8. Tertullian, Against Marcion. 4.2. 9. Hengel, Mark, pp. 170-72 n. 57. 10.

Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew (London: Robert Scott, 1909), p. vii. 11. In addition to the literature cited in connection with John, see the following discussions that focus on the Matthean connections, all of them arguing against Eusebius: C. Stewart Petrie, The Authorship of The Gospel According to Matthew: A Reconsideration of the External Evidence, NTS 14 (1967-68): 15-32; France, MatthewEvangelist and Teacher, pp. 53-56; Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), pp. 609ff. Gundry points out, among other things, that Eusebius had earlier ( H.E. 3.36.1-2) associated Papias with Ignatius, who died not later than A.D. 110, 22. R. Pesch, Levi-Matthus (Mc 214/Mt 99 103): Ein Beitrag zur Lsing eines alten Problems, ZNW 59 (1968): 40-56. 23. F. W. Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew (Oxford: Blackwell, 1981), pp. 224-225. 24. W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew, AB 26 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981), pp. clxxvii-clxxviii, clxxxiii-clxxxiv. 25. See W. L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 100-101 n. 29. 26. See Gundry, Matthew, pp. 620-21. 27. C. F. D. Moule, St. Matthews Gospel: Some Neglected Features, SE 2 (1964): 90-99; Moule, hal. 94-95. 28. E. J. Goodspeed, Matthew: Apostle and Evangelist (Philadelphia: J. C. Winston,1959). 29. Even contemporary biographies commonly treat certain parts of their subjects life in topical arrangements; see, e.g., Antonia Fraser, Cromwell: Our Chief of Men (St. Albans: Panther, 1975), pp. 455ff. 30. D. A. Carson, Christological Ambiguities in the Gospel of Matthew, in Christ the Lord, Fs. Donald Guthrie, ed. Harold Rowdon (Leicester: IVP, 1982), pp. 97-114. 31. E.g. John P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel (New York: Paulist, 1979), pp. 17-23; G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), p. 34; Sjef van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden: Brill, 1972), hal. 17. 32. On this particular passage, see Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic (London: SCM, 1961), p. 114; Carson, Matthew, pp. 436-40. 33. See France, MatthewEvangelist and Teacher, pp. 70-73. 34. G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946). 35. K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968). 36. For an excellent survey, see W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), pp. 138-47. 37. B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1930), pp. 500-23. 38. Davies and Allison, Matthew, p. 144. 39. H. D. Slingerland, The Transjordanian Origin of St. Matthews Gospel, JSNT 3 (1979): 18-29. 40. Davies and Allison, Matthew, pp. 142, 420. 41. Virtually unanimous because some have suggested that the fact Papias treats Mark before he treats Matthew (at least as Eusebius represents Papias) indicates that Papias thought Mark was written first.

42. See K. H. Rengstorf, Die Stadt der Mrder (Mt 22 7), in Judentum Urchristentum, Kirche, Fs. J. Jeremias, ed. Walther Eltester (Berlin: Tpelmann, 1960), pp. 106-29; B. Reicke, Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem, in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Fs. A. P. Wikgren, ed. D. E. Aune (Leiden: Brill, 1972), pp. 121-34. 43. J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), chap. 2. 44. Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), pp. 189-91. See also France, MatthewEvangelist and Teacher, pp. 242ff. 45. Some add Matt. 11:12, but that passage is relevant only if an anachronism is read into the text; see Carson, Matthew, pp. 265-68. 46. Probably this version was in use in Palestine at the end of the first century. For discussion of the various versions, including the Babylonian version still in use today (in which the doers of wickedness are not identified), see Schrer 2:455-63. 47. See Moule who argues that the period before A.D. 70 is the most plausible dating of Matthews gospel (p. 242). 48. Taking the e[xodo" (exodos, G2016) of Peter and Paul to refer to their death. 49. See Robinson, Redating, pp. 107-15; contra Hengel, Mark, pp. 2-6. 50. Josephus Wars 7.218; Dio Cassius, 65.7.2; Suetonius, Domitian Hist. Rom. 12. Cf. E. M. Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule (Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 371-76. 51. Gundry, Matthew, pp. 602-6. 52. Kilpatrick, Origins, pp. 129-30. 53. Davies and Allison, Matthew, pp. 147-48 n. 127, to which must be added C. M. Martini, La problmatique gnrale du texte de Matthieu, in Lvangile selon Matthieu: Rdaction et Thologie, BETL 29, ed. M. Didier (Gembloux: Duculot, 1972), pp. 21-36. 54. See the commentaries by Albright and Mann (1981), Beare (1981), Gundry (1982), Carson (1984), France (1985), and vol. 1 of Davies and Allison (1988). 55. Stanton, Origin and Purpose. 56. France, MatthewEvangelist and Teacher. 57. G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, and H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (ET London: SCM, 1963). 58. R. Walker, Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967). 59. Hubert Frankemlle, Jahwebund und Kirche Christi: Studien zur Form- und Traditionsgeschichte des Evangeliums nach Matthus (Mnster: Aschendorff, 1974). 60. Bornkamm, Barth, and Held, Tradition and Interpretation, pp. 105-16. 61. See esp. Andrew H. Trotter, Understanding and Stumbling: A Study of the Disciples Understanding of Jesus and His Teaching in the Gospel of Matthew (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1987). 62. The most detailed study is that of Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977). 63. See among other studies the bibliographical entries under Doeve, France ( Jesus and the Old Testament), Gundry, McConnell, Moo, Rothfuchs, Soars Prabhu, Stanton (Matthew), Stendahl, and Westerholm. 64. See esp. the bibliographical entries under Meier ( Law), Banks, and Carson (Matthew, pp. 140ff.).

65. See discussion of the options in D. A. Carson, Jewish Leaders in Matthews Gospel: A Reappraisal, JETS 25 (1982): 161-74. 66. A point perhaps not sufficiently observed in the important article by G. M. Styler, Stages in Christology in the Synoptic Gospels, NTS 10 (1963-64): 398-409. 67. The best-known instance is the argument of Kingsbury ( Matthew) that Son of God is for Matthew the controlling title, under which all others must be subsumed. See the important response by David Hill, Son and Servant: An Essay on Matthean Christology, JSNT 6 (1980): 2-16. 68. See David Duling, The Therapeutic Son of David: An Element in Matthews Christological Apologetic, NTS 24 (1978): 392-410.