The Gospel of Matthew: A Hypertextual Commentary 9783631679418, 9783653071733, 9783631707876, 9783631707883, 3631679416

Table of contents :
Cover
Contents
Introduction
Matthew and Mark
Matthew and Luke
Mark-Matthew-Luke
Mark-Luke-Matthew
Matthew and Acts
Date of composition
Sequential hypertextuality
Chapter 1. Mt 1–2 as a sequential hypertextual
reworking of Acts 1:1-8:35
1.1. Mt 1:1-17 (cf. Acts 1:1-14)
1.2. Mt 1:18-25 (cf. Acts 1:15-26)
1.3. Mt 2:1-12 (cf. Acts 2)
1.4. Mt 2:13-15 (cf. Acts 3)
1.5. Mt 2:16-18 (cf. Acts 4:1-8:3)
1.6. Mt 2:19-23 (cf. Acts 8:4-35)
Chapter 2. Mt 3:1-9:34 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts 8:36-12:25
2.1. Mt 3 (cf. Acts 8:36-39b)
2.2. Mt 4:1-11 (cf. Acts 8:39b-40)
2.3. Mt 4:12-22 (cf. Acts 9:1-19)
2.4. Mt 4:23-25 (cf. Acts 9:20-25)
2.5. Mt 5–7 (cf. Acts 9:26-29)
2.6. Mt 8:1-4 (cf. Acts 9:30-43)
2.7. Mt 8:5-17 (cf. Acts 10:1-11:18)
2.8. Mt 8:18-34; cf. Acts 11:19-26
2.9. Mt 9:1-17; cf. Acts 11:27-30
2.10. Mt 9:18-26; cf. Acts 12:1-9a
2.11. Mt 9:27-31; cf. Acts 12:9b-17
2.12. Mt 9:32-34; cf. Acts 12:18-25
Chapter 3. Mt 9:35-14:36 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts 13–14
3.1. Mt 9:35-38; cf. Acts 13:1-2
3.2. Mt 10:1-15; cf. Acts 13:3-7
3.3. Mt 10:16-33; cf. Acts 13:8-18
3.4. Mt 10:34-39; cf. Acts 13:19
3.5. Mt 10:40-42; cf. Acts 13:20-23
3.6. Mt 11:1-19; cf. Acts 13:24-26
3.7. Mt 11:20-24; cf. Acts 13:27-29
3.8. Mt 11:25-27; cf. Acts 13:30-33
3.9. Mt 11:28-30; cf. Acts 13:34-38
3.10. Mt 12:1-14; cf. Acts 13:39-43
3.11. Mt 12:15-32; cf. Acts 13:44-14:2b
3.12. Mt 12:33-37; cf. Acts 14:2c-3c
3.13. Mt 12:38-45; cf. Acts 14:3d-19
3.14. Mt 12:46-13:35; cf. Acts 14:20-26
3.15. Mt 13:36-52; cf. Acts 14:27
3.16. Mt 13:53-14:36; cf. Acts 14:28
Chapter 4. Mt 15–20 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts 15:1-18:21
4.1. Mt 15; cf. Acts 15:1-4
4.2. Mt 16:1-20; cf. Acts 15:5-24
4.3. Mt 16:21-17:23; cf. Acts 15:25-41
4.4. Mt 17:24-27; cf. Acts 16:1-3
4.5. Mt 18:1-9; cf. Acts 16:4-8
4.6. Mt 18:10-35; cf. Acts 16:9-40
4.7. Mt 19:1-15; cf. Acts 17:1-14
4.8. Mt 19:16-30; cf. Acts 17:15-34
4.9. Mt 20:1-16; cf. Acts 18:1-8
4.10. Mt 20:17-34; cf. Acts 18:9-21
Chapter 5. Mt 21–25 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts 18:22-21:9
5.1. Mt 21:1-27; cf. Acts 18:22-25
5.2. Mt 21:28-32; cf. Acts 18:26-28a
5.3. Mt 21:33-46; cf. Acts 18:28bc
5.4. Mt 22:1-14; cf. Acts 19:1-6
5.5. Mt 22:15-46; cf. Acts 19:7-8
5.6. Mt 23; cf. Acts 19:9-22
5.7. Mt 24:1-41; cf. Acts 19:23-40
5.8. Mt 24:42-51; cf. Acts 20:1-6
5.9. Mt 25:1-13; cf. Acts 20:7-15
5.10. Mt 25:14-30; cf. Acts 20:16-26
5.11. Mt 25:31-46; cf. Acts 20:27-21:9
Chapter 6. Mt 26–28 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts 21:10-28:31
6.1. Mt 26:1-2; cf. Acts 21:10-16
6.2. Mt 26:3-13; cf. Acts 21:17-25
6.3. Mt 26:14-46; cf. Acts 21:26-29
6.4. Mt 26:47-75; cf. Acts 21:30-23:11
6.5. Mt 27:1-10; cf. Acts 23:12-33a
6.6. Mt 27:11-26; cf. Acts 23:33b-25:18
6.7. Mt 27:27-66; cf. Acts 25:19-27:32
6.8. Mt 28:1-15; cf. Acts 27:33-28:22
6.9. Mt 28:16-20; cf. Acts 28:23-31
General conclusions
Bibliography
Primary sources
Israelite-Jewish
Graeco-Roman
Early Christian: New Testament
Secondary literature
Index of ancient sources

Citation preview

Bartosz Adamczewski is Associate Professor of New Testament exegesis at Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw (Poland). He has published several books on the relationships between biblical writings themselves, and between them and historical facts.

EST 16_267941_Adamczewski_AM_A5HCk PLE.indd 1

Bartosz Adamczewski · The Gospel of Matthew: A Hypertextual Commentary

This monograph presents an entirely new solution to the synoptic problem. It demonstrates that the Acts of the Apostles functioned as the structure-giving hypotext for the Gospel of Matthew. Accordingly, the Gospel of Matthew is a reworking of not only the Gospel of Luke, but also, in a strictly sequential way, of the Acts of the Apostles. This strictly sequential, hypertextual dependence on Acts explains the Matthean relocations of the Marcan and Lucan material, numerous Matthean modifications thereof, and many surprising features of the Matthean Gospel. Critical explanations of such features, which are offered in this monograph, ensure the reliability of the new solution to the synoptic problem.

16

Bartosz Adamczewski

The Gospel of Matthew

A Hypertextual Commentary stopibhuarly Jewish Sources

European Studies in T heolog y, Philosophy and Histor y of Relig ions Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski

13.12.16 KW 50 09:32

The Gospel of Matthew

EUROPEAN STUDIES IN THEOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF RELIGIONS Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski

VOL. 16

Bartosz Adamczewski

The Gospel of Matthew A Hypertextual Commentary

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress

Printed by CPI books GmbH, Leck. ISSN 2192-1857 ISBN 978-3-631-67941-8 (Print) E-ISBN 978-3-653-07173-3 (E-PDF) E-ISBN 978-3-631-70787-6 (EPUB) E-ISBN 978-3-631-70788-3 (MOBI) DOI 10.3726/b10799 © Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften Frankfurt am Main 2017 All rights reserved. Peter Lang Edition is an Imprint of Peter Lang GmbH. Peter Lang – Frankfurt am Main ∙ Bern ∙ Bruxelles ∙ New York ∙ Oxford ∙ Warszawa ∙ Wien All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. This publication has been peer reviewed. www.peterlang.com

Acknowledgments I thank my dear Mother, Jolanta Adamczewska, MSc; my relatives and friends; my Diocese of Warszawa-Praga; and the community of the Catholic Parish of St Mark in Warsaw for their encouragement, prayers, and spiritual support during my writing this book. My thanks also go to the staff of the Tübingen University Library for their help during my summer bibliographical research. Last but not least, I want to thank Mr Łukasz Gałecki and the members of the staff of the Publisher who helped turn the electronic version of the text into a book.

5

Contents Introduction............................................................................................................11 Matthew and Mark.................................................................................................11 Matthew and Luke..................................................................................................14 Mark-Matthew-Luke.......................................................................................15 Mark-Luke-Matthew.......................................................................................21 Matthew and Acts...................................................................................................26 Date of composition...............................................................................................26 Sequential hypertextuality.....................................................................................27

Chapter 1.  Mt 1–2 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts 1:1-8:35................................................................................29 1.1. Mt 1:1-17 (cf. Acts 1:1-14)..............................................................................29 1.2. Mt 1:18-25 (cf. Acts 1:15-26)..........................................................................36 1.3. Mt 2:1-12 (cf. Acts 2).......................................................................................39 1.4. Mt 2:13-15 (cf. Acts 3).....................................................................................44 1.5. Mt 2:16-18 (cf. Acts 4:1-8:3)...........................................................................46 1.6. Mt 2:19-23 (cf. Acts 8:4-35)............................................................................47

Chapter 2.  Mt 3:1-9:34 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts 8:36-12:25...........................................................................51 2.1. Mt 3 (cf. Acts 8:36-39b)...................................................................................51 2.2. Mt 4:1-11 (cf. Acts 8:39b-40)..........................................................................53 2.3. Mt 4:12-22 (cf. Acts 9:1-19)............................................................................56 2.4. Mt 4:23-25 (cf. Acts 9:20-25)..........................................................................57 2.5. Mt 5–7 (cf. Acts 9:26-29).................................................................................58 2.6. Mt 8:1-4 (cf. Acts 9:30-43)..............................................................................76 2.7. Mt 8:5-17 (cf. Acts 10:1-11:18).......................................................................77 7

2.8. Mt 8:18-34; cf. Acts 11:19-26..........................................................................81 2.9. Mt 9:1-17; cf. Acts 11:27-30............................................................................84 2.10. Mt 9:18-26; cf. Acts 12:1-9a............................................................................86 2.11. Mt 9:27-31; cf. Acts 12:9b-17..........................................................................87 2.12. Mt 9:32-34; cf. Acts 12:18-25..........................................................................89

Chapter 3.  Mt 9:35-14:36 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts 13–14....................................................................................91 3.1. Mt 9:35-38; cf. Acts 13:1-2..............................................................................91 3.2. Mt 10:1-15; cf. Acts 13:3-7..............................................................................93 3.3. Mt 10:16-33; cf. Acts 13:8-18..........................................................................95 3.4. Mt 10:34-39; cf. Acts 13:19..............................................................................99 3.5. Mt 10:40-42; cf. Acts 13:20-23..................................................................... 100 3.6. Mt 11:1-19; cf. Acts 13:24-26....................................................................... 101 3.7. Mt 11:20-24; cf. Acts 13:27-29..................................................................... 105 3.8. Mt 11:25-27; cf. Acts 13:30-33..................................................................... 107 3.9. Mt 11:28-30; cf. Acts 13:34-38..................................................................... 108 3.10. Mt 12:1-14; cf. Acts 13:39-43....................................................................... 108 3.11. Mt 12:15-32; cf. Acts 13:44-14:2b................................................................ 110 3.12. Mt 12:33-37; cf. Acts 14:2c-3c..................................................................... 113 3.13. Mt 12:38-45; cf. Acts 14:3d-19..................................................................... 113 3.14. Mt 12:46-13:35; cf. Acts 14:20-26................................................................ 116 3.15. Mt 13:36-52; cf. Acts 14:27........................................................................... 121 3.16. Mt 13:53-14:36; cf. Acts 14:28...................................................................... 123

Chapter 4.  Mt 15–20 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts 15:1-18:21........................................................................ 127 4.1. Mt 15; cf. Acts 15:1-4.................................................................................... 127 4.2. Mt 16:1-20; cf. Acts 15:5-24......................................................................... 130 8

4.3. Mt 16:21-17:23; cf. Acts 15:25-41................................................................ 133 4.4. Mt 17:24-27; cf. Acts 16:1-3......................................................................... 137 4.5. Mt 18:1-9; cf. Acts 16:4-8............................................................................. 138 4.6. Mt 18:10-35; cf. Acts 16:9-40....................................................................... 140 4.7. Mt 19:1-15; cf. Acts 17:1-14......................................................................... 144 4.8. Mt 19:16-30; cf. Acts 17:15-34..................................................................... 146 4.9. Mt 20:1-16; cf. Acts 18:1-8........................................................................... 149 4.10. Mt 20:17-34; cf. Acts 18:9-21....................................................................... 151

Chapter 5.  Mt 21–25 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts 18:22-21:9........................................................................ 155 5.1. Mt 21:1-27; cf. Acts 18:22-25....................................................................... 155 5.2. Mt 21:28-32; cf. Acts 18:26-28a................................................................... 159 5.3. Mt 21:33-46; cf. Acts 18:28bc....................................................................... 160 5.4. Mt 22:1-14; cf. Acts 19:1-6........................................................................... 161 5.5. Mt 22:15-46; cf. Acts 19:7-8......................................................................... 163 5.6. Mt 23; cf. Acts 19:9-22.................................................................................. 165 5.7. Mt 24:1-41; cf. Acts 19:23-40....................................................................... 170 5.8. Mt 24:42-51; cf. Acts 20:1-6......................................................................... 173 5.9. Mt 25:1-13; cf. Acts 20:7-15......................................................................... 174 5.10. Mt 25:14-30; cf. Acts 20:16-26..................................................................... 176 5.11. Mt 25:31-46; cf. Acts 20:27-21:9.................................................................. 178

Chapter 6.  Mt 26–28 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts 21:10-28:31..................................................................... 181 6.1. Mt 26:1-2; cf. Acts 21:10-16......................................................................... 181 6.2. Mt 26:3-13; cf. Acts 21:17-25....................................................................... 182 6.3. Mt 26:14-46; cf. Acts 21:26-29..................................................................... 183 6.4. Mt 26:47-75; cf. Acts 21:30-23:11................................................................ 184 9

6.5. Mt 27:1-10; cf. Acts 23:12-33a..................................................................... 186 6.6. Mt 27:11-26; cf. Acts 23:33b-25:18.............................................................. 189 6.7. Mt 27:27-66; cf. Acts 25:19-27:32................................................................ 191 6.8. Mt 28:1-15; cf. Acts 27:33-28:22.................................................................. 195 6.9. Mt 28:16-20; cf. Acts 28:23-31..................................................................... 196

General conclusions.......................................................................................... 201 Bibliography......................................................................................................... 207 Primary sources................................................................................................... 207 Israelite-Jewish................................................................................................ 207 Graeco-Roman................................................................................................ 207 Early Christian: New Testament................................................................... 208 Secondary literature............................................................................................ 208

Index of ancient sources.................................................................................. 231

10

Introduction This commentary greatly differs from other modern commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew. The difference results from the particular methodological approach which has been adopted therein. Instead of explaining the Matthean Gospel in historical-critical terms as a result of redactional use of earlier sources or traditions, in narratological terms as a set of narrative-organizing devices, etc., this commentary aims at explaining it in a critical intertextual way as a result of a sequential hypertextual reworking of the Acts of the Apostles. This methodological approach, unlike many others, does not originate from any particular literary theory. It rather reflects the recent discovery of the phenomenon of the sequential hypertextual reworking of earlier texts in numerous biblical writings. This phenomenon occurs in the writings of both the Old and the New Testament: Gen, Exod-Lev-Num, Deut, Sam-Kgs, Chr; Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn, Acts, Rom, Gal, Eph, 2 Thes, Hebr, 2 Pet, and Rev.1 These writings, taken together and measured by their extent, constitute almost a half of the Christian Bible. Accordingly, it is fully justified to perform a thorough analysis of the Matthean Gospel, taking this important literary discovery into consideration.

Matthew and Mark Modern scholars generally agree that the Gospel of Matthew is a reworking of the Gospel of Mark. This opinion concerning the relationship between these two 1 See B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 227–399, 419–430; id., Heirs of the Reunited Church: The History of the Pauline Mission in Paul’s Letters, in the So-Called Pastoral Letters, and in the Pseudo-Titus Narrative of Acts (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 83–132; id., The Gospel of the Narrative ‘We’: The Hypertextual Relationship of the Fourth Gospel to the Acts of the Apostles (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 39–121; id., Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 55–66, 79–86, 99–103, 117–119, 129–163; id., Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (EST 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012), 25–280; id., Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels (EST 3; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2013), 14–62; id., The Gospel of Mark: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 8; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2014), 31–196; id., The Gospel of Luke: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 13; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2016), 35–202.

11

Gospels constitutes an important element of probably the earliest solution to the synoptic problem. It was first witnessed in the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15-16). According to this patristic text, the Gospels of Mark and Matthew were based on oral traditions which were handed down by Peter and presumably also by other apostles. For this reason, the Gospel of Mark was for centuries regarded as a work which was based on Peter’s oral catecheses. Likewise, the Gospel of Matthew was by most ancient, medieval, and modern scholars regarded as preserving authentic sayings of Jesus, which were first recorded in Hebrew (or Aramaic), possibly in the form of a protogospel2 or a later lost sayings source,3 and thereafter translated into Greek.4 However, a close analysis of the composition of the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ reveals that this text was not primarily concerned with the sources of the material which is contained in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. Otherwise, it would refer to the origin of all four canonical Gospels, and not just two of them. In fact, the bipartite structure of this patristic text reveals that it was only aimed at explaining the differences between the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, as well as the striking features of the Matthean Gospel. The author of the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ rightly perceived the Gospel of Matthew as having two apparently contradictory features. On the one hand, this Gospel seems to be a result of literary enhancement and rhetorical improvement of the relatively short and simple Gospel of Mark. On the other hand, in difference to the Marcan Gospel, the Gospel of Matthew, with its particular wording and theological stance, seems to be a very ‘Hebrew’, so apparently primitive, Jewish Christian Gospel. Consequently, it is quite natural to ask whether the Matthean Gospel should be regarded as written after or before the Gospel of Mark.

2 Cf. e.g. R. Simon, Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament: Où l’on établit la Verité des Actes sur lesquels la Religion Chrêtienne est fondée (Reinier Leers: Rotterdam 1689), 47–100; C. Tresmontant, Le Christ hébreu: La langue et l’âge des Evangiles (O.E.I.L.: Paris 1983), 35–216 (esp. 54, 58). 3 Cf. e.g. C. H. Weiße, Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbei­ tet, vol. 1 (Breitkopf und Härtel: Leipzig 1838), 48; M. Black, ‘The Use of Rhetorical Terminology in Papias on Mark and Matthew’, JSNT 37 (1989) 31–41; H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (SCM: London and Trinity: Philadelphia, Pa. 1990), 166–167. 4 Cf. e.g. A. D. Baum, ‘Ein aramäischer Urmatthäus im kleinasiatischen Gottesdienst’, ZNW 92 (2001) 257–272 (esp. 271).

12

The so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ presents an early Christian attempt to answer this difficult literary-theological question. According to this patristic text, the Marcan Gospel originated from a set of Peter’s oral catecheses and therefore, as the ‘testimony of Papias’ repeatedly stresses, it was not well organized in terms of a carefully composed literary work (οὐ… τάξει, οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν: Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15).5 The patristic text further suggests that as a consequence of this fact, ‘so then (μὲν οὖν) Matthew arranged the [Lord’s] oracles […] in an orderly way’ (συνετάξατο: Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.16).6 Accordingly, the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’, through its correlated references to the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, explained the evident posteriority of the apparently ‘Hebrew’ Gospel of Matthew against the apparently ‘Gentile’ Gospel of Mark in terms of necessary literary improvement of the allegedly poorly organized Marcan Gospel. In order to lend credence to this thesis, the author of the ‘testimony of Papias’ argued that the things which could be rearranged in the Marcan Gospel, without compromising the truth of them, were the Lord’s and Peter’s allegedly isolated oracles or discourses (λόγια: Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15-16). However, the suggestion that the Gospels of Mark and Matthew had their origin in some orally transmitted discourses or oracles of the Lord evidently functioned in the ‘testimony of Papias’ as a secondary, in fact merely postulated element of the main argument concerning the literary-rhetorical reasons for rearranging the contents of the Gospel of Mark into the better organized Gospel of Matthew.7 In fact, the pattern of the relocations and modifications of the Marcan (and Lucan) material in the Gospel of Matthew is very complex. Hitherto given scholarly explanations of this fact in terms of, for example, Matthew’s composition of three sections with three miracle stories and words of Jesus in each of them in Mt 8–118 or the use of two overlapping Marcan sequences in Mt 8–99 are only 5 Cf. D. Farkasfalvy, ‘The Papias Fragments on Mark and Matthew and Their Relationship to Luke’s Prologue: An Essay on the Pre-History of the Synoptic Problem’, in A. J. Malherbe, F. W. Norris, and J. W. Thompson (eds.), The Early Church in Its Context, Festschrift E. Ferguson (NovTSup 90; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 1998), 92–106 (esp. 93–97). 6 Cf. F. Watson, Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2013), 125–126. 7 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Hypertextuality, 125–127. 8 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 1, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I-VII (ICC; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1988), 100–103. 9 Cf. U. Luz, ‘Looking at Q through the Eyes of Matthew’, in P. Foster [et al.] (eds.), New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008, Festschrift

13

partly satisfactory because they do not explain numerous other relocations and modifications of the Marcan (and Lucan) material in the Matthean Gospel (e.g. Mk 5:24 in Mt 8:1; Mk 10:46-52 in Mt 9:27-31; Mk 6:34 in Mt 9:36; Mk 13:9 in Mt 10:17; Mk 3:22.25 in Mt 10:25; Mk 9:41 in Mt 10:42; Mk 9:22 in Mt 17:15; Mk 11:22-23 in Mt 17:20; Mk 10:15 in Mt 18:3; Mk 12:34 in Mt 22:46; Mk 9:34-35 and Mk 10:43 in Mt 23:11). Consequently, the complex pattern of the Matthean relocations and modifications of the Marcan (and Lucan) material remains an oddity,10 unless the likewise complex pattern of the Matthean reworking of the Lucan bipartite work is taken into due consideration.

Matthew and Luke In the twentieth century, the problem of the relationship between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke did not draw much attention in biblical scholarship. This fact mainly resulted from the popularity of the so-called Two-Source hypothe­ sis, which assumed mutual literary independence of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, in favour of the existence of a hypothetical ‘Q source’.11 However, in the twenty-first century this widespread consensus concerning the relationship between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke is more and more seriously challenged. Scholars began to realize that the arguments against the so-called Two-Source hypothesis, especially those pointing to hundreds of Matthean-Lucan agreements against Mark, are in fact really strong.12 Therefore, nowadays the so-called TwoSource hypothesis gradually loses the status of a widely agreed-upon scholarly axiom, and comes to be treated as merely one of the synoptic hypotheses.13 The studies on the issue of the relationship between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which had been published until the year 2009, were already analysed in my previous book on the synoptic problem.14 Therefore, only most recent contributions to this issue will here be presented.

10 11 12 13 14

14

C. M. Tuckett (BETL 239; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 571–589 (esp. 583–584); F. Watson, Gospel, 149–153. Cf. R. C. Beaton, ‘How Matthew writes’, in M. Bockmuehl and D. A. Hagner (eds.), The Written Gospel (Cambridge University: Cambridge · New York 2005), 116–134 (esp. 120). See B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 23–83. See ibid. 83–95. Cf. C. M. Tuckett, ‘The Current State of the Synoptic Problem’, in P. Foster [et al.] (eds.), New Studies, 9–50 (esp. 50). See B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 161–184.

Mark-Matthew-Luke The hypothesis of the Mk-Mt-Lk order of literary dependence of the Synoptic Gospels has a relatively strong group of supporters, who were more or less directly influenced by the work of Michael D. Goulder. Werner Kahl has argued that the so-called ‘minor agreements’ of Matthew and Luke against Mark, which are commonly regarded as an argument against the ‘Q source’ theory, are in fact not ‘minor’ because they are numerous and significant.15 Moreover, according to the German scholar, they often appear in clusters (especially in Mk 1:1-13 parr. and in Mk 14:32-16:8 parr.), so that their presence in Matthew and Luke should not be attributed to mere chance.16 Kahl’s argument for the Lucan dependence on Matthew, and not vice versa, is based on the philological observation that the Greek style of Luke is better than that of Matthew.17 However, his general reference to alleged Lucan corrections of Matthew in Mk 11:7 par. Mt 21:7 par. Lk 19:3518 is hardly convincing. Likewise, Kahl’s argument that Luke often locates his additions to Mark in a different context (especially in the ‘Travel Narrative’), whereas Matthew locates them in their Marcan contexts,19 cannot solve the problem of the direction of literary dependence, given the evidently differing treatment of the Marcan material by both later evangelists. On the other hand, Kahl’s argument that the Matthean introduction to the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:1-2), unlike the Lucan Sermon on the Plain, is not consistent with its context (Mt 4:18-22; 7:28-29)20 is quite convincing, but this inconsistency can also be explained as resulting from Matthew’s reworking of the Acts of the Apostles. Francis Watson has argued that the hypothesis of the Lucan dependence on Matthew, without the existence of the hypothetical ‘Q source’, should be called the ‘L/M (= Luke/Matthew) theory’.21 However, in his rejection of Q, the British scholar merely mentions the possibility of the reverse Matthean-Lukan dependence, namely the Matthean dependence on Luke, using the argument that, as he 15 Cf. W. Kahl, ‘Erhebliche matthäisch-lukanische Übereinstimmungen gegen das Markus­ evangelium in der Triple-Tradition: Ein Beitrag zur Klärung der synoptischen Abhän­ gigkeitsverhältnisse’, ZNW 103 (2012) 20–46 (esp. 22–25). 16 Cf. ibid. 31–35, 40. 17 Cf. ibid. 39. 18 Cf. ibid. 19 Cf. ibid. 39–40. 20 Cf. ibid. 43. 21 F. Watson, Gospel, 118–119. Cf. earlier id., ‘Q as Hypothesis: A Study in Methodology’, NTS 55 (2009) 397–415 (esp. 398).

15

states, ‘[…] it is impossible to investigate every possibility at once’.22 As concerns the ‘primitivity’ and ‘secondariness’ between Matthew and Luke, Watson rightly argues that ‘each of the competing [synoptic] hypotheses can produce plausible examples of apparent “primitivity” or “secondariness” ’, so that the synoptic problem should be solved by ‘attending to the compositional procedure required’ for the postulated later Gospel to emerge from the earlier ones.23 Watson rightly notes the thematic and lexical similarities between the Lucan prologue and the ‘testimony of Papias’, but he again uncritically accepts only one direction of possible dependence between them: from Papias’ view to Luke’s view.24 Watson also suggests that since Papias and Irenaeus mention both Mark and Matthew, and Irenaeus adds to them Luke and John, the Gospels of Mark and Matthew were probably the earliest ones.25 The British scholar notes numerous notable similarities between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which extend beyond the material traditionally attributed to the ‘Q source’: genealogies, annunciation stories, the introduction of John the Baptist before the Isaiah citation, the brood-of-vipers speech, etc.26 However, even if Watson rejects the hypothesis of mutual independence of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, he does not reject the hypothesis of mutual independence of the Gospels and the letters of Paul,27 although both hypotheses are logically constructed in the same way: differences between the analysed texts are taken to prove their mutual independence, notwithstanding the existence of important similarities between them. Watson also tries to explain the Matthean relocations of the Marcan material in the section Mt  3–13 by suggesting that Matthew used the material of Mk 1:1-6:6 in an ordered way, namely in two overlapping sequences (Mk 1:14:34; 4:35-6:6).28 However, this analysis is rather superficial. It does not take into consideration the Matthean relocations of the material of Mk 1:39; 3:7-8 etc. to the narrative point after Mk 1:20 (in Mt 4:22-25), Mk 3:13 to the narrative point

22 Id., Gospel, 137. 23 Ibid. 162–163. 24 Cf. ibid. 121–125, 131. 25 Cf. ibid. 128. Cf. also id., ‘How Did Mark Survive?’, in K. A. Bendoraitis and N. K. Gupta (eds.), Matthew and Mark across Perspectives, Festschrift S. C. Barton and W. R. Telford (LNTS 538; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London [et al.] 2016), 1–17 (esp. 10). 26 Cf. id., Gospel, 131–155. 27 Cf. ibid. 132–133. 28 Cf. ibid. 149–153.

16

after Mk 1:20 (in Mt 5:1),29 Mk 10:46-52 to the narrative point after Mk 2:22 (in Mt 9:27-31), Mk 3:22.25 to the narrative point after Mk 2:22 (in Mt 10:25), etc. John  C.  Poirier, in the introduction to the recent multi-author monograph on ‘Marcan priority without Q’,30 clarifies its main title. He notes that although the label ‘Marcan priority without Q’ is welcomed by many supporters of the ‘Farrer hypothesis’ (Mk-Mt-Lk order without Q), it is quite ambiguous because it can also be applied to the opposite hypothesis, namely that of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct literary dependence, also without the hypothetical ‘Q source’ (the so-called ‘Matthean posteriority hypothesis’). Moreover, Poirier explains the factors which nowadays encourage more numerous scholars to adopt the Farrer hypothesis (and in fact, at least partly, also the Matthean posteriority hypothe­ sis), rather than the Two-Source hypothesis: (a) increased awareness that the evangelists were creative writers and reshapers of earlier material, rather than strict compilers; (b) wider acceptance of the view that Luke wrote in response to other Gospels; (c) increased awareness of Luke’s literary ability; and (d) wider acceptance of a late date for Luke.31 In his article contained in this monograph, John C. Poirier rightly criticizes Delbert Burkett’s recent support of the Two-Source hypothesis by pointing to his outdated understanding of the evangelists as slavish copyists and compilers of earlier sources, and not as creative authors and composers of literary works.32 Poirier’s critique of Burkett mainly refers to the contested plausibility of various aspects of Luke’s reworking of Matthew. Such issues are notoriously difficult to solve in a convincing way. For example, the argument of the supporters of the Farrer hypothesis concerning Luke’s postulated ‘editorial fatigue’ in his reworking of Matthew in fact refers to the difference between Luke’s greater variatio locutionis and Matthew’s greater uniformity in style and vocabulary. Therefore, it can endlessly be debated whether it was Luke who introduced the variation into Matthew’s text or it was Matthew who uniformed the style of the Lucan material. However, the text-critical rule lectio difficilior potior faciliori generally favours Matthew’s corrective uniformization of the original Lucan variation.

29 This fact is merely noted, but not adequately explained, in ibid. 152–153. 30 J. C. Poirier and J. Peterson (eds.), Marcan Priority without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis (LNTS 455; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2015), 1–15. See my review of this book in Biblical Annals 6 (2016) 311–315. 31 Cf. J. C. Poirier, ‘Introduction: Why the Farrer Hypothesis? Why Now?’, in J. C. Poirier and J. Peterson (eds.), Marcan, 1–15. 32 Cf. J. C. Poirier, ‘Delbert Burkett’s Defense of Q’, in ibid. 191–225.

17

Eric Eve analyses the Beelzebul controversy in the Gospels from the point of view of the Farrer hypothesis. He argues that Mt 12:22-37 can be regarded as an expansion of Mk 3:20-30, and Lk 11:14-23 as a reworking of Mt 12:22-37. Accordingly, he argues that the hypothetical ‘Q source’ can here be omitted.33 However, he offers no detailed arguments for Luke’s use of Matthew, and not vice versa. For example, the agreement in order between Lk 11:14-28 and Mt 12:22-50 is simply taken as an argument for Luke’s dependence on Matthew. The British scholar does not consider the reverse possibility of the understanding of Lk 11:27-28 as a Lucan original composition, and not as a reworking of Mt 12:46-50. In fact, a similar Lucan original composition, evidently not suggested by the text of Matthew, can be found in Lk 23:29 (μακαρια* + ἡ κοιλία ἡ + καὶ μαστοὶ οἵ). Stephen C. Carlson analyses the non-aversion principle, which was used by some defenders of the Two-Source hypothesis to make the judgments concerning redactional traits of a given evangelist non-reversible. According to this principle, a given feature can only be identified as truly secondary if the other evangelist in a compared Gospel had no aversion to it; otherwise, the other evangelist could also have been secondary in his omission of this feature for his particular reasons. Carlson shows that the use of this apparently logical principle in Lk 20:47-21:4 par. Mk 12:40-44 in fact leads to erroneous results because Luke often changed Marcan vocabulary even if he was elsewhere not averse to it.34 Therefore, it can be argued that the use of this principle cannot lead to conclusive (non-reversible) results because the evangelists could freely change the wording of earlier Gospels for some barely identifiable reasons. Consequently, merely linguistic considerations cannot conclusively solve the synoptic problem, especially if they are applied to isolated fragments of the Gospels. Heather M. Gorman assesses the plausibility of the Farrer hypothesis against the background of ancient rhetorical tradition, as it is witnessed in the extant progymnasmata and rhetorical handbooks. In her opinion, the overall order of the Lucan Gospel, which includes, as she argues, the section mainly concerning Jesus’ deeds (Lk 4:14-9:50) and the section mainly concerning Jesus’ teaching (Lk  9:51-19:28), suits Quintilian’s advice that an encomium could include such sections.35 One might debate whether Quintilian’s phrase operum (id est 33 Cf. E. Eve, ‘The Devil in the Detail: Exorcising Q from the Beelzebul Controversy’, in ibid. 16–43. 34 Cf. S. C. Carlson, ‘Problems with the Non-Aversion Principle for Reconstructing Q’, in ibid. 44–61. 35 Cf. H. M. Gorman, ‘Crank or Creative Genius? How Ancient Rhetoric Makes Sense of Luke’s Order’, in ibid. 62–81.

18

factorum dictorumque) contextus (Inst. 3.7.15 [sic]) in fact refers to such large sections and whether the Lucan Gospel really contains such two major parts, and consequently whether Luke’s Gospel is really well arranged (cf. Lk 1:3) in terms of ancient rhetoric. Likewise, Gorman’s argument that Luke considerably shortened and rearranged Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount for the sake of rhetorical brevity and clarity is not very persuasive, given Luke’s predilection for quite elaborate speeches elsewhere in his Gospel and Acts. Mark Goodacre rightly argues that the instances of very high Mt-Lk verbal agreement in their ‘double tradition’, reaching uninterrupted strings of 24–27 identical words in the same order in Lk 3:8-9; 7:8-9; 10:21-22; 11:32; 16:13 par., in fact disprove the Two-Source hypothesis and favour the hypothesis of Mt-Lk direct literary dependence.36 However, his argument that the higher Mt-Lk verbal agreement in their ‘double tradition’ than in the ‘triple tradition’ is best explained by the Farrer hypothesis is, alas, unconvincing. The fact that, as Goodacre rightly notes, the highest verbal agreement can mainly be found in Mt-Lk and Mt-Mk pairs, and much more rarely in Lk-Mk pairs, in reality favours the Matthean posteriority hypothesis, according to which Matthew consistently quite faithfully copied from both Mk and Lk, and not the Farrer hypothesis, according to which Luke surprisingly oscillated between a relatively free mode of literary reworking (Lk-Mk) and a relatively faithful one (Lk-Mt). Such an oscillating pattern of Lucan literary reworking of earlier texts (e.g. Paul’s letters) is notably absent in Acts. Ken Olson, similarly to Stephen C. Carlson, argues that Luke could have omitted the unparalleled Matthean expressions in the Lord’s Prayer because they repeat ideas which are expressed earlier in the text, and Luke generally avoided repetitions.37 However, Olson fails to explain the fact that the idea of subjection to God’s will (Mt 6:10b) was evidently important for Luke at crucial points of his narrative (Lk 22:42; Acts 21:14), so its omission in the model prayer of the disciples (Lk 11:2-4) would be really surprising. Andris Abakuks applies several models of statistical analysis to Matthew’s and Luke’s use of Mark. The use of a simple chi-square test, time series modelling using logistic regression, as well as using hidden Markov models, commonly reveal that in the so-called ‘triple tradition’ both the Farrer hypothesis and the Matthean posteriority hypothesis are more plausible than Matthew’s and Luke’s independent use of Mark, with no particular clue as to the superiority of the

36 Cf. M. Goodacre, ‘Too Good to Be Q: High Verbatim Agreement in the Double Tradition’, in ibid. 82–100. 37 Cf. K. Olson, ‘Luke 11:2-4: The Lord’s Prayer (Abridged Edition)’, in ibid. 101–118.

19

Farrer hypothesis over the Matthean posteriority hypothesis or vice versa. The use of hidden Markov models also suggests that Matthew’s or Luke’s rather loose, so maybe somehow correlated reworking of Mark can most likely be found in Mk 1:40-44; 2:8-12; 3:28-33; 6:37-44; 12:36-38 parr.38 Abakuks’s analyses would be even more persuasive if he used the NA28 and not the NA25 edition of the text of the Gospels. Jeffrey Peterson notices some important Mt-Lk thematic and linguistic agreements against Mk in the conclusions of the Gospels (and in the birth stories). He also argues that they are best explained by the Farrer hypothesis and not by the Matthean posteriority hypothesis.39 However, the arguments for the latter claim are rather weak. The Lucan repeated references to ‘the eleven’ (Lk 24:9.33; Acts 1:26; 2:14) are understandable after Judas’ betrayal (Lk 22:3.47-48), but in Matthew’s Gospel the phrase ‘the eleven’ appears only once, in a text which is thematically related to Luke (Mt  28:16 par. Lk  24:33.36). On the other hand, the allegedly Matthean verb προσκυνέω (Mt 28:17 par. Lk 24:52) was repeatedly used not only by Matthew, but also by Luke (3 times in his Gospel and 4 times in Acts). The scriptural justification of the mission to ‘all the nations’ is hardly more explicit in Luke (Lk 24:46-47) than in Matthew (Mt 28:18-19; cf. Dan 7:14 LXX), and in any case such a phenomenon cannot be taken as proving only one direction of reworking. Likewise, the Matthean idea of Jesus’ spiritual presence with his disciples (Mt 28:20; cf. 18:20) can be taken as a reworking of the Lucan idea of Jesus’ presence in the Spirit (Lk 24:49; Acts 1:4-5.8 etc.), and not vice versa. Notwithstanding these difficulties, Peterson’s idea that the relationship between Matthew and Acts should be analysed more carefully is certainly insightful. David Landry argues for a late dating of Luke (c. ad 115–160) on the basis of Luke’s use of Mark, Matthew, John, Josephus, and Paul (with the Pastoral Epistles), and on the other hand on the basis of Marcion’s and Justin’s use of Luke.40 Even if the direction of the dependence between Luke and John was in fact reverse, and Luke’s use of Matthew is something that Landry wants to prove, the other arguments are generally correct. On the other hand, Landry’s arguments for an earlier dating of Matthew (c. ad 80–90), which are intended to prove the Farrer

38 Cf. A. Abakuks, ‘A Statistical Time Series Approach to the Use of Mark by Matthew and Luke’, in ibid. 119–139. 39 Cf. J. Peterson, ‘Matthew’s Ending and the Genesis of Luke-Acts: The Farrer Hypothesis and the Birth of Christian History’, in ibid. 140–159. 40 Cf. D. Landry, ‘Reconsidering the Date of Luke in Light of the Farrer Hypothesis’, in ibid. 160–190.

20

hypothesis, are much weaker because they rely on the highly debatable dating of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, which post-date Matthew, to c. ad 110. In brief, the recent multi-author monograph concerning the Farrer hypothesis as opposed to the Two-Source hypothesis displays no significant interaction with the ‘mirror’ solution, namely the Matthean posteriority hypothesis. Moreover, as often happens in the discussion on the synoptic problem, the three Gospels are here generally only compared with one another, as though they were written in a literary vacuum. The Pauline and post-Pauline letters, the Acts of the Apostles, classical and Hellenistic literature, etc. are generally not taken into consideration as potential hypotexts for the Gospels. Therefore, much work in this field has still to be done.

Mark-Luke-Matthew One of the advocates of the Two-Source hypothesis has interestingly noticed that ‘Matthew’s dependence on Luke has rarely been proposed […] Given the number of passages where the advocates of Q have suggested that Luke’s version is more original, this is perhaps surprising’.41 However, several scholars have recently argued for some variant of the hypothesis of the Lk-Mt order of literary dependence between these Gospels. Paul N. Tarazi has argued that Matthew borrowed numerous fragments from the Gospel of Luke in order to illustrate various Pauline ideas. Thus, he closed the canon of the New Testament writings.42 James R. Edwards in his work on the Hebrew proto-Gospel has argued that because the Lucan special material apparently contains more Semitisms than does the Gospel of Matthew, then the latter Gospel should be considered posterior to the Lucan one.43 Moreover, according to the American scholar, in comparison to the Lucan Gospel the order and formulas of the Gospel of Matthew are more balanced and proportional, its Greek style is more clean and consistent, and its christology is more developed.44 David L. Mealand has carried out a stylometric analysis of various fragments of the Matthean Gospel and has come to the conclusion that ‘M samples were

41 C. M. Tuckett, ‘Current State’, 37 n. 68. 42 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 4, Matthew and the Canon (OCABS: St Paul, Minn. 2009), 102–288. 43 Cf. J. R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Gospel Tradition (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2009), 244. 44 Cf. ibid. 245–252.

21

distinct from those attributed to Mark and Q, and the latter from each other’.45 This result can be used against the hypothesis of the Mk-Mt-Lk order of direct literary dependence (in which both Q and M fragments are attributed to Matthew), but it favours not only the Two-Source hypothesis,46 but also the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct literary dependence (in which Q is attributed to Luke, so it can be stylistically distinct from both Mark and M). Robert K. MacEwen has recently published a monograph devoted to the ‘Matthean posteriority hypothesis’, which postulates Matthew’s use of both Mark and Luke (who in his turn had also used Mark) as a solution to the synoptic problem.47 In the presentation of his own arguments in favour of the Matthean posteriority hypothesis, MacEwen convincingly argues that the Matthean posteriority hypothesis best explains the presence of the Aramaic word μαμωνᾶς once in Mt 6:24 and 3 times in Lk 16:9.11.13, which is surrounded by Lucan Sondergut (Lk 15:816:12; 16:14-15). Luke generally avoided Aramaisms, so Luke’s combination of sources (Q 16:13 with much Lucan Sondergut on the Two-Source hypothesis) or the reverse direction of borrowing (on the Farrer hypothesis) would be here rather implausible.48 Likewise, MacEwen convincingly argues that the word εἰρήνη in Mt 10:13 par. is generally Lucan and non-Matthean, which favours the Matthean posteriority hypothesis.49 Similarly, he persuasively argues that the Matthean saying concerning care for one sheep on the Sabbath (Mt 12:11), which is inserted into the Marcan story Mk 3:1-6, was borrowed from Lk 14:5, which is an integral part of the story Lk 14:1-6, and consequently the reverse direction of borrowing (on the Farrer hypothesis) or the existence of an isolated saying Q 14:5 (on the Two-Source hypothesis) would be highly implausible.50 Describing the results of the statistical analysis of strings of verbal agreement which contain four or more words in the Synoptic Gospels, MacEwen rightly argues that on the Matthean posteriority hypothesis Matthew was rather consistent in his reworking of both Mark and Luke with roughly the same, high level of 45 D. L. Mealand, ‘Is there Stylometric Evidence of Q?’, NTS 57 (2011) 483–507 (here: 501). 46 Cf. ibid. 502. 47 R. K. MacEwen, Matthean Posteriority: An Exploration of Matthew’s Use of Mark and Luke as a Solution to the Synoptic Problem (LNTS 501; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2015). See my review of this book in Biblical Annals 6 (2016) 513–517. 48 Cf. R. K. MacEwen, Matthean, 31–34. 49 Cf. ibid. 44 n. 58. 50 Cf. ibid. 46–48.

22

verbal agreement. However, on other synoptic hypotheses, the latest evangelist (or evangelists in the Two-Source hypothesis) would display surprisingly variegated level of agreement with his (or their) two main sources.51 In order to strengthen his arguments, MacEwen also deals with various challenges to the Matthean posteriority hypothesis. The first of them is the alleged greater primitiveness of some Matthean formulations in the Mt-Lk material. As concerns this problem, the scholar rightly argues that the case of Matthew’s ‘debts’ against Luke’s ‘sins’ in the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6:12 par. Lk 11:4) is in fact dubious, mainly due to Matthew’s known redactional tendency to strengthen parallelism. The same may refer to Matthew’s ‘good things’ against Luke’s ‘Holy Spirit’ in Mt 7:11 par. Lk 11:13, although in this case MacEwen favours greater primitiveness of the Lucan version. Matthew’s reluctance to include exhortations to preach before Mt 10 (cf. also Mt 9:1 diff. Mk 5:18-20; Lk 8:38-39) could indeed explain his shorter version in Mt 8:22 diff. Lk 9:60. Likewise, Matthew’s reference to ‘sword’ (Mt 10:34) could indeed have resulted from the placing of Luke’s less harsh saying concerning ‘division’ (Lk 12:51) in the context of the warnings concerning persecutions and death (Mt 10:17-31). Accordingly, the scholar rightly argues that the examples of Matthew’s alleged greater primitiveness against Luke are in fact not as numerous as it is often assumed.52 In his analysis of the issue of Matthean and Lucan primitiveness in the International Q Project, MacEwen maintains that this project slightly favours the Matthean wording in the reconstructed Q, so that it supports the Two-Source hypothesis and, to some extent, the Farrer hypothesis against the Matthean posteriority hypothesis.53 Alas, MacEwen does not analyse the certainty with which the IQP scholars assigned the wording of their reconstructed Q to either the Matthean or the Lucan version of the Mt-Lk material. Such an analysis would reveal that the Matthean version is much more rarely, in fact only exceptionally attributed the certainty {A} as being more primitive that its Lucan counterpart. MacEwen also deals with the problem of Matthew’s omission, on the Matthean posteriority hypothesis, of at least 14 parables which are present in the Gospel of Luke. The scholar argues that such Matthean omissions could be explained in terms of avoiding doublets with the Marcan version (Lk 7:41-43; 13:6-9), omitting material concerning Samaritans (Lk  10:29-37), avoiding material which was hard to understand and morally ambiguous (Lk  11:5-8; 16:1-12; 18:1-8),

51 Cf. ibid. 50–73. 52 Cf. ibid. 75–91. 53 Cf. ibid. 92–99.

23

omitting negative references to wealth (Lk 12:13-21; 14:28-33; 16:19-31), avoiding unspecified references to community morality (Lk 15:8-10), reworking the Lucan material (Lk 15:11-32 cf. Mt 21:28-32), and maybe also avoiding excessive antinomianism (Lk 17:7-10; 18:9-14).54 The third challenge to the Matthean posteriority hypothesis, which is discussed by MacEwen, consists in the presence of discordant passages in the Mt-Lk nonMarcan material. According to the scholar, the Matthean infancy narrative shows numerous structural and literary similarities to the Lucan infancy narrative, but Luke’s use of Matthew is here slightly more unlikely that Matthew’s reworking of Luke. MacEwen argues that Matthew’s differences from Luke could have resulted from Matthew’s use of other, non-Lucan traditions.55 Alas, MacEwen does not discuss the role of the Matthean ethopoeic presentation of Joseph as related to his eponymous scriptural predecessor (the importance of dreams, safe stay in Egypt, etc.). On the other hand, MacEwen’s analysis of the burial and resurrection narratives leads him to the right conclusion that 10 significant Mt-Lk non-Marcan agreements in this material favour the Matthean posteriority hypothesis against the Farrer hypothesis, and the 3 agreements which favour the Farrer hypothesis can also be explained by the Matthean posteriority hypothesis.56 As concerns Matthew’s and Luke’s great sermon (Mt  5–7 par. Lk  6:20-49), MacEwen is right in concluding that the Matthean procedure of expanding the Lucan great sermon (on the Matthean posteriority hypothesis) is much more consistent with his redactional treatment of Marcan material in his other sermons than is the reverse Lukan procedure of abbreviating and scattering the Matthean great sermon (on the Farrer hypothesis) in comparison to Luke’s redactional treatment of Marcan material in his other sermons.57 In order to deal with the challenges against the Matthean posteriority hypothe­ sis in a comprehensive way, MacEwen reconstructs the redactional habits of the last synoptic evangelist on various synoptic hypotheses. The scholar rightly argues that the Two-Source hypothesis and, to a slightly lesser extent, the Matthean posteriority hypothesis better explain Matthew’s consistently anthologizing recontextualization of earlier material than does the Farrer hypothesis for Luke’s apparently highly complex recontextualization of his material on that hypothe­ sis, and much better than does the Two-Gospel hypothesis for Mark’s redactional procedures in that theory. Moreover, MacEwen rightly notes that on the 54 Cf. ibid. 99–117. 55 Cf. ibid. 118–130. 56 Cf. ibid. 130–145. 57 Cf. ibid. 154–163.

24

Matthean posteriority hypothesis (against the Two-Source hypothesis) Matthew retained some narrative settings for his Lucan non-Marcan material.58 In the conclusion to his monograph, MacEwen opts for the Matthean posteriority hypothesis as the main alternative to the Two-Source hypothesis.59 The scholar deserves great praise for his thorough analysis and evaluation of the Matthean posteriority hypothesis in comparison to three other synoptic hypotheses (the Two-Source hypothesis, the Farrer hypothesis, and the Two-Gospel hypothesis). It is important that the scholar has thoroughly analysed arguments for and against various synoptic solutions and evaluated them not simply in abstract and merely subjective terms, but usually against the background of the evangelists’ redactional habits known from other parts of their works. One major weakness of MacEwen’s study consists in its total lack of interest in earlier New Testament writings, especially the Pauline and post-Pauline letters, and roughly contemporary writings, especially the Acts of the Apostles, in their possible influence upon the Synoptic Gospels. In fact, a thorough analysis of the relationship between the Matthean Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles can shed new light on the value of the Matthean posteriority hypothesis against other solutions to the synoptic problem. Allan Garrow has recently argued for the hypothesis of Matthew’s use of ‘Q’, Mark, and Luke.60 This proposal, which was earlier advocated in various forms by Martin Hengel, Erik Aurelius, and others, is called by Garrow the ‘Matthew Conflator Hypothesis’. The British scholar argues that his ‘Q’ needs to be postulated only in a very limited number of Mt-Lk non-Marcan fragments with a low level of verbal agreement, in which Matthew at times appears to be more primitive than Luke (e.g. Mt 5:38-48 par. Lk 6:27-36; Mt 23:23-36 par. Lk 11:39-51). Accordingly, the extent of such a ‘Q’ would be around 450 words.61 Garrow argues that the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke explains numerous synoptic phenomena, and its apparent weak points are also explicable. In particular, the British scholar makes an interesting suggestion that Luke consistently copied larger blocks of material from Mark and ‘Q’, which were available to him in the form of a scroll, and later Matthew consistently conflated various fragments from Mark, Luke, and ‘Q’, which were already available to him in the form of a codex.62 58 Cf. ibid. 166–187. 59 Cf. ibid. 188–196. 60 Cf. A. Garrow, ‘Streeter’s “Other” Synoptic Solution: The Matthew Conflator Hypothe­ sis’, NTS 62 (2016) 207–226. 61 Cf. id., ‘An Extant Instance of “Q” ’, NTS 62 (2016) 398–417 (esp. 399–401). 62 Cf. id., ‘Streeter’s’, 215–219.

25

Matthew and Acts Even if some scholars discussed the problem of the literary relationship between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the question of the literary relationship between the Matthean Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles was hardly ever analysed in biblical scholarship.63 This fact is really surprising, since the Acts of the Apostles evidently constitutes the second part of the Lucan work (cf. Acts 1:1-4).64 Accordingly, if there is a certain literary dependence between the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, a certain literary dependence between the Gospel of Matthew and the Acts of the Apostles is also highly plausible. The issue of the literary relationship between the Gospel of Matthew and the Acts of the Apostles was already analysed in one of my previous books. However, the hypothesis of the Matthean consistent, sequential, but on the other hand highly creative, hypertextual reworking of the Acts of the Apostles was formulated there very briefly, in terms of a provisional suggestion of the presence of 22 thematically corresponding and structurally matching sections in both works. However, no detailed analysis of the contents of these sections or their possible common vocabulary was undertaken at that stage of research.65 Therefore, such a detailed, greatly improved analysis will be presented in this monograph.

Date of composition The terminus a quo of the composition of the Matthean Gospel is determined by the date of the composition of the Gospel of Mark, which was in turn written after the writings of Flavius Josephus, so not earlier than c. ad 100–110, maybe even as late as c. ad 130–135.66 Moreover, as is consistently argued in this commentary, the Gospel of Matthew post-dates the Lucan Gospel and the Acts of the

63 For some minor exceptions, see e.g. G. Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu und ihre erste Ent­ wicklung nach dem gegenwärtigen Stande der Wissenschaft (F. A. Brockhaus: Leipzig 1857), 361–364 (Acts 1:18-19 → Mt 27:7-10); J. Peterson, ‘Matthew’s Ending’, 155–159 (Mt 28:16-20 → Acts). 64 There is no place here to discuss various hypotheses concerning the literary relationship between the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. 65 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 428–430. Cf. also id., Constructing, 153–155; id., Hypertextuality, 113–115. 66 Cf. id., Mark, 110 n.12, 158–159 n. 140, 202 n. 17.

26

Apostles, which were most likely written c. ad 120–140.67 Besides, the Gospel of Matthew may have been written in reaction to Marcion’s activity in Rome c. ad 144.68 Alas, the hypothesis of the composition of the Matthean Gospel in secondcentury Rome, with its numerous Jewish and Jewish Christian communities, as well as its anti-Marcionite discussions, was hardly ever seriously discussed in biblical scholarship, probably due to the influence of patristic ideas (especially those of Papias and Irenaeus) concerning this Gospel.69 On the other hand, the terminus ad quem is constituted by the use of the Gospel of Matthew in Justin’s Apologia I (cf. e.g. 1 Apol. 15.11 and Mt 6:19-20; 1 Apol. 16.9 and Mt 7:21; 1 Apol. 61.3 and Mt 28:19),70 which was in turn composed in ad 153 or shortly after that date.71 Accordingly, the Gospel of Matthew was probably written c. ad 130–150, most likely c. ad 145–150.

Sequential hypertextuality The notion of sequential hypertextuality, which is used in this monograph, was already explained and discussed in my previous works.72 Therefore, it will not be dealt with here again. Moreover, since the way of reworking the Acts of the Apostles in the Matthean Gospel mainly consists in creating sequentially organized allusions to the Acts of 67 As concerns the Gospel of Luke, cf. e.g. C. Mount, Pauline Christianity: Luke-Acts and the Legacy of Paul (NovTSup 104; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2002), 168: sometime before about ad 130; B. Adamczewski, Luke, 23: c. ad 120–140. As concerns the Acts of the Apostles, cf. e.g. W. O. Walker, Jr., ‘The Portrayal of Aquila and Priscilla in Acts: The Question of Sources’, NTS 54 (2008) 479–495 (esp. 495: in the middle of the second century ad); R. I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Attridge (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis 2009), 5, 20: c. ad 115; id., ‘Acts in the Suburbs of the Apologists’, in T. E. Phillips (ed.), Contemporary Studies in Acts (Mercer University: [s.l.] 2009), 29–46 (esp. 46: c. ad 110–130). 68 Cf. M. Vinzent, Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels (StPatrSup 2; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2014), 281–282. 69 See ibid. 173–180. For a recent rejection of the hypothesis of the Galilean provenance of the Gospel of Matthew, see D. C. Sim, ‘The Gospel of Matthew and Galilee: An Evaluation of an Emerging Hypothesis’, ZNW 107 (2016) 141–169. 70 Cf. M. Hengel, Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus: Studien zu ihrer Sammlung und Entstehung (WUNT 224; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008), 339–340 nn. 1030, 1032. 71 Cf. Justin, Apologie pour les chrétiens, ed. C. Munier (SC 507; Cerf: Paris 2006), 28. 72 See, most recently, B. Adamczewski, Luke, 24–32.

27

the Apostles in the material which was borrowed by Matthew from the Gospels of Mark and Luke, and only rarely in composing new ‘Matthean’ stories, the particular terminology used to describe procedures applied in creating new hypertexts (transdiegetization, interfigurality, etc.)73 will not be used in this monograph. The main aim of this commentary consists in analysing the sequential hypertextual reworking of the Acts of the Apostles in the Gospel of Matthew. Therefore, other Matthean allusions will be analysed here in a selective way, in order not to overload the work with mentioning all possible intertextual references. It is also evident that this commentary has been written from a particular interpretative perspective. As such, it resembles modern commentaries which are based on a particular interpretative approach: reader-response, reception-historical, social-scientific, feminist, etc.74 Therefore, it significantly differs from ‘traditional’ commentaries, which aim at describing and evaluating various scholarly solutions to all problems that are posed by the commented text.75 Nevertheless, it answers the most basic questions which are discussed in every commentary: the meaning of words, phrases, clauses, sentences, pericopes, and ultimately the meaning of the whole book.76 In the following commentary, it will be argued that the whole Gospel of Matthew is a result of a consistent, sequentially organized, and on the other hand hypertextual, so highly creative and very allusive reworking of the whole Acts of the Apostles. Therefore, the proposed division of the material of this commentary into chapters and subchapters is of necessity rather artificial.77

73 Cf. ibid. 24–25. 74 For a discussion on such a way of writing commentaries, see M. Y. MacDonald, ‘The Art of Commentary Writing: Reflections from Experience’, JSNT 29.3 (2007) 313–321 (esp. 317–320). 75 For this type of commentary, see e.g. B. Adamczewski, List do Filemona, List do Kolosan: Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz (NKBNT 12; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2006). 76 Cf. M. Y. MacDonald, ‘Art’, 320. 77 For a recent attempt to detect the internal structure of the Gospel of Matthew, see e.g. A. Mpevo Mpolo, ‘Outlining Matthew’s Gospel through Structure Criticism’, RivB 63 (2015) 137–155.

28

Chapter 1. Mt 1–2 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts 1:1-8:35 The Matthean infancy narrative concerning the young Jesus: from his hidden beginnings to his coming beyond the borders of Judaea (Mt 1–2) is a result of a sequential hypertextual reworking of the Lucan story concerning the young Jewish Christian Church: from its hidden beginnings to its outreach beyond the borders of Judaea (Acts 1:1-8:35).

1.1.   Mt 1:1-17 (cf. Acts 1:1-14) The section Mt 1:1-17, with its main themes of the first book of the sacred story, Davidic kingdom, Abrahamic promise, Israelite messianic expectations, representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel, four potentially scandalizing women added to them, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Jewish fleshly messianism, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 1:1-14. The opening scriptural phrase ‘the book of the genealogy of Jesus’ (βίβλος γενέσεως + Ἰησοῦς: Mt  1:1), which linguistically recalls the Book of Genesis (Γένεσις) with its genealogies (cf.  Gen  2:4; 5:1 LXX),1 alludes to the opening phrase of the Acts of the Apostles, which refers to the first book of the sacred story about Jesus (Acts 1:1). The Matthean Genesis-based phrase (βίβλος γενέσεως), which originally referred to the genealogy of the world and humankind (Gen 2:4; 5:1 LXX), surprisingly does not suit the following remark concerning David (Mt 1:1). Therefore, it can be argued that Matthew only used it to create an allusion to the first book of the sacred story about Jesus (Acts 1:1), and not to the genealogy of Adam (Gen 5:1 LXX),2 who is evidently omitted in the Matthean genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:2-16; diff. Lk 3:38). 1 Cf. C. Focant, ‘La christologie de Matthieu à la croisée des chemins’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (BETL 243; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 73–97 (esp. 75); M. Crimella, ‘Βίβλος γενέσεως: la cornice letteraria di Matteo e di Gen 1–11’, RStB 24 (2012), fasc. 1–2, 255–278 (esp. 257, 262–263, 265–268, 277–278); C. E. Carlston and C. A. Evans, From Synagogue to Ecclesia: Matthew’s Community at the Crossroads (WUNT 334; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2014), 348–349. 2 Cf. J. Kennedy, The Recapitulation of Israel: Use of Israel’s History in Matthew 1:1-4:11 (WUNT 2.257; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008), 55–56; M. T. Ploner, Die Schriften Israels als Auslegungshorizont der Jesusgeschichte: Eine narrative und intertextuelle Analyse von Mt 1–2 (SBB 66; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2011), 220.

29

The subsequent remark concerning Jesus as the son of David (Mt 1:1), which evokes the idea of the messianic kingdom given by God (βασιλεία + θεός: cf. Lk 1:32-33), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Jesus proclaiming the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3). The subsequent remark concerning Jesus as the son of Abraham (Mt 1:1) alludes to the subsequent Lucan remark concerning the Spirit as the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4-5). In the Pauline theology, the promise of the Spirit was related to Abraham (Gal 3:14) and to Jesus as the one offspring of Abraham (Gal 3:16). Therefore, Matthew could illustrate the Lucan idea of the promise of the Spirit (Acts 1:4-5) with the use of the remark concerning Jesus as the son of Abraham (Mt 1:1). Precisely for this reason, the Matthean remark concerning Abraham surprisingly follows that concerning David (Mt 1:1), although both in the Bible and in the Matthean genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:2-16) Abraham precedes and not follows David (Mt  1:2.6.17). Also for this reason, Matthew was elsewhere not interested in the idea of Jesus as the son of Abraham (cf. Mt 3:9 from Lk 3:8; Mt 8:11 from Lk 13:28; Mt 22:32 from Mk 12:26: all not related to Jesus). The subsequent Israelite (beginning from Abraham and not Adam: Mt 1:2a; diff. Lk 3:38), explicitly calculated (with reference to generations and periods of time: Mt 1:17; diff. Lk 3:23-38) genealogy of Jesus as the Messiah/Christ (Mt 1:2b17) illustrates the subsequent Lucan idea of Israelite messianic expectations concerning Jesus, related to calculated times and periods of time (Acts 1:6-7). The idea of Jesus as the descendant of Abraham (Mt 1:2a) again alludes to the Lucan idea of the promised Spirit (Acts 1:8; cf. 1:4-5). The subsequent remark concerning the brothers of Judah, who together with him functioned as the representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel (Mt 1:2c), a remark which is evidently superfluous because the genealogical line of Jesus goes through Judah only (cf.  Mt  1:3), alludes to the subsequent Lucan list of the apostles, who functioned as the representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel (Acts 1:13; cf. Mk 3:14-19; Lk 22:30). The subsequent, likewise surprising and evidently superfluous insertion of four potentially scandalizing women, namely Tamar (cf. Gen 38:13-18), Rahab (cf. Josh 2:1), Ruth (cf. Ruth 3:7), and that of Uriah (cf. 2 Sam 11:2-5), into the male genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:3.5-6)3 alludes to the subsequent Lucan remark concerning ‘women’, so presumably the four earlier mentioned, potentially scandalizing women: Mary Magdalene (cf. Lk 8:2; 24:10), Joanna (cf. Lk 8:3; 24:10),

3 Cf.  P.-B.  Smit, ‘Something about Mary? Remarks about the Five Women in the Matthean Genealogy’, NTS 56 (2010) 191–207 (esp. 194–201, 204–206).

30

Susanna (cf. Lk 8:3),4 and Mary of James (cf. Lk 24:10), as present with the male apostles (Acts 1:14b). The subsequent remark concerning Mary as the mother of Jesus (Μαρια* + Ἰησοῦς), a statement which is likewise somewhat surprisingly inserted into the male genealogy of Jesus (Mt  1:16ab),5 reflects the subsequent Lucan remark concerning Mary the mother of Jesus (Acts 1:14b). The concluding statement concerning Jesus as being called the Messiah/ Christ (Mt 1:16c), together with the calculation of generations from Abraham, the father of Israel, to David, to the Babylonian deportation, and to the Messiah/ Christ (Mt 1:17), evokes the idea of Jewish fleshly, generational messianism, and thus it alludes to the concluding Lucan remark concerning the fleshly brothers of Jesus (Acts 1:14b), presumably including James (cf. Gal 1:19; Mk 6:3), the true leader of the Jewish Christian messianic community (cf. Gal 2:9.12; Jas 1:1 etc.). In order to illustrate these Lucan ideas, Matthew used and reworked the Lucan genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:1-17; cf. Lk 3:23c-38). In difference to the Lucan Gospel, in which the genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:23c-38) surprisingly follows the account of Jesus’ birth, childhood, and spiritual initiation at about thirty years of age (Lk 1:5-3:23b), the Matthean placement of the genealogy at the beginning of the narrative (Mt 1:1-17) is very natural, both in terms of its scriptural models (cf.  1  Chr 1–9 etc.)6 and in terms of a Jewish-Hellenistic biography (cf.  Jos. Vita 1–6 etc.).7 Accordingly, it can be argued that the Matthean genealogy (Mt 1:1-17) is a reworked, consciously ‘scripturalized’ version of the Lucan one (Lk 3:23c-38). The reverse direction of reworking (from Matthew to Luke) is here highly implausible.8

4 Cf. B. Adamczewski, The Gospel of Luke: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 13; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2016), 106–107. 5 Cf. P.-B. Smit, ‘Something’, 195–197. 6 Cf. J. Kennedy, Recapitulation, 69; J. Kręcidło, ‘Dlaczego Jezus jest godzien najwyższej czci? Strategie perswazyjne ewangelistów Mateusza i Łukasza w perspektywie kultury honoru i wstydu’, ColT 80 (2010), no. 2, 5–20 (esp. 12). 7 Cf. K.-H. Ostmeyer, ‘Die Genealogien in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Vita des Josephus: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmung ihrer Charakteristika, Intentionen und Probleme’, in C. Böttrich, J. Herzer, and T. Reiprich (eds.), Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: II. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum 25.-28. Mai 2006, Greifswald (WUNT 209; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 451–468 (esp. 457–458). 8 Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘Koniec teorii źródeł? Genealogie Rdz 4,17 – 5,32 i ich przepracowanie w Nowym Testamencie’, ColT 83 (2013) no. 4, 47–74 (esp. 69–74).

31

The heading of the Matthean genealogy of Jesus: ‘the book of the genealogy’ (βίβλος γενέσεως: Mt 1:1) was borrowed from the heading of the scriptural genealogy of the descendants of Adam (Gen 5:1; cf. 2:4 LXX).9 The general form of the Matthean genealogy, namely a descending genealogy (from Abraham to Jesus: Mt  1:2-17; diff. Lk  3:23c-38), also reflects scriptural models, especially Gen 4:17-5:32; 1 Chr 1:34; 2:1-15. Likewise, the repeatedly used Matthean formula ‘and X begot Y’ (X δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Y: Mt 1:2-16) has its origins in Scripture (Gen 10:8.15.24.26 LXX etc.). The first part of the Matthean genealogy, which includes the generations from Abraham to David (Mt 1:2-6; cf. 1:17a), is a result of a corrective reworking of the corresponding part of the Lucan genealogy (Lk 3:31-34), which was adjusted by Matthew to the scriptural data (esp.  1  Chr 1:34; 2:1-15 LXX).10 In particular, in agreement with 1  Chr 2:9-10 LXX (cf.  Ruth  4:19 LXX), the evangelist omitted two artificial Lucan names Admin and Arni (Lk 3:33), and substituted them with one scriptural name Aram (Mt 1:3-4; cf. 1 Chr 2:9-10 LXX). However, thus adjusting his genealogy to the scriptural data, Matthew destroyed the artificial, intentionally heptadic Lucan scheme of 14 generations from Abraham to David (Lk 3:31-34). In order to conceal the resulting discrepancy, Matthew misleadingly declared that from Abraham to David there are 14 generations (Mt 1:17a). Similarly, Matthew corrected the Lucan name Sala (Σαλά: Lk  3:32) to the scriptural name Salmon (Σαλμών: Mt 1:4-5; cf. 1 Chr 2:11 LXX). However, Matthew also left a trace of his reworking of the Lucan genealogy by retaining the Lucan, not Septuagintal name forms Esrom (Ἑσρώμ: Mt 1:3; cf. Lk 3:33; diff. Ruth 4:18-19; 1 Chr 2:5.9 LXX) and Jobed ( Ἰωβήδ: Mt 1:5; cf. Lk 3:32; diff. Ruth 4:21-22; 1 Chr 2:12 LXX). The second part of the Matthean genealogy, which includes the generations from David to the Babylonian deportation (Mt 1:6-11; cf. 1:17b), was also scripturalized by introducing the names of the kings of Judah, which were borrowed from 1 Chr 3:5-16 LXX,11 in place of the Lucan non-scriptural names (cf. Lk 3:27-31). In order to achieve the declared number of 14 generations between David and the Babylonian deportation (cf. Mt 1:17b), Matthew in his genealogy omitted the

9 Cf. J. Kennedy, Recapitulation, 55; M. Crimella, ‘Βίβλος’, 262–263. 10 Cf. M. T. Ploner, Schriften, 227–235. 11 Cf. ibid. 235–239.

32

names of Joas, Amasias, and Azarias (Mt 1:9; diff. 1 Chr 3:11-12 LXX).12 Moreover, Matthew simplified the scriptural data from 1 Chr 3:15-16 LXX by omitting the name of Joakim and by regarding his brothers (1 Chr 3:15 LXX) as the brothers of his son Jechonias (Mt 1:11; diff. 1 Chr 3:16 LXX).13 However, in this part of the genealogy Matthew also used the Lucan name form Solomon (Σολομών: Mt 1:6-7; cf. Lk 11:31; 12:27; diff. 1 Chr 3:5 LXX etc.). Likewise, probably under the influence of the Lucan use of the prophetic name Amos (Lk 3:25), which was used by Luke together with that of Nahum (Lk 3:25), Matthew substituted the scriptural name of Amon (1 Chr 3:14 LXX) with that of Amos (Mt 1:10).14 Adjusting in this way the Lucan genealogy to the scriptural data, Matthew destroyed the Lucan idea of the integrity of the whole Israel, freed from the divisions which had been caused by sinful kings (cf. Lk 3:28-31),15 and substituted it with the standard genealogical data concerning the pre-exilic kings of Judah, according to their genealogical line traced through Solomon and his descendants. The third part of the Matthean genealogy, which includes the generations from the Babylonian deportation to Christ (Mt 1:12-16; cf. 1:17c), in its opening fragment, from Jechonias to Zorobabel (Mt 1:12), is based on the scriptural data taken from 1 Chr 3:17.19 LXX.16 The following seven names (Mt  1:13-15) are generally scriptural: Abiud (Ἀβιούδ: cf.  Exod  6:23 LXX etc.), Eliakim (cf.  2  Kgs 18:18 LXX etc.), Azor (cf. Jer 28[35]:1 LXX), Sadok (cf. 2 Sam 15:24 LXX etc.), Achim (cf. 1 Chr 11:35 LXX etc.), Eliud (Ἐλιούδ: cf. Ελιου: 1 Chr 26:7 LXX; Ελιους: Job 32:2 LXX etc.),

12 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 1, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I-VII (ICC; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1988), 176. 13 Cf. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2007), 27 n. 6, 30, 38; M. Konradt, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (NTD 1; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen · Bristol 2015), 29. 14 Cf. U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol. 1, Mt 1–7 (5th edn., EKK 1/1; Benzinger: Düsseldorf · Zürich and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002), 128 n. 14; A. Paciorek, Ewangelia według świętego Mateusza: Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz, vol. 1, Rozdziały 1–13 (NKBNT 1/1; Święty Paweł: Częstochowa 2005), 84. 15 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Luke, 80. 16 Cf. J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (NIGTC; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge and Paternoster: Bletchley 2005), 84; R. T. France, Matthew, 39; A. Wucherpfennig, Josef der Gerechte: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Mt 1–2 (HeBS 55; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 2008), 51.

33

and Eleazar (cf. Exod 6:23 LXX etc.).17 The first (Abiud), the middle (Sadok), and the last one in this group (Eleazar) are evidently priestly names (cf. Exod 6:23; 2 Sam 15:24 LXX etc.), and consequently they contribute to Matthew’s ethopoeic presentation of the postexilic period in Judaea as dominated by high priests.18 The name Matthan (Ματθάν), as referring to Jesus’ great-grandfather (Mt 1:15), is a Matthean version of the linguistically and functionally corresponding Lucan name Matthat (Μαθθάτ: Lk 3:24). However, in the Lucan genealogy the name of Matthat (Lk 3:24) had an important allusive function of recalling, together with the names of Levi, Melchi, Jannai, and Mattathias (Lk 3:24-25), the priestly-royal Hasmonean dynasty, which was founded by Mattathias (cf. 1 Macc 2:1 etc.) and which was ruling in Judaea for several generations before the birth of Jesus. On the other hand, in the Matthean genealogy the name of Matthan (Mt 1:15) has no particular context and no particular function. Accordingly, this Matthean name betrays Matthew’s borrowing and reworking of an element of the Lucan genealogy. The reverse direction of dependence (from Matthew to Luke) is here highly implausible. The Matthean substitution of the Lucan name Heli, as referring to the father of Joseph (Lk 3:23), with that of Jacob (Mt 1:15-16) reflects Matthew’s programme of consistent ‘scripturalization’ of the whole genealogy of Jesus. In fact, the statement ‘Jacob begot Joseph’ (Mt 1:16) has an evident scriptural flavour, recalling the paradigm of the great scriptural patriarch Jacob as the father of Joseph (cf. Gen 30:25).19 Accordingly, also the Matthean name of Jacob (Mt 1:15-16) indirectly betrays Matthew’s reworking of the Lucan genealogy. On the other hand, the reverse direction of dependence (from Matthew to Luke) is here highly implausible because Luke would have had no adequate reason for substituting the Matthean name of Jacob (Mt 1:15-16) with that of Heli (Lk 3:23). The penultimate name Joseph, as referring to Jesus’ alleged father (Mt 1:16), was borrowed from Lk 3:23 (diff. Mk 6:3). Moreover, Matthew narratively explained here the somewhat enigmatic Lucan statement that Jesus was regarded to be the son of Joseph (Lk  3:23). The particular motif of Jesus being called the Messiah (Ἰησοῦς + ὁ λεγόμενος + χριστός: Mt 1:16; cf. 27:17.22) was borrowed from Jos. Ant. 20.200.

17 Cf. J. Gnilka, Das Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1-13,58 (HThKNT 1/1; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 1996), 6 n. 10. 18 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 30. 19 Cf. J. Nolland, Matthew, 85; J. Ebach, Josef und Josef: Literarische und hermeneutische Reflexionen zu Verbindungen zwischen Genesis 37–50 und Matthäus 1–2 (BWANT 187; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2009), 20.

34

The conclusion to the Matthean genealogy declares that it consists of three parts, which consist of 14 generations each (Mt 1:17). However, this statement is misleading because the first and the third part contain only 13 generations.20 At least in the first part, this discrepancy results from adjusting the Lucan genealogy to the scriptural data. In fact, the artificial scheme of 3 times 14 generations (Mt 1:17) betrays Matthew’s use of the Lucan heptadic chronological scheme, which was borrowed from the ‘Apocalypse of Weeks’ (4Q212; 1 En. 93:3–10; 91:10–11).21 However, whereas the Lucan scheme of 77 generations which were divided into periods corresponding to the groups of ‘weeks’ in that Jewish work (21 generations from the creation of the world to Abraham + 14 generations from Abraham to David + 21 generations from David to the Babylonian exile + 21 generations from the Babylonian exile to Christ) quite closely reflected the Jewish heptadic chronological scheme of seven ‘weeks’ from the creation of the world to the messianic era,22 the Matthean scheme of 3 × 14 generations from Abraham to Christ is in fact much more remote from that Jewish scheme of periodization of time. The Matthean ‘fourteens’ (Mt 1:17) have no justification in the scriptural data because according to 1 Chr 1:34; 2:1-15 LXX (and consequently also Mt 1:2-6) there were 13 generations from Abraham to David, and according to 1 Chr 3:516 LXX there were 18 generations from David to Jechonias. These ‘fourteens’ also have no justification in heptadic chronological calculations, which were widespread in Second Temple Judaism, because such Jewish calculations were based on counting the time with the use of sevens, and not fourteens.23 It is therefore evident that the Matthean ‘fourteens’ betray Matthew’s reworking of the Lucan, artificially achieved calculation of 14 generations from Abraham to David, which in its turn resulted from Luke’s omission of the Levitical character (and consequently ‘week’) of Moses, as evidently not belonging to the Davidic, and consequently royal genealogy of Jesus.

20 If the generations are counted inclusively, then the second part of the genealogy surprisingly contains 13 generations, unless David is counted twice. Cf. S. C. Carlson, ‘The Davidic Key for Counting the Generations in Matthew 1:17’, CBQ 76 (2014) 665–683 (esp. 668). 21 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Luke, 79–80. 22 Cf. ibid. 23 Cf. id., ‘ “Ten Jubilees of Years”: Heptadic Calculations of the End of the Epoch of Iniquity and the Evolving Ideology of the Hasmoneans’, QC vol. 16, no. 1–2 [July 2008], 19–36.

35

The suggestion that the Matthean number 14 (Mt 1:17) has its origins in gematria, as referring to the numeric value of the Hebrew consonants forming the scriptural name of David, is in fact inadequate to the data of the Matthean genealogy, which was composed in Greek, and not in Hebrew,24 and which points to Abraham, rather than David, as the main ancestor of Jesus (Mt  1:1.17). In the Matthean genealogy, David only functions as an intermediate link between Abraham and Jesus.25 Accordingly, the Matthean genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:1-17) should be regarded as a result of a scripturalizing, but not entirely consistent reworking of the Lucan one (Lk 3:23-38).26

1.2.  Mt 1:18-25 (cf. Acts 1:15-26) The section Mt 1:18-25, with its main themes of a patriarchal background, the activity of the Holy Spirit related to something foretold in Scripture, the believers coming together, Joseph being a just man, the Lord knowing the human heart, divine inspiration to accept an apparently not righteous person, bearing a Semitic name referring to Yahweh’s grace, and accepting the apparently not righteous person, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 1:15-26. The opening statement concerning Jesus’ birth, that is his ‘genesis’ (γένεσις: Mt 1:18a),27 like in Mt 1:1 (βίβλος γενέσεως) evokes the scriptural motif of patriarchal genealogies (cf. Gen 5:1 LXX etc.).28 Therefore, it alludes to the opening Lucan patriarchal-genealogical motif of 120 presumably male names (Acts 1:15; cf. Gen 46:8-27; Exod 28:10 LXX etc.). The idea of Mary having been betrothed to Joseph (pass. part. μνηστευ* + Μαρία* + Ἰωσήφ: Mt 1:18b) was borrowed from Lk 1:27.29 In the Lucan Gospel, 24 Cf. L. Novakovic, Messiah, the Healer of the Sick: A Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew (WUNT 2.170; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2003), 40–41. 25 Cf. J. Nolland, Matthew, 72. 26 Pace G. Häfner, ‘Das Matthäus-Evangelium und seine Quellen’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew, 25–71 (esp. 44–45), the existence of differences between the Matthean and Lucan genealogies does not necessarily imply that Matthew did not use Luke’s work. In fact, the reason for these differences can be detected. Moreover, this reason evidently corresponds to Matthew’s general theological ideas. 27 Cf. M. Crimella, ‘Βίβλος’, 261–262. 28 Cf. R. T. France, Matthew, 46 n. 14. 29 Cf. R. V. Huggins, ‘Matthean Posteriority: A Preliminary Proposal’, NovT 34 (1992) 1–22 (esp. 17 n. 38).

36

the particular motif of a virgin betrothed to a man (παρθένος ἐμνηστευμένη ἀνδρί), a virgin who was supposed not to have sexual relationships with men yet (Lk 1:27; cf. 1:34), originated from Deut 22:23-24 LXX (cf. Deut 20:7).30 In the Matthean Gospel, only the general Lucan idea of Mary having been betrothed to Joseph (Lk 1:27) was used in Mt 1:18b. The subsequent motif of a particular activity of the Holy Spirit (πνεῦμα + ἅγιον), related to something foretold in Scripture (Mt  1:18de; ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχω: cf. Is 7:14 LXX;31 Mt 1:20-23), alludes to the subsequent Lucan account of something foretold in Scripture by the Holy Spirit (Acts  1:16-20). The anarthrous form of ‘Holy Spirit’ (πνεῦμα ἅγιον: Mt 1:18e; cf. 1:20), which is rather untypical of Matthew (diff. Mt 12:32; 28:19; cf. only Mt 3:11 originating from Mk 1:8 par. Lk 3:16), was borrowed from Lk 1:35 (cf. Lk 1:15.41.67 etc.). The chronologically (although not formally) subsequent idea of Joseph and Mary coming together (συνέρχομαι: Mt 1:18c), which was not used in scriptural legal texts concerning marriage (diff. Deut 20:7 LXX etc.), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the believers coming together (Acts 1:21-22). The subsequent idea of Joseph ( Ἰωσήφ) being a just man (ἀνήρ: Mt 1:19), an idea which does not originate from the Lucan Gospel, alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Joseph being a man (cf. Acts 1:21a) called Justus, which in Latin means ‘just’ (Acts 1:23bc). The particular non-scriptural motif of a Jew divorcing (ἀπολῦσαι) his wife (Mt 1:19e) was borrowed from Mk 10:2.4. The subsequent idea of the Lord (κύριος: cf. Mt 1:20b) knowing Joseph’s thinking (ἐνθυμέομαι: Mt  1:20a), presumably in his heart (cf.  Mt  9:4: ἐνθυμέομαι  + καρδία), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Lord knowing human hearts (καρδι*: Acts 1:24c). The subsequent idea of divine inspiration for Joseph to accept the apparently not righteous Mary (Mt 1:20b-g) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of divine inspiration for the apostles to accept not the apparently righteous one who was surnamed Justus, which means ‘just’ (cf.  Acts  1:23c), but Matthias (Acts 1:24c-26b). The Lucan scriptural motif of revealing God’s will by casting lots (Acts 1:26ab) was reworked by Matthew into the scriptural motif of revealing God’s will in a dream (ὄναρ: Mt 1:20b), with the use of the ethopoeic image 30 Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX): Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 28; Doubleday: Garden City, NY 1981), 343; L. T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (SP 3; Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 1991), 36; B. Adamczewski, Luke, 46. 31 Cf. M. Guidi, “Così avvenne la generazione di Gesù Messia”: Paradigma comunicativo e questione contestuale nella lettura pragmatica di Mt 1,18-25 (AnBib 195; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2012), 269–270, 290.

37

of Joseph as acting similarly to his eponymous ancestor Joseph,32 at least in Josephus’ interpretation of the scriptural story (cf. Jos. Ant. 2.12, 63, 70, 72, 82). Moreover, the Matthean annunciation to Joseph (Mt  1:20b-21), with its particular motifs of a revealing (λέγω) angel (ἄγγελος) of the Lord (κύριος: Mt 1:20bc; cf. Lk 1:26.28), Joseph being a ‘son’ of David ( Ἰωσήφ + Δαυίδ: Mt 1:20c; cf.  Lk  1:27.32),33 the encouragement not to be afraid (μὴ φοβ*: Mt  1:20d; cf. Lk 1:30), Mary conceiving (pass. γεννάω) from ‘Holy Spirit’ (anarthrous πνεῦμα ἅγιον: Mt 1:20fg; cf. Lk 1:35), and the prediction that Mary will bear a son and call his name Jesus (τέξ* + υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν: Mt 1:21ab; cf. Lk 1:31), is a reworking of the Lucan annunciation to Mary (Lk 1:26-38).34 The subsequent idea of Jesus bearing the Semitic name which means ‘Yahweh saves’ and which allegedly refers to graceful salvation from sins (Mt 1:21bc)35 alludes to the subsequent Lucan remark concerning Matthias (Acts 1:26b), whose Semitic name refers to Yahweh’s graceful gift (diff. Justus: Acts 1:23). The particular motif of saving the people from their sins (σω* + ὁ λαὸς αὐτοῦ + ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν: Mt 1:21c), which illustrates the idea of God’s grace (Acts 1:26b), was borrowed for this purpose from another fragment of the Lucan Gospel (Lk 1:77; cf. 2:11).36 As a result of this borrowing, God’s people (Lk 1:77) in the Matthean Gospel somewhat surprisingly became Jesus’ people (Mt  1:21c).37 On the other hand, if the direction of borrowing were reverse (from Matthew to Luke), Luke would have no particular reason to separate the motifs taken from Mt 1:20b21 and use them in two different sections of his Gospel (Lk 1:26-38; 1:77). The motif of exact fulfilment (πληρωθῆ*) of a directly quoted scriptural prophecy (ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν καὶ καλέσ* τὸ ὄνομα

32 Cf. R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (ABRL; 2nd edn., Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1993), 111–112, 598–599; A. Wucherpfennig, Josef, 30; J. Ebach, Josef, 72. 33 It should be noted that elsewhere in the New Testament, and especially in the Gospel of Matthew, it is Jesus who is called the son of David (Mk 10:47-48; Mt 1:1; 15:22; 21:9.15 etc.): cf. M. T. Ploner, Schriften, 155–158. Therefore, the surprising idea of Joseph as the son of David (Mt 1:20) resulted from a conflation of the Lucan ideas of Joseph being from the house of David (Lk 1:27) and David being the forefather of Jesus (Lk 1:32). 34 Cf. R. V. Huggins, ‘Matthean’, 17 n. 38; M. Hengel, Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus: Studien zu ihrer Sammlung und Entstehung (WUNT 224; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008), 305. 35 Cf. M. Guidi, Così, 310–311. 36 Cf. R. V. Huggins, ‘Matthean’, 17 n. 38. 37 Cf. L. Novakovic, Messiah, 65–66.

38

αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ: Mt 1:22-23; cf. Is 7:14 LXX)38 probably alludes to a similar motif in Acts 1:16.20. In the Isaian quotation, Matthew changed the scriptural verb form καλέσεις (‘you will call’: Is 7:14 LXX) into καλέσουσιν (‘they will call’: Mt 1:23c) because he understandably presented Joseph as calling the child Jesus (Mt 1:21.25) and not Emmanuel (cf. Is 7:14 LXX).39 The subsequent depiction of Joseph as acting according to the command of the angel of the Lord and taking to him the apparently not righteous Mary (Mt  1:24) alludes to the subsequent Lucan description of the eleven apostles as acting according to the decision of God and adding to them the apparently not righteous Matthias (Acts 1:26c; diff. 1:23c: Justus). The related motif of Joseph awaking (ἐγείρω) from the dream (*ὕπν: Mt 1:24a) is ethopoeic-scriptural (cf. Gen 41:4.7 LXX). The particular idea of Joseph having no sexual relations with Mary until she bore a son (Mt  1:25ab) suggests an exact, literal fulfilment of both the Isaian prophecy and the angelic statement concerning a virgin who will both conceive and bear a son (cf. Is 7:14 LXX; Mt 1:22-23),40 and thus it again illustrates the Lucan description of the apostles as acting exactly according to the revealed will of God (Acts 1:26c; cf. 1:26b). The same refers to the depiction of Joseph as naming the child Jesus (Mt 1:25c) in agreement with both the scriptural prophecy (cf. Is 7:14 LXX) and the command of the angel of the Lord (cf. Mt 1:21b).41

1.3.  Mt 2:1-12 (cf. Acts 2) The section Mt 2:1-12, with its main themes of particular days, pilgrims from other countries appearing in Jerusalem, the pilgrims being witnesses of a heavenly miracle in their eastern country, confusion among all people in Jerusalem, asking questions concerning the messianic sign to other Jews in Jerusalem, lack of faith in messianic ideas, giving an answer based on the fulfilment of a text revealed through a prophet, a prophetic quotation concerning eschatological 38 Cf. M. T. Ploner, Schriften, 259–265; G. Maier, Das Evangelium des Matthäus: Kapitel 1–14 (HTA; SCM R. Brockhaus: Witten · Brunnen: Giessen 2015), 84. 39 Cf. A. Kowalczyk, The Influence of Typology and Texts of the Old Testament on the Redaction of Matthew’s Gospel (Bernardinum: Pelplin 2008), 165; G. Claudel, ‘Joseph, figure du lecteur modèle du premier évangile’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew, 339–374 (esp. 346–347). 40 Cf. J. Lambrecht, ‘Matthew 1,18-25: A Chiastic Vignette? A Close Reading’, ETL 89 (2013) 97–101 (esp. 101); M. Konradt, Matthäus, 38. 41 Cf. T. M. Dąbek, ‘ “When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him” (Mt 1:24): Discreet, Effective Service’, RuBL 66 (2013) 19–32 (esp. 21–22).

39

events, obtaining detailed information concerning the manifest heavenly vision of a celestial body, obtaining detailed information concerning Jesus as the Messiah, Jewish resolve to kill Jesus by the hand of lawless ones, a scriptural visible sign of divine presence being always before the believers and pointing to Jesus by standing up by him, great joy of the believers, entering the realm of faith, seeing Jesus and his first witnesses, worshipping Jesus, offering three gifts, receiving a particular revelation, and being set apart from the Jerusalemites, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 2.42 The opening statement that Jesus’ birth (γεν*) happened in some particular days (ἡμέρα: Mt 2:1a) alludes to the opening Lucan remark concerning a messianic event (γεν*) which happened on a particular day (Acts 2:1-4). The formula concerning the days of Herod the king in Judaea (τῆς Ἰουδαίας + ἐν… ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου… βασιλέως: Mt 2:1a) was borrowed from Lk 1:5.43 This borrowing resulted in the somewhat surprising Matthean presentation of Jesus’ birth as taking place in a number of days (plur. ἡμέραις: Mt 2:1a), whereas the use of plural in Lk 1:5 is quite natural. Therefore, the reverse direction of literary dependence (from Matthew to Luke) is here rather implausible. Likewise, the non-Marcan and non-Pauline idea of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem of Judaea (Βηθλέεμ + Ἰουδαία: Mt 2:1.5-6.8.16) was borrowed by Matthew from Lk 2:4.15.44 The subsequent motif of pilgrims from (ἀπό) other countries who appeared in Jerusalem (εἰς Ιερο*: Mt 2:1b)45 is a reworking of the subsequent Lucan motif of pilgrims from other countries who appeared in Jerusalem (Acts 2:5). The subsequent scriptural motif of the pilgrims saying (λέγοντες) that they were witnesses of a heavenly miracle in their eastern country (Mt 2:2; cf. Num 23:7; 24:15-17 LXX)46 originates from a scripturalizing reworking of the subsequent Lucan idea of the pilgrims saying that they were witnesses of a heavenly miracle which 42 For my earlier analyses of the hypertextual relationship between Mt 2:1-12 and Acts 2, see B. Adamczewski, ‘Magowie ze Wschodu: za gwiazdą, przez Synaj, do Jezusowego Kościoła (Mt 2,1-12)’, in R. Bartnicki (ed.), Studia z biblistyki, vol. 8 (UKSW: Warszawa 2012), 25–38; id., Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels (EST 3; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2013), 45–53. 43 Cf. R. V. Huggins, ‘Matthean’, 17 n. 38. 44 Cf. H. Delafosse, ‘Rapports de Matthieu et de Luc’, RHR 90 (1924) 1–38 (esp. 30–34); R. V. Huggins, ‘Matthean’, 17 n. 38. 45 Cf. B. A. Paschke, ‘Ein Kommen und Gehen: Wie konsequent wird im Matthäusevangelium zwischen zentripetalem und zentrifugalem Universalismus unterschieden?’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew, 637–652 (esp. 644). 46 Cf. R. T. France, Matthew, 62; D. L. Turner, Matthew (BECNT; Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2008), 80.

40

was related to their generally eastern countries (Acts 2:6-11). Matthew reworked the Lucan list of Asian nations and groups of people (Acts 2:9-11), which was intended to illustrate geographically the realm of the circumcised (cf. Gal 2:9), with the general geographic term ‘the East’ (Mt 2:1-2.9; cf. 8:11; 24:27). From the linguistic point of view, the noun ἀνατολή was used in the Gospel of Matthew 5 times (Mt 2:1-2.9; 8:11; 24:27), whereas Luke used it only 2 times (Lk 1:78; 13:29). This fact could favour the hypothesis of the Lucan dependence on the Gospel of Matthew. However, the triple use of this noun in Mt 2:1-2.9 can be explained in terms of an allusion to Num 23:7 LXX (ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῶν) and/or Lk 1:78 (foretelling divine visitation from ἀνατολή), whereas Mt 8:11 is clearly parallel to Lk 13:29. The subsequent motif of confusion among, somewhat surprisingly, all (πᾶς) people in Jerusalem (Mt 2:3)47 alludes to the subsequent Lucan motif of confusion among all people in Jerusalem (Acts 2:12a). The subsequent, rather neutral description of Herod as asking questions concerning the messianic sign to other Jews in Jerusalem (Mt 2:4ab) alludes to the subsequent, likewise rather neutral Lucan description of the Jerusalem Jews as asking questions concerning the messianic sign to other Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 2:12b-e). The subsequent, strongly negative, in fact surprising idea of Herod’s lack of knowledge concerning messianic ideas, and therefore presumably his lack of faith in them (Mt 2:4c), alludes to the subsequent, strongly negative Lucan idea of the Jews’ lack of faith in the messianic sign (Acts 2:13). The subsequent description of the Jewish religious leaders (cf. Mt 2:4) as giving an answer concerning Judaea ( Ἰουδαι*), which was based on the fulfilment of a text that was revealed through the prophet (διὰ τοῦ προφήτου: Mt 2:5), alludes to the subsequent Lucan description of Peter as giving an answer concerning Judaeans, which was based on the fulfilment of a text that was revealed through the prophet (Acts 2:14-16). Whereas in Acts 2:16 the formula ‘the prophet’ points to a particular prophet, namely Joel, in Mt 2:5 it points to no particular person, and therefore it is rather surprising. This fact additionally proves that the formula ‘through the prophet’ in Mt 2:5 was borrowed from Acts 2:16. The subsequent prophetic quotation concerning eschatological events (Mt 2:6; cf. Mic 5:1.3; cf. also 2 Sam 5:2 LXX)48 functionally corresponds to the subsequent

47 Cf. M. T. Ploner, Schriften, 119. 48 Cf. A. Destro and M. Pesce, ‘The Cultural Structure of the Infancy Narrative in the Gospel of Matthew’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Infancy Gospels: Stories and Identities (WUNT 281; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 94–115 (esp. 102–103); M. Mayordomo,

41

Lucan prophetic quotation concerning eschatological events (Acts  2:17-18; cf. Joel 3:1-2 LXX). The subsequent idea of Herod obtaining detailed information concerning the manifest (φαιν*) heavenly vision of a celestial body (Mt 2:7) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Jews obtaining detailed information concerning the manifest (ἐπιφαν*: Acts 2:20) heavenly vision of celestial bodies (Acts 2:19-21; cf. Joel 3:3-5 LXX). The subsequent idea of obtaining detailed information concerning Jesus as the Messiah, which was related to the place of his origin (Mt 2:8a-d), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of obtaining detailed information concerning Jesus as the messianic Nazarene (Acts 2:22; cf. Lk 18:37-38), which was likewise related to the place of his origin (cf. Lk 4:16). The subsequent idea Herod’s secret resolve to kill (ἀνειλ*: cf. Mt 2:16) Jesus by the hand of lawless ones (Mt 2:8e-h; cf. 2:16) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Jewish resolve to kill Jesus by the hand of lawless ones (Acts 2:23). The subsequent scriptural motif of the star, a visible sign of divine presence, which was, surprisingly, always going before (προ*) the believers (cf. Exod 13:21; Num 14:14; Deut 1:33 LXX)49 and which pointed to Jesus by, again surprisingly, standing up by him (*ίστημι + αν*: Mt 2:9; cf. Exod 33:9-10 LXX: ἵστημι + ἐπ*;50 Num 9:17 LXX: ἵστημι + οὗ),51 alludes to the subsequent Lucan scriptural motif of a visible sign of divine presence, which was always before the believer and which pointed to the raised-up Jesus (Acts 2:24-25; cf. Ps 16[15]:8 LXX). The subsequent motif of the believers who, having seen (*ὁράω) the sign of divine presence, rejoiced with great joy (Mt 2:10) alludes to the subsequent Lucan motif of the believer who, having seen the sign of divine presence (cf. Acts 2:25), rejoiced with great joy (Acts 2:26-28). The Matthean narrative sequence, which suggests that the magi were always led by the star on their way to Bethlehem,

‘Matthew 1–2 and the Problem of Intertextuality’, in ibid. 257–279 (esp. 275–276); G. Maier, Matthäus: Kapitel 1–14, 101–103. 49 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 1, 246; J. Nolland, Matthew, 111 n. 110; A. Paciorek, Mateusz, vol. 1, 113. 50 It should be noted that the simple scriptural preposition (ἐπί: Exod 33:9-10 LXX; absent in Num 9:17 LXX) was somewhat surprisingly changed by Matthew to the composite one (ἐπάνω: Mt 2:9). In fact, this introduction of the morpheme ἀνα-, together with the verb ἵστημι, conveys the Lucan idea of standing up or being raised up (ἀνίστημι: Acts 2:24). 51 Cf. B. T. Viviano, ‘The Adoration of the Magi: Matthew 2:1-23 and Theological Aesthetics’, RB 115 (2008) 546–567 (esp. 561).

42

and nevertheless they saw the star only there (Mt 2:9-10), is quite surprising. In fact, it resulted from a sequential hypertextual reworking of the Lucan narrative sequence of seeing and rejoicing in Acts 2:25-28. The subsequent image of the pilgrims entering the believing house52 of the promised descendant of David (Mt 2:11a; cf. 2:6) in a graphic way illustrates the subsequent Lucan idea of the pilgrims entering the realm of faith in the promised descendant of David (Acts 2:29-31; cf. 2 Sam 7:12). The subsequent motif of the pilgrims seeing Jesus, as well as Mary his mother (μήτηρ: Mt 2:11b), alludes to the subsequent Lucan motif of the pilgrims seeing the presence of Jesus, as well as his first witnesses (Acts 2:32-36). Matthew could substitute the Lucan image of the first witnesses of the risen Jesus who gave the promised Spirit (Acts 2:32-33) with that of Mary, the mother of Jesus (Mt 2:11b), because Mary, the mother of Jesus, was presented in Acts as praying for the gift of the Spirit, which was promised by the risen Jesus (Acts 1:4.14). The subsequent image of the pilgrims as falling down and worshipping Jesus as the Messiah (Mt 2:11cd)53 alludes to the subsequent Lucan image of the pilgrims as being pricked and converting to Jesus Christ (Acts 2:37-41b). The subsequent image of the newly-converted believers as opening their treasure repositories and offering (*φέρω), surprisingly, three gifts to Jesus (Mt 2:11ef; diff. Is 60:6 LXX: two gifts: χρυσ* καὶ λίβανον)54 alludes to the subsequent Lucan image of three thousand newly-converted believers as selling their possessions and belongings, and offering them to others (Acts 2:41c-45), presumably to Jesus’ first believers (cf. Acts 4:34-35.37: φέρω). The subsequent motif of the believers receiving a particular divine revelation (Mt 2:12a) alludes to the subsequent Lucan motif of the believers spending time in the temple (Acts 2:46a), because also the preceding use of the motif of receiving a divine revelation in a dream (κατ᾽ ὄναρ: Mt  1:20) alluded to the Lucan priestly motif of revealing God’s will by casting lots (Acts 1:26ab). The concluding image of the believers as being set apart from Herod and the Jerusalemites (Mt 2:12bc; cf. 2:3) alludes to the concluding Lucan image of the believers as living their Christian life (cf. Acts 2:42) in private homes, so presumably being set apart from the Jerusalemites (Acts 2:46b-47). 52 In difference to Luke (Lk 2:7), Matthew presents Jesus as being born in the house (οἰκ*) of his believing parents (Mt 2:11; cf. 1:24). In fact, this Matthean image reflects the image of the community of the first believers in Acts 2 (esp. 2:2). 53 Cf. H. C. Kim, ‘The Worship of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew’, Bib 93 (2012) 227–241 (esp. 229–232). 54 Cf. M. T. Ploner, Schriften, 283; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 42.

43

1.4.  Mt 2:13-15 (cf. Acts 3) The section Mt  2:13-15, with its main themes of receiving a particular angelic revelation, commanding to rise up, being with other believers, a patriarchal way of the child to Egypt, Jewish resolve to kill Jesus, faithfully obeying the command to rise up and go, night encompassing the Jews and their ruler, fulfilment of what was spoken through the prophet, a Mosaic return of the Messiah, and being God’s son, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 3. The opening motif of, behold (ἰδού), an angel (ἄγγελος) manifesting (φαίνω) himself to a pious Israelite (Mt 2:13ab) alludes to the opening Lucan motif of pious apostles coming to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour (Acts 3:1). In the Acts of the Apostles, this hour was repeatedly presented in as the hour of, behold, an angel being manifestly (φανερῶς) seen by a pious individual (Acts 10:3.30). Matthew quite understandably combined these thematically correlated Lucan motifs (Acts 3:1; cf. 10:3.30). Moreover, he additionally reworked them in Mt 2:13b with the use of the scriptural motifs of a pious Israelite receiving an angelic (αγγελ*) revelation in a dream (Dan 8:2.19; 9:21 LXX), as well as Joseph ( Ἰωσήφ) having particular dreams (Gen 37:5-20 LXX). The subsequent, narratively superfluous motif of commanding (λέγω) Joseph to rise up (ἐγείρω: Mt 2:13cd; diff. Mt 2:12: no such command in a similar situation) alludes to the subsequent Lucan motif of commanding a lame man to rise up (Acts 3:2-7).55 The subsequent idea of the risen Joseph taking (παραλαμβάνω: cf. Mt 1:20.24) his two most important persons, with Jesus at the first place (Mt  2:13e; diff. 1:20.24), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the risen man holding fact to the two most important apostles, with Peter at the first place (Acts 3:8-11). The subsequent scriptural motif of a way of Joseph to Egypt (εἰς Αἴγυπτον) and his remaining there for some long time (Mt 2:13f-h) alludes to the two subsequent Lucan motifs of God of the scriptural patriarchs, as well as God glorifying (δοξα*) his holy and righteous servant/child (παι*) who was handed over (*δίδωμι) by the Jews to the Gentiles (Acts  3:13-14). Matthew thematically combined these two correlated Lucan motifs and interpreted them as commonly related to the patriarch Joseph, who was handed over as a child by Judah and his brothers to Egypt (Gen 37:26-28.30 LXX),56 whom God glorified there 55 This intertextual link, formed by a command to rise up, suggests that the longer reading ἔγειρε καί in Acts 3:6 [A, C et al.] is original. 56 Cf. S. Betsworth, Children in Early Christian Narratives (LNTS 521; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London [et al.] 2015), 79.

44

(Gen 45:13 LXX), and who remained there for a long time (Gen 39–50). For this reason, the correlated Lucan motifs of God of the scriptural patriarchs, as well as God glorifying his holy and righteous servant/child who was handed over by the Jews to the Gentiles (Acts 3:13-14) could be commonly presented in scriptural terms as a quasi-patriarchal way of the new Joseph to Egypt and his long stay there (Mt 2:13f-h). The subsequent motif of Herod’s resolve to kill Jesus (Mt 2:13i-k) alludes to the subsequent Lucan motif of the Jewish resolve to kill Jesus (Acts 3:15). Matthew narratively presented the decision of the community of the Jews to kill Jesus (Acts 3:15) as a decision of the king of the Jews to kill Jesus (Mt 2:13i-k). The subsequent post-Marcan (cf. Mk 2:11-12 etc.) motif of Joseph faithfully obeying the command to rise up (ἐγείρω) and go (Mt 2:14ab; cf. 2:13de) alludes to the subsequent Lucan statement that the faith of the believer in the risen Jesus enabled him to rise up and go (Acts 3:16; cf. 3:6-8). The subsequent, narratively superfluous (cf. Mt 2:13i-k: Herod intending to seek, but not yet seeking the child) remark that Joseph fled by night, which encompassed Judaea and which symbolically reflected the hostile attitude against Jesus in Judaea under the rule of Herod (Mt  2:14b-15a; cf.  Acts  9:25; 17:10; 23:23.31),57 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the spiritual blindness of the Jews and their rulers, which led them to kill Jesus (Acts 3:17). The subsequent motif of the fulfilment (πληρόω) of what was spoken through (διά) the prophet (προφήτης: Mt 2:15b-d) alludes to the subsequent Lucan motif of the fulfilment of what was spoken through the prophets (Acts  3:18.21; cf. 3:19-20). The subsequent prophetic motif of the coming from Egypt (Mt  2:15e; cf.  Hos  11:1 LXX),58 which was reworked into that of a Mosaic-style calling (καλέω) of Jesus by the Lord from Egypt (Mt 2:15e; cf. Exod 3:4 LXX: καλέω; diff. Hos 11:1 LXX: μετακαλέω), alludes to the subsequent Lucan, prophetic motif of the raising up of the Messiah in a Mosaic-style way (‘The Lord will raise up… like me’), which was also foretold by later prophets (Acts 3:22-24).59 57 Cf. J. Kennedy, Recapitulation, 138–139; G. Claudel, ‘Joseph’, 363. 58 Cf. M. T. Ploner, Schriften, 293–295; S. Moyise, ‘Matthew’s Bible in the Infancy Narrative’, in B. J. Koet, S. Moyise, and J. Verheyden (eds.), The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition, Festschrift M. J. J. Menken (NovTSup 148: Brill: Leiden · Boston 2013), 11–24 (esp. 18–19); M. Konradt, Matthäus, 43–44. 59 Cf. J. D. G. Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek: A Contested Identity (Christianity in the Making 3; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2015), 256–257; id., ‘Matthew – A Jewish Gospel for Jews and Gentiles’, in K. A. Bendoraitis and

45

The concluding idea of Jesus as God’s son (υἱός: Mt 2:15e; diff. Hos 11:1 LXX: τέκνα) alludes to the concluding Lucan motifs of being sons of God’s covenant (Acts 3:25) and Jesus as God’s servant/child (Acts 3:26).

1.5.  Mt 2:16-18 (cf. Acts 4:1-8:3) The section Mt 2:16-18, with its main themes of a Jewish ruler being made a fool of by the believers, the Jewish ruler being filled with anger, the Jewish ruler sending armed officers to the believers, the Jewish ruler’s resolve to kill the believers, fulfilment of the words which were spoken by a prophet, a loud voice of a believer because of dying, a prolonged lament of a believer, and disappearance of the believers, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 4:1-8:3. The opening idea of the Jewish ruler being made a fool of by the magi (Mt 2:16ab) alludes to the opening Lucan idea of the Jewish rulers being made fools of by the words and deeds of the believers (Acts 4:1-31). The subsequent image of the Jewish ruler being filled with anger (Mt 2:16c) alludes to the subsequent Lucan image of the Jewish rulers being filled with jealousy and anger (Acts 5:17; cf. 5:33). The subsequent idea of the Jewish ruler sending (ἀποστέλλω) armed officers to the children (Mt 2:16d) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Jewish rulers sending armed officers to the believers (Acts 5:21). The subsequent statement concerning the Jewish ruler’s resolve to kill (ἀναιρέω) the children (Mt 2:16ef) alludes to the subsequent Lucan statement concerning the Jewish rulers’ resolve to kill the believers (Acts 5:33). From the linguistic point of view, the verb ἀναιρέω was used in the Gospel of Matthew only once, in Mt 2:16 (which structurally corresponds to Acts 5:33), whereas Luke used it 2 times in his Gospel and 19 times in Acts.60 Therefore, it should be regarded as borrowed in Mt 2:16 from Acts 5:33, a fact which favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke.

N. K. Gupta (eds.), Matthew and Mark across Perspectives, Festschrift S. C. Barton and W. R. Telford (LNTS 538; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London [et al.] 2016), 125–142 (here: 129): ‘[…] Matthew does seem to present Jesus as a new Moses’, ‘[…] and the identification of Jesus as the Moses prophet appears elsewhere only in Acts (3.22-23 and 7.37)’. 60 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, The Vocabulary of Luke: An Alphabetical Presentation and a Survey of Characteristic and Noteworthy Words and Word Groups in Luke’s Gospel (BTS 10; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2009), 37.

46

Besides, the non-Lucan motif of Herod’s cruelty, which consisted in killing (ἀναιρέω) numerous people (Mt 2:16; diff. Lk 1:5), was borrowed from the works of Josephus (cf. Ant. 15.230-240; 17.44, 178 etc.). The somewhat surprising use of the noun παῖς (‘boy’: Mt  2:16), instead of παιδίον (‘infant’: cf. Mt 2:8-9.11.13-14.20-21) or τέκνον (‘child’: cf. Mt 2:18), was probably influenced by its use in Acts 4:25.27.30. The subsequent motif of the fulfilment of the scriptural words which were spoken (λέγω) through a prophet (προφήτης: Mt  2:17) alludes to the subsequent Lucan motif of the fulfilment of the words which were spoken by a prophet (Acts 7:48; cf. 7:42.52 and the whole scriptural section 7:2-53). The subsequent motif of a loud voice (φωνή) of a believer in Ramah, outside Jerusalem, because of dying (Mt 2:18a; cf. Jer 31[38]:15),61 alludes to the subsequent Lucan motif of a believer dying outside Jerusalem and crying with a loud voice (Acts 7:58-60). The subsequent motif of a prolonged lamentation of the believer over her killed children (Mt 2:18b-d; cf. Jer 31[38]:15)62 alludes to the subsequent Lucan motif of a prolonged lamentation of the believers over their killed fellow-believer (Acts 8:2). The concluding motif of the disappearance of the believer’s children (Mt 2:18e; cf. Jer 31[38]:15 LXX: ὅτι οὐκ εἰσίν)63 alludes to the concluding Lucan motif of the disappearance of the believers (Acts 8:3).

1.6.  Mt 2:19-23 (cf. Acts 8:4-35) The section Mt 2:19-23, with its main themes of the end of violent persecutions in Jerusalem, the angel of the Lord appearing to the believer outside Judaea, commanding the believer to arise and go to a certain place, the angel’s remark that there is no obstacle in the way of the believer, the believer having arisen, the believer going to the southern region of Israel, a royal ruler in place of a monarch, not going to Judaea, the believer receiving a divine revelation to go to a quasi-Gentile region, the believer joining quasi-Gentiles, and the fulfilment of that which was spoken by

61 Cf. A. Kowalczyk, Influence, 166; M. T. Ploner, Schriften, 299–300; G. Claudel, ‘Joseph’, 366–367. 62 Cf. E. E.-C. Park, ‘Rachel’s Cry for Her Children: Matthew’s Treatment of the Infanticide by Herod’, CBQ 75 (2013) 473–485 (esp. 481); M. Konradt, Matthäus, 45; S. Betsworth, Children, 80. 63 Cf. A. Kowalczyk, Influence, 166; J. Ebach, Josef, 101–102.

47

the prophets about the Isaian Jesus, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 8:4-35. In his reworking of the section Acts 8:4-35 in Mt 2:19-23, Matthew omitted the Lucan fragment concerning financial matters in the Church (Acts 8:4-24), just as he previously omitted the thematically similar fragment Acts 4:32-5:16. The idea of the end of violent persecutions in Jerusalem (Mt 2:19a) alludes to the Lucan idea of the apostles’ apparently unrestrained activity in Jerusalem (Acts 8:25). The subsequent motif of the angel of the Lord (ἄγγελος κυρίου) appearing to the believer in Egypt, outside Judaea (Mt 2:19b), alludes to the subsequent Lucan motif of the angel of the Lord appearing to the believer outside Judaea (Acts 8:26a; cf. 8:5-13: Philip in Samaria). The subsequent motif of commanding (λέγων) the believer to arise and go to (καὶ πορεύου… εἰς) a certain place (Mt 2:20a-d) alludes to the subsequent Lucan motif of commanding the believer to arise and go to a certain place (Acts 8:26b-e). The subsequent, narratively superfluous (cf. Mt 2:19a) remark of the angel that there is no obstacle in the way of the believer (Mt 2:20ef), a remark which was borrowed from Exod 4:19 LXX (τεθνήκασιν γάρ + οἱ ζητοῦντες + τὴν ψυχήν),64 alludes to the subsequent Lucan remark of the angel that there is no obstacle in the road of the believer (Acts 8:26f). The subsequent idea of the believer as having arisen (aor. part. ἐγερθείς: Mt 2:21a) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the believer as having arisen (aor. part. ἀναστάς: Acts 8:27a). The subsequent statement that the believer went to the southern region of Israel (Mt 2:21bc) alludes to the subsequent Lucan statement that the believer went to Gaza, which was located in the southern region of Israel (Acts 8:27b; cf. 8:26). The subsequent, historically rather inaccurate remark that Archelaus was a royal ruler (βασιλ*: diff. Jos. Ant. 17.317, but cf. 17.188, 194–195) in Judaea in place of his father, the king (Mt 2:22ab; cf. 2:1.3.9), alludes to the subsequent Lucan remark that a royal ruler, representing a queen (βασιλ*), was in Jerusalem (Acts 8:27). The subsequent idea of not going to Judaea (Mt 2:22cd) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of returning from Jerusalem, that is from Judaea (Acts 8:28a). The subsequent motif of the believer receiving a divine revelation to go to Galilee, that is to a quasi-Gentile region (Mt 2:22ef; cf. 4:15), alludes to the subsequent

64 Cf. G. Claudel, ‘Joseph’, 369–370; K. J. McDaniel, Experiencing Irony in the First Gospel: Suspense, Surprise and Curiosity (LNTS 488; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London [et al.] 2013), 76–77; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 32, 45.

48

Lucan motif of the believer receiving a divine revelation to go to a quasi-Gentile person (Acts 8:28b-29). The subsequent idea of the believer coming to Nazareth (Mt 2:23a-c) was borrowed from Lk 4:16 (καὶ ἐλθ* + εἰς + Ναζαρ*)65 and reformulated to convey the idea of the believer joining the quasi-Gentiles living in Galilee (ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς: Mt 2:23ab; cf. 4:13-15). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the believer joining the quasi-Gentile person (Acts 8:30-31). The subsequent idea of the fulfilment of that which was spoken (λέγω) by the prophets (προφήτης) about the Isaian ‘Nazarene’ Jesus (Mt 2:23c-f; cf.  Is  11:1 MT)66 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the fulfilment of that which was spoken (λέγω) by the prophet (προφήτης) Isaiah about Jesus (Acts  8:32-35; cf. Is 53:7-8 LXX). The non-Marcan idea that Nazareth (Ναζαρ*) was a city (πόλις) occurs in the Gospel of Matthew only once (Mt 2:23bc), but it occurs 5 times in the Gospel of Luke (Lk 1:26; 2:4.39; 4:29 twice), and consequently it was most likely borrowed in Mt 2:23bc from the Lucan Gospel. Likewise, the non-Marcan form Ναζωραῖος occurs in the Gospel of Matthew 2 times (Mt 2:23; 26:7), and once in the Gospel of Luke (Lk 18:37), but also 7 times in Acts (Acts 2:22 etc.). Accordingly, being characteristic of Luke,67 it was most probably borrowed by Matthew from the bipartite Lucan work. These facts favour the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke.

65 If the name form Ναζαρα is original in Mt 2:23 (𝔓70 et al.), as is suggested by e.g. M. Goulder, ‘Two Significant Minor Agreements (Mat. 4:13 Par.; Mat. 26:67-68 Par.)’, NovT 45 (2003) 365–373 (esp. 367–368), then it can be regarded as borrowed from Lk 4:16 as well. This would mean that Matthew used the name form Ναζαρα in Mt 2:23; 4:13 par. Lk 4:16.30, and the formula Ἰησοῦς… ἀπὸ Ναζαρε* τῆς Γαλιλαίας in Mt 21:11 cf. Mk 1:9 (cf. also Lk 1:26; 2:4.39.51; Acts 10:38: Ναζαρέθ). 66 Cf. A. Wucherpfennig, Josef, 166–167; S. Betsworth, Children, 81. For the origin of the linguistic association of the name Nazareth with Is 11:1 MT in Mk 1:9, see B. Adam­ czewski, The Gospel of Mark: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 8; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2014), 38–39. 67 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 410–411.

49

Chapter 2. Mt 3:1-9:34 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts 8:36-12:25 The Matthean story concerning the beginnings of Jesus’ public activity: from the baptism of Jesus to the sending out of the disciples (Mt 3:1-9:34) is a result of a sequential hypertextual reworking of the Lucan story concerning the beginnings of the missionary activity of the Jewish Christian Church: from the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch to the sending out of Barnabas and Saul (Acts 8:36-12:25).

2.1.  Mt 3 (cf. Acts 8:36-39b) The section Mt 3, with its main themes of going together by the way to be baptized in water, wishing to be baptized but being prevented from being baptized, overcoming this prevention by insisting on being baptized, being finally baptized, coming up from the water, and the appearance of God’s Spirit, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 8:36-39b. The particular idea of going (*πορεύομαι: Mt 3:5) together by the way (τὴν ὁδόν: Mt 3:3) to be baptized in (Mt 3:11; diff. Mk 1:8 par. Lk 3:16: with) water (ὕδωρ: Mt 3:11) at (ἐπί: Mt 3:13a; diff. Mk 1:9: εἰς) some natural source of water (Mt 3:1-13a) alludes to the Lucan idea of going together by the road at some natural source of water (Acts 8:36a-d). Besides, the opening statement concerning John the Baptist (Mt 3:1) is a result of a conflation of Mk 1:9a (ἐν + ταῖς ἡμέραις + ἐκείναις) with Mk 1:4 (*γίνομαι + Ἰωάννης + βαπτι* + κηρύσσων + ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ). The content of John’s preaching (Mt 3:2) was borrowed from Mk 1:15.1 The short version of the Isaian quotation only from Is 40:3 LXX (Mt 3:3) consists of the overlapping part of Mk 1:2-3 and Lk 3:4-6, and consequently it originates from a conflation of Mk 1:3 with Lk 3:4. The statement concerning John (Mt 3:4) was borrowed from Mk 1:6.2 The statement concerning Jerusalem and all Judaea (cf. Mk 1:5), as well as all the region 1 The particular Matthean phrase ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (Mt 3:2 etc.; diff. Mk 1:15 etc.) may have been borrowed from 2 Tim 4:8 (ἡ βασιλεία + ἡ ἐπουράνιος). 2 Cf. M. Goodacre, ‘Mark, Elijah, the Baptist and Matthew: The Success of the First Intertextual Reading of Mark’, in T. R. Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, vol. 2, The Gospel of Matthew (LNTS 310; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 73–84 (esp. 78); G. Baltes, Hebräisches Evangelium und synoptische

51

around Jordan (Mt 3:5; cf. Lk 3:3), is a result of a conflation of Mk 1:5 (ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτόν + Ἱεροσολυμ* + πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία)3 with Lk 3:3 (πᾶσα* + περίχωρος + τοῦ Ἰορδάνου).4 The statement concerning baptism (Mt 3:6) was borrowed from Mk  1:5. The statement concerning the Pharisees and the Sadducees as coming to baptism (Mt 3:7a-c), but being rebuked by John (Mt 3:7d-10), resulted from a conflation of the similar Lucan statement concerning the crowds (Lk 3:7a-c) and the Lucan statement concerning the Pharisees and the experts in law as not being baptized by John (οἱ… Φαρισαῖοι + βαπτισ*: Lk 7:30). The content of the rebuke (Mt 3:7d-10) was almost verbatim borrowed from Lk 3:7d-9. The statement concerning the relationship between John and the coming one (Mt  3:11) was borrowed from Lk 3:16, with some additions from Mk 1:4 par. Lk 3:3 (μετάνοια) and Mk  1:7 (ὀπίσω μου). The statement concerning winnowing (Mt  3:12) was borrowed from Lk 3:17. The statement concerning Jesus coming to John (Mt 3:13a) is a reworking of the similar Marcan statement (Mk 1:9). From the linguistic point of view, the verb ὑποδείκνυμι5 was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 3:7 par. Lk 3:7), whereas Luke used it 3 times in his Gospel and 2 times in Acts.6 Accordingly, it was most likely borrowed by Matthew from the Lucan Gospel, a fact which favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke.7 Likewise, the phrase ἄξιος τῆς μετανοίας was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 3:8 par. Lk 3:8), whereas Luke also used it in Acts 26:20. Accordingly, it slightly favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke.8 Überlieferung: Untersuchungen zum hebräischen Hintergrund der Evangelien (WUNT 2.312; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 339. 3 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘The Reconstruction of Q and IQP / CritEd Parallels’, in A. Lindemann (ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus (BETL 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 53–147 (esp. 83–84). 4 For a discussion concerning the use of such micro-conflations in ancient literature and in the Synoptic Gospels, see recently J. W. Barker, ‘Ancient Compositional Practices and the Gospels: A Reassessment’, JBL 135 (2016) 109–121. 5 The case of the phrase γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν will be discussed at its other occurrences in the Matthean Gospel (Mt 12:34; 23:33). 6 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, The Vocabulary of Luke: An Alphabetical Presentation and a Survey of Characteristic and Noteworthy Words and Word Groups in Luke’s Gospel (BTS 10; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2009), 620. 7 Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Die Abhängigkeit des Matthäusevangeliums vom Lukasevangelium’, TSK 69 (1896) 83–93 (esp. 86). 8 Cf. ibid.

52

Similarly, the motif of Ἀβραάμ as πατήρ was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 3:9 par. Lk 3:8), whereas Luke used it 3 times in his Gospel and once in Acts.9 Accordingly, it was most likely borrowed by Matthew from the Lucan Gospel, a fact which favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke.10 The subsequent idea, inserted by Matthew (absent in Mk 1:9 par. Lk 3:21), namely that of Jesus’ resolve to be baptized (βαπτισθῆναι), but his being surprisingly prevented (*κωλύω) from being baptized, and then overcoming this prevention by his insisting on being baptized (Mt 3:13b-15), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the believer’s question, what prevents him from being baptized, and then overcoming this prevention by his insisting on being baptized (Acts 8:36e-38c). The subsequent motif of Jesus being finally baptized (βαπτίζω: Mt 3:16a) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the believer being finally baptized (Acts 8:38d). The subsequent motif of coming up (ἀναβαίνω) from the water (τοῦ ὕδατος: Mt 3:16b) alludes to the subsequent Lucan motif of coming up from the water (Acts 8:39a). The subsequent motif of the appearance of God’s Spirit (πνεῦμα: Mt 3:16c-17) alludes to the subsequent Lucan motif of the activity of the Lord’s Spirit (Acts 8:39b). Besides, the account of Jesus’ baptism (Mt 3:16-17) is a result of a conflation of Mk 1:9-11 (εὐθύς + ἀναβαίνω + τοῦ ὕδατος + οἱ οὐρανοί + εἶδεν + τὸ πνεῦμα + καταβαῖνον + ὡσ* περιστεράν + καί + φωνή + ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν + ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός ἐν + εὐδόκησα) with Lk 3:21-22 (βαπτισθ* + ἀνοίγω + τὸ πνεῦμα το* + ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν).11

2.2.  Mt 4:1-11 (cf. Acts 8:39b-40) The section Mt 4:1-11, with its main themes of being led up by the Spirit to a non-Jewish place, spending some time in that place, being in the city, and having dominion over all the kingdoms of the world and over their splendour, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 8:39b-40. The somewhat surprising image of Jesus as being led up (ἀνάγω; diff. Lk 4:1: ἄγω) by the Spirit (πνεῦμα) to (εἰς) a non-Jewish place in the wilderness (Mt 4:1) 9 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 1–2, 490. 10 Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Abhängigkeit’, 86. 11 Cf. M. Hengel, Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus: Studien zu ihrer Sammlung und Entstehung (WUNT 224; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008), 295 n. 809.

53

alludes to the Lucan image of the believer as being carried, presumably up, by the Spirit to a non-Jewish place (Acts 8:39b-40a). The subsequent image of Jesus spending some time in that place (Mt 4:2) alludes to the subsequent Lucan image of the believer passing through that nonJewish region, presumably spending some time there (Acts 8:40b). Besides, this opening account (Mt 4:1-2) is a result of a reworking of the similar Lucan account (Lk 4:1-2), with additional use of Mk 1:12 (εἰς τὴν ἔρημον)12 and the scriptural motif of fasting forty days and forty nights (καί + νύκτας + τεσσεράκοντα: cf. Exod 34:28 LXX etc.).13 Likewise, the account of the first temptation (Mt  4:3-4) is a result of a reworking of the similar Lucan account (Lk 4:3-4), with the addition of the second part of the scriptural quotation from Deut 8:3 LXX (ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι… ἐκπορευομένῳ διὰ στόματος θεοῦ).14 The subsequent account of the second temptation, which in difference to the Lucan Gospel takes place not somewhere high (diff. Lk  4:5-8), but in the city (πόλις: Mt  4:5-7; diff. Lk  4:9: Ἰερουσαλήμ),15 alludes to the subsequent Lucan account of being in all the cities (Acts 8:40c). Besides, this Matthean account (Mt 4:5-7) was almost verbatim borrowed from Lk 4:9-12. From the linguistic point of view, the phrase γέγραπται… ὅτι was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 4:6 par. Lk 4:10; diff. Mt 4:4.10), whereas Luke used it 3 times in his Gospel

12 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Reconstruction’, 78. 13 Cf. P. Fiedler, Das Matthäusevangelium (TKNT 1; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2006), 89; D. M. Gurtner, ‘ “Fasting” and “Forty Nights”: The Matthean Temptation Narrative (4:1-11) and Moses Typology’, in C. A. Evans and H. D. Zacharias (eds.), ‘What Does the Scripture Say?’ Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, vol. 1, The Synoptic Gospels (LNTS 469; T&T Clark, London · New York 2012), 1–11 (esp. 6–8); M. Konradt, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (NTD 1; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen · Bristol 2015), 55. 14 Cf. B. D. Crowe, The Obedient Son: Deuteronomy and Christology in the Gospel of Matthew (BZNW 188; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2012), 160–161; M. Apel, Der Anfang in der Wüste – Täfer, Taufe und Versuchung Jesu: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu den Überlieferungen vom Anfang des Evangeliums (SBB 72; Katholi­ sches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2013), 230–232; G. Maier, Das Evangelium des Matthäus: Kapitel 1–14 (HTA; SCM R. Brockhaus: Witten · Brunnen: Giessen 2015), 191. 15 Cf. J. Kręcidło, ‘Kuszenie Jezusa czy test/próba Jego Boskiej tożsamości i posłuszeństwa Ojcu? Strategia pragmatyczna w Mt 4,1-11’, in J. Kręcidło and W. Linke (eds.), Studia nad Ewangelią według św. Mateusza (LinSacMon 5; Apostolicum: Ząbki and Bractwo Słowa Bożego: Warszawa 2015), 99–123 (esp. 113 n. 19).

54

and once in Acts. Accordingly, it was most likely borrowed by Matthew from the Lucan Gospel, a fact which favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. The subsequent account of the third temptation, which in difference to the Lucan Gospel concerns not the Jerusalem temple (diff. Lk 4:9-12), but being quite surprisingly taken to (εἰς) a certain place related to having dominion over all (πάσας; diff. Lk 4:6-7: sing.) the kingdoms of the world and their splendour,16 presumably with the Roman Empire as the immediate example of such a kingdom (Mt 4:8-10),17 alludes to the subsequent Lucan account of being in all the coastal cities and coming to Caesarea (Acts 8:40d), whose name conveys the idea of having imperial dominion over all the kingdoms of the world, as well as that of imperial splendour. Besides, this Matthean account (Mt 4:8-10) is a result of a reworking of the thematically similar Lucan account Lk 4:5-8. For example, the Matthean omission of the Lucan remark concerning showing the kingdoms ‘in a moment of time’ (Mt 4:8; diff. Lk 4:5) is understandable in the allusion to Philip’s long stay in Caesarea (Acts 8:40d; cf. 21:8). Accordingly, the Matthean reordering of the Lucan second and third temptation (Mt 4:5-10; diff. Lk 4:5-12) reflects the order of ideas in Acts 8:40cd (the cities → Caesarean dominion and splendour). From the linguistic point of view, the verb προσκυνέω was used by Luke only 3 times, in places which have their more or less exact parallels in the Matthean Gospel (Lk 4:7-8 par. Mt 4:9-10; Lk 24:52 par. Mt 28:17), whereas Matthew used it 13 times in his Gospel.18 However, Luke also used it 4 times in Acts, and its use with reference to Jesus (Lk 24:52; Mt 28:17 etc.) could have been borrowed from Mk 5:6; 15:9. Accordingly, it does not disprove the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Lucan work. On the other hand, the verb λατρεύω was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 4:10 par. Lk 4:8), whereas Luke used it 3 times in his Gospel and 5 times in Acts.19 Accordingly, it was most 16 Cf. ibid. 117. 17 Cf. J. T. Pennington, Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew (NovTSup 126; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2007), 320; P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 4, Matthew and the Canon (OCABS: St Paul, Minn. 2009), 124. 18 Cf. J. Peterson, ‘Matthew’s Ending and the Genesis of Luke-Acts: The Farrer Hypothe­ sis and the Birth of Christian History’, in J. C. Poirier and J. Peterson (eds.), Marcan Priority without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis (LNTS 455; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2015), 140–159 (esp. 153). 19 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 367–368.

55

likely borrowed by Matthew from the Lucan Gospel, a fact which favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. The concluding statement Mt 4:11 is a result of a conflation of Lk 4:13 (ἀπ* + αὐτός + ὁ διάβολος) with Mk 1:13 (καί + ἄγγελοι + διηκόνουν αὐτῷ).

2.3.  Mt 4:12-22 (cf. Acts 9:1-19) The section Mt 4:12-22, with its main themes of going to a Gentile country in a Jewish way, a light rising to those who sat in the realm of death, conversion, and a missionary call, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 9:1-19. The opening Matthean idea of Jesus going to the allegedly Gentile country of Galilee in a way which was foretold by a Jewish prophet (Mt 4:12-15; cf. Is 8:23 LXX)20 alludes to the opening Lucan idea of Saul going to the Gentile city of Damascus in a clearly Jewish way (Acts 9:1-3c). Besides, the opening statement Mt 4:12 was borrowed from Mk 1:14.21 The idea of Jesus leaving Nazareth (Ναζαρά: Mt 4:13a) originates from Lk 4:16.30.22 The statement concerning coming to Capernaum (*έρχομαι + εἰς Καφαρναούμ), which became Jesus’ home (*οικ: Mt  4:13bc), originates from a conflation of Lk  4:31 (*έρχομαι + εἰς Καφαρναούμ)23 with Mk  2:1 (*οικ). The motif of the fulfilment (πληρόω) of the quotation from the prophet Isaiah ( Ἠσαΐου + τοῦ προφήτου: Mt 4:14) was borrowed from Lk 4:17-21. Likewise, the following motif of a prophetic justification of going to the Gentiles (Mt 4:15; cf. 4:13) was borrowed from the following Lucan text Lk 4:24-27.

20 Cf. H. B. Green, Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes (JSNTSup 203; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2001), 55–57; J. Schmidt, Gesetzesfreie Heilsverkündigung im Evangelium nach Matthäus: Das Apostelkonzil (Apg 15) als historischer und theologischer Bezugspunkt für die Theologie des Matthäusevangeliums (FB 113; Echter: Würzburg 2007), 60–62. 21 Cf. B. C. Dennert, John the Baptist and the Jewish Setting of Matthew (WUNT 2.403; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015), 230–231. 22 Cf. B. Bauer, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker, vol. 1 (O. Wigand: Leipzig 1841), 250–254; G. Schläger, ‘Abhängigkeit’, 90–91; M. Hengel, Evangelien, 314–316. 23 Cf. M. Hengel, Evangelien, 316.

56

The subsequent motif of a great light (φῶς) rising (ἀνα*; diff. Is 9:1: shining)24 to those who sat (diff. Is 9:1: walked, dwelt)25 in the realm of death (Mt 4:16; cf. Is 9:1 LXX)26 alludes to the subsequent Lucan motif of a great light flashing around Saul, who fell to the ground and rose up, but remained half-dead for three days, thus evoking the idea of rising up from remaining in the realm of death (Acts 9:3d-9). The subsequent ideas of conversion and a missionary call (Mt 4:17-22) allude to the subsequent Lucan ideas of Saul’s conversion and a missionary call (Acts  9:10-19). Besides, the account of Jesus preaching repentance (Mt  4:17) was borrowed from Mk 1:14-15, with some additions from Lk 4:21 (ἤρξατο + λέγειν). Likewise, the account of Jesus calling his first four disciples (Mt 4:18-22) was almost verbatim borrowed from Mk  1:16-20, with an addition from Acts 10:5.18.32; 11:13 (Σίμων surnamed Πέτρος).

2.4.  Mt 4:23-25 (cf. Acts 9:20-25) The section Mt 4:23-25, with its main themes of preaching in the synagogues in Syria with a widely heard effect, as well as moving from the north to the south, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 9:20-25. The opening idea of Jesus preaching (κηρύσσω) in the synagogues (ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς; diff. Mk 1:39 par. Lk 4:44: εἰς τὰς συναγωγάς), so that his heard fame (ἀκο*) went, really surprisingly, throughout all Syria (Mt 4:23-24; diff. Mk 1:28: all Galilee),27 alludes to the Lucan idea of Saul preaching in the synagogues of the Syrian city of Damascus, so that all who heard, presumably in Syria, were amazed (Acts 9:20-22). Besides, the account Mt 4:23-24 was composed with the use of the motifs which were borrowed from Mk 1:39.34.28.32; 2:3-12.28 24 Cf. H. B. Green, Poet, 57; A. Kowalczyk, The Influence of Typology and Texts of the Old Testament on the Redaction of Matthew’s Gospel (Bernardinum: Pelplin 2008), 169; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 58. 25 Cf. H. B. Green, Poet, 57; A. Kowalczyk, Influence, 168–169. 26 Cf. H. B. Green, Poet, 55–57; J. Schmidt, Gesetzesfreie, 61. 27 Cf. J. R. C. Cousland, The Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew (NovTSup 102; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2002), 54–57. 28 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Matthew 4:23-5:2 and the Matthean composition of 4:23-11:1’, in D. L. Dungan (ed.), The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984 (BETL 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 23–46 (esp. 26–31); W. Kahl, ‘Erhebliche matthäisch-lukanische Übereinstimmungen gegen das Markusevangelium in der Triple-Tradition: Ein Beitrag zur Klärung der synoptischen Abhängigkeitsverhältnisse’, ZNW 103 (2012) 20–46 (esp. 42).

57

The subsequent account of Jesus’ movement, in difference to the thematically similar accounts of a crowd coming to Jesus (Mk 3:7-8; Lk 6:17-18), together with the list of regions, which are ordered, in difference to the similar lists in Mk 3:7-8 and Lk  6:17, consistently from the north to the south (Mt  4:25), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Saul’s travel from the north (Damascus) to the south (Judaea: Acts 9:23-25; cf. 9:26). Besides, the account of the crowds being with Jesus (Mt 4:25) is a result of a reworking of the thematically similar text Mk 3:7-8,29 with additions from Lk 6:17 (ὄχλος πολύς) and Mk 5:20; 7:31 (Δεκάπολις).30 Accordingly, the need to illustrate the ideas of Acts 9:20-25 explains the otherwise surprising relocation of the material of Mk 1:39; 3:7-8 etc. to the narrative point after Mk 1:20.

2.5.  Mt 5–7 (cf. Acts 9:26-29) The section Mt 5–7, with its main themes of going up on the mountain, sitting on the mountain at a distance from the disciples, being with the disciples, speaking openly, and boldly teaching and arguing in Hellenistic Jewish terms, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 9:26-29. The motif of seeing the crowds and apparently therefore, as though surprisingly escaping from them, going up on (εἰς) the mountain (Mt  5:1ab) alludes to the Lucan motif of escaping from a Gentile region (cf. Acts 9:25; 2 Cor 11:32-33) and coming to Jerusalem (Acts  9:26a). The intertextual link between the mountain (ὄρος: Mt 5:1b) and Jerusalem (Acts 9:26a) is based on the fact that Jerusalem is located on the mountain (ὄρος) of Zion (cf. 2 Kgs 19:31 LXX; Mt 5:14 etc.), so that one needs to go up to it (ἀναβαίνω + εἰς: cf. Mt 20:17-18 etc.). Accordingly, in order to illustrate the idea of coming to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26a), Matthew changed the setting of the great sermon (Mt 5:3-7:29 par. Lk 6:20-49) from the plain (Lk 6:17) to the mountain (Mt 5:1). Besides, the motif of Jesus seeing the crowds (Mt 5:1a) was borrowed from Mk 6:34; 9:14 and used in Mt 5:1a to illustrate the idea of coming from a Gentile region (Acts 9:25). Likewise, the motif of Jesus going up on the mountain

29 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Matthew 4:23-5:2’, 32–33; D. Marguerat, ‘Indicatif du salut et impératif éthique chez Matthieu: Une alternative?’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (BETL 243; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 241–261 (esp. 252, 254); W. Kahl, ‘Erhebliche’, 42. 30 Cf. J. R. C. Cousland, Crowds, 58.

58

(Mt 5:1b) was borrowed from Mk 3:1331 and relocated to the narrative point after Mk 1:20 in order to illustrate the idea of coming to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26a). The subsequent idea of Jesus sitting on the mountain (Mt 5:1c), initially at a certain distance from the disciples (cf. Mt 5:1d), alludes to the subsequent idea of Saul waiting for the acceptance by the disciples, who were initially distanced from him (Acts 9:26b-f). The subsequent idea of Jesus being with the disciples (μαθηταί: Mt 5:1d; diff. Mk 3:13b-d) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Saul being with the disciples (Acts 9:27-28c; cf. 9:26). Besides, the motif of the disciples coming to Jesus (Mt 5:1d) is a reworked version of the Marcan motif of Jesus calling the Twelve to himself, so that they came to him (Mk 3:13b-d),32 a motif which was relocated and reworked by Matthew in order to illustrate the idea of being with the disciples (Acts 9:28a-c). The result of this procedure is quite surprising: the disciples are mentioned in Mt 5:1d, although apart from Mt 4:18-22 they have not been previously introduced in the story.33 The subsequent, somewhat redundantly used motif of opening the mouth, and only thereafter beginning to teach (Mt 5:2), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of speaking openly (Acts 9:28d). Besides, the particular clause καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ (‘and having opened his mouth’: Mt 5:2a; cf. also 17:27 with a different meaning) may have been borrowed from Dan 3:25 LXX,34 but in the context of evangelistic teaching it was rather borrowed from Acts 8:35; 10:34. The subsequent image of Jesus boldly, with divine authority, teaching and arguing in Hellenistic Jewish terms, in the form of both speech and dispute, as well as sharp critique of the opponents (Mt 5:3-7:29), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Saul boldly, in the name of the Lord, speaking and arguing with the Hellenistic Jews, who attempted to kill him (Acts 9:28d-29; cf. 6:9-10; 11:20). In fact, the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:3-7:27) is mainly related to Hellenistic Jewish issues and to Jesus’ authority: being blessed and persecuted like the prophets because of Jesus (Mt 5:3-12), the relationship of the Jews to the Gentile world (Mt  5:13-16), reinterpreting the Jewish law with divine authority (Mt  5:17-48), diaspora-style works of righteousness (Mt 6:1-18), not following Gentile worries 31 Cf. R. V. Huggins, ‘Matthean Posteriority: A Preliminary Proposal’, NovT 34 (1992) 1–22 (esp. 20 n. 50); F. Neirynck, ‘Reconstruction’, 72; W. Kahl, ‘Erhebliche’, 42. 32 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Matthew 4:23-5:2’, 34. 33 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 1, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I-VII (ICC; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1988), 425; W. Kahl, ‘Erhebliche’, 43. 34 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 1, 425.

59

(Mt 6:19-34), judging the Gentiles (Mt 7:1-5), temple piety interpreted in terms of prayer (Mt 7:6-11), the essence of Judaism presented in Gentile terms of the ‘golden rule’ (Mt 7:12), and the divine authority of Jesus’ teaching (Mt 7:13-27). Moreover, the conclusion of the sermon surprisingly refers to Jesus’ authority and rhetorical influence upon the crowds, and not only upon the disciples (Mt 7:28-29; diff. Mt 5:1-2). Accordingly, the Sermon on the Mount with its conclusion (Mt 5:3-7:29) in an ethopoeic way illustrates the Lucan idea of Saul boldly, in the name of the Lord, speaking and arguing with the Hellenistic Jews, notwithstanding Jewish persecutions (Acts 9:28d-29). In order to illustrate adequately this complex idea, Matthew reworked the Lucan relatively short Sermon on the Plain (Lk 6:20-49) into a much longer Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:3-7:29). The opening eight beatitudes (Mt 5:3-10) are a reworked, scripturalized version of the Lucan opening four beatitudes and four woes (Lk 6:20-26; cf. esp. Mt 5:3 par. Lk 6:20;35 Mt 5:4 par. Lk 6:24-25; Mt 5:6 par. Lk 6:21). In particular, the beatitude for the mourning ones, who shall be comforted (πενθέω + παρακαλέω: Mt 5:4) is based on Is 61:2 LXX.36 Likewise, the beatitude for the meek, who shall inherit the earth (οἱ… πραεῖς… κληρονομήσουσιν… γῆν: Mt 5:5) originates from Ps 37[36]:11 LXX.37 The beatitude for the pure in heart, who shall see God (καθαρὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ + θεός: Mt  5:8) originates from Ps  24[23]:4.6 LXX.38 Besides, the eight beatitude (μακάριοι + δικαιοσύνη: Mt 5:10) originates from 1 Pet 3:14.39

35 Cf. J. R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Gospel Tradition (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2009), 249. 36 Cf. H. B. Green, Poet, 221; J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (NIGTC; William B. Eerd­ mans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge and Paternoster: Bletchley 2005), 201; P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 110. 37 Cf. C. Heil, ‘ “Selig die Sanftmütigen, denn sie werden das Land besitzen” (Mt 5,5): Das matthäische Verständnis der Landverheissung in seinen frühjüdischen und frühchristlichen Kontexten’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew, 389–417 (esp. 391–393); E. Baasland, Parables and Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount: New Approaches to a Classical Text (WUNT 351; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015), 58; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 68. 38 Cf. H. B. Green, Poet, 235–236; P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 114; E. Baasland, Parables, 50, 60. 39 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 435. Pace R. Metzner, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums im 1. Petrusbrief: Studien zum traditionsgeschichtlichen und theologischen Einfluß des 1. Evangeliums auf den 1. Petrusbrief (WUNT 2.74; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1995), 19–33, who

60

The concluding, somewhat redundant beatitude Mt  5:11-12 is a reworked version of its Lucan counterpart (Lk 6:22-23), which was conflated with 1 Pet 4:13-14 (χαίρω + ἀγαλλιάομαι).40 The Matthean addition of the motif of the disciples being violently persecuted (Mt 5:11c.12d; cf. 5:10), and not merely orally reviled (diff. Lk 6:22-23), by means of the idea of being persecuted like the former prophets (διώκω + προφῆται: Mt 5:12d; cf. Acts 7:52) alludes to the Lucan image of the Hellenists attempting to kill Saul (Acts 9:29cd). From the linguistic point of view, the phrase ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολύς was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 5:12 par. Lk 6:23), whereas Luke also used it in Lk 6:35. Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke. The double address to the disciples as the salt of the land and the light of the world (Mt  5:13-16) is a result of an expanding reworking of the Lucan idea of foolish salt as not fit for the land (Mt 5:13; cf. Lk 14:34-35) and of the MarcanLucan idea of putting the lamp on the lampstand (Mt 5:15; cf. Mk 4:21 par. Lk 8:16; Lk 11:33). The idea of being the salt (ἅλας) of the land (γῆ: Mt 5:13), presumably that of Israel (cf. Lk 4:25; 5:3; 13:7; 14:35; 18:8; 21:23; cf. also Ezek 11:17; Deut 2:12 LXX etc.),41 evidently has the negative meaning of destruction and barrenness (cf. Deut 29:22; cf. also Judg 9:45; Jer 17:6; Ps 107[106]:34 LXX).42 On the other hand, the idea of being the light (φῶς) of the world (Mt 5:14-16; cf. Is 42:6; 49:6 LXX etc.)43 evidently has the positive meaning of evangelizing the world. Accordingly, the Matthean negative-positive double address Mt 5:13-16 conveys the post-Lucan idea of the self-condemning rejection of the Pauline universalistic gospel by the Jews (Mt  5:13; cf.  Acts  9:29), especially those living in Jerusalem uncritically assumes the reverse direction of literary dependence between Mt 5:10 and 1 Pet 3:14. 40 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 435. Pace R. Metzner, Rezeption, 34–48, who assumes the reverse direction of literary dependence between Mt 5:11-12 and 1 Pet 4:13-14 on the basis of the vague criterion of ‘growth’ of tradition. 41 Cf. P. Šoltés, “Ihr seid das Salz des Landes, das Licht der Welt” Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Mt 5,13-16 im Kontext (EHS 23.782; Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2004), 105; P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 119. 42 Cf. L. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (PiNTC; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 1992), 104; F. Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, vol. 2 (EKK 3/2; Benzinger: Zürich · Düsseldorf and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1996), 547; R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2007), 174 n. 11. 43 Cf. D. L. Turner, Matthew (BECNT; Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2008), 155; E. Baasland, Parables, 104; G. Maier, Matthäus: Kapitel 1–14, 274.

61

(Mt 5:14b-d; cf. Acts 9:28), and its later reception by the Gentiles (Mt 5:14a.1516; cf. Lk 4:24-31; Acts 13:46-48; 18:5-7; 28:25-28).44 In the Matthean presentation of the Pauline universalistic gospel (cf. Acts 9:29), the works (ἔργα) of the law (cf. Rom 3:28 etc.) are substituted with good works, which should persuade the Gentiles to believe in God (Mt 5:16), an idea which seems to have been borrowed from 1 Pet 2:12 (καλός + ἔργον + δοξάσωσιν τόν).45 The following discussion concerning the Jewish law (Mt  5:17-48) likewise presents this law in post-Pauline universalistic terms (cf. Acts 9:29) as fulfilled and summed up in the commandment of not doing wrong to the neighbour, but loving the neighbour (Mt 5:43-48; cf. Rom 13:8-10).46 The opening, rather surprising statement concerning fulfilling the law (νόμος + πληρόω: Mt  5:17; diff. Mt  1:22 etc.: the prophets)47 conveys the Pauline idea of fulfilling the law (Rom 13:8; cf. 13:10).48 The statement concerning the law as not passing away (Mt 5:18) is a result of a conflation of Lk 16:17 (μία κεραία + τοῦ νόμου) with Mk 13:30-31 (παρέλθῃ + ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ + οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ + πάντα γένηται).49 The Matthean addition of the idea of the Greek letter iota (Mt 5:18; diff. Lk 16:17)50 seems to allude to the Lucan idea of arguing with the Hellenists about the presumably Greek version of the law (cf. Acts 9:29). The statement concerning doing and teaching these (τούτων) commandments of the law (Mt 5:19) in fact refers not to some abstract commandments, but to these which are listed in the following discussion concerning the commandments

44 Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘Interpretacja Ewangelii według św. Mateusza a problem synoptyczny’, in J. Kręcidło and W. Linke (eds.), Studia, 179–193 (esp. 182–184). 45 Cf. id., Q or not Q?, 434–435. Pace R. Metzner, Rezeption, 49–68, who uncritically assumes the reverse direction of literary dependence between Mt 5:16 and 1 Pet 2:12. 46 Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘Ethopoeia and Morality in the Antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount’, in W. Pikor (ed.), Moralność objawiona w Biblii (AnBibLub 7; KUL: Lublin 2011), 137–145 (esp. 139–143). 47 Cf. R. Deines, Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias: Mt 5,13-20 als Schlüsseltext der matthäischen Theologie (WUNT 177; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2004), 270 n. 496. 48 Cf. J. Y.-H. Yieh, One Teacher: Jesus’ Teaching Role in Matthew’s Gospel Report (BZNW 124; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2004), 77. 49 Cf. M. McLoughlin, ‘The Extent of Q’, ETL 90 (2014) 525–556 (esp. 546–547). 50 Cf. P. Foster, Community, Law and Mission in Matthew’s Gospel (WUNT 2.177; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2004), 175.

62

(Mt 5:21-48),51 and which are presented as summed up in the commandment of loving the neighbour (Mt 5:43-48; cf. Rom 13:8-10).52 The statement concerning the disciples’ righteousness (δικαιοσύνη), which should abound (περισσε*) more than the Jewish one in order to permit the entrance to the kingdom (βασιλε*: Mt 5:20), evokes the Pauline universalistic idea of righteousness based on grace, which abounds over the law and which leads the believers to be kings (Rom 5:17.20). In this way, it alludes to the Lucan statement concerning Saul arguing with the Hellenists (Acts 9:29). The so-called antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:21-48) are composed in a surprising way, which stresses the authority of Jesus as being on a par with the authority of God: ‘It was said – but I say to you’ (Mt 5:21-22.27-28.3132.33-34.38-39.43-44). In this way, they commonly allude to the Lucan idea of Saul boldly speaking in the name of the Lord (Acts 9:28d). Likewise, the fact that they present the Jewish law in a typically Pauline way, namely as summed up in the commandment of not doing wrong to the neighbour, but loving the neighbour (Mt 5:43-48; cf. Rom 13:8-10), in an ethopoeic way alludes to the Lucan idea of Saul arguing with the Hellenistic Jews, presumably concerning his understanding of the law (Acts 9:29). The first antithesis (Mt  5:21-26) refers to one of the commandments of the Decalogue: ‘You shall not murder’ (οὐ φονεύσεις: Mt  5:21; cf.  Exod  20:13[15]; Deut 5:17[18] LXX).53 The otherwise surprising idea of beginning the discussion

51 Cf. H. D. Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49), ed. A. Yarbro Collins (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis 1995), 187; R. Deines, ‘Not the Law but the Messiah: Law and Righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew – An Ongoing Debate’, in D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland (eds.), Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2008), 53–84 (esp. 78); C. E. Carlston and C. A. Evans, From Synagogue to Ecclesia: Matthew’s Community at the Crossroads (WUNT 334; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2014), 119–120. 52 Cf. S. Villota, ‘ “La Perfección del Padre” En Los Hijos: Estudio Contextual De Mt 5,48’, in L. De Santos and S. Grasso, “Perché stessero con Lui”, Festschrift K. Stock (AnBib 180; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2010), 97–121 (esp. 104–105); G. Gabati Kibeti, La relation avec le Père comme don: Aspects théologiques, christologiques et éthiques des références à Dieu Père en Mt 5–7 (AnBib 194; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2011), 76–79; B. Estrada, ‘La giustizia in Matteo: presenza del Regno’, RivB 59 (2011) 373–403 (esp. 389–394). 53 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 81; G. Maier, Matthäus: Kapitel 1–14, 299; S. Luther, Sprach­ etik im Neuen Testament: Eine Analyse des frühchristlichen Diskurses im Matthäusevangelium, im Jakobusbrief und im 1. Petrusbrief (WUNT 2.394; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015), 84.

63

on the law precisely with this commandment of the Decalogue54 is post-Marcan (cf. Mk 10:19) and, indirectly, post-Pauline (cf. Rom 13:9). Likewise, the somewhat surprising ideas of not being angry with a brother, not saying to him ‘Raca’, and not saying to him ‘You fool’ (Mt 5:22),55 illustrate the related Pauline idea of not doing wrong to the neighbour (Rom 13:10a). The following instruction concerning the case of (*αν) worshipping, while a brother has something against the believer (ἔχω + τι + κατά), so that it is necessary to be first reconciled with him (ἀφίημι: Mt 5:23-24), is a reworked version of a similar Marcan instruction (Mk 11:25).56 On the other hand, the somewhat artificially added instruction concerning reconciliation with a legal adversary (Mt 5:25-26)57 is a reworked version of a similar Lucan instruction (Lk 12:58-59).58 From the linguistic point of view, the noun κριτής was used by Matthew 3 times, but only in places which have their parallels in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 5:25 par. Lk 12:58 [bis]; Mt 12:27 par. Lk 11:19), whereas Luke used it 6 times in his Gospel and 4 times in Acts.59 Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. The second antithesis (Mt 5:27-30) refers to the next commandment of the Deca­ logue (cf. Mk 10:19; Rom 13:9): ‘You shall not commit adultery’ (οὐ μοιχεύσεις: Mt  5:27; cf.  Exod  20:14[13]; Deut  5:18[17] LXX).60 The idea of not coveting (ἐπιθυμέω) a woman (γυναῖκα), and thus not ‘adultering’ her (Mt 5:28), originates from a conflation of the commandment ‘You shall not covet the wife’ (Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21 LXX;61 cf. Rom 13:9d) with the related Pauline idea of not doing wrong

54 Cf. J. C. Thom, ‘Justice in the Sermon on the Mount: An Aristotelian Reading’, NovT 51 (2009) 314–338 (esp. 328). 55 Cf. ibid. 329–330; S. Luther, Sprachetik, 87, 94. 56 Cf. S. Luther, Sprachetik, 95. 57 Cf. S. E. Rollens, ‘ “Why Do You Not Judge for Yourselves What is Right?” A Consideration of the Synoptic Relationship between Mt 5,25-26 and Lk 12,57-59’, ETL 86 (2010) 449–469 (esp. 452–453). 58 Cf. A. J. P. Garrow, The Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence on the Didache (JSNTSup 254; T&T Clark: London · New York 2004), 236. 59 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 354–355. 60 Cf. P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 136; M. J. J. Menken, ‘Deuteronomy in Matthew’s Gospel’, in M. J. J. Menken and S. Moyise, Deuteronomy in the New Testament (LNTS 358; T&T Clark: London · New York 2007), 42–62 (esp. 50); G. Maier, Matthäus: Kapitel 1–14, 311. 61 Cf. P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 136.

64

to the neighbour (Rom 13:10a).62 The following instructions concerning removing body members which cause the believer to sin (Mt 5:29-30) are a reworked version of the similar Marcan instructions Mk 9:43.47,63 which have been reordered (eye – hand)64 in order to agree with the logic of the preceding statement concerning looking at a woman (Mt 5:28). The third antithesis (Mt  5:31-32) concerns divorce. However, it only alludes to the scriptural law concerning giving the wife a certificate of divorce (δίδωμι + αὐτῇ + ἀποστάσιον: Mt 5:31c; cf. Deut 24:1.3 LXX).65 Its first part (ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ: Mt 5:31b) was verbatim borrowed from Mk 10:11.66 Likewise, the following prohibition of divorce (Mt 5:32) is a result of a conflation of Lk 16:18 (πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ + μοιχεύω + καὶ ὁ*… ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην) with Mk  10:12 (καὶ… ἐάν + γαμήσῃ + μοιχᾶται). The particular Matthean presentation of the divorced wife as a victim of ‘being adultered’ (ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι: Mt 5:32; cf. 5:28; diff. Mk 10:11; Lk 16:18) again illustrates the Pauline idea of not doing wrong to the neighbour (Rom 13:10a). Likewise, the particular Matthean provision concerning the case of an illicit sexual relationship (πορνεία: Mt 5:32b; cf.  19:19) alludes to the Pauline idea that illicit sexual relationships should be avoided at any cost, up to the exclusion of the sinner from the believing community (1 Thes 4:3-8; 1 Cor 5:1-13; 6:9.13-20; 7:2-5; 10:8; cf. Acts 15:20.29; 21:25).67 The fourth antithesis (Mt 5:33-37) concerns swearing falsely. However, it only partly agrees with similar scriptural instructions Exod  20:16 par. Deut  5:20 (οὐ *ήσεις);68 Wis 14:28 (ἐπιορκέω); Deut 23:22 (ἀποδίδωμι + τῷ + κυρίῳ); Num 30:3

62 As a result of this conflation, the logic of the Matthean statement βλέπων… πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι (‘looking at… in order to covet: Mt 5:28bc) is quite confused. Cf. U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol. 1, Mt 1–7 (5th edn., EKK 1/1; Benzinger: Düsseldorf · Zürich and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002), 350–351; A. Paciorek, Ewangelia według świętego Mateusza: Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz, vol. 1, Rozdziały 1–13 (NKBNT 1/1; Święty Paweł: Częstochowa 2005), 226–227; R. T. France, Matthew, 192 n. 47. 63 Cf. T. L. Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Developments of the New Testament Writings (NTMon 1; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2004), 202. 64 Cf. P. Foster, Community, 104–105. 65 Cf. A. Sand, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (RNT; Friedrich Pustet: Regensburg 1986), 116; M. J. J. Menken, ‘Deuteronomy’, 50. 66 Cf. T. L. Brodie, Birthing, 202. 67 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 136. 68 Cf. P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 142; J. Lambrecht, ‘ “You shall not swear falsely” (Matt 5:33c): A Response to John A. L. Lee’, NovT 53 (2011) 315–318.

65

(κυρίῳ + ὅρκος + ὀμνύω); Lev  19:12 LXX (ὀμνύω).69 The otherwise surprising prohibition of taking oaths (Mt 5:34-37)70 is an elaboration of the similar instruction Jas 5:12 (μή + ὀμνύω + μήτε + ὁ οὐρανός + μήτε + ἡ γῆ + μήτε + *τω δέ + ὑμῶν + ναὶ ναί + οὒ οὔ).71 Besides, the Matthean addition of the motif of the city of Jerusalem (Mt 5:35; diff. Jas 5:12) alludes to the Lucan idea of Saul’s legal disputes in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 9:28-29). Likewise, the idea of the inability to make one hair of the head white or black (κεφαλή + θρίξ + λευκός + μέλας: Mt 5:36), which illustrates the scriptural idea that the priest merely attests the change of the colour of the hair (sing. θρίξ) on the head in the case of leprosy (Lev 13:3-45 LXX), alludes to the Lucan idea of Saul’s legal disputes with the Hellenistic Jews, presumably concerning the ineffectiveness of the Jewish law (cf. Acts 9:28-29). The fifth antithesis (Mt 5:38-42) concerns retaliation. It begins with a scriptural quotation (ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ + ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος: Mt  5:38; cf. Exod 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21 LXX).72 The following instructions concerning not reacting in the same way against an evil or annoying person (Mt 5:39-42)73 illustrate the Pauline idea of not doing wrong to the neighbour (Rom 13:10a). The particular instructions concerning striking on the cheek, taking the garment, giving to one asking, and not refusing to take some property (Mt 5:39-40.42) are a reworked version of the similar Lucan instructions (Lk 6:29-30).74 The inserted, somewhat surprising Matthean instruction concerning compelling (ἀγγαρεύω) to go with someone one Roman mile (Mt  5:41) is a reworking of the Marcan statement concerning the Romans compelling Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross of Jesus (Mk 15:21). The final antithesis (Mt 5:43-48) begins with the scriptural quotation ‘You shall love your neighbour’ (ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου: Mt 5:43c; cf. Lev 19:18 69 Cf. P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 142; S. Grasso, ‘L’uso della Parola: test sulla giudaicità nella comunità del Primo Vangelo Canonico’, in L. De Santos and S. Grasso, Perché, 45–70 (esp. 46); M. Konradt, ‘Rezeption und Interpretation des Dekalogs im Matthäusevangelium’, in id., ed. A. Euler, Studien zum Matthäusevangelium (WUNT 358; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 316–347 (esp. 337). 70 Cf. S. Luther, Sprachetik, 265. 71 Cf. U. Luz, Matthäus, vol. 1, 371; B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 431–432, 436. 72 Cf. P. Foster, Community, 122; P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 146; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 93. 73 Cf. S. Schneider, ‘Widersteht nicht …? Überlegungen zur Bedeutung von Mt 5,39a im Kontext von Mt 5,38-42’, BZ, nf 53 (2009) 161–178 (esp. 169–174); J. C. Thom, ‘Justice’, 331–332. 74 Cf. A. J. P. Garrow, Dependence, 231; id., ‘An Extant Instance of “Q” ’, NTS 62 (2016) 398–417 (esp. 411–412); J. R. Edwards, Hebrew, 249.

66

LXX).75 In this way, it illustrates the Pauline idea that the commandments of the Jewish law are summed up in the commandment ‘You shall love your neighbour’ (Rom  13:9).76 Similarly, the following non-scriptural Matthean overturning of the idea of hating the enemy (Mt 5:43d; cf. 5:44-48)77 illustrates the following Pauline idea of not doing wrong to the neighbour (Rom 13:10a). Besides, the particular instructions Mt 5:44-48 are a reworked and slightly reordered version of the similar Lucan instructions Lk 6:27-28.35.32-34.36.78 The fragment Mt  6:1-18 is devoted to diaspora-style (cf.  Tob  12:8)79 Jewish works of righteousness (δικαιοσύνη): almsgiving (ἐλεημοσύνη: Mt 6:2-4), prayer (προσευχ*: Mt 6:5-15), and fasting (νηστ*: Mt 6:16-18).80 Moreover, it presents righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) in a post-Pauline way, namely as based on faith in God’s future retribution for things done in secret (ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ),81 and not on externally seen (φα*) works which justify in the eyes of humans (Mt 6:2-6.16-18; cf. Rom 2:28-29; 10:3-10;82 Gal 5:4-5). Accordingly, it illustrates the Lucan idea of Saul speaking and arguing with the diaspora-related Hellenistic Jews (Acts 9:29). The particular image of going into (εἰσέρχομαι + εἰς) a room, shutting the door (*κλείω + τὴν θύραν), and praying (προσεύχομαι) to God (Mt  6:6) was borrowed from 2 Kgs 4:33 LXX.83 The instruction concerning a suggested short form of praying (προσευχόμενο* + finishing a prayer + προσεύχεσθε: Mt  6:7-9a) originates from Lk  11:1-2c.

75 Cf. P. Foster, Community, 132; P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 149; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 97. 76 Pace C. N. Chandler, ‘ “Love your Neighbour as Yourself ” (Leviticus 19:18b) in Early Jewish-Christian Exegetical Practice and Missional Formulation’, in C. A. Evans and H. D. Zacharias (eds.), What Does, vol. 1, 12–56 (esp. 53–55), who uncritically assumes the reverse direction of literary dependence between Mt 5:43 and Rom 13:9. 77 Cf. J. C. Thom, ‘Justice’, 333. 78 Cf. A. J. P. Garrow, Dependence, 232–234; id., ‘Extant’, 412–414. 79 Cf. P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 159. 80 Cf. J. C. Thom, ‘Justice’, 334. 81 Cf. ibid. 334–335; D. A. Smith, ‘ “Pray to your Father [who is] in Secret” (Matthew 6,6): Considerations about Divine Presence and Sacred Space’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew, 653–663 (esp. 655–658); N. Eubank, ‘Storing Up Treasure with God in the Heavens: Celestial Investments in Matthew 6:1-21’, CBQ 76 (2014) 77–92 (esp. 90–91). 82 Cf. T. L. Brodie, Birthing, 208–209, 215. 83 Cf. P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 163.

67

Likewise, the so-called Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6:9b-13) is an expanded, scripturalized version of its Lucan counterpart (Lk 11:2d-4).84 The opening phrase Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (Mt  6:9b) was almost verbatim borrowed from Mk 11:25 (πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς)85 and conflated with the Lucan invocation Πάτερ (Lk 11:2). The two initial requests (ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου, ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου: Mt 6:9b-10a) were verbatim borrowed from Lk 11:2. In this case, Matthew borrowed the Lucan formula ἡ βασιλεία σου (Lk 11:2), and did not use his favourite phrase ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (Mt 3:2 etc.). The addition γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου (Mt  6:10b) should be regarded as a particularly Matthean (cf. Mt 26:42)86 reworking of the Lucan text Lk 22:42 (τὸ θέλημα… τὸ σὸν γινέσθω; cf. Acts 21:14), which is a Lucan paradigmatic example of Jesus’ prayer. Therefore, Matthew had a good reason for using it in his ‘model’ prayer of Jesus’ disciples (Mt 6:9-13). The subsequent addition ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς (Mt 6:10b) is scriptural (cf. Deut 3:24; 4:39; Joel 3:3 LXX etc.).87 The request τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον + give + ἡμῖν + *ἡμερ (Mt 6:11) was borrowed from Lk  11:3. The Matthean verbal form δός, together with the corresponding σήμερον (Mt 6:11), should be considered posterior to the corresponding Lucan forms δίδου and καθ᾿ ἡμέραν (Lk 11:3) because the Matthean aorist with the corresponding σήμερον is a clear lectio facilior, which is conformed to the general Hellenistic usage of aorist in prayers. Moreover, the Matthean δός in Mt 6:11 conveys the same idea as the one expressed in Mt 5:42 (with the word παντί omitted from Lk 6:30), namely that of avoiding indiscriminate giving, which would imply excessive benevolence in the eyes of the prudent moralist Matthew.88 The request καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν (Mt  6:12a) is a slightly reworked version of the Lucan request καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν (Lk 11:4a). The Matthean word ὀφειλήματα (Mt 6:12a) should be considered posterior to the corresponding Lucan word ἁμαρτίας (Lk 11:4a) because the Matthean parallelism ὀφειλήματα – ὀφειλέταις (Mt 6:12ab) surprisingly extends the meaning of 84 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels (EST 3; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2013), 43–44. 85 Cf. H. B. Green, Poet, 85; K. Olson, ‘Luke 11:2-4: The Lord’s Prayer (Abridged Edition)’, in J. C. Poirier and J. Peterson (eds.), Marcan, 101–118 (esp. 103). 86 Cf. H. B. Green, Poet, 86; G. Gabati Kibeti, Relation, 132. 87 Cf. J. T. Pennington, Heaven, 139, 155. 88 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 1, 547. Pace S. Carruth and A. Garsky (vol. ed. S. D. Anderson), Q 11:2b-4: The Lord’s Prayer (Documenta Q; Peeters: Leuven 1996), 135–136, 143–144.

68

the noun ὀφείλημα in Mt 6:12a to that of ‘sin’ (diff. Mt 6:14-15: παραπτώματα),89 in order to achieve its merely formal correspondence to the original ὀφείλοντι (Lk 11:4b; cf. Mt 6:12b). In fact, the request ἄφες… τὰ ὀφειλήματα (Mt 6:12a; cf. Deut 15:2 LXX; cf. also 1 Macc 15:8)90 should be regarded as an artificially scripturalized version of Lk 11:4a.91 Likewise, the explanatory clause ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν (Mt 6:12b) should be regarded as a reworked version of the corresponding Lucan clause καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἀφίομεν παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν (Lk 11:4b). In particular, the Matthean verb form ἀφήκαμεν (Mt 6:12b) is posterior to the Lucan verb form ἀφίομεν (Lk 11:4b), which closely corresponds to the earlier Marcan form ἀφίετε (Mk 11:25b).92 The request καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν (Mt 6:13a) was verbatim borrowed from Lk 11:4c. From the linguistic point of view, the verb εἰσφέρω was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 6:13 par. Lk 11:4), whereas Luke used it 4 times in his Gospel and once in Acts.93 Accordingly, it was most likely borrowed by Matthew from the Lucan Gospel, a fact which strongly favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. Likewise, the noun πειρασμός was used by Matthew 2 times, but only in the texts which have their parallels in other Gospels (Mt 6:13 par. Lk 11:4; Mt 26:41 par. Mk 14:38), whereas Luke used it 6 times in his Gospel and once in Acts.94 Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. The addition ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ (Mt 6:13b) can be regarded as scriptural (cf. Esth 14:17z;95 Ps 140[139]:2;96 Is 25:4 LXX) and/or borrowed from 2 Tim 4:18 (cf. also 2 Thes 3:2).

89 Cf. L. Drake, ‘Did Jesus Oppose the prosbul in the Forgiveness Petition of the Lord’s Prayer?’, NovT 56 (2014) 233–244 (esp. 234, 239–241). 90 Cf. J. Gnilka, Das Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1-13,58 (HThKNT 1/1; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 1996), 224; H. B. Green, Poet, 87. 91 Pace S. Carruth and A. Garsky, Q 11:2b-4, 154–155. 92 Pace ibid. 169–170. 93 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 195–196. 94 Cf. ibid. 492. 95 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 1, 614; J. Nolland, Matthew, 292 n. 341. 96 Cf. H. B. Green, Poet, 89.

69

The bipartite explanatory statement concerning forgiving trespasses of other people in order to obtain forgiveness from the heavenly Father (Mt  6:14-15), with its naturally used noun τὰ παραπτώματα for ‘trespasses’ (diff. Mt  6:12a: ὀφειλήματα),97 is a reworked version of Mk 11:25 (ἀφίημι + τὰ παραπτώματα + ἀφίημι + ὑμῖν + ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ + οὐραν*).98 The fragment concerning not being burdened with Gentile worries concerning earthly goods (Mt 6:19-34) illustrates the Lucan idea of Saul speaking and arguing with the Hellenistic Jews (Acts 9:29). The content of this fragment is a reworked and reordered version of the Lucan text Lk 12:21-34, with some other additions. The bipartite, in fact doubled instruction concerning storing up treasures not on earth, but in heaven (Mt 6:19-20), is a result of a conflation of Lk 12:21 (θησαυρίζω) with Lk 12:33 (θησαυρός + ὅπου + σής + ὅπου + κλέπτης + ἐν + οὐρανός + οὐ + οὐδέ), Lk 12:39 (κλέπτης + διορύσσω), and Is 51:8 LXX (σής + βρω*).99 The following statement concerning the treasure and the heart (Mt 6:21) was almost verbatim borrowed from Lk 12:34. On the other hand, the sayings concerning the eye as the light of the body (Mt 6:22-23) were borrowed from Lk 11:34-35. The Matthean surprisingly negative concluding charge against the addressees of the sermon (Mt  6:23cd; diff. Lk  11:35-36)100 alludes to the Lucan idea of Saul arguing with the Hellenistic Jews (Acts 9:29). The following elaborate charge concerning serving both God and mammon (Mt 6:24) was, with the omission of one word, verbatim borrowed from Lk 16:13. It again alludes to the Lucan idea of Saul arguing with the Hellenistic Jews (Acts 9:29). From the linguistic point of view, the verb δουλεύω was used in the Gospel of Matthew only 2 times, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 6:24 par. Lk 16:13 [bis]), whereas Luke also used it in Lk 15:29 and 2 times in Acts. Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. Likewise, the opposition ὁ εἷς… ὁ ἕτερος was used in the Gospel of Matthew only 2 times, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 6:24 par. 97 Cf. L. Drake, ‘Did Jesus’, 241. 98 Cf. H. B. Green, Poet, 87; P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 174; G. Häfner, ‘Das Matthäus-Evangelium und seine Quellen’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew, 25–71 (esp. 63). 99 Cf. D. A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13 (WBC 33A; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1993), 157; D. L. Turner, Matthew, 196 n. 5. 100 Cf. S. Szymik, ‘Matthew’s Theology of Light (Matt 4:15-16; 5:14-16; 6:22-23)’, RocB 1 [56] (2009) 21–34 (esp. 31–32).

70

Lk 16:13 [bis]), whereas Luke used it 6 times in his Gospel and once in Acts.101 Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. Similarly, the rare noun μαμωνᾶς was used in the Gospel of Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 6:24 par. Lk 16:13), whereas Luke used it 3 times in his Gospel.102 Accordingly, it favours the hypothe­ sis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke.103 The elaborate diatribe concerning not having Gentile worries (Mt  6:25-33) was borrowed from Lk  12:22-31 with relatively great verbal fidelity and with preserving the original order of the material. This diatribe, with its negative Matthean conclusion concerning the present evil (Mt 6:34c), which is quite surprisingly attached to the exhortation not to be worried (μή…) because the future will be good (Mt 6:34ab; cf. Lk 12:32),104 again alludes to the Lucan idea of Saul arguing with the Hellenistic Jews (Acts 9:29). From the linguistic point of view, the use of the nouns ἔνδυμα (7 times in Mt, once in Lk) and ὀλιγόπιστος (4 times in Mt, once in Lk) favours the hypothesis of the Lucan dependence on the Gospel of Matthew. On the other hand, the use of the noun ἡλικία (once in Mt, 3 times in Lk), as well as the verbs προστίθημι (2 times in Mt, once in Mk, 7 times in Lk + 6 times in Acts)105 and χρῄζω (once in Mt, 2 times in Lk) favours the reverse direction of literary dependence. The noun τροφή was used 4 times in Mt, only once in Lk, but 7 times in Acts. Accordingly, the linguistic evidence concerning the direction of literary dependence between Mt 6:25-33 and Lk 12:22-31 is inconclusive. The fragment concerning not judging others (Mt 7:1-5) is a reworking of the thematically corresponding fragment of the Lucan Gospel (Lk 6:37-42), with the omission of the positive instruction concerning forgiving and giving (Lk 6:37c-38c) and of the parable concerning blind disciples (Lk 6:39-40). Accordingly, it illustrates the Lucan idea of Saul arguing with the Hellenistic Jews, presumably concerning their negative attitude to the Gentiles (Acts 9:29). In order to illustrate this Lucan idea more adequately, Matthew inserted the Pauline motif of the Jews being

101 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 192. 102 Cf. ibid. 385. 103 Cf. R. K. MacEwen, Matthean Posteriority: An Exploration of Matthew’s Use of Mark and Luke as a Solution to the Synoptic Problem (LNTS 501; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2015), 31–35. 104 Cf. G. Gabati Kibeti, Relation, 185. 105 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 541.

71

judged with the judgement they judge the Gentiles (ἐν ᾧ γάρ + κρίμα + κρίνω + *κρίνω: Mt 7:2ab; cf. Rom 2:1-3).106 Besides, in the saying concerning being measured with the same measure as one measures (Mt  7:2cd) Matthew followed Mk  4:24 (ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν)107 rather than the corresponding Lucan text Lk 6:38de (ᾧ + μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε + *μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν). In this way, Matthew highlighted the negative aspect of the idea of measuring (diff. Lk 6:38: positive giving) and thus better illustrated the Lucan idea of Saul arguing with the Hellenistic Jews, presumably concerning their negative attitude to the Gentiles (Acts 9:29). From the linguistic point of view, the verb κατανοέω was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 7:3 par. Lk 6:41), whereas Luke used it 4 times in his Gospel and 4 times in Acts.108 Accordingly, it was most likely borrowed by Matthew from the Lucan Gospel, a fact which strongly favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke.109 On the other hand, the noun ὑποκριτής was used by Matthew 13 times, including 2 places which have their parallels in other Gospels (Mt 7:5 par. Lk 6:42; Mt 15:7 par. Mk 7:6), whereas Luke used it only 3 times. However, Matthew used it 9 times in fixed repeated formulas (ὡσ* οἱ ὑποκριταί: Mt 6:2.5.16; γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί: Mt 23:13.15.23.25.27.29), a fact which greatly diminishes the value of the linguistic argument from its use as favouring the hypothesis of the Lucan dependence on the Gospel of Matthew. The fragment Mt 7:6-11 interprets Jewish temple piety (Mt 7:6) in terms of prayer (Mt  7:7-11). Such an interpretation of Jewish temple piety is evidently post-Lucan (cf. Lk 2:27-28.37; 18:10; 24:53; Acts 3:1; 22:17 etc.). Accordingly, it again illustrates the Lucan idea of Saul arguing with the Hellenistic Jews, presumably concerning their too positive attitude to the Jerusalem temple (Acts 9:29; cf. 6:9-7:56). The particular statement concerning not giving the holy sacrificial meat (ἅγιον; diff. Mk  7:27: bread) and other precious things to the unclean dogs and swine,

106 Cf. T. L. Brodie, Birthing, 210, 216–217. 107 Pace L. E. Youngquist [et al.] (vol. eds. C. Heil and G. Harb), Q 6:37-42: Not Judging – The Blind Leading the Blind – The Disciple and the Teacher – The Speck and the Beam (Documenta Q; Peeters: Leuven Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 120–121. 108 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 334–335. 109 Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Abhängigkeit’, 86–87.

72

which symbolize the Gentiles (Mt  7:6), is a reworking of a Jewish legal idea (cf. Exod 29:33; Lev 22:10 LXX etc.).110 The following instructions concerning prayer (Mt 7:7-11) were with relatively great verbal fidelity borrowed from Lk 11:9-13. The only significant difference consists in Matthew’s omission of the somewhat strange pair of an egg and a scorpion (Lk 11:12), as well as addition of the previously mentioned pair of bread and stone (Mt  7:9; cf.  Mt  4:3 par. Lk  4:3). Besides, the Matthean substitution of the somewhat surprisingly inserted Lucan theological idea of the Holy Spirit (Lk 11:13d) with the more mundane one of good things (ἀγαθά: Mt 7:11d) can be explained as resulting from assimilation to the preceding context (δόματα ἀγαθά: Mt 7:11b par. Lk 11:13b). From the linguistic point of view, the verb κρούω was used in the Gospel of Matthew only 2 times, in a place which has its parallel in the Gospel of Luke (Mt 7:7-8 par. Lk 11:9-10), whereas Luke used it 4 times in his Gospel and 2 times in Acts.111 Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. Likewise, the compound verb ἐπιδίδωμι was used in the Gospel of Matthew only 2 times, in a place which has its parallel in the Gospel of Luke (Mt 7:9-10 par. Lk 11:11-12), whereas Luke used it 5 times in his Gospel and 2 times in Acts.112 Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. Similarly, the present infinitive form διδόναι was used in the Gospel of Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 7:11 par. Lk 11:13) and in a way which is untypical of the Gospel of Matthew (diff. Mt 22:17; 24:45: δοῦναι where Luke has διδόναι), whereas Luke used it 3 times in his Gospel and once in Acts. Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. The statement surprisingly presenting the Law and the Prophets, so the essence of Judaism (Mt  7:12d; diff. Lk  6:31), in a post-Pauline way, namely in Gentile terms of the so-called ethical ‘golden rule’ (Mt 7:12a-c),113 alludes to the Lucan idea of Saul speaking and arguing with the Hellenistic Jews (Acts 9:29). 110 Cf. U. Luz, Matthäus, vol. 1, 495 n. 7; A. Paciorek, Mateusz, vol. 1, 306; R. T. France, Matthew, 277. 111 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 355. 112 Cf. ibid. 237. 113 Cf. U. Luz, Matthäus, vol. 1, 505; J. Nolland, Matthew, 329–330; B. Repschinski, Nicht aufzulösen, sondern zu erfüllen: Das jüdische Gesetz in den synoptischen Jesus­ erzählungen (FB 120; Echter: Würzburg 2009), 96 n. 184.

73

The particular Matthean text of the ‘golden rule’ (Mt 7:12a-c) was with relatively great verbal fidelity borrowed from Lk 6:31.114 Matthew merely reformulated the Lucan exhorting comparison (καθώς – ὁμοίως: Lk 6:31) into a more exact and categorical instruction (πάντα οὖν ὅσα – οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς: Mt 7:12a-c) in order to present it not as an ethical exhortation, but as a Gentile counterpart of the Jewish law (cf. Mt 7:12d). The concluding part of the sermon (Mt 7:13-27), which was generally borrowed from Lk 6:43-49, concerns the divine authority of Jesus’ teaching, especially in comparison to other, misleading ways of life. Accordingly, it alludes to the Lucan ideas of Saul boldly speaking in the name of the Lord and arguing with the Hellenistic Jews (Acts 9:28d-29). In particular, the sayings concerning the narrow gate (Mt  7:13-14) are a reworked and reordered version of the Lucan sayings Lk 13:23-24.115 Matthew reformulated the Lucan threatening exhortation (Lk 13:24) into a negative verdict on the majority of people (Mt 7:13-14) most probably in order to illustrate the Lucan idea of Saul rejecting the arguments of the Hellenistic Jews (Acts 9:29). The warnings against false prophets (Mt 7:15-20) are a thoroughly reworked version of their Lucan counterparts (Lk 6:43-45). The particular metaphor of the opponents coming (*έρχομαι) to the believers (ὑμᾶς) as ravenous wolves (λύκοι: Mt 7:15bc) was borrowed from the Lucan presentation of Paul’s warning against his opponents (Acts 20:29) and conflated with the scriptural text concerning the tribe of Benjamin (λύκος + ἅρπαξ: Gen 49:27 LXX)116 in order to allude more adequately to the Lucan idea of the Benjaminite Saul arguing with the Hellenistic Jews (Acts 9:29). The saying concerning knowing people by their fruits (Mt 7:16a) is a reworked version of the Lucan saying concerning knowing the tree by its fruits (Lk 6:44a). The following pair of sayings concerning not gathering fruits from unfruitful plants (Mt 7:16bc) resulted from a correcting and scripturalizing reworking of the following, somewhat incoherent Lucan saying concerning plural thorns and a singular bush (Lk 6:44bc), which was conflated with the scriptural motif of (both plural) thorns and thistles (ἄκανθαι + τρίβολοι: Gen 3:18; Hos 10:8 LXX).117

114 Cf. A. J. P. Garrow, Dependence, 234; id., ‘Extant’, 413–414. 115 Cf. id., Dependence, 235–236. 116 Cf. J. Nolland, Matthew, 336 n. 485; P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 192; G. Maier, Matthäus: Kapitel 1–14, 416. 117 Cf. J. Nolland, Matthew, 337 n. 489; P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 192; R. T. France, Matthew, 290 n. 22.

74

Therefore, the reverse direction of reworking (from Matthew to Luke) is here highly implausible, even if the use of the verb συλλέγω (7 times in Mt, once in Lk) in itself strongly favours the hypothesis of the Lucan dependence on the Gospel of Matthew. The pair of sayings concerning good and bad trees with their respective fruits (Mt 7:17-18) are a logically clarified version of the somewhat confused Lucan saying concerning the impossibility of incongruity between the trees and their fruits (Lk 6:43). Besides, Matthew conflated the Lucan agricultural metaphor of nice or rotten plants and fruits (Lk 6:43; cf. Mt 7:18c par. Lk 6:43c) with the following Lucan general ethical categories of good and evil (ἀγαθός + πονηρός: Mt 7:17-18b; cf. Lk 6:45), most probably in order to allude to the Lucan idea of Saul arguing in a Gentile-style way with the Hellenistic Jews (Acts 9:29). From the linguistic point of view, the adjective σαπρός was used by Matthew 5 times and by Luke 2 times, but it can be demonstrated that its use both in Mt 7:1718 [bis] and in Mt 12:33 [bis] was influenced by Lk 6:43 [bis], so that it does not disprove the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke. The statement concerning cutting down the unfruitful tree (Mt 7:19) was almost verbatim borrowed from the Lucan speech against the Jews (Lk 3:9), likewise in order to allude to the Lucan idea of Saul opposing the Hellenistic Jews (Acts 9:29). The concluding saying concerning knowing people by their fruits (Mt 7:20) is again a reworked version of the Lucan saying concerning knowing the tree by its fruits (Lk 6:44a). The following image of people saying in a Hellenistic Jewish way ‘Lord, Lord’ (κύριε κύριε: Mt 7:21) was borrowed from the following Lucan text Lk 6:46 and conflated with the Marcan corrective statement concerning the obligation for the Jews to do the will of God (ποιέω + τὸ θέλημα τοῦ: Mk 3:35; cf. 3:32). In this way, Matthew alluded to the Lucan idea of Saul correcting the views of the Hellenistic Jews (Acts 9:29). The following, thematically related rebuke to the Jews (Mt 7:22-23) origin­ ates from a reworking of the thematically similar Lucan one (Lk 13:26-27). In particular, Matthew substituted the Lucan image of a close contact with the Judaeans (Lk 13:26) with the geographically unspecified image of prophesying, exorcising, and performing mighty works as misleadingly performed in the name (τῷ… ὀνόματι) of Jesus (Mt 7:22; cf. 7:23). According to Luke, such misleading religious actions, only apparently performed in the name of Jesus, were practised by itinerant Jewish prophets and exorcists, whom Saul vehemently

75

opposed (Acts  13:6; 19:13-14).118 Therefore, with the use of this image Matthew alluded to the Lucan idea of Saul boldly acting in the name of the Lord and opposing the Hellenistic Jews (Acts 9:28-29). Besides, Matthew adjusted the conclusion of the quotation from Ps 6:9 LXX (cf. Lk 13:27e) to its original scriptural version (οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν: Mt 7:23d).119 The concluding, bipartite fragment concerning the importance of doing Jesus’ words (Mt  7:24-27) is a reworking of its Lucan concluding, bipartite counterpart (Lk  6:47-49). The theme of the soteriological importance of Jesus’ words and the contrasting structure of the fragment (Mt 7:24-27) allude to the Lucan ideas of Saul speaking in the name of the Lord and opposing the Hellenistic Jews (Acts 9:28d-29). From the linguistic point of view, the motif of hearing (ἀκούω) and doing (ποιέω) the word (λόγος) was used by Matthew only 2 times, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 7:24.26 par. Lk 6:47; cf. 6:49), whereas Luke also used it in Lk 8:21. Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke. The conclusion of the sermon (Mt 7:28-29) was almost verbatim borrowed from Mk 1:22.120 In fact, Matthew returned here to the basic Marcan narrative thread of the Gospel (abandoned in Mk 1:20 par. Mt 4:22), after his great relocations of material in Mt 4:23-7:29, which were caused by his resolve to allude to the Lucan ideas contained in Acts 9:20-29.

2.6.  Mt 8:1-4 (cf. Acts 9:30-43) The section Mt  8:1-4, with its main themes of going down, several groups of people following Jesus, and healing an unclean person by stretching out the hand and touching him, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 9:30-43. The motif of Jesus (αὐτός) going down (κατα*) from the mountain (Mt 8:1a) alludes to the Lucan motif of Saul being brought down from the mountain city of Jerusalem (Acts 9:30).

118 Pace D. C. Sim, ‘Matthew 7.21-23: Further Evidence of its Anti-Pauline Perspective’, NTS 53 (2007) 325–343 (esp. 334–341), who attributes such actions to Pauline Christians only. 119 Cf. ibid. 328; E. Baasland, Parables, 542–543; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 128. 120 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Matthew 4:23-5:2’, 34–35; R. Feneberg, Die Erwählung Israels und die Gemeinde Jesu Christi: Biographie und Theologie Jesu im Matthäusevangelium (HeBS 58; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 2009), 190–192.

76

The subsequent motif of a great crowd following Jesus (καί + ἀκολουθέω + αὐτῷ + ὄχλος + πολύς: Mt 8:1b) was borrowed and somewhat surprisingly relocated from Mk 5:24. Matthew reworked this Marcan motif by changing the singular to the plural (‘great crowds’). In this way, he alluded to the subsequent Lucan motif of several groups of believers in Jesus, which increased in numbers (Acts 9:31). The subsequent story about Jesus healing an unclean person by stretched out his hand (χεῖρα) and touching him, so that he was immediately healed (Mt 8:2-4), alludes to the subsequent Lucan story about Peter healing and rising up unclean persons by giving his hand and touching, so that they were immediately healed (Acts 9:32-43). In order to allude to this particular Lucan story, Matthew omitted the Marcan account of an exorcism, which should normally appear at this place of his narrative (Mk 1:23-28), and surprisingly relocated to this place the story about the cleansing of a leper (Mk 1:40-45).121 Moreover, Matthew omitted from the story about the leper (Mk 1:40-45) the fragments concerning sending the leper away (Mk 1:43) and Jesus’ withdrawal to deserted places (Mk 1:45)122 in order to allude to Acts 9:32-43 in a more adequate way. Besides, in his alluding to Acts 9:32-43 Matthew substituted the Marcan phrase καὶ εὐθύς (Mk  1:42) with the Lucan phrase καὶ εὐθέως (Mt 8:3; cf. Acts 9:34; Lk 5:13). Other elements of the story Mt 8:2-4 were borrowed from Mk 1:40-44 and conflated with those borrowed from Lk 5:12-14 (καὶ ἰδού + καὶ ἐκτείνας + ἥψατο αὐτοῦ λέγων + εὐθέως + μηδενὶ εἰπ*).

2.7.  Mt 8:5-17 (cf. Acts 10:1-11:18) The section Mt 8:5-17, with its main themes of a centurion asking to come to him, the resolve to come to the centurion, the centurion meeting Jesus politely, the centurion expressing his faith in a Gentile way, approving the Gentile-style faith of the centurion, saying to the Jews concerning the participation of the believing Gentiles in a common meal, an order and a statement confirming the positive outcome of the Gentile-style faith of the centurion, healing activity related to Peter, acting with the spirits and with the word, and Jewish-style authorization of the healing activity as related to the health-giving plan of God, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 10:1-11:18. 121 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 2, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew VIII-XVIII (ICC; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1991), 10; G. Häfner, ‘Matthäus-Evangelium’, 46, 59 n. 118, 65 n. 135. 122 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 132.

77

The story about the healing of a centurion’s boy (Mt 8:5-13) originates from the thematically corresponding text Lk 7:1-10. However, Matthew significantly reworked this Lucan text in order to use it in his sequentially organized allusion to the story about the meeting with a centurion (Acts 10). The opening statement concerning Jesus coming to Capernaum (Mt 8:5a) was borrowed from Lk  7:1b. The following account of a centurion (ἑκατόνταρχ*) asking Jesus to come to him, as well as already at this point confessing him as the Lord (κύριε: Mt 8:5b-6), an account which significantly differs from the original, quite natural description of first the servant’s situation (Lk 7:2) and then the mission of the centurion’s Jewish envoys to Jesus (Lk 7:3-5), alludes to the opening Lucan account of a centurion asking Peter to come to him, as well as confessing his faith in the Lord (Acts 10:1-22). Besides, Matthew substituted the Lucan image of the servant as being at the point of death (Lk 7:2) with the Marcan one of lying paralyzed (παραλυτικός: cf. Mk 2:3-4)123 and therefore being terribly tormented (Mt 8:6bc). In this way, Matthew correlated the story about the healing of the disease of the centurion’s boy (Mt 8:5-13) with the following one concerning healing other diseases (Mt  8:14-17), and thus created a thematically coherent, although narratively complex textual unit (Mt 8:5-17), which alludes to the likewise thematically coherent, although narratively complex story Acts 10:1-11:18. From the linguistic point of view, the Greek non-Marcan noun ἑκατόνταρχος / ἑκατοντάρχης (diff. Mk 15:39.44-45: κεντυρίων) was used by Matthew 4 times, but only in places which have their parallels in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 8:5.8.13 par. Lk  7:2.6; Mt  27:54 par. Lk  23:47), whereas Luke also used it 13 times in Acts.124 Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke.125 The subsequent image of Jesus’ resolve to come (*έρχομαι) to the centurion (Mt 8:7; diff. Lk 7:6: πορεύομαι) alludes to the subsequent Lucan image of Peter’s resolve to come to the centurion (Acts 10:23). The subsequent polite declaration of the centurion that he is not worthy that Jesus should come to his house (Mt 8:8) alludes to the subsequent Lucan image of the centurion politely meeting the coming Peter (Acts  10:24-25c). The de­ claration (Mt 8:8) was borrowed from Lk 7:6-7, but Matthew omitted from it the ideas of being at a distance from the house and sending envoys there (Lk 7:6b-d)

123 Cf. ibid. 135. 124 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 198. 125 Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘Interpretacja’, 184.

78

because they did not suit the image of the centurion waiting for Peter at home (Acts 10:24-25c). The subsequent motif of the centurion expressing his faith in a Gentile way, namely by referring to obeying orders (Mt 8:9), was almost verbatim borrowed from Lk 7:8. It alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the centurion expressing his faith in a Gentile way, namely by worshipping the apostle and obeying orders (Acts 10:25d-33; cf. 14:11-13). From the linguistic point of view, the statement καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν (‘And I also am a man under authority’) was used in the Gospel of Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 8:9 par. Lk 7:8). On the other hand, similar statements are characteristic of the Lucan style: ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπος αὐστηρός εἰμι (‘I am an austere man’: Lk 19:22), καὶ ἐγὼ αὐτὸς ἄνθρωπός εἰμι (‘I myself am also a man’: Acts 10:22), and ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπος μέν εἰμι Ἰουδαῖος (‘I am a Jewish man’: Acts 21:39). Accordingly, the statement καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν was most likely borrowed by Matthew from the Lucan Gospel, a fact which favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence of the work of Luke.126 Likewise, the imperative form ποίησον was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 8:9 par. Lk 7:8), whereas Luke used it 3 times in his Gospel and 2 times in Acts. Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence of the work of Luke. The subsequent idea of Jesus praising the Gentile-style faith (πιστ*) of the centurion, which was negatively compared to that in Israel ( Ἰσραήλ: Mt 8:10), was borrowed from Lk 7:9. It alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Peter approving the faith of the centurion and other Gentiles, which was related to that in Israel (Acts 10:34-44; esp. 10:35.43). In particular, the Matthean image of Israel (‘In no one in Israel I have found such faith’: Mt 8:10f), which is more negative in comparison to the corresponding Lucan one (‘Not even in Israel I have found such faith’: Lk 7:9g), alludes to the idea that the Jews killed Jesus (Acts 10:39). The subsequent idea of Jesus speaking to the Jews about many Gentiles who will participate in a meal in the kingdom of God in place of the Jews (Mt 8:11-12) was surprisingly borrowed from Lk  13:28-29127 and significantly reordered to highlight not so much the idea of the exclusion of the Jews, but rather that of the Gentiles participating in a meal in the kingdom of God (Mt 8:11-12). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of Peter speaking to the Jews

126 Cf. ibid. 184–185. 127 Cf. B. Bauer, Kritik, vol. 2, 30; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 153.

79

about the participation of the believing Gentiles in salvation (Acts  10:44-47), and particularly in common meals with the apostles (cf. Acts 10:10-16.28; 11:3). From the linguistic point of view, the particular statement ‘There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων: Mt 8:12b) seems to have been borrowed in the Gospel of Luke, in which it occurs only once (Lk 13:28 par. Mt 8:12), from the Gospel of Matthew, in which it occurs 6 times. However, this statement is semantically almost absurd because no one gnashes his teeth while weeping. In fact, the scriptural motif of gnashing the teeth (βρυ* + ὀδόντες: Job  16:9; Ps  35[34]:16; 37[36]:12; 112[111]:10; Lam 2:16 LXX) was used by Luke twice (Lk 13:28a; Acts 7:54). It was combined in Lk 13:28a with the image of weeping in order to illustrate the Pauline ideas of bitter enmity of the followers of James towards the Gentile Christian believers (Gal 2:12f) and of the condemnation of the followers of James (Gal 2:12a).128 Therefore, it was in fact borrowed from Lk 13:28a by Matthew, who liked such emotional expressions (cf. e.g. Mt 2:18).129 The subsequent order and statement confirming the positive outcome of the Gentile-style faith of the centurion for his relative (Mt 8:13) alludes to the subsequent Lucan order and statement confirming the positive outcome of the Gentile-style faith of the centurion for him and for his relatives and intimate friends (Acts 10:48). In order to illustrate the Lucan idea of the relatives and intimate friends of the centurion as participating in his faith (Acts 10:24; cf. 10:27.33.44.46-48; 11:1415), Matthew consistently referred to the healed person as a ‘boy/child’ (παῖς: Mt  8:5.8.13; cf.  Lk  7:7),130 and not as a ‘slave/servant’ (δοῦλος: Lk  7:2-3.8.10; cf. 2 Kgs 5:6 LXX), although he evidently could refer to him as a ‘slave/servant’ (δοῦλος) as well (cf. Mt 8:9). For the same reason, the Matthean conclusion of the story about the healing of the centurion’s ‘boy/child’ was modelled not on the Lucan one (Lk 7:10), but on the Marcan story about the healing of a Gentile woman’s child (καὶ εἶπεν + ὕπαγε + παι*: Mk 7:29-30). The subsequent account of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (Mt 8:14-15) was borrowed from the narratively corresponding part of the Gospel of Mark (Mk 1:29-31). However, Matthew somewhat surprisingly omitted the characters of three apostles, leaving only Peter (Πέτρος: Mt 8:14; diff. Mk 1:29: Simon and

128 Cf. B. Adamczewski, The Gospel of Luke: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 13; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2016), 154. 129 Cf. M. Hengel, Evangelien, 297. 130 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 134.

80

others; diff. also Mt 4:18; 10:2: Simon called Peter), in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan account of the saving activity of only Peter (Acts 11:1-14). Moreover, Matthew substituted the natural Marcan image of the woman as lying in bed (Mk 1:30) with the more artificial one of being thrown on a sickbed (βεβλη*: Mt 8:14), thus assimilating this story to the preceding one, in which the similar image of being thrown on a sickbed was also used (Mt 8:6; diff. Lk 7:2). In this way, Matthew thematically correlated the two stories about Jesus healing two persons who were thrown on a sickbed: one Gentile and one Jewish (Mt 8:513.14-15) in order to allude to the two thematically correlated Lucan stories concerning the activity of Peter: one among the Gentiles and one among the Jews (Acts 10:1-48; 11:1-18). The subsequent account of healing many people (Mt 8:16) was borrowed from the following Marcan account (Mk 1:32-34)131 but significantly reworked by omitting several details (e.g. Mk  1:33) and highlighting, somewhat surprisingly, the idea of acting with the spirits (πνεῦμα; diff. Mk 1:34: δαιμόνια) and with the word (λόγος: Mt 8:16c; diff. Mk 1:34). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of Peter’s activity in accordance with the Spirit and with the word of the Lord (Acts 11:15-17). The concluding Jewish-style, Isaian (cf. Is 53:4) authorization of the healing activity of Jesus as related, somewhat surprisingly, to the health-giving plan of God (Mt 8:17; diff. Is 53:4 LXX: sins and suffering)132 alludes to the concluding Jewish-style authorization of the saving activity of Peter as related to the lifegiving activity of God (Acts 11:18).

2.8.  Mt 8:18-34; cf. Acts 11:19-26 The section Mt 8:18-34, with its main themes of going away overseas to the Gentiles, the Jews not being ready to leave their Jewish homes and relatives, Jesus’ disciples travelling across the sea to the Gentiles, referring to Jesus as the saving Lord, Jesus’ calming gesture leading a number of people from little faith to be amazed by the Lord, a number of Gentiles in a Gentile region, and the whole

131 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Matthew 4:23-5:2’, 38–39. 132 Cf. L. Novakovic, ‘Matthew’s Atomistic Use of Scripture: Messianic Interpretation of Isaiah 53.4 in Matthew 8.17’, in T. R. Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation, vol. 2, 147–162 (esp. 155–159); M. Konradt, Matthäus, 139; R. Watts, ‘Messianic Servant or the End of Israel’s Exilic Curses? Isaiah 53.4 in Matthew 8.17’, JSNT 38.1 (2015) 81–95 (esp. 87–92).

81

Gentile city coming to meet Jesus, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 11:19-26. The opening motif of the resolve to go away (ἀπο* + *έρχομαι; diff. Mk 4:35: διέρχομαι) from the Jewish land to the other, presumably Gentile side of the sea (Mt 8:18) was borrowed and somewhat surprisingly relocated from Mk 4:35,133 as well as reworked to allude to the opening Lucan idea of going away from (ἀπό + *έρχομαι) the persecution in Judaea overseas to the Gentile regions of Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch (Acts 11:19a-c). For the same reason, in order to allude to the Lucan idea of a journey overseas (Acts 11:19a-c), Matthew omitted the Marcan text concerning withdrawing to the wilderness and preaching in Galilee (Mk 1:35-39) and relocated to this place the Marcan text concerning going to the Gentile side of the sea (Mk 4:35). The two subsequent accounts of the Jewish disciples who were not ready to leave their Jewish homes and relatives (Mt  8:19-22) were borrowed from Lk 9:57-60 and surprisingly used at this point of the narrative in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan statement that the Jewish Christian preachers spoke the word to no one except Jews (Acts 11:19de). In order to allude more closely to this Lucan statement concerning Jewish Christian preachers, Matthew substituted the unspecified ‘someone’ (Lk 9:57) with the clearly Jewish ‘expert in Scripture’, who addressed Jesus as the ‘Teacher’ (Mt 8:19). The rest of the first account (Mt 8:19c-20) was almost verbatim borrowed from Lk 9:57c-58. From the linguistic point of view, the noun ἀλώπηξ was used in the Gospel of Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 8:20 par. Lk 9:58), whereas Luke also used it in Lk 13:32. Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke. Likewise, the verb κλίνω was used in the Gospel of Matthew only once (Mt 8:20), in a place which has its parallel in Lk 9:58, whereas Luke used it 4 times in his Gospel.134 Accordingly, it strongly favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke. In order to allude more closely to the Lucan statement concerning the activity of Jewish Christian preachers (Acts 11:19de), with the use of the beginning of the third Lucan account (εἶπεν + δέ + ἕτερος: Lk 9:61a) Matthew reworked the second account from that of Jesus calling someone (Lk 9:59-60) to that of the activity of a Jewish disciple of Jesus (Mt 8:21-22). The result of this reworking

133 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 2, 40–41; P. Fiedler, Matthäus­ evangelium, 207; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 139–140. 134 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 347.

82

and of the allusion to the Lucan idea of being limited to the Jews (Acts 11:19de) is doubly surprising: someone who had already been a disciple only apparently wanted to follow Jesus,135 and he immediately asked for a permission to bury his father (Mt 8:21). The other elements of the second account (Mt 8:21b.d.22cd) were verbatim borrowed from Lk 9:59d.f.60bc. The subsequent idea of Jesus’ disciples (μαθηταί: cf.  Lk  8:22; diff. Mk  4:36), who were earlier mentioned in Mt 8:21 in an allusion to Acts 11:19de, as travelling across the sea to the Gentiles (Mt 8:23), was borrowed from Mk 4:36 and conflated with Lk 8:22 (ἐμβαίνω + εἰς + πλοῖον + οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ) in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of Jewish Christian preachers as travelling from Cyprus and Cyrene across the sea to the Gentile city of Antioch (Acts 11:20ab). The subsequent story about Jesus calming the storm (Mt 8:24-27) was borrowed from Mk  4:37-41 and conflated with Lk  8:23-25 (προσελθόντες + *ήγειραν + λέγοντες + ἐθαύμασαν λέγοντες + οἱ ἄνεμοι + ὑπακούουσιν).136 The particular idea of referring to Jesus as the saving Lord (κύριος: Mt 8:25; diff. Mk 4:38; Lk 8:24)137 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of preaching good news about Jesus as the Lord (Acts 11:20cd). The subsequent idea of Jesus’ power expressed in his calming gesture (Mt 8:26; diff. Mk 4:39: words; Lk 8:25: commanding) as leading, surprisingly, a number of people (ἄνθρωποι: Mt 8:27; diff. Mk 4:41; Lk 8:25)138 from little faith (πιστ*) to being amazed by the Lord (Mt 8:26-27; diff. Mk 4:39-41; Lk 8:24-25: fear)139 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Lord’s hand leading a great number of those who somehow believed (πιστ*) to turn to the Lord (Acts 11:21). From the linguistic point of view, the adjective ὀλιγόπιστος (Mt 8:26) seems to be a Mattheanism (Mt 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; cf. 17:20), which was borrowed by Luke only in Lk 12:28. However, Matthew evidently had a reason to borrow it from Lk 12:28 and use it in Mt 8:26 in his allusion to leading those who somehow believed to turn to the Lord (Acts 11:21). Accordingly, the use of this adjective does not disprove the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke.

135 Cf. P.-B. Smit, ‘A Question of Discipleship: Remarks on Matthew 8:18-23’, RB 123 (2016) 79–92 (esp. 87–88). 136 Cf. M. Hengel, Evangelien, 318. 137 Cf. R. B. Hays, Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness (SPCK: London 2015), 43–44. 138 Cf. S. Grasso, ‘La pedagogia della fede. Riesame del tema della poca fede nel Vangelo di Matteo’, RivB 61 (2013) 409–431 (esp. 422). 139 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 142–143.

83

Likewise, it is easier to imagine the Matthean procedure of multiplication of winds for dramatic effects (ἄνεμοι plur.: Mt 7:25.27; 8:26-27; cf. Lk 8:25) than the reverse procedure of de-dramatization of the story by Luke, who used such a dramatic image elsewhere (Acts 27:4).140 The subsequent story about, surprisingly, two Gentile demoniacs (Mt  8:2833)141 is a shortened and reworked version of the Marcan story about a Gentile demoniac (Mk 5:1-14), which was conflated with Lk 8:26-34 (δαιμονι* + δαιμον* + παρεκάλουν) and reworked to convey the idea of, surprisingly, two male characters (οἱ… δαίμονες: Mt 8:31-32c; diff. Mk 5:13b; Lk 8:33a: neutr.) being sent (*ἀποστέλλω) to go (*άγω) to unclean people (Mt  8:31-32d; diff. Mk  5:12; Lk 8:32). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan account of two apostles being sent to go to many Gentile people in Antioch (Acts 11:22-26e). Besides, Matthew substituted the Marcan-Lucan Gerasenes (Mk 5:1; Lk 8:26) with the geographically more plausible Gadarenes (Mt 8:28). The concluding, somewhat surprising statement that the whole Gentile city came to meet Jesus (Mt 8:34; diff. Mk 5:14; Lk 8:35) alludes to the concluding Lucan statement that in Antioch the disciples were called Christians, presumably by the population of that Gentile city (Acts 11:26f). For the same reason, Matthew omitted the original conclusion of the story (Mk 5:18b-20 par. Lk 8:38-39).

2.9.  Mt 9:1-17; cf. Acts 11:27-30 The section Mt 9:1-17, with its main themes of coming to the city, fear of the crowds, great power given to men, one of the Twelve collecting money, and compassion for other humans, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 11:27-30. In the section Mt 9:1-17, Matthew returned to his reworking of the main narrative thread of the Marcan Gospel (Mk 2:1-22; cf. earlier Mt 8:2-4 par. Mk 1:4044). However, by means of some changes introduced to the Marcan text, Matthew also sequentially alluded to the Lucan section Acts 11:27-30. The opening motif of getting into a boat (Mt  9:1a) was borrowed from Mk 5:18. Likewise, the following motif of crossing over (Mt 9:1b) was borrowed from Mk 5:21. The motif of coming back home (Mt 9:1c) was borrowed from Mk 2:1. However, in difference to Mark, who described Jesus as coming to Capernaum and to 140 Pace M. S. Goodacre, Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm (JSNTSup 133; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1996), 110–111. 141 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 144.

84

his home (Mk 2:1-2), Matthew presented him in a more general way, namely as coming to (ηλθ* + εἰς) his own (precisely: not native but chosen) city (Mt 9:1c; cf. Mk 1:33).142 In this way, he alluded to the Lucan idea of coming to the great city of Antioch (Acts 11:27). For the same reason, Matthew omitted the narratively interesting, but rather rural image of removing the roof of the house (Mt 9:2; diff. Mk 2:4). The result of this reworking is quite surprising: Jesus saw the faith of the people, although there was nothing particular to see (Mt 9:2; diff. Mk 2:4-5; Lk 5:19-20). Besides, Matthew substituted the rather vague Marcan statement that the para­ lytic went out (Mk 2:12c) with the Lucan statement that the paralytic departed to his house (ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ: Mt 9:7b; cf. Lk 5:25c).143 The subsequent, somewhat surprising Matthean ideas of the fear of the crowds, as well as the great power which was given to men (Mt 9:8; diff. Mk 2:12; diff. also Mk 2:10; Lk 5:24; Mt 9:6: the Son of Man)144 allude to the subsequent Lucan ideas of a great famine over all the world, as well as the great predictive power which was given to a prophet (Acts 11:28). Other elements of the story Mt 9:1-8 were borrowed from Mk 2:1-12 and conflated with Lk 5:17-26 (καὶ ἰδού + ἐπὶ κλίνης + εἶπεν + εἶπεν + ἔγειρε καὶ περιπάτει + ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας + κλιν* + ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ + φοβ* + καὶ ἐδόξα*). From the linguistic point of view, the phrase ἐπὶ κλίνης was used in the Gospel of Matthew only once (Mt 9:2), in a place which has its parallel in Lk 5:18 (diff. Mk 2:3), whereas Luke also used it in Lk 17:34. Therefore, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke.145 Besides, the somewhat surprising, dramatic description of the paralytic as ‘thrown on a bed’ (ἐπὶ κλίνη* βεβλημένον: Mt 9:2) seems to have been borrowed by Matthew from Mk 7:30. The subsequent image of not Levi (Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27), but surprisingly Matthew (Μαθθαῖος), so one of the Twelve (cf. Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Acts 1:13; Mt 10:3),

142 Cf. A. Landi, ‘La ἐξουσία del Figlio dell’Uomo di rimettere i peccati e la comunità matteana (Mt 9,1-8)’, RivB 59 (2011) 205–222 (esp. 208 n. 7). 143 Cf. M. Hengel, Evangelien, 318. 144 Cf. S. Grasso, ‘Il ciclo dei miracoli (Mt 8–9): spettro dei problemi comunitari’, RivB 54 (2006) 159–183 (esp. 173); A. Landi, ‘La ἐξουσία’, 217; K. J. McDaniel, Experiencing Irony in the First Gospel: Suspense, Surprise and Curiosity (LNTS 488; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London [et al.] 2013), 126. 145 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 218. Pace M. Goodacre, The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 2002), 157.

85

collecting money (Mt 9:9; cf. 10:3: ‘the tax collector’)146 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of collecting money for the believers in Judaea (Acts 11:29), so presumably for the elders of the community in Jerusalem (cf.  Acts  11:30; 12:25; cf. also Gal 2:9-10a: Jerusalem leaders requesting money). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted (diff. Mk 2:17; Lk 5:31) scriptural quotation concerning compassion for other humans, and not a sacrifice (θυσία) to God (Mt 9:13a-d; cf. Hos 6:6 LXX),147 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of showing compassion for the Judaean believers (Acts 11:30). In the postPauline theology, such financially expressed compassion substitutes for a bloody sacrifice (Phlp 4:18; cf. 2 Cor 8:5; 9:12). Other elements of the story Mt 9:9-13 were borrowed from Mk 2:13-17 and conflated with Lk 5:27-32 (διὰ τί + εἶπεν). Likewise, the following story Mt 9:14-17 is a reworked version of Mk 2:1822,148 which was conflated with Lk 5:33-38 (ἐπιβάλλει + ἐκχ* + plur. ἀπολ*νται + βάλλω). The Matthean shortening reworking of Mk  2:18 resulted in a rather strange image of the disciples of John as asking Jesus why they actually fasted (Mt 9:14).

2.10.  Mt 9:18-26; cf. Acts 12:1-9a The section Mt 9:18-26, with its main themes of having died, being raised up, and going out, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 12:1-9a. The story about the raising of a ruler’s daughter, together with the thematically related story about the healing of a haemorrhaging woman (Mt 9:18-26), is a significantly shortened version of Mk 5:21-43,149 which was conflated with

146 Cf. C. Landmesser, Jüngerberufung und Zuwendung zu Gott: Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Konzept der matthäischen Soteriologie im Anschluß an Mt 9,9-13 (WUNT 133; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2001), 68–71. 147 Cf. ibid. 121–129; E. Ottenheijm, ‘The Shared Meal—a Therapeutical Device: The Function and Meaning of Hos 6:6 in Matt 9:10-13’, NovT 53 (2011) 1–21 (esp. 2, 17–19); G. Maier, Matthäus: Kapitel 1–14, 508–509. 148 Cf. A. Damm, Ancient Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem: Clarifying Markan Priority (BETL 252; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2013), 205–206, 215–219; B. C. Dennert, Baptist, 185–186. 149 Cf. U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol. 2, Mt 8–17 (3th edn., EKK 1/2; Benzinger: Zürich · Düsseldorf and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999), 51; A. Paciorek, Mateusz, vol. 1, 383; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 152.

86

Lk 8:40-56 (ἄρχων + προσελθοῦσα + τοῦ κρασπέδου + ἐλθών + τὴν οἰκίαν)150 and which was surprisingly relocated to the narrative point after Mk 2:22 par. Mt 9:17151 in order to illustrate the Lucan motif of the resurrection from the dead (Acts 12:1-9a). In difference to Mk 5:23 and Lk 8:42, Matthew presented the daughter at the beginning of the story as having already died (Mt  9:18).152 In this way, he alluded to the Lucan idea of the death of James and of the imminent death of Peter (Acts 12:1-6). The subsequent image of the girl as raised up (ἐγείρω) by Jesus (Mt 9:25; diff. Mk  5:42; Lk  8:55: ἀνέστη) alludes to the subsequent Lucan image of Peter as raised up by an angel of the Lord (Acts 12:7). The subsequent idea that the report went out (ἐξέρχομαι) into all the land (Mt 9:26), which was borrowed from Lk 4:14 and somewhat surprisingly used as the conclusion of the Matthean story (diff. Mk 5:43; Lk 8:56: telling no one), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Peter going out to the realm of freedom (Acts 12:9a).

2.11.  Mt 9:27-31; cf. Acts 12:9b-17 The section Mt 9:27-31, with its main themes of following Jesus, being blind, showing mercy in a Jewish expected way, coming to the house, coming near, confessing the faith in the ability to perform miracles, opening the sight, silencing the believers, and departing and spreading the news in the whole land, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 12:9b-17. The story about the healing of two blind men (Mt 9:27-31) is a reworked version of the Marcan story of the healing of a blind man (Mk 10:46-52),153 which was conflated with Lk 18:35-43 (κύριε) and surprisingly relocated to the narrative point after Mk 2:22 par. Mt 9:17 in order to illustrate the Lucan idea of being apparently blind (Acts 12:9b-17).

150 Cf. M. Hengel, Evangelien, 311, 318. 151 Cf. G. Häfner, ‘Matthäus-Evangelium’, 46. 152 Cf. P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 220; W. T. Wilson, ‘The Crucified Bridegroom and His Bleeding Daughter’, ETL 89 (2013) 323–343 (esp. 326); M. Konradt, ‘Die Rede vom Glauben in Heilungsgeschichten und die Messianität Jesu im Matthäus­ evangelium’, in id., ed. A. Euler, Studien, 261–287 (esp. 270). 153 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 2, 133; U. Luz, Matthäus, vol. 2, 58; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 154.

87

The surprising statement that the blind men followed (ἀκολουθέω) Jesus (Mt 9:27b; diff. Mk 10:46; Lk 18:35: sat by the road) alludes to the Lucan statement that Peter followed the angel of the Lord (Acts 12:9b). The subsequent idea that the following men were blind (Mt 9:27b) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Peter’s apparent blindness, namely that he did not know that what happened was true, but he thought that he was seeing a vision (Acts 12:9c-g). Therefore, in order to allude more closely to the Lucan thematic order ‘he followed but did not know’ in Acts 12:9bc, Matthew reversed the original subject-verb order (Mk 10:46c; Lk 18:35c) into the verb-subject order (‘there followed him two blind men’: Mt 9:27b). The subsequent idea of showing mercy in a Jewish-Messianic, expected way, namely in the name of the promised Son of David (‘have mercy, Son of David’: Mt 9:27e),154 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of rescuing Peter in a Jewish-Messianic, expectant way, namely from the hand of King Herod and all the expectation of the people of the Jews (Acts 12:10-11). In order to allude to the Lucan order of ideas of (a) rescuing (b) from the expectation of the Jews (Acts 12:11) more closely, Matthew somewhat surprisingly changed the original order ‘Son of David, have mercy’ (Mk 10:47-48; Lk 18:38-39) into the reversed one: (a) ‘have mercy’, (b) ‘Son of David’ (Mt 9:27e). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of coming to the unspecified house (ἔρχομαι + τὴν οἰκίαν: Mt 9:28a; diff. Mk 10:49-50; Lk 18:40: standing by the road) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of coming to the house of Mary (Acts 12:12b). The subsequent idea of coming near to Jesus (προσέρχομαι: Mt 9:28b; diff. Mk 10:50: ἔρχομαι) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of coming near to the door and to Peter (Acts 12:13). The subsequent motif of confessing faith in Jesus’ ability to perform miracles (Mt 9:28d-29; diff. Mk 10:51; Lk 18:41: ‘What do you want me to do for you?’)155 alludes to the subsequent Lucan motif of confessing faith in Peter’s miraculous presence behind the door (Acts 12:14-15). The subsequent motif of the opening (ἀνοίγω) of the eyes, so that the blind men could see (Mt 9:30a; diff. Mk 10:52d; Lk 18:43b: ἀνέβλεψεν), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the opening of the door, so that the unbelieving people could see Peter (Acts 12:16).

154 Cf. Y. S. Chae, Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd: Studies in the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, and in the Gospel of Matthew (WUNT 2.216; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2006), 304–308. 155 Cf. M. Konradt, ‘Rede’, 271–273.

88

The subsequent motifs of (a) rebuking the believers (Mt 9:30b; cf. Mk 1:43: ἐμβριμάομαι)156 by saying that (b) no one should know it (Mt 9:30b-e; cf. Mk 5:43: αὐτοῖς + μηδείς + γινώσκω),157 motifs which were quite surprisingly relocated from their original Marcan contexts and used in Mt 9:30b-e (diff. Mk 10:52e; Lk 18:43b: following Jesus), allude to the subsequent Lucan motif of (a) authoritatively (b) silencing the believers (Acts 12:17ab). The concluding motif of departing (ἐξέρχομαι) and spreading the news in the whole land (Mt  9:31; cf.  Mk  1:45: ἐξέρχομαι + διαφημίζω),158 which was likewise quite surprisingly relocated from its original Marcan context and used in Mt 9:31 (diff. Lk 18:43c-e: glorifying God), alludes to the concluding Lucan motif of departing and spreading the news elsewhere, first in Jerusalem and then presumably in the whole land of Israel (Acts 12:17c-h). Accordingly, the surprisingly doubled number of the two blind men (Mt 9:2731; diff. Mk 10:46-52; Lk 18:35-43: one blind man) illustrates the Lucan idea of double blindness: that of Peter (Acts 12:9c-g) and that of the Jerusalem believers (Acts 12:15).

2.12.  Mt 9:32-34; cf. Acts 12:18-25 The section Mt 9:32-34, with its main themes of departing, being demon-possessed and not directly communicating, speaking, the people being amazed and expressing it in a religious way, and a negative reaction of the Jews, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 12:18-25. The surprisingly repeated idea of departing (ἐξέρχομαι: Mt 9:32a; cf. 9:31a) alludes to the repeated Lucan idea of Peter departing from Jerusalem (Acts 12:18; cf. 12:17g). The subsequent post-Marcan, somewhat surprisingly combined idea of a man who was both (a) demon-possessed (δαιμονιζόμενος: cf. Mk 1:32) and (b) mute (κωφός: cf. Mk 7:32), so not directly communicating (Mt 9:32b), alludes to the subsequent Lucan image of Herod, who was (a) furious and (b) not directly communicating with the people of Tyre and Sidon (Acts 12:19-20).

156 Cf. P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 222; M. J. de Jong, ‘Dominion through Obedience: Matthew 12,18-21 among the Early Christian Characterizations of Jesus’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew, 437–452 (esp. 441); M. Konradt, ‘Rede’, 271. 157 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 156. 158 Cf. P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 222; M. J. de Jong, ‘Dominion’, 441; M. Konradt, ‘Rede’, 271.

89

The subsequent Marcan idea of the mute man speaking (Mt  9:33ab; cf. Mk 7:35.37: λαλέω + κωφός) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Herod speaking (Acts 12:21). The subsequent ideas that the crowds were amazed and that they expressed their amazement in theophanic terms (Mt  9:33c-e; cf.  Mk  2:12: οὐδέποτε + οὕτως)159 allude to the subsequent Lucan idea that the people were expressing their amazement in theophanic terms (Acts 12:22; cf. 12:23). The concluding Marcan motif of the negative reaction of the Pharisees, who presumably came from Jerusalem (cf. Mk 3:22), to Jesus’ saving activity (Mt 9:34; cf. Mk 3:22: ἔλεγον + ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιμόνια), a motif which was used in Mt 9:34 quite surprisingly because it is not related to its narrative context,160 alludes to the concluding Lucan ideas of the growth of the word of God and of the presumably negative reaction of the Jerusalem community to the activity of Barnabas and Saul (Acts 12:24-25). The idea that this reaction was negative could be deduced from the lack of any positive remark concerning Barnabas and Saul’s meeting with the Jerusalem believers (Acts 12:25; cf. 11:29-30).

159 Cf. K. J. McDaniel, Experiencing, 126; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 156. 160 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 156.

90

Chapter 3. Mt 9:35-14:36 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts 13–14 The Matthean story concerning the first phase of Jesus’ public activity: from the sending out of the disciples to the halachic controversy with the Jerusalem leaders (Mt 9:35-14:36) is a result of a sequential hypertextual reworking of the Lucan story concerning the first phase of Paul’s missionary activity: from the sending out of Barnabas and Saul to the halachic controversy with the Jerusalem leaders (Acts 13-14).

3.1.  Mt 9:35-38; cf. Acts 13:1-2 The section Mt 9:35-38, with its main themes of activity in the cities, teaching, Jewish identity, preaching the kingdom, healing, being weary and lying down, and praying the Lord to send out evangelistic labourers into the large harvest, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 13:1-2. The opening Marcan motif of Jesus’ activity in the villages (καὶ περιῆγεν + τὰς κώμας: cf. Mk 6:6), which was somewhat surprisingly reworked by Matthew to include all the cities as well (Mt 9:35a), alludes to the opening Lucan motif of Church activity in the city of Antioch (Acts 13:1a). The subsequent Marcan motif of Jesus teaching (διδάσκων: Mt  9:35b; cf. Mk 6:6) alludes to the subsequent Lucan motif of Church teachers (διδάσκαλοι: Acts 13:1a). The subsequent thought that the teaching activity took place in the Jewish synagogues (Mt 9:35b; cf. Lk 4:15: διδάσκω + ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea that Barnabas, apparently more than other Church teachers, had a distinctively Jewish name and identity (Acts 13:1c; cf. 15:37-39). The subsequent thought that Jesus’ activity included preaching the gospel of the kingdom (Mt 9:35c; cf. Lk 8:1: κηρύσσω + εὐαγγελι* + βασιλεία) alludes to the subsequent Lucan remark concerning the Jewish ruler Herod the tetrarch (Acts 13:1c). Likewise, the subsequent thought that Jesus’ activity included healing diseases and weaknesses (Mt 9:35d; cf. Lk 7:21: θεραπεύω + νόσος + καί) alludes to the subsequent Lucan remark concerning the ‘healing’ character of Saul/Paul (Acts 13:1c).

91

The subsequent Marcan, somewhat surprisingly relocated motif of Jesus seeing the crowds and having compassion for them because they were like sheep not having a shepherd (ὁράω + ὄχλος + ἐσπλαγχνίσθη + αὐτός + ὅτι ἦσαν + ὡσ* πρόβατα μὴ ἔχοντα ποιμένα: cf. Mk 6:34),1 a motif which was somewhat surprisingly reworked by Matthew to include the idea of being weary and lying down (Mt 9:36),2 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of commonly fasting (Acts 13:2ab). The subsequent command of Jesus to pray the Lord to send out evangelistic labourers into the large harvest (Mt  9:37-38), an instruction which was almost verbatim borrowed from Lk 10:2, alludes to the subsequent Lucan command of the Holy Spirit, who was invoked during a common prayer to the Lord (cf. Acts 13:2a), to set apart Barnabas and Saul for the large evangelistic work (Acts 13:2c-e). The somewhat surprising Matthean change of the original order (‘labourers send out’: Lk 10:2) into the reverse one (‘send out labourers’: Mt 9:38b) in the otherwise verbatim quoted text of Lk 10:2b-e in Mt 9:37b-38 more closely alludes to the Lucan order ‘set apart Barnabas and Saul’ (Acts 13:2d). From the linguistic point of view, the verb δέομαι was used in the Gospel of Matthew only once (Mt 9:38), in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Lk 10:2), whereas Luke used it 8 times in his Gospel and 7 times in Acts.3 Therefore, it was almost certainly borrowed by Matthew from the Lucan Gospel, a fact which strongly favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke.4

1 Cf. A. M. O’Leary, Matthew’s Judaization of Mark: Examined in the Context of the Use of Sources in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (LNTS 323; T&T Clark: London · New York 2006), 153–154; G. Häfner, ‘Das Matthäus-Evangelium und seine Quellen’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (BETL 243; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 25–71 (esp. 63); M. Konradt, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (NTD 1; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen · Bristol 2015), 159. 2 Cf. R. Feneberg, Die Erwählung Israels und die Gemeinde Jesu Christi: Biographie und Theologie Jesu im Matthäusevangelium (HeBS 58; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 2009), 213– 214; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 159. 3 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, The Vocabulary of Luke: An Alphabetical Presentation and a Survey of Characteristic and Noteworthy Words and Word Groups in Luke’s Gospel (BTS 10; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2009), 142. 4 Cf. C. G. Wilke, Der Urevangelist oder exegetisch kritische Untersuchung über das Verwandtschaftsverhältnis der drei ersten Evangelien (G. Fleischer: Dresden · Leipzig 1838), 689.

92

3.2.  Mt 10:1-15; cf. Acts 13:3-7 The section Mt 10:1-15, with its main themes of giving authority for the mission among unclean people, sending the apostles, going only to the Israelites, preaching the gospel without payment, coming to cities and villages, finding a worthy man, coming in a Gentile way to a worthy house, and listening to the words with a scriptural story, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 13:3-7. The Marcan motif of giving to the twelve disciples authority for the mission among unclean people (Mt  10:1; cf.  Mk  6:7: προσκαλέομαι + τοὺς δώδεκα + δίδωμι + αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν + πνευμάτων + ἀκαθάρτων; cf. also Mk 3:15: ἐκβάλλειν), alludes to the Lucan motif of giving to Barnabas and Saul authority for the mission among the Gentiles by laying hands on them (Acts 13:3; cf. Deut 34:9 LXX; 1 Tim 5:22; Acts 6:6 etc.). The following list of the twelve apostles (Mt  10:2-3) was borrowed from Mk 3:16-19 and conflated with Lk 6:14-16 (καὶ Ἀνδρέας ὁ ἀδελφός αὐτοῦ as the second one),5 as well as Lk 22:3 (Ἰσκαριώτης) and Acts 1:13 (Θωμᾶς before Μαθθαῖος). The subsequent Marcan motif of Jesus sending the apostles (Mt 10:5a; cf. Mk 6:7: ἀποστέλλω) alludes to the subsequent Lucan motif of the Holy Spirit sending out Barnabas and Saul (Acts 13:4). The subsequent, quite surprising command that the apostles should go neither to the way of the Gentiles nor to a city of the Samaritans, but rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, so presumably to the Israelite diaspora overseas (Mt 10:5b-6), alludes to the subsequent Lucan statement that Barnabas and Saul were active in Jewish synagogues in the diaspora overseas (Acts 13:4b-5). The following missionary instructions Mt  10:7-8d were borrowed from Lk  10:9 and conflated with Mk  6:12-13 (κηρύσσω, δαιμόνια + ἐκβάλλω) and Lk 7:22 (νεκροί + ἐγείρω, λεπροί + καθαρίζω). The particular idea of receiving and preaching the gospel without payment (δωρεάν: Mt 10:8ef) was borrowed from the Pauline texts Rom 3:24 and 2 Cor 11:7, and it additionally alludes to the Lucan idea of the preaching activity of Saul/Paul (Acts 13:5). The thematically related missionary instruction concerning acquiring no money (Mt 10:9) resulted from a conflation of Lk 9:3 (μη* + ἀργύρ*) with the

5 Cf. M. Hengel, Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus: Studien zu ihrer Sammlung und Entstehung (WUNT 224; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008), 318.

93

parallel text Mk 6:8 (μη* + χαλκόν + εἰς + ζώνη),6 so that Matthew obtained the rhetorical gradation of the diminishing value of coins: gold, silver, and bronze (Mt 10:9; cf. Exod 25:3 LXX: χρυσ* + ἀργυρ* + χαλκόν),7 thus again alluding to the Lucan idea of the preaching activity of Saul/Paul (Acts 13:5), which was characterized by preaching the gospel without payment (cf. 2 Cor 11:7). Likewise, the instructions Mt 10:10a-d resulted from a conflation of Lk 9:3 (μη* + δύο χιτῶνας, μη* + ῥάβδον) with the thematically related text Lk 10:4 (μὴ πήραν, μη* + ὑποδήματα). The concluding statement ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης + αὐτοῦ (Mt 10:10e) was borrowed from Lk 10:7 and reworked to convey again the idea that the Pauline-style missionary (cf. Acts 13:5) should receive only food, but no wages for his work (Mt 10:10e; cf. 10:8e-9; diff. Lk 10:7). The subsequent instruction concerning coming to a city (Mt 10:11a) was borrowed from the following text Lk 10:8a (εἰς ἣν + ἂν πόλιν + εἰσέρχομαι) and reworked to convey the idea of not only cities, but also villages (Mt 10:11a). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of Barnabas and Saul going through the whole island of Cyprus, presumably through its villages, as far as the city of Paphos (Acts 13:6a). The somewhat surprising change of the original present form εἰσέρχησθε (Lk 10:8a) to the aorist form ελθ* (Mt 10:11a), as well as the addition of the particle δέ in the otherwise verbatim quoted text of Lk 10:8a, more closely allude to the use of the aorist form ελθ* and the particle δέ in Acts 13:6a. The subsequent, quite particular instruction to inquire who in that place is worthy (Mt 10:11bc; diff. Lk 10:8b: ‘and they receive you’) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of finding someone who was with the proconsul, an intelligent man (Acts 13:6b-7a). The following instruction Mt 10:11de was almost verbatim borrowed from Mk 6:10cd (*ἐκεῖ + μένω + ἕως ἂν ἐξέλθητε). The subsequent instructions Mt 10:12-13 were borrowed from Lk 10:5-6 and reworked by (a) omitting the idea of greeting the house with the Jewish greeting of peace (Mt 10:12; diff. Lk 10:5), which is quite surprising in the context of the previously declared mission to Israel (cf. Mt 10:5-6) and in the context of the following idea of bestowing or withdrawing peace (Mt 10:13; cf. Lk 10:6), and (b) adding again the idea that the house should be worthy (Mt 10:13a; cf. 10:11c; diff. Lk 10:6). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of being invited to the (a) Gentile and (b) worthy house of the Roman proconsul (Acts 13:7b).

6 Cf. C. G. Wilke, Urevangelist, 461; R. K. MacEwen, Matthean Posteriority: An Exploration of Matthew’s Use of Mark and Luke as a Solution to the Synoptic Problem (LNTS 501; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2015), 48–49. 7 Cf. A. M. O’Leary, Judaization, 156–157.

94

From the linguistic point of view, the noun εἰρήνη was used by Matthew 4 times, but only in places which have their parallels in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 10:13 par. Lk 10:6 [bis]; Mt 10:34 [bis] par. Lk 12:51), whereas Luke used it 14 times in his Gospel and 7 times in Acts.8 Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke.9 The subsequent instructions concerning not being received (Mt 10:14-15) were borrowed from Lk 10:10-12 and conflated with Mk 6:11 (δέξηται + μηδὲ ἀκούσ* + ἐκτινάξατε + τῶν ποδῶν ὑμῶν). Matthew reworked them by inserting the ideas of listening to the words (ἀκούω + λόγος) of the missionaries (Mt 10:14b; diff. Mk 6:11: listening to you) and of the scriptural story of the Gentile land of Sodom and Gomorrah (γῆ + Σοδόμων καὶ Γομορρ*: Mt 10:15; cf. Gen 19:28 LXX; diff. Lk 10:12: only Sodom).10 In this way, he alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of a Gentile listening to the word of God (Acts 13:7cd). From the linguistic point of view, the word κονιορτός was used in the Gospel of Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 10:14 par. Lk 10:11), whereas Luke used it 2 times in his Gospel and 2 times in Acts.11 Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke.

3.3.  Mt 10:16-33; cf. Acts 13:8-18 The section Mt 10:16-33, with its main themes of being confronted by Jewish-style cunning, being opposed in the synagogues, the Spirit being active in the believers, a violent conflict within a family, enduring to the end of the conflict, going from one city to another, the servant not being above his master, Jewish charges against Jesus’ disciples, not being afraid of the Jews, hidden things being revealed and known, the things received form the Lord being spoken publicly, not being powerful against the soul, fearing God, God not letting small and few things to fall down, confessing Christ, and denying Christ, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 13:8-18.

8 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 188–189. 9 Cf. R. K. MacEwen, Matthean, 44 n. 58. 10 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 2, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew VIII-XVIII (ICC; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1991), 177, 179; R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (2nd edn., William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1994), 190. 11 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 349.

95

The idea of being like sheep among wolves (Mt 10:16a) was almost verbatim borrowed from Lk 10:3b and supplemented with the Jewish-style instruction to be cunning like the magic-related serpents (φρόνιμος + ὄφις: cf. Gen 3:1 LXX)12 but pure like the doves (Mt 10:16b). In this way, Matthew alluded to the Lucan idea of being confronted by a Jewish magician (Acts 13:8ab). The subsequent idea of being persecuted in the Jewish councils and in the Jewish synagogues (ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς: Mt 10:17; diff. Mk 13:9: εἰς συναγωγάς) was borrowed and quite surprisingly relocated from Mk 13:9a-c13 in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of being opposed by a Jew, presumably in one of the Jewish synagogues (Acts 13:8c; cf. 13:5). The subsequent predictions and instructions Mt  10:18-20 were likewise borrowed from Mk  13:9d-1114 and conflated with the thematically related ones in Lk 12:11 (μὴ μεριμνήσητε πῶς ἢ τί). However, Matthew reworked these texts to convey the idea of the Spirit as not simply speaking (cf. Mk 13:11) or teaching the believers (cf. Lk 12:12), but as speaking in them (Mt 10:20c). In this way, he alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of Saul being filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:9). The subsequent motif of a violent conflict within a family (Mt 10:21-22b) was likewise verbatim borrowed from Mk 13:12-13b in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of a violent conflict between Saul and Elymas, so within the Jewish family (Acts 13:10-11). The subsequent idea of enduring to the end of the conflict, and thus being saved (Mt 10:22cd), was likewise verbatim borrowed from Mk 13:13cd in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of the proconsul seeing the outcome of the Jewish conflict, and thus believing (Acts 13:12). The subsequent instruction concerning fleeing from one city to another until the coming (ἔρχομαι) of the Son of Man (Mt 10:23), which significantly differs from the following Marcan instruction concerning fleeing (φεύγω) from Judaea to the mountains (Mk 13:14) until the coming of the Son of Man (ἔρχομαι + ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου: Mk 13:26), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of departing from the city of Paphos and coming to the city of Perga (Acts 13:13ab), and later from the city of Perga to the city of Antioch (cf. Acts 13:14ab).

12 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 166. 13 Cf. R. C. Beaton, ‘How Matthew writes’, in M. Bockmuehl and D. A. Hagner (eds.), The Written Gospel (Cambridge University: Cambridge · New York 2005), 116–134 (esp. 132); A. M. O’Leary, Judaization, 158; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 166. 14 Cf. R. C. Beaton, ‘How Matthew’, 132; A. M. O’Leary, Judaization, 158–159; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 166.

96

The subsequent idea of the disciple not being above his teacher (Mt 10:24a.25a) was borrowed and surprisingly relocated from Lk 6:40, as well as supplemented with the idea of the slave not being above his master (Mt 10:24-25b), in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of the apparently ambitiously motivated departure of John from the company Paul (Acts 13:13c; cf. 15:38-39), although John was only a servant of Paul and Barnabas (cf. Acts 13:5). The subsequent Marcan idea of Jewish charges against Jesus as the master of the house, an idea which was surprisingly borrowed and relocated from Mk 3:22.25 (Βεελζεβούλ + οἰκ*),15 as well as reworked to include also Jewish charges against his disciples (Mt 10:25cd), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, who presumably made charges against the activity of Paul among the Gentiles (Acts 13:13d). The subsequent idea of not being afraid of the Jews (Mt 10:26a; 10:25cd) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of boldly going to the Jewish synagogue on the day of the Sabbath (Acts 13:14cd), notwithstanding the earlier violent conflict with a Jew (cf. Acts 13:5-11). The subsequent idea of hidden things which are revealed and known (γνωσ*: Mt 10:26b-e) was borrowed and quite surprisingly relocated from Lk 12:216 to follow the idea of the relationship to the Jews (Mt 10:25c-26a) in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of reading aloud (or making known: γνωσ*) the Jewish Law and the Prophets (Acts 13:15ab). The subsequent idea of speaking (λέγω) and preaching publicly was borrowed from the following text Lk 12:3 and reworked to convey the thought that the things which were received form the Lord in an internal, spiritual way (diff. Lk  12:3: whispered by the disciples) should be spoken and preached publicly (Mt 10:27). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan thought that the things which were in the apostles should be spoken publicly (Acts 13:15cd). From the linguistic point of view, the noun δῶμα was used in the Matthean Gospel only in the texts which have their parallels in other Gospels (Mt 10:27 par. Lk  12:3; Mt 24:17 par. Mk  13:15; Lk  17:31), whereas Luke also used it in Lk 5:19 and once in Acts. Accordingly, it slightly favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke.

15 As a result of this relocation, the first Matthean remark concerning calling Jesus Beelze­ bul (Mt 10:25cd) surprisingly precedes the post-Marcan account concerning such calling (Mt 12:24; cf. Mk 3:25). Cf. R. K. MacEwen, Matthean, 44–45. 16 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 4, Matthew and the Canon (OCABS: St Paul, Minn. 2009), 166 n. 24.

97

The subsequent idea of not being afraid of the people, who may kill the body only, was almost verbatim borrowed from Lk 12:4bc and reworked to include the Greek-style idea that the opponents are not powerful enough to kill the soul (Mt 10:28a-d; diff. Lk 12:4de)17 in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of boldly standing up and silencing the people with an orator-style gesture which reveals spiritual power (Acts 13:16a-c; cf. 12:17; 21:40). The subsequent instruction concerning fearing God (pres. φοβέομαι; diff. Lk 12:5: aor.) was borrowed from the following text Lk 12:5 and simplified to express more clearly the idea of fearing God (Mt 10:28e-g) in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of fearing God (Acts 13:16de). The subsequent idea of God’s care of small and few things was borrowed from the following text Lk 12:6-7 and reworked to include the ideas of God not letting to fall down to the ground (diff. Lk 12:6: forgetting) and of the disciples’ Father (πατήρ + *μῶν: Mt 10:29-31; diff. Lk 12:6: God) in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan ideas of God’s election and exaltation of the Israelites’ fathers (Acts 13:17ab). From the linguistic point of view, the phrase τρίχες τῆς κεφαλῆς was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 10:30 par. Lk 12:7), whereas Luke also used it in Lk 7:38. Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke. The subsequent idea of confessing Christ before others was borrowed from the following text Lk  12:8 and reworked to highlight the idea of God the Father (πατήρ: Mt 10:32; diff. Lk 12:8: the angels of God) in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of confessing to others the saving activity of God for the Israelites’ fathers (Acts 13:17c; cf. Deut 6:21 LXX etc.). The subsequent idea of denying Christ before others was borrowed from the following text Lk 12:918 and reworked to highlight the idea of God the Father (πατήρ: Mt 10:33; diff. Lk 12:9: the angels of God) in order to allude to the subsequent

17 Cf. D. Zeller, ‘The Soul That Cannot Be Killed by Men (Matt 10:28)’, in W. Weren, H. van de Sandt, and J. Verheyden (eds.), Life Beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel: Religious Metaphor or Bodily Reality? (BTS 13; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 95–105 (esp. 103–104). 18 Pace P. Hoffmann [et al.] (vol. ed. C. Heil), Q 12:8-12: Confessing or Denying – Speaking against the Holy Spirit – Hearings before Synagogues (Documenta Q; Peeters: Leuven 1997), 375, since Matthew and Mark, unlike Luke, evidently avoided the use of the preposition ἐνώπιον, its use in Lk 12:9 diff. Mt 10:33 cannot prove either Matthean or Lucan posteriority in Mt 10:33 par. Lk 12:9. Likewise, pace ibid. 379, since Matthew evidently liked parallelism, and Luke preferred greater variatio locutionis, the repeated

98

Lucan idea of God bearing with the presumably rebellious and sinful behaviour of the Israelites’ fathers in the wilderness (Acts 13:18).19 From the linguistic point of view, the phrase ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων was used by Matthew 5 times, whereas Luke used it only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Matthean Gospel (Lk 12:8 par. Mt 10:32). On the other hand, the thematically related verb ἀρνέομαι was used by Matthew 4 times, but only in places which have their parallels in other Gospels (Mt 10:33 [bis] par. Lk 12:9; Mt 26:70.72 par. Mk 14:68.70), whereas Luke also used it in Lk 8:45; 9:23 and 4 times in Acts. Therefore, the linguistic evidence concerning the direction of literary dependence between Mt 10:32-33 and Lk 12:8-9 is inconclusive.

3.4.  Mt 10:34-39; cf. Acts 13:19 The section Mt 10:34-39, with its main themes of bringing a sword to the earth, as well as the younger generation being opposed against the older one, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 13:19. The idea of Christ not bringing peace to the earth (γῆ) was borrowed and surprisingly relocated from Lk 12:51,20 conflated with Lk 12:49 (ἦλθον βαλεῖν + ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν), and reworked to convey the really surprising idea of Christ bringing a sword to the earth (Mt 10:34; diff. Lk 12:49: fire; Lk 12:51: division) in order to allude to the Lucan idea of God bringing destruction to the nations in the land (γῆ) of Canaan (Acts 13:19a). The subsequent idea of Christ causing a conflict between generations was borrowed from the following text Lk  12:53 and reworked according to the scriptural model to convey the idea of a unilateral conflict of the younger generation against the older one (Mt 10:35-36; cf. Mic 7:6 LXX: ἐχθροί + οἰκ* + αὐτοῦ; diff. Mk  13:12; Lk  12:53: bilateral conflict).21 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of God assigning to the younger inhabitants of Canaan the possession of the older inhabitants of Canaan (Acts 13:19b).

use of the verb ἀρνέομαι in Mt 10:33 diff. Lk 12:9 cannot prove either Matthean or Lucan posteriority in these texts. 19 This allusion favours the reading ἐτροποφόρησεν in Acts 13:18 (‫א‬, B et al.). 20 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 166 n. 24. 21 Cf. U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol. 2, Mt 8–17 (3th edn., EKK 1/2; Ben­ zinger: Zürich · Düsseldorf and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999), 137–138; J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (NIGTC; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge and Paternoster: Bletchley 2005), 440–441.

99

The thematically related statement concerning not loving one’s relatives more than Christ was quite surprisingly borrowed and relocated from Lk 14:26, as well as reworked to convey the idea of not loving another generation only (Mt 10:37; diff. Lk 14:26: one’s own generation as well) in order to allude again to the Lucan idea of assigning to the younger inhabitants of Canaan the possession of the older inhabitants of Canaan (Acts 13:19b). The following statement concerning taking one’s cross and following Christ (Mt 10:38) originates from the following text Lk 14:27, which was conflated with the thematically related Marcan text Mk 8:34 (αὐτοῦ + ἀκολουθέω). The following statement concerning losing and finding one’s life (Mt 10:39) originates from the following Marcan text Mk 8:35.

3.5.  Mt 10:40-42; cf. Acts 13:20-23 The section Mt 10:40-42, with its main themes of receiving God’s representatives, receiving a prophet, receiving a righteous man, a little one, and a certainly fulfilled promise, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 13:20-23. The statement concerning receiving God’s representatives (Mt  10:40), which resulted from a reworking of the somewhat surprisingly relocated statement concerning hearing or rejecting God’s representatives ( Ὁ + ὑμεῖς: Lk 10:16) with the use of the statement concerning receiving a child and Jesus (δέχομαι + ἐμὲ δέχεται καὶ ὁ* + ἐμέ + δέχομαι + δέχεται τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με: Lk 9:48; cf. Mk 9:37), alludes to the Lucan idea of God giving judges as his representatives (Acts 13:20). The subsequent, somewhat strange Matthean statement concerning receiving a prophet in the name of a prophet (προφήτου), and thus receiving a prophet’s reward (Mt 10:41ab), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of God giving to the Israelites the prophet Samuel (Acts 13:20). The subsequent, likewise somewhat strange Matthean statement concerning receiving a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, and thus receiving a righteous man’s reward (Mt 10:41cd), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of God giving to the Israelites the king Saul, and then the king David, a man after God’s heart, who did all God’s wishes (Acts 13:21-22). The subsequent idea of giving to drink was borrowed and surprisingly relocated from Mk 9:41a,22 as well as reworked by including the idea of one of these 22 Cf. G. Häfner, ‘Matthäus-Evangelium’, 63; W. Loader, ‘Does Matthew’s Handling of Sexuality Issues Shed Light on Its Context?’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew, 569–583 (esp. 578); M. Konradt, Matthäus, 174.

100

(τούτ*) little ones (Mt 10:42a; diff. Mk 9:41a: you) in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of this (τούτ*) semen, from which an adult man was brought (Acts 13:23). The subsequent idea of promising that caring for the disciples of Jesus (diff. Mk 9:41b: Christ) will certainly (diff. Mt 10:41: simply) be rewarded (Mt 10:42bc) was borrowed from Mk 9:41b-d and reworked in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of God’s promise being fulfilled in God bringing a saviour, Jesus (Acts 13:23).

3.6.  Mt 11:1-19; cf. Acts 13:24-26 The section Mt 11:1-19, with its main themes of preaching publicly, the activity of John, deeds pointing to the coming of Jesus, the activity of John the Baptist in the wilderness, the end of the days of John, accepting that John was Elijah, exhortation to everyone to hear, a Jewish generation, children in many marketplaces, and revealing God’s wisdom to the audience, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 13:24-26. The idea of preaching (κηρύσσω) not more to the twelve disciples, but in various cities (Mt 11:1), alludes to the Lucan idea of preaching publicly (*κηρύσσω: Acts 13:24). The subsequent statements concerning John (Ἰωάννης: Mt  11:2-3), which were borrowed and surprisingly relocated from Lk 7:18-19, as well as reworked to highlight the activity of John (diff. Lk 7:18a.20: John’s disciples),23 allude to the subsequent Lucan reference to the activity of John (Acts 13:24). From the linguistic point of view, the verb προσδοκάω was used by Matthew only 2 times, in places which have their parallels in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 11:3 par. Lk 7:19; Mt 24:50 par. Lk 12:46), whereas Luke used it 6 times in his Gospel and 5 times in Acts.24 Accordingly, it strongly favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke.25

23 Cf. B. C. Dennert, Baptist, 201. 24 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 535–536; A. J. McNicol, ‘Has Goulder Sunk Q? On Linguistic Characteristics and the Synoptic Problem’, in A. J. McNicol, D. B. Peabody, and J. S. Subramanian (eds.), Resourcing New Testament Studies: Literary, Historical, and Theological Essays, Festschrift D. L. Dungan (T&T Clark: New York · London 2009), 46–65 (esp. 59). 25 Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Die Abhängigkeit des Matthäusevangeliums vom Lukasevangelium’, TSK 69 (1896) 83–93 (esp. 87).

101

The subsequent description of Jesus’ miraculous activity was almost verbatim borrowed from Lk 7:22-2326 and slightly reworked to highlight the person of Jesus (Mt 11:4-6; diff. Lk 7:22: he) in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of the coming of Jesus (Acts 13:24). For the same reason, in order to allude more closely to the Lucan idea of the coming of Jesus (Acts 13:24), in the otherwise verbatim borrowed text Matthew changed the order of the modes of the disciples’ perception of Jesus’ activity from the more natural one of seeing and hearing (Lk 7:22ef; cf. Mt 13:15.17 etc.) to that more suiting the perception of Jesus’ coming: first hearing and then seeing his deeds (Mt 11:4). From the linguistic point of view, the verb εὐαγγελίζομαι was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 11:5 par. Lk 7:22), whereas Luke used it 10 times in his Gospel and 15 times in Acts.27 Of course, its use in Mt 11:5 can be explained in terms of an allusion to Is 61:1 LXX. However, it in itself strongly favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke.28 The subsequent reference to John’s activity in the wilderness (Mt 11:7-11) was quite faithfully borrowed from Lk 7:24-28, but also somewhat surprisingly reworked to highlight the fact that John was the Baptist (βαπτιστής: Mt 11:11; diff. Lk 7:28; Mt 11:7), in order to allude more closely to the subsequent Lucan idea of John’s baptism (βάπτισμα: Acts 13:24). From the linguistic point of view, the verb σαλεύω was used by Matthew only 2 times, in places which have their parallels in other Gospels (Mt 11:7 par. Lk 7:24; Mt 24:29 par. Mk 13:25; Lk 21:26), whereas Luke also used it in Lk 6:38.48 and 4 times in Acts.29 Likewise, the motif ἐξέρχομαι… ἰδεῖν was used by Matthew only 2 times, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 11:8-9 par. Lk 7:25-26), whereas Luke also used it in Lk 8:35; 14:18. Similarly, the phrase ναὶ λέγω ὑμῖν was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 11:9 par. Lk 7:26), whereas Luke used it 3 times in his Gospel. These linguistic data favour the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke, even if the verb ἀμφιέννυμι (2 times in Mt, once in Lk) could favour the hypothesis of the Lucan dependence on the Gospel of Matthew.

26 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 174. 27 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 255–257. 28 Cf. A. J. McNicol, ‘Has Goulder’, 59. 29 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 555; A. J. McNicol, ‘Has Goulder’, 59.

102

The subsequent idea of the end of the days of the prophetic activity of John (Ἰωάννης: Mt 11:12-13) was surprisingly borrowed from Lk 16:1630 and inserted into the text of Lk 7:18-35, which was used in Mt 11:2-19, in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of the completion of the course of John (Acts 13:25a). For this reason, in order to allude more clearly to the Lucan sequence of ideas of first (a) the completion and thereafter (b) the course of John (Acts 13:25a), Matthew reordered the text of Lk 16:16 by referring first to (a) the end of the time of John (Mt 11:12; diff. Lk 16:16a: the law and the prophets) and thereafter (b) the prophetic activity of John (Mt 11:13). For the same reason, Matthew substituted the semantically vague adverb ‘then’ (Lk  16:16b) with the durative expression ‘the days of John’ (Mt 11:12a), which better alludes to the idea of a period of time coming to an end (Acts  13:25a). Likewise, for the same reason Matthew surprisingly presented both all the prophets and the law (in this unusual order) as prophesying until John, thus presenting the prophet John (cf. Mt 11:9) as clearly included into the time of the Old Testament, which came to an end (Mt 11:13; diff. Lk 16:16a: John between the Old Testament and the gospel). Moreover, in order to allude more clearly to the Lucan presentation of the course of John (Acts 13:25a) as consisting in preaching baptism (βάπτισμα: Acts 13:24), Matthew again added the superfluous remark that John was the Baptist (βαπτιστής: Mt 11:12a; cf. 11:11; diff. Lk 16:16). The subsequent, surprisingly borrowed and relocated Marcan idea of persuading the audience that John was (εἰμί) Elijah who was to come (ἔρχομαι), so not the Messiah (Mt 11:14; cf. Mk 9:11-13), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of persuading the audience that although they supposed that John was the Messiah, he was not the Messiah because the Messiah came after him (Acts 13:25b-h). The subsequent exhortation to hear was borrowed and surprisingly relocated from Lk 8:8; 14:35. Moreover, it was reworked to convey the idea that everyone, who has ears (diff. Lk 8:8; 14:35: ears to hear), should hear (Mt 11:15). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan exhortation to the whole audience (Acts 13:26a). The subsequent question concerning this, presumably Jewish (cf. Mt 11:1819) generation was borrowed and relocated from Lk  7:31 (cf.  the earlier use of Lk 7:28 in Mt 11:11), as well as reworked to highlight the idea of generation (γενεά: Mt 11:16a; diff. Lk 7:31; the people of this generation) in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of descendants (γένος) of Abraham (Acts 13:26a).

30 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 175.

103

The subsequent comparison concerning children was borrowed from the following text Lk  7:32, conflated with Eccl  3:4 LXX (κόψασθ*),31 and surprisingly reworked to convey the idea of children being in many marketplaces (plur. ἀγοραί: Mt 11:16c), thus presumably living in many cities (Mt 11:16b-17),32 in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of people fearing God, presumably in many places (Acts 13:26a). From the linguistic point of view, the phrase τίνι… ὁμοιώσω was used in the Gospel of Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 11:16 par. Lk 7:31; diff. Mk 4:30), whereas Luke used it 3 times in his Gospel. Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke. Likewise, the verb προσφωνέω was used in the Gospel of Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 11:16 par. Lk 7:32), whereas Luke used it 4 times in his Gospel and 2 times in Acts.33 Accordingly, it strongly favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke.34 Similarly, the verb θρηνέω was used in the Gospel of Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 11:17 par. Lk 7:32), whereas Luke used it also in Lk  23:27. Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke. The subsequent idea of the past (aor. ἦλθεν; diff. Lk 7:33-34: perf. ἐλήλυθεν) coming of John and the Son of Man as revealing God’s wisdom was borrowed from Lk 7:33-35,35 as well as reworked to convey the idea that this revealed wisdom, justified by its works (diff. Lk 7:35: children),36 was rejected by others, and

31 Cf. H. B. Green, Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes (JSNTSup 203; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2001), 98; B. C. Dennert, ‘ “The Rejection of Wisdom’s Call”: Matthew’s Use of Proverbs 1:20-33 in the Parable of Children in the Marketplace (Mt 11:16-19//Lk 7:3135)’, in C. A. Evans and J. J. Johnston (eds.), Searching the Scriptures: Studies in Context and Intertextuality (LNTS 543; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London [et al.] 2015), 46–63 (esp. 55). 32 Cf. C. Bazitwinshi, Die Weisheit wurde von ihren Werken gerecht gesprochen (Mt 11,19): Einflüsse jüdischer Weisheitstraditionen auf die Christologie des Matthäusevangeliums und auf die vor-matthäische Überlieferung (EHS 23/940; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2013), 133. 33 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 541–542. 34 Cf. A. J. McNicol, ‘Has Goulder’, 59. 35 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 176. 36 Cf. B. C. Dennert, ‘Rejection’, 56; W. T. Wilson, ‘Works of Wisdom (Matt 9,9-17; 11,1619)’, ZNW 106 (2015) 1–20 (esp. 6).

104

not by the audience (Mt 11:18-19).37 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the past (aor. ἐξαπεστάλη) sending of the word of salvation to us (Acts 13:26b), that is to the audience (cf. Acts 13:26a). From the linguistic point of view, the noun φίλος was used in the Gospel of Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 11:19 par. Lk 7:34), whereas Luke used it 15 times in his Gospel and 3 times in Acts.38 Matthew elsewhere used the noun ἑταῖρος (Mt 20:13; 22:12; 26:50). Accordingly, the noun φίλος strongly favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke.39 Likewise, the noun ἁμαρτωλός was used in the Gospel of Matthew 5 times, but only in places which have their parallels in other Gospels (Mt 9:10 par. Mk 2:15; Mt 9:11 par. Mk 2:16; Mt 9:13 par. Mk 2:17; Mt 11:19 par. Lk 7:34; Mt 26:45 par. Mk 14:41), whereas Luke used it 18 times in his Gospel.40 Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke. Similarly, the noun σοφία was used in the Gospel of Matthew 3 times, but only in places which have their parallels in other Gospels (Mt 11:19 par. Lk 7:35; Mt 12:42 par. Lk 11:31; Mt 13:54 par. Mk 6:2), whereas Luke used it 6 times in his Gospel and 4 times in Acts.41 Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke.

3.7.  Mt 11:20-24; cf. Acts 13:27-29 The section Mt 11:20-24, with its main themes of unrepentant Jewish cities, not behaving according to the admonitions of the scriptural prophets, and being totally destroyed according to Scripture, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 13:27-29. The statement concerning unrepentant Jewish cities (Mt  11:20) originates from a generalizing reworking of the charge against Chorazin and Bethsaida, cities in which Jesus’ mighty works were done, but they did not repent (γίνομαι + δυνάμεις + μετενόησαν: Lk 10:13).42 This charge was borrowed and surprisingly relocated to allude to the Lucan statement concerning the inhabitants of the

37 Cf. B. C. Dennert, ‘Rejection’, 56. 38 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 630–631. 39 Cf. A. J. McNicol, ‘Has Goulder’, 59. 40 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 29–30. 41 Cf. ibid. 564–565. 42 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 176–177.

105

city of Jerusalem and, more generally, the Jewish leaders as disregarding Jesus (Acts 13:27ab). From the linguistic point of view, the verb μετανοέω was used in the Gospel of Matthew 5 times, but only in places which have their parallels in other Gospels (Mt 3:2; 4:17 par. Mk 1:15; Mt 11:20-21 par. Lk 10:13; Mt 12:41 par. Lk 11:32), whereas Luke used it 9 times in his Gospel and 5 times in Acts.43 Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. The subsequent woes against Chorazin and Bethsaida, which should have behaved according to the admonitions of the scriptural prophets to repent in sackcloth and ashes (σάκκος + σποδός: Mt  11:21-22; cf.  Is  58:5; Jer  6:26; Dan  9:3; Jon 3:6 LXX),44 and against Capernaum, which will go not up to heaven but down to Hades, again according to the warning of the scriptural prophets (οὐρανός + ὑψ* + ᾅδης + καταβαίνω: Mt 11:23ab; cf. Is 14:11-15; Ezek 31:2-7.14-17 LXX),45 were almost verbatim borrowed from Lk 10:13-15 in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of fulfilling the voices of the scriptural prophets (Acts 13:27c-e). The related Matthean idea of the day (cf. Lk 10:12) of condemnation (κρίσις) for the unrepentant cities (Mt 11:22; diff. Lk 10:14: at the judgement) additionally alludes to the related Lucan idea of being guilty of condemning (κρίνω) Jesus (Acts 13:27d). From the linguistic point of view, the verb ὑψόω was used in the Gospel of Matthew 3 times, but only in places which have their parallels in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 11:23 par. Lk 10:15; Mt 23:12 par. Lk 14:11; 18:14 [bis]), whereas Luke also used it in Lk 1:52 and 3 times in Acts.46 Accordingly, it favours the hypothe­ sis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. The subsequent Scripture-based idea of the destruction of Sodom (diff. Lk 10:13: repentance), an idea which resulted from a conflation of Lk 10:13 (ἐγενήθησαν αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ γενόμεναι ἐν) with the surprisingly relocated Lk 10:12 (Σοδόμοις + λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι + Σόδομα + ἀνεκτότερον ἔσται + ἐν + ἡμέρᾳ + ἤ: Mt 11:23c-24), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of destroying (ἀναιρέω) Jesus and doing away with his body, according to everything that was written about him in Scripture (Acts 13:28-29).

43 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 398. 44 Cf. A. Sand, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (RNT; Friedrich Pustet: Regensburg 1986), 250; R. H. Gundry, Matthew, 214. 45 Cf. H. B. Green, Poet, 103; G. Maier, Das Evangelium des Matthäus: Kapitel 1–14 (HTA; SCM R. Brockhaus: Witten · Brunnen: Giessen 2015), 637. 46 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 625–626.

106

3.8.  Mt 11:25-27; cf. Acts 13:30-33 The section Mt 11:25-27, with its main themes of answering to the destruction, confessing the Father, good news revealed to children, and recognition of the Son by the Father, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 13:30-33. The idea of Jesus’ exaltation at a certain time was borrowed and surprisingly relocated from Lk 10:21a, as well as significantly reworked to convey the idea of Jesus answering to the previous statement concerning destruction (Mt 11:25a; cf. 11:23-24; diff. Lk 10:21a: rejoicing in the Holy Spirit) in order to allude to the Lucan idea of God answering to the destruction of Jesus by raising him from the dead (Acts 13:30). For the same reason, Matthew substituted the particular temporal remark concerning a certain hour (Lk 10:21a) with the more general one concerning a certain time (Mt  11:25a), which better suits the idea of the unknown time of the raising of Jesus from the dead. The subsequent idea of confessing the Father (Mt 11:25bc) was verbatim borrowed from the following text Lk 10:21bc in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of being witnesses of God raising Jesus (Acts 13:31). From the linguistic point of view, the absolute vocative form πάτερ was used in the Gospel of Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 11:25 par. Lk 10:21) and in a way which is untypical of the Matthean Gospel (diff. Mt 6:9; 26:39.42), whereas Luke used it 8 times in his Gospel.47 Accordingly, it strongly favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke.48 The subsequent idea of good news which were hidden from wise people, but revealed to children (Mt 11:25d-26), was almost verbatim borrowed from the following text Lk  10:21d-f in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of good news which were only promised to the fathers, but fulfilled for their children (Acts 13:32-33b). The subsequent idea of the revelation of the relationship between the Son (υἱός) and the Father was borrowed from Lk 10:22 and reworked to highlight the idea of the recognition of the Son by the Father and vice versa (Mt 11:27; diff. Lk 10:22: knowing the identity). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the recognition of the Son by the Father who begot him (Acts 13:33c-e).

47 Cf. ibid. 489–490. 48 Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Abhängigkeit’, 88.

107

3.9.  Mt 11:28-30; cf. Acts 13:34-38 The section Mt 11:28-30, with its main themes of those who are tired being given rest, as well as finding rest for the souls through imitating Jesus and by taking his yoke, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 13:34-38. The thought that those who are tired and burdened (φορτ*), presumably under the yoke of the Jewish law (cf. Mt 11:30; Lk 11:46), should come to the Son to be given rest (Mt 11:28; cf. Exod 33:14 LXX etc.)49 alludes to the Lucan thought that the Jewish king David, who served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep and was gathered to his fathers, but the Son was raised up and saw no corruption (Acts 13:34-37). The subsequent thought that the audience’s finding rest for their souls (ψυχαί ὑμῶν: cf.  Jer  6:16 LXX etc.)50 is possible through imitating Jesus and by taking his yoke (ζυγός) on (ἐπί) them, a yoke which is good51 and light (Mt 11:29-30), alludes to the subsequent Lucan thought that the audience’s being freed from sins is possible through Jesus, and not by the law of Moses (Acts 13:38). The particular presentation of the law of Moses (cf. Acts 13:38) as a heavy yoke which was put on the believers, but was replaced by the lighter law of Jesus’ Church, new law which does not unsettle the believers’ souls and which is good to be kept (Mt 11:29-30), originates from Acts 15:10.24.28-29 and additionally Lk 11:46 (φορτίον).

3.10. Mt 12:1-14; cf. Acts 13:39-43 The section Mt 12:1-14, with its main themes of justifying the disciples as guiltless, as well as doing good even on the Sabbath, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 13:39-43. In the account of plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath (Mt 12:1-8), after a long series of relocations of Marcan and Lucan material (Mt 9:18-11:30), Matthew returned to his reworking of the main narrative thread of the Marcan story (cf. the 49 Cf. E. Talbot, ‘Rest, Eschatology and Sabbath in Matthew 11:28-30: An Investigation of Jesus’ Offer of Rest in the Light of the Septuagint’s Use of Anapausis’, in C. A. Evans and H. D. Zacharias (eds.), ‘What Does the Scripture Say?’ Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, vol. 1, The Synoptic Gospels (LNTS 469; T&T Clark, London · New York 2012), 57–69 (esp. 61–64). 50 Cf. ibid. 65–68. 51 For a translation of χρηστός in Mt 11:30 as ‘good’, see M. W. Mitchell, ‘The Yoke Is Easy, but What of Its Meaning? A Methodological Reflection Masquerading as a Philological Discussion of Matthew 11:30’, JBL 135 (2016) 321–340 (esp. 325–326, 339).

108

earlier use of Mk 2:22 in Mt 9:17). Accordingly, the account of plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath (Mt 12:1-8) closely corresponds to the thematically related Marcan account (Mk 2:23-28), which was conflated with Lk 6:1-5 (ἐσθίω + ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν… σαββ* + εἶπεν + ὅτε ἐπείνασεν + οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους + μόνος + τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου). However, apart from some minor modifications of the Marcan account, Matthew substituted the Marcan idea of the Sabbath made for man (Mk 2:27), which was already omitted by Luke, with the idea of Jesus justifying the disciples as guiltless because, according to his statement, he is greater than the temple and the prophet Hosea called for mercy, and not for condemning (κατα*) others (Mt 12:5-7; cf. Hos 6:6 LXX).52 In this way, Matthew alluded to the Lucan ideas of the sinners being justified in Jesus, as well as the prophets warning against despising others (Acts 13:39-41). The subsequent account of the healing of the man with a withered hand (Mt 12:9-14) was borrowed from Mk 3:1-6, which was additionally conflated with Lk 6:6-11 (ξηρά + σου), as well as Lk 14:1-6 (θεραπεῦσαι).53 However, Matthew also reworked it by inserting the idea of speaking to the Jews about the need of doing good to animals and humans even on the Sabbath (Mt 12:11-12)54 in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of speaking to the Jews about the importance of grace, and not of the law (cf. Acts 13:38), for them (Acts 13:42-43). The particular idea of helping a domestic animal which fell into a pit on the Sabbath, and a man likewise (Mt  12:11-12), was borrowed from Lk  14:5 (τίς + ὑμῶν + *πίπτω + σάββατον + εἰς + οὐ* + αὐτό*).55 However, Matthew did not follow the Lucan allusion to the halachic argument contained in CD 11:13-14a.16-17a (cf.  also 4Q265 6:6-7),56 but he surprisingly substituted it with the relocated Lucan motif of a man having, losing, and saving one sheep,

52 Cf.  M.  Konradt, Matthäus, 192–193; G.  Maier, Matthäus: Kapitel 1–14, 659–660; M. Marshall, The Portrayals of the Pharisees in the Gospels and Acts (FRLANT 254; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen · Bristol 2015), 90–94. 53 Cf. M. Hengel, Evangelien, 318. 54 Cf. B. Repschinski, The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form and Relevance for the Relationship Between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism (FRLANT 189; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2000), 111–112; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 194–195; W. T. Wilson, ‘Matthew, Philo, and Mercy for Animals (Matt 12,9–14)’, Bib 96 (2015) 201–221 (esp. 217–219). 55 Cf. R. K. MacEwen, Matthean, 46–48. 56 See B. Adamczewski, The Gospel of Luke: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 13; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2016), 159.

109

as well as a man being more important than a sheep (Lk 15:4.7: τίς + ἐξ ὑμῶν + ἄνθρωπος + ἔχω + πρόβατον + ἕν + αὐτό). In this way, Matthew more closely alluded to the Lucan idea of the importance of grace (Acts 13:43). For the same reason, in order to allude more closely to the positive Lucan idea of speaking to the Jews about the importance of grace (Acts 13:42-43), Matthew omitted the negative Marcan idea of being angry at the Jews (Mk 3:3-5b; cf. also Lk 6:8-9).

3.11.  Mt 12:15-32; cf. Acts 13:44-14:2b The section Mt 12:15-32, with its main themes of healing numerous presumably Gentile people, quoting the Isaian ‘song of the servant of Yahweh’ concerning the Gentiles, giving light and speech to a Gentile, the Gentiles being amazed, the Gentiles hesitantly praising Jesus in a scriptural way, the charge of the Pharisees against Jesus, a divided city, acting with the Spirit of God, going into a hostile house, gathering with Jesus, and blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 13:44-14:2b. The account of the healing of numerous people who followed Jesus (Mt 12:1516) was borrowed from the thematically corresponding Marcan text Mk 3:7-12.57 However, Matthew omitted from it the geographical list of both Israelite and Gentile regions, the instruction concerning the preparation of a boat for departure from Israel elsewhere, and the description of the confessing acts of the audience (Mk 3:7b-9.10a-11). In this way, by suggesting that the numerous gathered people were predominantly Gentiles (cf. also Mt 12:18-21), Matthew more clearly alluded to the Lucan idea that the whole city, but in fact only Gentiles, gathered around Paul (Acts 13:44-45). The subsequent, surprisingly inserted quotation from the Isaian first ‘song of the servant of Yahweh’ (Mt 12:17-21),58 which ends with the idea of the hope of the Gentiles (ἔθνη: Is 42:1-4 LXX modified),59 alludes to the subsequent Lucan 57 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘Matthew 4:23-5:2 and the Matthean composition of 4:23-11:1’, in D. L. Dungan (ed.), The Interrelations of the Gospels: A Symposium Led by M.-É. Boismard – W. R. Farmer – F. Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984 (BETL 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 23–46 (esp. 42–46). 58 See J. P. Nickel, ‘Jesus, the Isaianic Servant Exorcist: Exploring the Significance of Matthew 12,18-21 in the Beelzebul Pericope’, ZNW 107 (2016) 170–185 (esp. 172–174). 59 Cf. R. Feneberg, Erwählung, 237–239; M. J. de Jong, ‘Dominion through Obedience: Matthew 12,18-21 among the Early Christian Characterizations of Jesus’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew, 437–452 (esp. 438, 449–451); G. Maier, Matthäus: Kapitel 1–14, 673–675.

110

idea of the quotation from the Isaian second ‘song of the servant of Yahweh’ (Is 49:6 LXX modified), which justifies the passage of the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46-47). The particular idea that the words were spoken through (and not by) the prophet (Mt 12:17) alludes more clearly to the particular Lucan idea that the words of the prophet in fact came from the Lord (Acts 13:47). The following motif of healing a demon-possessed who was mute, so that the mute man could speak, was borrowed and relocated from Lk 11:14a-e (δαιμονι* + κωφός + κωφός + λαλέω),60 as well as reworked by surprisingly inserting the motif of a blind person (Mt 12:22; cf. Mk 8:22). In this way, Matthew again alluded to the Lucan idea of being light and salvation to the Gentiles (Acts 13:47). Therefore, the particular order of the disabilities of the demon-possessed person, namely first being blind and then being mute (Mt 12:22b; diff. 12:22de: speak and see), which required the insertion of blindness between the remarks concerning being demonpossessed and being mute (Lk 11:14ab), reflects the Lucan order of the gifts to the Gentiles: first light and then salvation (Acts 13:47). The subsequent motif of the crowds as being amazed (Mt 12:23a) was borrowed from the following text Lk 11:14f (καί + οἱ ὄχλοι) in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Gentiles as rejoicing (Acts 13:48ab). The subsequently inserted (diff. Lk 11:14), surprising as concerns the Gentiles (cf. Mt 12:15-21), ideas of (a) the Gentiles praising Jesus in a scriptural way as the Son of David, although (b) doing it partly hesitantly (μήτι suggesting a negative answer: Mt 12:23bc),61 alludes to the subsequent Lucan ideas of (a) the Gentiles praising the presumably scriptural (cf. Acts 13:47) word of the Lord, as well as (b) a part of them believing (Acts 13:48c-e). Moreover, in order to allude more closely to the Lucan idea of the word of the Lord as spreading throughout all the Gentile region (Acts 13:49), Matthew inserted into Lk 11:14f the idea of all (πάντες) the Gentile crowds rejoicing (Mt 12:23a). The subsequent motif of the charge of some Jews against Jesus (Mt 12:24) was borrowed from the following text Lk 11:15 (εἶπον + ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιμόνια + ἐν… Βεελζεβούλ… ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων) and reworked to convey the idea of the opposition of the Pharisees (οἱ δέ: Mt 12:24a; diff. Mk 3:22a; Lk 11:15a).62 In this

60 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 164, 181. 61 Cf. C. E. Carlston and C. A. Evans, From Synagogue to Ecclesia: Matthew’s Community at the Crossroads (WUNT 334; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2014), 17 n. 58. 62 Cf. B. C. Dennert, ‘Constructing Righteousness: The «Better Righteousness» of Matthew as Part of the Development of a Christian Identity’, ASE 28/2 (2011) 57–80 (esp. 73–74); M. Marshall, Portrayals, 74.

111

way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the opposition of the Jews (οἱ δέ) against Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:50a). Jesus’ subsequent response to the Jewish charges against him (Mt 12:25-27) was borrowed from the following text Lk 11:17-19, which was conflated with the thematically related Marcan text Mk 3:24-26 (μερισθ* + οἰκία + μερισθ* + ἑαυτη* + οὐ + σταθη* + καὶ εἰ + ἐμερίσθη). Moreover, it was supplemented with the idea of a negative statement concerning a divided city (πόλις: Mt 12:25; diff. Mk 3:25; Lk 11:17) and a statement concerning expelling (ἐκβάλλω; diff. Mk 3:26: ἀνίστημι) Satan (Mt 12:26). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the apostles’ reaction to the Jewish opposition against them, opposition which caused a division within the city and which consisted in expelling them (Acts 13:50-51). The subsequent motif of acting with divine power was almost verbatim borrowed from the following text Lk 11:20 and reworked by introducing the idea of the Spirit (πνεῦμα; diff. the scriptural idea in Lk 11:20: finger) of God (Mt 12:28)63 in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of being filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:52). The subsequent idea of prevailing over a strong man was borrowed from the following text Lk 11:21-22 and conflated with Mk 3:27, which more clearly conveys the idea of entering a strong man’s house (δύναται + εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ + τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ *αρπάσαι ἐὰν μὴ πρῶτον + δήσῃ + τὸν ἰσχυρόν + καὶ τότε τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ διαρπάσει), as well as reworked by highlighting the idea of going into (εἰσελθεῖν εἰς; diff. Mk 3:27: εἰς + εἰσελθών; Lk 11:22: ἐπελθών) the hostile house (Mt 12:29). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of going into (εἰσελθεῖν… εἰς) the synagogue of the presumably hostile (cf. Acts 13:50) Jews (Acts 14:1ab). The subsequent idea of gathering (συνάγω) with Jesus (Mt 12:30) was verbatim borrowed from the following text Lk 11:23 in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of the apostles’ activity in the synagogue (συναγωγή: Acts 14:1b). The subsequent motif of someone blaspheming against the Holy Spirit (Mt 12:31-32) was borrowed from the following text Mk 3:28-29 (cf. the earlier use of Mk  3:27 in Mt  12:29),64 which was conflated with the thematically related text Lk 12:10 (οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται + καί + ὅς + λέγω + λόγον + ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου + ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ + δέ + πνεῦμα + ἅγιον + οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται). In 63 Cf. J. R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Gospel Tradition (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2009), 249. 64 Cf. S. Luther, Sprachetik im Neuen Testament: Eine Analyse des frühchristlichen Diskurses im Matthäusevangelium, im Jakobusbrief und im 1. Petrusbrief (WUNT 2.394; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015), 207–208.

112

this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Jews expressing their unbelief, notwithstanding the fact that many Jews and Greeks believed (Acts 14:1c-2b), presumably being filled with the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 13:50).

3.12.  Mt 12:33-37; cf. Acts 14:2c-3c The section Mt 12:33-37, with its main themes of making the tree bad and speaking evil things from evil hearts, as well as not speaking useless words, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 14:2c-3c. The idea of knowing the tree by its fruit and the man by his speech was borrowed and surprisingly relocated from Lk 6:43-45, as well as reworked by introducing the surprising idea of making (diff. Lk 6:43 being) the tree bad (Mt 12:33)65 and introducing the post-Lucan idea of the Jews being evil (cf. Lk 3:7: γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν), and consequently (as a result of the reordering of Lk 6:45) speaking evil things from their evil hearts (Mt 12:34-35). In this way, Matthew alluded to the Lucan idea of the unbelieving Jews making the souls of the Gentiles bad (κακόω: Acts 14:2c). From the linguistic point of view, the phrase γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν was used by Matthew 3 times and by Luke only once (Lk 3:7 par. Mt 3:7). However, in Mt 3:7d-f it was verbatim borrowed from Lk 3:7d-f, and in Mt 12:34 its use is justified by the need to allude to the Lucan idea of evil Jews (Acts 14:2c). Moreover, the noun ἔχιδνα can be regarded as Lucan (cf.  also Acts  28:3). Therefore, the use of the phrase γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν in the Gospel of Mathew can be explained in terms of its being borrowed from the Lucan work. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly introduced idea of not speaking useless words (ῥῆμα + λόγος: Mt 12:36-37) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of spending time on speaking boldly (ρη*) and speaking the word (λόγος) of the Lord’s grace (Acts 14:3a-c). For this reason, the somewhat surprising idea of being justified by words (and not by works, faith etc.: Mt 12:37a)66 alludes to the Lucan idea of the word of the Lord’s grace (Acts 14:3c).

3.13.  Mt 12:38-45; cf. Acts 14:3d-19 The section Mt 12:38-45, with its main themes of experts in Scripture seeking a visible sign from the teaching Jesus, an evil and adulterous generation, giving no sign, giving only the sign of Jonah the prophet, awaiting the resurrection, Gentiles 65 Cf. J. R. Edwards, Hebrew, 249. 66 Cf. S. Luther, Sprachetik, 213.

113

repenting at preaching, Gentiles listening to wisdom, and the return of the unclean spirit with more destructive power, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 14:3d-19. The motif of seeking a sign (σημεῖον) from Jesus (Mt 12:38) was borrowed from Lk 11:16 (cf. the earlier use of Lk 11:23 in Mt 12:30) and conflated with Mk 8:11, which conveys the idea of the Jewish Pharisees (Φαρισαῖοι) seeking a sign. More­ over, Matthew reworked it by introducing the ideas of (a) the experts in Scripture (diff. Mk 8:11: only Pharisees), (b) Jesus as a teacher (diff. Mk 8:11; Lk 11:16), (c) a sign originating from Jesus (diff. Mk 8:11; Lk 11:16: from heaven), and (d) the sign for the Pharisees being visible (diff. Mk 8:11; Lk 11:16; simply a sign). In this way, Matthew alluded to the Lucan ideas of (a) scriptural signs and wonders (σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα: cf. Deut 6:22; 28:46 LXX etc.) testifying to (b) the word of Lord and (c) being given by him (d) in a visible way, by the hands of the apostles, against the Jews (Acts 14:3d-4; cf. 14:3c). The subsequent idea of the evil generation was borrowed from Lk 11:29d and reworked by introducing the thought that the generation is not only evil, but also, with the use of a relocated Marcan motif, adulterous (μοιχαλίς: Mt 12:39c; cf. Mk 8:38). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the attack of both Gentiles and Jews (Acts  14:5). The motif of being adulterous metaphorically refers in Scripture to Israel (cf. Hos 3:1 LXX) and to Jerusalem (cf. Ezek 16:38; 23:45 LXX).67 For this reason, Matthew could refer to the Gentiles as being evil and to the Jews as being adulterous (Mt 12:39c; cf. Acts 14:5). The subsequent motif of giving no sign to the evil and adulterous generation (Mt 12:39d) was verbatim borrowed from the following text Lk 11:29e in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of fleeing elsewhere from the attacking Gentiles and Jews (Acts 14:6). The subsequent idea of giving only the sign of Jonah was verbatim borrowed from the following text Lk  11:29f and reworked by introducing the superfluous remark that Jonah was a prophet (Mt 12:39e; diff. 16:4; diff. also 12:40: the sign of the resurrection) in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of the apostles preaching the gospel, presumably to the Gentiles, like the prophet Jonah (Acts 14:7; cf. 14:6). The subsequent motif of Jonah being a sign which prefigured the sign of the Son of Man was borrowed from the following text Lk 11:30 and reworked by surprisingly substituting the idea of preaching (Lk 11:30; cf. Mt 12:39e.41) with that of three-day-long awaiting the resurrection (Mt  12:40). In this way, Matthew 67 Cf. J. Nolland, Matthew, 510; G. Maier, Matthäus: Kapitel 1–14, 699–700.

114

alluded to the subsequent Lucan motif of participating in the power of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 14:8-10). The subsequent motif of the men of Nineveh repenting at the preaching of Jonah (Mt 12:41) was borrowed and relocated from Lk 11:32 in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan image of the Lycaonian crowds expressing their faith in reaction to the deed and preaching of Paul (Acts 14:11-12). From the linguistic point of view, the noun ἀνήρ followed by a gentilic adjective was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 12:41 par. Lk 11:32), whereas Luke also used it 14 times in Acts.68 Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. Likewise, the phrase ἐν τῇ κρίσει was used by Matthew 2 times, but only in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 12:41-42 par. Lk 11:31-32), whereas Luke also used it in Lk 10:14. Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke. The subsequent motif of the queen of the South listening to the wisdom of Solomon (Mt 12:42) was almost verbatim borrowed and relocated from Lk 11:31 in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan image of the Lycaonian crowds listening to the stylistically elegant sermon of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:13-18). From the linguistic point of view, the non-scriptural phrase βασίλισσα νότου (Mt 12:42 par. Lk 11:31; diff. 1 Kgs 10:1-13 LXX: βασίλισσα Σαβα)69 is Lucan rather than Matthean because Matthew used these nouns only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 12:42 par. Lk 11:31), whereas Luke used the noun βασίλισσα also in Acts 8:27, and the noun νότος also in Lk 12:55; 13:29; Acts 27:13; 28:13.70 Accordingly, this phrase favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. Likewise, the aorist infinitive form ἀκοῦσαι was used by Matthew only 2 times, in places which have their parallels in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 12:42 par. Lk 11:31; Mt 13:17 par. Lk 10:24), whereas Luke used it 3 times in his Gospel and 11 times in Acts. Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. The subsequent motif of the return of the unclean spirit with seven other spirits and with more destructive power, so that the situation became worse than 68 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 45–46. 69 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 2, 359; J. Nolland, Matthew, 512 n. 111; K. H. Tan, ‘The Queen of Sheba and the Jesus Traditions’, in T. Hägerland (ed.), Jesus and the Scriptures: Problems, Passages and Patterns (LNTS 552; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London [et al.] 2016), 48–68 (esp. 54). 70 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 417.

115

previously (Mt 12:43-45), was almost verbatim borrowed from Lk 11:24-26, but also reworked by changing the verb denoting the return from ὑπο* (Lk 11:24f) to ἐπι* (Mt  12:44b), as well as by adding the remark which relates such a return to this evil generation (Mt 12:45f; cf. 12:39.41-42). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the coming (ἐπ*) again of the malevolent Jews from Iconium (cf. Acts 14:1-5) and persuading the Gentiles to persecute Paul in a manner which was worse than previously (Acts 14:19). From the linguistic point of view, the verb διέρχομαι was used by Matthew only 2 times, in places which have their parallels in other Gospels (Mt 12:43 par. Lk 11:24; Mt 19:24 par. Mk 10:25), whereas Luke used it 10 times in his Gospel and 21 times in Acts.71 Accordingly, it strongly favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke. Likewise, the rather rare verb σαρόω was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 12:44 par. Lk 11:25), whereas Luke also used it in Lk 15:8. Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke.

3.14.  Mt 12:46-13:35; cf. Acts 14:20-26 The section Mt 12:46-13:35, with its main themes of Jesus’ disciples being within the reach of his hand, the same day, Jesus going out from the house, sowing a number of seeds for everyone, becoming disciples, condemning the opponents, praising the disciples, exhorting the disciples, understanding the heard word, the presence of opposition and hardships in the life of the disciples, the servants of the householder, delaying the gathering of the wheat, putting before, believing in the growing ability of a mustard seed, coming to the Gentile tree, speaking, all being leavened, the end of speaking to the crowds, and the fulfilment of the evangelistic quotation from the prophet, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 14:20-26. In the account of the coming of Jesus’ relatives (Mt 12:46-50), after the relocations of the Lucan and Marcan material in Mt 12:33-45, Matthew returned to his use of the main narrative thread of the Marcan Gospel (Mk 3:31-35; cf. the earlier use of Mk  3:28-29 in Mt  12:31-32).72 Accordingly, the account of the coming of Jesus’ relatives (Mt  12:46-50) was borrowed from Mk  3:31-35 and conflated with Lk 8:19-21 (ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ). Matthew reworked it by somewhat surprisingly substituting the Marcan idea of those sitting around 71 Cf. ibid. 160–161. 72 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 206.

116

(Mk 3:34ab) with that of Jesus’ disciples (μαθηταί) being within the reach of his hand (Mt  12:49a).73 In this way, Matthew alluded to the Lucan idea of Paul’s disciples surrounding him (Acts 14:20a). In the subsequent post-Marcan introduction to the discourse in parables (cf. Mk 4:1a), Matthew surprisingly inserted the narratively superfluous remarks concerning the same day and concerning Jesus going out (ἐξέρχομαι) from the house (Mt 13:1; cf. the thematically corresponding remark as far as Mt 9:28). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan ideas of the next day and of Paul going out from the city (Acts 14:20d; cf. 14:20c). The rest of the introduction (Mt 13:2-3b) was borrowed from Mk 4:1b-2. The subsequent parable of the sower (Mt 13:3c-9), which refers to evangelization, was borrowed from Mk 4:3-9 and conflated with Lk 8:5-8 (σπείρειν αὐτόν + ὁ ἔχων ὦτα). Matthew reworked it by introducing the idea of a number of seeds (Mt 13:4-8; diff. Mk 4:4-8; Lk 8:5-8; Mt 13:19-23: one seed), reversing the order of numbers to highlight the great number of one hundred (Mt 13:8; cf. Lk 8:8; diff. Mk 4:8), and conveying the idea that everyone, who has ears (diff. Mk 4:9; Lk 8:8: to hear), should hear (Mt 13:9; cf. 11:15). In this way, Matthew alluded more closely to the subsequent Lucan idea of the evangelization of numerous Gentiles (Acts 14:21a). The subsequent dialogue concerning the aim of the parables (Mt 13:10-11d) was borrowed from Mk  4:10-11b and conflated with Lk  8:9-10c (γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια).74 In particular, Matthew substituted the Marcan idea of those who were around Jesus with the Twelve (Mk 4:10) with the Lucan one of the disciples (μαθηταί: Mt 13:10; cf. Lk 8:9),75 but on the other hand he omitted the natural Lucan remark that they had been Jesus’ disciples already earlier (Lk 8:9; cf. 5:30 etc.) in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan remark concerning making many disciples (Acts 14:21b). The subsequent statements concerning those who are not disciples were borrowed from Mk 4:10c-12 and reworked by introducing the totally negative idea that to them the kingdom has not been given (Mt 13:11e; diff. Mk 4:10c: comes in parables), inserting the Marcan statement concerning a contrasting judgement

73 Cf. C. Rohmer, ‘Aux frontières du discours en paraboles (Mt 13,1-53)’, Bib 92 (2011) 597–610 (esp. 600–601). 74 Cf. M. Hengel, Evangelien, 318. 75 Cf. M. Nel, ‘The Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven according to Matthew 13:10-17’, Neot 43 (2009) 271–288 (esp. 277).

117

on believing and unbelieving people (Mt 13:12; cf. Mk 4:25),76 substituting final-potential clauses (ἵνα… βλέπωσιν etc.: Mk 4:12; Lk 8:10e-h) with negative indicative ones (οὐ βλέπουσιν etc.: Mt 13:13),77 and inserting the condemning prophecy of Isaiah (Mt 13:14-15; cf. Is 6:9-10 LXX),78 which was also used by Luke to condemn the unbelieving Jews in Acts 28:26-27.79 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan statement concerning the apostles returning to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch (Acts 14:21c), cities in which, in contrast to Derbe (cf. Acts 14:21ab), they were rejected by the unbelieving Jews and by great parts of their inhabitants (cf. Acts 13:50; 14:5.19). The subsequent blessing for the disciples was borrowed and surprisingly relocated from Lk 10:23-24, as well as reworked to convey the praiseful idea that they, in difference to the Jews (cf. Mt 13:13-15.17), truly believe (Mt 13:16-17; diff. Lk 10:23: their eyes can see). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of strengthening the souls of the disciples (Acts 14:22a). The subsequent exhortation concerning the parable of the sower (Mt 13:18), which is a reworking of the Marcan negative question concerning this parable (Mk 4:13;80 cf. Lk 8:11a: explanation), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of exhorting the disciples (Acts 14:22b). The subsequent explanation of the parable of the sower (Mt  13:19-23) was borrowed from Mk 14:14-20 and conflated with Lk 8:11b-15 (καρδία), as well as reordered to convey the idea of a moral exhortation to the believer to understand the heard word (Mt 13:19.23; diff. Mk 14:14-20; Lk 8:11b-15: explanation concerning listening and accepting),81 as well as the idea of a positive outcome of faith (one hundred etc.: Mt 13:23; cf. 13:8; diff. Mk 14:20; Lk 8:15: thirty etc.). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of exhorting the believers to consciously remain in the faith (Acts 14:22c).

76 Cf. C. Münch, Die Gleichnisse Jesu im Matthäusevangelium: Eine Studie zu ihrer Form und Funktion (WMANT 104; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2004), 90, 106; M. Nel, ‘Mysteries’, 278. 77 Cf. M. Nel, ‘Mysteries’, 278; A. Andreozzi, L’officina delle parabole: La comprensione dei discepoli come snodo pragmatico di Mt 13 (Pontificia Università Gregoriana: Roma 2013), 146–147. 78 Cf. A. Andreozzi, Officina, 156. 79 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 2, 394. 80 Cf. A. Andreozzi, Officina, 70. 81 Cf. C. Münch, Gleichnisse, 123; A. Andreozzi, Officina, 71–72; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 214–216.

118

The subsequent parable which contrasts God’s kingdom (βασιλεία) with an enemy and his weeds (Mt 13:24-30; cf. 13:37-39), after the omission of the positive Marcan parables of the lamp and of the measure, which do not directly refer to the kingdom of God (Mk 4:21-25), is a surprisingly negative reworking of the following Marcan parable of the seed of wheat sprouting and yielding a crop while the sower sleeps until the harvest (Mk 4:26-29: ἡ βασιλεία + ἄνθρωπος + σπ* + καθεύδω + σῖτος + βλαστάνω + χόρτος + καρπο* + θερισμός).82 By means of this negative reworking, which highlights the idea of the presence of opposition and hardships in the life of the disciples (Mt 13:24-26),83 Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan statement that it is through many tribulations that we must enter the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22de). The subsequently introduced, metaphorically superfluous characters of servants of the householder (Mt 13:27-30b; diff. Mk 4:27-28; Mt 13:37-39) allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of elders in the churches (Acts 14:23a). The subsequent, in fact really surprising idea of delaying the gathering of the wheat until the weeds are collected and bound in bundles to burn them (Mt 13:30c-g), an idea which was formulated with the use of the surprisingly relocated saying concerning gathering the wheat into the barn (τὸν… σῖτον + συναγαγε* + εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην: Lk 3:17), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of fasting (Acts 14:23b), that is delaying eating bread until people are internally purified. The subsequent introduction to the parable of the mustard seed (Mt 13:31ab) was borrowed from the following Marcan text Mk 4:30 and reworked by substituting the idea of putting (τίθημι) the kingdom (Mk 4:30c) with that of putting it before (παρατίθημι: Mt 13:31a). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of entrusting (παρατίθημι: Acts 14:23c). The subsequent parable of a mustard seed becoming a great plant (Mt 13:31b32d) was borrowed from Mk 4:31-32d, conflated with the thematically related text Lk  13:19a-e in order to convey the ideas of the involvement of a certain man (ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος: Mt 13:31d; diff. Mk 4:31a: seed in the passive) and miraculous growth to a Gentile tree (αὐξάνω + δένδρον: Mt 13:32b.d; cf. Ezek

82 Cf. L. Lybæk, New and Old in Matthew 11–13: Normativity in the Development of Three Theological Themes (FRLANT 198; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2002), 120–121, 124; A. Andreozzi, Officina, 205–206; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 218. 83 Cf. A. Andreozzi, Officina, 223; J. R. C. Cousland, ‘Toxic Tares: The Poisonous Weeds (ζιζάνια) in Matthew’s Parable of the Tares (Matthew 13.24-30, 36-43)’, NTS 61 (2015) 395–410 (esp. 400).

119

31:6; Dan 4:7-9.17-18[10-12.20-21] LXX; diff. Mk  4:32b-d: a great plant),84 as well as reworked to convey the really surprising idea of sowing the mustard seed in the field (Mt 13:31e; diff. Lk 13:19: garden), which in line with the preceding parable (σπείρω + ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ: cf. Mt 13:24.27-30) means believing that it will yield a crop. In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of Gentile disciples believing (Acts 14:23d). From the linguistic point of view, the phrase ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία was used by Matthew 6 times, whereas Luke used it only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Gospel of Matthew (Lk 13:18 par. Mt 13:31). Accordingly, it in itself favours the hypothesis of the Lucan dependence on the Gospel of Matthew. However, Luke used this phrase as a part of a question in an elaborated internal dialogue, in which similar phrases were used repeatedly (Lk 13:18-21). Therefore, it can be argued that it was Matthew who borrowed this phrase from the broader dialogue in the Lucan Gospel and used it, in line with his well-known rhetorical habit, as a repeated stereotyped formula. With the use of this stereotyped formula, Matthew introduced parables which were borrowed by him from the Lucan Gospel (Mt 13:31.33 par. Lk 13:18-21) or thereinafter created by himself (Mt 13:44-45.47; 20:1). The subsequent remark concerning birds of the air was borrowed from Mk 4:32ef, conflated with Lk 13:19f to convey the metaphoric idea of welcoming people in the branches of the Gentile tree (ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ: Mt 13:32f), and reworked by inserting the idea of coming (ἔρχομαι: Mt 13:32e). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of coming to Gentile cities, presumably with welcoming Gentiles there (Acts 14:24). The subsequent introduction to the parable of the yeast (Mt 13:33a) was borrowed from the following text Lk 13:20 and reworked by simplifying it and substituting the idea of saying (Lk 13:20a) with that of speaking (λαλέω: Mt 13:33a). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of speaking (Acts 14:25a). The subsequent parable of the yeast (Mt 13:33b-e), with its Gentiles-related statement that all was leavened (Mt 13:33e), was almost verbatim borrowed from the following text Lk 13:21 in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan thought that the evangelization in the Gentile region of Asia Minor was completed (Acts 14:25b). The subsequent statement concerning speaking in parables (Mt 13:34) was borrowed from Mk 4:33-34a and reworked to convey the concluding idea of having spoken all these things to the crowds (aor. ταῦτα πάντα ἐλάλησεν + τοῖς ὄχλοις: Mt 13:34a; diff. Mk 4:33a: imperf. τοιαύταις… πολλαῖς ἐλάλει + αὐτοῖς), which is 84 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 220; B. Adamczewski, Luke, 151.

120

quite surprising because the discourse in parables still follows (Mt 13:36-52). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the end of the evangelistic activity among the Gentiles (cf. Acts 14:27) and return to Antioch (Acts 14:26a). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted (diff. Mk 4:34) idea of the fulfilment (πληρόω) of the evangelistic quotation from the prophet (προφήτης: Mt 13:35) is also surprising because the text in fact originates from Ps 78[77]:2 LXX,85 which was reworked to convey the Gentiles-related idea of proclaiming what was hidden from the foundation of the world (cf. Mt 25:34; Rom 16:25-26; Col 1:26-27; Eph 3:5-6).86 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the fulfilment of the evangelistic work which revealed the previously prophesied and prayed-for grace of God (Acts 14:26bc; cf. 13:1-3), presumably related to the evangelization of the Gentiles (cf. Acts 14:27).

3.15.  Mt 13:36-52; cf. Acts 14:27 The section Mt 13:36-52, with its main themes of coming back home, the disciples approaching, explaining a previous parable in prophetic terms, as well as the valuable field, a very precious pearl, and a dragnet thrown into the sea and gathering some of every kind, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 14:27. The idea of leaving the crowds and coming back home (cf. Mt 13:1) was somewhat surprisingly introduced in Mt 13:36ab (diff. Mk 4:34) in order to allude to the Lucan idea of coming back to Antioch (Acts 14:27a). The subsequent motif of Jesus in private explaining the parable to the disciples (οἱ μαθηταί) was borrowed from Mk 4:34b and reworked to convey the idea that the disciples approached Jesus and asked him about the parable (Mt 13:36c-e). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea that the church, that is the disciples (cf. Acts 14:28), was gathered around Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:27b), presumably asking them about their missionary activity in Asia Minor. The subsequent idea of Jesus explaining, mainly in prophetic terms (Mt 13:39c43), the parable of the weeds of the field (Mt 13:37-43), which was earlier used in Mt 13:24-30 as an allusion to Paul and Barnabas’ difficult evangelistic activity in Asia Minor (Acts 14:22d-23b), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul and Barnabas reporting, presumably in prophetic terms (cf. Acts 13:1), all that 85 Cf. C. Münch, Gleichnisse, 124; J. Lambrecht, ‘The Weeds in Context: Composition in Matthew 13,24-43’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew, 561–568 (esp. 564–565, 568); M. Konradt, Matthäus, 221. 86 Cf. A. Andreozzi, Officina, 264–274.

121

God did with them (Acts 14:27cd) during their difficult evangelistic activity in Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (Acts 14:21-23). For this reason, the motif of the end (συντέλεια) of the age (Mt  13:39c-40) was borrowed from the prophetic texts Dan  8:19; 9:26-27; 12:4 LXX etc. Likewise, the motif of doing lawlessness (ποιέω + ἀνομίαν: Mt 13:41) can be found in the prophetic texts Hos 6:9; Is 5:7; Jer 29[36]:23 LXX etc. Similarly, the motif of throwing people into the furnace of fire (*βαλοῦσιν αὐτο* εἰς τὴν κάμινον τοῦ πυρός: Mt 13:42) was borrowed from the prophetic text Dan 3:6 LXX.87 Likewise, the motif of the righteous ones shining like (δίκαιοι + ἐκλάμψουσιν ὡς) the sun (Mt 13:43) originates from the prophetic text Dan 12:3 θ’.88 The three subsequent, somewhat surprisingly added parables of (a) the valuable field, (b) a very precious pearl, and (c) a dragnet thrown into the sea and gathering some of every kind (Mt 13:44-50), together with their explanation referring to two correlated kinds of things (Mt 13:51-52), allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of opening a door of faith to the Gentiles (Acts 14:27e). In the Lucan presentation, this opening was a gradual process, which began with (a) the Israel­ ites and (b) those who feared God (Acts 13:16d), and only thereafter passed to (c) the Gentiles (Acts 13:46-48). Therefore, the three Matthean parables, together with their explanation (Mt 13:44-52), allude to these three kinds of people. In particular, the parable of a man buying the valuable field (ἀγοράζω + ἀγρός: Mt  13:44), which is somewhat surprising in its narrative logic of first finding a treasure and then hiding it and buying that valuable field, originates from Lk 14:18. This Lucan text metaphorically refers to the Jews, who were greatly attached to the land of Israel.89 Consequently, also Mt 13:44 alludes to the Israelites (Acts 13:16d). The formally related parable of a merchant (ἐμπορ*) finding a very precious pearl (πολυτ* + μαργαρίτης: Mt  13:45-46) metaphorically refers to the Jews (cf. Jas 4:11-13) influencing rich women, who would dress themselves in gold, pearls, and very expensive clothes (cf. 1 Tim 2:9). Therefore, it refers to the formally related group of those who feared God, and generally to those who were under the influence of the Jews (Acts 13:16d; cf. 13:43). In the Lucan presentation, this group of people included devout women of high standing, as well as leading men of the city (Acts 13:50).

87 Cf. P. Fiedler, Das Matthäusevangelium (TKNT 1; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2006), 267 n. 24; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 224. 88 Cf. D. L. Turner, Matthew (BECNT; Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2008), 351; A. Andreozzi, Officina, 299 n. 33; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 224. 89 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Luke, 162.

122

The third, differently formulated parable of a dragnet thrown into the sea (*βάλλω + θάλασσα) and gathering some of every kind, who were thereafter separated into two groups according to their being good or bad (καλός + σαπρός: Mt 13:47-50), in a post-Marcan and post-Lucan way metaphorically refers to the evangelization of various Gentiles living in the basin of the Mediterranean Sea (cf. Mk 1:16-17),90 who will at the last judgement (and not now) be separated into two groups according to their being morally (and not ritually) good or bad (cf. Lk 6:43). The concluding question concerning understanding the previously spoken parables (Mt 13:51) alludes to the Lucan idea of explaining the previously made report (cf. Acts 14:27cd) in terms of God opening a door of faith to the Gentiles (Acts 14:27e). Likewise, the concluding image of an expert in Scripture who became a disciple of the kingdom of heaven as a householder who (a) throws out of his treasury things new and (b) old, in this surprising order (Mt 13:52),91 alludes to the Lucan idea of (a) opening to the Gentiles the door of (b) the scriptural faith (Acts 14:27e).

3.16.  Mt 13:53-14:36; cf. Acts 14:28 The section Mt 13:53-14:36, with its main theme of Jesus being with the disciples, illustrates the main theme of the corresponding section Acts 14:28. In the section Mt 13:53-14:36, Matthew returned to his rather faithful use of the main narrative thread of the Marcan Gospel (Mk 6:1-56; cf. the earlier use of Mk 4:35-5:20 in Mt 8:23-34; Mk 5:21-43 in Mt 9:18-26).92 In this relatively long section, which consists of several accounts, Matthew six times referred to Jesus being with the disciples (οἱ μαθηταί: Mt 14:12.15.19[bis].22.26). In this way, Matthew alluded to the Lucan idea of Paul and Barnabas spending a relatively long period of time with the disciples (Acts 14:28). In particular, the account of Jesus coming to his hometown (Mt 13:53-58) was borrowed from Mk 6:1-6. The account of the death of John the Baptist (Mt 14:1-12) was borrowed from Mk  6:14-29 (cf.  the earlier use of Mk  6:7-13 in Mt  10:1.5-9.14) and conflated 90 Cf. id., The Gospel of Mark: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 8; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2014), 44–45. 91 Cf. P. Phillips, ‘Casting out the Treasure: A New Reading of Matthew 13.52’, JSNT 31.1 (2008) 3–24 (esp. 6–7, 17–19). 92 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 227–228.

123

with Mk 11:32 (ἐφοβ*… τὸν ὄχλον + προφήτης + εἶχον), which caused a surprising narrative incoherence between Herod’s wish to kill John (Mt 14:5) and his grief because of John’s imminent death (Mt 14:9).93 The concluding remark that the disciples (οἱ μαθηταί) told (ἀπήγγειλαν) Jesus about the death of John (Mt 14:12), a remark which resulted from a conflation of Mk 6:29 with Mk 6:30, is quite surprising because it presents the disciples of John as coming to Jesus (Mt 14:12). In this way, Matthew alluded to the Lucan idea of Paul and Barnabas spending some time with the disciples (Acts 14:28). From the linguistic point of view, the fixed non-Marcan formula Ἡρῴδης ὁ τετραάρχης (Mt  14:1; diff. Mk  6:14.22.25-27: βασιλεύς) was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 14:1 par. Lk 9:7), although elsewhere Matthew used the Marcan title ὁ βασιλεύς (Mt 14:9 par. Mk 6:26). On the other hand, Luke used this fixed non-Marcan formula 2 times in his Gospel and once in Acts.94 Therefore, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke.95 The account of the feeding of the five thousand (Mt 14:13-21) was borrowed from Mk  6:32-44 and conflated with Lk  9:10-17 (οἱ… ὄχλοι + ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ96 + θεραπε* + ἀπόλυσον το* ὄχλο* + οὐκ… πέντε + καὶ ἤρ* τὸ περισσευ* + κλασμάτων + ὡσεί). In this account, Matthew doubled the reference to the disciples (οἱ μαθηταί: Mt 14:19; diff. Mk 6:41; Lk 9:16), most probably in order to allude to the Lucan idea of spending some time with the disciples (Acts 14:28). The account of the walking on the water (Mt 14:22-33) was borrowed from Mk 6:45-52.97 In this account, Matthew inserted a reference to the disciples (οἱ μαθηταί: Mt 14:26; diff. Mk 6:49), most probably in order to allude again to the Lucan idea of spending some time with the disciples (Acts 14:28). Besides, the inserted Matthean account of Peter joining Jesus in his walking on the water on the way to the Gentiles and learning how to believe (πιστ*: Mt 14:28-31)98 may allude to the Lucan idea of Peter being chosen to preach the Gospel to the

93 Cf. ibid. 231. 94 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 599–600. 95 Cf. M.-J. Lagrange, Évangile selon Saint Luc (EBib; J. Gabalda: Paris 1921), lxxi; E. von Dobschütz, ‘Matthäus als Rabbi und Katechet’, ZNW 27 (1928) 338–348 (esp. 346–347); M. Hengel, Evangelien, 313. 96 Cf. M. Hengel, Evangelien, 318. 97 Cf. P. M. Head, Christology and the synoptic problem: An argument for Markan priority (SNTSMS 94; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1997), 84–96. 98 Cf. H.-G. Gradl, ‘Unheimlicher Seegang: Eine Exegese von Mt 14,22-33’, TTZ 124 (2015) 40–59 (esp. 42, 48–50).

124

Gentiles and make them believe (Acts 15:7), which could have been anticipated in Mt 14:28-31 because it referred to Peter being chosen to this task long ago, so before the narrated time of Acts 15:7. The account of the healings at Gennesaret (Mt 14:34-36) was borrowed from Mk 6:53-56.

125

Chapter 4. Mt 15–20 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts 15:1-18:21 The Matthean story concerning the second phase of Jesus’ public activity: from the halachic controversy with the Jerusalem leaders to the coming to Jerusalem (Mt 15–20) is a result of a sequential hypertextual reworking of the Lucan story concerning the second phase of Paul’s missionary activity: from the halachic controversy with the Jerusalem leaders to the coming to Judaea (Acts 15:1-18:21).

4.1.  Mt 15; cf. Acts 15:1-4 The section Mt 15, with its main themes of coming from Jerusalem, charging the disciples for their breaking the tradition of the elders, a commandment of God, a public halachic dispute, a negative comment on the Jewish opponents, a halachic question of the apostle Peter, activity in both Tyre and Sidon, going up on the mountain, healing many halachically unclean people, praising the God of Israel, and feeding many people with bread and fish, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 15:1-4. The account of the halachic disputes with the Jews from Jerusalem (Mt 15:1-20) was borrowed from Mk 7:1-23. In the introduction to this account, Matthew highlighted the idea of coming from (*έρχομαι + ἀπό) Jerusalem (Mt 15:1; diff. Mk 7:1: the gathering of the Pharisees)1 in order to allude more closely to the Lucan idea of coming from Judaea (Acts 15:1a). The subsequent description of the Jewish charge against the disciples was borrowed from Mk 7:2-5 and significantly shortened, so that only the idea of breaking the tradition of the elders (Mk 7:5), which included washing the hands before eating bread (cf. Mk 7:2-3), was retained (Mt 15:2).2 In this way, Matthew alluded to

1 Cf. B. Repschinski, The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form and Relevance for the Relationship Between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism (FRLANT 189; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2000), 155–156; M. Konradt, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (NTD 1; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen · Bristol 2015), 241. 2 Cf. B. Repschinski, Controversy, 156.

127

the subsequent Lucan idea of charging the brothers for their not being circumcised (Acts 15:1bc), presumably according to the ancient Israelite tradition. The subsequent argument concerning a Mosaic commandment of God (Mt  15:3-6), which was relocated from Mk  7:8-13,3 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the custom of Moses (Acts 15:1c). The following quotation from Isaiah (Mt 15:7-9; cf. Is 29:13 LXX) was in fact borrowed from Mk 7:6-7.4 The subsequent public halachic dispute held by Jesus (Mt 15:10-11; cf. 15:1-2) was borrowed from Mk 7:14-15 in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of no small, so presumably public, halachic dissention and dispute held by Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:2a; cf. 15:1a). The subsequent motif of the disciples asking about the parable (Mt 15:12-15) was borrowed from Mk 7:17 and reworked by inserting a negative comment on the Pharisees (Mt 15:12c-14). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan negative remark concerning Paul and Barnabas’ Jewish Christian halachic opponents (Acts  15:2a). In order to present in an ethopoeic way Paul’s views concerning his opponents (cf.  Acts  15:2a), Matthew borrowed the particular idea of Jewish Christians being offended (σκανδαλίζω) by liberal food halacha (Mt 15:12e; cf. 15:11) from the thematically related Pauline text 1 Cor 8:13. For the same reason, Matthew borrowed the motif of Jewish Christians being blind guides of the blind (τυφλός + ὁδηγός: Mt 15:14b; cf. 23:16.24) from the Pauline text Rom  2:19, and conflated it with Lk  6:39 (τυφλός + τυφλόν + ὁδηγέω + ἀμφότεροι εἰς βόθυνον *πεσοῦνται: Mt 15:14cd).5 The subsequent, likewise inserted halachic question of the apostle Peter (diff. Mk 7:17: the disciples) concerning the ‘parable’ illustrating liberal food halacha 3 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 2, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew VIII-XVIII (ICC; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1991), 518; U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol. 2, Mt 8–17 (3th edn., EKK 1/2; Benzinger: Zürich · Düsseldorf and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999), 416; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 242. 4 Cf. M. Marshall, The Portrayals of the Pharisees in the Gospels and Acts (FRLANT 254; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen · Bristol 2015), 96. 5 Cf. T. L. Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Developments of the New Testament Writings (NTMon 1; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2004), 222, 233. Pace L. E. Youngquist [et al.] (vol. eds. C. Heil and G. Harb), Q 6:37-42: Not Judging – The Blind Leading the Blind – The Disciple and the Teacher – The Speck and the Beam (Documenta Q; Peeters: Leuven Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 250, the use of the compound verb ἐμπίπτω in Lk 6:39 diff. Mt 15:14 on the one hand, and in Mt 12:11 diff. Lk 14:5 on the other, is inconclusive as concerns the direction of literary dependence between these texts.

128

(Mt 15:15ab; cf. 15:11)6 alludes to the subsequent Lucan positive remark concerning the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, who were supposed to deal with the question of Paul’s liberal food halacha (Acts 15:2c). The remaining part of Jesus’ halachic argument (Mt 15:16-20) was borrowed from Mk 7:18-23 and reworked by, among others, adjusting the order of vices in Mt 15:19 (diff. Mk 7:21-22) to the scriptural Decalogue.7 The subsequent account of Jesus’ activity in the region of Tyre (Mt 15:21-28) was borrowed from Mk 7:24-30 and conflated with Lk 16:21 (τῶν πιπτόντων ἀπὸ τῆς τραπέζης), as well as reworked to convey the idea of the activity in the region of, somewhat surprisingly, both Tyre and Sidon (Mt 15:21; diff. Mk 7:24: Tyre),8 thus alluding to the whole region of Phoenicia (cf. Mk 3:8; Lk 6:17; 10:13-14). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul and Barnabas going through Phoenicia (Acts 15:3b). From the linguistic point of view, the noun τράπεζα was used in the Gospel of Matthew only 2 times, in places which have their parallels in other Gospels (Mt 15:27 par. Mk 7:28; Lk 16:21; Mt 21:12 par. Mk 11:15), whereas Luke used it 4 times in his Gospel and 2 times in Acts.9 Accordingly, it favours the hypothe­sis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. The subsequent, surprisingly introduced idea of Jesus going up on the mountain and sitting there (Mt 15:29; diff. Mk 7:29: Decapolis) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul and Barnabas’ activity in Samaria (Acts 15:3b). The particular thematic link between Samaria (Σαμάρεια: Acts 15:b) and the mountain (τὸ ὄρος: Mt 15:29) originates from Am 3:9; 4:1; 6:1 LXX etc. The subsequent idea of the healing of many halachically unclean people (Mt  15:30; cf.  15:31c-f) was borrowed and somewhat surprisingly relocated from Lk 7:21-22 (πολλοί + χωλοί + τυφλοί + κωφοί + θεραπεύω + περιπατέω + 6 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 245. 7 Cf. ibid. 245–246; S. Luther, Sprachetik im Neuen Testament: Eine Analyse des frühchristlichen Diskurses im Matthäusevangelium, im Jakobusbrief und im 1. Petrusbrief (WUNT 2.394; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015), 320. 8 Cf. R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (2nd edn., William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1994), 310; J. Gnilka, Das Matthäusevangelium, vol. 2, Kommentar zu Kap. 14,1-28,20 und Einleitungsfragen (HThKNT 1/2; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 1998), 29; E. Aurelius, ‘Gottesvolk und Außenseiter: Eine geheime Beziehung Lukas – Matthäus’, NTS 47 (2001) 428–441 (esp. 431). 9 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, The Vocabulary of Luke: An Alphabetical Presentation and a Survey of Characteristic and Noteworthy Words and Word Groups in Luke’s Gospel (BTS 10; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2009), 607.

129

βλέπω) in place of the Marcan story about the healing of one person (Mk 7:3236). Moreover, this idea was conflated with that of throwing sick people at Jesus’ feet (παρὰ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ: Mt 15:30c), which was borrowed from the account of the healing of a Samaritan (Lk  17:16). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of describing to the people in Samaria the conversion of the Gentiles (Acts 15:3c; cf. 15:3b). The subsequent idea of the crowd being amazed at the healing of the mute (Mt 15:31; cf. Mk 7:37) was borrowed and somewhat surprisingly relocated from Lk 11:14 (ὄχλος + θαυμάζω + κωφός + λαλέω) and conflated with the idea of praising God (δοξάζω + τὸν θεόν: Mk 2:12 etc.), which was somewhat surprisingly reworked to that of praising the God of Israel (Mt 15:31g). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of causing great joy to all the believers in the Israelite city of Samaria (Acts 15:3d). The subsequent account of the feeding of the four thousand (Mt 15:32-39) was borrowed from Mk 8:1-10 and reworked to highlight the great number of the people (Mt 15:33; diff. Mk 8:4) and the importance (diff. Mk 8:7) of Gentilesrelated fish (Mt 15:34.36; cf. Lk 5:9-10 etc.).10 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul and Barnabas reporting how many things God did with them, presumably among the Gentiles (Acts 15:4).

4.2.  Mt 16:1-20; cf. Acts 15:5-24 The section Mt 16:1-20, with its main themes of the Pharisees’ opposition, the need to avoid their teaching, asking the disciples, Peter’s double identity, Peter’s double confession, the living God, answering Peter, calling Peter by his Jewish name Simon and his being blessed, being called a son of Jonah, God’s supernatural revelation, building the Church, giving the keys of the kingdom of heaven, halachically binding and loosing on the way to heaven, and giving precise orders to the disciples, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 15:5-24. The account of the Pharisees (Φαρισαῖοι) testing Jesus by demanding a sign from heaven (Mt 16:1-4)11 was borrowed from Mk 8:11-13 and conflated with Lk 11:29 (πονηρά + καὶ σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ εἰ μὴ τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ). In this way, Matthew conveyed the idea of a negative judgement concerning the

10 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 252–253. 11 On the basis of strong external evidence for the textual omission of Mt 16:2c-3, this fragment should be regarded as a later insertion to the Matthean text. Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 254.

130

Pharisees.12 In this way, Matthew alluded to the Lucan idea of the Pharisees’ opposition against Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:5). The addition of the Sadducees (Mt 16:1.6.11-12; diff. Mk 8:11), who stressed the importance of the precepts which are written in the laws of Moses (cf. Jos. Ant. 13.297), may reflect the content of the opposition against Paul, namely the importance of the law of Moses (Acts 15:5c-g). The following account concerning the leaven of the Pharisees (Mt 16:5-12) was borrowed from Mk 8:14-21 and reworked by inserting the explanation concerning the need to avoid their teaching (Mt 16:11-12).13 In this way, Matthew further alluded to the Lucan idea of the teaching of the Pharisees, which opposed that of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:5). The subsequent idea of asking the disciples about the identity of Jesus (Mt 16:13-15) was borrowed from Mk 8:27-29c, as well as conflated with Lk 9:1820c (ἄλλοι δὲ Ἠλίαν + λέγω + αὐτοῖς), in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of gathering the apostles to consider the problem (Acts 15:6). Accordingly, the need to allude to the controversies among Jesus’ disciples (Acts 15:5-6) in Mt  16:5-15 explains the Matthean omission of the story of the healing of the blind man (Mk 8:22-26), which has no direct reference to the topic of controversies among Jesus’ disciples. The subsequent statement concerning Peter (Πέτρος: Mt 16:16ab) was borrowed from Mk 8:29de and reworked to convey the idea of Peter’s double identity of both (a) Jewish-related Simon and (b) Greek-related Peter (Mt 16:16a) in order to allude to more closely to the subsequent Lucan idea of Peter being both (a) chosen from ancient days and (b) called to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 15:7). Peter’s subsequent confession of Jesus was borrowed from Mk 8:29f, conflated with Lk  9:20f (τοῦ θεοῦ), and reworked to convey the post-Pauline idea of a double, Jewish–Gentile confession of Jesus as both the Jewish Messiah and the universally ruling Son of God (Mt 16:16c; cf. Rom 1:3-4).14 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Jews being saved in the same way as

12 Cf. S. Grasso, ‘La pedagogia della fede. Riesame del tema della poca fede nel Vangelo di Matteo’, RivB 61 (2013) 409–431 (esp. 411). 13 Cf. ibid. 412–413. 14 Cf. P. Foster, ‘Paul and Matthew: Two Strands of the Early Jesus Movement with Little Sign of Connection’, in M. F. Bird and J. Willitts (eds.), Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (LNTS 411; T&T Clark: London · New York 2011), 86–114 (esp. 100); M. Konradt, Matthäus, 260.

131

the Gentiles (Acts 15:8-11), so by confessing Jesus as both the Jewish Messiah and the universally ruling Son of God (cf. Rom 1:3-4; 10:10). The subsequent non-Marcan and non-Lucan, scriptural motif of the living God (θεοῦ + ζῶντος: Mt 16:16c) was borrowed from Deut 4:33 LXX (cf. also Dan 6:27 θ’), which in its immediate context refers to God doing signs and wonders among the Gentiles (ποιέω + σημεῖα + καί + τέρατα + ἐν + ἔθνος: Deut 4:34 LXX; cf. also Dan 6:28 θ’). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of God doing signs and wonders among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). The subsequently inserted idea of answering Peter (ἀποκρίνομαι + λέγω: Mt 16:17ab) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of answering Peter (Acts 15:13). The subsequent, likewise inserted ideas of calling Peter by his Jewish name Simon, as well as that of being blessed, presumably by God (Mt 16:17c), allude to the subsequent Lucan ideas of calling Peter by his Jewish name Simeon, as well as that of God looking favourably (Acts 15:14ab). The subsequent, surprising idea of being called ‘Bar-Jonah’, that is ‘son of Jonah’,15 a name which linguistically refers to the name of the scriptural prophet Jonah (*Ιωνα: Mt 16:17c; cf. 2 Kgs 14:25 LXX; cf. also Jon 1:1 LXX etc.),16 who was sent by God to the Gentiles (cf. Jon 1:1-2; 3:1-2; 4:11), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of God extending his saving activity to the Gentiles (Acts 15:14c). The subsequent idea of God’s supernatural revelation (Mt  16:17de), which was formulated with the use of Pauline vocabulary (σάρξ + αἷμα + οὐ* + ἀποκαλύπτω: cf. Gal 1:16),17 alludes to the subsequent Lucan, post-Pauline idea of the agreement of God’s saving activity among the Gentiles (cf. Acts 15:14c) with the presumably revealed words of the scriptural prophets (Acts 15:15). The subsequent motif of building on the rock was borrowed and somewhat surprisingly relocated from Lk 6:48 (πέτρα + οἰκοδομέω), as well as reworked to

15 Cf. J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (NIGTC; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge and Paternoster: Bletchley 2005), 666; P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 4, Matthew and the Canon (OCABS: St Paul, Minn. 2009), 205. It should be noted that the Fourth Gospel (Joh 1:42; 21:15-17) offers a later explan­ ation of this surprising name: cf. B. Adamczewski, The Gospel of the Narrative ‘We’: The Hypertextual Relationship of the Fourth Gospel to the Acts of the Apostles (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 49. 16 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew: The Speaker’s Lectures in Biblical Studies 1969–71 (SPCK: London 1974), 387; R. H. Gundry, Matthew, 332. 17 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 205–206; D. C. Sim, ‘Matthew and the Pauline Corpus: A Preliminary Intertextual Study’, JSNT 31.4 (2009) 401–422 (esp. 412–413).

132

convey the idea of building the Church (Mt 16:18c) in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of building (*οικοδομέω) the tent of David (Acts 15:16bc). The subsequent thought that the gates of Hades (πύλαι ᾅδου), that is of the underworld (cf.  Is  38:10; Wis  16:13 LXX),18 will not prevail over the Church, presumably by pulling it down (Mt 16:18d),19 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of strengthening up the tent of David (Acts 15:16d). The subsequent idea of giving the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 16:19a) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of letting the Gentiles enter the Church (Acts 15:17-19). The subsequent idea of halachically binding and loosing on the way to heaven (Mt  16:19b-e)20 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of formulating halachic regulations concerning salvation (Acts 15:20-21). The subsequent instruction to tell no one about Jesus’ identity (Mt 16:20) was borrowed from Mk 8:30,21 as well as reworked by substituting the idea of warning the disciples (Mk 8:30; Lk 9:21) with that of giving precise orders to them (διαστέλλω: Mt 16:20a), in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of giving precise orders to the believers (Acts 15:22-24; esp. 15:24).

4.3.  Mt 16:21-17:23; cf. Acts 15:25-41 The section Mt 16:21-17:23, with its main themes of showing an example of suffering, instructing the disciples only, rewarding everyone according to his activity, the coming of the Son of Man in his kingdom, the sun and the light, comforting the disciples, understanding the activity and suffering of John the Baptist, speaking to Jesus as the Lord, being an epileptic alternately falling into the fire and the water, Jesus’ healing power contrasted with the disciples’ lack of faith, moving the

18 Cf. J. Nolland, Matthew, 674; R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2007), 624; D. L. Turner, Matthew (BECNT; Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2008), 405. 19 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 262. 20 Cf. R. Feneberg, Die Erwählung Israels und die Gemeinde Jesu Christi: Biographie und Theologie Jesu im Matthäusevangelium (HeBS 58; Herder: Freiburg [et  al.] 2009), 268–269; M. P. Barber, ‘Jesus as the Davidic Temple Builder and Peter’s Priestly Role in Matthew 16:16-19’, JBL 132 (2013) 935–953 (esp. 947–951). 21 Cf. M. J. de Jong, ‘Dominion through Obedience: Matthew 12,18-21 among the Early Christian Characterizations of Jesus’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (BETL 243; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 437–452 (esp. 441).

133

mountain presumably by land, and gathering the disciples, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 15:25-41. The first prediction of the passion and resurrection (Mt 16:21-23) was borrowed from Mk  8:31-33, which was conflated with Lk  9:22 (ἀπό + τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγερθῆναι),22 as well as reworked to convey the idea of showing Jesus as an example of suffering (Mt  16:21b; diff. Mk  8:31; Lk  9:22: teaching about suffering).23 In this way, Matthew alluded to the Lucan idea of showing Barnabas and Paul as examples of suffering for Jesus (Acts 15:25-26). The subsequent instructions concerning the conditions of discipleship (Mt  16:24-26) were borrowed from Mk  8:34-37, which was conflated with Lk 9:23-25 (ἔρχομαι + ἄνθρωπος… κερδησ*). Moreover, they were reworked to convey the idea of instructing the disciples only (Mt 16:24a; diff. Mk 8:34ab; Lk 9:23a: all people).24 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of instructing the believers (Acts 15:27-28). The subsequent prediction of the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 16:27) was borrowed from Mk 8:38 and reworked by omitting the idea of being ashamed (Mk  8:38ab) and by somewhat surprisingly inserting (diff. Mk  8:38; Lk  9:26) the idea of rewarding everyone according to his works (Mt  16:27c). This idea was borrowed from Ps 62[61]:13; Prov 24:12 LXX (cf. Rom 2:6; cf. also Sir 35:22 LXX)25 and reworked to convey the idea of rewarding everyone according to his activity (πρᾶξις: Mt 16:27c; diff. Ps 62[61]:13; Prov 24:12 LXX; Rom 2:6: ἔργα; Sir 35:22 LXX: ἀνταποδῷ ἀνθρώπῳ + πράξεις). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan exhortation to act (πράξ*) well (Acts 15:29). The subsequent prediction of seeing the coming (ἔρχομαι: Mt  16:28) was borrowed from Mk 9:1 and reworked by substituting the eschatological idea of the kingdom of God having come in power (Mk 9:1fg) with the more personal-ecclesiological one of the coming of the Son of Man in his kingdom

22 Cf. M. Hengel, Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus: Studien zu ihrer Sammlung und Entstehung (WUNT 224; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008), 319. 23 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 267; K. Siwek, ‘Mateuszowe zapowiedzi męki Jezusa jako etap formowania uczniów: Synoptyczne studium porównawcze’, in J. Kręcidło and W. Linke (eds.), Studia nad Ewangelią według św. Mateusza (LinSacMon 5; Apostolicum: Ząbki and Bractwo Słowa Bożego: Warszawa 2015), 425–461 (esp. 429). 24 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 269. 25 Cf. R. T. France, Matthew, 639; J. Willitts, ‘Paul and Matthew: A Descriptive Approach from a Post-New Perspective Interpretative Framework’, in M. F. Bird and J. Willitts (eds.), Paul, 62–85 (esp. 77–79); M. Konradt, Matthäus, 270.

134

(Mt 16:28ef).26 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan personal-ecclesiological idea of the coming (*έρχομαι) of two men and their gathering the congregation (Acts 15:30). The subsequent account of Jesus’ transfiguration (Mt  17:1-5) was borrowed from Mk 9:2-7 and conflated with Lk 9:28-34 (τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ + καὶ ἰδού + Μωϋσῆς καὶ Ἠλίας + αὐτοῦ… *ντος + ἐπεσκίαζεν).27 Moreover, it was reworked by inserting the positive ideas of the sun and of the light (Mt 17:2.5; diff. Mk 9:3.7; Lk  9:29.34)28 in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan ideas of reading and rejoicing (Acts 15:31ab). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted motif of Jesus coming, touching, and telling someone to arise (Mt 17:7) was borrowed and somewhat surprisingly relocated from Lk 7:14 (προσέρχομαι + ἅπτομαι + εἶπεν + ἐγέρθητ*), as well as reworked to convey the idea of comforting the frightened disciples (Mt  17:6-8a; diff. Mk  9:8a: looking around). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of comfort for the unsettled believers (Acts 15:31c; cf. 15:24). The rest of the account (Mt 17:8bc) was borrowed from Mk 9:8bc. The subsequent discussion concerning the prophet Elijah (Mt 17:9-13) was borrowed from Mk 9:9-13 and reworked by, among others, omitting the idea of the disciples not understanding the saying about the resurrection (Mk 9:10) and inserting the idea of the disciples understanding the speaking about the activity and suffering of the Jewish prophetic figure of John the Baptist (Mt 17:13; cf.  17:11-12).29 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of Jewish prophets exhorting and strengthening the believers (Acts 15:32). The subsequent opening part of the account of the healing of an epileptic (Mt 17:14-15b) was borrowed from Mk 9:14-17b and conflated with Lk 9:37-38b (λέγων). Moreover, it was reworked by omitting (cf. also Lk 9:37) the Marcan introductory description and question (Mk 9:14c-16), as well as substituting the

26 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 270. 27 Cf. M. Hengel, Evangelien, 319. 28 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 272; A. Malina, ‘Dlaczego nie tylko nowy Mojżesz? Jezus na Górze Przemienienia według Mateusza’, in J. Kręcidło and W. Linke (eds.), Studia, 125–142 (esp. 131, 139). 29 Cf. M. Goodacre, ‘Mark, Elijah, the Baptist and Matthew: The Success of the First Intertextual Reading of Mark’, in T. R. Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, vol. 2, The Gospel of Matthew (LNTS 310; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 73–84 (esp. 77); B. C. Dennert, John the Baptist and the Jewish Setting of Matthew (WUNT 2.403; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015), 121–123; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 275.

135

idea of speaking to Jesus as a teacher (Mk 9:17; Lk 9:38) with that of speaking to him as the Lord (λέγω + κύριος: Mt 17:15ab). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of proclaiming the gospel as the word of the Lord (λόγος + κύριος: Acts 15:35-36). The subsequent description of the symptoms of the son’s illness (Mt 17:15c-f) greatly differs from Mk  9:17c-18e and Lk  9:39. In particular, Matthew omitted the remark concerning the influence of an evil spirit (Mk 9:17c; Lk 9:39a; cf. Mt 17:18). Moreover, he substituted the description of the son’s mute tension (Mk 9:17c-18e; cf. 9:20) or crying convulsions (Lk 9:39), both with foaming at the mouth (Mk  9:18c; Lk  9:39c), with the (a) explicit remark concerning his being an epileptic (Mt 17:15c)30 and the relocated Marcan image of his being thrown both into the fire and into the water (Mk 9:22),31 which was reworked to that of his falling separately either (b) into the fire or (c) into the opposing realm of water (Mt  17:15ef). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan ideas of (a) Barnabas’ ‘paroxysm’, (b) his hostile separation from Paul, and (c) his sailing away to the sea (Acts 15:39). The subsequent description of the healing of the boy was borrowed from Mk 9:18f-27 and conflated with the much shorter text Lk 9:40-42 (ἠδυνήθησαν + ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν + καὶ διεστραμμένη + ὧδε + δαιμόνιον + παῖς)32 in order to highlight Jesus’ healing power as contrasted with the disciples’ lack of faith (Mt  17:16-18).33 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul choosing Silas and relying on God’s grace, in contrast to the negatively evaluated decision of Barnabas and John Mark (Acts 15:40; cf. 15:39). From the linguistic point of view, the verb διαστρέφω was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt  17:17 par. Lk 9:41), whereas Luke used it 2 times in his Gospel and 3 times in Acts.34 Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke.35

30 Cf. J. R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Gospel Tradition (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2009), 249; S. Grasso, ‘Pedagogia’, 426–427; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 276. 31 Cf.  U.  Luz, Matthäus, vol.  2, 416; P.  Fiedler, Das Matthäusevangelium (TKNT 1; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2006), 297; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 276. 32 Cf. M. Hengel, Evangelien, 319. 33 Cf. S. Grasso, ‘Pedagogia’, 427–428; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 277. 34 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 154. 35 Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Die Abhängigkeit des Matthäusevangeliums vom Lukasevangelium’, TSK 69 (1896) 83–93 (esp. 87); M. Hengel, Evangelien, 319 n. 959.

136

The subsequent dialogue concerning (a) the disciples’ inability to cast out the demon (Mt 17:19-20) was borrowed from Mk 9:28-29. However, it was signific­ antly reworked by somewhat surprisingly borrowing and relocating the saying concerning (b) having faith as a mustard seed (ἔχω + πίστιν ὡς κόκκον σινάπεως + λέγω: Lk 17:6),36 which was conflated with the Marcan text concerning (b’) faith moving this mountain (ἀμήν + λέγω + *άν + ἔχω + πίστιν + λέγω + τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ: Mk  11:22-23),37 which was again reworked by omitting the idea of moving the mountain into the sea (Mt 17:20b-g; diff. Mk 11:23). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the contrast between (a) the negatively evaluated decision of Barnabas and John Mark to go to Cyprus by sea (Acts 15:39) and (b) the faith-based decision of Paul and Silas to undertake a long missionary journey to the Gentiles by land (Acts 15:41a). The subsequent, second prediction of the passion and resurrection (Mt 17:2223) was borrowed from the following Marcan text Mk  9:30-32 and conflated with the thematically related text Lk 9:43-45 (εἶπεν + μέλλει + παραδίδοσθαι). Moreover, it was reworked by substituting the narratively understandable Marcan idea of departing and passing through Galilee (Mk 9:30ab) with the somewhat surprising one of gathering there (Mt 17:22a). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of gathering the churches (Acts 15:41b). Likewise, the substitution of the Marcan idea of the disciples not understanding and being afraid (Mk 9:32; Lk 9:45) with that of their being merely sorrowful (Mt 17:23c) alludes to the Lucan idea of strengthening the churches (Acts 15:41b).

4.4.  Mt 17:24-27; cf. Acts 16:1-3 The section Mt 17:24-27, with its main themes of coming to a city, the teacher’s obligation to pay the Jewish tax, the disciple being a free son and consequently not being obliged to fulfil the Jewish obligations, and not giving offence to the Jews, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 16:1-3. The motif of coming to (εἰς) Capernaum was borrowed from Mk 9:33a and slightly reworked by inserting the conjunction δέ, thus creating the formula δὲ… εἰς (Mt 17:24a), in order to allude more closely to the Lucan statement concerning coming to (δὲ… εἰς) Derbe and Lystra (Acts 16:1a). The subsequent, surprisingly introduced (diff. Mk 9:33) idea of asking the Greeknamed disciple Peter (diff. Mt 17:25: Simon) about his teacher Jesus’ obligation to 36 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 210. 37 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 2, 725–726; U. Luz, Matthäus, vol. 2, 520.

137

pay the Jewish tax of a didrachm (δίδραχμον: Mt 17:24b-25a; cf. 17:27g-i: a stater for two persons), a motif which was borrowed from Jos. Ant. 18.312 (cf. B.J. 7.218; Ant. 3.194-195; cf. also Rom 13:6: τελέω; diff. Exod 30:13.15 LXX; Philo, Her. 186–189: half a didrachm; Neh 10:33 LXX: one-third of a didrachm),38 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Greek-named disciple Timothy being a son of a believing Jewish woman (Acts 16:1bc). The subsequent post-Pauline discussion with the Jew Simon concerning his being in reality a free son (υἱός), and consequently not being obliged to fulfil the Jewish obligations (Mt 17:25b-26; cf. Gal 4:22-5:2: ἐλεύθερος + υἱός), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Jew Timothy being in reality a son of a Greek father (Acts 16:1d; cf. 16:2-3b.3fg). The subsequent post-Pauline idea of, notwithstanding being free, not giving offence to the Jews (cf. 1 Cor 8:13-9:1: σκανδαλίζω + ἐλεύθερος),39 and therefore having taken (λαβών) a coin, giving it to the Jews, thus assimilating both the teacher and the disciple to pious Jews (Mt 17:27; cf. 17:26d), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of having taken Timothy, circumcising him because of the Jews who lived there, thus assimilating both Paul and Timothy to pious Jews (Acts 16:3c-e). The particular motif of Simon casting a fishhook (βάλλω + ἄγκιστρον) and thus catching a fish (ἰχθύς: Mt 17:27cd) resulted from a conflation of Is 19:8 LXX with Lk 5:4-6.40

4.5.  Mt 18:1-9; cf. Acts 16:4-8 The section Mt 18:1-9, with its main themes of the disciples coming to Jesus, calling a child, being turned around and becoming like children, humbling oneself, and being thrown down into the depth of the sea, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 16:4-8. The discussion concerning greatness (Mt 18:1-5) was borrowed from Mk 9:33b37b and conflated with Lk  9:46-48 (οὗτός ἐστιν + μέγας + ὃς ἐάν), as well as significantly reworked. In particular, Matthew substituted the negative idea of Jesus asking the disciples at home and speaking to them about their dispute concerning greatness (Mk 9:33b-35; cf. also Lk 9:46-47a: knowing the dispute concerning greatness, which arose among them) with the much more positive one of the disciples

38 See J. Nolland, Matthew, 723–724. 39 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 212. 40 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 2, 746.

138

coming to Jesus (Mt  18:1a),41 thus being in unity with him in their question concerning greatness in the Church (Mt 18:1). In this way, Matthew alluded to the Lucan idea of Paul and Timothy being in unity with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem (Acts 16:4). Likewise, Matthew substituted the subsequent Marcan and Lucan idea of taking a child (Mk 9:36a; Lk 9:47b) with that of calling (*καλέω) a child (Mt 18:2a) in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of being in the churches (*κλησία: Acts 16:5). The subsequent idea of the disciples behaving like children as concerns entering the kingdom (Mt 18:3b-e) was borrowed and relocated from Mk 10:1542 par. Lk 18:17, as well as reworked to convey the somewhat surprising idea of their being turned around and becoming like children (Mt 18:3cd). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the missionaries submissively, like children, obeying the command of the Holy Spirit to turn around to Phrygia and Galatia, that is to north-east, from their way westward to Asia (Acts 16:6). Likewise, the subsequent idea of the disciple humbling himself (ὁ* + ταπεινόω + ἑαυτόν: Mt 18:4a) as a child in order to become great (Mt 18:4) was borrowed from Lk 14:11; 18:14 in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of the missionaries humbly, like children, forsaking their attempt to go into Bithynia (Acts 16:7-8a). The Matthean omission of the following Marcan story about the conflict with a different disciple (Mk 9:38-41; cf. Lk 9:49-50) is understandable because this story has no direct reference to the Lucan idea of the disciples being guided by the Spirit (Acts 16:7-8). The subsequent instruction concerning not giving offence to the little ones (Mt 18:6) was borrowed from Mk 9:4243 and reworked by inserting the idea of being thrown down (κατα*) into the depth of the sea (Mt 18:6e; diff. Mk 9:42: simply thrown into the sea). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of coming down to Troas, which was a port city situated on the deep Aegean Sea (Acts 16:8b). 41 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 283. 42 Cf. A. M. O’Leary, Matthew’s Judaization of Mark: Examined in the Context of the Use of Sources in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (LNTS 323; T&T Clark: London · New York 2006), 153, 165; W. Loader, ‘Does Matthew’s Handling of Sexuality Issues Shed Light on Its Context?’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew, 569–583 (esp. 577–578); M. Konradt, Matthäus, 283. 43 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘The Reconstruction of Q and IQP / CritEd Parallels’, in A. Lindemann (ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus (BETL 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 53–147 (esp. 72).

139

The following, thematically related prediction concerning the coming of offences (σκάνδαλα: Mt 18:7) was borrowed and relocated from Lk 17:1 (ἐλθεῖν + τὰ σκάνδαλα + πλὴν οὐαί + δι᾽ οὗ + ἔρχεται). The word σκάνδαλον (especially in plural: σκάνδαλα) was used by Paul to refer to offences resulting from halachic disagreements between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians (Rom 14:3; 16:17). Accordingly, the prediction concerning the coming of offences (Mt 18:7) again alludes to the Lucan idea of Paul coming down to Troas (Acts 16:8b), on the border between the Jerusalem-influenced mission in Asia (cf. Acts 2:9-10; 16:3-8a) and the Gentiles-oriented mission in Europe (cf. Acts 16:9). From the linguistic point of view, the noun σκάνδαλον was used by Matthew 5 times, whereas Luke used it only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Matthean Gospel (Lk 17:1 par. Mt 18:7). On the other hand, the rare formula πλὴν οὐαί was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 18:7 par. Lk 17:1), whereas Luke used it 3 times in his Gospel.44 Accordingly, the linguistic evidence concerning the direction of literary dependence between Mt 18:7 and Lk 17:1 is inconclusive. The following instructions concerning body members which give offence (Mt 18:8-9) were borrowed from Mk 9:43-47 and simplified by combining the first and the second element from Mk 9:43-45 in Mt 18:8.45

4.6.  Mt 18:10-35; cf. Acts 16:9-40 The section Mt 18:10-35, with its main themes of the disciples seeing to it that they should not despise one of these little ones, the disciples thinking, seeking and joyfully finding a lost sheep, inferring from the preceding context that God seeks the lost little ones, convicting the sinful brother, the sinner listening, having gained the sinner, several people as judicial witnesses, telling the church in order not to let the sinner be a Gentile, the disciples halachically binding and loosing on the way to heaven, praying and being gathered, forgiving a great number of times, forgiving a debt of life because of the debtor saying the words of faith in forbearance and restor­ ation, not forgiving the slave a debt of Roman money but forcefully and painfully seizing him, the more powerful slave throwing the weaker slave into prison, and a severe punishment inflicted by the master and by God on the unmerciful slave, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 16:9-40. 44 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 509. 45 Cf. J. Schmidt, Gesetzesfreie Heilsverkündigung im Evangelium nach Matthäus: Das Apostelkonzil (Apg 15) als historischer und theologischer Bezugspunkt für die Theologie des Matthäusevangeliums (FB 113; Echter: Würzburg 2007), 187.

140

The somewhat surprisingly inserted idea of the disciples seeing (ὁράω) to it that they should not despise one of these little ones, together with the idea of a heavenly vision (Mt 18:10), alludes to the Lucan idea of Paul seeing a heavenly vision of one deficient man of Macedonia, who implored Paul to come to help them (Acts 16:9). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted question concerning the disciples thinking (Mt 18:12a; diff. Lk 15:4) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul drawing a conclusion from the vision (Acts 16:10a; cf. 16:10d). The subsequent example of joyfully finding a lost sheep (Mt 18:12b-13) was borrowed and somewhat surprisingly relocated from Lk 15:4-5a.7,46 as well as reworked to convey the idea of seeking (ζητέω: Mt 18:12f; diff. Lk 15:4e: finding).47 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of seeking to go to the Gentiles in order to preach the good news to them (Acts 16:10bc). The subsequent inference from the preceding context, which concerns a heavenly vision (Mt 18:10), that God seeks the lost little ones (Mt 18:14) is a significantly reworked version of Lk 15:7 (οὕτως + ἐν + οὐρανός + εἷς). It alludes to the subsequent Lucan inference from the preceding context, which concerns a heavenly vision (Acts 16:9), that God called the missionaries to preach the good news to the Gentiles (Acts 16:10d-f; cf. 16:11-12). The subsequent instruction concerning dealing with a sinful brother (Mt 18:15) was borrowed and somewhat surprisingly relocated from Lk  17:3,48 as well as significantly reworked. In particular, Matthew rather surprisingly substituted the natural idea of rebuking the sinner (Lk 17:3c) with that of convicting him (ἐλέγχω [hapax in Mt]: Mt 18:15c),49 an idea which was used by Paul to refer to convicting incoming Gentiles (1 Cor 14:24). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of speaking to a God-fearing Gentile woman (Acts 16:13-14a). The related idea of convicting the sinner in private (Mt 18:15c; diff. Lk 17:3c) alludes to the related Lucan idea of speaking to the Gentile woman apart from other women (Acts 16:13e-14a). Likewise, Matthew substituted the subsequent idea of the sinner repenting (Lk 17:3d) with that of the sinner listening (ἀκούω: Mt 18:15d)50 in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Gentile woman listening to Paul (Acts 16:14b).

46 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 218. 47 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 287. 48 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 218. 49 Cf. N. Gatti, ‘Fraternità come ricerca: Lettura di Mt 18,15-17 in prospettiva comunicativa’, RivB 58 (2010) 35–66 (esp. 45). 50 Cf. S. Luther, Sprachetik, 387, 396.

141

Similarly, Matthew substituted the subsequent idea of forgiving the sinner (Lk 17:3e) with that of having gained (κερδαίνω) the sinner (Mt 18:15e), a metaphor which was used by Paul in a missionary context (cf. 1 Cor 9:19-22; cf. also 1 Pet 3:1).51 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan missionary idea of the Lord opening the heart of the Gentile woman, so that she gave heed to the words of Paul and was baptized (Acts 16:14c-15a). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted (diff. Lk 17:3) idea of taking one or two other people, which was supplemented with the scriptural idea of having two or three people as judicial witnesses (ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων + τριῶν + σταθη* πᾶν ῥῆμα: Mt 18:16; cf. Deut 19:15 LXX),52 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the plural number of missionaries (Paul and ‘we’) judging the woman (Acts 16:15de). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted (diff. Lk  17:3) idea of telling (λέγω) the church in order that the sinner would not be treated as a Gentile (Mt 18:17) in a negative way alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of telling the missionaries to stay in the house church of the formerly Gentile woman (Acts 16:15fg; cf. 16:15c). The subsequent, surprisingly repeated (cf. Mt  16:19) saying concerning the disciples binding and loosing on the way to heaven (Mt 18:18), thus broadening the halachic authority of Peter (cf. Mt 16:19), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Pauline missionaries accepting the Macedonian Gentile woman in the church (Acts 16:15h), thus broadening the halachic decision of the Jerusalem leaders (cf. Acts 15:23: in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia; cf. also 15:41-16:4). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted thought concerning the disciples agreeing, praying, and being gathered like in a synagogue (συνάγω), namely that it will happen (γίνομαι) to them (Mt 18:19-20), alludes to the subsequent Lucan thought that it happened to the missionaries when they went together to the Jewish place of prayer (Acts 16:16ab). The instruction concerning forgiving seven times to a sinful brother (Mt 18:21) was borrowed from Lk 17:4 and significantly reworked.53 The Matthean instruction linguistically resembles the preceding instruction concerning dealing with a sinful brother (Mt 18:15; cf. Lk 17:3), which alluded to the Lucan idea of meeting a Gentile woman (Acts 16:13-14a). Accordingly, the instruction concerning 51 Cf. N. Gatti, ‘Fraternità’, 47; M. R. C. Grundeken, ‘Community Formation in Matthew: A Study of Matthew 18,15-18’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew, 453–463 (esp. 458). 52 Cf. N. Gatti, ‘Fraternità’, 48–49; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 291; S. Luther, Sprachetik, 388. 53 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 220.

142

forgiving many times to a sinful brother (Mt 18:21-22) also alludes to meeting a Gentile woman, but now one who was a much greater sinner (Acts 16:16c-f). In particular, the surprisingly inserted remark concerning the Jewish apostle Peter (Mt  18:21ab) again alludes to the Lucan idea of a Jewish setting of the story, namely in a Jewish place of prayer (Acts 16:16b). The subsequent instruction concerning forgiving a great number of times, quite surprisingly without any remark referring to the sinner’s repentance (Mt  18:21c-22; diff. Lk  17:4: seven times, repenting),54 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of meeting a great Gentile sinner, namely a pagan diviner who practised soothsaying, without any remark referring to her repentance (Acts 16:16c-f). The enigmatic statement concerning ‘seventy times seven’ or ‘seventy-seven times’ (ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτά: Mt  18:22c; cf.  Gen  4:24 LXX)55 additionally alludes to the Pythian, so presumably enigmatic character of the woman’s soothsaying (Acts 16:16c). The subsequent account of two debtors who had nothing with which to repay, one of whom was graciously forgiven and the other one owed around a hundred denarii to pay (Mt  18:23-35), was borrowed and somewhat surprisingly relocated from Lk 7:41-42 (*ὀφειλέτης + μὴ ἔχοντ* + αὐτός + ἀποδοῦναι + δαν* + ὤφειλεν + δηνάρια), as well as greatly reworked. In particular, the Matthean idea of a king forgiving his slave a very great debt, in fact the debt of life (cf. Phlm 19: *οφείλ), because the slave said (λέγω) the words of his faith in forbearance and presumably gradual restoration, so that the king released him (Mt 18:23-27; diff. Lk 7:41-42), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Most High God releasing the Gentile slave from her pagan divination because she said the words of her faith in the presumably gradual way of salvation (Acts 16:17-18). The subsequent idea of a slave who now acted as a master and did not forgive another slave a much smaller debt of Roman money, but forcefully and painfully seized him (Mt 18:28-30a; diff. Lk 7:41-42), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Roman masters who were angry that their hope of profit from the slave had gone, and who forcefully and painfully seized Paul and Barnabas (Acts 16:19-22).

54 Cf. A. Dynak, ‘Kościół – braterska wspólnota uczniów Chrystusa: Analiza Mt 18,21-35’, in J. Kręcidło and W. Linke (eds.), Studia, 245–273 (esp. 255). 55 Cf. J. Nolland, Matthew, 754–755; P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 307 n. 21; L. Larroque, La Parabole du serviteur impitoyable en son contexte (Mt 18,21-35) (AnBib 187; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2010), 234. See e.g. PGM 1.143 ἑπτάκις ἑπτά as ‘seven times seven’.

143

The subsequent idea of the more powerful slave throwing the weaker slave into prison (βάλλω + εἰς φυλακήν: Mt 18:30b-d) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Romans throwing the Jewish apostles into prison (Acts 16:23-24). The subsequent idea of a severe punishment inflicted by the master and by God on the unmerciful slave (Mt 18:31-35; diff. Lk 7:42) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of a severe punishment inflicted by God and by the risen Jesus on the unmerciful and unjust Roman officials (Acts 16:25-40).

4.7.  Mt 19:1-15; cf. Acts 17:1-14 The section Mt 19:1-15, with its main themes of having come from one region to another, being active precisely in that new place, discussing the case of any cause, arguing with the Jews from the canonically ordered Scriptures, the disciples being reluctant to marry a woman and some people making themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom, laying hands and praying in a Jewish way, letting the children come to Jesus, laying hands upon someone, and going from there, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 17:1-14. In the section Mt 19:1-15, Matthew returned to his rather faithful use of the main narrative thread of the Marcan Gospel (Mk 10:1-16; cf. the earlier use of Mk 9:43-47 in Mt 18:8-9). However, he also reworked the Marcan text in order to allude sequentially to the ideas of Acts 17:1-14. The opening motif of coming to (ἔρχομαι + εἰς) Judaea (Mt 19:1-2) was borrowed from Mk 10:1 and slightly reworked. In particular, the Matthean idea of having come (aor. ἦλθ*) from one region to another (Mt 19:1cd; diff. Mk 10:1b: pres. ἔρχεται) alludes more closely to the Lucan opening idea of having come from Amphipolis and Apollonia to Thessalonica (Acts 17:1ab). Likewise, the subsequent idea of being active precisely in that new place (Mt 19:2b) alludes more closely to the subsequent Lucan idea of going into the synagogue which was there (Acts 17:1c-2b). The subsequent account of the dispute with the Pharisees concerning divorce (Mt 19:3-9) was borrowed from Mk 10:2-12 and reworked. In particular, Matthew inserted the idea of discussing any legal cause (Mt 19:3e; diff. Mk 10:2c)56 in order to allude more closely to the subsequent Lucan idea of formally discussing a question (διαλέγομαι: Acts 17:2c). Likewise, Matthew inserted the subsequent idea of reading from Scripture (Mt 19:4c; diff. Mk 10:3.6), reordered the quotations according to the canonical

56 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 297.

144

order of the Scriptures ‘from the beginning’ (ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς: Mt 19:4d-5.7; cf. Gen 1:27; 2:24; Deut 24:1 LXX; diff. Mk 10:4.6-8),57 and reformulated the legal dispute concerning divorce to make it being argued (λέγω… ὅτι: Mt 19:8-9; diff. Mk 10:5.11: λέγω) only with the Jews (Mt 19:3-9; diff. Mk 10:10-12: partly with the disciples).58 In this way, he alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of arguing (*λέγω… ὅτι) with the Jews from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2c-3). The particular halachic provision concerning avoiding an illicit sexual relationship (πορνεία: Mt 19:9; cf. 5:32) was borrowed from the Lucan descriptions of Jewish Christian halachic regulations (Acts 15:20.29; 21:25) in order to allude to the particular Jewish Christian presentation of the gospel in Acts 17:3. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted, correlated ideas of the disciples being reluctant to marry a woman (γυνή) and of some people making themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom (βασιλε*: Mt 19:10-12f) allude to the subsequent Lucan ideas of the apparently separate groups of some Greeks and some women joining Paul and Silas, as well as the presumably unmarried Paul and Silas (cf. 1 Cor 7:7-8)59 proclaiming Jesus as a king (Acts 17:4-7). The subsequent idea of making room for the idea of the kingdom (Mt 19:12g-i; cf. 19:11; diff. Mk 4:9.23: having ears to listen) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of letting Paul and Barnabas go, notwithstanding their being accused of proclaiming another king (Acts 17:8-9; cf. 17:7). The subsequent account of Jesus blessing the children (Mt 19:13-15) was borrowed from Mk 10:13-17a, as well as reworked. In particular, Matthew duplicated the idea of laying hands on the children (Mk 10:16) to insert it also the beginning of the story (Mt 19:13b; cf. 19:15a), he reformulated it to agree with the Jewish scriptural texts concerning laying hands upon Joshua (τὰς χεῖρας + ἐπιτίθημι: Mt 19:13b; cf. Num 27:18.23; Deut 34:9 LXX;60 diff. Mk 10:16: τίθημι), and he combined it with the motif of praying (Mt 19:13c). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan ideas of coming to a Jewish synagogue, which was a place of reading the Scriptures and praying, and of the Jews examining the Scriptures whether everything agreed with them (Acts 17:10-11).

57 Cf. M. J. J. Menken, ‘Deuteronomy in Matthew’s Gospel’, in M. J. J. Menken and S. Moyise, Deuteronomy in the New Testament (LNTS 358; T&T Clark: London · New York 2007), 42–62 (esp. 56). 58 Cf. B. Repschinski, Controversy, 173. 59 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 4, 224. 60 Cf. U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol. 3, Mt 18–25 (EKK 1/3; Benzinger: Zürich · Düsseldorf and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997), 113.

145

The subsequent idea of letting the children come to Jesus (Mt 19:14) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of many Beroean Jews and Greeks believing in Jesus (Acts 17:12). The subsequent, repeated Jewish motif of laying hands upon someone (ἐπιτίθημι + τὰς χεῖρας: Mt  19:15a; cf.  Num  27:18.23; Deut  34:9 LXX; diff. Mk 10:15-16: τίθημι) alludes to the subsequent, repeated motif of the presence of the Jews (Acts 17:13). The subsequent idea of going elsewhere was borrowed from Mk 10:17a and reformulated to convey the idea of going (πορεύομαι) from there (ἐκεῖ*: Mt 19:15b; diff. Mk  10:17a: ἐκπορεύομαι). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul going from Beroea, and Silas and Timothy remaining there (Acts 17:14).

4.8.  Mt 19:16-30; cf. Acts 17:15-34 The section Mt 19:16-30, with its main themes of coming to Jesus, doing good and asking about what is good, keeping some general commandments, God’s explicit commandments, being a young man, the man not lacking anything, the possibility for the man to be perfect, the man being young, being rich, God saving humans, a future reward, Jesus with humans judging the world at the regeneration, leaving many houses, and the last being first, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 17:15-34. The account of someone asking Jesus about eternal life (Mt 19:16-30) was borrowed from Mk 10:17b-31, conflated with Lk 18:18-30, and reworked to allude sequentially to the ideas of Acts 17:15-34. In particular, the opening idea of approaching Jesus (Mt  19:16a) was borrowed from Mk 10:7b and reworked to convey the idea of coming (*έρχομαι) to Jesus (Mt 19:16a; diff. Mk 10:17bc: running and kneeling). In this way, Matthew alluded to the opening Lucan idea of coming to Paul (Acts 17:15). The subsequent dialogue with Jesus as a teacher (διδα*) about being good and obtaining eternal life (Mt  19:16b-17c) was borrowed from Mk  10:17d-18 and significantly reworked. Matthew substituted the particular idea of Jesus being good (Mk 10:17e.18b) with the more abstract ethical one of doing good and asking about what is good (Mt 19:16c.17b).61 Moreover, he substituted the explicit religious reference to God alone as being good (Mk 10:18c) with that of an abstract philosophical ‘one’ as being good (Mt 19:17c). In this way, Matthew

61 Cf. J. R. Edwards, Hebrew, 249.

146

alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of Greek philosophers debating with Paul about his teaching (Acts 17:18-21). Likewise, the subsequently inserted idea of keeping some general commandments (Mt 19:19d-f; diff. Mk 10:18-19) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of being very religious, but in a Greek way, without knowing God (Acts 17:22-23). The subsequent idea of God’s explicit commandments (Mt  19:18-19) was borrowed from Mk 10:19 and conflated not only with Exod 20:13-16; Deut 5:1720 LXX,62 but also with Rom 13:9 (οὐ φονεύσεις + οὐ μοιχεύσεις + οὐ κλέψεις + οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις + ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν), in order to convey the idea of God’s explicit commandments which refer to relationships with other humans. In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of God being the Lord over all humans (Acts 17:24-25b). The subsequent answer to Jesus (Mt 19:20ab) was borrowed from Mk 10:20 and conflated with Lk 18:21 (ἐφύλαξα). Moreover, it was somewhat surprisingly reworked by substituting the idea of the presumably adult man (Mk  10:17) or the ruler (Lk  18:18) keeping the commandments from his youth (νεότης: Mk 10:20; Lk 18:21) with the growth-related idea of his being young (νεανίσκος: Mt 19:20a).63 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan growthrelated idea of God giving life and breath (Acts 17:25c). The subsequent idea of the man lacking (ὑστερέω) something was borrowed from Mk 10:21d and reworked to convey the idea of the man not lacking anything (Mt 19:20c).64 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of God giving all things to everyone (Acts 17:25c). The subsequent idea of giving everything to the poor (Mt  19:21) was borrowed from Mk 10:21 and conflated with Lk 18:22 (οὐρανοῖς). Moreover, it was reworked by inserting the thought that the man can be perfect (Mt 19:21bc; diff. Mk 10:21; Lk 18:22), thus imitating God (cf. Mt 5:48: τέλειος).65 This idea of the man’s proximity to God alludes to the subsequent Lucan thought that the man can find God, who created him and who is not far from him, because the man lives, moves, and has his existence in God (Acts 17:26-28c). 62 Cf. B. Repschinski, ‘Die bessere Gerechtigkeit: Gesetz, Nachfolge und Ethik im Matthäusevangelium’, ZKT 136 (2014) 423–441 (esp. 427). 63 Cf. H. van de Sandt, ‘Eternal Life as a Reward for Choosing the Right Way: The Story of the Rich Young Man (Matt 19:16-30)’, in W. Weren, H. van de Sandt, and J. Verheyden (eds.), Life Beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel: Religious Metaphor or Bodily Reality? (BTS 13; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 107–127 (esp. 114–115). 64 Cf. ibid. 118. 65 Cf. R. Feneberg, Erwählung, 291; H. van de Sandt, ‘Eternal’, 117.

147

The subsequent idea of the man being sad (Mt  19:22) was borrowed from Mk 10:22 and conflated with Lk 18:23 (ἀκούσας). Moreover, it was reworked by inserting again the idea of the man being young (Mt 19:22a; cf. 19:20). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the man being God’s offspring (Acts 17:28d-29a). The subsequent idea of the difficulty for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (Mt 19:23-24) was borrowed from Mk 10:23-25 and conflated with Lk 18:2425 (δέ + εἶπεν). Moreover, it was reworked by doubling the idea of being rich (Mt 19:23-24; diff. Mk 10:25; Lk 18:25).66 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the deity not being like two precious metals: god or silver (Acts 17:29). The subsequent idea of God saving humans (Mt 19:25-26) was borrowed from Mk 10:26-27 and conflated with Lk 18:26-27 (ἀκούσαντες + εἶπεν). It alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of God commanding all humans to repent (Acts 17:30). Therefore, Matthew reordered the Marcan statement πάντα… παρὰ τῷ θεῷ (Mk 10:27e) into παρὰ δὲ θεῷ… πάντα (Mt 19:26d) in order to allude more closely to the Lucan statement ὁ θεός… πάντας πανταχοῦ (Acts 17:30). The subsequent question of Peter (Mt 19:27) was borrowed from Mk 10:28 and conflated with Lk 18:28 (εἶπεν). Moreover, it was supplemented with a question concerning a future reward (Mt 19:27e) in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of a future day of repayment (Acts 17:31ab). The following introduction to Jesus’ answer (Mt 19:28ab) was borrowed from Mk 10:29ab and conflated with Lk 18:29ab (ὁ δέ + εἶπεν αὐτοῖς). The subsequent motif of Jesus’ disciples judging (κρίνω) the twelve tribes of Israel (Mt 19:28c-f) was borrowed and surprisingly relocated from Lk 22:28-30. However, it was also greatly reworked by omitting the ideas of participating in Jesus’ trials (Lk 22:28) and eating and drinking at Jesus’ table (Lk 22:30ab), as well as inserting the ideas of (a) regeneration, (b) Jesus’ glorious rule, and more explicitly (c) Jesus with humans judging the world (Mt 19:28d-f). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan ideas of (c) Jesus as a man judging the world, as well as (b) demonstrating Jesus by (a) raising him from the dead (Acts 17:31c-f). Since παλιγγενεσία (‘regeneration’: Mt 19:28) was a technical term used in Stoic philosophy,67 Matthew could use it in the allusion to preaching resurrection to Stoic philosophers (Acts 17:31-32; cf. 17:18).

66 Cf. H. van de Sandt, ‘Eternal’, 119. 67 Cf. LSJ, s.v. παλιγγενεσία I.2; E. Schweizer, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (NTD 2; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1973), 252, 254; R. T. France, Matthew, 743.

148

The subsequent idea of leaving other people (Mt  19:29) was borrowed from Mk 10:29-30 and reworked by inserting the idea of leaving many houses (Mt 19:29a; diff. Mk 10:29; Lk 18:29: a house) and omitting the idea of receiving a detailed reward in this time (Mt 19:29b; diff. Mk 10:30).68 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of leaving several groups of people in the city of Athens (Acts 17:32-33). The concluding statement concerning the first, who will be last, and the last, who will be first (Mt 19:30), was verbatim borrowed from Mk 10:30 in order to allude to the concluding Lucan idea of some Greeks joining the Jewish apostle Paul (Acts 17:34).

4.9.  Mt 20:1-16; cf. Acts 18:1-8 The section Mt 20:1-16, with its main themes of separately going out, workers in the Jewish vineyard, using Roman money, agreeing with the workers, telling other workers to work in the vineyard, telling the previously not hired people to work in the vineyard, the owner’s governing representative, the first workers’ anger, the owner’s answer pointing to righteousness and grace, and placing the last ones in the position of the first ones, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 18:1-8. The surprisingly inserted, metaphoric account of hired workers in the vineyard (ἀμπελών) of the owner of the vineyard (ὁ κύριος τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος), who again and again (πάλιν) sent (ἀπέστειλεν) people including the last ones (ἔσχατος) there, and finally did (ποιέω) something negative to the first workers, but gave (δίδωμι) something positive to the later other (ἄλλοι) ones (Mt  20:1-16), was borrowed from Mk 12:1-9 (cf. Mt 21:33-41) and greatly reworked to allude sequentially to the ideas of Acts 18:1-8. In particular, the opening idea of going out (ἐξέρχομαι: Mt  20:1b; diff. Mk  12:1: travel abroad) early in the morning, so presumably separately from others (cf. Mk 1:35: ἐξῆλθεν + πρωΐ), alludes to the opening Lucan idea of being separated from (ἐκ) Athens and going (ἔρχομαι) to Corinth (Acts 18:1). The subsequent idea of workers (ἐργάτης) in the presumably Jewish (cf. Is 5:17 LXX;69 Mk  12:1-2.9.12) vineyard (Mt  20:1c; diff. Mk  12:1: tenants) alludes 68 Cf. P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 316–317; H. van de Sandt, ‘Eternal’, 121. 69 Cf. D. A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28 (WBC 33B; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1995), 570; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 3, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew XIX-XXVIII (International Critical Commentary; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1997), 71; R. T. France, Matthew, 749.

149

to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Jew Aquila (Acts  18:2a), who worked (ἐργάζομαι) with Paul both as a tentmaker (Acts 18:3) and as a missionary coworker (συνεργός: Rom 16:3), and who according to the Acts of the Apostles worked especially with other Jews (cf. Acts 18:18.24-27). The subsequent, quite surprising idea of being paid with a Roman denarius (Mt 20:2a; diff. Tob 5:15 LXX: a Greek drachma)70 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Aquila having a Roman name, coming from Italy, having a wife called by the Roman name Priscilla, being somehow related to the Roman emperor Claudius, and departing from Rome (Acts 18:2a-d). The related idea of agreeing with the workers (Mt 20:2a) alludes to the related Lucan idea of being in agreement with Aquila (Acts  18:2e-3). Likewise, the repeated remark concerning the workers (ἐργάτης: Mt 20:2a), together with the idea of sending them to the vineyard, alludes to the Lucan idea of working (ἐργάζομαι: Acts 18:3). The subsequent idea of telling (λέγω) other workers to work in the vineyard and giving them something right (δίκαιον: Mt 20:3-5) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of persuading (*λέγω) and convincing other Jews (Acts 18:4), presumably with the use of the arguments concerning righteousness (cf. Rom 1:17 etc.). The subsequent idea of telling yet other, previously not hired people to work in the vineyard, without agreeing upon payment, but paying them with grace and goodness (Mt 20:6-7; cf. 20:8-9.15), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of convincing also Gentiles, who are saved through grace (Acts 18:4b). The particular idea of finding (εὑρίσκω) workers (Mt 20:6) may linguistically allude to the previous Lucan idea of finding Aquila (Acts 18:2). The subsequent idea of the owner’s governing representative (Mt 20:8; diff. Mk  12:6: beloved son) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Messiah (Acts 18:5). The subsequent idea of the first workers’ anger, which was expressed in their (a) thoughts and (b) words (Mt 20:9-12; diff. Mk 12:7-8: thoughts and action), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Jews’ (a) opposition and (b) blasphemies (Acts 18:6ab).

70 Roman denarii were very rarely used in Galilee before ad 70. In fact, only one Roman denarius was found in Galilee of the Early Roman period before the Jewish Revolt. See D. Syon, Small Change in Hellenistic-Roman Galilee: The Evidence from Numismatic Site Finds as a Tool for Historical Reconstruction (NumSR 11; Israel Numismatic Society: Jerusalem 2015), 63, 193, 196, 209–215. Cf. also B. W. Root, First Century Galilee: A Fresh Examination of the Sources (WUNT 2.378; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2014), 104.

150

The subsequent idea of the owner’s answer (εἶπεν) to the first workers, which conveys the idea of not only righteousness, but also goodness and grace (Mt  20:13-15),71 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the answer to the Jews, which expresses a condemnation of the Jews and a resolve to go to the Gentiles (Acts 18:6c-g). The concluding idea of placing the last ones in the position of the first ones, and vice versa (Mt 20:16; diff. 19:30: the first ones in the position of the last ones, etc.), alludes to the concluding Lucan idea of going to many Gentiles, and only few Jews (Acts 18:7-8).

4.10.  Mt 20:17-34; cf. Acts 18:9-21 The section Mt 20:17-34, with its main themes of having instructed the disciples in private, a clearly Gentile persecution, humbly asking one favour, not being in the position of God the Father, harsh rule of Gentile rulers, going away from a city, people following Jesus, a dialogue with a plural number of unnamed Jews asking to open their eyes, showing God’s compassion for the Jews by opening their eyes, and following Jesus apparently not on the road, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 18:9-21. The section Mt  20:17-34 was rather faithfully borrowed from its Marcan counterpart Mk 10:32-52. However, it was also reworked to allude in a sequential way to the ideas of Acts 18:9-21. In particular, the inserted idea of Jesus having instructed (εἶπεν; diff. Mk  10:32gh: ἤρξατο… λέγειν) the disciples in private (Mt  20:17bc; diff. Mk 10:32f)72 alludes to the Lucan idea of the Lord having instructed Paul in a private revelation (Acts 18:9ab). The subsequent prediction of a future persecution of Jesus (Mt 20:18-19) was borrowed from Mk 10:33-34 and reworked to convey the idea of a clearly Gentile (εἰς τὸ…) persecution (Mt 20:19; diff. Mk 10:34; 14:65; 15:19-20.31: both Jews and Gentiles mocking and spitting on Jesus). In this way, Matthew alluded to

71 Cf. P. Mareček, ‘Libertà di Dio: Giusto e Buono: Spiegazione della parabola degli operai nella vigna (Mt 20,1-16)’, in L. De Santos and S. Grasso, “Perché stessero con Lui”, Festschrift K. Stock (AnBib 180; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2010), 123–150 (esp. 144–146, 149); P. J. Judge, ‘ “Or is your eye evil because I am good?” (Mt 20,15): What Kind of Justice Is This?’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew, 499–510 (esp. 506); N. Eubank, ‘What Does Matthew Say about Divine Recompense? On the Misuse of the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (20.1-16)’, JSNT 35.3 (2013) 242–262 (esp. 249–251). 72 Cf. K. Siwek, ‘Mateuszowe’, 450.

151

the subsequent Lucan idea of preaching with no fear of a Gentile persecution in Corinth (Acts 18:9c-11). The subsequent account of James and John asking Jesus to grant them the places closest to Jesus (Mt 20:20-21) was borrowed from Mk 10:35-37 and reworked by inserting the character of their Jewish mother, who together with them humbly asked (λέγ*: Mt 20:21c; diff. Mk 10:37a: εἶπαν) one favour from Jesus (Mt 20:20; diff. Mk 10:35: James and John asking for everything).73 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Jews with one accord asking one favour from the Roman proconsul (Acts 18:12-13). The subsequent idea of answering (εἶπεν) the request in a negative way (Mt 20:22-23) was borrowed from Mk 10:38-40 and reworked by explicitly pointing to not being in the position of God the Father (Mt 20:23c-f; diff. Mk 10:40: someone). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of answering the request in a negative way by pointing to not being a judge in religious matters (Acts 18:14-15). The subsequent dialogue with the other disciples (Mt  20:24-28) was borrowed from Mk 10:41-45 and reworked by substituting the idea of those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles (Mk 10:42de) with that of the rulers over the Gentiles (Mt  20:25d). The resulting image of harsh rule of Gentile rulers (Mt 20:25de) alludes to the subsequent Lucan image of the Roman proconsul driving the Jews away and letting them be beaten (Acts 18:16-17). The subsequent idea of being at Jericho (Mt  20:29a) was borrowed from Mk 10:46ab. However, it was also reworked by omitting the idea of coming to Jericho (Mk 10:46a; Lk 18:35) and retaining only the idea of going away (ἐκ*) from that city (Mt 20:29a). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of sailing away from the city of Corinth (Acts 18:18a-c). The subsequent idea of a great crowd around Jesus (Mt 20:29b) was borrowed from Mk 10:46b and reworked by inserting the idea of the crowd following Jesus (Mt 20:29b). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of people travelling with Paul (Acts 18:18d-19b). The subsequent account of Jesus meeting someone blind (Mt 20:30-33) was borrowed from Mk 10:46c-51. However, it was also significantly reworked by doubling the character of the blind Bartimaeus (Mk 10:46c-51) into two unnamed blind men (Mt 20:30-33), omitting the dialogue of Jesus with the crowd 73 Cf. M. Konradt, ‘ “Ihr wisst nicht, was ihr erbittet” (Mt 20,22): Die Zebedaienbitte in Mt 20,20f und die königliche Messianologie im Matthäusevangelium’, in id., ed. A. Euler, Studien zum Matthäusevangelium (WUNT 358; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 171–200 (esp. 172–174).

152

(Mk  10:49b-h; cf.  Lk  18:40bc), omitting the description of a Jew coming to Jesus (Mk  10:50; cf.  Lk  10:40d), and substituting the idea of regaining sight (Mk 10:51f; Lk 18:41d) with that of opening the eyes (Mt 20:33b; cf. Is 35:5; 42:7 LXX: ἀνοίγω + ὀφθαλμοί).74 The resulting image of Jesus’ dialogue with a plural number of unnamed Jews, who asked him to open their eyes (Mt 20:30-33), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul’s dialogue (διαλέγω) with a plural number of unnamed Jews, who asked him to stay with them, presumably in order to teach them (Acts 18:19c-20b). The subsequent description of the healing (Mt 20:34ab) was borrowed from Mk  10:52a-c and greatly reworked by substituting the idea of the blind man’s faith (Mk 10:52c; Lk 18:42c) with that of Jesus having compassion for the blind men (Mt  20:34a).75 The resulting image of Jesus showing God’s compassion (cf.  Lk  15:20: σπλαγχνίζομαι) for the Jews, which led to opening their eyes (Mt  20:34ab; cf.  20:33b; cf.  also Mk  8:23: ὄμματα), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul pointing to God’s salvific will for the Jews, which should let Paul teach them more (Acts 18:20c-21d). The concluding idea of regaining sight and following Jesus (Mt 20:34cd) was borrowed from Mk 10:52de and reworked by omitting the idea of going on the road (Mt 20:34d; diff. Mk 10:52e). In this way, Matthew alluded to the concluding Lucan idea of putting out to the sea (Acts 18:21e).

74 Cf.  A.  Sand, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (RNT; Friedrich Pustet: Regensburg 1986), 410; A. Stock, The Method and Message of Matthew (Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 1994), 317; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 319. 75 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 319.

153

Chapter 5. Mt 21–25 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts 18:22-21:9 The Matthean story concerning the final phase of Jesus’ public activity: from his arrival in Jerusalem to the prediction of his imminent arrest (Mt 21–25) is a result of a sequential hypertextual reworking of the Lucan story concerning the final phase of Paul’s missionary activity: from his arrival in Judaea to the prediction of his imminent arrest (Acts 18:22-21:9).

5.1.  Mt 21:1-27; cf. Acts 18:22-25 The section Mt 21:1-27, with its main themes of coming to a city, taking a seat above two animals and clothes, greeting Jesus in a Jewish way, leaving Jerusalem for another town, temporarily lodging in the town of Bethany, departing somewhere higher, a tree by the road, increasing faith of the disciples, teaching in the temple, and the baptism of John, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 18:22-25. The opening idea of being close to Jerusalem (Mt 21:1ab) was borrowed from Mk  11:1a and reworked by inserting the idea of coming (ἔρχομαι: Mt  21:1b; diff. Mk 11:1a; Lk 19:29b) and by substituting the preposition πρός (Mk 11:1a; Lk 19:29b) with εἰς (Mt 21:1b). In this way, Matthew alluded to the Lucan opening idea of coming to (*έρχομαι + εἰς) Caesarea, close to Jerusalem (Acts 18:22a). The following account of sending the disciples (Mt 21:1c-3) was borrowed from Mk 11:1b-3 and conflated with Lk 19:29c-31 (ἀπέστειλεν + λέγων + λύσαντες + ἀγάγετε + ἐρεῖτε ὅτι), as well as reworked to convey the idea of two animals (ὄνος + πῶλος), in order to agree with the scriptural quotation in Mt 21:5.1 The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted quotation from the prophet (Mt 21:4-5; diff. Mk 11:3-4; Lk 19:31-32) in fact resulted from a conflation of Is 62:11 LXX (εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ Σιών) with Zech 9:9 LXX (ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί σοι + πραῢς καὶ ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπί + καί + πῶλον + ὑποζύγιον).2 The latter quotation was surprisingly reworked to convey the really astonishing idea 1 Cf. M. Mulzer, ‘Ein Esel, zwei Esel? Zu Sach 9,9 und Mt 21.2.5.7’, BZ, nf 59 (2015) 79–88 (esp. 84). 2 Cf. N. Eubank, Wages of Cross-Bearing and Debt of Sin: The Economy of Heaven in Matthew’s Gospel (BZNW 196; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2013), 171–174;

155

of mounting on two different animals (ἐπὶ ὄνον καὶ ἐπὶ πῶλον υἱὸν ὑποζυγίου: Mt  21:5).3 Having omitted the disciples’ dialogue with the owners of the animal (Mk 11:5-6; Lk 19:33-34), Matthew further elaborated the image of mounting on two animals (Mt  21:5) by conflating Mk  11:7 with Lk  19:35 (ἤγαγον) and surprisingly increasing the use of the preposition and prefix ἐπι* from 2 times in Mk 11:7 (ἐπιβάλλουσιν, ἐπί) and 3 times in Lk 19:35 (ἐπιρίψαντες, ἐπί, ἐπεβίβασαν) into 4 times in Mt 21:7 (ἐπέθηκαν, ἐπί, ἐπεκάθισεν, ἐπάνω). As a result, Matthew created the strange image of Jesus taking a seat above two animals and clothes, which were put on them (Mt 21:7). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of going up (Acts 18:22b). In fact, the Marcan text ἐπιβάλλουσιν αὐτῷ τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν (‘they throw their clothes on it/him and he sat on it’: Mk 11:7bc) is semantically unclear because it does not state on whom they threw their clothes: on the colt or on Jesus (cf. Lev 19:19 LXX: ἱμάτιον… ἐπιβαλεῖς σεαυτῷ). The Lucan text ἐπιρίψαντες αὐτῶν τὰ ἱμάτια ἐπὶ τὸν πῶλον ἐπεβίβασαν τὸν Ἰησοῦν (‘having thrown their clothes on the colt they set Jesus’: Lk 19:35bc) is in this respect clearer (cf. Lk 13:34; Acts 23:24), but due to the lack of punctuation it also leaves a margin of uncertainty, on what or on whom they threw their clothes (cf. 2 Sam 20:12 LXX: ἐπέρριψεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἱμάτιον). The Matthean text ἐπέθηκαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν τὰ ἱμάτια καὶ ἐπεκάθισεν ἐπάνω αὐτῶν (‘they put their clothes on them and he sat on above4 them’: Mt  21:7bc), which is most complex linguistically, finally clarifies the issue: the clothes were put on the animals, and Jesus sat on the animals and on the clothes which were put on them.5 However, the conflation of the Marcan and Lucan sequences of the use of the preposition and prefix ἐπι*, as well as the literal use of Zech 9:9 LXX (‘having mounted on a donkey and a young colt’) in Mt 21:4-5.7,6 resulted in the quite strange image of Jesus M. Konradt, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (NTD 1; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen · Bristol 2015), 322; M. Mulzer, ‘Esel’, 84. 3 Pace M. Mulzer, ‘Esel’, 84 n. 23. 4 Cf. J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (NIGTC; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge and Paternoster: Bletchley 2005), 836. A similar syntactical construction (ἐπι- + ἐπάνω) occurs in the Matthean Gospel also in Mt 27:37, where it refers to putting the accusation above (and not on) the head of Jesus. 5 Pace W.  Kahl, ‘Erhebliche matthäisch-lukanische Übereinstimmungen gegen das Markusevangelium in der Triple-Tradition: Ein Beitrag zur Klärung der synoptischen Abhängigkeitsverhältnisse’, ZNW 103 (2012) 20–46 (esp. 39). 6 Cf. L. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (PiNTC; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 1992), 521; D. A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28 (WBC 33B; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1995), 594–595; J. Nolland, Matthew, 837.

156

sitting above two animals and clothes which were put on them.7 Accordingly, the Matthean text resulted from a scripturalizing reworking of the thematically corresponding texts of Mark and Luke.8 The subsequent account of meeting various people and cleansing the temple in Jerusalem (Mt 21:8-16) was borrowed from Mk 11:8-11c.15-18 and conflated with Lk 19:36-40.45-47 (ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ + λέγοντες + γέγραπται + αὐτὸν… ποι* + κράζω + εἶπαν), as well as significantly reworked. In particular, Matthew inserted the ideas of directly greeting Jesus in a Jewish way as the son of David (Mt 21:9e; diff. Mk 11:9d; Lk 19:38b),9 agitating the whole city of Jerusalem and confessing Jesus in a Jewish way as the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee (Mt 21:10b-11; cf. Mk 1:9: Ἰησοῦς… ἀπὸ Ναζαρε* τῆς Γαλιλαίας; diff. Mk 11:11a),10 healing sick people in the Jewish temple (Mt 21:14.15b; diff. Mk 11:18),11 and again confessing Jesus in a scriptural way (Mt  21:15c-16; cf.  Ps  8:3 LXX; diff. Mk  11:18).12 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of directly greeting, presumably in a Jewish way, the Jewish church in Jerusalem (Acts 18:22c). The subsequent idea of going out of the city (Mt 21:17ab) was borrowed from Mk 11:19ab and reworked by inserting the idea of leaving the people of Jerusalem (Mt 21:17a; diff. Mk 11:19a), expressing the idea of going out of the city 7 Cf. U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol. 3, Mt 18–25 (EKK 1/3; Benzinger: Zürich · Düsseldorf and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997), 181–182; J. Nolland, Matthew, 837; W. Coppins, ‘Sitting on Two Asses? Second Thoughts on the TwoAnimal Interpretation of Matthew 21:7’, TynBul 63 (2012) 275–290 (esp. 279–287). 8 Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘Interpretacja Ewangelii według św. Mateusza a problem synoptyczny’, in J. Kręcidło and W. Linke (eds.), Studia nad Ewangelią według św. Mateusza (LinSacMon 5; Apostolicum: Ząbki and Bractwo Słowa Bożego: Warszawa 2015), 179–193 (esp. 185–187). 9 Cf. P. Fiedler, Das Matthäusevangelium (TKNT 1; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2006), 324; C. E. Carlston and C. A. Evans, From Synagogue to Ecclesia: Matthew’s Community at the Crossroads (WUNT 334; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2014), 20. 10 Cf. P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 324. 11 Cf. D. M. Gurtner, ‘Matthew’s Theology of the Temple and the “Parting of the Ways”: Christian Origins and the First Gospel’, in D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland (eds.), Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2008), 128–153 (esp. 139). 12 Cf. B. Repschinski, The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form and Relevance for the Relationship Between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism (FRLANT 189; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2000), 187, 191; P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 326; R. Feneberg, Die Erwählung Israels und die Gemeinde Jesu Christi: Biographie und Theologie Jesu im Matthäusevangelium (HeBS 58; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 2009), 302–304, 306–307.

157

once (Mt 21:17b; cf. Mk 11:11; diff. Mk 11:19b: repeatedly), and inserting the idea of going to another town, namely that of Bethany (Mt 21:17b; cf. Mk 11:11; diff. Mk 11:19b: out of Jerusalem). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of going from Jerusalem to another city, namely that of Antioch (Acts 18:22d). The subsequently inserted idea of temporarily lodging in the town of Bethany (Mt 21:17c; diff. Mk 11:19b) was borrowed from Lk 21:37 (αὐλίζομαι) in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of spending some time in the city of Antioch (Acts 18:23a). The subsequent statement that in the morning Jesus was hungry (Mt 21:18) resulted from a conflation of Mk  11:20 (πρωΐ) with Mk  11:12 (ἐπείνασεν). It was also reworked to convey the idea of departing somewhere higher (ἐπανάγω: Mt 21:18a). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of departing from Antioch to the higher-located region of Galatia (Acts 18:23b). The subsequent idea of cursing a fruitless fig tree, so that it withered (Mt 21:19), was borrowed from Mk 11:13-14.20c and reworked by substituting the idea of its being at a distance (Mk 11:13a) with that of its being by the road (Mt 21:19a). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of travelling, presumably by roads, from place to place through the region of Galatia and Phrygia (Acts 18:23c). The subsequent statement concerning the withered fig tree (Mt  21:20) was borrowed from Mk  11:21 and reworked by substituting the character of Peter (Mk 11:21a) with that of the disciples (οἱ μαθηταί: Mt 21:20a). Likewise, Matthew substituted the idea of having faith in extraordinary miracles (Mk 11:22-24) with that of a gradually increasing outcome of faith (Mt 21:21-22). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of strengthening all the disciples, presumably in their faith (Acts 18:23d). After the omission of the instruction concerning prayer (Mk  11:25; cf. Mt 5:23-24; 6:9b), the subsequent idea of meeting the chief priests and the elders in the temple (Mt  21:23a-c) was borrowed from Mk  11:27. However, it was also conflated with the idea of teaching (διδάσκω: Mt 21:23c; cf. Lk 20:1b), with the omission of the remark concerning Jerusalem (Mt 21:23a; cf. Lk 20:1b; diff. Mk 11:27a). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of teaching in Ephesus, so in the city of a famous temple, which was not that of Jerusalem (Acts 18:24-25d). The subsequent discussion concerning the authority of Jesus in the context of the baptism of John (τὸ βάπτισμα + Ἰωάννου: Mt 21:23d-27) was borrowed from Mk 11:28-33 and conflated with Lk 20:2-8 (λέγοντες + ἀποκριθείς + κἀγὼ λόγον 158

+ οἱ δέ + ἐὰν δέ + προφήτην). It alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of knowing the baptism of John (Acts 18:25e).

5.2.  Mt 21:28-32; cf. Acts 18:26-28a The section Mt  21:28-32, with its main themes of someone who changed his mind and undertook evangelistic activity in a Jewish environment, Gentiles entering the kingdom of God before the Jews, and the Gentiles believing, in difference to the still unbelieving Jews, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 18:26-28a. The somewhat surprisingly inserted (diff. Mk 11:33; Lk 20:8) story about a man who had two sons, one of whom changed his mind (Mt 21:28-30), originates from a reworking of the thematically similar Lucan story Lk  15:11-32 (ἄνθρωπος  + εἶχεν + τέκνον + δύο),13 which was conflated with the one concerning going to work for some time in the presumably Jewish (cf. Mk 12:1-2.9.12; Is 5:1-7 LXX)14 vineyard (Mt  20:1-16: ὑπάγω + *ημερ + ἐργάζομαι + ἀμπελών + ἀπέρχομαι + ὡσαύτως). In this way, Matthew created the image of someone who, in difference to his brother, changed his mind and undertook evangelistic activity in a Jewish environment (Mt 21:28-31b). The evangelist thus alluded to the Lucan image of Apollos, who, in difference to other Jews, was persuaded to change his previous ideas and speak about Jesus more accurately in the Jewish synagogue (Acts 18:26). For this reason, in order to allude more closely to the Lucan idea of taking Apollos aside (προσ*: Acts 18:26d), Matthew created the somewhat surprising image of the father coming to the sons (προσ*: Mt 21:28c.30a; diff. Lk 15:12; Mt 20:1.3.5-6). The subsequent idea of the tax collectors and the prostitutes entering the kingdom of God before the Jews (Mt 21:31c-e) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the previously converted Gentile believers receiving the recently converted Jew Apollos (Acts 18:27a-e). In particular, the quite surprisingly inserted motif of the prostitutes (Mt  21:31e.32c; diff. Mk  2:15-16; Lk  15:1 etc.: tax collectors

13 For an explanation of this literary relationship in terms of the Two-Source hypothesis, see M. Rastoin, ‘Le génie littéraire et théologique de Luc en Lc 15.11-32 éclairé par le parallèle avec Mt 21.28-32’, NTS 60 (2014) 1–19 (esp. 12–14). 14 Cf. W. G. Olmstead, Matthew’s Trilogy of Parables: The Nation, the Nations and the Reader in Matthew 21.28-22.14 (SNTSMS 127; Cambridge University: Cambridge 2003), 100–101.

159

and sinners)15 alludes to the Achaean city of Corinth (Acts 18:27a; 19:1; cf. 1 Cor 5:1.9-11; 6:9-18; 10:8; 2 Cor 12:21: πορν*). The subsequent image of the Gentiles who believed (πιστεύω), in difference to the still unbelieving Jews (Mt 21:32), alludes to the subsequent Lucan image of the Achaean Gentiles who believed through grace, in difference to the still unbelieving Achaean Jews, who were vigorously refuted by Apollos (Acts 18:27f-28a). The particular motif of tax collectors obeying John, in difference to the Jews (Mt 21:32), was borrowed from Lk 7:29-30 ( Ἰωάννης + τελῶναι).

5.3.  Mt 21:33-46; cf. Acts 18:28bc The section Mt 21:33-46, with its main themes of the Jews killing and stoning those who were sent to them, quoting from the Scriptures, and a Messianic stone crushing others, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 18:28bc. The parable of the wicked tenants (Mt 21:33-41) was borrowed from Mk 12:19, conflated with Lk  20:9-16 (παραβολήν + ἐφύτευσεν ἀμπελῶνα + ἰδόντες + ἐκβάλλω… ἀπέκτειναν + ποιήσει… *οις), and more closely assimilated to the scriptural text Is  5:2 LXX (φραγμὸν… περιέθηκ*: Mt  21:33d).16 Moreover, Matthew conflated it with the apparently scriptural motif of the Jews killing (ἀποκτείνω) and stoning (λιθοβολέω) those who were sent (ἀποστέλλω) to them (Mt 21:34b-35d), which was borrowed from Lk 13:34a-c. In this way, Matthew alluded to the Lucan idea of confuting the Jews with the use of scriptural arguments (Acts 18:28ab). The subsequent quotation from Ps 118[117]:22-23 LXX in Mt 21:42 was borrowed from Mk 12:10-11 and reworked by conveying the somewhat surprising idea of the Scriptures (plur.: αἱ γραφαί: Mt 21:42b; diff. Mk 12:10; Lk 20:17) in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of showing from the Scriptures (Acts 18:28b).

15 Cf. B. C. Dennert, John the Baptist and the Jewish Setting of Matthew (WUNT 2.403; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015), 114–115. 16 Cf. W. G. Olmstead, Trilogy, 153; K. J. McDaniel, Experiencing Irony in the First Gospel: Suspense, Surprise and Curiosity (LNTS 488; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London [et al.] 2013), 111–112; M. Konradt, ‘Matthäus im Kontext: Eine Bestandsaufnahme zur Frage des Verhältnisses der matthäischen Gemeinde(n) zum Judentum’, in id., ed. A. Euler, Studien zum Matthäusevangelium (WUNT 358; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 3–42 (esp. 16 n. 47).

160

The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted idea of the kingdom (βασιλεία) of God (Mt  21:43), together with the following text concerning a stone crushing others (λίθος + λικμάω: Mt 21:44), which was borrowed from Lk  20:18, commonly allude to the scriptural Messianic text Dan  2:44-45 θ’.17 Consequently, they convey the idea that the rejected stone (Mt 21:42) turned out to be the scriptural Messiah (Mt 21:43-44). Therefore, they allude to the subsequent Lucan idea that Jesus, who was rejected by the Jews, turned out to be the scriptural Messiah (Acts 18:28c; cf. 18:28b). The following idea of the Jewish leaders rejecting Jesus, in difference to the crowds accepting him (Mt 21:45-46), was borrowed from Mk 12:12 and conflated with the motif of regarding as a prophet (Mt 21:46d; cf. Mk 11:32: προφήτης + εἶχον). In this way, Matthew again alluded to the Lucan idea of the Gentiles, but not the Jews, regarding Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 18:28c).

5.4.  Mt 22:1-14; cf. Acts 19:1-6 The section Mt 22:1-14, with its main themes of the Jews rejecting the invitation to the Gentiles-oriented banquet of God’s Son, going on the ways out of the city, finding some people, seeing a man who was somehow deficient, asking a question concerning the deficiency, the deficient person negatively reacting to the question, pronouncing a negative verdict concerning the deficient person, and few people being chosen, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 19:1-6. The surprisingly inserted (diff. Mk 12:12-13) story about a man unsuccessfully and successfully inviting people to a great dinner (Mt 22:1-14) was borrowed and relocated from Lk  14:16-24 (εἶπεν + αὐτός + ἄνθρωπος + *τις + ποιέω + καὶ ἀπέστειλεν + ὁ δοῦλος + αὐτοῦ + καλέω + το* κεκλημένο* + καί + ἕτοιμα + *έρχομαι + ὁ* + ἀγρόν + ὁ δοῦλος + ὀργίζω + τότε + λέγω + ὁ δοῦλος + αὐτοῦ + ἐξέρχομαι + εἰς τὰς ὁδούς + ὁ δοῦλος + καλέω). Moreover, it was also significantly reworked. In particular, the metaphorical motif of the wedding banquet of the Son of the King (Mt 22:2-12; diff. Lk 14:16-24: dinner)18 was borrowed from Mk 2:18-19 in order to illustrate the idea of the joyful presence of Jesus, in difference to the merely Jewish ideas of John the Baptist. Therefore, it alludes to the Lucan idea of Jesus’ gift of the Holy Spirit, in difference to the merely Jewish baptism of John (Acts 19:1-4).

17 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 337. 18 Cf. ibid. 339.

161

The highlighted idea of the Jews (diff. Lk 14:18-20) rejecting the invitation to the banquet (Mt  22:2-8), thus behaving like the Jewish elder son who did not want to come to the banquet of fattened calves killed for the Gentile prodigal son (cf. Lk 15:28-30: καὶ οὐκ ἤθελ* *ελθεῖν + θύω + σιτ*), alludes to the Lucan idea of the Jews rejecting the gospel in the Gentile city of Corinth (Acts 19:1a; cf. 18:28). For this reason, in order to allude more clearly to the Lucan idea of the trade city of Corinth (Acts 19:1a), Matthew substituted the idea of buying five yoke of oxen (Lk 14:19) with that of going to one’s trade (Mt 22:5d). The particular motif of the king sending his troops (στρατ*) to burn the city (πόλις + ἐμπίπρημι), presumably that of Jerusalem (Mt 22:7; diff. Lk 14:21), was borrowed from Jos. B.J. 3.653 (cf. 6.316, 363, 434). The subsequent idea of going on (diff. Mt 22:10: εἰς) the ways out of the city (δι*: Mt 22:9a; diff. Lk 14:23: roads and hedges) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul passing (δι*) through the interior regions out of the city of Ephesus (Acts 19:1bc). The subsequent idea of finding (εὑρίσκω; diff. Lk  14:23: compelling) some people (Mt 22:9b-10) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of finding some disciples (Acts 19:1d). The subsequent idea of seeing a man who was situationally deficient (Mt 22:11)19 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of finding some disciples, who were spiritually deficient (Acts 19:1d; cf. 19:2-4). The thematic link between the idea of not being clothed (ἐνδύω) in a particular garment (Mt 22:11-12c) and that of not having received the Holy Spirit (πνεῦμα ἅγιον + λαμβάνω: Acts 19:1d-2) originates from a reworking of the Lucan motif of being clothed with the power of the Holy Spirit (Lk 24:49; Acts 1:8). The subsequent idea of asking (λέγω + αὐτός) a question concerning the situational deficiency (Mt 22:12a-c) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of asking a question concerning the spiritual deficiency (Acts 19:2a-c). The subsequent idea of the situationally deficient person (ὁ + δέ) negatively reacting to the question (Mt  22:12d) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the spiritually deficient people negatively answering the question (Acts 19:2d-f). The subsequent idea of pronouncing (εἶπεν) a negative verdict concerning the situationally deficient person (Mt 22:13) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of pronouncing a negative verdict concerning spiritual deficiency (Acts 19:3-4). 19 For an analysis of the literary motifs which may have been used in the story concerning the spiritually deficient person (Mt 22:11-13), see P. Garuti, ‘La cohérence des images dans le tableau final de la parabole du «festin nuptial» (Mt 22,11-13) et l’éthique du banquet: la figure (comique) de l’ἄκλητος’, RB 122 (2015) 371–386.

162

The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly added idea of only few people being chosen (Mt 22:14)20 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of a small group of disciples being given the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:5-6; cf. 19:7).

5.5.  Mt 22:15-46; cf. Acts 19:7-8 The section Mt 22:15-46, with its main themes of the presence of several men, all men, the Jews being gathered together, conversing with the Jews, and the Jews being no more able to answer or ask questions, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 19:7-8. The account of asking Jesus about paying taxes to Caesar (Mt  22:15-22) was borrowed from Mk  12:13-17 and conflated with Lk  20:20-26 (*δείξατε + ἀπόδοτε… τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι). The following account of asking Jesus about the resurrection (Mt 22:23-33) was borrowed from Mk 12:18-27 and conflated with Lk 20:27-39 (προσέρχομαι + λέγοντες + ἐπηρώτησαν + ὕστερον + οὖν + εἶπεν + ἀνάστασις + διδα*). The particular statement that there were several men (ἦσαν δέ… numeral: Mt 22:25; diff. Mk 12:20; Lk 20:29: numeral… ἦσαν) alludes to the Lucan statement that there were twelve men (Acts 19:7). Likewise, the subsequent remark concerning all husbands (πάντες: Mt 22:28; diff. Mk 12:23; Lk 20:33: the seven) alludes to the subsequent Lucan remark concerning all men (Acts 19:7). From the linguistic point of view, the adverbial ὕστερον was used in the Gospel of Matthew 7 times, whereas Luke used it only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Matthean Gospel (Lk 20:32 par. Mt 22:27). Accordingly, it in itself strongly favours the hypothesis of the Lucan dependence on the Gospel of Matthew.21 However, its use in the phrase ὕστερον… πάντων in Mt  22:27 can also be explained as resulting from a conflation of Lk 20:32 (ὕστερον) with Mk 12:22 (ἔσχατον πάντων). In fact, the Marcan phrase ἔσχατον πάντων (‘last of all’: Mk 12:22) could be understood as presenting the woman as the last one among seven men, who were mentioned previously (cf.  Mk  12:20a). This error was corrected by Luke’s and thereafter also Matthew’s use of the adverbial ὕστερον (‘afterwards, finally’). Nevertheless, the result of the Matthean conflation of Lk 20:32 (‘finally’) with Mk 12:22 (‘last of all’) is still somewhat surprising (‘finally of all’: Mt 22:27). 20 Cf. P.-B. Smit, ‘The Invitation to the Eschatological Banquet and the Call to Follow Christ – A Note on Mt. 22:14’, RB 120 (2013) 72–84 (esp. 72–73). 21 Cf. M. Goodacre, The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 2002), 154–155.

163

The subsequent account of asking Jesus about the most important commandment (Mt  22:34-40) was borrowed from Mk  12:28-31 and conflated with the thematically related text Lk 10:25-27 (νομικός + *πειράζων + διδάσκαλε + ἐν τῷ νόμῳ22 + ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ + ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ).23 The particular, somewhat surprisingly inserted idea of the Jews being gathered together (συνάγω: Mt 22:34; diff. Mk  12:28; Lk  10:25: one man) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of a Jewish synagogue (συναγωγή: Acts 19:8a). From the linguistic point of view, the noun νομικός was used in the Gospel of Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 22:35 par. Lk 10:25), whereas Luke used it 6 times in his Gospel.24 Accordingly, it strongly favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke.25 The following account of Jesus asking about David’s son (Mt 22:41-46) was borrowed from Mk 12:35-37b and conflated with Lk 20:41-44 (οὖν + καλεῖ + πῶς). The particular, somewhat surprisingly inserted idea of the Jews being gathered together (συνάγω: Mt 22:41a; diff. Mk 12:35: in the temple)26 again alludes to the Lucan idea of a Jewish synagogue (συναγωγή: Acts  19:8a). The subsequent, somewhat surprising dialogue with the Jews (Mt 22:41-43; diff. Mk 12:35; Lk  20:41: simple teaching)27 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of conversing with the Jews (Acts 19:8c). The subsequent idea of the Jews not being able to answer or question Jesus any more (Mt 22:46) was borrowed and somewhat surprisingly relocated from Mk  12:3428 (cf.  Lk  20:39-40) in order to allude to

22 Pace R. H. Gundry, ‘A Rejoinder on Matthean Foreign Bodies in Luke 10,25-28’, ETL 71 (1995) 139–150 (esp. 148), the phrase ἐν τῷ νόμῳ also occurs in Lk 2:24; 24:44 (cf. also Mt 12:5), which slightly favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke, and not vice versa. 23 Cf. M. Hengel, Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus: Studien zu ihrer Sammlung und Entstehung (WUNT 224; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008), 335–336. 24 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, The Vocabulary of Luke: An Alphabetical Presentation and a Survey of Characteristic and Noteworthy Words and Word Groups in Luke’s Gospel (BTS 10; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2009), 415. 25 Cf. G. Schläger, ‘Die Abhängigkeit des Matthäusevangeliums vom Lukasevangelium’, TSK 69 (1896) 83–93 (esp. 87); M. Hengel, Evangelien, 335. 26 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 351. 27 Cf. B. Repschinski, Controversy, 226. 28 Cf. U. Luz, Matthäus, vol. 3, 286; P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 341; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 353.

164

the subsequent Lucan idea of persuading the Jews (Acts 19:8d), so apparently no more conversing with them (cf. Acts 19:8c).

5.6.  Mt 23; cf. Acts 19:9-22 The section Mt 23, with its main themes of sitting on Moses’ seat, the Jews not observing the law, the Jews making themselves seen by the people, being disciples, being a humble servant, travelling about unsuccessfully, saying misleading things, being erroneously bound by oaths by priestly matters, tithing and explaining how to do such things, not knowing who the Jewish leaders truly are, the Jewish leaders escaping the divine punishment like naked snakes, sending Jewish prophets and Gentile wise men to cities, divine punishment both on the Jews and on the whole generation for the blood of both righteous Gentiles and Jewish prophets, being sent to Jerusalem, expressing parental emotions to children, and not coming to Jerusalem for some time from now on, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 19:9-22. The idea of public denunciation of the Jewish leaders (Mt 23:1-7) was borrowed from Mk  12:37c-39 and conflated with Lk  20:45-46 (τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ).29 Moreover, it was reworked by inserting the idea of sitting on Moses’ seat, like teachers in a synagogue (Mt 23:2b),30 in order to allude to the Lucan idea of the public denunciation of the unbelieving Jews (Acts  19:9a-c) taking place in the synagogue (cf. Acts 19:8). Likewise, the motif of the Jews not observing the law (Mt  23:3-4), which was somewhat surprisingly borrowed and relocated from Lk 11:46 (φορτία + δυσβάστακτα + οἱ ἄνθρωποι + αὐτοί + ὁ δάκτυλος + *ῶν), alludes to the Lucan motif of the Jews being hardened and unbelieving (Acts 19:9ab). Similarly, the subsequent idea of the Jews making themselves seen by the people as pious rabbis (Mt 23:5-7; cf. Num 15:3839; Deut 22:12 LXX: κράσπεδα),31 which was partly borrowed from Lk 11:43 (πρωτοκαθεδρία*… ἀσπασμούς), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Jews publicly speaking against Paul before the multitude (Acts 19:9c).

29 Cf. M. Hengel, Evangelien, 337 n. 1021. 30 Cf. B. T. Viviano, ‘Social World and Community Leadership: The Case of Matthew 23.1-12, 34’, JSNT 39 (1990) 3–21 (esp. 11); U. Luz, Matthäus, vol. 3, 299. 31 Cf. P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 348; R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2007), 862; A. Paciorek, Ewangelia według świętego Mateusza: Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz, vol. 2, Rozdziały 14–28 (NKBNT 1/2; Święty Paweł: Częstochowa 2008), 393.

165

The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted idea of being disciples, and not Jewish-style teachers (Mt 23:8-10), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of taking the disciples from the Jewish environment to a Gentile school (Acts 19:9d-10). The subsequent idea of being a humble servant, who will be exalted (Mt 23:1112), was somewhat surprisingly borrowed and relocated from Mk 9:34-35 (μείζων + ἔσται + *ων + διάκονος),32 Mk  10:43 (ἔσται ὑμῶν διάκονος),33 and Lk  14:11 (ὑψόω + ἑαυτὸν ταπεινωθήσεται καὶ ὁ* + ταπεινόω + ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of being God’s mere instrument, through whom God did extraordinary miracles (Acts 19:11-12). The subsequent charge against Jewish leaders travelling about (περι*) to make people into proselytes, but achieving no saving success (Mt 23:13-15), a charge which was partly borrowed and relocated from Lk 11:52 (οὐαί + ὑμῖν + ὅτι + κλει* + οὐκ + εἰσέρχομαι + τοὺς εἰσερχομένους: Mt 23:13), alludes to the subsequent Lucan image of Jewish exorcists going about and trying to save people who had evil spirits, but achieving no success (Acts 19:13a-d). The subsequent idea of the Jewish leaders as blind guides (Mt 23:16a; cf. 15:14; 23:24) originates from an ironic reworking of Rom 2:19 (ὁδηγός + τυφλός),34 which was supplemented with the idea of their saying (λέγοντες) misleading things (Mt 23:16ab). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Jewish exorcists saying things which were inadequate to their lack of faith in Jesus (Acts 19:13e). The subsequent charge concerning (a) being erroneously bound with oaths by the high-priestly and priestly matters of the gold of the temple and the gift on the altar (Mt 23:16c-22) was composed on the basis of the story about rich people offering gifts (δῶρον) in the temple (Lk 21:1-4; cf. Mk 12:41-44) and supplemented with the idea of (b) tithing and explaining how to do such things (ταῦτα + ποιέω) according to the law (Mt 23:23-24), an idea which was partly borrowed and relocated from Lk 11:42 (οὐαὶ ὑμῖν + Φαρισαῖοι + ὅτι ἀποδεκατοῦτε τὸ ἡδύοσμον καὶ τὸ *ον καί + τὴν κρίσιν καί + ταῦτα δὲ ἔδει ποιῆσαι κἀκεῖνα μὴ *ναι). With the use of such a complex charge (Mt 23:16c-24), Matthew alluded to the subsequent complex Lucan idea of (a) erroneously binding with an oath by sons 32 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 3, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew XIX-XXVIII (ICC; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1997), 265, 279; P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 349. 33 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 3, 265, 279; U. Luz, Matthäus, vol. 3, 297; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 356. 34 Cf. W. Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (THKNT 1; Evangelische: Leipzig 1998), 402.

166

of a Jewish high priest, (b) who did such a thing (τοῦτο + ποιέω: Acts 19:13f14).35 Accordingly, the substitution of the Lucan general idea of the love of God (Lk 11:42c) with the typically Pauline motif of faith as ultimately expressing the essence of the law (Mt 23:23c) more closely alludes to the Lucan idea of Paul’s preaching, which was merely imitated by the Jewish priests (Acts 19:13g). From the linguistic point of view, the verb ἀποδεκατόω was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 23:23 par. Lk 11:42), whereas Luke also used it in Lk 18:15. Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke. The subsequent charges against the Jewish leaders (Mt  23:25-32) were borrowed and somewhat surprisingly relocated from Lk 11:39.41.44.47-48 (ὑμεῖς + Φαρισαῖοι + καθαρίζετε + τὸ ἔξωθεν τοῦ ποτηρίου καί + ἔσωθεν + δέ + γέμω + ἁρπαγῆς καί + τό + ἐν* + καθαρός + οὐαὶ ὑμῖν + ὅτι *τε + οὐαὶ ὑμῖν + ὅτι οἰκοδομεῖτε + τῶν προφητῶν + τὰ μνημεῖα + πατέρες *ῶν + μαρτυρε* + ἐστέ + τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν), as well as reworked to convey more clearly the ideas of not knowing who the Jewish leaders inside truly are (ὑμεῖς… ἐστέ: esp. Mt 23:28)36 and of their not revealing who they truly are (ἐστέ: esp. Mt 23:31-32). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of not knowing who the Jewish priests are (Acts 19:15). For the same reason, in order to allude more closely to the Lucan idea of evil (πονηρ*) as explicitly attributed to the spirit and not to the Jews (Acts 19:15), Matthew substituted the idea of the Jews being full of evil (Lk 11:39c) with the somewhat surprising one of the cup and dish being full of self-indulgence (Mt 23:25c). From the linguistic point of view, the plural noun πατέρες referring to forefathers was used by Matthew only 2 times, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 23:30.32 par. Lk 11:47-48), whereas Luke used it 6 times in his Gospel and 22 times in Acts.37 Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. The subsequent idea of the Jewish leaders escaping (*φεύγω) the divine punishment (Mt  23:33) was borrowed and somewhat surprisingly relocated from Lk 3:7 (γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν + φεύγω + ἀπὸ τῆς), as well as reworked by inserting the thematically related motif of snakes, which are related in Scripture to being 35 The allusive reference of Mt 23:16c-22 to the Lucan idea of binding with an oath (Acts 19:13f) explains the tension between the Matthean prohibition of taking oaths in Mt 5:34-36 and its endorsement in Mt 23:20-22. 36 Cf. M. Lau, ‘Geweißte Grabmäler: Motivkritische Anmerkungen zu Mt 23.27-28’, NTS 58 (2012) 463–480 (esp. 464–465, 477–478); M. Konradt, Matthäus, 362–363. 37 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 489–490.

167

naked (cf. Gen 3:1-14; Prov 23:31-32 LXX: ὄφις + γυμνός), and by substituting the idea of wrath (Lk 3:7e) with that of punishment (Mt 23:33). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of a divine punishment on the Jewish leaders, who escaped naked (Acts 19:16). The subsequent idea of sending prophets persecuted by the Jews (Mt 23:34) was borrowed and relocated from Lk 11:49 (διὰ τοῦτο + ἀποστέλλω + προφήτας καί + ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποκτεν* + καί + διώξ*). However, it was also significantly reworked by substituting the second Jewish idea, namely that of apostles (Lk  11:49b), with the Gentile one of wise men (σοφός: cf. 1 Cor 1:19-27; Rom 1:14.22) and clerks (γραμματεύς: Mt  23:34a; cf.  1  Cor 1:20), who were present in Ephesus (cf. Acts 19:35), as well as inserting the idea of cities (Mt 23:34e). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of making the news known to all, both Jews and Greeks, living in the city of Ephesus (Acts 19:17ab). The subsequent idea of the vindication of the blood of the scriptural prophets through the Lord’s mighty word (Mt 23:35-36) was borrowed from the following text Lk 11:50-51 (πᾶς + αἷμα + ἐκχ* + ἀπό + αἵματος Ἅβελ + ἕως + αἵματος Ζαχαρίου + μεταξὺ τοῦ + καὶ τοῦ + θυσιαστηρίου + λέγω ὑμῖν + τη* γενεα* ταύτη*). Moreover, it was reworked to convey the idea of divine punishment both on (ἐπί) the Jews and on (ἐπί) the whole generation (Mt 23:35a.36b), as well as that of vindicating the blood of both righteous Gentiles and Jewish prophets (Mt  23:35ab), the latter including, quite surprisingly in this new context, the scriptural prophet Zechariah son of Barachiah (Mt 23:35b; cf. Zech 1:1.7 LXX: Ζαχαρίας + υἱός + Βαραχίου;38 diff. Lk 11:51; diff. Jos. B.J. 4.335: υἱὸν Βάρεις). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of religiously inspired fear falling on all people, both Jews and Greeks, so that the prophetic-style word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed (Acts 19:17c-20). The subsequent idea of being sent to Jerusalem (Ιερο* + ἀποστέλλω: Mt 23:37a-c) was verbatim borrowed and surprisingly relocated from Lk 13:34ac (Ἰερουσαλὴμ Ἰερουσαλήμ ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς προφήτας καὶ λιθοβολοῦσα τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους πρὸς αὐτήν)39 in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan ideas of going to Jerusalem and sending helpers (Acts 19:21-22a). From the linguistic point of view, the name form Ἰερουσαλήμ was used in the Gospel of Matthew in only one place, which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 23:37 par. Lk 13:34 [bis]), whereas Luke used it 27 times in his Gospel and 38 Cf. C. McAfee Moss, The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew (BZNW 156; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2008), 122–126. 39 Cf. J. R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Gospel Tradition (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2009), 249.

168

37 times in Acts.40 Elsewhere, Matthew always (11 times) used the name form Ἱεροσόλυμα.41 Moreover, the repeated vocative address is typically Lucan (Lk 6:46 par. Mt 7:21-22; Lk 8:24; 10:41; 22:31; Acts 9:4; 22:7; 26:14). Accordingly, the use of the typically Lucan, repeated name form Ἰερουσαλήμ in Mt 23:37 very strongly favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke.42 The subsequent idea of expressing parental emotions to children (Mt 23:37d-f) was almost verbatim borrowed from the following text Lk  13:34d-f (ποσάκις ἠθέλησα + ἐπισυνάγω + τὰ τέκνα σου ὃν τρόπον ὄρνις + νοσσια* + *αυτῆς + ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγας)43 in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan remark concerning Timothy (Acts 19:22b), who was repeatedly presented by Paul as his beloved child (τέκνον: 1 Cor 4:17; Phlp 2:19-22; cf. 1 Tim 1:2.18; 2 Tim 1:2). From the linguistic point of view, the phrase ὃν τρόπον was used in the Gospel of Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 23:37 par. Lk 13:34), whereas Luke also used it 4 times in Acts. Accordingly, it slightly favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. The concluding idea of coming to Jerusalem only in the future (Mt 23:37g-39) was almost verbatim borrowed from the following text Lk  13:34g-35 (καὶ οὐκ ἠθελήσατε ἰδοὺ ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν + λέγω + ὑμῖν οὐ μή + με + ἴδητε + ἕως + εἴπητε εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου).44 Moreover, it was reworked by inserting the scriptural motif of desolating the temple (ὁ οἶκος + ἐρημ*: cf. Is 64:9-10; Jer 22:5 LXX),45 which conveys the idea of abandoning the Jerusalem temple (Mt 23:38),46 as well as inserting the idea of not being in Jerusalem 40 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 297–299; J. R. Edwards, Hebrew, 137, 249. 41 Cf. R. T. France, ‘Matthew and Jerusalem’, in D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland (eds.), Built, 108–127 (esp. 109). 42 Cf. G. Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu und ihre erste Entwickelung nach dem gegenwärtigen Stande der Wissenschaft (F. A. Brockhaus: Leipzig 1857), 378; G. Schläger, ‘Abhängigkeit’, 90. 43 Cf. J. R. Edwards, Hebrew, 249. 44 Cf. ibid. 45 Cf. H. B. Green, Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes (JSNTSup 203; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2001), 148, 150; P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 358 n. 66; M. Eloff, ‘Ἀπό … ἕως and Salvation History in Matthew’s Gospel’, in D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland (eds.), Built, 85–107 (esp. 103). 46 Cf. R. T. France, Matthew, 884; M. Konradt, ‘Die Deutung der Zerstörung Jerusalems und des Tempels im Matthäusevangelium’, in id., ed. A. Euler, Studien, 219–257 (esp. 235–237, 245 n. 114); Z. Żywica, ‘Eklezja Mateusza – eschatologiczną “Resztą Izraela”?’, ColT 86 (2016) no. 1, 25–40 (esp. 36).

169

for some time from now on (Mt 23:39b).47 In this way, Matthew alluded to the concluding Lucan idea of tarrying for some time in Asia (Acts 19:22c), notwithstanding the previous resolve to go to Jerusalem (cf. Acts 19:21d).

5.7.  Mt 24:1-41; cf. Acts 19:23-40 The section Mt 24:1-41, with its main themes of a prediction of the destruction of the temple and of the appearance of the people who will mislead many, sufferings being about to come, being hated by all Gentiles in the whole world, contrast between pagan worship and monotheistic holiness, general confusion and suffering, rejection of false Jewish leaders, bringing the believers together, the importance of words, an unspecified time of the future judgement and gathering, and the perceived danger of the imminent general punishment on the Gentiles in an open realm, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 19:23-40. The opening prediction of the destruction of the temple (ἱερόν) and of the appearance of the people who will mislead many (Mt 24:1-5) was borrowed from Mk 13:1-6 and conflated with Lk 21:5-8 (ταῦτα + οὐ καταλυθήσεται + λέγοντες + εἶπεν + γάρ + λέγοντες ἐγώ). Moreover, it was reworked by substituting the idea of telling about the beauty of the temple (Mk  13:1; Lk  21:5) with that of pointing to its buildings (Mt 24:1). In this way, Matthew alluded more closely to the Lucan idea of pointing to the building of the temple of Artemis, a temple which would be looked upon as nothing because of the appearance of Paul, who misled a large crowd (Acts 19:23-27c). The subsequent idea of wars and other sufferings, including earthquakes, being about to (μέλλω: diff. Mk 13:7; Lk 21:9: ὅταν) come (Mt 24:6-8) was borrowed from Mk  13:7-8 and conflated with Lk  21:9-11 (γάρ). It alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the destruction of the greatness of Artemis being about to come (Acts 19:27de). The subsequent idea of persecutions of the believers and of the preaching of the gospel worldwide (Mt 24:9-14) was borrowed from Mk 13:9-10.12-13 and conflated with Lk 21:12 (τὸ ὄνομα). Moreover, it was significantly reworked by omitting the idea of Jewish persecutions (Mt 24:9ab; diff. Mk 13:9b-d; Lk 21:12cd), substituting the ideas of preaching the gospel to all Gentiles (Mk  13:10) and being hated by all (Mk 13:13a; Lk 21:17) with that of being hated by all Gentiles (Mt 24:9c), elaborating the idea of the believers losing their faith and love

47 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 367.

170

(Mt 24:10-12; cf. Mk 13:12.6d), and inserting the idea of the whole world (ὅλη + ἡ οἰκουμένη: Mt 24:14a; diff. Mk 13:10a).48 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the whole Gentile world worshipping Artemis, thus presumably rejecting Christian believers (Acts 19:27f). The subsequent idea of the desolation of the temple (Mt 24:15) was borrowed from Mk 13:14a-d and reworked by highlighting the religious contrast between pagan worship on the one hand, and Daniel the prophet and the holy place on the other (Mt 24:15a-c; diff. Mk 13:14a-c: where it ought not). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of praising pagan worship, in a conscious religious contrast to the gospel preached by Paul (Acts 19:28; cf. 19:26). The subsequent idea of general confusion and suffering (Mt 24:16-22) was borrowed from Mk 13:14e-20 and conflated with Lk 21:21-24 (ἔσται + μεγάλη). It alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of great confusion in the whole city (Acts 19:29-32). Therefore, Matthew omitted the idea of going into (εἰσέρχομαι) the house or the city (Mt 24:17; diff. Mk 13:15b; Lk 21:21c) because Luke presented Paul in rather positive terms as wishing to go into the crowd (Acts 19:30ab). The subsequent substitution of the idea of the beginning (ἀρχή) of creation which God created (Mk 13:19bc) with that of the beginning of the world (Mt 24:21b) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of worldly rulers (*αρχης: Acts 19:31a). The subsequent idea of rejection of false Jewish Messiahs (Mt 24:23-25) was borrowed from Mk  13:21-23 and conflated with Lk  17:21.23 (ἰδού + *ητε + ἰδού). It alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of rejection of an apparent Jewish leader (Acts 19:33-34). The subsequent idea of not following false Messiahs (Mt 24:26-27) was borrowed and relocated from Lk 17:23-24 (λέγω + ὑμῖν + μὴ *έλθητε + ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ ἀστραπή + οὕτως ἔσται + ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου). Moreover, it was reworked by conveying the idea of not moving in any direction, in contrast to the lightning which moves (Mt 24:26c-27b; diff. Lk 17:23d-24b: flashes). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of being calm and doing nothing rashly (Acts 19:35-36). From the linguistic point of view, the noun ἀστραπή was used in the Gospel of Matthew only 2 times, in places which have their parallels in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 24:27 par. Lk 17:24; Mt 28:3 par. Lk 24:4), whereas Luke also used it in

48 Cf. Y. Redalié, ‘Dualisme et contrastes apocalyptiques: les «relectures» de Mt 24 et de 2 Th’, in A. Dettwiler and U. Poplutz (eds.), Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes / Études sur Matthieu et Jean, Festschrift J. Zumstein (ATANT 97; Theologischer: Zürich 2009), 79–90 (esp. 84, 87); M. Konradt, Matthäus, 372–373.

171

Lk 10:18; 11:36. Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke. The subsequent idea of bringing the believers together (*άγω: Mt 24:28) was borrowed and somewhat surprisingly (cf. the use of Lk 17:23-24 in Mt 24:26-27) relocated from Lk 17:37 (ὅπου + τὸ *ῶμα + ἐκεῖ + *συναχθήσονται + οἱ ἀετοί), as well as reworked by substituting the complex verb ἐπισυνάγω (Lk 17:37f) with the simpler one συνάγω (Mt 24:28b). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of bringing Paul’s companions (Acts 19:37). The following prediction of the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 24:29-31) was borrowed from Mk 13:24-27 and conflated with Lk 21:25-28 (καὶ δόξης πολλῆς), Zech 12:10.12.14 LXX (κόψονται + πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαί + ἡ γῆ),49 Dan 7:13 LXX (ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ),50 and 1 Thes 4:16 (*ἄγγελος + σάλπιγξ). Moreover, it was reworked by substituting the idea of the Son of Man bringing the believers together (*άγω: Mk  13:27b) with that of the angels bringing the believers together (Mt 24:31b).51 In this way, Matthew again alluded to the Lucan idea of people bringing Paul’s companions (Acts 19:37). The subsequent parable from the fig tree (Mt 24:32-33), together with the saying concerning the importance of the words (λόγος) of Jesus (Mt 24:34-35), was borrowed from Mk 13:28-31 and conflated with Lk 21:29-33 (ἕως ἄν). It alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of words under discussion (Acts 19:38). The subsequent thought that the future judgement and gathering (cf. Mt 24:3031) will take place at an unspecified time (Mt  24:36) was borrowed from the following Marcan text Mk 13:32 and reworked by highlighting the idea of the unknown time of this judgement and gathering, because its time is known to the Father only (Mt 24:36d; diff. Mk 13:32d: simply to the Father).52 In this way, 49 Cf. M. Black, ‘The Messianic Use of Zechariah 9–14 in Matthew, Mark, and the PreMarkan Tradition’, in P. Gray and G. R. O’Day (eds.), Scripture and Tradition: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity, Festschrift C. R. Holladay (NovTSup 129; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2008), 97–114 (esp. 105–106); C. A. Ham, ‘Reading Zechariah and Matthew’s Olivet Discourse’, in T. R. Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, vol. 2, The Gospel of Matthew (LNTS 310; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 85–97 (esp. 91–94); J. Nolland, ‘The King as Shepherd: The Role of Deutero-Zechariah in Matthew’, in ibid., vol. 2, 133–146 (esp. 140–141). 50 Cf. H. D. Zacharias, ‘Old Greek Daniel 7:13-14 and Matthew’s Son of Man’, BBR 21 (2011) 453–465 (esp. 459–461). 51 Cf. G. Garbe, Der Hirte Israels: Eine Untersuchung zur Israeltheologie des Matthäus­ evangeliums (WMANT 106; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2005), 168; C. McAfee Moss, Zechariah, 129, 145–146. 52 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 378.

172

Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of a legal assembly taking place at an unspecified time in the future (Acts 19:39; diff. 19:38b-d: in the near future). The subsequent idea of a future general punishment on the Gentiles (Mt 24:3741) was borrowed and somewhat surprisingly relocated from Lk  17:2627.30.34-35 (αἱ ἡμέραι + Νῶε + οὕτως ἔσται + τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου + πίνω + γαμέω + γαμίζω + ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας εἰσῆλθεν Νῶε εἰς τὴν κιβωτὸν καί + ἦλθεν ὁ κατακλυσμὸς καί + *παντας + ἔσται + ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου + δύο + ἔσονται + εἷς παραλαμβάνεται καί + ἀφίημι + δύο ἀλήθουσαι + μία + παραλαμβάνω  + ἀφίημι). Moreover, it was reworked by inserting the idea of the perceived danger of the imminent general punishment (Mt 24:38a; diff. Lk 17:27a), omitting the idea of a local punishment (Lk 17:28-29), and substituting the idea of being punished at home (Lk 17:34) with that of being punished in an open realm (Mt 24:40). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the perceived danger of the imminent general punishment on the Gentiles gathered in a riot on the streets of Ephesus (Acts 19:40). From the linguistic point of view, the preposition ἄχρι was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 24:38 par. Lk  17:27), although Matthew elsewhere used the prepositions ἕως (Mt  26:29; 27:64 etc.) and μέχρι (Mt 28:15 etc.). On the other hand, Luke used the preposition ἄχρι 4 times in his Gospel (cf. esp. Lk 1:20: ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας) and 15 times in Acts (cf. esp. Acts 1:2: ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας).53 Accordingly, this preposition strongly favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke.54

5.8.  Mt 24:42-51; cf. Acts 20:1-6 The section Mt 24:42-51, with its main themes of an unspecified day of the coming of the lord of the disciples, as well as a faithful slave, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 20:1-6. The instruction concerning the unknown time of the coming (ἔρχομαι) of the Lord (Mt 24:42) was borrowed from Mk 13:35a-c. Moreover, it was reworked by inserting the idea of an unpredicted day of the coming (Mt  24:42c), as well as substituting the idea of the lord of the house (Mk  13:35c) with that of the lord of the disciples (Mt 24:42c). The following instruction concerning the unknown time of the coming (ἔρχομαι) of the Son of Man (Mt 24:43-44) was borrowed and 53 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 100–101. 54 Cf. C. G. Wilke, Der Urevangelist oder exegetisch kritische Untersuchung über das Verwandtschaftsverhältnis der drei ersten Evangelien (G. Fleischer: Dresden · Leipzig 1838), 690; G. Schläger, ‘Abhängigkeit’, 89.

173

somewhat surprisingly relocated from Lk 12:38-40 (δὲ γινώσκετε + ὅτι εἰ ᾔδει + ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης + ποίᾳ + φυλακῇ + ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται + οὐκ ἄν + διορυχθῆναι + οἰκ* + αὐτοῦ + καὶ ὑμεῖς γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι ὅτι ᾗ + οὐ δοκεῖτε + ὥρᾳ + ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται), as well as reworked by omitting the idea of his coming at night (Lk 12:36.38; cf. Mk 13:35d) and at a certain hour (Lk 12:39c). These instructions commonly allude to the Lucan image of Paul coming to Macedonia, Greece, and again Macedonia on some unpredicted days (Acts 20:1-3). The subsequent account of the activity of a faithful and unfaithful slave before the coming (ἔρχομαι) of the master on a certain day (ἡμέρα: Mt 24:45-51) was with relatively great fidelity borrowed from Lk  12:42-46 (τίς ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ πιστός + φρόνιμος ὅν + καθίστημι + ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς + αὐτοῦ τοῦ + δίδωμι + ἐν καιρῷ + μακάριος ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ὃν ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ εὑρήσει + οὕτως + ποιοῦντα + λέγω ὑμῖν + ὅτι ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν αὐτοῦ καταστήσει αὐτόν ἐὰν δὲ εἴπῃ ὁ + δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ χρονίζει + μου + ὁ κύριος + καὶ ἄρξηται τύπτειν τούς + ἐσθίω + καί + πίνω + μεθυ* + ἥξει ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ οὐ προσδοκᾷ καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ᾗ οὐ γινώσκει καὶ διχοτομήσει αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν + *των θήσει). Moreover, it was reworked by substituting the idea of a manager repeatedly distributing grain to the master’s servants (Lk 12:42) with that of a slave once giving food (τροφή) to a group of other slaves (Mt 24:45).55 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of a group of Paul’s co-workers, including the Asian ‘nourishing’ Trophimus (Τρόφ*), who remained faithful in Asia during Paul’s absence, before his coming to them after a few days (Acts 20:4-6). From the linguistic point of view, the verb τύπτω was used by Matthew 2 times, but only in the texts which have their parallels in other Gospels (Mt 24:49 par. Lk 12:45; Mt 27:30 par. Mk 15:19), whereas Luke used it 4 times in his Gospel and 5 times in Acts.56 Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke.

5.9.  Mt 25:1-13; cf. Acts 20:7-15 The section Mt 25:1-13, with its main themes of the church meeting the bridegroom in the kingdom of heaven, the believers being wise, the believers being prepared for a long night stay by having lamps with enough oil, the bridegroom 55 For this meaning of οἰκετεία in Mt 24:45, see G. B. Bazzana, Kingdom of Bureaucracy: The Political Theology of Village Scribes in the Sayings Gospel Q (BETL 274; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Bristol, Conn. 2015), 99–105. 56 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, Vocabulary, 611.

174

taking his time until midnight, young persons becoming drowsy and falling asleep, a loud cry arising at midnight, the bridegroom being close to the young persons, the believers arising, some believers being prepared for the second part of the night by having faith, the bridegroom celebrating a banquet with the true believers, the bridegroom not knowing other believers, and not knowing the day of the master’s coming, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corres­ ponding section Acts 20:7-15. The opening idea of the church meeting the bridegroom in the kingdom of heaven (Mt 25:1) alludes to the opening Lucan idea of the church meeting Paul and Christ in the Eucharist (Acts 20:7ab). The motif of the church as a virgin (παρθένος) presented to Christ as the bridegroom (Mt  25:1) is post-Pauline (2 Cor 11:2; cf. Rev 14:4; 21:2). The subsequent image of the believers being wise, in difference to others (Mt 25:2), alludes to the subsequent Lucan sapiential idea of holding an instructional discourse (διαλέγομαι) with the believers (Acts 20:7c). The subsequent image of the believers being prepared for a long night stay by having lamps (λαμπάδες) with enough oil (Mt 25:3-4) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the believers being prepared for a night meeting until the next day by having enough (ἱκαναί) lamps (Acts 20:7de.8). The subsequent idea of the bridegroom taking his time (Mt 25:5a) until midnight (μέσης… νυκτός: cf.  Mt  25:6a) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul prolonging his speech until midnight (μεσονύκτιον: Acts 20:7f). The subsequent image of young persons (a) becoming drowsy and (b) falling asleep (Mt 25:5bc) alludes to the subsequent Lucan image of a young man (a) sinking into a sleep and (b) being overcome by sleep (Acts 20:9a-d). The subsequent idea of a loud cry arising (κραυγή + γίνομαι) at midnight (Mt 25:6a), an idea which was used in Scripture in the story about a loud cry arising over the death of young men at midnight (Exod 12:29-30 LXX: μεσ* + νυκτός + κραυγή + γίνομαι;57 cf. also Jdt 14:19), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the death of the young man at midnight (Acts 20:9ef). The subsequent idea of the bridegroom being close to the young persons (Mt 25:6b) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul coming down and falling on the young man (Acts 20:10ab).

57 Cf. M. D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew: The Speaker’s Lectures in Biblical Studies 1969–71 (SPCK: London 1974), 438; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 3, 398.

175

The subsequent image of the believers arising (ἐγείρω), which evokes the idea of their participating in the resurrection (Mt 25:6c-7a), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul taking the young man in his arms (Acts 20:10c), thus reviving him (cf. Acts 20:10f). The subsequent idea of some believers being prepared for the second part of the night by having oil, which symbolizes their faith (Mt 25:7b-10b), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the believers being prepared for the second part of the night by having faith in the reality of the resurrection of the young man (Acts 20:10d-f; cf. 20:12). The subsequent idea of the bridegroom celebrating a banquet with the true believers (Mt 25:10c-e) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul, presumably representing the risen Jesus, celebrating the Eucharist with the true believers (Acts 20:11-12). The subsequent idea of the bridegroom not knowing other believers (Mt 25:11-12) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul leaving other believers (Acts 20:13). The subsequent idea of watching and not knowing the time of the master’s coming (Mt  25:13) was borrowed from Mk  13:35ab (γρηγορεῖτε οὖν + οὐκ οἴδατε)58 and reworked by inserting the idea of an unknown day, and not only hour (Mt 25:13c; diff. Mk 13:35d), of the master’s coming (Mt 25:13b). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul coming to various places in an unpredicted way on various days (Acts 20:14-15).

5.10.  Mt 25:14-30; cf. Acts 20:16-26 The section Mt  25:14-30, with its main themes of a man going on a journey, the man calling his servants, going to fulfil the will of the master, receiving a task from the master, receiving the afterlife reward of joy after earthly hardships, breaking the Jewish law by lending money at interest, and not punishing in the presence of the master in a bloody way, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 20:16-26. The opening motif of a man going on a journey (Ὡς* + ἄνθρωπος ἀποδημ*: Mt 25:14a) was somewhat surprisingly (cf. the use of the thematically following text Mk 13:35ab in the preceding text Mt 25:13) borrowed from Mk 13:34a59 in 58 Cf. R. Feneberg, Erwählung, 337–338. 59 Cf. C. G. Wilke, Urevangelist, 689; B. Bauer, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker und des Johannes, vol. 3 (F. Otto: Braunschweig 1842), 159; R. Feneberg, Erwählung, 337–338.

176

order to allude to the opening Lucan idea of Paul going on a journey to Jerusalem (Acts 20:16). The subsequent idea of the man calling (καλέω) his servants (δοῦλος: Mt 25:14b) was borrowed and surprisingly relocated from Lk 19:13 (diff. Mk 13:34bc) in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul calling (μετακαλέω) the elders of the church (Acts 20:17), as well as that of his serving (δουλεύω) the Lord (Acts 20:19; cf. 20:20-21). The fact that Matthew omitted the reference to the number of the servants (Mt 25:14b; diff. Lk 19:13a) additionally alludes to the unspecified number of the elders of the church (Acts  20:17b).60 Likewise, Matthew omitted in Mt 25:15 the motifs of rivalry between the servants (Lk 19:13b-e.16.18) and rebellion of the citizens (Lk  19:14)61 because these motifs did not correspond to the ideas of Acts 20:18-27. On the other hand, the motif of giving money to the servants (*ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς: Mt 25:14c) was borrowed from Lk 19:13b. The subsequent idea of a servant going (πορεύομαι) to fulfil the will of the master (Mt 25:16a), an idea which is absent in Lk 19:15-16.18, alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul going to fulfil the will of God (Acts 20:22; cf. 20:23). The subsequent idea of the servants receiving (λαμβάνω: diff. Lk 19:16-20) a task from the master (κύριος: Mt 25:16b-18) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul receiving the evangelistic ministry from the Lord Jesus (Acts 20:24c). The subsequent idea of the servants receiving a reward from the master (Mt  25:19-23) was borrowed from Lk  19:15-19 (*έρχομαι + οἱ δοῦλοι + λέγων κύριε + αὐτῷ + εὖ* + δοῦλε + ἀγαθέ + πιστός + ἐπ* + *έρχομαι + λέγω + κύριε + ἐπ*). Moreover, it was somewhat surprisingly reworked by substituting the idea of the earthly reward of having authority over some cities (Lk 19:17de.19b), an idea which can still be traced in the Matthean image of being appointed over (ἐπ*) many things (Mt 25:21d.23d),62 with that of the afterlife reward of joy (χαρά) after earthly hardships (Mt 25:21e.23e). In this way, Matthew alluded to the Lucan idea of Paul finishing his evangelistic course among earthly hardships (Acts 20:24ab; cf. 20:19-23) and presumably receiving the afterlife reward of joy for the course of his ministry (cf. 1 Thes 2:19; Phlp 3:12-4:1; cf. also 1 Cor 9:25-27; 2 Tim 4:6-8). The motif of the third servant, who was afraid of the master (Mt 25:24-25), was borrowed from Lk 19:20-21 (*έρχομαι + λέγω + κύριε + ὅτι + εἶ + θερίζω + ὅ* + οὐκ + ἔσπειρας + καί + ὅ* + οὐ* + φοβέομαι + ἀπ* + ἐν). 60 Moreover, by omitting the reference to the number of the servants (Mt 25:14b; diff. Lk 19:13a), Matthew corrected the confused logic of the Lucan parable, in which there are both ten (Lk 19:13a) and three servants (Lk 19:16.18.20). 61 Cf. J. R. Edwards, Hebrew, 249. 62 Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘Interpretacja’, 188–189.

177

The master’s subsequent charge against the wicked servant (Mt 25:26-27) was likewise borrowed from Lk 19:22-23 (λέγω + αὐτῷ + πονηρὲ δοῦλε + ᾔδεις ὅτι + θερίζω + ὅ* + οὐκ + ἔσπειρα + καί + ὅ* + οὐ* + τὸ ἀργύριον + τραπεζ* + καί* + ἐλθών + *ἐγώ + ἄν + σὺν τόκῳ). However, the Matthean omission of the master’s statement that he is harsh (Mt 25:26c; diff. Lk 19:22d) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace (Acts 20:24d). Likewise, the idea of breaking the Jewish law, namely by lending money (ἀργύριον) at interest (τόκος: Mt 25:27; cf. Exod 22:24; Lev 25:36-37; Deut 23:20 LXX),63 alludes to the post-Pauline Lucan idea of the gospel of God’s grace (Acts 20:24d). In fact, the idea of breaking the Jewish law (Mt 25:27 par. Lk 19:23) is Lucan rather than Matthean because Luke evidently allowed for such cases (Lk 16:6-9; Acts 15:10.28-29), whereas Matthew at least apparently stressed the validity of the entire Jewish law (Mt 5:17-19). Accordingly, the use of the idea of breaking the Jewish law in Mt 25:27 favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke.64 The command to take the money from the wicked slave, together with its proverbial justification (Mt 25:28-29), was borrowed from Lk 19:24.26 (ἄρατε + ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ + καὶ δότε τῷ + ἔχοντι + τὰ* δέκα + τῷ + ἔχοντι + παντί + δοθήσεται + τοῦ + δέ + μὴ ἔχοντος καὶ ὃ ἔχει ἀρθήσεται + ἀπό), which was additionally conflated with the similar text Mk 4:25e (ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ). The subsequent idea of commanding to punish the wicked person (Mt 25:30) was borrowed from Lk 19:27 (*ετε). However, it was greatly reworked by substituting the idea of punishing here, in the presence of the master, in a bloody way (Lk  19:27cd), with the opposite one of throwing from the light into the outer darkness, away from the master, and punishing in a severe but presumably not bloody way (Mt 25:30). Thus, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul declaring by day that he was free from anyone’s blood (Acts 20:26).

5.11.  Mt 25:31-46; cf. Acts 20:27-21:9 The section Mt 25:31-46, with its main themes of all angels gathered, the shepherd of the Gentile and universal flock, a future division of the flock into good and evil people, pronouncing a blessing by God, inheriting what was prepared from the foundation of the world, serving people in their needs with one’s own hands by giving something to them, caring for the weak and thus behaving in a paradigmatic way according to a saying of the Lord, the king saying that the least 63 Cf. U. Luz, Matthäus, vol. 3, 502. 64 Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘Interpretacja’, 189.

178

of his brothers substitute for him, leaving those who did not help the Lord on his left hand, and praise for the righteous ones, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 20:27-21:9. The motif of the glorious coming of the Son of Man (Mt 25:31) was evidently borrowed from Dan 7:13-14.9-10 LXX (ἔρχομαι + υἱός + ἀνθρώπου + δόξα + καθ* + θρόνος),65 but also reworked to convey the idea of all angels (πᾶς + ἄγγελος: Mt 25:31b; diff. Dan 7:10.13 LXX). In this way, Matthew alluded to the Lucan idea of announcing to all (*ἀγγέλλω + πᾶς) the will of God (Acts 20:27). Additionally, the image of angels gathered as though in a council with the Son of Man (Mt 25:31b) may allude to the Lucan word βουλή (‘will’: Acts 20:27), which also refers to a council meeting (cf. Ps 1:5 LXX etc.). The subsequent, only partly scriptural idea of the shepherd (ποιμήν) of the Gentile and universal flock of all (πᾶς) peoples (Mt  25:32; diff. Ezek  34:2-23 LXX: shepherd of Israel)66 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of shepherding (ποιμαίνω) all (πᾶς) the flock (ποίμνιον) in the Gentile city of Ephesus and the universally reaching church of God (Acts 20:28). The subsequent idea of a future division of the flock into good and evil people (Mt 25:33; cf. 25:34-46) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the flock being good, but also having in itself wolves and evil men who will rise up from within the community (Acts  20:29-30; cf.  20:31). The particular motif of setting the righteous ones (δίκαιοι) on the right hand (δεξιός), and the others on the left hand, related to fire (πυρ*), at the final judgment of all humans according to their deeds (Mt 25:33.37.46), was borrowed from Plato, Resp. 614c, 615e.67 The subsequent idea of pronouncing (λέγω) a blessing (*λογέω) of God the gracious Father upon the believers (Mt 25:34ab) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of commending the believers to the word (λόγος) of God’s grace (Acts 20:32a). The subsequent idea of the word referring to (a) inheriting (κληρονομ*) what was prepared from the (b) foundation of the world (Mt 25:34cd) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the word (b) building and (a) giving inheritance (Acts 20:32b-e). The subsequent four images of serving people in their basic needs with one’s own hands, in particular by giving (δίδωμι) something to them (giving to eat, 65 Cf. H. D. Zacharias, ‘Old Greek’, 464. 66 Cf. Y. S. Chae, Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd: Studies in the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, and in the Gospel of Matthew (WUNT 2.216; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2006), 223–224. 67 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 3, 424. Cf. also the earlier use of Plato, Resp. 614cd, 615e in Lk 16:26.

179

giving to drink, bringing in, and clothing: Mt 25:35-36b), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul serving people in their needs with his own hands, thus giving something to them (Acts 20:34; cf. 20:35i). The subsequent idea of caring for the weak (ἀσθενέω), thus behaving in a paradigmatic way according to a saying of the Lord (κύριος: Mt 25:36c-39), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of showing a paradigm to imitate by helping the weak, thus recalling words of the Lord (Acts 20:35). The subsequent idea of the king saying (λέγω) that the least of his brothers substitute for him, which means that he is physically absent from the believers (Mt 25:40), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul saying that the believers will not see his face, and then parting from them (Acts 20:36-21:1c). The subsequent idea of leaving those who did not help the Lord on his left hand (εὐώνυμος: Mt 25:41-46a; diff. Plato, Resp. 614c; Mt 6:3: ἀριστερός)68 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of leaving Cyprus, together with various other places in which there were no Paul’s supporters (cf. Acts 15:39), on his left hand, with no stay there (Acts 21:1-3). The concluding, somewhat surprisingly added after the preceding condemnations (Mt 25:41-46a), praiseful statement concerning the righteous ones, that is those who helped the Lord (Mt 25:46b; cf. 25:34-40), alludes to the concluding Lucan idea of Paul staying for some time with his supporters in various places (Acts 21:4-9).

68 Matthew elsewhere used the adjective εὐώνυμος only in the texts which were borrowed from the Gospel of Mark (Mt 20:21.23 par. Mk 10:40; Mt 27:38 par. Mk 15:27). In his own composition, Matthew used the adjective ἀριστερός (Mt 6:3). This fact additionally proves that the adjective εὐώνυμος in Mt 25:33.41 alludes to Acts 21:3.

180

Chapter 6. Mt 26–28 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts 21:10-28:31 The Matthean passion and resurrection narrative: from the prediction of the imminent arrest of Jesus to the final prospect of a worldwide mission (Mt 26–28) is a result of a sequential hypertextual reworking of the Lucan story concerning the imprisonment of Paul: from the prediction of the imminent arrest of Paul to the final prospect of a worldwide mission (Acts 21:10-28:31).

6.1.  Mt 26:1-2; cf. Acts 21:10-16 The section Mt 26:1-2, with its main themes of the end of Jesus’ public evangelistic activity, saying to the disciples that they knew something before it happened, prediction concerning being handed over, and going to be crucified, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 21:10-16. The opening, somewhat surprisingly inserted idea of the end of Jesus’ public evangelistic activity (Mt  26:1ab; diff. Mk  14:1a; Lk  22:1) alludes to the Lucan idea of the end of Paul’s staying for many days in Caesarea, which ended his sea journey across the Mediterranean (Acts 21:10a). The subsequent idea of the Passover being after two days (Mt 26:2b) was borrowed from Mk 14:1a and reworked to convey the idea of saying (εἶπεν) to the disciples that they knew something before it happened (Mt 26:1c-2b). With the use of this prophetic idea, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of a prophet saying to the disciples what would happen later (Acts 21:10b-11d), after several days (cf. Acts 21:15: μετά + ἡμέρας). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted prediction concerning the Son of Man being handed over (παραδίδωμι: Mt 26:2c; diff. Mk 14:1a; Lk 22:1)1 was borrowed from Mk 9:31; 10:33 (cf. Mk 14:21.41) in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan prediction concerning Paul being handed over (Acts 21:11e-h). The subsequent, likewise somewhat surprisingly inserted idea of the Son of Man going to (εἰς) be crucified (Mt  26:2d; diff. Mk  14:1a; Lk  22:1; diff. also Mk 9:31; 10:33; 14:21.41) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul going up

1 Cf. M. Konradt, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (NTD 1; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen · Bristol 2015), 398.

181

to Jerusalem to have his feet and hands bound (cf. Acts 21:11) and to die there for Jesus (Acts 21:12-15; cf. 21:16).

6.2.  Mt 26:3-13; cf. Acts 21:17-25 The section Mt 26:3-13, with its main themes of a remark concerning time, the elders gathering in the house of the Jewish high priest, Jesus appearing in Bethany, pricey ointment used on the head, knowing what is hidden, and not causing trouble to the presumably unclean person, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 21:17-25. The somewhat surprisingly inserted remark concerning time (‘then’: Mt 26:3; diff. Mk 14:1b; Lk 22:2a) alludes to the Lucan remarks concerning the time of coming to Jerusalem and to James (Acts 21:17-18a). The subsequent idea of the chief priests deciding to arrest and kill Jesus (Mt 26:3-4) was borrowed from Mk 14:1b-d. However, it was also significantly reworked by substituting the motif of the experts in Scripture (Mk 14:1b; Lk 22:2a) with that of the elders (οἱ πρεσβύτεροι: Mt 26:3), as well as inserting the post-Lucan idea of their gathering in the palace of the Jewish high priest named Caiaphas, and plotting against Jesus (Mt 26:3-4a; cf. Acts 4:5-6). In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of the elders being present in the house of the Jewish Christian leader named James, and bringing charges against Paul (Acts 21:18-21). The conclusion of the story about the conspiracy against Jesus (Mt 26:5) was borrowed from Mk 14:2. The particular idea of only Caiaphas exercising the office of the high priest at the time of Jesus (Mt 26:3; cf. 26:57; diff. Lk 3:2; Acts 4:6) was borrowed from Jos. Ant. 18.35-95 (including 18.63-64 in its original form). The subsequent story about anointing Jesus at Bethany (Mt 26:6-13) was borrowed from Mk  14:3-9. However, the particular idea of Jesus appearing (diff. Mk 14:3a: ‘being’) in Bethany (Mt 26:6) seems to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul coming to Jerusalem (Acts 21:22). Likewise, the subsequent substitution of the Marcan idea of the ointment as being extravagantly expensive (πολυτελής: Mk 14:3d; cf. 14:5b) with that of its having a great price (βαρύτιμος: Mt  26:7b; cf.  26:9b), as well as the omission of the Marcan description of the ointment and of the breaking of the vase (Mk 14:3de), with retaining only the basic motif of the pricey ointment used on (ἐπί: diff. Mk 14:3f) the head (κεφαλή: Mt 26:7bc), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of spending money on people with their particular heads (Acts 21:24cd; diff. 21:26: simply purification).

182

Similarly, the subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted idea of knowing (γινώσκω) what is hidden (Mt 26:10a; diff. Mk 14:6a) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of knowing the truth, notwithstanding the popularity of other opinions (Acts 21:24e-i). Likewise, the subsequent omission of the Marcan command to leave the woman alone (Mk 14:6b), with retaining only the basic motif of not causing trouble to the presumably unclean woman (Mt 26:10c), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of not unsettling the Gentile believers (Acts 21:25; cf. 15:24-29).

6.3.  Mt 26:14-46; cf. Acts 21:26-29 The section Mt 26:14-46, with its main themes of the betrayal happening ‘then’, a Jew wishing to receive money, Jesus’ time being near, the Jew Judas betraying Jesus with his hand, and remission of sins, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 21:26-29. The story about Judas’ conscious betrayal of Jesus (Mt  26:14-16) was borrowed from Mk 14:10-11 and conflated with Lk 22:3-6 (*μενος + Ἰσκαριώτης + εὐκαιρίαν). However, it was also reworked by Matthew. The opening adverb ‘then’ (τότε: Mt 26:14a; diff. Mk 14:10a; Lk 22:3a) alludes to the same opening adverb in Acts 21:26a. The subsequent motif of asking for money and setting the reward to 30 silver coins (λέγω + δίδωμι + ἔστησαν + τριάκοντα + ἀργυρ*: Mt  26:15) was borrowed from Zech  11:12 LXX.2 This motif conveys the non-Marcan and nonLucan idea of Judas wishing to receive money for betraying Jesus (Mt 26:15; diff. Mk 14:10-11; Lk 22:4-5).3 In this way, Matthew alluded to the Lucan idea of the Jewish Christians being paid for by Paul (Acts 21:26b-e; cf. 26:24b), which led to his betrayal and arrest (cf. Acts 26:27-36). The subsequent story about the preparation for the Passover (Mt 26:17-19) was borrowed from Mk 14:12-16 and conflated with Lk 22:7-13 (θέλεις ἑτοιμάσωμεν + ὁ δὲ εἶπεν). The somewhat surprisingly inserted motif of Jesus’ time being near (Mt 26:18e; diff. Mk 14:14d; Lk 22:11c; diff. also Mk 1:15; Lk 21:8: the time of the kingdom)4 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul’s seven days coming to an end (Acts 21:27ab).

2 Cf. C. McAfee Moss, The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew (BZNW 156; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2008), 173; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 402. 3 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 402. 4 Cf. ibid. 403.

183

The subsequent story about the disclosure of the betrayal of Jesus (Mt 26:20-25) was borrowed from Mk 14:17-21 and conflated with Lk 22:21-23 (χείρ), as well as reworked by Matthew. The particular idea of Judas betraying Jesus with his hand (χείρ: Mt 26:23b; cf. Lk 22:21; diff. Mk 14:20c) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Jews betraying Paul by laying their hands on him (Acts 21:27e). Likewise, the particular motif of one of the disciples asking who would betray Jesus (Mt 26:25) was borrowed from Lk 22:23 and conflated with Mk 14:19-20, which was used here for a second time (λέγω + μήτι ἐγώ + λέγω + αὐτ*). Moreover, it was reworked by inserting the typically Jewish name of Judas (Ἰουδα*: Mt 26:25a) in order to allude to the Lucan idea of the Jews betraying Paul (Acts 21:27cd). The subsequent account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Mt 26:26-29) was borrowed from Mk 14:22-25. Moreover, it was conflated with the motif of remission of sins (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν: Mt 26:28b; cf. Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; 24:47),5 probably in order to allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul’s teaching (Acts 21:28). According to Luke, this teaching included the topic of remission of sins (cf. Lk 24:47; Acts 13:38; 26:18). The story concerning Peter’s denial (Mt  26:30-35) was borrowed from Mk 14:26-31. The following story about Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane (Mt 26:36-46) was borrowed from Mk 14:32-42 and conflated with Lk 22:40-46 (πάτερ + πλήν + πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς + εἰσέλθητε + γίνομαι + τὸ θέλημα).

6.4.  Mt 26:47-75; cf. Acts 21:30-23:11 The section Mt 26:47-75, with its main themes of a great crowd seizing Jesus, the people involved in seizing Jesus, the betrayer being present for a certain purpose, not allowing to use a sword because of the ensuing perishing by sword, an angelic apparition, praying and receiving a Jewish-style apparition, and Jesus not knowing who it was who struck him during the Jewish questioning, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 21:30-23:11. The story about the arrest of Jesus (Mt 26:47-56) was borrowed from Mk 14:4352 and conflated with Lk 22:47-53 (ἰδού + δέ + Ἰησοῦς + εἶπεν αὐτῷ + πατάσσω). However, it was also reworked to illustrate the ideas of the Lucan story about the arrest of Paul (Acts 21:30-22:29).

5 Cf. ibid. 406.

184

In particular, the insertion of the idea that the crowd which seized Jesus was great (Mt 26:47c; diff. Mk 14:43c; Lk 22:47b) alludes to the Lucan idea that the crowd which seized Paul was very numerous (Acts 21:30a; cf. 21:31d). The subsequently inserted remark concerning the elders as representing the people (τοῦ λαοῦ: Mt 26:47c; diff. Mk 14:43c; Lk 22:47c) alludes to the subsequent Lucan remark concerning the people running together (Acts 21:30b). The subsequently inserted, barely understandable statement concerning Jesus’ betrayer, Judas, who was present for a certain purpose (ἐπί + πάρειμι: Mt 26:50b; diff. Lk 22:48), alludes to the subsequent Lucan statement concerning Paul’s betrayers, the Jews from Asia, who ought to have been present before the Roman governor (ἐπί + πάρειμι: Acts 24:19), similarly to their behaviour in the presence of the Roman tribune (Acts 21:32-36). The subsequently inserted irenical idea of Jesus not allowing to use a sword because of the ensuing perishing by sword (Mt 26:52; diff. Lk 22:51) alludes to the subsequent Lucan irenical idea of Paul not being the Egyptian who led people armed with swords (Acts 21:38), an idea which was conflated by Matthew with one borrowed from Josephus, namely that most of these armed rebels were killed by Roman swords (Jos. Ant. 20.171). The subsequently inserted idea of Jesus summoning the Father and receiving a Jewish-style apparition of twelve groups of angels (Mt 26:53) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul praying and receiving an ecstatic vision in the Jewish temple (Acts 22:17). The subsequent, likewise inserted, quite surprising idea of Jesus enjoying protection of Roman-style legions (Mt 26:53d) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul enjoying protection of his Roman citizenship (Acts 22:25-29). The subsequent story about the Jewish questioning of Jesus and Peter’s denial (Mt 26:57-75) was borrowed from Mk 14:53-72 and conflated with Lk 22:54-71 (συνήχθη* + ὁ δὲ Πέτρος ἠκολούθει… μακρόθεν + ἐκάθητο + εἰ σὺ εἶ + ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ + ‘you’ λέγω + καθήμενο* ἐκ δεξιῶν + λέγοντες + τίς ἐστιν ὁ παίσας σε6 + ἐκάθητο + παιδίσκη + οὐκ οἶδα + καὶ ἐξελθὼν ἔξω ἔκλαυσεν πικρῶς),7 as well as corrected according to the Jewish scriptural text Dan 7:13 LXX (ἐπὶ τῶν

6 Cf. M. Hengel, Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus: Studien zu ihrer Sammlung und Entstehung (WUNT 224; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008), 308–309. 7 Cf. ibid. 307–308.

185

νεφελῶν: Mt 26:64).8 This story thematically corresponds to the subsequent Lucan story about the Jewish questioning of Paul (Acts 22:30-23:11). In particular, the idea of Jesus not knowing who it was who struck him (Mt 26:68cd; diff. Mk 14:65f) was borrowed from Lk 22:64ef in order to allude to the Lucan idea of Paul not knowing that the one who ordered striking him was high priest (Acts 23:5). From the linguistic point of view, the particular question formula τίς ἐστιν ὁ with a following aorist participle was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 26:68 par. Lk 22:64), whereas Luke also used it in Lk 20:2.9 Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke. Likewise, the non-Marcan aorist verb form ἔκλαυσεν (Mt 26:75f par. Lk 22:62b; diff. Mk 14:72g: ἔκλαιεν) was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its parallel in the Lucan Gospel (Mt 26:75f par. Lk 22:62b), whereas Luke also used it in Lk 19:41. Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke.10

6.5.  Mt 27:1-10; cf. Acts 23:12-33a The section Mt 27:1-10, with its main themes of the ‘happening’ of the morning, the Jewish decision to kill Jesus, the one who betrayed, the betrayer coming to the chief priests and elders and saying something, a directly reported statement concerning delivering to a bloody death, not deserving punishment, the betrayer being frustrated by the authorities and going aside, the Jewish chief priests taking money, the authorities acknowledging innocence, foreigners in the land of Israel, and the fulfilment of the words spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 23:12-33a. 8 Cf. H. D. Zacharias, ‘Old Greek Daniel 7:13-14 and Matthew’s Son of Man’, BBR 21 (2011) 453–465 (esp. 459–461). 9 Cf. J. Kiilunen, ‘ “Minor Agreements” und die Hypothese von Lukas’ Kenntnis des Matthäusevangeliums’, in I. Dunderberg, C. Tuckett, and K. Syreeni (eds.), Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity, Festschrift H. Räisänen (NovTSup 103; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2002), 165–202 (esp. 186–187); M. Goulder, ‘Two Significant Minor Agreements (Mat. 4:13 Par.; Mat. 26:67-68 Par.)’, NovT 45 (2003) 365–373 (esp. 373 n. 17). 10 Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘Interpretacja Ewangelii według św. Mateusza a problem synoptyczny’, in J. Kręcidło and W. Linke (eds.), Studia nad Ewangelią według św. Mateusza (LinSacMon 5; Apostolicum: Ząbki and Bractwo Słowa Bożego: Warszawa 2015), 179–193 (esp. 190–193).

186

The account of delivering Jesus to Pilate (Mt  27:1-2) was borrowed from Mk 15:1 and conflated with Lk 23:1 (αὐτόν + *ἤγαγον). The opening temporal remark concerning the ‘happening’ (δέ + γενομένης) of the morning (Mt 27:1a; diff. Mk 15:1a; Lk 23:1) alludes to the similar remark in Acts 23:12a. The subsequent idea of the Jewish decision to kill Jesus (Mt 27:1c; diff. Mk 15:1a; Lk  23:1a)11 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Jewish decision to kill Paul (Acts 23:12c-g). The motif of Pilate as the governor (ἡγεμών: Mt 27:2c; diff. Mk 15:1d) was borrowed from Jos. Ant. 18.55. The subsequent, quite surprisingly inserted remark concerning Judas as the one who betrayed Jesus (Mt 27:3ab; diff. Mk 15:1; Lk 23:1) alludes to the subsequent Lucan remark concerning the Jews as the ones who formed a conspiracy against Paul (Acts 23:13). The subsequent, likewise inserted idea of the betrayer Judas coming to the chief priests and elders (τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν καὶ πρεσβυτέροις) and saying something (Mt 27:3e-27:4a), an idea which is quite surprisingly justified by presenting Judas as regretting his betrayal because Jesus was condemned (Mt 27:3cd), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the plotting Jews coming to the chief priests and elders and saying something (Acts 23:14ab). The subsequent, directly reported statement of Judas concerning his handing over of Jesus to a bloody death (Mt 27:4c) alludes to the subsequent Lucan, directly reported statement of the Jews concerning their decision to kill Paul (Acts 23:14e). The subsequent idea of Jesus not deserving punishment (Mt 27:4c) alludes to the subsequent Lucan image of Paul being punished in a not legally justified way (Acts 23:15). The subsequent idea of the betrayer being frustrated by the authorities and going aside (ἀναχωρέω: Mt 27:4d-5b) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the authorities frustrating the Jewish betrayal by going aside with Paul’s nephew (Acts 23:19ab; cf. 23:20-22). The subsequent image of the frustrated Judas killing himself by falling down (Mt 27:5d) was borrowed from Acts 1:18b-d and reworked by substituting the idea of falling headlong (Acts 1:18b; cf. 1:18cd: burst open etc.) with the scriptural one of strangling himself (Mt 27:5d; cf. 2 Sam 17:23 LXX: καὶ ἀπελθ*+ ἀπήγξατο).12 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of frustrating the Jews 11 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 426. 12 Cf. U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol. 4, Mt 26–28 (EKK 1/4; Benzinger: Düsseldorf · Zürich and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002), 235; A. Paciorek, Ewangelia według świętego Mateusza: Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz,

187

(Acts 23:23-24), who presumably died with their throats closed because of their oath not to eat or drink anything (cf. Acts 23:21). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of the Jewish chief priests taking (λαμβάνω) money (Mt  27:6a; diff. 27:4d-5a: disinterest) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Jews seizing (*λαμβάνω) Paul (Acts 23:27a). The subsequent, likewise surprising idea of the authorities indirectly acknowledging Jesus’ innocence (Mt 27:6b-e; cf. 27:4bc) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the authorities acknowledging Paul’s innocence (Acts 23:27c-29). The particular idea of Judas’ money being unjust (Mt 27:6e) was borrowed from Acts 1:18a. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted idea of foreigners in the land of Israel (Mt 27:7c; diff. 27:7b.10a: potter) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Romans in the land of Israel (Acts 23:30). The motif of buying the field called the Field of Blood (Mt 27:7b.8) was borrowed from Acts 1:18a.19 (καλέω + ἐκεῖνο* + αἵματος).13 It was subsequently conflated in Mt 27:9d-10 with various motifs borrowed from Zech 11:13 LXX (καὶ ἔλαβον  + τριάκοντα + ἀργυρ*),14 Jer  32[39]:7-9 LXX (ἀργύριον + τὸν ἀγρόν),15 Jer  18:2-3.6 LXX (εἰς + τοῦ κεραμέως),16 and Exod  9:12 LXX etc. (καθὰ συνέταξεν… κύριος).17 All these motifs were somewhat artificially combined with the idea of the fulfilment of the words spoken through the prophet Jeremiah (Mt 27:9a-c), who theologically justified the subjection of the land of Israel to Gentile troops (Jer 32[39]:28-30 etc.). In this way, Matthew alluded to

vol. 2, Rozdziały 14–28 (NKBNT 1/2; Święty Paweł: Częstochowa 2008), 618, 620, 623; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 429. 13 Cf. G. Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu und ihre erste Entwicklung nach dem gegenwärtigen Stande der Wissenschaft (F. A. Brockhaus: Leipzig 1857), 361–364. 14 Cf. C. McAfee Moss, Zechariah, 175–178; J. Nolland, ‘The King as Shepherd: The Role of Deutero-Zechariah in Matthew’, in T. R. Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, vol. 2, The Gospel of Matthew (LNTS 310; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 133–146 (esp. 143); M. Konradt, Matthäus, 429. 15 Cf. J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (NIGTC; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge and Paternoster: Bletchley 2005), 1155, 1157; R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2007), 1043; D. L. Turner, Matthew (BECNT; Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2008), 649. 16 Cf. R. T. France, Matthew, 1043; D. L. Turner, Matthew, 649; Z. Żywica, ‘Eklezja Mateusza – eschatologiczną “Resztą Izraela”?’, ColT 86 (2016) no. 1, 25–40 (esp. 34). 17 Cf. J. Nolland, Matthew, 1157 n. 325; P. Fiedler, Das Matthäusevangelium (TKNT 1; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2006), 406.

188

the subsequent Lucan idea of the narratively justified subjection of the land of Israel to Roman troops (Acts 23:31-33a).

6.6.  Mt 27:11-26; cf. Acts 23:33b-25:18 The section Mt 27:11-26, with its main themes of bringing before the governor, elders accusing, not answering before the question of the governor, the Jews testifying, the governor again, being an outstanding prisoner, the governor quite exactly knowing the things concerning Jesus, the governor judicially deciding the case, the governor’s wife acting in a Jewish way by confessing Jesus as the righteous one and being stricken with divinely inspired remorse, governor’s question concerning what the Jews wanted, as well as acknowledging Jesus’ innocence and the Jews commonly taking responsibility for Jesus’ death upon them, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 23:33b-25:18. The story about the trial before Pilate (Mt  27:11-14) was borrowed from Mk 15:2-5 and conflated with Lk 23:2-4 (λέγων + ἔφη). The substitution of the remark concerning Pilate (Mk 15:2a; Lk 23:3a) with that concerning bringing (*ἵστημι) Jesus before the governor (ἡγεμών: Mt 27:11ab) alludes to the Lucan idea of bringing Paul to the governor (Acts 23:33bc). The subsequent idea of not only chief priests (Mk  15:3; Lk  23:4a), but also elders (πρεσβυτέρων) accusing Jesus (Mt  27:12a)18 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of not only the high priest, but also elders accusing Paul (Acts 24:1a). The subsequent idea of Jesus not answering, as placed before the question of Pilate (Mt  27:12b; diff. Mk  15:4c: following the question of Pilate), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul not answering during the speech of Tertullus, before the question of Felix (Acts 24:2-8). The subsequent substitution of the idea of accusing Jesus (Mk 15:4e) with that of testifying against him (Mt 27:13c) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of asserting against Paul (Acts 24:9). The repeated remark concerning not Pilate (Mk  15:5b), but the governor (ἡγεμών: Mt 27:14b), alludes to the repeated Lucan remark concerning the governor (Acts 24:10b). The following story about Pilate pronouncing the sentence of death (Mt 27:1526) was borrowed from Mk 15:6-15 and conflated with Lk 23:18-25 ( Ἰησοῦν with ἀπόλλυμι + κακὸν ἐποίησεν + σταυρωθη* + τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν… παρέδωκεν).

18 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 432.

189

The repeated remark concerning the governor (ἡγεμών: Mt  27:15a; diff. Mk 15:6a: ‘he’) alludes to the likewise repeated Lucan remark concerning the governor (Acts 24:10b). The subsequent substitution of the idea of Barabbas being a rebel and murderer (Mk 15:7; Lk 23:19.25) with that of his being an outstanding prisoner,19 with no mention of his rebellious activity (Mt 27:16), alludes to the subsequent Lucan presentation of Paul as an eloquent, outstanding, innocent prisoner, who did not cause any unrest of the people (Acts 24:10d-21). The subsequent ideas of Pilate quite exactly stating that Jesus was called the Messiah/Christ (Mt 27:17g; cf. 1:16; 27:22; Jos. Ant. 20.200), and not merely the king of the Jews (cf. Mk 15:9d),20 as well as knowing (οἶδα: diff. Mk 15:10a: γινώσκω) the truth about the charges against Jesus (Mt 27:18a) allude to the subsequent Lucan idea of Felix more exactly knowing the Christian ‘way’ (Acts 24:22b). The somewhat surprisingly inserted idea of Pilate judicially deciding the case (Mt 27:19a; diff. Mk 15:10b) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Felix judicially deciding the case (Acts 24:22e.24a). The particular formula concerning sitting on the tribunal (καθ* + ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος: Mt 27:19a) was borrowed from Acts 25:6. From the linguistic point of view, the formula καθ*… ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος was used by Matthew only once (Mt 27:19), whereas Luke used it 3 times in Acts. Accordingly, it slightly favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. The subsequent, likewise inserted, quite surprising idea of the governor’s wife (γυνή) who acted in a Jewish way by uttering a Semitic formula ‘nothing to you and to him’ (cf. 2 Sam 16:10; 1 Kgs 17:18; 2 Kgs 3:13 LXX; Mk 5:7 parr.), confessing Jesus as the righteous one (δίκαιος: cf. Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14), and being stricken in a dream with divinely inspired (cf. Mt 1:20; 2:12-13.19.22) remorse (Mt  27:19b-e) alludes to the subsequent Lucan ideas of the governor’s Jewish wife, faith in Jesus as the Messiah/Christ, discussing the matters of righteousness (δικαιοσ*), and being afraid of the future divine judgement (Acts 24:24b-25b). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted, governor’s question concerning what the Jews wanted (θέλω: Mt 27:21c; cf. 27:17; diff. Mk 15:11; Lk 23:20) alludes to the subsequent Lucan image of Festus wanting to grant the Jews a favour (Acts 24:27cd; cf. 25:9ab). The subsequent, likewise somewhat surprisingly inserted ideas of Pilate acknowledging Jesus’ innocence and the Jews commonly taking responsibility for

19 Cf. ibid. 433. 20 Cf. ibid.

190

Jesus’ death upon them (Mt 27:24-25; diff. Mk 15:15; Lk 23:24) alludes to the subsequent Lucan ideas of the Jews from Jerusalem commonly asking for Paul’s death and Festus acknowledging his innocence (Acts 25:7.15.18; cf. 25:24-25). The particular motif of washing one’s hands as a sign of not being guilty of this blood (*νίπτω + τὰς χεῖρας + τὸ αἷμα τοῦτο: Mt 27:24e) was borrowed from Deut 21:6-7 LXX.21 The motif of being innocent of someone’s blood (ἀθῷος + εἰμί + ἀπό + αἷμα: Mt 27:24g) was borrowed from 2 Sam 3:28 LXX; Sus 46-47 θ’ etc.22 The motif of the Jews commonly placing someone’s blood on them (τὸ αἷμα + ἐπί: Mt 27:25c) was borrowed from Acts 18:6, which was additionally conflated with Lk 23:28 (εἶπεν + ἐφ᾽ *ας + καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τέκνα *μῶν).23

6.7.  Mt 27:27-66; cf. Acts 25:19-27:32 The section Mt 27:27-66, with its main themes of giving a teacher’s or writer’s reed into the right hand, Roman soldiers guarding, the charge being written, trusting in God in an exceptional way, general raising of many dead saints in Jerusalem as foretold by the prophets and following the resurrection of Jesus, the centurion and others who guarded Jesus being afraid of God’s power in him, having a helping disciple, predicting the resurrection, and commanding Roman soldiers to guard the tomb in order to prevent a tricky stealing, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 25:19-27:32. The story about the soldiers mocking Jesus (Mt 27:27-31) was borrowed from Mk 15:16-20 and conflated with Lk 23:26a (ἀπήγαγον). The substitution of the motif of a royal purple garment (Mk 15:17a) with that of a simple red cloak (Mt  27:28b),24 together with the insertion of the somewhat ridiculous image of giving a teacher’s or writer’s reed into Jesus’ right hand (Mt 27:29c; cf. 3 Jn 13; diff. Mk 15:17), alludes to the Lucan idea of Paul being a man learned in the somewhat despised Jewish religion (Acts 25:19).

21 Cf. M. Lau, ‘Blutige Hände: Beobachtungen zur Rezeption alttestamentlicher Motive in Mt 27,24f ’, PzB 21 (2012) 42–76 (esp. 53–54). 22 Cf. C. S. Hamilton, ‘Blood and Secrets: The Re-telling of Genesis 1–6 in 1 Enoch 6–11 and Its Echoes in Susanna and the Gospel of Matthew’, in C. A. Evans and H. D. Zacharias (eds.), ‘What Does the Scripture Say?’ Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, vol. 1, The Synoptic Gospels (LNTS 469; T&T Clark, London · New York 2012), 90–141 (esp. 123–125); M. Lau, ‘Blutige’, 55–56. 23 Cf. M. Hengel, Evangelien, 306. 24 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 438.

191

The subsequent story about the crucifixion of Jesus (Mt 27:32-44) was borrowed from Mk 15:21-32 and conflated with Lk 23:33-43 (ἐλθον* + σταυρωσαν* + οὗτος with ὁ βασιλεύς).25 In particular, Matthew adapted the Marcan account of giving Jesus wine to drink (Mk 15:23) to its Septuagintal background with its motif of gall (χολή: Mt 27:34; cf. Ps 69[68]:22 LXX).26 The somewhat surprisingly inserted image of Roman soldiers guarding (τηρέω) Jesus (Mt 27:36; diff. Mk 15:24-25; Lk 23:35ab)27 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Roman soldiers guarding Paul (Acts 25:21). The subsequent substitution of the idea of the inscription of the charge against Jesus being written above him (ἐπιγράφω: Mk 15:26a) with that of simply the charge (αἰτία) against Jesus being written (γράφω: Mt 27:37ab) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the charge against Paul being written to the Emperor (Acts 25:26-27). The subsequent motif of (a) trusting in God (πεποιθ* + ἐπί + τὸν θεόν: Mt 27:43a) was borrowed from Is 36:7 LXX etc.;28 the motif of (b) delivering him if God likes him (ῥυσάσθω + θέλει αὐτόν: Mt 27:43bc) was borrowed from Ps 22[21]:9 LXX;29 and the motif of (c) the Jews knowing that he maintained to be God’s Son (θεοῦ + εἰμί + υἱός: Mt 27:43de) was borrowed from Wis 2:18 (cf. 2:13).30 These somewhat surprisingly inserted motifs (Mt 27:43; diff. Mk 15:32; Lk 23:39) allude to the subsequent Lucan ideas of Paul (a) boldly defending himself against the Jews, (b) calling himself fortunate, and (c) the Jews knowing the beginning of his life in God’s environment in Jerusalem (Acts 26:1d-4). The subsequent account of Jesus’ death (Mt  27:45-56) was borrowed from Mk  15:33-41 and conflated with Lk  23:44-49 (φωνῇ μεγάλῃ + τὸ πνεῦμα + ἑκατονταρχ* + ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας).31 In this account, Matthew corrected the 25 Cf. M. Hengel, Evangelien, 309–310. 26 Cf. A. Paciorek, ‘Psałterz w Mateuszowym opisie męki Jezusa’, RocB 1 [56] (2009) 177–189 (esp. 180); M. Konradt, Matthäus, 441. 27 Cf. M. Konradt, Matthäus, 441. 28 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 3, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew XIX-XXVIII (ICC; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1997), 620; J. Nolland, Matthew, 1199; P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 415. 29 Cf. R. T. France, Matthew, 1071; A. Paciorek, ‘Psałterz’, 183; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 443. 30 Cf. P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 415; R. T. France, Matthew, 1071–1072; A. Paciorek, ‘Psałterz’, 183–184. 31 Cf. M. Hengel, Evangelien, 310; F. Siegert, Das Evangelium nach Johannes in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt: Wiederherstellung und Kommentar (SIJD 7; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2008), 91 n. 7.

192

Marcan quotation from Ps  22[21]:2 (cf.  Mk  15:34d) to suit the context better (ηλι ηλι: Mt 27:46c; cf. Mt 27:47 par. Mk 15:35: Ἠλίαν),32 and apparently conformed the Greek translation to the Septuagintal version (ἱνα τί: Mt  27:46e; cf. Ps 22[21]:2 LXX).33 Moreover, Matthew substituted the Marcan idea of one person ironically referring to the coming of Elijah (Mk 15:36e-i) with that of all bystanding Jews disbelieving Jesus in this way (Mt 27:49a-e). Thus, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea of all presumably bystanding Jews not willing to testify for Paul (Acts 26:5a-c). The subsequent, well attested, but rather surprising insertion in Mt 27:49 ‫א‬, B et  al.  states that among the bystanding Jews (cf.  Mt  27:47-49e) (a) ‘another, having taken a spear, pierced his side’ and (b) ‘there came out water and blood’ (Mt 27:49f-h; diff. Mk 15:36-37). If it is original,34 it may allude to the subsequent Lucan ideas of Paul’s (a) most precise choice (ἀκριβεστάτην αἵρεσιν) in Judaism and (b) having lived (aor. ἔζησα) his life as a Pharisee (Acts 26:5d), presumably having been full of interest in purifications with water (cf. Mk 7:1-4 etc.). The subsequent, rather surprising idea of Jesus leaving the Spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα: Mt 27:50; diff. Lk 23:46: his spirit; Gen 35:18 LXX: the soul),35 which resulted from a conflation of Mk 15:37 (ἀφίημι) with Lk 23:46 (τὸ πνεῦμα), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the promise (ἐπαγγελία) made to the fathers (Acts 26:6), a promise which could be regarded as the promise of the Spirit (Gal 3:14; Acts 2:33 etc.). The subsequent, surprisingly inserted motif of an earthquake, the tombs being opened, and people coming out of the tombs and going into the holy place (Mt 27:51b-53b; diff. Mk 15:38; Lk 23:45) was borrowed from the prophetic text 32 Cf. M. J. J. Menken, ‘Old Testament Quotations Derived from Mark’, in id., Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist (BETL 173; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2004), 205–225 (esp. 224). 33 Cf. R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (2nd edn., William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1994), 573; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 3, 624. 34 Cf. P. W. Comfort, A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament (Kregel: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2015), 176–177; D. M. Gurtner, ‘Water and Blood and Matthew 27:49: A Johannine Reading in the Matthean Passion Narrative?’, in D. M. Gurtner, J. Hernández, Jr., and P. Foster (eds.), Studies on the Text of the New Testament and Early Christianity, Festschrift M. W. Holmes (NTTSD 50; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2015), 134–150. 35 Cf. W. Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (THKNT 1; Evangelische: Leipzig 1998), 481.

193

Ezek 37:7.12 LXX (σει* + τὰ μνημ* + ἀνοίγω + ἐκ τῶν μνημ* + εἰσ* + εἰς τήν)36 and conflated with the likewise prophetic texts concerning the Jerusalem mountain splitting and saints coming with the Lord (σχίζω + ἅγιοι: Mt  27:51c.52b; cf. Zech 14:4-5 LXX),37 people being raised from the tombs (τὰ μνημεῖα + ἐγείρω: Mt 27:52-53a; cf. Is 26:19 LXX),38 as well as many Israelites, who were sleeping in the earth, being raised (πολλοί: Mt 27:52b; cf. Dan 12:2 LXX).39 These, additionally slightly reworked motifs commonly convey the idea of a general raising (ἐγείρω) of many dead saints (πολλοί + τῶν… ἁγίων) in Jerusalem, which was foretold by the prophets and which, quite surprisingly, followed the resurrection of Jesus (Mt 27:51b-53).40 This idea alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of a general raising of the dead, which was foretold in the past to Israel, which was now revealed to many saints in Jerusalem, and which follows the pattern of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (Acts 26:7-8.10.22-23.27). For this reason, the motif of the risen ones appearing to many (Mt  27:53c) additionally alludes to the Lucan motif of the risen Jesus appearing to Paul, to Israel, and to the Gentiles (Acts 26:13-19.23). The Marcan statement concerning the centurion (Mk 15:39) was reworked to convey the subsequent idea of not only the centurion (ἑκατονταρχ*: cf. Lk 23:47a; diff. Mk  15:39a), but also others who guarded Jesus, as being afraid of God’s power in Jesus (Mt  27:54).41 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan idea that the centurion, who with other soldiers convoyed Paul, treated him kindly and respectfully (Acts 27:1-3b).

36 Cf. D. C. Allison, Jr., ‘The Scriptural Background of a Matthean Legend: Ezekiel 37, Zechariah 14, and Matthew 27’, in W. Weren, H. van de Sandt, and J. Verheyden (eds.), Life Beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel: Religious Metaphor or Bodily Reality? (BTS 13; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 153–181 (esp. 158–161); D. M. Gurtner, ‘Interpreting Apocalyptic Symbolism in the Gospel of Matthew’, BBR 22 (2012) 525–545 (esp. 540–541). 37 Cf.  C.  McAfee Moss, Zechariah, 198–201; D.  C.  Allison, Jr., ‘Scriptural’, 161–173; D. M. Gurtner, ‘Interpreting’, 541. 38 Cf. J. Nolland, Matthew, 1217; R. T. France, Matthew, 1082; C. S. Hamilton, ‘Blood’, 136 n. 73. 39 Cf. J. Nolland, Matthew, 1215; D. M. Gurtner, ‘Interpreting’, 541; C. S. Hamilton, ‘Blood’, 136 n. 73. 40 Cf. R. Schwindt, ‘Kein Heil ohne Gericht: Die Antwort Gottes auf Jesu Tod nach Mt 27,51-54’, BZ, nf 132 (2007) 87–104 (esp. 99); D. M. Gurtner, ‘Interpreting’, 540– 543. 41 Cf. P. Fiedler, Matthäusevangelium, 419–420; A. R. Angel, ‘Crucifixus Vincens: The “Son of God” as Divine Warrior in Matthew’, CBQ 73 (2011) 299–317 (esp. 304–317); M. Konradt, Matthäus, 448.

194

The subsequent account of the burial of Jesus (Mt 27:57-61) was borrowed from Mk 15:42-47 and conflated with Lk 23:50-56 (ὄνομα + οὗτος προσελθὼν τῷ Πιλάτῳ + ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτό).42 The substitution of the general idea of Joseph waiting for the kingdom of God (Mk 15:43b; Lk 23:51c) with the particular, rather surprising one of his being a disciple of Jesus (Mt 27:57c)43 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul having friends in Sidon, who cared for him (Acts 27:3c-e). Therefore, since these friends in Sidon were presumably Gentiles (cf. Mk 3:8; 7:31 parr.; Lk 10:13-14), the verb μαθητεύω (Mt 27:57c; cf. 13:52; 28:19) was borrowed from Acts 14:21 to convey the idea of making disciples of the Gentiles. The subsequent substitution of the Marcan idea of the centurion granting the body to Joseph (δωρέομαι: Mk 15:45b) with that of his commanding to give it up (*δίδωμι: Mt 27:58cd) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the centurion presumably commanding to give the ship up to be driven (Acts 27:15). The subsequent, surprisingly inserted motif of Jesus predicting the resurrection (Mt 27:62-63; diff. Mk 15:47; Lk 23:56) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Paul arising and predicting miraculous salvation from death (Acts 27:21-26). The subsequent, likewise surprisingly inserted idea of commanding Roman soldiers to guard the tomb, in order to prevent a tricky stealing of the body (Mt 27:64-66), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the centurion presumably commanding Roman soldiers to guard sailors on the ship, in order to prevent their tricky escape (Acts 27:27-32).

6.8.  Mt 28:1-15; cf. Acts 27:33-28:22 The section Mt 28:1-15, with its main themes of the guarding Roman soldiers trembling and becoming like dead, honouring and worshipping the risen Jesus, going and seeing the risen Jesus elsewhere, some Roman guarding soldiers being paid in the city, and a common saying of the Jews in contradiction to the Christian teaching, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 27:33-28:22.

42 Cf. M. Hengel, Evangelien, 311. 43 Cf. ibid.; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 450.

195

The story about the empty tomb (Mt 28:1-8) was borrowed from Mk 16:1-844 and conflated with Lk 24:1-9 (ἀστραπ* + φοβ* + ὧδε… ἠγέρθη + ἀπαγγέλλω; cf. Lk 23:54: ἐπιφώσκω; 23:53: κεῖμαι).45 The particular, surprisingly inserted idea of the guarding Roman soldiers (cf. Mt 27:65-66) trembling and becoming like dead (Mt 28:4) alludes to the Lucan idea of the guarding Roman soldiers being kept by the centurion from their killing activity (Acts 27:42-43). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly added idea of honouring and worshipping the risen Jesus (Mt 28:9; diff. Mk 16:8; Lk 24:9)46 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of worshipping and honouring Paul because of the power of the risen Jesus in him (Acts 28:3-10). The subsequent, somewhat redundantly added idea of going (*έρχομαι; diff. Mk 16:7) and seeing (ὁράω) the risen Jesus elsewhere (Mt 28:10; cf. Mk 16:7; Mt 28:7) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of going and seeing Paul in Rome (Acts 28:15). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly added idea of some Roman guarding soldiers (στρατιώτης) being paid in the city (Mt 28:11-12) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of a Roman soldier being paid for guarding Paul in the city of Rome (Acts 28:16). The subsequent idea of a common saying (λόγος) of the Jews (Ἰουδαῖοι), which contradicts the Christian teaching (Mt 28:13-15), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Jews everywhere speaking against (*λέγω) the Christian teaching (Acts 28:17-22).

6.9.  Mt 28:16-20; cf. Acts 28:23-31 The section Mt 28:16-20, with its main themes of appointing a meeting with the numbered group of the Jewish disciples, going to the mountain, the Jewish disciples worshipping Jesus, but some doubting, speaking to the Jewish disciples by saying, a slightly reworked quotation from a prophet, going to all the nations, baptizing the disciples, teaching everything that Jesus commanded, and Jesus being with the disciples all the days, without end, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 28:23-31. 44 Cf. R. Vorholt, Das Osterevangelium: Erinnerung und Erzählung (HeBS 73; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2013), 196. 45 Cf. M. Hengel, Evangelien, 312. 46 Cf. J. E. Leim, Matthew’s Theological Grammar: The Father and the Son (WUNT 2.402; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015), 66.

196

The story about the disciples (οἱ… μαθηταί) going to Galilee (εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν) to see (ὁράω) the risen Jesus there (Mt 28:16-20) originates from the Marcan statement concerning Jesus going ahead of the disciples to Galilee (Mk 16:7b-d). However, it was significantly reworked to allude sequentially to the ideas of Acts 28:23-31. From the linguistic point of view, the numeral ἕνδεκα, referring to the apostles, was used by Matthew only once, in a place which has its thematically corresponding text in the Lucan Gospel (Mt  28:16 par. Lk  24:33), whereas Luke used it 2 times in his Gospel and 2 times in Acts.47 Accordingly, it favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. The particular non-Marcan idea of Jesus appointing (τάσσω) a meeting with the numbered group of the Jewish disciples (Mt 28:16b) alludes to the Lucan idea of a greater number of the Jews appointing a day for a meeting with Paul (Acts 28:23ab). From the linguistic point of view, the verb τάσσω was used by Matthew only once, in Mt 28:16 (which structurally corresponds to Acts 28:23), whereas Luke used it once in his Gospel and 4 times in Acts.48 Therefore, it should be regarded as borrowed in Mt 28:16 from Acts 28:23, a fact which favours the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the work of Luke. The scriptural, Mosaic and Elijanic motif of going to the mountain (εἰς τὸ ὄρος: Mt 28:16a; cf. Exod 3:1; 19:3 LXX etc.; 1 Kgs 19:8.11),49 a journey which was temporally subsequent to Jesus’ command (Mt 28:16b), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of quoting from Moses and the Prophets (Acts 28:23e). The subsequent statement that the Jewish disciples worshipped Jesus (προσκυνέω: Mt 28:17b) was probably borrowed from Lk 24:52 and somewhat surprisingly supplemented with the qualification that, ‘but some’ (οἱ δέ) doubted (Mt 28:17).50 In this way, Matthew alluded to the subsequent Lucan statement that some of the Jews were persuaded, but some disbelieved (Acts 28:24). The subsequent statement that Jesus spoke (ἐλάλησεν) to the Jewish disciples by saying (λέγω: Mt 28:18a-c) alludes to the subsequent Lucan statement that Paul said to the Jews that the Holy Spirit spoke to them (Acts 28:25a-d). 47 Cf. A. Denaux, R. Corstjens, and H. Mardaga, The Vocabulary of Luke: An Alphabetical Presentation and a Survey of Characteristic and Noteworthy Words and Word Groups in Luke’s Gospel (BTS 10; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2009), 214–215. 48 Cf. ibid. 595. 49 Cf. W. Wiefel, Matthäus, 496. 50 Cf. T. Rogers, ‘The Great Commission as the Climax of Matthew’s Mountain Scenes’, BBR 22 (2012) 383–398 (esp. 393).

197

The subsequent, slightly reworked quotation from the prophet Daniel (Mt 28:18d; cf. Dan 7:13-14 LXX: ἐδόθη + πᾶσα + ἐξουσία + οὐρανός + γῆς)51 alludes to the subsequent Lucan, slightly reworked quotation from the prophet Isaiah (Acts 28:26-27; cf. Is 6:9-10 LXX). Matthew chose the quotation from Dan 7:13-14 LXX because it refers to all the nations (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη: Dan 7:14 LXX),52 which suits the following command Mt 28:19b. The subsequent idea of going and making disciples of all the nations (τὰ ἔθνη: Mt 28:19ab),53 which was probably borrowed from Lk 24:47 (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη),54 alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of being sent to the nations (Acts 28:28ab). Therefore, the verb μαθητεύω (Mt 28:19b; cf. 13:52; 27:57) was borrowed from Acts 14:21 to convey the idea of making disciples of the Gentiles. The subsequent idea of baptizing them (αὐτοί: Mt 28:19c), namely the disciples cf. 28:19b),55 alludes to the subsequent Lucan statement that they, namely the Gentiles, will obey (Acts 28:28c). Therefore, the trinitarian formula of the name of God (Mt 28:19c), which has soteriological connotations (cf. 2 Cor 13:13; 1 Pet 1:2), functions as a reworking of the Lucan idea of the salvation of God (Acts 28:28b). The subsequent idea of teaching (διδάσκω) everything that Jesus commanded (Mt  28:20a-c) alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of teaching the things concerning Jesus (Acts 28:31b). The particular idea of the risen Jesus teaching

51 Cf. H. B. Green, Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes (JSNTSup 203; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2001), 154; R. Vorholt, Osterevangelium, 212; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 461. 52 Cf. J. Gnilka, Das Matthäusevangelium, vol. 2, Kommentar zu Kap. 14,1-28,20 und Einleitungsfragen (HThKNT 1/2; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 1998), 507–508; R. T. France, Matthew, 1112; M. Konradt, Matthäus, 461. 53 Cf. E. Cuvillier, ‘La construction narrative de la mission dans le premier évangile: Un déplacement théologique et identitaire’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (BETL 243; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 159–175 (esp. 164); B. A. Paschke, ‘Ein Kommen und Gehen: Wie konsequent wird im Matthäusevangelium zwischen zentripetalem und zentrifugalem Universa­ lismus unterschieden?’, in ibid. 637–652 (esp. 644). 54 Cf. R. V. Huggins, ‘Matthean Posteriority: A Preliminary Proposal’, NovT 34 (1992) 1–22 (esp. 22); E. Powell, The Unfinished Gospel: Notes on the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Symposium: Westlake Village, Calif. 1994), 244–245; E. Aurelius, ‘Gottesvolk und Außenseiter: Eine geheime Beziehung Lukas – Matthäus’, NTS 47 (2001) 428–441 (esp. 438). 55 Cf. W. Reinbold, ‘»Gehet hin und machet zu Jünger alle Völker«? Zur Übersetzung und Interpretation von Mt 28,19f ’, ZTK 109 (2012) 176–205 (esp. 200–202).

198

(διδάσκω) and commanding (ἐντέλλομαι) the disciples (Mt 28:20a.c) was borrowed from Acts 1:1d-2a. The concluding idea of Jesus being with (μετά) the disciples all (πάσ*) the days, without end in this age (Mt  28:20d),56 alludes to the concluding Lucan idea of Jesus being preached with all openness, without hindrance (Acts 28:31b).

56

Cf. M. Harris, ‘The Comings and Goings of the Son of Man: Is Matthew’s Risen Jesus “Present” or “Absent”? A Narrative-Critical Response’, BibInt 22 (2014) 51–70 (esp. 60–63); M. Vaňuš, La presenza di Dio tra gli uomini: La tradizione della «shekinah» in Neofiti e in Matteo (TGST 214; Pontificia Università Gregoriana: Roma 2015), 328–329.

199

General conclusions The analysis of the literary relationship between the Gospel of Matthew and the Acts of the Apostles has revealed that the Matthean Gospel is a result of a consistent, strictly sequential, but on the other hand highly creative, hypertextual reworking of the Acts of the Apostles. Matthew sequentially reworked the contents of the Acts of the Apostles with the use of much Marcan and Lucan material, numerous scriptural motifs, and with the addition of some newly composed stories. The sequential reworking of the contents of the Acts of the Apostles in the Matthean Gospel consisted in creating the series of c.500 sequentially arranged hypertextual correspondences between the two works. The detection of such a long series of sequentially arranged correspondences ensures the reliability of their analysis, even if some of them, taken individually, are thematically and linguistically rather vague. The Matthean creation of this long series of correspondences to the Acts of the Apostles resulted in numerous relocations, alterations, omissions, and insertions of the Marcan and Lucan material. Besides, it also resulted in the presence of many more or less easily perceivable inconsistencies and other surprising features in the Matthean Gospel. Therefore, adequate explanations of these numerous Matthean modifications of the Marcan and Lucan material, together with the explanations of many more or less surprising features of the Matthean Gospel, which are given in this commentary, prove the reliability of the interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew in terms of its being a sequentially organized, hypertextual reworking of the Acts of the Apostles. This is especially evident in comparison to much vaguer hypertextual interpretations of the Matthean Gospel, which were previously offered by other scholars.1 In particular, the phenomenon of numerous relocations of the Marcan material, especially in the first part of the Matthean Gospel (Mt 3:1-12:45; cf. Mk 1:23:29), could not be adequately explained with the use of standard source-critical (Q hypothesis etc.) and redactional-critical theories,2 but it can be explained

1 Cf. e.g. T. L. Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Developments of the New Testament Writings (NTMon 1; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2004), 197–252. 2 See e.g. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 1, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I-VII (ICC; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1988), 100–103; M. Konradt, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (NTD 1; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen · Bristol 2015), 20–21, 131.

201

by the hypothesis of Matthew’s sequential hypertextual reworking of the Acts of the Apostles. Moreover, the long series of sequentially organized, hypertextual correspondences between the Gospel of Matthew and the Acts of the Apostles is relatively easy to discover because Matthew used the vocabulary from the corresponding sections of the Acts of the Apostles relatively often, much more often than Mark and Luke used the vocabulary of the corresponding fragments of Paul’s letters.3 In fact, the way of sequential hypertextual reworking of the Acts of the Apostles in the Gospel of Matthew significantly differs from the way of sequential hypertextual reworking of Paul’s letters in the Gospels of Mark and Luke. This difference mainly consists in the fact that whereas Mark, and to a great extent also Luke, freely composed various stories about Jesus in order to illustrate various Pauline ideas, Matthew generally used previously written Marcan and Lucan accounts in order to allude to various ideas which are contained in the Acts of the Apostles. Of course, Matthew also at times significantly reworked Marcan and Lucan texts (e.g. Mt 25:14-30 cf. Mk 13:34a; 4:25e; Lk 19:12-27), but in only really few fragments (e.g. Mt 25:31-46) he created his own stories without any evident recourse to the Marcan and Lucan material. Moreover, Matthew used non-biblical texts much more rarely than did Mark and Luke. In particular, Matthew used Josephus’ writings4 and classical Greek works5 in a much more limited way than did Mark and Luke. Moreover, interestingly for the old view of the Matthean Gospel as a very ‘Hebrew’ one, Matthew, unlike Luke, made no significant use of the Jewish non-Scriptural texts known from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Accordingly, Matthew’s literary activity mainly consisted in more or less creative adaptation of Marcan and Lucan accounts, with additional extensive use of various motifs which were mainly borrowed from the Jewish Scriptures. The way of combining Lucan texts with the Marcan ones in the Matthean Gospel is greatly variegated. It ranges from quite faithfully borrowing fragments of the Lucan Gospel and juxtaposing them with Marcan texts, through creatively combining Lucan fragments with the thematically corresponding Marcan ones, 3 For sequential hypertextual analyses of these earlier Gospels, see B. Adamczewski, The Gospel of Mark: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 8; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2014), 31–196; id., The Gospel of Luke: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 13; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2016), 35–202. 4 Cf. Jos. Ant. 20.200 in Mt 1:16; 27:17.22; Ant. 15.230-240 in Mt 2:16; Ant. 18.312 in Mt 17:24-27; B.J. 3.653 in Mt 22:7; Ant. 18.35-95 in Mt 26:3; Ant. 18.55 in Mt 27:2. 5 Cf. Plato, Resp. 614c, 615e in Mt 25:33.37.46.

202

up to conflating only some elements of Lucan texts with their Marcan counterparts. This greatly variegated use of the Gospel of Luke in the Gospel of Matthew forms a continuum of Matthew’s more or less faithful use of fragments of the Gospel of Luke, which to a certain extent corresponds to the continuum of Matthew’s more or less faithful use of fragments of the Gospel of Mark (especially in Mt 3:1-12:45). This continuum of variegated use of the Lucan material in the Matthean Gospel was inadequately explained in the so-called Two-Source hypothesis with the use of the three allegedly disjunctive categories of (a) Matthew’s use of the hypothetical ‘Q source’, (b) ‘Mk-Q overlap’, and (c) Mt-Lk ‘minor agreements’ against Mk. However, these three allegedly disjunctive categories were never defined by Q-theorists in a methodologically clear way, which greatly diminishes the value of that theory.6 As concerns the purpose of the systematic reworking of the Acts of the Apostles in the Gospel of Matthew, it can be argued that Matthew resolved to adapt the contents of the post-Pauline Marcan Gospel to the contents of the more recently written, Lucan history of early Christianity, with its greater stress on the scriptural and Jewish roots of the Christian movement. Since Matthew’s Scripture-based Judaization of Mark7 resembles Luke’s Scripture-based Judaization of Paul in the Acts of the Apostles,8 it can also be argued that the rhetorical goal of the Gospel of Matthew resembled that of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, namely to convince the Roman Christians, who had not been evangelized by Paul and

6 Cf. M. Goodacre, The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 2002), 163–165; B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 85–92. 7 Cf. A. M. O’Leary, Matthew’s Judaization of Mark: Examined in the Context of the Use of Sources in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (LNTS 323; T&T Clark: London · New York 2006), 118–171; J. Svartvik, ‘Matthew and Mark’, in D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski (eds.), Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries (LNTS 333; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 27–49 (esp. 36–37). 8 Pace B. Repschinski, ‘Matthew and Luke’, in D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski (eds.), Matthew, 50–65 (here: 57), who argues that Matthew greatly differs from Luke because the ‘Matthean mission to the Gentiles was […] clearly confined to a mission that asked of the new believers in Christ to become Jewish as well’. In fact, there is a great difference between being rooted in Scripture and becoming Jewish. It should be noted that both Jewish and Gentile audiences roughly contemporary to the Matthean Gospel understood it, presumably not without adequate reasons, very differently from what ‘today’s students of Matthew make it out to be’: cf. B. Repschinski, ‘Conclusions’, in D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski (eds.), Matthew, 173–176 (here: 176).

203

who were greatly influenced by Judaism, to accept the Pauline-style and Marcanstyle Gospel, which was now reformulated in more Jewish Christian terms. However, taking into consideration the presumably late date of the composition of the Matthean Gospel (most likely c. ad 145–150), after Marcion’s protest against Luke’s pro-Jewish ‘falsification’ of the Pauline gospel,9 it is also possible to regard the Gospel of Matthew as an anti-Marcionite Gospel, which promoted a nonantinomian interpretation of the Christian teaching. In the debated issue of the dependence of the Gospel of Matthew on the Gospel of Luke or vice versa, the linguistic evidence for the direction of such dependence cannot in itself be regarded as conclusive.10 This evidence is greatly obscured by the fact Matthew evidently liked repeated stereotyped vocabulary and fixed formulaic expressions.11 Accordingly, such Matthean repeatedly used words and expressions could be borrowed from the Gospel of Luke and rhetorically multiplied by Matthew or, vice versa, frequently used by Matthew and occasionally borrowed from the Matthean Gospel by Luke. However, there are some words and expressions which strongly or very strongly favour the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel of Luke because they occur in the Matthean Gospel very rarely, only in places which have their parallels in the Gospel of Luke (or in the Gospel of Mark), whereas Luke used them often in his Gospel, and additionally also in the Acts of the Apostles. Such rather evident non-Matthean Lucanisms in the Matthean Gospel include εἰσφέρω (Mt 6:13 par. Lk 11:4 et al. [1/0/4+1]),12 κατανοέω (Mt 7:3 par. Lk 6:41 et al. [1/0/4+4]), κλίνω (Mt 8:20 par. Lk 9:58 et al. [1/0/4+0]), δέομαι (Mt 9:38 par. Lk 10:2 et al. [1/0/8+7]), προσδοκάω (Mt 11:3 par. Lk 7:19; Mt 24:50 par. Lk 12:46 et al. [2/0/6+5]), εὐαγγελίζομαι (Mt 11:5 par. Lk 7:22 et al. [1/0/10+15]), προσφωνέω (Mt 11:16 par. Lk 7:32 et al. [1/0/4+2]), φίλος (Mt 11:19 par. Lk 7:34 et  al.  [1/0/15+3]), πάτερ (Mt  11:25 par. Lk  10:21 et  al.  [1/0/8+0]), διέρχομαι

9 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Luke, 23 n. 46. 10 Cf. M. Goodacre, ‘Beyond the Q Impasse or Down a Blind Valley?’, JSNT 76 (1999) 33–52 (esp. 48). 11 Cf. M. S. Goodacre, Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm (JSNTSup 133; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1996), 84; J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (NIGTC; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge and Paternoster: Bletchley 2005), 23–24; D. Hermant, ‘Les redites chez Marc et les deux autres synoptiques (IVe partie, fin)’, RB 109 (2002) 528–555 (esp. 554). 12 The abbreviated notation used here refers to the number of occurrences in [Mt/Mk/ Lk+Acts], so that [1/0/4+1] means 1 time in Mt, 0 times in Mk, 4 times in Lk + 1 times on Acts.

204

(Mt  12:43 par. Lk  11:24 et  al.; Mt  19:24 par. Mk  10:25 [2/2/10+21]), νομικός (Mt 22:35 par. Lk 10:25 et al. [1/0/6+0]), Ἰερουσαλήμ (Mt 23:37 par. Lk 13:34 et al. [2/0/27+37]), and ἄχρι (Mt 24:38 par. Lk 17:27 et al. [1/0/4+15]).13 On the other hand, this commentary demonstrates that there are plausible explanations for at least some instances of the Matthean multiple use of Luke’s rarely used words and formulas, which could in themselves suggest the reverse direction of literary dependence. Such explicable, apparent Mattheanisms in the Lucan Gospel include ἀνατολή (Mt  2:1-2.9 et  al.; cf.  Lk  1:78 [5/0/2+0]), προσκυνέω (Mt 4:9-10; 28:17 et al.; cf. Lk 4:7-8; 24:52 [13/2/3+4], ὀλιγοπιστ* (Mt 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 17:20 et al.; cf. Lk 12:28 [5/0/1+0]), ὑποκριτής (Mt 7:5 et al.; cf. Lk 6:42 [13/1/3+0]), συλλέγω (Mt 7:16 et al.; cf. Lk 6:44 [7/0/1+0]), ἄνεμοι plur. (Mt 8:26-27 et al.; cf. Lk 8:25 [5/1/1+1]), παῖς in Mt 8:5-13 par. Lk 7:1-10 (Mt 8:8 et al.; cf. Lk 7:7 [3/0/1+0]), ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων (Mt 8:12 et al.; Lk 13:28 [6/0/1+0]), σαπρός (Mt 12:33 et al.; Lk 6:43 [5/0/2+0]), γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν (Mt 12:34; 23:33 et al.; Lk 3:7 [3/0/1+0]), ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία (Mt 13:31 et al.; Lk 13:18 [6/0/1+0]), and ὕστερον (Mt 22:27 et al.; Lk 20:32 [7/0/1+0]). In any case, the issue of the literary dependence of the Matthean Gospel on the Gospel of Luke (and consequently, the non-existence of the hypothetical ‘Q source’) has been solved in this monograph not so much with the use of the linguistic arguments concerning the presence of Lucan, generally non-Matthean vocabulary in the Gospel of Matthew, but rather by explaining numerous intriguing and surprising features of the Matthean Gospel as resulting from the systematic, sequentially organized literary dependence of this Gospel on the Acts of the Apostles. In this way, it has been demonstrated that the Matthean Gospel is in fact not a particularly Jewish Christian writing, but a post-Pauline and post-Lucan work.

13 For other examples of Lucan and non-Matthean vocabulary in Matthean-Lucan parallel texts, as well as a discussion concerning its use as a non-reversible criterion of literary dependence, together with other relatively reliable criteria of such dependence, see B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 187–226, 276–388.

205

Bibliography Primary sources Israelite-Jewish Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph [et al.] (5th edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 1997). Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graece: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, ed. A. Rahlfs and J. Ziegler [et al.], vol. 1–16 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1931–). Septuaginta: Editio altera, ed. A. Rahlfs and R. Hanhart (Deutsche Bibelgesell­ schaft: Stuttgart 2006). The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. M. A. Knibb and E. Ullendorf, vol. 1–2 (Clarendon: Oxford 1978). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, ed. D. Barthélemy [et al.], vol. 1–40 (Clarendon: Oxford 1955–2011). Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie, ed. R. Arnaldez [et al.], vol. 1–36 (Cerf: Paris 1961–1988). Flavii Josephi Opera, ed. B. Niese, vol. 1–7 (Weidmann: Berolini 1887–1895). Flavius Josephus, De bello Judaico: Der Jüdische Krieg: Griechisch und Deutsch, ed. O.  Michel and O.  Bauernfeind, vol.  1–3 (1st-3rd edn., Kösel: München 1963–1982). Flavius Josèphe, Guerre des Juifs [I–V], ed. A. Pelletier, vol. 1–3 (Collection des Universités de France: Série grecque; Les Belles Lettres: Paris 1975–1982). Flavius Josèphe, Les Antiquités juives, ed. É. Nodet [et al.], vol. 1- (Cerf: Paris 1990–). Flavius Josephus, Aus meinem Leben (Vita): Kritische Ausgabe, Übersetzung und Kommentar, ed. F. Siegert, H. Schreckenberg, and M. Vogel [et al.] (2nd edn., Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011).

Graeco-Roman Papyri [PGM] Papyri Graecae Magicae / Die Griechischen Zauberpapyri, ed. K.  Prei­ sendanz [et al.], vol. 1–2 (B. G. Teubner: Leipzig · Berlin 1928–1931).

207

Literary texts Plato, Opera, ed. J. Burnet, vol. 1–5 (Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis; Clarendon: Oxonii 1961–1964 [repr.]). Quintilianus, Marcus Fabius, Ausbildung des Redners: Zwölf Bücher [Institutionis oratoriae libri XII], ed. H. Rahn, vol. 1–2 (Texte zur Forschung 2–3; 2nd edn., Wissenschaftliche: Darmstadt 1988).

Early Christian: New Testament Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. B. Aland [et al.] (28th edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 2012). The Greek New Testament, ed. B. Aland [et al.] (5th edn., Deutsche Bibelgesell­ schaft / United Bible Societies: Stuttgart 2014). The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, ed. P. W. Comfort and D. P. Barrett (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1999).

Secondary literature Abakuks, A., ‘A Statistical Time Series Approach to the Use of Mark by Matthew and Luke’, in J. C. Poirier and J. Peterson (eds.), Marcan Priority without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis (Library of New Testament Studies 455; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2015), 119–139. Adamczewski, B., Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011). Adamczewski, B., ‘Ethopoeia and Morality in the Antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount’, in W. Pikor (ed.), Moralność objawiona w Biblii (Analecta Biblica Lublinensia 7; KUL: Lublin 2011), 137–145. Adamczewski, B., The Gospel of Luke: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 13; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2016). Adamczewski, B., The Gospel of Mark: A  Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 8; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2014). Adamczewski, B., The Gospel of the Narrative ‘We’: The Hypertextual Relationship of the Fourth Gospel to the Acts of the Apostles (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010).

208

Adamczewski, B., Heirs of the Reunited Church: The History of the Pauline Mission in Paul’s Letters, in the So-Called Pastoral Letters, and in the Pseudo-Titus Narrative of Acts (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010). Adamczewski, B., Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 3; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2013). Adamczewski, B., ‘Interpretacja Ewangelii według św. Mateusza a problem synoptyczny’, in J.  Kręcidło and W.  Linke (eds.), Studia nad Ewangelią według św. Mateusza (Lingua Sacra: Monografie 5; Apostolicum: Ząbki and Bractwo Słowa Bożego: Warszawa 2015), 179–193. Adamczewski, B., ‘Koniec teorii źródeł? Genealogie Rdz 4,17 – 5,32 i ich przepracowanie w Nowym Testamencie’, Collectanea Theologica 83 (2013) no. 4, 47–74. Adamczewski, B., List do Filemona, List do Kolosan: Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny NT 12; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2006). Adamczewski, B., ‘Magowie ze Wschodu: za gwiazdą, przez Synaj, do Jezusowego Kościoła (Mt 2,1-12)’, in R. Bartnicki (ed.), Studia z biblistyki, vol. 8 (UKSW: Warszawa 2012), 25–38. Adamczewski, B., Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010). Adamczewski, B., Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012). Adamczewski, B., Review of R. K. MacEwen, Matthean Posteriority: An Exploration of Matthew’s Use of Mark and Luke as a Solution to the Synoptic Problem (Library of New Testament Studies 501; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London  · New York 2015), Biblical Annals 6 (2016) 513–517. Adamczewski, B., Review of J. C. Poirier and J. Peterson (eds.), Marcan Priority without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis (Library of New Testament Studies 455; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2015), Biblical Annals 6 (2016) 311–315. Adamczewski, B., ‘ “Ten Jubilees of Years”: Heptadic Calculations of the End of the Epoch of Iniquity and the Evolving Ideology of the Hasmoneans’, Qumran Chronicle vol. 16, no. 1–2 [July 2008], 19–36. Allison, Jr., D. C., ‘The Scriptural Background of a Matthean Legend: Ezekiel 37, Zechariah 14, and Matthew 27’, in W. Weren, H. van de Sandt, and J. Verheyden (eds.), Life Beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel: Religious Metaphor or Bodily

209

Reality? (Biblical Tools and Studies 13; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 153–181. Andreozzi, A., L’officina delle parabole: La comprensione dei discepoli come snodo pragmatico di Mt 13 (Pontificia Università Gregoriana: Roma 2013). Angel, A. R., ‘Crucifixus Vincens: The “Son of God” as Divine Warrior in Matthew’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 73 (2011) 299–317. Apel, M., Der Anfang in der Wüste – Täfer, Taufe und Versuchung Jesu: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu den Überlieferungen vom Anfang des Evangeliums (Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge 72; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2013). Aurelius, E., ‘Gottesvolk und Außenseiter: Eine geheime Beziehung Lukas – Matthäus’, New Testament Studies 47 (2001) 428–441. Baasland, E., Parables and Rhetoric in the Sermon on the Mount: New Approaches to a Classical Text (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 351; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015). Baltes, G., Hebräisches Evangelium und synoptische Überlieferung: Untersuchungen zum hebräischen Hintergrund der Evangelien (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.312; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011). Barber, M. P., ‘Jesus as the Davidic Temple Builder and Peter’s Priestly Role in Matthew 16:16-19’, Journal of Biblical Literature 132 (2013) 935–953. Barker, J.  W., ‘Ancient Compositional Practices and the Gospels: A  Reassessment’, Journal of Biblical Literature 135 (2016) 109–121. Bauer, B., Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker, vol. 1 (O. Wigand: Leipzig 1841); vol. 2 (O. Wigand: Leipzig 1841); vol. 3 (F. Otto: Braunschweig 1842). Baum, A.  D., ‘Ein aramäischer Urmatthäus im kleinasiatischen Gottesdienst’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 92 (2001) 257–272. Bazitwinshi, C., Die Weisheit wurde von ihren Werken gerecht gesprochen (Mt  11,19): Einflüsse jüdischer Weisheitstraditionen auf die Christologie des Matthäusevangeliums und auf die vor-matthäische Überlieferung (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/940; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2013). Bazzana, G. B., Kingdom of Bureaucracy: The Political Theology of Village Scribes in the Sayings Gospel Q (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 274; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Bristol, Conn. 2015). Beaton, R. C., ‘How Matthew writes’, in M. Bockmuehl and D. A. Hagner (eds.), The Written Gospel (Cambridge University: Cambridge  · New York 2005), 116–134. 210

Betsworth, S., Children in Early Christian Narratives (Library of New Testament Studies 521; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London [et al.] 2015). Betz, H.  D., The Sermon on the Mount: A  Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49), ed. A. Yarbro Collins (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis 1995). Black, M., ‘The Messianic Use of Zechariah 9–14 in Matthew, Mark, and the PreMarkan Tradition’, in P. Gray and G. R. O’Day (eds.), Scripture and Tradition: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity, Festschrift C. R. Holladay (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 129; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2008), 97–114. Black, M., ‘The Use of Rhetorical Terminology in Papias on Mark and Matthew’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37 (1989) 31–41. Bovon, F., Das Evangelium nach Lukas, vol. 2 (Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 3/2; Benzinger: Zürich · Düsseldorf and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1996). Brodie, T. L., The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Developments of the New Testament Writings (New Testament Monographs 1; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2004). Brown, R. E., The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Anchor Bible Reference Library; 2nd edn., Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1993). Carlson, S. C., ‘The Davidic Key for Counting the Generations in Matthew 1:17’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 76 (2014) 665–683. Carlson, S. C., ‘Problems with the Non-Aversion Principle for Reconstructing Q’, in J. C. Poirier and J. Peterson (eds.), Marcan Priority without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis (Library of New Testament Studies 455; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2015), 44–61. Carlston, C. E., and Evans, C. A., From Synagogue to Ecclesia: Matthew’s Community at the Crossroads (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 334; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2014). Carruth, S., and Garsky, A. (vol. ed. S. D. Anderson), Q 11:2b-4: The Lord’s Prayer (Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q Through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated; Peeters: Leuven 1996). Chae, Y. S., Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd: Studies in the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, and in the Gospel of Matthew (Wissenschafliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.216; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2006). Chandler, C. N., ‘ “Love your Neighbour as Yourself ” (Leviticus 19:18b) in Early Jewish-Christian Exegetical Practice and Missional Formulation’, in C. A. Evans and H. D. Zacharias (eds.), ‘What Does the Scripture Say?’ Studies in the 211

Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, vol. 1, The Synoptic Gospels (Library of New Testament Studies 469; T&T Clark, London · New York 2012), 12–56. Claudel, G., ‘Joseph, figure du lecteur modèle du premier évangile’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 243; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 339–374. Comfort, P. W., A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament (Kregel: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2015). Coppins, W., ‘Sitting on Two Asses? Second Thoughts on the Two-Animal Interpretation of Matthew 21:7’, Tyndale Bulletin 63 (2012) 275–290. Cousland, J. R. C., The Crowds in the Gospel of Matthew (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 102; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2002). Cousland, J. R. C., ‘Toxic Tares: The Poisonous Weeds (ζιζάνια) in Matthew’s Parable of the Tares (Matthew 13.24-30, 36–43)’, New Testament Studies 61 (2015) 395–410. Crimella, M., ‘Βίβλος γενέσεως: la cornice letteraria di Matteo e di Gen 1–11’, Ricerche Storico Bibliche 24 (2012), fasc. 1–2, 255–278. Crowe, B. D., The Obedient Son: Deuteronomy and Christology in the Gospel of Matthew (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 188; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin  · Boston 2012). Cuvillier, E., ‘La construction narrative de la mission dans le premier évangile: Un déplacement théologique et identitaire’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 243; Peeters: Leuven  · Paris  · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 159–175. Dąbek, T. M., ‘ “When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him” (Mt 1:24): Discreet, Effective Service’, Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny 66 (2013) 19–32. Damm, A., Ancient Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem: Clarifying Markan Priority (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 252; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2013). Davies, W. D., and Allison, Jr., D. C., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 1, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I–VII (International Critical Commentary; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1988); vol. 2, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew VIII–XVIII (International Critical Commentary; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1991); vol. 3, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew XIX–XXVIII (International Critical Commentary; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1997). 212

Deines, R., Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias: Mt 5,13-20 als Schlüsseltext der matthäischen Theologie (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 177; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2004). Deines, R., ‘Not the Law but the Messiah: Law and Righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew – An Ongoing Debate’, in D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland (eds.), Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2008), 53–84. Delafosse, H., ‘Rapports de Matthieu et de Luc’, Revue de l’histoire des religions 90 (1924) 1–38. Denaux, A., Corstjens, R., and Mardaga, H., The Vocabulary of Luke: An Alphabetical Presentation and a Survey of Characteristic and Noteworthy Words and Word Groups in Luke’s Gospel (Biblical Tools and Studies 10; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2009). Dennert, B.  C., ‘Constructing Righteousness: The «Better Righteousness» of Matthew as Part of the Development of a Christian Identity’, Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 28/2 (2011) 57–80. Dennert, B. C., John the Baptist and the Jewish Setting of Matthew (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.403; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015). Dennert, B. C., ‘ “The Rejection of Wisdom’s Call”: Matthew’s Use of Proverbs 1:20-33 in the Parable of Children in the Marketplace (Mt 11:16-19//Lk 7:3135)’, in C. A. Evans and J. J. Johnston (eds.), Searching the Scriptures: Studies in Context and Intertextuality (Library of New Testament Studies 543; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London [et al.] 2015), 46–63. Destro, A., and Pesce, M., ‘The Cultural Structure of the Infancy Narrative in the Gospel of Matthew’, in C.  Clivaz [et  al.] (eds.), Infancy Gospels: Stories and Identities (Wissenschafliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 281; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 94–115. Dobschütz, E. von, ‘Matthäus als Rabbi und Katechet’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 27 (1928) 338–348. Drake, L., ‘Did Jesus Oppose the prosbul in the Forgiveness Petition of the Lord’s Prayer?’, Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 233–244. Dunn, J. D. G., ‘Matthew – A Jewish Gospel for Jews and Gentiles’, in K. A. Bendoraitis and N. K. Gupta (eds.), Matthew and Mark across Perspectives, Festschrift S. C. Barton and W. R. Telford (Library of New Testament Studies 538; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London [et al.] 2016), 125–142. Dunn, J. D. G., Neither Jew nor Greek: A Contested Identity (Christianity in the Making 3; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2015).

213

Dynak, A., ‘Kościół – braterska wspólnota uczniów Chrystusa: Analiza Mt 18,2135’, in J. Kręcidło and W. Linke (eds.), Studia nad Ewangelią według św. Mateusza (Lingua Sacra: Monografie 5; Apostolicum: Ząbki and Bractwo Słowa Bożego: Warszawa 2015), 245–273. Ebach, J., Josef und Josef: Literarische und hermeneutische Reflexionen zu Verbin­ dungen zwischen Genesis 37–50 und Matthäus 1–2 (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 187; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2009). Edwards, J. R., The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Gospel Tradition (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2009). Eloff, M., ‘Ἀπό … ἕως and Salvation History in Matthew’s Gospel’, in D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland (eds.), Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2008), 85–107. Estrada, B., ‘La giustizia in Matteo: presenza del Regno’, Rivista Biblica 59 (2011) 373–403. Eubank, N., ‘Storing Up Treasure with God in the Heavens: Celestial Investments in Matthew 6:1-21’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 76 (2014) 77–92. Eubank, N., Wages of Cross-Bearing and Debt of Sin: The Economy of Heaven in Matthew’s Gospel (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 196; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2013). Eubank, N., ‘What Does Matthew Say about Divine Recompense? On the Misuse of the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (20.1-16)’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35.3 (2013) 242–262. Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique, vol. 1–4, ed. G. Bardy (Sources chrétiennes 31, 41, 55, 73; Paris 1952–1960). Eve, E., ‘The Devil in the Detail: Exorcising Q from the Beelzebul Controversy’, in J. C. Poirier and J. Peterson (eds.), Marcan Priority without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis (Library of New Testament Studies 455; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2015), 16–43. Farkasfalvy, D., ‘The Papias Fragments on Mark and Matthew and Their Relationship to Luke’s Prologue: An Essay on the Pre-History of the Synoptic Problem’, in A. J. Malherbe, F. W. Norris, and J. W. Thompson (eds.), The Early Church in Its Context, Festschrift E. Ferguson (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 90; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 1998), 92–106. Feneberg, R., Die Erwählung Israels und die Gemeinde Jesu Christi: Biographie und Theologie Jesu im Matthäusevangelium (Herders Biblische Studien 58; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 2009). Fiedler, P., Das Matthäusevangelium (Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 1; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2006). 214

Fitzmyer, J. A., The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX): Introduction, Translation, and Notes (Anchor Bible 28; Doubleday: Garden City, NY 1981). Focant, C., ‘La christologie de Matthieu à la croisée des chemins’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 243; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 73–97. Foster, P., Community, Law and Mission in Matthew’s Gospel (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.177; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2004). Foster, P., ‘Paul and Matthew: Two Strands of the Early Jesus Movement with Little Sign of Connection’, in M.  F.  Bird and J.  Willitts (eds.), Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (Library of New Testament Studies 411; T&T Clark: London · New York 2011), 86–114. France, R. T., The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2007). France, R. T., ‘Matthew and Jerusalem’, in D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland (eds.), Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2008), 108–127. Gabati Kibeti, G., La relation avec le Père comme don: Aspects théologiques, christologiques et éthiques des références à Dieu Père en Mt 5–7 (Analecta Biblica 194; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2011). Garbe, G., Der Hirte Israels: Eine Untersuchung zur Israeltheologie des Matthäus­ evangeliums (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 106; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2005). Garrow, A., ‘An Extant Instance of “Q” ’, New Testament Studies 62 (2016) 398–417. Garrow, A. J. P., The Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence on the Didache (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 254; T&T Clark: London · New York 2004). Garrow, A., ‘Streeter’s “Other” Synoptic Solution: The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis’, New Testament Studies 62 (2016) 207–226. Garuti, P., ‘La cohérence des images dans le tableau final de la parabole du « festin nuptial  » (Mt  22,11-13) et l’éthique du banquet: la figure (comique) de l’ἄκλητος’, Revue Biblique 122 (2015) 371–386. Gatti, N., ‘Fraternità come ricerca: Lettura di Mt 18,15-17 in prospettiva comunicativa’, Rivista Biblica 58 (2010) 35–66. Gnilka, J., Das Matthäusevangelium, vol. 1, Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1-13,58 (Her­ ders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 1/1; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 1996); vol. 2, Kommentar zu Kap. 14,1-28,20 und Einleitungsfragen (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 1/2; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 1998). 215

Goodacre, M., ‘Beyond the Q Impasse or Down a Blind Valley?’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 76 (1999) 33–52. Goodacre, M., The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 2002). Goodacre, M. S., Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 133; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1996). Goodacre, M., ‘Mark, Elijah, the Baptist and Matthew: The Success of the First Intertextual Reading of Mark’, in T. R. Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, vol. 2, The Gospel of Matthew (Library of New Testament Studies 310; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 73–84. Goodacre, M., ‘Too Good to Be Q: High Verbatim Agreement in the Double Tradition’, in J. C. Poirier and J. Peterson (eds.), Marcan Priority without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis (Library of New Testament Studies 455; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2015), 82–100. Gorman, H. M., ‘Crank or Creative Genius? How Ancient Rhetoric Makes Sense of Luke’s Order’, in J. C. Poirier and J. Peterson (eds.), Marcan Priority without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis (Library of New Testament Studies 455; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2015), 62–81. Goulder, M. D., Midrash and Lection in Matthew: The Speaker’s Lectures in Biblical Studies 1969–71 (SPCK: London 1974). Goulder, M., ‘Two Significant Minor Agreements (Mat. 4:13 Par.; Mat. 26:67-68 Par.)’, Novum Testamentum 45 (2003) 365–373. Gradl, H.-G., ‘Unheimlicher Seegang: Eine Exegese von Mt  14,22-33’, Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 124 (2015) 40–59. Grasso, S., ‘Il ciclo dei miracoli (Mt 8–9): spettro dei problemi comunitari’, Ri­ vista Biblica 54 (2006) 159–183. Grasso, S., ‘La pedagogia della fede. Riesame del tema della poca fede nel Vangelo di Matteo’, Rivista Biblica 61 (2013) 409–431. Grasso, S., ‘L’uso della Parola: test sulla giudaicità nella comunità del Primo Vangelo Canonico’, in L. De Santos and S. Grasso, “Perché stessero con Lui”, Festschrift K. Stock (Analecta Biblica 180; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2010), 45–70. Green, H. B., Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 203; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2001). Grundeken, M. R. C., ‘Community Formation in Matthew: A Study of Matthew 18,15–18’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 243; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 453–463. 216

Guidi, M., “Così avvenne la generazione di Gesù Messia”: Paradigma comunicativo e questione contestuale nella lettura pragmatica di Mt 1,18-25 (Analecta Biblica 195; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2012). Gundry, R.  H., Matthew: A  Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (2nd edn., William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1994). Gundry, R. H., ‘A Rejoinder on Matthean Foreign Bodies in Luke 10,25-28’, Ephe­ merides Theologicae Lovanienses 71 (1995) 139–150. Gurtner, D. M., ‘ “Fasting” and “Forty Nights”: The Matthean Temptation Narrative (4:1-11) and Moses Typology’, in C. A. Evans and H. D. Zacharias (eds.), ‘What Does the Scripture Say?’ Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, vol. 1, The Synoptic Gospels (Library of New Testament Studies 469; T&T Clark, London · New York 2012), 1–11. Gurtner, D. M., ‘Interpreting Apocalyptic Symbolism in the Gospel of Matthew’, Bulletin for Biblical Research 22 (2012) 525–545. Gurtner, D.  M., ‘Matthew’s Theology of the Temple and the “Parting of the Ways”: Christian Origins and the First Gospel’, in D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland (eds.), Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2008), 128–153. Gurtner, D. M., ‘Water and Blood and Matthew 27:49: A Johannine Reading in the Matthean Passion Narrative?’, in D.  M.  Gurtner, J.  Hernández, Jr., and P. Foster (eds.), Studies on the Text of the New Testament and Early Christianity, Festschrift M. W. Holmes (New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents 50; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2015), 134–150. Häfner, G., ‘Das Matthäus-Evangelium und seine Quellen’, in D.  Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 243; Peeters: Leuven  · Paris  · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 25–71. Hagner, D.  A., Matthew 1–13 (Word Biblical Commentary 33A; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1993); id., Matthew 14–28 (Word Biblical Commentary 33B; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1995). Ham, C. A., ‘Reading Zechariah and Matthew’s Olivet Discourse’, in T. R. Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, vol. 2, The Gospel of Matthew (Library of New Testament Studies 310; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 85–97. Hamilton, C.  S., ‘Blood and Secrets: The Re-telling of Genesis 1–6 in 1  Enoch 6–11 and Its Echoes in Susanna and the Gospel of Matthew’, in C. A. Evans and H. D. Zacharias (eds.), ‘What Does the Scripture Say?’ Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, vol. 1, The Synoptic Gospels (Library of New Testament Studies 469; T&T Clark, London · New York 2012), 90–141. 217

Harris, M., ‘The Comings and Goings of the Son of Man: Is Matthew’s Risen Jesus “Present” or “Absent”? A Narrative-Critical Response’, Biblical Interpretation 22 (2014) 51–70. Hays, R. B., Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness (SPCK: London 2015). Head, P. M., Christology and the synoptic problem: An argument for Markan priority (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 94; Cambridge University: Cambridge 1997). Heil, C., ‘ “Selig die Sanftmütigen, denn sie werden das Land besitzen” (Mt 5,5): Das matthäische Verständnis der Landverheissung in seinen frühjüdischen und frühchristlichen Kontexten’, in D.  Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 243; Peeters: Leuven  · Paris  · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 389–417. Hengel, M., Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus: Studien zu ihrer Sammlung und Entstehung (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 224; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008). Hermant, D., ‘Les redites chez Marc et les deux autres synoptiques (IVe partie, fin)’, Revue Biblique 109 (2002) 528–555. Hoffmann, P. [et al.] (vol. ed. C. Heil), Q 12:8-12: Confessing or Denying – Speaking against the Holy Spirit – Hearings before Synagogues (Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q Through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated; Peeters: Leuven 1997). Huggins, R. V., ‘Matthean Posteriority: A Preliminary Proposal’, Novum Testamentum 34 (1992) 1–22. Johnson, L. T., The Gospel of Luke (Sacra Pagina 3; Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 1991). Jong, M.  J.  de, ‘Dominion through Obedience: Matthew 12,18-21 among the Early Christian Characterizations of Jesus’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 243; Peeters: Leuven  · Paris  · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 437–452. Judge, P. J., ‘ “Or is your eye evil because I am good?” (Mt 20,15): What Kind of Justice Is This?’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 243; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 499–510. Justin, Apologie pour les chrétiens, ed. C. Munier (Sources chrétiennes 507; Cerf: Paris 2006).

218

Kahl, W., ‘Erhebliche matthäisch-lukanische Übereinstimmungen gegen das Markusevangelium in der Triple-Tradition: Ein Beitrag zur Klärung der synoptischen Abhängigkeitsverhältnisse’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 103 (2012) 20–46. Kennedy, J., The Recapitulation of Israel: Use of Israel’s History in Matthew 1:14:11 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.257; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008). Kiilunen, J., ‘ “Minor Agreements” und die Hypothese von Lukas’ Kenntnis des Matthäusevangeliums’, in I.  Dunderberg, C.  Tuckett, and K.  Syreeni (eds.), Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity, Festschrift H. Räisänen (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 103; Brill: Leiden  · Boston  · Köln 2002), 165–202. Kim, H. C., ‘The Worship of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew’, Biblica 93 (2012) 227–241. Koester, H., Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (SCM: London and Trinity: Philadelphia, Pa. 1990). Konradt, M., ‘Die Deutung der Zerstörung Jerusalems und des Tempels im Matthäusevangelium’, in id., ed. A. Euler, Studien zum Matthäusevangelium (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 358; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 219–257. Konradt, M., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Das Neue Testament Deutsch 1; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen · Bristol 2015). Konradt, M., ‘ “Ihr wisst nicht, was ihr erbittet” (Mt 20,22): Die Zebedaienbitte in Mt 20,20f und die königliche Messianologie im Matthäusevangelium’, in id., ed. A. Euler, Studien zum Matthäusevangelium (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 358; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 171–200. Konradt, M., ‘Matthäus im Kontext: Eine Bestandsaufnahme zur Frage des Verhältnisses der matthäischen Gemeinde(n) zum Judentum’, in id., ed. A. Euler, Studien zum Matthäusevangelium (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 358; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 3–42. Konradt, M., ‘Die Rede vom Glauben in Heilungsgeschichten und die Messiani­ tät Jesu im Matthäusevangelium’, in id., ed. A. Euler, Studien zum Matthäus­ evangelium (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 358; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 261–287. Konradt, M., ‘Rezeption und Interpretation des Dekalogs im Matthäusevangelium’, in id., ed. A. Euler, Studien zum Matthäusevangelium (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 358; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 316–347.

219

Kowalczyk, A., The Influence of Typology and Texts of the Old Testament on the Redaction of Matthew’s Gospel (Bernardinum: Pelplin 2008). Kręcidło, J., ‘Dlaczego Jezus jest godzien najwyższej czci? Strategie perswazyjne ewangelistów Mateusza i Łukasza w perspektywie kultury honoru i wstydu’, Collectanea Theologica 80 (2010), no. 2, 5–20. Kręcidło, J., ‘Kuszenie Jezusa czy test/próba Jego Boskiej tożsamości i posłuszeństwa Ojcu? Strategia pragmatyczna w Mt 4,1-11’, in J. Kręcidło and W. Linke (eds.), Studia nad Ewangelią według św. Mateusza (Lingua Sacra: Monografie 5; Apostolicum: Ząbki and Bractwo Słowa Bożego: Warszawa 2015), 99–123. Lagrange, M.-J., Évangile selon Saint Luc (Études bibliques; J. Gabalda: Paris 1921). Lambrecht, J., ‘Matthew 1,18-25: A Chiastic Vignette? A Close Reading’, Ephe­ merides Theologicae Lovanienses 89 (2013) 97–101. Lambrecht, J., ‘The Weeds in Context: Composition in Matthew 13,24-43’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 243; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 561–568. Lambrecht, J., ‘ “You shall not swear falsely” (Matt 5:33c): A Response to John A. L. Lee’, Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 315–318. Landi, A., ‘La ἐξουσία del Figlio dell’Uomo di rimettere i peccati e la comunità matteana (Mt 9,1-8)’, Rivista Biblica 59 (2011) 205–222. Landmesser, C., Jüngerberufung und Zuwendung zu Gott: Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Konzept der matthäischen Soteriologie im Anschluß an Mt 9,9-13 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 133; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2001). Landry, D., ‘Reconsidering the Date of Luke in Light of the Farrer Hypothesis’, in J. C. Poirier and J. Peterson (eds.), Marcan Priority without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis (Library of New Testament Studies 455; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2015), 160–190. Larroque, L., La Parabole du serviteur impitoyable en son contexte (Mt 18,21-35) (Analecta Biblica 187; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2010). Lau, M., ‘Blutige Hände: Beobachtungen zur Rezeption alttestamentlicher Motive in Mt 27,24f ’, Protokolle zur Bibel 21 (2012) 42–76. Lau, M., ‘Geweißte Grabmäler: Motivkritische Anmerkungen zu Mt 23.27-28’, New Testament Studies 58 (2012) 463–480. Leim, J.  E., Matthew’s Theological Grammar: The Father and the Son (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.402; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015). Liddell, H.  G., Scott, R., and Jones, H.  S. [et  al.], A  Greek-English Lexicon (9th edn. with a revised supplement; Clarendon: Oxford 1996) [LSJ]. 220

Loader, W., ‘Does Matthew’s Handling of Sexuality Issues Shed Light on Its Context?’, in D.  Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 243; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 569–583. Luther, S., Sprachetik im Neuen Testament: Eine Analyse des frühchristlichen Diskurses im Matthäusevangelium, im Jakobusbrief und im 1. Petrusbrief (Wissenschafliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.394; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015). Luz, U., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol.  1, Mt  1–7 (5th edn., EvangelischKatholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 1/1; Benzinger: Düsseldorf · Zürich and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002); vol. 2, Mt 8–17 (3th edn., Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 1/2; Benzinger: Zürich · Düsseldorf and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999); vol. 3, Mt 18– 25 (Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 1/3; Benzinger: Zürich · Düsseldorf and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997); vol. 4, Mt 26–28 (Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 1/4; Benzinger: Düsseldorf · Zürich and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002). Luz, U., ‘Looking at Q through the Eyes of Matthew’, in P. Foster [et al.] (eds.), New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008, Festschrift C. M. Tuckett (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 239; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 571–589. Lybæk, L., New and Old in Matthew 11–13: Normativity in the Development of Three Theological Themes (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 198; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2002). McAfee Moss, C., The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 156; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2008). McDaniel, K.  J., Experiencing Irony in the First Gospel: Suspense, Surprise and Curiosity (Library of New Testament Studies 488; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London [et al.] 2013). MacDonald, M. Y., ‘The Art of Commentary Writing: Reflections from Experience’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29.3 (2007) 313–321. MacEwen, R. K., Matthean Posteriority: An Exploration of Matthew’s Use of Mark and Luke as a Solution to the Synoptic Problem (Library of New Testament Studies 501; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2015). McLoughlin, M., ‘The Extent of Q’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 90 (2014) 525–556. McNicol, A. J., ‘Has Goulder Sunk Q? On Linguistic Characteristics and the Synoptic Problem’, in A. J. McNicol, D. B. Peabody, and J. S. Subramanian (eds.), 221

Resourcing New Testament Studies: Literary, Historical, and Theological Essays, Festschrift D. L. Dungan (T&T Clark: New York · London 2009), 46–65. Maier, G., Das Evangelium des Matthäus: Kapitel 1–14 (Historisch-Theologische Auslegung: Neues Testament; SCM R. Brockhaus: Witten · Brunnen: Giessen 2015). Malina, A., ‘Dlaczego nie tylko nowy Mojżesz? Jezus na Górze Przemienienia według Mateusza’, in J. Kręcidło and W. Linke (eds.), Studia nad Ewangelią według św. Mateusza (Lingua Sacra: Monografie 5; Apostolicum: Ząbki and Bractwo Słowa Bożego: Warszawa 2015), 125–142. Mareček, P., ‘Libertà di Dio: Giusto e Buono: Spiegazione della parabola degli operai nella vigna (Mt 20,1-16)’, in L. De Santos and S. Grasso, “Perché stessero con Lui”, Festschrift K. Stock (Analecta Biblica 180; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2010), 123–150. Marguerat, D., ‘Indicatif du salut et impératif éthique chez Matthieu: Une alternative?’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 243; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 241–261. Marshall, M., The Portrayals of the Pharisees in the Gospels and Acts (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 254; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen · Bristol 2015). Mayordomo, M., ‘Matthew 1–2 and the Problem of Intertextuality’, in C. Clivaz [et  al.] (eds.), Infancy Gospels: Stories and Identities (Wissenschafliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 281; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 257–279. Mealand, D. L., ‘Is there Stylometric Evidence of Q?’, New Testament Studies 57 (2011) 483–507. Menken, M.  J.  J., ‘Deuteronomy in Matthew’s Gospel’, in M.  J.  J.  Menken and S.  Moyise, Deuteronomy in the New Testament (Library of New Testament Studies 358; T&T Clark: London · New York 2007), 42–62. Menken, M. J. J., ‘Old Testament Quotations Derived from Mark’, in id., Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist (Bibliohteca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 173; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2004), 205–225. Metzner, R., Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums im 1. Petrusbrief: Studien zum traditionsgeschichtlichen und theologischen Einfluß des 1. Evangeliums auf den 1. Petrusbrief (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.74; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1995).

222

Mitchell, M. W., ‘The Yoke Is Easy, but What of Its Meaning? A Methodological Reflection Masquerading as a Philological Discussion of Matthew 11:30’, Journal of Biblical Literature 135 (2016) 321–340. Morris, L., The Gospel according to Matthew (Pillar New Testament Commentary; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 1992). Mount, C., Pauline Christianity: Luke-Acts and the Legacy of Paul (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 104; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2002). Moyise, S., ‘Matthew’s Bible in the Infancy Narrative’, in B. J. Koet, S. Moyise, and J. Verheyden (eds.), The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition, Festschrift M. J. J. Menken (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 148: Brill: Leiden · Boston 2013), 11–24. Mpevo Mpolo, A., ‘Outlining Matthew’s Gospel through Structure Criticism’, Rivista Biblica 63 (2015) 137–155. Mulzer, M., ‘Ein Esel, zwei Esel? Zu Sach 9,9 und Mt 21.2.5.7’, Biblische Zeitschrift, nf 59 (2015) 79–88. Münch, C., Die Gleichnisse Jesu im Matthäusevangelium: Eine Studie zu ihrer Form und Funktion (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 104; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2004). Neirynck, F., ‘Matthew 4:23-5:2 and the Matthean composition of 4:23-11:1’, in D.  L.  Dungan (ed.), The Interrelations of the Gospels: A  Symposium Led by M.-É.  Boismard – W.  R.  Farmer – F.  Neirynck: Jerusalem 1984 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 95; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1990), 23–46. Neirynck, F., ‘The Reconstruction of Q and IQP / CritEd Parallels’, in A.  Lindemann (ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 158; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 53–147. Nel, M., ‘The Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven according to Matthew 13:1017’, Neotestamentica 43 (2009) 271–288. Nickel, J. P., ‘Jesus, the Isaianic Servant Exorcist: Exploring the Significance of Matthew 12,18-21 in the Beelzebul Pericope’, Zeitschrift für die neutestament­ liche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 107 (2016) 170–185. Nolland, J., The Gospel of Matthew (New International Greek Testament Commentary; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge and Paternoster: Bletchley 2005). Nolland, J., ‘The King as Shepherd: The Role of Deutero-Zechariah in Matthew’, in T. R. Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, vol. 2, The Gospel of Matthew (Library of New Testament Studies 310; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 133–146. 223

Novakovic, L., ‘Matthew’s Atomistic Use of Scripture: Messianic Interpretation of Isaiah 53.4 in Matthew 8.17’, in T. R. Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, vol. 2, The Gospel of Matthew (Library of New Testament Studies 310; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 147–162. Novakovic, L., Messiah, the Healer of the Sick: A Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.170; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2003). O’Leary, A. M., Matthew’s Judaization of Mark: Examined in the Context of the Use of Sources in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (Library of New Testament Studies 323; T&T Clark: London · New York 2006). Olmstead, W. G., Matthew’s Trilogy of Parables: The Nation, the Nations and the Reader in Matthew 21.28-22.14 (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 127; Cambridge University: Cambridge 2003). Olson, K., ‘Luke 11:2-4: The Lord’s Prayer (Abridged Edition)’, in J. C. Poirier and J. Peterson (eds.), Marcan Priority without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis (Library of New Testament Studies 455; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2015), 101–118. Ostmeyer, K.-H., ‘Die Genealogien in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Vita des Josephus: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmung ihrer Charakteristika, Intentionen und Probleme’, in C. Böttrich, J. Herzer, and T. Reiprich (eds.), Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: II. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum 25.-28. Mai 2006, Greifswald (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 209; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 451–468. Ottenheijm, E., ‘The Shared Meal—a Therapeutical Device: The Function and Meaning of Hos 6:6 in Matt 9:10-13’, Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 1–21. Paciorek, A., Ewangelia według świętego Mateusza: Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz, vol. 1, Rozdziały 1–13 (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny: Nowy Testament 1/1; Święty Paweł: Częstochowa 2005); vol. 2, Rozdziały 14–28 (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny: Nowy Testament 1/2; Święty Paweł: Częstochowa 2008). Paciorek, A., ‘Psałterz w Mateuszowym opisie męki Jezusa’, Roczniki Biblijne [Biblical Annals] 1 [56] (2009) 177–189. Park, E. E.-C., ‘Rachel’s Cry for Her Children: Matthew’s Treatment of the Infanticide by Herod’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 75 (2013) 473–485. Paschke, B. A., ‘Ein Kommen und Gehen: Wie konsequent wird im Matthäus­ evangelium zwischen zentripetalem und zentrifugalem Universalismus unterschieden?’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 243; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 637–652. 224

Pennington, J. T., Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 126; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2007). Pervo, R. I., Acts: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Attridge (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis 2009). Pervo, R. I., ‘Acts in the Suburbs of the Apologists’, in T. E. Phillips (ed.), Contemporary Studies in Acts (Mercer University: [s.l.] 2009), 29–46. Peterson, J., ‘Matthew’s Ending and the Genesis of Luke-Acts: The Farrer Hypothe­ sis and the Birth of Christian History’, in J.  C.  Poirier and J.  Peterson (eds.), Marcan Priority without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis (Library of New Testament Studies 455; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London  · New York 2015), 140–159. Phillips, P., ‘Casting out the Treasure: A New Reading of Matthew 13.52’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31.1 (2008) 3–24. Ploner, M. T., Die Schriften Israels als Auslegungshorizont der Jesusgeschichte: Eine narrative und intertextuelle Analyse von Mt 1–2 (Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge 66; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2011). Poirier, J. C., ‘Delbert Burkett’s Defense of Q’, in J. C. Poirier and J. Peterson (eds.), Marcan Priority without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis (Library of New Testament Studies 455; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London  · New York 2015), 191–225. Poirier, J. C., ‘Introduction: Why the Farrer Hypothesis? Why Now?’, in J. C. Poirier and J. Peterson (eds.), Marcan Priority without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis (Library of New Testament Studies 455; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2015), 1–15. Powell, E., The Unfinished Gospel: Notes on the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Symposium: Westlake Village, Calif. 1994). Rastoin, M., ‘Le génie littéraire et théologique de Luc en Lc 15.11-32 éclairé par le parallèle avec Mt 21.28-32’, New Testament Studies 60 (2014) 1–19. Redalié, Y., ‘Dualisme et contrastes apocalyptiques: les «relectures» de Mt 24 et de 2 Th’, in A. Dettwiler and U. Poplutz (eds.), Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes / Études sur Matthieu et Jean, Festschrift J. Zumstein (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 97; Theologischer: Zürich 2009), 79–90. Reinbold, W., ‘»Gehet hin und machet zu Jünger alle Völker«? Zur Übersetzung und Interpretation von Mt  28,19f ’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 109 (2012) 176–205. Repschinski, B., ‘Die bessere Gerechtigkeit: Gesetz, Nachfolge und Ethik im Matthäusevangelium’, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 136 (2014) 423–441.

225

Repschinski, B., ‘Conclusions’, in D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski (eds.), Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries (Library of New Testament Studies 333; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 173–176. Repschinski, B., The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form and Relevance for the Relationship Between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 189; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2000). Repschinski, B., ‘Matthew and Luke’, in D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski (eds.), Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries (Library of New Testament Studies 333; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 50–65. Repschinski, B., Nicht aufzulösen, sondern zu erfüllen: Das jüdische Gesetz in den synoptischen Jesuserzählungen (Forschung zur Bibel 120; Echter: Würzburg 2009). Rogers, T., ‘The Great Commission as the Climax of Matthew’s Mountain Scenes’, Bulletin for Biblical Research 22 (2012) 383–398. Rohmer, C., ‘Aux frontières du discours en paraboles (Mt  13,1-53)’, Biblica 92 (2011) 597–610. Rollens, S. E., ‘ “Why Do You Not Judge for Yourselves What is Right?” A Consideration of the Synoptic Relationship between Mt 5,25-26 and Lk 12,57-59’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 86 (2010) 449–469. Root, B. W., First Century Galilee: A Fresh Examination of the Sources (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.378; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2014). Sand, A., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Regensburger Neues Testament; Fried­ rich Pustet: Regensburg 1986). Sandt, H. van de, ‘Eternal Life as a Reward for Choosing the Right Way: The Story of the Rich Young Man (Matt 19:16-30)’, in W. Weren, H. van de Sandt, and J. Verheyden (eds.), Life Beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel: Religious Meta­ phor or Bodily Reality? (Biblical Tools and Studies 13; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 107–127. Schläger, G., ‘Die Abhängigkeit des Matthäusevangeliums vom Lukasevangelium’, Theologische Studien und Kritiken 69 (1896) 83–93. Schmidt, J., Gesetzesfreie Heilsverkündigung im Evangelium nach Matthäus: Das Apostelkonzil (Apg 15) als historischer und theologischer Bezugspunkt für die Theologie des Matthäusevangeliums (Forschung zur Bibel 113; Echter: Würz­ burg 2007). Schneider, S., ‘Widersteht nicht …? Überlegungen zur Bedeutung von Mt 5,39a im Kontext von Mt 5,38-42’, Biblische Zeitschrift, nf 53 (2009) 161–178.

226

Schweizer, E., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Das Neue Testament Deutsch 2; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1973). Schwindt, R., ‘Kein Heil ohne Gericht: Die Antwort Gottes auf Jesu Tod nach Mt 27,51-54’, Biblische Zeitschrift, nf 132 (2007) 87–104. Siegert, F., Das Evangelium nach Johannes in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt: Wiederherstellung und Kommentar (Schriften des Institutum Judaicum De­ litzschianum 7; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2008). Sim, D. C., ‘The Gospel of Matthew and Galilee: An Evaluation of an Emerging Hypothesis’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 107 (2016) 141–169. Sim, D. C., ‘Matthew 7.21-23: Further Evidence of its Anti-Pauline Perspective’, New Testament Studies 53 (2007) 325–343. Sim, D. C., ‘Matthew and the Pauline Corpus: A Preliminary Intertextual Study’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31.4 (2009) 401–422. Simon, R., Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament: Où l’on établit la Verité des Actes sur lesquels la Religion Chrêtienne est fondée (Reinier Leers: Rotterdam 1689). Siwek, K., ‘Mateuszowe zapowiedzi męki Jezusa jako etap formowania uczniów: Synoptyczne studium porównawcze’, in J. Kręcidło and W. Linke (eds.), Studia nad Ewangelią według św. Mateusza (Lingua Sacra: Monografie 5; Apostolicum: Ząbki and Bractwo Słowa Bożego: Warszawa 2015), 425–461. Smit, P.-B., ‘The Invitation to the Eschatological Banquet and the Call to Follow Christ – A Note on Mt. 22:14’, Revue Biblique 120 (2013) 72–84. Smit, P.-B., ‘A  Question of Discipleship: Remarks on Matthew 8:18-23’, Revue Biblique 123 (2016) 79–92. Smit, P.-B., ‘Something about Mary? Remarks about the Five Women in the Matthean Genealogy’, New Testament Studies 56 (2010) 191–207. Smith, D. A., ‘ “Pray to your Father [who is] in Secret” (Matthew 6,6): Considerations about Divine Presence and Sacred Space’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 243; Peeters: Leuven  · Paris  · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 653–663. Šoltés, P., “Ihr seid das Salz des Landes, das Licht der Welt” Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Mt 5,13-16 im Kontext (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23.782; Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2004). Stock, A., The Method and Message of Matthew (Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 1994).

227

Svartvik, J., ‘Matthew and Mark’, in D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski (eds.), Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries (Library of New Testament Studies 333; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 27–49. Syon, D., Small Change in Hellenistic-Roman Galilee: The Evidence from Numismatic Site Finds as a Tool for Historical Reconstruction (Numismatic Studies and Researches 11; Israel Numismatic Society: Jerusalem 2015). Szymik, S., ‘Matthew’s Theology of Light (Matt 4:15-16; 5:14-16; 6:22-23)’, Rocz­ niki Biblijne [Biblical Annals] 1 [56] (2009) 21–34. Talbot, E., ‘Rest, Eschatology and Sabbath in Matthew 11:28-30: An Investigation of Jesus’ Offer of Rest in the Light of the Septuagint’s Use of Anapausis’, in C. A. Evans and H. D. Zacharias (eds.), ‘What Does the Scripture Say?’ Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, vol. 1, The Synoptic Gospels (Library of New Testament Studies 469; T&T Clark, London · New York 2012), 57–69. Tan, K. H., ‘The Queen of Sheba and the Jesus Traditions’, in T. Hägerland (ed.), Jesus and the Scriptures: Problems, Passages and Patterns (Library of New Testament Studies 552; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London [et al.] 2016), 48–68. Tarazi, P. N., The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 4, Matthew and the Canon (OCABS: St Paul, Minn. 2009). Thom, J. C., ‘Justice in the Sermon on the Mount: An Aristotelian Reading’, Novum Testamentum 51 (2009) 314–338. Tresmontant, C., Le Christ hébreu: La langue et l’âge des Evangiles (O.E.I.L.: Paris 1983). Tuckett, C. M., ‘The Current State of the Synoptic Problem’, in P. Foster [et al.] (eds.), New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008, Festschrift C.  M.  Tuckett (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 239; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 9–50. Turner, D. L., Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2008). Vaňuš, M., La presenza di Dio tra gli uomini: La tradizione della «shekinah» in Neofiti e in Matteo (Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 214; Pontificia Università Gregoriana: Roma 2015). Villota, S., ‘ “La Perfección del Padre” En Los Hijos: Estudio Contextual De Mt 5,48’, in L. De Santos and S. Grasso, “Perché stessero con Lui”, Festschrift K. Stock (Analecta Biblica 180; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2010), 97–121. Vinzent, M., Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels (Studia Patristica Supplements 2; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2014). Viviano, B. T., ‘The Adoration of the Magi: Matthew 2:1-23 and Theological Aesthetics’, Revue Biblique 115 (2008) 546–567. 228

Viviano, B. T., ‘Social World and Community Leadership: The Case of Matthew 23.1-12, 34’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 39 (1990) 3–21. Volkmar, G., Die Religion Jesu und ihre erste Entwicklung nach dem gegenwärtigen Stande der Wissenschaft (F. A. Brockhaus: Leipzig 1857). Vorholt, R., Das Osterevangelium: Erinnerung und Erzählung (Herders Biblische Studien 73; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2013). Walker, Jr., W. O., ‘The Portrayal of Aquila and Priscilla in Acts: The Question of Sources’, New Testament Studies 54 (2008) 479–495. Watson, F., Gospel Writing: A  Canonical Perspective (William B.  Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2013). Watson, F., ‘How Did Mark Survive?’, in K. A. Bendoraitis and N. K. Gupta (eds.), Matthew and Mark across Perspectives, Festschrift S. C. Barton and W. R. Telford (Library of New Testament Studies 538; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London [et al.] 2016), 1–17. Watson, F., ‘Q as Hypothesis: A Study in Methodology’, New Testament Studies 55 (2009) 397–415. Watts, R., ‘Messianic Servant or the End of Israel’s Exilic Curses? Isaiah 53.4 in Matthew 8.17’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38.1 (2015) 81–95. Weiße, C. H., Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet, vol. 1 (Breitkopf und Härtel: Leipzig 1838). Wiefel, W., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 1; Evangelische: Leipzig 1998). Wilke, C.  G., Der Urevangelist oder exegetisch kritische Untersuchung über das Verwandtschaftsverhältnis der drei ersten Evangelien (G. Fleischer: Dresden · Leipzig 1838). Willitts, J., ‘Paul and Matthew: A Descriptive Approach from a Post-New Perspective Interpretative Framework’, in M.  F.  Bird and J.  Willitts (eds.), Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (Library of New Testament Studies 411; T&T Clark: London · New York 2011), 62–85. Wilson, W. T., ‘The Crucified Bridegroom and His Bleeding Daughter’, Epheme­ rides Theologicae Lovanienses 89 (2013) 323–343. Wilson, W. T., ‘Matthew, Philo, and Mercy for Animals (Matt 12,9-14)’, Biblica 96 (2015) 201–221. Wilson, W. T., ‘Works of Wisdom (Matt 9,9-17; 11,16-19)’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 106 (2015) 1–20. Wucherpfennig, A., Josef der Gerechte: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Mt 1–2 (Herders Biblische Studien 55; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 2008). 229

Yieh, J. Y.-H., One Teacher: Jesus’ Teaching Role in Matthew’s Gospel Report (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 124; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2004). Youngquist, L. E. [et al.] (vol. eds. C. Heil and G. Harb), Q 6:37-42: Not Judging – The Blind Leading the Blind – The Disciple and the Teacher – The Speck and the Beam (Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q Through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated; Peeters: Leuven Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011). Zacharias, H. D., ‘Old Greek Daniel 7:13-14 and Matthew’s Son of Man’, Bulletin for Biblical Research 21 (2011) 453–465. Zeller, D., ‘The Soul That Cannot Be Killed by Men (Matt 10:28)’, in W. Weren, H.  van de Sandt, and J.  Verheyden (eds.), Life Beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel: Religious Metaphor or Bodily Reality? (Biblical Tools and Studies 13; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 95–105. Żywica, Z., ‘Eklezja Mateusza – eschatologiczną “Resztą Izraela”?’, Collectanea Theologica 86 (2016) no. 1, 25–40.

230

Index of ancient sources Old Testament Genesis 1:27  145 2:4  29, 32 2:24  145 3:1-14  168 3:1  96 3:18  74 4:17-5:32  32 4:24  143 5:1   29, 32, 36 10:8  32 10:15  32 10:24  32 10:26  32 19:28  95 30:25  34 35:18  193 37:5-20  44 37:26-28  44 37:30  44 38:13-18  30 39–50  45 41:4  39 41:7  39 45:13  45 46:8-27  36 49:27  74 Exodus 3:1  197 3:4  45 4:19  48 6:23  33-4 9:12  188 12:29-30  175 13:21  42

19:3  197 20:13-16  147 20:13[15]  63 20:14[13]  64 20:16  65 20:17  64 21:24  66 22:24  178 25:3  94 28:10  36 29:33  73 30:13  138 30:15  138 33:9-10  42 33:14  108 34:28  54 Leviticus 13:3-45  66 19:12  66 19:18  66 19:19  156 22:10  73 24:20  66 25:36-37  178 Numbers 9:17  42 14:14  42 15:38-39  165 23:7  40-1 24:15-17  40 27:18  145-6 27:23  145-6 30:3  65

231

Deuteronomy 1:33  42 2:12  61 3:24  68 4:33  132 4:34  132 4:39  68 5:17-20  147 5:17[18]  63 5:18[17]  64 5:20  65 5:21  64 6:21  98 6:22  114 8:3  54 15:2  69 19:15  142 19:21  66 20:7  37 21:6-7  191 22:12  165 22:23-24  37 23:20  178 23:22  65 24:1  65, 145 24:3  65 28:46  114 29:22  61 34:9  93, 145-6 Joshua 2:1  30 Judges 9:45  61 Ruth 3:7  30 4:18-19  32 4:19  32 4:21-22  32

232

2 Samuel 3:28  191 5:2  41 7:12  43 11:2-5  30 15:24  33-4 16:10  190 17:23  187 20:12  156 1 Kings 10:1-13  115 17:18  190 19:8  197 19:11  197 2 Kings 3:13  190 4:33  67 5:6  80 14:25  132 18:18  33 19:31  58 1 Chronicles 1–9  31 1:34  32, 35 2:1-15  32, 35 2:5  32 2:9-10  32 2:9  32 2:11  32 2:12  32 3:5-16  32, 35 3:5  33 3:11-12  33 3:14  33 3:15-16  33 3:15  33 3:16  33 3:17  33

3:19  33 11:35  33 26:7  33 Nehemiah 10:33  138 Tobit 5:15  150 12:8  67 Judith 14:19  175 Esther 14:17z  69 1 Maccabees 2:1  34 15:8  69 Job 16:9  80 32:2  33 Psalms 1:5  179 6:9  76 8:3  157 16[15]:8  42 22[21]:2  193 22[21]:9  192 24[23]:4  60 24[23]:6  60 35[34]:16  80 37[36]:11  60 37[36]:12  80 62[61]:13  134 69[68]:22  192 78[77]:2  121 107[106]:34  61 112[111]:10  80

118[117]:22-23  160 140[139]:2  69 Proverbs 23:31-32  168 24:12  134 Ecclesiastes 3:4  104 Wisdom 2:13  192 2:18  192 14:28  65 16:13  133 Sirach 35:22  134 Isaiah 5:1-7  149, 159 5:2  160 5:7  122 6:9-10  118, 198 7:14  37, 39 8:23  56 9:1  57 11:1  49 14:11-15  106 19:8  138 25:4  69 26:19  194 29:13  128 35:5  153 36:7  192 38:10  133 40:3  51 42:1-4  110 42:6  61 42:7  153 49:6  61, 111 51:8  70 233

53:4  81 53:7-8  49 58:5  106 60:6  43 61:1  102 61:2  60 62:11  155 64:9-10  169 Jeremiah 6:16  108 6:26  106 17:6  61 18:2-3  188 18:6  188 22:5  169 28[35]:1  33 29[36]:23  122 31[38]:15  47 32[39]:7-9  188 32[39]:28-30  188 Lamentations 2:16  80 Ezekiel 11:17  61 16:38  114 23:45  114 31:2-7  106 31:6  119-20 31:14-17  106 34:2-23  179 37:7  194 37:12  194 Daniel 2:44-45  161 3:6  122 3:25  59 4:7-9[10-12]  120 4:17-18[20-21]  120 234

6:27  132 6:28  132 7:9-10  179 7:10  179 7:13-14  179, 198 7:13   172, 179, 185 7:14  20, 198 8:2  44 8:19  44, 122 9:3  106 9:21  44 9:26-27  122 12:2  194 12:3  122 12:4  122 Susanna [Daniel 13] 46-47  191 Hosea 3:1  114 6:6  86, 109 6:9  122 10:8  74 11:1  45-6 Joel 3:1-2  42 3:3-5  42 3:3  68 Amos 3:9  129 4:1  129 6:1  129 Jonah 1:1-2  132 1:1  132 3:1-2  132 3:6  106 4:11  132

Micah 5:1  41 5:3  41 7:6  99 Zechariah 1:1  168 1:7  168 9:9  155-6 11:12  183 11:13  188 12:10  172 12:12  172 12:14  172 14:4-5  194

New Testament Matthew 1–2  29-49 1:1-17  29-36 1:1   38 n. 33 1:16   190, 202 n. 4 1:18-25  36-9 1:20  43-4, 190 1:22  62 1:24   43 n. 52, 44 2:1-12  39-43 2:1-2  205 2:1  48 2:3  48 2:8-9  47 2:9  48, 205 2:11  47 2:12-13  190 2:12  44 2:13-15  44-6 2:13-14  47 2:16-18  46-7 2:16   40, 42, 202 n. 4 2:18  80 2:19-23  47-9

2:19  190 2:20-21  47 2:22  190 3–13  16 3:1-12:45  201, 203 3:1-9:34  51-90 3  51-3 3:2  68, 106 3:7  113 3:9  30 3:11  37 4:1-11  53-6 4:3  73 4:9-10  205 4:12-22  56-7 4:13-15  49 4:13   49 n. 65 4:15  48 4:17  106 4:18-22  15, 59 4:18  81 4:22-25  16 4:22  76 4:23-7:29  76 4:23-25  57-8 5–7  24, 58-76 5:1-2  15 5:1  17 5:10   61 n. 39 5:11-12   61 n. 40 5:17-19  178 5:23-24  158 5:32  145 5:34-36   167 n. 35 5:38-48  25 5:48  147 6:3  180 6:9  107, 158 6:10b  19 6:12  23 6:13  204 6:19-20  27 235

6:24  22 6:30  83, 205 7:3  204 7:5  205 7:11  23 7:16  205 7:21-22  169 7:21  27 7:25  84 7:27  84 7:28-29  15 8–11  13 8–9  13 8:1-4  76-7 8:1  14 8:2-4  84 8:5-17  77-81 8:5-13  205 8:8  205 8:11  30, 41 8:12  205 8:18-34  81-4 8:20  204 8:22  23 8:23-34  123 8:26-27  205 8:26  205 9:1-17  84-6 9:1  23 9:4  37 9:10  105 9:11  105 9:13  105 9:17  87, 109 9:18-11:30  108 9:18-26  86-7, 123 9:27-31   14, 17, 87-9 9:28  117 9:32-34  89-90 9:35-14:36  91-125 9:35-38  91-2 9:36  14 236

9:38  204 10  23 10:1-15  93-5 10:1  123 10:2  81 10:3  85-6 10:5-9  123 10:13  22 10:14  123 10:16-33  95-9 10:17-31  23 10:17  14 10:25  14, 17 10:34-39  99-100 10:34  23, 95 10:40-42  100-1 10:42  14 11:1-19  101-5 11:3  204 11:5  204 11:15  117 11:16  204 11:19  204 11:20-24  105-6 11:23-24  107 11:25-27  107 11:25  204 11:28-30  108 12:1-14  108-10 12:1-8  108 12:5   164 n. 22 12:11   22, 128 n. 5 12:15-32  110-13 12:22-50  18 12:22-37  18 12:24  97 12:27  64 12:30  114 12:31-32  116 12:32  37 12:33-45  116 12:33-37  113

12:33  75, 205 12:34   52 n. 5, 205 12:38-45  113-16 12:41  106 12:42  105 12:43  205 12:46-13:35  116-21 12:46-50  18 13:1-3  121 13:1  121 13:15  102 13:17  102 13:31  205 13:36-52  121-3 13:37-39  119 13:44-45  120 13:47  120 13:52  195, 198 13:53-14:36  123-5 13:54  105 14:31  83, 205 15–20  127-53 15  127-30 15:7  72 15:14  166 15:22   38 n. 33 16:1-20  130-3 16:4  114 16:8  83 16:19  142 16:21-17:23  133-7 17:15  14 17:20   14, 83, 205 17:24-27   137-8, 202 n. 4 17:27  59 18:1-9  138-40 18:3  14 18:8-9  144 18:10-35  140-4 18:20  20 19:1-15  144-6 19:16-30  146-9

19:19  65 19:24  116, 205 19:30  151 20:1-16  149-51, 159 20:1  120, 159 20:3  159 20:5-6  159 20:13  105 20:17-34  151-3 20:17-18  58 20:21   180 n. 68 20:23   180 n. 68 21–25  155-80 21:1-27  155-9 21:7  15 21:9   38 n. 33 21:11   49 n. 65 21:12  129 21:15   38 n. 33 21:28-32  24, 159-60 21:33-46  160-1 21:33-41  149 22:1-14  161-3 22:7   202 n. 4 22:12  105 22:15-46  163-5 22:17  73 22:27  205 22:32  30 22:35  205 22:46  14 23  165-70 23:11  14 23:12  106 23:13  72 23:15  72 23:16  128 23:23-36  25 23:23  72 23:24  128 23:25  72 23:27  72 237

23:29  72 23:33   52 n. 5, 205 23:37  205 24:1-41  170-3 24:17  97 24:27  41 24:29  102 24:38  205 24:42-51  173-4 24:45  73 24:50  101, 204 25:1-13  174-6 25:14-30  176-8, 202 25:31-46  178-80, 202 25:33   202 n. 5 25:34  121 25:37   202 n. 5 25:46   202 n. 5 26–28  181-99 26:1-2  181-2 26:3-13  182-3 26:3   202 n. 4 26:7  49 26:14-46  183-4 26:29  173 26:39  107 26:41  69 26:42  68, 107 26:45  105 26:47-75  184-6 26:50  105 26:57  182 26:70  99 26:72  99 27:1-10  186-9 27:2   202 n. 4 27:7-10   26 n. 63 27:11-26  189-91 27:17   34, 202 n. 4 27:22   34, 190, 202 n. 4 27:27-66  191-5 27:30  174 238

27:37   156 n. 4 27:38   180 n. 68 27:54  78 27:57  198 27:64  173 27:65-66  196 28:1-15  195-6 28:3  171 28:15  173 28:16-20   26 n. 63, 196-9 28:16  20 28:17   20, 55, 205 28:18-19  20 28:19   27, 37, 195 28:20  20 Mark 1:1-6:6  16 1:1-4:34  16 1:1-13  15 1:2-3:29  201 1:2-3  51 1:3  51 1:4  51-2, 184 1:5  51-2 1:6  51 1:7  52 1:8  37, 51 1:9-11  53 1:9   49 nn. 65-6, 51-3, 157 1:12  54 1:13  56 1:14-15  57 1:14  56 1:15   51, 106, 183 1:16-20  57 1:16-17  123 1:20   16-17, 58, 76 1:22  76 1:23-28  77 1:28  57 1:29-31  80

1:29  80 1:30  81 1:32-34  81 1:32  57, 89 1:33  81, 85 1:34  57, 81 1:35-39  82 1:39  16, 57-8 1:40-45  77 1:40-44   20, 77, 84 1:42  77 1:43  77, 89 1:45  77, 89 2:1-22  84 2:1-12  85 2:1-2  85 2:1  56, 84 2:3-12  57 2:3-4  78 2:3  85 2:4-5  85 2:4  85 2:8-12  20 2:10  85 2:11-12  45 2:12   85, 90, 130 2:13-17  86 2:14  85 2:15-16  159 2:15  105 2:16  105 2:17  86, 105 2:18-22  86 2:18-19  161 2:18  86 2:22   17, 87, 109 2:23-28  109 2:27  109 3:1-6  22, 109 3:3-5b  110 3:7-12  110 3:7-8  16, 58

3:7b-9  110 3:8  129, 195 3:10a-11  110 3:13  16, 59 3:14-19  30 3:15  93 3:16-19  93 3:18  85 3:20-30  18 3:22   14, 17, 90, 97, 111 3:24-26  112 3:25   14, 17, 97, 112 3:26  112 3:27  112 3:28-33  20 3:28-29  112, 116 3:31-35  116 3:32  75 3:34ab  117 3:35  75 4:1a  117 4:1b-2  117 4:3-9  117 4:4-8  117 4:8  117 4:9  117, 145 4:10-11b  117 4:10  117 4:10c-12  117 4:12  118 4:13  118 4:21-25  119 4:21  61 4:23  145 4:24  72 4:25   118, 178, 202 4:26-29  119 4:27-28  119 4:30  104, 119 4:31-32d  119 4:31a  119 4:32  120 239

4:33-34a  120 4:33a  120 4:34  121 4:35-6:6  16 4:35-5:20  123 4:35  82 4:36  83 4:37-41  83 4:38  83 4:39-41  83 4:39  83 4:41  83 5:1-14  84 5:1  84 5:6  55 5:7  190 5:12  84 5:13b  84 5:14  84 5:18-20  23 5:18  84 5:18b-20  84 5:20  58 5:21-43  86, 123 5:21  84 5:23  87 5:24  14, 77 5:42  87 5:43  87, 89 6:1-56  123 6:1-6  123 6:2  105 6:3  31, 34 6:6  91 6:7-13  123 6:7  93 6:8  94 6:10cd  94 6:11  95 6:12-13  93 6:14-29  123 6:14  124 240

6:22  124 6:25-27  124 6:26  124 6:29  124 6:30  124 6:32-44  124 6:34   14, 58, 92 6:37-44  20 6:41  124 6:45-52  124 6:49  124 6:53-56  125 7:1-23  127 7:1-4  193 7:1  127 7:2-5  127 7:2-3  127 7:5  127 7:6-7  128 7:6  72 7:8-13  128 7:14-15  128 7:17  128 7:18-23  129 7:21-22  129 7:24-30  129 7:24  129 7:27  72 7:28  129 7:29-30  80 7:29  129 7:30  85 7:31  58, 195 7:32-36  130 7:32  89 7:35  90 7:37  90, 130 8:1-10  130 8:4  130 8:7  130 8:11-13  130 8:11  114, 131

8:14-21  131 8:22-26  131 8:22  111 8:23  153 8:27-29c  131 8:29  131 8:30  133 8:31-33  134 8:31  134 8:34-37  134 8:34  100, 134 8:35  100 8:38  114, 134 9:1  134 9:2-7  135 9:3  135 9:7  135 9:8  135 9:9-13  135 9:10  135 9:11-13  103 9:14-17b  135 9:14  58 9:14c-16  135 9:17  136 9:17c-18e  136 9:18c  136 9:18f-27  136 9:20  136 9:22  14, 136 9:28-29  137 9:30-32  137 9:30ab  137 9:31  181 9:32  137 9:33  137 9:33b-37b  138 9:33b-35  138 9:34-35  14, 166 9:36a  139 9:37  100 9:38-41  139

9:41  14, 100-1 9:42  139 9:43-47  140, 144 9:43-45  140 9:43  65 9:47  65 10:1-16  144 10:1  144 10:2-12  144 10:2  37, 144 10:3  144 10:4  37, 145 10:5  145 10:6-8  145 10:6  144 10:7b  146 10:10-12  145 10:11  65, 145 10:12  65 10:13-17a  145 10:15-16  146 10:15  14, 139 10:16  145 10:17  146-7 10:17b-31  146 10:17d-18  146 10:18-19  147 10:18  146 10:19  64, 147 10:20  147 10:21  147 10:22  148 10:23-25  148 10:25   116, 148, 205 10:26-27  148 10:27e  148 10:28  148 10:29-30  149 10:29  148-9 10:30  149 10:32-52  151 10:32  151 241

10:33-34  151 10:33  181 10:34  151 10:35-37  152 10:35  152 10:37a  152 10:38-40  152 10:40   152, 180 n. 68 10:41-45  152 10:42de  152 10:43  14, 166 10:46-52   14, 17, 87, 89 10:46  88, 152 10:46c-51  152 10:47-48   38 n. 33, 88 10:49-50  88 10:49b-h  153 10:50  88, 153 10:51  88, 153 10:52  88-9, 153 11:1a  155 11:1b-3  155 11:3-4  155 11:5-6  156 11:7  15, 156 11:8-11c  157 11:9d  157 11:11  157-8 11:12  158 11:13-14  158 11:13a  158 11:15-18  157 11:15  129 11:18  157 11:19  157-8 11:20  158 11:21  158 11:22-24  158 11:22-23  14, 137 11:23  137 11:25   64, 68-70, 158 11:27  158 242

11:28-33  158 11:32  124, 161 11:33  159 12:1-9  149, 160 12:1-2  149, 159 12:1  149 12:6  150 12:7-8  150 12:9  149, 159 12:10-11  160 12:10  160 12:12-13  161 12:12   149, 159, 161 12:13-17  163 12:18-27  163 12:20  163 12:22  163 12:23  163 12:26  30 12:28-31  164 12:28  164 12:34  14, 164 12:35-37b  164 12:35  164 12:36-38  20 12:37c-39  165 12:40-44  18 12:41-44  166 13:1-6  170 13:1  170 13:6d  171 13:7-8  170 13:7  170 13:9-10  170 13:9   14, 96, 170 13:9d-11  96 13:10  170-1 13:11  96 13:12-13  170 13:12-13b  96 13:12  99, 171 13:13  96, 170

13:14  96, 171 13:14e-20  171 13:15  97, 171 13:19bc  171 13:21-23  171 13:24-27  172 13:25  102 13:26  96 13:27b  172 13:28-31  172 13:30-31  62 13:32  172 13:34  176-7, 202 13:35  173-4, 176 14:1  181-2 14:2  182 14:3-9  182 14:3  182 14:5b  182 14:6  183 14:10-11  183 14:10a  183 14:12-16  183 14:14-20  118 14:14d  183 14:17-21  184 14:19-20  184 14:20  118, 184 14:21  181 14:22-25  184 14:26-31  184 14:32-16:8  15 14:32-42  184 14:38  69 14:41  105, 181 14:43-52  184 14:43c  185 14:53-72  185 14:65  151, 186 14:68  99 14:70  99 14:72g  186

15:1  187 15:2-5  189 15:2a  189 15:3  189 15:4  189 15:5b  189 15:6-15  189 15:6a  190 15:7  190 15:9  55, 190 15:10  190 15:11  190 15:15  191 15:16-20  191 15:17  191 15:19-20  151 15:19  174 15:21-32  192 15:21  66 15:23  192 15:24-25  192 15:26a  192 15:27   180 n. 68 15:31  151 15:32  192 15:33-41  192 15:34d  193 15:35  193 15:36-37  193 15:36e-i  193 15:37  193 15:38  193 15:39  78, 194 15:42-47  195 15:43b  195 15:44-45  78 15:45b  195 15:47  195 16:1-8  196 16:7  196-7 16:8  196

243

Luke 1:3  19 1:5-3:23b  31 1:5  40, 47 1:15  37 1:20  173 1:26-38  38 1:26  38, 49 1:27  36-8 1:28  38 1:30  38 1:31  38 1:32-33  30 1:32  38 1:34  37 1:35  37-8 1:41  37 1:52  106 1:67  37 1:77  38 1:78  41, 205 2:4  40, 49 2:7   43 n. 52 2:11  38 2:15  40 2:24   164 n. 22 2:27-28  72 2:37  72 2:39  49 2:51   49 n. 65 3:2  182 3:3  52, 184 3:4-6  51 3:4  51 3:7   52, 113, 167-8, 205 3:7d-9  52 3:8-9  19 3:8  30, 52-3 3:9  75 3:16  37, 51-2 3:17  52, 119 3:21-22  53 244

3:21  53 3:23-38  30, 36 3:23  34 3:23c-38  31-2 3:24-25  34 3:24  34 3:25  33 3:27-31  32 3:28-31  33 3:31-34  32 3:32  32 3:33  32 3:38  29-30 4:1-2  54 4:1  53 4:3-4  54 4:3  73 4:5-12  55 4:5-8  54-5 4:5  55 4:6-7  55 4:7-8  55, 205 4:8  55 4:9-12  54-5 4:9  54 4:10  54 4:13  56 4:14-9:50  18 4:14  87 4:15  91 4:16   42, 49, 56 4:17-21  56 4:21  57 4:24-31  62 4:24-27  56 4:25  61 4:29  49 4:30   49 n. 65, 56 4:31  56 4:44  57 5:3  61 5:4-6  138

5:9-10  130 5:12-14  77 5:13  77 5:17-26  85 5:18  85 5:19-20  85 5:19  97 5:24  85 5:25c  85 5:27-32  86 5:27  85 5:30  117 5:31  86 5:33-38  86 6:1-5  109 6:6-11  109 6:8-9  110 6:14-16  93 6:15  85 6:17-18  58 6:17  58, 129 6:20-49   24, 58, 60 6:20  60 6:21  60 6:22-23  61 6:23  61 6:24-25  60 6:27-36  25 6:27-28  67 6:29-30  66 6:30  68 6:31  73-4 6:32-34  67 6:35  61, 67 6:36  67 6:37-42  71 6:37c-38c  71 6:38  72, 102 6:39-40  71 6:39  128 6:40  97 6:41  72, 204

6:42  72, 205 6:43-49  74 6:43-45  74, 113 6:43   75, 113, 123, 205 6:44  74-5, 205 6:45  75, 113 6:46  75, 169 6:47-49  76 6:47  76 6:48  102, 132 6:49  76 7:1-10  78, 205 7:1b  78 7:2-3  80 7:2  78, 81 7:3-5  78 7:6-7  78 7:6  78 7:7  80, 205 7:8-9  19 7:8  79-80 7:9  79 7:10  80 7:14  135 7:18-35  103 7:18-19  101 7:18a  101 7:19  101, 204 7:20  101 7:21-22  129 7:21  91 7:22-23  102 7:22   93, 102, 204 7:24-28  102 7:24   102 7:25-26  102 7:26  102 7:28  102-3 7:29-30  160 7:30  52 7:31  103-4 7:32  104, 204 245

7:33-35  104 7:33-34  104 7:34  105, 204 7:35  104-5 7:38  98 7:41-43  23 7:41-42  143 7:42  144 8:1  91 8:2  30 8:3  30-1 8:5-8  117 8:8  103, 117 8:9-10c  117 8:9  117 8:10e-h  118 8:11a  118 8:11b-15  118 8:15  118 8:16  61 8:19-21  116 8:21  76 8:22  83 8:23-25  83 8:24-25  83 8:24  83, 169 8:25  83-4, 205 8:26-34  84 8:26  84 8:32  84 8:33a  84 8:35  84, 102 8:38-39  23, 84 8:40-56  87 8:42  87 8:45  99 8:55  87 8:56  87 9:3  93-4 9:7  124 9:10-17  124 9:16  124 246

9:18-20c  131 9:20f  131 9:21  133 9:22  134 9:23  99, 134 9:26  134 9:28-34  135 9:29  135 9:34  135 9:37-38b  135 9:37  135 9:38  136 9:39  136 9:40-42  136 9:41  136 9:43-45  137 9:45  137 9:46-48  138 9:46-47a  138 9:47b  139 9:48  100 9:49-50  139 9:51-19:28  18 9:57-60  82 9:57  82 9:57c-58  82 9:58  82, 204 9:59-60  82 9:59  83 9:60  23 9:60bc  83 9:61a  82 10:2  92, 204 10:3b  96 10:4  94 10:5-6  94 10:5  94 10:6  94-5 10:7  94 10:8  94 10:9  93 10:10-12  95

10:11  95 10:12  95, 106 10:13-15  106 10:13-14  129, 195 10:13  105-6 10:14  106, 115 10:15  106 10:16  100 10:18  172 10:21-22  19 10:21  107, 204 10:22  107 10:23-24  118 10:23  118 10:24  115 10:25-27  164 10:25  164, 205 10:29-37  23 10:40d  153 10:41  169 11:1-2c  67 11:2-4  19 11:2  68 11:2d-4  68 11:3  68 11:4   23, 68-9, 204 11:5-8  23 11:9-13  73 11:9-10  73 11:11-12  73 11:12  73 11:13  23, 73 11:14-28  18 11:14-23  18 11:14  111, 130 11:15  111 11:16  114 11:17-19  112 11:17  112 11:19  64 11:20  112 11:21-22  112

11:22  112 11:23  112, 114 11:24-26  116 11:24  116, 205 11:25  116 11:27-28  18 11:29  114, 130 11:30  114 11:31-32  115 11:31   33, 105, 115 11:32   19, 106, 115 11:33  61 11:34-35  70 11:35-36  70 11:36  172 11:39-51  25 11:39  167 11:41  167 11:42  166-7 11:43  165 11:44  167 11:46  108, 165 11:47-48  167 11:49  168 11:50-51  168 11:51  168 11:52  166 12:2  97 12:3  97 12:4  98 12:5  98 12:6-7  98 12:6  98 12:7  98 12:8-9  99 12:8  98-9 12:9  98-9 12:10  112 12:11  96 12:12  96 12:13-21  24 12:21-34  70 247

12:21  70 12:22-31  71 12:27  33 12:28  83, 205 12:32  71 12:33  70 12:34  70 12:36  174 12:38-40  174 12:38  174 12:39  70, 174 12:42-46  174 12:42  174 12:45  174 12:46  101, 204 12:49  99 12:51   23, 95, 99 12:53  99 12:55  115 12:58-59  64 12:58  64 13:6-9  23 13:7  61 13:18-21  120 13:18  120, 205 13:19  119-20 13:20  120 13:21  120 13:23-24  74 13:24  74 13:26-27  75 13:26  75 13:27e  76 13:28-29  79 13:28   30, 80, 205 13:29  41, 115 13:32  82 13:34   156, 160, 168-9, 205 13:34g-35  169 14:1-6  22, 109 14:5   22, 109, 128 n. 5 14:11   106, 139, 166 248

14:16-24  161 14:18-20  162 14:18  102, 122 14:19  162 14:21  162 14:23  162 14:26  100 14:27  100 14:28-33  24 14:34-35  61 14:35  61, 103 15:1  159 15:4-5a  141 15:4  110, 141 15:7  110, 141 15:8-16:12  22 15:8-10  24 15:8  116 15:11-32  24, 159 15:12  159 15:20  153 15:28-30  162 15:29  70 16:1-12  23 16:6-9  178 16:9  22 16:11  22 16:13   19, 22, 70-1 16:14-15  22 16:16  103 16:17  62 16:18  65 16:19-31  24 16:21  129 16:26   179 n. 67 17:1  140 17:3  141-2 17:4  142-3 17:6  137 17:7-10  24 17:16  130 17:21  171

17:23-24  171-2 17:23  171 17:23d-24b  171 17:24  171 17:26-27  173 17:27  173, 205 17:28-29  173 17:30  173 17:31  97 17:34-35  173 17:34  85, 173 17:37  172 18:1-8  23 18:8  61 18:9-14  24 18:10  72 18:14  106, 139 18:15  167 18:17  139 18:18-30  146 18:18  147 18:21  147 18:22  147 18:23  148 18:24-25  148 18:25  148 18:26-27  148 18:28  148 18:29  148-9 18:35-43  87, 89 18:35  88, 152 18:37-38  42 18:37  49 18:38-39  88 18:40  88, 153 18:41  88, 153 18:42c  153 18:43  88-9 19:12-27  202 19:13  177 19:14  177 19:15-19  177

19:15-16  177 19:16-20  177 19:16  177 19:18  177 19:19b  177 19:20-21  177 19:20   177 n. 60 19:22-23  178 19:22  79, 178 19:23  178 19:24  178 19:26  178 19:27  178 19:29b  155 19:29c-31  155 19:31-32  155 19:33-34  156 19:35  15, 156 19:36-40  157 19:38b  157 19:41  186 19:45-47  157 20:1b  158 20:2-8  158 20:2  186 20:8  159 20:9-16  160 20:17  160 20:18  161 20:20-26  163 20:27-39  163 20:29  163 20:32  163, 205 20:33  163 20:39-40  164 20:41-44  164 20:41  164 20:45-46  165 20:47-21:4  18 21:1-4  166 21:5-8  170 21:5  170 249

21:8  183 21:9-11  170 21:9  170 21:12  170 21:17  170 21:21-24  171 21:21c  171 21:23  61 21:25-28  172 21:26  102 21:29-33  172 21:37  158 22:1  181 22:2a  182 22:3-6  183 22:3   20, 93, 183 22:4-5  183 22:7-13  183 22:11c  183 22:21-23  184 22:21  184 22:23  184 22:28-30  148 22:28  148 22:30  30, 148 22:31  169 22:40-46  184 22:42  19, 68 22:47-53  184 22:47-48  20 22:47  185 22:48  185 22:51  185 22:54-71  185 22:62b  186 22:64  186 23:1  187 23:2-4  189 23:3a  189 23:4a  189 23:18-25  189 23:19  190 250

23:20  190 23:24  191 23:25  190 23:26a  191 23:27  104 23:28  191 23:29  18 23:33-43  192 23:35ab  192 23:39  192 23:44-49  192 23:45  193 23:46  193 23:47  78, 194 23:50-56  195 23:51c  195 23:53  196 23:54  196 23:56  195 24:1-9  196 24:4  171 24:9  20, 196 24:10  30-1 24:33  20, 197 24:36  20 24:44   164 n. 22 24:46-47  20 24:47  184, 198 24:49  20, 162 24:52   20, 55, 197, 205 24:53  72 John 1:42   132 n. 15 21:15-17   132 n. 15 Acts 1:1-8:35  29-49 1:1-14  29-36 1:1-4  26 1:1d-2a  199 1:2  173

1:4-5  20 1:4  43 1:8  20, 162 1:13  85, 93 1:14  43 1:15-26  36-9 1:18-19   26 n. 63 1:18  187-8 1:19  188 1:26  20, 43 2  39-43 2:9-10  140 2:14  20 2:22  49 2:33  193 3  44-6 3:1  72 3:14  190 3:22-23   46 n. 59 4:1-8:3  46-7 4:5-6  182 4:6  182 4:32-5:16  48 4:34-35  43 4:37  43 6:6  93 6:9-7:56  72 6:9-10  59 7:37   46 n. 59 7:52  61, 190 7:54  80 8:4-35  47-9 8:27  115 8:35  59 8:36-12:25  51-90 8:36-39b  51-3 8:39b-40  53-6 9:1-19  56-7 9:4  169 9:20-29  76 9:20-25  57-8 9:25  45

9:26-29  58-76 9:30-43  76-7 10:1-11:18  77-81 10  78 10:3  44 10:5  57 10:18  57 10:30  44 10:32  57 10:34  59 10:38   49 n. 65 11:13  57 11:19-26  81-4 11:20  59 11:27-30  84-6 11:29-30  90 12:1-9a  86-7 12:9b-17  87-9 12:17  98 12:18-25  89-90 12:25  86 13–14  91-125 13:1-2  91-2 13:1  121 13:3-7  93-5 13:5-11  97 13:5  97 13:6  76 13:8-18  95-9 13:16d  122 13:19  99-100 13:20-23  100-1 13:24-26  101-5 13:27-29  105-6 13:30-33  107 13:34-38  108 13:38  109, 184 13:39-43  108-10 13:43  122 13:44-14:2b  110-13 13:46-48  62, 122 13:50  118, 122 251

14:1-5  116 14:2c-3c  113 14:3d-19  113-16 14:5  118 14:11-13  79 14:19  118 14:20-26  116-21 14:21-23  122 14:21  195 14:27  121-3 14:28  121, 123-5 15:1-18:21  127-53 15:1-4  127-30 15:5-24  130-3 15:7  125 15:10  108, 178 15:20  65, 145 15:23  142 15:24-29  183 15:24  108, 135 15:25-41  133-7 15:28-29  108, 178 15:29  65, 145 15:37-39  91 15:38-39  97 15:39  180 15:41-16:4  142 16:1-3  137-8 16:3-8a  140 16:4-8  138-40 16:9-40  140-4 17:1-14  144-6 17:10  45 17:15-34  146-9 18:1-8  149-51 18:5-7  62 18:6  191 18:9-21  151-3 18:18  150 18:22-21:9  155-80 18:22-25  155-9

252

18:24-27  150 18:26-28a  159-60 18:28  160-2 19:1-6  161-3 19:1  160 19:7-8  163-5 19:9-22  165-70 19:13-14  76 19:23-40  170-3 19:35  168 20:1-6  173-4 20:7-15  174-6 20:16-26  176-8 20:27-21:9  178-80 20:29  74 21:8  55 21:10-28:31  181-99 21:10-16  181-2 21:14  19, 68 21:17-25  182-3 21:25  65, 145 21:26-29  183-4 21:26  182 21:30-23:11  184-6 21:39  79 21:40  98 22:7  169 22:14  190 22:17  72 23:12-33a  186-9 23:23  45 23:24  156 23:31  45 23:33b-25:18  189-91 24:19  185 25:19-27:32  191-5 26:14  169 26:18  184 26:20  52 26:24b  183 26:27-36  183

27:4  84 27:13  115 27:33-28:22  195-6 28:3  113 28:13  115 28:23-31  196-9 28:25-28  62 28:26-27  118 Romans 1:3-4  131-2 1:14  168 1:17  150 1:22  168 2:1-3  72 2:6  134 2:19  128, 166 2:28-29  67 3:24  93 3:28  62 5:17  63 5:20  63 10:3-10  67 10:10  132 13:6  138 13:8-10  62-3 13:8  62 13:9   64, 67, 147 13:10  62, 64-7 14:3  140 16:3  150 16:17  140 16:25-26  121 1 Corinthians 1:19-27  168 1:20  168 4:17  169 5:1-13  65 5:1  160

5:9-11  160 6:9-18  160 6:9  65 6:13-20  65 7:2-5  65 7:7-8  145 8:13-9:1  138 8:13  128 9:19-22  142 9:25-27  177 10:8  65, 160 14:24  141 2 Corinthians 8:5  86 9:12  86 11:2  175 11:7  93-4 11:32-33  58 12:21  160 13:13  198 Galatians 1:16  132 1:19  31 2:9-10a  86 2:9  31, 41 2:12  31, 80 3:14  30, 193 3:16  30 4:22-5:2  138 5:4-5  67 Ephesians 3:5-6  121 Philippians 2:19-22  169 3:12-4:1  177 4:18  86

253

Colossians 1:26-27  121 1 Thessalonians 2:19  177 4:3-8  65 4:16  172 2 Thessalonians 3:2  69 1 Timothy 1:2  169 1:18  169 2:9  122 5:22  93 2 Timothy 1:2  169 4:6-8  177 4:8   51 n. 1 4:18  69 James 1:1  31 4:11-13  122 5:12  66 1 Peter 1:2  198 2:12  62 3:1  142 3:14   60, 61 n. 39 4:13-14  61 3 John 13  191 Revelation 14:4  175 21:2  175

254

Other Israelite-Jewish Works 1 Enoch 91:10-11  35 93:3-10  35 Dead Sea Scrolls CD 11:13-14a  109 CD 11:16-17a  109 4Q212  35 4Q265 6:6-7  109 Flavius Josephus Antiquitates judaicae 2.12  38 2.63  38 2.70  38 2.72  38 2.82  38 3.194-195  138 13.297  131 15.230-240   47, 202 n. 4 17.44  47 17.178  47 17.188  48 17.194-195  48 17.317  48 18.35-95   182, 202 n. 4 18.55   187, 202 n. 4 18.63-64  182 18.312   138, 202 n. 4 20.171  185 20.200   34, 190, 202 n. 4 Bellum judaicum 3.653   162, 202 n. 4 4.335  168 6.316  162 6.363  162 6.434  162 7.218  138

Vita 1–6  31 Philo Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 186-189  138

Quintilian Institutio oratoria 3.7.15  19

Other Early Christian Works

Papyri graecae magicae 1.143   143 n. 55

Justin Apologia I 15.11  27 16.9  27 61.3  27

Plato Respublica 614cd   179 n. 67 614c   179-80, 202 n. 5 615e   179, 202 n. 5

Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica 3.39.15-16  12-13 3.39.15  13 3.39.16  13

Other Graeco-Roman Works

255