Andrew McDonald: The Location of Matthews Community.

Assignment One: Research Essay, 1500 words. (8th April)

There are a variety of opinions in relation to the location of the Gospel of

Matthew. Choose One scholar who has a clearly articulated position in relation to
location. Present that scholars arguments for this location and your analysis into
dialogue with 2 or three other scholars who argue for a different position.

The geographic location and social context for the writing of Matthews Gospel
has been the subject of scholarly contention for a considerable period. Although a
wide array of locations have been proposed, many Matthean scholars are attracted to
the proximity of Syrian Antioch as a prudent option.1 This essay will explore the
scholarly perspective of David C. Sim who supports Streeters popular hypothesis for
the Syrian locality of Antioch.2 The strength of Sims approach lies in his vigorous
examination and repudiation of alternative localities. However, I will argue with
reference to cases put forward by J. Andrew Overman and particularly L. Michael
White that Sims repudiation of a Palestinian location is not robust enough. While
resistant to attempts to determine a precise location I am aware that any serious
social historical study of Matthews community is impossible without consideration of
its geographical context. I will begin by assessing Sims critique of other perspectives
before bringing his chosen context of Antioch into debate with Overmans and Whites
preference for Galilee.

Sims methodology carefully examines and rejects various alternative theories

locating Matthews community of authorship with reference to first century Eastern
Mediterranean social history, the Matthean text and other contemporaneous writings.
The strength of this approach is the process of elimination by which Sim narrows down
the geographic possibilities. Having determined an approximate date for the Gospels
composition by drawing attention to the important relationship between Matthews

1
Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, Second ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988). 148
Warren Carter, "Matthew's People," in Christian Origins, ed. Richard A. Horsley (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2005). 138
Andrew McDonald: The Location of Matthews Community. 2

gospel and Ignatius of Antioch (died c.107), Sim turns to his main analytical task.3
Sims approximate date of between 70-100 CE is of considerable importance because
two historical considerations under gird the supposed context of Matthews writing;
the destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE) and the rise of formative Judaism.4 On these
points at least Sim shares common ground those scholars he seeks to refute. The point
of contention rests with what geographic location best explains Matthews response to
these events and social tensions.

Sims academic survey is an instructive review of how various scholars have

attempted to place the Matthean community. It also highlights some weaknesses in
Sims methodological approach. Having dismissed Overmans Palestinian thesis within
two paragraphs, Sim turns to a more thorough evaluation of Slingerlands
Tranjordanian location, Vivianos case for Caesarea Maritima, Kilpatricks for either
Tyre or Sidon and Brandons fanciful theory for Alexandria.5 Given the weakness of the
latter four theories I will avoid ploughing back over Sims field of engagement.
Nevertheless, Sims engagement with Slingerlands theory proves instructive for this
essay; Slingerland argued that Matthews eastern perspective from the Jordan is
demonstrated by supposed redaction within Matt. 4:15.6 Given Matthews at times
strained dependence upon the Septuagint (for example Matt 21:5), it is difficult to
appreciate Slingerlands emphasis on redaction, let alone believe Matthew was
dropping coded hints for twentieth century biblical scholars.7 It is even more difficult
to understand why Sim dedicates three pages to rebutting Slingerlands dubious
redaction theory while dismissing Overmans theory so briefly.

2
David C. Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting
of the Matthean Community (London: T&T Clark, 1998). 54-5
3
Ibid. 31-33
4
Sim suggests a more definite dating of 85-95 CE while maintaining that his central thesis does
not rely on this more precise attempt to date Matthews composition. Ibid. 40
5
Ibid. 41-45, 45-48, 48-49, 49-51
6
Ibid. 42
7
We might just as well argue, given Slingerlands scholarly precedent, that by redacting Zech.
9:9 to illustrate Jesus astride two donkeys in Matt. 21:5, Matthew was expressing his love for
the circus.
Andrew McDonald: The Location of Matthews Community. 3

Before closely examining Sims dismissal of Overmans theory it will be helpful

to outline the positive dimensions of Sims thesis; his general endorsement of
Streeters argument for Antioch as the location of Matthews community. Sims
assessment of Streeter is genuinely even-handed. Sim supports Streeters dismissal of
Palestinian authorship in favour of a general eastern region on the grounds that
Irenaeus evidence for Palestine was based on Papias dubious testimony. 8 How the
unreliability of one ancient writer could place a permanent moratorium over Palestine
is difficult to appreciate; certainly Overman and White do not require patristic
evidence to support their arguments. While questioning Streeters argument that the
anonymity of Matthews gospel evidences a well-known and respected church, Sim
nevertheless concedes that the Gospels apostolic authority must have been backed by
a large church.9 Assuming that locations in Jerusalem and Caesarea have been
resoundingly discredited, Sims affirms Antioch as the logical location for such a large
church.10 While admitting the inconclusive nature of the evidence, Sims sees
Matthews apparent Petrine tradition and the New Testaments portrayal of Antioch as
a Petrine church (Gal. 2:11-14) as lending considerable weight to his Antiochene
thesis.11 Streeters argument, based on citations by Ignatius and the Didache, that
Matthew was considered the only authoritative Gospel in Antioch at the time of
Ignatius are dismissed by Sim on the grounds that Ignatius was Pauline and no
follower of Matthew.12

Sims conclusions in favour of Antioch are not entirey dependent on Streeters

popular scholarly precedent. In his final analysis Sim relies on the strength of two
positive arguments; that the church of Antioch stood in a Petrine rather than Pauline
tradition, and that it had a large Greek speaking, Jewish population. 13 Having
eliminated all other contenders, his major reason for excluding Palestine as a plausible
location concerns the social instability caused there by the Jewish War of 67-70 CE and

8
Sim, Matthew and Christian Judaism. 55
9
Ibid. 53
10
Ibid. 55
11
Ibid. 53-54, 56
12
Ibid. 54, 56-57
13
Ibid. 61
Andrew McDonald: The Location of Matthews Community. 4

consequent capitulation to Roman rule. 14 Given that these are major points supporting
Sims subsequent study of the Matthean church in Antioch it seems appropriate to
bring them into discussion with Overman and White.

Overman and White share a similar Galilean hypothesis and their arguments run
parallel in many pla ces. Neither are they in disagreement with Sims requirement of a
Petrine tradition15 or a large Greek speaking, Jewish population.16 Unlike Sim,
Overman and White devote considerable attention to the consequences of the Jewish
War as evidence for a Galilean social setting. The main points of Overmans conclusion
emphasise the sectarian tensions within Palestinian Judaism following 70 CE and the
inherently Jewish nature of Matthew as one of those voices struggling for an
authoritative claim to formative Judaism.17 Given the requirement of a large
population, Overman settles for either Tiberias or Sepphoris as likely locations, 18 while
White is less interested in pinpointing specific locations.19 Although White is content
with a general geographic location, his study constitutes a thorough examination of a
specific post-war, mixed Hellenistic-Jewish social context with special attention
devoted to Matthews sectarian nature within formative Judaism. With this study in
hand we turn to what is perhaps Sims weakest point; his dismissal of Overmans
Palestinian location.

Sims rejection of Overmans theory rests on several perceived difficulties. The

first is his belief that the invading Roman armies had wrought havocthroughout

14
Ibid. 41, 61
15
Overman draws special attention to the characterization of Peters authority in Matthew,
Peter is a divinely inspired and guided leader given authority and insight from God.
J. Andrew Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the
Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress Press, 1990). 153
16
L. Michael White, "Crisis Management and Boundary Maintenance: The Social Location of the
Matthean Community," in Social History of the Matthean Community, ed. David L. Ba lch
(Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress Press, 1991). 229
17
J. Andrew Overman, Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel According to Matthew
(Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996). 18, Formative Judaism, 158
18
Overman, Formative Judaism, 159.
19
White, "Crisis Management and Boundary Maintenance." 242
Andrew McDonald: The Location of Matthews Community. 5

Palestine creating an environment unfavourable to such a writing project. Secondly,

Sim does not detect within Matthews Gospel enough references to the Jewish war to
suggest a close proximity to the events of 67-70 CE. Finally Sim argues that a Gospel
produced for a Palestinian audience would have been written in Aramaic not Greek.20
This last suggestion does not provide a decisive argument. According to White,
archaeological evidence portrays a Galilee of significant cultural variety. While
Aramaic may have dominated rural areas, urban populations were often comfortably
bilingual and Greek was the lingua franca.21 Given the probable urban setting of
Matthews community it is unlikely that Galilean authorship necessitated Aramaic.22
Furthermore, Whites, and indeed Sims, regard to the vital exchange between the
Syrian north and Galilee precludes any such linguistic limitations.23

Sims more serious contentions are those relating to the Jewish War. Instead of
being detrimental, Overman and White represent Matthew writing out of the shared
crisis experienced by Palestinian Judaism in the wake of the failed revolt. Whites
study counters Sims arguments in a number of ways. Firstly, White explains how the
shifting social alignments of the post-war environment forced Jewish sectarian
groups to practice boundary maintenance.24 In this way the survival of group identity
is defined over against others, either other competing Jewish groups or Gentile
outsiders. Examining Matt 18:15-20 to show that boundary maintenance in
Matthews Gospel reveals a sectarian Jewish worldview, White argues that the absence
of this Jewish matrix within Antiochen Christianity by the time of Ignatius works
against a Syrian location in favour of a Galilean one. 25 If the second part of this

20
Sim, Matthew and Christian Judaism. 41
21
White, "Crisis Management and Boundary Maintenance." 229. Also Overman, Church and
Community in Crisis . 19
22
Overmans suggestion of Sepphoris is reasonable despite Sims linguistic argument if we
consider Whites description of the city as loyal to Rome and the capital of the region.
White, "Crisis Management and Boundary Maintenance." 230
23
Ibid. 231. Sim, Matthew and Christian Judaism. 61
24
White, "Crisis Management and Boundary Maintenance." 221
25
Ibid. 225
Andrew McDonald: The Location of Matthews Community. 6

argument is weak,26 the situating of Matthews community within the context of

sectarian upheaval is a significant strength to both Overmans and Whites thesis.27 In
fact Sims acknowledgement of this sectarian conflict in Palestine prompts him to
demonstrate how similar conflicts could have occurred in Antioch.28

Sims final difficulties with Galilee are based on the impossibility of producing
a Gospel document in the midst of military upheaval and Matthews apparent
disinterest in the War. In answer to the first of these is Whites chronology of the
Roman re-conquest showing that the Galilee was pacified by late 67 CE and evidence
that Sepphoris remained loyal to Rome throughout the war. 29 Given these facts it is
easy to imagine the region around Sepphoris permeated by social but not necessarily
economic or military upheaval. Sims final criticism needs to be considered alongside
the fact that in writing his Gospel for contemporaries, Matthew needed to remain
congruent with the theme and history of his subject, something he would have failed
by referring too explicitly to the war. Furthermore, Sim is inconsistent on this point;
while refuting Slingerlands belief that Matthew was uninterested in the Jewish War,
he criticises Overmans theory on the grounds that Matthew was not interested
enough!30

The exhaustive nature of Whites research gives cause to doubt Sims dismissal
of Overmans thesis for a Matthean community in Sepphoris. Given the insights of all
three scholars one could tentatively imagine the following scenario. The aftermath of
the Jewish War precipitated a period of social upheaval and boundary maintenance
within Judaism; in particular those parties that were not immediately dependent on
the Temple in Jerusalem. Matthews community should be understood within this
context as a Greek speaking Jewish sect responding to Pharisaic ascendancy within

26
Indeed Sims argues elsewhere that a conservative Jewish Matthean community is
historically sensible between the early law-free church of Antioch and the later Pauline church
of Ignatius. Sim, Matthew and Christian Judaism. 60
27
Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism. 151, 160
28
Sim, Matthew and Christian Judaism. 61
29
White, "Crisis Management and Boundary Maintenance." 230, 236. Thus Sepphoris matches
Sims own criteria for a suitable city. See Sim, Matthew and Christian Judaism. 59
30
Sim, Matthew and Christian Judaism. 41, 45
Andrew McDonald: The Location of Matthews Community. 7

formative Judaism. The relative stability of Sepphoris during this period lends
significant credibility to Overmans theory as the Gospels place of authorship. In
deference to Sim s research we should imagine a lively, formative exchange between
Matthean Judaism and the Pauline Church in Antioch. However within this framework
the relationship between the Church in Antioch and Matthean Christianity is
considerably more fluid than Sims thesis.
Andrew McDonald: The Location of Matthews Community. 8

Bibliography

Carter, Warren. "Matthew's People." In Christian Origins, edited by Richard A. Horsley.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Matthew as Story. Second ed. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1988.

Overman, J. Andrew. Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel According to

Matthew. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1996.

. Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean
Community. Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress Press, 1990.

Sim, David C. The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social
Setting of the Matthean Community. London: T&T Clark, 1998.

White, L. Michael. "Crisis Management and Boundary Maintenance: The Social Location
of the Matthean Community." In Social History of the Matthean Community,
edited by David L. Balch. Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress Press, 1991.