# Gospel according to Matthew

Papyrus sheet 1 (early 3rd century) found in Oxyrhynchus in 1896/97 is one of the most important fragments of the Gospel of Matthew as a "constant first-order witness". Here the front with the text of Mt 1,1–9.12  EU . ${\ displaystyle {\ mathfrak {P}}}$

The Gospel according to Matthew (or Matthew's Gospel , abbreviated: Matthew ) is the first of the four Gospels of the New Testament . The author does not mention his name in the book. The book title and thus the author's name Matthew were added later. However, that happened at a very early stage. Obviously, this book title identifies the author with a person mentioned in the book as a disciple of Jesus .

The Gospel of Matthew comes from a Jewish Christian milieu in Syria, originated according to majority opinion around 80/90 AD and describes Jesus of Nazareth as the royal Messiah and the Son of God . In sharp demarcation from Jewish authorities ( Pharisees ), Matthew describes how Jesus turned to the people of Israel in a friendly and helpful manner. In this way he fulfilled the prophetic words of the Old Testament . The teaching of Jesus is unfolded in five great speeches, the best known of which is the Sermon on the Mount . For Matthew, following Jesus becomes concrete in righteous action. After Easter , the church of Matthew saw itself commissioned to evangelize people from all nations . They were incorporated into the Ekklesia through baptism ; the authority of Simon Peter guaranteed the authentic Jesus tradition. The large majority of the Gentile Christian Church received the book very early on and made it its main gospel.

Since the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark and Luke offer a similar representation of the Jesus tradition (synopsis, synopsis), which differs from the Gospel of John , these three writings are called the Synoptic Gospels .

## Book title

Endpaper with the words "Gospel according to Matthew" (
4th , 2nd or 3rd century)${\ displaystyle {\ mathfrak {P}}}$

The Greek book title is εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μαθθαῖον euangélion katà Matthaĩon , " Gospel according to Matthew". It is old and already assumed by Papias of Hierapolis ; thus the book was already known under this name around the year 100 AD. The ancient church tradition (Papias note and Ebionite Gospel as the earliest witnesses) designates the tax collector Matthew ( Mt 9.9  EU , Mt 10.3  EU ) named in the book as the author. According to Ulrich Luz , exegesis only has the choice between explanations, all of which are fraught with difficulties: It is just as unlikely that the book originally had a different title or no title at all, as is the assumption that the author is an otherwise unknown Christian named Mattaj was - this Aramaic name is relatively rare. Nevertheless, after Luz, the book title is younger than the book itself.

It is not known exactly how the Gospels got their respective book titles (inscriptio) . The local Christian congregations probably collected important writings as early as the 1st century, e.g. B. also the epistles of Paul , and exchanged them with one another. Martin Hengel suspects that individual congregations had their bookcase in which texts were kept that were intended for reading in church services and less for private reading. According to Hengel, the titles were probably added by those scribes who made copies of the works to pass on to other communities. It also happened that several gospels were combined into one code . It was not until 2012 that a flyleaf with the title of the Gospel of Matthew was published, which belongs as a fragment to 4 , a papyrus that otherwise contains text from the Gospel of Luke. ${\ displaystyle {\ mathfrak {P}}}$

Papias of Hierapolis reported on the author of the Gospel, citing an anonymous presbyter :

"Matthew has now put the words (τὰ λόγια) together in the Hebrew language, but everyone translated them as he was able to."

- Eusebius of Caesarea: Church history 3.39.15

This information, obtained as an excerpt from Eusebius from the lost work of Papias, contradicts the finding that the Gospel of Matthew is not only available in Greek, but was also written in this language. "Throughout the book, style and language use are of a uniformity that a translator would never achieve." There is no evidence of a Hebrew (or Aramaic ) original version of tradition complexes. But the phrase Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ Hebraḯdi dialéktō does not necessarily have to be translated as “in the Hebrew language”; as Josef Kurzinger pointed out, this is not even philologically obvious. Papias meant "in a Jewish manner of representation", namely a certain way of disposing of the material. The early church authors misunderstood Papias.

## Author, time and place of origin

### Majority opinion

In historical-critical exegesis there is a broad consensus that the author of the Gospel is not known by name. These exegetes do not see any historical information behind the Papias note, but rather the wish to ascribe the work to an apostle . However, the assumption that the name Matthew is supposed to be a guarantor for church tradition is also purely hypothetical. The standard argument against the writing by the disciple Matthew is that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent on the Gospel of Mark and that an eyewitness would not have relied on the work of a non-eyewitness to write it. For the sake of simplicity, the anonymous author is nevertheless referred to as "Matthew" in the specialist literature.

While the Gospel of Mark is written in a popular Greek, the author of the Gospel of Matthew chose a more sophisticated style. He wrote more succinctly, with more concentration. He liked to repeat formulas and work with key words, chiasms and inclusions. Unlike the Gospel of Luke , in which formulations of the Septuagint are deliberately used as a stylistic device, Matthew is strongly influenced by Bible Greek, but without deliberately writing the Septuagint style.

The anonymous author is often characterized as a Jewish Christian community leader, or with a formulation by Ernst von Dobschütz as “rabbi and catechist.” Martin Hengel suspected that he had received “basic Palestinian-Jewish scriptural training.” He wrote as “an exponent of his Congregation ”and relied on the familiar wherever he could. That is why he used formulas that were recited in the divine service ( Our Father Mt 6 : 9-13  EU , words of institution at the Lord's Supper Mt 26 : 26-28  EU , baptismal formula Mt 28: 19  EU ).

Terminus post quem is the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 AD. This is largely the consensus of historical-critical exegesis, because it recognizes multiple references in the Gospel of Matthew to this traumatizing event (e.g. Mt 22.7  EU , Mt 27.25  EU ). Furthermore, it follows from the two-source theory that the Gospel of Mark Matthew was already available, and the Gospel of Mark is largely dated after the Jewish War. In determining the term ante quem , the crucial question is who is quoting the Gospel of Matthew. The Didache originated in a community shaped by the Gospel of Matthew - but its dating is uncertain. Several early church authors know the Gospel ( Ignatius of Antioch , Polycarp of Smyrna , Barnabas Letter , 1st Clement Letter , Justin ), so that the book was apparently already read in different places around 100/120: in Rome, in Smyrna , in Egypt. One comes closest to the time of writing, if the author of the 1st letter of Peter knew the Gospel of Matthew (cf. 1 Petr 2,12  EU and Mt 5,16  EU as well as 1 Petr 3,14  EU and Mt 5,10  EU ). Taken together, all the evidence suggests dating soon after the year 80 AD or around 90 AD, if one sees in Ignatius of Antioch the first author who knew the Gospel of Matthew.

It is generally assumed that it originated in the Syrian region. An internal note is the mention of Syria in Mt 4,24a  EU , a note that shows that this region was important to Matthew. The rapid spread of the book in the Eastern Mediterranean suggests that it was written in a city. Many exegetes think of Antioch on the Orontes , although z. B. Caesarea Maritima , Caesarea Philippi or Edessa have the same qualifications: good integration into the ancient transport network and a larger proportion of the Jewish population. One can hypothetically imagine the world of Matthew's group in Antioch as follows: Greek was spoken in the city, while Aramaic was spoken in the country. There was no central synagogue like in Alexandria in Antioch, but rather individual Jewish house communities. The Matthew group was such a house church.

### Minority opinion

In contrast to the majority of today's historical-critical exegetes, Gerhard Maier considers it unfounded to push aside the unanimous testimony of the early church authors, and therefore sees the apostle and disciple Matthew as the author. From the Papias note it is not clear whether Matthew wrote the oldest Gospel, but this is the consensus of the entire early Church, and Irenaeus of Lyon (around 180) gives a clear indication of the time - Matthew wrote his work, “as Peter and Paul preached the Gospel in Rome ”, ie around 55-65 AD. Maier states:“ The modern consensus […] is in conscious contradiction to the sources. ”A passage like Mt 22.7  EU only refers to those to the destruction of Jerusalem that had already taken place in the year 70, which did not count on real prophecy . According to Irenaeus and just like Theodor Zahn , he suspects Palestine or the “Israelland” as the place where it was written. With reference to the Papias note, Theodor Zahn suspected an originally Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew; Maier does not commit himself here and points out that the brief note in Eusebius' excerpt allows different interpretations.

Craig S. Keener, who originally took the majority position on the author's question, is looking for a compromise with conservative authors who hold on to the historicity of the Papias note in the revised version of his Matthew Commentary (2009). He suggests a scenario in which a school has passed on traditions that go back to the disciple Matthew; the Gospel may have been written by this group of students at the end of the 1970s, but not a joint production, but the work of an author. In his commentary (2007), John Nolland advocates an early dating well before the year 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem, but combines this with the two-source theory, with which he comes to very early dates for the Gospel of Mark and the Logia source, even in the lifetime of the first Christian generation .

## Sources used by the author

### Majority opinion

The two-source theory is used almost consensually by historical-critical exegetes for the prehistory of the Gospel of Matthew:

The author therefore used two scriptures available to him in Greek, namely the Gospel of Mark and the source Q of the Logia . The Gospel of Mark forms the narrative backbone, the Logia source provides the material for the blocks of speech inserted into the plot. The Matthean special property comprises 25 text units; since a common leitmotif is not recognizable, one does not count on a third written source here. So these were orally circulating material that the evangelist wrote down. About 50% of the text comes from the Gospel of Mark, about 80% of which was incorporated into the Gospel of Matthew. A little more than 25% of the Matthew text is attributable to the Logia source and a little less than 25% to the special property. In addition, some exegetes count on a written collection of fulfillment quotes (quotes from the Old Testament that were related to Jesus Christ) that Matthew might have had when he wrote his Gospel.

Schematic representation of the two-source theory

Luz suspects that the logia source circulated in various reviews, a shorter one that Matthew used and an extended one that Luke had before him. Specifically, he imagines the Logienquelle as a collection of materials, a kind of antique notebook, into which sheets could easily be inserted or removed; the Gospel of Mark, on the other hand, was circulated as a code . To explain the so-called minor agreements (agreements between Matthew and Luke, in which they differ from the Mark text), he assumes that the two evangelists used a version of the Gospel of Mark that was somewhat different from the Mark text known today. It is obvious that texts in a "religious fringe and subculture" circulated in slightly different versions. Luz argues here as a representative of the "Deuteromarkus" hypothesis. Konradt objects that this hypothesis solves a problem by creating a new one: For now one has to explain why the version of the Gospel of Mark, which Matthew and Luke were at different places of writing, then disappeared without a trace.

According to Konradt, Matthew did not simply intend to supplement the Gospel of Mark with additional material, but wanted to displace Mark with his own work because he did not like its conception. Thus, against his submission, Matthew had particularly worked out the Messiah's son of David , corrected the Torah understanding and also drew a different picture of the disciples of Jesus. As far as can be seen, Matthew had fewer corrections to make to the Logia source.

### Minority opinion

By following the dating of Irenaeus of Lyon, Maier found that Matthew, presumably as an eyewitness, wrote the oldest Gospel and consequently did not use the Gospel of Mark. For Maier, the similarity between the two writings can be explained by the fact that when composing the text, Mark followed Matthew or (as Augustine suspected) created a short version of the Gospel of Matthew. However, eyewitness does not mean that Matthew wanted to share his personal experiences like a modern author; rather, when he wrote it down, he orientated himself to the Old Testament and also to the traditions circulating in writing or orally and included them. With reference to Karl Jaroš , Maier considers the Logienquelle to be a “modern desk structure”. It is more plausible that several collections of Jesus' words were in circulation. Maier 2 Tim 4,13  EU has special weight , because the μεμβράναι membránai mentioned there could, as Rainer Riesner suspected, be " parchment notes"; Such collections of Jesus 'words could also have been put together during Jesus' lifetime. Maier concludes from this that the traditions of Jesus were in circulation orally and in writing. Matthew was able to use his eyewitness and his experience as an apostle to choose the suitable one.

Unlike Maier, Keener sticks to Mark's priority and identifies the evangelist Mark, in accordance with the early church tradition, as an author who wrote for Christians in Rome in the mid-1960s. Thanks to the network of traveling Christians, Mark's work soon became known to the author of the Gospel of Matthew, but he worked for years to combine the Gospel of Mark with his own material into a composition, so that the late 1970s are again the time period for Keener suggest completion.

## genus

At first glance, the Gospel of Matthew could appear to the ancient reader as a description of the life of an important personality. Luz sees a fundamental difference, however, in the fact that the typical biography of an exemplary person is not told here, but a strictly unique life story. Older provisions of the work as a manual ( Krister Stendahl , The School of St. Matthew , 1954) or as a “ kerygmatic history work ” ( Hubert Frankemölle , Jahwe-Bund und Kirche Christi , 1984) have not been able to prevail, while a designation as “Biography "(Graham N. Stanton) or" Enkomion Biography "(Peter L. Shuler: A Genre for the Gospels , 1982) is often represented.

## structure

The Gospel of Matthew defies a clear structure as it is possible with the other Gospels. This is due to the evangelist himself, who wanted a coherent narrative. In addition, chapters 3 to 11 are dominated by non-Markinic subjects, while from chapter 12 the outline of the Gospel of Mark is taken over, except for the inserted Jesus speeches. "It is as if the evangelist Matthew slacked off in his editorial activity from chapter 12 onwards." The various proposals for structuring can be classified into three basic types:

1. Model of the five books. Matthew designed five Jesus speeches: Sermon on the Mount (chapters 5 to 7), mission speech (chapter 10), parable speech ( Mt 13 : 1-52  EU ), congregational speech (chapter 18) and Pharisee and end-time speech (chapters 23 to 25). In this model, each of these five blocks of speech is assigned a previous narrative section. Narrative parts and speeches together form the main part of the text. It is framed by an introduction (Chapters 1 and 2) and the final part with Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection (Chapters 26 to 28). Some representatives of this structure model compare the five Jesus speeches with the five books of the Pentateuch : Jesus is portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew as the new Moses . The model is not convincing because the narrative sections are thematically hardly connected with the following speeches.
2. Ring composition. The gospel has a center, which is mostly found in the third Jesus speech ( Mt 13 : 1-52  EU ), and is structured around this chiastically . Some of these chiastic references are striking: the first and last of the five speeches of Jesus are almost equally long, the second and fourth speeches are noticeably short.
3. Matthew took over the outline of the Gospel of Mark. This results in two main parts: effectiveness in Galilee (from Mt 4,17  EU ) and the way to Jerusalem as a path in suffering, death and resurrection (from Mt 16,21  EU ). In contrast to the other two types of structure, it is here the progress of the action that determines the structure of the gospel, and not the teaching of Jesus contained in the speeches.

Today the gospel is mainly understood as a narrative (basic type 3), in which the speeches were inserted at the appropriate place. They interrupt the progress of the action and address the reader directly in the present; they are "spoken out of their 'window', as it were." The Proömium has a double function. On the one hand it tells how the story of Jesus began; However, it also anticipates the course of the entire story of Jesus, whereby the reader is conveyed “important reading points” from the very beginning.

The following table of contents corresponds to the structure of the commentary on Matthew by Ulrich Luz (columns 1 and 2). In the third column, well-known texts from the Gospel of Matthew are assigned to this structure.

 Six main parts Breakdown Well-known texts Prelude (1.1-4.22) A: The Childhood Stories (1-2) B: The beginning of Jesus' ministry (3: 1–4, 22) Family tree of Jesus (1: 1–17) Holy Three Kings , Star of Bethlehem (legendary based on 2.1–12), gold, frankincense and myrrh Flight into Egypt (2.13-15) Child murder in Bethlehem (2.16-18) Baptism of Jesus (3: 13-17) Temptation of Jesus (4.1-11) The work of Jesus in Israel in word and deed (4.23-11.30) A: The Sermon on the Mount (5-7) B: Jesus' miracles in Israel (8.1-9.35) C: Disciple of the Disciples (9.36-11.1) D: transition. The crisis of Israel deepens (11: 2-30) Salt of the earth (5.13) Light under the bushel (5,14-15) Our Father (6,9-13) Splinters and Bars (7.3-5) House built on rocks and sand (7.24-27) Healing a leper (8: 1-4) Captain of Capernaum (8.5-13) Healing of Peter's mother-in-law (8: 14-15) New wine in old bottles (9.17) Parable of the children making music (11: 16-30) Jesus withdraws from Israel (12.1-16.20) A: The conflict with the Pharisees (12: 1-50) B: The parable (13: 1-53) C: Jesus' withdrawal from Israel and the emergence of the church (13.53-16.20) Parable of the fourfold field (13.3-20) Parable of the tares of the wheat (13: 24-30) Parable of the mustard seed (13: 31-32) Parable of the leaven (13:33) Parable of the Precious Pearl (13: 45-46) Parable of the fishing net (13.47-50) Jesus' work in the church (16.21-20.34) A: Discipleship Experiences on the Path to Suffering (16.21-20.34) B: The Discourse on Fellowship (18: 1-35) C: On the way to Jerusalem (19.1-20.34) Transfiguration of Jesus (17: 1-8) Rascal servant (18.23-35) Blessing of children (19.13-15) Parable of the workers in the vineyard (20: 1-16) Jesus in Jerusalem (20.1-25.46) A: Jesus' reckoning with his opponents (21.1–24.2) B: The Speech of Judgment (24.3-25.46) Temple cleansing (21.12-17) Curse of the fig tree (21.18-22) Parable of the unequal sons (21: 28-32) Parable of the Evil Winegrowers (21: 33-41) Parable of the Great Supper (22: 1-14) Sadducee question (22.23-33) Son of David question (22.41-46) Hen and chicks (23.37) Parable of the fig tree (24: 32-33) Parable of the wise and foolish virgins (25: 1-13) Parable of the Entrusted Talents (25: 14-30) Pictorial speech from the Last Judgment (25: 31-46) Passion and Easter (26.1-28.20) The Passion Begins (26.1–16) Jesus' last passover (26: 17-29) In Gethsemane (26.30-56) In the palace of the high priest (26.57-27.10) Jesus is condemned by the Romans (27: 11-31) Jesus is crucified (27: 32-61) The resurrection of Jesus and the double outcome of the Gospel of Matthew (27.62–28.20) Last Supper of Jesus (26: 17-29) Denial of Peter (Mt 26: 31-35) Blood call (Mt 27: 24-26) Mission order (Mt 28: 19-20)

## Basic theological statements

### Interpretation of the person Jesus of Nazareth

Matthew interprets Jesus as “God-with-us” ( Immanuel , cf. Mt 1,23  EU ). This is how it is presented to the reader in the Proömium. However, the evangelist does not use arguments to explain how he relates this prophetic word from the Old Testament to the Nazarene, but tells stories about Jesus. This gives them an ambiguity: At first glance, events from the life of Jesus of Nazareth are communicated, but these become transparent for Christian experiences of faith after Easter . Examples include the storm hemostasis ( Mt 8.23 to 27  EU ) or the healing of the blind ( Mt 20.29 to 34  EU ).

The passion story beginning with chapter 26 deepens what the reader has learned about Jesus up to that point. Matthew follows the sequence of the Gospel of Mark, but makes corrections and additions. Jesus knows in advance that he will be arrested, condemned and executed ( Mt 26.2  EU ); as God's son he could muster armies of angels to defend himself ( Mt 26,52-54  EU ). But he renounces it and goes the path of suffering and non-violence until death . The Jewish and Roman actors act as if they could deal with Jesus, their prisoner, at will, but according to Matthew they are in error. As in Mark's Gospel and differently from the evangelists Luke and John depict, Jesus' last words are a quote from Psalm 22 ( Mt 27.46  EU = Mk 15.34  EU = Ps 22.2  EU ). “Jesus dies as a prayer who turns to his God.” God reacts to this and authenticates Jesus through extraordinary phenomena, which at the same time indicate the devaluation of the temple and the city of Jerusalem ( Mt 27 : 51–53  EU ). The Roman soldiers under the cross are frightened (because they have met the divine) and confess Jesus, whom they had previously mocked, as God's Son. A special element of the Matthean Easter narrative is that the disciples do not meet the risen One in Jerusalem but in Galilee; "The theological program of the opposition between Galilee and Jerusalem will be continued after Easter."

### Discipleship and Church

What Matthew understands by community ( ecclesiology ), he makes clear with the two central terms "disciple" ( ancient Greek μαθητής mathētḗs ) and "follow" ( ancient Greek ἀκολουθέω akolouthéō ); "The figures of the disciples are the most important configuration of the ' implicit reader '". For example, they are “of little faith”, pupils of the “only teacher” ( Mt 23.8  EU ) who protects them ( Mt 28.20  EU ). Your own life experiences can be interpreted in the light of his biography. By obeying his commandments, they are on the way to ethical perfection ( Mt 5.48  EU , Mt 19.16-21  EU ).

Simon Peter could be described as the most important supporting role in the Gospel of Matthew. The evangelist uses the figure in several ways:

• Peter is the spokesman for the other disciples. He says what everyone thinks. He asks and is instructed and corrected by Jesus.
• He's the typical Christian, sometimes brave, sometimes weak.
• But he is also a unique historical person. For the Gospel of Matthew, Peter is a founder figure, comparable to the “ favorite disciple ” in the Gospel of John . Peter as guarantor of the Jesus tradition was particularly important in Syria (e.g. pseudo-clementines ).

After some wanderings, Matthew lets Jesus move into a permanent place of residence ( Mt 4.13  EU ). He writes for a sedentary community. But the Ekklesia is imagined as a community boat that one can get on and that carries one to a new bank after storms on the crossing.

### Ethics - the better justice

The Sermon on the Mount is the core text of the “Gospel of the Kingdom” ( Mt 4,23  EU ), which Jesus preached in the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew has no problem in the image talk of doomsday imagine how people received their judgment because of their ethical behavior and accordingly the kingdom of God or the eternal fire go ( Mt 25,46  EU ). This is based on the conviction that “God takes man seriously as a person, especially in his deeds.” In a polemical demarcation between Pharisees and Jewish scribes, the Gospel of Matthew demands from its readers “better righteousness”, which has to be proven through deeds ( Matt 5.20  EU ). For Reinhard Feldmeier , this is a doubly problematic justification of ethics: on the one hand, it implies a moral inferiority of Pharisaic Judaism, on the other hand, every ethical warning ends with a look at the court, where no Christian can be sure to meet the requirements:

“So Matthew pays [...] the price that he has to distinguish between the empirical church and the truly saved and that he constantly brings up this distinction as a warning, even a threat. [...] In no other gospel is threatened even nearly as often as in the first gospel, and words such as judgment, day of judgment, utter darkness (as a place of punishment) as well as howling and the chattering of teeth are among his pronounced preferred vocabulary. "

These dark sides of the Matthean ethics are contrasted with positive sides with which Matthew inspired ethical designs in Christianity:

• Double commandment of love ( Mt 22 : 37-40  EU );
• Mercy as the epitome of the Torah ( Mt 23.23  EU );
• Jesus identifies himself with the least and most despised ( Mt 25.40  EU );
• Jesus turns to weak people in a friendly manner ( Mt 11 : 28–30  EU ) and speaks of God as Heavenly Father.

## Position on Judaism

Did the evangelist Matthew leave the synagogue? Edwin K. Broadhead describes this question (2017) as the most controversial topic of the current Exegesis of Matthew. "At its core it is about whether the harsh criticism of Pharisees and other Jews is brought forward in their absence or in a personal confrontation." This also decides whether the Gospel of Matthew is anti-Judaistic or "just" the way it is in the large church, after marginalization of Jewish Christianity, was received.

Theodotos inscription, presentation in the Israel Museum .

Definition of terms: Synagogue in the 1st century AD. According to the meaning of the word, this can be a gathering of people; However, the synagogue as a building or building complex is also epigraphically secured. As the Theodotos inscription in particular shows, their rooms were not used exclusively for religious purposes (prayer, Torah reading and study, ritual ablutions ), but also to accommodate guests and various communal tasks. It was a kind of community center, a "predominantly social-communal institution [...] in which religious events were also held." There is broad consensus that Pharisees did not have more influence in synagogues than other groups and that Jewish priests often had leadership roles . The management of synagogues was organized hierarchically, there were offices and titles. It is uncertain whether synagogues were more public buildings or semi-public, corresponding to Roman collegia ; and if synagogues appeared like collegia from the outside perspective , it is not certain whether that was the case from the perspective of members.

### Permanent election or rejection of Israel

The Gospel of Matthew emphasizes like no other New Testament scripture the enduring importance of Israel's religious traditions to its Christian readers. The evangelist retells the story of Jesus with constant reference to Israel's scriptures. Jesus is completely devoted to his people, teaching them, proclaiming the closeness of God's rulership and healing diseases ( Mt 4,23  EU ). Accordingly, people from all over Israel flock to Jesus and follow him ( Mt 4,25  EU ). The title “Son of David”, which Jesus is repeatedly given to Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, also fits in with this.

“It is the Pharisees and scribes who are hostile to the established Jesus School - and especially to its founder. The crowds, on the other hand, show curious interest. ”( Martin Ebner ) The evangelist differentiates between the simple people (the“ flock ”), which he sees more positively than his model, and the Jewish authorities (the“ shepherds ”), which he depicts all the more negatively . Both groups are contrasted (e.g. Mt 9.33–34  EU ). The shepherd / flock metaphor was already available in the tradition ( Jer 23.1–6  EU ). For Ulrich Luz, the positive characterization of the common people is of course only an intermediate result: The distinction between the common people and the authorities is abolished in the Passion story by the people standing by the side of their leaders, with far-reaching consequences: “[That] holy People who identify with their leaders in the Passion [will] lose their Israelship; it becomes the 'Jews' (cf. Mt 28:15). "

As a result of his four-volume commentary, Luz summarized that anti-Judaism not only shaped the history of the impact of the Gospel of Matthew (as a misunderstanding of the later readers), but was contained in the book itself. It is not individual formulations or sections of text that are problematic, but the entire book composition. The book has a double end: a hopeless situation for “the Jews” who, after the resurrection of Jesus, had virtually reached a dead end ( Mt 28: 11-15  EU ), and a mandate for the disciples' congregation for worldwide mission ( Mt 28 , 16-20  EU ). You leave Israel behind and set out for new shores. As a Christian theologian, Luz advises a critical approach to the Gospel of Matthew:

“Matthean anti-Judaism was important for the self-definition of the Matthean community in a situation of crisis and transition. With the canonization of its gospel, the church made this self-definition, which is important in a certain situation, a permanent characteristic of Christianity [...] regardless of whether and what kind of encounters with Jews. Judaism became a shadow against which the Christian light was constantly contrasting. "

Matthias Konradt , on the other hand, emphasizes that Matthew nowhere claims a rejection of Israel, also no replacement of Israel by the church, but the replacement of the old, evil and hypocritical authorities by the disciples of Jesus. The constant intertextual references to the Old Testament are part of a communicative strategy for Matthew. In this way, the author encourages his readers to believe that they are the legitimate advocates of Israel's traditions.

The interpretation of Mt 8,5–13  EU , the pericope of the captain of Capernaum , can serve as an example of the consequences resulting from the different approaches of Luz and Konradt . It is material from the Logia source that Matthew tells clearly differently than Luke. Such changes are for exegetes pointers to the profile of the respective gospel. Matthew added verses 11 and 12, words with which Jesus addressed his disciples: “Many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham , Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom are cast out into utter darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. "

• For Luz these sentences contain the rejection of Israel and the justification of the Gentile mission . The difficulty here is that the Matthew Jesus in chapter 8 has not had any negative experiences with Israel that could justify its rejection. Luz therefore refers to these sentences as "lightning weather", which already indicates for the reader how this confrontation will intensify in the Gospel.
• Konradt points out that the phrase “coming from east and west” in the Hebrew Bible is not common for the so-called “pilgrimage to Zion ”, but it is well documented as a term for the hoped-for return of the Diaspora Jews to Israel. He bases his interpretation of the text on this: the Palestinian Jews whom Jesus of Nazareth met personally would have gambled away their privileged position and would be replaced by Jews from the diaspora.

### Destruction of Jerusalem

Vespasian , a usurper, used the conquest of Jerusalem for propaganda purposes to legitimize his empire. Coin minting ( sesterce ) from the year 71 with the Iudaea capta theme: in the center a date palm as a symbol of Judea, on the left a tied up Jewish fighter with discarded weapons, on the right a grieving Jewish woman

Matthew assigns the city of Jerusalem to the negatively rated Jewish authorities. They have their center there. In Mt 27.25  EU , the Jerusalemites and their children take responsibility for Jesus' death. These two generations witnessed how Roman troops besieged Jerusalem and in the year 70 took it and destroyed it. The evangelist constructs a connection between the death of Jesus and the fall of Jerusalem and interprets the destruction of the city as visible evidence that the Jerusalemites had entrusted themselves to the wrong authorities.

In the parable of the wedding feast of the king's son ( Mt 22 : 1–14  EU ) the evangelist enters the destruction of Jerusalem in verse 7, which disrupts the context of the parable because the feast that has been prepared has to wait until the king takes his military punitive action has finished. Luz comments: For Matthew, Jerusalem is the “city of murderers.” The catastrophe of the year 70 ends the long historical period of divine devotion to Israel “definitely”; this epoch is "replaced by that of the Gentile mission." Peter Fiedler, on the other hand, attributes to the evangelist the view that God's judgment of wrath against the bad authorities in the form of the destruction of Jerusalem "inevitably" meant the suffering of many innocent people from the common people. But God's story with Israel is not over because of this, but “continues to be open”, Jerusalem remains the “holy city” until the end of the Gospel ( Mt 27.53  EU ).

### A Jewish book?

Extra Muros (“outside the walls”) or intra muros (“inside the walls”): With these metaphors , the question is discussed in exegesis whether Matthew and the group he writes for were inside Judaism or outside it. However, this traditional terminology is not very suitable to describe the complex social reality. In the Gospel, internal Jewish differentiations become recognizable: separate assemblies take place outside the synagogues. Judaism, however, continued to form the primary context of life for the Matthean community. Knut Backhaus therefore suggested a counter-metaphor: the supposed walls are "cognitive shifting dunes", whether outside or inside, a question of the perspective of the modern observer. But for those involved at the time - the Matthew group on the one hand, their Pharisaic opponents on the other - the dispute presented itself as a struggle for the walls, i.e. for drawing boundaries. Both parties to the dispute were linked by their Jewish reference system (holy scriptures, cult symbols, interpretations of history, image reservoirs, etc.), while a pagan reference system does not exist in the Gospel of Matthew: “The Gentiles who step into the Gospel in the narrated world of Matthew , identify themselves by the fact that they fundamentally recognize the Jewish cosmos of meaning for their own questioning and finding. "

Twice in the Gospel the synagogues of the opponents are mentioned, in which the disciples of Jesus would have to be prepared for abuse ( Mt 10.17  EU , Mt 23.34  EU ). Such a warning assumes for Konradt that disciples of Jesus went to these synagogues anyway, presumably to advertise their cause. Here, Luz has difficulties with interpretation, because he represents the principle that the Matthew Jesus speaks directly into the presence of the community in the speech compositions. Now it looks like these Christian readers are visiting synagogues and that is dangerous for them. But that cannot be the case if you have long since left the synagogue. Luz helps himself with the following hypothesis: “The Matthean Jesus looks to the future. But he does not speak of the presence of the readers, but of the past time, when they were still under the jurisdiction of the synagogue and were flogged. ”The persecution experiences, in which one can also recognize the suffering Jesus before the crucifixion, are something Typical: in the past, before the synagogue expulsion, with the Israel mission - in the present with the mission in the world of nations.

### Mission among Gentiles

The Gospel of Matthew ends with the mission command of the risen Christ ( Mt 28 : 16-20  EU ). This programmatically opens up the church of Matthew to non-Jews. A Christian tradition of interpretation read the Gospel in such a way that Jesus of Nazareth turned to Israel with his message, but was rejected by his people (culminating in the “blood call”), and after Easter the universal Church will take the place of Israel. Konradt suggests a different reading, based on the two christological sovereign titles Son of David and Son of God. Matthew found both of them in the Gospel of Mark and unfolded them in a characteristic way:

• Son of David: As Davidic Messiah, Jesus turns to his people in a friendly and helpful manner, who are lying down because of the failure of the old authorities. In this way he will bring the biblical promises to Israel to fulfillment.
• Son of God: The promise to Abraham to become a blessing for all peoples is from the beginning ( Mt 1,1  EU ) in the gaze of the evangelist. The sonship of Jesus, however, is initially only revealed to the disciples. In this context, the confession of Peter and the promise to him are of central importance in terms of composition: Peter confesses Jesus as the "Son of the living God" - this is how Matthew supplements the Mark text, which allows Peter to confess Jesus as the Messiah (cf. Mt 16,16  EU and Mk 8.29  EU ). A special praise from Jesus, Peter speaking through a revelation from God, shows how important this majestic title is to Matthew at this point ( Mt 16.17  EU ). Jesus wants to build his Ekklesia on Peter, the “rock” (which is translated differently as church or congregation). This Ekklesia will only be realized through the mission after Easter: the suffering, death and resurrection of the Son of God include people from all nations in the Abrahamic blessing.

Older research naturally assumed that the new Christians were not expected to keep the Torah, especially circumcision . This consensus no longer applies when the Gospel of Matthew is viewed as a Jewish book. David Sim, with reference to Mt 5,18  EU , advocates the thesis that the Matthew group turned the New Christians into proselytes through circumcision . Nowhere does the Matthean Jesus signal that a different Torah applies to native Jews and native non-Jews. Sim finds it difficult to explain in Mt 28.18  EU : People from all peoples ( ancient Greek πάντα τὰ ἔθνη pánta tà éthnē ) are accepted into the community through baptism. He helps himself with the assumption that things that are taken for granted (like circumcision) do not have to be mentioned. And then the instruction is of little practical relevance - which Syrian would have been interested in joining a generally despised population group like the Jews after the year 70? There could be no talk of a noteworthy mission success of the Matthew church among non-Jews; the congregation could have easily integrated the few exceptions without their Jewish identity being called into question.

Konradt does not adopt this line of argument. Using the example of the conversion of Izates II by Adiabene , he shows that different views existed in Judaism about the necessity of circumcision. Although this ritual was probably compulsory at the time of Matthew, Diaspora Judaism gave many “godly” people extensive opportunities to participate in synagogue life without circumcision. Here he also classifies Matthew and his congregation. Peter Fiedler considers it “not entirely clear” whether the new Christians converted by the Matthew community converted to Judaism, which implied circumcision for men, or whether they chose the status of “God-fearing” and the Jewish way of life as practiced in the Matthew community largely took over. Udo Schnelle considers these suggestions implausible: "[The] Jewish Christian Matthew cannot have escaped the fact that without circumcision there would be no Judaism and also no serious inner-Jewish dialogue!"

## Research history

The differences and similarities between the four canonical gospels were explained in the pre-critical period (i.e. before the historical-critical method became popular) by creating gospel harmonies. It was assumed that the arrangement of the gospels was also their chronological order, and that Matthew wrote the oldest gospel. Even within this traditional framework, Gottlob Christian Storr represented the Mark priority for the first time in 1786 and explained that the customs officer Matthew, as an eyewitness, had not only translated the "Messages of Marcus" from Greek into Aramaic (Storr tried to include Papias' information), but also "Enrich the older fabrics with new additions". He referred to the general idea that with two similar writings, such as Mt and Mk, the shorter one is usually also the older one and, in the opposite case, there is no plausible reason for Mark's abbreviations in the Gospel of Matthew. Now the similarities between Matthew and Luke required an explanation. The two-source theory achieved broad recognition in the version of Heinrich Julius Holtzmann , who presented it in various writings since 1863. The model owes this widespread impact to the fact that it was used by the Leben-Jesu theology, "which became the determining theological direction of 'educated' Christianity well into the 20th century." Research can also work with a Matthew priority, says Walter Schmithals . Since around 1900, the two-source theory also prevailed in the Anglo-Saxon and, a little later, in the Francophone area, with Roman Catholic exegetes often with the variant that the logia source was the scripture of the Apostle Matthew mentioned in the Papias note.

The two-source theory broke away from the historical inquiry into the life of Jesus and was further developed by the editorial history school in the middle of the 20th century . An intermediate step on this path was the form-historical method founded by Martin Dibelius and Rudolf Bultmann , which inquired about the oral tradition before the Gospel of Mark and the source of the Logia were written. The history of form, however, is interested in the "small units" and hardly in the creative part of the synoptic evangelists. It was rather outsiders of the scientific discourse who worked on comments on the Gospel of Matthew in the first half of the 20th century: Ernst Lohmeyer ( The Gospel of Matthew , edited from the estate of Werner Schmauch , 2nd edition 1958) and Walter Grundmann ( Das Gospel according to Matthew , not completed until 1968).

At the beginning of the 20th century, Roman Catholic exegetes were considerably restricted in their research by the Pontifical Biblical Commission . On controversial topics (Dubia) it published hardly any argumentative answers (Responsa), which had the rank of decrees of papal congregations. In 1911 this was the binding teaching of the Gospel of Matthew:

• Certainly the apostle Matthew was the author of the gospel named after him? Yes.
• Was Matthew the first of the evangelists to write his work in the native language of the Jews of Palestine? Yes.
• Could the work have been published after the destruction of Jerusalem, so that the prophecy it contained could be a vaticinium ex eventu ? No.
• Could the opinion of modern authors be admitted as a possibility that Matthew did not directly write the present Gospel, but created a collection of words and speeches of Christ, from which an anonymous editor produced the Gospel? No.
• Since the Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew has been recognized as canonical since the time of the Fathers of the Church, is it certain that this Greek text is essentially identical to the text written by the apostle in his mother tongue? Yes.
• Since the author's intention is above all dogmatic and apologetic and the chronological order is not always adhered to, whether the account of the words and deeds of Jesus could have been changed under the influence of the formulations of the Old Testament and the evolving teaching of the Church so is not true in the historical sense? No.
• Whether the questioning of the historical truth not only of the first two chapters (family tree and childhood of Christ), but also of other significant texts that are only contained in the Gospel of Matthew, namely the primacy of Peter (Matt. 16: 17-19), the baptismal formula and the universal missionary mandate of the apostles (Mt 28, 19 f.), the apostles' creed of the deity of Christ (Mt 14.33), and similar texts, should be explicitly rejected as unfounded? Yes.

In 1912 the hypothesis of one source of logic and the two-source theory were also rejected.

According to Franz Annen, until the Second World War , “the Biblical Commission continued to control Catholic exegesis very effectively and prevented any open scientific debate.” In his commentary on The Three Older Gospels in 1912, Friedrich Wilhelm Maier defended the two-source theory and contradicted the consensus of Catholic exegesis at the time, the Gospel of Mark depend on an Aramaic Gospel of Matthew. The overall conservative work was therefore placed on the index . Maier did not receive a teaching permit (recedat a cathedra) and for 17 years refrained from any publication, but finally got a New Testament professorship in Breslau, and later in Munich.

With the encyclical Divino afflante spiritu , Pope Pius XII encouraged . the Catholic exegetes in 1943 to use every means to “get to know better the intentions of the old writers and their form and art of thinking, telling and writing.” The Pontifical Biblical Institute , founded to defend against the historical-critical method, changed under Cardinal Augustin Bea “one of the most prominent sites of historical-critical research in the area of ​​Catholic biblical studies.” The merit of having established the two-source theory in Catholic exegesis is attributed to Josef Schmid . He had already received his doctorate on this subject in 1930; In the Regensburg New Testament series, he oversaw several editions of commentaries on the synoptic gospels and worked to ensure that questions of literary, formal and traditional criticism were increasingly accepted by the censors.

The editorial history work on the Synoptikern began around the mid-1950s. The anthology by Günther Bornkamm , Gerhard Barth and Heinz Joachim Held Tradition and Interpretation in the Gospel of Matthew (1960) contains an essay and an interpretation of the storm calming pericope from Bornkamm's hand; The largest part of the volume, which is important in terms of research history, relates to the studies of his Heidelberg doctoral students Barth (on the subject of law) and Held (on the subject of miracles). The authors unanimously understood Matthew as a Jewish Christian who was “anti-Judaistic, but not anti-synagogal”. With Gerhard Barth, many exegetes assumed that Matthew was fighting a two-front war: against Pharisaic legalism outside and against antinomist tendencies within his own community. Reinhart Hummel , an academic student of Eduard Lohse , continued the line of Jewish Christian interpretation ( The dispute between Church and Judaism in the Gospel of Matthew , 1963).

The editorial review asked to which readership and which situation Matthew had edited the material in the manner characteristic of him. William D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (1964), like many exegetes, dated the Gospel of Matthew in the years after the end of the Jewish War . But he also established a connection to the Synod of Jamnia , a hypothetical meeting of rabbinical authorities at which, according to researchers at the time, the Jewish Christians were excluded from the synagogue. The Gospel of Matthew and especially the Sermon on the Mount are "a Christian answer to Jamnia." Davies thus offered more than an interesting scenario for the composition situation: Through his contribution, the collector and compiler became the theologian Matthew. However, Georg Strecker submitted critical inquiries as early as 1966/67 in his review of this study, which Ulrich Luz confirmed in retrospect: the constructed connections between Matthäus and Jamnia are weak, but “above all, m. E. 'Jamnia' itself some demythologization: In reality, D [avies] 'condenses' with this word a complex development in Judaism that lasted several decades. "

Georg Strecker took the opposite position to the Bornkamm School ( Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit , 1962): Although Jewish Christian traditions were processed in the book, the final editing of the Gospel of Matthew was done in a Gentile Christian community; Matthew (the final editor) is also a Gentile Christian. Wolfgang Trilling ( The True Israel , 1959) came to a similar thesis, which he formulated as follows: "Matthew as the final editor thinks decidedly Gentile-Christian universal." Trilling was an academic student of Friedrich Wilhelm Maier. He read the Gospel of Matthew from its end (the command of the mission ) and understood it as an eminently ecclesiastical book: the church is the true Israel. Mt 21.43  EU was the key text for Trilling's thesis that Matthew teaches that "the old Israel, which was guilty, has been dismissed." It was significant in terms of research history that Trilling, with this work, which was published several times, was the editorial criticism in the post-Second Vatican Council flourishing Catholic exegesis. The contrast between tradition and redaction, with which Strecker and Trilling made Matthew a Gentile Christian, is no longer represented in this way today.

In the 1970s, exegetes came out with monographs on Matthew, who later submitted larger comments: Alexander Sand , Hubert Frankemölle and Eduard Schweizer . Ulrich Luz , an academic student of Schweizer, published work on discipleship (1971) and compliance with the law (1978) in Matthäus. Meanwhile, the Christian-Jewish dialogue had an impact on New Testament exegesis: “In contrast to the earlier interpretations, U. Luz, J. Gnilka, A. Sand and H. Frankemölle made reference to Israel in the great commentaries of the 1980s and 1990s always present. "

In 1982, the Commentary on Matthew was published by evangelical exegete Robert H. Gundry , a signatory of the Chicago Declaration on the Infallibility of the Bible. Gundry assumed that individual narratives in this Gospel were to be understood as midrash and not as historical accounts. Douglas Moo did not want to rule out such an interpretation a priori, but Norman Geisler took the lead in a campaign calling for Gundry's resignation from the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). At the ETS annual meeting at the end of 1983, more than two thirds of the members voted for Geisler's proposal. The fact that Gundry's synthesis of evangelicalism and modern biblical studies (especially editorial criticism) was rejected by numerous other evangelical theologians attracted a great deal of attention.

If, for example, Ulrich Luz's Gospel of Matthew was an attempt by a Jewish-Christian community to process the recent break with the synagogue and to reorient itself afterwards, then in the 1990s voices gained weight that assigned the Gospel to a deviant Jewish group who were around I had struggled to realign it after the political catastrophe of 70. Following up on studies by Andrew Overman and Anthony Saldarini, the Gospel of Matthew is referred to as a Jewish, non-Jewish Christian book. Some authors are already talking about a new or emerging consensus (emerging consensus), to see the Gospel of Matthew as a Jewish book. But the opposite position is emphatically defended. Roland Deines criticizes the fact that Saldarini's " apologetic [s] interest takes on a knowledge-guiding function." Luz mediated between the positions by starting from a process that led the Matthew community out of Judaism. The only disputed question is whether this separation is still in progress (e.g. Overman, Saldarini) or whether the Matthean community is already looking back on it (e.g. Stanton, Luz). Gerhard Maier sees Matthäus and his community "still within the Jewish religious and legal community", although due to the early dating he represents, there is a different historical context. John Nolland, also in combination with an early dating, understands the Gospel of Matthew as "a Jewish book of a community that still belongs entirely to Judaism."

## Impact history

The Gospel of Matthew had a privileged position both in Jewish Christianity and in the large church, which was dominated by Gentile Christians.

“It is a tragedy that the kind of Christianity, this rich Jewish tradition that we find in Matthew [...] did not last long after the time of Matthew. [...] Our Gospel ... is in a sense the document of a disappointed hope: its ecumenical goal, the unity of Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, was not achieved. [...] Because the traditional streams of Jewish and Gentile Christians [...] separated from each other until one of them unfortunately dried up. "

- Dale C. Allison, Jr., William David Davies: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew

### Jewish Christianity

In late antiquity, Jewish Christian groups saw the Gospel of Matthew as a normative gospel. According to Ulrich Luz, the following Jewish Christian writings are significantly influenced by the Gospel of Matthew:

Jerome wrote in the 4th century that a manuscript of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was in the library of Caesarea Maritima at the time. Eusebius and Origen had both previously worked in this library without being able to use such a book, which would have been of great interest to them. Doubts are therefore in order. In addition, Hieronymus was able to see and use the Gospel of the Nazarene group in Berea, Syria , which there was considered to be the original Hebrew (perhaps Aramaic) manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew. The Nazarenes, however, were a group that reappeared in the 4th century.

Only a few preserved quotations show the uniqueness of this work. The following is about healing a man with a paralyzed hand on the Sabbath:

“In the gospel used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, which we recently translated into Greek from the Hebrew language, and which most people call the original [Gospel] of Matthew, this one who has the withered hand becomes described as a bricklayer asking for help with these words: 'I was a bricklayer who made a living with my hands. I ask you, Jesus, to restore my health to me, so that I do not beg shamefully for my food. '"

- Hieronymus: Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, on Mt 12.13  EU .

The exegesis verdict on this version of the text is clear: a late narrative development of the originally tighter text. Dieter Lührmann concludes from the fragments of the Nazarene Gospel that this "gives the impression of a review of the Gospel of Matthew [s] than that of an independently narrated work."

### Great Church

From the middle of the 2nd century the Gospel of Matthew became the most important of the four Gospels in the main church. The Gospel of Matthew served as a “textbook and reader” that helped to cope with everyday life with a view to the end of the world expected in the near future. The first place in the New Testament put the Gospel of Mark in the shade, but also, with the exception of a few well-known texts, the Gospel of Luke. “From the time of the Church Fathers on, Matthew became, as it were, part leader of the synoptic trio.” Stories that were also passed on by Mark and Luke were mostly best known in the version of the Gospel of Matthew; this continues to have an impact on reception history today.

#### Single motifs

Guardian angel picture (around 1900)

However, the Gospel of Matthew did not work through its overall conception or certain basic ideas, but individual texts - pericopes , verses, formulations - each developed their own history of impact.

One example is the belief in individual guardian angels , which has its biblical point of reference in Mt 18.10  EU (special property Matthew). Because of its rootedness in piety and liturgy and because of its biblical reference in the Roman Catholic Church in Mt 18.10, the concept of the guardian angel has "the character of a truth presented by the ordinary magisterium," said Leo Scheffczyk . In the 19th century, a bourgeois-influenced pedagogy promoted guardian angel figures as child-friendly consolation donors, heavenly gifts and observers of morally correct behavior. During the First World War, Guardian Angels were often shown as support for soldiers at the front, the wounded and the dying. Today's Catholic religious education recognizes guardian angels as a child-friendly expression of the idea “God-with-us”, especially in life crises.

Another well-known motif from the Matthean special estate are the astrologers from the Orient ( Mt 2, 1–12  EU ), interpreted as the Three Wise Men . With the transfer of her relics from Milan to Cologne in 1164, the veneration of these saints took off. From the mystery play is probably the most developed carolers customs . It is already known from the Middle Ages as a custom with a star and, despite official prohibitions, persisted in various forms, especially in the Alpine region. The children's mission organization “Die Sternsinger” took up this tradition in 1958 and, from 1961 together with the BDKJ , gave it a catechetical, missionary and development policy reorientation as “Aktion Dreikönigssingen”. In Austria the carol singing tradition was revived as early as 1955 and is organized there by the Austrian Catholic Youth Group .

#### Church year

The measurement lesson got its solid form in the Carolingian period . Both the Wittenberg Reformation and the Tridentine order of the mass pericopes continued this tradition, which gives the Gospel of Matthew a clear preponderance: of the 50 gospel pericopes for Sundays and holidays taken from the Synoptics, 24 belong to Matthew. For example, the pericope of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem became a reading on one since the 7th century, finally on the 1st Sunday of Advent . This shaped the Advent piety in the evangelical area, with the emphasis on the “meek” King Mt 21.5  EU , which is also reflected in church music.

The current reading order of the Catholic Church was recreated after the Second Vatican Council. It has given up the traditional pericope order and instead follows the principle of orbit reading more closely. She assigns a reading year to each of the three synoptic Gospels. In reading year A, texts from the Gospel of Matthew are read in the Sunday service; it can therefore be called the “Matthew year”.

In the 2018 Pericope Ordinance of the Protestant churches in Germany, 24 of the 78 texts expressly designated as Gospel readings are taken from the Gospel of Matthew.

Konstantinos Nikolakopoulos sums up the reading of Matthew's Gospel in the Orthodox church service as follows: “In the liturgical circle of the Orthodox church year and in the context of the ' lectio continua ' on all Sundays, almost half of the planned pericopes come from Mt.-Ev. In the circle of movable and immovable festivals, the Matthew text prevails approximately from June to September every year. "

#### Sermon on the Mount

According to Ulrich Luz, in church history it was time and again small, marginalized groups who understood the Sermon on the Mount literally or "perfectionist": first the church in the pre-Constantinian period itself, then, after it had become the imperial church, the early monasticism and authors who were close to him, like John Chrysostom . In the Middle Ages, Waldensians , Franciscans and Cathars represented a literal understanding of the Sermon on the Mount. During the Reformation it was the Anabaptist movement , later Quakerism and early Methodism . “For all of them, God's commandment was a fundamental and immovable moment in their piety and life. It is astonishing to what extent one encounters analogies to the Matthean draft in such groups. "

Sermon on the Mount as instruction to the disciples ( Fra Angelico , fresco in a cell of the Dominican convent of San Marco , Florence, early 15th century)

The medieval interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is often understood across the board as a two-step ethic, as Martin Honecker explains :

• Praecepta are commandments that are binding for all Christians ( natural law , Decalogue ).
• Consilia are the commandments of the Sermon on the Mount that can only be fulfilled by the perfect, in particular the three evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience. When Christ wanted to teach these commandments, "he went up to the mountain and addressed not the imperfect multitude, but his disciples, whom he had decided to raise to the summit of perfection." ( Bonaventure )

The two-stage ethics served to integrate radical interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount, for example in the mendicant orders, into church ethics, so it was, according to Luz, a concession to these circles. The medieval church has largely retained the type of interpretation of the old church and thus “a piece of salt from the minority church in the national church.” Thomas Aquinas emphasized that the Sermon on the Mount basically applies to every Christian and only peripherally in the three evangelical councils to special ones Groups.

Sermon on the Mount (copper engraving, Jan Luyken , 17th century. Luyken is best known as the illustrator of the Anabaptist Martyrs Mirror)

Martin Luther and Johannes Calvin were challenged by the Anabaptists' interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, because here their own claim to be based on the Bible ( Sola scriptura ) was at stake. “In the protocols of interrogations and disputations with mostly very simple, theologically uneducated Anabaptists, one constantly discovers the basic elements of Matthew's theology: the primacy of practice over doctrine, the will to obedience, the taking seriously of the individual commandment that does not simply merge into the love commandment, the will to shape fraternal fellowship. ”The reformers, on the other hand, emphasized that the Sermon on the Mount was actually unattainable (previous exegesis had not seen it that way). The aspect of the congregation, which was important for Matthew, took a back seat with Luther, who always interpreted the Sermon on the Mount to be addressed to the individual Christian. This Christian now had to consider where he was acting for his own person and where the interests of the neighbor were also at stake through his actions (acting in relatione , e.g. as parents or ministers). If the consequences of acting only affected oneself, the Sermon on the Mount was valid; only this situation rarely occurs in everyday life. According to Luz, the doctrine of the two kingdoms was an attempt to domesticate the Sermon on the Mount. From this it followed for the old Lutheran orthodoxy: "The Sermon on the Mount is not a program of shaping the world, but a guide to the examination of conscience (lex accusans) ..., a mirror of sins, which holds up against the human being the total corruption."

Sermon on the Mount, altarpiece of Sankt Matthæus Kirke, Copenhagen (Henrik Olrik, around 1860)

The Enlightenment and liberalism saw Jesus Christ primarily as the herald of a new ethic. In this context, Christianity could be interpreted as the “religion of the Sermon on the Mount”. For the reception of the Sermon on the Mount in cultural Protestantism is Friedrich Naumann paradigmatic: As a young priest he had claimed the Sermon on the Mount for a program of social reform. In 1898 he went on a trip to Palestine. The streets were in bad shape, and he imagined that they must have been like that in biblical times. “Jesus walked and rode on such paths without doing anything for their improvement! ... The whole country depends on its ways. Anyone who has learned to think socially must see these paths as the subject of Christian action. ”From this it followed for Naumann:“ Fundamental questions of the state ”cannot be addressed with the Sermon on the Mount.

Liberal theology had set itself the task of replacing the ethical doctrine of the Nazarene, which he had "brought to the altar as pure fire" (according to Holtzmann 1897), from expressions dictated by the times such as messianism and eschatology. Albert Schweitzer provoked his colleagues in 1901 by claiming that Jesus of Nazareth shared the apocalyptic expectations of his contemporaries and could only be understood within this horizon. Schweitzer stated in the Sermon on the Mount an “interim ethic” that he did not use as a standard for his own actions. He said that the Sermon on the Mount propagated an ethical heroism against the background of the near end of the world, it was filled with the “burning smell of the cosmic catastrophe.” As soon as this apocalyptic expectation dwindled, the ethical heroism could no longer be sustained. Not so with Rudolf Bultmann , who presented an existential interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount: it is a call to decision that points the individual Christian into the “now”, where he meets his neighbor and is responsible before God. "Not what the Christian has to do, but that he has to decide, is their message."

Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy dared to read the Sermon on the Mount as an “anarcho-pacifist” program with a contemporary reference. However, he dealt with the Gospels as a whole and with the text of the Sermon on the Mount with artistic freedom. Tolstoy focused on the imperative not to resist, and by relating it to state jurisprudence, he brought his own negative experiences with the Russian judiciary. B. had made as a justice of the peace.

“I understood that in no way did Christ tell us to turn our other cheek and give us our cloak to suffer, but that he said that we should not oppose evil and that we may have to suffer in the process. Just like a father who sends his son on a long journey, does not order him not to sleep, get wet and freeze when he tells him: 'Go your way, and if you get wet and freeze, go on anyway . '"

- Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy: My faith

Tolstoy believed that by not resisting, evil will ultimately run itself to death. He applied this principle not only to private life, or to the group that lived on his estate in equality and community of property, but also had all of humanity and world peace in mind. He rejected state structures as well as the hierarchically organized Russian Orthodox Church , which excommunicated him in 1901. His social-ethical writings were banned in Russia; nevertheless he influenced the pacifist religious communities of the Duchoborzen and Molokans .

When Mahatma Gandhi became interested in the New Testament, his understanding of the text was strongly shaped by reading Tolstoy, with whom he also made personal contact. Gandhi took three basic ideas from Tolstoy: 1. self-control, 2. non-violence , 3. bread-work; Point 2 comes from Tolstoy's interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount.

In 1937 Dietrich Bonhoeffer polemicized in his program Succession against contemporary Lutheranism , which he accused of “cheap grace” and “wasted forgiveness”. His counter-draft was essentially an interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount and the Matthias mission speech. Just like representatives of dialectical theology ( Eduard Thurneysen , Karl Barth ), Bonhoeffer understood the Sermon on the Mount Christologically . It does not make sense out of itself as a moral or mystical teaching, but with a view to whoever speaks it. It is a call to followers. Barth specified in 1942 in the Church's Dogmatics : The Sermon on the Mount does not give instructions on how a Christian should behave in individual everyday situations, but rather it sets a "framework."

Peace movement authors read the Sermon on the Mount as a contribution to political ethics in the 20th century. Martin Honecker does not see any instructions in the biblical text, but a disquiet for political operations: “It does not contain the program of a rational policy of peace for which everyone is jointly responsible. Nevertheless, with the questioning of the order of this world [...] the antitheses represent a provocation, a protest against its factual constitution and order. "

#### Papal primacy

Mt 16:18 as monumental lettering in the dome of St. Peter's Basilica

In terms of church politics, the Gospel of Matthew became effective primarily through the “rock word” Mt 16:18  EU .

The local Church in Rome made a claim to leadership very early on. But only in the third century did she refer to Mt 16:18 to justify this claim. In the 5th century Leo the Great developed the idea that the living Peter (Petrus vivus) was present in his successors in office. In the Decretum Gelasianum , Mt 16:18 serves as the justification for the fact that the primacy is not of human, but of divine origin.

On the other hand, Luz notes a far-reaching and cross-denominational exegetical consensus that “there is only a qualitative leap from Peter of the Bible to the Pope in the Eternal City”; Matthew did not foresee a successor to Peter because Peter was important to him precisely because of his uniqueness. As a Roman Catholic dogmatist , Wolfgang Beinert formulates : “The P [rimat] can hardly be justified historically-critically in the strict sense, since there is a historical continuity between the biblical Peter and Peter [nd] the Roman B [ischo] f is not detectable. It can, however, be integrated into an understanding of the church that draws conclusions from the dynamic of development on structural identity between the Petrine office and the essential form of its realization in the historical papacy. "

#### Last Judgment

Demonstration against the occupation of Iraq 2003-2011 with Mt 25.40 (Washington, March 7, 2008)

There are three types of interpretation for the pericope of the Last Judgment ( Mt 25 : 31-46  EU ).

• The classical model of interpretation, which prevailed until around 1800, was based on the assumption that all people would be judged according to the works of mercy that they had done or failed to do.
• Since 1800, the ancient Greek phrase πάντα τὰ ἔθνη pánta tà éthnē has been interpreted to mean “all pagans” or all non-Christians. They, not Christians, would be judged according to their deeds, which could then be turned in such a way that the non-Christians were given a chance of eternal salvation through good works.
• A third type of interpretation, which also only appeared in the 19th century, is predominant today: The brothers and sisters of Jesus are all people in need, regardless of their religion or nationality.

A special punchline of this pictorial speech is that when people are helping, they have no idea that they will encounter Jesus in their fellow men in need. Immanuel Kant saw it as “charity for the needy for mere motivation of duty”; the heavenly reward is not the mainspring of ethical action, but only "soul-elevating idea". The liberal theology rezipierte this argument Kant.

The pericope of the Last Judgment plays an important role in liberation theology , not only for ethics, but above all for Christology and ecclesiology . Gustavo Gutiérrez describes the pericope as the main text of Christian spirituality, which has a central position in the theologies of Latin American and Caribbean authors, and quotes Óscar Romero : “There is a criterion that lets us know whether God is near or far: Who always caring for the hungry, naked, poor, disappeared, tortured, imprisoned, suffering, he is close to God. ”For Gutiérrez, Christ enters human history by identifying himself with the poor; thus the story is valued as a movement towards a goal, a fraternal society. Gutiérrez interprets the presence of Christ in the poor as "God-with-us" ( Immanuel ) and the basic motif of the Gospel of Matthew. It is also found in documents of the Latin American Council of Bishops ( CELAM ) of the General Conferences of Puebla (1979) and Santo Domingo (1992).

On the basis of the pericope of the Last Judgment, the failure of the Christian churches in the face of anti-Semitism is discussed: the Nazarene's “least brothers and sisters” are Jews.

#### Christian anti-Judaism

Jesus Curses the Pharisees ( James Tissot , before 1894, Brooklyn Museum)

The devaluation of Judaism belongs as a dark side in the history of the impact of the Gospel of Matthew. In particular, his negative blanket judgments about scribes and Pharisees and his presentation of the Passion story could be used for a Christian anti-Judaism.

An example of how the Gospel of Matthew portrays Jewish practice in an ironic and caricaturing way is Mt 6 :EU : “When you give alms, don't trumpet in front of you like the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to get away from the People to be praised! Amen, I tell you: They have already received their wages. ”According to Ulrich Luz, Matthäus used a common metaphor with the“ trumpet ”. But in Christian exegesis this sentence was taken literally and had solidified into the idea that in the synagogue the trumpet was blown when large donations were received in order to attract the poor. Without any evidence in rabbinical literature , this legend lasted for a millennium and can be found, for example, in Thomas von Aquin, Nikolaus von Lyra , Johannes Calvin and Johann Albrecht Bengel .

In Mt 27.25  EU , probably the most momentous anti-Jewish statement in the New Testament, there is a difference between the intention of Matthew and the reception in the course of church history. Because Matthew counted on the near end of the world. The recent destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 is for the evangelist the consequence of the blood call, and according to Luz it is also rewarded and does not affect a condemnation of Israel in the final judgment. "Matthew does not reckon with a historical 'curse' that will last for centuries" - because there is little time left until the end; in this period nothing positive can be expected for Israel either. For the history of its effects, however, the centuries-long persistence of the curse was constitutive. B. explains a classic pietistic interpretation of the Bible from the 18th century:

Then all the people answered and said, His blood be on us and on our children . That speaks against the Jews, whose descendants still run around in misery to this day, even if their condition is a little easier than before. "

- Johann Albrecht Bengel: Gnomon Novi Testamenti

The Second Vatican Council distanced itself from this conception of history in the declaration Nostra Aetate 1965: “Although the Jewish authorities and their followers have insisted on the death of Christ, one can nonetheless relate the events of his suffering neither to all Jews living at that time nor to Jews today Lay the burden. ”Among the statements from Protestant churches dealing with the blood call, the report of the consultation of the study department of the Lutheran World Federation The Importance of Judaism for the Life and Mission of the Church (1982) should be mentioned:“ We must avoid the To believe ungodly opinion that the Jewish people are cast out, cursed and destined for a fate full of suffering. "

A practical consequence of Nostra Aetate was that Julius Döpfner , Archbishop of Munich and Freising, refused the missio canonica to the Passion Play of Oberammergau in 1970 because the Passion Committee adhered to the blood call, the dramatic climax of the traditional play text written by Pastor Alois Daisenberger in 1860. The passage was rewritten for the performance in 1980, but was not completely removed until the anniversary performance in 1984. Since 2000, the Passion Play has been based on a new text that depicts Jesus as the Jewish rabbi, and the Last Supper as a Passover celebration . In the condemnation scene, the crowd is divided into “People A, B, C, D”, with the latter group gathering around Nicodemus and trying to prevent the condemnation.

## literature

### Tools

• Walter Bauer , Kurt Aland : Greek-German dictionary on the writings of the New Testament and early Christian literature . Walter de Gruyter, 6th, completely revised edition, Berlin a. a. 1988. ISBN 978-3-11-010647-3 .
• Kurt Aland (Ed.): Synopsis quattuor evangeliorum. Locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum et patrum adhibitis . German Bible Society, 15th edition Stuttgart 1996. ISBN 978-3-438-05130-1 .

### Monographs, edited volumes and journal articles

• Matthias Berghorn : But the genesis of Jesus Christ was like this ... The origin of Jesus Christ according to the Matthean prologue (Mt 1,1-4,16) , V&R unipress, Göttingen 2019. ISBN 3-8471-0954-5 .
• Günther Bornkamm , Gerhard Barth, Heinz Joachim Held: Tradition and interpretation in the Gospel of Matthew. (= Scientific monographs on the Old and New Testament . Volume 1). 2nd edition Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen 1961.
• Edwin K. Broadhead: The Gospel of Matthew on the Landscape of Antiquity (= Scientific studies on the New Testament . Volume 378). Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2017. ISBN 978-3-16-154454-5 .
• Hubert Frankemölle : Yahweh Covenant and Church of Christ. Studies on the history of form and tradition of the “Gospel” according to Matthew (= New Testament treatises, New Series . Volume 10). Aschendorff, Münster (1972) 2nd edition 1984, ISBN 3-402-03632-0 .
• Jack Dean Kingsbury : Matthew as Story . Fortress Press, 2nd Edition, Philadelphia 1988. ISBN 0-8006-1891-2 ( narrative exegesis )
• Rainer Kampling (Ed.): "This is the book ..." The Gospel of Matthew. Interpretation - reception - reception history. For Hubert Frankemölle. Schöningh, Paderborn / Munich 2004, ISBN 3-506-71708-1 . ( Digitized version )
• Matthias Konradt: Israel, Church and the Nations in the Gospel of Matthew (= Scientific Studies on the New Testament . Volume 215), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2007, ISBN 978-3-16-149331-7 .
• Matthias Konradt: Studies on the Gospel of Matthew (= Scientific studies on the New Testament . Volume 358). Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2016. ISBN 978-3-16153886-5 .
• Amy-Jill Levine (Ed.): A Feminist Companion to Matthew (= The Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings . Volume 1). Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield 2001. ISBN 1-8412-7211-6 . ( feminist exegesis )
• Ulrich Luz: Anti-Judaism in the Gospel of Matthew as a historical and theological problem. A sketch . In: Evangelische Theologie 53 (1993), Heft 4, pp. 310–327. (1993)
• Graham N. Stanton : Studies in Matthew and Early Christianity (= Scientific studies on the New Testament . Volume 309). Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2013. ISBN 978-3-16-152543-8 .
• Georg Strecker : The way of justice: investigation into the theology of Matthew (= research on religion and literature of the Old and New Testaments . Volume 82). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1962 ( digitized version )

### Research history

• Joachim Lange (Ed.): The Matthew Gospel (= ways of research . Volume 525). Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1980 ISBN 3-534-07508-0 (anthology containing the most important articles up to 1980) .
• Alexander Sand : The Gospel of Matthew (= income from research . Volume 275). Scientific Book Society, Darmstadt 1991, ISBN 3-534-10878-7 .
• Graham N. Stanton: On the Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Gospel. Matthean Scholarship from 1945 to 1980. In: Rise and Decline of the Roman World II.25.3 (1985), pp. 1889-1951.
• Frans Neirynck , J. Verheyden, R. Corstjens: The Gospel of Matthew and the Sayings Source Q. A Cumulative Bibliography 1950–1995 (= Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium. Volume 140 A&B). 2 part volumes, Peeters, Leuven 1999. ISBN 978-90-429-0715-7 .

Commons : Gospel According to Matthew  - Collection of images, videos and audio files

## Individual evidence

1. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 76, note 204.
2. a b Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7). Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 77.
3. Martin Hengel: The Gospel Headings . In: Jesus and the Gospels (= Small Writings . Volume 5). Tübingen 2007, pp. 526-567, here p. 564.
4. Simon Gathercole: The Earliest Manuscript Title of Matthew's Gospel (BnF Suppl. Gr. 1120 ii 3 / P4) . In: Novum Testamentum 54 (2012), pp. 209–235.
5. Quoted here from: Udo Schnelle: Introduction to the New Testament , Göttingen 2013, p. 288.
6. Konstantinos Nikolakopoulos: The New Testament in the Orthodox Church. Basic Questions for an Introduction to the New Testament. Berlin 2014, p. 100.
7. Udo Schnelle: Introduction to the New Testament , Göttingen 2013, p. 289. Serge Ruzer: Matthäus-Evangelium , Stuttgart 2012, col. 411.
8. Approving Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7). Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 63. Cf. Josef Kurzinger: The Papia testimony and the first form of the Gospel of Matthew (1960). In: Papias of Hierapolis and the Gospels of the New Testament (= Eichstätter materials 4). Regensburg 1983, pp. 9-32.
9. Alexander Sand: Matthäusevangelium , Sp. 1481.
10. a b Peter Fiedler: Das Matthäusevangelium , Stuttgart 2006, p. 19.
11. Reinhard Feldmeier: The synoptic gospels . In: Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Hrsg.): Basic information New Testament . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4th, revised edition Göttingen 2011, pp. 75–142, here p. 82.
12. Willi Marxsen : Introduction to the New Testament. An introduction to your problems . 3rd edition, Gütersloh 1963, p. 136.
13. Alexander Sand: Das Matthäus-Evangelium , Darmstadt 1999, p. 13.
14. Udo Schnelle: Introduction to the New Testament , Göttingen 2013, p. 289. Martin Ebner: Das Matthäusevangelium , Stuttgart 2008, p. 140.
15. ^ Matthias Konradt: The Gospel according to Matthew. Göttingen 2015, p. 17.
16. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, pp. 31–34.
17. ^ Ernst von Dobschütz: Matthäus as rabbi and catechist . In: Journal for New Testament Science and the News of the Older Church 27 (1928), pp. 338–348.
18. Reinhard Feldmeier: The synoptic gospels . In: Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Hrsg.): Basic information New Testament . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4th, reviewed edition Göttingen 2011, pp. 75–142, here pp. 82 f. Cf. Martin Hengel: On the Matthean Sermon on the Mount and its Jewish background . In: Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana, Kleine Schriften, Volume 2. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 1999, pp. 219–292, here p. 238.
19. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 59 f.
20. ^ Matthias Konradt: The Gospel according to Matthew. Göttingen 2015, p. 23.
21. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 75 f. Alexander Sand: Matthäusevangelium , Sp. 1481. Reinhard Feldmeier: The synoptic gospels . In: Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Hrsg.): Basic information New Testament . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4th, reviewed edition Göttingen 2011, pp. 75–142, here p. 83. Serge Ruzer: Matthäus-Evangelium , Stuttgart 2012, col. 411. Martin Ebner: Das Matthäusevangelium , Stuttgart 2008, p. 146.
22. a b Udo Schnelle: Introduction to the New Testament , Göttingen 2013, p. 291.
23. ^ Matthias Konradt: The Gospel according to Matthew. Göttingen 2015, p. 22. Martin Ebner: Das Matthäusevangelium , Stuttgart 2008, p. 146.
24. Peter Fiedler: Das Matthäusevangelium , Stuttgart 2006, p. 19 f.
25. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, pp. 73–75.
26. Martin Ebner: Das Matthäusevangelium , Stuttgart 2008, p. 146.
27. Gerhard Maier: Matthew Chapters 1–14. Witten 2015, p. 16.
28. Gerhard Maier: Matthew Chapters 1–14. Witten 2015, p. 18 f.
29. Gerhard Maier: Matthew Chapters 1–14. Witten 2015, p. 20.
30. Gerhard Maier: Matthew Chapters 1–14. Witten 2015, p. 24 f.
31. Gerhard Maier: Matthew Chapters 1–14. Witten 2015, p. 23 f.
32. Craig S. Keener: The Gospel of Matthew: a socio-rhetorical commentary , Grand Rapids 2009, p. 40.
33. a b Martin Vahrenhorst: Nolland, John: The Gospel of Matthew (review): In: Theologische Literaturzeitung , July / August 2007, Sp. 793–795. ( online )
34. "Anyone who wants to question it [the two-source theory] has to refute a large part of the editorial history-oriented work done on the Synoptics since 1945, a truly courageous undertaking that seems to me neither necessary nor possible." (Ulrich Luz: Das Evangelium according to Matthäus (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 28. There is a very extensive scientific consensus here, which is also shared, for example, by the Greek Orthodox New Testament scholar Konstantinos Nikolakopoulos. Konstantinos Nikolakopoulos: The New Testament in the Orthodox Church. Basic questions for an introduction to the New Testament. Berlin 2014, p. 101.) Serge Ruzer: Matthäus-Evangelium , Stuttgart 2012, p. 413.
35. Martin Ebner: Das Matthäusevangelium , Stuttgart 2008, p. 133.
36. Alexander Sand: Matthäusevangelium , Sp. 1479. Martin Ebner: Das Matthäusevangelium , Stuttgart 2008, p. 134.
37. Martin Hengel: The four gospels and the one gospel of Jesus Christ: Studies on their collection and origin (= Scientific studies on the New Testament . Volume 224), Tübingen 2008, p. 127.
38. Reinhard Feldmeier: The synoptic gospels . In: Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Hrsg.): Basic information New Testament . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4th, revised edition Göttingen 2011, pp. 75–142, here p. 85.
39. Udo Schnelle: Introduction to the New Testament , Göttingen 2013, p. 299.
40. Udo Schnelle: Introduction to the New Testament , Göttingen 2013, p. 298.
41. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, pp. 29–31.
42. ^ Matthias Konradt: The Gospel according to Matthew . Göttingen 2015, p. 20.
43. ^ Matthias Konradt: The Gospel according to Matthew . Göttingen 2015, p. 21.
44. Gerhard Maier: Matthew Chapters 1–14. Witten 2015, p. 20 f.
45. Gerhard Maier: Matthew Chapters 1–14. Witten 2015, p. 22.
46. Craig S. Keener: The Gospel of Matthew: a socio-rhetorical commentary , Grand Rapids 2009, p. 43 f.
47. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, pp. 27–28.
48. a b c Ulrich Luz: Matthäusevangelium , Tübingen 2002, Sp. 917.
49. Reinhard Feldmeier: The synoptic gospels . In: Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Hrsg.): Basic information New Testament . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4th, revised edition Göttingen 2011, pp. 75–142, here p. 76.
50. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 18.
51. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 17 f. Reinhard Feldmeier: The synoptic gospels . In: Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Hrsg.): Basic information New Testament . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4th, reviewed edition Göttingen 2011, pp. 75–142, here p. 76, note 1. Martin Ebner: Das Matthäusevangelium , Stuttgart 2008, p. 125.
52. ^ Matthias Konradt: The Gospel according to Matthew . Göttingen 2015, p. 2 f.
53. Martin Ebner: Das Matthäusevangelium , Stuttgart 2008, p. 132.
54. a b c Ulrich Luz: Matthäusevangelium , Tübingen 2002, Sp. 919.
55. ^ Matthias Konradt: The Gospel according to Matthew. Göttingen 2015, p. 398.
56. ^ Matthias Konradt: The Gospel according to Matthew. Göttingen 2015, p. 446.
57. ^ Matthias Konradt: The Gospel according to Matthew. Göttingen 2015, p. 448.
58. ^ Matthias Konradt: The Gospel according to Matthew . Göttingen 2015, p. 456.
59. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 8-17) , Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999, pp. 467-471.
60. Martin Ebner: Das Matthäusevangelium , Stuttgart 2008, p. 145.
61. Ulrich Luz: Matthäusevangelium , Tübingen 2002, Sp. 920.
62. Reinhard Feldmeier: The synoptic gospels . In: Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Hrsg.): Basic information New Testament . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4th, revised edition Göttingen 2011, pp. 75–142, here pp. 90–92.
63. Reinhard Feldmeier: The synoptic gospels . In: Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Hrsg.): Basic information New Testament . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4th, revised edition Göttingen 2011, pp. 75–142, here pp. 92–95.
64. Edwin K. Broadhead: The Gospel of Matthew on the Landscape of Antiquity , Tübingen 2017, p. 15 f.
65. Carsten Claussen: Assembly, Congregation, Synagogue: The Hellenistic-Jewish Environment of the Early Christian Congregations , Göttingen 2002, p. 300. Likewise Anders Runesson, Donald D. Binder, Birger Olsson (eds.): The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins to 200 CE: A Source Book , Leiden / Boston 2008, p. 8.
66. Anders Runesson, Donald D. Binder, Birger Olsson (eds.): The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins to 200 CE: A Source Book , Leiden / Boston 2008, p. 9. 11 f.
67. Matthias Konradt: Israel, Church and the Nations in the Gospel of Matthew , p. 394.
68. Martin Ebner: Das Matthäusevangelium , Stuttgart 2008, p. 144.
69. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 147. In the revision of the first commentary volume in 2002, “his Israelship” was changed to “the promise” (p. 206 the revision).
70. Ulrich Luz: Anti-Judaism in the Gospel of Matthew as a historical and theological problem , 1993, p. 310.
71. Ulrich Luz: Anti-Judaism in the Gospel of Matthew as a historical and theological problem , 1993, p. 315 f.
72. Ulrich Luz: Anti-Judaism in the Gospel of Matthew as a historical and theological problem , 1993, p. 326.
73. ^ Matthias Konradt: Israel, Church and the Nations in the Gospel of Matthew , Tübingen 2007, p. 397.
74. Matthias Konradt: The Gospel according to Matthew , Göttingen 2015, p. 1 f.
75. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 8-17) , 3rd, revised edition Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999, p. 16 f.
76. ^ Matthias Konradt: The Gospel according to Matthäus , Göttingen 2015, p. 136 f. Similar to Carolin Ziethe: The peoples will hope in his name: The Matthean Reception of Israel's Writings on the Grounds of Universal Salvation , Berlin / Boston 2018, pp. 165–168: The naming of cardinal points comes from the motif group “Collection of the Diaspora”; the eschatological feast goes with this and not with the pilgrimage. The "many" are a mixed group of Christians of Jewish and non-Jewish origin. Amy-Jill Levine: Matthew, Mark and Luke: Good News or Bad? In: Paula Fredriksen, Adele Reinhartz (Ed.): Jesus, Judaism, and Christian Anti-Judaism: Reading the New Testament After the Holocaust . Louisville 2002, pp. 77–98, here p. 89: The assumption that the promise is addressed to Diaspora Jews is consistent with the Jewish expectation that the people of Israel will be reunited in the messianic time.
77. Seth Schwartz: Judaism in antiquity: From Alexander the great to Mohammed . Stuttgart 2016, p. 127.
78. ^ Matthias Konradt: The Gospel according to Matthäus , Göttingen 2015, p. 6. 436 f.
79. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 18-25) , Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997, p. 241 f. “The King is preparing for a military operation which certainly cannot be done in an afternoon. [...] Quite apart from that [...] one wonders where the royal son's wedding feast should actually take place. In the smoking ruins? "
80. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 18-25) , Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997, p. 242 f.
81. Peter Fiedler: Israel remains Israel. Reflections on the Church's understanding of Matthew . In: Rainer Kampling (Ed.): "This is the book ..." Paderborn / Munich 2004, pp. 49–74, here pp. 58 f.
82. ^ Matthias Konradt: The Gospel according to Matthew. Göttingen 2015, p. 19.
83. a b Knut Backhaus : Unlimited Rulership of Heaven. To discover the pagan world in the Gospel of Matthew. In: Rainer Kampling (Ed.): "This is the book ..." Paderborn / Munich 2004, pp. 75–103, here p. 79.
84. ^ Matthias Konradt: Matthäus in context. An inventory of the question of the relationship of the Matthean community (s) to Judaism . In: Studien zum Matthäusevangelium , Tübingen 2016, pp. 3–42, here p. 8.
85. a b Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 8-17) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 3rd edition 1999, p. 111.
86. ^ Matthias Konradt: Matthäus in context. An inventory of the question of the relationship of the Matthean community (s) to Judaism . In: Studien zum Matthäusevangelium , Tübingen 2016, pp. 3–42, here p. 9 f.
87. ^ Matthias Konradt: Matthäus in context. An inventory of the question of the relationship of the Matthean community (s) to Judaism . In: Studien zum Matthäusevangelium , Tübingen 2016, pp. 3–42, here p. 12. Matthias Konradt: The mission to Israel and to the peoples in Matthew's Gospel in the light of its narrative Christology . In: Studien zum Matthäusevangelium , Tübingen 2016, pp. 115–145, here pp. 144 f.
88. Peter Fiedler: Das Matthäusevangelium , Stuttgart 2006, p. 40.
89. Matthias Konradt: The Gospel according to Matthäus , Göttingen 2015, pp. 8. 259-262.
90. ^ A b David C. Sim: The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community , Edinburgh 1998, p. 253.
91. Flavius ​​Josephus : Jüdische Antiquities 20, 34-36.
92. ^ Matthias Konradt: Matthäus in context. An inventory of the question of the relationship of the Matthean community (s) to Judaism . In: Studien zum Matthäusevangelium , Tübingen 2016, pp. 3–42, here pp. 24–26.
93. Peter Fiedler: Das Matthäusevangelium , Stuttgart 2006, pp. 20-22.
94. Udo Schnelle: Introduction to the New Testament , Göttingen 2013, p. 308.
95. ^ Walter Schmithals: Introduction to the three first Gospels (De Gruyter textbook), Berlin / New York 1985, p. 163 f.
96. ^ Walter Schmithals: Introduction to the first three Gospels (De Gruyter textbook), Berlin / New York 1985, p. 196.
97. ^ Walter Schmithals: Introduction to the first three Gospels (De Gruyter textbook), Berlin / New York 1985, p. 197.
98. ^ Walter Schmithals: Introduction to the first three Gospels (De Gruyter textbook), Berlin / New York 1985, p. 196 f.
99. Andreas Köhn: The New Testament scholar Ernst Lohmeyer: Studies on Biography and Theology , Tübingen 2004, p. 1 f., 125
100. ^ Pontificia Commissio Biblica: Quaestiones de evangelio secundum Matthaeum . In: AAS 3 (1911) 294-296. ( online )
101. ^ Pontificia Commissio Biblica: De quaestione synoptica . In: AAS 4 (1912), p. 465 ( online ).
102. ^ Franz Annen: The Biblical Awakening in the Catholic Church and the Council . In: Manfred Belok, Ulrich Kropač (ed.): People of God on the move: 40 years of the Second Vatican Council , Zurich 2005, p. 14–42, here p. 21 f.
103. Ingo Broer : Hermeneutics in History: Case Studies . Göttingen 2014, pp. 18-20.
104. Quoted here from: Franz Annen: The biblical awakening in the Catholic Church and the Council . In: Manfred Belok, Ulrich Kropač (eds.): People of God on the move: 40 years of the Second Vatican Council , Zurich 2005, pp. 14–42, here p. 26.
105. ^ Franz Annen: The Biblical Awakening in the Catholic Church and the Council . In: Manfred Belok, Ulrich Kropač (eds.): People of God on the move: 40 years of the Second Vatican Council , Zurich 2005, pp. 14–42, here p. 26.
106. ^ Ferdinand Hahn : Exegetical contributions to the ecumenical discussion , Göttingen 1986, p. 342.
107. Wolfgang Wiefel: The Gospel according to Matthäus, Leipzig 1998, p. 16.
108. Edwin K. Broadhead: The Gospel of Matthew on the Landscape of Antiquity , Tübingen 2017, p. 15.
109. Edwin K. Broadhead: The Gospel of Matthew on the Landscape of Antiquity , Tübingen 2017, p. 10.
110. Edwin K. Broadhead: The Gospel of Matthew on the Landscape of Antiquity , Tübingen 2017, p. 24.
111. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 71, especially note 169.
112. Quoted here from: Udo Schnelle: Introduction to the New Testament , Göttingen 2013, p. 305. Cf. Wolfgang Trilling: Dasreal Israel . 3rd edition Munich 1967, p. 205.
113. Ingo Broer : Hermeneutics in History: Case Studies . Göttingen 2014, pp. 18-20.
114. Alexander Sand: Trilling, Wolfgang: The true Israel. Studies on the theology of the Gospel of Matthew (review). In: Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift , Volume 18, No. 3 (1967), pp. 245 f. ( online )
115. Udo Schnelle: Introduction to the New Testament , Göttingen 2013, p. 306.
116. Wolfgang Wiefel: The Gospel according to Matthäus, Leipzig 1998, p. 21.
117. ^ Craig D. Allert: A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon . Baker Academic, Michigan 2007, pp. 165-169.
118. ^ Mark H. Noll: Between Faith and Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and the Bible in America . 2nd edition, Vancouver 1991, p. 169.
119. ^ Matthias Konradt: Matthäus in context. An inventory of the question of the relationship of the Matthean community (s) to Judaism . In: Studien zum Matthäusevangelium , Tübingen 2016, pp. 3–42, here p. 4. Cf. JA Overman: Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism. The Social World of the Matthean Community , Minneapolis 1990, and AJ Saldarini: Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community , Chicago / London 1994.
120. Martin Ebner: Das Matthäusevangelium , Stuttgart 2008, p. 140. Paul Foster: Community, Law and Mission in Matthew's Gospel (= Scientific studies on the New Testament , 2nd row. Volume 177) Tübingen 2004, p. 253 - with Foster this the consensus that arises is contradicting this.
121. Roland Deines: The righteousness of the Torah in the kingdom of the Messiah: Mt 5: 13-20 as the key text of the Matthias theology (= scientific research on the New Testament . Volume 177). Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2004, p. 20.
122. Gerhard Maier: Matthew Chapters 1–14. Witten 2015, p. 25 f.
123. ^ Dale C. Allison, Jr., William David Davies: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew , Volume 3, Edinburgh 2001, p. 727 (concluding remarks of the three-volume commentary.)
124. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 64 f.
125. Dieter Lührmann: The Gospels that have become apocryphal: Studies on new texts and on new questions , Brill, Leiden 2003, p. 245.
126. Dieter Lührmann: The Gospels that have become apocryphal: Studies on new texts and on new questions , Brill, Leiden 2003, p. 247.
127. Quoted here from: Dieter Lührmann: Die apokryphen Gospels: Studies on new texts and on new questions , Brill, Leiden 2003, p. 248. Cf. Migne, Patrologia Latina, Volume 26, Sp. 78: quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum .
128. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 8-17) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 3rd edition 1999, p. 240 f.
129. Dieter Lührmann: The Gospels that have become apocryphal: Studies on new texts and on new questions , Brill, Leiden 2003, p. 249.
130. Serge Ruzer: Matthäus-Evangelium , Stuttgart 2012, Col. 432.
131. a b Alexander Sand: Das Matthäus-Evangelium , Darmstadt 1999, p. 140. "Text and reading book that offers help to survive this time as a time of tension between the old and the new aeon ..."
132. a b Wolfgang Wiefel: The Gospel according to Matthäus, Leipzig 1998, p. 1.
133. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 18-25) , Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997, pp. 30-32.
134. Leo Scheffczyk: Guardian Angel III. Systematic-theological . In: Walter Kasper (Ed.): Lexicon for Theology and Church . 3. Edition. tape 9 . Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 2000, Sp. 309-310, here col. 309 .
135. Christine Aka: Guardian Angel V. Piety History . In: Walter Kasper (Ed.): Lexicon for Theology and Church . 3. Edition. tape 9 . Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 2000, Sp. 310 .
136. ^ Günter Lange: Guardian Angel VI. Religious educational . In: Walter Kasper (Ed.): Lexicon for Theology and Church . 3. Edition. tape 9 . Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 2000, Sp. 310-311 .
137. ^ Hans Hobelsberger: carol singers . In: Walter Kasper (Ed.): Lexicon for Theology and Church . 3. Edition. tape 9 . Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 2000, Sp. 992 f .
138. Wolfgang Wiefel: The Gospel according to Matthäus, Leipzig 1998, p. 1 f.
139. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 18-25) , Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997, p. 193 f.
140. Konstantinos Nikolakopoulos: The New Testament in the Orthodox Church. Basic Questions for an Introduction to the New Testament. Berlin 2014, p. 85 f.
141. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 193.
142. Martin Honecker: Introduction to Theological Ethics (De Gruyter textbook). Berlin / New York 1990, p. 272 ​​f.
143. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 193 f., Quotation p. 194.
144. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 194.
145. ^ Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 193 f., Quotation p. 195 f.
146. Martin Honecker: Introduction to Theological Ethics (De Gruyter textbook). Berlin / New York 1990, p. 274.
147. Martin Honecker: Introduction to Theological Ethics (De Gruyter textbook). Berlin / New York 1990, p. 274 f.
148. ^ Heinrich Julius Holtzmann: Textbook of the New Testament theology . Volume 1. Freiburg im Breisgau and Leipzig 1897, p. 343.
149. Erich Gräßer : Albert Schweitzer as theologe (= contributions to historical theology . Volume 60). Tübingen 1979, p. 73 f. Cf. Albert Schweitzer: The secret of messiahship and suffering. A sketch of the life of Jesus , Tübingen 1901.
150. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7) , Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 192.
151. Martin Honecker: Introduction to Theological Ethics (De Gruyter textbook). Berlin / New York 1990, p. 275 f.
152. Martin Honecker: Introduction to Theological Ethics (De Gruyter textbook). Berlin / New York 1990, p. 276.
153. Christian Münch : Revelation and Bible . In: Martin George, Jens Herlth, Christian Münch, Ulrich Schmid (eds.): Tolstoj as theological thinker and church critic . 2nd edition Göttingen 2015, pp. 339–354, here p. 349.
154. Quoted here from: Martin George, Jens Herlth, Christian Münch, Ulrich Schmid (eds.): Tolstoj as theological thinker and church critic . 2nd edition Göttingen 2015, p. 107.
155. ^ Marco Hofheinz: Radical Pacifism . In: Ines-Jacqueline Werkner, Klaus Ebeling (Hrsg.): Handbuch Friedensethik . Springer, Wiesbaden 2017, pp. 413–432, here p. 422 f.
156. Ludger Udolph: Mahatma Gandhi . In: Martin George, Jens Herlth, Christian Münch, Ulrich Schmid (eds.): Tolstoj as theological thinker and church critic . 2nd edition Göttingen 2015, pp. 683–691.
157. Martin Honecker: Introduction to Theological Ethics (De Gruyter textbook). Berlin / New York 1990, p. 276. Cf. Karl Barth: Kirchliche Dogmatik II / 2, p. 765, 780 f.
158. Martin Honecker: Introduction to Theological Ethics (De Gruyter textbook). Berlin / New York 1990, p. 284.
159. Reinhard Feldmeier: The synoptic gospels . In: Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Hrsg.): Basic information New Testament . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4th, revised edition Göttingen 2011, pp. 75–142, here p. 96.
160. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 8-17). Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999, p. 478 f.
161. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 8-17). Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999, p. 472 f.
162. Wolfgang Beinert: Primacy II. Systematic-theological . In: Walter Kasper (Ed.): Lexicon for Theology and Church . 3. Edition. tape 8 . Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 1999, Sp. 589-591, here col. 590 .
163. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 18-25) , Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997, pp. 521-530.
164. Immanuel Kant: Religion within the limits of mere reason . Edited by Karl Vorländer, Leipzig 1922, p. 189, with an introduction and an index of persons and subjects.
165. ^ Gustavo Gutiérrez: Following Jesus and Option for the Poor. Contributions to the theology of liberation in the age of globalization , ed. by Mariano Delgado . Friborg and Stuttgart 2009, p. 32.
166. ^ Gustavo Gutiérrez: Following Jesus and Option for the Poor . Friborg and Stuttgart 2009, pp. 44–46. Gutiérrez took up the commentary on Matthew by Luz for his interpretation of the pericope, cf. ibid., p. 53.
167. ^ Gustavo Gutiérrez: Following Jesus and Option for the Poor . Friborg and Stuttgart 2009, p. 56 f.
168. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 18-25) , Neukirchen-Vluyn 1997, p. 523 f.
169. Reinhard Feldmeier: The synoptic gospels . In: Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Hrsg.): Basic information New Testament . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4th, revised edition Göttingen 2011, pp. 75–142, here p. 98.
170. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7). Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 323. Cf. Matthias Konradt: Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Göttingen 2015, p. 102: “The speech about trumpeting does not allude to a real practice, but caricatures.” Gerhard Maier contradicts Luz and agrees with Gerhard Friedrich , who in 1964 considered it “probable” that people in the synagogues sounded the horn to encourage others to donate and to remember the benefactor with God. Cf. Gerhard Maier: The Gospel of Matthew (Chapters 1–14). Witten 2015, p. 346 f.
171. Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew (Mt 1–7). Neukirchen-Vluyn, 4th edition 1997, p. 326.
172. Amy-Jill Levine: Matthew, Mark and Luke: Good News or Bad? In: Paula Fredriksen, Adele Reinhartz (Ed.): Jesus, Judaism, and Christian Anti-Judaism: Reading the New Testament After the Holocaust . Louisville 2002, pp. 77-98, here p. 91.
173. Ulrich Luz: Anti-Judaism in the Gospel of Matthew as a historical and theological problem. 1993, p. 324 f.
174. Johann Albrecht Bengel: Gnomon or Pointer of the New Testament, an interpretation of the same in ongoing notes . Edited in German by C. F. Werner. Stuttgart 1853/54, Volume 1, p. 195.
175. Quoted here from: Rolf Rendtorff, Hans Hermann Henrix (ed.): Die Kirchen und das Judentum. Documents from 1945–1985 . 2nd edition, Paderborn and Munich 1989, p. 43 (= KI8). Cf. also: Pontifical Biblical Commission: The Jewish People and their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible (2001), p. 135: “This downfall [Jerusalem] belongs to a past that today should only arouse deep compassion. Christians must be careful not to lay the responsibility for this catastrophe on the later generations of the Jewish people and should bear in mind that God always opens up new positive perspectives after the imposition of a penalty. "
176. Quoted here from: Rolf Rendtorff, Hans Hermann Henrix (ed.): Die Kirchen und das Judentum. Documents from 1945–1985 . 2nd edition, Paderborn and Munich 1989, p. 463 (= E.II.21).
177. Ernst Schumacher: Half-hearted Reformation. In: Friday . June 9, 2000, accessed November 20, 2019 .
 This article was added to the list of excellent articles in this version on December 16, 2019 .