^{page 138 note 1} Mατθαĩῑος μέν ο⋯ν 'Eβραίδι διαλέκτῲ τά λόγια συνετάξατ;ο ήρμήνευσεν δ' αύτά ώς δυνατός ἓκαστος. Quoted by Eusebius, Church History (H.E.), 3. 39. 16.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 2} See Nepper-Christensen, P., Das Matthäusevangelium—Ein Judenchristliches Evangelium? (1958), pp. 37—75, for a comprehensive treatment of this tradition.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 3} McNeile, A. H., The Gospel According to St Matthew (1965), p. xxviii.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 4} For an opposing view see Butler, B. C., The Originality of St Matthew (1951)Google Scholar, and Farrer, A. M., ‘On Dispensing with Q’;, in Studies in The Gospels, ed. by Nineham, D. E. (1955), pp. 55–88. Both argue against its existence.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 5} However, differences between Matthew and Luke in material derived from Q e.g. Matt. vi. 9–15 = Luke xi. 24; Matt. v. 3–12 = Luke vi. 20–3, has resulted in several hypotheses concerning the nature of Q. One explanation is that Q was not a single source but two. Thus Bussmann, W., Synoptische Studien (1929)Google Scholar, postulated both an Aramaic source R, and a Greek, T. Cf. also Parker, P., The Gospel Before Mark (1953)Google Scholar; Bacon, B. W., Studies in Matthew (1930)Google Scholar; and Vaganay, L., Le Problime Synoptique (1954)Google Scholar. The most parsimonious explanation is that the compilers of Matthew and Luke each used a different translation of the same document, a document which had been copied a number of times before being incorporated into the gospels. Thus, variations in the text can be accounted for by omissions or through differences in the translations of Aramaic expressions. Cf. Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (1967), pp. 203–8.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 1} Burney, C. F., The Poetry of Our Lord (1925)Google Scholar, noted that much of Q is written in a definite poetic form suggesting a single source. The alternative, as Burney pointed out, is that the various authors of the Q. sources independently set themselves the task of preserving Jesus' words in a parallelistic and rhythmical form identical to that found in the present material.

^{page 139 note 2} The alternative hypothesis, namely that Luke is borrowed from Matthew or vice versa, is generally not accepted by most scholars. Farrar, A. M., op. cit., is a noticeable exception.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 3} Cf. Montefiore, C. G., The Synoptic Gospels (1927), 1, lxx–lxxiii.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 4} E.g. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3. 1. 1; Origen, in HE. 6. 15. 5; Eusebius, H.E. 3. 24. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 5} See p. 138, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 6} Com. on Mt. 12. 13; vir. inl. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 7} It has been suggested that the gospel was originally written in Greek and then translated into Aramaic for the benefit of Jewish Christian readers (e.g. Haenchen, E., Der Weg Jesu (1966), p. 10).Google ScholarVielhauer, P. (‘Jewish Christian Gospels’, in New Testament Apocrypha, I, ed. by Hennecke, E. and Schneemelcher, W., and trans, by R. McL. Wilson (1963))Google Scholar adduces cogent arguments that Jerome had only perused Aramaic fragments of the gospel which he stated he had translated into Greek (seep. 126 ff.). In Vielhauer's opinion, Jerome was actually only expressing a statement of intent. However, were there an original Greek gospel upon which these supposed Aramaic fragments were based, it is more than likely that Jerome would have known of its existence and, consequently, he would have had no reason to have proposed a translation.

^{page 139 note 8} The Logia in Ancient and Recent Literature (1924)Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 1} E.g. Donovan, , op. cit.Google Scholar; Feine, P., Behm, J. and Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (1966);Google ScholarGreen, F. W., The Gospel According to Saint Matthew (1964).Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 2} Quasten, J., Patrology (1950), 1, 82translates Papias title κυριακ⋯ν λογίων ⋯ξηγήσεως as Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 3} Cf. Munck, J., ‘Presbyters and Disciples of the Lord in Papias’, Harvard Theological Review, LII (1959), 228.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 4} The hypothesis that logia refers to a Testimony Book, i.e. a collection of Old Testament prooftexts (cf. Burkitt, F. C., The Gospel History and its Transmission (1911)Google Scholar; Dodd, C. H., According to the Scriptures (1952)Google Scholar; Harris, J. R., Testimonies (1916–1920))Google Scholar is not likely, in view of Papias'use of the word in the title of his own work. Were it to have the meaning of a testimonium, i.e. a proof-text, we should have to suppose that Jesus himself had taken passages out of the Old Testament to prove the claims connected with his own personage. However, this does not mean that such testimonies were not included in the present gospel (see below), it means only that they werenot Papias' logia.

^{page 140 note 5} The translation of Papias' entire statement is subject to controversy. Instead of the word ‘recorded’ (συνεтάξατο) one could translate ‘arranged in order’ which would connote an entirely different impression. The latter suggests that a document containing the ‘sayings’ was already in existence and that Matthew simply rearranged its contents. The former conveys the impression that Matthew wrote the ‘sayings’ down from memory and hence was a direct witness. Similarly, the interpretation of the Greek word ήρμηνευσεν is also open to question—see Guthrie, D., New Testament Introduction (1966), pp. 31–9Google Scholar, for a discussion of these points. The Riddle of the New Testament (1958), by Hoskyns, E. and Davy, N.Google Scholar, also contains an interesting discussion as to the problem (pp. 189–91).

^{page 140 note 6} Op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 1} Since the gospel of Mark occupies a significant part in Matthew (for statistical evidence see Honore, A. M., ‘A Statistical Study of the Synoptic Problem’, Nov. Test, x (1968), 95–147)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Mark's date of composition is also pertinent. Most scholars agree that Mark does not contain any reference to the destruction of the Temple and therefore it must be dated some time priorto A.D. 70. The most likely era is during the persecution under Nero, since one purpose underlying this gospel appears to be that of strengthening the courage of the Christians in Rome during their hour of despair. This would place Mark c. A.D. 64.

^{page 141 note 2} Hare, D. R. A., The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St Matthew (1967), p. 113 n. 3, considers the reference to Gehenna (Matt. x. 28 = Luke xii.5) as support for he Palestinian origin of Q.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 3} The view tha t Matthew was martyred derives some corroboration from the Talmud, b. San.43^aGoogle Scholar

^{page 142 note 1} The arguments for Antioch have been discussed by Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels (1930)Google Scholar, and will not be repeated here. Notable exceptions to Streeter's hypothesis are Brandon, S. G. F., The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church (1957)Google Scholar, who argues for Alexandria; G. D. Kilpatrick, op. cit., who endorses somewhere in Phoenicia, and Gundry, R. H., The Use of the Old Testament in St Matthew's Gospel (1967)Google Scholar, for Palestine. B. W. Bacon, op. cit., maintained that the gospel was not written in Antioch itself but in some Greek-speaking Jewish community in northern or north-eastern Syria

^{page 142 note 2} Acceptance of the M hypothesis (Streeter, op. cit.) is general but by no means universal. For example, Brown, J. P., ‘The Form of “Q” Known to Matthew’, New Test. Stud. VIII (1961), 27–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Strecker, G., Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit (1962), pp. 12–13Google Scholar, both have argued that Matthew's special material was derived from an expanded form of Q. But these critics still seek recourse in a special material source to explain the fulfilment prophecies (Strecker) and parables (Brown) which do not seem to fit Q even in an expanded form.

^{page 142 note 3} Thus Blair, E. P., Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (1960)Google Scholar; P. Feine et al, op. cit., G. D. Kilpatrick, op. cit., and Wikenhauser, A., New Testament Introduction (1963).Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 4} Brown, J. P., op. cit.Google Scholar; Clark, F. W., ‘The Gentile Bias in Matthew’, J.B.L. LXVI (1947), 165–72;Google ScholarHebert, G., ‘The Problem of the Gospel According to Matthew’, Scot. J. Theol. XIV (1961), 403–13;CrossRefGoogle ScholarNepper-Christensen, P., op. cit.; Strecker, G., op. cit. pp. 15–35.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 5} Op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 6} Strecker, G., op. cit. pp. 15–35, accounted for the pro- and anti-Jewish contradiction within the gospel by hypothesizing that the gentile evangelist unwillingly adopted a pro-Jewish tradition which he himself did not support. In my opinion, this position is basically correct; however, it minimizes too much the pro-Jewish contribution by assigning it to a moribund tradition instead of granting it the prominent position it deserves.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 1} ‘Probabilities as to the so-called Double Tradition of Q’, in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, ed. by Sanday, W. (1911), pp. 132–3.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 2} Danby's, H. translation (1958), p. 294.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 3} Ibid. p. 450.

^{page 144 note 4} Cf. also iii. 15; v. 6; vi. 33; x. 20; xxi. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 5} The Social and Religious History of the Jews (1952), 11, 131.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 1} Grant, F. C., The Gospels, their Origin and their Growth (1957), p. 150.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 2} Cf. Louvain's, A. D. ‘Essai d'interpretation de Mt. 5, 17–48. “Formgeschichte” ou “Redaktionsgeschichte”?’ in Studia Evangelica, ed. by Aland, K., Cross, F. L. et al. (1959), pp. 156–73Google Scholar, where the author shows that these verses have been altered by a redactor with a definite theological perspective.

^{page 145 note 3} Op. cit. p. 42.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 4} See also R. Bultmann's comments in History of the Synoptic Tradition (1963), p. 34.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 5} Streeter, op. cit. p. 504.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 6} Peter may have been the city's first bishop (cf. H.E. 3. 36. 2).Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 1} Cf. Hare, , op. cit. pp. 81–2.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 2} Strecker, , op. cit. pp. 137–43, argues that the Pharisees were merely a designation for the Jews as a whole. Cf., however, Hare, , op. cit. p. 85.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 3} See Schoeps, H. J., The Jewish-Christian Argument (1963), p. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 1} Op. cit. p. 147.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 2} Butler, , op. cit. p. 150;Google ScholarLund, N. W., Chiasmus in the New Testament (1942), p. 232.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 3} Wentworth, J. C. F., ‘Inclusio and Chiasmus in Matthew’, Studia Evangelica, ed. by Aland, K. et al. (1959), pp. 174–9.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 4} Op. cit. p. 233.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 5} Ibid. p. 232.

^{page 147 note 6} The Sayings of Jesus (1964), p. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 1} So Matt, . xiii. 24–8Google Scholar for Bornkamm, G., Barth, G. and Held, H. T., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (1963), p. 161Google Scholar; and Schoeps, H. J., Theologie und Geschichte der Judenchristentums, p. 120 n. 1Google Scholar; and Matt. v. 19 for Manson, op. cit. p. 25.

^{page 148 note 2} Manson, , op. cit. p. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 3} Kilpatrick, , op. cit., has assumed that the Birkhath ha Minim prompted the anti-pharisaic sentiment in Matthew. However, within the Discourse Against the Pharisees (Matt, xxiii. 1–39) there are a number of references to the Temple and the altar (xxiii. 16b, 18–21) as if theywere still in existence. This precludes both the passage and the sentiment as originating later than A.D. 70. It should also be noted that the chiastic arrangement of the cited passages (see Lund, op. cit. pp. 282–301) also supports the argument that this material is the work and sentiment of a Jewish Christian.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 4} E.g. Grant, , op. cit., Green, op. cit., and Guthrie, op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 1} Cf. Strecker, , op. cit. See also Hare, , op. cit. pp. 147–8.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 2} Cf. Tasker, R. V. G., The Gospel According to St Matthew (1961).Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 3} It is significant that five of the fulfilment passages come from Matt. i. 18—ii. 23, a sectionof Matthew which many scholars accept as an interpolation into the text.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 4} See Gundry, , op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 5} The School of St Matthew (1954).Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 6} Op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 7} Op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 8} Allegro, J. M., ‘Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature’, J.B.L. LXXV (1956), 182–6.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 9} ‘“4 Q Testimonia” and the New Testament’, Theol. Stud, XVIII (1957), 534.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 1} Op. cit. ii, 775.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 2} The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (1957), 11, 121.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 3} Montefiore, , op. cit. 11, 685.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 4} This point is particularly emphasized by Hare, , op. cit. pp. 89 f.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 5} Cf. Dalman, G., The Words 0f Jesus (1902), p. 274.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 6} Strecker, , op. cit. pp. 130–2Google Scholar, argues that the divorce passages (v. 32; xix. 9) which reveal a Jewish origin are not the work of the (gentile) redactor's but are rather part of the redactor's source material which he incorporated into his gospel. (See p. 142 n. 6.) But why should a Gentile want to include Jewish material in an allegedly pro-Gentile gospel unless that material had already become part of an established gospel which he (Matthew(2)) expanded in line with his own thinking?

^{page 151 note 1} H.E. 3. 33.1–2.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 2} Downey, G., A History of Antioch in Syria (1961), p. 286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 151 note 3} Eusebius, , H.E. 3. 26. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 4} Martyr, Justin, I Apology, 26.Google Scholar