Matthew as interpreter of miracle stories

A summary by L. L'Éplattenier on a study by J.H. Held (Matthäus als Interpret des Wundergeschichten, in Uebelieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium. Neukirchen: 1963, pp. 155-287) published in Foi & Vie, May, 3(1970)91-110.


 

The reader will find below a summarized translation of a study by J.-H. Held: Matthäus als Interpret der Wundergeschichten[1]. This summary has been conceived above all as a working tool, which is why we have retained at greater length the sections that compare the texts to identify Matthean originalities (I, II), contenting ourselves with briefly reporting those that draw conclusions (III, IV, V). It can only be profitably with a synoptic tool in hand.

J.-H. Held analyzes the miracle narratives to show that, in reproducing them, Matthew acts as an interpreter aware of the goal he is pursuing.

  1. Matthew's retelling of the miracle stories.

    J.-H. Held begins by noting the way in which Matthew rewrites Mark: on the one hand, an amplification of the discourses, and on the other, a reduction of the narratives.

    This second point is particularly striking in the miracle stories.

    In a first part (A), a study of the texts will show that the reduction is not due to a lack of interest or carelessness on Matthew's part, but is on the contrary a means of concentrating on the essentials, as Greeven has already noted in connection with the healing of the paralytic (Mt 9:3-4). The stories become simple pencil sketches, not richly colored paintings.

    The reduction of the narratives brings out theological themes to a greater extent than in Mark. Three themes will be examined: Christology, faith and the community of disciples.

    In part B will be studied four of Matthew's adjunctions (8:11-12, 19-22; 14:28-31; 15:22-24), adjunctions that are also means of interpretation.

    Finally, why does Matthew abandon two miracles (Mark 7:31-37 and 8:22-26)? This will be part C.

    1. Narrative reduction as a means of interpretation.

      1. The theme of Christology.

        In 8:2-4, the form of which will be studied in detail later, Matthew emphasizes the majesty of Jesus.

        In the account of the healing of Peter's mother-in-law,in 8:14-15, he broadly follows Mark, but shortens certain narrative details: Mark 1:30b ("and immediately they spoke to him about her") is missing, Mark 1:31a ("And coming near, he made her stand up, taking her by the hand") is summarized in Mt 8:15a (And he touched her hand").

        It's no coincidence that Matthew deletes the request, for in this way Jesus takes the initiative in healing. This is the only time we can note this fact in Matthew, since, in the synoptic tradition, Jesus heals when asked to do so (another exception: Luke 7:11-17). The disciples are not mentioned, the "people" of Mark and Luke no longer appear; all interest is focused on Jesus, who appears to be alone in the house with the sick woman. The event takes place between the mother-in-law and Jesus alone: "she served him" has replaced "she served them" in Mark and Luke.

        On the other hand, from a purely grammatical point of view, Matthew cancels the change of subject which, in Mark and Luke, makes the scene more lively. Jesus (v. 14) is the sole subject of the entire narrative.

        Finally, the place of this story in the passage from vv. 2 to 17 also has a Christological purpose: Matthew reports three miracle stories here, which he concludes with a summary (vv. 16-17): Jesus fulfills the prophecies by delivering us from our illnesses. This idea already existed in Mark, but Matthew expresses it clearly and emphasizes it.

        The conclusion of Mark 1:32-34 is much more narrative: "in the evening" of a day in Capernaum. Matthew does away with chronological and topographical details: verses 16-17a serve both as an introduction to the quotation from Isaiah and as a final summary of the three previous healings. The "saying" of v. 16 alludes to that of v. 8. This is the theme of Jesus' power through his word alone.

        "All" the sick, Matthean insistence on this little word: Jesus does not perform particular actions in a certain place at a certain time, but has a general healing effect.

        Luke, on the other hand, gives a few details that emphasize Jesus' miraculous action: Jesus is "asked" to intervene (4:38, instead of Mark's "spoken to"), the woman has a "high" fever, Jesus "threatens", like an exorcist.

        Mt 8: 28-34 : the demon-possessed men, a typical example of reduction.

        The end of the pericope (Mk 5:18-20: "As he was getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed by demons begged him...") is completely missing. The healing is not mentioned, even though it is duly noted in Mark 5:15: the people see the the demon-possessed man. But in Mt 8:34, "the seer" refers to Jesus, since there are two demon-possessed men who come to him.

        The folkloric details are removed, but Matthew retains the basic structure of the miracle story: exposition, v. 28; technique of expulsion, v. 31-32a; reality of the miracle, v. 32b; repercussions, v. 33-34. Matthew retains the essential, but removes the accessory. The Christological interpretation can be seen in the cry of the two demon-possessed men in v. 29 ("What do you want from us, you son of God"). The expression Mark puts into the mouths of the demons at this point: "I adjure you by God" (5:7) is a defensive exorcism, a "counter-sorcery". Luke 8:28 transforms it into a simple request: "I beg you". It's only in v. 31 and 32 that Matthew mentions a request followed by an answer.

        V. 28 is more of a threatening defensive reaction, reminiscent of Mk 1:24 and 5:7 ("come" , "torment" ). But in taking up these two verses, Matthew skips the exorcising formulas ("I know who you are", "I adjure you by God"), formulas found in some magic papyri ("I adjure you" is the formula for waking up a corpse). Matthew retains only the formula: "Have you come? , underlining Jesus' mission. Demons don't try counter-exorcism, but make a Christological statement: Jesus came to judge the demons before the time of the definitive divine lordship. The whole narrative of the expulsion serves to demonstrate the truth of this Christological statement: the focus is not on the cure or the cured, but on the annihilation of the demons, which Matthew confirms by saying that they perished in the waters, v. 32.

        This Christological interest is also present in Mark 5:4-6, but not as strongly emphasized as in Matthew.

        Luke, for his part, follows Mark, but expands on the event, sometimes in an edifying way.

        Mt 9: 2-8 : the paralytic.

        Why does Matthew omit the details of the friends' faith (Mk 2:3-4, Lk 5:18-19), even though he says: "seeing their faith" (Mt 9:2)?

        In the corresponding passage from Mark, two stories are intertwined: a miracle of healing: Mk 2:3-5a and 11-12, and a controversy over the power to forgive: v. 5b to 10, Mark links them, and so the controversy finds its solution in the miracle, while the miracle gains in importance because of the controversy.

        In Matthew, the end of this miracle story, which in Mark has no connection with the controversy, is instead ordered by the theme of the controversy: the crowds glorify God not so much for the healing as for the power to forgive. The final crowd-chorus, emphasized by Mark, is only mentioned by "seeing this", Mt 9:8.

        The reduction to the beginning of the pericope is explained by this conclusion on the theme of the power to forgive.

        The abandonment of the vivid details of Mk 2:3-4 ("lifted up by four men...they undid the roof..."), makes Mt 9:2 an introduction in the strict sense, not of a miracle story, but of a controversy. The miracle is in the background, to illuminate this "power" of vv. 6 and 8. Matthew's redrafting of the paralytic's healing thus highlights a shaping of Jesus' logion about his power to forgive sins, with the elements of the miracle placed at the service of this logion.

        The three controversies in vv. 2-17 are ordered:
        v. 3 - theological question ("This one blasphemes");
        v. 11 - question about Jesus' behavior ("Why does your master eat with tax collectors and sinners?");
        v. 14 - question about the behavior of John's disciples ("Why do we and the Pharisees fast and your disciples...).

        Matthew introduces nothing new compared to Mark, but he thus emphasizes the main theme of forgiveness of sins.

        Luke 5:17-28 follows Mark, emphasizing the miracle (v. 17; "parachrema" v. 25 and "paradoxon" v. 26 are two terms used in Hellenistic miraculous healings). V. 26 emphasizes the reactions of the onlookers. Finally, he introduces Pharisees and scribes right from the start (v. 17); the controversy is thus more easily linked to the miracle; as in Matthew, but from a different angle, the narrative has more unity than in Mark.

      2. The theme of faith.

        Mt 9: 18-31 : the hemorrhaging woman and the daughter of Jairus.

        The crowd of Mk 5:24 has disappeared, and in v. 22 Jesus and the woman are face to face. Circumstantial details have been removed. Faith that saves, v. 22, is the theme of Matthew's interpretation. As for Jairus' daughter, if we are told from the outset that she is dead (v.18), this is not to emphasize the extraordinary nature of the miracle, but rather the faith of the father who, knowing his daughter to be dead, confidently asks Jesus to intervene. It's more a teaching on faith than a miracle story, as the composition of the whole passage shows: the double story of Mt 9:18-26 is followed by the healing of the two blind men, in which the question of faith is also central: cf. v. 29 "according to your faith".

        Luke 8:40-56 adds details that accentuate the miracle: the crowd, the "only" daughter, a disciple's name (v. 45), "parachrema" (v. 47), in keeping with Hellenistic healing stories.

      3. The theme of disciples.

        Mt 14: 15-21 : the sharing of the loaves.

        The disciples are not only interlocutors, but also participants in this miraculous sharing of the loaves.

        There are changes in the conversation between Jesus and his disciples: Mk 6:37, their objection, is missing in Matthew, as it is in Luke. Mark attaches this response to the catchword: "give them something to eat yourselves", and emphasizes their lack of understanding.

        In Matthew, there is no trace of this misunderstanding. Jesus says: "They don't need to leave, give them something to eat yourselves", so it's not a question of food to be bought elsewhere, but of the food the disciples have with them. The disciples respond, but with "little" faith.

        Matthew underlines the disciples' role as intermediaries to give food: v. 18 is specific to Matthew, the gesture is described differently in v. 19: he gives to the disciples, and the disciples give to the crowds.

        The same applies to the second story in Mt 15:32-39, which has more parallels with the first than Mark's, and where the Eucharistic meaning is clearer.

        Mt 17: 14-20: the epileptic child.

        In Mark (9:14-29) there are two different narratives focusing on: 1) the disciples' inability to heal, 2) the person of the father, or the paradox of the unbelieving believer. They are linked by the theme of the power of faith, (v. 19 and 23). The last story is the only miracle in the synoptics to be followed by a lesson to the disciples.

        Matthew's catchword "could not", (v. 16, 19 and 20), not only serves to link miracle and controversy, but is the real theme.

        Matthew drops two of the three manifestations of sickness (Mk 9:18-20, becoming stiff and rolling and foaming), keeping only the third: falling into fire and water (v. 15b). On the other hand, he keeps the father's statement about the disciples' powerlessness and Jesus' complaint about the unbelieving generation, v. 16, 17.

        The healing itself is told in a short, conventional and formal way in v. 18, contrasting with the vivid description in Mk 9:25-27. The evangelist is in a hurry to get to the final point; his purpose is Jesus' conversation with the disciples.

        The words "unbelieving" (v. 17) and "of little faith" (v. 20) join the catchword "could not" in vv. 16, 19 and 20.

        Matthew omits Mark's entire second scene, the dialogue with the father, to come straight to the disciples' lack of faith.

        In Luke (9:37-43), the scene of the "believing-unbelieving" father is also missing. This is all the more strange given that in all the other miracle narratives Luke has kept Mark's longer text and has not adopted Matthew's abbreviations.

        By interrupting the "Jesus and the disciples" narrative with the father's dialogue with Jesus, Mark introduces a degree of confusion. Matthew dispels this obscurity by taking the teaching on faith that can do all things out of the story proper, and integrating it into Jesus' final conversation with his disciples (v. 19-20).

        The question is no longer: can Jesus heal and how? but: can the disciples heal and how?

        Since Matthew no longer deals with the paradox of the father's unbelieving faith, he is portrayed from the outset as asking in faith (v. 14b and 15). Jesus' complaint in v. 17 therefore does not concern him. Nor does it concern the people, who have no role in the Matthean narrative (except in the introductory note to v. 4a). That leaves the community of disciples; but the application to them of the epithets "unbelieving and perverse" contradicts the Matthean image of their faith, which is certainly "small", insufficient, but real. Moreover, Matthew, like Mark, never uses the word "generation" for the disciples, reserving it for Jesus' contemporaries. Here, however, this word immediately follows the one about their incapacity, so it's really a warning to the disciples.

        Luke followed a different line of thought. He too drops the scene with the father, but his pericope is a typical miracle story. In v. 42, he retains the second description of Mk 9:20, thus emphasizing the appalling nature of the illness (and the importance of the healing). Jesus returns an only son to his father (v. 38, 42). The father does mention the disciples' incapacity, but this theme is not treated for its own sake; it serves only to underline the Lord's greatness in contrast to the impotence of his own. Jesus' final conversation with his disciples is missing altogether: it is replaced by a conclusion typical of miracle stories, emphasizing the manifestation of God's power in Jesus (v. 43).

    2. Amplification as a means of interpretation.

      1. The theme of faith.

        We note two Matthean additions in stories that are fairly close to each other: the healing of the centurion's son: Mt 8:5-13, and the healing of the Canaanite woman's daughter: Mt 15:21-28. Both stories are about Jesus helping the Gentiles, about healing from afar, after a long conversation. They are conversations, rather than stories, at the end of which Matthew introduces the concept of faith: 8:13 and 15:28.

        Matthew 8: 5-13 : the centurion from Capernaum.

        As this pericope does not exist in Mark, we will compare it with Luke (7:1-10).

        The concordance between Mt 8:8-10 and Le 7:6b-9 shows that the conversation between Jesus and the centurion forms the core of the story, while the circumstances of this conversation are portrayed differently.

        The conclusion is very Matthean: v. 13 ("Go, let it be done to you as you have believed"); cf Mt 9:22b-29; 15:28; 17:18b.

        Luke seems to have taken his introduction from another source and then carefully attached it to the dialogue (v. 7). In Luke, the centurion's words on faith are addressed to those accompanying him. In Matthew's case, the faith catchword returns at the end (v. 13), and the sick man is healed when Jesus says the word requested by the father. It is faith that shapes the conclusion.

        The same applies to the introduction: the request in v. 5 is a proof of faith. The sentence in v. 7 can be understood in an interrogative sense; "I" is put forward: "I" (implied Jew) having come to you (Gentile)? The verse preceding this pericope (Mt 8:4) emphasizes Jesus' fulfillment of the law. The centurion insists: he uses Jesus' word "having come" from v. 7 to v. 8: "that you come", and recognizes what separates him from the people of God. But his faith finds the way for Jesus to help him: "say only one word". The parallel with the episode of the Canaanite woman is striking; the admiration for Jesus is the same: 15:28 and 8:10.

        In Luke, the centurion sends elders among the Jews to testify to his dignity (v. 4), and this is what decides Jesus to set out (v. 6); the following verse then emphasizes his humility. Luke is more interested in the centurion's person than his faith.

        The logion of Mt 8:11-12 ("Now I tell you that many will come from the east and the west...") has another context in Lk 13:28-29. In Matthew, it is used to interpret Jesus' words on the centurion's faith: it's not just trust in a miracle worker, this faith gives a share in the Kingdom of God. It is both a promise for pagans - faith gives them access to the Kingdom of God -, and a judgment on Israel who, despite his privilege (son of the Kingdom), can be excluded. The "followers" of v. 10 are the Jews, and also the Matthean church, whose members considered themselves "sons of the Kingdom".

        Mt 15: 21-28: the Canaanite woman.

        The history of forms attributes this synoptic pericope to the tradition of Jesus' sayings. It is not a miracle story as such; rather, it is a dialogue-teaching in which the miracle forms only the narrative context. This context is more detailed in Mark 7:24b-30; Matthew deletes all the details and speaks only briefly of the illness, but develops the dialogue at greater length, v. 22-28.

        The dialogue is the pericope, with the healing at the end. Matthew's additions are in the dialogue, v. 22-24.

        Matthew's harsh, more Jewish features do not necessarily mean that he refers to an earlier form of storytelling than Mark. His narrative takes into account the theological ideas of the Judeo-Christian community, while emphasizing the "yes" to the Gentile mission. If he has not kept the phrase from Mk 7:27, emphasizing the priority of mission among the Jews ("first of all"), this may be because it is a later addition in Mark.

        By emphasizing the contrast between Israel (v. 24) and Canaan (v. 22), Matthew addresses the Jewish-Christians to show them that Jesus, while sharing their point of view, recognized that faith was a path that could lead Gentiles to salvation, while Mark shows the pagan-Christians that Jesus recognized the priority of the Jewish people ("first" in v. 27).

        In Mark's account, Jesus seems to have given in somewhat out of surprise; Matthew makes it clear in v. 28 that Jesus could not refuse to help the woman with such a faith. Healing "at that very moment" is the crowning achievement of this faith, while Mark extends his account with the recognition of the healing v. 29.

        By showing at greater length Jesus' opposition to the woman's demand, Matthew brings out the greatness of faith.

      2. The theme of disciples.

        Mt 8: 18-27: The Stilling of the Storm

        Mark's parallel account is set at the beginning of a cycle of miracles that runs up to Mk 5:43. After depicting Jesus as Master (4:1-34), Mark shows him performing miracles. These two collections of pericopes end with Jesus' rejection in Nazareth (Mk 6: 1-6).

        Mark therefore chose this story to illustrate one of the "mighty deeds" mentioned in Mk 6:2, and gave it the typical features of a miracle story.

        Matthew prefaces the story with the words "to follow Jesus" v. 19-22, which Lk 9:57-60 places elsewhere. These words even interrupt the narrative that begins in v. 18 and continues in v. 23. The catchword "to follow" shows that this is a word about "following Jesus". (Nachfolge).

        In vv. 19-20, it's the first decision to follow Jesus; from vv. 23-27, it's the ever-recurring decision to obey.

        In Mark, the reproach to the disciples follows the stilling of the storm; Matthew focuses on the word to the disciples and makes the stilling of the storm depend on it; for him, it's an image of the church in its relationship with its Lord.

        Mt 14: 22-33 : The Walking on the Water

        Mk 6:52 emphasizes the disciples' lack of understanding. In Matthew's case, their initial amazement (v. 26) is transformed at the end into a confession of faith (v. 33).

        The scene with Peter (v. 28-31) is added by Matthew (traces of an oral tradition about Peter reported by Matthew, cf. 15: 15ff; 16: 17ff; 17: 24ff). It is carefully linked to the rest of the narrative: "it is I" (v. 27), "if it is you" (v. 28), "you are" (v. 33). The words "wind" (v. 24, 30, 32) and the concept of "fear" (v. 26, 27 and 30) link this addition to the rest.

        The conclusion, in the form of a prayer and confession of faith, is valid for Peter as it is for everyone in the boat.

        At the center is the manifestation of Jesus: "I am", to which the believing disciple responds: "If you are". This is the believing disciple on the road of the "Nachfolge" (cf. the words: command, Lord, save me).

        The two stories are linked; it's about the disciples: cf the image of the "boat" (v. 24), the "little faith" (v. 26 and 31).

    3. The abandonment of two of Mark's miracle stories (a deaf stammerer and the blind man of Bethsaida)

      Mark's two miracles (Mk 7:31-37 and 8:22-26) come at the end of two cycles of pericopes: Mk 6:35 - 7:37 and Mk 8:1-26, where the disciples' lack of understanding is emphasized (cf 6:52; 8:17). They are deaf and dumb (8: 18). These two cycles take place between the apostles' return from mission (6: 30ff) and Peter's confession in Caesarea (8: 27ff).

      This is Mark's whole theological composition, and the two miracles of healing the blind man of Bethsaida and the deaf man have a symbolic significance: the disciples' eyes and ears must be opened so that they can confess Jesus.

      The words of Mk 8:18, about the hardening of the disciples, are found only in Mark, and explain these two accounts of miracles placed between the return from the mission and the confession in Caesarea.

      Matthew carefully follows Mark's two cycles of pericopes, but leaves out the two miracles. For him, the opening of the disciples' eyes and ears occurs not only in Caesarea, but even before (cf. Mt 14:33).

      It's not the person of Jesus that the disciples don't understand, but rather his teaching (Mt 15:16-17; 16:9ff). These two stories are of no theological interest to Matthew, since he presents the disciples as following Jesus and understanding him.

      In these two miracles, the technique of healing is exposed in detail, the sick are almost objects in the hands of the healer; there is no interest for faith. Matthew is not interested in the miracle itself, but only in the message it contains: he interprets miracles to instruct his church.

  2. The form of Matthew's miracle stories

    It's difficult to distinguish between a "short story" (a developed narrative forming a whole) and a "paradigm" (an anecdote serving as an example) in Matthew. If in the short story there is a certain pleasure in telling, this is not the case in Matthew's miracle narratives, which are closer to the paradigm, as a short and simple narrative, bringing a preaching echo.

    These formal remarks can be made above all in the healing narratives: this will be Part A.

    Part B will show what is typically Matthean about these remarks, and in Part C we'll look at Matthew's stylization of the miracle.

    1. Formal remarks, through three miracle stories.

      1. The healing of a leper, Mt 8: 2-4.

        There is a close parallel between this narrative and that of Mark and Luke: cf. the request for healing in direct language, Jesus' direct response to this request (by touching the leper), the acknowledgement of the healing, and finally Jesus' command to show himself to the priests. The close kinship is particularly evident in the spoken part: the similarity is literal in the request and the word of healing. It is all the more important to identify the discrepancies between the three synoptic versions.

        Mark's narrative coating is surprisingly detailed and expressive about the case and the people.

        The divergences between Matthew and Luke and Mark are mainly to be found in these narrative sections, but Matthew and Luke differ from each other in their rendering of the narrative, and this on essential points:

        Luke makes every effort to repeat Mark's narratives. He even adds details: the leper was "full of leprosy", Jesus "saw him". So he lengthens the narrative.

        Matthew, whose version is the shortest of the three, reduces the narrative to almost nothing. He replaces it with formal stereotyped expressions, which are not expressive at all: Mt 8:2 ("Lord, if you are willing...") and 9:18 ("My daughter has just died..."). Thus, in Mt 8:2a, we are no longer faced with a story, but only with the introduction to the request; similarly, Mt 8:3b is merely an echo of Jesus' powerful word (catchword: "to cleanse").

        Matthew has thus put Jesus' conversation with the sick man at the heart of the story; even more clearly than in Mark, this miracle story is made up of a request for healing and the powerful word through which healing comes.

        This clarification is not only due to the shortening of the narrative, but the the frequency of the word "to cleanse" in a so short section. This catchword glues together the pericope and gives it the same formal consonance. Matthew could have avoided this if he had chosen, like Luke, the other formulation of Mk 1:42 ("And immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed"); he did not, but affirms that the leper was cleansed. He does not seek stylistic elegance, like Luke, who avoids such repetitions wherever possible.

      2. The healing of the hemorrhaging woman, Mt 9: 20-22.

        The differences between Matthew and Mark have led some exegetes to wonder whether there was only one tradition at the root. However, Matthew does follow Mark's story, for he takes up certain narrative elements that are better explained in Mark than in his own account: Mark places this episode within the story of Jairus' daughter, to fill in the moment when she dies (in Matthew she is already dead); the expressions "from behind" and "touching his garment" are better explained by Mark's large crowd. Finally, the literary dependence can be seen in certain words found in Matthew.

        Two of the three Matthean verses contain a direct word which, by dropping all the intermediate scenes of Mk 5:29-33, gives an ongoing conversation (catchword "to heal", vv. 21, 22). Here again, the exchange is the real content of the miracle.

        In Mk 5:29 and Lk 8:44, healing occurs by touching the garment, even before Jesus' word. In Matthew, Jesus' response immediately follows the woman's word, putting the healing to one side.

        In Mk 5:34 and Lk 8:48, the words about faith that saves seem a little haphazard, expressing only the observation and interpretation of the healing that has already taken place; in Matthew it's the word that heals, underlining the close relationship between faith and healing.

        Matthew's main concern is to teach; That's why he shortens the narrative sections, eliminates the characters and scenes in between, and focuses on the conversation, with the words about saving faith at the heart of the story.

        A comparison with Luke is instructive; his account is simpler than Mark's, but he remains a narrator; he retains all the stylistic elements of the miracle story: description of the illness, healing by touch, suddenness of the healing, epilogue between Jesus and the woman. Jesus is the one who feels the power coming out of him (8:46); he therefore refers to himself as the bearer of a secret power. This emphasis on the miraculous features of Jesus' person explains the woman's desire to hide (v. 47). In Luke, it's more like "news". He even leaves out the woman's word (Mk 9:21; Mt 5:28), which is essential to Matthew because it represents the faith of the sick woman and makes Jesus' word about saving faith comprehensible, whereas in Luke (8:48) this word is not integrated into the narrative. Luke emphasizes the miracle, whereas for Matthew it is merely a teaching.

      3. The healing of the two blind men, Mt 20: 29-34 and 9: 27-31.

        It occurs twice in Matthew: on Jesus' way to Jerusalem, as in the other synoptics (20:29-34), and in the cycle of Jesus' miracles (9:27-31).

        In both accounts, Jesus heals two blind men by touch. But there are Matthean details: the healing is not immediate, but occurs after a renewed request. Each time, Jesus leads a particular conversation with the two beggars. Certain words recur: "to go from" (9:27 and 20:30), "to follow" (9:27 and 20:29), "to touch" (9:29 and 20:34).

        The healing of Mt 9:27-31 thus seems to be a reworking of the Matthean version of the blind men of Jericho (Mt 20:29ff), which Mark recounts in 10:46-52. The story of Mt 20 is more closely related to Mark than that of Mt 9, where certain expressions show that it has been further reworked by Matthew: 9:27 and 28 recall the wording at the beginning of the storm stilling (8:23); "Son of David" is peculiar to Matthew; the word of healing: "according to faith" is typical (cf 8:13; 15:28). This account of Mt 9 is therefore rich in teaching on the way Matthew reworked the miracle stories.

        Comparison between Mt 20, v. 29-34 and Mark 10 v. 46-52:

        Abandonment of details: the beggar, the vivid scene of the arrival of the blind man on the road to Jerusalem (Mk 10:52).

        If Matthew deletes "your faith has saved you" from Mk v. 52, it's not for lack of interest in this question, for it is found in the second story (Mt 9:29), but here Matthew emphasizes Jesus' compassion. Jesus turns directly to the blind men, and there is no question of the crowd acting as intermediaries, it's the dialogue between Jesus and the blind that takes center stage.

        Matthew accentuates and schematizes even more than Mark the three-steps conversation, which makes it difficult even in Mark to speak of a miracle story: call of the blind - order from the crowd to be silent; second call of the blind - call from Jesus; question from Jesus - answer from the blind.

        Luke renders this story of the healing of the blind of Jericho significantly in his own way: he offers almost only the course of the conversation, even adding a new exchange between the blind man and the crowd (Lk 18:36-37); this addition shows how the blind man learns about Jesus. Luke also describes how the blind man is led to Jesus (whereas the "sprang up" of Mk 10:50 seems rather implausible for a blind man). Luke takes great care with the narrative. The command to "see" in v. 42, as a word of healing, is characteristic of Luke, as is the final chorus of praise, typical of the literary form of ancient accounts of miraculous healing. In Luke, then, there is an accentuation of the "miracle story" form. which is not very apparent in Mark and almost absent in Matthew.

        Comparison of Mt 9:27-31 with Mt 20:29-34:

        It was felt that Matthew had not recounted this healing with love (Welhausen). But the fact that he felt it necessary to recount it again shows that he had to tend to it. His attention was not focused on the narrative as such: the style is formal, especially at the beginning and end; secondary characters and scenes disappear completely. It's the dialogue about faith that's at the heart of it all (v. 29), with the catchword in v. 28 and 29. Compared with Mt 20:32ff, the conversation is shaped in a new way, from the point of view of saving faith. This is no minor variation on Mt 20, for it is as a teaching on faith that Matthew has carefully worked out this healing.

        There is a progression from Mark to Matthew 20, then to Matthew 9. The miracle story with its expressive details gradually became an ideal scene, a paradigm highlighting faith, to which a miracle is the outcome.

    2. Notes on the form of Matthean miracle stories.

      The remarks in the previous paragraph will be repeated, one after the other, and verified in other accounts of Matthew's miracles:

      1. The formal genre of narrative.

        Matthew has therefore shortened the narrative parts, and used stereotyped expressions, especially at the beginning and end: the introductions to Mt 8:2-5b; 9:18b-20-28; 15:22; 17:14b are stereotypes. Use of the verb "to approach " is typically Matthean (50 times in Matthew) and refers almost exclusively to the approach of Jesus by another. Matthew links the words "to approach" and "to say" to introduce conversations, replacing Mark's rich, expressive introductions. The focus is thus on the teaching rather than the particular event.

        The verb "to approach" is joined three times by the verb "to prostrate" (Mt 8: 2; 9: 18; 15: 25) which means adoration before the Lord. It is one of Matthew's favorite words. Apart from the account of the temptation (Mt 4:9-10 = Lk 4:7f), Luke uses this verb only once, during the Ascension. Mark uses it only twice, in reference to a demon (5: 6) and to those who mocked Jesus (15: 19). Matthew uses it only for adoration of Jesus: 2: 2-8-11 (the Magi); 14: 33; 28: 9-17; 18: 26 (discipleship); 8: 2; 9: 18; 15 25 and 20: 20 (to make a request). In all these places, Matthew introduced the expression into the tradition. In the miracle stories, it confirms the situation of request, of prayer, which is also that of the believing community towards its Lord. But it's worth noting that Matthew used this word only where Mark's tradition included a similar expression.

        The verb "to bring" is also a stereotypical way of talking about how the sick person is brought to Jesus, and is found in the summaries of the stories (Mt 9:2-32; 12:22; 8:16; 14:35).

        The conclusions of the stories are equally formal: Mt 8:13b; 9:22b; 15:28b and 17:18b, where the second part of the verse seems unnecessary, since the demon has gone out (v. 18a). V. 18b is only of formal use, repeating the catchword "heal" from v. 16. The same applies to Mt 8:8 and 13 (another v. "heal") and 9:21 and 22 (catchword "cure"). The same applies to the healing of the leper, with the catchword "to cleanse" (8:3).

        The interview between Jesus and the applicant therefore has a formal beginning and end.

        This formal way of telling the story can be seen even in two miracles where Jesus does not talk to the person he is healing: Peter's mother-in-law and Jairus' daughter. The two introductions (8:14 and 9:23) are stereotyped: Jesus "comes and sees". The same expressions are used for the storm in Mt 8:24 and 14:24, and for the call for help in 8:25 and 14:30. Jesus' order to break bread and to heal the epileptic is formulated with the same words: Mt 14:18 and 17:17.

        Matthew, for example, is fond of consonant similarity, stereotypes and repetition, for catechetical reasons.

      2. Removal of secondary characters and actions.

        The examples have already shown that this is one of Matthew's means of interpretation.

        Matthew applies the law of the two characters on the stage: Jesus and Peter's mother-in-law (8: 14-15) Jesus and the demons (8: 28-34: the healed man is no longer mentioned), Jesus and the scribes (9: 2-8: the carriers of the sick man and the crowd are left out); Jesus and the disciples (8: 18-27; 14: 15-21).

        Whereas in Luke's story of the centurion in Capernaum, the centurion is represented by two friends, Matthew places the centurion himself face to face with Jesus. The same applies to Jesus' encounter with the blind (9:27ff; 20:29ff), with the hemorrhaging woman and Jairus (9:18-26), with the father of the epileptic (7:14-20), the leper (8:2-4) and the Canaanite woman (15:21-28). And Jairus is no longer hesitant (cf. Mk 5:36), the woman is no longer anxious (cf. Mk 5:33), the father no longer doubts (cf. Mk 9:22-24), the blind man no longer leaps (cf. Mk 10:50). The men Jesus meets are only portrayed as begging for help, hence the importance of the conversation they have with Jesus.

      3. Dialogue as the centerpiece of miracle stories.

        Dialogue was already an important part of the tradition, but Matthew emphasized it even more (cf. the blind man of Jericho, the centurion of Capernaum and the Canaanite woman).

        Luke develops the story of the centurion along the lines of the short story (Lk 7:2-3-10), while Matthew retains almost only the dialogue. The same applies to the Canaanite woman.

        The formal introduction is in direct style from Matthew (8:2-6; 9:18-21-27; 15:22; 17:15; 20:30), while Mark and Luke most often present the request for healing in indirect style (Mk 7:26-32; 8:22; Le 7:3; 8:41).

        Matthew's request for healing often has the same features: he frequently uses the name "Lord" (8:2-6; 15:22; 17:15; 20:30-31) which is nowhere to be found in Mark's requests, and only once in Luke (5:12).

        Matthew also uses the formula "have mercy", which he uses more often than the other synoptics (Mt 15:22 and 17:15).

        Even where there is no real conversation (Mt 8:5-13; 15:21-28 and 20:29-34), Jesus' word of healing, in response to the request, represents the main content of the story. The recording of the miracle echoes this (8:2-3; 9:20-22). In the resurrection of Jairus, there is no word of healing, but an action by Jesus (9:23-25) that responds to the father's request (v. 18) and thus constitutes an element of dialogue in the broader sense.

        It's not only in the healing stories that the conversation takes center stage, but also in the episodes of the storm stilling (Mt 8:25-26a) and the walking on the waters (14:27-29a and 30b-31).

        Other passages in Matthew show that he thinks and writes in exchange form. So it's not surprising that he also uses this form when recounting miracles.

      4. The catchword link within the miracle story.

        Cf. "to cleanse", in the healing of the leper (8: 2-3a-3b); "to make well", for the hemorrhaging woman (9: 20-22). These words link together: the request, the word of healing and the healing itself.

        This is also the case for the word "to come" in Peter walking on the waters (14: 28-29a-29b).

        The centurion's request (8: 8b): "say" and he will be "healed". corresponds to Jesus' action (v. 13): he "said" and the child was "healed". Jesus' word of healing captures the faith catchword (v. 13 and v. 10). This catchword of faith is also found in the healing of the two blind men (9: 28 and 29).

        In the resurrection of Jairus' daughter, Jesus' behavior (9:25) corresponds to the request in v. 18b, and the verb "to come" is found again in v. 23.

        In the healing of the two blind men in Jericho, the addition of Jesus' "compassion" (20: 34) corresponds to the double appeal for mercy (v. 30-31).

        In the healing of the epileptic, the word "heal" is used to contrast trust in the Master with the inability of the disciples.

        The concept of catchword is usually used to designate the technique of bringing together different, independent units of tradition. Here this concept designates a narrative technique, within a pericope itself. In Matthew's miracle narratives, the request, the word of healing and the miracle are linked by catchwords. This procedure is also used in other passages of Matthew (the rich young man, the parable of the vine-growers, etc.).

      5. The role of faith in miracle stories.

        The link between request, word of healing and cure is often expressed by a Matthean formula: "according to your faith " (8: 13; 9: 29; 15: 28). Faith manifests itself in the request, and Jesus responds with healing. The relationship between faith and miracle is thus always emphasized by Matthew. The Matthean formula "let it be done according to your faith" not only has a theological significance for understanding the miracle, it also formally constitutes the principle on which the narrative is modeled.

        The phrase "your faith has saved you" is found in all three synoptics, but Matthew has given it a particular form, with miracles as the paradigms illustrating the statement: "let it be done according to your faith".

        The preceding remarks have shown that, for Matthew, we cannot really speak of "stories" or "news", but rather of conversations. This is particularly true of the healings, where the request and response constitute a dialogue.

        Matthew's construction of the miracles of healing follows the following pattern:
        1) Formal introduction: the petitioner and his gesture (bowing, imploring);
        2) The request for healing in direct style, in which faith is expressed, and which can be presented twice.
        3) Jesus' response, most often in the form of a word of healing, sometimes only in the form of an action, but also sometimes in both forms.
        4) A short note on the miracle, but we don't dwell on it.

        It's striking to compare this pattern with that of the controversies, for example, the question of who is the greatest in the kingdom (Mt 18:1-4), which is a Matthean reconstruction of Mk 9:33-36:
        1) Formal introduction, where the asker is introduced (18: 1a);
        2) The question in direct style (v. 1b);
        3) Jesus' answer to the question, linked to a gesture (v. 2-4).

        The controversy over divorce, although twofold, is similarly constructed.

        Just as in the controversies the message lies in Jesus' response, so in the miracle stories it lies in the healing words of Jesus. This word is almost always a word about faith, and nowhere a word in the healing style. In other words, the point is not in the healing itself, but in the word about faith that the story illustrates. They therefore correspond to Dibelius' definition of "paradigms". Their form makes it impossible to classify them in Bultmann's group of "miracle stories".

        There are many examples in the synoptics of mixed forms, but the kinship between miracle stories and controversies is particularly important in Matthew.

  3. The miracle stories as evidence of Matthew's Christology.

    Whereas Mark has two groups of miracles (1:21-45 and 4:35 to 5:43), and Luke three (Lk 4:31-5:26; 7:1-17 and 8:22-56), Matthew groups these same miracle stories in one place: Mt 8 and 9, after the Sermon on the Mount, which showed Jesus teaching (cf Mt 4:23 and 9:35).

    In the 9:35 summary Jesus is the one who teaches (ch. 5-7) and the one who heals (ch. 8-9). At the end of ch. 9 and the beginning of ch. 10, Matthew shows Jesus involving his disciples in this activity; he continues with the sending out of the disciples in ch. 10, and with the decisive Christological question posed by John the Baptist in ch. 11 (cf. 11:2: "the works of Christ", which also include those of the disciples in 10: 7-8).

    For Matthew, miracles show that Jesus is:

    1. the one who fulfills the prophecies of the Old Testament. Cf. Mt 8:2-17, with the quotation from v. 17 that applies to all miracles; Mt 9:13a quotation from Hosea in v. 6, which Matthew also added in Mt 12 v. 7, emphasizing mercy.

    2. the Servant of God, acting with power. Cf Mt 8:17, quote from Isa 53:4, interpreted by Matthew: Jesus is not sick himself, he does not lose his power, but, as an obedient servant, he puts it at the service of the sick he heals; the leper, the pagan and the woman in the three previous healings represent despised beings. The same applies to the mercy of Mt 9:13a, which is always an active mercy, fulfilling justice (cf. Mt 12: 20, where Matthew adds the word "victory").

    3. the Lord of his community.

      It often refers to the Risen One, as shown by the use of the words "Lord" and "prostrate".

      The situation of the Matthean church is also reflected in the miracle stories. Jesus comes to the aid of his disciples in this intermediate time before the final victory: "all that I have commanded you" in Mt 28:20 covers both miracles and teaching. The "little faith" is also that of the church; "on the earth" in Mt 9:6 represents its present situation.

    4. The one who lets her share in his power.

      Cf. Mt 17:14-20: the conclusion of v. 20b is positive for the disciples. Also in Mt 14: 22-23, the scene of Peter walking on the waters: Jesus reassures and takes his disciples to him. Cf. also Mt 9:2-8: God has given men the power to forgive. Finally, the word of healing, based on the faith of the one who asks rather than on the omnipotence of Jesus, associates man with the miracle: the latter is not capable of performing the miracle, but of receiving it.

  4. Interpreting faith in miracle stories.

    The concept of faith is already present in the synoptic tradition, especially in the accounts of miracles. We know the role played by the expression "your faith has saved you". But Matthew particularly emphasizes it.

    1. The relationship between faith and miracles in the synoptic tradition.

      Faith does not follow the miracle, it precedes it; it is not Christological recognition, but confidence in the miraculous power of Jesus.

      Matthew develops the positive aspect of this link between faith and miracle:

      Faith is reflected in behavior, it takes an active part in the miracle. Matthew describes it through dialogue: overcoming taboos, Jesus' own hesitations (9:27; 15:23), death (9:18), the humanly hopeless case (17:14ff), the lack of faith itself (9:24). The concept of will sometimes replaces that of faith (20: 32 and 9: 28).

      The miracle is a response to a previously expressed request: even "little faith" receives a response (as opposed to the rabbis, for whom the miracle was linked to man's behavior).

      The faith of the Psalms (Ps 107 "...Let them praise the Lord for his faithfulness and for his miracles on behalf of mankind...", Ps 145: 18-19 "...the Lord is near to all who call upon him, to all who truly call upon him...") thus receives what it has been waiting for.

    2. Faith as prayerful faith in Matthew.

      Cf. the dialogical form of the narratives, the use of "Lord" and "bow down". Matthew's formula of faith that prays is added to that of faith that saves (Mt 8:13 "according to your faith" and Mt 15:28 "according to your desire").

      Cf. Mt 9:22 "Your faith has saved you". For Matthew, touching Jesus' garment is a prayer of faith.

      Matthew's interest is parenetic: Jesus still answers the prayer of faith today.

    3. Faith as participation in the miraculous power of Jesus.

      Matthew twice reports the logion about faith transporting mountains (17:20 and 21:21).

      Cf. Mt 17:20b and 14:28-29: to the believer, the impossible becomes possible. Cf. also the word on unlimited healing (21: 22), which in Matthew concludes the pericope on faith working miracles, while in Mark it begins a new paragraph on prayer.

    4. "Little faith" and "doubt".

      For Matthew, the disciples, who represent the community, have a "little faith", while the faith of others (pagan, unclean, etc...) is given to them as an example. Jesus is no longer the secret, misunderstood Lord of Mark, but the Master who teaches his church. After confessing their faith, the disciples step back.

      The term "little faith" was found in rabbinic tradition (Mt 6:20 and Lk 12:28). Matthew's use of the expression denotes an aggravation compared to Mark, because it is within the community of disciples that it manifests itself (Mt 17:20). Little faith" is not the mustard seed that can move mountains (Mt 17:20). It's not faith, since there is a failure to follow Jesus (Nachfolge); it's not unbelief either, because there's no total refusal; but it's stopping when you're already on your way.

      The same goes for doubt (Mt 14:31), which is always an attitude of a disciple, not of an enemy of Jesus.

  5. Matthew as an interpreter of tradition.

    Matthew thus starts from a tradition, which he interprets and updates for the present community. The same process applies to the miracle narratives; for the teaching of what is promised to the faith that asks is as necessary to the church in danger of doubt as the teaching of the miraculous power of its Lord.

    There is no tradition without interpretation; the process is the same: it's not simply a matter of reporting past events, but, through them, of preaching, instructing, warning and strengthening.

    "What Jesus once did on earth, He still does" (Schniewind), for there is a fundamental identity between the Lord of the Matthean church and the man Jesus of Nazareth. Matthew, perhaps more than any other, emphasized this.


1 J.H. Held, Matthäus als Interpret des Wundergeschichten, in Uebelieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium. Neukirchen: 1963, pp. 155-287.