Comments are temporarily disabled.
- Allusions in 1 Thessalonians 2:13–16 to Matthew 23
On the premise that Matthew was published coincident with the events of Acts 10–11, and that Matthew was one of the Scriptures which Paul examined in the synagogues on his missionary journeys, and also that he left copies with each of the churches, how does this paradigm serve to change our understanding of Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians, likely written around AD 49–51?
Many commentators have reflected on the relationship between the eschatological discourses in the Gospels (Matt. 24–25, Mark 13, and Luke 21) and the eschatological material in the Thessalonian epistles (1 Thess. 4:13–5:11; 2 Thess. 2:1–12). Notably, Gary Shogren demonstrates that Matthew’s Gospel provides the best parallels to Paul’s eschatological teaching in the Thessalonian letters, including the shared use of technical vocabulary.1 Shogren even goes so far as supposing that Paul “knew and taught something resembling the Matthean tradition,” although Shogren declines to speculate regarding the “date for the final publication of Matthew’s Gospel.”2 In contrast, after examining the parallels, Bernard Orchard concludes that Paul did indeed use Matthew’s Gospel in composing his letters.3 Further, Orchard contends that parallels are also to be found between 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 and Matthew 23:31–39, although modern scholars commonly reject the notion that there is linkage to a published Gospel.4 Nevertheless, we will now take our own look at the parallels between 1 Thessalonians 2:13–16 and Matthew 23 within the framework of the above premise, for I suggest that Paul makes more intertextual references to Matthew 23 than those which Orchard highlights.
The Word of Men or the Word of God? Paul praised the Thessalonians, for they had received the word, “not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13 ESV). This verse begins the connection to Matthew 23. The Pharisees, as teachers of the law, were to be proclaiming the word of God. Instead, they were “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9), laying man-made burdens on the people (Matt. 23:1–4), and subverting the word of God with their own teachings (Matt. 23:16–24). Paul thanked God that the Thessalonians knew the difference between these human teachings and his own teaching.
Imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus in Judea. In Matthew 23:5–15, the Pharisees were condemned for seeking honor and respect and for seeking to train up proselytes who would imitate them (who would then become “twice as much a child of hell”). Thankfully, the Thessalonians instead chose to honor and imitate the churches in Judea.
Endured suffering from their countrymen as they did from the Jews. Jesus had anticipated the persecution that would come from the Jews (Matt. 23:34).
The Jews had killed the prophets, Jesus, and were persecuting Christians. This is an unambiguous allusion to Matthew 23:34.
The local Jews had hindered Paul from preaching to the Thessalonians, Bereans, etc. This finds a parallel to Jesus’s condemnation of the Pharisees who had “shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces” (Matt. 23: 13) by their false teaching and poor example.
The Jews had filled up the measure of their sins. This is another strong intertextual reference to Matthew 23 (23:32).
Wrath had come upon the Jews. Paul here is applying the promise of judgment in Matt. 23:32 to the abuses that the Jews experienced in AD 48–49 under Ventidius Cumanus, procurator of Judaea (AD 48-52), as were documented by Josephus.5 Even though there had been a measure of judgment, Paul yet anticipated a more severe wrath when the Son finally came in judgment, a wrath which believers would escape (1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9).
What is the significance, if these are indeed intertextual references? Ian Turner uses the term “broad reference” to refer to “the intertextual phenomena where a NT author signals his audience to refer to the wider context of the precursor (OT) text,” and thereby to invite “readers to make further sense of the passage by bringing more into play from the wider OT context.”6 According to Turner, this signaling is accomplished through the use of multiple allusions or citations to a specific OT passage.7 Correspondingly, I see Paul’s intertextual references—as he repeatedly invokes the broader context of Matthew 23:1–36—as subtly encouraging the Thessalonians to continue embracing his teachings over those teachings that may come out of the Pharisaic schools, so that they don’t themselves become blind and duplicitous guides; and further, I see Paul as more fully developing a contrast between what it means to walk in a manner worthy of God (1 Thess. 2:12) versus what it is to walk in a manner which displeases God (2:15), as exemplified by the Pharisees.
Note also that once it is recognized that an author has intentionally established an intertextual link, based on citations or strong allusions, less explicit connections become more visible. For example, the intertextual approach has allowed us to derive a more specific understanding of the opening verse, as not simply drawing a contrast between the “word of God” and the “word of men,” in a generic sense, but with the “word of men,” as referring specifically to the teachings of the Pharisaic Jews, who are the antagonists throughout the Matthew 23 passage.8
NOTE: Comments and dialog are welcome. The “Leave a Reply” field will be accessible below for 10 days after this post was published. Afterwards, please feel free to continue to comment via the contact page. (This is my attempt to manage the spam bots.)
- A few reflections upon the one year anniversary of my first book
The life of study is austere and imposes grave obligations. It pays, it pays richly; but it exacts an initial outlay … The athletes of the mind, like those of the playing field, must be prepared for privations, long training, a sometimes superhuman tenacity. We must give ourselves from the heart, if truth is to give itself to us. Truth serves only its slaves. — A. G. Sertillangers, O.P.1
An inescapable sentimentality accompanies an anniversary. It is a day like any other. Yet with the dawning of a new year, one flutters between reflection and anticipation. What could have been? What will be?
Last weekend marked the one year anniversary of the publication of my first book. I’d like to offer some thoughts and suggestions for the benefit of others heading down this road.
Composing the manuscript was gratifying—to see conference papers woven together, new ideas fleshed out, and so on. The publisher was supportive, easy to work with, and kept to the planned schedule. The up front costs were acceptable, in order to offer my corrective to a discipline which has seemingly forgotten the significance of written materials even back in the Greco-Roman era. Plus, it allowed my participation in the guild of authors, for whatever that is worth. And then the book was published.
Since then, I have been thankful for the sage wisdom offered in Sertillangers’ the Intellectual Life. It was required reading for a thesis writing course at Western Seminary. Indeed, it should be required reading for all those contemplating the writing of books grounded in biblical study and academic research. In addition to the encouragement towards being organized, self-disciplined, etc., I have appreciated the warning that there would be a level of isolation associated with becoming a specialist in a narrow field. I am extremely grateful for the few souls out there who have connected with the book; and yet, they have subsequently moved on to other happy pursuits, while I continue pressing on in my little niche. Be forewarned.
The publisher advised that authors should establish a presence on the web and on social media. Hence, the development of this web site and my engagement with other sites that touch on Gospel origins. (Social media isn’t really appropriate for this discipline.) Indeed, the web has proved a nice forum for not only further refining and expounding the arguments for an early Matthew but also for exploring the implications of such—all of which may lead to a future book. For the aspiring author, this is well worth your time.
Challenges await those who manage to get their first book published. First is the uncertainty as to whether anyone is actually purchasing or reading the book. With my publisher, I receive a royalty check once a year and that is the only visibility provided on sales. However, I have discovered that visibility to library acquisitions is available through worldcat; I check such far too often and then happily run to my wife with each additional listing. Plus, there are digital libraries like perlego and hoopla that can be monitored—am still hopeful that EBSCO may acquire my book! To be clear, I don’t ever expect to recoup the up front costs; however as with a child, I do want to see the book and the ideas prosper.
Second is the long delay in getting any journal reviews, as they seem to occur a year or two after a book is published. Am constantly checking the seminary web sites, but this is proving to be a long wait! Accordingly, I am extremely grateful for the NOBTS review that came out a mere eight months after book publication. So, if you have sympathetic professors who might be willing to write reviews, then work that angle. To get the word out, I’ve also given out stacks of books at conferences and such, hoping that these will foster interest.
What comes next? I will be finishing up the ThM at Liberty later this year. And then? We’ll see what doors the Lord opens!
Dan
P. S. Many thanks to my wife for allowing me to engage in these early-retirement pursuits!
- Mark and Luke’s transitional language when integrating resequenced episodes from Matthew
On the premise that Matthew was published coincident with the events in Acts 10–11 and Mark shortly thereafter, with full knowledge of Matthew’s Greek text, I have been evaluating the passages which Mark chose to resequence–from Matthew–into earlier settings within his own narrative. Refer to “Mark’s resequenced episodes, assuming Matthean priority” for a survey of these resequenced passages. At the same time I’ve also accepted, per a prior blog post (Recasting Mark’s kai euthys as “and then”), that when Mark uses kai euthys (καὶ εὐθύς) to carry forward a story he is often using it in the sense of a simple kai connective, without necessarily asserting brevity or even chronological order.
The purpose of this particular blog post is to demonstrate that when either Mark or Luke integrate a resequenced Matthean passage they consistently use transitional language which does not assert a chronology which competes with that presented by Matthew. Accordingly, Mark and Luke can both be understood as resequencing Matthew’s episodes for the sake of providing thematically organized narratives.
The following table identifies the transitional language found in Mark and Luke which introduces one or more displaced episodes from Matthew’s Gospel. As before, I am working off of a helpful synopsis published by Bernard Orchard, which uses diagonal lines to indicate the passages which have been resequenced.1 In this assessment, I am excluding some of the teaching events, such as the parables and the larger discourses, as Jesus may well have taught things at multiple times. Plus, the narrative summary statements are generally excluded.
As can be observed, neither Mark nor Luke use transitional language which necessarily asserts a chronology which competes with Matthew’s chronology.
Teaching with Authority Mk 1:21b. καὶ εὐθὺς τοῖς σάββασιν. Lk 4:31b. καὶ … ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν. Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-Law Mk 1:29. καὶ εὐθὺς. Lk 4:38. X δὲ. Healing of a Paralytic Mk 2:1. Καὶ εἰσελθὼν πάλιν. Lk 5:17. Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν. Plucking Grain on Sabbath Mk 2:23. Καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν. Lk 6:1. Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ Jesus and Beelzebul Mk 3:22. καὶ. n/a Anxiety of Mothers/Brothers Mk 3:31. Καὶ ἔρχονται. Lk 8:19. X δὲ.
NOTE: Comments and dialog are welcome. The “Leave a Reply” field will be accessible below for 10 days after this post was published. Afterwards, please feel free to continue to comment via the contact page. (This is my attempt to manage the spam bots.)
- Thomas Townson’s arguments for an early Matthew
As I have searched out those who affirmed an early publication of Matthew, I have particularly appreciated the writings of Thomas Townson. Born in Essex, Townson (1715–1792) was educated at Oxford’s Magdalen College, was ordained in 1742, ministered in Blithfield, and for an extended period was the Rector of the Lower Mediety of Malpas, in Cheshire.1 His Discourses on the Four Gospels began as a series of sermons first preached in Blithfield; these sermons were subsequently re-preached at Magdalen, in 1771.2 Following the publication of the Discourses in 1778, he was awarded an honorary Doctor in Divinity by the College.3 I take this honor as a general affirmation of the positions which Townson argued, on behalf of the luminaries of the College. More on his life can be found in the preface to The Works of the Reverend Thomas Townson, published in 1810.
In his introduction to the Discourses, Townson declares his conviction that the “Gospels were composed in the order in which they stand; [or] at least that St. Matthew’s was the first and St. John’s the last; that St. Matthew wrote early in Jerusalem or Judea,” and that Matthew was “compiled within a few years of our Lord’s ascension, while the church consisted wholly of the circumcision, that is, of Jewish and Samaritan believers, but principally Jewish believers; to whose use it was admirably suited.”4 In his first discourse, he proceeds to give an “account of the peculiar design of each Gospel and [to] show to what state of the church it was adapted.”5 The second discourse explores the writings of the early church fathers, concerning the origin of the Gospels. This is followed, in the third discourse, with comparisons between the Gospels to demonstrate that each writer had seen the prior Gospels. The subsequent discourses assess the design, date, place of origin, audience, sequence, etc. of each of the four Gospels.
I want to encourage the present reader to seek out Townson’s Discourses and to explore his many arguments for an early Matthew. As an enticement, here are several arguments which I find particularly compelling from his third discourse. These concern his belief that “a Gospel should be first and early published at Jerusalem.”6 [I will apologize that this first item is a bit difficult to read, but you can get the sense of it.]
- It had been repeatedly promised to the house of Israel, that out of Zion should go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem [Isa. 2:3; Micah 4:2]. Which Divine Promise received a more complete accomplishment, and the house of Israel had the preeminence in every thing relating to the kingdom of God; if the law or word, written as well as preached, first went forth from Zion to all other churches, as from a mother to the daughters.
- At the giving of the law from mount Sinai there was an oral promulgation of the commandments, and they were written in two tablets of stone.
- The method of joining oral and written notifications of the same things appears to have been judged by the Apostles the surest method: for thus they acted, when they issued their decree concerning rites to be observed by the converted Gentiles. It was sent to Antioch by message and in writing. And if they were so careful, that their own decree should be justly evidenced and published, we cannot suppose them less solicitous, that the life and doctrine of their blessed Lord should be proposed to believers in an ample and satisfactory a manner.
- Myriads of Jews who had embraced the faith were yet zealous of the law. And it is well if expectations of a temporal kingdom, and an inveterate confidence in rites and ceremonies did not still operate on the minds of the multitude, and require line on line, precept on precept, to teach them the spiritual nature of Christ’s kingdom, and that it demanded internal and universal obedience. These truths were indeed inculcated by the preaching of the Apostles; but if their followers were to read Moses and the prophets in their houses, it was fit that they should have opportunity of studying the law of Christ in the same manner.
- But a great number of them could seldom hear the instructions of the Apostles, who according to ancient and constant tradition resided wholly in Judea for several years after the ascension. And though the Gospel was at first preached only to the Jews, it was not limited to Judea, but spread beyond it. Many converts were made of those who came to Jerusalem only on solemn occasions, and for the rest of the year lived in other countries far distant from it. These converts must naturally desire to carry home with them a written Gospel for their own sake and for the promotion of the faith.7
Free scans of the book are available for download at archive.org.
NOTE: Comments and dialog are welcome. The “Leave a Reply” field will be accessible below for 10 days after this post was published. Afterwards, please feel free to continue to comment via the contact page. (This is my attempt to manage the spam bots.)
- Mark’s resequenced episodes, assuming Matthean priority
Which of Mark’s episodes were resequenced, on the assumption that Mark had Matthew’s Gospel available to him? For this exercise, I am excluding some of the teaching events, such as the parables, as Jesus may well have taught things at multiple times. Plus, the narrative summary statements are also excluded.
Bernard Orchard offers a helpful synopsis, which not only assumes Matthean priority, but also aligns the other Synoptics by use of diagonal lines, rather than by shuffling the Gospel episodes out of their natural order to make them align with each other, as is the practice with many synopses.1 Accordingly, the resequenced passages that are of the most interest are as follows:
Healing and Exorcism Stories (Mark 1:21–1:34). Three healing and exorcism stories, beginning in Mark 1:23, have been grouped together to form a series of episodes which begin on the Sabbath and then continue on into the evening. These include (1) the casting out of an unclean spirit in the Capernaum synagogue (1:23–28), which does not have a counterpart in Matthew; (2) the healing of Simon’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:29–31), for which a slightly shorter account is found in Matthew (8:14–15); and (3) the evening healings of the sick and of those oppressed by demons (Mark 1:32–34), which is also reported in Matthew (8:16–17). After the events at the synagogue, Mark reports that the people are amazed at not only Jesus’s authoritative teaching, but also the authority which he has over unclean spirits, such that his fame immediately spreads “throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee” (Mark 1:27–28).
Conflict Stories (2:1–3:7a). Following the cleansing of the Leper, Mark now collects and expands on stories which demonstrate the building conflict with the religious leaders. These includes three episodes from Matthew 9—the healing of the paralytic (and the blasphemous forgiveness of sins), the calling of Levi (and the scandalous meal with tax collectors and sinners), and the questions about fasting (with the patch and wineskin parables challenging the old ways). To these are added two episodes from Matthew 12—the plucking of grain (on the Sabbath) and the healing of a hand (on the Sabbath).
Jesus’s True Family Stories (3:20–35). Just after Jesus names the twelve, Mark creates a literary structure commonly called a sandwich. As the first bread slice, Mark begins with a report which is not found in the other Gospels, that Jesus’s family “went out to seize him,” convinced that He was “out of his mind” (Mark 3:20–21). Then, Mark incorporates three episodes from Matthew 12—the Pharisaic charge that Jesus was casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul (Matt. 12:24–30; Mark 3:22–27), the corresponding teaching on blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:31–32; Mark 3:28–30), and finally, the report that His family was outside, along with the teaching that His true family consists of those who do God’s will (Matt. 12:46–50; Mark 3:31–35), as the final slice of bread.
Fig Tree Cursing and Temple Clearing (11:12–21). Of all the sequential differences between Matthew and Mark, it is the disparate sequences of the fig tree cursing and temple clearing which appear to most distress biblical scholars. In Matthew 21, the narrative reports (1) the triumphal entry and (2) the temple clearing, followed by (3) a trip to Bethany for the night, and then, (4) “in the morning, as he was returning to the city,” Jesus curses a fig tree, causing it to wither “at once (παραχρῆμα)” (Matt. 21:1–19). This causes (5) the disciples to marvel and remark at its immediate withering, which is followed by (6) a teaching on faith and prayer (Matt. 21:20–22). While in Mark, after the triumphal entry, the temple clearing is delayed until after an overnight trip to Bethany and a “following day” cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:1–19). Then, the morning after the temple clearing, the disciples observe the withered tree, which is followed by the teaching on faith and prayer (Mark 11:20–25). Hence, at a surface level, Matthew appears to present the events from the triumphal entry to the final teaching as though spanning two days, whereas Mark’s narrative not only rearranges events by splitting the fig tree encounter but also appears to present the events as though spanning three days.
I am presently finalizing a paper for a class, which I hope to then have published, which addresses all of the above resequenced passages, demonstrating not only that Mark has not created chronological issues by resequencing these passages, but also that there is exegetical significance to Mark’s resequencing.
(The withered fig tree episode has already been addressed on this website in an earlier pair of blog posts.)
NOTE: Comments and dialog are welcome. The “Leave a Reply” field will be accessible below for 10 days after this post was published. Afterwards, please feel free to continue to comment via the contact page. (This is my attempt to manage the spam bots.)