Paul and Matthew
Matthew was un-Pauline or non-Pauline (Graham N. Stanton, AGospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew, 314) but few were prepared to go beyond that conclusion. There seemed to me to be plenty of evidence in the Gospel that Matthew was neither pro-Pauline nor simply un-Pauline; rather, the evangelist was openly anti Pauline (David C. Sim, “Conflict in the Canon: The Pauline Literature and the Gospel of Matthew.” In Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to the Rise of Islam, eds.Wendy Mayer and Bronwen Neil. AKG 121, 71–86 at 76–85. Samuel G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, 232–37). Of course such a proposal was not new. In the middle of the last century, Samuel G. F. Brandon mounted an argument that Matthew’s very Jewish Gospel contained critiques of Paul and his “liberal” theology at certain points (Samuel G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, 232–37).

Luz contends that Matthew contains no anti-Pauline polemic, despite the fact that he disagreed with the apostle over the validity of the Torah and over the issue of the relationship between the Christian tradition and Judaism. While Paul maintained that Judaism stood in sharp contrast to Christianity, Matthew saw no such opposition. In pinpointing the evangelist’s Christian theolog ical location, Luz claims that Matthew in fact stood closer to the “judaisers” who opposed Paul in Galatia than to the apostle himself, and Luz wryly remarks that had the two ever met they would not have been close friends (Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, 147–48).

The major issue that divided Paul and Matthew, as Luz acknowledges, was the role of the Torah in the light of the Christ event, and this was clearly no minor matter. It was the single issue that underlay the apostolic council, the dispute between Peter and Paul in Antioch (Gal 2:11 14) and Paul’s conflict in Galatia. I have no doubt that Paul’s Christian Jewish opponents in Galatia would have agreed with the apostle over all sorts of theological and christological questions, but they bitterly disputed his understanding of the place of the Torah for Gentile converts and sought to undermine his apostleship and authority because of it. For his part, Paul responds in Galatians with a bitter polemic of his own. The lesson to be learnt here is this. If the point of disagreement is fundamental and serious enough to both parties in a dispute, then it can easily outweigh the many other factors that they may share in common. Matthew stood theologically close to Paul’s “judaising” opponents in Galatia, then it would seem to follow logically that Matthew would have responded to Paul in much the same way as they did. He would have over looked their agreements and focused his attention on questioning Paul’s gospel and his claims to authority and leadership.

Matthew and Paul stood on different sides of the early Christian factional dispute and that the evangelist offered critiques of Paul and his Law-free theology (David C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community, 188–211). The triad of sayings in Matt 5:17–19, whereby Jesus dispels the notion that he has abolished the Torah and affirms that every part of the Law is to obeyed, is a clear refutation of the Pauline position that the Torah was only a temporary measure that has been brought to an end by Christ (cf. Gal 3:23–25; Rom 10:4) (Sim, Matthew and Christian Judaism, 207–09). The eschatological scenario in Matt 7:21–23, in which Jesus condemns those who call him Lord because of their lawlessness (ἀ νομία), is a strict condemnation of Law-free Christians and recalls Pauline passages such as Rom 10:9–10 and 1Cor 12:3 (David C. Sim, “Matthew 7.21–23: Further Evidence of Its Anti-Pauline Perspective.” NTS 53 (2007): 325–43). Likewise, the material created by Matthew in 13:36–43 makes the point that the Law-free Christian tradition has its origin in Satan and its members will be punished in the fires of Gehenna. The evangelist also confronts the issue of the leadership of the early Christian movement. While Mark presents the future leaders of the Jerusalem church, the disciples and the family of Jesus, in a very poor light, Matthew rehabilitates both groups. In the heavily edited material in 16:17–19, Jesus proclaims the su premacy of Peter as the head of the church using the very language and motifs that Paul employs when referring to his own divine call and mission (Gal 1:12 17). At the end of the Gospel the risen Christ commissions the disciples to lead and oversee both the Jewish and Gentile missions (28:16–20), which completely undercuts Paul’s constant claim to have been appointed the apostle to the Gentiles (e.g. Rom 15:16; Gal 1:16).

The point of these studies was not to show that Matthew simply differed from Paul. Rather, they attempted to demonstrate that in these heavily redacted passages (5:17–19; 7:21–23; 13:36–43; 16:17–19; 28:16–20) the evangelist was consciously responding to and criticising particular claims and theological positions that can be most easily identified with Paul. Matthew’s anti Pauline polemic in perspective. The evangelist was motivated to write his story of Jesus by a number of factors and circumstances, and he used his narrative to discredit a number of opponents or contrary views. The most immediate threat to Matthew’s community was that posed by nascent Formative Judaism, and for this reason the scribes and Pharisees receive the most polemical attention (J. Andrew Overman, Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community; Sim, Matthew and Christian Judaism, 109–63; and Boris Repschinski, The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form and Relevance for the Relationship Between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism), but it is also clear that at certain points in his Gospel Matthew took the opportunity to attack both Paul himself and his version of the gospel, as well as other Christians who held similar beliefs (David C. Sim, “Polemical Strategies in the Gospel of Matthew.” In Polemik in der frühchristlichen Literatur: Texte und Kontexte, eds. Oda Wischmeyer and Lorenzo Scornaienchi, 491–515). This polemical perspective against Paul should not be read into every pericope and it should not be overstated, but by the same token it should not be downplayed. Despite their common commitment to Jesus as the Christ, Matthew’s Law-observant stance put him fundamentally at odds with the apostle, and it is true to say that the reception of Paul in Matthew was basically a hostile one.

Perhaps surprisingly, it has been German-language scholarship that has defended the thesis that Matthew does contain elements of anti-Pauline polemic. The work of Gerd Theissen is of special importance in this respect (Gerd Theissen, “Kritik an Paulus im Matthäusevangelium? Von der Kunst verdeckter Polemik im Urchristentum,” in Wischmeyer and Scornaienchi, Polemik in der frühchristlichen Literature, 465–90; “Kirche oder Sekt? Über Einheit und Konflikt im frühen Urchristentum.” ThG 48 (2005): 162–75). He distinguishes between different types of polemic– anonymous polemic, figurative polemic, pseudony mous polemic and mythological polemic– and finds instances of these in the five major Matthean discourses (cf. Matt 5:19; 10:9; 13:25; 18:6; 23:15) (Theissen, “Kritik an Paulus,” 471–8). Not long after the appearance of Theissen’s work, Eric K. Wong also wrote in defence of Matthew’s anti-Paulinism. While some of his arguments are in some ways similar to those of Theissen, Wong’s work is doubtless independent and the agreements coincidental. Wong argues that Matthew uses the term “gospel” (εὐανγγέλιον) quite differently from Paul’s use and perhaps in contrast to it (Eric K. C. Wong, Evangelien im Dialog mit Paulus, 109–12). This is followed by a discussion of the parable of the tares and its interpretation (Matt 13:24 30.36–43), where Wong (like Theissen) identifies the enemy who sows weeds among the wheat as Paul (Wong, Evangelien, 116–19). According to Wong, Matthew attacks other aspects of Paul’s missionary endeavours. In Matt 10:9 there is a direct refutation of Paul’s manner of conducting his mission by working to supplement his endeavours (so too Theissen), and in 23:15 the evangelist has Paul the former Pharisee in mind (again Theissen as well). Finally Wong considers the statements of the Matthean Jesus concerning the continuing validity of the Torah in Matt 5:17–20 as directed specifically against the more liberal stance of Paul.

Almost no Matthean scholar would argue that Matthew stood in or even near the camp of Paul; it is well accepted that he belonged to an alternative and independent tradition in the early Christian movement.

By the end of the first century, Paul’s letters were circulating around the Christian world as a distinct corpus (Ernest R. Richards, Paul and First Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Compositions and Collection (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 156–61, 214–15, 218–19) and in the early second century Ignatius of Antioch had access to an extensive Pauline collection (Robert M. Grant, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, An Introduction (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1964), 57). Further, the fact that a number of pseudepigraphical letters were composed in the name of Paul towards the end of the first century testifies to the apostle’s continuing and widespread influence. There would be little point writing in the name of the apostle if his name did not carry the utmost authority. In addition Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles at this time, the second half of which is devoted almost exclusively to the missions of Paul. This hagiographical tradition testifies to the importance of Paul in this period. On the other side of the coin,we find in the epistle of James a probable critique, or at least a refinement, of Paul’s theol ogy in the same period. This response by the author of James provides concrete evidence that Paul and his letters were well-known and influential at this time.

Mark and Matthew

The thesis that Mark was the first Gospel to be written and was subsequently used as a major source by Matthew and Luke is still favoured by most scholars (Christopher M.Tuckett, “The Current State of the Synoptic Problem.” In New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008. Essays in Honour of Christopher M. Tuckett, eds. Paul Foster, Andrew Gregory, John S. Klop penborg and Joseph Verheyden. BETL 239 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 9–50).

Matthew mostly followed Mark’s order of events. While it is true that he made some changes to the Marcan order in the first half of his narrative, he largely retains his source’s chronology in the second half of his Gospel (Willoughby C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, xiii-xvii. Cf. too Beaton, “How Matthew Writes,” 120 n. 26). Matthew’s debt to Mark is further evident from the fact that he included most of Mark’s content in his own account of Jesus’ mission. The precise percentage of material he took over is difficult to determine because of a number of ambiguous and subjective factors, but most scholars accept that Matthew reproduced some 90% of Mark’s content (Burnett H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins).

There is good evidence that, despite his acceptance of certain Marcan characteristics, Matthew was rather dissatisfied with his major source in a number of ways. Let us enumerate these briefly. First, Mark’s language is often simplistic, ungrammatical and pleonastic, and Matthew took considerable pains to rewrite and improve the Marcan text (Allen, Matthew, xix-xxxi. According to Streeter, Four Gospels, 159; Matthew’s editing and abbreviating of Mark’s cumbersome language resulted in him re taining only 51 % of Mark’s wording). Secondly, Matthew obviously felt that Mark was too short, and lacked detail both in terms of narrative material and teaching material. He therefore inserted the genealogy and infancy narratives at the beginning of his narrative and the resur rection appearance traditions at the end, and he greatly supplemented the teaching of Jesus by incorporating traditions from Q and other sources. Thirdly, despite retaining the greater bulk of Mark, Matthew did omit a number of whole pericopes (e.g. 7:32–35; 8:22–26), and it must be assumed that he did so because he found these passages either irrelevant, unhelpful or offensive. Fourthly, even when Matthew did not omit sections of Mark, he often edited what he kept either to remove offence or to correct what he deemed to be unpalatable theological features in Mark’s account. For example, in Mark 6:5 Jesus is unable to work miracles in Nazareth, but the Matthean parallel in Matt 13:58 states that he did not do many miracles there. Fifthly, it is seems clear that Matthew, writing some two or three decades after Mark, deemed his source to be sadly inadequate to meet the needs of his own community at the end of the first century. He there fore updated Mark’s story of Jesus to make it more relevant to the situation of his intended readers and more helpful to meet their specific requirements (Luz, Studies in Matthew,19–28. Cf. too Beaton, “How Matthew Writes,” 123–34).

It is well-known that the Marcan Jesus had a liberal attitude towards the Jewish Law (William R. G. Loader, Jesus’ Attitude Towards the Law, 9–136; Boris Repschinski, Nicht aufzulösen, sondern zu erfüllen: Das jüdische Gesetz in den synoptischen Jesuserzählungen, 143–216), which is well illustrated in the tradition concerning purity in Mark 7.1-23. Mark betrays his understanding of this tradition with his addition in 7:19b; “thus he declared all foods clean.” Matthew’s perspective was completely different. The Matthean Jesus spells out clearly and definitively in Matt 5:17–19 that all of the Mosaic Law, even the least of its commandments, was to be obeyed with out exception until the parousia. Nor is it unexpected that Matthew consistently edits those Marcan sections dealing with the Law so that in his narrative Jesus always preserves the Torah (Loader, Jesus’ Attitude Towards the Law, 137–232; Repschinski, Nicht aufzulösen, 57- 141). Matthew also omits or edits other Pauline themes that are found in Mark. Mark has famously been called a passion narrative with an extended introduc tion because he emphasises the sacrificial death of Jesus rather than his teach ings. There are clear contacts here with the Pauline tradition which also high lights the death of Jesus and makes hardly any reference to the teachings of Jesus. Matthew corrects this imbalance by introducing a great deal of teaching material from Q (and other sources as well). Moreover, Mark depicts Jesus as en gaged in a Gentile mission (with no Torah requirements),which precedes and so validates the later missionary activity of Paul (David C. Sim, “Matthew and Jesus of Nazareth.” In Sim and Repschinski, Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries, 155–72). Matthew completely overrules this and confines the mission of the historical Jesus to the Jews alone (Matt 15:24; cf. 10:5–6).

As noted above, when the Gentile mission is commissioned by the risen Christ it is the disciples who are to be responsible for it, which totally undercuts the claims of Paul to be the apostle to the Gentiles.

Mark and Matthew stood in very different Christian theological traditions. The Marcan Jesus was very close theologically to Paul, and Matthew found cause to critique and correct that depiction of Jesus just as he had corrected what he saw as Paul’s invalid theological position. Ulrich Luz has argued that Matthew’s intention was to supplement the Marcan account. Luz begins with the contention that Matthew has written a con servative new story of Jesus based upon the Marcan narrative. He continues; “In this way he makes clear that his story renarrates a given story. There are no in dications that in Matthew Gospel…that he intended to replace the Markan Gospel with which…he assumed at least some of his readers to be familiar” (Luz, Studies in Matthew, 35). The logic of Luz’s argument is not clear, but he seems to suggest that Matthew still envisaged a role for Mark in his own community because his intended readers were already familiar with it. Despite Luz’s expertise and erudition, there is reason in this case to pause and question his conclusion.

The questions continue when we consider Matthew’s omission and redac tion of certain Marcan passages. Why would he want his community to read of the healing of the blind man of Bethsaida in Mark 8:22–26 when he himself had deemed it unworthy of inclusion? Why would he be content to have his read ers learn that Jesus’ power was limited in Mark 6:5 when he had rewritten that text in Matt 13:58 so as not to convey that impression? Why would he desire his intended readers to learn from Mark 3:19b-21 that the family of Jesus believed he was demon-possessed after he himself deemed it to be so offensive that he en sured that it did not appear in his parallel account? Why would Matthew think it beneficial for his community to read in Mark 7:19b that Jesus declared all foods clean when he clearly opposed this view and omitted the offending statement, and elsewhere took pains to depict Jesus as a Law-observant Jew? They demonstrate the implausibility of Luz’s thesis that Matthew intended his Gospel narrative to supplement the earlier Marcan account that was known to his readers. Reading them together would simply have caused confusion be cause of their significant differences and contradictions.

A much plausible suggestion is to argue that Matthew’s purpose was to replace Mark because of its serious deficiencies (Richard Bauckham,”For Whom Were Gospels Written?,” 13; and Graham, N. Stanton, “The Fourfold Gospel.” NTS 43 (1997): 317–46). It lacked important narrative material concerning the birth of Jesus and his resurrection appearances, it was deficient in terms of teaching material, it contained offensive pericopes, it was stylistically crude and it did not meet the needs of Matthew’s post-70 Christian Jewish readers. Furthermore, Matthew saw Mark for what it really was, a narrative account of the mission of Jesus that was designed, at least in part, to support the activity and the theology of Paul. Such a depiction of Jesus, for Matthew, was utterly wrong and perhaps even dangerous, since it contradicted the theology and praxis of the Jerusalem church and it probably misrepresented the teaching and activity of the historical Jesus on some fundamental points (Sim, “Matthew’s Use of Mark,” 187–88. On Matthew and the historical Jesus, see Sim, “Matthew and Jesus of Nazareth,” 155–72). For all of these reasons, Mark had to be substantially rewritten, corrected and ultimately re-placed (Sim, “Matthew’s Use of Mark,” 188–92). Matthew’s Gospel is not in alignment with Mark on a number of fundamental issues. These include the patently Pauline elements in Mark; the role of the Torah in the mission of Jesus and in the Christian church, the role and nature of the Gentile mission, and the treatment of those who eventually held positions of power in the Jerusalem church. In short Matthew does not continue Mark’s trajectory but attempts to overturn it and to replace it with one that was more acceptable to him and his intended readers. His attempt to dispense with Mark is perfectly consistent with his attitude to critique the mission and theology of Paul.