No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
“The Five Books of Matthew”: Bacon on the Gospel of Matthew
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 October 2011
Extract
Some years ago there was discovered in the monastery of Iveron on Mount Athos a curious paper manuscript of the sixteenth century, “filled with all kinds of theological extracts.” It was catalogued by Lambros, as the work of “Matthew a monk” (Mατθαíου μονάχου). Rendel Harris, to whom New Testament students are indebted for many valuable and penetrating judgments, questioned the justice of this identification. The Matthew referred to was, he held, not an obscure mediaeval monk: he was none other than Matthew the apostle.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1931
References
1 Bacon, Benjamin W., Studies in Matthew. New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1930. Pp. xxviGoogle Scholar, 533.
2 In this article Bacon's use of the symbols Mt, Mk, Lk to indicate the canonical gospels or their authors will be followed.
3 Jerome, Interpr. Horn. Orig. in Luc. Prologus.
4 This argument was the basis of his article, ‘Why “According to Matthew,”’ Expositor, 1920, Vol. 20, 92. Bacon's present volume constantly embodies earlier studies, usually transcribing the argument with such brevity that the reader finds study of the earlier discussion advisable.
5 Is it possible that the “Matthias” of Acts 1, 23 ff. is at all connected with this James-Levi-Matthew confusion?
6 Bacon, following Streeter, assumes on the basis of the Syriac MS., “As to the star,” a council de recipiendis libris in Rome in 120 (119) A.D., in which Mt was accorded canonical rank largely by reason of the testimony of the church of Antioch.
7 Ign., Smyrn. 3, 2.
8 It is to be remembered, however, that one of the classic arguments for their coincidence in date is based on their mutual independence.
9 ‘Paul and Gamaliel,’ Journal of Religion, July, 1927, VII; ‘The Ascension Story,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, 1928, XLVII, Farts 1 and 2.
10 Cf. Lk 19, 11; 15, 1 ff. — to cite but two conspicuous examples.
11 Bacon's analysis of the Gospel of Matthew is as follows: Preamble: chapters 1–2
Book I. Concerning Discipleship 3, 1–7, 29
Div. A. Introductory Narrative 8, 1–4, 25
Div. B. First Discourse 5, 1–7, 29
Book II. Concerning Apostleship 8, 1–11, 1
Div. A. Introductory Narrative 8, 1–9, 85
Div. B. The Discourse 9, 36–11, 1
Book III. Concerning the Hiding of the Revelation 11, 2–13, 53
Div. A. Israel is Stumbled 11, 2–12, 50
Div. B. Teaching in Parables 11, 1–53
Book IV. Concerning Church Administration 18, 54–19, la
Div. A. Jesus and the Brotherhood 13, 54–17, 20 [21]
Div. B. The Discourse. Church Administration 17, 22–19, la
Book V. Concerning the Judgment 19, lb-26, 2
Div. A. Jesus in Judea 19, lb-22, 46
Div. B. Discourse on Judgment to Come 23, 1–26, 2
Epilogue: 26, 3–28, 20
12 Bacon emphasizes the fact that Mt knew his sources, especially Mk, memoriter.
13 This contrast (p. 168) with Lk, which is “a new gospel which separates believers, from the world,” is most happy and recalls Kirsopp Lake's pun: “Mt is a new Law; Lk a new λαός.”
14 This objection is made by B. S. Eastern in his recent volume, Christ in the Gospels, p. 18.
15 It is to be observed that Bacon had argued on an earlier page (pp. 85 f.) that this was to compensate for1 the omission of the Markan narrative.
16 The Beginnings of the Gospel Story, pp. xx-xxi and passim; The Gospel of Mark, esp. pp. 187–151.
17 After all Mt and Lk are at least a decade, perhaps two decades, later than Mk.
18 The Gospel according to St. Luke, note on this passage.
19 The Beginnings of Christianity, I, p. 414.
20 In his earlier volume, The Sermon on the Mount (pp. 127,175), Bacon considers this verse “a mere scribal gloss.”
21 This may account for the future in 8, 10.
22 Especially since this change from Mk's “in those days” is emphasized (p. 67).
23 In view of his reference to “Mt's partial correction of Mk's historical inaccuracies regarding Herod's position and family” (p. 508) Bacon apparently considers the authentic text of Mk 6, 22 to have had αὐτο instead of αὐτς.