The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (55 page)

³⁶
Gundry,
Matthew
, 22.

³⁷
See C. L. Quarles, “Midrash as Creative Historiography: The Portrait of a Misnomer,”
JETS
39 (1996): 457–64.

³⁸
S. Sandmel, “Parallelomania,”
JBL
81 (1962): 2–13.

³⁹
For an analysis of the questionable premises, methodological weaknesses, and tenuous conclusions of midrash criticism, see Quarles,
Midrash Criticism
, 68–103. Compare with the interchange between D. J. Moo and R. H. Gundry in
JETS
26 (1983): 31–86.

⁴⁰
Goulder,
Midrash and Lection
.

⁴¹
For a more thorough summary of Goulder's view, see Quarles,
Midrash Criticism
, 7—9.

⁴²
Nolland,
Matthew
, 19. Compare with the section “Matthew as Biography” in Keener,
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
, 16-24.

⁴³
Nolland,
Matthew
, 19.

⁴⁴
See the similar discussion in Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 158.

⁴⁵
Bauckham (
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
, 226–30) argued that Papias's concern was over the lack of chronological order in Mark and the disruption of Matthew's superior order in the Hebrew original when the Gospel was adapted by Greek translators. He concluded that Mark and the Greek of Matthew lacked chronological order by comparing these Gospels to the John.

⁴⁶
See further the discussion below.

⁴⁷
See Hagner,
Matthew 1–13
, liii, also citing D. C. Allison, “Matthew: Structure, Biographical Impulse and the
Imitatio Christi
,” in
The Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift F. Neirynck
, ed. F. van Segbroeck et al. (Leuven: University Press, 1992), 1208.

⁴⁸
B. W. Bacon,
Studies in Matthew
(New York: Holt, 1930).

⁴⁹
See the collection of the Hebrew Psalter into five books. Another instance of the number five in Matthew is the inclusion of five women in the opening genealogy in 1:1–17: Tamar (v. 3), Rahab and Ruth (v. 5), Uriah's wife (v. 6), and Mary the mother of Jesus (v. 16).

⁵⁰
J. D. Kingsbury,
Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom
, 2d ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989). See J. C. Hawkins,
Horae Synopticae
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1899); cf. the critique by F. Neirynck, “
Apo tote erchato
and the Structure of Matthew,”
ETL
64 (1988): 21–59, cited in Hagner,
Matthew 1–13
, li.

⁵¹
See Hagner (
Matthew 1–13
, lii–liii), who further listed chiastic and other proposals, none of which prove compelling.

⁵²
See the section on major Matthean theological themes below.

⁵³
Gundry,
Matthew
, 10–11.

⁵⁴
Ibid. See Hagner (
Matthew 1–13
, li), who objected that “certain parts of the Gospel do not fit into this structure at all.” He cited Matthew 11 and 23 as well as the infancy and passion narratives and contends that the fivefold structure is “a subsidiary structure rather than the primary one.”

⁵⁵
See the discussion in Carson and Moo (
Introduction to the New Testament
, 134–36), who wrote, “That Matthew reports extensive teaching of Jesus outside the five discourses is no criticism of the outline: the fivefold sequence of narrative and discourse does not assume that Jesus is not portrayed as speaking in the narrative sections....The point, rather, is that the five discourses are so clearly marked, from a literary point of view, that it is well-nigh impossible to believe that Matthew did not plan them.”

⁵⁶
For a thorough discussion of Matthew's genealogy, see D. L. Turner,
Matthew
, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 25–32 (including the chart comparing Matthew's and Luke's genealogy of Jesus on p. 29). Compare D. S. Huffman, “Genealogy,” in
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
, ed. J. B. Green, S. McKnight, and I. H. Marshall (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992), 253–59.

⁵⁷
Matthew mentioned Tamar (posed as a prostitute, scandalous pregnancy), Rahab (a prostitute), Ruth (lay down at Boaz's feet overnight; see also Ruth 3:14), and Bathsheba (with whom King David committed adultery) (Matt 1:3,5–6,16). See E. D. Freed, “The Women in Matthew's Genealogy,”
JSNT
29 (1987): 3–19; and J. Nolland, “The Four (Five) Women and Other Annotations in Matthew's Genealogy,”
NTS
43 (1997): 527–39.

⁵⁸
See the chart under Major Theological Themes below. On Jesus as “Immanuel,” see D. D. Kupp,
Matthew's Emmanuel: Divine Presence and God's People in the First Gospel
, SNTSMS 90 (Cambridge: University Press, 1996).

⁵⁹
Josephus,
Ant.
17.167–69;
Jewish War
1.437, 443–44, 550–51, 659–60, 664–65. See Keener,
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
, 110–11; R. T. France, “Herod and the Children of Bethlehem,”
NovT
21 (1979): 98–120.

⁶⁰
See the discussion on the chronology of Jesus' life in chap. 3 above.

⁶¹
Though note that the Hb. in these uses is
tsemach
, not
netser
; but see the corporate use of
netser
in Isa 60 :21.

⁶²
“Righteousness” is an important theme in Matthew's Gospel, especially in the early portions of Matthew: see the reference to those who “hunger and thirst for righteousness” (5:6); Jesus' requirement that his followers' “righteousness” exceed that of the Pharisees (5:20); and his injunction that his disciples seek first “the kingdom of God and His righteousness” (6:33).

⁶³
E.g., D. C. Allison Jr.,
The New Moses: A Matthean Typology
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). On the Sermon on the Mount, see R. A. Guelich,
The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding
(Dallas: Word, 1982); D. A. Carson,
The Sermon on the Mount: An Evangelical Exposition of Matthew 5–7
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978); J. Jeremias,
The Sermon on the Mount
, Facet Books 2, trans. N. Perrin (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963); W. D. Davies,
The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount
(Cambridge: University Press, 1964); D. M. Lloyd-Jones,
Studies in the Sermon on the Mount
, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976); J. R. W. Stott,
Christian Counter-culture
(Leicester, UK: InterVarsity, 1978); and D. Bonhoeffer,
The Cost of Discipleship
, rev. ed., trans. R. H. Fuller (New York: Macmillan, 1963). Compare C. Quarles,
The Sermon on the Mount for Today
(Nashville: B&H, 2009).

⁶⁴
See T. L. Donaldson,
Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology
, JSNTSup 8 (Sheffield: Almond, 1985).

⁶⁵
Note that Matthew's preferred term is “kingdom of heaven” (used 32 times, though “kingdom of God” does occur five times; Mark, Luke, and John do not use the term “kingdom of heaven”). “Heaven” is most likely used to avoid overt reference to God, in typical Jewish fashion, though both expressions appear to be used synonymously. See C. C. Caragounis, “Kingdom of God/Heaven,” in
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
, 417–30, esp. 435–29.

⁶⁶
Note that this is one of only two instances of
ekklēsia
in all the Gospels (the other reference is in 18:17). For this reason a nontechnical translation such as “messianic community” seems preferable to the standard rendering “church” in Matt 16:18 and 18:17.

⁶⁷
It also taught that we should pay our taxes.

⁶⁸
See the more detailed discussion below.

⁶⁹
See
b. Megillah
21a and
b. Sotah
49a; cf. the reference to Jesus' ascending the mountain and sitting in Matt 15:29.

⁷⁰
The “mountain motif” constitutes an important Matthean motif in its own right, spanning all the way from the abovementioned mountain on which Jesus delivered his first major body of teaching (chaps. 5–7) to the mountain at the end of the Gospel where he uttered his Great Commission (28:16–20). See Donaldson,
Jesus on the Mountain
.

⁷¹
Davies and Allison (
Matthew
1:423–24), Stott (
Christian Counter-culture
, 20–21), and Hagner (
Matthew 1–13
, 85–86) agreed that the Moses typology is present here. Guelich (
Sermon on the Mount
, 52) and D. A. Carson (“Matthew,” in EBC 8 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], 129) disagreed due to the force of arguments in Davies (
Setting of the Sermon on the Mount
, 93, 99). In fact, Davies later changed his position as the ICC commentary reflects. See the list of interpreters in Keener (
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
, 164, n. 10).

⁷²
Bacon,
Studies in Matthew
. See discussion above.

⁷³
See the list of commentators in Keener,
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
, 74, n. 6. Keener himself downplayed the numerical symbolism, conjecturing that “perhaps fourteen was simply Matthew's average estimate of the generations” or that “Matthew preferred a round number for each set of generations, perhaps for ease of memorization.”

⁷⁴
See Hagner,
Matthew 1–13
, 41; Gundry,
Matthew
, 40; and Davies and Allison,
Matthew
, 1:277–79 (though they see this as a “secondary” allusion). Others who affirmed this view include M. Black, K. Stendahl, U. Luz, A. Schlatter, and B. Weiss.

⁷⁵
Hebrew terms other than
neser
are used to identify the Branch in these texts. See also Zech 3:8 and 6: 12.

⁷⁶
I. H. Marshall, “Son of Man,” in
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
, 776.

⁷⁷
Ibid., 781.

⁷⁸
In the Pentateuch (LXX), “gifts” are described as effecting atonement only twice (Lev
9:7
; Num 15:25).

⁷⁹
See the “Index of Quotations” and “Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels,” in
The Greek New Testament
, 4th ed., ed. B. and K. Aland et al. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1993), 887–901.

⁸⁰
One quotation and seven allusions to Isaiah 53 appear in Matthew, and 1 Peter is only slightly behind Matthew with one quotation and six allusions, a remarkable concentration for such a brief letter.

⁸¹
See A. J. Köstenberger and P. T. O'Brien,
Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission
, NSBT 11 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001), 87–109 (with further bibliographic references).

CHAPTER 5

CORE KNOWLEDGE

Basic Knowledge:
Students should know the key facts of Mark's Gospel. With regard to history, students should be able to identify the Gospel's author, date, provenance, destination, and purpose. With regard to literature, they should be able to provide a basic outline of the book and identify core elements of the book's content found in the Unit-by-Unit discussion. With regard to theology, students should be able to identify Mark's major theological themes.

Intermediate Knowledge:
In addition to mastery of the core content identified in Basic Knowledge above, students should be able to present the arguments for historical, literary, and theological conclusions. With regard to history, students should be able to discuss the evidence for Markan authorship, date, provenance, destination, and purpose. With regard to literature, they should be able to provide a detailed outline of the book. With regard to theology, students should be able to discuss Mark's major theological themes and the ways in which they uniquely contribute to the NT canon.

Advanced Knowledge:
In addition to mastery of the core content identified in Basic Knowledge and beyond the Intermediate Knowledge noted above, students should be able to interact with theories about Mark's identity. In addition, they should be able to evaluate critically Peter's role in the writing of Mark's Gospel, assess the originality of the various proposed endings to the Gospel, and be able to discuss the theological Significance of the Markan “messianic secret” motif.

INTRODUCTION

T
HE GOSPEL OF Mark is the shortest of the four Gospels and has the least unique material. While it does not use the word
euangelion
as a title, it is the only Gospel to refer to its message about Jesus as the “gospel” (1:1).
¹
It is regarded by many as foundational to the other two Synoptic Gospels, Matthew and Luke. About 92 percent of it is paralleled in Matthew, about 48 percent in Luke, and about 95 percent in Matthew and Luke combined.