Rosary2007's Weblog

Words from GOD – Words to GOD

Mathew 1-7, The Life of Jesus, part 2, by Archbishop Uwe AE.Rosenkranz, MA,D.D

Jesus

Mathew 1-7
The Life of Jesus

Introduction

Research Surveys
Hans Conzelmann, “Literaturbericht zu den synoptischen Evangelien,” ThR 37 (1972) 220–72, esp. 257–63; 43 (1978) 3–51, esp. 35–43.
Daniel J. Harrington, Light of all Nations: Essays on the Church in New Testament Research (Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1982) 83–109.
David Hill, “Some Recent Trends in Matthean Studies,” IBSt 1 (1979) 139–49.
Andreas Lindemann, “Literatur zu den Synoptischen Evangelien 1984–1991,” ThR 59 (1994) 41–100, 113–85, 252–84 (on Matthew in particular, 147–85).
Joachim Rohde, Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) 47–112.
Donald Senior, What Are They Saying about Matthew? (New York: Paulist Press, 1983).
Graham Stanton, “The Origin and Purpose of Matthew’s Gospel: Matthean Scholarship from 1945 to 1980,” ANRW 2.25/3 (1984) 1889–1951.

The excellent Danish commentary by Mogens Müller, (Matthaeusevangeliet [Dansk kommentar til Det Nye Testamente 3; Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 2000]) offers a thorough bibliography that includes the Scandinavian language works not available to me.
Preliminary Remarks. As in the commentary’s various analytical sections, here in the introduction I will first discuss problems of synchronic analysis before turning to those of diachronic analysis. Then I will examine problems of style, of origin, and of reception. Since it is not possible to offer extensive documentation, almost everything I offer will be illustrative. The readers are invited to use the indices at the ends of the various volumes.
This introduction does not offer a portrayal of Matthean theology. Neither does it contain a summary of the history of interpretation or a discussion of the significance of Matthew’s Gospel for the present. Instead, there is a theological summary at the end of each of the five major discourses as well as at the end of chaps. 8–9 and of chap. 23. A brief theological summary of Matthew’s entire Jesus story appears at the end of vol. 3. I have dealt more extensively with the theological content of the Matthean narrative elsewhere. At the end of this introduction I offer a number of the hermeneutically important perspectives that characterize the commentary.
1 Structure and Basic Character of Matthew’s Story of Jesus

Literature
Dale C. Allison, “Matthew: Structure, Biographical Impulse and the Imitatio Christi,” in Segbroeck, Four Gospels, 2.1203–21.
Benjamin Wisner Bacon, “The ‘Five Books’ of Moses against the Jews,” Expositor 15 (1918) 56–66.
Idem, Studies, 80–90.
H. J. Bernard Combrink, “The Structure of the Gospel of Matthew as Narrative,” TynB 34 (1983) 61–90.
J. C. Fenton, “Inclusio and Chiasmus in Matthew,” StEv 1 (1959) (TU 73) 174–79.
Frankemölle, Jahwebund, 331–47.
Paul Gaechter, Die literarische Kunst im Matthäusevangelium (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1965).
David W. Gooding, “Structure littéraire de Matthieu, XIII,53 à XVIII,35,” RB 85 (1978) 227–52.
H. B. Green, “The Structure of St. Matthew’s Gospel,” StEv 4 (1968) (TU 102) 47–59.
Hugh Minear Humphrey, “The Relationship of Structure and Christology in the Gospel of Matthew” (diss., Fordham, 1977) 6–154.
Kingsbury, Structure, 1–37.
Idem, Story, 1–94.
Krentz, “Extent.”
Josef Kürzinger, “Zur Komposition der Bergpredigt nach Matthäus,” Bib 40 (1959) 569–89.
Xavier Léon-Dufour, “Vers l’annonce de L’Église: Matthieu 14,1–16,20,” in Études d’Évangile (Paris: Seuil, 1965) 231–54.
Charles H. Lohr, “Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew,” CBQ 23 (1961) 403–35.
Luomanen, Entering, 51–66.
Frank J. Matera, “The Plot of Matthew’s Gospel,” CBQ 49 (1987) 233–53.
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “The Structure of Matthew XIV–XVII,” RB 82 (1975) 360–84.
Frans Neirynck, “La rédaction matthéenne et la structure du premier Évangile,” in Ignace de la Potterie, ed., De Jésus aux Évangiles: Tradition et redaction dans les Évangiles synoptiques (BEThL 25; Gembloux: Duculot, 1967) 41–73.
Idem, “ΑΠΟ ΤΟΤΕ ΗΡΞΑΤΟ and the Structure of Matthew,” EThL 64 (1988) 21–59 (reprinted in idem, Evangelica 2 [BEThL 99; Louvain: Peeters, 1991] 141–82).
Mark Allan Powell, “The Plot and Subplots of Matthew’s Gospel,” NTS 38 (1992) 187–203.
Michel Quesnell, Jésus-Christ selon saint Matthieu: Synthèse théologique (Paris: Desclée, 1991) 166–80.
Léonard Ramaroson, “La structure du premier Évangile,” ScEs 26 (1974) 69–112.
Rainer Riesner, “Der Aufbau der Reden im Matthäus-Evangelium,” ThBei 9 (1978) 172–82.
Christopher R. Smith, “Literary Evidence of a Fivefold Structure in the Gospel of Matthew,” NTS 43 (1997) 540–51.
Benoit Standaert, “L’évangile selon Matthieu: Composition et genre littéraire,” in Segbroeck, Four Gospels, 2.1223–50.
The Structure of Matthew 1–13: An Exploration into Discourse Analysis. Neot 11 (1977) (with articles by P. Kotzé, M. van der Merwe, A Snyman, A. B. du Toit, P. Maartens, W. Nicol, J. P. Louw, H. J. B. Combrink, B. Lategan, W. Vorster).
Structure and Meaning in Matthew 14–28. Neot 16 (1982) (with articles by H. Combrink, A. van Aarde, H. C. van Zyl, P. de Villiers, B. Lategan, P. Maartens, S. Rieckert).
Dan O. Via, “Structure, Christology and Ethics in Matthew,” in Richard A. Spencer, ed., Orientation by Disorientation: Studies in Literary Criticism and Biblical Literary Criticism, Presented in Honor of William A. Beardslee (Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 35; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980) 199–217.
1.1 Basic Problems

There appears to be broad agreement in scholarship that our Gospel can be divided into sections. There is little agreement, however, when it comes to making such divisions. One seldom asks whether Matthew even had an outline of his book in mind or whether he was too strongly bound to his sources. Here it is already clear that in analyzing the structure we cannot avoid diachronic questions.3 If we were to ask only synchronic questions about the narrative thread, its arrangement, and the function of its individual elements, we would presuppose that Matthew intended to create of his material his own work and thus in a sense to “dominate” the material. It may be, however, that he wanted instead to be in the service of the material and “only” to interpret it. Then it would be less the case that Matthew was the master of his material and more that his material was his master. Then only to a limited degree could we discover his own arrangement in the Gospel of Matthew.5 I will begin, therefore, with three methodological theses:
1. We can inquire in a methodologically controllable way only about the features that on the level of the text make plausible an intentional arrangement of the text. These characteristics permit conclusions about the author’s intention.
2. The belief that we can discover a structure in the Gospel of Matthew is not “neutral.” It already contains assumptions for a possible understanding of the Gospel.
3. If we do not discover any general structure, that does not necessarily mean that Matthew was an incompetent author. Hidden here might be an intention of the author that we would have to interpret.
History of Research

The research offers a rather chaotic picture. We can distinguish roughly among three basic types.
a. The first is the model of the five books that goes back to Bacon. It is based on the five discourses that Matthew has emphasized with an almost identical concluding formula: Matthew 5–7; 10; 13:1–52*; 18*; 24–25*. Bacon prefaced each of them with a narrative section so that the entire Gospel consists of the five books (3–7; 8–10; 11–13:52*; 13:53–18*; 19–25), the introduction (1–2), and the conclusion (26–28). It is possible, but not necessary, to compare this five-part outline with the five books of the Pentateuch so that the Gospel of Matthew would be the new Torah and Jesus the new Moses.7 The relationship between the contents of the narrative sections and their corresponding discourses is quite varied; sometimes they are minimal. Therefore it is also possible to attach the narrative sections to different discourses. In my judgment a unified coordination of the discourses with their narrative context is not possible. Chapters 8–9 belong with the preceding Sermon on the Mount in chaps. 5–7 as the inclusion 4:25*/9:35* shows. The sending discourse of chap. 10 connects directly with both of them. The discourses in chaps. 13 and 18 are most naturally understood as the middle of the corresponding main sections 12:1–16:20* and 16:21–20:34*. The eschatological discourse in chaps. 24–25 brings to a close Jesus’ entire activity as a kind of “testament” of Jesus for his church.
b. I would like to call a second basic type the center model. Here the Gospel is structured chiastically around a center. Most take the third discourse, chap. 13, as the center and arrange the other sections around it chiastically. Then chaps. 1–4 correspond to the concluding chaps. 26–28, the Sermon on the Mount to the eschatological discourse, and so on. There are indeed clues that suggest such parallels: chaps. 5–7 and 24–25 are the two longest discourses, while chaps. 10 and 18 are the two shortest. Furthermore, they are both disciples discourses and are almost exactly the same length. People have suggested many other such chiastic parallels, but they have elicited less agreement. Some have also located the center in chap. 11 or between chaps. 13 and 14. Thus there are also a number of variations of this basic type, and that, of course, is an argument against its plausibility. In the current debate it plays the least significant role.
c. A third basic type closely follows the Gospel of Mark. Therefore I call it the Markan structural model. It assumes a major break between 16:20* and 21*, thus after Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi. The new beginning in 16:21* (“From that time on Jesus began to show his disciples”) is much like the new beginning in 4:17* (“From that time Jesus began to proclaim”). Thus there are two main sections: Jesus’ activity and preaching in Galilee, and his way of suffering leading to Jerusalem. They correspond somewhat to the two main sections of the Gospel of Mark. Matt 1:1–4:16* is the introduction. Unlike the first two basic types, here the basic narrative pattern dominates. The narrative rather than the teaching of Jesus contained in the five discourses determines the structure. Therefore this view is especially popular with scholars who in the concerns of “literary criticism” inquire about the Matthean narrative and its plot. That is not without consequences for the question of the genre and the interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew.
Difficulties in Determining the Structure
A clear disposition is not immediately obvious for three reasons.
1. The Matthean language is highly formulaic. Numerous expressions or individual words are repeated. It is therefore difficult to make full use of connections in the vocabulary. The Gospel of Matthew is inundated with possible inclusions, yet it is not clear which of them are intended as such by the evangelist. Formulaic beginnings such as those in 4:17* and 16:21* are by no means rare.13 Why then should we emphasize just these two?
2. Beginning with chap. 12, the Gospel of Matthew follows closely the outline of the Gospel of Mark. Apart from the discourses only a few texts are inserted. However, non-Markan material dominates in chaps. 3–11. While the sequence of Mark 1:1–2:22* seems to be presupposed in Matthew 3–11, it only partially determines the outline. It is as if beginning with chap. 12 Matthew grew tired of his redactional activity. This discrepancy between chaps. 1–11 and 12–28 must be explained.
3. Matthew appears to have no interest in delimitations. Indeed, we repeatedly come across bracketing verses or pericopes that with their references backward and forward can only be called transitional pericopes. Only rarely, therefore, can we clearly distinguish between major sections.
Examples of such transitional verses, pericopes, or sections are 4:17*, 18–22*; 5:20*; 6:1*; 10:16*, 26*; all of chap. 11; 16:13–28*; 20:29–21:11*;16 21:18–22*; 24:1–3*, 32–35*; 27:57–61*. The expression “and when he finished,” and so on (καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλησεν) in 7:28*; 11:1*; 13:53*; 19:1*; and 26:1* not only concludes a discourse syntactically; it also introduces a new stage of the narrative. Expressions such as “at that time” (ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ) appear precisely where a new content is introduced, and they serve as connecting links and create the impression of a seamless narrative flow (e.g., 3:1*; 12:1*; 14:1*). Also the favorite Matthean word “then” (τότε) (e.g., 3:13*; 4:1*; 11:20*; 15:1*; 18:21*; 19:13*; 20:20*; 21:1*; 27:3*) or the expression “from then” (ἀπὸ τότε) (4:17*; 16:21*; 26:16*) often serve to connect two pericopes.17

Matthew is obviously more interested in a seamless narrative flow than in clear caesurae. That suggests that as a genre the Gospel of Matthew is a coherent narrative and not a collection of individual texts to be understood liturgically as pericopes or catechetically as instructional texts. His work resembles more the course of a river in which bends are followed by straight stretches that permit one to gain a clear perspective over long sections. Examples of “bends” in which the perspective begins to change are 4:12–22*; 11:1–30*; 16:13–28*; 20:29–21:11*; 24:1–2*. Such sections permit a view backward as well as forward.
1.2 Structuring Methods

In general it is easier to recognize the evangelist’s work in arranging shorter sections of the text than to see a disposition of the entire Gospel. We will therefore proceed by first discussing several literary techniques Matthew uses in arranging the material, and we will use the structures of individual sections as examples. A discussion of the structure of the entire Gospel will then follow.
A. Matthew brings together material that is similar in form or content.
Examples are the collection of miracle stories in chaps. 8–9, the parables in 21:28–22:14*, and the woes in 23:13–33*. The principle is not new. Q is already constructed with thematically arranged blocks of material. Mark is also aware of such blocks that in part go back to pre-Markan sources. What is new in Matthew is that in many cases he firmly anchors a block of material in the narrative thread so that it takes on a clear function at its location, such as the collection of miracle stories in chaps. 8–9 between the Sermon on the Mount and the sending discourse. Similarly, the parable collection of 21:28–22:14* has a clear function in preparing for the great reckoning with Israel.
B. There are in the Gospel of Matthew symmetries in length.
The first and last Matthean discourses are the longest, the second and fourth—almost equal in length—are the shortest, and the middle discourse, chap. 13, is of medium length. Of approximately equal length are 2:1–12* and 2:13–23*; 5:21–32* and 5:33–48*; 8:1–17* and 8:18–9:1a*; 9:1b–17* and 9:18–34*; 10:5–23* and 10:24–42*; 10:26–33* and 10:34–42*; 13:24–30* and 13:36b–43*; 18:1–14* and 18:21–35*; 24:4–41* and 25:14–46*, and so on. Of course, one may differ over the length of pericopes and also how aware Matthew was that he created such parallels. However, it is difficult to deny that they exist.19 Perhaps they show that Matthew wrote his text himself and did not dictate it.
C. Matthew composed according to definite numerical schemes. The number 3 appears to be the most important, but 2, 4, and 7 also play a certain role.
Examples of texts consisting of three sections are 1:18–2:23*; 5–7*; 5:21–7:11*; 5:21–32*, 33–48*; 6:1–18*; 6:19–7:11*; 6:19–24*; 7:1–11*; 8:1–17*; 9:1b–17*; 12:1–21*; 12:22–50*; 13:1–52*; 13:53–16:20*; 16:21–20:34*; 21:22–23:39*; 21:28–22:14*; 23*; 24:4–25:46*. One can multiply examples.20 Main sections and subdivisions are often composed according to the number three, for example, 1:18–2:23* and 2:13–23*; 5:21–33* and 5:21–26*; 6:1–18* and 6:7–15*. The number three appears frequently in Jewish texts.21 Here one must be careful about attributing content to it as if, for example, it represented perfection. We have here merely a literary systematizing principle common in oral tradition.
The other numbers are less important. Matthew constructs two series of four beatitudes (5:3–10*). The complex of miracle stories in chaps. 8–9 also consists of four parts. The number 7 plays a role in the genealogy, in the parable chapter (13), and in the woes chapter (23). The number 2 is important especially in connection with the duplications.24
D. Matthew suggests his themes by repeating key words.
Examples: “angel of the Lord” (ἄγγελος κυρίου) 4 times in 1:18–2:23*; “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη) 5 times in chaps. 5–7; “send/apostle” (ἀποστέλλω/ ἀπόστολος) 4 times in 10:2–42*; “judgment” (κρίσις) 7 times in 11:20–12:45*; “Pharisee” (Φαρισαῖος) 4 times in 12:1–45*; “brother” (ἀδελφός) 4 times, “little” (μικρός) 3 times, and “forgive” (ἀφίημι) 4 times in chap. 18; “follow” (ἀκολουθέω) 9 times in chaps. 8–9 and 6 times in chaps. 19–20; “parable” (παραβολή) 12 times in chap. 13; “parousia” (παρουσία) 4 times and “Son of Man” (υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) 6 times in chap. 24, and so on. This device is strengthened by the tendency to use formulaic language and to combine similar materials. Of course, one is reminded here of oral tradition that uses catchwords as a mnemonic technique. In Matthew such catchwords have become a literary device. For the readers of the texts—indeed, even more for their hearers—their repetition serves as a constantly recurring allusion to the theme of a section. That is why we speak of key or lead words. They give an important indication how the Gospel is to be read. Matthew wanted larger sections to be read at one reading, and he wanted them read repeatedly, for only then can key words be effective.
E. Matthew suggests his themes with title-like or summarizing central verses (kelalim).
Examples of such central verses are 1:17*; 5:17*, 20*, 48*; 6:1*, 25*; 7:12*, 21*; 10:16*, 26*; 18:10*, 14*, 35*; 24:3*, 36*, 42* + 25:13*. In the figurative sense there are also “central texts,”27 examples of which are 5:17–20*; 11:25–30*; 12:46–50*; 16:13–20*; 22:34–40*; and 28:16–20*. Such verses or texts are accentuated by their position; they open up larger connections and are full of cross-references. Kelalim are not merely headings; they are combinations and generalizations at the beginning or at the end of a section, often with a pronounced transitional function. Here Matthew is close to the Hillel rule of the general and the specific (כלל ופרט) that was much more than an exegetical rule.
F. Matthew likes repetitions and creates doublets that emphasize his intention.
The Gospel of Matthew contains many repetitions. Source critics with a simplistic approach have been accustomed to claim here that Matthew (and Luke even more) was such a poor master of his material that he leaves variants from different sources, such as the two demands for signs in 12:38–40* and 16:1–4* or the discipleship sayings of 10:38–39* and 16:24–25*. That is totally wrong. Repetitions are a didactic device. They imprint a scene on the minds of the readers as “typical.” They emphasize things that have been said earlier.31
One can see how consciously Matthew used this device in the doublets he created himself. Duplications can serve different purposes. They create, for example, a compositional framework around certain sections (e.g., 4:23*/9:35*; 19:30*/20:16*; 24:42*/25:13* = inclusions) They underscore especially important matters (e.g., 9:13*/12:7*). Sometimes they help in dealing with the same material under different aspects (e.g., 10:17–22*/24:9–13*; 7:16–19*/12:33–35*). Or they serve particular purposes such as demonstrating continuity in preaching among John, Jesus, and the disciples (cf. 3:2* with 4:17* and 10:7*). It is especially noteworthy that Matthew does not hesitate to relate the same miracle story twice and to do so as different stories (9:27–31*/20:29–34*; 9:32–34*/12:22–24*). Here we see the creation of variants as it were in situ. This feature does not fit well the image of Matthew as a tradition-bound evangelist. Still, it is not without analogies in the OT tradition. In this way the readers are able to appropriate and to repeat main ideas.32 Here too it becomes clear that Matthew presupposes a continuous reading of his book. Only then do such techniques make sense.
G. Matthew likes inclusions in larger and smaller contexts.
Repetitions of key words and duplications mean that there are a large number of inclusions. Of course, not every repeated word is to be built into an intentional inclusion. An impressive inclusion that spans the entire Gospel is the resumption of Immanuel, “God with us” (1:24–25*), at the end in 28:20*. Inclusions of medium and shorter textual units constitute, for example, 4:23* and 9:35* for the Sermon on the Mount and chaps. 8–9; 24:42*; and 25:13* for the three parables of watching; the repeated recognition verse 7:16*, 20*; the apodosis of the first and last beatitudes 5:3*, 10*; the catchword “excess” (περισσός) in 5:20*, 47*; the hand washing in 15:2*, 20*; or the catchword “Gehenna” (γέεννα) in 23:15*, 33*. Here too we have a common OT compositional technique. One must read larger textual contexts together in order to see inclusions in them. Again it becomes clear that Matthew wants his book to be read and meditated on often and in its entirety.
H. The Gospel of Matthew contains many chiastic ring compositions.
By “chiastic ring composition” I mean a series of several inclusions that surround a text in the form of a ring, thus the compositional scheme A B (C) … D … (C´) B´ A´. Even if we cannot see this compositional principle for the entire Gospel, as the “center model” assumes, we can certainly see it in individual sections. An example is the Sermon on the Mount, whose central section is the Lord’s Prayer. Examples of small units of text with chiastic arrangement are 8:28–9:1a*; 9:1b–8*; 16:13–28*; 18:10–14*; and 27:27–31*. A pre-Matthean example is 23:16–21* with the impressive climax in v. 22*. Here again we are dealing with a common technique. It is widespread in the OT, while it appears in Greek literature only in the earliest period.
I. A craft special to Matthew is his work with predictions and “signals” that anticipate things to come, suggest in advance the meaning of the entire context, and sensitize the readers for what is to be told later.
This narrative technique has a certain, but only relative, parallel in the promises of OT historical works. Its theological presupposition is that a particular event stands in the large context of a divine plan. Terminologically we are to distinguish between (a) predictions of Jesus (e.g., 8:11–12*; predictions of Jesus’ suffering or also the quotation of 12:18–21*) and (b) “signals.” As signals I understand unusual individual features in narratives that often overshoot the mark in the context and whose meaning is not clear to the readers in the immediate context. For precisely that reason they attract attention. They remain open and point beyond themselves. The prologue in particular contains such “signals.” Examples are the not directly understandable “son of Abraham” in 1:1*, the doubled name of Jesus in 1:21–23*, Herod’s strange unity with all Jerusalem, all chief priests and scribes of the people in 2:3–4*, the unidentifiable Bible quotation in 2:23*, and the quotation of 4:15–16* with “Galilee of the Gentiles” that goes beyond the immediate context. A special kind of “signal” appears in sayings of Jesus, for example, in his first saying in 3:15*,39 in the authority to forgive sins given to “the” men in 9:8*, and in his “all things were delivered” (πάντα μοι παρεδόθη) in 11:27* that can only be completely understood in the light of Easter (28:18*). Different from the “signals” that exceed their context are (c) passages that, while they are not unusual in their context, receive a deepened meaning in light of the entire Matthean narrative, for example, the rejection of the world domination offered in 4:8* on a high mountain (cf. 28:16–18*), John’s announcement that God could produce children of Abraham from stones (3:9*), and the passion of the forerunner, John, in 14:3–12*. All of these narrative techniques show that the Gospel of Matthew intends to be read as a whole and as narrative. In many places it has a depth that can be understood only in light of the whole, and it presupposes readers or hearers who know the entire story of Jesus or perhaps who are not reading or hearing Matthew for the first time.
The survey produces the following results.
a. The Gospel of Matthew is above all formed intensively in smaller units.
b. Its Sitz im Leben is the reading and especially the hearing of the text as it is read aloud. It is intended to be read in longer sections and to be read repeatedly.
Since the ability to read books may have been limited, even among the Jewish Christians in Matthew’s community, and since in any case community meetings were common in the Christian churches, one will assume that the Gospel of Matthew was read aloud to the gathered community.41 Since it would take about four hours to read the entire book, it is hardly likely that it was read at one sitting. It is probable, however, that longer as well as shorter sections were read continuously (e.g., a discourse, chaps. 8–9 or chaps. 21–23). Further, we must reckon with a lectio continua and also with repeated readings and must assume in addition, of course, that the hearers were already familiar with the story of Jesus from their common Christian knowledge. Perhaps some of them had already heard the Gospel of Mark.
c. A similarity of Matthean compositional devices with those of OT and Jewish literature is prominent. Many have their counterpart in the OT; some are more understandable in terms of rabbinic school usage.
1.3 Overall Plan

More difficult is the attempt to outline the Gospel of Matthew as a whole. We have seen many indications that the Gospel of Matthew intends to be a book of narration. In particular, Matthew made a decision in this direction by making the Gospel of Mark the basis of his own plan. Therefore, I must begin my own analysis of the structure of Matthew with the third basic model from my survey of the history of research, the “Markan” model, for this is the only model that takes the book seriously as narrative. Beginning with chap. 12, it follows the sequence of Mark 2:23–4:34*; 6:1–16:8*. Even the three major discourses in this section appear at places the Gospel of Mark already provided (Mark 4:1–34*; 9:33–50*; 13*). We will begin by examining this section of the Gospel.
The passion narrative in Matthew 26–28 and Jesus’ activity in Jerusalem (chaps. 21–25) constitute clearly recognizable units. In chaps. 21–25 the first main section portrays Jesus’ public dispute with Israel’s leaders in Jerusalem (chaps. 21–23). Jesus’ final discourse on the Mount of Olives that follows this controversy (chaps. 24–25) is directed only to the disciples; it has little to do with the great controversy with Israel and comes the closest to having the character of a farewell discourse of Jesus to his church at the conclusion of his public activity.
Finding the structure of chaps. 12–20 is more difficult. If we follow the narrative outline of the Gospel of Mark and accept Kingsbury’s suggestion that 16:21* begins a new section, the section 16:21–20:34* deals with community questions. In this main section that corresponds to the Markan instruction to the disciples about suffering (8:27–10:52*), the conflict with Israel recedes into the background. The discourse of Matthew 18 about the disciples’ fellowship fits well here.
Matthew 12:1–16:20* portrays in several stages the “withdrawal” of Jesus and his disciples from the disputes with Israel. The conflict with Jesus’ enemies (12:22–45*) already dominates the opening chap. 12. The central parable chapter (13) contains, after Jesus’ public teaching, a detailed instruction to the disciples (vv. 36–52*); Jesus, who earlier had spoken about the people’s stubbornness (13:10–17*), in 13:36* leaves the people on the shore of the lake in order to teach his disciples in the house. In each of the two following sections that begin with 13:53* and 14:34*, the word “withdraw/depart” (ἀναχωρέω) marks the point at which Jesus and his disciples withdraw from his enemies (14:13*; 15:21*).43 A final series of controversies (16:1–12*) then leads into the section on the disciples (16:13*). In this main part one might speak of the “rise of the community of disciples in the struggle for Israel.”
Others advocate in similar fashion a further subdivision of Kingsbury’s two main sections that I suggest here. To be sure, most of them make a break between chaps. 10 and 11 rather than between chaps. 11 and 12. Since Matthew conceives of the Gospel not as a series of strictly separated main sections but as transitions from one main section to the next, we are not dealing here with alternatives. Chapter 11 is a typical “transitional chapter,” a bend before a new straight stretch of the river with which we have compared the Gospel of Matthew. In the early part of the chapter in particular (11:5*) it looks back. In its polemic against “this generation” (11:16*) and in its separation between the hostile cities of Israel and the disciples’ community (11:20–24*, 25–30*) it looks ahead.45
In chaps. 1–11 Matthew shapes the material more vigorously, but here too he follows his sources. The order of Mark 1:2–2:22* is preserved in principle. However, not only Mark’s order but also that of Q is completely preserved in Matthew 3–9 and, except for the redactionally easily explainable reversed order of the two main blocks of material (the discourse about John and the sending of the disciples), in Matthew 3–11. Thus Matthew has “synchronized” his two main sources. His own contribution is mainly that in place of Jesus’ first synagogue sermon, which is not developed in detail in Mark (Mark 1:21–28*), he inserts Jesus’ programmatic discourse from Q 6:20–49 expanded to the Sermon on the Mount, and in chaps. 8–9 he then inserts into the miracle stories from Mark 1:29–2:22* additional material from later sections of Mark (Mark 4:35–5:43*) and from Q and thus creates the major miracle cycle of Matthew 8–9. Nevertheless the readers have the impression of a completely new shaping of the story of Jesus. In light of the evangelist’s clear piety even here toward his sources that is a brilliant literary achievement.
How are we to structure chaps. 1–11? The observation that 4:23* and 9:35* surround the Sermon on the Mount and the two miracle chapters 8 and 9 like a ring is decisive. To this inclusion corresponds an inner ring-shaped composition. Thus there is a unity in the portrayal of the Messiah of word (chaps. 5–7) and deed (chaps. 8–9). The sending discourse of chap. 10, where the disciples take over Jesus’ healing activity and Jesus’ preaching mission, also belongs here. Thus the sending discourse in chap. 10 inaugurates, as it were, the ecclesiological continuation of Jesus’ activity and is not, like the two following discourses, the center of its own main section.
Where shall we put the caesura between the prologue and the first block of material of the actual story of Jesus? Indeed, “caesura” is not the right word, since 4:12–22* is a transitional section. Matt 4:12–16* looks back to the prologue with its numerous, often geographically oriented fulfillment quotations, and it connects with 2:22–23*. At the same time the text speaks of Galilee, the scene of Jesus’ activity in the following chapters. Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God in 4:17* not only looks ahead, it also repeats literally John’s proclamation from 3:2*. Matt 4:18–22* introduces the disciples, who from now on will always accompany Jesus. However, not until 4:23* is the outline given of the content of the narrative section that now follows.
I designate 1:2–4:22* as the prologue. It is a christological and salvation-history prelude and at the same time the beginning and anticipation of Jesus’ entire way from the city of David, Bethlehem, to “Galilee of the Gentiles.”49 The call of the disciples in 4:18–22* suggests, much as does chap. 10, the ecclesiological dimension of the story of God’s Son.
The first block of the Matthean story of Jesus (4:23–11:30*) relates then the teaching and healing of the Messiah, Jesus, among his people Israel and of the sending of his disciples to them.
In my judgment it is wrong to say that the evangelist’s creative power becomes fatigued in the second part of the Gospel. Instead, the prologue communicates to the readers the most important perspectives from which the evangelist may have read the Gospel of Mark (1:2–4:22*). The first narrative block (4:23–11:30*), which is strongly reworked by Matthew, tells in broad terms how Jesus came to the nation of Israel in word and deed. What follows—namely, the conflict in Israel, the rise of the community of disciples in Israel, the great reckoning, and finally the passion of the Messiah—can only be told against this background. In other words, the newly narrated Gospel of Mark can be read only on the basis of chaps. 1–11.
With these considerations behind us, we are now in a position to formulate a hypothesis about the meaning of Matthew’s entire Jesus narrative. Since the late 1980s, especially Anglo-Saxon literary criticism usually asks here about the meaning of the Matthean “plot.” The word “plot” has become a technical term and is almost untranslatable into German. It corresponds to the Greek word “myth” (μυ̃θος) in the description of the basic elements of a tragedy in Aristotle’s Poetica. The μυ̃θος is the “composition of the actions” (σύνθεσις τῶν πραγμάτων), the manner in which the events are arranged in the text. So what is the meaning of the Matthean “plot”?
Working Hypotheses

My first working hypothesis for the commentary is:
1. The Gospel of Matthew tells the story of Jesus’ activity in Israel. He, the Messiah of his people, who teaches them and heals them (4:23–9:35*), is opposed by Israel’s leaders, among whom the Pharisees are the most important. There are conflicts; Jesus withdraws with his disciples (12:1–16:20*), the community of disciples in Israel arises (16:21–20:34*). In Jerusalem Jesus comes to a reckoning with Israel’s hostile leaders and pronounces judgment on them and the people who finally side with them (21:1–24:2*). Jesus is executed and at the end appears to his disciples in Galilee, from whence they proclaim his commandments “to all nations” (26–28).
Thus the Gospel of Matthew tells the story of a conflict. The two (unequal) parties of the conflict are Jesus, the Son of God, and the Jewish leaders: Pharisees, scribes, chief priests. At the end of this conflict there is a schism. In connection with this conflict and, as it were, “embedded” in it the story of Jesus’ relationship to his disciples is told. This is not a story of conflict but a story of teaching and learning, of misunderstanding and of understanding, of failure and new beginning. These two tensions are already present in the Gospel of Mark, but it seems to me that their weight is uneven in the two Gospels. The Gospel of Mark is primarily a story of Jesus with his disciples, who misunderstand him and fail when faced with his suffering. Jesus’ conflict with Israel and his way to the Gentiles are also present, but their influence is only secondary. Now in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus’ conflict with Israel’s leaders becomes the main conflict that leaves its imprint on the story of Jesus, while Jesus’ struggle with his disciples is, if anything, minimized. Instead of disciples who lack understanding and who fail there are learners and people of little faith.53
To the first working hypothesis I add a second:
2. Experiences of the Matthean church are reflected in the Matthean Jesus story. It is a Jewish Christian church that has experienced the painful failure of its own mission to Israel and its separation from majority Israel and that now must reorient itself. Thus it reads the Matthean story of Jesus not only as a story about the past but as an “inclusive story”—a story that includes its own experiences. It is, much like the Johannine Jesus story, a “two-level-drama”55 in which the past story of Jesus at the same time portrays and makes understandable the history and present situation of the church. Thus unlike the Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of Matthew does not portray a beginning in the past that then would need to be continued in a second volume that brings the story up to the present. Instead, it is a “foundation story” that transcends the time difference.
I will not offer evidence here for this second working hypothesis. Later discussions will elaborate on it: on the historical situation of the Matthean church, on its relationship to Judaism,57 on the Matthean christology, on the Matthean understanding of the disciples, and on the miracle stories.60
I would like still to call attention to an open question. Along with the representatives of “literary criticism,” I begin with the assumption that the entire Matthean Jesus story is the decisive key to understanding it even in its details. Speaking against that assumption, however, is, on the one hand, ancient reading possibilities and, on the other hand, the history of the text’s reception. According to everything that we can surmise about the literacy of the members of the Matthean churches, only a very few of the readers have read or heard this story in one reading. They have probably read or heard individual texts or blocks of texts, and they bring as traditional knowledge to the experience a summary picture of the entire story of Jesus. To a certain degree this picture has already permitted them at their first reading to understand an individual section against the background of the entire story of Jesus. But the reception history shows that in reality this was hardly the main point of view for later readings, for it is essentially the history of the reception of individual stories about Jesus and individual sayings of the Lord.62 From the second to the twentieth century there was little sense of the particular “plot” of the Matthean Jesus story. Does that mean that Matthew substantially failed in his intention, since his later readers did not recognize what was unique about his Jesus story? Or are we on the wrong path today when we put so much emphasis on the particularity and the entirety of the evangelist’s individual stories of Jesus? I dare to ask the question without being able to answer it.
Discourses

In my judgment, the five major discourses are not the key to the structure of the Gospel, yet they have a decisive significance for the Gospel of Matthew. They contain the “gospel of the kingdom” (4:23*), that is, the proclamation of Jesus that remains valid for the present and that Matthew has inserted into his Jesus story primarily from the Sayings Source. The five major discourses that the evangelist has especially emphasized with his concluding formula in 7:28–29*; 11:1*; 13:53*; 19:1*; and 26:1* have in common that they do not move the action along. In this regard they differ from Jesus’ other discourses that are not especially emphasized, for example, from 11:7–25*; 12:25–37*, 39–45*; 21:28–22:14*; and 23:2–39*.64 These discourses do move the action along, especially the main conflict, Jesus’ dispute with Israel. Thus they stand as it were within the Matthean Jesus story. However, the five major discourses do not move the action along. That is most clear in the so-called sending discourse in chap. 10. Although Jesus sends the disciples out, they do not leave. According to 11:1* Jesus himself leaves.65 It is also clear in the parable discourse in chap. 13. Although Jesus leaves the people here (13:36*) and speaks of their stubbornness, after this discourse his relationship to the people is just as positive as it had been before (cf., e.g., 14:13–21*, 22–23*, 35–36*). Even chaps. 24–25, Jesus’ farewell discourse to his disciples, are a permanently valid, remaining legacy of Jesus to his church. Thus my thesis is: The five major discourses are spoken, as it were, “beyond the window” of the Matthean story of Jesus. That is, they are spoken directly to the readers and are Jesus’ direct commandment to them. This distinguishes them from the other discourses that as part of the Matthean Jesus story are primarily valid for the addressees named in the story, for example, the cities of Galilee (11:20*), the scribes and Pharisees (12:38*), the chief priests and elders (21:23*), or the scribes and Pharisees before the assembled people (23:1*; cf. 13*). In the five discourses spoken beyond the story’s window into the present, however, the disciples, as figures with whom the readers could identify, are either exclusively the addressees (10:1*; 13:36*; 18:1*; 24:3*) or at least mentioned along with the people (5:1–2*).
Why are there five discourses? Of course, we must think here of the Pentateuch, the biblical foundation story that Matthew already has in mind in the title, 1:1*, and that he often remembers later with, among other things, allusions to the story of Moses in chap. 2 or with Jesus’ new Torah on the mountain (see on 7:28–29*). Although one can detect no parallels between the individual books of the Pentateuch and the individual parts of the Gospel of Matthew,68 this impression is immediately suggested to the readers. Thus Matthew writes for his community a foundation story structured similarly to the Pentateuch. Here as there “instruction” for the present in the form of discourses is inserted into the story of God’s activity with his people (“Immanuel”). The recollection of the Pentateuch also suggests something of the claim Matthew attaches to his story of Jesus and the words of Jesus preserved in it—words on which the issue of salvation and destruction is resolved (cf. 7:24–27*). In this sense his book is “proto-canonical.”
Summary

Thus the Gospel of Matthew relates the story of the Son of God, Jesus. Matthew’s most important basic theological decision was to use the Gospel of Mark as the only foundation from which Jesus’ proclamation can shed light. Theologically that means: He joined Jesus’ ethical proclamation of the kingdom of God to the story of God’s activity with Jesus, thus making it the proclamation of grace.
2 Genre and Intention of the Gospel

Literature
Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? (SNTSMS 70; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
Albrecht Dihle, “The Gospels and Greek Biography,” in Peter Stuhlmacher, ed., The Gospel and the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 361–86.
Richard A. Edwards, “Uncertain Faith: Matthew’s Portrait of the Disciples,” in Fernando F. Segovia, ed., Discipleship in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985) 47–61.
Goulder, Midrash.
Idem, “Sections and Lections in Matthew,” JSNT 76 (1999) 79–96.
Gottfried Schille, “Bemerkungen zur Formgeschichte des Evangeliums II: Das Evangelium des Matthäus als Katechismus,” NTS 4 (1957/58) 101–14.
Philip L. Shuler, A Genre for the Gospels: The Biographical Character of Matthew (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982).
Stanton, Gospel, 54–84.
Idem, “Matthew.”
2.1 The Genre
State of Research

The discussion about the genre of the Gospel of Matthew has not yet led to a consensus. The following five suggestions, two of which appeared already in the ancient church, delineate the contours of the present discussion.
a. The early church made a fundamental decision (influenced by Mark and by the Matthean usage of εὐαγγέλιον) by placing the title εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ … (“[The] Gospel According to … “) at the head of its books about Jesus. In so doing it claimed for them a generic uniqueness. The stories about Jesus Christ are Gospels and thus are stories sui generis. They are proclamatory stories and are not simply to be attributed to any profane genre.
b. The earliest Christian recipients have defined the Gospel of Matthew as λόγια (sayings) or as ἀπομνημονεύματα (remembrances). No precise statements about a genre are associated with these two designations. The designation “remembrances” would permit the following possible connotations. On the one hand, the “remembrances” of the apostles are multifarious, more a collection of individual happenings72 than a literary work of one casting. On the other hand, they are trustworthy, for they come from the apostles.
c. In recent scholarship an attempt to designate the genre on the basis of its Sitz im Leben has led to describing the Gospel of Matthew as a lectionary or as a catechism. The Sitz im Leben was then the church’s worship or teaching. The difficulty with this designation of the genre is that it cannot take seriously the character of the Gospel of Matthew as narrative. The rise of “literary criticism” with its related application of story and sociology to the text has diminished the popularity of this description of the genre.
d. The most widespread view today is that the Gospel of Matthew is a biography. The representatives of this thesis call attention to the numerous similarities between Gospels and ancient biographies: among them the chronological framework, the episodic style, the partially thematic-systematic structure and the didactic-parenetic purpose. The addition of Matthew 1–2 has made the Gospel of Matthew more like a biography than Mark was. The skeptics counter by pointing out the differences between the Gospels and ancient biographies. If the one is about instruction, the other is about faith. At any rate, the salvation-history framework and the references to the Bible are missing from biographies. Above all, Matthew relates not the typical story of an exemplary man but the completely unique story of God with the man Jesus. Designating the Gospels as biographies is made both more difficult and easier by the fact that there is no precise description in antiquity of the genre “biography.” For assigning a text to the “genre biography” there are few clear criteria and many uncertainties.77
e. Finally, some have tried to describe the Gospel of Matthew as a kerygmatic history book in the style of the OT, as a new draft of a sacred foundation story that in literary terms is oriented on Deuteronomy and on the Chronicler’s History. Such a description of the genre takes seriously, on the one hand, the claim of the Gospel of Matthew that is much higher than that of a biography and, on the other hand, the fact that Matthew follows biblical and not Hellenistic models. In form-critical terms, however, it is hardly precise, and it also presupposes certain literary and theological theses that are problematic.79
Matthew as Gospel

What is the genre of the Gospel of Matthew? Methodologically, with Gospels that originated at the intersection of two cultures, we must distinguish between the formal model the author had in mind when writing the text and formal models that led later readers as they read. If we think about the latter, Matthew certainly reminded many of his Jewish and Hellenistic readers of a Hellenistic βίος, especially when we bear in mind that the description of the life of a man from birth to death in the framework of Jewish writing was something extraordinary.
If, however, we ask about the former, the idea of a “biography” is, in my judgment, quite remote. In this cultural circle biographies are as good as unknown; presumably even Matthew was not familiar with any ancient biography. He gave his Jesus story an intentionally biblical coloring. By telling the story of a man, namely Jesus, from his birth to his resurrection in the light of the Bible he does something quite un-Jewish in Jewish garb.
Above all, however, he took the Gospel of Mark as his basic text. It served as his foundation story that he expands and retells much as biblical and Jewish authors did with Israel’s foundation story. In this sense biblical authors such as the authors of the Priestly documents or the Chronicler’s History, Jewish authors such as the authors of the Book of Jubilees or the Liber Antiquitatum, or the authors of Qumran’s parabiblical literature are Matthew’s kindred. The difference was that his foundation story was no longer the biblical story but a new one, namely Mark’s story of Jesus.
Between the biblical-Jewish literature and the Gospels, including the Gospel of the Jewish follower of Jesus, Matthew, the foundation story changes. With his story of Jesus Matthew tells a new foundation story that permits him to understand Israel’s previous foundational text, the Bible, in a completely new light. In my judgment, here in the framework of the biblical-Jewish tradition and literary activity something completely new, a revolution, happened.
The ancient church recognized this revolution when it put the title “Gospel” at the head of Matthew’s Jesus story and thus created a new genre designation. In so doing it not only expressed a theological judgment; it also did justice to Matthew’s intention.
2.2 Matthew’s Narrative as Communication with the Readers

I understand the Matthean Jesus story not in the sense of American “literary criticism” as a pure textual world but as a text in the world. I also do not ask about the “implied reader” as a text-immanent person. I ask instead about the strategies implied in the text for guiding the readers as the communication strategies of an actual author with actual readers in a concrete situation. Important for me are not the text-immanent “implied reader”—who is merely the construct of a (modern) exegete—but the first readers of the Gospel of Matthew in their actual situation. Thus I would like to understand the configurations of the “implied reader” as a “window” to the actual readers of whom the author was thinking. I would like to relate to history that part of “literary criticism” and of “reader response” that is important for me.
Assumed Readers
I begin with several brief indications of the “ideal” reader the text presupposes. He is literate—that is, he can read, or at least hear, a longer story. He has a good memory that makes it possible for him to remember and to make fruitful macrotextual connections. He has a good knowledge of the Bible and is also able to understand allusions to Bible texts not cited as quotations (e.g., 1:21*; 7:23*; 9:13*; 27:24–25*). He knows the history of Israel in its entirety (1:2–17*). He is a member of the Christian community and familiar with the Jesus traditions so that sometimes Matthew can simply abbreviate them (e.g., 9:2–8*). He may, but does not have to, be familiar with the Gospel of Mark.86 He participates in Christian worship. He is ready to acknowledge Jesus as his Lord and to let himself be determined and led by his words. He has a Jewish “encyclopedia” and reads or hears the texts against the background of an understanding of terms and motifs influenced by the Greek Bible. He is familiar with Jewish halakot, customs, and institutions but is willing to criticize them. It is, of course, an open question how much the first readers of the Gospel of Matthew actually matched this image. Since Matthew will prove to be a “community theologian,”88 however, we can assume that he probably knew for whom he was writing.
A few additional characteristics of the readers presupposed by the text are:
1. The readers speak Greek; a knowledge of Aramaic or Hebrew is not presupposed (see 1:23*; 27:46*).90
2. The readers are ordinary members of the church rather than church leaders (see esp. 18:1–20* and 23:8–12*).
3. The readers are “male.” Here I am not saying that women did not also read and use the Gospel of Matthew. I am saying, however, that although Matthew passes on stories about women, he does not show a visible interest in their situation. His own language is, of course, patriarchal, without that perspective being particularly emphasized.
4. The intensity of the Matthean criticism of wealth (6:19–34*; 10:9*; 13:22*; 16:24–26*; 19:16–30* + 20:16*) suggests that there may also have been rich persons among the members of the Matthean church.
Connecting with the Readers: Literary Strategies

What, however, are the literary strategies that enable the readers to enter the Matthean Jesus story and combine their own experiences with it?
In discussing here the configurations of the “implied reader” in Matthew I will follow David B. Howell, who offers their clearest description, without agreeing with him in every detail. In so doing my own interest is in the actual reader’s involvement in the Matthean Jesus story that the text hopes to achieve.
1. The narrator. In comparison with other texts, there is little emphasis on the authority of the narrator, Matthew. There is no author’s preface; the author immediately plunges medias in res or medium in Christum (1:1*). There are few commentaries by the narrator or direct addresses to the readers (cf. 24:15*).93 One can say that on the whole compared with the main character of the story, Jesus, the implied author recedes into the background.
2. Jesus. By contrast, Jesus has an extraordinary authority for the readers. Initially noteworthy for readers influenced by Judaism is the narrator’s unusual, “biography-like” concentration on a single main character. From the very beginning Jesus is introduced as the one who is who he is for the believing community, namely as son of David (1:1*), Immanuel (1:23*), and Son of God (2:15*). In other words, for the readers it is not a stranger who speaks in the Gospel but their own Lord. It is to be kept in mind here that Matthew not only inserted the five discourses into his narrative in which Jesus speaks directly to the readers and hearers in the present; in his Jesus story he also abbreviated his Markan source so that in all individual reports Jesus’ words are in the foreground. With sayings of Jesus he especially likes to use the historical present: He says that Jesus “speaks” instead of that he “spoke.”94 Thus the Jesus stories and the Jesus sayings are fundamental for the readers because they relate to them the decisive “point of view.” They look at the disciples and the Jewish opponents through Jesus’ eyes. They also look at themselves through Jesus’ eyes.
3. Apart from Jesus, the disciples are the most important figures for the readers. They identify with them, because they understand themselves to be “disciples” of Jesus, and they “follow” Jesus. The readers themselves are present in the Jesus story in the figure of the disciples. They are the most important narrative instrument for making the Matthean Jesus story an “inclusive” story. In the Gospel of Matthew the disciples are characterized not as lacking understanding, as in Mark, but as learners who are brought to understanding by the teacher, Jesus (13:13–23*, 51*; 16:12*; 17:13*). They ask questions that Jesus answers (e.g., 18:1–2*; 24:3–4*). That also describes the role of the readers in the Gospel of Matthew. Of course, they have a prior knowledge that the disciples do not have since, for example, they are aware of the Gospel’s prologue, where the disciples were not even present yet. It is precisely the difference between their knowledge and that of the disciples, however, that shows them that as a disciple of Jesus one has never stopped learning and that one must constantly “go to school” to Jesus, the teacher.
The same is true of the disciples’ behavior. In the Gospel of Matthew they are described “realistically,” just as they are, as of “little faith” (e.g., 8:26*; 14:31*; 16:8*) or—as in the case of Peter—as wavering between courage and failure, confession and resistance to suffering, denial and remorse. Matthew paints a portrait not of “ideal” but of “actual” disciples. However, that does not at all mean that they therefore recede into the background in the Gospel of Matthew as a configuration of the implied reader.96 Instead, they are that configuration in a completely specific way. The readers recognize in the behavior of the disciples real behaviors and feelings that they too might have. At the same time they share Jesus’ “point of view” and thus also know what they think about themselves, on whom they depend and how they must change. Experiencing the difference between Jesus’ “point of view” and the reality of the disciples’ behavior leads them in regard to themselves to recognize that “discipleship will be viewed as a situation that is never completed.”
With regard to the entire story of Jesus they will accompany their master in his conflict with Israel’s leaders, distance themselves from Israel’s bad leaders, and, finally, leave the temple with Jesus and be with him on the Mount of Olives (24:1–3*).
4. Other figures with whom the readers can identify. Here we refer in particular to men and women who come to Jesus asking for help and who address Jesus in the language of the church as “Lord” and who ask him for deliverance (e.g., 8:2*; 15:22*; 17:15*; 20:29–34*). This is especially clear with the healings of the blind, since “blindness” is also to be understood metaphorically, and every believer has, through Jesus, been changed from a “blind” to a “seeing” person,98 while by contrast the Pharisees are “blind leaders of the blind” (15:14*). The women in the passion narrative also are positive figures with whom the readers can identify (26:6–13*; 27:55–28:10*). One can also identify indirectly with the magi (2:11*) as well as with the centurion and his people (27:54*), thus with Gentiles. The Jewish leaders are figures from whom the readers turn away, not only because of their hostility toward Jesus portrayed with perfidy (e.g., 12:14*; 27:3–8*) but also because they obey neither Jesus’ commandment nor their own commandments (chap. 23; 26:63*).
It is difficult in this context to make a judgment about the Matthean portrait of the people. Matthew says often that the people “followed” Jesus (e.g., 4:25*; 8:1*; 12:15*; 14:13*; 19:2*; 20:29*) and in so doing permits the connotation of a “potential church.”99 In other places the people provide a narrative contrast to the Jewish leaders and thus emphasize the leaders’ malice and their lack of faith (e.g., 9:33–34*; 12:23–24*; 14:5*; 21:8–11*, 26*). There is generally a difference between Jesus’ sayings and narrative texts. While Jesus often, and sometimes for the readers surprisingly, makes negative statements about Israel as a whole (e.g., the words about “this generation” in 11:16*; 12:39–45*; 17:17*; 23:36*; also 8:11–12*; 13:10–15*; 23:37–39*), in the narrative texts he repeatedly turns graciously to the people. Their attitude toward Jesus remains (distantly) positive until they finally turn against him in the passion narrative (27:24–25*). Jesus’ many harsh words against the people prove to be “signals” in the whole of the Matthean narrative for what is going to happen at the end. Generally, one will probably emphasize more the role of the people in the context of Jesus’ conflict in Israel about which Matthew tells them than the few possibilities offered the readers for identifying with them.100
Conclusion

It is clear that the narrator Matthew involves his readers in his Jesus story. They understand the Jesus story with which they already were generally familiar as their story with Jesus. It is the story of their Lord and teacher—indeed, the story of Immanuel Jesus in which they experience God’s continuing presence with them (28:20*). They do not hear it as outsiders. Thus the “inclusive” Jesus story is directly meaningful for them.
Various observations indicate that the story gives the readers room for interpretation. More than in the authoritative sayings of Jesus, in the narrative it is left up to the readers how they will identify with the model persons, how they will connect their own experiences with those related in the stories, and which stories and figures are especially important for them. That the Matthean Jesus story offers the readers figures in addition to the disciples with whom they can identify is just as important as the reality that the “realistic” portraits of the disciples require of the readers that they both identify with and are distanced from the disciples.
Taken as a whole, the Jesus story is for the readers a story of hope. It shows those who repeatedly doubt and lose courage that Immanuel Jesus is trustworthy. It holds up to those who in their own story and in the Matthean Jesus story have experienced the enmity of Israel’s leaders and the separation from Israel (24:1–2*) that the conflict in and with Israel is the way that God himself has led Jesus. Thus the Jesus story Matthew tells strengthens their faith and stabilizes the Christian identity of the church.
Of course, in Jesus’ discourses the readers are constantly confronted with Jesus’ commandments. Because of them the Gospel of Matthew is the ethical Gospel. However, since it is a narrative and since the discourses can be understood only as part of this narrative, it would not be appropriate to try to derive the Gospel’s main purpose from them alone. Thus only in a secondary sense does the Gospel intend to exhort the church, to advance it along the way of perfection, and to prepare it for the judgment.
3 Sources

Literature
Ernest L. Abel, “Who Wrote Matthew?” NTS 17 (1970/71) 138–52.
Brooks, Community.
Hans Klein, Bewährung im Glauben: Studien zum Sondergut des Evangelisten Matthäus (BThSt 26: Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996) passim.
Andreas Lindemann, “Literatur zu den Synoptischen Evangelien 1984–1991,” ThR 59 (1994) 69–77.
Neirynck, Agreements.
Hans Theo Wrege, Das Sondergut des Matthäusevangeliums (Zürcher Werkkommentare zur Bibel; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1991).

This commentary presupposes the two-source theory. Those who want to question the theory must refute much of the redaction-critical research on the Synoptics since 1945—a truly bold undertaking that seems to me to be neither necessary nor possible. In view of the understanding gained from redaction not only for Matthew’s own contribution to the formation of the tradition, it would be foolish to abandon the two-source theory simply because there are remaining (marginal) uncertainties.
Sayings Source

For the Sayings Source I work from the following assumptions.

—It was a written document. That appears to me to be certain not only because of the often high degree of agreement in the wording but also by the Q order of the individual texts that is also preserved in Matthew.
—It began with a section on John the Baptist and ended with the judgment sermon of Q 17. In my judgment there are no convincing reasons for attributing later texts in the Gospel of Luke to Q.
—It circulated in different recensions, whereby QMt is an edition of Q with no essential changes and additions.105
—The so-called final redaction of Q is to be strictly separated from the composition of the Synoptic Gospels. It did not make the Q collection a literary document. This hypothesis explains two circumstances. First, it makes understandable why Matthew (and to a lesser degree also Luke) respects the literary integrity of Q less than that of the Gospel of Mark. Instead, they treated the source as a collection of material from which they could take excerpts. Second, it explains why Q was not preserved. After it was integrated into the major Gospels, one no longer needed this collection of material. Paleographically we might surmise that the collection of material called Q was a large notebook bound at the edge with twine. At any time new sheets could be added.106 The Gospel of Mark, however, was a firmly bound codex (or a scroll?) and thus a literary work that for this reason alone continued to be passed on after Matthew had expanded it.
Two-Source Theory and Alternatives

I will not engage here in a critical debate with today’s alternatives to the two-source theory, since it will implicitly be verified throughout the entire commentary. Instead, I will limit myself to brief information about the alternatives.
According to Christopher Butler, Mark wrote his Gospel with the aid of the Gospel of Matthew and Peter’s notes. William R. Farmer, Bernard Orchard, David Dungan, and several others energetically renew the Griesbach-Owen hypothesis according to which Luke used the Gospel of Matthew as his source and Mark is based on Matthew and Luke as an epitome.109 Antonio Gaboury reconstructs on the basis of the three traditions a basic Gospel underlying all the Synoptics. John Rist thinks that Matthew and Mark are independent of one another but that they are based on a common oral tradition. A. M. Farrer and Michael Goulder accept the Markan priority, but they reject Q and regard Matthew as an expansion of Mark on the basis of the lectionary readings of the Jewish Christian pericope order. Malcolm Lowe and David Flusser advocate a complicated proto-Matthew thesis: proto-Matthew is the basis of Mark and Luke and was later expanded in two revisions: (1) by a reviser who knew Mark and (2) by a reviser who inserted into the Gospel the “anti-Jewish” texts and additions.113 M. E. Boismard sees the rise of the Synoptics as an even more complicated process. Our present Matthew is independent of our present Mark. It is based on an earlier form of Matthew and of Mark. For its part, the older intermediate Matthew is based on Q and an even older basic text. Of all the alternatives to the two-source theory this hypothesis is probably the most elaborate. It has both the advantage and disadvantage that it can explain all the phenomena, because it is so complicated that it more or less includes all the other hypotheses.
In my opinion, the two-source theory provides the best basis for solving the Synoptic question. Of course it does not solve all the problems, especially in the area of the Gospel of Luke. In the area of the Gospel of Matthew only one problem from all of the three traditions needs to be mentioned that leads to a minor modification of the two-source theory.
The problem is in the minor agreements between Matthew and Luke. There are many of them, and in many places they are not at all insignificant. In my opinion, however, the minor agreements do not require a basic revision of the two-source theory. Since they do not have in common a clear linguistic or theological profile, it is not necessary to limit ourselves to a single hypothesis to explain them. Instead, one can draw on different hypotheses depending on the texts. We will often be able to assume corrections of the Markan text by Matthew and Luke independent of one another.116 Above all, we should take seriously the possibility that somewhat differing versions of Mark may have existed. Why should what is self-evident for other half-literary documents from a religious marginal group or subculture—such as for the hortatory discourses of 1 Enoch, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Life of Adam and Eve, the Testament of Job, the Sayings Source, the Epistula Apostolorum, the Didascalia, the Apocryphon of John, the book of Acts, and so on—not be reasonable for the Gospel of Mark?118 In my judgment, Matthew and Luke use a Markan recension that in many points is secondary to our Mark.
Special Material

In my judgment the special material has no unified literary form. It consists in part of additions to the Markan tradition that presuppose it (e.g., Matt 4:13–16*; 8:17*; 12:5–7*; 27:3–9*, 19*, 24–25*, 62–66*; 28:11–15*), in part of larger independent blocks of material (e.g., 1:18–2:23*; 5:21–22*, 27–28* [33–35*]; 6:2–6*, 16–18*), mostly, however, of individual traditions. Noteworthy among them are a series of mostly longer parables (13:24–30*, 44–50*; 18:23–35*; 20:1–15*; 21:28–32*; 22:1–13*; 25:1–30*). Most of the special material is filled with an above average number of special redactional characteristics. That indicates that they were merely transmitted orally and that they were first put in writing by the evangelist. In many instances the linguistic evidence that a text, on the basis of the density of Matthean characteristics, was first put in written form by the evangelist and the compositional evidence that a story was inserted into the Markan sequence complement one another.120 I assume a written transmission of the special material in only two cases: for the primary antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount and the text on alms, prayer, and fasting (Matt 5:21–24*, 27–28*, 33–37*; 6:2–6*, 16–18*) Matthew probably used written sources, because he expanded them with Q materials that were also written. However, it seems to me that a written collection is not provable for the large parables of the special material scattered throughout the Gospel.122
These conclusions also mean that I am skeptical toward more far-reaching theses about the special material:
1. In older scholarship one often assumed the existence of a special source, M, that contained the Matthean special material. This hypothesis of Streeter had a number of advocates, particularly in English scholarship.124 The textual evidence, especially the high density of redactional characteristics in most of the special material, clearly speaks against this view.
2. Only to a very limited degree can the special material be attributed to a particular church milieu. While most of it may come from Jewish Christian bearers of tradition, within this general designation there are a number of possibilities. Many items—for example, the preredactional fulfillment quotations—indicate a scribal milieu. Many are more suggestive of a popular Jewish Christianity close to the ʿam haʾaretz (e.g., 23:4–5*, 16–22*). Many have an anti-Pharisaic imprint (e.g., 6:2–6*, 16–18*; 23:2–5*), others are directed against the Jerusalem ruling class (e.g., 27:62–66*; 28:11–15*). Some polemicize against established halakot (e.g., 23:16–22*). Still others are in a broad sense faithful to the Torah. Very many, especially most of the parables and the primary antitheses, simply come from Jesus. If we attribute 5:18–19* and 10:5–6* to Q or QMt, then the Torah-faithful and particularistic articles of the Gospel of Matthew come from the Q tradition. On the whole, I am not able to attribute all of the special material traditions to a single, unified, qualitatively describable, and “unique” stratum of tradition. By no means do I want to speak of the “Matthean special material community.” I also do not think that it is possible to gather various special materials into blocks of tradition, each with its own theological profile and milieu, and to reconstruct from the result a history of the M churches.126 The traditions are too diverse, and the profile of the Jewish Christian communities bearing the traditions that emerges from the process is too colorful.
4 Style

Literature
J. Engelbrecht, “The Language of the Gospel of Matthew,” Neot 24 (1990) 199–213.
Wolfgang Schenk, Die Sprache des Matthäus: Die Text-Konstituenten in ihren makro- und mikro-strukturellen Relationen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987).
B. S. Sheret, “An Examination of Some Problems of the Language of St. Matthew’s Gospel” (diss., Oxford, 1971): a dissertation containing a wealth of material. Unfortunately it was never published and is not as well known as it should be.
Dennis Gordon Tevis, “An Analysis of Words and Phrases Characteristic of the Gospel of Mathew” (diss., Southern Methodist University, 1983; Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation Services, 1991).

Matthean idiomatic peculiarities appear much more often in redactional passages or in narratives from special material put into written form for the first time by the evangelist than in the other texts. Thus we must begin with these parts of the Gospel; the two-source theory proves its value also for examining the style.
The evangelist writes good Koine but not elegant literary Greek. His language reflects numerous phenomena typical of the Greek of his day, such as the absence of the optative and the future infinitive; the diminished use of the middle, of the perfect, and also to a degree of the imperfect; the diminished use of certain prepositions such as μετά with the accusative, πρό with the genitive, ἐκ and ὑπό with the genitive; and the increased use of others such as ἕως (instead of μέχρι) or εἰς. He writes a pronounced “synagogue Greek.”
We can characterize his style in greater detail as follows:
1. It is more differentiated, more polished, and more elegant than the popular semitizing Greek of Mark or Q.
2. The Matthean style is more concise than is that of Mark. In particular, the narratives are tightened. The Matthean abridgments are designed to emphasize what is essential. They have a didactic sense.
3. Matthew’s style is repetitive. The evangelist is familiar with a large number of formulas, which he repeats. He also likes to work in individual texts with key words, chiasms, or inclusions. Thus the formulaic nature of the Matthean language has a positive sense: it is an interpretive and didactic instrument. However, a formulaic style is also characteristic of many basic OT texts (e.g., the Priestly document, Chronicles) that influenced Matthew. That leads to the next point.
4. Matthew is strongly influenced by the LXX. While Luke inserts Septuagintisms in certain sections and avoids them in others, Matthew’s language bears the imprint of Biblical Greek throughout. It is probable that only in part does he intentionally write an LXX style. The findings are the same as in the OT quotations whose wording sometimes, but seldom consistently,131 is closer to that of the LXX than in his sources. The LXX influences his language without always being a stylistic norm that he consciously follows. We can say of it with certainty only that he has read or heard it.
5. Matthew writes a Jewish, occasionally rabbinically influenced Greek. His language sometimes stands in a clear relation to linguistic developments in rabbinic Judaism of that day.
Apart from improvements in the Greek, all other idiomatic characteristics reveal that Matthew belonged to a community, indeed that he intentionally wanted to include himself in it. Many stylistic characteristics are an expression of his inclusion in a particular tradition. One can see in Matthew’s example something of what Eduard Norden emphasized as a general difference between Classical Greek and early Christian literature: Christian authors are not freely developing literary personalities, nor do they want to be. They understand themselves to be representing a community.
4.1 Syntax

It is scarcely possible to offer an adequate morphology of Matthean language today that differs from that of other evangelists. Many good observations are collected in older commentaries, especially in those by Allen, Lagrange, and Schlatter, as well as more recently by Davies-Allison. Now that much more is known about Jewish and Jewish-Greek comparative material than earlier, it would be imperative to bring the older studies on the syntax up to date. I will select here only a few notable syntactic phenomena that illustrate the changes Matthew makes in Mark’s language, and I will try to coordinate them with the above-mentioned stylistic characteristics.
Ad 1. Linguistic improvements of the Markan popular Greek. Although Matthew, like Mark, uses the adjective very little, more than Mark he places the attributive adjective before the substantive. In general, Semitic languages put the adjective after the substantive.
Unlike Mark, Matthew uses the final (or consecutive) infinitive with τοῦ, a characteristic of “a higher stratum of Koine.”
It is characteristic of better Greek that Matthew uses many more participles than does Mark. A Markan parataxis is often replaced by a participial construction. In many cases the use of the participle is stereotypical and formulaic.138
It is also a sign of good Greek that Matthew frequently replaces the Markan imperfect with the aorist. In many of these cases Matthew shows a good feeling for the differences among the Greek tenses.
Finally, the improvement of the quality of the Greek is shown in the way Matthew avoids awkward Markan expressions. He avoids the frequent Markan asyndeta. He avoids paratactic constructions with καί. He also likes to replace the Markan periphrastic conjugations with a finite verb.142
Ad 4/5. Matthean language is semitizing in two ways: on the one hand it is generally clear that Semitic idioms are close at hand (because of the bilingual milieu); on the other hand the LXX also has left its mark. A clear interpretation of individual phenomena is often difficult.143
Matthew is partial to parallelisms. The influence of Semitic poetry may be decisive here. The number of cases in which he improves or creates parallelisms is quite large.
That Matthew chooses direct discourses instead of the un-Semitic indirect discourse will not necessarily be due to the influence of Semitic literature; it also reflects a bilingual milieu. Or is it a way of emphasizing clearly, for didactic reasons, the hidden address to the readers in words of Jesus or the disciples?
A general proximity to a Semitic milieu can be seen in the frequent genitive constructions that are reminiscent of the Semitic construct state.
It is noteworthy that the genitive absolute is difficult for Matthew. He omits many Markan examples of it. He often ignores the rule that the subject of the participle in the genitive may not be used in the main clause.148 These are obvious errors in Greek made by the evangelist. Although there are more such cases in Matthew than in all other NT authors, we should not exaggerate their importance. They do not prove that in the Gospel of Matthew an author writes whose mother tongue was Aramaic, since similar mistakes often occur in the papyri.
A favorite is the totally un-Greek genitive absolute construction ἰδού + the main clause. Sheret cautiously notes occasional Semitic influence in word order, for example, putting verba dicendi and verbs of movement first and putting personal pronouns immediately after the verb.
It is, finally, remarkable that compound verbs are less frequent in Matthew than in Luke and no more frequent than in Mark. This too may reveal Semitic influence.
Sheret concludes from the evidence that the author of the Gospel of Matthew was “a native Aramaic speaker with a good grasp of Greek.” I do not share this conclusion, and I think that the evangelist’s mother tongue was Greek. However, the proximity to Semitic idioms is so obvious that it cannot be explained solely by the influence of the LXX. Thus I think that the Greek-speaking author lived in a bilingual milieu and perhaps was also able to speak Aramaic.
The rest of the above-mentioned characteristics of Matthean language are not easily derived from syntactic peculiarities.
Ad 2. To be sure, there may be observations that reveal the didactic Matthew. He often uses the casus pendens. The evidence suggests less the bilingual person using Semitic syntax than the “teacher” Matthew using the casus pendens for emphasis.
Perhaps Matthew reveals himself as teacher in the use of the historical present. It appears uniformly throughout Mark. Its use in Matthew is reduced, but not uniformly. It is usually replaced by a form in the past, often aorist. With “say” (λέγω), however, the historical present is usually left standing; sometimes it is even newly created by the evangelist. Since Matthew emphasizes the dialogue in his story by tightening the narrative, it may be that the historical present with λέγω is also a means of directing the readers’ attention to what is most important in the stories, namely Jesus’ words.
A few remaining syntactic peculiarities simply cannot be interpreted. Matthew likes general relative clauses with ὅστις, ὃς ἐάν, and so on. Compared with Mark, he has a stronger tendency to use passive verb forms. Is this an example of Greek style, since the passive appears less frequently in Semitic language than in Greek?159
4.2 Matthew’s Preferred Vocabulary*

Preliminary Notes: The alphabetical list contains all words that are redactionally significant. Thus the list of the “formulas” is not complete, since it contains only those with “redactional words” (red. = redactional).
Column 1: The numbers refer to the stylistic characteristics above in section 4 (1 = improvements in language, 3 = formulaic expressions and key words, 4 = LXX language, 5 = Jewish-Greek and rabbinic material).
Column 2: The numbers after the words indicate the total number of words in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (following Aland).
Column 3: The numbers indicate the conjectured redactional occurrences in Matthew.
c. a relatively large degree of uncertainty
+ or more than the number cited
– or fewer than the number cited
Column 4: Special comments and references to the literature
→ References to other words in this list

ἀγαθός 16, 4, 16
c. 8x red.
ἀγαθός/πονηρός 4, 0, 0
4x red.
ἄγγελος 20, 6, 25
c. 10x red.
no. 3
ἄγγελος κυρίου
c. 5x red.
ἄγγελος κυρίου LXX c. 50x 4x in Matt 1:20–2:19*, 3* of them with φαίνεσθαι κατʼ ὄναρ; Jewish expression, Schlatter, 15
nos. 3, 4
ἅγιος 10, 7, 20
c. 5x red.
2x ἁγία πόλις, red., LXX
ἀγρός 17, 9, 10
c. 3x red
often special material: 13:24–44*; 27:3–10*. Uncertain. Plural (favored by Mark) avoided by Matthew
ἀδελφός 39, 20, 24
c. 5x red.
no. 4
αἷμα 11, 3, 8
c. 4x red.
2x with ἀθῶος, LXX
nos. 3, 5
αἰών 8, 4, 7
c. 6x red.
5x red. συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος; rabbinic, cf. Schlatter, 445
ἀκολουθέω 25, 18, 17
c. 10x red.
9x chaps. 8–9 key word; 6x 19:2–20:34* key word 4x red. with ὄχλοι
ἀκούω 63, 46, 65
more than 18x red.
no. 1
ἀκούσα(ς) δέ 7, 0, 6
c. 6x red.
ἄλλος 29, 22, 11
c. 9x red.
ἀμήν 31, 14, 6
statements about redaction difficult; always in beginning position; cf. Schenk, Sprache, 333–36
no. 3
ἀμὴν (γὰρ) λέγω ὑμῖν 29, 14, 5
ἀναγινώσκω 7, 4, 3
2x red.
ἀνάκειμαι 5, 2, 2
+ 2x red.
ἀναχωρέω 10, 1, 0
– 8x red.
key word 2:12–22*
ἄνθρωπος 116, 56, 95
+ 21 red.
Rudolf Pesch, ZNW 59 (1968) 46
ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων 3, 0, 1
2x red.
ἄνθρωπος + participle 8, 1, 5
– 6x red.
nos. 3, 4
ἀνοίγω 11, 1, 7
3–5x red.
2x ἀνοίγω τὸ στόμα; LXX c. 40x
ἀνομία 4, 0, 0
3x red.
ἄξιος 9, 0, 8
-6x red.
6x 10:10–38* key word; 6x final position, Luke/Acts never
ἀπέρχομαι 35, 23, 20
c. 12x red.
no. 1
ἀπέλθων κτλ. 12, 5, 7
+ 4x red.
ἀπό 115, 48, 125
ἀπὸ τότε 3, 0, 1 3x red.
no. 4
ἀπό — ἕως 12, 4, 2
c. 6x red.
ἀπό often instead of ἐκ; Neirynck, Agreements, 282
ἀπό temporal
Gundry, 642
ἀποδίδωμι 18, 1, 8
c. 4x red.
often special material: 6:2–18*; 18:23–35*
ἀποκρίνομαι 55, 30, 46
nos. 1, 3, 4
ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν 18, 2, 3
17x red.
Gen 18:9* LXX
nos. 1, 3, 4
ἀποκριθεὶς δέ + subject 17, 0, 5
17x red.
LXX often; Neirynck, Agreements, 249–51
ἀπόλλυμι 19, 10, 27
c. 6x red.
ἅπτω 9, 11, 13
4x red.
no. 1
ἄρα 7, 2, 6
c. 5x red.
ἄρα γε 2x red.; τί(ς) ἄρα 3, 1, 4 3x red.
ἀργύριον 9, 1, 4
never red. with certainty
almost always pl. in Matthew
ἄρτι 7, 0, 0
+ 5x red.
Sheret, “Examination,” 134: colloquially
ἀπʼ ἄρτι 3, 0, 0
3x red.
also in John; Sheret, “Examination,” 134: condemned by purists
ἀρχιερεύς 25, 22, 15
+ 6x red.
no. 3
ἀρχιερεῖς/πρεσβύτεροι 8, 1, 1
7x red.
red., always ἀρχιερεῖς first
no. 3
ἀρχιερεῖς/Φαρισαῖοι 2, 0, 0
2x red.
no. 3
ἀρχιερεῖς in a pair 11, 6, 8
c. 7x red.
no. 3
ἀσθεν- 7, 2, 6
1x red.
4x in 25:31–46*
no. 3
ἀφίημι 47, 34, 31
c. 5x red.
key word 18:12–35*, 5x
βάλλω 34, 18, 18
c. 10x red.
βαπτιστής 7, 2, 3
c. 3x red.
βασαν- 5, 2, 3
c. 2x red.
βασιλεία 55, 20, 46
c. 21x red.
Kretzer, Herrschaft, 21–63
no. 5
βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν 32, 0, 0
always red.
rabbinic, see commentary on 3:2
no. 3
εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας 3, 0, 0
always red.
βασιλεία of Jesus, of the Son of Man 3, 0, 2
βλέπω 20, 15, 15
c. 5x red.
Γαλιλαία 16, 12, 13
c. 8x red.
γάρ 123, 64, 97
no. 1
continuation γάρ
red., e.g., 3:3*; 5:20*; 9:5*, 13*; 16:27*; 24:28*; 25:14*; 26:28*
γάρ following preposition 5, 0, 1
3x red.
no. 1
γε 4, 0, 9
4x red.
→ ἄρα εἰ δὲ μή γε 2x red.
no. 5
γέεννα 7, 3, 1
c. 2x red.
2x red. with addition τοῦ πυρός; see commentary n. 18 on 5:21–26
γῆ 43, 19, 25
+ 8x red.
nos. 4, 5
γῆ with a place name 6, 0, 0
2x red.
2x fulfillment quotation; LXX; Jewish-Greek
γίνομαι 75, 55, 131
c. 20x red.
γενηθήτω 5, 0, 0
c. 4x red.
γίνομαι + ὡς 4, 0, 0
3x red.
γινώσκω 20, 12, 28
c. 8x red.
key word 24:32–50* 5x
nos. 1, 3
γνούς 4, 2, 3
3x red.
3x γνοὺς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς red.
γραμματεύς 23, 21, 14
c. 16x red.
no. 3
γραμματεῖς in a pair 15, 6, 10
c. 12x red.
γραμματεῖς always first; → ἀρχιερεύς
γραμματεῖς/Φαρισαῖοι 11, 3, 5
10x red.
δαιμονίζομαι 7, 4, 1
c. 6x red.
no. 1
δέ 495, 164, 543
Cf. Joseph Michael Heer, Die Stammbäume Jesu nach Matthäus und Lukas (Freiburg: Herder, 1910) 220: when the sentence begins with an article, δέ appears almost without exception
δεξιός 12, 7, 6
– 4x red.
δευ̃τε 6, 3, 0
+ 1x red.
διά 60, 33, 39
no. 3
διά with genitive 26, 11, 14
c. 15x red.
formula of the fulfillment quotations
διὰ τοῦτο 10, 3, 4
c. 7x red.
διάβολος 6, 0, 5
c. 1x red.
4x in Matt 4:1–11* Q
no. 4
διασαφέω 2, 0, 0
uncertain
hapax legomenon in the NT; LXX esp. 2 Maccabees
διδάσκαλος 12, 12, 17
c. 4x red.
διδάσκκω 14, 17, 17
c. 6x red.
no. 3
with συναγωγή 3, 2, 3
2x red.
δίκαιος 17, 2, 11
c. + 10x red.
προφήτης/δίκαιος 3, 0, 0
no. 5
δικαιοσύνη 7, 0, 1
c. 7x red.
rabbinic, cf. Przybylski, Righteousness, 39–76
no. 3
διώκω 6, 0, 3
c. 4x red.
4x key word 5:10–44*
no. 3
δοκέω 10, 2, 10
5–9x red.
τί + dative + δοκεις c. 6x red.
δοξάζω 4, 1, 9
2x red.
δύναμις for miracles 7, 2, 2
3x red.
δύο 40, 18, 28
11x red.
ἐάν 64, 36, 31
ἐάν οὖν 3, 0, 0
ἐάν in general relative clauses with ὅς 22, 11, 8
Statements about redaction quite difficult. Text-critical variants
ἐάν in general relative clauses with ὅσος 5, 1, 0
ἐάν/ἄν. Luke often has participle Cf. also → ὅς.
ἐάν μή 11, 6, 3
Schenk, Sprache, 25
ἑαυτοῦ 32, 24, 57
ἐν ἑαυτοῖς 6, 3, 3 4x red.
ἐγείρω 36, 19, 18
+ 12x red.
ἐγερθείς 8, 0, 1
always red.
ἐγώ nominative 29, 16, 22
c. 8x red.
κἀγώ 9, 0, 7
+ 4x red.
nos. 4, 5
ἔθνος 15, 6, 13
2–6x red.
Jewish-Greek = Gentiles
no. 3
πάντα τὰ ἔθνη 4, 1, 2
2–3x red.
εἰς 218, 168, 226
εἰς τό with infinitive 3, 1, 1
3x red.
→ πρός
εἷς 66, 44, 45
εἷς in second position 9, 1, 1
+ 4x red.
εἷς τούτων 8, 1, 1
2x red.
Q Luke 12:27*; frequently special material
εἷς as indefinite pronoun
+ 4x red.
no. 3
εἰσέρχομαι 36, 30, 50
c. 10x red., 7x eschatological
red. βασιλεία sayings: 5:20*; 7:21*; 18:3*, cf. 7:13*; 19:17*
ἐκεις 31, 12, 16
c. 15–19x red.
ἐκεῖθεν 12, 6, 4
c. 9x red.
following participle 6x, 5 of them red.
ἐκεῖνος 56, 27, 37
+ 25x red.
nos. 3, 4
ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ 3, 0, 0
3x red.
LXX frequently
no. 3
ἐκείνη + ὥρα 7, 1, 0
7x red.
nos. 3, 5
ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ἐκείνης
3x red.
in healings, rabbinic, Schlatter, 318
nos. 3, 4
ἐκείνη + ἡμέρα 11, 9, 9
8x red.
5x red. in narratives; LXX very frequently
nos. 3, 4
ἐκτείνω 6, 3, 3
3x red.
always with χείρ
ἐλάχιστος 5, 0, 4
special material
ἐλεέω 8, 3, 4
3x red.
→ υἱός
no. 4
ἔμπροσθεν 18, 2, 10
c. 7x red.
LXX. Luke ἐνώπιον. Πρό seldom in NT. Cf. Schenk, Sprache, 238–39
no. 3
ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων 5, 0, 1
3x red.
ἔνδυμα 7, 0, 1
1x red.
no. 4
ἔνθυμε- 4, 0, 0
4x red.
LXX root
no. 4
ἐντέλλομαι 4, 2, 1
2x red.
LXX word
ἐξέρχομαι 43, 39, 44
c. 17x red.
ἐξέρχομαι conjunctive participle 19, 13, 21
+ 10x red.
ἐπάνω 8, 1, 5
c. 4x red.
frequently instead of ἐπί in modern Greek
ἐπί 122, 72, 161
ἐπί with accusative 67, 34, 96
+ 20x red.
Sheret, “Examination,” 139–40; similarly Polybius, differently in papyri
ἐπιδείκνυμι 3, 0, 1
3x red.
ἐργ- 19, 3, 8
Gundry, 644
ἔργον 6, 2, 2
c 3x red.
ἔρχομαι 115, 85, 101
ἔρχομαι ἐπί 6, 1, 4
3x red.
ἐλθών 34, 14, 13
+ 17x red.
ἔρχομαι + final infinitive 12, 5, 8
4x red.
ἔσται 37, 7, 33
Gundry, 644
no. 3
ἑταῖρος 3, 0, 0
– 3x red.
always vocative sg.
ἕτερος 10, 1, 33
+ 3x red.
εὐαγγέλιον
→ βασιλεία
εὐθέως 13, 1, 6
11x red.
εὑρίσκω 27, 11, 45
c. 5x red.
ἕως preposition 28, 10, 13
– 8x red.
often temporal: Schenk, Sprache, 272
no. 4
ἕως conjunction 20, 5, 15
c. 9x red.
LXX, Koine, and modern Greek: ἕως far outweighs μέχρι; cf. Sheret, “Examination,” 137
ἕως ἄν 10, 3, 3
c. 4x red.
ἕως οὗ 7, 0, 7
3x red.
no. 4
ζάω 6, 3, 9
– 2x red.
2x θεὸς ὁ ζῶν, cf. LXX
ἤ 68, 33, 45
c. 25x red.
expansions with ἤ: 5:17*; 10:11*, 14*, 37*; 12:25*, 29*; 18:8*; 26:53*, etc.
ἡγεμών 10, 1, 2
c. 7x red.
ἡμέρα 45, 27, 83
c. 16x red.
nos. 3, 5
ἡμέρα κρίσεως 4, 0, 0
2–4x red.
red. → ἐκεῖνος; Jewish-Greek, Schlatter, 335
θαρσέω 3, 2, 0
2x red.
θαυμάζω 7, 4, 13
3x red.
no. 3
θεάομαι 4, 0, 3
2x red.
red. 2x πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι
θελ- 48, 25, 32
no. 3
θέλημα 6, 1, 4
3x red.
3x with ποιέω, 2x with γίνομαι; always God’s will (3x θ. πατρός, 2x θ. σου)
θέλω 42, 25, 28
c. 12x red.
εἰ + θέλω 6, 2, 1
4–5x red.
θεραπεύω 16, 5, 14
c. 9x red.
θησαυρός 9, 1, 4
c. 2x red.
ἴδιος 10, 8, 6
c. 4x red.
nos. 4, 5
ἰδού 62, 7, 57
40–50x red.
LXX. Antonio Vargas-Machuca, Bib 50 (1969) 233–44; Peter Fiedler, Die Formel “und siehe” im NT (SANT 20; Munich: Kösel, 1969) 23–29
nos. 4, 5
καὶ ἰδού 28, 1, 25
+ 25 red.
genitive absolute + ἰδού 10, 0, 1
+ 3x red.
no. 5
Ἱεροσόλυμα 11, 10, 4
c. 5x red.
OT Apocrypha, Josephus, Ep. Arist., etc.
Ἰησούς 152, 82, 88
with the article
Ἰσραήλ 12, 2, 12
3–5x red.
ἵστημι 21, 10, 26
+ 7x red.
ἔστηκα 11, 4, 9
+ 5x red.
no. 3
καιρός 10, 5, 13
c. 6x red.
→ ἐκεῖνος; cf. Strecker, Weg, 86–89
κακῶς 7, 4, 2
c. 3x red.
καλέω 26, 4, 43
+ 2x red.
often special material
no. 3
κατά + genitive 16, 7, 6
2–6x red.
6x 12:14–32* key word
καταδικάζω 2, 0, 2
2x red.
καταλείπω 4, 4, 4
3x red.
3 Markan instances removed
καταποντίζομαι 2, 0, 0
2x red.
only in Matthew in the NT
nos. 3, 4
κατοικέω 4, 0, 2
2x red.
both times ἐλθών + κ. + εἰς; LXX
κελεύω 7, 0, 1
+ 5x red.
no. 3
κηρύσσω 9, 14, 9
c. 3x red.
3x with διδάσκω
no. 3
κλαυθμός 7, 0, 1
5x red.
6x ἐκεις ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων (1x from Q Luke 13:28*)
κοσμ- 12, 3, 5
κόσμος 9, 3, 3
c. 4x red.
κράζω 12, 10, 4
c. 5x red.
5x with → λέγων
κρίσις 12, 0, 4
+ 4x red.
→ ἡμέρα
κρυπτ- 12, 1, 5
Gundry, 645, but hardly ever demonstrably red.
no. 3
κύριος 80, 18, 104
19x 24:42–25:44* key word; → ἄγγελος
κύριε 30, 2, 25
c. 16x red.
no. 3
κύριε + ἐλεέω
4x red.
LXX
λαλέω 26, 21, 31
c. 17x red.
4x αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος (2x red.)
no. 3
λαμβάνω 54, 20, 22
c. 16x red.
5x 16:1–10* and 7x 25:1–24* key word
λαβών 20, 7, 8
+ 4x red.
often in special material (red.?)
no. 3
συμβούλιον λ. 5, 0, 0
+ 4x red.
λαμπ-
λαμπάς 5x 25:1–8* keyword
λάμπω
2x red.
no. 4
λαός 14, 2, 36
c. 8x red.
LXX; 4x in OT quotation
no. 3
πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ 4, 0, 0
4x red.
cf. ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ γραμματεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ 2:4*
λέγω total 505, 291, 534
λέγων before direct address 112, 33, 92
80–100x red.
Schlatter, 16–17; Neirynck, Agreements, 246–47; Heb. לֵאמֹר
no. 3
λεγόμενος before names 4, 0, 0
4x red.
no. 3
ὁ λεγόμενονς before surname/name 9, 1, 1
8x red.
no. 3
λέγω ὑμῖν 52, 11, 35
cf. also → ἀμήν; Tilborg, Leaders, 127
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν 7, 0, 4
+ 5x red.
λέγω with dative c. 160, 100, 75
Matthew and Mark; Luke with first and second personal pronouns; otherwise more likely πρός
πλὴν λέγω ὑμῖν 3, 0, 0
3x red.?
no. 3
λέγω in historical present 71, 73, 4
Gundry, 645; preferably at the beginning. Cf. section 4.1 and → ἀποκρίνομαι
ἐρῶ 30, 2, 19
+ 17x red.
no. 3
ῥηθείς 13, 0, 0
13x red.
10 fulfillment quotations; always with scripture, cf. 6x ἐρρέθη Matt 5:21–43*
εἶπον 179, 80, 293
no. 3
ὁ δὲ εἶπεν (or pl.) 16, 13, 29
13x red.
εἶπον with dative 90, 56, 87
as above with λέγω with dative
λίαν 4, 4, 1
2x red.
no. 3
λόγος 33, 24, 32
c. 14x red.
→ τελέω
λυπέω 6, 2, 0
3x red.
μαθητεύω 3, 0, 0
– 3x red.
no. 3
μαθητής 72, 46, 37
c. 34x red.
→ προσέρχομαι
μαθητεύω 3, 0, 0
– 3x red.
nos. 3, 4
μαλακία 3, 0, 0
3x red.
always θεραπεύ- … πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ πᾶσαν μαλακίαν; LXX word
no. 3
μᾶλλον 9, 5, 5
1–4x red.
3x red.? following present imperative
no. 3
μανθάνω 3, 1, 0
+ 1x red.
always μάθετε
μέλλω 9, 2, 12
c. 8x red.
3x μέλλει + subject + infinitive
no. 1
μέν … δέ 20, 3, 8
+ 9x red.
(LXX very infrequently)
μέρος 4, 1, 4
3x red.
no. 4
μέσος 7, 5, 14
+ 2x red.
4x ἐν μέσῳ (3x red.? LXX); 1x ἐκ μέσου LXX
no. 4
μετά with genitive 61, 48, 51
c. 30x red.
LXX and Gospels; strong preponderance of μετά over σύν
no. 3
μεταβαίνω 6, 0, 1
+ 4x red.
3x with ἐκεῖθεν
μεταμέλομαι 3, 0, 0
– 3x red.
no. 3
μέχρι 2, 1, 1
– 2x red.
2x μέχρι τῆς σήμερον
μή with infinitive as prohibition 5, 0, 2
3x red.?
2:12*; 5:(34)*, 39*; 6:1*
no. 4
μήποτε 8, 2, 7
+ 1x red.
LXX word; almost always final
μήτι 4, 2, 2
3x
μικροί for the community 4, 1, 1
+ 2x red.
always εἷς with genitive τῶν μ.
no. 4
μιμνήσκομαι 3, 0, 6
– 2x red.
LXX word
No. 3
μισθός 10, 1, 3
– 2x red.
4x 6:1–16* key word
μόνον 7, 2, 1
– 7x red.
μωρός 6, 0, 0
+ 1x red.
ναί 9, 0, 4
+ 4x red.
νεκρός 12, 7, 14
+ 4x red.
νόμος 8, 0, 9
7 red.
nos. 3, 4
νόμος/προφῆται 4, 0, 1
3 red.
LXX; cf. Berger, Gesetzesauslegung 1.212–13
no. 3
νόσος 5, 1, 4
3 red.
→ μαλακία
νύξ 9, 4, 7
– 4 red.
ὅθεν 4, 0, 1
+ 1x red.
οἰκοδεσπότης 7, 1, 4
2 red.
with ἄνθρωπος 3x in parable introductions
ὀλιγοπιστία 1, 0, 0
1 red.
no. 5
ὀλιγόπιστος
3 red.
cf. 25: 21*, 23*. Str-B 1.438, Judaism; Luke 12:28*Q
ὅλος 22, 18, 17
c. 9x red.
ὅμοιος 9, 0, 9
+ 1x red.
parable introductions
ὁμοιόω 8, 1, 3
ὁμοίως 3, 1, 11
2x red.
ὁμολογέω 4, 0, 2
c. 2x red.
no. 3
ὄναρ 6, 0, 0
6x red.?
6x 1:20–2:22* key word; 6x κατʼ ὄναρ
no. 3
ὅπως 17, 1, 7
c. 9x red.
→ πληρόω
ὁράω 72, 50, 81
no. 3
ὁρᾶτε μή 2, 0, 0
2x red.
no. 3
ἰδών 21, 14, 28
+ 15x red.
no. 3
ἰδὼν δέ 8, 2, 14
8x red.
no. 4
ὅριον 6, 5, 0
+ 2x red.
always pl.; LXX
ὅρκος 4, 1, 1
2x red.
2x μετὰ ὅρκου
ὄρος 16, 11, 12
+ 4x red.
ὃς ἄν (ἐάν) 35, 19, 20
c. 5x red.
no. 1
ὅστις 29, 5, 18
c. 18x red.
always nominative (Schenk, Sprache, 377–78)
ὅστις = ὅς
13:52*; 20:1*; 21:33*, 41*; 22:2*; 27:62* red.
πᾶς ὅστις 3, 0, 0
3x red.
ὅτι causal 51, 15, 75
Schenk, Sprache, 379
οὐδέ 27, 11, 21
c. 13x red.
οὐδέποτε 5, 2, 2
– 5x red.
οὖν 56, 6, 33
28–46x red.
οὐρανός 82, 19, 35
c. 37x red.
no. 5
οὐρανοί 55, 5, 4
about 50x red.
→ βασιλεία. Judaism, Schlatter, 57–58
οὐρανός/γῆ 13, 2, 5
2x red.
always sg.
οὐράνιος 7, 0, 1
– 7x red.
always with πατήρ μου/ὑμῶν
οὗτος 149, 79, 229
no. 3
πάντα ταυ̃τα 6, 2, 4
6x red.
Matthew makes π.τ. from the traditional ταυ̃τα πάντα
no. 3
οὗτός ἐστιν 13, 2, 3 (sg.)
10x red.
οὕτως 32, 10, 21
c. 22x red.
οὕτως ἔσται 8, 0, 3
4x red.
ὀφθαλμός 24, 7, 17
5x red.
ὄχλος 50, 38, 41
c. 30x red.
no. 3
ὄχλοι 28, 0, 17
– 28x red.
ὄχλοι πολλοί 6x; → ἀκολουθέω
ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης 6, 1, 0
5x red.
no. 3
παιδίον 18, 12, 13
4 (+9)x red.
9x 2:8–21* key word; → παραλαμβάνω
παῖς 8, 0, 9
c. 4x red.
πάλιν 17, 28, 3
+ 5x red.
no. 3
πάλιν before finite verb 7, 2, 1
c. 4x red.
Strecker, “Antithesen,” 46
παρά with dative 6, 3, 7
– 5x red.
no. 3
παραβολή 17, 13, 18
c. 6x red.
4x ἄλλη παραβολή red.; key word 13:3–36* and 21:33–22:1*
no. 4
παραγίνομαι 3, 1, 8
– 3x red.
LXX frequently
no. 3
παραδίδωμι 31, 10, 17
c. 9x red.
3x ὁ παρα(δι)δοὺς αὐτόν red.
no. 3
παραλαμβάνω 16, 6, 7
+ 1 (+ 6)x red.
2:13–21* 4x π. τὸ παιδίον; 6x 1:20–2:21* key word
παρέρχομαι 9, 5, 9
3x red.
no. 3
παρουσία 4, 0, 0
4x red.
4x 24:3–39* key word; 3x οὕτως ἔσται ἡ παρουσία τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
πᾶς 129, 68, 157
πᾶς οὖν 6, 0, 1
5x red.
→ ὅστις
nos. 3, 1
πᾶς ὁ with participle 13, 2, 17
3x red.
3x πάντας τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας
πᾶς ὅστις 3, 0, 0
3x red.
2x with οὖν
no. 1
πᾶς γάρ 6, 2, 2
6x red.
no. 3
πᾶς with sick
4:23–24*; 8:16*; 9:35*; 10:1*; 12:15*; 14:35*
πᾶς + sg. without article 20, 0, 11
c. 1x red.
πάντα (οὖν) ὅσα 6, 3, 2
c. 3x red.
2x with οὖν
πατήρ 63, 19, 56
c. 19x red.
14x 5:45–6:32* key word; 7x 10:20–37*
nos. 3, 5
πατὴρ ὁ ἐν (τοῖς) οὐρανοῖς 12, 1, 0
c. 11x red.
→ οὐράνιος; rabbinic: Dalman, Words, 186; Str-B 1.393–96
πατήρ about God 45, 5, 17
c. 20x red.
→ θέλημα
no. 3
πατήρ μου, ὑμῶν 34, 2, 7
+ 30x red.
πείθω 3, 0, 4
– 3x red.
πεινάω 9, 2, 5
+ 1x red.
with διψάω 5x (1x red., 4x special material)
πειράζω 6, 4, 2
c. 2x red.
nos. 1, 3
πέμπω 4, 1, 10
1–3x red.
always πέμψας
περί with genitive 20, 13, 40
c. 10x red.
mostly “about”
περιάγω 3, 1, 0
2x red.
περιπατέω 7, 9, 5
3x red.
no. 3
περισσεύω 5, 1, 4
5x red.
2x περισσευ̃ον τῶν κλασμάτων; 2x δοθήσεται … καὶ περισσευθήσεται
nos. 1, 3, 4
πίπτω 19, 8, 17
+ 6x red.
participle πεσών 5x; with προσκυνέω 3x red.; LXX
πιστεύω 11, 14, 9
5x red.
πίστις 8, 5, 11
3x red.
πλανάω 8, 4, 1
3x red.
4x 24:4–24* key word
πλείων 7, 1, 9
+ 2x red.
πλεῖστος 2, 1, 0
2x red.
no. 4
πληρόω 16, 3, 9
13x red.
LXX
no. 3
πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθέν
10x red.
fulfillment quotations! 6x with ἱνα; 3x with ὅπως; 8x + διά; 2x + ὑπὸ κυρίου; LXX 2 Chr 36:21–22* and frequently
no. 3
πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαί 2, 1, 0
1x red.
ποιέω 86, 47, 88
+ 25x red.
ποιέω ὡς/καθώς 4, 0, 0
4x red.
see on 1:24
πόλις 27, 8, 39
c. 14x red.
→ ἅγιος
πονηρός 26, 2, 13
c. 12x red.
→ ἀγαθός
ὁ πονηρός = devil
13:19* red.; 13:38* red.
πορεύομαι 29, 3, 51
15–26x red.
no. 3
πορευθείς 11, 0, 9
6–8x red.
nos. 3, 4
πορευθέντες with imperative 4, 0, 4
3x red.
semitizing; cf. Schlatter, 37
πραΰς 3, 0, 0
1x red.
πρεσβύτερος 12, 7, 5
4–6x red.
no. 3
πρεσβύτερος τοῦ λαοῦ 4, 0, 0
4x red.
→ ἀρχιερεύς
πρόβατον 11, 2, 2
3x red.
no. 3
πρός with infinitive 5, 1, 1
3x red.
→ θεάομαι
no. 3
προσέρχομαι 51, 5, 10
c. 40x red.
often at the beginning of the sentence; → προσκυνέω
προσέρχομαι + αὐτῷ 15, 2, 0
13x red.
no. 3
subject: μαθηταί 13, 1, 0
12x red.
no. 3
aorist participle 28, 6, 7
+ 20x red.
no. 3
προσελθὼν … εἶπεν 14, 0, 1
– 14x red.
no. 3
προσέρχομαι after τότε 7, 0, 0
7x red.
no. 4
προσέχω 6, 0, 4
6x red.
5x before ἀπό; 5x imperative (LXX) προσέχετε
no. 4
προσκυνέω 13, 2, 3
+ 7x red.
πεσών … π. 2x special material (red.?); LXX
no. 4?
προσκυνέω with dative 10, 1, 0
5x red.
+ 4x special material; LXX?
No. 3
προσκυνέω following προσέρχομαι 4, 0, 0
4x red.
προσφέρω 15, 3, 4
c. 9x red.
no. 3
before αυτῷ 9, 2, 1
8x red.
πρόσωπον 10, 3, 13
– 5x red.
2x πίπτω ἐπὶ π. LXX
προφήτης 37, 6, 29
– 20x red.
11x in fulfillment quotations; → νόμος
no. 3
προφήτης following διά 13, 0, 2
13x red.
11x in fulfillment quotations; as attribute with names 9, 1, 2
πρῶτον 8, 6, 10
1–4x red.
no. 3
πυ̃ρ 12, 6, 7
– 5x red.
6x with βάλλω εἰς, 2x with κατακαύω
nos. 3, 4, 5
πυρός as “contract state” 4, 0, 0
2x red.
2x with κάμινος (= LXX Daniel); 2x with γέεννα; red. reception of traditional formulations: 7:19* = 3:10*; 13:40* = 3:12*; 18:9* = 5:22*
no. 3
πυ̃ρ αἰώνιον 2, 0, 0
2x red.
πῶς 14, 14, 16
insignificant
πῶς οὖν 3, 0, 0
3x red.
Schenk, Sprache, 427
πῶς in questions for something impossible 11, 4, 7
Schenk, Sprache, 426
ῥῆμα 5, 2, 19
– 2x red.
no. 3
Σαδδουκαῖοι 7, 1, 1
6x red.
5x red. Φαρισαῖοι καὶ Σ.
σεισμός 4, 1, 1
1–3x red.
σείω 3, 0, 0
1–3x red.
σεληνιάζομαι 2, 0, 0
2x red.
σημεῖον 13, 7, 11
2x red.
σήμερον 8, 1, 11
– 5x red.
no. 3, 4
ἡ σήμερον (ἡμέρα)
– 3x red.
LXX. 2x with μέχρι, 1x with ἕως
σκάνδαλον 5, 0, 1
– 2x red.
σκανδαλ- 19, 8, 3
Gundry, 648
no. 3
σκότος 7, 1, 4
– 3x red.
3x ἐκβάλλω … εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον
no. 3
σπείρω 17, 12, 6
2x red.
12x 13:3–39* key word
σπλαγχνίζομαι 5, 4, 3
2x red.
σταυρόω 10, 8, 6
4x red.
2x red. before the passion narrative
nos. 3, 4
στόμα 11, 0, 9
+ 5x red.
→ ἀνοίγω
στρέφω 6, 0, 7
+ 3x red.
nos. 3, 4
συμβούλιον 5, 2, 0
3x red.
5x with λαμβάνω; συμβουλεύτω 1x red. (hapax legomenon in Matthew)
συμφέρω 4, 0, 0
+ 1x red.
nos. 3, 4
συνάγω 24, 5, 6
c. 10x red.
beginning with 22:34*, 7x red. in the passive of Jesus’ opponents. LXX. Cf. Alfons Weiser, Die Knechtsgleichnisse der synoptischen Evangelien (SANT 29; Munich: Kösel, 1971) 246–47
συναγωγή 9, 8, 15
– 2x red.
no. 3
συναγωγή αὐτῶν (ὑμῶν)
4 (1)x red.
no. 3
συναίρω 3, 0, 0
3x special material, with λόγον
συνίημι 9, 5, 4
+ 4x red.
no. 4
συντάσσω 3, 0, 0
+ 2x red.
LXX
no. 3
συντέλεια 5, 0, 0
5x red.
always συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος
no. 4
σφόδρα 7, 1, 1
– 7x red.
LXX. Always (LXX often) with emotions
σῷζω 16, 15, 17
4x red.
τάλαντον 14, 0, 0
nos. 4, 5
ταπειν- 4, 0, 7
Gundry, 648; LXX language (= humble)
τάφος 6, 0, 0
c. 4x red.
ταχύ 3, 1, 1
– 3x red.
τέλειος 3, 0, 0
3x red.
τελευτάω 4, 2, 1
+ 2x red.
cf. 2:15* τελευτή hapax legomenon
nos. 3, 4
τελέω 7, 0, 4
5x red.
5x ὅτε ἐτέλησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς (…) (4x) τοὺς λέγους τούτους; see on 7:28 (LXX)
τέλος 6, 3, 4
2x red.
τηρέω 6, 0, 0
+ 4x red.
τίς 91, 71, 114
→ ἄρα
τί ὑμῖν/σοι δοκεις 4, 0, 0
2x red.
2x special material
διὰ τί 7, 2, 5
4x red.
τόπος 10, 10, 19
4x red.
nos. 3, 4
τότε 90, 6, 15
+ 80x red.
ἀπὸ τότε 3x (2x + ἤρξατο [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς …); almost exclusively at the beginning of a sentence; cf. LXX Daniel
τότε + finite verb 65, 3, 11
no. 3
τότε + historical present 20, 0, 3
no. 1
τότε + participle 15, 0, 1
τροφή 4, 0, 1
– 3x red.
τυφλός 17, 5, 8
+ 9x red.
metaphorically 9, 0, 1 (Schenk, Sprache, 397)
τυφλός/χωλός 4, 0, 3
3x red.
ὕδωρ 7, 5, 6
3x red.
always pl.
υἱός 90, 35, 77
no. 3
υἱὸς Δαυίδ 9, 3, 4
6x red.
4x ἐλέησον … ὑ. Δ. (3x with κύριε)
υἱὸς θεοῦ, μου or similar (sg.!) 11, 7, 9
4x red.
υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 29, 14, 26
7x red.
ὑμεῖς nominative 30, 10, 10
+ 12x red.
Gundry, 648
ὑπάγω 19, 15, 5
c. 4x red.
imperative
ὑπαντα- 4, 1, 2
+ 2x red.
no. 3
ὑποκριτής 14, 1, 3
c. 9x red.
chap. 23; 7x οὐαὶ ὑμῖν γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί
ὕστερον 7, 0, 1
3x red.
φαίνω 13, 2, 2
3 (+ 4?)x red.
→ ἄγγελος
Φαρισαῖος 30, 12, 27
c. 18x red.
→ ἀρχιερεύς, → γραμματεύς, → ὑποκριτής, → Σαδδουκαῖος
no. 3
φημί 16, 6, 8
c. 12x red.
ἔφη + dative + subject 8x
φοβέομαι 18, 12, 23
7–10x
no. 4
μὴ φοβ- 8, 2, 8
+ 4x red.
LXX frequently
φόβος 3, 1, 7
3x red.
φονεύω 5, 1, 1
2x red.
φῶς 7, 1, 7
– 3x red.
χαίρω 6, 2, 12
2x red.
χαρά 6, 1, 8
1x red.
2x χαρὰ μεγάλη
no. 3
Χριστός 16, 7, 12
+ 7x red.
3x Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός. 5x 1:1–2:4* special material
χρυσός 5, 0, 0
+ 1x red.
χωλός 5, 1, 3
+ 3x red.
χωρέω 4, 1, 0
+ 2x red.
ὧδε 18, 10, 15
+ 4x red.
ὥρα 21, 12, 17
6x red.
→ ἐκεῖνος
ὡς 40, 22, 51
14–20x red.
ὡς as a temporal conjunction is missing
ὡσεί 3, 1, 9
3x red.
no. 1
ὥσπερ 10, 0, 2
4x red.
4x ὥσπερ γάρ
ὥσπερ — οὕτως 4, 1, 0
no. 1
ὥστε 15, 13, 4
10x red.
8x with infinitive red., 3x with indicative in the main clause
Luz, U. (2007). Matthew 1–7: a commentary on Matthew 1–7. (H. Koester, Hrsg.) (Rev. ed., S. 1–39). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Advertisements

No comments yet»

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s

%d Bloggern gefällt das: