In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

196 Paul and the Gospels should nevertheless be noted since it may provide independent proof of the foregoing conclusion.J. Louis Martyn38 has presented a convinc­ ing case for the view that the idea of an official excommunication of Christians from the synagogue isan important concept underlying the Gospel of John. His main argument is based on the pericope concern­ ing the blind man, John 9:1­40: "His parents said this because they feared the Jews, for theJews had already agreed that if any one should confess him to be Christ, he wasto be put out of the synagogue." (9.22) On the basis of this verse, Martyn concludes that there must have been "a formal agreement or decision reached by some authoritative Jewish group ... at some time prior toJohn's writing"39 with respect to "Jews who confessJesus as the expected Messiah."40 SuchJews were to be excommunicated from the synagogue. While a convincingcase can be made with respect toJohn, Luke 6:22 appears to be the sole passage in the synoptics that reflects such an idea: "Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!" Matt. 5:11, the passage parallel to Luke 6:22, states: "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account." A comparison of these verses shows that while Luke could possibly be alluding to the practice of excommunicating Christians from the synagogue, Matthew isdefinitely referring to a more general type of persecution of Christians. In other words, Matt. 5:11could very well have been redacted to fit a situation which presupposes a split between church and synagogue. Christians have left the synagogue. Exclusion is not a problem. Persecution, on the other hand, is a con­ cern.41 On the basis of the foregoing evidence, any simple theory that Matthew's church is closely associated in a positive manner with or­ ganized Judaism must therefore be questioned. For example, Bornkamm's view of the close union between Matthew's church and Judaism must be re­examined. Does the pericope concerning the Temple tax in Matt. 17:24­27 really show "that the congregation which Matthew represents is still attached to Judaism"?42 In the light of the Matthean polemic against the synagogue and the high regard for the disciplinary measures of the church, the state­ 38 J.L. Matryn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New York: Harper and Row, 1968). 39 Ibid., 18. 40 Ibid., 19. 41 For a comprehensive study of the theme of persecution see D.R.A. Hare, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967). 42 G. Bornkamm, "End­Expectation and Church in Matthew," in G. Bornkamm, G. Earth, and H.J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (London: SCM, 1963), 20. The Setting of Matthean Anti­Judaism 197 ment that the Mattheanchurch is"a congregation whichstill recognizes the general Jewish ruling authority and has still not developed any administration of justice of its own"43 cannot be substantiated. Does the following general conclusion by Bornkamm account for all the facts? "Matthew'sGospel confirms throughout that the congre­ gation which he represented had not yet separated from Judaism . . . . The struggle with Israel isstill a struggle within its own walls."44 Such a simple solution stressing a positive union between Matthew's church and organized Judaism does not take account of all the facts. The church­synagogue polemic in the Gospel of Matthew indicatesthat the struggle had broken the bonds of organized Judaism. It is apparent, however, that while the Matthean church (ekklesia) is an institution distinct from the synagogue, it is not totally removed from the synagogue in a physicalsense. The foregoing analysispoints to the conclusion that Matthew represents a predominantly, though not necessarily an exclusively, Jewish Christian church that exists in a Jewish environment. Matthean anti­Judaism is not a theoretical exer­ cise but a practical day­to­dayconcern. As Stendahl has so aptly put it, the scribes and Pharisees "... are the representatives of thesynagogue 'across the street' from Matthew'scommunity."45 Indeed, in order to make the gospel tradition relevant to his own situation, Matthew mod­ ifies the roles of specific groups in this tradition. In comparison to the Pharisees and scribes, the Sadducees play a relatively minor role in the...

Share