M

Not too difficult to define. It is material which is only found in Matthew's Gospel.

But was there ever a special source of information used by Matthew or are we dealing with the way in which the evangelist who wrote Matthew's Gospel presented his material? Probably a bit of both in reality.

Even if there was an actual source used by the writer of Matthew's Gospel, was it a written or an oral source?

Scholars differ in their answers to this question.

Some brave scholars have isolated 4 subdivisions in order to categorise the material. They propose

a) A sayings collection

b) Old Testament testimonia

c) Birth narratives

d) Other material ...always a useful section to have

(i) Into this section seems to be placed passages peculiar to Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount. Passages in chapters 5 and 6, some of the antitheses eg "on anger" Matt 5:21-26 also information on prayer, almsgiving and fasting Matt 6

(ii) Sayings against the Pharisees. Matt 23

(iii) Parts of the mission charge Matt 10

(iv) Parables spoken by Jesus which are only found in Matthew. Some parables in Matt 13 "wheat and the weeds Matt 13:24-30 but also those unusual parables found towards the end of the gospel which address the problem of the delay of the parousia. Matt 20 and 25.

These days no one is quite certain if a section like this was written down before the time of Matthew. Form critics and redaction critics would suggest that the selection of material here is clear indication of the author's own interests and the problems that are being faced by the church for whom he is writing the gospel.

This is where the gospel draws a parallel between a word or saying of Jesus and a section of the Old Testament which is viewed as prophecy. Often these sections may be prefaced by the phrase "As was spoken by the Prophets..." or "This was to fulfil the prophecy spoken by ..."

Some parts of the early church seem to have drawn parallels such as these between words spoken by Jesus and Old Testament prophets in order to gain credibility or proof of the divine nature or purpose of Jesus. They sought to show that Jesus was indeed the fulfilment of Jewish hopes, the Messiah.

Scholars at one time wondered if in fact there were books of testimonia which listed for missionaries the most convincing Old Testament passages which could be said to point to Jesus. It is an interesting theory but there would have been grave practical disadvantages and one wonders who would have been responsible for compiling them. Nevertheless Matthew makes great use of such proof texts in some parts of his gospel.

The Matthew birth narrative has a peppering of these

Matt 1:23, 2:6, 2:15, 2:18 and an untraceable one in 2:23.

These are very different stories from those found in Luke. Years ago it used to be claimed that Luke wrote from the perspective of Mary while Matthew had Joseph as the chief character. At a very simple level this is undoubtedly true although it is more doubtful that either of the two characters mentioned made any direct contribution to the compilation of the narrative. Luke was concerned to show how the births of Jesus and John, who was later to become the baptist, were linked and he intertwined the narratives in a skilful manner. Matthew on the other hand weaves a story of the birth of Jesus round a skeleton of Old Testament texts.

Some of these are quite substantial narratives, such as Peter walking on the water to Jesus Matt 14:28-31, Johns reluctance to baptize Jesus Matt 3:14 and additions to the Passion story about Pilate, Matt 27:19, 24-25 & 62-66.

Years ago Streeter wrote that M was less original and later in date than the document Q. He dated the source around AD65 and felt that the passages reflected the attitude of Christians of Jerusalem who regarded the personality of James with veneration.

Few today would be willing to be quite so specific, nevertheless not everything that Streeter advocated needs to be thrown out of the window.

1. He pointed out that M could be an oral source or indeed a group of sources. These days scholars are unwilling to pursue a policy of multiplying unknown factors - nevertheless there is no denying that the source M is as likely to be two or more sources as one.

2. There is a distinct lack of homogeneity in the stories. Parables, Old Testament fulfilments.

3. The Old Testament citations are much freer when he is not using another source such as Mark.

There are two major problems with M. These, I would suggest are almost insoluble, but until they have been cleared up progress in discovering reliable information about M is very difficult.

1. We do not know how much of the material which source critics tell us is M material is in fact Q material which only Matthew has used. If we accept the Q hypothesis, we are left with the problem that where only one Gospel, either Matthew or Luke, has used Q that information cannot be credited to the source Q. It must be said to belong to either M or L. How much of M is, in reality, Q material which Luke has rejected?

2. How much of the listed "M material" is information which the author of the gospel himself has contributed in the interests of orderly arrangement or adaptation of Jesus' words for the people for whom he was writing?

If these two problems could be solved the quantity of M material would, I think, be seriously reduced.