THIRD PART: THE MANIFESTATION OF CHRIST IN GALILEE
(Mt 4:12-8:1)
Preamble (Mt 4:12–25).
This small section includes Jesus’ settling at Capernaum (Mt 4:12–16); the calling of the first four disciples (Mt 4:17–22); and a brief overall glance at Jesus’ preaching and miracles (Mt 4:23–25). This first broad tableau is dominated by the prophecy of Isaiah (Mt 8;23; 9:1).
Mt 4:12. Having learned that John had been handed over, he withdrew into Galilee.
Mt 4:13. And leaving Nazareth, he came and took up residence at Capernaum on the shore of the sea…
Matthew, like Mark, leaves a certain interval between the baptism (followed by the temptation) and the beginning of the ministry in Galilee. In the catechesis directed by Peter, the movement had begun in Galilee after the baptism (Acts 1o:37; cf. Acts 1:22). It was there that the Apostles were called. The agreement of Mark and Matthew on this point therefore depends on the primitive structure of the teaching. But their care in dating the return to Galilee from the imprisonment of John leaves a free span of time which the Fourth Gospel will expand (John 1:19–2:1).
Matthew shares with Mark only the return to Galilee after John had been put in prison, expressed in Matthew’s own terms (Mt 14:3), not in those of Mark. Yet whereas Mark’s perspective shows only the Savior arriving at the shore of the lake as though he had followed the Jordan, Matthew supposes that he returned to Nazareth and then settled at Capernaum, which will be, as it were, the center of his preaching. Since here Matthew cannot be made dependent on Mark, critics do not fail to say that this mention of Capernaum is a Matthean invention intended to justify a prophecy—as if Isaiah had named Capernaum! But since one sees Jesus so often at Capernaum afterward, why would he not have lived there? What was essential for the justification of the prophecy was preaching on the shore of the lake, which was traditional, not a change of residence. Moreover, this change is presupposed by Mark, since Jesus’ visit to Nazareth will be an event. It must therefore be held to be perfectly historical (John ii, 12), whatever Schmidt may still say (cf. Der Rahmen…, p. 35 ff.).
According to Marcion, Christ manifested himself for the first time at Capernaum: τότε πρῶτον, he says, ἐπὶ Τιβερίου Καίσαρος ἐφάνη ἐν Καπερναούμ (“then for the first time, under Tiberius Caesar, he appeared in Capernaum”; Epiphanius, Panarion, xlii, 19).
Mt 4:12–16. Jesus comes to settle at Capernaum (cf. Mark 1:14–15; Luke 4:14–31; John 2).
The participle (ἀκούσας, “having heard”) is causal, indicating the reason for the action, whereas Mark merely indicates the sequence of events. The verb ἀνεχώρησεν (“he withdrew”) has, as in Mt 3:12, 14.22; Mt 12:15, the sense of withdrawing in order to seek elsewhere a more favorable place. From this it has been concluded that Matthew cares little for history and did not consider that Antipas, the same man who Mt had arrested the Baptist, also ruled Galilee. Yet according to Josephus (Ant. XVIII, v, 2), Antipas feared a revolutionary movement (νεωτερισμόν), whose theater would have been the banks of the Jordan, especially on the eastern side; Jesus did not wish to be involved in this. Once John’s disciples were dispersed, no one cared to pursue them where they had withdrawn. This was neither renouncing preaching nor evading its risks, but resuming it on the ground foretold by the prophets and in the manner suited to his mission. As for “handed over” (παρεδόθη), see the commentary on Mark; this is the moment indicated in Matthew 14:3.
Mt 4:13. καταλιπών (“having left”), after arriving in Galilee and in the aorist, clearly indicates that Jesus, having first returned to Nazareth, then left it. One should read Ναζαρέτ (Nazareth), not Ναζαρά, for Matthew cannot have altered his spelling so completely (cf. Mt 2:23).
Capernaum—the “village of Nahum” (כְּפַר־נַחוּם)—is not named in the Old Testament. In Josephus (Bell. Jud. III, x, 8) it is the name of a spring, but in the Vita (12) it is the name of a village. By insisting excessively on the spring, when the name is first of all that of a village, some have identified Capernaum with Khan Minyeh. There can be no doubt that Tell Ḥûm preserves part of the name on its ancient site. The beautiful synagogue discovered there dates only from the fourth century, but it must have replaced an earlier one, and the ruins are fairly extensive. This settling of Jesus at Capernaum is in perfect agreement with Jesus’ words in Mt 11:23 and Mt 9:1, as well as with John 2:12. Matthew did not borrow it from Mark, who speaks only of Jesus’ entries into that place (Mt 1:21; Mt 2:1; Mt 9:33). The city is said to be “by the sea,” which is stated because of the prophecy, but is strictly true, since boats land at its ruins—naturally, by calling the lake a sea, according to Hebrew usage. The small city lay rather in the territory of Naphtali (Josh. 19:32 ff.), and Zebulun is mentioned because of the biblical citation that follows. Matthew’s intention, however, was less to situate it in itself than to present it as the center of the Savior’s activity. At that time, moreover, territorial boundaries were poorly defined.
Mt 4:14 ff. ἵνα πληρωθῇ (“so that it might be fulfilled”), as in i, 22. The citation is taken from Isaiah 8:23-9:1
“In former times he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali; but in the future he will cover with glory the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, the district of the nations. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; upon those who dwell in the land of the shadow of death, a light has shone.” (Translation following Condamin.)
In Isaiah, the “way of the sea” could be the road that leads to the Mediterranean, and chapter ix, according to its very rhythm, begins a more general section. But the whole passage belongs to the Book of Emmanuel, messianic par excellence, to which Matthew had already drawn attention (Mt 1:22 ff.). One may only say that the Evangelist emphasized the region of Galilee, the shores of the sea, in the territories of Zebulun and Naphtali, so that what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:
Mt 4:15. “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles!
Mt 4:16. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, and upon those who sat in the region and shadow of death, a light has dawned.”
Matthew closely links verse 16 to verse 15. For him, the “way of the sea” is undoubtedly the road that runs along the western shore of the lake, especially from Tiberias, and which connected Galilee with the upper Jordan and Perea. The text is certainly based on the Hebrew, though somewhat freely rendered, without apparent influence of the Septuagint; although points of contact may be found with certain manuscripts (A Q), it is very likely that these were altered under the influence of Matthew. In itself it would be possible that Matthew drew from a collection of testimonia about the Messiah translated from Hebrew (cf. Testimonies by Rendel Harris; RB, 1921, p. 612 ff.). But what evidence do we have for the existence of such a collection prior to the Gospel that pursued these connections? Is it not rather Matthew who gave rise to the idea? Like Aquila and Theodotion, Matthew has placed ὁδόν with the accusative (cf. 1 Sam 8:48), which is very natural to express “along the sea,” the sense Matthew had in mind, rather than “road toward the sea,” which would require πρός. The Hebrew צַלְמָוֶת (ṣalmāwet, “deep shadow”) was understood by the ancients (LXX, Vulgate) as a compound noun, “shadow of death,” which required here the addition of a καί (“and”) after σκιά. Isaiah’s expression gālîl ha-gôyîm, “district of nations,” that is, inhabited by foreigners (cf. ἀλλοφύλων, 1 Macc. 5:15), became a proper name, of which only the first part survived in the form Γαλιλαία.
17. THE THEME OF JESUS’ PREACHING (cf. Mark 1:14–15).
It is not proven that Mark wrote after Matthew, but it would be against all principles to say that Matthew depends on Mark in a formula that is exactly that of the Baptist’s preaching. It is a way of marking the connection between the two ministries. The reader of Matthew readily understands that on Jesus’ lips the preaching is more urgent and the event already inaugurated, since Jesus begins the work of salvation. It is this succession of two orders that is highlighted by the ἀπὸ τότε (“from that time on”), which does not exclude all prior action by Jesus. Henceforth his ministry, placed in the light of prophecy, will have its full brilliance.
Mt 4:18–22. The calling of the first four disciples (Mark 1:16–20).
It is not impossible to explain the resemblance between Mark and Matthew by a common dependence on catechesis. However, if one considers the aspect of refinement presented by Matthew’s text and the different course taken by Luke, one is inclined to recognize a literary dependence of Matthew upon Mark. Moreover, this calling of the disciples is immediately used by Mark in connection with the healing of Simon’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:29–31), with the names of the new disciples, whereas this new episode occurs much later in Matthew, without the participation of the disciples (Mt 8:14–15). Finally, one could have had a very natural sequence without the calling, by joining Matthew 4:23 immediately after Mt 4:17. It therefore seems probable that Mark did not contain the calling, at least in that place, and that it was inserted and composed there by Matthew on the basis of Mark. For the substance, see the commentary on Mark.
Mt 4:18. In Mark, περιπατῶν (“walking”) because Jesus is on the move; in Matthew, Jesus, already established by the lake, strolls there, but with the intention of exercising his mission. In both cases (also v. 21), Matthew takes care to say that they were two brothers; it was therefore unnecessary to add τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ (“his brother”), but this was probably a habitual expression (Mt 10:2, for Andrew and John 17:1 for John), or else it is taken from Mark while avoiding repetition of Σίμωνος. Simon is immediately identified as Peter, as he will be again (Mt 10:2). Matthew never says simply “Simon” in a narrative, unlike Mark and Luke. The very rare ἀμφιβάλλοντας of Mark is explained, while retaining σάγην and ἰχθύας as parts of a compound word, ἀμφίβληστρον (“casting net”). One should read ἁλιεῖς (“fishermen”), since ἁλιεῖ is supported only by B C.
Mt 4:19. λέγει (historical present) instead of εἶπεν; Ἰησοῦς omitted as unnecessary. The infinitive can be placed after ποιήσω (cf. Luke v, 31), but γενέσθαι might have seemed a tautology.
Mt 4:20. οἱ δέ (“and they”) is more Greek than καί (Mark). “Immediately” (εὐθέως) belongs rather to Mark’s style than to Matthew’s. Matthew, however, uses εὐθύς or τότε, whereas Mark always has εὐθύς.
Mt 4:21. προελθών (“going on farther”) is characteristic of Matthew’s style; moreover ἔλεγον (Mark) is rather rare for Luke (Luke v, 3). Since Zebedee was in the boat, Matthew preferred to state it explicitly:
18 “And walking along the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.
19 And he said to them: ‘Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.’
20 Immediately, leaving the nets, they followed him.
21 And going on farther, he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them.
22 Immediately, leaving the boat and their father, they followed him.”
Matthew too places everyone in the boat from the outset, which had to be said, since fishermen could just as well mend their nets on shore. But he omits the comparison with the preceding scene, ὁμοίως (“likewise”).
Mt 4:22. What differences there are between two texts that appear so similar!
Matthew places εὐθύς (“immediately”) before ἀφέντες (“leaving”), so that the adverb, difficult to explain in Mark, applies to the prompt obedience of the two brothers, as in Mt 4:20. They abandon the boat and their father, as though these were two distinct sacrifices, whereas according to Mark they leave their father in the boat with the hired men and depart. Manifestly Mark gives the more vivid impression, one that could not have arisen from Matthew by purely literary means, since Mark’s style is at once more picturesque and less polished. On the contrary, Matthew may here, like Luke, be someone who regularizes at the expense of color. Nevertheless, one must reserve the possibility that this schematic style represents a primitive form, just as Mark’s does, conceived by a different mind.
Mt 4:23–25. The activity of Jesus; the emotion of the crowds
(cf. Matthew 9:35; Mark 1:39; 3:7–8; Luke 4:44; Lk13, 17, 19).
One often affirms Matthew’s dependence on Mark, but at most one can point to analogous expressions, distributed differently in Mark, whereas Luke truly follows Mark’s order and presents a much closer text. As plausible as Luke’s dependence is, so little perceptible is that of Matthew. On the other hand, Matthew and Luke share the same general setting, in that in Luke 6:7–19 the gathering of the crowds precedes a programmatic discourse (which does not exist in Mark). The author’s intention was, while recalling that Jesus’ primary aim was to teach—thus linking Mt 4:23 back to Mt 4:17—to sketch a tableau of his miracles that would explain the eagerness of the crowd and, by revealing his supernatural character, confer on him the authority of a lawgiver for the future. Since Mt 4:23 is repeated almost verbatim in Mt 9:Mt 4:35, Matthew seems to open here a section that will extend through ix, 34 inclusive: the personal ministry of Jesus prior to the mission of the apostles. It is therefore something like a prologue, which may have been added by the Greek translator on the basis of vague reminiscences. The text is difficult to translate into Syriac; hence the omissions in the Syriac Sinaitic.
Mt 4:23. A vague resemblance to Mark 1:39, and to Mark 6:6, where one finds περιῆγεν (but with a complement), joined to τὰς κώμας—here (but not in Mt 9:35) it is more probably intransitive, because the place is a large area and is named: it is all Galilee, perhaps to indicate both Upper and Lower Galilee (cf. Mt 4:15). One must distinguish teaching in the synagogues, that is, commentary on the word of God, from the proclamation of the good news, although this proclamation could also take place in the synagogues (Luke 4:17; cf. Mark 6:1; Matthew 23:54).
The term εὐαγγέλιον (“good news”) appears in the singular in a second-century papyrus concerning the advent of a Caesar (Deissmann, Licht, p. 267); the “news” presupposes that the fact is already established or at least very imminent. Here it is the Kingdom (βασιλεία instead of τοῦ Θεοῦ in Mark i, 14), already announced in Matthew 4:17. The expression “of the Kingdom” is characteristic of Matthew (Mt 35; Mt 24:14).
The word μαλακία, which originally meant “softness” or “weakness,” acquired in Hellenistic Greek the sense of “illness,” since the Septuagint uses it to translate חֹלִי (ḥōlî, “sickness”). It occurs only in Matthew and always with πᾶσαν (“every kind of”), probably to associate general debility with more clearly defined diseases. The same pairing appears in 2 Chronicles 21:15. In the passage on which Matthew is thought to depend, Mark (i, 39) speaks only of exorcisms; Matthew would have replaced these with healings. In any case, healings were better suited to attract the crowds.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment