The Gospel of Matthew (Sacra Pagina Series, Vol 1)

Rating:
Summary: A Fine Historical Overview
Review: As someone just getting acquainted with the Scriptures, I found this book extraordinarily helpful. First and foremost, Harrington excels at putting Matthew in its historical context. By tracing changes within the Jewish community from Old Testament times through circa 70AD, he clearly shows how this Gospel was intended to solidify Christian identity and Scriptural validity after the destruction of the temple, when competing theologies were battling for the hearts and minds of the Jewish people. His extensive translation notes are also helpful, as they explain nuances of meaning that would go unnoticed by a lay reader using a thinly-annotated text.

Two other themes of this commentary stand out. First, Harrington takes great pains to demonstrate that Matthew is not an indictment of the Jewish race and has been totally misinterpreted by some as a call to anti-Semitism--an important message in any age. Second, he continually compares Matthew to Mark, pointing out virtually all similarities and differences. While this is interesting (and indirectly useful in understanding Mark), I'm not sure how important these distinctions are in terms of grasping the historical and theological significance of Matthew. On the other hand, presenting Matthew and Mark in this way does highlight the uniqueness of each Gospel--no doubt a worthy end in itself.

Rating:
Summary: "Gender-inclusive"?
Review: I bought this and the Gospel of Luke by the same authors. Upon reading the introduction, however, I returned both books unread. I guess it is my fault for not reading the reviews closely enough before buying, but I was unaware this book was (a) written from a Catholic rather than from a non-denominationl perspective, and (b) changed to be (as they so quaintly phrased it in order to appear magnanimous) "gender-inclusive". This is not, for the serious Bible student nor for a Bible teacher, a good thing.

The Word of God is not to be changed to suit current cultural "norms". Thus, I cannot offer a review of either gospel commentary per se (Matthew or Luke) except to issue a caution about this series of books: know in advance that you will get the Catholic perspective. If that suits you, fine. Know also that Scripture has been changed to suit the authors' cultural bias. Not good. What is worse, such changes are proscribed by God Himself.

Rating:
Summary: Limited theological use
Review: I have been looking for a "scholarly" Catholic commentary of the Bible for awhile. Navarre is limited in complex ideas, such as the justification question presented in Romans, and Collegeville is not detailed enough. Other commentaries, of course, come with a decidedly Protestant interpretation, watering down several key verses, such as Mat 16: 18-20.

As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on the Sacra Pagina series. The Romans book was outstanding. Matthew, however, is more concerned with the relationship with Mark and the Synoptics Problem. The author presents as FACT the common synoptic solution that Matthew copied Mark. While the author shows some of the argument of the "traditional" side (written in Aramaic/Hebrew for example), he limply explains it away. Father Raymond Brown did a much better job in presenting both view points, while not totally dismissing either side. I don't think the Synoptic solution should be presented as fact, as the author poorly refutes the "traditional" side, merely dismissing it. No one has yet been able to explain to me, for example, WHY someone would write an Aramaic/Hebrew gospel AFTER 70 AD to the Jewish diaspora, who spoke Greek. Many scholars seem to forget the massive destruction caused by the Roman punitive actions, virtually destroying the Jewish nation. Jews in Antioch were mostly Greek speakers, so why and to whom would Matthew be writing AFTER 70 AD in Greek? Perhaps this book needs a second edition, as scholarship of today is beginning to question the dating of Matthew to before 70 AD.

The book actually doesn't have a lot of theological use in of itself. For example, the Beatitudes is explored in a limited fashion. The book is very good in its explanations and comparisions with the Jewish community and Old Testament relationships. However, time and again, Matthew is compared with Mark. While this has its place, I think the theological issues should have been explored more, rather than how the two gospels are similar and different. Also, I found the author's explanations of particular "Catholic" verses, such as Mat 16: 18-20 very limited. The author doesn't take a stand one way or the other, merely presenting the 500 year old argument from a neutral position. Although this might be a more ecumenical manner of doing things, I believe it again shows the author's limited desire to pursue theological issues or pursue ANY sort of point of view regarding Catholicism. If the author is Catholic, you wouldn't know it by reading this book.

Again, I was personally disappointed by the coverage of the book, as I hoped for a Commentary concerned more with theological issues, such as Matthew's concern with ecclesiastics, not the Synoptic problem. Whether the Sacra Pagina series will be the answer to the limited Catholic Commentary available on the Bible remains to be seen. I only have two, and Romans is outstanding in this regard. The Sacra Pagina Matthew is of limited use to someone desiring to read the Bible for its intend purpose. Read with the Navarre Bible, however, this book does have potential, as it does address many Jewish questions very well that Navarre doesn't.