Loading...

The Gospel of Matthew

A Hypertextual Commentary

by Bartosz Adamczewski (Author)
Monographs 255 Pages

Table Of Content


| 11 →

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 ← 11 | 12 → 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. ← 12 | 13 →

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 ← 13 | 14 → 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 hypothesis, 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 Two-Source 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. ← 14 | 15 →

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 | 16 → 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 1:1-4:34; 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 ← 16 | 17 → 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 hypothesis), 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. ← 17 | 18 →

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 ← 18 | 19 → 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 ← 19 | 20 → 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 ← 20 | 21 → 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 ← 21 | 22 → 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 15:8-16:12; 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 ← 22 | 23 → 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), ← 23 | 24 → 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 non-Marcan 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 hypothesis 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 hypothesis, and much better than does the Two-Gospel hypothesis for Mark’s redactional procedures in that theory. Moreover, MacEwen rightly notes that on the ← 24 | 25 → 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 ← 25 | 26 →

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 ← 26 | 27 → 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 second-century 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 ← 27 | 28 → 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


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.

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 bearbeitet, 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).

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 C. M. Tuckett (BETL 239; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 571–589 (esp. 583–584); F. Watson, Gospel, 149–153.

10 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).

11 See B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 23–83.

12 See ibid. 83–95.

13 Cf. C. M. Tuckett, ‘The Current State of the Synoptic Problem’, in P. Foster [et al.] (eds.), New Studies, 9–50 (esp. 50).

14 See B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 161–184.

15 Cf. 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. 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

51 Cf. ibid. 50–73.

52 Cf. ibid. 75–91.

53 Cf. ibid. 92–99.

54 Cf. ibid. 99–117.

55 Cf. ibid. 118–130.

56 Cf. ibid. 130–145.

57 Cf. ibid. 154–163.

58 Cf. ibid. 166–187.

59 Cf. ibid. 188–196.

60 Cf. A. Garrow, ‘Streeter’s “Other” Synoptic Solution: The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis’, 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.

63 For some minor exceptions, see e.g. G. Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu und ihre erste Entwicklung 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.

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.

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.

| 29 →

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). ← 29 | 30 →

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 1:2b-17) 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), ← 30 | 31 → 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 ← 31 | 32 →

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 ← 32 | 33 → 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.), ← 33 | 34 → 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. ← 34 | 35 →

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 3:5-16 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. ← 35 | 36 →

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, ← 36 | 37 → 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 ← 37 | 38 → 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 1:20b-21 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 ← 38 | 39 → 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 ← 39 | 40 → 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 ← 40 | 41 → 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 ← 41 | 42 → 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, ← 42 | 43 → 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). ← 43 | 44 →

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 ← 44 | 45 → (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 ← 45 | 46 →

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. ← 46 | 47 →

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 ← 47 | 48 → 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 ← 48 | 49 → 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.


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.

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).

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).

9 Cf. J. Kennedy, Recapitulation, 55; M. Crimella, ‘Βίβλος’, 262–263.

10 Cf. M. T. Ploner, Schriften, 227–235.

11 Cf. ibid. 235–239.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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 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).

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.

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, ‘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).

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

65 If the name form Ναζαρα is original in Mt 2:23 (illustration70 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. Adamczewski, 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.

| 51 →

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 ← 51 | 52 → 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 ← 52 | 53 →

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) ← 53 | 54 → 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 non-Jewish 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 ← 54 | 55 → 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 ← 55 | 56 → 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. ← 56 | 57 →

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 ← 57 | 58 →

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 ← 58 | 59 → (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 ← 59 | 60 → (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 ← 60 | 61 →

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 Marcan-Lucan 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 ← 61 | 62 →(Mt 5:14b-d; cf. Acts 9:28), and its later reception by the Gentiles (Mt 5:14a.15-16; 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 ← 62 | 63 → (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 5:21-22.27-28.31-32.33-34.38-39.43-44). 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 ← 63 | 64 → 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 Decalogue (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 ← 64 | 65 → 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 ← 65 | 66 → (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 ← 66 | 67 → 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. ← 67 | 68 → 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 ← 68 | 69 → 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). ← 69 | 70 →

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. ← 70 | 71 → 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. 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 hypothesis 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 ← 71 | 72 → 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, ← 72 | 73 → 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). ← 73 | 74 → 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 ← 74 | 75 → 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 7:17-18 [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) originates 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 | 76 → 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). ← 76 | 77 →

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).

Details

Pages
255
ISBN (PDF)
9783653071733
ISBN (ePUB)
9783631707876
ISBN (MOBI)
9783631707883
ISBN (Book)
9783631679418
Language
English
Publication date
2017 (May)
Tags
Synoptic Problem Intertextuality Gospel of Luke Historical Jesus Gospels Historicity Jewish Christianity
Published
Frankfurt am Main, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, 2017. 255 pp.

Biographical notes

Bartosz Adamczewski (Author)

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.

Previous

Title: The Gospel of Matthew