The Sources and Sitz im Leben of Matthew 23, by Kenneth G. C. Newport. JSNTSup 117. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Pp. 205. $52.50. In this work Kenneth Newport addresses the troubling twenty-third chapter of the Gospel of Matthew and attempts to determine its sources and Sitz im Leben. Most simply stated, Newport argues that the source of Matt 23:2-31 is a pre-70 CE JewishChristian polemical tract, and that the remaining verses (23:32-39) are a later redaction. Additionally, the author suggests that other Matthean material (most significantly the Sermon on the Mount) appears to be of the same traditional extraction as 23:2-31. He begins the book with a lengthy analysis (fully one-third of the monograph) of compositional theories. Unconvinced that source critics are able to trace Matthew's own hand-and thus distinguish source from redaction-Newport reviews a broad range of such theories, including those of Michael Goulder, Dennis Tevis, M. E. Boismard, the two-document hypothesis, and the four-document hypothesis. Having conveyed in the introduction his skepticism regarding redaction criticism, Markan priority, and the existence of Q, Newport does not surprise us by his rejection of four of the five theories. After a thorough examination of Goulder's argument for the Matthean origin of Matthew 23, Newport states that this theory (based on arguments from vocabulary) is inconclusive. While the author admires the detailed argumentation of Goulder's hypothesis, he finds the theory as a whole unconvincing and weak. He further argues that the validity of word statistics (even those as carefully compiled as those of Goulder) as an approach to gospel study is questionable. Boismard's theory regarding Matthew 23 is equally unconvincing to Newport. Unlike Goulder's hypothesis, this theory posits a variety of sources, but the lack of tangible evidence for Boismard's hypothetical documents renders the theory inconclusive. Moreover, Newport argues, there is too much inner unity in chapter 23 for it to be the amalgamation of so many sources. The last two theories rejected by Newport are the two- and four-document hypotheses. The two-document hypothesis is inadequate on two counts: (1) the amount of Markan material in Matthew 23 is limited, and (2) although similar to Luke, the material's dissimilar order, setting, and outcome do not support the idea of Q. Similarly, even though the four-document hypothesis addresses some of the problems left unanswered by the two-document hypothesis (e.g., attempts to explain the unparalleled material of Matthew 23), it does not answer the question of the chapter's unity and its divergence in Q material. The one theory Newport does find convincing is that of Dennis Tevis, a theory quite similar to his own. In contrast to the single vocabulary arguments of Goulder, Tevis's theory concentrates on phrases-a more palatable and productive approach, according to Newport. Indeed, Tevis's conclusions are synonymous with Newport's: Matthew 23 is comprised of one source (vv. 2-31) which has undergone redaction (vv. 32-39). In the second chapter Newport argues that at least part of Matthew 23 stems from a Sitz im Leben different from that of the final redaction of the whole Gospel. While some scholars (e.g., David Garland) have argued that this chapter serves as a mirror image of the Christian church and leaders in a post-85 CE setting, Newport does not find this understanding of Matthew 23 convincing as an explanation of the whole chapter. The first section of the chapter is a direct attack on the scribes and Pharisees, the second on the Jews in general. The understanding of the chapter as paradigmatic may be an effort to relieve Christian scholars' consciences by freeing Jesus or Matthew or both from anti-Semitism, but it is not the most satisfactory analysis of the material in this chapter of the Gospel. A better approach, Newport suggests, is to recognize that Matt 23:2-31 can be lifted from the context as an integral unit. …