*Lk ἸΌΝ had in his ‘special source’ a mixed gospel
embodying the bulk of his Zogian element as it now stands in our Lk.
304
its later Petrine form. At some stage which we cannot now trace they took on the special impress of the Apostle Matthew,* probably in a ministry of which Galilee, rather than Judwa, was the scene. In this form they passed, as Jewish unrest became more acute, to the neighbouring parts of Syria, in the person of our evangelist among others, still receiving fresh elements in the course of oral teaching.t And it was at this stage that they took written shape, as the main constituent in the mixed gospel composed with the aid of the Marean memoirs of Peter. ‘The freedom with which the writer has accommodated Mk’s narrative to massed Logian discourses, suggests that these discourses already existed orally much in this massed form, and were not then first thrown into it by Mt. That Mk should early reach S. Syria is the more probable that St. Peter was evidently held in high honour there, witness the special references to Peter in 14% 1516 1015 1739} 1821; cf. 102, ‘ First, Simon who is called Peter.’ Indeed it seems likely that Peter had left a strong oral tradition behind him in those parts, so that Mt knew the substance of Mk before it came into his hands. This may help to explain certain phenomena in his use of it. (5) The fact that the Matthzean cycle of Logia was taken up into our Mt, gave it its distinctive status and accept- ance ; and .the actual facts of its origin were soon forgotten—probably never known outside a narrow circle. Thus the indirect sense in which Matthew was its author and guarantor dropped out of tradi- tion, and Papias could simply take for granted that the Gospel κατὰ Μαθθαῖον was from the apostle’s pen. (6) The actual conditions giving its author the stimulus to compose his artistic and reflective Gospel, must be gauged from the perspective in which he places the central Figure. He is set forth as the full blossoming of Israel’s prophetic ideal of the King ruling in righteousness, and in wondrous gentleness too. The picture is the im- plicit corrective of the false Messianic ideal which had made the nation as a whole reject Jesus, and had already led it yet further astray in the path of earthly force. Thus, as we have seen, the urgency of the warnings against going after false Messiahs on the felt approach of the great national crisis (conceived on the lines of Daniel’s prophecy of Jerusalem’s last trial and in terms of current apocalyptic based thereon), points to the actual crisis of 68-70 as to the specific occasion which gave it birth. It is an appeal to waverers of all sorts to trust the true King, whose reign is of heaven, and depends on the action of God, not of men; and not to become involved in the current of the false national ideal. It is meant to do the same work as the Epistle to the Hebrews, only in another fashion and at a rather later date. And, like it, it is at once apologetic and polemical: it is a dis- suasive in the form of a positive presentation. Jesus is God’s Messiah in spite of all superficial appearances, and that by realizing the essence of Moses and the Prophets. It is hard to see which of the alternative dates, shortly before or after A.p. 70, makes the Gospel the more pertinent as a book for the times—and so satisfies the law of all early Christian writings. On the whole, Mt 24 adheres so closely to Mk’s standpoint, in contrast to Luke’s modifications and omissions, after 70— notably in counsels practical before 70, but not after (e.g. 15». 104. 0 esp. μηδὲ σαββάτῳ, **)—that c. 68-69 seems the best date.
MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF
* Similarly, the Epistle of James echoes in its own way nota few of the precepts of the great Sermon, esp. those on Swearing (otherwise peculiar to Mt) and on Censoriousness towards brethren (= towards * Law,’ 44, perhaps that of Mt 71, Lk 687).
+ This kind of expansive and explanatory activity of the Christian ‘scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven’ seems ‘aken for grantel in 1 ef. 28 for the catechist.
5886
MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF
In 242% ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ follows Dn’'s forecast of Temple-desecra- tion and not the facts of 70. Some, however, doubt whether Mt 2819 can have been written before 70, since it implies use of the triune baptismal name. But, if a similar clause be an original part of Didaché 7, its evidence may be cited. For the work as a whole, and not the *Two Ways’ only, seems to be implied by the Christian interpolation in Ascensio Jsaia@, which perhaps falls before Nero's death (#.e. δ. 65-08). Hence there is nothing de- cisive against ὁ. 65-69 a.p.; while the statement in 278, * that field is called the Field of Blood until this day,’ and casual references to ‘the holy city’ and the temple-worship, are more natural at that date than after the utter ruin and change of 70. So with the reference to ‘going over the cities of Israel,’ 102, Perhaps, then, 22%. τὸ are additions after 70: contrast Lk 1422,
(7) The evangelist writes, however, with a sort of detachment hard to imagine in one living in Palestine about 70. Thus it is best, and most in keeping with the Greek form and with internal evidence, to locate him in S. Syria, say Phoenicia (449 15"! alongside Mk 155 74, cf. Ac 1119158). That the author was a Jew, is clear from the text and manner of his special OT quotations, which so colour his work. But his was a spiritual Israel, new while old, inelusive not exclusive, conceived on prophetic lines after the manner of Peter and the Apocalypse of John— with the latter of which its affinities are most marked. Jesus of Nazareth is really the Christ, since in His person, teaching, work, and even His tragie end, all has been as prophecy had _inti- mated. While as to the scope of Messiah’s Ecclesia, the elect Israel, it was but a little thing that God should through Him raise up Jacob: the nations, too, were to be His inheritance, by the incorporation into the Kingdom of all who were of faith [cf. Kiibel (as below), Introductory Remarks, trans. in Bibl. World, i. 194 ff., 263 ff. ].