Matthew Twists the Scriptures

Author(s): S. Vernon McCasland

Source: Journal of Biblical Literature , Jun., 1961, Vol. 80, No. 2 (Jun., 1961), pp. 143-
148
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3264204

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of Biblical Literature

This content downloaded from

168.197.92.30 on Thu, 12 May 2022 12:06:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MATTHEW TWISTS THE SCRIPTURES

S. VERNON McCASLAND

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

T HE theme of this paper was suggested by a remark of the author

of II Peter (3 16) with reference to the way some persons of the
early church dealt with the letters of Paul. He says, "There are some
things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable
twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures." Our
modern critical study of the NT writings makes it possible to document
this ancient author's observation in many interesting ways. The words
of this man who wrote under the name of Peter throw light not only on
the use of the Scriptures in the early church but also on the way some of
the NT writings were actually produced. One of the important dis-
coveries of recent biblical studies is the position the OT Scriptures held
in the worship and piety of Jews and early Christians and in their under-
standing of the events of history through which they were passing, indeed
in some cases shaping their own actions according to patterns of conduct
which they believed they saw prescribed for them in the Scriptures.
I have chosen for this paper to document some of these practices
among early Christians by observing how the author of the Gospel of
Matthew interpreted the OT, and then to suggest that his uses of the
OT give some indication of how he treated his immediate sources for
the story of Jesus recorded in his gospel.
Let us begin with Matthew's treatment of Scripture in the genealogy
of Jesus (1 1-17). Here he constructs a genealogy beginning with Abra-
ham. It is constructed on a scheme with three subdivisions, the breaks
being at David and the captivity, and each division contains fourteen
generations, making a total of forty-two from Abraham to Christ. Luke's
genealogy covering the same period (3 23-34) lists fifty-six generations.
Without attempting to decide which, if either, of these is correct, a
discrepancy of fourteen generations is noteworthy; but the exact division
of Matthew's genealogy into three groups of fourteen generations each,
and four times fourteen in Luke's, is enough to put one on guard. Indeed
we discover that, in order to obtain fourteen in the first division, Matthew
omitted the names of Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim from the
kings of Judah (Matt 1 s, 11; I Chron 3 11-15). To get fourteen in the
second division and also in the third, Matthew counted Jeconiah in both
groups. It is evident therefore that Matthew imposed an arbitrary
pattern on the genealogy and adjusted the OT data to fit the pattern.
143

This content downloaded from

168.197.92.30 on Thu, 12 May 2022 12:06:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
144 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

In order to explain the mystery surrounding the personality of Jesus,

in 1 23 Matthew quotes Isa 7 14, "Behold a virgin shall conceive and
bear a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel," thus providing a
basis in Scripture for the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin mother.
Matthew is the only NT writer to quote Isa 7 14. It is now well
known that this saying of Isaiah refers to an event of his own time,
and that the Hebrew word 'almdh, for the mother of the child, does not
mean a virgin but only a young woman. This makes it evident that
Matthew transfers the event to his own time and follows, not the Hebrew
text, but a Greek translation, which renders the Hebrew by parthenos,
usually meaning a virgin.
Matthew is also the only NT author to relate the flight of Joseph and
Mary with the child Jesus to Egypt. He says that when the little family
returned from Egypt after Herod's death, only to discover that his son
Archelaus reigned in Jerusalem, they went and dwelt in Nazareth of
Galilee, and remarks that they did this to fulfill the saying of the prophets,
"He shall be called a Nazarene," a passage which no scholar has
been able to locate with certainty in the OT (2 19-23). It is clear
that Matthew, not being close to the facts of the birth of Jesus, has
assumed from another passage he quotes from Mic 5 2 that Joseph and
Mary lived in Bethlehem before the child was born, and that they
transferred their residence to Nazareth after returning from Egypt.
Matthew's conclusion contradicts the testimony of Luke that the family
lived in Nazareth before Jesus was born, and made the journey to
Bethlehem because of a census.
Moreover, Matt 2 15 interprets the return of Joseph and Mary with
the child Jesus from Egypt as fulfillment of Hos 11 i, "Out of Egypt I
called my son," which in its original setting means the exodus of Israel
from Egypt. As only Matthew records the flight to Egypt, there is a
strong possibility that the entire episode is an inference from the mis-
understood Hos 11 1.
Matthew's account of the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem
(21 1-11) radically changes M\ark (11 1-11), the source he is following.
He says that Jesus rode into the city, not on one donkey, but on two at
the same time, thus changing Mark's simple, dignified narrative of this
historic event into something like a circus spectacle. Matthew was led
to make this extraordinary change by misunderstanding the Scripture
he quoted from Zech 9 9, which he thought was fulfilled by this entrance
of Jesus into the city. The passage says,

Tell the daughter of Zion,

Behold, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on an ass,
and on a colt, the foal of an ass.

This content downloaded from

168.197.92.30 on Thu, 12 May 2022 12:06:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 McCASLAND: MATTHEW TWISTS THE SCRIPTURE 145

The study of Hebrew poetry by modern scholars enable

that the literary structure is the well-known parallelism in w
second line of a couplet repeats in slightly different words th
expressed in the first. Zechariah had no intention to say the k
come riding on two asses at the same time. Matthew's failure
derstand the poetic lines caused him to say that the disciples
the ass and the colt, and put their clothes on them, and he s
(e7re-0lKav er' avro)v Tra l/lara, Kal e7reKcaOLoeV cra'co
Matthew's unfamiliarity with the nature of Hebrew poetry c
to alter Mark's statement so as to fit Mark's narrative into his twisted
understanding of the poem.
Another example from Matthew is his famous quotation (12 40),
"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale,
so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the
earth." Matthew is the only NT author to cite this Scripture in con-
nection with the resurrection. It is obvious, however, according to
Matthew's own account of the resurrection, that Jesus was buried on
Friday evening, that he lay in the grave that night, Saturday, and
Saturday night, and arose early Sunday morning. So the passage from
Jonah, as Matthew quotes it, does not fit the narrative of the resurrection
as all the gospels give it.
With these passages before us, it is possible to make certain generaliza-
tions with reference to Matthew's use of the Scriptures. The arbitrary
pattern he imposed on the genealogy, by means of actually dropping the
names of certain kings, shows that Matthew was experimenting with his
skill in literary arrangement based on numbers. He was evidently
fascinated by the number seven; his genealogy presents this number in
various multiples. Matthew's use of Isa 7 14 to explain the mystery of
the birth of Christ not only shows the power exercised by the ancient
Scriptures in forming Christian doctrine, but how a misinterpreted
passage might be just as influential as one correctly understood. The
effort to explain why the family of Jesus resided in Nazareth by deriving
it from a postulated Scripture illustrates the belief that all events of the
life of Christ were in some specific sense not only implicit, but explicit
in the OT, even though one did not know the precise passage of Scripture
in which the ancient writers had concealed it. The interpretation of
Hos 11 i not only illustrates how early Christians found a meaning
entirely foreign to the original; it may also show how incidents in the
story of Jesus have been inferred from the OT. Twisting the story of
Jesus' ride into Jerusalem by making him ride two animals at the same
time shows Matthew's lack of literary appreciation; that he failed to
recognize the literary character of the poetic passage before him. The
application of the saying about Jonah's sojourn in the belly of the whale
to the period during which Jesus lay in the grave between his death and

This content downloaded from

168.197.92.30 on Thu, 12 May 2022 12:06:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
146 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

resurrection, although it does not really fit the narrative of the resurrec-
tion, indicates how desperately early Christians searched the Scriptures
to find proof for the things happening among them.

Distorting Contemporary Sources

What we have observed about the liberties Matthew took with

passages of Scripture he quoted suggests that he may have done th
same thing with his more contemporary sources of the life and sayings
Jesus. The writings of the OT were one group of Matthew's sources, bu
being holy Scripture, they possessed a quality of sanctity far beyond th
of his more recent contemporary sources, such as Mark, Q, and other
documents relating to Jesus. Since we have discovered that Matth
felt free in changing and distorting the Scriptures, it becomes a prob
ability that he has used an even freer hand in modifying, rearranging
and shaping documents not protected by scriptural sanctity, sources of
popular character which he used in putting together his gospel. An
that is just what we find on examining Matthew's gospel in compariso
with Mark and Luke, the other Synoptic gospels.
Using a harmony which sets the texts of these gospels side by side
one can quickly see changes of various kinds which Matthew has made
His account of the triumphal entry, as we have already noted, change
Mark's record and makes Jesus ride on two donkeys into Jerusalem
The sequel to this episode is driving the money-changers out of t
temple. In this case also Matthew has not hesitated to change Mar
account. According to Mark (11 1-11) Jesus went into the temple
Sunday, looked around to observe what was going on there, returned
Bethany that night, and came back the next day to drive the trade
from the temple. Matthew tells Mark's story, repeating most of it alm
word for word, but he has changed the time when Jesus drove the mone
changers out. Matthew says Jesus drove the traders out immediate
after his arrival in the temple, that is, on Sunday afternoon (21 12-17
Mark 11 15-19; Luke 19 45-48). In taking over Mark's account, Matthew
dropped out Mark's clear statement that Jesus returned to Bethany an
spent the night before he came back the next day to cleanse the temp
Mark says Jesus did this on Monday.
Matthew's readiness to distort Mark is shown also in the way h
deals with Mark's account of the Gadarene demoniac (Mark 5 1-20;
Matt 8 28-34) relieved by Jesus. When Matthew tells the story, Mark's
one demoniac becomes two.
A similar treatment appears in Matthew's retelling of Mark's story
of the blind beggar Bartimeus at Jericho (Mark 10 46-52; Matt 20 29-34;
Luke 18 35-43). In this case also, according to Mark there was only one

This content downloaded from

168.197.92.30 on Thu, 12 May 2022 12:06:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 McCASLAND: MATTHEW TWISTS THE SCRIPTURE 147

blind man; but when Matthew tells the same story, the one b
becomes two.
When Matthew comes to the account of the resurrection (Matt
28 1-10; Mark 16 1-8), he quite boldly changes what Mark says. Mark
states that the women who came to the tomb of Jesus early that Sunday
morning were frightened when they found the tomb empty, and fled in
fear; that they did not say a word to anyone because they were afraid.
On the other hand, Matthew says the women ran with great joy and
reported to the disciples what they had seen.

Editing the Words of Jesus

It is also possible to demonstrate Matthew's editorial freedom with

the sayings of Jesus. Many years ago it was pointed out that Matthew
had grouped sayings of Jesus into five collections, creating the impression
that Jesus gave extended lectures or sermons, contrary to what otherwise
appears to be the fact. The first of these is the Sermon on the Mount
(Matt 5-7); second, instructions to the twelve (10 5-42); third, a collec-
tion of parables of the kingdom (13 1-52); fourth, another group of
parables (18 1-35); fifth, sayings about the end of the world (24-25).
Professor E. J. Goodspeed thinks there are six of these collections
(Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist, 1959, pp. 29 ff.). These groups show
that Matthew has freely picked up sayings of Jesus from various places
and put them together in convenient collections, showing no concern
for preserving the integrity of any original sources from which he
drew them.
It is clear that Matthew has relocated sayings in new contexts,
where they may have lost their original meanings. This may be illustrated
by a famous passage from the Sermon on the Mount (5 27-31) dealing
with adultery. It goes,
27"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'
28But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has
already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye
causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you
lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.
30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away;
it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole
body go into hell.
3"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a
certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that every one who divorces his
wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and
whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
The two sayings about adultery and divorce fit well together, but in

This content downloaded from

168.197.92.30 on Thu, 12 May 2022 12:06:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
148 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

between them Matthew has sandwiched vss. 29-30, beginning, "If your
right eye causes you to sin, etc." This passage has been introduced here
in a strange context. We know this because the saying about the eye,
the hand, and foot was taken from Mark 9 43-48, where it occurs in
entirely different material. Matthew copied this in its original context
in 18 8-9; but apparently because of its use of the eye, he has transferred
it to the Sermon on the Mount, connecting it with the saying about
adultery and divorce, where Jesus says, "Whoever looks on a woman
lustfully, etc." The new context of the saying about the eye makes it
refer to sexual lust, and suggests castration as the remedy for this impulse,
but there is no indication in Mark that the saying of Jesus originally had
that radical meaning. It is true that Jesus' saying about the lustful eye
has rabbinic parallels, but that he prescribed the treatment Matthew
implies does not follow.'
About a hundred years after Matthew was written, the famous
Origen, finding himself embarrassed by sex desire, had himself emascu-
lated. Undoubtedly this relocation of the passage by Matthew had
something to do with Origen's unfortunate misinterpretation of the
Scriptures about sex desire.2
The much debated Matt 16 19, where Jesus gives Peter the keys of
the kingdom of heaven and all power on earth to bind and loose, is
another problem which appears to have been created by Matthew's
disregard of original contexts, transference, relocation, and rewriting of
sayings on the basis of a superficial similarity, literary whim, or theolog-
ical idea. In 18 18 Matthew quotes a saying of Jesus to all the disciples,
"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever
you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This word of Jesus is
reflected also in John 20 23, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are
forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." The conclusion
appears inescapable that Matthew's admiration for Peter has caused
him to transfer this saying to a new context and to rewrite it, so as to
give to Peter alone authority which Jesus otherwise gives to all the
disciples alike.

1 Cf. H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar sum NT aus Talmud und Midrasch,
vol. 1, pp. 302-03; G. F. Moore, Judaism, vol. 2, pp. 267-70.
a Eusebius, H. E. 6, 8, 1-2; also for another similar misunderstanding, Justin,
Apol. i, 29.

This content downloaded from

168.197.92.30 on Thu, 12 May 2022 12:06:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms