Benadam74′s Blog

The Conclusion of Matthew by Hans Kosmala 6-7

May 16, 2009 at 1:49 am | Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

VI

The foregoing does not, of course, intend to be a “scientific” proof that the original Gospel of Matthew did not contain the Trinitarian baptism formula. Nobody can “prove” this at the present stage. We can only demonstrate that it is highly unlikely that it was originally there.

We will now turn to the Eusebian text, and will assume that it represents the original text. What happens to the conclusion of Matthew itself? As Eusebius’ four words replace the whole passage on baptism with the Trinitarian formula, the conclusion of the Gospel would have no reference to baptism whatever, like the ending of Luke, or of Mark excluding the additional verses 9-20. The omission of such a reference would be no particular loss to the Church as the Trinitarian baptism formula has been so well established in the tradition of the Church itself, at least since Nicea, that even Eusebius himself adopted it in the latter part of his life.

The older Eusebian version enables us to divide the conclusion of Matthew into four natural lines (which we cannot do with the traditional conclusion…

We see that the passage is now no longer a prose text like the traditional text, but a hymnic piece. The traditional conclusion is, even as a prose text, comparatively “heavy”; its syntax is awkward and as Otto MrcHEL has remarked we miss some logical order. The Eusebian conclusion has a definitely poetical and almost elegant form. It is a self-contained unit consisting of four lines. It is well-balanced in its structure and the lines follow one after the other in a logical sequence; this cannot be said of the traditional conclusion. The poem is not a Greek poem; that means we cannot scan the lines as we scan Greek poetry. It is Semitic in the structure of its contents. In its Greek garb it is most likely a translation from Hebrew; after all, it is meant to be a saying of Jesus. It would, however, be futile to translate it back into Hebrew, as we do not know whether the Greek translation is literal or whether it is merely a paraphrase. Nevertheless, the progressive structure of the whole and the interrelationship between the four lines is obvious. It is the same as in all well-constructed Hebrew poetry 11).

The following translation of the quatrain with which the Gospel (according to Eusebius) ends will show the structure of the poem a little more clearly:

A)  All power is given unto me in heaven and on earth.

B   1) Go and make all nations disciples in my name,

      2) Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

C) And behold, I am with you all the days till the consummation of the aeon.

Jesus has risen to universal power. This is stated in line A: he is in full authority. The line repeats the statement made in Mat.11, 27: “Everything has been delivered…to me by the Father”. This is followed, in verses 28-30, by the request to his disciples to accept him and his message which comes from the Father and to learn from him in becoming his disciples and followers…in order to find rest to their souls.

At the end of the Gospel his disciples are asked to transmit this message to the nations of the world. The commission is given in the two middle lines, B 1 and 2. It should be noted that the two lines belong together, but they are by no means identical as would appear from the translations which render the two different verbs…by one and the same verb (A.V. : “teach” Luther:”lehret”). The two clauses mean two different things. B 1 make them disciples in my name…that is, make them my disciples, disciples bearing my name with everything that is implied in it, namely, following the master and learning from his life (Mat. 11, 29). Line B 2 tells them that this end must be achieved by instructing them to observe, to carry out in their lives everything that Jesus had commanded them. Line C reassures the disciples: they need not be afraid to fulfill this task, for Jesus himself, ever present, will be with them until the end of the aeon. Whilst the two lines B are running parallel to each other (synthetic parallelism!), lines A and C, the first and the last of the poem, separated by the two middle lines, are also clearly related to each other, but in a different way. The statement in the last line is entirely dependent on the statement contained in the first line; both lines enclose the charge. The structure of the four-lined stanza is thus in perfect old Hebrew style (see the article mentioned in note 11). It is by no means surprising that the Gospel of Matthew should end with a poetic piece. The conclusion is evidently a very important, perhaps the most important concern of the Gospel, and it is quite natural that it should be given in a suitable poetic form. It could hardly have been done more impressively.

 

VII

Jesus, and Jesus alone, is in the centre of this conclusion which this should be kept in mind-does not stand by itself like an additional artistic ornament, but is the vital inference from the whole Gospel. It must, therefore, somehow bring out or stress once more what had been in the mind of the author or editor of the Gospel. Jesus is endowed with immense power; his name, in the words of an old and most likely pre-Pauline hymn, has been raised “above all names” “in heaven and on earth”(Phil.2, 9-11; Hebr.1, 4 also points this out emphatically).

The ousia and the ovoµa of Jesus which are beyond the &�ouaia and `ovoµa of any other being in the universe (except God himself who has given them to him) are the two characteristic words in Matthew’s conclusion. Looking back from here to the preceding narrative of Matthew we realize that the same two words, &�ouaia and ovoµa, are decisive for the whole presentation of Jesus in Matthew. And both are intimately linked up with each other, for the name alone of Jesus would not mean much if it were not for the power with which this name, that is Jesus himself, was endowed by God.

Jesus taught as one who had ousia, not like the scribes (Mat. 7, 29; cf. Mark 1, 22 and 27a; Luke 4, 32). The ousia which Jesus possessed had nothing to do with any worldly power, although he lived and acted in this world; it was the divine power…which dwelled in him (cf. also Col. 1, 19 and 2, 9). Luke, both in his Gospel (for instance 4, 36 and 24, 49) and with regard to the disciples in Acts        (1, 8; 3, 12f; 4, 7 etc.) stresses this fact very clearly. Matthew and Mark (cf. also 5, 30) are likewise cognizant of it, but in both of these two gospels it shows itself more in the 8uv&. ne which Jesus did on earth 12), whilst the full investment with God’s 86vaµis is reserved for the time when the Kingdom comes (Mt. 24, 30 and parallels ; Mark 9, 1). John does not use the word Suva u. at all; he speaks only of the E`ouaia. of Jesus, but he implies that it is of divine origin.

As Jesus had the power to heal the sick he also had authority to forgive sins on earth (9, 6; also Mark 2, 10; Luke 5, 24). That power, the people confessed, could only be given to him by God (Mt. 9, 8). While the people realized at once whence this power came to him, the chief priests and the elders pretended not to know. When they asked him about it, he gave them no answer (Mt. 21, 23-29; Mk. 11, 27-33; Lk. 20, 1-8).

Because Jesus possessed the power to drive out evil spirits (cf. Mt. 12, 24; Lk. 4, 36) and heal the sick he could transfer it also to his disciples (Mt. 10, 1; cf. Mk. 3, 15; 6, 7; Lk.9, 1; cf. further the transference of other powers in Lk. 10, 19; Mk. 16, 18) ; and they did signs in the name of Jesus (Mk. 16, 17f.; cf. Mt.7, 22). Later the disciples were asked by the Jewish leaders in what power…and in what name they did this and they answered, “in the name of Jesus Christ”, “in him” they worked this deed (Acts 4, 7.10).