Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:01:09.502Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Structure of Matthew XIII

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

David Wenham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The parable of the scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven Most commentators who have attempted to analyse the structure of Matthew xiii have argued that in this chapter the evangelist has deliberately brought together seven parables,1 seven being one of his favourite numbers. This view, however, deserves to be questioned, since, although it has often not been recognized as such, the saying about the scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven in υ. 52 was probably intended by Matthew to be regarded as a parable. He thus has eight parables, not seven.2

Type
Short Studies
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , July 1979 , pp. 516 - 522
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Among those who have thought that Matthew xiii comprises seven parables are Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels (London, 1930–1932), p. 167Google Scholar; Bultmann, R., History of the Synoptic Tradition (E.T. Oxford, 1963), p. 356Google Scholar; Hill, D., The Gospel of Matthew (London, 1972), p. 223Google Scholar; Goulder, M. D., Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London, 1974), pp. 365 f.Google Scholar

2 Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Matthäus (ed. Schmauch, W.: Göttingen, 1962), pp. 190 f.Google Scholar, recognizes this. Commenting on the view that the chapter contains seven parables, he says: ‘Diese Siebenheit ist sichtlich nur ein formales Nebenmotiv’. Kingsbury, J. D. is another to recognize υ 52 as a parable in his The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13 (London, 1969).Google Scholar

3 Cf. Lohmeyer, op. cit. p. 190.

4 J. D. Kingsbury, op. cit. p. 38, speaks of the section as ‘not unlike a multi-coloured quilt’. This is the sort of impression that one gets if one looks at the section in a synopsis like that of A. Huck. He splits the section into three and thus unintentionally obscures its unity.

5 We have taken the ⋯τι of υ.II as causal, not as ⋯τι recitativum (following, among others, Huck, A., Synopsis of the First Three Gospels (E. T. Oxford, 1959), p. 72Google Scholar; Wilkens, W., T.Z. 20 (1964), 308Google Scholar; Via, D. O., J.B.L. 84 (1965), 431)Google Scholar. This interpretation is in our view preferable not only because there is no case elsewhere in the NT of ⋯ δ⋯ ⋯ποκριθεìς εīπεν being followed by ⋯τι recitativum, but also because of the superior sense that results. On this view the ⋯τι gives the reply to the preceding ⋯ι⋯ (for comparable cases see Rom. ix. 32; II Cor. xi. 11); this reply is explained in what follows (υ. 12). Then the ⋯ι⋯ τοτο… τι of υ. 13 is a sort of recapitulation of the reply already given, applying what was rather a general reply to the specific question of parables for the crowd. The alternative view, taking the initial ⋯τι of υ. 11 as a ⋯τι recitativum, involves one in taking the next verse, ⋯οτις yγ⋯ρ ἔχει… as an explanation of why the mysteries of the kingdom have been given to the disciples and not, as we take it, as an explanation of the logical link between the granting of the knowledge of the mysteries and the parabolic teaching of Jesus. Grammatically speaking this is possible; but in our view it makes preferable sense to regard the statement of divine election in υ. II as the basis from which υ. ia and υ. 13 follow rather than to regard υ. 12 as explaining the basis of the divine gift of knowledge. (For further discussion of this point and of other points in this article see the author's ‘The Composition of Mark 4: 1–34’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis of the University of Manchester, 1970) pp. 61 f. and passim.) It should be added that our argument about the structure of the section is not absolutely dependent on the one interpretation of ⋯τι. If ⋯τι is taken as ⋯τι recitativum, then the general answer to the disciples' question is: ‘knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom is given to you because you are those who already “have”, and is withheld from the others because they do not have’ (υυ. 11, 12); this general answer is then applied to parable teaching in particular – ‘I speak in parables to them (i.e. obscurely), because they do not see…’, etc.

6 This is probably implied in the disciples' question in υ. 10.

7 Our proposed analysis of xiii. 10–18 does not solve the question as to whether the citation from Isaiah vi found in Matthew xiii. 14, 15 is part of the original text of the gospel. It might be argued that it interferes with the chiastic parallelism of the section and that it should therefore be regarded as an interpolation. But against that it may be said (a) that on no view is Matthew's structure at this point rigidly symmetrical, so that it is unwise to exclude sections that seem not to fit too quickly; (b) that υ. 17 in the Disciples section (see diagram above) could be considered as some sort of equivalent of υυ. 14, 15 in the Crowd section – as υυ. 14, 15 explain the people's blindness and deaf ness, so υ. 17 explains the disciples' seeing and hearing; (c) that υυ. 14, 15 fit very well with what precedes, reinforcing and clarifying the point already made in υ. 13; (d) that they also fit in well with what follows, the reference to eyes and ears in υ. 15 preparing us for the further reference to eyes and ears in υ. 16; (e) that there is chiasmus within the citation itself. Fenton, J. C., St Matthew (London, 1963), p. 16Google Scholar, notes the pattern in υ. 15: heart, ears, eyes; eyes, ears, heart. (It might be possible to argue that the reference to the ‘eyes’ and ‘ears’ of the disciples in υ. 16 is in chiastic parallelism with the ‘ears’ and ‘eyes’ of the people in υ. 15, and perhaps even that the positive ὑμεīς οὔν ⋯κούσατε of υ. 18 is parallel to the negative άκοῇ ⋯κοὐσετε καì οὐ μηgrave; συντε of υ. 14. If the latter suggestion were true, then υ. 18 would be parallel to υ. 14 rather than to υ. 13. But this may be too subtle.) On balance the evidence of the structure of the section seems to me to favour the retention of the citation. The other arguments against this view (e.g. from the Septuagintal form of the quotation and from the form of words introducing the citation) are inconclusive. See on this Gundry, R. H., The Use of the Old Testament in St Matthew's Gospel (Leiden, 1967), pp. 117 f.Google Scholar; also the present writer's thesis cited above, pp. 65 f.

8 Those uncommitted to the theory of Marcan priority might regard the structure of the section as pre-Matthean.

9 They may lend weight to the views of J. C. Fenton about the importance of inclusio and chiasmus in Matthew's gospel, op. cit. pp. 15, 16.

10 ülicher, A. J., Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (Tubingen, 1910 2), 1, 128Google Scholar, says that by inserting υ. 12 here Matthew, ‘sprengt….den Zusammenhang zwischen dem Gegensatz ὑμīν… ⋯κεíνοις δε` und der Verstockungsthese'. Cf. also M'Neile, A. H., The Gospel according to St Matthew (London, 1915), p. 190.Google Scholar

11 So Wernle, P., Die Synoptische Frage (Freiburg, 1899), p. 129Google Scholar. Cf. Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (E.T. London, 1966), pp. 47 fGoogle Scholar. It is also argued that the separation of the inter pretation of the parable of the tares from the parable is peculiar and reflects Matthew's use of Mark (see Kümmel, ibid.). But this argument is as unconvincing as the others. If Matthew was using Mark, he was using him quite freely, and he could easily have placed the interpretation of the parable to the disciples immediately after the parable, had he wished to. But to have done so would have been awkward and would have interrupted the narrative sequence; it would also have spoiled the structure of the chapter. The interpretation fits very well where it is.

12 Without υ. 12 the argument of the section is less clear and coherent.

13 If anything the structural argument could be thought to point in the opposite direction: Matthew's structure in chapter xiii is so coherent that it may be easier to think of the chapter as an original compilation of the evangelist rather than as an editorial patchwork made up of bits and pieces from Mark and other sources; if it is the latter, the editing has been expertly done. See on this Butler, B. C., The Originality of St Matthew (Cambridge, 1951). pp. 92 fGoogle Scholar. The present writer has drawn attention to features of Matthew xiii and Mark iv which throw doubt on the usually accepted view that Matthew was dependent on Mark at this point in his gospel in Tyn. Bull, 23 (1972), 3–38Google Scholar and in N.T.S. 20 (1974), 299–319.Google Scholar

14 Cf. D. Hill, op. cit. pp. 227 f.