The Gospel of Matthew A Hypertextual Commentary European Studies in Theology Philosophy and History of Religions Book 16 Adamczewski

The Gospel of Matthew A Hypertextual
Commentary European Studies in

Theology Philosophy and History of
Religions Book 16 Adamczewski
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-gospel-of-matthew-a-hypertextual-commentary-eu
ropean-studies-in-theology-philosophy-and-history-of-religions-book-16-adamczewski
/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The Gospel of John: A Hypertextual Commentary (European

Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of
Religions) Bartosz Adamczewski
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-gospel-of-john-a-hypertextual-
commentary-european-studies-in-theology-philosophy-and-history-
of-religions-bartosz-adamczewski/
Exodus Numbers A Hypertextual Commentary European

Studies in Theology Philosophy and History of Religions
Book 26 Adamczewski
https://ebookmeta.com/product/exodus-numbers-a-hypertextual-
commentary-european-studies-in-theology-philosophy-and-history-
of-religions-book-26-adamczewski/
Genesis European Studies in Theology Philosophy and

History of Religions Adamczewski
https://ebookmeta.com/product/genesis-european-studies-in-
theology-philosophy-and-history-of-religions-adamczewski/
Exodus Numbers European Studies in Theology Philosophy

and History of Religions Adamczewski
https://ebookmeta.com/product/exodus-numbers-european-studies-in-
theology-philosophy-and-history-of-religions-adamczewski/
Dialogue of Scriptures European Studies in Theology
Philosophy and History of Religions Kulwicka-Kaminska
https://ebookmeta.com/product/dialogue-of-scriptures-european-
studies-in-theology-philosophy-and-history-of-religions-kulwicka-
kaminska/
Catholic Religious Minorities in the Times of

Transformation European Studies in Theology Philosophy
and History of Religions Zowczak
https://ebookmeta.com/product/catholic-religious-minorities-in-
the-times-of-transformation-european-studies-in-theology-
philosophy-and-history-of-religions-zowczak/
Bible Caught in Violence European Studies in Theology

Philosophy and History of Religions Cezary Korzec
(Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/bible-caught-in-violence-european-
studies-in-theology-philosophy-and-history-of-religions-cezary-
korzec-editor/
Between Construction and Deconstruction of the

Universes of Meaning European Studies in Theology
Philosophy and History of Religions Zareba
https://ebookmeta.com/product/between-construction-and-
deconstruction-of-the-universes-of-meaning-european-studies-in-
theology-philosophy-and-history-of-religions-zareba/
The Archparadox of Death Martyrdom as a Philosophical

Category European Studies in Theology Philosophy and
History of Religions Dariusz Karlowicz
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-archparadox-of-death-martyrdom-
as-a-philosophical-category-european-studies-in-theology-
philosophy-and-history-of-religions-dariusz-karlowicz/
10/1/21, 4:25 PM The Gospel of Matthew
https://ereader.perlego.com/1/book/1995674/7 1/10
EUROPEAN STUDIES IN THEOLOGY,

PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF RELIGIONS
Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski
VOL. 16
Bartosz Adamczewski
The Gospel
of Matthew
A Hypertextual Commentary
Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche

Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the internet at
http://dnb.d-nb.de.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of
Congress
Printed by CPI books GmbH, Leck.
ISSN 2192-1857
ISBN 978-3-631-67941-8 (Print)
E-ISBN 978-3-653-07173-3 (E-PDF)
E-ISBN 978-3-631-70787-6 (EPUB)
E-ISBN 978-3-631-70788-3 (MOBI)
DOI 10.3726/b10799
© Peter Lang GmbH

Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften
Frankfurt am Main 2017
All rights reserved.
Peter Lang Edition is an Imprint of Peter Lang GmbH.
Peter Lang – Frankfurt am Main · Bern · Bruxelles · New York · Oxford ·

Warszawa · Wien
All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside
the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher,
is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to
reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in

electronic retrieval systems.
This publication has been peer reviewed.
www.peterlang.com
About the author(s)/editor(s)
Bartosz Adamczewski is Associate Professor of New Testament exegesis at

Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw (Poland). He has published
several books on the relationships between biblical writings themselves, and
between them and historical facts.
About the book
This monograph presents an entirely new solution to the synoptic

problem. It demonstrates that the Acts of the Apostles functioned as the
structure-giving hypotext for the Gospel of Matthew. Accordingly, the
Gospel of Matthew is a reworking of not only the Gospel of Luke, but also,
in a strictly sequential way, of the Acts of the Apostles. This strictly
sequential, hypertextual dependence on Acts explains the Matthean
relocations of the Marcan and Lucan material, numerous Matthean
modifications thereof, and many surprising features of the Matthean
Gospel. Critical explanations of such features, which are offered in this
monograph, ensure the reliability of the new solution to the synoptic
problem.
This eBook can be cited
This edition of the eBook can be cited. To enable this we have marked the
start and end of a page. In cases where a word straddles a page break, the
marker is placed inside the word at exactly the same position as in the
physical book. This means that occasionally a word might be bifurcated by
this marker.
|5→
Acknowledgments
I thank my dear Mother, Jolanta Adamczewska, MSc; my relatives and

friends; my Diocese of Warszawa-Praga; and the community of the
Catholic Parish of St Mark in Warsaw for their encouragement, prayers,
and spiritual support during my writing this book.
My thanks also go to the staff of the Tübingen University Library for
their help during my summer bibliographical research.
Last but not least, I want to thank Mr Łukasz Gałecki and the members
of the staff of the Publisher who helped turn the electronic version of the
text into a book.
Contents
Introduction
Matthew and Mark
Matthew and Luke

Mark-Matthew-Luke
Mark-Luke-Matthew
Matthew and Acts
Date of composition
Sequential hypertextuality
Chapter 1. Mt 1–2 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of

Acts 1:1-8:35
1.1. Mt 1:1-17 (cf. Acts 1:1-14)
1.2. Mt 1:18-25 (cf. Acts 1:15-26)
1.3. Mt 2:1-12 (cf. Acts 2)
1.4. Mt 2:13-15 (cf. Acts 3)
1.5. Mt 2:16-18 (cf. Acts 4:1-8:3)
1.6. Mt 2:19-23 (cf. Acts 8:4-35)
Chapter 2. Mt 3:1-9:34 as a sequential hypertextual

reworking of Acts 8:36-12:25
2.1. Mt 3 (cf. Acts 8:36-39b)
2.2. Mt 4:1-11 (cf. Acts 8:39b-40)
2.3. Mt 4:12-22 (cf. Acts 9:1-19)
2.4. Mt 4:23-25 (cf. Acts 9:20-25)

2.5. Mt 5–7 (cf. Acts 9:26-29)
2.6. Mt 8:1-4 (cf. Acts 9:30-43)
2.7. Mt 8:5-17 (cf. Acts 10:1-11:18)
2.8. Mt 8:18-34; cf. Acts 11:19-26
2.9. Mt 9:1-17; cf. Acts 11:27-30
2.10. Mt 9:18-26; cf. Acts 12:1-9a
2.11. Mt 9:27-31; cf. Acts 12:9b-17
2.12. Mt 9:32-34; cf. Acts 12:18-25
Chapter 3. Mt 9:35-14:36 as a sequential hypertextual

reworking of Acts 13–14
3.1. Mt 9:35-38; cf. Acts 13:1-2
3.2. Mt 10:1-15; cf. Acts 13:3-7
3.3. Mt 10:16-33; cf. Acts 13:8-18
3.4. Mt 10:34-39; cf. Acts 13:19
3.5. Mt 10:40-42; cf. Acts 13:20-23
3.6. Mt 11:1-19; cf. Acts 13:24-26
3.7. Mt 11:20-24; cf. Acts 13:27-29
3.8. Mt 11:25-27; cf. Acts 13:30-33
3.9. Mt 11:28-30; cf. Acts 13:34-38
3.10. Mt 12:1-14; cf. Acts 13:39-43
3.11. Mt 12:15-32; cf. Acts 13:44-14:2b
3.12. Mt 12:33-37; cf. Acts 14:2c-3c
3.13. Mt 12:38-45; cf. Acts 14:3d-19
3.14. Mt 12:46-13:35; cf. Acts 14:20-26
3.15. Mt 13:36-52; cf. Acts 14:27
3.16. Mt 13:53-14:36; cf. Acts 14:28
Chapter 4. Mt 15–20 as a sequential hypertextual reworking

of Acts 15:1-18:21
4.1. Mt 15; cf. Acts 15:1-4
4.2. Mt 16:1-20; cf. Acts 15:5-24
4.3. Mt 16:21-17:23; cf. Acts 15:25-41
4.4. Mt 17:24-27; cf. Acts 16:1-3
4.5. Mt 18:1-9; cf. Acts 16:4-8
4.6. Mt 18:10-35; cf. Acts 16:9-40
4.7. Mt 19:1-15; cf. Acts 17:1-14
4.8. Mt 19:16-30; cf. Acts 17:15-34
4.9. Mt 20:1-16; cf. Acts 18:1-8
4.10. Mt 20:17-34; cf. Acts 18:9-21
Chapter 5. Mt 21–25 as a sequential hypertextual reworking

of Acts 18:22-21:9
5.1. Mt 21:1-27; cf. Acts 18:22-25
5.2. Mt 21:28-32; cf. Acts 18:26-28a
5.3. Mt 21:33-46; cf. Acts 18:28bc
5.4. Mt 22:1-14; cf. Acts 19:1-6
5.5. Mt 22:15-46; cf. Acts 19:7-8
5.6. Mt 23; cf. Acts 19:9-22
5.7. Mt 24:1-41; cf. Acts 19:23-40
5.8. Mt 24:42-51; cf. Acts 20:1-6
5.9. Mt 25:1-13; cf. Acts 20:7-15
5.10. Mt 25:14-30; cf. Acts 20:16-26
5.11. Mt 25:31-46; cf. Acts 20:27-21:9
Chapter 6. Mt 26–28 as a sequential hypertextual

reworking of Acts 21:10-28:31
6.1. Mt 26:1-2; cf. Acts 21:10-16
6.2. Mt 26:3-13; cf. Acts 21:17-25
6.3. Mt 26:14-46; cf. Acts 21:26-29
6.4. Mt 26:47-75; cf. Acts 21:30-23:11
6.5. Mt 27:1-10; cf. Acts 23:12-33a
6.6. Mt 27:11-26; cf. Acts 23:33b-25:18
6.7. Mt 27:27-66; cf. Acts 25:19-27:32
6.8. Mt 28:1-15; cf. Acts 27:33-28:22
6.9. Mt 28:16-20; cf. Acts 28:23-31
General conclusions
Bibliography
Primary sources
Israelite-Jewish
Graeco-Roman
Early Christian: New Testament
Secondary literature
Index of ancient sources
| 11 →
Introduction
This commentary greatly differs from other modern commentaries on the

Gospel of Matthew. The difference results from the particular methodological
approach which has been adopted therein. Instead of explaining the Matthean
Gospel in historical-critical terms as a result of redactional use of earlier
sources or traditions, in narratological terms as a set of narrative-organizing
devices, etc., this commentary aims at explaining it in a critical intertextual
way as a result of a sequential hypertextual reworking of the Acts of the
Apostles.
This methodological approach, unlike many others, does not originate from
any particular literary theory. It rather reflects the recent discovery of the
phenomenon of the sequential hypertextual reworking of earlier texts in
numerous biblical writings. This phenomenon occurs in the writings of both
the Old and the New Testament: Gen, Exod-Lev-Num, Deut, Sam-Kgs, Chr;
Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn, Acts, Rom, Gal, Eph, 2 Thes, Hebr, 2 Pet, and Rev.1 These
writings, taken together and measured by their extent, constitute almost a half
of the Christian Bible.
Accordingly, it is fully justified to perform a thorough analysis of the
Matthean Gospel, taking this important literary discovery into consideration.
Matthew and Mark

Modern scholars generally agree that the Gospel of Matthew is a reworking of
the Gospel of Mark. This opinion concerning the relationship between these
two ← 11 | 12 → Gospels constitutes an important element of probably the
earliest solution to the synoptic problem. It was first witnessed in the so-called
‘testimony of Papias’ (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15-16).
According to this patristic text, the Gospels of Mark and Matthew were
based on oral traditions which were handed down by Peter and presumably
also by other apostles. For this reason, the Gospel of Mark was for centuries
regarded as a work which was based on Peter’s oral catecheses. Likewise, the
Gospel of Matthew was by most ancient, medieval, and modern scholars

regarded as preserving authentic sayings of Jesus, which were first recorded in
Hebrew (or Aramaic), possibly in the form of a protogospel2 or a later lost
sayings source,3 and thereafter translated into Greek.4
However, a close analysis of the composition of the so-called ‘testimony of
Papias’ reveals that this text was not primarily concerned with the sources of
the material which is contained in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.
Otherwise, it would refer to the origin of all four canonical Gospels, and not
just two of them. In fact, the bipartite structure of this patristic text reveals that
it was only aimed at explaining the differences between the Gospels of Mark
and Matthew, as well as the striking features of the Matthean Gospel.
The author of the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ rightly perceived the Gospel
of Matthew as having two apparently contradictory features. On the one hand,
this Gospel seems to be a result of literary enhancement and rhetorical
improvement of the relatively short and simple Gospel of Mark. On the other
hand, in difference to the Marcan Gospel, the Gospel of Matthew, with its
particular wording and theological stance, seems to be a very ‘Hebrew’, so
apparently primitive, Jewish Christian Gospel. Consequently, it is quite natural
to ask whether the Matthean Gospel should be regarded as written after or
before the Gospel of Mark. ← 12 | 13 →
The so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ presents an early Christian attempt to
answer this difficult literary-theological question. According to this patristic
text, the Marcan Gospel originated from a set of Peter’s oral catecheses and
therefore, as the ‘testimony of Papias’ repeatedly stresses, it was not well
organized in terms of a carefully composed literary work (οὐ… τάξει, οὐχ ὥσπερ
σύνταξιν: Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15).5 The patristic text further suggests that
as a consequence of this fact, ‘so then (μὲν οὖν) Matthew arranged the
[Lord’s] oracles […] in an orderly way’ (συνετάξατο: Eusebius, Hist. eccl.
3.39.16).6 Accordingly, the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’, through its
correlated references to the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, explained the
evident posteriority of the apparently ‘Hebrew’ Gospel of Matthew against the
apparently ‘Gentile’ Gospel of Mark in terms of necessary literary improvement
of the allegedly poorly organized Marcan Gospel.
In order to lend credence to this thesis, the author of the ‘testimony of
Papias’ argued that the things which could be rearranged in the Marcan
Gospel, without compromising the truth of them, were the Lord’s and Peter’s
allegedly isolated oracles or discourses (λόγια: Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15-16).
However, the suggestion that the Gospels of Mark and Matthew had their
origin in some orally transmitted discourses or oracles of the Lord evidently
functioned in the ‘testimony of Papias’ as a secondary, in fact merely
postulated element of the main argument concerning the literary-rhetorical
reasons for rearranging the contents of the Gospel of Mark into the better
organized Gospel of Matthew.7
In fact, the pattern of the relocations and modifications of the Marcan (and
Lucan) material in the Gospel of Matthew is very complex. Hitherto given
scholarly explanations of this fact in terms of, for example, Matthew’s
composition of three sections with three miracle stories and words of Jesus in
each of them in Mt 8–118 or the use of two overlapping Marcan sequences in
Mt 8–99 are only ← 13 | 14 → partly satisfactory because they do not explain
numerous other relocations and modifications of the Marcan (and Lucan)
material in the Matthean Gospel (e.g. Mk 5:24 in Mt 8:1; Mk 10:46-52 in Mt
9:27-31; Mk 6:34 in Mt 9:36; Mk 13:9 in Mt 10:17; Mk 3:22.25 in Mt 10:25; Mk
9:41 in Mt 10:42; Mk 9:22 in Mt 17:15; Mk 11:22-23 in Mt 17:20; Mk 10:15 in
Mt 18:3; Mk 12:34 in Mt 22:46; Mk 9:34-35 and Mk 10:43 in Mt 23:11).
Consequently, the complex pattern of the Matthean relocations and
modifications of the Marcan (and Lucan) material remains an oddity,10 unless
the likewise complex pattern of the Matthean reworking of the Lucan bipartite
work is taken into due consideration.
Matthew and Luke

In the twentieth century, the problem of the relationship between the Gospels
of Matthew and Luke did not draw much attention in biblical scholarship. This
fact mainly resulted from the popularity of the so-called Two-Source
hypothesis, which assumed mutual literary independence of the Gospels of
Matthew and Luke, in favour of the existence of a hypothetical ‘Q source’.11
However, in the twenty-first century this widespread consensus concerning the
relationship between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke is more and more
seriously challenged. Scholars began to realize that the arguments against the
so-called Two-Source hypothesis, especially those pointing to hundreds of
Matthean-Lucan agreements against Mark, are in fact really strong.12
Therefore, nowadays the so-called Two-Source hypothesis gradually loses the

status of a widely agreed-upon scholarly axiom, and comes to be treated as
merely one of the synoptic hypotheses.13
The studies on the issue of the relationship between the Gospels of Matthew
and Luke, which had been published until the year 2009, were already
analysed in my previous book on the synoptic problem.14 Therefore, only most
recent contributions to this issue will here be presented. ← 14 | 15 →
Mark-Matthew-Luke
The hypothesis of the Mk-Mt-Lk order of literary dependence of the Synoptic
Gospels has a relatively strong group of supporters, who were more or less
directly influenced by the work of Michael D. Goulder.
Werner Kahl has argued that the so-called ‘minor agreements’ of Matthew
and Luke against Mark, which are commonly regarded as an argument against
the ‘Q source’ theory, are in fact not ‘minor’ because they are numerous and
significant.15 Moreover, according to the German scholar, they often appear in
clusters (especially in Mk 1:1-13 parr. and in Mk 14:32-16:8 parr.), so that their
presence in Matthew and Luke should not be attributed to mere chance.16
Kahl’s argument for the Lucan dependence on Matthew, and not vice versa,
is based on the philological observation that the Greek style of Luke is better
than that of Matthew.17 However, his general reference to alleged Lucan
corrections of Matthew in Mk 11:7 par. Mt 21:7 par. Lk 19:3518 is hardly
convincing. Likewise, Kahl’s argument that Luke often locates his additions to
Mark in a different context (especially in the ‘Travel Narrative’), whereas
Matthew locates them in their Marcan contexts,19 cannot solve the problem of
the direction of literary dependence, given the evidently differing treatment of
the Marcan material by both later evangelists. On the other hand, Kahl’s
argument that the Matthean introduction to the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:1-
2), unlike the Lucan Sermon on the Plain, is not consistent with its context (Mt
4:18-22; 7:28-29)20 is quite convincing, but this inconsistency can also be
explained as resulting from Matthew’s reworking of the Acts of the Apostles.
Francis Watson has argued that the hypothesis of the Lucan dependence on
Matthew, without the existence of the hypothetical ‘Q source’, should be called
the ‘L/M (= Luke/Matthew) theory’.21 However, in his rejection of Q, the
British scholar merely mentions the possibility of the reverse Matthean-Lukan
dependence, namely the Matthean dependence on Luke, using the argument

that, as he ← 15 | 16 → states, ‘[…] it is impossible to investigate every
possibility at once’.22 As concerns the ‘primitivity’ and ‘secondariness’ between
Matthew and Luke, Watson rightly argues that ‘each of the competing
[synoptic] hypotheses can produce plausible examples of apparent
“primitivity” or “secondariness” ’, so that the synoptic problem should be
solved by ‘attending to the compositional procedure required’ for the
postulated later Gospel to emerge from the earlier ones.23
Watson rightly notes the thematic and lexical similarities between the Lucan
prologue and the ‘testimony of Papias’, but he again uncritically accepts only
one direction of possible dependence between them: from Papias’ view to
Luke’s view.24 Watson also suggests that since Papias and Irenaeus mention
both Mark and Matthew, and Irenaeus adds to them Luke and John, the
Gospels of Mark and Matthew were probably the earliest ones.25
The British scholar notes numerous notable similarities between the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which extend beyond the material traditionally
attributed to the ‘Q source’: genealogies, annunciation stories, the introduction
of John the Baptist before the Isaiah citation, the brood-of-vipers speech, etc.26
However, even if Watson rejects the hypothesis of mutual independence of the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke, he does not reject the hypothesis of mutual
independence of the Gospels and the letters of Paul,27 although both
hypotheses are logically constructed in the same way: differences between the
analysed texts are taken to prove their mutual independence, notwithstanding
the existence of important similarities between them.
Watson also tries to explain the Matthean relocations of the Marcan
material in the section Mt 3–13 by suggesting that Matthew used the material
of Mk 1:1-6:6 in an ordered way, namely in two overlapping sequences (Mk 1:1-
4:34; 4:35-6:6).28 However, this analysis is rather superficial. It does not take
into consideration the Matthean relocations of the material of Mk 1:39; 3:7-8
etc. to the narrative point after Mk 1:20 (in Mt 4:22-25), Mk 3:13 to the
narrative point ← 16 | 17 → after Mk 1:20 (in Mt 5:1),29 Mk 10:46-52 to the
narrative point after Mk 2:22 (in Mt 9:27-31), Mk 3:22.25 to the narrative
point after Mk 2:22 (in Mt 10:25), etc.
John C. Poirier, in the introduction to the recent multi-author monograph
on ‘Marcan priority without Q’,30 clarifies its main title. He notes that although
the label ‘Marcan priority without Q’ is welcomed by many supporters of the

‘Farrer hypothesis’ (Mk-Mt-Lk order without Q), it is quite ambiguous because
it can also be applied to the opposite hypothesis, namely that of the Mk-Lk-Mt
order of direct literary dependence, also without the hypothetical ‘Q source’
(the so-called ‘Matthean posteriority hypothesis’). Moreover, Poirier explains
the factors which nowadays encourage more numerous scholars to adopt the
Farrer hypothesis (and in fact, at least partly, also the Matthean posteriority
hypothesis), rather than the Two-Source hypothesis: (a) increased awareness
that the evangelists were creative writers and reshapers of earlier material,
rather than strict compilers; (b) wider acceptance of the view that Luke wrote
in response to other Gospels; (c) increased awareness of Luke’s literary ability;
and (d) wider acceptance of a late date for Luke.31
In his article contained in this monograph, John C. Poirier rightly criticizes
Delbert Burkett’s recent support of the Two-Source hypothesis by pointing to
his outdated understanding of the evangelists as slavish copyists and compilers
of earlier sources, and not as creative authors and composers of literary
works.32 Poirier’s critique of Burkett mainly refers to the contested plausibility
of various aspects of Luke’s reworking of Matthew. Such issues are notoriously
difficult to solve in a convincing way. For example, the argument of the
supporters of the Farrer hypothesis concerning Luke’s postulated ‘editorial
fatigue’ in his reworking of Matthew in fact refers to the difference between
Luke’s greater variatio locutionis and Matthew’s greater uniformity in style
and vocabulary. Therefore, it can endlessly be debated whether it was Luke
who introduced the variation into Matthew’s text or it was Matthew who
uniformed the style of the Lucan material. However, the text-critical rule lectio
difficilior potior faciliori generally favours Matthew’s corrective
uniformization of the original Lucan variation. ← 17 | 18 →
Eric Eve analyses the Beelzebul controversy in the Gospels from the point of
view of the Farrer hypothesis. He argues that Mt 12:22-37 can be regarded as
an expansion of Mk 3:20-30, and Lk 11:14-23 as a reworking of Mt 12:22-37.
Accordingly, he argues that the hypothetical ‘Q source’ can here be omitted.33
However, he offers no detailed arguments for Luke’s use of Matthew, and not
vice versa. For example, the agreement in order between Lk 11:14-28 and Mt
12:22-50 is simply taken as an argument for Luke’s dependence on Matthew.
The British scholar does not consider the reverse possibility of the
understanding of Lk 11:27-28 as a Lucan original composition, and not as a

reworking of Mt 12:46-50. In fact, a similar Lucan original composition,
evidently not suggested by the text of Matthew, can be found in Lk 23:29
(μακαρια* + ἡ κοιλία ἡ + καὶ μαστοὶ οἵ).
Stephen C. Carlson analyses the non-aversion principle, which was used by
some defenders of the Two-Source hypothesis to make the judgments
concerning redactional traits of a given evangelist non-reversible. According to
this principle, a given feature can only be identified as truly secondary if the
other evangelist in a compared Gospel had no aversion to it; otherwise, the
other evangelist could also have been secondary in his omission of this feature
for his particular reasons. Carlson shows that the use of this apparently logical
principle in Lk 20:47-21:4 par. Mk 12:40-44 in fact leads to erroneous results
because Luke often changed Marcan vocabulary even if he was elsewhere not
averse to it.34 Therefore, it can be argued that the use of this principle cannot
lead to conclusive (non-reversible) results because the evangelists could freely
change the wording of earlier Gospels for some barely identifiable reasons.
Consequently, merely linguistic considerations cannot conclusively solve the
synoptic problem, especially if they are applied to isolated fragments of the
Gospels.
Heather M. Gorman assesses the plausibility of the Farrer hypothesis
against the background of ancient rhetorical tradition, as it is witnessed in the
extant progymnasmata and rhetorical handbooks. In her opinion, the overall
order of the Lucan Gospel, which includes, as she argues, the section mainly
concerning Jesus’ deeds (Lk 4:14-9:50) and the section mainly concerning
Jesus’ teaching (Lk 9:51-19:28), suits Quintilian’s advice that an encomium
could include such sections.35 One might debate whether Quintilian’s phrase
operum (id est ← 18 | 19 → factorum dictorumque) contextus (Inst. 3.7.15
[sic]) in fact refers to such large sections and whether the Lucan Gospel really
contains such two major parts, and consequently whether Luke’s Gospel is
really well arranged (cf. Lk 1:3) in terms of ancient rhetoric. Likewise,
Gorman’s argument that Luke considerably shortened and rearranged
Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount for the sake of rhetorical brevity and clarity is
not very persuasive, given Luke’s predilection for quite elaborate speeches
elsewhere in his Gospel and Acts.
Mark Goodacre rightly argues that the instances of very high Mt-Lk verbal
agreement in their ‘double tradition’, reaching uninterrupted strings of 24–27
identical words in the same order in Lk 3:8-9; 7:8-9; 10:21-22; 11:32; 16:13
par., in fact disprove the Two-Source hypothesis and favour the hypothesis of
Mt-Lk direct literary dependence.36 However, his argument that the higher Mt-
Lk verbal agreement in their ‘double tradition’ than in the ‘triple tradition’ is
best explained by the Farrer hypothesis is, alas, unconvincing. The fact that, as
Goodacre rightly notes, the highest verbal agreement can mainly be found in
Mt-Lk and Mt-Mk pairs, and much more rarely in Lk-Mk pairs, in reality
favours the Matthean posteriority hypothesis, according to which Matthew
consistently quite faithfully copied from both Mk and Lk, and not the Farrer
hypothesis, according to which Luke surprisingly oscillated between a
relatively free mode of literary reworking (Lk-Mk) and a relatively faithful one
(Lk-Mt). Such an oscillating pattern of Lucan literary reworking of earlier texts
(e.g. Paul’s letters) is notably absent in Acts.
Ken Olson, similarly to Stephen C. Carlson, argues that Luke could have
omitted the unparalleled Matthean expressions in the Lord’s Prayer because
they repeat ideas which are expressed earlier in the text, and Luke generally
avoided repetitions.37 However, Olson fails to explain the fact that the idea of
subjection to God’s will (Mt 6:10b) was evidently important for Luke at crucial
points of his narrative (Lk 22:42; Acts 21:14), so its omission in the model
prayer of the disciples (Lk 11:2-4) would be really surprising.
Andris Abakuks applies several models of statistical analysis to Matthew’s
and Luke’s use of Mark. The use of a simple chi-square test, time series
modelling using logistic regression, as well as using hidden Markov models,
commonly reveal that in the so-called ‘triple tradition’ both the Farrer
hypothesis and the Matthean posteriority hypothesis are more plausible than
Matthew’s and Luke’s independent use of Mark, with no particular clue as to
the superiority of the ← 19 | 20 → Farrer hypothesis over the Matthean
posteriority hypothesis or vice versa. The use of hidden Markov models also
suggests that Matthew’s or Luke’s rather loose, so maybe somehow correlated
reworking of Mark can most likely be found in Mk 1:40-44; 2:8-12; 3:28-33;
6:37-44; 12:36-38 parr.38 Abakuks’s analyses would be even more persuasive if
he used the NA28 and not the NA25 edition of the text of the Gospels.
Jeffrey Peterson notices some important Mt-Lk thematic and linguistic

agreements against Mk in the conclusions of the Gospels (and in the birth
stories). He also argues that they are best explained by the Farrer hypothesis
and not by the Matthean posteriority hypothesis.39 However, the arguments for
the latter claim are rather weak. The Lucan repeated references to ‘the eleven’
(Lk 24:9.33; Acts 1:26; 2:14) are understandable after Judas’ betrayal (Lk
22:3.47-48), but in Matthew’s Gospel the phrase ‘the eleven’ appears only once,
in a text which is thematically related to Luke (Mt 28:16 par. Lk 24:33.36). On
the other hand, the allegedly Matthean verb προσκυνέω (Mt 28:17 par. Lk
24:52) was repeatedly used not only by Matthew, but also by Luke (3 times in
his Gospel and 4 times in Acts). The scriptural justification of the mission to
‘all the nations’ is hardly more explicit in Luke (Lk 24:46-47) than in Matthew
(Mt 28:18-19; cf. Dan 7:14 LXX), and in any case such a phenomenon cannot
be taken as proving only one direction of reworking. Likewise, the Matthean
idea of Jesus’ spiritual presence with his disciples (Mt 28:20; cf. 18:20) can be
taken as a reworking of the Lucan idea of Jesus’ presence in the Spirit (Lk
24:49; Acts 1:4-5.8 etc.), and not vice versa. Notwithstanding these difficulties,
Peterson’s idea that the relationship between Matthew and Acts should be
analysed more carefully is certainly insightful.
David Landry argues for a late dating of Luke (c. AD 115–160) on the basis
of Luke’s use of Mark, Matthew, John, Josephus, and Paul (with the Pastoral
Epistles), and on the other hand on the basis of Marcion’s and Justin’s use of
Luke.40 Even if the direction of the dependence between Luke and John was in
fact reverse, and Luke’s use of Matthew is something that Landry wants to
prove, the other arguments are generally correct. On the other hand, Landry’s
arguments for an earlier dating of Matthew (c. AD 80–90), which are intended
to prove the Farrer ← 20 | 21 → hypothesis, are much weaker because they rely
on the highly debatable dating of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, which post-
date Matthew, to c. AD 110.
In brief, the recent multi-author monograph concerning the Farrer
hypothesis as opposed to the Two-Source hypothesis displays no significant
interaction with the ‘mirror’ solution, namely the Matthean posteriority
hypothesis. Moreover, as often happens in the discussion on the synoptic
problem, the three Gospels are here generally only compared with one another,
as though they were written in a literary vacuum. The Pauline and post-Pauline
letters, the Acts of the Apostles, classical and Hellenistic literature, etc. are
generally not taken into consideration as potential hypotexts for the Gospels.
Therefore, much work in this field has still to be done.
Mark-Luke-Matthew
One of the advocates of the Two-Source hypothesis has interestingly noticed
that ‘Matthew’s dependence on Luke has rarely been proposed […] Given the
number of passages where the advocates of Q have suggested that Luke’s
version is more original, this is perhaps surprising’.41 However, several scholars
have recently argued for some variant of the hypothesis of the Lk-Mt order of
literary dependence between these Gospels.
Paul N. Tarazi has argued that Matthew borrowed numerous fragments
from the Gospel of Luke in order to illustrate various Pauline ideas. Thus, he
closed the canon of the New Testament writings.42
James R. Edwards in his work on the Hebrew proto-Gospel has argued that
because the Lucan special material apparently contains more Semitisms than
does the Gospel of Matthew, then the latter Gospel should be considered
posterior to the Lucan one.43 Moreover, according to the American scholar, in
comparison to the Lucan Gospel the order and formulas of the Gospel of
Matthew are more balanced and proportional, its Greek style is more clean and
consistent, and its christology is more developed.44
David L. Mealand has carried out a stylometric analysis of various
fragments of the Matthean Gospel and has come to the conclusion that ‘M
samples were ← 21 | 22 → distinct from those attributed to Mark and Q, and
the latter from each other’.45 This result can be used against the hypothesis of
the Mk-Mt-Lk order of direct literary dependence (in which both Q and M
fragments are attributed to Matthew), but it favours not only the Two-Source
hypothesis,46 but also the hypothesis of the Mk-Lk-Mt order of direct literary
dependence (in which Q is attributed to Luke, so it can be stylistically distinct
from both Mark and M).
Robert K. MacEwen has recently published a monograph devoted to the
‘Matthean posteriority hypothesis’, which postulates Matthew’s use of both
Mark and Luke (who in his turn had also used Mark) as a solution to the
synoptic problem.47
In the presentation of his own arguments in favour of the Matthean

posteriority hypothesis, MacEwen convincingly argues that the Matthean
posteriority hypothesis best explains the presence of the Aramaic word
μαμωνᾶς once in Mt 6:24 and 3 times in Lk 16:9.11.13, which is surrounded by
Lucan Sondergut (Lk 15:8-16:12; 16:14-15). Luke generally avoided
Aramaisms, so Luke’s combination of sources (Q 16:13 with much Lucan
Sondergut on the Two-Source hypothesis) or the reverse direction of
borrowing (on the Farrer hypothesis) would be here rather implausible.48
Likewise, MacEwen convincingly argues that the word εἰρήνη in Mt 10:13 par.
is generally Lucan and non-Matthean, which favours the Matthean posteriority
hypothesis.49 Similarly, he persuasively argues that the Matthean saying
concerning care for one sheep on the Sabbath (Mt 12:11), which is inserted into
the Marcan story Mk 3:1-6, was borrowed from Lk 14:5, which is an integral
part of the story Lk 14:1-6, and consequently the reverse direction of borrowing
(on the Farrer hypothesis) or the existence of an isolated saying Q 14:5 (on the
Two-Source hypothesis) would be highly implausible.50
Describing the results of the statistical analysis of strings of verbal
agreement which contain four or more words in the Synoptic Gospels,
MacEwen rightly argues that on the Matthean posteriority hypothesis Matthew
was rather consistent in his reworking of both Mark and Luke with roughly the
same, high level of ← 22 | 23 → verbal agreement. However, on other synoptic
hypotheses, the latest evangelist (or evangelists in the Two-Source hypothesis)
would display surprisingly variegated level of agreement with his (or their) two
main sources.51
In order to strengthen his arguments, MacEwen also deals with various
challenges to the Matthean posteriority hypothesis. The first of them is the
alleged greater primitiveness of some Matthean formulations in the Mt-Lk
material. As concerns this problem, the scholar rightly argues that the case of
Matthew’s ‘debts’ against Luke’s ‘sins’ in the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6:12 par. Lk
11:4) is in fact dubious, mainly due to Matthew’s known redactional tendency
to strengthen parallelism. The same may refer to Matthew’s ‘good things’
against Luke’s ‘Holy Spirit’ in Mt 7:11 par. Lk 11:13, although in this case
MacEwen favours greater primitiveness of the Lucan version. Matthew’s
reluctance to include exhortations to preach before Mt 10 (cf. also Mt 9:1 diff.
Mk 5:18-20; Lk 8:38-39) could indeed explain his shorter version in Mt 8:22
diff. Lk 9:60. Likewise, Matthew’s reference to ‘sword’ (Mt 10:34) could indeed
have resulted from the placing of Luke’s less harsh saying concerning ‘division’
(Lk 12:51) in the context of the warnings concerning persecutions and death
(Mt 10:17-31). Accordingly, the scholar rightly argues that the examples of
Matthew’s alleged greater primitiveness against Luke are in fact not as
numerous as it is often assumed.52
In his analysis of the issue of Matthean and Lucan primitiveness in the
International Q Project, MacEwen maintains that this project slightly favours
the Matthean wording in the reconstructed Q, so that it supports the Two-
Source hypothesis and, to some extent, the Farrer hypothesis against the
Matthean posteriority hypothesis.53 Alas, MacEwen does not analyse the
certainty with which the IQP scholars assigned the wording of their
reconstructed Q to either the Matthean or the Lucan version of the Mt-Lk
material. Such an analysis would reveal that the Matthean version is much
more rarely, in fact only exceptionally attributed the certainty {A} as being
more primitive that its Lucan counterpart.
MacEwen also deals with the problem of Matthew’s omission, on the
Matthean posteriority hypothesis, of at least 14 parables which are present in
the Gospel of Luke. The scholar argues that such Matthean omissions could be
explained in terms of avoiding doublets with the Marcan version (Lk 7:41-43;
13:6-9), omitting material concerning Samaritans (Lk 10:29-37), avoiding
material which was hard to understand and morally ambiguous (Lk 11:5-8;
16:1-12; 18:1-8), ← 23 | 24 → omitting negative references to wealth (Lk 12:13-
21; 14:28-33; 16:19-31), avoiding unspecified references to community morality
(Lk 15:8-10), reworking the Lucan material (Lk 15:11-32 cf. Mt 21:28-32), and
maybe also avoiding excessive antinomianism (Lk 17:7-10; 18:9-14).54
The third challenge to the Matthean posteriority hypothesis, which is
discussed by MacEwen, consists in the presence of discordant passages in the
Mt-Lk non-Marcan material. According to the scholar, the Matthean infancy
narrative shows numerous structural and literary similarities to the Lucan
infancy narrative, but Luke’s use of Matthew is here slightly more unlikely that
Matthew’s reworking of Luke. MacEwen argues that Matthew’s differences
from Luke could have resulted from Matthew’s use of other, non-Lucan
traditions.55 Alas, MacEwen does not discuss the role of the Matthean
ethopoeic presentation of Joseph as related to his eponymous scriptural
predecessor (the importance of dreams, safe stay in Egypt, etc.). On the other
hand, MacEwen’s analysis of the burial and resurrection narratives leads him
to the right conclusion that 10 significant Mt-Lk non-Marcan agreements in
this material favour the Matthean posteriority hypothesis against the Farrer
hypothesis, and the 3 agreements which favour the Farrer hypothesis can also
be explained by the Matthean posteriority hypothesis.56
As concerns Matthew’s and Luke’s great sermon (Mt 5–7 par. Lk 6:20-49),
MacEwen is right in concluding that the Matthean procedure of expanding the
Lucan great sermon (on the Matthean posteriority hypothesis) is much more
consistent with his redactional treatment of Marcan material in his other
sermons than is the reverse Lukan procedure of abbreviating and scattering the
Matthean great sermon (on the Farrer hypothesis) in comparison to Luke’s
redactional treatment of Marcan material in his other sermons.57
In order to deal with the challenges against the Matthean posteriority
hypothesis in a comprehensive way, MacEwen reconstructs the redactional
habits of the last synoptic evangelist on various synoptic hypotheses. The
scholar rightly argues that the Two-Source hypothesis and, to a slightly lesser
extent, the Matthean posteriority hypothesis better explain Matthew’s
consistently anthologizing recontextualization of earlier material than does the
Farrer hypothesis for Luke’s apparently highly complex recontextualization of
his material on that hypothesis, and much better than does the Two-Gospel
hypothesis for Mark’s redactional procedures in that theory. Moreover,
MacEwen rightly notes that on the ← 24 | 25 → Matthean posteriority
hypothesis (against the Two-Source hypothesis) Matthew retained some
narrative settings for his Lucan non-Marcan material.58
In the conclusion to his monograph, MacEwen opts for the Matthean
posteriority hypothesis as the main alternative to the Two-Source hypothesis.59
The scholar deserves great praise for his thorough analysis and evaluation of
the Matthean posteriority hypothesis in comparison to three other synoptic
hypotheses (the Two-Source hypothesis, the Farrer hypothesis, and the Two-
Gospel hypothesis). It is important that the scholar has thoroughly analysed
arguments for and against various synoptic solutions and evaluated them not
simply in abstract and merely subjective terms, but usually against the
background of the evangelists’ redactional habits known from other parts of
their works.
One major weakness of MacEwen’s study consists in its total lack of interest
in earlier New Testament writings, especially the Pauline and post-Pauline
letters, and roughly contemporary writings, especially the Acts of the Apostles,
in their possible influence upon the Synoptic Gospels. In fact, a thorough
analysis of the relationship between the Matthean Gospel and the Acts of the
Apostles can shed new light on the value of the Matthean posteriority
hypothesis against other solutions to the synoptic problem.
Allan Garrow has recently argued for the hypothesis of Matthew’s use of ‘Q’,
Mark, and Luke.60 This proposal, which was earlier advocated in various forms
by Martin Hengel, Erik Aurelius, and others, is called by Garrow the ‘Matthew
Conflator Hypothesis’. The British scholar argues that his ‘Q’ needs to be
postulated only in a very limited number of Mt-Lk non-Marcan fragments with
a low level of verbal agreement, in which Matthew at times appears to be more
primitive than Luke (e.g. Mt 5:38-48 par. Lk 6:27-36; Mt 23:23-36 par. Lk
11:39-51). Accordingly, the extent of such a ‘Q’ would be around 450 words.61
Garrow argues that the hypothesis of the Matthean dependence on the Gospel
of Luke explains numerous synoptic phenomena, and its apparent weak points
are also explicable. In particular, the British scholar makes an interesting
suggestion that Luke consistently copied larger blocks of material from Mark
and ‘Q’, which were available to him in the form of a scroll, and later Matthew
consistently conflated various fragments from Mark, Luke, and ‘Q’, which were
already available to him in the form of a codex.62 ← 25 | 26 →
Matthew and Acts

Even if some scholars discussed the problem of the literary relationship
between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the question of the literary
relationship between the Matthean Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles was
hardly ever analysed in biblical scholarship.63
This fact is really surprising, since the Acts of the Apostles evidently
constitutes the second part of the Lucan work (cf. Acts 1:1-4).64 Accordingly, if
there is a certain literary dependence between the Gospel of Matthew and the
Gospel of Luke, a certain literary dependence between the Gospel of Matthew
and the Acts of the Apostles is also highly plausible.
The issue of the literary relationship between the Gospel of Matthew and the
Acts of the Apostles was already analysed in one of my previous books.
However, the hypothesis of the Matthean consistent, sequential, but on the

other hand highly creative, hypertextual reworking of the Acts of the Apostles
was formulated there very briefly, in terms of a provisional suggestion of the
presence of 22 thematically corresponding and structurally matching sections
in both works. However, no detailed analysis of the contents of these sections
or their possible common vocabulary was undertaken at that stage of
research.65 Therefore, such a detailed, greatly improved analysis will be
presented in this monograph.
Date of composition
The terminus a quo of the composition of the Matthean Gospel is determined
by the date of the composition of the Gospel of Mark, which was in turn written
after the writings of Flavius Josephus, so not earlier than c. AD 100–110,
maybe even as late as c. AD 130–135.66 Moreover, as is consistently argued in
this commentary, the Gospel of Matthew post-dates the Lucan Gospel and the
Acts of the ← 26 | 27 → Apostles, which were most likely written c. AD 120–
140.67 Besides, the Gospel of Matthew may have been written in reaction to
Marcion’s activity in Rome c. AD 144.68 Alas, the hypothesis of the composition
of the Matthean Gospel in second-century Rome, with its numerous Jewish
and Jewish Christian communities, as well as its anti-Marcionite discussions,
was hardly ever seriously discussed in biblical scholarship, probably due to the
influence of patristic ideas (especially those of Papias and Irenaeus) concerning
this Gospel.69
On the other hand, the terminus ad quem is constituted by the use of the
Gospel of Matthew in Justin’s Apologia I (cf. e.g. 1 Apol. 15.11 and Mt 6:19-20;
1 Apol. 16.9 and Mt 7:21; 1 Apol. 61.3 and Mt 28:19),70 which was in turn
composed in AD 153 or shortly after that date.71
Accordingly, the Gospel of Matthew was probably written c. AD 130–150,
most likely c. AD 145–150.
Sequential hypertextuality
The notion of sequential hypertextuality, which is used in this monograph, was
already explained and discussed in my previous works.72 Therefore, it will not
be dealt with here again.
Moreover, since the way of reworking the Acts of the Apostles in the
Matthean Gospel mainly consists in creating sequentially organized allusions
to the Acts of ← 27 | 28 → the Apostles in the material which was borrowed by
Matthew from the Gospels of Mark and Luke, and only rarely in composing
new ‘Matthean’ stories, the particular terminology used to describe procedures
applied in creating new hypertexts (transdiegetization, interfigurality, etc.)73
will not be used in this monograph.
The main aim of this commentary consists in analysing the sequential
hypertextual reworking of the Acts of the Apostles in the Gospel of Matthew.
Therefore, other Matthean allusions will be analysed here in a selective way, in
order not to overload the work with mentioning all possible intertextual
references.
It is also evident that this commentary has been written from a particular
interpretative perspective. As such, it resembles modern commentaries which
are based on a particular interpretative approach: reader-response, reception-
historical, social-scientific, feminist, etc.74 Therefore, it significantly differs
from ‘traditional’ commentaries, which aim at describing and evaluating
various scholarly solutions to all problems that are posed by the commented
text.75 Nevertheless, it answers the most basic questions which are discussed in
every commentary: the meaning of words, phrases, clauses, sentences,
pericopes, and ultimately the meaning of the whole book.76
In the following commentary, it will be argued that the whole Gospel of
Matthew is a result of a consistent, sequentially organized, and on the other
hand hypertextual, so highly creative and very allusive reworking of the whole
Acts of the Apostles. Therefore, the proposed division of the material of this
commentary into chapters and subchapters is of necessity rather artificial.77
1 See B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and

Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am
Main [et al.] 2010), 227–399, 419–430; id., Heirs of the Reunited
Church: The History of the Pauline Mission in Paul’s Letters, in the So-
Called Pastoral Letters, and in the Pseudo-Titus Narrative of Acts
(Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 83–132; id., The Gospel
of the Narrative ‘We’: The Hypertextual Relationship of the Fourth
Gospel to the Acts of the Apostles (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et
al.] 2010), 39–121; id., Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces:

Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter
Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 55–66, 79–86, 99–103, 117–119,
129–163; id., Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and
Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy
(EST 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012), 25–280; id.,
Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels (EST 3; Peter Lang:
Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2013), 14–62; id., The Gospel of Mark: A
Hypertextual Commentary (EST 8; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et
al.] 2014), 31–196; id., The Gospel of Luke: A Hypertextual
Commentary (EST 13; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2016),
35–202.
2 Cf. e.g. R. Simon, Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament: Où
l’on établit la Verité des Actes sur lesquels la Religion Chrêtienne est
fondée (Reinier Leers: Rotterdam 1689), 47–100; C. Tresmontant, Le
Christ hébreu: La langue et l’âge des Evangiles (O.E.I.L.: Paris 1983),
35–216 (esp. 54, 58).
3 Cf. e.g. C. H. Weiße, Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und
philosophisch bearbeitet, vol. 1 (Breitkopf und Härtel: Leipzig 1838), 48;
M. Black, ‘The Use of Rhetorical Terminology in Papias on Mark and
Matthew’, JSNT 37 (1989) 31–41; H. Koester, Ancient Christian
Gospels: Their History and Development (SCM: London and Trinity:
Philadelphia, Pa. 1990), 166–167.
4 Cf. e.g. A. D. Baum, ‘Ein aramäischer Urmatthäus im kleinasiatischen
Gottesdienst’, ZNW 92 (2001) 257–272 (esp. 271).
5 Cf. D. Farkasfalvy, ‘The Papias Fragments on Mark and Matthew and
Their Relationship to Luke’s Prologue: An Essay on the Pre-History of
the Synoptic Problem’, in A. J. Malherbe, F. W. Norris, and J. W.
Thompson (eds.), The Early Church in Its Context, Festschrift E.
Ferguson (NovTSup 90; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 1998), 92–106
(esp. 93–97).
6 Cf. F. Watson, Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective (William B.
Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge 2013), 125–126.
7 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Hypertextuality, 125–127.
8 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel according to Saint
Matthew, vol. 1, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I-VII (ICC;
T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1988), 100–103.

9 Cf. U. Luz, ‘Looking at Q through the Eyes of Matthew’, in P. Foster [et
al.] (eds.), New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference,
April 2008, Festschrift C. M. Tuckett (BETL 239; Peeters: Leuven · Paris
· Walpole, Mass. 2011), 571–589 (esp. 583–584); F. Watson, Gospel,
149–153.
10 Cf. R. C. Beaton, ‘How Matthew writes’, in M. Bockmuehl and D. A.
Hagner (eds.), The Written Gospel (Cambridge University: Cambridge ·
New York 2005), 116–134 (esp. 120).
11 See B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 23–83.
12 See ibid. 83–95.
13 Cf. C. M. Tuckett, ‘The Current State of the Synoptic Problem’, in P.
Foster [et al.] (eds.), New Studies, 9–50 (esp. 50).
14 See B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 161–184.
15 Cf. W. Kahl, ‘Erhebliche matthäisch-lukanische Übereinstimmungen
gegen das Markusevangelium in der Triple-Tradition: Ein Beitrag zur
Klärung der synoptischen Abhängigkeitsverhältnisse’, ZNW 103 (2012)
20–46 (esp. 22–25).
16 Cf. ibid. 31–35, 40.
17 Cf. ibid. 39.
18 Cf. ibid.
19 Cf. ibid. 39–40.
20 Cf. ibid. 43.
21 F. Watson, Gospel, 118–119. Cf. earlier id., ‘Q as Hypothesis: A Study in
Methodology’, NTS 55 (2009) 397–415 (esp. 398).
22 Id., Gospel, 137.
23 Ibid. 162–163.
24 Cf. ibid. 121–125, 131.
25 Cf. ibid. 128. Cf. also id., ‘How Did Mark Survive?’, in K. A. Bendoraitis
and N. K. Gupta (eds.), Matthew and Mark across Perspectives,
Festschrift S. C. Barton and W. R. Telford (LNTS 538; Bloomsbury T&T
Clark: London [et al.] 2016), 1–17 (esp. 10).
26 Cf. id., Gospel, 131–155.
27 Cf. ibid. 132–133.
28 Cf. ibid. 149–153.
29 This fact is merely noted, but not adequately explained, in ibid. 152–153.
30 J. C. Poirier and J. Peterson (eds.), Marcan Priority without Q:

Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis (LNTS 455; Bloomsbury T&T
Clark: London · New York 2015), 1–15. See my review of this book in
Biblical Annals 6 (2016) 311–315.
31 Cf. J. C. Poirier, ‘Introduction: Why the Farrer Hypothesis? Why Now?’,
in J. C. Poirier and J. Peterson (eds.), Marcan, 1–15.
32 Cf. J. C. Poirier, ‘Delbert Burkett’s Defense of Q’, in ibid. 191–225.
33 Cf. E. Eve, ‘The Devil in the Detail: Exorcising Q from the Beelzebul
Controversy’, in ibid. 16–43.
34 Cf. S. C. Carlson, ‘Problems with the Non-Aversion Principle for
Reconstructing Q’, in ibid. 44–61.
35 Cf. H. M. Gorman, ‘Crank or Creative Genius? How Ancient Rhetoric
Makes Sense of Luke’s Order’, in ibid. 62–81.
36 Cf. M. Goodacre, ‘Too Good to Be Q: High Verbatim Agreement in the
Double Tradition’, in ibid. 82–100.
37 Cf. K. Olson, ‘Luke 11:2-4: The Lord’s Prayer (Abridged Edition)’, in ibid.
101–118.
38 Cf. A. Abakuks, ‘A Statistical Time Series Approach to the Use of Mark
by Matthew and Luke’, in ibid. 119–139.
39 Cf. J. Peterson, ‘Matthew’s Ending and the Genesis of Luke-Acts: The
Farrer Hypothesis and the Birth of Christian History’, in ibid. 140–159.
40 Cf. D. Landry, ‘Reconsidering the Date of Luke in Light of the Farrer
Hypothesis’, in ibid. 160–190.
41 C. M. Tuckett, ‘Current State’, 37 n. 68.
42 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 4, Matthew
and the Canon (OCABS: St Paul, Minn. 2009), 102–288.
43 Cf. J. R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the
Gospel Tradition (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. ·
Cambridge 2009), 244.
44 Cf. ibid. 245–252.
45 D. L. Mealand, ‘Is there Stylometric Evidence of Q?’, NTS 57 (2011)
483–507 (here: 501).
46 Cf. ibid. 502.
47 R. K. MacEwen, Matthean Posteriority: An Exploration of Matthew’s
Use of Mark and Luke as a Solution to the Synoptic Problem (LNTS
501; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2015). See my review of
this book in Biblical Annals 6 (2016) 513–517.
48 Cf. R. K. MacEwen, Matthean, 31–34.
49 Cf. ibid. 44 n. 58.
50 Cf. ibid. 46–48.
51 Cf. ibid. 50–73.
52 Cf. ibid. 75–91.
53 Cf. ibid. 92–99.
54 Cf. ibid. 99–117.
55 Cf. ibid. 118–130.
56 Cf. ibid. 130–145.
57 Cf. ibid. 154–163.
58 Cf. ibid. 166–187.
59 Cf. ibid. 188–196.
60 Cf. A. Garrow, ‘Streeter’s “Other” Synoptic Solution: The Matthew
Conflator Hypothesis’, NTS 62 (2016) 207–226.
61 Cf. id., ‘An Extant Instance of “Q” ’, NTS 62 (2016) 398–417 (esp. 399–
401).
62 Cf. id., ‘Streeter’s’, 215–219.
63 For some minor exceptions, see e.g. G. Volkmar, Die Religion Jesu und
ihre erste Entwicklung nach dem gegenwärtigen Stande der
Wissenschaft (F. A. Brockhaus: Leipzig 1857), 361–364 (Acts 1:18-19 →
Mt 27:7-10); J. Peterson, ‘Matthew’s Ending’, 155–159 (Mt 28:16-20 →
Acts).
64 There is no place here to discuss various hypotheses concerning the
literary relationship between the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the
Apostles.
65 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 428–430. Cf. also id., Constructing,
153–155; id., Hypertextuality, 113–115.
66 Cf. id., Mark, 110 n.12, 158–159 n. 140, 202 n. 17.
67 As concerns the Gospel of Luke, cf. e.g. C. Mount, Pauline Christianity:
Luke-Acts and the Legacy of Paul (NovTSup 104; Brill: Leiden · Boston ·
Köln 2002), 168: sometime before about AD 130; B. Adamczewski, Luke,
23: c. AD 120–140. As concerns the Acts of the Apostles, cf. e.g. W. O.
Walker, Jr., ‘The Portrayal of Aquila and Priscilla in Acts: The Question
of Sources’, NTS 54 (2008) 479–495 (esp. 495: in the middle of the
second century AD); R. I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, ed. H. W.

Attridge (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis 2009), 5, 20: c. AD 115; id.,
‘Acts in the Suburbs of the Apologists’, in T. E. Phillips (ed.),
Contemporary Studies in Acts (Mercer University: [s.l.] 2009), 29–46
(esp. 46: c. AD 110–130).
68 Cf. M. Vinzent, Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels
(StPatrSup 2; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2014), 281–282.
69 See ibid. 173–180. For a recent rejection of the hypothesis of the
Galilean provenance of the Gospel of Matthew, see D. C. Sim, ‘The
Gospel of Matthew and Galilee: An Evaluation of an Emerging
Hypothesis’, ZNW 107 (2016) 141–169.
70 Cf. M. Hengel, Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus
Christus: Studien zu ihrer Sammlung und Entstehung (WUNT 224;
Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008), 339–340 nn. 1030, 1032.
71 Cf. Justin, Apologie pour les chrétiens, ed. C. Munier (SC 507; Cerf:
Paris 2006), 28.
72 See, most recently, B. Adamczewski, Luke, 24–32.
73 Cf. ibid. 24–25.
74 For a discussion on such a way of writing commentaries, see M. Y.
MacDonald, ‘The Art of Commentary Writing: Reflections from
Experience’, JSNT 29.3 (2007) 313–321 (esp. 317–320).
75 For this type of commentary, see e.g. B. Adamczewski, List do Filemona,
List do Kolosan: Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz (NKBNT
12; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2006).
76 Cf. M. Y. MacDonald, ‘Art’, 320.
77 For a recent attempt to detect the internal structure of the Gospel of
Matthew, see e.g. A. Mpevo Mpolo, ‘Outlining Matthew’s Gospel through
Structure Criticism’, RivB 63 (2015) 137–155.
| 29 →
Chapter 1.Mt 1–2 as a sequential

hypertextual reworking of Acts
1:1-8:35
The Matthean infancy narrative concerning the young Jesus: from his hidden
beginnings to his coming beyond the borders of Judaea (Mt 1–2) is a result of a
sequential hypertextual reworking of the Lucan story concerning the young
Jewish Christian Church: from its hidden beginnings to its outreach beyond
the borders of Judaea (Acts 1:1-8:35).
1.1. Mt 1:1-17 (cf. Acts 1:1-14)

The section Mt 1:1-17, with its main themes of the first book of the sacred story,
Davidic kingdom, Abrahamic promise, Israelite messianic expectations,
representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel, four potentially scandalizing
women added to them, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Jewish fleshly
messianism, sequentially illustrates the main themes of the corresponding
section Acts 1:1-14.
The opening scriptural phrase ‘the book of the genealogy of Jesus’ (βίβλος
γενέσεως + Ἰησοῦς: Mt 1:1), which linguistically recalls the Book of Genesis
(Γένεσις) with its genealogies (cf. Gen 2:4; 5:1 LXX),1 alludes to the opening
phrase of the Acts of the Apostles, which refers to the first book of the sacred
story about Jesus (Acts 1:1). The Matthean Genesis-based phrase (βίβλος
γενέσεως), which originally referred to the genealogy of the world and
humankind (Gen 2:4; 5:1 LXX), surprisingly does not suit the following remark
concerning David (Mt 1:1). Therefore, it can be argued that Matthew only used
it to create an allusion to the first book of the sacred story about Jesus (Acts
1:1), and not to the genealogy of Adam (Gen 5:1 LXX),2 who is evidently
omitted in the Matthean genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:2-16; diff. Lk 3:38). ← 29 |

30 →
The subsequent remark concerning Jesus as the son of David (Mt 1:1),
which evokes the idea of the messianic kingdom given by God (βασιλεία +
θεός: cf. Lk 1:32-33), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of Jesus
proclaiming the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3).
The subsequent remark concerning Jesus as the son of Abraham (Mt 1:1)
alludes to the subsequent Lucan remark concerning the Spirit as the promise of
the Father (Acts 1:4-5). In the Pauline theology, the promise of the Spirit was
related to Abraham (Gal 3:14) and to Jesus as the one offspring of Abraham
(Gal 3:16). Therefore, Matthew could illustrate the Lucan idea of the promise of
the Spirit (Acts 1:4-5) with the use of the remark concerning Jesus as the son of
Abraham (Mt 1:1). Precisely for this reason, the Matthean remark concerning
Abraham surprisingly follows that concerning David (Mt 1:1), although both in
the Bible and in the Matthean genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:2-16) Abraham
precedes and not follows David (Mt 1:2.6.17). Also for this reason, Matthew
was elsewhere not interested in the idea of Jesus as the son of Abraham (cf. Mt
3:9 from Lk 3:8; Mt 8:11 from Lk 13:28; Mt 22:32 from Mk 12:26: all not
related to Jesus).
The subsequent Israelite (beginning from Abraham and not Adam: Mt 1:2a;
diff. Lk 3:38), explicitly calculated (with reference to generations and periods
of time: Mt 1:17; diff. Lk 3:23-38) genealogy of Jesus as the Messiah/Christ (Mt
1:2b-17) illustrates the subsequent Lucan idea of Israelite messianic
expectations concerning Jesus, related to calculated times and periods of time
(Acts 1:6-7). The idea of Jesus as the descendant of Abraham (Mt 1:2a) again
alludes to the Lucan idea of the promised Spirit (Acts 1:8; cf. 1:4-5).
The subsequent remark concerning the brothers of Judah, who together
with him functioned as the representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel (Mt
1:2c), a remark which is evidently superfluous because the genealogical line of
Jesus goes through Judah only (cf. Mt 1:3), alludes to the subsequent Lucan list
of the apostles, who functioned as the representatives of the twelve tribes of
Israel (Acts 1:13; cf. Mk 3:14-19; Lk 22:30).
The subsequent, likewise surprising and evidently superfluous insertion of
four potentially scandalizing women, namely Tamar (cf. Gen 38:13-18), Rahab
(cf. Josh 2:1), Ruth (cf. Ruth 3:7), and that of Uriah (cf. 2 Sam 11:2-5), into the
male genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:3.5-6)3 alludes to the subsequent Lucan remark
concerning ‘women’, so presumably the four earlier mentioned, potentially
scandalizing women: Mary Magdalene (cf. Lk 8:2; 24:10), Joanna (cf. Lk 8:3;
24:10), ← 30 | 31 → Susanna (cf. Lk 8:3),4 and Mary of James (cf. Lk 24:10), as
present with the male apostles (Acts 1:14b).
The subsequent remark concerning Mary as the mother of Jesus (Μαρια* +
Ἰησοῦς), a statement which is likewise somewhat surprisingly inserted into the
male genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:16ab),5 reflects the subsequent Lucan remark
concerning Mary the mother of Jesus (Acts 1:14b).
The concluding statement concerning Jesus as being called the
Messiah/Christ (Mt 1:16c), together with the calculation of generations from
Abraham, the father of Israel, to David, to the Babylonian deportation, and to
the Messiah/Christ (Mt 1:17), evokes the idea of Jewish fleshly, generational
messianism, and thus it alludes to the concluding Lucan remark concerning
the fleshly brothers of Jesus (Acts 1:14b), presumably including James (cf.
Gal 1:19; Mk 6:3), the true leader of the Jewish Christian messianic community
(cf. Gal 2:9.12; Jas 1:1 etc.).
In order to illustrate these Lucan ideas, Matthew used and reworked the
Lucan genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:1-17; cf. Lk 3:23c-38). In difference to the
Lucan Gospel, in which the genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:23c-38) surprisingly
follows the account of Jesus’ birth, childhood, and spiritual initiation at about
thirty years of age (Lk 1:5-3:23b), the Matthean placement of the genealogy at
the beginning of the narrative (Mt 1:1-17) is very natural, both in terms of its
scriptural models (cf. 1 Chr 1–9 etc.)6 and in terms of a Jewish-Hellenistic
biography (cf. Jos. Vita 1–6 etc.).7 Accordingly, it can be argued that the
Matthean genealogy (Mt 1:1-17) is a reworked, consciously ‘scripturalized’
version of the Lucan one (Lk 3:23c-38). The reverse direction of reworking
(from Matthew to Luke) is here highly implausible.8 ← 31 | 32 →
The heading of the Matthean genealogy of Jesus: ‘the book of the genealogy’
(βίβλος γενέσεως: Mt 1:1) was borrowed from the heading of the scriptural
genealogy of the descendants of Adam (Gen 5:1; cf. 2:4 LXX).9 The general
form of the Matthean genealogy, namely a descending genealogy (from
Abraham to Jesus: Mt 1:2-17; diff. Lk 3:23c-38), also reflects scriptural models,
especially Gen 4:17-5:32; 1 Chr 1:34; 2:1-15. Likewise, the repeatedly used
Matthean formula ‘and X begot Y’ (X δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Y: Mt 1:2-16) has its

origins in Scripture (Gen 10:8.15.24.26 LXX etc.).
The first part of the Matthean genealogy, which includes the generations
from Abraham to David (Mt 1:2-6; cf. 1:17a), is a result of a corrective
reworking of the corresponding part of the Lucan genealogy (Lk 3:31-34),
which was adjusted by Matthew to the scriptural data (esp. 1 Chr 1:34; 2:1-15
LXX).10 In particular, in agreement with 1 Chr 2:9-10 LXX (cf. Ruth 4:19 LXX),
the evangelist omitted two artificial Lucan names Admin and Arni (Lk 3:33),
and substituted them with one scriptural name Aram (Mt 1:3-4; cf. 1 Chr 2:9-
10 LXX). However, thus adjusting his genealogy to the scriptural data,
Matthew destroyed the artificial, intentionally heptadic Lucan scheme of 14
generations from Abraham to David (Lk 3:31-34). In order to conceal the
resulting discrepancy, Matthew misleadingly declared that from Abraham to
David there are 14 generations (Mt 1:17a).
Similarly, Matthew corrected the Lucan name Sala (Σαλά: Lk 3:32) to the
scriptural name Salmon (Σαλμών: Mt 1:4-5; cf. 1 Chr 2:11 LXX).
However, Matthew also left a trace of his reworking of the Lucan genealogy
by retaining the Lucan, not Septuagintal name forms Esrom (Ἑσρώμ: Mt 1:3;
cf. Lk 3:33; diff. Ruth 4:18-19; 1 Chr 2:5.9 LXX) and Jobed ( Ἰωβήδ: Mt 1:5; cf.
Lk 3:32; diff. Ruth 4:21-22; 1 Chr 2:12 LXX).
The second part of the Matthean genealogy, which includes the generations
from David to the Babylonian deportation (Mt 1:6-11; cf. 1:17b), was also
scripturalized by introducing the names of the kings of Judah, which were
borrowed from 1 Chr 3:5-16 LXX,11 in place of the Lucan non-scriptural names
(cf. Lk 3:27-31). In order to achieve the declared number of 14 generations
between David and the Babylonian deportation (cf. Mt 1:17b), Matthew in his
genealogy omitted the ← 32 | 33 → names of Joas, Amasias, and Azarias (Mt
1:9; diff. 1 Chr 3:11-12 LXX).12 Moreover, Matthew simplified the scriptural
data from 1 Chr 3:15-16 LXX by omitting the name of Joakim and by regarding
his brothers (1 Chr 3:15 LXX) as the brothers of his son Jechonias (Mt 1:11; diff.
1 Chr 3:16 LXX).13
However, in this part of the genealogy Matthew also used the Lucan name
form Solomon (Σολομών: Mt 1:6-7; cf. Lk 11:31; 12:27; diff. 1 Chr 3:5 LXX etc.).
Likewise, probably under the influence of the Lucan use of the prophetic name
Amos (Lk 3:25), which was used by Luke together with that of Nahum (Lk
3:25), Matthew substituted the scriptural name of Amon (1 Chr 3:14 LXX) with
that of Amos (Mt 1:10).14
Adjusting in this way the Lucan genealogy to the scriptural data, Matthew
destroyed the Lucan idea of the integrity of the whole Israel, freed from the
divisions which had been caused by sinful kings (cf. Lk 3:28-31),15 and
substituted it with the standard genealogical data concerning the pre-exilic
kings of Judah, according to their genealogical line traced through Solomon
and his descendants.
The third part of the Matthean genealogy, which includes the generations
from the Babylonian deportation to Christ (Mt 1:12-16; cf. 1:17c), in its opening
fragment, from Jechonias to Zorobabel (Mt 1:12), is based on the scriptural
data taken from 1 Chr 3:17.19 LXX.16
The following seven names (Mt 1:13-15) are generally scriptural: Abiud
(Ἀβιούδ: cf. Exod 6:23 LXX etc.), Eliakim (cf. 2 Kgs 18:18 LXX etc.), Azor (cf.
Jer 28[35]:1 LXX), Sadok (cf. 2 Sam 15:24 LXX etc.), Achim (cf. 1 Chr 11:35
LXX etc.), Eliud (Ἐλιούδ: cf. Ελιου: 1 Chr 26:7 LXX; Ελιους: Job 32:2 LXX
etc.), ← 33 | 34 → and Eleazar (cf. Exod 6:23 LXX etc.).17 The first (Abiud), the
middle (Sadok), and the last one in this group (Eleazar) are evidently priestly
names (cf. Exod 6:23; 2 Sam 15:24 LXX etc.), and consequently they contribute
to Matthew’s ethopoeic presentation of the postexilic period in Judaea as
dominated by high priests.18
The name Matthan (Ματθάν), as referring to Jesus’ great-grandfather (Mt
1:15), is a Matthean version of the linguistically and functionally corresponding
Lucan name Matthat (Μαθθάτ: Lk 3:24). However, in the Lucan genealogy the
name of Matthat (Lk 3:24) had an important allusive function of recalling,
together with the names of Levi, Melchi, Jannai, and Mattathias (Lk 3:24-25),
the priestly-royal Hasmonean dynasty, which was founded by Mattathias (cf. 1
Macc 2:1 etc.) and which was ruling in Judaea for several generations before
the birth of Jesus. On the other hand, in the Matthean genealogy the name of
Matthan (Mt 1:15) has no particular context and no particular function.
Accordingly, this Matthean name betrays Matthew’s borrowing and reworking
of an element of the Lucan genealogy. The reverse direction of dependence
(from Matthew to Luke) is here highly implausible.
The Matthean substitution of the Lucan name Heli, as referring to the father
of Joseph (Lk 3:23), with that of Jacob (Mt 1:15-16) reflects Matthew’s
programme of consistent ‘scripturalization’ of the whole genealogy of Jesus. In

fact, the statement ‘Jacob begot Joseph’ (Mt 1:16) has an evident scriptural
flavour, recalling the paradigm of the great scriptural patriarch Jacob as the
father of Joseph (cf. Gen 30:25).19 Accordingly, also the Matthean name of
Jacob (Mt 1:15-16) indirectly betrays Matthew’s reworking of the Lucan
genealogy. On the other hand, the reverse direction of dependence (from
Matthew to Luke) is here highly implausible because Luke would have had no
adequate reason for substituting the Matthean name of Jacob (Mt 1:15-16) with
that of Heli (Lk 3:23).
The penultimate name Joseph, as referring to Jesus’ alleged father (Mt 1:16),
was borrowed from Lk 3:23 (diff. Mk 6:3). Moreover, Matthew narratively
explained here the somewhat enigmatic Lucan statement that Jesus was
regarded to be the son of Joseph (Lk 3:23). The particular motif of Jesus being
called the Messiah (Ἰησοῦς + ὁ λεγόμενος + χριστός: Mt 1:16; cf. 27:17.22) was
borrowed from Jos. Ant. 20.200. ← 34 | 35 →
The conclusion to the Matthean genealogy declares that it consists of three
parts, which consist of 14 generations each (Mt 1:17). However, this statement
is misleading because the first and the third part contain only 13 generations.20
At least in the first part, this discrepancy results from adjusting the Lucan
genealogy to the scriptural data.
In fact, the artificial scheme of 3 times 14 generations (Mt 1:17) betrays
Matthew’s use of the Lucan heptadic chronological scheme, which was
borrowed from the ‘Apocalypse of Weeks’ (4Q212; 1 En. 93:3–10; 91:10–11).21
However, whereas the Lucan scheme of 77 generations which were divided into
periods corresponding to the groups of ‘weeks’ in that Jewish work (21
generations from the creation of the world to Abraham + 14 generations from
Abraham to David + 21 generations from David to the Babylonian exile + 21
generations from the Babylonian exile to Christ) quite closely reflected the
Jewish heptadic chronological scheme of seven ‘weeks’ from the creation of the
world to the messianic era,22 the Matthean scheme of 3 × 14 generations from
Abraham to Christ is in fact much more remote from that Jewish scheme of
periodization of time.
The Matthean ‘fourteens’ (Mt 1:17) have no justification in the scriptural
data because according to 1 Chr 1:34; 2:1-15 LXX (and consequently also Mt
1:2-6) there were 13 generations from Abraham to David, and according to 1
Chr 3:5-16 LXX there were 18 generations from David to Jechonias. These
‘fourteens’ also have no justification in heptadic chronological calculations,
which were widespread in Second Temple Judaism, because such Jewish
calculations were based on counting the time with the use of sevens, and not
fourteens.23 It is therefore evident that the Matthean ‘fourteens’ betray
Matthew’s reworking of the Lucan, artificially achieved calculation of 14
generations from Abraham to David, which in its turn resulted from Luke’s
omission of the Levitical character (and consequently ‘week’) of Moses, as
evidently not belonging to the Davidic, and consequently royal genealogy of
Jesus. ← 35 | 36 →
The suggestion that the Matthean number 14 (Mt 1:17) has its origins in
gematria, as referring to the numeric value of the Hebrew consonants forming
the scriptural name of David, is in fact inadequate to the data of the Matthean
genealogy, which was composed in Greek, and not in Hebrew,24 and which
points to Abraham, rather than David, as the main ancestor of Jesus (Mt
1:1.17). In the Matthean genealogy, David only functions as an intermediate
link between Abraham and Jesus.25
Accordingly, the Matthean genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:1-17) should be
regarded as a result of a scripturalizing, but not entirely consistent reworking
of the Lucan one (Lk 3:23-38).26
1.2. Mt 1:18-25 (cf. Acts 1:15-26)

The section Mt 1:18-25, with its main themes of a patriarchal background, the
activity of the Holy Spirit related to something foretold in Scripture, the
believers coming together, Joseph being a just man, the Lord knowing the
human heart, divine inspiration to accept an apparently not righteous person,
bearing a Semitic name referring to Yahweh’s grace, and accepting the
apparently not righteous person, sequentially illustrates the main themes of
the corresponding section Acts 1:15-26.
The opening statement concerning Jesus’ birth, that is his ‘genesis’ (γένεσις:
Mt 1:18a),27 like in Mt 1:1 (βίβλος γενέσεως) evokes the scriptural motif of
patriarchal genealogies (cf. Gen 5:1 LXX etc.).28 Therefore, it alludes to the
opening Lucan patriarchal-genealogical motif of 120 presumably male names
(Acts 1:15; cf. Gen 46:8-27; Exod 28:10 LXX etc.).
The idea of Mary having been betrothed to Joseph (pass. part. μνηστευ* +
Μαρία* + Ἰωσήφ: Mt 1:18b) was borrowed from Lk 1:27.29 In the Lucan
Gospel, ← 36 | 37 → the particular motif of a virgin betrothed to a man
(παρθένος ἐμνηστευμένη ἀνδρί), a virgin who was supposed not to have sexual
relationships with men yet (Lk 1:27; cf. 1:34), originated from Deut 22:23-24
LXX (cf. Deut 20:7).30 In the Matthean Gospel, only the general Lucan idea of
Mary having been betrothed to Joseph (Lk 1:27) was used in Mt 1:18b.
The subsequent motif of a particular activity of the Holy Spirit (πνεῦμα +
ἅγιον), related to something foretold in Scripture (Mt 1:18de; ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχω:
cf. Is 7:14 LXX;31 Mt 1:20-23), alludes to the subsequent Lucan account of
something foretold in Scripture by the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:16-20). The
anarthrous form of ‘Holy Spirit’ (πνεῦμα ἅγιον: Mt 1:18e; cf. 1:20), which is
rather untypical of Matthew (diff. Mt 12:32; 28:19; cf. only Mt 3:11 originating
from Mk 1:8 par. Lk 3:16), was borrowed from Lk 1:35 (cf. Lk 1:15.41.67 etc.).
The chronologically (although not formally) subsequent idea of Joseph and
Mary coming together (συνέρχομαι: Mt 1:18c), which was not used in
scriptural legal texts concerning marriage (diff. Deut 20:7 LXX etc.), alludes to
the subsequent Lucan idea of the believers coming together (Acts 1:21-22).
The subsequent idea of Joseph ( Ἰωσήφ) being a just man (ἀνήρ: Mt 1:19),
an idea which does not originate from the Lucan Gospel, alludes to the
subsequent Lucan idea of Joseph being a man (cf. Acts 1:21a) called Justus,
which in Latin means ‘just’ (Acts 1:23bc). The particular non-scriptural motif
of a Jew divorcing (ἀπολῦσαι) his wife (Mt 1:19e) was borrowed from Mk
10:2.4.
The subsequent idea of the Lord (κύριος: cf. Mt 1:20b) knowing Joseph’s
thinking (ἐνθυμέομαι: Mt 1:20a), presumably in his heart (cf. Mt 9:4:
ἐνθυμέομαι + καρδία), alludes to the subsequent Lucan idea of the Lord
knowing human hearts (καρδι*: Acts 1:24c).
The subsequent idea of divine inspiration for Joseph to accept the
apparently not righteous Mary (Mt 1:20b-g) alludes to the subsequent Lucan
idea of divine inspiration for the apostles to accept not the apparently
righteous one who was surnamed Justus, which means ‘just’ (cf. Acts 1:23c),
but Matthias (Acts 1:24c-26b). The Lucan scriptural motif of revealing God’s
will by casting lots (Acts 1:26ab) was reworked by Matthew into the scriptural
motif of revealing God’s will in a dream (ὄναρ: Mt 1:20b), with the use of the
ethopoeic image ← 37 | 38 → of Joseph as acting similarly to his eponymous

ancestor Joseph,32 at least in Josephus’ interpretation of the scriptural story
(cf. Jos. Ant. 2.12, 63, 70, 72, 82).
Moreover, the Matthean annunciation to Joseph (Mt 1:20b-21), with its
particular motifs of a revealing (λέγω) angel (ἄγγελος) of the Lord (κύριος: Mt
1:20bc; cf. Lk 1:26.28), Joseph being a ‘son’ of David ( Ἰωσήφ + Δαυίδ: Mt
1:20c; cf. Lk 1:27.32),33 the encouragement not to be afraid (μὴ φοβ*: Mt
1:20d; cf. Lk 1:30), Mary conceiving (pass. γεννάω) from ‘Holy Spirit’
(anarthrous πνεῦμα ἅγιον: Mt 1:20fg; cf. Lk 1:35), and the prediction that Mary
will bear a son and call his name Jesus (τέξ* + υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα
αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν: Mt 1:21ab; cf. Lk 1:31), is a reworking of the Lucan annunciation
to Mary (Lk 1:26-38).34
The subsequent idea of Jesus bearing the Semitic name which means
‘Yahweh saves’ and which allegedly refers to graceful salvation from sins (Mt
1:21bc)35 alludes to the subsequent Lucan remark concerning Matthias (Acts
1:26b), whose Semitic name refers to Yahweh’s graceful gift (diff. Justus: Acts
1:23).
The particular motif of saving the people from their sins (σω* + ὁ λαὸς
αὐτοῦ + ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν: Mt 1:21c), which illustrates the idea of God’s grace
(Acts 1:26b), was borrowed for this purpose from another fragment of the
Lucan Gospel (Lk 1:77; cf. 2:11).36 As a result of this borrowing, God’s people
(Lk 1:77) in the Matthean Gospel somewhat surprisingly became Jesus’ people
(Mt 1:21c).37 On the other hand, if the direction of borrowing were reverse
(from Matthew to Luke), Luke would have no particular reason to separate the
motifs taken from Mt 1:20b-21 and use them in two different sections of his
Gospel (Lk 1:26-38; 1:77).
The motif of exact fulfilment (πληρωθῆ*) of a directly quoted scriptural
prophecy (ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν καὶ καλέσ* τὸ
ὄνομα ← 38 | 39 → αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ: Mt 1:22-23; cf. Is 7:14 LXX)38 probably
alludes to a similar motif in Acts 1:16.20. In the Isaian quotation, Matthew
changed the scriptural verb form καλέσεις (‘you will call’: Is 7:14 LXX) into
καλέσουσιν (‘they will call’: Mt 1:23c) because he understandably presented
Joseph as calling the child Jesus (Mt 1:21.25) and not Emmanuel (cf. Is 7:14
LXX).39
The subsequent depiction of Joseph as acting according to the command of

the angel of the Lord and taking to him the apparently not righteous Mary (Mt
1:24) alludes to the subsequent Lucan description of the eleven apostles as
acting according to the decision of God and adding to them the apparently not
righteous Matthias (Acts 1:26c; diff. 1:23c: Justus). The related motif of
Joseph awaking (ἐγείρω) from the dream (*ὕπν: Mt 1:24a) is ethopoeic-
scriptural (cf. Gen 41:4.7 LXX).
The particular idea of Joseph having no sexual relations with Mary until she
bore a son (Mt 1:25ab) suggests an exact, literal fulfilment of both the Isaian
prophecy and the angelic statement concerning a virgin who will both conceive
and bear a son (cf. Is 7:14 LXX; Mt 1:22-23),40 and thus it again illustrates the
Lucan description of the apostles as acting exactly according to the revealed
will of God (Acts 1:26c; cf. 1:26b). The same refers to the depiction of Joseph
as naming the child Jesus (Mt 1:25c) in agreement with both the scriptural
prophecy (cf. Is 7:14 LXX) and the command of the angel of the Lord (cf. Mt
1:21b).41
1.3. Mt 2:1-12 (cf. Acts 2)

The section Mt 2:1-12, with its main themes of particular days, pilgrims from
other countries appearing in Jerusalem, the pilgrims being witnesses of a
heavenly miracle in their eastern country, confusion among all people in
Jerusalem, asking questions concerning the messianic sign to other Jews in
Jerusalem, lack of faith in messianic ideas, giving an answer based on the
fulfilment of a text revealed through a prophet, a prophetic quotation
concerning eschatological ← 39 | 40 → events, obtaining detailed information
concerning the manifest heavenly vision of a celestial body, obtaining detailed
information concerning Jesus as the Messiah, Jewish resolve to kill Jesus by
the hand of lawless ones, a scriptural visible sign of divine presence being
always before the believers and pointing to Jesus by standing up by him, great
joy of the believers, entering the realm of faith, seeing Jesus and his first
witnesses, worshipping Jesus, offering three gifts, receiving a particular
revelation, and being set apart from the Jerusalemites, sequentially illustrates
the main themes of the corresponding section Acts 2.42
The opening statement that Jesus’ birth (γεν*) happened in some particular
days (ἡμέρα: Mt 2:1a) alludes to the opening Lucan remark concerning a
messianic event (γεν*) which happened on a particular day (Acts 2:1-4). The
formula concerning the days of Herod the king in Judaea (τῆς Ἰουδαίας + ἐν…
ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου… βασιλέως: Mt 2:1a) was borrowed from Lk 1:5.43 This
borrowing resulted in the somewhat surprising Matthean presentation of
Jesus’ birth as taking place in a number of days (plur. ἡμέραις: Mt 2:1a),
whereas the use of plural in Lk 1:5 is quite natural. Therefore, the reverse
direction of literary dependence (from Matthew to Luke) is here rather
implausible. Likewise, the non-Marcan and non-Pauline idea of Jesus’ birth in
Bethlehem of Judaea (Βηθλέεμ + Ἰουδαία: Mt 2:1.5-6.8.16) was borrowed by
Matthew from Lk 2:4.15.44
The subsequent motif of pilgrims from (ἀπό) other countries who appeared
in Jerusalem (εἰς Ιερο*: Mt 2:1b)45 is a reworking of the subsequent Lucan
motif of pilgrims from other countries who appeared in Jerusalem (Acts 2:5).
The subsequent scriptural motif of the pilgrims saying (λέγοντες) that they
were witnesses of a heavenly miracle in their eastern country (Mt 2:2; cf. Num
23:7; 24:15-17 LXX)46 originates from a scripturalizing reworking of the
subsequent Lucan idea of the pilgrims saying that they were witnesses of a
heavenly miracle which ← 40 | 41 → was related to their generally eastern
countries (Acts 2:6-11). Matthew reworked the Lucan list of Asian nations and
groups of people (Acts 2:9-11), which was intended to illustrate geographically
the realm of the circumcised (cf. Gal 2:9), with the general geographic term ‘the
East’ (Mt 2:1-2.9; cf. 8:11; 24:27).
From the linguistic point of view, the noun ἀνατολή was used in the Gospel
of Matthew 5 times (Mt 2:1-2.9; 8:11; 24:27), whereas Luke used it only 2 times
(Lk 1:78; 13:29). This fact could favour the hypothesis of the Lucan dependence
on the Gospel of Matthew. However, the triple use of this noun in Mt 2:1-2.9
can be explained in terms of an allusion to Num 23:7 LXX (ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῶν)
and/or Lk 1:78 (foretelling divine visitation from ἀνατολή), whereas Mt 8:11 is
clearly parallel to Lk 13:29.
The subsequent motif of confusion among, somewhat surprisingly, all (πᾶς)
people in Jerusalem (Mt 2:3)47 alludes to the subsequent Lucan motif of
confusion among all people in Jerusalem (Acts 2:12a).
The subsequent, rather neutral description of Herod as asking questions
concerning the messianic sign to other Jews in Jerusalem (Mt 2:4ab) alludes
to the subsequent, likewise rather neutral Lucan description of the Jerusalem
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
‘You must forgive my strange questions, Mrs Thompson, but I
have had a terrible dream about my poor friend, and I think I should
like to talk to the doctor about her.’
‘Oh, very good, sir,’ cried the landlady, much offended. ‘I’m not
afraid of what the doctor will tell you. She had excellent nursing and
everything as she could desire, and there’s nothing on my
conscience on that score, so I’ll wish you good morning.’ And with
that Mrs Thompson slammed the door in Mr Braggett’s face.
He found Dr Dodson at home.
‘If I understand you rightly,’ said the practitioner, looking rather
steadfastly in the scared face of his visitor, ‘you wish, as a friend of
the late Miss Cray’s, to see a copy of the certificate of her death?
Very good, sir; here it is. She died, as you will perceive, on the
twenty-fifth of November, of peritonitis. She had, I can assure you,
every attention and care, but nothing could have saved her.’
‘You are quite sure, then, she is dead?’ demanded Mr Braggett, in
a vague manner.
The doctor looked at him as if he were not quite sure if he were
sane.
‘If seeing a patient die, and her corpse coffined and buried, is
being sure she is dead, I am in no doubt whatever about Miss Cray.’
‘It is very strange—most strange and unaccountable,’ murmured
poor Mr Braggett, in reply, as he shuffled out of the doctor’s
passage, and took his way back to the office.
Here, however, after an interval of rest and a strong brandy and
soda, he managed to pull himself together, and to come to the
conclusion that the doctor and Mrs Thompson could not be
mistaken, and that, consequently, the clerks must. He did not
mention the subject again to them, however; and as the days went
on, and nothing more was heard of the mysterious stranger’s visit,
Mr Braggett put it altogether out of his mind.
At the end of a fortnight, however, when he was thinking of
something totally different, young Hewetson remarked to him,
carelessly,—
‘Miss Cray was here again yesterday, sir. She walked in just as
your cab had left the door.’
All the horror of his first suspicions returned with double force
upon the unhappy man’s mind.
‘Don’t talk nonsense!’ he gasped, angrily, as soon as he could
speak. ‘Don’t attempt to play any of your tricks on me, young man, or
it will be the worse for you, I can tell you.’
‘Tricks, sir!’ stammered the clerk. ‘I don’t know what you are
alluding to. I am only telling you the truth. You have always desired
me to be most particular in letting you know the names of the people
who call in your absence, and I thought I was only doing my duty in
making a point of ascertaining them—’
‘Yes, yes! Hewetson, of course,’ replied Mr Braggett, passing his
handkerchief over his brow, ‘and you are quite right in following my
directions as closely as possible; only—in this case you are
completely mistaken, and it is the second time you have committed
the error.’
‘Mistaken!’
‘Yes!—as mistaken as it is possible for a man to be! Miss Cray
could not have called at this office yesterday.’
‘But she did, sir.’
‘Am I labouring under some horrible nightmare?’ exclaimed the
publisher, ‘or are we playing at cross purposes? Can you mean the
Miss Cray I mean?’
‘I am speaking of Miss Charlotte Cray, sir, the author of “Sweet
Gwendoline,”—the lady who has undertaken so much of our
compilation the last two years, and who has a long nose, and wears
her hair in curls. I never knew there was another Miss Cray; but if
there are two, that is the one I mean.’
‘Still I cannot believe it, Hewetson, for the Miss Cray who has been
associated with our firm died on the twenty-fifth of last month.’
‘Died, sir! Is Miss Cray dead? Oh, it can’t be! It’s some
humbugging trick that’s been played upon you, for I’d swear she was
in this room yesterday afternoon, as full of life as she’s ever been
since I knew her. She didn’t talk much, it’s true, for she seemed in a
hurry to be off again, but she had got on the same dress and bonnet
she was in here last, and she made herself as much at home in the
office as she ever did. Besides,’ continued Hewetson, as though
suddenly remembering something, ‘she left a note for you, sir.’
‘A note! Why did you not say so before?’
‘It slipped my memory when you began to doubt my word in that
way, sir. But you’ll find it in the bronze vase. She told me to tell you
she had placed it there.’
Mr Braggett made a dash at the vase, and found the three-
cornered note as he had been told. Yes! it was Charlotte’s
handwriting, or the facsimile of it, there was no doubt of that; and his
hands shook so he could hardly open the paper. It contained these
words:
‘You tell me that I am not to call at your office again, except on
business, nor to send letters to your private address, lest it should
come to the knowledge of your wife, and create unpleasantness
between you; but I shall call, and I shall write until I have seen Mrs
Braggett, and if you don’t take care I will introduce myself to her, and
tell her the reason you have been afraid to do so.’
Precisely the same words, in the same writing of the letter he still
carried in his breast-pocket, and which no mortal eyes but his and
hers had ever seen. As the unhappy man sat gazing at the opened
note, his whole body shook as if he were attacked by ague.
‘It is Miss Cray’s handwriting, isn’t it, sir?’
‘It looks like it, Hewetson, but it cannot be. I tell you it is an
impossibility! Miss Cray died last month, and I have seen not only
her grave, but the doctor and nurse who attended her in her last
illness. It is folly, then, to suppose either that she called here or wrote
that letter.’
‘Then who could it have been, sir?’ said Hewetson, attacked with a
sudden terror in his turn.
‘That is impossible for me to say; but should the lady call again,
you had better ask her boldly for her name and address.’
‘I’d rather you’d depute the office to anybody but me, sir,’ replied
the clerk, as he hastily backed out of the room.
Mr Braggett, dying with suspense and conjecture, went through his
business as best he could, and hurried home to Violet Villa.
There he found that his wife had been spending the day with a
friend, and only entered the house a few minutes before himself.
‘Siggy, dear!’ she commenced, as soon as he joined her in the
drawing-room after dinner; ‘I really think we should have the
fastenings and bolts of this house looked to. Such a funny thing
happened whilst I was out this afternoon. Ellen has just been telling
me about it.’
‘What sort of a thing, dear?’
‘Well, I left home as early as twelve, you know, and told the
servants I shouldn’t be back until dinner-time; so they were all
enjoying themselves in the kitchen, I suppose, when cook told Ellen
she heard a footstep in the drawing-room. Ellen thought at first it
must be cook’s fancy, because she was sure the front door was
fastened; but when they listened, they all heard the noise together,
so she ran upstairs, and what on earth do you think she saw?’
‘How can I guess, my dear?’
‘Why, a lady, seated in this very room, as if she was waiting for
somebody. She was oldish, Ellen says, and had a very white face,
with long curls hanging down each side of it; and she wore a blue
bonnet with white feathers, and a long black cloak, and—’
‘Emily, Emily! Stop! You don’t know what you’re talking about. That
girl is a fool: you must send her away. That is, how could the lady
have got in if the door was closed? Good heavens! you’ll all drive me
mad between you with your folly!’ exclaimed Mr Braggett, as he
threw himself back in his chair, with an exclamation that sounded
very like a groan.
Pretty Mrs Braggett was offended. What had she said or done that
her husband should doubt her word? She tossed her head in
indignation, and remained silent. If Mr Braggett wanted any further
information, he would have to apologise.
‘Forgive me, darling,’ he said, after a long pause. ‘I don’t think I’m
very well this evening, but your story seemed to upset me.’
‘I don’t see why it should upset you,’ returned Mrs Braggett. ‘If
strangers are allowed to come prowling about the house in this way,
we shall be robbed some day, and then you’ll say I should have told
you of it.’
‘Wouldn’t she—this person—give her name?’
‘Oh! I’d rather say no more about it. You had better ask Ellen.’
‘No, Emily! I’d rather hear it from you.’
‘Well, don’t interrupt me again, then. When Ellen saw the woman
seated here, she asked her her name and business at once, but she
gave no answer, and only sat and stared at her. And so Ellen, feeling
very uncomfortable, had just turned round to call up cook, when the
woman got up, and dashed past her like a flash of lightning, and they
saw nothing more of her!’
‘Which way did she leave the house?’
‘Nobody knows any more than how she came in. The servants
declare the hall-door was neither opened nor shut—but, of course, it
must have been. She was a tall gaunt woman, Ellen says, about fifty,
and she’s sure her hair was dyed. She must have come to steal
something, and that’s why I say we ought to have the house made
more secure. Why, Siggy! Siggy! what’s the matter? Here, Ellen!
Jane! come, quick, some of you! Your master’s fainted!’
And, sure enough, the repeated shocks and horrors of the day had
had such an effect upon poor Mr Braggett, that for a moment he did
lose all consciousness of what surrounded him. He was thankful to
take advantage of the Christmas holidays, to run over to Paris with
his wife, and try to forget, in the many marvels of that city, the awful
fear that fastened upon him at the mention of anything connected
with home. He might be enjoying himself to the top of his bent; but
directly the remembrance of Charlotte Cray crossed his mind, all
sense of enjoyment vanished, and he trembled at the mere thought
of returning to his business, as a child does when sent to bed in the
dark.
He tried to hide the state of his feelings from Mrs Braggett, but she
was too sharp for him. The simple, blushing Emily Primrose had
developed, under the influence of the matrimonial forcing-frame, into
a good watch-dog, and nothing escaped her notice.
Left to her own conjecture, she attributed his frequent moods of
dejection to the existence of some other woman, and became
jealous accordingly. If Siggy did not love her, why had he married
her? She felt certain there was some other horrid creature who had
engaged his affections and would not leave him alone, even now
that he was her own lawful property. And to find out who the ‘horrid
creature’ was became Mrs Emily’s constant idea. When she had
found out, she meant to give her a piece of her mind, never fear!
Meanwhile Mr Braggett’s evident distaste to returning to business
only served to increase his wife’s suspicions. A clear conscience,
she argued, would know no fear. So they were not a happy couple,
as they set their faces once more towards England. Mr Braggett’s
dread of re-entering his office amounted almost to terror, and Mrs
Braggett, putting this and that together, resolved that she would
fathom the mystery, if it lay in feminine finesse to do so. She did not
whisper a word of her intentions to dear Siggy, you may be sure of
that! She worked after the manner of her amiable sex, like a cat in
the dark, or a worm boring through the earth, and appearing on the
surface when least expected.
So poor Mr Braggett brought her home again, heavy at heart
indeed, but quite ignorant that any designs were being made against
him. I think he would have given a thousand pounds to be spared the
duty of attending office the day after his arrival. But it was necessary,
and he went, like a publisher and a Briton. But Mrs Emily had noted
his trepidation and his fears, and laid her plans accordingly. She had
never been asked to enter those mysterious precincts, the house of
business. Mr Braggett had not thought it necessary that her
blooming loveliness should be made acquainted with its dingy, dusty
accessories, but she meant to see them for herself to-day. So she
waited till he had left Violet Villa ten minutes, and then she dressed
and followed him by the next train to London.
Mr Sigismund Braggett meanwhile had gone on his way, as people
go to a dentist, determined to do what was right, but with an
indefinite sort of idea that he might never come out of it alive. He
dreaded to hear what might have happened in his absence, and he
delayed his arrival at the office for half-an-hour, by walking there
instead of taking a cab as usual, in order to put off the evil moment.
As he entered the place, however, he saw at a glance that his efforts
were vain, and that something had occurred. The customary
formality and precision of the office were upset, and the clerks,
instead of bending over their ledgers, or attending to the demands of
business, were all huddled together at one end whispering and
gesticulating to each other. But as soon as the publisher appeared, a
dead silence fell upon the group, and they only stared at him with an
air of horrid mystery.
‘What is the matter now?’ he demanded, angrily, for like most men
when in a fright which they are ashamed to exhibit, Mr Sigismund
Braggett tried to cover his want of courage by bounce.
The young man called Hewetson advanced towards him, with a
face the colour of ashes, and pointed towards the ground-glass
doors dumbly.
‘What do you mean? Can’t you speak? What’s come to the lot of
you, that you are neglecting my business in this fashion to make
fools of yourselves?’
‘If you please, sir, she’s in there.’
Mr Braggett started back as if he’d been shot. But still he tried to
have it out.
‘She! Who’s she?’
‘Miss Cray, sir.’
‘Haven’t I told you already that’s a lie.’
‘Will you judge for yourself, Mr Braggett?’ said a grey-haired man,
stepping forward. ‘I was on the stairs myself just now when Miss
Cray passed me, and I have no doubt whatever but that you will find
her in your private room, however much the reports that have lately
reached you may seem against the probability of such a thing.’
Mr Braggett’s teeth chattered in his head as he advanced to the
ground-glass doors, through the panes of one of which there was a
little peephole to ascertain if the room were occupied or not. He
stooped and looked in. At the table, with her back towards him, was
seated the well-known figure of Charlotte Cray. He recognised at
once the long black mantle in which she was wont to drape her
gaunt figure—the blue bonnet, with its dejected-looking, uncurled
feather—the lank curls which rested on her shoulders—and the
black-leather bag, with a steel clasp, which she always carried in her
hand. It was the embodiment of Charlotte Cray, he had no doubt of
that; but how could he reconcile the fact of her being there with the
damp clods he had seen piled upon her grave, with the certificate of
death, and the doctor’s and landlady’s assertion that they had
watched her last moments?
At last he prepared, with desperate energy, to turn the handle of
the door. At that moment the attention of the more frivolous of the
clerks was directed from his actions by the entrance of an
uncommonly pretty woman at the other end of the outer office. Such
a lovely creature as this seldom brightened the gloom of their dusty
abiding-place. Lilies, roses, and carnations vied with each other in
her complexion, whilst the sunniest of locks, and the brightest of blue
eyes, lent her face a girlish charm not easily described. What could
this fashionably-attired Venus want in their house of business?
‘Is Mr Braggett here? I am Mrs Braggett. Please show me in to him
immediately.’
They glanced at the ground-glass doors of the inner office. They
had already closed behind the manly form of their employer.
‘This way, madam,’ one said, deferentially, as he escorted her to
the presence of Mr Braggett.
Meanwhile, Sigismund had opened the portals of the Temple of
Mystery, and with trembling knees entered it. The figure in the chair
did not stir at his approach. He stood at the door irresolute. What
should he do or say?
‘Charlotte,’ he whispered.
Still she did not move.
At that moment his wife entered.
‘Oh, Sigismund!’ cried Mrs Emily, reproachfully, ‘I knew you were
keeping something from me, and now I’ve caught you in the very act.
Who is this lady, and what is her name? I shall refuse to leave the
room until I know it.’
At the sound of her rival’s voice, the woman in the chair rose
quickly to her feet and confronted them. Yes! there was Charlotte
Cray, precisely similar to what she had appeared in life, only with an
uncertainty and vagueness about the lines of the familiar features
that made them ghastly.
She stood there, looking Mrs Emily full in the face, but only for a
moment, for, even as she gazed, the lineaments grew less and less
distinct, with the shape of the figure that supported them, until, with a
crash, the apparition seemed to fall in and disappear, and the place
that had known her was filled with empty air.
‘Where is she gone?’ exclaimed Mrs Braggett, in a tone of utter
amazement.
‘Where is who gone?’ repeated Mr Braggett, hardly able to
articulate from fear.
‘The lady in the chair!’
‘There was no one there except in your own imagination. It was
my great-coat that you mistook for a figure,’ returned her husband
hastily, as he threw the article in question over the back of the arm-
chair.
‘But how could that have been?’ said his pretty wife, rubbing her
eyes. ‘How could I think a coat had eyes, and hair, and features? I
am sure I saw a woman seated there, and that she rose and stared
at me. Siggy! tell me it was true. It seems so incomprehensible that I
should have been mistaken.’
‘You must question your own sense. You see that the room is
empty now, except for ourselves, and you know that no one has left
it. If you like to search under the table, you can.’
‘Ah! now, Siggy, you are laughing at me, because you know that
would be folly. But there was certainly some one here—only, where
can she have disappeared to?’
‘Suppose we discuss the matter at a more convenient season,’
replied Mr Braggett, as he drew his wife’s arm through his arm.
‘Hewetson! you will be able to tell Mr Hume that he was mistaken.
Say, also, that I shall not be back in the office to-day. I am not so
strong as I thought I was, and feel quite unequal to business. Tell
him to come out to Streatham this evening with my letters, and I will
talk with him there.’
What passed at that interview was never disclosed; but pretty Mrs
Braggett was much rejoiced, a short time afterwards, by her husband
telling her that he had resolved to resign his active share of the
business, and devote the rest of his life to her and Violet Villa. He
would have no more occasion, therefore, to visit the office, and be
exposed to the temptation of spending four or five hours out of every
twelve away from her side. For, though Mrs Emily had arrived at the
conclusion that the momentary glimpse she caught of a lady in
Siggy’s office must have been a delusion, she was not quite satisfied
by his assertions that she would never have found a more tangible
cause for her jealousy.
But Sigismund Braggett knew more than he chose to tell Mrs
Emily. He knew that what she had witnessed was no delusion, but a
reality; and that Charlotte Cray had carried out her dying
determination to call at his office and his private residence, until she
had seen his wife!
END OF VOL. III.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A MOMENT OF
MADNESS, AND OTHER STORIES (VOL. 3 OF 3) ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Gospel of Matthew A Hypertextual Commentary European Studies in Theology Philosophy and History of Religions Book 16 Adamczewski

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Gospel of Matthew A Hypertextual Commentary European Studies in Theology Philosophy and History of Religions Book 16 Adamczewski

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Gospel of Matthew A Hypertextual

Commentary European Studies in

The Gospel of John: A Hypertextual Commentary (European

Exodus Numbers A Hypertextual Commentary European

Genesis European Studies in Theology Philosophy and

Exodus Numbers European Studies in Theology Philosophy

Catholic Religious Minorities in the Times of

Bible Caught in Violence European Studies in Theology

Between Construction and Deconstruction of the

The Archparadox of Death Martyrdom as a Philosophical

EUROPEAN STUDIES IN THEOLOGY,

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Printed by CPI books GmbH, Leck.

© Peter Lang GmbH

Peter Lang – Frankfurt am Main · Bern · Bruxelles · New York · Oxford ·

reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in

This publication has been peer reviewed.

About the author(s)/editor(s)

Bartosz Adamczewski is Associate Professor of New Testament exegesis at

About the book

This monograph presents an entirely new solution to the synoptic

This eBook can be cited

I thank my dear Mother, Jolanta Adamczewska, MSc; my relatives and

Matthew and Luke

Matthew and Acts

Chapter 1. Mt 1–2 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of

1.2. Mt 1:18-25 (cf. Acts 1:15-26)

1.3. Mt 2:1-12 (cf. Acts 2)

1.4. Mt 2:13-15 (cf. Acts 3)

1.5. Mt 2:16-18 (cf. Acts 4:1-8:3)

1.6. Mt 2:19-23 (cf. Acts 8:4-35)

Chapter 2. Mt 3:1-9:34 as a sequential hypertextual

2.2. Mt 4:1-11 (cf. Acts 8:39b-40)

2.3. Mt 4:12-22 (cf. Acts 9:1-19)

2.4. Mt 4:23-25 (cf. Acts 9:20-25)

2.5. Mt 5–7 (cf. Acts 9:26-29)

2.6. Mt 8:1-4 (cf. Acts 9:30-43)

2.7. Mt 8:5-17 (cf. Acts 10:1-11:18)

2.8. Mt 8:18-34; cf. Acts 11:19-26

2.9. Mt 9:1-17; cf. Acts 11:27-30

2.10. Mt 9:18-26; cf. Acts 12:1-9a

2.11. Mt 9:27-31; cf. Acts 12:9b-17

2.12. Mt 9:32-34; cf. Acts 12:18-25

Chapter 3. Mt 9:35-14:36 as a sequential hypertextual

3.2. Mt 10:1-15; cf. Acts 13:3-7

3.3. Mt 10:16-33; cf. Acts 13:8-18

3.4. Mt 10:34-39; cf. Acts 13:19

3.5. Mt 10:40-42; cf. Acts 13:20-23

3.6. Mt 11:1-19; cf. Acts 13:24-26

3.7. Mt 11:20-24; cf. Acts 13:27-29

3.8. Mt 11:25-27; cf. Acts 13:30-33

3.9. Mt 11:28-30; cf. Acts 13:34-38

3.10. Mt 12:1-14; cf. Acts 13:39-43

3.11. Mt 12:15-32; cf. Acts 13:44-14:2b

3.12. Mt 12:33-37; cf. Acts 14:2c-3c

3.13. Mt 12:38-45; cf. Acts 14:3d-19

3.14. Mt 12:46-13:35; cf. Acts 14:20-26

3.15. Mt 13:36-52; cf. Acts 14:27

3.16. Mt 13:53-14:36; cf. Acts 14:28

Chapter 4. Mt 15–20 as a sequential hypertextual reworking

4.2. Mt 16:1-20; cf. Acts 15:5-24

4.3. Mt 16:21-17:23; cf. Acts 15:25-41