Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T14:12:44.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Problem of the Gospel According to Matthew

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

Extract

For whom, and with what special purpose, was St. Matthew's Gospel written? The thesis of this paper is, that it was written after the Fall of Jerusalem by a Jewish Christian for the Great Church, which by then was predominantly Gentile, with the special purpose of bringing to Gentile Christians the moral and spiritual teaching which Jerusalem had preserved and which they sorely needed.

One problem of Matthew is this: that the Evangelist, while reproducing with great care the testimony of the sources which he accepts as authoritative (namely, Mark, Q,, and M which contained the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem over which St. James had presided), does not attempt to reconcile them. As we shall see, it is hard to think that if our Lord said that ‘till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished’ (5.18), He could also have said ‘It is not that which enters the mouth that makes a man unclean, but that which comes out of his mouth is what makes him unclean’ (15.11, cf. Mark 7.15), since this saying repeals the whole of Leviticus 11, on unclean foods. Again, if He commanded His disciples to do and observe all that was laid down by the Scribes who sat on Moses' seat (23.1–3), how could He have so trenchantly criticised the Tradition of the elders as leading in actual cases to breach of the Fifth Commandment (15.1–9, cf. Mark 7.5–13)?

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 403 note 1 This is a remark of Bornkamm, G. on p. 229 of his very valuable essay, ‘Enderwartung und Kirche im Matthäusevangelium’ in The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, ed. Davies, and Daube, . I am indebted to this essay a number of points where no acknowledgment is made in the footnotes. As I was living in Australia when this paper was written, I had not yet been able to see his Jesus von Nazareth (Urban Bücher, Kohlhammer), nor the English translation published by Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar

page 404 note 1 Dix, pp. 27–28.

page 405 note 1 Dix, pp. 35–36.

page 405 note 2 cf. Rom. 4.12, Col. 4.11.

page 405 note 3 I cannot accept Munck's contention in Paul and the Salvation of Mankind that there were no Jewish-Christian ‘Judaisers’.

page 405 note 4 Dix, pp. 41–46.

page 405 note 5 The historical order of events assumed in this paragraph is that which Wilfred Knox argued for and defended, in sharp contrast with the historical scepticism of M. Dibelius in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles and of John Knox in Chapters in the Life of Paul.

page 411 note 1 ‘The many’, as meaning ‘all mankind’: Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words Jesus, pp. 123–5.

page 411 note 2 Bornkamm, pp. 245–6.

page 412 note 1 Bornkamm, pp. 256–9.

page 413 note 1 cf. Bornkamm, p. 259.