402 Bulletin for Biblical Research 25.3 of Israel's national survival. In 1 and 2 Maccabees, the new element of human involvement in executing God's vengeance is encountered. However, Schnocks argues that the greatest interpretative leap was taken by the crusaders, who wrongly sought to enact God's vengeance despite the fact that their existence was not immediately threatened. A final chapter provides a summary and con elusions and confirms Schnocks' conviction, reflected throughout the volume, that violence is less a religious than an interpersonal problem. A bibliography closes the volume. Schnocks' study highlights many important facets to consider when in vestigating violence in biblical texts, laudably emphasizing the often-neglected aspect of reception history. Although no singular volume can furnish a de finitive explanation for all biblical and religious violence, the volume's main strength lies in providing a model for future exegesis of these texts, both by ExzellenzclusterExzellenzcluster D2-10 and elsewhere. I for one would have enjoyed seeing even more detailed investigations of reception history in the postbiblical era, consid ering the numerous books already dedicated to the apology of violence texts in the OT. Hopefully future research from the Exzellenzcluster will continue to emphasize this aspect of investigation. Nathanael Warren Trinity Evangelical Divinity School J. Andrew Doole. What Was Mark for Matthew? An Examination of Matthew's Relationship Relationship and Attitude to His Primary Source. WUNT 2/344. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Pp. xvi + 222. ISBN 978-3-16-152536-0. $76.00 paper. Andrew Doole's doctoral dissertation What Was Mark for Matthew? produced at Marburg under the direction of the late Friedrich Avemarie, offers scholars a fresh reassessment of the Matthean Evangelist's evaluation of his Markan source. In short, Doole asks whether Matthew viewed Mark as flawed and in need of replacement or as a reliable and authoritative text. If the latter, then the Evangelist Matthew probably viewed his work as a supplement to Mark, which extends and builds on it. The position that Doole has taken stands over against that of David Sim, a well-known veteran of Matthean scholarship. Sim addresses this question in a recent study, in which he concludes that "Matthew viewed Mark as seriously flawed, and that he wrote his own Gospel to replace the inadequate Marcan account" (NTS 57 [2011] 176-92, with quotation from p. 176; see also p. 192: "Mark ... was grammatically crude, contained offensive traditions and, most importantly, was Christologically and theologically suspect"). Sim is not alone; a number of other prominent scholars think that in one way or another the Matthean Evangelist understood his new work as displacing the older Mark. Doole argues that the Evangelist Matthew held Mark in high regard. He even goes so far as to describe the Matthean Evangelist as "essentially a Mar kan Christian" (p. 10) and "witness to the Markan account of the life of Jesus" (p. 11). Evidence for this position is seen in the facts that Matthew made use of more than 90% of Mark (though some calculate a lower percentage) and that Downloaded from http://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/psup/biblical-research/article-pdf/25/3/402/1288739/bullbiblrese_25_3_402.pdf by guest on 06 February 2022