H., ‘Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew’, C.B.Q. XXIII (1961), 403–35.Google Scholar

^{page 411 note 3} Matthew uses ⋯στις correctly in sentences of general reference (v. 39, 41; x. 33 etc.) and in connection with a substantive of indefinite reference (vii. 15), which may be the usage closest to xxvii. 62a, cf Blass–Debrunncr–Funk, A Greek Grammar of the N.T. (Chicago, 1961), p. 293. But the phrase ‘present of definition’ would seem to fit Matt, xxvii. 62a; Mark xv. 42; Heb. ix. 2 b, 9a; Jos. Ant. III, 255 f.

^{page 412 note 1} Contra Klostermann, Matthäusevangelium, p. 227.

^{page 412 note 2} A futuristic present, not conative; cf. Blass–Debrunner–Funk, Grammar, §§ 319, 323, and Zerwick, M., Biblical Greek (Engl. ed. by Smith, J.; Rome, 1963), § 278, p. 94. Matthew uses the present in the sense of fulfilled prophecy (xi. 5); on the other hand, where he speaks of Jesus' own resurrection, he always uses an aor. pass. or fut. pass.: xvi. 21; xvii. 9, 23;XX. i9;xxvi. 32; xxvii. 64; xxviii. 6, 7; or an ambiguous noun, xxvii. 52.Google Scholar

^{page 413 note 1} Bonnard, P., L'évangile selon saint Matthieu (Neuchâtel, 1963), p. 413.Google Scholar

^{page 413 note 2} Cf. Matt. xxiv. 20, where ‘Sabbath’ is paired with ‘winter’; the reference occurs in a sub-section (xxiv. 15–22[28]) presenting a Judean perspective of the Great Tribulation as the preceding sub-section (xxiv. 9–14) presented a wider, ‘world-oriented’ perspective of tribulation for the disciples as a whole. Matthew's perspectives on time, geography and the Church transcend the dichotomy of Jew-Gentile relationships and of mere ‘Church-history’; cfTrilling, , Das Wahre Israel (³ 1964), p. 139 andGoogle ScholarGiblin, C. H., ‘Theological Perspective and Matthew 10:23b’, T.S. XXIX (1968), 637–61.Google Scholar

^{page 414 note 1} Rothfuchs, W., Die Erfüllungszitate des Matthäusevangeliums. Eine biblisch-theologische Untersuchung (Stuttgart, 1969), p. 98.Google Scholar

^{page 414 note 2} CfZumstein, J., ‘Matthieu 28: 16–20’, Rev. Th. Phil. XXII (1972), 14–33, esp. pp. 18 ff. (developing Vögtle, T.U. LXXXVII [1964], 266–94).Google Scholar

^{page 414 note 3} Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. Marsh, J. (Oxford, 1963), p. 287.Google Scholar

^{page 414 note 4} Cf. A. Vanhoye, art. cit. p. 31.

^{page 414 note 5} The irony in the case of the false accusations and taunts is that the demolished temple (Jesus, as the faith-, cult-centre of the genuine Israel) will indeed be rebuilt in a short time (within the three-day period covering passion–resurrection); the irony in xii. 40 and xxvii. 63 is that the predicted hiddenness of Jesus in Sheol is fulfilled in a refusal to admit the resurrection.

^{page 415 note 1} Cf. p. 412 n. 2.

^{page 415 note 2} The πλεῑον may well be the activity of Jesus among men, not solely his preaching; cf. xii. 6 μεῑʓον, where the ‘something greater’ seems to be Jesus and his disciples, ‘those with him’.

^{page 415 note 3} Edwards, R. A., The Sign of Jonah in the Theology of the Evangelists and Q, (Naperville, 1971), pp. 95–105. K. Stendahl doubts that xii. 40 is Matthean;Google Scholar‘Matthew, ’, Peake's Commentary on the Bible, ed. Black, M. and Rowley, H. H. (Edinburgh, 1962), p. 785, § 684t. But ⋯ωσπερ γ⋯ρ…οὐτως ἔσται is Matthean, or from Q as Matthew used Q; cp. Matt. xxiv. 27 and 37 [v.l. δ⋯] with Luke xvii. 24 and 26; Matt. xii. 40 and Luke xi. 30; Matt. XXV. 14 and xiii. 40 [οῡυ instead of γ⋯ρ].Google Scholar

^{page 416 note 1} Seidelin, Paul, ‘Das Jonaszeichen’, Studia Theologica V (Lund, 1952), 119–31.Google Scholar

^{page 416 note 2} Gundry, W. H., The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel, with Special Reference to the Messianic Hope (Leiden, 1967), p. 137.Google Scholar

^{page 416 note 3} Bauer's, J. B. distinctions are inadequate, ‘Drei Tage’, Biblica XXIX (1958), 354–8.Google ScholarJeremias, J. unfortunately prescinds altogether from discussing Matt. xii. 40, ‘Die Drei-Tage-Worte der Evangelien’, Tradition und Glaube. Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt, ed. Jeremias, G., Kuhn, H.-W. and Stegemann, H. (Göttingen, 1971), 221–9, esp. p. 221 n. 1. But of. G. Delling τρεῖς, T.D.N.T. VIII, 220.Google Scholar

^{page 416 note 4} CfMenoud, P. H., ‘Pendant quarante jours (Actes i. 3)’, Neotestamentica et Patristica (Leiden, 1962), 148–56, esp. pp. 149–54.Google Scholar

^{page 417 note 1} Shakespeare, The Life of King Henry V, prologue to act IV. Matthew xxiv. 15 warns the reader to mind the difficult text.

^{page 417 note 2} McArthur, Harvey, ‘“On the Third Day”’, N.T.S. XVIII (1971), 81–6, especially texts numbered 5, 7, II, 12 and p. 85.Google Scholar

^{page 417 note 3} Even for Matthew, the third night is clearly no problem.

^{page 417 note 4} W. Rothfuchs, op. cit. pp. 72–7.

^{page 418 note 1} Ibid. pp. 75 f., 103, 130 f., 133, 144 ff.

^{page 418 note 2} The same formulation, ⋯κ το⋯ οὐρανο⋯ (xvi. I), does not appear elsewhere in Matthew (except in the v.l. of xxiv. 29); the plural is used in iii. 17; the article is missing in xxi. 25 bis, where there is question of the authority of God, not men, and in xxviii. 2 (!), where the same concern may be present, along with the evidently apocalyptic imagery. In the expression ⋯ν τῷ ο⋯ρανῷ (‘by heaven’), heaven is God's throne (v. 34; xxiii. 22; cf. xxii. 30).

^{page 418 note 3} The Community Discourse begins with Matt. xvii. 22; cf. W. G. Thompson, op. cit. pp. 1–29.

^{page 418 note 4} On the textual problem cfMetzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York, 1971), p. 41.Google Scholar

^{page 419 note 1} Lamarche, P., ‘Le “blasphème” de Jésus devant le Sanhédrin’, Rech. Sc. Rel. L (1962), 74–85. Lamarche's article has not received the attention it deserves, perhaps because he quite unnecessarily argued from the outset for the priority of the Matthean tradition over the Marcan tradition.Google Scholar