Abstract
The question of Matthew’s relationship to his sources is one that has occupied scholarship on the first gospel for well over a century. Frequently portrayed as ‘the most Jewish of the gospels’ Matthew’s use of what is seen as pro-Gentile Mark has struck many as being an enigma. It is to these perennial issues that Doole turns his attention in this monograph.
In his thesis statement, Doole articulates his desire to demonstrate ‘the proximity and loyalty of Matthew to Mark’ (p. 10), and ‘that “Mark’s Gospel was Matthew’s gospel’, and consequently that ‘Matthew thus succeeds Mark and confirms it as the central text in the growing Christian movement’ (p. 12). In chapter 2, dealing with Matthew’s sources, Doole makes the undefended statement that ‘Mark is without doubt Matthew’s principle source’ (p. 15). If by this he simply means his largest or most extensive source, then his statement is correct. However, perhaps in a more fundamental way the Q source should be viewed as Matthew’s principle source. There are reasons to believe that Matthew and his community had lived with, and absorbed the traditions in the sayings source over a longer period of time. If this were the case, then the Q document might be correctly regarded as Matthew’s principle source. Doole himself sees that Matthew rearranges the ordering of some Markan material under the influence of Q (p. 32), which perhaps suggests a complex relationship between the two major sources for the first evangelist. However, Doole’s purpose is to rebut suggestions that Q exerted a greater gravitational pull on Matthew than Mark.
To this end he first seeks to show the proximity of Matthew to Mark. For Doole, Q is incorporated into the Markan framework because ‘it provides a first-hand record of Jesus’ teaching’ (p. 79). Second, Matthew is seen as creating a new edition of Mark. Primarily this is seen as being exhibited through the retention of the majority of Markan traditions and the fact that his ‘rearrangement of Mark is minimal’ (p. 128). In the fifth chapter Matthew is portrayed as a conventional scribe. Matthew’s reliance and faithfulness to Mark are seen as indicative of the fact that he ‘remains within the Markan tradition as a conventional editor of this central Christian text’ (p. 174). In the end, answering the research question ‘what was Mark for Matthew?’, Doole views Mark as being seen by the first evangelist as ‘the only authoritative account worthy of study and one fast becoming a central religious text’ (p. 194).
While Doole is certainly correct that Mark was a work of central importance for Matthew, and a text that presented Matthew with a rich theological resource, the very process of integrating other source material into the Markan narrative perhaps is a more radical enterprise than this study suggests. Moreover, the basic supposition that Mark was Matthew’s principle source may only be true at one level. At a deeper level the Q material may have had a longer pedigree for Matthew and his community. If so, Matthew may be affirming the new perspectives of Mark, and yet not wishing to dispense with the old treasures of the repository of Jesus traditions that he and his community treasured. Doole presents an interesting proposal, but in the end it does not appear fully attuned to the complexities of Matthean compositional practices, and perhaps is driven too strongly by the desire to make Matthew a good Mark Christian.