phpi6w4NK

Hebrew University

By David Flusser Prof. Dr. at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem

Hebrew University

Found in RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT LEIDEN (Theological faculty)

THE CONCLUSION OF MATTHEW IN A NEW JEWISH CHRISTIAN SOURCE By DAVID FLUSSER I

The conclusion of the Gospel of Matthew (28, 18b-20) contains the last words of the resurrected Jesus to his disciples. According to all extant manuscripts, Jesus commanded them to baptize all nations “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. F. C. CONYBEARE has already shown that the command to baptize and the trinitarian baptism formula are missing in quotations of the passage by Eusebius in all his writings composed before the Council of Nicaea, but from that time on he quotes only our extant text 1). This is natural not only because of the authority of the Council but also because it was suspected that Eusebius' opinion about the holy Trinity was not orthodox 2 ). The trinitarian formula in the words of the resurrected Jesus is not attested before the Gnostic Theodotus, i.e. not before the second half of the second century 3).

Eusebius‟ text of Matth. 28, 19-20a before Nicaea was as follows: “Go and make all nations disciples in my name, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you”. Eusebius seems to have found this form of the text in the codices of the famous Christian library in Caesarea4). It is very easy to understand why the longer, trinitarian form including the command of the Lord to baptize all nations crept into all extant manuscripts. A pious scribe reading the shorter Eusebian form in his manuscript, but also knowing the longer text, would necessarily have decided for the longer form. This was familiar to his ecclesiastical understanding, while the shorter form evidently seemed to him to be only an abbreviating corruption. He could not have known the principle, adopted by modern textual criticism that of two alternative readings the one which most easily accounts for the origin of the other is more likely to be right 5).

*) Based on a paper read at the Swedish Theological Institute in November 1966

THE CONCLUSION OF MATTHEW IN A NEW SOURCE

111

It is strange, therefore, that the real, autonomous value of the Eusebian text of Matth. 28, 18-20 was recognized only in recent years by H. KOSMALA 6).

The origin of the longer version itself is not difficult to explain. Its anonymous author apparently knew the tradition, which is reflected in the spurious ending of Mark (16, 15-18) according to which the resurrected Jesus already founded the institution of Christian baptism. The author of the enlarged formula seemed to have thought that this tradition is hinted at in the words: “Go and make all nations disciples in my name”. Thus he understood the words “in my name” as a reference to the trinitarian baptism formula and therefore “corrected” his text and wrote: “Go and make all nations disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit . . .”

The development from the shorter to the longer text is also the only possible one, because the shorter text is complete; its meaning is clear and it has its own and proper merits. KOSMALA explains the beginning of the logion (“Go and make all nations disciples in my name”) as follows7): make them my disciples, disciples bearing my name with everything that is implied in it, namely, following the master and learning from his life. The “name of Jesus” stands in the centre of early Christian preaching 8), and it is no wonder that Eusebius himself understood the words “in my name” as they occurred in his text of Matth. 28, 19 in the exalted meaning of the power of the name of Jesus 9 ). This was the under-standing of Justin Martyr who never quoted the saying in the enlarged version, but twice 10) echoes the short form of the saying. He speaks (Dial. cum Tryph. 39) of some who are daily “becoming disciples in the name of Christ . . . illuminated through the name of this Christ”. It is not always easy to decide what the term “name” of Jesus means in the New Testament, whether it is used in a specific text in its full Christian connotation or whether it is nearer to the Jewish understanding of the word “name”.

One of the Jewish usages was adopted by New Testament writers in the formula “in the name of . . .”. It appears very frequently in rabbinical literature in the context of the handing down of a teaching. “Rabbi X. says in the name of Rabbi Y.” means that the tradent quotes a doctrine of his teacher. “He who relates a thing in the name of him who said it, brings salvation unto the world” 11 ). This is evidently the fundamental meaning of the formula, when we read that the apostles have spoken, preached and taught in the name of Jesus 12).

This is also the only possible meaning of the formula “in the name” to the shorter conclusion of Matthew. Only when we interpret this logion in the light of the rabbinical terminology of teaching and learning, we can understand

DAVID FLUSSER

112

its real sense and value: The resurrected Jesus is said to have commanded his disciples to instruct all nations in his name; this means that the disciples should teach the doctrine of their master after his death as they have received it from him; they have to teach the nations “to observe all that I have commanded you” 13). Thus, the last words are an explanation of the formula “in my name” and they show that the shorter version is original, because only in this form the saving is really coherent: Jesus taught the disciples and they on their part have to teach the nations “in his name” to observe all what they were taught by their master. The chain of “rabbinic” tradition became here the apostolic tradition.

It is also important for our investigation that according to a very old rabbinic source a Galilean Christian in the second half of the first century not only healed “in the name” ( u w c y) of Jesus 14), but also taught a rabbi “a saying in the name of Jesus” 15).

II The shorter version of Matth. 28, 19-20a was known until now only from the quotations in Eusebius‟ antenicene writings; now it is freed from its splendid isolation by the recent discovery of a Jewish Christian source 16 ) The authors of these texts which were apparently written in Syriac lived perhaps in the fifth or the sixth century. Their sect preserved very old traditions, but at the same time the new texts also reflect the development of the Catholic Church, because the group formed its ideology in continuous opposition to the Gentile Church. Thus, as all Jewish Christian documents, the new texts also are a mixture of ancient traditions. They borrow from the common Christian stock as well as from the Jewish Christian tendentious transformation of this material.

These Jewish Christians could not accept the dogmatics of the Church and therefore they rejected certain sayings of Jesus found in the extant Gospels as being falsely ascribed to him, because, according to their view, they oppose the authentic faith of Jesus. Among the rejected sayings are also the words: “Go upon the earth and baptize the slaves (of God) in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit” 17).

Thus, naturally, Matth. 28, 19 in its regular form was known to the sectarians 18) but rejected by them, because the saying contains the trinitarian formula.

THE CONCLUSION OF MATTHEW IN A NEW SOURCE

113

According to these Jewish Christians, the history of the Church was from its beginning a progressive deterioration of the plain Jewish doctrine of Jesus.

“Then they (the Christians) began to make changes and alterations, (to introduce) innovations into the religion, to seek dominion, to make friends with people by (indulging) their passions, (to try) to circumvent the Jews and to satisfy the anger (which) they (felt) against the latter, even if (in doing so) they (had) to abandon the religion. This is clear from the Gospels which are with them and to which they refer, and from their book, known as the Book of Praxeis (Acts)” 19).

To prove their thesis, the sectarians quoted against the canonical sayings to which they opposed other sayings which fit their position. Sometimes this material is a Jewish Christian adaptation of sayings from the canonical Gospels.

Thus, when they wanted to show that Jesus and his disciples observed the commandments of the Mosaic Law, they asserted: “He (Jesus) and his companions behaved constantly in this manner, until he left this world. He said to his companions: „Act as you have seen me act, instruct people in accordance with instructions I have given you, and be for them what 1 have been for you‟.

His companions behaved constantly in this manner and in accordance with this” 20).

It is not clear from the context if the saying is meant to have been said by Jesus before his death or after his resurrection, but it seems rather that according to the sectarians, Jesus‟ words to his disciples were his instruction for the future, before “he left this world”. It is a strange fact that in the whole new Jewish Christian source the resurrection of Jesus is never mentioned 21); it is therefore also probable that Jesus was believed to have pronounced the last instructions to his disciples before his death. This naturally does not imply that our saying is not based upon an older one, which was originally a saying of the resurrected Lord.

It is the object of the Jewish Christian logion to show that Jesus was not only an observant Jew, but also that he demanded from his companions to live according to the Law as he himself did and that he asked his disciples to teach others the same way of life. The beginning of the saying (“act as you have seen me act”) is itself a short logion preserved or used in John 13, 15. Its original meaning is that the disciples of Jesus shall be like their master in all their acts 22).

Annual of the Swedish Theo. Inst. V

DAVID FLUSSER

114

In our Jewish Christian text the short logion received a new meaning: because Jesus observed the commandments of the Law, his followers should do likewise.

The disciples do not only have to live under the Law as their Master did, they are also obliged, according to our saying, to “instruct people in accordance with instructions I have given you, and be for them what I have been for you”. There is a clear connection between this Jewish Christian saying of Jesus and the shorter, “Eusebian” form of Matth. 28, 19-20a: “Go and make all nations disciples in my name, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” 23). Jesus' commandment in Matthew to teach the converts “all that I have commanded you” is practically the same as to “instruct people in accordance with instructions I have given you” in the Jewish Christian text. We have tried above to show that the meaning of the formula “in my name” in the shorter form of Matthew 28, 19 is that in propagating the doctrine of Jesus, the disciples have to be only the mouthpiece of their master. Thus the words of the new document: “be for them what I have been for you” make the impression of a paraphrasing explanation of the formula “in my name” of the “Eusebian Matth. 28, 19. If our observations are accepted, the new Jewish Christian saying of Jesus is a witness to the shorter form of Matthew 29, 19, independent of the quotations in Eusebius' antenice writings.

The fact that the second witness to the shorter text is preserved in a Jewish Christian context naturally does not mean that the “Eusebian” version of the saying is a Jewish Christian elaboration of the common text; the shorter version of Matthew does not show any Jewish Christian changes and it fits very well the intent of Matthew's Gospel, while the longer version can be only under-stood as an amplification of the shorter one.

A more serious question is, whether the Jewish Christian version depends on the shorter version of the saying in Matthew or whether the new text is wholly or partially an older form of the saying, which lies behind the text of the evangelist. We have already noted the possibility that the short logion at the beginning of the Jewish Christian saying of Jesus (“act as you have seen me act”) is relevant for the study of the oral tradition from which our Gospels were formed 21), but this short logion was apparently put before the saying itself by a Jewish Christian author and has nothing to do with the history of the words of the resurrected Jesus in Matthew. A hypercritical approach to the new text could claim that the Jewish Christian version of the saying of Jesus itself contains elements superior to the shorter conclusion of

THE CONCLUSION OF MATTEW IN A NEW SOURCE

115

Matthew, but these apparently superior elements can be explained by the specific Jewish Christian character of the text.

It is plausible, then, that the author of the whole passage regarded the saying as a spiritual testament of Jesus before his death, while according to Matthew the saying is the proclamation of the resurrected Lord. It would be easy for a rationalistic approach to consider the frame of the new text as original, but, as we have seen, in our Jewish Christian source the resurrection of Jesus is never mentioned 25). Thus it is probable that the Jewish Christian author consciously placed the saying at the end of the lifetime of Jesus.

The second point in which the Jewish Christian saying could seem to be superior to the form in Matthew is that in Matthew Jesus commanded his disciples to instruct all nations, while, according to the new text, Jesus said: “Instruct people (literally: men” 26). Although it is true that the historical Jesus evidently opposed the contact with Gentiles, our Gospels put in his mouth the demand to preach the Gospel to all nations 27). Thus our text, which speaks only of the instruction of people, seems at the first glance to be more original.

But it is clear from the whole Jewish-Christian source that the sect in which the texts originated saw in the proselytization of Gentile nations a wrong decision28). When, therefore, an adherent of this sect saw the commandment to instruct all nations in a saying of Jesus, which he thought to be authentic, he was compelled by his ideology to alter the text in that point. It is interesting to note that even in the trinitarian conclusion of Matthew, which the sectarians opposed, the commandment to baptize all nations was changed. The text of the trinitarian conclusion as quoted by our sect runs: “Go upon the earth and baptize the slaves (of God) in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” 29). It is not clear whether the change was caused by inaccuracy in quoting or by an automatic reaction against the mission among the Gentiles.

It seems that the Jewish Christian author was led by an excellent historical instinct, when he supposed that the historical Jesus never commanded his disciples to go to the Gentiles. It is, therefore, plausible that all the essential differrences between the new form of the saying and the shorter saying in Matthew were caused by the Jewish-Christian ideology of the sect in which the new text was written and that the ultimate source of the sectarian logion was the shorter form of the conclusion of Matthew. If we are right that this shorter form is the original Matthaean text which disappeared from the manuscripts of the Gospel already in the patristic period, then the original text of the con-

DAVID FLUSSER

116

III clusion of Matthew was accepted and changed by the sect in a relatively early period We have found in the new Jewish Christian texts an independent witness to the short “Eusebian” conclusion of Matthew. It corroborates KOSMALA’S arguments in favour of this version, which is consistent and comprehensive. The central idea of the saying is clearer in its shorter form than in the common text: the farewell message of Jesus 30) enjoins upon the disciples to transmit his teaching to the nations as they have received it 31). The “rabbinic” idea of tradition became the apostolic tradition of the Church According to recent scholarship, one of the main tendencies of the Gospel of Matthew is to describe Jesus as the teacher, and it is now assumed that this picture of Jesus in Matthew is coloured by “rabbinic” influence. If we accept this view, the conclusion of the Gospel, especially in its shorter form, in which Jesus commands his disciples to instruct all nations “in his name”, fits, then, very well the main tendency of the whole Gospel. Thus, the saying is an appropriate conclusion of the book.

If this is the case the Greek verb for “make disciples” is a Matthaean technical term 32). But even if the saying fits the spirit of the Gospel as a whole, it is possible that Matthew found it in his tradition about the resurrecttion of Jesus and that he only adapted it in order to make it the conclusion of his Gospel. The possibility becomes a probability, when we compare the Matthaean saying with parallel utterances of the resurrected Lord as preserved in other Gospels. The comparison will also throw new light on the Matthaean saying itself 33). Even the spurious ending of Mark can contribute to the solution of our question. This is the only passage in the Gospels, according to which Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize others: “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature; he who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who will not believe shall be condemned. And for those who believe, these miracles will follow: in my name will cast out demons...”

(Mark, 16,.15-I7). Here the name is mentioned, but not in connection with baptism: it is in the name of Jesus which has exorcising powers. The division between believers and disbeliever‟s.is echoed in the words of the resurrected Jesus in John 20, 21-23: “As the Father sent me forth, I am sending you forth . . If you remit the sins of any, they are remitted; if you retain them, they are retained” 34). The beginning of the saying is a piece of Johannine theology; but as a saying of the resurrected Jesus it reminds us strongly of the shorter conclusion of Matthew in which the disciples have to instruct the nations “in my

THE CONCLUSION OF MATTHEW IN A NEW SOURCE

117

name”. We suggested that this phrase is rightly explained in the Jewish Christian version: “and be for them what I have been for you”. It is very likely that John 20, 21b (“As the Father has sent me. I am sending you‟‟) is a Johannine elabora-tion of a tradition similar to that which is preserved in the conclusion of Matthew.

According to John, the resurrected Lord gave his disciples the power to remit sins. This idea is also included in the words of the resurrected Jesus according to Luke (24, 47-49)33): “repentance and remission of sins must be preached in his (Christ‟s) name to all nations” 36). There are manuscripts, which read: “the repentance for the remission of sins”. This could be an indirect hint at baptism.

According to Luke himself John the Baptist preached “a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” 37); but the wording “the repentance and the remission of sins” is not only a lectio difficilior but also corroborated by Acts 5, 31: God exalted Jesus, “to give repentance to Israël and forgiveness of sins”. In any case baptism is not explicitly mentioned in the Lukan form of the saying of the resurrected Jesus. We also note that the “name” is mentioned in Luke in a context resembling greatly, that in the “Eusebian” form of the conclusion of Matthew: Luke speaks about “preaching in his (Christ‟s) name”38) and the shorter Matthaean form about “teaching in his name”.

The formal dissimilarity between the various versions of the words of the resurrected Lord in the Gospels is as great as the similarity in their meaning.

This seems to indicate that, although there is apparently no connection between these various sayings, they stem from a common oral tradition. Besides the conclusion of Matthew in our New Testament manuscripts, the only saying in which baptism is mentioned is the spurious ending of Mark (16, 16). The command to teach all nations is mentioned in all texts with the exception of John (Matthew 28, 19: the spurious Mark 16, 15: Luke 24, 47). The “name” appears with various connotations in Matthew 28, 19, the spurious Mark 16, 17 and Luke 24, 4739) but not in connection with baptism, excepting, of course, in the longer conclusion of Matthew. The disciples are invested with the power to forgive sins according to John 20, 23 and Luke 24, 47.

The similarity between John 20, 23 and Luke 24, 47 seems to be important, because in the Gospel of Mark itself there is no saying of the resurrected Jesus and although, as we have seen, the saying; in the spurious ending of Mark is not without value, it is comparatively late and less important than the other sayings.

If the saving in Matthew is not completely a Matthaean formulation but a redaction of an older tradition, then it is possible that according to this older

DAVID FLUSSER

118

tradition the resurrected Lord not only commanded his disciples to teach all the nations in his name, but also gave to them the power to forgive sins. If this is the case, Matthew omitted this motif, because he wanted to emphasize at the end of his book the apostolic tradition of the teaching, which began with Jesus and was afterwards realized in the all embracing universal Church.

We admit the speculative character of our considerations about the oral tradition, which may lay behind the saying of the resurrected Jesus in Matthew. The main gain of the comparison between the saying in Matthew with its parallels in other Gospels lies in the common patterns in all the Synoptic variants: the teaching of all nations appears in Matthew, the spurious Mark and in Luke; there we meet also the “name” of Jesus, but never in a trinitarian formula and never in connection with baptism.

This supports the originality of the shorter form of the Matthaean conclusion, in which the command of baptism is missing and according to which the disciples have to instruct all nations in the name of Jesus. We have also seen that this shorter form is consistent and clear in its meaning and that the longer form could easily develop from it and finally displace the original form from the manuscripts of the Gospel. Now, a logion parallel to the shorter conclusion of Matthew was found in a Jewish-Christian source and it must be stated that this logion does not represent an independent tradition but is based upon the “Eusebian” form of the conclusion of Matthew. Thus it is very difficult not to assume that the shorter form of the saying found so far only in quotations by Eusebius is the original text of Matthew 28, 18b-20.

THE CONCLUSION OF MATTHEW IN A NEW SOURCE 1

119

) F.C. CONYBEARE, “The Eusebian Form of the Text Matth. 28, 29” , ZNW 2, 1901, pp. 275-288. ) G. KRETSCHMAR, Studien zur frübchristlichen trinitätstheologie, Tübingen, 1956, pp. 2-7.

3 ) See CONYBEARE, p. 283. There is no proof that Didache 7, 1 depends on Matthew.

4 ) CONYBEARE, p. 281.

5 ) V. TAYLOR, The Text of the New Testament, London 1961, p. 4.

6 ) Hans KOSMALA, “The Conclusion of Matthew”, ASTI, Vol. IV. 1965, pp. 132-147.

7 ) KOSMALA, p. 139.

8 ) KOSMALA, p. 145.

9 ) KOSMALA, pp. 146-7, the quotation is from Eus., De theophania V, 46.

10 ) Dial, cum Tryph. 39 and 53. See CONYBEARE, pp. 282-3. The final proof of the dependence of Justinus on the “Eusebian” conclusion of Matthew is the verb mcnhteuein, used in both pasages.

11 ) Pirkei Awoth 6, 6, Sefer Makoth § 157 (end), b, Meg. 15a. See W. B ACHER, Die Agada der Pal. Amoräer 1, 12 note 1.

12 ) Acts 4, 17-18; 5, 28-40; 9, 27-28. See also 1 Cor. 5, 3-5 and KOSMALA, p.137. Cf. also Joh. 5, 43 and Matth. 24, 5; Mark 13, 6; Luke 21, 8; see to the last quotations the discussion in V. T AYLOR, The Gospel according to St. Mark, London 1957, pp. 503-4.

13 ) The wording: “to observe all that 1 have commanded you” is similar to Jos. 22, 2: “You have kept all that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded you, and have obeyed my voice in all that I have commanded you”. Cf. also Deut. 34, 9.

14 ) See: Tosefta Gallim 11, 22. Other sources W. B ACHER, Die Agada der Tannaiten, Straßburg 1903, 1, pp. 257-8.

15 ) See: Tosefta Gallim 11, 24. Other sources W. B ACHER, ibid. I. pp. 107-8.

16 ) S. PINÈS, The Jewish Christians of The Early Centuries of Christianity According in a New Source, The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities Proceedings, Vol. 11, No. 13, Jerusalem 1966.

17 ) Pinès, p. 6.

18 ) The words “go upon the earth” are evidently influenced by Mark 16, 15 (“go to all the world”). Cf. also Matth. 28, 18.

19 ) PINÈS, p. 25.

20 ) PINÈS, l.c.

21 ) Private communication by S. Pinès. The text, quoted by PINÈS in p. 7 speaks about the parousia of Jesus on the day of resurrection.

22 ) It would be worth studying the question of a whole chain of sayings in The New Testament, connected with our short logion. To John 13, 15-16 compare especially Matthew 10, 24-25 and Luke 6, 40; to John 15, 20-21 compare especially Matth. 5, 11 and to, the whole question cf. C. H. D ODD, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge 1963 pp. 59-63, 335-338.

23 ) The simularity between Matthew 28, 19-20 and the Jewish-Christian logion was already observed by PINÈS, p. 25, note 92.

24 ) See above, note 22.

25 ) See above, note 21.

26 ) Private communication by S. PINÈS. 27 ) See J. JEREMIAS, Jesus' Promise to the Nations. Eng. trans. by S. H. HOOKE Naperville III, 1958.

28 ) PINÈS p. 65.

29 ) PINÈS p. 6.

30 ) K. SEENDAHL, in Peake's Commentary of the Bible, 1962, p. 789.

2

120

DAVID FLUSSER

31

) See R. HUMMEL, Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäus-evangelium, München, 1963, p. 60.

32 ) Outside of Mt. (13, 52; 27,57; 28, 19) the word appears only in Acts 14, 21. It does not appear in the Septuagint, but it is used by Ignatius of Antiochia (Eph. 3, 1; 10, 1; Rom. 5, 1).

33 ) See also KOSMALA, p. 137.

34 ) See also C.H. DODD (op. c. above, note 22), pp. 143-4, 347-9.

35 ) The words: “And I will send down on you what my Father has promised” (Luke 24, 49) contain an idea similar to that in John 20, 21 b: “As the Father sent me forth, I am sending you forth”.

36 ) This was fulfilled according to Acts (11, 18) after the baptism of Cornelius: “So God has actually allowed the Gentiles to repent and live”.

37 ) Luke 3, 3, see Mark 1, 4.

38 ) The Greek form of the words “in the name” here and elsewhere in the N.T. is slightly different from the form in the shorter Matthaean conclusion, but the meaning is the same. See BLASS-DEBRUNNER, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen, Griechisch, Göttingen 1959, p.134 (§* 206, 2).

39 ) In the spurious ending of Mark, 16, 17 the name is the name Jesus used in exorcisms, in Luke 24:47 the name has a similar or identical meaning as in the shorter conclusion of Matthew as we understood it; although the name is not mentioned in John, the Johannine words: “as the Father sent me forth, 1 am sending you forth” can reflect a previous form of the saying in which the “name” appeared in the same meaning which we suppose for Luke and Matthew.

ST. MATTHEW 28 13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.

14 And if this come to the governor‟s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.

15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

ST. MATTHEW 28 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

18 And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations in my name.

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Matthew 28:19 in original form as Eusebius wrote down for the council, as Prof. Dr. David Flusser brought to light in this article.