Comments are temporarily disabled.
- Book Review. Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Study in the Order and Interrelation of the Synoptic Gospels by John Chapman
Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Study in the Order and Interrelation of the Synoptic Gospels. By John Chapman. Edited by John M. T. Barton. London: Longmans, Green, and Company, 1937, 312 pp.
Last month I was privileged to acquire a copy of John Chapman’s significant work on the order and relationships between the Synoptic Gospels, in which he defends the traditional publication order of these Gospels. The blue hardback now stands proudly amongst my limited collection of older works, on top of one of my book shelves. Showing it’s age, most pages have some amount of “foxing,” those rust colored spots which appear in older books. It is also quite musty—my office window must be kept open whenever the book is open.
Dom Chapman (1865–1933), English Catholic priest and 4th Abbot of Downside Abbey, asserts that Matthew first published in Aramaic and then in Greek, and that it was a Greek form of Matthew which served as “Mark’s chief source, in the sense that Peter, when preaching at Rome, had the Greek Matthew before him and adapted it in his own way to his hearers’ needs.”1 Though Chapman was previously dogmatic that Matthew used Mark, he began to change his view after realizing that “the arguments which are usually given to demonstrate the dependence of Matthew on Mark are perfectly compatible with the dependence of Mark on Matthew”—if Peter were to have leveraged “St. Matthew’s work as a basis” for retelling the story of Jesus, while “amplifying and enlivening” Matthew’s account.2
After an introduction provided by John Barton, who collected and posthumously published Chapman’s work, the book begins by examining the Gospel of Mark, with a particular interest in identifying subtle indications that Mark was intentionally dropping some of Matthew’s material. For example, Chapman finds that in Mark 4:33 (cf. Matt. 13:34), Mark alludes to additional material by adding, “with many such parables he spoke the word to them” (ESV).3 Likewise in Mark 12:38 (cf. Matt. 23:1), “and in [the course of] his teaching he said.”4 Elsewhere, Chapman argues that Mark 13 is combining and summarizing material which Matthew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) elaborates, and that Mark 12:1 (cf. Matt. 21:33) also hints at parables which are not included.5 One chapter is also devoted to demonstrating that the parallel passages in Matthew are not a précis (abridgement) of Mark, as some claim. Subsequent chapters (1) defend Chapman’s contention that Mark’s Gospel reflects Peter’s teaching ministry; (2) assess Mark’s quotations from Matthew (e.g., the quote of Malachi 3:1 from Matthew 11:10, which Mark employs in Mark 1:2); and (3) consider how even the conversational style of Mark suggests Matthean priority.6
The second section of the book considers the Gospel of Luke, with a particular focus on challenging the existence of the hypothetical Q document, which is said by many Markan prioritists to have contained the material which is common to Matthew and Luke, whenever Mark lacks the corresponding accounts.7 An analysis of similar passages in Matthew and Mark is used to illustrate Chapman’s contention—the cure of the Centurion’s servant and the parable of the Talents (or Minas). Chapman shows that “there are serious differences … in the subject matter, while they show very close verbal agreements.” Such that, it is unlikely that there was a “common oral or written source.8 Other chapters address Chapman’s assessment of Luke’s omissions and additions, relative to his Matthean and Markan sources. Of particular interest is Chapman’s explanation for how Luke approached the task of writing his Gospel. Namely, that in order to include his unique material while limiting the size of the work, Luke is said to have dropped stories and parables in Matthew which were similar (e.g., Matthew’s two feedings of the multitudes), while preserving smaller doublets where Matthew and Mark had similar stories. Luke also removed passages of lesser interest or edification to Gentile converts.9 In general, Luke “does not condense, though he so often cuts out.”10
In the third major section, the book considers the Gospel of Matthew and begins with the assertion that Matthew must have been originally published in Aramaic, since an initial publication in Greek “would fail of its purpose” [sic], given that the presupposed insight into local customs, along with “Jewish beliefs and teachings,” demonstrate that it “was plainly written for Jews of Palestine.”11 Chapman goes on to survey the Aramaisms and word selections in our Greek Matthew to support his case. However, the editor (Barton) has also supplemented Chapman by including references to contemporary studies which contradicted Chapman, contending rather that the original language was Greek. In another chapter, Chapman argues that the Sermon on the Mount “is not a mosaic of many separate discourses” but was preached as “a whole,” with the discourse in Matthew providing a summary of what was actually a much longer sermon.12 A later chapter defends Matthew, the tax collector, as being the author of the Gospel, and offers that the Gospel could have been written from within five to thirty-five years after the death of Judas (ref. Matt. 27:7).13
Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Study in the Order and Interrelation of the Synoptic Gospels was a significant work, at a time when academia had already largely abandoned the belief that Matthew was the first Gospel to be published. It is unfortunate that Chapman’s book was published after his death, when he could no longer fight and advocate for his views, and respond to the many challenges which even John Barton articulated in his addendums. It would subsequently be several decades later before Butler, Farmer, Orchard, and Wenham would take up the battle for Matthean priority, with a similar level of methodological diligence.
Personally, I found most interesting the discussion of Mark’s markers, which indicate an omission of some of Matthew’s material (e.g., parables), and the related discussion on Mark’s inclusion of select portions from passages in Matthew, which Mark otherwise omits (e.g., the inclusion of the Malachi 3:1 quote from Matthew 11:10 into Mark 1:2). There are a number of passages identified in this latter group which warrant further investigation.14 However, with regard to the original language of Matthew, I contend that Chapman has misconstrued the implied audience, as early Jewish Christians, both those from the many lands who were present at Pentecost and those who had been scattered due to the persecution following Stephen’s martyrdom, would unquestionably benefit from a Greek Gospel. This is the same audience who would also receive the letter of James, written in Greek. Even if Matthew was originally written in Greek as I surmise, an Aramaic influence could still be present—if Jesus had preached in Aramaic or if Matthew frequently spoke in Aramaic, especially in religious contexts. Overall though, this is a great book, for those interested in the defense of Matthean priority.
- Publication Assumptions Even Impact Matthew’s Name
How do assumptions regarding the publication date of Matthew’s Gospel and Matthean priority affect our interpretation of the book? Previously, we looked at how J. Oliver Buswell’s belief that Matthew was published after Paul’s writings impacted his identification of the elect in the Olivet Discourse.1
Today, we consider the identity of the tax collector in Capernaum. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus passes by a man sitting in the local tax booth:
As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called (legomenon) Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him. (Matthew 9:9 ESV)
A similar encounter is reported in Mark’s Gospel:
And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him. (Mark 2:14 ESV)
Is this the same person? Why does he have two names? How do date assumptions influence the answers to these questions?
A selection of perspectives are offered below.
For example, Richard Bauckham finds the traditional “identification of Matthew with Levi the son of Alphaeus” to be implausible.2 Bauckham argues that since Mark identifies the tax-collector as Levi (Mark 2:14), but then lists someone named Matthew as one of the Twelve (3:18), “it is clear that Mark did not himself consider these two [to be] the same person.”3 Especially, given that Mark provides clarifying details for others in the list of the Twelve, but not for Matthew.4 Bauckham is working on the premise that Mark was published in the AD 60s and that Matthew and Luke were likely published in the AD 80s.5
Consider also Ben Witherington III, who contends that the unknown author of the Gospel of Matthew, whose Markan “source he normally follows quite closely,” evidently had “access to some special Matthean material and knew that the man’s [Levi’s] personal name, the name by which Jesus called him, was Matthew.”6 Witherington is working on the premise that Mark was published around AD 70 and that Matthew was written “in the last couple decades of the first century.”7
John Nolland is also noteworthy, for contending that the unknown author of Matthew’s Gospel has replaced Levi with Matthew (Matt. 9:9) for the sake of “explicitly working toward the completion of the Twelve (Matt. 10:1–4).”8 The author “secures the link” by adding “tax collector” to the identification of Matthew in the list of the Twelve.9 Nolland is working on the premise that Matthew was published after Mark, but “before the beginnings of the buildup to the Jewish War” which resulted in “the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70.”10
On the other hand, Craig Blomberg understands Matthew and Levi to be the same person, who is also the “most plausible choice for author” of the Gospel.11 However, when speculating on how Levi might have come to have the name Matthew, Blomberg suggests that “perhaps it was the name he came to be more known by in his later ministry.”12 By “later ministry,” Blomberg has the AD 50s of 60s in view, given his premise that Matthew was published in the late AD 50s to 60s, sometime after Mark.13
I tend to favor Matthew Henry’s view: “perhaps Matthew was the name he was most known by as a publican, and, therefore, in his humility, he called himself by that name, rather than by the more honorable name of Levi.”14 On my premise that Matthew was published within a decade of the resurrection and ascension, it is reasonable to assume that this alternative name was that which he used when serving as a tax collector and then as a disciple.
I am not claiming here that all those who subscribe to later dates dismiss the possibility that Matthew and Levi are the same person or necessarily claim that some unknown author made an editorial decision—for whatever reason—to identify Matthew as the tax collector in Matthew 9:9. However, there does appear to be a bias against accepting that Matthew had both names at the time when he was called by Jesus, per our limited sampling above. My point is simply that publication assumptions sometimes do impact our understanding of the biblical text. In this case, the identity of the man whom Jesus calls in Matthew 9:9.
- A New Year’s Exhortation by Edmund Calamy
To launch us into the new year, I offer an “Epistle to the Reader,” by Edmund Calamy. Calamy was a Presbyterian minister before, during, and after the turbulent years of the English Civil Wars. For a period, he was a chaplain to Charles II, but was subsequently ejected from the church as a nonconformist, in 1662. For some time he was empowered to grant publication licenses to theological works, and in 1648 he issued the Imprimatur for Clavis Bibliorum, by Francis Roberts, to which he also provided his “Epistle” as a Forward. I am always encouraged to see the faithfulness of prior generations and trust that you will find it as encouraging as I have. [The spellings have been modernized. Italics are per the original.]
There is no one duty more commanded or commended in the Word of God or more practiced by the saints of God, than the diligent and conscientious reading of the Holy Scriptures. Our Savior Christ commands us not only to read them, but to search into them. The apostle Paul commands us not only to have them with us, but in us, and not only to have them in us, but to have them dwelling and abiding in us, richly in all wisdom. David professes of himself that the Law was in the midst of his bowels. And that “he had hid the word in his heart, that he might not sin against God. Augustine says of himself, that the Holy Scriptures were his holy delight. And Jerome tells us of one Nepotianus, who by long and assiduous meditation of the holy Scriptures, had made his breast the Library of Jesus Christ. And for my part, I have always observed, that the more holy and humble any man is, the more he delights in the Holy Scriptures; and the more profane and proud any man is, the more he slights and undervalues them. Cursed is that speech of Politian that proud critic, that he never spent his time worse than in reading the Scriptures. And famous is the answer of Basil to that cursed apostate Julian who said of the Scriptures, That he had read them, understood them, and condemned them; but Basil answered him excellently: That he had read them, but not understood them, for if he had understood them, he would not have condemned them.
No man that hath the Holy Spirit, but will love those books which were written by holy men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. As David said of Goliath’s sword, There is none to that, give it me, so may I [also] say of the Holy Scriptures. There are no books like these books, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation and to make the man of God absolute, and perfect unto every good work. And therefore let me persuade all men to read these books, and not only to read them, but to meditate on them day and night: and to hide them in their hearts as a divine cordial; to comfort them in these sad days; as a divine lamp, to guide them in this hour of darkness; as as part of the whole Armour of God, to enable them to resist temptation in this hour of temptation, that is coming upon the whole earth.
And when they read them, to read them with a humble heart, for God hath promised to give grace to the humble, and to teach the humble his way. To read them with prayer, that God would open their eyes, that they may understand the wonders of His law. To read them with a godly trembling, for fear lest with the spider these should suck poison out of their sweet flowers, and wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction, as they that are unstable and unlearned. To read them with a purpose to practice what they read. He that practices what he understands, God will help him to understand what he understands not. To read them in an orderly and methodical way.
And for their better help herein, to take this ensuing treatise [Robert’s book] in their hands. It is short and pithy; it sets the whole Bible before them in an orderly, plain, and perspicuous manner, and helps them to understand ever book. The author of it is a godly learned minister, well known and very well esteemed in this famous city. The book itself is called The Key of the Bible, because it unlocks the richest treasury of the Holy Scriptures. Take this Key with you, whenever you go into this treasury … The God that made these books, can only un-riddle these books. And therefore when you use this Key, pray for that other Key, and pray unto Christ to deal with you as He did with his apostles, To open your understanding that you may understand the Scriptures.
So prays Your Servant in Christ Jesus,
Edmund Calamy.
Edmund Calamy, “An Epistle to the Reader,” in Clavis Bibliorum: The Key of the Bible, Unlocking the Richest Treasury of the Holy Scriptures, by Francis Roberts (London: George Calvert, 1648), iii–ix.
- A Christian remembrance of the birth of Jesus, circa AD 40 (& Merry Christmas!)
Welcome to our gathering, brothers and sisters, children of Israel who belong to the Way. Tonight we remember the birth of our Lord and Savior, who was born into this world roughly forty years ago. Jesus was the promised son of David, anticipated by the prophets, announced by an angel, born of a virgin, worshiped by magi from the east, and protected from the murderous jealousy of both Herod the Great and his son Archelaus. Jesus, the Christ, would live among us and ultimately give his life on our behalf on the cross, pouring out his own blood for the forgiveness of our sins, and then be raised on the third day. He preached a message of repentance, of salvation, and of faith.
Tonight, let us read from the Scripture which the Lord’s disciple, Matthew, has provided for us, with the blessing of the elders in Jerusalem. Matthew was the Lord’s scribe, who carefully chronicled the story and teachings of our Lord, as he traveled in Judea and Galilee. But Matthew was also a prophet, proclaiming the message of God. And now this Scripture has been delivered to us here in the diaspora for our encouragement, and so that we might know the truth concerning this Jesus, the Son of God.
Hear, O Israel, the Word of the Lord:
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac was the father of Jacob, and Jacob was the father of Judah and his brothers. …
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. … Now all this took place in order that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled, saying, “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.” … Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem … and [they] came and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken through the prophets would be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.” (LSB)
Praise God for his provision, for his redemption, for his Son.
[Of course, this is merely a reconstruction, a parable, as we play out what it would have looked like to have Matthew publish his Gospel to the Jewish Christians within a decade of the resurrection, coincidence with the events in Acts 10–11. Merry Christmas to my readers!]
- Response to NOBTS review: The language of Matthew and the use of the dative of respect for contrast
One reason that scholars tend to discount the testimony of the earliest church fathers concerning Matthean priority is due to the apparent claim that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Hebrew (or Aramaic). For example, Irenaeus is commonly translated as stating that “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.”1 This is an odd assertion, given that “there is little extant evidence of a non-Greek version of our Matthew. … Furthermore, if Irenaeus is here explaining the origins of a Hebrew version of Matthew, which is on a par with the Greek versions of the other Gospels, then nowhere does he explain where, when, and from whom the Greek version of Matthew was produced. For these reasons, what are we to make of Irenaeus’s statement?”2
In A Trustworthy Gospel: Arguments for an Early Date for Matthew’s Gospel, I propose that Irenaeus—in speaking of the origins of the Gospel of Matthew of which he is familiar—should instead be translated as “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews, in a language contrasting with their own.”3 My contention is that the dative forms in tē idia autōn dialectō should be treated as datives of reference/respect, in which a contrast is being asserted between the language of the Gospel and the language of the Hebrews. Accordingly, Irenaeus’ point is that “Matthew published in Greek, a language which was not the native language of the Hebrews.”4
MacGregor objects to this approach, with the following:
Regarding tē idia autōn dialectō, there is to my knowledge no other instance where a dative of respect means “contrasting with” as opposed to “corresponding to,” which is how Daniel Wallace understands his proffered renderings “with reference to, concerning, about, in regard to.”5
This is an accurate representation of Wallace.6 However in Trustworthy Gospel, after Wallace is cited I then go on to cite the older BDF lexicon, which “characterizes the ‘dative of respect’ as being ‘appropriate when contrast is involved either in the text or in the mind’.”7 This is followed by a discussion of the contrastive sense which exists within several NT passages which offer Greek translations for Aramaic words. Accordingly, I do encourage the present reader to walk through the argument, as presented in the book.
Again, key to my novel proposition is the understanding that the dative of respect assumes conceptual distance or remoteness between the thing being described and the noun in the dative, while establishing a relationship between them. Whether contrast is necessarily present seems to depend on whose definition of “dative of respect” is employed. Nonetheless, Nigel Turner echoes BDF’s assessment: “The dative of respect … is especially used when contrast is involved.8 Citing BDF, Lexham similarly states that a dative of respect references an object “for the sake of comparison, often in an abstract sense.”9 Hence, if this BDF and Turner concept of the dative of respect is accepted as viable, then the traditional translation of “in their own language” warrants a reassessment, as it does not convey any sense of remoteness, contrast, or comparison.
For those readers who might be struggling with this proposed 180 degree reversal relative to the traditional approach for interpreting tē idia autōn dialectō—effectively shifting from “in their own language” to “not in their own language”—consider the datives of advantage and disadvantage, whereby a given dative can have opposite meanings depending on the context.10 This flexibility of the dative for conveying opposite for/against meanings is akin to the confusion which Wallace highlights, which can occur between the dative of reference/respect and the dative of sphere, wherein “the resulting ideas frequently have the opposite meaning.”11 Context is critical.
Admittedly, most identified instances of the dative of respect within the biblical text have only a very mild contrastive sense in referring to the object or concept of concern, if any. Yet, there are instances where this contrastive sense appears more pronounced. Following are several NT passages, in addition to those provided in the book, which can be understood as employing the dative of respect to convey a contrastive sense.
In Hebrews 5:11, the author complains that “you have become dull of hearing” (ESV). However, the ESV’s rendering involves a bit of smoothing of the underlying “νωθροὶ γεγόνατε ταῖς ἀκοαῖς.” Allen views the ἀκοαῖς as “a dative of respect … [which] probably contrasts the readers’ state with what has just been said about Jesus in Heb 5:7–10, where concepts of ‘hearing’ and ‘obedience’ occur.”12 Moo also characterizes ἀκοαῖς as “a dative of respect” and refers to Turner’s Syntax for understanding this usage of the dative.13 A more wooden translation would be “you have become dull with respect to your hearing” or, to bring out the contrastive sense, I suggest: “you have become dull in contrast to hearing.”
In 3 John 12, Demetrius is introduced “in the dative case, likely a dative of respect or reference,” according to Jobes, as: “‘regarding Demetrius.'”14 Jobes notes that “this [introduction of Demetrius] does not follow the convention in extant letters of introduction, where the name of the person being introduced is given in the nominative case.”15 However, commentators often note the obvious contrast which is being developed, with Demetrius being introduced as one who has a good testimony and should be imitated, as opposed to the evil Diotrephes.16 While the contrastive aspect of the dative is not acknowledged by commentators, it offers a natural explanation for the use of the dative in the flow of the letter when introducing Demetrius, in the sense of “in contrast to Demetrius” and so on.
In 2 Corinthians 7:11, as Paul applauds the zeal of those who had been grieved by his prior letter, to the point of repentance, he then declares: “At every point you have proved yourself innocent in the matter” (ESV). As in Hebrews 5:11, the phrase ends with an adjective, followed by an equative verb, and then an article and noun in the dative: ἁγνοὺς εἶναι τῷ πράγματι. Harris identifies the article as “anaphoric, [referring back to] ‘that well-known matter under discussion,’ and the dative is a dative of respect.”17 While the ESV translation is preferred, the implied contrastive sense could be more strongly illustrated if the passage was translated as: “you have proved yourself innocent in contrast to this [grievous] matter.”
In Hebrews 8:12, Jeremiah 31:34 is paraphrased, as the Lord declares that “I will be merciful toward their iniquities.” To emphasize the contrastive sense, the ἵλεως ἔσομαι ταῖς ἀδικίαις αὐτῶν might have instead been translated as “I will be merciful in contrast with their iniquities.”
I’d like to close on a note of humility. It is always risky to propose something novel, especially a radically new translation of a familiar passage. I welcome Dr. MacGregor’s critique and other challenges which may come. We’ll see how well this reinterpretation of Irenaeus stands up to such, with regard to Matthew’s original language.