Matthew: Structure, Biographical Impluse, and the Imitatio Christi

56 MATTHEW: STRUCTURE, BIOGRAPHICAL IMPULSE AND THE IMITATIO CHRISTI I Recent structural analyses of the First Gospel have tended either to make the book pivot about the twice-repeated And .tote fip^aro 6 TpaoCg of 4,17 and 16,21, with the result that the Gospel falls into three parts \ or, following B.W. Bacon, to regard as determinative the five-fold formula in 7528-29; 11,1; 43,52r 19,1; and 26,1, which formula highlights the recurrent alternation'between narrative and discourse?. My sympathies lie with Bacon and his followers’: Mt 4,17-and 16,21 just cannot, despite recurrent'attempts to show otherwise, bear the literary weight which has been placed upon them. To instance, in abridged form, the chief defects of the tripartite scheme: - djio Tore recurs in 26,16, and fip^axo is used of Jesus in 11,7 and 20 (the last with roxe). Thus the phraseology of 4,17 and 16,21, because not unique, fails to call-attention to itself. Contrast the use of dyevexo 6x6 and dxeXeoev in.7,28; 11,1; 13,52; 19,1; and 26,1: they are reserved for the five-fold formula. - One hesitates to see 4,17 as marking a structural break or as,a verse set apart from its immediate context: there are, as our honoree has well argued, too many firm connections vfith 4,12-16’. - One also hesitates to discover a major structural chasm at 16,21: that verse is closely linkpd with what precedes it*. - Should not more be expected from a structural analysis than what amounts, in the end, to the proposition that Matthew, like most books and stories, has a beginning, a middle, and an end? 1. E. Krentz, The Extent of Matthew's Prologue, in JBL 83 (1964) 401-414; J.D. Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure. Christology, Kingdom, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1975, pp. 7-25. 2. B.W. Bacon, Studies in Matthew, New York, Henry Holt, 1930; cf. J.P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church and Morality in the First Gospel, New York, Paulist, 1979, pp. v-viii; M.H. Crosby, House of Disciples: Church, Economics, and Justice in Matthew, Mafyknoll, Orbis, 1988,'pp. 54-55. 3. F. Neirynck, AHO TOTE HPSATO and the Structure of Matthew, in ETL 64 (1988) 21-59; = Evangelica H, 1991, pp. 141-182. 4. See Neirynck, ibid. Cf. R.T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1989, p. 152: “A division-of the gospel which does not allow these sections [16:13-20 and 21-23] to be read in direct sequence is surely not going to do justice to Matthew’s dramatic purpose. In other words, while 16:21 marks the beginning of a new emphasis in Jesus’ ministry, it does not mark the end even of the episode which immediately precedes it, let alone the end of a whole major section of the gospel”. 1204 D.C. ALLISON It is, however, my purpose herein* neither to tread old ground nor to argue any further against someone else’s suppositions. I rather wish to introduce and defend a position of my own’. The First jGospel, as is widely recognized, exhibits, a striking alternation,between narrative (N) and discourse (D). It may be represented thus: 1-4 5-7 8-9 10 11-12 13 14-17 18 19-23 24-25 27-28 NDNDNDNDNDN That* this regular alternation (which* reminds, one of the repeated oscillation of- speech and narrative in Exodus;'Leviticus, Numbers, and Deutefonoiny) was important for the evangelist is all but proven by the consistent repetition 'of the stereotyped' formula after the five dis­ courses. It is also confirmed by this, that the-openings of 'thfc major discourses share much in common®. But these facts do not necessarily endorse the specifics’ 6f Bacon’s proposal. He’ construed the five-fold formula as evidence that Matthew both divided his gospel into five “books” and imagined it to be structurally homologous to the Five Books of Moses. But, in order to forwafd' this thesis. Bacon was compelled to marry'each-narrative to'a discourse. His first “book”, for instance, consisted of "3,1-4,25 (N) + 5,1-7,27 .(D), his fifth, “book” of 19,2-22,46 (N) + 23,1-25,46 (D). Now I need not review once again theTormidablerdifficulties in the way of Bacbn’s scheme: they are well known’’. The important point is instead another: even when rejecting the details of*Bacon’.s outline,-many have (i) continued to wed each narrative to a discourse and-(ii) attempted to discern some common theme in the resultant unioh®.* But, once-one abandons the vain attempt to construct a Matthean Pentateuch,- what -is the rationale for such procedure? What happens when instead one- simply evaluates each narrative section arid each discourse on its own terms, as a large thought unit®? I should like-to suggest that the results allow both the structure and plot of the First Gospel to emerge clearly. Chapters 1-4 open with the title (1,1) and an historical preface (1,217: the tripartite genealogy). There follow three'infancy stories (1,1825;'2,i-ll; 2,12-23), the sectibn 'On John the Baptist (3,1-6.7-12.13-17), -5. In what follows I develop ideas first presented in my.article, Gnilka.on Matthew, in Bib 70 (1989) 526-538, 6. T.J. Keegan, Introductory Formulae for Matthean Discourses, in CBQ 44 (1982) 415-430. 7. See esp. W.D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, Cambridge, University Press, 1963, pp. 14-25. 8. See e.g.'D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (NCB), London, Oliphants, 1972, pp. 4448, also the forthcoming commentary-on--Matthew in the New American Commentary Series (Broadman Press) by C.L. Blomberg. 9. Cf. the outline of J.C. Fenton,-Saint Matthew (Pelican,Gospel Commentaries), Harmondsworth-Baltimore, Penguin, 1963, pp. 14-15. STRUCTURE 1205 and three additional'-pericopaQ'that directly prepare for the ministry (4,1-11.12-17.18-22). All of this matdriali constitutes an extended intro­ ductionhit is, soito speak, alLbackgroUhd? We ar&told who Jesus was (1,1.2-17.18; 2,1.4; 3,14.17; 4i3.Qj wAereihe was'frdm (2,’6), Aow'he came into the world (1,18-25), w/iyihe came into the world (lj21; 2,6), w/ie« he came into the world’(1,47; 24), sxiA.what he proclaimed.(4,17). Thus the scene is set for'the. rest of the'stor.y>°>. The sermon on the mount, the first'major discourse; commences with a little .narrative'introduction (4,23-5,2)-and closes'with a little narra­ tive conclusion (7,28—8;1). The discourse jfi-oper, 5,3-1,21, is. also synpnetrically centered: it.is opened,by blessings’(5,3-12) and closed by warnings (7,13-1445^23.24-27). Ih between there are three major sec­ tions/, ehch one primarily a compilation of imperatives: Jesus and the law (5,17^48), Jesus on* the cult-(6, U 8), Jesus and social issues (6,497,12)’?..The.sermon.accordingly coritains Jesus’.demand for the people of God - which in context means the people of Israel. If the sermon on. the mount presents us with Jesus’ words, Mt 8 and 9 refcount, as is roundly ^recognized, his deeds. The chapters are largely a record of Jesus’ acts, particularly his compassionate miracles, which fall neatly into three sets.-of thrde:> 8,1-4.5-13.14-15 +■ 8,23-27.28-34; 9,1-8 + 9,18-26.27-31.32-34. Jesus also speaks in this section, but the emphasis is undeniably upon his actions, that is, ‘what he did in and for Israel (cf.. 8,16-17). Having been-informed of what Jesus said (Mt 5-7) and of what he did (Mt 8-9),.readers next learn,-in chapter 10, what Jesus instructed his disciples, as extensions-of himself,-to say.and do. The theme of imitation is 'prominent. The' disciples’-are to proclaim what Jesus proclaimed (cf. 10,7 with 4,17) arid should do what Jesus did (cf. 10,8 with chapters 8-9 and 11/2-6). The disciple* is like the teacher, the servant like’thd master (10,-24-25). For Matthew, obviously, Jesus is the first'Christian 'missionary, and the disciples, in their capacity as mission­ aries, must follow in his footsteps. The chapters' on the words and deeds of Jesus and -the -words and deeds of the disciples (Mt'5-10) are followed by fchapters 11-12. These record primarily the response of “this'generation” to God’s eschatolog10. Whereas Kingsbury urges that 1,1-4,16 is the gospel’s' prologue, I would, in agreement with D.W. Gooding, Structure litteraire de Matthieu, XIII,53 d XVIII,35, in RB 851(1'978) 47-59; W. Wilkens, Die Komposition des Matthdusevangeliums, in NTS 31 ('1985)'24-38; and.U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthdui (EKK I/l), Zurich, Benzinger Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener, 1986, pp. 24-25,'include 4,17t22. For while 4,17 doesgive us the content of JeSus’ public proclamation, 4,18-22 is still more prolegomena: before the teacher tedches he needs ptipils. Cf.- R.A. Edwards, Matthew's Story of Jesus, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1985, p. 11: 1,1-4,22 establishes “the framework of the story”. 11. See my article. The Structure of the Sermon on the Mountain JBL 106 (1987) 423445. 1206 D.C. ALLISON ical messenger(s), its reaction to xd.epya too XpioroC (11,2). This is what the material on the Baptifet.(l 1,2-6.7-15.16-19) is all about as well as the woes on Galilee (11,20-24) and ‘the conflict stories in chapter 12 (1-8.9-14.22-37.38-45). It all adds up to an indictment of corporate Israel: she has rejected the Messiah^?. But the focus on rejection is punctuated by the invitations and hope found in 11,25-30; 12,15-21; and 12,46-50: not all is bleak; there is a remnant Given the expectations of Jewish eschatology, according to-which the people of God will share in eschatological salvation, the rejection recorded in chapters 11-12 poses a grave problem. How could so many in Israel have rejected'the Messiah (cf. the issue in Rom 9-11)? Chapter 13 supplies the answer. It is a. sort'of theodicy - not-a solution to the problem of evil in general but a solution to the rejection of. Jesus in particular. We are informed that there can be different responses to one message (13,1-23)^*, that thfe devil works in human hearts (13,24-30), and that all will be made well in the end (13,31-33.36-43.47-50). Thus the chapter as a whole, read in its larger context, is an attempt to-come to terms with the Messiah’s unexpected reception, or rather lack theifeof. What follows the parable chapter? The fourth major narrative sec­ tion, which covers Mt 14-17/It is much less-easy to summarize. But granted the-truth of Markan priority and the existence of Q, Matthew had, by the time he came to 14,1, used up most of Q, and what remained he wished for the most to save for 18 and 24-25. So, beginning with 14,1, it was not so easy to be creative. This is why'there was a change in the compositional procedure, why in the subsequent narrative sections .Matthew followed Mark-with little deviation. None­ theless, all this does not eliminate a thematic approach to 14-17. There can be no doubt that the most memorable pericope is 16,13-20(28), where Jesus founds his church. The fact fits so well the. larger literary context because after corporate-Israel has, at least for.the timesbeing, forfeited her role in salvation-history, God must raise up a new people. That this is indeed the dominant or most important .theme of the section is hinted at not only by the ever-increasing focus upon the disciples as opposed to the crowds but also by this, that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built, and it is precisely in this section that he comes to the fore; see 14,28-33; 15,15; 16,13-20; and 17,24-27 12. Cf. the rubric of R.H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1982, p. vii: “The Opposition and Persecution Incurred by Jesus and His Disciples (11:2-12:50)”. 13. On the unity of Matthew 11-12 see now D. Verseput, The Rejection of the Humble Messianic King (European University Studies, XXIIIf Theology), Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, 1986. 14. The implied argument is reminiscent of the free-will defence for the problem of evil: problems arise from choices made by human beings. STRUCTURE 1207 all insertions into Mark. Peter’s emerging ■preeminence correlates with the emergence of the church. All this is confirmed by Matthew 18, the' next major discourse. Usually styled the “community” or ‘fecclesiological” discourse, this chapter is especially addressed to the topic of Christian fraternal relations. How often ..should one forgive a brother? What is the procedure for excommunicating someone? These ecclesiastical ques­ tions are appropriate precisely at this’ point because Jesus has just established his church. Having fojinded. the new; community and given, her teaching, it remains for Jesus to go to Jerusalem. This then,is the subject of the next narrative section, Mt 19-23. The material is mostly from Mark, with the woes of 23 added Before the passion narrative proper, however, Jesus, in Mt 24-25, speaks to the futUre, that is, the future of Israel and of the church. Here the readers are taken beyond Mt 26-28 into* the time beyond the narrative. That the discourse, which foretells judgement upon Israel and salvation, through ^lifficulty for the church, comes last makes perfect sense. Eschatology always belongs at the eqd. Jhis is why each of Matthew’s major discourses winds down with teaching oh eschatol­ ogy why Revelation concludes the NT, why 9,15 is the last chapter of m. Sota, and why the final chapter of most systematic theologies concerns the last things. Following chronological order, Matthew brought his book to close as did ,Mark (and Luke and John for that matter). The passion ajUd resurjeqtiqn constitute the conclusion. There, ,are, I should, like to suggest, at kast three virtues to the apprqach just introduced, it is not Supposititious 6f artificially imposedbut'falls put naturally 'from the alternation of narrative and discourse. Secondly, it has explanatory' power; it explains why just about everything is exactly where it is. why is the story .ofthe plucking of the grain (12,1-8 = Mk 2,23-28) where.it is and pot, let us say, somewhere in chapter 8 or 9?,Because the controyersy story belongs best in Mt 11-12, where the issue is Israel’s rejection of Jesus. Why does the missionary discourse (10,5-42; cf. Mk 6,7-13) precede the parable discourse (13,1-52; cf. Mk 4,1-34) and not, as in Mark, follow it? Because overture and rejSction must precede explanation or failure. Why does the discourse in Mt 18 come before instead of after the eschatological discourse in-24-25? Because the special instruction to the 15. Against the proposal, occasionally made, that 23 is a,sixth major discourse see Keegan, Introductory Formulae (n. 6). 16. 7,24-27; 10,41-42; 13,47-50; 18,23-35; 24,1-46. 17. As so many of the outlines of Mark, have been imposed upon the Second Gospel, outlines which are so much writing upon the waters; see J. Dewey, Mark as Interwoven Tapestry: Forecasts and Echoes for a Listening Audience, in IBL 53.(1991) 221-236. D.C. ALLISON 1208 church .naturally follows closely the -harrative, section in which the church is founded. Thitdly, the proposedoutline al so, gives us the plot^®. If the pnmary structure of the Gospel is^N-'D N D N D N D' N D N, the, plot is determined by the major'lheme of each narrative, section and'each discourse^®: Pictorially, and in minimum compass; i-4 5-7 8-9 Io ‘ 111-12 13 14-17 18 19-23 24-25 26-28 introduction; the mam character (Jesus) introduced D Jesus’ demands up6n Israel N Jesus’ deeds within and for Israel D extension of mihistry tteough'wdrds and deeds of others N ■ ‘ Israel's negative rfespdnse .D explanation ofilsrael’s negative response J N establishment of the new people of God, the church D instructions4o the churc^ t U N commencement of the passion, the beginning otjthe end D the fulurp; judgement and salvation, N ponclusion; the passion and resurrection I submit’ that this outline is much more help'ful and informative than that ythich divides Matthew irfto three'main jjhrts^®. 'The Hirst Gospel, as we have seen, fecdfdV'jfsu^’^origins and infancy, his word^’afid d^d<,lii^,'death and’re'stirrectibn', Srid it records'these things in roiighly chrdn^o^cal dtdp'r; the hifth is narrated before’the nuriistry, the '^niihislry ‘fiefofe 'the deMh‘, and^ the death “before 'the resurrection. Thus pfiSfTo'the'twentieth cdntury'Matthew was, despite jts,manv gaps a'nd relatjve br^ity^ ofteh^refefre^ to as a biography, a life of Jesus. Most'tWentidth, century scholars, ho'^ever, pame to reject this view' on the ground' that fhe canonical’gospels art not historical and,biographical retrospectives >ut rattier expressions dnd extfensions of 18. Here I re<;all Aristotle, 6,6^(l450iLy. “^y^iot I ... mean the arrangement of the incidents”. ’ , ... 19. It is no less fait to claim fhatfhd plot defermined the structure. . 20. ‘I also find it more helpful thansthe-outline suggested,Wthe basis of the isolation of major events, by F.J. Matera, TAe Plot of Matthew's Gospel, in CSQ 49 (1987) 233- 253: 1.1- 4,11 The coming t)f the Messiah 4,12-11,1 The Messiah’s ministry to Israel of preaching,'teaching, and healing 11,2-16,12 The crisis in the Messiah’s nfinistry 16,13-20,^4 > The Messiah’s journey .to-Jerusalem 21.1- 28,15 ’ The Messiah’s death andTesUrrection28,16-20 The great commission STRUCTURE 1209 the earliest Christian proclamationYet recently there has been a change in the-minds of at least some scholars, a reversion'to.the older view, to the idea that the‘Gospels sare biographies r- if thefterm is’used not in. its modem sense bub-in' accord with ancient usage?^. The canonical gospels then-qualify .as- a subtype of> GraecorRoman bio­ graphy^’. 1 \^at does one make of this recent revival of an older view?i I have elsewhere-urged that.-Matthew is an-'bmnibus of genres: apocalypse, commimity rule, catechism, cult aetiology, etc. With that judgement I remain content. Like the bpolr of Job^’, the -Qumran Pesharim^®, Philostratus’ Vita ApolloniP^i and; if I may redch .fof more recent analogy,- Coleridge’s' Bidgraphia’Literaria, Matthew is severahthings at once: it mixes genres- But included in-that mixture - as in the mixtures of P-hilostratus add Coleridge - is- biography,.In this connection I may appeal to Philip-Shuler’s*case- that Matthew be considered an enco­ mium, a laudatory biography -- like Plutarch’s Lives or Philo’s While I do not find.the claim" persuasive, it'is noti without evidence. There are indeed significative resemblances, betwedmthe. First Gospel and certain.Hellenistic biographies. The difficulty isi-whether 21. For reviews of-the discussion, see R.H. GvNDtcij Recent Anyestigations .into .the Literary Genre "Gospel", in R.N.-Longenecker and M.C. Tenjiey (eds.X/Vp^jDfwezw/ow in New Testament Stud^, Rapids, ^onderyap, 1974, pp. 97-114; R. Gueliot, The Gospel Gerlre, iri P. STUHL1^6ffiR (ed.), T/ie Gospel and the Gospels, Grand Rapids, Herdmans, 1991,'pp. 173-208;'add Eiangelidrh als literarisihe uft'd theolth gische Gattung (Ertrage der Forschung,>263), E>armsladt,i-Wissenscliaftliche'BuchgeMllschaft, 1989. <, Tt. For a relatively recent, useful overview of Greek biography see P. tox, Biifgraphy in Late Antiquity: the Quest for the Holy Man, Berkeley, University of California, 1983; also D.E. Aune, Greco-Roman Biography,, in D.^. Aune (ed.), Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament: Selected Forms and Genres, Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1988, pp. 107-126. 23. See esp. C.H. Talbert, What is a Gospel? The Genre of Canonicdl Gospels, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1977; Id.,. Once Again: GospeJ G^rerin Semeia 43 (1988) 53-73. Criticism in D. Aune,, The,Problem, of the Gen^e,of'tlK Gosjiels: 4. Critique of C.H. Talbert’s What is a Gospel?, in R.T.fFrance and D.’WHfltAM (eds.). Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History anf Tradition in tfii Four Gospels^vol. ll, Sh'efBeld, JSOT, 1981,960' ' 24. W.D. DAViEs'^nd D.C.'Allison, 3v.., ’A.Crifical and Exegetical Commentary on-the Gospel according Io ,Saint Matthew flCC),S^dinbuTgh,ft. &iT. Clark,‘ vol. I,.1988,>pj>. 2-^ 25. Cf. R.E. Murphy, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Lamentations, Eccle­ siastes, and Esther, Grand Rapids, Herdmans, 1981, pp. 16-20. 26. See’M.P. HoRGAN>Pej/iartni.-‘ Qumran interpretations of’Biblical Books (CBQ Monograph Series,- 8), Washington, Catholic Biblical! Association- of America, 1979, pp. 249-259. ” "• • Tl. Cf. G. Petzke, Die Traditionen uber Apollonius von Tyana und dasiNeue.Testament, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1970, p. 60. 28.. A Genre for the Gospels: the Biographical Character of‘Matthev>-, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1982. See ‘further M. Hengel, Acts and the' History ofiEarliest Christianity, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1980, pp. 3-34. 1210 D.C. ALLISON those resemblances suffice to determine classification^’, and further whether they have .an historical explanation, .that is, whether Matthew consciously, imitated Hellenistic biographies he had read, or whether as I am inclined to imagine + we should; following Northrop Frye, appeal .instead to cros&-cultural “archetypes”,of literary genres’”, bio­ graphy being, like drama and, more pertinently, autobiography, an example”. In -either case, and however one finally formulates an answer to the question of Matthew’s genre, the undisputed fact is that Matthew chose to write something which, despite its incompleteness as a biography in the modern sense, is the partial record of a man’s life and'SO'biographical. But that immediately engenders a question. There were many type? of literature, available to .early Christians desirous to communicate their religious convictions -r the sayings collection (Q, Thomas), the epistle (Romans, 1 Clement}, the apocalypse (Revelation’ 4 Ezra), and the community jule {IQS, the Didache)-, to, name the more obvious. But Matthew chose none of these. Why? It will not do to answer Jhat.our author just followed Mark. That seemingly begs the question, for was it not Matthew’s choice of genre, determined by his goals for writing, that made, him imitate Mark, not vice versa! It is also inadequate to advert to the prevalence of biogra­ phies in the Graeco-Roman world; for while there is now a consensus of scholarship that-by the first century there had’been a deep interpene, ‘ m and Hellenism, so that it is not surprising that a cultured Jew such as Matthew could haye written in Greek and adopted a-Hellenistic genre, Graeco-Roman literature included many different types of writing, so the question remains: why did Matthew write the sort of book he did? While fully recognizing that* the evangelist wrote no word on the subject, so that of his express purpose we cannot speak, I should like to urge that the content of Matthew’s faith, partly .explains why the First Gospel is a story about Jesus. The distinctiveness of Matthew’s think­ ing over against that of his ndn-Christian Jewish contemporaries was the acceptance of Jesus as the center of his religion: it was around him as a person that his theological thinking revolved. The fact is crucial. For Matthew, revelation belonged supremely to one life,, the life 'of the Son of God. The significance <3f this can only be measured when 29. I agree with' R.A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26 (Word Biblical Commentary, 34A), Waco, Word,. 1989, p..xx: “‘Biographical’ ... does not necessarily imply that they [Matthew, Luke, John] belong to the literary genre biography, since biographical accounts can come.in,various genres, for example, in comedic or tragic dramas”. 30. Fables of Identity, New York, HBJ, 1963, p. 12. 31. Certainly Hellenistic biographies and the biographical segments of the Hebrew Bible, while historically unrelated, share much in common; see D.E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, Philadelphia, Westminster, 1987, pp. 29-42. STRUCTURE 1211 Matthew’s comparatively brief gospel is set over against the massive and highly complexi literature of rabbinic Judaism in both 'its halakic and haggadic forms. In the rabbinic sources there are stories about rabbis but no sustained lives, such as we find in the Gospel of Matthew, report upon report of iXrhat Rabbi X or Rabbi Y purportedly said, but no biographies. Indeed, particular sages are only very seldom an organizing category or principle in rabbinifc literature’^. All this is simply to state the obvious, that whereas rabbinic Judaism, with its subordination of the individual to the community and its focus upon a particular book (the Torah) instead of a particular human being, prodhced'no religious biographies”, the substance of Matthew’s faith was neither a dogmatic system nor a legafcode but a human being whose life was, in outline and in detail, uniquely significant and therefore demanding of record. No less instructive than the contrast between Matthew and the rabbinic sources is the difference between Matthew and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Of the importance of the so-called Teacher of Righteousness for the community that produced those, scrolls there can be no doubt. It is, however, quite difficult for us to say very much regarding him, the reason being that, despite his historical significance, the sect did not, from what we can gather, pass on ihany traditions about him. Why? Although IQpHab 8,2-3 speaks of fidelity to the Teachenbf Righteous­ ness, that teacher just was not the center of the Essene-’s religion; therefore his life never found its biographer. The contrast with early Christianity speaks worlds. Do we not have here, if I may so put it, with only a bit of exaggeration, the difference between a theocentric faith and a christocentric faith? Matthew inherited the words of Jesus and did justice to them. In this sense his Jesus is recognizably rabbinic: our gospel presents the sayings of Jesus as the rabbinc texts present those of the sages. But unlike the rabbinic sources, Matthew combined Mark, Q, and M to produce a book which records not only what Jesus said but what he did. This combination of words and deeds distinguishes Matthew not only from the rabbinic corpus but also from Q and the Gospel of Thomas, which had little to say about Jesus’ deeds’*. In Matthew’s procedure one may 32. J. Neusner, Why No Gospels in Talmudic Judaism? (Brown Judaic Studies, 135), Atlanta, Scholars, 1988, shows that “the raw materials for gospels” were to hand, that is, there did circulate small collections of sayings by and stories about certain rabbis; but these never evolved into biographies. 33. Helpful here is R.L. Cohn, Sainthood on the Periphery: The Case of Judaism, in R. Kieckhefer and G.D. Bond (eds.), in Sainthood: Its Manifestations in World Relig­ ions, Berkeley, University of Califorhia, 1988, pp. 43-68. 34. But here caution is in order. Were the compilers of Q and the Gospel of Thomas uninterested, in what Jesus did? Or were the deeds of 'Jesus reported' and passed down alongside Q and/or the Gospel of Thomas? To draw an analogy; one might judge, from the Discourse of Epictetus and the Enchiridion, that Arrian was interested only in 1212 D.C. ALLISON detect, at least two .influences, the first being the Hellenistic tradition, which so stressed the need for teachers to live as-they .taught. Socrates was of course here the great model? his-speech whs as his life?’. But the motif-was transferred to others. Philo .for-his part gave the.palm to Moses’®. And Matthew gave it to Jesus,* who, exhibited the antithesis of hypocrisy, namely,- congruity. between.-word and.,deed’^. Jesus was Torah incarnate, animate law’®. Secondly, and no less importantly, one must’pay due regard to the-unifying-implications of Matthew’s theol­ ogy, according’to> which revelation’ and salvation were embodied in a person. The-fivefold alternation of narrative, and discourse,) ^Vhich holds together, aspects of the life-of Jesus that others in-the early-church did not- so conjoins reflects the strong conviction that there should ,be no isolation of word and deed .because what matters is their common source, namely, Messiah Jesus. In line with this, Matthew ^opened his gospel with two chapters in-which Jesus neither says nor does anything at all, chapters in which things just happen to-the Messiah.- Does this not betoken a’ fundamental interest in the person of Jesus himself?’® I do not, however, believe that Matthew wrote a story about Jesus simply because such was congruent with his theology and/or a Hellenis­ tic topos. There wete- other determinative factors. One needs, for instance, to take full cognizance of the fact, so obvious we are liable to miss it,- that Jewish tradition before and after Matthew’s day strongly tended -to associate traditional wqrds with specific individuals. There are of course-exceptions, the rabbinic hakomitn ’omrtm (“the Sages say’’i),4)eing a, prominent-example. Still, by and large the generalization holds. Tlie pentateuchal laws were - against the facts - put on .the lips Epictetus’ teaching; -but according to Simplicius ‘(6th cent, a.d.) Arrian also wiote Epictetus' biography. 35. See Gox, Biography (n. 22), p. 87. 36. yil..Mo,s. 1,29: Moses “exemplified his philosophical creed by his daily actions. His words expressed his feelings, and his actions accorded with his words, so that speech and life were in harmony, and thus through their.mutu'al agreement were found to make naelody together as on a musical-instrument” (LCL, Colson). 37. See further below, pp. 1216-1220. 38. for thej qoncept ofjhe.kiijg asvopo? Eptyoxo? see E.R. Goodenough, The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship, in A.H. Harman (ed.), Yale Classical Studies, vol. 1, New H^ven, Yale,, 1928, pp* 55-102, and for its relevance to Matthew’s Jesus my forthcoming hook, The New Moses: A Maithean Typology. 39. A caveat; W. Eichrodt,-TTieo/ogy of the Old Testament (Old Testament Library), vol. 1, Philadelphia, Westminster, 1961, p. 228, wrote: “From the very beginnings of Israel’s jeligion it is easier for the observer to detect the main outlines of the divine activity than those of the ^ivine toeing. The latter ... remain essentially outlines, and never undergo any more speculative or-mQtaphysical development; but the description of the divine jactivityir is couched, in precise and concrete terms”. Something very similar may be said of Matthewt^nd Jesus. The-First Gospel-confronts us with the “externals” of Jesus but not his-inner thoughts. The latter is -^ subject neither of psychological speculation nor of metaphysical, development. There js only silence before a mystery. STRUCTURE 1213 of Moses. It is even more striking that-Proverbs groups .its* wisdom sayings, whose authority :could scarcely-be more independent oh their authorship, according -to sages (‘'The proverbs of 'Solomon, son of David, king of Israel”, 1,1; “The words of'Agur son of Jakeh of Massa”, 30,1; “The words of Lemuel, king of Massa”, 31,1). One also thinks of the' pseudepigrapha, such- as J Enoch and. 2 Esdras, which bring together sundry’materials from divers proveniences and place them under the name of a 'biblical worthy, and of the-canonical prophets: the prbphetip*oracles in the HebrewrBible come to-us not as anonymous declarationstbut'under the name»of prophets. Particularly instructivedn this connection is the-book of Jeremiah. This marvelous if complex writing .gathers together prophetic words - not all of them, we maybe sure, from Jeremiah' - under one prophet’s name; dnd,-what is of significance for us, sections ofdt - Pearly two fifths - are biographical (19,1-20,6; 26,1-79,32; 32,1-45,5). The reason? -Many’ of Jeremiah’s oracles were highly personal, that is, closely tied to the'prophet’s own historical context (one thinks particularly of the'so-called confessions-)— for which reason their interpretation was much illhminated by acquain­ tance with theif author and his situation: message and-messenger were inextricably bound. Thus full understanding of Jeremiah’s words demanded famUian'ty with Jeremiah’s story-- as'-Baruch, or Whoever added the biographical narratives to the''oracles', perceived-. We a&ordingly have'both: If was not otherwise'With‘Matthew-and the-Jesus tradition. Our evangelist -rfecoghized that many of the sayings passed down under Jesus’ name would be liable to grave understanding if they came to be separated from their historical context, that being Jesus’ messianic'mission to Israel. Put otherwise, his words could not be rightly interpreted without due regard for the time and the place in which'they were spoken. Imagine what might be the meaning, without any context, of “Leave the dead-to bury their own dead” (8,22), or of “Go nowhere among th^ Gentiles” (10,5), or of “Take no gold, nor silver, nor coppfcr in ybur belts” (10,9), or of “You will not haVe gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of man comes” (10,23), or of “The blihd receive* their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and’ the dead* are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them” (ll,5).'Thfese sayings do not Work as proverbs or general maxims. Devoid of-a context within a'Story, these utterances become either meaningless or misleading.-'! am per­ suaded that Matthew, like Mark before him,, grasped this, if only intuitively: much of what the tradition assigned to Jesus could only be fathomed if its general setting within a particular man’s life were known.. Which is to say: the J?sus tradition was. not, for the. First, Evangelist, a collection of self-authenticating proverbs, not ■an assembly of timeless truths 'from an unknown Lbmuel King of 'Massa or a 1214 D.C. ALLISON nameless Cynic preacher; rather, it was the reflection of an historical encounter, part and parcel of what we dub salvation-history. Thus, as with the book of Jeremiah, content demanded context*®. In other words, speech required biography. There is yet another issue to raise in our quest for the source of Matthew’s biographical impulse. The more history one learns, the less it seems that any period, of however short or long a duration, has been free of crisis: all times are out of joint. Historical stability appears to be a fiction, for something new is always confronting the status quo, and people are, always anxious about i^hat the future holds. Nonetheless, the idea of an historical crisis is not without substance, this because some periods are indeed more racked'by strife and anxiety than others. And such was, the first century, at least in th^ cradle pf Christianity, Palestine. That epoch saw Jews fight Rome and lose their temple; it witnessed the birth of the Zealots and the death of the Essenes; and it saw the production of several lengthy apocalypses, a sure sign of profound dissatisfaction. What does all this have to do with Matthew? Perhaps a great deal, for the generalization has be^n offered that, historically, the production of biographies has been much stimulated,by periods of social crisis*^. The proposition appeals to common sense. Spcial crises by definition involve conflicting claims to power, and such claims typically issue tn vying appeals to,the past: who is the authentic heir of our tradition? In accord with .this, the number of Hellenistic biographies was swelled by disputes between rival philosophical schools. Who were the true fol­ lowers of Plato? Was Pythagoras superior to Socrates? Was Apollonius a fraud or a great philosopher? These and other questions were answered by the promulgatiop of biographies - by Xenophon’s Memo­ rabilia, by Porphyry’s Life' of Pythagoras, by Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius. Whenever social crisis results in fragmentation, so that the questio­ ning of previous beliefs issues in the formation of a new social unit, new norms and authorities are inevitably generated. This matters for oqr purposes because such norms and authorities are always most persua­ sively presented when embodied in examples: new/ashions must first be modelled. Certainly this happened with the fifteenth-century advent of tlje so-called “new devotion’,’ (deyotio modema): that movement,twith its intense individualism, gave birth to numerous lives (for example, the 40. One reason I regard the Gospel of Thomas as, in general, an inferior witness to the historical" Jesus is that the tendency to universalize the application of sayings is more advanced in that document. 41. J. Romein, Die Biographie: Einfuhrung in ihre Geschichte und ihre Problematik, Bern, Francke, 1948, e.g. pp. 60-62 and 64-67. STRUCTURE 1215 biographical works of-Thomds a Kempis). The same thing also happened at the Reformation. The break with Roman Catholicism brought many into a new world, with new standards of' belief and behavior. In response, new lives were produced, lives exhibiting the >new beliefs and types of behavior. The Reformation.replaced the traditional catalogue of Catholic saints-With its own qOnstellation of Protestant heroes. Popular biography, especially martyrology, flourished*^-. Something similar happened in'early*Christianity.-The first believers, whether Jew or gentile, had’ made a change' of allegiance. They :had come to news beliefs and new ways of behaving. New models were accordingly needed. And Jesus himself, through the promulgation -of the tradition about him, becarhe the new model par excellence. The.fact has been-insufiJciently .appreciated*’, in part because there has been, since Luther, a reactio'ii- against an unimaginative and literalistic imitatio Christi (such as that- exhibited by. Francis of Assisi), in part because the notion of the rnimesis- of the canonical Jesus has been condemned as a purely'human effort which, in the event,’-cannot be achieved**, and also in part because many have been anxious to preserve Jesus’ unique status as a savior whose salvi)|c accomplishments cannot be emulated: the?Christian gospel is not moral imitation of a human hero or fine example (true enough). -It is syiriptomatic that Albrecht Dihle'" could make the* antithetical generalization, which I consider unjustified, that ivhereds in the gospels “a'Aumari life appears as an incomparable and unrepeatablq piece of history in Greek biography, in contrast,ja human life appears as individual realization of possibilities which art immutable riaturb holds in readiness for all times’’^’. It is also symptomatic'that Charles Talbert, in'his discussion 42. Jean Crespin published his Book of Martyrs in 1554,. John Foxe his Acts and Monuments of Matters Happening in the Church (= Foxe’s Book of Martyrs) in 1563. The Renaissance, with its revival of Plutarch and other ancient biographers, also of course played-a very important part in the popularity of biography in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries; but then the revival of biography during the Renaissance was itself brought on by a great crisis; cf. Romein, Biographic (n.'41), p. 28. 43. Note, however, C.W. Votaw, The Gospels and Contemporary Biographies in the Greco-Roman World (Facet Books Biblical Series, 21), Philadelphia, Fortress, 1970; also Aune, Literary Environment (n. 31), p. 62, who remarks that Matthew and Luke “do not explicitly emphasize the imitation of Jesus”, the reason being that “this use of the past was implicitly understood”. 44. But this objection could not be brought against Matthew’s concept of the imitation of Jesus, to be established shortly; for in the First Gospel Jesus is an ever-abiding; helpful presence; in other words;4he believer is never thought of as standing-alone, in isolation from the divine activity, so the problem of a purely human effort does not arise; cf. 18,20; 28,20. Matthew, although he would not I think have assented to Luther’s distinction between an active imitatio. and a passive conformitas, would surely'-have contended as strongly as did Kierkegaard that his conception of imitation was not at odds with grace. 45. A. Dihle, The Gospels and Greek Biography, in Stuhlmacher (ed.). The Gospel and the Gospels (n. 21), pp. 361-386, esp. p. 383. D C. ALLISON .1216 of ancient .biography, discerned, a Type A, which he defined .as a life that “function[s] simply, to provide’the readers.-ai pattern to copy”*® and that .he did! not «o-classify, ahy'of the canonical gospels*’-, or even remark that they might, function in part to supply such a pattern. But Matthew,;,in whose .gospel'there .is-no .trace df Docetism, wrote long before Nicea, dtia time’(^hen it was stilb possible to think.of Jesus as a real human being and therefore as .agreal(ethical models®, hnd our evarigelistj liketPaul*;?, OrigenJ°,'andf6ther ea];ly:Christians?\ thought 'offiJesus as.,a.mQdel to>be^ emulated. This.is' why,‘despite^ the general silence of the. commentators, therei,is diV’our gospeliavmultitude of obvious connections > between Jesus’-' words ’nnd his ‘deeds. If Jesus indirectly exhorted others tofbe meek. CtBlessed ate .the-meek”, '5,5), he himself was-such,(“Lam .meek and lowly/of.heart’.’, 11,29; cf. 21,5). If he .enjoihed mercy (“Blessed, are the merdful’-’s '5,1), he himself was merciful (“Have mercy mpon us Sontfef David”,.9,27; cf; 15,22; .20,30). If he congratulated .those oppressed'for God’s cause-.(“Blessed are those persecuted for righteousness’.sake’’,.5,10)^ihe‘ himself suffered and died i i * 46. Talbert, Gospel (n. 23), p. $4. . r 47. !Contraa SriuLSR'^ Genri (n! 28), who recognizes thatiMatthew, like the authors ot encomia, wishedihis readers to emulate his Jiero., f /' > 48. f:‘Thewen’ existence the gospflsjsfjve^.as a detriment fo the .writing, of lives ot other holy persons, In them was to be found, the noblest exapiple of ^1. At this early stage of Ch&tian "history,'It'would have been presumptuous to bnng'other persons'into competition with <Ke-i5Hta^modeI.''Only after NidSa’(325‘A.D.)'did.the need arise for bther.exemplars.flt shoulilbe ^ememhered that the most potent Arrows, in the.quiver of the Arians .were thpse passag9s,)p |hR gospel? tha), spoke of Jesus’humap futures. Ins limited knowledge., his obedienc^to.,God^ hi? growth,in wis^m„his suffering. Once it,was declared' thaf'the togos was ‘of one substance with the Fathers’ (a doctrine defended chiefly by appeal to the Gospel of John), a vacuum was created that could be filled with other.human faces”. So R.L. Wilken, The Lives of-the Saints and the Pursuit of Virtue, m 8 (Dec. 1990).45-51, p. 47. u ' .i. j 49. If ndt in Phif 2,5-11, then at least in Rom 15,1-7; see now M.B. Thompson, Clothed with-Christ: The Example and Teaching of-Jesus in Romans 12:1-15.13 (JSNT SS, 59), Sheffield, JSOT, 1991. , v 50 De prin. 4,4,4: “Christ is set forth as.an example to all believersJiecause as he ever chose the good, even -before.he,knew the evil at.all, and loved righteousness and hated iniquity ... so, too; should each one of .us, after,a fall or a,'transgression, cleanse himself from stains by-the example set before him, and taking,a leader for the'journey proc^d along theateep path of virtue, that so perchance.by.this meMs we may as far as,is possible become, through our imitation of him, partakers of the divine nature; as it is written. He .who saith he believeth in Christ ought himself to walk eveif as he walked’” (Butterfield). ^^’fif^Nrtre.g^John 13,15.34; 15,12; 1-7,16; Heb 12,1-4; J3,l-2-19; 1 Pet 2,21; 3,1748; I Johti'2,6; Ignatius, PAi7. 7,2;.Irenaeus, 4di> haer. 2,22,4- Apocalypse of Abraham 29,10 (presuming this to be a Christian interpolation referring)to Jesus: “All will imitate him”); Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.1.1 believe that Jesus isespeciallya moral model m LukeActs; cf. C.H. Talbert, Learning through Suffering: TheEduCationat Value of Suffering in the New Testament and iif Jts<Milieu (Zaxxhsleus Studies: NewiTestament), Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 1991, pp. 75-90. STRUCTURE 1217 innocently (“And he [Pilate] said, what evil has he done?’”, 27,23). Jesus further demanded ..faithfulness- to the lawof-MoseS (“Think not that I have come to abolish the law,and The prophets”, 5,17-20) and faithfully kept that law during' his ministry (“Show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that>'Moses'.commanded ”,i8,4; cf. 12,1-8.9-14; 15,1-20)’?. He-recommended self-denial in the face of evil (“If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”, 5,39) and did not resist the evils done to him'(“They spat in his face and struck him, and some slapped him”, 26,67; cf. 27,30)’^. He called for private prayer (“When you pray godnto your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret”, 6,6) .and subsequently withdrew to a mountain to pray alone (“He went up into the hills by himself to,pray”, 14,23>. Moreover, Jesus-advised his followers to use certain words in prayer (“Thy kingdonl come, thy will be done”, 6,10), and he used those words in Gethsemane (“If this cannot Ipass until I drink' it, thy will be done’.’, 26,42). »He rejected, the service of mammon (“Do not store up treasure upon the earth’’, 6,19), arid he lived without concern- for money (“The Son of man has nowhere to lay his head”, 8,20). And he commanded believers to carry crosses (“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up.his cross and'follow me”, 16,24), and he did so hiriiself, botji figuratively and .literally (Pilate ”delivered him to be. crucified”; 27,26). One could go on and on in>.this vein, citing instances of Jesus animating his speech.. Consider,also that Matthew went out of Jiis way to demonstrate that the twelve emulated their Lord in numerous'particulars. Chapter 1 O'alone offers the following parallels:: "*rhe disciples They are to heal every disease and every infirmity (10,1) They are to preach that “the kingdom, of heaven is at hand”'(l 0,7) They are to cast out demons (10,8) They are to heal lepers (10,8) They are to raise the-dead (10,8)‘ They are not to go to thd' Samaritans (10.6) They will be handed over to sanhe­ drins (10,17) They will be dragged before gover­ nors (10,18) They will be called Beelzebul (10,25) Jesus He heals every disease and, pvery infir­ mity (4,23) He preaches that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (4,17) He casts dut demonS (9,32-33 etc.) He heals lepers (11,5) •He raises the dead (11,5) He does' not go to the Samaritans (15;24) Jesus is handed over to the Sanhedrin (26,57-68) Jesus is taken before the governor (27,1-2.11-26) Jesus is called Beelzebul (9,34; 10,25) 52. I am quite aware that my reading of the evidence on this topicis subject to dispute; I camoiUy refer the reader to Davies,and ACtisoN, Matthew 1, pp. 481-502, 505-509; 2, pp. 15-16, 304-322, 517-539. 53. On this parallel see further my article’, A New- Approach to- the-Sermon on the Mount, in ETL 64 (1988) 405-414, esp. pp. 413-414. 1218 D.C. ALLISON What is implied by these correlations? If the disciples imitated Jesus, the thought, that others should follow their lead and do likewise lies very near to hand’*. I accordingly take the phrase in 28,20, xripeiv ndvra ooa fevexeiXapriv Opiv, to be all-encompassing: the reference is not to the sermoh on the mount or even to Jesus’ words but to his life in its totality: his person is, for those baptized, a command; that is, the virtues he spoke and embodied must be creatively mirrored by his followers. For.if Jesus demanded the perfect imitation of God (5,48), he himself was the perfect instance of such imitation. Compare the formu­ lation of Ignatius: “Be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was of his Father” {Phil. 7,2). On the moral level at least our Gospel encourages its readers to identify closely with the main character, whom the evangelist clearly regarded as, fo use the words of another first-century Christian, “the pioneer and perfecter of our faith” (Heb 12,2). All this is reinforced' by Matthew’s use of SiKaioouvr]. With the possible exception "of 5,6, the word everywhere,* in my judgment, indicates either God’s norm for human conduct or behavior in accord with that norm’’.'Moreover, Jesus not only demanded’ Sikuioctuvti: he also lived it. Thus he was recognized as having been SiKaioi; (27,19) - a “just” or “righteous” man - and, according to 3,15, in submitting to baptism by John he fulfilled all righteousness‘(7tXTip©aai itaoav SikuioCTUVT|v). The meaning of this last phrase has been much contested. But the case that nkripmaai should be given eschatological sense (“to fulfill”) is convincing’®, and SiKaioouvri in all probability refers to the divine demand’.\ If so, Jesus was the eschatological fulfillment of the will of God, which in turn implies that his behavior, his courageous self-command which became humble obedience to God and left nothing good undone, was for Matthew programifiatic and exemplary: the Son of God first dijfi what he later asked others to do. Ulrich Luz is right: in 3,15 Jesus is the “.Urbild” Und “Vorbild” of Christians’®.'! only add: he is the “Urbild” and “Vorbild” of Christians throughout the Gospel - a consistent “example;”, to quote Irenaeus, “of piety, righteousness, and submission” {Adv. haer. 2,22,4). If Aristotle regarded the “good man” as the “canon” (Kav(»v)» in ethics {Ethica Nicomachea 3,4), Matthew considered Jesus the “canon” of Christian morality: the Messiah-wenUinfallibly right. Investigation of Matthew’s employment of fiitoKpixfig tends towards 54. I am reminded of the formulation in 1 Cor 11,1: “Become imitators of me as I am of'Christ”. '■ 55. See the important investigation of B. Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew (SNTS.MS, 41), Cambridge, University Press, 1980. • 56. See J.p. Meier, Law and History in Matthew's Gospel (AnBib, 71), Rome, Biblical* Institute, 1976, pp. 73-81. 57. Cf. Przybylski, Righteousness (n. 55), pp. 91-94. 58. Luz, Matthaus (n, 10), p. 154. STRUCTURE 1219 the same conclusion. One of the. chief charges against Jesus’ chief opponents,, the Pharisees, is that they are “hypocrites” Precisely what that means, especially the extent to which itxonnotes the pretense of.conscidus deception, has been the subject of some dispute®'’. One thing, however, is clear: hypocrisy involves, among other things, dis­ junction, between word and deed. Recall'especially the striking 23,2-3: “The. scribes and'Pharisees sit on Moses’-seat; so .practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do, for they preach, but do not practice”. -According to ■ this the Jewish leaders are guilty not of erroneous doctrine, but of failure to live up to their own injunctions. In other words, the ability to discern what should be done exists, but not the inclination or power to it. This is why the Pharisees are the superior exaihples of how nbl to behave. Their words outshine their deeds, as if in illustration'of La Rochefoucauld ’s famous dictum: I'hypocrisie est un hommage que le vice rend a la vertu. Matthew’s Jesus, however, is the antithesis of all this. Thus the disciples not only confront his words but study the Messiah himself: pdOere’ dn’ SpoC (11,29)’ means, in effect, dKoXouGei poi (9,9; cf. 4,19), One learns not just with the ears but also, so to speak' with the feet: education is mu6h more'than heeding an infallible wordsmith; it additionally involves the niimetic following of Jesus, who is virtue embodied. Andre Maurois wrote that “biography-is a type of literature which, more than any other, touches'close upon morality”®^. This rings true. Prior to recent tiihes, in which biographers have been so preoccupied with information, entertainment, or psychological subtleties, biography has'usually, to greater or lesser degree, enshrined'cleaf moral aims. One thinks, for instance, of the proliferation of biographies among the early Puritans, with their transpareht religious exhortations designed to prevent or remedy character defects', or of the “moralizing” - the word now suffers ill repute - in the one-time well-read books* of Samuel Smiles, such ds Lives of the Engineers and Men of Invention and Industry - the sorts of books not much' written after Lytton Strachy’s Eminent Victorians (1918). Plutarch’s Lives'^^ (which so influenced nineteenth 59. See 15,7; 22,18; 23,13.14.15.23.25.27.29; cf. 23,3; also 6,2.5.16; 7,5. For CjiOKpioxc see 23,28. 60. See D.E. Garland, The Intention of Matthew 23 (NTSuppl, 52), Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1979, pp. 91-123. 61. Aspects of Biography, New York, Frederick Un^ar, 1929, p. 136. 62. Note esp. Plutarch, Pericles 2; “Virtue'in action immediately takes such hold of a man that he no sooner admires a deed than he sets out to follow in the steps of the doer. Fortune we prize for the good things we may possess and enjoy from her, but virtue" for the good deeds we can perform: the former we are content to receive at the hand of others, but the latter we desire others to experience from ourselves. Moral good, in a word, has’a power to attract towhrd itself .... These, then, are the reasons which have impelled me to persevere in my biographical .writings” (trans, of Ian Scott-Kilvert, for Penguin Classics). 1220 D.C. ALLISON century English biography>j Petrarch’s biographies/ and the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox legends of the saints also come in­ stantly to mind.1 Athanasius wrote the- Vita Si Antoni in part to supply “ail ideal pattern’?" for others desirous; to “emulate his [Anthony’s] resolution’’ (Prologue)r'The opinion of'Samuel Johnson has no doubt been implicitly -held by many:, “No species, of writing seems, more worthy, of cultivation than biography since none can-be, more, delightful or more useful, none can more certainlyjenchain the heart by irresistible interest,'or more widely diffuse instruction.of every diversity of condi­ tion’’®’] Carlyle put it succinctly: “Biography is almost the one thing needful’’®*. Let me conclude by, considering a maxim: the greatest influence upon our conduct is the conduct of others. From this, undoubted truth of psychology, that.yye emulate what appeals, before us, it follows that if one yvishes to shape ..behavior and impact .morality, ope will, be well advised to put forward what Milton termed “the saluatary influence of example”: words will pot suffice. One must employ .sight as well as sound. That is why Sir 44,-50, Heb 11, and 1 Clement, conjuTe mratal visions of heroes and tljeir exploits, and also, why m. ’Abot, that the Torah is learned not just through study, but also through attendance or service of the sages. Smiles wrpte: “Example is-one of the most potent of instructor?, though it teaches without a tongue. It is the practical school, of mankind, working by action, whjch is always more forcible ^han words”®’. This declaration is nothing other than a wordy, Victorian version,pf the,old, succinct Latin proverb; Example is better than pr^pt.^s Sepeca wrote: “Xhe’ v/ay is 19ng if one follbws precept, but shprt'’and,helpful if one follows patterns” (Ad.Lucflium 6,4). Tfhe sentiment is supremely-importapt for understanding the First Gospel. For the evangelist’§jmoral interest,^apparent above all in. the sermon op the piount, could pot have.^been, .bettp,r served than by a story in which the cnicial moral imperatives.arqimaginatively and ponyincingly incar­ nated,- which is «xpctly, wh^t the First Gospel,supplies®®. It, Iq quote Clement of Alexandria, offers two types of teaching, “that which assumes the form of counselling to obedience, and .that which is presented in the form of example” (Paed. 1,1). When Eduard Thur63. I quote from S. Johnson, Essays from the Rambler, Adventurer, and Idler, edited by W.J. .Bates, New Haven, Yale, 1968,'p. 110. 64. T. Carlyle, Critical .and Miscellaneous Essays, vol. 4, London, Chapman and Hill, 1869,.p. 52. 65. Self. Help; with, Illustrations of Character and Conduct, Philadelphia, J.B. Lippin­ cott, 1880, p. 371. ' “ 66. Against the .objection, often brought against the sermon on the mount, that its demands cannot "be lived, Matthetv himself would probably have referred to Jesus’ own life as proof to the contrary. STRUCTURE 1221 neysen forwarded his Christological interpretation of the sermon on the mount, according to which this last is a self-portrait, he hit a mass of truth®’. The First Evangelist did seek to show that Jesus embodied his speech, that the Lord lived as he spoke and spoke as he lived®®. Further, Matthew would, I am sure, have concurred with Maximus the Confessor: “The one who loves Christ thoroughly imitates him as much as he can” (Caritas 4,55). In sum, then, a pedagogical wisdom, which knaw that a good example is the best sermon, united with a Christocentrism to induce Matthew to set down, for his readers’ benefit, the story of Jesus. Friends University Department of Religion 2100 University Wichita, KS 67213 U.S.A. Dale C. Allison, Jr. 67. E. Thurneysen, The Sermon on the Mount, Richmond, John Knox, 1964. Thurneysen did not, however, stress Jesus’ role as moral exemplar. 68. This has also been clearly seen by B. Gerhardsson, The Hermeneutic Program in Matthew 22:37-40, in R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs (eds.), Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, 21), Leiden, Brill, 1976, pp. 145-149. Note also Davies, Setting (n. 7), pp. 95-96.