Matthew’s Intention to Write History -- By: James W. Scott
Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 47:1 (Spring 1985)
Article: Matthew’s Intention to Write History
Author: James W. Scott
WTJ 47:1 (Spr 1985) p. 68
Matthew’s Intention to Write History
In “A Theological Postscript” to his redaction-critical study of Matthew’s Gospel, Robert H. Gundry argues that Matthew wrote his work in the accepted “midrashic” manner, i.e. by deliberately embellishing historical narrative with nonhistorical elements.1 The idea that there might be midrash in the Gospels is not new with Gundry, but in the past it has usually been argued that this midrash is midrash on OT texts (as are the Jewish midrashim).2 According to Gundry, however, Matthew’s Gospel is a midrashic treatment of the gospel tradition, principally as recorded in Mark and “Q.”3
Gundry’s thesis has been criticized by several scholars, who question his redaction-critical methods (including his source-critical assumptions and his use of statistics), his understanding of midrash and the first-century literary milieu, his handling of apparent Gospel discrepancies, and other aspects of
WTJ 47:1 (Spr 1985) p. 69
his argument.4 Their criticisms are weighty, but Gundry has replied vigorously to them,5 and much more remains to be said on the difficult issues involved. One of Gundry’s critics, Douglas J. Moo, has indeed conceded that “to refute this argument conclusively…would require a commentary at least as long as Gundry’s.”6
But an exhaustive study of all these matters may not be necessary in order to determine whether Matthew wrote his Gospel as history or midrash. Largely overlooked in the Gundry debate are the formulas with which Matthew introduces his “fulfillment quotations,” or “formula quotations,” so called because these OT quotations are introduced with a formula referring to the fulfillment of Scripture.7 We would
WTJ 47:1 (Spr 1985) p. 70
suggest that Matthew’s literary intention can be determined from these (and two other) passages, because in them he characterizes the events that he has just related. The manner in which he comments upon the Gospel events, we will argue, shows that he understood his accounts to be, and thus intended them to be, strictly historical in character.
When we say that Matthew intended his narrative to be “strictly historical” in character, we are not suggesting that he undertook to relate everything in exhaustive detail. We simply mean that he intended his narr...
Click here to subscribe