The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49) (Hermeneia)

•

•

•

•

T he Sermon on the Mount

•

•

•

by Ha ns Dieter Betz

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• • •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Hermeneia-

•

•

•

A Critical

•

•

•

and

•

•

•

Historical

•

•

•

Commentary

•

•

•

on the

•

•

•

Bible

• • • •

• • • • • • •

The Sermon on the Mount

•

• • • • •

• • •

Hermeneia -A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible

Old Testament Editorial Board Frank Moore Cross, Harvard University, chairman Klaus Baltzer, University of Munich Paul D. Hanson, Harvard University S. Dean McBride, Jr., Union Theological Seminary in Virginia Peter Machinist, Harvard University Susan Niditch, Amherst College Christopher R. Seitz, Yale University Roland E. Murphy, 0. Carm., emeritus

New Testament Editorial Board Helmut Koester, Harvard University, chairman Harold W. Attridge, University of Notre Dame Adela Yarbro Collins, University of Chicago Eldon Jay Epp, Case Western Reserve University James M. Robinson, Claremont Graduate School

The Sermon on the Mount

A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49)

by Hans Dieter Betz Edited by Adela Yarbro Collins

Fortress Press

Minneapolis

The Sermon on the Mount Including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49) Copyright ® 1995 Augsburg Fortress All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical articles or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write to: Permissions, Augsburg Fortress, 426 S. Fifth St., Box 1209, Minneapolis, MN 55440. Scripture quotations from the Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, or as indicated. The translations of the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain are by the author.

Cover and interior design by Kenneth Hiebert Production management by Publishers' WorkGroup Typesetting by Polebridge Press

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Betz, Hans Dieter. The Sermon on the mount : a commentary on the Sermon on the mount. including the Sermon on the plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49) I by Hans Dieter Betz ; edited by Adela Y. Collins. p. em. - (Hermeneia-a critical and historical commentary on the Bible) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8006-6031-5 (alk. paper) 1. Sermon on the mount-CritiCism, interpretation, etc. I. Collins, Adela Yarbro. II. Title. III. Series. BT380.2.B484 1995 226.9'077-dc20 95-5123 CIP

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z329.48-1984.

AF 1-6031

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

99

98

97

96

95

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M

"Mit diesen worten beschleusst er nu seine lere jnn diesen dreien Capiteln gethan und fasset sie aile jnn ein klein blindlein, darinne mans gar finden moge und ein jglicher jnn bosem stecken und wol behalten konne, Als solt er sagen: Wolt jr wissen, was ich gepredigt habe und was Moses und aile Propheten euch leren, so wil ichs euch wol kurtz sag en und so fassen, das jr nicht durffet klagen, es sey zu lang odder zu schweer zubehalten. Denn es ist eine solche predigt, die man kan lang und weit ausstreichen und auch kurtz machen und aile lere und predigt hieraus fliessen und sich ausbreiten und widderumb hie zusamen komen. Wie kund es nu klirtzer und klerer gefasset werden denn jnn diesen worten? on das die welt und unser alter Adam nicht lesst dazu komen, das wir jm nach dencken und gegen einander halten unser Ieben zu der lere, lassens zu einem ohr eingehen, zum andern widder a us. Solten wirs aber allzeit gegen unser Ieben und werck halten, so wurden wir nicht so roh hin gehen und jnn wind schlahen sondern jmer gnug zu thun kriegen Und wol selbs unser meister werden und leren was wir thun solten, das wir nicht durfften nach heiligen Ieben und wercken lauffen, auch nicht viel Juristen und rechtbucher dazu durfften, Denn es ist ja kurtz gefasset und bald gelernet, wenn nur der vleis und ernst da were darnach zu thun und Ieben." Martin Luther, Wochenpredigten (1530/32), Weimarer Ausgabe, vol. 32,

p.494

0

T

T

0

"With these words he [Jesus] now concludes the teaching he has been presenting in these three chapters, and wraps it up as in a little bundle, where it can all be found. Thus everyone can tuck it in the bosom and remember it well. As if he were saying: Would you like to know what I have preached and what Moses and all the prophets teach you? I will tell you in brief and put it in such words that you do not have to complain about its being too long or too difficult to keep in mind. For it is a sermon that can be extended to great length, and that can also be summed up in brief. All teaching and preaching flows out from here, gets distributed from here, and comes together again here. How could anyone formulate it more briefly and clearly than in these words? The world, however, and our old Adam do not allow that we give it serious thought and measure our life by this teaching. Instead, we let it go in one ear and out again the other. Thus, if we always measured our life and actions by this standard, we would not carry on in such a brutish way and throw his teaching into the wind, but we would have more than enough to do, and become ourselves masters, in effect teaching ourselves what we ought to do. Then we would not need to chase after holy life and holy works, nor would we need so many lawyers and law books. Thus, this teaching is concisely formulated and can soon be learned, if only there is the diligence and sincerity to do and live accordingly." v

The Author

Hans Dieter Betz holds the chair of Shailer Mathews Professor of New Testament Studies in the Divinity School, and in the Department of New Testament and Early Christian Literature of the Division of the Humanities at the University of Chicago. Born and raised in Germany, he received his theological education at Bethel and Mainz (Germany), and at Cambridge (England). He served as a pastor of churches in the Reformed Tradition before he came to the United States in 1963. From 1963 to 1978 he taught at the School of Theology and the Claremont Graduate School in Claremont, California. While teaching at Chicago since 1978, he also held appointments as a visiting professor at several European and Israeli universities. The author's published works show his major interests to be the epistles and theology of the apostle Paul (Nachfolge und Nachahmungjesu Christi im Neuen Testament [1967], Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition [1972], Galatians [Hermeneia, 1979], 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 [Hermeneia, 1985], Paulinische Studien: Gesammelte Aufsatze III [ 1994]), and the traditions of the Synoptic Gospels, among which stands out the Sermon on the Mount (Essays on the Sermon on the Mount [1985], Synoptische Studien: Gesammelte Aufsatze II (1992]). Another of his interests has been the investigation of the relationship of the New Testament to its religious environment; this is reflected in works written or edited on the New Testament and Graeco-Roman literature and religion (Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament [1961 ]; Plutarch's Theological Writings and Early Christian Literature [1975], Plutarch's Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature [1978], The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells [ 1986, 2nd ed. 1992], and Hellenismus und Urchristentum: Gesammelte Aufsatze I [ 1990]).

VI

Contents

, •Introduction

• Commentary: The Sermon on the Mount (SM/Matt 5:3-7:27)

Foreword to Hermeneia Preface Reference Codes 1. Sources and Abbreviations 2. Short Titles of Works Often Cited Editor's Note

Xlll

XV

xvn xvii XXVI

xxxvii

Approaching the Text II. The Major Problems of Research in Historical Perspective 1. The Ancient Church to Augustine a. Within the New Testament b. Post-New Testament Period c. The Emergence of Written Sources d. The Influence of the Gospel of Matthew e. Commentaries on Matthew f. Augustine's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount 2. From Augustine to the Reformation 3. The Period of the Renaissance and Reformation 4. The Period of the Enlightenment 5. The Conservative Reaction 6. The Nineteenth Century 7. The Twentieth Century III. The Literary Composition 1. Conspectus: Sermon on the Mount 2. Conspectus: Sermon on the Plain IV. The Literary Genre V. The Literary Function

I.

1

5 6 6 7 7 9

10 11 12 13 18

20 24 32 44 50

66 70 80

Chapter I. 5:3-12: The Beatitudes 1. Introduction a. The Basic Meaning b. The Literary Genre of the Beatitude c. The Number of Beatitudes d. The Relationship between the Beatitudes of the SM and the SP 2. Analysis 3. Interpretation

109 11 0 Ill

Chapter II. 5:13-16: The Commission 1. Analysis 2. Interpretation Excursus: jerusalem in the SM

154 155 158 162

91

92 92 97 105

Vll

Chapter III. 5:17-20: The Hermeneutical Principles 1. Analysis Excursus: Principles for the Interpretation of the Law in Greek, Roman, and Jewish Legal Thought 2. Interpretation Excursus: Socrates' Defiance of the Law

Vlll

166 167 167 174 179

Chapter N. 5:21-48: The Antitheses 1. Introduction 2. The Antitheses a. The First Antithesis: Murder (Matthew 5:2126) 1) Analysis 2) Interpretation b. The Second Antithesis: Adultery (Matthew 5:27-30) 1) Analysis 2) Interpretation c. The Third Antithesis: Divorce (Matthew 5:31-32) 1) Analysis 2) Interpretation d. The Fourth Antithesis: Oaths (Matthew 5:33-37) 1) Analysis Excursus: Oaths: Their Use and Misuse in Ancient Thought 2) Interpretation e. The Fifth Antithesis: Retaliation (Matthew 5:38-42) 1) Analysis Excursus: Ius Talionis ("Law of Equal Retribution") 2) Interpretation f. The Sixth Antithesis: Love of the Enemy (Matthew 5:43-48) 1) Analysis Excursus: On the Problems of Transmission and Tradition 2) Interpretation Excursus: Theodicy in the SM

296 30 1 313

Chapter V. 6:1-18: The Cultic Instruction 1. Introduction a. Literary Genre and Function b. Literary Parallels

329 330 330 335

198 200 215 215 215 215 230 230 2 31 240 243 243 259 259 259 263 274 275 275 277 294 296

338 347 349 351 370 414

c. Theology d. Authorship 2. Analysis 3. Interpretation Excursus: The Lord's Prayer Excursus: The Doxology Chapter VI. 6:19-7:12: The Conduct of Daily Life 1. Introduction 2. Interpretation a. On Treasures (Matthew 6:19-21) 1) Introduction 2) Analysis 3) Interpretation b. On Vision (Matthew 6:22-23) 1) Introduction 2) Analysis Excursus: Ancient Greek Theories ofVision 3) Interpretation c. On Serving Two Masters (Matthew 6:24) 1) Introduction 2) Analysis 3) Interpretation d. On Anxiety (Matthew 6:25-34) 1) Introduction 2) Analysis 3) Interpretation e) On judging (Matthew 7:1-5) 1) Introduction 2) Analysis 3) Interpretation f. On Profaning the Holy (Matthew 7:6) 1) Introduction 2) Analysis 3) Interpretation g. On Giving and Receiving (Matthew 7:7-11) 1) Introduction 2) Analysis 3) Interpretation h. The Golden Rule (Matthew 7: 12) 1) Introduction 2) Analysis 3) Interpretation

423 423 428 428 428 428 432 437 438 439 439 449 453 454 455 456 459 460 465 468 486 487 489 489 493 493 497 499 500 501 502 504 508 509 516 516

Chapter VII. 7:13-23: The Eschatological Warnings 1. Introduction 2. Interpretation

520 520 520 ix

a. Two Ways and Two Gates (Matthew 7:13-14) 1) Introduction 2) Analysis 3) Interpretation b. The False Prophets (Matthew 7: 15-20) 1) Introduction 2) Analysis 3) Interpretation c. On Self-Delusion (Matthew 7:21-23) 1) Introduction 2) Analysis 3) Interpretation

• Commentary: The Sermon on the Plain (SP/Luke 6:20b-49)

X

520 521 523 524 526 527 531 533 538 539 541 546

Chapter VIII. 7:24-27: The Parable of the Two Builders 1. Introduction 2. Analysis 3. Interpretation

557 557 558 560

Chapter I. 6:20b-26: The Beatitudes and the Woes 1. Introduction 2. Analysis Excursus: "Poor" and "Rich" 3. Interpretation Excursus: The "Woe"-Sayings

571 571 571 572 575 586

Chapter II. 6:27-45: Rules for the Conduct of the Disciples 1. Analysis 2. Interpretation a. Conduct toward the Outside World (Luke 6:27-38) b. Conduct within the Community (Luke 6:3942) Excursus: Rules for Teachers and Students c. Conduct toward Oneself (Luke 6:43-45) Excursus: The Good Man (o aya8h~ CI.v8pw1ro~)

619 621 628 630

Chapter III. 6:46-49: The Parable of the Two Builders 1. Analysis 2. Interpretation

636 636 636

590 591 592 592

• Bibliography

1. Reference 2. History oflnterpretation 3. Commentaries a. Patristic Period (in roughly chronological order) b. Medieval Period (in roughly chronological order) c. Renaissance and Reformation Period (chronological order) d. Modern Period (alphabetically arranged) 4. Studies

643 643 644 644 645 646 64 7 652

Indices 1. Passages 2. Greek Words 3. Subjects 4. Names of Commentators and Scholars Designer's Notes

665 684 685 688 694

XI

Foreword

The name Hermeneia, Greek £pp.7Jvda, has been chosen as the title of the commentary series to which this volume belongs. The word Hermeneia has a rich background in the history of biblical interpretation as a term used in the ancient Greek-speaking world for the detailed, systematic exposition of a scriptural work. It is hoped that the series, like its name, will carry forward this old and venerable tradition. A second, entirely practical reason for selecting the name lies in the desire to avoid a long descriptive title and its inevitable acronym, or worse, an unpronounceable abbreviation. The series is designed to be a critical and historical commentary to the Bible without arbitrary limits in size or scope. It will utilize the full range of philological and historical tools, including textual criticism (often slighted in modern commentaries), the methods of the history of tradition (including genre and prosodic analysis), and the history of religion. Hermeneia is designed for the serious student of the Bible. It will make full use of ancient Semitic and classical languages; at the same time, English translations of all comparative materials-Greek, Latin, Canaanite, or Akkadian-will be supplied alongside the citation of the source in its original language. Insofar as possible, the aim is to provide the student or scholar with full critical discussion of each problem of interpretation and with the primary data upon which the discussion is based. Hermeneia is designed to be international and interconfessional in the selection of authors; its editorial boards were formed with this end in view. Occasionally the series will offer translations of distinguished commentaries which originally appeared in languages other than English. Published volumes of the series will be revised continually, and eventually, new commentaries will replace older works in order to preserve the currency of the series. Commentaries are also being assigned for important literary works in the categories of apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works relating to the Old and New Testaments, including some ofEssene or Gnostic authorship. The editors of Hermeneia impose no systematic-theological perspective upon the series (directly, or indirectly by selection of authors). It is expected that authors will struggle to lay bare the ancient meaning of a biblical work or pericope. In this way the text's human relevance should become transparent, as is always the case in competent historical discourse. However, the series eschews for itself homiletical translation of the Bible. The editors are heavily indebted to Augsburg Fortress for its energy and courage in taking up an expensive, long-term project, the rewards of which will accrue chiefly to the field of biblical scholarship. The editor responsible for this volume is Adela Yarbro Collins of the University of Chicago. june1992

Frank Moore Cross For the Old Testament Editorial Board

Helmut Koester For the New Testament Editorial Board

xm

Preface

Now that the work is done and the commentary is ready to be presented to the readers, the last obligation for the author to fulfill is to give thanks to all those who have assisted in the preparation and production of the book. Over the last two decades there have been many, individuals as well as institutions, to whom thanks are due. In the first place I wish to express my deep gratitude to The School of Theology and The Institute for Antiquity and Christianity at Claremont, California, where I taught from 1963 to 1978, and The University of Chicago, where I have been teaching since 1978. Their administrators, faculty colleagues, students, and library staffs let me be a scholar, researcher and writer, and they supplied me with the resources I needed. I am fully aware that such academic freedoms and opportunities are exceptional. While the first intimations regarding the Sermon on the Mount occurred to me when I worked on the commentary on Galatians during a very fruitful sabbatical in 1973/74 at Uppsala University, the universities of Zurich (1977), Oxford (1981), Stellenbosch ( 1982), Cambridge (1984), Tiibingen ( 1987 /88) and Jerusalem ( 1990) invited me to try out my ideas in teaching as a visiting professor and put the treasures of their libraries at my disposal. While most of the section on the Sermon on the Plain was written at Westminster College in Cambridge, dear to me since my student days, the Introduction and the section on the Sermon on the Mount were the fruit of fourteen months of uninterrupted study and writing in the "Dozentenlesesaal" of the University Library at Tiibingen, made possible by the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung in Bonn which had awarded me a generous "Forschungspreis." For further grants I thank the Association of Theological Schools and the Lady Davis Fellowship Trust at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Beyond the institutions, I am indebted to all those friends, colleagues and students, who over the years have made suggestions, sent me offprints, raised questions, helped clarify issues, and challenged me in discussions and critical revtews. Then there are all those who have contributed significantly to the production of the volume itself. My sincere thanks are due to the Editorial Board of the Hermeneia commentary series, especially to Professors Helmut Koester and Adela Yarbro Collins, my volume editor, for accepting and editing this my third volume in the Hermeneia collection; to Fortress Press and its staff members, in particular its director, Dr. Marshall Johnson, for their courage and competence in producing a tome of medieval proportions at a time when "fast food" inspires so much of the theological book market; to my secretaries Martha Morrow-V ojacek and Peggy Edwards for their patience with typing complicated manuscripts; to my student assistants Steven Hall for teaching me how to use the computer, Christopher Mount for his careful reading of the proofs and, together with Donald D. Walker, Jeffrey R. Asher, and Matt A. Jackson-McCabe, for compiling the major parts of the indices.

XV

Finally, thanks to the constant supportive presence of my wife Christel I myself survived all the ups and downs of the project, and can now be just as amazed as the reader to hold the volume in my hands. Chicago, Illinois February, 1995

xvi

Hans Dieter Betz

Reference Codes

1 . Sources and Abbreviations Abbreviations of ancient sources follow, with minor modifications, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) xvi-lx; see also Luci Berkowitz and Karl Squitier, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works (2d ed.; New York and Oxford: Oxford University, 1986). Abbreviations of text-critical notes follow Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th ed. (see below, short titles, s.v. Nestle-Aland). For explanations see also Siegfried Schwertner, Internationales Abkilrzungsverzeichnis for

An Bib

Analecta biblica

ANET

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ed.

An Or ANRW Anthol. Pal. ANT]

AOAW.PH

Theologie und Grenzgebiete; International Glossary of Abbreviations and Related Subjects; etc. (Berlin: de

Gruyter, 197 4). The following abbreviations have been commonly used: AASF AASOR AAWLM.G

AB ABAW.PH

ABD

Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, Geistes-und sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse Anchor Bible Abhandlungen der bayrischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Abteilung Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. David Noel Freedman; 6 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1992)

AOT

APAW.PH

Ap. Const. Ap.Jas. Ap.john Apoc. Abr. Apoc.Mos. Apoc. Pet. APOT

]. B. Pritchard; 3d ed.; Princeton: Princeton University, 1969) Analecta orientalia Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt Anthologia Palatina

Arbeiten zum Neuen Testament undjudentum Anzeiger der osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse Altorientalische Texte zum Alten Testament (ed. Hugo Gressmann;

2d ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1926) Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse Apostolic Constitutions Apocryphon ofjames Apocryphon ofjohn Apocalypse of Abraham Apocalypse ofMoses Apocalypse ofPeter Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (ed. R. H.

Apuleius

Charles; 2 vols.) Apuleius

Met. ARG

Metamorphoses Archiv for Reformationsgeschichte

Aristophanes

'Abot 'Abot R. Nat.

Pirqe 'Abot 'Abot de Rabbi Nathan

Aristophanes

ACW Aeschylus

Ancient Christian Writers Aeschylus

Aristotle

Aristotle

Eth. Nic. Met. MM Phys. Pol. Protr. Rhet. Rhet. ad Alex. ARW As. Mos. Asc. ]sa.

Ethica Nicomachaea Metaphysica Magna Moralia Physica Politica Protrepticus Rhetorica Rhetorica ad Alexandrum Archiv for Religionswissenschaft Assumption ofMoses Ascension ofIsaiah

ASGW.PH

Abhandlungen der sachsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philologisch-historische Klasse Acta seminarii neotestamentici upsaliensis Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments

Agam.

Aesop Fab.

AGJU

AGSU

Agamemnon

Aesop Fabulae

Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antikenjudentums und des Urchristentums Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Spatjudentums und Urchristentums

A]P

American Journal ofPhilology

AKG ALBO

Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte Analecta lovaniensia biblica et orientalia Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums Anaximenes

ALGHJ

Anaximenes Rhet. ad Alex.

Rhetorica ad Alexandrum

Nub.

ASNU AThANT

Nubes

xvii

Athenagoras

Athenagoras

Suppl. ATR

Supplicatio Anglican Theological Review

Augustine

Augustine

De serm. dom. in monte Ep. AusBR b. B. Batra Ber. B.Me~.

B.Qam. Nid. Qidd. Sanh. Sabb. Sukk. Yeb.

BAGD

Brown Judaic Studies Bibel und Kirche

BKAT

Babylonian Talmud

BKP

Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Beitrage zur klassischen Philo Iogie

BabaBatra Berakot

BLE

BabaMe~a

BT

Bibliotheca Teubneriana

BTB

Biblical Theology Bulletin

BU BWANT

Biblische Untersuchungen Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament

BZ

c.

Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur ZA W Beihefte zur ZNW circa, approximately

Calvin

Calvin

Inst. CBQ

Institutio Christianae Religionis Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBQMS

Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series chapter(s) Corpus Christianorum Cairo (Genizah) text of the Damascus Document

BabaQamma Niddab QidduSin Sanhedrin Sabbat Sukkot Yebamot Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

Syriac Apocalypse ofBaruch Greek Apocalypse of Baruch Epistle ofBarnabas Biblical Archaeology Review

BBB BBE BDF

Bonner biblische Beitrage Beitrnge zur biblischen Exegese F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago:

University of Chicago, 1961) F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch

BFCTh BGBE

XVlll

Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library ofManchester

BJS

1 Bar

BEvTh

BJRL

BK

2Bar. 3Bar. Barn. BARev

BETL

Biblica et orientalia Biblische Studien (Neukirchen)

De sermone domini in monte Epistulae Australian Biblical Review

(ed. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich; 2d ed.; revised by Frederick W. Danker; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979). See also Bauer-Aland in the list of short titles. 1 Baruch

BDR

BibOr BibS(N)

(14th ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Beitrage zur evangelischen Theologie Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie Beitrage zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese

BHH

Biblisch-Historisches Handworterbuch

BHTh

Beitrage zur historischen Theologie

Bib

Biblica

BZAW BZNW

chap(s). CChr CD

Bulletin de litterature ecclisiastique

CEg

Chronique d'Egypte

Cicero De .fin.

Cicero

CII ClQ 1 Clem. 2Clem.

Dejinibus De inventione De legibus De natura deorum De officiis De oratore De Republica Topica Tusculanae disputationes Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum Classical Quarterly 1 Clement 2 Clement

Clement Alex.

Clement of Alexandria

Paed. Protr. Strom. CMC

Paedagogus Protrepticus Stromateis Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis, ed.

Deinv. De leg. De nat. deor. De off De orat. De Rep. Top. Tusc.

Ludwig Koenen and Cornelia Romer, Der Kolner Mani-Kodex: Uber das Werden seines Leibes

col(s).

(Abhandlungen der RheinischWestfalischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; Sonderreihe "Papyrologica Coloniensia" 14; Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1988). column(s)

ConB ConBNT Con NT Corp. Henn. Corpus Paroem. Graec. CP CPJ CRINT

csco CSEL CThM Damascius Vitalsid. DB DBSup Demetrius Deeloc. Demophilus Sent. Pyth. Demosthenes Or. Did. Didasc. Apost. Dio Chrysostom Or. Diodorus Sic. Diog. L. Diogn. DLZ Doctr. apost. EDNT

Coniectanea biblica Coniectanea biblica, New Testament Coniectanea N eotestamentica Corpus Hermeticum Corpus paroemiographorum graecorum Classical Philology Corpus papyrorum judaicorum Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum Calwer Theologische Monographien Damascius Vita Isidori Dictionnaire de la Bible Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement Demetrius De elocutione Demophilus Sententiae Pythagoreorum Demosthenes Orationes Didache Didascalia Apostolorum Dio Chrysostom Orationes Diodorus of Sicily Diogenes Laertius Epistle to Diognetus Deutsche Literaturzeitung Doctrina apostolorum Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider; 3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1990-92) EJ EKKNT

EKL EncRel

Encyclopaedia judaica Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon Encyclopaedia of Religion ( 16 vols.; New York: Macmillan,

1986) 1 Enoch 2 Enoch 3 Enoch Ep. Apost. Ep. Arist. Ep. Pet. Epictetus Diss.

1 (Ethiopic) Enoch 2 (Slavonic) Enoch 3 (Hebrew) Enoch Epistula apostolorum Epistle of Aristeas Epistula Petri Epictetus Dissertationes

Ench. Epicurus Ep. ad Menoec. Epiphanius Adv. haer. Pan. Epistula Anach. EPRO

Erlsr ET EtB ETL ETR Eusebius HE Praep. ev. EvK EvTh EWNT

ExpT FB FGH

FGLP frg(s). FRLANT

FS GCS

Gen. Rab. GGA Gnom. Vatic. Epic.

Encheiridion Epicurus npistula ad Menoeceum Epiphanius Adversus haereses Panarion Epistula Anacharsidis Etudes preliminaires aux religions orientales dans !'empire Romain Eretz Israel English translation Etudes bibliques Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Etudes theologiques et religieuses Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica Praeparatio evangelica Evangelische Kommentare Evangelische Theologie Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament (ed. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider; 3 vols.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, I 97883) Expository Times Forschung zur Bibel Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (ed. F. Jacoby; 3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1926-58) Forschungen zur Geschichte und Lehre des Protestantismus fragment(s) Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Festschrift Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte Genesis Rabbah Gottingische Gelehrte Anuigen

Gnomologium Vaticanum Epicureum Gospel ofPeter Cos. Pet. Cos. Phil. Gospel ofPhilip Gospel of Thomas Cos. Thom. Cos. Truth Gospel ofTruth German translation GT Gottinger theologische Arbeiten GThA Handbuch zum Alien Testament HAT Hell. Synag. Prayers Hellenistic Synagogue Prayers, cited according to the translation by D. R. Darnell, OTP 2.671-97 Hermas, Mandate Hennas, Man. Hermas, Similitude Hennas, Sim. Hennas, Vision Hennas, Vis. XIX

Hesiod Erga Op. Theog. Hippocrates Art. Hippolytus Ref HKAW HKNT HNT Homer II. Od. Horace ArsP. Carm. Epist. Epod. Sat. HR HSCP HThKNT

HTR HTS HUCA HUTh HWPh

HWRh

Hymn. Orph. Hyp. Arch. Iamblichus Vita Pyth. ICC !DB

IDBSup

Ignatius Eph. Mag. Phld. Pol. XX

Hesiod Erga et dies Opera et dies Theogonia Hippocrates De arte Hippolytus Refutatio omnium haeresium Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Homer Iliad Odyssey Horace Ars Poetica Carmina Epistulae Epodi Satirae History of Religions Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Harvard Theological Studies Hebrew Union College Annual Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie Historisches Worterbuch der Philosophie (ed.Joachim Ritter; vols.l-;Basei:Schwabe, 1971-) Historisches Worterbuch der Rhetorik (ed. Gert Ueding; vols. I-; Tiibingen: Niemeyer, 1992-) Hymni Orphici Hypostasis of the Archons Iamblichus De vita Pythagorica International Critical Commentary Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (ed. G. A. Buttrick; 4 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1962) Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume (ed. K. Crim; Nashville: Abingdon, 1976) Ignatius of Antioch Ephesians Magnesians Philadelphians Polycarp

Rom. Smyrn. Trail. Int Irenaeus Adv. haer. I socrates Or. Ad Nicocl. Nicocl. Panegyr. JAC Jll.OS JB JBL JBLMS fDA! JEA JHPh JHS JJP JJS JNES jos. Asen. Josephus Ant. Ap. Bell. JQR JR JSHRZ ]Sf

JSNT

JSNTSup

]SOT

JSOTSup JSS fTC JTS Jub. Julian Ep. Justin A pol. Dial. KAT

Romans Smyrnaeans Trallians Interpretation Irenaeus Adversus haereses !socrates Orationes AdNicoclem Nicocles Panegyricus Jahrbuch fiir Antike und Christentum Journal of the American Oriental Society jerusalem Bible journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Jahrbuch des deutschen archiiologischen Instituts journal ofEgyptian Archaeology journal of the History of Philosophy journal ofHellenic Studies Journal ofjuristic Papyrology journal ofJewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies joseph and Aseneth Josephus Antiquitates Judaicae Contra Apionem Bellum judaicum Jewish Quarterly Review journal of Religion Jiidische Schriften aus hellenistisch-romischer Zeit Journal for the Study ofJudaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal ofSemitic Studies journal for Theology and the Church journal of Theological Studies jubilees Julian the Apostate Epistulae Justin Martyr Apologia Dialogus cum Tryphone Kommentar zum AI ten

KD KEK

KIT KNT KP

LCC LCL LD LdA Libanius A pol. LJ log. LSJ

LThK Lucian Abdic. Alex. Demon. Dial. mort. Eunuch. Hes. Mere. cond. Nigr. Phil. Prom. es in verb. Reviv. Rhet. praec. Vit. auct. Lucretius De rer. nat. LUA LXX Lysias Or. m. B.Me~.

B. Qam. Cit. Ker. Pesa/.1 Sanh. Seba. Seqal. Marcus Aurelius Me d. Mart. Polyc. MaTS

MBPF

Testament Kerygma und Dogma Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar iiber das Neue Testament Kleine Texte Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Der kleine Pauly (5 vols.; Munich: Druckenmiiller, 1975) Library of Christian Classics Loeb Classical Library Lectio divina Lexikon der Agyptologie Libanius Apologia Liturgisches Jahrbuch logion, logia, saying(s) Liddell-Scott-Jones, GreekEnglish Lexicon (9th ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1961) Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche Lucian of Samosata Abdicatus Alexander sive Pseudomantis Demonax Dialogi mortuorum Eunuchus Hesiodus De mercede conductis Nigrinus P hilopseudes Prometheus es in verbis Revivescentes Rhetorum praeceptor Vitarum auctio Lucretius De rerum naturae Lunds universitets arsskrift Septuaginta Lysias Orationes Mishnah

MBTh Mek. Menander Mon. Sent. MH MT MThZ MTS

n.(nn.) NEB Neot. N.F. NGWG.PH

NHC NHSt NIGTC NovT NovTSup

NPNF NRSV NRTh n.s. NT NTA NTApoc

NTApok

BabaMe~i'a

Baba Qamma Gittin Keritot Pesa/.lim Sanhedrin Sebu'ot Seqalim Marcus Aurelius Meditationes Martyrium Polycarpi Marburger Theologische Studien Miinchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte

NTD NTOA NTS NTTS NZSTR

OBO Odes Sol. OLD

Origen Ad Rom.

Miinsterische Beitrage zur Theologie Mekilta Menander Monostichoi Sententiae Museum Helveticum Masoretic Text Munchener theologische Zeitschrift Miinchener Theologische Studien note(s) New English Bible Neotestamentica Neue Folge (new series) Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften in Gottingen, Philologischhistorische Klasse Nag Hammadi Codices Nag Hammadi Studies New Intemational Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum, Supplements Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers New Revised Standard Version Nouvelle Revue Theologique new series New Testament Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher; trans. Robert MeL. Wilson; 2 vols.; London: Lutterworth; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963-65; 2d ed. 1991-92) Neutestamentliche Apokryphen (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; 5th ed.; 2 vols.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1987, 1989) Das Neue Testament Deutsch Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus New Testament Studies New Testament Tools and Studies Neue Zeitschrift fur systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie Orbis biblicus et orientalis Odes of Solomon Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 196882) Origen Commentarii in epistulam ad XXI

Contra C. De orat. De princ. In loan. InMatth.

OT OTP

p. (pp.) P. Berol. P. Oxy.

par. Paralip. fer. PECL 1

Romanos Contra Celsum De oratione De principiis Commentarius in evangelium Joannis Commentarius in evangelium Matthaei

Old Testament The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

(ed.J. H. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983, 1985) page(s) Papyri Berolini, cited by inventory number The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1898-) parallel(s) Paralipomena Jeremiae Plutarch's Theological Writings and Early Christian Literature (ed.

H. D. Betz; SCHNT 3; Leiden: Brill, 1975) PECL2

PC PGL

PGM

Phaedrus Fab.

Philo Abr. Aet. mund. Agric. Cher. Conf ling. Decal. Det. pot. ins. Deusimm. Ebr. Flacc. Fuga Gig. Hyp. jos. Leg. all. Leg. Gaj. Migr. Abr. XXII

Mut. nom. Omn. prob. lib. Op. mund. Plant. Poster. C. Praem. poen. Prov. Q Exod. Q Gen. Rer. div. her. Sacr. AC Sobr. Som. Spec. leg. Virt. Vit. cont. Vit. Mos.

Plutarch's Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature (ed. H.

D. Betz; SCHNT 4; Leiden: Brill, 1978) Patrologia graeca (ed. J.-P. Migne, ed.) A Patristic Greek Lexicon (ed. G. W. H. Lampe; Oxford: Clarendon, 1961-68) Papyri graecae magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri (ed. K.

Preisendanz; rev. Albert Henrichs; 2d ed.: Stuttgart: Teubner, 1973-74) Phaedrus Fabulae

Philo of Alexandria DeAbrahamo De aeternitate mundi De agricultura De Cherubim De confusione lingua rum De decalogo Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat Quod Deus sit immutabilis De ebrietate InFlaccum De fuga et inventione De gigantibus Hypothetica Dejosepho Legum allegoriae Legatio ad Gajum De migratione Abrahami

Philodemus P. Here.

Philostratus Vita Apoll. PL

Plato A pol. Ep. Euthyd. Euthyph. Gorg. Lach. Leg. Lys. Men. Phaedr. Phil. Polit. Prot. Rep. Sop h. Symp. Theaet. Tim.

Plautus Pseud.

Pliny NH

Plotinus Enn.

Plutarch Adulat. Adv. Colot. Aem. Paul. Alcib. Alex. Aud. Cato min. Cons. adux. Corio[. De coh. ira

De mutatione nominum Quod omnis probus tiber sit De opificio mundi De plantatione De posteritate Caini De praemiis et poenis De providentia Quaestiones in Exodum Quaestiones in Genesim Quis rerum divinarum heres sit De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini De sobrietate De somniis De specialibus legibus De virtutibus De vita contemplativa De vita Mosis

Philodemus Papyri Herculanenses

Philostratus Vita Apollonii Patrologia latina (ed.J.-P. Migne)

Plato Apologia Epistulae Euthydemus Euthyphro Corgi as Laches Leges Lysis Meno Phaedrus Philebus Politicus Protagoras Respublica Sophista Symposium Theaetetus Timaeus

Plautus Pseudo[us

Pliny Naturalis historia

Plotinus Enneades

Plutarch of Chaeronea Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur Adversus Colotem Aemilius Paulus Alcibiades Alexander De recta ratione audiendi Cato minor Consolatio ad uxorem Marcius Coriolanus De cohibenda ira

De cup. div. De curios. Defrat. am. De gen. Socr. De sera num. vind. De tranq. an. De virt. et. vit. Defect. orac. Is. et Os. Lib. educ. Mor. Praec. coniug. Quaest. conv. Them.

Polycarp Phil.

De cupiditate divitiarum De curiositate De fraterno a more De genio Socratis De sera numinis vindicta De tranquillitate animi De virtute et vitio De defectu oraculorum De /side et Osiride De liberis educandis Moralia Coniugalia praecepta Quaestiones convivalium Themistocles

4QFlor 4QpNah 4QpPs 4QpPs37 4Q525 11QPs• Zion 11QTemple 11QTorah Quintilian

Institutio oratoria Rabbah Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum (vols. 1-; Stuttgart:

REB

Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum, Supplementa Revue biblique Realencyklopiidie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche The Revised English Bible, with

RechBib

the Apocrypha (1 989) Recherches bibliques

Polycarp

Hiersemann, 1950-)

Epistle to the Philippians

Porphyry

RAGSup

Ad Marc. Prot.jas. Ps. Sol.

Ad Marcellam Protoevangelium ofJames Psalms of Solomon

RB

Ps.-Aristotle

Pseudo-Aristotle

Ps.-Galen Hist. philos.

De virtutibus et vitiis Pseudoclementine Literature Diamartyria Epistula Clementis Epistula Petri Homilies Recognitions De virginitate

Pseudo-Galen De historia philosophica

Ps.-Isoc.

Pseudo-!socrates

Dem.

Ad Demonicum

Ps.-Philo Ant. bibl.

Ps.-Phocyl. Sent.

Ps.-Plato Ale. min. Ale. mai. Def

Ps.-Plutarch Cons. ad Apoll.

PVTG PW

1QM 1QpHab 1QS 1QSa 1QSb

RevQ RGG Rhet. ad Her. RhM RivB

Sententiae

Pseudo-Plato Alcibiades minor Alcibiades maior Definitiones

Pseudo-Plutarch

RNT

Regensburger Neues Testament Revue de philologie, de litterature et d'histoire anciennes Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques Recherches de science religieuse Revised Standard Version Revue theologique de Louvain Revue de theologie et de philosophie Revised Version

RSPhTh RSR RSV RThL RThPh RV

RVV

Consolatio ad Apollonium

Pseudepigrapha V eteris Testamenti graece Pauly-Wissowa, Real-

Supplement to PW Quaestiones disputatae Qumran Literature Thanksgiving Hymns from Cave l War Scroll Pesher on Habbakuk Community Rule Community Rule, Appendix A Community Rule, Appendix B

Revue de Qumran Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart Rhetorica ad Herennium Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie Rivista biblica

RPh

Pseudo-Phocylides

Encyclopiidie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft

PWSup QD QL 1QH

RE

Pseudo-Philo Liber antiquitatum biblicarum

Pesher on Psalm 3 7 Fragment 525 from Qumran Cave4 The" Apostrophe to Zion" from Qumran Cave 11 Temple Scroll from Cave 11 Torah Scroll Quintilian

Inst. Rab. RAG

Porphyry

Virt. et vit. Ps.-Clem. Diam. Ep. Clem. Ep. Petri Hom. Rec. Devirg.

Florilegium from Cave 4 Pesher on Nahum Pesher on Psalms

SAC SANT SB SBA SBB SBLDS SBLMS SBLSBS SBLSCS

Religionsgeschichtliche V ersuche und Vorarbeiten Studies in Antiquity and Christianity Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Sources bibliques Schweizerische Beitrage zur Altertumswissenschaft Stuttgarter biblische Beitrage Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBL Monograph Series SBL Sources for Biblical Study SCL Septuagint and Cognate Studies

SBLSP

SBL Seminar Papers

SBLTT

SBL Texts and Translations XXIll

SBM SBS SBT

sc sc. SCHNT SEA Seneca De clem. De ben. Ep. De tranq. Sextus Sent. Sextus Empiricus Adv. math. SGVS

SHAW.PH

Sib. Or.

SJ SJLA SJT SNTSMS SNTU

so SOAW.PH

Sophocles Ant. El. Oed. Col. Oed. Tyr. SPAW.PH

SQS

StEv StNT Stobaeus Anthol. Eel.

xxiv

Stuttgarter biblische Monographien Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Sources chretiennes scilicet, namely Studia ad Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti Svensk exegetisk arsbok Seneca De dementia De beneficiis Epistulae De tranquillitate animi Sextus Sententiae Sextus Empiricus Adversus mathematicos Sammlung gemeinverstandlicher V ortrage und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, philologischhistorische Klasse Sibylline Oracles Studia Judaica Studies in judaism in Late Antiquity Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt Symbolae Osloenses Sitzungsberichte der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophischhistorische Klasse Sophocles Antigone Electra Oedipus Coloneus Oedipus Tyrannus Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophischhistorische Klasse Sammlung ausgewahlter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften Studia Evangelica Studien zum Neuen Testament Stobaeus Anthologia Eclogae

Flor. StPB Str-B

Florilegium Studia postbiblica H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (6 vols.; Munich: Beck, 192663) StTh Studia Theologica Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen SUNT Testaments Supplementary volume Sup sub voce, sub vocibus, under the s.v. word(s) or entry(ies) Stoicorum veterum fragmenta (ed. SVF J. von Arnim; 4 vols; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1968) SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha Syr. Menander Syriac Menander Sent. Sententiae t. Tosefta Ber. Berakot BabaMe$i'a B.Me$. lful. Ifullin Sanh. Sanhedrin T. Abr. Testament of Abraham T. Is. Testament ofIsaac Testament ofJacob T.Jac. T.job Testament ofjob Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs T. 12Patr. T. Ash. Asher T. Benj. Benjamin T. Iss. Issachar joseph T.Jos. T.jud. Judah T. Naph. Naphtali T. Reu. Reuben T.Sim. Simeon T. Zeb. Zebulon Tacitus Tacitus Ann. Annates TBA Tiibinger Beitrage zur Altertumswissenschaft TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich; trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; I 0 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76) Theological Dictionary of the Old TDOT Testament (ed. G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-) Teach. Silv. Teachings of Silvanus Tertullian Tertullian Adversus Marcionem Adv. Marc. A pol. Apologeticus De bapt. De baptismo De praescriptione haereticorum De praescr. haer. TextsS Texts and Studies Tg. Targum

Ps.-J. THAT

Pseudo-Jonathan Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten Testament (ed. E. Jenni and

C. Westermann; 2 vols.; Munich: Kaiser; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 19711976) ThBei

Theologische Beitriige

Theocritus

Theocritus

Idyll.

Theophrastus De sens.

ThExh ThHKNT

Idyllia

Theophrastus

Theologische Literaturzeitung

Theophilus

Theophilus

Ad Auto!. ThQ ThR

Ad Autolycum Theologische Quartalschrifl Theologische Rundschau

ThSt

Theologische Studien

ThStK ThWAT

Theologische Studien und K ritiken Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testament (ed. G.J.

Botterweck and H. Ringgren; vols. 1-; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973-)

TRE

verse(s) Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Martin Luthers Werke (so-called

VTSup WA

Weimarer Ausgabe, critical edition of the works of Martin Luther) (Weimar: Bohlau, 1883-) WD

Wort und Dienst

WdF WMANT

Wege der Forschung Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

ws

Wiener Studien

WUNT

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

WZ(L).GS

Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universitiit Leipzig, Gesellschafls- und sprachwissenschaflliche Reihe

Xenophon

Xenophon

De sensu et sensibilibus

Theologische Existenz heute Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament

ThLZ

ThWNT

vs(s) VT

Cyr. Mem. Oec. Symp.

Y· YCS YJS

Jerusalem Talmud Yale Classical Studies Yalejudaica Series

Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich; II vols.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, I933-79)

ZAW

Theologische Realenzyklopiidie

Zeitschrifl fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschafl und die Kunde des iilteren Judentums Zeitschriflfor evangelische Ethik Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte Zeitschrifl fur katholische Theologie Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschafl und die Kunde der iilteren Kirche Zeitschrift for Papyrologie und Epigraphik Zeitschrift fur Philosophische Forschung Zeitschrift for Religions- und Geistesgeschichte Zeitschrifl der Savigny-Stiftungfur Rechtsgeschichte, Griechische Abteilung Zeitschrifl der Savigny-Stiftungfiir Rechtsgeschichte, Romanische Abteilung Zeitschrifl fur systematische Theologie Zeitschrifl fur Theologie und Kirche Zeitschrift fur wissenschaflliche Theologie

Theologisches Worterbuch zum NeuenTestament (ed. Gerhard

TRev

Theologische Revue

ZEE ZKG ZKT ZNW

TSAJ TThS

Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Trierer theologische Studien

ZPE

TThZ

Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift

TU

Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Theologische Zeitschrifl (Basel) Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte Ulpian

(vols. I-; Berlin: de Gruyter, I977-)

TZ

UaLG Ulpian Dig.

Digestae

UNT

Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

vc

Vigiliae christianae Vigiliae christianae, Supplements Verbum Domini Vetera Christianorum Verkilndigung und Forschung

VCSup VD VetChr VF

Cyropaedia Memorabilia Oeconomicus Symposium

Vg

Vulgate

v.l.

varia lectio, variae lectiones

ZPhF ZRGG ZSRG.G

ZSRG.R

ZSTh ZThK ZWTh

(variant reading[ s])

XXV

2. Short Titles of Works Often Cited (For works on the Sermon on the Mount and on the Plain and for commentaries of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, see also the bibliography at the end of this volume.) Aalen, Begriffe Sverre Aalen, Die Begriffe 'Licht' und 'Finsternis' im Allen Testament, im Spiitjudentum und im Rabbinismus (Oslo: Dybwad, 1951). Abrahams, Studies Israel Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels (ed. Morton Enslin; New York: KTAV, 1967). Aland, Synopsis Kurt Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (13th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1985). Aland and Aland, Text of the NT Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (trans. Erroll F. Rhodes; 2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989). Allison, "Structure" Dale C. Allison, "The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount," JBL 106 (1987) 423-45. Assmann, Ma 'at Jan Assmann, Ma 'at: Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit im Allen A.gypten (Munich: Beck, 1990). Asmussen, Bergpredigt Hans Asmussen, Die Bergpredigt: Eine Auslegung von Matth. Kap. 5-7 (Wege in die Bibel1; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1939). Banks,jesus and the Law Robert Banks, jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS 28; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975). Bauer-Aland, Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch Walter Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schrijten des Neuen Testaments und der fruhchristlichen Literatur (ed. Kurt and Barbara Aland; 6th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988). Baumbach, Das Verstiindnis des Bosen Gunther Baumbach, Das Verstiindnis des Bosen in der synoptischen Tradition (Theologische Arbeiten 19; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1963). Bengel, Gnomon Johann Albert Bengel, Gnomon Novi Testamenti, in qua ex nativa verborum vi simplicitas, profunditas, concinnitas, salubritas sensuum coelestium indicatur (Stuttgart: Steinkopf, 1742 [1st ed.], 1887 [8th ed.]). ET: Gnomon of the New Testament (trans. Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent; Philadelphia: Perkinpine & Higgins, 1862). Berger, Amen-Worte Klaus Berger, Die Amen-Worte jesu (BZNW 39; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970). XXVI

Berger, Gesetzesauslegung Klaus Berger, Die Gesetzesauslegungjesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im judentum und im Allen Testament, vol. 1: Markus und Parallelen (WMANT 40; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972). Berger, Formgeschichte Klaus Berger, Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984). Berger, "Hellenistische Gattungen" Klaus Berger, "Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament," ANRW II, 25/2 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984) 1031-1432. Betz, Essays Hans Dieter Betz, Essays on the Sermon on the Mount (trans. Laurence L. Welborn; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). Betz, Galatians Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). Betz, Greek Magical Papyri Hans Dieter Betz, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells (2d ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992). Betz, Hellenismus und Urchristentum Hans Dieter Betz, Hellenismus und Urchristentum: Gesammelte Aufiiitze I (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1990). Betz, Lukian Hans Dieter Betz, Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament: Religionsgeschichtliche und pariinetische Parallelen; ein Beitrag zum Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (TU 76; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961 ). Betz, Nachfolge Hans Dieter Betz, Nachfolge und Nachahmungjesu Christi im Neuen Testament (BHTh 37; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1967). Betz, Paulus Hans Dieter Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu seiner "Apologie" 2 Korinther 10-13 (BHTh 45; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1972). Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 Hans Dieter Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). Betz, Synoptische Studien Hans Dieter Betz, Synoptische Studien: Gesammelte Aufiiitze II (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1992). Beyschlag, "Geschichte" Karlmann Beyschlag, "Zur Geschichte der Bergpredigt in derAlten Kirche," ZThK 74 (1977) 291-322. Black, Approach Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1967).

Bohlig, Gnosis Alexander Bohlig, Die Gnosis, vol. 3: Der Manichiiismus (Zurich and Munich: Artemis, 1980). Bolkestein, Wohltiitigkeit Hendrik Bolkestein, Wohltiitigkeit und Armenpjlege im vorchristlichen Altertum (Utrecht: Oosthoek, 1939). Bonhoffer, Epictet und die Stoa Adolf Bonhoffer, Epictet und die Stoa: Untersuchungen zur stoischen Philosophie (Stuttgart: Enke, 1890). Bonhoffer, Ethik Adolf Bonhoffer, Die Ethik des Stoikers Epictet (Stuttgart: Enke, 1894). Bonhoffer, Epiktet und das Neue Testament Adolf Bonhoffer, Epiktet und das Neue Testament (RVV 10; GieBen: Topelmann, 1911). Boring, Sayings M. E. Boring, Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS 46; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1982). Bornhauser, Bergpredigt Karl Bornhauser, Die Bergpredigt (Gutersloh: Bertelsmann, 1927). Bornkamm, "Bergpredigt" Gunther Bornkamm, "Bergpredigt I-III," RGG (1957) l.l047-54. Bornkamm,jesus Gunther Bornkamm,jesus ofNazareth (trans. Irene

and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson; New York: Harper & Row, 1960). Bornkamm, Gesammelte Aufiiitze Gunther Bornkamm, Gesammelte Aufiiitze I-IV (Munich: Kaiser, 1952-71). Bornkamm, "Aufbau" Gunther Bornkamm, "Der Aufbau der Bergpredigt," NTS24(1978)419-32. Bousset, Kyrios Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfiingen des Christusglaubens his Irenaeus (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913; 5th ed. 1965). ET: Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus (trans. John E. Steely;

Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1970). Bovon, Lukas Frant;ois Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Lk 1,1-9,50) (EKK III/I; Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989). Braun, Radikalismus Herbert Braun, Spiitjudisch-hiiretischer und friihchristlicher Radikalismus:jesus von Nazareth und die essenische Qumransekte (BHTh 24; 2 vols.;

Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck], 1957). Braun, Qumran Herbert Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament (2 vols.; Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck], 1966).

Broer, Freiheit Ingo Broer, Freiheit vom Gesetz und Radikalisierung des Gesetzes: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Evangelisten Matthiius (SBS 98; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel-

werk, 1980). Broer, Seligpreisungen Ingo Broer, Die Seligpreisungen der Bergpredigt: Studien zu ihrer Uberlieferung und Interpretation

(BBB 61; Konigsteir:i; Hanstein, 1986). Brox, Hermas Norbert Brox, Der Hirt des Hermas (Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vatern 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). Brunner, Altiigyptische Weisheit Hellmut Brunner, Altiigyptische Weisheit: Lehren fur das Leben (Zurich and Munich: Artemis, 1988). Bultmann,jesus and the Word RudolfBultmann,jesus and the Word (trans. Louise Pettibone Smith and Erminie Huntress Lantero; New York: Scribner's, 1958). Bultmann, History Rudolf Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. John Marsh; 2d ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1969). Bultmann, Ergiinzungsheft Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition: Ergiinzungsheft (ed. Gerd TheiBen and Philipp Vielhauer; 4th ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971 ). Bultmann, Theology Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (trans. Kendrick Grobe!; 2 vols.; New York: Scribner's, 1951, 1955). Bultmann, Exegetica Rudolf Bultmann, Exegetica: Aufiiitze zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments (ed. Erich Dinkier; Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck ], 1967). Burkert, Greek Religion Walter Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University, 1985). Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults Walter Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1987). Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels John Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke (ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; trans. A. W. Morrison; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1972). Carlston, "Betz on the Sermon on the Mount" Charles E. Carlston, "Betz on the Sermon on the Mount-A Critique," CBQ 50 (1988) 47-57. Carmignac, Recherches Jean Carmignac, Recherches sur le "Notre Pere" (Paris: Editions Letouzey & Ane, 1969). Chantraine, Dictionnaire Pierre Chantraine, Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue grecque; histoire des mots (4 vols. in 5; Paris: Klincksieck, 1968-80). xxvii

Chase, Lord's Prayer Frederick H. Chase, The Lord's Prayer in the Early Church (Texts and Studies 1/3; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1891). Cohen,jewish and Roman Law Boaz Cohen .jewish and Roman Law: A Comparative Study (2 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological

Seminary of America, 1966). Cohen, Law and Tradition Boaz Cohen, Law and Tradition in judaism (New York: KTAV, 1969). Coing, "EinfluB" Helmut Coing, "Der EinfluB der Philosophie des Aristoteles auf die Entwicklung des romischen Rechts," ZSRG.R 69 (1952) 24-59. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (trans. James W. Leitch; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975). Crossan, In Fragments John Dominic Crossan, In Fragments: The Aphorisms ofJesus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983). Criisemann, Tora Frank Criisemann, Die Tora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes (Munich: Kaiser, 1992). Dalman,jesusjeschua Gustaf Dalman,jesusjeschua: Die drei Sprachen jesu:jesus in der Synagoge, auf dem Berge, beim Passahmahl, am Kreuz (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922;

reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967). ET: Jesusjeshua: Studies in the Gospels (trans. Paul P. Levestoff; New York: Macmillan, 1929). Dalman, Die Worte Jesu Gustaf Dalman, Die Worte Jesu (2d ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930). ET: The Words ofjesus (trans. D. M. Kay; Edinburgh: Clark, 1909). Dalman, Handworterbuch Gustaf H. Dalman, Aramiiisch-Neuhebriiisches Handworterbuch zu Targum, Talmud und Midrasch (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1938;

reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1967). Danby, Mishnah Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University, 1933). Daube, NT and Rabbinic judaism David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic judaism (1956; reprinted New York: Arno, 1973). Davies, Origins William D. Davies, Christian Origins and judaism (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962). Davies, Setting William D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1964). Davies, Studies William D. Davies, jewish and Pauline Studies (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984). xxviii

Davies and Allison, Matthew William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel ofMatthew. vol. 1: Matthew 1-7; vol. 2: Matthew 818 (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1988, 1991). Delobel, Logia Joel Delobel, ed., Logia: Les Paroles de ]isus: The Sayings ofjesus (BETL 59; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University, 1982). Derrett, Studies in the NT J. Duncan M. Derrett, Studies in the New Testament (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1977-86). Derrett, Ascetic Discourse J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Ascetic Discourse: An Explanation of the Sermon on the Mount (Eilsbrunn: Ko 'amar, 1989). de Vogel, Greek Philosophy C.J. de Vogel, Greek Philosophy (4th ed.; 3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1964-69). Dibelius, Hermas Martin Dibelius, Der Hirt des Hermas (HNT, Sup 4; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1923). Dibelius, Sermon on the Mount Martin Dibelius, The Sermon on the Mount (New York: Scribner's, 1940) ="Die Bergpredigt," in Botschaft und Geschichte (ed. Gunther Bornkamm; 2 vols.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1953) 1.79-174. Dibe!ius,james

Martin Dibelius, James: A Commentary on the Epistle ofjames (rev. Heinrich Greeven; trans. M.A. Williams; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976). Didier, Matthieu M. Didier, ed., L'Evangile selon Matthieu: Redaction et Theologie (BETL 29; Gembloux: Duculot, 1972). Diels-Kranz, Die Fragmente H. Diels and W. Kranz, eds., Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (6th ed.; 3 vols.; Zurich: Weidmann, 1951-52). Dietzfelbinger, Antithesen Christian Dietzfelbinger, Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt (ThExh 186; Munich: Kaiser, 1975). Dihle, Goldene Regel Albrecht Dihle, Die Goldene Regel: Eine Einfilhrung in die Geschichte der antiken und frilhchristlichen Vulgiirethik (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1962). Dirlmeier, Aristoteles, Nikomachische Ethik Franz Dirlmeier, Aristoteles, Nikomachische Ethik, in Aristoteles: Werke in deutscher Ubersetzung, vol. 6 (8th ed.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1983). Dittenberger, Sylloge Wilhelm Dittenberger, Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum (3d ed.; 4 vols.; Leipzig: Hirzel, 191524). Dodd, NT Studies Charles H. Dodd, New Testament Studies (Manchester: Manchester University, 1953). Dodd, More NT Studies Charles H. Dodd, More New Testament Studies

(Manchester: Manchester University, 1968). Dover, Greek Popular Morality K. J. Dover, Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California, 197 4 ). Dupont, Beatitudes Jacques Dupont, Les Beatitudes, vol. 1: Le probleme litteraire; les deux versions du Sermon sur la montagne et des Beatitudes (Bruges: Abbaye de Saint-Andre;

Louvain: Nauwelaerts, 1954; 2d ed. 1958); vol. 2: La bonne nouvelle (Paris: Gabalda, 1969); vol. 3: Les evangelistes (Paris: Gabalda, 1973). Eichholz, Auslegung Georg Eichholz, Auslegung der Bergpredigt (2d ed.;

BibS[N)46; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970). Elon, Principles Menachem Elon, ed., The Principles ofjewish Law (Jerusalem: Keter, 1975). Fiebig, Bergpredigt Paul W. Fiebig,JesuBergpredigt(FRLANT 20; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924). Fitzmyer, Essays Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London: Chapman, 1971 ). Fitzmyer, Luke Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke (AB 28, 28A; 2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981, 1985). Foerster and Wilson, Gnosis Werner Foerster, Gnosis: A Selection of Gnostic Texts (ed. Robert MeL. Wilson; trans. Wilson et al.; 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1972, 1974). Frankemolle, j ahwebund Hubert Frankemolle,]ahwe-Bund und Kirche Christi: Studien zur Form- und Traditionsgeschichte des "Evangeliums" nach Matthiius (NT A, N .F. 10;

Munster: Aschendorff, 1974; 2d ed. 1984). Friedlander, Sources Gerald Friedlander, The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount (1911; reprinted New York: KTAV, 1969). Gerhard, Phoinix Gustav Adolf Gerhard, Phoinix von Kolophon (Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1909). Gessel, Theologie Wilhelm Gessel, Die Theologie des Gebetes nach "De Oratione" von Origenes (Munich, Paderborn, and Vienna: Schoningh, 1975). Gnilka, Matthiiusevangelium Joachim Gnilka, Das Matthiiusevangelium (HThKNT 1.1-2; Freiburg: Herder, 1986, 1988) Goppelt, "Problem" Leonhard Goppelt, "Das Problem der Bergpredigt," in his Christologie und Ethik: Aufsiitze zum Neuen Testament (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968) 27-43. Goppelt, Bergpredigt Leonhard Goppelt, Die Bergpredigt und die Wirk-

lichkeit dieser Welt (Calwer Hefte 96; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1968). Goppelt, Der erste Petrusbrief Leonhard Goppelt, Der erste Petrusbrief (KEK 12.1; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978). ET: A Commentary on I Peter (ed. Ferdinand Hahn; trans. John E. Alsup; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993). Goulder, Mid rash Michael D. Goulder, Mid rash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974). Grasser, Problem Erich Grasser, Das Problem der Parusieverzogerung in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte (BZNW 22; Berlin: Topelmann, 1957;

2d ed. 1960). Grese, Corpus Hermeticum XIII William C. Grese, Corpus Hermeticum XIII and Early Christian Literature (SCHNT 5; Leiden: Brill, 1979). Greeven, Synopsis Heinrich Greeven, Synopse der ersten Evangelien, mit Beigabe der johanneischen Parallelstellen; Synopsis of the First Three Gospels, with the Addition of the johannine Parallels (13th ed. of the Synopse by

Albert Huck; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck), 1981). Grundmann, Lukas Walter Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (ThHKNT 3; 2d ed.; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1961 ). Grundmann, Matthiius Walter Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (ThHKNT 1; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1968; 2ded. 1971). Guelich, Sermon Robert Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount: A FoundationforUnderstanding(Waco, Tex.: Word, 1982). Gundry, Matthew Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy (5 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 196278). Hadot, Seneca Ilsetraut Hadot, Seneca und die griechisch-romische Tradition der Seelenleitung (Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Philosophie 13; Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1969). Hahn, Hoheitstitel (Titles) Ferdinand Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel: Ihre Geschichte imfruhen Christentum (FRLANT 83; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963). ET: The Titles ofjesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity (trans. Harold Knight and

George Ogg; London: Lutterworth, 1969).

XXIX

Harnack, "Geschichte" Adolf von Harnack, "Geschichte eines programmatischen Worts J esu (Matth. 5, 1 7) in der altesten Kirche," Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philologischhistorische Klasse (1912) 184-207. Harnack, "Ich bin gekommen" Adolf von Harnack, "'Ich bin gekommen.' Die ausdrucklichen Selbstzeugnisse Jesu iiber den Zweck seiner Sendung und seines Kommens, " ZThK 22 (1912) 1-30. Harnack, Marcion Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott; Eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche. Also includes Neue Studien zu Marcion (2d ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs,

1924; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960). Harnack, Spruche und Reden (Sayings ofjesus) Adolf von Harnack, Sprilche und Red en jesu: Die zweite QueUe des Matthiius und Lukas, in his Beitriige zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1907). ET: The Sayings ofjesus (trans. J. R. Wilkinson; London: Williams & Norgate; New York: Putnam, 1908). Harnisch, Gleichnisse jesu Wolfgang Harnisch, Gleichnisse j esu: Positionen der Auslegung von Adolfjillicher bis zur Formgeschichte

(WdF 366; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982). Harnisch, Gleichnisforschung Wolfgang Harnisch, Die neutestamentliche Gleichnisforschung im Horizont von Hermeneutik und Literaturwissenschaft (WdF 575; Darmstadt: Wissen-

schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982). Harnisch, Gleichniserziihlungen Wolfgang Harnisch, Die Gleichniserziihlungen jesu: Eine hermeneutische Einfilhrung (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985). Hatch and Redpath Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books)

(2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1897). Heiligenthal, Werke Roman Heiligenthal, Werke als Zeichen: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung der menschlichen Taten im Frilhjudentum, Neuen Testament und Frilhchristentum (WUNT 2.9; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],

1983). Heinemann, Philons griechische und jildische Bildung Isaak Heinemann, Philons griechische und jildische Bildung: Kulturvergleichende Untersuchungen zu Philons Darstellung der jildischen Gesetze (Hildes-

heim: Olms, 1962). Heinemann, Prayer Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns (SJ 9; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977).

XXX

Heinrici, Bergpredigt ( 1900) Carl Friedrich Georg Heinrici, Die Bergpredigt (Matth. 5-7. Luk. 6,20-49) quellenkritisch und begriffsgeschichtlich untersucht (Leipzig: Durr, 1900). Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1905) Carl Friedrich Georg Heinrici, Die Bergpredigt (Matth. 5-7. Luk. 6,20-49) begriffsgeschichtlich untersucht (Leipzig: Diirr, 1905). Hengel, "Bergpredigt" Martin Hengel, "Die Bergpredigt im Widerstreit," ThBei 14(1982)53-67. Hengel, judaism and Hellenism Martin Hengel,judaism'and Hellenism (trans. John Bowden; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974). Hengel, "Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt" Martin Hengel, "Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt und ihremjudischen Hintergrund," ThR 52 (1987) 327-400. Herford, Pirke Aboth R. Travers Herford, Pirke Aboth: The Ethics of the Talmud: Sayings of the Fathers (New York: Schocken, 1962). Hirsch, Frilhgeschichte Emanuel Hirsch, Frilhgeschichte des Evangeliums (2 vols.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1941). Hoffmann, Studien Paul Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (NT Abh 8; Munster: Aschendorff, 1972). Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (SVTP 8; Leiden: Brill, 1985). Hommel, Sebasmata Hildebrecht Hommel, Sebasmata: Studien zur antiken Religionsgeschichte und zum fruhen Christentum (WUNT 31-32; 2 vols.; Tubingen: Mohr

[Siebeck ], 1983). Horn, Glaube und Handeln Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, Glaube und Handeln in der Theologie des Lukas (GThA 26; 2d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986). Horsley, New Documents G. H. R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (6 vols.; North Ryde, N.S.W., Australia: Macquarie University, 1981-92). Hubner, Gesetz Hans Hubner, Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition (2d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986). Hubner, Law Hans Hubner, Law in Paul's Thought (trans. James C. G. Greig; ed.John Riches; Edinburgh: Clark, 1984). Jeremias, Abba Joachim Jeremias, Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966).

Jeremias, Bergpredigt (Sermon on the Mount) Joachim Jeremias, Die Bergpredigt (Calwer Hefte 27; Stuttgart: Calwer, I959). ET: The Sermon on the Mount (trans. Norman Perrin; London: Athlone, I96I; Philadelphia: Fortress, I963). Jeremias, Jerusalem Joachim Jeremias, jerusalem in the Time ofjesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period (Trans. F. H. and C. H. Cave; London: SCM; Philadelphia: Fortress, I969). Jeremias, Parables Joachim Jeremias, The Parables ofjesus (trans. S. H. Hooke; 2d ed.; New York: Scribner's, I963). Jeremias, Prayers Joachim Jeremias, The Prayers ofjesus (SBT 2/6; trans. John Bowden et al.; Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, I967). Jeremias, Theology Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology (trans. John Bowden; New York: Scribner's, I97I). J iilicher, Gleichnisreden Adolf J iilicher, Die Gleichnisreden J esu (2 vols.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], I9I 0; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, I976). Kaser, Privatrecht Max Kaser, Das romische Privatrecht (HKA W I0.3.3.I; 2d ed.; Munich: Beck, I97I). Kertelge, Ethik Karl Kertelge, Ethik im Neuen Testament (QD I 02; Freiburg: Herder, I984). Kloppenborg, Formation JohnS. Kloppenborg, The Formation ofQ· Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (SAC I; Phila· delphia: Fortress, I987). Kloppenborg, QParallels JohnS. Kloppenborg, QParallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes, and Concordance (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, I987). Klostermann, Lukasevangelium Erich Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5; 3d ed.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], I975). Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium Erich Klostermann, Das Matthiiusevangelium (HNT 4; 4th ed.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], I97I). Knox, Sources Wilfred L. Knox, The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels, vol. I: St Mark; vol. 2: St Luke and St Matthew (ed. Henry Chadwick; Cambridge: Cambridge University, I953, I957). Kohler and Baumgartner, Lexicon Ludwig Kohler and Walter Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libras (Leiden: Brill, I953). Kohler, Rezeption Wolf-Dietrich Kohler, Die Rezeption des Matthiiusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Ireniius (WUNT 2.24; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], I987).

Koester, Uberlieferung Helmut Koester, Synoptische Uberlieferung bei den Apostolischen Viitem (TU 65; Berlin: AkademieVerlag, I957). Koester, Introduction Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament (2 vols.; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, I982). Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International; London: SCM, I990). Kiimmel, Introduction Werner G. Kiimmel, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. Howard C. Kee; 2d ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, I97 5 ). Kiimmel, Heilsgeschehen Werner G. Kiimmel, Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte: Gesammelte Aufsiitze 1933-1964 (ed. Erich Grasser, Otto Merk, and Adolf Fritz; MaTS 3; Marburg: Elwert, I965). Kiinzel, Studien Studien zum Gemeindeverstiindnis des Matthiiusevangeliums (CThM series A, vol. I 0; Stuttgart: Calwer, I978). Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary Samuel Tobias Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels ofMatthew, Mark, and Luke(Hoboken, N.J.: KTAV, I985). Lambrecht, Sermon on the Mount Jan Lambrecht, S.J., The Sermon on the Mount: Proclamation and Exhortation (Good News Series I4; Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, I985). Laufen, Doppelilberlieferung Rudolf Laufen, Die Doppelilberlieferung der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums (BBB 54; Bonn: Hanstein, I980). Lausberg, Elemente Heinrich Lausberg, Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik (5th ed.; Munich: Hueber, I976). Lausberg, Handbuch Heinrich Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft (2d ed.; 2 vols.; Munich: Hueber, I973). Layton, Gnostic Scriptures Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and Introductions (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, I987). Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex II,2-7 Bentley Layton, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex II,2-7, together with XIII,2*, Brit. Lib. Or. 4926(1), and P. Oxy. 1, 654. 655 (NHS 20-2I; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, I989). Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings (3 vols.; Berkeley: University of California, I973-80). Lieberman, jewish Palestine Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in

XXXI

the Life and Manners ofJewish Palestine in the li-N Centuries C.E. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942). Lightfoot, Horae hebraicae John Lightfoot, Horae hebraicae et talmudicae, Impensae in Evangelium S. Matthaei. Etc. (Cantabrigiae: Field, 1658). Lindemann, Clemensbriefe Andreas Lindemann, Die Clemensbriefe (HNT 17; Die Apostolischen Vater I; TO bingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992). Lohmeyer, Matthiius Ernst Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Matthiius (KEK-Sonderband; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956). Lohmeyer, "Our Father" Ernst Lohmeyer, "Our Father": An Introduction to the Lord's Prayer (trans. John Bowden; New York: Harper & Row, 1965). Lohse," Aber ich sage euch" Eduard Lohse, "Aber ich sage euch," in Eduard Lohse, ed., Der RufJesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde: FS fur Joachim Jeremias (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 189-203. Long and Sedley, Hellenistic Philosophers A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers (2 vols.; Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University, 1987). LOhrmann, Redaktion Dieter Liihrmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle: Zur weiteren Vberlieferung der Logienquelle (WMANT 33; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969). Luther, Heilige Schrifft Martin Luther, Die gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch [Wittenberg 1545] (ed. Hans Volz et al.; 2 vols.; Munich: Rogner & Bernhard, 1972). Luz, "Erfiillung" Ulrich Luz, "Die Erfiillung des Gesetzes bei Matthaus (Mt 5, 17-20)," ZThK 75 (1978) 398435. Luz, Matthiius (Matthew) Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (EKK 1.1-2; Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985, 1989). ET: Matthew 1-7 (trans. Wilhelm C. Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989). Maier,Jesus Johann Maier,Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Vberlieferung (Ertrage der Forschung 82; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978). Maier,Judische Auseinandersetzung Johann Maier,Jildische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike (Ertrage der Forschung 177; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982). Manson, Sayings T. W. Manson, TheSayingsofJesus(London: SCM,

xxxii

1957). Marguerat, Le jugement Daniel Marguerat, Le jugement dans l' tivangile de Matthieu (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981). Marshall, Luke I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel ofLuke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978). Martin, Rhetorik Josef Martin, Antike Rhetorik: Technik und Methode (HKAW 2.3; Munich: Beck, 1974). Mees, Ausserkanonische Parallelstellen Michael Mees, Ausserkanonische Parallelstellen zu den Herrenworten und ihre Bedeutung (Quaderni di Vetera Christianorum 10; Bari: Istituto di Letteratura Cristiana Antica, 1975). Meier, Law and History John P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew's Gospel: A Redactional StudyofMt. 5:17-48 (AnBib 71; Rome Biblical Institute, 1976). Menard, Thomas Jacques E. Menard, L'Evangile selon Thomas (NHSt 5; Leiden: Brill1975). Merklein, Gottesherrschaft Helmut Merklein, Die Gottesherrschaft als Handlungsprinzip: Untersuchung zur EthikJesu (FB 34; Wiirzburg: Echter, 1978; 2d ed. 1981). Merklein,jesu Botschaft Helmut Merklein,]esu Botschaft von der Gottesherrschaft (SBS 11; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983). Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien Adalbert Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach der syrischen im Sinaikloster gefundenen Palimpsesthandschrift (2 parts; Berlin: Reimer, 1897 -1902). Metzger, Textual Commentary Bruce M. Metzger, ed., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1971). Montefiore, Synoptic Gospels Claude G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels (2d ed.; 3 vols.; London: Macmillan, 1927). Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature Claude G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (London: Macmillan, 1930). Moore,Judaism George Foot Moore,Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1927, 1930; reprinted New York: Schocken, 1971). Maule, Idiom Book Charles F. D. Maule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1955). Moulton, Grammar James H. Moulton et al., A Grammar ofNew Testament Greek (4 vols.; Edinburgh: Clark, 190876; reprinted 1988).

Mussies, Dio Chrysostom Gerard Mussies, Dio Chrysostom and the New Testament (SCHNT 2; Leiden: Brill, 1972). Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (ed. Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle, Kurt Aland eta!.; 26th ed.; 4th revised printing; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1981 ). New Documents New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (ed. G. H. R. Horsleyetal.;6vols.; NorthRyde, N.S.W., Australia: Macquarie University, 1981-92). Niederwimmer, Askese Kurt Niederwimmer, Askese und Mysterium (FRLANT 113; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975). Niederwimmer, Didache Kurt Niederwimmer, Die Didache (Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vatern 1; Gottingen: Vanden. hoeck & Ruprecht, 1989). Nilsson, GGR Martin P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion (HKAW 5.2.1-2; Munich: Beck; 2ded. 1961; 3d ed. 1967). Nissen, Gott Andreas Nissen, Gott und der Nachste im antiken judentum (WUNT 15; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1974). Nock, Essays Arthur Darby Nock, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (ed. Zeph Stewart; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1972). Norden, Agnostos Theos Eduard Norden, Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur F ormengeschichte religioser Rede (4th ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1956). Norden, Kunstprosa Eduard Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance (4th ed.; 2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1923). Otto, Sprichworter August Otto, Die Sprichworter und sprichwortlichen Redensarten der Romer (Leipzig: Teubner, 1890; reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1962). Percy, Botschaft jesu Ernst Percy, Die Botschaft jesu: Eine traditionskritische und exegetische Untersuchung (LUA, N.F., Avdeeling I, Band 49.5; Lund: Gleerup, 1953). Perrin, Rediscovering Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching ofjesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1967). Peterson, Eli. 0EOI. Erik Peterson, Eli. 0EOI.: Epigraphische, formgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (FRLANT 24; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926). Piper, Wisdom Ronald A. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Tradition: The

Aphoristic Teaching ofjesus (SNTSMS 61; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1989). Pohlenz, Stoa Max Pohlenz, Die Stoa: Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung (5th/6th ed.; 2 vols.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984). Pokorny, Bergpredigt Petr Pokorny, Der Kern der Bergpredigt: Eine Auslegung (Hamburg: Reich, 1969). Polag, Christologie Athanasius Polag, Die Christologie der Logienquelle (WMANT 45; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977). Polag, Fragmenta Q Athanasius Polag, Fragmenta Q· Textheft zur Logienquelle (2d ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982). Preisigke, Sammelbuch Friedrich Preisigke, ed., Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Agypten (vols. 1-16; StraBburg: Triibner; Berlin: de Gruyter; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1915-88). Preisigke, Worterbuch Friedrich Preisigke, Worterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden mit EinschlujJ der griechischen Inschrijten, Aufschriften, Ostraka, Mumienschilder usw. aus Agypten (vols. 1-3: 1924-31; vol. 4.1-4, rev. Emil KieBling; Supplement l.l-3: 1969-71; Berlin and Marburg: Selbstverlag, 1924-71 ). Resch, Agrapha Alfred Resch, Agrapha: Ausserkanonische Schriftfragmente (2d ed.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 1967). Robinson and Koester, Trajectories James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester, Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971). Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (3d ed.; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988). Rordorf, La doctrine Willy Rordorf, La doctrine des douze apotres (Didache) (SC 248; Paris: Cerf, 1978). Russel, Paronomasia Elbert Russel, Paronomasia and Kindred Phenomena (Ph.D. diss.; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1920). Sand, Gesetz Alexander Sand, Das Gesetz und die Propheten: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Evangeliums nach Matthaus (Regensburg: Pustet, 197 4). Sanders, jesus and judaism Ed Parish Sanders,jesus and judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). Sanders, jewish Law Ed Parish Sanders, jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990).

XXXlll

Schechter, Aspects Solomon Schechter, Aspects ofRabbinic Theology (1901; New York: Schocken, 1961). Schenk, Synapse Wolfgang Schenk, Synapse zur Redenquelle der Evangelien: Q-Synopse und Rekonstruktion in deutscher Ubersetzung mit kurzen Erlauterungen (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1981 ). Schenk, Sprache Wolfgang Schenk, Die Sprache des Matthaus: Die Text-Konstituenten in ihren makro- und mikrostrukturellen Relationen (Gottingen: Vandenhoetk & Ruprecht, 1987). Schmidt, Ethik Leopold Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen (2 vols.; Berlin: Hertz, 1882). Schmithals, Einleitung Walter Schmithals, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1985). Schnackenburg, Bergpredigt Rudolf Schnackenburg, Die Bergpredigt: Utopische Vision oder Handlunganweisung? (2d ed.; Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1984). Schniewind, Matthiius Julius Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (NTD 2; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), Schnurr, Horen Klaus B. Schnurr, Horen und Handeln: Lateinische Auslegungen des Vaterunsers in der Alten Kirche bis zum 5. Jahrhundert (Freiburger Theologische Studien 132; Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 1985). Schottroff, Essays Luise Schottroff eta!., Essays on the Love Commandment (trans. Reginald and lise Fuller; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978). Schottgen, Horae Hebraicae Christian Schottgen, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum (2 vols.; Dresdae et Lipsiae: Apud Christoph. Hekelii B. Filium, 1733, 1742). Schulz, Principles Fritz Schulz, Principles of Roman Law (trans. Marguerite Wolff; Oxford: Clarendon, 1936). Schulz, History Fritz Schulz, History of Roman Legal Science (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1953). Schulz,Q Siegfried Schulz, Q; Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972). Schurer, History Emil Schurer et a!., The History of the Jewish People in the Age ofJesus Christ (175 B.C. -A.D. 135) (rev. and ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: Clark, 19731987). Schurmann, Lukasevangelium Heinz Schurmann, Das Lukasevangelium, part 1: XXXIV

KommentarzuKap. 1,1-9,50 (HThKNT 3.1; Freiburg: Herder, 1969). Schwarz, "Und Jesus sprach" Gunther Schwarz, "UndJesus sprach": Untersuchungen zur aramaischen Urgestalt der Worte Jesu (BWANT 118; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1985). Schweizer, Beitrage Eduard Schweizer, Beitrage zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1970). Schweizer, Matthaus Eduard Schweizer, Matthaus und seine Gemeinde (SBS 71; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 197 4). Schweizer, Neotestamentica Eduard Schweizer, Neotestamentica (Zurich: Zwingli, 1963). Sieben, Voces Hermann Josef Sieben, Voces: Eine Bibliographie zu Wortern und Begriffen aus der Patristik (1918-1978) (Bibliographia Patristica, Internationale Patristische Bibliographie, Sup 1; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980). Siegert, Philon Folker Siegert, Philon von Alexandrien: Uber die Gottesbezeichnung "wohltatig verzehrendes Feuer• (De Deo) (WUNT 46; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1988). Siegert, Drei hellenistisch-judische Predigten Folker Siegert, Drei hellenistisch-judische Predigten (Ps.-Philon, "Uber Jona," "Uber Simson, • "Uber die Gottesbezeichnung, wohltatig verzehrendes Feuer") (WUNT 20, 61; 2 vols.; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1980, 1992). Simon, Le christianisme antique Marcel Simon, Le christianisme antique et son contexte religieux: Scripta Varia (WUNT 23; 2 vols.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1981). Soiron, Bergpredigt Thaddaeus Soiron, Die Bergpredigt Jesu: Formgeschichtliche, exegetische und theologische Erklarung (Freiburg: Herder, 1941 ). Speyer, Frilhes Christentum Wolfgang Speyer, Frilhes Christentum im antiken Strahlungsfeld: Ausgewahlte Aufsatze (WUNT 50; Tiibingen : Mohr [Siebeck], 1989). Spicq, Notes Ceslas Spicq, Notes de lexicographie neotestamentaire (2 vols., and a supplementary 3d vol.; OBO 22.13; Fribourg: Editions universitaires; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978, 1982). Stanton, "Origin" Graham N. Stanton, "The Origin and Purpose of the Sermon on the Mount," in Gerald F. Hawthorne and Otto Betz, eds., Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: FS for E. Earle Ellis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 181-94; reprinted in his Gospel, 307-25. Stanton, Gospel Graham N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: Clark, 1992).

Steinhauser, Doppelbildworte Michael G. Steinhauser, Doppelbildworte in den synoptischen Evangelien (FB 44; Wiirzburg: Echter, 198I). Stoll, De Virtute Brigitta Stoll, De Virtute in Virtutem: Zur Auslegungs- und Wirkungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt in Kommentaren, Predigten und hagiographischer Literatur von der Merowingerzeit bis um 1200 (BGBE 30; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], I988). Strecker, "Antithesen" Georg Strecker, "Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt (Mt 5,2I-48 par.)," ZNW 69 (I978) 37-72. Strecker, "Makarismen" Georg Strecker, "Die Makarismen der Bergpredigt," NTS I7 (I970-7I) 255-75. Strecker, Bergpredigt (Sermon) Georg Strecker, Die Bergpredigt: Ein exegetischer Kommentar (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, I984; 2d ed., I985). ET: The Sermon on the Mount: An Exegetical Commentary (trans. 0. C. Dean, Jr.; Nashville: Abingdon, I988). Strecker, Weg Georg Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthiius (FRLANT 82; 3d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, I97I). Strecker, Judenchristentum Georg Strecker, DasJudenchristentum in den Pseudoklementinen (TU 70; 2d ed.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, I98I). Streeter, Four Gospels B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study ofOrigins (London: Macmillan, I926). Stroker, Extracanonical Sayings William D. Stroker, Extracanonical Sayings ofJesus (SBLSBS IS; Atlanta: Scholars, I989). Stuhlmacher, "Gesetz" Peter Stuhlmacher, "Jesu vollkommenes Gesetz der Freiheit: Zum Verstlindnis der Bergpredigt," ZThK 79 (I982) 282-322. Syreeni, Making Kari Syreeni, The Making of the Sermon on the Mount: A Procedural Analysis ofMatthew's Redactoral Activity (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, I987). Tannehill, Sword ofHis Mouth Robert C. Tannehill, The Sword ofHis Mouth (Semeia Sup 1; Philadelphia: Fortress, I975). Taylor, Sayings Charles Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers Comprising Pirqe Aboth in Hebrew and English with Notes and Excursuses (2d ed.; New York: KTAV, I969). Theiler, Poseidonios Willy Theiler, ed., Poseidonios: Die Fragmente (2 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter, I982). Tholuck, Bergrede August Tholuck, Die Bergrede Christi (5th ed.;

Gotha: Perthes, I872). Tholuck, Commentary August Tholuck, Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount (trans. from the 4th revised and enlarged edition by Lundin Brown; Clark's Foreign Theological Library 3.7; Edinburgh: Clark; Philadelphia: Smith, English & Co., I866; reprinted I869). Originally: August Tholuck, Die Bergpredigt ausgelegt (4th ed.; Gotha: Perthes, I856). Thorn, "Rhetoric" Johan C. Thorn, "Rhetoric and Style of the Sermon on the Mount" (unpublished paper, I984). Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece Constantin Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece (8th ed.; 3 vols.; Leipzig: Giesecke & Devrient, I869-94). Towner, "Hermeneutical Systems" W. Sibley Towner, "Hermeneutical Systems of Hillel and the Tannaim: A Fresh Look," HUCA 53 (I982) IOI-35. Trilling, Das wahre Israel Wolfgang Trilling, Das wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthiiusevangeliums (Erfurter Theologische Studien 7; 3d ed.; Leipzig: St. Benno, I975). Urbach, Sages Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (2 vols.;Jerusalem: Magnes, I975). van der Horst, Sentences Pieter W. van der Horst, The Sentences ofPseudoPhocylides (SVTP 4; Leiden: Brill, I97 8). van Tilborg, Leaders Sjef van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden: Brill, I972). van Tilborg, Sermon on the Mount Sjef van Tilborg, The Sermon on the Mount as an Ideological Intervention: A Reconstruction ofMeaning (Assen: Van Gorcum, I986). van Unnik, Sparsa collecta Willem C. van Unnik, Sparsa collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. van Unnik (3 vols.; NovTSup 293I; Leiden: Brill, I973, I980, I983). Versnel, Faith, Hope H. S. Versnel, Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (Studies in Greek and Roman Religion 2; Leiden: Brilii98I). Vielhauer, Geschichte Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, I978). Vischer, Leben Rudiger Vischer, Das einfache Leben: Wort- und motivgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Wertbegriff der antiken Literatur (Studienhefte zur Altertumswissenschaft II; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, I965).

XXXV

Volz, Eschatologie Paul Volz, Die Eschatologie der jildischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (2d ed.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1934; reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1966). Wehrli, AA0E Blfll:A:E Fritz Wehrli, AA0E Blfll:Al:: Studien zur altesten Ethik bei den Griechen (Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1931). WeiB, Predigtjesu Johannes WeiB, Die Predigtjesu vom Reiche Gottes (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892; 2d ed. 1900); reprinted with a new foreword by RudolfBultmann (3d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964). WeiB, Urchristentum Johannes WeiB, Das Urchristentum (ed. Rudolf Knopf; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917). WeiB, History Johannes WeiB, The History ofPrimitive Christianity (trans. Frederick C. Grant; New York: Wilson & Erickson, 1937); republished as Earliest Christianity (ed. Frederick C. Grant; 2 vols.; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959). Wellhausen, Evangelium Lucae Julius Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Lucae (Berlin: Reimer, 1904). Wellhausen, Einleitung Julius Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin: Reimer, 1905; 2d ed., 1911). Wellhausen, Evangelium Matthaei Julius Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Matthaei (2d ed.; Berlin: Reimer, 1914). Wellhausen, Evangelienkommentare Julius Wellhausen, Evangelienkommentare. With an introduction by Martin Hengel (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987). Wengst, Didache Klaus Wengst, Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemensbrief, Schrift an Diognet (Schriften des Urchristentums 2; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984). Wernle, Frage Paul Wernle, Die synoptische Frage (Freiburg: Mohr [Siebeck], 1899).

xxxvi

Wettstein Johann Jacob Wettstein, H KAINH ~IA0HKH: Novum Testamentum Graecum (2 vols.; Amsterdam: Ex officina Dommeriana, 1751-52). Widengren, Religionsphanomenologie Geo Widengren, Religionsphanomenologie (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969). Wilson, Love Walter T. Wilson, Love without Pretense: Romans 12.9-21 and Hellenisticjewish Wisdom Literature (WUNT 2.46; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1991). Windisch, Bergpredigt (Sermon on the Mount) Hans Windisch, Der Sinn der Bergpredigt: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der richtigen Exegese (UNT 16; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1929). ET: The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount: A Contribution to the Historical Understanding of the Gospels and to the Problem of Their True Exegesis (trans. S. MacLean Gilmour; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1950). Wolf, Rechtsdenken Erik Wolf, Griechisches Rechtsdenken (4 vols.; Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1950-70). Wrege,Bergpredigt Hans-Theo Wrege, Die Uberlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt (WUNT 9; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1968). Zahn, Matthaus Theodor Zahn, Das Evangelium des Matthaus (2d ed.; Leipzig: Deichert, 1905). Zeller, Mahnsprilche Dieter Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprilche bei den Synoptikern (FB 17; 2d ed.: Wiirzburg: Echter, 1983). Zumstein, Condition Jean Zumstein, La Condition du croyant dans l'evangile selon Matthieu (OBO 16; Fribourg: Presses universitaires; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977). Zuntz, Persephone Gunther Zuntz, Persephone: Three Essays on Religion and Thought in Magna Graecia (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971).

Editor's Note

In commissioning a commentary on the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain, the Editorial Board of Hermeneia recognized the importance of oral tradition and written sources in the formation of early Christian writings. We also acknowledge the extraordinary influence that these Sermons, especially the Sermon on the Mount, have had in the history of interpretation and in Western culture generally, as summaries of the teaching ofJesus. The resulting commentary provides excellent guidance for reading the Sermons both in the context of ancient wisdom and philosophical teaching and as documents that had enormous influence on the unfolding of Christian theology and ethics. The endpapers in this volume are reproduced from The Eljleda Bond Goodspeed Gospels (Department of Special Collections, University of Chicago Library, Ms 1054), a tenth-century Greek manuscript presented to the University of Chicago Library by Edgar J. Goodspeed in 1952. The manuscript, which consists of 265 parchment leaves in 36 quires written by a single scribe, is a fine example of the early and pure minuscule hand. The leaves reproduced here (37 recto and verso; 43 recto and verso) contain portions of the Sermon on the Mount of the Gospel according to Matthew. -Adela Yarbro Collins The University of Chicago

xxxvii

Introduction

Es ist ein Meer auszutrinken, wenn man sich in eine historische und kritische Untersuchung dieserhalb einlaBt. J.P. Eckermann, Gesprache mit Goethe (13 February 1831) I. Approaching the Text

The custom of ancient authors to begin their books with an address "To the Reader" (Lectori) may be appropriately revived here in view of the texts before us, the Sermon on the Mount (SM/Matt 5:3-7:27) and the Sermon on the Plain (SP /Luke 6:20b-48). As every reader knows, these texts are not ordinary material. Rather, they are from the outset texts that command respect. Indeed, these texts are in many ways aweinspiring, or perhaps it is better to say that their long tradition in Christian and even in world literature has dignified them to an extent that modern readers cannot escape. Religious and cultural valuation makes a difference, whatever the object may be. Entering the Temple area in Jerusalem, or the Acropolis of Athens, or the Cathedral of Saint Peter in Rome is not an ordinary experience. The same is true of anyone whose mind enters into the thought world of the famous Sermons, as the reader is about to do. From afar, these texts look relatively simple, and for many readers of the New Testament these Sermons have always represented nothing more than the simple truth of Jesus' message or uncomplicated and straightforward principles of morality and ethics. The intriguing phenomenon is, however, that the closer one looks into the matter the more one becomes involved with the issues addressed by the Sermons. The experience can thus be compared with visiting famous old castles or cathedrals. Tourists may put in thirty minutes to walk through, just to get an impression, and that is what they get. But if one begins to study such buildings with the help of a good guidebook, visions of whole worlds open up. Whether it is the architecture, the symbols and images, the statues and paintings, or the history that took place in and around the buildings, under closer examination things are bound to become more and more complicated, diverse, and intriguing, with no end in sight. Such an experience can, I suggest, also be the result of the study of a text or texts, such as the Sermon on the

Mount and the Sermon on the Plain. The evidence for this claim is the history of interpretation: since the early church an almost endless chain of theologians and philosophers have commented on these texts. For this reason the following commentary treats the Sermon on the Mount as a piece of world literature, not as an exclusive text. Of course, we possess this text in the first place because ofthe evangelist Matthew. As we believe, he preserved it and it became world literature together with the Gospel of Matthew and the New Testament. Yet, as I shall point out, the Sermon on the Mount has always been more than a Christian text. This same approach is extended to the Sermon on the Plain, although it has had a far less important history. The reason for putting the two Sermons together into the same literary class is that, because of their literary and historical origin and nature, the two Sermons belong together. The case for this hypothesis will have to be made in the Commentary, but the evidence may be summed up in the Introduction. In terms of religion, the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain have their origins in Judaism, a Judaism, however, that has been disturbed or inspired (depending on one's point of view) by Jesus of Nazareth, who is assumed by the Sermons as their author and speaker. The particular brand of Judaism that produced the Sermon on the Mount may be called "the Jesus movement," or, perhaps at a later stage, "Jewish Christianity." As I shall point out in detail, the "real author(s)" (as distinguished from the "assumed author") intended to formulate an epitome of the teachings of their revered teacher for the purpose of instructing those who had joined the Jesus movement, the "disciples." The Sermon on the Mount, therefore, sums up what the Jesus movement regarded as the essentials for disciples to know and always bear in mind. As Jesus was a Jew, all the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount are Jewish in theology and cultural outlook. Because of the development of the early Christian church, in particular its Jewish-Christian branches, the Sermon on the Mount ended up in the Gospel of Matthew, a Christian text, and it was canonized as a Christian text together with this Gospel as part of the New Testament; the Sermon on the Plain, for reasons explored below, ended up in the Gospel of Luke and was canonized together with that Gospel.

The Sermon on the Plain is apparently also a product of the same branch of the Jesus movement, but its purpose and function differ from those of the Sermon on the Mount. While basically reflecting the same theology, the cultural outlook of the Sermon on the Plain is Greek rather than Jewish. The reason for this difference between the two Sermons seems to be that the Sermon on the Plain is directed at disciples coming from a Greek cultural milieu, while the Sermon on the Mount addresses those coming from a Jewish milieu. If this assumption is granted, it would mean that even the earliest church took into consideration that converts usually come from different cultural and religious backgrounds and that catechetical material, if it is to be effective, must be formulated accordingly. This insight is known from Gregory of Nyssa's Great Catechetical Oration, 1 but it appears to belong to the conceptual foundations of the Sermons. Both Sermons, therefore, pay attention also to Greek religion, although this attention is mostly polemical and apologetic. The Sermons, each in its own way, are designed to establish an identity for the disciples within the Jewish as well as the Greek religious and cultural environment. For this reason, some Jewish and Greek cultural presuppositions are confirmed and enforced, while others are rejected. There is both adaptation of and polemic against some forms of Judaism and of Greek culture. On the whole, the Sermon on the 1 2

2

Mount is more pro-Jewish, while the Sermon on the Plain is more pro-Greek. These different emphases are not exclusive, however, although they clearly have formed their purposes with the presumed audiences in mind. For this reason it is conceivable that both Sermons, in spite of their differences, are rooted in the same branch of the Jesus movement. On the one hand, that the Sermon on the Mount involves discussion of issues of Jewish religion has meant that this text has always been attractive to Jewish readers who did not fail to discover that it is really part of their own religious thought. This peculiar relationship between the Sermon on the Mount and Jewish scholarship 2 has not extended to the Gospel of Matthew as a whole, nor to the New Testament as a whole. The history of Jewish interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount shows that this text has its own peculiar status apart from the Gospel of Matthew and the New Testament as a whole. On the other hand, the discussion of Greek cultural and religious phenomena has meant that, since the times of the ancient Christian church, leamed church fathers as well as philosophers have taken account of the teachings in both Sermons. Even in the twentieth century, philosophers and political theorists, for whatever reason, find themselves challenged by these teachings. Historians of law have always discussed the legal and ethical issues brought forth by the Sermon on the Mount, and they

On this point see below n. 609 (cf. n. 470). A fresh investigation appears to be desirable now. For references, see Erich Bischoff, Jesus und die Rabbinen. Jesu Bergpredigt und "Himmelreich" in ihrer Unabhi:ingigkeit vom Rabbinismus dargestellt (Schriften des InstitutumJudaicum in Berlin 33; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905); Paul Billerbeck, "Nachwort zur Bergpredigt," Str-B 1.470-74; Claude G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (London: Macmillan, 1930), who mentions also earlier works such as Gerald Friedlander, The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount (London: Routledge & Sons, 1911; reprinted New York: KTAV, 1969); furthermore,Joseph Klausner,]esus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching (trans. Herbert Danby; New York: Macmillan, 1925) esp. 361-97; Leo Baeck, Das Evangelium als Urkunde der jildischen Glaubensgeschichte (Berlin: Schocken, 1938); ET in his judaism and Christianity (trans. with an introduction by Walter Kaufmann; New York: Harper& Row, 1966) 41138; Gerhard Kittel, "Die Bergpredigt und die Ethik desJudentums," ZSTh 2 (1924/25) 555-94; idem,

Die Probleme des pali:istinischen Spi:itjudentums und das Urchristentum (BWANT 3.1; Stuttgart: Kohlharnrner, 1926) 88-140. Despite their great erudition, these studies are often uncritical or tendentious; even the most recent work shows little improvement: Samuel T. Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels ofMatthew, Mark, and Luke (Hoboken, N.J.: KTAV, 1987). The most glaring errors will supposedly be taken care of in a revised edition (so J. Duncan M. Derrett,JSJ 19 [1988]108-9). Fora critique of past research on Jesus see Ed P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); idem,Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990).

Introduction

have placed their teachings within the context of serious legal debates. The influences exerted by the Sermon on the Mount generally far transcend the borderlines of Judaism and Christianity, or even Western culture. Both Sermons have a peculiarly universalistic appeal (see esp. below on SM/Matt 5:13-16), so that influences on Islam 3 or Mahatma Gandhi 4 are less astonishing than might appear at first sight. Indeed, the Sermon on the Mount never was and still is not the sole property of the Christian churches and their tradition, but it has had and still has separate histories within non-Christian religions as well, with the most prolific history being within Judaism. It is true that we know of the Sermons only because the Christian New Testament preserved them by canonizing them and by elevating especially "the Sermon on the Mount," as it has been called since Augustine, 5 to the high level of authority it has since enjoyed. This canonization and devotion, however, have been a source of irritation, betrayal, and deformation, as well as one of inspiration and continuing renewal for the churches. For most of church history, for reasons we now understand quite well, the Sermon on the Mount has been an alien piece de resistance. The conflict between the authority attributed to the Sermon on the Mount, taken to be the quintessence of the teaching of Jesus, and the realities of common church life and history has never escaped astute observers inside and outside the church. This discrepancy has been a source of judgment as well as challenge. Ideological critics of the institutional churches have always used the Sermon on the Mount as their main weapon for pointing out the hypocrisy, failures, and internal contradictions of the Christian religion itself. Schismatic developments inside Christendom have often used this text to justify separation, antagonism, emigra-

tion, and new beginnings elsewhere. Even to those who have remained faithful to their church traditions, the Sermon on the Mount has served and still serves as a constant reminder and resource in times of distress, confusion, and false accommodation to cultural behavior incompatible with the Christian faith. These various roles the Sermon on the Mount has played are far from being merely a matter of the past. The popularity of the text today shows no sign of diminution. The multitude of books on the Sermon on the Mount appearing every year in all languages and lands, not to mention articles in journals, magazines, and newspapers, exceeds what even computerized bibliographies can handle. Indeed, at present there is no complete bibliography of all the works written on the Sermon on the Mount, 6 and I dare say there never will be one. Nor is there a complete history of the interpretation of this text, and again I dare say there never will be one. If undertaken, it would largely overlap with the entire history of biblical interpretation, Christian theology, and even secular philosophy, since almost every author during this history had one thing or another to say on the subject. Although this history includes much repetition, the trains of thought from author to author are interesting, just as the divisions of opinions are. There are, even in my limited experience, innumerable original insights that illuminate not only later interpretations but even the text itself. 7 In view of this overwhelming evidence, a clear statement of intent and purpose is in order, as far as this commentary is concerned. To begin with, an unambiguous confession of modesty is appropriate. This commentary intends to be no more than a guide to an informed understanding of this famous text. Its

3

See Stefan Schreiner, "Muhammads Bergpredigt,"

4

Kairos 19 (1977) 241-56. Mohandas Gandhi, An Autobiography (Ahmedabad:

Navajivan Publishing House, 1927) 50-52; also his What Jesus Means to Me (Ahmedabad: Navajivan

5 6

Publishing House, 1959), with a selection of texts. See below, n. 59. A useful beginning was made by Warren S. Kissinger, The Sermon on the Mount: A History ofInterpretation and Bibliography (Metuchen, N .] .: Scarecrow, 1975). The work is, however, far from comprehensive.

7

Contrary to widely held perceptions, the history of interpretation can be fruitful and interesting. One can only agree with the statement made by Brigitta Stoll, De Virtute in Virtutem: Zur Auslegungs-und Wirkungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt in Kommentaren, Predigten und hagiographischer Literatur zwischen 800 und 1200 (BGBE 30; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],

1988) XII-XIII. See also the reviews by Rolf Sprandel, GGA 241 (1989) 258-64; Hans Dieter Betz, Critical Review of Books in Religion 4 ( 1991) 2 3 739.

3

purpose is to open up the wealth of ideas, issues, and problems interwoven with the two Sermons. It will familiarize the serious reader-the book is meant only for the serious reader, not the superficial "tourist"-with the most important comparative materials and secondary sources. The commentary will also advance a number of hypotheses deemed necessary for the proper understanding of the texts. This commentary does not claim to explain everything, or to collect all the evidence on everything, or to deliver the last word on anything. I know all too well that I stand in a long tradition of biblical scholarship and theological thinking. I have no intention of hiding the fact that this tradition has been a lifelong source of intellectual stimulation and fascination. I will also readily admit that in my view these texts must be or become a necessary part of the intellectual equipment of anyone who lives consciously in our time and who may even cross the threshold of the twenty-first century. This is not merely an urgent matter of the Christian faith, although it is certainly just that in the most immediate sense; it is also simply a matter of being or becoming a self-conscious human being. This claim should not be misunderstood as predetermining understanding and debate. The commentary's purpose is to clear away false information, prejudices, and self-delusions, and to enable readers to come to an understanding, their own understanding, that is sufficiently informed and that can thus have integrity. Whether such understandings agree or disagree with positions taken by the Sermons is a different matter that readers themselves must decide. Their decisions, I am well aware, depend on many other factors as well and not only on the reading of one book. Like the texts themselves, this commentary is also meant for the student in the true sense of the word. Even after having written the commentary, I myself do not cease to be such a student. We are all links in an unending chain of interpretations tied up with the texts. For this reason, I have avoided simplifying things unduly or engaging in the repulsive hucksterism that is too often characteristic of allegedly religious writings. The Sermons are "easy" only to the superficial, whether pious or secular. Life is not an easy matter either, and the Sermons are concerned with life. Enabling one to live life fully, meaningfully, and responsibly is the goal of the 4

Sermons, so that this commentary must also help bring about this living. Therefore, if things look difficult, it is because in fact they are so. Serious readers will not be deterred but attracted by such difficulties. Nonetheless, whatever difficulties there may be, they certainly are at an acceptable level as compared with other literatures. The Sermons are not for children but for relatively welleducated adults, for persons who are not specialists in biblical studies but experts in human living. Before turning to the matters of introduction themselves, a few technical terms need definition because of their disputed character in present scholarship. 1. By the author I mean the "actual" author or authors of the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain (see also below, sections 3 to 5). Whether one or several individuals authored the Sermons can no longer be determined, so I shall use the term author in a generic way. The "assumed" author (assumed by the texts themselves) is Jesus of Nazareth, who speaks in the first person throughout, although his name is never given within the speeches. 2. By redactor I mean the author acting as arranger, adapter, or modifier of source materials not originally created by him. This activity is then called redaction or redactional. In principle, these terms can refer to the evangelists (Matthew and Luke in this case) and their activities or to presynaptic persons and activities, related to the Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon on the Plain, or the sayings source Q. 3. A source is a clearly delineated section of text acquired and included by the redactor. The term may also refer to the earlier context from which such a section has been taken. 4. The term tradition refers to less delineated materials that the author or redactor has received and used. These materials may include ideas, terms, doctrines, thematic topics, formal elements, patterns of expressions, and so on. 5. The term Matthean, used often in a confused way, is used here only to designate the activities, expressions, or doctrinal ideas ofthe evangelist Matthew, the final author of the Gospel by that name. While anything in that Gospel can be called "Matthean" in principle, the adjective is used here only to designate contributions by the final author as distinct from those attributable to preMatthean redactors or traditions.

Introduction

6. While the recipients of the written Gospels are readers of these books, earlier sources such as the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain speak of the "hearers" (and "doers") of the sayings contained in them. At the time, most people continued to "hear" the books as they were read aloud to them in gatherings of Christians. Thus these texts function primarily as oral and only secondarily as written texts. In a sense, of course, "hearing and doing these my words" (SM/Matt 7:24-27) remains the same, whether oral or written. The difference in terminology helps to distinguish between the primary and the secondary functions of the two Sermons. II. The Major Problems of Research in Historical Perspective

The major problems of research as we encounter them in the literature on the SM and the SP developed in the course of their history of interpretation. This simple fact again points to the often lamented neglect of the history of the interpretation of Scripture in general, and of the two Sermons under investigation here in particular. 8 A complete account of the history of the exegesis of these 8

texts does not exist at the present time and may never exist, but some partial investigations at least are available. 9 Most of the history of exegesis has been concerned with the Gospel of Matthew as a whole. 1 0 In addition, there exist commentaries, paraphrases, sermons, and annotations devoted to individual passages of the SM, the SP, or a harmonization of both. 11 Another large field is that of the application and use of these texts in works on historiography, biography (hagiography), hymnology, liturgy, monastic rules, and so forth. This study of the history of the interpretation of the SM and the SP can be fruitful and exciting, if it is done in conjunction with the problems of historical-critical exegesis as present New Testament scholars discuss them. It is true not only that our present problems regarding these texts have evolved in history before us, but also that past scholarship has made important discoveries that have been forgotten or misunderstood; if recovered and properly understood, these older discoveries can make important contributions even in the present. Thus, the history of exegesis and the current discussions of exegetical problems must be brought to bear on each other.

See Gerhard Ebeling's programmatic statement in Kirchengeschichte als Geschichte der Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift (SGVS 189; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 194 7); reprinted in Wort Gottes und Tradition (2d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966)

9

9-27; ET: "Church History Is the History of the Exposition of Scripture," in The Word of God and Tradition (trans. S. H. Hooke; London: Collins, 1968) 11-31. Karlmann Beyschlag ("Zur Geschichte der Bergpredigt in der Alten Kirche," ZThK 74 [1977]291322) calls attention to some exemplary texts but does not provide consistency. More important is Ulrich Luz (Das Evangelium nach Matthiius [EKKNT 1.1; Zurich, Koln, and Einsiedeln: Benziger; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985]; ET: Matthew 1-7 [trans. Wilhelm Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 11 1989]), who surveys the "history of influence" (Wirkungsgeschichte) at the end of each section of the SM. Surveys are also provided in the 1986 Leiden dissertation by Johannes Bouterse, De boom en zijn vruchten: Bergrede en Bergrede-Christendom bij Reformatoren, Anabaptisten en Spiritualisten in de zestiende eeuw

10

presented by Frans Neirynck, with a "Supplement Bibliographie 1950-1985" by B. Dehandschutter (BETL 75; Leuven: Peeters, 1986); idem, "Le texte du sermon sur Ia montagne de Matthieu utilise par Sant Justin. Contribution a Ia critique textuelle du premier evangile," ETL 27 (1954) 411-48, reprinted as an appendix in Influence (1986 ed.) 725-62. While Massaux assumes literary dependency on the Gospel of Matthew even for the Apostolic Fathers, a 1986 doctoral dissertation at the University ofBem (Switzerland) reflects the current stage of research; it is by Wolf-Dietrich Kohler, Die Rezeption des Matthiiusevangeliums in der Zeit vor lreniius (WUNT 2.24; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1987). For the whole question see Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press lntemational, 1990). Biblia Patristica: Index des citations et allusions dans la litterature patristique (ed. J. Allenbach et al.; 3 vols.;

Paris: Editions du C.N.R.S., 1975, 1977, 1980); Hermann Josef Sieben, Exegesis Patrum: Saggio bibliografico sull' esegesi biblica dei Padri della Chiesa (Rome: Istituto Patristico Augustinianum, 1983).

(Kampen: Kok, 1986). See Edouard Massaux, Influence de l'Evangile de Saint Matthieu sur la litterature chretienne avant Saint !renee

(Gembloux: Duculot, 1950); reprinted edition

5

In the following not more than a sketchy historical survey can be provided. Its purpose is to inform readers of the broad outlines of what is involved, to point to major stages of the developments, to provide bibliographical information, and perhaps to stimulate further · studies. 1. The Ancient Church to Augustine a. Within the New Testament

Within the New Testament itself the influence of the SM and the SP on the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, respectively, requires special investigations. Depending on the presupposition whether the SM and the SP are creations by the evangelists Matthew and Luke or by presynaptic authors of sources, such investigations will reach different conclusions. Each Gospel gives the SM and the SP, respectively, a prominent position at the beginning of the narratives concerning Jesus' public activity as a teacher of disciples. Although the evangelists never explicitly refer to the Sermons again in their respective Gospels, they do allow them to play a significant role and exercise influence in them. The prominent places given to the Sermons in the structure of the Gospels are as important as are the terms and concepts introduced by them and shared by the evangelists, not to mention the authoritative example presented by Jesus as the speaker. In a sense one may say that the evangelists' entire works are commentaries on the SM and the SP, although, as I have said, they never explicitly refer to these texts again in their works. Even more difficult to assess are influences by the SM 12

6

or the SP on other New Testament writers. Here also the question is of decisive consequence, whether such influence was exerted by the entire Gospels of Matthew and Luke, by the SM and the SP as presynaptic compositions, or by individual sayings or clusters of sayings that ended up in the two Sermons as well. While there is no evidence that any of the other writers of the New Testament knew either the Gospel of Matthew or the Gospel of Luke, most scholars today share the assumption that some of the sayings of Jesus have influenced some writers, but who these writers are and which kind of influence one may assume are questions that have resisted a conclusive answer. In fact, the evidence itself is inconclusive. Theoretically, one can imagine a variety of possibilities. Conceivably, there could be influences by the transmissions of single sayings, clusters of sayings, or more extended presynaptic compositions such as Q, the SM, or the SP. Although one can make a case for or against any of these possibilities, the problem is that alleged citations of sayings of Jesus in New Testament writers other than the Gospels rarely agree verbatim with those in the presumed sources. Moreover, one can explain the differences in different ways. Therefore, possible influences of the SM or the SP on Paul's letters, I2 the Epistle of James,U1 and 1 Peter 14 have been claimed, but these claims are still awaiting plausible explanation and proof. While similarities and parallels doubtless exist (in some writings such as the Epistle ofJames they exist in abundance), they are of the kind whose textual dependency on the SM or the SP, or even on Matthew's or Luke's

Cf. Rom 12:14=SM/Matt 5:44//SP/Luke 6:27-28; Rom 12:17, 21=SM/Matt 5:38-42//SP/Luke 6:27-35; Gal5:14; Rom 13:8-10=SM/Matt 5:43; 1 Cor 7:10-16=SM/Matt 5:31-32; 2 Cor 1:17=SM/Matt 5:37; Rom 2:1-2; 14:10=SM/Matt 7:1-5//SP /Luke 6:37-42. None of these and other passages leads me to assume that Paul was familiar with either the SM or the SP in regard to their entirety or in regard to single sayings contained in them. Rather, he seems to have received them from other sources. Scholars have discussed the possibility that Paul was familiar with Q, but they have not 13 reached a consensus. For the full evidence and the state of research, see Frans Neirynck, "Paul and the Sayings of jesus," in A. Vanhoye, ed., L'Apotre Paul: Personnalite, style et conception du ministere (BETL 73; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University, 1986) 265-

321, esp. 320, where Neirynck sums up his conclusions from an extensive review of scholarship: "Paul's knowledge of a pre-synoptic gospel, of the Qsource or pre-Q collections has not yet been demonstrated." See also Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 52-55; Andreas Lindemann, "Die Funktion der Herrenworte in der ethischen Argumentation des Paulus im Ersten Korintherbrief," in F. Van Segbroeck et al., eds., The Four Gospels: FS Frans Neirynck (BETL 100; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University, 1992) 677-88. The problem of the relationship between the SM and the Epistle of james is completely unresolved. See Massey H. Shepherd, "The Epistle ofJames and the Gospel of Matthew," JBL 75 (1956) 40-51; Hans Dieter Betz, Essays on the Sermon on the Mount (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 156 n. 122; Wiard

Introduction

Gospel, can hardly be demonstrated. This situation leaves one with two options: (1) Paul's letters, the Epistle of James, and 1 Peter do not depend directly on the SM or the SP but on traditional sayings on which the SM and the SP also depend; (2) if one assumes a dependency of these letters on the SM and the SP, the question of the literary process of transmission, indicated by the terms "dependency" and "influence," must be explained in a special way. b. Post-New Testament Period

In the post-New Testament period and the Apostolic Fathers the same problems continue. Here also the evidence is ambiguous and leads to different conclusions. 15 An influence of the entire Gospel of Matthew, as we have~ it at present, is impossible to demonstrate up to and includ\ng the time of Justin Martyr (died c. 163 or 167). 16 Until:then, the evidence for sayings and clusters of sayings aJJOunds. Their transmission can be attributed to a stream of oral tradition passing on from generation to generation. There is also sufficient evidence to assume that this stream soon included written collections of sayings, which then merged with other collections. 17 One can further assume that oral and written traditions

14

15

ran side by side for a considerable length of time and even interacted with each other. These materials, now contained in sources more or less textually fixed, suggest great fluidity and richness at earlier stages. With the canonization of the Gospels, the stream of tradition gradually dried up, but this process took a long time and worked itself out differently in different geographical areas. The change may have been completed with Tertullian (c. 160-220), when "the age of the sayings of Jesus" was over and the new "age of biblical quotations" began. 18 c. The Emergence of Written Sources

The question of the emergence of written sources was raised first with regard to Q, the collection containing sayings of Jesus not in Mark and, hypothetically, used as a source in the formation of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Without summarizing the present state of research on Q, one can say with confidence that the source Q seems to have been written rather than oral. 19 With

Popkes, Adressaten, Situation und Form des J akobusbriefes (SBS 125/126; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel-

Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1987); ET: New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1: Gospels and Related Writings (trans.

werk, 1986) esp. 156-76; Dean B. Deppe, "The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle ofJames" (diss., Academisch Proefschrift; Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, 1989); Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 71-75. For a discussion of the parallels between 1 Peter and the SM, see Ernest Best, "I Peter and the Gospel Tradition," NTS 16 (1969/70) 95-113, esp. 108-10. He lists the following parallels: Matt 5:5=1 Pet 3:1-4 (also 1:4); Matt 5:10=1 Pet 3:14; Matt 5:11-12=1 Pet 4:13-14; Matt 5:16-17=1 Pet 2:12-13; Matt 5:44=1 Pet 3:16 (3:9); Matt 5:45=1 Pet 1:17; Matt 5:48=1 Pet 1:16; Matt 6:25ff.=1 Pet 5:7; Matt 7:2427=1 Pet 5:10. None of these passages proves a dependency of 1 Peter on the SM. See Leonhard Goppelt, Der Erste Petrusbrief(KEK 12.1; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 53-54 ET: A Commentary on I Peter (ed. Ferdinand Hahn, trans. John E. Alsup; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 3335. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 64-66. See Helmut Koster, Synoptische Vberlieferung bei den Apostolischen Viitern (TU 65; Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1957); Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, passim; Kohler, Rezeption, passim (with bibliography); Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Vbersetzung, vol. 1 (5th ed.;

Robert MeL. Wilson; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1991); A. F.J. Klijn,jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition (VCSup 17; Leiden: Brill, 1992). See Arthur J. Bellinzoni, The Sayings ofJesus in the Writings ofjustin Martyr (NovTSup 17; Lei den: Brill, 1967); Kohler, Rezeption, 161-265. Kohler assumes that Justin knew all four canonical Gospels, but then he introduces so many qualifications that his conclusions become implausible. Against Kohler see Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 14-15, 360-75. See, e.g., the sayings collection P. Oxy. 654 and its relationship to the Coptic Gospel ofThomas. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Oxyrhynchus Logoi of Jesus and the Coptic Gospel according to Thomas," in his Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London: Chapman, 1971) 355-433; Beate Blatz, "Das koptische Thomasevangelium," in NTApok 1.93-113; ET: "The Coptic Gospel of Thomas," NTApoc 1.110-33; Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 75-128. So Beyschlag, "Geschichte," 320. On the whole question, see JohnS. Kloppenborg, The

16

17

18 19

Formation ofQ' Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (SAC; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987); Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 128-71; also

7

many scholars today I assume that earlier and later developments in Q can be distinguished, distinctions of the sort that can be made only in written sources. Conceivably, Q began as a smaller collection of sayings of Jesus. These sayings were originally oral in nature, and so, most likely, were the first attempts to collect them. As these collections became larger and more intricate, at some point the material was written down. I assume that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke incorporated separate versions of Q, which, even before their incorporation, had undergone a process during which they had also been subjected to modifications (QMatt and QLuke). That QMatt and QLuke share a great deal of material and roughly the same order means that at some earlier stage they must have come from a common source (Q). This hypothesis would explain why QMatt included the SM, while QLuke included the SP. 20 Assuming this hypothesis, one can conclude that, prior to their incorporation, the SM and the SP existed in written form as independent textual units. In other words, the SM and the SP existed first as separate compositional units before they were incorporated into QMatt and QLuke. For their material they drew on the same pool of sayings ofJesus that Q drew on, so that in some instances a double representation of sayings resulted in QMatt and QLuke on the one hand, and in the SM and the SP on the other hand. The hypothesis of written forms of Q is strengthened

20 21

22

8

by the discovery of papyrus collections of sayings of Jesus, coming most likely from the second century CE. 21 The question is, therefore, not whether such written collections existed, but rather from what point in time can one assume such collections to have existed. The best example of written collections of sayings of Jesus like those in the SM and the SP is the Didache, a compilation from about the last decade of the first century. 22 This work, which has undergone several stages of development, does not depend on the canonical Gospel of Matthew, the strong opinions on the part of some scholars 23 notwithstanding; a more complicated relationship must be assumed. In its oldest part (chaps. 1-6), the Didache shows great similarity to the SM; it is this part that existed originally and separately prior to the other parts of the work. This older part existed also in another version, the Greek source of the Latin Doctrina apostolorum. 24 Also related to these texts is in some way the Two Ways section of the Epistle ofBarnabas (chaps. 18-20), 25 which must have had an existence prior to this letter to which these chapters were then appended. These texts demonstrate that written collections of the kind we have in the SM and the SP did in fact exist by the end of the first century CE; these collections were based on older sources going back to Jesus and even to Jewish wisdom literature. The Didache in particular shows a

Charles E. Carlston, "Betz on the Sermon on the Mount-A Critique," CBQ 50 (1988) 47-57, esp. 48-49. For my own reading of the evidence, see my essay, "The Sermon on the Mount and Q: Some Aspects of the Problem," in James E. Goehring et al., eds., Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings: In Honor ofjames M. Robinson (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1990) 19-34; reprinted in Betz, Synoptische Studien: Gesammelte Aufsiitze II (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992) 249-69;James·M. Robinson, "The Q Trajectory: Between John and Matthew," in Birger A. Pearson et al., eds., The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor ofHelmut Koester (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 173-94. See below, section II. 7, for further discussion. For the evidence, see Joachim Jeremias and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, "Fragmente unbekannter Evangelien," NTApok 1.80-92; ET: "Fragments of Unknown Gospels," NTApoc 1.92-109. For the literature and a summary of the state of research see Kohler, Rezeption, 19-56; Kurt Niederwimmer, Die Didache (Kommentar zu den

23

24

25

Apostolischen Vatern 1; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1989); Clayton N. Jefford, The Sayings of jesus in the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles (VCSup 11; Leiden: Brill, 1989); Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 16-17. For example, Kohler (Rezeption, 55-56) assumes that the Didachist was familiar with the canonical Gospel of Matthew. See Leo Wohleb, Die lateinische Obersetzung der Didache kritisch und sprachlich untersucht (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 7.1; Paderborn: Schoningh, 1913); Bertold Altaner, "Die lateinische Doctrina Apostolorum und die griechische Grundschrift der Didache," in his Kleine patristische Schriften (TU 83; Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1967) 335-42. The Two Ways tradition has had a long history in patristic literature. For references, see below, n. 32, and on SM/Matt 7:13-14.

Introduction

process of evolution from jewish Christianity, which produced a collection of sayings of Jesus similar to the SM, to an expanded Christian church order. 26 d. The Influence of the Gospel of Matthew

Taking the influence of the Gospel of Matthew into account raises the question of the origins of this Gospel. 2 7 In spite of all efforts to clarify this question, the beginnings of the Gospel of Matthew are still, to some extent, shrouded in mystery. From what sources did the evangelist Matthew obtain the material that he did not receive from the Gospel of Mark and the sayings source Q, the so-called Sondergut? If the SM was not part of QMatt, which is at least a possibility, this question applies directly to the SM. From where did he get this material? There remains also the lingering question regarding the old tradition that our Gospel of Matthew is only a revision of an earlier version known to some church fathers. 28 Leaving these questions aside, I must note that even after Irenaeus (second half of the 2nd century), who for the first time considered all four Gospels, 29 the SM in particular continued to wield an influence of its own that was not simply the result of the success of Matthew's 26 27

28

29

30

Gospel. Although, as the result of the success of the four Gospels, other Gospels and Gospel-like traditions were gradually eliminated from Christian literature, some other texts also continued at later times to be influential independently of the Gospels. The Didache seemingly functioned on its own from the time of its origin onward. Later it became a part of church orders such as the third-century Syriac Didascalia, 30 and the Apostolic Constitutions (end of the 4th century). 31 The Two Ways schema of ethical instruction, present in Didache 1-6, the Doctrina apostolorum, Barnabas 18-20, and the Shepherd ofHermas, persisted in many versions until the end of the ancient church, 3 2 often in epitomes. 33 The formation of the monastic rules ofBasilius 34 (329-379) and Benedict 35 (c. 480-547) marked the beginning of a new phase in the history of this tradition.

See Niederwimmer, Didache, esp. the Prolegomena, §§ 1, 6, and 7. For the present state of research, see Werner Georg Kiimmel, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. Howard C. Kee; Nashville: Abingdon, 1976) 10121; Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975) 355-65; Luz, Matthew 1.33-99; Graham N. Stanton, "The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Gospel: Matthean Scholarship from 1945-1980," ANRWII, 25.3 (1984) 1889-1951; Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 314-31. Kohler(Rezeption, 1-6,151-58, 161-65,256-65, 517-36, and passim) underestimates the problems when he assumes that only "our" Gospel of Matthew existed from the beginning and was known by that name. Irenaeus Adv. haer. 3.11.8-9; for the texts see Kurt Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (13th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1985) 533-37; and see Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible (trans. J. A. Baker; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972) 103-209; Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 243-44. Arthur Voobus, The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac (CSCO 401-2, 407-8; Louvain: Secretariat du CSCO, 1979) esp. 30-35; see Robert H. Connolly,

Didascalia apostolorum (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929); Franz Xavier Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones apostolorum (2 vols.; Paderborn: Schoningh, 1905);

Georg Schollgen and Wilhelm Geerlings, eds., Didache: Zwoif-Apostellehre; Traditio Apostolica: Apostolische Oberlieferung (Fontes Christiani 1;

31 32

33

34 35

Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1991 ). See the edition by Funk, Didascalia. For a list of these writings, see Stanislaus Giet, L'Enigme de Ia Didache (Paris: Ophrys, 1970) 19-26; Willy Rordorf, "Un chapitre d'ethique judeochretienne: les deux voies," RSR 60 (1972) 109-28. On the church orders, see Bertold Altaner, Patrologie (8th ed.; Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1978) 254-57, 600 for bibliography; on epitomes, see Ilona Opelt, "Epitome," RAG 5 (1965) 944-73; and below, section 4. See Hans Urs von Balthasar, Die groj3en Ordensregeln (2d ed.; Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1961) 33-134. See Basilius Steidle, ed., Die Benediktinerregel, lateinisch und deutsch (2d ed.; Beuron: Beuroner Kunstverlag, 1975). See Sigismund Pawlowsky, Die biblischen Grundlagen der Regula Benedicti (Wiener Beitrage zur Theologie 9; Vienna: Herder, 1965).

9

Apart from these influences, some sections of the SM took on lives of their own. They became standing topics and proof texts in commentaries, sermons, and other devotional literature. Such influences were prominently exerted by the Beatitudes (SM/Matt 5:3-12; SP /Luke 6:20b-24), 36 the Lord's Prayer (SM/Matt 6:9-13), 37 the section on worrying (SM/Matt 6:25-34), 38 and the polemics against heresies (SM/Matt 7:15-23). The antitheses of the SM (Matt 5:21-48) played a special role for Marcion and his movement and subsequently for all the patristic writings directed against them. 39 The passages concerning the two ways (SM/Matt 7:13-14) and the two trees (SM/Matt 7:1620) became key passages in the debates about gnostic forms of dualism. 40 Mani, 41 the founder of a new world religion in the third century CE (c. 216-7 6), provided special interpretations of the two trees in his Kephalaia, 4 2 which in turn meant that Augustine gave close attention to the passage in his commentary and other writings. 43 The Lord's Prayer, along with its teaching on prayer (SM/Matt 6:5-13), became the subject of entire works "On Prayer," usually having as their center the interpretation of the Lord's Prayer. 44 To a lesser degree, the 36

37 38 39

same is true for the sections on almsgiving (SM/Matt 6: 1-4) and on fasting (SM/Matt 6: 16-18). 45 The greatest influence must, however, be attributed to the Beatitudes (SM/Matt 5:3-12; SP /Luke 6:20b-24). This influence led to a chain of special writings on this topic. Beyond this, one can say without exaggeration that of all the texts of Matthew none has been studied more intensively, been quoted more frequently, or been the impetus for more new writings by other authors than the SM. This enormous influence has not simply been the result of the canonical authority of the Gospel of Matthew. 46 Rather, it is more likely the other way around. Matthew's authority may have derived from the fact that it contained the SM, which was always believed to be the centerpiece of the teachings of jesus. One may even suggest that the evangelist knew precisely what he was doing when he incorporated the SM section and gave it the most prominent place as jesus' inaugural speech at the beginning of his public career. e. Commentaries on Matthew

A full account of the learned commentaries on Matthew's Gospel cannot be provided here. 47 Apart from complete and fragmentary works, a large number of

See the bibliography below to the Beatitudes, esp. the works by D. Buzy and Mario Spinelli, with bibliographies. See the bibliography on the Lord's Prayer below. See the bibliography on this section below. See below on SM/Matt 5:21; Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (2 vols.; Erlangen: Deichert, 1888-92) 1/2.596, 666-75; Adolf von Harnack, Marcion; Das Evangelium vom Fremden Gott (2d ed.; reprint Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960) 74-92, esp. 89 n.

2. 40 41

42 43 44 45 46

10

See Kohler, Rez.eption, 339-427; Harnack, Marcion, 194*-195*. See Alexander Bohlig, "Die Bibel bei den Manichaern" (diss., University of Munster, 194 7); idem, Die Gnosis, vol. 3: Der Manichiiismus (Zurich and Munich: Artemis, 1980) 252, 328, 343, 344; Eugen Rose, Die manichiiische Christologie (Studies in Oriental Religions 5; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1979). See also below on SM/Matt 7:13-14; also 7:15-20. 47 Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 2.24.78-81; also Contra Fortunatum 22. See below on SM/Matt 6:9-13, for bibliography. See below on the sections SM/Matt 6:1-4 and 6:1618, for bibliography. A special case is presented by the Pseudo-Clementine

literature, in which the SM (or SP?) is frequently cited. For the Greek edition, see Bernhard Rehm, ed., Die Pseudoklementinen, vol. 1: Homilien; vol. 2: Rekognitionen in Rufinus Ubersetzung (GCS 42 and 51; 2d ed.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1969, 1965); vol. 3.1-2: Georg Strecker, ed., Konkordanz zu den Pseudoklementinen (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1986, 1989). ET: Pseudo-Clementine Literature (trans. Thomas Smith; Ante-Nicene Fathers, 8.4; reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981) 73-346. See Georg Strecker, "Eine Evangelienharmonie beijustin und Pseudoklemens?" NTS 24 (1978) 297-316. For lists of Gospel quotations (SM/SP), see Karl August Credner, Beitriige zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften (2 vols.; Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1832, 1836) 1.287-89, 417-21; Strecker, Konkordanz, 3.2, 547-49. The sayings of jesus have been examined by Leslie L. Kline, The Sayings ofjesus in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies (SBLDS 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1975). See C. H. Turner, "The Early Greek Commentaries on the Gospel according to St. Matthew," JTS 12 (1911) 99-112; Joseph ReuB, Matthiius-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche. A us Katenenhandschriften gesammelt und herausgegeben (TU 61; Berlin:

Akademie-Verlag, 1957); idem, "EvangelienErklarungen vom 4.-9. Jahrhundert in der

Introduction

comments and notes are in works on different subjects, of which in particular those oflrenaeus (died c. 200), 48 Clement of Alexandria (c. 140/50-215?) 49 and Tertullian (c. 160-220) 50 deserve mention. Unfortunately, the great commentary by Origen (c. 185-253/54) on Matthew, in twenty-five books, is extant only in part, with the sections on the SM lost. 51 The commentary attributed to the pen of Hippolytus of Rome (fl. 195235) is lost, 52 but his Refutation ofAll Heresies contains many references to the SM. 53 The commentary on Matthew's Gospel by Jerome (34 7/48-420) was famous, a learned work that is preserved and has influenced scholarship ever since. 54 The first commentary in Latin was by Hilary of Poitiers (died 367 /68); 55 it was influenced by Tertullian,

Cyprian, and Novatian. At the end of the tradition stand the great commentaries by John Chrysostom (c. 350407)56 and Chromatius of Aquileia (381-407 /8). 57 Also of importance is the Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, transmitted under the name of John Chrysostom. 58 f. Augustine's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount

Despite this long history of scholarship it is astonishing that Augustine of Hippo (354-430), not long after his conversion to Christianity, wrote the first full commentary on the SM alone. His admirable work marked a change in the estimation and treatment of the SM. 5 9 For

griechischen Kirche," in Joachim Gnilka, ed., Neues Testament und Kirche: FS fur Rudolf Schnackenburg

48 49

(Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 476-96. 55 See Irenaeus Adv. haer. 4.12-16 on passages from the SM. See Clement's works in GCS 17.1-3, with the index in vol. 17.4 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1970-1980). 56 See Dietmar W yrwa, Die christliche Platonaneignung in den Stromateis des Clemens von Alexandrien (AKG 53; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1983); Gerassime Zaphiris, Le Texte de l'Evangile seton Matthieu d'apres les citations de Clement d'Alexandrie comparees aux citations des peres et des theologiens grecs du II' aux XV' siecle (Gembloux:

50 51

52

53

54

Duculot, 1970). See TertullianAdv. Marc. 4.14-17. Origen In Matthaeum (Fragmenta), in Origenes' Werke (ed. Erich Klostermann, Ernst Benz, and Ludwig Friichtel; GCS 12.3.1-2; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1941; 57 Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1955). Regarding the SM, only fragments are extant (see GCS 12.3.1, 47-76); see also Hermann]. Vogt, ed., Origenes: Der Kommentar zum Evangelium nach Matthiius (2 vols.; 58 Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur 18, 30; Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1983, 1990). See Adolf von Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur his Eusehius (2d ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1958) 1/2.641; 2/2. 251-52; also Miroslav Marcovich, "Hipf>Olytus," TRE 15 (1986) 381-87. Miroslav Marcovich, ed., Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium (Patristische Texte und Studien 25; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1986), with an index of Scripture passages. 59 David Hurst and Marcus Adriaen, eds., Hieronymus, Commentarius in Matthaeum (CChr, series latina 87B; Turnholti: Brepols, 1969); also Emile Bonnard, Saint jerome: Commentaire sur S. Matthieu (SC 242, 259; 2

vols.; Paris: Cerf, 1977, 1979). See Pierre Nautin, "Hieronymus," TRE 15 (1986) 304-15. Jean Doignon, ed., Hilarius, Commentarius in Matthaeum (SC 254, 256; 2 vols.; Paris: Cerf, 1978, 1979). See Hans-Christoph Brennecke; "Hilarius von Poitiers," TRE 15 (1986) 315-22. Fridericus Field, ed., SanctiPatris nostrijoannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Homiliae in Matthaeum (Cantabrigiae: Officina academica, 1839) 1.186-356; also PC 57.223-328. ET: Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., The Preaching ofChrysostom: Homilies on the Sermon on the Mount (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967); G. Prevost, trans., The Homilies ofSt. john Chrysostom ... on the Gospel of St. Matthew (NPNF I 0; 3

vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1843-51; reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975). See Jean-Marie Leroux, "Johannes Chrysostomus," TRE 17 (1987) 118-27. Anselm Hoste, ed., Chromatius of Aquileia, Tractatus XVII in Evangelium Matthaei (CChr, series latina 9; Turnholti: Brepols, 1957) 389-442; also Sermo de octo heatitudinihus, ibid., 383-88; Praefatio orationis dominica, ibid., 443-47. Ps.-Chrysostom, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, PC 56.611-948. See Klaus B. Schnurr, Horen und Handeln: Lateinische Auslegungen des Vaterunsers in der Alten Kirche his zum 5. Jahrhundert (Freiburger

Theologische Studien 132; Freiburg: Herder, 1985) 200-219; Franz Mali, Das "Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum" und sein Verhiiltnis zu den Matthiiuskommentaren von Origens und Hieronymus (Innsbrucker

Theologische Studien 34; Innsbruck and Vienna: Tyrolia, 1991), with further bibliography. See the edition by Almut Mutzenbecher, Sancti Aurelii Augustini De Sermone Domini in monte lihros duos

(CChr, series latina 35; Turnholti: Brepols, 1967). For an ET seeJohnJ.Jepson, trans., St. Augustine:

11

the first time, it appears, the SM was appreciated and interpreted as a work of literature by itself, apart from the Gospel ofMatthew. 60 Since we know of no predecessors for such a work, the questions are what may have motivated Augustine to undertake this work and why it took the form it did. Unfortunately, Augustine did not leave a full account of how and why the work came about. Perhaps the principal motivation behind the commentary was his struggle with Manichaeism. 61 We know from Manichaean sources that the SM played an exceedingly important role for Mani and the Manichaeans, 62 so that a serious refutation of their doctrines would have to wrest this authoritative text from their hands and demonstrate conclusively that their interpretation was wrong. It may well be that Augustine, who was intimately familiar with the Manichaean teachings and writings, dealt them what he thought to be the final blow by presenting a completely new interpretation of one of their most cherished and authoritative pieces of literature. 2. From Augustine to the Reformation

The interpretation of the SM during the period from Augustine to the Reformation had not been studied to any great extent until recently. All the more important then are the conclusions reached by these studies, among them especially that of Brigitta Stoll in her doctoral

dissertation, 63 entitled De Virtute in Virtutem. 64 The book investigates commentaries, sermons, and hagiographical literature between 800 and 1200, with special attention to the commentaries by Hrabanus Maurus (c. 780856),65 Pseudo-Beda, 66 Paschasius Radbertus (c. 790856 /59), 67 Christian of Stablo (died after 880), 68 Bruno of Segni (c. 1 049-1123), 69 the Glossa ordinaria, 70 and Rupert of Deutz (c. 1070-1129). 71 The great stream of all this scholarship went into the collection by Nicolaus of Lyra (c. 1270-1349?), called Biblia sacra cum glossa ordinaria. 72 Nicolaus assumed that a thoroughgoing systematic structure underlies the Gospel of Matthew, with Matthew 5-7 forming the explication of the law (explicatio legis). The commentary indicates that Nicolaus regarded the SM as a treatise on the law. 73 This idea is correct in some sense, although not in the sense he understood. Nicolaus was thinking of a Christian concept ofthe law, not the Jewish Torah expounded by the SM. Thus, his structure, which he imposed on the SM, was taken from medieval Christian dogmatics. Every work devoted to the SM during this period shows the continuing influence of Augustine's De sermone domini in monte and of his other writings. The questions he raised and refined continued to be discussed. Also the hermeneutical rules concerning the interpretation of Scripture generally remained part of the discussion. Another subject of continuing interest concerned the

The Lord's Sermon on the Mount (ACW 5; London: Longman's & Green, 1948). There is no adequate investigation of the work. See Piero Rollero, La

68

Expositio in Evangelium Matthaei, PL 106 (1864)

"Expositio evangelii secundum Lucan" di Ambrogio come fonte della esegesi agostiniana (Universita di Torino,

69 70

Commentaria in Matthaeum, PL 165 (1854) 63-314. Glossa ordinaria: Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, PL

Augustins Bergpredigtexegese. Nach seinem Fruhwerk De sermone Domini in monte libri duo (Vienna: Herder, 1960); Bouterse, De boom, 21-32.

71

114 (1879) 63-176. See also Beryl Smalley, "Glossa ordinaria," TRE 13 (1984) 452-57 (bibliography). Rhabanus Haacke, ed., De gloria et honore filii hominis super Mattheum (CChr, continuatio mediaevalis 39; Turnholti: Brepols, 1979).

See section III below on the compositional aspects. See Augustine Contra Faustum 17-19. See section III below on this point. See above, n. 7. The title comes from Helinand of Froidemont (died after 1229), SermoXXIII, PL 212 (1855) 671; see Stoll, De virtute, 42, 231. Commentariorum in Matthaeum libri octo, PL 107 (1851) 727-1156. Expositio in Evangelium Matthaei, PL 92 (1862) 9-132. Beda Paulus, ed., Expositio in Matheo libri XII (CChr, continuatio mediaevalis 56; Turnholti: Brepols,

72

1984). 1261-1564.

Pubblicazioni della Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia 10.4; Turin: Giappichelli, 1958); AdolfHoll,

60 61 62 63 64

65 66 67

12

73

Biblia sacra cum glossa ordinaria a Strabo Fuldensi Monacho Benedictino collecta (6 vols.; Antverpiae:

Ioannes Meursius, 1634). Vol. 5.91-154 is on the SM, pp. 771-72 on the SP. See also Bouterse, De boom, 42-45. For analysis, see Karin Bornkamm, "Umstrittener 'spiegel eines Christlichen lebens': Luthers Auslegung der Bergpredigt in seinen Wochenpredigten von 1530 his 1532," ZThK 85 (1988) 409-54, esp. 451-53.

Introduction

images and metaphors used by the SM. 74 Most interesting for us today is the transposition of images and metaphors into the figures of saints in the hagiographical literature (e.g., the saintas "the light of the world" [SM/Matt 5:14-16]). 75 Another fascination of the time was numerical symbolism (esp. the numbers seven and eight as significant for the SM). 76 As the older problems linger on, they feed theological debates along the way. The question whether the SM consists of "new law" (nova lex) or of a gift of divine grace to the service ofthe pedagogy of the saints 77 foreshadows the debates of the Reformation. Apparently the SM was still being used in the education of monks (e.g., Christian of Stablo). 78 The interpretation that the SM is a gift of grace to sacred pedagogy seems to center on a few sections of the SM. SM/Matt 5:17-20 is prominent because of the notions oflaw and righteousness, 5:13-16 because ofthe description of the addressees, 5:3-12 because of the enormous importance of the Beatitudes, and 5:21-48 because ofthe meaning oflaw and gospel. Among the new developments one should note that the distinction between consilium ("counsel") and praeceptum ("precept," "command") was presumably introduced by 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

81

82

83

Rupert of Deutz in the first half of the twelfth century, 79 a distinction that was to play an exceedingly important role in the Reformation. 80 The greatest commentaries from the medieval period to the Reformation were those by Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274), the Catena Aurea in Quatuor Evangelia, 81 and the Super Evangelium Sancti Matthaei Lectura. 82 Whereas Thomas was mostly interested in expounding the dogmatic content of the SM, the venerable Greek tradition reached its climax and end in the monumental exegetical and philological commentary on the four Gospels by the Bulgarian bishop Theophylactus (c. 1050-1108), 83 student of the great Byzantine scholar Michael Psellos (1018-1078). Another Byzantine commentator worth mentioning is Nicetas of Herakleia (c. 1030-1100), who wrote catena commentaries on Matthew and Luke. 84 3. The Period of the Renaissance and Reformation

The period of the Renaissance and Reformation brought about a total change in the understanding of the SM. Beginning with and based on the work of Desiderius Erasmus (1465 [or 1466]-1536), 85 all Reformers had a

Stoll, De virtute, 1-12. Ibid., 13-20, 32-37. Ibid., 136-40. Ibid., 38-55. Ibid., 9. Ibid., XV, 50-51. See Rudolf Schnackenburg and Bernhard Haring, 84 "Evangelische Rate," LThK 3 (1959) 1245-50; Franz Lau, "Evangelische Rate," RGG 2 (1958) 785-88; Johannes Griindel, "Consilia Evangelica," TRE 8 (1981) 192-96. Angelicus Guarenti, ed., Thomas Aquinas, Catena aurea in quatuor evangelia (Turin and Rome: Marietti, 1953); Roberto Busa, S. Thomae Aquinatis Opera 85 Omnia (7 vols.; Stuttgart and Bad Cannstadt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1980). See also Bouterse, De boom, 34-42; M.-D. Roland-Gosselin, "Le sermon sur Ia montagne et Ia theologie thomiste," RSPhTh 17 (1928) 201-34. Raphael Kai, ed., Thomas Aquinas, Super Evangelium S. Matthaei Lectura (5th ed.; Turin and Rome: Marietti, 1951) 63-106 (SM). Ioannes Oecolampadius, ed., Theophylacti archiepiscopi Bulgariae in quatuor Evangelia enarrationes (Antuerpiae: Martinus Caesar, 1531). First edition, Basel, 1524 (Latin); first Greek edition, Rome, 1542. For a modern edition, see Guilelmus Gilson Humphrey,

ed., Theophylacti in Evangelium S. Matthaei commentarius (London: Parker, 1854) 66-113 (on the SM); also inPG 123 (1864) 185-217 (on the SP). On Theophylactus, see Hans-Georg Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (HKAW 12.2.1; Munich: Beck, 1959) 649-51. Nicetas ofHerakleia (Serronius), Symbolarum in Matthaeum (ed. B. Corderius and P. Possinus; 2 vols.; Toulouse, 1646, 1647); cf. alsoPG 127 (1864) 542; Christos Th. Krikones, I:YNArnrHN IIATEPON Eli: TO KATA AOYKAN EYArrEAION (Thessalonike: Kentron Byzantinon Eurenon, 1976). See also Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, 651-53. See Friedheim Kruger, Humanistische Evangelienauslegung: Desiderius Erasmus von Rotterdam als Ausleger der Evangelien in seinen Paraphrasen (BHTh

68; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1986), with bibliography. Of special interest are Hermann Schlingensiepen, "Erasmus als Exeget. Auf Grund seiner Schriften zu Matthaus," ZKG 48 (1929) 16-57; Albert Rabil,Jr., Erasmus and the New Testament: The Mind of a Christian Humanist (Trinity University Monograph Series in Religion I; San Antonio, Tex.: Trinity University, 1972); Bouterse, De boom, 46-65. On the present state of research, see also Cornelis Augustijn, "Erasmus, Desiderius," TRE 10 (1982) 118, with bibliography.

13

special relationship with the SM. The contributions made by them would each require a special study. Indeed, there are numerous special studies of this kind. Erasmus's significance for the interpretation of the SM is basically twofold. First are his textual and philological studies, coming to fruition in his edition of the Greek New Testament, 5 6 his Annotations on the New Testament, 87 and his Paraphrases of Matthew and Luke. 88 These works became the foundation of all further scholarship on the SM down to the present. 89 Second, one can hardly overestimate Erasmus's special interest in the SM, because of its importance for his theology. 90 He recognized the literary genre of the SM as a compendium (corresponding to the Greek f'II"Lrop.~ ["epitome"]) and its function in teaching. 91 86

87

111

88

89

90

91 92

14

Not surprisingly, in hisEnchiridion of 1503 the SM plays an important role as a foundational source. 9 2 Erasmus treated the SM as if it were a unified body of text. He understood and pointed out its rhetorical features, 93 and he saw the many connections with ancient philosophy. 94 While much of what he had recognized and pointed out was forgotten later, he was most likely responsible for the fact that the SM continues to figure prominently in the deliberations of philosophers until the present time. Erasmus's discoveries with regard to the SM deserve to be recovered from oblivion because they are still of great value for contemporary New Testament scholarship. As in other areas of theological and ecclesiastical matters, so also in regard to the SM, Martin Luther

Novum Testamentum (Basel: Froben, 1516). See Henk Jan de Jonge, "Nuvum Testamentum a nobis versum: The Essence of Erasmus' Edition of the New Testament," JTS 35 (1984) 394-413. 93 The final (5th) edition appeared in 1535. See Erasmus, Opera omnia, vol. 6 (Lugduni Batavorum: Petrus van der Aa, 1705) 25-39 (on the SM), 25357 (on the SP); Anne Reeve, ed., Erasmus' Annotations 94 on the New Testament: The Gospels. Facsimile of the final Latin text (1535) with all earlier variants (1516, 1519, 1522 and 1527) (London: Duckworth, 1986), with the review by Henkjan dejonge, NuvT 29 (1987) 382-83; Erika Rummel, Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Erasmus Studies 8; Toronto: University of Toronto, 1986). Desiderius Erasmus, Paraphrasis in Euangelium Matthaei (Basel: Froben, 1522); idem, In Evangelium Lucae Paraphrasis (Basel: Froben, 1523). Both are reprinted in the Leiden edition, Opera omnia, vol. 7 (Lugduni Batavorum: Petrus van der Aa, 1706); for the SM, see cols. 23-47, for the SP, cols. 346-51. See Roland H. Bainton, "The Paraphrases of Erasmus," ARG 57 (1966) 67-76. Erasmus's contributions became part of the famous collection called Critici Sacri, vol. 6 (London: Flescher, 1660); see below, n. 127. See the survey and characterization by Kruger, Humanistische Evangelienauslegung, esp. 177-204: "Die Auslegung von Mt 5-7." On this point, see ibid., 177. Desiderius Erasmus, Enchiridion Militis Christiani ... Cui accessit nuva mireque utilis Praefatio ... (Basileae: Froben, 1518); also in Opera Omnia, vol. 5 (Lugduni Batavorum: Petrus van der Aa, 1704); ET of 1534 ed. by Anne O'Donnell, Erasmus, Enchiridion militis Christiani: An English Version (Oxford: Oxford

University, 1981 ). See Kruger, Humanistische Evangelienauslegung, 201-2; Bouterse, De boom, 4647. See esp. Gerhard B. Winkler, Erasmus von Rotterdam und die Einleitungsschriften zum Neuen Testament (Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte 108; Munster: Aschendorff, 197 4). Cf. Paul Wemle, Renaissance und Reformation (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1912) 69: "Der Kern des Evangeliums ist die einfache undogmatische Moral der Bergpredigt im Einklang mit der Weisheit Platos und Plutarchs, Senecas und Epikurs und aller Guten und Edeln. Und dieser Kern ist das wahre alte Christentum, daher Christianismus renascens die begeisterte Losung des erasmischen Kreises, eine Zeitlang auch Zwinglis Losung." ("The core of the gospel is the simple and undogmatic morality of the Sermon on the Mount, in consonance with the wisdom of Plato and Plutarch, Seneca and Epicurus, and all the good and noble. And this core is the true and old gospel, whence 'Christianity in rebirth' is the enthusiastic motto of the Erasmian circle, for a while also Zwingli's motto.") As Kruger (Humanistische Evangelienauslegung, 201-2) points out, this understanding of Erasmus influenced the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule; for a critique, see Manfred Hoffmann, Erkenntnis und Verwirklichung der wahren Theologie nach Erasmus von Rotterdam (BHTh 44; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1972) 17-21.

Introduction

unleashed his immense intellectual and spiritual energies. Characteristically, Luther's interpretation of the SM is found not in the traditional form of the commentary but in the form of sermons. 95 Mast important are Luther's Weekly Sermons on Matthew 5-7, preached between October 1530 and April 1532 in Wittenberg, when he was substituting for the minister in charge, johannes Bugenhagen, who was on leave during this time in order to organize the Reformation in Braunschweig, Lubeck, and Hamburg. The Weekly Sermons, which Luther admits having delivered amidst a multitude of other duties, were published in 1532, based on notes taken by his students, probably Georg Rorer and others who also edited the publication. Luther then added his own Preface. 96 Thus, the Weekly Sermons are not by his own hand, but they are, as sermons ought to be, from his own mouth and mind. Technically not a commentary, the Sermons became a commentary of a new kind, even though the ancient tradition of the learned homily may 95

96

97

be named as the precursor. The Weekly Sermons are not devoid of scholarship; on the contrary, they show a condensation of scholarship in the understanding of the SM that must have been the result of long and deep meditation and scrutiny prior to their delivery. 97 In a sense the Weekly Sermons are also a commentary on commentaries. Luther himself mentions at the outset Augustine's De sermone domini in monte, 98 and we can take it for granted that he was steeped in the exegetical and theological tradition of the time, including the work of Jacobus Faber Stapulensis (Jacques Lefevre d'Estaples

[c. 1455-1536]). 99 Luther's Weekly Sermons surpassed anything that had been written on the SM before as regards depth of insight into Scripture, theology, and human life. 1 00 Despite all the differences, Luther's work should be put side by side with Augustine's great commentary De

Cf. his Annotations to Some Chapters if the Evangelist Matthew of 1538 (Anmerkungen D. Martin Luthers zu einigen Capiteln des Evangelisten Matthiius) in Johann Georg Walch, ed., Dr. Martin Luthers Siimtliche Schriften (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1880-1910; reprinted Grofl-Oesingen: Harms, 1987) 7.17-25. D. Martin Luther, Das.ftlnffte, Sechste und Siebend Capite[ S. Matthei, gepredigt und ausgelegt (Wittenberg: Johann Klug, 1532). See the critical edition, Wochenpredigten uber Matth. 5-7. 1530/2. Das.ftlnffte, Sechste und Siebend Capite[ gepredigt und ausgelegt. 1532 (WA 32; Vienna: Bohlau, 1906) 299-544; also the St. Louis edition, 346-677; ET: Martin Luther, Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount (trans. Charles A. Hay; Philadelphia: Lutheran Publishing Society, 1892); Martin Luther, The Sermon on the Mount (Sermons) and the Magnificat (ed. Jaroslav Pelikan; Luther's Works 21; St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1956). Also useful is Erwin Miilhaupt, ed., D. Martin Luthers Evangelien-Auslegung, part 2 (3d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960); reissued as Erwin Miilhaupt, ed., D. Martin Luthers Auslegung der Bergpredigt Matthiius 5-7 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961 ). See Gerhard Ebeling, Evangelische Evangelienauslegung: Eine Untersuchung zu Luthers Hermeneutik

98

(FGLP 10.1; Munich: Lempp, 1942; 3ded., with a new postscript by the author; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1991) esp. 261-69, 320, 394-95,428-29, 433-34. See the Preface and on Matt 5:17 (edition by Pelikan, pp. 3 and 69).

99

Jacobus Faber Stapulensis, Commentarii Initiatorii in quatuor evangelia (2 vols.; Meldis [Meaux]: lmpensis Simonis Colinaei, 1521-22) 1.18-32 (SM), 191-93 (SP). See Guy Bedouelle, "Faber Stapulensis," TRE 10 (1982) 781-83, with bibliography. 100 For special studies, see Georg Wunsch, Die Bergpredigt bei Luther: Eine Studie zum Verstiindnis von Christentum und Welt (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],

1920); Hermann-Wolfgang Beyer, "Der Christ und die Bergpredigt nach Luthers Deutung," LutherJahrbuch 14 (1932) 33-60; published separately as a book (Munich: Kaiser, 1933); Paul Althaus, "Luther und die Bergpredigt," Luther: Mitteilungen der Luthergesellschaft 27 (1956) 1-16 (reprinted in Miilhaupt's edition of 1961 [see above, n. 96], pp. *3-*14); Hans-Georg Geyer, "Luthers Auslegung der Bergpredigt," in Hans-Georg Geyer et al., eds., "Wenn nicht jetzt, wann dann?" Aufsiitze for HansJoachim Kraus zum 65. Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchener Verlag, 1983) 283-93; Helmut Gollwitzer, "Die Bergpredigt in der Sicht Luthers," ibid., 295-304; Helmar Junghanns, ed., Leben und Werk Martin Luthers von 1526-1546: Festgabe zu seinem 500. Geburtstag (2 vols.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983); Bouterse, De boom, 66-103; Bornkamm, "Umstrittener 'spiegel eines Christlichen lebens'" (seen. 73 above).

15

sermone domini in monte. As Augustine's commentary had become a new literary work by itself, so did Luther's Weekly Sermons. Augustine concentrated his efforts on the literary architecture of the SM; his work shows the sense of restraint; composure, style, and lucidity characteristic of late antiquity. Luther's work, by comparison, is so impressive because of its profundity of theological comprehension, its daring exploration of human life experience, its rhetorical brilliance, and the author's unrestrained presence struggling to be obedient to God's word and will-all this in spite of the fact that the edited work is by other hands, not his own. Augustine saw his task as bringing out the Sermon's clarity, lucidity, and literary structure; his work is a masterpiece of literature itself. By contrast, Luther had little interest in the compositional structure but concentrated fully on the theological issues ofthe clarity, lucidity, and consistency ofthe gospel as he understood it. One may say, however, that the achievements of both authors are the results of tremendous struggles with the ambiguities, paradoxes, and seeming contradictions created by the SM for the Christian faith as well as for human life. Like the SM itself in relation to Jesus, Luther's Weekly Sermons are a kind of summary of his ideas and concerns; these ideas and concerns are repeated and elaborated in many other places in Luther's works. It is most likely because of their fresh, not to say brisk, and concentrated form that the Weekly Sermons made such an impact on the theological world at the time, an impact that has continued ever since and is in evidence today in the form of new translations and reprints. Perhaps because of the success of Luther's Weekly Sermons, the Annotationes in Evangelium Matthaei by

Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560) have remained in the background. The work is based on lectures given between the autumn of 1519 and the spring of 1520. 101 Luther praised these lectures and encouraged Melanchthon to publish them, 10 2 but the author found them too brief and skimpy. Thus, the editions of 1523 were published against his will. They were based on notes taken by students and supplemented by editorial additions. The Annotationes name as references and sources Augustine and Luther. Important is Melanchthon's distinction between iustitia legis ("righteousness of the law") as Paul has it and as it is identified with opera externa ("external works") in the SM, and iustitia Christi ("righteousness of Christ"), which is identified with iustitia affectuum ("effected righteousness"), effected by grace in us. 103 This distinction, although "paulinizing" the SM, observes correctly that the SM differentiates between two concepts of law and righteousness and that in some way these distinctions are related to the theology of Paul. Modern scholarship still needs to define precisely how the distinctions made in the SM relate to those made by Paul. 104 Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531), with respect to the SM, wrote Annotationes in Evangelium Matthaei, published by Leo Juda in 1539. 105 Zwingli's comments on the SM 106 are notable because he recognized rhetorical elements as well as characteristic theological subjects in the SM, in particular the distinction between the human being as external (homo externus) and as internal (homo interior), and concepts such as self-knowledge and intellectual illumination. These concepts connect Zwingli with the tradition of Platonism, but they are also found, as he correctly observed, in the SM itself. For him the whole purpose of the SM was to form "the inner man."I07

101 Annotationes in Evangelium Matthaei iam recens in Gratiam studiosorum editae (1523), in Peter F. Barton, ed., Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl, vol. 4: Frllhe exegetische Schriften (Giitersloh: Mohn, 1963) 133208; for the SM, see 149-66. 102 See Barton's introduction, ibid., 133, referring to WA: Briefe 1.587, 8-10. 103 Annotationes, ibid., 149-50 (on Matthew 5). 104 See also Annotationes, ibid., 153-54 (on Matt 5:17, 19). 105 Leo Juda, ed., In Evangelicam Historiam de domino nostro Iesu Christo, per Matthaeum, Marcum, Lucam, et

16

Joannem conscriptam, Epistolasque aliquot Pauli, Annotationes D. Huldrychi Zvinglii (Tiguri: Christophorus Froschouverus, 1539). See Bouterse, De boom, 104-25. 106 Huldricus Zvinglius, Annotationes in Evangelium Matthaei, ed. Melchior Schuler and johannes SchultheB, in Opera completa, vol. 6.1 (Zurich: SchultheB, 1836) 203-483 (on SM, 218-49; on SP, 583-93). 107 See esp. ibid., 218-19.

Introduction

From the English Reformation the learned commentary by William Tyndale (1483-1536), specifically treating the SM, must be mentioned. 108 He regarded the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of Matthew as "the key and door of the Scripture" and found in them Jesus' restoration of the law of Moses that the scribes and Pharisees had corrupted. Although there are serious difficulties in reconstructing precisely what the scribes and Pharisees taught at the time of the SM, this understanding corresponds to that of the SM (see below on SM/Matt 5:20). Most important are the contributions to the understanding of the SM made by John Calvin (1509-1564). His Harmony of the Gospels first appeared in 1555. 109 This commentary, which is based on a synopsis of the first three Gospels and follows the Matthean arrangement of the textual sequences, takes up the tradition of Gospel harmonies going all the way back to Tatian's Diatessaron (2nd century CE); the genre had become quite popular in

the sixteenth century.ll 0 The solidity and profundity of Calvin's scholarship make his work a companion for scholars even today. 111 The same can be said of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, the first edition of which was published in 1536, ll 2 with expanded editions to follow in 1559 113 and 1560.ll 4 Calvin recognized that the SM and the SP are collections of sayings ofJesus, brought together as a synopsis of Jesus' teachings and as a guide to his disciples for a pious and holy life. Most significant is Calvin's argument that the Jesus of the SM proclaimed the Jewish law, though in his own, special interpretation. To a surprising degree modern scholarship can confirm Calvin's insights. After Calvin's, other harmonies of the Gospels followed. 115 Among the most important were those by Johannes Bugenhagen (1485-1558), edited by his student Paul Krell,ll 6 and by Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586).1 17 The tendencies of these harmonies, however, turned out to be increasingly uncritical and unhistorical, a danger that

108 William Tyndale, An Exposition upon the V. VI. VII. Chapters ofMatthew (Antwerp: Joannes Grapheus, c. 1530); reprinted in Henry Walter, ed., Expositions and Notes on Sundry Portions of the Holy Scriptures, together with The Practice ofPrelates (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1849) 1-132. 109 John Calvin, Harmonia ex tribus Euangelistis composita, Mattaeo, Marco, & Luca: adiuncto seorsum Iohanne, quod pauca cum aliis communia habeat (Geneva: Robertus Stephanus, 1555). See the critical editions: August Tholuck, ed., Joannis Calvini im Novum Testamentum Commentarii (2d ed.; Berlin: Thome, 1835) 1.13496; Joannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia (Corpus Reformatorum 73; Brunsvigae: Schwetschke, 1891) esp. 159-230. For an ET, see John Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke (trans. A. W. Morrison; ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: St. Andrew's, 1972) 1.167-242. 110 See Dietrich Wunsch, Evangelienharmonien im Reformationszeitalter: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Darstellungen (AKG 52; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1983); idem, "Evangelienharmonien," TRE 10 (1982) 626-36. Ill See the studies by Hermann Schlingensiepen, Die Auslegung der Bergpredigt bei Calvin (Berlin: Ebering, 1927); Hiltrud Stadtland-Neumann, Evangelische Radikalismen in der Sicht Calvins: Sein Verstiindnis der Bergpredigt und der Aussendungsrede (Mt 10) (Beitrage zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche 24; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1966); Dieter Schellong, Das evangelische Gesetz in der

112

113 114 115

116

117

AuslegungCalvins (ThExh 152; Munich: Kaiser, 1968); idem, Calvins Auslegung der synoptischen Evangelien (FGLP 10.38; Munich: Kaiser, 1969); Bouterse, De boom, 256-78. See the edition by Peter Barth and Wilhelm Niese!, Joannes Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis, in Joannis Calvini Opera Selecta, vol. 3.1 (Munich: Kaiser, 1926-36). ET: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans. Ford Lewis Battles; LCC 20; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960). August Tholuck, ed., Institutio Christianae Religionis (2 vols.; Edinburgh: St. Andrew's, 1874). Jean-Daniel Benoit, Institution de la Religion Chretienne (5 vols.; Paris: Vrin, 1957-63). On all this see Wunsch, Evangelienharmonien, passim; also Ebeling, Evangelische Evangelienauslegung (see above, n. 97). Bugenhagen's death prevented him from finishing the work, which was then done by Paul Krell, Monotessaron historiae evangelicae latinogermanicum (Wittenberg: 1566 [non vidi]). See Wunsch, Evangelienharmonien, 244-49. Martin Chemnitz, Harmoniae evangelicae . .. per D Polycarpum Lyserum continuatae libri quinque, etc. (2 vols.; Geneva: Iacobus Stoer, 1641-45) esp. 1.521668. See Wunsch, Evangelienharmonien, 257 n. 3.

17

had been pointed out earlier in warnings by Luther and Calvin 11 8 in their criticisms of the most influential work of this kind, that of Andreas Osiander (1496-1552).1 19 Calvin had adopted the term "harmony," but not Osiander's principles. 120 The warnings of theReformers, however, turned out to be in vain. Subsequently, other Reformers went their own ways. The highly learned commentaries by Martin Bucer (1491-1551),121 Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575), 122 and Theodor Beza (1519-1605) 123 took positions more in line with Erasmian scholarship, following along with the text and providing learned annotations. Bucer especially showed interest in the composition of the SM, while Beza collected parallels not only from the church fathers but also from Greek and Latin classics. As time went by, all these directions were pursued further by an increasing number of people. The general direction, however, seems to be indicated by the many imitations of Osiander's Harmony of the Gospels. They led the way to the Lives ofjesus of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. At the same time, critical annotations on the text of the New Testament as well as collections of parallels in the tradition of Erasmus con-

tinued. They culminated in a series of still-indispensable works by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) 124 and johann Jacob Wettstein (1693-1754), 125 the forefathers of the modern genre of scholarly commentaries. Less notable but of similar importance are the great collections of critical annotations by Matthaeus Polus, 126 the Critici sacri, 127 Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide (1567-1637), 128 andjuan Maldonatus (1533-1583).129 4. The Period of the Enlightenment

In the period of the Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries), when historical-critical scholarship on the Bible generally began, one also sees the beginning of the critical investigations ofthe SM and the SP. Initially, however, the SM was still believed to have originated with the historical jesus. Thus johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803) in his Erlauterungen zum Neuen Testament 130 holds this view. According to him, in the SMJesus the Galilean speaks with his own authentic voice, "and if he [sc. Matthew] had written his Gospel in jesus' real mother tongue, the Syriac-Chaldean dialect, it would have been wholly the simple expression of the people." 131 For Herder the

118 See Wiinsch, Evangelienharmonien, 158-61. 119 Andreas Osiander, Harmoniae evangelicae libri quatuor Graece et Latine (2 vols.; Basileae: Hieronymus Froben, 1537) esp. 1.20-24. See Wunsch, Evangelienharmonien, 84-179 and passim. 120 See Schellong, Calvin, 58-59, with n. 73. 121 Martin Bucer, In sacra Quatuor Eva(n)gelia Enarrationes perpetuae (Geneva: Robertus Stephanus, 1553) esp. 37-77 (on the SM). See Bouterse, De boom, 173-207. 122 Heinrich Bullinger, In sacrosanctum Iesu Christi Domini nostri Evangelium secundum Matthaeum; Commentariorum libri XII (Tiguri: Froscher, 1554) 50-80 (on the SM). See Bouterse, De boom, 223-39. 123 Theodor Beza, Annotationes maiores in Novum Dn. Nostri Iesu Christi Testamentum (2d ed.; 2 vols.; n.p., 1594) 28-53 (on the SM), 269-72 (on the SP). 124 Hugo Grotius, Annotationes in quatuor Evangelia & Acta Apostolorum, in Operum Theologorum, vol. 2.1 (Amstelaedami: Blaev, 1679; reprinted Stuttgart-Bad Cannstadt: F_rommann Holzboog, 1972). 125 Johann]. Wettstein, H KAINH ~IA0HKH: Novum Testamentum Graecum editionis receptae, ... vol. 1 (Amsterdam: ex officina Dommeriana, 1 7 51). 126 Matthaeus Polus, Synopsis criticorum aliorumque scripturae sacrae interpretum et commentatorum: summo ab eodem studio & fide adornata, vol. 4 (Frankfurt:

18

127

128

129

130

131

Andreae, 1712), cols. 106-232 (SM), 900-911 (SP). ET: Annotations upon the Holy Bible, vol. 2 (ed. Samuel Clark and Edward Veale; 4th ed.; London: Packhurst, 1700; reprinted London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1962). Annotata ad SS. Evangelia; sive Criticorum Sacrorum, vol. 6 (London: Flescher, 1660) 124-264 (SM), 1255-76 (SP). Cornelius C. a Lapide, Commentarius in quatuor evangelia (2 vols.; Antverpiae: Apud haered. Martini Nvtl [sic], 1639). ET: Cornelius a Lapide, The Great Commentary (trans. Thomas W. Mossman; 3d ed.; London: Hodges, 1892). Juan Maldonatus, Commentarii in quattuor Evangelistas (2 vols.; Mussiponti: Stephanus Mercator, 1596). ET: John Maldonatus, A Commentary on the Holy Gospel (trans. George J. Davie; London: Hodges, 1888) esp. 1.126-253 (on the SM). Johann Gottfried Herder, Erliiuterungen zum Neuen Testament aus einer neueri:ifneten Morgenliindischen Quelle (Riga: Hartknoch, 1775). Ibid., 106: "In ihm [sc.: in Matthew] spricht recht der Galillier, und wenn er sein Evangelium gar in der eigentlichen Muttersprache Jesu, dem syrischchalclliischen Dialekt geschrieben: so wars ganz der einfaltige Volksausdruck."

Introduction

authenticity of the SM is guaranteed by the origin of the language. For this language he can refer to the linguistic studies by John Lightfoot (1602-1675) 132 and Johann Christian Schottgen (1687-1751).1 33 Moreover, Herder introduces matters of comparative religion by pointing to parallels with Zoroaster, 134 and he observes that the SM professes a non-Pharisaic piety concerning the works of the law. 135 These programmatic statements have served until the present day in defenses of the view that the SM contains the original message ofJesus, as yet undiluted and uncontaminated, as it were, by the Greeks. How this program translated into a biography of Jesus can be seen in the widely read Lebensgeschichte jesu by JohannJakob Hel3 (1741-1828). 136 According to Hel3, Jesus gave the SM as one continuous lecture (Lehrvortrag):

The main purpose of it was to hand over to his (not yet completed number of) devotees a religious doctrine and ethics, thoroughly anti-Pharisaic in

nature, which took the form of easily memorable maxims and sayings arranged under certain main rubrics. And this was done in such a practical manner and presented in a form so completely adaptable to their situation at that time, as well as in the future, that it could shape their religious mind completely in accordance with his. This lecture was able to move the hearers away from their other petty interests, to which they, still untrained in his school, may otherwise have given preference. Thus they were enabled to think, teach, and act in accordance with his principles in every situation, in the present as well as in the future. In short, he not only taught them the right notions but also a noble attitude of mind, and in doing so he simultaneously put to good use whatever he found they already possessed that was true and sound. 137 This description is accompanied by an idyllic picture of the situation in which Jesus delivered his speech, a picture reminding us of book illustrations.

132 John Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae, different title and the 3d ed. under the present title. impensae in Evangelium S Matthaei (Cantabrigiae: Field The quotation here is given according to the 8th ed., and Story, 1658). Johann Jakob HeB, Lebensgeschichte jesu (2 vols.; 133 Johann Christian Schottgen, Horae Hebraicae et Zurich: Orell, FiiBii & Co., 1822-23) 1.328-29. See also idem, "Uber das VerhaltniB der Bergpredigt zu Talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum (2 vols.; Dresden and Leipzig: Christoph Hekel, 1733, 1742). der evangelischen Erlosungs- oder BegnadigungsBoth authors share Lightfoot's main hypothesis that lehre," in Magazin for christliche Dogmatik und Moral all NT books were written by Jews, exchanged by (ed.Johann Friedrich Flatt; Tiibingen: Cotta, 1799, 1800), part 5 (1799) 83-101; part 6 (1800) 1-23. On and addressed to Jews: "Primo, cum omnes libri Novi Testamenti iljudaeis sint scripti, atque inter, & ad HeB, see Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (trans. W. Montgomery; 2d ed.; New York: judaeos; cumq, omnes orationes in eo habitae a Macmillan, 1962) 4, 14, 27-31. judaeis pariter, atque ad, & apud Judaeos fuerint habitae: pro re indubitatissima hoc mihi semper 137 "Die Hauptabsicht desselben war, seinen (noch nicht persuasum fuit, non posse istud Testamentum non vollzahligen) Anhangern eine durchaus antipharijudaeorum stylum, idioma, loquendi formam saische Religions- und Sittenlehre in Ieicht behaltlichen, unter gewisse Hauptrubriken gebrachter normamq, sapere ubique, & retinere" (Lightfoot, Kern- und Sinnspriichen beyzubringen; und dieB so Horae, 173). Schottgen defends the hypothesis in his praktisch, so ganz auf ihre damalige und kiinftige Praefatio ( 1, §§ 1-6). 134 Herder, Erliiuterungen, 106, pointing to "righteousLage anwendbar, daB es ihren religiosen Sinn vollig ness" (Derimher) as a name for the temple in Chaldean nach dem seinem bilden, sie iiber aile kleinen Nebenriicksichten, denen sie, noch ungeiibt in seiner religion. Schule, hatten Platz geben mc'igen, weg, und in den 135 Ibid., 106-7: "Selbst der Werkheilige Begrif des Stand setzen konnte, in einer jeden,jetzigen oder Pharisaismus ist lange nicht so Juristisch, wie ihn die kiinftigen, Lage, seinen Grundsatzen gemaB zu Monchs- und Feudalzeiten, wo auf der Gerechterkennung vor Gericht Alles beruhete, gemacht denken, zu lehren, zu handeln;-kurz, ihnen nicht bloB richtigere Begriffe, sondern edlere Gesinhaben. lch wiinschte, daB dasJemand mit Starke und Gelehrsamkeit zeigte." See also idem, "Regel der nungen beyzubringen, und, was sich Wahres und Zusammenstimmung unserer Evangelien aus ihrer Gesundes schon bey ihnen vorfand, in Anspruch zu Entstehung und Ordnung," Siimmtliche Werke: Zur nehmen." Religion und Theologie, vol. 12 (Tiibingen: Cotta, 1810) 3-56, esp. 32-33. 136 This work appeared first in 1 7 68-7 3 under a

19

He allowed everyone who wished to listen; the gathering was well attended. He had climbed up to a lower hill, a place carefully selected so that he could look over the listeners standing below him, and they could all hear him better. Next to him stood the four or five disciples, more formally called to discipleship (we count Philip among them); surrounding them stood the rest of the people, more or less eager to learn. The whole appearance had the aura of the familiar and sincere, the attractive and the dignified. The open sky above him, the rural surroundings, all that formed a natural temple. No synagogue, not even the temple in the capital, could make a solemn impression such as this. Nothing in this circumstance belonged to the formalities that accompanied the customary lecturing of Jewish teachers. 138 This picture clearly is idealized, but it may not be far from the one that Matthew intended to create in the minds of his readers. In HeB's description the picture is embellished by romanticism and by Enlightenment ideas. 5. The Conservative Reaction

That the relationship between the SM and the SP is one of similarities and differences was noticed already in antiquity. 139 Thus, the question was raised whether the two sermons constitute the same or two separate speeches. While Origen, 14 Chrysostom, 141 Euthymius, 14 2 and Theophylactus 143 assumed two versions of the same speech, Augustine, 144 perhaps reacting against Manichaean interpretation, presupposed two separate speeches of Jesus: one esoteric, before the

°

apostles only, given to them on the mountain (the SM), and the other exoteric and shorter, given before all the people down in the plain (the SP). Many theologians in following centuries took over Augustine's position for a variety of reasons. Its main appeal was its compatibility with the doctrine of divine inspiration. The theory allowed both speeches to be true and accurate, each in its own way and for its own purpose. The two options seemed to be clear. Either one assumed that Jesus had presented one speech, in which case one could maintain no strict doctrine of inspiration. Or Jesus gave two speeches of a separate nature but with a similar content, in which case one could argue that both have their own integrity based on divine inspiration. Some scholars, however, held the view that there was historically one speech, while they maintained as well the doctrine of divine inspiration, but then they had to play down the differences between the speeches as insignificant. Others, such as Rudolf Stier ( 1800-1862) 145 used the differences between the SM and the SP to criticize one of the Gospel writers, mostly Luke. According to Stier, when the Holy Spirit inspired the Gospel writers, he left room for imperfection. "The Spirit of the Lord reminded the evangelists of the Lord's speeches in such a way that they should not, as it were, write verbally or precisely according to the letter everywhere, but they should give us the truth in substance and in the content. But the Spirit of truth did not allow any essential element of untruth." 146 Therefore, there could not be any real inconsistencies or substantial contradictions between the two Sermons. Rather, they

138 Lebensgeschichte Jesu, 329: "Er lie6 zuhoren, wer nur wollte; die V ersammlung war zahlreich; er hatte eine mit Flei6 gewahlte Anhohe bestiegen, wo er die niedriger stehenden Zuhorer iibersehen, und von allen urn so besser konnte verstanden werden. Zunachst bey ihm standen jene nun eigentlicher zu seiner Nachfolge abgerufene vier bis fiinfjiinger (wir rechnen den Philippus zu ihnen); urn sie her das iibrige mehr oder weniger lernbegierige Volk. • "Der ganze Auftritt hatte etwas Traulich-ernstes, etwas Einnehmendes und Wiirdevolles. Der offene Himmel tiber ihm, die landliche Gegend umher, bildeten einen Naturtempel. Keine Synagoge, selbst der Tempel der Hauptstadt nicht, konnte einen so feyerlich tiefen Eindruck machen. Nichts fand sich in dieser Umgebung, das zu den Formalitaten, die den gewohnten Lehrvortrag der Judenlehrer begleiteten,

20

mitgehorte. • 139 For the following see Tholuck, Bergrede, 1-6 (Commentary, 1-7). 140 Origen In Matth. 11.4 ad Matt 14.22 (ed. Erich Klostermann; GCS 40.10.2 [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1935] 39). 141 Hom. 15.1. 142 InMatth., chap. V.1-2 (PG 129.189). 143 Ibid. (PG 123.188). 144 De consensu evangelistarum 2.19.43 (PL 34.1098). 145 Rudolf Stier, Die Reden des Herrn]esu (6 vols.; Barmen: Langewiesche, 1843-47) esp. 1.69-313. 146 Ibid., 1. 70: "Ja, der Geist des Herrn hat die Evangelisten an die Reden des Herrn also erinnert, daB sie freilich nicht iiberall wortlich oder vollstandig nach dem Buchstaben sie schreiben sollten und doch ihrem Kern und Inhalt nach der Wahrheit uns geben

Introduction

represent two levels of inspiration: "The apostle Matthew, to be sure, has the word of the Lord more accurately; the Spirit in Luke, at another level of inspiration, teaches us that literalness is not necessary in matters of small detail." 14 7 Thus, Luke is even allowed to have made minor mistakes. 148 Scholars following this line of argument tried to show that Matthew's SM is the more complete and that Luke in his SP omitted important sections because of his theological tendencies (Tendenzkritik). 149 Compared with Matthew, so goes the argument, Luke lacks order, adding saying to saying, taking them out of other contexts and changing them in accordance with his own ideas. One does not gain much, therefore, from attention to Luke's SP, since we possess the much better version of the Matthean SM. This evaluation, then, became the major reason why there has been little interest in the SP until recently. Although he did not regard Tendenzkritik as a sufficient explanation of the problems, the critique of Luke's SP provided the reason for AugustTholuck (1799-1877) in his magisterial work Die Bergrede Christi 150 to omit the treatment of the SP altogether; his commentary discusses only the SM. 151

As did many others, too, Tholuck agreed 15 2 with the judgment of Bernhard WeiB (1827-1918): "And for all times Weiss's judgment will stand: all critical evidence considered, the sequence of the sayings in Luke 6:27-36 is of a secondary character." 153 This agreement, however, does not mean that Tholuck was oblivious to views to the contrary or denied that the SM also showed signs of redaction: "The possibility of additions by Matthew to the text transmitted to him must be allowed from the start, since such a possibility belongs to the authorial characteristics of the evangelists, each of whom had his own."154 Tholuck did not believe that such redactional activities on the part of Matthew, even if admitted, could seriously affect the claim that the SM reflects "the primary and original spirit of Christ." 155 As further reassurance Tho luck calls on the votes of such hard-nosed critics as Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860) and Heinrich Ewald (1803-1875), arguing that in spite of Matthew's alterations "the peculiar enchantment of the whole of this speech" makes it authentic in the sense of its closeness to Jesus. 156

konnten; aber der Geist der Wahrheit hat keine irgend wesentliche U nwahrheit dabei zugelassen." 147 Ibid.: "Der Apostel Matthaus hat wohl des Herm Wort genauer, der Geist in Lucas auf andrer Stufe der Eingebung lehrt uns, daB in Bezug auf solche Einzelheiten die W ortlichkeit nicht nothwendig sei." 148 For Stier (ibid., 170-71, 301-13) Luke's SP is a shorter version of Matthew. 149 Ferdinand Christian Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die kanonischen Evangelien, ihr VerhaltnijJ zu einander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung (Tiibingen:

Fues, 1847) 456-58; see also David Friedrich StrauB, Das Leben jesu kritisch bearbeitet (2 vols.; Tiibingen: Osiander, 1835-36) 1.569-87. For a discussion of "tendency criticism" and the controversy between Baur and StrauB, see Werner Georg Kiimmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation ofIts Problems (trans. MacLean Gilmour and Howard C.

151 152

153

154

155 156

Tholuck's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount is from the 4th German ed. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1869). Bergrede, 5-6, 6-16 (Commentary, 5-7, 8-13). Bergrede, 14, referring to Bernhard WeiB, "Die Redestiicke des apostolischen Matthaus," Jahrbiicher for deutsche Theologie 9 (1864) 49-140, esp. 52-65. "Und fiir aile Zeiten wird das Urtheil von WeiB (p. 55) feststehen: 'Die Spruchreihe Luk. 6, 27-36 tragt nach allen kritischen lndicien einen secundaren Character.'" Tholuck, Bergrede, 8: "Die Moglichkeit von Zuthaten des Matthaus zu dem ihm iiberlieferten Texte muB von vomherein zugestanden werden, da sie zu den schriftstellerischen Eigenthiimlichkeiten der Evangelisten gehort, deren jeder seine eigenen hat." Ibid.: "des urspriinglichen originalen Geistes Christi." Ibid., 8 and 12: "der eigenthiimliche Zauber des Ganzen dieser Rede."

Kee; Nashville: Abingdon, 1972) 137-43. 150 I am quoting from the 5th ed. of Die Bergrede Christi (Gotha: Perthes, 1872). The 1st ed. appeared under the title P hilologisch-historische A uslegung der Bergpredigt Christi, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Begrundung einer rein-biblischen Glaubens- und Sittenlehre (Hamburg:

Perthes, 1833). The title of the 5th ed. replaces the earlier ones. The ET by R. Lundin Brown of

21

Yet ifEwald 1 5 7 and Heinrich Julius Holtzmann (1832-1910) 1 58 were right, Luke's SP would be the oldest historical account of the speech ofJesus, and Matthew's longer version would be the product of secondary redaction on his part. But Tholuck believed he could dismiss Holtzmann's thesis as extravagant. 15 9 As a result, for Tholuck both the SM and the SP were products of redaction by the evangelists. The reason why he went on to write his commentary only on the SM was that he took the SM to breathe the spirit ofJesus in a direct sense, regardless of Matthew's redaction. He found support for this view in Baur, of all people, who concluded: "If anything, then certainly the anti-Pharisaic part of the speech, breathing so completely the spirit of a vivid and fresh polemic, belongs to the most authentic material that came from the mouth of Jesus." 160 The problem in most of these discussions is that they confuse two fundamental issues: (1) the historical origin ofJesus' speech, and (2) the textual basis for recovering that speech. In the course of these debates a clear separation of these issues would have been beneficial. But Tholuck, and with him many others, disregarded this need. Although he admitted that Matthew's SM is as much a redactional product as is Luke's SP, Tholuck insisted on treating the SM as if it were Jesus' original speech. He thus tried to strengthen his programmatic work against rationalism, of which the first edition of his

commentary in 1833 161 was a major component, while failing to recognize how deeply he had allowed himself to get involved with the critical positions advocated by his adversaries. For Tholuck the purpose of his enormous scholarly erudition was to help his cause against rationalism. Treating Holtzmann's hypothesis lightly, however, proved to be a mistake. 162 With Holtzmann, scholarship had in effect turned away from the quest for the historical first speech of Jesus to the question of source criticism: Which was the earliest version, and where did it come from? Taking this shift lightly meant for Tholuck that, contrary to his own intention, his commentary deals with a speech ofJesus that was admittedly fictional. Thus, Tholuck's erudition could only amount to a Herculean effort at conjuring up the spirit ofJesus, not through the text but through his own learned commentary. As a result readers find themselves persuaded, if at all, more by Tholuck's efforts and rhetoric than by the SM itself. The state of research up to this point was well summarized by Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (17801849) in the introductory section of his commentary on Matthew. 163 This summary replies to a variety of issues: 1. The question of structure (Gliederung) 164 had been investigated and there seemed to be a consensus that at least in some parts the SM has a literary structure:

157 Heinrich Ewald, Die ersten drei Evangelien iibersetzt und (Bergrede, 16): "Die Griinde gegen diese durch so erkliirt (Gottingen: Dieterich, 1850) 207; idem, Die viele Hypothesen und Willkiirlichkeiten gewonnene drei ersten Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte iibersezt Bergpredigt liegen so auf der Hand, daB man auf die [sic] und erkliirt (2d ed.; Gottingen: Dieterich, 1871) eingehende Kritik derselben verzichten darf, bis 256-78, esp. 258. diese kritische Ansicht iiber die Rede sich einen 158 Die synoptischen Evangelien, ihr Ursprung und allgemeineren Eingang verschafft haben wird." geschichtlicher Charakter (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1863) 163 W. M. L. de Wette, Kuru Erkliirung des Evangeliums 174-78. Cf. idem, Die Synoptiker (Tubingen and Matthiii, inKurzgefaj3tes exegetisches Handbuch zum Leipzig: Mohr [Siebeck], 1901) 20 1. Neuen Testament (4th ed.; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1857) 1/l. 159 Bergrede, 12-16. 66-69. The 1st ed. of this work appeared in 1836160 Ibid., 15, citing Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen, 585: 38. "Wenn irgend etwas, so geh<>n gewiB der so ganz den 164 Ibid., 66; cf. Tholuck, Bergrede, 19-21 (Commentary, Geist einer lebensfrischen Polemik athmende 13-17). antipharisaische Theil der Rede zu dem Aechtesten, das aus dem MundeJesu gekommen." Similarly, Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien, 421. 161 On Tholuck's intentions, see Ursula Berner, Die Bergpredigt: Reuption und Auslegung im 20. Jahrhundert(GTA 12; 3ded.; G<>ttingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1985) 14-16, with nn. 55, 78, 79; Manin Schmidt, RGG 6 (1962) 854-55. 162 See Tholuck's comment against Holtzmann

22

Introduction

External situation and occasion ("Veranlassung") Introduction ("Einleitung") 5:1-2 Exordium ("Eingang in einer 5:3-16 Ansprache an die Zuhorer") 5:17-6:18 The core of the speech or sermon: Declaration of the messiah at the beginning of his ministry concerning his intentions about the new law to be expected from him, and the kind of piety demanded by him (" der Kern der Rede oder die Abhandlung: Erklarung des auftretetenden Messias iiber seine Absichten von der von ihm zu erwartenden neuen Gesetzgebung und der von ihm geforderten Frommigkeit") 6: 19-7:12 Individual smaller or larger doctrinal sayings ("einzelne kleinere und grossere Lehrspriiche") 7:13-27 Concluding exhortations ("SchluBermahnungen ") 7:28-29 Conclusion by the narrator ("SchluB des Berichterstatters") The question whether perhaps numerical symbolism was responsible for some of the compositional structure was raised by Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890) and by Ewald. Delitzsch assumed a correspondence between the ten beatitudes and the ten commandments of the Decalogue, a theory that was much older and was held, for example, by Luther; Delitzsch regarded the number three to be important for the antitheses (5:21-48) and for the cultic teaching (6: 1-18). Ewald took the number seven to be constitutive throughout the SM. 165 2. The purpose (Zweck) of the SM seemed to be clear.

4:23-25

The designation of "well-ordered speech" (wohlgeordnete Rede) predominates the literature, and it is associated with the terms "compendium" and "programmatic." 166 Its content is said to be the "new law" revealed by the Messiah jesus, or the "new economy of the kingdom" (die neue Reichsokonomie), perhaps as an analogy to Moses' revelation on Mount Sinai (Delitzsch). 167 Or the purpose was to introduce a new way of thinking that enabled Christians to fulfill the law and to take part in the kingdom of God (Johann Christian Konrad von Hofmann [1810-1877])_1 6 8 3. The problem of the literary relationship between the SM and the SP had come clearly into focus. There appeared a consensus that the texts point to one speech, not two separate ones. Thus, the older consensus about two speeches (Augustine De consensu evangelistarum 2 .19; Osiander, Biisching, HeB, Storr, and others) was abandoned in favor of a new consensus (Calvin, Stier, and others) that postulated the same speech to have been transmitted in two versions. 169 Most scholars regarded Matthew's SM as older and more complete, 170 and Luke's SPas derived, shortened, and otherwise flawed. 171 4. Did Matthew transmit the speech (SM)in exactly the way in which jesus delivered it? This view was no longer assumed, but the opposite view, that the SM was the result of Matthean redaction, gained more and more ground. According to this view, Matthew arranged his speech by putting individual sayings of jesus, pronounced by him at other occasions, into some coherent order. 17 2 Nevertheless, Matthew's work wastaken to be closer to Jesus' actual ways of teaching, and it must, therefore, be preferred to Luke's SP. 173 5. When was the speech originally given? According to Luke 6:20, the election of the Twelve has already

165 See Tholuck, Bergrede, 20-21 (Commentary, 15-16). 166 These terms are older; see esp. on Erasmus above, section 3. 167 F.J. Delitzsch, Neue Untersuchungen uber Entstehung und Anlage der kanonischen Evangelien, part 1: Das Matthiiusevangelium (Leipzig: Dorffiing und Franke, 1853) 73-79. 168 J. C. K. Hofmann, Der Schrifibeweis (2 vols.; Nordlingen: Beck, 1852-55) 1.524-26. 169 See de Wette, Kurze Erkliirung, 67; Tholuck, Bergrede, 6-16 (Commentary, 71-83). 170 So Schleiermacher, Tholuck, Kern, Meyer; see F. C.

Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen (see above, n. 149), 455-56; Adolf Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien nach ihrer Entstehung und geschichtlichen Bedeutung (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1854) 173; K. R. Kostlin, Der Ursprung und die Komposition der synoptischen Evangelien (Stuttgart: Macken, 1853) 169. 171 Differently Olshausen, Schneckenberg, Bruno Bauer, Wilke, and others. 172 So Calvin, Pott, Semler, Corradi, Tholuck. 173 See de Wette, Kurze Erkliirung, 69; Tholuck, Bergrede, 6-16 (Commentary, 17-33).

23

occurred (Luke 6: 12-16), whereas according to Matthew the installation of the Twelve occurs later (Matt 10:1-4). Some scholars held that Luke was right; 1 7 4 others preferred Matthew . 17 5 The idea that in a sense both may be right did not occur, namely, that Matthew places Jesus' speech at the beginning of his public career, while Luke takes it to be Jesus' instruction for the disciples after their vocation-two purposes one could argue to be compatible. 6. Who were the first addressees? According to Matt 5:1-2, the SM addresses the "disciples" (ol p.a87Jral) who, however, should not be confused with the apostles, but Matt 7:28 (Luke 7:1) records that the people generally (ol lix>.o,) heard it and were favorably impressed by it. Therefore, de Wette 176 sees three audiences here: the disciples in the wider sense, the disciples in the narrower sense, and the crowds. All of them hear the SM, but its teaching belongs to those elected by Jesus to be his disciples-those who are specifically addressed in SM/Matt 5:13-16. 177 The problem was, however, that the idyllic picture portraying the addressees is unhistorical and to be attributed to the creators of the narrative framework of the SM and SP. The texts themselves did not put the historical questions to rest, but the facts continued to keep scholars busy. There were, after all, two speeches delivered by Jesus, one transmitted by Matthew (SM) and the other by Luke (SP). Both texts claim to have preserved Jesus' original speech. With necessity, therefore, the questions were raised again and again: What exactly can be said about the similarities and differences between

the SM and the SP? How are they related to each other? Which of them has the greater claim to historical authenticity? 6. The Nineteenth Century

The major advance in the nineteenth century was the clarification of the question of the sources. As Calvin had first proposed, 178 Matthew's SM was shown to be the redactional product of the evangelist. 1 7 9 Comparison with Luke's SP had demonstrated that Matthew's redaction consisted of a revision and expansion of an older source. Consequently, the SM could not be identical with "Jesus' original speech." Rather, one must regard the SM as a new creation of a highly sophisticated and even literary nature. 180 With regard to the question which source Matthew revised, Holtzmann 181 proposed that Matthew's source was the "original Mark" (Urmarkus). According to Holtzmann's Urmarkus hypothesis, this original source had the SM after Mark 3:19, whereas in our canonical Mark that section has been omitted; Luke, who was able to use the Urmarkus, however, took the source material from there in its entirety and expanded it slightly by adding Luke 6:39, 40, thus creating the SP. Matthew, who also had access to the Urmarkus, expanded it even further, in order to create a systematic summary of Jesus' "messianic program," thus creating the SM. Holtzmann agreed with Baur 18 2 that Matthew not only expanded his source, but gave it a new theme and advanced its position to the beginning ofJesus' public ministry. "To Matthew, therefore, belong the disposition and association of ideas, to Jesus the individual

So Ebrard, Kuinol, Hilgenfeld (Die Evangelien, 109). kiinftigen kritischen Behandlung," in Eichhorn's See Tholuck, Bergrede, 16-19 (Commentary, 8-13). Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Litteratur, vol. 5/5De Wette, Kurze Erkliirung, 69. 6 (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1794) 761-996, esp. 964-79; See also Tholuck, Bergrede, 19-21 (Commentary, 13idem, Einleitung in das NT, Kritische Schriften 5 (Leipzig: Wiedmann, 1804) 1.439-40; cf. also 17). 1.498-502; Ewald, Die drei ersten Evangelien (seen. 178 Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels, 1.168: "Both Evangelists had the intention of gathering into one 157 above); Christian Gottlob Wilke, Der Urevansingle passage the chief headings of Christ's teaching, gelist; oder, Exegetisch-Kritische Untersuchung uber das that had regard to the rule of godly and holy living. Verwandtschaftsverhiiltnis der drei ersten Evangelien ... It should be enough for reverent and humble (Dresden and Leipzig: Fleischer, 1838). readers that here, before their eyes, they have set a 180 See Hilgenfeld, Evangelien, 16-66; idem, "Das Matthiius-Evangelium aufs Neue untersucht," ZWTh 10 short summary 9f the teaching of Christ, gathered from many and various discourses, of which this was (1867)303-23,366-447; 11(1868)22-76;forthe the first, where He spoke with His disciples on the SM, see esp. 10 (1867) 370-85; Baur,Kritische true blessedness." Untersuchungen, 582-89. 181 Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien, 174-75. 179 See Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, "Ueber die drey 182 Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen, 586-89. ersten Evangelien: Einige Beytrage zu ihrer

174 175 176 177

24

Introduction

apophthegmata that fill out the plan of composition. "183 The basic ideas ofHoltzmann, however, are found already inJohann Gottfried Eichhorn's (1752-1827) seminal work "Ueber die drey Evangelien." 184 Eichhorn suggested that those sections which are common to Matthew and Luke but not present in Mark may have come "from a common written source." 185 This source was received by Matthew and Luke not in its original form but in different forms stemming from secondary elaborations in the manuscripts. In 'other words, as we would say today, they had been subject to redaction at the presynoptic leve1. 186 At the beginning, prior to this redaction, this common source was either in Hebrew or in Chaldaic-Syriac (Aramaic), while Matthew's and Luke's versions depend on different translations. 187 Some of the philological and lexical problems in these versions are attributable to translation mistakes. 188 Matthew's version (the SM) was thus part of the source he received; it was a redactional product reflecting the needs and views of Jewish Christianity. 189 Eichhorn's ideas have been part of the discussion even to this day. The main problem, well stated by him, is still our own: "Only that it is impossible even now to determine con-

cerning each addition [sc. in Matthew's SM], whether it has merely been borrowed from another memorandum ofthe life of Jesus, or whether it has been written down first for our Matthew." 190 The style of the SM has no noticeable difference from the rest of the Gospel because Matthew would have rewritten it all, not to mention the fact that he depended on an earlier Greek translation. "But it is at least probable that the arranger of our Matthew had for some of the additional passages something written in front of him. " 191 Eichhorn refers to the Lord's Prayer and other passages from the SM as examples. 19 2 In modern terminology, he speaks ofQMatt.193 In his detailed critique of Holtzmann, Bernhard WeiB 194 agreed with much that Holtzmann had to say about Matthew's SM, but he disagreed with the assumption that Luke 6:20-49 contains "the original sermon." The reason is, as WeiB points out, that Luke's SP,just like Matthew's SM, shows signs of redaction. Contrary to what has been said, Luke's SP does not suffer from lack of order or from incompleteness, but it represents a composition of its own. Therefore, Luke's SP must also be granted "a secondary character." 195 In 1847, Ferdinand Christian Baur 196 was already

183 Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien, 175: "Dem Matthaus gehort also Disposition und ldeenassociation an,Jesu dagegen die einzelnen Apophthegmata, die den Schematismus ausfiillen." 184 Seeabove,n.179. 185 Eichhorn, "Ueber die drey ersten Evangelien," 965: "sie miissen also auch hier von einer gemeinschaftlichen schriftlichen Quelle abhangen." 186 Ibid., 967: "Es bleibt daher der andere Fall wahrscheinlicher, daB Matthaus und Lukas diese Abschnitte aus den andern schriftlichen Quellen, aus denen sie (wie wir unten sehen werden) neben der oben beschriebenen verschieden iiberarbeiteten und bereicherten Urschrift geschopft haben." Cf. 970: "Endlich wie die iibrigen bisher beleuchteten Abschnitte der Evangelien, so sind auch diese durch verschiedene verandernde und bereichernde Hande gegangen." 187 Ibid., 969: "Auch miissen wir uns diese dem Matthaus und Lukas gemeinschaftlichen Abschnitte urspriinglich hebraisch oder chaldaisch-syrisch denken, und die beyden Texte in Matthaus und Lukas als zwey verschiedene Uebersetzungen ansehen." 188 Ibid.: "Hierauffiihren die Variationen des griechischen Ausdrucks, und die hie und da vorkommenden Schwierigkeiten, welche durch die Hypo-

189

190

191

192 193

194

195

196

these eines Uebersetzungsfehlers am leichtesten gehoben werden konnen." Ibid., 972: "urn eine Lebensbeschreibung von jesus zusammenzusetzen, welche allen Wiinschen der Juden-Christen Geniige thate." Ibid., 977: "Nur ist es unmoglich itzt noch bey jedem Zusatz zu bestimmen, ob er aus einer andern Denkschrift des Lebensjesus bios geborgt, oder fiir unsern Matthaus zuerst niedergeschrieben worden?" Ibid., "Indessen laBt es sich wenigstens wahrscheinlich machen, daB der Ordner unseres Matthaus etwas Schriftliches bey manchen Abschnitten seiner Zusatze vor sich gehabt habe." Ibid., 977-78. For the importance of Eichhorn's work for the Qhypothesis, see Siegfried Schulz, Q· Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972) 13. WeiB, "Die Redestiicke" (see above, n. 152), 52-65; see also his investigation, Das Matthiiusevangelium und seine Lucas-Parallelen (Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1876) esp. 128, 222-24. Idem, "Die Redestiicke," 55: "Die Spruchreihe Luk. 6, 27-36 tragt nach allen kritischen Indicien einen secundaren Charakter." Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen, 586-89.

25

able to summarize the state of the question by saying that it has become clear that both the SM and the SP are redactional products and that the SM cannot be granted an advantage over the SPin terms of originality. Both sermons must be seen at the same level as products of secondary redaction, and neither is to be given an advantage. This correct insight, however, was compromised by Baur himself when he gave historical preference to the SM after all. Agreeing with David Friedrich StrauB (1808-1874), 197 he believed that in spite of the secondary nature of Matthew's SM, this evangelist has preserved the original milieu and conceptuality since he was not determined by the party opposition, specifically the anti-Matthean bias, to which Baur attributed the emergence of Luke's Gospel. Thus, Baur basically

agreed with Tholuck, albeit for different reasons. The result of the discussion up to this point was that both Sermons were to be recognized as secondary products of redaction. This view by necessity brought into focus the question of their common source. Once the Urmarkus or Urevangelium hypothesis was dropped, 198 the two-source hypothesis with Q as the other source besides Mark was the most convincing solution. 199 Since Mark had no Sermon, the "original Sermon" must have come from Q. The differences between the SM and the SP could then be explained as redactional operations by the Gospel writers. The development of the Q-hypothesis does not need to be fully explained at this point. 200 Once the existence of the source designated Q2° 1 was considered a virtual

197 Ibid., 588-89, referring to StrauB, Leben Jesu, 1.639University, 1979) 375-83;Joel Delobel, ed., Logia: 40,652. Les Paroles de jesus; The Sayings ofJesus (BETL 59; 198 Cf. Ewald, Die drei Evangelien (seen. 157, above), Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University, 1982); 1.256-78, who assumes that Luke used the original Frans Neirynck and Frans von Segbroeck, Nf!W sermon he found in the Urmarkus between Mark Testament Vocabulary: A Companion Volume to the 3:19a and b, but shortened it to what we now have as Concordance (BETL 65; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven the SP; Matthew used the same source and preserved University, 1984) esp. 489-94; PhilipS. Sellew, the original sermon in its scope, wealth of content, "Early Collections of Jesus' Words: The and form almost in its entirety: "Bei Mt. dagegen hat Development of Dominica! Discourses" (Th.D. diss., sich die groBe rede ihrer ganzen anlage sowie ihrem Harvard Divinity School, 1985);John S. uberaus reichen inhalte nach, obwohl nicht ganz in Kloppenborg, "Tradition and Redaction in the ihrer ursprunglichsten und vollesten gestalt, doch Synoptic Sayings Source," CBQ 46 (1984) 34-62; sehr vollstandig und klar erhalten" (ibid., 258). idem, "The Formation of Q and Antique Instruc199 The hypothesis regarding the sayings source Q tional Genres," JBL 105 (1986) 443-62; idem, The originated with the ingenious Christian Hermann Formation ojQ· Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Weisse (1801-1866), proposed in his Die evangelische Collections (SAC; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987); idem, Geschichte, kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet (2 vols.; QParallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes and Concordance Leipzig: Breitkopf and Hartel, 1838) esp. 1. 79-85. (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1988); Migaku Sato, Q See Walter Schmithals, Einleitung in die drei ersten und Prophetie: Studien zur Gattungs- und Traditionsgeschichte der QueUe Q (WUNT 2.29; Ttibingen: Mohr Evangelien (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1985) 182-91. 200 For the present state of research and bibliographies, [Siebeck ), 1988). For bibliographies, see Frans see Walter Schmithals, "Evangelien, Synoptische," Neirynck, "Studies on Q since 1972," ETL 56 (1980) TRE 10 (1982) 570-626 (on Q: 597-99, 619-23); 409-13; Frans N eirynck and Frans van Segbroeck, idem, Einleitung, 182-233; Schulz, Q, passim; Dieter "Q-Bibliography," in Delobel, Logia, 561-86; idem, Luhrmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle (WMANT "Q-Bibliography: Additional List 1981-1985," ETL 33; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969); 62 (1986) 157-65; David Scholer, "Q-Bibliography: see my review in ThLZ 96 (1971) 428-29; M. 1981-1989," SBLSP 1989, 23-37; idem, SBLSP Devisch, "Le document Q, source de Matthieu: 1990, 11-13; Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 128Problematique actuelle," in M. Didier, ed., L'Evangile 71. selon Matthieu (BETL 29; Gembloux: Duculot, 1972) 201 The symbol Q is supposed to be neutral, replacing 71-97; Frans Neirynck, "The Gospel of Matthew the earlier apostolische QueUe ("apostolic source") and and Literary Criticism: A Critical Analysis of A. thereby indicating the dropping of the claim to Gaboury's Hypothesis," ibid., 37-69; idem, "The historical originality. See Frans Neirynck, "Once Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel Synopsis," in More: The Symbol Q," ETL 55 (1979) 382-83; Jean et les synoptiques: Examen critique de l' exegese de M.Schmithals, TRE 10 (1982) 597. E. Boismard (BETL 49; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven

26

Introduction

certainty, a wealth of studies appeared in print, attempting to reconstruct this great unknown text that the evangelists had been able to use. Nonetheless, some scholars did their best to refute the very idea of Q. Such rejection of a Q-source found support in the notion of "oral tradition." In more recent times, Hans-Theo Wrege's doctoral dissertation, supervised by Joachim Jeremias (1900-1979) and accepted at the University of Gottingen in 1963/64,2° 2 represents the position that oral tradition can explain the parallel sayings in Matthew and Luke without the need for the hypothesis of a written Q. Wrege had taken seriously the doubts expressed earlier by his teacher Jeremias. 203 Contrary to his claim, however, Wrege could not explain why the presynoptic sayings tradition, presumably at the stage of orality, agrees to the extent it does with the order of arrangement found now in the SM and the SP. This question had been perceived clearly much earlier in the nineteenth century, in particular in the debates for and against the so-called tradition hypothesis. Two important studies by the learned Carl Georg Friedrich Heinrici (1844-1915) preceded Wrege's dissertation, studies that did not receive the response they deserve. 2° 4 Assisted by his comprehensive knowledge of ancient literature, 205 Heinrici investigated in his first study the source-critical problem of the SM and the SP. 206 He took up the earlier suggestion that the

two sermons are made up of gnomic sentences, 207 that they constitute gnomological compilations, and that their arrangement demonstrates their intended nature as selfcontained literary units. As the starting point Heinrici refers to Papias's remark about Matthew's cr6vra(ts rwv KvptaKwv A.6ywv ("compilation of dominical sayings"). 208 This first study, therefore, subjects the sayings of both Sermons to a careful comparative analysis as gnomai, determining their formal structure, composition, and function. Heinrici's conclusion is that the oral transmission of the sayings was carried on by Jesus' disciples for the purpose of collecting and preserving his legacy. 209 While this process was still going on, the SM and the SP show that the step toward written sources had been taken. The two Sermons, therefore, had gone through a process of oral transmission before they were written down. Also important is Heinrici's statement that the SM and the SP are two separate redactional products of presynoptic origin and that their relationship cannot be explained simply as literary creations by Matthew and Luke. 210 According to Heinrici, both the SM and the SP are "reconstructions, not simply reproductions," of Jesus' teaching. 2 11 The SM is informed by Palestinian-Jewish

202 H.-Th. Wrege, Die Oberlieferungsgeschichte der University, 1986) 16-48, esp. 19-20; idem, "Hellenismus," TRE 15 (1986) 19-36, esp. 22-23. Bergpredigt (WUNT 9; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1968); see the review by Dieter Liihrmann, ThLZ 95 206 Die Bergpredigt (Matth. 5-7. Luk. 6.20-49) quel(1970) 199-200. lenkritisch und begriffsgeschichtlich untersucht, in Beitriige, part 2 (Leipzig: Diirr, 1900). The second, 203 Joachim Jeremias, "Zur Hypothese einer schriftlichen "begriffsgeschichtliche" Untersuchung was published Logienquelle," ZNW 29 (1930) 147-49; reprinted, later as part 3.1 (seen. 213 below). For a rather idem, Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & negative review, see Johannes WeiB, ThR 4 (1901) Ruprecht, 1966) 90-93. 153-55. 207 Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1900) 18: "Gnomen sind der 204 Somewhat confusingly, the studies appeared under Inhalt der Bergpredigt" ("The content of the SM is the title Die Bergpredigt both as Programmschriften and made up of gnomic sentences"). as parts 2 and 3/1 in C. G. F. Heinrici's collections, 208 Papias according to Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.39.16; for Beitrage zur Geschichte und Erkliirung des Neuen Testamentes,'parts 1-4 (Leipzig: Diirr, 1894-1908). See the text, see Kurt Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (13th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelbelow, nn. 206 and 213, and the main bibliography gesellschaft, 1985) 531. at the end of this commentary. 205 See also Hans Dieter Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 209 Bergpredigt(l900), 10,76-81. (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 129 n. 2; 210 Ibid., 80-81. 211 Ibid., 10: "Durch eine Analyse des Inhalts der heiden idem, "The Problem of Rhetoric and Theology Relationen und durch Beleuchtung ihres Verhaltaccording to the Apostle Paul," in A. Vanhoye, ed., nisses zu den sonstigen Parallelen will ich den L'Apotre Paul: Personnalite, style, et conception du Nachweis fiihren, daB beide nicht einfache ministere (BETL 73; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven

27

conditions; the SP has no relationship to a Jewish milieu. Thus the same sayings have been arranged in different ways in the SM and the SP because of the different backgrounds and interests of their original redactors. 212 Heinrici's second study 213 focused on the conceptuality used by the gnomic sentences and related the major terms to the language of ancient gnomologicalliterature.214 This relationship requires that both Sermons be viewed in conjunction with ancient gnomologies of proverbs and maxims, as they are found in HellenisticJewish wisdom and in Greco-Roman literature and philosophy. Heinrici's main conclusions, stated in the terms of nineteenth-century scholarship, are basically correct: "Both versions of the speech in Matthew and Luke, each by itself, are products of collecting activity and stand on their own independently of each other. In some sense, they form two, partly overlapping, but independently arranged, 'summaries of healthy doctrines' (2 Tim 1: 13 ). "2 15 The SM is closer to its original milieu in Judaism; the SP addresses Gentiles. 216 Both Sermons are secondary "reconstructions of a foundational speech of Jesus, in two versions, and not dependent on a common source. "217 His main investigation was the nature and origins ofthe gnomic sentences. 218 The problem with Heinrici's studies was that he had grown weary of the seemingly endless battles of the

212

213

214 215

28

proponents of oral tradition against the champions of written sources, alternatives he rightly considered too simple to fit the sources. 219 One cannot overlook the fact as well, as Johannes WeiB observed, that Heinrici did not state his views clearly enough to challenge persuasively what had emerged as a consensus among those with whom he was engaged in debate. 220 The consequences of ignoring Heinrici were serious, in particular for the subsequent investigations concerning Q. Therefore, one of the disadvantages of Wrege's dissertation is that, although it presumes oral tradition, it is based on the status of the Q-research of its time. This foundation was shaky, but Wrege left this fragile condition unexamined. The fragility was the result of the fact that, once scholars had focused their attention on the reconstruction of the source Q, interest in the SP and the SM as textual units virtually ceased. Indeed, if one held that the composition of the two speeches (the SM and the SP) was the work of Gospel writers, then the source Q contained only the individual sayings that served as building blocks for these speeches. The Q-source, whatever its nature, had to have a different structure and extend far beyond the material of the SM and the SP. As a result, the SM and the SP became dissolved into Q. This development can be seen clearly in the important summary provided by Paul Wernle (1872-1939) in his influential book of 1899, Die synoptische Frage. 221 According to Wernle, the

Reproductionen, sondern Reconstructionen einer Rede sind, die von Matthaus und Lukas nicht in gegenseitiger Benutzung oder in Benutzung derselben Quellenschriften, sondern unabhangig hergestellt wurden." Ibid., 79: "Die verschiedene Farbung der heiden Berichte erklart sich aus dem verschieden bedingten sachlichen Interesse der Referenten, nicht a us Kirchenpolitik oder Parteipolitik oder iiberlegten literarischen Abwandlungen." Die Bergpredigt (Matth. 5-7. Luk 6.20-49) begriffsgeschichtlich untersucht, Beitriige 3.1 (Leipzig: Diirr, 1905). See the important remark by Adolf DeiBmann, ThR 9 ( 1906) 226: "die evangelischen Kernworter sind auf dem Hintergrund namentlich der antiken religiosen und ethischen Begriffswelt dargestellt, eines Bezirkes, den HEINRICija vollig beherrscht." See esp. the introduction, ibid., 3-9. Ibid., 1: "In der quellenkritischen Untersuchung der Bergpredigt kam ich zu dem Ergebnis, daB die heiden Fassungen der Rede bei Matthaus und Lukas,

216 217

218 219

220 221

jede fiir sich, eine Sammelarbeit sind und daB sie unabhangig neben einander stehen, gewissermaBen zwei zum Teil sich deckende aber selbstandig zusammengeordnete 'Abrisse gesunder Lehren' (2 Tim. 1,13)." Ibid., 2. Ibid., 2: "als zwiefache Wiederherstellung einer grundlegenden Lehrrede Jesu anzusehen sei, daB sie nicht auf eine Quelle zuriickzufiihren ist." Ibid.: "daB ferner ihre Urbestandteile Einzelspriiche und Spruchgruppen bilden." See his survey of the state of research on "Die synoptische Frage," in Bergpredigt (1900) 1-10, with important references concerning "oral tradition" (ibid., 4-5). See the review by Johannes WeiB in ThR 4 (1901) 153-55. Paul Wernle, Die synoptische Frage (Freiburg i.Br.: Mohr, 1899) 224-33. His summary is the best concerning the first phase of Q-research. See Schulz, Q, 14-15; for a review, see johannes WeiB, ThR 4 (1901) 148-53.

Introduction

SM was part ofQ,2 22 but not in its entirety. Q began with. the speech by John the Baptist (Matt 3:7-12 I I Luke 3:7-9, 16-17), and it continued with the temptation dialogue (Matt 4:3-10 I I Luke 4:3-12) and "the speech on righteousness" (Gerechtigkeitsrede), which included the sections Matt 5:3-48; 7:1-6, 12-27; Luke 6:20-49; 11:33; 12:58-59; 16:17-18. Beyond this basic material, Q may also have included some of Matthew's "special traditions" (Sondergut), in particular Matt 6: 1-18 (but not 6:9-15!).22 3 In his assessment of the question Wernle was both cautious and imaginative. He did not want to commit himself to more than conjectures. 224 Yet, he was also keen enough to perceive the state of the question and to identify clearly what he regarded as problems requiring further investigation. Thus, he saw the need for a fresh investigation of the compositional structure, of which he found traces in three groupings of sayings. 225 Their function, he said, was not chronology but catechesis. 226 Later sayings (e.g., Matt 5:11 I I Luke 6:22) are mixed with earlier ones. Q, he thought, owes its existence to the need for written instructions for the new members of the Christian communities who themselves had not had direct personal contact withjesus. 227 For these new Christians, larger themes or topics served as guidance, such as "What is the will of God?" or "What are the duties of missionaries?" These topics were of immense im-

portance for the church; they do not give access to the historicaljesus but to the oldest Christian theology.228 Wernle also noticed the lack of christology, but he considered this deficiency to be only a seeming one: the sayings about confessing jesus and the parousia show that all sayings implicitly presuppose faith in jesus as the Messiah. 229 These remarks show that characteristics previously assumed for the SM and the SP had now been transferred to Q. Wernle also recognized clearly that Q had passed through a history before it reached the Gospel writers. 230 "It is by no means certain that this Qcollection was written in an originally Semitic language. Rather, the sayings in Matthew and Luke go back to a common Greek source. There is no reason to postulate an Aramaic original. We have to reckon with the possibility that even our oldest records concerning jesus were in Greek. Since the large Gentile Christian church superseded the oldest church so rapidly, this fact should not be a surprise."23l Therefore, according to Wernle, the Q-source was a redactional product that can also be related to the early Christian parties. While the Lukan Q lacks all Judaizing tendencies, the Matthean Q has been influenced by such tendencies, for which Wernle named Matt 5:17-20; 10:5-6; and 23:3: Therefore, the three most important speeches: the speech on righteousness, the one against the

222 See also Paul Wernle, Die Quellen des Lebensjesu 231: "Die Vermutung scheint nicht ungerechtfertigt, (Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbiicher 1.1; Tiibingen: daB die Spruchsammlung vom Augenblick ihrer Mohr, 1904; 3ded. 1913). Entstehung eine fortwahrende Geschichte durch223 Wernle, Frage, 224-26. gemacht hat his zu ihrer Aufnahme in Mt und Lc." 224 Ibid., 227: "Natiirlich sind das alles nur 231 Ibid., 229: "Die Spruchsammlung ist aber auch nicht Vermutungen." sicher in der semitischen Ursprache verfaBt. Die 225 Ibid., 226-27. Reden bei Mt und Lc gehen auf eine gemeinsame 226 Ibid., 227-28. griechische Quelle zuriick. Zu Riickschliissen auf ein 227 Ibid., 228: "Sie verdankt ihre Entstehung dem aramaisches Original ist kein AnlaB gegeben. Wir Bediirfnis nach schriftlicher Unterweisung der neu haben mit der Moglichkeit zu rechnen, daB unsere eintretenden Gemeindeglieder, die selbstJesus nicht altesten Aufzeichnungen iiber Jesus griechisch mehr gekannt hatten.... Die Spruchsammlung will waren. Da die groBe Heidenkirche die Urgemeinde Glaubige unterweisen, welches im Einzelnen fiir sie so rasch iiberfliigelt hat, ist dies auch nicht auffallig. • der Weg ins Gottesreich ist." On this point see Schmithals, Einleitung, 223-24. 228 Ibid.: "Diese Rubriken sind von eminentem Wert fiir die alteste Theologie der Urgemeinde. Es gibt sogar kein geschichtlich wertvolleres Dokument dafiir als sie.· 229 Ibid.: "Die Christologie fehlt unter diesen Rubriken nur zum Schein. • 230 Ibid.: the title of section 4 is "The History of the Collection" ("Die Geschichte der Sammlung"). Ibid.,

29

Pharisees, and the one for the missionaries, bear at their cutting edge the stamp of Judaism, and as a matter of principle do so, forbidding any kind of excuse, such as saying that these words were only spoken by Jesus for particular occasions. Rather, these three speeches are law for early Christianity. 232 W ernie also pointed out that this source was antiPauline in character: "An antithesis against Paul and his work can hardly be missed, when the Christian teachers are measured by their correctness about the law, when mission to the Gentiles and the Samaritans is prohibited, and when even the commandments of the Pharisees are praised. •2 33 One cannot attribute this Judaizing tendency to Matthew, however, but it must have been part of his source. 234 Not everything in Q expresses this Judaizing tendency; there are anti-Jewish invectives as well. 235 Consequently, Q has passed through a history of redaction, during which several authors contributed material of heterogeneous origin and nature: As the legacy of Jesus the Q-collection was meant for the community and belonged to those individuals who had copies. Everyone had the right to supplement or

improve it. Presumably, a few exemplars of Q existed, of about equal length. Between the first writing (Q) and the collection that reached Matthew (QMt) and Luke (QL<) there were Q 1, Q2, Q 3, but it would be a vain effort to distinguish among them. 236 Wernle, therefore, attributed the differences between the SM and the SP to the changes that had occurred during the transmission process through which both Sermons had passed. Since this process is not known to us in detail, it is impossible now to determine the reason for every difference between the SM and the SP. 237 One of the most obvious differences is that the SP shows a distance from Judaism and a closeness to Catholicism, which is certainly the work of the evangelist Luke. By contrast, the SM seems to be preserved by Matthew to a greater degree, reflecting as it does more accurately the state of thinking that must have been typical of the primitive church. 238 At any rate, Wernle continued, we have evidence of a history of redaction, but only the last stage is open to our inspection. The original Q was probably conceived by one of the earliest followers of Jesus; it was subsequently enlarged and changed by redactors. During this stage the Judaizing elements must

232 Wernle, Frage, 229: "Die drei wichtigsten Reden: uns freilich vergebene Muhe ware." On this point see Gerechtigkeitsrede, Pharisaerrede, Missionsrede Schmithals, Einleitung, 222-23, 224-26. tragen an ihrer Spitze den Stempel desjudaismus, 237 Wernle, Frage, 233: "Die Doppelgestalt der Reden in und zwar in prinzipiellem Sinn, der jede Ausftucht, unseren Synoptikern erklart sich genugend erst aus es seien Gelegenheitsworte Jesu, verbietet. Die drei den Schwankungen und Wandlungen der schriftWorte sind fur die Urgemeinde Gesetz." lichen Uberlieferung. Das Exemplar, das Lc hatte, 233 Ibid.: "Eine Antithese gegen Paulus und sein Werk scheint urn einiges kurzer gewesen zu sein als das des ist kaum zu verkennen, wenn die christlichen Lehrer Mt. Und bei Mt selbst strauben sich einzelne Reden gemessen werden an ihrer gesetzlichen Korrektheit, dagegen, Werke aus einem GuB zu sein. Die genaue Heiden- und Samarit.ermission verboten wird, und Entwicklung im Einzelnen nachzuweisen, ware ein selbst die Satzungen der Pharisaer Lob erhalten." aussichtsloses Unternehmen. Es genugt das sichere The references are to Matt 5:19; 10:5-6; 23:3. Cf. DaB der Veranderung." Betz, Essays, 51. 238 Ibid.: "Die Reden bei Lc entfernen sich vom ge234 Wernle, Frage, 229: "DaB Mt nicht der Urheber schichtlichenjudaismus und nahern sich dem dieser judaistischen Worte ist, folgt aus seinen Katholizismus an. Das ist aber das Werk des EvanZusatzen zu Mt 5,17f. (vgl. p. 183) und aus seinem gelisten seiher. Die Reden bei Mt scheinen Ianger SchluBwort. Also gehort dieser Judaismus seiner dem EinftuB der Urgemeinde ausgesetzt gewesen zu Quelle an. 1st er aber in der Quelle ursprunglich, sein; das kommt aber auch daher, daB ihnen Mt mit d.h. ist der erste Au tor der Sammlung einjudaist?" groBerer Schonung begegnete. Nur davor ist zu 235 Ibid., 230-31. warnen, daB man sich den U nterschied der Vorlagen 236 Ibid., 231: "Als die Hinterlassenschaftjesu fur die des Mt und Lc zu groB vorstelle." Gemeinde gehorte siejedem Einzelnen an, undjeder hatte das Recht, sie zu erganzen oder zu verbessern. Es werden vermutlich wenig gleich lange Exemplare existiert haben. Zwischen der ersten Niederschrift (Q) und der Sammlung, die Mt (QM') und Lc (QLc) vorfanden, standen Q 1 , Q2, Q 3 , deren Scheidung fUr

30

Introduction

have been introduced into the texts. Finally, Matthew and Luke incorporated whatthey had before them in their Gospels. When this had happened, there was no further need for Q, so that the Q-tradition as a separate literature came to an end. 239 "Concerning the date of the first document I do not dare to be precise. It will hardly have emerged during the lifetime of most of the apostles. The sixties [sc. of the 1st century] are an approximate date. •2 40 Prior to the, first document (the "original Q") we should imagine the oral Aramaic tradition, "until now more the object of speculation than secure knowledge." 241 Thus Wernle's account names all the options and problems, as well as the tasks to be explored further. Besides Wernle, the other great summary of nineteenth-century research came from Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918). In particular, his commentaries on Matthew242 and on Luke, 243 and his Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien2 44 must be mentioned. With the keen analytical mind and merciless criticism for which he was famous, W ellhausen sorted out the mass of arguments and hypotheses and identified those worthy of further consideration. Rather than merely setting down his own conclusions, however, he always stated the most important options. Especially valuable for our discussion are the two editions of Wellhausen's Einleitung, the first of which appeared in 1905. This edition served as the

basis for Adolf von Harnack's (1851-1930) seminal study of the Greek text of Q. 245 The second edition of the Einleitung ( 1911) was changed to a considerable extent and took into account Harnack's work as well as that of others. The first edition of the Einleitung contains an interesting chapter on the Aramaic foundations of the Gospels, a chapter omitted in the second edition. 246 In this chapter W ellhausen stated his basic assumption, which proved to be the beginning of an avalanche of philological investigations reaching all the way to the end of the twentieth century. This basic assumption was: Jesus himself spoke Aramaic, and his words, as well as the stories told about him, circulated in the congregation of Jerusalem, where the Aramaic tongue was also spoken. Therefore, the oral tradition of the Gospel was originally Aramaic, and since it is preserved for us only in Greek writing, it underwent a change oflanguage. This is a historical fact that can also be demonstrated philologically. The original form of the tradition has not completely disappeared through the transformation and change of the language. Often the Semitic idiom shines through the Greek. 247 If the oral tradition was originally in Aramaic and was put into Greek only subsequently, the question remains

239 Ibid.: "Derart darfvon einer Geschichte der Spruchsammlung geredet werden, obschon bloB deren Endpunkte uns klar vor Augen liegen. Sie wurde zuerst aufgezeichnet von einem Mann der urapostolischen Richtung, erfuhr hierauf fortwahrende Vermehrung, u.a. auch in judaistischem Sinn, his sie schlieBlich zu Mt und Lc gelangte. lhre Aufnahme in deren Werke hat ihr selbst das Ende bereitet, da sie iiberfliissig wurde." 240 Ibid.: "Uber das Datum der ersten Aufzeichnung wage ich nichts Festes anzugeben. Bei Lebzeiten der meisten Apostel wird sie kaum verfaBt sein. Die 60er Jahre sind ein ganz ungefahres Datum." 241 Ibid.: ··was riickwarts derselben liegt, die miindliche aramaische Tradition, ist bisjetzt das Objekt mehr der Vermutungen, als des sichern Wissens. Ein neues groBes Forschungsgebiet dehnt sich hier fur diejenigen a us, die sich dazu berufen nennen diirfen." 242 Julius Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Matthaei iibersetzt und erkliirt (Berlin: Reimer, 1904; 2d ed. 1914). 243 Idem, Das Evangelium Lucae ilbersetzt und erkltirt (Berlin: Reimer, 1904).

244 Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin: Reimer, 1905; 2d ed. 1911 ). All commentaries on the four Gospels and the 2d ed. of the Einleitung have been reprinted under the title: Julius Wellhausen, Evangelienkommentare, with an introduction by Martin Hengel (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987). 245 Adolf von Harnack, Spriiche und Reden Jesu: Die zweite Quelle des Matthtius und Lukas, in his Beitrtige zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, voL 2 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1907). ET: The Sayings ofjesus: The Second Source of St. Matthew and St. Luke (trans.]. R. Wilkinson; New York: Putnam; London: Williams and Norgate, 1908). 246 Wellhausen, Einleitung (1905) 14-34: "Die aramaische Grundlage der Evangelien." The chapter is not found in the reprinted edition (see n. 244). 247 Einleitung (1905) 14: "Jesus seiher sprach aramaisch, und seine Worte sowie die Erzahlungen tiber ihn liefen in der jerusalemischen Gemeinde urn, die gleichfalls aramaischer Zunge war. Die miindliche Uberlieferung des Evangeliums war also von Haus aus aramaisch, und wenn sie uns nur in griechischer

31

whether Q was also in Aramaic originally or whether it was in Greek from the beginning. Not without circumspection, W ellhausen posited that the Gospels were preceded not only by an oral Aramaic tradition but by written Aramaic sources as well. "It is conceivable that the gospel writers were familiar with the oral Aramaic tradition but wrote it down only in Greek, but the most probable situation is that the Gospel, which was originally in Aramaic, was at first also written down in Aramaic.•248 As proof for this assumption Wellhausen refers to linguistic phenomena and "misunderstandings" that cannot be explained except by an Aramaic background.249 What were the implications of this view for Q? According to Wellhausen, 250 whose caution cannot be underscored enough, Luke appears to have preserved the "more original" Q, 251 but of course Luke's Q is a translation from Aramaic into Greek. "More original" in Luke is the piece-by-piece assembly of the sayings, whereas Matthew's version has secondary, larger speech compositions. As far as the SM and the SP are concerned, Wellhausen'sjudgment is stated accordingly: the SP is on the whole "more original" than Matthew's SM. While both show the same arrangement, Luke's SP is throughout "fresher, more condensed, more popular, and less spiritual and biblical." 252 But Wellhausen did not believe that the Lord's Prayer and other materials

248

249 250 251 252

32

from the SM were ever contained in Q. 253 Here, Matthew is older because he had access to original JewishChristian traditions of the Jerusalem church, which he preserved. 254 Although Matthew wrote his Gospel after the destruction ofJerusalem, he nonetheless preserved the older traditions of his church. Matthew does this, even though in his own conceptions he goes beyond these older traditions and does not hesitate to set them aside for his own time. 255 It is interesting to see that for Wellhausen these older Jerusalem traditions are de facto identical with the teaching of the historica1Jesus. 256 The second edition of his Einleitung ( 1911 ), largely in response to Harnack, moved away from the Aramaic hypothesis and added further considerations about the Greek. Wellhausen now considered an originally Aramaic Q that was then translated into the Greek; the Greek translation developed further into several recensions, of which one was used by Matthew and another by Luke. 257 Although the Lord's Prayer was not part of the original Q, 258 the fact that both Matthew (6: 11) and Luke (11:3) cite the rare term f71'LOt')(no~ ("daily") means that they must both have had access to the one original Greek version of the prayer. 259 7. The Twentieth Century

Wellhausen's response to Harnack is important for a variety of reasons. 260 Opposing Harnack's thesis that Q

Niederschrift erhalten ist, so hat sie einen Sprachwechsel durchgemacht. Das steht historisch fest und es IaBt sich auch philologisch erweisen. Durch die Umprllgung ist das urspli.ingliche Geprllge nicht vollig verschwunden. Vielfach blickt semitische Redeweise durch das Griechische hindurch." This statement has been omitted in the 2d ed. of 1911. Ibid., 35: "Liegt den Evangelien nur die miindliche aramiiische Tradition zu grunde? haben die Verfasser diese sofort griechisch niedergeschrieben, wobei sie natiirlich des Aramaischen kundig sein muBten und unter dem EinfiuB desselben standen? Denken IieBe sich das, aber das Wahrscheinliche ist doch, daB das Evangelium, das von Haus aus aramiiisch war, zuerst auch aramaisch niedergeschrieben wurde." See ibid., 35-43, with examples. See ibid., 65-73. Ibid., 67. Ibid., 67: "sein Ton und seine Sprache ist durchweg frischer, gedrungener und volkstiimlicher, weniger geistlich und biblisch."

253 Ibid., 67-68. 254 Ibid., 88-89. 255 Ibid., 88-89: "Es muss auch die Moglichkeit in Anschlag gebracht werden, daB Matthaus seiher mit entschiedener Absicht an der Form der jerusalemischen Gemeindeiiberlieferung fest hielt, obgleich er sie zuweilen doch sprengte." 256 Ibid., 113-15. 257 Einleitung(1911) 60. 258 Einleitung (1905) 67; Einleitung(1911) 59. 259 Einleitung (1905) 68, with n. 1; Einleitung (1911) 60. 260 Einleitung (1911) 157-76, with the responses to Harnack's Sprilche und Reden Jesu (1907) and Kirsopp Lake's important article, "The Date of Q," Expositor 7 ( 1909) 494-507.

Introduction

reflects more genuinely the teaching of the historical Jesus than does Mark's Gospel, Wellhausen emphasized the role of the primitive church in Jerusalem that, as he saw it, preserved the oldest traditions aboutJesus. 261 These traditions, Wellhausen believed, are contained in Mark's Gospel. The issue here was not only whether Q or Mark is to be taken as the more valuable historical source for the teaching of Jesus, but also whether Wellhausen's hypothesis about the Aramaic sources of the Gospels holds true. Thus, the issue became Aramaic versus Greek, linguistically and culturally. As Harnack's Q-source was Greek, Wellhausen's original Gospel sources were Aramaic. More importantly, as Wellhausen's Jesus was not a Christian but a Jew, Harnack's Jesus was a "Christian liberal" not unlike himself. Since these two scholars and their theories represent the two main options that were to dominate research in the twentieth century, the stage for subsequent debates was set up by this exchange between Wellhausen and Harnack. 262 The ensuing debates involved the following issues: (1) the language ofQ, whether originally Aramaic or Greek; (2) the date of Q, whether earlier or later; (3) the theology of Q, whether Jewish Christian or Hel-

lenistic Christian; (4) the "image ofJesus" (Bildjesu) projected by Q, whether that of a "conservative" or a "liberal" Jew, the latter easily taken as the first Christian. The fundamental problem underlying these issues was whether Q contained the original message and teaching of the historical Jesus. If Q was originally in Aramaic, as Wellhausen claimed, the original words ofJesus are irretrievably lost, 263 and Q represents the hellenized version of Jesus' message: 264 Accordingly, Jesus must be placed at the "end ofJudaism, " 265 whereas Christianity really begins with Paui.2 66 This was Wellhausen's basic position. It was followed by all those who subscribed to his famous dictum, "Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew."2 67 Directly opposed was Harnack's view that Q "on the whole is an old source. "268 As he saw it, Q contains a doctrine consistent in itself, mainly Jewish in nature, and free from Christian apologetics. 269 Thus, Q presents Jesus' original message and teaching as well as his historical self-understanding. Although the "original" Q was in Aramaic (here Harnack agreed with Wellhausen), 270

261 Einleitung(1911) 168-70. 262 On this point see Schmithals, Einleitung, 197-201, 224-27. 263 Wellhausen, Einleitung (1911) 168: "Es hilft nicht, sich zu strauben. Die WorteJesu sind nicht im eigentlichen Sinne authentisch erhalten. Es hat Iangere Zeit gedauert, bis sie aufgezeichnet wurden. Ihre Uberlieferung hat zwei allerdings nicht scharf abzugrenzende Phasen; in der ersten ist sie gedachtnismaBig und nimmt ab, in der anderen ist sie frei und nimmt zu. Markus hat die Reste der alteren, stark zusammengeschwundenen Tradition gesammelt; in dem nicht aus Markus entlehnten Redestoffbei Matthaus und Lukas sind diese vielleicht mit etlichen anderen noch erhaltenen Resten verbunden, vomehmlich aber neu belebt und weiter gewachsen." 264 See Wellhausen, Einleitung (1905) 14 (quoted above, n. 247); idem,Einleitung(1911) 103-4. 265 See Wellhausen, Einleitung(1911) 98, regarding Jesus' saying about the destruction ofthe Jerusalem Temple (Mark 13:1-2), which Wellhausen regards as authentic: "Dieses Wort ist darum sicher authentisch, weil es den Grund zu seiner Anklage aufTempellasterung abgegeben hat, die zu seiner V erurteilung vor dem Synhedrium fiihrte. Wenn der Tempel Gottes vernichtet wird, so erst recht das judische Gemeinwesen."

266 Ibid., 99, 102, 103, 104, 147-53. 267 Ibid., 102: "Jesus war kein Christ, sondemJude." Cf. ibid., 103: "Man darf das Nich~iidische in ihm, das Menschliche, fur charakteristischer halten, als das Jiidische." This passing remark shows that Wellhansen sees the problem of how to explain the postEaster impact ofJesus' message. Concerning the "impact of his person" ("der Eindruck seiner Person"), see Einleitung (1911) 103-4. See also Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (trans. Kendrick Grobel; 2 vols.; New York: Scribner's, 1951, 1955) 1.3; Hans Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology rif the New Testament (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM, 1969) xvii-xviii. Furthermore, see my article, "Wellhausen's Dictum 'Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew' in Light of Present Scholarship," StTh 45 (1991) 83-110. 268 Harnack, Spruche und Reden Jesu, 162: "Q eine im wesentlichen einheitliche und alte QueUe." 269 Ibid., 163-64. 270 Ibid., 171.

33

its rendering into Greek did not obliterate or obscure Jesus' original message but preserved it. Q is, therefore, the oldest and most trustworthy source for recovering Jesus' original message and teaching; one should prefer it to Mark's Gospel because that Gospel reflects later Christian theology.2 71 For Harnack, the Jesus ofQ was the first Christian. 272 As I have indicated, these fundamental hypotheses, diametrically opposed to each other, determined the battle lines of twentieth-century scholarship. Scholars felt deeply about these issues and were inclined to make a decision in favor of the one and against the other of the alternatives. How strong this urge was can be seen from Heinrici who, although hesitant with regard to Q, felt compelled at the end of his second study on the SM to confess that "Jesus is not the last Jew, but the creator of a new, authentically rooted religion; he is the first Christian (Rom 8:29). " 273 In part, the decisions scholars made at this point were influenced by their cultural and religious identities. One should remember that Harnack's view ofJesus and his simple, undogmatic Christian message goes back to Erasmus,274 a fact that, as Wernle 275 and Troeltsch 276 testify, was

well understood at the time. Harnack's work on Q, published in 1907, 277 had drawn the conclusion from Wernle ( 1899) and Wellhausen ( 1905) that the time had come to attempt the reconstruction of the Greek text of Q. On the one hand, the SM appears in Harnack's list of Q-texts as a rubric called "the most significant parts of the SM, "2 78 but this rubric covers only some sayings from the SM that can be paralleled by other Q-traditions. Harnack concluded from the textual comparisons that the arrangement of the original sermon, to be reconstructed from the SM and the SP, should follow the SM as the more reliable order of Q, whereas the sayings special to Matthew and not found in Luke cannot have been part of Q. 279 Thus, according to Harnack, the "original" Q-sermon contained all the sayings common to the SM and the SP, but followed the arrangement in the SM. On the other hand, the SP, while having the right number of sayings, was cut up and distributed by the redactor Luke. 280 Therefore, neither the SM nor the SP, as we now have them, can claim a consistency as textual or literary units; they merely represent sequences of sayings as Q also has them elsewhere. As a whole, the SM is the work of the evangelist Matthew, who used the

271 Ibid., 173: "Die Spruchsammlung und Markus milssen in Kraft bleiben, aber jene steht voran.• 272 Ibid., 173: "Vor allem wird die Ubertreibung des apokalyptisch-eschatologischen Elements in der VerkiindigungJesu und die Zuriickstellung der rein religiosen und moralischen Momente hinter jenes immer wieder ihre Widerlegung durch die Spruchsammlung linden. Sie bietet die Gewllhr fiir das, was in der VerkiindigungJesu die Hauptsache gewesen ist: die Gotteserkenntnis und die Moral zu BuBe und Glauben, zum Verzicht auf die Welt und zum Gewinn des Himmels-nichts anderes. • See also the programmatic statement in Harnack's Das Wesen des Christentums (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1900); ET: What Is Christianity? (trans. Thomas B. Saunders; with an introduction by W. R. Matthews; 5th ed.; London: Benn, 1958). See especially his rejection of the idea that Jesus' message is confined to the Judaism of his time and that his religion was "a religion of misery" ("eine Religion des Miserabilismus"). I am quoting the reedition of the work by Rudolf Bultmann (Stuttgart: Klotz, 1950) 10-11 (ET: pp. 23-25). On the sources for Jesus' message, see pp. 12-31; Harnack's preference for Q is not yet as clearly stated as in his Sprilche und Reden Jesu of 1907, but in his additional note from 1908 (p. 180), he refers to his book on Q as a clarification for his vague remark on

34

p. 13,line 2. On Jesus' basic message, see pp. 31-47. 273 Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1905) 98: "Jesus ist nicht der letzteJude, sondern der Schopfer einer neuen, wurzelechten Religion; er ist der erste Christ (Rom. 8,29)." 274 See in this Introduction, section II.3. 275 See Paul Wernle, Renaissance und Reformation: Sechs Vortriige (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1912) 114-15: "Aber er [sc. Erasmus] fiigte dann eine neue, hochst einfache Wesensbestimmung des Christentums hinzu, Philosophic Christi pflegte er es zu nennen; es ist das einfache praktische Evangelium der Bergpredigt, im Einklang mit der Lebensweisheit aller rechten Philosophen, aber Kraft geworden durch die Autoritllt des himmlischen Christus, der es uns lehrt und vorbildet." 276 Ernst Troeltsch's comment about Erasmus's Enchiridion of 1503 is cited by Kruger, Humanistische Evangelienauslegung, 20 I: "Mit dieser Schrift ist der Ubergang von Paulus, den im Grunde keiner dieser Mllnner [sc. der Humanisten] verstanden hat, zu der Religion der Bergpredigt und des schlichtenJesusglaubens gemacht." 277 See above, n. 245. 278 Harnack, Sprilche und Reden, 126: "Die bedeutendsten Teile der Bergpredigt." 279 Ibid., 127.

Introduction

order and the material of the Q-sermon but added his own contributions to the final composition we call the SM. 281 Arguing against Wellhausen's connection between the SM and the formulation of the "gospel" (d1ayyb..wv) in Mark 1:15, Harnack in fact denied that the SM is more than a cluster of sayings and that it has common theme. 282 There are, however, serious problems in Harnack's statements. Apparently contradicting himself, Harnack concluded that, judged generally, "what has been put in the SM at the beginning as Jesus' proclamation bears the stamp of undiluted authenticity. One can only be amazed that at the very same time when Paul was active and when apologetic questions and the problem of the law were urgent issues, Jesus' original proclamation as moral preaching was remembered and kept in force. "283 This remembrance was attributable to the continuing impact of "the image of Jesus" on the early church. 284 This "image of Jesus" is reflected in the material throughout, without being identical with specific sayings or clusters of sayings. Taking his clues from this assumption, Harnack could even provide a sketch of a "theology" of Q, which was of course expressed by the Q-sermon as welJ2 85 and 280 281 282 283

284

285 286 287

288

which contained at least the rudiments of a "christology."286 At this point Harnack's and Wellhausen's views are close indeed, if not identical: In the "Sermon on the Mount," which as a whole surpasses the level of a prophetic manifesto, the person of Jesus comes to the fore only at two points. He himself calls his doctrine the light which belongs on the lampstand, so that it shines for all. ... And he identifies obedience toward his commandments with the doing of the will of the Father; by this means it is decided whether a person builds his house on the rock or on the sand. By contrast, merely saying "Lord, Lord" has no value.2 87 As Harnack indicates by putting quotation marks around the expression "Sermon on the Mount," the SM has ceased to exist as a textual or literary unit. It merely points, when the term is used, to the force of the "image of Jesus"2 88 that is operative in the sayings of Q, whether

Ibid., 128-29. Ibid., 129. Ibid., 138-46. Ibid., 146: "Im einzelnen und als Ganzes beurteilt, tragt das, was in der Bergpredigt als Verkiindigung Jesu vorangestellt ist, den Stempel unverfalschter Echtheit. Man staunt, daB in dem Zeitalter, da Paulus wirkte und wahrend die apologetischen Fragen und die Gesetzesfrage brennend waren, die V erkiindigungJesu so streng als Moralpredigt in Erinnerung und Kraft geblieben ist." Ibid., 173: "Das BildJesu, welches Q in den Spriichen gegeben hat, ist im Vordergrunde geblieben." Ibid., 159-62. Ibid., 162-64. Ibid., 164: "In der 'Bergpredigt', die als ganze iiber dem Niveau eines prophetischen Manifests liegt, tritt nur an zwei Punkten die PersonJesu hervor. Seine Lehre bezeichnet er selbst als das Licht, das auf den Leuchter gehort, damit es allen scheine ... , und an dem Gehorsam gegen seine Gebote, der mit dem Tun des Willens des Vaters gleich gesetzt wird, entscheidet es sich, ob ein Mensch sein Haus auf einen Fels oder auf Sand baut; das 'Herr, Herr'-Sagen ist wertlos." This concept of the "image of Jesus" plays an important role also for Wellhausen. See his Einleitung

( 1911) 102-4, 168-70; idem, Israelitische und judische Geschichte (9th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1958) 360, 366-68. The whole concept was then taken up by Wilhelm Herrmann, Martin Kahler, and, differently, by Ernst Fuchs. See also Hartmut Stegemann, "Der lehrende Jesus. Der sogenannte biblische Christus und die geschichtliche BotschaftJesu von der Gottesherrschaft," NZSTR 24 (1982) 3-20. See Wilhelm Herrmann, Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott, im Anschlu)J an Luther dargestellt (5th/6th ed.; Stuttgart and Berlin: Cotta, 1908) esp. 67-96; Martin Kahler, Der sogenannte historische jesus und der geschichtliche biblische Christus (2d ed.; Leipzig: Deichert, 1928) esp. 57-71, 99-114. On the whole question, see also my article, "The Problem of Christology in the Sermon on the Mount," in Theodore Jennings, Jr., ed., Text and Logos: The Humanistic Interpretation of the New Testament [FS for Hendrikus W. BoersJ (Atlanta: Scholars, 1990) 191209; reprinted in Betz, Synoptische Studien, 219-29.

35

belonging to the SM or not. It is strange, however, that Harnack, when he cites specific passages for verifying this "image of Jesus," usually refers to SM passages. Although this practice looks odd or even self-contradictory, it has continued in much of the subsequent scholarly literature: While the SM is designated as a Matthean construction, it is simultaneously treated as a unified text containing Jesus' "original message."2 8 9 Another oddity was that Harnack agreed with Wellhausen and others that Q was originally a written source of Aramaic sayings from the period before 70 CE. 290 This assumption implies that the sayings belonging to the Q-sermon (i.e., sayings common to the SM and the SP) are Greek translations of their Aramaic antecedents. Precisely those sayings, however, as their appearance in the SP shows, are Greek in character, while the supposedly later additions by Matthew (in the SM) express older Jewish (or Jewish-Christian) ideas and concepts. In his critique of Harnack, W ellhausen appears to have

been aware of this inconsistency in Harnack's thesis, 291 an inconsistency that calls that entire thesis into question. Clearly, further studies would follow at this point. These studies show signs of having been under some pressure to move Jesus and his teaching away from Judaism. This growing tendency expressed itself in several ways: (1) by letting Jesus pronounce his messianic self-understanding; (2) by having Jesus make a clear break with the Jewish Torah; (3) by making Jesus teach straightforward Christian doctrine. The emphasis on any of these elements, or on all of them together, can be attributed to the impact of Harnack's contention that Jesus was "not a Jew but a Christian." Tragically, after Harnack, this tendency reached its absurd climax in the infamous address by Walter Grundmann (1906-1976), entitled "Die Frage der altesten Gestalt und des urspriinglichen Sinnes der Bergrede Jesu," 292 followed by his book ,Jesus der Galiliier und das judentum. 293 According to Grundmann,

289 This is also true of Harnack's Das Wesen des ChrisBergpredigt und ihrem judischen Hintergrund," ThR tentums, 6 (ET: p. 19), where he refers to "Jesus 52 (1987) 327-400, esp. 351-53, where he connects Christ and his Gospel," apparently meaning the SM. Isa 61:1-2 with the beatitudes of the SM. The At least this is his interpretation of the additional identification of the concept of "gospel" (..,ov) is discussed by Harnack, Sprilche und Frankemolle; for a critical survey of research see Redenjesu, 170-74, in response to Wellhausen, Hubert Frankemolle, Evangelium-Begriff und Einleitung (1905) 108-15; Einleitung (1911) 98-104, Gattung: Ein Forschungsbericht (SBB 15; Stuttgart: 147-53, 153-76. The problem of which texts should Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988) esp. 137-38 (on Q), be named to identify Jesus' "gospel" remains un149-55 (on Matthew); idem, "Jesus als deuteroresolved, and both Wellhausen's and Harnack's jesajanischer Freudenbote? Zur Rezeption vonJes explanations obscure rather than clarify it. The 52,7 und 61,1 im Neuen Testament, durchJesus und problem is further complicated by the citation of Isa in den Targumim," in Hubert Frankemolle and Karl 61: 1, the LXX version of which contains the verb Kertelge, eds., Vom Urchristentum zujesus: FSfor
36

Introduction

Jesus was not a Jew but a Galilean, hence an Aryan preaching the political faith of the Deutsche Christen. The Jewish Jesus of the SMbecame a later, secondary, and illegitimate "Judaizing fabrication." Although its absurdity has often been sufficiently exposed, this theory is not quite dead even today. The present debate, however, concerns the nature of Galilean Judaism, its differences fromJudeanJudaism, and the possible implications for the Galilean Jesus and his disciples. Did they come from the fringes of Judaism? Did they claim "orthodoxy," and how can one apply these terms to the Jewish situation at the time? 294 A survival of Harnack's ill-fated thesis of Jesus being the first Christian rather than a Jew was and still is the notion of"Judaization." The implication of this notion is that the "gospel" (tvayy€A.tov) was originally Christian, not Jewish. This "gospel" originated with Jesus, when he broke with Judaism, so that the idea of a secondary and thus illegitimate "Judaization" (or "re-Judaization") became conceivable. 295 This idea, although sometimes falsely attributed to the apostle Paul, was advocated first by Marcion. 296 Wellhausen's and Harnack's views were unquestionably shaped not only by their analyses of the sources but also by their contemporary concerns. In part, these larger concerns prevented them from fully exploring other options that could have suggested themselves given the status of Q-research at the time. 2 97 The influential work by Vincent Henry Stanton (1846-1924), carrying the provocative title The Gospels as Historical Documents, evaluates the Q-hypothesis in a

different way. 298 Stanton assumed that the Q-document was originally in Aramaic and contained the material common to Matthew and Luke, and in addition the material found only in Matthew. Differently from Harnack, therefore, Stanton considered Matthew's version of Q to represent the original Aramaic source. Moreover, as Stanton has it, this original Aramaic source contained the Q-sermon as well that appears in our Gospels in two Greek translations, one intended for Jews (the SM) and the other for Gentiles (the SP). All the translator of the SP did was simply omit everything he deemed unsuitable for Gentile readers. As a result, one could explain the differences between the SM and the SP in this way: Matthew and Luke used two different translations of the Q-sermon; Matthew's SM is virtually the same as the Aramaic original, whereas Luke's SP is a version curtailed and adapted for use in the Gentile church by omitting "Jewish concerns" such as SM/Matt 5:17-48 and 6:1-18. Matthew's SM cannot be totally accurate in terms of its relationship to the Aramaic Vorlage, however, because it was translated into Greek. Thus, the linguistic difference between Vorlage and translation can explain philological infelicities in the Greek. The remarkable thing about Stanton is that, although he did not know yet of redaction criticism, he could explain some problems better than W ellhausen and Harnack. (1) Stanton was open to taking the SM as a

292 Walter Grundmann, Die Frage der iiltesten Gestalt und Verkiindigung," ANRWII, 25/1 (1982) 3-130, esp. des ursprilnglichen Sinnes der Bergrede jesu (Weimar: 14-17. Verlag der Deutschen Christen, 1939). 296 See Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen 293 Idem, jesus der Galiliier und das judentum (Leipzig: Kanons (2 vols.; Erlangen: Deichert, 1888-92), Wigand, 1940)esp. 16-17,25,165-75,200-201. 1/2.666-75; Harnack, Marcion, 191 *-95*, 249*294 See Rudolf Meyer, Der Prophet a us Galilaa: Studie zum 52*. jesusbild der drei ersten Evangelien (Darmstadt: Wis297 For evaluations of the state of research at the senscl:taftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970 [reprint of the beginning of the 20th century by British scholars, see 1st ed. of 1940]); Geza Vermes, jesus the jew: A the essays edited by William Sanday, Studies in the Historian's Reading of the Gospels (Philadelphia: Synoptic Problem: By Members of the University of Oxford (Oxford: Clarendon, 1911 ). Pertinent to this Fortress, 1973) 42-57; idem,jesus and the World of judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 3-5 and problem are the articles by Burnett H. Streeter and passim; Udo Schnelle, "Jesus, einJude aus Galilaa," Willoughby C. Allen. BZ 32 (1988) 107-13; Sean Freyne, Galilee, jesus, and 298 V. H. Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents (3 the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical Investivols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1903, gations (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988). 1909, 1920) 2.80-85. 295 See Ethelbert Stauffer, "Jesus, Geschichte und

37

presynoptic redactional composition, to use our own terms (see above, section I, for definitions), coming from a pre-Matthean translator of an originally Aramaic QVorlage. This assumption makes more sense than attributing the SM sayings not in the SP and therefore, according to Harnack, falling outside Q, to yet another special source or to the evangelist Matthew himself. (2) Stanton was able to explain the Jewishness of the SM. By contrast, Harnack, who regarded the Q-sermon of Luke (i.e., the SP) as the oldest version, was compelled to make that version more Jewish than it really is. (3) Stanton saw correctly that the SP has been adapted to the needs of Gentiles, and he could explain why this happened. (4) Rather than assuming that the differences between the SM and the SP were the outcome of happenstance and error, Stanton saw them as products of intent and purpose; the two versions serve two different recipients, Jews and Gentiles. Another British scholar, Willoughby Charles Allen (1867-1953), criticized Harnack in his contribution, "The Book of Sayings Used by the Editor of the First Gospel. "2 99 Allen pointed out that Harnack's way of reconstructing the source Q destroyed the very integrity of the source that he sought to recover. Thus, Harnack continued to speak of "the Sermon on the Mount," while in fact he simply named passages common to Matthew and Luke that taken together add up neither to the SM nor to the SP. Allen's solution, therefore, was to assume that the Q-version used by Matthew "presents us with a homogeneous, consistent, and intelligible work (no doubt only fragmentary)." 300 At this point one detects traces of what was later called redaction criticism, when, as Allen had it, Matthew used a version of Q that had the sayings of Jesus arranged in discourses, the first of which was the SM. Allen's reconstruction of this source, as far

as the SM is concerned, 301 closely resembles my own. Still another hypothesis was proposed by Burnett Hillman Streeter (1875-1937) in his classic work, The Four Gospels. 302 In setting forth his hypothesis Streeter kept in mind Harnack on the one hand and the American scholar Carl Safford Patton (1866-1939) 303 on the other, while strangely ignoring Stanton's views at this point. 304 Patton had developed the idea of two recensions of Q (QMt. and QLk-), an idea Streeter found at first attractive, "but the moment one attempts to visualize to one's eye the exact kind of documents implied by the symbols QMt. and QLk., its attractiveness begins to wane. The symbol Q, by itself, stands for a perfectly definite concept-a written document from which both Matthew and Luke made copious extracts with some slight amount of editorial change. " 305 The problem Streeter perceived correctly was this: "But to what definite concept do the symbols QMt. and QLk. correspond?" 306 Taking the differences between QMatt and Luke into account makes clear that the assumption of only one Q is illusionary. 307 Instead of talking of only one document in two versions one should rather speak of two documents that partially overlap. As incisive as Patton's reconstruction of two recensions of Q was Streeter's critique of that theory. Streeter felt he must "choose between Q and notQ. " 308 Following up on his idea of "overlapping of sources," Streeter proceeded to his hypothesis of Q and M, 309 the symbol M standing for a third source in Matthew, partially overlapping with Q but also containing the peculiarly Jewish passages not found in Luke. Streeter assigned this source M to the church in Jerusalem, 310 while Q belonged to the freer world of Galilee and Antioch. 311 Not surprisingly, the key text for testing Streeter's hypothesis is the SM, because it is partly parallel and

299 In Sanday, Studies in the Synoptic Problem, 235-86. Macmillan, 1915; reprinted New York and London: 300 Allen, "The Book of Sayings," 242. See above, n. 297. Johnson, 1967). 301 Ibid., 242-48. See also Allen, A Critical and Exegetical 304 Stanton's views are discussed only in regard to the Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (ICC; Fourth Gospel. Edinburgh: Clark, 1907) 72. 305 Streeter, Four Gospels, 236. 302 B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, 306 Ibid. Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship 307 See Streeter's critique of Patton in Four Gospels, 235and Dates (London: Macmillan, 1924; 2d ed. 1925; 38. 5th ed. 1936). See also George Kilpatrick, The Origins 308 Ibid., 238. of the Gospel according to St. Matthew (Oxford: Claren309 Ibid., 238-49. don, 1946) 14-25. 3HJ Ibid., 230-35. 303 C. S. Patton, Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (New York: 311 Ibid., 233.

38

Introduction

partly not parallel with the SP. His analysis of the problem on just four pages must be called brilliant. 31 2 He tried to show that his theory of two overlapping sources, Q and M, having been conflated by Matthew, can solve the problems that the Two-Document Hypothesis could not: First, two passages are found in the SM but not in the SP; yet these passages occur elsewhere in Luke and must therefore be assigned to Q (Matt 6:22-33 =Luke 11:34-36; 16:13; 12:22-31; and Matt 7:7-11 =Luke 11:9-13). Here, however, Streeter saw "no difficulty; they have obviously been inserted in their present context by Matthew in accordance with his practice of 'agglomerating,' i.e., of collecting into large discourses all the available material dealing with the same or related topics." 313 Second, both Sermons (the SM and the SP) begin and end with the same material, and both are followed by the story of the centurion's servant. "But on closer study it appears that the Sermons in Matthew and Luke can be derived from a single written source only if we postulate an almost incredible amount of editorial freedom in rewriting portions of the original." 314 According to Streeter, both Q and M contained sermons that overlapped in part: "All the phenomena ... can be satisfactorily explained by the hypothesis that Matthew is conflating two separate discourses, one from Q practically identical with Luke's Sermon on the Plain, and the other from M containing a much longer Sermon."315 What are the consequences of Matthew's conflation of Q and M, as far as the SM is concerned? According to Streeter, the following can be said: 1. The conflation of the two sources explains where Matthew obtained the materials not in the SP (or Q); some of the differences may also derive from Matthew's editorial work, although Streeter preferred to speak only of conflation of existing sources, not of redactional interferences by the editor- Matthew. 316 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

249-53. 249-50. 250. 251. 263. 252. 252-53. 254-59.

2. "Hence the Q and M versions of any saying which occurred in both Sermons would in the original sources have shown greater divergence than do the present texts of Matthew and Luke." 31 7 3. "The hypothesis of a summary of Christian teaching intended for catechetical instruction, current in oral tradition in more than one form, has often been invoked to account for the combined phenomena of resemblance and difference between the versions of the great Sermon in Matthew and in Luke. But as usually presented it goes shipwreck on the fact that, in the source used by both Matthew and Luke, the story of the Centurion's Servant follows immediately after the Great Sermon. That difficulty disappears if, instead of supposing that Matthew and Luke had each a different version of the same Sermon, we suppose that Matthew had before him two documents, Q which contained both the Sermon on the Plain and the Centurion's Servant, and M which gave a substantially different version of the Sermon, but did not include the Centurion's Servant. The idea of conflating the two would be inevitably suggested to Matthew by the fact that both Sermons began with Beatitudes and also that they overlapped at certain other points." 318 4. The "Judaistic tendencies" characteristic of the SM derive from M. They were not part of Q, nor were they due to Matthew himself. 31 9 The remarkable fact is that the studies by Allen, Stanton, and Streeter made serious attempts to preserve the literary entities called the SM and the SP, whereas Harnack and those following him dissolved these entities into mere sequences of sayings, all part of the hypothetical Q-sermon. These alternative positions served as the starting points for further investigations. Therefore, studies on Q following the approach by Harnack may still talk of the SM, but they cannot associate Q with an established textual unit. 320 Its content derives from

320 See Schulz, Q, passim; Liihrmann, Redaktion, 53-56; Athanasius Polag, Fragmenta Q: Textheft zur Logienquelle (Neukirchen-VIuyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979); cf. the review by Frans Neirynck, ETL 55 (1979) 373-81; Wolfgang Schenk, Synapse zur Redenquelle der Evangelien: Q-Synopse und Rekonstruktion in deutscher Ubersetzung mit kurzen Erliiuterungen (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1981 ); Kloppenborg, Formation,

39

sayings common to the SM and the SP, without really being part of either of them. Thus, scholars in this line of thought may speak of the SM, even if they deny that such a sermon ever existed before Matthew. Also, that both the SM and the SP show traits of a compositional plan and of a specific function was lost through the overarching notion of Q as a collection of sayings without any identifiable composition. The characteristic way of calling the hypothetical Q-sermon "almost identical"32I with the SP cannot make us overlook the fact that no explanation was given of how and why they are different in detail. 322 German scholarship in the 1920s and thereafter did not continue the line of scholarship typical of Harnack and even of Streeter, but instead turned to form criticism. Even in form criticism, however, the legacy of Harnack lingered on in that there was little concern for the SM or the SP as form-critical units. Instead, the focus was on the individual sayings. Thus the major studies by

321 322

323

324

40

Martin Dibelius (1883-1947) 323 and RudolfBultmann (1884-1976) 324 did not treat the SM and the SPas separate units. Bultmann's History of the Synoptic Tradition, however, contained at least the ingredients for later developments, eventually to be called redaction criticism. Also, Dibelius devoted his Shaffer Lectures at Yale University in 1937 to the Sermon on the Mount. 325 In these lectures he treated the SM as a consistent body of material, although he did not venture into what was later called redaction criticism. In addition to these studies, a work by Emanuel Hirsch (1888-1972), strange as it is in many respects, deserves consideration. His two-volume Fruhgeschichte des Evangeliums, published in 1941, 326 engages in source criticism of the kind Harnack was known for and is for this reason a latecomer. Hirsch did not doubt for a moment that the SM is the work ofthe evangelist Matthew, "originating from a carefully planned and artistic expansion of the Qsermon on love that Luke has preserved for us in Luke

171-90. Kloppenborg speaks of "Jesus' Inaugural Sermon" (idem, QParallels, 22). See Betz, "The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew's Interpretation," 21-22 (see above, n. 289). See the critical evaluation of recent attempts in M. Devisch, "Le document Q, source de Matthieu: Problematique actuelle," in Didier, L'Evangile selon Matthieu, 71-97; Frans Neirynck, "Recent Developments in the Study ofQ," in Delobel, Logia, 29-75. Martin Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1919; 2d ed. 1933; 3d ed. 1959). Although the chapter on "paraenesis" (234-65) mentions collections of sayings ofJesus, Dibelius does not deal with the SM as a whole but mentions only individual sayings from it. For a review of the 1st ed. by Rudolf Bultmann, see ThLZ 44 (1919) 173-74. Unfortunately, the 3d ed. of Formgeschichte was not translated into English; Bertram L. Woolfs translation, entitled From Tradition to Gospel (New York: Scribner's, 1934), is from the 2d ed. of 1933. RudolfBultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (FRLANT 29; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921; 9th ed. 1979). A supplement, Ergiinzungsheft, ed. Gerd TheiBen and Philipp Vielhauer, was published first in 1958 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). The ET by John Marsh, done from the 2d German ed. ( 1968) and appended with the supplement of 1962, should be used only in the rev. ed., History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, 1968). On collections of "legal sayings and church

rules," see esp. pp. 148-50, 351-59. On the origin of Bultmann's work itself, see Martin Evang, Rudolf Bultmann in seiner Frilhzeit (BHTh 74; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1988) 70-72. 325 Martin Dibelius, The Sermon on the Mount (New York: Scribner's, 1940); the German ed. appeared in his collected essays, Botschaft und Geschichte (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1953) 1.79-174. I have discussed Dibelius's work in my Shaffer Lectures of 1985, "The Sermon on the Mount: The Challenge Continues" (3 lectures [unpublished]). This later work of Dibelius comes much closer to recognizing the SM as a textual unit in its own right, but it is interesting to see that he somehow fails to take the logical final step of talking of redaction criticism at the presynoptic level. 326 Emanuel Hirsch, Frilhgeschichte des Evangeliums, vol.

2: Die Vorlagen des Lukas und das Sondergut des Matthiius (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1941) 77-88 (and a summary, 284: "Die Predigt von der Liebe Luk 6:20-49"). See also his essay, "Die Bergpredigt," Deutsches Volkstum 20 (1938) 820-26.

Introduction

6:20-49 in a form still very close to Q." 327 Although Hirsch never referred to his scholarly predecessors, whom he had of course studied carefully, his views were close to the common opinion at the time. Beyond this, however, Hirsch offered several important observations: 1. He saw that SP /Luke 6:20-49 is, in our terms, 328 a redactional work, complete and consistent in itself. "One single theme is carried through, and the individual sections follow each other in meaningful order,joining member to member by internal connection. " 3 2 9 2. According to Hirsch, Matthew's SM has expanded the Q-speech by fusing it with another presynoptic speech, a composition on the theme of the true fulfillment of the law. This second speech was yet another presynoptic composition based on Q, which, however, had remained unknown to Luke. Matthew's fusion of both speeches led to a new work, "not so much a wellrounded speech, but rather an artistically grouped collection of ethical prescriptions of diverse content." 330 3. The two speeches are "summaries" of Jesus' teaching, carefully worked out by two disciples who had quite different ideas about him. Both were shaped by historical reminiscences about the master and the situation in Jerusalem. The two speeches constitute historical documents of the first order. 331 4. Both summaries, although advocating opposite viewpoints, reflect the teaching of Jesus concerning the Jewish law. The disciple who wrote the Q-speech (taken to be preserved in the SP) "was under Jesus' influence to such an extent that to him the Jewish ethical and religious thought had completely gone to pieces." 33 2 This man reflects Jesus' true teaching. The author of the other speech on the true fulfillment of the law (preserved in the SM), however, tried to show that Jesus' attitude toward the Torah was more positive, but this judgment was only partially right. "This speech understands Jesus' teaching, which sharpens up and supersedes the commandments, as true fulfillment, while in reality it was the demolition ofthe Torah." 3 33

For Hirsch, who at this point sided with Harnack, the true Jesus is reflected in the Q-speech and thus in the SP, while the SM with its material contains an apologetic affirmation of Jesus' Jewish orthodoxy, an affirmation that is in the final analysis (no doubt due to the standards of Paul's theology) doomed to failure. 3 34 Nevertheless, Hirsch did recognize that the SP and the SM are presynoptic redactional products and that they express theologically different views on what the teaching of Jesus was all about. Both these sources Hirsch took to show signs of tension within the early Christian community in Jerusalem. When it first appeared on the scene, redaction criticism was concerned with analyzing the work of the final authors of the Gospels. The history of this scholarship is well known and needs no restatement here. As more and better investigations were undertaken, redactional activities were also discovered in the sources that the final authors of the Gospels used. Whereas up to that point the usual distinction was between "tradition" (the material received by the Gospel authors) and "redaction" (the work done on and with the tradition by the Gospel authors), later a redefinition of terms was called for. Whatever material was received could be called "tradition," but redactional activities could be detected at authorial levels prior to the final versions of the Gospels. Collections of sayings, parables, and miracle stories were created by earlier redactors, so that Formgeschichte ("form history") was followed by Redaktionsgeschichte ("redaction history"). Just as the individual sayings are involved in a history of their literary forms and genres, so are the Gospels as final products the result of a history of redaction. Important progress was made in this research by the 1969 Habilitationsschrift of Dieter LOhrmann, entitled Die Redaktion der Logienquelle. 335 In this work, Lohrmann demonstrated traces of redaction at the presynoptic level of Q. As I have pointed out before, this idea was by no means new, 336 but the careful methodology of

327 Hirsch, Fruhgeschichte, 2.77-78. 328 Hirsch does not use the term "redactional" but instead speaks of a presynaptic speech, composed by a disciple of jesus who belonged to the leading Palestinian jewish-Christian community (ibid., 87). 329 Ibid., 78. 330 Ibid. 331 Ibid., 86-88.

332 333 334 335 336

Ibid., 87. Ibid. Ibid., 88. See above, n. 200. See Walter Haupt, Worte jesu und Gemeindeilberlieferung: Eine Untersuchung zur Quellengeschichte der Synapse (UNT 3; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913). Haupt

assumes several consecutive redactions, in effect a

41

Liihrmann was, and thus the time was ripe for reopening the debate. 337 Nevertheless, even Liihrmann remained under the spell of Harnack. While on the one hand Liihrmann admitted redaction to be identifiable in Q, on the other hand he failed to apply the method to identify collections of sayings within Q. He did not consider the compositional structure of the hypothetical Q-source. Nor did he raise the question of its literary genre, or of the genre of the materials that were incorporated in it. Therefore, the SM and the SP, while surveyed as part of Q, 338 are not subjected to further analysis. Yet, he noticed the common disposition of the SM and the SP, and he regarded them as collections of sayings. Once Liihrmann's ideas were pursued further, however, these questions were sure to arise, and several recent works have discussed them. 339 Given this state of affairs concerning Q, it is merely a logical next step to consider the possibility that the SM and the SP constitute textual units composed by presynoptic redactors and then included in different versions or recensions of Q. This "unusual thesis" 34 0 though not so unusual because of its impressive predecessors-I first proposed in 1978; 341 it is, as the reader is well aware, pursued in this commentary as well. The state of research has also affected the study of the Gospel of Matthew. Georg Strecker, who in an essay 34 2 had admitted the pre-Matthean redaction in the Beatitudes of the SM, extended this assumption to other SM texts in his commentary on the SM of 1984. 343 Similarly, Ulrich Luz in the first volume of his commentary on the

337

338

339 340

42

Gospel of Matthew, published in 1985, 344 distinguishes between pre-Matthean and Matthean redactional traits in the SM. The problem with both of these works is, however, that they do not show throughout with precision and clarity when, why, and how one can identify redactional traits as Matthean or pre-Matthean. Though one cannot deny the erudition of these scholars, neither of these works has sorted out the older approach of distinguishing between "tradition" (that which is received by the final author of the Gospel) and "redaction" (the work of the final author only) from what should be the new approach. This new approach should always indicate at which literary level in the text the terms "tradition" and "redaction" should be applied. The result is that both Strecker and Luz, while providing valuable exegetical interpretations of the sections, sentences, and terms of the SM, fail to recognize and describe the unique literary and theological contours characteristic of the SM as a whole. Justifying the need for writing these commentaries by referring to current situations and demands in church and university, as Strecker and Luz do, cannot make us overlook that they do not explain what the literary and historical significance of the entity called the SM was at the time when it was conceived. Given the present state of scholarship on Q, what options are available at this time, assuming that the SM or the SP, in one form or another, were part ofQ? I shall set them forth, beginning with the one most agreeable to present scholarship: 1. There was one source Q that contained an early

history of redaction in Q; also Athanasius Polag, Die Christologie der Logienquelle (WMANT 45; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977); and the surveys by Schmithals, TRE 10 (1982) 62023; idem, Einleitung, 224-26, 328-29, 334, 384404. I have pointed this out in my review, ThLZ 96 (1971) 428-29. For the present state of research on the redaction history of Q, see Schmithals, Einleitung, 384-404. Liihrmann, Redaktion, 53-65; see also idem, "Liebet eure Feinde (Lk 6,27-36/Mt 5,39-48)," ZThK 69 ( 1972) 412-38, esp. 414. For the work of johnS. Kloppenborg, see above, n. 200. So Schmithals, Einleitung, 332: "Betz vertritt (1984) die ungewohnliche These, die Bergpredigt des MtEv

341

342

343 344

(Mt 5-7) sei eine vormatthaische Einheit, die der Evangelist 'in die Endgestalt des Evangeliums integriert hat.'" Betz, Essays, 18, 89, 90; also idem, "The Sermon on the Mount and Q," in Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings, 19-34 (seen. 19 above); idem, Synoptische Studien, 249-69. Georg Strecker, "Die Makarismen der Bergpredigt," NTS 17 (1970/71) 255-75; idem, "Les macarismes du discours sur Ia montagne," in Didier, L'Evangile selon Matthiew, 185-208. Strecker, Bergpredigt, 9-11 (Sermon, 11-13). Luz, Matthiius, esp. 1.56-59 (Matthew, 1. 73-76) and passim. See also the dissertation (supervised by Luz) by Migaku Sato, Q und Prophetie: Studien zur Gattungsund Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle Q (WUNT 2.29; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck), 1988).

Introduction

form of the Sermon (Q-sermon), identical, or nearly identical, with Luke's SP (Q-SP). Matthew's SM would then be this evangelist's revision and expansion of Q-SP, for which he used other special traditions (Sondergut). Some of these special traditions may show signs of preMatthean redaction and collection (e.g., the Beatitudes [SM/Matt 5:3-12] or the antitheses [5:21-48]). Today most scholars prefer this option. 2. There was one source Q containing a sermon, identical or nearly identical with Matthew's SM (Q-SM). Luke's SP would then be this evangelist's revision by reduction of Q-SM. No scholar today holds this option, and rightly so. 3. There was one source Q that was different from either the SM or the SP, so that they both are redactional elaborations by Matthew and Luke. Scholars who hold that the Q-sermon was not completely identical with the SP in fact subscribe to this view, too. How then did the differences come about? Conceivably, the earlier Qsermon was written first in Aramaic, so that the SM and the SP represent different translations into the Greek that reflect different adaptations to later church concerns. The problem with this view is that the SM and the SP do not simply represent translations of the same text but are entirely different literary compositions; also, there is no sign that either of them is a translation of an Aramaic Vorlage. 4. Whatever the origins of Q may have been, the evangelists Matthew and Luke received Q in two recensions, one containing the SM and one the SP. This option presupposes that Q has passed through a history of development, in the course of which an earlier Qsource was modified in different ways in different contexts. This view would explain the similarities and differences as the results of presynoptic redaction rather than the redaction of the evangelists. Therefore, one need not exclude the redaction by the evangelists, which could be additional. The supposition of this option would have to be that the original Q contained some form of a sermon that, however, cannot be recovered. This original Q-sermon may have been in Aramaic or Greek, or first in Aramaic and then in Greek. 5. The SM and the SP were formulated first independently from Q as separate sayings collections. At a later stage of Q's development they were joined to Q. The analogy for this option would be the inclusion of smaller

collections of sayings into larger ones as we find it in Greek and Latin gnomologia. As already suggested, further investigations of Q may turn up other such inclusions of already existing smaller collections. 6. The SM and the SP were first formulated independently from Q as separate collections and never became part of Q. Instead, the evangelists Matthew and Luke took them from their respective sources (Sondergut) and included them along with Q. This option would come close to a multiple-source theory. Which of these options is the most probable one? This question is not easy to decide. At any rate, any decision will have to draw together a variety of issues, not only in regard to Q, but the problem of Q yet remains the crucial one. These issues include the following ones: 1. Both Matthew and Luke use Q elsewhere in their Gospels, not only with regard to the SM and the SP. Whatever they do elsewhere must be true of the SM and the SP. On the whole, therefore, the two-source hypothesis explains best the overall parallel transmission of sayings in these Gospels to the extent that they differ from Mark. The conclusion should be that what is true of the majority of the materials should also apply to the SM and the SP. 2. The SM and the SPare located at about the same place in both Gospels, and in both they are surrounded by a similar narrative framework (Matt 4:24-5:2 and Luke 6: 17-20a). In both Gospels they are followed by the story of the centurion's servant at Capernaum (Matt 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10). This sequence oftextual units, independently parallel in Matthew and Luke, must have been the same in Q. In some form, therefore, Q must have contained a sermon. 3. As this commentary demonstrates, the SM and the SP represent two substantially different elaborations of in part the same materials (beatitudes, interpretations of the love-command, the Golden Rule, the sayings on judging, two trees, and the parable of the two house builders). These sections are arranged in roughly the same order. As elaborations, the SM as well as the SP have an independent integrity of their own, compositionally, functionally, and theologically. It is not possible to explain the differences between them as redactional changes of one thing into another, either by expansion (SM) or by reduction (SP). It is also impossible to explain all the similarities and differences between the two 43

Sermons as the editorial work of the Gospel writers Matthew and Luke. Rather than alterations of an already existing text, the SM and the SP constitute independent elaborations of a common stock of material. These elaborations conform to a known pattern of composition, and they also have in mind a specific function. What unites the SM and the SP is the material they use, the overall plan of composition they follow, and the functional purpose they have in mind. These elaborations, therefore, must be the work of presynoptic authors/redactors. 4. The internal evidence shows theological ideas that, although agreeable to the evangelists, have not sprung from their minds. The SM contains a consistent JewishChristian theology of a period earlier than Matthew, a theology remaining in the context ofJudaism. Matthew assigned the SM to the important place ofJesus' first programmatic speech in his Gospel, but by the same token Matthew also relativized the SM. Taken as a whole, the Gospel of Matthew is a reinterpretation, revision, and correction of earlier sources, among them the SM. The SP shows less tension with Luke's own theology than does the SM with Matthew's, but the SP's peculiar educational philosophy, while in harmony with Luke's own views, certainly has its roots in Greek thought prior to Luke. 5. Functionally, both the SM and the SP served educational purposes related to the training of early Christian disciples. The SM is directed at disciples coming from a Jewish background, while the SP speaks to minds formed by Greek ideas. Both are epitomai specifically designed for these purposes. This function differs to some extent from their present role as "speeches," although the evangelists take account of their original function by letting Jesus deliver them to the disciples after they have been called. Matthew has Jesus deliver the SM to Peter and his brother Andrew, and to James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John (Matt 4:18-22; 5:1-2), whereas the Twelve (disciples and apostles) receive the mission instruction (Matt 10:1-5). According to Luke, however, the Twelve (disciples and apostles) were chosen first and then received the SP (Luke 6: 12-16, 20a). At any rate, the roles of the SM and the SP are secondary in their present contexts in the Gospels, attributable to their function in the narratives; 44

their primary function was no doubt educational. All things considered, one can draw the following conclusions with regard to the origins of the SM and the SP: First, the evangelists Matthew and Luke obtained them from Q. Second, to explain the differences between the SM and the SP, we have two subsidiary options: (a) Matthew and Luke drew on different versions of Q (QMatt and QLuke); (b) Matthew found a Q-sermon in his Q-Vorlage and replaced it with another version that he had in his tradition and that he believed to represent more fully the teaching of Jesus. His substitution of the SM would have been the decision of a historian. If the QVorlage resembled the SP closely, his choice would have been justified because of the Jewish character of the SM. Since other passages in Matthew also show that his version of Q must have undergone prior developments different from Luke's version, the conclusion is most likely that Matthew as well as Luke found the SM and the SP, respectively, in their recension of Q (QMatt and QLuke). If one accepts this conclusion, very definite reasons will have to be given for any characteristic difference between the SM and the SP that is attributed to the evangelists' redaction rather than to their sources. This conclusion fits best with the results of modern scholarship on Q, which is at present attempting to reconstruct the history of the various redactions of Q, as well as with redaction criticism of Matthew and Luke. Ill. The Literary Composition

When one speaks of the literary composition of a text, it is presumed that the text in question has been put together by intention and with a plan and purpose in mind. It is furthermore assumed that such a text has an author or authors, whether known or unknown. The author or authors may operate as creative writers, as mere collectors or compilers, or as redactors, and in their work they may or may not use already existing sources or traditions. Attempts to show literary structures in the text must be controllable by the methods of comparative literary criticism. In regard to the texts before us, one must clearly distinguish between the SM and the SP. These two texts are clearly separate textual units, as I have already shown. Their relationship to each other constitutes a special problem which is bound up with their internal composition. Both the SM and the SP are the work of

Introduction

authors or redactors who have composed them independently of each other. The similarities and differences between the texts are evidence that in some way or other the material derived from a common source. In this commentary I assume and try to prove that both the SM and the SP are the work of presynoptic authors or redactors, and not the evangelists Matthew and Luke. The sources that these presynoptic authors or redactors used consist of smaller sayings compositions (..\oyot) and, in the case of the SM, oflarger units (e.g., SM/Matt 6:118). In other words, while the SP seems to be more unified, the SM is a work of a more composite nature, in which more than one original author can be distinguished. These assumptions are the result of insights gained by previous scholarship as well as my own investigations. The most important contributions by scholars of the past are those of Augustine (see also above, section 11.1.f) and Erasmus (see above, section 11.2-3). Augustine's De sermone domini in monte libri duo, 34 5 written probably between 393 and 396 when he was a young priest in Hippo Regius, is not only the first full commentary on the SM but also one that pays careful attention to the questions of hermeneutics and literary composition. Today, Augustine's ideas are outdated, but his concems are still our own. Since his theories are somewhat complicated, a full discussion of them would require a separate treatment. Here I can only summarize briefly the major issues: 1. The problem of textual criticism regarding biblical quotations;

2. The concern about the hermeneutical principles to be employed; 3. The plan of composition that Augustine saw in the SM, making it an independent textual unit in distinction from Matthew's Gospel as a whole. In regard to literary matters, Augustine sees several levels of meaning operative in the SM, especially the literal sense (sensus literalis) and the figurative sense (sensus .figuratus). These meanings move back and forth within the text in a rather fluid way, covering everything from the literal (legal, doctrinal, or liturgical) to the anagogical and even the allegorical types oflanguage. Augustine understood that there has to be an interplay among the exegetical, literary, and theological interpretations, and his commentary is indeed a mixture of all of them. Most important is his insight that the sayings of the SM are presented in such a way that they stimulate the human intellect to penetrate the surface and enter into the underlying world of theological ideas. Augustine's main contribution, as far as the commentary on the SM is concerned, is the discernment of a systematic plan of composition that gives unity to the text as a whole. Given the importance of the symbolic number seven, he sees the whole of the SM based on this number, which is manifest in seven beatitudes 346 and seven petitions of the Lord's Prayer. 347 Thereby the seven beatitudes are correlated with the major sections of the SM, so that seven such major parts emerge: 348

345 On this work see above, section Il.l.f. 347 Augustine counts seven petitions (2.9.35; 2.10.36346 The eighth beatitude (Matt 5: I 0) leads back to the 37). first, forming a ring-composition: "The eighth 348 Augustine himself regards the system in which seven maxim returns, as it were, to the beginning because it beatitudes correspond to seven parts of the SM as a hypothesis, not more: "But whether the order here shows and commends what is perfect and complete. Thus, in the first and the eighth the Kingdom of given should be observed or some other, ... " heaven is mentioned .... Seven in number, (2.25.87). therefore, are the things which lead to perfection. The eighth maxim throws light upon perfection and shows what it consists of, so that, with this maxim beginning again, so to speak, from the first, the two together may serve as steps toward the perfection of the others also" (1.3.10, St. Augustine, The Lord's Sermon on the Mount [trans. John]. Jepson; Ancient Christian Writers 5; London: Longmans, Green, 1948]18).

45

Parts Beatitudes First (5:3) Second (5:5) 349 II III Third(5:4) IV Fourth (5:6) v Fifth (5:7) VI Sixth (5:8) VII Seventh (5:9)

SMSections 5:21-24 5:25-26 5:27-28 5:29-37 5:38-48 6:1-7:12 7:13-23

Sections in Augustine 1.9.22-1.10.28 1.11.29-32 1.12.33-36 1.13.37-1.18.55 1.19.56-1.23.80 2.1.1-2.22. 76 2.23. 77-2.25.86

The difficulties that these correlations present should be obvious. Their purpose should also be clear: they attempt to explain how the Beatitudes, considered to be foundational, are related to the rest of the SM. Those who do not follow Augustine will have to solve this problem in some other way. 850 Another problem of which Augustine was aware is the apparent absence of the Holy Spirit in the system so far drawn up. Since the SM consists of commands, the Christian who is expected to keep them needs to be empowered somehow in order to be able to do so. For this reason, Augustine coordinated his scheme of seven parts with yet another scheme, that of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit according to Isa 11:2-3, tuming their sequential order around. 851 This coordination of the seven beatitudes with the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit as derived from Isa 11:2-3 goes back to the Cappadocian Fathers. 852 In applying this scheme, Augustine proposed three sets of notions: Nos.

II

Beatitudes Humility

Gifts of the Spirit Fear of God

Meekness

Godliness

Petitions of the Lord's Prayer Sanctification of God's name Arrival ofthe kingdom

III

IV

v VI VII

Sorrow Justice Mercy Purity Peace

Fulfillment of God's will Bread Forgiveness of sins Temptation Redemption

These sequences, thought of as interacting with each other, are to be taken as steps of an ascending ladder of stages of piety. Taken together and coordinated with the seven parts of the SM, the system attributes the smaller steps to Book I (beatitudes I-V, covering 5:21-48), evidently because they are the elementary ones to be mastered first. They constitute the "good deeds" (bona opera) of the "life of practice" (vita activa), 353 while Book II (beatitudes VI-VII, covering 6:1-7:23) is devoted to the "contemplation of the greatest good" (contemplatio summi boni) of the "contemplative life" (vita contemplativa). 354 The ultimate goal of this scheme, although it pays attention to literary concerns, is doctrinal and even polemical. Its purpose is to take the SM, as one consistent unit, out of the hands of the Manichaeans, who used some passages to prove that their doctrine of radical dualism came from jesus himself. By contrast, Augustine's scheme makes sure that the crucial passages 355 are part and parcel of a consistent body of text determined by a thoroughgoing doctrine of redemption by grace. 356 While Augustine's commentary achieved its doctrinal and polemical goals, his literary ideas were largely ignored in later periods. 35 7 As already pointed out, the SM played a major role for Erasmus. 85B Although he was less interested in its formal

349 For the order of the Beatitudes observed by Augustine, see 1.2.4-5. 350 Ulrich Duchrow has shown that the seven beatitudes serve as a compositional schema also in other writings of Augustine and that this schema connects his writings with his life as steps on his way toward salvation: "Der Aufbau von Augustins Schriften Confessiones und De trinitate," ZThK 62 (1965) 338-67, esp. 344-47 (with references to further bibliography). See also Stoll, De virtute, 136-40. 351 See Almut Mutzenbecher's "Einleitung," in Sancti Aurelii Augustini De sermone in monte libros duos (CChr, series latina 35; Turnholti: Brepols, 1967) IXXVIII. 352 For bibliography, see ibid., XLVII; Luz, Matthiius, 1.216-18 (Matthew, 1.243-46). 353 Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 1.3.1 0.

46

Knowledge Fortitude Counsel Understanding Wisdom

354 Ibid.; see also 2.21.71 and Mutzenbecher, Sancti Aurelii Augustini De sermone in monte, XII-XIII. 355 See Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 1.20.65; 2.9.32; 2.24.79. 356 See ibid., 2.4.16; and Mutzenbecher, SanctiAurelii Augustini De sermone in monte, XVII. 357 For bibliographical information, see MutzenbecheJ:, ibid., XVII with n. 4. Augustine's interpretation of the Beatitudes themselves influenced later ascetic and mystic authors, esp. Beda, Petrus Damianus, Hugo of St. Victor, Thomas Aquinas, and Bonaventura. See David Buzy, "Beatitudes," Dictionnaire de Spiritualite I (1937) 1298-1310. 358 See esp. Kruger, Humanistische Evangelienauslegung (see above, n. 85), 177-204.

Introduction

composition than its philosophical content, his treatment of the SM is noteworthy for the following reasons: 1. Erasmus treated the SM as a compendium of the dogmata Christi needed to be known by those who want to become true theologians. 35 9 2. He saw the main function of the SM as one of theological education, an education that is characteristically different from and antithetical to what he perceived to be going on in scholasticism. While scholastic life was consumed by futile exercises of syllogisms and hairsplitting, true theological education should concentrate on the Christian essentials, and these he took to be summarized in the SM. 360 3. For Erasmus, the SM consists of theological principles of doctrine, not simply moral rules. At several places, he extracted from the SM what he considered to be the major principles. 361 4. The doctrines of the SM are not only precepts for a small group of disciples, but they are generally binding for all Christians. 362 5. The doctrines of the SM describe a way of life in terms intelligible to the human mind that can also be accomplished. The often paradoxical formulations in the SM are the result of rhetoric (hyperbolic figures of speech and thought-provoking imagery), rather than demands impossible to fulfill. 363 6. The demands made by the SM are not to be taken

as laws to be carried out literally, but as examples functioning in a learning process that leads the Christian to an ethical life. 7. The doctrines set forth in the SM are not implausible or irrational but reasonable and prudent. 8. The SM is compatible with, and in many ways analogous to, the tenets of ancient philosophy. Most of these points of observation and judgment are well taken, even though I would rather state them in my own terms. Modern research on the composition of the SM begins with some seminal investigations in the latter part of the eighteenth century. Most important was the doctoral dissertation by David Julius Pott, 364 reviewed by Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752-1827), 365 who also used that dissertation for his introduction to the New Testament. 366 Pott's proposals played a role in all following debates; they can be summed up as follows: 1. The SM is a composition by the evangelist Matthew, whose intention was to demonstrate Jesus' way of teaching and who for this purpose put together several speeches delivered by Jesus on different occasions to different audiences. 2. The SM consists of a collection of sententiae and longer speech sections only held together loosely by the association of ideas. 3. Such collections of gnomic sentences were typical of

359 See the introduction to the SM in Erasmus, In 364 David Julius Pott, Dissertatio theologica inauguralis de Evangelium Matthaei Paraphrasis, Opera omnia [see natura atque indole orationis montanae et de nonnullis above, n. 88], vol. 7, col. 23. Prior to the Paraphrasis hujus orationis explicandae praeceptis (Helmstadii: (1522), similar statements are found in Erasmus's Literis M.G. Leuckart, 1788). See also Carl Gottlob Methodus (1516), according to the edition by Gerhard Ludwig Frotscher, Dissertatio de consilio, quod Jesus in B. Winkler, ed., Erasmus von Rotterdam, Ausgewahlte oratione, quae dicitur montana, secutus est, inprimis Schriften, vol. 3 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Matth. V, 17.18.19 (Vitebergae:Jo. Tzschidrich, Buchgesellschaft, 1967) 58-60; Ratio seu compendium 1788). verae theologiae (1518), ibid., 124-26; Paraclesis, id est 365 Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, Allgemeine Bibliothek der adhortatio ad Christianae philosophiae studium (1522), biblischen Litteratur (10 vols.; Leipzig: Weidmann, ibid., 16-18. 1787-1800), vol. 2 (1789), pp. 351-55. 360 The main purpose of the SM is to correct false views 366 Idem, Einleitung in das NT (see above, n. 1 79) 1.439and attitudes. See In Evangelium Matthaei Paraphrasis, 40. See also Christian Gottlieb Kuinol, Commentarius col. 23D: "Ex falsis opinionibus oriuntur omnia in libros Novi Testamenti historicos (2 vols.; Lipsiae: peccata vitae" ("From false opinions arise all the sins Barth; 3d ed. 1823-27) 1.108-213; Karl Reinhold of life"). See Kruger, Humanistische EvangelienKostlin, Der Ursprung und die Komposition der auslegung, 187-91. synoptischen Evangelien (Stuttgart: Macken, 1853) esp. 361 See the passages named inn. 359; Kruger, 45-69. Humanistische Evangelienauslegung, 177-80. 362 See Kruger, Humanistische Evangelienauslegung, 18083. 363 Ibid., 191-201.

47

the literature of antiquity, where teachers used them for teaching. There is, however, no need to look in them for any rigorous system of theological doctrine. 367 In the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, these studies were followed by detailed investigations of the composition. These investigations, although sometimes venturing into speculation, often contain valuable observations. I mention especially the contributions by Hugo Weil3, 368 Friedrich Grawert, 369 Paul SzczygieJ, 3 7° Hugo Huber, 371 andJosefStaudinger. 37 2 Such studies 373 were apparently quite experimental and came to an end when form and redaction criticism developed. 374 The major form critics, Rudolf Bultmann and Martin Dibelius, while concentrating their efforts on the individual sayings and smaller compositions of sayings, did not bypass completely the question of the composition of larger units. Bultmann's History of the Synoptic Tradition 375 already contains the ingredients of what later on became redaction criticism. In his Shaffer Lectures of 1937, 376 Dibelius pursued numerous questions he understood to have been left unexamined in his Formgeschichte and subsequent research, but he did not go

much beyond raising the questions. Redaction criticism, as it was developed after World War II, focused on the other end of the spectrum, the investigation of the composition of the Gospels as final redactional works. In some instances possibilities of presynaptic composition were explored, but the SM or the SP did not belong to the texts examined with this question in mind. While the summary work ofDomJacques Dupont 377 kept the issue of the composition of the SM and the SP alive, after World War II a new wave of experimental studies began to appear using literary categories. Thus, St. Gallo, 378 Morton Smith, 379 Generosus Marquardt, 380 and Josef Kiirzinger 381 proposed schemes of composition. Gunther Bornkamm, 382 too, took up the issue in his SNTS presidential address of 1977, when he attempted to explain the most difficult passage of the SM, Matt 6:19-7:12, as directly arranged in accordance with the petitions of the Lord's Prayer. These proposals, however, remain tenuous. Bornkamm's hypothesis, even if it were accepted, 383 would not explain the whole of the SM. 3 84 Yet, it should be stated clearly at the outset that any compositional proposal, even if focusing on an individual passage, must explain the composition of the

367 Against Pott, Storr, Michaelis, and others, see Johann Wilhelm Rau, Untersuchungen die wahre Ansicht der Bergpredigt betreffend (Erlangen: Palm, 1805). 368 Hugo WeiB, Die Bergpredigt Christi in ihrem organischen Zusammenhange erkliirt (Freiburg: Herder, 1892). 369 Friedrich Grawert, Die Bergpredigt nach Matthaeus auf ihre iiujJere und innere Einheit mit besonderer Berilcksichtigung des genuinen Verhiiltnisses der Seligpreisungen zur ganzen Rede neu untersucht und dargestellt (Marburg: Elwert, 1900). 370 Paul Szczygiel, "Die Bergpredigt (Mt 5-7) nach ihrer strophischen Struktur," Pastor bonus 34 (1921/22) 449-60, 508-17; cf. David Heinrich Muller, Die Bergpredigt im Lichte der Strophentheorie (Vienna: Holder, 1908). 371 Hugo Huber, Die Bergpredigt: Eine exegetische Studie (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1932). 372 Josef Staudinger, Die Bergpredigt (Vienna: Herder, 1957). 373 See also A. Frikart, "Die Composition der Bergpredigt, Matth. Cap. 5-7," Theologische Zeitschrift aus derSchweiz 6 (1889) 193-210; 7 (1890) 43-52, 10725; Gillis P. Wetter, "Den litterara Karaktaren av Jesu 'Bergpredikans,' forsta del," in Till Arkebiskop Soderbloms sextio arsdag 1926 (Stockholm: Diakonstyrelsen, 1926) 449-67.

48

374 For surveys, see Tholuck, Bergrede, 20-21 (Commentary, 16-17); Achelis, Bergpredigt, xi-xii, 71-77, 313-22, 426-31; Thaddaus Soiron, Die Bergpredigt Jesu (Freiburg: Herder, 1941) 98-127. 375 See above, n. 324. 376 See above, nn. 323, 325. 377 Jacques Dupont, Les Beatitudes (2d ed.; Louvain: Nauwelaerts, 1958) 1.196-200, reporting on attempts at a "Plan du Discours" for the SP, and 175-82 for the SM. None ofthe authors of these attempts, however,justifies what they take to be the plan by literary criteria. Dupont himself remains skeptical in regard to these hypotheses. 378 St. Gallo, "Structura sermonis montani," VD 27 (1949) 257-69. 379 Morton Smith, Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (SBLMS 6; Philadelphia: SBL, 1951) 88-91; cf. also J. W. Doeve,jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1954) 191-200. 380 Generosus Marquardt, "Die Bergpredigt des Matthaus-Evangeliums, eine meisterlich disponierte Komposition des Evangelisten," BK 13 (1958) 81-84. 381 Josef Kiirzinger, "Zur Komposition der Bergpredigt nach Matthaus," Bib 40 (1959) 569-89. 382 Gunther Bornkamm, "Der Aufbau der Bergpredigt," NTS 24 (1978) 419-32. Cf. Betz, Essays, 1. 383 Robert Guelich (The Sermon on the Mount: A Foun-

Introduction

whole of the SM. Christoph Burchard 385 tried a different approach, asking thematic questions, whereas Wilhelm Egger 386 appears to have been the first to employ linguistic categories in his investigations. A group of scholars working under the leadership of A. B. du Toit, especially P. J. Maartens, analyzed the SM in terms of "discourse analysis." Maartens arrived at a complete diagram showing the "cola structure" of the SM. 387 Using a different set oflinguistic criteria, David Hellholm 388 pointed out marks of division in Matthew, showing where the speeches in that Gospel begin and end. Finally, the first part of a recent Finnish thesis by Kari Syreeni advances a method called "procedural analysis." 389 One can probably expect more linguistic studies in the future. Their value is greatly limited, one must admit, by idiosyncratic "methodologies," self-limitation to examination of one text only, and lack of corroboration by literary parallels and the criteria of classical philology and literary criticism. If linguistic approaches can be integrated with agreed-upon standards and criteria, such approaches can be highly illuminating. One can at present only express the hope that a comprehensive and

384

385

386 387

388

integrative analysis of the SM and the SP will at some time see the light of day. The present commentary will perhaps provide stimulation in this direction. At the same time, more traditional investigations will certainly continue, among which may be mentioned the analyses by Rainer Riesner, 390 Dale C. Allison, 391 and Otto Betz. 392 Also the recent commentaries by Robert Guelich, Georg Strecker, 393 and Jan Lambrecht 394 presuppose some form of compositional plan, as do the commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew 395 that have recently been published; however, none of the authors explicitly attempts to discuss and justify an outline. Thus, as the flow of studies shows, the problems of the composition and structure of the SM and the SP, while a continuing concern, have remained unsolved. Different approaches will certainly help to gain a variety of perspectives on these problems. In this situation, there is certainly also a need for experimentation, which does not mean that every experiment will be successful. The priorities to be set and followed seem to be clear as well.

dation for Understanding [Waco, Tex.: Word, 1982] 323-25) and Jan Lambrecht (The Sermon on the Mount: Proclamation and Exhortation [Good News Studies 14; Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1985]) gave their support. For a critique, see Dale C. Allison, "The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount," JBL 106 (1987) 423-45, esp. 424-29. Christoph Burchard, "Versuch, das Thema der Bergpredigt zu finden," in Georg Strecker, ed.,jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie: FS fur Hans Conzelmann (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1975) 40932. ET: "The Theme of the Sermon on the Mount," in Luise Schottroff et al., Essays on the Love Commandment (trans. Reginald and lise Fuller; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978) 57-91; cf. idem, "Le theme du Sermon sur Ia Montagne," ETR 72 (1987) 1-17.' Wilhelm Egger, "Faktoren der Textkonstitution in der Bergpredigt," Laurentianum 19 (1978) 177-98. The essays are published under the title "The Structure of Matthew 1-13: An Exploration into Discourse Analysis," Neot. 11 (1977; 2d ed. 1980), with an addendum: "Discourse Analysis of the Greek Text of Matthew 1-13 ." David Hellholm, "En textgrammatisk konstruktion i Matteus-evangeliet," SEA 51 (1986) 80-89.

389 Kari Syreeni, The Making of the Sermon on the Mount: A Procedural Analysis ofMatthew's Redactional Activity, part 1: Methodology and Compositional Analysis (AASF 44; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 198 7). 390 Rainer Riesner, "Der Aufbau der Reden im Matthaus-Evangelium," ThBei 9 (1978) 172-82, esp. 173-76; cf. Luz, Matthiius, 1.185 n. 3; (Matthew, 1.213 n. 3). 391 Allison, "Structure," 423-45. 392 Otto Betz, "Bergpredigt und Sinaitradition" (see above, n. 289) esp. 335-36, 381-82. 393 Guelich, Sermon, 36-39; Georg Strecker, Die Bergpredigt (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984) 12; ET: The Sermon on the Mount (trans. D. C. Dean,Jr.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1988) 15. 394 Lambrecht, Sermon, 26-29. 395 See esp. Luz, Matthiius, 1.185-87 (Matthew, 1.21213).

49

It is important, first of all, to stay close to the Greek text and within methodologies that can be controlled. Solutions are most likely to be expected from a convergence of different methods, rather than from single or idiosyncratic approaches ignoring what others have done. The following commentary as a whole presents a comprehensive analysis of both the SM and the SP. This analysis has been worked out by keeping in mind the phenomena in the texts, as well as the multitude of issues and contributions made by others. It is hoped that the analysis is substantiated by the totality of the evidence. In the following pages, I set forth the analysis in the form of two conspectuses, with Conspectus I comprising the SM, and Conspectus II comprising the SP. It should be clear that methodologically this analysis is not based on any one method, especially not one of the more idiosyncratic methods. Its criteria and standards are those of the historical-critical method, that is, a set of methods that are applied in all critical and scholarly study of ancient texts. The conspectuses provide no more than an overview. Further amplifications can be found in the subsequent sections of the commentary, especially in the sections called "Analysis," preceding the major sections of the text. 1 . Conspectus: Sermon on the Mount

5:3-12 5:3 5:3a

5:3b 5:4 5:4a

5:4b

5:5 5:5a

5:5b 5:6 5:6a

•5:3-16 I. Exordium: The premises A. Ten macarisms (beatitudes) 1. First macarism (3d person plural) a. Pronouncement 1) Acclamation 2) Addressees b. Statement of reason: anticipated eschatological judgment (present tense) 2. Second macarism (3d person plural) a. Pronouncement 1) Acclamation 2) Addressees b. Statement of reason: eschatological promise (future tense) 3. Third macarism (3d person plural) a. Pronouncement 1) Acclamation 2) Addressees b. Statement of reason: eschatological promise (future tense) 4. Fourth macarism (3d person plural) a. Pronouncement

50

1) Acclamation 2) Addressees b. Statement of reason: eschatological promise 5:6b (future tense) 5. Fifth macarism (3d person plural) 5:7 a. Pronouncement 5:7a 1) Acclamation 2) Addressees 5:7b b. Statement of reason: eschatological promise (future tense) 5:8 6. Sixth macarism (3d person plural) a. Pronouncement 5:8a 1) Acclamation 2) Addressees b. Statement of reason: eschatological promise 5:8b (future tense) 7. Seventh macarism (3d person plural) 5:9 5:9a a. Pronouncement 1) Acclamation 2) Addressees b. Statement of reason: eschatological promise 5:9b (future tense) 5:10 8. Eighth macarism (3d person plural) 5:10a a. Pronouncement 1) Acclamation 2) Addressees 5:10b b. Statement of reason: anticipated eschatological judgment (present tense) 5:11 9. Ninth macarism (2d person plural) 5:11a a. Pronouncement 1) Acclamation 2) Addressees 5:11b b. Conditions: description of three possible or real situations of harassment 1) First situation: reproach 2) Second situation: persecution 3) Third situation: slander a) General procedure b) Two limitations (1) First limitation: it must be lies (2) Second limitation: it must be "because of me" 5:12 10. Tenth macarism (2d person plural) 5:12a a. Pronouncement 1) Double call for joy 2) Addressees 5:12b-c b. Statement of reason: theological doctrine 5:12b 1) Prediction of eschatological reward (present tense) 2) Deduction 5:12c a) Present experience of persecution b) Historical precedent: persecution of the prophets of old c) Conclusion: a maiori ad minus and per analogiam, principle of equal justice 5:13-16 B. The commission: two declarations

Introduction

5:13 5:13a

5:13b-c 5:13b

5:13c

5:14-16 5:14 5:14a

5:14b-15 5:14b-15 5:14b 5:15 5:16 5:16a 5:16b

1. First declaration (2d person plural) a. Identification of the addressees 1) Address: "you are ... " 2) Description by metaphor a) Metaphor of the salt b) Application: "ofthe earth" b. Warning against unfaithfulness 1) Construction of a hypothetical case (metaphorical narrative) a) Protasis: use of metaphor as oxymoron b) Apodosis: rhetorical question (answer selfevident: negative) 2) Continuation of the hypothetical case (metaphorical narrative) a) Evaluation and prediction (present tense) b) Exhortation (implicit) 2. Second declaration (2d person plural) a. Identification of the addressees 1) Address: "you are ... " 2) Description by metaphor a) Metaphor of the light b) Application: "of the world" b. The charge 1) Two illustrative proverbs a) First proverb (formulated negatively) b) Second proverb (formulated negatively), with added explanation 2) Application (metaphorical narrative, missionary language) a) Imperative, using the metaphor of the light (vs 14a) b) Statement of purpose

• 5: 17-7:12~ II. Main part: The "way of life" (cf. 7:14) 5:17-48 A. The interpretation of the Torah 5:17-20 I. Set of four hermeneutical principles (four sayings of Jesus) 5:17 a. First principle concerning Jesus' teaching as a whole 5:17a 1) Rejection of a false saying ofJesus a) Disapproval formula (imperative, prohibition) b) Citation offalse saying ofJesus 5:17b 2) Correction of the false saying by providing the right term, "fulfill" 5:18 b. Second principle concerning the text of the Torah 1) Formula of doctrinal affirmation (amen5:18a formula) 2) Three-part definition of the authority of the 5:18b-d Torah 5:18b a) Setting a temporal limit by affirmation of apocalyptic dogma: "until heaven and earth pass away" 5:18c b) Defining the Hebrew text as authoritative c) Setting a temporal limit by affirmation of 5:18d apocalyptic dogma: "until all this comes to pass" 5:19 c. Third principle concerning the authority of Jesus'

5:19a-b 5:19a 5:19b 5:19c-d 5:19c 5:19d 5:20 5:20a 5:20b-c 5:20b 5:20c 5:21-48 5:21-32 5:21-26 5:21 5:2la

5:21b 5:21c

5:22 5:22a 5:22b

5:22c-26 5:22c-d 5:22c

5:22d

5:23-26 5:23-24 5:23a 5:23b 5:24

interpretation of the Torah: a sentence of "sacred law" (antithetical parallelismus membrorum) 1) First part a) Protasis: description of inadequate teaching b) Apodosis: prediction of eschatological consequence (future) 2) Second part a) Protasis: description of adequate teaching b) Apodosis: prediction of eschatological consequence (future) d. Fourth principle concerning eschatological righteousness 1) Formula of doctrinal affirmation 2) Sentence of "sacred law" a) Protasis: statement of the condition for entering into the kingdom of God b) Apodosis: prediction of the eschatological consequence (negative, present tense) 2. The "antitheses" a. Laws pertaining to personal relationships in the family (metaphors of family ethics) 1) First antithesis: on murder a) Refutation of inadequate interpretation ( 1) Reference to chain of tradition (a) Present recipients: "you have heard" (b) Past recipients: "the ancients" (c) Origin: God as subject of passivum divinum ("it was said") (2) Quotation of Scripture text: Exod 20:13 (3) Citation of inadequate (literal) interpretation: a statement of "sacred law" (a) Protasis: offense (b) Apodosis: punishment b) Presentation of adequate interpretation (1) Doctrinal formula, identifying authority (2) Citation of adequate interpretation: a statement of "sacred law" (a) Protasis: offense (b) Apodosis: punishment c) Argument (1) Two illustrative examples (climactic) (a) First example: statement of "sacred law" (exaggerated, parodistic) a. Protasis: offense {3. Apodosis: punishment (b) Second example: statement of "sacred law" (exaggerated, parodistic) a. Protasis: offense {3. Apodosis: punishment (2) Two illustrative cases (a) First case: a religious conflict (narrative) a. Description of normal performance of a sacrificial gift (3. Interference: remembrance of a moral conflict y. Recommendation of how to act properly

51

(a) Interruption of ritual (/3) Reconciliation with brother (y) Resumption and completion of ritual (b) Second case: a legal conflict (narrative) [a. Omitted: description of a court case in analogy to first case1 {3. Recommendation of how to act properly (a) Interruption of going to court (/3) Settling conflict "out of court" in good will y. Statement of reason: a useful recommendation (a) Possibility of alternative disastrous course of events (/3) A warning in the form of a sarcastic amen-logion d) Conclusion (implied): intent of law is to eliminate root cause of murder 2) Second antithesis: on adultery a) Refutation of inadequate interpretation (1) Reference to chain of tradition (a) Present recipients [(b) Omitted: past recipients1 (c) Origin: God as subject of passivum divinum ("it was said") (2) Quotation of Scripture text: Exod 20:14 [(3) Omitted: citation of inadequate (literal) interpretation 1 b) Presentation of adequate interpretation (1) Doctrinal formula identifying authority (2) Citation of adequate interpretation: a legalethical opinion about what constitutes adultery (a) Protasis: offense (b) Apodosis: ethical identification as adultery c) Argument: two illustrative "medical" examples (exaggerated metaphorical imagery) (1) First example: eye (a) Presupposition: ordinary functioning of eyes (b) Hypothetical situation of conflict: malfunctioning of right eye (c) Seemingly absurd recommendation for correction ("cure") (d) Statement of reason: a rule of utility from "surgery" justifying it as lesser evil, transposed into an eschatological warning (2) Second example: hand (a) Presupposition: ordinary functioning of the hands (b) Hypothetical situation of conflict: malfunctioning of right hand (c) Seemingly absurd recommendation for correction ("cure") (d) Statement of reason: a rule of utility from "surgery," justifying it as lesser evil, transposed into an eschatological warning

5:24a 5:24b 5:24c 5:25-26

5:25 5:25a 5:25b 5:25c-26 5:25c 5:26

5:27-30 5:27 5:27a

5:27b

5:28 5:28a 5:28b-c 5:28b 5:28c 5:29-30 5:29 5:29a

5:29b 5:29c

5:30 5:30a

5:30b 5:30c

52

5:31-32 5:31 5:31a

5:31b-c 5:31b 5:32 5:32a 5:32b-c

5:32b

5:32c

5:33-48 5:33a 5:33-37 5:33 5:33a

5:33b

5:33c 5:34-37 5:34a 5:34b

(3) Conclusion (implied): intent of law is to eliminate root cause of adultery 3) Third antithesis: on divorce a) Refutation of inadequate interpretation (1) Reference to chain of tradition ((a) Omitted: present recipients1 [(b) Omitted: past recipients1 (c) Origin: God as subject of passivum divinum ("it was said") [(2) Omitted: quotation of Scripture text: Deut 24:1-41 (3) Citation of inadequate (literal) interpretation: a casuistic legal ordinance (a) Protasis: case of divorce envisioned (b) Apodosis: prescription oflegal means b) Presentation of adequate interpretation (1) Doctrinal formula identifying authority (2) Citation of adequate interpretation: a legal opinion about consequences of divorce, formulated as two mock casuistic-legal ordinances (a) First opinion a. Protasis: case of divorce envisioned {3. Apodosis: description of consequence y. Exception clause (b) Second opinion a. Protasis: case of marrying a divorced woman envisioned {3. Apodosis: description of consequence c) Conclusions (implied) (1) Interpretation ofDeut 24:1-4 as cited in vs 31 is inadequate because it has consequences contrary to the Torah (2) Argument e contrario: intent oflaw is to eliminate evil consequences of divorce b. Laws pertaining to personal relationships outside family 1) Indication of second group of antitheses: "again" 2) Fourth antithesis: on swearing an oath a) Refutation of false interpretation ( 1) Reference to chain of tradition (a) Present recipients (b) Past recipients (c) Origin: God as subject of passivum divinum ("it was said") (2) Quotation of "Scripture": halakah (Hellenistic-Jewish, see LXX 1 Esdr 1:46; Wis 14:25, 28; Zech 5:3; T. Ash. 2.6; Philo) based on Exod 20:7; Lev 19:12; Num 30:3; Deut 23:22; etc. (3) Citation offalse (literal) interpretation: a cultic ordinance (apodictic) b) Presentation of correct interpretation (1) Doctrinal formula identifying authority (2) Citation of correct interpretation:

Introduction

5:34c-36 5:34c

5:35a

5:35b

5:36

5:37 5:37a 5:37b

5:38-42 5:38 5:38a

5:38b

5:39-42 5:39a 5:39b 5:39c-42 5:39c

5:40

5:41

5:42

prohibition (apodictic) (3) Argument: rejection of four types of oaths by demonstrating their absurdity (a) First type a. Reference to cultic act {3. Statement of reason for rejection: theological doctrine (b) Second type a. Reference to cultic act {3. Statement of reason for rejection: theological doctrine (c) Third type a. Reference to cultic act {3. Statement of reason for rejection: theological doctrine (d) Fourth type a. Reference to cultic act {3. Statement of reason for rejection: theological doctrine (4) Conclusion: command to speak the truth (a) Prescription to use ordinary language of saying, "Yes, yes, no, no." (b) Declaration of intent oflaw: "magical" props of human speech are evil and must be eliminated 3) Fifth antithesis: on retaliation a) Refutation of inadequate interpretation (1) Reference to chain of tradition (a) Present recipients [(b) Omitted: past recipients] (c) Origin: God as subject of passivum divinum ("it was said") (2) Quotation of Scripture: ius talionis (halakah), based on Exod 21 :24-25; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21 [(3) Omitted: citation of inadequate (literal) interpretation, to be inferred from vs 39a] b) Presentation of adequate interpretation (1) Doctrinal formula identifying authority (2) Citation of correct interpretation: prohibition (apodictic) (3) Argument: four illustrative examples (a) First example a. Action suffered {3. Paradoxical reaction recommended (b) Second example a. Action .suffered {3. Paradoxical reaction recommended (c) Third example a. Action suffered {3. Paradoxical reaction recommended (d) Fourth example a. Action suffered {3. Paradoxical (?) reaction recommended (4) Conclusion (implied): intent of law is to eliminate violence

4) Sixth antithesis: on treatment of the enemy a) Refutation of inadequate interpretation ( 1) Reference to chain of tradition (a) Present recipients [(b) Omitted: past recipients] (c) Origin: God as subject of passivum divinum ("it was said") (2) Quotation of Scripture: Lev I9: 18 5:43b (3) Citation ofinadequate (literal) inter5:43c pretation 5:44-48 b) Presentation of adequate interpretation 5:44a (1) Doctrinal formula identifying authority 5:44b-45 (2) Citation of adequate interpretation 5:44b (a) Prescription: command to love enemy 5:44c (b) Concretization by parallel prescription (c) Statement of reasons: soteriology 5:45 5:45a a. Eschatological promise {3. Reference to cosmogonic myth: God's 5:45b creatio continua 5:46-47 (3) Argument: e contrario by two rhetorical questions and answers 5:46 (a) First question a. Description of conventional behavior 5:46a {3. Question (negative answer implied) 5:46b 5:46c y. Statement of reason (in the form of question, positive answer implied) a. Conclusion (implied): such behavior receives no special reward (b) Second question 5:47 a. Description of conventional behavior 5:47a 5:47b {3. Question (negative answer implied) y. Statement of reason (in the form of 5:47c question, positive answer implied) a. Conclusion (implied): such behavior receives no special reward (4) Conclusion: statement of intent of law 5:48 (a) Prescription/prediction (future indicative/ 5:48a volitive) of eschatological destiny: state of perfection (b) Reason: doctrine of imitation of God 5:48b (imitatio Dei) 6:I-I8 B. The practice of the cult I. General exhortation 6:I a. Imperative (summary exhortation, reminder, and 6:Ia warning) b. Description of conduct to be avoided generally (formulated negatively) c. Statement of reason 6:Ib I) Protasis: condition of disobedience envisioned 2) Apodosis: eschatological consequences 2. Specific instruction concerning three most 6:2-I8 important cultic acts 6:2-4 a. First cultic act: on almsgiving 1) Prohibition of improper performance 6:2 a) Reference to cultic act 6:2a b) Imperative (negative) 6:2b 5:43-48 5:43 5:43a

53

6:2c 6:2d 6:2e

6:3-4 6:3a 6:3b-4a

6:4b

6:5-6 6:5 6:5a 6:5b 6:5c

6:5d 6:5e

6:6 6:6a 6:6b

6:6c

6:7-15 6:7-6 6:7a 6:7b 6:7c

6:7d 6:8 6:8a 6:8b 6:9-13 6:9a 6:9b-13 6:9b

c) Caricatured description (1) Satirical imagery (2) Comparison with playactors (3) Improper purpose d) Statement of eschatological consequence: amen-saying (1) Introductory formula (2) Disclosure of eschatological judgment 2) Instruction for proper performance a) Reference to cultic act b) Imperative (negative) c) Description of proper performance (1) Proverbial expression (2) Statement of proper purpose d) Statement of reason (1) Theological dogma (2) Eschatological promise b. Second cultic act: on prayer 1) Prohibition of improper performance a) Reference to cultic act b) Imperative (negative) c) Caricatured description (1) Comparison with playactors (2) Satirical imagery (3) Improper purpose d) Statement of eschatological consequence: amen-saying (1) Introductory formula (2) Eschatological judgment 2) Instruction of proper performance a) Reference to cultic act b) Imperative (positive) c) Description of proper performance (1) Proverbial expression (2) Statement of proper purpose d) Statement of reason ( 1) Theological dogma (2) Eschatological promise c. Another teaching on prayer 1) Prohibition of improper performance a) Reference to cultic act b) Imperative (negative) c) Caricatured description (1) Satirical imagery (2) Comparison with the "pagans" (3) Statement of "pagan" doctrine about prayer 2) Instruction of proper performance a) Imperative (negative): Prohibition of assimilation with the "pagans" b) Statement of correct doctrine of prayer c) Prescription of proper performance (1) Conjunction (2) Imperative (positive) (3) Citation of authoritative example: the Lord's Prayer (a) Invocation

54

6:9c-13 6:9c-10 6:9c 6:10a 6:10b 6:11-13 6:11 6:12 6:12a 6:12b 6:13 6:13a 6:13b 6:14-15

6:14 6:14a 6:14b 6:15 6:15a 6:15b 6:16-18 6:16 6:16a 6:16b

6:16c 6:16d

6:17-18 6:17a 6:17b

6:18a 6:18b

(b) Two sets of three petitions a. First set (a) First petition (fJ) Second petition (y) Third petition {3. Second set (a) Fourth petition (fJ) Fifth petition aa. Petition bb. Declaration about corresponding action (imitatio Dei) (y) Sixth petition, antithetical parallelismus membrorum aa. First line: negative

bb. Second line: positive d) Supplement: interpretation of vs 12b, a statement of "sacred law" (antithetical parallelismus membrorum) ( 1) First statement

(a) Protasis: action envisioned as carried out (b) Apodosis: eschatological consequence (promise) (2) Second statement (a) Protasis: action envisioned as not carried out (b) Apodosis: eschatological consequence (threat) d. Third cultic act: on fasting 1) Prohibition of improper performance a) Reference to cultic act b) Imperative (negative) c) Caricatured description (1) Comparison with playactors (2) Their typical behavior (3) Improper purpose d) Statement of eschatological consequence: amen-saying (1) Introductory formula (2) Eschatological judgment 2) Instruction of proper performance a) Reference to cultic act b) Imperative (positive) c) Description of proper performance (1) Two acts symbolizing celebration (2) Statement of proper purpose d) Statement of reason (1) Theological dogma (2) Eschatological promise

6:19-7:12 C. The conduct of the daily life 1. On gathering treasures 6:19-21 a. A sententia (antithetical parallelismus membrorum, 2d 6:19-20 person plural) 1) First part 6:19 6:19a a) Imperative (negative) b) Statement of reason (two llwov-clauses) 6:19b

Introduction

6:20 6:20a 6:20b

6:21 6:21a 6:21b 6:22-23 6:22a 6:22b-23 6:22b-23a 6:22b

6:23a

6:23b

6:24 6:24a 6:24b-d 6:24b-c 6:24b 6:24c 6:24d 6:25-34 6:25a

6:25b

6:25c-34

(1) First clause (two nouns, one verb): proverbial expression (2) Second clause (one noun, two verbs): proverbial expression 2) Second part a) Imperative (positive) b) Statement of reason (two
6:25c-30 6:25c

6:26-30 6:26-27 6:26a

6:26b 6:26c

6:27

6:28-30 6:28a

6:28b

1) First argument a) Two theses (rhetorical question) ( 1) Soul or life is more than nourishment (2) Body or person is more than clothing b) Conclusions (implied) ( 1) It is foolish to confuse procurement of food and clothing with care for one's soul or life (2) It is prudent to care for one's soul or life and body or person c) Proofs (1) The necessities oflife: comparison of animals and humanity (a) Example of the birds a. Appeal to observe their behavior (see vs 28b) fl. Paradox to be observed in respect to their behavior (a) They do not sow (fl) They do not reap (y) They do not gather into barns (o) Yet they are fed y. Conclusion: God feeds them o. Considerations (rhetorical question) (a) Presupposition: traditional distinction between animals and humanity in which humanity is accorded a higher position (fl) Conclusion (a minori ad maius): if anxiety over food is unnecessary for animals, how much more so for humanity (b) Example from human life (rhetorical question) a. Paradox to be observed in respect to the future (a) No one can add a span of time to one's life (fl) Yet each day one's life is lengthened fl. Conclusion (implied): God measures out one's life y. Consideration (a) Presupposition: the future is measured by God, not by humanity (fl) Conclusion (a maiori ad minus): if the future as a whole is under God's control, it is futile and improper for humanity to worry about part of the future as if it were under human control (2) Clothing: comparison of plants and humanity (a) Presentation of the problem (rhetorical question) a. Reference to vs 25c fl. Reference to worrying as common human behavior (b) Example of the lilies a. Appeal to observe their behavior (cf. vs 26a)

55

fJ. Paradox to be observed in respect to their behavior (a) They do not toil (fJ) They do not spin (y) Nevertheless, they grow y. Conclusion (implied): God causes them to grow a. Consideration (a) Doctrinal formula identifying authority (fJ) Presupposition: the splendor of the royal robes of Solomon was thought to be unsurpassed (y) Conclusion: the clothing of the lilies, because the work of God, surpasses the human splendor of Solomon's garments (c) Example from human life (rhetorical question) a. Paradox to be observed in respect to nature (a) Fate of the lilies aa. Today they Jive bb. Tomorrow they are thrown into oven as fuel (fJ) Yet God has arrayed them so splendidly fJ. Conclusion (implied): God "wastes" his gifts on his creatures y. Consideration (a) Presupposition: God measures out gifts without giving thought to transitoriness of his creatures (fJ) Conclusion (a minori ad maius): if God treats his lesser creatures in this way, how much more so his highest creation, the human being (y) Address (at the same time transition to next argument) 2) Second argument a) Connection: "therefore" b) Repetition of the exhortation in vs 25b (1) Imperative (negative) (a) Observation (presupposition) a. Anxiety as common human disposition fJ. Object: the future in general (b) Prohibition (2) Caricature of behavior to be rejected (dramatization) (a) Eating (b) Drinking (c) Clothing c) Proofs: comparison between Gentiles and Jews ( 1) Example of the Gentiles (a) Observation of their improper "striving" (E7rt("f/rlro) for the goods oflife (b) Identification with behavior rejected in vs 31 (2) Traditional doctrine

6:29 6:29a 6:29b

6:29c

6:30 6:30a

6:30b

6:30c

6:30d 6:31-33 6:31a

6:31b

6:32-33 6:32a

6:32b

56

6:33 6:33a

6:33b

6:34 6:34a

6:34b-c 6:34b

7:1-5 7:1-2 7:1 7:1a 7:1b 7:2 7:2a

(a) God's omniscience (b) God's benevolence: his provision of basic human needs d) Conclusions ( 1) Exhortation (a) Imperative (positive) a. Required behavior: "seeking" ((71rlro) rather than "worrying" (vss 25b, 31a, 34a: p.eptp.varo) fJ. Priority: "first" y. Proper object (a) Principle: the kingdom (of God) (fJ) Specific: God's righteousness (2) Promise (a) Condition: "and (only then)" (Ka0 (b) Traditional doctrine of divine reward a. Eschatological (presupposed) fJ. This-worldly (derived): "everything" 3) Third argument a) Connection: "therefore" b) Repetition of exhortation in vss 25b, 31a ( 1) Imperative (negative) (a) Observation (presupposition) a. Worrying as common human behavior fJ. Object: tomorrow (b) Prohibition [(2) Abbreviation of argument by omission of description of behavior to be rejected] c) Proofs (1) Maxim on tomorrow (2) Maxim on today d) Conclusions (implied) ( 1) A maiori ad minus: if the future as a whole is under God's control, it is futile and improper for humans to worry about tomorrow, a part ofthatfuture (2) E contrario: if tomorrow is not under human control, then today's problems (its "plague") must be dealt with by humans (3) E contrario: If it is futile and improper for humans to worry about the future, then the right way to deal with the problems of today is not by worrying about them, but by seeking in the "plague" of each day the righteousness and thus the kingdom of God 5. On judging a. Composition of sententiae (2d person plural) 1) Maxim a) Imperative (negative) b) Prediction (gnomic) 2) Reason: Double sententia (ius talionis) a) Connection: yap b) First sententia: on judging ( 1) Description of action (2) Prediction of reaction (future [eschatological or gnomic?])

Introduction

7:2b

7:3-5 7:3-4 7:3 7:3a 7:3b 7:4 7:4a 7:4b 7:5 7:5a 7:5b-c 7:5b 7:5c

7:6 7:6a

c) Connection: Kal d) Second sententia: on measuring ( 1) Description of action (2) Prediction of reaction (future [eschatological or gnomic?]) b. Argument (diatribe composition) 1) Two consecutive rhetorical questions (using exaggerated images) a) First question ( 1) Description of criticism of others (2) Disclosure of failure of self-criticism b) Second question ( 1) Connection: if (2) Description of correction of others (3) Disclosure of failure of self-correction 2) Conclusion a) Address: "you hypocrite" b) Observation (implied): need for self-correction 3) Rule (formulated positively) a) Imperative: self-correction first b) Predicted result (1) Nature of competence (future, gnomic) (2) Recommended correction of the brother 6. On profaning the holy: a cryptic sententia (2d person plural) a. Double imperative (negative, using parallelismus membrorum)

7:6b

1) First imperative a) Action b) Object of action 2) Second imperative a) Action b) Object of action b. Statement of purpose (negative, preventive, using parallelismus membrorum)

7:7-11 7:7 7:7a

7:7b

7:7c

7:8

1) First envisioned consequence a) Action b) Object of action: abrovs 2) Second envisioned consequence a) Two actions b) Object of action: vp.O.s 7. On giving and receiving (2d person plural) a. Set of three maxims 1) First maxim a) Imperative b) Prediction of reaction (future, gnomic) 2) Second maxim a) Imperative b) Prediction of reaction (future, gnomic) 3) Third maxim a) Imperative b) Prediction of reaction (future, gnomic) b. Reason 1) Connection: y6.p 2) Set of three proverbial statements (based on observation)

7:9-11 7:9-10 7:9 7:9a 7:9b-c 7:9b 7:9c 7:10 7:10a 7:10b 7:11 7:11a

7:llb

c. Argument (diatribe composition) 1) Two rhetorical questions (expected answers: negative) a) First question ( 1) Identification of addressees as human beings (2) Description of normal human behavior (a) Action encountered (b) Absurd reaction denied b) Second question (1) Action encountered (2) Absurd reaction denied 2) Conclusion (a minori ad maius) a) Protasis (1) Connection: oi.v (2) Identification of addressees as sinners (evildoers) (3) Description of normal human behavior b) Apodosis (1) Logical principle (qal wab,omer): 1r6u'!' p.0.AAOV

7:12 7:12a

7:12b 7:12c

(2) Description of God's benevolence (a) Divine epithets (b) Prediction of God's benevolence a. His reaction {3. Human action encountered 8. The hermeneutical principle: the Golden Rule a. Connection: oi.v b. Ethical principle: the Golden Rule formulated positively 1) Anticipated (desired) reaction by others 2) Recommended action 3) Presupposition: principle of do ut des c. Interpretative identification 1) Conclusion: y6.p 2) Formula of identity • 7:13-23

Ill. Eschatological warnings

7:13-14 A. The Two Ways and the Two Gates 7:13a 1. Imperative (positive, 2d person plural) 2. Introduction of the image of the narrow gate 7:13b-14 3. Description of the image of the Two Ways and Two Gates a. Connection: lin (indicating traditional material) 7:13b 7:13b-d b. The way of destruction 1) The wide gate 7:13b 7:13c 2) The comfortable road 7:13d 3) The large crowds c. The way oflife 7:14 7:14a 1) The narrow gate 7:14b 2) The rough road 3) The few 7:14c 7:15-20 B. The false prophets 7:15 1. Appeal to be alert 7:15a a. Imperative (positive, 2d person plural)

57

7:15b-c 7:15b 7:15c 7:16a 7:16b-19 7:16b 7:17 7:17a

7:17b 7:18

b. Introduction of technical term "pseudoprophets" c. Description of their conduct 1) As wandering in from outside (itinerant prophets) 2) By a proverb 2. Recommended method for recognizing false prophets 3. Argument a. Rhetorical question: agricultural rule; expected answer: negative b. Analogy from nature 1) Connection indicating analogy: olln.>s 2) Rule from agriculture (positively formulated, antithetical parallelismus membrorum) a) First part: every good tree brings forth good fruit b) Second part: every rotten tree brings forth bad fruit c. Explanation (negatively formulated, antithetical parallelismus membrorum)

1) First part: impossibility of good tree bringing forth bad fruit 2) Second part: impossibility of bad tree bringing 7:18b forth good fruit d. Rule from agriculture for dealing with useless trees 7:19 7:20 4. Conclusion a. Connection: li.pa yE b. Restatement of the recommended method (see vs 16a) 7:21-23 C. Self-delusion 1. Sentence of "sacred law" stating condition for 7:21 admission into the kingdom of God 7:21a a. Negative: rejection of satirically formulated false definition 1) Pointed negation: 2) False definition a) Description of required conduct ( 1) Action: "speaking" (2) Nature of action: liturgical kyriosacclamation, twice repeated b) Promise 7:21b b. Positive: presentation of proper definition (elliptic) 1) Adversative particle: &AM 2) Correct definition a) Action: "doing" b) Nature of action [c) Promise: to be inferred from vs 21a] 7:22-23 2. Preview of a scene in the last judgment a. General description of the situation 7:22a 1) The persons involved a) Jesus as advocate b) Large group of clients 2) Reference to time: "on that day" b. The scene in sharper focus: the decisive episode in the course of the trial

7:18a

ov

58

7:22b

7:23 7:23a 7:23b-c 7:23b 7:23c

1) Protest of clients against their prior rejection by Jesus a) Presentation of proof of legitimacy on three grounds, in the form of a question (1) Prophetic utterance in the name ofJesus (2) Exorcisms in the name ofJesus (3) Miracles in the name of Jesus 2) Statement of the advocate: repeated and final rejection a) Reference to time: "then" b) Nature of the declaration: bJJ.oAoyE'iv c) Recitation of legal formulae ( 1) Indication of citation: lin (2) Formula of renunciation (3) Formula of repudiation (Ps 6:9) • 7:24-26

IV. Peroration: A double parable describing success

and failure

A. Connection: oLv 7:24a 7:24-25 B. First parable: the successful student 1. Marks of the good student: hearing and doing 7:24a 7:24b-25 2. Example demonstrating success as stability (perseverance) 7:24b a. Formula of comparison b. Focal person: the "prudent man" c. Description of his activity 7:24c 1) Action 2) Critical difference 7:25a d. Description of calamitous events 1) Rain 2) Floods 3) Storms e. Description of the effects 7:25b 1) Events a) Regarding the calamitous forces b) Regarding the house 7:25c 2) Reason 7:26-27 C. Second parable: the failing student 1. Marks of the failing student: hearing, not doing 7:26a 7:26b-27 2. Example demonstrating failure as instability (lack of perseverance) 7:26b a. Formula of comparison b. Focal person: the "foolish man" c. Description of his activity 7:26c 1) Action 2) Critical difference 7:27a d. Description of calamitous events 1) Rain 2) Floods 3) Storms e. Description of the effects 7:27b 1) Events a) Regarding calamitous forces b) Regarding house 7:27c 2) Concluding evaluation and warning

Introduction

The preceding conspectus, which is intended to sum up the evidence and analysis presented in the commentary, shows that the SM is composed of four clearly distinguishable parts. These four parts are carefully structured within themselves and are closely related to each other. Part I provides an introduction and is therefore called by its rhetorical term exordium. 396 This part consists of two sections, each of which can be divided into two subsections. 397 The first of these comprises a set of ten beatitudes (5:3-12). These ten beatitudes can again be subdivided into two subsets: a group of eight beatitudes structured in strict parallelism and forming an indusia (5:3-10) and what appears to be a secondary expansion containing one other beatitude formulated somewhat differently (5: 11 ), and a concluding call for joy (5: 12). Strictly and form-critically speaking, this call for joy is not a beatitude but it is closely related to beatitudes; it provides a fitting climactic end to the sequence. 398 While the beatitudes are formulated as factual or presuppositional statements with an implied appeal, as expressed in the direct address of the last beatitude (5: 11), the concluding direct appeal "Be glad and rejoice!" (5: 12) calls for the response by the recipients (hearers or readers). Literary and rhetorical parallels show that the use of beatitudes in exordia was not uncommon, but also that such use must be regarded as secondary. 399 The primary function of beatitudes seems to be liturgical in some sense, constituting pronouncements by a liturgist in worship; consequently, the secondary usage of beatitudes in the SM serves as a reminder of the ritual experience. 400 Since no appropriate ritual act is mentioned in the SM itself, one would have to think of it in terms of presupposition. The natural ritual for disciples would be their initiation through baptism. Indeed, this possibility is supported by the redactional framework in Matthew, according to which Christians are to be made disciples, baptized, and taught. This s!':quence is stated by the risen

Christ in his commission to the church (Matt 28: 19): "Go forth therefore and make all nations my disciples; baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to keep all that I have commanded you." For Matthew, therefore, Christian discipleship presupposes the call to discipleship, initiation by baptism, and subsequent teaching of the essential tenets of the Christian faith. For the historian that Matthew also was, things were somewhat more complicated. He knew from Mark that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist (Matt 3:13-17), that he was tempted by Satan in the desert (4: 1-11), and that after the temptation Jesus began to proclaim the gospel and to call disciples (4: 17-22). When Jesus delivered the SM, only Simon Peter and his brother Andrew, and James and John, the sons of Zebedee, had been called (4:18-22). For them, however, no baptism was reported. This seems to imply that Matthew knew that Jesus did not baptize his disciples, but that the ritual came into use in later Jewish Christianity, prior to Matthew's own time. Ifthen the Jewish-Christian community from which the SM originated practiced baptism, one may conclude that the SM, with its citation ofbeatitudes, reminds the recipients of their baptism. While the Beatitudes served as a reminder certainly for the church of Matthew, they could have done so as well in the Jewish-Christian context from which the SM came, but no clear evidence exists for this last suggestion. There may at least be one parallel in Gal 4:15, where Paul's question, "Where then is your beatitude?" may refer to the pronouncements at baptism, perhaps even to the formula in Gal 3:26-28. 401 If the Beatitudes are reminders ofbaptism, their present function in the SM is didactic, not liturgical. One can hardly overestimate their importance for the SM as a whole. That they are put into the exordium means that they are regarded as the foundation on which the entire SM rests. As statements of definition, the Beatitudes set forth

396 On the rhetorical and literary exordium, see Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia; Fortress, 1979) 44-45. 397 For a detailed discussion of the internal composition, see below on SM/Matt 5:3-12. 398 For a discussion of this point, see below on SM/Matt 5:12. 399 On this point see below, Introduction to the

Beatitudes. 400 Later the eight beatitudes served as liturgical texts. See Balthasar Fischer, "Die acht Seligpreisungen als Gesangs- und Gebetstext in V ergangenheit und Gegenwart," TThZ 81 (1972) 276-84. 401 See Betz, Galatians, 226-28.

59

what is given to the disciples and what is expected of them. They formulate the "indicative" and the "imperative,"402 the point of departure and the goal not only of discipleship but also of human life in general. From the perspective of ancient thought, the Beatitudes contain a GiUerlehre, the doctrine concerning the truly good. 403 Their extremely concise formulation states the basic assumptions that the disciples can count on concerning cosmology, anthropology, ethics, eschatology, and theology. These Beatitudes describe the condicio humana that the disciples of Jesus are called to take up conscientiously and affirmatively. This condicio humana is characterized by great contrasts: poverty and wealth, mourning and comfort, gentleness and domination, deprivation of justice and satisfaction, mercy in a merciless world, purity even of the heart in a milieu thoroughly polluted, peace in a time ravaged by wars, victory after persecution, and in the end jubilation after great tribulation. 404 These contrasts are interwoven with others, such as God and humanity, heaven and earth, and past, present, and future. Human life is full of extremes and contradictions, generating confusion, tumult, and suffering on the one hand, but, on the other hand, there is blessedness, an order worthy of trust, and final jubilation and fulfillment. 405 The ethical task must be formulated with these conditions in mind. The Beatitudes list a series of ethical virtues, beginning with the lowest, humility (5:3a), but the ethics of the SM is not a simple virtue-ethics in the Greek sense. In fact, the Beatitudes set forth promises along with demands; they are both at once, not one or

the other. 406 The ethical task follows from this complicated situation. Indeed, any ethics that is to be taken seriously must correspond to the intricacies of human life. The ethical task set out for the disciples is, therefore, more than a set of demands, whether ethical precepts or entrance requirements for the kingdom of God. The Beatitudes set before the disciples the conditions under which the ethical life must take place. The rest of the SM then builds on these conditions, providing a guide through the maze of contradictions that fill human life. The ethical task itself is described by the image of the Two Ways (7: 13-14). It amounts to entering through the narrow gate and, before that, to traveling on the rough road. 407 The goal (dA.os) is clearly stated in 6:33: "Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness." One can identify the Beatitudes, therefore, as descriptions of the beginning of the rough road that the disciples must travel on their way through life, if they want to reach their desired destiny, the gate to life eternal (7:14). This direction of the road points to the eschatological perspective characterizing the whole of the SM; it is treated thematically in the third major part (7: 13-23). In the view of the SM there are two ways in life humans can travel from here to the hereafter: the road to eternal life and the road to eternal destruction (7: 13-14). The road to eternal life is identical with all that is prescribed in the SM, while the road to destruction includes all that is explicitly or implicitly rejected. Finally, what is the blessing in all of this? What kind of support can the disciple expect in the struggle? It is true

Rollero, La "Expositio evangelii secundum Lucan" di 402 On this terminology, see RudolfBultmann, "Das Ambrogio come fonte della esegesi agostiniana (V niversita Problem der Ethik bei Paulus," in his Exegetica di Torino: Pubblicazioni della Facolta di lettere e (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1964) 36-54. This filosofia, vol. 10.4; Turin: Giappichelli, 1958) esp. terminology is usually applied only to Paul, but there 21-46; Duchrow, "Aufbau," 344-47. is every reason to use it for the SM as well, even though the theological presuppositions of the SM 406 On the meaning and literary form of the Beatitudes, differ from those of Paul. see below, Introduction to the Beatitudes, I.l.a,c. 403 See Manfred Wacht, "Giiterlehre," RAG 13 (1986) 407 One can view the image in two ways. If one looks at 59-150, who, however, fails to mention the Beatithe demands of the SM as being equated with the tudes (cols. 106-I 0). "rough road," one can also connect the "narrow gate" with the Beatitudes as "entrance requirements" into 404 Cf. the so-called paradoxes of Paul, I Cor 4: I 0-13; 2 Cor 6:8-IO; Phil4:IO-I3. the kingdom of God. 405 It is, therefore, not a surprise that in the history of interpretation the Beatitudes became connected with the metaphor of the way of ascension. On these developments and for the references to Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose of Milan, and Augustine, see Piero

60

Introduction

that the SM never speaks of grace or the gift of the Holy Spirit the way Paul does. The doctrine of salvation propagated by the SM is Jewish, and there are no specificially Christian means for salvation. Yet, the disciple is not without help. First of all, God and his kingdom are always present, if not on earth then certainly in heaven (6: 10, 25-34). Righteousness exists as certainly as God himself exists; it will in the end prevail. The difficulty with righteousness is that one needs to seek and find it; it may not be obvious, but it is a given. Eternal life is waiting, and one only needs to arrive in it instead of in eternal extinction. Life is a mess, to be sure, but God has provided a way through and out of the mess; all that the disciple needs is to join the small band of those who are traveling on the right road. This road is rough, not only because of the obstacles it presents but also because of the failures of those traveling on it. But God is merciful and forgives those who sincerely ask him (6:12-13, 14-15). Thus, there is no reason for pessimism or despondency. In the final analysis, the SM is optimistic. But the SM is also realistic: One has every reason to prepare for tough times. One cannot deny that the disciple must travel the rough road, not the smooth one, and that he or she must be among the few, not the masses. There are only these two options, and everybody must make a choice and in fact does make a choice. Life is good, despite all appearances, but human beings must choose, and do choose, which of the two ways of life they consider good. This is what human life is all about. Discipleship is not simply a call to join a small sect of devotees ofJesus. Rather it is a call to be human beings in an uncompromising way. From this initial statement the text moves to the second subsection of Part I, the commission of the

disciples. This subsection has two sayings (5: 13 and 5:14-16), each beginning with the address "You are .... "408 The connection with vs 12 is by catchword: iJp.oov (vs 12) and iJp.lis (vs 13 and vs 14). Also, the indefinite "they" of vss 11-12 is now made definite by the word li.v8pwzro& ("human beings"). The commission is given to the disciples as a group, but remarkably this group has no name; there is only the plural address "you, "409 referring to the addressees as human beings, not by the name "disciples." It is noteworthy that the designation "human beings" (li.v8pw7To&) 410 dominates the passage (vss 13c, 16a). 411 There are, in fact, two kinds of human beings: the crowds outside, identical with "the many" (ol 1ro>..>-.ol [7:13]), 41 2 and those inside the group. The former merely happen to be human, the latter are called to be consciously so. Two powerful images describe the role the disciples are expected to play: "salt of the earth" (vs 13)413 and "light of the world" (vs 14). 414 Even these images are part of contrasts: not only the contrast between "earth" and "heaven" (vss 13, 14), but also between the good earth for which the salt is to be used, and the dirt into which those who fail their calling get trampled. Or there is the contrast between the "the world" (6 Kocrp.os), which is in need of illumination, and "the heavens" (ol ovpavol), which constitute the transcendent realm of God from which all illumination comes. Thus, the commission of the disciples is not exempt from the contrasts but calls people into them. Although clothed in images and metaphors, the objectives before the disciples are clearly marked. The sole purpose of human life is to achieve "good deeds" (Ta Ka>..a fpya). Humans are "doers," so that the two options are doing good deeds or doing evil

408 For detailed analysis, see below on SM/Matt 5:1314. 409 The absence of any name, such as "church" (tiCIC~:qula) or even "disciples" (}J.a87JTat) for the addressees in the SM itself is astonishing (cf. ,.a87JT~r in SP/Luke 6:40). Is the reason that the disciples are to be "humans" or, to use the traditional expression, "sons of their heavenly Father" (for the meaning of this expression, see below on SM/Matt 5:9)? For Matthew's identification of them as "disciples," see Matt 5:1 (see Betz, "The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew's Interpretation," 265-66). For Matthean

410 411 412 413 414

theology, see also Michael Wilkins, The Concept of Disciple in Matthew's Gospel as Reflected in the Use of the Term Mathetes (NovTSup 59; Leiden: Briii, 1988). For the meaning of this term in the SM, see below on SM/Matt 5:13. See also Riesner, "Aufbau," 175. See below on SM/Matt 7:13. See below on SM/Matt 5:13. See below on SM/Matt 5:14.

61

deeds. Such good deeds are not to be done for their own sake; their sole purpose is that the people who witness these good deeds are moved to praise God. Thus, people are ordinarily not motivated to worship God, although this worship is expected of them. The one thing that can motivate people to engage in honest worship is that they witness other human beings doing good deeds (vs 16b). Therefore, good deeds are good because of their capacity to make people do what they are supposed to do. With this reference to doxology the exordium that began with vs 3 concludes. This is not the place to discuss the many internal correspondences that exist between the two sections of the exordium, but some observations may be allowed. Both the Beatitudes and the commission contrast the lowest and the highest. In 5:3, for example, the human being is seen as the poor creature who, however, is promised the wealth of heaven; in vs 13d the lowest point of failure, being trampled under the dirt, is contrasted with the highest of success: making people glorify God in heaven. Part II comprises the entire body of the SM (5:177: 12). 415 It is constructed as a ring composition, as indicated by the expression "the law and the prophets" in 5:17 and in 7:12. 416 The "hermeneutical principles" for interpreting "the law and the prophets" are placed at the beginning (5: 17-20) and at the end (7:12). 417 The main body of the SM is made up of three sections: a first section dealing with the interpretation of the Torah (5:17-48), a second section dealing with cultic rituals (6:1-18), and a third section devoted to the affairs of

daily life (6: 19-7: 12). That there are three sections calls for an explanation. Numerical symbolism occurs throughout the SM, and the number three plays a prominent role in this regard, 418 but there seems to be more to the three divisions. Dividing phenomena of religion or theology into three sections was apparently a literary convention at the time when the SM was composed. Such divisions may apply to notions or to sections of text. The earliest instance of this may be Mic 6:8: God has told you what is good; and what is it that the LoRD asks of you? Only to act justly, to love loyalty, to walk wisely before your God. (NEB) In the LXX, the three notions are: 'lTOtt'i'v Kplp.a ("render just verdict"), aya'lTaV ;AfOS ("love mercy"), and ~TO!p.OV £tvat rov 'lTopn'!£u8at p.£r'lz Kvplov 8£ov uov ("be ready to walk with the Lord your God"). The passage has the character of a programmatic summary. 419 It also has a parallel in Hos 12:6: Turn back all of you by God's help; praise loyalty and justice, and wait always on your God. (NEB) 420 Programmatic is certainly also the statement at the beginning of 'Abot attributed to Simon the Just ('Abot 1.2): Upon three things the world standeth: upon Torah, upon Worship and upon the showing ofkindness. 4 2 1 W. D. Davies has noted the parallelism of this statement with regard to the three sections ofthe SM. 422 Indeed, the Torah corresponds to SM/Matt 5:17-48, and worship to 6:1-18, but the "deeds ofloving-kindness" hardly correspond to 6:19-7:12. 423 Even ifthe parallelism is not complete, however, the similarity calls for an

415 For a more detailed analysis, see below, Introduction Mehrlein, "Drei," RAG 4 (1959) 269-310. to SM/Matt 5:17-20. 419 See Wilhelm Rudolph, Micha-Nahum-HabakukZephanja (KAT 13.3; Giitersloh: Mohn, 197 5) I 06416 For the meaning ofthis expression, see below on 14, esp. 108, 113-14; Hans Walter Wolff, DodekaSM/Matt 5:17. 41 7 See the commentary below on these passages, and propheton 4: Micka (BKAT 14.4; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Betz, Essays, 37-54. Neukirchener Verlag, 1982) 153-58. 418 The Beatitudes can be divided either into 3 x 3 + 1 420 LXX: Kat .eov Kat KplJJ.a (= 10), or 2 x 4 + 2 (= 10); the exordium can be vA&.uuov ~ea\ f'AwL{E wphs Thv 8EIJv CTOV a&~ wavTIJS'. thought of as tripartite: vss 3-ll, 12, and 13-16; the 421 According to the translation by R. Travers Herford, main body ofthe SM has three sections (5: 17-48; Pirke Aboth: The Ethics of the Fathers (New York: 6:1-18; 6:19-7:12); the antitheses consist of2 x 3 Schocken, 1962)22. cases (5:21-48); the cultic teaching (6:1-18) com422 William D. Davies, The Setting rif the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1964) prises three cultic acts: almsgiving, prayer, and fasting; the eschatological warnings (7: 13-23) have 304-15; he builds on the parallel for his hypothesis three subsections: Two Ways (7:13-14), false of the SM being Matthew's "Christian answer to Jamnia" (315); see also his Jewish and Pauline Studies prophets (7:15-20), self-delusion (7:21-23). For the importance of the number three generally, see Rolf (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 348-49 n. 48. For a

62

Introduction

explanation; the phenomena can hardly be accidental. 424 The instances cited demonstrate what appears to be a tendency in jewish thought to summarize the essentials of religion under three key terms. These summary statements may vary according to the particular viewpoints summarized by the respective authors, but they agree on important points, especially on putting the Torah first. The least agreement seems to be on the final section. This situation certainly corresponds to the composition of the SM as well. 425 There is other corroborating evidence. Important evidence comes from Greek philosophy, for which division in three parts became increasingly important. How old these divisions are is difficult to determine, but investigations have shown that Xenocrates (396/395-314 BCE), the member of the Old Academy, introduced the three parts of "the physical" (TO cpvutK&v), "the ethical" (TO 1}8tK&v), and "the logical" (TO ..\oytK&v) into philosophy. 426 Most discussed were the

divisions developed by the Stoics427 and the Epicureans,428 again in three parts, formulated in accordance with the respective school traditions. From the philosophia tripertita was derived the theologia tripertita, proposed first by M. Terentius Varro (116-27 BCE). 429 The names and the order of the divisions depended on the respective school tradition or individual preference, but the accepted pattern is clearly visible. The three-part divisions served basically three purposes: systematization of school traditions, marking of distinctions between the schools, and polemic against the ideas of adversaries. In view of the SM it is important to note that dividing the essentials of religion into three parts seems to have been an accepted formal principle in judaism at the time as well. 430 It may be that Stoicism influenced the order of the parts. At least the tendency is common to deal with the fundamental concepts of God and cosmos first, with the cult second, while the third part is more open to variation. 431

critique, see Burchard, "Versuch," 428 n. 79 (ET: "Theme," 90 n. 79); Georg Strecker, Der Weg der

427 See Pierre Boyance, "Ciceron et les parties de Ia philosophie," Revue des etudes latines 49 (1971) 127Gerechtigkeit: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthiius 54; Pierre Hadot, "Les division des parties de Ia (FRLANT 82; 3d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & philosophie dans l'Antiquite," MH 36 (1979) 201-23; Ruprecht, 1971) 257-67; idem, Bergpredigt, 19 A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philoso(Sermon, 20). phers (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 423 See below, the Analysis ofSM/Matt 6:19-7:12. 1987) 1.160-62. 424 Cf. also b. Ber. 5a: "It has been taught: R. Simeon b. 428 See Robert Philippson, "Zu Philodems Schrift tiber Yohai says: The Holy One, blessed be He, gave Israel die Frommigkeit," Hermes 55 (1920) 225-78; 56 three precious gifts, and all of them were given only (1921) 355-41 0; Lieberg, "Die theologia tripertita," through sufferings. These are: The Torah, the Land 25-53. of Israel, and the world to come." Trans. by Maurice 429 According to Augustine De civitate Dei 6.5. Simon, Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian 430 Thus the conclusion of Lieberg, "Die theologia tripertita," 51: "Die angefuhrten Autoren zeigen, Talmud: Berakoth (London, Jerusalem, and New daB man seit dem fruhen Hellenismus die Vielfalt der York: Soncino, 1960). 425 Is there a relationship to the fact that three "pillars" religiosen Phanomene und die Moglichkeiten ihrer head up the Jewish-Christian church inJerusalem Vermittlung mehr oder weniger reflektiert nach dem (Gal 2:9)? Do these pillars consist merely of the Gesichtspunkt der Dreiteilung gliederte und persons James, Cephas, and John or also of their beurteilte." ("The authors referred to show that from the early Hellenistic period the multitude of religious theologies? Regrettably, there is no further information concerning the meaning of this concept of phenomena and the possibilities of their mediation three "pillars." See Betz, Galatians, 99; cf. Roger D. were more or less consciously categorized and evaluated in terms of a tripartite division.") Aus, "Three Pillars and Three Patriarchs: A Proposal concerning Gal 2:9," ZNW 70 (1979) 252-61. 431 Epictetus calls the three parts TO'lTOL ("elements" or "commonplaces"; Latin: loci): Diss. 3.2; 3.7.25; Ench. 426 See Friedrich Uberweg, GrundrijJ der Geschichte der 51; cf. Diss. 2.17.15; see AdolfBonhoffer, Epictet und Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 3: Altere Akademie, Aristoteles, Peripatos, ed. Hellmut Flashar die Stoa (Stuttgart: Enke, 1894) 13-28. (Basel and Stuttgart: Schwabe, 1983) 46-47, 69, 123; also Godo Lieberg, "Die theologia tripertita als Formprinzip antiken Denkens," RhM 125 (1982) 2553; idem, "Die 'theologia tripertita' in Forschung und Bezeugung," ANRW I, 4 (1973) 63-115.

63

If this assumption is correct, the divisions found in the SM and in the 'Abot may be intended as counterproposals to what the philosophers had to offer. 432 In a sense, therefore, W. D. Davies was right 433 when he suggested that the SM is a counterproposal to the rabbinic decisions ofjamnia, only the adversary was notjamnia but Greek philosophy. Davies will have to be given credit for having recognized the programmatic and polemical nature of the three-part division. I do not assume, however, that the SM was directly set up in opposition to 'Abot. Rather, I conclude that these and other tripartite divisions were originally separate and independent from each other, but that they came out of the larger debates and competition among schools of thought at the time. The significance of the three parts is therefore indicated by what they select and by the order in which they present what they have determined to be essential. The order in the SM is characterized by an internal logic. The first section of this three-part division is devoted to the interpretation of the Torah, a subject of the highest priority (5: 17-48). This section turns from the descriptive exordium (5:3-16) to explicit exhortation (5: 17). The first subsection (5: 17-20) sets forth doctrinal principles about what to think and what not to think (5: 17). The entire first section is altogether made up of seven subsections: the introductory "hermeneutical principles" (5:17-20) and the six "antitheses" (5:21-48). Dealing with six cases of Torah interpretation, this section of the SM lays the groundwork for what the SM regards as theological thinking about God, righteousness, Torah, Scripture, ethics, and eschatology. The "antitheses" can easily be subdivided into 2 x 3 cases, indicated by the dividing particle ?Ta.Aw ("again") in 5:33. These seven subsections of the first part of the body of the SM correspond to the seven subsections of the third and last part (6: 19-7: 12), only that there the "hermeneutical principle," the Golden Rule, comes at the very end (7:12). The middle section (6: 1-18) has again three subsec-

tions, devoted to the three main acts of worship. Following an introductory thesis (6: 1), the three acts of worship are almsgiving (6:2-4), prayer (6:5-15), and fasting (6: 16-18). They constitute the primary means of human response to the revelation of God's will in the section on the Torah (5:17-48). The cultic response (6: 1-18) is then followed by the "secular" response in 6:19-7:12. Among all the responses, whether cultic or not, giving is the first in priority. Therefore, almsgiving is named as the cultic act first in order (6:2-4); the issue of money is likewise the first in order in the "secular" affairs of daily life (6: 19-21 ). The reason is that giving gifts is a direct response to God's generosity as indicated in the previous section (see esp. 5:45). According to Jewish theology generally, it is a matter of justice (6: 1) to respond to God's generosity in kind. The second subsection of the middle part of the body is on prayer (6:5-15). Its composition is intricate because a second unit of teaching on prayer (6:7-13) and a related "sentence of sacred law" (6:14-15) have been inserted into an existing formula (6:5-6) that is part of the larger unit (6:1-4, 5-6, 16-18). As it now stands, the entire section of teaching on prayer (6:5-15) occupies the center of the SM as a whole, not only of the cultic teaching (6: 1-18). The centerpiece within the central subsection is the Lord's Prayer (6:9b-13). This architecture points to the central importance of prayer for the SM (prayer is mentioned also in the first subsection [5:44], and in the following subsection [7:7-11 ]). Thus, the architecture of the composition allows different perspectives on the SM from the beginning to the end, from the center to the periphery, and from the end to the beginning. In one sense, the Beatitudes form the beginning of the Two Way pattern, using the image of the ways oflife. In another sense, the eschatological goals (7: 13-23) determine the construction of the SM; even its beginning Beatitudes (5:3-12) contain eschatological promises. In yet another sense, the centerpiece of the Lord's Prayer calls attention to the centrality ofap-

432 Although this idea is a supposition, Philo (Spec. leg. 1.13-31) shows that he adopted the tripartite division from Hellenistic philosophy. For the appropriation by Christian theology, see the article by Lieberg, "Die theologia tripertita" (see above, n. 426). 433 See above, n. 422.

64

Introduction

proaching God in prayer; it also reminds us that this prayer is the oldest part of the tradition, going back, for all we know, to the historical jesus. Thus, the SM begins historically in the center as well. The third subsection regulates fasting (6:16-18). This traditional ritual, however, is given a special interpretation. Fasting is singled out as the ritual of self-denial and sacrifice. That it is to be joyful, not sullen and gloomy, is intended to qualify all other sacrificial aspects in the SM. It is to be noted that all three acts of worship have been interpreted in the light of the criticism of cultic activity contemporary with the SM. These reinterpreted acts of worship are then presupposed throughout the SM, so that all human responses must be seen as fundamental expressions of "giving and receiving," the balance of which constitutes righteousness. The third and last section of the body of the SM (6: 19-7: 12) concerns, as already mentioned, the human response to God's generosity in the affairs of daily life. In a way parallel to the first main section (5: 17-48) but chiastically arranged, this section considers six basic issues of human life (6: 19-7:11 ), with the "hermeneutical principle" to follow in 7: 12. This section recognizes that human response to God's generosity cannot be limited to cultic acts of worship, but that the "secular" world of daily business must also be included. Worship comes first, but what the disciples do in their daily affairs is just as important. Only when it all comes together can the better righteousness (5:20) be achieved (7:21-23). Scholars are still uncertain with regard to the nature, order, and internal logic of the six issues in 6:197:11. 434 At this point Gunther Bornkamm435 and Dale C. Allison 436 have made major proposals. Allison is convinced that these six divisions have a compositional pattern, because the same is true of all other sections of the SM. He sees a pattern of two parallel columns, each divided into instruction and

encouragement, and concluded by the Golden Rule. 437 The problem with this rather puzzling scheme is its tendency to achieve symmetry at almost any cost. The distinction between "instruction" and "encouragement" is artificial, without parallel warrants, and it does not fit the text. Rather, all six sections are at once instruction, exhortation, and encouragement. Furthermore, the distinction between "exhortation" and "parable" is too rigid. Rather, all sections use parables and metaphors as means in their arguments. Nevertheless, while Allison's scheme does not work as he has set it up, he is in my view right on his main points of observation: There is indeed a compositional structure to 6:19-7:12; the six sections deal with "social issues"; and the sections are determined by the Golden Rule (7: 12). Part III contains three sections of eschatological warnings (7:13-23). This part presupposes the conclusion of the main body (5: 17-7: 12); it looks back on it and characterizes it as "the troublesome road that leads to eternal life" (7:14). 438 The beginning imperative "enter into!" (dub.. Oau [7: 13 ]) recalls the programmatic conclusion of 5:20 concerning the "entering into the kingdom of the heavens" 439 and the Beatitudes at the beginning (5:3-12). The purpose of the section, however, is not so much to set up the conditions for entering into the kingdom, 440 because all of the SM is doing that, but to remind the disciples in no uncertain terms that God's justice requires the enforcement of standards. They must not misunderstand God's generosity, described so impressively in the preceding sections (6:25-34; 7:7-11). It is part and parcel of his righteousness and requires a response in kind on the side ofthe faithful disciples (7:21-23). As God is righteous through his generosity, so the disciples must respond righteously. In this way the Torah is upheld (5:17, 18) and God's will is obeyed (6:10; 7:21), but lawlessness will be the cause for condemnation in the last judgment (7:21-23).

434 For a more detailed analysis, see below, Introduction dominates the passages of Part III (occurring in 7: 13 [his], 15, 21). to SM/Matt 6:19-7:11. 440 Cf. Riesner, "Aufbau," 176: "eine Sammlung von 435 Seeabove,nn. 382and418. Einlafibedingungen ins Himmelreich" ("a collection 436 Allison, "Structure," 432-45, esp. 434-38. of entrance requirements into the kingdom of 437 Ibid., 435 with diagram. heaven"). 438 See Betz, Essays, 3; supported by Allison, "Structure," 430. 439 As Riesner ("Aufbau," 176) has seen, the term

65

Part N contains the peroration, using the parable of the two builders who build their houses on the rock and on the sand, respectively. This parable demonstrates the importance of "hearing and doing",the sayings of jesus, that is, all that is contained in the SM. This conclusion has a close parallel in the SP as well; its language is traditional in educational contexts. Thus, it provides a fitting and impressive conclusion to the SM, summarizing its meaning and purpose. 2. Conspectus: Sermon on the Plain • 6:20b-26 I. Exordium 6:20b-22 A. Four macarisms (2d person plural) 6:20b 1. First macarism a. Acclamation b. Addressees c. Statement of reason: anticipation of eschatological judgment (present) 6:21a 2. Second macarism a. Acclamation b. Addressees c. Statement of reason: eschatological prediction (future) 6:21b 3. Third macarism a. Acclamation b. Addressees c. Statement of reason: eschatological prediction (future) 4. Fourth macarism 6:22 a. Acclamation 6:22a b. Statement of conditions 6:22b-e 1) First condition: experience of hatred by 6:22b humankind (general) 6:22c-e 2) Second condition: experience of three kinds of harassment (specific) 6:22c a) Exclusion from society 6:22d b) Reproach 6:22e c) Blacklisting (1) Procedure and effect (2) Cause: "because of the Son of Man" 6:23 B. Call for joy 6:23a 1. Appeal a. First imperative: "rejoice" b. Reference to time: "on that day" c. Second imperative: "dance" 6:23b 2. Statement of reason: theological doctrine a. Demonstrative particle: "behold" b. Prediction of eschatological reward (present tense) c. Deduction (cf. vs 26b) 1) Statement of present experience: "they" did the same to you

66

2) Historical precedent: the old prophets suffered from the hand of "their" forefathers and were rewarded by God 3) Conclusion: a maiori ad minus and per analogiam, principle of equal justice 6:24-26 C. Four threats (2d person plural) 6:24 1. Connection, marking turning point: 11"A~v ("but") 2. First threat 6:24 a. Acclamation b. Addressees c. Statement of reason: eschatological consolation (present tense) 3. Second threat 6:25a a. Acclamation b. Addressees c. Statement of reason: eschatological prediction (future tense) 6:25b 4. Third threat a. Acclamation b. Addressees c. Statement of reason: eschatological prediction (future tense) 5. Fourth threat 6:26 6:26a a. Acclamation b. Addressees c. Statement of reason 6:26b 1) Specification of offense: accepting approval from all humankind 2) Deduction (cf. vs 23b) a) Historical precedent: "their" fathers did it to the pseudoprophets b) Hypothetical fact: when you let them do it to you c) Conclusion: per analogiam, principle of equal justice • 6:27-45 II. Rules for the conduct rif disciples 6:27-38 A. Toward the outside world 6:27a 1. Introductory formula a. Connection: a:l\:1\a ("but") b. Doctrinal reference formula 1) Author: "I say" 2) Addressees 2. Set of four maxims (in imperative form) 6:27b-28 a. First parallelismus membrorum 6:27b-c 1) First maxim: basic command of Jesus (cf. vs 6:27b 22a) 6:27c 2) Second maxim: variation (cf. vs 22b) b. Second parallelism us membrorum 6:28a-b 6:28a 1) Third maxim: variation (cf. vs 22c) 2) Fourth maxim: variation (cf. vs 22d) 6:28b 6:29-38 3. Argument a. Set of four examples (imaginary cases, exag6:29-30 gerated, demonstrating the seeming absurdity of the maxim)

Introduction

6:29a

6:29b

6:30a

6:30b

6:31-36 6:31

6:32-35 6:32-34

6:32 6:32a 6:32b 6:32c

6:33 6:33a 6:33b 6:33c

6:34 6:34a 6:34b 6:34c

6:35 6:35a

1) First example (specific) a) Action suffered b) Paradoxical reaction recommended (positive) 2) Second example (specific) a) Action suffered b) Paradoxical reaction recommended (negative) 3) Third example (general) a) Action suffered b) (Paradoxical?) reaction recommended (positive) 4) Fourth example (general) a) Action suffered b) Reaction recommended (negative) b. The presupposition 1) Ethical principle: the Golden Rule (formulated positively) a) Anticipated (desired) reaction by others b) Recommended action c) Presupposition: principle of do ut des 2) Commentary a) Refutation of the misunderstanding of the Golden Rule (vs 31) as applied to the command of Jesus (vs 27b); set of three rhetorical questions and answers (all negative) (1) First question (cf. vs 27b) (a) Description (hypothetical) of conventional (inadequate) behavior (b) Question (negative answer implied) (c) Statement of reason: observation that even criminals love those who love them (d) Conclusion (implied): such behavior receives no special reward (2) Second question (cf. vs 27c) (a) Description (hypothetical) of conventional (inadequate) behavior (b) Question (negative answer implied) (c) Statement of reason: observation that criminals do the same (d) Conclusion (implied): such behavior receives no special reward (3) Third question (cf. vs 30b) (a) Description (hypothetical) of conventional (false) behavior (b) Question (negative answer implied) (c) Statement of reason: observation that criminals do the same (d) Conclusion (implied): the Golden Rule does not meanthe exchange of favors among the like-minded; it would receive no special reward b) Correct understanding of the Golden Rule (vs 31) as applied to the command of Jesus (vs 27b) (1) Connection, marking turning point: 'lfA~v, "by contrast" (cf. vs 24) (2) Set of three imperatives (positive) (a) First imperative (general): "love your enemies" (repeated from vss 27b, 32)

(b) Second imperative (general): "do good" (repeated from vss 27c, 33) (c) Third imperative (specific): "lend money" (cf. vss 30b, 34) (d) Statement of critical difference: "expecting nothing in return" c) Conclusion (1) Two predictions (future tense) (a) General: great reward (cf. vs 23b) 6:35b (b) Specific: "you will be sons of the Most 6:35c High" (2) Statement of reason: doctrine of divine 6:35d philanthropy (a) Quotation mark: /Jn ("that") (b) Concerning God's nature (hymnic?); divine epithet: XP7Jun5s (c) Concerning human nature, the beneficiaries: "the ungrateful and the wicked" (cf. the question of x6.pts, "credit," vss 32b, 33b, 34b) 3) Conclusion: a maxim (imperative) 6:36 a) Imperative 6:36a b) Statement of reason: doctrine concerning the 6:36b nature of God c) Principle (implied): imitatio Dei c. Paraenetical application (positive) 6:37-38 1) Set of four maxims (in imperative form) 6:37-38a a) First parallelismus membrorum 6:37a-b (1) First maxim 6:37a (a) Imperative (negative) (b) Prediction: denial (gnomic) (2) Second maxim, climactic 6:37b (a) Imperative (negative) (b) Prediction: denial (gnomic) b) Second parallelism us membrorum (asyndetic) 6:37c-38a (I) Third maxim 6:37c (a) Imperative (positive) (b) Prediction (future, gnomic[?]) (2) Fourth maxim, climactic (principle of do ut 6:38a des) (a) Imperative (positive) (b) Prediction (future, gnomic[?]) 6:38b 2) Saying on measure (gnomic, asyndetic) a) Verbal image of what the good measure of grain looks like (prolepsis) (I) Technical term (2) Three descriptive participles (asyndetic) b) Prediction (gnomic future) 3) Conclusion: Saying on measuring (gnomic, 6:38c paronomasia) a) Description of action b) Prediction of reaction (gnomic future) 6:39-45 B. Toward the insiders, members of the group I. Presupposition: demonstration of the need for 6:39 education (preventive education)

67

6:39a

6:39b-c 6:39b 6:39c

6:40-45

6:40a 6:40b 6:41-42 6:41-42a 6:41

6:42a

6:42b

6:42c

6:43-45 6:43-44b 6:43 6:44a 6:44b

6:45

a. Introductory formula 1) Author: "he spoke" 2) Addressees 3) Hermeneutical category: proverbial image (1rapa{3oA~) b. Two rhetorical questions, describing what education is intended to prevent 1) First question: expected answer: no 2) Second question: expected answer: yes c. Conclusion (implied) 1) Observation: lack of "insight" 2) Goal of education is the good guide (ba71yor) who "sees" 2. Three basic rules for the learning community a. First rule concerning student-teacher relationship (two definitions) 1) First definition (negatively formulated): student and teacher before student's graduation 2) Second definition (positively formulated): student and teacher after student's graduation b. Second rule concerning relationship between student and students (diatribe composition) 1) Two consecutive rhetorical questions (using exaggerated images) a) First question ( 1) Description of criticism of others (2) Disclosure of failure of self-criticism b) Second question (1) Description of correction of others (2) Disclosure of failure of self-correction 2) Conclusion a) Address: "you hypocrite" b) Observation (implied): need for self-correction 3) Rule (formulated positively) a) Imperative: self-correction first b) Predicated result (1) Nature of competence (future, gnomic) (2) Recommended correction of fellow student c. Third rule concerning relationship to oneself (composition of gnomic sentences) 1) Set of three sententiae comparing plants and humans a) First sententia: agricultural rule (negatively formulated, chiastic parallelismus membrorum) b) Second sententia: agricultural rule (positively formulated) c) Third sententia: agricultural rule (negatively formulated) 2) Conclusions (implied) a) What is true of plants is also true of humans b) Deeds are inevitable consequences of the quality of the person 3) Application to anthropology: set of three statements a) First statement: juxtaposition of the good and

68

the bad person (positively formulated, antithetical parallelismus membrorum) ( 1) First definition: marks of the good person (o aya60r lf.v6puJ1I"Or) (2) Second definition: marks of the bad one (b 1rov71 p6r) b) Third statement: a proverb c) Observation (implied): need for self-knowledge • 6:46-49 Ill. Peroration A. Warning: a rhetorical question 1. Caricatured description of formal devotion 2. Sarcastic observation: the failure of not "doing" 3. Conclusion (implied): the contradiction marks the immature student 6:47-49 B. A double parable describing success and failure 6:47-48 1. First parable: the successful student a. Introduction 6:47 1) Marks ofthe good student: coming, hearing, 6:47a and doing the words of jesus 2) Announcement of the literary type of example 6:47b (1st person singular) 6:48 b. Example demonstrating success 6:48a 1) Formula of comparison 2) Focal person 3) Description of the process of building a house a) Excavating the ground b) Going deep down to rock c) Laying the foundation on the rock 6:48b 4) Description of calamities a) Rising flood b) Bursting of the river against the house 6:48c 5) Results a) Negative: the house is able to withstand b) Reason: it is well built 6:49 2. Second Parable 6:49a a. Introduction 1) Marks of the failing student: hearing, not doing [2) Omitted: announcement of example1 6:49b b. Example demonstrating failure 1) Formula of comparison 2) Focal person 3) Description of the process of building a house a) On the ground b) Without foundation 4) Description of calamities 6:49c [a) Omitted: rising flood1 b) Bursting of the river against the house 6:49d 5) Results a) Immediate collapse of the house b) Extent of the collapse

6:46 6:46a 6:46b

The SP, which has always remained in the shadow of the SM, has not been analyzed in detail until recently. As

Introduction

already pointed out, Tholuck pays almost no attention to it. 441 Although Ernst Christian Achelis (1838-1912) 44 2 agrees with most ofTholuck's views, his commentary on the SM contains a major section on the SPas well. 443 This section provides an analysis of the SP, which, in his view, has three parts: 44 4 A. A "hymnological introduction": the "blessings" and the "woes" (6:20b-26) B. The "new law oflove" (6:27-45), divided into two subsections: I. The love of the enemy (6:27-38) II. The love of the brother (6:39-45) C. Conclusion: A two-part exhortation (6:46-49) Remarkably, Wellhausen had already suggested that the SP is a compositional unit by itself, 445 but nobody came forward with an attempt at analysis until very recently. Thaddaus Soiron 446 finds reasons to confirm that the SP has a compositional structure. His analysis does not differ much from Ache lis, except that Soiron assumes a division by strophes. 447 Commentaries on Luke sometimes try to offer an outline of the SP, 448 but until Heinz Schiirmann's commentary there was little interest in the perspective of composition. 449 Recently, Heinrich Kahlefeld 450 and Jan Lambrecht 451 have presented more detailed analyses, which I have taken into consideration in my own. I agree with these earlier analyses that the SP has three major parts:

Part I consists of the exordium that takes the form of four beatitudes contrasted with four threats or "woes" (6:20b-26). The beatitudes of the SM and those of the SP have as many similarities as differences; I will discuss them in detail in the appropriate sections below. The most important difference is that the SP has no continuing sequence of beatitudes, but a set of four beatitudes (6:20b-22), which is juxtaposed with a set of four threats or "woes" (6:24-26); between them comes the call for joy (6:23), which the SM has at the end (Matt 5:12) of the sequence ofbeatitudes (5:3-11). The focus of the SP is not on "virtues," as in the SM, but on the contrast of the social types of the poor and the rich. 452 Part II contains the main body of the SP (Luke 6:2745); it is made up of rules of conduct for the disciples, presented in argumentative form. These rules are divided into two sections, one directed at the outside world (6:27-38), and the other at the inside world of the group of disciples (6:39-45). 45 3 The doctrinal basis of the whole is Jesus' love-command, set forth as a set of four maxims in imperative form (6:27b-28). A subsequent argument showing the validity of Jesus' command begins, seemingly negatively, with four examples demonstrating its absurdity (6:2930). A further positive argument points out how one should properly understand these maxims. First, the

441 See above, n. 151. 442 Achelis, Bergpredigt, 459: "Wir haben somit in Mt. 5 und in Lc. 6 denselben Anfang derselben Bergpredigt; nur flieBt dem Mt. die nahere und reinere QueUe, welche die Worte Jesu treu iiberliefert enthalt, wahrend Lc. sich mit einer entfernteren und durch die verwischende und vermischende Erinnerung getriibten QueUe begniigen musste." ("We have therefore in Matthew 5 and Luke 6 the same beginning of the same Sermon on the Mount, only that Matthew has the benefit of a closer and purer source, which transmitted jesus' sayings faithfully, while. Luke had to be content with a source further removed and muddied through a blurred and mixedup memory.") 443 Ibid., 433-92. 444 Ibid., 479-83, with names of predecessors, 479. 445 Wellhausen, Evangelium Lucae, 24 (Evangelienkommentare, 482). 446 Soiron, Bergpredigt, 111-27. 447 Ibid., 126-27. 448 See, e.g., Walter Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach

449 450 451

452 453

Lukas (ThHKNT 3; 2d ed.; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1961) 139-54; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (AB 28, 28A; 2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981, 1985) 1.62546, esp. 627-32. Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.323-86. Schiirmann's views will be discussed in detail below. Heinrich Kahlefeld, Der Junger: Eine Auslegung der Rede Lk 6,20-49 (Frankfurt a.M.: Knecht, 1962). Lambrecht, Sermon on the Mount, 32-39, 206-33. See also my review in]BL 106 (1987) 541-43. A "Formal Analysis" of the "Inaugural Sermon" is also found in Kloppenborg, Formation, 342-43. See below on SP /Luke 6:20-26. The name "disciple" (p.a871r~s) occurs in 6:40. See above, n. 409.

69

ethical principle of the Golden Rule is stated (6:31 ); then an exposition of this principle follows. Its first part, again negatively, shows how the Golden Rule should not be understood (6:32-34); this part takes the form of three rhetorical questions. A positive argument follows; three imperatives show how the Golden Rule must be understood properly (6:35). A concluding maxim (6:36) sums up the argument. The paraenetical application occurs by way of a set of four maxims in imperative form (6:37-38a), a verbal image (6:38b), and a concluding sententia (6:38c). The second section of the main body contains basic rules for the education of disciples (6:39-45). This section begins with an argument demonstrating the need for theological and ethical education (6:39). This is followed by three rules for the learning community (6:40-45): a rule for the relationship between student and teacher (6:40); another rule concerning relationships between students (6:41-42); and a third rule concerning the relationship to oneself (6:43-45). Part III begins with a warning in the form of a rhetorical question using caricature (6:46), and continues with the parable of the two house builders (6:47-49) familiar from the SM. To conclude: The detailed analyses of both the SM and the SP, as I have provided them in this commentary, lead to the following conclusions regarding the relationship between these two Sermons: 1. The relationship between the SM and the SP is characterized by great similarities and differences. These similarities and differences involve whole sections of texts as well as minute details of formulation, wording, style, and arrangement. The evidence leads me to conclude that the SM and the SP represent two separate and textually independent elaborations of a common pattern of composition. The evidence of the similarities and differences cannot be explained as the result of textual changes by one of the other. The SM is not simply an expansion of the SP; nor is the SP a reduction of the SM. It is not the case that everything that is in the SP is also found in the SM. Contrary to common assumption, the two Sermons do not follow the same order precisely; they do so only in a more general sense. Consequently, one 454 See above, n. 59, and Stoll, De virtute, 38-39.

70

must explain their relationship in terms other than textual dependency or revision of sources. 2. The two Sermons share component parts and overall arrangement. Both have an exordium, in which beatitudes constitute the major component. In addition to beatitudes, the SP has threats or "woes"; they are not found in the SM, which, however, has an eschatological warning section not found in the SP. Jesus' love-command plays the major role in the main body of both Sermons. Both Sermons carefully expound the meaning of this love-command, but in doing so they use rather different arrangements and arguments. The presuppositions and conclusions, however, are on the whole the same. Both Sermons recognize the Golden Rule as a fundamental ethical principle. Both Sermons conclude with the parable of the two house builders. Beyond these major components, the two Sermons share a pool of individual sayings, images, metaphors, and theological concepts. They also have in common that they both function in the eduction of disciples. 3. The differences between the SM and the SPare the result of the fact that they are different elaborations of similar material for similar purposes. The observation has been recorded earlier that the SM is designed to address an audience that is culturally Jewish, while the SP speaks to people who are culturally Greek. These different audiences require different arguments and other means of persuasion, so as to further their progress in comprehending and appropriating Jesus' message and ethos. These observations lead me to conclude that one must explain the compositions of the SM and the SP, their similarities and differences, by their literary genre and function, rather than by source criticism as understood in the terms of Harnack. This explanation, if it is to be persuasive, must coincide with other overall characteristics, especially those of comparative religion and theology. IV. The Literary Genre

The question whether the SM and the SP conform to a known literary genre was raised only in modern times. Since Augustine's De sermone domini in monte, 454 the SM

Introduction

has traditionally been treated as a sermo (English: "sermon"; German: Predigt or Rede). 455 This classification is, however, not satisfactory. Sermo is too broad a category, 456 and it takes its clues from the SM in the Gospel of Matthew, which is secondary. Matthew makes the SM the first of the great "speeches" set into the framework of his narrative. Yet, even Matthew calls the SM by the term used by the SM itself: ol A.&yot ("the sayings") 457 and~ otoax1/ ("the teaching") 458 of Jesus, not his A.&yos ("speech"). 459 It is not inconceivable that Matthew knew that the SM was, in strict terms, not a speech. Similar assumptions may be true of Luke, who calls the SP Tiz p1/p.aTa ("the pronouncements" [Luke 7:1 ]). Augustine, who used the term sermo, nevertheless treated the SM as a compendium, 460 a genre description not yet used by him in this context but only later by Erasmus, 461 who made it acceptable. In all probability, the German term often used by later scholars, "Zusam-

menfassung" ("summary") was derived from Erasmus, 46 2 or from Calvin, 463 or from both. The term may go back to Papias's concept of cn)vTafts Toov KvptaKWV A.&ywv ("collection of dominical sayings"). 464 Another category applied to the SM is "catechetical," especially since Alfred Seeberg attempted to reconstruct an early Christian baptismal catechism. 465 In his view, this catechism consisted of three parts and integrated older materials from a jewish proselyte catechism. Since then the term "catechism" has been used by others, even when they did not accept Seeberg's entire hypothesis. 466 While the search for a jewish proselyte catechism has been given up, the recent study of comparable Hellenistic-Jewish texts by Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr raises the issue again. He calls the texts he investigates "catechismlike" (katechismusartig). 467 It should be said, however, that the category of catechism fits only later Christian texts, 468 and that the adjective "catechism-like" is very

455 Hence the titles "Bergpredigt" or "Bergrede." 456 Michael D. Goulder (Midrash and Lection in Matthew [London: SPCK, I97 4)II, 26, I84-86) regards the SM as a sermon composed by a Christian scribe (Matthew) to be read in a synagogue at Pentecost. But the fact that the SM has a proem and a peroration is not enough to make it a synagogue sermon. Goulder's hypothesis is built on other elaborate presuppositions indicated in the title of his book. 457 As the SM refers to itself in SM/Matt 7:24, 26. See Betz, Essays, 3. 458 Cf. the verb atoa
463

464 465

466

467

gives less the impression of prophetic preaching than of a Church Catechism"; Betz, Essays, I n. 2. Calvin, In Novum Testamentum Commentarii (see above, n. I 09) l.I35 on Matt 5: I: "hie ante oculos positam habeant brevem summam doctrinae Christi, collectam ex pluribus et diversis eius concionibus" ("that here, before their eyes, they have set a short summary of the teaching of Christ, gathered from many and various discourses"). Papias, apud Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.39.I5-I6; for the text see Aland, Synopsis, 531. Alfred Seeberg, Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit (Leipzig: Deichert, I903; reprinted Theologische Bucherei 26; Munich: Kaiser, I966); cf. Wiard Popkes, "Die Gerechtigkeitstradition im Matthausevangelium," ZNW 80 (I989) I-23. See esp. Charles H. Dodd, "The 'Primitive Catechism' and the Sayings ofJesus," in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory ofT. W. Manson (Manchester: Manchester University, I959) I06-I8; reprinted in Dodd, More New Testament Studies (Manchester: Manchester University, I968) ll-29. Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, Gesetz und Pariinese: Katechismusartige Weisungsreihen in der fruhjudischen Literatur

(WUNT 2.28; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck), I987). 468 See esp. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Newly Baptized, which has many parallels to the SM and the SP. For the text, see the edition by Otto Stahlin, GCS I7.7.3 (I909) 22I-23; ET by George W. Butterworth (LCL; London: Heinemann, I9I9) 370-77. More comprehensive, but no less important for comparison, are the three books of The Pedagogue;

71

broad and can be applied to a variety of texts. 469 Also, this terminology is too specifically Christian to be applicable to other texts. 470 In its wider sense, much of the wisdom literature of Hellenistic Judaism can be called "catechetical," since it comes from a school milieu and serves pedagogy. It is not incidental that the SM and the SP are frequently mentioned in this connection as well. While Dibelius's 471 and Bultmann's works have only intimations regarding the literary genre of the SM and the SP, it is to Bornkamm's credit that he brought up the issue again in his SNTS presidential address of 1977. 4 72 He demanded that scholars give more attention to the still open question of the Gattung of the SM. However, Bornkamm also stated his skepticism to the effect that he did not see any real literary analog to the SM in either the primitive Christian or Jewish literature. In a list of possible analogs, Bornkamm considered from Qumran 1 QS, 1QSa, and the Damascus Document, and from rabbinic Judaism the Pirqe 'Abot. All these texts, he concluded, are structured differently. From Christianity, he named the Didache, calling it a "church order" (Kirchenordnung). Yet, the Didache resembles the SM more closely than Bornkamm realized, because the

similarities to the SM are mostly found in the first six chapters (Didache 1-6), the older part, while only the later chapters (Didache 7-15) make it a church order. On the whole, Bornkamm was too skeptical, 473 and that for several reasons: 1. More comparable texts exist than he considered; they come from Judaism as well as from Christianity. 2. At least Pirqe 'A bot and the Didache deserve more consideration. In the case of 'Abot 474 there are signs of development, since a later expansion exists in two versions, A and B ('Abot de Rabbi Nathan). 475 As for the Didache, there is the Doctrina apostolorum, which closely resembles Didache 1-6. 4 76 3. Even if such texts are composed in a different way, this does not necessarily preclude their belonging to the same literary genre. 4. The question of the genre requires a discussion of the function as well. Taking my departure from Dibelius and Bornkamm, I proposed a new solution in my 1978 Inaugural Lecture at the University of Chicago. 477 Making use of functional and literary hints in the SM itself, I proposed the classification of epitome for the SM. Tracing literary clues in the text to appropriate

see the text in GCS 17.7 .1, 2d ed. (1972); ET by Charles Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, ComWilliam Wilson, Clement of Alexandria (Ante-Nicene prising Pirqe Aboth in Hebrew and English with Notes and Excursuses (2d ed.; New York: KTAV, 1969 [reprint Christian Library 4.1; Edinburgh: Clark, 1871) 113of the 1st ed., 1897]). For bibliography, see Emil 346. 469 On the whole, see Andre Turck, "Catechein et Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of catechesis chez les premiers Peres," RSPhTh 47 (1963) jesus Christ (ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black; rev. ed.; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: Clark, . 361-72; idem, Evangelisation et catechese aux deux premiers siecles (Paris: Cerf, 1962); Paul Blomenkamp, 1973-87) 1.82-83; 3.214-15. 475 For a translation and notes, see Judah Goldin, The "Erziehung," RAG 6 (1966) 502-59, with bibFathers according to Rabbi Nathan (Version A) (1955; liography; Georg Kretschmar and Karl Hauschildt, reprinted New York: Schocken, 197 4); Anthony J. "Katechumenat/Katechumenen," TRE 18 (1988) 114. Saldarini, The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (Abot de Rabbi Nathan [Version B ]) (SJLA 11; Leiden: Brill, 4 70 Especially important is Gregory of Nyssa's Great 1975); idem, Scholastic Rabbinism: A Literary Study of Catechetical Speech. See the new edition and comthe Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (BJS 14; Chico, mentary by Joseph Barbel, Die groj3e katechetische Rede: Oralio catechetica magna (Bibliothek der griechischen Calif.: Scholars, 1982). 476 For the edition and bibliography, see above, n. 24. Literatur 1; Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1971). For an 4 77 Published under the title, "The Sermon on the ET, see Edward R. Hardy and Cyril C. Richardson, Mount (Matt 5:3-7:27): Its Literary Genre and eds., Christology of the Later Fathers (LCC 3; London: Function," JR 59 (1979) 285-97; reprinted in Betz, SCM, 1954) 268-325. On Gregory, see the article by Heinrich Dorrie, "Gregor III (Gregor von Nyssa)," Essays, 1-16. RAG 12 (1983) 863-95, esp. 875-76. 471 See the references above, n. 462; also nn. 323-25. 472 Bornkamm, "Aufbau," esp. 432. See also above, n. 382. 473 Bornkamm says nothing about the SP. 4 7 4 See the text and translation by Herford, Pirke A both;

72

Introduction

technical terms of Hellenistic rhetoric led me to specific Hellenistic texts associated with these terms. A text closely comparable to the SM turned out to be Epictetus's Encheiridion, a handbook-type compilation of sayings of the philosopher. Like other such works, the Encheiridion belongs to the category of epitome, more specifically the philosophical epitome. The prototype for Epictetus's Encheiridion was Epicurus's Kyriai Doxai ("Principal Doctrines").47 8 Not surprisingly, my proposal met with criticism by those New Testament scholars who were unfamiliar with this material and kind ofreasoning. 479 They offered the following objections, all of them in my view inconsequential:480 1. There are "substantial differences in form between the K yriai Doxai and Matt 5-7." While this fact cannot be denied, the conclusions drawn from it are inaccurate: (a) "Whereas the Kyriai Doxai is a synopsis of the whole ofEpicurus's philosophical system, the SM includes only part ofthe teaching of Jesus-the ethical teaching." This objection, however, is inaccurate. In all likelihood the SM as well as the SP are designed to sum up "the whole" of Jesus' teaching, each in a different way for different audiences. What "the whole" is needs to be determined in each case; in the case of the SM and the SP, reference is made to Jesus' teaching as a whole, that is, the pool of sayings from which the SM has drawn its material. Moreover, the SM, in particular, contains not only "ethics" but interpretation of the Torah and matters of cult as well, not to mention theology, cosmology, and eschatology; in a different way than ethics does, the SP emphasizes anthropology and education. (b) "There are a number of verses in the Sermon, especially in the Antitheses, 5:21-48, which hardly qualify for inclusion in a concise synopsis on the basis of

their 'primary importance'; they seem to have been included in their present context as illustrations (e.g. 5:39b-42), or as the result either of a catchword connection or of broadly similar content." This statement is obviously speculative, although made as if factual. It overlooks that, in the present composition of both the SM and the SP, all segments are part of a thoroughgoing argumentation that also uses illustrations, catchwords, association of ideas, and so forth. Therefore, none of these features precludes the hypothesis of an epitome, but are part of it; they are found in many other epitomai as well. (c) "Whereas the Kyriai Doxai probably contains no literary structure at all, the SM has been carefully composed." This objection takes up Hermann Usener's claim of 1887, reported by me, 481 but regards it as a fact, not as a claim. 482 Like many such claims made at the time about texts having no recognizable structure, Usener's was also wrong. There are, however, definite indications, which need a detailed investigation, that the Kyriai Doxai does contain a literary structure. There is also evidence of heavy use of catchword connection and association of ideas. 2. The point has been made that my hypothesis rests on the presupposition that the epitome as a literary genre of Hellenistic origin was "known in strict Jewish-Christian circles within a generation of Jesus' death"; there is, however (thus goes the objection), no evidence of other Jewish epitomai at this time. 483 But such analogs do exist. One should not rule out the factual existence of a phenomenon simply on the grounds that it has not been

480 The following is a reply to Stanton, "Origin," 183. 481 Betz (Essays, 13) refers to Hermann Usener, Epicurea (1887; reprinted Stuttgart: Teubner, 1966), p. XLIV. 482 One should note that Stanton's objection is not based on any new investigation of Epicurus's work; he and Interpretation in the N!!W Testament: Essays in simply takes Usener's remark as a proven fact. Honour of E. Earle Ellis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 181-92, esp. 182-83; reprinted in his A Gospel 483 So Carlston, "Betz on the Sermon," 50. for a NI!W People: Studies in Matthi!W (Edinburgh: Clark, 1992) 307-25; Charles E. Carlston, "Betz on the Sermon on the Mount-A Critique," CBQ 50 (1988) 47-57, esp. 50-51.

478 Idem, Essays, 11-15. 479 See the reviews ofBetz, Essays, by Graham N. Stanton,JTS 37 (1986) 521-23; idem, "The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount," in Gerald F. Hawthorne and Otto Betz, eds., Tradition

73

adequately investigated. Hellenistic-Jewish literature includes a number of works that on closer examination can be shown to be epitomai. It is also known that Hellenistic-Jewish literature chooses literary genres of Greek origin. Indeed, it is quite possible that the literary success of Epicurus's Kyriai Doxai led Hellenistic-Jewish authors to come up with contrapropositional imitations. 484 At any rate, works such as Ben Sira, 485 PseudoPhocylides, 486 Philo's Hypothetica, 487 and the Wisdom of Solomon488 are prime candidates for comparisonworks that have now been collected and discussed by Max Kiichler, 489 James Charlesworth, 490 Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr,49I and John Kloppenborg. 492 Many of them are put together in the corpus ofjudische Schriften aus hellenistisch-romischer Zeit, volume 3: Unterweisung in lehrhafter Form. 493 The collection in Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, volume 2, has a section entitled "Wisdom and Philosophical Literature," among them Ahiqar, Pseudo-Phocylides, and the Sentences of the Syriac Menander. Other such writings come from different branches of Judaism: the Manual of Discipline (lQS, lQSa), and the Damascus Document from Qumran; the Pirqe 'Abot494

and the 'Abot de Rabbi Nathan (versions A and B) from rabbinic Judaism. No investigations of their composition have been conclusive as yet, but one can hardly doubt that all of them functioned as epitomai of the doctrines considered essential by those Jewish movements which produced them. These observations lead to the conclusion that at least in the Hellenistic era the literary genre of the epitome was transcultural. One can see from Egyptian literature also how this genre developed in a different context. In ancient Egypt, the "Teachings" are firmly established as a literary genre.4 95 There can be no serious doubt that this literature has influenced the biblical literature as early as the Old Testament. 496 Later, in the Hellenistic period, Greek material and ideas influenced both Egyptian and Jewish wisdom literature. On the Egyptian side, such influences have been shown in the Papyrus Insinger, the Demotic sayings tradition, and the Teachings of Silvanus from Nag Hammadi. 497 The Teachings of Silvanus have become superficially Christianized. Such a history that begins in Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom and continues in Christianity can also be assumed for the Didache (Didache 1-6), 498 the Doctrina

484 See my remark in the article, "Hellenismus," TRE 15 (1986) 20-21. 485 See Helge Stadelmann, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter: Eine Untersuchung zum Berufsbild des vor-makkabiiischen SOfor unter Berilcksichtigung seines Verhiiltnisses zu Priester-, Propheten- und Weisheitslehrertum (WUNT 2.6; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1980). 486 See the commentary by Pieter W. van der Horst, The Sentences ofPseudo-Phocylides: With Introduction and Commentary (SVTP 4; Leiden: Brill, 1987); Niebuhr, Gesetz und Pariinese (see above, n. 467) 5-31. 487 See Niebuhr, Gesetz und Pariinese, 13-72. 488 Ibid., 211-16, with further bibliography. 489 Max Kuchler, Frilhjildische Weisheitstraditionen: Zum Fortgang weisheitlichen Denkens im Bereich des Jrilhjudischenjahweglaubens (OBO 26; Fribourg: Universit!itsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). 490 James Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983-85). 491 See above, n. 486. 492 Kloppenborg, Formation, 329-41. 493 Unterweisung in lehrhafter Form OSHRZ 3; Giitersloh: Mohn, 197 4-81 ). 494 These writings were mentioned by Bomkamm, "Aufbau," 432; see Betz, Essays, 2 n. 5.

74

495 See Hellmut Brunner, Altiigyptische Erziehung (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1957); idem, "Lehren," LdA 3 (1980) 964-68, and the articles by various authors on the various "Instructions," LdA 3 (1980) 968-92 (with bibliography); idem, Altagyptische Weisheit: Lehren Jilr das Leben (Zurich and Munich: Artemis, 1988); idem, in Wolfgang Rollig, ed., Das hiirende Herz: Kleine Schriften zur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte Agyptens (OBO 80; Fribourg: Universit!itsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988); Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 3 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California, 197 5); idem, Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context: A Study of Demotic Instruction (OBO 52; Fribourg: Universit!itsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983). 496 See Brunner, LdA 3 (1980) 968; idem, Das horende Herz, 391-427, with further bibliography; Kuchler, Weisheitstraditionen, passim; James L. Crenshaw, "Education in Ancient Israel," JBL 104 (1985) 60115. 497 NHC VII, 4, 84.15-118.7. See Malcolm L. Peel and Jan Zandee, "The Teachings of Silvanus," in James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (3d ed.; Leiden: Brill; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988) 379-95. 498 See above, n. 22.

Introduction

apostolorum, 499 the Two Ways schema in Barnabas 1820, the Mandates ofHermas, 500 and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. 50 I

The Greek side has important literary precursors in addition to Epictetus and Epicurus. Most important are the "Oral Instructions," acusmata (aKoVup.ara) designed for the "auditors" (aKovup.anKol), the class of "undergraduate" students of the Pythagorean school. 50 2 These "oral instructions" are quoted in Iamblichus Vita Pyth. 18.80-8 7; Porphyry Vita Pythagorae 42; Plutarch Liberis educ. 17, 12D-F; and Diog. L. 8.17-18. 503 The sources may go back to Aristotle's lost treatise "On the Pythagoreans" (IIt:pl. ITvBayopt:lwv). 504 The acusmata constitute a compendium of apparently mysterious sayings that, to the initiated who knew what they meant, summed up the essentials of the Pythagorean way of life. According to Armand Delatte, this "catechism" had two parts, "doctrines" and "precepts." These acusmata exerted a great influence even beyond the limits of the Pythagorean

circles. The question has also been raised how the acusmata are related to the so-called Golden Verses (Xpvua "E11'1J) of Pythagoras. Whereas no clear answer has so far been given to this question, the dissertation by Johan Thorn has shown that the Golden Verses are, as regards their genre and function, an epitome of sayings comparable to the SM and the SP. 5 05 One remarkable observation is the number of parallels that can be established between these compendia and the SM and the SP. 506 One can hardly have any doubt that these compendia played a major role in philosophical studies. Moreover, in the Hellenistic period, all philosophy was considered the ars vitae et moriendi ("the art of life and of dying"), 507 so that to have epitomai drawing together the main precepts of philosophy was considered most useful. The purpose of such epitomai was in the first place to serve the appropriation of basic teachings by philosophical adepts. 508 The theories and practices

499 See above, n. 24. Commentary (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 500 See Reinhart Staats, "Hermas," TRE 15 (1986) I 00123; Leiden: Brill, 1995). 108; A. Hilhorst, "Hermas," RAG l4 (1988) 682506 A good number of parallels have been pointed out by 701, esp. 692-93, onHermas Man. 6.1.2-5; Norbert Isidore Levy, La ligende de Pythagore de Gri!ce en Brox, Der Hirte des Hermas (Kommentar zu den Palistine (Paris: Champion, 1927) 315-20. Apostolischen Vatern 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & 507 See Albrecht Dihle, "Philosophie-FachwissenschaftRuprecht, 1991) 222-28. Allgemeinbildung," in Aspects de la philosophie 501 See the critical edition by Marinus deJonge, The hellinistique (Entretiens sur l'antiquite classique 32; Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of Vandoeuvre-Geneve: Fondation Hardt, 1986) 185the Greek Text (PVTG 1.2; Leiden: Brill, 1978); H. W. 223, esp. 186: "Das in disziplinierter, nachprufbarer Hollander and M. deJonge, The Testaments of the Ausdrucksweise dargelegte und gesicherte GrundTwelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden: wissen vom Aufbau der Welt und der Stellung der Brill, 1985); Howard C. Kee, OTP 1.775-828; Menschen in ihr soli den Adepten befahigen, sich in Jurgen Becker, Die Testamente der ZwolfPatriarchen bewuBtem Handeln mit der Naturordnung in QSHRZ 3.1; Gutersloh: Mohn, 197 4). Ubereinstimmung zu setzen und derart das ihm 502 The Pythagoreans distinguished between two classes zugeordnete Lebensziel zu erreichen." of students, the "acusmatics" and the "mathemati508 See Benjamin Ludwig Hijmans, Al:KHl:IE: Notes on cians," representing different stages of initiation into Epictetus' Educational System (Assen: Van Gorcum, philosophy. See Kurt von Fritz, Mathematiker und 1959), with the review by Willy Theiler, Gnomon 32 Akusmatiker bei den alten Pythagoreern (SBAW.PH (1961) 498-500; Ilsetraut Hadot, Seneca und die 1960:11; Munich: Beck, 1960). Cf. SP/Luke 6:40. griechisch-romische Tradition der Seelenleitung (Berlin: 503 For an edition and commentary, see Armand de Gruyter, 1969); Pierre Hadot, Exercises spirituels et Delatte, Etudes sur la litterature pythagoricienne (Paris: philosophie antique (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, Champion, 1915) 271-312; Delatte speaks of"Le 1981 ); idem, "Antike Methodik der geistlichen catechisme des acousmatiques." See also Martin P. Ubungen im Fruhchristentum," in Das Christentum in Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion (2d ed.; der antiken Welt, Humanistische Bildung 4 ( 1981) 31Munich: Beck, 1961) 2.699-708; Walter Burkert, 62; Abraham]. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation: A Greek Religion (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniGraeco-Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia: Westminster, versity, 1985) 301-4. 1986); Robert]. Newman, "Cotidie meditare: Theory 504 So von Fritz, Mathematiker, 14. and Practice of the meditatio in Imperial Stoicism," 505 For an edition and commentary, seeJohan C. Thorn, ANRWII, 36/3 (1989) 1473-1517. The Pythagorean 'Golden Verses': With Introduction and

75

connected with this education then led to longer treatises on education generally, 509 directed at students in elementary or secondary education. 510 Later, this type of teaching material continued in the monastic rules of Basilius ofCaesarea (c. 329-379), 511 Augustine (354430),512 and Benedict ofNursia (c. 480/490555/560).513 It should be pointed out that even in these later monastic rules the influence of the SM and the SP is extraordinary. 5l4 While major studies of this influence are lacking, Karlmann Beyschlag's dissertation of 1953 515 has demonstrated the great importance of the SM for the life and thought of Francis of Assisi (1181/1182-1226), and for the monastic rules of the Franciscan order. Can one subsume all these texts under the literary category of epitome? Admittedly, even if the texts are in one way or another comparable, this should not be taken to mean that they all are simply epitomai. The answer, therefore, depends to some degree on what one defines an epitome to be. What then are the characteristics of an epitome? 516 As a book title, 51 7 "epitome" has been used since the fourth century BCE, the name deriving from the verb

E7T&Ttp.vnv ("cut short," "divide"). Latin equivalents are epitoma or breviarium. As the article by Ilona Opelt shows, one must distinguish many different subtypes of the genre; also one must not confuse the genre with other similar genres, such asgnomologium, anthology, florilegium, catena, commentary, and so forth. 518 As a literary work, the epitome is secondary in nature. It is a condensation of a larger work, made by a redactor (who may at the same time be the author of the larger work), 519 and for a specific purpose. Consequently, because of the different types of material going into an epitome, individual epitomai may differ greatly in appearance, while in regard to genre and function they may be very similar. Being a secondary work, therefore, the epitome presupposes an earlier and larger work to be epitomized. Ancient authors have at times described the process of epitomizing as a redactional reworking and rearranging of carefully selected excerpts. 520 These excerpts are taken from already existing sources, written, oral, or both. 5 2 1 Sometimes such sources are extant as well, sometimes not, 522 and they may be homogeneous or heterogeneous in terms of the material contained in

509 See esp. Plutarch's treatises "On Listening" (De audiendo) and "On Listening to the Poets" (De audiendis poetis). Cf. Brian P. Hillyard, Plutarch, "De audiendo": A Text and Commentary (New York: Arno, 198I); D. M. Schenkeveld, "The Structure of Plutarch's De audiendis poetis, • Mnemosyne 35 (1982) 60-71. 510 See Pseudo-Plutarch, "On the Education of Children" (De liberis educandis), the only treatise on education we possess from antiquity. See Edmund G. Berry, "The De liberis educandis of Pseudo-Plutarch," HSCP 63 (1958) 387-99. 511 See Wolf-Dieter Hauschild, "Basilius von Caesarea," TRE 5 (1980) 301-13, with bibliography. 5I2 See Adoar Zumkeller, "Augustinusregel, • TRE 4 (I979) 745-48, with bibliography. 513 See above, n. 35; also Frumentus Renner, "Benediktusregel," TRE 5 (I980) 573-77, with bibliography. 5I4 For references see also above, nn. 34 and 35. 5I5 Karlmann Beyschlag, Die Bergpredigt und Franz von Assisi (BFCTh 2.57; Giitersloh: Bertelsmann, 1955); Werner Goez, "Franziscus von Assisi," TRE II (1983) 299-307, with bibliography. 516 See Hermann Peter, Griechische Litteratur der romischen Kaiserzeit bis Theodosius I und ihre Quellen (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1897) 2.34I-83, esp. 365-

76

67; Eduard von Wolfflin, "Epitome," Archivfilr lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik I2 ( I902) 333-44; Henricus Bott, De epitomis antiquis (Mar-

51 7 518

519 520

521

522

burg: Hamel, I920); Ilona Opelt, "Epitome," RAG 5 (I962) 944-73; Betz, "The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:3-7:27): Its Literary Genre and Function," in Essays, IO-I5 (also Betz, Synoptische Studien, 779I); Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 85-104, with examples esp. from Hierocles the Stoic (2d century CE). Some epitomai are not designated as such by the book title. See Opelt, "Epitome," 944-45. Cf. also Karlfried Froehlich, "Bibelkommentare-Zur Krise einer Gattung," ZThK 84(1987) 465-92. Opelt, "Epitome," 957-58. For example, Epicurus Epistula ad Herodotum, in Diog. L. I0.35 (see Betz, Essays, 11-I2; Bott, De epitomis, 5-7). Arrian'sEnchiridion ofEpictetus is based on the philosopher's oral teaching and on his student's written notes. Epictetus's Dissertations were written down by Arrian. See Opelt, "Epitome," 960.

Introduction

them. At any rate, the epitomator fashions a new work consisting of whatever materials he decided to use. 523 The characteristics of the epitome include brevity and precision in selection and formulation, but the epitome is more than simply a collection of selected passages (an anthology or florilegium). Rather, the epitomator has a systematic whole in mind, so that the selected materials are integrated into a systematic synopsis. In composing the epitome, the epitomator has considerable freedom to be creative, to reformulate, to transpose, to add, or to omit in view of the overall purpose and genre. As demonstrated previously, the SM, when viewed as an epitome, comes close to one of the finest examples of the philosophical epitome, 524 Epictetus's Encheiridion. 5 2 5 A number of observations may be made at this point. 5 2 6 The Encheiridion is a compilation of sayings of Epictetus, made by his student Arrian from the philosopher's Dissertations (BtaTpt{3a{). In this literary sense, therefore, the Encheiridion is secondary as compared with the Dissertations. In terms ofthe origins of the material, however, the Encheiridion precedes the Dissertations insofar as it contains the fundamental sententiae that serve as the basis of the expositions in the Dissertations. Arrian himself has provided helpful information for understanding his methods and purposes; he does so in the epistolary prooemium addressed to Lucius Gellius. 52 7 Accordingly, the Dissertations contain the sayings (A.oyot) of Epictetus as Arrian wrote them down in his notebooks (i!7Top.vrjp.aTa). These sayings, therefore, existed previously in oral form only, since Epictetus did not write them down himself.

The present work of the Encheiridion, Arrian says, was written and published in order to fight opponents who despised not only him but also Epictetus's sayings and doctrines. These sayings, he assures us, were once powerful enough "to incite the mind of his hearers to the best things. If, now, these words of his should produce the same effect, they would have, I think, just the success which the words of the philosophers ought to have." 5 2 8 For information concerning the Encheiridion, however, we have to turn to Simplicius's commentary, in which he quotes from a letter by Arrian. According to this quotation, the Encheiridion was composed by selecting from Epictetus's sayings those that he deemed most important and essential for his philosophy and that would have the strongest impact on the readers. 529 In the Encheiridion itself, Arrian calls these fundamentals "canons" or "rules" (Kav0v£s-), 530 which the philosopher ought to have always "at hand" (7rp6xnpov), 531 for his "training" (p.£A£Tav). 5 32 In terms of its literary genre, the Encheiridion belongs to the philosophical epitome. 533 Admittedly the most famous example of this category in antiquity was Epicurus's Kyriai Doxai. 534 The concept of Kavwv ("canon, rule") also comes from Epicurus, 535 as Epictetus himself acknowledges in Diss. 2.23.21.

523 Ibid., 962. 524 For a survey of philosophical epitomai see ibid., 95052. 525 Ibid., 951, no. 61. 526 See Betz, Essays, 10-11, referring to Michael Spanneut, "Epiktet," RAG 5 (1962) 599-681; Theo Wirth, "Arrians Erinnerungen an Epiktet," MH 24 (196() 149-89, 197-216; Thomas Schmeller, Paulus und die "Diatribe": Eine vergleichende Stilinterpretation (NTA, n.s. 19; Munster: Aschendorff, 1987) 15767. See my review in]TS 40 (1989) 197-200. 527 In Henricus Schenkl's edition, Epictetus (Berlin: Teubner, 1965) 5-6. 528 Ibid., 5, lines 15-19. 529 Ibid., III, testimonium III. 530 Ench. 1.5. Cf. Diss. 1.28.28, 30; 2.11.13-25; 2.20.21; 3.3.14, 15, etc. For the importance of the term, see

Harlot, Seneca, 57, 58. 531 Ench. 1.5; 16; 52.2; 53.1; and often in the Dissertations. 532 Ench. 1.5. 533 So correctly Opelt, "Epitome," 951, no. 67. 534 Diog. L. 10.139-54. See Wolfgang Schmid, "Epikur," RAG 5 (1962) 618-819, esp. 695-97,74346; Horst Steckel, "Epikuros," PWSup II (1968) 579-652, esp. 586-87, 598-99; Norman W. DeWitte, Epicurus and His Philosophy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1954) 111-13: "The Use of the Epitome." 535 Diog. L. 10.129; Graziano Arrighetti, ed., Epicuro: Opere (2d ed.; Turin: Einaudi, 1973) 139, frg. 31.21, line 13; 354, frg. 34.31, line 14; 356, frg. 34.22, line 7. See also Usener, Epicurea, 104-6.

77

Arrian obviously imitated Epicurus's tetrapharmakos,536 "the fourfold medicine" mentioned at the beginning of the Kyriai Doxai, when he placed Epictetus's most important principles at the beginning of the Encheiridion. 537 Epicurus, therefore, may well have been the creator of this particular type of epitome, but he in turn may have had in mind other precursors of a similar nature. 538 Fortunately for us, he openly admits why he has created this particular philosophical work. Briefly stated, the purpose of his Kyriai Doxai was auxiliary, a pedagogical tool, for many of his students were unable to study his magnum opus, thirty-seven books On Nature (7r
have the Kyriai Doxai and the epistles a great deal of material in common, and not only do both the Kyriai Doxai and the Epistle to Herodotus begin with the tetrapharmakos, but also later authors treat the Kyriai Doxai as an epitome. 542 As a result, one can conclude that the Kyriai Doxai is one of several epitomai circulating in the Epicurean school, very similar to the epistles but different from them due to their epistolary subcategory. 543 All of the characteristics of the epitome fit the Kyriai Doxai, a work that includes forty philosophical sayings or groups of sayings taken from the larger works of Epicurus. As a compositional unit, the Kyriai Doxai represents his philosophical system as a whole. The first four sayings, the tetrapharmakos, constitute the principles underlying everything else, a kind of summary of the summary. As I have stated, these Kyriai Doxai sum up Epicurus's "system," but this system is not simply identical with his work On Nature; rather, what is summed up is the philosoph~r's thought and teaching as a whole. Unfortunately, scholars have not reached a consensus with regard to the literary structure and composition of the Kyriai Doxai, so that Hermann Usener's verdict-that it has no structure at all and that for this very reason the work may even be inauthentic-still awaits a definitive answer. 544 For our purposes, however, it is enough to conclude that the Kyriai Doxai can be expected to have a

536 So Hadot, Seneca, 56-57, who also points to other curean school; see the Vita Epicuri, in Diog. L. 10.27, 31. examples of imitations ofEpicurus, e.g., Seneca and the regula vitae of Demetrius the Cynic (see Seneca De 541 The Vita Epicuri calls the Epistle to Herodotus an ben. 7.1.3-7.2.1). epitome, and then mentions the Kyriai Doxai separately (Diog. L. 10.31). 537 Ench. 1.1.3. 538 See above, n. 502, on the acusmata of the Pythago542 See also Diogenes ofOenoanda in C.W. Chilton, ed., Diogenis Oenoandensis fragmenta (BT; Leipzig: reans. 539 Diog. L. 10.35: otalipiiv lmTop.~v Tij~ /5)1:'1~ Teubner, 1967), frg. 23: lmTop.~ ~litK~; also the orpayp.aTEla~. The translations here and following are characterization of the K yriai Doxai by Cicero De nat. deor. 1.30.85; De fin. 2. 7 .20; Lucian Alex. 4 7. by R. D. Hicks, Diogenes Laertius: Lives ofEminent Philosophers (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, 543 The suggestion that the Kyriai Doxai is an epitome is by no means arbitrary, as Stanton seems to object, Mass.: Harvard University, 1925). See also Diog. L. "Origin," 182: "Betz freely acknowledges that 10.37: "I have prepared for you just such an epitome Epicurus himself does not use the term epitome [sc. and manual of the doctrines as a whole" (£oroL7Jrr6. rrot Kat TOta-IJr1JV TLVb; f7rLTOfL~V Kat UTOI.X£lwuLV rWv CJAwv for the Kyriai Doxai]." See Betz, Essays, 11-13. 544 See above, n. 482. ootwv). 540 The Epistle to Pythocles calls the Epistle to Herodotus the "little epitome" (p.tKplt lortTop.~) (Diog. L. 10.85), but this designation is as doubtful as the authenticity of the letter (see Cyril Bailey, Epicurus [Oxford: Clarendon, 1926)277; Steckel, "Epikuros," 612). At least several epitomai were circulating in the Epi-

78

Introduction

structure and that it represents a philosophical epitome. 'thanks to Epicurus himself we are well informed about the function of his epitomai. Since, as already mentioned, many of his students proved unable to study the larger works, the whole system had to be epitomized, "to preserve in the memory enough of the principal doctrines, to the end that on every occasion they may be able to aid themselves on the most important points." 545 Therefore, the epitome was not intended for outsiders546 or beginners, but for the advanced students: "Those who have made some advance in the survey of the entire system ought to fix in their minds under the principal headings an elementary outline of the whole treatment of the subject. For a comprehensive view is often required, the details but seldom."5 47 The method to obtain this knowledge is spelled out at several points. The epitome is composed in such away that it facilitates a carefully worked out learning process. The goal of this continual learning is to keep a vision of the entire system as well as the seminal formulations of doctrinal positions and key terms constantly in the minds of the students. "For it is impossible to gather up the results of continuous diligent study of the entirety of things, unless we can embrace in short formulas and hold in mind all that might have been accurately expressed even to the minutest detail." 548 The practical purpose is evident from statements in the Epistle to Menoeceus: "Those things which without ceasing I have declared unto thee, those do, and exercise thyself, holding them to be the elements of right life. " 549 Again, in the epilogue of that letter: "Exercise thyself in these and

kindred precepts day and night, both by thyself and with him who is like unto thee; then never, either in waking or in dream, wilt thou be disturbed, but wilt live as a god among men. For man loses all semblance of mortality by living in the midst of immortal blessings." 550 Thus, in order to be an Epicurean one does not need to have the whole system worked out in detail. Rather, it is more important to keep philosophizing in the Epicurean way at every stage of the student's advancement. To facilitate this educational process is the purpose of the Kyriai Doxai. Having the principal doctrines always "at hand," the philosophers are then free to develop individual topics on their own; these may be needed in debates or in their own writings. Nonetheless, merely knowing the system or all the sententiae is not enough. The goal must be that the philosophy is practiced: "practicing and meditating" ('1TpaTHLV Kat p.EAETav) must always go hand in hand to be valid. So much for Epicurus and his Kyriai Doxai. What is true of his work applies mutatis mutandis to others like it, in particular to those that imitate it. Depending on the philosophical school tradition, the material, content, and disposition will vary, but one may still classify such works under the term "philosophical epitome." In what sense, then, can one compare Epicurus'sKyriai Doxai to the SM and the SP? Even after a preliminary survey, the similarities as regards the literary genre and function should be apparent. 551 The documents in question are very different in their content and cultural background, although they may not be totally unrelated.552 At any rate, the hypothesis can now be stated

545 Diog. L. 10.35. common literary genre. While this conclusion seems 546 It is, therefore, not to be confused with "protreptic" correct, the situation is more complicated because of material of the sophistic Werberede. On this genre see the existence of the Gnomologium Vaticanum Epicureum, which shares numerous sayings with the esp. the introduction of Ingemar During, Aristotle's Protrepticus: An Attempt at Reconstruction (Studia Kyriai Doxai, although they differ in genre, comGraeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 12; Goteborg: position, and purpose. In some sense, the two texts Elander, 1961 ); Otto Schonberger, lamblichos: Aufruf resemble the relationship between the SM/SP and zur PIJilosophie; Erste deutsche Gesamtilbersetzung mit Q, but a careful investigation would be needed to say zweisprachiger Ausgabe von Ciceros "Hortensius" (Wurzmore. See the recording of cross-references in the burg: Konigshausen & Neumann, 1984). edition of Peter von der Muhll, Epicuri epistulae tres et 547 Diog. L. 10.35. Ratae sententiae a Laertio Diogene servatae, accedit Gnomologium Epicureum Vaticanum (BT; Berlin: 548 Ibid., 36. 549 Ibid., 123. Teubner, 1966); see also Arrighetti, Epicuro, 119550 Ibid. Cf. also 82, 83, 84, 85, 116. 37, 139-57; Schmid, "Epikur," 697-98, 771-72. 552 The relationship has remained unexplored. For a list 551 Cf. Vielhauer (Geschichte, 316-17), who compared of parallels, see Betz, Essays, 15 n. 76; and throughEpicurus's Kyriai Doxai and Q and came to the conclusion that the two documents do not share a out this commentary.

79

again: the literary genre of the SM and the SP is that of the epitome, presenting the teaching of Jesus in a particular selection of his sayings in a systematic fashion for specific purposes. As the analysis in the commentary will show in greater detail, the SM and the SP are carefully worked out as epitomai, consisting of sayings of Jesus grouped together according to systematic points of doctrine considered to be of primary importance. The sayings are derived from sources; some of them can be identified by parallels in Q and in other synoptic traditions. Larger groupings seem to have been taken from older sources, perhaps in written form. Such larger units as the "antitheses" (Matt 5:21-48) or the "cultic teaching" (6:1-18) may have come from written sources other than Q. Whatever the origin of the material, it has all been worked into a consistent new entity, existing in two versions (the SM and the SP). V. The Literary Function

Both Sermons provide clues as to their literary function. In this respect, one will have to distinguish between the function that the Sermons presuppose on their own terms, and the function that is attributed to them by the Gospel writers. In addition, one must take into consideration the relationship between the SM and the SP. From the narrative frameworks of Matthew and

Luke, 553 within which the SM and the SPare now set, it is clear, as already pointed out, that both served as instructional material for disciples. This purpose is even evident from the present narrative frameworks of Matt 4:24-5:2; 7:28-29 and Luke 6:17-20a. Since both Sermons are prefaced by short introductions (Matt 5: 1-2 and Luke 6:20a), some such introduction must have existed already at the presynoptic level, most probably in QMatt and QLuke. These narrative introductions are secondary in nature, but they correctly interpret clues contained in the Sermons themselves, which they preface. Indeed, the authors of these older introductions may have known about the original function of the Sermons. The same can also be assumed for Matthew and Luke as the final authors of the Gospels. Both the SM and the SP present Jesus as the teacher delivering his teaching to his disciples (p.a871Tal). 554 In Matthew, one should note some inconsistencies. While in Matt 5:1-2 Jesus speaks to "the disciples" (o{ p.a871Tal avTov), the preceding narrative tells US that SO far only four have been called (Simon Peter and his brother Andrew, and James and John, the sons of Zebedee [4: 18-22]). Their call is preceded by Jesus' temptation in the desert (4: 1-11 ), and his beginning of the "proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom" (1C'f/pVcrcr£LV !0 £vayyb..Lov Tfjr; {3acrLA£la~ [4:12-23]). In Matthew's view, the gospel is to be proclaimed to all, but the SM is

553 See Alfred M. Perry, "The Framework of the Sermon on the Mount," ]BL 54 (1935) 103-15; Terrence J. Keegan, "Introductory Formulae for Matthean Discourses," CBQ 44 ( 1982) 415-30; Gerhard Lohfink, "Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung von Mt. 4, 235,2 und 7,28£.," ThQ 163 (1983) 264-84; idem, Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? Beitriige zu einer christlichen Ethik (Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 1988); Klaus-Stefan Krieger, "Das Publikum der Bergpredigt (Mt 4,23-25)," Kairos 28 (1986) 98-115; Terence L. Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain: A Study on Matthean Theology QSNTSup 8; Sheffield:JSOT, 1986). Besides these special studies, see also the commentaries, in particular Tholuck, Bergrede, 41-50 (Commentary, 5158); Achelis, Bergpredigt, 1-4; Soiron, Bergpredigt, 134-37; Guelich, Sermon, 59-61; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 25-27 (Sermon, 24-26); Luz, Matthaus, 1. 178-83, 197-98, 415-16 (Matthew, 1.203-8, 22324, 454-56). 554 See already Herder, "Regel der Zusammenstimmung" (see above, n. 135) 32-33. Herder sees that

80

the SM and the SP are secondary compositions of originally independent sayings. Matthew's collection has the purpose "to show the true teacher of the people, and the teacher of teachers" ("die Zusammenstellung in Matthlius, und zwar an diesem Ort, hat die offene Absicht, hier den wahren Lehrer des Volks und den Lehrer der Lehrer zu zeigen, durch den Licht aufgehen soli unter den Volkem, durch den die Religion der Herzenseinfalt und Redlichkeit den Menschen wiederkommen sollte"). According to Herder, one must contrast this portrait ofJesus with those of other Jewish teachers, scribes, and Torah scholars (cf. Mark 1:22, 27; SM/Matt 7:28-29;John 3:2). If Ernst Bammeljudges that "in the Jesus tradition there is to be found almost no teaching material of the kind that was common in his environment," he has in mind the later rabbinic model, but that model was not the only one, especially in Jesus' lifetime (see Ernst Bammel,jesu Nachfolger: Nachfolgeilberlieferungen in der Zeit des frilhen Christentums [Heidelberg: Schneider, 1988]27).

Introduction

intended for the disciples only. According to 4:25-5:2, Jesus withdrew from the crowds, to whom he had proclaimed the gospel, and went up on the mountain, where he sat down when the disciples approached him. Then, it says with some solemnity, "he opened his mouth and taught them" (Kat avol,as Tb UTOp.a avrov Kat (li{lia,£V avroh A.eywv [5:2]). For Matthew, therefore, there is a clear difference between the gospel and the "instruction" (li1liax~) given to those who were called to be disciples (5:2; 7:28-29). The relationship between the gospel and the SM is indeed interesting. According to Matthew, prior to becoming a Christian one has to hear the proclamation of "the gospel ofthe kingdom" (4: 17, 23). In Matthew's view, this was as true at the beginning as it was in his own time. Then, historically,Jesus called some of those who had heard the gospel to become his disciples (4:18-22), and they were those who received the SM as their instruction. By implication, therefore, the SM constitutes the "advanced" teaching for those who have already become disciples. In Matthew's view, the SM was not intended to be the personal instruction of only the four disciples addressed, but of all disciples. In his scheme, the Twelve (disciples and apostles) were later appointed as missionaries (10:1-2), among them the four previously called (4:18-22; 10:2-4), in order to be sent out (10:5). They received further instructions called 7rapayye'A.p.ara ("commandments" [cf. the verb in 10:5]). These orders (Matt 10:5-42) are specifically designed for missionaries, and this is one reason why the missionary instruction differs from the SM.555 What appear to be inconsistencies in the text are thus most likely the result of the arrangement of sources. Matthew arranged these sources in such a way that they show the developments in the early church. In the same manner one can explain another inconsistency. While, according to the beginning in 5: 1, only the disciples received the SM, 7:28-29 reports that somehow "the crowds" (ot lfx'Ao1) came to know it, too. Rather than

an oversight on the part of Matthew, the seeming inconsistency shows "progress": Matthew seems to have been aware that the SM was originally intended for the disciples only, but that it had become public knowledge as well. This had happened because the SM was not intended to be esoteric teaching. This observation may go hand in hand with the change of the meaning of the term "disciples." While originally designating the followers of the historicalJesus (5:1; 8:21, 23; 9:10, 11, 14, 19, 37; 10:1; etc.), it later became the name for the members of the Matthean church (28: 19). 556 Indeed, for Matthew "the crowds" (ot lfx'A.o1) are the pool from which new church members are to be recruited. 557 That the "crowds" also receive the SM (7:28-29) shows how this change took place and that the SM played an important role in attracting people to the church. 558 The SM has played this role during the entire history of the church up to the present. The situation according to Luke's SP is remarkably similar. The difference is that, according to Luke, the election ofthe twelve "disciples whom he also named apostles" (6: 13-16) takes place bifore Jesus' delivery of the SP. There are, however, already large numbers of disciples in addition to other crowds (6: 17). While all these people are around, Jesus "raised his eyes upon his disciples and said ... " (Kat avrbs E71'6.pas TOVS otjJBa'A.p.oVs avrov ds TOVS p.a8'1/rh.s avrov f.'A£yw [6:20a]). In 7:1 we read: "After he had completed all his pronouncements to the ears of the people, he went into Capernaum" ('E71'Hli~ E71'A~pwu£V 71'6.vra rlz p~p.ara £tS rlzs aKolzs TOVs Aaov, duijA8£v ds Katjlapvaoilp.). Again, as in Matthew, all the people hear the SP, which, however, is especially intended for the disciples. Besides these references in the narrative frameworks, the SM and the SP themselves contain important internal clues regarding their function. In the SM, the motif of the Two Ways is fundamental to its structure (SM/Matt 7: 13-14). 55 9 This motif is traditional in instructional texts. Together with it other literary elements enter into

In Matth. 11.4 (ed. Erich Klostermann; GCS 40.10.2 555 See Eung-Chun Park, "Missio Ecclesiae-Missio [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1935]39). Christi: Composition, Function, and Theology of Matthew's Mission Discourse" (Ph.D. diss., University 558 Cf. Martin Bucer, in his leamed commentary on the SM (In sacra Quatuor Evan(n)gelia Enarrationes [see ofChicago, 1991). above, n. 121], 37-77), who calls the entire SM a 556 Strecker (Bergpredigt, 26-27 [Sermon, 25-26]) protreptic speech: "Oratio haec protreptica est, emphasizes the ecclesiological function of jesus' partim & exegematica." disciples for the church of Matthew. 557 On this point see the interesting discussion of Origen 559 See below on SM/Matt 7:13-14.

81

consideration. The Two Ways are presented as images suggesting that one is "leading to [eternal] destruction," while the other is "leading to [eternal] life." In the concluding parable of the two builders (7 :24-27), we learn that one is to identify "the troublesome road" with the sayings of Jesus as they are contained in the SM. In other words, one is to regard the SM in its entirety as "the way" to eternal life, whereas the way to destruction consists of the doctrines and practices explicitly or implicitly rejected by the SM. This way to eternal life is also to be taught by the teachers mentioned in 5: 19.560 While many of the same ideas also apply to the SP, there are characteristic differences. The SP does not employ the motif of the Two Ways, but contrasts two types of persons, "the good person" (b aya8hs l1v8pol71'os) and "the bad" (b 7TOVTJpos), the latter not even deserving the name "human being" (l1v8pol71'os). 561 These two types of persons (SP /Luke 6:45) are also to be identified with "the rich" and "the poor" (6:20b-26). Furthermore, Luke turns the SPinto a "speech," 56 2 although the section consists of sayings, .Aoyot. 563 That these sayings serve in education is evident from the important passage in 6:39-40, containing a theory of education (6:39) 564 and rules for the relationship between students and teachers (6:40). These rules distinguish between students in training (JJ.a8TJml), graduates (KaTTJpnup.Evot), and teachers (otoctuKa.Aot). 565 The subsequent rules examine the relationship between fellow students (6:41-42), and the relationship with oneself (6:43-45). 566 What then is to be done with these sayings ofJesus? The programmatic conclusion in SM/Matt 7:24-27 states that the proper response to these sayings is "hearing and doing." This pair of terms is also traditional. 567 Apart from our passages, SM/Matt 7:24560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567

26 and SP /Luke 6:4 7-49, the word pair is widely attested in early Christian literature. 568 The primary question, however, is: What do these terms mean in the SM and the SP? "Hearing" (aKot'mv) refers not only to the physiological act of listening but also to the wide range of notions describing understanding what one has heard. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!" This saying does not occur in either of the Sermons, 569 but the intellectual process presupposed in it is certainly intended in them. More specifically, "hearing" designates the appropriation of tradition, that is, didactic activities in the wider sense of the term. Thus, the stereotypical formula introducing the antitheses, "You have heard that it was said, ... " 570 designates what in the view of the SM is an uncritical acceptance of inadequate teaching about the meaning of the Torah, a hearing without proper understanding. Rather than mere physical hearing, the SM emphasizes the comprehension of what has been perceived physically. This theoretical presupposition is manifest also in other indicators, such as the typical exhortations 1rpouEX£T£ ("pay attention!" [6: 1; 7: 15]) and KaTap.a8£n ("observe," "notice," "learn!" [6:28]). In other words, hearing as understanding presupposes vision. 571 Included in this field is not only visual observation of phenomena that exist (e.g., the birds of the air and the lilies of the field [6:26, 28-30]), but also the visualization of mythical events (like the episode in the last judgment [7:21-23]). Another object of visualization is the perception of the paradoxical. This is exemplified by the often hyperbolic imagery used by both the SM and the SP (like the beam in the eye [Matt 7:3-5], or the light under the bushel [5: 15 ], or the saltless salt [5: 13]). 572 This emphasis on vision is by no means accidental or merely a result of proverbial source material, but it is, as

See above n. 458. See the commentary below on SP /Luke 6:45. See Luke 6:20a; 7:1. See below on SP /Luke 6:27, 39, 46-49. See below on SP /Luke 6:39. See below on SP /Luke 6:40. See below on these sections. See Brunner, Altiigyptische Erziehung, 131-34, 13435, 136-39. 568 For references, see below on SM/Matt 7:24, 26; SP/Luke 6:47,49. 569 See Matt 11: 15; cf. 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9, 23; 7: 16;

82

8:18; Luke 8:8; 14:35, etc. See BAGD, s.v. ots, 2, with more references. 570 See SM/Matt 5:21, 27, 33, 38, 43. 571 See the terms {3A.f.7TELV, I'JLa{3Af.7TELV, tp.{3A.f.7TELV, opO.v, 3cp8aA.p.os in the index of Greek terms below. 572 See below on SM/Matt 5:13-16; 7:3-5,6, 7-9; etc. See also Jacques Dupont, "Le langage symbolique des directives ethiques de Jesus dans le Sermon sur Ia montagne," in his Etudes, 2.763-78.

Introduction

the section "On vision" (6:22-23) demonstrates, based on a serious theological understanding of vision that draws on ancient philosophical wisdom. 573 These ideas were not new in antiquity. 574 They allow us to conclude that the SM and the SP were originally conceived as oral texts. Their content was to be delivered orally, that is, spoken aloud, repeated, and memorized.575 This original function changed, at least to some extent, when they were included in the Gospels, which are written texts to be read (presumably aloud as well). The original purpose of the sayings was, therefore, to facilitate mental appropriation and comprehension, rather than, as one might surmise, to hand down tradition accurately. One does not exclude the other, just as oral texts may be written down without losing their oral quality. 576 The relationship between oral and written texts is in this case even more complicated. While, as we now have them both, the SM and the SP constitute written texts, their components may originally have been oral or written. While the single beatitude, for instance, was originally an oral pronouncement, the sequences in SM/Matt 5:3-12 or SP/Luke 6:20b-26 seem to have

been written compositions from the beginning. The antitheses (SM/Matt 5:21-48) are certainly the product of written composition. This is true, even though the arguments evoke debates and may assist in debates. The cultic instruction (SM/Matt 6: 1-18)577 is certainly a compilation and conftation of written sources, although its centerpiece, the Lord's Prayer, is an oral text. 578 Therefore, the SM and the SP, although composed as written texts, are oral in nature and function. This assumption can even be supported by the Gospel texts in which they are now embedded. Although the Gospel writers made them part of written texts, having found them most likely in written form as sources, they regarded them prima facie as oral texts and, therefore, placed them into the mouth of jesus as speeches. As part of the historical narratives, however, these speeches serve as authoritative documents from the past, that is, as written documents that became part of the longer works of Matthew and Luke.

573 See Betz, Essays, 71-87; and below on SM/Matt process of transmission, even for the SM and the SP, was much more diverse. Cf. also Betz, Essays, 9 n. 49. 6:22-23. 574 See Hillyard, Plutarch, "De audiendo" (seen. 509 576 Instructive in this regard is Peter's speech in Ps.-Clem. above). This treatise of Plutarch sums up Hellenistic Rec. 2.1.4-6: "I confess, brethren, that I wonder at views on how to listen properly to advice and the power of human nature, which I see to be fit and instruction. See furthermore Franz K. Mayr, suited to every call upon it. This, however, it occurs "Horen," RAG 15 (1991) 1023-1111. to me to say of what I have found by experience, that 575 See Theodor Klauser, "Auswendiglernen," RAG 1 when the middle of the night is passed, I awake of my (1950) 1030-39;J.J. Vincent, "Did jesus Teach His own accord, and sleep does not come to me again. This happens to me for this reason, that I have Disciples to Learn by Heart?" SEv (TV 88 [1964] 105-18); Birger Gerhardsson, Tradition and Transformed the habit of recalling to memory the words of mission in Early Christianity (ConNT 20; Lund: my Lord, which I heard from himself; and for the Gleerup, 1964); idem, Die Anfiinge der Evangelienlonging I have towards them, I constrain my mind tradition (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1977), reviewing and my thoughts to be roused, that, awaking to them, the discussion of his earlier work, Memory and and recalling and arranging them one by one, I may Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in retain them in my memory." Cf. Ap.Jas. 2.1-15 Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (ANSU 22; (NHC I, 2) in Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, 30: Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1961; 2d ed. 1964) esp. "the twelve disciples [were] all sitting together and recalling what the Savior had said to each one of 122. Gerhardsson is followed by Rainer Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der them, whether in secret or openly and [putting it] Evangelien-Uberlieferung (WUNT 2.7; Tiibingen: into books." Mohr [Siebeck], 1981; 3d ed. 1987). Whereas 577 For further discussion on this point, see the comGerhardsson and Riesner assume that the whole of mentary below on SM/Matt 6:1-18. 578 For further discussion, see the excursus below on the the older tradition of the Gospels was first appropriated and handed down through memorization Lord's Prayer. techniques, this view can actually be demonstrated for selected texts only; on the whole, however, the

83

Oral or written, the SM and the SP are first of all objects of sense perception, and from sense perception to "knowledge" is a small yet significant step. A few occurrences of terms expressing knowledge show that precisely this is the expected result of sense perception. The "false prophets" (SM/Matt 7:15-20), for instance, are to be "recognized [h,ywdluiCtw] by their fruits." 579 The programmatic passage in SM/Matt 5:16 exhorts the community: "Let your light shine in such a way before the people that they may see [rlloou'v] your good deeds and praise your Father who is in the heavens." The term t!llov includes both sense perception (/3>..£-rmv, op0.v, ICT>...) and understanding (tt/1Jva,). 580 Simplistic conclusions, however, should be avoided at this point. According to the SM, the "good deeds" of the faithful disciples should not be ostentatious. Rather, as good deeds they should be inconspicuous and thus done in imitation of the invisible God. 5 81 They should be done in the knowledge that "your left hand must not know what your right hand is doing" (SM/Matt 6:3). Therefore, "seeing the good deeds" and "praising the Father who is in the heavens" can only describe missionary goals that, if reached, accomplish conversion to God and, as a result, a complete change of perception. 582 Those who are able to identify "good deeds" as such and who as a result praise God do not, in effect, "think" as pagans think (lloiCttv), 588 but they think as God thinks. One can infer such a claim because Jesus in his Sermons revealed the principles of God's judgment as he will apply them in the lastjudgment. 5 8 4 Furthermore, "knowledge" is not simply identical with the "hearing and doing" of the sayings of jesus in the SM and the SP. Rather, one gains true knowledge by an intensive interaction between reflection and practice. The process of reflection is kept going by the thoroughgoing rhetorical structure of the texts. The constant flow of interchanging rhetorical questions, reminders, juxtapositions, examples, and provocative images creates the intellectual stimulation for which the SM at least is famous.

In addition, the relatively frequent occurrence of the term "doing" ('2To,t'tv) makes sure that this reflection is conjoined with experience and practice. Again, the word pair "hearing and doing" comes to mind. Indeed, since the SM and the SP are concerned with the fulfillment of the Torah, the "doing" is a highly important goal of the texts. 585 Beyond this goal, human conduct in general is described as "doing, " 586 so that the right kind of conduct can be contrasted with the wrong kind, as perpetrated by the wicked, the tax collectors, the hypocrites, and the pagans. 587 Characteristically, the result of this interaction of reflection and practice is not stated in the form of objective knowledge. Instead, it is stated by prototypical figures representing present experience as well as future goals, the figure of the "prudent man" (av~p C/>pov,p.or) and the "foolish man" (av~p p.wpor). The contrast of these two types constitutes an instance of the syncrisis motif in the final parable ofthe two builders (SM/Matt 7:24-27 I I SP/Luke 6:4 7-49), but this instance shows only that the two contrasting figures are presupposed throughout the SM and the SP. "Everyone who hears these sayings of mine and does them" equals the "prudent man," who is wise in a practical way and experienced in surviving the vicissitudes of human life. By contrast, the "foolish man" is "everyone who hears these sayings of mine and does not do them." The "prudent man" has developed "prudence" (C/>pov71u'r), an old and revered philosophical virtue, based on sense perception, reflection, and practical experience, while the "fool" is one who stays with sense perception only and lacks reflection and practical experience. The terms C/>pov,p.or and p.wpor have been chosen because of their traditional role in comparable contexts of paraenesis. In this instance, the implication is that this "prudence" is, in addition to everything else, also informed by insight into God's thought and God's standards. Therefore, such theological insights and values primarily inform what is gained through reflection and experience. This is the

579 SM/Matt 7:15, 20//SP/Luke 6:44; cf. also the reference to "knowing" (yw..Sa-Knv) in Matt 6:3; 7:23. 580 See BDF, § 81 (3); BAGD, s.v. Eiaov. 581 On this doctrine, see below on SM/Matt 6:1-18. 582 See below on SM/Matt 5:16; and Hans Dieter Betz, "The Cleansing of the Ten Lepers (Luke 1 7: 11-19)," JBL 90 (1971) 314-28, esp. 318-19; reprinted in Betz, Synoptische Studien, 50-67.

84

583 See below on SM/Matt 6:8; also Betz, Essays, 62-64. 584 See below on SM/Matt 5:3-12, 17-20; 7:21-23. 585 On '!ro,Eiv ("do, practice"), see SM/Matt 5:19, 32, 36, 46,47;6:1,2,3;7:12, 17, 18, 19,21,22,24,26; SP/Luke 6:23, 26, 27, 31, 33, 43, 46, 4 7, 49. 586 See esp. the Golden Rule (SM/Matt 7:12; SP/Luke 6:31). 587 See SM/Matt 5:46, 47; 6:32; cf. 5:17-20.

Introduction

implication of the association of the traditional term "prudent" with the "hearing and doing" of the sayings of Jesus as contained in the SM and the SP. In contrast, the "fool" has no such insights to inform the mind, and for this reason fools stay at the superficial level of the socalled data of sense perception. When we evaluate this literary evidence presented in the two Sermons in terms of Hellenistic rhetoric and ethical thought, we have no difficulty in locating the proper context. The functional terms of sense perception, reflection, and practice point to exercises like those found in Hellenistic philosophy, 588 especially the socalled diatribe literature, of which Epictetus is a good example. 589 According to Epictetus's philosophy, the response demanded by the recipients of the two Sermons would be called li.crK7JC1U ("training"), 590 for which the following passage may suffice as a definition: For who is the man in training? He is the man who practices not employing his desire, and practices employing his aversion only upon the things that are within the sphere of his moral purpose, yes, and practices particularly in the things that are difficult to master. 591 More specifically, Epictetus frequently defines the task ofthe philosopher as p.€A£Tav, an almost untranslatable term combining philosophical-ethical reflection with practical experience. This activity, for which Socrates is

the prototype, 592 should keep the philosopher busy from morning to night. 593 The object of such p.£A£Tav can be described differently: "the philosophical doctrines regarding the good and the bad" (Tiz 7r£pt Tc;JV lqa8wv Kat KaKwv o&yp.aTa), 594 "the necessary principles" (Tiz avayKaLa 8£rop~p.aTa), 595 and "philosophical Sententiae" (A.&yot). 5 96 To initiate and maintain the activity of p.£A£Tav is the purpose of Epictetus's Diatribes as well as of all philosophy. Epictetus also emphasizes again and again that the precondition for the proper p.£A£Tav is the clarity in the philosopher's mind of the "guidelines we must have ready at hand" (Tl 7rpOxHpov ~XHv) in the various circumstances of life. 59 7 Frequently also, the philosopher provides sketchy lists of items to be considered as "things to be held at hand" (Ta 7rpOxHpa). 598 This expression means that Epictetus's Diatribes that Arrian later wrote down were originally designed to stimulate and maintain the activity of p.£A£Tav on the part of his listeners. Hence, the philosophy of Epictetus cannot be identical with the Diatribes, but is, rather, presupposed in them. The purpose of these Diatribes cannot be to inform the readers about Epictetus's philosophy, as one informs oneself about other matters, but it is, rather, to make people philosophize, so that they can on their own develop the wisdom necessary to meet the challenges of Tyche. 599 By contrast, those who fail to engage in p.£A£Tav and remain

588 On the background of this material, see Paul Rabbow, Seelenfilhrung: Methodik der Exerzitien in der Antike (Munich: Kosel, 1954); Frank Hieronymus, MEAETH: Obung, Lernen und angrenzende Begriffe (2 vols.; Basel: KOng & Ochsle, 1970); and the literature above inn. 508. 589 On this literature and for further bibliography, see Schmeller, Paulus und die "Diatribe" (see above, n. 526). 590 The terminology enters into Hellenistic judaism in 4 Mace 12:11; 13:22 (cf. 2 Mace 15:4); Ep. Arist. 168, 255, 285;JosephusAp. 2.171; Ant. 3.309; 4.294; Philo Abr. 52 and very often. Early Christian usage of the ter'minology begins with the Apostolic Fathers (2 Clem. 20.4; Hermas Man. 8.10; Diogn. 5.2; 12.5; Mart. Pol. 18.2). See BAGD, s.v. auKiw,liuKTJ
596 Ibid., 4.1.1 70. 597 Ibid., 1.1.21; cf. 2.1.29 (trans. William A. Oldfather, LCL edition of Epictetus [London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1925], 1.221 ): "That is why I say over and over again, 'Practise these things and have them ready at hand, that is, the knowledge of what you ought to face with confidence, and what you ought to face with caution-that you ought to face with confidence that which is outside the province of the moral purpose, with caution that which is within the province of the moral purpose.'" On the concept of 1rpoxnpov ("at hand") see Hadot, Seneca, 58. 598 See esp. Epictetus Diss. 1.1.22; 4.1.83, 111. 599 See esp. ibid., 2.2.21-26.

85

at the level of jargon (rh. A.£f£l8La) are fools unable to cope with the events of life. 600 They are fools in that they fool themselves. For an even more elaborate and systematic exposition of the philosophical theory behind these terms, one may turn to some of Plutarch's ethical works. 601 Plutarch has adapted some of the Cynic-Stoic diatribe material, but to a greater degree he depends on the Platonic-Aristotelian tradition. In spite of these differences, Plutarch's ethical ideas have much in common with those of Epictetus. Also different in Plutarch is the literary form; he writes longer essays in which he spells out the theories that Epictetus's Diatribes presuppose and apply. Therefore, in Plutarch's essays the "training" (au1C£tv ICat fi-£A£Tav) is usually found in the exhortative sections. 602 Furthermore, Plutarch distinguishes more clearly between intellectual reflections, called f7rLA.oyLup.ol, 603 and practical exercises, called t8Lup.ol. 604 Both of these constitute Plutarch's concept of preventive ethical therapy. 605 None of these philosophical terms is found in the Sermons, or for that matter in the New Testament. 6 06 But the basic approaches and concepts regarding appropriation of ethical tradition are very similar in the SM, the SP, Epictetus, Plutarch, and, I might add, in much of the Hellenistic-Jewish and early Christian literature. 607 Indeed, one can assume that large sections of the Hellenistic world at the time of the SM and the SP, including Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity, shared many of these approaches and concepts, differing only in philosophical or religious school terminologies and the more general cultural or religious milieu. Also

different was the degree to which these approaches and concepts became subject to theoretical analysis and conceptualization. But having taken all the variables into account, one should not overlook that the common elements enable one to understand the literary function of the SM and the SP: both are intended to stimulate and maintain what in Hellenistic-philosophical terms is called auiC£tv ICat fi-£A£Tav. If this is so, then the difference between the SM and the SP is in the first place determined by their literary function, not by the genre, which is, as I have pointed out, the same. One can clarify the reason for their functional difference, once one realizes the implications of the fact that the SM speaks to disciples corning from a Jewish background, while the SP addresses disciples from a Greek background. While the SM is based throughout on the presuppositions of Jewish religion, society, and culture, the SP contains only a few Jewish ideas comprehensible to non-Jews and is mainly informed by Greek cultural ideas and values. 608 The question is how to evaluate this difference in intended recipients. The two Sermons seem to have a common origin, rather than separate origins. It is conceivable that the two Sermons had different authors, that they reflect different church traditions, and that they originally functioned independently. But it is just as possible that their authors from the beginning intended the SM and the SP to serve two distinct communities. The similarities between the Sermons, in form, literary genre, composition, and content, seem to tilt the balance in the direction of the second option: both Sermons come from the same origin, presuppose the same authors

600 Ibid., 2.1.30-33; cf. also 1.30.5; 2.1.38; 2.6.14; 2.13.4; 2.16.2-3, 15; 3.7.17-18; frg. 10. 601 See PECL 2, with examples and bibliography. 602 Ibid., 201, 214; cf. also 18, 176, 189, 268, 287. 603 Ibid., 12, 201, 286,434. 604 Ibid., 17, 176, 284, 286,287. 605 Ibid., 2, 7, and the index, s.v. Psychagogy. 606 Surprisingly similar, however, isjas 1:19-25, a text that has much in common with the SM. Conscious and systematic appropriation begins with Clement of Alexandria; see his Exhortation to the Newly Baptized, and the Paed. I, as a whole (for the bibliographical data, see above, n. 468). 607 See esp. Philo Rer. div. her. 253; Leg. all. 3.18; Ep. Arist. 160; the terms p.EA
86

Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament [2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1897] s.v.). See furthermore Alan Mendelson, Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria (Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 7;

Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1982); David M. Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction in Sasanian Babylonia (SJLA 9; Leiden: Brill, 1975). 608 The evidence for this claim is presented in the commentary below, but the idea as such is not new.

Introduction

originally, and had as their common purpose from the beginning to serve as teaching material for different constituencies of disciples. The possibility is supported by a pertinent statement made by a much later author, Gregory of Nyssa (335394?), in the prologue of his Great Catechetical Oration. 609 This statement reflects more than Gregory's personal opinion; it is the reflection of the experiences the church has had over a longer period of time: Religious instruction is an essential duty of the leaders of the mystery of our religion [ 1 Tim 3: 16]. By it the church is enlarged through the addition of those who are saved, while the "sure word" which accords with the [traditional] teaching [Titus 1 :9] comes within the hearing of unbelievers. The same method of teaching, however, is not suitable for everyone who approaches this word. Rather we must adapt religious instruction to the diversities of religion. While we keep in view the same objective in our teaching, we cannot use the same arguments in each case. A man of the Jewish faith has certain presuppositions; a man reared in Hellenism, others. The Anomoean, the Manichaean, the followers of Marcion, Valentinus, and Basilides, and the rest on the list of those astray in heresy, have their pre-conceptions, and make it necessary for us to attack their underlying ideas in each case. For we must adapt our method of therapy to the form of the disease. You will not heal the polytheism of the Greek in the same way as the Jew's disbelief about the onlybegotten God. Nor, in the case of those astray in heresy, will you refute their erroneous doctrinal inventions all in the same way. For the arguments which might correct a Sabellian are of no help to an Anomoean; nor is our controversy with the Manichaean of benefit to the Jew. But, as I have said,

we must have in view men's preconceptions and address ourselves to the error in which each is involved. We must put forward certain principles and reasonable propositions in each discussion, so that the truth may finally emerge from what is admitted by both sides. 610 This method of using a variety of approaches (rpo?Tot) in catechetical instruction was not a new idea. It was the method that came to be known as "accommodation. "611 Clement of Alexandria had treated this method before, when he applied it not only to catechesis and mission but also to the rhetoric needed to reconvert heretics. 61 2 The New Testament itself shows that this method was used in the Christian mission from the beginning. 613 When, according to Gal2:1-10, 614 the Jerusalem conference decided to divide the Christian mission into two movements, one under the leadership of Peter going to the Jews, and the other under Paul and Barnabas going to the Gentiles, this division was intended to institute a common strategy. Paul states the principle justifying this approach in Gal 2:8: "He [sc. God] who has empowered Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision [sc. the Jews], has also empowered me for the Gentiles." As Clement has rightly indicated, a figure no less important than Paul himself exemplified the principle (in fact he cited it), in 1 Cor 9:19-23. Accordingly, Paul left Judaism and became like a Gentile for the purpose of saving at least some ofthe Gentiles (I Cor 9:22a; Gal 4:12a). The logical conclusion from these presuppositions, events, and parallel passages would be that whatever catechetical instruction was needed in Christian mission would be designed differently so as to respond to the different cultural backgrounds of the potential converts to the new religion.615

609 See Barbel, Gregor von Nyssa: Die gro)3e katechetische Rede (see above, n. 4 70); Heinrich Dorrie, "Gregor III (Gregor von Nyssa)," RAG 12 (1983) 863-95, esp. 875-76. 610 The text is in PC 45.2, col. 9; the translation is by Cyril C. Richardson, in Gregory of Nyssa," An Address on Religious Instruction," in Edward R. Handy, ed., Christology of the Later Fathers (LCC 3; London:SC~, 1954)268. 611 For discussion and bibliography, see Rudolf Hofmann, "Accommodation," RE I ( 1896) 127 -30; Rudolf Bultmann, "Ankniipfung und Widerspruch,"

612

613 614 615

in his Glauben und Verstehen (5th ed.; Tiibingen: ~ohr [Siebeck], 1968) 2.117-32; Heinrich Leipold and Hans-Rudolf ~iiller-Schwefe, "Ankniipfung III," TRE 2 (1978) 743-52. Clement Alex. Strom. 7.9.52.1-54.5, in Otto Stahlin et al., eds., Clemens Alexandrinus (GCS 17.7.3; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1970) 38-40. See Kurt Deil3ner, "Anpassung und Abwehr in der altesten ~issionspredigt," ZSTh 16 (1939) 516-27. For the following, see Betz, Galatians, 97-101. Cf. also Heb 5:12-14; 1 Cor 3:1-3; 1 Thess 4:1-2; 1 Pet 2:2.

87

My hypothesis is, therefore, that the two epitomai of the SM and the SP were created by the early Jesus movement, one (the SM) to instruct converts from Judaism, the other (the SP) to instruct those coming from a Greek background. The hypothesis can indeed explain the peculiar parallels and differences that exist between the SM and the SP. On the one hand, using the fundamental teachings ofJesus, the SM argues throughout for these teachings in terms of Jewish theology. On the other hand, the SP uses the same fundamental teachings and argues for them in terms of Greek ideas. While exposition of Torah and worship are found on the one side, Greek maxims, proverbs, imagery, and ideas are found on the other. The two Sermons also share important Jewish doctrines, since the SM confronts "paganism" (SM/Matt 5:47; 6:7, 32), and the SP speaks of eschatological merit (SP /Luke 6:23, 35), persecution ofJewish prophets (6:23), and God "the Most High" (b f5'1/!urros [6:35]). Therefore, the SP has clearly been designed from the Jewish side for the Gentiles, rather than by Gentiles for Gentiles, and that same Jewish side directed the SM to fellow Jews. Not to be overlooked at this point is that the SM is

much longer and more elaborate in its arguments than the SP. By comparison, the SP also appears simpler, less challenging, and not as interesting. Apparently, Jewish converts had greater difficulties and needed more detailed instructions. Was it, by comparison, easier to translate Jesus' teaching into the gnomic wisdom of the Greek type? Was it because the SP shows no evidence of opposition from within the movement, while the SM is fighting against opponents on several fronts? In sum, the SM and the SP were meant to complement each other,just as the two missionary movements were intended to do. Entering into discipleship could be done on Jewish as well as on Greek terms. The message of Jesus could be cast into either mode of thinking, but the ethos of the disciple to be expected from the instructions was no doubt the same. These approaches and aims most likely reflect the situation of the early Christian movement prior to and concurrent with Paul's letters (c. 50 cE).

88

The Sermon on the Mount [SM/Matthew 5:3-7:27]

• • • •

• • • •

• • • •

•

Matthew 5:3-12

5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12

Translation

Chapter I The Beatitudes

Blessed are the poor in (the) spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens. Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall find consolation. Blessed are the meek. for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall find mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness. for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens. Blessed are you, when they insult you and persecute (you) and say every kind of evil against you [provided they are lying] for my sake. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in the heavens; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets (who lived) before you.

Bibliography Betz, Essays, 17-36. Gunther Braumann, "Zum traditionsgeschichtlichen Problem der Seligpreisungen Mt V 3-12," NovT 4 (1960) 253-60. Ingo Broer, Die Seligpreisungen der Bergpredigt: Studien zu ihrer Vberlieferung und Interpretation (BBB 61; Bonn: Hanstein, 1986). G.J. Brooke, "The Wisdom of Matthew's Beatitudes (4QBeat and Mt 5:3-12)," Scripture Bulletin 19 (1989) 35-41. Lyder Brun, Segen und Fluch im Urchristentum (Oslo: Dybwad, 1932). Giorgio Buccellati, "Le beatitudini sullo sfondo della tradizione sapienzale Mesopotamica," Bibbia e Oriente 14 (1972) 241-64. Denis Buzy, "Beatitudes," Dictionnaire de Spiritualite 1 (1937) 1298-1310. Henri Cazelles, "'j~~," ThWAT 1 (1973) 481-85 (TDOT 1 [1974]445-48). Albert Descamps, Les Justes et la justice dans les evangiles et le christianisme primitif hormis la doctrine proprement paulinienne (Gembloux: Duculot, 1950). Gustave Lejeune Dirichlet, De veterum macarismis (RVV

14.4; Giessen: Topelmann, 1914). Charles Harold Dodd, "The Beatitudes: A form-

critical study," reprinted in his More New Testament Studies, 1-10.

Jacques Dupont, "Beatitudes egyptiennes," Bib 4 7 (1966) 185-222; reprinted in his Etudes, 2. 793832. Idem, Les Beatitudes. vol. 1: Le Probleme litteraire; les deux versions du Sermon sur la montagne et des Beatitudes (2d ed.; Bruges: Abbaye de Saint-Andre, 1958); vol. 2: La bonne nouvelle (Paris: Gabalda, 1969); vol. 3: Les evangelistes (Paris: Gabalda, 1973).

Hubert Frankemolle, "Die Makaris~en (Mt 5,1-12; Lk 6,20-23): Motive und Umfang der redaktionellen Kompositionen," BZ 15 (1971) 52-75. Augustin George, "La 'forme' des beatitudesjusqu':l. Jesus," in Melanges bibliques en l'honneur de Andre Robert (Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1957) 398-403. Burkhardt Gladigow, "Der Makarismus des Weisen," Hermes 95 (1967) 404-33. Robert Guelich, "The Matthean Beatitudes: 'EntranceRequirements' or Eschatological Blessing?" JBL 95 (1976) 415-34. Idem, Sermon, 62-118. Dennis Hamm, S.J., The Beatitudes in Context (Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1990). Friedrich Hauck and Georg Bertram, "f'aK6.p&o~ KTA.," TDNT4.365-73.

91

David Hellholm, "Die Seligpreisungen der Bergpredigt als invertierte Makarismen," in his New Testament and Text Linguistics: Collected Essays 1 (Tobingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck ], forthcoming). Manin Hengel, "Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt und ihremjiidischen Hintergrund," ThR 52 (1987) 327-400. Waldemar Janzen, "'Asre in the Old Testament," HTR 58 (1965) 215-26. Christoph Kahler, "Studien zur Form- und Traditionsgeschichte der biblischen Makarismen" (diss., 2 vols.,Jena, 1974). Idem, "Zur Form- und Traditionsgeschichte von Matth. XVI 17-19," NTS 23 (1976) 36-58. Walter Kliser, "Beobachtungen zum alttestamentlichen Makarismus," ZAW 82 (1970) 225-50. Rene Kieffer, Essais de methodologie neo-testamentaire (ConBNT 4; Lund: Gleerup, 1972). Idem, "Vishet och valsignelse som grundmotiv i saligprisningarna hos Matteus och Lukas," SEA 34 (1969) 107-21; German: "Weisheit und Segen als Grundmotive der Seligpreisungen bei Mt und Lk," Studien zum Neuen.Testament und seiner Umwelt 2 (1977) 29-43. Idem, "Wisdom and Blessings in the Beatitudes of St. Matthew and St. Luke," StEv 6 (TU 112; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973) 291-95. Klaus Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition (trans. S. M. Cupitt; New York: Scribner's, 1969). Konrad Kohler, "Die urspriingliche Form der Seligpreisungen," ThStK 91 (1918) 157-92. Edouard Lipinski, "Macarismes et psaumes de congratulation," RB 75 (1968) 321-67. Charles H. Maahs, "The Makarisms in the New Testament: A Comparative Religions and Form Critical Investigation" (diss., Tiibingen, 1965). Chester S. McCown, "The Beatitudes in the Light of Ancient Ideals," JBL 46 (1927) 50-61. NeilJ. McEleney, "The Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount/Plain," CBQ 43 (1981) 1-13. Christian Michaelis, "Die w-Alliteration der Subjektsworte der ersten 4 Seligpreisungen in Mt, Lk und

2

3

92

in Q," NovT 10 (1968) 148-61. Percy, Botschaft, 40-108. Emile Puech, "4Q 525 et les pericopes des beatitudes en Ben Sira et Matthieu," RB 98 (1991) 80-106. Soiron, Bergpredigt, 141-208. Georg Strecker, "Die Makarismen der Bergpredigt," NTS 17 (1971) 255-75. Idem, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s. v. 1-'aK&.p,os. Christopher Tuckett, "The Beatitudes: A Sourcecritical Study; with a Reply by Michael M. Goulder," NovT 25 (1983) 193-216. Francesco Vattioni, Beatitudini, proverta, ricchezza (Milan: Ancora, 1966). Benedict Viviano, "Beatitudes Found among Dead Sea Scrolls," BARev 18 (1992) 53-55,66. Nikolaus Walter, "Die Bearbeitung der Seligpreisungen durch Matthaus," StEv 4 (TU 102; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1968) 246-58. Wrege, Bergpredigt, 5-34.

1. Introduction a. The Basic Meaning

As a musical masterpiece begins with an introitus, the SM opens with an extraordinary sequence of statements, the so-called Beatitudes. The name beatitude is derived from the Latin beatitudo, which corresponds to the Greek p.aKaptcrp.o~ ("macarism"), a label that may have been used perhaps even in the New Testament itself.l The term designates a literary genre; it originates from the adjective p.aKCtpLo~ ("blessed" or "happy"), which is repeated nine times in SM/Matt 5:3-11 (cf. the four beatitudes in SP /Luke 6:20b-24). Philological investigations have shown that the adjective p.aKCtpLo~ is derived from the older word p.CtKap, and that its roots may not be Greek. 2 Some scholars 3 have proposed an Egyptian origin, pointing to Egyptian m 'r as having the same meaning as p.aKCtp(w~). 4 Beatitudes are rather frequent in Egyptian literature, 5 so that an Egyptian origin is

Gal4:15; see Betz, Galatians, 226-27; Rom 4:6, 9; 1 Clem. 50.7. See Pierre Chantraine, Dictionnaire etymologique de Ia langue grecque; histoire des mots (4 vols. in 5; Paris: 4 Klincksieck, 1968-80) 3.659, s.v. ,.&.Kap; Emile Boisacq, Dictionnaire etymologique de Ia langue grecque (Heidelberg: Winter, 1916), 601-2. 5 Alexander Krappe, "MAKAP," Revue de Philologie, de Litterature et d'Histoire Ancienne, 3/14 (1940) 245-46; Benrand Hemmerdinger, "Noms communs grecs d'origine egyptienne," Glotta 46 (1968) 238-47; cf. Cornelius de Heer, MAKAP-EY ~AIMilN-OABIOI:-

EYTYXHI:: A Study of the Semantic Field Denoting Happiness in Ancient Greek to the End of the 5th c. B.C. (Amsterdam: Hakken, 1969). See Adolf Erman and Hermann Grapow, eds., Worterbuch der agyptischen Sprache (7 vols.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1926-63) 2.48,line 11. See the collections of passages in jacques Dupont, "Beatitudes egyptiennes," Bib 4 7 (1966) 185-222; reprinted in his Etudes, 2.793-831;Jan Assmann, "Weisheit, Loyalismus und Frommigkeit," in Erik Hornung and Othmar Keel, eds., Studien zu altagyptischen Lebenslehren (OBO 28; Fribourg: Uni-

Matthew 5:3-12

conceivable. 6 This hypothesis has gained in credence throughjan Assmann's observation of the two-line beatitudes, in which the second line gives a reason. 7 The old sources seem to agree on the basic meaning of the term as well: it designates a state of being that pertains to the gods and can be awarded to humans postmortem. In ancient Egyptian religion the term plays an important role in the cult of Osiris, where it refers to a deceased person who has been before the court of the gods of the netherworld, who has declared there his innocence, 8 and who has been approved to enter the paradise of Osiris, even to become an Osiris himself. Such a person, according to Egyptian religious thought, is truly blessed, just as Osiris himself was declared blessed by his brother Thoth and by the court of the great gods after his death. 9 The meaning corresponding to Greek religion is found in the ancient Homeric Hymn to Demeter (cited below), where the term lJ>..fJLo~ ("blessed") serves as a synonym for p.aKapLo~, referring to the postmortem state of being of those who are initiates of the mysteries of Demeter. Cornelius de Heer, however, points out that the benefits of immortality or eternal life are "not merely future, they are immediate as well, and as such they are no doubt believed to be material, both now and in the hereafter. " 1 0 These ancient passages demonstrate some important aspects that also apply to the beatitudes of the SM and the SP. Of course, the beatitudes in the SM and the SP are not drawn from ancient Greek mystery cults, but they have developed out of a jewish matrix. The Old Testament and postbiblical literature contain a large number of beatitudes, presenting them in a wide variety of forms and functions and making it thereby difficult to see their primary characteristics. Comparing all these

6

versitli.tsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979) 12-72. Pace Chantraine, Dictionnaire, 3.659: "!'hypothese d'un imprunt egyptien est invraisemblable." See Assrnann, "Weisheit," 29-43 and 66-72, with a large collection of beatitudes. I owe this reference to Professor Hellmut Brunner. On this point see Betz, Essays, 127-29. I am following Krappe, "MAKAP," 245-46. IamfollowingdeHeer,MAKAP,17-19. This view is also held by Tomas Arvedson, Das 0

7

8 9 10 11

materials leads to the following conclusions: 1. Their original function (Sitz im Leben) is in the ritual, 2. Their nature is that of declarative statements, 3. The future orientation is eschatological as well as thisworldly, 4. They are connected with ethics and morality. Although the beatitudes of the SM and the SP are comparatively late and presuppose a jewish milieu, these basic aspects apply to them as well and one should keep them in mind, to avoid misunderstandings. There are, however, other aspects to consider: 1. If the original function or Sitz im Leben of the Beatitudes is in the ritual, their present occurrence in the SM and the SP, which are basically didactic texts, is secondary. 11 In this secondary function they serve as reminders of things the recipients of the SM and the SP have heard before. These things are now being recalled as presuppositions for the entire SM and SP. In other words, as didactic texts both the SM and SP presuppose some form of cultic experience, which, however, remains outside the texts. 12 Furthermore, as literary formations serving didactic functions the beatitudes of the SM and the SPare characterized by considerable complexity. It is too simple a matter to speak of the beatitude, as if there were only one such thing. Rather, the question is, which type of beatitude is before us? What are its components? What functions does it have in its present context? If, as I assume, the beatitudes in the SM and the SP have primarily didactic functions, their form follows this function-to apply here this famous principle of modern functionalism. For this reason, in my view, the beatitudes of the SM are, at least in their majority, given in the third person plural. The second person plural appears to reflect more directly the primary function in the ritual, while the third person plural conforms to the didactic

0

0

12

(Arbeiten und Mitteilungen aus dem neutestamentlichen Seminar zu Uppsala 7; Leipzig: Lorentz; Uppsala: Lundeqvistska Boekhandeln, 1937) 94-104. Differently Eduard Norden, Agnostos Theos (4th ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1956) 100 n. 1, who denies all "causal relationships" between the Greek and the beatitudes of the SM. The same is true of other cultic experiences; see below on SM/Matt 6:1-18.

Mysterium Christi: Eine Studie zu Mt 11,25-30

93

function. The evidence shows, however, that beatitudes formulated in the second person plural also function didactically, just as those stated in the third person are never without the connotation of an ethical appeal. 13 2. As statements of fact (third person) as well as addresses (second person), the Beatitudes are declarative in nature. What kind of declaration do they intend? Although the SM no doubt puts the beatitudes in the mouth ofJesus as the speaker, this does not mean that he simply invented this literary form. His pronouncement does not even necessarily mean that it occurs on his own authority. What the declarations state is a mythical truth, a kind of theological dogma, which applies to the eschatological judgment of God. If in the context of the last judgment God as the supreme judge pronounces the verdict over someone, 14 he simply makes concrete what is stated as a principle in the third person. 15 Therefore, one may say that the beatitudes in the SM (and also in the SP) represent anticipated eschatological verdicts. Whether formulated as principles in the third person plural (as in SM/Matt 5:3-10) or as a direct address in the second person plural (as in 5:11 ), these anticipated verdicts belong together and must not be viewed as opposites: The principles are presupposed and actualized in the address, and the principles would not make any sense unless they are applied. It makes good sense, therefore, that the principles in the third person are in 13

14

15

94

the SM cited first because everything else is based on them. In this way, the beatitudes ofthe SM and the SP stand in the tradition of Jewish wisdom literature. 16 This background also explains the large number of parallels to these beatitudes in the Jewish wisdom texts, from where the tradition entered into apocalyptic and rabbinic Judaism. 17 All of them declare in one form or another that the one blessed deserves this state of being because of"the wisdom displayed before God and humanity." 18 This wisdom is based on the divine justice or righteousness revealed in the Torah. In the SM, the faithful disciple is therefore called "the prudent one" (o cppOVLp.o~).1 9 That the SM and the SP assume Jesus to be the speaker should not be misunderstood. In the present contexts Jesus is no doubt the authority behind the Beatitudes. They are, however, not merely pronounced on the authority ofJesus. If Jesus is regarded as the authoritative teacher who formulated these beatitudes, he did so not for the sake of arbitrarily inventing them. Indeed, they derive from the concept of divine justice. As a Jewish teacher Jesus was familiar with the principle of justice that, according to Jewish thought, informs God's verdict in the last judgment. Every competent Jewish teacher would presumably understand these principles, so that one need not postulate a special

This way of stating the differences between secondand third-person formulations must be distinguished from the source-critical question. There is no reason to speculate that either the third- or second-person beatitudes are earlier, and depending on that question, whether the SM or the SP is an earlier source. Also different is the question whether Jesus himself used the beatitudes in the one form or the other. For discussion see Broer, Seligpreisungen, 1719,29-34. Cf. Matt 25:31-46; and Betz, Essays, 24, 26, 130, 149. See alsoHermas Vis. 3.2.1; Clement Alex. Strom. 4.6, § 30.1 (cf. 4.15.6), who emphasizes this eschatological aspect. At this point, the beatitudes of the SM and the SP differ from blessings. Strictly speaking, blessings are ritual pronouncements, and as such a subcategory of prayer. In contrast to curses, blessings are meant to confer divine benefits on those addressed. By comparison, the beatitudes in the SM and the SP state a reality that already exists. See Rene Kieffer, "Weisheit und Segen als Grundmotive der Selig-

16

17

18

19

preisungen bei MaWi.us und Lukas," SNTU2 (1976) 29-43, esp. 36-43. Kieffer ("Weisheit," 32) is right when he observes the wisdom perspective expressed by the Beatitudes. This perspective involves a general statement of fact assessing common experience through the eyes of wisdom ("ein allgemeinmenschliches Konstatieren, ... eine Betrachtung gewohnlicher Ereignisse mit den Augen der Weisheit"). See the collections of material made by Fiebig,Jesu Bergpredigt; Friedlander, Sources; Str-B; Maahs, "Makarisms"; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary; and Hengel, "Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt." Kieffer ("Weisheit," 33): "Man ist also selig durch die Weisheit, die man vor Menschen und vor Gott an den Tag legt." See below on SM/Matt 7:24-27; also 5:13-16.

Matthew 5:3-12

revelation, be it apocalyptic or otherwise, that has provided Jesus with insight into the ways of God's judgment. Apocalyptic vision reports often provide reaffirmations of the divine principles of justice, but one can hardly argue that those visions discover them for the first time. The SM and the SP include no vision reports but simply assume that Jesus knows these principles. Consequently, the final authority on which the Beatitudes are based is God's justice, a concept fundamental to the SM (see below on SM/Matt 5:6, 10). If one assumes that the historical Jesus pronounced the Beatitudes, or at least some of them, and if their first pronouncement occurred in the context of a cultic performance of some kind, this context now lies outside the present texts. The question of which cultic act cannot be answered with any certainty. The first recipients of the Sermons may remember baptism as their initiation ceremony, but neither the SM nor the SP mentions baptism; even the evangelist Matthew, who sees the connection, keeps them apart. In the context of Jesus' baptism, which is the prototype of Matthew's Christian baptism, the heavenly pronouncement does not occur in the form of a beatitude (Matt 3:17): "You are my beloved son with whom I am well pleased." This declaration may come close to a beatitude, but the literary form is different. Thus, the precise literary connection between beatitudes and other sayings involving a declaration of "you are ... " remains unclear. 20 In their present context, the Beatitudes are doctrinal statements; they are intended to be learned by heart and remembered. This secondary function is quite appropriate in that it shows the connections between doctrine and ritual. An interesting example of such a connection are the so-called Orphic gold leaves, which have been known 20 21 22

23 24

since the nineteenth century but have aroused great interest only recently. 21 Gunther Zuntz has correctly pointed out that the inscriptions on the gold leaves contain quotations of brief sentences, among them a beatitude (text A.1, line 8):22 lJJ\.{31€: Kat JLaKap!
Happy and blessed are you, you will be god instead of human. 23 One can reach some conclusions about the purpose of these gold leaves and their inscriptions. They were apparently placed into the tombs of deceased mysterycult initiates, put in the initiates' hand or near their ears. The inscriptions provide the deceased with the decisive formulae that as initiates they have to know as passwords on their way to the Elysian Fields. These formulae were, one may suppose, revealed to the initiate during an initiation ceremony, and they contain the essential message of salvation that the cult conveys. The formulae, therefore, must be remembered, and hence they were inscribed on indestructible gold and given to the deceased in their tombs, so that they could take them along into the afterlife. For the initiate these statements contain indispensable knowledge, and they possess magical force. These facts, if correctly reconstructed, are confirmed by similar sayings, such as in text A.4, lines 34, where we also find a parallel to SM/Matt 5:12: 24 xatp€: 7ra8fuv TO 7rtl87JJ.La TOll' ol57rw 7rp6u8f: £7rf:7r6v8m· 8f:os £y€vov £( av8pchov.

Rejoice, you have this experience (now) which you have never experienced before; you have become god instead ofhuman.2 5

On this point see Betz, Galatians, 183-84. See Burkert, Greek Religion, 296-301; idem, Ancient Mystery Cults, 33-34. Gunther Zuntz, Persephone: Three Essays on Religion and Thought in Magna Graecia (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971)322-23. Quoted according to Zuntz, Persephone, 301. The translation is mine. Cf. also PGM 111.599-600: xa{pop.£v, iln umvr6v ~p:iv

f'aofas,

xalpop.Ev, <Jr~.

fv 7rAII.uJ.LaCTI.V ~J.'aS' 8vTas

lnro6£ci>uas rfi u£< ("We rejoice because you showed yourself to us; we rejoice because while

25

we are [still] in bodies you deified us by the knowledge of who you are" [trans. by William C. Grese, in Hans Dieter Betz, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri (2d ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1992) 33-34]); see also Betz, Hellenismus und Urchristentum, 169. Quoted according to Zuntz, Persephone, 329. The translation is mine. Zuntz (331) remarks that the exclamation "rejoice!" (xalp£) is virtually synonymous with the address "Happy and blessed are you! " in the previous beatitude. Cf. also Firmicus Maternus De errore profanarum religiosum 22.1: 6app£tT£ p.,';ura•, rov 8£oV u£ucpcrp.Jvov, (uTaL yC,.p VJ.L'iV fK 1rOvwv uwr7Jpla

95

Lines 5-6 of text A.4 point to the topography of the netherworld and give directions: xa'L(pt:) xa'Lpt:• lit:ftav oliot7TOp(n) At:!p.wvlzs n Lt:pobs Kal. lf.>..ut:a cl>t:put:
26 27 28

96

These phenomena explain why New Testament authors (e.g., Paul), the authors ofthe New Testament Apocrypha, or those of the Nag Hammadi texts seem to have had no difficulty in formulating beatitudes. These sayings were simply a literary device summing up essential doctrines in the briefest possible form. In the literary sense, the beatitude had become a subgenre of the sententia. 3. Like most beatitudes, those of the SM and the SP have eschatological as well as this-worldly implications. Therefore, it is a fundamental mistake to favor either their future aspect of promise or their present pronouncement. As principles of eschatological and divine justice the Beatitudes are ipso facto future-oriented; as principles pronounced in the present they have an impact on the present as well. Divine justice not only is above time and space but also reaches into time and space. The implications of the Beatitudes as present pronouncements are, however, even more complex. Strictly speaking, they should be pronounced by the divine judge in the afterlife, as verdicts at the eschatological judgment. Spoken in the present they reveal a message that belongs to the future of persons for whose eternal salvation this message is decisive. One must also distinguish the beatitude from a promise. While the promise assures one about something one commonly knows and expects, the beatitude reveals a fact commonly unknown or unexpected. Even if such a fact was known in a general way, for the person receiving the message it constitutes a new revelation. As revelation of a principle, the beatitude shows and opens up a way oflife implementing that principle. The pronouncement moreover presents the demand that the person receiving the message takes up in the most serious

("Rejoice, [you) initiates, because the god has been saved, salvation from affliction will be yours!"). Furthermore, cf. Corpus Hermeticum 13.8: xa'i:pE AonrOv, ~ TlKvov, U.vaKa8aLp0p.Evos To'i's ToV 8EoV avv
re.

You have become a goddess in accordance with the law"). The citation and interpretation follow Zuntz, Persephone, 333-35. For further material and newly discovered inscriptions see Zuntz, 355-93; idem, "Die Goldlamelle von Hipponion," WS 89 (1976) 129-51; Martin L. West, "The Orphics of Olbia," ZPE 45 (1982) 17-29; idem, The Orphic Poems (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983) 23, 265. For more information on this below, see Burkhardt Gladigow, "Der Makarismus des Weisen," Hermes 95 (1967) 404-33.

Matthew 5:3-12

sense the way of life revealed: It requires no less than a radical decision, as it lays claim to the recipient's entire course and conduct oflife. Thus, the benefit of this revelation goes hand in hand with the demand of a response. Without adequate response the beatitude turns into condemnation. It is after all a principle of justice. Beatitudes are pronounced without condition, but they have inescapable consequences. 4. Thus the beatitude has a close relationship to morality and ethics. By revealing a new way of life, the beatitude affects moral behavior and demands an ethical awareness. 30 The beatitudes in the SM and the SP spell out this aspect by specifying the addressees as "poor in (the) spirit" and so forth. Thus the addressees can be identified and indeed are supposed to identify themselves by conscious attitudes, actions, and thoughts. As I shall show in case after case in the following (see the Interpretation below), these attitudes, actions, and thoughts are not common but exceptional and contrary to what is regarded as the conventional standards of behavior. These specific attitudes, actions,. and thoughts must also not be confused with "works of the law" in the Pauline sense. They do not "earn" salvation, but they are the "fruits" of insights into God's ways, and as such they "deserve" salvation. Paul would call them "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal5:22), rather than "works of the law." Nonetheless, the attitudes, actions, and thoughts demanded are different from what Greeks would call "virtues." They are not, like virtues, approximations toward the divine absolute, but they are complete realizations and as such "perfect" (SM/Matt 5:48). Furthermore, whatever ethical actions may be considered, they are to be part and parcel of the Jewish Torah as understood by the SM. In spite of all this, however, it is clear from the list of commended attitudes, actions, and thoughts that beatitudes have some kinship with "virtues" in the Greek sense of the term. At any rate, taken together the Beatitudes circumscribe the way 30

31

oflife of the faithful disciple of jesus. As such they constitute the exordium, or introduction, of the SM and the SP. That they merely introduce the SM and the SP means that the full range of obligations of the faithful disciple go far beyond the attitudes, actions, and thoughts outlined in the Beatitudes. b. The Literary Genre of the Beatitude

In spite of previous attempts, no complete collection of the beatitudes from antiquity exists (for partial ones see Strack and Billerbeck, Dirichlet, Hengel, Maahs). Neither is there any satisfactory classification of the various literary forms and stylistic criteria that would determine those forms (see Betz, Broer, Dodd, Gladigow, Hauck and Bertram, Janzen, Kahler, Kaser, Strecker [see the bibliography above]). Given this situation, I can present only a preliminary assessment here, which will be supported by select examples, few in number, from the vast body of material that exists in the sources and alone could easily fill a volume. 1. The oldest beatitudes point, as mentioned already, to religious cult, specifically to the mystery cults, as the primary Sitz im Leben. The most famous beatitude comes from the mysteries of Demeter and Persephone at Eleusis and is quoted in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter (lines 48083): /JJ\{310<; 8s raa' /J71'W71'€V £mx8ov[wv av8pcfmwv· 8s a' auJ\~s tfpwv, 8s r' ctp.p.opos, ov 7ro8' op.olwv atav Elxf' cJ>Olp.wos 71'fP imo (ocJ>Cfi d;pw£vn. Happy is he among humans on earth who has seen these mysteries; but he who is uninitiate and who has no part in them, never has lot of like good things once he is dead, down in the darkness and gloom. 31

For a discussion of the question whether the mysteries of Eleusis contained teaching on ethics, see Fritz Graf, Eleusis und die orphische Dichtung Athens in vorhellenistischer Zeit (RVV 3 3; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974) 81-82. Quoted according to J. B. Richardson, The Homeric Hymn to Demeter (Oxford: Clarendon, 197 4) 134, and the interpretation, 313-15. The translation is by

H. G. Evelyn-White, LCL.

97

Stated in the third person singular, the beatitude is spoken to those who have been initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries. 3 2 This initiation, therefore, must have preceded the pronouncement, since it is referred to by the words "he who has seen these things," indicating the things shown in the mystery ceremony (Ta auKv-6J.Lwa). 3 3 The first line sums up the benefits of the initiation in a general way. The second line issues a threat toward the outsiders, the uninitiated. They "have no share" either now or in the hereafter; they will not go to the Elysian Fields but will be thrown down into gloomy Hades. 34 It is important to realize that the beatitude is pronounced in the present, but its main concern is the eschatological destiny of the individual. 3 5 The threat of the second line certainly reminds one of the combination of blessings and threats in SP /Luke 6:20b-24, corresponding in the SM to the eschatological section in SM/Matt 7:13-23. 36 The question regarding this beatitude is its internal relationship to the Homeric Hymn. Does the Hymn "quote" the beatitude from the liturgy? Or was the beatitude part of the Hymn from the beginning? Was the Hymn used in the liturgy, or is it a poetic work modeled on hymns chanted in the ceremony? Unfortunately, we have no means of answering these questions with certainty. It appears that the long Hymn incorporated liturgical as well as nonliturgical components, but we know too little about "liturgies" in the mysteries to be able to arrive at 32

33

34

35

98

any firm conclusion, except that there must have been some form of relationship. At any rate, if the beatitude originated in the liturgical context, its inclusion in the Hymn would be secondary, but the relationship could just as well have been the other way around. When the poet Pindar refers to the same beatitude he does so by coming up with another version: CJA.{3tos guns 1awv EK£LVa KolA.av duLV l!"ITO x86va· otaw J.L~V {3LOTOV T£A£VT!tV, ota~;v a~ atiJuaoTOV apxav. Blessed is he who has seen these things before he goes beneath the hollow earth; for he understands the end of mortal life; and he understands the god-given beginning. 37 Interesting here is that Pindar states only the blessing, not the threat. Peculiar is his reference to the "god-given beginning" Guxtaposed with the reference to the afterlife), 38 and the emphasis on the cognitive aspect of the experience. Nothing is known about the origin of the verse: Did the poet quote it from a hymn, which would then be a hymn different from the Homeric Hymn to Demeter? Or did Pindar compose the verse himself, perhaps imitating the cultic beatitude? As intriguing as these questions are, there is no way to give a firm answer. Also informative is a beatitude in Euripides' Bacchae, lines 72-77: 6> J.LclKap, guns ~;tJaalJ.Lwv nA£Tas O~;wv £laws f3wTav aytun-6u Kat 8taU£.,j£TaL 'fFvxav.

In addition to Richardson's work see Graf, Eleusis, 79-94; Burkert, Greek Religion, 285-90; idem, Ancient Mystery Cults, 89-114, esp. 93. For the parallels to "seeing" (11lEiv) see Graf, Eleusis, 81 n. 12; Betz, Hellenismus und Urchristentum, 15236 53; Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults, 93. Cf. the beatitude for the Jewish convert in Philo Praem. poen. 152: "The proselyte exalted aloft by his happy lot will be gazed at from all sides, marvelled at and held blessed by all for two things of highest excellence, that he came over to the camp of God 37 and that he has won a prize best suited to his merits, a place in heaven firmly fixed, greater than words dare describe, while the nobly born who has falsified the sterling of his high lineage will be dragged right down and carried into Tartarus itself and profound 38 darkness." Important is Herodotus's (1.32) explanation that only after death one can be called "blessed" (iJ11.{3.or), because during one's life one may at most be "of good fortune" (Evrvx~r); for he says, "there are many to whom heaven has given a vision of blessedness,

and yet afterwards brought them to utter ruin." The author of the SM would have endorsed this comment. It also seems to be a critical reflection on the mystery-cult initiation. For the double aspect in the Eleusinian mysteries see also Cicero De leg. 2.14.36: laetitia vivendi ("joy of living") and spes melior moriendi ("better hope in dying"). For comments see Giulia Sfameni Gasparro, Soteriology and Mystic Aspects in the Cult ofCybele and Attis (Leiden: Brill, 1985) 23-25. Pindar frg. 121, in C. M. Bowra, ed., Pindar (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964) 90 (my trans.). Clement Alex. Strom. 3.17 .2 (ed. Stahlin, p. 203) attributes the beatitude to the Eleusinian mysteries. See also Graf, Eleusis, 80-81. Cf. also the inscription on one of the Orphic tablets from Olbia: Blor 0avaror Blor ("life-death-life"). See Martin L. West, "The Orphics of Olbia," ZPE 45 (1982) 17-19; idem, Orphic Poems, 17, 19.

Matthew 5:3-12

0 blessed he who in happiness knowing the rituals of the gods makes holy his way of life and mingles his spirit with the sacred band. 39 This beatitude, belonging in some way to the cult of Dionysos, bears a striking similarity to the one from the Homeric Hymn to Demeter cited above. The same questions arise also in view of this beatitude: Is it Euripides' own creation? Does he cite it from a liturgy? Even here the mysteries keep silent. Peculiar to this beatitude is that it does not mention the afterlife. It does, however, emphasize knowing, holiness, and a way oflife through inspiration and purity, concepts pointing to the Dionysiac religion. As Dionysiac religion is reflected, the analogies between this and the beatitude belonging to the Demeter religion remain a puzzle. Are they a reflection of the wider problem of the relationship between the two cults? Another close and illuminating parallel comes from the cult of Isis and Osiris, according to the account given in ApuleiusMet. 11.16 (p. 278, lines 7-10, ed. Griffiths), where a crowd of worshipers greets Lucius upon his return from death into life during his initiation: hunc omnipotentis hodie deae numen augustum reformavit ad homines. felix hercules et ter beatus, qui vitae scilicet praecedentis innocentia jideque meruerit tam praeclarum de caelo patrocinum, ut renatus quodam modo statim sacrorum obsequio desponderetur.

This is the man who has been today restored to human shape through the splendid divinity of the all-powerful goddess. 39

Happy is he, by heaven, and thrice-blessed to have clearly deserved, by the purity of his former life and his pious loyalty, such wondrous favour from heaven that he is, as it were, born again and has at once pledged himself to service in the holy rites. 40 These are the words chanted by the crowds and thus recited from memory. They declare the fulfillment of the promise made to Lucius by Isis upon her appearance to him. 41 Afterward Lucius had himself initiated into the mysteries, a process that now has reached its fulfillment. Apuleius does not describe the secret rites themselves, so that his words are general and veiled, and only those initiated know exactly to what they refer. But at least Apuleius gives us the synthema, a carefully worded circumscription of the initiation. 42 While its precise meaning was clear only to the initiates, outsiders like us must be content to guess its implications: accessi conjinium mortis et calcato Proserpinae limine per omnia vectus elementa remeavi, nocte media vidi solem candido coruscantem lumine, deos inferos et deos superos accessi coram et adoravi de proxumo.

I approached the boundary of death and treading on Proserpine's threshold, I was carried through all the elements, after which I returned. At dead of night I saw the sun flashing with bright effulgence. I approached close to the gods below and the gods above and worshiped them face to face. 43

Quoted from Gilbert Murray's edition of Euripides (Oxford: Clarendon, 1920); the translation is by G. S. Kirk, The Bacchae of Euripides (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970) 33-35; see also H. S. Versnel, Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religions, vol. 1: Ter 42 Unus: Isis, Dionysos, Hermes; Three Studies in Henotheism

40

41

(Studies in Greek and Roman Religion 6; Leiden: Brill, 1990), esp. 167-68. Text and translation are according to Griffiths, Apuleius, 88-89, whose commentary should also be consulted (256-59). 43 ApuleiusMet. 6, pp. 270,23-271,4 (ed. Griffiths, 76-77): "You shall live indeed a happy man, you shall live full of glory in my protection, and when you have completed the span of your lifetime, you will pass down to the netherworld, but there also, in the very midst of the subterranean hemisphere, you shall

often worship me, whom you now see, as one who favours you, shining in the darkness of Acheron and ruling in the Stygian depths, when you the while shall dwell in the Elysian fields." See the sentence following the synthema: "Behold, I have related things about which you must remain in ignorance, though you have heard them" ("ecce tibi rettuli, quae, quamvis audita, ignores tamen necesse est" [Met. 11.23, p. 285, 14-15, ed. Griffiths, Apuleius, 98-99]). See Met. 23, p. 285, 11-14 (ed. Griffiths, Apuleius, 98-99). Cf. also the beatitude in Met. 22, p. 284, 6-7. On the synthema see Griffiths (294-308), who also refers to the Orphic gold lamellae mentioned above.

99

Both beatitude and synthema breathe the spirituality of the Egyptian Isis religion. We can conclude that during the initiation Lucius has taken a symbolic-ritual journey to the world beyond, where his eternal destiny was revealed to him. This experience is then interpreted as death and rebirth. As a response he pledges his service to the goddess. The beatitude thus sums up the benefits of the initiation, which are also expounded by the much larger context of the surrounding narrative of the Metamorphoses book 11. In Jewish literature only a few beatitudes belong to the type we find in association with mystery cults. Of this group the most instructive one is found in the Hellenistic-Jewish novel joseph and Aseneth, a work heavily influenced by mystery-cult language. After Aseneth, an Egyptian woman (cf. Gen 41:45, 50; 46:20), has converted to the Jewish religion, she passes through an elaborate initiation ritual, at the culmination of which the initiating "angel of God" pronounces this beatitude upon her (los. Asen. 16.7-8): tJ.aKap{a E crv' , AcreveO' (Jn a11'EKaAvt/J67J CTOL Ta a7r&pp7Jra TOV Oeov, Kat tJ.aKtipLoL o£ 7rpOcrKELtJ.EVOL Kvp{Cfl r(iJ Oe(iJ ~v tJ.ETavoll!-, CJn ~K rovrov rov K7Jplov tJ>&.yovraL, olon Tb tJ.EAL TOVTO 11'E11'0L~KaCTLV a£ tJ.EALcrcraL TOV 1rapaoelcrov rij~ rpvtJ>ij~, Kat OL liyyeAOL TOV Oeov ~t avrov ~crOlovcrL, Kat 11'a~ ~~ !J!&.yeraL ~t avrov OVK a1!'o6ave'iraL el~ TbV aLwva. Blessed are you, Aseneth, because the ineffable mysteries of God have been revealed to you, and blessed are those who attach themselves to the Lord in repentance, because they eat from the (honey-)comb. For the bees of the paradise of delight have made this honey, and the angels of God eat of it, and everyone who eats from it will not die forever. 44

r

,~

44

45

100

The text does not reveal what "the hidden things of God" are, but in this Jewish text they are probably identical with the ceremonies described. The "angel of God" is a redeemer figure who comes down from heaven knowing all the secrets of heaven and earth. Receiving the initiation through this angel encompasses all that conversion to Judaism as understood in this text requires. The beatitude sums up this understanding of Jewish conversion and its benefits. That it occurs as part of what appears to be a conversion ritual points to its original Sitz im Leben. At least in this context, however, the ritual is a literary fiction, conforming to the genre of the novella, and therefore it has a secondary setting and composition. This textual situation raises important questions that cannot be treated here, but they have been treated in several stimulating contributions by Reinhold Merkelbach. 45 Other interesting instances of the cultic-religious beatitude occur in Jewish apocalyptic texts. Some of these are peculiar because of their similarity to those associated with the Greek mystery cults, notwithstanding the religious and cultural differences. One ought also to keep in mind that the origins of these texts, especially their relationship to theJe~ish rituals, are an unresolved problem. Therefore, we do not know whether these apocalyptic beatitudes are cited from sources, or whether they were formulated in imitation of those sources, or whether these sources were liturgical. An early instance of this type of beatitude is found in Sirach 48, a chapter with an apocalyptic ring to it. The section focuses on Elijah, Elisha, Hezekiah, and Isaiah as apocalyptic seers. In the section dealing with Elijah (Sir 48:1-11), an aretalogy of the prophet leads to his ascent into heaven and the pronouncement of a beatitude (48:11): tJ.aKtipLOL OL lo&vre~ erE Kat OL ~v aya71'~CTEL KEKOLtJ-7JtJ.EVOL Kat yap ~tJ.E'i~ (wfi (1/cr&tJ.eOa. Blessed are they who saw you and died in love, for also we shalllive. 46

The text is cited according to the edition by Marc Philonenko,Joseph et Aseneth (StPB 13; Leiden: Brill, 1968); the translation is mine; for another translation based on a different text see Christoph Burchard, 46 OTP 2.228-29; see also Kahler, "Zur Form- und Traditionsgeschichte," 48-50. Reinhold Merkelbach, Roman und Mysterium in der Antike (Munich and Berlin: Beck, 1962); idem, Die

0

Hirten des Dionysos: Die Dionysosmysterien der romischen Kaiserzeit und der bukolische Roman des Longos (Stutt-

gart: Teubner, 1988) esp. 52. Quoted according to the edition by Joseph Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta 12.2; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965) 351. The translation is mine.

Matthew 5:3-12

Unfortunately the text of vs 11 is uncertain and makes interpretation difficult. 47 The beatitude seems to pronounce blessed those who have seen Elijah after he ascended to heaven in the chariot (vs 9). Perhaps the statement refers to the hereafter: "Blessed are they who see you after having died in love. "48 Or, if one takes up the reading ava7Tavcr£L proposed by Smend, one may render: "they who are asleep in eternal rest." The second line then confers the same benefit on the present generation as those who by the apocalyptic revelation have been informed about their destiny in the hereafter. A similar literary situation is presented by the end of the book ofTobit. 49 In Tob 12:6 an angel who later reveals himself to be Raphael (12:15) calls Tobit and his son Tobias, in order to hand over to them a piece of cultic instruction (12:6-10). 50 When Raphael reveals his identity (12: 11-15), Tobit and Tobias are terrified and fall on their faces worshiping him. Raphael then discloses to them "the mystery of the kingdom," 51 implying that they have no reason to be afraid because their eternal salvation is assured ( 12: 17). Raphael also explains ( 12: 19): "All these days I appeared to you, and I did not eat or drink, but you were seeing a vision." He then orders them to write down in a book 5 2 what they have experienced, and this process is characterized with these words: "Then they confessed the great and wonderful works of God and that the angel of the Lord had appeared to them." As a conclusion, Tobit composes a hymn praising God's kingdom (13:1-18). In this section, a curse and a blessing are included (13:14 LXX), followed by beatitudes (13:15-16 LXX; trans. RSV with 47

48 49

50 51

some modifications by author): x6.p1J81 Kat lz:ya:A.:A.lacral l7Tt TOt!.' VLOt!.' TOJV liucalwv, Cfn crvvax8~CTOVTal Kat ~:v:A.oy~crovcrw TOV KVp!OV TWV liiKalwv. 53

Be glad and rejoice for the sons of the righteous, for they will be gathered together and they will praise the Lord of the righteous. '9' I ~ ' "" I 1 ' ' ""' ' I W f.WKapiOI 01 aya7TWVTI:!.' CTI: xap1JCTOVTal 1:71'1 T!J €Lp1JV!J crov· 0 blessed are those who love you, 54 they will be glad

because of your peace. p.aKd.pwl Cfcro1 l:A.v7T~81Jcrav l7Tt 7Td.cral!.' Tat!.' p.acrTltlv crov, Cfn (7r{ CTOI xap~CTOVTal 8~:acrap.~:VOI 7Tacrav T~V /lOtav crov, Kat ~:vcppav8~crovTal cL!.' TOv alwva.

Blessed are they who have grieved over all your afflictions, 55 for they will rejoice over you upon seeing all your glory, and they will be made glad forever. The beatitudes in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch 5 6 appear to be purely literary creations. They are part of the seer's instruction and farewell speech to "his sons," after he has returned from a journey to heaven. In heaven he has seen "whatever is now and whatever will be until the day of judgment. "57 As a result the seer can say of himself that he knows all things from the lips of the Lord himself and that he has seen all from the beginning to the end. 58 The purpose of the book of 2 Enoch is to inform 59 the

See Ziegler's critical apparatus, and the discussion in Theophil Middendorp, Die Stellung Ben Siras zwischen judentum und Hellenismus (Leiden: Brill, 1973) 13435. "You" is probably to be connected with "having died in love." See BDF, § 442; BDR, § 442. For the question of the composition see Paul Deselaers, Das Buch Tobit: Studien zu seiner Entstehung, Komposition und Theologie (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). Cf. SM/Matt 6:1-18. The Greek concept is expressed as p.v
52 53 54 55

56

57 58 59

The "book" is the book of Tobit. Cf. SM/Matt 5:12. That is, who love Jerusalem. The statements seem to refer to Jerusalem; the heavenly Jerusalem is described in 13:16-18 (cf. 14:4-5). Cf. also SM/Matt 5:14; 7:13-14. For this strange work, the date of which is uncertain, see the introduction, translation, and notes by F. I. Andersen in OTP 1.91-213. That 2 Enoch is characterized by numerous parallels to the SM has often been noted, but no plausible explanation has yet been found. See OTP 1.95. 2 Enoch 39.2 (OTP 1.163). 2 Enoch 40.1 (OTP 1.165). 2 Enoch 39.2 (OTP 1.163).

101

readers about the vision, in this way conveying the experience of the seer in heaven to the readers of his book on earth. 60 After he has seen the paradise of the righteous, the seer blesses Israel with nine beatitudes (2 Enoch 42.6-14): Happy is the person who reverences the name of the LORD, and who serves in front of his face always, and who organizes his gifts with fear, offerings of life, and who in this life lives and dies correctly! Happy is he who carries out righteous judgment, not for the sake of payment, but for justice, not expecting anything whatever as a result; and the result will be that judgment without favoritism will follow for him. Happy is he who clothes the naked with his garment, and to the hungry gives his bread! Happy is he who judges righteous judgment for orphan and widow, and who helps anyone who has been treated unjustly! Happy is he who turns aside from the secular path of this vain world, and walks in the right paths, and who lives that life which is without end! Happy is he who sows right seed, for he shall harvest sevenfold! Happy is he in whom is the truth, so that he may speak the truth to his neighbor! Happy is he who has compassion on his lips and 60 61

62

102

gentleness in his heart! Happy is he who understands all the works of the LoRD, performed by the LORD, and glorifies him! For the works of the LoRD are right, but the works of mankind-some are good, but others are evil; and by their works those who speak lying blasphemies are recognized. 61 Such strings of beatitudes, for which other examples could also be cited, among them the Qumran fragment 4Q525, 62 indicate that the beatitude as a literary genre has been included in collections of gnomic sayings in the context of apocalyptic fiction. This context, however, is secondary, and so are the beatitudes. In an apocalyptic context the beatitudes are part of the literary effort to create, or recreate, an apocalyptic vision in the imagination of the reader of the apocalyptic book. The beatitudes must be regarded as part of this apocalyptic fiction. In jewish wisdom and rabbinic literature serial arrangement of beatitudes seems to follow literary methods such as numerical sequence. 63 These methods based on numerical symbolism or acrostic figures are used also by gnomologia, but this type of saying is not directly associated with a cultic context. They are consciously literary productions. Accordingly, the sequence of the beatitudes in the SM and the SP constitutes "serial sayings" (Reihensprilche), each saying begin-

2 Enoch 40.2 (OTP 1.165). OTP 1.168 (recension]; cf. recension A [p. 169],

which has nine shorter beatitudes; in formulation they are not strictly parallel). If Puech's reconstruction is correct, the Qumran text 4Q525 has a series of five beatitudes, the last one 63 being different from and longer than the other four. See Emile Puech, "Une Hymn Essenien en partie retrouve et les Beatitudes: 1QH V 12-VI 18 (col. xiii-xiv 7) at 4Q Beat.," RevQ 13 (1988) 59-88; AdamS. van der Woude, ThR 55 (1990) 273-74; Martin Hengei,JSS 35 (1990) 52 n. 66; Benedict Viviano, "Beatitudes Found Among Dead Sea Scrolls," BA Rev 18 (1992) 53-55, 66. See, furthermore, Acts ofPaul and Thecla 5-6, according to the text in Lipsius and Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 1.238-40; translation in NTApoc 2.35455. How these beatitudes, some of which are strikingly similar to those of the SM, are related to Christian literature or ritual is unknown. The introductory scene is fictional: "when Paul had entered into the house of Onesiphorus there was

great joy, and bowing of knees and breaking of bread and the word of God concerning continence and the resurrection, as Paul said." For further examples see also Beyschlag, "Geschichte," 321 n. 68; Berger, Formgeschichte, 188-94. See W. Sibley Towner, The Rabbinic "Enumeration of Scriptural Examples": A Study of a Rabbinic Pattern of Discourse with Special Reference to Mekilta d' R. Ishmael

(StPB 22; Leiden: Brill, 1973), preceded by W. M. W. Roth, Numerical Sayings in the Old Testament (VTSup 13; Leiden: Brill, 1965); August Wiinsche, "Die Zahlenspriiche in Talmud und Midrasch," Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenliindischen Gesellschaft 65 (1911)57-100,395-421;66(1912)414-59.

Matthew 5:3-12

ning with the term "blessed. "64 The structure of the sayings may be the same, or they may vary; both types are typical of the Reihensprilche. 65 This variability is important in view of the last beatitude (SM/Matt 5: 12). The changes occurring in the literary genre and function of the beatitude have so far been discussed with regard to Jewish literature, but one can observe the same phenomena in Greek literature as well. 66 In an important essay Burkhardt Gladigow has called attention to "the beatitude of the wise man, "67 showing how Greek philosophers made use of this literary genre in order to state a philosophical idea in a succinct formulation easy to memorize. Modeling a gnomic beatitude after the ritual precursor, the philosophers expressed rational thought, not cultic knowledge, and they did so in public, not in esoteric rituals. The distinction between a religious and a philosophical beatitude is sometimes intriguing, and the phenomenon calls for more explanation than can be given here. A famous example of such a borderline beatitude occurs in Hesiod's Theogony. This beatitude is pronounced after Herakles' completion of his famous toils; he has already become the prototype of the sage trying to cope with the toils of life: lJA.f3ws, 8s p.(ya fpyov fV a8aviLTOUT!V av!Juuas va{u Cz7T~p.aTOS Kat ay~paos Tfp.aTa 7TILVTa.

a saying of Empedocles: lJA.f3ws 8s B£iwv 1Tpa7Tillwv fKT~uaTo 7T A.ovTov, 8£tA.bs a' ciit CTKOT6£CTCTL 8£wv 1T£pt Mt"a p.ip.TJAW.

Blessed is he who has acquired a wealth of the divine wisdom, but miserable he in whom there rests a dim opinion concerning the gods. 69 This sententia provides what appears to be a critical commentary on the mystery-cult beatitude. The true wealth is now declared to consist of "divine thoughts" (lhiat 1Tpa7Till£s), 70 which means that redemptive knowledge has been exchanged for philosophical knowledge of divine quality. 71 It is, therefore, more important to share this philosophical wisdom than merely to take part in the ritual. Darkness and gloom are to be feared not merely in the hereafter, but whoever does not have a share in this wisdom now already lives in intellectual darkness because of false opinions regarding the gods. 7 2 That the right knowledge concerning the gods is required for true "happiness" is declared also in the form of a beatitude at the beginning of Epicurus' s K yriai Doxai, although the content of that knowledge differs from that in the saying ofEmpedocles: 73 Tb p.aKILptoV Kat llcj>8apTOV oifu avTb 7Tp/,.yp.aTa fxu oifu llAA~ 1Tap(xu, ifluT£ opyats oifT£ xiLpLCTL CTVV,X£TaL" fV au8£V£L y"izp 1rav Tb TO!OVTOV.

Happy he! For he has finished his great work and lives amongst the undying gods, untroubled and unaging all his days. 68 By comparison, a complete transformation of the beatitude into a philosophical sententia has taken place in 64 65

66 67 68

69

Towner, Rabbinic "Enumeration," 229, mentions the beatitudes of the SM as "functional analogues." See also Ludwig A. Rosenthal, Uber den Zusam-

70 71

menhang, die Quellen und die Entstehung der Mischna 72 (2d ed.; Berlin: Wechselmann, 1918) 138. See Betz, Essays, 26-33. Gladigow, "Der Makarismus des Weisen," Hermes 95 (1967) 404-33. Theog. 954-55, according to the edition and translation in LCL by H. G. Evelyn-White. See also Martin L. West, Hesiod: Theogony (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966) 73 418-19. Frg. 132, ed. Diels-Kranz, B 132 (I, 365). The translation is by Arthur Fairbanks, The First Philosophers of Greece (New York: Scribner's, 1898) 201; on this saying see also Arvedson, Das Mysterium Christi, 95.

On this term see also Zuntz, Persephone, 208 n. 5. See Gladigow, "Der Makarismus des Weisen," 4081 0; Zuntz, Persephone, 258. For further consideration of this idea see the PseudoPlatonic Epinomis, and on that Leonard Taran, Academica: Plato, Philip of Opus, and the Pseudo-Platonic Epinomis (Philadelphia: American Philosophical

Society, 1975) 32-36,48-69, 155-67. Clement Alex. Strom. 5.6-7 (ed. Stahlin, vol. 2, p. 330, 8-16) coordinates Epin. 973C with SM/Matt 5:8. See Cyril Bailey, The Greek Atomists and Epicurus (New York: Russell & Russell, 1964) 472.

103

A blessed and eternal being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; hence he is exempt from movements of anger and partiality; for every such movement implies weakness. 74 Epicurus's sententia defines in a theoretical way what according to his philosophy constitutes "blessedness," that is, "imperishability" -things talked about in religion. The intent of the philosopher is also paraenetical, when he addresses, as he does, the Epicurean student to whom he announces the most fundamental principle as a goal for his life. 7 5 Epicurus's opening sentence is important for yet another reason. Beatitudes appear to serve as introductory principles in prooemia of didactic texts. Even Ps 1: 1-2 is an example of this function in that it not only states the fundamental principles of the Jewish religion but does so at the beginning of the Psalter as a whole: Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. (RSV) The negative formulation of the first part is peculiar in that it turns around the normal order of stating first the positive and then the negative. 76 Another example of a beatitude-like saying at the beginning of a sayings collection comes from the prooemium of the Sententiae of Pseudo-Phocylides: TavTa OLK?JS bul?Jcn 8wv {3ov'JI.£iJp.am cpalv£L, ci>wKv'JI.lli7]s

avopwv 0 uocj>wTaTOS lJ'JI.{3ta Owpa. These counsels of God by his holy judgments Phocylides the wisest of men sets forth, gifts of blessing. 77 Whether or not these first two lines are an original part of the collection, they now form its prooemium. There is also a connection between these first and the last lines of the poem (229-30), thus properly coordinating prooemium and epilogue. 7 8 As the term lJA.{3ta owpa ("gifts of blessing") indicates, the prooemium is supposed to look archaic. 79 The whole collection is called "counsels of God" based on "holy judgments," terms implying that the poet has obtained them by revelation and hands them over to the readers as "gifts of blessing," or as the epilogue calls them (229), "mysteries of righteousness" (otKatoutJv7]s p.vuT~pta). 80 The significance of the prooemium as well as of the whole text is summed up well by Gedaliahu Alon in an article cited by van der Horst: Ps. Phoc. did not write for pagans but for Jews. The poem is the presentation of the principles of Jewish life as compared to the heathen way of life (hence the many agreements with the Two Ways document behind Did. I-VI). The poet, speaking here in the name of an ancient Greek author, seeks to demonstrate to the Jews who are engrossed in Hellenistic culture and imitate its manners and deeds, that even an ancient writer of great acclaim recognizes Jewish moral requisites. The author wants to bring them back to good deeds in an indirect way .... Alon goes on to situate Ps. Phoc. within a current in ancient

74

Kyriai Doxai 1, Diog. L. 10.139, according to the LCL edition by R. D. Hicks; see also Epicurus Ep. ad Menoec., Diog. L. 10.123, 134; Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 1.

75

The terminology of blessedness is rather frequent in 77 Epicurus. See the index in Graziano Arrighetti, Epicuro, Opere (2d ed.; Turin: Einaudi, 1973) 769, s.v. p.aKap•os Kr >..

76

104

See also Ps 119:51; Prov 3:34; 19:25-29. One should 78 note that in the LXX translation of Ps 1:2 the last 79 line (Ka'L fv TCiJ vOp.q> aVroV p.EAET?jun .qp.Jpar Ka'L vv~eToV, "and on his law he will meditate day and night") may have an anti-Epicurean ring; cf. Epicurus Ep. ad Menoec., Diog. L. 10.122, 123, 126. For later Jewish 80 polemics against the Epicureans see Henry A. Fischel, Rabbinic Literature and Greco-Roman Philosophy (StPB 21; Leiden: Brill, 1973); Willem C. van Unnik, "An Attack on the Epicureans by Flavius

Josephus," in Romanitas et Christianitas: Studia Jan H. Waszink oblata (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1973) 341-55. Cited is the edition and commentary by Pieter W. van der Horst, The Sentences ofPseudo-Phocylides (SVTP 4; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 88-89, with the commentary on 107-10. See van der Horst, Sentences, 109-10. Cf. Homer Od. 13.41-42. See van der Horst, Sentences, 109; furthermore, H. W. Parke and D. E. W. Wormell, The Delphic Oracles (2 vols.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1956) vol. 2, nos. 8, 206, 319, 374,497,498. See van der Horst, Sentences, 260-62.

Matthew 5:3-12

Judaism which tended to reduce the Torah to a limited set of ethical principles which were meant for theJews. 81 These literary analogs demonstrate that placing a beatitude at the head of a collection of ethical maxims was almost a literary convention. The implication for the SM and the SP is that they, in their own ways, follow this convention. The phenomenon certainly points to a literary environment related to Jewish wisdom, the environment within which the SM and the SP had their origins as well. c. The Number of Beatitudes

Since antiquity, the question of the precise number of beatitudes in the SM has been widely discussed. Are there seven, eight, nine, or ten in SM/Matt 5:3-12? Most of the time scholars decide this question in comparison with SP/Luke 6:20b-26, which juxtaposes four beatitudes with four "woe" -sayings. The number of beatitudes in the SM is then taken as the result of expansion. I have already pointed out that the beatitudes in the SM as well as in the SP are secondary redactional products. The question remains how such redaction took place. Most scholars agree that SM/Matt 5:11-12 is the result of an e:ll.pansion of an earlier set in 5:3-10. Verse 11 involves a change from the third to the second person plural, and there is no identification of the recipients. Verse 12 has a different beginning altogether, so that scholars often do not include it among the beatitudes but label it a "call for joy," arguing that at this point at least the composition destroys the pattern of serial beatitudes. Clearly, the interest of the author of the SM, whether a pre-Matthean writer or Matthew himself, shifts from repeating the pattern to addressing the readers directly. 81 82

83

Although this analysis reflects the virtual consensus of scholarship, one need not accept it uncritically. As shown in the main Introduction (see above, pp. 5-88), there is no reason to regard the SM as an expansion of the SP. Instead, each version of the Sermon has its own rationale for its composition. It is clear that the SM includes a set of eight or seven beatitudes, for which 5:3 and 5: 1 0 serve as an inclusio. Then vs 11 changes to a direct address, omitting the "specification of the addressees," and from a Cln-sentence the second line goes to an Mv-sentence. Finally, vs 12 reaches a climax by changing to a different form altogether. This arrangement is the result ofliterary design, rather than the accidental outcome of embellishment or expansion. What, then, are the reasons for this design, and what are its intentions? The church fathers have rightly recognized that numerical symbolism is involved. By contrast, modern research seems opposed to theories arguing for such symbolism. 82 There is, however, good reason to look further in this direction. 83 Numerical arrangement of sayings, as mentioned above, was a common way to compose gnomological literature. Especially popular was the number ten, a symbol of perfection. Sir 25:7-11 contains "ten happy thoughts," introduced by the words: "With nine thoughts I have gladdened my heart, and a tenth I shall tell with my tongue." 84 The pattern of nine plus one occurs

Ibid., 45-46. An exception is Strecker, "Makarismen," 259, who assumes that the number seven played an important role'for Matthew as well as for his tradition. See the Introduction above, pp. 42, 45-46. See the scholarly studies listed above, n. 63. Philo of Alexandria shows the popularity of numerical speculation in Hellenistic Judaism. Adopting Platonic 84 ideas from Middle Platonism, he associates the number eight with equality and justice; see Philo Q Gen. 1. 7 5; 3.49. The number ten represents perfection and applies to the "divine mysteries" (Q. Gen.

4.1 0). On the whole matter see the investigation by Karl Staehle, Die Zahlenmystik bei Philon von Alexandreia (Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1931); furthermore, Anton Vogtle, "Achtlasterlehre," RAG 1 (1950) 74-79; Karl Schneider, "Achtzahl," ibid., 7981; Franz Joseph Dolger, "Zur Symbolik des christlichen Taufhauses," Antike und Christentum 4 ( 1934) 153-87; Friedrich Hauck, "o£Ka," TDNT 2.35-36. Sir 25:7 (LXX): 'Evv£a fnrof!V~f'aTa £f'aKd.pura £v Kapo£1!- Kat rh o£Karov £pw £,.t yArorTrT1/f· Similarly, SM/Matt 5:3-11 are meant to be listened to, while 5:12 calls for a loud response.

105

elsewhere 85 and could also apply to SM/Matt 5:3-12. Yet the number eight is often chosen as well. Both numbers symbolize perfection, a concept important for the SM (5:48). Gregory of Nyssa seems to have been the first to interpret the Beatitudes as stages in the ascent of the soul. 86 According to him the SM addresses the "disciples of the Logos" and describes their ascent together with the Logos from the earthly and lowly thoughts to the spiritual mountain of higher contemplation. 87 Gregory counts eight beatitudes constituting the steps of the mystical ladder. Emphasizing the number eight he sees in the eighth beatitude "the restitution to heaven of those who had fallen into slavery. "88 This theory had an extraordinary influence on later interpreters. Although the symbolic or allegorical system is certainly a secondary imposition on the New Testament text, it may have some basis in the text. 89 Probably following Gregory, 90 Ambrose of Milan gives special thought to the eight beatitudes of Matthew in his commentary on Luke. 91 Combining Luke's four with Matthew's eight beatitudes, Ambrose sees the eight as stages in the ascent of the soul, just like Gregory, while 85

the four represent the cardinal virtues of philosophy. With the four contained in the eight, the mystical perfection is demonstrated. 92 This scheme is indebted to Neoplatonic mysticism. Ambrose's commentary (written c. 388/89-392 CE), was probably known to Augustine. While taking over some of the ideas, however, Augustine goes another way. Instead of coordinating the eight beatitudes with the four cardinal virtues, he combines them with the "seven gifts of the Holy Spirit," another traditional concept. Augustine's interpretation thus differs fundamentally from Ambrose in that his basic concept is "grace," not "virtue." With his predecessors 93 Augustine sees mystical significance in the number of beatitudes, and he agrees that they describe the ascent of the soul, but he goes further in relating the Beatitudes to the SM as a whole. As pointed out in the main Introduction (see above, pp. 11-12, 45-46), Augustine is the first who attempted to analyze the SM as a unified text in terms of its composition. Three concepts play a decisive role for Augustine: the symbolism of numbers, the stages of the ascent of the soul, and the division into the vita activa and the vita contemplativa.

For the decad as ennead plus monad, see Philo Q. Gen. 4.110. Sacr. AC 122 declares the number ten as sacred to "education" (7ra&ll£ia); Rer. div. her. divides

89

the Decalogue into two sets of five commandments. See furthermore, Staehle, Zahlenmystik, 53-58. In 'Abot 5.1 the organizing principle is the number ten; see Taylor, Sayings, 78 n. 1; Rosenthal, Vber den Zusammenhang, 134-41; Leo Baeck, "Die zehn 90 Sephirot im Sepher Jezira," Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des judentums 78 (1934) 448-55; 91 Felix Bohl, Gebotserschwerung und Rechtsverzicht als ethisch-religiose Normen in der rabbinischen Literatur

86

87

88

106

(Frankfurter Judaistische Studien 1; Freiburg i.Br.: 92 Schwarz, 1971) 109-17; idem, "Die Demut (;"'!, ':>:) als hochste der Tugenden: Bemerkungen zu Mt. 5.3, 5," BZ 20 (1979) 217-23. De beatitudinibus, PC 44.1193-1302, a work containing eight orations on eight beatitudes in Matthew; it has been dated to 387 CE. See jean Danielou, "La chronologie des sermons de Gregoire de Nysse," RSR 29 (1955) 346-72, esp. 372. Oratio 1, PC 44.1193B: uvvava{3ijvat avrii> xaJ-1bli£v, O:wO rWv KolA.wv Kal Ta'7TEtvOOv V07JJL/trwv, Els rh 7TV£VJ.IaTtKbv lfpos rijs in/rqAijs li£wpias. Oratio 8, PC 44.1292B: Kat tvravlia ~ oya&1j I ... ' \ ' \ ., I " J.laKaptOT1jS, T1jS
93

1r&.Ar.v EK rfis OovAElas b.vaKATJ8Evrwv. Ibid., 1292A-B: ty(, at KaAws lx£1v 4>111-'l. 7rpwrov EKELVO Karavofiuar. r[il A6ycp, rl rh rfjs Oy067}s wapCz r{il 7rpo!J>~T'lJ J.IVUT~p!ov, ... Taxa Tl uvyy£vts b ap!liJ.!bS ot)ros wphs r~v Oy067Jv fxn p.at~ rWv p.at
So Mutzenbecher in her edition of Augustine's commentary De sermone domini in monte, p. XIII. Cited here according to the edition by Gabriel Tissot, Ambroise de Milan, Traite sur l'Evangile de Luc (SC 45; Paris: Cerf, 1956) 201-7 (vss 49-68). Verse 49: "Hie enim quattuor velut virtutes amplexus est cardinales, ille in illis octo mysticum numerum reseruauit ... ; sicut enim spei nostra octaua perfectio est, ita octaua summa uirtutum est." See In-San Bernhard Tschang, "Octo beatitudines: Die acht Seligpreisungen als Stufenleiter der Seele bei Ambrosius" (diss., Katholisch-theologische Fakultat Bonn, 1986). This instructive work also contains a detailed comparison of Ambrose's interpretation with those by Jerome, Chromatius, and Augustine. De serm. dom. in monte 1. 3.1 0 (p. 7, lines 148-49): "Quapropter iste sententiarum numerus diligenter considerandus est." See Mutzenbecher's edition, pp. IX-XVII.

Matthew 5:3-12

For him the eight beatitudes in the SM address humankind in general (Matt 5:3-10), whereas 5:11-12 are spoken only to those who were present with jesus. In my view, these categories of present/absent are insufficient for drawing such a distinction. In some sense both sets in 5:3-10 and 5: 11-12 address those who were present as well as those who were absent. When Augustine interprets the Beatitudes as stages in the ascent of the soul he does so in terms of psychology. The beginning is "humility" (humilitas [5:3]), the result of fear in God's judgment. From this lowest point the soul ascends to the knowledge of Scripture (Augustine reads 5:5 before 5:4 to make this possible). At stage six (5:8) the soul has completed the vita activa and can move on to the higher stage of the vita contemplativa. 94 The highest point of this stage is the attainment of wisdom itself (5:9): it is the contemplation of truth itself that gives a person peace and makes one like God. The eighth beatitude (5: 10) sums it all up, completes the series, and returns to the beginning. Augustine concludes: "Seven in number, then, are the things which bring perfection; and the eighth illuminates and points out what is perfect, so that through these steps others might also be made perfect, starting once more, so to speak, from the beginning. "9 5 As already indicated, Augustine also combines the eight beatitudes with the "sevenfold gift of the Holy Spirit" seen revealed in Isa 11:2-3, a passage that has a rich history of interpretation. 96 As shown by the seven plus one beatitudes and the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, Augustine considers the number seven to constitute the basis for the entire SM. Therefore, he divides the SM 94

95

96

into seven sections, corresponding to the first seven beatitudes. 97 The sixth beatitude, dealing with prayer (5:8), corresponds to another set of seven: the seven petitions of the Lord's Prayer (6:9b-13).9 8 Finally, Augustine divides his entire commentary into two books. The first, comprising beatitudes 1-5 and the commandments of Matthew 5, contains the "good works" (bona opera) of the vita activa. The second book supersedes the first, containing the "contemplation of the highest good" (contemplatio summi bani) of the vita contemplativa; this book constitutes Matthew 6-7. In this ingenious way Augustine is able to combine all previous interpretations into one. He relates the Beatitudes to the body of the SM as well. From our modern perspective, his approach is highly speculative; it is, in the final analysis, impossible to verify in terms of literary criteria. Nonetheless, his ingenious interpretation deserves admiration; indeed, his literary sensitivity has never been matched. Although the history of the interpretation of the Beatitudes cannot be treated here in an adequate way, attention should be called to further developments following Augustine in the work of Thomas Aquinas. In quaestio 68 of his Summa theologiae Thomas also deals with the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, while quaestio 69 is devoted to the Beatitudes, 99 and quaestio 70 to the "fruit of the Spirit." This sequence is indicative of the agreements and differences between Thomas and Augustine, a matter that we cannot pursue further here. 100 Thomas's discussion in article 3 is, however, interesting: "Are the beatitudes enumerated properly?" 101 Thomas distin-

See also Robertjoly, Le theme philosophique des genres de vie dans l' antiquite classique (Memo ires de

97

Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 2.25.87 (p. 188, lines 2007-11). l'academie royale de Belgique, Classe des lettres et 98 Ibid., 2.4.15-2.11.39. According to Mutzenbecher des sciences morales et politiques 51.3; Brussels: (in her commentary on Augustine, De sermone), Palais des Academies, 1956). Augustine is the first to count seven instead of the Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 1.3.1 0 (trans. traditional six petitions (pp. XI-XIII; and the Francine Cardman, injaroslav Pelikan, ed., The Conspectus Tractatus, pp. 239-40). On Augustine's understanding of blessedness see also Walter Preaching of Augustine: "Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount" [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973]9); text Beierwaltes, Regia Beatitudinis: Zu Augustins Begriff des according to M utzenbecher' s edition, p. 9, lines 184glilcklichen Lebens (SHAW .PH 1981.6; Heidelberg: Winter, 1981). 87. Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 1.4.11 (p. 9, line 99 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ia 2ae, quaestio 188- p. ll,line 221). See Karl Schliitz,lsaias 11, 2 69, according to the Blackfriars' edition, vol. 24 (New York and London: Blackfriars, 1964) 43-63. (die sieben Gaben des HZ. Geistes) in den ersten vier christlichen Jahrhunderten (Aittestamentliche Abhand- 100 See quaest. 69, art. 1. 101 Quaest. 69, art. 3. lungen 11.4; Munster: Aschendorff, 1932); also Mutzenbecher's edition, pp. XI, XLVII.

107

guishes three types of beatitudes: those of the vita voluptuosa (beatitudes 1-3) are designed to remove the impediments of the voluptuous life: the abundance of wealth and honor (Matt 5:3), the passions of the irascible (5:5) and of the concupiscent (5:4). The vita activa is concerned with things we do to others and includes the work for justice (5:6), which is obligatory, and the showing of mercy (5:7), which is spontaneous. The last two beatitudes, as for Augustine, represent the vita contemplativa, with purity of the heart as the beginning (5:8) and peace as the goal (5:9). On this foundation Thomas then develops his grandiose system, which coordinates all gifts, merits, and rewards. All of this, according to him, is found in the seven beatitudes, with the eighth (5: 10) serving as summary and confirmation. The church fathers have unquestionably interpreted the Beatitudes in terms of Christian Neoplatonism and mysticism. The SM does not subscribe to this method of interpretation. But one should admit that the interpretation of the church fathers, although imposition, was carefully grafted onto a text that provides points of contact and that seems strangely open to such interpretation. Whereas the ascent of the soul is of no concern to the SM, 102 ascent definitely is. 10 ll Virtues are certainly part of the conceptuality of the SM, but not the four cardinal virtues of Greek philosophy. Points of contact exist, however; for example, the first beatitude begins by introducing "humility," generally recognized as the lowest and most elementary virtue. One cannot overlook the sequence ending with the vision of God (5:8) and the acceptance as "sons of God" (5:9), but the sequence does

not indicate "steps" (gradus). Instead the beatitudes conform to eschatological scenes. 104 All concepts add up to "justice" (BtKatouvv7J), but this justice is to be taken in a Jewish and not in a Platonic sense, 105 although there is no absolute separation between them. Numerical symbolism does occur in the SM, but it is a literary device as in jewish wisdom, not a ladder of mystical revelation. For these reasons I agree with critical scholarship today that the speculative interpretations by the church fathers must be rejected as impositions on the texts. This does not mean, however, that the number and the order of the Beatitudes are problems to be left unresolved. Should we count seven or eight or ten beatitudes-and why? This question is still debated today. Following nineteenth-century scholars such as Ewald and Kostlin, 106 in the twentieth-century Wellhausen, 107 Klostermann, 108 Strecker, 109 and others prefer seven beatitudes, but for different reasons. They arrive at this number by eliminating 5:4, which is textually disputed. 11 0 When the number seven is favored, the patristic tradition seems to continue to have an impact.111 In addition, consideration of compositions elsewhere in Matthew can be brought to bear as confirmation,112 but these may be extraneous arguments. The number must be decided primarily on the basis of the SM itself. Most scholars in antiquity as well as today prefer eight beatitudes; see especially Tholuck, 11 ll Zahn, 114 Lohmeyer, 115 Grundmann, 116 Luz, 117 and Gnilka. 118 These eight beatitudes can be divided into three groups, either 3 x 3 sayings (Lohmeyer) or 2 x 4 + 1 sayings

102 For the notion of"soul" (1/lvx~) see Betz, Essays, 96 n. 32, 104 n. 51, referring esp. to SM/Matt 6:25. 103 See below on SM/Matt 7:13-14. 104 See Betz, Essays, 24-25. 105 See below on SM/Matt 5:10, 17-20. 106 See Tholuck, Bergrede, 55-57 (Commentary, 63-65); Achelis, Bergpredigt, 71-77. 107 Wellhausen, Evangelium Matthaei, 14. 108 Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, 3 7. 109 Strecker, "Makarismen," 259; idem, Bergpredigt, 31 (Sermon, 30). 11 0 See Konrad Kohler, "Die urspriingliche Form der Seligpreisungen," ThStK 91 (1918) 157-92, esp. 167-68. 111 See also Joseph Heinemann, "One Benediction Comprising Seven," Revue des etudes juives 125 (1966) 101-11.

108

112 For example, the seven "woes" in Matthew 23, and the seven petitions of the Lord's Prayer (Matt 6:913). See Wellhausen, EvangeliumMatthaei, 14; Lohmeyer, Matthiius, 85-86. 113 Tholuck, Bergrede, 56 (Commentary, 63-64). 114 Zahn, Matthiius, 177 with n. 9. 115 Lohmeyer,Matthiius, 80. 116 Grundmann,Matthiius, 119. 117 Luz, Matthiius, 1.199 (Matthew 1.226). 118 Gnilka, Matthiiusevangelium, 1.115.

Matthew 5:3-12

(most others). Michaelis observed the phenomenon of 7ralliteration for the first four beatitudes, 119 but he left unclear whether such alliteration is intentional, and what its purpose may be. 12° At any rate, the consensus today counts eight beatitudes. One must still account, however, for the existence of the ninth and tenth beatitudes. Taking into consideration the popularity of ten in Jewish number symbolism, 121 Franz Delitzsch 122 opted for ten beatitudes and saw them as modeled on the Decalogue of Exodus 20. Most scholars 123 have rejected this idea as fanciful, but one must still explain why there are ten beatitudes. The problem is related to and dependent on the further question of the relationship of the beatitudes to each other. d. The Relationship between the Beatitudes of the SM and the SP

The question of the relationship between the beatitudes of the SM and the SP is fraught with difficulties mainly for two reasons. 124 First, the texts themselves have no indicators that could help to explain the relationship; second, all possible answers depend to a large extent on the methodological presuppositions of the modern investigator. If one accepts that the arrangement of the beatitudes in the SM and the SP is the result of redaction, the question is: Whose redaction, the evangelists' or that of the authors ofpre-Matthean and pre-Lukan source material? Is numerical arrangement involved, and if so, does that point to numerical symbolism? Since neither Matthew nor Luke refers to the Beatitudes elsewhere in their Gospels, and since we are not informed about the methodology applied by the sources, there is not much room for certain judgment. Ulrich Luz 125 has made a bold attempt to reconstruct

the redactional history of the Beatitudes from the historical Jesus to Matthew's Gospel, proceeding from the source Q. According to Luz, the first three beatitudes of Q (Luke 6:20b-21) derive (perhaps without the vvv in vs 21) from Jesus himself. Q then expanded these three beatitudes to four (extant in Matt 5: 11-12). Between Q and Matthew's latest redaction the original three beatitudes grew to four (Matt 5:5), all specifying the addressees by using words beginning with 1r (7ralliteration). Furthermore, the sequence was expanded by vss 7-9. Matthew found this series of seven beatitudes in his sources, 126 and he added the eighth himself (5:10).127 Three main difficulties beset this rather complicated picture: (1) Luz himself vacillates between pre-Matthean and Matthean redaction to a degree that they become indistinguishable; (2) the idea of a development from Jesus to Matthew does not consider that the SP and SM have very different views of what a beatitude is; (3) the continuous use of terms like Erweiterung ("expansion"), Neuformulierung ("reformulation"), and so on should be supported by explanations for these phenomena, rather than naming them as the results of synoptic comparison. The overall situation with regard to the SM and the SP suggests that the Sermons operate with different views about what these beatitudes mean. 128 They depend on sources, but the primary question is: What has the assumed redactor done with the material, and why are the Beatitudes in the form that we now have before us?129 As the church fathers recognized, and I believe they were right, the first beatitude in the SM (as well as in the SP) is basic. 130 Thereafter, all others are climactic developments of some sort. In the SM the climax is reached in SM/Matt 5:12. Moreover, vs 3b and vs lOb

119 See Christian Michaelis, "Die ,.-Alliteration der Subjektsworte der ersten vier Seligpreisungen in Mt. V 3-6," NovT 10 (1968) 148-61. 120 See Strecker, "Makarismen," 260 n. I; Gnilka, Matthiiusevangelium, 1.115. 121 Philo's speculations conceming the number ten could support Delitzsch's argument (see above, n. 85). 122 Delitzsch, Untersuchungen, 76. 123 See esp. Tholuck, Bergrede, 56 (Sermon, 63-64); Zahn, Matthiius, 177 n. 9. 124 The church fathers treat the question as one of order; see Tschang, Octo beatitudines (see above, n.

125 126 127 128 129 130

92), 228-31 with further references. Luz, Matthiius, 1.199-202 (Matthew, 1.226-29). Ibid., 200 (Matthew, 1.226-27). See also ibid., 214 (Matthew, 1.241-42). For the SP see the interpretation below, ad Joe. For the following see also Betz, Essays, 22-25. See below on SM/Matt 5:3.

109

("for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens") repeat the same statement in the present tense and provide an inclusio around 5:4-9. The second lines of the beatitudes in 5:4-9 state eschatological promises in the future tense. This series in 5:4-9 contains beatitudes that correspond to consecutive scenes describing the destiny of the righteous in paradise. Thus one may see in these verses a greatly abbreviated apocalyptic vision of the world to come, enclosed by the statements in the present tense in 5:3 and 5:10. In addition, one may divide the sequence of eight beatitudes into two sections of four, each ending with the important term "righteousness" (otKatouvv7J). 131 After this descriptive set of eight has been presented, the ninth beatitude addresses the recipients directly in the second person plural. This ninth beatitude (5:11) connects with the preceding one (5: 1 0) by way of the catchword ouf>KHV ("persecute"). By this rhetorical turn the indirect addresses in 5:3-10 are suddenly made direct. The climax is reached in 5: 12 with the call for joy, which is again connected with 5: 11 by the same catchword (ouf>KELV, "persecute"). The phrase "rejoice and be glad" is also closely connected with the Beatitudes, as is clear from the literary parallels adduced already (see above, pp. 495-96). The difference with regard to the other beatitudes is that the call for joy demands or encourages a response from the recipients, rather than merely making pronouncements to them like the other beatitudes. Thus, this call for a response provides a fitting conclusion to the sequence. 13 2 If the church fathers saw a climax arising in the movement from the lowest virtue of humility (5:3) to the highest vision of God and "deification" (5:8, 9), they recognized in it the mystical ladder leading to union with God. Even though this speculative mysticism is absent from the SM, the notion of ascent is present. The

specifications ofthe addressees in 5:3-10 describe conditions endured and actions taken on earth, all variations of 5:3a, while the second lines of each beatitude spell out the heavenly reward to be expected. Since the entire SM describes the way to paradise (see below on 7: 13-14), the second lines of 5:3-10 state the rewards for those who have been approved by God in the last judgment (see below on 7:21-23).1 33 2. Analysis This introduction to the beatitudes of the SM (some of it pertaining also to those of the SP) has shown that these beatitudes are sayings of a highly complex literary nature. They state the principles underlying all of the SM, and they come to expression in a multitude of different ways throughout the texts. The sequence of beatitudes in the SM includes four different types, each containing two lines, with the exception ofvs 12, which has three lines: 1. The first and leading beatitude is that of 5:3. It has its counterpart in 5: 10. The first lines contain the beatitude as such, formulated in the third person plural. Special for this type is the specification of the addressees in each of the sayings. The second line is a
131 See also Luz, Matthiius, 1.200 (Matthew, 1.226-27). 132 Daube also regards 5:11-12 as the formal conclusion of the sequence of beatitudes (NT and Rabbinic judaism, 196-201). 133 That the Beatitudes are stated in the present tense does not contradict an expectation of the eschatological rewards. On the contrary, both aspects are closely related. Also, just as the Beatitudes are by way of presupposition materially present in the rest of the SM, so the whole of the SM is present in them. For this reason, as has often been noted, the Beatitudes can be stated unconditionally, but this unconditional

110

beginning of the SM has its counterweight in the eschatological warnings of 7:13-23 (cf. also 7:2427). Furthermore, eschatological warnings are present throughout the SM (see 5:13, 19, 20, 22, 25, 29, 30; 6:14, 15; 7:1, 2, 13, 14, 19,21-23, 27). The concept of "reward" (}J.tuO&s) is affirmed in 5:12, 46; 6:2, 4, 5, 6, 16, 18, 20.

Matthew 5:3-12

beatitude is stated in the second person plural; there is no specification of the addressees, except for the pronoun "you." The llrav-clause in the second line describes three situations of harassment that the addressees must be prepared to undergo. 4. The fourth type is a three-liner, represented by vs 12. It is also stated in the second person plural and begins with the double summons "rejoice and be glad." The
• 3 The first beatitude, regarding poverty and riches, has been the center of interest since New Testament times. Indeed, the response to it by readers even to this day has been overwhelming, and so is the literature dealing with it. As Ambrose says, this beatitude is not only the first in order, but also the one that in some way generates all other virtues. 134 This response cannot be explained by its novelty, since the beatitude sums up in an extremely succinct form ideas that had been contemplated for centuries before by religious and philosophical thinkers. Apart from such summing up of what had been known

before, however, the beatitude contains new insights that have kept minds and pens busy since it was first pronounced. As pointed out in the Analysis above, formally the beatitude comprises two lines, the first of which (5:3a) consists of the macarism proper: "Blessed are the poor in (the) spirit" (JJ.aKctpLOL ol 'lTTwxol. T{il 'lTVEiJp.an). Although textually undisputed, this statement has its share of problems mainly through the strange expression "the poor in (the) spirit" 135 -if this is its proper English translation. 13 6 Extensive research in recent years, stimulated by the discovery and study of the Qumran texts, has made an explanation of the expression possible, but this research also raises new questions. (1) Does 'lTTwx6s refer to economic poverty, or is it used as a spiritualized metaphor signifying the meaning of "mentally depressed," "fainthearted," or "conscious of a general state of deprivation"? Or does it refer to "voluntary poverty"? In other words, does the expression envision a state of somatic or psychic deprivation, or a form of piety? (2) Is the dative of T{il 'lTvEiJp.an instrumental or referential? (3) Does "spirit" ('lTVEvp.a) refer to human or divine spirit? The expression "poor in (the) spirit" is found only here in the New Testament, 137 or indeed in the Greek

134 Ambrose In Lucam 5.51 (CSEL 32.4, ed. Schenk!, p. pauvres en esprit: Evangile et non-violence (LD 78; Paris: 20 1, line 17): ordine enim prima est et parens quaedam Cerf, 1974); Luise Schottroffand Wolfgang generatioque virtutum ("for it is the first in order and as Stegemann ,jesus and the Hope of the Poor (trans. it were the parent and generation of the virtues"). Matthew J. O'Connell; Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, For a survey of the entire range of topics involved see 1986); Strecker, Bergpredigt, 32-34 (Sermon, 31-33); Manfred Wacht, "GOterlehre," RAG 13 (1986) 59Luz, Matthtius, 1.204-8 (Matthew, 1.232-34); Broer, 150. Seligpreisungen, 68-75. 135 All commentaries include discussion of the problem 136 The RSV and REB render "poor in spirit," suggesting of this expression. See also the major studies by mental weakness and probably depending on V g Percy, Botschaji., 45-89; BAGD, s.v. 7rv£vp.a, 3.b; pauperes spiritu. This understanding would idem, 7rrwx6s, I.e; Eduard Schweizer, TDNT 6.401; correspond to the term oAq07ri
111

language; 138 it is not repeated in other early Christian sources. 139 The LXX uses comparable dative constructions, but this one is not attested there. 140 The dative Tijl 7TVEVp.an ("in [the] spirit") is almost certainly referential, 141 not instrumental; the referential dative is not uncommon elsewhere 142 in the SM and in the New Testament as a whole. 143 Although grammatically po~sible in Greek, the expression may be a rendering of a corresponding Hebrew notion. 144 This expression was difficult to understand for Greeks, 145 and later Christian usage may have omitted "in (the) spirit" as redundant.

I38 I39

I40

14I

112

As the usage of the vocabulary shows, the meaning of the term "poor" must be determined contextually. Was it intended in the economic sense or merely figuratively?146 This ambiguity may have resulted in the later predominance of the terms Ta7TELVOs, Ta7TELVOf/>pwv, and so on ("lowly, humble-minded").1 47 Obviously, the expression makes a statement about poverty and its opposite, wealth, a topic much debated in antiquity. 148 Also obvious is the positive valuation given to poverty. It is as such a contradiction to what was held to be the common view that the rich are blessed and the

from pre-Matthean tradition. So also Broer, Seligpreisungen, 70-7I; Schenk, Sprache, 424. See LSJ, s.v. 1rrroxos,I.2. Cf. Ps.-Clem. Rec. 1.61.2: beatos pauperes dixit which would correspond to the Greek l'aKapl(rov rolls 1rrroxof1s ("blessing the poor"); 2.28.3: pauperes beatijicabat ("he blessed the poor"). See Hans Waitz, "Eine Parallele zu den Seligpreisungen aus einem ausserkanonischen Evangelium, • ZNW 4 (I903) 33540; Ernst Bammel, TDNT 6.9I4. Cf. esp. Ps 33: I9 LXX: o! ra1TE&vol ri!\1TIIEfl/'aT& ("the humble in the spirit"). See Walter Grundmann, TDNT 8.IO (B.3.d); the spirit is here the human spirit (Hebrew n,.,); see Friedrich Baumgartel, TDNT 6.360-62. My son Arnold Betz has suggested to me that there may be a connection here with the peculiar meaning the Hebrew expression nM .,xp has in some texts, where "short of breath" refers to weakness or anguish. See, e.g., Prov I4:29 (LXX: bA&yol/rvxos); Exod 6:9 (LXX: bA&yol/rvxla). Interestingly, this expression has parallels in Ugaritic, esp. in the Epic of Keret, where Ya~~ib, the son of King Keret, speaks to his father, who is seated on the throne, and declares to him why his strength is failing: "You have been brought down by your failing power. You do not judge the cause of the widow, you do not try the case of the importunate [q,17 npJ, short in spirit]. you do not banish the extortioners of the poor before you." Trans. John C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends (2d ed.; Edinburgh: Clark, I978), p. I02. For the text see Andree Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cuniiformes alphabitiques decouvertes aRas ShamraUgarit de 1929 a 1939 (Mission de Ras Shamra IO; 2 vols.; Paris: Klincksieck, I963) I6.Vl.32-35. For the terminology see]. Marbtlck, ·.,xp II," ThWAT 7 (I990) II2-I7, esp. II4, section 3 (also II2-I3 for further bibliography). See BDF, § I97; BDR, § I97; Eduard Schweizer, TDNT 6.40I; Luz, Matthaus, I.205-6 (Matthew, 1.232-34).

I42 See SM/Matt 5:8: "pure in (the) heart"; cf. 6:28; 6:25. I43 Cf., e.g., Coli:2I: lxBpos rfi ~&avol~ ("inimical in [the] mind"); Matt II :29: 1rpaUs Ell'& Kat T41TEIII0f rfi Kap~l~ ("I am gentle and humble in [the] heart"). I44 So also Hengel, "Zur matthltischen Bergpredigt," 2728. I45 Differently Broer, Seligpreisungen, 69, 7I, following Kahler's unpublished dissertation. I46 Cf. esp. 2 Cor 8:2 and 8:9, where the economic condition and the mental attitude coincide; in 8:9 a christological meaning is also present. See also Jas 2:I-6. I47 See Matt II:29; Luke I:52; Rom I2:I6; 2 Cor 7:6; IO:I;Jas I:9; 4:6; I Pet 5:5 (Prov 3:34); etc. For further references see BAGD, s.v. T41TE&Vos; Walter Grundmann, "ra1rnvos KTA.," TDNT 8.I-27. The opposite of "humble" is indicated by the terms "hubris, • "arrogance, • etc., in passages such as Rom I2:I6; I Tim 6:I7. See Georg Bertram, TDNT 9.228-29. For the history of interpretation see Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.399-4II; Luz, Matthaus, 1.207-8 (Matthew, 1.234-35). I48 The vast literature on this subject cannot be reviewed here. See the survey articles by Hans Wissmann et a!., "Armut," TRE 4 ( I979) 69-I2I, with bibliography; Martin Hengel, Eigentum und Reichtum in der jrilhen Kirche: Aspekte einer frilhchristlichen Sozialgeschichte (Stuttgart: Calwer, I973); ET: Property and Riches in the Early Church (trans. John Bowden, Philadelphia: Fortress, I974); Manfred Wacht, "Giitergemeinschaft," RAG I3 (I986) I-59.

Matthew 5:3-12

poor forsaken. 149 Just as commonly, gnomic authors and philosophers questioned and criticized this view in proverbs and maxims. 150 Jewish-Hellenistic literature in particular is full of criticism against the overestimation of external wealth. 151 The SM, however, differs from the SPin one important point. The SM does not, as the SP does, juxtapose "the rich" (ot '7TAovuwt) and "the poor" (ot '7TTwxo0 as social types (see below on SP /Luke 6:20b, 24). Instead, the expression "the poor in (the) spirit" in the SM intends to qualify a statement regarding poverty. What kind of qualification is it, and what did the author of the SM wish to indicate? Based on comparable similar expressions one can say that the addition "in (the) spirit" is a critical comment intended to forestall a mis-

understanding of the simple adjective "poor." Indeed, the phrase as a whole critically and apologetically interprets what Jesus meant-and did not mean!-when he called the poor blessed. This interpretation, therefore, presupposes reflection and debate about what Jesus may have meant when he called the poor blessed. This debate, which is presupposed in the SM, will have been concerned not only with the message of Jesus but also with the implications of I sa 61: 1, a passage essential for the understanding of the blessing of the poor.l 52 Ifthe historical Jesus called the poor blessed, did he do so in order to liberate the economically poor from their miserable conditions? 153 Did he address a specific group,

149 This common view has often been stated. See, e.g., 151 See Trevor Donald, "The Semantic Field of Rich and Sextus EmpiricusAdv. math. 2.53: oS( .,.Ao.\uto~ Poor in the Wisdom Literature of Hebrew and p.aKapto~ Kat oBavaro~ KaK6v ("The rich man is blessed Accadian," Oriens Antiquus 3 (1964) 27-41; also and death is an evil" [my trans.]). Similarly, Diodorus Charles F. Fensham, "Widow, Orphan, and the Poor Sic. 31.18. 3: CJcrrE TLr Av 7TLCTT£-6un£v rot's fnrh rWv in the Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom .,.OAAWV VOJJ-L(op.lvol~ a:ya8ol~ ~ roll~ lm(p TO p.trpov Literature," JNES 21 (1962) 129-39; Erhart
113

such as the so-called people ofthe land ('am ha'arets)? 154 Did he call for voluntary submission to this social or economic condition? 155 Did he simply try to console those living in a state of depravity? 156 Or did he have a more comprehensive message? These questions are answered by the expression "poor in (the) spirit," but this expression has become a question itself. The term "the poor" has unquestionably always referred to persons living in social and economic misery. Therefore, it is important to realize that the SM does not regard the condition of poverty as a blessing. At this point, the SM differs from some strands of Greek philosophy critical of external wealth, 157 while sharing common ground with jewish wisdom and other strands of Greek philosophy. Even though the condition of poverty is not blessed, persons living in such conditions can be blessed. Indeed, praising the condition of poverty as such would hardly be conceivable in antiquity, unless it were done as an act of folly or cynicism. Also, praising the poor simply because they are poor economically would be equally cynical because experience indicates that poor people may be good or bad like everyone else. Texts as

early as the Didache, 158 if not the New Testament itself, 159 tell of Christians who use their poverty in order to extract undue advantages from their generous fellow Christians. 160 In conclusion, while one must take material deprivation seriously, such conditions as such cannot be the reason for the blessing. 161 According to some, the qualification of "in (the) spirit" points to the involvement of the human mind or spirit, turning the whole matter into one of consciousness. Consequently, those who are conscious of their poverty as such would conceive of themselves as living in a praiseworthy condition, a misunderstanding that prompted Julian the Apostate to assure the Christians that he could happily execute the blessing by expropriating the church of Edessa. 16 2 Instead, I shall assume that the SM has in mind a topos widely discussed in antiquity, which addresses the general human condition (condicio humana). 163 Accordingly, this topos, which is attested not only in the Greek philosophers 164 but also in jewish wisdom 165 and apocalypticism, 166 in Qumran, 167 and in successive literatures, including the church fathers, 168 describes la condition humaine as one of poverty, desertion, and

154 See Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.429-42. On the concept see also Alfred Burgsmiiller, Der 'am ha-ares zur Zeit jesu (Marburg: Gorich & Weiershauser, 1964); Aharon Oppenheimer, The 'Am Ha-Aretz: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the HellenisticRoman Period (ALGHJ 8; Leiden: Brill, 1977); Gerstenberger, ThWAT 6.259-70. 155 See Andreas Biglmair, "Armut II (freiwillige)," RAG 1 (1950) 705-9; Bernward Buechler, Die Armut der Armen: Uber den ursprilnglichen Sinn der miinchischen Armut (Munich: Kosel, 1980); Gerstenberger, ThWAT 6.270. 156 See Leander E. Keck, "Armut III. N eues Testament," TRE 4 (1979) 78; similarly Ernest Best, "Matthew V 3," NTS 7 (1960/61) 255-58, who renders the term as "faint-hearted." 157 See the collection in Stobaeus Eel. V, pp. 780-88, under the title 1rwias ;7ra&vos ("praise of poverty"); cf. pp. 733-46 on ;7ra&vos 7rAo,\Tov ("praise of wealth"). On the whole topic see the basic study by Wilhelm Meyer, Laudes inopiae (Gottingen: Hubert, 1915); also for the wider literary world Gerhard Hertel, Die Allegorie von Reichtum und Armut: Ein aristophanisches Motiv und seine Abwandlungen in der abendlandischen Literatur (Erlanger Beitrage zur Sprach- und Kunstwissenschaft 33; Nuremberg: Carl, 1969). 158 Did. 1.5: "but he who receives [sc. alms) without need

114

159 160

161

162

shall be tested as to why he took and for what" (my trans.). See 2 Thess 3:6-10. See Manfred Wacht, "Wahre und falsche Armut. Bemerkungen zu Clemens Alexandrinus, Quis dives salvetur Kap. 19," in Vivarium: FS fur Theodor Klauser zum 90. Geburtstag QAC Sup 11; Munster: Aschendorff, 1984)338-47. For passages see Luz, Matthaus, 1.207 n. 58 (Matthew, 1.324 n. 58). Cf. also the apologetic interpretation in Ps.-Clem. Hom. 15.10.4: "But our teacher pronounced the faithful poor [7r&uTobs 7rEVTJTas) blessed; and he did so, not because they had given anything, for they had nothing, but because they were not to be condemned, as having done no sin, simply because they gave no alms, because they had nothing to give." Julian Ep. 40, p. 424C-D: "Therefore, since by their most admirable law they are bidden to sell all they have and give it to the poor that they may attain more easily to the kingdom of the skies, in order to aid those persons in that effort, I have ordered that all their funds, namely, that belong to the church of the people of Edessa, are to be taken over that they be given to the soldiers, and that its property be confiscated to my private purse." Translation according to the LCL edition by Wilmer C. Wright, 3.127.

Matthew 5:3-12

misery. The message is that becoming aware of this condition is essential for one's understanding oflife in general; it is also the starting point of an ethic. Precisely this point needs amplification. Before getting into this matter further, one may draw one conclusion already: the characterization of Matt 5:3a as "spiritualization" and as a softening of Jesus' original radicalism, which is then seen more adequately expressed in SP /Luke 6:20b, is misleading. 169 In fact, both parallels express the same position while emphasizing different aspects. 170 Yet another misunderstanding

would result from jumping to the conclusion that the virtue of patience in the face of the unchangeable circumstances of poverty is recommended. 171 Some church fathers highly favored this interpretation, and since then others have favored it because of a concomitant high estimation of asceticism. 172 While these church fathers were not altogether wrong, the SM has more than simple patience in mind. Rather, the expression "poor in (the) spirit" first of all points to an intellectual insight into the human condition.173 The attitude adequately corresponding to that

163 See Egert Pohlmann, "Der Mensch-das Mangelwesen? Zum Nachwirken antiker Anthropologie bei Arnold Gehlen," Archiv for Kulturgeschichte 52 (1970) 297-312; Pierre Courcelle, Connais-toi toi-mi!me: De Socrate aSaint Bernard (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1974-75) 2.295-324; Betz, Essays, 105 n. 55. 164 The most important passages are: Lucretius De rer. nat. 3.1046-75; 5.222-34; Pliny NH 7, praefatio 1-5. At the beginning stands Hesiod' s myth of Pandora and Cronus (Opera et Dies 80, 105, 110-201), and Protagoras's myth of Prometheus and Epimetheus (Plato Prot. 320c-322a); Ps.-Piato (Philip of Opus) Epinomis 973d-974a (see Tarin, Academica [see above, n. 72], 209-11 ); the topos is also part of the consolation literature, for which see esp. Ps.-Piato Axiochus 366d-367a; and Peter Meinel, Seneca ilber

168

169

seine Verbannung: Trostschrift an die Mutter Helvia

(Bonn: Habelt, 1972) esp. 127-72. From the Hellenistic period see also the important fragments from Ecphantos's "On Kingship," ed. Louis Delatte, Les Traitis de la Royauti d'Ecphante, Diotogene et Sthinidas (Bibliotheque de Ia Faculte de Philosophie

et Lettres de I'Universite de Liege 97; Paris: Droz, 1942); Reinhold Merkelbach, "Die Fragmente aus der Schrift des Ekphantos 'Uber das Konigtum,'" in his Kritische Beitriige zu antiken Autoren (BKP 4 7; Meisenheim: Hain, 1974) 73-93. 165 See esp. Isa 40:6-8; Ps 90:5-6; 103:15-16;Job 14:1; Wis 7:1-6 (cf. 6:2-20; 8:9; 15:9); Sir 40:1-11 (cf. 30:21-25; 31:1-4); Tob 5:17-21; 10:1-7; Philo Praem. poen. 98-126; Virt. 1-6. 166 See, e.g., Apocalypse ofSedrach 4 (OTP 1.610): "It would" be better for man if he were not born." 167 The self-descriptions of the members of the Qumran sect belong to the same category, even though the theology of that community has its own features as well. See Hermann Lichtenberger, "Eine weisheitliche Mahnrede in den Qumranfunden (4Q185)," in Matthias Delcor, ed., Qumran: Sa piiti, sa thiologie et sa milieu (Paris and Gembloux: Duculot, 1978) 151-62; idem, Studien zum Menschenbild in

170

171

172 17 3

Texten der Qumrangemeinde (SUNT 15; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980) 73-93 (with further bibliography). See Courcelle, Connais-toi toi-mi!me, passim; Gerard Bartelink, "Hieronymus iiber die Schwache der condicio humana," Kairos 28 (1986) 23-32. Karl Kautsky gave the charge of Matthew's "revisionism" its classic formulation in his book Der Ursprung des Christentums (Stuttgart: Dietz, 1908) 345-4 7. According to Kautsky, Matthew was a Christian propagandist whose goal was to water down the original enthusiasm, class struggle, and socialism of Jesus so as to accommodate new wealthy church members, an opportunism necessary for the expanding organized church. The Sermon on the Mount, however, was already too well known at the time to be simply obliterated, so that Matthew "bowdlerized" it and changed the economic beggars into "beggars in spirit." See also Wellhausen, Evangelium Matthaei, 13; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 33 (Sermon, 32); van Tilborg, Sermon, 14. For the history of exegesis see Dupont, Beatitudes, 3. 385-4 71. In this point I agree with Weder, Rede 54, 84; idem, Hermeneutic, 176; Hengel, "Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt," 27. So the interpretation in Ps.-Clem. Rec. 2.28.3: "pauperes beatificabat eosque pro penuriae tolerantia adepturos esse pollicebatur regna coelorum" ("he blessed the poor, and promised that they should obtain the kingdom of heaven for their endurance of poverty"). For passages see Tholuck, Bergrede, 60-63 (Commentary, 66-70). This is shown even by the explanation of the name of Ebion in Epiphanius (Pan. 30.17; ed. Holl; GCS 1, p. 355, Jines 17-18): 'lTTWX/,y yd.p roy aA7j6roy Kat rfi a1avo£f!- Kat rfi fA'lT£a1 Kat T~ ;py'{J ("for he is truly poor in his intellect, in his hope and in his work" [my trans.]).

115

,,'I I'

insight is "humility," a virtue highly praised in antiquity.174 This virtue is opposed to hubris, arrogance, selfindulgence, and overextension of the natural limits of the human predicament. Therefore, the way oflife set forth and recommended by the SM is based on the insight into the condicio humana that accepts it as "poverty" in the wider sense of the term. By the time of the New Testament, this insight and the attitudes following from it had become a mark of religious piety and wisdom. 175 This was the case especially in Jewish wisdom, the immediate context of the SM, and later in rabbinic Judaism, 176 but it was no less the case in some strands of Greek philosophy. 177 Philologically, the explanation ofthe term "the poor in (the) spirit" has been made possible by the Qumran texts, which attest an equivalent self-designation several times (n,, •m1).17B This designation is the Hebrew equivalent for the Greek term, but this equivalence points also to a wider theological context. In Judaism the expression appears to be connected with the so-called 'aniiwfmpiety, a characteristic form of piety that seems to have its beginnings in the later periods of Israelite piety. Jews who defined their religion under these terms regarded themselves as poor creatures in the eyes of God as well as of fellow humanity. They would try to conduct themselves humbly and unostentatiously, relying firmly on God's mercy and grace. 179

In Greek thought, poverty as the basic condicio humana was seen primarily in terms of human mortality and finitude. Accordingly, the Delphic maxim "Know yourself" (yvwlh uavT6v) was taken to mean "Know that you are mortal." 180 Many testimonies to this selfunderstanding occur in both word and picture. 181 Philosophically, the positive valuation of poverty, understood as a self-understanding, became associated especially with the Socratic and Cynic schools. 182 Even then, however, a more general understanding persisted until much later, as the following epigram, attributed to Claudius Ptolemaeus (c. 85-160 CE in Alexandria) illustrates: Oto' Hn 8v7JTOs ly6J Kal lcpiL,.upos· a..\..\' 8TaV Cf.uTpwv J.Lauu./Jw 7TVKWUS aJ.Lcj>LOpOJLOVS lALKM oVKlr' f7Tt'\jlaVoo yaL7JS 7TOO'"LV, a..\..\' 7Tap' avTCi> Zav\. 8EOTpEcj>tos 7TLJL7TAaJ.LaL aJL~pouL7JS.

I know that I am mortal, a creature of a day; but when I search into the multitudinous revolving spirals of the stars my feet no longer rest on the earth, but, standing by Zeus himself, I take my fill of ambrosia, the food of the gods. 183 When, according to Plato (Apol. 23c), Socrates says that he lives "in abundant poverty" (lv 7TWLf!. JLVplg.), he has in mind more than horrifying economic stringencies. 184 Rather, his entire way of life, as he has chosen, is one of

174 See Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.399-417; Willem den Boer, "Tapeinos in Pagan and Christian Terminology," in E. Gabba, ed., Tria Corda: Scritti in onore di Arnalda Momigliano (Como: Edizione New Press, 1983) 143-62; Willem C. van Unnik, "Zur Bedeutung von Ta?T
116

Seligpreisungen, 73-75. 179 See the discussion of this point in Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.460. 180 On this maxim see my essays in Hellenismus und Urchristentum, 92-111, 156-72. 181 See, e.g., mosaic pictures involving skulls and skeletons. For the material see Otto Brendel, "Untersuchungen zur Allegorie des pompejanischen Totenkopf-Mosaiks," Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archiiologischen Instituts, Romische Abteilung 49 ( 1934) 157-79; Katherine M.D. Dunbabin, "Sic erimus cuncti ... The Skeleton in Graeco-Roman Art," Jahrbuch des deutschen archiiologischen Instituts 10 ( 1986) 185255. 182 For further references see Betz, Paulus, 109-13. 183 Anthol. Pal. 9.577, according to the LCL edition and translation by W. R. Paton. Cf. Franz Boll, "Das Epigramm des Claudius Ptolemaeus," Sokrates: Jahresberichte des Philologischen Vereins zu Berlin 4 7

(1921) 2-12, who provides a somewhat different interpretation and text. He also shows that the

Matthew 5:3-12

"poverty" (lv 7ff:vlct- p.vplct-). 185 The reason for this choice was mainly twofold: the growing suspicion of the philosophers that wealth is not to be trusted, and the concurring theological conviction that the gods who are in need of nothing live in happiness and freedom. 186 Choosing a life in poverty, therefore, was believed to be the proper way of imitating the gods, apart from acquiring the best educational tool, something amounting to a "gymnasium of virtue" (yvp.vau,ov ap~:rijs). The goal of such a life was reaching the state of "self-control" (lyKpctuLa). 1B7 Socrates' ideal was not total self-impoverishment. Rather, by imitating the gods and their lack of needs he attempted to come as close as any human being would be able to the gods' state of happiness and freedom. For this reason, poverty took on a positive valuation, and it became less and less a condition to be ashamed of. The Socratic understanding is well summed up by the prayer at the end of Plato's Phaedrus, even though the term "poverty" does not occur in it. The prayer asks the deity to grant only as many possessions as one can handle and as one needs, which certainly are as few as possible. This petition also focuses sharply on the other side. If Socrates believed in the immortality of the soul, which he most probably did, the option for external "poverty" is believed to be richly compensated by the realization of the beauty within. The implications are that both

external goods and beauty within are the gifts of the gods, but while external wealth is obvious, internal beauty must be specially revealed because of human folly and misguided values. Indeed, a revaluation of values is required: "il cpi:A.t: Tiav Tli KatlLA.A.oL CJuoL rfjot: 0~:o{, OOL7]T( p.oL KaAijJ y~:v(u8aL ravod8~:v· ;too8t:V Of CJua ;xoo, TOtS (vrbs Iitva{ JJ.OL cpLALa. 1T AOV
epigram has similarity to Philo Op. mund. 1; Spec. leg. 2.45. See further Franz Cumont, After Life in Roman Paganism (New Haven: Yale University, 1923) 21112; Andre-Jean Festugiere, La Revelation d'Hermes Trismegiste (Paris: Lecoffre, 1954) 4.265-66. 184 Descriptions of Socrates' proverty are found in a variety of sources. See esp. Xenophon Mem. 1.5-6, and the commentary by Olof Gigon, Kommentar zum ersten Buch von Xenophons Memorabilien (Basel: Reinhardt, 1953) 151-65. 185 The Socratic tradition prefers 7TfV7JS rather than 7Trwx•ls. For the difference between the terms cf. Aristophanes Plutus 552: 7Trwxov {3los . .. (ijv f«TTLV ~TJa~v fxovra, TOV ~~ 'ITEVTJTOS (ijv «/><&o6p.£VOV Kat TOtS fpyo&s 7rpo.,.€xovra ("'Tis a beggar alone who has nought of his own, not even an obol possesses. My poor man, 'tis true, has to scrape and to screw and his work he must never be slack in"). Text and translation according to the LCL edition by Benjamin B. Rogers. 186 Xenophon Mem. 1.6.1 0: lyw il~ vop.l(w rh p.~v p.TJa•vhs 8liov ~eiu8ar. E1var., rb a~ WS" f.Aaxlcrrwv fyyvr&:rw roV

6Elov, Kai rO J.L~V 8£iov ~ep&.rr.urov, rh 0' Eyyvr&.no roV e.lov lyyvrarw TOV Kpar{«Trov ("But my belief is that to have no wants is divine; to have as few as possible comes next to the divine; and as that which is divine is supreme, so that which approaches nearest to its nature is nearest to the supreme"). See also Cyr. 8.3.40; Symp. 4.35. 187 On the whole topic see Karl Joel, Der echte und der Xenophontische Sokrates (Berlin: Gaertner, 190 1) 2/2.668-73. 188 Plato Phaedr. 279b-c. Text and translation according to the LCL edition by Harold N. Fowler. See Thomas G. Rosenmeyer, "Plato's Prayer to Pan," Hermes 90 (1962) 34-64; B. Darrell Jackson, "The Prayers of Socrates," Phronesis 16 (1971) 14-37; Diskin Clay, "Socrates' Prayer to Pan," in Glenn Bowersock et al., eds., Arkturos: Hellenic Studies Presented to B. M. W. Knox (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979) 345-53.

117

If my interpretation of "in (the) spirit" (7rv£vJ.Lan) is correct, it seems to agree with Socrates' dictum in Plato's Apol. 38a: "The unexamined life is not worth living for the human being" (b av£ftTaCTTOS {3{os OV {3twT0S av8pC:)7/'C!J ). 18 9 As one may see from the SM as a whole (and from the SPas well), self-examination is one of the most important activities expected of the faithful disciple of Jesus. Thus, the element of intellectual insight into the human predicament does not need to be based on one word alone, but it is supported by the SM and the SPin their entirety. 190 The main difference between Plato and the SM, however, is that for the SM blessedness is not found in the immortal soul dwelling in the human body. 191 On the contrary, a seemingly conscious polemic against such an idea occurs in SM/Matt 6:22-23, when "the light within" can be assumed to be total darkness. 192 In another passage, the human soul ('1/tvx~) is worrisome (6:25 ), 193 while the human person is essentially impure (5:8) and even "evil" (7:11). The quality that grants blessedness for the SM is, instead, the "kingdom of the heavens," an altogether eschatological concept, the discussion of which takes us to the second line of the

beatitude (vs 3b). As already mentioned, the second line of the beatitudes of the SM contains a statement of reason in support of the first line; the second line is therefore introduced by Cfn ("for"). The line also anticipates an eschatological verdict: "for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens" (Cfn avTc;lV fCTT!V ~ {3autA.£la TWV ovpavwv). One has basically two questions to answer here: (1) Precisely how are the two lines connected? (2) Which interpretation of the concept of "the kingdom of the heavens" does the SM presuppose? To begin with the second question: One can have no doubt that the SM, like Matthew and the rest of the early Christian literature, is familiar with this concept because of the teaching ofthe historical Jesus, in which it occupied an important role. 194 Since the New Testament contains a variety of interpretations of this concept, the question is, Which one does the SM prefer? Does the concept as interpreted in the SM differ from its interpretation in the rest of the Gospel ofMatthew? 1 95 The evidence shows that the SM prefers the expression "the kingdom of the heavens"(~ f3autA.£la Twv ovpavwv) instead of "the kingdom of God" (~ {3au!A£la TOV

189 Cf. Aristotle's beatitude based on Socrates' dictum (Protr. B 108, according to Ingemar During, ed., Aristotle's Protrepticus: An Attempt at Reconstruction [Goteborg: Elander, 1961]90-91): "Mankind has nothing worthy of consideration as being divine or blessed, except what there is in us of reason and wisdom; this alone of our possessions seems to be immortal, this alone to be divine" (Ova{v o~v 8iiov fj p.aKap&ov imapxn Tots av8pC::.1ro1s 1rA~v fKftv6 ')If p.6vov ll.f~.ov u7Tov~fj~, iluov fur\v fv ~p.iv voV ~ea\ f/>pou~CTEro~· roiiro y0.p IJ.6vov lotKfV Elvaf. r&lv f]p.Erfprov CL8clvarov Ka\ p.6vov 8ftov). See also During's commentary, p. 265. 190 This interpretation is not new; for a survey see Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.434-47. 191 See also the material discussed by Meine!, Seneca, 153-61;Johannes Haussleiter, "Deus internus," RAG 3 (1957) 794-842; Pierre Courcelle, "Gefangnis (der Seele)," RAG 9 (1976) 294-318; Ragnar Holte, "Gluck (Gluckseligkeit)," RAG 11 (1979) 246-70; Manfred Wacht, "Guterlehre," RAG 13 (1986) 59150. 192 SeeBetz,Essays, 71-87. 193 Seeibid.,96n.32,104n.51. 194 The question of the origins, history, and various interpretations of this notion cannot be treated here. For investigation and bibliography see the recent studies by Jacques Schlosser, La Regne de Dieu dans les

118

dits de jesus (2 vols.; Paris: Gabalda, 1980); Helmut Merklein, Die Gottesherrschajt als Handlungsprinzip: Untersuchung zur Ethik]esu (FB 34; 2d ed.; Wurzburg: Echter, 1981 ); idem, jesu Botschaft von der Gottesherrschaft: Eine Skizze (SBS 111; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983); Odo Camponovo, Konigtum, Konigsherrschaft und Reich Gottes in den fruhjildischen Schriften (OBO 58; Fribourg: Universitatsverlag, 1984); Andreas Lindemann, "Gottesherrschaft und Menschenherrschaft: Beobachtungen zum neutestamentlichen BasileiaZeugnis und zum Problem einer Ethik des Politischen," Theologie und Glaube 76 (1986) 69-94; idem, "Herrschaft Gottes/Reich Gottes, IV. Neues Testament und spatantikes Judentum," TRE 15 (1986) 196-218; Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, eds., Konigsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult in judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt (WUNT 55; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1991 ). See also Klaus Thraede, "Gottesstaat (Civitas dei)," RAG 12 (1981) 58-81; Spicq, Notes, 3.98-103; BAGD, s.v. fJau&Afia, 3. 195 See also Betz, "The Eschatology of the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain," SBLSP 1985, 343-50 (reprinted in Betz, Synoptische Studien, 219-29).

Matthew 5:3-12

8wv), preferred by the SP. 196 With the exception of the Lord~s Prayer (6: 12, 13) 197 and the peculiar passage in 6:33, 198 the SM uses the expression "the kingdom of the heavens" when it refers to the dwelling place ofGod; 199 by contrast, the singular "heaven" is used in passages that contrast earth and "sky." 200 God's realm is spoken of in the plural, and it is clearly distinguished from the sky as part of the cosmos. By comparison, the evangelist Matthew is less concerned with the terminology, using mostly the traditional "kingdom of the heavens," but he can also speak of "the kingdom of God" occasionally. 2° 1 This language seems to suggest that the realm of God is not limited to one place or time. It is beyond earth and sky; it is nevertheless present everywhere in creation. It is to come in the future, but it is also a reality in the present. The last judgment does not preclude the creatio continua. 202 Thus, the plural "heavens" expresses a worldview involving multiple heavens. Consequently, God's eschatological verdict can be known even now, and if so it can also be pronounced now. While the phrase "the kingdom of the heavens" is predominant in the SM, God's reign is described as that of the "Father" (5:45, 48; 6:1, 9, 10; 7:11)2° 3 and only once as that of"the great King" (5:35). The heavenly Father /King rules with justice and mercy. 204 His realm therefore is where "his justice" (6:33) prevails (see also the third petition of the Lord's Prayer [6: 10]).

In which way then is one to understand vs 3b as the reason for vs 3a? What is the logic that allows "the poor in (the) spirit" to be called "blessed" already now? The answer, surprising as it may be, is that justice requires it. 2° 5 This does not mean that the condition of poverty is by itself just. Suffering and hardship, conditions that poverty entails, can never simply be called 'just." If, however, such poverty is the general human predicament and if those who are God's faithful recognize and accept it with humility, such submission deserves "merit" {J;.tcr86~). 206 God, who represents and guarantees justice, will therefore reward such faithfulness (see 5:12). This explanation also conforms to Jewish theology more generally. • 4 The second2° 7 beatitude praises those who mourn: "Blessed are those who mourn" (J;.aK6.ptot o1 71'£v8ovvT£~). 208 The meaning of this beatitude becomes clear once it is related to its wider context of ancient thought. This context will also clarify whether the mourning in question refers to specific losses such as the death of loved ones, to grief over the sins of Israel, or to sorrow over one's own sinfulness, loneliness, and despondency.

207 Part of the manuscript tradition has the second (5:4) 196 SP /Luke 6:20, and always in Luke. 197 It reads "your kingdom" (f3acnA..ia uov). and the third (5:5) beatitudes in reverse order (D 33 b f q vg sy< horns Clement and Origen). See Nestle198 See Betz, Essays, 97 n. 44, and also below on Aiand and Aland, Synopsis, critical apparatus; SM/Matt 6:33. 199 "The kingdom of the heavens": SM/Matt 5:3, 10, 19 Metzger, Textual Commentary, 12. The question is still (2x), 20; 7:21 (2x); cf. the phrase "the Father in the disputed; see Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.252-53; 3.4 73heavens": 5:45, 48; 6:1, 9; 7:11, 21; "the reward in 7 5; Mees, AujJerkanonische Parallelstellen, 46-51; the heavens": 5:12 (cf. SP/Luke 6:23 singular). Strecker, Bergpredigt, 35-36 (Sermon, 34-35); idem, "Makarismen," 264; Broer, Seligpreisungen, 79-87. I 200 SM/Matt 5:16, 18, 34; 6:26. am opting for the order given in the text ofNestle201 Matt 12:28 (Q); 19:24 (Q); 21:31, 43. For a survey of the evidence see Armin Kretzer, Die Herrschaft des Aiand; see also the discussion below. Himmels und die Sohne des Reiches (SBM 10; Stuttgart: 208 The reading of vvv ("now") inK 33 892 pc aur vgmss sams bois clearly an intrusion from the SP. Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1971) 21-63; cf. Broer, Seligpreisungen, 70 n. 12, with whom I agree. 202 See Betz, Essays, 89-123. 203 Apart from these passages see ibid., 118-23. 204 See ibid., 120 n. 99. 205 This reason also explains why poor Lazarus (Luke 16:22) is taken to heaven and why no further justification is needed. 206 The book ofJob is the classic example of this theological issue.

119

i

All these possibilities of interpretation have been offered during the history of the exegesis concerning this passage. 2° 9 A further question is why this beatitude follows the one in 5:3, 210 if indeed the majority of witnesses has the correct order of the beatitudes. The wider context for this beatitude is the ancient consolation literature. If poverty characterizes the human condition in general (see above on 5:3a), then grief is the expected human response. 2l l Literary as well as non-literary sources 212 from the ancient world abound with material dealing with grief. 213 The category of

consolation literature2 14 focuses on this aspect of human misery: the comforting of those stricken with grief in all its forms. 215 Considering the immediate background for the SM, one must examine Jewish religion concerning its resources. jewish literature displays the full range of kinds of grief, from personal loss to lament over Israel, the state ofthis world, and one's own failure and sinfulness. 216 Because this beatitude mentions no specific cause for grief and sorrow, one has no reason to limit its scope to one or the other of possible issues. This is true

209 See Grundmann (Matthiius, 123-24) and Dupont Karl Meuli, Gesammelte Schriften (Basel and Stuttgart: (Beatitudes, 3.545-54), who report on the options. Schwabe, 1975), 1.303-435. 21 0 Grundmann sees the reason in Isa 61: 1-3 (LXX). Cf. 214 The basic studies are by Carolus Buresch, ConBroer, Seligpreisungen, 75. solationum a Graecis Romanisque scriptarum historia 211 It includes "weeping" (1<1lalnv, SP/Luke 6:21, 25; critica (Leipzig: Hirschfeld, 1886); Wilhelm Mark 5:38, 39; 14:72; 16:10; Luke 7:13, 32, 38, 44; Schaeffer, •Argumenta consolatoria, quae apud John 11:31) and "lamenting" (raJla&1Tropliv, Rom veteres Graecorum scriptores inveniuntur" (diss., 7:24;Jas 4:9; 5:1; Rev 3:17). Also, the gloomy look Gottingen, 1921); C. C. Grollius, T£xv71 allv1rlar: (u1
120

Matthew 5:3-12

in spite of the fact that long before the New Testament ~mourning" had become a common metaphor to describe the faithful jews' response to the terrible state of affairs in the life oflsrael. 217 This response was regarded as proper for the righteous, in stark contrast to the frivolous and cynical, who do not care. 218 According to the principle of eschatological reversal, the prophets had promised the end of all mourning to come in the future when God will redeem his people.2 19 The immediate reason why the beatitude about mourning follows that on poverty seems to be connected with the important passage Isa 61:1-3, where vss 2-3 elaborate on God's eschatological promise: ?TapaKaAiuat ?TavTas Tovs ?TEv8ovvTas, oo8ijvaL TOtS 1TEV80VCTL l:twv oofav CtVTL CT?TOOOV, liAH!J.!J.a d!cppou6v7JS avTI. ?Ttv8ovs, KaTaCTTOAtJV oof7Js CtVTL 1TVEt'J!J.aTOS CtK7]0las· Kal. KA7]8~CTOVTaL rEvEal. OLKatout'!V7]S, cpt'JTW!J.a Kvplov Els oofav. (LXX)2 20 to comfort all who mourn; to grant to those who mourn in Zionto give them a garland instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit; that they may be called oaks of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he may be glorified. (RSV) Most people in antiquity saw mourning as the human response to death. Therefore, mourning consisted mainly of rituals and prayers, especially burial processions and entombment, dress codes, gestures, withdrawal

21 7

218 219 220

into solitude, and so forth. These rituals have been described in literary sources and depicted in monuments. On the whole, the body of material is enormous; it demonstrates the great importance of mourning for the life of the people. 221 Apart from these primary sources and documents, there is the voluminous consolation literature,222 consisting mostly of philosophical and religious reflections and recommendations. This literature advises readers about the issues involved; it educates them about the reasons for or against mourning, or how much mourning is enough and how much is excessive or even harmful. These arguments and counterarguments became more and more stereotyped as the literary sources accumulated; often the arguments for or against mourning are simply listed as commonplaces. The philosophical genre of consolation essays seems to have begun with the Academic Crantor's (c. 340/35275 BCE) work "On Mourning" (1rEpl. ?Ttv8ovs), now unfortunately lost but certainly of wide-ranging influence on later ancient literature. 223 Among the Stoics, Chrysippus (c. 281/77-208/204 BCE) had worked out the psychological aspects and presuppositions. Prior to the Stoics, the Sophists and Plato, whose dialogue Phaedo became a classic of consolation literature itself, 22 4 had dealt with the subject. 225 Each school had some different advice to give, and they all offered various mental therapies to treat grief, which became recognized as a malady of the soul.

(trans. from the Arabic with introduction and notes; YJS 20; New Haven: Yale University, 1977); Emanuel Feldman, Biblical and Post-Biblical Defilement and Mourning: Law as Theology (New York: KTAV, 1977). Apart from I sa 61: 1-3, a large number of passages should be examined: e.g., Isa 25:8; 60:20; 66:10;Jer 38:13 LXX (31:13 MT); Ps 126:5; 1 Bar 4:23; 5:1; 1 Enoch 96.3; 4 Ezra 8.46-62; 9.38-10.59. See Bultmann, TDNT 6.42. On those who "laugh" see below on SP /Luke 6:21, 25; andJas 4:9. See Otto Schmitz and Gustav Stahlin, "wapaKaA€w KTA.," TDNT 5.788-93. According to the edition by Joseph Ziegler, Isaias (Septuaginta 14; 2d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967) 348.

221 Seeabove,nn.212-13. 222 See above, n. 214. 223 See esp. Johann, Trauer und Tod, passim; Hani, Plutarque, 43-49; Hans Joachim Mette, "Zwei Akademiker heute: Krantor von Soloi und Arkesilaos von Pitane," Lustrum 26 (1984) 6-40. 224 It was known under the title "On the Soul" (ll•pt 1Jtvxfir); see Ps.-Plutarch Cons. ad Apoll. 120C-121E; Plutarch Cato min. 68, p. 792E; Lucian Phil. 27. 225 See esp. Kassel, Untersuchungen, passim.

121

Naturally, all these literary texts presuppose religious rituals as the primary form of the expression of grief. Since virtually all people performed mourning rituals, one must recognize some presuppositions as underlying these forms of response: ( 1) Death is viewed as an evil, and even the greatest of all evils; 226 (2) mourning is not only a response to death but also an expression of the fear of death;22 7 (3) mourning raises the question about life after death. 228 All philosophical or theological treatises concern many of the same issues and presuppositions. Is mourning justifiable, and if so, to what extent? Is death really an evil? Should one fear death? Does belief in an afterlife make a difference? While Jewish religion regulates mourning and thus approves of it, Greek and Roman consolation literature, for the most part, regard mourning to be the practice of the uneducated masses. Educated individuals, however, should limit all forms of grief, or should even eliminate them altogether. Whether the philosophers advise against excessive mourning or issue outright prohibitions against it, their evaluation of the practice is mostly negative. One important way to overcome grief for the Greeks is to become initiated in the mystery cults, especially the Demeter mysteries of Eleusis. Although the details have never been fully reconstructed, the Eleusinian mysteries seem to confer the assurance that

the initiated would inherit an afterlife in the Elysian Fields. Therefore, reminding the initiates of their knowledge about the Isles of the Blessed and the Elysian Fields is believed to be a strong antidote for stilling the tears and ending the fear of death. 22 9 The philosophical schools take different positions with regard to mourning and grief. For the Stoics, the problem with grief is the heavy emotional uproar caused by it, so that restoration of the emotional balance (j;.€Tpto7Ta8na) becomes the major concern for therapy.230 Mourning can be useful to the extent that it is made to serve the domestication of the emotions. Most negative is the assessment of mourning and grief by the Cynics and Epicureans. For the Cynics, mourning is simply another example of human folly and hypocrisy. One should face death as a natural event not with fear but with courage; the howling and wailing of the mourners become the target of Cynic ridicule and scorn. 231 Extreme for a different reason was the position of the Epicureans. 232 According to Epicurus's second sententia in the Kyriai Doxai, "Death is nothing to us. "233 The reason for this startling conclusion is that death, defined as the end of life, cannot reach us. As long as we live, we are free of death, and when death comes, we do not feel it or know of it because we are dead. Hence, we have no reason to fear death. Rather, during one's life one should

226 See RudolfBultmann, "OavaTos KTA.," TDNT 3.7-21. 227 See Horst Balz and Gunther Wanke, "o(3{w KTA.," TDNT 9.189-219; for the philosophical discussion see Amelie 0. Rorty, "Fearing Death," Philosophy 58 (1983) 175-88. 228 Among the letters of Paul, 1 Thessalonians is most interesting in this respect. The occurrence of death in the church ofThessalonica (4:13) raised the anxious question among the Christians there about the condition of the deceased members at the parousia. Paul had apparently not instructed the church before concerning this issue, and he gives a first answer only in this letter (4: 13-18; 5:1-11 ): indeed, his previous instruction (1:9-10) seems to omit the question. Paul's letter intends to end the grief, and thus it has features of a consolation letter. 229 The long line of tradition begins with the Orphics and their gold tablets; see above, n. 28; also Hani, Plutarque, 58-62. Impressive are the passages in Ps.Plato Axiochus, esp. 370C-372B; Plutarch Cons. ad ux., esp. 608F, 611D-612B; Ps.-Plutarch Cons. ad Apoll., esp. 120B-121D; Cicero Tusc., esp. 1.13.29;

122

1.24; 3.12. On the subject as a whole see Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults, 21-29, 48. 230 See Ps.-Plutarch Cons. ad Apoll. 102C-F. 231 This message is the subject of Lucian's De luctu (see the LCL edition by A.M. Harmon, Lucian, 4.11231 ). On this work see Rudolf Helm, Lucian und Menipp (Berlin and Leipzig: Teubner, 1906) 348-50; for the Cynic position see Kassel, Untersuchungen, 1217. 232 For the Epicurean viewpoint see A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1987) 1.149-54; 2.154-59; Traudel Stork, Nihil igitur mors est ad nos: Der Schluj3teil des dritten Lukrezbuches und sein Verhiiltnis zur Konsolationsliteratur (Bonn: Habelt, 1970); Barbara P. Wallach, Lucretius and the Diatribe against the Fear ofDeath (Mnemosyne, Sup 40; Lei den: Brill, 1976); David Furley, "Nothing to Us?" in Malcolm Schofield and Gisela Striker, eds., The Norms of Nature: Studies in Hellenistic Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1986) 75-91; Philipp Mitsis, "Epicurus on Death and the Duration of Life,"

Matthew 5:3-12

be happy and enjoy it as much as possible, but mourning and grief can only be the expression of erroneous ideas and superstition. 234 In contrast to this Greco-Roman philosophical tradition, the second beatitude of the SM is unconditionally affirmative: Mourning is to be praised. What is the reason for this straightforward affirmation? Bultmann suggests that the praise does not actually refer to mourning as such. "Hence the sorrow referred to here is not to be regarded too narrowly as penitent sorrow for sin. On the other hand, it is evident that not all who mourn are called blessed. The reference is plainly to those who see this suffering aeon as it is and who are not led astray by its charms like the y£.>uovus" ("those who are laughing," SP /Luke 6:25). Their mourning is a sign of their internal separation from this aeon and their waiting for the kingdom of the heavens. Consequently, the lament of penitence because of sinfulness should not be excluded.23 5 Bultmann's interpretation is based on his understanding of jesus' message, but he also emphasizes the influence oflsa 61:2. 236 Furthermore, wisdom parallels show that the SM merely continues a line of tradition

that goes back to the Old Testament. 237 Denials elsewhere in the New Testament make clear, however, that one could also understand jesus' message in a way that would make mourning superfluous. 238 For this reason, the affirmation of mourning in the SM is more than a foregone conclusion. 239 The praise of the mourners accepts as part of the condicio humana that people in fact suffer losses and engage in mourning and grieving. 240 Mourning is the reaction to human deprivations and loss in all their forms, and with that the faithful disciple is expected to identify conscientiously. It is the mark of the discipleship of Jesus not to deny but to accept the deplorable facts of human life. Verse 4b gives the theological reason for the blessing of the mourners: "for they shall find consolation" (l)n avTOt7TapaKA7J8~uovrat). Clearly, the statement reflects

Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium on Ancient Philosophy 4 (1988) 295-314. 233 KyriaiDoxai 2, Diog. L. 10.139: 8avaros ovotv npbs ~p.as· rb yap OLaAv6tv avaur61jTEL' rb o' avaur61jTOVV ovotv nphs fJp.l1s ("Death is nothing to us; for the body,

o

234

235 236 237

238

when it has been resolved into its elements, has no feeling, and that which has no feeling is nothing to us"). Text and translation according to the LCL edition ofDiogenes Laertius by R. D. Hicks, 2.66465. See EpicurusEp. adMenoec., Diog. L. 10.124-26; perhaps a counterargument is made in Ps.-Piato Axiochus 369B. Bultmann, TDNT 6.43. Ibid., n. 152. Differently, Broer, Seligpreisungen, 7579. Cf. the beatitude in Tob 13:14: "happy all who grieve for you in your afflictions" (NEB); Sir 7:34: "Do not turn your back on those who weep, but mourn with those who mourn" (NEB). T.jos. 17.7-8: "and every pain of theirs was my pain; every ailment of theirs was my sickness; their wish was my wish. I did not exalt myself above them arrogantly because of my worldly position of glory, but I was among them as one of the least" (OTP 1.823). The synoptic sayings of jesus at times seem to oppose mourning; see Matt 8:21-22 par.; 9:15. Paul argues

against it for a different reason in 1 Thess 4:13 (see above, n. 228), but he affirms it in Rom 12: 15; 1 Cor 7:30; 12:25-26. The tradition has some difficulty explaining whether mourning is appropriate in view of jesus' death (see Mark 16:10; Luke 24: 17;John 16:20; 20:11, 13, 15). See furthermore Mark 5:38, 39 par.; Luke 7:13;John 11:31, 33.Jesus' own mourning (Mark 14:32-42; Luke 19:41) is clearly affirmed. 239 SM/Matt 6:16-18 appears to rule out mourning. 240 See the story from Lucian's Demon. 25, adduced by Bultmann, TDNT 6.41: The Cynic Demonax promises Herodes, who is in mourning over his son's death, that he would adjure the shadow of the dead if Herodes could find three people who have never engaged in mourning because of cases of death. This clearly impossible condition demonstrates the common experience of death.

123

the prophetic promise of Isa 61:2, 241 but there is more to it than this reflection. The change from the factual present tense in vs 3b to what is evidently an eschatological future tense in vs 4b reveals an intricate relationship between present and future in view of the kingdom of the heavens. This change involves all the beatitudes, whereby the eschatological predictions in vss 4b, 5b, 6b, 7b, 8b, 9b are framed by the factual statements in vss 3b and lOb. This inclusion means two things: First, the fulfillment of the predictions is a matter of divine "justice" (otKatouvv7J). The argument for this point is made in jewish terms 242 largely by implication and specifically by analogy to 5:3, a fact that explains why no christology is brought in at this point. The principle of justice to be applied here is presupposed also in the story about poor Lazarus. 243 In this story Abraham from heaven informs the rich man sitting in hell: "Remember, my child, that all the good things fell to you while you were alive, and all the bad to Lazarus; now he has his consolation [7rapaKaA£tTat] here and it is you who are in agony" (Luke 16:25 [NEB]).244 Second, the willingness and ability to mourn is no

longer to be taken as simply part oflife, but its affirmation is the result of special insight into the human condition before God. In this regard, vs 4 is based on vs 3, and one is to consider mourning a virtue. 245 This subtle change is fundamentally important to understand the ethics of the SM. Whatever the SM has to say on the subject of ethics, it is grounded in the Beatitudes. The construction of the promise (vs 4b) in the future passive is characteristic of jewish thinking. It is a device to avoid using the name of God; 246 hence it is God who will provide the comforting as part of his eternal reign in justice. • 5 The third beatitude, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth" (/;.aKctptot Ot 7rpa£tS, lfn aVTOt KA7Jpovop.~uovutv T~v yijv), is spoken into a world in which meekness was highly desired but little practiced. The beatitude contains two of the most important concepts of Hellenistic ethics, that of meekness and that of who is entitled to possess the earth. Before addressing these issues, however, I must examine two methodological questions. 1. The question of the proper place of the beatitude has already been discussed above on 5:4. The problem is

241 See esp. the famous passage in Isa 40:1-2. For parallels in Jewish literature see Str-B 1.195-97; 2.124-26, 232; Otto Schmitz and Gustav Stahlin, ".,.apaKaAc!w KTA.," TDNT 5.792-93. These parallels tempt one to interpret the beatitude of the SM in their light and thus to read rabbinic theology into the SM. Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary, 72-74) does this when he identifies the mourners with "the avele ?ion, the Mourners for Zion, a well-known group among the Jews who were so deeply affected by the destruction of the Temple that they lived their lives amidst grief and mourning because of the national tragedy" (p. 73). It is difficult to say how old this tradition is, but it is attested in 11 QPs•Zion. Whether it must always refer to the same group is another question. As far as the SM is concerned, Matt 5:2324 seems to imply that the Temple is still functioning. See also Hengel, "Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt," 28-31. 242 Hengel ("Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt," 31-36) argues for a Jewish interpretation of atKaiOUiJV7J ("righteousness") in the context of the SM. While this is certainly correct, he does not seem to consider that in Jewish theology righteousness is the principle on which the Torah is based, a principle that itself, however, is not simply identical with the Torah. As a

124

243 244

245

246

principle it is both something given and a demand. Pace Hengel, this Jewish concept of righteousness differs from its interpretation in the context of the evangelist Matthew's Christian theology. As has often been observed, the story in Luke 16:1931 contains Jewish theology. See also Jas 4:9-10; Luke 2:25-38; 18:9-14; cf. 1 Thess 3:2; 4:18; 2 Thess 2:15-17; Rev 7:13-17; etc. For further references see Bauer, s.v. 7rapaKaAc!w, 4; Johannes Thomas, EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v. 7rapaKaAc!w. At this point, modern studies can confirm the position of the SM; see esp. Alexander and Margarete Mitscherlich, Die Unfiihigkeit zu trauern: Grundlagen kollektiven Verhaltens (Munich: Piper, 1967). On the meaning of the passivum divinum see Dalman, Wortejesu, 183-85;Jeremias, Theology, 9-14; BDF, § 130(1).

Matthew 5:3-12

created by the fact that some manuscripts have 5:4 and 5:5 in reversed order. 247 Wellhausen 248 had suggested, and many scholars are inclined to agree with him, that the reverse order is original. As a result, W ellhausen argued, one could reconstruct an original parallelismus membrorum,, formed by 5:3 and 5:5. The interpolator who inserted 5:4 presumably did not understand the parallelism and destroyed it by his interpolation. 249 2. Wellhausen's hypothesis is based on another assumption that was important to him. According to him, all of the Gospels are translations of an Aramaic substratum, so that he assumed that both 71"rooxol (5:3) and 7rpaf'irt (5:5) are renderings of the same Aramaic 'aniyim or 'iinawim, as one would expect in a parallelismus membrorum. Both terms, therefore, are expressions of the underlying Aramaic and must be interpreted accordingly.2 50 Those who share Wellhausen's general hypothesis of an Aramaic substratum will be inclined to agree also in this instance. There is, however, no evidence of such a substratum, at least not in the SM; the original language of the SM was Greek, not Aramaic.2 51 In the light of these facts it would be erroneous to interpret an Aramaic meaning into the beatitude.2 52 Its

Greek origin becomes all the more obvious once one realizes that the concept of meekness was eminent in Greek ethical thought; 253 this eminence in turn was the reason why the LXX translators chose the word. The formulation of the beatitude's second line is obviously an adaptation of Ps 36:11 (LXX): o[ a~ 7rpaf'irt K)..:qpovop.~uovaw yfjv ("but the meek will inherit [the] earth [or: land]"). This adaptation is usually taken to be a direct quotation, but it could just as well have been taken out of the pool of oral wisdom sayings that is well represented in the SM elsewhere. Another question of method is whether one can use this literary character of the beatitude to argue against its originality. The sentence is redactional, but this is true of all of the SM. Nothing follows from this point for the question of the possible origin of the beatitude. Since it has no parallel in the SP its secondary nature is apparent, but this can hardly determine its historical origin. It would be a mistaken conclusion to take the MT of Ps 37:11 using the term Cl'1ll7 and interpret the Greek equivalent on the basis of the Hebrew instead of the Greek. 254 The opposite is the case: as in many other instances the LXX translators have chosen the Greek

zunachst der griechische Wortlaut interpretiert 24 7 See above, n. 207. werden" ("Even if Matt 5:5 was understood as a 248 Wellhausen, Evangelium Matthaei, 13-14; he is further explanation of 5:3 and was interpolated later, supported by those scholars who share the assump-· tion of an Aramaic background for the SM; see it is not appropriate to interpret the sentence Black, Aramaic Background, 258; Dupont, Beatitudes, primarily on the basis of an assumed Semitic equivalent, but first of all the Greek wording must be 2.252-53; 3.473-74; Guelich, Sermon, 81-82; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 74. Differently Harnack, considered"). Similarly Broer, Seligpreisungen, 79-80. Sprache, 38; Streeter, Four Gospels, 250 n. 2; 253 On this concept see Friedrich Hauck and Siegfried Schulz, "7tpafJs, 7tpaflr7Js," TDNT, 6.645-51; Bauer, Klostermann,Matthiius, 37; Bultmann,History, 10910; Manson, Sayings, 152; Koster, Synoptische s.v.; Hubert Frankemolle, EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v. iiberlieferung, 166; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 24-25. 7tpa't\r7Js; Spicq, Notes, 3.570-82. The major study of 249 See esp. Zahn, Matthiius, 184-86; Dupont, Beatitudes, the concept is by Jacqueline de Romilly, Ladouceur dans la pensie qrecque (Paris: Societe d'edition "Les 1.252-53. 250 He assumes accordingly that the term "land" refers to belles lettres, • 1979). 254 For the rabbinic interpretation see Str-B 1.197-200. the kingdom of God; see below, n. 279. Ps 37:11 is interpreted in rabbinic literature, but this 251 The Syriac tradition, the foundation for Wellhausen's hypothesis, is divided on the question of fact cannot be used to read rabbinic theology into the order; see Merx, Matthaeus, 64-65. On Wellhausen SM. see aliso Betz, Hellenismus und Urchristentum, 263-64; idem, "Wellhausen's Dictum 'Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew' in Light of Present Scholarship," StTh 45 (1991) 83-110. 252 So rightly Kahler, Studien, 1.183: "Auch wenn Mt 5, 5 als Erlauterung zu Mt 5, 3 verstanden und eingefilgt worden sein sollte, geht es nicht an, den Satz primar von dem moglichen semitischen Aquivalent her zu verstehen, sondern es muB

125

ethical concept of 7rpa~s ("meek") to make the Jewish 'aniiwfm piety intelligible for Greek-speaking readers. Who are those designated as "the meek" (ol 7rpaEis)? In the context of the SM the answer is evident: "The meek" is a variation on the notion of "the poor in (the) spirit" (5:3). This connection also explains that meekness is not simply a given condition but an ethical attitude to be acquired. Meekness is an attitude that fits the condicio humana; it is the appropriate reaction to it and may even be generally desirable. This does not mean, however, that it is to be taken as a commonplace. Literary parallels show that jewish piety highly valued meekness, where it is a synonym for "humility." The meaning of terminology differs, of course, depending on the context in wisdom literature, 255 the Qumran texts, 256 apocalyptic, 257 or later rabbinic literature. 258 Meekness is the general characteristic of the sage, the righteous person, and the ruler, with Moses and others serving as paradigms. 259 For the Greeks, 7rpa6TTJS ("mildness," "gentleness," "meekness") was a virtue closely associated with philanthropy. Theologically, it was associated with the justice of Zeus, 260 but the religion of the Greeks had

many other manifestations of divine gentleness. 261 As a virtue, meekness was a mark of the true philosopher, foremost Socrates. 262 For the Romans, dementia became the preferred virtue of the good ruler, a tradition that has its roots in Greek and Near Eastern traditions. 263 The opposites of meekness were "brutality" (aypt6T7Js) 264 and "untamed anger" (6pytA.6T7Js). 265 There is no question, therefore, that the SM joins with the Hellenistic world in general when it singles out meekness as a fundamental ethical standard.266 Not surprisingly, the third beatitude played a significant role in early Christian ethics. Did. 3. 7 has another version somewhat different from the SM: "Be then meek, since the meek will inherit the earth" (i'u8t ot7rpa~s, €7rf.L ol 7rpa£'is KA7Jpovop.~uovuw T~v yijv). 267 Closely related is 3.8: "Be patient and merciful and free of evil and quiet and good and trembling with regard to the words always that you have heard" (ylvov p.aKpMvp.os Kal. (A.f.~JJ.WV KaL liKaKOS KaL ~uflxws KaL aya8Ds KaL Tp£p.wv TOVs

A.Jyovs OLa 7favT6s' ons i/Kovuas ). 2 6 8

James 3: 13 makes meekness part of the description of the Christian sage: "Who among you is wise or clever?

255 See, e.g., LXX Pss 24:9; 33:3; 75:10; 146:6; 149:4; Sir 1:27; 3:17-20; 4:8; 10:28; 36:23; 45:4. 256 See 4QPs37, 2.8-11; 3.9-10, with the conclusion: "the inheritance of the whole world." Cf. also 1QpHab 12.3-10. 257 For the passages see Paul Volz, Die Eschatologie der judischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Tobingen: Mohr, Siebeck, 1934), 380-81,408,413. 258 Midr. Ps. 37, ed. William G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms (YJS 13; 2 vols.; New Haven: Yale University, 1959) 1.422, with a reference to Abraham. For further comments see Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1971), 1.321-24; Lachs,RabbinicCommentary, 74. 259 See Num 12:3; Sir 45:4; cf. Onias in 2 Mace 15:12; for references to rulers see Zech 9:9 (cited in Matt 21:5); Sir 10:14-18; Luke 1:52. On Philo see David Jobling, "'And Have Dominion ... ':The Interpretation of Gen 1:28 in Philo Judaeus," JSJ 8 (1977) 50-82. This article is a section ofJobling's dissertation mentioned below, n. 280. 260 See de Romilly, Ladouceur; also Ulrich Luck, TDNT 9.107-9. 261 See Dio Chrysostom Or. 5.23; 32.50; Philo Det. pot. ins.146; and de Romilly, Ladouceur, 275-92. 262 See esp. Plato Phaedo 116c.

126

263 See Klaus Winkler, "Clementia," RAG 3 (1955) 20631; de Romilly, Ladouceur, 38. 264 See Plato Symp. 197d; !socrates Or. 9.67; and de Romilly, La douceur, 38. 265 See Herodotus 2.181; Aristotle Eth. Nic. 4.5.1-4, 1125b 26-1126a 4; Rhet. 2.3, 1380a 7-8; Epii:tetus Ench. 42. 266 For the question of definition see also Ps.-Plato Def 412d 6-7 and the discussion in Heinz-Gerd Ingenkamp, Untersuchungen zu den pseudoplatonischen Definitionen (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967) 4 7-48. 267 The translation is mine. Did. 3.7 does not presuppose the knowledge of the Gospel of Matthew; the question may be raised, rather, whether Did. 3. 7 depends on the pre-Matthean SM, from which it differs, however, by spelling out the ethical demand that is only implied in Matt 5:5. See Koster, Synoptische Uberlieferung, 166-67; Mees, Parallelstellen, 48; Kohler, Rezeption, 48. See also Did. 5.2; 15.1; Bam. 19.4; 20.2; Ignatius Trail. 3.2; Eph. 20.2; Pol. 2.1;HermasMan. 5.2.6; 11.43.8; 12.3.1. 268 The translation is mine. The Didache interprets by combining a series of related ethical notions; similar are the parallels in Bam. 19.4; 1 Clem. 61.2 (in a prayer concerning the rulers).

Matthew 5:3-12

Let his right conduct give practical proof of it, with the meekness that comes from wisdom [€v 1rpa~TTJTL crocplas]. •2 69 The old cluster of wisdom sayings in 1 Clem. 13.1-3 that combines passages from the Old Testament with sayings of Jesus, which perhaps come from the SM, concludes with a citation of Isa 66:2: "The man I [sc. God] shall look to is none other than the one who is meek and quiet and trembling with regard to my words" (' E1rl TLVa €7rLCT'Kf"l[fW, clAA' ht TbV 1rpatv Kat ~cr!Jxwv Kat TPf!J.OVTfL p.ov >..&yta [1 Clem. 13.4]). 270 The relationship between thepassagesinDid. 3.8and 1 Clem. 13.1-4isapparent, but explanation of that relationship is difficult. Textually, they do not depend on each other; most probably both have drawn the material from some wisdom source. From this pool, rather than from Ps 36:11 LXX directly, may also come the material that makes up the beatitude .in SM/Matt 5:5. For the SM itself, one can find evidence of meekness throughout; meekness is an ethical value that underlies many other passages, even if it is not stated (cf. 5:21-26, 38-42,4348; 6:12, 14-15). In the larger context of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is shown not only as teaching meekness but also as

ra

practicing it. 271 Different from the SM, Jesus' meekness became an important part of Matthew's christology. Later paraenetical tradition contains continuous references to meekness, 272 sometimes with, sometimes without, Jesus as the primary example.2 73 The reason given in 5:5b for the blessing in 5:5a is stated, analogously to 5:4b, as an eschatological promise. One must also see this promise in relation to the long tradition of promising dominion over the world to the righteous. 274 Like the other promises in 5:4b-9b, one must conclude that also this one refers to an episode in the new age, when God hands over the earth to his faithfuJ.2 75 This conclusion, however, raises some questions: 1. What does "earth" refer to precisely? Is it "this earth" as a whole, or "the land" of Israel, or the kingdom of God, or a "new earth" after Christ's parousia? Exegetes have argued for all of these possibilities at one time or other. 276

look down on the earth. His report: "And I said: Sir, 269 The translation is mine. Cf.Jas 1:21; 1 Pet 3:4, 15. what is this place? And he said to me: This is the land See Dibelius,james, 37; 113; Mussner,jakobusbrief, of promise. Have you not yet heard what is written, 170. 'Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth'? 270 The translation is mine. See also Koster, Synoptische The souls of the righteous, however, when they come Uberlieferung, 12-16; Kohler, Rezeption, 67-71. One out of the body are sent for a while to this place. And should note that the LXX translation of Isa 66:2 I said to the angel: Will then this land come to be vacillates in the manuscripts between ra"ll"E&vOv and seen after a time? The angel answered and said to ,.pa~v; see Joseph Ziegler, Isaias (Septuaginta 14; me: When Christ whom you preach comes to reign, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967) 365then by the fiat of God the first earth will be 66. dissolved and this land of promise will then be shown 271 Matt 11:29; 21:5 (Zech 9:9); see Dupont, Beatitudes, and it will be like dew or a cloud, and then the Lord 3.510-45; Kahler, Untersuchungen, 182-83; Broer, Jesus Christ, the eternal king, will be revealed and he Seligpreisungen, 82-87. will come with all his saints to dwell in it and he will 272 See 1 Pet 3:13-16; Ignatius Eph. 10.1-3. Consequently, meekness can be commended as imitation of reign over them for a thousand years and they will eat of the good things which I shall now show you." Christ. See also T.jud. 24.1 and T. Dan 6.9, passages Apocalyptic scenarios follow, in which another that may show Jewish-Christian influence. See Jiirgen beatitude (Matt 5:6) is cited (ch. 22, NTApoc 2.774). Becker, Die Testamente der ZwolfPatriarchen QSHRZ Cf. also the interpretation in Acts of Thomas 94 3.1; Giitersloh: Mohn, 1974) 76, 97. (NTApoc 2.491-92): "Blessed are you meek, because 273 See Hauck and Schulz, TDNT 6.650-51; PGL s.v.; God has counted you worthy to become heirs of the Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.502-10. heavenly kingdom. Blessed are you meek, because you 274 For references see Volz, Eschatologie, 380-81, 408, shall see the face of the Lord." 413. 276 On this topic as a whole see William D. Davies, The 275 The interpretation is given in narrative form in Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and jewish Apocalypse ofPaul21 (NTApoc 2.772-73): The angel Territorial Doctrine (Berkeley and Los Angeles: has led Paul on his journey into heaven (2 Cor 12:1University of California, 197 4) esp. 359-62; idem, 4) into the second heaven, from where he can take a

127

The SM mentions "the earth" (7} -yij) several times in juxtaposition to "the sky" (5:13, 18, 35; 6:10, 19). Therefore, it is most likely that 5:5 does not have the kingdom of God as the object in mind, although the eschatological event of handing over the earth will occur in the kingdom of God. The land of Israel cannot be meant either, at least not exclusively; it would be included in any understanding of the earth as a whole. Finally, the SM gives no indication whether it intends "the earth" to be the old or the new; by comparison, Matthew, who has a far more developed apocalyptic worldview, clearly speaks of a "new" earth. The difference between the SM and Matthew is at this point apparent (cf. Matt 19:28; 25:34). 2. What is the meaning of the term "inherit" (1CA7Jpovop.e'iv)?277 A number of proposals for its interpretation have been made. Most recently van Tilborg2 78 has suggested that the term may be a general promise to the dispossessed that their land ownership will be restored. This suggestion, however, is as unpersuasive as taking the term in the strictly metaphorical sense. 279 Psalm 3 7:11 (MT) already expresses an ancient doctrine concerning the proper relationship between human beings and the earth. Accordingly, human beings are part of creation, but they do not own it. 280 Dominion over the earth is deferred to the eschaton. The implication for 5:5b is that at present the faithful

do not possess or have dominion over the earth, but they have reason to hope that God will hand it over to them in the end. While this inheritance is thus a matter of the eschatological future, later Christian interpretations of the promise show that its eschatological meaning was not taken as excluding an application to the Christian world mission. 281 This would also be no doubt the evangelist Matthew's own reading. While the SM itself has no concept of a mission, passages such as SM/Matt 5:13-16 were used in later interpretations to justify the Christian world mission. This development can also be observed in the Didache. Although in an earlier stratum Did. 3. 7 did not refer to the mission field, the later expansion of Did. 9.4 does contain the promise that the church members will be gathered "from the ends of the earth into your kingdom" (awo TWV 'lrf.paTOOV Tij~ -yij~ f.l~ T~V cr~v fiacr&Af.lav). 282 This notion implies that the earth is the mission field. Matthew's reading would be similar to Matt 28:18-20, and his entire interpretation of God's promise to Abraham (3:9; 4:13-16; 8:11-12; 9:35; 10:18; 21:43; 24: 14; 25:32; cf. Rom 4: 13). For the SM, the present situation is indeed the opposite of the promise: the earth is under the dominion of worldly potentates. 28 !1 While on the whole the SM abstains from political commentary, the implication is clear. The earth is at present not in the possession of the righteous, and this fact is a matter of

The Territorial Dimension ofjudaism (Berkeley and Los Matt 10:5, 23. Angeles: University of California, 1982). 283 See also 1 Cor 4:8; 6:2; Matt 4:8;John 18:33-37; 277 The term is used with the object "the earth" only Barn. 6.18-19. The Gnostics have claimed the here in the SM. In Matthew's interpretation inheritance now; see The Books offeu 44 (ed. and elsewhere (19:29; 21:33-46, esp. 38; 25:34) the trans. Carl Schmidt and Violet MacDermot; NHSt objects are different ("kingdom of the heavens," "life 13; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 137: "And I say to you that eternal," etc.). See Werner Foerster and Johannes since they were on earth they have already inherited Herrmann, "KJ\.7jpovop.os «rJ\..," TDNT 3.767-85, esp. the kingdom of God. They have their part in the 781-85;Johannes Friedrich, EWNT(EDNT) 2, s.v. Treasury of the Light, and they are immortal gods." Cf. "J\.71povop.os. also the Coptic Gos. ofThom. log. 2, in Bentley 278 Van Tilborg, Sermon, 23-27. Layton, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7 (NHSt 20; 279 Wellhausen, Evangelium Matthaei, 14: "a strange Leiden: Brill, 1989) 1.52-53; idem, Gnostic Scriptures, expression for the kingdom of God." 380; Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, 126. 280 See David K.Jobling, "'And Have Dominion ... ': Interesting to compare are also Philo's discussions, The Interpretation of Old Testament Texts for which seeJobling's article (above, n. 259), 61-70. concerning Man's Rule over the Creation (Gen. 1:26, 28; 9: 1-2; Ps 8:7-9) from 200 B.C. to the Time of the Council ofNicea" (Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, New York, 1972 [microfilm]). 281 Cf. also Rom 4:13; 1 Cor 6:9; Matt 25:34;Jas 2:5; 1 Pet 3:9; Rev 21:1-8. 282 Cf. Did. 16.4; Barn. 4.4. Cf. the mission instruction in

128

Matthew 5:3-12

injustice that will be corrected by God's justice in the coming kingdom. 284 This situation calls for the petition of the Lord's Prayer (6:10): "Your kingdom come, your will be done as in heaven so also on earth." This petition itself is a perfect description of what meekness means. • 6 Most illuminating for the theology of the SM is the fourth beatitude: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied" (/.LaK/tpwt OL 7T€tvWVT€S Kat lito/WVT€S T~V litKatOO"VV1JV, CJn avrot xopracrB~crovrat). 285 Comparison with the parallel in SP /Luke 6:2la shows the peculiar emphasis of the SM. While the SP speaks primarily of physical hunger, the SM prefers metaphors. 2 86 Being oriented toward ethics, the SM speaks of "hunger and thirst for righteousness." While physical hunger and thirst are certainly deplorable conditions, they are as such devoid of ethical content. The physical conditions of hunger and thirst may be an ethically motivating force, but they may just as well lead to

apathy, fatalistic despair, or even reckless greed. By themselves then, hunger and thirst have no ethical value and do not constitute a virtue. The SM therefore focuses on another, equally painful kind of hunger and thirst: the hunger and thirst for righteousness. 2 87 If one follows the thoughts of the SM, this hunger is the fruit of insight into the human condition. Values and virtues, as the SM understands them, presuppose such insight and understanding. This understanding has learned to view the human predicament as one of unrighteousness; it is also accompanied by the burning desire to overcome this condition. 288 Indeed, the ethical impulse as such could simply be defined as "hunger and thirst for righteousness. "289 If physical hunger is the result of social injustice, as the SP has it, hunger and thirst for righteousness is the beginning of the way out of it. Social conditions produced by injustice can be turned around only through personal hunger and thirst for

284 Related are in some way Philo's eschatological speculations, for which see Praem. poen. 85-97 and Jobling (above, n. 259) 71-72. The entire matter must also be seen in the light of Greco-Roman political philosophy and the traditions about philosopher kings. For Hellenistic texts see C. J. de Vogel, Greek Philosophy (Leiden: Brill, 1964) 3, nos. 1044-50; Ragnar Hoistad, Cynic Hero and Cynic King (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1948); Betz, Lukian, 206-7, 210; PECL 2.221 (on Plutarch De tranq. an. 12, p. 472A); also the material in Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (trans.]. W. Leitch; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 87-88. For the entire topic of Greek ideas on the legitimation of rulership see Peter Stockmeier, "Herrschaft," RAG 14 ( 1988) 877-936, esp. 896-901. 285 Wellhausen regarded the phrase ot>f!wvTE~ r~v OLKatocrOvTJV as an addition, because it is not found in SP/Luke 6:21 and because otKaLOut\vTJ is a religious concept of Matthew (Evangelium Matthaei, 14). See also Nestle-Aland, critical apparatus, ad Joe.; Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (trans. Erroll F. Rhodes; 2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 239. There is no reason for this hypothesis, if one assumes that the SM as a whole is a pre-Matthean composition. 2 86 For the present state of research see the commentaries on Matthew and the surveys in Albert Descamps, Les justes et la justice dans les evangiles et le christianisme primitif hormis la doctrine proprement paulinienne (Gembloux: Duenlot, 1950), 164-79;

Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.355-84; Broer, Seligpreisungen, 87-96; van Tilborg, Sermon, 28-31; Hengel, "Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt," 31-34. 287 The translation of the term oLKatout\vTJ is hampered by modern English. We use the term "righteousness" despite its somewhat archaic ring and its connotation of false moralizing and self-righteousness. The other possibility for rendering the term is "justice." This term, though it rightly retains the legal and philosophical aspects, does not emphasize the ethical connotations that are so important to the SM. Unfortunately, no English term includes the entire range of meanings present in the SM. 288 Wellhausen (Evangelium Matthaei, 14) observes succinctly: "Given his metaphorical understanding, Matthew may not be altogether wrong; cf. 1 Bar 2:18. The primitive Christians certainly were no starvelings" (my trans.). 289 Hunger and thirst were metaphors commonly used in antiquity; see esp. in the context of OT prophecy and wisdom: Isa 49:9-10; Prov 9:5; 25:21; Sir 24:21; Philo Fuga. 139; for the NT see John 6:35; Phil 4: 12; Rev 7:16 (Isa 49: 10); 21 :6; 22:17. For references see also BAGD, s.v. ot>f!aw, 3;Johannes Behm and Georg Bertram, "ot>f!6.w," TDNT 2.226-29; Leonhard Goppelt, "7T€tv6.w KTA.," TDNT 6.12-22, esp. 17-18; H.-J. van der Min de, EWNT (ED NT) 1, s. v. ot>f!aw; also Dupont, Beatitudes 3.368-76.

129

justice on the part of individuals. The SM does not seem to distinguish between the goal of personal righteousness and that of social justice. Both together are envisioned, and indeed one cannot be had without the other. These are reflections, I submit, that may have led to the peculiar definition of the addressees in vs 6a. These addressees are none other than "the poor in (the) spirit" of vs 3a. They are those who suffer from living in a world full of injustice, including their own. For the SM, one should remember, the world is full of evil and temptation (see SM/Matt 5:3-16; furthermore, 5:28, 29-30, 37, 45; 6:13, 22-23; 7:1-5, 10-11). It is the world in which God's will is not done (see 6:9-1 0). Therefore, blessed are those who realize the full extent of their involvement in this evil, but who have not succumbed to it and seek a way out of it. Further questions pertain to the concept of "righteousness" (otKawuvv1J) itself. In recent years, this concept has been widely discussed. 290 As far as the Gospel of Matthew is concerned, the question is whether one is to understand "righteousness" as God's own activity that is imparted through the redemption ofChrist, 291 or as a human effort to achieve righteousness. 292 Although at

this point scholars have not reached a consensus, some issues seem to be clear: (1) It is methodologically unnecessary to force the same meaning on a term each time it occurs. 293 (2) In some passages that come from Jewish sources, such as the SM, the term "righteousness" conforms to Jewish ideas. 294 (3) The evangelist Matthew then interprets the term christologically and soteriologically in the Christian sense (see Matt 3:15; 27:4, 19, 24, 54).295 Within the SM, the term OLKatouvv1J occupies a place of central importance. It is consistently used in the Jewish sense of the term. 296 This use implies that God represents righteousness and that the "kingdom of the heavens" is the realm of his righteousness (6:33: "God's kingdom and his righteousness"). In the first instance, this righteousness is the principle on which the law is based. 297 One must therefore interpret the Torah accordingly (see 5: 17-48). Ethically, righteousness is the standard for human conduct and therefore for all ethical thinking and action. Ethical awareness means continual self-examination with regard to the principle of righteousness (5:20; 6:1, 33; 7:12). During the course of human life, one must constantly seek righteousness

290 Strecker (Weg, 150-58) rightly emphasizes the similarities with the Epistle ofJames (1:20; 2:21, 24, 25; 3: 18; cf. also 1 Pet 2:24; 3: 14); cf. Wrege, Bergpredigt, 18-19; Strecker, "Makarismen," 265; idem, Bergpredigt, 38 (Sermon, 37-38); Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.213-384; Benno Przybilski, Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought (SNTSMS 41; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1980); Heinz Giesen, Christliches Handeln: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum a!Ka!Ocrtwq-Begriff im Matthausevangelium (Europaische Hochschulschriften

23.181; Frankfurt and Bern: Lang, 1982); Luz, Matthiius, 1.209-11 (Matthew, 1.237-38); Broer, Seligpreisungen, 87-96; Hengel, "Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt," 31-36; van Tilborg, Sermon, 28-31; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 74-75. For the whole topic see Albrecht Dihle, "Gerechtigkeit," RAG 10

(1978) 233-360, esp. 306-8; Josef Scharbert, Asher Finkel, and Dieter Liihrmann, "Gerechtigkeit I-III," TRE 12 (1984) 404-20, esp. 415. 291 This is not to be confused with a "Paulinizing" interpretation; see Peter Stuhlmacher, Gottes Gerechtigkeit bei Paulus (FRLANT 87; 2d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) 18891; idem, Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology (trans. Everett R. Kalin; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); Guelich, Sermon, 102-

130

3; Gundry, Matthew, 70. 292 So esp. Strecker, Weg, 156-57; idem, "Makarismen," 264-66; idem, Bergpredigt, 39-40 (Sermon, 37-38); Luz, Matthiius, 1.210 (Matthew, 1.237). For a survey see also Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.355-84. 293 For this view see Eichholz, Bergpredigt, 41-44; Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.383; Broer, Seligpreisungen, 89. 294 Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.383-84; Hengel, "Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt," 31-36. 295 See also Broer, Seligpreisungen, 89-90. 296 While Hengel ("Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt," 3136) has correctly emphasized the Jewish background, he attributes, incorrectly in my view, a JewishPharisaic theology to the evangelist Matthew. The reason is that Hengel does not distinguish between the theology of the pre-Matthean source SM, which is Jewish, and that of the Matthean redactor, which is Christian. Hengel describes Matthew as a Jewish Torah scholar who was "a wanderer between two worlds" (p. 20): Does this mean that this "wanderer" could not make up his mind about fundamental theological issues that had been decided by Paul a full generation earlier? This portrait of Matthew is historically unlikely (see also ibid., 15-25). 297 The exegetical discussion at times seems to suffer from lack of perspective. Not only in Judaism but in all antiquity the concept of justice was regarded as

Matthew 5:3-12

(6:33). This can only be done if the human appetites are clearly directed toward this goal. Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness must also realize that they will be the target of harassment and persecution. Although their hunger and thirst may not be satisfied in this age, it must not be subdued or get weary. According to Jewish and early Christian thinking, no one can enter into the kingdom of God who does not meet the demands of righteousness, that is, who remains in a state of unrighteousness (5:45) or lawlessness (7:23; cf. 5:17-20). The demand to seek righteousness certainly involves human effort to its full extent, and the ethics of the SM are concerned with this effort. Yet, this effort can succeed only because God, through the Torah and Jesus' interpretation of it, has opened the "way of righteousness," a Jewish concept that could well apply to the SM (see 7: 13-14). 298 This "way of righteousness" applies not only to legal and ethical issues but also to rituals (see 5:23-24; 6:1-18), indeed to life as a whole. At this point one encounters righteousness as God's "gift," understood, however, in Jewish, not in Christian (Pauline), terms. Righteousness is given to Israel and to humanity as a constitutive principle of creation, and the Torah is the guide on the way ofrighteousness.2 99 Thus, the Torah, interpreted rightly, is the means by which the hunger and thirst for righteousness can be met. This way of righteousness is a rough road, but it will

lead to its goal. 300 Those who hunger and thirst for this righteousness are encouraged to "seek God's kingdom and his righteousness" above all else (6:33), 301 to stumble along the rough road, and to search for the narrow gate (7: 13-14). Their goal is to become worthy "sons" of their heavenly Father, indeed to become perfect as he is perfect (5:45, 48). Then the divine judge will approve and admit them to the heavenly kingdom (5:20; 7:1314; cf. 7:21-23). This interpretation of the notion of righteousness, central as it is for the SM, differs from that of the evangelist Matthew. For the evangelist, it is first of all Jesus who through his life and teaching "fulfilled all righteousness" (Matt 3: 15). Indeed, he was a righteous man, as even outsiders had to admit (see 10:41; 23:3436; 27:4, 19, 24-26). That is also why he was crucified and raised from the dead, in order to be appointed by God as Lord over the universe (28: 18-20; cf. also 18: 15-20; 19:28; 25:34, 40; 26:63-64). He will protect those who are faithful to him and will guide them into life everlasting (7: 13-14; 19: 16-30; 25:31-46). Yet, the church here on earth cannot claim perfection of righteousness. To pronounce the final verdict is the

the principle on which all laws must be based and only ethical demands. Hengel finds in them the according to which they must be interpreted. This "pronouncement of grace" ("Zuspruch der Gnade"), justified because of the messianic authority of Jesus principle also determines the relationship between righteousness and Torah. For the Greek background presumed by the SM (Hengel, "Zur matthaischen see Dible's article (see above, n. 290); furthermore Bergpredigt," 35). I do not think, however, that the Hugh Lloyd-Jones, The justice of Zeus (Sather SM attributes messianic authority to Jesus. Lectures 41; 3d ed.; Berkeley and Los Angeles: 300 The doctrine conforms to Jewish wisdom; see Prov University of California, 1983); Eric A. Havelock, 21:21; Sir 2: 16; 4: 12; 51:13, 26; Wis 1:1; 6: 12; etc. See also Str-B 1.201-2; Hengel, "Zur matthaischen The Greek Concept ofjustice (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1978); Keith W. Whitelam, The just King: Bergpredigt," 34. 301 The terminology of"seeking" is basic to the SM; see Monarchical judicial Authority in Ancient Israel OSOTSup 12; Sheffield:JSOT, 1979). Forfurther below on 6:32, 33; 7:7, 8, 14; and Betz, Essays, 97, 114, 118 n. 96. disC!JSSion see below on SM/Matt 5:20. 298 The concept "the way of righteousness" (~ o~h~ ~&Ka&ou,';v7Js) occurs in Matt 21:3 2 with reference to the teaching ofJohn the Baptist. See Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.213-25. The concept could just as well describe the teaching ofthe SM as a whole (cf. below on 7:13-14). 299 Cf. the debate between Broer (Seligpreisungen, 8992) and Hengel ("Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt," 32-35). Broer rightly sees that the Beatitudes are not

131

privilege of the Son of man, who is to be the judge at the lastjudgment (24:30-31; 25:31-46). Here on earth there remain the hunger and the thirst, the seeking and the searching: "He who perseveres to the end, this one will be saved" (1 0:22; 24: 13). This conclusion then takes us to the promise of vs 6b: "for it is they who will be satisfied." Like the previous beatitudes this c-ne also is eschatological, 30 2 taking up well-known prophetic promises such as Isa 49:10: "they shall not hunger or thirst. "303 The fulfillment of this promise plays an important role in apocalyptic literature, as one can see from the example of 1 Enoch 48.1: 304 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness305 Which was inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect. 306 Finally, how can such a promise be justified theologically? How can mere hunger and thirst for righteousness be given the same credit as righteousness itself? In order to answer this question in terms of the Jewish theology of the SM, one must consider the principle of righteousness itself. Accordingly, human limitations mean that at the most only a few can obtain full

righteousness. Only pretense and self-delusion could claim more. Given these limitations and the adverse circumstances of this sinful world, the mere keeping up of the desire for righteousness is so difficult that it requires a person's total commitment. It will take no less than the love of God (SM/Matt 6:24) "with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and all your strength" (Mark 12:30//Matt 22:27). If this much is required, it is only fair that God reward the truly faithful for maintaining their hunger and thirst for righteousness (cf. 5:12). If the fulfillment of the promise is "satisfaction," 307 the metaphor points to the eschatological banquet. 308 The term "satisfy," therefore, has the ring of mythical realism to it. 309 The SM, however, does not mention the eschatological banquet familiar from other Jewish sources; one may imagine it to occur after the faithful enter through the gate into heaven (7: 13-14). 310 • 7 The fifth beatitude poses few interpretative problems. It conforms to a well-known doctrine ofJewish religion: "Blessed are those who are merciful, for they shall find mercy" (JJ.aKtLptot OL fA€~p.OV€~, CJn avTo'r. fA€1]8~crovTat). Praises of mercy are common in the Old Testament and subsequent Jewish literature. Deeds of mercy are generally those done out of compassion with the unfortunate and helpless. 311 The name and act of "almsgiving" (f.A.€7Jp.ocrvv7J) is its most ordinary expres-

302 For a gnostic interpretation see Cos. Thorn. log. 69: 309 Cf. other metaphors such as" Abraham's bosom" "Blessed are the hungry, for the belly of him who (Luke 16:22); furthermore, see Luke 1:53; 15:25desires will be filled." Whatever the meaning of this 31;John 4:13-15; 6:35; 1 Cor 4:11; Rev 7:16 (Isa saying may be, the language is entirely metaphorical. 49:10); 21:6; 22:17. 303 For the passivum divinum see above on 5:4. 31 0 See the texts discussed in Betz, Essays, 148-51, and in 304 See also LXX Isa 41:17-18; 44:3; 48:21; 55:1; addition Apocalypse of Paul 22 (citing Matt 5:6); furthermore, LXXJer 38:12, 25; Ezek 34:29; 36:29; NTApoc 2.773-74. Ps. Sol. 5.10. For references see Goppelt, TDNT 311 See esp. Prov 14:21-22; 17:5; Tob 4:5-7; 'Abot 1.2 6.15-17; Behm and Bertram, TDNT 2.226-29; (with the interpretation in 'Abot R. Nat. 4; see Taylor, Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.368-80; Wrege, Bergpredigt, Sayings of the Fathers, 13 n. 6); Str-B 4/1.536, 53817-18. 39. For further references see Str-B 1.203-5; Rudolf 305 The "fountain of righteousness" is a prominent Bultmann, "tA
132

Matthew 5:3-12

sion. 312 Thus, for all branches of judaism the exercise of mercy was one of the preeminent religious and social duties. 313 This duty was based on the belief that God is a God of mercy. 314 Early Christian theology continued this tradition in a variety of ways, among them this beatitude. SP /Luke 6:36 cites the doctrine in the form of a maxim: "Be merciful, as your Father is merciful" (ylvm·B£ olKT{pp.OV£S, Ka86Js 0 7TaT~P vp.wv OtKTLpp.wv f(]"Tlv). The older clusters of sayings in 1 Clem. 13.2 and Polycarp Phil. 2.3 contain similar forms ofthe maxim: "Be merciful, so that you will find mercy" (lA£iin, Yva EA€1J8fin). The parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matt 18:23-35) applies the principle to a narrative context (18:33). 315 Drawing on its jewish heritage, the New Testament continues to speak of the God ofmercy, 316 and mercy becomes a constitutive part of early Christian paraenesis(e.g., Luke 1:50,54,58, 72, 78). 317 In Greek literature, popular morality also valued mercy positively, but philosophical ethics treated it with suspicion. Popular piety is reflected, for instance, in the erection of an altar to Eleos by the Athenians. This altar was well known to the ancients as an asylum. 318 According to Xenophon, Socrates considered mutual mercy as an element of friendship. 319 Other philosophers, especially the Stoics, however, were critical of it because of its impact on the emotions, 320 a suspicion that lingers on even into modern times. 3 2 1

How then is one to interpret the fifth beatitude in the context of the SM? The designation of the addressees as "the merciful" (vs 7a) must be seen as analogous to the other beatitudes of which it is a variation. Clearly, therefore, compassion and mercy are the proper attitudes given the human predicament (see above on 5:3). 322 Mercy is recommended as an ethical response to violence and enmity (5:38-42, 43-48). The duty of almsgiving is affirmed and underscored (6:2-4), and forgiveness is singled out as a very important aspect of prayer (6:12, 14-15; also 5:45, 48; 7:10-11). Thus, one should not make too much of the fact that the SM never again mentions the term "mercy. " 3 2 3 Other closely related texts corroborate that this interpretation is correct. Apart from Did. 3.8 3 2 4 and the prayer in 1 Clem. 60.1, 325 2 Clem. 4.2 combines in a cluster of SM-type sayings notions such as lyKpan'is, fA€~p.OVH, aya8o{ ("self-controlled, merciful, and good people") and supplements them with the appeal: "and we are obligated to suffer together" (Kat (]"Vp.7Tct(]"X£tV aAA~AOVS ocJ>€LAOp.£v). 326 Generally speaking, therefore, the SM, like Christian thought elsewhere, continues to regard mercy as an expression of righteousness and wisdom. 327 The promise in vs 7b is again to be taken eschato-

312 See below on SM/Matt 6:2-4. 313 For the OT see H.-J. Zobel, •.,en, ~resa:d," ThWAT 3.48-71 (TDOT 5.44-64); Spicq, Notes, 3.252-55; Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.606-17; for Qumran see Braun, Radikalismus, 2.87 n. 2; idem, Qumran, 1.14; Zobel, TDOT 5.64. Hellenistic Judaism has many references; see, e.g., T. Ash. 2.5, 6; T. Zeb. 5.1, 3; 7.2, 3; 8.1; Pr Man 6-7, 14; Ep. Arist. 208; Philo and Josephus often. 314 See esp. Exod 34:6; Deut 4:31; Pss 86:15; 103:8; 111 :4; 112:4; 116:5; 145:8. 315 The citation comes from an older source, but there is no indication of dependency on Matt 5:7. See alsoP. Berol. 16388, cited in Aland, Synopsis, 254. 316 See SP/Luke 6:36; Rom 9:15 (Exod 33:19 LXX); 11:30-32; 12:1; 15:9; 2 Cor 4:1; Eph 2:4; 1 Pet 1:3; 2John 3;Jude 2, 21. 317 See also Luke 10:25-37; Rom 12:8; Col3:12; Eph 4:2;Jas 2:13; 3:17; 1 Pet 3:8; etc. 318 For the references see Otto Waser, "Eieos," PW 5 (1905) 2320-21; Wolfgang Fauth, "Eieos," KP 2 (1967) 242.

319 XenophonMem. 2.6.21; see also Dover, Greek Popular Morality, 195-97, 201; Spicq, Notes, 3.25052. 320 For the Hellenistic material see de Vogel, Greek Philosophy, vol. 3, nos. 953b, 1044b, 1050b; Bultmann, TDNT 2.493-96. 321 R. Hauser and]. StOhr, "Barmherzigkeit," HWPh 1 (1971) 754-55. 322 Cf. terminologically Rev 3:17; Did. 3.8; cf. 5.8; Barn. 20.2; also 3.5 (Isa 58:1 0). 323 In the NT cf. Heb 2:17; Luke 6:36;Jas 5:11. 324 "Be magnanimous and merciful" (yluov p.aKpo6vp.os Ka't tAn/p.rou). 325 God is addressed as "you who are merciful and compassionate" (
133

logically: "for it is they who will find mercy." The future passive328 indicates that at the last judgment God will show mercy toward those who have done deeds of mercy during their life on earth. This expectation is based on the principle of justice, but also on the insight that no matter how many deeds of mercy they may have done those who appear before God's throne will need mercy. In the SM, the concept of mercy is therefore connected with the practice of forgiveness (6:12, 14-15). It is true that God is always merciful, but justice requires that petitioners for forgiveness act with mercy as well. 32 9 Merely knowing of or talking about mercy is not enough; the actual deeds of mercy are what counts. 330 Expecting God's mercy is justified if his mercy has been taken seriously and practiced in one's conduct of life. By contrast, those who cannot show deeds of mercy will not find it in the last judgment (cf. 7:21-23).33! The underlying legal principle is the ius talionis (see below on 5:38); the ethical principle involved is the Golden Rule (7: 12). 332 • 8 The sixth beatitude identifies purity of heart as a basic virtue. Thus vs Sa designates the addressees in this way: "Blessed are the pure in heart" (}l.aKapLOL or Ka8apo', Tfj Kapalfl.). The meaning of the concept of purity of the heart is more presupposed than explained; it is never mentioned again in the SM or, for that matter, elsewhere in the New Testament. 33 3 The Jewish environment from which the SM came regarded purity of heart as a virtue of great importance. This tradition then is responsible also for this beatitude.334

In terms of the history of religions, the concept implies critical reflection about purity and related rituals. 335 Antiquity considered impurity primarily a matter of external pollution and the cause of evil in its many forms; its removal was the purpose of purification rituals. Critical reflection about common practices in judaism began as early as the Old Testament; in Greek thought one can find such reflection beginning with the PreSocratics. 336 The problems addressed in these reflections were mainly twofold: (1) the unclear relationship between ritual purity and morality, and (2) the observation that the internal conditions of a person can be a greater source of impurity than external pollution. These insights could then lead either to an abandonment of purity rituals or to their intensification by including the internal aspects. This latter option is presupposed by the concepts of purity and impurity of the heart (Kapala) or soul ('1/rvx~). These developments took place both in judaism, which preferred the concept of the heart, and among the Greeks, who preferred the concept of the soul. One should not overstate the differences, however, because each side can also use the other concept. At any rate, by the time of early Christianity all antiquity had concluded that a person's inner disposition was a matter of the greatest significance, ritual or no ritual, so that the concept of purity of the heart or soul acceded to the status of a virtue. In the Old Testament one can see these developments in the classic passage of the temple entrance liturgy in Psalm 24, 337 where in vs 3 the question is called out:

328 On the passivum divinum see above on 5:4b. BAGD, s.v. 1..," TDNT 3.413-31; Friedrich Munich: Beck, 1920) 155-70; Louis Moulinier, Le Baumgartel and Johannes Behm, "Kaplila, • ibid., Pur et l'impur dans la pensee des Grecs d'Homere a 3.605-13; Wilfried Paschen, Rein und Unrein: Studien Aristote (Etudes et commentaires 12; Paris: Klinckzur biblischen Wortgeschichte (SANT 24; Munich: sieck, 1952); Robert Parker, Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford: ClarenKosel, 1970);Jacob Neusner, The Idea ofPurity in Ancient judaism (SJLA 1; Leiden: Brill, 1973); don, 1983).

134

Matthew 5:3-12

Who may go up to the mountain of the LORD? Who may stand in his holy place? The answer is given in vss 4-6: One who has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not set his mind on what is false, or sworn deceitfully. Such a one shall receive blessing from the LoRD, and be vindicated by God his saviour. Such is the fortune of those who seek him, who seek the presence of the God of Jacob. (REB) This psalm attests all the ideas needed for the beatitude in SM/Matt 5:8. This does not mean, however, that the beatitude merely "quotes" Psalm 24. Rather, the beatitude confirms ideas that were commonly accepted in Judaism at the time. Beginning in the Old Testament, but even more so at the time of early Christianity, purity of heart was the great virtue sought by the truly religious. 338 One can assume that everyone knew passages such as Ps 51: 10: Create a pure heart in me, 0 God, and give me a new and steadfast spirit. (NEB) The Greek concept of purity of the soul is also very old and may go back to the old Orphics, of whose secret

rituals the Orphic gold tablets show evidence. 339 Purity of the soul then became a primary concern for the Pythagoreans, 340 and from them the idea entered into the thought of Platonism. 341 Apparently from early on the idea of the purity of the soul was connected with eschatology in that only the one whose soul is pure may enter into the Elysian Fields or the Isles of the Blessed. In his famous work "On Piety" (IItpi tvut{jtlas) Theophrastus states that purity of the soul is more important than ritual purity. 342 These ideas were present also in Greek religion, as one can see from temple inscriptions, for example, at Delphi 343 and Epidaurus. 344 More specifically, this context makes explicit connections between the concept of purity of the soul and vision of the gods. For instance, in the Myth of Thespesius, told by Plutarch in his "On the Delay of Divine Vengeance," a work depending on OrphicPythagorean afterlife mythology, the soul ofThespesius experiences a flight into the afterlife. When he comes near the highest and most sacred part of heaven, he desires to see the divine light that originates from the heavenly tripod, but this light is too bright for him to gaze into, and he is unable to make out anything. 345 The

337 See Paschen, Rein und Unrein, 68-69 (with further references). 338 See also Ps 73:1, 13; Prov 22:11; cf. Gen 20:5; Deut 9:5; 1 Kgs 3:6. For references see also Str-B 1.205-6; Baumgartel, TDNT 3.607 (A.2.d); Paschen, Rein und Unrein, 68-71, 182-200; H.J. Fabry, ":l':> lef!.," ThWAT 4.443-44; Neusner,Idea ofPurity, 12. Related is the concept of the "Torah of the heart" Oer 31:33), which, however, is not attested in the SM; see Christoph Levin, Die Verheij3ung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt (FRLANT 13 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 257-64, 265-79. In the Qumran texts the concept of purity of heart plays no role, but "hardness of heart" is common, and the battle of the two spirits takes place in the heart (1 QS 4.22-23). See Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild, 106, 113, 139-40, 150. 339 The formula on the tablets is ;pxoJLa• EK Ka6aprov Ka6apa ... ("from the pure I come, a pure ... "). For the edition and commentary, see Zuntz, Persephone, 304-8; Kern, Orphicorum Fragmenta, frgs. 32 and 33; Norden, Agnostos Theos, 93 n. 1. 340 See Parker, Miasma, 281-82, 322-27. 341 See esp. Plato Phaedo 65e-69d, 80d-83e, 108a-c, 113d, 114c; the conceptuality is found elsewhere in Plato, too; see Parker, Miasma, 281-82.

342 Theophrastus, IIEPI EY~EBEIA~ (ed. Walter Potscher; Leiden: Brill, 1964) 162 (frg. 8, lines 2021; frg. 9, lines 3-11). 343 Anthol. Pal. 14.71 (cited according to the LCL edition by W. R. Paton, 5.63-65): "Come, stranger, pure in mind, to the precinct of the pure god, after dipping thy hand in the water of the Nymphs. For a little drop suffices for the righteous, but not the whole ocean shall cleanse a wicked man with its streams." Cf. 14.7 4: "The holy places of the gods are open to the righteous, nor have they any need of lustration; no defilement touches virtue. But thou who art evil at heart, depart; for never by sprinkling thy body shalt thou cleanse thy soul." See also Parker, Miasma, 324. 344 Cited by Plato Leg. 4. 716d-e; proverbial in Epicharmus frg. 269: "If you have a pure mind, you're pure in all your body." Parker (Miasma, 32324) mentions the popularity of the saying among Christian writers as well. The gnome is attested also in Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 228. For more temple entrance requirements see Stengel, K ultusaltertilmer, 155-56. 345 Plutarch De sera num. vind. 22-32, 563B-568A, esp. 566E. See PECL 1.223, 225, 230.

135

conclusion must be that his soul is not pure enough for a full vision. According to the Greeks, only the best achieved purity of the soul. Famous philosophers, foremost among them Socrates, 346 were believed to pass directly to the Isles of the Blessed. These beliefs were popular in the Hellenistic period. It cannot be a surprise, therefore, that in Hellenistic Judaism the ideas of both cultures came together. Aristobulus seems to have been the first to show influences from Orphism. 347 Philo of Alexandria does not hesitate to speak of the purity of the soul, 348 and the same can be said about Rabbinic Judaism. 349 The New Testament only rarely mentions purity of the soul, but even the concept of purity of the heart is less frequently attested than one would expect. 350 One can have no doubt, however, that for the SM purity of the heart is a virtue of fundamental importance. 351 Not only is the heart (Kapala) frequently mentioned (5:5, 28; 6:21, 24; cf. 6:22-23), but also throughout the SM is a constant emphasis on the internal disposition of the person as over against the external world, on the invisible versus ostentation, and on honest simplicity

versus hypocrisy. Therefore, one can conclude that "the pure in (the) heart" are synonymous with "the poor in (the) spirit" (5:3a). Indeed, purity of the heart is a virtue that underlies all ethical attitudes in the SM; it certainly also underlies the performance of rituals. In particular the praying ofthe Lord's Prayer presupposes it, even if it is not explicitly stated. In support of the centrality of the concept, one may also refer to Mark 7: 1-2 3 and its synoptic parallels, a chapter devoted entirely to purity concepts. 352 This chapter seems to have its roots in Hellenistic Judaism and possibly in the theology ofJesus himself. 353 As mentioned already, the eschatological promise in vs 8b is traditionally connected with purity of the heart: "and it is they who will see God." In biblical literature references to a vision of God are comparatively rare, whether in the Old Testament354 or in the New Testament. 355 This rarity stands in contrast to the frequency of visions of heaven and even God himself in apocalyptic 356 and rabbinic literature, 357 not to speak of Christian and Jewish mysticism and Gnosticism. 358 One should also note that in Greek religion the connection between beatitudes and epiphany is found as early as the

346 See Plutarch De gen. Socr. 20, 588D about Socrates: b vovr 1Ca6apor Gw Kal awa6~r ("his mind [was] pure and free from passions"). About the Pythia cf. De def orac. 40, 432C. Even the Cynic Cyniscus qualifies according to Lucian Catapl. 24; De luctu 7; see Betz, Lukian, 85. 347 According to EusebiusPraep. 13.12.1-16 (ed. Denis, Fragmenta, 163-67, 221-22); for translation see OTP 2.840-41; furthermore West, Orphic Poems, 33-35. 348 See esp. Philo Spec. leg. 1.257, 259, 260; for references see Hauck, TDNT 3.416-17 (A.3); Meyer, ibid., 3.423 (C.4). 349 For references see Edmond Jacob, "1/rvx~." TDNT 9.626-31 (B.4; 5.d); Dible, ibid., 9.632'-35 (C.I.1-5); Eduard Lohse, ibid., 9.635-37 (C.II.1-2). 350 For purity of the heart see also Acts 15:9; 1 Tim 1:5; 2 Tim 2:22 (cf. 1 Tim 3:9; 2 Tim 1:3); 1 Pet 1:22; for purity of the soul see 1 Thess 5:23; 1 Pet 1:22; cf. 2 Cor 7:1. For other passages see BAGD, s.v. 1..ol, Kal b.yvlcrarE Kap3lar, 3{>/fvxo&). In James this admonition is part of the "wisdom from above" (see 3:13-18; 1:26-27; 5:5, 8). Cf. furthermore Matt 23:25-26; Heb 9: 14; 10:2; Barn. 15.1, 6; and frequently in the

136

Shepherd ofHermas. See also Norbert Brox, Der Hirt des Hermas (KEK [Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vatern 7]; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1991) 551-53. 351 This fact is also reflected in the history of the interpretation ofthe beatitude, which is often quoted (see Acts ofPaul and Thecla 6 [ed. Lipsius and Bonnet, Acta apostolorum apocrypha, 1.239-40]; trans. in NTApoc 2.355); Resch, Agrapha, 272; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 17.7.4. See Beyschlag, "Geschichte," 301-7; Luz, Matthli.us, 1.212-13 (Matthew, 1.239-41). 352 For a detailed investigation and bibliography see Roger B. Booth, jesus and the Law ofPurity: Tradition History and Legal History in Mark 7 OSNTSup 13; Sheffield: JSOT, 1986). It must be said, however, that Booth does not seem to recognize the centrality ofthe concept (p. 211). 353 See also below on SM/Matt 5:33-37. 354 See Job 19:26-27; Isa 60:2. For further references see Wilhelm Michaelis, "bp6.UJ KTA.," TDNT 5.315-81, esp. 324-40 (B.I-III). 355 See 1 Cor 13: 12; Heb 12: 14; 1 John 3:2; Rev 22:4. Cf. also the beatitude in Acts ofPaul and Thecla 6 (ed. Lipsius and Bonnet, Acta apostolorum apocrypha, 1.239-40; trans. in NTApoc 2.355); Resch, Agrapha, 273: "Blessed are those who keep the understanding ofJesus Christ, for they will be in the light." Cf. ibid.:

Matthew 5:3-12

Demeter mysteries of Eleusis. In the SM, the promise to see God, although not explicitly mentioned again, is given further interpretation in 7:21-23. Here it is assumed that those who enter into the kingdom of God will see God, who is the judge and before whom all must appear. It is also assumed that those who are to be rejected will not see him; this may be the reason why God is not mentioned in 7:21-23, although he is presumed to act as the judge. Moreover, the SM may make a connection between purity of the heart and the improvement of the physical and mental functioning of the eye. Generally, the human eye and its functioning prove extremely important for the SM (see on 5:14-16, 28-29; 6:22-23,26, 28; 7:3-5, 15-20, 24-27). This importance is also expressed in the extensive use of images and metaphors relating to vision. • 9 The seventh beatitude has always been controversial because of its political implications. 359 When in vs 9a the addressees are designated as peacemakers, this

designation clearly presupposes and affirms peacemaking as a virtue: "Blessed are the peacemakers" (JwKaptot o1
"and they will not see the bitter day of judgment." Is exegetische Bijdrage op Grond van de Septuaginta en de the difficult phrase in Col 2:18 related: £6paKEV Joodsche Literatuur (Wageningen: Veenman & Zonen, €p.{Jar
a

356

357

358

359

137

literature. 36 2 In Hellenistic literature outside the New Testament the honorific epithet "the peacemaker" (o £tp7JV07rou)s) carries special weight in the language of ruler-cult notions. 363 These parallels inspired Hans Windisch to develop his hypothesis that the SM was influenced by ruler-cult notions: "At any rate, the possibility should be considered that the terminology of the Greek version [of the SM] was influenced by titles of ancient rulers. "364 This influence would pertain not only to the term "peacemakers" but also to the epithet "sons of God" in vs 9b. If this hypothesis is accepted, two transformations would have occurred: The underlying religious ideas would have been converted from paganism to Christianity, and the court milieu would have been adapted to the social context of the early church. Windisch saw in these transpositions a veiled polemic by early Christianity against the Roman imperial cult: "Thus the duties stated in our beatitude, which come from the needs and struggles of daily life, receive the rank of the highest nobility anyone can think of. The work of beneficence done in the smallest circle is placed at the same level as the worldwide benefits of an Alexander and Augustus. "365 What are we to make of Windisch's hypothesis? Was the SM really concerned with the emperor cult of the time? Does vs 9 reflect a political stance of resistance? These questions cannot be answered categorically one way or the other.

It is evident that the SM deals with acts of peacemaking at several levels. 366 The antitheses (SM/Matt 5:21-48) in effect present six cases of peacemaking, although this term is not used; all six belong to the context of family and friendship ethics. The issues of forgiveness (6: 12, 14-15) and judging (7: 1-5) are also related to peacemaking. On the other side, hostile comments are made against "the pagans" (5:47; 6:7, 32; cf. 7:21-23). At any rate, all these instances involve repairing relationships between individuals, not between political bodies or social classes. Seen from this angle political involvement lies outside the concerns of the SM. One cannot ignore, however, that peacemaking is seen as a direct consequence of "righteousness" (otKatocn'w7J). 367 It is also presupposed that God is the principal peacemaker and that he rules accordingly in his kingdom (see 5:44-45, 48; 6:12, 14-15; 7:10-11). Consequently, all human peacemaking is done in imitation of God. 368 To the extent, therefore, that peacemaking is a function of righteousness and the kingdom of God, the work of the disciples as peacemaking agents of God has indeed political implications. The antitheses (5:21-48) are certainly opposed to war and strife, whether personal or corporate. Also, 5:13-16 implies the possibility of political conflict, and one should interpret 5: 10, 11, 12 accordingly.

enden Leistung eines Alexander, eines Augustus 362 Cf.Jas 3:18; Eph 2:15: vA.at (Decal. 178; Rer. div. her. 206; Spec. leg ("peacemaker of the inhabited world") was a royal 1.192; Leg. Gaj. 147); cf. also Som. 2.253. See epithet (Dio Cassius 72.15.5). Windisch, "Friedensbringer," 254-55; Siegert, Philon von Alexandrien, 230, 232. 364 Windisch, "Friedensbringer," 257: "Jedenfalls ist die Moglichkeit zu erwagen, daB die Terminologie der griechischen Fassung durch die Titulatur der antiken Herrscher beeinfluBt sei." 365 Ibid., 260: "So empfangen in unserer Seligpreisung die Pflichten, die die Not und der Streit des taglichen Lebens uns auferlegen, den hochsten Adel, den man sich denken kann. Das segenbringende Tun im kleinsten Kreis wird der eine ganze Welt begliick-

138

Matthew 5:3-12

These implications, however, are regarded entirely as a matter of personal example on the part of the individual disciples. There is no interest in the disciples acting as a political group, dedicated to negotiating reconciliation between opposing parties. For such activities the SM does not claim to have the authority or power. Therefore, the SM cannot be used as a general guide for political behavior. Rather, the SM simply educates the disciples so that they develop attitudes appropriate for the teaching of Jesus; in this process, concrete political situations are not given consideration. Nonetheless, one must add that the disciples, when properly instructed, are in no way prevented from applying their conduct to the larger social and political environment. This is the way the SM was understood most of the time, and it appears to be the correct way. How was peacemaking valued in the Greco-Roman world at the time? The investigations by Windisch, Dinkier, Wengst, and Zampaglione have shown that peacemaking was a value held in high regard by society and political authorities. The concept of the pax romana meant that the Romans understood the very essence of their rule to be the making and preserving of peace in the empire. The benefits of the pax romana were appreciated by most, whether they were Gentiles or Jews. 369 After centuries of wars and in view of the everincreasing devastations wars brought with them, the

longing for peace and stability was common everywhere. 370 On a smaller scale, making peace between groups, within families, or between individuals was regarded as a proper task for the philosophers. Lucian's Demonax sums it up when he characterizes Demonax as an ideal philosopher: "He made it his business to reconcile brothers and to make terms of peace [dp~V7JV 7rpvTav~/;wv] between wives and husbands. On occasion he has talked reason to excited mobs, and has usually persuaded them to serve their country in a temperate spirit. " 371 Similar things were said about Apollonius of Tyana.372 In Judaism not only peace but also peacemaking was a long-established virtue. The concept of shalom was fundamental to the Old Testament and Israelite religion. 373 Its dimensions are cosmic and involved the order of the universe as intended by the creator. 374 The concept is closely related to that of "justice" (Hebrew: ;,p,~; Greek: litKaw
369 Prominent in this regard was the idealized image of Orient und im Alten Testament (SBS 51; Stuttgart: Alexander the Great; see Plutarch De Alexandri magni Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1971 ); idem, "Frieden, II. Altes Testament," TRE 11 (1983) 605-1 0; Odil H. fortuna et virtute 329C, 330E. For collections of material see Windisch, "Friedensbringer," 251-57; Steck, Friedensvorstellungen im allen Jerusalem: Dinkier, RAG 8.437-48; Pierre Hadot, "FiirstenPsalmen, Jesaja, Deuterojesaja (ThSt Ill; Zurich: spiegel," RAG 8.555-632; Peter Stockmeier, Theologischer Verlag, 1972). "Herrschaft," RAG 14 (1988) 877-936, esp. 896374 See, e.g., Lev 26:6; Num 6:26; Isa 27:5; 45:7. 375 SeePs 85:11; Prov 10:10 (LXX); also Ps 37:37; Sir 910. 370 Cf. the opening compliment in Tertullus's speech 28:9, 13; 50:23 (LXX). (Acts 24:2) before the Roman governor Felix: "Your 376 Exemplary are the famous statements in 'Abot 1.13: "Be of the disciples of Aharon; loving peace, and excellency ... , we owe it to you that we e~oy unbroken peace" (REB). pursuing peace; loving mankind, and bringing them nigh to the Thorah"; 'Abot 1.19: "On three things the 371 Lucian Demon. 9, cited according to the LCL edition and translation by A. M. Harmon. world stands: on judgement, and on Truth, and on 372 Philostratus Vita Apoll. 1.15; 6.38. See Bieler, 0EI0l: Peace" (trans. Taylor, Sayings of the jewish Fathers, 20ANHP, 1.101-2;Betz,Lukian, 137. 21, 25). See also 'Abot R. Nat. (A), chap. 12, and Taylor's commentary on 'Abot, pp. 20-21, 25-26; 373 See the basic works by Walter Eisenbeis, Die Wurzel O"!il im Alten Testament (BZAW 113; Berlin: de Moore,judaism, 2.195-97; Str-B 1.215-18; Werner Gruyter, 1969); Heinrich Gross, Die Idee des ewigen ThieBen, "Frieden, III:Judentum," TRE 11 (1983) und allgemeinen Weltfriedens im Alten Orient und im 610-13; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 76. Alten Testament (2d ed.; TThS 7; Trier: Paulinus, 1967); Hans H. Schmid, SalOm: "Frieden'' im Alten

139

and events, such as the Jewish uprisings against the Romans, show that the high value placed on peace did not rule out war and violence. 377 In particular, the apocalyptic literature is full of the language of war. Yet, surprisingly this literature also contains parallels to the beatitude of the SM (e.g., 2 Enoch 52.11-12): Happy is he who establishes peace. Cursed is he who strikes down those who are in peace. 378 Early Christianity was not united on the subject of war and peace. 379 The occurrence of war or warlike conditions presented for early Christians a problem of survival as well as of ethics. 380 Jesus' attitude seems to have been ambivalent: If his teachings commended peace, he also strongly opposed the rule of the Romans and their Palestinian allies. Since he did not settle the question, the history of the interpretation of his sayings and the narratives show diversity of views. Paul's constant exhortation to maintain peace 381 may be directed against attitudes reflected in the Q-saying Matt 10:34-35 I I Luke 12:51-53. 382 In Matthew it is part of the instruction on mission that is often similar to the SM, but in this case it seems to take a position opposite to SMIMatt 5:9: You must not think that I have come to bring peace [,BaA.€'iv €lp~V1JV] to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against

his father, a daughter against her mother, a son's wife against her mother-in-law; and a man will find his enemies under his own roof. (NEB) In this situation of ambiguity 383 the SM sides firmly with those who value peacemaking positively. This position is all the more remarkable because the SM shows that the community expressing their views in this text was fully aware of their life in a world characterized by hostility. The community's own attitude to the Romans, as to all of paganism, was hostile. Why then this strong affirmation of peacemaking? The SM recognizes war, persecution, and injustice as part of the evil world. Precisely because there is war, strife, dissension, and hostility, peacemaking is a demand that comes with justice and the kingdom of God. Peacemaking is a means of involvement in the human predicament of warlike conditions. Coping with such conditions corresponds to God's own response and action. Consequently, affirming peacemaking is more than agreeing with a commonplace. It implies assuming responsibility against all the odds, risking peacemaking out of the situation of powerlessness, and demonstrating the conviction that in the end God's kingdom will prevaiL For this reason, the peacemakers will be rewarded by God. The promise in vs 9b takes up a topos of Jewish eschatology: 384 "for they shall be called sons of God" (Cfn

377 Notably, according to Josephus Bell. 2.135; Philo 382 Cf. also Rev 2:16; 9:7; 12:7, and often. By contrast, Omn. prob. lib. 76, the Essenes were peacemakers. See the language of "peace" (•1p~v7J) occurs only in Rev also Braun, Radikalismus, 1.81; Dinkier, RAG 8.4551 :4; 6:4 ("taking peace away from the earth"). 56; ThieBen, TRE 11.612-13. 383 For the problem caused by the saying in later debates 3 7 8 Cited according to version A, OTP 1.181; see also 2 seePs.-Clem. Rec. 6.4-5;Hom. 11.19.1-3. Enoch 52.13-14; 53; 66.7-8; 1 Enoch 92.1; 94.4; Ps. 384 On the title "sons of God" in application to humans Sol. 12.5. On the topic see Volz, Eschatologie, 81; see the study by Gerhard Delling, "Die Bezeichnung Brandenburger, Frieden, 17-28. 'Sohne Gottes' in der jiidischen Literatur der 379 So rightly Brandenburger, Frieden, 11. hellenistischen Zeit," in God's Christ and His People: 380 See esp.Jas 3:18; 4:1-2; Mark 13:7 I I Matt 24:6 I I Studies in Honour ofNils A. Dahl (Oslo: UniversitetsLuke 21:9; also Mark 9:50; Heb 12:14; Did. 4.3; forlag, 1977) 18-28; also Peter Wiilfing von Martitz 15.3; Barn. 19.12; 21.9; 2 Clem. 10.2. For the later eta!., "v!.ls KTA.," TDNT 8.334-97, esp. sections interpretation see also Const. Apost. 2.46.7; 3.15.4 B.5.c; C.I.l.c; II 3; D.IV.1-2; Carsten Colpe, "Gottessohn," RAG 12 (1981) 19-58. (moreover, 2.1.7; 2.53.1). 381 See 1 Thess 5:13; 1 Cor 7:15; Rom 12:1-7, 18. On 1 Corinthians see Laurence L. Welborn, "On the Discord in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Ancient Politics," JBL 106 (1987) 85-111; Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical1nvestigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (HUTh 28; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1991).

140

Matthew 5:3-12

avTOL dol ihov KA1J6~crOVTaL). 385 The promise was first made by God to Israel, as the Old Testament testifies, 386 and it remained a continuous part of the Jewish religious hope. One can see its importance from the apocalyptic literature, which affirmed it strongly. This history is presupposed in the SM, which also affirmed and reinterpreted the tradition. The beatitude in the SM makes two statements with regard to the traditional promise: (1) It clearly regards its fulfillment as an eschatological event, assuming that the honorific name "sons of God" will be conferred on the faithful in paradise; (2) it stipulates that not every Jew is entitled to the name, but that only those qualify who meet the terms of vs 9a: "for it is they who will be called 'sons of God.'" The honorific title "son of God" (vio~ 6.:-ov) is used rather frequently as a self-description in the SM (5:9, 45; 7:9-11 ). 387 The ethics of the SM in its entirety is intended for those who regard themselves potentially as "sons of God" and whose training leads to this reward as their eschatological goal. For them God himself has set the example: He acts as the great peacemaker, 388 letting the sun rise on the bad and the good, and letting the rain

fall on the righteous and the unrighteous (5:45). 389 He forgives sins (6:12a, 14-15; 7: 11), and he hands out benefits to the undeserving (7:7-11). God's example thus informs Jesus' interpretation of the Torah as a whole (7: 12), making ethics a matter of the imitation of God (5:48). 390 Yet, it is only in the afterlife that the faithful are awarded the honorific title (cf. 7:21-23). 391 This eschatological reservation-to use Ernst Kasemann's expression-is shared by other Jewish-Christian texts, of which the closest parallel is in SP /Luke 6:36: "You will be sons of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked" (NEB). 392 Remarkable is also the close parallel in what I regard as an anti-Pauline fragment in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1; 393 it says in 6:17-18: "Then I will accept you, ... I will be a father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters. " 394 Also the apocalyptic passage in Luke 20:36 contains older ideas, when it states about those who will be resurrected: "They are like angels; they are sons of God, because they share in the resurrection." 395 Rev 21:7 sums up: "All this is the victor's heritage; and I will be his God and he shall be my son" (NEB). 396

385 afJToi is missing in ICC D jl3 pc it vg
389 For peace as constitutive of the kingdom of God see Rom I4: 17, 19; Ps.-Clem. Hom. I9.20.I ("the sons of my house") and 19.20.9 ("the peaceful reign of Christ"). 390 This may also explain the meaning of the peculiar notion of "son of peace" (vll>r
141

This Jewish-Christian concept of divine sonship differs somewhat from Paul's in that according to the apostle "sonship" is conferred on the Christian at baptism in conjunction with the gift of the Holy Spirit (see Gal 4:6, 7; Rom 8:14-17). 397 Such conferral, however, does not remove accountability of Christians in the last judgment. 398 The difference seems to be that, while Jews possess the promise by tradition, Gentile Christians must be included by a special dispensation (see esp. Romans 9-11 ). The present pronouncement of sonship, therefore, as Paul conceives of it, does not circumvent the last judgment, but it puts Gentile Christians on the same level as Jews. Both must face the last judgment and give account (see also SM/Matt 7:21-23). • 1 0 The eighth beatitude takes a special place for reasons of form and content. Formally, it stands at the end of the series of beatitudes stated in the third person plural. The second line (vs lOb) repeats the second line of the first beatitude (vs 3b), thus creating an indusia. While the first set of four beatitudes emphasizes themes of pursuing righteousness (vs 6), the second set of four speaks of endurance for the sake of righteousness (cf. vss 6 and 10). Thus, the prominence of the dual concept of righteousness is demonstrated. It is fundamental to the entire SM in both respects, pursuing righteousness and suffering because of it: one does not exist without the other. The question of the composition of the series of beatitudes leaves us with two options. There could be two sets of four beatitudes as I have indicated, each ending on the notion of righteousness. 399 The number

four would have a parallel in SP /Luke 6:20b-24, where four beatitudes are juxtaposed with four threats ("woes"). Or there could be two sets of 3+ 1 (vss 3-5+6, and vss 79+ 10). The latter may be more probable because vss 3-5 describe situations of deprivation, motivating the "hunger and thirst for righteousness" (vs 6), while vss 79 have verbs describing human activities that meet with persecution for the sake of righteousness. 400 Another question pertains to the sources from which the eight beatitudes could have derived. Strecker believes that two sets of three beatitudes were taken from QMau, together with vs 5, which had been added prior to Matthew in order to complete the number seven, which, according to Strecker, plays an important role in Matthew's Gospel. 401 The evangelist Matthew then added vs 1 0 to create a series of eight beatitudes. 402 This analysis is, however, hardly convincing. Although numerical symbolism plays a role in Matthew's Gospel, no fixed system can be detected. The notion of righteousness (fnKawuvv7J) is not the result of Matthew's redactional insertion at this point, as Strecker maintains, but that notion is an intrinsic element of the SM as a whole. The designation of the addressees in vs 1 Oa introduces one of the most crucial issues of ancient thought, persecution for the sake of righteousness: "Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness" (p.aKd.pwt o~ O(Owryp.(vot lv(KW [ri/s] OtKawuvv7]s). 403 Contrary to what many assume, the experience of being persecuted because of righteousness was not original to Christianity. 404 Matthew is well aware that

faithless, and the obscene, the murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolators, and liars of every kind, the lake that burns with sulfurous flames will be their portion, and that is the second death" (REB). Cf. SM/Matt 5:21-27,28-30, 30-31, 33-37; 7:21-23. 397 See Betz, Galatians, 209-12; Eduard Schweizer, TDNT 8.389-92 (D.IV.1-2). 398 The evangelist Matthew agrees up to this point, but it is noteworthy that he never calls the disciples (i.e., Christians) "sons of God." Cf. esp. Matt 25:34: "the blessed ones of my Father"; the only son of God is Christ (Matt 2:15; 3:17; 4:3, 6; 8:29; 11:25; 14:33; 16:16; 17:5; 26:63; 27:40, 43, 54). For Matthew, peacemaking does not seem to have been of great interest; outside the SM he mentions it only in 10:13, 34 (citing source material from Q). See also Schnackenburg, "Seligpreisung," 170-7 4.

142

399 So Schniewind, Matthiius, 40; Grundmann, Matthiius, 199. 400 So Schlatter, Matthiius, 137; Strecker's objections ("Makarismen," 160 n. 1; Bergpredigt, 31 [Sermon, 30]) are not necessarily decisive. 401 See Strecker, Bergpredigt, 30-31 (Sermon, 29-30); also "Markarismen," 259, 260. 402 See Strecker, Bergpredigt, 44 (Sermon, 42); idem, "Makarismen," 267-68, following Wellhausen, Evangelium Matthaei, 15, and many others; see also Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.225; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 26; Luz, Matthiius, 1.200 (Matthew, 1.226-27). 403 C adds the article rij~ before 5tKatouf>v'l~· probably in parallelism with 5:6, 20; 6:1, 33; all of these verses have the definite article, which, therefore, should be read in vs 10 as well. Cf. Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.34344; Strecker, "Makarismen," 268.

Matthew 5:3-12

such persecution threatens his church, but he reminds his readers that they are not the first to suffer this fate. 405 It has occurred in the past, and this history is documented in Matthew's sources. Thus the passages in Matt 10:16-33; 22:6; 23:29-39; 24:9-14 describe the earlier history of persecution of the church. 406 This history was "predicted" by Jesus in our passage in the SM. Apart from Matthew, however, the complex of ideas associated with persecution for the sake of righteousness has had a long and intricate history. The SM specifically applies the experience to discipleship of which it is a constitutive element (vs 11 ), but this experience is the result of theological doctrine (vs 10). Consequently, vs 10 is not redundant, but it spells out what it is that the disciples experience when they are persecuted. 407 Persecution because of righteousness was an important theme in ancient thought, Jewish and Greek. The immediate background for the SM was the Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom tradition, in which Wis 2: 10 has become something like a locus classicus: "Let us oppress the righteous poor man!" 408 The speakers of this passage are the "atheists" whose beliefs are described in satirical form in Wis 1: 162:24.409 The theme ofWis 2:10 is developed, perhaps under the influence oflsa 52:13-53:12, 410 in Wis 2:12-20 (RSV): 12 Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,

because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sin against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. 411 13 He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. 41 2 14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15 The very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. 16 We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; and he calls the last end ofthe righteous happy, 413 and boasts that God is his father. 414 17 Let us see whether his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of this life; 18for if the righteous man is God's son, 415 he will help him, and he will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 416

404 Against Strecker, "Makarismen," 268; idem, kingdom of God" (p.aK.ipLoL o! 7rTwxot Kat o! SLwKop.woL Bergpredigt, 45 (Sermon, 42-43); Luz,Matthiius, 1.214 fv£KfV OtKatocrDvn~, Hr~. aVrWv fur tv 1J {3autAEla roV (Matthew, 1.241-42). llwv). 405 See also SP /Luke 6:22; 1 Pet 3:14; 4:14; Barn. 7.11; 409 They are called in Wis 1:16: 'Au
143

19Let us test him with insult and torture, 41 7 that we might find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected. Wisdom and prophecy obviously connect at this point. The parallelism between Wis 2:12 and Isa 3:10 (LXX) speaks for a common tradition: "Let us bind the righteous, because he is inconvenient to us." 418 The persecution of the prophets is a prominent theme in those Old Testament parts that deal with them, 419 whereas the sufferings of the righteous 4 2° are a recurring motif in the Psalms. 4 2 1 The prototype of it all is Job, whose suffering makes his righteousness evident. 422 Later the theme becomes prominent in apocalyptic literature; for example, in 1 Enoch 95.7 423 threats are issued: Woe unto you, sinners, for you persecute the righteous! For you shall be handed over and be persecuted through oppression. Its yoke shall be heavy upon you. The persecuted righteous ones are comforted by eschatological promises of reward; for example,

2 Bar. 48:48-50: But now, let us cease talking about the wicked and inquire about the righteous. And I will tell about their blessedness; And I shall not be silent about their glory which is kept for them. For surely, as you endured much labor in the short time in which you live in this passing world, So you will receive great light in that world which has no end. 424 In Hellenisticjudaism, 425 in the Qumran texts, 426 and in rabbinic literature, 427 the theme of the persecution of the righteous became part of the ideology of martyrdom. This entire complex of ideas and traditions, very diverse in itself, was then absorbed by early Christianity. 4 2 8 One should not overlook the additional fact that the theme of persecution of the righteous has had a long history also in Greek thought. 429 In Plato the famous passage Rep. 361e-362a focuses on Socrates, who inquires about the nature of justice and compares the righteous and the unrighteous. His dialogue partner, Glaucon, proposes that a life of injustice commends itself more than a life of justice:

417 Cf. SM/Matt 5:11,12. 103.9-15; 104.1-6. 418 The precise relationship is unclear; see Hans 424 Trans. according to OTP 1.376; see also 2 Bar. 52.5Wildberger, jesaja Kapitel, 1-12 (BKAT; 2d ed., 7; 54.16-18. Neukirchen-VIuyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980) 118 425 For surveys see the literature above, nn. 419, 420. (ET: Isaiah 1-12 [trans. Thomas H. Trapp; 426 In Qumran, the persecution of the "teacher of Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991] 134-35). righteousness" is an important concem (e.g., 419 See the basic study by Odil H. Steck, Israel und das 1QpHab 11.4-8; CD 1.20). See Braun, Radikalismus, gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur 1.39, 61-62,83-84, 130-31; Dupont, Beatitudes, Oberlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im 3.349-51; Ben Zion Wacholder, The Dawn of A/ten Testament, Spiitjudentum und Urchristentum

(WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967). 420 See Lothar Ruppert, Der leidende Gerechte: Eine motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum A/ten Testament und zwischentestamentlichen Judentum (Wiirzburg: Echter, 1972); idem, Der leidende Gerechte und seine Feinde: Eine Wortfelduntersuchung (Wiirzburg: Echter, 1973); Karl-Theodor Kleinknecht, Der leidende Gerechtfertigte: Die alttestamentliche Tradition vom "leidenden Gerechten" und ihre Rezeption bei Paulus

(WUNT 2.13; 2ded.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1987); Yaakov Elman, "The Suffering of the Righteous in Palestinian and Babylonian Sources," JQR 80 (1990) 315-39. 421 See, e.g., Pss 7:1-17; 31:15; 69:26; 109:16; 119:86. 422 See, e.g. ,Job 13:20-27; 19:22, 28. 423 Trans. according to OTP 1. 76; see also 1 Enoch

144

Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College,

1983)91, 104,186-92. 427 See the passages collected in Str-B 1.220-26. 428 See Wolfgang Nauck, "Freude im Leiden: Zum Problem einer urchristlichen V erfolgungstradition," ZNW 46 (1955) 68-80; Sam K. Williams,jesus' Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept

(Harvard Dissertations in Religion 2; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1975); Theofried Baumeister, Die Anfiinge der Theologie des Martyriums (MBTh 45; Munster: Aschendorff, 1980); Wolfgang Stegemann, Zwischen Synagoge und Obrigkeit: Zur historischen Situation der lukanischen Christen (FRLANT 152; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) 113-

34. 429 See Emst Benz, Der gekreuzigte Gerechte bei Plato, im Neuen Testament und in der a/ten Kirche (AAWLM.G

Matthew 5:3-12

What they will say is this: that such being his disposition the just man will have to endure the lash, the rack, chains, the branding-iron in his eyes, and finally, after every extremity of suffering, he will be crucified, and so will learn his lesson that not to be but to seem just is what we ought to desire. 430 Socrates became the prototype of the persecuted righteous man. Plato developed this character especially in the Apology and in the Phaedo. 431 Xenophon, 43 2 the Cynic and Stoic traditions, 433 and the later Platonic Academy 434 also carried on the theme in various forms. Imitatio Socratis became the literary and ethical ideal. In trials of philosophers the defendant often played the role of Socrates. At some point this venerable tradition became connected with Christian teaching;

perhaps this connection was made already in the New Testament itself. 435 As far as the SM is concerned, only the general theme is presupposed and affirmed in vs 10. Remarkably, no attempt is made to connect the theme with the life and death of Jesus. This is all the more surprising because other Christian writings base entire christologies on the concept of Jesus as the persecuted righteous man. 436 For the evangelist Matthew the theme plays an important role, 437 but not in the SM, where it is completely absent. 438 I regard this absence of a christology and indeed of any reference to the suffering ofJesus as evidence that the SM comes from a pre-Matthean source. 439

1950.12; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1950); Hildebrecht Hommel, "Der gekreuzigte Gerechte," in his Sebasmata, 2.75-82; Armand Delatte, "Lesagetemoin dans Ia philosophie stolco-cynique," Bulletin

435

de la classe des lettres et des sciences morales et politiques de l'Academie Royale de Belgique 39 (1953) 166-86.

430 Trans. by Paul Shorey in the LCL edition of Plato, Republic, 1.125. The passage has had an impact on patristic literature also, not to mention the later philosophical tradition (esp. Cicero De Rep. 3.17 .27). For references see Benz, Der gekreuzigte Gerechte (above, n. 429), passim; Klaus Doring, Exemplum Socratis: Studien zur Sokratesnachwirkung in der kynischstoischen Popularphilosophie der Kaiserzeit und im jrilhen Christentum (Hermes-Einzelschriften 42; Wiesbaden:

Steiner, 1979) 145 n. 13. 431 See Plato Phaedo liSa, at the end of the work: "Such was the end, Echecrates, of our friend, who was, as we may say, of all those of his time whom we have known, the best and wisest and most righteous man" (b.plurov KaL li.AA.w~ f/>poutiJ.Wr&.rov Kal Oucatorc:Zrov). Trans. by Harold N. Fowler in the LCL edition of Plato, 1.403. 432 See esp. XenophonMem. 1.1-2. 433 See Delatte, "Le sage-temoin" (above, n. 429); Wilhelm Nestle, "Asebieprozesse," RAG I (1950) 735-40; Betz, Lukian, II 0-16; Doring, Exemplum Socratis (above, n. 430), passim; Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates on Trial (Princeton: Princeton University, 1989). 434 A good example is Plutarch's Life ofPhocion, esp. 9.4; 13.3; 24.2; 35-36; 37.3; 38.1; see Hans-Joachim Gehrke, Phokion: Studien zur Erfassung seiner historischen Gestalt (Zetemata 64; Munich: Beck, 1976) 139-55. Aristides, the hero of another of Plutarch's Lives, has the byname "the righteous" (o

436

437 438

439

L:l.lKatos); seeAristides 2.2, 5; 4.1, 4; 6.1; 7.1, 6; 26.6. Furthermore, see Tacitus Ann. 13.49; 14.12, 48, 49; 15.20; 16.21-35. The explicit connection between Wis 2:10, 12; Isa 3:10; and Plato Rep. 36le is made in Martyrium Apollonii 38, ed. Musurillo, Acts, 100-101: "After teaching us this doctrine vigorously and persuading us with many arguments, he [sc. Jesus] himself attained a great reputation for virtue. Still he was despised by the ignorant, like the philosophers and just men who lived before him. For the wicked have no use for the righteous. Wherefore it is written that the ignorant say unjustly, 'Let us imprison the just man, for he is useless to us.' So too one of the Greeks has written for us to hear.... " Collections of names of persecuted righteous men are found in 1 Clement 45 (see also 4.9, 13; 5.2; 6.2); Tertullian Scorpiace 89, with reference also to Matt 5:10-12. For further references see Benz, Der gekreuzigte Gerechte, 31-45; Doring, Exemplum Socratis, 143-61; Winston, Wisdom ofSolomon, 119. See the study of Lothar Ruppert, jesus als der leidende Gerechte? Der Wegjesu im Lichte eines alt- und zwischentestamentlichen Motivs (SBS 59; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972). See esp. Matt 27:19, 24, 25, 54; Ruppert, jesus, 5657. See also Luke 11:54;Jas 5:6, 10-11; I Pet 1:21-25; 3:18; 1 John 2:1; Acts 3:14-15; etc.;Justin Dial. 137.3; Clement Alex. Strom. 5.14, § 102.2-3. See Betz, "The Problem ofChristology in the Sermon on the Mount," in Theodore W. Jennings Jr., ed., Text and Logos: The Humanistic Interpretation of the New Testament (FS for Hendrikus W. Boers) (Atlanta: Scholars, 1990) 191-209; reprinted in Betz, Synoptische Studien, 230-48.

145

In what way then is the theme of persecution for the sake of righteousness interpreted in the SM? Its prominence for the whole of the SM would be apparent from the place vs 10 occupies at the end of the sequence ofbeatitudes in vss 3-10, but other passages in the SM underscore the significance. . The perfect participle of ol O£O!WY!J.~Vot indicates that persecution has occurred in the past and continues in the present (see vss 11-12). 440 The phrase "because of righteousness" (~v£K£V [T7/s] OtKatou6v1Js) means that those so designated are persecuted because of their pursuit of righteousness. Since striving for righteousness is the highest goal for the SM (see esp. 6:33; also 5:6, 20; 6:1; 7:21-23), persecution for the sake of that goal must also be the highest test and virtue. This is the reason why the eighth beatitude occupies such a prominent place. This central position of the beatitude can also be justified for more general reasons. The classic definition of justice in Ulpian's Digestae states: "Justice is a steady and enduring will to render unto everyone his right. The basic principles are: to live honorably, not to harm any other person, to render to each his own. "441 If taken seriously, especially the words "a steady and enduring will," this definition implies suffering for the sake of justice. Thus, persecution for the sake of justice is an integral part of the pursuit of justice, even its most crucial component. Suffering because of righteousness is also part of the human predicament generally. 442 This experience was discussed in antiquity in a variety of ways, depending on the cultural and religious context. Judaism considered it

to be the greatest test for the righteous, the supreme means of divine education, or the proper compensation for the sins of others. Greek philosophy connected the matter with doctrines concerning the goal (rb..os) of enlightened existence. 44 3 In the SM, the eighth beatitude appropriately forms an inclusio together with the first beatitude (5:3). It also forms a climax: If humility is the most elementary of the virtues, persecution for the sake of righteousness is the highest. Thus, the condicio humana comprises not only situations of deprivation and misery but also those demonstrating human dignity and strength. Indeed, all of the virtues of vss 3-1 0 are testimonies to human strength, rather than weakness. All of this is said to a community that at present lives under distress, harassment, and persecution (vss 11-12; see also 5:44). It is therefore natural that the test in what follows turns to the immediate needs of the community, the situation of its own suffering (vss 11-12). In conclusion, the eighth beatitude in summing up the beatitudes of vss 3-1 0 details both the passive and the active aspects of what later on (6:33) is stated as the basic telos of the SM: "Seek first the kingdom [of God] and his righteousness. "444 The second line ofthe beatitude (vs lOb) repeats the second line of vs 3b: "for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens" (Cfn avrwv ffTT!V ~ f3autA£La TWV ovpavwv). 445 For the SM, the meaning of the inclusio is clear: the sequence of virtues in vss 3a-9a, combined with the eschatological promises in vss 4b-9b, is held together by the theme of the kingdom of the heavens, in which righteousness reigns and will ultimately prevail. 446

440 See Zahn, Matthiius, 190 n. 36; A. H. McNeile, The Gospel according to Matthew (London: Macmillan, 1915) 53; Grundmann,Matthiius, 132; C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book ofNew Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1955) 14; Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.333 n. 5; BDF, § 342. 441 Ulpian Dig. 1.1.1 0: "lustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius summum cuique tribuendi. I uris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere." For discussion see also below on SM/Matt 5:20, 38-42. 442 On suffering as part of the human predicament see, e.g., Epictetus Diss. 2.10.5-6: "if the good and excellent man knew what was going to happen, he would help on the processes of disease and death and maiming, because he would realize that this allotment comes from the orderly arrangement of

146

the whole." See also Bonhoffer, Ethik, 20-39. 443 For this topic see Isaak Heinemann, Die Lehre von der Zweckbestimmung des Menschen im griechisch-romischen Altertum und im judischen Mittelalter (Breslau: Marcus, 1926). 444 So also Strecker, "Makarismen," 268, who, however, places too much emphasis on the individual deed of righteousness. 445 Dreads ~<J"Tat ("will be") instead of lcrTtV ("is"). If it is not a scribal error, the change assimilates vs 10 to vs 11. 446 So also Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.224; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 27; Gaechter, Die literarische Kunst, 22-23; Strecker, "Makarismen," 260 n. 1.

Matthew 5:3-12

• 11 The ninth beatitude turns from what thus far have

been affirmations in the third person plural to a direct address in the second person plural. 447 Apart from these formal differences, there is, however, no break in the logic between vss 10 and 11. As already indicated, vss 310 also imply appeals, though indirect, so that the change is merely from implicit to explicit appeal, a change that is deemed not only logical but necessary. Furthermore, remember that the whole unit vss 3-12 is the result of the redaction of the SM. Therefore, the differences at this point between SM/Matt 5:11 and its parallel in SP /Luke 6:22 reveal the need to come to terms with the concrete situations of the addressees, that is, the communities behind the texts. That this SM passage has an unusually large number of textual variants can be taken as evidence that the pressure on this text continued in the early tradition and led scribes to apply it to themselves. The following treatment takes up the problems presented by this beatitude one by one. The composition of the ninth beatitude is characteristically different from the preceding ones in other ways. Apart from the change to the second person plural there is no specification of the addressees. They are simply addressed in vs 11a by "Blessed are you" (p.aK6.pwl (uu). The reasons for the change are mainly two: vs 11 applies what has been said generally in vs 10, so that the conditional clause in vs 11 describes actual situations of persecution for the sake of litKawut'lv7J ("righteousness"). Those who experience these situations are therefore led to conclude that they are in effect suffering for righteousness. The persons are those who have committed themselves to the teachings contained in the SM. They regard themselves as followers of Jesus, and it is "because of me" (lvEKEV (fLov) that they accept the harassment and persecution.

This correspondence between those addressed as "you" and the speaker Jesus ("me") adds a rare historical dimension to the Beatitudes. For the first time in the SM Jesus is identified as speaker, 448 and the fact is also stated that an identifiable group of persons have responded positively to his teaching and are willing to bear the consequences. 449 This group of persons are the disciples for whom the SM was written; their leaders were presumably those who composed the text. For them Jesus figures as their authoritative master and teacher. 450 By implication, his teaching is viewed as a matter of the past reaching into the present, and thus it is not merely a prediction of the future. 451 Therefore, vs 11 presupposes that the group has had a history, albeit a short one. At the beginning of this history stands Jesus as the implied author of the SM who has spoken the words in the past so as to address the intended hearers and readers in the present. Notably, these presuppositions do not contain a trace of a higher christology. The phrase "because of me" says no more than that the reason for the persecution is Jesus' teaching, which is dedicated to righteousness. Thus, persecution for the sake of such teaching and such a teacher is to be expected. Introduced by a £1Tav-clause, vs 11 b sets forth three situations of hostility: "if they insult you and persecute (you) and say every kind of evil (things) against you" (£1Tav ovHliluwuw VfLOS Katlitwfwuw Kat Ei'?Twuw ?Tav ?TOV7JpOv Ka8' V/J-wv). 452 The sentence appears overloaded

because two qualifications are appended at the end: "provided they are lying" (o/wli&/A-wot), and "because of me" (lvEKEv (/A-ov). The result is that this crowded sentence has been a crux interpretum all along, a fact that is also demonstrated by the many variant readings which reflect attempts at improvements.

44 7 The change has been discussed extensively; see the 450 See below on 5:17: ~AOov ("I have come"). commentaries on the SM and on Matthew, esp. Zahn, 451 See below on 7:24-27. Matthiius, 193; also David Daube, "The Last 452 The text is that of Nestle-Aland. Some witnesses (D Beatitude," in his NT and Rabbinic Judaism, 196-201; (33] h k [syc] mae bo) have a different word order JohnS. Kloppenborg, "Blessing and Marginality: and put "persecute" in the first place. This variant The 'Persecution Beatitude' in Q, Thomas and Early seems the result of catchword connection between Christianity," Foundations and Facets Forum 2 (1986) vss 10 and 11. 36-56; idem, QParallels, 24-25. 448 The first person singular is later taken up by >..tyw vp.lv ("I say to you") in 5:18, 20, 22, 26, 28, 32, 34, 44; 6:2, 5, 16, 25, 29; cf. 7:23. 449 See below on 5:13-16.

147

To begin with the two qualifications at the end of the sentence, thorough examination of the textual evidence has led to questioning the originality of £vMp.£VOL ("provided they are lying"). 453 The word is missing in some manuscripts 454 and in the parallel SP /Luke 6:22. 455 Consequently, Nestle-Aland puts it in square brackets, 456 while Greeven's Synopsis omits it altogether. 457 Although the textual evidence is ambivalent, internal reasons speak in favor of retaining the word. Indeed, both qualifications show critical selfreflection such as occurs also elsewhere in the SM. The first qualification ("providing they are lying") acknowledges the temptation, especially by a group Q l_~' . • under severe pressure, to ward off every kmd of criticism, even if justified, as "persecution for the sake of righteousness." Such defensiveness is, however, not righteousness but unrighteousness. 458 Similarly, the second qualification ("because of me") makes sure that genuine persecution has its proper cause in Jesus, that is, the teaching of the SM, 459 rather than in the improper conduct or teaching of the members. 460 The phrase "because of me" can legitimately refer only to the master and never to the disciple. 461 Consequently, 1__1.·.

associating with Jesus must not become a mere pretense and cover-up for improper behavior. A special problem is presented by the parallel in SP /Luke 6:22 and its differences from the SM. 46 2 The address "Blessed are you" is the same, but the conditional clause in the latter part of the statement describes somewhat different situations. SP /Luke 6:22 has two llTav-clauses connected by Kal ("and"), describing four situations of harassment. The first of them ("when people hate you") invokes the general topos of odium generis humani, while the three others ("exclusion," "reviling," "throwing out the name as evil") point to specific experiences the community has had. They seem to focus on Gentile Christians being excluded from the (Jewish or Jewish-Christian?) community. 463 By comparison, SM/Matt 5:11 has only one llmv-clause and three situations describing defamation and maltreatment of persons who remain insiders of the Jewish community; the three situations do not refer to exclusion or expulsion. The surprising occurrence of the title "Son of man" in SP /Luke 6:22, as compared with "because of me" in SM/Matt 5:11, does not mean that the Matthean

emphasizes that the issue is not the person of jesus 453 See Zahn, Matthiius, 193; Konrad Kohler, "Die but his teaching. The variant in sy•·c lv
148

Matthew 5:3-12

redactor omitted the Son of man title; 464 Matthew has no objections elsewhere to this title. 465 Rather, its absence in SM is evidence that the source Matthew used did not contain it; the SM has no interest in "Son of man" as a christological title. 46 6 The first type of harassment is ovnol(nv ("reproach," "revile," "heap insults on someone"). 467 It occurs only here in the SM, but it stands in third place in the SPparallel (Luke 6:22). Other early Christian paraenesis shows that it is a topos. See 1 Pet 4: 14: "if you are reviled because of[or: in] the name of Christ" (e1 ovnol(eu8e lv ov&p.an XptuTov). 468 The topos came originally from Jewish wisdom literature 469 and has found its way into the passion narratives, especially the story of the two criminals at the cross (Mark 15:32// Matt 27:44). 470 1 Clem. 16.15 refers to Ps 21:7-8 (LXX) as a proof-text for Jesus' humility. The term seems to be traditionally associated with the persecution of the righteous. 471 The second situation is described by otcf>KE£V ("persecute"), a term that has previously occurred in vs 1 0 and will occur again in vs 44. Therefore, persecution seems to rank as a most serious threat against the community of the disciples. In vs 11 b persecution is named in the middle position between two other terms defining it further. New Testament passages outside the SM indicate that "persecution" was experienced as the hostile reaction by Christians more generally, which explains

why the terminology plays such an important role in the tradition. Peculiar to the usage of otcf>KnV in the SM is that persecution is done not simply by outsiders but by people outside the group of disciples, people who are simultaneously insiders of the larger community. In other words, this persecution seems to occur between Jews, with the group of the disciples for which the SM was written at the receiving end. 47 2 This suggestion can be supported by the evidence found in Paul's letters. Paul as a Jew persecuted other Jews (that is, those who were not observing the law in the way he thought it should be observed), and after his conversion to Christianity he in turn was persecuted by other Jews and Jewish Christians. 4 7 3 Does this peculiarity also explain the absence of the term "persecute" from SP /Luke 6:22, which addresses Gentile Christians? The third situation is characterized by a strange expression not often used in New Testament writings, 474 where Kara.\a.\e'i:'v ("defame") 475 and 1f!evoop.aprvpe'i:'v ("bear false witness") 476 are more common. "Speaking all kinds of evil (things) against someone" amounts to defamation and slander, issues treated more extensively

464 Against Strecker, "Makarismen," 269-70; idem, Bergpredigt, 4 7 (Sermon, 45); Luz, Matthiius, 1.202 (Matthew, 1.229). • 465 Matt8:3;9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8; 12:32,40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27; 17:9, 12, 22; 18:11; 19:28; 20:18, 28; 24:27, 30, 37, 39, 44; 25:31; 26:2,24, 45, 64. In 10:32, Matthew has ~yC:, ("I") instead of "Son of man" (cf. 23:34). These instances reflect differences in the sources, rather than redaction by the evangelist himself (differently, Manson, Sayings, 48; Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.238-43; 3.339-40; Strecker, "Makarismen," 269-70; Luz, Matthiius, 1.202 n. 22 (Matthew, I .229 n. 22). 466 So also Wrege, Bergpredigt, 22 n. 4 with further references. 467 So BAGD, s.v. 3vEI~l(w, 1. 468 See also 1 Tim 4:10 v.l.; Heb 10:33; 11 :26; 13:13. 469 See LXX Pss 68:10b; also 34:7; 41:10; 43:I6; 54:I2; 68:9; 73:10, 18; 88:51; etc.; T. Rub. 4:2; T. Levi 10:4; etc. For the term see Johannes Schneider, "llvEI~os KTA.," TDNT 5.238-42; BAGD, s.v. 3vEI~l(w KTA. 470 Rom 15:3 also quotes Ps 68:10 LXX.

471 For rabbinic parallels see Str-B 1.226. 472 See also Matt 10:23; 23:34 par.;John 5:16; 15:20; Acts 7:52; etc. 4 73 See Gal 1:13, 23; 4:29; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:6; 1 Tim 1:13; Acts 8:1; 9:4-5; 22:4, 7, 8; 26:11, 14, 15. For Paul being persecuted see Gal5:11; 1 Cor 4:12; 2 Cor 4:9; 12:10; Rom 8:35; etc. See on the whole John T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues ofHardships in the Corinthian Correspondence (SBLDS 99; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988); Martin Ebner, Leidenslisten und Apostelbrief Untersuchungen zu Form, Motivik und Funktion der Peristasenkataloge bei Paulus (FB 66; Wiirzburg: Echter, 1991). 474 See Acts 28:21; 3 John 10, especially; also BAGD, s.v. 1TOV7JpJs, l.b.,8. 475 SeeJas 4:11; 1 Pet 2:1, 12; 3:16; also 2 Cor 12:20; Rom 1:30; for further references see BAGD, s.v. Kara>..a"Atw; Gerhard Kittel, TDNT 4.3-5. 476 See Mark 14:55-64 par.; Matt 27:13;John 18:2930. See also BAGD, s.v. ,Ywaop.aprvptw.

149

in the Old Testament, 477 in Philo, 478 and in rabbinic texts. 479 The passion narratives of the Gospels include the matter (Mark 14:55-64 par.), and it became a topos in Christian texts having to do with persecution and martyrdom. 480 In the ancient world, defamation and slander were recognized as hazards the righteous must expect and face. Instructions to this effect are found in the Old Testament, 481 especially in wisdom texts, 482 and in Greek philosophical literature, where the trial of Socrates with its preposterous accusations and false witnesses serves as the prime example. 483 Thus, every philosopher worthy of the name will have his Anytus and Meletus. 484 If defamation is the issue, variant readings seem to be the result of attempts at clarification. 485 Some witnesses486 add o! Civ8pcJJ1roL ("the people") as the subject of the
?TOV7Jpov ("evil") is an important term in the SM and relates the issue of defamation to other passages. 489 In conclusion, one may say with confidence that issues such as the definitive break between Judaism and Christianity, 490 the exclusion of Christians from the synagogue, 491 or even the famous Birkat ha-Minim 492 are not implied in the language of vs 11. The situations depicted in this beatitude reflect what appears to be earlier situations of harassment and persecution within Judaism. By contrast, SP /Luke 6:22 speaks of exclusion or perhaps refusal of admittance of Gentile Christians.493 Neither the SM nor the SP presupposes a definitive break between the two religions. As we know, this final separation of the two religions must have occurred after the fall of Jerusalem (c. 70 CE) and after the new religion of Christianity had established its own identity. The SM shows a situation that is still far away from this final separation, but, as Matthew's Gospel as a whole points out, situations such as those described in the

477 See LXX Exod 20:13; Lev 19:16; Ps 12:2-5; Prov 12:22; Eccl7:1; Sir 28:13-18; Ps. Sol. 15.3. 4 78 See, e.g., Philo Spec. leg. 3.80-82. 479 See esp. 'Abot 4.17, and on the whole topic Stephen M. Passamaneck, "The Talmudic Concept of Defamation," Revue internationale des droits de l'antiquite, 3d series, 12 (1965) 21-54; reprinted in his Studies in Jewish jurisprudence (New York: Hermon, 1976) 4.247-80. 480 See Matt 10:17-19// Luke 12:11-12; Mark 13:9 par.; Acts 6:13; 21:28; 25:8, etc. 481 See, e.g., LXX Pss 26:12; 42:1; 108:2; 119:2-3. 482 LXX Prov 6:17, 19; 12:17; 19:5, 9; 21:28; 25:18; etc.; Sir 11:31; 19:15; 26:5; 51:2;Ps. Sol. 12.1-6. For further references see Str-B 1.226-31. 483 See esp. Plato Ep. 7, 325b-c; Xenophon Mem. 1.2. For a summary see Guthrie, Greek Philosophy, 3.6164. 484 See Betz, Lukian, 110-11; Doring, Exemplum Socratis, 173, index, s.v. Anklage und Prozess. 485 The following is based on the text in Aland, Synopsis, 75. 486 0133 (aur* g 1 q vg') sy'·'. 487 "The people" (oi liv8pw7ro1) are the typical outsiders also elsewhere in the SM; see 5:13, 16, 19; 6:1, 2, 5, 14, 16, 18; 7:9, 12. Cf. also Matt 10:17, 32-33; 12:36; 16:13; etc. 488 C W 0 j1.13 33. 892. 1006. 1342. 1506. 9Jl q syP·h Origen. 489 See on SM/Matt 5:37, 39; 6:13; cf. 5:45; 6:23; 7:11, 17, 18.

150

490 Against Davies, Setting, 272-86; Werner Stenger, "Die Seligpreisung der Geschmahten (Mt 5, 11-12; Lk 6, 22-23)," Kairos 28 (1986) 33-60, esp. 43-44. Even Matt 10: 17-25; 23:34; Mark 13:9 par.; Acts 5:41;Jas 2:6-7 do not speak of such a break, but John 16:2 (see also 9:22; 12:42) certainly does. See also Schiirer, History, 2.431-33. 491 I agree with Steven T. Katz, "Issues in the Separation ofJudaism and Christianity after 70 CE: A Reconsideration," JBL 103 (1984) 43-76, esp. 50. 492 See esp. Reuben Kimelman, "Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity," in E. P. Sanders, ed., Jewish-Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2: Aspects ofjudaism in the Graeco-Roman Period (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 226-44; William Horbury, "The Benediction of the Minim and Early Jewish-Christian Controversy," JTS 33 (1982) 19-61; ShayeJ. D. Cohen, "The Significance ofYavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism," HUCA 55 (1984) 27-53. 493 See below on SP /Luke 6:22. Cf. Wrege, Bergpredigt, 20-23; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 46 (Sermon, 44).

Matthew 5:3-12

SM led ultimately to the separation. 4 9 4 • 12 .The tenth and last beatitude has an altogether different form. Instead of continuing the initial "Blessed are ... " in vss 3-11, it begins by issuing a double call for joy: "Rejoice and be glad" (xa{p£T£ Kat ayaA.A.tau8£). 495 This double call appeals to the hearers or readers for what amounts to a liturgical response, 496 much like "hallelujah" or similar exclamations. 497 As the second part makes clear (vs 12b-c), gladness and jubilation are called for at the present time, not only in the eschatological future (as in SP /Luke 6:23). 498 The two imperatives are more than simple duplication; they describe a sequence, first the reaction of joy and then its expression by exclamation. Formally, the double call in vs 12 raises the question about the relationship of vs 12 to vs 11 and beyond to the other beatitudes. Some scholars have taken vss 11 and 12 together as one beatitude, 499 but this is unconvincing. Parallels of other beatitudes show that vs 12a introduces a new element. 500 Another question is whether vs 12 can be treated as another beatitude, or whether the series of beatitudes in vss 3-11 ends with a different form-critical statement.

The change introduced by vs 12a is that it calls for a response by the hearers or readers to the messages they have received in vss 3-11, the final one addressing them directly (vs 11). It is, therefore, quite fitting that the series of blessings in vss 3-11 ends with the hearers' response of jubilation. 501 The question also arises whether this response reflects actual liturgical practice or whether it is merely a literary device. Though never repeated in the SM, the appeal is basic to it. Eschatological joy provides much of the motivation for the ethics of the SM (cf. the attitude of good will in 5:26, or the cheerful face in 6: 17). 502 Although the SM never uses the term "gospel" (d;ayy€A.wv), the combination of blessings and the call for joy in vss 3-12 provides almost a description of it. 503 V e,rse 12b-c contains dogmatic statements justifying not only the call for joy but also the beatitudes in vss 311. These dogmatic statements simply furnish information, presumably not unknown to the recipients but needed at this point in order to understand that the response called for is theologically legitimate.

494 Differently, Strecker, "Makarismen," 269; idem, Bergpredigt, 46-47 (Sermon, 44-45), who attributes the passage to Matthew's redaction. According to Strecker, Matthew writes from the Gentile-Christian point of view, so that the persecutions do not come from fellow Jews but from non-Christian Gentiles. This conclusion, however, seems to contradict Strecker's earlier suggestion (Bergpredigt, 45 [Sermon, 43]) calling the tradition "old." If the tradition is as old as he says it is, it must reflect persecutions prior to Matthew's own time. Matt 24:9b (see Strecker, Bergpredigt, 46 n. 69 [Sermon, 44•n. 69]) is Matthew's own evaluation from a later perspective (so apparently also Luz, Matthiius, 1.215 [Matthew, 1.243]). 495 The addition of £v EKELVT/ rfi ~p.l.pq. ("on that day") read by sy•·c is clearly an intrusion from the parallel in SP /Luke 6:23a. 496 For the combination of xalpw and aya>.>.uiw see also Luke 1:14 (cf. 1:44; Acts 2:46); 1 Pet 1:8 (cf. 1:6); 4: 13; Rev 19:7; 1 Clem. 63.2; Mart. Polyc. 18.2; for the imperative xalp•r• ("be glad") alone see Phil2:18, 28; 3:1; 4:4; 1 Thess 5:16. See RudolfBultmann, "aya>.>..aw Kr>..," TDNT 1.18-20; Dupont, Beatitudes, 2.320-24; Hans Conzelmann, "xalpw KrA.," TDNT 9.359-72, esp. 366-68 (D.1-2); Otto Michel,

"Freude," RAG 8 (1970) 348-418, esp 392; BAGD, s.v. ayaAAiaw, aya>.>.lacn~. 497 See Rev 19:1, 3, 4, 6; BAGD, s.v. xalpw, aya>.>..aw. For liturgical exclamations generally see Bultmann, TDNT 1.18-20; Conzelmann, TDNT9.362, 371-72

(A.3 and F). 498 See below on SP /Luke 6:23; cf. also Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.244-50; 2.285-350; 3.38-39, 270. 499 So Strecker, "Makarismen," 268-71; idem, Bergpredigt, 48 (Sermon, 43); and Luz, Matthiius, 1.215 (Matthew, 1.242-43), who combines vss 11 and 12a and calls vs 12b-c an appendix (Anhang). 500 See also Betz, Essays, 24-25. 501 See also the Introduction to the Beatitudes above. Noteworthy is the phrase "Enter into the joy of your Lord" (Matt 25:21, 23): "entering" can be compared to the Beatitudes, while "joy" describes the reaction of those admitted to the kingdom of God. 502 Cf. the cynical laughter of the rich in SP /Luke 6:25. 503 On this point see the Introduction above, pp. 95-96.

151

The !In-clause of vs 12b provides ari immediate reason for vs 12a: "for your reward is great in the heavens" (!In b J.I.LU8os VJJ.OOV 'lTOAVS EV TOLS ovpavo£s). 504 This !In-clause is parallel to the similar clauses in vss 3b-10b and sums up what they have presented in more detail. Although vs 12b has no verb, it is self-evident that the reward exists in the present. SM/Matt 6:20 leads one to assume that the "reward" (J.I.Lu8os) is stored with God ("in the heavens" [plural]), waiting for those who are entitled to it. 505 Since that reward is "theirs" already now,jubilation is in order. 506 This doctrine of reward requires further explanation. Generally speaking, it is a jewish doctrine, here attributed to the theology of Jesus. 507 In the SM, reward is not a "gift" given by God through grace. 508 Rather, reward is to be claimed by those who are entitled to it as a matter of justice. Thus, this entitlement is conditional. For the SM, the conditions are set by the teachings of Jesus in the SM: If the disciples are faithful to these teachings, they are entitled to this "treasure in heaven." Their faithfulness does include access to God's mercy and forgiveness, if they have petitioned God in the appropriate manner (see below on 6:12, 14-15). The

faithful disciples can justifiedly be joyful even now, because they can be sure that their reward is awaiting them in heaven and that God himself as the guarantor of justice is guarding the treasure. Also part of this doctrine is the idea that the reward can be claimed only once. 509 Therefore, its actual claiming must be postponed until the eschatological kingdom of God. 510 Only the joy can be anticipated in the present. Why can this reward be called "great" (7ToA.vs)? 511 The reason for this statement can only be the sufferings sustained as part of faithfulness regarding the virtues stated in vss 3-11. One can draw this conclusion not only from vs 12c but also from other parallel texts in the New Testament and in jewish literature elsewhere. 512 Verse 12c presents the conclusion to vs 12 as well as to vss 3-11 by adding a syllogism: "For in the same way they persecuted the prophets (who lived) before you" (oi!nos -yap €lilw{av Tovs 'lTpocf>~Tas Tovs 'lTpO VJJ.OOV ). 513 The sentence states general historical information in an almost proverbial way. The subject in "they persecuted" is left unexplained; it refers no doubt to the Jews of the past. The words "who lived before you" do not imply that all those addressed are prophets. That the Jewish

504 The singular ~v rif> ovpavif> ("in the heaven") read by D pc is again the result of intrusion from the parallel SP; SM prefers the plural for the realm of God (see above on 5:3b). 505 See also the references to "reward" (JI.•ullos) in 5:46; 6:1, 2, 5, 16; cf. Matt 10:41-42; 1 Cor 3:8, 14; 9:17, 18;Jas 5:4; Rev 11:18; 22:12. 506 One of the peculiar differences between the SM and the SP is that in the latter (SP /Luke 6:23, 35) the great reward is to be expected in the future ("on that day"), not in the present. This difference may be caused by the fact that SP addresses Gentiles. See below on the passages for the SP. 507 See Gunther Bornkamm, "Der Lohngedanke im Neuen Testament," in his Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum; Gesammelte Aufsiitze, 2.69-118; Wilhelm Pesch, Der Lohngedanke in der Lehre Jesu verglichen mit der religiosen Lohnlehre des Spiitjudentums

(MTS 1.7; Munich: Zink, 1955); also Herbert Preisker and Hans Wurthwein, "p.1ulios," TDNT 4.699-736; BAGD, s.v. p.1ulios; Dupont, Beatitudes, 2.345-50; Wilhelm Pesch, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s.v. p.•ulios (bibliography). 508 The principle is stated in Rom 4:4: "To the man who works, his wages are considered not a favor, but what is due him" (trans. BAGD, s.v. p.•ulios, 2.a). Cf. also 1 Cor9:17-18.

152

509 See below on SM/Matt 6:1, 2, 5, 16; 7:13-14; also 2 John 8; 2 Clem. 15.1. 510 See in the SM: Matt 5:20, 26, 29, 30; 6:4, 6, 14-15, 18; 7:1,7-11,14,19,21-23. Cf.Jas 1:2; 1 Pet 1:6 (also 1:8; 4:12-13; 5:10); Rev 19:7; 22:12. 511 See also SP /Luke 6:23, 35. 512 See Str-B 1.231-32; Conzelmann, TDNT 9.967-68 (D.2); Wolfgang Nauck, "Freude im Leiden: Zum Problem einer urchristlichen V erfolgungstradition," ZNW 46 (1955) 68-80; Dupont, Beatitudes, 2.338345; Lorenzo de Lorenzi, "'Godete ed esultate' (Mt. 5, 11-12): La gioia nelle tribulazioni peril regno secondo Origene," in Testimonium Christi: Scritti in onore de jacques Dupont (Brescia: Paideia, 1985) 15176. 513 Textual variants are due to influences from the SP: The addition of o11faTepes avrwv ("their fathers") read by U b c (k) sys.(c) is an intrusion from SP /Luke 6:23; sy' omits roh 1rpo £p.wv ("those before you"), and D adds £1rapxovras ("those who were"), perhaps under the influence of the Latin (vg: "qui fuerunt ante nos"). See Nestle-Aiand, critical apparatus.

Matthew 5:3-12

ancestors persecuted the prophets was a topos of Jewish theology since the Old Testament, 514 and this tradition was taken over into early Christian theology at a very early time. 515 Amazingly, however, our passage does not mention Jesus in this connection. 516 Indeed, Jesus' suffering, crucifixion, and resurrection play no role in the SM. 517 Thus, Jesus is not regarded here as a prophet who suffered before the present recipients of the SM. The syllogism ofvs 12 can be understood now, but it has to be read in reverse: 518 A historical verdict is rendered by which the present persecution is equated with the persecution of the prophets of old. Since their persecution resulted in divine rewards, justice requires that those who suffer the same persecutions also receive the same rewards. 519 The historical judgment of vs 12c

then leads to the theological verdict of vs 12b. The connection of vs 12 with the previous sequence of beatitudes in vss 3-11 should now also be clear. The virtues stated in vss 3-1 0 lead to the persecution for the sake of righteousness (vs 10). This connection explains why the addressees suffer from such persecution (vs 11 ). If this point is granted, vs 12 is not only called for but a demand of justice itself. 520

514 For the material see Odil H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Uberlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spatjudentum und Urchristentum

517 (WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967); Wrege, Bergpredigt, 173; Hare, Theme 518 ofJewish Persecution, 13 7-41; Dupont, Beatitudes, 2.294-318; Betsy Halpem-Amaru, "The Killing of the Prophets: Unravelling a Midrash," HUCA 54 (1983) 153-80. 519 515 See also Matt 23:29-33, 35, 37 par.; Acts 7:52; 1 Thess 2:14-15; Rom 11:3; Heb 11:36-37;Jas 5:10. 520 516 Matt 10:40-42 differs in this regard; the context leaves little doubt that Jesus is the model for the disciples (Matt 10:17 -22). 1 Thess 2:14-15 has the sequence: prophets, Jesus, Jewish Christians in Judea, Gentile Christians in Thessalonica. In his Gospel the

evangelist Matthew establishes the sequence of John the Baptist, Jesus, the missionary apostles, and Matthew's own church. See Betz, Essays, 151-54; also idem, "Problem of Christology" (see above, n. 439). This answers Luz's question (Matthiius, 1.215 [Matthew, 1.242-43]): "It remains unclear how the persecution of the Old Testament prophets lays the foundation for the promise of the heavenly reward." The consequence is extended to Gentiles. See below on SP /Luke 6:23. Luz (Matthiius, 1.215 [Matthew, 1.242-43]) rightly observes that 5:12 presupposes persecution by Jews and that this describes the situation reflected in Matthew's sources. The persecution of Matthew's church is predicted in Matt 24:9-14.

153

Matthew 5:13-16

5 13

14

15

16

Translation

Chapter II The Commission

Youarethesaltoftheearth. Yet, ifthe salt becomes dull, with what shall one salt? It still has power for nothing, except for being thrown out to be trampled down by the people. You are the light of the world. A town that lies on top of a hill cannot be hidden. Nor does one light a lamp and put it under the meal-tub, but (one puts it) on a lampstand, and (then) it lights up things for all in the house. Thus let your light shine before the people. in order that they see your good deeds and praise your father who is in the heavens.

Bibliography Paul-Richard Berger, "Die Stadt auf dem Berge: Zum kulturhistorischen Hintergrund von Mt. 5, 14," in Wort in der Zeit: Neutestamentliche Studien, FS far Karl HeinrichRengstorfzum 75. Geburtstag(Leiden: Brill,

1980) 82-85. Ken M. Campbell, "The New Jerusalem in Matthew 5.14," SJT 31 (1978) 335-63. Oscar Cullmann, "Das Gleichnis vom Salz," in his Vortriige und Aufsii.tze I925-I962 (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck]; Zurich: Zwingli, 1966) 196-201. Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.82-92; 3.307, 315-17,320-29. Jacques Dupont, "La transmission des paroles de Jesus sur Ia lampe et Ia mesure dans Marc 4, 21-25 et dans Ia tradition Q," in Delobel, Logia, 201-36. Kenneth L. Gibble, Yeast, Salt, and Secret Agents: New Insights into Biblical Stories (Elgin, Ill.: Brethren, 1979). Ferdinand Hahn, "Die Worte vom Licht, Lk 11, 3336," in Paul Hoffmann, ed. Orientierunganjesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker: FS far Josef Schmid

(Freiburg: Herder, 1973) 107-38. Joachim Jeremias, "Die Lampe unter dem Scheffel (Mk 4, 21; Mt 5, 15; Lk 8, 16; 11, 33)," ZNW 39 (1940) 237-40; reprinted in his Abba, 99-102. Ludwig Kohler, Kleine Lichter: 50 Bibelstellen erkliirt (Zurich: Zwingli, 1945). Michael Kramer, "Ihr seid das Salz der Erde ... Ihr seid das Licht der Welt. Die vielgestaltige Wirkkraft des Gotteswortes der Heiligen Schrift fiir das Leben der Kirche aufgezeigt am Beispiel Mt 5, 1316," MThZ 28 (1977) 133-57. James E. Latham, The Religious Symbolism ofSalt (Theologie historique 64; Paris: Beauchesne, 1982).

154

Wolfgang Nauck, "Salt as a Metaphor in Instructions for Discipleship," StTh 6 (1952) 165-78. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Light of the World: A Basic Image in Early Christian Thought (New York: Harper, 1962). Piper, Wisdom, 127-31. Gerhard von Rad, "Die Stadt auf dem Berge," EvTh 8 ( 1948/49) 439-4 7, reprinted in his Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (Munich: Kaiser, 1961) 214-24; ET: "The City on the Hill," in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken; Edinburgh: Clark, 1966) 23242. Rudolf Schnackenburg, "'Ihr seid das Salz der Erde, das Licht der Welt': Zu Mt 5, 13-16," in Melanges Cardinal Eugene Tisserant (Cittll del Vaticano: La Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1964) 1.365-87; reprinted in Johannes B. Bauer, ed., Evangelienforschung (Graz: Styria, 1968) 119-46; also in Schnackenburg's Schriften zum Neuen Testament (Munich: Kosel, 1971) 177-200. Gerhard Schneider, "Das Bildwort von der Lampe: Zur Traditionsgeschichte eines Jesuswortes," ZNW 61 (1970) 183-209. Gunther Schwarz, "Matthaus V .13a und 14a: Emendation und Riickiibersetzung, • NTS 17 (1970) 8086. Idem, "KaAov -ro aAas," Biblische Notizen 7 (1978) 32-35. Idem, "Und]esus sprach," 64-72. Josef B. Sou~ek, "Salz der Erde und Licht der Welt: Zur Exegese von Matth. 5, 13-16," TZ 19 (1963) 169-79. Burton L. Visotzky, "Overturning the Lamp," JJS 38 (1987) 72-80.

Matthew 5:13-16

1 . Analysis Without transition, it seems, a new section begins in 5:13, setting before the reader a quite different matter. The question is whether there is really no connection between the Beatitudes (vss 3-12) and the new passage (vss 13-16); if there is a connection, it must be sought apart from the surface language. Furthermore, the question of the literary genre, composition, and function of vss 13-16 needs to be clarified. The transition becomes evident once one notices the catchword connection between the addresses "you are" in vs 11 (carried on in vs 12) and in vss 13 and 14. Only the formulaic "blessed" (!'.aKd.ptor) is absent from vss 13 and 14. Other connections are more subtle and have to do with the functional aspect of giving guidance to the hearers or readers. Already in vss 3-12, the readers' eyes of imagination have been directed to go up and down, from earth to heaven and back to earth, and so on in each of the beatitudes. In vs 12 the eyes seem to be firmly pegged on "the heavens" and its reward. Then, vs 13 takes us back down to earth, indeed into the mud itself. While vss 11-12 described the status of the faithful in heaven and before God, vss 13-14 turn to their status on earth, in the world, and among the people. While vss 11-12 excite us because of the great reward in heaven, vss 13-16 confront us with the hard tasks to be performed here in this world. Whereas the "you are" is continued as an address, the content is no longer heavenly bliss but the details of daily life down here. These positions are not the only means of connection. There is also the internal logic that bases the worldly role of those addressed on the status they already possess with God, a case of the imperative based on the indicative. As a result, the new section of vss 13-16 is indeed closely related to the Beatitudes of vss 3-12, but the statement of vss 13-16 is also different in that it spells out the commission for the faithful in direct consequence of the previous section. The unit consists of two sayings compositions, each beginning with the declarative address "you are" in vss 13 and 14-16. The first saying in vs 13a is followed by an intriguing question and answer, adding up to a warning (vs 13b-c). The second saying in vs 14a is supported by images amounting to a positive description of purpose and goal, using missionary language (vss 14b-16).

2 3

One should note also the parallel with the commissions implied in the call narratives. See Mark 1:17: "I will make you fishers of men"; see also Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:4-7;John 21:5-8; Gal1:16. The key passage for Matthew is Matt 16:17-19. On the interpretation see Betz, Galatians, 181-201. For further "you are"-sentences in the NT see Matt 23:8;John 13:10; 15:3; 1 John 2:14; 4:4; Eph 2:8. In

Clearly, therefore, the two sayings compositions belong together as a sequence. Theologically based on the Beatitudes (vss 3-12), they formulate programmatically what the community for which the SM was composed regarded as their role and task in the world. That the address is stated in the second person plural means that the addressees regard this role and task not as their own invention but as the commission issued by Jesus himself. 1 The statements in vss 13 and 14-16, therefore, stipulate two things: they define the status of the addressees, and they assign a specific task. Thus the statements are simultaneously descriptive, declarative, and determinative or imperative. The imagery used describes what the community addressed is, what they should be, and what they ought to do. One matter to decide is whether the address "you are" has in mind an unspecified number of individuals, referring to anybody who ever hears or reads the text, or a specific group for which the text as a whole was intended originally. The SM never uses any collective terms, like "church," designating a community, but it presupposes that the addressees are Jesus' "disciples," a term that occurs at least once in the SP (SP/Luke 6:39-40; see also the Introduction above, pp. 61, 82). My conclusion from the analysis ofthe SM and the SP in their entirety is that these texts address specific communities of disciples of Jesus rather than unspecified individuals. The internal evidence, which is admittedly scarce, can be strengthened by other texts, pointing to a community rather than individuals. The first text is Gal 3:26-28, 2 which addresses the Galatian churches: 26 For you are all sons of God through [the] faith in Jesus Christ. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor freeman; there is no male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. This saying occupies a central place in Galatians and may have its origin in a liturgical context. A similar saying occurs in 1 Thess 5:5: 3 For you are all sons of[the]light and of[the] day. 4 For extra-Christian parallels, the saying in Corp. Herm. 13.8 is similar in that it combines a call for joy with the

4

the OT cf. Lev 25:23; Deut 14:1; also 1:10; 7:7; 1 Esdr 8:57 (LXX); Ps 61:6 (LXX); Amos 9:7; Isa 57:4; Jer 18:6; Ezek 34:31. See also John 12:36: "As you have the light, believe in the light, in order that you become 'sons of light.'" This statement concludes an interpretation of the concept of"sons oflight" (12:34-36). Cf. Luke 16:8; Eph 5:8-10.

155

indicative of salvation and the formulation of a task: Rejoice now, my child, since you are being cleansed by the powers of God, in order to build up the Logos. 5

20:21-23; 21:1-23. Although a detailed comparison cannot be undertaken at this point, two major differences should be noted, especially because they show that the passage in 5:13-16 is relatively older than the other texts named. 1. The group addressed and identified in vss 13 and 14 is given no name (such as "church" [~KKA"IIula]) 8 and no distinction is made between Christianity and Judaism. 9 2. No specifically Christian rituals, such as baptism, 10 are mentioned. No reference is made to Christian terms like "gospel," II "discipleship," 1 2 or "faith. •IS The atmosphere of the miraculous is completely absent. 14 Instead the metaphors and images used are traditionally Jewish. Furthermore, there is no reference to a special authority assumed by Jesus, 15 or to a particular authority or power given to the community . 16 The tasks of the group are described in terms that could be used for other Jewish groups as well. One can, therefore, conclude that the commission of vss 13-16 comes from a time when the addressees were a group ofJesus' disciples within Judaism. They regarded themselves as something of an avant-garde within the Jewish religion, intended to fulfill its highest aspirations. In this respect, the passage is similar to Matt 10:5-8, at the pre-Matthean level of the source, but very different from Matt 28:18-20, a passage that reflects the self-understanding of Matthew's church at the end of the first century. By contrast, 5:13-16 was formulated in the pre-Matthean tradition, 1 7 in what we call early Jewish Christianity. For the composition of the section, the SM has

xaipE AO&w6v, ;:, TlKVOV, avaKa8a&p6p.EVOS Tais TOV 8EOV ~vvap.E<TIV, Els uvvap8pwu&v TOV A6yov.

Also comparable is the gnostic definition attributed to Valentinus, according to Clement Alex. Strom. 4.13.89.2-3 (ed. 0. Stahlin): From the beginning you are immortal and children of eternal life. You wished to take death to yourselves as your portion in order that you might destroy it and annihilate it utterly, and that death might die in you and through you. For when you destroy the world, and when you yourselves are not destroyed, then you are lords over the whole creation and over all decay. 6 ciw' O.pxfis 0.6/z.va.Tol Eur£ Ka.l TJKva '(J)fjs EurE alfdvlas Kal TllV 8avaTOV -ij8tAETE p.Epluau8a& Elf ~aVTOLS, l'ua ~awav~tT'IJTE

a.VrOv Kal O.va.AWa7JTE, Ka\ O.wo8c!tv11 0 80.varos Ev hp.iv Ka\ a,' liTav yap TOv K8opas awa
6

7

8

9

10

156

v,.,.wv.

Trans. William C. Grese, Corpus Hermeticum XIII and Early Christian Literature (SCHNT 5; Leiden: Brill, 1979) 14-15, with the commentary, 116-I 9. Trans. Foerster and Wilson, Gnosis, 1.242; cf. the somewhat different translation by Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 240-41. Cf. also the "you are"-sentences inPGM IV.2987; VII.243, 645; VIII.lOO; LXI.7. For a series of such sayings, beginning with a citation of Matt 5:13, see Robert Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study ofEarly Syriac Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975) 163. In this respect the SM differs from Matthew elsewhere, where "church" (~KKA"Ilula) occurs as the name for the Matthean community (Matt 16:18; 18:17). The term "synagogue" (uvvaywy~) occurs in SM/ Matt 6:2, 5, interestingly enough to designate not outsiders but places where the members of the SM community also meet and observe what is reported (similarly 23:6, 34). Differently, 4:23; 9:35; 10:17; 12:9; 13:54: "their synagogues. • See also Jas 2:2. Cf. Matt 28:19; Mark 16:16.

11 12 13 14 15 16

17

Cf. Mark 16:15; Gall:l6. Cf. Matt 28:19. Cf. Mark 16:16-17. Cf. Mark 16:17. Cf. Matt 28:18. The authority to forgive sins is proof of this: it is connected with the Lord's Prayer and part of the instruction on prayer (SM/Matt 6:12, 14-15); thus, forgiveness of sins requires no special authority. Differently, Matt 16:19;John 20:23, where forgiveness of sins is part of the special commission. Matthew himself has it as part of the church order (Matt 18: 18), but he does not make it part of the commission of 28:18-20. Differently, Strecker, Bergpredigt, 51 (Sermon, 48): "The language is Matthean. • The expressions Strecker refers to on p. 48 n. 77 all come from preMatthean traditional language; they cannot be used to demonstrate Matthew's redactional activity. Cf. similarly Luz, Matthiius, 1.220 (Matthew, 1.24748); Gundry, Matthew, 75-76; Guelich, Sermon, 11923.

Matthew 5:13-16

taken up sayings material appearing also in Q. 18 This material uses images and metaphors traditionally connected with discipleship. Luke 14:34-35 has a saying about the salt that is already integrated into a larger sayings composition dealing with the conditions of discipleship (Luke 14:25-33). Mark 9:49-50 is a similar saying that occurs at the end of a paraenetic sayings composition concerned with offending the brother (9:42-50). This topic of offending the brother is also treated in Matt 18:6-9 I I Luke 17:1-2, but without the saying about the salt. 19 One can conclude from this evidence that the saying using the image of salt was already known to all these texts as denoting discipleship, so that when the SM took up this saying it did so in the context in which it would be expected. 20 Then it gave the saying its special interpretation. 2! This interpretation, which I shall discuss in greater detail below, involved several changes. Not only was the introductory "you are" added, but as a result of this introduction the image of the salt was turned into allegory. The salt became "the salt of the earth," a change that made all the other terms allegorical as well, if they were not transparent already. Thereby also the talk about the salt "becoming dull" and being "thrown out and trampled down by the people" became warnings against failure of discipleship. One

18

19

20

See Bultmann, History, 47, 91-92,98, 102; Kloppenborg, Formation, 42 n. 1; 232-34; idem, Q Parallels, 172-73. See also Col4:6, where the metaphor of salt refers to speech in a context that is similar to the paraenesis of theSM. In his article "Salt as a Metaphor in Instructions of Discipleship," StTh 6 (1952) 165-78, Wolfgang Nauck has shown that the metaphor of salt occurs also in an instruction for students of scribes in Derek 'Ere~ Zuta at the beginning: "The ways of disciples of scribes: They (should be) modest and (of) humble spirit, industrious and salted, suffering insult and (they should be) liked by all men." The text belongs to one of the minor tractates of the Babylonian Talmud; its date is uncertain. See also Marcus van Loopik, The Ways of the Sages and the Way of the World: The M;inor Tractates of the Babylonian Talmud: Derekh 'Eretz Rabbah; Derekh 'Eretz Zuta; Pereq ha-Shalom

21 22

(TSAJ 26; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1991) 17276; Schiirer, History, 1.80. For the synoptic comparison see also Wrege, Bergpredigt, 27 -34; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 51 (Sermon, 48). "Jesus said: 'A city built on a high mountain and fortified cannot fall, nor can it be hidden.'" Trans. by Harold W. Attridge, in Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, 127; for the Greek seep. 120 and Aland,

must read these warnings against the background of the eschatological warnings elsewhere in the SM, in particular in the final sections (7:13-23 and 7:24-27). There is a direct connection between the "dullness" (j.Lwpav8ijva&) ofthe salt in vs 13 and the "foolish man" (av~p fJ.lllpOs) in 7:24-27, who is the example of the failed disciple. The composition of 5:14-16 is analogous. Again, the introductory "you are" prefaces traditional imagery, "the light ofthe world," which is then illustrated by proverbs. The first proverb ("A city set on a hill cannot be hid" [vs 14b]) has parallels outside the canonical New Testament inP. Oxy. 1, no.7 22 and in the Coptic Gos. Thom. log. 32. 2S The proverb in 5:15 has parallels in other places of the synoptic Gospels, all of them different from and none of them related directly to the SM. 24 The leading image of "the light of the world" takes up the well-known self-designation ofJudaism2 5 and must therefore be taken as an allegory also. Thereby the proverbs in vss 14b and 15 also become transparent, a fact that is made explicit by the addition of vs 16.2 6 As a result, "the lamp" (vs 15) becomes "your

Synopsis, 77.

23

24

25 26

"Jesus said: 'A city built on a high mountain and fortified cannot fall, nor can it be hidden.'" Trans. by Thomas Lambdin, in Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7,67. Mark 4:21; Luke 8: 16; 11 :33; Coptic Gos. Thom. log. 33: "For no one lights a lamp and puts it under a bushel, nor does he put it in a hidden place, but rather he sets it on a Iampstand so that everyone who enters and leaves will see its light." On the synoptic sayings see Bultmann, History, 73, 81, 98, 102, 168; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 32; Schulz, Q, 474-76; the essays in the bibliography above by Dupont, Hahn, Jeremias, Schneider, Visotzky; also Kloppenborg, Q Parallels, 102-5. For references see below on vs 14. See also the cluster of sayings in Justin Apol. 1.16.12, where together with other SM sayings (Matt 5:22, 41) this one also occurs: "Let your good works shine before the people, in order that seeing them they marvel at your father who is in the heavens." For the text see Aland, Synopsis, 77. A dependency on the text of canonical Matthew cannot be demonstrated.

157

light" (vs 16), corresponding to "you are the light of the world" (vs 14a). In the same way, "the house" (vs 15) is interpreted as "the world" (vs 14) and becomes identical with "the people" (vs 16). The "shining" of the lamp (vs 15) points to the "doing of good deeds," so that the enlightenment will be hailed by the people, who will then praise God (vs 16). These observations reveal an extraordinary skill displayed by the SM in its use of images, metaphors, proverbs, allegories, and similar materials. The author, whoever he may have been, demonstrates an almost poetic mastery of these materials. Finally, the composition of the unit makes clear that it is far more than a collection of isolated wise sayings. Rather, carefully selected wise sayings have been taken up and reshaped so as to fit into the fine sayings composition in vss 13-16. This composition as a whole serves as the programmatic self-definition of the community for which the SM was designed as a basic text. 27 Put into the mouth of Jesus, it spells out the tasks to which the community addressed is committed. This task is no different from that of every faithful Jew-to represent God on earth. 2. Interpretation

• 1 3 The new section begins with the declaration "You

are the salt of the earth" (vJL£L~ €uu To Cl.A.a~ Tij~ yij~). 28 The statement is unique in the SM and has no analogy in the SP. As pointed out in the Analysis, the metaphor of the salt has been taken up from its traditional context of education and given a special interpretation in the SM. The question is what this metaphor means for the SM. The first thing to say is that the metaphor of the salt is interpreted by the genitive attribute "of the earth." The earth is the place where the community addressed in the 27

28

29

30

158

SM lives. It is the place opposite to the sky, or "heaven" (singular; see also 5:18, 34; 6:10, 20, 26). 29 The earth is the place where the community is on the way from here to there (see 5:5, 14b, 15, 16, 25, 35-36, 41, 45; 6:2, 5, 10, 11, 19-21,26-30;7:6,9-11, 13-14,15-20,2427). This place is "among the people" (5: 13, 16, 19; 6:1, 2,5, 14-16, 18;7:9, 12)and"intheworld"(5:14).Itis the life between the extremes, between poverty and wealth (5:3), death and life (5:4), meekness and arrogance (5:5),justice and injustice (5:6), mercilessness and mercy (5:7), impurity and purity (5:8), war and peace (5:9), persecution and heavenly reward (5: 10-12). Thus, "the salt of the earth" means that the faithful disciples must get involved with this earth and its life. They are to regard themselves as a most important ingredient of this life; to say it with the metaphor: they must be part of the dirt out of which this world is made. There can be no doubt that this means a life under hazardous conditions. One might refer to another proverbial image: "Behold, I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves" (Matt 10:16 I I Luke 10:3; cf.John 10:12; Acts 20:29; 1 Pet 5:8). Yet, the life of the faithful disciples is not that of passive and helpless victims, 30 but that of movers and shakers: it is a life of "doers. "31 Every single situation described in the SM puts the disciples into the center oftrouble, difficulties, and hard choices. This is the place where they must "seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness" (Matt 6:33). If they fail, they will be trampled down (5:13; 7:6) or washed away by the storms of history (7:24-27). These implications are then further demonstrated by a rhetorical question and

Compositionally, the double commission has its counterpart in the double parable SM/Matt 7:2427. Variant readings spell differently (W* D* W: /l.)l.a). On the problem see BDF, § 47 (4); BDR, § 47,4 (a); BAGD, s.v. /1.)\a~. See also Betz, "Eschatology in the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain," SBLSP 1985, 343-50, esp. 344; reprinted in Betz, Synoptische 31 Studien, 219-29. Against Oscar Cullmann, "Das Gleichnis vom Salz," in his Vortriige und Aufsiitze 1925-1962 (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ]; Zurich: Zwingli, 1966) 192-201, who interprets according to Luke 14:33-34 and thinks that salt points to sacrifice, suffering, and selfdenial of the disciples. Similarly, Josef B. Sow;:ek, "Salz der Erde und Licht der Welt: Zur Exegese von

Matth. 5, 13-16," TZ 19 (1963) 169-79; Rudolf Schnackenburg ("'Ihr seid das Salz der Erde, das Licht der Welt': Zu Mt 5, 13-16," in his Schriften zum Neuen Testament[Munich: Ki:isel,1971]177-200) speaks of the church as sacrifice before God and on behalf of the world. Cf. Paul's metaphors in 1 Cor 4:9, 13. See also Luz, Matthiius, 1.222 (Matthew, 1.249-51). Cf. the similar metaphor of the dough and the leaven (Gal5:9; 1 Cor 5:6, 7; Rom 9:21; 11:16).

Matthew 5:13-16

answer in 5: 13b. The question presupposes the metaphor of vs 13a: "Yet, if the salt becomes dull, with what shall one salt?" (eav B£ Tb 8.1\a~ p.wpav8fi, EV Tlvt al\tu8~ouat;). 32 The translation is difficult, and one has at least three options for rendering the sentence: ( 1) "If the salt becomes tasteless, how will it be made salty again?" 33 (2) "If the salt becomes dull, with what shall one salt?" 34 (3) "If the salt becomes dull, with what will God salt?" 35 All these options are grammatically possible; the question is which of them should one prefer. As so often in the SM, images are made to clash, as if we run up against an absurdity. Salt losing its saltiness is like water losing its wetness, a real absurdity, 36 even if it is to be taken metaphorically. The term p.wpalvw, which I have rendered as "become dull" to cover both the material and the figurative meaning, points to the direction in which we ought to think. 37 No doubt the SM has in mind the character of the failing disciple called "the foolish man" (o av~p p.wp&~) in the concluding double parable, 7:24-27. 38 Ironically also, the one who calls his brother "fool" (p.wp&~) becomes a case of "dull salt" himself. Elsewhere in the New Testament "folly" is also 32 33

34 35 36

37

38

the mark of the failed Christian (see Matt 25:1-13; cf. Paul's play on words in 1 Cor 1:18, 20-23; 2: 14; 3:1819; 4: 1 0). 39 The answer to the question of vs 13b is given in vs 13c: "It can achieve nothing, except being thrown out to be trampled down by the people" (d~ oVB£v 1uxv£L fn t:lp.~ f31\1!8£v ffw KaTa7Tan'iu8at t!7Tb Tc;JV av8pdJ7Twv). 40 The translation is again difficult because of the phrase d~ ovB£v LUXV€LV. One can take the phrase idiomatically to mean "be good for nothing." 41 Or one can understand it in the sense that dull salt has some power left but it leads to nothing, 4 2 a meager result further described in the remainder of the sentence. I prefer this latter option because of the metaphorical implications: ordinary salt is indeed powerful, but dull salt has left only the power of self-destruction. 43 One should not tone down the violence of the imagery, which takes its clues from practical life. Dull salt is nothing but dirt, and it is thus treated like dirt. It is waste thrown into the street outside, 44 where the people walk over it and trample it down, until it is like all the other dirt of the street. 45

Textual variants again (cf. vs 13a) change the spelling to ll.>.a (M B2 W Origen). So the translation in BAGD, s.v. a>.l(w and p.wpalvw, 2: similarly NEB and REB: "And if salt becomes tasteless, how is its saltness to be restored?" The idea of restoration is, however, absent from vs 13b, and this rendering is based on Mark 9:49-50, which requires a quite different interpretation. The parallel in vss 15-16 suggests human action as well. Taking the construction as a passivum divinum. It does not, however, refer to chemistry. Some have thought it necessary to produce chemical evidence that salt can change to other chemical substances. See Ludwig Kohler, Kleine Lichter (Zurich: Zwingli, 1945) 73-76; for further material see Str-B 1.232-36; Cullmann, Vortriige (see above, n. 30), 193-96; Luz, Matthiius 1.221-23 (Matthew, 1.250-51). Differently, Black, Approach, 123-24, who thinks that p.wpav8fi is the result of faulty translation from the Aramaic. See also Jeremias, Parables, 168; Gunther Schwarz, "Matthaus V 13a und 14a: Emendation und Ruckubersetzung," NTS 17 (1970) 80-86; idem, "KaAov TO a>.as," Biblische Notizen 7 (1978) 32-35; idem, "Und jesus sprach," 64-69. Cf. the question and answer in Epictetus Diss. 2.4.4: "What confidence am I to place in you?-If you were

39

40

41 42 43

44

45

a vessel so cracked that it was impossible to use for anything, you would be cast forth upon the dung-hill, and even from there no one would pick you up." For further references see BAGD, s. v.; Georg Bertram, "p.wp&s KTA.," TDNT 4.832-47, esp. 83744. D Wit sys.c.p Cyprian omit ~TL ("still"); perhaps they take it to be redundant. D W 0jl 3 1006. 1342. 1506 ~read f3>.718ijvat ~~w Kat ("to be thrown out and trampled down"), which would indeed be better Greek, but for the same reason less likely original. See Aland, Synopsis, 76. Thus the translation in BAGD, s.v. lux-6w, 2. The phrase .v lux-6w ("effect much"), as inJas 5:16. The parallel in Luke 14:35 remains nonmetaphorical: "it is of no use either for the soil or for the dunghill" (thus the translation in BAGD, s.v. d!B
159

These images are meant to warn the disciples. On the one hand, they indeed ought to get involved with the earth, but they should do so in such a way that they exercise power as "the salt of the earth." Yet, on the other hand, they ought not to get mixed up with the earth as trash gets mixed up with other trash. 46 As "salt of the earth" the disciples can get involved with the world in two ways: they can be a seasoning and fertilizing agent, or they can be useless waste like all other useless waste. These powerful metaphors describe in almost cruel detail what the SM regards as the task of faithful discipleship ofJesus. 47 Small and unassuming as salt is, its power is enormous, but only as long as it acts in the way it is supposed and equipped to act. 48 If the disciples of Jesus fail in their mission, the people will throw them out like garbage. This talk is, first of all, metaphorical, but the possibility of actual contempt is not ruled out. At any rate, such miserable failure is qualitatively different from persecution and other forms of harassment that are signs of strength. Being thrown out and trampled down by the people could also be a sign of true martyrdom and thus strength, but this passage does not consider this possibility (cf., however, SP/Luke 6:22). One should observe at this point that the saying in vs 13 contains no christological implications. Scholars have sometimes speculated that the salt can do its job only as it "dissolves" and that this may be a veiled reference to Jesus' suffering and death. 49 These scholars then point to Mark 10:45 par. and Mark 8:32 par. as parallels, but these interpretations are farfetched. 50 The more remarkable fact is, on the contrary, that in our passage

Jesus does not speak about himself but only about the disciples, and that his suffering and death play no role at all in the SM. 51 • 14 The second saying (vss 14-16) is a more elaborate composition of several elements. Like vs 13a it begins in vs 14a with the designation of the addressees: "You are the light of the world" (ilp.li~ EITTf TO f#>w~ Tov ICO!Tp.ov). 52 This designation is of the greatest importance for the SM. Differently from vs 13, which may have been created by the author of the SM in analogy to vs 14a, the expression "the light of the world" takes up the traditional Jewish aspiration of being the intellectual leaders of the world. It sums up what is stated in programmatic form in Isa 42:6 (NRSV):53 I am the LoRD, I have called you in righteousness, I have taken you by the hand and kept you; I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations, to open eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness. At the time of the New Testament this self-understanding ofJews to be "the light of the world" seems to have played an important role. This is all the more remarkable because of the political fact that Judea was an occupied country at this time. But the self-understanding as "the light of the world" does not make claims in the sense of political power; rather, it aspires to enlightenment of the world in a religious or cultural sense. 54 This conviction of Jews that they represent the enlightened avant-garde of the world was_ also behind the movements

46

The unpaved and filthy streets in antiquity were proverbial. Cf. the anecdote about Socrates trying to get through the streets of Athens without the pigs messing up his clothes (Plutarch De gen. Socr. 10, 5800-F). 4 7 For the metaphor of salt see the special study by James E. Latham, The Religious Symbolism ofSalt (Theologie historique 64; Paris: Beauchesne, 1982), which has assembled the material. 48 This is why NEB and REB render: "You are salt to the world." The rendering, however, harmonizes vs 13 with vs 14. 49 See Schwarz, "Undjesus sprach," 68-69. 50 Salt seasons; it does not sacrifice itself. 51 On this problem see the main Introduction, above pp. 80-81. 52 Some Latin translations read huius mundi ("of this

160

53

54

world"): a aur b (c g 1) h q. But this dualistic cosmology is alien to the SM. See also Isa 49:6. For the OT see Sverre Aalen, • .,,IC 'or," ThWAT 1.177-78 (TDOT 1.163) (II1.3.c); for rabbinic judaism see Str-B 1.236-38; Hans Conzelmann, TDNT 9.317-23; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 82-83. On the whole see Sverre Aalen, Die Ber;riffe "Licht" und "Finsternis" im Alten Testament, im Spatjudentum und im Rabbinismus (Oslo: Dybwad, 1951) 25-27 and passim. The translation in REB (similarly NEB) anticipates the interpretation ofvs 16: "You are light for all the world." The RSV has the correct translation of the Greek text.

Matthew 5:13-16

of Jewish apologetics and proselytism in the first century. In the SM, the metaphor is neither merely cultural (cf. Isa 42:6; 49:6; 60:1, 3) nor dualistic-cosmic (cf. Qumran), but clearly emphasizes ethics. Paul also knows of this claim when he characterizes the Jews by their conventional self-descriptions as "guide to the blind, light of those in darkness, educator of the ignorant, teacher of the immature" (Rom 2: 19). Due to its connection with the Jewish proselyte movement, the early church, probably since the days when it was still part of this movement, took over this self-understanding. Appropriating this tradition, therefore, Paul can call the Christians at Philippi "shining luminaries in the world" (c/JwuTijp~!; £v KOup.~ [Phil2:15]). 55 Or the New Testament can use similar epithets seemingly understandable to the reader without further explanations, such as "children oflight" (TtKva c/JwT0!;) 56 and "sons oflight" (vrol Tov c/JwT0!;). 57 When the SM designates the members of its own community as "the light to the world," it therefore affirms a Jewish self-description that only secondarily became Gentile Christian. Also significant is that the singular "light" is used, not a plural "lights" or "luminaries," thus apparently referring to the group as a whole, not to its individual members or to some special internal quality they claim to possess. 58 Further interpretation of what is meant by the epithet follows in vss 14b-16. The term "light" (c/Joo!;) is not interpreted in terms of anthropology 59 or cosmology. 60 Nor is there any hint of a doctrine other than the usual Jewish concepts of salvation. 61 The term KOup.o!; is Greek in origin, referring to the world at large; 62 it is not likely

a translation of the Hebrew c?iP, as the explanation ofvs 16 makes clear. The meaning of the term is taken to be well known generally, so that the explanations given here are simply reminders of what it is assumed the readers already know from their Jewish milieu. The interpretation continues in vss 14b-15 with two illustrative proverbs. The first proverb in vs 14b is simply cited: "A town that stands on a hill cannot be hidden" (ov Ot\vaTa! ?TOA!!; Kpvf3ijvat €?Tavw C:pov!; KHJLEV1/)· The class of proverbs to which this one belongs is easy to identify: it is the class stating impossibilities (impossibilia), a genre that also determines its meaning. 63 This proverb occurs only here in the New Testament, but it has parallels in P. Oxy. 2, no. 7, and the Coptic Cos. Thom. log. 32. 64 The observation that cities often are situated on the top of mountains is true of many ancient cities, but one can hardly have any doubt that here it refers to Jerusalem. This city is of great importance to the SM; it is the only city that is mentioned several times (see the excursus on Jerusalem below). It can also be taken for granted that the author refers to the actual city 65 and not, as some have suggested, to the heavenly Jerusalem. A city is more than what appears before the eyes, however, especially when it is Jerusalem. In connection with the epithet "light of the world" one must take seriously the sugge~tion made by Gerhard von Rad: "The saying about the city which is visible to all is closely bound up with that

See BAGD, s.v. <j>wuT~p, 1, with parallels. Eph 5:8; Ignatius Phld. 2.1. Luke 16:8;John 12:36; 1 Thess 5:5. This designation is also found in the Qumran texts and in Gnosticism. For references see BAGD, s.v. <j>wr, 3; Conzelmann, TDNT 9.325-27, 327-43 (C.3-4; D.18). 58 Very different light theologies are part of the Joharmine and Pauline literature; for references see Conzelmann, TDNT 9.345-55 (E. III-IV). 59 For an anthropological interpretation, see below on SM/Matt 6:22-23. 60 Cf. the difficult passage Jas 1: 1 7: "from the Father of the lights, with whom there is no change or shadow of variation" (my trans.). For the interpretation see the commentaries and BAGD, s.v.l1.1rouKlauf'a. 61 Matthew does not apply the epithet to his own

55 56 57

62 63 64 65

church (cf. 28:18-20), but similar terms are found in his sources (4:16; 10:27; 17:2, 5). The term occurs only here in the SM; see BAGD, s.v. KOITfLOr, 5 .a. This category is represented also in SM/Matt 5:36; 6:24, 27; 7:18. The passages are cited in the Analysis above. See Paul-Richard Berger, "Die Stadt auf dem Berge: Zum kultur-historischen Hintergrund von Mt 5, 14," in Wort in der Zeit: Neutestamentliche Studien fur Karl Heinrich Rengstorf zum 7 5. Geburtstag (Leiden: Brill, 1980) 82-85.

161

altchristlichen Theologie," Kairos 28 ( 1986) 152-73. Georg Fohrer and Eduard Lohse, "I.twv KTA.," TDNT 7 (1964) 292-338. Lars Hartmann, EWNT(EDNT) 2, s.v. 'I<po
concerning the light of the world: the eschatological congregation of the faithful is the city set on a hill, and their light will be visible to the whole world. The saying thus takes up an ancient eschatological theme, re-echoing that already sounded by Isaiah in the Old Testament." 66

'I<pov
Joachim Jeremias, jerusalem in the Time ofjesus (trans. F. H. and C. H. Caven; 3d ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969). Idem, "IEPOYI.AAHM/IEPOI.OA YMA," ZNW 65 (1974) 273-76. Philip]. King, "Jerusalem," ABD 3 (1992) 747-66. Hans-JosefKlauck, "Die heilige Stadt: Jerusalem bei Philo und Lukas," Kairos 28 (1986) 129-47; reprinted in his Cemeinde, Amt, Sakrament: Neutestamentliche Perspektiven (Wiirzburg: Echter, 1989) 101-29. Schiirer, History, 3/2, index, s.v.Jerusalem. Peter Welten, James K. Elliott, and Lewis M. Barth, "Jerusalem I-III," TRE 16 (1987) 590-617.

Excursus: Jerusalem in the SM One should not overlook the important role the city of Jerusalem plays for the SM. The city is mentioned by name(' l<po
Bibliography BAGD, s.v. 'I<po
67

162

• 1 5 The second proverb is expanded into a parabolic

narrative. 67 It is also stated negatively, describing first an absurd action that no one in his right mind would do (vs 15a); then (vs 15b) the right action follows: "Nor does one light a lamp and put it under the meal-tub, but (one puts it) on a lampstand, and then it lights up things for all in the house" (ovllt KaloVO'LV A.vxvov Kat n8€auw avTOV V7TO TOV p.6Swv aA.A.' f7Tt T~V A.vxvlav, Kat A.d.p.?TEL 1Tct!TtV lv Tfj olKl~). The subject in "one" refers simply to ordinary people and what they do, 68 but the following is filled with interesting cultural detail. Presupposed is the oneroom house lit up by one lamp on a lampstand. 69 These details are taken from Q, where other versions occur and more details can be recovered. 70 The tendency of providing details is continued even by modern scholars who put their imaginations to work. 71 The "meal-tub" (o

Von Rad, "The City on the Hill," 242. For an examination of von Rad's thesis see Ken M. Camp68 bell, "The New Jerusalem in Matthew 5.14," SJT 31 (1978) 335-63. The significance of the entire complex of ideas for the proselyte mission in Hellenistic Judaism has been pointed out by Aalen, 69 Begriffe, 210-32. Scholars often treat the passage simply as a parable, but in terms ofliterary criticism the problems are 70 most difficult. See Jiilicher, Cleichnisreden, 1.29, 185, 247; 2.76, 79-88, 88-91, 98;Jeremias, Parables, 9092; Harnisch, Cleichnisforschung, 5: idem, Gleichnisse

Jesu, 147; idem, Gleichniserziihlungen, 106. The impersonal "they" is not necessarily the result of Aramaic influence as Joachim Jeremias assumes, "Lampe," 237-40; reprinted in his Abba, 99-102; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 32. See Luke 8:16; 11:33; Cos. Thom.log. 33, which assume that the lampstand is near the door. Cf. also Acts 12:7; Matt 25:1-13. In the Cos. Thom. log. 32 and 33 the sayings about the city on the hill and the light are combined, an indication that the sayings were associated already in the presynaptic tradition. Differently, Strecker,

Matthew 5:13-16

p.Ollw~) is a vessel that may conceivably be used to hide lamp. 7 2 At any rate, the saying was widely used and

a

seems to have been popular. Allegorical interpretation appears to be the reason for the next step, 73 and the author seems to play with several meanings of terms as well, such as "overturning the lamp" 74 or "extinguishing the lamp." 75 In the SM, however, the two sayings in vss 14b and 15 serve as examples, with the application following in vs 16. The two sayings illustrate two contrasting points: While vs 14b observes that a city on a hill cannot be hidden, vs 15 makes the opposite point that a light can be hidden, but to do so would be absurd and contrary to the light's very purpose of giving light to all in the house. With this last phrase we already hear the application that is to follow in vs 16. 76 If this interpretation is correct, it speaks against that of Jeremias. 77 He takes the word Kalovuw ("they kindle") to express the contrast to "they extinguish," which would imply that Jesus in a veiled way refers to the threat by his opponents to kill him. Jeremias's interpretation must be seen as part of his attempt to give a christological reading of the sayings of Jesus. But no such christology is to be found in the text of the SM. • 1 6 The application and paraenesis of vs 16 is introduced by the conjunction oiino~~ ("in such a way"); its positive formulation stands in contrast to the negative

71 72

73

74

75 76

warning in vs 13b. Verse 16a first states the imperative: "Thus let your light shine before the people" (oiiTw~ ' A.ap.'fr&.Tw TO !f>w~ vp.wv ~p.-rrpou8£v TWV av8p6nrwv). The imperative picks up the image of the shining light (>..&.p.,mv) in vs 15b, but no explanation is given about the precise nature of the light other than that the community addressed has it as their own. 78 In the context of the SM, one may conclude that the light refers to the SM as a whole, that is, the Torah as interpreted by Jesus. 79 The SM does not refer by this image to Jesus himself as being the light. The term "world" (Koup.o~) in vs 15 is now understood to refer to "the people" (o1ll.v8pw7rot), and the metaphor of "giving light" (A.&.p.7rHv) indicates that enlightenment is the second primary task of the community.80 The Cf1rw~-clause in vs 16b further explains what is meant by "shining": "in order that they [sc. the people) see your good deeds and praise your Father who is in the heavens" (Cf7rw~ i'awutv vp.wv Ta KaA.a ~pya Ka't Bo,&.uwuLV TOV 7TaTtpa vp.wv TOV tV TOL~ ovpavo'i~ ). 81 The good deeds are now identified as the shining of the light; they are not the light itself, but only what the light does and reflects. "The people" represent the outside world. 82 Seeing the good deeds done by the insiders, the outsiders will be provoked to the praising of God. Converting the people to the true worship of God is, in Jewish terms, the whole purpose of doing good

Bergpredigt, 53 (Sermon, 50). See Jeremias, "Lampe." Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary, 86 n. 21) argues against these speculations. Cf. also Josephus Ant. 5.223: "They all bore empty pitchers with lighted torches inside them, to prevent the enemy from detecting their approach." Cf. SP/Luke 6:38, where the grain-measure plays a role; it is called rh p.Erpov. See also BAGD, s.v. p..llaor. See SM/Matt 6:22-23; Luke 11 :34-36; Rev 1:1213, 20; 2:1, 5. See BAGD, s.v. Avxvla and AVxvor, 12; Wilhelm Michaelis, "A6xvor KrA.," TDNT 4.32427. Burton L. Visotzky ("Overturning the Lamp," JJS 38 [1987]72-80) tries to show that some stories in b. Sabb. 116a-b are parodies of Matt 5:14-16; differently, Maier,Judische Auseinandersetzung, 78-93, 119. See Rev 2:5; 18:23. Cf. also Betz, Lukian, 94. The house (olKla) is of importance also elsewhere in the SM (see 7:24-27). For the vast possibilities of metaphorical application see Friedrich Ohly, "Haus III (Metapher)," RAC 13 (1986) 905-1063, esp.

77 78 79

80

81 82

1018-28, 1047-49; Karl-Heinrich Bieritz and Christoph Kahler, "Haus III," TRE 14 (1985) 47892. Jeremias, "Lampe"; Schwarz, "Und jesus sprach," 69. Cf. Matt 10:26-27// Luke 12:2-3. For the Torah as "light" see the references in Str-B 1.237; Conzelmann, TDNT 9.823-24; Aalen, Begriife, 183-95, 211-32 (with an important collection of passages from Philo). Cf. the interesting interpretation of the saying in Ps.Clem. Rec. 8.4.1, where Peter is the speaker: "Those who speak the word oftruth and who enlighten the souls of men, seem to me like the rays of the sun, which, when once they have come forth and appeared to the world, can no longer be concealed or hidden, while they are not so much seen by men as they afford sight to all." Similarly Ps.-Clem. De virg. 1.2 and 1.12. B* omits fpya ("deeds"), perhaps a dogmatic decision. There is no indication of who they are; see above on 5:13.

163

deeds. 83 For Judaism, praising the heavenly Father is the sign of true piety. 84 In the SM, specifically, the good deeds include the virtues stated in the Beatitudes (vss 312) as well as everything included in 5: 17-7: 12. 85 For the sake of proper understanding it must be pointed out that the purposefulness of doing good deeds in no way denies their true value. 86 A good deed is genuine for two reasons, not only one: it is a benefit to the recipients and to the bystanders as well, because the latter become witnesses, and thus both are moved to what every enlightened religious person ought to do: to praise God. 87 One must not confuse these good deeds with Paul's concept of "works of the law": 88 what Paul rejects is the idea that good deeds are done for the sake of self-praise and self-justification, but he does not reject good deeds as such, especially if they are done to make people glorify God. 89 Therefore, the SM and Paul are not different in their judgment at this point. Another problem seems to be that the statement in vs 16 contradicts the cultic instruction in 6:1-18, according to which cultic acts, in order to have integrity, must be done "in a hidden manner. "90 One must not deny the difference between the two passages. The passages come from two different traditions and thus express different concems. These concerns are, however, not incompatible. Verse 16 is concemed about the visibility of good deeds because otherwise the people will not be 83

84 85

moved to praise God (not to praise the doers of those deeds!), while 6:1-18 emphasize that good deeds, in order to be worthy of merit, must be done in such a way that premature praise of the doer is avoided. The parable of the Last Judgment (Matt 25:31-46) goes even further in saying that the best deeds are those that are visible for everyone except the one who does them; thus, those whom Christ approves are not aware of the good deeds they have done. 91 Good deeds, therefore, may be done unawares but nonetheless in a way conspicuous to others. As a result, the SM implicitly rejects the idea that good deeds are only those done "for their own sake," if this means that they are done without purpose or intent. Rather, the very notion of "good deeds" implies purpose and intent. A further question, explicitly raised by some scholars, is whether vs 16 has a universalistic outlook. 92 Does the language of "the people" and "all in the house" refer to Israel only or to the whole world? It is important to realize that phrases like "you are the salt of the earth" and "you are the light of the world" do not put any limits on the good deeds named in vs 16. Therefore, the community of the SM, although still within the Jewish religion, subscribes to a universalistic outlook when it describes its mission. It is entirely conceivable, therefore, that this community would have agreed with the mission of Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles, as long as Paul and

Soalso2Clem. 3.4; 13.1-5;JustinApol. 1.16.2. See Willem C. van Unnik, "Die Riicksicht auf die Reaktion der Nicht-Christen als Motiv der altchristlichen Paranese," in his Sparsa collecta, 2.30722. See the references in Str-B 1.239-40; Fiebig, Bergpredigt, 22-23. See also SM/Matt 7:15-20, 21-23, 24-27, and for the topic as a whole Roman Heiligenthal, Werke als Zeichen: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung der menschlichen Taten im Frilhjudentum, Neuen Testament und Frilhchristentum (WUNT 2.9; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],

86

87

164

1983) esp. 115-23. The concept of ra Ka.\.a fpya ("the good deeds") is found only here in Matthew, but the singular occurs in Mark 14:6// Matt 26:10. Cf.John 10:32; 1 Tim 5:10, 25; 6:18; Titus 2:7, 14; 3:8; Heb 10:24; 1 Pet 2:12. Of all these passages only Matt 5:16 is jewish in nature. See BAGD, s.v. fpyov, 2.c.f3. For the importance of praising God, see Matt 9:8; 15:31, etc.; Luke 17:11-19, and the references in Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 120-21 (on 2 Cor 9:13);

88

89 90 91 92

Peter Krafft, "Gratus animus (Dankbarkeit)," RAG 12 (1983) 732-52. See Betz, Galatians, 116 (on Gal2:16). For the history of exegesis see Luz, Matthiius, 1.225-26 (Matthew, 1. 253-54). Cf. also SP /Luke 6:26a. Cf. SM/Matt 6:2: "be glorified by the people"; also 6:1, 5, 16, 18. See Matt 25:37-39, 44. See Bemhard Lanwer, Die Grundgedanken der Bergpredigt auf dem Hintergrund des Alten Testaments und Spiitjudentums (Hiltrup: Herz-Jesu-Missionshaus,

1934) 117-41: "Dasjudentum eine universale Religion?"; Soiron, Bergpredigt, 208-31; Heiligenthal, Werke, 115-23; Kunze!, Studien, 134-39.

Matthew 5:13-1 6

Barnabas, not the community of the SM, were charged with this task. This possibility could then be confirmed by Paul's account of the conference at jerusalem during which the mission to the world was divided into two branches (Gal 2: 1-10), 93 and by Matthew's mission instruction (Matt 10:5-6), 94 which also recognizes the different missions. 95 In conclusion, vs 16 marks the end of the exordium and the definitions that establish the identity of the community addressed in the SM. Strecker has rightly pointed out that with vs 16 a climax has been reached and that 93

94

the foundation of the paraenesis has been laid. 96 Paraenesis was already present in vss 3-12, although the main purpose of that section was to lay the foundations for the paraenesis. In vss 13-16 the paraenesis is further prepared by formulating the mission and purpose of the community. As indicated before, the double commission in vss 13-16 has as its counterpart the Two Ways schema throughout the SM, culminating in 7: 13-14 and the double parable in 7:24-27 as the epilogue ofthe SM.

Paul maintains that the mission enterprises headed up by him and Peter are complementary: the same God works in both of them (Gal 2:8). Cf. Philo's ideas on universalism, for which see Franz Geiger, Phi/on von Alexandreia als sozialer Denker (TBA 14; Stuttgart: 95 Kohlhammer, 1932)85-94, 104-6,110-13. So the mission instruction Matt 10:5-6, but the parallels in Luke 9:2-6 and Mark 6:8-11 do not have the restriction. Therefore, the mission instruction of 96 Matt 10:5-6 on the one hand, and the parallels in

Luke and Mark on the other hand, seem to confirm the two-pronged mission strategy. Cf. esp. Matt 10:5: "On the way of the Gentiles do not go and into a town of the Samaritans do not enter." The evangelist Matthew resolves the disparities between SM/Matt 5:16 and Matt 10:5-6 by showing the development of the church culminating in 28:18-20. Strecker, Bergpredigt, 54-55 (Sermon, 51-52).

165

Matthew 5:17-20

5 17

18

19

20

Translation

Chapter Ill The Hermeneutical Principles

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or (and) the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you: till heaven and earth pass away, not even one iota or one dot will pass away from the law, until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever does away with one of the least of these commandments and teaches the people in this manner will be called least in the kingdom of the heavens. But whoever does and teaches [them], he will be called great in the kingdom of the heavens. For I say to you: if your righteousness does not surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of the heavens.

Bibliography David L. Balch, "The Greek Political Topos TI
(SNTSMS 28; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975) 203-35. Klaus Berger, Die Gesetusauslegung]esu, vol. 1 (WMANT 40; Neukirchen-VIuyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972). Hans Dieter Betz, "The Hermeneutical Principles of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5: 17-20)," in idem, Essays, 37-53; German: "Die hermeneutischen Prinzipien in der Bergpredigt (Mt. 5:17-20)," Synoptische Studien, 111-26. Gunther Bornkamm, "Wandlungen im alt- und neutestamentlichen GesetzesversUindnis," in his Glaube und Geschichte 2; Gesammelte Aufsiitze 4 (Munich: Kaiser, 1971) 73-119. Ingo Broer, Freiheit vom Gesetz und Radikalisierung des Gesetzes: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Evangelisten Matthaus (SBS 98; Stuttgart: Katholisches

Bibelwerk, 1980). Bultmann, History, 138, 146-47, 149, 163,408 (see also idem, Ergiinzungsheft, 56). Michael]. Cook, "Interpreting 'Pro-Jewish' Passages in Matthew," HUCA 54 (1983) 135-46. William D. Davies, "Matthew 5:17-18," in his Origins, 31-66. Idem, Setting, 100-101, 334-36. Idem,]ewish and Pauline Studies, 227-32.

166

W.]. Dumbrell, "The Logic of the Role of the Law in Matthew V 1-20," NovT 23 (1981) 1-21. Gunter Harder, "Jesus und das Gesetz (Matthaus 5, 17-20), " in Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament? Abhandlungen zum christlich-jildischen Dialog 2 (Munich: Kaiser, 1967) 105-18. Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1900) 30-31; (1905) 28-33. Christine Heubult, "Mt 5, 17-20: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Evangelisten Matthaus," ZNW 71 (1980) 143-49. Hans Hubner, Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition (2d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985) 15-39. Gunter Klein, "Gesetz III. Neues Testament," TRE 13 (1984) 58-75. Knox, Sources, 2.19-20, 27; 1.28-33. Werner Georg Kummel, "Jesus und der judische Traditionsgedanke, "ZNW 33 (1934) 105-30; reprinted in his Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, 15-35. Andreas Lindemann, Paulus im iiltesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und die Reuption der paulinischen Theologie in der Jrilhchristlichen Literatur his Marcion

(BHTh 58; Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck], 1979) 15456. Henrik Ljungman, Das Gesetz erfullen: Matt 5, 17ff und 3, 15 untersucht (Lund: Gleerup, 1954). Ulrich Luz, "Die Erfullung des Gesetzes bei Matthaus," ZThK 75 (1978) 398-435. Daniel Marguerat, Le Jugement dans l' evangile de Matthieu (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981) 110-41. Idem, "L' Avenir de Ia loi: Matthieu a l'epreuve de Paul," ETR 57 (1982) 361-73. John P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew's Gospel (AnBib 71; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1976).

Matthew 5:17-20

Alexander Sand, "Die Polemik gegen 'Gesetzlosigkeit' im Evangelium nach Matthaus und bei Paulus: Ein Beitrag zur neutestamentlichen Uberlieferungsgeschichte," BZ 14 (1970) 112-25. Idem, Das Gesetz und die Propheten: Untersuchung zur Theologie des Evangeliums nach Matthiius (Regensburg: Pustet, 197 4). Hans Joachim Schoeps, "Jesus und das judische Gesetz," in his Studien zur unbekannten Religions- und Geistesgeschichte (Gottingen: Musterschmidt, 1963) 41-61. Eduard Schweizer, "Matt 5, 17-20. Anmerkungen zum Gesetzesverstandnis des Matthaus," in his Neotestamentica: Aufsiitze 1951-1963 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1963) 399-406. Idem, "Gesetz und Enthusiasmus bei Matthaus," in his Beitriige zur Theologie des NT (Zurich: Zwingli, 1970) 49-70. Idem, "Observance of Law and Charismatic Activity in Matthew," NTS 16 (1969-70) 213-30. Idem, "Noch einmal Mt 5, 17-20," in Das Wort und die Worter: FS for Gerhard Friedrich (Stuttgart: Kohlkammer, 1973) 69-73. Peter Stuhlmacher, "Das Gesetz als Thema biblischer Theologie," ZThK 75 (1978) 252-80. M. Jack Suggs, Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew's Gospel (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University, 1970). Wolfgang Trilling, Das wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthiius-Evangeliums (SANT 10; 3d ed.; Munich: Kosel, 1964) 167-86. Bernhard Weifi, "Die Gesetzesauslegung Christi in der Bergpredigt; exegetische Studie," ThStK 31 (1858) 50-94. Wrege, Bergpredigt, 35-57.

How do we know that the sentences are in fact hermeneutical principles? The text attaches no descriptive title to them, and there is nothing with which to compare them in the New Testament or elsewhere in the early Christian literature. Scholars generally do not name a category under which they can be subsumed. 1 How, then, can the proposed category of "hermeneutical principles" be justified? The discussion in vss 17-20 unquestionably pertains to the law, but close examination reveals two sets of issues intertwined in the section: the interpretation of the law, with its constituent elements (principle, source, and norm); and the interpretation of Scripture, with its constituent elements (text of Scripture, authoritative interpretation by Jesus, text of SM, and didactic process served by the SM). One can analyze both sets of issues in Jewish and in Greco-Roman terms. Excursus: Principles for the Interpretation of the law in Greek, Roman, and Jewish legal Thought In the history of law, the explication of the principles guiding the interpretation of laws is secondary to their actual practice. This is not to say that the presumed earlier practice of the law was either primitive or devoid of principles; these principles simply consisted of unwritten rules handed down from generation to generation among the legal officials, first among the priestly officials and then among secular jurists. 2 In Greek and Roman law, these developments have frequently been investigated and documented. In Judaism, the legal experts, even after they were no longer priests, were never fully secular: the office of the rabbi, which developed during the first and second centuries CE, combined a number of duties, among them the interpretation of the law, and all of them having some cultic, if not priestly, aspects. In Greek and Roman legal history, the development of hermeneutical principles began with the Sophists and

1. Analysis The sentences in vss 17-20 introducing the interpretation of the Torah (5:17-48) state the hermeneutical principles underlying that interpretation. These four principles, presented as the guide for Jesus' interpretation of the Torah, form a carefully composed set. For a discussion of the problem see Neil]. McEleney, "The Principles of the Sermon on the Mount," CBQ 41 (1979) 552-70, who, however, uses the term "principle" with a different meaning. Based on the notion of Leitgedanke ("leading idea"), used by Johannes Kiirzinger (see the Introduction above, p. 48), McEleney discusses Matt 5:17 and 20 as the two kellillm ("basic structural principles") "governing the collection of materials into Matthew's Sermon on the Mount" (p. 554). For him, vss 17 and 20 go back to the historical Jesus in substance, not in wording, while vss 18 and 19 are Matthew's addition.

2

For the historical developments, see Fritz Schulz, History of Roman Legal Science (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1953) 5-37; Franz Wieacker, Romische Rechtsgeschichte: Quellenkunde, Rechtsbildung, Frilhzeit und Republik (HKAW 10.3.1.1; Munich: Beck, 1988).

167

was developed further by Plato and Aristotle through the introduction of dialectic. 3 Noteworthy in this development is the important role played by Greek rhetoric. Pertinent details will be found among the special studies listed in the bibliography. A few general remarks, however, are necessary here. I. One must consider the positive and negative stimulating forces of rhetoric in any discussion of the principles oflegal interpretation. Once one recognizes that what is legal and just is to a large extent what legislators, jurors, and constituencies believe to be legal and just, one must acknowledge the question of their manipulation by rhetoric. 4 2. Formulating hermeneutical principles means more than spelling out what has been practiced regularly over time. The moment the quest for principles begins, the problems oflogic, definition of terms, distinction of cases, and questions of internal consistency arise and demand changes in rules and procedures, and indeed, changes in the law itself. 5 3. Definitions and distinctions are reflected in the developing legal terminology, but clarity was achieved only over the course of time. 6 The Greeks distinguished between "customs and laws" (7{671 Kat vtll-'o•; Latin: mores et leges), 7 or between "written laws" (vtll-'o• yeypal-'1-'fvo•; Latin: ius scriptum) and "unwritten laws" (vol-'o•lf.ypatJ>o•; Latin: ius non scriptum). 8 Although it is generally assumed that the written laws are the lawcodes of the cities and states, while the unwritten laws refer to conventions and customs, the actual case is more complex. 9 The question is, furthermore, who is "the lawgiver" (b vol-'o6€r71r)? Are the laws given by the gods, the mythical ancestors, or the assemblies of the 3

4

5 6

7

8

168

For Greek law, see Erik Wolf, Griechisches Rechtsdenken, vol. 2 (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1952) passim; for Roman law, see Schulz, History, 62-75. For Greek law, see Wolf, Rechtsdenken, vol. 3 (1956) passim; for Roman law, see Schulz, History, 75-86. On this point see Schulz, History, 71-75. See Schulz, History, 76-85. Herodotus 2.35; Polybius 18.34.8. See Schulz, History, 74: "Leges et mores as constituents of ius. So the Roman orators translated 7f671 Kat vtll-'o•, subsuming both terms under ius. All that the orators meant was that a general rule (ius) could be proved either from statute or from custom. The jurisconsultants certainly admitted the auctoritas of mores maiorum, but they made no use of the distinction leges-mores because they did not admit Roman customary law." On this important concept, see the contributions by Rudolf Hirzel, Alfred Pernice, and Martin Ostwald in the bibliography below; furthermore, Schulz, History, 73-74; Hermann Kleinknecht, "vtll-'or," TDNT 4.1025-35 (A.2-3).

cities? On what is the law based? Is it the will of the deity, divinely inspired "reason" (voilr), the "law of nature" (b VO/LOf rfjr tj>t'Jut'JfTEI S{KaiOV ("that which is by nature just"; Latin: ius naturae) and the VO/Lq> or 6luvuiKOv ("that which is just in accordance with nature"), the lilKa1ov lf.ypatJ>ov ("that which is just in accordance with unwritten norms"), and the SlKalov Karlx vtll-'ov or VO/LIKOv ("that which is just according to law"). These distinctions also pertain to qualitative degrees of righteousness, the highest of which is that upheld in the eyes of the deity or that which is in harmony with the constitution of the cosmos, while the lowest is found in mere conformity to laws established by democratic vote, laws that may not even be just in themselves. 4. Greek and Roman legal thought also presupposes the separation of law and ethics, with "morality" standing somewhere between them. 11 Increasingly, philosophical ethics placed demands on the law, so that in the course of time, the very nature of the law changed and existing laws were amended or abolished. The disciplines of jurisprudence and philosophy, however, have remained separate up to the present, and the tensions between them are always present. 5. The introduction by Aristotle of the concept of f7TIElK
11 12

Diog. L. 3.86. See Rhet. ad Her. 3.2.3-3.3.5; the source for the definitions is Hermagoras. See also Schulz, History, 71-72. For an excellent survey of the history of ethics see Albrecht Dihle, "Ethik," RAG 6 (1966) 646-796. On the whole question see Aristotle Eth. Nic. book 5, "On justice and Injustice" (II
(Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1926; reprinted in his Romische Rechtswissenschaft und Rhetorik [Potsdam: Stichnote, 1949)9-66). See also Schulz, History, 7 475; Harry Caplan, [Cicero j Ad C. Herennium De ratione dicendi (Rhetorica ad Herennium) (LCL; Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University; London: Heinemann, 1977) 90 n. b.

Matthew 5:17-20

Apparently, the Sophists and Plato first raised the problem that the &.v8pw1ros aV8ao71s ("the man relentlessly following the Jaw") may miss rather than realize justice. 13 Aristotle speaks of the aKpt{3oolKaiOS ("the man rigorous as to the Jaw"), that is, the legal person who insists on the written laws regardless of the consequences for those involved. 14 After all, written laws will never fit all the cases at hand, so that justice requires "correcting" the Jaws by "equity" (t7rtElKna; Latin: aequitas). Of course, justices have always interpreted the laws in ways that were helpful in solving the actual cases, but they did so as part of the practice of the Jaw. 15 What Aristotle introduced, however, was the corrective interpretation of the law by an ethical concept apart from the law. According to him, the goal of justice that the law is to achieve is in danger of failing unless compliance with the law also includes the realization of the virtue of justice. These distinctions can easily lead to the polarization between mere "legalism" 16 on the one hand and "abolition" of the law in the name of ethics on the other. 17 Aristotle separated a lower kind of justice, content with simple compliance with the Jaw, from a higher, ethically 13

14

conscious justice, which in reality is the only justice deserving the name. The introduction of the concept of equity was intended to insure the higher kind of justice; it includes the following consequences: 18 (a) Whenever circumstances dictate, grace and forgiveness should be granted; especially, one must distinguish among premeditated, planned criminal acts, erroneous violation of the law, and mere accidents (ao{K1/p.a, ap.apT1/p.a, adJX1/P.a). (b) It is necessary to show understanding and compassion for the human dimensions involved. (c) It is necessary to focus on the lawgiver and his original intent, not simply on the written text of the law. (d) It is necessary to keep in mind the whole person, not merely the isolated injurious act. (e) Settlements out of court are to be preferred to court decisions. These doctrines have become part and parcel of the rhetorical as well as of the legal tradition. In the Hellenistic period, equity was no longer a concept apart from the law but served as a constitutive element of it. Because of equity, the law of nature was given

Gorg. frg. b, Diels-Kranz, 82 B 6 (II, 285, 15-19), 15 and on this Wolf, Rechtsdenken, 2.67; Plato Polit. 16 294C, and on this Wolf, Rechtsdenken 4.2 (1970), 140. Aristotle says (Eth. Nic. 5.1 0.8, 1137b 34-1138a 4) in a summary of the discussion: "And from this it is clear what the equitable man [ot7riEIK~s] is: he is one who by choice and habit does what is equitable, and who does not stand on his rights unduly [o p.~ aKpt{3oolKatos ], but is content to receive a smaller share although he has the law on his side. And the disposition [E'gts] described is Equity; it is a special kind ofJustice and not a different quality altogether

See Schulz, History, 74-75. This important concept is the subject of the interesting study by BernardS. Jackson, "Legalism," JJS 30 (1979) 1-22. Jackson traces the origins of the modern anti-Jewish accusation of legalism back to the Middle Ages, but he does not consider the juristic and ethical issues concerning legalism raised as early as Aristotle. The question, therefore, remains unanswered whether there is a connection between the modern propagandistic accusation against the Jews and the issue oflegalism or legal formalism discussed by ancient jurists and philosophers. [ Kal .q ~ft~ allr71l1Tr.ElKEr.a, lJr.Kar.outJv71 TLS' otua Kal oVx 17 Cf. the example given by Cicero De orat. 1.56.240: trlpa ns E'gts]." For special treatment of the term, see "Galba ... urged many considerations in favor of the work by Max Salomon, Der Begriff der Gerechtigkeit equity as against rigid Jaw [multaque pro aequitate contra ius dicere]." In De orat. 1.57.244, Cicero tells us bei Aristoteles (Leiden: Sijthoff, 1937) 73, 83-84, 9598; the author also points to the juxtaposition of that even the school boys engage in mock trials where they defend, at one time, the written law "justice" and "love of neighbor" as a parallel (95-96). (scriptum), at another time, equity (aequitas). The See also Romilly, Ladouceur, 189-96;Johannes Triantaphyllopoulos, Das Rechtsdenken der Griechen question who wins is said to be largely one of (MBPF 78; Munich: Beck, 1985) 17-24. Philo is rhetorical skills. 18 The following is based on the article by Helmut familiar with the terms and issues; see Rer. div. her. Coing, "Der EinfluB der Philosophie des Aristoteles 143; Som. 2.101;Jos. 65. See for the continuation in auf die Entwicklung des romischen Rechts," ZSRG.R Latin Rhet. ad Her. 2.10.14; Cicero Pro Caecina 23.65. For the notion of t7rtEIKEta, t7r1EIK~S in relation 69 (1952) 24-59, esp. 42-45. to the Bible see Spicq, Notes, 1.263-67. The NT evidence, however, has not been sufficiently investigated: see esp. 2 Cor 10:1; Acts 24:4;Jas 3:13-18; Matt 11:28-30. Acts 22:30 (cf. 26:5) characterizes Paul's Pharisaic upbringing as KaTa aKplf3nav TOV 1raTpov v6p.ov, a judgment confirmed by Paul himself in Gal5:3 (see Betz, Galatians, 259-61).

169

lie within the person who has committed the act, the commission of the act is not forgivable. In particular, false values, ignorance of moral standards, and negligence in paying attention to them are one's own responsibility. (c) For the identification of the legal and ethical nature of a human deed, only those deeds come into question that are done by plan and decision, because: "The cause of action (the efficient, not the final cause) is choice, and the cause of choice is desire and reasoning to some end" (7rp.l£<ws p.ev ai\v apx~ 1rpoalpeutr (H8ev ~ Klu7]utr CtAA' o~x o{; fveKa), 7rpoatptuEws Of l:JpEtts Kai Abyos b f'vEKa Ttvos ). 31 6. The formulation of hermeneutical principles arises as a response to criticism and challenge, as evidenced by Greek and Roman law, where the sources reflect the process. Formulated principles ofJewish hermeneutics simply emerge in the first century CE, seemingly as a result of external and internal pressures and conflicts. 7. In Judaism, formulation of principles for the interpretation of the Torah is associated with the name of Hillel. Investigating the possible causes for the emergence of the rules, W. Sibley Towner 32 names six motivating factors, all elements in a hermeneutical crisis: the existence side by side of a written and an oral Torah; the development of extrabiblicallegal traditions competing with scriptural law; the growing popularity of homiletical Scripture interpretation in post-70 CE synagogues and the formation of rabbinic school traditions; the high degree of sectarianism and the resulting controversies over the interpretation of Scripture and legal traditions; the influence of Hellenism; 33 and finally, the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, causing a shift away from Temple worship to Torah piety and Torah interpretation characteristic of rabbinic Judaism. The first of the

more serious consideration than was human law. In the interpretation of written laws, one was to respect the true and original intention of the lawgiver, 19 and this to the extent that even modification of the laws became a possibility. 20 In other words, what one party may call fulfillment of justice, another may denounce as abolition of the law.21 As has often been pointed out, the doctrine of equity became not only part of Hellenistic rhetoric and jurisprudence; 22 it also expressed the religious and moral mentality oflate antiquity in general. Its classical formulation is found among the principles for the interpretation of the law in Digestae 50.17.90: In omnibus quidem, maxime tamen in iure aequitas spectanda est ("In every respect, and especially in law, equity must be given due consideration"). 23 In Roman philosophy and law, equity became an important concem for humanitas. 24 A number of other common distinctions 25 are also represented in SM/Matt 5:17-20: (a) Aristotle distinguished between deed and guilt. 26 One can thus apply ethical judgments only to willed deeds, not to mere opinions (without deeds) or to forced and involuntary deeds (under compulsion or by accident). The proper response to the last two cases is compassion and forgiveness. 27 (b) Ethics is concemed primarily with voluntary deeds (£Kotu:not), whose origin and cause lie within the one who'acts. 2B Further distinctions must be made here, however. One must distinguish acts done under compulsion from acts committed from fear (llta q,IJ~ov), 29 because the former are done by one's own choice but not from one's own free will. Acts done in error or through ignorance 30 can be forgiven only if the error or ignorance pertains to the actual circumstances. If error and ignorance are one's own fault, and if, therefore, the origin and cause of the act 19 20 21 22

23 24

25

170

SeeRhet. ad Her. 2.10.14. On this point see Aristotle Rhet. 1.15.23-25, 1367b. SeeRhet. ad Her. 2.10.15-11.16. See Cicero Top. 5.28; Rhet. ad Her. 2.13.19: "The constituent departments [sc. of the law], then, are the following: Nature, Statute, Custom, Previous Judgments, Equity, and Agreement" ("Constat igitur ex his partibus: natura, lege, consuetudine, iudicato, aequo et bono, pacto"). My translation. See Fritz Pringsheim, "jus aequum und jus strictum," ZSRG.G 42 (1921) 643-68, esp. 663, with references to humanitas ("humanity"), benignius ("more lenient"), melius ("more virtuously"), utilitas ("usefulness"). See also Fritz Schulz, Principles of Roman Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1936) 189-222. See Coing, "Einflu6," 44-45.

26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 3.1.1-6, 11 09b 30-111 Oa 19; 3.2.11-12, 1112a 1-5. Ibid., 3.1.15, 1110b 30-1111a 3. Ibid., 3.1.1., 1109b 30-35. Ibid., 3.1.4-6, 111 Oa 4-20. Ibid., 3.1.13-15, 1110b 18-1111a 2. Ibid., 6.2.4, 1139a 32-34. W. Sibley Towner, "Hermeneutical Systems of Hillel and the Tannaim: A Fresh Look," HUCA 53 (I 982) 101-35, esp. 103-9. For descriptions of the rabbinical rules and for bibliography, see this article and also Hermann L. Strack and Gunter Sternberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: Beck, 1982) 25-40 (ET: Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash [trans. Markus Bockmuehl; Minneapolis: Fortress; Edinburgh: Clark, 1991) 17-34; Michael Lattke, "Halachah," RAC 13 (1986) 372-402.

Matthew 5:17-20

rabbinic rules to appear were the seven middot attributed to Hillel. Scholars believe that "at least some of the seven hermeneutical principles attributed to Hillel were already ancient by his day. "84 Their precise formulation, however, and their integration into a system may be new phenomena. Similar developments can be assumed for the thirteen middot of R. Ishmael and the thirty-two middot of R. Eliezer. Thus it appears that the four principles in SM/Matt 5:17-20 presuppose inner-Jewish discussions about the Torah that have somehow been stimulated or influenced by Greco-Roman thought concerning law and ethics, in particular the notion of equity. "The dilemma that equity is to be better than justice, and yet not quite opposed to justice, but rather a kind of justice, has troubled men as early as Aristotle's famous chapter V 14 of the Nicomachean Ethics. "85 This judgment by Gustav Radbruch seems to be one of the presuppositions underlying the argument in SM/Matt 5:17-20. This presupposition is not explicitly stated, but the whole debate is hardly understandable without the assumption that, at the presuppositionallevel, it had influenced the debate in which the SM takes a position.

Max Kaser, "Zur Methode der romischen Rechtsfindung" (Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse 1962), no. 2, pp. 49-78. Hildegard Kornhardt, "Summum ius," Hermes 81 (1953) 77-85. W. von Leyden, Aristotle on Equality and justice: His Political Argument (New York: St. Martin's, 1985). Ulrich Manthe, review of Das Rechtsdenken der Griechen, by Johannes Triantaphyllopoulos, Gnomon 62 (1990) 289-98. Richard Maschke, Die Willenslehre im griechischen Recht, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Frage der Interpolationen in den griechischen Rechtsquellen (2d ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968). Emmanuel Michelakis, Platons Lehre von der Anwendung des Gesetzes und der Begriff der Billigkeit bei Aristoteles (Munich: Hueber, 1953). Ralph W. Newman, ed., Equity in the World's Legal Systems: A Comparative Study Dedicated to Rene Cassin (Brussels: Emile Brulant, 197 3). Dieter Norr, Rechtskritik in der romischen Antike (ABAW.PH. n.s. 77; Munich: Beck, 1974). Martin Ostwald, Nomos and the Beginning of the Athenian Democracy (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969). Idem, "Was There a Concept of ltypa,Po~ v6p.o~ in Classical Greek?" in E. N. Lee et al., eds., Exegesis and Argument: Studies in Greek Philosophy Presented to Gregory Vlastos (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1973) 70-104. Alfred Pernice, "Nachtrag iiber Gewohnheitsrecht und ungeschriebenes Recht," ZSRG.R 22 (1901) 59-95. Fritz Pringsheim, "Bonum et aequum," ZSRG.R 52 (1932) 78-155. Max Salomon, Der Begriff der Gerechtigkeit bei Aristoteles (Leiden: Sijthoff, 1937). Fritz Schulz, History of Roman Legal Science (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1953). Idem, Principles ofRoman Law (trans. Marguerite Wolff; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1938). Johannes Stroux, "Summum ius summa iniuria," in FS Paul Speiser-Sarasin zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet (Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1926); reprinted in

Bibliography Helmut Going, "Der EinfluB der Philosophie des Aristoteles auf die Entwicklung des romischen Rechts," ZSRG.R 69 (1952) 24-59. Albrecht Dihle, "Gerechtigkeit," RAG I 0 (1978) 23360. Josef Esser, Grundsatz und Norm in der richterlichen Fortbildung des Privatrechts: Rechtsvergleichende Beitriige zur Rechtsquellen- und Interpretationslehre (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1956). M. Gagarin, Early Greek Law (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California, 1986). J. Himmelschein, "Studien zur antiken Hermeneutica iuris," in Symbolae Friburgensae in honorem Ottonis Lenel (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1931) 373-424. Rudolf Hirzel, ltypa.po~ v&p.o~ (ASGW.PH 20/1; Leipzig: Teubner, 1900). 33

David Daube has investigated these relationships in two articles, "Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and J:Iellenistic Rhetoric, "HUCA 22 (1949) 239-64; and "Alexandrian Methods of Interpretation and the Rabbis," FS H. Lewald (Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1953) 27-44; for pertinent comments and passages, see also his collection of essays, NT and Rabbinic judaism; Saul Lieberman, "How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine?" in Alexander Altmann, ed., Biblical and Other Studies (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1963) 123-41; Lattke, RAG 13.275-90. Towner's essay, "Hermeneutical

34 35

Systems," 107-9, has no comment on this point. Towner, "Hermeneutical Systems," Ill. Gustav Radbruch, Einfilhrung in die Rechtswissenschaft (9th ed.; Stuttgart: Kohler, 1952) 75. The translation is mine.

171

idem, Romische Rechtswissenschaft und Rhetorik (Potsdam: Stichnote, 1949) 9-66. W. Sibley Towner, "Hermeneutical Systems of Hillel and the Tannaim: A Fresh Look, • RUGA 53 (1982) 101-35. Johannes Triantaphyllopoulos, Das Rechtsdenken der Griechen (MBPF 78; Munich: Beck, 1985). Michael Villey, Recherches sur la litterature didactique du droit romain (Paris: Domat-Mont-Chrestien, 1945). Uwe Wesel, Rhetorische Statuslehre und Gesetzesauslegung der romischen juristen (Annales Universitatis Saraviensis: Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftliche Abteilung 29; Cologne: Heymann, 1967). Franz Wieacker, Romische Rechtsgeschichte: Quellenkunde, Rechtsbildung, jurisprudenz und Rechtsliteratur, part 1: Einleitung, Quellenkunde, Frilhzeit und Republik (HKAW 10.3.1.1; Munich: Beck, 1988). Erik Wolf, Griechisches Rechtsdenken (vols. 1-4 [parts 12]); Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1950-1970).

In the light of the foregoing excursus, it is surprising that none of the four principles attributed to Jesus in vss 17-20 occurs explicitly elsewhere in the synoptic tradition. Their formulation by the author of the SM can, however, be shown to be similar to some developments in Greco-Roman and Jewish law. The SM, therefore, regards it as an erroneous conclusion that the historical Jesus, whose views are claimed to be represented in the text, proceeded in an unprincipled and arbitrary way when he interpreted Scripture and Torah to his hearers. 36 The SM implic-

36

37

172

Cf. the assessment, typical for present scholarship, and summary by Towner, "Hermeneutical Systems, • 106-7: "and of course, beginning about 30 CE, from followers ofJesus of Nazareth who systematically applied Old Testament tradition by means of informal hermeneutical methods to the new situation created for them by their conviction that the Promised One of Israel had been among them. • The assumption here is that the rise of Christianity is a phenomenon of messianic faith and that the methods Christians employed were chaotic. It should be pointed out, however, that no evidence substantiates such conclusions; they derive from modern religious presuppositions. For this reason, much of the literature on Jesus and the law is in need of revision. One should not derive from vss 17-20 in a direct way the attitude of the historical Jesus toward the Torah. For different views, see the comprehensive studies and bibliographies in Banks, jesus and the Law, 182-235 and passim; and Guelich, Sermon, 134-74. What I regard as the correct view has been stated by Bultmann,

itly dismisses the idea that he had set aside clear thinking in favor of emotional appeals. Instead, we are to assume that he knew what he was doing and that, purposefully, he spelled out his principles in the SM. Since these principles are found only in the SM, however, their formulation is best attributed to the author of the SM. This approach seems to have followed the practice of other Jewish teachers of the time. They usually taught without giving account of their hermeneutical principles. The definition of such principles was, on the whole, a later development in rabbinic school tradition. The point the SM wants to make is this: Jesus did follow principles; vss 17-20 state them explicitly, and vss. 21-48 demonstrate how they are to be applied. These principles also reveal that they have been formulated in retrospect and in a situation of controversy. This controversy could not have arisen, however, if the principles of Jesus' hermeneutic had been set forth systematically earlier. In this respect, vss 1720 appear to be a creative step rather than simply a statement of what Jesus left unsaid. This does not imply that Jesus had no method; rather, he conformed to the current practice of applying but not spelling out principles. How are the principles ofvss 17-20 related to the discussions of the Torah elsewhere in the synoptic tradition? Why is it that none of them appears to be reflected in other synoptic debates on the Torah?37 What is reflected there, rather, is ambiguity regarding hermeneutical principles. Was it an essential part of Jesus' intention to advance his "adequate," as opposed

History, 138: "Matt. 5 17-19 derives from the discussions between the more conservative (Palestinian) communities and those that were free from the law (Hellenistic) .... Matt. 5 17-l9 thus records the attitude of the conservative Palestinian community in contrast to that of the Hellenists. • So also Braun, Radikalismus, 2. 7-8, 11 n. 2; Gunter Harder, "Jesus und das Gesetz (Matthaus 5, 17-20), • in Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament? (Abhandlungen zum judisch-christlichen Dialog 2; Munich: Kaiser, 1967) 105-18, esp. p. 105: "nicht eine originale RedeJesu, sind auch nicht originale WorteJesu, sondern sind ein Teilstiick der Auseinandersetzung der urchristlichen Gemeinde mit dem judischen Gesetz" ("not an original speech of Jesus, not even original words of Jesus, but a part of the debate in the early Christian community about the Jewish law").

Matthew 5:17-20

to other "inadequate," interpretations of the Torah? Did he, deliberately or inadvertently, abolish the Torah? Did he intend to substitute his own teaching for that ofthe Torah? The present debate among New Testament scholars considers all of these possibilities. This debate seems to go back to the ancient texts themselves. Whatever principles Jesus may have held, the controversies as reported in the synoptic tradition leave the impression of ambiguity. If these texts reflect a historical reality ofJesus' debates-an assumption that can neither be made nor disproved automatically -this ambiguity may have been unintentional or it may have been planned by him as a challenge to his opponents. At any rate, it is this ambiguity that must have raised the problems to which SM provides an answer. The SM presupposed more than ambiguity. In particular, vss 17-20 respond to specific accusations with regard to Jesus' interpretation ofthe Torah. These accusations no doubt originated with opponents ofJesus and the early Jewish-Christian church; they appear to have included the following points: 1. Jesus' interpretation of the Torah was not controlled by clearly defined hermeneutical rules but was arbitrary (that is, informal, individualistic, on the spur of the moment, charismatic, intuitive, idiosyncratic, "inspired," or the like). 2. The effect ofJesus' teaching, if not its purpose, was to undermine the authority of Scripture and Torah. 38 3. The result of his "coming" was a heresy that abolished the Torah. The four principles in vss 17-20 are designed to refute these accusations. 59 For the SM,Jesus was "orthodox" in the Jewish sense of the term, not a heretic. 40 If his teaching led to the abolition of the Torah among some, or even among the majority, of 38 39

40

(Gentile) Christians, this development was based on misunderstanding and misleading instruction by false prophets and false teachers (5:19; 7:15-20), and it will have dire consequences for the victims (7:21-23). The question must also be raised why the four principles in vss 17-20 have so little resemblance to the seven middot ofHillei. 41 Hillel's seven middot seem to have been a creation of post-70 CE rabbinic school tradition, but some may have been formulated earlier. Verses 17-20, therefore, cannot have derived from Hillel's rules but, rather, seem to represent alternative principles. In pre-70 CEJudaism, Hillel's tradition was certainly not the only one in existence, so that alternative Jewish principles are conceivable and even probable. To judge from vs 20, the principles of the SM have been formulated in antithesis to Pharisaic principles as well. That we do not have these Pharisaic principles does not rule out their existence. The extant material coming from first-century Pharisaism is extremely scarce. Because vs 20 expressly states its anti-Pharisaic tendency, such a statement should be taken seriously as historical evidence regarding early Pharisaism.

2. Interpretation •17 Regarding the first hermeneutical principle, 42 the

Christian tradition never had any doubt about the programmatic character of vs 1 7. This is true, although the interpretation of the saying remains in dispute to this day. 43 I shall discuss first its literary form, then the technical terms employed, and finally the content of the statement.

For the objection that introducing equity results in abolishing the law, see above, nn. 17, 21. The controversies are reflected, although only 41 faintly, in the talmudic tradition. For the collection of the relevant passages, see Maier, judische Auseinandersetzung, 79, 83, 89-90, 114, 115, 223, 22627. For polemical definitions of what constitutes 42 "heresy," see 'Abot 3.14: "R. Eleazar the Modiite said: 43 He who profanes holy things and despises the festivals, and shames his associate in public, and makes void the covenant of Abraham our father, and gives interpretations of Torah which are not according to Halachah, even though he possess Torah and good deeds he has no portion in the world to come" (trans. Herford, Pirke Aboth, 80). See also 'Abot 6.2, 7-11. For discussion, see Davies, jewish and

Pauline Studies, 44-45. See also Hans Dieter Betz, "Haresie," TRE 14 (1985) 313-18. When one reads and contemplates Daube's discussion of Hillel's principles and ideas, however, they appear to be remarkably close to those in vss 17-20. See his article "Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation" (above, n. 33), 244-55. See Betz, Essays, 39-43. For the fundamental works, see Adolf von Harnack, "Hat Jesus das alttestamentliche Gesetz abgeschafft?" in his Aus Wissenschaft und Leben (Giessen: Topelmann, 1911) 2.227-36; idem, "Geschichte eines programmatischen WortsJesu (Matth. 5,17) in der altesten Kirche," Sitz.ungsberichte der preuBischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin, Philologischhistorische Klasse I912, I84-207; idem, "'Ich bin gekommen.' Die ausdriicklichen Selbstzeugnisse Jesu

173

The literary form and composition presuppose the argumentative content to be discussed below. This presupposition includes, furthermore, a historical dimension: (1) the appearance of Jesus, and (2) the postulated or real consequences of his teaching. The opening words in vs 17a (JJ.~ vop.LITTJTf.), in the sense of "do not think it right ... , " or "do not share the opinion ... ,"are both polemically and apologetically intended. They are only meaningful on the supposition that there are actually those who are inclined to think as they should not. Sayings beginning with p.~ vop.luTJTf. ("do not think it right ... ")occur elsewhere in the New Testament; in all instances their character as statements of principle is clear (see Matt 10:34; Acts 8:20; 17:29; 1 Cor 7:36; 1 Tim 6:5). The term vop.l(w is of interest for two further reasons. 44 First, the verb vop.l(w (BAGD, s.v. vop.l(w, 2, renders it "think, believe, hold, consider") played an interesting role in Greek philosophy and religion, designating religious thought especially regarding the gods. 45 The term, therefore, describes a specifically theological or even dogmatic activity and should be interpreted in this sense in vs 17 as well. Second, the verb has an affinity to the noun ovop.os ("the law") in that it betrays an awareness of the original meaning of vop.os as "that which is in habitual practice, use or possession" (LSJ, s.v. vop.os); from this were

44

45

174

derived other meanings such as "custom" and, specifically in the LXX and the New Testament, of "law." The verb, therefore, when applied to vs 17, describes not only thinking and believing but also the setting of standards for thought as well as for religious practices and behavior, and in this way it is connected to the subsequent verses. 46 In the Christian community, theological standards were established through the medium of belief in Jesus. Although the SM never speaks of "believing in Jesus Christ" (7rttTTf..,',f.w ds 'I7Juovv XptuTov), 47 vs 17 implies that a judgment about the purpose of Jesus' coming is basic to what his disciples ought to think. This judgment in turn is to be based on the sayings of Jesus circulating in the tradition. 48 Even the disciples speaking in the SM claim to have direct access to Jesus himself only through his sayings. In fact, they are involved not simply as passive receivers of the Jesus tradition but also in its formulation. Remarkably, vs 1 7 addresses the disciples as those who actually formulate the sayings tradition. The exhortation states the importance of formulating Jesus' sayings in the right way or, more specifically, of rejecting or correcting any false sayings of Jesus in circulation. What is being rejected in Jesus' name by the SM is not a particular belief, not even a christological belief that is designated as false, but a saying of Jesus that is declared to be false.

iiber den Zweck seiner Sendung und seines Kommens," ZThK 22 (1912) 1-30; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 35-38; Eduardo Arens, The HA80NSayings in the Synoptic Tradition: A Historical Critical Investigation (OBO 10; Fribourg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976) 91116; Simon Legasse, "Mt 5,17 et Ia pretendue tradition paracanonique," in Josef Zmijewski and E. Nellessen, eds., Begegnung mit dem Wort: FS fur Heinrich Zimmermann (BBB 53; Bonn: Hanstein, 1980) 11-21; Guelich, Sermon, 134-43; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 55-57 (Sermon, 53-55); Luz, Matthiius, 1.232-36 (Matthew, 1.261-65); Hubner, Gesetz, 3235. On the term, see Hermann Kleinknecht, TDNT 4.1023-25, 1028-29; Wolfgang Fahr, 8E0Yl: NOMIZEIN: Zum Problem der Anfiinge des Atheismus bei den Griechen (Spudasmata 26; Hildesheim: Olms, 1969), whose treatment of the NT passages is, however, hardly sufficient. The expression vop.i(
46

47

48

passages, see LSJ, s.v. vop.i(w) means to honor the gods by taking part in the official cult of the city. The negation 8whr ov vop.i(wv ("not worshiping the gods") was one of the points of accusation against Socrates (Xenophon Mem. 1.1.1-2). See the excursus below on Socrates (pp. 179-181 ). Cf. the usage in Acts 16:13: ol! Jvop.i(op.•v 1rpou•vx~v .!vat ("where we assumed was a customary place of prayer"). For the Matthean usage, see Matt 18:6; 27:42. The phrase comes from Gentile-Christian theology; see Gal2:16 and Betz, Galatians, 117-18. For other ~Mov-sayings ("I have come" sayings), see Mark 2:17//Matt 9:13//Luke 5:32 (cited in 2 Clem. 2.4; Barn. 5.9;Justin Apol. 1.15.8); Matt 10:34, 35. See Johannes Schneider, TDNT 2.668-69 (B.1.a); Arens (see above, n. 43), 91-94.

Matthew 5:17-20

This false saying of Jesus is cited 49 in full as follows (RSV): "I have come to abolish the law or (and) the prophets" (~>..8ov KaTaA.vuat Tov v&p.ov ~ TOVS 7Tpocp~Tas). The phenomenon of a false saying of Jesus is startling indeed, but it is not without parallels in the tradition. 50 Has the SM picked up such a saying of Jesus from actual circulation? Was this saying regarded as authentic by the bearers of the tradition? 5 1 Or are we dealing with an imitation, on the pattern of other ~>..8ov-sayings, and hence with a spurious composition, produced ad hoc only to be repudiated? Could it be that we are dealing with a deliberate caricature, a bowdlerization, of other sayings of Jesus actually in circulation? The latter is certainly the more probable, for in the extracanonicalJesus tradition, a number of similar sayings are found with which Matt 5:17 bears comparison. Indeed, the tradition is so rich at this point that it proves Adolf von Harnack's remark to be correct that the patristic exegesis of vs 1 7 could easily fill an entire book. 52 The closest examples come from the JewishChristian tradition in the apocryphal Gospels: 1. Gospel of the Ebionites, frg. 5 (Epiphanius Panarion 30.16.5): 53 ~>..8ov KaTaA.vuat Tas 8vulas, KaL lav p.~ 7TaV0"'1/0"8£ TOV 8vnv, ov 7TaVO"£Ta! acp' vp.wv ~ opy~.

I have come to abolish the sacrifices, 49

50 51

52 53

54 55

and if you do not cease sacrificing, the (divine) wrath will not cease from you. 5 4 The saying assumes that Christians are still inclined to take part in the Jewish sacrifices but that discontinuation of the practice is now demanded. Justification for such discontinuation is twofold: First, Jesus' entire mission was to abolish the sacrifices, presumably those of the Jerusalem Temple; this claim certainly represents an exaggeration of the evidence in the synoptic tradition, 55 but one must always bear in mind that concerning the time of Jesus, the evidence is fragmentary. Jesus was assumed to have opposed Temple sacrifices, just as the Qumran community opposed them for the same or for different reasons. 56 Second, the eschatological wrath will not cease. Such wrath can refer to the divine wrath at present on those addressed or to never-ending wrath in the world to come. 2. Gospel of the Egyptians, frg. 3 (Clement Alex. Strom. 3.9.63): 57 ~A8ov KaTaA.vuat Ta ~pya Tijs 871A.£las. I have come to abolish the works of femaleness. 58 The saying comes from a gnostic background, imitating Matt 5:17 or a similar saying. The reason for the imitation is the assumption that gender differentiation, just like the law, is part of the structure of this world that Jesus and, following him, the Gnostics claim to have overcome. 59

liTI functions like a quotation mark. On the liTI recitativum, see BAGD, s.v.IITI, 2; BDF, §§ 397 (5); 470 (1); BDR, §§ 397, 5; 470, 1. Besides Matt 10:34, cf. also SM/Matt 7:21. For a collection of parallel passages, see Harnack, "Geschichte" and "'Ich bin gekommen'"; U:gasse, "Mt 5,17" (see above, n. 43); Beyschlag, "Geschichte," 310-13. Harnack, "'Ich bin gekommen,'" 17. For a citation, see also Aland, Synopsis, 78. For the interpretation, see NTApoc 1.155-56; Resch, Agrapha, 227-28; Stroker, Extracanonical Sayings, 54-55. My translation. On the question whether Jesus was opposed to Temple sacrifice, see Davies, jewish and Pauline Studies, 228-32; Sanders, jesus and judaism, 207-8, 269, 271; idem,jewishLaw, 42-43,90. The SM does not regard sacrifices as illegitimate (SM/Matt 5:2324), although they do not appear among the important acts of worship (SM/Matt 6: 1-18). The pre-Matthean tradition of Matt 23:18-20, 35

56 57 58 59

opposes only misuse of Temple sacrifices, but later Christian theology opposes them altogether (Matt 9:13 [quoting Hos 6:6]; 12:33; Acts 7:41-42 [quoting Amos 5:25]). See also Ps.-Clem. Rec. 1.39 and 1.64. See Sanders, jesus and judaism, 61-76: "Jesus and the Temple." For a citation, see also Aland, Synopsis, 78. My translation. For the interpretation, see NTApoc 1.166-69; Resch, Agrapha, 253-54. Cf. also Matt 19:12; Gal3:28, and on this passage, Betz, Galatians, 195-200, with further material.

175

That the Gnostics knew the sentence of vs 1 7 but did not like it is documented by the Marcionites, who turned it around, ascribing the false version (correctly, from their point of view) to "theJudaists"; according to Adamantius De recta in deum fide chap. XV, the Marcionite Marcus said: 60 rovro o~ 'lovaa·iura'r. ~ypal/fav, rh ovK ~>..lJov Kara>..vuaL rhv v&p.ov lt>..>..a 7TA7JpwuaL· ovx otirws at- fhfv 0 XpLur&r, >..(y£L yttp" ovK ~AlJov 7TA7JpwuaL rhv u&p.ov lt>..>..a Kara>..vuaL. This is what the Judaists wrote, the (version): "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill (it)." But Christ did not speak in this way; he said rather: "I have not come to fulfill the law but to abolish (it)."6l The Marcionites correctly understood that the JewishChristian vs 17 is at odds with the standard New Testament theology, that is, Paulinism as they conceived of it, and they (or Marcion himself) went ahead and "corrected" it. · Bowdlerization occurred also in Jewish polemics, however, in particular in a tale in b. Sabb. 116a, which Karl Georg Kuhn rightly characterized as a satire. 62 In this story, the following citation from the Gospels is put into the mouth of "a corrupt philosopher" (i.e., probably a name for a Christian theologian): "I have not come to take away from the Torah of Moses, but I have come in order to add to it." 63 The date of this rabbinic satire cannot be determined,64 but it refers to the pre-Matthean SM or to the Gospel of Matthew or to still other Jewish-Christian 60

61 62

traditions that it thus intends to repudiate. "Adding" to the Torah of Moses violates one of the principles of rabbinic interpretation and is equally objectionable to "taking away" from it. 65 Thus in rabbinic eyes, the saying as stated is evidence of wrongness and thus a device of polemic. How offensive the saying in SM/Matt 5:17 was, not only to Jews but also to Christians, could be further demonstrated from the history of interpretation. The foregoing examples also demonstrate the phenomenon of tampering with the exact wording, a phenomenon to which we must now turn. The authentic saying that remains to be formulated in vs 1 7b is not satirical, but it is, on that account, no less contrived or artificial. Strictly speaking, this saying exists only as a theological concept in the mind of the reader. The text is intentionally written in such a way that readers cannot as easily discern the correct saying as they can a false one; they must construct the correct saying themselves out of the building materials that the repetition in vs 17b provides: "I have not come to abolish but to fulfill" (ovK ~AlJov Kara>..vuaL lt>..>..a 7TA7JpwuaL). The false saying is simply to be corrected in that first the crucial term (Kara>..vw, "abolish") is replaced by another, clearly the right term, 7TA7Jp&w ("fulfill"). Thus in its correct form the saying must run as follows: ~AlJov 7TA7JpwuaL rhv v&p.ov ~(?)robs 1rpocp~ras. I have come to fulfill the law or (and?) the prophets. As I have said, this correct saying is not written down but must be formulated by the readers in their minds; only the false saying is written down. This phenomenon is important for the nature and purpose of the SM as a whole.

Cited according to the edition ofWillem van de Sande Bakhuyzen, Der Dialog des Adamantius "De recta in Deum fide" (GCS 4; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901) p. 88, lines 31-33. For the gnostic and Marcionite interpretation of Matt 5:17, see Harnack, "'Ich bin gekommen,'" 16-17. 65 My translation. Karl Georg Kuhn, "Giljonim und sifre minim," in judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: FS for Joachim Jeremias (BZNW 26; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1960) 2461, esp. 50-58. Cf. also S. Pines, The ]wish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a Nw Source Qerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and

63 64

176

Humanities, 1966) 5. Quoted according to the translation of Str-B 1.241. On the problem of dating the story, see Jeremias, Theology, 1.83 n. 7; furthermore Str-B 1.241-42.

Maier {jildische Auseinandersetzung, 89-91, 115) denies that the rabbinic passage has anything to do with Matt 5: 17, but in my view his description of Matt 5:17 as "eschatological" rather than juristic misunderstands the saying as well as its context. For the background of this rule, see Deut 4:2; 13:1; Eccl 3: 14; for further discussion and bibliography see below on SM/Matt 5:19.

Matthew 5:17-20

Concerning terminology, vs 1 7 contains a number of technical terms that one must carefully define. They are to be construed primarily as legal terms, 66 not as Matthean christological concepts. 67 Thus ICaraA.flw (BAGD, s. v. KaraA.vw, I.e: "do away with, abolish, make invalid or annul" the law) 68 is a legal technical term in Greek 69 as well as in Hebrew. 70 The object rhv v&p.ov ~ robs 1rpocp~ras ("the law or the prophets") is specific to the Jewish tradition; 71 it is a set phrase referring to the Holy Scripture of the Jews as a whole. 72 Accordingly, Scripture has two parts, the Torah (that is, the 66 67

68

69

Pentateuch, ha-torah), and the prophets (that is, the prophetic books, ha-n'bZ''im). Even if the term "the law" (o v&p.os) refers to Scripture, it is still a legal term referring to the Mosaic Torah and its binding authority. 73 This older concept differs from the later rabbinic concept of Torah in the wider sense, which includes the written Torah (i.e., the written text of the Hebrew Bible) and the oral Torah (i.e., the unwritten tradition by which the written text is interpreted). 74 The term "the prophets"

So rightly Strecker, Bergpredigt, 57 (Sermon, 54-55). For a christological interpretation, see Guelich, 72 Sermon, I36-43; and Luz, Matthiius, I.232-36 (Matthew, I.260-65), who notes a difference between the legal meaning in 5: I 7 and christological overtones in the theology of Matthew (235-36 [ET: 265 ]). See also the simplex J..{;w in SM/Matt 5:I9;John 73 5:I8; 7:23; I0:35; I John 4:3. For KaraJ..6w as a legal term, see Friedrich Biichsel, TDNT 4.336, 338; Hans HUbner, EWNT 2.5I-52 (EDNT 2.264); idem, Gesetz, 22, 32-35. For the legal meaning in Greek literature, see !socrates Or. 6.66; Polybius 3.8.2. For collections of parallels, see Wettstein, 1.293-94; BAGD, s.v. Kara>..6w, I.e; Ulrich Luz, "Die Erfiillung des Gesetzes bei Matthaus (Mt 5,I7-20)," ZThK 75 (I978) 398-435; 4I5 nn. 82-83; David L. Balch, "The Greek Political Topos ll
70

7I

(Minneapolis: Fortress, I99I) 68-84. For the later Jewish-Christian and patristic exegesis, see Beyschlag, "Geschichte," 3IO-II; Luz,Matthiius, 1.233-35 (Matthew, 1.26I-65). See also CMC, p. 90, line 2I (ZPE 32 [I978]II 0 with nn. 255-56). Not in the OT. Str-B 1.24I gives Hebrew and Aramaic ':l10::1 as equivalent; see Dalman, Handworter· buch, 52, s.v. ':l10::1, 2. The Hellenistic-Jewish literature 74 uses KaraJ..{;w in the technical sense; see 2 Mace 2:22; 4:11; 4 Mace 5:33; Philo Spec. leg. 3.112, I82; Flacc. 52; Som. 2.I23; cf. Leg. Gaj. 322 (Kar&.J..v
Regensburg: Pustet, I974); Hubner, Gesetz, 32-35. The two-part division of the OT is attested in the NT besides Matt 5:I9 also 7:I2; II:I3; 22:40; Luke I6:I6;John I:45; Acts I3:I5; 24:I4; 28:23; Rom 3:2Ib; for the three-part division see Luke 24:44. See BAGD, s.v. vJfLos, 4.a-b. There is no question that b vJ,..os renders the Hebrew :1.,1M, a rendering that is in itself beset with the problem that the meanings do not fully coincide; indeed, their equation involves a hellenization of the Hebrew concept, which, however, does not by itself imply a narrowing to a legalistic understanding. The Greek concept is just as diverse in meaning as the Hebrew one. On this point see Charles H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder and Stoughton, I935), chap. 2; Walter Gutbrod, TDNT 9.I036-65 (B.I-8; C.I-4; D.I-4); Hans Hubner, EWNT 2.II58-72 (EDNT 2.47I-77, with bibliography); Davies, jewish and Pauline Studies, 3-26: "Law in First-Century Judaism"; 229-42: "Law in the New Testament"; George Pelham Shipp, NOMOI: "Law" (Sydney: Sydney University, I978); Alan F. Segal, "Torah and Nomos in Recent Scholarly Discussion," Studies in Religion/Sciences &ligieuses I3 (I984) I927;Jack N. Lightstone, •Torah is Nomos-Except When It Is Not: Prolegomena to the Study of the Law in Late Antique Judaism," ibid., 29-37. See Urbach, Sages 1.285-3I4; 2.8I4-25: "The Written and the Oral Laws"; Peter Schafer, "Das Dogma von der unendlichen Torah," in his Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen judentums

(AGJU I5; Leiden: Brill, I978) I53-97.

Das Gesetz und die Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Theologie des Evangeliums nach Matthiius (BU II;

177

(o~

1rpocpijTat) points to the Old Testament prophetic books in their capacity as binding legal authority; they are in this sense also law. The particle 1f ("or") is disjunctive 75 and points to the difference among similar terms, while the usual Kal ("and") emphasizes commonality (it occurs in SM/Matt 7: 12). The choice of 1/ ("or") is not superfluous, however, but focuses on a particular point of jewish theology. 76 According to this view, the Torah of Moses has priority because it was given by God directly to Moses, while the prophets testify to the Torah only indirectly through the Spirit. 77 At the same time, the prophets are raised to almost the same rank as the Torah of Moses, so as to avoid a conflict of authority between the two bodies of literature. Finally, the authority of the traditions is limited to the books of the Bible, so that extrabiblical legal and prophetic tradition remains secondary and not binding. These distinctions have played an important role in the development of the Old Testament canon as 75 76

77 78

79

178

well as for the Pharisaic and rabbinic concepts of Torah. By the same token, one must also take the other term, 7TA:qpow ("fulfill") in the legal sense, 78 corresponding to the Hebrew c~p. 79 In fact, both terms are complementary and interpret each other. 80 What, then, do they mean? One must not confuse them with transgressing or abiding by specific prescriptions or prohibitions, with which they are indirectly connected. The terms refer first to the recognition and implementation-or the refusal of recognition and implementation-of Holy Scripture as legal authority. Torah and prophets have such authority because they are the sources of justice (atKatouVv7J); second, the term must be interpreted in such a way that justice can be brought to bear on given cases oflaw. One must keep in mind the difference here between Scripture as general authority and source of justice, and individual laws that are also contained in the Torah and that must serve justice. Generally, laws are always

See BDF, § 446; BAGD, s.v.Tf, l.a.{J. No other passage in the NT makes this point, not even in the SM itself (cf. 7: 12). Cf. Guelich, Sermon, 137-38, who observes the singularity but, taking it to be Matthew's redactional change, misunderstands its meaning. Str-B 1.240. In this sense the term occurs also in Matt 3: 15; Gal 80 5:14; Rom 8:4; 13:8; for other references, see BAGD, s.v. 1rll:qp/Joo, 4.b; Gerhard Delling, "7rA7Jp~s KTA.," TDNT 6.283-311, esp. 286-94; Hans Hubner, EWNT(EDNT), 3, s.v. 1rA7JpOoo KTA (with bibliography), who interprets correctly as "zur Geltung bringen des Gesetzes (und der das Gesetz auslegenden Propheten) durch Lehre" (col. 259). So also Strecker, Bergpredigt, 57 (Sermon, 54-55); see also the excursus in Guelich, Sermon, 138-42; and Luz, Matthiius, 1.232, 235-36, with further material (Matthew, 1.260-61, 264-65). Luz surveys the options and decides in favor of fulfillment of the law through Jesus' actions; this view, however, follows from Luz's tendency of interpreting Matthew's theology into SM. So in 'Abot 4.11, ed. and trans. by Herford, Pirke Aboth, 106: "R.Jonathan said:-He who fulfils Torah when he is poor will fulfil it in the end when he is rich. And he who makes void the Torah when he is rich will in the end make it void when he is poor." The whole section deals with proper and improper ways ofteaching the Torah. Differently Delling, TDNT 6.293-94, who takes it to be the equivalent of IC':IC because of the use by the LXX (6.287 -88). Different again is Jechiel Lichtenstein, A us Jechiel

Lichtensteins Hebriiischem Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (Leipzig: Akademische Buchhandlung [W. Faber], 1895) 15: "l'haschlim (nicht l'hakim)" in the

sense of "the execution of a design" or "the realization of something which is conceived as an idea" ("die Ausfiihrung dessen, was bisher nur im Entwurf fertig ist"; "die Erganzung des erst in der Idee Vollendeten"). Semantically, they are not as incompatible as is often suggested. Cf. Delling, TDNT 6.292. See further Henrik Ljungman, Das Gesetz erfullen: Matth. 5,17ff. und 3,15 untersucht (Lund: Gleerup, 1954), with the review by Ernst Kasemann, ThLZ 81 (1956) 547-48; Charles F. D. Moule, "Fulfillment Words in the New Testament: Use and Abuse," NTS 14 (1967-68) 293-320; E. P. Sanders, "On the Question of Fulfilling the Law in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism," in Donum Gentilicium: New Testament Studies in Honour of David Daube (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978) I 03-26; Trilling, Das wahre Israel, 188; Luz, "Die Erfiillung des Gesetzes," 416; Heikki Raisanen, Paul and the Law (WUNT 29; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1983)

86-88; Ferdinand Hahn, "Mt 5,17: Anmerkungen zum Erfiillungsgedanken bei Matthaus," in Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments: FS fur Eduard Schweizer zum 70. Geburtstag (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1983) 42-54.

Matthew 5:17-20

particular and do not automatically fit given situations and cases; they are not in and of themselves identical with justice. The term "fulfill" is well chosen because it describes a process of legal interpretation in which individual laws are interpreted in such a way that they are made to fit given situations or cases and to facilitate justice. Justice is served when the laws fulfill the purposes for which they were designed. Given the laws and the situations or cases, justice demands to be served; 81 and when that goal is reached its demands are "fulfilled." Particular laws are intended not simply to be complied with but to be "fulfilled" by serving as instruments for meeting the demands of justice. 8 2 The question then arises, Where does justice come from? What are its standards, and how does it work? Justice is above the laws and even above Scripture; according to ancient theology it is a metaphysical entity, a divine quality, and Scripture is its revelatory source. Therefore, justice must first be recognized through a general interpretation of Scripture, so that the individual laws that are also derived from Scripture can be applied in such a way that justice is served. Basically, this was the contemporary concept ofjustice and law not only in Judaism but also in Greek and Roman law, which has equivalent legal concepts and terms. In mentioning justice (a"ca,ocn'wq) I have anticipated vs 20, where it is given full treatment. 81

Excursus: Socrates' Defiance of the Law Jesus' saying, "Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets, • should be related to a wider context of the history of civil disobedience, not only to the history oflaw, and in that regard especially to a specialty of Athenian law, the trials because of "impiety. • The technical term lurl~na ("impiety") designating the charge covers not only offenses against belief in and worship of the gods but also offenses against the law. 88 The difference between religion and law was not clearly defined because the belief in and official worship of the traditional gods was regarded as the cornerstone of the law of city and state, so that disbelief in the gods constituted a severe threat to the law and the polis. The following definition is representative of the ancient understanding of the charge: "Impiety is the offense against the gods, the demons, the dead, the parents, and the nation. "84 These offenses were considered so severe that they required harsh punishment because they violated the "unwritten laws" (lf:ypatf>o• v6p.o1) that undergirded the written laws of city and state as well as of public morality. 85 In view of the saying ofJesus, the term vop.l(w ("think" or "believe") was connected with the charge of impiety from the beginning and indicates its legal nature. 86 The specific accusation of defiance of the law occurs first in connection with the most notorious of such trials, that against Socrates in 399 BCE. Scholars have not yet clarified the precise charges against

As has been noticed before (see John Calvin, In

Franz Dirlmeier in his notes to Aristoteles: Nikomachische Ethik (8th ed.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,

Nuvum Testamentum Commentarii [ed. August

82

Tholuck; 2d ed.; Berlin: Thome, 1835] 5.45), these ideas are somehow related to Paul's theology in Romans, where he defends himself against the supposition that his theology undercuts the authority of the law. The important things about the law are "the demands ofthe law" (TI13uca&C::.p.aTa Toil v6p.ov, Rom 2:26; 8:4). Only if these demands are understood (Rom 1:32) and met can the law be fulfilled (Rom 8:4; 13:8; Gal 5: 14). It is through faith that the demand is recognized (Rom 3:31): "Do we, then, destroy, the law through faith? By no means, but we establish the Jaw" (v6p.ov O~V KaTapyOVp.EV 3&11 Tijf wliTT€Wf; p.~ ylvo&To· ZIAAII v6p.ov !ITTavop.Ev). Paul could just as well have used the phrase "fulfill the law." Cf. Raisanen, Paul and the Law, 69-72, 86. One should note that these ideas are also remarkably similar to Aristotle's notion of lwav6p8wp.a vop.lp.ov 3&Kalov ("rectification/establishment of legal ju~tice") in Eth. Nic. 5.10.3-7, 1137b 12-33. Aristotle is in discussion with Plato, as has been pointed out by

83

84 85 86

1983) 432-34. On this concept, see Werner Foerster, "/&.,.€~~f KTA.," TDNT 7.185-91; Helmut Merkel, "Gotteslasterung, • RAG 11 (1981) 1185-1201;Jean Rudhardt, "La definition du delit d'impiete d'apres Ia legislation attique," MH 17 (1960) 87-105; Dover, Greek Popular Morality, 247-68. Ps.-Aristotle Virt. etvit. 7,1251a 31. See Dover, Greek Popular Morality, 255-57. See Wolfgang Fahr, ElEOYl: NOMIZEIN: Zum Problem der Anfiinge des Atheismus bei den Griechen

(Spudasmata 26; Hildesheim: Olms, 1969).

179

Socrates, so that statements about the matter require caution. 8 7 One of the oldest sources is Xenophon, who at the beginning of his defense of Socrates sums up, or even quotes verbatim, the indictment (ypa<j>~): Socrates is guilty of rejecting the gods acknowledged by the state and of bringing in strange deities; he is also guilty of corrupting the youth. 88 The first point conforms to the infamous law of Diopeithes; 89 the second is directed against the introduction of new deities and religious practices into Athens, which was against Athenian law. 90 The third point, corruption of the youth, is at first sight difficult to account for, but discussions show that the accusation involved Socrates' teaching the youth to disregard the laws and their family obligations. In this connection, the charge can also be stated in broader terms: "Socrates ... is a teacher of contempt for the laws, "91 or "Socrates ... is a teacher of the abolition of the state. • 9 2 By the time of Plutarch, the phrase "to abolish the laws" had become a catchall accusation against prominent intellectuals who had for some reason become inconvenient in the eyes of the mighty and powerful. 98 87

88

89

90

180

Polykrates' "Accusation against Socrates" (KaT7j')'Opla l:wKpchov~) was written after Socrates' death. The extent to which it can be reconstructed and the question of its relationship to the actual speech delivered against Socrates present an intriguing analog to the accusations against Jesus, and thus to Matt 5:17. See Rudolf Hirzel, "Polykrates' Anklage und Lysias' Vertheidigung des Sokrates," RhM 42 (1887) 239-50;JosefMesk, "Die Anklagerede des Polykrates gegen Sokrates," WS 32 (191 0) 56-84; A. S. Ferguson, "The Impiety of Socrates," ClQ 7 (1913) 157-75;Jean Humbert, "Le pamphlet de Polycrates et Je Gorgias de Platon," RPh 5 (1931) 20-77; Gunnar Rudberg, Sokrates bei Xenophon (Uppsala: Lundeqvistska Bokhandeln; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1939); P. Treves, "Polykrates (Rhetor)," PW 21.2 (1952) 1736-52; Ernst Gebhardt, Polykrates' Anklage gegen Sokrates und Xenophons Erwiderung (Philos. diss., Frankfurt a.M., 1957); cf. the review by J.-H. Kuhn, Gnomon 32 [1960] 97-107. Xenophon Mem. 1.1.1: 'A3&KEi l:wKpaT'T/~ oll~ ,.~v ~ 11'0A&S vo,.l'n BEoV~ ov vo,.l,wv, lTEpa 3~ Ka&va 3a&,.clv&a Elu<j>£pwv· a3&1CEL Cl~ Kal TOVr v£ov~ Cl&a<j>8Elpwv. See Plutarch Pericles 32.1: "And Diopeithes brought in a bill providing for the public impeachment of such as did not believe in gods, or who taught doctrines regarding the heavens" (Kal1/nl<j>•ul'a fl.&o11'Et87j~ lypa..;Ev EluayylAAEuBa& TOV~ Ta BEia ,.~ vo,.l(ovTa~ lj AOyov~ 11'Epl Tiiw /'ETapulwv CI&M
The question of how the accusation of contempt of law could have arisen is as intriguing in the case of Socrates as it is in the case of jesus. While his defenders made every effort to present Socrates as a Jaw-abiding citizen, his statements in Plato's writings are ambiguous. 94 In Plato's Apol. 29B, Socrates distinguishes radically between obedience to the laws of the city, represented by the court, and the command of the god of Delphi, who ordered him "to spend my life in philosophy and in examining myself and others" (28E; trans. Harold N. Fowler, LCL). Ignoring that command would be tantamount to "not believing that there are gods" (29A). On the question of obedience toward the city laws, Socrates' words are, however, highly ambiguous: Perhaps, gentlemen, in this matter I also differ from other men in this way, and if I were to say that I am wiser in anything, it would be in this, that not knowing very much about this other world, I do not think I know. But I do know that it is evil and disgraceful to do wrong and to disobey him who is better than I, whether he be god or man. So I shall never fear or avoid those things concerning which I 91

92

93

94

Libanius A pol. 13: l:wKp6.T7jV ... CI&MuKaAov ')'EVO,.Evov ... V11'Epo..;la~ Trov v&,.wv. Cf. also Apol. 80; AristophanesNub. 1400; XenophonMem. 1.2.9;JosephusAp. 2.37.2. Libanius Apol. 13: l:wKp6.T7jV ... 3&MuKaAov ')'EVO/'Evov ... 31/I'OV KaTaAV
Matthew 5:17-20

do not know whether they are good or bad rather than those which I know are bad. (29A) He goes on to say that even if the court sets him free and orders him to stop doing philosophy, he would disobey their order. He then draws the ironic conclusion: "if I were acquitted your sons would all be utterly ruined by practicing what I teach" (29C). The conflict between Socrates' idea of obedience to the law, according to which obedience to Apollo, the god of law and order, is superior to the man-made laws of the city, and the popular notion followed by the court, according to which the laws of the city are the highest and must be obeyed without exception, appears unresolvable. In Plato's Crito, however, Socrates 95 seems to take the opposite position when, imprisoned, he is presented with the opportunity to flee the city. He refuses that opportunity. Letting the laws speak for themselves, he says: If, as I was on the point of running away (or whatever it should be called), the laws and the commonwealth should come to me and ask, "Tell me, Socrates, what have you in mind to do? Are you not intending by this thing you are trying to do, to destroy us, the laws, and the entire state? ... Or do you think that state can exist and not be overturned, in which the decisions reached by the courts have no force but are made invalid and annulled by private persons?" (50B-C; trans. Harold N. Fowler, LCL) After a lengthy speech made by the laws themselves in which they defend their usefulness, Socrates appears to be persuaded that they are, after all, right. The dialogue ends with Socrates' approval but not without the doubt that he would have more and different things to say. This dialogue suggests that Socrates' position on the 95

96

97

98

law was open to various interpretations. As a result, open defiance 96 or external accommodation alongside mental reservation 97 became possible attitudes for Greek philosophers after Socrates. The suspicion against philosophers that they subvert the laws of the state, public morality, and thereby the state itself thus continued to flare up in the Greco-Roman world, as indeed that suspicion has lurked in all societies ever since. It is in this wider context that one must interpret the accusation against jesus that it was his intention to abolish the law of judaism.

Bibliography David Daube, Civil Disobedience in Antiquity (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 1972). Eudore Derenne, Les proces d' impiete intentes aux philosophes il Athenes au Vme et au Vlme siecles (Paris: Champion, 1930). W. K. C. Guthrie, A History ofGreek Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1969) 3/2.89-96. Wilhelm Nestle, "Asebieprozesse," RAG 1 (1950) 735-40.

• 1 8 Whereas vs 1 7 is formulated negatively, vs 18 affirms

the authority of the Torah in the form of a tripartite definition introduced by the doctrinal formula, "truly I say to you" (ap.~v >..f.yw vp.l:v). 98 The introductory formula in vs 18a is emphatically positive, employing the liturgical "amen" 99 to counterbalance the negative refutation in vs 1 7. This introductory formula was apparently also typical of the historica!Jesus, a fact that

See Anthony D. Woozley, Law and Obedience: The Arguments ofPlato's "Crito" (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina, 1979). This attitude was represented by the Cynics. See, e.g., Antisthenes in Diog. L. 6.11; PhilodemusP. Here. 339: "They attach no validity to the cities we know, nor to any law" (my trans.). This appears to have been Epicurus's attitude, for whicli see Kyriai Doxai 31-38; Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 51; frg. B.2; 81; 83 (ed. Bailey); Cicero De .fin. 2.9.28. In the SM, the phrase occurs in 5:18, 26; 6:2, 5, 13, 16. See Victor Hasler, Amen: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Einfilhrungsformel der Herrenworte "Wahrlich, ich sage euch" (Stuttgart and Zurich: Gotthelf, 1969);Jeremias, Theology, 1.36 n. 2; idem,

99

de Gruyter, 1970); idem, "Zur Geschichte der Einleitungsformel 'Amen, ich sage euch,'" ZNW 63 (1972) 45-74;John Strugnell, "'Amen, I say unto you' in the Sayings of jesus and in Early Christian Literature," HTR 67 (1974) 177-82. On the "amen," see Heinrich Schlier, "ap.~v," TDNT 1.337-38; Johannes Hempel, • Amen," !DB 1.1 05; Theodor Klauser, "Akklamation," RAG 1 (1950) 227; Paul Glaue, "Amen," ibid., 3 78-80; Daube, NT and Rabbinic judaism, 388-93; Shemaryahu Talmon, "Amen as an Introductory Oath Formula," Textus 7 (1969) 124-29; Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s.v. ap.~v;Joachimjeremias and Gerhard Krause, TRE 2 (1977) 310-23; Alfred Stuiber, RACSup 1 (1985) 310-23.

"Zum nicht-responsorischen Amen," ZNW 64 (1973) 119-23; Klaus Berger, Die Amen-Worte Jesu (Berlin:

181

does not, however, mean that vs 18 is by necessity an ipsissimum verbum jesu, "a word of Jesus himself," to use Jeremias's description. 100 The second hermeneutical principle in vs 18 seeks to define in what sense the followers ofJesus' teaching are to regard the Torah as authoritative Scripture. The connection with yap ("for") signifies that vs 18 is the basis as well as the consequence of vs 1 7. 1 0 1 · The definition itself is a composition of three distinct parts. The principal statement is unquestionably located in the middle of the definition (vs 18c) and is bracketed by two temporal qualifications (vs 18b and d): vs 18b: till heaven and earth pass away, vs 18c: not even one iota or one dot will pass away from the law, vs 18d: until all is accomplished. vs 18b: ~oo~ Av 1rap£A8y oilpav'b~ Kat ~ yfj, vs 18c: Uora ;v ~ p.la Kfpala oil p.~ 1rap£A8y Ct7TO rov I vop.ov vs 18d: ~oo~ Av 1ravra y£v71TaL. The principal assertion in vs 18c defines the Torah as a written text in the following respect. That the Torah is referred to by means of lwra ("iota") and Kfpala ("dot," lit., "hook") implies that the text under consideration is written in Hebrew script: only for such a text would "iota" and "dot" serve as distinguishing characteristics. 1o2 Furthermore, the conclusion in question must be drawn a minori ad maius: 103 what is true of the smallest letter must, by implication, be true of the rest. Such references make clear that in keeping with Jewish theology the Hebrew text of the Torah was the scriptural authority

o

for the original audience of the SM, and that the text was considered binding down to its smallest letter. 104 Such a declaration is astonishing because the SM itself is written in Greek and was part of the Greek linguistic milieu. This reference corresponds to the other scriptural citations and particularly to those found in the antitheses in 5:21-48, since all of them are in Greek. There is no indication that the SM as a whole was translated from the Hebrew, and one's attention is otherwise seldom drawn to Semitic figures of speech. 105 Moreover, there is no evidence that the author of the SM even understood Hebrew. Scriptural exegesis in the SM is always based on the Greek wording of the biblical quotations. What is one to make of this paradox? The most likely answer seems to be that since we know almost nothing about the social and cultural matrix of the SM, we must not exclude the possibility that familiarity with the Hebrew language may have played a greater role than appears from this text, which was doubtless written for Jewish Christians whose daily language was Greek. Furthermore, I conclude that the restriction of scriptural authority to the Hebrew text of the Torah must have had special motives; perhaps one can explain it as an attempt at polemical delimitation. 1 06 This delimitation may also be related to the so-called false pericopes in later Jewish Christianity as reflected in the Kerygmata Petrou of the Pseudo-Clementine literature, 107 where Matt 5:18 plays an important part in this connection (Ps.-Clem. Hom. 51.3; cf. Ep. Petr. 2.56). 108 The doctrine of "false pericopes" assumes that the original law of Moses was given to him by God orally and

100 See Betz, Essays, 67;Jeremias, Theology, 1.35-36. ytEvva ("Gehenna") in 5:22, 29, 30; p.ap.wviis 101 See Bornkamm, Gesammelte Aufsii.tze, 4. 76. ("Mammon") in 6:24; and paKa ("fool") in 5:22, have 102 Iota here refers to the Hebrew letter yodh, while become part of Greek colloquial speech in Palestine. KEpala ("dot") is proverbial in Greek as well. Cf. Philo 106 Compare Paul's very different view in Gal 5:14 and Flacc. 131. For comparative material, see Str-B the summary in 5:3 of the view he had held before he became a Christian. See Betz, Galatians, 259-61, 1.244, 244-49; BAGD, s.v. lidra, KEpala; Gunter Schwarz, "lidra 2v ~ p.la KEpala (Matthii.us 5, 18)," ZNW 274-76. 66 (1975) 268-69. 107 See Strecker,judenchristentum, 162-87. 103 This hermeneutical rule seems to be prerabbinic in 108 For a translation of these texts, see NTApoc 2.112 Judaism. See Christian Maurer, "Der SchluB 'a minore and 118-20. ad maius' als Element paulinischer Theologie," ThLZ 85 (1960) 150-51; Towner, "Hermeneutical Systems," 113-16. 104 So also Strecker, Bergpredigt, 58 (Sermon, 55-56); differently apparently Luz, Matthii.us, 1.236 n. 71 (Matthew, 1.265 n. 71). 105 Words like li.p.~v ("truly") in 5:18, 26; 6:2, 5, 13, 16;

182

Matthew 5:17-20

that it was written down only after Moses' death. When it was written down, however, the false pericopes were smuggled in, and it was jesus who stripped them away again and thus recovered the original oral Torah of Moses, which is also the one the Kerygmata Petrou affirms. 109 Both the SM and the Kerygmata Petrou have the same goal of getting back to the original Torah of Moses, 110 but their methods differ: the SM recognizes as authoritative the original Hebrew text, while the Kerygmata Petrou, operating on the basis of the LXX, separate the original Torah of Moses from later, allegedly false accretions. Compared with the Kerygmata Petrou, the SM affirms the original Hebrew text of "the whole Torah" (see also 7:12), although one can interpret that concept in a number of ways. 111 As a legal principle,

SM/Matt 5:18 stands in a long tradition of prohibitions against changing the biblical text and indeed other authoritative texts. 112 The authority thus rests on the written letters. This definition of scriptural authority, however, gives rise to a problem that demands an explanation. As the term 7rap£px€u8at ("pass away") 113 indicates, the Torah, in its character as Scripture, participates in the createdness of the world, and thus is subject to transience. But how can this transience be compatible with the absolute authority of Scripture? The answer provided by the SM is that the authority of Scripture is temporally limited. 114 Thus the SM gives

109 Cf. Ps.-Clem. Hom. 3.51.2-3 and 52.1 (NTApoc 3, 14," WZ(L), GS 3 (1953/54) 293-95; Christoph 2.120): "And in saying: 'I am not come to destroy the law' Schaublin, "p.~u 1rporr8e'ivat Jl-'1/T' luf>
a

183

rise to an apparent paradox: the scriptural authority of the Torah will not pass away so long as the conditions of the transitory world persist. It is the task of the two bracketing sentences in vs 18b and d to specify the time at which the conditions of the transitory world will be annulled. This temporal limit is derived from apocalyptic expectation, as is evident from two formulae. The first formula concerns vs 18b: lws liv -rrapb..Bv o ovpaVOS Kat ~ yij ("until heaven and earth paSS away"). That lws with the aorist subjunctive has a temporal meaning cannot be doubted. 115 The time for which the Torah is valid begins with Moses and ends with the end of the world. 116 The second formula (vs 18d) is conceived as a parallel to vs 18b and is also of apocalyptic origin: lws liv -rr6.vra yivTJrat ("until all is accomplished"). In other words, at the end, the Torah will not simply pass out of existence but will be replaced by salvation itself, which, after all, is its content. 117 This view of a temporal limit differs from that of Paul, for whom the end of the Jewish Torah coincided with the coming of Jesus and the coming of faith. 118 But while non-Christian Judaism must have considered the Pauline

115 116

117

118 119

184

solution heretical, 119 the same cannot be said of the SM. It asserts merely that the written Torah was given under historical conditions and that these conditions will come to an end with history itself. 1 2 Until then, the community of the SM remains within the bounds of Judaism. • 19 While vs 18 affirms traditional principles regarding the Torah as a written text, vs 19 moves on to the teaching of that Torah. This teaching also concerns the teaching of Jesus and the status of his teaching. The connecting word otv ("therefore") signifies that vs 19 follows from vs 18, just as vs 18 requires the clarifications of vs 19: the Torah does need interpretation and teaching. It is noteworthy that in Did. 1.2-3, in the context of similar hermeneutical principles, the quotations from the Torah, coupled with the Golden Rule, 121 are followed by citations of Jesus' "teaching in regard to these principles" (rotSrwv a€ TWV ft.6ywv ~

°

a,aax~).122

Formally, vs 19 is a statement of"sacred law," 123 specifically of the casuistic type, 1 2 4 formulated as an antithetical isocolon or parallelismus membrorum. The antitheton is based on the two word pairs ft.tSw/-rrodw and

zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen judentums the Ps.-Clem. Ep. Petri 2.4-7 (NTApoc 2.112), where (AGJU 15; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 153-97. Peter defends himself: "And indeed some here have See BDF, § 383; BDR, § 383; Bauer, s.v. fw~. attempted, whilst I am still alive, to distort my words The formula comes from apocalyptic language. See by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the Mark 13:31 par.; 1 Cor 7:31; 2 Pet 3:10; Rev 21:1. dissolution of the law and, although I was of this For parallels see also Str-B 3.840-47. The SM opinion, did not express it openly." Cf. Acts 10:45; distinguishes between the singular "heaven and 11:2, and also Mani in CMC, pp. 72, 19-74, 5, who is earth" as part of this world (5:18, 34; 6:20, 26; said to have taken exactly this position. differently the Lord's Prayer, 6:1 0) and the plural 120 Philo (Vit. Mos. 2.14-15), probably together with at "heavens" as the realm of God the Father (5:3, 10, least part of Hellenistic judaism, advocated a similar 12, etc.). See Betz, "Eschatology," in Synoptische combination of ideas, when he wrote of the Mosaic laws: "and we may hope that they will remain for all Studien, 219-29, and above on SM/Matt 5:3. See also Mark 13:30par.; Rev 1:1, 19; 4:1; 22:2. See future ages as though immortal, so long as the sun Eduard Schweizer's different interpretation in and the moon and the whole heaven and universe exist [1rph!~ rhv l7r£tra w&.vra Or.ap.£V£iv €A1r~s aiJrlz. alWva "Gesetz und Enthusiasm us bei Matthaus," in his Beitriige, 51; idem, "Noch einmal," in hisMatthiius, lf>uwEp lt6£tuara, fro~ Au TfA.r.os Kaf. u£A~V1J Ka\ 0 u-tJp:rras 83. Apparently sensing the tension with Matthean ovpav6~ TE Kat K6ap.o~ n]. Thus, though the nation has theology, he tries to establish a final sense for the undergone so many changes, both to increased phrase and thus make it conform to the larger prosperity and the reverse, nothing-not even the context of Matthew ("so that the whole law is done"). smallest part of the ordinances-has been disturbed, Similarly Bornkamm, Gesammelte Aufsiitze, 4. 78. But, because all have clearly paid high honor to the as Luz (Matthiius, 1.237 [Matthew, 1.266]) recognizes, venerable and godlike character" (trans. F. H. this hypothesis does not commend itself for a number Colson, LCL). of reasons. 121 Did. 1.2 contains altogether three principles: a "first" See Gal3:19-25; Rom 10:4. Cf.Jas 2:10. consisting of Deut 6:5, and a "second" consisting of For Paul's self-defense see Rom 3:31; 6:1; furtherLev 19: 18; these two are then connected with the more Acts 15:5; 18:13, 15; 21:28; 23:29; 25:8. Cf. Golden Rule, which is, however, not called the

Matthew 5:17-20

£>.ax urTos I p.Eyas. In each of the parallels, the conditional relative clauses (vs 19a and c) state the legal case, while the apodoses (vs 19b and d) contain the verdict. The repetition of the final words in the apodoses are cases of epiphora. 125

The first part of the antithetical parallelism in vs 19a is formulated negatively: 8s lav o:Ov :Ailcry p.lav Twv lvTo:Awv TOtJTIJJV TWV l:AaxlcrTIJJV KaL otlitlfv oilTros TOVs av8pJl1rOVS ... ("Therefore, whoever does away with one of the least of these commandments and teaches the people in this manner ... "). 126 The sentence states that the offense is twofold: the setting aside of the commandments and the teaching of disregard for them to the people. The statement, however, presents a number of difficulties, whose solution is to some extent a question of method. Can one distinguish between :Ailw (vs 19) and Kara:Ailw (vs 17), both basically meaning "dissolve"? 127 Do both refer to the same thing? 128 Do the "commandments" (vs 19) add up to the "law" (vs 17), or do they refer to different commandments? If the latter, whose commandments are we to think of? Then there is the question concerning the phrase "the least of these commandments." Does the phrase

122

123

124

125 126

presuppose the rabbinic distinction between lesser and weightier Torah commandments? Does "the least" mean "least important" or "requiring the least effort to do"? Does the phrase "the least of these [TotJTrov ]" point to commandments inside the SM, perhaps to the antitheses in 5:21-48, or to Jesus' commandments elsewhere? The violator in vs 19a is clearly more than a transgressor of individual commandments. His violation consists of the setting aside of the commandments altogether, either in their entirety or by selection. He is presented as a teacher who not only sets aside the commandments but also teaches the people to do the same. In sum, he is an apostate teaching apostasy. 1 2 9 A close parallel to this sentence occurs in Did. 11.1-2, which contains a tripartite regulation concerning teachers: ~as &v o:Ov £A86Jv Otoafv vp.as TaVTa 7TtlVTa Ta 7Tp0Hp7Jp.Eva, 0Efacr8€ avTov· lav ot- avTOS 0 OIOtlCTKIJJV crTpacp€1s otoacrK!/ Cf.:A:A7Jv otoax~v ds TO KaTa:Avcrat, p.~ , ,.. , , aVTOV aKOVCT1JT€" €1s ot- TO 7Tpocr8lival O!KatocrtJV7JV KaL )'VWCTIV Kvplov, 0Efacr8€ avTOV WS KtJpwv.

"third" principle. Cf. Mark 12:30-31 par.; SM/Matt 7:12; SP/Luke 6:31. The term .\oyor in Did. 1.3a refers to the three statements in 1. 2 and classifies them as "principles." Beyond this, the entire Didache consists of .\oyo•; cf. 3.8; 4.2. For the SM, see Matt 7:24-26. For this genre of sayings, see the pioneering article by Ernst Kasemann, "Sentences of Holy Law in the New Testament," in New Testament Questions of Today (trans W.J. Montague; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) 66-81; pace Klaus Berger, "Zu den sogenannten Satzen heiligen Rechts," NTS 17 (1970/71) 10-40; idem, "Die sogenannten 'Satze heiligen Rechts' im Neuen Testament; ihre Funktion und ihr Sitz im Leben," TZ 28 (1972) 305-30; cf. idem, Formgeschichte, 176-80. Against Berger, I agree with Luz, "Erfullung," 409. See Hans Jochen Boecker, Law and the Administration ofjustice in the Old Testament and Ancient East (trans. Jeremy Moiser; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980) 15071; Willy Schottroff, "Zum altestamentlichen Recht," VF 22 (1979) 3-29; Harry W. Gilmer, The If-You Form in Israelite Law (SBLDS 15; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1975). On this form, see Lausberg, Handbuch, 1, §§ 71954; § 631 on epiphora; Jeremias, Theology, 14-20. Form critically, the rule is related to vs 18. The

difference is that vs 18 refers to the written text of the Torah, while vs 19 is said with regard to the oral teaching. Cf. Berger, Formgeschichte, 177-78. 127 .\6w is the opposite here of "doing and teaching," whereas in vs 17, Kara.\6w is the opposite of 7rA"'pow. Both are related, but as the object of vs 17 is the written Torah (vs 18) and the object ofvs 19 the Torah teaching of jesus, the two verbs do not refer to the same thing. So also Grundmann, Matthiius, 150; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 60 (Sermon, 57-58). Notably, Did. 11.2 uses Kara.\6w in the same context, referring to the false teacher as one who "dissolves ... righteousness and knowledge." 128 For this view, see Klostermann, Matthiius, 41; Str-B 1.249-50; Guelich, Sermon, 150; Luz, Matthiius, 1.238 (Matthew, 1.267); idem, "Erfullung," 409 n. 55. 129 Cf. Did. 4.13: ov p.~ tyKara.\i1ryr tvro.\as Kvpiov, tf!v.\a~E&r ~E il?rapt.\a{l
("Do not abandon the Lord's commandments, but keep what you have received; neither add [to it] nor take away [from it]"). Cf. Barn. 19:2: ov p.~ tyKara.\L7r"lJf tvro.\as Kvpiov ("Do not abandon the Lord's commandments"); cf. 19.11.

185

Whoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things said above, receive him; if, however, the teacher himself turns away and teaches another doctrine, for the purpose of destroying [sc. our doctrine], do not listen to him; but if his teaching is for the increase of righteousness and knowledge of the Lord, welcome him as [sc. you would welcome] the Lord. (My trans.) The apodosis in vs 19b determines the punishment or verdict: fAOXLO"TOS' ICA7]8~o-£TaL lv Tij {3ao-LA£lq. TOOV ovpavrov ("he will be called least in the kingdom of the heavens"). The legal principle by which this verdict is established is the ius talionis interpreted eschatologically: 130 offense in regard to the "least" of the commandments will result in being the "least" in the heavenly kingdom (paronomasia). The positive part of the antithetical parallelism follows in VS 19c-d: 8s a• av 'ITDL~o-y ICaL aLaiLty, o:0TOS' iJ.fyas ICA7]8~o-€TaL lv Tij [3ao-LA£lq. TOOV ovpavrov ("But whoever does and teaches [them], he will be called great in the kingdom of the heavens"). 131 The protasis in vs 19d describes the faithful teacher: he is the one who "does" ('1Todw) the commandments and who teaches accordingly. 132 This person fulfills the role of the teacher as the SM prefers it: he actually obeys and does the commandments of Jesus, and he continues teaching in the tradition of Jesus himself. Not surprisingly, the verdict in vs 19d provides for eschatological reward: ohos iJ.£yas ICA7]8~o-£TaL lv Tij {3ao-LA£lq. Trov ovpavrov ("he will be called great in the kingdom of the heavens"). The problems raised by vs 19 are difficult and require

careful consideration. First of all, for whom was vs 19 formulated? The answer can hardly be in doubt in the light of the activities described in vs 19a and c. The terms "dissolve" (A.vw) and "do" ('1Todw) designate the kind of conduct that was on the one hand prohibited and on the other hand required of the community of the SM in relation to the teaching of Jesus. The proper response was to "hear" (aiCovw) and "to act" ('1Todw) in accordance with his teaching, whereas merely hearing and doing nothing leads to ruin-both in this world and in the world to come. 133 While this rule applies to all persons, one must take the statement of vs 19 to refer specifically to teachers who are at work in the community. 134 It is said that when their teaching occurs in the proper manner, it takes place as "doing and teaching" ('1TOL£tv "al. aLaao-IC€LV). That is, the content of the teaching is first lived out as an example by the teacher. In this way, the student has always before the eyes not only the words of Jesus but also the teacher who actually lives them. This procedure corresponds, as far as we know, to contemporary Jewish methods ofteaching. 135 By way of contrast, teachers who disregard the teaching of Jesus set up false teaching in opposition to the truth and then teach their own false doctrine to the people. 136 A second question begs consideration. What is one to understand by "the least of these commandments" (lvToA.rov TDVTwv Trov lA.axlo-Twv)? What portion of teaching is meant by this expression? Is one to identify these "commandments" (lvToA.al) with the statements of the Torah (vOiJ.os) or with the commandments of Jesus? It is evident from 5:17 and 18, as well as from 7:12, that

130 See above on the Beatitudes (5:3-12) and below on Lehrer in der 'Lehre der zwolf Apostel,'" VC 34 5:38-42. (1980) 209_:17. 131 The whole verse is omitted in K* D W born• 135 Cf. Matt 23:3 of the Pharisees: 'lfOtilv Kat T7Jpiiv ("do (according to Nestle-Aland, critical apparatus), no and keep"); T. Levi 13.9: lltll6.crKELV Kat 1rp&rntv doubt for theological reasons. Sy' adds oilrror after ("teach and do"). Cf. Str-B 1.527-29; Betz, Nachfolge, lltMfy to make the parallel complete (cf. vs 19a), but 11-12. oilrwr followed directly by o~ror looks like diplog136 Cf. Mark 7:8-9; Matt 23:23, where this is used raphy. against the Pharisees. 13 2 The statement has a number of closer parallels in references concerning teachers and teaching in 'Abot; see esp. 'Abot 1.13, 15; 4.2, 6-8; 5.15, 17, 18; 6.3-7 (ed. Herford). 133 See SM/Matt 7:24-26, and Betz, Essays, 1-16. 134 See also SP /Luke 6:40. The SM has no other reference to the role of teachers. More explicit references occur in the Didache (4.1-4, 9; 6.1; 11.12; 13.2; 15.1-2). See Hermann-Adolf Stempel, "Der

186

Matthew 5:17-20

the SM uses the term VOftO'> to designate the written Torah, which, however, for the purpose of teaching must be interpreted. Thus, the term lvroA.a{ must refer to the commandments ofJesus that are authoritative interpretations of the Torah and that are also the teaching material of the SM. 13 7 But to what does "these" (rovrwv) refer? 138 The pronoun most probably refers to the teaching of Jesus as presented from 5:21 onward. If so, how much is to be included in the commandments of Jesus? It is hard to provide a conclusive answer to this question, since the term lvroA.~ ("commandment") does not occur elsewhere in the SM. Are the "commandments" to be identified with the so-called antitheses of 5:21-48, 139 in which the formula "but I say to you" (£yi.> Of A.tyw Vft'iv) repeatedly introduces Jesus' interpretation of the Torah? Or are all of the sayings of Jesus included in the SM his "commandments" (£vroA.at) and thereby identical with the "words" (A.oyot [7:24-27])? Or is the limit to be drawn more narrowly, so that only the main part of the SM (5:217: 12) is to be regarded as the "commandments" (£vroA.a{) of Jesus? The so-called Golden Rule and its application (7: 12) does indeed constitute the conclusion of the body of the SM and reflects back on it. The problem is made still more difficult by the fact that the commandments of Jesus are classified as "least" (£A.6-xuTTat), though there is no explanation of what this expression means. Surely, the author in some way makes reference to the division of the commandments into those of greater and lesser importance or easier and more difficult, a distinction that has its parallels, above

all, in pharisaic and rabbinic theology. 140 Does such a classification presuppose that the community of the SM would have applied such a distinction to more or less significant commandments ofJesus? 141 If this were the case, does it mean that the SM contains only the lesser commandments, while the more important commandments are to be sought elsewhere? Since this supposition has no basis elsewhere, the other possibility alone remains: that the commandments ofJesus as a whole were classified as "of little importance." But such an evaluation can only be meant ironically: it constitutes, indirectly, a polemic against the emphasis on the "heavy" or "difficult" commandments in Pharisaic theology. This anti-Pharisaic polemic has a parallel in Matt 23:23-24. What mattered according to Pharisaic theology was the fulfillment of the commandments of the Torah that, because of their degree of difficulty, were judged to be more "important." It is clear from the presynaptic tradition that Jesus and the primitive Christian church polemicized with special vehemence against this Pharisaic teaching. 14 2 Above all, this polemic maintained that one cannot simply equate the degree of external difficulty required for the fulfillment of a command (that is, the quantitative cost) with the fulfillment of God's will

137 The term evToA~ ("commandment") occurs only once in the SM (Matt 5: 19). That vop.or refers to the Torah collectively while evToA~ refers to Jesus' own interpretation of an individual commandment can be concluded from the somewhat ambiguous evidence in the synoptic tradition (see esp. Mark 7:6, 9; 10:5, 19; 12:28, 31) and the less ambiguous older layers of the tradition in Did. 1.5; 2.1; 4.13 (referring to all of 1.2-4·.11; differently perhaps 13.5); 1 Clem. 13.1-3; 2 Clem. 3.4; 4.5; 6. 7; 8.4; 17.1, 3, 6; Ignatius Polyc. 2.2-3; 3.3; 4.1; Barn. 16.9. A clear witness is 1 Cor 14:37 (cf. 7:10); Rom 13:9 (cf., however, 1 Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2). The evangelist Matthew speaks in Matt 28:20; and the Fourth Gospel uses the term for the love-command (cf.John 10:18; 12:49, 50; 13:34; 14:15, 21, 31; 15:10, 12, 14). 138 Cf. the discussion of the range of possibilities in

139

140

141 142

Grundmann, Matthiius, 149 n. 41; Guelich, Sermon, 150-51; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 60-61 (Sermon, 5758); Luz, Matthiius, 1.238-40 (Matthew, 1 .267-69). So Franz Dibelius, "Zwei Wortejesu," ZNW 11 (1910) 188-92, esp. 190; Charles E. Carlston, "The Things That Defile (Mark VII.14) and the Law in Matthew and Mark," NTS 15 (1968) 75-96, esp. 7677; Schweizer, Beitriige, 52. On the rabbinic teaching concerning greater and lesser commandments, see Urbach, Sages, 1.342-65; Str-B 1.249, 900-905; Abrahams, Studies, 1.18-29. Cf. Dibelius, "Zwei Wortejesu," 188-90; Grundmann, Matthiius, 149-50. Cf. esp. debates about pure and impure in Mark 7:123 par., about the greatest commandment in Mark 12:26-34 par., and the anti-Pharisaic polemics in Matt 23:1-39.

187

demanded by the Torah. 143 Thus it appears that in contrast to Pharisaic theology, the commands ofJesus were ironically and polemically judged to be "of little importance" and "easy to fulfill." 144 Indeed, from the Pharisaic standpoint, one can only conclude that the commands of Jesus in the SM are "light" or "easy." Yet, it is precisely the question ofthe criteria that determines what is easier and what is more difficult. This question is also the theme of the antitheses ofthe SM (5:21-48). I cannot pursue this problem further here, but one may at least say that only at first glance do the commandments of Jesus seem to be easy to fulfill; on closer analysis, the fulfillment turns out to be very difficult indeed. The degree of difficulty in this instance is not measured by the external, quantitative cost, but by the inner, qualitative resistance in people, which must be overcome in the course of fulfillment. It is my conclusion, therefore, that vs 19 establishes the binding force ofJesus' interpretation of the Torah

for teachers in the community of the SM. Corresponding to this point is the eschatological classification of teachers. 1 45 Here again the rule of the eschatological ius talionis 14 6 is in operation. The place that the teachers will occupy in the coming kingdom of God is determined by the degree ofloyalty to the teaching ofJesus. 147 One should note that a remarkable paradox results from this evaluation, for, contrary to what one would expect, a place in the kingdom of God is not denied even to the disloyal teacher who seeks to set aside Jesus' teaching. If such a teacher receives no more than the disparaging title "least" (tA.axtuToS') in the coming kingdom, it nevertheless corresponds exactly to the disdain which that teacher has shown for Jesus' teaching. 148 Ever since Johannes WeiB, 149 scholars have repeatedly called attention to the fact that the use of the title "least" (tA.axtuToS') here may represent a wordplay on the name of the apostle Paul. 150 Paul was not reluctant to apply the name "the least of the apostles" (o fA.axtuTOS' Twv

143 As the admonitions of the rabbis show, the problem 149 Johannes WeiB, The History of Primitive Christianity was chiefly an inner-Jewish one. Cf. esp. 'Abot 2.1, (trans. Frederick C. Grant; New York: Wilson & according to the translation of Herford, Pirke A both, Erickson, 1957; republished as Earliest Christianity [2 38-39: "Rabbi said: ... And be careful in the case of vols.; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959]) 2.753; a light precept as in that of a weighty one, for thou Streeter, Four Gospels, 257; Montefiore, Synoptic knowest not how the rewards of the precepts are Gospels, 2.494; Manson, Sayings, 24-25; Bultmann, given." 'Abot 4.2 (Herford, Pirke Aboth, 96): "Ben Theology, 1.54; Charles H. Dodd, "Matthew and Azai said: Be swift towards a light precept, and flee Paul," in his NT Studies, 54-57; Schweizer, from transgression.... For the reward of a precept is Neotestamentica, 404; Betz, Essays, 51. Differently a precept and the reward of a transgression is a Davies, Setting, 335;John P. Meier, Law and History in transgression." Str-B 1. 902 rightly remarks: "A great Matthew's Gospel: A Redactional Study ofMt. 5:17-48 deal of room was given here to one's subjective (AnBib 71; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1976) 95; Sand, judgment." Gesetz, 99-100; idem, "Die Polemik gegen 144 That the yoke ofJesus was "light" is stated as a matter 'Gesetzlosigkeit' im Evangelium nach Matthaus und of principle in Matt 11:30: "For my yoke is easy, and bei Paulus: Ein Beitrag zur neutestamentlichen my burden is light." On the passage see Hans Dieter Uberlieferungsgeschichte," BZ 14 (1970) 124-25; Betz, "The Logion of the Easy Yoke and of Rest Luz, "Erfiillung," 410; idem, Matthiius, 1.238 n. 85 (Matt 11:28-30)," JBL 86 (1967) 10-24; reprinted in (Matthew, 1.267 n. 85). Betz, Synoptische Studien, 1-17. See also Acts 15:10, 150 The pun is found already in 1 Sam 9:21 (LXX), 19-20, 28-29; 1 John 5:3; Did. 6.3. See also Luz, involving the name of Saul and the tribe of Matthiius, 1.238-39 (Matthew, 1.267 -69). Benjamin. I owe this reference to Professor Jon 145 For different ranks in heaven according to Jewish Levenson. Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin too thought, see Dalman, Worte Jeru, 92-94; StreB (Phil3:5; Rom 11:1; cf. also Acts 13:21). See Richard 1.249-50, 774; 4/2.1138-39 (m). M. Meyer, "Der Namenwitz: Ein Beitrag zur Theorie 146 See below on SM/Matt 5:38. des Witzes," Neue Jahrbiicher jar das klassische 147 For different ranks in heaven according to early Altertum, Geschichte und deutsche Literatur 11 (1903) Christian thought, cf. the disciples' discussions about 122-45. rank in Mark 9:35-37 par.; 10:35-45 par.; also Matt 11:11. 148 Similarly also Kasemann, New Testament Questions of Today, 85-87; Luz, "Erfiillung," 410; idem,Matthiius, 1.238 (Matthew, 1.267).

188

Matthew 5:17-20

fL'lTOITTOAoov) to himself in 1 Cor 15:9. 151 If, as I believe, this passage also alludes to the name of Paul, it is all the more remarkable that he is not absolutely denied entrance into the kingdom of God, but merely relegated to the position of a back-bencher. Moreover,J. Cor 15:9 is evidence that such a verdict would have thoroughly pleased Paul. 15 2 The implication is clear that the SM recognizes forms of Christian teaching guided by theological principles other than those of the SM, 153 although these other forms of teaching are judged negatively. I observe again at this point that the position of the SM, surprising as it may be, does agree to some extent with that of Paul. Paul also insists that the Torah of God is binding in the sense that "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good" (Rom 7: 12 [Rsv]), while the interpretation of how one is to fulfill the law of God can vary as long as the fulfillment of the a!KaLC:,p.aTa TOV vop.ov ("the demands to do justice contained in the law" [my trans.]) is theologically safeguarded. 154 At any rate, the community of the SM regards teachers as "orthodox" if they are committed to Jesus' interpretation of the Torah and if for them the SM itself constitutes the teaching material. Thus one may assume that in the honorific title "great" (p.'ya~). which is promised to a loyal teacher in the heavenly kingdom, the author of the SM expresses his own COIJCeption of his

vocation. • 20 The fourth and last of the hermeneutical principles is

stated as a rather complicated saying. The sentence contains several parts. It is introduced by a formula of doctrinal affirmation (vs 20a): "for I say to you" (A.,yoo yap vp.'iv). 15 5 This formula differs from its parallel in vs 18 in that it lacks the "amen." The subject of the first person singular is implied in the verb while in similar statements it is spelled out as "I" (~yw). Like vs 19, the statement of vs 20 as a whole may be classified as a "sentence of sacred law" (see above on vs 19). Its protasis states a condition (vs 20b): "if your righteousness does not surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees" (Hn ~av ,...~ 'lT€p!ITIT€lJTI vp.oov ~ a!Ka!OITVV71 'lTA£LOV TOOV ypap.p.aT,CIIV Ka~ lllap!O"atoov). 156 The apodosis (vs 20c) pronounces an emphatic verdict, a negative prediction concerning the afterlife: "you will not enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (oil p.~ £la-'A871T£ d~ T~v {Jaa-IA£lav Toov oilpavoov). As I have identified it, the sentence is form-critically a "sentence of sacred law," specifically of the casuistic

I5I The Deutero-Pauline author of Ephesians considered existing laws does not necessarily serve justice. Cf. this self-assessment worthy of imitation (3:8); the esp. Aristotle Eth. Nic. 5. 7. 7, II35a I O-I3: "Nature or ordinance pronounces a thing unjust: when that author of the Pastorals reinterpreted it (I Tim I: I5thing is done, it is 'unjust conduct' [aalK71JJ-«]; till it is I6). done, it is only 'unjust.' And similarly with 'just I 52 The teacher not committed to the teachings ofJesus must not, however, simply be ranked among the false conduct,' dikawma (or more correctly, the general prophets (7:I5-20) or the lawless (7:2I-23). term is dikaiopragema, dikaioma denoting the I 53 Similarly Kllsemann, New Testament Questions of Today, rectification of an act of injustice)." Trans. H. 87; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 60-6I (Sermon, 57-58); Rackham, Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London: Luz, Matthaus, I.239 (Matthew, I.268), who speaks of a half-liberal position in contrast to the rabbis. Heinemann, I934) 297. I 55 For this formula see also SM/Matt 6:29; other forms Notably, the position taken by the SM is compatible with that of the two versions of the gospel on which occur in 5: IS, 22, 26, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44; 6:2, 5, I6, the eatly church agreed at the Jerusalem Conference 25. See also SP /Luke 6:27. (Gal2:7-8). See Betz, Galatians, 95-99. I 56 D omits the whole sentence; on this see Zahn, I 54 Differently from Galatians, in Romans Paul Matthaus, 22I n. 86. The variant reading w•p~.•ou&.uy for wEp&uu•vuy, perhaps the latter are done can the law be considered fulfilled confusing synonyms (cf. I Thess 3: I2). The verse is (Rom 2:26; 8:4; cf. I:32; 5:I6, IS). This distinction quoted by Justin Dial. I05.6, as coming from the apomnemoneumata (an unknown collection of sayings seems to take into account discussions in Greek philosophy, according to which compliance with ofJesus); for a citation, see Aland, Synopsis, 78.

189

type. 157 This category, however, applies only to the first part of the sentence, while the second part conforms to another category of sayings that state the conditions for entering into the kingdom of God. 158 This combination of two categories of sayings in vs 20 is peculiar and points to conscious formulation, if not to literary artistry, on the part of the author of the SM. In terms of content, the principle states the ethical and eschatological goals of the teaching ofJesus as understood by the SM. According to this understanding, the teaching ofJesus consisted of ethical demands with a clearly defined eschatological purpose. Also, in conformity with Jewish ethics, his teaching focused on the whole way of life of the disciple. Ethical demands should shape this way of life; but the purpose of such demands is primarily eschatological in that their goal is to qualify the disciple for entering into the kingdom of the heavens. The SM assumes by implication that this focus was central to the teaching ofJesus: proclaiming the kingdom of God means calling the disciples onto the way to that kingdom and preparing them for entering into it. Surprisingly, vs 20 gives only a negative definition of the condition for entering into the heavenly kingdom.

Central is the notion of "righteousness" (atKatou~v71), a notion that played an important role in the Beatitudes.159 How is one to interpret this notion in vs 20? Within the religious and ethical context of Judaism, one can have no doubt that the divine demand of righteousness must be fulfilled by anyone who wishes to enter into the kingdom of God. Thus righteousness is the result of human obedience to the will of God as revealed in the Torah. The same condition holds true in the Christian context, with the exception that the initiative for achieving righteousness shifts to God's action; in some way God provides the required righteousness through Jesus Christ for those who believe in him. This view was held by the author of the Gospel of Matthew and in a different way by the apostle Paul. The expression "your righteousness" (vp.ii>v ~ atKatOU~V71) leaves little doubt that the SM, in conformity with Jewish theology, speaks of a righteousness achieved by human action, 160 rather than a righteousness imputed by God as a gift to the faithful. 161 Jesus' Torah interpretation, so the SM stipulates, provides the disciple with the means necessary for acquiring the righteousness demanded by God at the last judgment. The issue

157 See on SM/Matt 5:19. 158 This category of saying is also used in SM/Matt 7:21 (cf. also 7:13). See Hans Windisch, "Die Spriiche vom Eingehen in das Reich Gottes," ZNW 27 (1928) 16392; Str-B 1.252-53; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 147; Berger, Formgeschichte, 182-84. 159 This concept of righteousness conforms to the one underlying the whole of the SM (Matt 5:6, 10, 20, 45; 6:1, 33; cf. 7:13-14, 21-23); it is closely bound up with the concept of reward (5:12, 46; 6:1, 2, 5, 16). In his Weg, 150-58, Strecker has attempted to show that the redactor Matthew was responsible for inserting the terminology of righteousness into the SM and that the terms refer to the conduct of the disciples. Peter Stuhlmacher (Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus [FRLANT 87; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965] 188-21 ), objected, pointing to the concept of the righteousness of God, esp. in SM/Matt 6:33. The contradiction disappears, however, if one understands vs 20 as pre-Matthean rather than Matthean, so that for the pre-Matthean SM, the righteousness of God as revealed in the Torah becomes the standard for the disciples to imitate (see below on 5:43-48). Cf. also Hubner, Gesetz, 35-36, questioning the origin of vs 20 as a result of Matthean redaction. 160 One should therefore understand the concept of

190

righteousness in the SM in a Jewish sense, not in the sense of Matthean Christian theology; for the latter it would have to be based on the imitation of the righteousness of Christ (Matt 3:15; 10:41; 27:4, 19, 24). So also Benno Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought (SNTSMS 41; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1981) 80-87, 121-23, but he strangely takes Matthew's theology to be jewish. For critical reviews, see Fred W. Brunett,JBL 102 (1983) 149-51; Ulrich Luz, ThLZ 109 (1984) 264-65. By contrast, Meier (Law and History, 76-80, 108-19) interprets what he considers to be Matthean theology into the pre-Matthean sources. Unclear is Strecker (Bergpredigt, 61-64 [Sermon, 58-61 ]), who argues for a "Matthean" interpretation in the sense that jesus' Torah demands were grounded in the OT Torah, but that he discovered its true meaning. But Strecker's analysis points to theology in the pre-Matthean sources rather than to Matthew's own redaction. 161 Luz, Matthiius, 1.210-11, 240 (Matthew, 1.237-38, 269).

Matthew 5:17-20

discussed between Jews and Christians in the first century was not whether a human being had to be in a state of righteousness at the last judgment. That assumption was accepted by all. The question was rather how one might acquire that state of righteousness. How then does the SM see the issue? The SM defines its concept only negatively by contrasting it with the doctrine held by the scribes and Pharisees and by declaring their views on the matter to be inferior and inadequate. Further details are not spelled out at this point; the SM assumes that they are common knowledge. It is considered sufficient to state that the righteousness of the disciples must surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees, if the disciples hope to enter into the divine kingdom. 162 These observations speak against the thesis that the evangelist Matthew inserted the concept of righteousness at this point, so I disagree with those scholars who argue for a Matthean origin and interpretation.163 Rather, here as well as elsewhere, the concept is an integral part of the theology of the SM. What does the plerophoric term "surpass" (7T€ptuu£Vw 7TA£'iov) mean? 164 Should one take it quantitatively in the sense that the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees is of a lower degree but not altogether false, or should one take it qualitatively, so that the righteousness of Jesus' disciples must be of a radically different quality? Scholars have argued each option. 165 One should expect the answer from the application of this principle in the antitheses (SM/Matt 5:21-48), but first some of the presuppositions underlying vs 20 must be spelled out. The reference to "the scribes and the Pharisees" is

peculiar in that it occurs only once in the SM. It also occurs in Matt 23:2, probably derived from preMatthean source material similar to the SM in that both sources recognize the prominent position of the Pharisees. The expression is doubtless polemical; it takes for granted that the reader knows what these people did and believed. As such, the reference is also stereotypical and reductionistic. Its occurrence presupposes a previous history of argument and counterargument. For the SM, the polemic is situated in the controversies between Jesus and his adversaries. 16 6 That numerous references to "the scribes and the Pharisees" exist elsewhere in the synoptic tradition leads to two conclusions. First, along with these other texts the SM looks back at the debates between Jesus and his adversaries. That so many stereotypical references occur in so many New Testament passages indicates that these references are redactional, even if one cannot simply identify the redactor as one of the Gospel writers. Thus the reference in vs 20 is due not to Matthean redaction alone but to the tradition in general. Second, as far as the historical Jesus is concerned, it appears that he discussed his own views on the Torah with the scribes and Pharisees, but it is far from clear that lumping them together in this fashion conforms to historical reality. It is ~ven likely that Jesus had more in common with them than with other Jewish groups of the time. Comparing his own doctrines with theirs made it all the more clear where and why he differed from them. Why are the scribes and Pharisees mentioned at this point in vs 20? What were their particular doctrines on

I62 Complete failure to attain righteousness amounts to "lawlessness" (lzvop.la). See below on SM/Matt 7:2I23. I63 LOhrmann ("Gerechtigkeit, III. Neues Testament," TRE I2 [I984]4I5) also argues for a Matthean origin. I64 For the accumulation of comparatives in 7r
(I984) 58-59. I66 The association of scribes and Pharisees occurs in the SM only in 5:20. The evidence elsewhere in the synoptic tradition shows that the association comes from the tradition. Sometimes the scribes are named first (Matt I2:38; 23:2, I3, I4, I5; Mark 2:I6; Luke 5:2I; 6:7; II:53;John 8:3; Acts 23:9), sometimes second (Matt I5:I; Mark 7:I, 5; 9: II v.l.; Luke 5:30; I5:2). See Wrege, Bergpredigt, 42.

191

"righteousness"? Unfortunately, little is known about the precise teachings of the scribes and Pharisees at the beginning of the first century CE. The New Testament passages coming from the older layers of the synoptic tradition figure prominently among the few sources we do possess. But one cannot take these passages, or other sources of the time, at face value, so that we have little reliable evidence about the teachings of the Pharisees for the period in question. Rabbinic theology, about which we are much better informed, is on the whole of a later date, and there is great uncertainty about how much can be dated back to contemporaries of the historical jesus. One piece of evidence may, however, be important. There seems to be a consensus that the polemic in the Dead Sea Scrolls against the "seekers of the smooth things" (e.g., 4QpNah 1.2, 7; 2.2, 4; 3.3, 6-7; 1QH 2.15, 32; CD 1.18) is directed at opponents that include Pharisees. If the Pharisees are the target, the SM would agree that the righteousness of Pharisees is the right kind but inferior in degree. This rather positive stand toward the Pharisees would have a parallel in Matt 23:3-4, which states that the Pharisees have the right teaching but fail in the right practice. It is safe to say, however, that pairing the scribes and the Pharisees as in vs 20 betrays a reductionism typical of polemics, because the terms refer to different groups of people. The "scribe" (ypap.p.an..5s) 167 was a legal expert, an official in a society that relied on experts competent to interpret written texts, documents, laws, customs, and Holy Scripture. The Pharisees, 168 however, represented a religious movement within judaism, devoted to

religious and political renewal. This movement attracted ever more serious-minded jews, and among them most likely a number of scribes. Although scribes and Pharisees were far from forming one group, as the reference in vs 20 suggests, they may have shared some or even many theological views. At least to their partners in debate, they may have appeared to agree substantially on religious matters, so that pairing them became a matter of course. Thus, based on present knowledge, one may say that although associating the scribes and Pharisees looks like a polemical reductionism, there may have been other reasons for such an association. One can see then that the words "if your righteousness does not surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees" imply a substantial criticism of the thought and practice of these groups. Indeed, the statement reads like a summary of a more comprehensive criticism. To summarize, the shortcomings of the scribes and Pharisees come to one point, namely, that their teaching and practice of the Torah do not lead to the "surplus" necessary at the last judgment. How can one justify such criticism in the light of our knowledge? Caution is certainly in order at this point because of the limited information we possess concerning the teachings and practices of the scribes and Pharisees before 70 CE. 169 In the light of this dearth of evidence, a passage like SM/Matt 5:20 becomes especially important. One must first note the emphasis on the term "righteousness" (Greek: otKatocrtJv1}; Hebrew: ;,p,:.: ). One can scarcely have any doubt that for both the SM and the

167 On the office of the scribe, see Jeremias, jerusalem, 233-35; BAGD, s.v. ypap.p.anvr; Schiirer, History, 2.322-36 (bibliography); Giinter Baumbach, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s. v. ypap.p.anvr (bibliography); Anthony J. Saldarini, "Scribes," ABD 5.1012-16. 168 For the Pharisaic movement and bibliography, see Rudolf Meyer and Hans Friedrich WeiB, "<J>aptua'Lor," TDNT 9.11-51; Schiirer, History, 2.381-403; Ellis Rivkin, IDBSup, 657-63;John Bowker,jesus and the Pharisees (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1973); Hans Burgmann, "Der Grunder der Pharisaergenossenschaft: der Makkabaer Simon," ]Sf 9 (1978) 15391; Ellis Rivkin, "Scribes, Pharisees, Lawyers, Hypocrites: A Study in Synonymity," HUCA 49 (1978) 135-42; Shaye J. D. Cohen, "Patriarchs and Scholarchs," Proceedings of the American Academy for ]wish Studies 48 (1981) 57-85;Jacob Neusner, "Two

192

Pictures of the Pharisees: Philosophical Circle or Eating Club," ATR 64 (1982) 525-38; Albert I. Baumgarten, "The Name of the Pharisees," JBL 102 (1983) 411-28; idem, "Josephus and Hippolytus on the Pharisees," HUCA 55 (1984) 1-25; idem, "The Pharisaic Paradosis," HTR 80 (1987) 63-71; Shaye J.D. Cohen, "The Significance ofYavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End ofJewish Sectarianism," HUCA 55 (1984) 27-53; Harry Falk,jesus the Pharisee: A N w Look at the J wish ness ofJesus (New York and Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist, 1985); Klaus Berger, "Jesus als Pharisaer und friihe Christen als Pharisaer," NovT 30 (1988) 231-62; Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach (Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1988); Sanders, ]wish Law, passim; Anthony J. Saldarini, "Pharisees," ABD 5.289-303.

Matthew 5:17-20

Pharisees, obtaining righteousness before the throne of God was the primary religious goal. 170 They had, however, very different ideas on how one could succeed or fail in obtaining this status at the last judgment. Moreover, the Pharisaic viewpoint was criticized at the time by non-Pharisees, among them the Qumran community. A most important critic was Paul, himself originally a Pharisee, who had joined the early Christian movement. 171 Other Jewish sources also exhibit criticism of the Pharisaic way of piety. Major differences among these anti-Pharisaic polemics exist, however, especially concerning alleged shortcomings. 1 72 Since these sources were partly Jewish, partly Christian, one must not confuse such anti-Pharisaism with anti-Judaism in general. 1 73 The SM itself advances three points of criticism: first, the antitheses (5:21-48) repudiate the notion that mere compliance with the written stipulations of the Torah can be considered ethically adequate; second, the

antitheses also reject the notion that one is to interpret the Torah through the medium of the tradition; and third, reliance on external performance, especially on ostentatiousness, in the practice of cult and custom is repudiated in 6: 1-18 in favor of the internal opening of the heart to God and of an inconspicuous performance of ritual and custom. The contention in all these points is that the understanding and practice of the scribes and the Pharisees led to what the SM considers an inferior form of righteousness. This lower righteousness, however, must be judged insufficient for qualifying for admission into the eternal kingdom of God. 1 7 4 Those who followed the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees would, therefore, not be permitted to enter into the kingdom of God. This refusal would be based, not on "lawlessness" (avop.la), as in the case of Gentile Christians outside the Torah (see SM/Matt 7:21-23), but on an inferior quality of righteousness.

169 For a critical evaluation of the evidence, see Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1971); idem, From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic judaism

170

171 172

173

(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973); idem, "The Formation of Rabbinic Judaism: Yavneh Qamnia) from A.D. 70-100," ANRW II, 19/2 (1979) 3-42. See also the literature named inn. 168. See also Luke 7:29-30//Matt 21:31-32; Matt 3:15; 10:41; 13:17,43, 49; 23:28, 29, 35; 25:37,46. In assessing these passages, one must distinguish the levels of tradition at which the terminology occurs. Matthew interprets them all according to his theology, but this does not mean that early layers of source material do the same. See esp. Gal2:15-16, and on this passage, Betz, Galatians, 115-19. See the discussions of the Pharisees in Josephus Bell. 2.119-66; Hippolytus Rif. 9.18.2-29.4. For the interpretation of these sources, see Albert I. Baumgarten, "Josephus and Hippolytus on the Pharisees," HUCA 55 (1984) 1-25. Luz (Matthiius, 1.240-41 [Matthew, 1.269-72]) is right in pointing out that there are two concepts of righteousness under discussion, one Jewish and the other Matthean (i.e., Christian). I have concluded, however, that two Jewish concepts are presupposed, one Pharisaic and the other Jesuanic; the latter at least is applied in the antitheses of 5:21-48 in particular. In other words, the evidence points to an inner-Jewish sectarian dispute; such disputes were typical before 70 CE (see Cohen, "Significance of

Yavneh," mentioned above, n. 168). Matthew took the difference to be that between Judaism and Christianity generally, since for him the Christian church (Matt 16:18; 18:17) began withJesus, although he was not a Christian but a Jew. See Betz, "Wellhausen's Dictum 'Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew' in the Light of Present Scholarship," StTh 45 (1991) 83-110; also Betz, "The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew's Interpretation," Synoptische Studien, 270-89. Cf. Strecker, Bergpredigt, 61-64 (Sermon, 58-61 ). 174 A close parallel is the encounter between Jesus and the young man in Mark 10: 17-22 par., where it is understood that the young man has fulfilled only a lower degree of righteousness, which is judged insufficient for inheriting eternal life. See also the evaluation of the piety of the Pharisee as compared with that of the tax collector in Luke 18:9-14a: "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather [or: more] than the other" (RSV). The interpretation of -rrap' fKEivov is disputed: does it mean that the Pharisee was not justified at all, or that the tax collector's justification was greater and to be preferred in comparison with that of the Pharisee? See Jeremias, Parables, 141-42;Juan B. Cortes, "The Greek Text of Luke 18:14a: A Contribution to the Method of Reasoned Eclecticism," CBQ 46 ( 1984) 255-73; Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.1188. One cannot decide the question on the basis of grammar alone. It appears, especially in the light of old tradition such as Matt 23:1-2, that the historical Jesus was not completely in opposition to the Pharisees, so that the

193

At this point, one must consider this criticism from a Jewish perspective. Contacts also exist with other early synoptic passages in which the Pharisees are criticized, but a closer look reveals that the criticisms in these other sources are made from a Christian perspective. By contrast, the SM mentions none of the usual specifics, including the keeping of the Sabbath, tithing, purity and impurity, separation from the "people of the land" ('am hii- 'are~). contradiction between words and deeds, and so on. 175 Comments on hypocrisy and traditionalism treated elsewhere in the SM have no role here. It is remarkable that elsewhere the New Testament has no precise parallels in which the Pharisees are criticized for being righteous to an inferior degree, although one may cite some more loosely aligned passages. The great anti-Pharisaic polemic in Matthew 23, the sources of which are still a matter of debate, does not deny that the Pharisees occupy the seat of Moses (23:2), but the polemic castigates abuses of what would otherwise constitute acceptable theological positions. Thus, the criticism of SM/Matt characteristically differs from other Christian polemics. One should therefore not simply dismiss it as fanciful and unhistorical. Further, the criticism is undergirded by a rationale that can be adjudicated in terms of contemporary Jewish concerns. Beyond Judaism, one can connect the whole debate with discussions in Greek philosophy, in particular the ethics of Aristotle. 176 Lastly, later rabbinic literature contains wide-ranging discussions that appear to be related. How can one coordinate this evidence? No documents explicitly connect Jewish and Aristotelian ethics; but

despite, or rather because of, the lack of sources for the period in question, one is not justified in excluding possibilities that may have existed. It is indeed conceivable that Aristotle's discussion of justice has, directly or indirectly, influenced early rabbinic discussions about the subject and that the later rabbinic discussions in the Mishnah may have roots in earlier discussions contemporary with the SM. 177 Indeed, the position in the SM is best understood as one result of contemporary debates on the nature of justice, while the rabbinic views in the Mishnah, the Qumran texts, and the Hellenistic-Jewish literature are witnesses to still other positions prevalent at the time. Speculative as these possibilities may seem, they are nonetheless conceivable in the light of our knowledge, notwithstanding the obvious gaps in that knowledge. I begin with Aristotle. When he discusses the concept of justice (otKatocn1!V7J) in book 5 of the Nicomachean Ethics, he distinguishes among varying degrees of justice. "Thus it is clear that there are more kinds of justice than one, and that the term has another meaning besides virtue as a whole." 178 In other words, there is a higher and better justice that is identical with the virtue of justice. "We may then set aside that Justice which is coextensive with virtue in general, being the practice of virtue in general toward someone else, and that injustice which is the practice of vice in general toward someone else." 179 The lower, inferior justice is divided into two types, distributive justice (distribution of honor, wealth, and other assets of the community) and corrective justice (private transactions). Corrective justice is further

comparative meaning is the more likely, while the exclusivistic interpretation is due to the Gospel writers (see esp. Luke 18:14b: "For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled; and he who humbles himself will be exalted"). 175 For a survey of such criticism of the Pharisees, see Hans Friedrich WeiB, "apumlos," TDNT 9.36-43 (B.l.l-3). 176 For the developments of Greek thought concerning ethical justice, see Albrecht Dible, "Gerechtigkeit," RAC 12 (1976) 233-89, esp. 252-63. For connections with Egypt see Jan Assmann, Ma'at: Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit im Alten Agypten (Munich: Beck, 1990). 177 The distinction between the Torah as a system of social norms and as specifically religious and ethical demands was first made by the prophets of Israel.

194

See, e.g., Isa 1:27: "Zion will be redeemed by justice, and those in her who repent, by righteousness" (RSV). For the interpretation of the passage, see Hans Wildberger,jesaja, Kapitel1-12 (BKAT 10.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972) 6768 (ET: Isaiah 1-12 [trans. Thomas H. Trapp; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991]71-73); Schweizer, Beitriige, 53 n. 12. How much the emphasis of the prophets was on the ethical demands is shown by the "new covenant," Jer 31:31-35. 178 Trans. H. Rackham, LCL, Eth. Nic. 5.2. 7, 1130b 6o~v duL OtKatoutSvat 7Ti\Elov~, KaL f.Ttpa 1raph. T~v CJA7JV ltpET~V, OfjAov·.

7: a On. p."fv

179 Ibid., 5.2.10, 1130b 18-20.

Kat

Cfrr. fun.

TLS'

Matthew 5:17-20

divided into voluntary transactions (buying, selling, lending) and involuntary transactions, the latter subdivided into furtive actions (theft, adultery) and violent actions (assault, imprisonment). 180 Pursuit of the lower forms of justice thus does lead to some form of justice and is not in and of itself injustice, but it lacks the higher quality of ethical justice for which the virtuous should strive. This higher, better justice can be accomplished through the introduction of "equity" (£7rt£LKna), 181 an important concept already discussed (see the excursus on hermeneutical principles in Greek and Roman law, above, pp. 167-72): For equity, while superior to one sort of justice, is itself just: it is not superior to justice as being generically different from it. Justice and equity are therefore the same thing, and both are good, though equity is better. 182 How is it better? "Equity, though just, is not legal justice, but a rectification oflegaljustice." 183 The concept of "rectification" (£7ravop8wou) introduced here is important not only in Aristotle but seems as well to be implied in the SM. It means: When therefore the law lays down a general rule, and thereafter a case arises which is an exception to the rule, it is then right, where the lawgiver's pronouncement because of its absoluteness is defective and erroneous, to rectify the defect by deciding as the lawgiver would himself decide if he were present on the occasion, and would have enacted if he had been cognizant of the case in question. 1 84 This effort of "rectifying" (£1ravop8ovv) is required of all

jurists if they are to do their work properly, since only in this way is justice established. 185 I have reason to believe that the differentiation between the lower and higher justices and the concept of "rectifying" may also play a role in the SM in the arguments ofthe antitheses (5:21-48); this is particularly the case where the thrust of the arguments appears dependent on these concepts. I do not suggest that the SM is familiar with the Nicomachean Ethics; rather, I presume that the contemporary debates within which the SM takes a position discussed the distinctions, most likely because Aristotle's deliberations had become part of legal and ethical debates in wider circles. 186 Was Paul aware of these ideas when he presented his strangely analogous argumentation in Romans 2 and 3? Having begun to defend his gospel in 1: 16-1 7, he discusses the so-called prerogatives of the Jew (TO 7r£ptcrcrhv Tov 'Iovaalov), that is, the advantages that the Jew claims he has over the Gentile (2:1-29; cf. 3:1, 9). Paul denies that the three marks of Jewish distinction (possession of the Torah [2: 12-16], the honorific name "Jew" [2: 17-24], and the ritual of circumcision [2:2529]) can be construed as an advantage over the Gentiles, because before God no one has an advantage and all are without excuse (3:1-20). The righteousness that alone can save in the last judgment cannot be constituted by these claims (3: 19-20). Rather, God has revealed a superior righteousness for all believers (3:21-30). For the apostle this divinely revealed righteousness is the better one, especially as compared with that which he

180 Ibid., 5.2.12-5.5.16, 1130b 30-1133b 28. 181 Ibid., 5.10.1-8, 1137a 31-1138a 5. 182 Ibid., 5.10.2, 1137b 8-11: Ton yap l'II"LEII<Es liLKaiov

18, where Tb l'll"avopllooT&KbV lliKaLov ("justice as rectified") is defined as Tb ,.€uov ("the mean"); this definition is then picked up in 6.1.1, 1138b 18 as the T&vbs 8v ~f'A.r&6u T& furl. roV a1.1c.alov. raVrhu lJ.pa 7JlKa&OV main concept of ethical virtue. Ka\ fw&fi.Kfr, Kal" a.,.upoiv uwovaalor.v Gvro&v Kplirrov rO 186 The concepts of l'll"avopllw,.a KT A. and r'II"LEiKELa KT A. , ' E'D'I.EUCES. are widely attested, with various meanings, in the 183 Ibid., 5.10.3, 1137b 12-14: 'II"OLEah~v l.'ll"oplav lin writings of Philo of Alexandria (see the indices of rO fwtEI.KEs alKa&OV "''u Eur&v, oV rO KarO. v/Jp.ou af, clAA' Leisegang and Mayer, s.v.). Plutarch and Epictetus l'll"avopllw,.a vo,.l,.ov liLKaiov. show that l'll"avopllw,.a has become an ethical term, 184 Ibid., 5.10.5, 1137b 20-23: I!Tav oi\v Al')'11 ,.€v b v&,.os but the older meaning is still present in Epictetus Ka80Aov, uvp.J3fj 7J' fw& roVrov wapO. rh Ka86Aov, r&rt Diss. 2.21.16, where "rectifying" one's judgments is Opl/;;,s, f'XEL y 'll"apaAEi'II"EL 0 VO/LOIIlT7jS Kat Tf!Lapnv a'II"A;;,S given as a reason for attending school (cf. also Diss. ElwC:w, fwavop8oVv rh fAAeup8fv, 8 KAv 0 vop.o8f.r1JS 3.5.2; 3.19.5; 3.21.15; 3.24.66; 3.26.10; 4.10.13; aVrhs o{;ros Au Efwo& fKEi wapfiJv, Ka\ El f/7JE& 1 Ench. 33.10; 51.1). £vop.o8lr1Juav ll.v.

185 See also ibid., 5.7.7, 1135a 13; 5.10.3, 1137b 12 (cited above, n. 183) and 1137b 26. Cf. 5.4.6., 1132a

195

himself once had claimed as a Pharisee. 187 Remarkably, Paul insists that the "righteousness by faith" does not destroy but establishes the law: vop.ov ~uTCzvop.£v ("we are establishing the law" [3:31 ]).1 88 Paul is not arguing here specifically against the Pharisees but against Judaism generally, and yet one can see that the former Pharisee is using arguments similar to those of SM/Matt 5:20. There is no indication that Paul intended to appeal to the SM or to Aristotle, and yet the analogies appear to be more than coincidental. Later rabbinic tradition recognizes the concept of lipnfm misurat hiid'in ("beyond the line of the law"), a concept associated with its opposite, "the scoundrel with Torah license." 189 The latter refers to the person who manages to observe the Torah to the letter while in fact behaving like a scoundrel. The former concept is more difficult to understand. In sum: the proper way to observe the Torah is to pay careful attention to the obligations of the civil law and then "to do the right and the good." As Aharon Lichtenstein has put it: If, however, we recognize that Halakha is multiplanar and many-dimensional; that, properly conceived, it includes much more than is explicitly required or permitted by specific rules, we shall realize that the ethical moment we are seeking is itself an aspect of Halakha. The demand or, if you will, the impetus for transcending the din is itself part of the halakhic corpus. 190 The concept is well described, together with examples, in b. B. Me$ 30b. A gemara attributed to R. Johanan says: "Jerusalem was destroyed only because they gave judgments therein in accordance with Biblicallaw." 191 An erroneous interpretation of this sentence is dismissed by the question: "Were they then to have judged in accordance with untrained arbitrators?" Of course not.

The correct interpretation then follows: "But say thus: because they based their judgments [strictly] upon Biblical law, and did not go beyond the requirements of the law." The implication is that the strict judgments are inadequate in God's eyes, necessitating God's punishment in the destruction of Jerusalem. The other example occurs in a story about R. Ishmael, the son of R. Jose. R. Ishmael helped a man carry a heavy load of faggots. The question is why he did this. One explanation has it so: Yet was not R. Ishmael son of R. Jose an elder for whom it was undignified [to help one to take up a load]? He acted beyond the requirements of the law. For R. Joseph learnt: And thou shalt shew them-this refers to their house of life; the way-that means the practice of loving deeds; they must walk-to sickvisiting; therein-to burial; and the work-to strict law; that they shall do-to [acts] beyond the requirements of the law.l 92 The concept of "beyond the line of the law" is not entirely clear, however. Is it part of the observance of the law itself to do more than is required? Is it an expression of the fact that all types of law have an ethical side that one must recognize if justice is to be done? If "doing the right and the good" is the goal of the law as well as of ethics, then "going by the rules of the book" will not suffice. Or is the idea of "beyond the line of the law" a "supralegal conduct" and "the hallmark of a small coterie of l;tasidim"? "Postulated as an aristocratic rather than as a popular ideal, lifnim mishurat hadin thus represents a lofty plane whose attainment is a mark of eminence but whose neglect cannot be faulted as reprehensible." 193 The answer given to these questions by the rabbinic tradition was apparently not unanimous. The answer given depends, to some extent at least, on other,

Halakha?" in Menachem M. Kellner, ed., Contem187 Cf. Gal2:15-16; Phil3:3-10. 188 The wrong understanding of the law leads to the porary jewish Ethics (New York: Sanhedrin, 1978) 102-23. On the larger subject of righteousness in wrong kind of righteousness; cf. Paul, who juxtaposes rabbinic theology, see Urbach, Sages, l. 483-511; the righteousness of God with one's own claim to Asher Finkel, "Gerechtigkeit, II.Judentum," TRE 12 righteousness (see Rom 10:3: T~v lalav otKatocnJV7JV (1984) 411-14. crTijcrat ["establish one's own righteousness"]; 10:4). 2 Tim 3:16 speaks of"correction" (l1ravopllwcrt~) in the 190 Lichtenstein, "Does Jewish Tradition," 108-9. more general sense like Philo and Epictetus, but the 191 Cited according to the Soncino translation, The Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, Baba association with righteousness is certainly there. See also Spicq, Notes, 1.259-60; Hubner, Law, 137-48. Me?i'a (London: Soncino, 1962). 19~ Ibid. For the interpretation, see Lichtenstein, "Does 189 On this doctrine see Aharon Lichtenstein, "Does Jewish Tradition Recognize an Ethic Independent of Jewish Tradition," 107-11.

196

Matthew 5:17-20

unfortunately unanswerable, questions such as how old this legal or moral concept is, whether there were influences from Greek legal thought or whether it originated as an entirely inner-Jewish phenomenon. Whatever the answers, there is remarkable agreement among the sources surveyed and SM/Matt 5:20, including these points: (1) Law and ethics are two sides of the same coin. They must be distinguished but they cannot be separated. (2) Obedience to the will of God requires that one give attention to both the written statutes and the unwritten moral demands; an ethical stance must incorporate both, and God will recognize only both together as righteousness. (3) Mere compliance with the written statutes of law represents a lower standard of justice that, although it may not be subject to court action on earth, one cannot regard it as adequate morally and ethically, and therefore cannot suffice eschatologically as meeting the condition for entering into the kingdom of God. The question is, furthermore, whether the stance taken by the SM should be judged as general or elitist. Does the SM claim that its stance is valid for the legal interpretation of the Torah as obligatory for all jews, or is it the supralegal ethical stance demanded of the disciples of jesus only-in other words, a mishnah of the hasidim? 194 The parallel example of the Qumran community shows that a choice is not easy. Even if a

sectarian movement presents a special interpretation of what the Torah demands, the usual implication is that their position is in truth required for all Jews, if not for all humankind. A mishnah of the hasidim may be provocative and demonstrative, but it cannot be elitist in the sense that it is true and obligatory for the particular group only. This is true of the ethics of the SM as well. It would, then, be difficult to argue that the ethics of the SM is merely that of an exclusive sect (cf. SM/Matt 5: 1316). Like most leaders of rigoristic groups, Jesus certainly addressed all Israel with his proclamation. Rather than leaving the specifics of fulfilling the "greater righteousness" open, the SM claims that Jesus' interpretation of the Torah, while upholding the written text and challenging other interpretations as inadequate, spells out the terms by which one may obtain the "greater righteousness." The very purpose of the SM was to demonstrate that jesus' teachings are the greater righteousness and that they are not open to debate but constitute the foundation of the Jewish-Christian community within which the SM originally functioned.

193 Ibid., 110. 194 For an example of such a "mishnah of the hasidim," see Gen. Rab. 94.9, according toMidrash Rabbah:

Genesis (2 vols.; trans. Harry Freedman; London: Soncino, 1982), 2.879.

197

Matthew 5:21-48

5 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34 35

Translation You have heard that it was said to the men of old: "You shall not kill. Everyone, however, who kills shall be answerable to the court." But I say to you that anyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court. Everyone who says to his brother "empty-head" shall be answerable to the high court; and everyone who says (to him) "fool" shall be guilty (enough) for the Gehenna of fire. Therefore, when you bring your giftoffering (to be placed) on the altar, and there you remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar, and first go and become reconciled with your brother, and then come (back) and offer your gift. Become well disposed toward your opponent quickly, as long as you are with him on the way (to court), or else that opponent may turn you over to the judge, and the judge to the court-guard, and you will be thrown into jail. Truly, I say to you: You will never get out from there, until you have paid up the last cent. You have heard that it was said,"You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with the intent to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If, then, your right eye gives you trouble, pluck it out and throw it from you, for it is good for you to lose one of your members rather than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand gives you trouble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is good for you to lose one of your members rather than to have your whole body pass into Gehenna. It was also said, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce." But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Again, you have heard that it was said to the men of old, "You shall not swear an oath falsely, but keep your oaths to the Lord." But I say to you: Do not swear oaths at all, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king;

198

Chapter IV The Antitheses

Matthew 5:21-48 36 37 38 39

40 41 42 43 44 45

46 47 48

nor shall you swear oaths by your head, for you cannot make (even) one hair white or black. Instead, let your word be "Yes, yes, no, no," but anything exceeding these (words) is from (the) evil (one). You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." But I tell you not to retaliate against the evildoer; Instead: whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also; and to the one who wants to go to court with you and take your shirt, let him have also your coat. And whoever will force you (to go) one mile, go with him two. To the one who asks you, give; and from the one who wants to borrow from you, do not turn away. You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may become sons of your Father who is in (the) heavens; for he makes his sun rise on (the) bad and (the) good, and he makes the rain to fall on (the) righteous and (the) unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not the tax collectors also do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing do you do? Do not the pagans do the same? Therefore, you shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Bibliography Banks, jesus and the Law, 182-203. P. W. van Boxel, "You have heard that it was said," Bijdragen 49 (1988) 362-77. , Ingo Broer, "Die Antithesen und der Evangelist Mattltus: V ersuch, eine alte These zu revidieren," BZ 19 (1975) 50-63. Idem, Freiheit, 75-113,123-30. Bultmann,History, 134-36, 147, 149,325,406-7. Idem, Ergiinzungshift, 54-55. Daube, NT and Rabbinic judaism, 55-62. Christian Dietzfelbinger, Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt (ThExh 186; Munich: Kaiser, 1975). Idem, "Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt im Verstiindnis des Matthiius," ZNW 70 (1979) 1-15. Robert Guelich, "The Antitheses of Matthew V 21-48: Traditional and/or Redactional?" NTS 22 (1976) 444-57. Virgil Howard, Das Ego Jesu in den synoptischen Evangelien (MaTS 14; Marburg: Elwert, 1975). Hubner, Gesetz, 40-112, 230-36. Eberhard Junge!, Paulus undjesus: Eine Untersuchung

zur Priizisierung der Frage nach dem Ursprung der Christologie (BHTh 2; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1962) 203-8. Gunter Klein, "Gesetz, III. Neues Testament," TRE 13 (1984) 58-75, esp. 58-59. Knox, Sources 2.20-25. Michael Lattke, "Halachah," RAG 13 (1985) 372-402. Eduard Lohse, "Ich aber sage euch," in Der RufJesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde: FS for Joachim Jeremias (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1970) 189203; reprinted in his Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973) 73-87. Daniel Marguerat, Le jugement dans l' roangile de Matthieu (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981) 142-67. Meier, Law and History, 125-61. Merklein, Gottesherrschaft, 72-80, 222-37. Idem,jesu Botschaft von der Gottesherrschaft, 93-131. Sanders, Jesus and judaism, 260-64. Gunter Schmal, "Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt," TThZ 83 (1974) 284-97.

199

Bruno Schuller, "Zur Interpretation der Antithesen der Bergpredigt," in Dietrich-Alex Koch, Gerhard Sellin, and Andreas Lindemann, eds.,jesu Rede von Gott und ihre Nachgeschichte imfrilhen Christentum: FS Jilr Willi Marxsen zum 70. Geburtstag (Giitersloh:

Mohn, 1989) 101-15. Morton Smith, "A Comparison of Early Christian and Rabbinic Tradition," JBL 82 (1963) 169-76. Georg Strecker, "Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt (Mt 5, 21-48 par)," ZNW69 (1978) 36-72. M. Jack Suggs, "The Antitheses as Redactional Products," in Schottroff, Essays, 93-107. Trilling, Israel, 207-11. Hermann V enetz, "Theologische Grundstrukturen der VerkiindigungJesu? Ein Vergleich von Mk 10, 1722; Lk 10, 25-37 und Mt 5, 21-48," in Melanges Dominique Barthelemy: Etudes Bibliques o.ffertes a !'occasion de son 60' anniversaire (OBO 38; Fribourg:

Editions universitaires, 1981) 613-50. Wrege, Oberlieferungsgeschichte, 57-94.

1 . Introduction

The section immediately following the hermeneutical principles (5:17-20) has been designated by commentators as the "antitheses" and includes the remainder of the fifth chapter (5:21-48). There is no analogy to the antitheses of the SM anywhere else in the early Christian literature, and it is important to realize that in approaching this section of the text, we confront one of the most controversial and yet one of the most intriguing parts of the New Testament. There are six antitheses; they divide easily into two groups of three. Of the first group, 5:2126 discuss murder; 5:27-30, adultery; and 5:31-32, divorce. The second group, indicated at the beginning

by the term 1T~ALV ("again"), includes the sections on perjury (5:33-37), retaliation (5:38-42), and the treatment of the enemy (5:43-48). Before beginning the exegesis of the individual antitheses, however, I shall raise a number of questions. 1. Who first used the term "antitheses" to designate this section? As far as we can determine, it was the second-century "heretic" Marcion who gave the title Antitheses to one of his works as a whole, now unfortunately lost; but fragments and testimonies are extant and are gathered in Harnack's famous work. 1 According to those church fathers who had access to the work at the time, Marcion saw the significance of the SM, which he took as coming directly from jesus, in the "Marcionite" separation of the god of the gospel from the god of the law and the prophets. 2 For him, the decisive passage was SM/Matt 5: 17. "Purified" from what he took to be later Judaistic forgeries, 3 Marcion believed this verse said that Jesus had indeed come to abolish the law and the prophets. This separation was then carried through in the six antitheses by juxtaposing the "You have heard that it was said to the men of old ... "with Jesus' "But I say to you .... " Marcion understood his own task to be the recovery of Jesus' "original" words and intentions in order then to continue and implement these intentions in the church. 4 Marcion's use of the name "antitheses" indicates two facts: first, in terms of rhetoric, Marcion quite correctly took the juxtaposition of sentences stating contrasting points of view to be instances of the figure of antitheton. 5 Second, theologically, according to Marcionite

Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott; Eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche (2d ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924); reprinted together with Neue Studien zu Marcion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell-

2

200

schaft, 1960). In the following, references are to the reprint edition. For the Antitheses of Marcion, see pp. 256*-313*, especially 261 *-62*, 291 *-92*; furthermore, Barbara Aland, "Marcion (ca. 85-160)/Marcioniten," TRE 22 (1991) 89-101, esp. 92-93. Tertullian Adv. Marc. 1.19 (PL 2.267C): "Nam sunt antitheses Marcionis, id est contrariae oppositiones quae conantur discordiam evangelii cum lege committere, ut ex diversitate sententiarum utriusque instrumenti, diversitate quoque argumententur deorum" ("For these are the antitheses ofMarcion,

3 4

5

that is, the contrasting juxtapositions which attempt to perpetrate the disunity of the gospel and the law, so that on the basis of the juxtaposition of the sentences of both instruments also the opposition between tbe gods could be argued"). See above on SM/Matt 5:17, and also Harnack, Marcion, 252* n. 3, 262*. See also Irenaeus Adv. haer. 1.27.2; 4.13.1 (ed. Harvey, vol. 1, p. 217; 2, pp. 180-81); Epiphanius Adv. haer. 1.3.42 (PG 4l.800C), who in an antiMarcionite interpretation of Matt 5:17 alludes to the title: , AAA' obll~ avrUhro~ b Xpurrh~ T~ e.~ T~ ll
Matthew 5:21-48

interpretation, the antitheses of the SM express jesus' breaking away from the Mosaic law of the Old Testament and replacing it with the gospel. For Marcion and his followers, this interpretation derived from the theology of Paul, which they read into the SM. The suggestive nature of the term "antithesis" may be one of the reasons why the idea that the historical Jesus stood in opposition to the Mosaic law is still held today, in nonMarcionite terms, by many scholars. 2. What is the reason for the arrangement of the six antitheses? There clearly appears to be a rationale behind the six antitheses and their arrangement in the SM, but that rationale has so far eluded scholarship; few scholars have even discussed the question. A number of possibilities might be taken to provide an answer to the problem of arrangement, but at closer inspection, each turns out to be a false lead. Can the arrangement of the antitheses in the SM be explained on the basis of the Decalogue (Exod 20:2-17)? The answer is negative because only the first two offenses, murder and adultery, follow each other in the Decalogue as well (Exod 20:13, 14). The other offenses (divorce, perjury, retaliation, hatred of the enemy) are not mentioned in the Decalogue at all. 6 They were, however, considered as part of the Torah insofar as they are treated elsewhere in the Pentateuch. Moreover, one can argue that at least for the redactor(s) of the Penta-

teuch, all these offenses are understood to be, either explicitly or implicitly, contained in the Decalogue. As Frank-Lothar Hossfeld has shown, 7 the Decalogue itself seems to be a relatively late composition based on earlier series of precepts. Other such series of precepts occur in Deut 5:6-21; Lev 17-26 (Holiness Code); Hos 4:2; and Jer 7:9. In other words, the Pentateuch shows evidence of a gradual expansion of earlier catalogues of precepts at the end of which process stands the Pentateuch itself. A part of these expansions was the inclusion of both legal and cultic as well as moral precepts. 8 As there is no clear dividing line between legal and moral statements, neither does there appear to be any fixed order, except that murder and adultery are often linked, although the order varies. 9 If the catalogues of prohibitions seem to have no systematic order, the reason may lie in their different origins and purposes, at least at the beginning; but this situation may also reflect the fact that neither Jewish nor Greek thought made serious attempts to systematize the doctrine of sin in the sense of identifying a root sin, from which all other sins could be derived, or in the sense of constructing a list of preeminent offenses (Hauptsilnden). As has been pointed out by Reinhard Staats 10 in his RAG article on "Haupt-

HWRh 1 (1992) 722-50. Cf. also Doctr. apost. 4.13:

6

7

"Custodi ergo, fiJi, quae audisti; neque appones illis contraria neque diminues" ("Keep, therefore, my child, [the words] you have heard and neither add to them [anything] antithetically, nor take away from 8 them"). Regarding this statement see above on SM/Matt 5:19 also. Philo Decal. 50 divides the Decalogue into two sets of five commandments, the first set having to do with the relationship to God, the second with humanity. For Philo, both the numbers 5 and 10 have symbolic value, but he also knows of other groupings, e.g., the quadripartite group of theft, adultery, murder, and sacrilege (Conf ling. 163). Cf. also Op. mund. 79; Migr. Abr. 60. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, Der Dekalog: Seine spiiten 9 Fassungen, die originate Komposition und seine Vorstufen

(OBO 24; Fribourg: Presses universitaires; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982); furthermore, Anthony Phillips, Ancient Israel's

10

Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985); Frank Criisemann, Die Tara: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes (Munich:

Kaiser, 1992). For such summaries see Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 3-6 (OTP 2.574-76); Syr. Menander II,15-19 (OTP 2.592); Ps.-PhiloAnt. bibl. 44.6-7 (OTP 2.358); Syb. Or. 2.73, ()9, 130, 248, 256; 4.31 (OTP 1.347, 348, 351, 385). See Walter T. Wilson, The Mysteries of Righteousness: The Literary Composition and Genre of the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1994).

For a collection of rabbinic texts, see Str-B 1.254-75; 3.36-43 (distinction between the six or seven Commandments of Adam and the seven of Noah); 4/1.437-50. For example, Philo Decal. 36; Doctr. a post. 2.2; 5.1; Barn. 19.4; 20.1. For rabbinic texts, see Str-B 1.255 (a). Reinhard Staats, "Hauptsiinden," RAG 13 ( 1985) 734-70.

Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue

(Oxford: Blackwell, 1970); Michael Fishbane, Biblical

201

siinden," only early Christian ethics developed a concept of values that consisted of a system of chief virtues and vices. It was clearly Tertullian who devised a system of delicta capitalia ("capital crimes") for which penitence had to be done publicly and which could be distinguished from the common sins (peccata). 11 The origin of this systematization seems to have been the early Christian penitential practice. 12 Since this practice has earlier roots, however, the New Testament catalogues of vices and virtues may figure as antecedents; but lack of sources prevents me from offering a suggestion at this point. An interesting grouping occurs in the Qumran Damascus Document (CD), where "whoredom," "acquisitiveness," and "defiling the sanctuary" are called "the three nets of Belial," with which the devil attempts to catch Israel (CD 4.12-19). 13 There maybe a relation here to the later Christian triad of adultery, murder, and idolatry, 14 and the same may be true of rabbinic Judaism, which regarded idolatry, fornication, and bloodshed as the three cardinal sins. 15 Remarkable, however, is the lack of interest in most catalogues with regard to the first table of the Decalogue. Often the commandments of the first table are simply lumped together under the term "idolatry" (£lSwA.oA.aTpla), 16 found at the beginning of lists, but other precepts can take the first place just as well. Two questions arise from this evidence: First, what was the entire spectrum of diversity with regard to prohibitions and offenses? Second, can one extract from the available sources a history of development from the early times in Israel to the early Christian community? The six antitheses of the SM show some hints at a systematic composition, but these hints do not come from the literature thus far surveyed. Catalogues of prohibitions found in the New Testament continue the 11 12

13

202

traditions of Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom. One must note, however, that a clear transformation regarding the antitheses of the SM has taken place in that the New Testament lists consist of moral catalogues of vices and virtues rather than legal or cultic prescriptions and prohibitions. The parallel catalogues in Mark 7:21-22 are a good example of what has occurred in the tradition. Mark 7: 1-23 as a whole is a rather elaborate chapter on purity and impurity, the traditions of which come from Hellenistic-Jewish Christianity. 1 7 The catalogue in Mark that concludes the chapter lists twelve evil thoughts arising from the impure heart, six in the plural and six in the singular: 7ropv£lat, KA07Tal, cpovot, p.otx£lat, 7TA£ov£flat, 7TOV7]p{at, 1\0A.os, CUrfA)'Ha, OcplJaA.p.bs 7TOV7]pos, {3A.acrcp7]p.{a, l!7T€p7]cpavla, acppocrtJv7] ("instances of fornication, theft, murder, adultery, greed, and wickedness; deceit, licentiousness, evil eye, blasphemy, arrogance, stupidity"). 18 The Matthean parallel (Matt 15: 19) differs characteristically in that it has reduced the number of items to six, all plural: cpovot, p.otx£lat, 7ropv£lat, KAo7Tal, 'l/l£vSop.apTvplat, f3A.acrcp7]p.lat ("instances of murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, blasphemy"). The number in Matthew conforms to the number in the SM, as do the first three vices; but the last three vices are different, making difficult a decision whether Matthew has brought the list-at least at the beginning-into harmony with the SM, or whether the Matthean list is due to a different tradition as well. In Mark 10: 19Jesus cites another list from the second table of the Decalogue. It includes these prohibitions: p.fJ cpov£tJcr?Js, p.fJ p.otxftJCT?JS, p.fJ KAE'I/I?Js, p.fJ 'l/l£vSop.apTvp~cr?Js, JJ.fJ a7TOCTT€p~cr?JS ("Do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not defraud" [RSV]). 19 The prohibitions are followed by the

For references, see ibid., 735. See also Anton Vogtle, "Achtlasterlehre," RAG 1 (1950) 74-79; Karl Holl, Enthusiasmus und BuBgewalt beim griechischen Monchtum (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1898) 225-331. See Hans Kosmala, "The Three Nets of Belial: A Study of the Terminology of Qumran and the New Testament," Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 4 (1965) 91-113; Ben Zion Wacholder, The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1983) 119-24; Sanders, jesus and judaism, 257-59.

14 15 16

17 18

See Harald Sahlin, "Die drei Kardinalsiinden und das Neue Testament," StTh 24 (1970) 93-112. See esp. b. Sanh. 74a; t. Pe'a 1, 2 (18). For other passages, see Str-B 1.255(a). On idolatry, see jean-Claude Fredouille, "Gotzendienst," RAG 11 (1981) 828-95; Hans Hubner, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s. v. ElowAoAaTp
Matthew 5:21-48

prescription: Tlp.a Tov 7raT€pa Ka'r. T~V JJ.'f/Tipa ("Honor your father and mother"). 20 In the parallel Matt 19:19, Matthew modifies the list by omitting the last prohibition-if in fact he read it in his Markan Vorlage 21 and by adding the love-command, Ka'r. aya7r~um TOV 7rA'f/ulov uov oos u£avn\v ("and you shall love your neighbor as yourself"). 22 Another interesting parallel text is Didache 2, where a list of prohibitions is secondarily connected with the Two Ways schema (Did. 1.1) and the double command to love God and the neighbor (Did. 1.2). The double command is called A.oyoL ("principles"), while what follows can be identified as two sections of "teaching" (SLSax~) in 1.3-6 and 2.1-7. The list of prohibitions is rather long and begins with the traditional ov cpovn'.!uns, ov JJ.OLX£-6uns ("you shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery"). 23 Although the catalogue shares a good number of items with the antitheses of the SM, it does not appear to depend directly on the antitheses ofthe SM: ov 7ropv£-6u£LS ("you shall not fornicate") is, to some degree at least, parallel to SM/Matt 5:31-32; ovK f7rLOpK~uns ("do not commit perjury" [Did. 2.3]), to which variations and explanations are added, is parallel to SM/Matt 5:33-37. 24 The conclusion (Did. 2.6-7) consists of a sayings composition built around the love-command that has a parallel in Matt 5:43-48. 25 One can say similar things about the catalogue of vices that makes up the "way of death" (Did. 5). It begins with cpovoL, p.oLx£laL, f7rL8vp.laL, 7ropv£laL ("instances of murder, adultery, sexual desire, fornication"), 26 all having parallels in SM/Matt 5:21-32, but the rest ofthe catalogue is altogether 19

20

21 22

different from the SM. What conclusions can one draw from this evidence? This stage of the synoptic tradition and the Didache seems no longer to distinguish clearly between the prohibitions of the Decalogue, which are primarily legal statements, and moral vices and virtues. Also the transformation of prohibitive commands into lists of moral concepts is easily done. While the first items on such lists seem to be more fixed by tradition, the remainder seem to be more open to variation and expansion. 27 The question, then, is how the antitheses of the SM compare to the evidence surveyed above. No doubt the antitheses somehow must be related to the same tradition that informed the other lists. The difference between them and the antitheses, however, should also be clear: the six antitheses represent a closed list, not open to variation or expansion. If systematization in the other lists was lacking, it is in keeping with the character of the SM as a whole that such systematization is provided. How can one explain this? One possibility is to regard the antitheses as a series of positive ethical commendations rather than as a prohibition of vices and sins. In Gal 5:19-23, the catalogue of vices has no order and may reflect the chaotic nature of sins (Gal 5:19-21 ), while the catalogue of virtues has nine terms, ordered in three sets of three (Gal 5:22-23). 28

A number of witnesses do not read p.1J awo
23

24 25 26 27 28

the love-command, see below on SM/Matt 5:43. SoalsoDoctr. apost. 1.1-2.7, butBarn.l9.2-25and 20.1-2 are different. Cf. also the pledges of the Elchasaites, according to Hippolytus Ref. 9.15; for a translation, see NTA poe 2. 7 49; and for discussion, Reinhold Merkelbach, "Der Eid der bithynischen Christen," ZPE 21 (1976) 73-74. For further discussion, see below on SM/Matt 5:3337. For further discussion, see below on SM/Matt 5:4348. See also Doctr. apost. 51; Barn. 20.1. For further discussion and bibliography see Wengst, Didache, 20-32; Niederwimmer, Didache, 146-51. On this point see Betz, Galatians, 283.

203

If the antitheses were limited to six and represented the result of systematization, what was the rationale for selecting these six antitheses and for putting them in the order in which they now stand? Several attempts have been made to provide an explanation; none, however, is convincing. Hans Joachim Schoeps 29 proposed that Jesus discussed only those sections of the Torah about which he disagreed with the accepted and traditional interpretation, and that he could legitimately do so because that part of the halakah was not fixed at the time. 30 Schoeps thereby assumed correctly that the historical Jesus discussed halakah and that his interpretation was controversial. It is hard to understand, however, why only the six halakot of the antitheses should still be open for discussion while all others were already settled. Does not even the later Mishnah give evidence that there was openness to different interpretations nearly everywhere? Did not Jesus discuss other halakic problems as well, if we examine the synoptic tradition more fully? Jesus must have debated questions about purity and impurity, observation of the Sabbath, or temple worship, but the antitheses of the SM do not mention them. Obviously Schoeps's hypothesis cannot solve these problems. 3 1 One should also dismiss another possible explanation: The six antitheses do not simply discuss the sins as counterparts of the virtues of the Beatitudes (SM/Matt 29

30 31

204

5:3-12). There are no doubt relationships between the antitheses and the Beatitudes, but they are more subtle than simply juxtapositions. Again, the sinners condemned in SM/Matt 7:21-23 do not receive the verdict because of their transgression of the specific commandments that are part of the antitheses; in fact, the later parts of the SM never mention the antitheses. 3 2 What, then, is the underlying rationale? I submit, and will discuss further below, that one can determine a rationale when one views the whole of the six antitheses. The set climaxes in the final antithesis, the commandment concerning the treatment of the enemy (SM/Matt 5:43-48). This commandment by itself, however, is an interpretation of the commandment to love the neighbor, Lev 19:18, quoted in SM/Matt 5:43. This commandment, central as it was not only for early Christian theology but also for the teaching of the historica1Jesus, 33 sums up all of the antitheses. The concept of "love" (aya?Tcl.w) 34 is explicitly mentioned in SM/Matt 5:43-48, as is the notion of perfection (rb..~:to<; [5:48]); perfection, however, is related to the "fulfillment" of the Torah (5:17; 7:12). How, then, are the antitheses apart from 5:43-48 related to the lovecommandment? When the final antithesis (5:43-48) names "hatred" {p.tu(w) as the opposite of "love" (aya?Tcl.w), 35 we find a formula true of the other antitheses as well: all are

Hans Joachim Schoeps, "Jesus und das jiidische Gesetz," in his Studien zur unbekannten Religions- und Geistesgeschichte (Gottingen: Musterschmidt, 1963) 41-61. Schoeps (Studien, 41) assumes that the SM comes directly from the historical Jesus. ·For another attempt to explain the composition of the antitheses, see Achelis (Bergpredigt, 319-27), who assumes that Jesus' argument is directed against the dissolution of the Torah by the Pharisees and introduces justice as the "norm" for the Torah. The antitheses (SM/Matt 5:21-48) discuss the Quid ("essence") of the demands ofjustice, first concerning the laws of the Decalogue (5:21-26: do not kill; 5:27-32: do not commit adultery), second concerning laws outside the Decalogue, by which the Pharisees have perverted the law (5:33-37: commandment to use oaths; 5:38-42: commandment to retaliate; 5:43-48: commandment to love one's neighbor). This scheme, however, is beset with many problems. It has no room for 5:31-32; the parallel composition of all six antitheses is unrecognized; and

32

33 34 35

there is no evidence that the antitheses argue against specifically Pharisaic misinterpretations. Cf. also other lists of sins because of which people are condemned in the last judgment: Matt 25:42-44; Rev 9:21; 21:8; 22:15; Apoc. Pet. 7.22-20, 34. See Albrecht Dieterich, Nekyia: Beitriige zur Erkliirung der neuentdeckten Petrusapokalypse (3d ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969) 54-62, 163-95; Betz, Lukian, 185-94, esp. the list in Lucian Icaromenippus 15 (Betz, Lukian, 187). See below on SM/Matt 5:43--46 and SP/Luke 6:27. See 5:43, 44, 46; 6:24. For the concept of hatred as the opposite oflove, see John Procope, "HaB," RAG 13 (1985) 677-714.

Matthew 5:21-48

construed around opposites oflove. The anticlimax to the notion of "love" is found in the first antithesis (5:2126), naming "anger" (opyl(op.at) as the root cause of hatred and thus the very opposite of love. 36 Whereas 5:43-48 deal with the enemy, 5:21-26 focus on the brother who is the antitype of enemy. 37 All antitheses, therefore, consider opposites of"love." 38 At the same time, the six antitheses conform to the conventions of Hellenistic family ethics, the discussions of which often deal first with relatives and kin, then with friends. 39 The SM regards all these relationships as instances of"neighborhood" (7rA.:qulov), the key concept of the love-command (5:43). Within the context ofthe SM, the categories offamily ethics are to be taken in the metaphorical sense. This sense conforms to common usage in Christianity, where "brother," "sister," or "friend" is taken to refer to the members ofthe community. Furthermore, all instances in the antitheses discuss broken relationships. The first antithesis (5:21-26) concerns the broken relationships between "brothers," the second (5:27-30) and third (5:31-32), women. 40 The second group focuses on broken friendship relations: perjury (5:33-37), retaliation (5:38-42), and the enemy (5:43-48). As elsewhere in antiquity, the enemy is understood as the opposite of the friend. 41 If one accepts this hypothesis, the consequence would be that all antitheses of the SM are exemplifications of the love-command in Lev 19:18. This means that the lovecommand directs the interpretation of the Torah commandments. Correctly interpreted, these Torah 36

commandments are "fulfilled" in the sense that with thL love-commandment, the whole Torah is fulfilled. From this perspective, the apparent conclusion is that the six antitheses amount to what Paul calls "the law of Christ" (6 vop.os TOV Xpturov): "Bear one another's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2). 4 2 Although Paul uses this principle in Galatians in working out his polemical stance vis-a-vis the Jewish Torah, the SM employs the same principle in the opposite way for interpreting the jewish Torah in a positive way. In Romans, however, where Paul offers a modified view of the jewish Torah, he appears to come much closer to the interpretations of the SM; and when he refers to the love-command (Rom 13:8-10; 12:9-21), he also includes paraenesis quite similar to what occurs in the SM. 3. What kind of argument do the antitheses contain? As a rhetorical device, an antithesis states an argument; the question is always which type of argument is being stated and how is it made. In the antitheses of the SM, a Scripture interpretation that is to be refuted as false is introduced by the formula "you have heard that it was said," and then contrasted with jesus' own interpretation, introduced by the formula "but I say to you." This pattern of juxtaposed formulae, not to mention the argument itself, has no analogy elsewhere in early Christian literature, especially not in SP, Q, Doctrina apostolorum, Didache, and Barnabas. Where did this pattern then come from? That the antithesis as such is a figure of speech common in rhetoric has been mentioned (see above, p.

Cf. Did. 3.2: "Do not be angry, for anger leads to murder, or a fanatic or contentious or hot-tempered, for from all ofthese murders originate" (p.~ yivov opyi>..or, baT/y£1 yl.p ~ opy~ orpor TOV q,Jvov, 1-'T/af 1-'T/a£ tp&
(71>..ror~r

37

against your neighbor. You shall not hate any human being, but some you shall expose, for some you shall pray, some you shall love more than yourself" (ov

38

>..1}>/ln {jov>..~v orov71pl.v Karl. rov 1fAT/<Tiov /lvx1}v ITOV). Cf. also Did. 1.3-3.10, all of which discussion is

39

placed under the love-command in 1.2. Basic are Xenophon Mem. 2.2-6; Aristotle Eth. Nic.

40

41 42

8.10.4-14.4, 1160b 23-1163a 29. See the commentary of Franz Dirlmeier, Aristoteles: Nikomachische Ethik, in Aristoteles: Werke in deutscher Ubersetzung, vol. 6 (8th ed.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1983) 529; Julia Annas, "Plato and Aristotle on Friendship and Altruism," Mind 86 (1977) 532-54; John N. Cooper, "Aristotle on Forms of Friendship," Review ofMetaphysics 30 (1977) 619-48. See furthermore Plutarch De Jraterno a more (for which see Betz,PECL 2.235-36); Plutarch Solon 21.3. The term "sister" is not used in the SM, however. SM/Matt 5:27-30 considers violation of the marriage taboo by adultery with someone else's wife, 5:31-32 by divorce from one's own wife. See below on SM/Matt 5:43. See Betz, Galatians, 298-301. Cf. also above on SM/Matt 5:19.

205

200). One can say more, however, concerning its origin and formal characteristics. Dalman, Daube, Smith, and Lohse 43 have collected and evaluated parallel formulae from the rabbinic literature in order to explain the antithesis form found in the SM. The parallels they have adduced are of three types: (a) If there are two possible interpretations of Torah or Scripture under discussion, they may be indicated by the formula "I might hear [or understand] [it this way], but you should say .... "44 (b) One scholar may contradict another's opinion by the emphatic refutation "but I say." 45 (c) The formula "but I say to you" can occur with reference to a refuted opinion. 46 There are clearly several similarities and differences with regard to the antitheses of the SM: (a) Apart from the word pair "hearing" and "saying," there is little similarity; indeed, the phrase "you should say" states the opposite of what SM states ("I say"). (b) Parallel is the use of the first person singular, but the refuted opinion is not introduced by a comparable formula. (c) This formula has no relation to the antithesis but functions in doctrinal contexts as an introduction to a body of doctrine. It is obvious, therefore, that the parallels do not have 43

44 45 46

206

exactly the same form, but the kind of argument is similar. The rabbinical formulae may have a prior history of their own, and that history may have connections to Hellenistic court rhetoric. This problem, however, cannot be investigated at this point. 4 7 There are indications that the interpretation of the Torah as set forth in the antitheses may follow rules established by Greek rhetoricians. In terms of Greek rhetoric, the six antitheses contain interpretations oflaw and therefore must be adjudicated in terms of the appropriate status ("issue"), the VOJLLKat o-nio-m ("legal issues"), 48 to use Hermogenes' term (the Latin equivalent: genus legale). 49 The genus legale comes under consideration when actions whose legality or illegality is in question are of such a nature that they pose problems with regard to written laws. The presupposition at this point is that written laws were judged always to be imperfect because their concrete formulation prevents their unlimited applicability to the infinite diversity of possible situations and actions. Special interpretation is thus needed in some cases to clarify the relationship between law and actions. 50 The method used in such interpretation includes semantic ranges of meanings of words as well as legal and literary principles. The elements of the genus legale are these: existing and binding laws, 51 the lawgiver, 52 the written formulation of the law, 53 and the originally intended meaning of the

Dalman,jesus-Jeschua, 68; Str-B 1.275; Daube, NT and Rabbinic Judaism, 55-62; Morton Smith, Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (SBLMS 6; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1961) 27 -30; idem, "A Comparison of Early Christian and Early Rabbinic Tradition," JBL 82 (1963) 169-76; Braun, Radikalismus, 2.5 n. 2, 85 n. 2; Eduard Lohse, "Ich aber sage euch," in Der Rufjesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde: FS fur Joachim Jeremias (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 189-203; reprinted in his Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973) 73-87. See also Davies, Setting, 101-2; Hubner, Gesetz, 4041, 230-36; Guelich, Sermon, 184-85; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 65 (Sermon, 62-63); Luz, Matthiius, 1.247 (Matthew, 1.276). Mek. Exod. 20.12; for the interpretation, see Daube, NT and Rabbinic judaism, 55-56. For collections of passages, see the contributions by Smith and Lohse (above, n. 43). T. Reu. 1.7; T. Dan 2.1; T. Naph. 4.1; T. Gad 5.2, etc.; 1 Enoch 94.1, 3, 10; 99.13; 102.9. For these and

47

48 49

50 51

52

53

other references, see Luz, Matthiius, 1.247 nn. 14 and 15 (Matthew, 1.276 nn. 14 and 15). See also below, n. 88. For analogous investigations see David Daube, "Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric," HUCA 22 (1949) 239-64; idem, ':<\lexandrian Methods of Interpretation and the Rabbis," in FS Hans Lewald (Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1953) 27-44. See Lausberg, Handbuch 1, §§ 198-223; Martin, Rhetorik, 293-95, 312-15. Hermogenes Il
Matthew 5:21-48

law. 54 The basic problem was seen as a conflict between the written text of the law and the originally intended meaning of that law. The examination of the problem may focus on either the written text or the originally intended meaning. 55 When one examines the scriptum, the written text, one must observe some rules. 56 One must take the text in its "natural" linguistic meaning; 5 7 this meaning may be apparent, obscure, or ambiguous. 5 8 The conflict may be between the scriptum (the written text) and the voluntas 59 (the originally intended meaning), whereby the latter may be argued as a case of aequitas ("equity"). 5° The opposing parties in the dispute may base their case either on the scriptum, declaring that the written text as such expresses equity, or on the intended meaning (voluntas, sententia). In the latter instance, the party would argue that the written text, although to be respected, is in need of interpretation in regard to its intended meaning. Consequently, the dispute transcends the written text and involves the discussion of "norms. " 61 Whatever solution to the dispute is agreed upon will result, among other things, in some kind of amendment to the existing law. This amendment can take the form of either a subsidiary interpretation of the written text of the law or the rewriting of that law itself. The ancient rhetoricians determined as well that there are basically four categories of "legal issues" (status legales); 62 the first of these applies to all six antitheses in SM/Matt 5:21-48: the status known as scriptum et voluntas, or scriptum et sententia (Greek: P'T'JTOV JCa'r. litavola), that is, the conflict between the written text of a statute

54

55 56 57 58

and its intended meaning. 63 The solution is reached when the original meaning intended by the legislator is determined; it will be either identical or not identical with the written code. 64 As Quintilian points out, the question of scriptum et voluntas presupposes an instance of obscurity (obscuritas) in the text. 65 This obscurity can take two forms: (a) the law in question is in itself obscure and leads to different interpretations because each party understands it as the statement of a different intention by the lawgivers; 5 6 (b) the text itself is clear but its true meaning must be brought to light by means of a philological investigation ofthe terms of the text. 67 In both instances, the interpretation of "equity" decides the conflict. 68 Given this argumentative structure, each of the six antitheses of the SM attempts to accomplish two goals: the refutation of an inadequate legal doctrine and the presentation of a contrary doctrine that is accepted as adequate. The doctrines in question are expressed by opposite interpretations of citations of the Torah and both imply and aim at a position with regard to legal and ethical issues. Consequently, each antithesis has two argumentative parts: first the refutation, then the presentation; a third part, the ethical conclusion, is left unstated: it is expected that the hearer or reader will draw the satisfactory conclusion. The part of the antithesis containing the refutation is a complex argument in itself. It begins with a description of the origin of the inadequate doctrine and of the mode of reception in the present. The "chain of tradition," to use Elias Bickerman's term, 69 is traced from the present

word"); Rhet. ad Her. 1.11.19: scriptum ("written word"); Quintilian/nst. 7.10.7: verba legis ("words of the law"). Hermogenes Il
59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

In the following section I am depending on Lausberg, Handbuch 1, § 203. On "equity," see above on SM/Matt 5:20. See also Lausberg, Handbuch 1, § 220. Ibid.,§§ 206-7. Ibid.,§§ 214-17. Ibid.,§ 209. Quintilian Inst. 7 .6.1-2. Ibid., 7.6.2-4. Ibid., 7.6.4-7. See Lausberg, Handbuch 1, §§ 209-12. See 'Abot 1.1; 'Abot de R. Nat. (A), chap. 1. On the tradents, see Elias Bickerman's famous essay, "La chaine de Ia tradition pharisienne," RB 59 (1952) 4454; reprinted in his Studies in Jewish and Christian History (AGJU 9; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 2.256-69.

207

recipients to the origins. The present recipients have learned the doctrine by "hearing" (aKovw) it from a teacher, that is, as accepted doctrine. All that needs to be indicated about this doctrine in order to discredit it is that it is secondhand. Thus the originator of the doctrine is said to be God, the subject of the passive "it was said" (£ppJ87J). 70 The doctrine is said to be revealed "to the ancients" (or apxfLOL). 71 The implication is that the inadequa~e doctrine has passed through many hands before it has reached the present hearers. While some may regard antiquity as a guarantee of the truth, the SM declares it to be nothing but secondhand information and thus uncertain as to accuracy. As David Daube has pointed out, the phrase "the one who hears" can be used in rabbinic theology with the connotation of inferiority: "he who hears" often describes someone "who sticks to the superficial, literal meaning of Scripture." Daube, therefore, renders ~KovuaTf as "ye have literally understood" or "ye might understand literally." 7 2 The past recipients and tradents have handed down the doctrine as tradition: "that it was said to the ancients." In other words, the SM introduces here a critical difference between what God has in fact said and what the tradition claims God has said) 3 The refutation thus is not directed against what God has in fact said but against what he has allegedly said, that is, what he has in reality not said. 74 The second step in the refutation consists of the citation 70 71 72 73

of the inadequate doctrine itself. First, the Scripture quotation in question is given. Then the erroneous interpretation of that Scripture quotation is added (SM/Matt 5:21, 33, 43), or the Scripture quotation is left to stand without further interpretation (5:27, 31, 38). Where no further interpretation is supplied, it is assumed that the erroneous interpretation is identical with the "literal" understanding of the text and, furthermore, that a "literal" understanding is ipso facto a mistaken understanding. The second part of the antithesis consists of the presentation of the adequate interpretation of the cited Scripture text and is introduced by a definition of the mode of presentation. The originator is Jesus, speaking in the first person singular, and the mode is delivery to the present recipients ("but I say to you"). This introductory formula is part of all six antitheses (5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44) and is followed by the statement of the adequate interpretation of the cited Scripture text. The famous formula "but I say to you" has been the subject of much controversy. 7 5 Recent investigations have left no stone unturned in the search for parallels; but no one has come up with precise parallels, that is, with the same formula being used in rabbinic literature. Daube at least has pointed out similar forms of refutation in rabbinic texts in which the phrase "but you must say" introduces a substitution for a doctrine to be refuted. 76

See below on SM/Matt 5:21. See below on SM/Matt 5:21 and 33. Daube, NT and Rabbinic judaism, 56. This critical difference is often overlooked. Cf., e.g., Lohse, "Ich aber sage euch," 192: "In den Antithesen Jesu wird aber mit ~"oti
208

gestellt; faktisch fiihrt jedoch gerade die Radikalisierung des gottlichen Gebotes, wie Jesus sie in seinem in ~tovda gesprochenen £y{, a£ AE")IOO vp."iv vollzieht, zur Sprengung der Thora." ("But the word of Jesus denies any possibility of again taking obedience in a formalistic sense.Jesus did not in principle call the authority of the law into question; in fact, however, the radical interpretation of the divine commandment, as Jesus carries it out when he speaks 'with authority', his 'but I say to you,' leads to the breaking up of the Torah.") This conclusion is, however, in reality based on Paul's theology, and it is precisely the conclusion against which the SM was directed (cf. above on SM/Matt 5:17-20). For bibliography, see above, n. 43. Daube, NT and Rabbinic judaism, 55-62.

Matthew 5:21-48

The difference between this form of refutation and the one used by the SM pertains to tone and authority: "Note not only the first person, 'I say,' but also the 'unto you,' not present in the rabbinic form. The tone is not academic but final, prophetic, maybe somewhat defiant. Nor is there any reasoning. The correct attitude is simply stated ... , with no argument a minori ad maius or the like. "77 Daube is, however, correct in emphasizing that "the gulf is very much smaller than we have so far made it appear." 78 The rabbinic phrase "but you must say" is not all that different from "but I say to you." "Clearly, 'But thou must say' contains a strong element of discretionary power. The seed is there which, given certain conditions, might develop into the absolute 'But I say unto you.'" 79 Yet the rabbinic formula contrasts the views of one scholar with another, or the views of one with others. "Here an imaginary fellow-scholar is addressed and instructed. The interpretation is to be excluded, that is, is represented as favored by an opponent-a scholarly, friendly opponent, it is true, but still a 'thou' in need of guidance. "80 This formula "but you must say" then introduces "a recognized logical justification for replacing the literal meaning by a freer, yet in effect does substitute a new, freer meaning. Nor were the religious leaders of the time unaware that exegesis might be tantamount to legislation. "81 Daube's analysis has been criticized by Hiibner, 82 who tries to drive wedges into some clefts left unexplained by Daube, but that criticism is exaggerated. Whereas Bacher 83 argued that one ofthe differences between the rabbinic parallels and the SM is that Jesus does not justify his position by reference to Scripture passages, Daube rightly observes that instead of a dictum probans, there could simply be a logical deduction of some kind. Then, however, Daube states that the "antitheses" of the SM do not use conclusions "a minori ad maius or the like. "84 This observation is true of the text of the SM, but a wrong conclusion which others have read into the remark is that the historical Jesus did 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

not justify his position at all. 85 Virgil Howard states the matter this way: "By contrast, Jesus' statements in the antitheses lack all reasoning by a scripture scholar. There is no argument, there is proclamation." ("Dagegen entbehren die AussagenJesu in den Antithesenjeglicher schriftgelehrter Begriindung. Es wird nicht argumentiert, sondern proklamiert.") 86 From this wrong conclusion it is but a short step to Jesus' alleged "messianic" authority. 87 In fact, however, a logical argument is being made, but it is different from and more intricate than the parallels adduced by Daube would lead one to expect. The formula used in the SM, "but I say to you," is, therefore, not rabbinic in origin. It goes further-as far as we know-than did other rabbis. It is by intention anti-Pharisaic; it presupposes a different concept of tradition, interpretation, and method. The proposed correct interpretation is set in opposition to all "traditional" interpretations. The rabbinic phrase "but you must say" deemphasizes rather than emphasizes the authority of the rabbi, although there is no doubt that it is a rabbi who proposes the correct interpretation. It is, however, incorrect to say that there is no argument attached to the expression "but I say to you." Which justification is then given for the pronouncement? First, the pronouncement is not an arbitrary declaration but an interpretation of a Scripture verse. It is based on the reading of the Torah directly (see above on 5:18) and it eliminates the chain of tradition. The reason is no doubt that the Scripture is believed to be a sufficient textual basis, but that the interpretation is the problem. Second, what Jesus introduces is his interpretation of the passage, based on his theological insight into the original intention of the legislator, God. Contrary to what is often assumed, however, this insight is not derived from any esoteric revelation. Rather, that the pronouncements are followed by an argumentation presupposes that the reasons behind Jesus' interpretation are open to rational comprehension and debate. Jesus' interpretations are assumed to make sense because they

Ibid., 58. Ibid., 59. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. HUbner, Gesetz, 231-36. Wilhelm Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jildischen Traditionsliteratur (1899; reprinted

84 85 86 87

Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1965) 189. Daube, NT and Rabbinic judaism, 57. Ibid., 58; cf. also 6 n. 1; Lohse, "Ich aber sage euch," 198-99; HUbner, Gesetz, 233. Virgil Howard, Das Ego Jesu in den synoptischen Evangelien (MaTS 14; Marburg: Elwert, 1975) 191. Ibid., 197-98.

209

can be confirmed by examples, proverbs, rhetorical questions, and so on. For the SM, and in all probability for the historical Jesus himself, the original intent of the legislator God was the principle of the love-command (5:43), which, in turn, is directly related to the Golden Rule (7:12). In other words, the Scripture texts, if interpreted by the love-command and the Golden Rule, lead to the interpretations given by Jesus. The Golden Rule as a general legal and ethical principle shows that the love-command of Lev 19: 18 is not an idiosyncratic doctrine. Third, that these are such argumentations presupposes that the readers or listeners can follow them rationally, so that the stated conviction that Jesus is right is not due to irrational devotion by his disciples but to rational insight into the conclusiveness of ethical arguments. Because of this assumption, which counts on the rational faculties of the hearers or readers, the implementation of the commandments in the concrete situations of life can be left to the recipients in the expectation that they will implement what they have understood. 4. Do the antitheses imply a higher christology? Since the antitheses make no explicit statement about a higher christology, one must question whether the words attributed to Jesus, especially the statement "but I say to you," imply such a christology. If these words express a high degree of self-consciousness, do they imply as well a 88

210

"messianic" consciousness? Despite assurances by Christian scholars past and present, there is no evidence of "messianic" consciousness, either on the part ofJesus or on the part of anyone else involved in the SM. 88 On the contrary, the SM appears to be ostensibly disinterested in messianism. Jesus' self-consciousness as expressed in the words "but I say to you" does not necessarily go beyond that of an authoritative teacher, such as Jesus is for the SM, who is confident about the truth and the eschatological consequences of what he has to say. 89 It is true that rabbis shun using the first person singular, 90 but their restraint conforms to the rabbinic ethos 91 and does not imply that everyone else, even within Judaism, who uses the first person singular in doctrinal pronouncements necessarily overextends himself. To cite a parallel, Paul uses the first person singular or plural in a similar way, 9 2 expressing his clear sense of an authoritative role as an apostle, but there is no reason to conclude from his language that he had "messianic" ambitions or the like. A good analogy to the view of the SM that Jesus was an authoritative teacher is the Qumranic Teacher of Righteousness, especially if Ben Zion Wacholder's interpretation of the Temple Scroll (11QTemple) is correct. As he points out, this scroll contains evidence of an unusual use of the first person singular. The document presumes to be a divine revelation of the

So correctly Braun, Radikalismus, 2.5 n. 2, 85 n. 2; Lohse, "Ich aber sage euch," 197; Guelich, "Antitheses," 457; idem, Sermon, 255-71; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 67-69 (Sermon, 65-67). In favor of a messianic interpretation are Schniewind, Matthaus, 37; Werner Georg Kiimmel, "Jesus und der jiidische Traditionsgedanke," in his Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, 31-32; Howard, Das Egojesu, 197-98. Of great influence was Ernst Kasemann's statement ("The Problem ofthe Historical Jesus," in his Essays on New Testament Themes, 37): "The determining factor, however, is that the words ly(o ~( A(yro embody a claim to an authority which rivals and challenges that of Moses. But anyone who claims an authority rivalling and challenging Moses has ipso facto set himself above Moses; he has ceased to be a rabbi, for a rabbi's authority only comes to him as derived from Moses.... For the Jew who does what is done here has cut himself off from the community ofJudaism-or else he brings the Messianic Torah and is therefore the Messiah." A large number of scholars have endorsed this statement, but such

89 90 91

92

endorsements can hardly obscure the fact that it is due to a Paulinizing reading of the antitheses, not to the words themselves. · See Lohse, "Ich aber sage euch," 197-98. On this point see Daube, NT and Rabbinic judaism, 59,62. See, e.g., Hillel's maxim, 'Abot 1.14 (ed. Taylor): "He used to say, A name made great is a name destroyed"; 'Abot 6.5: "Seek not greatness for thyself, and desire not honour." See Rom 4:9; 9:1; 10:18, 19; 11:1, 11, 13; 12:3; 15:8; 1 Cor 1:12; 7:6, 8, 12, 35; 10:15, 29; 15:51; 2 Cor 6:13; 7:3; 8:8; 11:16, 21; Gal1:9, etc.

Matthew 5:21-48

Torah set forth in the first person singular and addressing Moses as "you." Moreover, the composer of the scroll, whom Wacholder identifies as the Teacher of Righteousness, also speaks in the first person singular: The real author concealed his identity by advancing the claim that his writings were of a divine source, not as conveyed by any mortal, but revealed directly by God, in the same way as the Torah had been revealed to Moses. By presenting his work as the word of God, the author played for high stakes: he might be glorified as a divine messenger or damned as an agent ofSatan. 93 Wacholder believes that the author attempted to introduce a "new" Torah: All indications are that the author called his book Seper Torah or Torah, a title that implied an invidious comparison with the Mosaic Pentateuch. If this is correct, the name Megillat Hammiqdash [i.e., Temple Scroll] given to this work in the editio princeps is both inappropriate and misleading. On the other hand, Qumranic Torah seems to be a fitting and proper title for a book that claimed to have been given to Moses on Mount Sinai. Such a title was intended to reinforce the book's claim not only for equality with its Mosaic counterpart, but for superiority to it. The author's attitude to the traditional Torah was perhaps similar to that found in Matt. 5: 17, which in paraphrase may be rendered: "I have not come to diminish the law of M~ses but to complete it. "94 Whether Wacholder's hypothesis can be accepted in toto remains to be seen. Concerning the historical Jesus, however, he assumes that the rabbinic version and interpretation in b. Sabb. 116b accurately reflects what Jesus had in mind. We have seen, however, that SM/Matt 5:17 is of a complex apologetic nature and denies precisely what Wacholder postulates. 95 The question, therefore, is whether in his interpretation of the Temple Scroll he is influenced to some degree by his views on the historical Jesus. If he should be so 93 94 95 96 97

influenced, however, the evidence of the use of the first person singular in the Temple Scroll may not be as peculiar as Wacholder postulates, indicating rather what was possible in first-century Judaism. 96 The implied belief of the SM, rather, is that Jesus is viewed as a righteous man and a teacher who instructs with authority, as Matthew rightly judges. 97 Such a teacher, however, would not think of basing his authority on his own presumptuousness. Instead, as the SM presupposes, Jesus' authority was the truth and the will of God as revealed by the Torah. The teacher with the courage to say "but I say to you" makes a statement first of all about every true teacher. Rather than seeing himself as merely handing down tradition, the true teacher assumes the personal responsibility for examining and judging the truth of a matter and for pronouncing it with frankness. Such a stance may very well disagree with the traditional views. 98 In the antitheses before us, the truth at stake is not anything in general; rather it pertains to particular insights into what the law of God says, and what it does not say, and the ethical consequences that one must draw from it. 5. With whom did the antitheses originate? Although this question is still the subject of much debate, points of agreement among the discussion partners need to be examined more closely before the four basic hypotheses are discussed more fully. There seems to be widespread agreement that the antitheses as we now have them in the SM were not worked out by the historical Jesus but are the result of redactional activity. But juxtaposing the question of historical origin with that of formal composition obscures the fact that one does not necessarily exclude the other. The evidence certainly points to a later redactor as far as the composition is concerned, but this indication only raises the question of where and how this redactor learned the method and substance of what he presented. In the light of the dearth of reliable historical information concerning the

Wacholder, Dawn ofQy,mran, 4. Ibid., 3I-32. See above on SM/Matt 5:I7. Wacholder (Dawn of Qumran, 202-I2) dates II QTorah c. 200 BCE. The repeated statements that jesus taught and acted with authority (ifovula) are due to Matthew's christology. See Matt 7:29; 8:9; 9:6, 8; IO:I; 2I:23,

98

24, 27; 28:I8. See Mark I2:I4; and Betz, "Vom wahren Lehrer," in Synoptische Studien, 68-76.

211

historical jesus and his teaching method, and in consideration of the unique nature of the material at hand, one cannot rule out the possibility that the redactor had access to a tradition that reported more or less correctly what jesus taught and how he presented it. One must assume, furthermore, that when jesus taught subjects pertaining to the Jewish Torah, he did so by using the forms of legal argumentation available at the time. Moreover, one cannot dismiss the possibility that the other Gospels apart from Matthew, which to a large extent transpose jewish arguments into moral arguments more generally comprehensible and applicable to early Christian life in a Greek environment, passed over what appeared to be internal jewish debates. If the antitheses present such internal jewish debates, as I believe they do, they may constitute a very old tradition that, although not coming from Jesus directly word for word, may truthfully reflect his concerns and his methods regarding the jewish Torah. 99 Granting that the antitheses are the work of a redactor, one must raise further questions: At which stage in the tradition is the redactor to be sought? How did the redactional work proceed? What was the result of the redaction? Contemporary scholars do not agree on any of these questions. Part of the problem is doubtless the scholarly debate itself, which, in spite of all the progress that has been made, operates all too often with unexamined presuppositions and uncritically accepted limitations of options resulting from older investigations. In general, one can distinguish five hypotheses: 99

100 101

102 103

212

1. The most commonly accepted hypothesis, named by Luz 10 0 "Normalhypothese," usually takes its cues from Bultmann's discussion in his History of the Synoptic Tradition. 1 0 1 Bultmann regarded the first, second, and fourth antitheses to be "older formulations" that came to Matthew from his special tradition. These older antitheses served as models for their expansion from three to six on the part of the redactor Matthew. Matthew, then, was the creator of the "secondary" layer-the third, fifth, and sixth antitheses-and the composition as a whole. "Thus the older formulation 5 2lf., 27f., 33-37 has given rise to analogous formulations, in which unattached dominical sayings have found a home. The motive for the formulation is clear: the antithetical form commends itself by its catechetical character." 102 Bultmann's rather sketchy discussion goes back to the beginnings of his form-critical work, 103 and on that account is beset with some problems. His distinction between "primary" and "secondary" antithe§t:S is based on the fact that the "primary" ones have synoptic parallels while the "secondary" ones do not. Consequently, the synoptic parallels are supposed to have come from Q, so that the antitheses having Q-parallels can be attributed to older tradition. By the same token, those having no Q-parallels are judged to be contributions by the redactor. This rather simple procedure, however, does not pay sufficient attention to the fact that neither the form of the antithesis nor the argument is part of the Q-material, a fact that even includes the Sermon on the Plain (SP/Luke 6:20b-49). 104 One has

This is basically the point made by Sanders (jesus and 104 Bultmann (History, 135), however, mentions the fact: judaism, 260-64), who is mainly concerned about the "In Luke, the sayings about revenge and loving one's question of historical authenticity and does not enemy show no trace of antithetical adjustment." address the question of form and composition. The German text is even clearer: "da diese Worte Luz, Matthiius, 1.245 (Matthew, 1.274). urspriinglich einer antithetischen Einkleidung Bultmann, History, 135-36. This hypothesis had been entbehrten" (Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, advocated also by Kummel, "Jesus und der judische 143). So also Strecker (Bergpredigt, 65 n. 2 [Sermon, Traditionsgedanke," 125 n. 75; Klostermann, 20 1 n. 2]), who points out that the formula in Matthi:lus, 42; Eichholz, Bergpredigt, 70; Strecker, SP/Luke 6:27a, "but I say to you," does not reflect Weg, 38; idem, "Antithesen," 39-47; idem, the form of the antithesis. Bergpredigt, 64-67 (Sermon, 62-64); Guelich, Sermon, 178-79, 265-71; Luz, Matthiius 1.244-47 (Matthew, 1.274-79). Bultmann, History, 136. Cf. the 1st ed. of Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921) 82-83, where the wording is almost identical.

Matthew 5:21-48

no real reason, therefore, for distinguishing "primary" from "secondary" antitheses and for deriving the "primary" ones from older tradition while attributing the "secondary" ones to the redaction of Matthew. 105 With this conclusion, other distinctions of Bultmann, such as that between model and imitation and prohibition and instruction, lose their force. Since the antitheses are certainly not "original" in the sense that they were composed by Jesus, they all must be redactional, leaving open the question of whether this redaction took place at the Matthean or the pre-Matthean stage. 2. Some scholars who were involved in redaction criticism at the time when they examined the antitheses have attributed them quite naturally to Matthew's redaction. 106 These scholars, however, do not pay sufficient attention to the possibility and indeed, the probability, ofpre-Matthean redaction. Their method was rather simplistic and resulted in attributing everything for which no synoptic (Q-) parallel could be adduced to the final redactor and author of the Gospel. Meanwhile, however, redactional activities have been shown to exist in the presynoptic sources of the Gospels. 107 3. The opposite hypothesis, that all the antitheses are due to pre-Matthean formulation, was presented by Wrege in his Gottingen doctoral dissertation of 196364, published in 1968. 108 This painstaking investigation

was supervised by Joachim Jeremias, who was in basic agreement with the results. 1 09 Wrege assumes that Matthew took the antitheses in Matt 5:21-48, without any changes, from Christian congregations free from the Torah. 110 Wrege, however, does not consider the possibility that Matthew took over a larger unit than 5:21-48. Furthermore, Wrege's concept of a freeflowing oral tradition prevents him from seriously raising the question of the composition of such blocks of material. 111 At this point, as Luz 112 has indicated, lies the weakness ofWrege's hypothesis: the consequence is either to deny the existence of Q altogether (as Jeremias and Wrege do) or to postulate a special redaction ofQ prior to Matthew (QMau), from which the whole block of material would have been taken over. 4. The possibility that the antitheses may have come to Matthew from a pre-Matthean redaction of QMatt is contemplated by Strecker, 113 but he concedes this possibility only for Matthew's Sondergut ("special tradition"), that is, the first, second, and fourth antitheses. Strecker here simply affirms Bultmann's hypothesis, although he also says clearly that the Qtradition common to Matthew and Luke did not contain the formulation of the antithesis. 114 Why, then, does he not simply attribute all antitheses to QMatt?

105 See, however, Strecker's point of view (below, section (Bergpredigt, 82, 92-93). 2). 112 Luz (Matthiius, 1.246 n. 5 [Matthew, 1.275 n. 5]) 106 This hypothesis is advocated by Suggs, Wisdom, 109himself rejects the possibility that the antitheses came 15; idem," Antitheses," 432-44 (reprinted in from Q/Matt because he postulates Matthean Schottroff, Essays, 93-107); Liihrmann, "Liebet eure theologoumena in the redaction (esp. vss 25-26, 29Feinde," 413 n. 4; Broer," Antithesen," 19, 50-63; 30). There is, however, no real reason to attribute idem, Freiheit, 75-113, 123-30. For criticism cf. these theological interests to Matthew alone (see Strecker, Bergpredigt, 65-66 (Sermon, 63-64); Luz, below on SM/Matt 5:25-26, 29-30). Luz is willing Matthiius, 1.246 (Matthew, 1.279). to concede that the fifth antithesis (5:38-39) also 107 See the Introduction above, p. 4. comes from a pre-Matthean source. 113 Strecker, Bergpredigt, 66: "Wahrscheinlicher ist, daB 108 Wrege, Bergpredigt, 3, 56-57,66-70, 82, 93. 109 Jeremias, Theology, 250-53. See also Sand, Gesetz, 48; gerade die Antithesen des matthaischen Sondergutes in QMatt vorhanden waren" (Sermon, 63: "It is more Dietzfelbinger, Antithesen, 9; Liihrmann, Redaktion, 118. F~r a critique see Luz, Matthiius, 1.245-46 likely that the antitheses themselves were present in the special Matthean material in QMatt"). (Matthew, 1.279). 114 Ibid., 65: "Dies besagt, daB in der Matthiius und 110 Wrege (Bergpredigt, 57) argues: "Mt muB also die Antithesen 5,21-48 schon als solche aus gesetzesLukas gemeinsamen Q-Tradition eine antithetische freien Gemeindekreisen iibernommen haben" Formung nicht vorliegt" (Sermon, 63: "This means ("Matthew must have taken over the antitheses 5:21that in the Q tradition common to Matthew and 48 en bloc from law-free congregational circles"). Luke, there was no antithetical formulation"). Ill Characteristically, he calls them Spruchreihen ("series According to Strecker, the parallels that do exist of sayings") or Spruchgut ("sayings material") pertain only to "the substance" (die Materie), not to

213

5. Strecker's reference to QMatt opens the door to the thorny problem of the general relationship between Q and SM. If one assumes that there was a secondary recension of Q prior to Matthew from which Matthew drew his material (QMatt), and if one further assumes that SM was part of QMatt, then one easily reaches the conclusion that either all or most of the antitheses came from QMatt. This hypothesis has been proposed mostly by American and British scholars who, however, merely drew their conclusions from the earlier postulation of successive recensions of Q. 115 Thus, B. H. Branscomb 116 took five antitheses to be pre-Matthean with only the third added by Matthew. Other American and British scholars offered similar views: B. W. Bacon, 117 G. D. Kilpatrick, 118 T. W. Manson, 119 and W. D. Davies. 1 2° My own position on this question should now be clear and may be summarized as follows: the set of six antitheses are the creation of the redactor of the SM and are thus pre-Matthean. One has to account for Matthew's own redaction in terms of the whole of the SM, not in terms of the antitheses alone. 121 Since the antithetical form has no parallels in SP, Q, the synoptic Gospels elsewhere, Doctrina apostolorum, Didache, and Barnabas,

115

116 11 7 118 119 120 121

214

Bultmann's distinction between an older and a younger layer of antitheses becomes unnecessary. If redaction is not restricted to the operation of the final redactor Matthew, one no longer has any need to force Matthean redaction on the text where there is no unambiguous evidence for it. Similarly, the motivation for reading Matthean christology into the text by setting up Jesus in opposition to the Mosaic Torah or even to the Old Testament in general has fallen away. 12 2 According to the SM, Jesus did not set aside either the Torah or the Old Testament but is shown to refute wrong interpretations by right ones. In terms of the history of exegesis and theology, in the SMJesus did not proclaim a "new law" (nova lex) or a particularly Christian ethic, juxtaposed respectively to the old law (Jewish Torah) or to rabbinic ethics; rather, he expounded what the will of God as revealed in the Torah had originally intended. This position affirms the view of the matter held, among many, especially by the reformers, Luther and Calvin in particular. 12 3

the antithetical form. Bultmann (History, 146-4 7) has 122 I differ here sharply from most recent scholarship; raised the question whether the antitheses originated cf., e.g., Strecker's succinct statement (Bergpredigt, with the Streitgespriiche ("conflict stories"); see also 65: "Dagegen stehtJesus in Distanz zur Tora Moses. Liihrmann, Redaktion, 118. One must certainly Der Kyrios steht iiber der Tora; seine Autoritat assume some relationship, but this assumption is to ermoglicht es, Torakritik zu iiben, die his zur be separated from the question of origin. Auflosung von Einzelgeboten und his zur AufstelSee esp. Paul Wernle, Die synoptische Frage (Freiburg: lung von neuen Weisungen fiihrt" [Sermon, 62: Mohr, 1899), 88, 229-31; CarlS. Patton, Sources of "Jesus, however, stands at a distance from the law of the Synoptic Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1915); Moses. The Kyrios stands over the Torah; his Allen, Matthw, 72; McNeile, Matthw, 101; cf. authority makes it possible to be critical of the Streeter's critical remarks, Four Gospels, 235-38; Torah, which leads even to dissolving individual Harnack, Spruche und Reden Jesu, 80-81, 89-91, commandments and setting up new command128-29 (Sayings, 53-63, 229-31). See also john P. ments"]). Similarly Guelich, Sermon, 260-63; Luz, Brown, "The Form of 'Q' Known to Matthew," NTS Matthiius, 1.249-50 (Matthw, 1.278-79). 8 (1961/62) 27-42; M. Didier, "L'evangile selon 123 For an informative survey of the history of exegesis Matthieu," in Didier,Matthieu, 12-13; M. Devisch, and references, see Luz, Matthiius, 1.24 7-49 "Le document Q, source de Matthieu: Problematique (Matthw, 1.276-78). Remarkable are his final words actuelle," in ibid., 71-97. (249): "In dieser wichtigen Frage behalt die B. H. Branscomb, Jesus and the Law ofMoses (New altkirchlich-katholische Auslegung grundsatzlich York: Smith, 1930) 234-36. gegeniiber der klassisch protestantischen Recht" B. W. Bacon, Studies in Matthw (New York: (Matthw, 1.278: "In this important question, the Scribner's, 1930) 181. interpretation of the ancient Catholic church remains Kilpatrick, Origins, 18-20, 24. basically correct in contrast to the classical Protestant Manson, Sayings, 23-24, 153-63. position"). Davies, Setting, 387-88. For these more general conclusions, see the main Introduction to the SM, above, pp. 50-66.

Matthew 5:21-48

2. The Antitheses a. The First Antithesis: Murder (Matt 5:21-26) Bibliography Banks, jesus and the Law, 186-89. Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1.290-306. Braun, Radikalismus, 2.83-99. Robert Guelich, "Mt 5,22: Its Meaning and Integrity," ZNW 64 (1973) 39-52. Idem, Sermon, 179-93. Joachim Jeremias, "'LaB allda deine Gabe' (Mt 5,23f.)," ZNW 36 (1937) 150-54, reprinted in his Abba, 103-7. Daniel Marguerat, "Matthieu 5, 21-26: Les conflits," ETR 53 (1978) 508-13. Idem,Jugement, 151-67. Charles F. D. Moule, "Uncomfortable Words; the Angry Word: Matthew V. 2lf.," ExpT 81 (1969/70) 10-13, 115-18. Percy, Botschaft, 123-43. Str-B 1.253-94. Strecker, "Antithesen," 4 7-51. Manfred Weise, "Mt 5,2lf., ein Zeugnis sakraler Rechtsprechung in der Urgemeinde," ZNW 49 (1958) 116-23. Preben Wemberg-M~ler, "A Semitic Idiom in Matthew V. 22," NTS 3 (1956-57) 71-73. Wrege, Bergpredigt, 57-64. Zeller, Mahnspriiche, 62-67.

1) Analysis The first antithesis (5:21-26) discusses the interpretation ofExod 20:13, the prohibition of the Decalogue against murder. Formally, the section contains the antithetical argument in its fully developed form. The first part concerns the refutation of what is termed an inadequate interpretation (5: 21 ). The naming of the "chain of tradition" is followed by the Scripture quotation under discussion (Exod 20:13) and the statement of the inadequate interpretation, formulated as "sacred law." In the second part, the refutation is juxtaposed to what is regarded as the

adequate interpretation of the Scripture passage (5:22a-b), introduced by a doctrinal formula identifying the authority claimed for this interpretation. In the third part, the adequate interpretation is argued (5:22c-26) by two illustrative examples, both parodies of casuistic law (5:22c-d), and by two illustrative cases describing a religious (5:2324) and a legal (5:25[-26]) conflict. The conclusion (5:26) comprises a warning formulated as an Amensaying. The ethical conclusion to be drawn from the argument is unstated and left to the reader to discern (see below).

2) Interpretation • 21 The first word of the first antithesis addresses the

readers or the listeners in terms of their present situation: "You have heard" (~KovuaTE) 124 identifies them as recipients of previous instruction, by implication understood as the traditional instruction. Despite its claims, however, this instruction is deemed to be without merit. The claim of the tradition is judged to be unfounded: "it is said," namely, by God (€ppEe7J). 1 25 This tradition was given "to the men of old" (TOL!i' iz.pxalot!i') 1 2 6 and has thus been handed down through many generations to the present. The evaluation of this tradition, however, is negative. Rather than constituting a proof verified by antiquity, the chain of tradition is judged to be a history of error. The expression "the men of old" (o1 iz.pxa'iot) requires further explanation. Occurring only in the SM (Matt 5:21,27 v.l., 33), 127 it refers to authorities of the distant past. We are not told precisely who these authorities were. Where, then, did the concept originate? Rabbinic parallels show that "the men of old" can be biblical authorities or, from a later perspective, the early rabbis.

124 The term aKOVW ("hearing") is used here in regard to Matt2:15, 17,23;4:14;8:17; 12:17; 13:35;21:4; receiving teaching. See above, p. 5. See also 22:31. For the formula introducing citations, see SM/Matt 5:27,33,38, 43; 7:24, 26; SP/Luke 6:27, BDF, § 130 (3); BDR, §130 n. 2; Str-B 1.253. 47, 49, For the remainder of the NT, see the 126 For rabbinic parallels, see Str-B 1.253. passages and literature in BAGD, s. v. aKOVW, 1; 127 The phrase is applied to the ancient prophets in Luke Gerhard Kittel, TDNT 1.216-25; Gerhard 9:8, 19; Did. 11.11. See BAGD, s.v. apxa'io~. 2, which Schneider, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s.v. aKovw. gives as parallels Thucydides 2.16.2; Cornutus, p. 2, 125 The form £pp£81J ("it was said") refers to God as the 18; p. 4, 9; Sir 39:1; 2 Kgs 5:10 (LXX); PhiloRer. div. her.181 (referringtoPlato);JosephusAnt. 7.171. author of what was said. Cf. Matt 1:22: rh p1J8h v1r0 Kvplov ("what was said by the Lord"). The form epp£871 See also Gerhard Delling, TDNT 1.485; LSJ, s.v. occurs in SM/Matt 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43; see apxa'io~. 2.b. furthermore Rom 9:12; Gal3:16; Rev 6:11; cf. also

215

Greek tradition uses the concept in reference to the preSocratics or to the "classical" writers. 128 The synoptic tradition appears to be connected with the Jewish usage, 129 when jesus' interpretation of the Torah is contrasted with "the tradition of the elders"(~ 7Tap&l'Jocns Twv 7TaT£pwv), 130 which is, as the synonym "the tradition of humans"(~ 7Tap&l'Jocns TWV av8pC:l7Twv) shows, to be valued negatively. 131 How can one explain the expression in the SM? It appears to have been common in Hellenistic judaism, as Philo illustrates. He can refer to Plato by saying "as one of the men of old has said" (ws £t7Tf TIS TWV apxalwv) 132 or to Aristotle's De caelo by using the phrase "as the account of the old has it" (ws oTwv apxalwv .Aoyos). 133 In other places, he offers more lengthy explanations when he speaks of the "men of old" in connection with the law. He distinguishes between the general laws and the special laws, seeing the former as originals (apx£Tv7Tot 7rpoupot) and the latter as copies (£tKOV£s). The originals are in effect embodied in men of old, of whom Philo gives a laudatory description in Abr. 4-8; they are said to be identical with the law of nature. 134 The special laws are first of all those of the Decalogue; they have been handed down by scholars: "These are the explanations handed down to us from the old-time studies of divinely gifted men who made deep research into the writings of Moses." 135 Philo repeatedly warns against any disrespect toward these ancient laws:

We must not indeed reject any learning that has grown grey through time, nay, we should make it our aim to read the writings of the sages and listen to proverbs and old-world stories from the lips of those who know antiquity, and ever seek for knowledge about the men and deeds of old. For truly it is sweet to leave nothing unknown. Yet when God causes the young shoots of self-inspired wisdom to spring up within the soul, the knowledge that comes from teaching must straightaway be abolished and swept off.136 Philo's concept is clearly very similar to Greek ideas concerning the origins oflaw. He himself reports the Stoic view concerning the development from the law of nature to the special laws of human societies. 137 We find also in the Stoic sources, which subsequently have informed Roman law, the veteres or maiores, as the first interpreters of the law. Cicero finds that same law codified in the civil law, the old code, and the Twelve Tables, "a complete picture of the olden time, since a primitive antiquity of language can be studied there, and certain forms of pleading reveal the manners and the way oflife of our forerunners." 138 It is noteworthy as well that in Roman legal thought the interpretation of the veteres is connected with the distinction between the written and the unwritten law. The veteres interpreted the law not according to the

128 So frequently in Aristotle, for which see Bonitz, Index 138 Cicero De orat. 1.43.193: "he has throughout the common law, and in the priestly books and the Aristotelicus, 110 s.v.; cf. also Ps.-Demetrius De eloc. 67. For these and other passages, see LSJ, s.v., 11.1; Twelve Tables, a complete picture of the olden time, Wettstein, 1.297. since a primitive antiquity of language can be studied 129 See Str-B 1.253-54; Lohse, "Ich aber sage euch," there, and certain forms of pleading reveal the 197, with parallels from Qumran; Gunther manners and the way of life of our forerunners" Bomkamm, "1rp11Jp
216

Matthew 5:21-48

letter but according to res et sententia, "purpose and intention." 139 Their goal was to practice the law according to a specific rule: "How that truth, justice, and the general good combine to demand that we consider not the exact terms in which any particular law was framed but its purpose and its intention" ("id verum, id aequum, id utile omnibus esse spectari quo consilio et qua sententia, non quibus quidque verbis esset actum"). 140 The task of the Stoic wise man, therefore, was to recover and to continue this original and prudent interpretation of the veteres. Indeed, the power of the law was considered to be identical with prudence (prudentia) for the purpose of exercising right and preventing wrong action. As Cicero explains it, this is what the Greeks meant by the principle of suum cuique tribuendo ("dispensation to each what is his or her due"), 141 that is, equity as the goal and purpose of the law. 142 Present interpretation oflaw, therefore, must choose between justice and law. 143 By contrast, pernicious and unrighteous decrees that by some means may have crept into the written law during history must be rejected as unlawful and not binding. 144

The SM unquestionably takes a different position when it rejects the interpretation purportedly given to the ancients; the view expressed by the SM is more complicated. What is rejected here is the claim by present interpreters that a specific interpretation of a Torah commandment-namely, the one they advocated-had been revealed to the men of old whence it came down to the present. What is not rejected is either the Torah quotation itself or tradition per se. The alternative interpretation of the same Torah commandment, presented by the SM as the adequate interpretation, may also be related to tradition, even though Jesus himself authorized it by the formula "but I say to you." What is refuted, therefore, is both a specific interpretation and the claim by present advocates that it came down straight through the authoritative "chain of tradition." This situation raises another intriguing question: How can the refutation of a legal claim by the SM be compared with Paul's rejection of the Torah given on Mount Sinai? The answer to this question is not easy, especially since Paul appears to have changed his argument to some degree in Romans as compared with

139 Cicero Pro Caecina 28.81. See esp. Otto Behrends, Die fraus legis. Zum Gegensatz von Wort- und Sinngeltung in der romischen Gesetzesinterpretation (Gottinger

rechtswissenschaftliche Studien 121; Gottingen: Schwartz, 1982) 52, and passim. 140 Ibid., cited according to the LCL edition of Cicero, The Speeches: Pro lege Manilia, Pro Caecina, etc., with an English trans. by H. Grose Hodge (London: Heinemann, 1927) 179. 141 Cicero refers to the deriviation of v.lp.os from v(p.w ("dispense") and vovs ("mind"); on these ideas see esp. Plato Leg. 4, 714a: r-i!v rov vov ~Lavop.-i!v £1rovop.ti(ovras v.lp.ov ("calling the law the dispensation of reason"). 142 Cicero De legibus 1.6.19: "And so they [sc. the Stoics] believe that Law is intelligence, whose natural function it is to command right conduct and forbid wrongdoing. They think that this quality has derived its name in Greek from the idea of granting to every man his own, and in our language I believe it has been named from the idea of choosing. For as they have attributed the idea of fairness to the word law, so we have given it that of selection, though both ideas properly belong to Law." ("ltaque arbitrantur prudentiam esse legem, cuius ea vis sit, ut recte facere iubeat, vetet delinquere; eamque rem illi Graeco putant nomine a suum cuique tribuendo appellatam, ego nostro a legendo; nam ut illi

aequitatis, sic nos delectus vim in lege ponimus, et proprium tamen utrumque legis est.") Text and trans. are cited according to the LCL edition by Clinton W. Keyes, Cicero (28 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1928) 16.316-17. See also Behrends, Diefraus legis, 87-97. 143 Cicero De leg. 2.5.11: "in the very definition of the term 'law' there inheres the idea and principle of choosing what is just and true ("in ipso nomine legis interpretando inesse vim et sententiam iusti et iuris legendi"). See also for this text SVF 3, no. 318. 144 Ibid.: "From this point of view it can be readily understood that those who formulated wicked and m~ust statutes for nations, thereby breaking their promises and agreements, put into effect anything but 'laws'" ("Ex quo intellegi par est eos, qui perniciosa et iniusta populis iussa descripserint, cum contra fecerint quam polliciti professique sint, quidvis potius tulisse quam leges"). See Behrends, Die fraus legis, 88-89. Cicero reports that Chrysippus had compiled a collection of such "deceptions" (Tusc. 1.45.1 08; also SVF 3, no. 322).

217

that in Galatians. In Gal 3:19, Paul clearly rejects the authority of the whole Torah given by the angels to Moses on Mount Sinai. 145 Since Paul approves of the Torah of God in principle elsewhere (Gal5:14; 6:2; Rom 7: 12), his refutation can only imply the claim that the Sinai Torah is not the only authoritative one. To return to the SM: the tradition allegedly revealed to "the men of old" is then cited. There are actually two statements, first the sixth (so MT, RSV; LXX: eighth; Philo: seventh) prohibition from the Decalogue: "You shall not kill" (ov <jlov£vum, Exod 20:15 LXX; 20:13 MT); 146 and second, its interpretation in the form of casuistic law: "Everyone, then, who kills shall be answerable to the court" (as B' Ci.v <jlov£vun, tvoxos tuTat Tfj Kplu£~). 147 The statements are joined as if they were divine revelations. The interpretation as presented assumes that the prohibition of the Decalogue refers quite specifically to murder or manslaughter. 148 The interpretation assumes, furthermore, that the commandment is a stipulation belonging to criminallaw. 149 Criminal law determines what is to be done with criminals, that is, it presupposes the definition of what constitutes crime. Based on Exod 20:15, murder is thus defined as a crime. Such crimes are assumed to occur; and when they do, one must take responsive action. 150 The proper action in this case requires that the perpetrator appear in court to answer

questions concerning what he has done and why. The court will then convict and sentence him according to the facts, the motivation for the deed, and so forth. In short, this interpretation takes the prohibition of the Decalogue to be simply a ground rule for criminal law. As such, it is limited to its "literal" meaning: the term <jlov£vHv ("committing murder") occurs in both the quotation and the casuistic law interpretation.l 51 Yet one should regard the law as a general reference to trial by court rather than a concrete reference to the Court of the Twentythree, 15 2 or to capital punishment, 153 or to the last judgment. 154 One can have no doubt that vs 21 represents the traditional interpretation of the prohibition in the Decalogue. Why, then, does Jesus oppose it-or, more precisely, does he oppose the quotation or the interpretation? • 22 This verse contradicts the casuistic law of vs 21 c. Introducing his instruction with the doctrinal formula "but I say to you" (lytu Be A.€yw i>~-t'iv),Jesus, the speaker, offers an alternative legal stipulation to vs 21c, exactly repeating the apodosis, "he shall be answerable to the court," and substituting a different protasis. The citation marker Cfn ("that") indicates that he intends to amend the (allegedly) revealed law quoted in vs 21c. His own amended law, therefore, is intended to replace the interpretative, casuistic law in that verse but not the prohibition of the Decalogue itself.

145 On this see Betz, Galatians, 162-71. 146 Cf. Exod 21:12-14; Lev 24:17; Num 35:16-34; Deut 5:18; Matt 19:18//Mark 10:19//Luke 18:20; Rom 13:9;Jas 2:11; Did. 2.2; Barn. 19.5; Doctr. apost. 2.2: "non homicidium facies" ("Do not commit homicide"). 147 So BAGD, s.v. Kpt
218

jugement, 152-53. 151 They correspond as Ia w and transgression of that law. This is in accordance with the meaning of the "You shall not." For the future indicative in connection with prohibitions, see BDF, § 362; BDR, § 362; Moule, Idiom Book, 178-79. 152 Str-B 1.275. See Strecker, Bergpredigt, 68 (Sermon, 65-66). 153 Joachimjeremias, "paKa," TDNT6.975; Christian Dietzfelbinger, "Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt im Verstandnis des Matthaus," ZNW 70 (1979) 1-15, esp. 14-15. 154 Cf. Rev 21:8; 22:15; Apoc. Pet. 25. See Betz, Lukian, 188n.l.

Matthew 5:21-48

The emendation contains two changes. First, the initial phrase 8s- o' .:l.v ("whoever") has become 1TiiS" b ("everyone who"). The change seems unimportant, but it expresses the shift from a casuistic criminal law to a moral rule: "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court." Second, the verb cpov£-!Juv ("murder") is replaced by opyl(£u8aL ("be angry"). It is well known that all antiquity regarded anger (opy~) as morally reprehensible, but it was not in and of itself a criminal offense. Does the SM here seriously propose to regard anger toward the brother as a criminal offense? On the one hand, to do so would hardly make sense. Or is the emended law of vs 22a designed to ridicule the rejected law ofvs 2lc? This possibility appears more likely because of the examples in vs 22c and d. Even if vs 22a is satirical, however, it cannot be the sole ethical demand the SM is concerned with here. Yet vs 22a introduces anger as the root cause of murder; its elimination will constitute the ethical demand. The full comprehension of this ethical demand, however, must be delayed until the examples have been presented. If, on the other hand, vs 22a is to be taken seriously as criminal law and as analogous to vs 2lc, the phrase "he shall be answerable to the court" must imply some concrete court oflaw. Scholars who hold this view have proposed a local court for dealing with this offense. 155

A number of important manuscripts read £lKfj ("without cause"), 156 obviously modifying the anger against the brother. 15 7 There has been a longstanding controversy over the acceptability of this variant. 15 8 Preben Wernberg-M¢ller 159 has attempted to strengthen its place in the text by noting a parallel in IQS 7.8. It is most likely, however, that £LKfj represents a secondary ethical interpretation. 160 What is the reason for substituting anger against the brother for murder? One can cite several reasons, some having to do with ancient ethical doctrines, others with the composition of the SM: (1) What the SM leaves unstated, Did. 3.2 spells out: "Do not become angry, for anger leads to murder" (JJ.~ ylvov opytA.os-, bo7jy£'i yh.p 7] opy~ 1Tp0s- TOV cpovov). 161 One can hardly doubt that the SM tacitly presupposes the same idea. The theory that anger leads to murder was commonly known in antiquity, 16 2 and especially in the biblical tradition. 163 (2) Anger corresponds to hatred, the opposite oflove (ttya1r7j). (3) The brother (tto£Acpos-) should be treated first in this list of disturbances of neighborly relations because the closest family member is the brother; 164 "brother" is also the

155 So Wettstein, 1.297; BAGD, s.v. Kplcnr, 2: "(local court)" referring to Matt 5:21-22 only; Matthias Rissi, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s.v. Kplvw, 2; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 69 (Sermon, 66-67). 156
irae nascuntur." Cf. also Did. 15.3. 162 The connection is made also in Rom 1:18 and 29. On the doctrines connected with anger, see Gustav Stahlin, "opy~ KrA..," TDNT 5.383-448; Wilhelm Pesch, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s. v. opy~ (bibliography); Betz, Lukian, 27 n. 4, 201 n. 6; PECL 1 and 2, indices s.v. opy~, "Anger." 163 The great example is the brothers Cain and Abel: Cain's anger leads to Abel's death: Gen 4:5. See Gustav Stahlin, TDNT 5.420-22. In jewish wisdom, note esp. Sir 22:24; T. Sim. 2.6-7, 11; T. Dan 1.7-8; 2.3; T. Zeb. 4.11. Philo's rich interpretation illustrates the popularity; see Migr. Abr. 7 4-7 5; Det. pot. ins. 1, 47, 50, 52,69-70, 75-78;Post. C. 21, 38, 45; Conf ling. 22; etc. For passages, see Colson's index, Philo, LCL, vol. 10, pp. 295-96; Terian, Index, p. 6. 164 On the whole topic see Plutarch's essay, "On the Control of Anger" (7r
219

name for the fellow Christian 165 and the fellow Jew;1 66 thus loving one's neighbor (SM/Matt 5:43) means first of all loving one's brother. 16 7 How can the substitution of anger for murder claim to provide a more adequate interpretation of Exod 20: 13? Despite its brevity, Exod 20:13 is not at all clear. What was really meant by forbidding murder? What was the original intent of the lawgiver's, that is, God's, will? As we have seen, a literal answer to these questions is not plausible. Rather, one is to extrapolate the answers from the love-command of Lev 19: 18, which serves as the principle for the interpretation of the Torah. According to the SM, Exod 20:13 is to be taken not merely as a criminal statute of law but, in the first instance, as a moral rule based on the Golden Rule (7: 12). The ethical demand, therefore, must be preventive. The goal must be to imagine a behavior that gains control over anger and thereby eliminates the root cause of murder. As a result, the original intent of the lawgiver did not involve the criminal law alone but both the criminal law and the moral rule whereby the latter informs the former, as the subsequent examples demonstrate.

165

166

167

168 169 170

220

Following the formal antithesis ofvs 22a-b,Jesus defends his interpretation with two illustrative examples of "sacred law" (vs 22c-d) and two exemplary cases in narrative form (vss 23-26). The two illustrative examples (vs 22c-d) are climactically arranged 168 and parodistic in nature. Two strictly parallel formulations of "sacred law" are devised 169 in order to demonstrate by provocative exaggeration the intent of vs 22b. The first example (vs 22c) states offense and sentence in the protasis and apodosis, respectively: "Everyone who says to his brother 'empty-head' shall be answerable to the high court." The protasis parallels vs 21 c and vividly describes how anger toward the brother happens in daily life. An outburst of bad language is cited, calling the brother paKa. The word is an Aramaic loanword 170 in the Greek 171 and is the equivalent of J.Lwp6s ("fool") used in vs 22d. The derogatory paKa seems to have been popular in the bilingual culture of Palestine at the time; it occurs in rabbinic tradition. 172 What does the appearance of this loanword mean in terms of the original language of the SM? Clearly it does not mean that the SM as a whole was originally written in Aramaic 173 and then translated into Greek. It is more

On the role of the family in this context, seePECL liography); Robert A. Guelich, "Mt 5,22: Its Meaning 2.179, 186. and Integrity," ZNW 64 (1973) 39-52; EWNT See Gal6:2 (cf. 5:13-14); Rom 12:9-21, esp. vss 10 (EDNT) 3, s.v. pat&s," TDNT BCE (Preisigke, Sammelbuch, no. 7638, 7): 'AvTloxov 1.144-46; BAGD, s.v. &.S•I\<j>&s;Johannes Beutler, TOV f>axav (" Antiochus the empty-head"). See BAGD, ' ' EWNT (EDNT) 1, s.v. &.S•I\<j>&s, esp. section 5, and the s.v. pattl\aS£1\<j>la): 1 Thess 4:9; Rom 12:10, etc. See patti\aa•i\<j>la, <j>tl\aa•l\<j>os; Betz, PECL 2.231-63, on Plutarch's essay "On Brotherly Love," interpreters regard it as equivalent to Greek K£v&s; Latin vacuus (see BAGD, s.v. patla), already Jas 2:20: 6, i'1.vlipw1r£ K£V' ("0 you empty occurs in Plutarch (see PECL 2.235, 237, 240, 244); man"). T. Benj. 7.5 (with reference to Cain); Philo Som. 2.98; 173 Many commentators who regard the appearance of but not in the NT and other early Christian the term as evidence of an underlying Aramaic literature. stratum argue differently, but this hypothesis overlooks the social function ofloanwords. See Cf. Wrege, Bergpredigt, 58-59, who, following Guelich, Sermon, 186: "betrays the Aramaic others, denies the climactic arrangement. See above on SM/Matt 5:19, 2lc-d. background of the verse"; similarly Strecker, Bergpredigt, 70 n. 12 (Sermon, 202 n. 12). For the term 1'-wp&s/pat
Matthew 5:21-48

likely that the SM was written originally in Greek with some Aramaic terms representing the "lower" vernacular for the community of the SM. All Aramaic loanwords in the SM are residual single words not representative of the continuously spoken language of the text as a whole. Moreover., the case of abusive language, which is the focus here, is intentionally trivial, an everyday occurrence.174 The apodosis is surprising: "he shall be answerable to the high court" (uvv£aptov). 175 The judgment appears to be incommensurate with the seemingly trivial offense. If such a law were ever implemented, the courts would be swamped with a flood of cases and the judicial system would be paralyzed. There are, however, other possibilities of avoiding such a dilemma. Scholars who take this to be a serious law must then lower the status of the court to a kind of community council. 176 Or, scholars can take it parodistically, focusing on the legal formulation per se and acknowledging that if one

understands the command "you shall not murder" (vs 21b) as criminal law, then jesus' interpretation is absurd. Hence, one must not take vs 21 bas criminal law but primarily as the will of God. As a divine precept, vs 21 b is primarily an ethical demand and only secondarily a legal prohibition. Consequently, the parodistic exaggeration ridicules the assumption that a moral offense such as vs 22c describes cannot be subject to earthly court action, so that the last judgment is meant. 177 The second example (vs 22d) parallels the first exactly with the absurdity now pushed to the extreme: "and everyone who says (to him) 'fool' shall be guilty (enough) for the Gehenna offire." 178 The expression ds y£wvav Tov 1rvpos ("into the Gehenna of fire") no longer names a forensic institution but the eschatological destiny of those condemned at the lastjudgment. 179 Therefore, a change of translation is required as well for tvoxos, a term that can also mean "convicted as guilty" or "condemned." 180 The climactic parallelism of tvoxos in

174 This was pointed out by Chrysostom and Basilius; for "Uber den Zornigen gabs damals so wenig wie heute the references see BAGD, s.v.;Jeremias, TDNT ein menschliches Gericht, weil das faktisch nur die 6.976. greifbare Tat strafen kann" ("Neither then nor today 175 uvvEOpLov in this context refers to the Sanhedrin, the is the angry person answerable to a human court of Jewish high court in Jerusalem, which is mentioned law because it in fact can punish only the deed frequently in the NT: see Matt 5:22; 26:59; Mark actually committed" [my trans.]). The sentence is 14:55; 15:1; Luke 22:66; Acts 5:21,27,34, 41; 6:12, quoted by Davies (Setting, 237) as evidence against 15; 22:30; 23:1, 15, 20, 28; 24:20;John 11:47. See Bornhauser (Bergpredigt, 75-84), who wants to BAGD, s.v. uvvEDpLov, 2; Eduard Lohse, TDNT construct a ritual of excommunication on the basis of 7.858-69 (bibliography); Ulrich Kellermann, EWNT Matt 5:22. (EDNT) 3, s.v. uvvEopLOv (bibliography); Hugo 178 Some manuscripts complete the parallelism with vs Mantel, IDBSup, 784-86 (bibliography); CRINT 22b by adding ri!> ao•>..cJ>i!> avrov ("to his brother"): L 1.379-400; Schiirer, History, 2.199-226 0 0233 j1.1 3 700 pc ff1 sy•·c bo Cyprian. So Nestle(bibliography); Albert Baumgarten, "The Aland, critical apparatus, ad Joe. But the longer Duodecimal Courts of Qumran, Revelation, and the reading is unnecessary; the SM often abbreviates Sanhedrin," JBL 95 (1976) 59-78; Anthony]. sentences in this way. Cf. also the parallel in Justin Saldarini, "Sanhedrin," ABD 5.975-80. Apol. 1.16.2, cited in Aland, Synopsis, 80. 176 So Davies (Setting, 236-39), based on the Qumran 179 On the expression ~ f'E£vva rov 1rvpor ("the Gehenna texts and suggesting a communal investigation. of fire"), see also SM/Matt 5:29, 30; Matt Similarly Martin Weise ("Mt 5,2lf-ein Zeugnis 10:28//Luke 12:5; Mark 9:43,45,47/ /Matt 18:9, sakraler Rechtsprechung in der U rgemeinde," ZNW cf. 18:6, 8; Matt 23:15, 33;Jas 3:6; 2 Clem. 5.4; etc. 49 [1958]116-23), followed by Wrege (Bergpredigt, See BAGD, s.v. f'E£vva; 1rvp, l.b;JoachimJeremias, 59-60), Dietzfelbinger (Antithesen, 17 -18), and "yE£vva," TDNT 1.657-58; Friedrich Lang, "1rvp," opposed by Guelich (ZNW 64 [ 1973]43-44; idem, TDNT 6.942-46 (D.III.2); Otto Bacher, EWNT Sermon, 186-87). Differently also Strecker, (EDNT) I, s.v. f'E£vva (bibliography); Hermann Bergpredigt, 70 (Sermon, 67). As Guelich points out Lichtenberger, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s.v. 1rvp (bibcorrectly, the Syriac use of uvvaywy~ or f.KKA7J
221

vs 22b, c, and d reaches a kind of semantic crisis requiring this change of translation and the shift from this world to the afterlife, all of which is int~nded to point up the inadequacy of the interpretation repudiated by the SM. The abusive term is now p.wpos ("fool"), either the Greek equivalent of the loanword paK&. or something even more insulting. 181 In the light of the climax in vs 22b-d, one should indeed expect a more serious insult, and rabbinic usage that knows it as a loanword can be cited in support of such an interpretation. 182 • 23 The two examples in vs 22c-d are followed by two longer narratives describing illustrative cases (vss 23-26). These cases from real-life situations demonstrate Jesus' interpretation of the prohibition in vs 21 b. Although the two examples appear to be adduced at random, they were not chosen without reason, and synoptic parallels show that they came from tradition. I will discuss each in turn. The first case involves an episode during a ritual giftoffering; its subject matter is a cultic-ethical conflict (vss 23-24). The connecting otv ("therefore") introduces the little story that, rendered in the second person singular, imagines a person making a sacrifice: £av otv 7rpornpEpys

To liwpov uov £1rl To 8vutauT~pwv ... ("Therefore, when you bring your gift-offering on the altar, ... ").The use of the second person singular 183 presupposes that the readers of the SM made such offerings regularly. Given the Jewish context, one must assume that the altar upon which the offering was to be deposited was the altar of burnt offering in the Temple of Jerusalem, most likely located in the courtyard. 184 The narrative further assumes that the reader is familiar with the ritual, which is described briefly, accurately, and with technical terminology. 185 We possess pictorial descriptions detailing the acts of carrying (tjJEp~tv), 186 the offering (liwpov), 187 the approach to (1rpos) the altar, 188 and the deposition of the gift on top of the altar (£1rl To 8vutauT~ptov). 189 Remarkably, this sequence does not presuppose a priest functioning as an intermediary who receives the gift and places it on the altar. Scholars have suggested that the account may be abbreviated and that the priest may have been omitted as self-evident; but one need not postulate 190 an intervention of such a priest in this ritual of gift-offering, since the text gives no indication that it was concerned with priesthood and priestly mediation. 191 If the SM conforms to Jewish

181 So Wettstein, 1.298-99; Str-B 1.279; Georg Bertram, TDNT 4.844-46; BAGD, s.v. p.ropos, 3; Spicq, Notes, 3.490-95, with further bibliography. 182 For passages, see Str-B 1.279. Differently Luz, Matthaus, 1.252 (Matthew, 1.282). 183 The change to the second person singular corresponds to the commandment in vs 21b, but the composition as a whole is addressed to fJp.'iv ("you," second person plural [vs 22a]), probably the community of the SM. By the second person singular, the ethical imperatives focus on the individual member. 184 The altar of burnt offering in the inner forecourt of the Jerusalem Temple is meant. It was built by Herod and it is described in Josephus Bell. 5.225-26. The NT mentions it also: Matt 23:18-20, 35; Luke 11:51; Heb 7:13. See Bo Reicke, BHH 1.63-65; Frederick F. Bruce, IDBSup 19-20; Schiirer, History, 2.275-313. For the term 8vu1aur~p1ov see LSJ, s.v.;Johannes Behm, "86ro KTA.," TDNT 3.182-83, 184-86 (A.3.a and B.2); BAGD, s.v. 8vu1aur~p1ov, l.a;Jiirgen Roloff, EWNT (EDNT), 2, s.v. 8vu1aur~p1ov. 185 See the commentary ofStr-B 1.282-84. 186 For the general meaning, see Josephus Ant. 6.67: aoopa 7rp0Epov ("they presented gifts"); 13.101; Matt 2:11; on specifically sacrificial gifts, see also

222

187

188

189 190

191

Matt 8:4; Heb 8:3-4; 9:9. See BAGD, s.v. 1rpout/>tpro, 2.a; Konrad WeiB, "1rpout/>tpro," TDNT 9.67-70; Wolfgang Schenk, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s. v. 1rpout/>tpro, with bibliography. aoopov refers to the gift-offering generally. For parallels, see BAGD, s.v. aoopov, 2; Str-B 1.282-83; AlfredStuiber, "Geschenk," RAC 10(1978)685703; Gerhard Schneider, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s.v. aoopov (bibliography). Cf. the parallel from m. Pesal; 3. 7-8, cited in Str-B 1.283-84. Cf. also Lev 18:3; Ezek 40:46; 42:13; 44:13, 15, 16; Rom 5:2, etc. For "upon the altar" (£1rl ro 8vu1aur~p1ov), see 1 Esdr 8:15;Barn. 7.3; and BAGD, 719-20. So Zahn, Matthaus, 229-30; Klostermann, Matthaus, 44; WeiB, TDNT 9.68; Schenk, EWNT 3.429 (3.1777 8). All of them interpret in accordance with Mark 1:44. See Joachim Jeremias, "LaB allda deine Gabe (M t 5,23f)," ZNW 36 (1937) 150-54; reprinted in Abba, 103-7; lthamar Gruenwald, "From Priesthood to Messianism: The Anti-Priestly Polemic and the Messianic Factor," in lthamar Gruenwald, Shaul Shaked, and Gedaliahu G. Stroumsa, eds., Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity Presented to David Flusser on the Occasion ofHis SeventyFifth Birthday (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1992) 7 5-

Matthew 5:21-48

practice in the Jerusalem Temple, this text contains important information about the Temple worship around 50 CE by Jerusalem Christians. The course of the narrative, still addressing the audience in the second person singular, suddenly veers from the reader's vision of his own performance of the ritual: a thought interferes as the sacrificer remembers something that, if he should continue the ritual, would destroy its very purpose and meaning: "and there you remember that your brother has something against you" (KaK£L p.V7Ju8fis- Cln 0 alkll.cJ>6s- ITOV ~X£L TL KaTa uov). 19 2 The moment is crucial. The thought interferes 193 at the precise moment when the gift is to be placed on the altar, when it leaves human hands and becomes the property of God. 194 What specifically is the grudge that the sacrificer remembers? We do not know, and it is not important. We are told neither who is at fault nor what the issue may be. The phrase ~xuv n Kant nvos- ("have something against someone") 195 is deliberately vague. We are to imagine only that in some way the brotherly relationship has been disrupted, and that for two reasons the healing of this relationship must take precedence over the offering of the gift. First, the imperatives of vs 24 were traditionally related to the commandment of neighborly love (Lev 19: 18), the opposite of hatred (Lev 19: 19); furthermore, this commandment prohibits grudges: "You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge

against the sons of your own people" (Lev 19: 18 [RSVJ). 196 This connection hints yet again that the commandment of Lev 19: 18 stands behind the passage (see below on SM/Matt 5:43). The second reason concerns sacrificial theology. Offering a gift to God is an expression of love toward God; 197 yet, according to the theology of the SM, love of God and love of neighbor must go together. Going ahead with the sacrifice without reconciling oneself with the brother would in effect separate love of God and love of the brother; it would contradict one of Jesus' central doctrines (see esp. Mark 12:30-31//Matt 22:37-40/ /Luke 10:27). 198 How does this reasoning compare with rabbinic theology? According to the rabbis, the case at hand would have to be judged as a conflict between a lesser and a more important obligation. 199 What was more important and what would have to take precedence, the completion of the sacrifice or the reconciliation with the brother? If the latter, then to interrupt the sacrifice to be reconciled with the brother would be quite appropriate. Jewish theology was diverse, and the case could be made in rabbinic terms as well as in the terms of the SM. Furthermore, since older traditions sometimes surface in tannaitic law and in New Testament passages, as Jacob Milgrom has pointed out, 200 the almost classic case

93, esp. 86-87. 192 KaKil is crasis from Kat tKil ("and there"). See BAGD, s.v. KaK£1, 1; BDF, § 18. Some manuscripts avoid the crasis: D 0 jl 1006 9Jt; see Aland, Synopsis, ad Joe. 193 For parallels to this point, see Str-B 1.283-84, esp. m. Pesaf:t. 3. 7, translation of Danby, Mishnah, 139-40: "If a man was on the way to slaughter his Passoveroffering or to circumcise his son or to eat the betrothal meal at his father-in-law's house and he remembered that he had left hametz [i.e., fermented dough] in his house, if he has yet time to go back and remove it and return to fulfil his religious duty,let him go back and remove it; but if not, he may annul it in his heart." 194 On the efficaciousness of the altar, see the rabbinic passages collected by Str-B 1.283, section B. 195 For this expression see also Mark 11 :25; 1 Cor 11:4 (without object); and 1 Cor 6:1, 7; Acts 24:19; 25:19, etc. See BAGD, s.v. ;xw, 7.a. 196 In Lev 19:18, the key term is nfr, rendered by LXX as ov J.L7JVtfiY ("You shall not rage"). For this terminology in connection with Lev 19:18 see Sir

197 198 199 200

10:6; 28:7; Hermas Sim. 9.23.3; cf. alsoJas 5:9; Acts 6:1. See H. Madl, •.,!:ll natar," ThWAT 5 (1985) 43236, esp. sections 1.4-5 and Ill. See on this point Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 42, 4649,66-67,110-11. See also Did. 1.2;JustinDial. 93.2. For further discussion, see below on SM/Matt 5:43-48. So Str-B 1.284. Jacob Milgrom (Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance [SJLA 18; Leiden: Brill, 1976] 110-11) points to the priority of restitution in pentateuchal passages concerning guilt offerings: "only after the rectification has been made with man can it be sought with God." He refers primarily to Leviticus 5, but mentions in this connection Matt 5:23-24 also and concludes: "This inference is corroborated by the practice of the second Temple as reflected in both tannaitic law and the New Testament. It marks a startling innovation in jurisprudence; in matters ofjustice man takes priority over God."

223

narrated by the SM could have derived from such older traditions rather than having been invented anew. • 24 This verse provides the solution to the conflict by advising the interruption of the ritual so as to enable the sacrificer to become reconciled with the brother: "Leave your gift there in front of the altar" (llt/JH EKEL TO owp6v uov t,.,.1rpou8ev Tov 8vutaUT1Jplov ). No details are provided of how the gift is to be left: Is it to be put down on the ground in front of the altar? Is it to be left with a priest? The issue is "and go first and get reconciled with your brother" (Kat ii7Ta')'E 7rpWTOV OtaAActy1J8t Tijl aOEAt/Jw uov). The position of 1rpwTov ("first") between the verbs probably means that it should be taken as referring to both of them. 2° 1 It establishes a religious priority: reconciliation2°2 must precede the sacrifice. The reason is not, apparently, that the sacrifice is less important but that the grudge against the brother destroys the integrity of the ritual. Nor is anything said about how the reconciliation should occur; important only is that it does occur. If the goal is the removal of the grudge against the brother who is the sacrificer, some sort of petition for forgiveness should be implied. Compensation may also be an option, 2° 3 but there is no interest in such specifics: the story wants to remain general. Thus the nature of the grudge is also left unspecified. 204 In all likelihood it was mutual, since grudges usually are, so that vs 22a-b applies to both brothers. The question is not, however, who

expressed anger first but who should take the initiative in reconciliation. 205 Clearly, the initiative falls on the sacrificing brother. He cannot complete the ritual until the obstacle is removed. 206 After he has effected the reconciliation, he can resume and complete the sacrifice: "and then come (back) and offer your gift" (Kal T6TE eA.8~v 7rp6utflepe TO owp6v uov). Interestingly, this example has been interpreted differently in Did. 14.2, where it occurs in the context of the celebration of "breaking the bread" on Sunday. 2° 7 There is, however, no indication that Did. 14.2 is dependent on Matthew's Gospel or even on the SM. 208 Rather, it appears that like the SM, the Didachist has drawn the example from the tradition. The interpretation places it in the ritual context of the sacred meal, understood as a "pure sacrifice" (Ka8apa ~ 8vula v,_,wv). Therefore, "But everyone who has a quarrel with his fellow, let him not join you (in your meeting), until they are reconciled, in order that your sacrifice be not defiled" 209 (7ras o€ txwv Thv al-'t/Jt{3oA.lav 1-'ETCr TOV halpov aVTOV 1-'h uvveA.8tTw VI-'LV, ~(JJS ov otaA.A.aywutv, Yva 1-'h KOtvw8fi ~ 8vula v,.,.wv). The interpretation shows an affinity to 0 ld Testament ideas, 210 especially to the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26), 211 but it seems to reflect general Hellenistic ideas concerning sacrifice as well. 212 Although according to Strack-Billerbeck, the example

201 On the punctuation see the critical apparatus in Nestle-Aland, and in Aland, Synopsis, ad loc. 202 ~•al\l\tiuuol-'a•, "become reconciled," occurs only here in the NT; cf. also Did. 14.2 (see below). The term and concept are common in Greek. See BAGD, s.v. l'llal\l\tiuuol-'a•; Friedrich Biichsel, "o•al\l\tiuuw," TDNT 1.253-54; Spicq, Notes, 3.117-19. A variant reading is D, which has Kaml\l\tiy1J81, the more common NT term, which has clearer Christian overtones (cf. Acts 12:22 D; 1 Cor 7:11). 203 So Jeremias, Abba, 103-7; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 70 (Sermon, 67-68). See also the examples in Str-B 1.284-88. 204 Reconciliation is the removal of enmity and the restoration of a peaceful relationship. See 1 Cor 7:11; Rom 5:8-11; 2 Cor 5: 18-20, etc. See above on vs 23 and below on 5:43-48. 205 1 Sam 29:4 shows David taking the initiative in getting reconciled with the angry Saul. The opposite is Cain in Gen 4:5-8. See also Gen 32:20; Prov 16:7; Sir 27:21 (with the context). 206 As Philo frequently points out, the person who enters

224

207 208

209 210

211 212

the temple or approaches the altar must be pure from defilements, not only of the body but foremost of the soul. See esp. Spec. leg. 1.202-4, 269-71, 283; Vit. Mos. 2.107-8; Cher. 95-96; Deus imm. 7-9. Similarly Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels, 228-29. See Wengst, Didache, 53-57. See Koester (Synoptische Uberlieferung, 213-15), who treats the passages as a community rule circulating in the oral tradition and attested in the NT also in Matt 5:23-24 and Mark 11:25. The trans. is mine. See also Did. 15.3; 1 Cor 5:11. Did. 14.3 cites Mal1:11 and 14. Cf. also Justin Dial. 117.2 and 4, and on that passage, Wengst, Didache, 55-56. Seeesp.Lev 19:5-8,13-18. Cf. Ps. Sol. 15.3; Philo Spec. leg. 1.203-4: "For the law desires, first, that the mind [vovs] of the worshipper should be sanctified by exercise in good and profitable thoughts and judgements; secondly, that his life should be a consistent course of the best actions, so that as he lays his hands on the victim, he can boldly and with a pure conscience speak in this

Matthew 5:21-48

does not have a parallel in rabbinic literature, 213 it does seem to be close to the Greek ethical texts of Theophrastus and Plutarch. Theophrastus's important religiophilosophical work "On Piety" (Iltpl. d;u£(3£las) is unfortunately extant only in fragments attested mostly by Porphyry De abstinentia. 214 Several of these fragments discuss the relationship between ethics and sacrifice, whereby the philosopher seeks to make them compatible. In the course of the argument several principles are stated. He says in fragment 7: "indeed one must sacrifice those things which, when we offer them, harm no one, because nothing must be as unharmful to all as sacrifice"

only pure regarding clothes and body but foremost: "One must go to the sacrifices having a soul pure from evils" (Ka(Japav KaKWV T~V "'VX~V fxovu<; twu!V 7Tp0<; Ta<; 8vulas). 217 "The ethical attitude must be purified when one goes to sacrifice to the gods" (a£! Tolvov Ka(J7Jpap.£vovs TO ~(los (J/;uovms TOt<; (Jw'is ). 218 Porphyry then quotes an inscription at the entrance to the sanctuary at Epidaurus: Pure must one be when entering the temple smelling of incense, But purity is thinking holy things.

(KaL JJ.~V (J{mv a(t (K£tVa, (J/;ovu<; ovatva 7T7JJJ.aVOVJJ.£V" oMf:v yap W<; TO (Jvp.a a(3A.a(3h £tVa! XP~ 7TaCTtV). 215

Again, however, fragment 9 considers only the quantity of gifts while other possible interpretations of the verse seem of little or no interest. The parallel from Plutarch is found in his treatise "On Brotherly Love," which was influenced by Theophrastus's work "On Friendship," now unfortunately lost. 220 Plutarch discusses not only brotherly love (cptA.aa£Acpla), but also its opposite, hatred of the brother {p.tuaa£A.cpla). 22 1 Speaking of family relationships, the philosopher observes that hatred between brothers runs deeper than a broken friendship and is therefore more difficult to heal. Since friendship is a matter of choice, it can be resumed more readily; but "when brothers have

a

Porphyry reflects only on the question of the materia to be sacrificed, however, and does not consider the human relationships between the officiants. At the end of the fragment, another principle is stated, derived probably from Delphic theology: "The daimonion looks at the ethical attitude of the sacrificer, more than at the quantity of sacrificial gifts" (Kat p.aA.A.ov TO aatp.ovwv 7TpOs TO Twv (JvoVTCJ)V ~(Jos ~ 7rpOs TO TWV (Jvop.£vwv 7TA.ij(Jos

{3At7TH). 216 This discussion, however, considers only the question of the quantity of the gifts, although we do not know what the lost portions of the text may have contributed. Fragment 9 argues that the offerer must be pure, not

ayvov XP~ vao'io evwaws (vTO<; LOVTa E'p.p.£Vat• ayv£{a a• fCTTL cppov£tV ifuta. 219

wise: 'These hands have taken no gift to do injustice, nor shared in the proceeds of plunder or overreaching, nor been soiled with innocent blood. None have they maimed or wounded, no deed of outrage or violence have they wrought. They have done no service of any other kind at all which might incur arraignment or censure, but have made themselves humble ministers of things excellent and profitable, such as are held in honour in the sight of wisdom and law and wise and law-abiding men'" (trans. F. H. Colson). Related NT texts are Mark 7:15-23//Matt 15:11-20; 1 Cor 11:17-33; cf. also Ignatius Trail. 8.2, where the context is, however, not that of sacrifice but avoidance of slander against the church. 213 Str-B 1.284 on Matt 5:24, section A: "Eine Unterbrechung der Opferhandlung aus dem Grunde, wie ihn Mt 5,23f. enthalt, kennt die Halakha nicht." Cf., however, the doctrine stated in m. Yoma 8.9 and Sifre Lev. 16, 30 (324•), cited by Str-B 1.287, section 2, translated by Danby, Mishnah, 172: "For transgressions that are between man and God the Day of Atonement effects atonement, but for

214

215 216 217 218 219 220

221

trangressions that are between a man and his fellow the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased his fellow." Citations are according to the edition by Walter Potscher, Theophrastos, TIEPI EY:EEBEIA:E (Philosophia Antiqua 11; Leiden: Brill, 1964). Frg.7,lines10-11. Ibid., lines 53-54. Frg. 9, lines 5-6. Ibid., lines 1-2. Ibid., lines 10-11. Cf. also frg. 8, lines 20-21; frg. 19,lines 11-13. Plutarch De fratemo a more, cited according to the edition and translation by William C. Helmbold, Plutarch's Moralia, vol. 6 (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1962). For a discussion of the treatise, see Betz, PECL 2.231-63. De frat. am., chaps. 2-6, pp. 478D-481B.

225

once broken the bonds of Nature, they cannot readily come together, and even if they do, their reconciliation bears with it a filthy hidden sore of suspicion" (De frat. am. 7, 481 C). 2 22 Enmity toward the brother is very painful because ""it is necessary to share sacrifices and the family's sacred rites, to occupy the same sepulcher, and in life, perhaps, the same neighboring habitation-such an enmity keeps the painful situation ever before our eyes" (ibid., 7, 481D).22 3 Moreover, such hatred is an offense against nature and is unhealthy (ibid., 3, 479D). The implication is that offering sacrifices while simultaneously hating one's brother is tantamount to a sacrilegious act. • 25 The second illustrative case involves a court trial (vss 25-26). The narrative is abbreviated in that the first part of the story, analogous to vs 23, is omitted. Again told in the second person singular, the story starts at the point where recommendation of appropriate action is to be given (cf. vs 24). The episode depicts two men on the way to court to obtain a decision on a dispute between them; we are not told the nature of this dispute, evidently because it is irrelevant to the point to be made. The appropriate way to handle the dispute is to settle out

of court: "Become well disposed toward your opponent quickly, as long as you are with him on the way (to court)" (ro-8L €VVOWV Tijl avnl3{Kf!> O"OV TaXV, ~CJlS 8TOV €1 !J.€T' al!Tov Ev Tfj baijl).22 4 The terminology in vs 25 consists mainly of technical terms from the court of law: b CtVTl13LKOS is the opponent in a lawsuit; 225 the verb €VVO€tV ("be well disposed," "make friends with someone")22 6 indicates reconciliation. Simple prudence would seem to be behind this advice: it may happen that one has the weaker case and will lose, and should this be the case, a chain of terrible consequences will be set in motion over which one has no control: "or else that opponent may turn you over to the judge, and the judge (turn you over) to the court-guard, and you will be thrown into jail" (p.~'ITOTf 0"€ '!Tapaaijl b avTll3LKOS Tijl KPLTfj Kat b KpLT~S Tijl {m7JpfT!J Kat €LS q,vAaK~V f3A7J8~u!J). 227

One can conclude several matters from the legal procedures reported in the text. In all likelihood, the case concerns the owing of debts, since the person is summoned into court by his opponent. 228 The trial then leads to the conviction and the imprisonment of the accused. Apparently the winner has the power to hand over the convicted ('1Tapa13l13wp.L) 229 to the judge (b

222 a.aEAf/>o\ a~ TOV KaTa tf>VuLV €K'1dUOVTf:S oiJTE Pll-'6lro~

For this reason we should neither overlook the anger [opy~] of others, nor be stubborn with them." See also Betz, PECL 2.258; furthermore,Johannes Behm, "•vvo.!oo," TDNT 4.968-70; Spicq (Notes, iEp{;,v warpcbwv Op.Ora.p&v T£ y£vlu8a& ~ealwov uVvoucov 3.316-21) with reference toP. Washington I, 6, 20, 26, identifies the usage in Matt 5:25 rightly as "terme ~ yEtTOVa xooploov, ev lfJJ.p.afAKovrat. 223 ~ 3£ 7rpbs aOEA¢0v,

o

226

Matthew 5:21-48

KPIT~s) 230 who then orders the court-guard (b

t!7r7JP",T'T/Y) 231 to take him away and. throw him into jail (£1s cf>v>..aK~v f3a>..>..£w). 232 According to Bernard jackson, this procedure indicates the Roman institution of the imprisonment of a debtor. 233 The question remains, however, of how one is to understand the point of this little story in vs 25. 234 There are several options. First, the advice given could be a matter of clever foresight. 235 One can support this interpretation by a parallel in Diodorus Siculus, which relates an encounter between Antiochus Epiphanes IV and the Roman general Popillius. In commenting on the story about Antiochus's yielding to the Roman, 236 Diodorus refers to some old wisdom: "It is then apparently true, as certain of the sages of old have

declared, that forgiveness is preferable to punishment."237 Following this wisdom, Diodorus explains, is not only suitable for the good ruler but also a gainful method for generating gratitude and loyalty that might be useful in less fortunate times. 238 If one applies this view to the SM, one can thus see that the deal struck on the way to court 239 is a clever move in view of the possible disasters that can otherwise befall one. Second, one has a possible interpretation within the framework of Jewish ethics. The person who takes the initiative and offers a settlement out of court gives up any claims he may have against his accuser. Thus he chooses the more difficult route of righteousness that will gain more favor in the eyes of God. Such yielding of one's legal claims and even the intervention of a nonjudicial conciliator was

with references from the papyri. 230 For this term from jurisprudence, see BAGD, s.v. Kplr~s, 1.a.a; Friedrich Biichsel, "Kplr~s." TDNT 3.944; Wolfgang Schenk, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s.v. KpiT~S.

231 For this special meaning ofthe term V7r1Jptr1Js see also Matt 26:58; Mark 14:54, 65;John 7:32, 45-46; 18:3, 12, 22; 19:6; Acts 5:22, 26. See BAGD, s.v., V7r1Jptr1Js; Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, "V7r1Jptr1Js," TDNT 8.530-44; Str-B 1.290; Gerhard Schneider, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. V7r1Jptr1Js (bibliography). 232 The expression occurs also in Luke 12:58; Matt 18:30; Luke 23:19, 25;John 3:24; Acts 16:23, 24, 37; Rev 2:10. See BAGD, s.v. {3a>.Aw, l.b; Friedrich Hauck, "{3a>.Aw," TDNT 1.524-25; Fritz Stolz, THAT 2.916-19; Otfried Hofius, EWNT(EDNT) 1, s.v. {3aA.A.w.

233 See Bernard S.Jackson, Theft in Early jewish Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) 144, referring to Plato Leg. 9, 857A: "For the thief also, whether he steals a great thing or a small, one law and one legal penalty shall be enacted for all alike: first he must pay twice the value of the stolen article, if he loses his case and possesses enough property over and above his allotment wherewith to pay; but if not, he must be put in prison until either he has paid the sum or has been let off by the prosecutor." 234 The story in vs 25 and the logion in vs 26 together have a parallel in Luke 12:57-59 and are thus derived from the tradition of Q. Because of the very different form in which the text is found in the two Gospels, it is not clear which form was originally part of the tradition ofQ. Clearly, the SM has integrated whatever it took from the source into a new context, making it into an example story. At least in the SM the story is not a parable, as several scholars have

235 236 237

238

proposed. For discussion see Bultmann, History, 96, 99, 149, 172;Jeremias, Parables, 43-44; Dodd, Parables, 136-39; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 62-64; Schulz, Q, 421-24; Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 64-67; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 71-72 (Sermon, 69-70); Harnisch, Gleichniserziihlungen, 69 n. 63. For the various options, see Jiilicher, Gleichnisreden, 2.240-46; Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.1001-3. For this interpretation cf. Matt 18:23-35. Diodorus Sic. 31.1-3. For the historical background, see Schiirer, History 1.151-52. Diodorus Sic. 31.3.1: "OTI aA1J8Es ~v li.pa, folK<, Pn8fv fnrb TLvwv rWv 1r&.Aat crocpWv, Hn uvyyvWp.?J Tlp.wplas alp
ws

ro

power" (oV ytzp OlKatov rhv f7rt rWv li.AAwv h.7rn7n1,.uvov 1rauav cfnAav8ponrlav aVrhv lv p.(pEt 7rEptwraluavra rvyx&.vov Tfj~ 1raph. rWv KparoVvrwv f7rtfi.Kela~). Text and translation are according to the LCL edition of Diodorus of Sicily by Francis R. Walton, vol. 11 (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1957) 316-17. 239 See Artur Steinwenter, "Die Streitbeendigung durch Vergleich," Milnchner Beitriige zur Papyrusforschung 8 (1925) 117-40; reprinted in Zur griechischen Rechtsgeschichte (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968) 434-54.

227

one of the norms of Jewish religious ethics. 240 But, the story does not mention a claim first held and subsequently relinquished by the accused. Third, an interpretation could also be achieved through the Greek ethical principle of "fairness" (lm£LKua). 241 The person who is taken to court gives up whatever advantage he may have because he is a fair man (o lmuK~~) and thus of a high ethical character. There is no indication, however, that that man is satisfied with less than his due. Finally, because the case-story is intended to illustrate vss 2122a, none of the interpretations outlined above really fits. The story makes sense because it demonstrates that Jesus' interpretation of the Decalogue is in accordance with prudence.2 42 Only fools rush into lawsuits! The dreadful risks implied in a lawsuit can be avoided if the opponents settle the dispute out of court. What is the underlying rationale here? The term £vvo£'iv ("be well disposed") implies that the basic reason for going to court is emotional and thus related to anger (opy~), the subject of the whole passage. 243 Therefore, the real cause for the trial, the dispute over which the opponents go to court, is not the issue. The issue is the uncontrolled anger that has set them against each other.

By gaining control over that anger and by changing it into friendliness, they will find they have no reason to go to court 244 and can part as friends rather than foes. 245 In this way, the commandment of Jesus (vs 22a), the Torah commandment (vs 21 b), is fulfilled in a positive and beneficial way, that is, in accordance with the overall purpose of God's Torah. • 26 A final amen-saying sums up the experience of those ending up in jail: "Truly I say to you: you will never get out from there till you have paid up the last cent" (iz.p.rJV A.(yw crot, ov p.fJ lfb.. en~ EK£t8w, lw~ Clv iz7Tooi!J rhv ~crxarov KoopavrrJV). 246 Introduced by the familiar formula "Truly I say to you" (iz.p.nv A.(yw crot), 247 the sentence appears to contain a proverb taken out of the oral tradition of wisdom sayings. 248 Its parallels in Did. 1.52 49 and Sextus Sent. 39, 250 as well as in the older Greek literature, conform to this supposition, adding interesting details pertaining to justice and eschatology. Plato Rep. 1, 3 31 e quotes the poet Simonides (c. 557/56-468/67 BCE) as saying with regard to justice (7T€pl. otKatocrt'!v7Js ): "That it is just to render to each his due" ("On TO rlt ocfmA.6p.€Va ~KaCTTI!J iz7TOOL06vaL OLKat6v €ern). 251 As Plato explains, the saying is almost a

240 See Felix Bohl, Gebotserschwerung und Rechtsverzicht als ethisch-religiose Normen in der rabbinischen Literatur

(Frankfurter Judaistische Studien 1; Freiburg i.Br.: Schwarz, 1971), esp. 66-71; Erich Dinkier, "Das Problem der Ethik bei Paulus: Rechtsnahme und Rechtsverzicht(l Kor6, 1-11)," ZThK49(1952) 167-200; reprinted in Dinkier, Signum Crucis: Aufsiitze zum Neuen Testament und zur Christlichen Archiiologie (TObingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1967) 204-

40, esp. 215. 241 For this concept, see above, pp. 168-71. 242 Cf. SM/Matt 7:24-27. 243 Cf. the older brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:28): "he became angry" (wpyiuOTJ). 244 This is what the father suggests in Luke 15:31-32. 245 For the situation regarding Hellenistic ethics, see Plutarch's essays, "On the Control of Anger" and "On Brotherly Love," noted above, nn. 164, 167, 226. 246 Regarding the text, L W (0233). 1424 al read~"'~ ("until") instead of the majority's ~"'~ iiv, while 33 pc read only~"'~· Similar differences are found in the parallel Luke 12:59. Cf. also Matt 18:30. See NestleAland, ad loc.; Aland, Synopsis, ad loc. 247 The ap.~v is not part of the parallel Luke 12:59. For the longer formula in SM, see above on 5:18. 248 Cf. Prov 25:7-8; Sir 18:20; furthermore Prov 6:1-5;

ov

228

Counsels of Wisdom, lines 11-16, according to AOT, 291-92. These passages are mentioned by Zeller, Mahnspruche, 65-66. In the NT, the saying occurs only in SM/Matt 5:26; Luke 12:59. 249 Did. 1.5 is a warning against illegimately accepting financial assistance from the congregation; the person who does so will have to face the consequences (my trans.): "When he is put into prison he will be interrogated about what he has done, and he will not get out from there until he has repaid the last penny" (iv uvvoxii St yev&p.wo~ it£rau0~CT£Tal 7T£pt cl)v f1rpate, Kal oi~K E[EAeVu£rar. fKli8ev, p.lx.Prs ol; lz.?ToOc'i> rhv ~uxarov Ko5pttvTTJV). 250 Sextus Sent. 39 (my trans.): "Regarding the one who lives a wicked life: after his release from the body an evil daimon straightens him out until he has got the last penny out of him" (KaKw~ (Wvra p.
Matthew 5:21-48

definition of justice. As such, it is related to the later principle of suum cuique ("To each his due"), 252 one of the fundamentals of Roman justice: "Justitia est constans et perpetua voluntas suum cuique tribuens" ("Justice is the constant and perpetual will to render each his due").25ll This secular meaning, however, does not exclude eschatological applications. According to Plato's interpretation of the myth ofEr, "paying one's debts in full" is part of eschatological justice, just as everyone receives from the deity his or her due. 254 Speaking of the sinners punished in the afterlife, the myth determines the punishments to be tenfold for each crime perpetrated on earth: "as for example that if anyone had been the cause of many deaths or had betrayed cities and armies and reduced them to slavery, or had been participant in any other iniquity, they might receive in requital pains tenfold for each of these wrongs, and again if anyone had done deeds of kindness and had been just and holy men, they might receive their due reward in the same measure" (Plato Rep. 10, 615b-c). 255 A parallel in the Orphic gold tablets confirms that this doctrine is Orphic in origin. One of the inscriptions reads: "I have

paid the amends for injustice. "2 56 It is assumed that when the initiate recites the saying as he passes into the afterlife, it is part of his declaration ofinnocence,2 57 which allows him to move on into the Elysian Fields. Paying back debts can also be interpreted metaphorically,258 as we see in Rom 6:2: "For the compensation ofsin is death" (Ta yap o1J!6>vta TfjS ap.apT{as 8avaTos). 259 The meaning of the statement is not entirely clear: is the compensation to be paid for sin or to sin?2 60 It appears that death is the compensation to be paid for sin; it is, in a sense, the last penny humans must pay for their involvement with sin. 261 Related is the more general principle cited in Rom 2:6: "(God) who will recompense everyone aCCOrding tO his deeds" (3s a'IToa6>u£t ~KclO"Tf!> KaTa Ta fpya ai1Tov). 262 In vs 26 of the SM, however, the sentence is applied to the case at hand. When it sums up what must have been common experience, it amounts to a blunt comment on the jail conditions of the time. Once in jail, one will not be able to get out until one has paid out the last penny. 263 Does this refer to the debt owed the opponent, 264 to the fees owed the lawyers, to the fines imposed by the court, or to the bribes paid to the prison guards to open the jail doors? We are not told;

252 On this principle, see pp. I67 -72, 286 n. 696. 253 Ulpian Dig. I.I.I 0. I owe this reference to Shorey (see above, n. 25I ), p. 20, n. C (my trans.). 254 See Plato Rep. I0,6I4a, 6I5b-c; Phaed. II3d-e, etc. 255 Cited is Shorey's translation (see above, n. 25I), p. 497. 256 Tablets A2 and A3, line 4, according to the reconstruction by Zuntz, Persephone, 303, 305, 3I3I4, 336, 339: "II"O&vav ~· O:vra.,..lrm lp-ywv ~vEl<' oiJn 3ucalwv·. 257 See Betz, Essays, I28-29 n. I4. 258 Scholars often interpret vs 26 as vacillating between prudence and eschatological exhortation, whereby the "original" meaning is assumed to have been reinterpreted by the Gospel writers. See esp. Bultmann, History 96, 99, I49, I72, 4I5-I6; Erganzungsheft, 36; Lohmeyer, Matthaus, I23-25; Jeremias, Parables, 43-44; Grundmann, Matthaus, I 57-58; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 62-64; Schulz, Q, 42I24; Zeller, Mahnsprllche, 64-66; Guelich, Sermon, I92-93; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 7I-72 (Sermon, 6970); Luz, Matthaus, I.260 (Matthew, I.290). 259 The trans. is mine. 260 See Wolfgang Heidland, TDNT 5.592; Spicq, Notes, 2.635-38. 26I Cf. the epitaphs, in which death is regarded as repayment of a debt; see Richard Lattimore, Themes

in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (2d ed.; Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois, I968) I70; Raymond Bogaert, "Geld (Geldwirtschaft)," RAC 9 (I975) 83I, 843. 262 My translation. See also 2 Cor ll:I5; I Cor 3:I3-I5; 1 Clem. 34.3; 2 Clem. II.6. For rabbinic parallels, see Str-B 3.78-79. 263 Ko3plivr"lj~ is a Latin loanword (quadrans), occurring also in rabbinic literature; see Str-B 1.290-94. The value of the coin was small; it is mentioned also in Luke I2:59 D (most manuscripts have AE"II"rov); Did. I.5. See BAGD, s.v. Ko3plivr"lj~. with reference to the parallel in Sextus Sent. 39; moreover Arie Kindler, Coins of the Land ofIsrael Qerusalem: Keter, I97 4). 264 This seems to be the force here: O:.,..o3l~w,.,, "pay back," "retum." See also Luke I2:59; Did. 1.5; Matt I8:23-35, esp. vss 25-30, 34; SM/Matt 5:33; 6:4, 6, I8; Luke 7:42. For further references, see BAGD, s.v., O;.,..olllllwl''• 2; Alexander Sand, EWNT(EDNT) I, s.v. a. . olll~w,.,, with bibliography.

229

and apparently the result is the same: a lawsuit will of necessity render the loser penniless. Which ethical conclusions should the hearer or reader draw from the argument as a whole? As mentioned above, the conclusion is not stated explicitly but must be inferred from the argumentation, which gives clues as to direction. The root cause of murder, we were told, is anger directed against the "brother." "Hatred of the brother" (};.tcraliEAcp{a), 2 65 which inevitably follows from such anger, is the opposite of "brotherly love" (cptAaliEAcp{a) 266 as commanded by the love-command in Lev 19:18 (SM/Matt 5:43). Simply stated, the source of murder is a broken relationship with the brother. The famous case of Cain's murder of his brother Abel (Gen 4:8-16) comes to everyone's mind, although it is not mentioned in the text. 267 What, then, is the intent of the Torah commandment, "You shall not kill"? According to the SM, its intent-that is, God's will-is that one come to grips with the root cause of murder. It is this root cause that precipitated the prohibition. Once the root cause is identified as anger, the ethical demand follows: one must control anger. 268 One achieves this goal by avoiding situations that lead to anger, or, if the situations already exist, by defusing them through reconciliation and the restoration of the peaceful brotherly relationship. 269 This ethical demand was a standing topic in both contemporary Jewish and Hellenistic ethics. 270 b. The Second Antithesis: Adultery (Matt 5:27-30) Bibliography Heinrich Baltensweiler, Die Ehe im Neuen Testament: Exegetische Untersuchungen ilber Ehe, Ehelosigkeit und Ehescheidung (A ThANT 52; Zurich: Zwingli, 1967) 112-19. Banks, Jesus and the Law, 190-91. Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1.307-49.

Kurt Niederwimmer, Askese und Mysterium: Vber Ehe, Ehescheidung und Eheverzicht in den Anfiingen des christlichen Glaubens (FRLANT 113; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 24-33. Percy, Botschaft jesu, 143-44. Soiron, Logiajesu, 55-56. Strecker, "Antithesen," 51-52. Wrege, Bergpredigt, 64-66.

1) Analysis The second antithesis (5:27-30) concerns the interpretation ofExod 20:14, the prohibition of the Decalogue against adultery. The formal composition corresponds to that of the first antithesis, with some differences. Most notably, the composition of vss 2730 is shorter: elements stated fully in the first antithesis are abbreviated in the second. Apparently the reader who has comprehended and memorized the first antithesis should have no trouble supplying the elements omitted in the second. Despite this reduction, however, nothing is truly missing. We see here a phenomenon already familiar from the section 5: 1720, namely, the difference between the written text and the text intended to develop in the reader's mind. The shortened form of the antithesis, therefore, appears to be a device to force the reader to supply from memory and perception that which is left unstated. Thus the reader can control whether he or she has not only memorized the words but also understood the argument. The composition as a whole, like that of the first antithesis, has three parts. The first part refutes what is regarded as an inadequate interpretation of Exod 20:14. The "chain of tradition" is briefly mentioned again, followed by the Scripture quotation; the inadequate interpretation is not made explicit, however (5:27). The second part (5:28) then presents the adequate interpretation of the Decalogue commandment in the form of a legal definition introduced by the familiar doctrinal formula, "but I say to you" (5:28). The third part demonstrates the validity of this interpretation. The argument is based on two illustrative examples from medicine, proverbial

265 The term JWraoE>HJ>ia does not occur in the SM or the SP. Cf. p. 200 n. 167. 266 The term cJ>tA.aoEAia is not found in the SM or the SP, but it is a synonym of "love" (ayan7J) in Rom 12:10 (cf. 12:8-21; 13:8-10); see also 1 Thess 4:9; 1 Pet 1 :22; 3:8; 2 Pet 1:7, etc.; for further references see above, n. 167. 267 The example is mentioned and sometimes explicitly contrasted with "love" (ayan7J) in Matt 23:35//Luke 11:51; Heb 11:4; 12:24; 1 John 3:11-12;Jude 1112; 1 Clem. 4.1-7. 268 For this topic in NT paraenesis, often in connection

230

with the love-command, see Rom 1 :29; 2:8; 12: 19; 13:4, 5; Eph 4:26, 31; Col 3:8; 1 Tim 2:8; Titus 1 :7; Jas 1:19, 20; Did. 3.2; 15.3, and often in post-NT literature. 269 The classic example in the NT is the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15: 11-32), esp. the behavior of the older brother (vs 28: wpyiu87j, "he became angry") in contrast with the father. 2 7 0 For this topic in Hellenistic ethics and further material, see above, nn. 167 and 266.

Matthew 5:21-48

in both origin and nature. The first of these focuses on the eye (5:29), the second on the hand (5:30). The ethical conclusion is not explicated but left for the reader to infer. The root cause of adultery is erotic love working through the members of the body. The original intent of the prohibition calls for more than simple compliance in the literal sense; it calls as well for the removal of the root cause through control of one's erotic desires.

2) Interpretation

• 27 The second antithesis, like the first, begins the

refutation with a reference to the "chain oftradition."2 71 The term "you have heard" (~KoVo-an) names the present recipients of the tradition with God as its originator and authority (f.pp£87], "it was said"); omitted-in accordance with the best manuscripts-is the reference to the past recipientS, "to the men Of old" (TOtS apxalots). 272 Verse 27b then introduces the quotation of the Scripture passage to be discussed: Exod 20: 14, the seventh (MT, RSV) or sixth (LXX, Philo) commandment of the Decalogue: "You shall not commit adultery" (ov fA-OLX£Vo-m).2 73 Omitted, too, is the formulation of the inadequate interpretation of this commandment, an omission that appears to be intentional. Since the second antithesis is analogous in form to the first antithesis, the inadequate interpretation, were it stated, could only be the literal interpretation and would read: as ll' c1v

fA-OLX£VO"TJ, ~voxos ~a-Tat Tfj Kplo-u ("Everyone, indeed, who commits adultery shall be answerable to the court"). According to this interpretation, compliance with the Torah commandment would mean the avoidance of the physical act of adultery and the breaking of the taboo. 274

This literal interpretation, however, is rejected as inadequate. • 28 The presentation of what the SM considers the adequate interpretation of Exod 20: 14 begins with the well-known doctrinal formula (vs 28a), "but I say to you" (f.ytiJ llt A.€yw VfA-"iv). 275 The interpretation itselftakes the form of a legal and ethical opinion about what constitutes adultery. 276 The statement contains two parts. The first part (vs 28b) describes and defines the offense, the second (vs 28c) identifies it as adultery. Clearly the statement as a whole redefines the term "adultery," shifting the emphasis from the breaking of the taboo to the psychological predisposition of the heart: "Everyone who looks at a woman with the intent to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (1ras o {3Af1TWV yvva"i'Ka 1Tpos TO ht8v!J-fiO"aL avT~V T/llTJ f!J-olxcVO"£V aVT~V fV Tfj KaplJ[c_z aVTOV). Not surprisingly, this statement is one of the most thoroughly discussed of the entire SM. 277 Indeed, the question is: What does it mean? In order to understand it, one must look more closely at the components and terms of the sentence; and we must clearly apprehend

271 See above on vs 21a. Latte, "J.
231

the presupposed psychology of erotic love, an emotion as common in antiquity as it is today. The role of the eye in erotic love is a frequent theme in ancient literature (in proverbs, poetry, and drama) as well as in philosophy. 278 In the latter, the works entitled "On Love" (?Ttpt ~pwTos) usually make this point. Plato states the matter briefly: "And love is so called because it flows in from without, and this flowing is not inherent in him who has it, but is introduced through the eyes. •2 79 Aristotle sums up what became the common view in Hellenism when speaking of the importance of "goodwill" (dlvota).2 80 "Goodwill seems, therefore, to be the beginning of friendship, just as the pleasure of the eye is the beginning oflove. No one falls in love without first being charmed by beauty, but one may delight in

another's beauty without necessarily being in love: one is in love only if one longs for the beloved when absent, and eagerly desires his presence." 281 To look at a woman thus implies her presence and the charm of her beauty. 282 To look arouses the "desire" (lm8vJ.t£w, f?Tt8vJ.tla) 283 to be with her and ultimately to have sexual union with her. 284 Such is the normal course of love relationships. 285 No mention is made at this point ofthe woman's reaction or her participation through her "looks";2 86 the focus is strictly on the man's initiative. In applying this common view to the issue under discussion, the SM points to anthropological factors. It acknowledges the manner in which human love relationships develop: the power of the human eye, the

278 For a large collection of parallels, see Wettstein, concordances to Lucian of Samosata (Betz, Lukian, 1.301-2; furthermore Paul Wilpert, "Auge," RAC 1 78 n. 9) and Plutarch; and for the papyri, Preisigke, (1950) 957-69; idem, "Begierde," RAC 2 (1954) 62Wiirterbuch, 4/4.888; Sup 1.1 0.; PGM has the terms 78; Hommel, Sebasmata, 2.54-56. frequently; for Hellenistic judaism, see Hatch and 279 Plato Crat. 420a: ;poor a(, lin E<rpe'i ;tooOev Kal. OVK o1Keia Redpath, s.v.;the concordances to Philo, Josephus, Eurlu 7, /Jof] a~T1J rep fxovrt, lz.AA' f7rEluaKTO~ lh(z. rWv and Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs (in the edition by op.p.aroov. Plato explains ;poor "etymologically" by dejonge, p. 223). euptoo ("flow into"), which in olden times was called 284 Wettstein, 1.301, rightly refers to 1 Cor 7:1. ;upor and then changed by substituting omega for 285 See the example of judith Odt 12:16): "Thenjudith omikron. For the close association of "love" (;poor) and came in and lay down, and Holofernes' heart was "desire," see Plato Phaedr. 237d; 238d; Lys. 221e; ravished with her and he was moved with great desire Symp. 192e; 200e; Resp. 3.396d; 9.578a. to possess her; for he had been waiting for an 280 Cf. the term evvotoo ("be goodwilling") in the first opportunity to deceive her, ever since the day he first antithesis (see vs 25a). saw her" (RSV). Cf. the context,Jdt 12:15-16; 16:7281 Aristotle Eth. Nic. 9.5.3, 1167a 4-8: ;OIK€ a~ apx~ 9; Sus 7-12. Famous is the example of David tAiar €LVal, /J,u-rrep TOV epav ~ llth. riir if-.Jreoor ~oov~· flo~ seducing Bathsheba (2 Sam 11: 1-4; cf. Josephus Ant. yh.p wpa7]u8Elf; rfi lOl~ oVBEfs Ep~, 0 0~ xalpwv rijl fiiEL 7.130-31). See also Gen 39:7 and its novelistic oVBtv p.aA.Aov fp~, ltAA' 8rav Kal lt.,.,.Ovra 1To6fi KaL rijs treatment in T. jos. 2-9 (OTP 1.819-21); Bilhah's -rrapovuiar e-rrtOvp.fi. For further material, see Wilpert, seduction by Reuben (Gen 35:22) as renarrated in RAC 1.961. jub. 33.1-9; T. Reu. 3.11-15 (cf. 10); furthermore 282 Cf. the close parallel in Epictetus Diss. 2.18.15: "ToNum 15:39; Hos 2:10. The theme is popular in Song day when I saw a handsome lad or a handsome of Songs (Cant 1:15; 4:9; 5:12; 6:5; 7:5; 8:10) and woman I did not say to myself, 'Would that a man wisdom literature (Prov 6:25; Sir 9:7-8; 30:20; might sleep with her,' and 'Her husband is a happy 40:22); for rabbinic parallels see Str-B 1.299-301, man,' for the man who uses the expression 'happy' of 302. the husband means 'Happy is the adulterer' also" 286 For the effects of painting of the eyes and oflong (trans. by W. A. Oldfather, LCL edition ofEpictetus eyelashes, see 2 Kgs 9:30;Jer 4:30; Ezek 23:40; Prov [London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 6:25 (cf. 4:25); Sir 26:11-12 (cf. 26:13-18); 42:12. University, 1961)1.353). See alsoDiss. 2.23.12; 3.7.21; 4.9.3.; Ench. 2.1-2; 33.8. Dibelius (Hermas, 426-30) and Brox (Hermas, 78) rightly refer to the quotation from Epictetus as a parallel to Hermas Vis. 1.1.2-8. 283 In this context the terms refer simply to sexual appetite and lust, with or without moral implications. See LSJ, s.v.; for the Hellenistic usage, see esp. the

232

Matthew 5:21-48

arousal of "desire" (£m6vJL£w), 287 and the decisions made by the "heart" (Kaplila). 288 The process is traced from the outside to the inside, from eye contact to desire to the heart, where the decision to commit adultery is made. This erotic psychology itself is not the object under criticism, however; 289 it is simply considered as inherent to the issue. Where, then, lies the problem? The statement of the problem begins with the term yvv~ as the object of the man's act of seeing. According to the consensus of scholarship, this term refers to the married woman. 2 90 This meaning is also required because of the definition of what constitutes adultery: JLOLX(la is the "secret sexual intercourse with a free woman without the consent of her lord [Kvptos]." 291 Thus adultery originally posed a problem in that it infringed on the social authority of a husband over his wife. Only in the course of time did adultery become a moral issue. The translation of the Vulgate as mulier ("adult female") instead of uxor ("wife") shows further expansion and

indicates a change that had enormous consequences in the history of Christianity, implying as it does the radical discreditation of any sexual activity involving women other than a man's own wife. 2 9 2 As Aristotle reminds us, however, not every look at a woman must be lustful, although looking always has some purpose. 2 93 The SM specifies that purpose in the phrase 1Tpos TO E1Tt6VJLijUat avr~v. the rendering of which remains disputed. One can take the preposition 1rpos in the final sense, assuming that the man is the logical subject of the verb; in this case, one translates: "with the purpose of desiring her." 294 Thus the fault lies in the man's evil intent and plan to "commit adultery with her [avr~v]." Another understanding of the phrase perceives it in a consecutive sense, 295 implying that whenever a man looks at a woman, he ultimately desires her. The logical subject may also be the woman, however, in which case the man "makes her commit adultery." In other words, the man's offense is seduction, while the woman's

287 E7TI6vl-'{w as a sexual term occurs only here in the NT; see also Hermas Vis. 1.1.4; cf. Did. 5.1 (.povo•, f'OIX£La•, f1n6vp.lar., 7ropv£lat); it is known, however, to Hellenistic Judaism: see 1 Enoch 6.2; 4 Mace. 2.5; Sus 8; Philo Spec. leg. 3.66. For these and other passages, see BAGD, s.v. E7rl6vi-'Erot Friedrich Biichsel, "£m6vl-'iw," TDNT 3.168-72; further bibliography in ThWNT 10/2 (1979) 1111; Paul Wilpert, "Begierde," RAG 2 (1954) 62-78; Hans Hubner, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s.v. £m6vf<EW KrA. (bibliography). For the sexual meaning of the noun, see 1 Thess 4:5; Rom 1:24 (in context); Did. 1.4; 3.3; 5.1, etc. See BAGD, s.v. E7TI6Vf
292

293 294

295

heimliche geschlechtliche V erkehr mit der freien Frau ohne Zustimmung ihres K6pwr" ("Adultery is secret sexual intercourse with the free woman without consent of her lord"). For the Jewish context, see the definition in Jeffrey H. Tigay, "Adultery," EJ 2 (1971) 313: "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married woman, or one engaged by payment of the brideprice, and a man other than her husband." See also Moshe Greenberg, "Crimes and Punishments," !DB 1. 733-44, 739-40; Charles A. Taber, IDBSup, 244-45; idem and Robin Scroggs, "Marriage," IDBSup, 573-77; Louis M. Epstein, Sex Laws and Customs in judaism (New York: Blochs, 1948) 194215. Similarly Gerhard Delling, "Ehebruch," RAG 4 (1959) 666-77. Mulier is the sexually active woman generally; uxor is the wife. See OLD, s.v. "mulier." The Latin translation of the \g betrays the rigorous sexual asceticism of the ancient church. See for the history of interpretation Luz, Matthiius, 1.262-64 (Matthew, 1.294-97). See the quotation above, n. 281. For this usage see SM/Matt 6:1; Matt 13:30; 23:5; 26:12; Mark 13:22; 2 Cor 3:13, etc. See BAGD, s.v. 1rp0r, lll.3.a. As the parallels show, the usage is not exclusively Matthean; cf. Luz, Matthiius, 1.246 (Matthew, 1.293-94). See BAGD, s.v. 1rpor, III.3.b; BAGD (s.v. £m6vl-'iw) points to the variant reading avriir (M 1f 1 205. 1506 al), while P 64 M* pc Tert Cl Cyr omit the pronoun altogether, in both cases making clear that the woman is the object. Cf. Niederwimmer, Askese, 25 n. 60.

233

is adultery. This last interpretation has recently been defended by Klaus Haacker, 296 who thinks that the aorist infinitive ht8vp:ijuat describes the reaction of the woman to the suggestive looks of the man. He translates: "Whoever looks at a married woman in such a way that she becomes [or: is meant to become] lustful has already seduced her in his heart to commit adultery." Although grammatically possible, this translation loses sight of the argumentative context requiring an explanation of the interpretation of the prohibition "You shall not commit adultery" (vs 27b). Such a shift in emphasis from the man to the woman, however, is not warranted by the text. The initial words "everyone who looks" are directed at the behavior of the man who takes the initiative. The words thus comprise the prohibition of Exod 20: 14 itself. There remains the possibility of the woman's committing adultery on her own, but this problem is discussed only in the third antithesis, vss 31-32. Also not raised in vss 27-30 is the question of the woman's role in the process of seduction, but this question was unavoidably introduced by the patristic commentators who were doubtless influenced by the increasing suspicion of and hostility toward women in late antiquity. 297 The truly important shift in this redefinition of adultery is the shift from the physical breaking of the taboo to the decision of the heart. Adultery is thus

committed prior to the physical act, "already" (i/o7J) 298 "in the heart" (lv rfi Kapol{L). 299 This shift also suggests that if one is to prevent adultery, the course of action must begin in the heart, the center of human personhood, where all decisions on moral and ethical behavior are made. As scholars have noted, the psychology of sin presented in SM/Matt 5:27-28 was well known in firstcentury Judaism. 300 To cite just a few characteristic passages: Sir 26:9: A wife's harlotry shows in her lustful eyes, and she is known by her eyelids.30I Ps. Sol. 4.4-5, of the "profaner": His eyes are on every woman indiscriminately, ... with his eyes he speaks to every woman of illicit affairs. 302 T. Iss. 7. 2, in a declaration of innocence: Except my wife, I have not known any woman. I did not act impurely by uplifting my eyes. 3 03 T. Iss. 4.4, in speaking about the "man of singlemindedness" (o a'li'Aovs): And the spirits of deceit have no power against him. For he does not welcome the beauty of a woman lest he would pollute his mind with perversion. 304 Philo holds similar views and explains why women are excluded from the sports arena, where the athletes strip themselves naked: Each sex should turn away from seeing the nakedness

296 Klaus Haacker, "Der Rechtssatzjesu zum Thema Ehebruch (Mt 5, 28)," BZ 21 (1977) 113-16. His translation: "Wer eine Ehefrau so ansieht, daB sie begehrlich wird (oder: werden soli), der hat sie in seinem Herzen bereits zum Ehebruch verfiihrt" (pp. 114-15). ("He who looks at a woman in a way that she becomes desiring [or: should become desiring] has in his heart already seduced her into adultery.") 297 For passages, see Luz, Matthiius, 1.262-64 (Matthew, 1.292-94). 298 For this usage of the term denoting "logical proximity and immediateness" and approaching "the sense really" see BAGD, s.v. 7f5TJ, 2. 299 A connection with the concept of the purity of the heart (see above on SM/Matt 5:8) needs to be made here. 300 For parallels from judaism, see Wettstein, 1.301-2; Str-B 1.298-302; Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1.31936; Braun, Radikalismus, 2.86 n. 1, 109 n. 6; idem, Qumran, 1.16; Niederwimmer, Askese, 26-29. 301 Trans. of RSV. The Greek reads: 1ropvlia>..p.wv, Kat £v ro'is {3A.<6.pots abrijs

234

yvwuli~u
302 Trans. by R. B. Wright, OTP 2.655. The Greek reads: ol Ocp8aAp.o't. aVroV f'lT', '1Tao-av yvvaLKa llvEv 5tauro>..ijs, ... £v 3lia>..p.o'is avrov AaAEl 7r6.uy yvvatK't ' uvvrayy KaKtaS. ' l!a>..p.wv p.ov. For the declaration of innocence, see Betz, Essays, 128 n. 14. 304 Kalye ra 1fVE-Dp.ara rijs '1TA&V1JS' oVO~v luxVovut 7rphs aVrOv. oV yap eTOev E1nDltacr8at K&:AAos Br(AElas, Yva p.~ EV 5taurpofi p.td.vy rhv vovv avrov· See also T. Iss. 3.5; 4.6; T. Benj. 6.2-3; T. Reu. 2.4, together with the commentary by Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments, 93,241,245,427-28.

-

Matthew 5:21-48

of the other and so comply with what nature has willed. Surely, then, if it is reprehensible for them to use their sight, their hands are far more guilty. For the eyes often take liberties and compel us to see what we do not wish to see. 305 Philo does, however, make a distinction between mere imagination and execution: For so long as we only conceive disgraceful actions with the bare imagination of the mind, so long we are not guilty of the intent, for the soul may even against our will move amiss. But when the deeds planned have also been carried out, the very planning involves guilt, for the deliberateness of the offence is the chief point made evident by its execution. 3° 6 These quotations reveal Philo's major concerns: the avoidance of situations that stimulate evil desires and pleasures (~Sovat}, and the legal distinction between imagination, intent, or planning, and execution; of these, only the last two are subject to punishment, while the first can be controlled by the soul-provided the soul is sufficiently equipped. 30 7 The whole complex of ideas thus far considered consists of traditions and topoi common in the Hel-

lenistic world. In Jewish literature, they are evidenced in wisdom, narratives, and paraenesis, sometimes influenced by Greek popular philosophy. Since there seem to be no systematic organization or patterns attributable to schools of thought, one must conclude that these ideas concerning the psychology of sin were fairly common in the Jewish thought of the first century and that learned debates would draw on them. Rabbinic literature shows that the whole complex of thought passed into rabbinic theology, often attached to the interpretation of Job 24: 15; 308 and while certainly not all rabbis agreed, an impressive part of the tradition held that the common label "adulterer" should apply not only to those who engage in the physical act of intercourse but also to those who desire with their eyes and hearts. 309 Scholars have undeniably been correct in maintaining that SM/Matt 5:28 remains essentially within the framework of Jewish theology. 310 This conclusion, however, is of some concern to those who believe that they must fine! points indicative of Jesus' originality. Such attempts generally presuppose that the passage as a whole is based on, or at least a reflection of, the theology of the historical Jesus. 311 The intention of the SM,

305 Philo Spec. leg. 3.177-78, trans. F. H. Colson. parallels. 306 Philo Det. pot. ins. 97, trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. 309 For the expansion of the concept and the inclusion of Whittaker. For similar rabbinic doctrines, see Str-B "seducers and pederasty, ... dissolute living and 1.301-2. indulgence in lawless and licentious forms of 307 Philo's interpretation of the prohibition is interesting intercourse," see Philo Decal. 168. Similarly Ps.for comparison; he presents it at length in Decal. Phocyl. Sent. 3: "Neither commit adultery nor rouse 121-31, in short sketches in Decal. 168-69, and in homosexual passion"; and 175-206, esp. 179-83 Spec. leg. 3.8. According to him, the prohibition (trans. Pieter W. van der Horst, OTP 2.574, 580-81). against adultery stands at the head of the second set 310 So rightly Percy, Botschaft, 143-44; Braun, of five commandments, containing the duties toward Radikalismus, 2.7 n. 2 (section 6), 5 n. 2, 27 n. 8, 86 one's fellow man. The source of adultery is "love of n. 1, 109; Guelich, Sermon, 193 (cf., however, 194); pleasure" (•A.'r/aovla [Decal. 122]); the extreme Strecker, Bergpredigt, 74 (Sermon, 71); Luz, Matthaus, severity of the crime is explained by the psychological 1.265 (Matthew, 1.295-96). and social damages resulting from it: partnership 311 See esp. Lohmeyer (Matthaus, 127-28), who believes between the man and the woman in crime, that Jesus turned into an unconditional law what the destruction and bastardization of at least three Jewish sayings tradition attributed only to the families, danger to the state, suffering of illegitimate especially pious. Similarly Niederwimmer (Askese, childr:en, and, above all, the situation of the woman 29): because of Jesus' eschatology, Jesus transformed who must bear all the consequences. On Philo's the "moral maxim" that he took from Jewish doctrine of sin in general, see Max Freudenthal, Die tradition into "an unconditional law binding for all, to be fulfilled at once and completely. The motive of Erkenntnislehre Philos (Berlin: Calvary, 1891) 63-75; Helmut Schmidt, Die Anthropologie Philons von Jesus is, in the final analysis, different from the Jewish tradition in that the conflict between libido and law is Alexandreia (Wiirzburg: Triltsch, 1933); David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the "Timaeus" ofPlato sharpened up drastically and that the radicalism is carried to the extreme." Guelich (Sermon, 194) wants (Akademisch Proefschrift; Amsterdam: VU Boekhandel, 1983) 1.259-61. to distinguish between the meaning of "heart" in the 308 Str-B 1.298-302 provides a valuable collection of Jewish sources and in the SM. Strecker (Bergpredigt,

235

however, is apologetic. If one assumes that the substance of the discussion reflects the teaching of the historical Jesus, the purpose of the argument is to show that this teaching can be accounted for in a meaningful way within the Judaic frame ofthought. 31 2 • 29 The argument demonstrating the validity of the interpretation set forth in vs 28 rests on two examples, one concerning the eye (vs 29) and one concerning the hand (vs 30). The parallels in Matt 18:8-9 and Mark 9:43-48 show that the examples were drawn from the sayings tradition and that they originally had nothing to do with vss 27-28 and their topic. 313 What type of examples do we have here? How are the examples connected to vss 27-28? How do they make their point? Formally, vss 29-30 are carefully composed as an isocolon, 314 consisting of two parallel sententiae and forming a case of interpretation. 315 The ideas, images, and functions belong to the category of hyperbole. 316 Also the tva-clauses in vss 29c and 30c contain an isocolon in chiastic order. 31 7 The first example, focusing on the eye, one's most precious organ, presents a hypothetical situation (vs 29a): "If, then, your right eye gives you trouble" (£lll€ o

ocp8aA.p..o~ O"OV 0 O€tto~ O"KavllaA.l(u 0"€). 318 The example begins at the level of physiological or medical analogy, in order then to turn to metaphorical application. We are asked to imagine what appears to be a medical emergency: the eye giving trouble. Then the right eye, which normally functions properly, suddenly becomes a source of moral offense. 319 The term uKavllaA.l(w 320 is used here in a more general sense: the eye has become a "trap" (uKavllaA.ov) entangling its owner in sin. The ambiguous term here is certainly suggestive, since the reader at once determines the nature of the trouble, namely, the seeing that causes the adultery. What is one to do? What is the "cure"? The recommended remedy seems absurd (vs 29b): "Pluck it out and throw it from you" (lt€A€ avTOV Kat {3aA.€ a?TO uov). On the ordinary plane, the remedy constitutes radical selfmutilation. What is behind such a radical remedy? In vs 29c, a statement of utility in the form of a filb-saying 321 tells us: "For it is beneficial to you that one of your members gets lost but not your whole body is thrown into Gehenna" (uvp..cp€pu yap uot Yva a?TOA"T/Tat ~v Tc;>V p..€A.wv uov Kat p..~ 8A.ov TO uwp..a O"OV f1A.118fi d~ y€£vvav). 322 Indeed, the

7 4 [Sermon, 71-72]) speaks of the eschatological law of the kingdom of God that Jesus erected in contrast to the law of Moses and that challenges the human person totally. All these attempts appear forced and, where they admit the Jewish parallels, selfcontradictory. 312 Contra Niederwimmer (Askese, 26-27): "The thought contained in the saying is completely alien to any rational ethics. Contemporary Judaism, however, was quite familiar with the idea" ("Der im Logion ausgesprochene Gedanke ist fur jede rationale Ethik im hochsten Masse befremdlich. Dem zeitgenossischenJudentum ist der Gedanke aber durchaus vertraut"). If both these presuppositions were correct (and I do not believe they are), the alleged radicalism ofJesus would consist in his extreme irrationalism, going beyond "normal" irrationalism in Judaism generally. Consistent with his position is Niederwimmer's polemic against those who admit Hellenistic philosophical influences (ibid., 29 n. 81, 32-33). 313 So rightly Bultmann, History, 148, 311-12, 324; Braun, Radikalismus, 2.109 n. 7; Luz (Matthiius, 1.261-62 [Matthew, 1.291-92]), who also discusses the possible origin in Q. The double tradition of the saying in Matthew is evidence that the author received two different sources containing the saying

236

314 315 316 317

318

319 320

in variant forms, to which Mark 9:43-48 and Justin Apol. 1.15.2 must be added as further variants. This makes it probable that Matt 5:29-30 was combined already with 5:27-28 in the SM. A witness to this is also Justin. Whether he knew Matthew's Gospel as a whole or not, he has the two parts together (see the text in Aland, Synopsis, 81 ). See also Guelich, Sermon, 194-95, with further references. On this figure of speech, see BDF, § 485; BDR, § 485; Lausberg, Elemente, §§ 336-62. See Lausberg, Elemente, § 343. So Eduard Konig, Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik in bezug auf die biblische Litteratur (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1900) 77. The last three words are a chiasm: f3>.118fi flr ytfvvav/dr ytfvvav iinb..ev. Note also the assonance of the iincl>.7Jra• at the beginning of the Yva-clause in vs 29c and the iiniMv at the end of vs 30c. The variant readings of word order and structure evidenced especially by D appear to be the result of tampering with the text. See Nestle-Aland, and Aland, Synopsis, ad Joe. cr. the similar problems regarding the eye in SM/Matt 6:22-23; 7:3-5. On this term see BAGD, s. v. uKavoaAi(w, 1.a; Gustav St:ahlin, "uKavoa>.i(w," TDNT 7 .339-58; ThWNT 10/2 ( 1979) 1265 (bibliography); Heinz Giesen, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. uKavoa>.i(w, with bibliography.

Matthew 5:21-48

question involves a choice of the lesser of two evils: losing as precious an organ as one's right323 eye is bad enough, but to sacrifice it in order to save the whole body is nonetheless a prudent move. Introduced by the formulaic phrase "it is beneficial to you" (crvp.cp€p£L y6.p crot), the saying may well utilize an analogy from medicine. Every surgical measure involves the sacrifice of a smaller organ, however valuable, for the benefit of the whole body and its survival. The terms and images, however, remain ambiguous, and probably intentionally so.324

The latter part of the sentence then transfers the whole idea to the level of eschatology, contrasting the throwing away of one member by its owner to the whole body being thrown into the Gehenna to suffer without

escape. 325 A conclusion of the type a minori ad maius 326 is implied: if the choice makes sense in this-worldly terms, 327 how much more so in view of the threat of eternal condemnation. • 30 The second example concerns the right hand and parallels vs 29 in both form and meaning. 3 2 8 First, a hypothetical situation is presented (vs 29a): "And if your right hand gives you trouble" (Kat t:1 ~ o£b6. crov X£tp crKavoa>..l(£t cr£). 329 In antiquity, the right hand 330 was often highly valued because it was seen as primarily responsible for the progress of humanity throughout civilization. 331 Yet, the imagined situation presumes that the normal beneficial function of the hand ceases and the organ subsequently becomes a source of trouble. 33 2 As

321 On this form of saying, see Graydon F. Snyder ("The Tobspruch in the New Testament," NTS 23 [1976] 117-20), who refers to Matt 5:29, 30 (p. 119). Other sayings using this form beginning with uvp.<J>ep.:TJ8fi; some may do this because they omit vs 30 altogether, perhaps regarding it as redundant. 323 The right side is the good side, according to many ancient writers. See Wettstein, 1.302; BAGD, s.v. a,~,,)~, 1, with parallels and literature; Walter Grundmann, "a,~,.S~," TDNT 2.37-40; ThWNT 10/2 (1979) 1037; Peter von der Osten-Sacken, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s.v. a.~,.J~; Betz, Lukian, 38 n. 6. For the importance of the right eye in divination, see DielsKranz, 87 B 81A (II, 368, 25-30). See also below, n. 330. 324 The use of the term
concludes agreements, etc.; its power may be enhanced by magic. See, e.g., Gen 48:12, 14, 17; Ps 73:23; 110:1;Jer 22:24; Ezek 17:18; Matt 27:29; Acts 3:7; Gal2:9; Rev 1:16, 17; 10:5; 13:16. See also Betz, Galatians, 100. 331 A large amount of material, both primary sources and secondary works, is devoted to the investigation of the human hand in cultural history. For treatment and collections ofthe evidence see Walter Spoerri, Spiithellenistische Berichte ilber Welt, Kultur und Cotter (SBA 9; Basel: Reinhardt, 1959) 148-52; Kenneth Grayston, "The Significance of the Word Hand in the New Testament," in Melanges bibliques en hom mage de P. Beda Rigaux (Gembloux: Duculot, 1970) 479-87; Karl Grofi, "Lob der Hand im klassischen und christlichen Altertum," Gymnasium 83 (1976) 42340;Jan Bergman, Wolfram von Soden, and Peter Ackroyd, ·~:jad," ThWAT 3.421-55 (TDOT 5.393426); Eduard Lohse, "x
237

the term uKavoaA.l(w indicates, 333 the organ "lends a hand," as it were, to the commission of sin. 334 What the specific sin is we are not told directly, but the context of seduction and adultery suggests that the hand plays a role in these. 335 What is the remedy? Once again the recommendation is self-mutilation: "cut it off and throw it from you" (f'KKOI[Iov aVTTJV KaL {3aAf. a?Th uov). 336 As in vs 29c, the reason for this absurd remedy 337 is given in the form of a tob- saying (vs 30): "for it is beneficial to you that one of your members gets lost but not your whole body passes into Gehenna" (uvp.c/J,Pf.L yap ITOL Yva a?TOA7]TaL ~v TWV P,f.AWV ITOV KaL P.h CJAov TO uwp.a ITOV ds Y'f.Vvav a?TfA8?J). 338 How do these examples in vss 29-30 demonstrate that vs 28 makes a valid point? What do the right eye and the

right hand have to do with adultery? The parallels in Matt 18:8-9 339 and Mark 9:43-48 340 indicate that the examples were originally not connected with vss 27-28 and that, most probably, the connection was made prior to Matthew in the tradition. 341 That tradition appears to be more specifically the SM itself and not Q. 342 Thus the reason for adducing the examples was given already with the sayings tradition. This assumption is confirmed by parallels from Hellenistic 343 and rabbinic 344 literature, where exaggerated demands to cut off limbs from the body as a sign of seriousness about morality were commonplace. In rabbinic literature, b. Nid. 2.1, p. 13b is concerned with the role of the hand in masturbation, called "adultery by the hand." In this passage, sayings

333 For the meaning see above, n. 320. Gesetz, 68-71; Strecker, "Antithesen," 52; idem, 334 For the hand as an instrument ofsin, see Gen 16:12; Bergpredigt, 74-75 (Sermon, 72); Guelich, Sermon, 1 Kgs 16:7; 2 Kgs 22:17; Pss 9:16; 28:4; Prov 17:16; 195; Luz,Matthiius, 1.261 (Matthew, 1.291-92). For Isa 2:8; Wis 1:12; Sir 2:12. For Qumran parallels, see other solutions, see Klostermann, MatthiiusBraun, Radikalismus, 1.39 n. 5, 62 nn. 3-5, 131 n. 6, evangelium, 45; Kilpatrick, Origins, 18-19; Dupont, 2.109 n. 7; Str-B 1.302-3. Beatitudes, 1.121-23. 335 In Semitic languages the hand can be a euphemism 342 The saying does not seem to have been part of Q. On for the penis; for passages and bibliography, see this point see Luz, Matthiius, 1.261 n. 4 (Matthew, ThWAT 3.429-30 (TDOT 5.399-400); there is no 1.292 n. 4); differently Stahlin, TDNT 7.352 n. 72. indication, however, that this Semitic idiom lies 343 Collections of parallels from ancient literature are to behind vs 30. See also Braun, Radikalismus, 1.40, on be found in Wettstein, 1.302-3; Tholuck, Bergrede, 1QS7.13. 221-27; Heinrici, Bergpredigt 2.39-41; Hommel, 336 W L.l. read the simplex KOo/ov. "Herrenworte," Sebasmata, 2.56-58, 67; cf. 39-40; 3 3 7 It is not meant to be a punishment as in Deut 2 5: 11Luz, Matthiius, 1.266-67 (Matthew, 1.297-98). The 12; 1 Sam 5:5; 2 Sam 4:12; 2 Kgs 9:35; 1 Mace 7:47. most important parallels are Xenophon Mem. See]. Duncan M. Derrett, "Law in the NT: Si 1.2.51-55; Plato Symp. 205e; Aristotle Eth. Eud. 71, scandalizaverit te manus tua abscinde illam (Mk. IX 42) 1235a; Plutarch De virt. mor. 5, 444C; De frat. am. 7, and Comparative Legal History," in his Studies in the 481C; De cup. div. 3, 524D (seePECL 2.160, 215, NT,l.4-31. 245, 329); Epictetus Diss. 4.7.7.; Philo Spec. leg. 3.179 338 M* mae read~ instead of Kat p.~. L W 0 jl 3 1006. (see below, n. 347); Sextus Sent. 13 (see below, n. 1342. 1506. 9ltfvgms sy(p).h sa change the word order 348); Seneca Ep. 51.13; Ovid Ex Ponto 4.14.17-18; to harmonize it with vs 29c. Heliodorus Aeth 2.16.1-4. The tradition seems to be 339 The sayings composition Mark 9:42-50//Matt steady in Pythagoreanism (see Iamblichus De vita Pyth. 7.34; 31.187), as was pointed out by Johannes 18:6-9 is a warning against offending (uKavaa)l.{(w) "one of these little ones who believe in me." There is Schattenmann, "Jesus und Pythagoras," Kairos 21 no connection with adultery. See Helmut Koester, (1 979) 215-20. Regarding the goal as being "self"Mark 9:43-47 and Quintilian 8.3.75," HTR 71 control" (uw<J>pouvv7J), lamblichus (Pythagoras?) (1978) 151-53. agrees with Justin Apol. 1.15.1, in his introduction to 340 Mark 9:43-45 has three examples: the hand, the the passage on adultery (for the text see Aland, foot, and the eye. Matthew seems to represent Synopsis, 81 ). See furthermore, Athenagoras Suppl. another tradition, rather than being simply a result 32; Theophilus Ad Auto[. 3.13; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 11.32; of Matthew's redaction of Mark. Also, Matthew's Rec. 6.13; 7.37. tradition seems to be in continuity with the SM. 344 For a collection of rabbinic parallels, see Str-B 341 So Bultmann, History, 149; Manson, Sayings, 157; 1.302-3. Lohmeyer, Matthiius, 101; Braun, Radikalisinus, 2.109 n. 7; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 65-66; Hubner,

238

Matthew 5:21-48

remarkably similar to the SM are found, such as "it is preferable that his belly shall be split rather than that he should go down into the pit of destruction. " 345 The similarity involves both the form of the fob-saying and the hyperbolic manner of speech. Was the demand meant literally? 346 The rabbis have apparently discussed the question whether the command to cut off the hand should be taken literally as a punishment or as an execration. The ambiguity was not resolved, perhaps for paraenetical reasons, but the examples given in b. Nid. 2.1 and b. Sabb. 108b speak in favor of the execration. 347 I conclude, then, that the recommendations to pluck out the eye and to cut off the hand (vss 29b, 30b) are hyperbolic speech, not orders to perform real acts of selfmutilation; yet the continued ambiguity is not resolved. Therefore, the examples function as warnings in view of the eschatological consequences of the sin of adultery. 348 The warnings must not be confused with the ethical demand itself, however, as if the hyperbole directly

expresses ethical radicalism. 349 Rather, the demand itself is not stated but must be inferred by the reader. What, then, is the intention of the prohibition of the Decalogue against adultery? What is Jesus' interpretation actually demanding? As we have seen, adultery leads to the disruption of family relations. It begins with the man's desirous look at another man's wife. Prevention must begin at the same point: 350 gaining control over the whole psychological erotic process from the heart to the eye to the physical act is the substance of the ethical demand. My study indicates that the SM is here in substantial agreement with other passages in the New Testament concerning the ethical life of the Christian family, maintaining that restraint, even asceticism, is the best way to fulfill the divine commandment in this point. 351 Considering the overall framework of the antitheses, the point should be clear: avoidance of adultery is a special application of the love-command, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

345 b. Nid. 13b, translated by I. Epstein, The Babylonian Henry Chadwick, The Sentences ofSextus (Cambridge: Talmud. Seder Tohoroth, vol. 1: Niddah (London: Cambridge University, 1959) 12-13; Hommel, Soncino, 1948), p. 89. "Herrenworte," Sebasmata 2.58. See also the critical 346 Stahlin (TDNT 3.852-53, 859-60; 7.351-52) takes apparatus in the edition by Edwards and Wild, the sayings literally and speaks of a propitiatory selfSentences of Sextus, p. 16, whose translation is given punishment to avoid eschatological punish~ent and above. gain entrance to eternal life. This interpretation 349 Differently Strecker, Bergpredigt, 75 (Sermon, 72): "It could be supported by sayings such as Mark 8:34-37 is an unconditional demand for a decision that has par. and Matt 19:12. Similarly Gundry, Matthew, 88: radical consequences" ("Eine unbedingte Ent"Jesus was not speaking hyperbolically"; he meant scheidungsforderung, die zu radikalen Kon"radical self-discipline." Differently Friedrich Horst, sequenzen ruft"). Similarly Niederwimmer, Askese, TDNT 4.559-61. 31-33; Niederwimmer, however, connects the 347 So also Philo, who in Spec. leg. 3.169-80 discusses the passage with Rom 7:7-25, thinking that Matt 5:27woman's place in society and the understanding of 30 reflects an experience of self-alienation and the the law to cut off the hand (Deut 25:11-12). In beginning of the Christian struggle against section 179, Philo sums up: "Naturally therefore we concupiscence (32-33): "Its goal is not the (always are commanded in a symbol [uvp.{3oAtKw~ J to cut off merely relative) repair of the moral life but the the hand ... , not ... meaning that the body should disclosure of the eschatological demand; not the be mutilated by the loss of a most essential member, successive acts of struggle but the definitive victory but to bid us exscind from the soul the godless over self-alienation" ("Das Ziel ist nicht die [immer thoughts" (trans. F. H. Colson). See also Som. 2.68nur relative J Ausbesserung der moralischen Existenz, 69 for a similar statement; furthermore Det. pot. ins. sondern die Aufdeckung des eschatologischen 175 .. Anspruchs, nicht die sukzessive Bekampfung, 348 Cf. Sextus Sent. 12-14: "It is neither eye nor hand sondern die definitive Oberwindung der Selbstentnor any such thing that sins, but he who misuses hand fremdung"). and eye. Cast away any part of the body which leads 350 Cf. Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 18: "Remove sight, association you to intemperance; for it is better to live temand contact, and the passion of love is at an end." perately without it than to perish whole. Consider Related also is section 71: "Every desire must be that at the judgment both your rewards and your confronted with this question: what will happen to punishments will be eternal." There is no indication me, if the object of my desire is accomplished and that this philosophical version of the sayings is what if it is not?" textually dependent on Matt 5:29-30. Differently 351 See also the third antithesis, below (vss 31-32);

239

c. The Third Antithesis: Divorce (Matt 5:31-32) Bibliography Isaac Abrahams, "Jewish Divorce in the First Century," in his Studies, 1.66-78. David Werner Amram, The jewish Law ofDivorce according to the Bible and Talmud (Philadelphia: Stern, 1896). Heinrich Baltensweiler, "Die Ehebruchsklauseln bei Matthaus: Zu Matth. 5,32; 19,9," TZ 15 (1959) 340-56. 1dem,Ehe. Banks, jesus and the Law, 191-93. Johannes B. Bauer, "De conjugali foedere quid edixerit Matthaeus? (Mt 5, 3ls; 19, 3-9)," VD 44 (1966): 7 4-78; reprinted in Opuscula Latina quibus Bibliorum sacrorum apocryphorumque loci et Patrum sententiae exponuntur (Graz: 1nstitut fur okumenische Theologie, 1979) 56-60. Idem, "Bemerkungen zu den matthaischen Unzuchtsklauseln (Mt 5,32; 19,9)," in Josef Zmijewski and Ernst Nellessen, eds., Begegnung mit dem Wort: FS for Heinrich Zimmermann (BBB 53; Bonn: Hanstein, 1980) 23-33. Berger, Gesetz.esauslegung, 1.508-75. Ludwig Blau, Die judische Ehescheidung und der jildische Scheidebrief Eine historische Untersuchung (2 parts; Strasbourg: Triibner, 1911-12). Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, "Matthew 5:32; 19:9 in the Light of Pre-Rabbinic Halakhah," NTS 35 (1989) 291-95. Joseph Bonsirven, Le divorce dans le Nouveau Testament (Paris: Societe de S.Jean l'Evangeliste; Desclee, 1948). Gunther Bornkamm, "Ehescheidung und Wiederverheiratung im Neuen Testament," in his Geschichte und Glaube 1; Gesammelte Aufsatz.e 3.5669. George H. Box and Charles Gore, Divorce in the New Testament: A Reply to Dr. Charles (London: SPCK, 1921). Braun, Radikalismus, 2.89-90, 108-14. David R. Catchpole, "Synoptic Divorce Material as a Traditio-Historical Problem," BJRL 57 (1974-75) 92-127. Aloys Cigoi, Die Unaujloslichkeit der christlichen Ehe und die Ehescheidung nach Schrift und Tradition: Eine historisch-kritische Erorterung von der apostolischen Zeit bis auf die Gegenwart (Paderborn: Schoningh, 1895). Boaz Cohen, "Concerning Divorce in Jewish and Roman Law," Proceedings of tbe American Academy of

furthermore Mark 7:22//Matt 15:19; Mark 10:19//Matt 19:18//Luke 18:20; Luke 18:11; Rom 2:22; 13:9; 1 Cor 6:9; Jas 2:11; Heb 13:4. One

240

Jewish Research 21 (1952) 3-34; reprinted in his jewish and Roman Law, 1.377-408. J. F. Collange, De Jesus a Paul: L'ethique du Nouveau Testament (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1980) 266-7 4. Crossan, In Fragments, 205-13. Henri Crouzel, L'Eglise primitive face au divorce: Du premier au cinquieme siilcle (Theologie historique 13; Paris: Beauchesne, 1971). Idem, "Le texte patristique de Matthieu V.32 et XIX.9," NTS 19 (1972) 98-119. Idem, "Le canon du concile d' Aries de 314 sur le remariage apres divorce," RSR 61 (1973) 353-62. Idem, "A propos du Concile d'Arles: Faut-il mettre non avant prohibentur nubere dans le canon 11 (ou 10) du Concile d' Aries de 314 sur le remariage apres divorce," BLE 75 (1974) 25-40. Idem, "Le remariage apres separation pour adultere selon les Peres latins," BLE 75 (1974) 189-204. Samuel Daiches, Divorce in Jewish Law (London: Society for Jewish Jurisprudence, 1926); reprinted in his Essays and Addresses (ed. Maurice Simon and Isaac Levy; Newport, Mon. [Great Britain]: R. H. Johns, 1955) 84-96. David Daube, "Divorce," in his NT and Rabbinic judaism, 71-86. Idem, "Terms for Divorce," in his NT and Rabbinic judaism, 362-72. Idem, "Concessions to Sinfulness in Jewish Law," JJS 10 (1959) 1-13. Jean Daubillier, "L'indissolubilite du mariage dans Ia Nouvelle Loi," L'Orient Syrien 9 (1964) 265-90. Gerhard Delling, "Das Logion Markus 10,11 und seine Abwandlungen im NT," NovT 1 (1956) 263-74; reprinted in his Studien zum NT und zum hellenistischen judentum, 226-35. Idem, "Ehescheidung," RAC 4 (1959) 707-19. Francesco Delpini, Indissolubilita matrimoniale e divorzio dal I al XII secolo (Archivio Ambrosiano 37; Milan: Nuove edizione Duomo, 1979). J. Duncan M. Derrett, "The Teaching of Jesus on Marriage and Divorce," in his Law in the New Testament (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970) 363-88. A. M. Dubarle, "Mariage et divorce dans l'Evangile," L'Orient Syrien 9 (1964) 61-73. David Dungan, The Sayings ofjesus in the Churches of Paul: The Use of the Synoptic Tradition in the Regulation of Early Church Lift (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971). P. J. Du Plessis, "The Ethics of Marriage according to Matth. 5, 27-32," Neot. 1 (1967) 16-27.

may also compare the story of the woman caught in adultery Qohn 7:53-8:11) with the ethics of the SM at this point.

Matthew 5:21-48

Jacques Dupont, Mariage et divorce dans l'Evangile: Matthieu 19, 3-12 et paralleles (Bruges: Abbay de Saint-Andre, 1959). · Louis M. Epstein, The jewish Marriage Contract: A Study of the Status of the Woman in Jewish Law (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1927). Idem, Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud (Harvard Semitic Studies 12; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1942). Idem, Sex Laws and Customs in judaism (New York: Bloch, 1948). Walter Erdmann, Die Ehe im alten Griechenland (MBPF 20; Munich: Beck, 1934) 384-409. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence," Theological Studies 37 (1976) 197-226. Idem, "Divorce among First-Century Palestinian Jews," Erlsr 14 (1978) 103*-110*. Anton Fridrichsen, "Excepta fornication is causa," SEA 9 (1944) 54-58. Heinrich Greeven, "Zu den Aussagen des Neuen TestamentsiiberdieEhe," ZEE 1 (1957) 109-25. Idem, "Ehe nach dem NT," NTS 15 (1968/69) 36588. Klaus Haacker, "Ehescheidung und Wiederverheiratung im Neuen Testament," ThQ 151 (1971) 28-38. Pat Edwin Harrell, Divorce and Remarriage in the Early Church: A History ofDivorce and Remarriage in the Ante-Nicene Church (Austin, Tex.: Sweet, 1967).

Wilfrid]. Harrington, "Jesus' Attitude Towards Divorce," Irish Theological Quarterly 37 (1970) 199209. Idem, "The New Testament and Divorce," ibid., 39 (1972) 178-87. William A. Heth and G. J. Wenham, jesus and Divorce (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1984). Paul Hoffmann, "Jesus' Saying About Divorce and Its Interpretation in the New Testament Tradition," Concilium 55 (1970) 51-66. Constantin Hohenlohe-Schillingsfurst, Einjluss des Christentums auf das Corpus Juris Civilis: Eine rechtsgeschichtliche Studie zum Verstiindnis der sozialen Frage (Vienna: Holder, Pichler, Tempsky, 1937)

160-62. Michael W. Holmes, "The Text of the Matthean Divorce Passages: A Comment on the Appeal to Harmonization in Textual Decisions," JBL 109 (1990) 651-64. U. Holzmeister, "Die Streitfrage tiber die Ehescheidungstexte bei Mt 5, 32; 19, 9," Bib 26 (1945) 13346. Hubner, Gesetz, 68-81. Stawros G. Huwardas, Beitriige zum griechischen und griikoiigyptischen Eherecht der Ptolemiier- und frilhen

Kaiserzeit (Leipziger rechtswissenschaftliche Studien

64; Leipzig: Weicher, 1931). Abel Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple (ASNU 24; Lund: Gleerup, 1965). jewish Law Annual, vol. 4 (1981): "The Wife's Right to Divorce." Sherman R. Johnson, jesus' Teaching on Divorce (New York: General Convention of the Episcopal Church: Joint Commission on Holy Matrimony, 1945). Max Kaser, Das romische Privatrecht (HKA W 3. 3.1; 2d ed.; Munich: Beck, 1971), 81-83 (§ 19). John]. Kilgallen, "To What Are Matthean ExceptionTexts (5, 32 and 19, 9) an Exception?" Bib 61 (1980) I02-5. Walter Kornfeld, "Mariage, I. Dans I' AT," DBSup 5 (1957) 906-26. Bernhard Kotting, "Digamus," RAG 3 (1957) 1016-24. Laufen, Doppelilberlieferungen, 343-60, 573-94. Rudolf Leonhard, "Divortium," PW, 9th half-volume (1903) 1241-45. Ernst Levy, Der Hergang der romischen Ehescheidung (Weimar: Bohlau, 1925). Justus Hermann Lipsius, Das attische Recht und Rechtsverjahren (3 vols.; Leipzig: Reisland, 1903, 1908, 1915; reprinted in 1 vol., Hildesheim: Olms, 1984). Benno Lohmann, "Das EhescheidungsverbotJesu im Hinblick auf die Eheauffassung in der orientalischen und Iateinischen Kirche," Erfurter Theologische Studien 37 (1977) 673-89. Gerhard Lohfink, "Jesus und die Ehescheidung: Zur Gattung und Sprachintention von Mt 5,32," in Helmut Merklein and Joachim Lange, eds., Biblische Randbemerkungen: Schillerfestschrift fur Rudolf Schnackenburg (2d ed.; Wiirzburg: Echter, 197 4)

207-17. Evald Lovestam, "AIIOA YEIN-en gammalpalestinensisk skilsmassoterm," SEA 27 (1962) 132-35. Idem, "Divorce and Remarriage in the New Testament," jewish Law Annual11 (1981) 47-65. Aidan Mahoney, "A New Look at the Divorce Clauses in Mt 5:32 and 19:9," CBQ 30 (1968) 29-38. Manson, Sayings, 136-38. Corrado Marucci, Parole di Gesil sul divorzio: Richerche scritturistiche previe ad un ripensamento teologico, canonistico e pastorale della dottrina cattolica dell' indissolubilita de matrimonio (Aioisiana 16; Brescia:

Morcelliana, 1982). Meier, Law and History, 140-50. Moses Mielziner, The jewish Law ofMarriage and Divorce in Ancient and Modern Times (Cincinnati: Bloch, 1884). Joseph Moingt, "Le divorce 'pour motif d'impudicite' (Matthieu 5, 32; 19, 9)," RSR 56 (1968) 337-84.

241

Idem, "Le mariage des Chretiens," RSR 62 (1974) 81116. Francis]. Moloney, "Matthew 19,3-12 and Celibacy: A Redactional and Form Critical Study," JSNT 2 (1979) 42-60. James R. Mueller, "The Temple Scroll and the Gospel Divorce Texts," RroQ 10, no. 38 (1980) 247-56. Andre Myre, "Dix ans d'exegese sur le divorce dans Ie NT," in Le Divorce: L'Eglise catholique ne drorait-elle pas modifier son attitude seculaire al'egard de l'indissolubilite du mariage? (Montreal: Fides, 1973) 139-63. Pierre Nautin, "Divorce et remariage dans Ia tradition de I'eglise Iatine," RSR 62 (1974) 7-54. Ulrich Nembach, "Ehescheidung nach alttestamentlichem undjudischem Recht," TZ 26 (1970) 161-71. Paul Nepper-Christensen, "Utugsklausulen ogjosefi Matthaeusevangeliet," SEA 34 ( 1969) 122-46. Reinhard Neudecker, Frilhjudisches Ehescheidungsrecht: Der Tosefta-Traktat Gittin (BibOr 39; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1982). Idem, "The Sermon on the Mount as a Witness to 'Inculturation': The First Two Antithetical Cases (Mt 5, 21-32)," in P. Beauchamp et al. eds., Inculturation: Working Papers on Living Faith and Cultures (Rome, 1982) 73-89. Alfred Niebergall, Ehe und Eheschlie6ung in der Bibel und in der Geschichte der alten Kirche (ed. A. M. Ritter; MaTS 18; Marburg: Elwert, 1985). Niederwimmer, Askese. Viggo Norskov Olsen, The New Testament Logia on Divorce: A Study of Their Interpretation from Erasmus to Milton (BGBE 10; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1971). Anton Ott, Die Auslegung der neutestamentlichen Texte ilber die Ehescheidung, historisch-kritisch dargestellt (NTA 3.1-3; Munster: Aschendorff, 1911). Idem, Die Ehescheidung im Matthiius-Evangelium (Wurzburg: Rita, 1939). Percy, Botschaft, 144-46. Rudolf Pesch, Freie Treue: Die Christen und die Ehescheidung (Freiburg: Herder, 1971 ). Antonio Quacquarelli, "Gii incisi ellittici (5:32a e 19:9a) nella compositio di Matteo," VetChr 6 (1969) 5-31; reprinted in his Saggi Patristici: Retorica ed esegesi biblica (Bari: Adriatice Editrice, 1971) 34577. Carl Heinz Ratschow,JosefScharbert, Zeev W. Falk, Bo Reicke, and Henri Crouzel, "Ehe, Eherecht, Ehescheidung," TRE 9 (1982) 308-62. Leopold Sabourin, "Les incises sur le divorce (Mt. 5,32; 19,9)," Bulletin de Theologie biblique 2 (1972) 80-87. Alexander Sand, "Die Unzuchtsklausel in Mt 5,31.32

242

und 19,3-9," MThZ 20 (1969) 118-29. Sanders, jesus and judaism, 256-60. Berndt Schaller, "Die Spruche uber Ehescheidung und Wiederheirat in der synoptischen Uberlieferung," in Eduard Lohse et al., eds., Der Rufjesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde: Exegetische Untersuchungen Joachim Jeremias zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet von seinen Schillern (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 226-46. Ben-Zion Schereschewsky, "Divorce," EJ 6 (1971) 122-37. RudolfSchnackenburg, "Die Ehe nach dem Neuen Testament," in his Schriften zum Neuen Testament (Munich: Kosel, 1971) 414-34. Gerhard Schneider, "Jesu Wort uber Ehescheidung in der Uberlieferung des Neuen Testaments," TThZ 80 (1971) 65-87. Hans Joachim Schoeps, "Ehebewertung und Sexualmoral der spaterenjudenchristen," StTh 2 (1948/49) 99-102. Kurt Schubert, "Ehescheidung im Judentum zur Zeit Jesu," ThQ 151 (1971) 23-27. Schulz, Q. 116-20. Heinz Schurmann, "Neutestamentliche Marginalien zur Frage nach der Institutionalitat, Unauflosbarkeit und Sakramentalitat der Ehe," in Alois Winter, ed., Kirche und Bibel: FS Eduard Schick (Paderborn:Schoningh, 1979)409-30. Idem, "Die Verbindlichkeit konkreter sittlicher Normen nach dem Neuen Testament, bedacht am Beispiel des Ehescheidungsverbotes und im Lichte des Liebesgebotes," in Walter Kerber, ed., Sittliche Normen: Zum Problem ihrer allgemeinen und unwandelbaren Geltung (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1982) 107-23. Donald W. Shaner, A Christian View ofDivorce according to the Teaching of the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1969). JosefSickenberger, "Die Unzuchtsklausel im Matthausevangelium," ThQ 123 (1942) 189-206. Idem, "Zwei neue AuBerungen zur Ehebruchklausel bei Mt," ZNW 42 (1949) 202-9. Karl Staab, "Die Unaufloslichkeit der Ehe und die sog. 'Ehebruchsklauseln' bei Mt 5,32 und 19,9," in FS fUr Eduard Eichmann (Paderborn: Schoningh, 1940) 435-52. Idem, "Zur Frage der Ehescheidungstexte im Matthausevangelium," ZKT 67 (1943) 36-44. Werner Stenger, "Zur Rekonstruktion einesjesusworts anhand der synoptischen Ehescheidungslogien (Mt 5,32; 19,9; Lk 16,18; Mk 10,11f.)," Kairos 26 (1984) 194-205. Peter Stockmeier, "Scheidung und Wiedererheiratung in der alten Kirche," ThQ 151 (1971) 39-51. Strecker, Weg, 130-32.

Matthew 5:21-48

Idem, "Antitheses," 52-56. Theodor Thalheim, "Ehescheidung," PW 5 (1905) 2011-13. E. Vallauri, "Le clausole matteane sui divorzio: tendenze esegetiche recenti," Laurentianum 17 (1976) 62-112. Antonio Vargas-Machuca, "Los casos de 'divorcio' admitidos por S. Mateo (5,32 y 19,9): Consecuencias para Ia teologia actual," Estudios Ecclesiasticos 50 (197 5) 5-54. Bruce Vawter, "The Divorce Clauses in Mt 5:32 and 19:9," CBQ 16 (1954) 155-67. Idem, "The Biblical Theology of Divorce," Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society 22 (1967) 223-43. Idem, "Divorce and the New Testament," CBQ 39 (1977) 528-42. Friedrich Vogt, Das Ehegesetz]esu: Eine exegetischkanonistische Untersuchung von Mt 19,3-12; 5,27-32; Mk 10,1-12; und Lk 16, 18 (Freiburg: Herder, 1936). B. N. Wambacq, "Matthieu 5, 31-32: Possibilite de divorce ou obligation de rompre une union illegitime," NRTh 104 (1982) 34-49. G.J. Wenham, "The Restoration of Marriage Reconsidered," JJS 30 (1979) 36-40. Idem, "Matthew and Divorce: An Old Crux Revisited," JSNT 22 (1984) 95-107. Ben Witherington, "Matthew 5:32 and 19:9: Exception or Exceptional Situation?" NTS 31 (1985) 571-76. Hans julius Wolff, "Die Grundlagen des griechischen Eherechts," in Erich Bemeker, ed., Zur griechischen Rechtsgeschichte (WdF 45; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968) 620-54. Wrege, Bergpredigt, 66-70. Yigael Yadin, "L'attitude essenienne envers Ia polygamie et le divorce," RB 79 (1972) 98-99. Reuben Varon, "On Divorce in Old Testament Times," Revue International des Droits de l'Antiquite 4 (1957) 117-28. Idem, Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961). Idem, "The Restoration of Marriage," JJS 17 (1966) 1-11. Heinrich Zimmermann, "p.~ .lwt wopv€lq." (Mt 19,9)ein literarisches Problem: Zur Komposition von Mt 19,3-12," Catholica (Munster) 16 (1962) 293-99. Idem, Neutestamentliche Methodenlehre: Darstellung der historisch-kritischen Methode (5th ed.; Stuttgart: KatholischesBibelwerk, 1976) 105-15,231-36.

1) Analysis The third antithesis (5:31-32) treats the issue of divorce and the interpretation of the jewish tradition regarding divorce, in particular Deut 24:1-4. As the extensive bibliography indicates, this prohibition has been-and still is-one of the most hotly contested

passages of the New Testament. Scholarship, however, has been able to clarify many problems surrounding this important text. Formally, the third antithesis appears to be tacked on to the second; in size, it is even further reduced than the second. One should not, however, take these often observed formal peculiarities to mean that the structure of the section is defective. Scholars have often concluded from the brevity of this antithesis that it is a later insertion and merely a variation of the second antithesis; but if all the antitheses are due to pre-Matthean redaction, the assumption of "later" insertion is unnecessary. It is true that the content of the third antithesis is closely related to that of the second-as is the content of the sixth to that of the fifth. But the basic structure even of this short antithesis is the same as the structure of those preceding it. Like its predecessors, the third antithesis consists of three parts. The first part is the refutation of what is considered an inadequate interpretation. The reference to the "chain of tradition" omits the past and the present recipients and retains only the naming of the presumed authority by the formula "it was said" (vs 31 a). Rather than quoting a Scripture verse, vs 31 b-e moves directly to the citation of the false interpretation. This statement takes the form of a casuistic legal ordinance. Its protasis envisions a case of a husband divorcing his wife; the apodosis prescribes the proper legal procedure. Simultaneously, the sentence is a summary of Deut 24:1-4. The second part (vs 32) presents the assumed correct interpretation. The doctrinal formula identifying authority (vs 32a) introduces a legal opinion concerning the consequences of divorce and consists of two casuistic definitions. The first of these (vs 32b), in the protasis, envisions the case of a man divorcing his wife, as in vs 31 b-e. The apodosis describes the consequences of the divorce for the woman. Between protasis and apodosis, and belonging to both, stands the so-called exception clause. The second definition (vs 32c) focuses, in the protasis, on the man marrying a divorced woman; the apodosis describes the consequences of such a marriage for the man. As in the previous instances, the ethical conclusion is left unstated. Since it is the result of a rather complicated argument, discussion of it shall follow a close examination ofthe text.

2) Interpretation • 31 Like the other antitheses, the third begins with the

refutation of what is declared to be an inadequate interpretation. The introductory reference to the "chain of tradition" (vs 3la) leaves out, as I have observed above 243

(see the Analysis), the past and present recipients but retains the phrase "it was also said" (£ppt871 a~). identifying the origin and author of the subsequent statement. The meaning is identical to that in vss 21 and 27: the subject of the passivum divinum is God, who is the revealer of the material subsequently quoted. The statement in vs 31 b-e is not what one would expect given the parallels in the previous anthitheses. The sentence serves two purposes simultaneously. First, rather than quoting a verse from Scripture, vs 32b-c summarizes a longer passage from Deut 24:1-4. Contemporary Jewish Scripture interpretation, however, regarded such a summary as little, if any, different from a verbatim quotation, 35 2 so that it is only a minor divergence from the previous antitheses. Nonetheless, the summary is not simply identical with Deut 24:1-4, and it is this difference that provides the opening for the subsequent argument. Second, the sentence states in the form of a casuistic ordinance 353 what is perceived to be an inadequate interpretation ofDeut 24:1-4. The ordinance presupposes the current practice of divorce: "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce" (8~ av Q7TOAVU'!J T~V yvvaL'Ka atJTov,

lloTCo aiiTii a7TO..vuaua TOv Ci.vllpa aiiTfj~ yap.~..:>..ov p.otxaTat). 356 The Markan passage has no parallel in Matthew (19:7, 9); it seems to be unknown to the Matthean tradition as well as to other parallel texts. 357 The Matthean texts, therefore, take for granted that divorce is the privilege of the man. Whether Jewish women of the time had the legal right to divorce their husbands has often been discussed but is controversial even today. 358 It is possible, even probable, that while SM/Matt 5:31-32 represents a Jewish (-Christian) milieu, the Mark::tn passage reflects Roman practice, which we know allowed divorce by women. 359 The

352 This method of citing Scripture has a parallel in Paul, for which see Otto Michel, Paulus und seine Bibel (GO.tersloh: Bertelsmann, 1929; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972) 6890. 353 See above on SM/Matt 5:19. 354 The trans. is mine. 355 For the jewish materials on divorce, see David W. Amram, The Jewish Law ofDivorce according to the Bible and Talmud (Philadelphia: Stern, 1896; reprinted New York: Hermon, 1968); Ludwig Blau, Die judische Ehescheidung und der jildische Scheidebrief Eine historische Untersuchung (2 parts; Stra6burg: Trubner, 1911-12); Abrahams, Studies, 66-78; David Daube, "Divorce," in idem, NT and Rabbinic judaism, 71-86; Boaz Cohen, Jewish and Roman Law: A Comparative Study (2 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1966) 1.377-408; Ze'ev W. Falk, Introduction to the Jewish Law of the Second Commonwealth (AGJU; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1972, 1978) 2.307-16;Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "Divorce amongFirst-Centuryjews," Erlsr 14(1978) 103*110*; Irwin H. Haut, Divorce in]ewishLaw and Life (Studies in jewish jurisprudence 5; New York: Sepher-Hermon, 1983). For a survey, see Ben-Zion Schereschewsky, "Divorce," EJ6(1971) 122-37; Schurer, History, 2.485-86.

244

356 The trans. is mine. 357 Cf. 1 Cor 7:13, where Paul speaks ofthe woman "leaving" (afj>&lua&) her husband. 358 On the woman's right to divorce in judaism, see Schaller, "Spruche," 229, and the articles assembled in part 1 of jewish LawAnnual4 (1981); in addition, there has been a controversy between Bernadette Brooten ("Konnten die Frauen im altenjudentum die Scheidung betreiben? Uberlegungen zu Mk 10,11-12 und 1 Kor 7,10-11," EvTh 42 [1982] 6580) and Eduard Schweizer ("Scheidungsrecht der judischen Frau? WeiblicheJO.nger Jesu?" EvTh 42 [1982] 294-96), and Hans Weder ("Perspektiven der Frauen?" EvTh 43 [1983] 175-78). 359 On Roman law concerning divorce, see Alan Watson, The Roman Law ofPersons in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) 48-67; Max Kaser, Das romische Privatrecht (HKAW 3. 3.1; 2d ed.; Munich: Beck, 1971) 81-83 (§ 19); for the Greek law, see Walter Erdmann, Die Ehe im alten Griechenland (MBPF 20; Munich: Beck, 1934) 384-409; furthermore Manson, Sayings, 136-37; Schaller, "Spruche," 232-33, 237.

Matthew 5:21-48

terminology is technical: l1.1ro>..ilw T~v yvva'i'Ka in the special sense of "divorcing one's wife" is well attested in Hellenistic literature and legal documents. 360 The term implies that the woman is "released from" her marriage obligations and is "sent away" out of the house, 361 so that she is no longer under the power and authority of the man. Sending her away also presupposes the social custom of the woman not owning a house but living in the house of her husband. 362 The expression "give a bill of divorce" (olowf-'L choO"T«lO"tov) 363 is also technical, as parallels from the papyri especially evidence. 364 In rabbinic literature, the tractate Giffin is entirely devoted to this subject. 365 Turning to the content of vs 31 b, one must distinguish three implications to understand the argument: First, the actual practice of divorce as experienced in the social environment of the SM; second, the justification for this practice by reference to Deut 24:1-4, of which a summary is provided in SM/Matt 5:31b; and third, the

realization that the summary of vs 31 b is not the only summary and interpretation possible. From the available evidence, one can conclude that the meaning ofDeut 24:1-4 was disputed at the time of the SM and that the institutions of both marriage and divorce were matters of controversy. Since Deuteronomy 24 was part of the Torah, the disputing parties, each in its own way, tried to justify the positions taken by concomitant interpretations of the passage. Hence the question concerning the force of Deut 24:1-4. 366 Does it simply ratify the divorce practices current at the time of the SM? Is it in favor of expansion or restriction of the husband's right to divorce? There was no agreement on these questions. 367 Even in the Old Testament one can find different views on the question of divorce. There is the "original" pronouncement of Gen 2:20-25 368 concerning the

360 In the NT, this special meaning occurs only in Matt 1:19; 5:31-32; 19:3, 7-9; Mark 10:2,4, 11; Luke 16:18; cf. Herrnas Man. 4.1.6. See BAGD, s.v. lrm-o.>u\ro, 2.a; Gerhard Schneider, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s.v. lt,-o.\:vw (bibliography); PGL, s.v. lt,-o.\.vw, 5. 361 The technical terms are lt,-o,-£p.,-ro, JK,.£p.,-ro, JK{31L.\..\.w. Cf. Gal4:30 (Gen 21:10; cf. 21:14 LXX). See Justus Hermann Lipsius, Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren (3 vols.; Leipzig: Reisland, 1903, 1905, 1915; reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1984) 2.485-87; Theodor Thalheim, "Ehescheidung," PW 5 (1905) 2011-13; Ernst Levy, Der Hergang der romischenEhescheidung(Weimar: Bohlau, 1925)4-10; David Daube, "Terms for Divorce," in idem, NT and Rabbinic judaism, 362-72. 362 See Deut 24:1: "he sends her out of his house." 363 lt,-ouTIL
364 See Preisigke and KieBling, Worterbuch, 4.1 ( 1944) 258-59;Sup(1971)34. 365 For a good introduction and bibliography, see Reinhard Neudecker, Frilhrabbinisches Ehescheidungsrecht: Der Tosefta-Traktat Gittin (BibOr 39; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982). For a collection of passages from rabbinic literature, see Str-B 1.303-12. 366 On this passage, see esp. Ulrich Nembach, "Ehescheidung nach alttestamentlichem und judischem Recht," TZ 26 [1970]161-71), who says it "does not represent a general regulation concerning the matter [sc. of divorce], but that it is concerned with the consequences of divorce only; of the many consequences thinkable and possible only one is regulated. The husband who divorced his wife is prohibited from remarrying her after she has been married to a third person" (161) ("stellt keine generelle Regelung der Materie dar, sondern betrifft nur die Folgen einer Ehescheidung, wobei unter den vielen denkbar moglichen Folgen nur eine einzige geregelt wird. Es wird dem geschiedenen Ehemann untersagt, seine geschiedene Ehefrau erneut zu ehelichen, wenn sie nach der Ehescheidung mit einem Dritten verheiratet gewesen war"). 367 For the later interpretation of Deut 24:1, see the collection of texts in Str-B 1.313-15. 368 See Manfred R. Lehmann, "Gen 2:24 as the Basis for Divorce in Halakhah and the New Testament," ZA W 72 (1960) 263-67; Stefan Schreiner, "MischehenEhebruch-Ehescheidung: Betrachtung zu Mal 2: 1016," ZAW91 (1979) 207-28.

245

creation of Eve out of Adam's rib, to which Adam responds by saying: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man" (vs 23 [RSV]). Added to this statement is the explanation for the phenomenon of marriage: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (vs 24 [RSV]). The passage intends to ground the institution of marriage in the creation myth itself, a move that is not only oflater origin but most likely a reflection of the fragility of monogamous marriage. The social reality of an older age is probably better reflected in the patriarchal narratives, in which the unlimited right of the man to divorce his wife is presupposed. Abraham thus "sends away" Hagar, whom he had taken as a wife in addition to Sarah (Gen 16:3; 21 :9-14). Although he sends her away reluctantly and only at the insistence of Sarah, he assumes that no legal restrictions exist to prevent him from doing as he pleases. In addition to documenting polygamy and the man's unlimited rights to divorce, the Old Testament also testifies to an increasing uneasiness about divorce practices and presents stipulations intended to curb the man's legal powers in this sphere. In particular, the book of Deuteronomy legislates that there must be grounds for divorce that will stand up in court; that proper procedures must be followed throughout all proceedings; and that divorce and remarriage are subject to restrictions regarding another marriage partner (Deut 22:13-19, 28-29; 24:1-4). Thus Deut 24:1-4 already stands in a tradition tending to limit rather than expand the practice of divorce. The passage itself contains primarily a description of the terrible consequences of divorce for the woman, detailing with dreadful repetition how the divorced

woman goes from man to man, ending up a social outcast because of her ritual "defilement. "369 The practice of writing a bill of divorce is described, a practice not outlawed but introduced and justified as a regulating procedure in an otherwise chaotic situation. The point, however, is not to awaken sympathy for the woman but to outlaw the remarriage of the same wife after she has taken a number of marriage partners. 370 Finally, Deuteronomic reasons are given for the recommended legal procedures. These reasons are theological in origin and are only secondarily related to the divorce issues. Deut 24:1-4 (RSV) reads thus: "When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, and the latter husband dislikes her and writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LoRD, and you shall not bring guilt upon the land which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance." The history of the interpretation ofDeut 24:1-4 up to the time of the New Testament cannot be reviewed here in all its complicated details. 371 In general, the evidence shows that as history progressed, the ambiguous wording of the text lent itself to varying interpretations. On the whole, these interpretations took two directions: (1) A growing tendency in one part of the tradition opposing or even outlawing divorce; 372 legally, this tendency led to restrictions in application and procedure, 373 and finally even to rejection of marriage. 3 7 4 This tendency is

369 For the terrible lot of the divorced woman, see Hagar's despair, Gen 21:14-16;Jub. 17.2-14; Gal 4:21-31; furthermore Isa 54:6; Mal2:13-16. Notably, the New Comedy of Greek literature had a genre of pieces with the title' A7ToAd.,.ovua ("The Divorcee") by Apollodorus, Crobylus, and Diphilus, all of them lost. See Theodorus Kock, ed., Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta (3 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1880-88) 2.545; 3.278-79, 281, 380. 370 Cf. the treatment of the woman given successively in marriage to many men after their death; cf. also Tob 6:9-8:21, where an evil demon is the cause of it.

246

See Paul Deselaers, Das Buck Tobit: Studien zu seiner Entstehung, Komposition und Theologie (OBO; Fribourg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982) 138-64. Comparable is also Mark 12:19-23 par., where Sadducees draw the satirical conclusion that in the resurrection no one knows to which man the woman belongs. 3 71 For informative surveys, see Blau, Die jildische Ehescheidung, 10-31; Str-B 1.312-21; Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1.508-75. 372 Negative reactions in the OT are found in the descriptions of the terrible lot of the divorced woman

Matthew 5:21-48

also reflected in some Qumran texts: when marriage is entered into, it is to be monogamous and binding (e.g., CD 7.6-9 [Num 30:16]; 16.10-12). (2) Other traditions represent a trend toward greater liberalization of divorce practices and the expansion of the man's rights to divorce. In rabbinic theology, these two directions were seen as represented by the houses of Shammai and Hillel, with the former holding the restricted and the latter the more liberal view. Such attributions, however, historical or not, should not obscure the fact that in the first century a wider range of options was open, a range that included several configurations even in the New Testament. From its inception, the interpretation of Deut 24: 1-4 was seemingly focused on the words 'erwat dabar (.,~., n1.,P) (Deut 24: 1), the meaning of which is ambiguous. The expression, which is attested only one other time, in Deut 23:15 (LXX 23: 14), can be either general or specific; it can refer to one or to two issues. Hence the translations differ. Since 'erwah (:-11.,~) elsewhere means "nakedness, pudenda," 375 the expression in Deut 23: 15; 24:1 is usually rendered as "something disgraceful" (RSV: "indecent"), 376 as a

373

374

37 5 376 377 378 379 380 381

reference to some unspecified sexual impurity. If, as it happened, the passage as a whole was understood as a prescription for divorce, the expression was thought to provide the reason for it. Such a reason must be demonstrable in court, an understanding leading to several possibilities: ( 1) a cultic-sexual offense committed by the woman (e.g., premarital intercourse); 377 (2) a physical defect in the woman (e.g., premarital loss of virginity); 378 (3) adultery specifically; 379 (4) other transgressions of the Torah; 380 (5) emotional rejection by the man; 381 or (6) impurity because of a previous marriage. 382 The LXX translators took the expression in the more general sense as l1.ux7Jp.ov -rrpayp.a, 383 the Greek perhaps pointing to a legal matter as grounds for divorce; at least this is suggested by the story of Susanna, where it clearly refers to adultery. 384 The Mishnah presents two interpretations as characteristic of early rabbinic theology. 385 The older one was represented by the school of Shammai and took Deut 24:1 as implying adultery, 386 while the school of Hillel regarded the meaning as "something disgraceful" in the wider sense, including even things like burning the

(see above, n. 369); see also the sharp critique of the 382 A divorced woman may not marry a priest (Lev 21:7, man's behavior, Mal2:13-16, esp. God's pronounce14; Ezek 44:22). ment, "I hate divorce" (vs 16); cf. furthermorejub. 383 Deut 24:1 LXX; cf. 23:14: aux7Jp.ocrvv1J; 23:15: 3 .4-8; 1 7.14 (at least according to Blau, Die judische aux7Jp.ouVv1Jr 1rp6.yp.aror. Ehescheidung, 30, 63-64); Wis 14:26; Sir 7:26; 28:15 384 Sus 63 (Theodotion): li.ux7Jp.ov 1rpayp.a. Cf. Rom 1:27; 1 Cor 7:36; 12:23; Rev 16:15. (different 25:26). Divorce ceased to be a private matter, and subjecting 385 For literature, see above, n. 355, esp. Blau, Die judische Ehescheidung, 31-40; Ben-Zion Scherit to public law meant court procedures, provable eschewsky, "Divorce," EJ 6 (1971) 122-37; Cohen, evidence, witnesses, and the bill of divorce; see, e.g., jewish and Roman Law, 1.377-408; Falk, Introduction, Deut 22:13-21, and the polemic against slander, Sir 2.276-331; Neudecker, Fruhrabbinisches Ehe28:15; Sus 19-59. See esp. Matt 19:10-12, and for further discussion scheidungsrecht, 1-6. and references, Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1.565-67; 386 Seem. Cit. 9.10, translation of Danby, Mishnah, 321: "The School of Shammai say: A man may not divorce Niederwimmer, Askese, 53-58. his wife unless he has found unchastity in her, for it is See Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1. 511. written, Because he hath found in her indecency in See Werner H. Schmidt, ThWAT 2.113 (TDOT anything." 3.1 06). See, e.g., Deut 22:13, 14, 19. See, e.g., Deut 22:13-21, 28-29;jub. 41:2. See, e.g.,Jer 3:6-10; Ezek 16:32; 18:5-13; 23:2-49; Hos 2:2-5; Sus 63. For references, see Str-B 1.313-18. This reason is called "hatred": see Gen 29:31, 33; Deut 21:15-17; 22:13; 24:3;Judg 14:16; 15:2; 2 Sam 13: 15; Isa 60:5; Ezek 16:37; 23:28, 29;jub. 41.2.

247

soup. 387 When divided into two words, "a disgrace and [or] some other thing," the expression could include almost any reason whatsoever. This was the way Josephus, Philo, and Matthew (19:3) interpreted it. 388 Historically, the interpretation of the school of Hillel prevailed in later rabbinic theology, as well as in the modern world. To return to SM/Matt 5:31b, it should now be obvious that the statement summarizing Deut 24:1-4 describes, according to the SM, the conventional reading of the text. This reading took Deut 24:1-4 literally as containing a prescription for divorce without any qualms. Thus the practice of divorce is justified as a matter of course. The writing of the bill of divorce is regarded as a minimum legal requirement of procedure to cancel the marriage, thereby treating marriage as a contract that can be cancelled like any other contract. There is no indication of moral scruples; the proof text legitimizing the practice is viewed as sufficient. Therefore, one may also conclude that the summary itself is by implication polemical and contains the reasons for the refutation. 389 • 32 Parallel to the previous antitheses, vs 32 presents

what the SM considers the proper interpretation of Deut 24:1-4. Apart from the introductory formula (vs 32a), "but I say to you that" (£y6> ot A.(yw ViJ.LV /Jn), 390 the sentence consists of a legal opinion comprising two consecutive, casuistic definitions, the first of which is provided with an additional exception clause. Both definitions focus on the social and moral consequences of divorce, and one must read both of them against the background ofDeut 24:1-4. The first definition (vs 32b), in the protasis, envisions a case of divorce in order then to describe, in the apodosis, the consequences: "Everyone who divorces his wife, ... makes her commit adultery" (7Tii~ b ihoA.vwv r~v yvvaiKa avrov 7TOt£L avT~V iJ.OtX£v8ijvat). 391 What is the reason behind this conclusion? If, as the text presupposes, marriage is indissoluble, 392 the bill of divorce will not cancel the marriage. The question here is whether marriage per se is simply identical with the marriage contract, which can be cancelled by a bill of divorce, or whether the sexual union in marriage is an irreversible act involving metaphysical aspects. Current practice, which the SM criticizes in vs 31, employed the bill of divorce to cancel one marriage and 0

0

0

387 Ibid.," And the School of Hillel say: [He may divorce concept of righteousness is found wanting (see above her] even if she spoiled a dish for him, for it is on 5:20). Moreover the SM has no indication of written, Because he hath found in her indecency in differences between the houses of Hillel and anything." The line is continued by R. Akiba, who Shammai, a reminder that the Pharisaism of the two said: "Even if he found another fairer than she, for it houses could be a construction created later in is written, And it shall be if she find no favour in his eyes." retrospect. 388 Josephus Ant. 3.276-77; 4.253: "for whatever cause" 390 See above on 5:22a. (Ka6' aa
248

Matthew 5:21-48

open the way to another. This understanding, however, was in.conflict not only with the view held by the SM but also with Deut 24: 1-4. As we have seen, Deuteronomy narrates with painful repetition the way of the woman who moves from husband to husband as a warning to prohibit remarriage to her first husband. Her "defilement" at last reveals her predicament: she committed adultery when she married her second husband, and she has been defiled ever since. Whatever the original meaning of Deuteronomy, the passage could be and was read in several ways in later times. The reading of it by the SM is certainly possible because its interpretation coincides with the tendency of Deuteronomy. Two conclusions arise from this consideration. First, with regard to the woman: if she enters into another marriage while her first marriage is still binding, regardless of the bill of divorce, she commits adultery as legally defined. Furthermore, given the current understanding of the practice, if a man divorces his wife and gives her a bill of divorce, he in effect forces her to commit adultery. In other words, he becomes a panderer. Most important, although difficult to understand, is

the famous exception clause, "except on the grounds of sexual immorality" ('rrapeKTb<; A.6yov 7ropvela<; ). 393 The clause has a parallel in Matt 19:9, although the wording differs: p.~ h'r. 7ropvel11- 394 ("not because of the resultant sexual immorality"). 395 Therefore one should not harmonize the translations of the two passages too quickly. 396 Where did the clause come from? Many scholars believe that Matthew interpolated it into the Qtradition, which, as one can see from the synoptic parallels, did not have it. 397 But it seems to me that he took both clauses over from his Q-tradition, where they were already interpolated prior to Matthew's redaction. That the clauses reflect jewish legal thinking speaks in favor of jewish-Christian tradition rather than later Christian innovation on the part of Matthew. One could assume that Matthew introduced the clause either in 5:32 or in 19:9 on the basis of the other passage, but if that were the case, he would have most likely used the same language. 398 In the history of exegesis, the exception clauses have been the subject of heated debates. 399 The central question has been whether one should understand the clauses in the exclusive or in the inclusive sense. If they

393 The trans. is mine. Vg renders excepta fornication is (not entirely clear, however); Dupont, Marriage, 92 n. causa; RSV: "except on the ground of unchastity"; l; Braun, Radikalismus, 2.110 n. 4; Grundmann, NEB: "for any cause other than unchastity";JB: Matthiius, 162; Luz,Matthiius, 1.271 (Matthew, "except for the case of fornication." 1.302). Undecided is Strecker (Bergpredigt, 77 394 A considerable number of textual variants represent [Sermon, 74-75]). apparent attempts at assimilating 19:9 to 5:32, thus 398 In favor of pre-Matthean redaction are Wrege, recognizing that there is a difference in what the Bergpredigt, 68; Delling, "Logion," 267-70; Schaller, better texts have. See the critical apparatus on 19:9 "Spriiche," 230; Hauck and Schulz, TDNT 6.590-91; in Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece; NestleGuelich, Sermon, 206-9; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 77 (Sermon, 74-75). Aiand; and Aland, Synopsis, 335; also Zahn, Matthiius, 591 n. 55; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 47-48; 399 Baltensweiler,Ehe, 59-72; 87-102; Bauer, Crouzel, "Le texte" (see above, n. 391). Cf. Gundry, "Bemerkungen," 23-31; Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, Matthew, 381. 1.562 n. 1 (bibliography); Blau, Ehescheidung, 45-55; 395 The phrase is an abbreviation of a longer clause; the Fitzmyer, "The Matthean Divorce Texts," 202-3; preposition E7rL with the dative is that of purpose, Fridrichsen; Greeven, "Zu den Aussagen," 11 0-18; idem, "Ehe," 382-85; Guelich, Sermon, 204-9; goal, or result (see BAGD, s.v. E7rL Il.1.b.•); it has a parallel in Rom 7:3: TOV p.~ Etva• avT~V p.o•xa>..laa Holzmeister; Kilgallen; Lohfink; Luz, Matthiius, 1.273-74 (Matthew, 1.304-6); Mahoney; Moingt; y
249

were meant to be exclusive, 7rap£KT6s in vs 32b should be translated "apart from, except for"; 400 if inclusive, the meaning would be "not even because of." In the first, the exclusive sense, the prohibition would leave open one possibility for divorce, while in the second, the inclusive sense, divorce would be categorically denied even under the severest circumstances. 401 Until recently Roman Catholic authors defended the inclusive understanding because it helped to bolster that church's policies on marriage and divorce; now, however, even Roman Catholic exegetes have given up this position. 40 2 Exception clauses are known from the legal literature of the time. 40 3 They stipulate exceptions from general rules but do not imply the abrogation of the law to which the exception is made. In the case ofvs 32, other instances of legal language are conspicuous: A.6yos here means "legal matter," 404 and 7ropv£la refers to unspecified acts of sexual immorality (see below), 405 the evidence for which must hold up in court. 406

What, then, is the reasoning behind this exception clause? The definition ofvs 32b, it stipulates, does not apply if the woman has been convicted of defilement due to "sexual immorality" (7ropv£la). What does this term 1ropvda mean? How is it related to adultery (p.otx£la)? The difference in terminology, I believe, indicates that the SM wants to differentiate between the terms. This means that 1ropv£la must be general, not specific; but at least it narrows the offense to sexual immorality, thereby excluding other transgressions. Furthermore, "sexual immorality" (1ropv£la) figures prominently in moral catalogues and other texts involving sexual crimes. 407 Thus the argument is made that, if a woman who is already defiled through 1ropv£la gets divorced from her husband, her status of impurity does not change for the worse, even when she enters into another marriage relationship. Since under these circumstances divorce does not become the cause of defilement, it can be permitted. The underlying principle is that a Torah

beginning of this section. 400 See BAGD, s.v. wap
402

403 404 405

250

Presses universitaires de France, 1983). 406 See Num 5:11-31; Philo Spec. leg. 3.52-63;Josephus Ant. 3.270-71; m. Sofa, passim. 407 The NT considers wopv
I

Matthew 5:21-48

prescription cannot be legal if it becomes an instrument of impurity, that is, a form ofi~ustice. My interpretation is corroborated by Paul, who in 1 Cor 7: 10-16 discusses divorce in a similar context, based also on Jesus' prohibition of divorce but without knowledge of the Matthean exception clause. Surprisingly, however, in vs 15 he sets aside the saying of Jesus when he states, "if the unbelieving partner [in a mixed marriage between a Christian and a pagan] is for separating, then let him separate. God has called you in [or: tO] peace" 408 (t:t a£ b Cl7rttTTOS xwp{(.::TaL, XWPL(eu8w· OV a.::ao6..\wTaL b iia.::A.cpos ~ ~ a.a.::A.cp~ fV TOtS TOL06TOLS" fV a£ dp~vy KeKA1JK£V vp.as b 8.::6s). Paul's ruling is based on the

same reason as that of the SM: as an unbeliever, the nonChristian marriage partner is outside salvation, so that a divorce would not change that status. Hence, a divorce would not worsen the situation of impurity for the nonChristian partner, and so by implication would not compromise the status of the Christian in salvation. The second definition (Matt 5:32c) shifts the attention from the woman to the man: "and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Kat 8s fav a7rOA£AVJJ.JJ.,V1JV yap.~uy, JJ.OLXaTaL). 409 The reason for this shift of attention seems to be a question implied in the first definition (vs 32b): if the woman commits adultery, what does this mean for the responsibility of the man? Is he not guilty of adultery as well? The protasis of vs 3 2c

foresees a case of a man marrying a divorced woman; the apodosis stipulates his guilt in adultery. In what way is he guilty? I can see two possibilities: on the one hand, if the divorced woman has had sexual intercourse only with her former husband, the man who marries her after her divorce thereby desecrates her former marriage, which, despite the divorce, is still valid. On the other hand, if the woman has had sexual intercourse with other men after her divorce, the man who marries her marries a "defiled" woman and thereby desecrates his own marriage. 410 Whichever option applies, in either case the man is guilty of adultery. The double meaning of p.oLxaw as "cause to commit adultery" and "commit adultery" 411 may imply that the man who becomes the cause of adultery is also guilty of it because of complicity, although it is the woman who commits the act. 412 In order to understand the position taken by the SM, one must first understand three presuppositions: 1. SM/Matt 5:31-32 is formulated in retrospect, taking into account the prohibition of divorce by the historical Jesus but elaborating on it in a secondary argument. Thus one must not confuse the passage with the teaching of the historical Jesus itself. The wide attestation of Jesus' prohibition of divorce in early Christian sources apart from Matt 5:32 (1 Cor 7:10; Luke 16: 18; Mark 10:9; Matt 19:9; Hermas Man. 4.1.6; Justin Apol. 1.15.3) 413 makes it virtually certain that the

408 The translation follows Conzelmann (J Corinthians, latine," RSR 62 (1974) 7-54; Henri Crouzel, "Le 119), but my interpretation differs from his with remariage apres separation pour adultere selon les regard to the reasoning. Peres latins," BLE 7 4 ( 197 4) 189-204. 409 Variant readings consist mostly of harmonizations 411 In the NT, p.o•xaw occurs always in the passive sense. with parallel passages. B pc sa (?) read Kat 8s Of the man it is used in Matt 5:32; 19:9 v.l.; Hermas a7rOA
251

historical Jesus actually held this position. Braun's 414 careful comparison of the marriage halakah of the Jesus tradition with that of the Qumran sect and rabbinic theology has shown that, apart from a few common elements, Jesus' position differed markedly from both Qumran and rabbinic theology. Critical examination of the evidence, therefore, leads to the conclusion that-the historical Jesus ruled out divorce altogether and that, related to this prohibition, he preferred to stay unmarried. 415 2.Jesus seems to have shared this position with John the Baptist, his former teacher, perhaps from the time that he joined the Baptist's movement. Mark 6:18/ /Matt 14:4//Luke 3:19 transmit the probably reliable tradition that John was murdered because he condemned the marriage of Herod with his divorced sister-in-law, Herodias, as incestuous (Josephus Ant. 18.136; cf. Lev 18:16; 20:21). As a radical ascetic, John the Baptist was also unmarried. 416 New documents from the Dead Sea Scrolls 417 have provided additional evidence that prohibition of divorce was not as uncommon by the time of Jesus as scholars had once believed. 418 The Temple Scroll contains halakot about a variety of issues, among them prescriptions for a future king of Israel, based on a quotation and interpretation of Deut 1 7: 14-1 7. The prohibition of polygamy (Deut 17:17) is interpreted to include divorce

as well (11QTemple 57.17-19): "And he shall not take in addition to her another wife, for she alone shall be with him all the days of her life; and if she dies, he shall take for himself another (wife)." 419 More complicated is another passage in the Damascus Document (CD 4.12b-5:11). In the view of the author of this document, the present official leadership of Israel is ensnared by the "three nets ofBelial": 420 "unchastity," "wealth," and "defilement of the sanctuary." Unchastity is said to take two forms: "by taking two wives during their lifetime" (4.20-21) and "they take (as wives), each one (of them), the daughter of his brother, and the daughter of his sister" (5. 7-8). 421 These criticisms are supported by Scripture quotations advocating monogamy (Gen 1:27; 7:9; Deut 17:17). Scholars are not in agreement whether the passage from Qumran rules out polygamy and marriage after divorce, polygamy alone, or any new marriage. Perhaps one can conclude in the light of 11 QTemple 57.17-19 that "unchastity" (Mm) includes polygamy, incest, and divorce, believed to be current plagues of immorality. There appears to be more agreement that the prohibitions do not merely apply to the king but to the common Jew as well. 42 2 Most important for the SM, the passages represent interpretations of the Torah that go beyond the letter of the law while they do not set aside the Torah. 423

414 Braun, Radikalismus, 2.108-14; Sanders, jesus and 421 See Fitzmyer, "Divorce," 106*-10*; idem, judaism, 256-60. "Matthean Divorce Texts," 216-21. One should, 415 Braun, Radikalismus, 2.11 0, 112. Marcion upheld the however, avoid interpreting the Greek 1ropv•la (Matt absolute prohibition against divorce, if a marriage 5:32; 19:9) solely "in the specific sense of zenilt as an had been entered into, but he also absolutely illicit marital union between persons of close kinship" prohibited marriage for his followers. See Harnack, (pace "Matthean Divorce Texts," 221; Meier, Law and Marcion, 148-49. History, 147-50). For the correct interpretation, see 416 See Niederwimmer, Askese, 40. Braun, Radikalismus, 2.109 n. l. 417 See Braun, Radikalismus, 2.108-14; idem, Qumran, 422 So Fitzmyer, "Matthean Divorce Texts," 219; 1.16; Fitzmyer, "Divorce"; followed by idem, "The Mueller, "Temple Scroll," 242-56; Wacholder, Dawn Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian of Qumran, 261 n. 107. See also Michael 0. Wise, A Evidence," Theological Studies 37 (1976) 197-226; Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave II idem, Luke, 2.1121;James Mueller, "The Temple (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 49; Chicago: Scroll and the Gospel Divorce Texts," RevQ 10 Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, (1980) 247-56; Wacholder, Dawn of Qumran, 16-17, 1990) 16. 120, 125-27. 423 On this point see Wacholder, Dawn of Qumran, 32-33 418 Str-B 1.312, 319-20, who consider only the mishnaic and passim. period and later. 419 I follow here the interpretation by Fitzmyer, "Divorce," 104-5; idem, "Matthean Divorce Texts," 215-16. 420 On the "three nets of Belial," see above, p. 13.

252

Matthew 5:21-48

3. Apart from the SM, the early Christian sources contain a number of discussions of Jesus' prohibition of divorce: 1 Cor 7:10-16; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:2-12; Matt 19:3-12; Hermas Man. 4.1.6.;Justin Apol. 1.15.3-4; Ptolemaeus Epistula ad Floram 2.4 (Epiphanius Pan. 33.4.4-1 0). 4 2 4 All of these consist of secondary redactional compositions based on older traditions and then integrated into larger redactional units. Differences among them show that their basis in tradition is largely independent of each other. One cannot simply reduce these compositions to a common denominator. They consist of discrete and self-contained units attempting to negotiate what apparently turned out to be a difficult piece of Jesus' legacy. a. Closely related to the third antithesis is Paul's discussion of divorce in 1 Corinthians 7. 425 The chapter as a whole concerns the sexual conduct of Christians and is influenced by the same tradition that surfaces in the synoptic Gospels; however, one must not overlook the differences between 1 Corinthians 7 on the one hand and the synoptic material on the other. The Corinthians appear to be unfamiliar with Jesus' prohibition against divorce, since they first hear it from Paul. 426 They are, however, familiar with the principle of radical abstinence: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman" (Ka..\ov av8ponrcp yvvatKOS JJ.~ Cl7TT€CT8at [1 Cor 7: 1]). This stance of radical asceticism emerges in a different form in Matt 19:10-12, which secondarily relates it to the issue of divorce: avoidance of divorce is easiest if one remains unmarried. From the concrete instances discussed in 1 Cor 7:10-16, one concludes that the Corinthians-or at least a sufficient number of them-felt that radical abstinence required a separation from previously acquired marriage partners. Perhaps the women led this movement, since their separation from

their husbands comes up first. Paul's response presents several considerations and distinguishes among different causes of divorce. As one (but not the only one) of the principles of Christian sexual conduct, the apostle introduces Jesus' prohibition against divorce ( 1 Cor 7: 1 0). He regards it as a legal instruction (1rapayyf...\A.ro) 427 of the Lord in the sense that it was issued historically by Jesus but is also binding through the authority of the risen Lord: "(The) wife is not to separate from her husband" (yvvatKa a1r0 avopos JJ.~ xroptu-8ijvat). This version, which speaks of the separation of the wife from her husband rather than of the husband from the wife, is paralleled in Luke 16: 18 and Mark 10:12 (see below), but not in Matt 19:9 or SM/Matt 5:32. The "dismissal" (acptf.vat) of the wife by her husband is then taken up in Paul's further application of Jesus' prohibition to the situation of marriages between Christian and non-Christian partners (1 Cor 7:12-16). In its form and style, Paul's presentation very much resembles the legal and casuistic formulations of the third antithesis, 428 including the provision of an exception, although a different exception from that in the SM. Paul acknowledges the authority of Jesus' prohibition and applies it to a variety of concrete problems. Its primary purpose is to rule out the wholesale endorsement of divorce as a means to implement the demand of radical abstinence cited in vs 1. 4 2 9 Paul himself, however, is in agreement with that principle, as he follows Jesus' example in remaining

424 For a translation, see Foerster and Wilson, Gnosis, 1.156-57; for discussion, see Niederwimmer, Askese, 168 n. 29. 425 On this chapter see the commentary by Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, esp. 119-24; Niederwimmer, Askese, 80-124; Fitzmyer, "Matthean Divorce Texts," 198200. 426 So Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 120. 427 For this term in connection with the teaching of Jesus, see the Introduction, above, p. 81. 428 Differently Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 120: "it is not turned into a casuistical rule, as the following

applications show." 429 This position is further attested in gnostic sources. See 2 Clem. 12.2; Gospel of the Egyptians, according to Clement Alex. Strom. 3.63 (ed. Stahlin, vol. 2, p. 225, lines 1-6): "For they say: the Saviour himself said: 'I am come to undo the works of the female,' by female meaning lust, and by the works birth and decay" (NTApoc 1.166-70; Betz, Galatians, 195-201;Josef Frickel, Hellenistische Erlosung in christlicher Deutung: Die gnostische Naassenerschrift [Leiden: Brill, 1984] 121-47).

253

"unmarried" (lfyaJLos). 430 Yet this principle is not an ironclad rule for everyone, because its overarching purpose is "continence" (£yKpauta), 431 not abstinence for its own sake. If abstinence proves untenable for a person, marriage is recommended as a means to the same end of continence (vs 9). 432 Paul names a second principle in vs 1 7, legislating in accordance with it in all the churches: "Each should live according to the apportionment the Lord has allotted to him [or: to her]" 433 (tKauT'!l ws EJLEptuev oKilpws, lKauTov ws KEKATJKEV olle&s, oilnlls 7rEpt7raulnv). This principle is well known from Paul's theology and is applied elsewhere in the chapter, but it has no parallel in the synoptic Gospels. 434 How, then, are these principles applied to the various cases at hand? Those who are married should remain married (vs 10). As for divorce, the apostle distinguishes between separation (xwp{(ew) and dismissal (cupdvat). As David Daube has shown, cupdvat (literally, "send away," "expel") signifies the jewish husband's legal authority to dissolve the marriage fully, 435 while xwpl(ew is used of the woman who can separate from him, 436 leave the domicile, and refuse sexual intercourse, but she cannot

legally dissolve the marriage, 437 at least not in the Jewish context. The distinction of the terms, which has its counterparts in Roman law, 438 raises the question of whether it affects the meaning in other ways. If couples are separated already, they are told to stay that way. While reconciliation is permitted, dismissal is not (vs 11 ). In other words, this distinction makes it possible to uphold jesus' prohibition of divorce while permitting hopelessly estranged couples to live separately and to avoid complete dissolution of the marriage. A new marriage would thereby be impossible as well, because it would result in adultery. 439 Mixed marriages (vss 12-16) constitute a separate category. According to the apostle, there is no reason to divorce a non-Christian marriage partner in order to preserve the Christian partner's sanctity and purity. Sanctity and purity are the benefits of Christian salvation, 440 and the fruit of the faith of the Christian partner. The existence of a non-Christian partner cannot in itself compromise that status. In addition, mixed marriages offer opportunities for mission (vs 16). 441 Finally, "but ifthe believing partner is for separating, let him get separated" (et 0~ 0 lf7T!
430 See 1 Cor 7:8, 11, 32, 34, 40. As the peculiar variant reading liya,..os ("unmarried") in Matt 22:10 (C) indicates, Jesus' status as unmarried was soon interpreted in terms of his being the "bridegroom" (vv,...pios), with the church being the "bride." The nymphios christology played an important role in the early church. On this point see Niederwimmer, Askese, 58-63. 431 The term can be closely related to "love." See the catalogue of virtues at the beginning and the end in Gal5:22-23 (and Betz, Galatians, 287-88); Polycarp Phil. 4.2; 1 Clem. 30.3; Hermas Vis. 1.2.4 (and often). 432 So Ambrosius De viduis 13.79 (PL 16.259): incontinentiae remedia ("remedies of incontinence"). See Niederwimmer, Askese, 88-89. 433 The trans. is mine. The context shows that the principle applies to men and women alike. 434 See 1 Cor 1:9, 26; 7:15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24; Gal 1:6; 5:13; Rom 8:30, etc. 435 The term a<Jli'IIIL' is used of the man's action in 1 Cor 7:11, 12, but of the woman's in 7:13. See BAGD, s.v. a<Jli'IIIL'• l.b; Spicq, Notes, 3.81-87. In Roman law, the term corresponds to divortium, the full dissolution of the marriage. See Rudolf Leonhard, "Divortium," PW, 5th half-volume (1903) 1241-45. The Vg at 1 Cor 7: 11, 12, 13 renders as dimittere.

254

436 The term xwpi(•w refers to the woman's action. See 1 Cor 7:10, 11, and (less clear) 15; Mark 10:9; Matt 19:6, that is, the wife's separation from her husband. See OLD, s.v. "discedo," 3.c; "discidium," 2.b. 437 David Daube, "Terms for Divorce," in his NT and Rabbinic judaism, 362-72; see also J. K. Elliott, "Paul's Teaching on Marriage in I Corinthians: Some Problems Considered," NTS 19 (1972/73) 219-25, esp. 223-24. Opposed is Niederwimmer, Askese, 98 n. 82; cf. also Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 120. 438 See the literature listed above, n. 359. 439 Differently Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 123: "the pagan partner desires a divorce, and that means, of course, he can secure it. Once again the 'law of freedom' prevails: the Christian is not subjected to any constraint because of the pagan's behavior. He can marry again." 440 See the reason given in vs 15: "In peace God has called you" (lv a~ Elpt/vn K(KA'I/KEV £,..as b IIE6s). How "peace" relates to "sanctity" is not spelled out. 441 See Joachim Jeremias, "Die missionarische Aufgabe der Mischehe (1 Kor. 7,16)," inNeutestamentliche Studienfilr RudolfBultmann (BZNW 21; 2d ed.; Berlin: Topelmann, 1957) 255-60; reprinted in his Abba, 292-98.

Matthew 5:21-48

[vs 15 ]). Such a separation can be permitted because the Christian's status in salvation is not affected by separation from a partner already outside salvation-at least, one should add, as long as the Christian partner remains unmarried. b. While Jesus' prohibition against divorce is part of an elaborate argument in 1 Corinthians 7, its simplest and, most probably, its oldest form occurs as an isolated 4 42 saying in Luke 16:18. 443 Since the saying is attested in different forms in all three synoptic Gospels, its origin from Q is a virtual certainty: Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another (woman) commits adultery; and (everyone) who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. 444 fl(i~ b 0/TrO)\:VWV T~V ")IVVatKa aVTOV Kat yap.WV tT£pav !J-OLX£V£L, Kat b O.'Tr0A£Avp.€V1JV o:rro avllpo~ yap.wv p.OLX£V£L. 445

The saying consists of two parallel legal definitions (isocolon), defining adultery in terms of divorce, the first line focusing on the man, the second on the woman. The saying is, however, not devoid of argument, even though the argument is implicit. Since adultery is forbidden by the Decalogue (Exod 20:14), divorce is equally forbidden. 446 Moreover, remarriage (or successive polygamy) 447 is ruled out, and there are no provisions for exception. The possible conflict with Deut 24:1-4 is

c

not taken into consideration, nor is Paul's solution of separation. c. The dialogue among Jesus, the Pharisees, and the disciples in Mark 10:2-12 448 comprises two scenes: a dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees (vss 2-9), and a dialogue betweenJesus and his disciples (vss 10-12). The second scene takes the Q-logion (Luke 16:18 I I Mark 10:11-12) to have been pronounced by Jesus to the disciples as insiders only; 449 when "at home" they asked him the same question (vs 1 0) that the Pharisees had asked in the first scene (vs 2), "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" (£Z ~fHTTLV avllpt yvva'iKa CL"lTOAVO"aL). The first scene, therefore, is a defense of Jesus' prohibition against divorce as a result of questions raised by outsiders. These questions, four in number, were not arbitrary, but they would have to have been raised in any serious discussion of Jesus' position. (1) Did Jesus' prohibition against divorce contradict the Torah? In the dialogue, Jesus raises the question himself, asking (vs 3), "What did Moses command [tvT€AA£LV] you?" Their answer involves the crucial passage Deut 24:1-4, which they construe as (Mark 10:4): "Moses ordered [or: permitted] to write a bill of divorce, and (thus) to divorce." (2) If jesus contradicted Deut 24:1-4, as he apparently di~.• did he contradict the Torah? The negative answer is given on the basis of the double meaning of the term

442 Ernst Bammel ("Is Luke 16,16-18 of Baptist's Provenience?" HTR 51 [1958]1 0 1-6) has suggested that the sayings cluster of Luke 16:16-18 comes from the tradition ofJohn the Baptist. For the fact that Jesus and John the Baptist both prohibited divorce, see above, p. 252. There is, however, not a sufficiently close connection of vs 18 either with its context or with the Baptist (cf. vs 6); also the evidence in Hermas Man. 4.1.6 and Justin Apol. 1.15.3 speaks in favor of the transmission of vs 18 as an isolated saying. 443 For literature on this saying, see the bibliography above, esp. the articles by Catchpole; Delling; Derrett; Fitzmyer; Schaller; Stenger; furthermore Bultmann, History, 132; Braun, Radikalismus, 2.89 n. 3, 110 n. 1; Baltensweiler, Ehe, 59-64, 69-72; Schulz, Q. 116-17; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 66-70; Hubner, Gesetz, 42-67; Laufen, Doppelilberliiferung, 343-60; Niederwimmer, Askese, I 7 -18; Fitzmyer, Luke 2.1119-21; Marshall, Luke, 630-32. 444 The trans. is mine. 445 So according to the text in Nestle-Aland, and Aland,

Synopsis, no. 227, pp. 309-10. 446 Both lines assume that divorce is imposed by the man on the woman. Whether the woman can divorce is not considered; by implication, however, the same rule would apply to her. The Jewish provenience of the saying is obvious. 447 So Fitzmyer, Luke 2.1121. 448 The literature on this passage is extensive. See the bibliography above, esp. the contributions by Bultmann, History, 26-27, 386; idem, Ergiinzungsheft 24; Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1.533-70; Bornkamm; Delling; Derrett; Dupont; Laufen; Niederwimmer, Askese, 13-15, 19, 44-50; Schaller. For further bibliography and discussion, see the recent commentaries on Mark by Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2.119-27; Gnilka, Markus, 2.68-79. 449 See on this point David Daube, "Public Retort and Private Interpretation," in his NT and Rabbinic judaism, 191-50.

255

i71'1TpE7T€LV, which the Pharisees understand to mean

"order," "command," but which can also mean "permit. "450 Jesus interprets it in the latter sense (Mark 10:5), implying that Moses allowed divorce as a concession, necessitated because of "your hardness of heart" (7rpbs T~V ITKA1JpoKapl!lav vp.wv). 451 In law, however, concession is always subordinate to the primary law, which is thereby not denied but upheld. 45 2 The primary law in this case is the divine order of creation (vs 6), for which Gen 1:27 and 2:24 453 are quoted as proof texts (Mark 10:6-Sa). (3) Since divorce presupposes marriage, which doctrine of marriage follows from this? The answer is (vs 8b): "Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh [p.la uapfl. •454 (4) What does this say about divorce? The answer is (vs 8b): "Therefore what God has joined together let a human not put asunder" (8s otv olhhs O"vv£(wf£v Cf.v8pW7TOS JL~ XWPL(ETW).4 55 Although set in the context of Jewish theological debate, the dialogue is clearly conceived from a GentileChristian perspective. 456 It considers and answers the question that arises as well from SM/Matt 5:31-32: Did Jesus set aside the Torah? The necessity of spelling out an answer apparently did not exist at the level of the Qlogion or the SM, where it was implied; but the situation of early Christian apologetics required a formal reply, a

development that is therefore secondary. This does not, however, rule out the possibility that Jesus himself held the same position, or one similar, because its justification occurs entirely in Jewish theological terms. If one takes Deut 24:1-4 to be a later concession due to human imperfection ("hardness of heart"), this does not obviate the primary law; rather, it presupposes and confirms it. The Torah itself implies that the primordial order of creation must be in harmony with later legal regulations. Therefore, if Jesus' prohibition against divorce involved the use of these verses, then, far from making the Torah invalid, Jesus would see himself as merely correcting the misconception that has allowed a concession to become the primary law and that, as Mark interprets it, has substituted human regulations for the original order of creation. At this point, the discussion stops. Two questions, however, will be raised later: Did Jesus not in fact allow divorce as a concession, too? If marriage is indissoluble in principle, and if the consequences of failure are so severe, should one not avoid marriage altogether? The first question was considered by later patristic commentators,457 the second by the evangelist Matthew (Matt 19:3-12). d. Matthew's account 458 (19:3-12) shows that he has carefully reworked and expanded the Markan Vorlage. The new version also comprises two scenes, different

450 See BAGD, s.v. t1Tirptwro, 1-2. 451 This argument occurs only here (Mark 10:5 I I Matt 19:8). See Klaus Berger, "Hartherzigkeit und Gottes Gesetz," ZNW61 (1970) 1-47. 452 See David Daube, "Concessions to Sinfulness in Jewish Law," JJS 10 (1959) 1-13. 453 Cf. also Eph 5:31, and Str-B 1.801-3; Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1.54 7-52. 454 Cf. also 1 Cor 6:16; 7:10-16; and Str-B 1.803-4; Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1.536-37, 539-50. 455 See Daube, "Terms for Divorce," in his NT and Rabbinic judaism, 362-72. 456 This raises the question of the meaning in vs 1 0 of the phrase f'Otxarat h' allr~v ("he commits adultery against her [or: with her]"). Schaller ("Spriiche," 24045) has convincingly argued for a Semiticism to be rendered "with her," but one should not too quickly dismiss the possibility that the meaning "against her" could be due to a Gentile-Christian reflection about who is the perpetrator and who is the victim of adultery. The Markan phrase makes the divorced wife the victim and the man the perpetrator; this is

256

different from saying, as does Matthew, that the woman is the perpetrator because she actually commits the act. Strictly speaking, the view that it is the woman who commits adultery conforms to the older Jewish tradition, which is changed in early Christian theology to apply to both. On this point see also Delling, "Logion," 270-71; Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1.559; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2.12526; Gnilka, Markus, 2.74-75. 457 From the bibliography above see the works on the history of exegesis, esp. Crouzel; Delpini; Harrell; Heth and Wenham; Lohmann; Marucci; Myre; Niederwimmer; Olsen; Ott; Staab; Vallauri; and Vogt. For surveys, see Gerhard Delling, "Ehescheidung," RAG 4 (1959) 707-19; Carl Heinz Ratschow, JosefScharbert, Zeev W. Falk, Bo Reicke, and Henri Crouzel, "EheiEherecht/Ehescheidung," TRE 9 (1982) 308-62; Luz,Matthiius, 1.276-79 (Matthew, 1.307-10). 458 On the Matthean version, see Bultmanri, History, 2627, 386; idem, Ergiinzungsheft, 25;Jeremias, Theology, 1.224-25, and the commentaries on Matthew by

Matthew 5:21-48

from those in Mark. The first scene includes the dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees. The Pharisees immediately ask (vs 3), "Is it lawful for a man [lfv8pw1Tos] to divorce his wife for any reason whatsoever [KaTlz 1Tauav alTlav ]?" 459 In reply, Jesus quotes the texts of Gen 1:27; 2:24, si:ating the creational order and drawing the conclusion for marriage and divorce. This first exchange leads to the Pharisees' second question (vs 7), "Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to divorce (her)?" Jesus corrects (vs 8) their misconception by saying that Moses did not command divorce but, "because of your hardness of heart he permitted you to divorce your wives." The repeated "you" and "your" emphasizes that divorce was practiced neither "from the beginning" (vss 4 and 8) nor universally, but was given as a concession to the Jews only because of their hardness of heart. The implications for Matthew and his church are clear: Jesus' prohibition rules out divorce "for any reason whatsoever" for Christians, contrary to what is seen as current Jewish practice. This practice appears to Matthew to be excessive and morally decadent. When in vs 9 he interpolates the Q-logion, which contains the exception clause from 5:32 (possibly a Matthean insertion), he creates an ambiguity that has ever since kept exegetes busy: Does Matthew make Jesus allow divorce and subsequent remarriage of the innocent partner, in a case where "unchastity" (1Topv£la), 460 usually understood as adultery, is involved? Or does 19:9 stipulate that only separation, not remarriage, is permitted, for either partner? Matthew seems to be

459 460

461 462

affirming the older view that any remarriage after divorce is adulterous but that divorce alone is not, if it occurs because of the woman's unchastity. The exception clause thus does not constitute a concession analogous to that of Moses in Deut 24:1-4, but it only recognizes that unchastity would already have destroyed the marriage. This view on the part of Matthew seems to be confirmed by the acccount of Joseph considering a divorce from his wife, Mary (Matt 1: 18-19). If these are the consequences, how should Christians respond to their own sinfulness, for Matthew a factor with which the church must come to terms? 461 The disciples consider this question in the second scene (vss 10-12), 46 2 when they draw the conclusion (vs 10), "If the case of man's relationship with the woman is like this, it is not advisable to marry at all" (d ollToos luTtv ~ alTla Tov lw8pC:l1Tov P,£Tlz Tijs yvvatK&s, ov uvp.cp£pov yap.ijuat). Jesus confirms this conclusion with an esoteric saying, drawn from an otherwise unattested tradition (vss 1112). 463 This very difficult saying, which I cannot fully discuss here, suggests self-castration "for the sake of the kingdom of the heavens," a metaphor indicating complete sexual abstinence as the only means of avoiding the consequence of sin that would disqualify one from the kingdom of God. 464 What conclusions can one draw from the redaction history of the different interpretations of SM/Matt 5:32? ( 1) It appears clear that for the earliest level of the tradition (Q/Luke 16:18 and SM/Matt 5:32), the

Wellhausen; Klostermann; Allen; McNeile; instead, the saying is esoteric. Lohmeyer; Grundmann; and Gundry; furthermore, 463 On this point see David Daube, "Let Him That the contributions (see the bibliography above) by Readeth Understand," in his NT and Rabbinic Berger, Gesetusauslegung, 1.570-74; Bornkamm; judaism, 422-36. Braun (Radikalismus, 2.112 n. 3) Catchpole; Delling; Dupont; Fitzmyer; Heth and considers it an authentic jesus logion; so also (with Wenham; Marucci; Moloney; Niederwimmer; Pesch; caution) Jeremias, Theology, 224. Differently Georg Schaller; Staab; and Vogt. Kretschmar, "Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Cf. the parallel references above, n. 389. Ursprung fruhchristlicher Askese," ZThK 61 ( 1964) This view was especially argued by Erasmus in his 27-67, esp. 56. See Niederwimmer, Askese, 40, 53Annotationes in Nrroum Testamentum (1519) 326. See 58. the careful presentation of the material by Ott, 464 For the patristic exegesis of this saying, see Walter Auslegung, 151-57; furthermore, G.J. Wenham, Bauer, "Matth. 19,12 und die alten Christen," in "Matthew and Divorce: An Old Crux Revisited," Neutestamentliche Studien Georg Heinrici zum 70. JNTS 22 (1984) 95-107. Geburtstag(UNT 6; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1914) 235-44; On this point see Strecker, Weg, 232-35. reprinted in his Aufiiitu und kleine Schriften Different from Mark 10:10-11 (see above), this scene (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck), 1967) 253-62. in Matthew is not private because of its location;

257

question of whether Jesus contradicted the Torah was not of great concern. As for SM/Matt 5:31-32, the question is presupposed (5:17) but answered in the negative by the antitheses as a whole (Matt 5: 1 7 -48). Regarding divorce specifically, the question must have arisen in Jewish Christianity along with other instances of Jesus' Torah interpretation. (2) The supposition that Jesus' prohibition against divorce contradicted the Torah is explicitly denied in Mark and Matthew. Both state how the conflict should be explained; these explanations presuppose a Gentile-Christian context in which implicit arguments of a Jewish nature are no longer debated. (3) Matthew harmonized the Q-logion (Q/Luke 16:18//Mark 10:11-12) with SM/Matt 5:32 either by preferring his version of the logion (Q/Matt) or by introducing the exception clause in Matt 19:9, using wording slightly different from SM/Matt 5:32. He assumed, therefore, that the exception clause plays the same role in 5:32 as in 19:9. (4) My analysis of SM/Matt 5:31-32 in the context of the SM, however, has shown that the explanation of why Jesus did not contradict the Torah is different in 5:32 than in 19:3-9. The argument in the third antithesis is based on Deut 24:1-4 itself, not on the order of creation (Gen 1 :27; 2:24) or the doctrine of marriage derived from it. According to Matt 19:4-8, Deut 24: 1-4 would mean precisely what the SM says it does not mean, but the author of the Gospel does not seem to have noticed this conflict. He assumes, rather, that there is only one explanation, that of 19:4-8, which is valid as well for 5:31-32. (5) As far as the historical Jesus is concerned, he could conceivably have given both explanations. According to first-century Judaism, both are possible. What was Jesus' motivation for prohibiting divorce? Did he arrive at his position through his study of the Torah? Or because of the imminent eschatological end? Or because of his social criticism? Or for humanitarian reasons? All these reasons are possible, but the lack of source material prohibits one from saying more than this. Based as it is in part on Mark 10:2-12, however, Matt 19:3-12 is clearly later and is strongly influenced by Gentile-Christian theology. On tradition-historical grounds, then, SM/Matt 5:31-32 is not only earlier than Matthew's theology but is also more likely to have come

from the historical jesus himself. Given these premises, what are the consequences of the argument of SM/Matt 5:31-32? As in the other antitheses, the conclusions are implied. They must be reached within the context of the overarching argumentation of all the antitheses (5:21-48) and in analogy to the other antitheses individually, especially the preceding one on adultery (5:27-30). In addition, comparison with the arguments presented in other New Testament parallels has established positions peculiar to the SM. On this basis, one can draw two major conclusions: First, the interpretation of Deut 24:1-4 as cited in Matt 5:31 is rejected as inadequate because its consequences are contrary to the Torah. The argument here is one ex consequentibus ("from the consequences"). 465 This legal argument holds generally that in case of an ambiguity in a particular law, an interpretation does not meet the intent of the law if its application permits or encourages illegal acts, because it cannot be the intent of a just lawgiver to make that law an instrument of injustice. According to the SM, the true meaning of the famous passage Deut 24:1-4 is the curbing of divorce as a social instrument that produces injustice in the form of adultery, which is prohibited by the Decalogue (Exod 20:14; see above on SM/Matt 5:27-30). Divorce can be allowed only if defilement already exists through "sexual immorality" (7ropv
465 On this type of conclusion, see Quintilian Inst. 5.8.5.

258

Matthew 5:21-48

must recognize from the discussions by Paul (1 Cor 7:10-16) and the Gospels of Mark (10:2-12) and Matthew (19:3-12). The SM addresses only husbands, assuming with Jewish life at the time that they have the legal power to divorce. Negatively, the demand is that any action which creates injustice is to be ruled out. This is especially true of divorce, since this action creates injustice for the woman as well as for the man. Positively, various alternatives for divorce are left open for consideration: reconciliation, separation (without remarriage), and avoidance of marriage altogether ("celibacy"). None of these alternatives, however, is explicitly discussed or even mentioned. None of them is excluded, either, as is witnessed by the wealth of debate in other early Christian texts. d. The Fourth Antithesis: Oaths (Matt 5:33-37) Bibliography Banks,jesus and the Law, 193-96. Otto Bauernfeind, Eid und Friede: Fragen zur Anwendung und zum Wesen des Eides (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte, N.F. 2; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1956). Idem, "Der Eid in der Sicht des Neuen Testaments," in H. Bethke, ed., Eid, Gewissen, Treuepjlicht (Frankfurt: Stimme, 1965) 79-112. Braun, Radikalismus, 2.80-83. Idem, Qumran, 1.16. Hellmut Brunner, "'Eure Rede seijaja, nein nein' im Agyptischen," in his Das hlirende Herz: Kleine Schriften zur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte Agyptens (OBO 80; Fribourg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988) 396-401. Bultmann, History, 134-35, 147, 148,407. Gerhard Dautzenberg, "Ist das Schwurverbot Mt 5, 33-37;Jak 5,12 ein Beispiel fur die Torakritik Jesu?" BZ 25 (1983) 47-66. Idem, "Eid, IV. Neues Testament," TRE 9 (1975) 379-82. Dibelius,james, 248-51. Dennis C. Duling, "'[Do Not Swear ... ) by Jerusalem Because It Is the City of the Great King' (Matthew 5:35)," JBL 110 .(1991) 291-309. Bernhard Kotting (B. Kaiser), "Geliibde," RAG 9 (1975) 1055-99. I. Kottsieper, "P;il9 saba'," ThWAT 7 (1992) 974-1000. Ernst Kutsch, "Eure Rede aber sei ja ja, nein nein," EvTh 20 (1960) 206-18. PaulS. Minear, "Yes or No: The Demand for Honesty in the Early Church," NovT 13 (1971) 1-13. Mu6ner,jakobusbrief, 213-16.

Percy, Botschaft, 146-48. Gustav Stahlin, "Zum Gebrauch von Beteuerungsformeln im Neuen Testament," NovT 5 (1962) 115-43. Strecker, Weg, 133-34. Idem, "Antithesen," 56-63. Adolf Wenzel, Das israelitisch:Judische Gelubde (Berlin: Philo, 1931). Wrege, Bergpredigt, 70-75. Zeller, Mahnspruche, 124-26.

1) Analysis The analysis on the fourth antithesis, dealing with the swearing of oaths, indicates that the composition here follows the pattern common to all the antitheses in the SM. The initiai.,.O.A.tv ("again") demarcates the opening of the second set of three antitheses (5:33-48). Parallel to the first antithesis (5:21-26), the fourth is composed in complete form, with no omissions. Two basic sections constitute the antithesis: the refutation of the inadequate interpretation of the scriptural prohibition, introduced by the "chain of tradition" (vs 33), which is followed by the presentation of the adequate interpretation of the prohibition (vs 34). The argument in defense of the adequate interpretation (vss 34c-36) is construed as a demonstration of the theological absurdity of four popular types of oaths. The conclusion (vs 37) states the positive ethical result, a prescription concerning the use of human language.

Excursus: Oaths: Their Use and Misuse in Ancient Thought The fourth antithesis (Matt 5:33-37) contains an ethical argument regarding the use and misuse of oaths. This argument is made in the context of contemporary discussions concerning the subject, so that one must, at least to some extent, reconstruct this context to upderstand the argument. The topic of oaths, oath taking, vows, and related issues really requires treatment in book length, a task that cannot and need not be undertaken here. Excellent studies provide this service (see the bibliography). In the following, therefore, I discuss only those presuppositions that are essential for the understanding of the argument made in the SM. 1. One of the most primitive rituals, the oath has its roots in the oral phase of human culture. Although one can no longer separate its original function and meaning from later, secondary applications, it must have had a connection with a weakness of the human language. Oral affirmations or denials can be true or false, made in honesty or with deception, out of prudence or irresponsibility. How is one to know the

259

difference? Human language carries no built-in guarantees. Instead there are seemingly endless possibilities for its manipulation. Yet, human interaction depends to a large degree on language. In order to be effective, the human word presupposes a relationship between people that is one of mutual trust. Trust should be the basis for a relationship among friends. 466 Enemies, however, have no such basis oftrust. Therefore, other safeguards are needed to make sure that the words spoken are reliable, spoken in truth, and intended to be kept in the future. To provide such a guarantee seems to be the function of oaths. 467 Not surprisingly, even literary cultures did not abandon the oath. Written documents did not replace the oral word but codified it in a different way. Of course, written documents can be falsified just as easily as oral statements. Therefore, oaths continue to serve as a constitutive element in all forms oflegal contracts, agreements, and treaties. 468 Apart from the legal side, one must also pay attention to the religious and moral aspects of oaths. 2. The oath itself consists of religious formulae, by which the divine forces of the universe are invoked as witnesses, enforcers, or avengers in case of violation. 469 Usually, heaven and earth, sun, moon, the stars, the gods of the city or nation, or higher gods are called on. 47° Thus, the oath is related to prayer and, by implication, to magic. It is important, however, to point out that swearers call primarily on the forces of the cosmos. The gods are often understood to represent the forces of the cosmos, but the distinction 466 The connection between oath and friendship is clear from Philo Decal. 89-91; Euripides Hippol. 611-14; PlutarchPraec. gerend. 4, 801B. 467 For the place of oaths in legal contracts, see Hirzel, Eid, 65-75, and passim. 468 For examples see Max Kaser, Das ri!mische Privatrecht (HKAW 10.3.3; 2ded.; Munich: Beck, 1971) 1.27, 28, 168-69, 285; also vol. 2 (1959) 10, 49; idem, Das ri!mische Zivilproz.essrecht (HKAW 10.3.4; Munich: Beck, 1966) 197-200; Hans Julius Wolff, Das Recht der griechischen Papyri Agyptens (HKAW 10.5.2; Munich: Beck, 1978) 77, 131, 202-5. 469 See esp. Hirzel, Eid, 32-41. 470 See ibid., 11-41; Erich Ziebarth, "Eid," PW 5 (1905) 2076-83; Burkert, Religion, 377-78. 471 See, e.g., Philo, who rules out swearing by God (Spec. leg. 2.5): "But also a person may add to his 'Yes' or 'No' if he wish, not indeed the highest and most venerable and primal cause, but earth, sun, stars, heaven, the whole universe." Cf. 2.6-8. 472 See Gen 14:22; Exod 36:7; Deut 32:40; Ps 106:26, etc. (see TDNT 5.459 n. 19; Peter Ackroyd, ThWAT

260

is important for those ancient thinkers who have raised the question whether the gods should be involved in oaths at all, a question that is also discussed in the SM text. 471 Furthermore, whatever the forces invoked may be, they constitute the universe ofthe oath taker. This is important for the identification of the religious and cultural context of the oath taker; in the case of the SM, the passage on oaths betrays the geographic and religious origins of the SM. The act of oath taking, however, includes elements other than the formulae. Apart from their recitation, there are gestures, such as pointing toward heaven,4 7 2 or shaking hands, the latter being taken as good as the oath itself. 4 7 s In addition there could be sacrifices. 4 7 4 3. The ethical situation concerning oaths is constituted by the problems arising from their use and misuse. The ethical problem is not a merely theoretical one, whether one ought to use oaths, but a practical one presented by the fact that the use, overuse, and misuse of oaths of all kinds are common features of life. How is one to deal with these phenomena in a responsible way? This is the ethical question in general and also in the SM. 4. The ancient discussions concerning the use and misuse of oaths show that the legal, ethical, and religious problems connected with them were well known. 475 Approaches to the problems vary, depending on the cultural background, but there is also a common stratum. Common abuses were the breaking of oaths, the swearing of false oaths, 476 the inflation of oaths (wo>..vopKla), 477 and their criminal use

473

474 475

4 76

4 77

3.448-40; TODT 5.41 0-12). For literature, see Eberhard 0. G. von Kiinssberg, Schwurgebiirde und Schwurfingerdeutung (Freiburg: Herder, 1941 ); Bernhard Kotting, "Geste und Gebll.rde, • RAG 10 (1978) 898-99. See Gal2:9 and Betz, Galatians, 100. For the handshake instead of the oath, see Sophocles Oed. Col. 650;Phil. 811-12. See Burkert, Religion, 377-79, with references. Ibid., 377-82. Already Hesiod Theog. 231-32 makes Oath one of the children of Strife ("Epts) and states: "and Oath who most troubles men on earth when one willfully swears a false oath" ("OpKov 8', as~~ wAfiuTov f.,nx6ovlovs lzu8pclnrovs w7Jp.alvEL, CJTe tcJv Trs EKt.:Jv f:wlopK.ov Op.Ouuy). The definition of various types of false oaths was the subject of a controversy between the Stoic philosophers Cleanthes and Chrysippus. See below, n. 511. See Sir 23:11; Philo Decal. 92: f/J6frat y"a.p l" wo>..vopKlas 1/lfvaopKla Kal.lurtfJna ("For from much swearing springs false swearing and impiety"). Cf. also Spec. leg. 2.8, cited below, n. 506.

Matthew 5:21-48

in conspiracies. 478 That oaths involve magic was recognized as religiously and ethically problematic. 479 Beyond such agreements, approaches vary. The Greek mind typically tries to get at the problems by defining the terms and by classifying the types of oaths in use, which in turn leads to the definition and classification of abuses. The Jewish mind as it is expressed in the Old Testament and later literature is very sensitive toward the misuse of the name of God, but there is no systematic treatment before the Mishnah. The ethical goal was to develop the proper attitude and use with regard to oaths (evopKla), but the methods for attaining that goal varied a great deal. Honoring the oath, 480 instead of dishonoring it, 481 was the common answer. 482 Prohibition of abuse, such as perjury, 483 was a cure of the symptoms but did not get at the roots of the problem. Abstaining from oaths altogether was recommended by some philosophers and by the SM. 484 Then there were also considerations and theories about the underlying causes that lead to the abuses, which in turn helped to develop strategies for avoiding them. 485 Again, one must mention the SM in this regard because the ethical argument made 478 On this point see Philo Spec. leg. 2.10-15. A typical case is the oath in the conspiracy of Catilina, as described by Sallust Hist. 22. 4 79 See Hirzel, Eid, 19-22; on Horkos as a demon, see 142-70. For the role of oath in PGM, see 1.82 (ilpKov a[1Too]ro); XII.740; IV.1450, mentioning ilpKOI xlloVIOI ("underworld oaths"). A spell involving oaths is called opKtup.o~ (1.92; IV.3018, 3079), its performance opKl(nv, itopKl(nv. See Friedrich Pfister, "Beschworung," RAG 2 (1954) 169-76. 480 Ps.-Pythagoras Carm. aurea 2: u£{3ov ilpKov ("respect your oath"). See also Diog. L. 8.33: ilpKtov T< eTvat rh olKaiOV Kat Ola TOVTO Ll.la ilpKIOV A..!yeulial ("Right has the force of an oath, and that is why Zeus is called the God of Oaths"). Iamblichus Vita Pyth. 155: evopKiiv ll( 1r6.vrwv p.d.A.tura 1rapayy.!A.A.et ("Most importantly, he commanded to swear only good oaths"); also 53, 88, 144, 150, 162, 255. On the doctrine of Pythagoreanism regarding oaths, see Armand Delatte, Etudes sur Ia litterature pythagoricienne (Paris: Leroux, 1915) 249-68, especially 265-68; Walter Burkert, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagorean ism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1972) 179. 481 See Euripides Hippo!. 611: ilpKOV~ JL1/0ap.ro~ anp.d.un~ ("by no means dishonor your oaths"). 482 See Ps.-Isocrates Ad Demonicum 13: "First of all, then, show devotion to the gods, not merely by doing sacrifice, but also by keeping your oaths [aA.A.a Kat rol~ ilpKot~ ip.p..!vwv ]; for the former is but evidence of a material prosperity, whereas the latter is proof of a noble character." For further references, see LSJ, s.v.

in Matt 5:33-37 presupposes such an underlying theory. Definitions of oaths are important because they are part of the analysis of the problems as the ancient thinkers saw them. Philo's definition, 486 which he repeats in a number of his writings, seems to come from a Greek philosophical background. For example, Spec. leg. 2.10: "For an oath is nothing else than to call God to bear witness in a disputed matter" (ilpKo~ yap ovo(v liA.A.o ~ p.aprvpla Oeov 1Tt
ebopKJro KTA.

483 484 485 486

See below, p. 264. See below on 5:33b. See below on 5:34a. See the bibliography on the excursus infra, esp. Hirzel, Eid. 48 7 This definition is repeated several times in Philo: Spec. leg. 3.205; Decal. 86; Sacr. AC 91; Plant. 82. 488 As Heinemann has shown; Philo's definition probably derived from Stoic sources, since in a similar form it occurs in Cicero Off. 3.1 04-5; Marcus Aurelius In se ipsum 3.5. See Isaak Heinemann, "Philos Lehre vom Eid," in judaica: FS zu Hermann Cohens 70. Gebuttstag (Berlin: Cassirer, 1912) 109-18, esp. 11 0; idem, Philons griechische und jildische Bildung, 12-96. In his long discussion about oaths in Spec. leg. 2.1-38, Philo interprets the third commandment of the Decalogue, the prohibition against "taking God's name in vain" (2.2), as implying the keeping of good oaths (note the title as well: 7r
261

mind: "An oath is an unproved statement supported by an appeal tO the gods" ("0pKO~ a• t/r£(1)~ tJ>tt<TI~ ava...6a£1KTO~). 489 These definitions and classifications show that they were made for a purpose. They are intended to bring order into the chaos of the phenomena; they define implicitly the ethical problem; and they are supposed to lead to ethical directives. 5. The Old Testament attests a wide variety of oaths, reflecting the common practice of the time. Georg Giesen490 has investigated 215 attestations of oaths. He divides them into nineteen categories and functions with three major classes: (a) profane oaths found in political treaties and agreements, (b) legalreligious oaths, often connected with vows, (c) theological oaths, especially the covenantal oath swom by Yahweh and Israel. Yahweh himself is the guarantor of oaths, which means that taking oaths is in principle a good thing. Breaking oaths, therefore, is a form of sacrilege. Even an oath based on fraud must not be broken, once it is taken (see, e.g., Josh 9:1520). If oaths must be kept, the prudent man will be cautious in using them (Eccl8:2-3). Perjury comes in many forms. Since political treaties were made under oath, breaking them implies perjury (cf. Gen 21:2231, esp. 23). Most serious was the breaking of the covenant Yahweh had made with Israel (Isa 63:8; cf. Ps 89:34). Giving false testimony in court was another offense (Exod 20:16; Deut 19:18; Ps 27:12); doing this is the mark of the enemy (Ps 144:8, 11). Religiously offensive was the use of Yahweh's name in false oaths (Lev 19:12; Zech 5:4) or swearing by the name of false gods (Jer 5:7). The connection of these abuses with the law codes varies and appears to be secondary. In the Decalogue the third commandment attracted most of the attention (Exod 20:7; cf. Deut 5:11): "You shall not pronounce the name of Yahweh in vain." The crucial term siiw' was open to various interpretations ("evil," "nothingness," etc., even "evil inflicted by magic"). In addition the ninth commandment was seen to be related (Exod 20:16): "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." Because of the name of Yahweh, the first commandment was relevant also (Exod 20:2-3 [RSV]): "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me." The Holiness Code names "swearing falsely by my name" in connection with stealing, dealing falsely, and lying (Lev 19:11-12). In a similar way other Decalogue-like series of prohibitions list deceitful

489 Cf. Aristotle Rhet. 1.15, 1377a 7-b 11; also 1375b 18; Quintilian/nst. 5.1.2; 5.6.1-6; 5.10.87. 490 Giesen, Wurzel (see the bibliography, infra).

262

swearing, profaning the divine name, and even magic (Jer 7:9; Zech 5:3-5; Mal3:5). On the whole, the Old Testament evidence shows that oaths as such were viewed positively and that misuse was to be avoided as contrary to the Torah. The righteous man, when he enters the sanctuary, must be free from deceitful swearing of any kind: he "walks blamelessly, and he does what is right and speaks truth from his heart" (Ps 15:2; cf. 24:3-6). One must see these teachings as distinct from the occurrence of Greek technical terms for perjury (tmopKla [see below on 5:33b]) in the LXX. Together with the Greek terminology came Greek philosophical and ethical deliberations, which were further developed, especially by Philo. 491 Philo makes also a clear attempt to systematize the types of oaths and vows, and thus to deal with perjury in a consistent way. Another systematization, made no doubt for a similar purpose, even though in a very different way, occurs in the Mishnah and Talmud, tractates Sebu 'ot and Nedarim. 492 6. The fourth antithesis of the SM shows affinities with Hellenistic Judaism, but within that context of Jewish thought the SM takes a unique stance. In what must have been an inner-Jewish debate at the time, the SM not only formulates an ethical response to perjury but also develops theoretical ideas about the roots of perjury and the nature of oaths as such. 493 One can assume on the basis of existing texts that other Jewish positions were represented by the wisdom literature, Qumran, Philo, and the Mishnah, to name only these, but the option with which the SM sharply disagrees seems to have been held by the Pharisees. Because of the lack of early Pharisaic sources, this cannot be demonstrated conclusively, however. The SM itself indicates that the position rejected was the commonly held view of the Judaism of the time, but this judgment seems to be exaggerated in view of the diversity shown by the sources.

Bibliography Oscar Augustin, Der Eid im griechischen Volksglauben und der platonischen Ethik (Programmschrift; Elbing: Kuhn, 1894). Erich Bereker, "Eid," KP 2 (1979) 202-10. Burkert, Religion, 377-82. Haim H. Cohn, "Oaths," in Elon, Principles, 615-21. Danby, Mishnah, 408-21. Georg Giesen, Die Wurzel17::lTD "schworen": Eine semasiologische Studie zum Eide im Alten Testament

49l For references, see below on 5:33 and 37. 492 On this point see Lieberman, Jewish Palestine, 117. 493 See below on 5:37.

Matthew 5:21-48

(BBB 56; Bonn: Hanstein, 1971), with an extensive bibliography. Rudolf Hirzel, Der Eid: Ein Beitrag zu seiner Geschichte (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1902). PeterKaplony, "Eid," Ldii. 1 (1975) 1188-I200. Ursula Kaplony-Heckel, "Eid, demot.," Ldii. 1 (1975) 1200-1204. C. A. Keller, "l':llD sba', ni. 'schworen,'" ThAT 2.85563. Martin A. Klopfenstein, Die Luge nach dem Alten Testament: lhr Begri.ff, ihre Bedeutung und ihre Beurteilung (Zurich: Gotthelf, 1964).

Kurt Latte, "Meineid," PW, 29th half-volume (193I) 346-57. Jon D. Mikalson, Athenian Popular Religion (Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina, I983) 3I-38. Nilsson, GGR l.I39-42. Johannes Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten in seinem Verhiijtnis zu verwandten Erscheinungen sowie die Stellung des Eides im Islam (StraBburg: Triibner,

I9I4). Joseph Plescia, The Oath and Perjury in Ancient Greece (Tallahassee: Florida State University, I970). Marvin Pope, "Oaths," !DB 3.575-77. F. V. Reiterer, "IC1!D 5aw'," ThWAT 7 (I993) 1104-17. Jean Rudhardt, Notionsfondamentales de la pensee religieuse et actes constitutifs du culte dans la Grece classique (Geneva: Droz, 1958) 202-I2. Leopold Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen (Berlin:

Hertz, 1882) 2.1-IO, 455. Johannes Schneider, "8pKos KTA.," TDNT 5.457-67. ThWNT I0.2 (I979) I206 (bibliography). Erich Ziebarth, De iureiurando in iure graeco quaestiones (Gottingae: Officina academica Dieterichiana, 1892). Idem, "Eid," PW, I Oth half-volume (I905) 2076-83.

2) Interpretation

• 33 The fourth antithesis about oaths follows the pattern

of starting out with the rejection of the inadequate interpretation (vs 33). The introductory ?Td.A.tv ("again") must be original to the SM despite its strangeness. Since none of the other antitheses is introduced in this manner, belonging to the following formula is not the only reason for its being there. 494 Grundmann 495 is probably right when he takes it to mark the beginning of the second group of three antitheses. 496 This is also indicated by the fact that the formula describing the "chain of tradition" (vs 33a) is stated in full as in the first antithesis (5:21): "You have heard that it was said to the men of old" (~ICOVO'aTt' CJTL eppE87j TOL~ apxaloL~). 49 7

The "Scripture" text is cited next (vs 33b): oviC E?TLOpiC~um ("You shall not swear an oath falsely"). Which Scripture is cited here? The texts usually named as parallel references in the Old Testament are Lev 19:12, Exod 20:16, and Deut 5:20; but the LXX 498 as well as the MT of these passages are different. It was, first of all, Hellenistic judaism that regarded the prohibition OVIC E?TLOpiC~uELs as part ofthe Torah, for which one can cite a wide range of mostly wisdom texts. 499 The explicit prohibition, however, is found only in Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 16: Do not commit perjury, neither ignorantly nor willingly. The immortal God hates a perjurer, whoever it is who has sworn. p.~ a· E'lTLOpiC~O'!JS fJo~T· ayvws p.7jat fiCOVTL' t£vaop1COV O'TV')'EEL 8£0S lJ.p.{3poTOS CJO'TLS op.OUO'!J. 500

494 So BAGD, s.v. wc:l.)l.ov, 3. 'lrA'f/
263

Strictly speaking, therefore, the text referred to in Matt 5:33 is Hellenistic-Jewish halakah; it is regarded as a Torah prohibition, but it is not part of the written Hebrew text of the Old Testament. How this Hellenistic-Jewish halakah came about is best shown by Philo in his exegesis of the third commandment in Spec. leg. 2.1-38. As he says in the section title, he understands Exod 20:7 to deal with "the duty of keeping oaths" (1T€pl. £vopKlas). He discusses the various types of oaths, first the impiety of misusing God's name in assertory oaths (2.2-8), then (2.9-31) the subject of good and bad promissory oaths (£vxal), with a digression in 2.11 about dishonorable oaths; finally, he deals with specifications for votive offerings (avaB~p.am) to the temple (2.32-38). 501 All ofthe categories and practices derive from current cultic descriptions, perhaps even based on Stoic sources. 50 2 They undoubtedly reflect ] ewish practice in Alexandria as well as general Hellenistic practices and ideas. Philo's intention is to bring them into some kind of order and to eliminate those which violate his understanding of "taking the name of God in vain." 503 Ideally, the ordinance should make an oath unnecessary altogether: "the good man's word, it means, should be an oath, firm, unswerving, utterly free from falsehood, surely planted on truth. "504 If one is forced by the circumstances, however, one should look for the compromise least offensive to the

divine name. What this means for the various types of oaths (and the corresponding types of perjury) is the subject of most of Philo's deliberations. The prohibition of perjury was debated throughout antiquity. 505 Philo Decal. 92 derives perjury from too much swearing (?ToA.vopKla): "from much swearing springs false swearing and impiety" (cp/;£TaL yi:Lp £K ?ToA.vopKlas t£vSopKla KaL au£{3Ha). 506 But one can contrast Philo's views to other explanations that are often presented in connection with etymologies, definitions, and attempts at classification. The terms commonly used are £mopKiiv ("commit perjury"), £?TwpKla ("perjury"), and £?TlopKos ("perjurer"). 507 They refer either to an intentionally false oath or to the breaking of an oath or vow. The terms are found since Homer and Hesiod, 508 but their explanation has been the subject of much discussion. 509 The best explanation may be contained in Hesiod Erga 193-94, 282-83, where the phrase £?TI. S' CJpKov lfp.ouu£ refers to the taking of the magical staff upon making a statement, that is, swearing an oath in addition to the statement. 510 Perhaps the phrase "what is more than these" (Matt 5:37) alludes to this understanding of £?TlopKos as something done in addition. Among the philosophers, the Stoics Cleanthes and Chrysippus tried to limit the meaning. 511 They disagreed about the moment when an oath would be broken. Cleanthes defined it as an oath falsely sworn,

Aristophanes Ran. 145-50; frg. 431; Menander Mon. 501 For the interpretation of Philo, see Heinemann, "Philos Lehre" (cited above, n. 488). 34 7; the sections in Stobaeus Eel. Ill, 27 (7r€pt ilpKov); 502 See ibid., 110, with references. III, 28 (7r£pt t7rtopKlas). 503 Philo Spec. leg. 2.2; for the present discussion of the 509 For the literature see TDNT 5.466-67, with notes; meaning of the term IC1TD "magically evil"[?], see Chantraine, Dictionnaire, 3.820-21. 510 So Manu Leumann, Homerische Worter (Basel: J. F. A. Sawyer, THAT 2.882-83. 504 Philo, Spec. leg. 2.2. See furthermore Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. Reinhardt, 1950) 79-90, who proposes as the 7,12,48-50,123-24. original meaning of h't ilpKOV op.6uuat: "einen Eid 505 For discussion and references see Hirzel, Eid, 41-52, dazu schworen" ("swear an oath in addition"). See 75-79; Giesen, Wurzel, passim, with bibliography; Matt 26:72 (p.£ra ilpKov); also the third denial26:74; Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen, 2.3-10; Kurt Mark 6:26; Matt 14:7, 9. Latte, "Meineid," PW, 29th half-volum·e (1931) 346- 511 For the texts see SVF 1.131 (no. 581 ); 2.6 (no. 197); 57; Plescia, Oath and Perjury, esp. 83-91; Dover, for the interpretation see Hirzel, Eid, 75-79. Greek Popular Morality, 248-50. 506 See also Philo Spec. leg. 2.8 for a description of 1ro>..vopKla, and Sir 23:9-11, for the same subject in the context of the "education of the mouth" (7ratada ur6p.aros [23:7]). 507 See Johannes Schneider, TDNT 5.466-67; Betz, Lukian, 185 n. 3. 508 See LSJ, s.v. Most interesting are Theognis 1195-96; Hesiod Theog. 231-32; Pindar 01. 2.65-67;

264

Matthew 5:21-48

that is, with the intent of breaking it, while Chrysippus calls that 'ljfwaopKEtv and reserves hwpKEtv for the later failure to honor an oath or a vow when it should be honored. Hellenistic Judaism also knew the terminology: £1rlopKos occurs in LXX Zech 5:3; £1rwpKla in Wis 14:26; hwpK£w in 1 Esdr 14:28; and esp. in Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 16-1 7. 512 Hellenistic Judaism firmly connected the prohibition of perjury with the third commandment of the Decalogue: "You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain" (Exod 20:7; cf. Deut 5:11). The connection appears to be secondary but justifiable. Certainly Exod 20:7 and Deut 5:11 have much more in mind than perjury, but if a connection had to be found, this is an appropriate one because of the implied magical misuse of God's name. 513 As the Mishnah tractate Sebu 'at shows, rabbinic Judaism was engaged in even more complex disussions of the various types of oaths and their abuse. 514 While the prohibition of perjury in general is transcultural, Philo demonstrates more clearly than some of the other parallel texts 515 that the simple prohibition ovK £mopK~um ("you shall not swear falsely"), at least the choice of the words, is not Jewish but Greek in origin and that it was only secondarily connected with the Torah by making it part of the halakah. Matthew 5:33 shows that the ambiguity connected with the prohibition in the earlier Greek tradition is carried over into Judaism and Christianity: does the injunction refer to perjury in the legal and moral sense or to the breaking of religious vows? The interpretation given in vs 33c makes a decision in favor of the religious vow: lmoawuus a£ r{il Kvpl'l:l TOVS CfpKOVS uov (literally: "but you shall make good your oaths to the Lord"). The question is which type of interpretation we have before

us. As indicated by the particle a€ ("but"), 516 the statement is another cultic ordinance interpreting the preceding one in a positive way. 517 At issue is not only the legal and moral offense of perjury but that oaths are sworn before God and therefore constitute a debt owed to God. Consequently, failure to make good this debt by breaking the oath amounts to perjury. 518 This implication may explain why the distinctions between oaths and vows were anything but clear and why the expression olowp.t CfpKovs could be almost a synonym of amoolawp.L CfpKOVS as early as classical Greek language. The further implication is that £1rwpKla ("perjury") is interpreted here in a way very similar to Philo, who also argues that once one has sworn an oath, one must keep it: "But if anyone has been compelled to swear on any matter whatever, so long as it is not forbidden by the law, he should use all his strength and every means in his power to make good his oath, and allow nothing to hinder him from carrying out his decision." 519 Philo's position, however, corresponds to the general ancient religious and moral judgment. It can also easily be reconciled with statements in the Old Testament advocating the same position (Num 30:3-4; Deut 23:2123; Ps 50:14). Violation of oaths and vows was prohibited because it is both a religious and a moral offense punishable by the deity. This was the common viewpoint in antiquity. For example, see Deut 23:21 (RSV): "When you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not be slack to pay it; for the LORD your God will surely require it of you, and it would be sin in you." On the Greek side, the popular view is expressed, for example, by XenophonAnabasis 2.5.5-7: "I could never deem happy a man who is aware that he has disregarded such oaths. For I do not know with what swiftness of foot

512 Cited above; see van der Horst, Sentences, 12 3, with the commentary, 123-34. Cf. the same statement in Sib. Or. 2.68-69. 513 See Lev 19:12; Sir 23:9-11; 27:14; Ps. Sol. 4.4; Wis 14:28-29; 3 Bar. 4.17; 13:4; Philo Decal. 82-95, esp. 88-91; Spec. leg. 2.1-38, esp. 26-28, also 1.235; 4.39-40; T. Ash. 2.1. 514 See Danby, Mishnah, 408-21; Str-B 1.325-27, with the texts; for a survey see also Haim H. Cohen, "Oath," in Elon, Principles, 615-21; idem, "Perjury," ibid., 516-17. 515 See below, nn. 523, 544-50.

516 The particle is omitted by W. 517 For Greek parallels see LSJ and BAGD, s. v. lnroaiawfL'· 518 This has been pointed out correctly by Strecker, "Antithesen," 58; idem, Bergpredigt, 81 (Sermon, 7778). 519 PhiloSpec.1eg.2.9;seealso2.12.

265

he might escape the hostility of the gods or any place to which he might flee, nor do I know any dark spot he might run off to or how he might withdraw to a secure place. For all things everywhere are subject to the gods and they control all things equally." 5 2° As far as Matt 5:33c is concerned, one can sum up the implications in this way. The term ll.7Tol'ilowp.t ("give [back]") may be more than a synonym of the simplex l'ill'iwp.t ("give") and may be understood here in the more specialized sense 521 of"making good on a religious vow." 52 2 This would imply that
when one does take them, one must fulfill them or incur divine punishment. Thus one must treat the interpretation ofvs 33b by vs 33c as a serious option, not as a caricature 528 or as the result of an unintended confusion of oaths and vows. 529 This underlying theory about how to deal with perjury is, however, rejected by the SM. • 34 The antithesis in vs 34a should formulate the correct interpretation of the Torah, but it is difficult to see how vs 34a is related to vs 33bc. Verse 34a unquestionably advances the uncompromising prohibition of any kind of oath taking : "But I say to you: 'Do not swear oaths at all"' (€yw o£ A.€yw vp.'i:v p.~ op.6uat
520 Translation by Mikalson (Athenian Popular Religion, 37), where more examples can be found. 52 I For the more general meaning, see Matt 5:26 and BAGD, s.v. 8p1
266

where the use of the divine name is the problem. 526 Cf., however, the story of Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5: I-6. Related is the critique of the practice of Kop{3av in Mark 7:9-I3 par., and of Herod's oath in Mark 6:22-24. 527 Cf. I Tim I: I 0 in a list of vices; Doctr. apost. 2.2-3; Did. 2.3, also in a list of vices (see Audet, Didache, 29I); Apoc. Pet. I4.29, and on this passage Albrecht Dieterich, Nekyia (2d ed.; Leipzig: Teubner, I9I3) I64-84; Latte, PW, 29th half-volume (I93I) 347. Related is the crime of false witness (1/t•vllol-'aprvpla). 528 Against Suggs, "Antitheses as Redactional Products," 442. 529 Unclear is Strecker, "Antithesen," 59 n. 60, with references to Matt 23:I6ff.; 26:74; idem, Bergpredigt, 8I (Sermon, 77-78). 530 Strecker, "Antithesen," 58-60; idem, Bergpredigt, 82-83 (Sermon, 78-80). 53 I I disagree, however, with his statement that prior to Jesus antiquity did not know a rigorous prohibition of oath taking. For discussion and references see his Bergpredigt, 82-83 (Sermon, 78-79).

Matthew 5:21-48

Justin Martyr are important witnesses in that they show a close relationship at the presynaptic level among the SM, the Epistle of James, and Justin Martyr. This level is Jewish Christian and part of the oldest layer of the Jesus tradition. 534 Given the extent of our ignorance regarding Jesus' teaching, in this case one may give the tradition the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless, the evidence can be called "multiple attestation" only if the three passages are independent witnesses, and that we do not know. The prohibition of oaths seems to have originated in some philosophical schools, but there is no certainty about the origin. 53 5 The list of the Delphic precepts in Dittenberger (Sylloge [4th ed. ], 1268 [I, 8]), has this precept: "Do not use the oath!" (C5pKrot p.~ XPW ). 536 Certainly, Sophocles speaks out against the oath. 537 Plutarch considers it unworthy of the wise man, 538 and so does Quintilian, who admits oaths only under some circumstances in oratory. 539 Among the Stoics, Epictetus

clearly forbids the oath for his students. 540 Marcus Aurelius follows suit in rejecting it. 541 Whether these Stoics were influenced by the Pythagoreans, 542 the latter rejecting the oaths by invoking the gods but not the elements, is not clear. 543 If one assumes such an influence, one would have to assume similar influences for the Qumran sect 544 and for Philo. 545 A peculiar form of avoidance was the so-called oath of Rhadamanthys, according to which an oath was taken "by the dog," "by the goose," and so forth. 546 Socrates probably used this form of the oath. 54 7 At any rate, if one assumes that vs 34a goes back to the teaching of the historical Jesus, the argument in which it is set in vss 33-37 is secondary and the work of the SM. How is this argument made? One must extract the answer from the setting, specifically from the relationship between vss 33bc and 34b-37. Thefour examples of oaths given in vss 34b-36 do not include the swearing

532 Strecker, "Antithesen," 56-58; idem, Bergpredigt, 82 n. 38 (Sermon, 205 n. 38). 533 Gerhard Dautzenberg, "Ist das Schwurverbot Mt 5,33-37;Jak 5,12 ein Beispiel fur die Torakritik Jesu?" BZ 25 (1983) 47-66; Strecker (Bergpredigt, 82 n. 37; cf. 84 n. 43 [Sermon, 204 n. 37; cf. 205 n. 43]) argues against Dautzenberg. 534 Cf. Strecker, "Antithesen," 61: "Der Entstehungsgrund wird das hellenistische Judenchristentum sein, dessen Verbundenheit mit der judischen Tradition durch den Gebrauch des Schwures unter Anrufung Jerusalems zum Ausdruck kommt." See idem, Bergpredigt, 83-84 (Sermon, 79-81). 535 See Hirzel, Eid, 109-23.Johannes Schneider, TDNT 5.179-80. 536 Is it accidental that the next line has cf,.A.iav aycba ("love friendship")? If this is not a coincidence, it would confirm my treatment of the oath in connection with the concepts of friendship and enmity. See also Solon in Diels-Kranz, 10 (73a) (I, 63, 15-17); Democritus in Diels-Kranz, 68 B 239 (II, 193, 6-8); Gorgias 82 B 11a (II, 296, 11). Menander Mon. 582 has this sentence: "Flee the oath, if only you swear properly" ("OpKov S~ cf>£vy£, Kiiv StKaiw~ ol-'v,',71~). I am indebted to Roy Kotansky for this parallel. 537 SophoclesOed. Col. 650;Phil. 811-12. 538 Plutarch Quaest. Rom. 44, 275C-D. Plutarch lists possible reasons why the priest ofJupiter was prohibited from taking oaths. 539 Quintilian !nsf. 9.2.98. 540 Epictetus Ench. 33.5: "Refuse, if you can, to take an

oath at all, but if that is impossible, refuse as far as the circumstances allow" (''OpKov 7rapaiT1/UaL, £t 1-'~V or&v

541 542

543 544

545

546 547

TE,

els C£7Tav, d

Of,.,.~, EK

rWv lvOvrwv). See

Bonhoffer, Ethik, 72-73, 113-14 n. 31; idem, Epiktet und das NT, 30. Marcus Aurelius In semetipsum 3.5. Diog. L. 8.22: "Not to call the gods to witness, man's duty being rather to strive to make his own word carry conviction" {JA.TJl>' OJLvVvat BeoVs· ltcrKe'iv yd.p abrOv Sii'v a~L07fluTov 7rap'xHv). See also Hermann Diels, Elementum (Leipzig: Teubner, 1899) 48, who refers to Philo Spec. leg. 1.1 and Matt 5:34-35 as parallels. See Bonhoffer, Ethik, 113-14 n. 31; Schneider, TDNT 5.179-80. See Philo Omn. prob. lib. 84; Josephus Bell. 2.135; Ant. 15.371-72; CD 15.1-16. For the interpretation see Braun, Radikalismus, 1.69, 73 n. 5, 85 nn. 6-7; 2.8083; idem, Qumran, 1.16; 2.98-99, 289, 296. Philo Spec. leg. 2.5; Leg. all. 3.207. See Heinemann, "Philos Lehre" (see above, n. 488); also t.lful. 2.17: "R. Meir says, 'It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay' (Qoh 5.5)best of all is that you should not vow at all" (trans. Jacob Neusner, The Tosefta [New York: KTAV, 1979]5.73). See Hirzel, Eid, 90-104, with references. SeeR. G. Hoerber, "The Socratic Oath 'By the Dog,"' Cl] 58 (1963) 268-69; Kotting, RAC 9 (1975) 1082; Doring, Exemplum Socratis, 154-55.

267

by God's name. One should not overlook this peculiar fact because this omission means that the use or abuse of the name of God is not the real reason behind the prohibition. Instead, all four examples use substitutes as, for example, Philo recommends, to avoid the divine name. 548 But the substitutes do not justify even this limited use of oath. 549 Invalid as these substitutes are, their vanity alone does not suffice to reject oaths as violations of the sanctity of God's name. In fact, two other reasons are named as speaking against oaths: human limitations 550 and the sufficiency of ordinary language. 551 The four examples are ordered in such a way that they begin with heaven, then move down to earth, to the center of the earth (Jerusalem), 552 and finally to one's head. Together they circumscribe the universe of the swearer and name its important focal points. 553 The first example, vs 34b, is indeed typical in that it makes use of the invocation of heaven: "neither by

heaven, for it is the throne of God" (p.~u lv Tij> ovpavij>, ()n 8p6vos ftTTLV Tov Beov). Philo confirms the great popularity of such oaths in antiquity, in which the swearer calls on "earth, sun, stars, heaven, the whole universe" (yijv, 1/A.wv, atTTtpas, ovpav6v, TOV O"VJL7TILVTa ICJtTp.ov). 554 Burkert notes that oath formulas invoking the corners of the universe are found in Greek religion, where they are numerous. 555 Important primary sources for such invocations are the Greek Magical Papyri55 6 and Jewish magic. 557 As Strecker 558 correctly points out, in jewish Christianity the great oath in the Ps.-Clementine Contestatio 559 and the one used by the Elchasaites 560 must be mentioned. The phrase "swearing by someone or something" (lfp.vvp.1 €v nv1) is a Semiticism that is found often in LXX. For the New Testament, see, apart from Matt5:34-36, Matt23:16, 18; Rev 10:6. 561 The reason for prohibiting such swearing is given in vs 34c : "for it is the throne of God. " 562 This clause is possibly an allusion to Isa 66: 1, 563 but the notion of heaven being God's

548 Philo Spec. leg. 2.2-5. 549 Here SM differs from Philo, who justifies the oath by limiting its usage. 550 The argument is traditional: the oath is overextension and thus hubris or folly. Cf. Philo Decal. 84: "To swear not at all is the best course and most profitable to life, well-suited to a rational nature which has been taught to speak the truth so well on each occasion that its words are regarded as oaths; to swear truly is only, as people say, a 'second-best voyage,' for the mere fact of his swearing casts suspicion on the trustworthiness of the man." Similarly, Spec. leg. 2.6-8. See Hirzel, Eid, 109-12. 551 This argument is also traditional. For passages and discussion, see Hirzel, Eid, 115-23. 552 See Ezek 5:5; 38:12;jub. 8.12, 19; 1 Enoch 26.1-2, etc. For further references see Georg Fohrer, TDNT 7.318 n. 125; Eduard Lohse, ibid., 324-25. 553 There seems to be a parallel argument in Matt 23:16-22, although it is formulated differently. The passage argues against profaning God by the contradictory ways in which vows are performed. The conclusion one ought to draw is that one should not swear at all. 554 Philo (Spec. leg. 2.5), however,justifies such swearing: "for they [i.e., earth, sun, etc.] are worthy of highest respect, since they have precedence in time over our place in creation, and also will remain forever untouched by age according to the purpose of Him who made them" (trans. F. H. Colson). In rabbinic judgment, such oaths do not fall into the category of swearing (m. Sebu. 4.13; see Str-B 1.332-33).

268

, 555 Burkert, Religion, 3 7 7-78, with further references. 556 See esp. PGM III.394; XII.241-44; XIII. 761-94; XXI.6-10, and often. 557 See esp. Sepher Ha-Razim: The Book of the Mysteries (trans. Michael A. Morgan; SBL TT [Pseudepigrapha Series 11 ]; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1983) passim; Lieberman, Greek in jewish Palestine, 115-43. 558 Strecker, "Antithesen," 61-62. 559 Ps.-Clem. Contestatio 2.1; 4.1-3, calling on heaven, earth, water, air, then ether, and God himself. 560 The Elchasaites invoked seven witnesses: heaven, water, the holy spirits, the angel of prayer, oil, salt, and earth. See Hippolytus Ref 9.15.1-2; 9.15.416.1 (see N1Jl..poc 2.748-49; N1Jl..pok 2.622); Epiphanius Adv. haer. 19.1.6a-b. See also Georg Strecker, "Eikesai," RAG 4 (1959) 1180-81; idem, "Judenchristentum und Gnosis," in Karl-Wolfgang Troger, ed., Altes Testament, Frilhjudentum, Gnosis (Giitersloh: Mohn, 1980) 280-81. 561 See also BAGD, s.v. lv, IV.5. 562 For a close parallel, see Matt 23:22. 563 Acts 7:49 and Barn. 16.2 actually quote Isa 66:1, but Matt 23:22 does not. For rabbinic parallels, see Str-B 1.333.

Matthew 5:21-48

throne may have become proverbial, since it is found also in Greek religious literature. 56 4 The SM takes this notion to be a valid reason for ruling out such oaths because they involve overstepping human limits and usurping powers belonging to the divine sphere. One should note that neither Philo nor rabbinic theology shares this sensitivity. 565 One can more easily connect the concern with the Delphic maxim, "Nothing in excess" {p.7]li'fv llyav). Overextension of human limitations would be implied in two ways: the unwarranted and preposterous assumption of having any influence on the forces of the cosmos, and the offensive attempt to compel 566 the one who is sitting on the throne (Matt 23:22) by magic. 567 At any rate, the position advocated by the SM conforms to the charge of laxness raised against the scribes and Pharisees (SM/Matt 5:20). • 35 The second example (vs 35ab) is "nor by the earth, for it is his footstool" (p.~n £v Tfj yfi, Hn v'lTO'lToliulv £unv Toov 'lTolioov afJTov). The same reasoning as in vs 34bc is to be applied here. The earth is not under human command, contrary to popular assumption. 568 That it is God's footstool may again refer to Isa 66:1, or to a proverbial expression, or to both. 569 Here as elsewhere

in the SM, therefore, the earth is seen as God's realm. 570 The third example (vs 35cd) focuses on Jerusalem: "nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king" (p.~T£ t:Z!> 'lt:pouoA.vp.a, Hn 'lTOAL!> £uTtv Tov p.t:y&.A.ov {3au&A.(ro!>). There are some peculiar features to be mentioned here. That the city is referred to at all is worth noting. We know that in Greek oath formulas, the patron deities of the polis are often invoked. 571 They refer to the city from which the swearer comes. If one can apply this idea to the SM, in which Jerusalem is the only city mentioned several times, it presents the strongest evidence 572 that the provenance of the SM is the Jewish-Christian congregation at Jerusalem. 57 3 Peculiar also is the change of preposition from £v to t:Z!>. There may, however, not be any difference in meaning, 574 and the change may be due to the common usage of the preposition t:l!> with places and especially with cities. 575 The expression also occurs with different shades of meaning elsewhere in the New Testament (see Matt 16:21; 20:17, 18; 21:1, 10; Acts 13:13; 15:4; 18:21; 20:16; 25:15, etc.). The form of the name for Jerusalem, 'It:pouoA.vp.a instead of 'It:povuaA.~p., is the more common one found

564 For parallels in Greek literature, see Hymn. Orph. 62.2; PGM LXXVII.I2-I3; Armand Delatte, Anecdota Atheniensia (Paris: Champion, I927) I.260, line 34. See also BAGD, s.v. 8povos I. b. 565 See above, n. 550. 566 Su;ch compulsion, well attested by the "magical formulae of compulsion" (lwavayKauros) in PGM, was regarded as the element in magic most offensive to religion. See esp. PGM IV.238-60, and on the subject Theodor Hopfner, Griechisch-iigyptischer Offenbarungszauber (2d ed.; Amsterdam: Hakkert, I974) I,§§ 688-92, 729, 785-86, 875, 876. See also idem, "Theurgie," PW, 2d series, II th half-volume (I936) 258-70; Betz, Hellenismus und Urchristentum, I78-79, 2I7. 567 See also Did. 2.2: ov p.ayevuns, ov app.aKevue&s ("you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice sorcery"); Doctr. apost. 2.2; Did. 5.I; Gal 5:20; Barn. 20.I; Rev I8:23; 2I:8; and on the whole subject BAGD, s.v. app.aKela KrA. 568 See, in contrast, PGM VII.836-37: lfopKl(;e u€, KVp&E l£vaTfAA( cou] KaTtt jlaiav T~1TOV 8Aov ICOU~oL&KoV KarU roV 1
569 See also Acts 7:49; Barn. I6.2; Philo Conf ling. 98; Jas 2:3; cf. LXX Pss 98:5; I09:I; Lam 2:1. See BAGD, s.v. bwowoa&ov; Folker Siegert, Philon von Alexandrien, Uber die Gottesbezeichnung "wohltiitig verzehrendes Feuer" (De Deo) (WUNT 46; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], I988) II9-20; Str-B 1.333. For a parallel in magic, see PGM LXXVII.I4. 570 Cf.theusageinMatt5:5, I3, I8;6:IO, 19;also5:45; 6:25-34. 57 I See, e.g., Burkert, Religion, 378; Hirzel, Eid, 10 n. 2. 572 See also Matt 5:14; 7:I3-I4. 573 For Jerusalem as the "navel of the earth" see also Martin Hengel, The "Hellenization" ofjudaea in the First Century after Christ (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, I989) 68 n. 45 (with further bibliography). 574 So BAGD, s.v. els, 6.b. 575 For references, see BAGD, s.v. els, 9.a.

ra

269

frequently in the synoptic tradition, Acts, and Paul (Gal 1:17, 18; 2:1; cf. the other form in Gal4:25, 26). 576 In Matthew, this form is used throughout, except in 23:37, where 'Ic:povuai'I.~J.t occurs, probably due to a source. 577 In magic, the name was known and employed in both forms. 578 That Jerusalem is known as "the city of the great king" appears to be a reference toPs 48:3 LXX, if the phrase is not already proverbial. 57 9 "Great king" is a divine epithet of Yahweh. 580 The title occurs in magic, too. 581 In the SM, it occurs only in Matt 5:35, but it indicates that one should connect any talk of kingdom with the notion of God's kingship, despite the fact that most of the time, the SM refers to God as Father. 58 2 • 36 The fourth and final example refers to swearing by one's head: "nor shall you swear by your head, for you cannot make (even) one hair white or black" (J.t~n €v Tfj Kc:rf>ai\fi uov OJJ.Ouns, CJn ov Bvvauat J.tlav Tplxa i\c:vK~v 7Totijuat ~ J.tb.. awav). Swearing by the head is attested in Jewish 583 as well as in non-Jewish sources, 584 and one

can therefore assume that it was generally popular. 585 That nobody can make a hair white or black is a proverbial 586 truism and a good example of such truisms often proving false. 587 Ancient medicine had developed ways of hair coloring, 588 and the Egyptians were known to have practiced it. 589 • 37 Introduced by B€ ("instead"), vs 37a takes us to the conclusion of the section on oaths: "Instead, let your word be 'Yes, yes, no, no"' (~uTw Bt i\oyos VJ.tWV vat val, oil oi!). This command, however, transcends the issue of oath taking and makes a statement about the nature and usage of language as a means of human communication regarding truth and falsity. 590 The term i\oyos ("word") here means more than promise and denial. It recognizes that promise and denial are general characteristics of human language, so that the taking of oaths must be related to this larger issue. What is at stake is that ordinary human language must suffice for human communication.

576 See Betz, Galatians, 73 n. 172, with further literature 584 See BAGD, s.v. ~•.Pa>.~, l.a, referring to Athenaeus and references. See also Dennis C. Duling, '"[Do Not 2.72 (p. 66c) as parallels; and Wettstein, 1.305-6, Swear ... J by Jerusalem Because It Is the City of the listing Greek and Roman passages; also Carl Sittl, Die Great King' (Matt 5:35)," JBL 110 (1991) 291-309; Gebarden der Griechen und Romer (Leipzig: Teubner Dennis D. Sylva, "Ierousalem and Hierosoluma in 1890), 139 n. 1; 140 n. 2; Hirzel, Eid, 33 n. 2. Luke-Acts," ZNW 74 (1983) 207-21. 585 See PGM IV .1916-1 7 for an oath sworn by the heads 577 See BAGD, s.v. 'I<pocnlAv/La; Georg Fahrer and of the underworld gods; and on this point see Sam Eduard Lohse, "I.tciJv ~rA"., TDNT 7.291-338; Lars Eitrem, Beitriige zur griechischen Religionsgeschichte Hartman, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s. v. 'I<pou6>.v/La, (Kristiania: Dybwad, 1917) 2.34. 'I<povuaA~IL· 586 Cf. Matt 10:30 I I Luke 12:7; 21:18; Acts 27:34, 578 PGM XII1.997-1001 on "the great name which is in which attest a similar proverbial expression Jerusalem" (rl> IL£ya lJvo/La rl> lv 'I<pouoAviLo•~); cf. concerning hair. Cf. also Matt 6:27. XIII.233-34: "as I have adjured you, child, by the 587 Such truisms may even be maintained at times when temple in Jerusalem" (Ws E£ciJpKr.triL ue, TEKvov, Ev T~ the opposite is commonly practiced. I rif> lv 'I<pouoAV!L'!'); IV.1221, 3069. See also 588 See the material in Wettstein, 1.306. In Menander TDNT 7.328 n. 231; Str-B 1.333. (Sam. 262) someone dyes his white hair. 579 See Str-B 1.333-34. 589 Sappho frg. 98a. See Margarethe Stephan, 580 melekgadol (Pss 47:3; 48:3; 95:3; Mal1:14; Tob "Haartracht," PWSup 6 (1935) 90-102; Bernhard 13:16; PhiloMigr. Abr. 146; Op. mun. 71, 88; Vita Kotting, "Haar," RAG 13 (1986) 176-203, esp. 195Mos. 1.166; etc.). See Jan Bergman, Helmer 99. Noteworthy are the comments by Tertullian De Ringgren, and R. Mosis, ThWAT 1.928, 946 (TDOT cultu feminarum 2 .6; Cyprian De habitu virginum 16. 2.391, 407-8); BAGD, s.v. ~autA.~, l.a; Michael Lattke, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s. v. ~•<j>a>.~, esp. sections 4a and b.

270

Matthew 5:21-48

As the ancients saw it, human language is a direct extension of the character of the person speaking it. 591 In communication with one another, we constantly make inferences from the trustworthiness of the words to the trustworthiness of the person. These inferences are also informed by tone, gestures, eye-to-eye contact, knowledge of the person's previous history, and so on. This entire process of communication is sufficient and is in no need of extralinguistic props. 592 If extralinguistic props are brought in, however, the normal flow of communication is imperiled, if not destroyed. This is the meaning of the statement in vs 37: "but anything exceeding these [words] is from (the) evil (one)" (root 1T£PL
breaking off suggest the clear sense of an oath without actually making it. But a person may add to his 'Yes' or 'No,' if he wishes, not, indeed, the highest and most venerable and primal cause, but earth, sun, stars, heaven, the whole universe." 596 Philo is satisfied if only the use of God's name is avoided. In contrast, the SM is more radical in ruling out anything superseding ordinary human language, a position Philo regards as ideal but unrealistic. 597 The thing ruled out by the SM, therefore, is magic, that is, magical props of all sorts. The reason given is that such props are "from the evil" (£K rov 7TOV1Jpov), that is, they have their origin in evil, or even in "the evil one" (Satan), and hence they result in evil. 598 That result is none other than perjury (£7TwpK~'iv), which is named in vs 33b. What must suffice, therefore, is the ordinary "Yes, yes, no, no," which is not an oath 599 but an intensified affirmation and denia1. 600 In conclusion, one can state that the argument in vss 33-37 does not merely justify the prohibition of oaths; it

591 Cf. Ps 37:30-31 (REB): • A righteous person speaks words of wisdom and justice is always on his lips." See also Prov 16:23;Job 8:10; 1 Kgs 3:9; etc. For further references see Hellmut Brunner, "'Eure Rede seija ja, nein nein' im Agyptischen," in his Das hOrende Herz: Kleine Schriften zur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte

592

593 594 595 596

(OBO 80; Fribourg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988). It is noteworthy that another reasoning that would be analogous to Matt 5:21-22 is not given here. A certain Eusebius (in Stobaeus Flor. 28.13), about whom nothing further is known, has argued that even the intention, without committing the act itself, is breaking the oath and is perjury. See on this point Hirzel, Eid, 78-79, who refers to the story of Leotychides in Herodotus 6.86. So the renderings in BAGD, s.v. w8
597 598

599 600

uvp.w6.vra KOup.ov. Cf. also Spec. leg. 2.6, where Philo criticizes "the lightness and heedlessness shown by some that they pass by [im
rouoVrov p.6vov "v~ n)v" ~ "p.h. nSv," p.1]0"fv

wpouwapa.\afJovr6.u
olJ

)'EV6fLEVOV. Q.A.A.h.

Kal 7rp0U7Tapa'A.a{3Jrw

TfS,

El

{3oVA£rat, p.~ p.lvrot rh ltvwrJrw Kal 7rpEu{3-6rarov EV8Vs arrtov, 0.AA0: yijv, 1/Atov, lurrlpas, oVpav6v, rhv

271

also explains how oaths lead inevitably to perjury. The inference to be drawn for ethics is clear: one can achieve avoidance of perjury only by abstaining from oaths altogether. Thus the passage 5:33-37, and vs 37 in particular, seems to make a moral rather then a religious argument in favor of a straightforward speaking of the truth. Behind this moral argument, however, emerge theoretical problems having to do with the philosophy of language. The question arises whether the SM was aware of these theoretical issues. These issues were discussed in ancient philosophy, and it could well be that the SM was somehow influenced by these discussions. 1. Rhetorically, the phrase, "Yes, yes, no, no," is epanadiplosis, the repetition of important words for emphasis. 601 This rhetorical feature, however, is an indication of a weakness of the human language itself. Through manipulation of the words or through deception, a "yes" can become a "no" and vice versa. 602 If language consists of "sounds" (cpwval) and "names" (ov&fA-aTa), 603 both can be and are all too often used in false and deceptive ways. The results are "lying" ("l/l£vaos), 604 "deception" (a'lTaTav, £ta'lTaT7Jins), 605 and

"error" ('lTA.av7J). 606 The correct and ethically responsible, that is, truthful, usage of the language was called 'lTapp7]ula ("outspokenness," "frankness," "plainness of speech"), 607 a notion that plays an important role in the ancient doctrines about friends and enemies. 608 2. The most incisive analysis of the strategies of deception was undertaken by the Socratic-Platonic critique of "sophistic rhetoric," especially in Plato and Aristotle. 609 In Plato's Phaedrus, for example, sophistic rhetoric is charged with systematically exploiting the possibilities in human language for "praising evil under the name of good" (260c). 610 Based on the theory that the "names" (ovO!J-aTa) and what they mean are the result of conventional agreement (6,uts) rather than being rooted in the nature of being (cpiJuts), the sophistic rhetorician has carefully studied the psychology of the masses for the purpose of creating an impression of truth, with no concern for truth itself. Rhetoric, therefore, appears to be the art and science of passing off the "yes" for the "no" and the "no" for the "yes." Socrates then advances a completely different theory, pointing to the speaker of the word (275c). 611 He speaks about the "begetting" (276a) of the word in the human

601 See BDF, § 493 (1), with examples; cf. also 432; Schwyzer, Grammatik, 2.597 n. 1. 602 Paul discusses such a possibility in 2 Cor 1:17-22, where he rejects what must have been an accusation by his adversaries in Corinth, "Was I vacillating when I wanted to do this? Do I make my plans like a worldly man, ready to say yes and no at once? As sure as God is faithful, our word to you has not been yes and no" (2 Cor 1:17-18 [RSV]). For the interpretation, see Hans Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief (KEK 6; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924), 63-66. Another parallel is Jas 5: 12; for the interpretation, see Dibelius and Conzelmann (james, 248-51 ), who render it, "Let your 'yes' be true and your 'no' be true" (249). See also the rabbinic parallels in Str-B 1.336. 603 See on this point H. Steinthal, Geschichte der

606 Cf. 2 Cor 6:8; Jas 5: 19; 2 Pet 2:15, and for the whole word field, Herbert Braun, ",.>..avd.w KTA.," TDNT 6.228-53. 607 So BAGD, s.v. '1Tapp7Jcrla, 1; see also Heinrich Schlier, ",.app7Jcrla KTA.," TDNT 5, 871-86. 608 Aristotle Eth. Nic. 9.2, p. 1165a 29-30; Plato Gorg. 487a-e; Lack. 188e; !socrates Or. 2.3; Philo Rer. div. her. 21. See Schlier, TDNT 5.871. 609 See Antje Hellwig, Untersuchungen zur Theorie der Rhetorik bei Platon und Aristoteles (Hypomnemata 38; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), esp. 151-321 on the ethos of the speaker. 610 On this passage see Hellwig, Untersuchungen, 78, 315. 611 Plato Phaedr. 275b-c: "SocRATES. They used to say, my friend, that the words of the oak in the holy place of Zeus at Dodona were the first prophetic utterances. The people of that time, not being so Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und Ri!mern mit wise as you young folks, were content in their besonderer Rilcksicht auf die Logik (2d ed.; Berlin: simplicity to hear an oak or a rock, provided only it Diimmler, 1890) 1.252-71. spoke the truth; but to you, perhaps, it makes a 604 Cf. Matt 5:11; Rom 1:25; Eph 4:25; Rev 14:4; Did. difference who the speaker is and where he comes 5.2; Barn. 20.2. See Hans Conzelmann, "l[F
272

Matthew 5:21-48

soul, "the word which is written with intelligence in the mind of the learner, which is able to defend itself and knows to whom it should speak, and before whom to be silent. "612 It is "the living and breathing word of him who knows." 613 3. The problem of whether the "names" have a root in nature or are the result of convention is the subject of Plato's Cratylus. 614 Cratylus advances the theory that only if the gods were the first givers of the names could one have any confidence in their being true: "I think the truest theory of the matter, Socrates, is that the power which gave the first names to things is more than human, and therefore the names must necessarily be correct" (438c). This idea refers to the theory of language associated with magic, for which the names of the gods are revealed by the gods themselves. The magician is the one who claims to possess the secret names of the deities and therefore to be able to control the universe itself. This language theory lies behind the words of the prayer of the magician inPGM IV.604-10: "because, on account of the pressing and bitter and inexorable necessity, I invoke the immortal names, living and honored, which never pass into mortal nature and are not declared in articulate speech by human tongue or mortal speech or mortal sound. "615 Socrates does not subscribe to this theory. Plato points

out (407e-408b) that the name of Hermes reveals by its etymology that, although it has the well-known connection with speech (A6yo!1), the god "is an interpreter [EPJ.A-'1/V(iJ!I] and a messenger, is wily and deceptive in speech, and is oratorical. "616 He is, according to ancient thought, identical with the Egyptian god Thoth, also foremost the god of speech and magic. 617 Given these circumstances, Socrates concludes that the things as they are in reality cannot be learned from the names they have but "much better through themselves than through names. "618 Socrates then tells "what I often dream about. •6 19 He dreams of seeing things as they really are and thus obtains unchangeable knowledge of them: "that which knows and that which is known. "620 This dream refers not only to the doctrine of the ideas but beyond it to ecstasy (€v8ovcnaup.6!1) and notions related to the mystery cults. 621 Plato's Cratylus does not deal with this background, however, but in 398e, Socrates points to it as the subject to be taken up on the next day: "So I think this is our duty: we ought today to make use of this wisdom and finish the investigation of names, but tomorrow, if the rest of you agree, we will conjure it away and purify ourselves, when we have found some one, whether priest or sophist, who is skilled in that kind of purifying. "6 2 2

612 Ibid., 276a: ''0~ p., f1Tt.UT~J.LWV a~ Aiynv T£ Ka'r. utyO.v 7rph~ oih· 0£t. 613 Ibid.: Thv roil
616

\

617

Sprachphilosophie im K ratylos und in den spiiteren Schriften (Impulse der Forschung 10; Darmstadt:

Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972); Jetske C. Rijlaarsdam, Platon uber die Sprache: Ein Kommentar zum K ratylos, mit einem Anhang uber die QueUe der Zeichentheorie Ferdinand de Saussures (Utrecht: Bohn, Scheltema & Holtema, 1978). For the discussion of

these problems in Neoplatonism, see Maurus Hirschle, Sprachphilosophie und Namenmagie im Neoplatonismus. Mit einem Exkurs zu Demokrit B 142

(BKP 96; Meisenheim, Glan: Hain, 1979). 615 The translation is that of Marvin Meyer, in Betz,

Greek Magical Papyri, 1.50. Cf. Philo's view that "in the very words of God are oaths and laws of God and most sacred ordinances; and a proof of this sure strength is that whatever He saith cometh to pass, and this is especially characteristic of an oath· (Leg. all. 3.204; trans. F.H. Colson and G.H. Whittaker). Plato Crat. 407 e-408a: Kal rb tpp.'lv'a ll.yy£Aov Ka'r. rh KA01TI.K6v Tf Ka'r. rh a1T«T1JA.hv Ev A6yot.s Ka& TO ayop&O"TIKOV. See PlatoPhaedr. 274c-275b, on the god Theuth (Thoth), the inventor of numbers, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, draughts and dice, and most important, letters (ypap.p.ara). Plato Crat. 439b: oi!K £( ovop.arwv, CzAAa ?ToAh p.aAAOV aVra. ft aVrWv Ka'r. p.a87JrJov Ka'r. (7]TTJrfov ~ fK rWv ' ' ovop.arwv. Ibid., 439c: 1l £ywy• ?TOAAtlKI~ ovnpwTTW. Ibid., 440b: rl> y•yvrouKOV, ~UTI ae rl> y•yvwuK
618

619 620 621 622

\'

I

273

What does the preceding discussion mean for the interpretation of Matt 5:37? It certainly does not suggest a direct connection between the SM and Plato, but there are indirect connections. Ifvs 37 does not spell out but does presuppose an underlying theory about language, clues may be found in other passages. There is other reflection in the SM as to who the "you" (vp.£'is) are whose speech is supposed to be truthful. The sixth beatitude (Matt 5:8) blesses those who are "pure in heart" (o! 1..£yovTos) seems too obvious to be a mere coincidence. 627

e. The Fifth Antithesis: Retaliation (Matt 5:38-42)

1tp.!wv r•s trn rwv uo,Purrwv. Gaiser (Name und Sache,

623 624

625

626

274

50) refers to Soph. 230B-E and Phaedr. 243A as parallels. See above on SM/Matt 5:8. Cf. also Num 30:3; Zech 8:17; Sir 23:9-10. Apart from SM/Matt 5:8 see 5:28; 6:21; on "soul" (lJ!vx~) see 6:25. Related areJas 1:21, 26-27; 3:118; 4:8; 5:5, 8; Matt 12:34-37. On this chapter see Hans Hubner, "Mark VII.1-23 und das 'judisch-hellenistische' Gesetzesverstandnis," NTS 22 (1976) 319-45;Jan Lambrecht, "Jesus and the Law: An Investigation ofMk 7, 1-23," ETL 53 (1977) 24-79; Heikki Raisanen, "Jesus and the Food Laws: Reflections on Mark 7:15," JSNT 16 (1982) 79-100. This interpretation is confirmed by the context in which the injunction against perjury occurs in later

Bibliography Banks,jesus and the Law, 196-99. Braun, Radikalismus, 2.92 n. 1. Idem, Qumran, 1.17. Bultmann,History, 135-36,148-49. C. John Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude to War (London: Headley, 1919; reprinted New York: Seabury, 1982) 22-25. Henri Clavier, The Duty and the Right of Resistance according to the Bible and to the Church (Dale Lectures, Oxford 1946; Oxford: Blackwell, 1956) 32-45. Idem, "Matthieu 5,39 et Ia non-resistance," Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses 37 (1957) 44-57. John D. Crossan, "Jesus and Pacifism," in James W. Flanagan and Anita Weisbrod Robinson, eds., No Famine in the Land: Studies in Honor ofjohn L. McKenzie (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1975) 195208. Stuart D. Currie, "Matthew 5:39a-Resistance or Protest?" HTR 57 (1964) 140-45. David Daube, "Matthew 5:39f," JTS 45 (1944) 177-78; see his NT and Rabbinic judaism, 254-65. Idem, Civil Disobedience in Antiquity (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 1972) 109-10. Lewis Donelson, "'Do Not Resist Evil' and the Question of Biblical Authority," Horizons in Biblical Theology 10 (1988) 33-46. Paul Fiebig, "Jesu Worte tiber die Feindesliebe," ThStK 91 (1918)30-64,305-6. Ludwig Gunther, Die Idee der Wiedervergeltung in der Geschichte und Philosophie des Strafrechts: Ein Beitrag zur universal-historischen Entwicklung desselben (parts 1-3, first half[no more published]; Erlangen: Blasing, 1889-95) 1.263-85.

tradition: Doctr. apost. 2.3-5; Did. 2.3-5; and Didasc. apost. Syr. 3.6 have to do with sins committed by speech. See Wohleb, Die lateinische Ubersetzung, 9293, with the apparatus. 627 See Hellwig, Untersuchungen, 298-321. Reference should also be made to the principle of fidelity that was part of Roman law and ethos: fit quod dicitur ("keeping one's word"). Schulz (Principles of Roman Law, 223-38) refers to Cicero Off 1.7.23; Rep. 4.7, and many other passages, among them 1 Mace 8:1, 12, and Pilate's words (John 19:22), "What I have written, I have written."

Matthew 5:21-48

Rudolf Hirzel, "Die Talion," Philologus, Supplementband 11 (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1907-10) 405-82, esp. 421-22. Hubner, Gesetz, 81-112. Gerhard Lohfink, "Der ekklesiale Sitz im Leben der AufforderungJesu zum Gewaltverzicht (Mt 5, 39b-42/Lk 6, 29)," ThQ 162 (1982) 236-53. Dieter Liihrmann, "Liebet eure Feinde (Lk 6, 2736/Mt 5, 39-48)," ZThK 69 (1972) 412-38. Fritz Neugebauer, "Die dargebotene Wange undJesu Gebot der Feindesliebe: Erwagungen zu Lk 6, 2736/Mt 5, 38-48," ThLZ 110 (1985) 865-76. Percy, Botschaftjesu, 148-52. Jerome Rausch, "The Principle of Nonresistance and Love of Enemy in Matt 5:38-42," CBQ 28 (1966) 31-41. Harald Sahlin, "Traditionskritische Bemerkungen zu zwei Evangelienperikopen," StTh 33 (1979) 69-94. Jiirgen Sauer, "Traditionsgeschichtliche Erwagungen zu den synoptischen und paulinischen Aussagen iiber Feindesliebe und Wiedervergeltungsverzicht," ZNW 76 (1985) 1-28. Luise Schottroff, "Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe in der urchristlichenJesustradition, Mt 5,38-48; Lk 6,27-36," in Georg Strecker, ed.,jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie: Neutestamentliche FS for Hans Conzelmann (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1975)

197-221; ET: "Non-Violence and the Love of One's Enemies," in Schottroff, Essays, 9-40. Schulz, Q, 120-127. Krister Stendahl, "Hate, Non-Retaliation, and Love (JQS X,17-20 and Rom 12:19-21)," HTR 55 (1962) 343-55. Strecker," Antithesen," 63-65. Robert C. Tannehill, "The 'Focal Instance' as a Form of New Testament Speech," JR 50 (1970) 372-85. Gerd Theissen, "Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe (Mt 5, 38-48/Lk 6, 27-38)," in his Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums (WUNT 19; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1979) 160-97. Anton Vogtle, "Ein 'unablassiger Stachel' (Mt 5,39b42 par. Lk 6,29-30)," in Helmut Merklein, ed., Neues Testament und Ethik: [FS Jfor Rudolf Schnackenburg (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna:

Herder, 1989) 53-70. Jakob Weismann, "Zur Erklarung einer Stelle in der Bergpredigt," ZNW 14 (1913) 175-76. Werner Wolbert, "Bergpredigt und Gewaltlosigkeit," Theologie und Philosophie 57 (1982) 498-525. Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 55-60.

1 ) Analysis The composition of the fifth antithesis dealing with retaliation follows a pattern familiar from the preceding antitheses. The omissions correspond to those of the second antithesis (5:27-30). The unit as a

whole is well worked out in its construction and argumentation and has two clearly distinguishable parts. First, the beginning (vs 38a) contains the refutation of the inadequate interpretation of the ius talionis, in itself a statement ofhalakah. This refutation is introduced by the "chain of tradition," mentioning the present recipients and the divine origin of the tradition ("it was said"); the past recipients are not mentioned. The talio formula is quoted as Scripture in vs 38b; its inadequate interpretation is not stated separately but left to the reader to infer from the right interpretation ofvs 39a. Second, the argument in favor of the adequate interpretation is set forth by a set of four (or five) examples composed in a parallel manner as an isocolon of five sentences. The first three sentences are completely parallel except for alternating between a relative clause (vss 39b, 41a: li
Excursus: Ius Talionis ("Law of Equal Retribution") The fifth antithesis, with its reference to the famous talio formula, leads into the field of the history of law.

In considering this antithesis, one must distinguish between the graphically descriptive formula, "eye for eye and tooth for tooth," and the principle it expresses. Both formula and principle belong to the most ancient stock oflegal rules in Western culture, yet their understanding is not without problems. The origin of the talio principle is unknown, as is the etymology of the Latin word talio itself, the name by which the principle was known in antiquity. From ancient sources as well as from modern investigations, it is clear that the talio indicates a particular stage in the development

275

oflegal thought and practice (see Diamond, Cardascia, in the bibliography below). Ancient sources testify that the talio principle replaced a primitive system of indiscriminate cycles of blood revenge. It is thus incorrect to identify the formula "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" with blood revenge, as is often done. On the contrary, the original purpose of the talio principle was to limit, or even to eliminate, revenge by revising the underlying concept ofjustice. Justice was no longer obtained by revenge but by proportionate punishment of the offender or by substitutional compensation. The following points seem to be clear and should be kept in mind as we interpret the SM passage: 1. As a legal principle, the ius talionis stipulates that the corporal punishment of the perpetrator of a violent injury must be similar or equal to the injury sustained. If the. punishment is incommensurate, a new injustice is created and justice is not served. 2. The legal principle underlies virtually all penal systems in antiquity, including the Old Testament and Judaism, and those of today as well. 3. The talio principle corresponds to the classic definition of justice (Uipian Dig. 1.1.1 0): "Justice is a steady and enduring will to render unto everyone his right. The basic principles of right are: to live honorably, not to harm any other person, to render to each his own" ("Justitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius suum cuique tribuendi. I uris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere"). For the notion of justice and suum cuique, see also above on SM/Matt 5:20. 4. The talio principle is closely related to the ethical principle of the Golden Rule. Whereas the law punishes the perpetrator of a criminal offense after it has occurred, the Golden Rule as an ethical principle considers and recommends preventive initiatives to be taken after the offense has occurred and instead of the expected revenge, so as to break up the cycle of violence and counterviolence (for discussion see below on SM/Matt 7: 12; SP/Luke 6:31). The justification for this initiative lies in the principle of law according to which injustice incurred cannot be rectified by new injustice. The principle of "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" had appeared already in the Code of Hammurabi (§ 196): "If a seignior has destroyed the eye of a member of the aristocracy, they shall destroy his eye." The social standing of the perpetrator and the victim being equal, the punishment must equal the injury. But if their standing is unequal, compensation by money is in order: "If he has destroyed the eye of a commoner, he shall pay one mina of silver. If he has destroyed the eye of a seignior's slave or broken the bone of a seignior's slave, he shall pay one-half his value"(§§ 198-99). Correspondingly, "if a seignior has knocked out the tooth of a seignior of his own rank, they shall knock out his tooth. If he has knocked out a

276

commoner's tooth, he shall pay one-third mina of silver"(§§ 200-201, ANET, 175). According to these laws, then, "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" refers to corporal punishment or monetary compensation, with eye and tooth being only exemplary possibilities in a series of dafl¥lges. This kind of law is found in even older law codes of ancient Mesopotamia (see FrymerKensky). In Greco-Roman law, the talio principle was fundamental. Here also its original purpose was to do away with blood revenge (see Aeschylus Choephori 304; cf. 301; Sophocles Oed. Tyr. 100; Plutarch Romulus 7.23.1-3; Cato 15.3; Dionysius ofHalicarnassus 2.5253; Quintilian Inst. 5.10.14; XII Tables 8.4 [Aulus Gellius Noctes Atticae 20.1.14)). Private revenge was not immediately eliminated and continued to exist in some areas such as adultery and burglary by night. The execution of punishment was the personal responsibility of the victim or, if the victim was unable, of the next of kin. Thus the ius talionis belongs to private law whether retribution was understood as punishment or as compensation. Roman as well as Jewish law greatly expanded monetary compensation, the amount of which had to be settled by agreement between victim and perpetrator. As a result, one must conclude that abstaining from retaliation altogether is an extreme form of limitation, but as such it does not contradict the ius talionis (cf. esp. also Livy 3.58.4). Apart from compensation, forgiveness or mercy (dementia) could also express such abstention. Moreover, the postponement of retaliation from this life to the hereafter seems to have been part of ancient tradition as well (see, e.g., Plato Rep. 10,615c; Pausanias 10.28.4; T. Gad 6.7; Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 77; 2 Enoch 50.4; Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30).

Bibliography Albrecht Alt, "Zur Talionsformel," ZAW 11 (1934) 303-5; reprinted in his Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Munich: Beck, 1953) 1.341-44. David W. Amram, "Retaliation and Compensation," in his Studies in jewish Jurisprudence (New York: Hermon, n.d.) 2.191-211; first published in]QR 2 (1911/12) 191-211. Joel Blau, "Lex Talionis," Yearbook of the Central Conference of American Rabbis 26 (1916) 336-66 (with additional discussion, 366-75). Guillaume Cardascia, "La place du talion dans l'histoire du droit penal a Ia lumiere des droits du Proche-orient ancien," in Melanges offerts aJean Dauvillier (Toulouse: Centre d'histoire juridique meridionale, Universite de Toulouse, 1979) 16993. Boaz Cohen, "Law and Ethics in the Light of the

Matthew 5:21-48

Jewish Tradition," in his Law and Tradition in judaism (New York: KTAV, 1969) 182-238; also in his jewish and Roman Law: A Comparative Study (2 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1966) 1.65-121. Haim H. Cohn, "Talion," in Elon, Principles, 525-26. David Daube, "Lex Talionis," in his Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 194 7; reprinted New York: KTAV, 1969, 102-53). Idem, "Eye for Eye," in his NT and Rabbinic judaism, 254-65. Idem, Civil Disobedience in Antiquity (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 1972). Arthur Sigismund Diamond, "An Eye for an Eye," Iraq 19 (1957) 151-55. Idem, Primitive Law Past and Present (London: Methuen, 1971) 98-101, 398-99. Albrecht Dihle, Die Goldene Regel: Eine Einfuhrung in die Geschichte der antiken und fruhchristlichen Vulgiirethik (Studienhefte zur Altertumswissenschaft 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962). Idem, "Goldene Regel," RAG 11 (1981) 930-40.

Jacob J. Finkelstein, "The Goring Ox: Some Historical Perspectives on Deodands, Forfeitures, Wrongful Death and the Western Notion of Sovereignty," Temple Law Quarterly 46 (1973) 169-290. Louis Finkelstein, "An Eye for an Eye," Menorah journal24 (1936) 207-18. Tikva Frymer-Kensky, "Tit for Tat: The Principle of Equal Retribution in Near Eastern and Biblical Law," Biblical Archaeologist 43 (1980) 230-34. Ezechiel Eduard Goitein, Das Vergeltungsprincip im biblischen und talmudischen Strafrecht (Inauguraldissertation, Halle-Wittenberg, 1891; Frankfurt, 1893). Ludwig Gunther, Die Idee der Wiedervergeltung in der Geschichte und Philosophie des Strafrechts: Ein Beitrag zur universal-historischen Entwicklung desselben, parts

1-3, first half(Erlangen: Blasing, 1889-95). Oda Hagemeyer, "'Wenn dir jemand einen Streich gibt auf deine rechte Backe ... '(Matthaus 5, 39)," in Traditio-Krisis-Renovatio aus theologischer Siehl: FS Winfried Zeller (Marburg: Elwert, 1976) 10-23. Arnold Herdlitczka, "Talio," PW, 2d series, 8th halfvolume (1932) 2069-77. Karl Friedrich Hermann, Uber Grundsiitze und Anwendung des Strafrechts im griechischen Alterthume

(AAWG.PH 6; Gottingen: Dieterich, 1856) 267321. Rudolf Hirzel, "Die Talion," Philologus, Supplementband 11 (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1907-10) 405-82. J. Horovitz, "Auge urn Auge, Zahn urn Zahn," in judaica: FS zu Hermann Cohens siebzigsten Geburtstag

(Berlin: Cassirer, 1912) 609-58. Bernard S.Jackson, "The Problem ofExod. XXI 2225 (Ius Talionis)," VT 23 (1973) 273-304;

reprinted in his Essays in Jewish and Comparatzve Legal History (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 75-107. Benno Jacob, Auge um Auge: Eine Untersuchung zum Alten und Neuen Testament (Berlin: Philo, 1929). ErnstJenni and D. Vetter, "!'P, 'ajin Auge," THAT 2.259-68. Herbert F. Jolowicz, "The Assessment of Penalties in Primitive Law," in Cambridge Legal Essays, Written in Honour of and Presented to Doctor Bond (Cambridge: Heffer, 1926) 203-22. The Digest ofjustinian (Latin text, ed. Theodor Mommsen with the aid of Paul Kruger; ET, ed. Alan Watson; vols. 1-4; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1985). Klaus Koch, ed., Um das Prinzip der Verge/tung in Religion und Recht des A/ten Testaments (W dF 125; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972). Geoffrey MacCormack, "Revenge and Compensation in Early Law," American journal of Comparative Law 21 (1973) 69-85. Erwin Merz, Die Blutrache bei den Israeliten (BW ANT 20; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916). J. K. Mikliszanski, "The Law of Retaliation and the Pentateuch," JBL 66 (1947) 295-303. Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law ofDamages, part 1: Baba Qamma (SJLA 35.1; Leiden: Brill, 1983). Joseph Norden, "Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn": Eine umstrittene Bibelstelle (Berlin: Philo, 1926). Jan Quaegebeur, "Vergeltung," LdA 6 (1986) 985-86. Willy Schottroff, "Zum alttestamentlichen Recht," VF 22 (1977) 3-29. Heinz-Horst Schrey, "Gewalt/Gewaltlosigkeit, I: Ethisch," TRE 13 (1984) 168-78. K. Seybold, "~Q;gamal," ThWAT 2.24-35 (TDOT 3.23-33). Jakob Weismann, "Talion und offentliche Strafe im mosaischen Rechte," in FS fur AdolfWach (2 vols.; Leipzig: Meiner, 1913) 1.1-100.

2) Interpretation

• 38 As mentioned above, the fifth antithesis, which

concerns retaliation, opens with a refutation of the inadequate interpretation of the respective Torah commandment. Parallel to the other antitheses, reference is made to the "chain of tradition": "You have heard that it was said" (~ICoVuau Cin f.pp£81J). The present recipients are named, and God is recognized as the originator of what was said in the authoritative tradition of the Torah. The past recipients are not mentioned. This pattern corresponds to that of the second antithesis (5:27-30). The quotation from Scripture is the famous 277

principle of ius talionis ("law of equal retribution"), for which see the excursus above. Rhetorically, the statement, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tOOth" (ocp8aAp.OV tLVTt ocp8aA.p.ov Kat ooJvTa tLVTt ooJvTOS)628 is an isocolon COnsisting of tWO COla, both of which contain a polyptotic geminatio. 629 The language is descriptive rather than prescriptive, although like all rules, the principle functions in a prescriptive or normative manner. Parallels indicate that other cola could have provided additional examples: "then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exod 21:23-25 [RSV]); 630 or "fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Lev 24:20 [RSV]); or "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Deut 19:21 [RSV]); or "skin for skin" Qob 2:4). 631 The contexts of these passages show that the statements contain examples of equal compensation. 632 These considerations, however, do not automatically solve all existing problems. Are these compensations to be taken in the literal or the symbolic sense? 633 Is the ius talionis thus exemplified to be carried out literally?634 Is

it by itself a practicable law, 635 or is it merely a theoretical principle to be implemented through other concrete laws? Or is it simply proverbial?636 What does "for" (ttvTl) mean? Does it allude to the procedure of exchange ("something given in place of something else"), 637 or does it involve sacrificial ideas of vicariousness or substitution?638 Still widely disputed today, these problems were given various interpretations in antiquity. Turning to SM/Matt 5:38, one can draw several conclusions from these queries. The quotation is not concerned with a specific Old Testament context but with the legal principle of the Torah generally as it is exemplified by "eye for eye and tooth for tooth." The colon "life for life" (o/vx~v ttvTI o/vxfis) found in Exod 21 :23; Deut 19:21 (cf. Job 2:4) is omitted, as David Daube has rightly observed, 639 justifying the conclusion that the SM passage is not concerned with murder but that it is concerned with violent attacks. Furthermore, the quotation presupposes that in analogy to the preceding Torah interpretations in the SM, the citation was interpreted in a literal way. One can conclude that the literal interpretation was to be refuted. The literal interpretation was attributed by rabbinic

628 The Kal ("and") is not attested in D jl 3 it mae. The omission may be due to secondary conformity with LXX Exod 2I:24; Lev 24:20; Deut I9:21. 629 Lausberg, Handbuch I,§ 648, 4 (p. 329). 630 On this passage see the important essay by BernardS. Jackson, "The Problem of Exod. XXI 22-5 (Ius Talionis)," VT 23 (1973) 273-304; reprinted in his Essays in Jewish and Comparative Legal History (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 75-I07. 631 The principle is announced here by Satan, "Skin for skin. All that a man has he will give for his life." See Friedrich Horst,Hiob (BKAT 16.1; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, I968) 1.24-25. Cf. the Ugaritic expression "house for house" (bita kima bita); see Jean Nougayrol, Le Palais Royal de Ras Shamra (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1955) 3, no. 16.383. I am indebted to Professor Walter Michel for the references. 632 Cf. Lev 24:19: "as he has done it shall be done to him"; furthermore Deut 19:19. 633 See Weismann, "Talion," 22, giving as examples Deut 25:1I-I2 for the real, and Wis II :I5-I6 for the symbolic, understanding. See also Gen 9:6; Num 5:2I, 22; Wis 12:23. 634 On these options see Jackson, "Problem," 282-304. 635 A subsidiary question is whether at different times it was practiced as law or regarded as a theoretical rule.

278

636 63 7

638

639

For the real punishment, see J udg I: 7; but later it was apparently no longer practiced. See Jackson, "Problem," 280-81. See Jackson, "Problem," 282. So David Daube, Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University, I947; reprinted New York: KTAV, I969) I03-7, taking the Hebrew ta~at in the sense of £.,.6, Latin sub. So esp. Albrecht Alt, "Zur Talionsformel," ZAW 1I (I934) 303-5, reprinted in his Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Munich: Beck, I953) 1.34I-44. Alt assumes a cultic origin of the formula, which only later was turned into a legal principle, and bases this judgment on Punic inscriptions, comparable to passages such as Gen 4:23; 22:I-I4; Exod 22:29; 34:20, etc. David Daube, Civil Disobedience in Antiquity (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, I972) IIO.

Matthew 5:21-48

theology toR. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (c. 90 CE), according to b. B. Qam. 84a: "eye for eye, (means) actual eye for eye, "640 and to the Sadducees and the Boethusians. Josephus (Ant. 4.280) leaves the choice among the options to the person who has incurred the damage: "He that maimeth a man shall undergo the like, being deprived of that limb whereof he deprived the other, unless indeed the maimed man be willing to accept money; for the law empowers the victim himself to assess the damage that has befallen him and makes this concession, unless he would show himself too severe." 641 Providing for compensation corresponds to the Pharisaic doctrine, although the Pharisees required that the tribunal, rather than the victim, assess the amount. 642 Philo, however, censures those legislators "who prescribe for malefactors punishments which do not resemble the crime, such as monetary fines for assaults, disenfranchisement for wounding or maiming another, expulsion from the country and perpetual banishment for willful murder or imprisonment for theft." In a long discussion (Spec. leg. 3.181-204), 643 which is part of the consideration of the laws concerning the sixth (Philo's seventh) commandment of the Decalogue, Philo gives special consideration to the prohibition of murder (Spec. leg. 3.183-204). In Philo's view, these types of compensation, because of inequality and incompatibility, are inimical to a community that pursues truth (ibid., 3.181). "Our law exhorts us to equality when it ordains that the penalties inflicted on offenders should correspond to their actions, that their property should suffer if the wrongdoing affected their neighbor' s644 property, and their bodies if the offense was a bodily injury, the penalty being determined according to the limb, part or sense affected, while if his malice extended to taking another's life, his own life should be the forfeit"

(ibid., 3.182). In commenting on the eye, Philo inserts a long discussion of the significance of the organ for vision based on Platonic ideas (ibid., 3.184-97). 645 The eye has "the lordship of the senses" (T(;lV alcr6~cr£wv Tb KpaTos &v,SwK£V ocp6a>.p.o'i:s [ibid.' 3.184 ]). The eyes were also the instrument through which the human "mind" (vovs) first beheld the higher roads of philosophical contemplation (ibid., 3.185 ). This took place by fixing the sight on the celestial cosmos of the sun, the moon, and the stars (ibid., 3.187-89), followed by scientific investigations of things on earth (ibid., 3.190-91). At the same time, the eye is closely akin to the soul and the inner world (ibid., 3.19294). It makes sense, therefore, for the literal application that giving the most precious organ in restitution for the destruction of the eye of another should be applied with full vigor to the freeman as well as the slave (ibid., 3.195-98). The same principle applies to the tooth, which Philo suggests is the second most important organ because all nutrients go through the teeth (ibid., 3.200). A comparison of eye and tooth (ibid., 3.201-2) leads to a summary of the argument (ibid., 3.203-4) and the conclusion: "For anyone who deprives another of the instruments needed to preserve existence is well on the way to murder, since his hostile intentions extend to attacking life itself" (ibid., 3.204). According to Philo, compensation less than equal constitutes "irregularity and inequality" (Th &vd:Jp.a>.ov Kat CivLcrov), the antithesis of "equality" (1cr6T'17S) as required by justice. 646 In effect, therefore, those lesser compensations lead to the "abolishing of the laws" (KaTa>./;nv v6p.ovs); 647 only equal retribution fulfills the Torah. For all his polemics, however, Philo does not name the legislators whom he criticizes. We do not even know

640 On this point see Amram, "Retaliation," 204, 21 0; Str-B 1.340-41; 4/1.350-51 (nos 3, 7). Harvey Falk (jesus the Pharifee: A New Look at the jewishness ofjesus [New York and Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist, 1985]118) believes that Jesus' critique was directed against R. Eliezer's interpretation, not the Pharisees in general, but the SM does not distinguish between these two positions. 641 According to the LCL translation by H. St. J. Thackeray,josephus (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1930) 4.611. 642 See Thackeray's n. d (ibid., pp. 610-11), referring to

b. B. Qam. 83b; furthermore Str-B 1.337-41. 643 On Philo's treatment of the talio principle see Samuel Belkin, Philo and the Oral Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1940) 96-103; Heinemann, Philons griechische und judische Bildung, 346-83. 644 The phrase aSIK07rpayiiv TWV 7rA7J<Tiov shows that it is a violation of the commandment to love one's neighbor (see SM/Matt 5:43). 645 See also Betz, Essays, 75-84 (on Philo, see 84). 646 Philo Spec. leg. 3.181. 647 Ibid., 182.

279

whether the courts of his day did carry out or were willing to carry out his rigorous standards. Most likely, he argues against the prevailing liberal application of the law.648 How does Philo's position compare with the SM? On the whole, the SM rejects the literal application ofthe ius talionis but for a reason different from Philo's legislators. 649 While Philo criticizes the current court practices in general, the SM discusses the interpretative problem of Torah exegesis: Is interpretation to be literal or according to intent? Although the SM is aware of the charge that Jesus abolished the Torah (see above on SM/Matt 5: 17), the issue in 5:38-42 is not equal retribution versus compensation. In the SM, the ius talionis is treated as a general legal principle, not as a measure for fixing punishment for crimes committed. • 39 This verse introduces what the SM considers to be the adequate interpretation of the principle of reciprocity, prefaced by the doctrinal formula identifying authority (vs 39a): "But I tell you not to retaliate [or: resist] against the evildoer" (lyw at- A.(yro vp.'iv p.~ aVTUTTijVa! TClJ 1TOV1]pi!J). Because every word in this apodictic prohibition is controversial, our analysis can proceed only with a careful examination of each element. The construction of Jesus' teaching in the form of a negative infinitive 650 is parallel to vs 34, "not to swear an oath at all" (p.~ op.ouat CfA.ros). Most difficult is the interpretation of the verb av8{CTT1]fJ.!. Is the meaning general, "set (oneself) up against, oppose, resist, withstand," 651 or is it more specific, "go to law"? 652 Is its force more passive, as in "resist," or more active, as in

"retaliate"? The consequences of decisions here are enormous. If "resist" is the correct rendering, does it imply that the Christian exclude any form of self-defense or selfprotection? Are all forms of prevention, avoidance, or other means of combating evil prohibited? If so, does Christian ethics demand that one allow evil to take its course? And how can one distinguish such nonresistance from compliance and collusion with evil, or at the least, with outright submission to evil? The translation "resist," which the RSV and most other standard translations prefer, 653 leaves only two options: either to regard the position as proposed to be immoral and unethical, or to construe it as a sort of "radicalism." Radicalism of whatever sort, however, can never be accepted as an excuse for condoning injustice. Ethically, there can be no question that total nonresistance to evil constitutes an irrational and unjustifiable position incompatible with the rest of early Christian teaching and its numerous admonitions to combat, avoid, or escap~ from evil. 654 Any decision about the translation of avnuTijVa! must be made on the basis of an analysis of the context determined by the interpretation of the ius talionis. This legal and ethical principle concerns retaliation, that is, the question which action to take in the face of injury incurred so that justice is done. Given this background and the illustrative examples in vss 39b-42, the answer to the problem can only be that the issue is nonretaliation and that avnuTijvat must be translated as "Do not retaliate."

648 See Amram, "Retaliation," 203: "Retaliation was still legally recognized but practically abandoned." See also J. K. Mikliszanski, "The Law of Retaliation and the Pentateuch," jBL 66 (1947) 295-303. 649 Cf. Boaz Cohen, Law and Tradition in judaism (New York: KTAV, 1969) 207, who argues that the rabbis favored compensation "because a consistently strict application of the rule would lead to a violation of the intent and purpose of the law." 650 The force is imperatival; cf. BDF, § 389; BDR, § 389; Moule, Idiom Book, 126-27. 651 See BAGD, s.v. avliluT7jJJ.I, 1. Cf. aVT&KaliluT7jJJ.I, Heb 12:4, and on this Spicq, Notes, 1.102-4. 652 So Daube, NT and Rabbinic judaism, 259 n. 2, with reference to Deut 19:18; Isa 59:12;Jer 14:7; and Isa 50:8. Daube translates: "Resist not the wicked man," or "Do not prosecute the wicked man."

280

653 Cf. NEB: "Do not set yourself against the man who wrongs you." Though vague, this may be the best translation because the Greek is also vague. Cf. also jB: "offer the wicked man no resistance" (with a footnote stating the resulting ethical dilemma); REB: "Do not resist those who wrong you." The term "resist" comes from the V g: non resistere malo. Cf. Luther (1545) 2.1975: "Dasjr nicht widerstreben solt dem vbel." 654 Cf. esp. passages like Rom 12:9; 1 Cor 5:13; 1 Thess 5:22; 2 Thess 3:3; Eph 6:13, or the catalogues of vices (see Betz, Galatians, 281-83).

Matthew 5:21-48

One may understand retaliation in antiquity as well as today to consist of indiscriminate revenge motivated by irrational rage or passion; one may also distinguish it from reasoned judicial punishment or other legal responses. 655 But excessiveness and irrationality are not the issue. Rather, in ethical terms, retaliation means to "return evil with evil," which amounts to what Plato calls clVTaa"ct-'iv Or clVTLICaiCOVpyltV ("return injustice for injustice," or "return infliction of evil for infliction of evil"). 656 Such actions, however, are irreconcilable with justice in that they simply cause more injustice. 657 The object T(i> 7TOV71Pii> can refer to the person committing the offense, 658 or to the devil, 659 or to evil as an impersonal force. 660 Only the context can determine which of these options applies to vs 39. Since vss 39b-42 list types of evildoers, one must also assume the personal meaning for vs 39a. The SM dearly presents Jesus as unequivocally prohibiting retaliation. The question here, on which everything else in the passage depends, is, How can one construe such a prohibition as a fulfillment of the principle of reciprocity? Present New Testament scholarship is in virtual agreement that vs 39a contradicts vs 38b, saying that the SM opposes the Torah with its own command, disavowing retaliation and vengeance, and advocating submission to the evildoer. 661 Is the

point that the SM, in the name ofJesus, recommends humility, meekness, and "pacifism"? The SM does recommend such virtues: humility in 5:3; meekness in 5:5; peacemaking in 5:9, and reconciliation in 5:21-26. All the antitheses recommend all these virtues in a general way. Is the point the same one that Paul makes in 1 Cor 6:1-8? Are the believers to be comforted, as Strecker thinks, by the conviction that even in defeat they are in the hands of God's love? 662 Such theological reasoning, however, seems to represent the theology of the evangelist Matthew, or even that of Paul. 66 3 I conclude that this interpretation involves a soteriology in which a "Christian law of love" is set up in opposition to the Jewish Torah and its order for vengeance by a redeemer, Jesus, who does away with that kind ofTorah. 664 That this construction is a modern Christian apologetic, however, has been pointed out repeatedly, especially by Jewish scholars. 665 At times, these Jewish scholars developed their own apologetics, both to make their Jewish position appear realistic and thus plausible, and to ridicule the Christian point of view as an unrealistic and sentimental romanticism. Representative of such counterapologetics is the comment by Boaz Cohen about Matt 5:39-40: "the ultra-violent reaction of the gospels to the legal principle of retaliation with an extremely pacifist ethic of non-resistance to evil would have struck the rabbis of the Talmud as an unrealistic

655 This has been pointed out by Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. See the instructive survey of patristic and medieval exegesis in Tholuck, Bergrede, 286-92 (Commentary, 266-76). 656 Plato Crit. 49B-D; 54C; Theaet. 173A. 657 See also the discussion below on SM/Matt 5:43. 658 For this meaning see also SM/Matt 5:45; 7:11; SP/Luke 6:35, 45. See BAGD, s.v. 1TOV1jp6r, 2.a. 659 This meaning may be attested in the Lord's Prayer (see below on SM/Matt 6: 13), and is certainly found injas 4:7: "Therefore, be obedient to God, but resist the devil [lwr{
662 See Strecker, Sermon, 83: "Even while being overcome by evil, even in defeat, believers know that they are borne by the agape of God." 663 Strecker (Bergpredigt, 86 [Sermon, 83]) takes recourse to 1 Cor 6:1ff. 664 So Strecker (Bergpredigt, 86 [Sermon, 82-83]), but there is a problem when he says in the preceding paragraph that it would be a misunderstanding to assume that the ius talionis is a call to take the law into one's own hands (Selbstjustiz), even though this might be suggested by the text. 665 See esp. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature, 50-59; Joseph Klausner,jesus ofNazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching (trans. Herbert Danby; New York: Macmillan, 1925) 363-68, 381-97; Friedlander, Sources, 65-69. Apologetic as these works are, given a modern point of view, they do not consider the diversity within judaism at the time of jesus and therefore cannot explain the polemic in the antitheses in any other way than by attributing them to later Christian redaction.

281

interpretation of a goal realizable only by a few saints on earth, for the Torah was not intended for angels." 666 Here, the "idealist" interpretation by liberal Christian theologians 667 has led to a thoroughly negative reading; but one must not confuse this interpretation with the meaning of the SM. Cohen is right when he emphasizes that "the principle of reciprocity to this very day constitutes the essence of the unwritten law that governs individuals in their private relations with one another."668 Another issue is raised by David W. Amram, who points out that Jesus' position presupposes that the rabbinical law as we know it was not in existence at the time. "Had the rabbinical law been fully developed and had it then been generally accepted that eye for eye means money for eye, it is unlikely that he [sc. Jesus] would have completely ignored it. "669 In other words, the rabbinical laws of compensation provided a different solution to the same problem, presumably because they sharedJesus' concerns. Joel Blau was equally correct when he observed in regard to the passage in the SM that "non-resistance may mean pity towards the individual, but it means cruelty towards society." 670 In answering this criticism of Christianity, Rabbi Felix A. Levy pointed out two facts that one should give due consideration. First, our understanding of the ius talionis today has grown out of Roman law, in which the law of reciprocity received its fullest elaboration. In addition, because Jesus' basic point was well taken and made sense, his doctrine of nonresistance has long been a part of our legal principles and our

moral concepts: "Our theories of crime and penology and social reform, while they may agree with the Jewish principle, have evolved from the Roman conception of law tempered by New Testament teachings, and Christianity has made valuable contributions as well as Judaism." 671 Yet while these controversies make fascinating reading in and of themselves, they do not help much in understanding the passage of the SM under investigation; they are all too quick to assume, erroneously, that the meaning of this passage is fairiy obvious. 672 As far as SM/Matt 5:38-39 is concerned, one must distinguish between, and then explicate, two problems: (1) the meaning of the ius talionis as cited in vs 38b; and (2) the nature and meaning of the position of nonretaliation as advocated in vs 39a. 1. The interpretation of the "ius talionis." In discussing the law ofreciprocity (see above on vs 38), I have pointed out that the SM rejects a "literal" interpretation because such an interpretation was and usually is taken as a call for retaliation. Why is this interpretation in error, and what better interpretation should replace it? According to the SM, the "literal" interpretation is mistaken because it is incompatible with the "intent" of the Torah. If the Torah represents 'justice" (otKatouiJVTJ [see on SM/Matt 5:20]), and if the teaching of Jesus based on the Torah leads to greater justice, then retaliation cannot be part ofthe Torah. Retaliation would simply lead to greater injustice. Within the framework of the SM, retaliation is certainly contrary to Lev 19:18 (SM/Matt 5:43), the command to love one's

666 Cohen, Law and Tradition, 208; also idem, jewish and 671 Ibid., 375. Roman Law, 1.91. Similarly,]. K. Mikliszanski, "The 672 Of interest in this regard is the critique of the SM Law of Retaliation and the Pentateuch," JBL 66 from a Jewish point of view by Benno Jacob (Auge um (1947) 295-303, esp. 302-3: "his [sc.Jesus'] views Auge: Eine Untersuchung zum AT und NT [Berlin: expressed in the Sermon on the Mount are within the Philo, 1929]), esp. 121-37. Relying on the collection idealistic realm of pity and self-sacrifice." of parallels made by Heinrici, Jacob concludes that 667 For the history of interpretation, see Ursula Berner, Jesus here does not criticize the Jewish morality of Die Bergpredigt: Rezeption und Auslegung im 20. the Torah but conventional pagan morality, in a way similar to the Greek philosophers. Jahrhundert (GT A 12; 3d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985); Luz, Matthiius, 1.298-302 (Matthew, 1.331-35). 668 Cohen, Law and Tradition, 208; also in idem, jewish and Roman Law, 1.91. 669 Amram, "Retaliation," 203. 670 Joel Blau, "Lex Talionis," Yearbook of the Central Conference of American Rabbis 26 (1916) 336-66, with additional discussion, 366-75.

282

Matthew 5:21-48

neighbor. Ethically, retaliation is precisely what the Golden Rule (SM/Matt 7:12) seeks to overcome. Consequently, there is no way to justify the "literal" understanding of the ius talionis as leading to the fulfillment of the Torah. The SM instead proceeds by assuming that the original intent of the principle of reciprocity was to curtail and eliminate vengeance. 673 As historians oflaw have pointed out, the talio principle undeniably emerged as one of the first legal principles to combat indiscriminate personal revenge, especially blood revenge. As required by "equality" (luon7s), which was considered a part of 'justice" (StKatouvv1]), 674 retribution must correspond "like for like" to the offense and resultant damages. Curtailing vengeance does increase justice, if only by preventing further injustice and by providing some form of compensation. This point is as far as the legal implications go in considering the situation after an offense has occurred. The ethical demand arises from the situation before an offense has occurred, and, as always in the SM, the demand is preventive. In tracing the development of an ethical position, one must be attentive to the ethical principles of the SM. What does the love-command presuppose and demand (Lev 19: 18; SM/Matt 5:43)? It regards offenses as envisaged in the SM/Matt 5:38b and 39a as broken neighborly relationships, as situations

involving individuals who should be friends and who may have been friends at one time. A closer look at the "evildoer" (o 7TOV1]pos) allows further conclusions. He is more than the potential perjurer of the preceding antitheses (SM/Matt 5:33) because he has done actual damage to a fellow human being. Yet he is not simply identical with the enemy of the following antithesis (SM/Matt 5:43), although they may become identical. Although the SM considers humanity to include "the bad and the good" (SM/Matt 5:45), and although the disciples of Jesus addressed by the SM are simply counted among the "bad" (SM/Matt 7: 11 ), the evildoer of vs 39 is primarily the one who committed an injury. People are not called "bad" because they are intrinsically evil but because they commit unlawful acts. 675 Once an unlawful act has been committed, however, the injury or damage must be dealt with quite apart from the evildoer. 676 Verse 39a does not treat the matter of compensation, although one must consider it in connection with the examples that constitute vss 39b-42. Verse 39a instead focuses on the victim's negative reaction to the perpetrator of an injurious act. The command to desist from retaliation does not comment on positive reaction. Yet, nonretaliation is not the only concern here; indeed, it is only a subsidiary concern. The overarching goal is the combating of evil (TO 7TOV1]pov), 677 that is, the establishment of justice. There can be no question that

673 This was correctly pointed out by Tertullian, who was trained in Roman law (Adv. Marc. 4.16 [PL 2.395-98); see Harnack, Marcion, 192*-93*). Cf. Luz, Matthiius, 1.297 (Matthew, 1.330). For the interpretation by "intent," see also Dietzfelbinger, "Antithesen," 12. 674 See esp. Aristotle Eth. Nic. 5.1, 1129a 34-36: [o) OlKato~ EuTal. g T£ vO}J-tfLO~ Kat b ruos. rO JJ-~V OlKatov llpa v&p.tp.ov Kal TO r
below on SM/Matt 6: 13b): "deliver us from the evil" (rL7rO roil 7rOV1Jpov). 676 This is why biblical and rabbinic law developed the provisions of compensation. For a NT example, see the story about Zacchaeus, Luke 19:1-10. See also Daube, NT and Rabbinic judaism, 254-65; Amram, "Retaliation"; Herbert F.Jolowicz, "The Assessment of Penalties in Primitive Law," in Cambridge Legal

Essays, Written in Honour of and Presented to Doctor Bond (Cambridge: Heffer, 1926) 203-22; Geoffrey abiding man and the fair man will both be just. 'The just' therefore means that which is lawful and that MacCormack, "Revenge and Compensation in Early Law," American journal of Comparative Law 21 (1973) which is equal or fair"). For further discussion, see Gustav Stahlin, ·r"o~ KTA.," TDNT 3.343-55, esp. 69-85. 34 7, 354-55 (A.3.c and B). 677 In the SM, "the evil" (ro 7rOV1Jp6v, SM/Matt 5:11, 37; 675 The question of how evil deeds are related to human 6:13 [?),equals "lawlessness" (avop.la, 7:23), nature is not pursued very far in the SM. It is raised, "transgressions" (1rapa7rr6:,p.ara, 6:14, 15 ). Cf. KaKla ("evil," "trouble," 6:34);
283

the evil must be defeated and eliminated if justice is to prevail. The evil committed cannot be eliminated by revenge against the evildoer, however; this evil can be eliminated only by its removal from the evildoer. 678 One should therefore see nonretaliation as a weapon to combat evil and to help justice prevail. Moreover, nonretaliation does not mean a passive acquiescence in the face of evil; rather it means an aggressive move to overcome evil. Which positive actions can one correlate with nonretaliation? At this point, one can exclude two possible courses of action. Nonretaliation is not recommended as a result of the victim's being advised either to despise or to forgive the perpetrator. Neither contempt nor forgiveness is foreign to the SM, 679 but neither is part of this particular argument. What, then, is the alternative? The Golden Rule (see below on SM/Matt 7:12; SP/Luke 6:31) requires that one take positive action to interrupt a vicious cycle of revenge. If the victim of an offense should retaliate, such an attack would only pave the way for recurring violence which, in turn, would lead to new retaliation, and so on ad infinitum. The Golden Rule, however, reverses the cycle: "Whatever you wish

that people would do to you, so do to them." Consequently, abstention from retaliation removes the incentive for further violence. Furthermore, the Golden Rule builds on the very old and universally accepted rule of behavior named by the formula Do ut des ("I give so that you may give [in return]"). Thus nonretaliation is a positive gesture of generosity that carries with it the expectation that the adversary will respond in kind. The Golden Rule, then, teaches a preventive ethics that one should apply to a reading of SM/Matt 5:39a. To conclude: The meaning of the controversial command p.~ avnuTfjvaL ("Do not retaliate") is not to recommend an attitude of resignation and defeatism concerning evil or a principled self-surrender to all kinds of villains. Rather, what is commanded is not nonviolence in general but desistance from retaliation in specific instances. 680 The difference is that such desistance is in effect a positive method of fighting evil and helping justice prevail. 681 This method corresponds to the "intent" of the ius talionis and is thus an adequate way to fulfill the Torah prescription.6 82 Other New Testament texts confirm this interpretation. The Jesus of the passion narratives is shown as

678 This was rightly emphasized by Jakob Weismann, one's rights, for which he refers to SM/Matt 5:22, "Talion und offentliche Strafe im mosaischen 40, and SP /Luke 6:30, is too narrow. This thesis is Rechte," FS for AdolJWach (Leipzig: Meiner, 1913) de facto based on 1 Cor 6:1, which, however, 1.1-100, esp. 97-99. represents a different application of the same 679 For contempt, cf. the caricatures of the "hypocrites" principle. The examples in SM/Matt 5:39b-42 speak (SM/Matt 6:2, 5, 16; 7:5) and the "pagans" (5:47; against Currie's view, and he fails to come to terms 6:7, 32) and the Gentile Christians (7:22-23); for with them. Guelich (Sermon, 219-20) follows Currie's forgiveness, see 6:12, 14-15. view. For a correction, see Luz, Matthiius, 1.296 680 Cf. Marcus Borg, • A New Context for Romans (Matthew, 1.329). Xlll," NTS 19 (1972/73) 205-18. Relating Romans 682 Differently Dietzfelbinger (" Antithesen," 11-12), for 13 to Matt 5:39b, 44, 46, Borg wrongly argues that whom Matt 5:39a represents a pre-Matthean polemic statements in Romans 13 do "not primarily [contain] against the Torah that contradicts the Matthean generalizations about passive non-resistance, but are formulation of 5:17-20. Matthew, however, does not spoken to a concrete situation, counselling his [i.e., employ the rabbinic hermeneutical rule, which would Jesus'] hearers not to join in armed resistance to be implied, and he does not refer to the passages Rome" (207). The SM would certainly have Dietzfelbinger has in mind. Dietzfelbinger is right counselled against armed insurrection against Rome, that the Jesus of Matthew's passion narrative, by his but one can only infer this point, because of the total life and death, fulfills the Torah in the sense silence about politics in the SM. Although forced intended by the SM, but this is due to the influence service is a Roman practice, Rome is not a concern in of the SM on Matthew's theology, not the other way the SM passage; this is also confirmed by the around. examples in vss 39b-42. For the correct view, see Luz, Matthiius, 1.298 (Matthew, 1.330-31). 681 Stuart D. Currie ("Matthew 5:39A-Resistance or Protest?" HTR 57 [1964]140-45) is right in relating the term avnurfjva& to the context oflaw, but his interpretation as taking legal recourse for obtaining

284

Matthew 5:21-48

an example of desistance from retaliation. The episode of Jesus' arrest (Matt 26:47-56 par.) contrasts him as one who allows himself to be arrested without a fight to the disciple who draws a sword and cuts off the ear of the high priest's slave. Jesus tells this disciple: "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matt 26:52). 683 Jesus does not ask God the Father to send the heavenly army of angels because to do so would be contrary to the fulfillment of the Scriptures and, presumably, the triumph of justice (vss 53-56). 684 When Jesus is beaten (Matt 26:67-68; 27:30 par.), he does not hit back. In Matthew's theology in particular, hitting back would disqualify Jesus from being a righteous man. 685 When, according to Acts 23:2-3, Paul is struck on the mouth by the servants of the high priest Ananias, he does not hit back but rather scolds Ananias for committing an illegal act. 686 Although such examples of nonretaliation abound in the New Testament, the closest parallels to the SM are found in Paul's discussion of agape and the lovecommand in Rom 12:9-21 and 13:8-10. Rom 12:9-21 is a composition of maxims on agape. Among them we find ( 12: 1 7): "Repay no evil for evil, but take thought for

what is noble in the sight of all"; and vs 19: "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God." 687 Paul's own ideas certainly differ from those of the SM, but he approves of these maxims, which he probably received from tradition. He reserves revenge for God; the revenge of one person on another would thus usurp God's prerogative. In dealing with evildoers, the apostle is nearly always concerned with their possible repentance and eschatological future. 688 The SM would certainly have endorsed Paul's final maxim: 689 "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom 12:21 ). 690 While the passage SM/Matt 5:39-42 does not appear concerned with the positive effect of nonretaliation on the evildoer, the difference at this point between the SM and Paul is hardly great. Both prescribe desistance from retaliation because it is the just action required by God, not because it is effective. Even if the evildoer continues to do evil, nonretaliation remains the just thing to practice. At the same time, however, the SM is equally as concerned as Paul about the impact of Christian conduct on outsiders. The images of the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world" (SM/Matt 5:13-16) describe

683 Clearly an instance of ius talionis. See also Rev I3: I 0; NT: Rom I2: I7, "To nobody requite evil with evil" furthermore Matt 27:25; Luke I6:25; Acts I8:6; (J'-'1/0EVt KaKbV avTt KaKOV a?TOOIOOVTEr); I Thess 5: I5a; Rom I:27. Jas 5:6; I Pet 3:9 (cf. 2:23); see furthermore Rom 684 In Matthew's theology, Jesus Christ, who is the Lord I3:IO; Gal6:IO; I Thess 3:I2; 5:I5b. Interesting is (KvpLOr ), desists from violence for the sake of the also Ps.-Clem. Hom. I5.5-9, which presents a defense salvation of the world through his death and of SM/Matt 5: 39b-4I under the topic of "philanresurrection. thropy." 685 Cf. Matt 3:I5; 27:4, I9, 24. 690 See also T. Benj. 4.3. For the background in Jewish 686 Paul even apologizes because he did not know that he wisdom, seePs 38:2I; Tob I2:7; Sir 7:I; and for the stood before the high priest, because scolding a high opposite, Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. I32-34, I43, I 52. For priest is against the Torah (Acts 23:4-5). further parallels, see Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die 687 For a close theological parallel, see I QS I O.I9-20: "I Romer (EKKNT; 3 vols.; Zurich: Benziger; Neuwill pay no man the reward of evil; I will pursue him kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, I978, I980, with goodness. For judgment of all the living is with I982) 3.25-26; Jiirgen Sauer, "TraditionsGod and it is He who will render to man his reward" geschichtliche Erwagungen zu den synoptischen und (trans. by Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in paulinischen Aussagen tiber Feindesliebe und Wiedervergeltungsverzicht," ZNW 76 (I985) I-28, English [Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books, I962]909I). By comparison, the SM also presupposes that esp. I7-23. God will mete out justice in the hereafter and even in this world (cf. SM/Matt 6:I4-I5; 7:2I-23, etc.). Yet desisting from retaliation as a human act is just in itself, and-differently from Paul-the SM does not use the referral of evildoers to divine retribution as part of the argument. 688 See esp. I Cor 5:5, Gal6:I (and Betz, Galatians, 29598). 689 A similar maxim is attested elsewhere in Paul and the

285

vividly the expectations of the community of the Sermon on the Mount. 2. Retaliation and nonretaliation. Recent studies show that opposition to retaliation did not fall on deaf ears at the time of the SM. Such sympathy toward nonretaliation was due to developments in the Hellenistic era. As Greek literature and philosophy indicate, the normative view in the classical era soundly favored retaliation. Aristotle cites "Rhadamanthys's rule of justice" 691 when he introduces the subject of retaliation and its relationship to justice (Eth. Nic. 5.5.3, 1132b 2627): An a man suffer even that which he did, Right justice will be done.

Er KE 7ra6ot TaT' £pEtE, OLK1J K' l6E'ia y€votTo. 6 92

Indeed, retaliation was the principle underlying all Greek penallaw. 693 It was also the rule governing popular morality, where it figured prominently in the context ofthe ethics offriendship. 694 The rule here, often quoted in ancient authors, is stated by Xenophon Mem. 2.6.35: "a man's virtue consists in outdoing his friends in kindness and his enemies in mischief" (avopb<;

apET~V ELVaL VLKav TOV<; cplAov<; E~ 7rOLOVVTa, TOV<; o' lx6pov<; KaKws). 695 Based on the ius talionis, this rule justifies

retaliation. If justice is defined as "to each man his due," 696 vengeance is the outcome: "To take vengeance on one's enemies is nobler than to come to terms with them; for to retaliate is just, and that which is just is noble, and further, a courageous man ought not to allow himself to be beaten." 69 7 Yet this consensus begins to be challenged even in the classical period. The development of the problem, which I cannot review here in detail, 698 begins with the discussion of the correspondence of "doing and suffering wrong" (aoLKELV Kat aOLKEtuBat) in Plato (Gorg. 509c-51 Oc), or the questioning of the maxim "Benefit your friends and harm your foes" in his Republic (1.7-8, 332b336a).699 Is it just under any circumstance to render to the enemy what is his or her due, namely, some evil (332b)? Socrates' cross-examination ofPolemarchus completely confuses him about the true meaning of the maxim (332b-334b). Equally troublesome is the question abouJ who is a true friend (334c-e) and who is an enemy (335b-e). As a result, the maxim is judged to be false: "For it has been made clear to us that in no case is it just

691 According to Dirlmeier (Aristoteles, Nikomachische Dihle, Goldene Regel, passim. Ethik, 412-13), this argument is to be regarded as 695 Text and translation according to the LCL edition of secondary, and its origin is probably Hesiod frg. 174 Xenophon by E. C. Marchant, 144-45. (ed. Rzach); see also the LCL edition ofHesiod, ed. 696 Aristotle Rhet. 1.9.7, 1366b 9-11: "Justice is a virtue Hugh Evelyn-White, pp. 74-75 (frg. 1). Plato also which assigns to each man his due in conformity with refers to the saying, but without mentioning the law; injustice claims what belongs to others, in Rhadamanthys (Leg. 9, 870d5-e3; 872e4; 873a1). opposition to the law" (~ITTt ot OLKa!OITVV1J p.tv ap•r~ OL' 692 Text and translation according to the LCL edition by ~v ra aVTWv fKaCTTOI. fxovcn, Kat ros- b v6p.os-, O.OtKla ot Or.' H. Rackham, pp. 280-81. Aristotle reports it as ~v rlt a)\)\orpLa, ovx w~ 0 vop.o~). Text and translation popular opinion. See Dirlmeier's commentary according to the LCL edition by John H. Freese, pp. Aristoteles, Nikomachische Ethik, 412. 90-93. 693 Karl Friedrich Hermann, Uber Grundsiitze und 697 Idem, Rhet. 1.9.24, 1167a 19-22: Kat rh roh lxBpobs Anwendung des Strafrechts im griechischen Alterthume ' np.ropii~TBaL p.al\l\ov Kat p.~ Karal\l\6.rTEIT8aL. ro TE yltp (Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Ctvrawo0r.06var. OlKatov, Th Of OlKatov KaA6v, Kat O.v0p£lov zu Gottingen 6; Gottingen: Dieterich, 1856 267rh p:h ~rr0.u8ar.. 321) 270: "Vergeltungist der alteste Grund alles 698 See the notes in Dirlmeier's commentary (Aristoteles: Nikomachische Ethik, 411-27); and Dihle, Goldene griechischen und wohliiberhaupt alles antiken Regel, 66-72; idem, "Gerechtigkeit," RAG 10 (1978) Strafrechts" ("Revenge is the oldest foundation of all Greek and virtually all ancient penal law"). 249,254. 694 See XenophonMem. 2.3.14; 2.6.32-39; PlatoMeno 699 Plato (Rep. 1.7, 332B; cf. 335E) attributes the maxim 71E; Rep. 1.7, 332B-336A; !socrates Demon. 24-26; to the poet Simonides. See also Plato Grit. 49B-C; and Nicocl. 61. For comprehensive studies and rich for commentary Schmidt, Ethik, 2.313, 319, 363; documentation, see Hermann, Uber Grundsiitze, 270Hildebrecht Hommel, Symbola (Hildesheim: Olms, 1976) 1.185. 72; Ludwig Gunther, Die Idee der Wiederuergeltung in der Geschichte und Philosophie des Strafrechts: Ein Beitrag zur universalhistorischen Entwicklung desselben (parts 1-

3, first half; Erlangen: Blasing, 1889-95) 1.76-129;

286

Matthew 5:21-48

to harm anyone" (ovoafLOV yap o{Kawv ovo€va fJfLtV ecpav7J llv {3A.a-rrTf.tv [335e ]). If, then, contrary to common belief,

must judge the matter "by proportionality" (KaT' iivaA.oylav), not "by reciprocity" (KaT' lu6T7JTa). 7° 6 The

the maxim is wrong, it cannot have been pronounced first by a sage (uocp6s); it must have come from some rich and powerful man with delusions of grandeur (336a). 700 In terms of these discussions, the frequent instances of initial and retaliatory blows are representative: "Is not the man who is most skillful to strike or inflict a blow in a fight, whether as a boxer or elsewhere, also the most wary to guard against a blow?" (Rep. 1.8, 333e). In Gorg. 486b-c, Callicles describes a man reduced by his enemies to nothing, living in his own city like an outcast: "Such a person, if one may use a rather low expression, can be given a box on the ear with impunity." In the later discussions, Socrates applies the example to himself (508c-e), and with regard to the blow he says "that to be wrongfully boxed on the ear is the deepest disgrace" (Th TV7rTf.u8at E7rt K6pp7JS iiolKws aruxtUTOV f.tVa£ [508d-e]).7°l In his discussion of justice in Eth. Nic. 5. 5.1, 113 2b 21-23, Aristotle begins with a critical examination of what he says is the Pythagorean 702 definition of justice: "Justice is simply equal to reciprocity" (Th l-rrmf.-rrov8hs f.tVa£ a'TrAWS o{Kawv)/ 03 meaning "suffering reciprocally With another" (Th O{KaWV aVT£7rf.7rOV8hs lf)\)\C!l), 704 which is nothing but the ius talionis. Aristotle concludes that "in many cases Reciprocity is at variance with Justice," using the example of beating: "for example, if an officer strikes a man, it is wrong for the man to strike him back; and if a man strikes an officer, it is not enough for the officer to strike him, but he ought to be punished as well. "705 Simply requiting evil with evil cannot be justice; and one

shrines dedicated to the Graces remind us that it is characteristic of "grace" (xapts) to return kindness, and thus "it is a duty not only to repay a service done, but another time to take the initiative in doing a service oneself" (iiv8v-rrf.p7JTijual Tf. yap of.'i T{il xaptuafL€vC!l Kat 7rtlA£V avThV lfpfat xapt(JfLWOV). 707 After showing from commerce that reciprocal proportionality does characterize human interaction, Aristotle applies it to ethics and concludes that ''just conduct is a mean between doing and suffering injustice" (oijA.ov /:In .q O£Kaw-rrpayla fL€uov EUTt TOV aO£KflV Kat aO£Kf.tu8at). 708 Consequently, on the one hand, ''justice is that quality in virtue of which a man is said to be disposed to do by deliberate choice that which is just" (Kat

.q 0£KaWUVV7J EUTL Ka8' ~v 0 olKaws A.€yf.Ta£ -rrpaKnKhs KaTa -rrpoalpf.utv Tov OtKalov ). 709 In other words, justice cannot simply be a reaction to suffering. On the other hand, "of the injustice done, the smaller part is the suffering and the larger part the doing of injustice" (TOV Ot aOtK~fLaTOS Th fLtV fA.aTTOV Th ot aO£Kf.tu8a{ EUT£, Th ot !J.f.t(ov Th aOtKf.tV). 7l O

In the Hellenistic and Roman periods, these fundamental discussions became a permanent topic of ph;Josophical school debates, where they led to new conceptualizations not only of the idea of retaliation but

700 Plato rules out Simonides or one ofthe Seven Sages (Bias or Pittacus), but considers as authors men like Periander, Peridiccas, Xerxes, or Ismenias of Thebes. He thus recognizes the maxim to state a political policy (Adelsethik) rather than philosophical wisdom. See Dihle, Goldene Regel, 32-33. 70I See also Plato Gorg. 526-27, and further below on SM/Matt 5:39b; also Gustav Stahlin, TDNT 8.263. 702 Diels-Kranz (58 B 4 [I, 452, 26-28]) includes only this passage. See Dihle, Goldene Regel, 30, 66-68. 703 My own translation. The adverb a:rr>.ws expresses Aristotle's evaluation. 704 Text and translation according to the LCL edition by H. Rackham, pp. 278-79. 705 Aristotle Eth. Nic. 5.5.4, II32b 28-3I; cf. 5.8.3, II35a 25-35; Eth. Eud. 2.8, I224b I3-I5. 706 Eth. Nic. 5.5.6, II32b 32-34.

707 Ibid., 5.5. 7, II33a 4-6. 708 Ibid., 5.5.I7, II33b 30-32; see also Plato Rep. 2, 359a 5-8, on which see Dirlmeier, Aristoteles, Nikomachische Ethik, 4I5-I6. 709 Aristotle Eth. Nic. 5.5.I7, II34a I-3. 7IO Ibid., 5.5.I8, II34a I2-I3. See also Plato Ep. 7, 335A: "one should account it a lesser evil to suffer than to perform the great iniquities and injustices"

(otO Kat ra J.teyaAa CtJ.tapT~J.tara Kat aOtK~J.taTa up.r.Kp0TEpov E7vat XP~ vop.l{etv KaKhv '71'&.oxnv ~ llpCiuar.).

Similarly, Plutarch De sera num. vind. 7, 55IC (see PECL 1.200; cf. also PECL 2.I25, 2I5-I7). For the NT, see I Cor 6:7; I Pet 2:I9-20; 3:I4, I7. In the SM, Matt 5:IO, II, I2 come close.

287

of justice in general, pertaining to philosophy, law, and ethics. In his valuable study on the Golden Rule, Albrecht Dihle 711 describes impressively how the ideas concerning retaliation gradually changed from the ancient Near East to the patristic period. He distinguishes several strands of development that took place simultaneously in interaction with each other. There are the developments within law 712 and within popular morality/ 13 documented by law codes, inscriptions, gnomic and other literature; 714 and there is the systematic examination of the ideas, laws, and conventions in the philosophers' treatises. 715 One can observe parallel developments in the Old Testament, Judaism, and early Christianity. 716 Somewhere along the line, connections were made among the Jewish, the Christian, and the Greco-Roman traditions, although it is still disputed how and when such intercultural exchanges occurred. The large number of passages from ancient literature documenting these developments need not be reviewed here. 717 Of interest in regard to the SM/Matt 5:38-42 is that when the SM was formulated, retaliation was thoroughly discredited as far as ethical thought was

concerned. 718 Especially in regard to the Stoic doctrine of oikeiosis719 retaliation was regarded by philosophers, and increasingly by popular morality, as a "bad habit" (mala consuetudo) to be overcome through education by the benevolence toward each other that is characteristic of the human race as partakers of divinely inspired reason. This "natural benevolence" then became the foundation for law ("natural law") and ethics. 720 The resulting redefinition of law and, connected with it, of retaliation is stated by Cato in Cicero's De fin. 3.21. 71: "Right moreover, properly so styled and entitled, exists (they aver) by nature; and it is foreign to the nature of the Wise Man not only to do wrong but even to hurt anybody. Nor again is it righteous to enter into a partnership in wrongdoing with one's friends or benefactors." 721 These ideas are presented as part of the doctrine of friendship: "In friendship some profess that the Wise Man will hold his friends' interests as dear as his own, while others say that a man's own interests must necessarily be dearer to him; at the same time the latter admit that to enrich oneself by another's loss is an action repugnant to that justice towards which we seem to possess a natural propensity." 7 22

711 See below on SM/Matt 7:12 and SP /Luke 6:31. 712 Dible, Goldene Regel, 13-30. 713 Ibid., 30-40; furthermore Dover, Greek Popular Morality, 181-84, 191-95. 714 Dible, Goldene Regel, 41-60. 715 Ibid., 61-71. 716 Ibid., 72-79. 717 Besides Dible's work, see the extensive collection of passages in Nissen, Gott und der Niichste, 304-16; Luise Schottroff, "Non-Violence and the Love of One's Enemies," in Schottroff, Essays, esp. 17-22; Zeller (Mahnsprilche, 57-59), who includes material from ancient Near Eastern, OT, and early Jewish wisdom literature; Lichtheim ("Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature," 31-35) points to the international character of the teaching on nonretaliation; see Str-B 1.341-42 for rabbinic literature. See also Luz, Matthiius, 1.293-95 (Matthew, 1.326-29). 718 So correctly stated by Strecker, Bergpredigt, 86 (Sermon, 83); Luz (Matthiius, 1.293 [Matthew, 1.327]) claims incorrectly, however, that the SM does not provide a motivation for the rejection of retaliation. He does not recognize that the motivation is given with the interpretation of the ius talionis (vs 38b). According to him, the position advocated by the SM is not "plausible" in a rational way, but an emotional expression of symbolic protest against violence (293-

288

719

720 7 21

722

94; ET 326-27). On the whole, Luz's interpretation points to modern political activism as analogy. See Dible, Goldene Regel, 117-18. For a collection of texts, see de Vogel, Greek Philosophy, 3.127-31 (nos. 999-1001). For texts, see de Vogel, Greek Philosophy, 3.176-83 (nos. 1065-76). According to the LCL edition and translation of Cicero by H. Rackham (vol. 40; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1951) 29091: "Ius autem, quod ita dici appellarique possit, id esse natura; alienumque esse a sapiente non modo iniuriam cui facere verum etiam nocere. Nee vero rectum est cum amicis aut bene meritis consociare aut coniungere iniuriam." See also de Vogel, Greek Philosophy 3.176 (no. 1065.b). CiceroDefin. 3.21.70: "Quamquamautemin amicitia alii dicant aeque caram esse sapienti rationem amici ac suam, alii autem sibi cuique cariorem suam, tamen hi quoque posteriores fatentur alienum esse a iustitia, ad quam nati esse videamur, detrahere quid de ali quo quod sibi assumat."

Matthew 5:21-48

To return to the fifth antithesis, one can state that the rejection of retaliation is by no means unrealistic or implausible. Such rejection is based both on an interpretation of the ius talionis that opposes the interpretation refuted in vs 38b, and on the cultural presuppositions of the time, according to which retaliation is ethically objectionable. Moreover, the additional argument by four examples assumes that the rejection of retaliation is reasonable and ethically justifiable. These factors speak clearly at this point against Luz's interpretation. He claims that "a motivation for the renunciation of force is lacking, "723 although he admitted on the page preceding this claim that such exhortation was widespread in antiquity. According to Luz, the SM is not at all interested in rational argument and plausibility. 724 Drawing on the tactics of modern protest demonstrations, he explains: "In our sayings there is contained a good bit of conscious provocation. The point is estrangement, shock treatment, and a symbolic protest against the vicious cycle of violence. "725 The four examples in vss 39b-42 are indeed provocative,726 as is the argument as a whole; but such provocativeness surely excludes neither plausibility nor practicability. Verse 39b begins the argument by substantiating vs 39a with the first of the four examples (vss 39b-42). The connection is extremely brief: aA.A.a ("but"; or, "instead it should be like the following"). 727 The first example involves a traditional topic: 728 "Whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also" (CJITns IT€ 723 724 725 726

pa7T{(H ds T1}V li€{tav ITtayOva [ITOV ], ITTpbpov avT(i> /Cat T1}V CI.A.A.rJV). 72 9 As I have pointed out, the example of striking a person is commonplace in Hellenistic discussions about retaliation. 730 Not surprisingly, therefore, there are parallels in SP /Luke 6:29a,7 31 Did. 1.4, 732 and Justin A pol. 1.16.1. 733 In view ofthe parallel in the SP, I note that not only the language but also the content differs. In the SP the example illustrates the command to love the enemy (Luke 6:27b), while in the SM it illustrates the interpretation of the ius talionis in the light of the lovecommand. On the one hand, the ius talionis is not part of the SPat all; on the other hand, traditionally the lovecommand and the ius talionis may be treated in ethical discussions on "friends and foes." 734 Finally, the SM divides the treatment of the ius talionis (vss 38-42) and the love-command (vss 43-48) into two separate arguments. Perhaps this division is paralleled by the two principles of the love-command and the Golden Rule (7: 12). These differences and similarities exclude a simple literary takeover of either the SM or the SP in the composition of the other, either by way of reduction or expansion, and they argue in effect for separate redactional elaborations of a traditional illustration by both the SM and the SP. It has been observed that beating someone on the right cheek requires use ofthe back of the right hand, 735 an extreme humiliation in the Greco-Roman 736 as well as the Jewish world,7 37 and indeed, in our own time. Why the right cheek? The right side is always the more

Luz, Matthiius, 1.294 (Matthew, 1.326). Ibid., 294-95 (ET 326-27). Ibid., 295 (ET 327-28). So rightly Tannehill, Sword ofHis Mouth, 378-80, who does not, however, apply the metaphors to political agitation. 727 For this use of aAA&, see also SM/Matt 7:21; SP /Luke 6:27. See BDF, § 448 (4); BDR, § 448, 3; BAGD, s.v.lr.H&, 3. 728 See below, esp. at nn. 735-39. 729 D L 8 jl- 13 m-1 read the future, pa1ri
730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737

omit CTOV as redundant. See the apparatus in NestleAland, and Aland, Synopsis, 82. SeePECL 2.190-92. See below on SP /Luke 6:29a. Not in Doctrina apostolorum. Not in Justin Apol. 1.15.1 0. See Schmidt, Ethik, 2.337-68; Dover, Greek Popular Morality, 181-84. See also above on SM/Matt 5:29, 30; and below on 6:3. See the examples given in Wettstein, 1.308-9; Gustav Stahlin, TDNT 8.263. Rabbinic passages are assembled in Str-B 1.342-43.

289

important one; thus the strike is even more humiliating. 738 The term pa7rl(w ("strike," "slap") is forceful, 739 but so is the term TV7TTW, used in the SP parallel. Turning to 740 the striker the other cheek 741 as well is a provocative invitation to receive a second strike. To do this is by no means a sign of weakness but, as we have seen, one of moral strength. The gesture exposes the act of the offender as what it is: morally repulsive and improper. In addition, it doubles the renunciation of violence by the person insulted; and finally, it challenges the striker to react with comparable generosity. A person who would ignore the gesture and strike again would reveal that person as an uncivilized brute. Thus the turning of the other cheek is a highly provocative challenge demonstrating the ius talionis in reverse 742 by taking the initiative in accordance with the Golden Rule (7: 12). • 40 The second example, taken from the world of the courts, focuses on a person suing for a shirt: "and to the

one who wants to go to court with you and take your shirt, let him have also your coat" (Ka! Tij> BtJ\ovTl croL KpLBijvaL KaL TbV XLTwva crov 1\a(3t:"iv, lf.cpn avT(j> KaL Tb 1JLanov). 743 This example differs in character from its

parallel in SP /Luke 6:29b. 744 While in the SM the image is that of a court trial/ 45 in the SPit is that of a robber stealing a garment; and the garments are reversed. In the SM the adversary wants to sue for the less valuable "undershirt" (xmhv)/ 46 and he is to be given the more valuable "overcoat" (1J.tanov). 747 In the SP, the robber takes the overcoat first and gets the undershirt in addition. In my view, one can explain the differences only by assuming that the example occurred in two different versions in the SM and the SP, and that the Matthean version is not the result of Matthew's rewriting of what was supposedly in Q (= SP /Luke 6:29b). 748 Q had the example too, but it is impossible to decide which of the versions it was. 7 49 The interpretation of the example should parallel that of the first one in 5:39. 750

738 See Jacob Weismann, "Zur Erklarung einer Stelle in der Bergpredigt," ZNW 14 (1913) 175-76. 739 It is noteworthy that Matt 26:67 (cf. 27:30) picks up £p.1rrVw ("spit") from Mark 14:65 (cf. 15:19), but changes Mark's wording too! at £pa1T1uav ("and some struck him"). Does this change express Matthew's interpretation of the passion of Christ in the light of the SM? Cf. also John 18:22; 19:3; Barn. 5.14 (Isa 50:6); Cos. Pet. 3.9. Acts 23:2-3 is also a parallel. See 744 BAGD, s. v. pa1ri(w, pamup.a, with further references. 745 740 In the NT, the term urpto/ov ("turn") occurs only here (also in the parallel passage in Did. 1.4); SP/Luke 6:29a has 1rapixuv ("offer"), which Marcion exchanges for the Matthean phrase. Since in my view Did. 1.4 does not depend on the Gospel of Matthew, pa1ri(w is not due to Matthean redaction but stood in 746 the source common to SM and Didache. See BAGD, s. v. urpttf>w, l.a.a. 747 741 u•ayC:w ("cheek") is common to the parallels, among them SM/Matt 5:39; SP /Luke 6:29; Did. 1.4; Barn. 5.14; Cos. Pet. 3.9;JustinApol. 1.16.1. See also 748 BAGD, s.v. u•aywv. 7 42 For a different interpretation, see Strecker, Bergpredigt, 87 (Sermon, 83-84): "as proof of unreserved compliance that seeks neither to preserve 749 one's own honor nor to maintain one's own position of power." Other interpretations rightly rejected are 750 listed in Luz, Matthiius, 1.292-93 (Matthew, 1.32526). 743 D changes rep 8ti.ovr•, a dative, into the nominative o Ob..wv, so as to make the sentence parallel to vss 39b and 41; but vs 42 shows that the examples alternate

290

between nominative (vss 39b, 41a) and dative (vss 40a, 42a). Instead of avrcp in vs 40b, K* 892 pc bo read roVT<J> ("to this one"), perhaps to increase the emphasis. At the end, K 33. 1424 pc co add uov ("your" [sc. coat]), probably for clarification and emphasis. See the apparatus in Nestle-Aland. Did. 1.4 reads ai>rcp; neither Did. 1.4 nor Justin Apol. 1.16.1 has the finaluov. See below on SP /Luke 6:29b. KpL8ijva•, with the associative dative, here meaning "go to law with someone," is attested only here in the NT, but it occurs in LXX Job 9:3; 13:19. See Wettstein, 1.309; BAGD, s.v. Kpivw, 4.a.B; BDF, § 193 (4); BDR, § 193 n. 5. Cf. SM/Matt 5:25; 1 Cor 6:6. The term occurs in SM/Matt 5:40; SP/Luke 6:29b; Did. 1.4;Justin Apol. 1.16.1. See BAGD, s.v. x•rwv. The term occurs in SM/Matt 5:40; SP/Luke 6:29b; Did. 1:4;JustinApol. 1.16.1; furthermore, see BAGD, s.v.lp.anov, 2. Luz (Matthiius, 1.291 [Matthew, 1.323-24) is right in being cautious about the reconstruction of the exact wording of Q, and so is Sauer ("Feindesliebe," 1415, with further references). More optimistic are Schulz (Q, 120-27), Zeller (Mahnspruche, 55), and Polag (Fragmenta Q, 34-35). Differently for Guelich (Sermon, 222) and Luz (Matthiius, 1.293 [Matthew, 1.325-26]), the situation depicted is that of a pawn trial in which the shirt has been pledged as collateral. Luz sees the command to give also the coat as an "indirect opposition" ("indirekte Spannung") to the pawn laws ofExod

Matthew 5:21-48

The reaction proposed to the victim is to apply the law of retaliation in a reverse way and, instead of reacting, to take the initiative corresponding to the Golden Rule (7: 12). The obvious absurdity of the example in leaving the victim standing naked 751 does not exclude its sound logic. 7 52 The exaggerated image shows the paradoxical situation of a person acting according to the Golden Rule, a rule ofprudence.75!1 • 41 The third example focuses on another kind of indebtedness: "and whoever will force you (to go) one mile, go With him two" (KallfcrTL~ CT£ a:yyape0cr£L p.{)UOV ~V 1 ii7J"ay£ p.£T' ahov avo). 754 This example does not appear in the SP parallel (Luke 6:29-30), but Did. 1.4 and Justin Apol. 1.16.2 have different versions ofit. 755 The little scene depicts someone who "commandeers" (ayyap£V£LV)

751

752 753

754

755

756

the services of another. Scholars have pointed to the origin of this practice among the Persians, 7 56 a practice continued by the Romans. 757 Some persons could legally compel others to render services gratuitously, and the victim of such a despicable request was legally obliged to comply. An example occurs in the passion narratives, where Roman soldiers compel Simon of Cyrene to bear Jesus' cross. 758 The measurement of one "mile" (p.lA.wv) also has a Roman flavor. 759 One must understand the command to go the "extra mile" 760 in analogy to the

22:26-27; Deut 24:12-13. As a result, "one should not get involved in such lawsuits at all, and even as a debtor one should voluntarily give up even the minimum of the right of the poor." Whether or not one can assume such an allusion to the OT pawn laws, the evidence is too slim for constructing a principal stance against the Torah. Strecker (Bergpredigt, 87 [Sermon, 84]) takes the nakedness to be an existentialist allegory: "The radical nature ofthe demand for compliance is based on nothing other than the nearness of the kingdom of God, which demolishes all human certainties; before it nothing can prevail, and every person appears naked and bare." Against Strecker (Bergpredigt, 87 [Sermon, 84]): "Jesus' demand breaks every rule of good sense." Zeller (Mahnsprilche, 55-59) rightly points out that one must relate the example to the notions of order and reason underlying all ancient wisdom thought. A different construction is shown by IC A (33. 892* pc): ll.v ~napE-Dun ("if he forces"). In vs 41 b, D it vgcl sy' read lTI {i)l.)l.a ("still another [two miles]"); similarly lat sy" Irenaeus1•• by adding {i)l.)l.a ("another"). Thus the required distance is increased to three miles. The variants clarify the question whether two or three miles is meant. Did. 1.4: ll.vli:yyapE.Ouy ut r&s J'lA&OII lv, ll1rayE J'ET' abrov Mo ("If someone forces you [to go] one mile, go with him two"). Cf. the variant readings inn. 7 54 above. Justin Apol. 1.16.2: llavr\ at- anapE-Dovrl
Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary cif the Greek Testament (reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 2-3; BAGD, s.v., with references; PGL, s.v.;

757

758

759

760

Rudiger Schmitt, "'Meconnaissance' altiranischen Sprachgutes im Griechischen," Glotta 49 ( 1971) 97101; Spicq, Notes, 1.31-33. For documentary evidence, see also New Documents, 1.36-45 (no. 9); 2. 77 (no. 28). For the rabbinic loanword, see Paul Fiebig, "anapEIJw," ZNW 18 (1918) 64-72; Str-B 1.344-45; for the Latin loanword, see OLD, s.v. angaria, angaria, angarus. Wettstein (1.310-11) has a collection of parallels. See Hugh]. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions (American Studies in Papyrology 13; Toronto: Hakkert, 1974) 19;]. David Thomas, "Compulsory Public Service in Roman Egypt," in Gunter Grimm et al., Das romisch-byzantinische A.gypten: Akten des Internationalen Symposiums 26-30. September 1978 in Trier (Mainz: von Zabern, 1983) 35-39. Mark 15:21//Matt 27:32. According to John 19:17, Jesus carries his own cross. The question is whether Simon of Cyrene exemplifies what the SM commands. On the Simon whose son Alexander may be mentioned on an ossuary from the Kidron Valley, see the references and discussion in Martin Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 17 n. 117, 158 n. 15. The term J'lA&ov ("mile") occurs only in connection with this example (SM/Matt 5:41; Did. 1.4;Justin Apol. 1.16.2; not in the SP or Doctrina apostolorum). The name comes from a "thousand (paces)," probably the Roman mille passus ("thousand paces"), fixed to equal eight stades or 4,854 feet or 1,478.5 meters. See BAGD, s.v. J'lA&ov. In his diatribe "On Freedom," Epictetus (Diss. 4.1.77) brings a number of examples to illustrate the

291

previous examples (vss 39b, 40). The text gives no indication of the purpose for which the request was made/ 61 a sign that purpose is not the point. • 42 The fourth and last example comes from the world of money: "To the one who asks you give; and from the one who wants to borrow from you do not turn away" (Tcp 3~ atTOVVTL ITEMs, ICat TbV (J{A.ovTa a-rrb ITOV 3avluau8at flo~ a-rrouTpacpfis). 762 The double-liner consists of two parallel examples, one positive and one negative, connected by the association of ideas ("asking," "borrowing"). The first line (vs 42a) has a close parallel in SP /Luke 6:30a, 763 where a similar saying occurs. 764 Still different is Did. 1.5-6 765 and justin Apol. 1.15.10: "To everyone who asks you give, and from the one who wants to borrow do not turn away" (-rravTt Tcp alTovvn 3l3oTE ICat TbV f3ovAOf1oEVOV 3avelu8at flo~ a"lTOITTpacpi]TE). 766 SM/Matt 5:42b has another parallel in SP /Luke 6:34-35, 767 while one should compare vs 42a also with SM/Matt 6:2-4 and 7:7-11.

761 762

763 764 765 766

767 768

292

How is one to interpret the verse? Although scholars tend to base their understanding on a redactional revision of the Q-version by Matthew,7 68 the many different versions in the tradition render such a specific suggestion impossible to support. There is no evidence for the special hand of Matthew in the formulation. 769 A pre-Matthean origin is more likely and lends itself to interpreting vs 42 in analogy to vss 39b-41. Both examples focus again on obligation. The one who is asked to give is obligated to do so-and without limitbecause that person has previously received. 770 Similarly, and more specifically, the one who approaches for a loan 771 should not be rejected, 772 and there is no consideration of repayment or interest. 773 What ethical conclusions should the reader draw? To answer this question, one must differentiate between two major concerns in the passage: the correct interpretation of the ius talionis and the application of this legal principle to ethical thought.

principle "That which is not in your power to acquire or to keep is none of yours." Among them are these: "You ought to treat your whole body like a poor loaded-down donkey, as long as it is possible, as long as it is allowed; and if it be commandeered [a:yyap£ia] and a soldier lay hold of it, let it go, do not resist or grumble I}<~ avrinLV£ 1'1/a~ yclyyv(£ ]. If you do, you will get a beating and lose your little donkey just the same" (4.1.79). Clearly, the example, which is given an allegorical meaning, serves a different interpretative context than the SM. For other parallels from Epictetus, see Diss. 2.1 0.24; 3.3.9; 3.6.5-7; 3.12.10; 4.1.153; 4.5.9; Ench. 11, 42, 43. Differently Matt 27:32, which states the purpose. L8f 1 33.1006.1342. 15069Jtreadaiaov,probably to harmonize the sentence with Luke 6:30a, but also Did. 1.5 and justin Apol. 1.15.10 read aiaov or aiaon. The better text is read by IC B D W f 13 892 pc. In vs 42b, D (K) change the object to the dative, as in vs 42a(cf.alsoDid.l.5[dative]andJustinApo1.1.15.10 [accusative]). For discussion, see below on SP /Luke 6:30a. See below on SP /Luke 6:30b. See below, ibid. See also Cos. Thom. 95: "Uesus said]: If you have money, do not lend at interest, but give ... from whom you will not get them (back)." There is no parallel, however, in Doctrina apostolorum or Ps.-Clem. Hom. 15.5-20. See Kline, Sayings, 21-26. Cf. furthermore, Ps.-Clem. Hom. 11.32; Rec. 6.13. See below on these verses. So esp. Strecker, Bergpredigt, 88 (Sermon, 84-85); Luz

769

770

771 772

773

(Matthiius, 1.291-92, 296 [Matthew, 1.323-24, 329]) exaggerates the differences between Luke and Matthew (Matthew is "less radical"; he shortens the symmetry of composition). He assumes that Matthew "had to shorten Luke 6:32-34 for reasons of symmetry," and thus he "formulated vs 42b in his language and took over the otherwise missing theme ofloaning from the omitted verse Luke 6:34, and shaped it into a command which was practicable in his community" (Matthew, 1.323). There is, however, no evidence for this imaginative construction. Strecker (Bergpredigt, 88 [Sermon, 84]) points out that vs 42 contains a "realistic statement" and a practical rule of behavior similiar to Luke 6:34-35. There is, however, no absolute gap between example and exhortation; the example always has exhortative functions. For this reason, vs 42 differs neither structurally nor functionally from the preceding examples. For the ideas presupposed here, see also Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 102-5, and 169 (index), s.v. Exchange of gifts. For the meaning of aav(£)i(w (middle "borrow"), see BAGD, s.v., 2; and below on SP /Luke 6:34-35. foL~ a-,rourpa.pfir can be intransitive ("turn away from") or transitive ("turn away," "reject"). See BAGD, s.v. i't."Irourpt.pw, 3.a; BDF, § 308; BDR, § 308; Georg Bertram, TDNT 7.719-22. A decision is difficult to make. The a-,ro- is played off against the a-,rO ITOV (not in justin!). Cf. also Did. 4.8; 5.2; Bam. 20.2: "(Do not) turn away the needy!" Different from SP/Luke 6:30b, 34-35. See

Matthew 5:21-48

First, the ius talionis by itself is, as already pointed out, a legal principle, not a moral or ethical rule. The issue in this text is not to abolish the legal principle as such. On the contrary, the text assumes that the ius talionis is an authoritative legal principle of Scripture. The question is, rather, h<;>w to understand this principle properly. As part of the Torah, the ius talionis must serve to achieve justice. The talio principle presupposes that injustice has already occurred. What should one do to prevent further injustice and to restore justice? The legal answer would be to provide proportional retribution or compensation for the damages incurred. It is important to reali~e at this point that the SM is not interested in the legal consequences of proportional punishment or compensation, nor is it interested in any issue belonging to penal law. The history of interpretation, however, shows that in a later time the provisions of the SM were applied to such areas as penal law in general, capital punishment, resistance to tyranny and totalitarianism, and the international politics of war and peace. There is nothing wrong per se with these secondary applications because they are without doubt grounded in the text itself; but one must remain conscious of the fact that, in my view, the SM leaves these issues aside because of its primary interest in the ethical question. Application to the other legal issues mentioned would require prior hermeneutical considerations within jurisprudence. Second, the ethical principle that is based on the ius talionis is the Golden Rule; by interpreting the former in the light of the latter, the ethical consequences become clear. While legal provisions are reactive to injustices incurred, ethical thought anticipates such situations and develops initiatives to prevent them from occurring or recurring. Thus by preventing more injustices, these initiatives help justice prevail. The examples in vss 39b42 are imaginative in the sense that they envision situations of violence, pressure, and imposition in order to propose strategies of conduct that help to overcome

injustice through justice. These strategies focus on individuals as not only victims but also as ethically responsible agents ofjustice. Nonretaliation makes sense because it separates the perpetrator from the evil he or she commits. This evil can be overcome if the person committing it ceases to act as an agent of evil in the future. Treating the perpetrator in such a way that the cycle of violence and counterviolence is interrupted is the demand of ethical responsibility. If the perpetrator responds in kind to the renunciation of revenge, justice has prevailed. I do not mean to suggest that the generous offer of nonretaliation will always be accepted in the same spirit. I do mean, however, that to act in the proposed manner is ethically responsible and that, in doing so, one indeed fulfills the intent of the Torah principle. There are many examples where the strategy fails; but success or failure of alternative action is not the concern of this particular argument. Neither the interpretation of the ius talionis nor the validity of the ethical stance is conditioned by success or failure of the strategy. Even in the case of failure, justice has been served on the part of the ethically responsible person implementing the demand of the SM. One must realize that the argument is limited at this point. If retaliation is ruled out, are nonretaliatory judicial processes, corrective measures, or negotiations about compensation also ruled out? Nothing is said that enables one to answer these questions. Consideration of court actions and compensation would imply a shift from private law, to which retaliation belongs, to public law and legal arbitration. Early Christianity was apparently not in agreement on the admissibility of Christians appealing to public courts. Paul advises against it in 1 Cor 6:1-8, but the author of Acts has Paul appeal even to Caesar (see Acts 25:9-12; cf. 16:40; 22:29; 28:32). These questions were discussed in extenso by the church fathers and the reformers; however, they go beyond the text of the SM. 774

furthermore Ps.-Phocyl. Sent.14, 83; 'Abot 2.92. 774 Of great influence was Augustine's wide-ranging discussion of the various aspects (De sermone dom. in monte 1.19, 56-20, 68 [pp. 63-77, ed. Mutzenbecher]; ET in The Preaching of Augustine, 63-79). Luther introduced the doctrine of the two realms, concluding that as a Christian one must suffer injustice with patience and without resistance; but as

a father, neighbor, and citizen, one has the duty to uphold the law. Calvin distinguished between revenge, which he ruled out, and self-protection, which he permitted-if it is done peaceably and nonviolently. Due judicial process is permitted because it serves justice and the public welfare (Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels, 1.193-94; idem, Inst. book 4, chaps. 17-20). These few examples,

293

f) The Sixth Antithesis: Love of the Enemy (Matt 5:43-48) Bibliography Banks ,Jesus and the Law, 199-201. Gerhard Barth, "Das Gesetzesverstandnis des Evangelisten Matthaus," in Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and H. J. Held, Uberlieferung und Auslegung im Matthiius-Evangelium (WMANT 1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960) 70-80; ET: "Matthew's Understanding of the Law," in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963) 58-164. Walter Bauer, "Das Gebot der Feindesliebe und die alten Christen," ZThK 27 (1917) 37-54, reprinted in his Aufsiitze und kleine Schriften (ed. Georg Strecker; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1967) 23552. Oswald Bayer, "Sprachbewegung und Weltveranderung: Ein systematischer V ersuch als Auslegung von Mt 5, 43-48," EvTh 35 (1975) 309-21. J iirgen Becker, "Feindesliebe-Nachstenliebe-Bruderliebe: Exegetische Beobachtungen als Anfrage an ein ethisches Problemfeld," ZEE 25 (1981) 5-18. Gunther Bornkamm, "Das Doppelgebot der Liebe," in his Geschichte und Glaube, vol. 1; Gesammelte Aufsiitze, 3.37-45; see also Geschichte und Glaube, vol. 2; Gesammelte Aufsiitze, 4.92-94. Idem,jesus, 109-17. Broer, Freiheit, 85-89. Idem, "Pladierte Jesus fur Gewaltlosigkeit? Eine historische Frage und ihre Bedeutung fur die Gegenwart," BK 2 (1982) 61-69. Johann Friedrich Bruch, De amore inimicorum, quatenus ille virtus dici possit christianae religionis propria

(Argentorati: n.p., 1812). Hans Bruppacher, "Was sagte Jesus in Matthaus 5, 48?" ZNW 58 (1967) 145. Christoph Bultmann, Der Fremde im antiken Juda: Eine Untersuchung zum antiken Typenbegri.ff gi!r und seinem Bedeutungswandel in der alttestamentlichen Gesetzgebung (FRLANT 153; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1992). Bultmann,jesus and the Word, 110-20. Idem, History, 79, 82, 88, 105, 148-49; idem, Ergiinzungshejt, 55.

Christoph Burchard, "Das doppelte Liebesgebot in der friihen christlichen Uberlieferung," in Eduard Lohse, ed., Der RufJesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde: FS fur Joachim Jeremias (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 39-62.

however, cannot serve as an adequate summary of the richness of the exegetical tradition. For surveys, see Tholuck, Bergrede, 286-300; Luz, Matthiius,

294

C. John Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude to War (London: Headley, 1919; reprinted New York: Seabury, 1982). Israel Gottlieb Canzius, De diligendis inimicis oraculi Prov. 25, 21. 22, Ethnicorum quoque testimoniis consentanei (Tubingae: n.p., 1748). Henri Clavier, The Duty and the Right of Resistance according to the Bible and to the Church (Dale

Lectures, Oxford, 1946; Oxford: Blackwell, 1956). Gerhard Dautzenberg, "Mt 5, 43c und die antike Tradition von der jiidischen Misanthropie," in Ludger Schenke, ed., Studien zum Matthiiusevangelium: FS filr Wilhelm Pesch (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988) 4 7-77. Dihle, Goldene Regel, 109-27. Idem, Der Kanon der zwei Tugenden (Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Forschung des Landes NordrheinWestfalen, Reihe Geisteswissenschaften, 144; Cologne and Opladen: Westdeutscher, 1968). Hermannus Gerardus Iacobus van Doesburgh, Quaenam et qualis sit r/>•A.•xllpia, quam commendant Jesus et Apostoli? et an ex hac commendatione etiam eliceat Christianae doctrinae moralis praestantia?

(Annales Academiae Groninganae 1820-21; Groningae: Oomkens, 1822). Paul Johannes DuPlessis, "Love and Perfection in Mt 5:43-48," Neot. I (1973) 28-34. Paul Fiebig, "Jesu Worte tiber die Feindesliebe," ThStK 91(1918)30-64,305-6. J. Carolus Christianus Fischer, Quid de officiis et a more erga inimicos Graecis et Romanis placuerit (Halae Saxonum: n.p., 1789). Ernst Fuchs, "Die vollkommene Gewissheit: Zur Auslegung von Mt. 5, 48," in his Gesammelte Aufsiitze, vol. 2: Zur Frage nach dem historischen Jesus (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1960) 126-35. Reginald H. Fuller, "The Double Commandment of Love: A Test Case for the Criteria of Authenticity," in Schottroff, Essays, 41-56. Victor Paul Furnish, The Love Command in the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972). Hans Haas, Idee und Ideal der Feindesliebe in der ausserchristlichen Welt: Ein religionsgeschichtlicher Forschungsbericht (Leipzig: Edelmann, 1927).

Walter Harrelson, "Patient Love in the Testament of Joseph," in George W. Nickelsburg, ed., Studies in the Testament ofJoseph (Missoula, Mont: Scholars, 1975) 29-36. Paul Hoffmann, "Tradition und Situation: Zur 'Verbindlichkeit' des Gebots der Feindesliebe in der synoptischen Uberlieferung und in der

1.298-304 (Matthew, 1.331-35).

Matthew 5:21-48

gegenwartigen Friedensdiskussion," in Kertelge, Ethik, 50-118. Richard Horsley, "Ethics and Exegesis: 'Love Your Enemies' and the Doctrine of Non-Violence," JAAR 54 (1985) 3-31. Wolfgang Huber, "Feindschaft und Feindesliebe," ZEE 26 (1982) 128-58. Hubner, Gesetz, 81-112. Ludwig Ph. Hiipeden, Commentatio, qua comparatur doctrina de amore inimicorum Christiana cum ea, quae tum in nonnullis veteris testamenti locis, tum in libris philosophorum Graecorum et Romanorum traditur (Gottingae: Baier, 1817). Ferdinand Kattenbusch, "Uber die Feindesliebe im Sinne des Christentums," ThStK 89 (1916) 1-70. Walter Kirchschlager, "Die Friedensbotschaft der Bergpredigt: Zu Mt 5, 9.17-48; 7, 1-5," Kairos 25 (1983) 223-37. William Klassen, "Love Your Enemy: A Study of New Testament Teaching on Coping with an Enemy," in Paul Peachey, ed., Biblical Realism Confronts the Nation (Scottdale, Penn.: Herald, 1963) 153-83. Idem, "Love in the NT," IDBSup, 557-58. Koster, Synoptische Oberlieferung, 220-26. Georg Kunze!, Studien zum Gemeindeverstiindnis des Matthiiusevangeliums (CThM, series A, vol. 10; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1978). James L. Kugel and Rowan Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986). Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, "Das LiebesgebotJesu als Tora und als Evangelium: Zur Feindesliebe und zur christlichen undjudischen Auslegung der Bergpredigt," in Hubert Frankemolle and Karl Kertelge, eds., Vom Urchristentum zu jesus: Fur Joachim Gnilka (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1989) 194-230. Pinchas Lapide, Wie liebt man seine Feinde? Mit einer Neuubersetzung der Bergpredigt unter Berucksichtigung der rabbinischen Lehrmethoden und der judischen Muttersprache jesu (Mainz: Grunewald, 1984). Michael Lattke, "Halacha," RAG 13 (1986) 372-401, esp. 387-88, 390-93. Olof Linton, "St. Matthew 5, 43," StTh 18 ( 1964) 6679. Norbert Lohfink, ed., Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit im Alten Testament (QD 96; Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1983). Ulrich Luck, Die Vollkommenheitsforderung der Bergpredigt: Ein aktuelles Kapitel in der Theologie des Matthiius (ThExh 150; Munich: Kaiser, 1968). Dieter Liihrmann, "Liebet eure Feinde (Lk 6, 2736/Mt 5, 39-48)," ZThK 69 (1972) 412-38. Idem, Redaktion, 53-56, 118. Manson, Sayings ofjesus, 49-55. Hans-Peter Mathys, Liebe deinen Niichsten wie dich selbst: Untersuchungen zum alttestamentlichen Gebot der

Niichstenliebe (Lev 19: 18) (OBO 71; Gottingen; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Fribourg: Universitatsverlag, 1986). Merklein, Gottesherrschaft, 222-37. Otto Michel, "Das Gebot der Nachstenliebe in der VerkiindigungJesu," in Nikolaus Koch, ed., Zur sozialen Frage: Vier Vortriige (Tiibingen: Mohr (Siebeck], 194 7) 53-10 I. Hugh Montefiore, "Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbour as Thyself," NovT 5 (1972) 157-70. James Moulder, "'Who Are My Enemies?' An Exploration of the Semantic Background of Christ's Command," journal of Theology for Southern Africa 25 (1978) 41-49. Fritz Neugebauer, "Die dargebotene Wange undJesu Gebot der Feindesliebe: Erwagungen zu Lk 6, 2736/Mt 5, 38-48," ThLZ 110 (1985) 865-76. Andreas Nissen, Gott und der Niichste im antiken judentum: Untersuchungen zum Doppelgebot der Liebe (WUNT 15; Tiibingen: Mohr (Siebeck], 1974). Percy, Botschaft Jesu, 153-63. Rudolf Pesch, "Jesus und das Hauptgebot," in Helmut Merklein, ed., Neues Testament und Ethik: Fur Rudolf Schnackenburg (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1989) 99-109. John Piper, "Love Your Enemies": jesus' Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and in the Early Christian Paraenesis: A History of the Tradition and Interpretation ofIts Uses (SNTSMS 38; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979). Idem, Wisdom, 78-86. Gilles Quispel, "Love Thy Brother," Ancient Society 1 (1970) 83-94. Stephan Randlinger, Die Feindesliebe nach dem naturlichen und positiven Sittengesetz: Eine historischethische Studie (Paderborn: Schoningh, 1906). Carl Heinz Ratschow, "Agape, Nachstenliebe, Bruderliebe," ZSTh 21 (1950) 160-82. Jerome Rausch, "The Principle of Nonresistance and Love of Enemy in Mt 5, 38-42," CBQ 28 (1966) 31-41. Hans-Richard Reuter, "Liebet eure Feinde," ZEE 26 ( 1982) 159-87. Beda Rigaux, "Revelation des mystt~res et perfection a Qumran et dans le Nouveau Testament," NTS 4 (1957 /58) 237-62. Leopold Sabourin, "Why Is God Called 'Perfect' in Mt 5:48?" BZ 24 (1980) 266-68. Jiirgen Sauer, "Traditionsgeschichtliche Erwagungen zu den synoptischen und paulinischen Aussagen tiber Feindesliebe und Wiedervergeltungsverzicht," ZNW76 (1985) 1-28. E. Schaubach, "Das VerhaltniB der Moral des classischen Alterthums zur christlichen, beleuchtet durch vergleichende Erorterung der Lehre von der Feindesliebe," ThStK 24 (1851) 59-121.

295

Gerhard Schneider, "Imitatio Dei als Motiv der 'Ethik Jesu,'" in Helmut Merklein, ed., Neues Testament und Ethik: Filr RudolfSchnackenburg (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1989) 71-83. Luise Schottroff, "Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe in der urchristlichenJesustradition, Mt 5, 38-48; Lk 5, 27-36," in Georg Strecker, ed.,jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie: Neutestamentliche FS jilr Hans Conzelmann (Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1975)

197-221; ET: "Non-Violence and the Love of One's Enemies," in Schottroff, Essays, 9-40. Schulz, Q, 127-39. Gunther Schwarz, "aya1riiT< roils ix8povs vp.rov (Mt 5, 44/Lk 6, 27a (35a):Jesu Forderung kat' exochen," Biblische Notizen 12 (1980) 32-34. 0. J. F. Seitz, "Love Your Enemies: The Historical Setting of Matthew V.43f.; Luke VI.27f.," NTS 16 (1969/70) 39-54. Gerard Sevenster, De Liefdeprediking in Evangelie en Humanisme (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1933). Morton Smith, "Mt. 5:43: 'Hate Thy Enemy,'" HTR 45 (1952) 71-73. Franz Steinmuller, Die F eindesliebe nach dem natilrlichen und positiven Sittengesetz: Eine historisch-ethische Abhandlung (Regensburg: Manz, 1909).

Krister Stendahl, "Hate, Non-Retaliation, and Love (JQS X, 17-20 and Rom 12:19-21)," HTR 55 (1962) 343-55. Jay B. Stern, "Jesus' Citation ofDt 6,5 and Lv 19,18 in the Light of the Jewish Tradition," CBQ 28 (1966) 312-16. Strecker, "Antithesen," 65-69. Idem, "Compliance, Love of One's Enemy and the Golden Rule," AusBR 29 (1981) 38-46. Gerd Theissen, "Gewaltverzicht und Feindesliebe (Mt 5, 38-48/Lk 6, 27-38)," in his Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums (WUNT 19; Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck ), 1979) 160-97. Willem C. van Unnik, "Die Motivierung der Feindesliebe in Lukas VI 32-35," in his Sparsa collecta (Leiden: Brill) 1.111-26. Richard Volkl, Die Selbstliebe in der Heiligen Schrift und bei ThomasvonAquin (MTS 2.12; Munich: Zink, 1956). Michael Waldmann, Die Feindesliebe in der antiken Welt und im Christentum (Theologische Studien der LeoGesellschaft 1; Vienna: Mayer, 1902). Wettstein, 1.311-17. Friedrich August Wolf, Quid de officiis et amore erga inimicos (Halle: Seminarii philologici sodalis, 1789). [non vidi]

Werner Wolbert, "Bergpredigt und Gewaltlosigkeit," Theologie und Philosophie 57 (1982) 488-525. Idem, "Die Liebe zum Nachsten, zum Feind, und zum Sunder," Theologie und Glaube 74 (1984) 262-82. Wrege, Bergpredigt, 82-94.

296

John H. Yoder, The Politics ofjesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 90-93. Zeller,Mahnsprilche, 101-10. 1) Analysis The sixth and last of the antitheses, dealing with the treatment of the enemy, is composed according to the same pattern as the previous antitheses. Like the first and the fourth, the sixth, too, shows a complete form, with only one omission (vs 43a). At the beginning stands the refutation of what is judged to be an inadequate interpretation of the Torah prescription under consideration. The reference to the chain of tradition (vs 43a) mentions the present recipients and the origin of the tradition but omits the past recipients. Then the Torah is quoted (Lev 19: 18), including its inadequate interpretation (vs 43bc). The second major section (vss 44-48) contains the presentation of the adequate interpretation of Lev 19:18, introduced by the doctrinal formula (vs 44a) and consisting of the citation of what is taken to be the correct understanding of the Torah, the command to love the enemies (vs 44b). Connected with vs 44b is a parallel line (isocolon) in vs 44c that concretizes vs 44a. Verse 45 adds a statement of soteriology, giving the theological reasons for the interpretation of vs 44b-c. This statement contains two parts: a reference to the eschatological promise (vs 45a) and a reference to cosmogonic myth (vs 45bc). These references may be quotations from hymnic material. The preceding correct interpretation is then argued by a carefully composed interrogatio in the form oftwo double questions set up as an extended isocolon (vss 464 7). Each of the two parts of the isocolon begins with a conditional clause describing conventional behavior and goes on to question that behavior with rhetorical queries, one expecting a negative and one a positive answer. The section concludes with a final maxim (vs 48) that sums up the underlying theological doctrine not only for vss 43-48 but also for all of the antitheses and, indeed, for the SM as a whole. The last word ofvs 48 ("perfect") seems to connect with the last word of SM/Matt 5:17 ("fulfill"), thus making the entire section on the antitheses (vss 17-48) a ring composition. The connection implies that "fulfilling the Torah" in the sense intended by the SM is tantamount to "perfection."

Excursus: On the Problems of Transmission and Tradition The parallel passages Matt 5:43-48 and Luke 6:2728, 32-36 enable one to study in some detail three related and important questions: (1) the question ofthe

Matthew 5:21-48

history of tradition; (2) the question of the teaching of the historical Jesus; and (3) the question of a written Qsource for both Sermons. The following commentary will not repeat the substance of the Introduction discussed above; rather, here I shall test the questions with respect to the texts under consideration. First, as Hans-Theo Wrege 775 and Dieter LOhrmann 776 have pointed out, the starting point in both Sermons is the command to love the enemy (SM/Matt 5:44b/ /SP /Luke 6:27b). This command is also attested by the Apologists Athenagoras Suppl. 11.1, and Theophilus Ad Autol. 3.14, in the same form of "love your enemies" (ltya1ran Toh £x8poiJ~). Justin Apol. 1.15.9 has a different formulation, "love those who hate you" (ltya1TaTE Toh !J.ICTOiJvTa~ vp.a~); and Did. 1.3, using another verb, has also
775 776 777 778

Wrege, Bergpredigt, 83. LOhrmann, "Liebet eure Feinde," 417. See Koster, Synoptische Oberlieferung, 220-26. For this distinction, see LOhrmann, Redaktion, 1416, revising Bultmann, History, 322-28. 779 1 have modified the diagram in Wrege, Bergpredigt, 84-85; cf. Koster, Synoptische Oberlieferung, 220-21; LOhrmann, "Liebet eure Feinde," 415.

an earlier written stage for Didache 1-6 as over against Didache 7-16, a presupposition confirmed by the interpolation of Did. 1.3b-2.1 in several manuscripts and by the existence of the Doctrina apostolorum. 7 81 The latter, however, is not simply the Vorlage of Didache 1-6 translated into Latin; it is, rather, another version in Latin translation of what must have been the Greek Vorlage for Didache 1-6. The Doctrina apostolorum does not include the command to love the enemy but has instead (2.7), "Hate no human being, whom rather you shall love more than your own soul" ("Neminem hominum oderis, quosdam amabis super animan tuam").

Love, General

' ' aya1raw ("love") Matt 5:44b (SM) .......... TohS' £x8pohs v,.,.wv ("your enemies") Luke 6:27b (SP) 2 Clem. 13.4 Athenagoras Suppl. 11.1 TheophilusAdAutol. 3.14 (cf.JustinDia1. 85.7; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 12.32.1) Justin A pol. 1.15. 9 ........ TohS' p.tuoVvras Vp.tiS' ("those who hate you")
To'i.'s p.tuoVcnv Vp.U.s ("those who hate you")

Love, Concrete Action eVAoyfw

("bless") Luke 6:28a (SP) Did. 1.3

\ I t ,.., TOV~ KaTapwp.EVOV~ vp.a~

("those who curse you")

780 See Koster, Synoptische Uberlieferung, 257-66. 781 See above, p. 8.

297

Justin Apol. 1.15. 9 Athenagoras Suppl. 11.1 Rom 12: 14a ..............

haters, enemies of the cross TOV~ 5uuK&vTa~ vp.O.~

("those who persecute you") Rom 12:14b ..............
("Bless and do not curse") l Cor 4: l2b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.otoopotJp.
("Being insulted we bless") 1 Cor 4: 12c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O<wK&p.
("pray on behalf of") Matt 5:44 (SM) .......... . rWv ar.wKOvrwv V~-ta.s Athenagoras Suppl. 11.1 ("those who persecute you") Did. 1.3 .................. . TOOV <x8poov vp.oov ("your enemies") P. Oxy. 1224 7Tpocr<6xop.a< 7T
("pray about") Luke 6:28b (SP) ridv f:rr7]pEa(6vrwv V,_,.as TheophilusAdAutol. 3.14 ("those who mistreat you") Ei5xop.ar. inrEp ("pray on behalf of") ]ustinApol. 1.15.9 ........ TOOV E7TTjp
V,.,.as

("those who mistreat you") (cf. also 1 Pet 3:16) Justin Dial. 96.3 ........... Toov <x8poov ("the enemies") orare pro ("pray on behalf of") Polycarp Phil. 12.3

list of objects, including saints, kings, potentates, princes, persecutors,

782 Did. 7.1: The remark TavTa 1ravTa 7Tp0«7T&vu~ ("having recited all these things before") refers to the oral citation of Didache 1-6 in the liturgy prior to

298

' V7T

the performance of baptism. Cf. a similar phrase in 11.1. See Niederwimmer, Didache, 158-60, 212.

Matthew 5:21-48

text, and most remarkably neither Matthew nor Luke, ever refers to this command again. Moreover, the lovecommand from Lev 19:18, "Love your neighbor (as yourself)," is known to the SM (Matt 5:43), and to Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31, 33//Matt 22:39//Luke 10:27; Did. 1.2; Doctr. apost. 1.2; Rom 13:9; Gal 5: 14; and Jas 2:8, but it is unknown to the SP. Further, it is only in the SM and in Did. 1.2-3 that Lev 19:18 and the command to love the enemy are combined, 785 although the contexts are different. The SM provides primarily an exegetical context, while the Didache presents a Two Ways schema that belongs to moral instruction and that is introduced by the doublecommand to love God and the neighbor. In the SM, however, the Two Way schema is pan of the overarching compositional framework, not the immediate context. One must ask, then, which context is primary-the moral or the exegetical? Since the exegetical context appears only in the SM, it would seem to be secondary. Does this mean, then, that at the inception ofthe tradition the moral command to love the enemy stood on its own as a moral maxim? This question leads to my second concern. Second, if, as all scholars agree, the substance of the love-command goes back to the historical Jesus, was he primarily a teacher of individual moral precepts, 784 or did he deliver his teaching as interpretation of the Torah? Was Jesus primarily a wisdom teacher or a theological interpreter of the Torah? Or, with respect to the SM and the SP: granted that both are secondary compositions, does the exegetical argument of the SM or the moral instruction ofthe SP reflect Jesus' primary concern? To answer these questions is difficult. Ifthe moral instruction of the present context of the SP should be prior-and most scholars assume that it should be-it need not necessarily reflect the original Sitz im Leben. Matthew's SM context, with its presupposition of Torah debate, could just as well have been the original Sitz im Leben, while the moral instruction could be derivative. In general, the redactional character of a textual unit does not necessarily rule out its reflection 783 See also Koster, Synoptische Uberlieferung, 134, 17072. 784 So esp. Zeller (Mahnsprilche, 149-54, 157-60, 17484), who characterizes the historical Jesus primarily as a wisdom teacher. Zeller affirms the old, entirely speculative picture of the unlearned Jesus, who at most attended a village school in Nazareth and acquired whatever he knew about Scripture and halakah in the local synagogues. Nothing is known about study with a rabbi, and his temporary joining ofJohn the Baptist cannot be counted as serious studies (174-75).

of the original Sitz im Leben, although it is not simply identical with it either. Indeed, since both the SM and the SP are redactional, neither has an advantage as far as the original Sitz im Leben is concerned. Further help comes from considering the question of comparative religion. Of all the texts concerned, only the SM reflects the Jewish environment from which the historical Jesus came. The SM passage contains a theological argument in purely Jewish terms, and one need not have recourse to specifically Christian ideas in order to understand it. In addition, passages like the one about the Great Commandment (Mark 12:28-34 par.) and the epistles of Paul (Gal 5:14; Rom 13:8-10) as well as ofJames (2:8-11), not to mention Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, assume Jewish debates about Torah and Scripture as the Sitz im Leben, even though they are viewed from a later perspective. In contrast, those texts that contain only the moral maxim are all Greek and Gentile Christian in orientation. As far as the historical Jesus is concerned, then, one can conclude from these observations that the context ofJewish Torah interpretation is primary. The set-up in the SM passage, therefore, comes closest to the original context and reflects the teaching of the historical Jesus. This means as well that the moral command to love the enemy represents Jesus' interpretation of the command to love the neighbor (Lev 19: 18). The actual wording and composition of SM/Matt 5:43-48, however, are secondary, while that of the SP parallel is secondary both in composition and in the presumed Sitz im Leben. Third, the problem of how to relate the SM and the SP passages under discussion to Q has been intensely debated in recent years. A virtual consensus has emerged, although it still cannot account for most of the textual phenomena. The usual method for establishing the assumed Q-text is to combine the elements common to the SM and the SP and to explain the differences as redactional operations by the Gospel writers Matthew and Luke. 785

785 See most recently Guelich, Sermon, 224; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 90 (Sermon, 87); Luz, Matthaus, 1.306-7 (Matthew, 1.339-40); Gundry, Matthew, 96; Gnilka, Matthausevangelium, 1.188-89; Sauer, "Traditionsgeschichtliche Erwagungen," 11-17.

299

In his careful investigation of Matt 5:43-48 and parallels, Dieter Liihrmann has again demonstrated that the form of the antithesis is secondary, 786 while the love-command and its combination with the Beatitudes at the beginning and with the double parable at the end, as well as the general order in the arrangement of the passages, must have existed prior to their final formulation in Matthew and Luke. 787 Liihrmann is also most cautious in moving to reconstruct the presumed Q-text of the Sermon. He agrees with Strecker788 that the Beatitudes have undergone gradual expansion prior to reaching their full form in Matt 5:3-11 (or 12). He also warns that the symbol of Q does not necessarily stand for the development ofjust one text. 789 Many scholars, including Strecker and Luz, assume several versions of Q or several stages in the development of Q or both.790 Given these complexities, one can no longer explain the elements-both common and different-between the SM and the SP simply as a result of dependency on one prior written text, apart from redactional operations. Rather than searching for that one presumed source text, one should be prepared from the start to reckon with several texts. I do not mean to say, however, that Wrege's solution-to assume that there never was a written source Q but only an amorphous flow of sayings traditions-is the only alternative. 791 A third possibility, which I tend to affirm, is to assume redaction at the presynoptic level. 792 This assumption accounts for the facts that (a) the compositional units of the SM and the SP are integral parts of the larger structure of the SM and the SP; (b) they each have their individual arrangement and argument; (c) one cannot account for all their differences as a result of redactional operations by the Gospel writers; and (d) they have an independent history also in extra-canonical Gospel sources and even in other New Testament texts older than the final redaction of the Gospels (such as the epistles of Paul). Looking at the passages concerning the command to love the enemy from this perspective, I conclude that

SM/Matt 5:43-48 and SP/Luke 6:27-36 are parallel compositions. The question that remains is where the analogous arrangement comes from, if it does not come from a common source. I maintain that there was a common source, but not a common text. I submit that the common source producing the parallel arrangement was that of rhetorical patterns and argumentative strategies used in early Christian instruction of disciples. Consequently, in regard to Q, I abstain from reconstructing one Q-sermon, 793 from which the SM and the SP passages derived, but I assume that there were two versions of "Q, • each with a different version of the Sermon. To this evidence the Doctrina apostolorum and the Didache (Did. 1.6) should be added as further versions. The context of instruction apparently required explication of the love-command ofJesus, controversial as it was. The general form of such explications followed more or less established patterns so that individual versions showed both common elements and differences. One can account for all the commonalities and differences in terms of the presynaptic redaction, and one need not think of redactional operations by the Gospel writers. If one assumes two versions of arguments concerning the love-command, they were from the start integral parts of the SM and the SP, that is, of written texts. Since Q was an evolving collection showing signs of redaction as well, and since Matthew and Luke have incorporated material from two different versions of Q (Q/Matt and Q/Luke), at some stage in the development of these two versions the passages SM/Matt 5:43-48 and SP /Luke 6:27-28, 32-36 were taken up as part of the SM and the SP into Q/Matt and Q/Luke, and this accounts for the similarities and differences. Furthermore, the fifth and sixth antitheses have a special relationship. Strecker especially has suggested that the evangelist Matthew, to whom he attributes the composition of the SM, took the love-command from the Q-Sermon (Luke 6:27) and fashioned from it two antitheses, the fifth and the sixth. 794 I find this theory unlikely for two reasons. First, it is impossible to say

793 The most recent attempt to reconstruct a Q-version 786 Liihrmann, "Liebet eure Feinde," 412-13. of this passage was made by Sauer, "Traditions787 Ibid., 414-16. geschichtliche Erwagungen," 11-14. His "recon788 Georg Strecker, "Die Makarismen der Bergpredigt," structed" Q-text, however, mixes Gentile- and ZThK 17 (1970/71) 255-75; idem, Bergpredigt, 30Jewish-Christian elements purely on the basis of 31 (Sermon, 29-30). 789 Liihrmann, "Liebet eure Feinde, • 422 n. 42. textual comparison, with no attention given to composition, theology, or comparative religion. 790 See the Introduction, pp. 6-9. 791 Wrege cannot really explain the sayings compositions Sauer also admits (pp. 14-15) that his text is not a genuine compositional unit ("keine originare as rhetorical and argumentative textual units. See the critique of Wrege, Bergpredigt, in the Introduction, p. Kompositionseinheit") but is put together from heterogeneous pieces of tradition ("zwei unter27. schiedliche Traditionsstiicke"). I submit that his text 792 See esp. Bultmann, History, 88, 145-50.

300

Matthew 5:21-48

exactly that the evangelist Matthew should have done this. Already Lev 19:18 has the two commands together, and in the same order as in SM/Matt 5:3842 and 5:43-48: "You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LoRn" (RSV). Moreover, the composition of sententiae on love in Rom 12:9-21, which is derived from Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom tradition, 795 deals in the same context with vengeance (vs 17a) and with the enemy (vs 20). That Paul derived his sententiae from the SM or the SP is unlikely. Paul does not cite the command to love the enemy, although some of the sentences come very close to it. Nor, I hasten to add, were the SM or the SP influenced by Paul. Rather, all texts in question depend on Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom traditions. 796 This tradition treated the interpretation of the ius talionis and the command to love the neighbor as separate but related issues. This background explains why the SM contains the two antitheses. 797 By contrast, the SP gives only the independent maxim commanding the love of the enemy; it does not refer to the scriptural background nor to the Jewish exegetical argument one finds in the SM.79B

2) Interpretation

• 43 Like the previous antitheses, the sixth begins with the

refutation of the inadequate interpretation introduced by the references to the chain of tradition (vs 43a).

Addressed are the present recipients of what is assumed to be the tradition, "You have heard" ( fJKo/;uan ). 7 99 The expression "it was said" (€ppfe7J) refers, as elsewhere in the SM, 800 to God as the origin of and the authority behind that tradition. The reference to the past recipients, "the men of old," is omitted; 80 1 this reference occurs only in the first (5:21) 802 and fourth (5:33) 803 antitheses. The Scripture passage under consideration is Lev 19:18, and its citation in vs 43bc presents problems that have caused much debate in past and present scholarship. Clearly, the SM intends to quote Lev 19: 18 as part of the Torah, but the quotation differs from both the MT and the LXX. Regarding the Old Testament, the quotation lifts two words from a longer sentence, the rest of which is ignored except for two argumentative points. The two words are: 1~":1~ tl=?::'ll$1 ("and you shall love your neighbor"). 1. Since the first part of Lev 19:18 makes what may be a parallel statement, "You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people" (1~~ '~::p), a question arises concerning the relationship between "neighbor" and "your own people." The reason for the parallelism in the Old Testament is to answer the question "Who is my neighbor?" by saying that the command to love the neighbor applies to the people of

never existed except on p. 14 of Sauer's essay. 794 Strecker, Bergpredigt, 90 (Sermon, 87: "Matthew, on the other hand, formed two antitheses from the Qmaterial"). 795 For the pre-Pauline traditions behind Rom 12:9-21, see Sauer, "Traditionsgeschichtliche Erwagungen," 17-23; Walter T. Wilson, L(J!Je without Pretense: Romans 12.9-21 and Hellenistic-Jewish Wisdom Literature (WUNT 2.46; Tii.bingen: Mohr [Siebeck),

1991), passim. 796 See also Sauer, "Traditionsgeschichtliche Erwagungen," 28. 797 See the texts cited by Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 57-58, 104-6. 798 Sauer's conclusion is that the command to love the enemy must be regarded as a late product of redaction and cannot be attributed historically to Jesus of Nazareth. If, however, the SM and the SP constitute presynoptic sources from c. 50 CE, as I believe, it would make them contemporary with the Pauline epistles. The conclusion would then be that the SM, the SP, and Romans 12 were influenced by

799 800 801 802 803

wisdom traditions independently. These influences as such do not, however, decide the question of authenticity because Jesus himself was influenced by wisdom traditions. What remains decisive is that the command to [(J!Je the enemy is not attested in the wisdom texts. The reason for this is, as I show below, that this command is the result not of wisdom but of the interpretation of Lev 19:18. Thus Sauer's doubts are unwarranted. See above on SM/Matt 5:21. Ibid. The Syriac tradition adds it; see Merx, Matthiius, 107. See above on SM/Matt 5:21. See above on SM/Matt 5:33, and on the composition, pp. 215-16, 263.

301

Israel (cf. Lev 19:1). Clearly, however, the command applies elsewhere in the Holiness Code to a variety of neighbors: the parents (19:3), the poor (vs 10), the hired hand (vs 13), the handicapped (vs 14), the slave (vs 20), the aged (vs 32), and the stranger (vss 33-34); excluded is the profaner of the holy (vs 8), because God is holy 804 (vs 2). Consequently, the question who is my neighbor is fundamental to the Holiness Code as a whole, but the answer given here is only one among many found in the Pentateuch. 805 2. The second point concerns the important phrase "I am the LoRn" (:"'j:"'~ ·~11). This statement, although not cited in the SM, may be responsible for the centrality of the concept of the imitation of God in SM/Matt 5:43-48 and, indeed, in the SM as a whole. The SM, however, does not refer directly to the theology or text of the Holiness Code of Leviticus 19. The tradition had much earlier lifted the love-command, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," out of this context, and it had become the subject of learned Torah debates. 806 These debates are presupposed by the SM as well as by the New Testament as a whole. Thus the question "Who is my neighbor?" appears in the New Testament as well as in Leviticus, 807 and one must consider carefully how early Christianity answered the question. As far as SM/Matt 5:43 is concerned, the citation of Lev 19:18 shows two peculiar features:

(a) While the citation agrees with the LXX text of Lev 19:18 in the first words, "You shall love your neighbor" (a:ya'll'~utu Tl:w 'li'A7Julov uov), the phrase "as yourself" (ro~ ufavn)v) is omitted. 808 Is this omission accidental or intentional, and if it is intentional, what was the reason for it? (b) Although marked as part of the quotation, "and you shall hate your enemy" (Kal. p.tu~um TOv £x8pov uov), the second part of the statement in 5:43c, is not found in the Old Testament at all. 809 What is the significance of this expansion? Does it indicate an error, a different textual basis, or an intentional argumentative move? On the first point, the omission of the phrase "as yourself" (ro~ ufaVTOv) is indeed surprising, since every other quotation of Lev 19:18 in the New Testament includes the phrase; SM/Matt 5:43 is the sole exception.810 Even in the Matthean version of the story of the Rich Young Man (Matt 19: 16-22), where Matthew has added the love-command in vs 19b, the full quotation appears. Why, then, was the phrase "as yourself" omitted in the SM? While accidental omission is certainly possible, deliberate omission is equally possible for a number of reasons. First, the shorter quotation in the SM could be due to the fact that Matthew found it in this form in his source, that is, in the SM, while elsewhere he prefers, along with other sources and the rest of the New

6.2; Trail. 8.2; PolycarpPhi1. 3.3, etc. Explicit 804 For the state of research on the Holiness Code, see debates are described or presumed when Lev 19: 18 Horst Dietrich PreuB, "Heiligkeitsgesetz," TRE 14 is cited in the passages on "The Great Com(1985) 713-18; Karl Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4; mandment" (Mark 12:28-34//Matt 22:34Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1966); and for the 30//Luke 10:25-28) and "The Rich Young Man" interpretation, see james L. Kugel and Rowan Greer, (Matt 19:19 [only]). For bibliography on "Who is my Early Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westneighbor?" see Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.888-90. minster, 1986) 90-96; Frank Criisemann, Die Tora: 808 Guelich (Sermon, 225) explains the omission on Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen formal grounds: "This omission doubtless resulted Gesetzes (Munich: Kaiser, 1992) 323-80. from the conjuction ofthe two commands in 5:43ab, 805 See esp. the Decalogue, Exod 20:16, 17, or Deut and does not affect the import of the commandment." 4:42; 5:21; 15:2; 19:4, 5, 11, 14; 22:24, 26; 23:24, 809 Commentators have invariably noted the fact. 25; 27:17, 24, to give a few examples. Billerbeck (Str-B 1.353, 368) is on the right track 806 For the history of the interpretation of Lev 19:18, when he surmises that the saying as a whole appears see Str-B 1.353-64, 368; Nissen, Gott, 278-329, to be a popular maxim, according to which "the 400-407; Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 1.80-136 average Israelites" of jesus' day understood their (bibliography); Piper, "Love Your Enemies," passim; conduct toward friend and foe, and he refers to 2 Michael Lattke, "Halacha," RAG 13 (1986) 372-402, Sam 19:6 as a parallel ("you love those who hate you esp. 387-90; Criisemann, Tora, 374-80. and hate those who love you"). 807 Luke 10:29: rl~ lurlv p.ov 7TA1JU{ov; cf. vs 36; 810 Mark 12:31, 33//Matt 22:39/ /Luke 10:27; Rom furthermore Acts 7:27; Rom 13:9-10; 15:2; Eph 19:9; Gal5:14;Jas 2:8; cf. Did. 2.7. 4:25; 2 Thess 3:15;Jas 2:8; 4:12; Did. 1.2; 2.3, 6; Barn. 19.3, 5, 6, 8; I Clem. 38.1; 51.2; IgnatiusMagn.

302

Matthew 5:21-48

Testament, the longer form (cf. Matt 19:19; 22:39). 8 ll Second, there may be a formal reason: vs 43b is an antithetical isocolon, and its strict parallelism forms a paromoiosis; 812 the isocolon, however, would be destroyed by the phrase "as yourself" in the first line only: aya'71'~CTE!S TOV '71'A:qulov CTOV

Ka'r. f.L!u~um Tov lxBpov uov.

You shall love your neighbor and you shall hate your enemy. In addition, there may have been a theological reason, and if so, this reason must have been the decisive one. The words "as yourself" imply a positive valuation of selflove. Such an emphasis on self-love, however, appears to be improper in a context where the doctrine of the imitation of God is the guiding doctrine. If the SM teaches that God loves his creation and even his human enemies (vs 45b), and if the demand is stated that the "sons of God" follow the same ethos (vss 45a, 48), there is no room for the suggestion that God loves himself. The term aya'71'aW ("love") always foCUSeS On SOmeone else as the object oflove, and a suggestion that God would look at himself as another person with love would in antiquity, especially in a gnostic context, conjure up notions of narcissism. 813 It would undercut the firm belief in monotheism and selfless love of God's creation, which are characteristic of the SM (vs 45b). When even love because of love in return is ethically ruled out (vss 464 7), a divine self-love and its consequences for the ethical life of the disciples would be incompatible with "perfection" (vs 48). Although one can say nothing definitive because of the

absence of corroborating texts elsewhere in the SM, it appears that the omission of "as yourself" was deliberate rather than accidental. I note, too, that Paul, who always retains the "as yourself" when quoting Lev 19:18 (Gal 5: 14; Rom 13:9), can do so because his theological context forbids an application to God himself. In christological passages, however, Paul emphatically denies the idea that Christ could have loved himself (see esp. Phil2:6, with the exhortation in Phil2:1-4; Rom 15:1-3 and 1 Cor 10:24, 33; 13:5; Rom 12:9-21; Gal 6:2, etc.). 814 If my suggestion concerning the SM holds true, it points to the fact that the SM is concerned with the doctrine of God and not with chris to logy. 815 At this point the SM is then characteristically different from the theology of Matthew as a whole. 816 On the second point, the expansion of the quotation in the second part by the words "and you shall hate your enemy" has created a great deal of controversy. 817 Since no version of the Old Testament text of Lev 19: 18 contains these words, how can anyone claim this to be a quotation? In answering this question, one must consider a number of points. (a) It is clear from the composition of the passage that vs 43bc claims to be the quotation of Lev 19:18, but in fact it is both quotation and interpretation, the latter to be judged inadequate. This negative judgment is part of the refutation, but it does not extend to the words that come from Lev 19:18 itself.

and Betz, Galatians, 125-26, for further passages). 811 One should note that syh omits the quotation of Lev 815 SeeBetz,Essays,l51-54. 19:18 in Matt 19:19. Origen Comm. inMatthaeum 816 In Matthew's Gospel, the divine agape is focused on 15.14 attributes the quotation to a redactor, but he Jesus, God's "beloved son" (Matt 3:17; 12:18 [Isa reports that the Gospel to the Hebrews (i.e., the Gospel to 42:1]; 17:5). Although Jesus preaches the lovethe Nazareans) reads it (see NTApoc 1.149; NTApok command (Matt 5:43-44; 6:24; 19:19; 22:37, 39) 1.135). See Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece, and certainly is believed himself to be the greatest 1.118; Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, 15 7; example of its fulfillment, Matthew's christological Plummer, Matthew, 266; McNeile, Matthew, 279; concern is not Christ's "love" (ayt:br71) but his Lohmeyer, Matthiiusevangelium, 286-87. For the "righteousness" (aLtca&outlv1), 3: 15; cf. 10:41; 11: 19; thesis that Lev 19:18 is an addition by Matthew's 21:32; 27:4, 19, 24). redaction, see Grundmann,Matthiius, 433; Gundry, 817 For detailed discussions, see the contributions by Matthew, 387. Linton, Nissen, Smith, and Stendahl in addition to 812 See Lausberg, Elemente, 116 (§ 387). the commentaries on the SM and Matthew. 813 Gnosticism concentrates on the love of the self, while love of the neighbor becomes irrelevant. 814 The other side is stated by the christological formulae about Christ's love (see Gall :4; 2:20, etc.,

303

(b) The words "and you shall hate your enemy," therefore, constitute an interpretative comment stating the improper interpretation of Lev 19:18. 818 This method of adding the interpretation of a passage to the quotation of that passage was practiced elsewhere in Jewish and Jewish-Christian scriptural theology. 819 It is not typical of Matthew's own method, however: he usually quotes the LXX verbatim. 82 Consequently, the expansion in vs 43c is another indication of a preMatthean source of Jewish-Christian origin. (c) Subsequent to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some scholars have proposed that vs 43 may have been formulated in repudiation of the Qumran sect, in which hatred toward the enemy was a clearly distinguishable trait. 821 For example, 1QS 1.4 stipulates "that they may love all that He has chosen and hate all that He has rejected. "822 This juxtaposition oflove and hatred is deeply rooted in the dualism of Qumran theology. 8 2 3 Even if one grants all this, however, there is no reason to see here a special relationship of polemic expressed by the SM. 824 (d) Luz is correct in saying that "'Hate your enemy' is a rhetorical counter-formulation" suggested by Lev 19:18

°

and is intended to confront the readers. If one understands the love-command in a particularistic or popular-ethical way, hatred of the enemy will follow in practice. 8 2 5 But why would anyone advocate such an interpretation? In order to understand this problem, one must consider the issues within the wider context of ancient ethics generally, and not within Old Testament and Jewish ethics alone. In the wider ancient context, the ethics of friendship and enmity was commonly debated by poets and philosophers especially. On the Greek side, Hesiod in Works and Days 342-51, a work generally known as foundational for Greek ethics and based on older, probably Near Eastern, traditions, associates the friend/ enemy with the good/bad neighbor. As Martin L. West points out in his commentary, the topic has parallels, and most likely antecedents, in the wisdom of ancient Egypt. 826 The seventh-century poet Alcman 827 and the sixth/fifth-century poet Pindar 828 also treat the topic of being a good neighbor. The pronouncements of these poets reflect an older popular morality. The situation in the Old Testament is not altogether different when the good neighbor (~'j) is associated with

818 So correctly Luz, Matthiius, 1.310 (Matthew, 1.34344); similarly Guelich, Sermon, 225-27; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 90-91 (Sermon, 88-89). 819 This hermeneutical procedure needs fresh investigation. It was practiced also by Paul, e.g., in Gal2:16. For comments and references see Betz, Galatians, 118, with n. 50. 820 For Matthew's way of quoting the OT, see Krister Stendahl, The School ofSt. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (ASNU 20; 2d ed.; Lund: Gleerup, 1968), 37, who seems to feel that SM/Matt 5:43 is special: "whatever may be the biblical or Rabbinic support for the additional clause Kat jJ.IO"~O"EIS TOV tx6pOV uov." See furthermore Wilhelm Rothfuchs, Die Erftlllungszitate des Matthiius-Evangeliums (BW ANT 88; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969); Robert H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel (NovTSup 18; Leiden: Brill, 1967). 821 See Braun, Radikalismus, 2.57 n. 1; idem, Qumran, 1.17-18; idem, jesus, 89-104; Davies, Setting, 252; Grundmann, Matthiius, 176-77; Hubner, Gesetz, 97104. 822 Translation by Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 72. 823 See also 1QS 1.10; 9.21-23; 10.17-20, and on the problems see Krister Stendahl, "Hate, NonRetaliation, and Love (JQS X, 18-20 and Rom

304

824

825

826

827 828

12:19-21)," HTR 55 (1962) 343-55; E. F. Sutcliffe, "Hatred at Qumran," RevQ 7 ( 1960) 345-56; Braun, Radikalismus 2.57 n. 1; John Procope, "HaB," RAG 13 (1985) 677-714, esp. 697. Cf. Guelich, Sermon, 226, who argues against an antiQumran polemic because he attributes the expansion of Lev 19:18 to Matthean redaction and cannot imagine a common social context for Matthew's own church and the Qumran sect. Luz (Matthew, 1.345): "'Hate your enemy' is a rhetorical counter-formulation, called forth by Lev. 19:18, which wants to address the hearer. In point of fact, it does mean the hatred of the enemy if one understands the love command in a particularistic or popular ethical way." Martin L. West, Hesiod: Works and Days (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978) 243-44, with valuable references toP. Insinger 16.6-8; 28.15-16; Cato De agric. 4; Columella 1. 3. 5-7; and others. West also refers to Prov 27:10 and Ahiqar (see especially Sayings 174-76 [OTP 2.506] and 139-41 [OTP 2.504]). See also Syr. Menander 128-32 (OTP 2.595-96). Aleman 123: p.tya ydrov& yElrwv ("A neighbor is to his neighbor a great thing"). Pindar Nem. 7.86-89; Pyth. 8.58; Isth. 1.52-54. See West, Hesiod: Works and Days, 244, on line 346; JeffreyS. Rusten, "rEIT.ON HP.OI:: Pindar's Prayer

Matthew 5:21-48

the friend and set opposite to the enemy. 8 2 9 The questions the Old Testament texts presuppose and answer in a variety of ways are, Who is a good or a bad neighbor? Whom does the Torah require the Israelite to treat as a neighbor? Both the Decalogue (Exod 20:16, 17 explicitly; 20: 10-15 implicitly) and the Holiness Code (Lev 19:13~ 15, 16, 17, 18 explicitly; 19:9-12, 14, 33-36 implicitly) set forth prescriptions for being a good neighbor. Israel in particular had to decide the question again and again as to who was included in and excluded from the category of neighbor. 830 Should they include or exclude strangers, slaves, sojourners, resident aliens, and even enemies? Wisdom literature in particular focused on personal relationships: Who is a true or a false friend and thus a good or a bad neighbor? What should be done about deceivers, flatterers, and other false friends? The best neighbor is the one who is a good friend, while the "enemy" (~~_iK) is the complete opposite of both neighbor and friend. Correspondingly, the relationship with the friend is one of "love" (~:"1K, 'iihab), while the relationship with the enemy is based on hatred (Kl'IO). 831 These terminological correspondences and juxta-

829

830

831

832 833

834 835

positions are so commonplace in the Old Testament that one can take for granted their appearance in the SM. One can conclude, then, that the neighbor to be loved is in fact the friend, 832 and that this is the intended meaning ofSM/Matt 5:43b. Even at the level of translation, the LXX often rendered "neighbor" as "friend" (tj>lA.os instead of 7TA7Julov). 833 If vs 43b were to read the phrase "as yourself" (ws uwvrov), this understanding would be further strengthened since in ancient belief the friend was regarded as "another self" or "alter ego": "your friend who is as your own soul" (Deut 13:6 [LXX: 13:7]). 834 At any rate, just as love and hate are contrasted, so are neighbor and enemy; and, as popular morality has it, one loves the former and hates the latter. Where then lies the ethical problem? As already mentioned, a problem indeed existed as early as Plato, who condemned as ethically unacceptable the popular maxim: "a man's virtue consists in outdoing his friends in kindness and his enemies in mischief." 835 Ancient writers quote this maxim in many versions; 836 the maxim

to Heracles (N. 7.86-101) and Greek Popular 836 See also XenophonMem. 2.3.14; 3.6.2; 3. 7.9; 3.9.8; Religion," HSGP 87 (1983) 289-97. 3.10.1; 4.2.12-19; Gyr. 1.6.17; Thucydides 2.40.4; Euripides Here. Fur. 585; cf. Phoen. 1446. For the The juxtaposition of friend and foe is also suggested, it seems, in the Hebrew because of the similarity of gnomologia, see Theognis 337-38, 869-72; ::::1\,liK ("friend") and ::::J~_iK ("enemy"). Cf., e.g.,Judg Dittenberger, Sylloge (3d ed.), 1286, 1.15.16 (3d 5:31; Lam 1:2; and esp. 1 Sam 18:1-5 and 29. century BCE) with the Delphic maxim: .pl>..ots .:qcrlov," £x8poh apvvov ("To friends be kind, against enemies retaliate"); Menander Mon. 505 (ed. Jaekel); Plutarch TDNT 6.312-15 (B.2-3). On the concept, see ThWNT 10/2 (1979) 1237-38 (bibliography); Apoph. Lac., Agesilaus 66, 213C; Stobaeus Eel. BAGD, s.v., 1r>.:qcrlov; Klaus Haacker, EWNT (EDNT) 4.13.64 and 66 (ed. Wachsmuth and Hense, 3, s.v. 1TA1Jcrlov (bibliography);]. Kiihlewein, "l!'j re•' Anthologia [Berlin: Weidmann, 1909], vol. 4, pp. 368, Nachster," THAT 2.786-91. 369). For large collections of passages, see Friedrich See Helmer Ringgren, "::::1:1$. 'iiyabh," TDOT 1.228Georg Welcker, Kleine Schriften zur Griechischen 35; Bauer, s.v. <xBpJs; Wemer Foerster, TDNT Litteraturgeschichte (Bonn: Weber, 1845) 2.432-33 n. 122; Jacob Bernays, Gesammelte Abhandlungen 2.811-15; ThWNT 10/2 (1979) 1093-94 (bibliography); Erich Fascher, "Fremder," RAG 8 (Berlin: Hertz, 1885) 1.214 n. I; Karl Friedrich (1972) 306-47; cf. RAG 13 (1985) 682; Michael Nagelsbach, Die nachhomerische Theologie des Wolter, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s.v. <xBpJs. griechischen Volksglaubens (Niimberg: Geiger, 1857) See Gustav Stahlin, "{>..os KTA.," TDNT9.146-71, 24-51; Franz Dirlmeier, ..os), see the Salesianische Offizin, 1931) 28;Jean Bollack, "Les references in Stahlin, TDNT 9.154-55; Kiihlewein, maximes de l'amitie," Association Guillaume Budi: Actes THAT 2.786-91, esp. 787-88. du VI/feme Gongres (Paris: Bude, 1968) 221-36; For more references, see Stahlin, TDNT 9.151-54, Dihle, Goldene Regel, 32-33; idem, RAG 11 (1978) 251; Carl-Wemer Muller, Die Kurzdialoge der esp. 152 n. 54. Xenophon Mem. 2.6.35: O.vapos ap{>..ovs
305

interprets "virtue" as manliness in the philosophically unrefined sense in the same manner as "kindness" is seen to consist of favors and "mischief" to consist of hostile acts restrained only by some conventions of civility. As Dirlmeier has pointed out in his doctoral dissertation, 837 the popular maxim to love the friend and hate the enemy was first contested by Socrates in Plato's Criton 49a-e. Here Socrates argues that "wrongdoing (is) inevitably evil and a disgrace to the wrongdoer" (49b). This is true even if done to "requite evil with evil" (49c): 838 "it is never right to do wrong or to requite wrong with wrong, or when we suffer evil to defend ourselves by doing evil in return. "839 In the Republic ( 1, 332d-336a), the Platonic Socrates explicitly refutes the popular maxim in a long argument examining its terms in the light of the definition of justice as "rendering to each what befits him, the name that he [i.e., the poet Simonides] gave to this was 'the due.'" 840 As a result, the maxim under consideration, which Plato ascribes to the poet Simonides, 841 turns out to be incompatible with justice. Its imperatives do not befit the conduct of "the good one," for "in no case is it just to harm anyone" (335e). 8 4 2 The popular maxim recommending the love of friend and the hatred of foe is not found, to my knowledge, in the Old Testament and rabbinic literature, but reflections of its popular assumption are everywhere. Loving one's friends and hating one's enemies is the usual human behavior, maxim or no maxim. Even though "hating the enemy" (p.urliv T~IV f.x8pov) is not attested in the Old or the New Testament, there is wide

evidence that this is how people acted. In this respect, the maxim as well as SM/Matt 5:43bc describe common human behavior. At the same time, however, the expansion of vs 43c rejects what the maxim approves of and judges it to be unethical. At this point, Plato and the SM agree in regard to their ethical judgment. How can one explain such a remarkable agreement? Could the SM at this point have been influenced by Plato? Or do other texts indicate that Platonic ideas were communicated to Judaism? Or was there a more widespread popular philosophy to which the SM had access? Answers to these questions are difficult to find because the complex of ideas has only partially been investigated. Many texts indicate that philosophical schools debated widely the topic of friendship and enmity. 843 The same is true of jewish wisdom, which expressed doubts and second thoughts about, if not polemic against, conventional assumptions. At the same time, the popular conventions about hating the enemy and doing good for the friend-and the corresponding behavior patterns-continued to circulate. It is quite probable that Greek philosophical school debates influenced Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom literature in some as yet unexplored ways. Plato, however, cannot have been the only source to question the common behavior. Law and wisdom even before the Bible had begun to examine critically the common behavior, including treatment of the enemy, and had come to discourage hatred as immoral. The Holiness Code, from which the SM quotes, and in which being a good neighbor is a fundamental concern,

Enemies," Antichthon 11 (1977) 22-41; MaryW. Blundek, Helping Friends and Harming Enemies: A Study in Sophocles and Greek Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1989), esp. 26-59. 837 Dirlmeier, ci>IAOI:, 27-28. 838 This refers to the talio principle; see above on SM/Matt 5:38-42. 839 Plato Crito 49d: ~s oliliE"IrOTE 3p8oos lxovros oi!Tf rov ~~LKEiV oiJTE Toii lr.vra~LKE'i'V oifTE KaK(;}~ waaXOVTa

O.p:6vEu8a& O.vr&3poovra KaKoos. 840 Plato Rep. 1.332b-c: llr& rovr' Erf/ litKa&ov, rb ?rpouiiKOV €K&.O"Ttp O.wo~,aOvaL, TOVTo a~ &lv&p.atTEV Ot/JELAO,.,.Evov. For this definition see also above on SM/Matt 5:20. 841 So in Plato Rep. 1.332b-c, but in 335e-336a, some of the Seven Wise Men are considered, "or some other rich man who had great power in his own conceit" (336a). Plato thus recognizes that the maxim reflects

306

the ethos of an earlier age, not that of his own. 842 Cf. also Plato Gorg. 492c. Dirlmeier (ci>IAOI:, 28) points to the role of the popular maxim in rhetoric and names Anaximenes Rhet. 36, 1442a 11-14; Aristotle Rhet. 1.6, 1363a 21; 2.21, 1395b 14; Top. 1.10, 104a 29-30; 2.7, 112b 27-113a 19. 843 See Schmidt, Ethik, 2.337-68: "Freundschaft und Feindschaft"; Kurt Treu, "Freundschaft," RAG 8 (1970) 418-34; Dover, Greek Morality, 181-84;JeanCiaude Fraisse, Philia: La notion d' amitie dans la philosophie antique (Paris: Vrin, 197 4).

Matthew 5:21-48

explicitly rules out hatred of the brother: "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason with your neighbor" (Lev 19:7). Hatred of the enemy is not explicitly mentioned, but since the "brother" as insider was understood to be the opposite of the enemy, the outsider, prohibition of hatred of the enemy would be inconceivable as part of the theology of the Holiness Code. Exodus 23:4-5 recommends helping the enemy's ox or ass if they are in trouble, but such help is directed toward the animals, not toward the enemy; thus the parallel in Deut 22:1-4 speaks of the brother's animals, not the enemy's, when the same stipulation is set forth. Like all ancient wisdom, Jewish wisdom has a great deal to say about the topic of friends and foes. Ben Sira especially offers a number of pertinent precepts, for example: "Do not become an enemy instead of a friend" (Sir 5:15 [LXX 6: 1a]). On the whole, Ben Sira advises one to be cautious about friends and to avoid or bypass the enemy: "Do not fight with a wrathful man, and do not cross the wilderness with him, because blood is as nothing in his sight, and where no help is at hand, he will strike you down" (8:16 [RSV]). Indeed, the world is full of enemies, often disguised as friends, so that circumspection and caution are matters of prudence. 844 Hatred per se is not immoral, but hating the enemy would be imprudent, 845 and loving him certainly

foolish. 846 These lines of tradition continue even into rabbinic literature. 84 7 Philo has no discussion, as far as I can see, on the subject of hating the enemy, 848 but he argues against those who are excessively devoted to their kinship and may, on that account, prefer violence to justice: "It is right indeed to shew friendship to those whose actions are worthy of friendship, but no evil-doer is a true friend" (Spec. leg. 3.155; trans. F. H. Colson). This, of course, excludes the enemy from such friendship, but Philo considers only the other side: Those whom we call our kinsfolk or within the circle of kinsmen our friends are turned into aliens by their misconduct when they go astray; for agreement to practice justice and every virtue makes a closer kinship than that of blood, and he who abandons this enters his name in the list not only of strangers and foreigners but of mortal enemies. (Spec. leg. 3.155; trans. F. H. Colson) The whole discussion of Spec. leg. 3.153-68 appears influenced by Hellenistic moral thought, but, as often in Philo, such influences are hard to prove. Discussions concerning what to do about the enemy must have been a common topic of discussion among philosophers. 849 Epictetus in the exordium of the

wrongful gain as robbers do, but in self-defense, 844 See Sir 12:8-18; cf. 6:8-13; 37:1-6; Prov 19:4. See either to avenge the injuries which he has suffered Jack T. Sanders, "Ben Sira's Ethics of Caution," already or to guard against those which he expects to HUCA 50 (1979) 73-106. suffer in the future." Philo (Virt. 152-54) interprets a 845 See Sir 30:21-24; Prov 10:12, 18; Wis 11:24; 19:13; similar maxim, "In joining friendship we should not etc. ignore the possibility of enmity, and conduct our 846 See Sir 25:1-2 and esp. 6:1-18 (on this section, see quarrels with future friendship in view." The maxim Gunter Krinetzki, "Die Freundschaftsperikope Sir 6, is attributed to Bias and cited in full in Diog. L. 1.87; 5-17 in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht," BZ 23 cf. Aristotle Rhet. 2.13.4, and the discussion in [1979]212-33). 2.21.13-14; Cicero De amic. 16.59. For discussion 847 See 'Abot 2.16 (ed. Herford; Pirke Aboth, 57): "R. see Colson's note in the LCL edition of Philo, vol. 8, Jehoshua said:-The evil eye and the evil principle p. 448. See also Philo Op. mun. 168; Leg. All. 1.34; and hatred of mankind drive a man out of the Mut. 24; Sacr. AC 124; Virt. 106-8, 117-19, 160; world." For further material from rabbinic literature, Spec. leg. 4.73, 186-87; Flacc. 121. see Str-B 1.364-68; Abrahams, Studies, 2.206-7; 849 For a survey, see John Procope, "Hafi," RAC 13 Nissen, Gott, 295-304, 305-17. (1985) 677-714, esp. 683-89, to whom I am 848 In a description of true and false magic, Philo notes indebted for most of the passages adduced below; that it is the latter which among other things, "turn also Nissen, Gott, 417-502. men's love into deadly enmity" (Spec. leg. 3.197). Philo (ibid.) does not approve of hatred of the enemy; at another place he does approve only in a limited way (Spec. leg. 4.121; LCL trans. modified): "human enemies, who should be combated not for

307

Enchiridion stipulates that part of the freedom those enjoy who are able to distinguish between what is up to them and what is not is this: "You will have no personal enemy, no one will harm you, for neither is there any harm that can touch you. " 85 Further elaboration of this topic is found in the section on social duties (Ta KaB~KOVTa, Ench. 30). 851 Epictetus did not invent these ideas but adopted them from school tradition communicated by his teacher, Musonius Rufus; 85 2 it is not surprising to find them as well in Dio Chrysostom, another of Musonius's students. 853 One must realize that Hellenistic philosophy rejected hatred of the enemy for many reasons, depending on the philosophical school. For one thing, having enemies was not necessarily bad. Enemies are part of life and: "He who has no enemies has no friends either." 854 Hatred of the enemy may be a necessary motivation for selfdefense. 855 If such hatred is valued negatively, however, it cannot possibly extend to the "hatred of evil" (p.&IT07rOV'1/Pla) because it is basic to all virtue. 856 Hatred of inimical persons, however, may be rejected because it is "too extreme, "857 or because it strains the emotions and impedes the "tranquillity of the mind. "858 Again, the

°

reason might be caution or prudence. Plutarch's works include an important essay "On how to draw benefits from one's enemies." 859 Distinguishing true friends from false is difficult; an honest enemy may be an asset, while a flatterer and false friend is certainly more dangerous. 860 Prudence suggests that one should treat an enemy, especially when he is defeated or in trouble, in such a way that he may become a friend in the future. 861 At any rate, as Pittacus has said, "Mercy is better than vengeance"; 862 or, to cite another famous dictum of Sophocles, "My nature is for mutual love, not hate."863 Turning to the SM, one finds that hatred of the enemy is rejected for different reasons from those given by the Greek wisdom sayings, poets, and philosophers. The rationales of Greek wisdom and philosophy, however, were not felt to be incompatible with the SM. On the contrary, they were soon brought in as additional support as early as the New Testament and certainly by the church fathers. 864 The SM has its own theological justification for rejecting hatred of the enemy. Presented by a rational argument, this justification is theological in nature. In principle, the ethical demand presented by the SM is

850 Epictetus Ench. 1.3: ix_8pb11 oilx reElS, oii~Els UE fl>..&:o[IEI, oMt -yl:tp fl>..aflEptJII Tl -rrEluy. See Sextus Empiricus Adv. math. 11.40 (SVF 3, no. 76; cf. also nos. 97 and 106). Cf. Did. 1.3: "and you will have no enemy." 851 Epictetus is opposed to hatred because of the emotional involvement; see Diss. 1.18, passim (esp. 1.18.9, 19); 1.22.15; 1.26.17; 1.28.10; 2.22.15-21; 3.4.6. See Procope, RAC 13.688-89. 852 Musonius Rufus (ed. Cora Lutz), chapter 10. 853 For parallels, see Mussies, Dio Chrysostom, 42-43. 854 Chilon, according to Plutarch frg. 174 (ed. Sandbach, LCL edition of Plutarch's Moralia, 15.308-9): "enmities necessarily follow upon friendship and are interwoven with them" (l' ava-yK'1S l-rraKOAov8liv Kal UV11Ep."ITAEKEu8a& &>..{a&s cl"ITEX8E£as). 855 See Cicero (Tusc. 4.43-64), arguing against the Peripatetics. 856 On the concept see Procope, RAC 13.685-86; also PECL 2.142, 168, 171, 183, 194,216, 363, 365, 366. 857 Sophocles El. 177. It would violate the Delphic maxim P.'1~tvli.-yav, "Nothing in excess." See Aristotle Rhet. 2.21, 1395a 31-32. 858 See esp. Plutarch's essay "On tranquility of the mind" (De tranquillitate animi; Moralia 464E-477F), and my discussion of it in PECL 2.198-230. 859 Plutarch De capienda ex inimicis utilitate (Moralia 86B92F).

308

860 On this topic see Plutarch's essay on "How to tell a flatterer from a friend" (Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur [Moralia 48E-7 4E)). Important also are the essays "On the control of anger" (De cohibenda ira [Moralia 452E-464D)) and "On brotherly love"(De fraterno amore [Moralia 4 78A-492D)); see PECL 2.170-97, 231-63. On the entire problem area, see Heinz Gerd Ingenkamp, Plutarchs Schriften ilber die Heilung der Seele (Hypomnemata 34; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971 ). 861 The maxim, 'A>..>..~>..o&s 8' op.&AELII, ws Tots p.tv4>l>..ovs ~x8pol!s p.~ "ITO&fjua&, Tolls 3' lx8pots {AOVS lp-yauau8a& ("So to behave one to another as not to make friends into enemies, but to turn enemies into friends"), was ascribed to Pythagoras by Diog. L. 8.23, to Homer by Clement Alex. Strom. 2.102.4, to Solon in Gnom. Vatic. no. 508 (ed. Sternbach), to Socrates by Themistius Or. 7.95a-b, to Alexander in Gnom. Vatic. no. 82 (ed. Sternbach), and to Ariston of Chios by PlutarchApophth. Lac., Ariston 1, 218A. These passages have been collected by Procope, RAC 13.686 (section B). 862 Diog. L. 1. 76: uv-y-yvJJp.71 T&p.roplas KpEluurov. 863 Sophocles Ant. 523: oiiTOI UVIIEX8E'ill, a>..>..l:t uvp.IAELII l4>vv. Cited according to the LCL edition and translation of Sophocles by F. Storr. 864 Without depending on the SM, this was done as early

Matthew 5:21-48

neither irrational nor incompatible with its contemporary environment, nor is it simply based on Jesus' personal authority. 865 One must see the argument made in vss 43-48 in its specificity and its limitations, set by its own concerns: 866 (1) the interpretation of a scriptural demand of the Torah (Lev 19: 18) in the light of the hermeneutical principles set forth in SM/Matt 5:17-20 and 7: 12; (2) justification for the teaching of the historical Jesus in terms of what was believed to be Jewish orthodox theology; (3) the working out of an ethical and legal stance to meet the higher righteousness as demanded in 5:20. Once clearly recognized, these limitations can be transcended and applied to ethical and even political issues outside the text, although one must not confuse these text-external issues with the intentions of the SM itself. Equally obviously, the issues of the interpretation of Lev 19:18 and, indeed, of Jesus' interpretation cannot be confined to what the SM is willing to discuss. Later interpretations are thus legitimate in principle, even when such interpretations are quite different from that of the SM. • 44 The presentation of what is proposed as the correct interpretation of Lev 19: 18 follows in vss 44-48, introduced by the doctrinal formula identifying authority, "but I say to you" (£yoo ot AfYW vp.'iv [vs 44a]). This correct interpretation takes the form of a maxim (vs 44b), "Love your enemies" (aya?Ta.u roh £x8polJ<; vp.wv). My discussion ofvs 43bc has shown the reasons on which the command is based: if the conclusion is that the neighbor includes the enemy, then one must, as a good

neighbor, deal with-that is, one must love-the enemy. What appears at first to be a contradiction in terms, the command to love the enemy, is thus presented as a reasoned conclusion from the interpretation of Scripture. How can one explain this phenomenon? This particular interpretation of Lev 19: 18 does not appear in other Jewish sources contemporary with Jesus. Thus I agree with most scholars that it should be attributed to Jesus as its originator. 867 The passage is a classic example of Jesus' exegesis of the Torah; far from breaking with the Torah, he interpreted it in terms of Jewish hermeneutics of the time in order to propose a startlingly innovative interpretation that is nonetheless compatible with common sense. Moreover, one can easily see why this command makes sense to non-Jews as well; and not surprisingly, one finds it in the parallel SP /Luke 6:27b as the basic maxim of the entire SP. 868 In evaluating SM/Matt 5:44b, one must distinguish between the words "love your enemies," which come from Lev 19:18 ("love" [aya'lT!~W] by quotation, and "enemies" [£x8pol] by exegesis), and the underlying ethical demand to treat the enemy in a humane way. This ethical demand belongs to what one may call ancient "humanism" and is first found in the ancient Babylonian Counsels of Wisdom, written before 700 BCE: Unto your opponents do no evil; Your evildoer recompense with good; Unto your enemy let justice [be done]. Unto your oppressor ... Let him rejoice over you, ... return to him. Let not your heart be induced to do evil. 869

as Paul in Rom 12:9-21, drawing on other wisdom traditions (Deut 32:35; Prov 25:21-22), and by Did. 1.3. This line of thought continues in the Apologists and church fathers. See Procope, RAG 13.699-701. 865 Thus one should not overstate the uniqueness of the position held by the SM. The SM is certainly also interested in prudence, as indicated by the Golden Rule (7:12) and the conclusion, 7:24-27, so that rejection of hatred is not solely based on the imitation of God (5:45, 48). Differently Dihle, Goldene Regel, 114-16, who does not recognize the Golden Rule (7: 12) in the context of the SM and therefore concludes, "No direct way, in fact, leads from the Golden Rule to the new ethics, which culminates in the command to love the enemy, because that rule evaluates all action in the light of the principle of reciprocity" (p. 116). Dihle is

followed also by Procope, RAG 13.699-700. 866 Other passages in early Christian literature may provide different reasons for rejecting hatred. On the entire topic of hatred and for bibliography, see Otto Michel, TDNT 4.683-94; BAGD, s.v. p.t<Tiw, p.I
309

Interesting for comparison is not only the general idea but also the formal analogy of serial variation of the main principle named first and repeated last (ring composition), the implied Golden Rule, and the implied rule of equal compensation. 8 70 Ancient Near Eastern wisdom texts warn against excessive revenge against the enemy, joy over his misfortunes, and curses. Instead, these texts recommend generosity and letting divine retribution take its course, although never "love" of the enemy. These ideas have found their way into the Old Testament, especially the wisdom literature. The key passage is Exod 23:4-5, 8 7 1 becoming as it did the preferred text for later rabbinic exegesis: 872 If you meet your enemy's ox or his ass going astray, you shall bring it back to him. If you see the ass of one who hates you lying under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it, you shall help him to lift it up. (RSV) It is remarkable that what is granted the animals is not granted the enemy himself. This hesitation has disappeared in wisdom literature, especially Prov 24:1718:873

Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles; lest the LORD see it, and be displeased, and tum away his anger from him. (RSV) Most important and influential was also Prov 25:2122:874 If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink;

for you will heap coals of fire on his head, and the LoRD will reward you. (RSV) These passages only seem to come close to the SM, but they really do not. Also, they do not refer directly to Lev 19: 18. There are other such Old Testament passages, less explicitly stated, based on the commandment to love the neighbor, usually within the thematic context of friendship and enmity. 8 7 5 A classic passage of the kind is the cycle of stories about David and jonathan in 1 Samuel 18-24. The two men are the exemplars of true friendship, confirmed in a covenant by which "the soul of jonathan was knit to the soul of David" (1 Sam 18:1; see 18:3; 20:17, 41-42). The pair is then contrasted with the relationship between David and Saul, a relationship exemplifying enmity in its stages of development from initial love, to envy, to attempted murder. The turning point occurs in the cave of the Wildgoats' Rocks, where Saul is given into the hand of David, but David does not kill him (24:1-15). When Saul recognizes what has happened, he says to David (24: 17-19): You are more righteous than I; for you have repaid me good, whereas I have repaid you evil. And you have declared this day how you have dealt well with me, in that you did not kill me when the LoRD put me into your hands. For if a man finds his enemy, will he let him go away safe? So may the LORD reward you with good for what you have done to me this day. (RSV) Saul then appoints him his successor. Is this an instance of the love of enemy the SM mentions? The text could

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; 2 vols.; 870 For further material from ancient Near Eastern Edinburgh: Clark, 1981) 2.648-50; 650, no. 1 wisdom, see Zeller, Mahnspruche, 104-6, also 55-58. (bibliography); Wilson, Love, 195-98. 871 Cf. the parallel Deut 22:1-4, which does not mention the "enemy." Cf. 23:7, 9. 875 See, e.g., Sir 7:21: "An intelligent slave love as yourself; do not deprive him of his freedom • (my 872 For a collection of passages, see Str-B 1.386-70. Cf. Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 140: "If a beast of your enemy falls trans.). The context is the chapter dealing with "Do no evil, and evil will never befall you" (7:1). Sir 34 on the way, help it to rise" (trans. van der Horst, (31 ): 11-31, dealing with table manners, is guided by Sentences, 207; for more parallels, see his Lev 19:18 (see esp. Sir 34 [31]:15). See furthermore commentary, ibid.). Sir 15:1. 873 For the rabbinic interpretation, see the texts in Str-B 1.369-70, most notably 'Abot 4.24 (ed. Herford, Pirke Aboth, 118-19); b. Ber. 55b. 874 This passage influenced Paul's interpretation ofthe love-command in Rom 12:20-21, but it was not used by the SM or the SP. For the interpretation in rabbinic theology, see Str-B 3.301-3; and in Rom 12:20, see C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical

310

Matthew 5:21-48

well illustrate what the SM intends, but it would fit better as an illustration of Did. 1.3. The reason David does not kill Saul lies in careful calculation, a reliance on the validity of the Golden Rule. David's magnanimity is a challenge to induce Saul to give up his enmity toward him and to hand over the kingdom to him. The SM, however, rules out any such this-worldly payoffs. The similarity between the SM and 1 Samuel 24 arises from the common underlying assumptions about friendship and enmity and the Golden Rule. 8 76 A similar magnanimity provides the motive in the final section of joseph and Aseneth (29.3-4}, where Levi's treatment of Pharaoh's son provides a close parallel to the SM. According to the story, Benjamin is about to give Pharaoh's son, who has fallen from his horse and lies helpless on the ground, the coup de grace. At t4is moment, Levi stops him with the words: By no means, brother, will you do this deed, because we are men who worship God, and it does not befit a

man who worships God to repay evil for evil nor to trample under foot a fallen (man) nor to oppress his enemy till death. And now, put your sword back into its place, and come, help me, and we will help him of his wound; and if he lives, he will be our friend after this, and his father Pharaoh will be like our father. 877 One can conclude, therefore, that Jesus' demand in the SM has precedent or preparation in the history of ideas, although it did represent a new step at that time. 878 Much the same can be said about Greek and Roman morality and ethics, where the humane treatment of the enemy was demanded as an act of magnanimity or mercy, virtues becoming to the wise man and the good ruler. 879 At the time of primitive Christianity, these views had become commonplace in Stoicism. 880 Not surprisingly, the church fathers 881 took them as an approval of the fundamental ethics of Christianity by pagan philosophy. 8 8 2 Whom does the SM consider the enemy? The question

with age" ("opem ferre etiam inimicis senili manu"). 876 See furthermore Job 3I:29-30; Tob 4:I5; 'Abot R. Nat. (A) 23: "And some say: (Mighty is he) who makes See also De off 1.25.88; Seneca De ira 1.5; 2.32; Ep. of his enemy a friend." Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. I42: "It is I20.I 0. The connection with "Christian humanism" better to make a gracious friend instead of an enemy" has always been seen. See Walter Ribbeck, L. Anniius (trans. van der Horst, Sentence~; see also his commenSeneca der Philosoph und sein Verhiiltnis zu Epikur, Plato und dem Christentum (Hannover, I887) 64;]. N. tary, 208-9, for parallel passages). Syr. Menander I28-32: "If you have an enemy, do not pray with Sevenster, Paulus und Seneca (NovTSup 4; Leiden: respect to him that he may die-for when he is dead Brill, I96I) I83-85. These doctrines, however, were he is delivered from his misfortunes-but pray with not limited to the Stoics; see Plutarch De invidia et respect to him that he may become poor, (then) he odio 6, p. 538A-B (PECL 2.365 ); Regum et imperatorum will live on and (perhaps may) cease from his evil apophthegmata I92C. practices" (OTP 2.595-96). Cf. also T. Levi I3.8; T. 88I See the bibliography of this section, esp. the Iss. 7.6-7; T.jos. 8.2; T. Benj. 4.I-5 (OTP 2.793, contributions by Bauer; Kattenbusch; Randlinger; 807, 823, 826); Ep. Arist. 225. For a collection of Steinmiiller; Waldmann. parallels, see also Piper, "Love Your Enemies," 27-49. 882 When Tertullian says that the demand to love the 877 jos. Asen. 29.3-4, according to the translation by enemy is a Christian proprium (Apol. 37; Ad Scap. I Christoph Burchard, OTP 2.246; cf. 247 n.c.; also [PL I.698]), he is right; and so is van Unnik (Sparsa idem, "Joseph und Aseneth," in: Unterweisung in collecta l.III-I2), when he endorses Tertullian's claim, but this does not contradict the fact that erziihlender Form, JSHRZ 2.4 (I983) 720, with treating the enemy humanely has long been part of bibliography. 878 On this point see Str-B 1.368, 369 (e); Otto Ploger, Greek and Roman philosophical ethics. See John Sprache Salomos (BKAT I 7; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Whittaker, "Christianity and Morality in the Roman NeukirchenerVerlag, I984) 283, 304; Zeller, Empire," VC 33 (I979) 209-25; reprinted in his Weisheitssprilche, I 0 5. Studies in Platonism and Patristic Thought (London: 879 See the bibliography on this section, esp. the Variorum Press, I984), no. xxvii; furthermore contributions by Haas; Hiipeden; Randlinger; Beyschlag, "Geschichte," 3I3-20, with many Schottroff; Steinmiiller; van Unnik, Sparsa collecta, references; de Romilly, Ladouceur, 3I8. Most l.III-26; Waldmann; Piper, "Love Your Enemies," important is, as usual, Augustine's interpretation; see 20-27. Raymond Canning, O.S.A., "Love of Neighbour in 880 About Stoic school doctrine cf. Seneca De otio I.4: "to St. Augustine," Augustiniana 33 (I983) 5-57. For give aid even to our enemies when our hand is feeble further references to the history of interpretation,

311

of "Who is my enemy?" is as important as the question "Who is my neighbor?" Later interpretative history of the SM presents a bewildering range of options from the personal enemy to national corporate enemies to heretics. 883 In principle, the singular in vs 43b and c leaves matters open and general: every enemy is to be treated as neighbor. When in vs 44b the SM changes to the plural "enemies," concrete interpretation is given to the general maxim of vs 34bc. 884 Also concretized is what "love" is expected to encompass: "and pray for those who persecute you" (Ka'r. 7rpou£-bxur8£ tJ7l'tp TWV lltwKovTwv VJ.Las). 885 At this point the SM differs characteristically from its SP parallel with which it shares the love-command. While the SM singles out the persecutors of the community, SP /Luke 6:27b-28c refers to those who hate, those who curse, and those who mistreat. 886 These differences point to redactional activities of the authors of the SM and the SP: both agree on the love-command of jesus that for them is authoritative tradition, but they differ on the interpretation, probably because of the differing concrete situations to which they react. There is no indication that the differences between the

883

884 885

886 887

888

889

890

312

SM and the SP are due to the redaction of the Gospel writers Matthew and Luke, either by shortening Q/Luke or by expanding Q/Matt. 887 The SM and the SP agree only on one word, "pray," so that one must treat both texts as independently composed textual units. 888 Consequently, the redactional differences are due to the pre-Matthean and pre-Lukan authors of the SP and the SM, not to the authors of the final Gospels. 889 The manuscript tradition also indicates what the tendency of the Gospel writers might have been had they known the parallel texts-namely, to harmonize the texts by adding the SP to the SM version. 890 Since the earlier and better textual tradition shows no such harmonization, 891 one can only conclude that the Gospel writers Matthew and Luke did not interfere with their sources SM and SP at this point. Verse 44c specifies that loving the enemy means for the SM to pray concretely for the persecutors. 892 Such intercession on behalf of persecutors is reported elsewhere in the New Testament as Christian practice.893 The question to be answered is, Who were the enemies specifically in the minds of the author(s) of the SM? Who were the persecutors? 894 They must be the

see Luz,Matthiius, 1.314-18 (Matthew, 1.347-51); Beyschlag, "Geschichte," 298-99, 313-20; Procope, RAC 13.677-714, esp. 702-12. This process begins in the NT itself; cf., e.g., Matt 10:36, 13:39; Acts 13:10; Rom 11:28, 12:20; Gal 4:16 (on this point see Betz, Galatians, 229); Phil 3:18; 1 Thess 2:15; 2 Thess 3:15. Cf. also Guelich, Sermon, 228. The two commandments are joined by an isocolon, with a polyptotic epiphora at the end of each parallel line (vp.wv, vp.as). On this rhetorical figure see Lausberg, Elemente, §§ 268-70, 280. For further discussion, see below on SP /Luke 6:2728. Contra Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, 50; Gundry, Matthew, 97; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 93 (Sermon, 89-90); Luz, Matthiius, 1.306 (Matthew, 1.339). So correctly Wrege, Bergpredigt, 84-85, who also considers the variant versions in the Apostolic Fathers and the early Apologists that disagree widely but do not necessarily depend on each other. Contra Wrege ibid., who allows only two options, oral tradition and final written redaction by the Gospel authors. For the evidence of such conflations, see Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece; Nestle-Aland; and

Aland, Synopsis; Greeven, Synopsis, ad Joe. 891 So Metzger, Textual Commentary, 14. 892 See also SP/Luke 6:28b (see below); Did. 1.3, with the expansion "and fast on behalf of those who persecute you" (v1JUT£VET£ 0~ V1rfp TWv OtCilK6vrwv vp.ii~); P. Oxy. 1224; Athenagoras Suppl. 11.1; PolycarpPhil. 12.3;JustinApol. l.15.9;Dial. 96.3; Theophilus Ad Autol. 3.14. For these texts, see Aland, Synopsis, 84-85; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 84-85.

893 The authoritative example is Jesus (Luke 23:34), then Stephen (Acts 7:60). For the later martyrdom literature see Ignatius Smyrn. 4.1-2, and for further references Otto Michel, "Gebet II (Fiirbitte)," RAC 9 (1973) 1-36, esp. 18-22. 894 llLciJK
Matthew 5:21-48

same as those described in SM/Matt 5:10, 11, and 12, that is, fellow Jews for whom the Christian community represented "heresy." 895 One of those persecutors was Paul before his conversion. 896 As a result, one can conclude that the references in the SM to persecutions were a serious matter of death or survival for the community of Jesus' disciples. 897 Why, then, was intercession for the persecutors named as the proper reaction to the enemy? Several considerations are in order at this point. 1. Intercession for persecutors is demanded by righteousness, a concept basic to the theology of the SM. 898 So to intercede has already been the mark of the righteous ones in the Old Testament and in Judaism, especially Abraham, Moses, Job, and the prophets. 899 This reason is further pursued in vs 45 below. 2. Since for the SM the immediate environment was Jewish, the persecutors were most likely fellow Jews (see also SM/Matt 5:11-12), so that intercession for them coincided with the liturgical prayers on behalf of Israel. 900 Such prayers are extant in the thanksgiving prayer called Birkat ha-Mazon 901 and in the Shemoneh Esreh (Eighteen Benedictions). 902 While we do not know whether these prayers were known to primitive Christianity, the early church, although on its own terms, shared the Jewish concern for Israel's repentance and the return to Torah and righteousness. 903 3. Syriac Menander 128-32 shows that praying for the enemy is the opposite of what one should expect, namely, praying that the enemy should die, 904 so that we have here another instance of the true piety as a reversal of the usual, a concern of the SM throughout. • 45 The soteriological statements in vs 45 present the reasons for the commandments in vs 44. There are two such statements, one pertaining to eschatology (vs 45a)

and one to cosmology (vs 45b). Both statements define salvation in terms of "righteousness" (litKawuvv.,), 905 a determinative concept in the theology of the SM. Although the term itself does not occur in this passage, this righteousness involves the eschatological status of the addressees of the SM (vs 45a) and the manifestations of God's righteousness in the cosmos (vs 45b). 906

895 See also the adversaries in 5:25, 39b-41, and the "pagans" in 5:47; 6:32. 896 See Gal1:13, 23; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil3:6; 1 Tim 1:13; Acts 7:52; 9:4-5, etc. See Betz, Galatians, 67, with further references. 897 See also Matt 10:23; 23:34;John 5:16; 15:20; 1 Thess 2:15; Ga14:29; Acts 8:1, etc. 898 See above on SM/Matt 5:10 and 20. 899 For passages and bibliography, see Michel, RAG 9.520; also Str-B 1.370-71. 900 For quotations and bibliography, see Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 120-21.

Excursus: Theodicy in the SM Awareness of the problem of theodicy is one of the important features of the SM. It is found, however, not explicitly but at the level of theological presupposition. This is in itself an indication that theological thinking occurs throughout the SM. By contrast, there is no indication of the theodicy problem in the SP. The "classical" theodicy is the attempt to defend the deity against the accusation of having created or tolerated evil in the world. If this accusation were true, God would be unjust. The usual solution is to put the blame for the evil in the world on sinful humanity and thus to exonerate God. In Greek philosophy, the key formula is cited by Plato, probably from pre-Platonic (Orphic?) sources, Rep. 10,617e (see also 2,379c; Tim. 42d; Iamblichus De vita Pyth. 218): alrla ~Aop.tvov· 8€1ls avalr&os ("The blame is on the one who has the choice; God is blameless"). This formula occurs in many discussions of the problem of theodicy thereafter (see Gundel, Beitriige, 42-51). One can, however, trace the biblical roots through Hellenistic judaism and the Old Testament to ancient Egypt. As far as the SM is concerned, the first commentary on the SM to point out that a theodicy argument is involved are the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies (3.55-56; 15.18; 19.1-25), whereas the SM itself contains the argument implicitly. The reason for this assumption is that the SM touches on all the important points in a manner similar to the discussions in Hellenistic Judaism and in Philo. 901 Cited ibid., 212. 902 Especially the thirteenth benediction (Babylonian recension). See Dalman, Worte]esu, 1.286-95; Str-B 4/1.208-49; Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 121 n. 155 with further bibliography. 903 On this point see esp. Philo Praem. poen. 162-68. 904 For such prayers seePs. Sol. 2.25-27; 12.4; 15.1012; 17.22-25, etc. 905 On this concept see above on SM/Matt 5:10 and 20, especially. 906 For the soteriology of the SM, see brief comments in Betz, Essays, 118-23.

313

God is the creator and Father of the universe who rules it with justice and beneficence (SM/Matt 5:45; 6:25-34; 7:11). There was no evil in creation before humanity, and nothing is wrong with the makeup of the human body. God's children (5:9, 45-48) are not impeded by a dualistic anthropology, a doctrine of two opposed spirits (Qumran) or impulses (rabbinic theology). The evil that exists in the world has come about through human disobedience toward God and his rule (see 5:11, 37, 39, 45; 6:13, 23, 34; 7:11, 17, 23). God has given humanity the choice through the law (5:17-18; 7:12). Obedience to the law is required to maintain righteousness (5:6, 10, 20, 45; 6:1, 33); disobedience leads to unrighteousness (5:45; 7:23), "bad fruit" (7: 15-20), and eschatological punishment. Everyone must give account at the last judgment. Those who have obtained rewards in heaven (5: 12, 46; 6:1, 2, 5, 16) will have Jesus as their advocate (7:2123) and will enter into the divine kingdom (5:3-12, 19-20); the others will be rejected and go to hell (5:22, 29, 30; 7:23). On earth, under the conditions prevailing, no human being, not even the faithful disciples, can escape getting involved with evil. Human evil has its roots in the heart (5:8, 28; 6:21); it manifests itself in evil language (5:37), failure of vision (6:22-23), and the whole range of evil acts, of which life is full. What is it that motivates humans to commit evil? It is basically the failure to respond to God's beneficence adequately and to serve him as one ought to (6:24). Why such failure occurs is not explained, but "foolishness" in its widest sense is named throughout (esp. 7:24-27; cf. 5:13, 22) as the reason for not obeying God and his will. There is also a remedy for those who need it; God forgives the faults of those who ask him (6:12, 14, 15; 7:11); those who receive no forgiveness (6:15) end up in condemnation (7:23). In addition to moral evil the world is also full of physical hardships. In view of these God has provided help through his foreknowledge (6:8, 32). The SM as a whole serves as the guide on the way through the dangers of this life into life eternal (6:33; 7:13-14, 2123, 24-26). Most astute is the awareness of the theodicy problem in the Lord's Prayer (see SM/Matt 6:12-13). Thus the insight into the theodicy problem may go back to Jesus himself, whom I hold to be the author of the Lord's Prayer. In the last two petitions, evil is understood as unfulfilled obligations on the part of humans; they can be taken care of by forgiveness (6: 12). The persistence of evil, however, condoned by God, creates the greatest dangers for humanity by being a constant temptation. The final petition, therefore (6: 13), comes close to questioning God's justice. It is assumed that by letting evil continue to exist, God would lead people into temptation. Instead,

314

he is asked not to let this happen but to rescue humanity from evil. This is indeed God's obligation. Since it has remained unfulfilled, it raises the specter of a God implicated in evil. Daring as this petition is, it is a function of righteous persons to call on God to safeguard their righteousness. That righteousness is, after all, a balance of relationships between God and humanity, a divinely instituted partnership. For further discussion see the section on the Lord's Prayer (6:9-13).

Bibliography Jan Assmann, Ma 'at: Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit im Alten Agypten (Munich: Beck, 1990). Paul Barth, "Die stoische Theodizee bei Philo," in Philosophische Abhandlungen Max Heinze zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet von Freunden und Schillem

(Berlin: Mittler, 1906) 14-33. Friedrich Billicsich, Das Problem des Ubels in der Philosophie des Abendlandes, voi. 1: Von Thales bis Thomas von Aquino (2d ed.; Vienna and Cologne: Sexl, 1955). R. van den Broek, T. Baarda, andJ. Mansfeld, eds., Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman World (EPRO 112; Leiden: Brill, 1988). Wilhelm Capelle, "Zur antiken Theodicee," Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie 20 (1907) 173-95. James L. Crenshaw, "Popular Questioning of the Justice of God in Ancient Israel," ZAW 82 (1970) 380-95. Idem, "The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach: On Human Bondage," JBL 94 (1975) 47-64. Albrecht Dihle, The Theory ofWill in Classical Antiquity (Sather Classical Lectures 48; Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California, 1982). Idem, "Philosophische Lehren von Schicksal und Freiheit in der frtihchristlichen Theologie," JAC 30 (1987) 14-28. Oskar Dreyer, Untersuchungen zum Begriff des Gottgeziemenden in der Antike: Mit besonderer Berilcksichtigung Philons von Alexandrien (Spudasmata

24; Hildesheim: Olms, 1970). Carl-Friedrich Geyer, "Das Theodizeeproblem heute," NZSTR 17 (1975) 179-94. Karl Gronau, Das Theodizeeproblem in der altchristlichen Auffassung (Ttibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1922). Wilhelm Gundel, Beitriige zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Begriffe Ananke und Heimarmene (Giessen: BrtihlLange, 1914). Jean Hadot, Penchant mauvais et volonte libre dans la Sagesse de Ben Sira (L'Ecclesiastique) (Brussels: Presses universitaires, 1970). Fritz-Peter Hager, Die Vernunft und das Problem des Bosen im Rahmen der platonischen Ethik und Metaphysik (Noctes Romanae 10; Bern: Haupt,

1963, 1970).

Matthew 5:21-48

Gerhard Maier, Mensch und freier Wille nach den

Philosophic (Berlin: Gaertner, 1892). Wolfgang Werner, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Vorstellung vom Plan Jahwes (BZA W 173; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1988). Wolfhart Westendorf, "Theodizee," LdA 6 (1986) 473-74.

jildischen Religionsparteien zwischen Ben Sira und Paulus (WUNT 12; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],

1971). Eugene H. Merrill, Qumran and Predestination: A Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns (Studies on the Texts of the Desert ofJudah 8; Leiden: Brill, 1975). Albrecht Meyer, Vorsehungsglaube und Schicksalsidee in ihrem Verhaltnis bei Philo von Alexandria (WiirzburgAumiihle: Triltsch, 1939). Rudolf Meyer, Hellenistisches in der rabbinischen Anthropologie: Rabbinische Vorstellungen vom Wesen des Menschen (BWANT 4.22; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,

1937). Richard D. Mohr, The Platonic Cosmology (Philosophia Antiqua 42; Leiden: Brill, 1985). Hans-Peter Muller, "Theodizee? AnschluBerorterungen zum Buch Hiob," ZThK 89 (1992) 249-79. Hermann Neumark, Die Verwendung griechischer und jildischer Motive in den Gedanken Philons ilber die Stellung Gottes zu seinen Freunden (Wiirzburg:

Schatzky, 1937). Eberhard Otto, "Der Vorwurf an Gott (Zur Entstehung der agyptischen Auseinandersetzungsliteratur)," in Vortriige der Orientalistischen Tagung in Marburg, Fachgruppe Agyptologie, 1950 (Marburg: Universitatsverlag, 1951) 1-15. Gian Luigi Prato, II problema della teodicea in Ben Sira: Composizione dei contrari e richiamo aile origini (AnBib 65; Rome: Biblical Institute, 197 5). Walter Sparn, "Mit dem Bosen Ieben: Zur Aktualitat des Theodizeeproblems," NZSTR 32 (1990) 20725. Gerhard Streminger, Gottes Gilte und die Ubel der Welt: Das Theodizeeproblem (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992). Edmund Turowski, Die Widerspiegelung des stoischen Systems bei Philon von Alexandrien (Borna-Leipzig: Noski, 1927). Paul Wendland, Philos Schrift ilber die Vorsehung: Ein

Verse 45a expresses both a purpose and a promise: "so that you might become sons of your Father who is in (the) heavens" (li7TWS y€v7Ju8~ VLOt TOV 7TaTpOs vp.o>V TOV £v ovpavo'is). 907 The conjunction lf7TWS ("so that") looks to the future, 908 but the form of the verb shows that future to be a rather complex concept in the SM: lf7Tws y€v7Ju8~ is second aorist subjunctive, indicating present purpose, future direction, and thus an imperatival force. 909 In the SM, this future orientation is meant to be eschatological, but it includes both this world and the afterlife. 910 The theological presupposition ofvs 45a resides in the beatitude 5:9, where the promise "you will be called sons of God" 911 is conditioned by the present conduct as peacemakers. The implication of "becoming," therefore, is not a change of nature but the full and perfect realization of the status the "sons of God" already enjoy.9l2 Verse 45b indicates that the demand and expectation ofvs 45a is based on God's own work as evidenced in nature, that is, on God's creatio continua, 913 "for he makes his sun rise on (the) bad and (the) good, and he makes the rain to fall on (the) righteous and (the) unrighteous" (lin

Beitrag zur Geschichte der nacharistotelischen

907

e pc add liv after llwoos, which is an Atticism; see BDF, § 369 (5); BDR, § 369, 5; BAGD, s.v.llwoos, 2.a.B. Also 8 jl 3 33. 205. 209. 565. 1006. 1342. 1424. 1506. 1582 pm Clement of Alexandria add the article ro'is before ovpavo'is, a stylistic improvement that, however, is in keeping with the almost technical usage of the expression in the SM and the Gospel of Matthew (see on SM/Matt 5:12, 16; 6:1, 9; 7:11, 21 and note the v.l. in 6:1, where IC* D Z 0250jl 33 pc do not read the article, and 6:9, where Did. 8.2 reads the singular). For the textual evidence, see NestleAland, and Aland, Synopsis, ad toe.; for discussion, see

Betz, "Eschatology," 344. 908 See BAGD, s.v. llwoos, 2.a.a; BDF, § 369; BDR, § 369. 909 Cf. SM/Matt 5:16b, 18d; 6:2, 4, 5, 10, 16, 18. See BAGD, s.v. ylvop.a&, 1.4.a. 910 On this point see Betz, Essays, 122-23; idem, "Eschatology," 343-47. 911 For this term, see the comments and literature discussed on SM/Matt 5:9; 7:9-11. 912 See below on vs 48. 913 On this point see Betz, Essays, 115, 120-23.

315

TOV 1/A.tov aVTOV avaTtAAEI f?Tl 7TOV7Jp0VS Kal aya8ovs Kal fJptxEI f7Tl litKalovs Kal alilKovs). 914 This statement is peculiar, even unique, in the New Testament. Before discussing the content, however, we should examine some formal elements. Rhetorically, the composition is careful. It is set forth as an isocolon with a disiunctio. 915 The opposites "bad" and "good" and "righteous" and "unrighteous" are arranged in chiastic parallelism, 916 with the second pair showing paronomasia (litK-, alitK-).917 The description of God's activity in vs 45bc both refers to and makes use of archaic solar mythology 918 nowhere else attested in the New Testament. Two divine activities are singled out, the first indicated by the verb avartAAEIV, used here in the transitive sense to mean "he

causes to rise. "919 It is presupposed that God does so by a command to that effect. 920 The sun is "his," God's, because he created it and has command over it. 921 The possessive pronoun does, however, suggest more-the sun reveals the creator as in a theophany. Close association of Yahweh and the sun is attested in the Old Testament, 922 although hesitatingly, 923 and even more so in apocalyptic and other pseudepigraphical writings. 924 Depending most likely on Platonic tradition, 925 Pseudo-Phocylides 926 calls sun, moon, and stars "the blessed ones" and "visible gods," a theology Philo rejects. 9 2 7 Thus some kind of solar theology, probably derived from a hymnic background, 928 appears to be presupposed as well in SM/Matt 5:45b. What God's sun reveals should be clear from the context. It is his

914 Some manuscripts read II
316

921 See, e.g., Ps 19:4-6; Gen 1:14-19. 922 See esp. Deut 33:2; Isa 60:1-3; Pss 84:11; 89:15; 104:2, etc. See Gosta W. Ahlstrom, Psalm 89 (Lund: Gleerup, 1959) 85-89, 92-95; Frank Schnutenhaus, "Das Kommen und Erscheinenjahwes im AT," ZAW 76 (1964) 1-22, esp. 9;Jorgjeremias, Theophanie. Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung (WMANT 10; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965; 2d ed. 1977). 923 Helmer Ringgren, "Mj! ziira~," ThWAT 2.661-63 (TDOT4.141-43). 924 For a collection of references, see OTP 2.997-98, index, s.v. Sun. 925 See Plato Tim. 30b, 38a-41a. 926 Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 72-75, 100-101, 162-63. See van der Horst, Sentences, 163-65, 182-83, 221. 927 Philo Spec. leg. 1.13-20; in Opif. 27, however, he speaks of "visible gods" when he means the stars. Cf. Somn. 1.72-101. For Philo's views in detail, see David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the "Timaeus" ofPlato (Philosophia Antiqua 44; Leiden: Brill, 1986). That the sun is not a god is also emphasized in the Apoc. Abr. 7. 7-8 (OTP 1.692) and the Ladder of Jacob 2.12 (OTP 2.408). 928 Cf.,e.g.,OdesSo1.11.13-14; 16.11-17(0TP2.745, 749-50);Hell. Synag. Prayers 3.6, 13-14; 12.19-20 (trans. D. R. Darnell, OTP 2.679, 691).

Matthew 5:21-48

justice, 929 which also becomes the object ofthe imitation of God (vs 48). 930 The second act (vs 45c) indicates that rain is God's activity: "and he rains on (the) righteous and (the) unrighteous" (Kat {3p€xf.! f7Tt OLKalov~ Kat aolKov~). 931 The translation calls attention to the anthropomorphism identifying God's activity with the downpouring of the rain. 932 As I have pointed out in my Essays, 933 the mythology is archaic, but it was popular and suggested divine fertilization as the cause of prosperity. 934 Thus this motif is also theophanic in nature. 935

The disturbing fact is that the beneficiaries of these divine activities are the "bad" (7TOV7Jpol) and the "good" (aya8o{), the "righteous" (olKawt) and the "unrighteous" (lfoLKoL). 936 Apparent and even proverbial as this fact is, how can one reconcile it withjustice? 937 Is it not rather evidence of injustice? Does it not invalidate any human striving for justice? These questions have been raised and discussed many times, a painful history that I cannot review here. My concern is the answer given by the SM. With most of antiquity, the SM sees God's justice revealed in the beneficence of nature. 938 Both

929 For the "sun of righteousness" (LXX: ifl\tos atKatout\v17s), see Mal 3:20; Ps 112:4; Isa 58:1 0; Wis 5:6; Sir 42:16; 43:2-5. On the whole, see Franz Josef Dolger, Die Sonne der Gerechtigkeit und der Schwarze (MOnster: Aschendorff, 1918; 2d ed. 1971) 83-110. 930 Cf.Jas 1:11, where the sun is the instrument of God's justice by destruction. 931 Cf. the Gospel of the Naassenes, according to Hippolytus Rif. 5. 7.26 (Aland, Synopsis, 84): "and he rains upon (the) pious and (the) sinners" (Kat {3ptxn l ...t ouiovs Kat ap.aprwJo.ot\s). Other versions are found in Justin Apol. 1.15.13: "and he makes his sun rise upon (the) sinners and righteous and wicked" (Kat rbv 1/ALOV lz.varfAAEL E7rl &ILaprwA.oVs Kal a&Kalovs Kal .,.ov11pot\s); differently Justin Dial. 96.3: "and the one making his sun rise upon (the) ungrateful and the righteous, and raining upon (the) pious and wicked" (rOv 1/A.wv a-bToV O.var£A.Aovra f1rl O.xaplurovs Kal a&Kalovs, Kal fip£xovra f1Tt Ocrlovs Kal 'TrOVT/PDVs). For the text, see Aland, Synopsis, 85. Bultmann (History, 88 n. 1) calls attention to the Mandaic Ginza R. VII (ed. Lidzbarski, 216, lines 7-8): "The merciful who feels pity is like the sun which shines on good and evil." For comparison, see also Kline, Sayings ofjesus, 4045. 932 Translations often avoid the anthropomorphism. Cf. Vg: et pluit; Luther, Die gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch (1545) 2.1975: "ynd lesst regenen"; RSV: "and sends rain"; NEB: "and sends the rain";]B: "for he causes ... , and his rain to fall." 933 Betz, Essays, 120, with nn. 100-101. The parallel references given there are not repeated here. 934 For the OT see H.-J. Zobel, ·.,roc mii{ar," ThWAT 4 (1983) 827-42, esp. sections III-IVon "Yahweh and Rain." For rabbinic theology, see Str-B 1.374-77. In Greek religion, it is Zeus who rains; see proverbially Theognis 25; Theocritus 4.43, etc.; and Wettstein, 1.313-14; BAGD, s.v. {3ptxw 2.a; R. van den Broek, T. Baarda, andJ. Mansfeld, eds., Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman World (EPRO 112; Leiden: Brill, 1988) 156-59. Aristotle knows better (Phys 2.8, 198b

935 936

937

938

18; 1.2, 983a 2; Eth. Nic. 8.1.6, 1155b 1-5; 8.10.4, 1160b 25-30). In the NT see esp.Jas 5:17-18; Acts 14:17; Heb 6:7. There is no identification here with insiders and outsiders. For .,.ov11pos ("evil"), see above on SM/Matt 5:11, 37, 39; 6:13, 23; 7:11, 17, 18. The adjective ayalios ("good") is not attributed elsewhere to a human person in the SM, probably because it should be used only as an epithet of God (see Mark 10:18 par.). Different is SP, for which see below on SP /Luke 6:45. The same holds for SiKatos/liStKos ("righteous/unrighteous"), which occurs only here because righteousness is an eschatological goal (see SM/Matt 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33; 7:21-23) . Cf. passages referring to God's withholding of rain as punishment, e.g., Deut 11:17; 28:23-24; 2 Sam 1:21; 1 Kgs 8:35; 17:1, 7; 2 Chr 7:13;Jer 14:4, 22; Amos4:7. Xenophon Mem. 4.3.10 shows the beginning of the long tradition in Greek and Roman philosophy; see Cicero De nat. deor. 2.31; and Ulrich Luck, "<J>tlo.avlipw.,.ia," TDNT 9.107-12. For parallel passages, see also Wettstein, 1.313-14, among them esp. Marcus Aurelius In semet ipsum 7.70; 8.43; Seneca De ben. 4.26.1: "If you are imitating the gods, ... then bestow benefits also upon the ungrateful; for the sun rises also upon the wicked, and the sea lies open also to pirates." Furthermore, 7:31; Dio Chrysostom Or. 30.28-31. See Martin Dibelius, Aufsiitze zur Apostelgeschichte (2d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1953) 32-33; ET: Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (trans. Mary Ling; New York: Scribner's, 1956) 29-32. For numerous parallels from rabbinic literature, see Str-B 1.37477.

317

generosity and mercy, however, were believed to be part of justice; thus there is no real problem here for the SM. • 46 The argument in vss 46-4 7 concretizes the implications ofvs 45. The argument here is a contrario, taking the form of a carefully composed isocolon. 939 The two parts each consist of a conditional clause, a rhetorical question 940 introduced by Tlva/Tl ("whom/what"), and a second rhetorical question introduced by ovxl ("not"). Since the two parts of the isocolon are to a great extent synonymous, their relation is that of a disiunctio. The rhetorical questions in each part serve to express impatience. 941 One may perhaps distinguish the two questions into a quaesitum, that is, a question expressing more than yes or no as answer (here: "no reward," "nothing special"), and into an interrogatio proper. The argument has a parallel in SP /Luke 6:32, so that careful comparison is needed to point out similarities and differences. The conditional sentence in vs 46a describes what is considered to be common behavior and behavior to be judged inadequate: "For if you love those who love you, What reward do you have?" (£lw yap aya'7T~!T1JTE TOtJs aya'lT(;JVTas vp.as, Tlva Jl-!0"60v £'xen;). 942 The answer can only be: none. Why is such conduct inadequate? "Loving those who love you" was commonly thought to occur in all erotic relationships. That this mutual love corresponded to the proverbial love of neighbor is beautifully shown in a witty poem ascribed to Moschus that gives advice to lovers by showing how the gods do it: Pan loved his neighbor Echo; Echo loved a frisking Satyr, and Satyr, he was head over ears for Lyde. As Echo was Pan's flame, so was Satyr Echo's, and Lyde

master Satyr's. 'Twas Love reciprocal; for by just course, even as each of those hearts did scorn its lover, so was it also scorned being such a lover itself. To all such as be heartwhole be this lesson read: If you would be loved where you would be loving, then love them that love you. 943 Cicero explains that "loving back" (redamare) is basic to all good friendship. "For nothing gives more pleasure than the return of goodwill and the interchange of zealous service. "944 Where, then, lies the ethical problem? The problem is that mutual love may be normal and conventional behavior, and it may even fulfill moral expectations; but it is nevertheless ethically inadequate. Love as a mere response to love received amounts to nothing more than an exchange of favors, and as such it does not conform to the Golden Rule (SM/Matt 7:12), on which the SM is based. This argument, which the SP explains in much greater detail in terms of Greek ethics, 945 is set forth in the SM in terms of Jewish ethics. The term p.t0"66s refers to eschatological "reward," as it does elsewhere in the SM. 946 According to Jewish thought, one can expect such reward only if good deeds done here on earth have not already been rewarded by other good deeds in return, that is, only if the rewards for good deeds done on earth have been postponed until the lastjudgment. 947 This concept is also part of the greater righteousness that SM/Matt 5:20 has in mind. 948 While the expected answer to the first question is negative, the answer to the second question is positive: "Do not also the tax collectors do the same thing?" (ovxl

939 For the following statement I am indebted to Dr. Johan Thorn. 940 For the interrogatio, see Lausberg, Handbuch, 1 §§ 767-70 (pp. 379-81). 941 See ibid.,§ 767 (p. 379). 942 The term ltya.,.aw ("love") connects with vs 43b as interpreted in vs 44b. 943 Cited according to the edition and translation of ]. M. Edwards, The Greek Bucolic Poets (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1977) 459-61. The terminology is not ltya.,.aw but £paw, fpws, <j>tA.!w, KTA. 944 Cicero De amic. 49-50. See furthermore Hesiod Erga 353: "Be friends with the friendly, and visit him who visits you" (tJ>tAEovTa cfJtAltv, Kal rhv 1rpocn6vrt 'lTpouelvat). For more parallels see West, Hesiod: Works and Days, 245.

318

945 See below on SP /Luke 6:31-36. 946 For the meaning of this term see above on SM/Matt 5:12. 94 7 Cf. also SM/Matt 6:1 b, 2, 5, 16; by contrast, prophecy, exorcism, and miracles do not qualify for reward (7:21-23). 948 Cf. SP /Luke 6:32b, 33b, 34b, passages that use the Greek concept of xapts ("credit"); only VS 35c speaks of fLtuO&s ("reward") as the SM does in Matt 5:12. One cannot explain these differences as the result of interferences in the texts by the Gospel writers Matthew and Luke, but they are integral to the SM and the SP as units of text and thought. Cf. Justin Apol. 1.15.9, 10: r{ Katvbv 'lTOtelu; ("What new thing are you doing?").

Matthew 5:21-48

Kat OL n:Awvat Tb avTb 7TOLOVutv;). 949 Why are the tax collectors singled out here? They undeniably provide a typical example of what the SM intends to demonstrate.950 Nominally Jewish, the tax collectors were notorious for their unethical conduct and their cynical disregard for the Torah in conducting their business of collecting taxes from their fellow Jews on behalf of the Roman overlords. But even they had some kind of professional ethos, if one can call it that. They kept themselves in business by exchanging favors among themselves, and they maintained the "buddy" relationship typical of professional villains in every era. Such practices, however, can hardly be called ethical. Verse 46 views the tax collector (n:AdJv71s) from a Jewish or Jewish-Christian point ofview, 951 coupled with "sinners" (ap.apTw:Aot) and "prostitutes" (7T6pvat), 95 2 approaching the status of the "pagans" (f8vtKol). 953 This perspective differs from the later Christian view in which the tax collector became the prototype of the convert, 954 949

950

951

952 953 954

955

and even an example ofhumility. 955 Matthew's Gospel reflects both perspectives, the earlier in older traditions, the later in Matthew's redaction. 95 6 • 4 7 The second set of questions is strictly parallel to the first (vs 46), although there are variations: "and if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing do you do?" (Kat ECzV CzU7TctU7]U8£ TOVS ao£A<J>oh ilp.wv p.6vov, TL 7T£ptuuhv 7TOL£tn;). 957 The answer expected from the readers is: nothing. Greeting one's brothers is a gesture required of everyone as a part of daily life, and there is nothing wrong with it per se. The term "brother" (ao£:A<J>6s) 958 may apply here to the fellow Jew 959 as

w• sy•·c bo do not read ovxl, but it should be read not only for text-critical reasons; the rhetorical composition also requires it. The variant readings oilrw~ (D Z 33 h k sy•·c sa? bo) or rovro (jl 205 pc lat mae) instead of rh avr6 may be due to scribal errors (mistaken hearing?). For the evidence, see NestleAland, and Aland, Synopsis, ad Joe. For ovx{, see also Did. 1.3; for rovro,JustinApol. 1.15.10. For literature, see Otto Michel, "nArov7j~," TDNT 8.88-105; ThWNT 10/2 (1979) 1279-80; BAGD, s.v. r
956

957

958

959

Frickel, "Die Zollner, Vorbild der Demut und wahrer Gottesverehrung," in Pietas: FS fur Bernhard Kotting (JACSup 8; Munster: Aschendorff, 1980) 369-80. "Matthew the tax collector" appears in the list of the twelve apostles only in Matt 10:3, and only the first Gospel identifies Matthew (instead of Levi) as the tax collector converted by Jesus (Matt 9:9). For whatever reason, the author of the Gospel of Matthew has a special interest in the name and person whom he portrays from the Christian point of view. Cf. also the interpretation ofHos 6:6 in Matt 9:13a. Also for Luke the tax collectors belong to the first Christians (Luke 3:12; 5:27-32; 7:29-30; 15:1, 7, 10; 18:914a; 19:1-10). Since the rest of the NT never mentions the tax collectors, interest in them must have disappeared quickly in Hellenistic Christianity. There are important textual variants in this verse, which is missing altogether in k sy' (on this point see Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, ad Joe.). Other variants are noted below. L W 0 33. 1006. 1342. 1506 9Jt fh syh read instead
319

opposed to the "pagan" (vs 47c), to the fellow disciple of thejesus-community, 960 or to the family member, 961 or to all of them. The limitation imposed by the adverb "only" (JJ.ovov), however, sets the "brother" in opposition to whoever may be the outsider, 962 and here the ethical problem arises. The ethical problem is not that the greeting is done because one expects to be greeted in return, although the ancients regarded failure to return greetings as a terrible insult and threat. 963 Rather, greeting only one's own people merely conforms to convention. 964 It lacks the element of the "extraordinary" 965 that would qualify it as ethically superior and that would conform to the greater righteousness of SM/Matt 5:20. 966 The failure to greet outsiders was in itself an expression of contempt. In the social life of antiquity, and especially in J udaism, 967 the conventions of greeting played an important part, as they do today. The position here advocated by the SM 968 is completely within judaism and its ethics as summed up in 'Abot 4.20: "R. Mattithiah ben Harash said: Be first in greeting every man; and be a tail to lions and not a head to foxes. •969 The second question (vs 4 7 c) parallels that of vs 46c:

"Do not the pagans do the same thing?" (ovx'r. ICa'r. ot fBvtiCo'r. TO a !!To 'lTOtovow;). 970 That they indeed do must be the expected answer. The "pagans" or "Gentiles" (ot £8vt1Col) are viewed here, as elsewhere in the SM, in purely negative terms, that is, from a jewish Qewish-Christian) perspective. 971 How could the evangelist Matthew accept such an opinion, since his church consisted primarily of Gentiles? 972 He probably accepted it because he found it in sources that he was aware had come from an earlier period of the church when things were different from his own time. The SP does not have this sentence as it was written entirely for Gentiles; it speaks of "sinners" (&p.apTCoA.ol) instead. 973 At any rate, in the view of the SM, the conduct of the Gentiles cannot qualify as the greater righteousness demanded of the disciples of Jesus (5:20). • 48 With the argument of vss 46-4 7 concluded, vs 48 presents a final maxim summing up the doctrine underlying not only the sixth antithesis but the entire set of antitheses (5:21-48): "Therefore, you shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" (fu~u8~ otv vp.~'is TJAfLOL WS 0 'lTaT~P vp.wv 0 ovpO.vtos TJAfLOS £unv). 974 The particle otv ("therefore") 975 serves as both a

960 Matthew seems to have taken it in the sense of fellow Christian, even ifthe tradition is pre-Matthean (see Matt 18:15, 18, 21; 23:8; 25:40; 28:10). 961 See Matt 10:2, 21; 12:46-50; 13:55; 14:3; 17:1; 19:29; 20:24; 22:24, 25. 962 Cf. Rom 3:29; 4:12, 16; 9:24, pointing to the socalled advantages of the Jews. 963 Cf. Lucian's De lapsu inter salutandum, "A Slip of the Tongue in Greeting," in the LCL edition of Lucian, vol. 6. The greeting is a form of prayer, so that according to ancient belief, failure to offer it or a lapse of the tongue spells misfortune. See Betz, Lukian, 64 n. 3, 154 n. 4, 155 n. 5. On the whole subject and for bibliography, see Henrik Zilliakus, "GruBformen," RAG 12 (1983) 1204-32. 964 Cf. Sir 6:6: "Let those that are at peace [Elp.,vEVOVTEs] with you be many, but let your advisers be one in a thousand" (RSV). The verb may refer to the exchange of the peace greeting. 965 TO 'lr£p&uuov ("what is extraordinary") occurs only here in the SM, but cf. SM/Matt 5:37 and 5:20. See BAGD, s.v. 'lrEp&ITITOS, 1. 966 Cf. the meaning of the term in Rom 3:1: "What then is the advantage of the Jew?" 967 Cf. the rich collection of passages in Str-B 1.380-85. 968 Cf. the peculiar mission instruction in Matt 10: 1213: "As you enter the house, salute it. And if the

320

969 970

971

972 973 97 4

house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you." The parallel instruction in Luke 10:4-5 is different: "and salute no one on the road. Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house!' And if a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you" (RSV). Trans. of Herford, Pirke Aboth, 115. A parallel is found in b. Ber. 6b; 1 7a. L W 8JI 3 1006. 1342. 1506 ~h syP read T£Awva& ("tax collectors") instead of "pagans," thus equalizing vs 46 and vs 4 7. The substitution is certainly secondary, whereas "pagans" is supported by IC B D Z jl 33. 205. 892. 1424. pc !at syc.h co; Basilius. L 8 1506 [E .a. 565. 579] ~ h syc.h bo also read ollTws ("thus") instead of TO al>ro ("the same"). This evidence according to Aland, Synopsis, 83, apparatus. See also Metzger, Textual Commentary, 14. See also 6:7, 32. The term o! f:8v&Kol occurs only here in the SM, but see also Matt 18:17 (together with T£Awva&); 3 John 7; Hermas Man. 10.14. See BAGD, s.v. €8v1.KOs. For Matthew's own concept, see Matt 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations." See below on SP /Luke 6:32-35. D W 8 1006. 1342 (A 346. 565. 579) ~read C:,u'lrEp instead of C:,s, with no basic difference in meaning.

Matthew 5:21-48

transitional and an inferential conjunction, 976 denoting that the sentence to follow is a consequence of the preceding argument. That argument showed that the inadequate interpretation of Lev 19: 18 as set forth in vs 43bc shows no ethical value and thus cannot be the meaning of the Torah as intended by God. Any interpretation of the Torah, to be legitimate, must lead to the greater righteousness required in the last judgment (see above on 5:20). In contrast, mere conformity to popular morality and convention does not suffice. If one accepts this line of argument, then the opposite must be true; going beyond or against popular morality and convention may be required to do justice to the will of God. Applied to the case before us, this doctrine underlies the presentation of what is proposed as the correct interpretation of Lev 19:18 in vs 44, while vs 45a states the eschatological consequences for those who follow that correct interpretation. Verse 45b adduces the mythology containing the reasons why the imperatives in vs 44bc are theologically well founded. Yet the fundamental theological doctrine underlying the whole argument ofvss 43-48, and indeed ofvss 17-48, needs to be stated positively, and this is the purpose ofthe concluding maxim of vs 48. The maxim has two points: the first is a verb in the future tense and the second states the reason justifying it. This form of composition is common among maxims, 977 but vs 48 is more complicated. It is not clear from the outset whether tt:uo-8£ is merely an imperative ("Be perfect!"), or a prediction ("You will be perfect"), or an

eschatological promise ("You may be perfect"). Grammatically 978 as well as contextually, one could justify each of the options. The imperatival meaning follows from the other commandments in vss 43b, c; 44b, c (see also 5:17, 21b, 24, 25, 27b, 29, 30b, 34a, 37, 39a and c, 40b, 41 b, 42a and b). Those who take tuf.o-8£ as a prophetic prediction can point to the beatitudes (5:312), while the eschatological promise follows from that interpretation of the Torah which leads to the greater righteousness required in the last judgment (5:20; 7:1314, 21-23). My suggestion is that the ambiguity is intended precisely to combine the various aspects, none of which can be isolated without losing grasp of the theology of the SM as a whole. Basic to it all is the divine promise of salvation for those who are obedient to the will of God. Based on this promise are the commandments of Jesus as interpreted by the SM. Finally, given these promises, one can venture predictions concerning the eschatological future, as is done throughout the SM either by imagining or anticipating the future or by warning against failure. All these aspects are combined as well in 5:45a: Cf1rws y€v1Ju8f. ... ("so that you might become ... "). The key term denoting the eschatological status for which the faithful disciples are destined, and which is

of Matthean redaction. The SM uses w~ introducing examples or com977 See Hans Dieter Betz, "Eine Christus-Aretalogie bei parisons also in 6:5, 10, 12, 16, 29; l1Hrrr•p in 6:2, 7. Paulus (2 Kor 12, 7-10)," ZThK 66 (1969) 288-305, See BAGD, s.v. w~. II, 3-4. (D*) Ec ~ 8 565. 579. 700. 1006 pm it Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, reprinted in Paulinische Studien: Gesammelte Aufsi:itze III (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1994), 1-19, esp. Ps.-Clem. Hom. 3.57 read EV TOL~ ovpavo"i~ ("in the 293-300; Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 21-22; David Aune, heavens") instead of 0 ovpavto~ ("the heavenly [one]"). Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient MediterBoth forms occur elsewhere in the SM: "in the ranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 58heavens" occurs in SM/Matt 5:12, 16, 45; 6:1, 9; 60. 7:11, 21 (cf. the singular, 5:34; 6:10, 20); "the 978 See BDF, §§ 98, 362; BDR, §§ 98, 362, deriving the heavenly (one)" in 5:48; 6:14, 26, 32. The manuform from the OT: Deut 18: 13; Lev 19:2; cf. 1 Pet script tradition exchanges the two expressions also 1:16: "you shall be holy" (/iytot [cnu8<). elsewhere; see Aland, Synopsis, 84, apparatus. See also Betz, "Eschatology," 344. 975 For similar usage see SM/Matt 5:19, 23; 6:2, 8, 9, 22,31,34, 7:11,12,24. 976 The conjunction is "redactional" (Strecker, Bergpredigt, 96 [Sermon, 92]), but it is not typical only

321

indeed fitting for the "sons of God," is Tb..uos ("perfect"). As one would expect, this term and its possible meanings have been widely discussed from antiquity to the modern period. 979 This rich history of interpretation, 980 however, cannot even be sketched here, and I must restrict myself to the meaning most probable for 5:48 in the context of the SM. Before turning to this task, however, I should mention some correlative terms. The term Tb.. uos occurs only here in the SM, and here twice with two different meanings: in vs 48a as an attribute of human persons, 981 and in vs 48b as an attribute of God. 982 The relationship between the two attributes is parallel to that between God and the sons of God, 983 the righteousness of God and the superior righteousness of the faithful, 984 God's activity in creation and salvation and the human tasks of worship and ethics, God's eternal status "in the heavens" 985 and the eschatological destiny of the faithful in the kingdom of God.986 The terminology of perfection is widely attested in ancient literature and encompasses a correspondingly wide range of meanings. Establishing what the term means in a particular instance requires the examination

of the context of that passage as well as close literary parallels. The adjective Tb..£ws ("perfect") derives from n.A.€w, TEAos, and so on ("finish," "complete," etc.; "end," "goal," etc.). 987 The basic meaning, therefore, is "having attained the end" or "purpose," "complete," "perfect." 988 Depending on the general context, this meaning can be specified in terms of cult, education, and ethics, to name the most important fields of meaning. Although the term "perfect" occurs only here in the SM, it seems to have influenced other closely related texts that provide further explanations. A close parallel is Matt 19:21, Matthew's version of the story of the Rich Young Man (Mark 10:17-22//Matt 19:16-22//Luke 18:18-23). When Jesus, according to Mark (1 0:17-22), says to the young man, "You lack one thing" (~v u£ vuup£!), Matthew's version changes this to, "If you wish to be perfect" (d6€A.u TEA£ws £Lvat). The change, whether the result ofMatthew's 989 or ofpre-Matthean redaction, 990 appears to be influenced by the SM. Both passages are concerned with the proper interpretation and fulfillment of the Torah and with the goal of discipleship, that is, they combine the ethical and the educational fields of

979 See Tholuck, Bergrede, 317-20 (Commentary, 28893). 980 For bibliography on rliwos, see the lexicon articles by Gerhard Delling, "dAos KTA.," TDNT 8.67-78; ThWNT 10/2 (1979) 1279; Hans Hubner, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. rlA€1os; Klaus Koch, "OOM tmm vollstandig sein," THAT 2.1045-51. See furthermore Bultmann,jesus, 119-20, 121, 126; Braun, Radikalismus, 2.43 n. 1, 99 n. 3, 127 n. 2, and index, s. v. OOM, rlAnos; idem, Qumran, 1.18; Dibelius,james, 74-77; PaulJ. DuPlessis, TEAEIOl:: The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament (Kampen: Theologische Akademie, 1959); idem, "Love and Perfection in Mt 5:43-48," Neot. 1 (1967) 28-34; Karl Priimm, "Das neutestamentlische Sprach- und Begriffsproblem der Vollkommenheit," Bib 44 ( 1959) 76-92; Hiibner, Gesetz, 110-12; Trilling, Das wahre Israel, 192-96; Luck, Vollkommenheitsforderung, passim; Rudolf Schnackenburg, "Die Vollkommenheit des Christen nach Matthaus," in his Christliche Existenz nach dem Neuen Testament (Munich: Kosel, 1967) 1.131-55; E. Yarnold, "Thnosin St. Matthew's Gospel," StEv 4 (TU 102 [1968]) 269-73; Georg Kiinzel, Studien zum Gemeindeverstiindnis des Matthiiusevangeliums (CTM, series A, vol. 10; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1978) 218-50; Leopold Sabourin, "Why Is God Called 'Perfect' in Matt 5:48?" BZ 24

322

981

982

983 984 985 986 987 988 989

990

(1980) 266-68. Discussions of Matt 5:48 are found as well in the commentaries on Matthew and on the SM. So mostly in the NT; see Matt 19:21 (see below); 1 Cor 2:6; 14:20; Phil3:15; Col4:12; Heb 5:14;Jas 1:4; 3:2; Did. 1.4, 6.2; Polycarp Phil. 12.3. As a divine attribute, rlii.Eios ("perfect") occurs only here in early Christian literature. For Greek religion, where the divine epithet is attested since Pindar and Aeschylus, see Delling, TDNT 8.68 (A.2); BAGD, s.v. n!Anos, 2.e. See above on SM/Matt 5:45a. See above on SM/Matt 5:20. See above on SM/Matt 5:45a. See below on SM/Matt 7:13-14. See F. M. J. Waanders, The History ofTEAOl: and TEAEfl in Ancient Greek (Amsterdam: Griiner, 1983). So the translation in BAGD. So most scholars; see Gundry, Matthew, 388; Guelich, Sermon, 233-34; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 97-98 (Sermon, 93-95); Luz, Matthiius, 1.313-14 (Matthew, 1.346-47). I am following Bultmann (History, 67-88), who, however, does not explicitly deal with Matt 19:21; and Braun (Radikalismus, 2.43 n. 1). Cf. Luz, Matthiius, 1.313-14 (Matthew, 1.346-47), who seems to feel the tension between 5:48, 19:21, and Matthew's own theology and who observes the

Matthew 5:21-48

meaning. 991 One can conclude that had the young man followed Jesus' advice, he would no longer Jack anything as a student but would reach the stage of maturity. He would obey the Torah adequately and could therefore expect to be admitted to the eschatological kingdom of God. Most important are the passages in the Didache, influenced as they are by pre-Matthean tradition, 99 2 rather than by the final redaction of Matthew's Gospel. 993 Did. 1.4 cites the passage about offering also the other cheek (cf. SM/Matt 5:39//SP /Luke 6:29) and concludes with the words "and you shall be perfect." Similarly Did. 6.2: "For if you can bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you shall be perfect; but if you cannot, do what you can." The Epistle of James, whose relationship to the SM has yet to be clarified, does not depend on Matthew's Gospel but has a fully developed perfection theology similar to the SM. According to that epistle, the eschatological goal is announced inJas 1:4: "that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing" (Yva ~u TfA£Lot Ka~ oA.OKA.7]pot (v p.7]li£v~ A.mrop.wot). The means to that goal is the "perfect law offreedom" (vop.os TfAnos o Tijs (A.w8eplas, 1 :25; cf. 3:2). 994 Even Paul, who avoids claiming perfection already now, 995 nevertheless presupposes that Christians must be perfect at the last judgment. 996 The will of God expressed and revealed in the law is "good and

acceptable and perfect" (Rom 7:12; 12:2). Of course, perfection is implied in the divine agape (see esp. 1 Cor 13:10, 13), that fundamental notion of Paul's theology.997 The divine law, rightly understood, is fulfilled in the love-commandment, Lev 19:18 (Gal 5: 14; Rom 13:8-10). 998 Here Paul comes very close to the theology of the SM, as doesJohannine theology. Just as it is for Paul, for Johannine theology God's agape is revealed and made perfect in Jesus' crucifixion Qohn 19:28, 30; cf. 4:34; 5:36; 17:4, 23; 1 John 4: 18).Jesus gives to his disciples a new law, the law oflove Qohn 13:34; 14:15, 21, 31; 15:10, 12, etc.). His disciples must be and are perfect Qohn 17:23). 999 This train of thought continues in the Deutero-Pauline epistles. 1000 The concept of perfection, however, differs in its various New Testament contexts. The SM does not refer to God's love or to Jesus' sacrificial love in the way Pauline andJohannine theologies refer to them. In the SM, God is the example. The disciples addressed in the SM can become perfect because God is already perfect. In what way is God perfect? He bestows the benefits of his creation continuously on the bad and the good and on the righteous and the unrighteous. He does so, not because he is motivated by the expectation that the wicked and the unrighteous will become grateful to him

parallel in Did. 6.2, but who fails to draw the conclusion that both observations speak in favor of pre-Matthean redaction. 991 Interesting parallels are 1 Cor 1:7, where Paul notes the Corinthians' "deficiencies" (see also 1 Cor 16:17; 2 Cor 8:14; 9:12; and Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 6869); 1 Cor 3:1, where Paul notes their "immaturity"; and 1 Cor 2:6; 14:20, where he points out their goal or claim of perfection. See Betz, "Problem of Rhetoric in the Theology of Paul," esp. 33, 46-47. 992 On the relationship between Matthew and the Didache, see the Introduction above, pp. 8-9; and esp. Koster, Synoptische Oberlieferung, 220-26; Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 16-17, and passim. 993 Luz (Matthiius, 1.313 [Matthew, 1.346)) is unclear on this point, but he correctly points out the basic agreement between Matt 19:20-21 and Didache: "The Didache, which follows in the Matthean tradition, understands it in the same way: Perfection means 'to bear the whole yoke of the Lord'" (6.2). Correct is Wrege (Bergpredigt, 87 n. 5), who refers also to PolycarpPhi/. 12.3 andjas 1:4 as independent

of Matthew's Gospel. See Dibelius,james, 74-77. See Phil 3: 15; cf. 1 Cor 4:8. See 1 Thess 3: 13; 5:23; 1 Cor I :8; 2 Cor 11:12, etc. On 1 Corinthians 13, see Oda Wischmeyer, Der hochste Weg: Das 13. Kapitel des 1. Korintherbriefes (StNT 13; Giitersloh: Mohn, 1981 ). See furthermore Betz, Galatians, 125-26, 273-74, 276, 287; idem, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 58, 106-9; Wilson, Love, passim. 998 See above on SM/Matt 5:43b. 999 By contrast, anyone who "sins" and who thereby is not "perfect" is not of God and never was in the first place. Cf.John 10:29; 17:12, and explicitly 1 John 3:6, 10; 3John 11. 1000 See Col1:28; 3:14; 4:12; Eph 4:13. 994 995 996 997

323

and worship him; the assumption is, rather, that God's enemies will not appreciate his benefits. They will remain enemies even though he keeps doing good to them. 1 oo 1 His generosity, however, does not provide any justification for the enmity of his enemies. This is God's perfection. His treatment of his enemies is not to be taken as a sign of his weakness, or, indeed, of his indifference to good and evil among human beings. 100 2 Justice, as God represents it, is above all that, but never indifferent to it. The "sons of God" can become perfect, too, by imitating God in dealing with their own enemies. The implication, however, is that the Christian must not sentimentalize the demand. Enemies are real and remain real, 1003 and love of the enemy does not mean loving them in order to turn them into friends. Although such conversion of the enemies is desirable, it cannot be the motivation and purpose. Rather, without looking for positive results, the "sons of God" will by their conduct

serve as "salt of the earth" and "light of the world," and they will do so whether or not they are appreciated (5:13-16). One must not misunderstand love of the enemy as a pedagogical device for the improvement of general morality or civility; 1004 it is simply an exercise of justice, whether by God or by man or woman. 1 005 The position of the SM here seems much more rigorous than that of the Didache, for example. The SM emphasizes the realism and depth of enmity and demands that one face it without illusions and with nothing to support it but the strength and perfection of divine justice. If, despite the generosity and mercy of God, human beings remain stubbornly hostile, it is their choice. It is neither God's fault 1006 nor the fault of the truly righteous. 1007 Perfection, therefore, is basically identical with righteousness and with the "reward" {p.tcr86~) for those who follow Jesus faithfully. Loving the enemy is surely a rough road to travel (cf. 7:13-14), but it is the road to the greater righteousness required at the

I 00 I Cf. the story of the Healing of the Ten Lepers (Luke I7: II-I9) and, for the interpretation, see Hans Dieter Betz, "The Cleansing of the Ten Lepers (Luke I7:11-I9)," JBL 90 (I97I) 3I4-28; reprinted in my Synoptische Studien, 50-67. One may compare what Dio Chrysostom Or. 74.26 has to say: "seeing the same sun and being nourished by the same earth does not enter into the reckoning of any rogue .... Yet the whole sky, beneath which we all have been from the beginning, is of no avail toward producing concord, neither is our partnership in the universe, a partnership in things divine and majestic." And 74.27: "in the common father of all, of 'both men and gods,' he from whom we all have our being, ... cannot check or prevent the unrighteousness of men!" (The parallels are from Mussies, Dio Chrysostom, 42-43.) I 002 That this could be read in antiquity in quite different ways is shown by Dio Chrysostom Or. 65.8: "Many charge that Fortune lacks discrimination and stays with bad persons but neglects the good." In defense of the goddess, Dio argues that what appears to be neglect of the good is in truth a moral test to probe one's stability of character. (The parallel is from Mussies, Dio Chrysostom, 42.) In a similar vein, Plutarch's essay On the Delay of Divine Vengeance attempts to explain the problem; see Betz et al. in PECL l.I8I-235, esp. I83-84, I87-88. Given the background of jewish wisdom Qob!), it is interesting that the SM does not bring in the theory of the moral test for the righteous at this point; the reason may be the expectation of the last

324

judgment. I003 So correctly Ratschow, "Agape," esp. I68-69. I 004 Did. 1.3 justifies the love of enemies by saying "and (then) you will have no enemy," an explanation found also in Epictetus (see above, n. 850). I005 Cf. Rom 5:6-IO, where God is said to have demonstrated his righteousness (vs I Oa): "While we were enemies we became reconciled with God." I 006 Attention should be called at this point to the ancient Orphic saying that states the connection between divine perfection and faultlessness: alrla ~ll.op.tvov· BEos O.valrtos ("The blame is his who chooses; God is blameless"). The saying is quoted by Plato (Rep. IO, 6I7e), when he explains the soul's primordial choice of life roles. In early Christian literature, the saying is quoted by Justin Apol. I.44.8; Clement Alex. Strom. I.I, p. 427 (PG 8.692A); cf. Ps.-Clem. Hom. 4.9.I-2; 8.9-Il. See PECL l.I82 and Hans Dieter Betz, "The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre in Greek and Hellenistic Literature: The Case of the Oracle of Trophonius," in David Hellholm, ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], I983) 577-97, esp. 588; reprinted in Betz, Hellenismus und Urchristentum, I96-97. I007 On this point see Did. 1.3, in the same context: "and (then) you will not have an enemy" (Kal ovx ~!ErE lxBpov); 1.5: "he will be innocent" (ltB/!>os lrrrat). See furthermore 1 Clem. 49.I-2 and the great intercessory prayer, 59.3-61.3; 2 Clem. IO.I-5; HermasMan. I; 2.I-7.

Matthew 5:21-48

last judgment (5:20). The concluding maxim in 5:48 thus applies not only to the sixth antithesis but to all of the antitheses, 1008 and indeed to the whole of the SM. Consequently, obedience to the Torah, the teaching of Jesus, and the imitation of God do not contradict one another. These concepts are all part of the same doctrine. Indeed, the SM corresponds remarkably well also to the double commandment of love of God and love of neighbor, 1009 or what is called in philosophy the "Canon of the Two Virtues." 1010 Love toward God is not a major concern in the SM, but it is certainly stated explicitly in the saying about God and Mammon (6:24), and it is implied elsewhere as well.1011 Though Jewish in theology, these ideas of the SM are not at all incompatible with Hellenistic thought. Pertinent examples for comparison are provided by Dio Chrysostom. 10 l2 In his first oration "On Kingship," Dio points to the model of Zeus, who not only is called "Father and King" (7TaT~P KaL ,BautA.n)s), 1013 but who has other epithets as well expressing his "dominion and power" (apx~ KaL avvaJJ.tS ). I 014 Among these is Philios and Hetaireios, the "'Lord of Friends and Comrades' because he brings all men together and wills that they be friendly

to one another and never enemy or foe." 1015 Zeus's example should be followed by the good king 1016 and by everyone. As Dio sees it, divinely inspired friendship stands in stark contrast to hatred, 1017 a deep and evil emotion stemming from greed and violence, 1018 and usually harbored by weak and fearful natures. 1019 Thus ethically it is "not so disgraceful to prove inferior in actions prompted by hatred and, by Heaven, in those which provoke enmity as it is in those which are inspired by a spirit of moderation and benevolence. For while he who is overcome in the one is likely to gain a reputation for mere weakness, in the other it will be for boorishness and contentiousness.•I020 I conclude, then, that this concept of the imitation of God 102l underlies not only vs 48 but the whole of the SM. Evidence, though largely implied, resides in the Beatitudes (5:3-12), the Lord's Prayer (6:12, 14-15), and the frequent references to the heavenly Father and his sons. 1022 These ideas are not originally Christian but come from Jewish theology.I 023

1008 SorightlyDietzfelbinger, "Antithesen," 13; Guelich, Sermon, 255; Strecker, "Antithesen," 68; idem, Bergpredigt, 98 (Sermon, 94); Luz, Matthiius, 1.312 (Matthew, 1.347). 1009 See Mark 12:28-34 par., and the contributions by Bomkamm, Burchard, Fuller, Furnish, Nissen, Piper (see the bibliography preceding the section SM/Matt 5:43-48). 1010 See the important study of Albrecht Dihle, Der Kanan der zwei Tugenden (Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Geisteswissenschaften, vol. 144; Koln and Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1968). 1011 See SM/Matt 6:9, 14, 21; 7:11. 1012 For the following parallels I am indebted to Mussies, Dio Chrysostom, 42. 1013 Dio Chrysostom Or. 1.39. The text and translation of Dio Chrysostom follows the LCL edition by J. W. Cohoon and H. Lamar Crosby (5 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1961-1985). 1014 Ibid., 40. 1015 Ibid.: t/JtAIOS lit- Kat 'Eratp..ovs, <x8phv lit ~ 1TOAtp.tov p.TJIItva p.1Ja..tos, 1.2;

1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021

1022 1023

Hans Schwab!, "Zeus I. Epiklesen," PW, 2d series 19th half-volume (1972) 371; Betz, Essays, 120-21. Dio Chrysostom Or. 1.35: "whose (life) is happier than his who esteems no man as enemy?" Ibid., 46.1. Ibid., 38.31. Ibid., 4.15; 38.31. Ibid., 40.24. For this concept and the bibliography up to c. 1966, see Betz, Nachfolge, esp. 141-42. For later studies, see ThWNT 10/2 (1979) 1177-78; Edvin Larsson, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s.v. p.tp.top.at KTA.; Luz, Matthiius, 1.312 n. 51 (Matthew, 1.345 n. 51); Henri Crouzel, "L'imitation et Ia 'suite' de Dieu et du Christ dans les premieres siecles chretiens, ainsi que leurs sources greco-romaines et hebralques," JAC 21 (1978) 7-41, esp. 18-19. Special studies are those by Jacques Dupont, "L'appel a imiter Dieu en Matthieu 5,48 et Luc 6,36," Rivista Biblica 14 (1966) 137-58, reprinted in his Etudes, 2.529-50; R. Thysman, "L'ethique de !'imitation du Christ dans le Nouveau Testament: Situations, notations et variations du theme," ETL 42 (1966) 138-75. See SM/Matt 5:16,45, 48; 6:1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 18, 26, 32; 7:11, 21. For the imitation of God in judaism, see Hans Kosmala, "Nachfolge und Nachahmung Gottes, II.

325

One must consider a further problem at this point. Is one to conclude from the preceding comments that God's generosity does not extend to Gentiles outside the Torah covenant? Such a conclusion appears to be justified in the light of the episode at the last judgment (7:21-23); 10 2 4 yet it would be in error. One must remember that for the SM obeying God's Torah is not identical with obeying just any interpretation. One can achieve true obedience only through Jesus' interpretation of the Torah as set forth in the SM. Since this interpretation has its center in the love-command, the question arises: Does not obedience to the love-command suffice, whether performed with or without the Jewish Torah? Is it necessary for Gentiles to become Jews in order to be saved? Why can they not be faithful to the love-command and so fulfill Jesus' demand while still remaining Gentiles? Why should their remaining Gentiles constitute "lawlessness" (7:23)? Once one raises such questions, one can easily see what Paul's answer would have been. But what would be the answer of the SM? If, as I propose, the SM was conceived for Jewish Christians, one should not automatically exclude other ways of doing justice to God's will. The SM itself has indications that alternatives for other Christians were known to the author(s) of the SM and that these alternatives were not condemned outright even if ruled out for the readers addressed. 1025 What Gentile Christians are criticized for in 7:21-23 is self-delusion concerning "religious experiences" as substitutes for obedience to God's will, not for the fact that the unsuccessful petitioners are Gentiles. 1026 Moreover, in his exhortations Paul is constantly worried about such misunderstanding, apparently typical where Christian Gentiles were concerned.I 0 27

If God sends sunshine and rain on the righteous as well as on the unrighteous, why should salvation be denied those who are born Gentiles? "Is God the god of Jews only? Not also of Gentiles? Certainly also of Gentiles!" (Rom 3:29). One can see how and why Paul developed his theology of justification by faith in Christ. In the beginning, at least, this doctrine was pre-Pauline and was shared-perhaps in different forms-by other branches of the early church. 1 028 Paul himself assumes in his letter to the Romans that that church, although not founded by him, nevertheless basically agrees with him on this point. His way of putting the matter might be new to them, but the doctrine per se is not. For the same reason, it may not be accidental that it is in Romans that Paul refers to traditions similar to those of the SM (Rom 12:9-21; 13:8-10). Where, then, are the differences between the SM and Paul? The SM does not share Paul's concept of "works of law" (~pya roil v&p.ov) as typical of Jewish Torah observance. 1029 But even the SM rejects Torah observance that is based on "literal" misunderstanding, mere formalism, ostentatiousness, hypocrisy, and so on, while both the SM and Paul agree that true obedience to the Torah must be guided by the love-command and the imitation of God (or, respectively, Christ). Paul's concept of "works ofthe law" is, therefore, not directed against all practical meeting of demands; polemical as it is, his concept may react negatively to what he himself once believed as a Pharisee; one should remember, in this respect, that the SM, too, is opposed to Pharisaism (5:20). The real difference, then, does not lie here but rather in christology and soteriology. Whether one be Jew or Gentile, for Paul the righteousness demanded in the last judgment must come from a source other than human effort. Because of the

Im jiidischen Den ken," in his Studies, Essays, and Reviews(2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 2.186-231; Otto Merk, "Nachahmung Christi," in Neues Testament und Ethik: FS fur RudolfSchnackenburg (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1989) 172206 (with bibliography); Hermann L. Strack and Gunter Sternberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Mid rash (trans. Markus Bockmuehl; Minneapolis: Fortress; Edinburgh: Clark, 1991) 9-16. 1024 For the interpretation of this section, see below on SM/Matt 7:21-23. 1025 See above on 5:19, and below on 7:21-23.

326

1026 In fact, they are not called "Gentiles" (£6vtKoi). Those who are called by that name are at any rate non-Christians, "pagans" (SM/Matt 5:47; 6:7). 1027 SeealsoBetz,Essays, 154-57. 1028 For further material concerning this point see Betz, Galatians, 116 n. 35. 1029 See Gal2:15-16 and Betz, Galatians, 116 n. 35.

Matthew 5:21-48

depth of human sinfulness, which wipes out differences between Jews and Gentiles, no human effort will ever suffice. 1030 To think otherwise leads only to selfdelusion.1031 Therefore, God has provided a way out through salvation in Christ. 1032 Christ's sacrificial death on the cross has compensated for the sins of those who believe in him and who follow his example in their daily lives. 1033 They will be acceptable to God in the last judgment because of the love of Christ, who is their righteousness. 1034 Judging from 7:21-23, the SM reacted to GentileChristian doctrines of salvation with a good deal of skepticism, if not rejection. Did such reaction amount to a denial of salvation to Christian Gentiles altogether? Or did it imply the suspicion that "cheap grace" -to use Bonhoeffer's phrase-leads Christian Gentiles into selfdelusion? "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many wonders in your name?" These words of disappointment, bewilderment, and despair reveal that these Christians built their houses on sand (cf. 7:24-27). How could these Christians believe that they would get away from "lawlessness"? Although this picture is imaginary and born of satire, we know from Paul's letters that he seemed constantly plagued by just this threat. Indeed, it is the Achilles' heel of his theology, and he knew it. Just as surely, Paul's opponents knew it, too. It must have been for this reason, therefore, that the anti-Pauline opponents presupposed in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans demanded that Gentile Christians be circumcised and submit to the Torah observances. How would Paul react to the theology of the SM? Would he question that the way of the SM could lead to the righteousness required in the lastjudgment? 1035 He

would certainly doubt that one can master the "rough road" and the "narrow gate" without the help of the Holy Spirit. What will supposedly happen to those disciples who, in spite of their goodwill and effort, "cannot do it?" 1036 The SM takes recourse in the Lord's Prayer, with its promise offorgiveness (6: 12, 14-15), but one does not need the SM to know this, as it was always part of Jewish religion. Equal problems are posed by the SP and its concept of the imitation of God's mercy as leading to "reward" (p.ur8os). 1037 What will happen to the disciple who fails? Is the warning of the great downfall (Matt 7:24-27 par.) all that the SM has to offer? Since additional resources may be available to the community of the disciples that the SM or the SP does not mention, we have no way of fully knowing. It seems clear, however, that neither the SM nor the SP acknowledges any need of supplementation as far as their theologies are concerned. In addition, the Didache indicates that the problem was a real one 1038 and that other solutions had to be found. Didache 1-6, where failure is admitted, was supplemented by additional rituals and doctrines providing further resources. Paul undeniably stands out, however, because his christology and soteriology clearly "solve" the problem; and once he had established from which source salvation comes, he could then take over ethical teachings similar to the SM without reservation. In a similar manner the evangelists Matthew and Luke incorporated the SM and the SP into their Gospels and thereby "corrected" whatever they might have judged insufficient in these sources. For Matthew, Christian salvation is assured through Christ's present rule as cosmocrator and future judge at the last judgment. Matthew's Gospel makes no further use of the doctrine of the imitation of God or, for that matter, of the

1030 See esp. Rom 1:18-3:20. 1031 For Paul's own example see Gall :13-14; Phil3:6-

7. 1032 See Rom 3:21-31; 4:1-11:36. 1033 See Rom 1:4; 5:1-8:39. See also Betz, Galatians, on Gal1:4; 2:19-20; 3:13; 4:4-6; 5:1, 13. 1034 See esp. 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:17-20; Phil3:9; Rom 1:16-17; 10:4. 1035 Would Paul call it "trust in the flesh" (Phil 3:3-4; Rom 2:19)? 1036 Cf. Acts 15:10. For the history of interpretation, see Beyschlag, "Geschichte," 298.

1037 See below ofSP /Luke 6:35. 1038 See the final exhortation in Didache 1-6: "For if you can bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you cannot, do what you can" (6.2; cf. 6.3; 1.4; Hermas Man. 4.3-4). Hermas solves the problem by offering the possibility of a second repentance.

327

antitheses. The Christians of the Matthean church keep Christ's commandments, which include not only the teachings of the SM but also all the other church regulations, rituals, and doctrines in the Gospel (28: 1820). In other words, Matthew recognizes the foundational importance of the SM, but by his theology he has both historicized and relativized it.

328

Matthew 6:1-18

6 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 12 13 14

15

16

Translation

ChapterV The Cultic Instruction

Be on guard with respect to your righteousness, not to act before people for the purpose of being seen by them; if you fail in this, you do not have a reward in the sight of your Father who is in the heavens. Whenever, therefore, you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, in order that they may be glorified by the people. Truly, I say to you, they have (received) their reward (in full). But as you give alms, do not let your left (hand) know what your right (hand) is doing, So that your almsgiving may remain hidden; and your Father who sees what is hidden will compensate you. And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love (it) when in the synagogues and on the street corners they stand (in position) to pray, in order that they may show themselves to the people. Truly, I say to you, they have (received) their reward (in full). But you, when you pray, go into your chamber and shut the door and pray to your Father who is hidden; and your Father who sees what is hidden will compensate you. And as you pray, you shall not babble like the pagans; for they think that by their verbosity they will be heard. Therefore, do not become like them; for your Father knows what you need before youaskhim. Therefore, you (shall) pray in this way: Our Father who is in the heavens, Sanctified be your name, Let your kingdom come, Let your will be done, as in heaven so also on earth. Our bread that we need, give us today. And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive [or: have forgiven] our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from (the) evil (one). For if you forgive people their transgressions, so will your heavenly Father also forgive you. If, however, you do not forgive people, so will your Father also not forgive your transgressions. But when you fast, do not behave like the hypocrites (do) with their sullen look. For they disfigure their faces, in order to appear to people as those who are fasting. Truly, I say to you, they have (received) their reward (in full).

329

17

But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, So that you may not appear to people as one who is fasting but to your Father who is hidden.

18

Bibliography James Barr, "The Hebrew/Aramaic Background of 'Hypocrisy' in the Gospels," in Philip R. Davies and RichardT. White, eds., A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History OSNTSup 100; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990) 307-26. Hans Dieter Betz, "A Jewish-Christian Cultic Didache in Matt 6:1-18," in Betz, Essays, 55-69. Christian Dietzfelbinger, "Die Frommigkeitsregeln von Mt 6, 1-18 als Zeugnisse friihchristlicher Geschichte," ZNW 75 (1984) 184-201. Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.159--63; 3.260-72. Asher Finkel, "The Prayer ofJesus in Matthew," in Asher Finkel and Lawrence Frizzel, eds., Standing before God: Studies on Prayer in Scriptures and in Tradition with Essays in Honor ofJohn M. Oesterreicher (New York: KTAV, 1981) 131-69. Augustin George, "La justice a faire dans le secret (Matthieu 6,1-6.16-18)," Bib 40 (1959) 590-98. Birger Gerhardsson, "Geistiger Opferdienst nach Matth 6,1-6.16-21 ,"in Neues Testament und Geschichte: FS fur Oscar Cullmann zum 70. Geburtstag (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1972) 69-77. Joseph Heinemann, "Private and Non-Statutory Prayers," in his Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns (SJ 9; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1977) 156-92. P.J. Maartens, "The Cola Structure of Matthew 6," Neat. 11 (1977) 48-76. Klaus Pantle-Schieber, "Anmerkungen zur Auseinandersetzung von EKKA7Jcria undJudentum im Matthausevangelium," ZNW 89 (1989) 145-62. Dan 0. Via, "The Gospel of Matthew: Hypocrisy as Self-Deception," SBLSP (1988), 508-16. Ulrich Wilckens, Alois Kehl, and Karl Hoheisel, "Heuchelei," RAG 14 ( 1988) 1205-31. 1. Introduction

For the composition of the second main part (SM/Matt 6: 1-18), 1 the author of the SM has apparently taken over and integrated texts already in existence. As the analysis reveals, this part has two sections, both of them highly structured and based on similar but not identical

2

330

theological ideas. Thus, these sections have their own distinctive characteristics. The first section comprises the portions dealing with almsgiving, prayer, and fasting (6:1-6, 16-18); this first section originally constituted a unit by itself. The second section (6:7-15) also deals with prayer and is intercalated into the first; it contains material even older than itself: the Lord's Prayer (6:9b13) and a rule of religious law pertaining to the forgiveness of sins (6: 14-15 ). Scholars today have a high degree of consensus about the nature and composition of the entire section 6:1-18, but they still debate the questions about literary genre and function, authorship, and theology. a. Literary Genre and Function

Anticipating the result of my analysis I can say that a lengthy passage so masterfully composed down to the smallest details presupposes a written source (Vorlage) or, perhaps, two such sources. These older sources were carefully combined, one being inserted into the other, according to an overarching plan. At the beginning of the development, however, we must imagine oral performance. The Lord's Prayer, as a piece ofliturgical material, is certainly oral in nature, and so is the. generally didactic character of the context. If one takes these considerations seriously, this is one of the most ancient literary formations of the gospel tradition, the oldest part being the Lord's Prayer, which, as we shall see, occupies the place in the center of the architecture of the SM. Calling the section 6:1-18, as I have done, a "cultic did ache," or ritual instruction, requires justification. Notably, other scholars prefer other classifications, 2 but the genre of cultic didache can be defended on the following grounds. 3 1. In form and content the section consists of instruction for the proper performance of three ritual acts: almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. These instructions must be related to larger bodies of cultic literature: on

For the overall composition see the Introduction, pp. 44-66. See Bultmann, History, 133 n. 1, who rejects Albertz's

category of "didactic poem" and stresses the compositional character as "church catechism." Elsewhere, Bultmann speaks of "rules of piety"

Matthew6:1-18

the one hand to cultic law, and on the other hand to descriptions of cultic,practices. Cultic law in antiquity sets forth regulations for calendars, feasts, rituals of all kinds, lists of officials, and so on, 4 while descriptions assume a position of critical distance when they report about particular religious practices of some people or cultic community. Cultic instruction, therefore, presupposes some form of critical evaluation of traditional or current practices, taking a position of distance from them and engaging in reflection about them. 5 At the same time proposals are stated for doing things correctly and properly. Consequently, cultic instruction is the kind of thing one expects from religious "reformers." Its aim is to make a distinction between proper and improper performances, and to recommend ways of doing them in the right form. Cultic duties, after all, can fulfill their purpose only if they are rendered in the appropriate way. 6 2. The evangelist Matthew calls the SM l>&l>ax~

3

4

5

(didache, "teaching") in 7:28, referring thereby also to the body of text under discussion. 7 3. The Didache, a document closely associated with the SM, carries the genre classification already in its title. 8 The same title was probably attached to the Greek source (Vorlage) of the Doctrina apostolorum. The term l>&l>arrKaA.la ("teaching"), commonly designating catechetical material, is also related. 9 Before I turn to a closer examination of the text itself, some preliminary considerations about the wider religious context may be in order. Presenting cultic instruction was no ordinary matter in antiquity. Anyone who formulated such instruction must have been engaged in critical thinking of a theological nature. The basic question for such thinking must have been the

(Friimmigkeitsregeln), a name also used by Dietzfelbinger (see bibliography). See also Betz, Essays, 57 n. 8; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 100 n. 1 (Sermon, 207 n. 1); Luz, Matthi:lus, 1.322-23 (Matthew, 1.355-56); Gnilka,Matthi:lus, 1.201 n. 4, 207, 210,212,234. For a different type of cultic instruction see 2 Cor 6:14-7:1; and on this passage Betz, Galatians, appendix 2, with bibliography. In general see Sigmund Mowinckel, "Kultus," RGG 3 (3d ed. 1960) 122 (sections 5-6); Widengren, Religionsphanomenologie, 474-93; for the OT and Judaism see Klaus Koch,Jehoshua Amir, and Gunter Klein, "Gesetz I-III," TRE 13 (1984) 40-75; BerndJorg Diebner, "Gottesdienst II," TRE 14 (1985) 528; Schurer, History, 2.237-487; 3/1.381-420 (on Qumran), all with comprehensive bibliographies. For Greek religion see Ioannes de Prott and Ludovicus Ziehen, Leges Graecorum sacrae e titulis collectae (2 vols.; Lipsiae: Teubner, 1896, 1906); Franciszek Sokolowski, Lois sacries de l'Asie Mineure (Ecole fran~aise d' Athenes: Travaux et memoires 9; Paris: Boccard, 1955); idem, Lois sacrees des cites grecques (Ecole fran~aise d'Athenes: Travaux et memoires 18; 2d ed.; Paris: Boccard, 1969); Friedrich Pfister, "Kultus," PW 10/2 (1922) 2118-25; Paul Stengel, Die griechischen Kultusaltertilmer (HKAW 5.3; 3d ed.; Munich: Beck, 1920); Nock, Essays, 2.847-52; Nilsson, GGR, 2.67-82, 372-74; Burkert, Religion, 246-50; Versnel, Faith, Hope, passim. This investigative activity was typical of the Greeks; see Alois Tresp, Die Fragmente der griechischen Kultschriftsteller (RVV 15.1; GieBen: Topelmann,

6

7

8 9

1914); Nilsson, GGR, 2.51-61, 102. The technical term in Greek was 8E07rpE7r~~, 8Eo7rpE7rWS ("appropriate for the deity"). The SM does not use this term, but the church fathers rightly apply it to the Lord's Prayer (Clement Alex. Strom. 7.2.1 [GCS 17.3, p. 3] and often; Origen De orat. 2.1 [GCS 3.2.2, pp. 298, 23-299, 3]). On the whole subject see Oskar Dreyer, Der Begriff des Gottgeziemenden in der Antike. Mit besonderer Berilcksichtigung Philons von Alexandrien (Spudasmata 24; Hildesheim and New York: Olms, 1970); Wilhelm Gessel, Die Theologie des Gebetes nach "De Oratione" von Origenes (Munich, Paderborn, and Vienna: Schoningh, 197 5) 28-29, 128-48. See also a.M
331

notion of what is "acceptable to God" (d!7rp&uli£KTOV T{il 8£{il). 10 One should realize that ancient people were, much more than we are, concerned about the ways in which to approach the deity in the appropriate manner. 11 Approaching the deity required particular conditions such as a state of purity, external as well as internal. Other important dispositions were indicated by terms like "devout" (dJA.a~~s), I2 "well pleasing" (€v~pt:uTos), 13 "acceptable" (€v7rp&ulit:KTos), and, foremost, "religious" (t:vut:~~s). 14 Such dispositions or attitudes should be the result of "awe" (cp&~os), "reverence" (£vA.~~t:ta, ~:vui~na), 15 and "gratitude" (~:vxaptuTla). 16 Religious performances of rituals do not automatically conform to these requirements. There can be wrong rituals, wrongly performed right rituals, and inappropriate persons acting in performances. Faced with experiences of abuse, conscientious people ask themselves whether what is being done and accepted as proper genuinely conforms with the ideas that originally motivated the institutions of the cult by the ancestors or even the deity. Here the requirement to follow the "traditions of the forefathers" has its origin. 1 7 This requirement is not interested so much in tradition for its own sake, but whether what is being performed fulfills the demand of "righteousness" (litKatou!'!v7J) ritually, legally, ethically, and cosmologically. Ancient people were aware that religious practices are not necessarily in 10

11 12 13 14 15

16

17

332

conformity with law and ethics. One may say that ritual originally had little connection with law or ethics. Only gradually and under the scrutiny of theologians and philosophers were rituals subjected to the criteria of law and morality. 18 If these considerations were true of all of antiquity, they were even more important for the religion of judaism, from which the SM also originated. In particular, Hellenistic judaism proved highly sensitive to these issues. Indeed, most of the literature of Philo, the Qumran community, or the regulations of Mishnah and Talmud have these issues as their basic concerns. The same must be said of early Christian literature, although the answers given here are different. Given this wider perspective, one can now understand the initial exhortation in 6: 1a, "Be on guard concerning your righteousness" (7rpOITEXfTf T~V litKatou!'JV7JV vp.wv). Contrary to what is often assumed, however, the subject matter of the section 6: 1-18 is not simply "righteousness" but the relation of that righteousness to specific cultic duties of the pious jew. The exhortation calls attention to the fact that one can perform the rituals contrary to righteousness. Indeed, conventional performance cannot ordinarily qualify as righteousness and has therefore no value in the sight of God. 19 For the sake of integrity, however, religious rituals must conform to righteousness, and both must be in harmony. If God represents righteousness, and if righteousness is

Cf. Rom 15:16, 31; 1 Pet 2:5; 1 Clem. 35.5; 40.3; Hermas Man. 10.3.1; etc. See BAGD s.v. Elnrp&ua£Kros, 1rpoulJ£KT&s. Cf. the term 7rpouaywy~ ("access," "approach") in Rom 5:2; Eph 2:18; 3:12. See, e.g., in the NT Luke 2:25; Acts 2:5; 8:2; 22:12; Heb 5:7. See Rom 12:1-2; 14:18; Phil4:18; Heb 11:5, 6; 12:28; 13:16, 21; etc. See Acts 17:23; 1 Tim 2:2, and often in the Pastoral Epistles. On this notion see Dieter Kaufmann-Biihler, "Eusebeia," RAG 6 (1966) 985-1052; Versnel, Faith, Hope, 245-62; Burkert, Religion, 272-75, 337; BAGD, s.v.
18 19

of the Christian opposition against "the traditions of the elders"(~ 7rapaaou•~ rwv 7rp
Matthew 6:1-18

demanded of all people, people's religious activities must be accountable to the standard as well. 2o The SM is most determined at this point. Special attention must be given to the question of righteousness because without it all religion is improper, the product of degeneration and superstition, if not blasphemy. Paradoxically, religious activities performed as a matter of course or without awareness of their inherent dangers are the greatest source of offense against God. They will certainly evoke God's wrath. As I have described it, cultic instruction represents a secondary development. It stands in contrast and opposition to an unquestioned handing down of tradition. Instruction furthermore presupposes an awareness of alternative options and changes in the traditions. The need to select, reject, and modify goes hand in hand with the quest for criteria to be applied in these operations. For these reasons one can assume that extant texts relating cultic material are the result of long processes of critical examination of such materials and that what has been written down is not by any means final but only a way station in the liturgical life. In Greek religion and philosophy cultic instruction

seems to have played a significant role. Regarding Greek religious thought, the so-called Delphic piety, expressed in short stories, is a good example. Among these stories are those about who is the happiest, the wealthiest, and also the most pious among people. 21 The stories about true piety involve, for instance, a wealthy man who came from Magnesia to Delphi and, after offering a hecatomb, asked the oracle, "Who is the one who honors the god best and whose offerings are most acceptable to him?" Expecting that he would be the one, he was surprised to learn that the Pythia had named one (completely unknown) Clearchus from Arcadia. When the rich man went to Arcadia to find the man, he came upon a simple peasant in a small village who at the appointed times celebrated the festivals and offered from the fruits of his fields. The man did not even sacrifice animals, but performed the ordinary religious duties in the most simple and unpretentious ways. 22 The message is clear: The god Apollo prefers the honest and simple gift of the little man or woman and

contrast types of interpretation of law and Scripture as well as types of religious and moral behavior. On the general background see the Introduction to the section on the antitheses above; also B. A. van Groningen, De Antithese als Griekse denkvorm (Mededelingen van Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor W etenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie, Klasse der Letteren, Jaargang 15, no. 1, 1953); Hanns-Dieter Voigtlander, Der Philosoph und die Vie len: Die Bedeutung des Gegensatzes der unphilosophischen Menge zu den Philosophen (und das Problem des argumentum e consensu omnium) im philosophischen Denken der Griechen his auf Aristoteles (Wiesbaden:

20

21

Steiner, 1980). Cf. the definition of pietas ("piety") in Cicero De nat. deor. 1.115: "Piety is justice towards the gods" ("Est enim pietas iustitia adversus deos"). In religious literature especially, the terms llutor ("pious") and olKator ("righteous") are frequently associated. For references see BAGD, s.v., llutor, ouuSr71r; Burkert, Religion, 268-71; Versnel, Faith, Hope, 12, 188. For the Delphic concerns about religion see esp. Xenophon Mem. 1.3.1, where the Pythia answers questions such as "What is my duty about sacrifice?" On the whole matter see Rudolf Herzog, "Das delphische Orakel als ethischer Preisrichter," in Ernst Horneffer, Der junge Platon (GieBen: Topelmann,

1922) 149-70; Fritz Wehrli, AA0E BlfU::Al:: Studien zur iiltesten Ethik bei den Griechen (Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1931) 30-60; Wolfgang Schadewalt, "Der Gott von Delphi und die Humanitatsidee," in his Hellas und Hesperien (2 vols.; 2d ed.; Zurich and Stuttgart: Artemis, 1970) 1.669-85; Rudiger Vischer, Das einfache Leben: Wort- und motivgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Wertbegriff der antiken Literatur (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1965) 38-44 and passim; Jean Defradas, Les themes de la propagande delphique (Etudes et

22

commentaires 21; Paris: Klincksieck, 1954) 268-83. The story comes in different versions, three of them from Porphyry De abst. 2.15-17. See jacob Bernays, Theophrastos' Schrift ilber die Frommigkeit. Mit kritischen und erkliirenden Bemerkungen zu Porphyrios' Schrift ilber die Enthaltsamkeit (Berlin: Hertz, 1866; reprinted

Hildesheim: Olms, 1979) 67 -79; Wehrli, AA0E Bli1l:Al:, 46-60; William Fortenbaugh, Quellen zur Ethik Theophrasts (Studien zur antiken Philosophie 12; Amsterdam: Gruner, 1984) 54-62,262-74.

333

shows disdain for the extravagant and ostentatious hecatombs of the wealthy and the mighty. The god approves of the loyal performance of the ancestral rites the year round, as they are due to be performed in the home and the village. The god is pleased by the true piety of the heart, while the attempts to bribe him by expensive gifts only makes him angry. Ideas about true religion such as these were widely held, even by moralists and philosophers; among the latter are Xenophon, 2 3 Plato, 24 and !socrates. !socrates sums up this doctrine in Ad Nicoclem 20: "In the worship of the gods, follow the example of your ancestors, but believe that the noblest sacrifice and the greatest devotion is to show yourself in the highest degree a good and just man; for such men have greater hope of enjoying a blessing from the gods than those who slaughter many victims. " 25 The process of examining religious practices by philosophers began before Plato and certainly included Pythagoras. The search for the proper performance of the rituals was guided by theological as well as ethical notions, among them especially the notion of "righteousness" (BtKawcrvv7J). The aim was always to formulate criteria for what could pass as "the appropriate worship 23 24

25

26

27 28

334

of the gods" (~ 1rphs Toils 8t:ovs t:vcr£{3Ha). 26 The philosophical schools developed definitions stipulating that "righteousness" 27 must be the foundation of all worship of the gods, if it is to steer a middle course between atheism and superstition. 28 These ideas are also related to the nature of the deity itself. 29 Philosophers such as Theophrastus 30 and Philodemus 31 wrote highly influential works "On Piety" (7rt:p\. t:vcrt:fJt:las), which have come down to us only in fragments but which had a lasting impact at their time not only on Greek religion 3 2 but even on Judaism, Hellenistic Judaism in particular. 33 Their major concerns, therefore, have parallels also in the SM, a fact that after all the connections that have been pointed out above cannot be a surprise: 1. The problematical relationship between ritual performance and ethical action, pertaining also to the notions of "righteousness" (BtKatocrvv7J) and law (vop.os). 2. The problem of forming an intelligent, cultured, and ethically responsible conduct on the part of religious practitioners. This conduct involves external behavior as well as internal disposition. 3. The problem of forming appropriate notions about the deity. Accordingly, proper worship depends on the

Xenophon Mem. 1.3.1. Plato Euthyphr. 14d; Leg. 4, 716d; 10, 906d; Ps.-Plato Ale. min. 2.149. For further references, see Wehrli, AA0E BHl:I:A:I:, 53-55. Ttr.""fv 7rphs TOiYs 6Eohs 1roln JJ.fV Ws or 7Tp6yovoL
29

30 31

32

33

So esp. the Stoics. See, e.g., Epictetus Ench. 31.1-5; Stobaeus Anthol. 2.14 7:
Matthew 6:1-18

right ideas about the deity. If the deity exists, what does this imply? Does God care about humans? Can God be approached by human petitions? In what way does God act? 4. Appropriate worship must conform to what God himself is and does (imitation of God). 5. These issues are tied up with having the right notions about the afterlife, including criteria for reward and punishment. Among the rituals in antiquity, three stand out as most controversial: First, the sacrificial offerings. Which offerings are acceptable and which are not? What about bloody sacrifices, or human sacrifice? The choice of almsgiving in the SM (6:2-4) must be seen in this perspective. Second, prayer and its relation to magic. Must God be informed? Can he be coerced? The response of the SM is stated in 6:7-15. Third, forms of abstinence. Is abstention from food or sex required? Is it required always and totally? What is its purpose? The SM responds in the section on fasting (6:16-18). This survey shows that the SM responds to these issues in an extremely concise form. The section 6:1-18, therefore, contains more than rules for proper behavior. These rules, as it were, are only the practical applications of underlying theological ideas. These ideas, on which the reflection is based that results in the rules, remain for the most part unstated, but at some points they are stated explicitly. The SM is based primarily on Jewish religious thought. Judaism did not produce theoretical treatises "On Piety," but many of the same attitudes and ideas can be found on the Jewish side, beginning with the Old Testament prophets and their criticism of the cult and continuing in Jewish wisdom literature. The history and diversity of this religious criticism within Judaism was extensive, so that the cultic instruction in the SM is but one of its many manifestations. In the following I examine at least some of the closer parallels. 34 35

b. Literary Parallels

In the New Testament itself, the cultic instruction of 6:1-18 has no parallels and is simply unique. While Q has no parallel even to any of its main sections, 6:7-13 at least has a parallel in Luke 11: 1-4, while for the rule in Matt 6:14-15 parallel references exist in Mark 11:2526; Matt 16:19; 18:18; andJohn 20:23. I should underscore that the entire cultic instruction of Matt 6: 118, being Jewish, has no counterpart in the SP. There are, however, instructive parallel passages in noncanonical sources, demonstrating that this type of instruction, whether or not influenced by the SM, must have been more common. The Coptic Cos. Thom. log. 6 34 is surprisingly close, 35 while at the same time different: His disciples questioned him and said to him, "Do you want us to fast? And how shall we pray? Shall we give alms? And what kind of diet shall we follow?" Jesus said, "Do not lie, and do not do what you hate. For all things are disclosed before heaven. For there is nothing obscure that will not be shown forth, and there is nothing covered that will remain without being disclosed." The compositional structure of the passage is as follows: I. Description of the situation: Jesus in conversation with his disciples

II. Dialogue A. Questions 1. Origin: the disciples 2. Four questions a. Fasting b. Prayer c. Almsgiving d. Dietary restrictions

Trans. by Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 381. Cf. Cos. Thom. log. 14 (trans. Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 382-83): "Jesus said to them: 'If you (plur.) fast, you will acquire a sin, and if you pray you will be condemned, and if you give alms, it is evil that you will do unto your spirits." For such prohibitions to pray at all, see Cos. Phil. log. 7; Clement Alex. Strom.

7.7.41 (GCS 17.3, p. 31); Origen De orat. 5.1 (GCS 3.2.2, p. 308).

335

B. Answer I. Origin: Jesus 2. Two answers forming a set, and added reasons a. Two prohibitions (apodictic) I) First prohibition: "Do not lie!" 2) Second prohibition: "Do not do what you hate!" b. Dogmatic reason I) Conclusion from the following sententia: "For all will be revealed before heaven" 2) Citation of authoritative sententia (isocolon) 36

Jesus' saying in P. Oxy. 654: His disciples asked him and said, "How shall we fast, and how shall we pray, and how shall we give alms, and what shall we observe when we eat?" Jesus said, "Do not lie, and what you hate do not do! For all things will be full of truth before heaven. For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest. Blessed is he who does not do these things. For all things will be made manifest to the Father who is in the heavens." [' EflEnz(ovow aVTOV o[t p.a87JTat aVTOV Kat A.t]yoviTLV" 7TWS VTJITTEJ)[ ITOJ.LEV, Kat 7TWS 7TpOIT€Vfo]p.E8a Kat 7TWS [ fAETJJ.LOITJ)VTJV 7TOL~ITOJ.LEV, K]at T[ 7TapaTTJp~[ ITOJ.LEV ;)TaV li£L7TVWJ.L€ ]v; A.tyn 'ITJ(ITovs)· [p.-7] l/FEJ)fi£0"8€ Kat 3 TL J.LLIT ]EtTaL p.-1] 7TOLflT[ €" 7TaVTa yap ~ITTat 7TA~p ]TJS aATJ8Elas a[vTt TOV ovpavov· ovl"J(v yap fiTTL ]v a[ 7T ]oKEKp[ VJ.LJ.LlVOV 3 OV cpavEpov ~O"Tat· p.a ]Kapt[ OS] fiTTLV [3 Tavra p.-1] 7TOLWV. 7TavTa yap €v cpavEp ]ip ~ITT[ at 7Tapa Tip 7TaTpt 3s fV Tip ovpavip fiTT ]tv. 37

36 37 38

336

This saying is similar to the one previously cited from the Coptic Gospel ofThomas, but it has differences as well. None of the sayings is, in my view, based directly on the canonical New Testament. 38 The compositional structure of this passage in P. Oxy. 654 is as follows: I. Description of the situation: Jesus in conversation with his disciples

II. Dialogue A. Questions I. Origin: the disciples 2. Four questions (the first three introduced by 7rros ["how"], the fourth by Kat n ["and what"]) a. Fasting b. Prayer c. Almsgiving d. Dietary restrictions B. Answer I. Origin: Jesus 2. Two answers forming a set, and added reasons a. Two prohibitions (apodictic) I) First prohibition: "Do not lie!" 2) Second prohibition: "What you hate, do not do!" b. Dogmatic reasons I) Conclusion from the following sententiae 2) Set of three authoritative sententiae (a) General sententia (b) Beatitude (c) Theological statement

The evidence contained in the Didache is most interesting. This text, which is closely related to the SM but, as I take it, independent from the canonical Gospel of Matthew, has an instruction on almsgiving in Did. 1.56, but this earlier section of the Didache gives no consideration to prayer and fasting. The later part, however, which begins in chapter 7, has a fully developed instruction for the worship services of the church: baptism (chap. 7), fasting (8.1), prayer (8.2-3), Eucharist (chaps. 9-10), church offices (chaps. 11-13), Sunday (chap. 14), and election of bishops (15.1-2). 39 A

For similar statements see Matt 10:26 I I Luke I2:2; I Cor 3:I3; 4:5; 2 Cor 5:IO; Rom I4:IO. For the text see Aland, Synopsis, 85. The translation is mine. Differently Fitzmyer, Essays, 385: "While certain elements of this saying are derived from the canonical Gospels and to that extent can be regarded as authentic sayings ofJesus, the saying as a whole is

39

most likely the work of later compilers." On the Didache see the commentary by Niederwimmer, Didache.

Matthew 6:1-18

summary statement in 15.4 naming "prayers, almsgivings, and all your deeds" concludes with the muchdebated injunction, "Do them as you have it in the gospel of our Lord. "40 My translation of Did. 8.1-2 is as follows: But with regard to your fasts, do not let them happen together with the hypocrites. For they fast on the second day [sc. Monday] ofthe week and the fifth [sc. Thursday]. But you shall fast on the fourth [sc. Wednesday] and the day of preparation [sc. Friday]. And do not pray as the hypocrites do, but as the Lord in his gospel has commanded, thus shall you pray: ... [the Lord's Prayer follows]. 41 In this way you (shall) pray three times a day. 42 The text has the following compositional structure, showing that earlier instructional material similar to that in the SM has been integrated into a larger unit, just as SM/Matt 6:1-18 has been inserted into the SM as a whole. I. On fasting (8.1) A. Reference to the cultic act B. Prohibition of the improper performance 1. General mark of distinction: "not together with the hypocrites" (i.e., non-Christian Jews) 2. Specification of Qewish) times of fasting to be avoided C. Instruction for the proper performance: stipulation ofthe days for the proper (Christian) performance II. On prayer (8:2-3) A. Reference to the cultic act B. Prohibition of the improper performance: "not as the hypocrites"

40

41 42 43

C. Instruction for the proper performance 1. Naming of the authority: Jesus 2. Citation of the authoritative prayer: the Lord's Prayer 3. Stipulation of the proper times for the performance

If this teaching was formulated independently from the canonical Gospels, and by drawing on presynaptic sources, as I assume, the same should be assumed for other passages from the Apostolic Fathers. In particular, 2 Clem. 16.4 contains a passage about almsgiving that also mentions fasting and prayer and establishes a hierarchy of importance in this order: almsgiving, fasting, prayer. Hermas Sim. 5.1 considers fasting only and concludes with a beatitude. The Jewish antiquity of these sources is demonstrated by a number of close parallels in jewish wisdom literature. These parallels are of two kinds: parallel references to details and entire compositions of an instructional type. Sirach 34: 13-36:17 contains suggestions of cultic instruction with a good number of lines parallel to the SM. Its composition, however, has not been adequately investigated and even the textual transmission is complicated. 43 Two sections can be delimited more clearly: a section dealing with sacrifice (34: 18-35: 11), 44 and another dealing with prayer (35:12-20; 36:1-17), 45 prefaced by an introduction of a general nature about religion (34: 13-1 7). 46 While the general introduction is based on the notion of the fear of God, 4 7 the sections on offerings and prayer juxtapose right and wrong performance of the rituals.

The references are at several points to f:v r~ evayy
vormakkabiiischen Safer unter Berilcksichtigung seines Verhiiltnisses zu Priester-, Propheten- und Weisheitslehrertum (WUNT 2.6; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck],

44 45 46 47

1980) 68-99. LXX Sir 31(34):21-32(35):11. Ibid., 32(35):12-26; 33(36):1-13a, 16b, 17-22. Ibid., 31(34):16-20; the introduction may contain a longer section beginning in 31 (34): 1. Ibid., 31(34):14.

als Schriftgelehrter: Eine Untersuchung zum Berufsbild des

337

Almsgiving is mentioned in the context of sacrifice, where it rightly belongs. 48 Prayer is also closely related to sacrifice, sharing its uses as well as its abuses and misunderstandings. An authoritative prayer is added (36: 1-17 [NEB]). 49 Fasting receives less attention, but it is mentioned in the context of true and false performance (34:26 [NEB]). 50 Tobit 12:6-10 contains a summary of Jewish piety in didactic form; it includes references to almsgiving, prayer, and fasting: Good is prayer together with fasting and almsgiving and righteousness. Good is the little (gift) together with righteousness, rather than much with unrighteousness. Good is to give alms, rather than to hoard gold. For almsgiving saves from death, and it cleanses every sin. Those who give alms and (gifts of) righteousness will be filled with life, but those who commit sins are enemies of their own lives. 51 a:ya8ov 7Tp01TWX~ p.£Tiz V7]1TT£{as Kat £A£7]p.OITVV7JS Kat 0LKaLOITVV7JS" &ya8ov TO oA.lyov p.£Tiz OLKaLOITVV7JS ~ 7TOAV p.£Tiz cl.otKlas· 48

49 50 51 52

53

54

338

KaAov 7TOLijuaL fA£7]p.OuVV7]V ~ 87]uavp{uat xpvu{ov. fA£7]p.OITVV7] yh.p fK Bavchov pV£TaL, Kat avT~ tL7TOKa8ap£L < I 7Tauav ap.apnav· Ot7Towvvns h£7]p.ouvvas Kat OLKawuvvas 7TA7]u8~uovTaL (wijs· ol o€ b.p.apTiwovns 7TOAEp.tol dutv Tijs ~avTwv (wijs. 52 ~

Much of this could have been stated in the SM, and this close parallelism points to the Jewish origin of the SM material. One can hardly have any doubt that the singling out of almsgiving, prayer, and fasting has its origin in the Jewish wisdom traditions to which also Sirach and Tobit belong. The identification of the three most important acts of worship as constituting true piety continues in rabbinic literature 5 3 and even later in Islam, 54 not to mention the Christian traditions, 55 especially in the patristic period. 56 c. Theology

Regarding its theology, the cultic instruction of 6:1-18 is distinguished by some concepts unusual in the New Testament, and by some diversity within a frame of similar thought. Quite clearly, the cultic instruction of 6:1-6, 16-18 has its own theology, somewhat different

Ibid., 32(35):4; cf. 3:14, 30; 7:10; 12:3; 16:14; 17:22, 29; 29:1-13; 34(31):11; 40:17, 24, and other 55 passages. Ibid., 33(36):1-22; cf. 3:5; 7:10, 14; 39:5, 6; 50:19; 51:1, 13. Ibid., 31(34):31. My translation. 56 Text according to the edition by Robert Hanhart, Tobit (Septuaginta 8.5; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983) 158-59, with variants in the critical apparatus. Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary, 112) cites R. Eleazar (Koh. Rab. 5.6) as saying: "Three things annul the severe decree and these are they: prayer, charity, and repentance." The last is frequently accompanied by a reference to fasting. See also Str-B 1.386-429, and excurses nos. 6, 22, and 23 in vol. 4/1. The threefold works of piety (prayer, fasting, and almsgiving) continue to be important in Manichaeism and in Islam. See Alexander Bohlig, "Manichaismus," TRE 22 (1 991) 25-45, esp. 37-38; Kenneth Cragg, The Call of the Minaret (Oxford: Oxford University, 1964) 105-16, 150-54; Fazlur Rahman, Islam (2d ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979) 36-37; Abdul A 'Ia Mawdiidi, Towards Understanding Islam (Leicester: Islamic Foundation, I 981) 88-93. For the references to Islam I am indebted to Professor Jan

Bergman ofUppsala. Cf. Gunter Bader, Symbolik des Todes jesu (HUTh 25; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1988) 230 n. 535, who refers to Guntherus Cisterciensis Monachus (died c. 1220) De oratione, jeiunio, et eleemosyna libri XIII (PL 212.97-222). One should not ignore an important parallel reference, however. The collection of Christianized Hellenistic-] ewish prayers in book 7 of the Apostolic Constitutions has a surprising piece of catechetical instruction, obviously a remnant from jewish origins: "Let the one who is to be instructed in piety be taught before baptism [op.tAAwv rolvvv Kar7Jxil0'8a< Thv A6yov Tfj!; EiJuE{jelaf 7Tat0Evlu8w 1rp"D ToV ~a?Tr(O'p.aro~]: knowledge concerning the unbegotten God, understanding concerning the only begotten son, and full assurance concerning the Holy Spirit. Let him learn the order of a distinguished creation, the sequence of providence," etc. (Ap. Const. 7.39.24, ed. Funk; trans. according to D. R. Darnell, OTP 2.687). For discussion see the notes in OTP 2.687; Wilhelm Bousset, Religionsgeschichtliche Studien: A ufsiitze zur Religionsgeschichte des hellenistischen Zeitalters (ed. A. F. Verheule; NovTSup 50; Leiden:

Brill, 1979) 265-67.

Matthew 6:1-18

from but not incompatible with 6:7-15. Such diversity is as remarkable as is the complementarity of the different theologies. Working with materials coming from different sources, the author, or rather the redactor, of the SM apparently did not care to harmonize these sources but instead shows a considerable degree of tolerance for diversity. As the systematician that he no doubt also was, he took the diversity to be complementary rather than contradictory. The same degree of tolerance is shown later by the evangelist Matthew, who, in addition, accounts for diversity in the sources by his ideas about historical development. At the beginning of the church, Matthew knows, things were different from what they were at his own time. Both teachings, the one in 6:1-6, 16-18 and the other in 6:7-15, employ doctrines and concepts rarely attested elsewhere in the New Testament. 5 7 These notions derive, as one would expect, from judaism of the first century or earlier. Since the main parallels occur in Hellenistic-Jewish texts, not 57

surprisingly one finds analogous concepts in GrecoRoman religious thought as well. 1 ) The Doctrine of God

The instruction SM/Matt 6:1-6, 16-18 states three times that the heavenly Father is "in the hidden" and that he sees all that goes on "in the hidden" (6:.4, 6, 18). Although this notion of God as being and seeing "in the hidden" appears strange, 58 it presupposes two older theological doctrines: that of the "all-seeing" God 59 and that of the "hiddenness" ofGod. 60 It is not clear whether these concepts are in any way related to Mark's concept of the "mystery of the kingdom of God" (Mark 4:11 par.). 61 The first concept envisioned is well known in the history of religions as that of the "all-knowing sky god," a concept common in all ancient religions. In the Old Testament it is represented especially in the great hymns Psalm 139 andjob 28. Wisdom literature 62 and apocalypticism 63 became increasingly fond of the concept, and from there it must have entered into early

Birger Gerhardsson ("Geistiger Opferdienst nach Matth 6, 1-6.I6-I8," in Neues Testament und

59

Geschichte: FS for Oscar Cull mann zum 70. Geburtstag

58

[Zurich: Theologischer Verlag; Tiibingen: Mohr (Siebeck), I972]69-77) has seen the difficulty of relating the passage to the teaching ofJesus and early Christianity. He recognizes the pre-Matthean composition and the Jewish theology of the section. He thinks that the cultic acts, as commended, are based on the Shema of Deut 6:4-5, commanding undivided love of God alone. Gerhardsson might have referred to SM concepts like purity of the heart (SM/Matt 5:8) or undivided loyalty toward God (6:24), but the SM never mentions the Shema. When the love-command is cited in 5:43b, only Lev I9: I8 is quoted but not Deut 6:4-5; the SM here clearly differs from the passage Mark I2:29. Even SM/Matt 6:24 does not demand love of God, but service of God. There is no exact parallel to this kind of theology elsewhere in the NT, but see Coptic Cos. Thom. log. 5 and 6 (cited above); Kerygma Petri 2 (ed. Erich Klostermann; KIT 2; 2d ed.; Bonn: Marcus, I908) 13: h lulpaTor ils Ta 1ravTa hpa ("the invisible one who views all"). For further parallels see Ernst von Dobschiitz, Das Kerygma Petri kritisch untersucht (TU II. I; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1893) 30; NTApok 2.38. On the doctrine of God's hiddenness in the NT see Albrecht Oepke, • KpV'ITTIJl KT >...," TDNT 3. 961-78; Helmut Bandt, "Verborgenheit Gottes," RGG 6 (3d ed. 1962) I256-59; Siegert, Drei hellenistisch-jildische Predigten, 2.75-79.

60

6I 62

63

See esp. Ps 33: I3-I5: "The LORD looks out from heaven, he sees the whole race of men; he surveys from his dwelling-place all the inhabitants of earth. It is he who fashions the hearts of all men alike, who discerns all that they do" (NEB). See also Gen 29:32; Pss 9: I4; I13:5-6; I38:6; Luke I :48; etc. On the whole topic see Heinrich Middendorf, Gott sieht: Eine terminologische Studie ilber das Schauen Gottes im Alten Testament (Breslau: Plischke, I935); D. Vetter, •;,ac., r'h sehen," THAT 2.696-97 (4.b); Siegert, Drei hellenistisch-jildische Predigten, 2.II6-I8. See Hubert Schrade, Der verborgene Gott: Gottesbild 11nd Gottesvorstellung in Israel und im Alten Orient

(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, I949); Samuel E. Balentine, The Hidden God: The Hiding of the Face of God in the Old Testament (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University, I983); also Oepke, TDNT 3.967-73. See Gunther Bornkamm, "p.vtrT~ptov," TDNT 4.8I7I9. See Pss 79:IO; 81:7; I Kgs 8:I2; 2 Chr 6:I; Sir II:26; 16:I7-23; 39:I9; 42:I5-25; 43:I-33; 48:25; Sus 42;jos. Asen. 6.3 (OTP 2.209); Euripides/ Philemon(?) (OTP 2.827-29). See 3 Enoch 1.6-7; 5.10-14; Sib. Or. 3.I2; 4.12 (OTP 1.24I, 362, 384); Orphica 20-26 (OTP 2. 799-800); Hell. Synag. Prayers 4.33-34; 9.4-6; I3.8 (OTP 2.681-95). Furthermore, Peter Schafer, ed., Ubersetzung der Hekalot-Literatur (TSAJ I 7; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], I987) sections 81 and 83. For the NT see Rom 1:20; Coli:I5, 16; 1 Tim I:I7; Heb 1I:27. See also BAGD, s.v. a6paTor, with references.

339

Christian texts, the earliest of which seems to be the SM. In Greek religion the concept of the god "who sees everything and hears everything" goes back to Homer. The concept is traceable through Greek religion and literature by the conspicuous epithet given to Zeus, Helios, and other gods: 8s ?TavT' tcpop~ ICal. ?TavT' €?Ta1Col'!n. 64 This epithet is related to what Hildebrecht Hommel has called "the all-present sky god" ("der allgegenwartige Himmelsgott"), 65 well attested in Greek philosophical texts. 66 From the beginning it seems that this concept was also related to the notion of the deity as the guarantor of "righteousness" (at1Catoul'!v7J). 67 Both these concepts occur together in philosophical texts, 68 but there may also be a connection with the mystery religions and their terminology of £?Tti?TT£La ("vision"). 69 For Greek philosophy-or shall I say theology?-the God who sees and hears all played an important role. It was usually the sun-god Helios who was called "allseeing" (?TavTO?TT1JS, or similar terms), 70 or the "eye of righteousness" (lJp.p.a aLICaLoul'!v7]s). 7l For Xenophanes the deity itself was nothing but seeing: "All of him sees, all thinks, and all hears" (oi)A.os opaL, oi)A.os ae VOEL, oi)A.os a£ T

0

aiCol'!n). 72 64

65

66

67

68

340

Later it was believed that a clever manipulator had introduced the belief, in order to get people to obey the law. Sextus Empiricus 73 reports about "the atheists," among them Critias, one of the thirty tyrants of 404 BCE, that "the ancient law-givers invented God as a kind of overseer of the right and wrong actions of men, in order to make sure that nobody injured his neighbors privily through fear of vengeance at the hands of the Gods." The passage following quotes a fragment that, as Albrecht Dihle has established, comes from Euripides' Sisyphos. 74 The fragment belongs to a section that explains the origin of religion. The archaic period of anarchy, it says, was overcome by legislation, and people stopped committing crimes openly, but still did them in secret. Then some shrewd man put the fear of the gods into people by persuading them that the gods see and hear even the most secret plans and deeds, and they keep track of them in order to punish the perpetrators. What we find here obviously belongs to the complex of doctrines known as Euhemerism. 7 5 Greek philosophical influences are felt also in Hellenistic-Jewish literature, beginning with the Septuagint 76 and culminating with the citation of Homer

Homer II. 3.277; Od. 11.109; 13.214; 17.487; see also HesiodErga 267; Herodotus 1.124; Sophocles El. 17 5, 659; Ant. 184; Oed. Col. 1085-86; Oed. T. 498; etc.; PGM Xll.237; cf. 11.89; IV.2612; VII.696; CI.19; Hymn. Orph. 8; Porphyry Ad Marc. 21. See Wilhelm Michaelis, "£.,.o.,.r~r, £.,.o.,.rdJ<JJ," TDNT 5.373-75; BAGD, s.v. £.,.o.,.u6w, 1; PGL, s.v. E'II'O'II'TEVro, 1; Siegert, Drei hellenistischjudische Predigten, 1.12 n. 24; 2.116-18. Hildebrecht Hommel, "Der allgegenwartige Himmelsgott: Eine religions- und formgeschichtliche Studie," ARW 23 (1926) 193-206; reprinted with an appendix in his Sebasmata, 1.44-64; idem, "Das religionsgeschichtliche Problem des 139. Psalms," ZAW 6 (1929) 11 0-24; reprinted with an appendix in Sebasmata, 1.65-83; Versnel, Faith, Hope, 167; also 26-30. See Johannes Geffcken, "Zum allgegenwartigen Himmelsgott: Eine Berichtigung," ARW 27 (1929) 346-49, referring to Plato Leg. 899d, 905a; XenophonMem. 1.1.19; 1.4.18. See esp. Hymn. Orph. 8.1, 16, 17-18, and the epithets mentioned there: 7ravaepKh ... lfp.p.a ("all-seeing eye"); aeiKTa atKato
69

70

71 72 73

74 75

further references see Gustav Adolf Gerhard, Phoinix von Kolophon (Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1909) 19-20, 83-85. For this suggestion see Christoph Riedweg, Mysterienterminologie bei Platon, Phi/on und Klemens von Alexandrien (UaLG 26; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987) 2324. For the references see Otto Jessen, "Helios," PW, 15th half-volume (1912) 58-93; Albrecht Oepke, "KpV7rrw KTA.," TDNT 3.961-66; Paul Wilpert, "Auge," RAG 1 (1950) 961-62; Peterson, EIE 8EOI:, 279; Gudmund Bjorck, Der Fluck des Christen Sabinus: Papyrus Upsaliensis 8 (Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1938) 37-39, 42; Franz Joseph Dolger, Die Sonne der Gerechtigluit und der Schwarze: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Studie zum Taufgelobnis (Liturgiegeschichtliche Forschungen 2; Munster: Aschendorff, 1918) 83-110. Hymn. Orph. 8.16-17. Xenophanes frg. 24 (Diels-Kranz, 21 B 24 (1, 137]) with parallel references. Sextus EmpiricusAdv. math. 9.54 (trans. R. G. Bury; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1953). Albrecht Dihle, "Das Satyrspiel 'Sisyphos,'" Hermes 105 (1977) 28-42. See Klaus Doring, "Antike Theorien iiber die

Matthew 6:1-18

in Philo of Alexandria. 77 On the Christian side, after the New Testament the Apostolic Fathers openly cite from Greek literature. 78 The instruction on prayer in SM/Matt 6:7-8 contains a distinctively different theology, emphasizing not God's hiddenness.but his omniscience. What is peculiar about this doctrine, however, is not only that it is introduced at this point, but that from early on Greek thought connected it with theorizing about prayer. In this connection also the relationship between prayer and righteousness is discussed. 79 Greek philosophers questioned whether prayer makes any sense at all, and they advanced several conditions under which alone praying made sense. First, if, as Socrates points out in Plato's Euthyphro, one accepts the conventional definition of prayer as "petitioning the gods" 80 and if the precise understanding involves "asking and giving" in relation to the deity, then prayer amounts to nothing but a commercial trans-

action. 81 Such business activities, however, cannot be what prayer is purported to be, namely, "piety" ( btTtOT1]S). 8 2

Second, praying makes sense only if one prays for the truly good things; this condition, however, presupposes that one knows what is truly good. Since human finitude leads us to conclude that only the gods really know what is truly good, asking the gods for something desirable is by necessity presumption; the thing desired or deemed necessary may indeed be dangerous. 83 The horrible fact is that people pray for one thing or another, whatever it may be that they fancy they need, with no thought whatsoever given to the question of righteousness, appropriateness-or human folly. The question about what is the truly good should be foremost on their minds. The "good" means the same as the "just," that is, the just

staatspolitische N otwendigkeit der Gotterfurcht,"

76

77

78

79

Antike und Abendland 24 (I978) 43-56. On

Klostermann, I965) 39I-94: "Zur Problemgeschichte des antiken Gebetes"; Wilhelm Gessel, Die

Euhemerism see Klaus Thraede, "Euhemerismus,"

Theologie des Gebetes nach "De Oratione" von Origenes

RAC 6 (I966) 877-90; Betz, Galatians, 2I4-I5; Versnel, Faith, Hope, 2I8, 23I.

(Munich, Paderborn, and Vienna: Schoningh, I975) 149-71: "Gebet und Vorsehung"; Versnel, Faith, Hope, I-64, 232-45; Heinrich Dorrie, "Gottesvorstellung," RAC I2 (1983) 81-I54, esp. I47-48, with reference to Seneca Ep. I 0.4-5; Konrad Gaiser, "Das Gold der Weisheit: Zum Gebet des Philosophen am SchluB des Phaidros," RhM I32 (1989) I06-40. Plato Euthyph. I4d: rh a'
See LXX Esth 5:Ia;Job 35:I3-I4 (34:2I); 2 Mace 3:39; 7:35; 9:5; I2:22; I5:2; 3 Mace 2:2I; Ep. Arist. 21. Philo]os. 265; see also Som. l.I40; 2.33; Spec. leg. I.279; 4.32; Decal. 90; Leg. all. 3.I7I; Deus imm. 2I; Aet. mund. 83; Leg. Gaj. 336; furthermore josephus Ap. 2.I8, 294. 1 Clem. 55.6; 59.3; 64.I; PolycarpPhi1. 7.2; see also PGL, s. v. E7r07rnVro, I, with further references from the church fathers. See esp. Plato Euthyph. I4c; Aristotle Eth. Nic. 5, II29b 5. For the views of the Greek philosophers on prayer see the material and discussion in Henricus Schmidt, Veteres philosophi quomodo iudicaverint de precibus (RVV 4.I; GieBen: Topelmann, I907); Friedrich Heiler, Das Gebel: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und religionspsychologische Untersuchung (5th ed.; Munich: Reinhardt, I923); partial ET: Prayer: A Study in the History and Psychology ofPrayer (trans. Samuel McComb, with the assistance of]. Edgar Park; London, New York, and Toronto: Oxford University, I932); Kurt von Fritz, "Greek Prayers," Reviw of Religion IO (I945) 5-39; Edouard des Places, "La priere des philosophes grecs," Gregorianum 4I (I960) 253-72; Emmanuel von Severus, "Gebet I," RAC 8 (1972) I134-I258, esp. II46-47; Walter Beierwaltes, Proklos (Frankfurt a.M.:

80

8I

82

83

341

distribution of the good. 84 The question is, therefore, indeed an urgent one: "What shall we ask for, what shall we pray?" 85 Third, with these questions in mind, the PseudoPlatonic dialogue Alcibiades Minor, entitled "On Prayer" (7r£pl. 7rpouwxfis), 86 raises the problem that ignorant prayer may be dangerous because the petitioner may inadvertently ask for something unbecoming and get it. Unless one is wise, therefore, prayer is unsafe and an invitation to disaster. 8 7 In the dialogue Alcibiades must confess that he is a far cry from being a sage, and he wonders how long it may take until he is fit for prayer. More importantly, he asks, "Who is my instructor?" Indeed, such an instructor must possess extraordinary qualifications: "For I feel I should very much like to see who the man is. " 88 Alcibiades seems not to realize that the man he asks for stands right before him. It is Socrates himself, but the philosopher abstains from commending himself. Instead he tells Alcibiades that such a teacher must have two qualifications. First, "it is he who is concerned about you." Second, he must be capable of removing the mist of ignorance that now enwraps Alcibiades' soul, so as to enable him to discern the evil 84

85

86

87 88 89 90 91 92 93

342

and the good. 89 As it turns out, Socrates is such a teacher, and, realizing it, Alcibiades is most eager to learn; but Socrates advises him to defer prayer and sacrifice until the teaching is completed. 90 Then Socrates recites what is regarded as a "safe" prayer: King Zeus, give unto us what is good, whether we pray or not; but what is grievous, even if we pray for it, do thou avert. Z£v f3autA£V, Til p.i:v £u8>..il KaL £VXOJJ.EVO!S Kal. avdKTO!S lip.p.! aloov, Til o€ 0£tAil KaL £VXOJJ.EVO!S a7TaAE~£!V. 91 Instead of total deferment, the Pythagoreans have apparently concluded that it is the philosophers' task to pray on behalf of the ignorant, rather than letting the ignorant pray for themselves. Also this solution points to the basic problem that one must first learn to pray properly 92 and with safety. 93 Fourth, the Stoics raised the question about prayer in connection with the theodicy problem. 94 If Fate is unchangeable, then why should one engage in prayer and explanation? The conventional prayer clearly makes no sense, but does any prayer make sense, if even the gods have neither power nor inclination in changing what Fate has determined? The conclusion can,

Cf. Diogenes ofSinope, according to Diog. L. 6.42: "He would rebuke men in general with regard to their prayers, declaring that they asked for those things which seemed to them to be good, not for such as are truly good." See also Crates' parody of prayer cited in Julian Or. 6, 199D-200A. Cf. Xenophon Mem. 4.36: "I confess I know not what one should ask for in one's prayers." The answers provided by ancient philosophy are summed up by PorphyryAdMarc. 12-13. Cited here according to the LCL edition of Plato, vol. 12 (trans. W. R. M. Lamb; London: Heinemann; 94 Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1955) 22873. For commentary see Guthrie, Greek Philosophy, 5.387. Ps.-Piato Ale. min. 150c. Ibid., 150d: rlr 'lTato<.Suwv; 7fo•ura yap ll.v p.o1 ooKoo l5£iV Thv lJ.v6pw7rOV Tl~ fuTLV. Ibid., 150e. Ibid., 151a. Ibid., 143a;seealsoAntho1.Pa1.10.108. See Diog. L. 8.9; Diodorus Sic. 10.9.6-8. See Socrates in Xenophon Mem. 1. 3. 2: "Again when he prayed he asked simply for good gifts, 'for the gods know best what things are good.' To pray for gold or silver or sovereignty or any other such thing, was just like praying for a gamble or a fight or

o

anything of which the result is obviously uncertain." This doctrine became standard in Hellenistic philosophy. See also Xenophon Cyr. 1.6.5; Plato Euthyph. 14d. For Pythagoras see Diodorus Sic. 10.98; Porphyry Ad Marc. 12-13, with Wicker's commentary, 98-100; lamblichus De vita Pyth. 145; also Philostratus Vita A poll. 1.11; 4. 40. For references see also Schmidt, Veteres philosophi, 6-7; Burkert, Greek Religion, 73-75, 332-37. For the SM see SMIMatt 7:7-11 I I Luke 11:9-13; also cf. Hermas Man. 9.4; Sim. 6.3.6. See esp. Seneca Quaest. nat. 2.35.1-2; idem, Ep. 107. For commentary see Harry M. Hine, An Edition with Commentary of Seneca, Natural Questions, Book Two (New York: Arno, 1981) 366-74. On Fate see H. 0. Schroder, "Fatum," RAG 7 (1969) 524-636. On the Stoics' view on religious duties see Bonhoffer, Ethik, 75-85.

Matthew 6:1-18

therefore, only be that one ought to hand oneself over to Fate voluntarily. If prayer has any purpose, it should be to ask the deity to make one comply with Necessity. 95 Based on these ideas, philosophers in the Stoic tradition began to develop a new kind of prayer. The most famous of these was Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus; it had an enormous influence on antiquity, 96 and it was often cited and imitated. 97 The remarkable parallels between Cleanthes' hymn and the Lord's Prayer have been noted before. Willy Theiler called the hymn of Cleanthes "the Our Father of antiquity. •98 Another famous prayer, seemingly in some kindred relationship with Cleanthes, is the conclusion of Epictetus's Encheiridion: Lead thou me on, 0 Zeus and Destiny, To that goal long ago to me assigned. I'll follow and not falter; if my will Prove weak and craven, still I'll follow on. '' Ayov o£ p.', i:J Z£v, Kat u-6 y' ~ TI£7rpwp.£v7J, Cf7ro! 7ro8' vp."iv dp.t OlaTfTayp.£vor;· W<; Nop.a! y' lioKVO<;" ~v o£ )'f 1'-~ 8£)\w, KaKos ywop.wor;, ovoEv i/rrov ~"1/fop.at. 99 Within the SM a contradiction seems to exist between a theology of God's hiddenness (6:1-6, 16-18) and another theology emphasizing God's manifest activity in creation (5:45; 6:25-34; 7:11, 24-27). The contradiction is created through the combination of diverse sources. For the SM, both statements are true. God does his work openly in creation, but the question is whether the human eye is able to perceive it. God's activity is hidden and yet revealed for those whose eyes have 95 96

learned to see and understand. For this reason, the SM places great emphasis on sense perception (see below on SM/Matt 6:22-23, especially). Those properly instructed will understand that the same God whose works are manifest in the cosmos is just as present and active where the human eye does not reach. 2) Inconspicuous Piety

The God who is and sees "in the hidden" should be imitated by the truly religious in performing their duties also "in the hidden" (6:4, 6, 18). True piety, therefore, occurs inconspicuously, in contrast to false piety, which is done for the sake of ostentation. This juxtaposition implies far more than merely a polemic against false religion. If inconspicuous piety is to be based on the doctrine of God's hiddenness, one must suppose that a special view about true and false religion lies in the background. This doctrine implies a radical position in regard to all cultic performances. Not only must one avoid all ostentatiousness, but performances of religious duties must remain completely invisible, thus imitating the invisibility of God's work. Almsgiving must be done in secret, prayer only behind closed doors, fasting only disguised as celebration. The truly religious person appears to the outsider as one who seems irreligious. One may ask what such a position will do to public worship in principle. Is it to be shunned altogether? What about temple worship, the processions, the great festivals? Should all this be stopped? The principle advocated here means indeed the withdrawal into private religion, and even in the private religion of the home;

See von Severinus, "Gebet I," RAG 8.1149-50. The hymn is too long to be cited here in full. Individual lines are cited in the following according to the edition and translation by Long and Sedley, Hellenistic Philosophers, no. 54 I (1.326-27; 2.32627). For the text see also SVF 1.121-23 (no. 537) from Stobaeus Eel. 1.1.12, p. 25, 3; de Vogel, Greek Philosophy, 3.82-83 (no. 943), with bibliography; also ibid., 3.85 (no. 944c); Pohlenz, Stoa, 1.106; 2.61-62; Simon Lauer, "Der Zeushymnus des Kleanthes," in Michael Brocke,JacobJ. Petuchowski, and Walter Strolz, eds., Das Vaterunser: Gemeinsames Beten von Juden und Christen (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1974) 156-62; Kurt Stier, "Zum Zeushymnos des Kleanthes," in Peter Steinmetz, ed., Beitriige

97

98 99

See esp. Boethius De consol. phil. 3.9, with the commentary by Helga Scheible, Die Gedichte in der Consolatio Philosophiae des Boethius (Heidelberg: Winter, 1972) 101-12. Willy Theiler, Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1966) 316. Epictetus Ench. 53.1. The first line is cited also in Diss. 2.23.42; cf. 3.22.95; 4.1.131; 4.4.34. The lines derive from a poem by Cleanthes, as we learn from Seneca Ep. 107.10, who gives a Latin translation. See SVF 1.118-19 (no. 527); Schenkl's edition of Epictetus, p. 37* with note.

zur hellenistischen Literatur und ihrer Rezeption in Rom

(Palingenesia 28; Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990) 93-108.

343

one should perform duties in such a way that no one knows about them. The three cultic acts of almsgiving, prayer, and fasting can be done in secret, and this seems to be their only justification. The question is then also what this meant for the early Christian rituals of baptism and Eucharist, which are, however, not mentioned in the SM. Where does this strange doctrine come from? The parallels, few as they are, point in the direction of Judaism. The parable of the Last Judgment (Matt 25:31-46) presupposes that the deeds of mercy done by the truly faithful ofJesus' disciples are done not only inconspicuously but even without their being aware of them as related to Jesus (vss 37-39; cf. vss 44-45). 100 The idea is unique to the passage, which came from a source; the evangelist Matthew took it over and found it compatible with his christology (see Matt 18: 19-20; 28:20), but he makes no further use of it. Even closer to the SM is Paul's idea, explained only in Rom 2:28-29, that the true Jew is "the hidden Jew" (o £v T/il KpV7TT/il 'lov~atos) as opposed to "the Jew in outward appearance" (o £v T/il cpav£p/fl 'Iov~atos). 101 It seems that Paul's answer to the problem "Who is a Jew?" has its roots in Jewish discussions about religious identity. 10 2 The Roman Christians must have known it because only then could Paul have used the idea in Romans 2 as an argument. For Paul, "hidden" means in effect "in the

heart" and "in the spirit" (Rom 2:29). Not denying the value of externality as such, Paul emphasizes that the status of a person before God is decided by what is in the heart and not by conspicuous performances of external rituals. 103 When one turns to Jewish sources outside the New Testament, results are meager. 104 Wisdom literature seems to cherish inconspicuousness and to shun ostentation, but the themes are not important. 1 05 Two leads, however, indicate that inconspicuousness of piety may have been more important in Judaism than the sources reveal. Felix Bohl has called attention to "the conscientious ones" (C'l'mt) in connection with making compliance with the Torah more difficult. 106 He describes two characteristics of such conscientiousness: first, secrecy and hiddenness, especially with regard to women, whose chastity is protected by inconspicuousness; second, the avoidance of transgression even when one could cover up a sin. Positively, secret fulfillment of the Torah obligations is a mark of the truly righteous man. The ideal is stated in a classic passage attributed to R. Johanan (b. Pesal,t. 113a/b): 107 "There are three, (whose virtuousness) the Holy one, blessed be he, proclaims every day: the bachelor who lives in a big city and does not sin; the poor who turns over a find to its owner; and a rich man who gives the tenth of his fruits in secret." 108

I 00 For the interpretation of this passage see Gnilka, Matthiiusroangelium, 2.365-79, with bibliography. IOI See Anton Fridrichsen, "Der wahreJude und sein Lob, Rom. 2,28f.," Symbolae Arctoae I (I922) 39-49; Eduard Schweizer, "'Der Jude im Verborgenen ... , dessen Lob nicht von Menschen, sondern von Gott kommt': Zu Rom. 2,28f. und Mt. 6,I-I8," inNeues Testament und Kirche: FS for RudolfSchnackenburg (Freiburg: Herder, I974) II5-24; reprinted in his Matthiius und seine Gemeinde (SBS 7I; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, I97 4) 86-98. I 02 The idea has continued to play a role until modern times. See Steven E. Ascheim, "'The Jew Within': The Myth of'Judaization' in Germany," inJehuda Reinharz and Walter Schatzberg, eds., The Jewish Response to German Culture (Hanover, N.H. and London: University Press of New England, I985) 2I2-41. For the religiohistorical background of hiding one's religious identity see Hans G. Kippenberg, Die vorderasiatischen Erlosungsreligionen in ihrem Zusammenhang mit der antiken Stadtherrschaft (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, I99I) 38I-98, 4I7-25,

344

460-83. I 03 Cf. also the peculiar notion of "the hidden man of the heart" (o Kpvwrhs rfjs Kapalas li.vBprowos) in I Pet 3:4; see BAGD, s.v. li.vBprowos, 2.c.a; Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter (trans. John E. Alsup; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, I993) 22I-22. I04 Str-B 1.39I-96 and Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary, II4) have little to report in terms of parallels. 105 See Prov 25:2-24; Sir 23:I6-21. I 06 Felix Bohl, Gebotserschwerung und Rechtsverzicht als ethisch-religiose Normen in der rabbinischen Literatur (Frankfurter Judaistische Studien I; Freiburg: Schwarz, I97I) 99-109. I07 On this passage see ibid., IOO n. 291. I08 The translation is by H. Freedman, in I. Epstein, ed., Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, Pesa~im (London: Soncino, I938).

Matthew 6:1-18

According to Bohl, "the conscientious ones" represent a type of observer of the Torah who fulfills the requirements secretly because to do so is more difficult and therefore more meritorious. This kind of practice also conforms to God's work in creation and cosmos. A person belonging to this group of observants can also be called "a master of soul" (!DEll "':::1). 109 It would be interesting to know whether there is any historical connection between "the conscientious ones" and the later hasidic notions of the "hidden zaddikim." 110 If one can draw no firm conclusions from these Jewish sources, a similar situation exists with regard to Greek thought. Delphic piety was opposed to ostentation and presumptuousness expressed by expensive sacrifices (hecatombs) and spectacular votive gifts. The gods, we are told, value the simple gift offered as a token of honest devotion, but there is no emphasis on hiddenness. 111 More intriguing is the maxim "Live unknown" (Act8€ ~Ld>uat; ), attributed to Epicurus. 112 This maxim was commonly interpreted in terms of Epicurus's recommendation to withdraw from politics and the public life. 113 If his maxim was based on his concept of the "inactive" gods and if it described the corresponding

conduct toward religion, one may conclude that he favored nonparticipation in religious activities. Unfortunately, however, Epicurus's writings on religious subjects are lost, so that we cannot tell for sure what his teachings were on this point. Later interpretation was ambiguous, if not apologetic. Philodemus reports that Epicurus attended the public festivals and sacrifices, and that he recommended the same to his students. 114 This assurance may, however, be apologetic and intended to protect the Epicureans from the charge of atheism. In his polemics Cicero in De nat. dear. 1.115-16 comes to the conclusion that worship in the conventional sense was not meaningful to Epicureans: "Why, what reason have you for maintaining that men owe worship to the gods, if the gods not only pay no respect to men, but care for nothing and do nothing at all? ... Piety is justice towards the gods; but how can any claims of justice exist between us and them, if god and man have nothing in common? Holiness is the science of divine worship; but I fail to see why the gods should be worshipped if we neither have received nor hope to receive benefit from them?" 115 At any rate, the difference between the SM and Epicurus should be clear. For the SM, God is not "otiose"

109 See Bohl, Gebotserschwerung, 103. (reprinted Rome: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 1963) 110 See also Gershom Scholem, "Three Types of jewish no. 551 (pp. 326-29). Piety," Eranos-Jahrbuch 38 (1969) 331-48, esp. 346- 113 See esp. Plutarch De tranq. an. 2, 465F; De lat. viv., 4 7. Scholem characterizes them as follows: "There passim (esp. p. 1128A and following sections). were two types of Zaddikim, those who are hidden 114 Philodemus De piet. cols. 109-10 (ed. Usener, and keep to themselves and those who manifest Epicurea, frg. nos. 169 and 13). themselves to their fellow-men and are working as it 115 Cited is the LCL edition and translation by H. Rackham, Cicero (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, were under the public eye. The former is called a Nistar, i.e., a concealed one, and the latter MephurMass.: Harvard University, 1933) 19.110-13. The sam, i.e., famous. Zaddikim are of the higher order, Latin reads: "Quid est enim, Cur deus ab hominibus because they are not tempted by the vanity almost colendos dicas, cum dei non modo homines non inseparable from a public career. Indeed, some of colant sed omnino curent nihil agant? ... Est enim them take it upon themselves to build up an image in pietas iustitia adversum deos; cum quibus quid potest sharp contradiction to their true and hidden nature. nobis esse iuris, cum homini nulla cum deo sit They may not even be aware of their own nature and communitas? Sanctitas autem est scientia colendorum go about performing their good deeds in secret deorum; quiquam ob rem colendi sint non intellego nullo nee accepto ab iis nee sperato bono." See also without knowing that they are of the elect. They are hidden not only from mankind but from themselves." the notes by ArthurS. Pease, M. Tulli Ciceronis De 111 See, e.g., Seneca De ben. 1.6.2-3, who sums up this natura deorum (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard common view: "It is the intention that exalts smalJ University, 1955, 1958) 1.506-11. For the maxim gifts, gives lustre to those that are mean, and and its older roots see the study by Fritz Wehrli, discredits those that are great and considered of AAE>E BH1I:AI:: Studien zur altesten Ethik bei den value.... Good men, therefore, are pleasing to the Griechen (Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1931 ). gods with an offering of meal and gruel; the bad on the other hand, do not escape impiety although they dye the altars with streams of blood." 112 For the references see Hermann Usener, Epicurea

345

but active in secret, and true piety is certainly active as well, although religious performances are to be done in secret. A voidance of public ceremonies appears to be the consequence. On the other side, Epicurus's otiose gods require worship, if at all, in the form of quietism. Epicurus himself may or may not have attended public ceremonies. If he did, he did it pro forma so as to avert harassment. That these conclusions reflect Epicurus's views may be inferred from sayings attributed to him. There are the strong polemics in sayings against associating with the crowds.l 16 One must, says the Gnomologium Vaticanum, clearly distinguish between philosophizing for oneself11 7 and doing so before crowds so as to impress them: "We must not pretend to study philosophy but study it in reality; for it is not the appearance of health that we need, but real health." 118 Or in another saying: "The disturbance of the soul cannot be ended nor true joy created either by possession of the greatest wealth or by honour and respect in the eyes of the mob or by anything else that is associated with causes of unlimited desire." 119 Ideas such as these occur also in Epictetus, according to whom the true philosopher is not recognizable as such. 120 He is what he is by himself, not because others praise him. One may infer from these passages that these sentiments regarding inconspicuousness were part of the Socratic tradition; they may go back to the historical Socrates himself. 1 21 3) The Doctrine of Reward

The doctrine of reward (JJ.ur6os) contained in 6:1-6, 1618 conforms to Jewish theology generally, 122 but the

idea that one must avoid all reward in this world so as to insure reward by God in the world to come is a specialty of the SM. 123 The theological basis for this doctrine is twofold: first, the doctrine of the imitation of God, fundamental to the SM as a whole; and second, the principle of righteousness according to which a good deed can be rewarded only once. 124 This principle is simply the reverse of the legal rule that an evil deed or crime can be punished only once. 125 By implication, God, who is the God of righteousness, upholds this principle, in particular at the last judgment. The peculiar conclusion drawn by the SM is that all rewards, even such trivial ones as public fame and applause, count. Therefore, one must avoid even these trivial rewards if one has any expectation that God will reward righteous deeds in the last judgment. This doctrine may appear to us formalistic and pedantic, but we should admit that the passage recognizes the severity of danger coming from confusing public applause with true religious piety. We should also realize that the principle of justice underlying the doctrine is fundamental to our own understanding of justice. Punishment can properly be meted out for the same deed only once; rewards may be given more often for the same deed, but frequency of such rewards hurts rather than helps in the mind of the public. Scholars often comment on the difference between this concept of reward requiring good deeds to be done in secret and what appears to be the opposite commendation in SM/Matt 5:16, to do good deeds before all the people. 1 2 6 The recommendations are different, with the

116 Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 29; cf. Lucretius De rer. nat. 5.11 0. 117 Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 76 sets up the contrast between "philosophizing for oneself" (rh £avril> tA.orro
346

Ruprecht, 1964) 20; Dietzfelbinger, "Frommigkeitsregeln," 186; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 104, 106 (Sermon, 100, 101-2). 125 See Theodor Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht (Leipzig: Duncker and Humblot, 1899) 4: "Das Verbrechen wird durch die Strafe als aufgehoben betrachtet, die offentliche Ordnung als damit beglichen" ("The crime is regarded as being taken care of by the punishment, the public order as thereby restored"). For specific discussion see Detlev Liebs, "Die Herkunft der 'Regel' his de eadem rene sit actio," ZSRG.R 84 (1967) 104-32; Erwin Seidl, Rechtsgeschichte A.gyptens als romischer Provinz: Die Behauptung des agyptischen Rechts neben dem romischen

(St. Augustin: Richarz, 1973) 124. 126 See Schweizer, "Jude," 92; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 105 n. 19 (Sermon 208 n. 19).

Matthew 6:1-18

difference due to the source material assimilated into the SM. The extreme inconspicuousness recommended in 6:1-6, 16-18 seems hard to reconcile with the unreserved use of good deeds for missionary effectiveness over against the people in SM/Matt 5:16. The author or redactor of the SM, however, saw that the passages are compatible in spite of the differences: 6:1-6, 16-18 deals with specifically cultic performances, while 5: 16 speaks of good deeds generally; and 5: 16 has as its goal to lead the people to praise God, while 6:1-6, 1618 criticizes religious observance done ostentatiously and leading to the glorification of humans, something in and of itself improper. 4) The "Hypocrites" and the "Pagans"

By way of syncrisis ("comparison") SM/Matt 6:1-6, 1618 contrasts the ideal of true piety with "the hypocrites" (o! b7ToKp&Tal [6:2, 5, 16]), whose false piety is portrayed by little satirical vignettes (see below on 6:2, 5, 16). One can obviously use the term "hypocrite" against anyone who rightly or wrongly is suspected of performing rituals without integrity. 127 Peculiar to the i.nstruction in 6:1-6, 16-18 is that the "hypocrites" represent general religious character types, 12 8 not a specific religious group. Notably, the SM does not explicitly identify "the hypocrites" with the Pharisees (cf. 5:20). 129 At this point the SM differs from the evangelist Matthew, for whom all Jewish adversaries of Jesus are "hypocrites." 130 In contrast, the SM does not present "the hypocrites" as adversaries ofJesus but as character types displaying sham religiousness, 131 so that the term can apply even to the addressees of the SM themselves (7:5).

To the extent that "the hypocrites" represent caricatures of Jews as they appear to other Jews (the people behind the SM), the criticism of hypocrisy is inner1ewish and not anti-Jewish. Differently, the prayer instruction of 6:7-15 focuses on "the pagans" (o! £8v&Ko&'), viewed from the Jewish perspective. Also here the "babblers" represent a character type of a wider cultural application, a comic figure vainly attempting to impress the god by "babbling" (~aTTaA.oy£w) or sheer "verbosity" (7ToAvA.oyla). lll 2 For the SM, both the "hypocrites" and the "pagans" are contrast-types, from whom the faithful disciples must disassociate themselves. 13 3 In one sense the "hypocrite" is put at the same level with the "pagan," but in another sense they differ in that the "hypocrite" is an insider whereas the "pagan" is an outsider. Their association is a function of polemic and exhortation. One should also note that 6:7-8 does not seem to be concerned with a doctrine of reward. As in Jewish doctrine, however, one must assume that notions about reward lie in the background, even though they are not explicitly stated. Perhaps the concern about reward is stated later in the eschatological-legal rule of 6:14-15if this rule was attached from the beginning to the section 6:7-13. Eschatological reward and punishment is also presupposed in the Lord's Prayer (6:9b-13). d. Authorship

The examination of 6:1-6, 16-18 and 6:7-15 raises the question about origin and primary authorship. What can one say about the original authors of these two

127 For further discussion and references see below on SM/Matt 6:2. 128 For this reason the term here retains its original connotation of "playactor." 129 Differently Zahn, Matthiius, 260; Dietzfelbinger, "Frommigkeitsregeln," 188, 190-94. Dietzfelbinger thinks that the polemic goes against "the synagogue." More cautious are Strecker, Bergpredigt, 101-4 (Sermon, 98-101 ); Luz, Matthiius, 1.322-24 (Matthew, 1.355-56). 130 See Matt 15:7; 22:18; 23:13, 14, 15, 28; 24:51. See also van Tilborg,jewish Leaders, 8-26. 131 Matthew takes up the anti-Pharisaic polemic in his source SM/Matt 5:20, which is connected with the rejection of "inadequate" Torah interpretation in 5:21-48 and the "hypocritical" piety in 6:1-18. Ostentatiousness became a point of anti-Pharisaic

criticism elsewhere, so that there may already be this tendency in the SM throughout (see also Betz, Essays, 62, and the literature and discussion above on 5:20). At any rate, the character type of the "hypocrite" leaves the question of a specific designation open; in this point I agree with Luz, Matthiius, 1.322 n. 20 (Matthew, 1.356 n. 20). 132 See below on SM/Matt 6:7. 133 So also Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 71-72; Luz, Matthiius, 1.321-22 (Matthew, 1.354-55).

347

remarkable pieces of literature? 134 It is safe to assume that they cannot have come originally from the same pen because they present quite different theological perspectives. But can one say more? 1. Whoever wrote the passage 6: 1-6, 16-18 must have been a Jewish theological mind with some rather radical ideas. The carefully structured composition of this teaching points to an individual with clearly defined didactic convictions. 135 The composition certainly has its roots in wisdom thought, 136 but out of whatever wisdom material was at his disposal the author has created a unique piece of exhortation. Who could this man have been? Perhaps he was a member of the Jesus-movement who was inspired by the teaching of the master, and this made him contribute this piece of cultic instruction. Comparison with other parts of the Jesus-tradition shows that this author must have been an independent mind who shared at least some ideas with the Jesus-movement but who, on the whole, went his own way, although he was no doubt influenced by the historical Jesus. Another possibility would be that the author/redactor of the SM took over the piece that existed prior to and outside the Jesus-tradition. Taken on its own terms, the piece could have been appropriated directly from Jewish wisdom, without having been influenced in any way by the historical Jesus. The author/redactor of the SM then made it "Jesuanic" by interpolating into it the other section 6:7-15, which contains the Lord's Prayer as its centerpiece. The possibility also remains that Jesus himself composed 6: 1-6, 16-18. If one assumes this possibility, however, the question arises why elsewhere the Jesustradition has no trace of these doctrines; also the differences between 6: 1-6, 16-18 and 6:7-15 become difficult to explain. 13 7

One is admittedly left to speculation at this point, so that one can make no hard-and-fast decision between these options. The greatest probability appears to me to be that all the sources involved have their origin in the Jesus-tradition, rather than outside it. Their original authors appear to have been disciples belonging to the Jesus-movement. They were influenced in their theological views by their master but also by Jewish wisdom generally, just as was Jesus himself. That no clear distinction is made between more general Jewish wisdom and the Jesus-tradition specifically may be evidence of the antiquity of the pieces. Perhaps Jesus himself did not always make clear distinctions between his own ideas and those he took over from Jewish wisdom. These ambiguities may be due to the fact that at an early stage clear borderlines were not yet drawn. Whatever the answer to these questions may be, the fact that such diverse sources could be integrated in the SM, which on the whole represents a somewhat different theology from either 6:1-6, 16-18 or 6:7-15, points to multiple authorship within the SM. This assumption can be supported by other evidence as well. 138 In other words, the author /redactor of the entire SM understood his task to be that of selecting and coordinating diverse materials from the Jesus-tradition. This diversity represented the range of viewpoints in the Jesusmovement itself, which the author /redactor had no interest in destroying. If one can assume this point, one can also conclude that the Jesus-movement was able to tolerate a considerable diversity of theological viewpoints within a common framework. This common framework is assumed by the author /redactor of the entire SM, as he judged the diverse pieces of source material to be theologically compatible. In other words, he appears to be also a theological systematician, rather than a mere

134 See Betz, Essays, 65-68; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 101-2 should therefore be dated after 70 CE. 136 See Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 71-74, who also seems to (Sermon, 97-99); Luz, Matthiius, 1.322 (Matthew, 1.355); Dietzfelbinger, "Frommigkeitsregeln," 188think of individual sages rather than the anonymous flow of tradition. 96. 135 The two passages are highly individualized, so that a 137 Zelier,Mahnspruche, 73-74. 138 On the question of authorship ofthe SM as a whole single authorship is more probable than that of a see the Introduction above, pp. 1, 4, 18-22. group. So also Luz (Matthiius, 1.322 [Matthew, 1.35556]), but differently Strecker (Bergpredigt, 101 [Sermon, 97-98]), Dietzfelbinger ("Frommigkeitsregeln," 190), speaking of a Jewish-Christian group that originated in the synagogue. For Strecker this group is in opposition to the synagogue and

348

Matthew 6:1-1 8

rearranger of literary source materials. 2. SM/Matt 6:7-15 clearly points to an original author different from the one who first conceived 6:1-6, 16-18. The teaching on prayer in 6:7-15 follows another but also conventional pattern of combining doctrine and exhortation with an authoritative example. 139 This author has his eyes on the "pagans" and their practices, and his main concern is to warn against "paganization" seen from a Jewish perspective. Theologically, his doctrine of God's omniscience dominates his argument. While this author is responsible for the didactic part (6:7-8), 140 the authoritative example of the Lord's Prayer is attributed to Jesus himself (6:9b-13). 141 The addition of the eschatologicallegal rule of 6:14-15 shows how the petition of 6:12 is to be implemented in the life of the community.l 42 This author was a member of the Jesus-movement who contributed the piece and thereby showed what he had learned from the master. 143 To what extent this author's theological ideas can be traced back to the historical Jesus is impossible to say. 3. The Lord's Prayer (6:9b-13) comes from the historical Jesus himself. I can say this with confidence because of the multiple attestation of the prayer in Matt 6:9b-13; Luke 11: 1-4; Did. 8.2, sources independently attributing the Lord's Prayer to Jesus. Since one can assume, however, that most of the petitions, perhaps even all of them, have been adapted from prayers current at the time, in composing this prayer Jesus himself acted as an author /redactor. As a result this prayer, despite its traditional nature, is also a highly

original creation displaying its own distinctive theology. It is, therefore, justified to name Jesus as its author, which makes this prayer the oldest text in the SM and the only one that can be attributed directly to the historical Jesus.I44 As a composition of multiple authorship, the cultic instruction 6:1-18 evokes before the eyes of the readers the picture of Jesus and his disciples. The master and his prayer stand in the center, with his authority backing this teaching no less than the SM in its entirety. The disciples surround him with their own contributions, based on what they have learned but also expressing their individual theological viewpoints. One of these disciples serves as the redactor of the whole SM, presiding over the final composition. Providing authorial leadership here means to assemble and fit it all into an overarching framework, the epitome of which is the SM. All contributors remain anonymous in the interest of making Jesus the authority to whom all the teachings in the SM are indebted. Later this company was joined by the evangelist Matthew when he inserted the SM, as I assume he did, into his Gospel and thereby showed how it fitted into the life of Jesus and the earliest church. 145 2. Analysis In regard to composition, 6:1-18 contains three sections of cultic exhortation, 146 characterized by the same formal structure. 14 7 Verse I begins with a general exhortation and serves as an introductory principle, setting up, as it were, the basic patterns and concepts. Verse 1 sets forth the doctrine that reward and punishment at the last judgment depend on the status of righteousness (o
139 See Zeller, Mahnspriiche, 133-35; Luz, Matthiius, with John the Baptist?" ThZ 29 (1973) 215. If Meyer's hypothesis were correct, one would have to 1.330 (Matthew, 1.365). Differently, Bultmann apply this question as well to the prayer instruction as (History, 133, 146, 324) and Klostermann (Matthiius, a whole. It is interesting, as Josef Ernst !Johannes der 54), who favor Matthean authorship of 6:7-8, while Tiiufer: Interpretation, Geschichte, Wirkungsgeschichte Strecker (Bergpredigt, 108-9 [Sermon, 104-5]) [BZNW 53; Berlin: de Gruyter 1989]106) has remains undecided. See also Jacques Dupont, "'En pointed out, that some later manuscripts have priant .. .' (Mt 6,7-8)," in his Etudes, 2.862-68. "reconstructed" the prayer ofJohn the Baptist. 140 See below, pp. 363-69. 144 See the Introduction to the section on the Lord's 141 See below, pp. 364, 372-74. Prayer below (SM/Matt 6:9-13). 142 See below, pp. 415-17. 143 Eduard Meyer (Ursprung und Anfonge des Christentums 145 The composition is here in conformity with the rule of Matt 23:8: "You shall not be called 'rabbi.' For [2 vols.; 4th and 5th ed.; Stuttgart: Cotta, 1924] one isyour teacher, but you are all brothers." Cf. also 1. 90-91) maintains that Luke 11:1 should be taken above on SM/Matt 5:19. to mean that the Lord's Prayer came from John the Baptist and his movement, and that it was taken over 146 For the conspectus of the analysis see the Introduction, above pp. 50-58. into early Christianity after Jesus' death. See also 14 7 See also P. J. Maartens, "The Cola Structure of John K. Elliott, "Did the Lord's Prayer Originate

349

must obtain before they appear before the divine judge. The cult is legitimate only if its performances enable the faithful to live in righteousness, so that the cultic teaching as a whole contains the provisions for attaining this required status of righteousness. The three sections of 6:2-4, 5-6, and 16-18 each begin with a reference to the cultic act to be performed (vss 2a, 5a, 16a). This reference is followed each time by a prohibition of the improper performance of the ritual. These prohibitions are subdivided in the same way: the imperatives (vss 2b, 5b, 16b) are followed by caricaturizing descriptions of the wrong performance (vss 2c-e, 5b-d, 16b-d) and of its improper purpose. Then comes an amen-saying (vss 2e, 5c, 16c) stating the consequences of the improper performance; all three amen-sayings agree verbally. The prohibition is then contrasted each time with instructions about how the cultic act is to be performed properly (vss 3-4, 6, 17-18). Again, all three subsections are divided in the same way. The reference to the cultic act is repeated, the proper execution of the act is described, and its proper purpose is stated. Each section concludes with a statement of the theological rationale underlying the instruction and with a theological promise of eschatological reward. The three conclusions also agree verbally. Finally, one should note the parallel changes from the second person plural in connection with the first reference to the cultic act (vss 5, 16; differently vs 2) to the second person singular in the second reference (vss 3, 6, 17). As already discussed, it is generally recognized that 6:7-15 represents a secondary insertion into 6:1-6, 16-18. Most scholars attribute this insertion, not the material itself, to the evangelist Matthew. This is possible, but equally possible is that the pre-Matthean author/redactor of the SM made the insertion; it is this latter option that I prefer. At any rate, 6:7-15 is another piece of cultic teaching, devoted to prayer only. The affinity with 6:5-6 explains why it was inserted after 6:6. This new piece of teaching contained the Lord's Prayer (6:9b-13), prefaced by a didactic part (6:7-9a) and concluded by a "sentence of sacred law" (6: 14-15 ). Compared with 6:1-6, 16-18 the teaching about prayer in 6:7-15 shows features both similar and different. Also beginning with a reference to the cultic act (vs 7a), it continues with the prohibition of improper performance, also described by a caricature (vs 7b). What is new here is the doctrine about prayer that serves as the reason for rejecting the improper performance and commending the proper performance (vs Sa-b). The theological reason is now stated first, followed by the reference to the cultic act. The quotation of the Lord's Prayer as the authoritative prototype (vss 9-13) and the "sentence of sacred law" (vss 14-15) have no parallels in the other sections.

350

This prayer instruction, carefully and distinctly composed as it is, can easily be separated from its context. Its form and content suggest that it existed independently prior to its inclusion into the SM. Its theology can be understood on its own terms and requires no reference to the context. One can also see its original independence from the parallels outside the SM. The parallels in Luke 11:1-4; Did. 8.2-3; 10.5; and 1 Clem. 13.2 are significant because all of them come from source materials having some similarity with Matt 6:7-15, while the triad of almsgiving, prayer, and fasting is attested elsewhere in Jewish wisdom traditions. One should note that 6:7-15 has no parallel in P. Oxy. 654 or the Coptic Gospel of Thomas. The composition of6:7-15 shows in itself elements of diverse origin. The didactic part (6:7-8) has structural similarity with 6: 1-6, 16-18, but it has characteristic differences as well, in particular the example of the Lord's Prayer (6:9b-13) and the "sentence of sacred law" (vss 14-15), formulated as an antithetical isocolon. The parallels to this "sacred law" are in Mark 11 :25-26; SM/Matt 5:23-24; Matt 18:21-22// Luke 17:14; Matt 18:35; 1 Clem. 13.2; and Polycarp Phil. 3.2; there is, however, no connection of this "sacred law" with Luke 11:1-4 and Did. 8.3, so that it must have been added secondarily to interpret the fifth petition of the Lord's Prayer (SM/Matt 6: 12). Why was the teaching on prayer (6:7-15) interpolated into 6: 1-18? The reason seems to have been that the author/redactor of the SM found himself in the possession of two sources (Vorlagen) (6:16, 16-18 and 6:7-15) that he wanted to keep and to integrate in his work. He did so by combining the two instructions on prayer. A second reason seems to have been that 6:1-6, 16-18 alone appeared theologically insufficient because it did not show any connection with Jesus; indeed, it may not have had any. The interpolation of6:7-15, therefore, made the section 6:1-6, 16-18 "Jesuanic." If this assumption is correct, one may conclude that the author /redactor of the SM regarded 6:1-6, 16-18 not as coming from Jesus himself but as compatible material to be adopted. In other words, just as the historical Jesus himself must have taken over material from his environment, so also the author/redactor of the SM continued the practice and thus enriched the Jesus-tradition. Remarkable as it is, the author /redactor left his sources intact, judging them to be compatible, which indeed they are. Because of the lack of evidence it is difficult, if not impossible, to judge whether the combination of 6: 16, 16-18 and 6:7-15 was the work of the author/ redactor of the SM or of the evangelist Matthew. Since there is no indication of specifically Matthean interference, however, I assume that the composition of the section 6:1-18 came from the author/redactor

Matthew 6:1-18

of the SM, who was also responsible for integrating the whole instruction into the SM. With the evangelist Matthew adopting and integrating the SM into his Gospel, all the stages form the process of the literary formation of the tradition. If, as I assume, the author/redactor took over the two instructions of6:1-6, 16-18 and 6:7-15, and merged them, it is not difficult to see why he did so. These sections provided the ideal building blocks for the second main part of the SM dealing with worship. As the composition of the SM now stands, the Lord's Prayer is found in the center not only of the cultic teaching in 6:1-18 but of the SM as a whole.

3. Interpretation • 1 Even the first words of the cultic didache present some

major interpretative problems. Is vs 1 a constitutive part of the pre-Matthean SM, or did the evangelist Matthew add it to his source and thus put his redactional stamp on it? Scholars have shown that placing a summary statement or thesis at the head of an exhortational piece belongs to the style of composition common to wisdom literature. 148 If so, this would speak for a pre-Matthean origin of vs 1 as an integral part of the composition. 149 The majority of scholars today, however, treat vs 1 as a Matthean addition and point to what they take to be Matthean language in it as reason.l 50 Yet, as we shall see, the language of vs 1 is not attributable to a specifically Matthean insertion, but it is adopted from and together with source material used by the evangelist Matthew himself. 151 Since the evangelist uses sources and also in a more general sense the language of his church, one must, to the extent possible, distinguish between these origins

of the Matthean language. This suggestion seems to be tedious, but to a large extent the understanding of the whole passage depends on it. The initial exhortation 7rp0CTEX£T£ T~V OLKawu6v7JV vp.wv ("Be on guard concerning your righteousness") has two objects, one direct and the other indirect: (1) the first object is the accusative of reference to "your righteousness," and (2) the second is an infinitive construction introduced by p.~ ("not"). 152 This highly condensed expression means that special attention is needed when rituals are performed without consideration of righteousness. Without such righteousness, the ritual is performed illegitimately and improperly. The warning 7rpou€x£n ("be on guard, concerned for, pay attention to") occurs elsewhere in the SM and in the New Testament, but it is then construed somewhat differently. 15 3 Its occurrence indicates that danger is at hand. Indeed, according to ancient thought, concern about rightousness is in order when it comes to the performance ofrituals. Both Jewish and Greek religion understand that rituals can easily be performed in disregard of all that is constitutive of righteousness. 154 Such disregard would mean that "religiosity" (£vu€jjua) would itself be lost because that term was understood to be the application of righteousness to worship. 1 5 5

Matthew 6," Neot. 11 (1977) 48-76, with the Addendum, 12-13; Andrej Kodjak, A Structural Analysis of the Sermon on the Mount (Religion and Reason 34; Berlin, New York, and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, 1986) 103-19. 148 Zeller, Mahnspruche, 71. For technical terms indicating comprehensiveness or "the universal" (ab or ketal) in rabbinic literature see Daube, NT and Rabbinic judaism, 63-66; Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.131, 159-60; cf. 3.361 n. 8. 149 So Wrege, Bergpredigt, 97; Betz, Essays, 57 n. 9. 150 So emphatically Strecker, Weg, 152; idem, Bergpredigt, 101 (Sermon, 97); similarly Bultmann, History, 133, 150; van Tilborg,jewish Leaders, 10-11; Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.260-62; Guelich, Sermon, 27475; Luz, Matthiius, 1.321 (Matthew, 1.354); Gundry, Matthew, 101; Gnilka, Matthiius, 1.201-2. For further

151

152

153 154 155

representatives of this position see Wrege, Bergpredigt, 97 n. 2. This fact was pointed out by Wrege, Bergpredigt, 97; Luz (Matthiius, 1.321 nn. 9-12 [Matthew, 1.354-55 nn. 9-12]) acknowledges it without drawing any conclusions from it. This construction does not occur elsewhere in the NT. See BAGD, s.v. 7rpO
351

Whether someone's righteousness is safeguarded is therefore decided not by convictions of faith but by the performance of rituals. Thus righteousness is a term that belongs to cultic ethics and law. 1 5 6 These general ideas are shared by the SM. "Righteousness" is to be taken in the Jewish sense as a discipline that the disciple must learn. This righteousness is fundamental to all parts of the SM, whether explicitly stated or not. 157 It occurs, therefore, throughout the SM at important points, especially in the telos formula in 6:33. One of these important points is 6:1, where the SM turns to the subject of worship. The question, therefore, is not whether these rituals of worship should be performed but how they should be performed so as to make sure they fulfill their proper purpose. A difficult problem is reflected in the textual transmission of vs 1: 7rpou£x£n [ot-] T~v OLKawuVV7JV V!J.WV !J.~ 71'0L£tv ~!J-7rpou8£v TWV lLv8pdJ71'wv 7rpos TO 8£a8ijvaL

avTo'is· . 158 Modern translations, which are quite diverse,

often fail to understand the point of what is basically a Jewish theology and for this reason attempt to make the text conform to Christian ideas. 159 I prefer therefore my own literal rendering: "Be on guard concerning your

156 157 158

159

352

righteousness, not to act before the people for the purpose of being seen by them." The widely attested reading of f.A.£7]~J.OUVV7J ("almsgiving") for OLKawuVv7J ("righteousness") is such an attempt to "Christianize" the text. 160 The different reading is a result of failing to understand the relationship between vs 1 and the following passages, specifically between OLKawuVv7J (vs 1) and f.A.£7]~J.OUVV7J (vs 2). Christian scribes apparently no longer capable of comprehending Jewish theology made vs 1 part of the section vss 2-4. This substantial change turned the Jewish cultic problem into a Christian moral one that made the passage meaningful to a Christian readership.l 61 Modern attempts to interpret 6: 1 on the basis of Matthew's understanding of "righteousness" (oLKawuVv7j) go the same way and take the concept in a Christian sense. What then is the theological issue at stake? What was the danger in relation to the cult? This danger has to do with the fact that religious rituals are matters of performance ("act, perform" 71'0L£'iv). 16 2 Performances take place before an audience. Which then is the audience of cultic rituals? According to ancient thought there are two options: (1) performance before a human audience, and (2) before God or deities

applies the concept of righteousness to Jesus' parade your religion before others." baptism. See furthermore Luke 1:6; 2:25; Rom 2:13; 160 EAHI/J.orrvvrJV instead of O
Matthew 6:1-18

of some sort. The SM assumes that performance before human audiences is dangerous and therefore advises "not to perform before the people." 163 The verb 7TOL€LV ("act, perform") has no direct object but refers indirectly to the three cultic acts to follow in vss 2-18. In other words, cult is by definition a "doing" and a performing. If its goal is to perform before a human audience, then it is done "for the purpose of being seen by them" (7Tphs rh 8£a8fivat a·ho'Ls). 164 It is "theater," not worship. 165 By contrast, worship, properly performed, is to be done before God for the purpose of being seen by him. 166 The point here is not whether the people are present, but whether the intention of the performer is to be seen by them or by God. If the intention of the performer is to be seen by the human audience, the rules and expectations of the theater prevail: impressive displays, playacting, applause, and so on. Worship is then turned into a public spectacle. 16 7 The contrast between such a pseudoreligious theater and true worship cannot be more extreme. If God is the audience, theatrics are neither needed nor appropriate. Basic to the true religious performance of rituals therefore is that they are "done" in the presence of God. There is no need for an object of such doing except for the implied ritual itself: it is a dromenon, and as such it comes with strings attached. 168 Only if it is performed in

the "right" way can its "righteousness" and by implication that of the performer be safeguarded. The immediate consequence of the failure is the loss of reward (vs 1b): "but if otherwise, you do not have a reward in the sight of your Father who is in the heavens" (€l a€ J.l.~ y€, J.I.LIT8hv OVK fx€T€ 7Tapa T~ 7Tarp'r. VJ.I.WV T~ EV TOLS ovpavo'Ls ). 169 The initial conditional statement is abbreviated: d a€ J.l.~ 'Y€ ("but if otherwise"). 170 It suggests that the abomination just rejected actually occurs; the particle 'Y€ may add a mark of astonishment ("indeed"). 171 That one now has no reward with God means that in such a case one can expect no reward in heaven (see above on 5: 12). Indeed, if the condition of righteousness has failed, there is no ground for rewarding the unrighteous performer. 172 The phrase 7Tapa r~ 7Tarpl ("in the sight of [or: with] the Father") states the contrast to vs 1a, "before the people. " 17 3 • 2 Almsgiving is introduced here as the first of the three rituals (vss 2-4). The reference points to regular performance: "Whenever, therefore, you do almsgiving ... " (Cfrav o~v 7TOtfis EA€7JJ.I.OlTVV7JV ... ). The

163 See also SM/Matt 6:2; 7:6; Matt 23:4-7,13, 25, 2728, 29-33; Luke 16:15; etc. What is meant is exemplified in Luke 18:9-14; cf. also the preposterous piety of Simon Magus (Acts 8:1 0) and Demetrius (Acts 19:24-27). 164 The motif is also used in the anti-Pharisaic polemics of Matthew 23 throughout (see esp. 23:5a: "but they do all their deeds so as to be seen by the people" [wphr Tb 8ea8ijval rolr av8pwo•r]). Cf. also Paul's attack on Peter in Gal2:11-14. 165 Paul's self-ironic statement in 1 Cor 4:9 is a parallel: "we have become a spectacle to the world and the angels and the people" (8tarpov tyev~81jf.'EV rif> K6crl-''!> Ka\. ayytAOif Ka\. av8pwolr ). See Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 88. 166 One can name many NT passages to support this interpretation. See esp. Luke 1:75; 15:10, 18, 21; 18:9-14; Acts 4:19; 10:31, 33; Rom 14:22; 1 Tim 2:1-3; Heb 13:21; 1 Pet 3:4;Jas 1:27; 1 John 3:22. 167 See also Robert A. Batey, "Jesus and the Theatre," NTS 30 (1984) 563-74. 168 On these history of religions concepts see Widen-

169

170 171

172 173

gren, Religionsphanomenologie, 209-57; Burkert, Greek Religion, 55-66; Gunther Lanczkowski, "Gottesdienst, 1: Religionsgeschichtlich," TRE 14 (1985) 15; Evan M. Zuesse, "Ritual," EncRel12.405-22; Ronald M. Grimes, "Ritual Studies," ibid., 422-25. The article is left out before ovpavolr ("heavens") in lot* D Z 0250jl 33 pc. It is read by w2 B L W 8jl3 9R. So Nestle-Aland's apparatus. The standing formula in the SM does usually have the article; see SM/Matt 5:12, 16; 6:9; 7:11, 21; differently 5:45 (without the article). See BAGD, s.v. d, VI.3.b; BDF, §§ 376, 439 (1); BDR, §§ 376 n. 6; 439, 1. See BAGD, s.v. yt, 3.a, who refers to the parallels in Luke 10:6; 13:9; furthermore see Matt 9: 17; Luke 5:36; 2 Cor 11:16. See above on 5:12, 46; the present tense is repeated in awtxovcriV ("they have got") in vss 2, 5, 16. The phrase occurs only here in the SM. Cf. Rom 2:13, and other parallels collected in BAGD, s.v. wapa,

11.2.b.

353

sentence is clearly connected with the preceding vs 1 by "therefore" (otiv), indicating that vss 2-4 are the consequence and application of what was stated as a thesis in vs 1. The conjunction 8rav ("when") refers to the Jewish custom that almsgiving is to occur at regular times as part of the fulfillment of the Torah. 17 4 The phrase "do almsgiving" (?Tou:'iv £AE1JfA.OcrtivrJV) is technical in Jewish language 17 5 and expresses the view that almsgiving is in the first place a ritual required by the Torah and not merely a social obligation. 176 Peculiar is the change from the second person plural in vs 1 to the second person singular in vs 2. Here, as in vss 3a-4, 6, and 1 7, the second person singular addresses the individual disciple, but in vs 2a one would expect the second person plural because of the pronoun ilfA.'iv ("you" [plural]) in vs 2e and the parallels in vss 5a and 16a. Erich Klostermann has therefore emended the text at this point, so that the plural ?TorijTE ("you should do") would be read in vs 2a, an argument that has not lost its force since it was first proposed. 177 In the Judaism of the beginning of the Christian era, the growing importance of almsgiving as a social institution is evidenced by the frequency of the use of the terminology in the LXX and in Hellenistic Judaism. 178 Here, £AETJfA.Ocrtiv1J ("almsgiving") is closely related and often identified or associated with otKawcrtivTJ ("righteousness"). This rising importance of almsgiving may also

have been connected with the increasing criticism of some forms of the sacrificial cult. At least this form of sacrifice was not bloody and was all beneficial. It is noteworthy that the cultic instruction in Sir 34: 1336:17 names almsgiving as an acceptable form of sacrifice because it does not take away anything from the poor (Sir 34: 18-22). Instead it is construed as a repayment of good things received and therefore an appropriate form of thanksgiving (35:2). 179 Similar ideas are stated in the cultic instruction ofTob 12:6-10 regarding the proper form of thanksgiving: Praise God and thank him before all men living for the good he has done you, so that they may sing hymns of praise to his name. Proclaim to all the world what God has done, and pay him honour; do not be slow to give him thanks. A king's secret ought to be kept, but the works of God should be acknowledged publicly. Acknowledge them, therefore, and pay him honour. Do good, and evil shall not touch you. Better prayer with sincerity, and almsgiving with righteousness, than wealth with wickedness. Better give alms than hoard up gold. Almsgiving preserves a man from death and wipes out all sin. Givers of alms will enjoy long life; but sinners and wrongdoers are their own worst enemies. (NEB) These ideas were greatly expanded later in rabbinic Judaism, 180 where almsgiving, not to be confused with

174 See also SM/Matt 5:11; 6:5, 6, 16. See BAGD, s.v. NovT 25 (1983) 289-301. 179 See also Sir 3:30; 7:10; 12:1; on these passages also 15rav, 1.a: "a (regularly) repeated action"; Zeller, Stadelmann, Ben Sira, 96-98. For Hellenistic Judaism Mahnspriiche, 71 n. 129. see furthermore Prov 21:26 (LXX); Dan 4:27 (MT 175 See Sir 7:10; Tob 1:3, 16; 4:7-8; Acts 9:36; 10:2; 24); Ps.-Phoc. Sent. 22-41, with the commentary of 24:17. For further references see BAGD, s.v. van der Horst, Sentences, 128-41 (also OTP 2.575); fA<"'IJJ.OIFVVTj; 7rOtfw, 1.1.c.{3. 176 The literature on almsgiving is enormous. The basic Sib. Or. 2.78-94 (OTP 1.347); Syr. Menander 368-76 work is by Hendrik Bolkestein, Wohltiitigkeit und (OTP 2.602); T.Jac. 7.23-25 (OTP 1.918); T.job 9Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum (Utrecht: 14 (OTP 1.842-45); Vision ofEzra 7, 26, 31,64 (OTP 1.581, 585, 588, 590). See Heinemann, Philons Oosthoek, 1939); for summaries of research see griechische und jiidische Bildung, 79, 119, 198-99, 355, RudolfBultmann, "lA.
354

Matthew 6:1-18

public welfare, was regarded as one of the most important deeds of private piety. The New Testament, however, makes no distinction between almsgiving and more general "deeds of loving-kindness" (C.,OM n1':lcl), such as visitation of the sick, hospitality toward strangers, and so forth. 181 The SM does not discuss other distinctions such as whether the good deed is done with money or with one's own personal involvement, whether it is done toward the rich or the poor, the living or the dead; at any rate, they seem to be attributable to later developments. 182 As far as the SM is concerned, almsgiving includes financial contributions to the funds for the poor. The SM acknowledges this obligation to be binding for the disciples of Jesus as part of their fulfillment of the Torah. This much one can say on the basis of vs 2a, but more is revealed by the following statements. Verse 2b-d contains a satirical description of abusive practices of almsgiving, practices from which the faithful disciples should disassociate themselves: "Do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, in order that they are glorified by the people" (p.~ uall:rrluns £p.7rpou8€v uov

t/

(

(

\

,..

.,

....

....

\

.,

....

WU7r£p Ot V'TrOKptTat 7TOWVUW £V TOtS UVVaywyats Kat £V Tats /rvp.ats, Cl7TWS ootau8wuw imh TWV av8pC:mwv). The

question is whether this description points to real practices 183 or represents merely polemical exaggeration. As in satire, both are true: satire would not work if real occurrences of the said abuse were not known and could not be drawn on to make a point. Satire counts on public assent, with regard to both reality and moral implications. The practices described must have been known and rejected by the public as improper. 184 Only then could the satirist take them up, exaggerate them, and present them as a spectacle of ridicule. It is, however, wrong to assume, as Cyril of Alexandria does, that sounding a trumpet at the occasion of almsgiving was a Jewish custom. 185 Nonetheless, that

sury"]). According tom. Seqal. 6.5, 13 such money 181 Matt 25:35-36,42-43 show that they were known but not under the rabbinic name. See furthermore boxes in the form of trumpets were in the Temple Did. 1.6 (cf. Sir 12:1; Sib. Or. 2.79); 15.4; 2 Clem. (see Str-B 2.37-41). The statement in the SM would, 16.4; Hermas Vis. 3.9.4-6; Sim. 1.8-9. For more therefore, represent a translation mistake and Jesus would have meant to say: "Do not put it into the references see Bolkestein and Schwer, RAC 1.304. 182 For these distinctions see esp. t. Pe 'a 4, 19 (24); b. shofar." This old suggestion has been renewed by Sukk. 49a; 'Abot R. Nat. (A), chap. 4 (trans. of Goldin, Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary, 112-13), apparently p. 35): "What then were the acts of loving-kindness in without knowing Klein's article; see also Samuel T. Lachs, "Studies in the Semitic Background to the which he [sc. Daniel] was engaged? He used to outfit the bride and make her rejoice, accompany the dead, Gospel of Matthew," JQR 67 (1977) 103-5. Adolf Buchler ("St. Matthew VI.1-6 and Other Allied give a perutah to the poor, and pray three times a Passages," JTS 10 [1908]266-70) believes that day." trumpets were actually blown, although at different 183 Zahn (Matthiius, 259) points out correctly that the rabbinic literature reports no such incident and that occasions. Neil]. McEleney ("Does the Trumpet the suppositions by Lightfoot (Horae Hebraicae, 289), Sound or Resound? An Interpretation of Matthew Schottgen (Horae Hebraicae, 1.51-52), Tholuck 6:2," ZNW 76 [1985]43-46) thinks that donors (Bergrede, 327-28 [Commentary, 296-300]), and dropped coins into the shofar box with as much noise as possible so as to attract the attention of the August Wiinsche (Neue Beitriige zur Erliiuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch [Gottingen: bystanders, and that this is the practice that Jesus had Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1878]77) are worthless. in mind. This curious hypothesis, however, was This did not, however, stop the flow of new or already known to Tholuck (Bergrede, 327 renewed hypotheses claiming to have found a [Commentary, 299]). rational explanation. Thus, G. Klein ("Mt 6,2," ZNW 184 One cannot regard them as an accepted custom, and there is no point in waiting for new evidence for it. 6 [1905] 203-4) suggested that the trumpet may actually have meant a money box in the Temple Cf. Bornhauser, Bergpredigt, 122-23; Schlatter, called shofar (literally "trumpet"; cf. Mark 12:41Matthiius, 201; Str-B 1.388. 185 So correctly Gerhard Friedrich, TDNT 7 .85-86; 44//Luke 21:1-4 about the ya(o.pvJI.aKLOV ["trea-

355

Jewish sources do not report incidents such as these does not mean that they could not have happened. It would probably be fair to say that religions at all times were capable of producing what to others inside and out!.ide looked like acts of obvious folly, not to mention worse things. Simultaneously, one should take "blowing the trumpet" as a figure of speech pointing to the entire gamut of religious ostentation and pomposity. 186 The figure of speech addresses what Paul calls "boasting. " 187 The ridiculous behavior of the almsgiver who has his donations announced by a trumpet-blowing herald is reminiscent of similar descriptions of the pomposity of the rich in Greek satire. In Lucian's Nigrinus, for instance, the conduct of the nouveau riche in Athens is portrayed with gusto: "For example, he [sc. Nigrinus] mentioned a millionaire who came to Athens, a very conspicuous and vulgar person with his crowd of attendants and his gay clothes and jewelry, and expected to be envied by all the Athenians and to be looked up to as happy. " 188 This conduct did not fool the sophisticated Athenians. Another such abuse was the appearance of the so-called nomenclators: "It is the duty of certain servants, going in advance of their masters, to cry out

I86

I87

188 189 190

I91

356

and warn them to mind their footing when they are about to pass something high or low .... 'Why,' said he, 'this is actually done in public squares at midday!"' 189 These people "display their purple gowns and show their rings and betray an unbounded lack of taste. Would you believe it?-They make use of another man's voice in greeting people they meet, expecting them to be thankful for a glance and nothing more." 19 0 While the trumpet is sometimes compared to the blare of rhetoricians in satire, 191 one should compare the conduct of almsgivers as described in SM/Matt 6:2 to the givers of public donations (:AELrovpyiat). 19 2 Their generous gifts were inscribed in stone on public monuments. 193 They played an important role also in political power contests and struggles. 194 Satire could easily make use of these practices in its social criticism of the arrogance and ridiculous pomposity of the wealthy. 195 One should look for this context of social satire as the background for the description in 6:2. Those who act in such a reprehensible way are called "the hypocrites" (at v7roKptrai). 196 As has often been observed, the term here retains its original connotation of "playactors,'' 197 instead of having been reduced to

Hermann Lichtenberger, EWNT 3.538 (EDNT 3.226); Strecker, Bergpredigt, I 03 (Sermon, 99). Luz (Matthiius, 1.323, 326 [Matthew, 1.356-57, 360)) has references to a legendary Jewish custom of blowing the trumpet at almsgiving in order to attract the poor. For the metaphor of"blowing one's own hom" see the references in Tholuck, Bergrede, 325-27 (Commentary, 297-99); BAGD, s.v. CFaA..,.{(w; Luz (Matthiius, 1.323 nn. 28 and 29 [Matthew, 1.357 nn. 28 and 29)), referring to Str-B 4/1.548-50; Strecker, Bergpredigt, I 03 (Sermon, 99). "Boasting" was regarded as foolish and unethical as early as Egyptian wisdom; see the "Instruction Addressed to Kagemni," II, I-5, according to Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, I.60. On the subject of boasting see Rudolf Bultmann, "Kavxaop.at KTA.," TDNT 3.646-54; Betz inPECL 2.2I9, 374-82; idem, Galatians, 302-3, 3I7-I9; Spicq, Notes, 3.38694. LucianNigr. 13. Ibid., 34. Ibid., 21. See Betz, Lukian, 194-99. For further examples of satirical portraits of philosophers see Heinrici, Bergpredigt ( 1905 ), 2.62-64. See Lucian Rhet. praec. 13; De domo I6; Dio Chrysostom Or. 8.2, where Diogenes of Sinope calls Antisthenes a "trumpet that cannot hear its own

192 193 I94

195

196

sound"; Diogenes could certainly not be accused of that. Cf. Paul's self-ironic remark in 2 Cor 6:11a: "My mouth is wide open toward you, Corinthians." The context is that of his self-description as the herald of Christ (2 Cor 5:20). For the literature regarding this concept see Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 117-18 (on 2 Cor 9:12). For a list of such inscriptions see Johannes Oehler, "Liturgie," PW 12/2 (1925) 1877. The contexts nearly always mention "boasting" and "arrogance." See, e.g., Demosthenes Or. 21.6, 61, 167; Lysias Or. 21.6; !socrates Or. 12.145 (Panathenaicus); 15.145-48 (Antidosis). Satirical descriptions of the rich are found in SP /Luke 6:24-26; Luke 12:16-21; 16:19-31; also Jas 2:1-12 (on the latter see Dibelius,james, 39-45). These examples demonstrate how satire uses exaggeration. Differently, Richard A. Batey ("Jesus and the Theatre," NTS 30 [I984)563-74) thinks that Jesus was actually acquainted with theatrical performances by actors and orators, and that he drew on these experiences to satirize the practices of religious leaders. But that theaters existed in the environment in which Jesus lived does not mean that he visited them. Satirical imagery often travels by way of oral tradition. Apart from vs 2 see vss 5 and 16; also 7:5.

Matthew 6:1-18

merely a slanderous term designating outsiders. 198 The "hypocrite" here is not primarily one who is simply morally dishonest or a dissembler and faker, but the "typical" religious practitioner whose external performance sharply conflicts with fundamental religious and moral principles. 199 The reason for this discrepancy is not hard tO' guess. Besides the usual ignorance and folly, it is selfishness and arrogance. People of such character, it is assumed, love to "perform" ('lTOL£tv)2° 0 "in the synagogue and in the streets" (l.v TatS' uvvaywya'iS' Kat l.v TatS' pvp.aLS').

These remarks belong to the typology of the hypocrite and should not be interpreted as a direct attack against the synagogue in generai.2° 1 On the contrary, the remark implies basic approval of the synagogue by criticizing only what conscientious Jews take to be abuse. Practices such as the ones described are unfortunately tolerated in the public life of religion, but their legitimacy is questioned and rejected. 202

The term "synagogues" (plural) refers to buildings called by that name. 203 It appears that the person who wrote the piece is used to this language and expects the readers to be familiar with it as well; it is suggested, furthermore, that he still attends synagogue worship and has occasion to see the practices firsthand. At least this is what the readers are supposed to conclude. The term pVp.7J ("narrow street," "lane," "alley") points to a larger city, most likely Jerusalem.20 4 The statement in vs 2d, "in order that they may be glorified by the people" (8'lTOOS' aotaufJwuLV fmo TWV lzvfJpcf>'lTwv), explains the intentions of the almsgivers satirized above. They want to be glorified as pious 205 people and then enjoy the gratitude and appreciation of the public, 206 who regard them as "benefactors" and conceivably grant them privileges. This is part of granting them "glory" (aota).

I97 See Ulrich Wilekens, "fnroKplvop.a&," TDNT 8.559-7I, esp. 566-68 (C.I); ThWNT I0/2.I287-88 (bibliography); BAGD, s.v. fnroKplvop.a• KTA., with references and bibliography; van Tilborg,jewish Leaders, 8-26; Bruno Zucchelli, 'YIIOKPITHI.: Origine e storia del termine (Brescia: Paideia, I963), and the review by Harald Patzer, Gnomon 42 (I970) 64I-52; Harold Patzer, Gesammelte Schriften (Wiesbaden: Steiner, I985) 26I-72; Heinz Giesen, EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v. fnroKp&r~s KTA. (bibliography); Spicq, Notes, 3.650-57; Sieben, Voces, 203; Lichtenberger, Studien zumMenschenbild, I06-7 (on the curse against the hypocrite in I QS 2 .II-I8). On the general background see Ulrich Wilckens, Alois Kehl, and Karl Hoheisel, "Heuchelei," RAG I4 ( I988) I205-3I; Kippenberg, Die vorderasiatischen Erlosungsreligionen, 207, 4I8-I9. I98 SM/Matt 7:5/ /SP/Luke 6:42 show that even the disciples can be called "hypocrites." Matthew and the following tradition differ, since for them "hypocrites" are outsiders and usually Jewish opponents of Christianity (Matt I5:7 I /Mark 7:6; Matt 22:I8; 23:I3, I4, I5; 24:5I; Mark I2:I5; Luke I2:I, 56; I3:I5; 20:20; I Tim 4:2; Did. 2.6; 4.I2; 5.I; 8.I-2; etc. I99 For the meaning see also Gal 2: I3; and Betz, Galatians, I09-IO. 200 On the meaning of this term see above, n. I62. 20 I Against Dietzfelbinger, "Frommigkeitsregeln," passim; van Tilborg,jewish Leaders, 8, 2I-26; Guelich, Sermon, 278-79; Strecker, Bergpredigt, I 03 (Sermon, 99); correct is Luz, Matthiius, 1.324

(Matthew, 1.357-58). 202 It is thus analogous to the story ofJesus' Cleansing of the Temple (Mark II:I5-I7 I /Matt 2I:I2I3/ /Luke I9:45-46//John 2:I3-I7). See Sanders, Jesusandjudaism, 6I-76, 277. 203 See also vs 5, both times without avrwv ("their"). For a Christian synagogue seeJas 2:2; cf. Matt 4:23; 9:35; IO:I7; I2:9; I3:54, which all have avrwv ("their" [i.e.,Jewish outsiders]); 23:6 (without avrwv); 23:34 (vp.wv ["your," referring to scribes and Pharisees]). On the term uvvaywy~ ("synagogue") see BAGD, s. v.; Wolfgang Schrage, "uvvaywy~," TDNT 7. 798-852; ThWNT I0/2.I273-74; Hubert Frankemolle, EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v. uvvaywy~ (bibliography); Schiirer, History, 2.423-54 (esp. 439-47) and 3.99697, index, s. v. Synagogue. 204 See also Acts 9:II; I2:IO; Luke I4:2I; and BAGD, s.v. pvp.TJ. 205 The term aofaCw is used here in the secular sense ("glorify"). See BAGD, s. v., I; Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 8I-82. 206 On the meaning of the expression "the people" see above on SM/Matt 6:1.

357

The glory, however, belongs first of all to God (see on SM/Matt 5: 16; 6:13 [for the doxology see the excursus below]), who is the donor of all good things. 2° 7 The human donor merely "repays" what has first been given by God's beneficence.2° 8 What is criticized here, therefore, is the wrong order of performance. First God ought to be glorified by a doxology, 2° 9 and then the benefactor may also be praised.2 10 In principle, therefore, one is not wrong to praise the benefactor, if one does this after one has first given God what is due him. 211 Therefore, the conduct of the almsgiver is judged improper because he prevents people from glorifying God first; indeed, he usurps that privilege. The final statement in vs 2e presents a verdict by spelling out the eschatological consequences of the improper performance. The saying belongs to the category of "amen-sayings": 212 "Truly, I say to you, they have (received) their reward (in full)" (ap.~v Aiyw vp.'iv, a7TfXOVITLV TOV p.tu6ov avTC~v).213 What is the reason for arriving at this verdict? By their donation, the donors should cause the people to glorify God. This act, when it occurs, deserves reward by God at the last judgment, but by directing the people's glorification toward themselves, the donors engage in pseudopiety and a kind of deferred self-glorification. It is a kind of deal, a quid pro quo; the donors give a performance of pseudo-piety with selfish purposes in

mind, and the people give them what they ask for, so that there is no further obligation. 214 There is certainly no obligation on the part of God, who has been left out of the deal altogether. God is under no obligation in the last judgment to reward this kind ofpseudopiety. 215 These donors are therefore committing acts of "atheism." As they ignore God's beneficence, so will he ignore them in the last judgment. The underlying principle of this argument is implied in the concept of "righteousness" (atKaLOuVV7J). 216 • 3 Following the description of the improper performance we are told what the proper performance should be: "But as you do your almsgiving, do not let your left (hand) know what your right (hand) is doing" (O"OV a£ 7TOLOVVTOS' tA£1JfLOUVV7JV J.L~ yv
207 This notion of God as the supreme benefactor is presupposed throughout the SM. See esp. SM/Matt 6:11, 25-34; 7:7, 11. Cf.Jas 1:17. 208 See SM/Matt 5:42/ /SP /Luke 6:30, 38; Matt 10:8; Acts 20:35; 1 Cor 4:7b; 2 Cor 9:6-9; and Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 169, index, s.v. Exchange of gifts. 209 See 2 Cor 9:15; and Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 12022; Peter Krafft, "Gratus animus (Dankbarkeit)," RAG 12 (1983) 732-52, where material on doxologies is to be found; in the SM a doxology is present as a later addition to the Lord's Prayer, SM/Matt 6:13 v.l. (see the excursus below on the doxology). 210 As it is properly done by the Samaritan in Luke 17:15-16: "But one of them, seeing that he was healed, turned around and glorified God with a loud voice, and he fell on his face before his [sc. Jesus'] feet and thanked him." See Hans Dieter Betz, "The Cleansing of the Ten Lepers (Luke 17: 11-19)," JBL 90 (1971) 314-28; reprinted in Betz, Synoptische Studien, 50-67. 211 For the praise of the benefactor see Sir 31:5-11, esp. the conclusion in vs 11: "Then he shall be confirmed

358

212 213

214 215

216 217

in his prosperity, and the whole people will hail him as a benefactor." For this form of the saying, see above on SM/Matt 5:18. IC* 13 pc read" Amen" twice; for this rhetorical geminatio (doubling) see Betz, Essays, 130 n. 24, and below on SM/Matt 7:21. For the amen-saying see above on SM/Matt 5:18, 26. If a reward were outstanding, the verb would be "having it" (<'x<w); see above on 6:1; also 5:12. The term a1r£xw comes from the world of commerce and is technical, meaning "receive a sum and give a receipt for it." In the NT it occurs only in SM/Matt 6:2, 5, 16; cf. SP/Luke 6:24; Mark 14:41. See BAGD, s.v., 6.7T£xw, 1; Hermann Hanse, "b:rrfxw," TDNT 2.828; Axel Horstmann, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s. v. a1r£xw; Preisigke, Worterbuch, s. v. a1rixw, 4; Spicq, Notes, 3.46-53. For the concept of righteousness in the SM, see above on SM/Matt 5:6, 10, 20.
Matthew 6:1-1 8

these parallels derive from the Gospel of Matthew or from independent oral tradition is difficult to say.22 3 The occurrence of the proverb in the Coptic Cos. Thom. log. 62, unrelated to the issue of almsgiving, speaks in favor of textual independence from the Gospel ofMatthew. 224 Proverbs involving the hand were popular in the entire ancient culture, and the lack of early attestations of this particular proverb may be merely accidental. 225 It is a fact of proverbial tradition in general that only a small part of what was actually in circulation was written down in quotations or collections. Recent commentators are right when they state that one should not interpret the proverb in conjunction with Matt 25:35-38, 42-44. The point in SM/Matt 6:3 is not that almsgiving should be done in such a way that the donor is not aware of the act. 226 Rather, the donor's knowledge of the gift should not be used to let others know of it, but to keep it secret.22 7 Therefore, it appears that the proverb in 6:3 is contrary to another famous

Latin saying, "Manus manum lavat" ("One hand washes the other," or as OLD has it, "One good turn deserves another"). 228 It is worth mentioning that both the Latin saying and the one in 6:3 have a slightly immoral tinge in that they describe daily dealings of some dubious nature. 229 If one hand does not know what the other is doing, can this be anything but a sign of disorganization or dishonesty? Perhaps because these ambiguities were realized in antiquity different interpretations were offered or other proverbs were cited in exchange.2 30 Notably, the Didache (1.6) uses another proverb, also in the context of almsgiving: "Let your alms sweat in your hands, until you know to whom you give it" (!opcaHnhw ~ (A£7]fA.OCr'{;V7] crov

ds ras

X£'ipas crov, JJ.EXPLS &v yvii>s, rlvt

oii>s ). 231 At any rate, the SM lets the ambiguity stand.

218 See Tholuck, Bergrede, 330-31 (Sermon, 302); Strecker, Bergpredigt, 104-5 (Sermon, 100-101); Luz, Matthiius, 1.324 (Matthew, 1.357-58). 219 For similar proverbs, however, see Seneca Apocol. 9; Petronius Sat. 46; Epicharmus according to Plato Ax. 366c; Menander Mon. 543. See furthermore Otto, Sprichwiirter, 210; Hans Walther, Proverbia Sententiaeque Medii Aevi. Lateinische Sprichwiirter und Sentenzen des Mittelalters in alphabetischer Anordnung (Gottingen: Vandenho~ck & Ruprecht, 1963-) 2 (1964)p. 828;8(1983)p. 373. 220 No precise parallels are given by Str-B 1.391-92; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 114. 221 Wellhausen, Evangelium Matthaei, 25 (with references). 222 Klostermann, Matthiius, 53; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 105 (Sermon, 101); Luz, Matthiius, 1.324 n. 35 (Matthew, 1.357 n. 35), with reference to the Mandaean Ginza R. 1.104: "And when you give alms, my chosen, do not give ostentatiously. If you give alms ostentatiously, do not do it a second time. If you give with your right hand, (then) do not tell it to your left. If you give with your left hand, (then) do not tell it to your right" (trans. Foerster, Gnosis, 2.291). 223 Differently, Luz (Matthiius, 1.324 n. 35 [Matthew, 1.357 n. 35]) thinks the Ginza depends on Matthew. 224 Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 391: "Do not let your (sing.) left hand understand what your right hand is doing." 225 See also SM/Matt 5:30, and BAGD, s.v. l!.pt(J'T£p6~. with reference to Damascius Vita Isid. 283: "Give not with one hand, give with both." Cf. Matt 27:24.

226 So correctly Grundmann, Matthiius, 194; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 104-5 (Sermon, 100-101 ); Luz, Matthiius, 1.324 (Matthew, 1.357-58); Gundry, Matthew, 102; Gnilka, Matthiiusevangelium, 1.204-5. Differently Clement Alex. Strom. 4.138; Zahn, Matthiius, 26465; Schlatter, Matthiius, 202; Eichholz, Bergpredigt, 108-9. 227 So, rightly, Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 2.8: "that is, let not the desire of human praise mix with your consciousness when you strive to fulfill the divine command in regard to giving alms." 228 For references see OLD, s.v. lauo, Lb. 229 One should note the same ambiguity in Sir 3:31: "He who repays a good turn is mindful of the future; when he falls he will find support" (NEB). LXX 3:34: b avTa7T00tOohs- xO.ptras p.lp.V?]Tat flS' rU JL€Ta raVra Kat lv Katp'i> 'lrTCd(J'fW~ ei!p~(J'ft (J'T~ptyp.a. Prov 21: 14: "A gift in secret placates an angry man; a bribe slipped under the cloak pacifies great wrath" (NEB). 230 Using the fact that the text does not explicitly mention the hand, some interpreters took "left" and "right" to refer to evil (or the devil) and good. See the passages in Tholuck, Bergrede, 331 (Commentary, 302); Eberhard Nestle ("Mt. VI.3," ExpT 13 [19012]524-25), referring to Didasc. Apost. 2 (trans. of Gibson, p. 3: "let his hand be liberal in giving"), also Ap. Const. 2.45. Cf. Did. 12.1: "for you have knowledge of right and left." 231 The proverb is introduced as a quotation, but its source is unknown; it is most likely not taken from Matthew but from the oral tradition. Cf. Sib. Or. 2. 79: "Give to the poor at once and do not tell them

359

The proverb seems to admit that giving donations secretly has a comic side to it; it is playacting of a different kind, involving some sort of conspiracy between the donor and God. • 4 The concluding sentence explains the rationale of it all (vs 4a): "so that your almsgiving may remain in the hidden" (H'll"oo~ y uov ~ £A.nJp.outJV1} lv TCfJ Kpv'li"TCfJ). 232 The expression "in the hidden" appears to be purposefully awkward; it is repeated in vss 4b, 6b and c, and with variations in vs 18a and b. The question has been raised whether the expression may refer to a specific place in the Temple, where donations could be deposited unobtrusively, instead of referring to a more general manner of handling gifts. 238 Following others, Geza Vermes 234 has renewed the hypothesis that the Jerusalem Temple had the "Chamber of Secrets," about which m. Seqal. 5.6 has this to say: "Into the Chamber of Secrets the devout used to put their gifts in secret and the poor of good family received support therefrom in secret. •2 35 This place, according to Vermes, is what the SM has in mind. If this suggestion were correct and if the SM knew of this "Chamber of Secrets," recommending its usage, our passage would be another piece of confirmation of the origin of the SM in Jerusalem. The evidence, however, is uncertain. The immediate context does not mention the Jerusalem Temple; instead, the synagogues are the setting. Also, the hypothesis does not

232 233 234 235 236 237

238

360

allow a correspondence with the other two cultic acts in 6:5-15 and 6: 16-18. 236 In all instances, the expression "in the hidden" has a general rather than a specific application. For this reason of parallel composition one should therefore assume that the expression "in the hidden" has a general meaning in vs 4, also stipulating that almsgiving properly performed is anonymous and inconspicuous. One can confirm this general interpretation also by parallels from wisdom and rabbinic literature, 237 to which one can add Greek philosophical admonitions. 238 As we learn from vs 4b, the reason for the secrecy is to protect one's eschatological reward: "and your Father who sees in the hidden will compensate you" (Ka'r. o'll"aT~P uov o{3At'll"wv lv TCfJ KpV'li"TCfJ cl.'ll"ollwu£t uol). 239 A good deed done in this way has been done according to God's will and as the Torah requires, but its reward is still outstanding. Consequently, God, who is righteous, will provide the reward due at the last judgment. The verb a'l!"olllllwp.t is a technical term from the business world and means "pay up a debt owed to someone. " 240 Employing this term does not mean, however, that God owes the secret donor a debt, but that the donor has a credit due to his righteousness which God will uphold. 241 In terms of righteousness, there is now an imbalance, but it is assumed that God will take care of this imbalance by disbursing the reward that is

to come tomorrow. With perspiring hand give a approval of conscience" ("sed tamen nullum theatrum virtuti conscientia maius est"). These and portion of corn to one who is in need" (OTP 1.34 7). other references are mentioned by Heinrici, Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 23 (OTP 2.575): "You must fill your hand. Give alms to the needy." The Greek is Bergpredigt (1905), 2.63-64; Luz, Matthaus, 1.324 (Matthew, 1.358). uncertain; see van der Horst, Sentences, 128-30. A different word order is preferred by It* (33): ~ uov 239 D W jl h q syP·h add avr6r ("he himself") before lz1roll6>uft, thus heightening the impressiveness of the lll.f'IJLOU-bv., y. Or D: ~ lil.f'IJLO .pavfpif> ("in the manifest"), See Betz, Essays, 61 n. 11. making an explicit contrast with the "in the hidden" (L W 9 892. 1006. 1342. 1506 ~it sy'·P·h). The See Prov 21:14; Sir 1:28-29; 'Abot4.5; etc. For references see Str-B 1.391-96; Luz, Matthii:us, addition is apologetic and points out that the divine reward is certainly recognizable, whether in this life 1.324-25 (Matthew, 1.357-58). Epictetus (Diss. 4.8) deals with the relationship or the next. Cf. Luke 8:17; 1 Cor 3:13; 14:25; Mark 10:29-30 par. See also Metzger, Textual Commentary, between what a philosopher really is and his outward 15. appearance (uxiiJLa). The things that really count are "all those for myself and for God" (1r~vra lJLavrif> Ka\ 240 See BAGD, s.v. lz1TolllllwJLI, 1 and 3. In the SM see 8fif> [ 4.8.17]). Similarly Cicero Tusc. 2.26.64: "there is Matt 5:26, 33; cf. Luke 14:14. no audience for virtue of higher authority than the 241 Cf. SM/Matt 5:46-48//SP /Luke 6:32-35.

Matthew 6:1-18

accredited in heaven (seeS: 12). The future tense of the verb may refer not only to the last judgment but also, in accordance with 6:33, this-worldly rewards. 242 • 5 The second ritual considered is that ofprayer;2 43 more specifically, it is the prayer every conscientious jew is obligated to pray privately. 244 As pointed out already, the prayer instruction in the SM limits the religious duties to the private prayer, and a strange silence remains with regard to all genuine acts of public worship in Temple and synagogue.2 45 Does this silence imply a distancing ofthe disciples of jesus from public worship?246 Does it imply a critique of such public worship? Has the movement of jesus withdrawn from the official cult of judaism? One will have to be cautious in drawing such far-reaching conclusions from this strange silence because the situation with regard to the SM may not be altogether different from other cultic instructions in Jewish wisdom, including even the Pirqe 'Abot, which only rarely mentions Temple and synagogue. 247

Verse Sa assumes ritual prayer to be part of the ordinary life of the jew, the question being only how to pray:" And when you pray, ... "(Kat ()rav 7rpoudJx7Ju8E, ... ). 248 Verse Sb draws a negative picture of the "hypocrites," analogous to vs 2b-d: "Do not be like the hypocrites, for they love (it) when in the synagogues and on the street corners they stand (in position) praying, in order that they show themselves to the people" (ovK ruEu8E WS l!7r0Kptra[, {)n t/JtAOVUtV fV rats uvvaywya'i's Kat £v rat's yovlats rwv 7rA.antwv £urwns 7rpoudJxEu8at, ()7rws t/JaVWUtv TOtS av8pcJmots). 2 4 9 The statement "you shall not be ... " means that the following satire is the opposite of what the true disciple should be (cf. S:13-16). The term "hypocrite" has the same meaning here as in 6:2. The satirical vignette in vs Se-d is drawn with an eye for detail. 250 The remark that

242 See below on SM/Matt 6:33; and Betz, Essays, 11415. Differently Guelich, Sermon, 280; Strecker Bergpredigt, 106 (Sermon, 10 1-2); Luz, Matthiius, 1.324 (Matthew, 1.358). 243 The literature on prayer is immense. The basic study is still that of Heiler, Gebet (see above, n. 79). For surveys and bibliographies see Emmanuel von Severus, "Gebet I," RAG 8 (1972) 1134-1258; Carl Heinz Ratschow et al. "Gebet I-IX," TRE 12 (1984) 31-103; Gunter Bader, Symbolik des Todesjesu (HUTh 25; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1988) 2154 7. For the rabbinic literature see Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns (SJ 9; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1977). 244 See Sir 21:1; 39:5; Paralip. fer. 8.4; Philo De Jon a 1822; Acts 8:22; 10:2, 4; etc. On the whole topic of private prayer see Heiler, Gebet, 478-85; von Severus, RAG 8.1253; Berger, TRE 12.48; Heinemann, Prayer, 156-92, esp. 191-92: "There can be no doubt, then, that Jesus is here expressing his approval of the tradition of private prayer which he considers preferable to the prayer of the Synagogue" ( 191 ). 245 In the NT Jesus is portrayed on the one hand as the model for the private prayer that then becomes the mark of Christianity as a religion of private prayer. On the other hand, Jesus is shown as the leader of group prayer. See Mark 1 :35; 6:46; 11:24-25, and esp. the Gethsemane episode Mark 14:32-42 par.; John 17: 1-26; etc. 246 For Jesus as a teacher of prayer see also SM/Matt 5:44; 6:5-13 (15); 7:7-11; Luke 11:1-4; 18:1-8,9-

14; also Mark 12:28-44. 247 See Sir 7:10, 14; 35:12-36:17 (NEB); 37:15; 38:915; 51:1-30; Wis 16:28;PrayerofManasseh; Tob 3:1-17; 8:4-9; 12:6-22. This type of teaching continues in the tradition, part of which is the SM; see alsoP. Oxy. 654, no. 5 (Aland, Synopsis, 85); Cos. Thom. log. 104; Did. 8.2-3; PolycarpPhil. 7.2; 2 Clem. 16.4; Hermas Vis. 2.2.1; 3.1.2; Sim. 5.1; Clement Alex. Strom. 7. See von Severus, RAG 8.1188-1210. 248 Cf. 'Abot 2.17: "and when you pray." See Taylor, Sayings, 38-39. 249 The entire vs 5 is not attested in sy'; see Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, 2/1.122. Part of the manuscript tradition continues with the second person singular: Ka~ /Jrav 7rpouavwu&v is attested by W 8 1506 (E fl. 346. 565. 579. 700) 9Jt. 250 See also the similar statements about the Pharisees in Luke 18:9-14; Matt 23:14//Mark 12:40//Luke 20:47.

361

such people "love" (qnAovuw)2 51 to conduct themselves in the way they do calls attention to psychology: the "performers" do it, in the final analysis, because they love themselves. Prayer, supposedly the most intimate expression of love to God, has turned into its very opposite, preoccupation with oneself, a matter of aesthetics rather than religion. That such people "stand" (£uTwus)2 52 during their prayer does not mean to say that standing as such is wrong, but that "posturing" is improper. 2 53 Thus parading themselves in front of the people in synagogues and on street corners involves conspicuousness in more than one respect. It amounts to a demonstration of religious and even political power. Such visibility leaves no doubt about who is in charge of religion. Precisely because of such religiopolitical demonstration, the act of prayer, and indeed religion itself, has been turned into the opposite of what it is supposed to be. Therefore, the verdict in vs 5e is the logical conclusion: "Truly, I say to you, they have (received) their reward (in full)" (ap.~v Af.yw vp.'iv, an£xovuw TOV p.Lu8ov avTwv). 2 54 The same reasons as in vs 2e apply also here, where the same verdict is stated.

• 6 Following satire, vs 6 turns to serious instruction. It is parallel to vs 3: "But you, when you pray ... "(uv o€ CJTav npoudxTJ . .. ). Again, the personal pronoun "you" (uv) stands in the first place, addressing the individual disciple. The following material uses proverbial phrases and images in advising how to perform the prayer properly. Prayer is a matter of private intimacy between the person at prayer and God: "go into your chamber and shut the door and pray to your Father who is hidden" (du£A8£ ds To mp.£'i6v uov Kat KA£luas T~v 8vpav uov np6uwtaL TijJ naTpl uov TijJ €v TijJ KpvnT(jJ). 255 It is assumed here that the disciples live in their own houses, in which they have "the inner room" (To Tap.£'iov) to themselves. 256 This reference points clearly to home ownership as the normal situation, rather than extreme poverty. The private chamber may even point to a private chapel in the house. At any rate, hidden from the crowds, even from other family members, the prayer can become what it is supposed to be, communion between the individual and the transcendent God. 25 7 Notably, there is no indication at this point about what content such prayer ought to have. As already pointed out, the Lord's Prayer by itself, being a group prayer,

2 51 This term also occurs in the descriptions of Pharisees done in assimilation to vs 4a; but cf. vs 18. 256 BAGD, s.v. raf'Eiov, 2: "generally of rooms in the in Matt 23:6/ /Luke 20:46. 252 For standing at prayer see Deut 4:10; 29:10,15; 1 interior of a house, innermost, hidden, or secret room." Sam 9:26;Jer 18:20; Ps 134:1; 135:2; 2 Mace 15:12. Matt 6:6, however, does not refer to a secret room For the NT see Mark 11:25; Luke 1:19; 18:11, 13; but to a private room. See also T. jos. 3:3 (OTP 19:8 (?); 22:46; Rev 7:9, 11; 8:2; 20:12; furthermore l.820);jos. Asen. 10.3-17 (OTP 2.215-17); Matt Mart. Polyc. 7; Ap. Const. 7 .45.1. 24:26; Luke 12:3; 1 Clem. 50.4. For a gnostic 253 Standing was the common position for prayer in interpretation see Cos. Phil. log. 61 (Layton, Gnostic Judaism. See the material in Str-B 1.399-400; Lachs, Scriptures, 342). Rabbinic Commentary, 116 n. 1. The prayer called 257 On prayer as OfL is omitted by D sy'·c boP', thereby changing the epithet of God (o lv rif> Kpv1rrij>, "the one in the hidden") to praying "in the hidden." This is

362

Matthew 6:1-18

does not entirely fit the situation, although the prayer instruction in its entirety (6:5-15) presupposes that the Lord's Prayer was used this way. Differently from vss 713 and Luke 11:1-4, this instruction (6:5-6) assumes that everyone knows which prayers to say in private. The final statement (vs 6c) again renders a judgment; it is the opposite ofvs 5e but consonant with vs 4b:2 58 "and your Father who sees what is hidden will compensate you" (Kat o7raT~P uov of3A.€7rwv €v Tcp KpV7rTcp a7roBwuu uot). 259 As in the previous instances, God's reward is based on righteousness: the proper performance is done in the imitation of God and thereby in the fulfillment of the intention of the Torah. An act being done "to God" alone will generate the reward due. • 7 As pointed out above, the teaching on prayer in vss 713 (or vss 7-15) comes from a different source; 260 it has a different literary structure and theological content. One can easily recognize the three parts of this instruction: (1) a theological statement of doctrine concerning prayer (vss 7-8); (2) the Lord's Prayer as the authoritative paradigm (vss 9-13); and (3) a "sentence of sacred law" concerning the forgiveness of sins (vss 1415 ). All three parts are carefully worked out even to the smallest detail; they reveal the(i)logical ideas different from those in vss 5-6.2 61 These tensions within the instructions on prayer and their constituent parts are attributable to the somewhat heterogeneous but also compatible elements that have been forced into the secondary framework of the present text. The author of the SM has inserted the instruction ofvss 7-15 behind vs 6, so that the section complements vss 5-6, by which fact the author(s) may also betray that they have regarded vss 5-6 by themselves to be insufficient. At any rate, they found vs 6 to be the right place to insert the other instructional passage of vss 7-13 ( 15) that they had at their disposal. The explicit doctrine about prayer set forth in vss 7-8 is striking for a number of reasons. It comes from what appears to be a very old layer of tradition, that is, from a time when the Jesus-

movement was still part of the Jewish religion; one would expect that prayer as a common ritual was not a controversial issue. But the appearance of a doctrine such as that in vss 7-8 presupposes a fundamental crisis. This crisis must have led to questions such as, What is prayer? Should we pray at all? How shall we pray? The crisis to be presupposed here leads me to conclude that debates must have occurred at the time and that different positions were formulated in addressing the problems. The doctrinal statement in vss 7-8 contains one such position. At closer examination, the statement in vss 7-8 presupposes a number of issues the consideration of which has led to its formulation: ( 1) a decision whether to pray; (2) a self-conscious identification and description of "pagan" practice and thought, and thus an exercise of "comparative religion"; (3) an appropriation of the Hellenistic-Jewish critique of religion, which in turn has amalgamated ideas from Greek philosophy; (4) a rejection of "assimilation" and possible "paganization" of the Jewish religion; (5) a positive reply about the question of human needs and how we know what they are; (6) the utilization ofthe Lord's Prayer as the foundation of theology as well as its authoritative example; (7) a positive answer to the question of how one is to connect ritual prayer with the daily life of the community of disciples. These points of implicit or explicit theology will have to be taken into consideration as we read through the text. The first word of vs 7, 7rpouwxop.£vot ("those who pray"), represents a decision to engage in prayer that is then justified by the subsequent interpretation. The decision that the disciples of Jesus are those who pray has not been reached lightly. 262 In view of the objections made by religious critics, routine continuation of what everybody has been doing thus far turns out to be inadvisable. If conventional prayer practice is all that there could ever be, putting a stop to praying altogether would be the only proper conclusion. At this point, the

258 For the terminology see above on SM/Matt 6:4. 259 Similar to 6:4, L W 0 j 13 33vid 892. 1006. 1342. 1506 :D1 it syP·h add €v r(il cpav
as well; see SM/Matt 5:44/ /SP /Luke 6:28; also Rom 8:26;Jas 4:3.

363

SM would agree with Socrates. 263 The parallel in Luke 11: 1-4 suggests that the controversy about prayer reaches back even into the circle of John the Baptist. 264 The episode described shows Jesus at prayer. While he prays and presumably knows how to do it properly, the disciples confess that they do not know how to pray. Their request is twofold. First, they ask Jesus, "teach us to pray" (BlBa,ov T]p.iis 7TpoudJxEu8at). Strictly speaking this request is not only for the how but also for the what. Second, similar things have occurred in the circle of John the Baptist, so that the disciples ask "as John also taught his disciples" (Ka8ws Kat , Iwavv1js £alaa,EV TOVS p.a87jTas avTov). In other words, the disciples of John were in a better position as compared to the disciples of Jesus because John had already taught them, and he also, one presumes, supplied a paradigmatic prayer for them. Now, Jesus' disciples ask him to do the same, and he does. He gives them the Lord's Prayer. Unfortunately, we do not possess John the Baptist's paradigm prayer, so that we are unable to say how they compared. At any rate, the Lord's Prayer must have differed from the Baptist's because otherwise Jesus' disciples could simply have used what they seem to know as the Baptist's prayer. They must have concluded that John's prayer was not adequate for the Jesus-movement. The text ofvs 7a, however, has nothing to do with John the Baptist, but contains a much more specific prescription: "you shall not babble like the pagans" (p.TJ j3aTTa>..oy~u7jTE if>u7TEp ot EevtKol). 265 The instruction on prayer in SM/Matt 6:7-13 (15) differs from Luke 11:1-

4 in a number of ways. Not only the wording of the Lord's Prayer differs but also the answers formulated in response to criticism of prayer. 266 Verse 7a proceeds to describe what is then judged to be a nonsensical approach to prayer. Again the SM resorts to polemic and caricature, but this time the caricature is directed against "the pagans" (ot £8vtKot), 267 not against "hypocritical" fellow Jews. 268 One can interpret the term j3aTTaA.oyew ("babble") in a variety of ways, but the synonymous 7TOA.v>..oyla ("verbosity") makes sure we understand what is meant. The most natural understanding would take it to refer to repetitiveness in prayer language, but there are other options as well. The onomatopoetic word j3aTTaA.oyew occurs only once (hapax legomenon) in the New Testament. 269 It could refer to seemingly meaningless magical gibberish (voces magicae) as we find them in the Greek Magical Papyri. 270 Or the word could point to a foreign language, which to the ignorant sounds like babbling. Another parallel is the inarticulate oracular speech of the Pythia and the Sibyl, which had to be translated into intelligible language by "exegetes," who then passed the oracles on to the people consulting the deity. 271 Greek cultural historians had theorized that inarticulate sounds preceded human language as an instrument of communication, so that babbling would amount to a relapse into the pitiful conditions before the coming of civilization. 272 Perhaps all these connotations were on the mind of the author when he chose the term. Those scholars who are looking for a Semitic source2 73 of the term must be disappointed because the

263 On Ps.-Piato Alcibiades Minor see above, p. 342. 264 On this passage see also the Introduction to this section above, n. 143. 265 The command is formulated as an aorist subjunctive; see BDF, § 337; BDR, § 337. 266 The particle Ill ("and" or "but") connects vss 7 and 6, but it implies an affirmation of the ritual as well. 267 The "pagans" are viewed here, in 5:47, and in 6:32 from a Jewish perspective (see Betz, Essays, 19 n. 6). Differently, Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary, 109-1 0, 116) thinks of the 'am hli- 'lire~. 268 B sy< mae, however, read fnrOI..oylw in Vita et sententiae Aesopi Achiqari 109 (ed. Denis, Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum Graecorum, P· 139, lines 1-2): EV orv'!' ,.~ fJaTTOAO')IfL

364

uo..oylw," TDNT 1.597; Spicq, Notes, 1.179-81; Horst Balz, EWNT (EDNT), s. v.; and BAGD, s.v. fJarra>..oylw. 270 An example would the repetition of vowels, such as a ee eee iiii ooooo yyyyyy ooooooo (PGM 1.15). For the great variety of voces magicae see Betz, Greek Magical Papyri, passim. 271 See esp. Plutarch, De Pythiae oraculis 6-9, 397A398E, with the commentary by Wayne G. Rollins in PECL 1.108-13, also 133, 148, 269; David E. Aune, "Magic in Early Christianity," ANRW II, 23/2 (1980) 1507-57, esp. 1549-51; Gerhard Dautzenberg, "Giossolalie," RAG 11 (1981) 225-46. 272 See Diodorus Sic. 1.8.3-4, and for the interpretation

Matthew 6:1-1 8

word f3arraA.oyEw is pure Greek, and attempts to relate it to an Aramaic word have failed. 2 74 This word in effect is one of the sure signs that the SM is not a translated text but Greek from the beginning. The appropriate way to pray is obviously the opposite of the caricature of the "babbler." What is intended by this caricature? If prayer is communication with God, "babbling" is not the proper way of communicating with him. What kind of language is then the appropriate one? This question was more difficult to answer in antiquity than one would imagine today. Among the answers that the ancients could have given, the polemic of the SM is directed against the magicians. The methods used by the magicians were based on the view that in order to communicate with the gods one must know and speak in the gods' own language. The so-called voces magicae, appearing to be nothing but gibberish, were believed to be that language. 275 This magical language theory, however, is implicitly rejected by the SM. Positively, the conversation between the person at prayer and God, as envisioned by the SM, is peculiar indeed. God is to be addressed in simple human language, but God is not

expected to answer in that same language. Indeed, God does not answer at all. Instead, he responds, but his response precedes the petition. Moreover, since the prayer has been revealed to the petitioner beforehand by the teacher of the instruction, the person at prayer merely repeats what has been learned, so that in effect the prayer is the human response to God's aforegoing actions. The reason, therefore, why the prayer can occur in human language is that it is the human response to what God has ordained and revealed to the teacher. 2 76 God's own language is not involved at all. The caricature of the babbler also stands in continuity with Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom literature and Greek popular philosophy, where criticism of talkativeness of any kind is frequently made apart from exhortation, especially as it relates to prayer. 277 This tradition of criticism of prayer reaches as far back as Egyptian wisdom. The instruction on prayer of the SM has at this point its closest parallels in Eccl 5:2-3:27 8 Do not rush into speech, let there be no hasty utterance in God's presence. God is in heaven, you are on earth; so let your words be few. (NEB) In Egyptian wisdom, in the "Instruction of Ani" 4, 279 we

Walter Spoerri, Spiithellenistische Berichte ilber Welt, Kultur und Cotter (SBA 9; Basel: Reinhardt, 1959) 134-43. 273 See BDF, § 40; BDR, § 40; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 109 (Sermon, 104-5); Luz, Matthiius, 1.330 n. 3 (Matthew, 1.364 n. 3); F. Bussby, "A Note on p'aKa (Matthew V. 22) and fJa-rro>..oy£w (Matthew VI. 7) in the Light of Qumran," ExpT 76 (1964/65) 26; Nigel Turner, "Jewish and Christian Influence on New Testament Vocabulary," NovT 16 (1974) 149-60, esp. 149: "coined perhaps from Aramaic." Undecided is Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary, 116-1 7). 274 So Chantraine, Dictionnaire, 1.170, s.v. fJa-rrapl(w. 275 Cf. PGM IV.605-10, where the magician invokes the deity: "I invoke the immortal names, living and honored, which never pass into mortal nature and are not declared in articulate speech by human tongue or mortal speech or mortal sound." The statement is followed by voces magicae. See Hans Dieter Betz, "The Formation of Authoritative Tradition in the Greek Magical Papyri," in Ben Meyer and E. P. Sanders, eds.,jewish and Christian Self-Definition (3 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980, 1981, 1983) 3.161-70; reprinted in Betz, Hellenismus und Urchristentum, 173-83; Peter Crome, Symbol und

Hirschle, Sprachphilosophie und Namenmagie im Neuplatonismus (BKP 96; Meisenheim: Hain, 1979). 276 For the importance of the teacher see alsoJas 3:118. 277 On talkativeness see Heinz Gerd Ingenkamp, "Geschwatzigkeit," RAG 10 (1978) 829-37; on Plutarch's essay "On Garrulity" (De garrulitate), see William A. Beardslee in PECL 2.264-88. A sharp critique of babbling in prayer is made by Origen (De orat. 21.2; GCS 2.8, pp. 345-46); see Gessel, Theologie, 143-48. 278 See also Sir 7:14: "Never be garrulous among your elders or repeat yourself when you pray"; also Sir 20:5;Job 13:5. On the whole point see Heinemann, Philons griechische und judische Bildung, 520. 279 Trans. by John Wilson, ANET, 420-21. The Instruction of Ani is dated in the 11th to 8th century BCE; see also Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2.137; Garth Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1986) 70-71.

Unzuliinglichkeit der Sprache: Jamblichos, Plotin, Porphyrios, Proklos (Munich: Fink, 1970); Maurus

365

find nearly all the ideas that appear in the SM: Do not talk a lot. Be silent, and thou wilt be happy. Do not be garrulous. The dwelling of God, its abomination is clamor. Pray thou with a loving heart, all the words of which are hidden, and he will do what thou needest, he will hear what thou sayest, and he will accept thy offering. In Greek literature and philosophy, aBoA.mxla ("chatter," "loquaciousness") is described in one ofTheophrastus's Characters (chap. 3 ),2 80 and by a full treatise on the subject in Plutarch's Moralia. 281 The widespread evidence of exhortations against loquaciousness in antiquity means that the topic was transcultural in nature, and that the SM has taken the matter up from its cultural context, 282 in which the fault is also designated as al<paula >..6-yov ("incontinence of speech"). 283 Among the Greek philosophers the concern for ethically defensible prayers seems to have begun with Pythagoras. 284 According to Diodorus Siculus Pythagoras "used to assert that in their supplications men should pray simply for 'all good things' [Taya8a], and not name them singly, as, for example, power, strength, beauty, wealth, and the like; for it frequently happens that any one of these works to the utter ruin of those who receive them in reply to their desire." 285 Philostratus reports about Apollonius ofTyana's

teaching on prayer that because of the gods' omniscience he recommended short prayers, like "0 ye gods, grant unto me that which I deserve" (6> Owl. BotrJTE p.ot Ta c)(JmA.6p.wa). 286 The opposite and false approach would be to try to purchase the divine verdict,2 87 or, as the Romans called it, to "wear out the gods" ("deos fatigare"). 288 Also in Roman philosophy, commendations of quiet and short prayers were part of the teaching about prayer. In his Ep. 10.4, Seneca deals explicitly with the need to change prayer habits: "As for your former prayers, you may dispense the gods from answering them; offer new prayers; pray for a sound mind and for good health, first of soul and then of body. And of course you should offer those prayers frequently. Call boldly upon God; you will not be asking him for that which belongs to another."2 89 Seneca then quotes a saying from a treatise "On Superstition" by Athenodorus, a student of Posidonius: "Know that thou art freed from all desires when thou hast reached such a point that thou prayest to God for nothing except that which thou canst pray for openly." 290 Seneca concludes with a polemic against the practice of whispering indecent prayers. 291 One will have to say as a result that "babbling" is not a fair description of all "pagan" prayer, but the description was never intended to be objective. As caricature it is part of Jewish polemic against "paganism." 292 This kind

280 See Peter Steinmetz, Theophrast: Gharaktere (2 vols.; Munich: Hueber, 1960, 1962) 2.53-61. 281 Plutarch De garrulitate, Moralia 502B-515A; see above, n. 277. 282 See Prov 10:18-21; Matt 12:34-37, esp. 36;Jas 1:26; 3:1-12. 283 On this concept see Ingenkamp, RAG 10.829-30. 284 For the passages I am indebted to Isidore Levy, La legende de Pythagore de Grece en Palestine (Paris: Champion, 1927) 317. 285 Diodorus Sic. 10.9.8 (trans. C. H. Oldfather [LCL; reprinted Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London: Heinemann, 1956]4.69). 286 Philostratus Vita Apoll. 1.11; see also 4.40. 287 Ibid. 1.11: wvo!Jp.
366

Heinemann, 191 7]1.59). 290 Ibid., 10.5: "Tunc scito esse te omnibus cupiditatibus solutum, cum eo perveneris, tu nihil deum roges, nisi quod rogare possis palam." I am indebted for this reference to Heinrich Dorrie, "Gottesvorstellung," RAG 12 (1983) 81-154, esp. 147-48. 291 This line of tradition was taken up by the church fathers; see the references in Luz, Matthiius, 1.330 nn. 6-8 (Matthew, 1.365 nn. 6-8). 292 Such caricaturing begins in the OT; see Horst Dietrich Preuss, Verspottungfremder Religionen im Alten Testament (BWANT 92; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971). The classic example of the pagan prayer is the invocation of Baal by his priests in 1 Kgs 18:25-29. Interestingly, as Heinemann (Philons griechische und judische Bildung, 513, 520) observes, Philo shows surprisingly little concern about pagan prayers; cf. von Severus, RAG 8.1168-69.

Matthew 6:1-18

of polemic always takes up phenomena found in the "other" religion, selecting the less agreeable if not outrightly ridiculous things. 293 Anyone who looks for babbling pagans will find them, but the babblers have also been criticized, as we have seen, by other "pagans." The purpose of these exaggerations is not so much a concern for "the pagans" but for the characterization of their opposites, the religiously proper forms of Jewish worship. The polemics against the "pagans," like much of this sort of polemic, has to do primarily with self-identity and demarcation of the conduct of one's own religion from that of others. At any rate, the important thing for the SM is that it concurs with Judaism in condemning any form of "paganization." This evidence again points to the SM as still being part of Judaism. The polemic continues in vs 7b with an equally sarcastic characterization of "pagan" theology: "for they think that by their verbosity they will be heard" (BoKovow yap CJn lv rii 7rOAVAoyl'!- avrwv duaKOVO'OVTat). The word BoKEW at once renders that theology erroneous ("they are of the [false] opinion"). 294 The claim that their gods 295 will hear them "through their verbosity"2 96 is based on the magical understanding of language. Since the words of prayer contain magical power-at least this is the assumption-repetition and multiplicity increase that power, compelling the gods to pay attention. 297 It is further presupposed in this theory that unless called

upon in such compelling ways the gods do not care, and unless informed about the person's needs they do not know what to do. These ideas and assumptions are declared "pagan" because they are incompatible with Jewish religion. Fairness demands mention, however, that many pagan philosophers had long since made the same point. 298 Indeed, some of the language and ideas used by the SM may have previously been taken over into Judaism from originally "pagan" backgrounds. To the SM, the rejected ideas and corresponding practices are nothing but manifestations of pagan stupidity. In a way typical for some forms of Judaism at this time, paganism is shown to be in need of enlightenment. When that enlightenment comes, people will turn away from this false religion to the true religion. One can connect precisely this expectation with Jewish apologetics and also with the early Christian mission as reflected in the letters of Paul. 299 • 8 The positive statement concerning a theology of prayer is prefaced by the exhortation, "Therefore, do not become like them" (p.T, ol!v op.otw8iju avro'i:s). This warning against assimilation is typical ofJudaism, but unique in the New Testament; 300 its presence in the SM is strong evidence that it comes from a Jewish background.301

293 This kind of polemic was taken over by Christianity. In the NT see esp. Acts I9:34. Scholars usually refer to the long recitations of divine epithets in Greek and Roman prayers. See Norden, Agnostos Theos, 146-49; von Severus, RAG 8.1138, 1142-43, 1155-58; Burkhard Gladigow, "Gottesnamen (Gottesepitheta) I (allgemein)," RAG I1 (198I) 1202-38, esp. 122224, I229-31. 294 See also Matt 26:53; Mark 6:49; Luke 12:51, and the references in BAGD, s. v. SoK,w, I.d. 295 The use of the passivum divinum in €luaKovu6~uovTa< ("they will be heard") makes it possible for the SM to avoid naming the pagan gods. See BAGD, s.v. £luaKoVro, 2. 296 See Tholuck, Bergrede, 343-45 (Commentary, 309I2); BAGD (s. v. 7rollvlloyla) renders "much speaking, wordiness," and with regard to 6:7: "with their many words." See also Luke II :2 (D), and BAGD, s.v. 7roll611allor. For further references see Christian Maurer, "7rollvlloyla," TDNT 6.545-46. D6lger (Sol Salutis [see above, n. 253]65-66) refers to the patristic passages in Justin A pol. 1.65; Clement Alex.

Paed. 2.7.59.4(ed. Stahlin, 1, I93, 1-5);andStrom.

7.7.6 (ed. Stahlin, I, 37, 9). 297 One could illustrate this magical concept by numerous passages from the Greek Magical Papyri, e.g., PGM III.704; IV.74, 573, 619, 925-26, 958. 298 See the large collection of texts assembled by Henricus Schmidt, Veteres philosophi quomodo iudicaverint de precibus (RVV 4.1; Giefien: T6pelmann, I907); and Hermann Kleinknecht, Die Gebetsparodie in der Antike (TBA 28; Stuttgart and Berlin: Kohlhammer, I937). 299 See I Thess I:9-IO; Gal4:9-10; 1 Cor 8:4-6; I 0: 19-22; 12:2, to name only the most important passages. 300 See, however, SM/Matt 7:24-27; also 5:I3-I6; 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 (see Betz, Galatians, 329-30); Barn. 4.2, 6; I0.4-7. In the book of Revelation, one can compare the warnings against worship of the demons as well (see Rev 9:20; 13:4, 8, 12; etc.). 301 On assimilation in judaism see Hengel, judaism and Hellenism, index, s.v. Apostasy, Assimilation; Arnaldo Momigliano, Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization

367

In contrast to vs 7, vs 8b formulates in one sentence what is offered as approved doctrine concerning prayer: "for your Father knows which need you have before you ask him" (oTa£v yap 0 1TaT~P vp.wv ~v XP£lav ~X£T£ 7rp0 TOV vp.as alTiiiTa' ahov). 302 The statement is dogmatic in nature and in the present context a reminder of what is recommended as "orthodox" teaching. 303 According to this doctrine, the only form of prayer that one can justify is that which is based on God's sovereignty and omniscience. 304 This doctrine involves a number of aspects that I need to discuss briefly. 1. The God addressed as "your Father" is the God of creation. He created those who turn to him in prayer. As their creator he cares for his creatures from the beginning to the end. 2. That human beings like all other creatures "have need" (XP£lav ~X£'v) is not the result of God's insufficient creation or lack of knowledge about the whereabouts of his creatures. He not only knows about these needs but even created them. These needs have a positive purpose and role to play in the governance of the cosmos. They are bound up with the notion of righteousness understood as the just distribution of the good. 3. When people turn to God with petitions, they do so because they are faced with needs they themselves are unable to take care of. Naming these needs presumes that they know what their needs are. Antiquity regarded

this presumption as potentially dangerous. While a hungry person certainly knows the need for food, other people, especially the wealthy and the powerful, asking for ever more and better things, fail to understand what their real needs are. People's real needs may be entirely different from momentary urgencies or misdirected desires and ambitions. Only God, through his omniscience, knows our real needs. 4. Therefore, there is no point in attempting to inform God about what we think our needs are and to urge him to take care of them. He already knows, and that not only because he knows the secrets of the human heart prior to any articulation of prayer but also because, as the God of righteousness, he knows how things should be distributed justly. 5. As a result, legitimate prayer must pay attention to these theological ideas. If this is done seriously, the end of the conventional prayer has come. What then is prayer, especially petitionary prayer? This is the question to which the instruction on prayer in 6:7-13 (15) responds. While the concept of divine fatherhood is common in the SM, 305 the concern about human need (XP£la) appears only here. 306 This view about human need deserves future consideration. 30 7 In ancient anthropology all creatures are distinguished by the fact that they are in need of something at all times.

(Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975). 302 Some manuscripts tend to expand the reference to include the word "God." When IC 1 B sa mae Origen read o8€bS o'lraT~p vp.wv ("God your Father"), this may be intended to avoid confusion with a human father (cf. 7:9-11). This longer name is, however, untypical for the SM. The reading o'lraT~P vp.wv o ol!pav&os ("your heavenly Father") by 892<. 1424 pc syh conforms to passages elsewhere in the SM (5:48; 6:14, 26, 32), but the shorter reading seems more original; it is read by the majority of good witnesses (IC* D L W 8 j(ll IS 33. 892*. 1006. 1342. 1506 9Jt sy'·c bo). Peculiar to D his the variant avo"i!a• Tb uTOp.a ("open your mouth") in place of alTijua• al!Tov ("ask him"). It presupposes that reflection has occurred about when such asking should take place, whether by mouth or in the heart first. Accordingly, God who knows the human heart (cf., e.g., Acts 1:24; 15:8) knows one's petitions before one opens the mouth. See also Metzger, Textual Commentary, 15-16. 303 See Rom 8:29; 11:2; 2 Cor 11:11; 1 Pet 1:20. See also RudolfBultmann, TDNT 1.715-16. For OT

368

304

305 306 307

wisdom texts see Sir 42:18; Wis 19:1; Ps 139:1, to name some important passages. So, rightly, Luz (Matthiius, 1.331 [Matthew, 1.36566]), who points to the parallels in SM/Matt 7:7-11; Luke 11 :5-8; 18:2-7. See furthermore SM/Matt 6:25-34. Luz (ibid. n. 12) rightly refers toP. Insinger (c. 300 BCE), where the 24th instruction reads: "When the people raise their hands the god knows it. He knows the impious man who thinks of evil. He knows the godly man and that he has the greatness of the god in his heart. Before the tongue has been questioned the god knows its answers" (trans. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 3.209). See on SM/Matt 5:16,45, 48; 6:1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 18, 26, 32; 7:11, 21. On the Lord's Prayer, see also below on SM/Matt 6:9-13, 14-15, and on 6:25-34; 7:7-11. See below on SM/Matt 6:25-34. Despite the importance of the concept of need, there appears to be no special investigation, nor does TDNT have an article. See Betz, Essays, 105 with n. 55, 109-10, 115 n. 90.

Matthew 6:1-18

This idea has played an important role in Greek philosophy, especially in connection with theories about the origins of human civilization. According to Diodorus Siculus 1.8.5-9, "need" was the teacher of primitive humanity in that it forced them to develop the arts and sciences in order to cope with these needs. 308 There were further ideas on this topic. 309 Perceived needs may be wrong needs, based on error or folly; preoccupation with wrong needs, which in truth may not be needs at all, may prevent people from perceiving their real needs. 310 Whatever the case may be, there was widespread agreement in antiquity that only the deity can know what is truly good and, therefore, what our real needs are and how they can be met. As I have pointed out before, this view was accepted by large sectors of Hellenistic philosophy. 311 In this context, "need" (XP~ta) is not anything specific and not a plurality of things but a general condition such as deprivation, confusion, perversion-in short, imbalances in the distribution of the good. It is part of God's responsibility for justice that the right balance is restored, but only God knows how the benefits should be distributed justly. 312 What do these doctrines mean for the proper performance of prayer? For one thing, they apply principally to the petitionary prayer. This point is indicated by the term alT€w ("ask"). 313 The petitionary prayer is concerned with a person's needs, while the intercessory prayer intervenes on behalf of others; the thanksgiving prayer is called for after the needs of a person have been met. 314 Furthermore, the SM has

properly classified the Lord's Prayer that is to follow as a petitionary prayer. For the SM the Lord's Prayer not only fulfills the requirements of prayer, but as an authoritative paradigm it defines what God regards to be the "real needs" of humanity. The Lord's Prayer has been designed from the perspective of God. Therefore, the petitions of this prayer are based not on human desires, urgencies, ambitions, or selfishness but on God's wisdom. Praying the Lord's Prayer affirms these needs and expresses confidence and trust in God's beneficence. • 9 After presenting the theology of prayer in vss 7-8, vs 9a repeats the reference to the performance, "Thus, therefore, you shall pray: ... " (oilTw~ o~v 7rpoud;xHr8~ vp.~'i~). There are some observations to be made regarding this seemingly brief and unimportant little phrase introducing the Lord's Prayer. The movement of argument began with the critique of wrong performance (vs 7a) and wrong theory (vs 7b), in order then to turn to the correct theory (vs 8), and now to the correct practice (vs 9a), exemplified by the Lord's Prayer (vss 9b-13), and supplied with further application in vss 14-15. The argument, therefore, is presented chiastically; the conjunction o~v ("therefore") serves as affirmation of the theology ofvss 7-8. The plural pronoun "you" (vp.~'i~) determines that the Lord's Prayer is a group prayer, more so than a "private" prayer (cf. above on 6:6). The verb 7rpoue{;x~u(l£ ("you shall pray") expresses an imperative as well as an indicative force, thus affirming the continued use of the Lord's Prayer in the community from which the text came. 315

each according to his or her needs," see U. 308 In conclusion (Diodorus Sic. I.8.9): "Instead, Schiinpflug, "Bediirfnis," HWPh I (I97I) 765-7I; speaking generally, in all things it was necessity Hans Reiner, "Bediirfnislosigkeit," ibid., 77I-73. [XP•la] itself that became man's teacher, supplying in 3I3 See also SM/Matt 7:7-II, and BAGD, s.v. alr,w, appropriate fashion instruction in every matter to a with references; von Severus, RAG 8.II70; Gustav creature which was well endowed by nature and had, Stahlin, "ah'w KTA.," TDNT I.I92-93 (2.b). Walter as its assistants for every purpose, hands and speech Radl, EWNT(EDNT) I, s.v. aldw. and sagacity of mind" (trans. Oldfather; LCL, 1.3I). 3I4 For discussion and references see Betz, 2 Corinthians 309 See Spoerri, Spiithellenistische Berichte (see above, n. 8 and 9, index, s.v. Intercession, and Thanksgiving. 272) I44-48: "Not, Nutzen und Erfahrung als 3I5 Grammatically, the verb 7rpocu6x
369

One can say, therefore, that the doctrinal frame ofthe SM, in which the Lord's Prayer is set, is secondary with regard to the prayer and its performance in the community. The doctrine is set forth only now, while the prayer was performed earlier. This leads me to conclude that the Lord's Prayer must have preceded the formulation of the SM; it preceded as an oral text. 316 The adverb "thus" (ol!rws) does not introduce the Lord's Prayer as a new entity but as an example well known to the readers already. 317 For this reason it has an agreedupon authority. Indeed, the readers are simply reminded of the prayer they are used to, and they are to take its citation as confirmation of the tradition. 318 Within the SM, the introductory statement in vs 9a is an integral element of the composition of the cultic instruction and not, as some commentators would have it, a later insertion made by the evangelist Matthew. 319

Excursus: The Lord's Prayer 1. The Recensions (Matt 6:9b-13; Luke 11: 1-4; Did. 8.2) The Lord's Prayer (the name deriving from the Greek rov Kvplov 7rpo
370

bility the three recensions are textually independent of each other; this view does not exclude the fact that they are related in their dependence on common tradition. Scholars have spent a great deal of energy on the question of which of the recensions is the earliest or even the original one. For the most part, the discussions have ignored the character of the prayer as an oral text. Liturgical material such as this type of prayer derives, when it is written down, from oral tradition. It is characteristic of liturgical material in general that textual fixation occurs at a later stage in the transmission of these texts, while in the oral stage variability within limits is the rule. These characteristics also apply to the Lord's Prayer. The three recensions, therefore, represent variations of the prayer in the oral tradition. When they were written down, these variant forms of the prayer became textually fixed. As a result I can state that there was never only one original written Lord's Prayer. The somewhat fluid state of the textual tradition, which one can observe in the critical apparatus of the editions of the New Testament as well as the church fathers, means that the oral tradition continued to exert an influence on the written text of the New Testament well into later times. Even present-day church liturgies use the Lord's Prayer in different forms, and that in spite of many attempts to come to an agreement about using one standardized version in all churches. None of these attempts at standardization has ever succeeded. Rather than an indication of failure, this situation is simply an indication of the nature and function of oral texts. The three extant recensions have come from the respective church traditions in which they were in use: the churches of Matthew, Luke, and the Didache. 3 2° While the scribes copying the New Testament subject, did not need to be textually fixed. As for oral texts, spontaneous variation within a set of rules was even desirable as a method of internal appropriation. For relevant texts see Abrahams, Studies, 2.84 n. 2. In his important chapter, "The Development of Prayers and the Problem of the 'Original Text,'" Heinemann (Prayer in the Talmud, 43) states the matter succinctly: "Therefore, we must lay down as a fundamental axiom for liturgical studies which would examine developmentally the texts of the various prayers that from the first no single 'original' text of any particular prayer was created, but that originally numerous diverse texts and versions existed side by side. It follows, then, that the widely accepted goal of the philological method-viz., to discover or to reconstruct the one 'original' text of a particular composition by examining and comparing the extant

Matthew6:1-18

manuscripts were aware of the two New Testament versions, 521 the discovery ofthe Didache revealed that other versions must have existed in antiquity. Matthew's introductory adverb "thus" (ollrro~) may even imply that the SM was aware of other versions and recommends the one used by its community. Today, we know of even more versions of the Lord's Prayer that were in use in the ancient church. 522 . Scholars have discussed intriguing questions in view of the existence ofthe three (or more) recensions. Which of the recensions represents the original Lord's Prayer?32S Who added or subtracted those elements peculiar to or missing from one ofthem? IfJesus of Nazareth first taught the Lord's Prayer to his disciples, how could they not remember and transmit the precise version he taught them? 324 Which of the versions, if any, was represented in Q? 325 Which changes occurred in the presynaptic tradition, and which changes were

321 322 323

324

325

textual variants one with another-is out of place in the field of liturgical studies." The matter was already stated clearly by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (Theologischer NachlajJ [Berlin: VoB, 1784]76): "Das Vater Unser wurde gebetet, ehe es bey dem Matthaus zu lesen war. DennJesus selbst hatte es seineJiinger beten gelehrt" ("The Lord's Prayer was prayed before it could be read in Matthew. For Jesus himself had taught his disciples to pray it"). Lessing states the matter in section 5 of his "Theses aus der Kirchengeschichte" to show that the oral tradition preceded the written texts. Following Heinemann, Prayer, 63. See Tholuck, Bergrede, 350-54 (Commentary, 31922). Cf. the fragmentary version ofthe Lord's Prayer in the Antinoopolis Papyri (ed.J. W. B. Barnes and H. Zilliacus, The Antinoopolis Papyri, vol. 2 [London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1960]) 6-7 and plate IV verso. On this see also Ernst Bammel, "A New Text of the Lord's Prayer," ExpT 73 (1961-62) 54. For citations of the Lord's Prayer in magical material see PGM 2.217 (P 9); 2.235 (0 4); PGM LXXXIII (Betz, Greek Magical Papyri, 300; Robert Daniel and Franco Maltomini, Supplementum Magicum I [Papyrologica Coloniensia 16.1; Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1990] no. 29, pp. 79-82); Horsley, Nw Documents, 3.103-5; 4.191; 5.144. See Carmignac, Recherches, 18-28; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 111-12 (Sermon, I 07 -8); Luz, Matthii.us, 1.334-36 (Matthw, 1.369-72). Schulz (Q, 87, 93) believes that the oldest version (Luke II :2b-4) was the prayer of the JewishChristian Q-community in Palestine. Cf. Strecker, Bergpredigt, 122 n. 40 (Sermon, 209 n. 40); Kloppenborg, Formation, 203-6. For a list of names of

introduced by the Gospel writers, Matthew and Luke?326 If the Lord's Prayer was part of Q, it must have become a part of it after the two versions of Q developed: Q/Matt received its prayer together with the SM, while Q/Luke received its version of the Lord's Prayer not as part of the SP but together with another instruction on prayer (Luke 11 :2-13). 32? The Lord's Prayer became part of the Didache in the second stage of its development, when specifically Christian cultic materials were added (Did 8.2; cf. I 0.5). 328 The differences among the three recensions point to an independent transmission prior to the fixations in writing, so that I do not assume that any one of them is textually dependent on another.329

326

327

328

329

scholars who do not attribute the Lord's Prayer to Q, see Kloppenborg, Q-Parallels, 84. Michael D. Goulder ("The Composition of the Lord's Prayer," JTS 14 [1963]32-45) assumes that the Lord's Prayer is entirely a creation of the evangelists. Accordingly, while Mark 14:32-42 has only reminiscences ofJesus' general ideas about prayer, Matthew, by taking up older Jewish prayer materials, has formulated his version, which Luke had at his disposal and shortened. Sjef van Tilborg(" A FormCriticism of the Lord's Prayer," NovT 14 [ 1972]94105) also postulates (p. 95) "that the origin of the Lord's Prayer must be sought in a liturgical development of the Gethsemane story" (Mark 14:3242). Cf. Strecker (Bergpredigt, 112 [Sermon, 107-8]), who does not completely rule out changes made by the evangelists. Against Luz (Matthii.us, 1.334-35 [Matthw, 1.36970]), who assumes that the Didache knew Matthew and referred to the items of fasting, praying, and hypocrites from memory, not by copying Matthew's text. Luz, however, remains unclear about what he means by "receiving the Matthean texts in the form in which they remained in the memory of the community" (370). If the Didache was familiar with the pre-Matthean Lord's Prayer, which Matthew also took over from his church tradition, then why does Didache need Matthew's text, even if only by memory, to know the Lord's Prayer? Would it not be logical to conclude that both Didache and Matthew knew the prayer from their respective church traditions? Similarly ambivalent is Kohler, Rezeption, 30-36. Strecker's formulation is unclear (Bergpredigt, Ill n. 33 [Sermon, 209 n. 33]): "The oldest post-New

371

The three recensions may be compared as follows: Matt 6:9b-13 7rtl'T'Ep ~p.wv 0 Ev rots oVpavoLs· a:y&au6~'TW \

I

J/

Luke 11:2b-4 7r1Lr£p,

Did. 8.2 1raTEp ~p.wv

0 Ev r{il oVpav(iJ· ay&au6~'TW \

ay&au6~'TW \

I

J/

I

J/

TO OVOJ.L« D'OV"

TO OVOIJ-a O"OV"

TO OVOJ.La O"OV"

f.A6tTw

f.'A6t'TW

~ {3au&AELa uov·

~ {3au&AEla O'OV'

To 6tA"'P.a uov,

f.A8£rw ~ {3au&AEla uov· ')'EV"16~'TW rh 8tA71JJ.0. uov,

Ws fv oVpavjp

Ws Ev oVpavfp

')'EV'I/6~'TW

Kai

f7Tl yfjs· \

,,

'

,

t:

Kal Ewl yfjs· rhv H.prov i]p.Wv

"'

rhv llprov T,,.,.Wv ' £1i'LOVCTtOV , ' TOV

'TOV ap'TOV "'!J.WV

lios ~p.'iv u~p.Epov· Ka\ ll.<j>Es ~p.'iv

ObS ~!J.LV 'Tb Ka6' ~p.tpav· lios ~p.'iv u~p.EpOV' Ka\ ll.<j>Es ~p.'iv Kalll.cf>Es i],Uv

Ta o<j>EIA~p.aTa ~p.wv,

Tas ap.apnas "'!J.WV, ' aV'TOI , \ Ka&' yap

t:

'('

....

'

'

TOV f?TLOVUI.OV

\

('

'

,

'

TOV £7TLOVULOV

t:

...

'T~V o<j>EIA~V ~p.wv,

('

't . .

WS Ka& "1/J-EIS a<j>lEp.EV TOts o<j>E&AETa&s

WS Kal "'!J.EIS a<j>~Kap.EV TOts o<j>nAtTa&S

wavrl 6cpclAovrL

~p.wv·

~p.'iv·

~p.wv·

Ka\ p.~ EiuEVt')'K1/S ~p.as , 7rE&paup.ov, ' EIS a)l.)l.a pvua& ~p.as , ' 'TOV"" 7r0V"'POV. .... a1ro

Ka\ p.~ ElO'EVt')'K1/S ~p.as , 7rE&paup.ov. ' EIS

Ka\ !J.~ ElO'EVl')'K1/S , 7rE&paup.ov, ' EIS

a<j>lop.EV

aHa pvua& ~p.as cl?r0 roV wov7]poV.

Joachim Jeremias has suggested that the two versions of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew and Luke have come from two different catechetical instructions. Accordingly, Matthew's "catechism" speaks to people who have been familiar with prayer from their youth onward but who are seen as being in danger of mere routinization. By contrast, the Lukan "catechism" is intended for people who are "just beginning to learn how to pray and who need encouragement." Indeed, "Matthew has transmitted to us a catechism for JewishTestament witness is the quotation in Did. 8:2, which largely agrees with the Matthew text and directly or indirectly presupposes it." 330 Jeremias, Abba, 157 (ET: The Prayers ofjesus [trans. John Bowden et al.; SBT 2.6; London: SCM; Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1967] 88). It is not altogether clear why Jeremias still pursues the quest for one original version (Abba, 157-60 [Prayers, 8794]). 331 Ernst Lohmeyer (Das Vater-Unser [AThANT 23; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1952; 5th ed. 1962]207-11 [ET: "Our Father" (trans. John Bowden; New York: Harper & Row, 1965) 291-96]) has suggested that the two versions represent the two points of origin of Christianity in Galilee and in Jerusalem. 332 This appears to be the consensus of scholarship; see

372

Christian, Luke one for Gentile-Christian prayer instruction. "330 This suggestion is indeed intriguing and it coincides with my hypothesis of the origin of the SM and the SP. 331 2. Authorship All ancient sources agree in ascribing the Lord's Prayer to Jesus of Nazareth as the original author. 332 There is no reason on scholarly grounds to doubt this ascription, because it meets the standard criteria of authenticity and inauthenticity as they have been developed by New Testament scholarship. Even if one accepts Jesus' authorship of the Lord's Prayer, however, one has numerous problems to consider. Typical of all prayers, the Lord's Prayer also consists of much material that was traditional at the time. When Jesus created this prayer, he did not create something altogether new, but he created it out of tradition. 333 For this reason, almost all the petitions in the Lord's Prayer have close parallels in older Jewish prayers. This way of creating prayers was and still is characteristic of most prayers. In order to make new prayers acceptable to a liturgical community, they must reflect the traditional language and form. Within this limit, one can introduce new elements that the worshiping community will accept. The originality of the prayer, therefore, lies in the conception of the prayer as a whole, in the selection and precise formulation of the petitions, and in its peculiar theology. The Lord's Prayer can be shown to have its own theology (see below, section 6). It is a Jewish, but a peculiarly Jewish, theology. This theology differs slightly depending on the versions one considers, and it is different from the literary contexts in which it is transmitted. The Lord's Prayer in the SM does not contain a reference to God's hiddenness or to his omniscience, Strecker, Bergpredigt, 112 (Sermon, 108); Luz, Matthiius, 1.336 (Matthew, 1.372). Differently, Schulz, Goulder, van Tilborg (see above, nn. 325, 326). 333 See Tholuck, Bergrede, 354-58 (Commentary, 32226), with reference to the parallels collected by Drusius, Grotius, Lightfoot, Schottgen, Wettstein, and others; for more recent collections of material see Dalman, Worte Jesu, 283-365; Fiebig, Str-B 1.406-24, and Friedlander. For the entire question see Michael Brocke and Jacob Petuchowski, eds., The Lord's Prayer and jewish Liturgy (trans. Elizabeth R. Petuchowski; New York: Seabury, 1978).

Matthew 6:1-18

and yet the authors of the instructions on prayer in vss 5-6 and 7-9a found their ideas confirmed by the Prayer. How these authors could have arrived at this conclusion is not entirely clear. They may have been able to draw on a larger body of knowledge than the present sources allow us to see. IfJesus originally formulated the prayer, no specific liturgical sources can be named. 334 Some famous older Jewish prayers (e.g., the Kaddish or the Shemoneh Esreh) provide parallels that come closer than others, but these prayers are as different among themselves as they are from the Lord's Prayer. In addition, the date of composition and original form of the Jewish prayers mentioned, not to speak of others, are disputed. All of them, like the Lord's Prayer, have had their origin in the oral tradition ofliturgicallife, and for some of them we have different versions or recensions. Therefore, we can conclude in regard to the Lord's Prayer that the ascription of this prayer to Jesus may indeed be historically correct, but that Jesus created the prayer out of traditional elements by giving it the form and content he wanted. This method must have been the same as that of other consciously formed prayers at the time. 3. Original Purpose and Function The assumption that Jesus created the Lord's Prayer leads to further conclusions. As for his mentor and teacher,John the Baptist (Luke 11:1), for Jesus also prayer must have been a matter of high priority. Prayer was more than ritual observance and duty. A prayer is always also a theological statement and a tool for theological instruction. Not only serving as a means for communicating with God, prayers are vehicles of theology informing those who pray. Prayers therefore were always a component of catechetical instruction. This is true also of the Lord's Prayer. Having been learned and internalized, the Lord's Prayer leads to funher theological reflection. This is how the instructions on prayer, in which the Prayer is now embedded, came about, a process that continued into church history and the history of theology down to the present. If, as already pointed out, the Lord's Prayer stands in the middle of the SM, this prominent location is not an accident. 335 Occupying the center of the cultic instruction of6:1-18, the Lord's Prayer stands also in the middle of the SM as a whole. The SM creates the

image of a praying Jesus in the center with his disciples surrounding him. This image also occurs in some narrative texts of the gospel tradition (see esp. Mark 14:22-25 par.; 14:32-42 par.;John 16:23-33; 17:126). One of the questions that has received much attention in past scholarship was whether Jesus prayed the Lord's Prayer himself or made it up specifically for his disciples (vs 9a: "This is how you shall pray"). 336 Some have argued that Jesus could not have spoken the fifth petition concerning the forgiveness of sins because he would thereby have admitted his own sinfulness and would have contradicted the church's dogma of his sinlessness. Yet this argument is a result of Christian christology, not the Jewish theology shared by Jesus. As aJew,Jesus must certainly have acknowledged his sinfulness because such a confession belonged to the marks of the righteous man. 33 7 With God's forgiveness, which was assured to everyone who sincerely asked him for it, "sinlessness" in the Jewish sense was restored. The later Christian concept of Jesus' sinlessness, however, presupposes a concept of sin different from the Jewish one. For Judaism sinfulness is a part of human limitation and consists of transgressions, committed consciously and unconsciously, of God's commandments, whereas the Christian notion of sin presupposes that demonic forces of evil possess humanity, which is hence alienated from God. In the Christian sense, Jesus was thought to be without sin (cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Gal3:13; John 8:46; etc.). What did Jesus intend by the creation of this prayer? One can only speculate about this question because none of the sources is explicit about it. The context suggests that the Lord's Prayer was part of his criticism of the Jewish cult, especially regarding prayer. In composing this prayer, "Jesus is here expressing his approval ofthe tradition of private prayer, which he considers preferable to the prayer of the Synagogue. "338 This conclusion by Joseph Heinemann may be correct to a degree. It does agree with the prayer instruction 6:7-8, which presupposes that the Lord's Prayer was to be used as a "private" prayer, but I have already pointed out that this context is secondary and in tension with the invocation of vs 9b ("Our Father"), which points to a group prayer. One cannot conclude from this prayer alone that Jesus disapproved of all

334 Differently, Davies, Setting, 4-5, 309-13. See also 336 See Tholuck, Bergrede, 350-54 (Commentary, 31922). Strecker, Bergpredigt, 113-14 (Sermon, 108-9). 335 It is astonishing that also in Boethius (De consolatione 337 Jeremias (Abba, 77-78 [Prayers, 77-78]) assumes that philosophiae Ill m. 9) a great prayer that has some Jesus prayed the Lord's Prayer three times daily; see also Abba, 70-73 (Prayers, 69-72). similarity with the Lord's Prayer stands in the middle of the work. I am indebted for this observation to 338 Heinemann, Prayer, 191. Willy Theiler, Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1966) 321-22.

373

public prayer in the synagogue. 339 Heinemann's summary assessment, therefore, is only partly acceptable: A prayer which is intimate and inward-directed in place of a public prayer; a brief prayer in place of a long series of benedictions; the simple popular style of a private prayer in place of the more formal and elaborate style of the Synagogue-prayer; a prayer in the vernacular Aramaic tongue in place of the literary or Scriptural style, in which the common folk were not sufficiently fluent; a prayer every man can pray for himself rather than one which he must hear recited by the Prayer Leader-such is the force ofJesus' instructions to his disciples and of his exemplary prayer. 340 Heinemann's characterization appears to be influenced primarily by the instruction on prayer (6:7-8) as well as by ideas about Jesus that come from modern scholarship outside the texts. One should note, however, that the Lord's Prayer itself does not contain any polemic against the synagogue. Its simplicity and brevity do not point to folk religion, and there is also no indication of an Aramaic vernacular behind this Greek prayer. It is true that it can be prayed by every person, educated or not, but this is precisely its theological purpose. The inward direction, which is certainly part of the prayer, does not preclude its use in common worship, as the history of the transmission shows. 341 4. Original Language The question whether the Lord's Prayer has been translated from the Aramaic or Hebrew has been discussed from the Middle Ages to the present. 34 2 There are also numerous attempts to "retranslate" the Prayer into the presumed original languages. It is, however, necessary to keep the following facts in mind: (a) The Lord's Prayer is attested only in Greek as

far as the oldest sources are concerned. As far as we know, versions in other languages are all translations from the Greek. (b) The suggestion by Jean Carmignac and others whose view he represents that there was a "substrat semitique" (Carmignac, Recherches, 52) remains unclear. Does it mean that Jesus' original composition specifically used the language of the common people, an Aramaic vernacular, for the purpose of wider communication? Or is it the Jewish prayer language generally that as a tradition goes back ultimately to the Hebrew? (c) No evidence suggests that Jesus regarded the Hebrew language as sacred or the Aramaic as popular and hence as appropriate for this prayer. The earliest sources give no indication that anything but the Greek was in use. Even the oldest sources have no doubt that the Lord's Prayer existed in Greek, as they themselves always did. Perhaps, as regards the Lord's Prayer, this is what actually happened. If so, it raises the question whether Jesus himself composed the prayer in Greek, or in both Greek and Aramaic (with the Aramaic version being lost). Or perhaps one of his disciples created a Greek version at a very early stage. A conclusive answer goes beyond what the evidence allows. (d)JoachimJeremias's hypothesis that Jesus' address of God as "Father" must be interpreted by the references to abba (a{3{3a) and understood to reflect Jesus' special relationship with God rests, to say the least, on shaky grounds. None of the recensions of the Lord's Prayer has the Aramaic abba, not even in Greek transliteration, whereas the references to the abba (Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15; Mark 14:36) show no evidence of knowing the Lord's Prayer. The oldest texts of the Lord's Prayer that, according to Jeremias's interpretation, should contain the abba, do not have it. 343

339 Cf. differently Heinemann, ibid., 192: "nonetheless it 342 See Carmignac, Recherches, 29-52; Pierre Grelot, is clear beyond all shadow of doubt that these words "L'arriere-plan arameen du 'Pater,"' RB 91 (1984) of Jesus are directed against the prayer of the 531-56; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 112 (Sermon, 107); Synagogue, and against fixed, statutory public prayer Luz, Matthiius, 1.336 (Matthew, 1.371-72), with in general. In its place, he prefers a simple prayer references. For the problem as a whole see James conforming to the tradition of popular private Barr, "Which Language Did Jesus Speak? Some Remarks of a Semitist," BJRL 52 (1970) 9-29; Hans prayer." 340 Ibid., 192. Dieter Betz, "Wellhausen's Dictum 'Jesus was not a 341 For the use of the Lord's Prayer in Christian worship Christian but a Jew' in Light of Present Scholarship," StTh 45 (1991) 83-110. see Did. 8.3: "Three times a day you shall pray thus" (Tpt~ Tij~ ~p.tpa~ ol!Tw 7rpotnvx
374

Matthew 6:1-18

Paul renders abba as b 7rar~p ("Father") in both Gal 4:6 and Rom 8: 15; the rendering also occurs in Mark 14:36, while Luke 11:2 has the vocative .,.&.np ("Father"), and Matt 6:9b and Did. 8.2 read .,.&.np ~JJ-WV ("Our Father"). The connection of these invocations with the Lord's Prayer remains speculative. Thus no evidence suggests that the Lord's Prayer as we have it was first composed in Aramaic or Hebrew and only then translated into Greek. 344 The obvious fact that the Prayer has been translated into many ancient languages does not mean that it was itself the result of translation. It may just as well have been the case that versions of the Prayer in several languages have existed side by side as they always did down to the present day. As for its relation to Judaism, the Lord's Prayer points to an origin in Hellenistic Judaism. 345 5. Composition and Literary Structure In regard to its composition, the Lord's Prayer in Zeller, "God as Father in the Proclamation and in the Prayer of Jesus," in Asher Finkel and Lawrence Frizzel, eds., Standing before God: Studies on Prayer in Scriptures and in Tradition with Essays in Honor ofJohn M. Oesterreicher (New York: KTAV, 1981) 117-29; Geza Vermes,jesus and the World ofjudaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 40-43; Hubertus Tellenbach, ed., Das Vaterbild in Mythos und Geschichte: Agypten, Griechenland, Altes Testament, Neues Testament (Stuttgart: Topelmann, 1976); Max Wilcoxen, "Semitisms in the New Testament," ANRW II, 25.2 (1984) 995-98;Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "Abba and Jesus' Relation to God," in Fran~ois Refoule, ed., A cause de l'Evangile: Etudes sur les synoptiques et les Actes offertes au P. Jacques Dupont (LD 123; Paris: Cerf, 1985) 15-38; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 115-16 (Sermon, 110-11); Luz, Matthiius, 1.339-41 (Matthew, 1.375-77). Against Jeremias see James Barr, "'Abba Isn't 'Daddy,'" JTS 39 (1988) 28-47; Mary Rose D'Angelo, "Abba and 'Father': Imperial Theology and the Jesus Tradition," JBL Ill (1992) 611-30 (with bibliography). For references and bibliography see also Gottlob Schrenk and Gottfried Quell, "7rar~p KTA.," TDNT 5.945-1022, esp. 98490; Otto Michel, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. 7rar~p; BAGD, s.v. 7rar~p. 344 Luz (Matthiius, 1.336 [Matthew, 1.371-72]) points to the linguistic problems of "retranslating" the Lord's Prayer into Aramaic. These problems have not inhibited those who are out to recover the Urgestalt of Jesus' sayings for the sake of the larger project of the Aramaic substratum of the Gospels. These scholars, therefore, often explain linguistic problems as translation mistakes, and they then go ahead and "restore" what they take to be the "original" Aramaic text. It should be clear, however, that the whole

Greek is a literary masterpiece. 346 Intentionally concise in the extreme, it has three parts, a pattern that conforms to the usual forms of hymns and prayers: 347 (a) The invocatio or hlK"Arw•~ ("invocation," vs 9b), addressing God, without using his name, by one (respectively, two) attributes. (b) The main section (vss 9c-13), consisting of two sets of three petitions. The first set of petitions has an aretalogical character, and one can categorize it as hypomnesis ("reminder"): the three petitions remind God of his obligations. 348 The concept of "righteousness" provides the basis for the implication that by attending to his own needs and obligations, God provides the most urgently needed benefits to his creation, in particular to humanity. The second set (vss 11-13) concerns the specific needs of humans.

345

346

347

348

matter rests on the hypothesis that there was an original Aramaic substratum in the first place. Taken to its extreme, the "method" of "recovering" the Aramaic "original" declares most of the extant Greek texts as unreliable; the so-called restoration, however, produces an entirely fictional text that has no basis in actual manuscripts. For this approach in the case of the Lord's Prayer, see Schwarz, "Und jesus sprach," 209-26. So, rightly, Klaus Berger, "Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament," ANRWII, 25/2 (1984) 1170-71. Luther admired the "unendliche Rhetorica" ("infinite rhetoric") of the Lord's Prayer (Tischreden III, no. 3651). See Richard Wunsch, "Hymnos," PW 9 (1916) 14083; Berger, "Hellenistische Gattungen," 1151-71; Jan Bremmer, "Greek Hymns," in Versnel, Faith, Hope, 193-215; Michael Lattke, Hymn us: Materialien zu einer Geschichte der antiken Hymnologie (NTOA 19; Fribourg: Presses universitaires; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). They follow the "you-style,'' as the emphatic "you" (
375

(c) According to the best textual tradition the Lord's Prayer ends without an epilogue. The tradition apparently felt this omission to be too abrupt, so that later scribes, perhaps stimulated by liturgical usage, added an "Amen" or a doxology or both (see on 6:13 below). This compositional structure is by no means undisputed. Since antiquity commentators have argued about the key to the composition, structure, and content of the Lord's Prayer. Tertullian and Origen, especially, speculated about the intemallogic of the sequence of the petitions, and even more recently exegetes have found hidden structures of trinitarian theology (Tholuck) or of christology (Schiirmann). 849 The number of petitions has been a constant source of debate up to the present. Augustine in his De serm. dom. in monte 2.9.35-2.10.36 counts seven petitions, and the older Roman Catholic tradition follows, 850 but in his Sermo de oratione domini 5.10.10 and De dono perseverantiae 5.9 he combined the last two petitions, making six altogether, a proposal that Origen and Gregory of Nyssa had made before. Luther and most of the other reformers later affirmed this proposal. 851 Another problem concems the appropriate names to be given to the components of the Prayer. Are all of them "petitions" (alr~,.ara)? If so, the first three are considerably different from the last three (or four). Michael Weber 8 52 used rhetorical categories when he divided the prayer into three parts: wpoJ\oyos (or praefatio, "prologue" or "preface"), J\oyos (or oratio, "main prayer"), and lwlJ\oyos (or conclusio, "epilogue" or "conclusion"). He subdivided the "main prayer" into 349 Tholuck, Bergrede, 359-60 (Commentary, 327-28); Schiirmann, Gebet, 153-77. 350 So also Mutzenbecher's introduction to Augustine's De sermone domini in monte, pp. XI-XII. Strecker continues this tradition (Bergpredigt, 111, 128 [Sermon, 107, 123]) when he proposes that the number seven played an important part in the Matthean redaction: Matt 1: 1 7 counts 3 x 14 generations; 5:3-9 has seven beatitudes, and chap. 23 has seven "woes." Strecker is followed by Gnilka, Matthiiusevangelium, 1.212. 351 For the references see Mutzenbecher, p. XII, citing Origen De orat. 29.1; Gregory of Nyssa De orat. Dom. or. 5; cf. also the discussion in Calvin, Inst. 3.20.35. Luz (Matthiius, 1.334 n. 2 [Matthew, 1.369 n. 2]) agrees, referring to Strecker (see above, n. 350). 352 Michael Weber, Eclogae exegetico-criticae ad nonnullos librorum N. T. historicorum locos (part 2; Halle: Schimmelpfennig, 1828) 28-30. See also Origen De orat. 14.1-6 (GCS 3.2.2, pp. 330-33), 33.5 (GCS 3.2.2, p. 402); and Gessel, Theologie, 85-104. For modem studies see Schiirmann, Gebet, 20, who

376

three £vxal (or vota, "prayer wishes") and three alr~,.ara (or petitiones, "petitions"). Similarly,Johann Albert Bengel in his Gnomon Novi Testamenti 858 recognized that the first three petitions focus on God (petita Patrem spectantia), while the last three focus on us (petita ad nos spectantia). These categorizations are, however, only partially useful because what is needed are liturgical categories. Form-critically, the Lord's Prayer as a whole is a petitionary prayer. I have already discussed the problem whether one can regard it as a "private" prayer, but I have decided against this category. The Lord's Prayer does show some of the characteristics usually associated with the "private" prayer in contrast to the official public prayer. The Lord's Prayer opens with an epithet that is not preceded by any expression of praise; it addresses God in the second person; its style is simple; it is quite brief, as are its component sentences; it lacks the form of the "liturgical Berakah. "854 All this is observed correctly, but the address and the content scarcely fit the "private" prayer. One must also assume that prior to the rabbinic orthodoxy and its distinction between "private" and "public" prayer there may have been other altematives, such as group prayers, into whiCh the Lord's Prayer fits better. Stylistically, 855 the first three petitions (vss 9c-10) form an isocolon, in which the verbs occupy the first place, a feature attributed by Eduard Norden to Semitic style. 856 The close parallelism is one of syntactical structure as well as sound, constituting paromoiosis (assimilation by assonance). The first and third cola have the verb in the form of aorist passive distinguishes between three "prayer wishes" ("Gebetswiinsche") and three "petitions" ("Bitten"). 353 Johann Albert Bengel, Gnomon of the Nf!W Testament (trans. Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin A. Vincent; Philadelphia: Perkinpine & Higgins, 1862) 1.12223: "There are seven petitions which form two parts, the former containing three petitions which relate to the Father, thy Name, thy Kingdom, thy Will, the latter containing four which concem ourselves. In the former, we set forth our filial disposition, recognizing the right, the dignity, and the good pleasure of God, like the angelic chorus in Luke ii.14; but in the latter we both sow and reap. In both divisions is expressed the struggle of the sons of God from Earth to Heaven, as it were drawing down Heaven to Earth." 354 On the distinction between blessing and prayer see also Elias Bickerman, "Benediction et priere," RB 69 (1962) 524-32; reprinted in his Studies injf!Wish and Christian History, part 2 (AGJU 9; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 313-23. 355 For the following I am indebted to an unpublished study by Johan Thorn.

Matthew 6:1-18

imperative followed by a noun in the neuter, forming a syntactical redditio (inclusion by repetition). It is highly probable that the wy-sentence (vs 1Oc) covers all three petitions, in which case we have a zeugma (a kind of bridge connecting different subjects). 357 In vs 11 "bread" is a synecdoche (collective term) of the type species pro genere (the particular representing the whole), in which bread represents all the necessities for sustaining life. 358 Verse 12 contains an isocolon (parallel lines) based on antapodosis (opposition of clauses); 359 the isocolon also contains epiphora (repetition of ~p.wv at the end) and derivatio (repetition of the word stem: Clfj>E&il.'r/p.ara, o
How can one avoid arbitrariness and speculation in this transposition, so that one can arrive at results that can claim a high degree of objectivity? Since Jesus was a Jew, the theology contained in the Lord's Prayer must be Jewish theology. This conclusion can be supported by the close parallels to the Lord's Prayer in other Jewish prayers. Yet, one should not assume that all Jewish prayers presuppose the same Jewish theology. Although Jewish prayers are transmitted by rabbinic literature, it would be wrong to assume that all these prayers express rabbinic theology. These prayers could also presuppose older prerabbinic theologies that later rabbinic theologians found agreeable. At any rate, one must not simply proceed to read these rabbinic theologies into the Lord's Prayer. Rather, in the Lord's Prayer, which one may assume originated with the historical Jesus, one should expect to find the Jewish theology of an individual Jewish teacher of the beginning of the first century. This theology is certainly prerabbinic and critical with regard to other Jewish theologies of the time, especially that of the Pharisees. Therefore, one should proceed from the assumption that the theology of the Lord's Prayer expresses Jesus' own insights into the Jewish religion and life as it was understood and practiced in his environment. In this connection the remark by one of the disciples about John the Baptist in Luke 11:1 is informative: "Lord, teach us how to pray, as also John [the Baptist) taught his disciples." This remark states two points of identity between Jesus and John the Baptist. First, both taught prayers and doctrine concerning prayer; second, the Lord's Prayer was either similar or dissimilar in comparison with the prayer paradigm (Mustergebet) taught by John the Baptist; unfortunately, we do not possess John's prayer paradigm, so that we are unable to tell. One can surmise, however, that it was customary for Jewish teachers at the time to formulate paradigmatic prayers for their disciples. If one assumes that the Lord's Prayer is an expression ofJesus' own theology and not merely ofJewish religious thought generally, this prayer constitutes one of the primary sources for the reconstruction of his theology. One must not, however, underestimate the difficulties of such a reconstruction. An attempt at reconstruction would be

356 Norden, Agnostos Theos, 257. Norden refers to Isa 37:17; Sirach 36; Wis 10:15ff.; 11:2ff.; Eph 5:14 as parallels. 357 See Lausberg, Handbuch, §§ 692-93 (1.347). 358 See Lausberg, Elemente, §§ 198-99 (1. 72). 359 See Lausberg, Handbuch, § 736 (1.365). 360 Ibid., § 648 ( 1.828-29).

377

an extraordinary challenge and a litmus test for what clearly defined and carefully applied historical methodology is able to deliver. Two questions of major importance should be stated here in advance. If one could infer Jesus" own theology from the Lord's Prayer, how would this theology be related to what was called "the gospel" (
378

"righteousness" (51Kalocr{wq) as constitutive for the Lord's Prayer. Accordingly, if human beings present petitions to God, they must meet the standards of what is "meet, fitting, and appropriate to the deity" (8<07rpf7r
Matthew 6:1-18

One can also interpret the second and the third petition in this way. The second petition, "Your kingdom come" (vs IO), reminds God of his promise to establish his kingdom on earth, a promise that is still outstanding. The third petition is similar: "Your will be done as it is in heaven so also on earth" (vs I Obc). This petition presents unusual difficulties. The claim that God's will is obeyed "in heaven" (~v obpavjp) may, because of its formulation in the singular, have to be distinguished from the plural "in the heavens" (~v ro&s obpavo&s) of the invocation. As the history of interpretation shows, there are good reasons to believe that the singular "in heaven" refers to the supramundane world of astral entities and not to the higher spheres in which God exists. The point is that the will of God is done already in all the regions of the universe, except on the earth, even though "heaven and earth" together form the cosmos. The reason for this deficiency is that the human self-will is opposed to the will of God. The third petition seems to consider this obstacle irredeemable. Who but God himself can motivate human wills to subject themselves to his will? As creatures of God all human beings are doubtless obligated to obey their creator's will, and by the same token God is obligated to make sure that this happens. So far, however, there is a standoff between God's delay of the application of force and humanity's unbending resistance. One can have no doubt that sooner or later the requirement of righteousness will have to be met and rebellious wills be subdued. The question can only be regarding the time and the means. If the network of relationships is relatively easy to comprehend in the first three petitions, things become much more complicated in the second set of three petitions. Whereas in the first set God's needs were the primary concern, the second set focuses directly on the human needs. These human needs are also carefully defined, especially as they are deduced from the needs of God in the previous petitions. In the following I look at some of the general theological arguments and then tum to some specific questions. The fourth petition (vs II) concems the elementary needs of life, summed up in the petition for the daily bread, "Our daily bread give us today." Passing over for now the still unresolved problem of the meaning of ~-.r•o,',IT
much-debated phrase "our daily bread," they imply the acknowledgment that up to the present day the daily bread has actually been forthcoming. The problem with these needs is rather that they recur every day. Thus the issue is not want but time; day after day we must face the same needs. Yet, what happens today is decisive, and hence the emphasis is on the present day: give us the bread also today, the bread we need daily and thus far have had daily. Much may be said about the expression "our bread." Strictly speaking, God does not give the bread, but through nature he provides the ingredients from which we make the bread. It is, therefore, "our bread" because we make it. Even more intricate is the realization that we do not ourselves make the bread each time we eat it. Instead, we depend on others who make the bread and give it to us. Indeed, we presuppose a whole chain of suppliers who "give" us the bread: the farmer, the miller, the baker, the members of the household, the father who breaks and hands out the bread at the meal, and so forth. Yet none of these suppliers could "give," if God did not give before. As a result the pronoun ~p.ii>v ("our") instead of p.ov ("my") has its special significance. "Our bread" implies that it is bread shared among us, whereas "my bread" would plainly be an absurdity. One can, therefore, conclude that the petition for the daily bread contains an ethic in nuce. In the most immediate sense, it is other people on whom we depend. These people produce and provide "our bread." As human beings they are obligated to share with us God's benevolent gifts of nature, but everyone knows about the hard facts oflife when it comes to human willingness to share. Antiquity was aware that willingness or unwillingness to share resides in the human heart and that in the final analysis only God is able to influence this human heart. If then the making and giving of bread is a human activity, it may seem odd to address the petition to God. But on closer inspection, what looks like an inconsistency reflects a deeper reality of life. Although it is certainly "our bread" in every sense of the term, the final instance on which every human activity depends is God's generosity. Only if he "gives" can the people give, and only if he motivates their hearts will they give. Finally, therefore, the petition "give us" involves an obligation on the part of the petitioners. Because of the notion of righteousness it would be improper to receive the daily bread and then refuse to share it with others. Only if the petitioners act in the same manner they expect of God and of other human beings are they justified in presenting this petition. In other words, the imperative "give us," while being addressed to God, implies a self-addressed demand to the petitioners themselves. Once one realizes this point, one also recognizes that the eventuality of failure is

379

envisaged, and this perception leads then to the fifth and sixth petitions. The fifth petition (vs 12) is of special significance because it presupposes a thoroughgoing, distinctive interpretation of the Jewish doctrine of sin. Although petitions for the forgiveness of sins are traditional in Jewish prayers, the fifth petition of the Lord's Prayer makes its point by understanding human sinfulness not as the violation of ritual codes, taboos, and purity laws, but as the failure to fulfill one's general obligations toward others. Also in regard to this petition, the language of which is taken from business and law, the utmost care is taken to meet the demands of righteousness. First of all, vs 12a presents a petition in which the petitioners ask for the remission of debts they have incurred in their relationships with others. The very fact that they present such a petition means that they cannot otherwise make good on these debts. This irredeemability can have different reasons: the debts owed may be too large, or too far removed in time, or hopelessly complicated; at any rate, they may no longer be under the control of the debtor. It is generally a matter of fairness in business and law; one can ask for cancellation of debts only if one is no longer able to pay them. What is true in the area of business and law is also true in one's relationship with God. If one assumes that the petitioners are justified in presenting this petition, then they also have the right to expect God's mercy because it is part and parcel of God's righteousness to grant merciful remission where there is no other way out. Again, however, the notion of righteousness demands that the petitioners act in the same manner in which they expect God to act. For this reason, vs 12b adds a declaration, according to which the petitioners declare null and void all debts owed to them by others: "as also we forgive [or: have forgiven) our debtors." Strictly speaking, this declaration is not part of a petitionary prayer, but in this theologically reconstituted petition it is necessary. Without this declaration the petitioners would be in danger of standing before God in a situation of unrighteousness, and such a situation would destroy the very ground on which they are entitled to present their petition. The sixth petition (vs 13) is no doubt the most difficult to understand, but this petition is also the climax of the prayer as a whole and leads back to its beginning. In a strict sense, vs 13a and vs 13b are two separate petitions, both traditional, which have been combined to form an isocolon full of theological tensions. To start with vs 13b, the petition "Deliver us from evil" identifies "evil" as the totality of all unfulfilled and failed obligations contained in the previous petitions. In the first place, therefore, "evil" is to be taken as a

380

reference not to the devil but to the subject matter of evil. In the light of the Lord's Prayer as a whole, one is to define evil as the impairment of God's righteousness. The total damage done by all unfulfilled and failed obligations is considered so large that the only way out is through God's rescue. The term for "rescue" (pileu6at) is stark and points to drastic action in a desperate situation. Notably, the Lord's Prayer makes no suggestion about how this rescue is to take place. Rather, the focus is on the necessity of such a rescue. The reason for this urgency is no doubt that "evil" is regarded as an objective matter of fact, the elimination of which is required because of righteousness. According to ancient thought, righteousness is nothing other than the overcoming of evil through good. Therefore, by implication, the petitioners of vs 13b confess their inescapable entanglement in their own failures and the consequences of the failures of all humanity. This entanglement is "evil" par excellence, so that the petitioners turn to God as the final resort from which redemption can come. The next question to be asked is, How is vs 13b connected with vs 13a: "And do not lead us into temptation"? This petition presupposes the daring idea that God is the one who leads human beings into temptation and that the petitioners intervene, asking God to desist from it. Historically, this theological idea comes from Jewish wisdom theology, according to which God tempts and tests human beings, especially the wise and the righteous, for the purpose of their moral education. In Jewish wisdom this idea already provoked the question whether in doing this God makes himself guilty of collusion with evil. Given the case that God tests a human being by temptation and the person succumbs and commits sin, does not such a case implicate God in the creation of evil? In response to this question, in dealing with the theodicy problem, Jewish wisdom literature emphasized that God is not guilty of the generation of or collaboration with evil. Against this background, it is surprising that the Lord's Prayer boldly admits the possibility of such collaboration with evil by making God, not Satan, the final source from which temptations originate. In the history of interpretation the statement in vs 13a has understandably led to many debates, most of which were interested in exonerating God. This apologetic could take the form of making a distinction between temptations leading to good and those leading to evil. Or scholars looked for help in the story of Jesus' temptation (Matt 4:1-11) in order to paraphrase the petition accordingly: And lead us not into a situation in which we can be seduced by Satan. These attempts, however, are not convincing. On the one hand, if the temptation the Lord's Prayer speaks of

Matthew 6:1-18

were only for the purpose of the good, one would have no need for asking God to desist from it. On the other hand, it cannot be a seduction to do evil because this would be irreconcilable with the notion of divine righteousness. Rather, vs 13 shows that "evil" already exists and that, solely by its existence, it leads into temptation. Temptation is the lure of sin to commit more sin. Redemption from this evil, therefore, would mean the end of temptation as well. To make this point clear is the purpose of the combination ofvs 13a with vs 13b. Even if one accepts this view, the question remains: Does God not play an active role when evil comes into existence? Even if one admits that God does not create evil, does he not collaborate with it by tolerating its existence? According to the Lord's Prayer, evil has its origin in and consists of the totality of human failures: profaning the name of God, opposing his kingdom, resisting his will, failing to meet obligations toward fellow humanity, and not resisting the temptations of evil. Given this condition, there appears to be no further need for God's probing and testing humankind. With humanity hopelessly entangled in evil already, there is only one thing left for God to do: to rescue humanity from this entanglement in evil. Indeed, one must conclude, if God were to continue to tolerate the existence of evil and thereby the continuation of temptation, he would be implicated in the creation of evil and thus become unrighteous. The presupposition for this conclusion is that the continuing existence of evil presents an irresistible temptation for humanity and thus creates new evil all the time. Therefore, God must choose between becoming entangled with evil himself and taking seriously his obligation to be the guarantor and preserver of righteousness. If he chooses the latter, which is really the only option open to him, he must put a stop to the existence of evil altogether. When one considers these intriguing theological ideas implied in the sixth petition, one can only conclude that the combination of vs 13a and b is the result of a long tradition of theological reflection on the one hand, and a very provocative solution to the dilemma of theodicy on the other hand. The notion of righteousness, however, calls for yet another issue to be raised. What right do the petitioners have to present such a bold petition to God? One should not fail to realize that the sixth petition touches on the limits of the petitionary prayer and stops just short of reprimanding God. Does this petition not violate the rules of what is proper in relating to the deity? Is it not an expression of human presumption and arrogance? If this petition is legitimate, its theological legitimacy must be the same as that of the other petitions. As we shall see from the epilogue, their

legitimacy consists of the assumption that human creatures step forward before God and present these petitions to him in their trust in him as their heavenly Father, expecting of him nothing but his benevolence and righteousness. These petitions sum up what people at prayer consider to be the human predicament. This judgment on the human predicament is not a sudden insight, but the outcome of a long tradition of language and thought relating to prayer, as well as of serious reflection on the part of the creator of this prayer. In accordance with the traditions of antiquity it is the peculiar obligation of human beings to gain insight into their situation and to formulate this insight in their prayers to the deity. It pertains to human freedom to do this with frankness and without pretense or fear. All of antiquity regarded human beings as distinguished from the animals by this privilege and duty of acquiring clarity about themselves and giving account of human life generally as well as individually. The result stated in vs 13a and b is the confession of the inescapable entanglement in evil. Petitioners of the sixth petition admit that they are at their wit's end. In such a situation, the human being is entitled and even obligated to appeal to the creator. Seen in this way, the petition is not only a confession of sin but also an act of righteousness. If the appeal to God in the sixth petition addresses him as the guarantor and protector of righteousness, whose obligation it is to overcome and do away with evil, the question is left completely open as to how this is to happen. The intention of the petition is to present matters of fact in the most concise form. The question of what God is supposed to do specifically is not raised, nor is any impatience or despair indicated. The attitude of the petitioners is that of people waiting who know that, in some way and at some time, God will accomplish one thing most certainly, the final conquest and elimination of evil. Therefore, what at first may appear to us as almost a reprimand of God is in truth an expression of human freedom. It is a paradox, it seems, that the Lord's Prayer, while constantly emphasizing human dependency on God, is at the same time a clear testimony to human freedom. I will substantiate this conclusion, which may at first seem a foreign imposition, by some final comments on the epiklesis. The epiklesis or invocation (vs 9b) defines with extreme conciseness the relationship between the petitioners and the God addressed. Addressed is the "Father in the heavens," the originator and sustainer of the universe. This expression "in the heavens" in the plural is significant because it points to the transcendence of God. The plurality of "the heavens," is juxtaposed to the singular "heaven," which together

381

with the earth forms the cosmos (vs 1Oc). The epithet "Father" designates the one from whom all things originate and in whose care and protection all things exist. It is furthermore important to see that neither the term "god" nor a name of God occurs, but only the one metaphor "Father," describing function. Also missing are specifically Jewish marks of identity such as divine names, epithets, and reminders of Israel's history or religion. Thus far, the invocation could have been used by any religious person in antiquity. If only one metaphor is sufficient to describe God's role, the human counterpart is designated only by the possessive pronoun "our." Juxtaposed with God stands the human individual, who is what he or she is as a member of the species. This human species is nothing but God's creation. The human being is distinguished from all other creatures, however, by one characteristic: only the human being knows of God, comes before him, and addresses him. The address of God as "Father" makes the person at prayer a member of the familia Dei, and in turn this status as a family member implies the right to speak out before the Father. The point is not that God needs to be informed about human needs: he knows what his creatures need before they appeal to him. Rather, it is important for human beings that they know about their place or status in creation, and that they put their knowledge into language and action. As in any human family, so also in the familia Dei, controversial matters must be talked about, especially if they are painful and difficult. It was and is one of the inalienable rights of the family member to be able to speak up. In those family discussions more is at stake than the wishes and needs of the individual; what is always at stake is the well-being of the whole family. Apart from the family metaphor, it was considered part of the status of human beings that they have the right to speak freely before their God, even if what they have to say is painful and includes reminding God of his responsibilities and obligations. The petitioners of the Lord's Prayer are defined as members of the human community, because the pronoun "our" includes all human beings living on the earth. Whatever humans have to bring before God, they can rightly bring before him only as representatives of all human beings. Petitions that benefit one person-and inflict damage on another are inappropriate. This universality in regard to the concept of God, as well as to humanity, is remarkable. One can hardly doubt that it was intended at the time. In the Judaism of the first century such universality may have been provocative, but it was by no means contrary to Jewish belief. Even as the Lord's Prayer took its place in Christian religion, its universality remained an integral factor, although this was seldom recognized.

382

Finally, it is part of the self-definition ofthe petitioners that the individual steps forward. It is the individual who confesses to be a member of the human community. Even in the group of the petitioners it is the individual who speaks on behalf of all human beings. At this point the Lord's Prayer ceases to be a petitionary prayer and becomes an intercessory prayer. This shift already occurs in the invocation and becomes more obvious in the subsequent petitions; it takes the sting out of the central objection against petitionary prayers. The charge of being egotistical is anticipated and refuted because all petitions are simultaneously intercessory. Bibliography The literature on the Lord's Prayer is enormous. The older bibliography is found in Gebser, De oratione dominica, 1.2-5; Tholuck, Bergrede, 37-40 (Commentary, 47-49). Modern comprehensive bibliographies, though selective, are included in Carmignac, Recherches, 469-553; Dorneich, Vater-Unser Bibliographie, 21-161; Suppl. 65-115; Schnurr, Horen und handeln, 284-90 and passim; Sabugal, Abba, passim. Select bibliographies are given also in modern commentaries on the Sermon on the Mount, on the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and on the Didache. Important works from the patristic literature include: Pseudo-Ambrose, De sacramentis V, 4, 18-30 (ed. Otto Faller; CSEL 73 [Vienna: Holder, Pichler, Tempsky, 1955]). ET: St. Ambrose: On the Sacraments and On the Mysteries (trans. T. Thompson; London: SPCK, 1919; 2d ed., 1950). Augustine of Hippo, De sermone domini in monte Iibras duos, II, 4, 15-9, 38 (ed. Almut Mutzenbecher; CChr, series latina 35 [Turnholti: Brepols, 1967]). ET: St. Augustine, The Lord's Sermon on the Mount (trans.JohnJ.Jepson; introduction by Johannes Quasten; notes by Joseph]. Plumpe; ACW 5; London: Longman's & Green, 1948); The Preaching of St. Augustine, "Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount"

(ed.Jaroslav Pelikan; trans. Francine Cardman; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973). Idem, Sermo 56, PL 38.377-86. Idem, Sermo 57, PL 38.386-93. Idem, Sermo 58, PL 38.393-400. Idem, Sermo 59, PL 38.400-402; also ed. Suzanne Poque; SC 116 (Paris: Cerf, 1966), 186-98. Idem, De dono perseverantiae, II, 4-V, 9; PL 45.996-99. Idem, Enchiridion, 30.115-16; PL 40.285. Idem, Epistula 130 (in Probam) (ed. A. Goldbacher; CSEL 44 [Vienna: Holder, Pichler, Tempsky, 1904]). Chromatius of Aquileia, Praefatio Orationis Dominicae (cura et studio A. Hoste; CChr, series latina 9 [Turnholti: Brepols, 1957]).

Matthew 6:1-18

Idem, Tractatus XXVIII in Matthaeum 6:9-15 (cura et studio R. Etaix and]. Lemarie; CChr, series latina 9a [Turnholti: Brepols, 197 4 ]). John Chrysostom, Homily XIX (ed. Fridericus Field, Sancti Patris nostri Joannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Homiliae in Matthaeum

[Cantabrigiae: In officina academica, 1839]). ET: The Homilies of St. Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Gospel ofMatthew (trans. George Prevost, revised with notes by M. B.

Riddle, NPNF 10; reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978). Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, book 7 (ed. Otto Stahlin, Ludwig Friichtel, and Ursula Treu; GCS 17.7.3; 2d ed. [Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1970]) 179. ET: (ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; Ante-Nicene Fathers 2, I869; reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951) 523-57. Cyril ofJerusalem, Catecheses mystagogicae V, 11-18 (ed. Auguste Piedagnel and Pierre Paris; SC 126 [Paris: Cerf, 1966]). ET: Instructions on the Mysteries of St. Cyril ofjerusalem (trans. Maxwell Woolley; London: Faith, 1930). Cyprian, De dominica oratione (ed. Wilhelm Hartel; CSEL 3/1 [Vienna: Holder, Pichler, Tempsky, 1868]265-94; also ed. Claudio Moreschini, CChr, series latina 3A [Turnholti: Brepols, 1976]87-113; Michel Reveillaud, S. Cyprien, L'oraison dominicale [Etudes d'histoire et de philosophie religieuse d'Universite de Strasbourg 58; Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1964]). ET: ed. and trans. Roy J. Deferrari, St. Cyprian, Treatises (Fathers of the Church 36; New York: Fathers of the Church, 1958) I 23-59. Gregory of Nyssa, De oratione dominica (ed. Johann Georg Krabinger; Sancti Gregorii episcopi Nysseni De Precatione orationes V [Landshut: Attenkofer, 1840]; ed. Johannes F. Callahan, Gregorii Nysseni Opera, VII/2 [Leiden: Brill, 1992]); ET: (ACW 18; ed. Hilda C. Graef; London: Longman's & Green, 1954). Origen, De oratione (ed. Paul Koetschau; GCS 3.2.2 [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1899]) 295-403; ET: Eric George Jay, Origen 's Treatise on Prayer (translation and notes with an account of the practise and doctrine of prayer from the NT times to Origen; London: SPCK, 1954); trans. John J. O'Meara, in ACW 19 (London: Longman's & Green, 1954); trans. John E. L. Oulton and Henry Chadwick, Alexandrian Christianity (LCC 2; London: SPCK, 1954) 180-387. Tertullian, De oratione (ed. August Reifferscheid and Georg Wissowa; CSEL 20 [Vienna: Tempsky and Freytag, 1890]180-200; also ed. G. F. Diercks, CChr, series latina 1 [Turnholti: Brepols, 1954] 255-74); ET: trans. Alexander Souter, Tertullian's

Treatise Concerning Prayer and Concerning Baptism

(London: SPCK, 1919); trans. Ernest Evans, Tertullian's Tract on the Prayer (London: SPCK, 1953). From the Middle Ages and the Reformation: Thomas Aquinas, Catena a urea in Mattaei evangelium (cura Angelici Guarenti; nova editio Taurinensis; Turin and Rome: Marietti, 1953). ET: Catena aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels (Oxford and London: Parker, 1870) 1.222-37. Meister Eckhart, Magistri Echardi: Super oratione dominica (ed. Erich See berg, in Meister Eckhart: Die deutschen und lateinischen Werke (Stuttgart and Berlin: Kohlhammer, 1936) 5.101-29. Nicolaus Cusanus, Die Auslegung des Vater-unsers in vier Predigten (SHAW .PH 1938-39:4)~ Martin Luther, Auslegung deutsch des Vaterunsers fur die einfiiltigen Laien (1519) (WA 2.74-130). Idem, Eine kurze Form, das Paternoster zu verstehen und zu beten (1519, 1520, 1522) (WA 6.9-19). Idem, Eine kurze und gute Auslegung des Vaterunsers vor sich und hinter sich (1519) (WA 6.20-22). Idem, Der Grosse Katechismus (1529) (W A 30.131, 193211). Idem, Der Kleine Katechismus (1529) (WA 30.250-55). Idem, Eine einfiiltige Weise zu beten fur einen guten Freund (1535) (WA 38.358-75). Idem, Wochenpredigten uber Matthiius 5-7 (W A 32, esp. 416-22). John Calvin, In Novum Testamentum commentarii (1555) (ed. August Tholuck; 2d ed.; Berolini: Thome, 1835; also Corpus Reformatorum 73 [Brunswick: Schwetschke, 1891]194-203). ET:AHarmonyof the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke (trans. A. W. Morrison; ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; 3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Edinburgh: St. Andrew, 1972) 1.204-14. Idem, Institutio Christianae Religionis (1559) (ed. Peter Barth and Wilhelm Niesei;Joannis Calvini Opera Selecta; Munich: Kaiser, 1926), esp. vol. 1, section Ill.20.34-49. ET: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed.John T. O'Neill; trans. Ford L. Battles; LCC 20; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960) 2.897-917. Among modern studies the following works merit consideration: Israel Abrahams, "The Lord's Prayer," in his Studies, 2.94-108. J. Angenieux, "Les diffhents types de structure du 'Pater' dans l'histoire de son exegese," ETL 36 (1970)40-77,325-59. Gordon]. Bahr, "The Use ofthe Lord's Prayer in the Primitive Church," JBL 84 (1965) 153-59.

383

Andrew J Bandstra, "The Original Form of the Lord's Prayer," Calvin Theological Journal 16 ( 1981) 1537. Michel Bouttier, "LePere, manifeste dans les actes et caches a Ia piete: Contraste et unite des chap. 5 et 6 du Sermon sur Ia Montagne selon Matthieu," in Fran,.:ois Refoule, ed., A cause de l'Evangile: Etudes sur les Synoptiques et les Actes offertes au P. Jacques Dupont (LD 123; Paris: Cerf, 1985) 39-56.

Michael Brocke,JakobJ Petuchowski, and Walter Strolz, eds., Das Vaterunser: Gemeinsames Beten von Juden und Christen (Veroffentlichungen der Stiftung Oratio Dominica; Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1974). Partial ET: The Lord's Prayer and Jewish Liturgy (trans. Elizabeth R. Petuchowski; New York: Seabury, 1978). Raymond E. Brown, "The Pater Noster as an Eschatological Prayer," in his New Testament Essays (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968) 217-53. Jacob van Bruggen, "The Lord's Prayer and Textual Criticism," Calvin TheologicalJournal17 (1982) 7887. C. F. Burney, The Poetry of Our Lord (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925) 125-26. Jean Carmignac, Recherches sur le "Notre Pere" (Paris: Editions Letouzey & Ane, 1969). Idem, "Hebrew Translations of the Lord's Prayer: An Historical Survey," in Gary A. Tuttle, ed., Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor ofWilliam Sanford LaSor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 18-

79. Frederick H. Chase, The Lord's Prayer in the Early Church (Texts 1.3; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1891). Gustaf Dalman, Die Worte Jesu (2d ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1965) 283365. Davies, Setting, 4-5, 11-12, 309-13,451-53. Otto Dibelius, Das Vaterunser: Umrisse zu einer Geschichte des Gebetes in der Alten und Mittleren Kirche (GieBen: Ricker, Topelmann, 1903). Monica Dorneich, Vater-Unser Bibliographie; The Lord's Prayer: A Bibliography Oubilaumsausgabe der Stiftung Oratio Dominica; Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 1982). Sup 1988. Jacques Dupont, "Le Notre Pere: Notes exegetiques," in his Etudes, 2. 832-61. Gerhard Ebeling, Vom Gebet (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1963); ET: On Prayer (trans. James W. Leitch; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966). Ismar Elbogen, Der jildische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung (3d ed.; Leipzig: Fock, 1931). Christopher F. Evans, The Lord's Prayer (London: SPCK, 1963).

384

Fiebig, Bergpredigt, 103-22. Idem, Das Vaterunser: Ursprung, Sinn und Bedeutung des christlichen Hauptgebetes (BFCTh 30.3; Gutersloh: Bertelsmann, 1927). Asher Finkel, "The Prayer of Jesus in Matthew," in Asher Finkel and Lawrence Frizzell, eds., Standing before God: Studies on Prayer in Scriptures and in Tradition with Essays in Honor ofJohn M. Oesterreicher

(New York: KTAV, 1981) 131-69. David Flusser, "Das Vaterunser-einjudisches Gebet," in his Das Christentum-eine jildische Religion (Munich: Kosel, 1 990) 53-62. Jean de Fraine, "Oraison dominicale," DBSup 6 (1 960) 788-800. K. Suso Frank, "Die Vaterunser-Erklarung der Regula magistri," in Pietas: FS fur Bernhard Kotting OACSup 8; Munster: Aschendorff, 1980) 458-71. Augustus Rudolphus Gebser, De oratione dominica (2 parts; Regiomonti: Georgius Greis, 1830). Birger Gerhardsson, "The Matthaean Version of the Lord's Prayer (Matt 6:9b-13): Some Observations," in William C. Weinrich, ed., The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor ofBo Reicke (2 vols.; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University, 1984) 1.207-20. Wilhelm Gessel, Die Theologie des Gebetes nach "De Oratione" von Origenes (Munich, Paderborn, and Vienna: Schoningh, 1975). Michael D. Goulder, "The Composition of the Lord's Prayer," JTS 14 (1 963) 32-45. Pierre Grelot, "L'arriere-plan arameen du 'Pater,'" RB 91 (1984) 531-56. W. Haller, "Das Herrngebet bei Tertullian: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Auslegung des Vaterunsers," Zeitschrifl for praktische Theologie 12 (1890) 327-54. Adalbert Hamman, Le Pater explique par les Peres (Paris: Editions franciscaines, 1952; 2d ed. 1 962). Idem, La Priere (2 vols.; Tournai: Desclee, 1959, 1963); ET of vol. 1: Prayer: The New Testament (trans. Paul]. Oligny; Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1971). Adolf von Harnack, "Die ursprungliche Gestalt des Vater-Unsers" (Sitzungsberichte der Koniglichen PreuBischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1904) 195-208. Idem, "Der ursprungliche Text des Vater-Unsers und seine alteste Gestalt," in his Erforschtes und Erlebtes: Reden und Aufsiitze (n.s., vol. 4; Giessen: Topelmann, 1923) 24-35. Johannes HauBieiter, "Vaterunser," RE 20 (1908) 431-45. Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud (SJ 9; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977). Joseph Hensler, Das Vaterunser: Text- und literarkritische Untersuchungen (NT A 4.5; Munster: Aschendorff, 1914).

Matthew 6:1-18

Johann Gottfried Herder, Erlauterungen zum Neuen Testament aus einer neuerofneten Morgenlandischen QueUe (Riga: Hartknoch, I775); also in his Sammtliche Werke (ed. Johann Georg Muller;

Tiibingen: Cotta, I806) 8.I09-14. A. J. B. Higgins, "'Lead us not into temptation': Some Latin Variants," JTS 46 (I945) I79-83. Paul Hoffmann, "'Er weiB, was ihr braucht ... ' (Mt 6, 7): Jesu einfache und konkrete Lehre von Gott," in Norbert Lohfink eta!., "Ich will euer Gott werden": Beispiele biblischen Redens von Gott (SBS 100; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, I98I) I5I-76. Horsley, New Documents, 3.I04-5. Joachim Jeremias, "Das Vater-Unser im Lichte der neueren Forschung," in his Tradition und Gegenwart: Funf Gastvorlesungen anla}Jlich des 150 jahrigen Bestehens der Berliner Theologischen Fakultat (Berlin:

Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1962) 7-34. Also in Zeichen der Zeit I6 (I962) I-13; also as Calwer Hefte 50 (Stuttgart: Calwer, I962; 4th ed. I967); idem, Abba, I52-7I; ET: "The Lord's Prayer in Modern Research," ExpT 7I (I959/60) I4I-46; also The Lord's Prayer (trans. John Reumann; Facet Books: Biblical Series 8; Philadelphia: Fortress, I964; 2d ed. 1966). Idem, Prayers, passim. Idem, "Vaterunser," RGG6(3ded.I962) I235-37. Idem, Theology, 2I-23, 6I-68, I93-203. Adolf Hermann Heinrich Kamphausen, Das Gebel des Herrn (Elberfeld: Fridrichs, I866). Reinhard Gregor Kratz, "Die Gnade des taglichen Brots: Spate Psalmen auf dem Wege zum Vaterunser," ZThK 89 (I992) I-40. Karl Georg Kuhn, Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und der Reim (WUNT I; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], I950). Otto Kuss, "Das Vaterunser," in his Auslegung und Verkundigung (3 vols.; Regensburg: Pustet, I963, 1967, 197I) 2.275-333. Andreas Lindemann, "Die Versuchungsgeschichte Jesu nach der Logienquelle und das Vaterunser," in Dietrich-Alex Koch, ed., Jesu Rede von Gott und ihre Nachgeschichte: FS fur Willi Marxsen zum 70. Geburtstag (Giitersloh: Mohn, I989) 9I-I 00. Gerhard Loeschke, Die Vaterunser-Erklarung des Theophilus von Antiochien: Eine Quellenuntersuchung zu den Vaterunser-Erkliirungen des Tertullian, Cyprian, Chromatius und Hieronymus (Neue Studien zur

Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche 4; Berlin: Trowitzsch, I908). Ernst Lohmeyer, Das Vater-Unser (AThANT 23; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, I952; 5th ed. 1962); ET: "Our Father" (trans. John Bowden; New York: Harper & Row, I965). Thomas W. Manson, "The Lord's Prayer," BJRL 38 (1955/56)99-II3,343-48. Witold Marchel, Abba, Pere! La priere du Christ et des

Chretiens (AnBib 19A; Rome: Biblical Institute,

I963; 2ded. I97I). Sebastian Heinrich Moller, "Uber das Vater-Unser (Matth. 6,9; Luk. II, Iff.)," Theologische Monatsschrift fur das Jahr 1802, vol. 1, pp. 23-36, reprinted in his Neue Ansichten schwieriger Stellen aus den vier Evangelisten (Gotha: Ukert, I8I9) 34-47.

James Moffatt, "Tertullian on the Lord's Prayer," Expositor 8/IS (I9I9) 24-41. Idem, "Cyprian on the Lord's Prayer," ibid., I76-89. Idem, "Augustine on the Lord's Prayer," ibid., 25972. Johannes C. de Moor, "The Reconstruction of the Aramaic Original of the Lord's Prayer," in Willem van der Meer and Johannes C. de Moor, eds., The Structural Analysis ofBiblical and Canaanite Poetry

(JSOTSup 74; Sheffield:JSOT, I988) 397-422. C. Immanuel Nitzsch, "Uber die noch unerorterte Umstellung der zweiten und dritten Bitte des Vater-Unsers beim Tertullian," ThStK 3 (I830) 846-60. Ioannes Augustus Noesselt, Observationes ad orationem, quam vacant, dominicam Matth. V/,9 sq. et Luc XI,2 sqq. (Halae Magdeburgicae, I80I); reprinted in David Julius Pott and Georg Alexander Rupert, Sylloge commentationum theologicarum (Helmstedt: Fleckeisen, I803), 4.I-31. Heinrich Friedrich Pfannkuche, "Ueber die Gebetsformel der Messiasschiiler Matth. VI. 9-I3 und Luc. XI. 2-4," Eichhorn's Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Litteratur IO (I800) 846-78. Willy Rordorf, "The Lord's Prayer in the Light oflts Liturgical Use in the Early Church," Studia Liturgica 14 (I980/8I) I-I9. Santos Sabagal, El padrenuestro en la interpretacion catequetica antigua y moderna (Salamanca: Sigueme, I982). Idem, "La importancia del Padrenuestro," Revista Augustiana (Madrid) 23 (I982) 437-86. Idem, "La redaccion mateana del Padrenuestro (Mt 6, 9-I3)," Estudios Eclesiasticos 58 (I983) 307-29. Idem, Abba' ... La Oracion del Seiior (Historia y exegesis teol6gica) (Biblioteca de autores cristianos 467; Madrid: Biblioteca de autores cristianos, I985 ). Jacques Schlosser, La regne de Dieu dans les dits de jesus (2 vols.; Paris: Gabalda, I980), 1.247-322. Rudolf Schnackenburg, Alles kann, wer glaubt: Bergpredigt und Vaterunser in der Absicht jesu

(Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, I984). Gerhard Schneider, "Das Vaterunser des Mattaus," in Fran<;ois Refoule, ed., A cause de l'Evangile: Etudes sur les Synoptiques et les Actes offertes au P. Jacques Dupont (LD I23; Paris: Cerf, I985) 57-90.

385

Idem, "Das Vaterunser-oratio dominica etjudaica?" in Walter Baier et al., eds., Weisheit Gottes-Weisheit der Welt: FS josef Ratzinger (St. Ottilien: EOS, 1988) 405-17. Klaus B. Schnurr, Horen und handeln: Lateinische

Maria-Barbara von Stritzky, Studien zur Vberlieferung und Interpretation des Vaterunsers in der frilhchristlichen Literatur (Miinsterische Beitrage zur

Theologie 57; Munster: Aschendorff, 1988). Johannes Casparus Svicerus, Sacrarum observationum tiber singularis (Zurich: Schaufelberger, 1665) 145296. James W. Thistle, The Lord's Prayer: An Interpretation Critical and Expository (London: Morgan & Scott, 1915). Sjef van Tilborg, "A Form-Criticism of the Lord's Prayer," NovT 14 (1972) 94-105. Philipp Vielhauer, "Vaterunser-Probleme," VF (1949/50) 219-24. Anton Vogtle, "Der 'eschatologische' Bezug der WirBitten des Vaterunser," in E. Earle Ellis and Erich Grasser, eds.,jesus und Paulus: FS fur Werner Georg Kilmmel (Tiibingen: Mohr (Siebeck]; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 344-62. William 0. Walker, "The Lord's Prayer in Matthew and in John," NTS 28 (1982) 237-56. Georg Walther, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der griechischen Vaterunser-Exegese (TU 40.3; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1914). Michael Weber, Eclogae exegetico-criticae in nonnullos librorum Novi Testamenti historicorum locos (2 parts; Halle: Schimmelpfennig, 1828). Geoffrey G. Willis, "Lead us not into temptation," Downside Review 93 (1975) 281-88. Wrege, Bergpredigt, 100-109. Theodor Zahn, "Das Vaterunser eines Kritikers," Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift 2 (1891) 408-26.

Auslegungen des Vaterunsers in der Alten Kirche his zum 5. jahrhundert (Freiburger Theologische Studien

132; Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 1985). Heinz Schiirmann, Das Gebet des Herm: A us der Verkilndigungjesu erliiutert (Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 1958). Idem, Das Gebet des Herrn als Schlilssel zum Verstehen jesu (Freiburgi.Br.: Herder,1981). Giinther Schwarz, "Matthaus Vl.9-13/Lukas Xl.2-4: Emendation und Riickiibersetzung," NTS 15 (1968/69) 233-47. Idem, "Und jesus sprach," 209-26. Phillip Sigal, "Early Christian and Rabbinic Liturgical Acculturation," NTS 30 (1984) 63-90, esp. 73-75. Robert Simpson, The Interpretation of Prayer in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965). Graham Smith, "The Matthean 'Additions' to the Lord's Prayer," ExpT 82 (1970/71) 54-55. Hans von Soden, "Die urspriingliche Gestalt des Vaterunsers," Die christliche Welt 18 (1904) 218-24. Aime Solignac, "Pater Noster," Dictionnaire de Spiritualite Ascetique et Mystique 12 (1984) 388-413. Wilhelm Staerk, Altjildische liturgische Gebete (KIT 58; 2d ed; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1930). Benoit Standaert, "Crying 'Abba' and Saying 'Our Father': An Intertextual Approach of the Dominica! Prayer," in Sipke Draisma, ed., Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel (Kampen: Kok, 1989) 141-58.

Carl Steuernagel, "Die urspriingliche Zweckbestimmung des Vaterunser," WZ(L).GS 3.2/3 (1953/54) 217-20. Str-B 1.406-24. Georg Strecker, "Vaterunser und Glaube," in Ferdinand Hahn and Hans Klein, eds., Glaube im Neuen Testament: Studien zu Ehren vom Hermann Binder anliij3lich seines 70. Geburtstages (Biblisch-

theologische Studien 7; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982) 11-28. Idem, Bergpredigt, 109-32 (Sermon, 105-28). Streeter, Four Gospels, 275-78: "Textual Assimilation and the Lord's Prayer."

Verse 9b begins with the citation of the Lord's Prayer. As has been pointed out before, the first part of the prayer contains the invocation or epiklesis, 361 through which the worshiper turns to the deity by calling on and naming that deity. Therefore, this part of the prayer commonly uses a calling formula ("I call upon you, ... ), 362 the names and the epithets identifying the god or the gods. 363 In the case of the Lord's Prayer, however, no calling formula is given; instead, the invocation uses the vocative only: 1ranp ~p..wv ("our Father"). Notably, no name is

361 On this topic see Jacques Laager, "Epiklesis," RAC 5 (1962) 577-99. 362 Cf. the frequent phrase "call upon the name of the Lord" (£7rtKaAioJ.Lat rh 8vop.a roV Kvplov ); see Acts 2:21; Rom 10:13, 14; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:23; 2 Tim 2:22; 1 Pet 1:17; 1 Clem. 39.7; etc. See BAGD, s.v. f1ftKaAiw.

363 On this topic see Burkhard Gladigow, "Gottesnamen

386

(Gottesepitheta) I (allgemein)," RAC 11 (1981) 1202-38; Giinter Bader, "Gott nennen: Von Gotternamen zu gottlichen Namen: Zur Vorgeschichte der Lehre von den gottlichen Eigenschaften," ZThK 86 (1989) 306-54.

Matthew6:1-18

given either, an omission no doubt due to the Jewish avoidance of pronouncing the name of God. 364 There are only two epithets, both of them general: "our Father" and "the one who is in the heavens" (o lv TOLS ovpavo!s ). 365 Thus, the epiklesis does not waste a word. What are the theological implications? The first of these epithets referring to God's fatherhood has always been a source of consternation and opposition that in turn has led to long doctrinal apologies. 366 The basic problems are whether the epithet "Father" is meant in the "real" sense or as a metaphor, and whether it describes the human relationship to God adequately. The address of God as "Father" names him as creator, sustainer, and protector of his entire creation, the universe. But the image of the father is more than a metaphor because it suggests that God has "fathered" his creation, his progeny. 367 This terminology clearly differs from that of God as the divine "craftsman" (nxvlT1/S ), 368 "creator" (Clwuovpyos ), 369 or "master builder" (apxtTEKTwv). 370 By comparison, the epithet "Father" suggests not only origin but also a permanent and personal kinship relationship between procreator and

progeny. 371 The Philonic epithet "the progenitor" (o would come closest, but it does not occur in the New Testament. 372 The epithet "who is in the heavens" qualifies the term "father": God's fatherhood is not to be confused with human fatherhood. Indeed, human fatherhood receives its meaning and authority from its relationship to God's fatherhood. 373 In this respect, God's fatherhood is an analogical metaphor, taken from human language in order to describe divine procreation. As a metaphor, the language of divine fatherhood points to phenomena in the universe that far transcend the confines of human language. 374 The address functions at the same time as selfdefinition by the orant. In this act of addressing God as Father, a human being defines himself or herself as progeny and as subordinate in rank and authority. 375 Like all creation, human beings are "offspring" of God's creative work. They did not make themselves, nor did their parents "make" them. A human being is further defined as standing in juxtaposition to the one God in heaven. Seen in this way, God and humanity are at the same time poles apart 376 and closely related by kinship. ywv71T~S)

364 See Gladigow, RAG 11.1214-15, 1217-21. Cf. Cleanthes Hymn 1: 7rOAvclwvp.• ("many-named"), another way to circumvent naming the deity. For further references see LSJ, s.v. 1ro'AvclJVvp.os. 365 The article o("he who") is missing inK*; mae and Did. 8.2 read the singular lv ri!J ovpavi!J ("in the heaven"). It is, however, part of the theology of the SM to refer to the divine sphere in the plural, and the epithet in this plural form is attested throughout (see 5:16, 45; 6:1; 7:11, 21). 366 See the long discussion about the epithet "father" and the rich patristic documentation in Johannes Casparus Svicerus, Sacra rum observationum liber singularis (Zurich: Schaufelberger, 1665) 162-95. On Origen see Gessel, Theologie, 105-14. For the modern discussion see the references above, n. 352. 367 For the mythology of divine fatherhood see also the discussion above on SM/Matt 5:45. 368 This epithet, common in Hellenistic religions, occurs in the NT only in Heb 11:10; cf. Diogn. 7.2; see BAGD, s.v. uxvlr7Js. 369 This common Hellenistic epithet occurs also in Heb 11: 10; Diogn. 7. 2; and more often in 1 Clement (20.11; 26.1; 33.2; 59.2 [with1rar~p, "Father"]). See BAGD, s. v. o7Jp.10vpyrls. 370 1 Cor 3:10. e.hs 0 7raT~P lf ov Tlt 7rrlvra Kal ~p.i'is 371 See 1 Cor 8:6:

.rs


Mohr [Siebeck ], 1988). 373 See SM/Matt 7:11; Col 3:17, 21; Eph 5:20, 31; 6:2, 4; etc. 374 For references and bibliography see above, n. 343. 375 See Gladigow, RAG 11.1232-33. 3 7 6 Corresponding to the invocatio are statements of selfdefinition such as Rom 8:16 ("we are children of God"); cf. Rom 7:14, 24; Gal3:26-28; Matt 8:9/ /Luke 7:8. For Hellenistic religions see CleanthesHymn 4 (Homer fl. 5.896): lK
387

As human parents, we simply take part in creation by imitating the work of the creator. This aspect human beings have in common with all other living creatures. Yet, of all creatures only human beings are capable of recognizing their creator and of turning to him in worship. Thus, the invocation is an act of acknowledging these fundamental facts oflife. Humanity also differs from all other creatures in that human beings know themselves as they know God. The act of prayer self-consciously expresses this knowledge, a knowledge that implies an intimacy between creator and creature for which the father-child relationship is the closest comparable image. Joachim Jeremias has repeatedly emphasized that the address of God as abba ("Father" or "my Father") expresses the kind of total confidence and trust that is basic to a child's experience of his or her parents. 377 This basic experience precedes and transcends human self-consciousness, and for this reason one can indeed describe the human relationship to God as "childlike." At this point, however, one ought to beware of sentimentalism. It is easy to misunderstand what is indeed a mark of a deeper and authentic relationship to God. One must not confuse it with the silly naivete sometimes displayed by adults. Rather, in the final analysis one can call the human relationship to God "naive" only in the sense that it transcends self-consciousness, suspicion, and fear. 378 In addition, it is easy to point to absurdities to which such a "naive" confidence in God can lead. Such critique of the father-child relationship may even rise to high levels of sophistication, but then it may just be "naive" in a

377 378 379 380

388

different way. What then is intended by the analogy of the fatherchild relationship? It is the recognition of the plain fact that we did not put ourselves on this earth but that we find ourselves here as a result of someone else's will and action. This relationship cannot be altered or terminated. Even an explicit abrogation of the relationship by the created being cannot change the facts oflife. Moreover, the invocation implies the recognition that no human life can be sustained without a fundamental trust in God who created and sustains the universe in which we live. This trust articulates the reason why one should accept this life and carry it through, conducting oneself as "son" or "daughter" ofthe heavenly Father. The consequence of this father-child relationship is, paradoxically, maturity, not immaturity. 3 7 9 I have already mentioned that the Aramaic word 'abba' is not part of the invocation of the Lord's Prayer. This fact implies that, as the words stand, we have an epiklesis that is not unique in any way, especially not for Jesus, but quite common in Judaism and in the GrecoRoman world generally. In discussing Jeremias's hypothesis scholars have pointed out repeatedly that addressing God as "Father" was common in Jewish prayers. 380 It was common also in Greek religion, where "Father Zeus" is the subject of many extant prayers. 381 Emphasizing the simplicity that such prayers have and should have was typical of Jewish as well as of Greek prayers. 38 2 Finally, the invocation joins the worshiper together with other human beings. Everyone who says "Our

1971) 359 (B.1, line 6): rfjs 7TcUS
24; Hildesheim: Olms, 1970) 73-108; Siegert, Philon, 52; Eileen M. Schuller, O.S.U., "The Psalm of

4Q372 1 Within the Context of Second Temple Prayer," CBQ 54 (1992) 67-79 (with further literature). 381 See Gottlob Schrenk and Gottfried Quell, "7rar~p," TDNT 5.945-1022, esp. 951-54 (A.V.1-3); Bernhard Kruse, "Pater," PW, 36th half-volume (1949) 2120-22; Martin P. Nilsson, "Vater Zeus," in his Opuscula selecta (Lund: Gleerup, 1952) 2.710-31; idem, GGR, 1.345, 403, 417; Hans Georg Gadamer, "Das Vaterbild im griechischen Denken," in Vaterbild (see above, n. 343) 102-15; Wemer Lemke, "Das Vaterbild in der Dichtung Griechenlands," in ibid., 116-35. 382 See the prayer quoted by Heiler (Gebet, 141) from Aeschylus Supplices 890-93, 899-901: J.La ra J.La ra,

Matthew 6:1-18

Father" acts as a spokesperson and representative of all humanity. As Aristotle 383 points out, the relationship between the divine Father and his human children is also regal, a fact that is acknowledged by the occurrence of the term "kingdom" ({3acn>..£la ) in vs 1Oa. If jesus originally formulated the Lord's Prayer, it is difficult-because of the characteristics just discussedto argue that the prayer expresses his exclusive relationship with God. All one may be able to conclude is that he saw this relationship to be the all-important one for humanity in general, and that articulating it first and thus teaching it to the disciples are a manifestation of his peculiar relationship to God. At all events, what jesus did must have been the result of a self-conscious and critical examination of the practice of prayer at his time. It was not an outburst of naive trust in God by a person uninformed about the harsh realities of life. This conclusion is supported by the following petitions. Verse 9c presents the first petition: "Sanctified be your name" (a:ytau8~TCJJ rh lfvop.d. uov). The wording is the same as in Luke 11:2 and Did. 8.2. The peculiar aorist (complexive) passive imperative of aytau8~Tw 384 allOWS for several aspects of interpretation. (1) In conformity with jewish theology, one may read it as a passivum divinum. 385 In this case, God as the implied subject would be asked to see to it that his name be sanctified, a process that apparently is not happening as it ought to. The ideal

expressed is that, as God is holy in the heavens, so also should his name be sanctified on earth. The statement may also have eschatological implications. God would then be asked to restore his holiness by soon bringing in the end of the sinful world. In this interpretation, the verb "sanctify" would refer metaphorically to the eschatological coming of the kingdom of God, which would be desired urgently. 386 The passivum divinum, however, does not require such a restrictive eschatological interpretation; it could also be understood as a present tense continuum. (2) If one regards the aorist as an instance of the Greek aorist ofprayer, 387 the subject would not be God but human worshipers. God would then be asked to see that humanity sanctify his name, so that one should understand the petition to read as: "cause us humans to sanctify your name." Which of these possibilities is the right one and whether we must make a choice of one over the other is difficult to say. 388 Rabbinic parallels are inconclusive because both interpretations of similar petitions occur; in rabbinic theology, one should note the emphasis on human responsibility, an emphasis that may not necessarily be true of the Lord's Prayer. Since prayer language tends to be general, one need not decide on only one of the possibilities of interpretation. 389

.,.a., Zof3
384

385

386

387 388 389

Harvard University; London: Heinemann, 1934] 493). See BAGD, s.v. ay•a(w, 1 and 3 (bibliography); Albrecht Dihle, "Heilig," RAG 14 ( 1987) 1-63; Gunter Lanczkowski, Diether Kellermann, and Michael Lattke, "Heiligkeit (1-111)," TRE 14 (1985) 695-708. See on this point BDF, §§ 130 (1); 337 (4); BDR, §§ 130, 1; 337, 4; Dalman, Wortejesus, 183-85; Jeremias, Theology, 9-14. Many have favored this interpretation since Zahn, Matthiius, 268-74, and Albert Schweitzer. Today, Greeven,Jeremias, Lohmeyer, Schiirmann, Raymond E. Brown, and Siegfried Schulz hold this point of view. Luz (Matthiius, 1.339 n. 50 [Matthew, 1. 3 7 5 n. 50]) is right in being skeptical. See BDF, § 337 (4); BDR, § 337, 4. See the discussion by Luz, Matthiius, 1.343-44 (Matthew, 1.379-80). Luz, Matthiius, 1.342-44 (Matthew, 1.378-80).

389

Probably all shades of meaning are intended, or at least suggested. Theologically, sanctification of God's name was one of the primary ritual obligations of the Jewish religion since Old Testament times. 390 The people of Israel are reminded in this literature time and again to honor God's name. The implication is that God is holy, 391 and that it is only through human sinfulness that his name becomes profaned. To be sure, only God's name, which represents him on earth, 392 can be profaned, not God himself. Profanation of his name occurs simply as the result of the totality of human sinfulness. Also, the phrase "sanctify God's name" is traditional in regard to the notion of obedience to the Torah, especially at those points where one is to call on the name of God. The most critical moments in this respect are the pronunciation of God's name and the trials of martyrdom.393 In what sense then is God himself involved? In what sense is he being asked? What is he supposed to do? God is involved because any form of profanation creates injustice, which God as the guarantor of justice is obliged to correct. In the final analysis he will correct it when the kingdom comes and the world comes to an end. At present, however, an imbalance exists, of which the petitioners remind God and themselves. God has innumerable ways to make people sanctify his name, be it coercion by punishment, inspiration, conversion, and so forth. One should admit that by implication God is being asked to interfere because it is assumed that sinful humanity will never reach the point of sanctifying God's

name as is due him. This is the reason why God is petitioned to do what can only appear to us as paradoxical: to cause people to honor God voluntarily. This paradox, however, is to be taken as part of his creatio continua. One can confirm this interpretation by comparison with old Jewish prayers, especially the Shemoneh Esreh 394 and the opening formula of the Kaddish, 395 which says: "Let his great name be magnified and hallowed in the world which he has created according to his will." Close as this parallel is, one should not conclude that Jesus took the first petition directly from the Kaddish, which, like the Lord's Prayer, existed in several versions. 396 More likely, Jesus followed a pattern more or less traditional in oral prayers. The main difference between the two prayers is not content but form: the Lord's Prayer is extremely short. • 1 0 The second petition follows in vs 1 Oa: "Your kingdom come," or "Let your kingdom come" (£>..8£rw ~ f3acnA.Ela uov). This petition agrees verbatim with the parallels in Luke 11:2 and Did. 8.2. 397 What is the meaning of this petition, and what are its implications for the Lord's Prayer as a whole? The combination of this petition with the preceding one means that God exercises his authority as "Father" in his "kingdom" (f3autA.da). This language and conceptuality were traditional in Jewish prayers. 398 God's kingdom is eschatological; it is established in heaven but not yet, at least not yet fully, on earth. The arrival of the kingdom "also on earth," that is, its complete victory over evil, is thus the content of this petition. This petition is justified because no one but God himself can make his

390 For Israel's obligation see Exod 20:7; Lev 22:32; Isa 29:23; and often. For God sanctifying see Exod 29:43; 3I: I3; Lev I 0:3; 2I :8, I5, 23; 22:9, I6, 32; and often. 391 On this concept see above, n. 384. 392 On the meaning of the "name" of God see the bibliography above inn. 293; also BAGD, s.v. lJvop.a, 4; Schiirer, History, 2.306-7. 393 For references see Str-B 1.4II-I8. 394 For translation and discussion see Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 12I; Schiirer, History, 2.455-63. 395 For the text and translation see the Heidelberg dissertation by David de Sola Pool, The Old jewish Aramaic Prayer: The Kaddish (Leipzig: Drugulin, I909; reprinted as The Kaddish [New York: Bloch, I929]) esp. XII, 2I-24. See also Elbogen, Gottesdienst, 93-94; Str-B I.408-I 0; Fiebig, Bergpredigt,

390

106-I4; Luz, Matthiius, 1.343-44 (Matthew, 1.37980); Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, II9. 396 So also Heinemann, Prayer, I9I, 256; Luz, Matthiius, 1.343-44 (Matthew, I.379-80); Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, II8. 397 The textual situation is, however, far more complicated than these attestations because of the variant readings of the second petition in Luke II :2. See the literature below in n. 4I 0. 398 For God as "king" see above on SM/Matt 5:3; 5:35.

Matthew 6:1-18

kingdom come. Human beings may wish it, but they cannot force it. 399 Similar to the first, the second petition also serves as a reminder to God. In the name of justice God must be expected to establish his realm firmly, even in the human world where it is now contested. A God who represents and guarantees justice cannot indefinitely tolerate a situation in which this human world is not obedient to God's rule. The petition, however, makes no mention of "imminent" or any other specific eschatological expectation. 400 Traditional as the language remains in this prayer, it is compatible with forms of "imminent" as well as "realized" eschatology. Prayer language does not necessarily express specific concerns, even though such concerns may be on the minds of the petitioners. The petitioners certainly wish the kingdom of God to come, and the sooner the better. One should not overlook some tensions between the Lord's Prayer and the SM as a whole. For the SM, the "kingdom of the heavens"(~ {3aU!Af:la TWV ovpavwv) exists not only in heaven but also in the universe as a whole. 401 As vs 1Oc points out, the divine kingdom includes the whole cosmos except the earth, because of human sin. Even among humanity there are differences. The human race is seen on the march toward the future along the Two Way road: the faithful are on the road to the eternal kingdom, 402 while the wicked will end up in eternal condemnation. 403 Eventually, therefore, the world will be dissolved, with one part integrated in God's kingdom and the other part eliminated from it. When humanity will have vanished, 404 when no one of them is

left "on earth," "earth" itself, which is already part of the cosmos ruled by God, will be liberated from the burden imposed on it by wicked humanity. The eschatology presupposed here therefore differs from that of apocalypticism (different also from Rom 8:18-22). The Lord's Prayer does not apparently envision the total destruction of the world. Instead, the eschatology of the Lord's Prayer expects the kingdom of God to conquer and annex the territory at present inhabited by the rebellious human race, a conquest that is entirely lawful while human disobedience is not. Parallels show that a petition regarding the divine malkut ("kingdom") must have been part of most prayers at the time ofJesus. 405 In the Kaddish, such a petition follows directly on the first, just as in the Lord's Prayer: "May He, according to His Will, reveal in the world which He has created, the greatness and holiness of His Great Name, and His sovereignty [make His redemption spring forth, cause His Messiah to approach and redeem His people (and build up His temple)] in your lifetime and in your days and in the lifetime of the whole house of Israel, speedily and at a near time (and say ye) Amen." 406 Similar petitions occur in the 'Alenu prayer, where God is designated and acclaimed as king, and in the 'Al hak-kol prayer. 407 Only the latter has a prayer that is formally a petition: "May He reveal His kingdom over us." These parallels show a wide-ranging variety of formulations, with secondary interpolations and shifts in emphasis and position within the prayers. There is no way, therefore, to identify the precise origin, meaning, and place of this petition, and one will have to be content with saying that

405 Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary, 1I9) points to the saying 399 Cf. the strange saying in Matt II :I2//Luke I6:I6. in b. Ber. 40b: "Any benediction in which there is no 400 This has been correctly observed by Grasser (Problem, I 00). Whatever rpxeu8a, ("come") may mean, it does [mention of] malkhut is no benediction." See also his not imply an imminent eschatological expectation. n. I9, p. 123. 40 I For the interpretation of this concept in the SM see 406 The translation is according to de Sola Pool, Kaddish (see above, n. 395), XII. The brackets indicate alsoonSM/Matt 5:3, IO, I9, 20; 6:I3, 33; 7:21. different versions of the prayer. For parallels see also 402 See below on SM/Matt 6:33; 7:I3-I4. Str-B l.418-I9; Fiebig, Bergpredigt, I07. 403 See below on SM/Matt 7:13-14, 2I-23. 407 See Heinemann, Prayer, 27I. 404 Cf. Cleanthes Hymn 7: uot o~ ..-a~ lloe Koup.o~ ~)U,CTCT6p.EVOS 7rEp',. ya'iav 7TEl8ETaL 'll KEV l£yys, Kal fK~V v..-o uelo KpariiraL ("All this cosmos as it spins around the earth, obeys you, whichever way you lead, and willingly submits to your sway"). A parallel is found also in PGM XIII.542 with reference to the creation of lao: Kal ol.,cirr. oVO€v 1}rc:bcT7JUEV TWv O.Eplwv ("so that none of the aerial bodies was thenceforth out of place").

391

some form of petition regarding the "kingdom" was mandatory in all prayers, but that the specific formulation was left to the individual composers of such prayers. The comparison also shows clearly that the emphasis of the Lord's Prayer is on the "coming" (£'px£u6aL) of the kingdom, and this emphasis is confirmed by the important role it played in early Christian eschatology even later. 408 Verse 1Obc contains the third petition: "Let your will be done, as in heaven so also on earth" (yfv1/6~TCJ) etxwu!t.uov, WS lv ovpav(i> Kal f'lTt yijs). Verse 10c has some textual uncertainties, 409 but most remarkably the entire petition is missing in the parallel Luke 11:2. 410 There the better witnesses do not have it, while correctors supplement it from the parallel in Matthew. 411 Did. 8.2 parallels the SM verbatim. The omission in Luke 11:2 remains unexplained, but it is hardly "original." Some witnesses have an altogether different petition regarding the coming of the Holy Spirit, but this petition appears to be a later substitution. There is no convincing reason why Luke should have excised the third petition (according to the SM) had he read it, which he most likely did not; his church seems to have used the shorter form. Asking God to let his will happen is traditional in Jewish prayers, in particular in short prayers: for example, "Do Thy will in heaven above and give rest of

ro

spirit to them that fear beneath. May it be Thy will, 0 Lord our God, to establish peace in the upper family and in the lower family." 4 12 The third petition of the SM must be seen in analogy to the previous two. Again, it is left open as to who precisely is to do the will of God, God or the people. Verse 10c assumes that God's will already happens in heaven, so that only the realm of the earth or the human world is where the divine will does not happen. The earth is not to blame for this situation because disobedience toward God's will merely occurs on earth, not by the earth. Rather, human resistance against God's will prevents it from being done. Human resistance is easily explained: it has its cause in human self-will. Thereby human self-will is pitted against God's will, and this rebellion is identical with sinfulness. Who else but God himself can make sinful humanity obey his will? Actually, the petition emphasizes two aspects of the problem. One of these aspects focuses on God and requests his readiness to let his will happen; the other aspect implies that the petitioner ought to accept on his or her part what the divine will has decreed. This latter aspect is well exemplified by the story in the passion narrative about Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane. This passage shows Jesus as a model for every Christian who prays. Without condition Jesus subjects his own will to that of his Father; he even denies his own will while at

408 The "coming" of the kingdom, is, however, not Harnack, Marcion, 207*; Aland, Synopsis, 86; attested elsewhere in the SM; cf. Matt 16:28; Luke Greeven, Synopsis, 152; Robert Leaney, "The Lucan Text of the Lord's Prayer (Lk. XI 2-4)," NovT 1 23:42 v. l. In the synoptic tradition, ~PXE
(Giitersloh: Mohn, 1989) 91-100, esp. 92 n. 5. 411 It is not attested in P 75 B L jl 1342 pc vg sy'·c Marcion Origen. For the textual evidence see

392

Matthew 6:1-18

the same time struggling against the verdict of death. Jesus' example is typical of any situation of martyrdom; it is not sought but accepted when unavoidable and apparently ordained by the divine will (Mark 14:32-42 par.). 413 It is far from clear, however, that the petition Jesus utters in Mark 14:36 is cited from the Lord's Prayer. Mark's Gospel shows no awareness ofthe existence of the Lord's Prayer, except this allusion to the third petition (according to the SM). How are these passages related to each other? 414 Martin Dibelius 415 has proposed the idea that Matthew himself formulated the third petition on the basis of the Gethsemane story and has inserted it into the sequence of petitions in the SM. According to Dibelius, Matthew also attributed great importance to the concept of the divine will elsewhere in his Gospel (see Matt 7:21; 12:50; 18:14; 21:28-32), 416 so that he found the Gethsemane story very useful for his theological interpretation of the gospel tradition. Dibelius's hypothesis must, however, be rejected for two reasons: (1) The parallel in Did. 8.2, which is most probably independent of Matthew's Gospel text, shows that the third petition is pre-Matthean; (2) Matthew himself, when he treats his source (Mark 14:36) in Matt 26:39, creates a doublet of the prayer. The first time Jesus prays, the petition agrees with Mark 14:36, but then Matthew refers to the petition a second time in Matt 26:42 without a Markan Vorlage, and it is here that the petition is brought into compliance with the Lord's Prayer: "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to pass me by without my drinking it, your will be done"

(7r&.np !J-OV, d ov a-6vara! TOVTO 7rap£A8£'iv £h:v IL~ avro 7rLW, )'£V7]8~rw ro 8£A1J!J-&. uov). 417 Matthew, therefore,

understands the possible connections between the Lord's Prayer and the Gethsemane episode and makes this connection explicit, but it is clearly Matthew who makes it explicit, not the Markan source. Similar Matthean interpretations occur in Matt 12:50; 18: 14; 21:2832,418 whereas in 7:21, the notion of the will of God refers to the Torah, a pre-MattheanJewish concept. For Matthew, "the will of God" refers to the divine plan as unfolding in Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. As a result one can conclude that the third petition was already part of the SM source that Matthew took over. This form of the Lord's Prayer must have been in use in Matthew's church as well, and the same must be concluded for the church of the Didache. The differences between the versions of the SM/Didache and Luke seem to be the result of differing church traditions, rather than the evangelists' own redactional operations. 419 Turning to the meaning of the petition, one must ask what the notion of the will of God refers to. In the Lord's Prayer it clearly does not refer to the Torah or to Jesus' passion. As parallels from the Jewish prayers show, reference is made to God's plan and intention in his governance ofthe universe. 420 This idea is not a

413 See Thomas Soding, "Gebet und Gebetsmahnung Jesu in Gethsemani: Eine redaktionskritische Auslegung von Mk 14,32-42," BZ 31 (1987) 76100; Gunter Bader, Symbolik des Todesjesu (HUT 25; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1988) 216-20. 414 Cf. also Caulder's and van Tilborg's hypotheses mentioned above, n. 326. 415 Martin Dibelius, "Die dritte Bitte des Vaterunsers," in his Botschaft und Geschichte, 1.17 5-77. See also Strecker, Bergpredigt, 119 (Sermon, 115); Gerhard Lohfink, "Der praexistente Heilsplan: Sinn und Hintergrund der dritten Vaterunserbitte," in Helmut Merklein, ed., Neues Testament und Ethik: FS fur RudoifSchnackenburg (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1989) 110-33; Lars Hartman, "Your Will Be Done on Earth as It Is in Heaven," Africa Theological Journal (Tanzania) 11 (1982) 209-18.

416 Grundmann (Matthtius, 201) agrees, but not without hesitation. 417 So also ibid., 201 n. 46. 418 Cf. also Matt 2:18 (Jer 31:15); 9:13 (Hos 6:6); 12:7 (Hos 6:6); 27:43; for Matthew the will of Jesus is important: his and God's are one (11 :27). 419 Another symptom of the unfixed form of the Lord's Prayer appears to be that Tertullian knows of a version that has the second and third petitions in reversed order. See C. Immanuel Nitzsch, "Ueber die noch unerorterte Umstellung der zweiten und dritten Bitte des Vater-Unsers beim Tertullian," ThStK 3 (1830) 846-60; W. Haller, "Das Herrngebet bei Tertullian: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Auslegung des Vaterunsers," Zeitschrift fur praktische Theologie 12 ( 1890) 327-54. 420 For references see Gottlob Schrenk, "O.!A.w, e.!A.7JI'-a

393

specifically Jewish one but general in antiquity. Most people believe that whatever happens complies with the divine will and must therefore be suffered, no matter how horrible it may be. It is the duty and obligation of the truly faithful to comply with this divine will too. 4 2 1 Many scholars have rightly observed that this petition concerning the will of God has close parallels not only in Jewish but also in Greek thought, especially in Stoic philosophy. 422 The Hymn ofCleanthes 423 and the prayer ofEpictetus express this belief in an impressive way. 4 2 4 One should not hastily dismiss this parallelism, 425 as modern commentators unfamiliar with the history of philosophy often do. By comparison, rabbinic parallels are sparse, 426 while Philo and other Hellenistic-Jewish texts yield more parallel material, no doubt because of

their closeness to Greek philosophical traditions. 4 27 The Stoic view is this: it is a matter of prudence, not only piety, to bring the human will into compliance and harmony with the divine will. The reason is that the divine will determines by way of providence and fate what will happen anyway. Yielding to the inevitable is prudent, while useless rebellion is immature. Thus Epictetus advises: "Do not seek to have anything that happens happen as you wish, but wish for everything to happen as it actually does happen, and your life will be serene. "4 2 8 Things do not happen arbitrarily but in accordance with divine prescience and providence operating through the force of reason that pervades all reality. 4 2 9 More or less agreeing with the Stoics, all schools of Hellenistic philosophy taught that a life that is

KrA.," TDNT 3.44-62, esp. 47-49, 54, 58; Carmignac, Recherches, 103-9. Relevant parallels are esp. LXX Pss 29:6 (cf. 30:6); 39:9; 102:21; 134:6; 142:10; 1 Esdr9:9; Sir43:16; 4 Mace 18:16. The closeness of 1 Mace 3:60 has long been recognized: "As may be the will in heaven, so shall he do [or: so shall it be done]" (oor a· Av Ji Bl>..ruJ.a tv ovpav~, ollrwr

426

'II'OI~UEI).

421 The proverbial expression of this piety is the famous "if God wills" (calledcondiciolacobaea),Jas 4:15: "If it be the Lord's will, we shall live to do this or that" (NEB) (tl:.v b K{;p&or 8eA~U1/ Kal (~UOJ.LEV Kal 'ITOI~UOJ.LEV roiiro ~ tKEivo ). On this statement see the commentaries, esp. Dibelius,james, 233-34; also Schrenk, TDNT 3.47 n. 32, 48. 422 See Grotius, Annotationes, 78-79; Wettstein, 1.32425; Tholuck, Bergrede, 372-73 (Commentary, 33841); Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, 57; Lohmeyer, "Our Father," 115-18; Berger, "Hellenis- 427 tische Gattungen," 1169-70. 423 See CleanthesHymn, esp.lines 15-19: oMl r& y{yvera& fpyov twl x8ovl UOV a{xa, aaiJ.LOV, oifrE Kar' al8€ptov 6Eiov wOAov, oiJT' ~vlwOvrep, wA~v OwOua {J€{ovur. JC4Kol uerJpat.utv O.vola1s. lr.AAlr. ub Kal rlt 428 7T£ptcra0. £wlurauat ll.prta 8livat, Kal KOup.liv rll.tcoup.a, Kal ov ..a uol ..a lurlv. ("No deed is done on earth, god, without your offices, nor in the divine ethereal vault of heaven, nor at sea, save what bad men do in 429 their folly. But you know how to make things crooked straight and to order things disorderly. You love things unloved.") Text and translation are · according to Long and Sedley, Hellenistic Philosophers, no. 54 I (1.326; 2.326-27). For bibliography see above, n. 96. 424 For the citation ofEpictetus's poem see above, p. 343. 425 As does Luz (Matthiius, 1.344-45 [Matthew, 1.380]),

394

whose description ofthe Stoic position is a caricature; similarly Strecker, Bergpredigt, 120 (Sermon, 116). Str-B 1.419-20 refers to Eliezer's short prayer (tefillah; t. Ber. 3. 7 [6]; b. Ber. 29b): "Do Thy will in heaven above, and grant relief to them that fear Thee below and do that which is good in Thine eyes. Blessed art Thou, 0 Lord, who hearest prayer" (trans. Maurice Simon, in Hebrew-English Edition cif the Babylonian Talmud, vol. 1: Berakoth [London: Soncino, 1960]). Interesting is also the admonition attributed toR. Gemaliel III (c. 220 CE) in 'Abot 2.4 because both prayers may be influenced by Stoicism: "He used to say-Make his will as thy will, so that he may make thy will as his will; make naught thy will before his will so that he may make naught the will of others before thy will" (trans. Herford, Pirke Aboth, 43). See also 'Abot R. Nat. (B) 32 (p. 71) (trans. Saldarini, 193). The history of the interpretation would require a study of its own. For Luther's interpretation see the texts collected in Miilhaupt, D. Martin Luthers Evangelien-Auslegung, 2.141-43; furthermore Calvin, Inst. 3.20.43. EpictetusEnch. B;seealsoDiss. 1.12.15-16; 1.14.110; 1.16.15-18; 2.14.7; 2.17.14-28; 4.1.91-94, 97104, 131; etc.; Seneca Ep. 74; CiceroAcademica 1.7; De nat. deor. 2.2; Diodorus Sic. 2.30; etc. For texts see de Vogel, Greek Philosophy, 3.64-85, nos. 943-944c (Cieanthes), 1011a (Chrysippus), 1245 (Epictetus), 1267 (Marcus Aurelius).

Matthew 6:1-18

ethically and religiously responsible, mature, and prudent must seek harmony with the divine will. 430 How conventional these ideas were by the time of the New Testament can be seen from Acts 5:38, where the Jewish teacher Gamaliel expresses the general principle, which jews and Christians then endorse: "For if this idea of theirs [J3ovA.~] or its execution is of human origin, it will collapse; but if it is from God, you will never be able to put them down, and you risk finding yourselves at war with God" (NEB). 431 Acts 26:14 quotes a heavenly voice as saying in Hebrew (the last part is in fact a Greek proverb): "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you, this kicking against the goad" (NEB). 432 The Stoic parallels are even closer when one considers the final clause in vs 1Oc: "as in heaven so also on earth" (ws £v ovpavi;> Kat E7rL yijs). As mentioned before, this phrase may apply also to vss 9c and 1 Oa as well; 433 in this case it would constitute a rhetorical zeugma (a kind of bridge between the three lines). 434 One must distinguish in the context of the SM the singular "heaven," as contrasted with "earth," from the plural "heavens," expressing God's transcendence. In contrast to the plural, the singular "heaven" refers to the "sky," which together with the earth forms the universe (o KOCTJLOS [SM/Matt 5:14]). 435 Thus at present the will of God is being obeyed "in" (£v) the sky. This statement can only mean that the sun (5:45), the moon (cf. Mark 13:24 par.; Rev 6:12; 8:12; etc.), the stars (Mark 13:25 par.; Rev. 1:16, 20; 2:1, etc.), the birds (SM/Matt 6:26), and so on already now are in compliance with God's will. Indeed, earth itself obeys God's will (SM/Matt 5:35;

6:28-30), and it is only those human beings moving about "on earth" who disobey (cf. SM/Matt 5:5, 13, 18, 35; 6:19). 436 The petition, therefore, expresses the request that obedience to God's will should be extended to include humanity also, the last outpost in the universe that still obstructs and defies God's intentions. The petition does not imply, however, any kind of urgency or even imminent end of the world; it rather assumes some duration of the world in conjunction with its obedience.437 At a secondary level of interpretation the petition can be made to conform also to imminent eschatology. The third petition of the Lord's Prayer has an interesting parallel in Epictetus's description of the attitudes taken by philosophical schools toward divine providence. He distinguishes among five such attitudes. The first option denies the existence of the divine altogether ("atheism"); the second maintains that the divine exists but is inactive and indifferent toward the cosmos (Epicureanism). 438 Then follows "a third set [sc. option], that it [sc. the divine] exists and takes forethought, though only for great and heavenly things and in no case for terrestrial things; 439 and a fourth set, that

430 For the Pythagorean tradition see the concept of 7rpOs TO 6ilov op.oA.oyla ("harmony with the divine") in Iamblichus De Vita Pyth. 13 7; Ps-Pythagoras, Carmen aureum 17. 431 For the interpretation see Haenchen, Acts, 253-54; Conzelmann, Acts, 43; BAGD, s.v. 6Eop.axos. 432 For the interpretation see BAGD, s.v. KtvTpov, 2. 433 So Origen De oral. 26.2, and others following him. See also Eberhard Nestle, "Zum Vaterunser," ZNW 6 (1905) 107-8; Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, 57; Carmignac, Recherches, 110-17. 434 See Lausberg, Handbuch, §§ 692-93 (1.347). 435 See also above on SM/Matt 5:18. 436 Kal ("and") is to be taken like oilTw ("thus"). See BAGD, s.v. ws, 11.1. 437 See Grasser, Problem, 97-101, 102-3; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 119-21 (Sermon, 113-16). This general

eschatology is compatible, e.g., with Stoicism. Cf. Acts 17:31-32. 438 EpictetusDiss. 1.12.1-3. 439 Ibid., 1.12.2: TplTol S' Ot Kat EtVal Kat7rpovoiiv, aA.A.a TO p.EyaA.wv Kat ovpavlwv, TWV a< t1ft yfis p.7JSEVfk This doctrine refers to the three stages of divine providence taught by Middle Platonism. Accordingly, Plato Rep. 10, 617Cff. was interpreted to mean that in the highest region of the intelligible world divine providence rules absolutely, while in the lower region of the astral deities the material substances are ruled over by the spirit; it is only in the sublunar region, including the earth, that there can be a conflict between freedom and necessity. See esp. Ps.Plutarch De jato 9-10, 572F-574D; Apuleius De dogmate Platonica 1.11-12; Diog. L. 5.32; PGM XII.217; for Christian texts see Tatian Oralio 2;

395

it [sc. the divine] also takes forethought for things terrestrial and the affairs of men, but only in a general way, and not for the individual in particular; 440 and a fifth set, to which Odysseus and Socrates belonged, who say 'Nor when I move am I concealed from thee. '" 441 Epictetus favors the last option, which is also the closest to the Lord's Prayer. Xenophon's interpretation of Socrates' view on the topic, to which Epictetus has alluded, makes things clearer: "For like most men, indeed, he [sc. Socrates] believed that the gods are heedful of mankind, but with an important difference; for whereas they do not believe in the omniscience of the gods, Socrates thought that they [sc. the gods] know all things, our words and deeds and secret purposes; that they are present everywhere and grant signs to men of all that concerns man."442 To a surprising degree these philosophical ideas oflate Hellenism parallel the third petition ofthe Lord's Prayer, especially as it is interpreted by the prayer instruction in SM/Matt 6:7-8. Here also God's hidden omnipresence is combined with his omniscience and his boundless generosity. Heaven and earth obey him, with the sole exception of humanity. The Lord's Prayer,

however, is not at all interested in further exploring the cosmic worlds between earth and God's realm. The focus is on the righteous alone, who long to join with the rest of creation, and they are the ones who pray this petition. • 11 The last three petitions are concerned with human needs, 443 as is indicated by the pronoun "us" (~p.lis) occurring in its various forms in vss 11-13; this pronoun stands juxtaposed to the singular "you" (uov) in the first three petitions (vss 9b-10b). The phrase "on earth" (vs 1Oc) provides the transition, 444 thereby also revealing the place and position of humanity in the universe. While the invocatio (vs 9b)juxtaposes God and the human petitioners, the worldview of vs 1Oc is more complex. Between God and humanity comes the sky and then earth, so that humanity inhabits the space "on earth. "445 The fourth petition in vs 11 poses some difficulties, although the general meaning is clear enough: "Our daily bread give us today" (Tov lipTov ~p.wv Tov l1rwt'Juwv llos ~p.l.v u~p.Epov). 446 This form of the petition is shared by Matt 6:11 and Did. 8.2, but the Lukan parallel (Luke 11 :3) differs somewhat: "Our daily bread give us every day" (Tov lipTov ~p.wv TOV hwt'luwv oloov oqp.'iv TO Ka8' ~p.€pav ). 44 7 Which of

Athenagoras Legatio 5; for Jewish parallels see Str-B 445 See also elsewhere in the SM, esp. SM/Matt 5:331.420, esp. the prayer cited above at n. 412. On the 37; 6:25-34. whole topic see Alfred Gercke, "Eine platonische 446 For special discussion, apart from the bibliography Quelle des Neuplatonismus," RhM 41 (1886) 266above on pp. 382-86, see johann Peter Bock, Die 91, esp. 285-86; Festugiere, L'Ideal grecque et Brotbitte des Vaterunsers: Ein Beitrag zum Verstiindnis l'evangile, 224-63; Heinrich Otto Schroder, "Fatum dieses Universalgebetes und einschliigiger patristischliturgischer Fragen (Paderborn: Bonifacius-Druckerei, (Heimarmene)," RAG 7 (1969) 524-636, esp. 53334; A. W. Sharples, "Alexander of Aphrodisias: 1911 ); idem, "Nachtragliches zur Brotbitte des Scholasticism and Innovation," ANRW II, 36/2 Vaterunsers," ZKT 36 (1912) 654-64, 869-86; (1987) 1176-1243, esp. 1216-18. Alfred Seeberg, Die vierte Bitte des Vaterunsers 440 Epictetus Diss. 1.12.2: T'TapTOL o' o[ Kat TWV t'lTl y1js Kal (Rostock: Adlers Erben, 1914); Walter Diirig, "Die TWv &v8punrlvwv, Els- KOLvhv 0£ p.Ovov Ka't oVx'r. ot Ka'r. Kar' Deutung der Brotbitte des Vaterunsers bei den l0lav fKQ.O"TOV. lateinischen Vatern his Hieronymus," LJ 18 (1968) 441 Homer Il. 10.279-80. Cf. Ps 139:7-12. 72-86; idem, "Die Exegese der vierten Vaterunser442 Xenophon Mem. 1.1.19. For a longer dialogue Bitte bei Augustinus," LJ 22 (1972) 49-61; Pierre between Socrates and Euthydemus about the divine Grelot, "La quatrieme demande du 'Pater' et son care for humanity seeMem. 4.3.2-18. OlofGigon arriere-plan semitique," NTS 25 (1978/79) 299-314; (Kommentar zum ersten Buch von Xenophons MemoraWilly Rordorf, "Le 'pain quotidien' (Matth. 6,11) bilien (SBA 5; Basel: Reinhardt, 1953]24-25) dans l'histoire de I'exegese," Didaskalia 6 (1976) reminds us that Mem. 1.1.19 is one of the oldest 221-35;Jean Starcky, "La quatrieme demande du witnesses for the Greek belief in divine omniscience Pater," HTR 64 (1971) 401-9; Delores Aleixandre, and omnipotence. Peculiar also is the doctrine about "En torno a Ia cuarta petici6n del padrenuestro," the "signs" (IT1Jp.alvELv), which is to be connected with Estudios biblicos 45 (1987) 325-36; Reinhard Gregor divination (see also Xenophon Symp. 4.46-49). Kratz, "Die Gnade des taglichen Brots: Spate 443 So Weber, Eclogae, 30: "tres petitions ad necessiates Psalmen auf dem Weg zum Vaterunser," ZThK 89 nostras pertinentes." (1992) 1-40. 444 So Strecker, Bergpredigt, 121 (Sermon, 116-17). 44 7 The manuscript tradition shows that the Matthean

396

Matthew 6:1-18

the versions may be the earlier or even the original one, and whether they developed from an original Aramaic Urtext, I have briefly discussed in the excursus above on the Prayer (pp. 374-75) and need not elaborate further at this point. 448 Scholars have observed that the fourth petition is rather wordy as compared with the previous ones. Gunther Schwarz even believes that he can distinguish between a primary and a secondary layer of interpretation within the petition. 449 Paradoxically, however, the wordiness is the result of extreme conciseness. The petition is a summary of both a theology and an ethic, all compressed into one sentence. Contrary to Schwarz, therefore, reflection and interpretation are intimately intertwined, and interpretation is not a secondary layer imposed on an earlier prayer text. As in all petitions, the exact formulation is decisive, so that it is not a matter of accident that the object "our bread" (rhv li.prov ~p.wv) is placed at the beginning. What is the significance of this anticipation of the object? The first reason seems formal: a catchword connection leads from the "earth" (vs 10c), which produces the grain, to the bread (vs 11), which we make from this fruit of the earth. The Lord's Prayer here reflects an older "agrarian theology" common in antiquity. 450 The implications of this "agrarian theology" for our passage are that "on earth" (vs 1 Oc) means that humanity living on earth does

448

449 450 451

452

453

so by living on the produce of the earth. Thus "on earth" means not only the space but also the resources of the earth in the sense that the earth feeds humanity. 4 5 1 As we have already seen, the expression "our bread" is rich in meaning. One should read it seriously as "our bread" because we as· human beings make and bake it, but it nevertheless is "our" bread only in a derived sense. 4 52 We can make bread only if we are given the grain first. This gift involves not only the earth that produces the grain but also God, who is the giver of fertility and the right weather conditions. Furthermore, there are human intermediaries, all those people who have some role in providing us with "our bread." In a sense the whole cosmos as well as the human society is involved, until we receive "our bread." The expression has therefore in mind not only us as consumers but also as producers and distributors. A true crux interpretum has been and still is the apposite adjective E7Tto-6cnos, for which a fully convincing explanation and translation cannot be given even today. 453 The problem of the meaning of the term £7TLo-6cnos has been debated since antiquity. 454 The first problem is that the word is not attested in the Greek language prior to or apart from Matt 6: 11; Luke 11:3; Did. 8.2. There may be an attestation on a papyrus, 455 but it is late (5th century cE) and damaged.

version was more popular, so that most variants are adaptations to Matt 6: 11. See Aland, Synopsis, 86. For summaries of discussion on the question, see Dalman, Wortejesu, 283-365; Black, Approach, 2038: Carmignac, Recherches, 121-43, 214-21; Schwarz, "Und]esus sprach," 214-15. Schwarz, "Undjesus sprach," 214-15. For a discussion and bibliography, see Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 98-1 00. For the meaning of £1rl with the genitive here see BAGD, s. v. £1rl, l.1.b.f'l; for the normal meaning see section l.l.a.a. One should note that Marcion reads rhv li.prov uov ("your [i.e., God's] bread") in Luke 11 :3; it may be related to the manna tradition. See Harnack, Marcion, 207*. For surveys and bibliography see Tholuck, Bergrede, 375-90 (Commentary, 341-53); Werner Foerster, "E1r&ovu1os," TDNT2.590-99; ThWNT 10/2.108182; LSJ, s.v.; PGL, s.v.; BDF, § 123.1; BDR, § 123; Carmignac, Recherches, 118-21; Christoph Muller, EWNT(EDNT) 2, s.v.; BAGD, s.v.; Strecker,

Bergpredigt, 122-23 (Sermon, 117 -18); Luz, Matthiius, 1.345-47 (Matthew, 1.381-82). One should also consult F.-M. Braun, "'Le pain dont nous avons besoin' (Mt 6.11; Lc 11.3)," NRTh 100 ( 1978) 55868; Louis-Marie Dewailly, "'Donne-nous notre pain': Que! pain? Notes sur Ia quatrieme demande du Pater," RSPhTh 64 (1980) 561-88; David Hill, "'Our Daily Bread' (Matt 6:11) in the History of Exegesis," Irish Biblical Studies 5 (1983) 2-10; Colin Herner, "£1r&ovu1os," JSNT 22 (1984) 81-94; Spicq, Notes, 3.292-95. 454 See esp. Origen De orat. 27.7 (GCS 3.2.2, pp. 36768). 455 See Preisigke, Sammelbuch, 1, no. 5224, 20; idem, Worterbuch, s.v.; Bruce M. Metzger, "How Many Times Does E7r&ovu&or Occur Outside the Lord's Prayer?" ExpT 69 (1957) 52-54; reprinted in his Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian (NTTS 8; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 64-66.

397

Jerome reports that he found the word mal}ar in the Jewish-Christian Gospel of the N azoreans, 456 written in Aramaic. Jerome rendered it as crastinum ("for tomorrow"), but it is far from clear whether this reference provides an explanation. For one thing, we do not possess the Aramaic text to which Jerome refers but have only his word. Even if his account is correct, the Aramaic may depend on the Greek rather than the other way around; we simply do not know anything about the basis of the text and tradition of the Gospel of the Nazoreans. Given this situation scholars have tried different approaches for establishing a possible meaning of this term: philological derivation on the basis of the Greek root, hypothetical Semitic roots, determination from the context, or trust in the oldest translations into the Latin. 1. Philological derivation from the Greek verb hdvat ("be forthcoming") in the sense of~ E7rtovcra ~fJ.epa ("the day forthcoming" [tomorrow]) can be applied to the "bread" as a reference to the expected messianic banquet or simply as the bread needed for the following day. 457 The first option, defended vigorously by Joachim Jeremias, 458 is highly speculative and depends on the acceptance of other hypotheses. The second option clashes with SM/Matt 6:34, the exhortation against worrying about tomorrow. 4 59 2. Philological derivation from Semitic roots remains

doubtful because we cannot be certain that the Aramaic mal}ar was the basis for the Greek term; it may be the other way around. 460 3. Derivation from the context would understand the word as a composite of E71"t- and ovcrta and interpret it as "what is necessary for existence." If one accepts this meaning, one could render it as: "Our bread that we need give us today." This interpretation agrees in substance with SM/Matt 6:8, is quite similar to Prov 30:8, 461 and has a parallel in the ninth benediction of the Shemoneh Esreh (Babylonian recension): "Bless this year for us, Lord our God, and cause all its produce to prosper; and bless the land; and satisfy us with goodness; and bless our year as the good years. Blessed art thou, Lord, who blessest the years." 462 There are also other parallels in Hellenistic literature dealing with the daily apportionment of food and drink. 463 The closest parallel is no doubt the phrase inJas 2:15: A.Em6fJ.WOt Tijs £cp1JfJ.Epov Tpocpijs ("lacking the daily nourishment") and 2:16: Ta E7rtT~oua Tov crwfJ.aTos ("what is necessary for the body"). 464 In an important article Hermann Frankel 465 has shown that £cp~fJ.Epos is a key term of Greek philosophy, describing the human being as a "creature of a day" and relating the term to notions of poverty. Thus, human life as a whole is fragile, short-lived, day by day, and from hand to mouth. 4. The old translations as cottidianum ("daily") as the

456 SeeNTApoc 1.147;NTApok 1.134;Jeremias,Abba, also t. Ber. 3.11 (pp. 6-7), cited by Lachs (Rabbinic 165-67 (Prayers, 100-102); Strecker, Bergpredigt, Commentary, 120): "may it be Your will, 0 Lord, that 123 (Sermon, 117 -18); also Carmignac, Recherches, You fulfill everyone's needs and supply each person's want." 44. Still valuable are also the older studies by Joseph B. Lightfoot, "On the Words £.,.,o{J<nor, 'lfr, PGL, s.v. EwtoVutoS'. u6vra[ov af JLOI. Tit OfovTa Kat rh: aVTILpK7]. 465 Hermann Frankel, "Man's 'Ephemeros Nature' 462 Translation in Schiirer, History, 2.457; cf. 460. See according to Pindar and Others," Transactions and

398

Matthew 6:1-18

!tala has it, or supersubstantia/em ("of a higher substance") as the Vg has it, or perpetuum ("perpetual") as the Curetonian Syriac version (syc) has it, or necessarium ("necessary") as other Syriac versions (sy(p.)h) have it, or venientem ("coming") as the Sahidic has it, or crastinum ("for tomorrow") as the Middle Egyptian and Bohairic (mae bo) have it (whereby the Latin terms are approximations of the respective languages), are all plausible, but they may already be the result of guesswork rather than solid knowledge of the language. 466

· If one seems to have no firm ground for making a conclusive decision, one is forced to wait for the discovery of new texts and live in the meantime with a provisional solution. I would favor the third option provisionally. It fits into the theological framework of the Lord's Prayer as well as of the SM (cf. SM/Matt 6:8, 2534; 7:7-11) and has religious 467 and cultural 468 support in Hellenistic texts. One should also keep in mind the point made many years ago by Anton Fridrichsen: perhaps Luke already no longer understood the term f7TtotJcnos and changed it to Ka8' ~f.dpav ("day by day"), which means the same as the "daily nourishment" mentioned injas 2:15.4 69 The term "bread" (llpTos) also has multiple meanings. There is hardly any doubt that it refers to real, not merely "spiritual," bread, but in antiquity generally bread was never taken as something merely material. As

already mentioned, the making and consumption of bread was accompanied by rich symbolism. 470 Therefore, one can be certain that the reference to "daily bread" included all that is necessary for nourishment; 471 rhetorically the term is therefore a synecdoche (collective notion). 472 The request for "our" bread introduces a complication. The pronoun "we" occurs twice in the petition. It means literally that we make and distribute this bread. Yet we still need God to provide the grain, from which the flour is made, from which the bread can be baked. How can God then be asked for the bread instead of the grain?473 The idea may be that the human work involved to make the bread is so insignificant that it is hardly worth mentioning, while the gift of the grain is all-important, so that it is almost the same as giving the bread itself. But the other ideas concerning the procurement of bread may be implied (see the excursus above on the Prayer). The bread becomes "ours" only through the collaboration of many people who in fact "give us" our portion. This fact is most vividly demonstrated by the

Proceedings of the American Philological Association 77

(1946) 131-45; German version: "EHMEPO:E als Kennwort fiir die menschliche N atur," in his Wege und Formen fruhgriechischen Denkens: Literarische und philosophiegeschichtliche Studien (2d ed.; Munich: Beck,

1960) 23-39. 466 See Aland, Synopsis, 86, critical apparatus; PGL, s.v. f7rto6cnos; Gessel, Theologie, 180-86. 467 Going in a theological direction, Origen thinks that the "daily bread" refers to the eternal word of God, A.&yos roil Owv (De orat. 27.9 [GCS 3.2.2, pp. 36869]). Cf. Cleanthes Hymn 21: A.&yov altv l&vra ("everlasting reason"). See Theiler, Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus, 316; Gessel, Theologie, 180-86. 468 So also Strecker, Bergpredigt, 123 (Sermon, 118-19). 469 Fridrichsen, SO 2 (1924) 39. 470 For literature and references see BAGD, s.v. lJ.pros; Johannes Behm, "lJ.pros," TDNT 1.477-78; ThWNT 10/2.993; Horst Balz, EWNT(EDNT) 1, s.v. lJ.pros; W. Dommershausen, ThWAT 4.538-47, s.v. Cl)'{; Theodor Klauser, Johannes Haussleiter, and Alfred Stuiber, "Brot," RAG 2 (1954) 611-20; Carmignac,

Recherches, 143-91. 471 See also SM/Matt 6:25-26; 7:9; Matt 4:3-4 par.; Mark 6:8 par.; 6:32-44 par.; 7:2-5 par.; 2 Thess 3:8, 12; Did. 11.6; 1 Clem. 34.4. 4 72 Of the type species pro genere (the part representing the whole). See Lausberg, Elemente, §§ 98-99 (p. 72). 4 73 Cf. the rich fool in Luke 12:16-21, whose foolishness consists of the assumption that he posseses (<\..v) his harvest. See also the proverbial question in 1 Cor 4:7: "What do you have that you did not receive?" (rl St <'xm 8 oiJK f'Aaf3<s;). Cf. Epictetus Diss. 2.20.32: "Grateful men indeed and reverential! Why, if nothing else, at least they eat bread every day and yet have the audacity to say, 'We do not know whether there is a Demeter, or a Kore, or a Pluto.'"

399

ritual act of breaking the bread and handing the pieces around at table. If this giving depends so much on human givers, one is always uncertain whether they will in fact give it or deny it. If hunger occurs the reason is most often that those who are expected to "give" refuse to give. The giving, therefore, depends not only on the production of the bread but also on the willingness to share it. Given the experience of human stinginess, one has every reason not to take human generosity for granted. God is therefore also asked to see to it that human providers are disposed in their hearts and minds to share what has been produced. The petition that the bread be given "today" (u~p.fpov) has parallels elsewhere in the SM. The implication is that nourishment is needed every day,just as all creatures must be supplied with the necessities of life day after day (see below on SM/Matt 6:25-34). 474 The basic human needs are indeed the same day after day. There is an implication here with regard to time. Basic human needs are not timeless, and they are not simply a matter of the future. What counts is what happens today. 475 So far, the petition assumes, the daily bread has been forthcoming, but one has no guarantee that this will happen day after day, so that one cannot take for granted the bread for today. As everyone who has faced starvation knows, it is "today" that matters, and neither past nor future can compensate for it.

Another implication is with regard to quantity. The amount of bread needed is limited to what one needs for one day at a time. The petition is therefore also an expression of modesty. The petition asks not for great wealth, gold and silver, houses, and all that comes with these things, but only for what can be used up in a day. By implication then, one should pray the Lord's Prayer every day. There is, however, no prescription at what time of day it should be prayed, whether in the morning or the evening. Did. 8.3 prescribes that it be prayed three times a day, 476 presumably in the morning, at noon, and in the evening. 477 This prescription has the appearance of a later liturgical application, but that application could simply make explicit the assumption of the SM and Luke 11 : 1-4 regarding the practice of prayer. • 12 The fifth petition concerns forgiveness of sins, a preeminent concern in jewish and Christian worship and theology. 478 What makes the fifth petition ofthe Lord's Prayer stand out, however, is the peculiar interpretation given to sins as "obligations" (3.pf,>..~p.aTa). This interpretation takes its terminology from law and commerce, 479 in order to apply it metaphorically to the religious topic of sins and forgiveness of sins. 480 This interpretation also presupposes two doctrines concerning forgiveness. First, the interpretation of sins as obligations seems to imply a criticism of the other concept of sins as transgressions of legal codes or violations of taboos.

ro

4 7 4 This appears to be the reason for the reading of 1
400

(FRLANT 96; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970); Herbert Leroy, Zur Vergebung der Sunden: Die Botschaft der Evangelien (SBS 73; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974); idem, EWNT(EDNT) 1, s.v. lJ.f/>{111'' ICTA.; Peter Fiedler,Jesus und die Sunder (Frankfurt and Bern: Lang, 1976) 204-11. 4 79 For the legal terminology see Alan Watson, The Law ofObligations in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965); Kaser, Privatrecht, 474-667. For Jewish law see Leopold Auerbach, Das judische Obligationenrecht, vol. 1 (no more published) (Berlin: Heymann, 1870); Menachem Elon, "Obligations, Law of," EJ 12 (1971) 1310-16. 480 Against van Tilborg, Sermon, 114: "The basic metaphor is about real monetary debts." This interpretation was rightly rejected already by Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 2.8.28; see also Tholuck, Bergrede, 390 (Commentary, 355).

Matthew 6:1-18

Second, forgiveness of sins involves interrelated actsGod's forgiveness is somehow bound up with the forgiveness of obligations others owe to us. Before I discuss these doctrines, the different versions and the formal structure of the petition require consideratiqn. The fifth petition is composed as an antithetical isocolon: And forgive us our debts, as also we forgive our debtors. 4 8 1 ~eal. llt/>fs ~p.tv Ta 3t/>f:LA~p.aTa ~p.wv, 6Js Kal. ~IJ.f:tS at/>~Ka#J.f:V TOtS 3t/>nA(TaLS ~p.wv· 48 2

The Lukan version reads somewhat differently (Luke 11:4): And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. ~eal. llt/>fs ~p.tv Tas O.p.apTlas ~p.wv Kal. yap avTol. at/>lop.f:V "lTaVTI. 3t/>f:[AOVTL ~p.tV'

Did. 8.2 also has a different version:

And forgive us our debt, as also we forgive our debtors. ~eal.lJ.t/>f:S ~p.tv T~V 3t/>f:LA~V ~p.wv, 6Js Kal. ~p.f:tS flt/>lfp.f:V TOtS 3t/>f:LA(TaLs ~p.WV'

Which of these versions is more original is difficult to say. The difficulties arise not only from the vocabulary 483 but from the underlying ideas as well. One can account for all versions in terms of jewish thought, and none presupposes specifically Christian theology. 484 Some unusual ideas, however, even within jewish thought are striking. These ideas have found expression also in other synoptic passages, such as the parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matt 18:23-35) and the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (Matt 20:1-16). One can see how important this petition was for the SM also from the inclusion ofSM/Matt 6:14-15. 485 That the text was no less important for Matthew himself one can conclude from the reflections on the congregation in Matt 18:1819 and 26:28. 486 Taking all aspects into account, I can

481 Translations of the petition differ considerably, depending on traditions of liturgy and usage as well as on interpretation. The main difference is whether one should assimilate lll/lnA-,j,.ara to the Lukan parallel and render it as "sins" and whether one should translate the perfect form of at/>-tiiCa/LEII as "as we have forgiven our debtors" (so BAGD, s.v. Ot/>nA€r'ljs, 2.b; RSV). For a survey of translations see Jacques Dupont, "Le Notre Pere: notes exegetiques," in his Etudes, 2.832-61; Carmignac, Recherches, 40136, with reference to Albert S. Cook, "The Evolution of the Lord's Prayer in English," AJP 12 (1891) 5966;James W. Thirtle, The Lord's Prayer: An Interpretation Critical and Expository (London: Morgan & Scott, 1915) 213-23. The translations of the Lord's Prayer into English and their history require a study of their own. The NEB and REB try a middle way: "Forgive us the wrong we have done, as we have forgiven those who have wronged us." NEB and REB prefer "wrongs" in vss 14-15 and thus smooth out the tension. 482 Textual variants reflect attempts at harmonization with the Lukan parallel. Origen reads wapawrC:,,.ara ("transgressions") for Ot/>n1l-,j,.aTa ("obligations"). D E (L) W A El 565 pc sylEIL£11 like the Didache and Clement of Alexandria. iitl>-tl~
483

484

485

486

aorist tense in Greek would represent a mechanical translation less idiomatic than the present tense. On the basis of the weight of the external evidence, as well as considering the non-parallel reading, a majority of the COmmittee preferred at/>.,;ICa/LEII." The more conventional object for the verb iitl>l'IIIL' ("forgive") is "sins" (lz,.apTla<, &,.apr-,j,.ara, wapawrC:,,.ara). Whatever term the Semitic Vorlage may have had (perhaps M:::l1M) could have been rendered either by Ot/>ElA'IIILa (Matt 6:12; Did. 8.2) or &,.aprla (Luke 11 :4). See on this point also Jeremias, Theology, 6 n. 15. Petitions for the forgiveness of sins occur in Shemoneh Esreh 6, in the Abinu Malkenu, and in other old Jewish prayers. For the texts see Willy Staerk, Altjudische liturgische Gebete (KIT 58; 2d ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1930) 12, 15-16, 28; Str-B 1.421-22; Schiirer, History, 2.457, 460. Against Schwarz ("Und Jesus sprach," 219), who suggests that 6:14-15 may have led to the insertion ofvs 12b into the Lord's Prayer. Matt 18: 15-20; 26:28 show that, for the evangelist Matthew, forgiveness of sins is based on his christology and soteriology.

401

agree with Georg Strecker that the version in 6: 12 may be the closest we get to the original petition. 48 7 In the first line (vs 12a) God is asked to forgive us our debts in the sense of cancelling them. Parallels show that the language of cupdvaL in connection with ocf>£LA7Jp.a ("debt") comes from law and commerce. 488 Applied to the relationship between God and humanity, this language is used metaphorically. It states that we as human beings have outstanding debts that we have not repaid or cannot repay. 489 Debts owed to whom? Owed to God or to other people? What do these debts consist of? Are they financial (loans or obligations) 490 or more general (legal, social, etc.)? 491 Whatever the answers may be, two facts are presupposed: (1) the social concept that all human affairs are fundamentally those of mutual obligations and that this also includes our relationship with God; (2) the realization that these obligations, at least to a significant degree, remain unfulfilled. 49 2

Unresolved obligations, however, constitute a problem for justice because justice was defined as "suum cuique" ("To each what is his or her due"). 493 Therefore, justice requires that one properly deal with and redeem all existing obligations; leaving them permanently unredeemed constitutes injustice. One can deal with obligations in two ways: (1) by having the debtor willingly or by force "pay the debt, "494 or (2) by allowing the creditor to cancel the debt. 495 In either case the debtor is released from the obligations. Remarkably, the fifth petition employs this business language to interpret what otherwise would be called "sins" 496 and "forgiveness of sins." Accordingly, sins are not treated as transgressions of legal, moral, or ritual codes, the way sins are usually understood. Rather, sins are taken to be instances of injustice in the sense of obligations outstanding and not met. 497 Since human life as a whole consists of an interconnected web of obligations, the totality of all unredeemed obligations

487 Strecker,Bergpredigt, 124(Sermon, 119): "Matthew has the original wording." 488 In the NT this expression is rare. Apart from Matt 6:12 it is found in the parable ofthe Unforgiving Servant (Matt 18:23-35, esp. vss 27 and 32). This parable, found only in Matthew, illustrates the doctrines underlying the fifth petition of the Lord's Prayer. For the most part, however,Jewish and early Christian sources connect lupl71p.1 with terms for "sins." See RudolfBultmann, "lupl'l/p.t," TDNT 1.50912; ThWNT 10/2.996-97; BAGD, s.v. lupl'l/p.t, 2; Herbert Leroy, EWNT(EDNT) 1, s.v. lupl'IIP.' KTA. 489 See also the interpretation given in Polycarp Phil. 6.1-2, where the admonition to be merciful to all is justified in this way: "We know that we all are debtors of sin. If we then ask the Lord that he may forgive us, we are also ourselves obligated to forgive. For we stand before the eyes of the Lord and of God and 'we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, and each must give account of himself.'" (<{Aop.EV Kat ~/)-ELf a.pu!vat• 0.1r€vavTL ytLp rWv roV Kvplov Kal 8£oV lap.€v bcp8aAJLWV, Kat "lr
492 493 494

495

496

497

160-80; Michael Wolter, EWNT(EDNT) 2, s.v., o.pElAw KTA. For this interpretation of sins as obligations see esp. Origen De orat. 28 (GCS 3.2.2, pp. 275-81). See above on SM/Matt 5:20. The term a1Toolowp.t ("[re ]pay") is technical. See above on SM/Matt 5:26, 33; 6:4, 6, 18; also Matt 18:2530, 34; 20:8; etc. For the legal background see Kaser, Privatrecht, 634-40; Watson, Law of Obligations (see above, n. 479), 208-19; BAGD, s.v. a1Tol>lowp.1. The technical terms are a1ToA6w and a.pl'IIP.'· See Matt 18:27; SP /Luke 6:37. See Kaser, Privatrecht, 64044; BAGD, s.v. a1ToA6w and a.pl'l/p.t, 2: The commercial term is applied to the notion of sin already in judaism before the NT; it corresponds to the Hebrew concept of:'l:::lin. See Str-B 1.421-22; Dalman, Worte jesu, 334-38; Black, Approach, 140; Jeremias, Theology, 6 n. 15; Carmignac, Recherches, 22-25; BAGD, s.v. o.p..71p.a, 2. See also Matt 18:24, 28, 30, 32, 34; 23:16, 18; Luke 7:41; 16:5, 7; 17:10; etc. The concept of obligation has remarkable parallels in Paul's theology; see Rom 1:14; 4:4; 8:12; 13:7-8; 15:1, 27; 1 Cor 5:10; 7:3, 36; 9:10; 11:7, 10; 2 Cor 12:11, 14; Gal5:3; Phlm 18; cf. also Eph 5:28; 2 Thess 1:3; 2:13.

Matthew 6:1-18

constitutes human sinfulness. How can one resolve this situation? For one thing, one must realize that there are two kinds of debts: the debts we owe to others, and the debts others owe to us. One must look at these two kinds of debts differently. The problem with debts owed by us may be that they are too large, too old to be remembered, or just too complicated to sort out. Even the conscientious person has a limit to his or her control over debts. One should rather recognize that nobody can remember, comprehend fully, and serve faithfully to make good on the multitude of obligations one owes to others. 498 In this regard, whatever the obligations consist of, we live in injustice, and this is the dilemma of sinfulness. This extent of our indebtedness involves God as well because he is the guarantor of justice. It is presumed that God knows the full extent of our indebtedness, even if we do not know it (cf. SM/Matt 6:8). As judge, God will rectify the imbalance either by punishment or by forgiveness; his justice requires one or the other (see also SM/Matt 5:26, 29, 30; 6:4, 6, 18; 7:21-23). Asking God for cancellation of our debts amounts to an appeal for mercy. 499 Such an appeal is justified only, however, if the petitioner is in a situation that leaves no other way out. Indeed, it would be blasphemous to appeal to God for mercy, if we were capable of dealing with the problem ourselves. Therefore the fact that an appeal is made means that as petitioners we are unable to come to terms with our indebtedness by ourselves, whatever the cause may be for this incapacity. God, then, by cancelling the debts through his mercy

restores the balance of justice. The presupposition of this assumption is that mercy is a constituent element of the administration of justice. After the cancellation, no further action of punishment or compensation is to be expected because the petitioner is acquitted. A further question is, To whom are these obligations owed? The answer in this context is twofold. First, since human life is understood as a system of mutual obligations, "our obligations" are owed to other people. Strictly speaking, these people would be those who have to absolve us from the obligations we owe them. Since they cannot or will not do so, no matter what the reason may be, an appeal to God is justified. Second, since all human beings owe it to God to live justly, not unjustly, we are also indebted to God as the upholder of justice. God is therefore the appropriate authority to whom to address the petition. Only he can do what those to whom we are indebted cannot or will not do. We know from tradition that God is a God of mercy and has the means to restore justice by cancelling our debts. If vs 12a presents an appeal for what we cannot accomplish by ourselves, vs 12b states as a fact that we do (and must do) what we are able to do: "as also we forgive [or: have forgiven] our debtors" (oos Kat ~JULS acp~Kap.£V TOtS bcpHA.£Tats ~p.wv). Why is this statement made in a petitionary prayer addressed to God? Not surprisingly, controversies have raged over this part of the petition, and their reverberations are felt to this day. Basically three issues are involved at this point:

498 This dilemma is exemplified by the tax collector Zacchaeus in Luke 19: 1-1 0. Repaying all those "debts" he owes to the people he exploited appears impossible because he will not be able to remember them all (19:8). When jesus pronounces that Zacchaeus is saved (vs 9), therefore, one must assume that he is forgiven also those debts for which he cannot make restitution. Giving half of his possessions to the poor and quadrupling the restitution to victims he can remember constitute vicarious acts of redeeming his debts. The important point is that the debt is somehow absolved. For the interpretation of Zacchaeus's dilemma see Str-B 2.250-51; Otto Michel, "ull.wv1J~," TDNT 8.103-5 with n. 154; Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.1225; Sanders, jesus and judaism, 202-3. Cf. also Matt 18:25: "and when he did not have [sc. the money] to pay back" (p.~

lxovro~

at aVThv O.woaoVvaL).

499 Cf. Luke 18:13: "Have pity on me, 0 God, sinner that I am." This expectation conforms to Jewish religion; see Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.1188; for rabbinic parallels see Str-B 1.421-22; Fiebig, Bergpredigt, 118. Cf. furthermore Sir 28:1-7, esp. vs 2: "Forgive your neighbour any wrong he has done you; then, when you pray, your sins will be forgiven" (REB) (litj>£~ lz.Q[KTJfLa Tip 7TA7]ulov
ap.aprlat ITOV )\.v8.,j
403

ai

1. If we are to read acp~1Cap.€V' should we take this perfect form as a statement of an accomplished fact ("we have forgiven"), or is it the translation of an underlying Semitic word indicating durational or consequential action ("we forgive")? 2. Is our act of forgiveness to be taken as the legal or theological ground for the appeal to God, presupposing a claim ("because we have forgiven")? Or are we making the appeal as a consequence of our knowledge that God will forgive those who ask him? 3. Is the petition of vs 12a sufficient in itself, and is vs 12b a later intrusion, inserted by some redactor for reasons unrelated to the immediate issue? One must admit that the statement of vs 12b is, formally speaking, not part of a petitionary prayer, but it is a statement of fact, a declaration. Therefore, does the purely petitionary vs 12a stand on its own, or does it need the attached declaration of vs 12b? One cannot deny that these questions are loaded with controversial theological issues. 500 On the one hand, if our act of forgiveness constitutes a claim, on the basis of which we have established a right to ask God for forgiveness, this would constitute the kind of "synergism," or "works righteousness," that most theologians, at least those in the Reformation tradition, would repudiate. 501 On the other hand, if forgiveness by God precedes our forgiveness, it would constitute a situation of "grace" (gratia praeveniens) and subsequent gratitude. Important as the question of correct translation is, it alone cannot decide these issues. The parallel passage in Luke 11 :4 does not help either because it raises the same

issue, and this is also true of Did. 8.2. The solution to the problem lies again with the notion of justice presupposed here. If human affairs consist of obligations, they are always mutual obligations. Therefore, since our obligations have been dealt with in vs 12a, it is necessary that vs 12b take up those obligations that others owe to us, because we have an unconditional responsibility to them ("our debtors"). 502 That these debtors are indebted to us means that we can do something about their debts. Regardless of whether we know these debtors personally or whether these debts are large or small, old or new, we are authorized legally to dispose of them either by claiming them or by forgiving them. All that is needed is an oral declaration stating the manner in which we have disposed or intend to dispose of them. 503 Verse 12b is such a declaration. It is therefore important to understand that vs 12b is a necessary part of the petition. 504 It is required by the theology of justice that underlies the entire Lord's Prayer. It is simply a matter of justice that we have done all we can when we come before God as petitioners to ask for mercy. Otherwise, such an appeal would become itself an instance of injustice; it would create new injustice instead of redeeming the old. 505 God as the upholder of justice must not be asked to endorse injustice. The peculiar situation exists therefore that the petitioners, even though they find themselves in the condition of injustice (vs 12a), still need a basis of justice to make a justifiable appeal for mercy (vs 12b). 506

500 See the surveys in Tholuck, Bergrede, 390-94 503 In Roman law, this is called acceptilatio. See Watson, (Commentary, 353-57); Carmignac, Recherches, 232Law of Obligations, 211, 213-14, with further 35; and the special studies dealing with the history of literature. 504 Some scholars still think that vs 12b cannot have interpretation. 501 A subsidiary question is whether the phrase "as we been part of the "original" Lord's Prayer because forgive" implies a limitation of the forgiveness. none of the other petitions has an analogous Against this assumption see Charles F. D. Moule, "'As statement. This argument is not convincing, We Forgive ... ': A Note on the Distinction between however, because it proposes that the "original" Deserts and Capacity in the Understanding of prayer must have been formally "pure" and free from Forgiveness," in Ernst Bammel, C. Kingsley Barrett, theological interpretation. For the assumption that vs and William D. Davies, eds., Donum Gentilicium: New 12b is "secondary" see Lohmeyer, "Our Father," 180Testament Studies in Honour of David Daube (Oxford: 84; Jeremias, Theology, 195-96; Schiirmann, Gebel, Clarendon, 1978) 68-77. 118-26; Fiedler,jesus und die Sunder, 204-5; 502 For this term see also Matt 18:24; Luke 13:4; Rom Strecker,Bergpredigt, 125 (Sermon, 120-21); Schwarz, 1:14; 8:12; 15:27; Gai5:3;Jas 3:2; Did. 8.2; Polycarp "Undjesussprach," 218-19. Phil. 6.1: "We are all debtors of sin" (.,.&vns l>~P••ll.tra& 505 The same idea is presupposed in SM/Matt 5:21-26, EEIAlT1JS. esp. vs 24; Matt 18:32-33: "I cancelled the whole of

404

Matthew 6:1-18

• 13 The sixth and last petition 507 concems the problem

of evil: "And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from (the) evil (one)" (Kat p.~ £lcr£v£-yK!JS ~#Las £ls 1mpacr#LOV, a..\Aa {/vera& ~#LaS a7J'O TOV 71'0V7JpOv). 508 While the petition agrees verbatim with Did. 8.2, the parallel (fifth) petition in Luke 11 :4 has only one line: "And do not lead us into temptation" (Kat#-'~ £lcr£v£-yK!JS ~#Las £ls 71'£tpacr#Lov). 509 This situation raises the question whether the second line in vs 13b is a secondary interpretation added to vs 13a, or, if not, what the relationship between the two lines is. The position of the second line, vs 13b, seems uncertain in respect to parallels, where it is missing. Mark 14:38 has a parallel only to the first line: "Stay awake and pray that you not come into temptation" ('YP7J'Y0plin Kat 11'pOCT£VX£CT8£, rva p.~ [A.87JT£ £ls 71'£&pacrp.ov). Polycarp Phil. 7.2 is related to the concept of the allseeing God, 510 and a parallel to the saying is cited also in Mark 14:38 ("The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak"): "asking in prayers the all-seeing God not to lead us into temptation" (a£~cr£crtv alToV~L£Vo& TOV 71'aVT071'T7JV 8£ov p.~ £lcr£v£-yKliv ~p.as £ls 71'£tpacr#Lov). 5 11 Before tuming to the most difficult problems of the interpretation of this petition, one must address the

question of its place in the Lord's Prayer. The composition of the prayer as well as its intemallogic suggests that its proper place at the end is intended. Opening the second set of three petitions, the fourth begins with the most obvious and eternal need of humanity, that of the daily bread (vs 11 ). The fifth petition tums to the more subtle dilemma of human sinfulness. This petition looks toward the past and its obligations carried over unredeemed into the present (vs 12). Verse 13 shifts the focus from past to future sins (vs 13a), in order then to tum back to the beginning and raise the issue of evil constituting all sins (vs 13b). Clearly, vs 13 forms the climax of all petitions, and the last word, "evil," names the issue that has been in the picture from the beginning. Evil is thereby implicitly defined as the absence of justice: the absence of sanctification of the divine name, the absence of God's kingdom, the disobedience to God's will, and so on-the outcome of all this, not its origin, is

Marcion Tertullian Origen), while other manuscripts add a second line, no doubt from Matt 6: 13b (M 1 A C D W 0 'It Jl3 33. 892. I006. I506 9.lt it vgmss sy"·P·h t«£lV71V O..ij,ccl uo&, Ew£1 wap£Kd.A£ud.S' p.E" olnc E~E& Kal uE boP'). This situation clearly means that the original lAEfj
506

507

508

509

405

evil. Evil by its very existence lures human beings into committing evil deeds, which explains what temptations are (vs 13a). Taking up now the problems of the petition in detail, the formulation of vs 13a, "Lead us not into temptation," seems to suggest that God is the one who leads into temptation. This suggestion has caused much consternation and a flurry of apologetic proposals to explain away the problem, a debate that continues until the present day. 512 Seeing it this way appears to involve the problem of theodicy. Is God instrumental in tempting human beings, and, as a result, is he enticing them to commit evil deeds? Is God, therefore, a cause of evil?5 l!1 The question we need to ask at this point is, Does the Lord's Prayer presuppose awareness of the theodicy problem? 514 Or does the Prayer raise this issue inadvertently, so that we notice it only from our later perspective? Or has the question of theodicy been introduced unintentionally by a philological infelicity, when the Aramaic source was translated into Greek, as many assume? In other words, is the problem the fault of the Greek translators who failed to think theologically when they were translating?

it is true that, even according to the Old Testament, God has been seen as the one who puts people, especially the righteous and the wise, to the test. 515 Wisdom literature especially took temptation by God to be part of his strategy of education. 516 This same wisdom literature, however, also expresses doubts about this view of temptation. The wisdom teachers apparently realized that when God is tempting people he may want only to test them, but such testing may in effect turn into enticing to commit evil acts. Or people who fail the test may end up doing evil, thus implicating God himself in the promotion of evil. Because God represents justice, however, such implication in causing evil is unacceptable. Consequently, various doctrines were developed in order to prevent doubts about God being a righteous God. These apologetic explanations could put the blame on Satan as the one who actually carries out the temptations, while God remains the one who also keeps Satan on a leash. 517 Or the cause of evil was sought in human nature; it is attributed to the "desires" of emotions, the "evil heart," or to the ~evil inclination" (ye~er hiirii') of rabbinic Judaism, or to the "evil spirits" of the Qumran texts. 518

512 For the surveys ofthe history of exegesis see Tholuck, Bergrede, 394-404 (Commentary, 357-65); Carmignac, Recherches, 236-319; Charles F. D. Moule, "An Unsolved Problem in the TemptationClause in the Lord's Prayer," Reformed Theological Review 33 (1974) 65-75. 513 See the excursus on the theodicy problem above, pp. 313-15. 514 Tertullian was certainly aware of the theodicy problem when he introduced an interpretation saying that God is without fault, but human beings must ask God for forgiveness. For references see Chase, Lord's Prayer, 133-36. For Origen's long expositions see De orat. 29.1-19; 30.1-3 (GCS 3.2.2, pp. 381-95); and Gessel, Theologie, 160-66. See also Ps.-Clem. Hom. 3.6-28, 55-57; 15.8; 19.1-25; Rec. 3.15-23; 9.55-56; 10.3. 515 For the OT material and bibliography, see Franz]. Helfmeyer, "l"'~~ nissii.h," ThWAT 5 (1985) 473-87. The great OT examples are the temptations of Adam and Eve (Gen 3:1:...19), Abraham (Gen 22:119), and job (book ofjob). The LXX has added to the importance of the notion of temptation; see Joachim Hans Kom, IIE1PAI:MOI:: Die Versuchung des Gliiubigen in der griechischen Bibel (BWANT 4.20; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 193 7); Cornelius B. Houk, "ITnpaiTp.Os, the Lord's Prayer and the Massah

406

Tradition," SJT 19 (1966) 216-25; Heikki Raisanen, The Idea ofDivine Hardening: A Comparative Study of the Notion ofDivine Hardening, Leading Astray, and Inciting to Evil in the Bible and the Qu 'ran (Publications of the

Finnish Exegetical Society 25; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1972). For the NT specifically, see Hermann Seesemann, "wEipa KTA.," TDNT 6.2836; Fiedler,jesus und die Sunder, 255-59; Wiard Popkes, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. wE&paiTp.Os; Spicq, Notes, 3.548-59, with further bibliography; Seung Ai Yang, "The Original Intention of the Longer Version of the Temptation Story of jesus (Matt 4:1-i 1; Luke 4:1-13): A Jewish Story of God's Testing ofthe Righteous Man jesus" (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1992). 516 See esp. LXX Pss 17:30; 26:2; 66:8-12; 139:1, 2324;Job 1:21-22 and passim; Sir 2:1-18; 4:17; 33:1; 34:9-12; 44:20; Wis 2:24; 3:5-6; 11:9-10; 16:8; Tob 12:13; 1 Mace 2:52; T.jos. 2.7; 'Abot 5.3, etc. See also Helfmeyer, ThWAT 5.485-86 (111.2.e); Georg Bertram, "wa&llEla, wa&llE11m," TDNT 5.596626; Paul Blomenkamp, "Erziehung," RAG 6 (1966) 502-59; Sieben, Voces, s.v. wa&llEla. 517 See Sir 21:27, and often. See Werner Foerster and Knut Schaferdiek, "fTarava.s," TDNT 7.151-65; ThWNT 10/2.1261-62; Otto Bocher, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v.; and BAGD, s.v. fTarav.

Matthew 6:1-18

The greatest testimony to this development is the book of Job, and it is interesting that the LXX version is the most determined to develop a concept of temptation along the lines of Hellenistic thinking. 519 According to Job, God himself does not carry out the temptation, but he leaves it to Satan, and that only up to a point: "The LoRD said to Satan: 'So be it. All that he has is in your hands; only Job himself you must not touch'" (Job 1:12 [NEB]). When Job proves steadfast, Satan is allowed to increase the pressure: "So be it. He is in your hands; but spare his life" (2:6 [NEB]). Although Job goes through the horrors of temptation, in the end both Job and God are justified (42:2-6, 7-17). 520 Various passages in the New Testament presuppose reflection and debates in early Christian circles about the nature of temptation and God's role in it. Whether the petition in the Lord's Prayer was important in these deliberations we cannot tell; the texts in question do not explicitly refer to the Lord's Prayer. These passages are, however, aware of the theodicy problem. It is noteworthy that a flat contradiction to what the Lord's Prayer says 521 is found in the Epistle of James. This epistle, which has much in common with the SM, is to a large extent devoted to the subject of temptation (seeJas 1:1-3, 12). 522 The teaching on temptation is summed up in a few lines inJas 1:12-15; this summary is the opposite of the sixth petition, when it says ( 1: 13 ):

No one under temptation shall say, 'I am being tempted by God'; for God is not subject to temptation by evils, and he himself tempts no one. (my trans.) M7]B£1s 7Tupa(6JLWO!> A£y,Tw Cin imo Bwv 7THpa(oJ.tat· o yap 8£0!> Ct7T£lpacrTIJ!> Ecrnv KaK(;>V, 7THpa(u B£ aVTO!> ovB,va. Instead, evil is explained as the result of the individual's natural "desires" (ht8vJ.tlat) that are used and abused by a demonic force called "Desire" (7} E7TL8vJ.tla). Personified Desire gives birth to sin, and sin when matured produces death (1:14-15). 523 Scholars agree that Sir 15:11-20 forms the background for Jas 1:13. Ben Sira as a whole is very much involved with the problem of theodicy (Sir 15:11-20): 524 Do not say, "The Lord is to blame for my failure"; 5 2 5 it is for you to avoid doing what he hates. Do not say, "It was he who led me astray"; 526 he has no use for sinful men. The Lord hates every kind of vice; you cannot love it and still fear him. When he made man in the beginning, he left him free to take his own decisions; if you choose you can keep the commandments; whether or not you keep faith is yours to decide. He has set before you fire and water; reach out and take what you choose; before man lie life and death, 52 7 and whichever he prefers is his. For in his

518 See Jean Hadot, Penchant mauvais et volonte libre dans Ia Sagesse de Ben Sira (L 'Ecclesiastique) (Brussels: Presses universitaires; 1970); Hermann Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde (SUNT 15; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980). 519 See esp. LXX Job 7:1: 71'0T<pov ovxt7r€1par~p10V E
524

525

526 527

Epistle of James, esp. Dibelius,james, 90-92; also Peter H. Davids, "The Meaning of i'm£lpauro~ in James l.l3," NTS 24 (1978) 386-92; Spicq, Notes, 3.554-55; BAGD, s.v. aw£lpauro~. See Hadot, Penchant (see above, n. 518), passim; James L. Crenshaw, "Popular Questioning of the Justice of God in Ancient Israel," ZAW 82 (1970) 380-95; idem, "The Problem ofTheodicy in Sirach: On Human Bondage," JBL 94 (1975) 47-64; Gian Luigi Prato, II problema della teodicea in Ben Sira: Composizione dei contrari e richiamo aile origini (AnBib 65; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1975); Hengei,judaism and Hellenism, 1.138-53, and index, s.v. Theodicy. Sir 15: 11a: "Do not say, 'The Lord is to blame for my going astray'" (REB) (M~ £rwn~ i5n ~.a K-6ptov lz.?TICTT7JV). Ibid., 15: 12a: "Do not say, 'It was he who led me into error'" (REB)(,..~ d7ry~ i5n Avro~ /.1€ ewA7rwv ~ {w~ Ka'r. 0 B&.varos, Ka'r. 8 ECr.v £vaoK~uy, ao8~oua1

avri!>). Cf. SM/Matt 7:13-14.

407

great wisdom and mighty power the Lord sees everything. 5 2 8 He keeps watch over those who fear him; no human act escapes his notice. But he has commanded no man to be wicked, nor has he given license to commit sin. (NEB) The theodicy question was no doubt widely discussed in Hellenistic Judaism and in early Christianity. 52 9 Since the SM shows interest in the question as well, it becomes more probable that also the Lord's Prayer was familiar with it. Since the Prayer is not "naive" but the result of critical reflection, the formulation of the sixth petition can be assumed to reflect the problem of theodicy in a special way. 530 A different apologetic attempt to exonerate God is made in 1 Cor 10:13: Temptation has not come upon you except human [sc. humanly bearable temptation]. God is faithful who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you can (endure), but he will provide together with the temptation also the way out to enable (you) to sustain (it). (my trans.) 531 Paul also agrees that God does the tempting, but that he does so with two restrictions: (1) he only allows it to happen, leaving open who the actual tempter is; 532 (2) the temptation goes only as far as human weakness can endure it because more would constitute unfairness and thus cause injustice. 533 The limit takes the form of a way

out, by which the temptation in some unspecified way becomes tolerable. 534 Under no circumstances will Paul allow the proposition that God is unjust: "Is there injustice with God? Certainly not!" (p.~ aSLKla 1Tapiz ri!J 8£i!J; J.L~

ytVOLTO ). 535

How do these passages compare with the Lord's Prayer? Nowhere else in the New Testament is there so unqualified an injunction to pray for escape from temptation. 536 The closest parallel is no doubt Mark 14:36: "Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will but what thou wilt" (RSV). The passage has been said to depend on Matt 6:13, but Mark shows no evidence that the Lord's Prayer was known to him, and the passage does not say that God is the tempter. 1 Cor 10:13 speaks only of God permitting temptation to occur, not that God is actually the tempter. For Paul, the devil is the tempter. None of these passages, therefore, can solve the question of the sixth petition in Matt 6:13. The fundamental problem in 6:13, as it has been seen since antiquity, is that temptation is here understood as entirely negative, as an experience generating evil. The possibility that God leads one into such an experience, unless the petitioner stops him from doing so, strains one's imagination. Faced with these problems, later scribes and commentators have taken refuge in sophisticated explanations to eliminate the offense. Some church fathers apply the

528 Ibid., I5:I9: "And his eyes are on those who fear him, and he knows every deed of a human being" (my trans.) (KaL o1lup8a!l.p.oL avrov l'JTL TOLf at !l.'yovutv) f
53 I For the problems of interpretation, see the commentaries, esp. Charles Kingsley Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Black, I968) 229; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, I69. 532 Cf. 1Tap,awKEV ("he handed over") in Rom I:24-29 (cf. I:I8); Gal3:23-24. According to Paul elsewhere,

408

the tempter is Satan (1 Thess 3:5; Gal4:I4; 5:7; 6:I; I Cor 7:5; cf. also Matt 4:I-II par.; I Tim 6:9; Rev 2: I 0; etc.). 533 The underlying idea seems to be that justice (equity) requires that demands on humanity be compatible with limitations set by human nature. Cf. the somewhat different application of the principle in Acts I5:IO, 28; Did. 6.2. 534 The term fK{3autf ("way out," "escape") is not clear. Does it refer to an exemption from the temptation altogether or the provision of strength to endure it? See also Moule, "Unsolved Problem," 74; BAGD, s.v. fK{3aurs.

535 Rom 9:I4; cf. Matt 20:I3. 536 Cf. also john I7:I5; I John 5:I8; 2 Pet 2:9; Rev 3: I 0, passages that speak of protection from evil in situations of temptation.

Matthew 6:1-18

same principle that Paul cites in 1 Cor 10: 13, adding to the petition in vs 13 the phrase "which we cannot bear." 537 Or the petition is understood to say, "Do not allow us to be led into temptation," 538 or, "Leave us not in temptation. " 539 Marcion wanted to read in Luke 11 :4: "Do not allow us to be dragged into temptation" (p.~ acpfis ~p.as du€v€x8ijvat €ts 7rnpaup.ov). 540 This permissive sense may also be present in the Syriac, and it may derive from the use of the Lord's Prayer in catechetical instruction. 541 Yet, one cannot accept any of these texts as softening Matt 6: 13, which names God as the cause of temptation. One can see how offensive this petition is even to modern interpreters from the fact that some try to find philological grounds by which to justify the church fathers and their efforts to arrive at an inoffensive text. 542 Despite a note of caution by Jean Carmignac, 543 Charles F. D. Moule thinks that the term €tucp€pnv should not be taken too literalistically: "'lead' (or, more accurately, 'bring') 'us not into' need mean no more than 'do not let us be brought into' by analogy to the 'deliver us from evil (or the evil one)' ofthe clause." 544 But the verb €tucp€p€tV €LS stands in antithesis to vs 13b (j/vuat

a7ro), so that both verbs describe contrasting acts: "leading into" and "leading out of. "545 Another possibility for solving the problem is inherent in the different meanings of the term 7rnpaup.os ("temptation"). 546 In the present context this term can refer (1) to "enticement to sin," that is, an "inward psychological allurement"; 547 (2) to a "test" through external circumstances, either by the normal conditions of life 548 or by special times of testing and trial such as the "messianic woes" of apocalypticism. 549 When examined more closely, however, these possibilities do not provide any solution to the problem of SM/Matt 6:13: "Why should anyone pray to escape testing-even if it is testing by the devil and constitutes temptation? If one knows that testing and temptation are inevitable; if one knows that, before the glorious climax of God's final triumph, there will be inescapable testing of an exceptionally severe kind; if, moreover, one knows that testing can be salutary and that the Lord himself has pioneered the way through it to spiritual effectivenessthen what is the logic of praying for exemption?•550 Is the problem then insoluble? "Have we, perhaps, reached a position where we are confronted by a logical

537 For the following I am depending on A.J. B. Higgins, "'Lead us not into temptation': Some Latin Variants, • JTS 46 (1945) 179-83. The fathers making this addition are Hilary of Poitier, "In Ps. XCVIII," CSEL 22, p. 369; Ps.-Ambrose De sacr. 5.4.29 (PL 16.473);Jerome, "In Ezech. XLVIII.16" (PL 25.485). 538 So Tertullian De orat. 8; idem, Adv. Marc. 4.26; Cyprian De dominica oratione 25, and others; cf. Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 2.9.30: "Ne patiaris nos induci in tentationem." 539 Hilary, "In Ps. CXVIII," CSEL 22, p. 369: "Non derelinquas nos in temptatione." 540 See Harnack, Marcion, 207*; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 156. 541 On this point see Geoffrey G. Willis, "Lead us not into temptation," Downside Review 93 (1975) 281-88. 542 This must also be said of the solution offered by Johannes Heller, S.J. ("Die sechste Bitte des Vaterunser," ZKT 25 [1901]85-93), which Carmignac (Recherches, 292-94, 437-45) favors. Heller argues on the basis of Mark 14:38 par. that £l
543 544 545

546

547 548

549 550

wir in keine Versuchung einwilligen" or "Und lass uns nicht in Versuchung einwilligen"). Carmignac, Recherches, 246, 254-55, 282, 284-90. Moule, "Unsolved Problem" (see above, n. 512), 6566. The term dtpro, 2. For this term see Hermann Seesemann, "w£'ipa ICTA.," TDNT6.23-36; ThWNT 10/2.1226-28; Carmignac, Recherches, 255-68; Wiard Popkes, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. wup&(ro KTA.; BAGD, s.v. wnp&(ro, wupa
409

inconsequence, but one which expresses a psychological insight?" 551 This possibility is indeed intriguing. In referring to Luke 21:36 and Mark 14:36 for support, Moule asks, "Is it, then, true humility not to intellectualize, not to be over-logical, but, realizing one's own weakness, to pray for escape even from what seems inevitable ('all these things that are going to happen'), while, at the same time, offering one's obedience: 'thy will be done'?" 55 2 Moule leaves the question open, suggesting instead that people have always understood it to mean, "Let us not succumb to temptation when we are tested. "553 And, he adds, vs 13b may represent "one of the earliest interpretations in precisely this sense. " 554 But Moule's suggestion has two problems. First, it resorts to the theological presupposition that religious truth is in essence illogical, that is, irrational. The Lord's Prayer would in this sense be an impressive testimony to religious humility, but it would also be a truthful attitude because it conforms to real insights into the paradoxes of human behavior. Thus, the prayer's truth would be that it is an expression of human irrationality; it confirms psychology, not theology. This interpretation, therefore, does not account for my quite different presupposition, according to which the Lord's Prayer is the result of theological rethinking ofJewish theology concerning prayer. The second difficulty with Moule's view is that the words of vs 13a do not actually say what they are made to say. 555 In order to approach the problem, one does well to consider the most important presuppositions as I set them forth in the Introduction to the section on cultic instruction. Accordingly, the Lord's Prayer is the expression of a theological critique of the practice and conception of prayer. One must therefore take the petition of vs 13a as a theological statement. Moreover,

the primary context for interpreting the petition is the Lord's Prayer itself, and then other Jewish prayers of the time that are comparable. Finally, the hermeneutical goal should not be to remove the offensiveness of the statement but to explain what it means. Jewish prayers preserved from a later time may allow one to suppose that either they or their antecedents were in use at the time ofJesus. Of special interest in this regard is the prayer cited in b. Ber. 60b: Blessed is He who causes the bands of sleep to fall upon my eyes and slumber on my eyelids, and gives light to the apple of the eye. May it be Thy will, 0 Lord my God, to make me lie down in peace, and set my portion in Thy Law, and accustom me to the performance of religious duties, but do not accustom · me to transgression, and bring me not into the power of sin, or into the power of iniquity, or into the power of temptation, or into the power of contempt. And may the good inclination have sway over me. And deliver me from evil hap and sore diseases, and let not evil dreams and evil thoughts disturb me, and may my couch be flawless before Thee, and enlighten mine eyes lest I sleep the sleep of death. Blessed are Thou, 0 Lord, who givest light to the whole world in Thy glory.556 This prayer clearly expresses rabbinic theology. Accordingly, God is asked to desist from "bringing into," among other things, temptation, but the weight lies on God's prevention of becoming overwhelmed by the evil inclination and hence by "the power of sin, the power of guilt, the power of temptation, and the power of contempt. " 557 It appears that the only real differences between this prayer and the Lord's Prayer are the specifics, respectively, of rabbinic theology and the theology ofJesus.

altemative paraphrase is "Garde-nous de consentir a 551 Ibid., 75. Ia tentation" ("Guard us from consenting to 552 Ibid. temptation"). See Carmignac, Recherches, 397; cf. 445 553 This interpretation resembles that ofJeremias (see also above, n. 543). (Theology, 202), who bases it on a hypothetical 556 According to the (modified) translation by Lachs Aramaic antecedent: "Do not let us fall victim to (Rabbinic Commentary, 122). See also Str-B 1.422; temptation." 554 Moule, "Unsolved Problem," 75. Dalman, Worte]esu, 344-47. 555 This is also true of Carmignac's own solution: "Et fait 557 According to the translation of Str-B 1.422. que nous n'entrions pas dans Ia tentation" ("And bring it about that we do not enter into temptation"). According to his rendering, it is "we" who get ourselves into temptation, unless God prevents it. His

410

Matthew6:1-18

I conclude, therefore, that one must leave the provocative or even offensive language of the sixth petition as it stands. Contrary to later apologetics, the older wisdom concept, according to which God is the tempter, is here reaffirmed. 558 This reaffirmation implies an awareness and careful consideration of alternative solutions as they are suggested in other contemporary sources, including parts of the New Testament. Whatever alternatives Jesus himself may have had in mind, they are rejected by implication. Neither Satan nor other people and not even ourselves are those who lead into temptation. Temptation is inevitable indeed, and the one who is the ultimate cause of this inevitability is God himself. This reaffirmation of the older wisdom position seems to imply also that the alternative solutions are recognized for what they are; they exist to obscure the fact that in the final analysis the cause of temptation can only be God himself. This conclusion also leads back to the invocatio (vs 9b), in which the petitioners see themselves confronted with God and no one else. This consideration also brings us back to the Lord's Prayer as a whole, in the context of which the sixth petition must make sense. What sense then does it make theologically when we pray, "Do not lead us into temptation"? In this larger context, too, the one who leads into temptation is the heavenly Father (vs 9b). One must not misinterpret his testing as insidiousness or perniciousness, as a "method of education," or as a gamble arranged between God and Satan. The temptation confronting humanity is nothing but the lure of existing evil (vs 13b). Although temptation and evil are not the same, the latter works as an enticement to commit evil deeds. Therefore, God leads into temptation by allowing evil to persist. The subsequent question then

is, What does evil consist of and how is it present? This question is implicitly answered by the first three petitions of the Lord's Prayer. Evil consists of the deficiencies named in these petitions: the lack of sanctification of God's name, the absence of the kingdom of God on earth, and the resistance by humanity against the will of God (vss 9b-10c). By granting these petitions, God would in effect eliminate the source of evil forever, so that by not granting them God allows this evil to persist and thus to exert its lure of temptation. One can see, therefore, that the Lord's Prayer as a whole agrees with the words of the sixth petition and that what is offensive about it finds an explanation within this context. 559 On this same basis one can now proceed to clarify the difficult second line of the sixth petition (vs 13b): "but rescue us from the evil" (aA.A.a pfJCTaL .qp.ar; a'lTO rov 'lTOV71POv). One can hardly have any doubt that this second line is in some sense an interpretation of the first. At the same time one must see this second line within the framework of the prayer as a whole. The difficulties of this line have been clearly identified by the exegetical literature. They concern two issues: the relationship between vs 13b and vs 13a, and the gender ofthe genitive rov 'lTOV71POV, which can be neuter ("evil") or masculine ("the evil one," i.e., Satan). The relationship between the two lines has to some extent already been discussed. Taken by itself, vs 13b seems to come from traditional Jewish prayer formulae. 560 The prayer from b. Ber. 60a, cited above, also includes a similar petition, and so does the seventh petition of the Shemoneh Esreh: "Look on our affliction and plead our cause, and redeem us speedily for thy Name's sake; for thou art a mighty redeemer. Blessed art thou, Lord, redeemer oflsrael." 561

558 On the theological problem, see esp. the detailed explanations by Origen De orat. 29-30 (GCS 3.2.2, pp. 381-95). 559 For the SM as a whole, esp. vs 13b amounts to a redemption from "lawlessness" (avop.la [7:23]); see 5:17-20, 7:12,21-23. In Matthew's theology, the emphasis is as much on "lawlessness" as it is on "righteousness" (see 13:41; 23:28; 24:12: avop.la; for li&Ka&o
347-60. Interesting parallels occur also in Greek philosophical prayers; see esp. Cleanthes Hymn 33: av8pal7rOV~ pvov awo Avypfj~ ("rescue humans from ruin" [my trans.]). Cf. also line 16; Hierocles/n aureum Pythagoreorum carmen 25.1 (ed. Friedrich Kohler; BT; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1974). Similar petitions are also found in common Greek prayers; for some examples see Wilhelm Kasch, "pvop.a&," TDNT 6.999-1000 (B. I. I); also Theiler, Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus, 316. 561 The translation is from Schiirer, History, 2.457. Cf. also the prayer in Ps 155:13-15 (IIQPs• 155;

411

The Jewish prayers show that "evil" was understood in a variety of ways. Within these possibilities, the Lord's Prayer offers what appears to be a highly original interpretation, in particular regarding the question of the nature and origin of evil. Accordingly, "evil" is not the devil but the result of God's not yet having completed his work of salvation on earth. This is "the evil" (To 7TOV1Jpov) that also constitutes the temptation for humanity. The petition, then, "Deliver us from evil," sums up the state of incomplete salvation and the demand to complete it. If God would grant the first three petitions (vss 9b-10c) he would simultaneously also grant the sixth petition. Consequently, vs 13b not only interprets vs 13a but also the Lord's Prayer as a whole. In this way one can understand how a traditional petition such as vs 13b has become an integral element in a theologically elaborate composition. This integration, being of a secondary nature, also explains why in the history of exegesis vs 13b has often been treated as a separate petition (the seventh petition). 562 Tertullian even appears to take vs 13b as a liturgical response, when he says, "The concll¥1ion answers, interpreting what 'do

562

563

564

565

412

not lead us into temptation' means; for it means this: but carry us away from evil" ("Respondet clausula, interpretans quid sit 'sed devehe nos a malo'"). 56 !1 Other parallels in the New Testament may also point to a separate petition. 564 These and the Jewish parallels, however, confirm that vs 13b could and actually did exist traditionally as a separate petition, but this fact does not automatically decide its position and role in the Lord's Prayer. 565 It is thus because of the peculiar arrangement of the Lord's Prayer that vs 13b is made a constituent part of the sixth petition; together with vs 13a it forms an antithetical parallelism (isocolon). Both lines interpret each other, a clear difference as compared to Luke 11 :4c, which stands on its own. 566 The conjunction of vs 13b with vs 13a means that one must distinguish temptation from evil itself. Temptation is not by itself evil; rather, it is the human agent who commits evil. Verse 13b adds that more is at stake than merely God's desisting from temptation. 567 Since the seduction comes from the existence of ev.ii, only the removal of that evil will end the temptation. Given the depth of human entanglement in evil, a divine rescue operation is needed

5ApocSyrPs 3; trans. in OTP 2.622-24); see Devorah excursus on the Lord's Prayer above, section 5 on Dimant, in Michael Stone, ed., The Jewish Writings of the composition and literary structure. For the the Second Temple Period (CRINT 2; Assen: Van literary problem in the history of exegesis, see Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, I984) 560-61. Carmignac, Recherches, 3I2-I 7, who demonstrates For a survey of opinions, see Tholuck, Bergrede, 40Ithat the notion of seven petitions goes back to 4 (Commentary, 363-65); Lohmeyer, "Our Father," Tertullian (who treats vs I3a and vs I3b as two 208-29. separate petitions) and to Augustine (for whom the See W. Haller, "Das Herrngebet bei Tertullian: Ein principal number seven is also represented by seven Beitrag zur Geschichte und Auslegung des beatitudes corresponding to the seven gifts ofthe Vaterunsers," Zeitschrift for praktische Theologie I2 Holy Spirit). Augustine is then followed by Luther (I890) 327-54; Schnurr, Horen und handeln, 4I-43. and in the 20th century by Zahn, Matthiius, 283-84; See esp. 2 Pet 2:9 (cf. vs 7); Rom 7:24; II :26 (Isa Klostermann,Matthiiusevangelium, 58; Lohmeyer, 59:20); I5:3I; 2 Cor I:IO; I Thess I:IO; 2 Thess 3:2; "Our Father," 25-29, 209; Grasser, Problem, I04. Coli:I3; 2 Tim 3:II; 4:I7, IS; Did. 5.2; 8.2; etc. See 566 Cf. Bucer, In sacra quatuor evangelia (I553), 64 recto; BAGD, s. v. {r6op.a&, with many references; Wilhelm Calvin, Inst. 3.20.46. On this point see Carmignac, Kasch, "p6op.a&," TDNT6.I002-3; Hermann Recherches, 3I3-I4. Lichtenberger, EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v. p6op.a&; Berger, 567 For the sense of b.AAa ("but"), see also Carmignac, "Hellenistische Gattungen," II70. Recherches, 3I6-I 7. Strecker (Bergpredigt, I28 [Sermon, I23]) argues differently and regards vs I3b as the seventh petition, which does not belong to the "original" Lord's Prayer because of its absence in the Lukan parallel version. In his view, vs I3b was added already in the pre-Matthean church so as to complete the number seven, which he takes to have been one of the means of formal composition of the preMatthean tradition. For this hypothesis see also the

Matthew 6:1-18

to bring it about. One can now also answer conclusively the question whether a7Th TOV 7TOV7Jpov ("from the evil") should be taken as a neuter or masculine. The question was disputed in the early church almost from the beginning. 568 Most Eastern church fathers took the petition to refer to the devil, 569 while the Western fathers, except for Tertullian, treated it as neuter. 57 For this reason the Vg renders: "Iibera nos a malo." 571 Today the problem is still controversial, although most scholars favor the neuter. 572 In the SM both the masculine and the neuter of the adjective 7TOV7Jp6~ ("evil") occur, the former referring to people generally, 573 and the latter to moral evil. 574 The identification of the evil one with the devil appears outside the SM only in Matt 13:19 and 38. 575 In a liturgical text like the Lord's Prayer, however, too sharp a distinction between the genders may not be advisable. Much of the language of prayer is deliberately ambivalent, so as to stimulate the thinking of the orants. Theologically, the Lord's Prayer tends toward an answer in favor of the neuter. In another context, however, it would only be natural to ask further questions regarding

°

the essence of evil, 576 and then the association with Satan would not be beside the point. 577 One can also assume as certain that the power of Satan played an important role in jesus' thought. Major references to Satan and his company of demons occur in synoptic passages having to do with demonology and exorcism, but it is not necessary to read those issues into the Lord's Prayer. Finally, one should point out that the sixth petition also defines those who pray this prayer. While the invocatio (vs 9b) does not have much to say about who the "we" are, vs 13 offers more evidence. Verse 13b tells more of the implications of what living "on earth" (vs 10c) means. Human beings, we learn, are in a frightening way surrounded by evil, but together with their precarious situation they are also surrounded by God (vs 9b). It is, therefore, almost a natural conclusion to turn to God for mercy and redemption and to remind him that the only hope for the human predicament is that he completes what he has committed himself to accomplish. 578

568 See the surveys in Tholuck, Bergrede, 402-4 (Commentary, 363-65);Joseph Barber Lightfoot, "The Last Petition of the Lord's Prayer," in his On a Fresh Revision of the English Nw Testament (London: Macmillan, 1891) 269-323; Carmignac, Recherches, 306-19; Gunter Harder, "wov7Jp6r," TDNT 6.54666, esp. 554-62 (C.II); BAGD, s.v. wov7JpOr 2.b; Armin Kretzer, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s. v. wov7JpOr, esp. 4.c; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 128-29 (Sermon, 124); Luz, Matthiius, 1.349 (Matthw, 1.385); Egon Brandenburger, Das Bose: Eine biblisch-theologische Studie (ThSt 132; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1986) 73-7 5. 569 For a list of the church fathers and later exegetes holding this view see Lightfoot, "Last Petition," passim; Carmignac, Recherches, 308-9. 570 For a list of the fathers and later exegetes holding this view see Lightfoot, "Last Petition"; Carmignac, Recherches, 311-13. At the beginning of this tradition stands Augustine, whose arguments persuaded the reformers and whose influence is still felt. 571 Although linguistically ambivalent, "a malo" tended to be felt as a neuter; see Tholuck, Bergrede, 402 (Commentary, 363-64); Carmignac, Recherches, 310. 572 See Carmignac, Recherches, 318-19, 397; Kretzer, EWNT 3.324 (EDNT 3.135). 573 See SM/Matt 5:45; 6:23; 7:11, 17, 18; SP /Luke 6:35,45.

574 See SM/Matt 5:11,37, 39; SP/Luke 6:22, 45;John 17:15; 2 Tim 4:18; Did. 5.2; 10.5; Barn. 20.2; etc. See BAGD, s.v. wov7JpOr, 2.c; Harder, TDNT 6.55962 (C.II.2.c). 575 See also Mark 4:15; Acts 5:3; 1 Cor 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 2 Thess 2:9; Rev 12:9; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 19.2. See Harder, TDNT 6.558-59 (C.II.2.b); BAGD, s.v. 1rOV7JpOr 2. b. 576 See Lohmeyer, "Our Father," 209-29; Kuhn, "w£1pacr1-16r" (see above, n. 548), 220-21; Grasser, Problem, 104-5. 577 See esp. Chase, Lord's Prayer, 103-67. One should note a long apologetic argument concerning the existence of the devil and evil in Ps.-Clem. Hom. 19.125. In this context (19.2) the Lord's Prayer is cited as a proof text: "Also, in the prayer which He delivered to us, we have it said, 'Deliver us from the evil one.'" See also Calvin, Inst. 3.20.46: "It makes very little difference whether we understand by the word 'evil' the devil or sin." 578 On this point cf. Lohmeyer, "Our Father," 229, who cites Sir 36:4: "As they [sc. the pagans] have seen your holiness displayed among us, so let us see your greatness displayed among them" (REB). Reminding God of his promises and obligations is a constitutive element of pleas for mercy (besides Sirach 36 see also 34: 13-35:20).

413

Excursus: The Doxology Christian liturgical usage knows a doxology following SM/Matt 6:13: "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory into the ages. Amen" (iln
414

doxology as a noncontroversial custom that was understood to be observed anyway. When the Lord's Prayer later entered into the formal liturgical usage of the Christian church, the liturgical pressure exerted on the Prayer may have led to the inclusion of doxologies current at the time (2d/3d century cE), and this usage then influenced some copyists of the New Testament manuscripts. This possibility, while it does not answer all the problems, would at least mean that the doxologies attested at present in the manuscripts cannot have been a part either of the "original" oral text of the Lord's Prayer or of its written citation in the SM. If a Jewish doxology was used at the earliest stage, it must now be considered lost. The doxologies attested by the manuscript tradition, however, do not show traces of Christian theology; they arejewish in formulation and theology. If they are taken from Christian tradition, they may simply have been adopted from jewish liturgy. At any rate, the fluidity of liturgical materials generally should keep one from constructing a clear line of development from the prayer instruction to the doxologies found in the textual tradition of Matthew. 2. If one applies the category of doxology, one should be aware of a form-critical problem. The composition lacks the typical elements of a doxology. 585 It does not begin with a dative but with "for" (iln) and a genitive (cf. Gal1:5; Rom 11:36b; 16:2527; Rev 5:13). Therefore, the designation "doxology" applies only in the general sense (see also Origen De orat. 14 and 33). Tholuck has questioned the category of" doxology" and prefers "aetiology" and "acclamation" (£.,,.pcf>v71p.a). 586 Perhaps the original function of the "doxology" in the Lord's Prayer was that of a response by the worshiping congregation. While the prayer was spoken by the liturgist, the community responded with the "doxology," so that for 87; and Metzger, Textual Commentary, 16-17. 583 To this can now be added the Prayer of Paul the Apostle from the Nag Hammadi Library, translated by Layton (Gnostic Scriptures, 305): "[For] thine [is] the kingdom [and] the glory and the praise and the [greatness] for ever and ever [Amen]." Cf. Dieter Muller, in Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, 28. 584 Jeremias, Abba, 153,170-71 (Prayers, 82-84, 1067). 585 See Alfred Stuiber, "Doxologie," RAG 4 (1959) 221; Reinhard Deichgraber, "Liturgische Formeln, II: Neues Testament und Alte Kirche," TRE 11 (1983) 257-59; Berger, "Hellenistische Gattungen," 137275; idem, Formgeschichte, 231-39. 586 Tholuck, Bergrede, 404-8 (Commentary, 365).

Matthew 6:1-18

this reason it was not regarded as part of the Lord's Prayer itself. This possibility is strengthened by the concluding response "Amen." 3. The doxology does not harmonize with the Lord's Prayer at some points. It remains unclear to which referent llr• ("for") refers; it may refer to the first three petitions or to the whole prayer. Except for the term "kingdom" ({3arn'J..
Bibliography Berger, Formgeschichte, 231-39. Betz, Galatians, 43. Matthew Black, "The Doxology to the Pater Noster with a Note on Matthew 6.13B," in Philip R. Davies and RichardT. White, eds., A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History OSOTSup 100; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990) 327-38. Carmignac, Recherches, 320-33. Dalman, Worte Jesu, 360-65. Reinhard Deichgraber, "Liturgische Formeln, II. Neues Testament und Alte Kirche," TRE II (1983) 256-63, cf. 267. Gnilka, Matthiiusevangelium, 1.228. Lohmeyer, "Our Father," 230-46. Luz, Matthiius, 1.349-50 (Matthew, 1.385). Niederwimmer, Didache, 171-73. Str-B 1.423-24. Strecker, Bergpredigt, Ill (Sermon, 117). Alfred Stuiber, "Doxologie," RAG 4 (1959) 210-26. Tholuck, Bergrede, 404-8 (Commentary, 365-68).

• 14 Most interesting is the addition in vss 14-15 of what

appears to be a community rule regarding forgiveness of sins. The rule has no parallels in the SP or Q, but it does have parallels elsewhere in Matthew and Mark, and even in the SM itself. The passage is formulated as an antithetical isocolon; vs 14 contains a positive and vs 15 a negative statement. The formulation of vs 14 is chiastic,

setting forth a conditional case and its consequence: , Ed.v yap ii.cpiju TOLS av6pc1nrOLS rd. 71'apa71'Tcbp.ara avrwv, acp~O'EL KaL vp.'iv 0 71'arnp vp.wv 0 ovpavws·. 588 For if you forgive people their transgressions, so will your heavenly Father forgive you also. The matter is clearly juridical, and the statement as a whole belongs to the category of "sentences of sacred law. "589 This sentence has some basic problems. If the particle yap ("for") refers back to vs 12, the question arises in what sense one is to understand this reference. Are vss 14-15 a subsequent interpretation, either by Matthew or by his pre-Matthean source, ofvs 12, or ofvss 12-13? Or does the sentence ofvss 14-15 give the legal principle underlying vs 12, or vss 12-13? Is the insertion of the rule the result of Matthew's redaction, or has it already been inserted by his source? As a statement of sacred law, vss 14-15 function as a principle and not merely as a moral rule or a secondary interpretation of vs 12. 590 One can also assume that the rule had an independent existence prior to its inclusion into the present context. 591 For this reason the terminology is somewhat different from that of the Lord's Prayer. Regardless of whether the SM or Matthew made the insertion, one should expect references elsewhere in the Gospel, and there are indeed such references. The connection with the Lord's Prayer is by catchword: ii.cpl7Jp.L ("release") occurs in vs 12 and in vss 14-15. As the connection by yap ("for") indicates, there are theological reasons as well. What are these theological reasons? If vs 12 contains a petition and if vss 14-15 are a legal and theological principle, which comes first logically? Are vss 14-15 an interpretation 592 or a paraenetical

587 For the parallels see Str-B 1.423-24; Chase, Lord's 590 Cf. also Strecker, Bergpredigt, 129-30 (Sermon, 12526); Luz, Matthiius, 1.353 (Matthew, 1.389). Prayer, 168-76. 588 D* L 788 pc samss omit the y6.p; D 1 omits avrwv; and 591 There is no parallel to vss 14-15 following Luke 11:1-4 and Did. 8.2. Mark 11:25 and 26 are 0 7 00 it read ;, (v rolr ovpavolr. clearly a harmonization with the SM elsewhere. Ljl 3 pc lat Basilius parallels, but the relationship of this passage to the complete the parallelism. See the critical apparatus in SM is complicated (see below, nn. 600, 605). 592 So Strecker (Bergpredigt, 129 [Sermon, 125]), who Aland, Synopsis, 87. 589 For this literary concept see above on SM/Matt 5:19. regards vss 14-15 as a "typically Matthean inter-

415

application ofvs 12, 593 or is vs 12 an implementation of the principle ofvss 14-15? The relationship between the verses seems to be twofold: First, vss 14-15 seem to precede vs 12 logically in that the principle is presupposed in its application. If the petitioners of vs 12a expect that their prayers will be answered, their expectation is conditional upon their own readiness to forgive (vs 12b). 594 The underlying reason is that of reciprocity andjustice. 595 Second, the principle of reciprocity sets a practical standard for the community of the disciples, a standard that comes to expression in various ways especially in SM/Matt 5:3-12, 16, 20, 21-26, 27-30, 38-42, 43-48; 6:4, 6, 18; 7:1-5,7-11, 12. If, then, the petition ofvs 12 is an application of the principle of vss 14-15, the issue of forgiveness does not cease when forgiveness is granted. 596 Rather, its implication in practice is a permanent demand, just as the petition of the Lord's Prayer is to be repeated again and again. 597 As a principle of Jewish legal and theological thinking, 598 vss 14-15 are also presupposed in the SM as a whole. The protasis (vs 14a) states the condition in general terms, not as in a casuistic legal case. 599 The reference is to "transgressions" (7rapa7rTwp.aTa) of the Torah, a term mentioned only here in the SM, 600 not to "obligations" as in vs 12. This difference is clearly due to the nature of the source from which vs 14 derives.

In the apodosis (vs 14b) the future tense of lup~cm ("he will forgive") points to the eschatological judgment, but the power of forgiveness as well as the acceptance of God's forgiveness are granted to the faithful even now. In anticipation of SM/Matt 7:21-23 one should say that present forgiveness is preliminary in view of the last judgment, so that those who will ask for forgiveness only in the last judgment will be refused. 601 By contrast, the faithful disciples who have received and granted forgiveness throughout their lifetime need not fear rejection in the end. 6 02 The statement that forgiveness is to be granted to "the people" (of li.v8pomoL) demonstrates that the community of the SM exists in the midst of all humanity. The rule is therefore valid for everyone and not only for the members of the group. • 1 5 The second part of the "sacred law" presents the negative antithesis to vs 14: £h.v p.~ cupijn TOtS li.v8pw7TOLS, oM( 0 7TaT~P vp.wv li.cp~cT£L Ta 7rapa7TTWp.aTa vp.wv. 603 If, however, you do not forgive people, so also will your Father not forgive your transgressions. The terms used in this statement are the same as in vs 14. Also, the composition is analogous to vs 14, forming a chiasm of nuanced contrapositions, so that vss 14a and 15b, 14b and 15a are juxtaposed (a-b-b-a pattern). The

pretation" of the Lord's Prayer. 593 So Luz (Matthiius, 1.353 [Matthew, 1.389]), who emphasizes the paraenetical connection with the practice of the church. 594 This also explains why vs 12 has the petition first and the declaration second, whereas vss 14-15 have forgiveness by the disciples first and then the promise ofthe forgiveness by God. 595 See above on SM Matt 6:12. 596 This indicates why the principle is at work in the community ofthe SM itself; it continues to function in a different way in the Matthean church later (see Matt 16:19; 18:15-18, 21-22). One should note that the principle is also known, independently of Matthew, in the Gospel of John (20:23). 597 Cf. Matt 18:21-22 (!/Luke 17:4): "'Lord, how often am I to forgive my brother if he goes on wronging me? As many as seven times?' Jesus replied, 'I do not say seven times; I say seventy times seven!'" (REB). 598 For Jewish parallels see Str-B 1. 739-42; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 122-23, citing Sir 28:1-2; Midrash Tannaim 15.11, p. 85; m. B. Qam. 8.7.

416

ae

599 Differently, Strecker, Bergpredigt, 129 (Sermon, 125). 600. The term orapaorrwp.a ("transgression") occurs in connection with forgiveness elsewhere in the NT; see Matt 18:35 v.l.; Mark 11:25-26; Rom 4:25; 5:15-20; 2 Cor 5: 19; Gal 6:1. For further references see Wilhelm Michaelis, "oriorrw KTA.," TDNT 6.161-73, esp. 164-66 (B.II.2); and "orapaorrwp.a," ibid., 17072; Betz, Galatians, 226; BAGD, s.v. orapaorrwp.a. 601 The one who grants forgiveness is the "heavenly Father" (o orar~p vp.wu oovpau1o~). a concept known elsewhere in the SM (5:48; 6:26, 32); it appears to reflect the traditional language of Jewish Christianity. God's presence at the last judgment is to be presumed (see on 7:21-23; and Betz, Essays, 12728). 602 If the disciples forgive the sins of others, it is not merely "the preparation for gracious action of the heavenly Judge" (so Strecker, Bergpredigt, 130 [Sermon, 125]), but the response to divine forgiveness previously received. 603 At the end ofvs 15a a number of witnesses add ra orapaorrci,p.ara avrwu ("their transgressions"); no

Matthew 6:1-18

result is that refusal of forgiveness toward people will lead to God's refusal to forgive the sins of the faithful. The connection between human and divine forgiveness follows, as already pointed out before, from the principle of justice and equity (see above on 6: 12). It is noteworthy that the demand to forgive "people" implies a universalist orientation (cf. above on 5: 16). Also, the statement rules out the idea that the disciples of the SM are "sinless"; "perfection" (5:48) does not amount to a permanent state of sinlessness. Rather, to the extent that the disciples of the SM remain sinners, continuous forgiveness of their sins is needed. The goal of "perfection" is therefore not to be without sin, but to obtain forgiveness to the full extent, a goal that is also equal to the status of righteousness. One can see here that the later Lutheran doctrine of simul iustus et peccator ("simultaneously righteous and sinner") has its antecedent even in as early a text as the SM. Furthermore, the statement in vss 14-15 does not include the authority of "binding and loosing" as it occurs in Matt 16:19; 18:18;John 20:23. Instead, vss 14-15 speak only of the authority to forgive. Not forgiving someone is a fault on the part of the unforgiving disciple and has eschatological consequences, but

nothing is said about the eschatological destiny of sinners whose sins are not forgiven. This principle differs from the rule of authority granted to Peter (Matt 16: 19) and to the church (Matt 18: 18; John 20:23), which includes the power to determine a person's destiny eternally and irreversibly. 604 Thus the Matthean passages in 16: 19; 18:18 and their parallel in John 20:23 differ greatly from SM/Matt 6:14-15. 605 This difference speaks against the hypothesis that the evangelist Matthew inserted vss 1415 into the SM. 606 If the evangelist had wanted to insert anything at this point, he would most likely have inserted the rule of 18: 18. • 1 6 In vs 16 the text rather abruptly returns to the cultic instruction that began in 6: 1-6 and was interrupted by the prayer section 6:7-13 and the principle set forth in 6:14-15. The last section ofthe cultic instruction in vss 16-18 deals with the ritual offasting. As far as its composition is concerned, the section has the same structure as that found in 6:2-4 and 6:5-6. The section presupposes that the ritual of fasting is considered an important component of the practice of religion at the time. 607 This estimation is confirmed by other New Testament sources ascribing to the jewish

doubt the purpose is the parallelism with vs 14a (B L wej1 3 33.892mg_1006.1342.15069Jl[b]fqsy'·h sa boP'). The best witnesses (MD jl 205. 892*. pc !at syP mae boP') preserve the a-b-b-a chiastic pattern. In vs 15b witnesses vacillate whether forgiveness is connected with the persons or with the sins of these persons. Therefore, IC pc read vp.lv &.p~u•• ("he will forgive you") instead of "your [vp.rov] Father will forgive"; D pc it vg< 1 syP·h read Vp.rov t..p~
(1983) 112-17; Herbert W. Basser, "Derrett's 'Binding' Reopened," JBL 104 (1985) 297-300; Richard H. Hiers, "'Binding' and 'Loosing': The Matthean Authorizations," JBL 104 (1985) 233-50. 605 The question of the relationship between Matt 6:1415 and Mark 11:25-26 points to another difficult problem. When one assumes that Mark 11:25-26 shows the influence of the rule cited also in Matt 6:14-15, similar to Matt 5:23-24, this does not necessarily imply that Mark had access to the text of the SM or of Matthew. Differently Strecker (Bergpredigt, 129 [Sermon, 125]), who assumes that Mark 11:25-26 represents post-Markan glosses based on Matthean influence. 606 Against Strecker, Bergpredigt, 129-30 (Sermon, 12526); Luz, Matthiius, 1.353 (Matthew, 1.389). 607 For bibliography and references see Johannes Behm, "vijun~ KTA.," TDNT 4.924-35; BAGD, s.v. V7Jur<6w, V7Junla, vijun~;JosefZmijewski, EWNT(EDNT) 2, s.v. V7Jun!Jw KTA.; Str-B 4/1.77-114 (excursus on fasting); Klaus Beyer, Die aramiiischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984) 354-58; Rudolf Arbesmann, "Fasten," RAG 7 (1969) 447-93; idem, "Fastenspeise," ibid., 493-500; idem, "Fasttage," ibid., 500-552; Peter Gerlitz eta!., "Fasten/Fasttage I-III," TRE 11 (1983) 41-59; Rosemary Rader, "Fasting," EncRel 5.286-90.

417

religion a high regard for fasting. 608 In the cultic instruction of the SM, however, fasting is given the least significant status as compared to almsgiving and prayer (6:2-4, 5-6). Moreover, no details are provided as to content, purpose, and times of fasting. The ritual is simply assumed to be customary. This lack of detail may be justified to the extent that fasting was an ancient and venerable ritual in antiquity. It had no specific purpose, so that abstention could be interpreted in various ways. The ritual was therefore connected with asceticism, 609 mourning, 610 purification, 611 and meditation. 612 There was no firm opinion about why, how, and when one ought to fast. Apparently, this indeterminate nature of the ritual gave rise to cultic criticism, which is also presupposed in our passage. 613 This criticism is, however, not explained; we are simply given the resultant recommendation. 614 One must conclude that this recommendation is critical of the common view that fasting as such is religiously and ethically valuable, no matter how it is done. While the ritual itself is not rejected, its performance is scrutinized. In analogy to almsgiving and prayer, the issue of ostentatiousness is mentioned; indeed, fasting lends itself to ostentatious displays. Instead, we are told, one must perform fasting in a particular way, in order to be religiously acceptable. Fasting is appropriate only if one performs it inconspicuously and without ostentatious displays. In this

point the recommendation agrees with the previous sections (see above on 6:4 and 6:6). The recommendation reflects what seem to have been Jesus' objections against fasting. One should admit that we are only inadequately informed about the historical Jesus' attitude toward fasting. Nonobservance of the ritual may have been initiated by Jesus himself (see esp. Mark 2:1822 par.; Matt 11:18//Luke 7:33). 615 His attitude toward fasting may have been one of the major differences between Jesus and John the Baptist, but if so we do not know the reasons why they differed. Explanations in the tradition seem to be of later origin. At any rate, nonobservance was continued later on, especially in the Pauline 616 and the gnostic tradition. SM/Matt 6:16-18 does not recommend nonobservance, however, but modifies the reason for, as well as the performance of, the ritual. Perhaps 6: 16-18 is the earliest occurrence of reintroducing fasting, albeit in a different form analogous to the other rituals described in this instruction. While the New Testament has little if any reflection of 6: 16-18, the Coptic Gospel of Thomas has striking parallels showing gnostic interpretation. Logion 14 simply advises against fasting: Jesus said to them, "If you (plur.) fast, you will acquire a sin, and if you pray you will be condemned, and if you give alms, it is evil that you will do unto your spirits. "61 7

608 According to Tacitus (Ann. 5.4) fasting was a ritual typical for Jews, so much so that Augustus could boast that he fasted even more than a jew; see also Suetonius Augustus 76.3. 609 On the fasting of john the Baptist see Mark 1:6; 2:18-20 par.; cf. the Pharisee in Luke 18:12. 610 See Fritz Stolz, "t:l1:.t ~iim fasten," THAT 2.536-37; H. D. Preuss, "t:l1:.t J{lm," ThWAT 6 (1989) 959-63. 611 See Arbesmann, RAC 7.452-56. Cf. Gal2:12. 612 Often in association with prayer. See Matt 4:2; Mark 9:29 par.; Luke 2:37; Acts 10:30 v.l.; 13:2-3; 14:23; 1 Cor 7:5 v.l.; cf. 2 Mace 13: 12; T. jos. 10.1-2. See also 2 Clem. 16.4: "Fasting is better than prayer, almsgiving better than both" (Kp
614

615

616

7TpOu
613 Criticism of fasting begins with the OT prophets (see Isa 58:1-14;Jer 14:12;Joel2:15; Zech 7:5; 8:16-17, 617 19); it continued in Sir 31(34):31; 34:26; T. Ash. 2.8; Apocalypse ofElijah 1.13-22 (OTP 1.737-38). Criticism is also presupposed in the cultic instruction of Tob 12:8-9, because fasting is not even mentioned there, except in variant readings (see Robert

418

Hanhart, Tobit [Septuaginta 8.5; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983]158-59). Luz argues differently (Matthiius, 1.328 [Matthew, 1.362]) and thinks that neither justification nor criticism of fasting is involved. See the study by Franz Gerhard Cremer, Die Fastenansage jesu: Mk 2, 20 und Parallelen in der Sicht der patristischen und scholastischen Exegese (BBB 2 3; Bonn: Hanstein, 1965 ), with further bibliography; see also Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1.170-78; Gnilka, Markus, 1.11 0-18; Liihrmann, Markusevangelium, 62-64. See 1 Cor 8:13; 9:20; Rom 14:2-3, 13-23 (cf. 2 Cor 6:5; 11:27; Acts 27:9, 33, where the term V7Junla simply means "hunger"; see BAGD, s.v. V7Junla, 1); Col2:16; Barn. 3.1-6 (Isa 58:5-6); Diogn. 4.1. Translated by Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 382-83.

Matthew 6:1-18

At other places fasting can be reinterpreted, in order to conform to gnostic asceticism with which it simply becomes coterminous. 618 Jesus himself, however, did not seem to have had a high regard for fasting. 619 The passages dealing with fasting clearly represent secondary interpretations of an older tradition, whatever that may have been, preserving the negative view that Jesus must have taken toward this ritual. In general one can say that the earlier Christian references to fasting are critical of the Jewish practice, and that it is in Acts (13:2-3; 14:23; 27:9) and the Didache (1.3; 7 .4; 8.1) that fasting is acceptable again as a Christian ritual. This situation seems to be the result of Jesus' own critical attitude toward the ritual. The passage SM/Matt 6: 16-18 suggests that ostentatiousness was the reason for this attitude. Perhaps this suggestion is historical, especially insofar as the caricature of the Pharisee in Luke 18:12 makes the same point. Also, attributing to Jesus eschatological, joyous feasting, rather than mourning, points in the same direction (Mark 2:1822 par.; Matt 11:18-19). If Jesus had taken such a critical view, he may have done so in continuation of cultic criticism as it occurs among the Old Testament prophets and wisdom teachers. After the brief reference to the cultic act in vs 16a, a caricature of the false performance is drawn before the eyes of the reader in VS 16b: ''Orav o£ V7]CTT£{,£T£, J.L~

ylv£u8£ ws ot V7TOKptrat CTKv8pw7rol620 ("But when you fast,

do not behave like the hypocrites [do] with their sullen look"). The term V7Jun.,',w designating "fasting" occurs only here in the SM, but the terminology is well attested in other parts of the New Testament. 621 Did. 8.1 is in some way connected with our passage: at oE- V7Jun'i:at VJ.Lc;lV J..l.~ ~urwuav f.l.£Ta rwv V7TOKptrwv ("But your fasts, let them not be together with the hypocrites"). This statement shows no knowledge of SM/Matt 6: 16-18 but belongs to a later phase of development. 622 The passage in SM/Matt 6:16-18 presupposes that the disciples for whom it was originally conceived still belonged to the Jewish religion. By contrast, Did. 8.1 shows that Judaism and Christianity have parted ways. "Hypocrites" is now simply a derogatory term for the Jews as distinct from the Christians. Their distinction is marked by the different times for fasting: "For they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but you must fast on Wednesdays and Fridays" (v7Jun.,',ovut yap O£vr€pa uaf3f3arwv Kat 7TEJ..l.7TT'[f VJ.L£LS' oE- V7]CTT£.,',uan nrpaoa Kat 7TapaCTK£V1JV). Other fasts are to be held one or two days prior to baptism (Did. 7 .4).

a secondary improvement, but the question is 618 P. Oxy. 655: "If you do not fast from the world, you whether for form-critical reasons these improvewill not find the kingdom of God." Cf. Cos. Thom. log. ments simply complete what should have been there 27. See also Harold W. Attridge, in Bentley Layton, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, together with XIII, 2, in the first place. One should not forget that even the earliest level of the Greek text is not identical with Brit. Lib. Or. 4926 (1), andP. Oxy. 1, 654, 655 (NHS 20.1; Leiden: Brill, 1989) 118, 127. the "original" SM. The omission of the article o! in IC may be a scribal error, a result ofhaplography (o! and 6I9 See Cos. Thom. log. I 04: "They said to Jesus, 'Come, let us pray today and let us fast.' Jesus said, 'What is v[ 'li'OKptraL]), while turning rlz '11'p0<TIJJ'll'a ("the faces") into a singular is a grammatical clarification (IC* g 1* k the sin that I have committed? Or how have I been mae born'). defeated? But when the bridegroom leaves the bridal chamber, then let them fast and pray'" (trans. 62I Matthew took it over from sources in Matt 4:2; 9:I4I5; I5:32; I7:2I, but the evangelist seems to have no Helmut Koester, in Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex II, interest in the ritual as far as his own church practice 2-7, I. 90-9I ). is concerned. 620 The absence of a connection with the preceding is 622 Nor does, for that matter, the strange passage 2 Clem. felt by IC* born•, which add Kat ("and"). Instead of wr ("as") L W 8 jl3 33. I 006. I342. I506 9Jl read &;u'll'

419

A peculiar notion is that of "the hypocrites with the sullen look" (o! V7rOKpLTat crKv8pw1rol). 623 The "hypocrites" have been mentioned before (see 6:2, 5), but the adjective crKv8pw7ros ("with a sad, gloomy, sullen look") 6 2 4 adds another dimension. While Hebrew has no distinctive equivalent, 6 2 5 the term points to a stock figure in Greco-Roman literature, in particular in texts having to do with the critique of religion and philosophy. 626 From the Roman point of view, the god of the Jews was a sad god (tristis), 627 and the Sabbath was sad. 628 Similarly, Plutarch judges the ethos of the Carthaginians to be "sullen. "629 In criticism of philosophers the term serves to make fun of their proverbial gloomy looks. 630 In regard to religion, crKv8pw7raCTJA-OS ("gloominess") was typical of the Isis cult, 631 of prophetic figures, 632 or as a reaction to bad news. 633 Not surprisingly, it was also the mark of the stupid. 634 It is noteworthy that these Hellenistic connotations have influenced the LXX 635 and other

Hellenistic-Jewish literature, 636 while the Hebrew equivalents remain uncertain. Perhaps the most interesting parallel to SM/Matt 6:16 is found in Ps.-Plato's Alcibiades Minor, the dialogue "On Prayer" to which I have already called attention. 637 In this text Alcibiades is on the way to offer a prayer to the gods when Socrates stops him because of the sullen look on his face. 638 The dialogue on the whole has its purpose in changing Alcibiades' sullen look into cheerfulness, 639 so that at the end he is ready to crown Socrates with a wreath. 640 Alcibiades' gloomy look is, as we learn, the result of his wrong ideas about prayer and what to expect from it. In this respect, he is comparable to the disciples on the road to Emmaus with their sullen looks (Luke 24: 1 7). In these parallel texts, the sullen looks are taken to be caused by an insufficient understanding of religious matters, but in SM/Matt 6: 16-18 it is from playacting the role of the concerned religionist. Verse 16c goes further in describing in detail the

623 Cf. also 6:7, where it appears in variant readings instead of £8vtKoi, "pagans" (B syc mae), clearly the result of secondary harmonization. 624 So the translation in BAGD, s.v. 625 See Werner Bieder, "uKv8pw7d>f," TDNT 7.450-51 (this article, however, does not go beyond listing the passages); BAGD, s.v. uKv8pw7rbf. 626 See Wilhelm SuB, Ethos: Studien zur iilteren griechischen Rhetorik (Leipzig and Berlin: Hinrichs, 1910) 25153, 260;Jacques Bompaire, Lucien icrivain: imitation et creation (Paris: Boccard, 1958) 485 (referring to Epictetus Diss. 3.22.48-49; Lucian Demon. 6). A collection of references is to be found in Wettstein, 1.328. 627 Horace Sat. 1.5.101-3. 628 Suetonius Augustus 76. 629 Plutarch Praec. ger. 3, 399 D: ~8of 'TfLKpbv, uKv8pw7rbV ("an attitude bitter, gloomy"). 630 See PlatoSymp. 206d; XenophonMem. 2.7.1; 2.7.12; 3.10.4; Amphis frg. 13 (CAF 2.239); Menander Epitrepontes 145 (conj. Wilamowitz); Plutarch De recta rat. aud. 12, 43F; Lucian Demon. 6; Vit. auct. 7; 20; Icaromenippus 5; Hermotimus 18; Lucilius 7 54: "tristis ac severus philosophus" ("a gloomy and stern philosopher"). 631 See Plutarch Is. et Os. 20, 359B; 39, 366E; 69-70, 378D-379A; Defect. orac. 14, 417C; Cons. ad ux. 4, 609A; Amatorius 18, 762D. According to Apuleius (Met. 11.15, p. 277, line 17 [ed. Griffiths, Apuleius of Madauros, 86]), Lucius is told to show now a happy face, since he has been received into the protection of "seeing" Fortuna.

420

632 See the Essene prophet as described by Josephus Bell. 1.80; cf. Xenophon Mem. 2. 7 .I; and the god Apollo in Lucian Dialog. deorum 16(14).1. 633 Euripides Phoenissae 1333: uKv8pw7rOV 81-'1-'a ("sad look"). 634 Theophrastus Characteres 14.7. 635 See esp. LXX Pss 34:14; 37:7; 41:10; Prov 15:13; Sir 25:23; Gen 40:7;Jer 19:8; 27(50): 13; Neh 2:1 v.l.; 2 Esdr 12:2 v.l.; Dan 1:10 v.l.; 3 Mace 5:34. 636 See T. Sim. 4.1 (cf.Jos. 3.4);JosephusAnt. 2.19; 11.54; Bell. 1.80;Jos. As. 10.7; Philo Cher. 6; Plant. 167; Sobr. 6; Fuga 33; Mut. nom. 169; Som. 2.165; Vit. Mos. 1.20; cf. also PGM XIII.259. 637 See above, p. 342. 638 Ps.-Plato Ale. min. l38a: "You seem, let me say, to have a gloomy look, and to keep your eyes on the ground, as though you were pondering something" (f!>alvy y€ TOL f.uKv6poo7raK€vat T€ Kat £l~ yfiv {3A.f1rnv, IJJ!J TL

uvvvoVp.Evo~).

639 The opposites of uKv8pw7rbf ("gloomy") are designations for cheerfulness: atoptlf, l!l.apbf, evpatv(w, J-<ELOLctw, etc. 640 Ps.-PlatoAlc. min., 151ab.

Matthew 6:1-18

methods followed by these religious pretenders: acpav{(OVCTIV yap Ta 7rp6uw71'a avT{;JV ("for they disfigure [or: hide] their faces"). 641 The precise meaning of the verb acpavl(w is disputed. It may simply describe the disfigured countenance of the sullen person. 642 Others have taken it as pointing to a neglected and unwashed face, or to smearing the face with ashes, or to covering the face with a cloth to avoid looking and being looked at. All these explanations are possible but none is certain. 643 The purpose of the disfiguring seems to be clear from vs 16d: Cf7rws cpavwuw TOLS av8pC:mots V1JCTU{Jovns ("in order to appear to people as those who are fasting"). The play on words (acpavl(Hv, cpalvw) suggests that disfigurement demonstrates a good figure of the pious hypocrite. 644 Verse 16e repeats the same statement that occurs in the parallel sections (vss 2e, 5d): ap.~v A.€yw vpiv, Ct71'fXOVCTLV TOV p.tu8ov avTWV ("Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward [in full]"). 645 • 17 After the rejection of the improper performance, the right way to fast is recommended; it is introduced by another reference to the ritual: CTV Of V1JCTTf..,jWV ctAW/Fa{ uov T~v Kf.cpaA~v Kat TO 7rp6uw1r6v uov vliJrat ("But when

you fast, anoint your head and wash your face"). Both these measures are ordinary hygiene, 646 so that there is no suggestion of putting on festive attire. Rather, it seems to be a method of making one's religious life inconspicuous. The best parallel to this comes from T. Jos. 3.4, where Joseph reports: "For those seven years I fasted, and yet seemed to the Egyptians like someone who was living luxuriously, for those who fast for the sake of God receive graciousness of countenance. "647 • 1 8 The final statement explains the positive purpose for this inconspicuousness: Cf7rws ,..~ cpavfjs TOLS av8pC:mots V1JCTTf.{Jwv aAAa T{il 71'aTpl CTOV T{il EV T{il Kpvcpal'!J· ("so that you may not appear to people as one who is fasting but to your Father who is hidden"). 648 The sentence is a correction in comparison with vs 16, using again the term cpalvw. The formation of the divine epithet oev T{il Kpvcpal'!l ("the one in the hidden") occurs only here in the SM 649 and replaces the usual oev T{il Kpv7rT{il with the same meaning (vss 4 and 6). Thus the teaching about fasting is analogous to the teaching about almsgiving and prayer in the previous sections of the cultic instruction.

641 B pc read tavrwv, perhaps connecting with the verb 648 D bo read Yva ("so that") for no particular reason; cf. ("disfiguring themselves their faces"). also in vs 4, but a simple Ka~ ("and") in vs 6. Some 642 The terms luj>avl(w and luj>avtup.6s often occur in the witnesses change the word order to V1Junvwv ro'is same context as fasting and the sullen look. avOpC:mots, but vs 18a is no doubt intended to parallel 643 For the evidence see BAGD, s.v. luj>avl(w. vs 16d. Some scribes seem to have disliked the 644 The wordplay occurs also in Jas 4: 14; it constitutes epithet: D* reads Kpvtj>lq. and Kpvtj>atcp, the former paronomasia, and the sentence employs chiasmus. probably a hearing mistake; L W 0 jl 3 33. 892. 645 IC* born• add y.tp ("for") after the "Amen," no doubt 1006. 1342. 1506 ~read rif> Kpv'lTr/f>, making things to improve the reading; L W 0 33. 892. 1006. 1342 parallel with vss 4 and 6, but the lectio difficilior is well ~ lat add llrt ("that") before a'lTtxovutv,just as in vs 5 attested by IC B nc jl pc. If the more difficult text is the earlier, the reason for the change as compared (but apparently not in vs 2). 646 Cf. Plutarch Coniugalia praecepta 29, 142A: "The with vss 4 and 6 seems stylistic variation. In the end woman who is afraid to laugh and jest a bit with her of the line, some witnesses fill in €v rif> tj>av•pif> ("in the manifest"), which makes it parallel with the additions husband, lest possibly she appear bold and wanton, is no different from one who will not use oil on her in part of the tradition ofvss 4 and 6 (E ~ 0233. 205. 346. 543. 579. 788<.1342 pm it). The !lisagreements head lest she be thought to use perfume, or from one who will not even wash her face lest she be thought to among manuscripts concerning these additions make use rouge." Cf. Mark 14:3//Matt 26:7. For the it unlikely that they belong to the earliest text. See also Metzger, Textual Commentary, 15. rabbinic tradition see Str-B 1.426-29; Luz, Matthiius, 649 See BAGD, s.v. Kpvtj>a'ios. 1.327 (Matthew, 1.361). 647 Trans. Howard C. Kee, OTP 1.820. The Greek reads: ~eat fv~rrTEvov Ev rols Enrh. frErrr.v (KElvor.s, Kat €tj>atv6p.rw rif> Alyv'lTrtcp WS EV rpvtj>fi a•.tywv lin ol a.1. rhv 8Ehv V1JUTE-tJOVTfS TOiJ 7rpOCTJ,7rOV T~V x&.ptu 11.ap.{3.tvovutv. Hollander and de Jonge (Testaments, 376) refer to Dan 1:8ff.; Acts ofThomas 6-7; and Matt 6: 16ff. as parallels.

421

The sentence also concludes the entire instruction on cultic matters (6:1-18). The final passage makes the point that fasting lends itself easily to ostentatious displays of piety, that is, to false piety. If so, fasting loses its significance and integrity as a ritual. Fasting as such is not rejected, but it is justified only when performed inconspicuously. Only in this way can one safeguard its

religious integrity, its "righteousness" (otKawt:n1JV1j [6: 1]). 650

650 Luz argues differently (Matthiius, 1.328 [Matthew, 1.362]): "The subject is the human being and not the religious custom." Strecker also comes to a different conclusion (Bergpredigt, 134 [Sermon, 129]) and sees in the reinterpreted ritual of fasting an anticipation of eschatological joy. Zeller (Mahnspriiche, 7 3-7 4) thinks it is sufficient to interpret the passage in the light of jewish wisdom.

422

Matthew 6:19-7:12

6

Chapter VI The Conduct of Daily Life

1 . Introduction

Most difficult to explain is the composition of the third major block of material, 6:19-7:12. 1 In this commentary the section is treated under the title given above, although this title is not mentioned anywhere in the text itself. 2 I have chosen it because it is descriptive of the content of the section with its sayings compositions, and for other literary reasons. 3 After the end of the cultic instruction (6: 1-18) a new section obviously begins, treating subjects other than worship. Indeed, the shift from the cultic instruction to the new section could not be harsher. Is it accidental that the cultic instruction deals with life in the framework of the cult, while 6: 19-7:12 suddenly turns to the most mundane issues of the daily life, beginning with money and its accumulation? Money is not the only concern of the new section, but the discussion of possessions is involved in almost all of the subsections. The question is, however, how this section is to be treated as a whole from a literary and compositional perspective. How is it organized and what is its function in comparison with the other parts of the SM? Fortunately we are not left without clues as to the subject matter of this section. The beginning of the following section (7: 13-14) seems to look back at it, when it describes the "road" (ollOs) humanity is traveling through this life into the hereafter. In fact, there are two roads, one leading to eternal life and the other to eternal destruction. 4 Both these ways are present throughout the SM, and most impressively in the section 6:19-7:12, where they are reflected by contrasts and juxtapositions. It is also understood that only a minority follows the precepts of the SM, while the majority of people practice what the SM rejects. The composition of the section has always been a 1 2

3

4 5

subject of controversy, especially in recent years, which have seen a number of new proposals to solve the old problem. Before I discuss some of these proposals in greater detail, a brief survey of the section will be useful. The section 6: 19-7: 12 comprises eight sayings compositions: ( 1) On Treasures (6: 19-21 ); (2) On Vision (6:22-23); (3) On Serving Two Masters (6:24); (4) On Anxiety (6:25-34); (5) On judging (7:1-5); (6) On Profaning the Holy (7:6); (7) On Giving and Receiving (7:7-11); and finally, (8) The Golden Rule (7:12). What is the compositional key that holds these eight subsections together? Why are the sayings given in this sequence? What connections, if any, exist between them? William D. Davies assigns 6:19-7:12 to the third section of what he considers to be the Christian answer to ]amnia: "In v. 17-48 we find the Torah of Jesus set forth; in vi. 1-18 the true ;,.,t:lll or worship, and in vi. 19-vii. 12 what corresponds to c•.,on n,t,•Ql, the culmination, in vii. 12, expressing the true piety or obedience in terms of the Golden Rule." 5 The problem is, however, that 6:19-7:12 simply does not conform to "deeds of loving-kindness" or "acts of piety," if one accepts Judah Goldin's interpretation. 6 If, as Davies suggests, Matthew has reformulated the triad we still do not know what his new third concept would be. Or does Davies mean that it is the Golden Rule itself, so that the new triad is: Jesus' Torah, Worship, and Golden Rule? Unfortunately his remarks are not clear at this point, and he never fully discusses Matthew's third part (6:19-7:12).7

See also the main Introduction above, pp. 62, 65. On this problem see also Tholuck, Bergrede, 11-12, 21,411-12 (Commentary, 16-17, 24, 371-72); Achelis, Bergpredigt, 426-31; Soiron, Bergpredigt, 107-8; Luz,Matthiius, 1.354-55 (Matthew, 1.38991). Cf. the exhortation concerning "the things of daily life" (ra fJtwnKa) in 1 Cor 6:3-4; Luke 21:34; Hermas Vis. 1.3.1; 3.11.3; Sim. 6.3-4. See BAGD, s.v.

6

{'JtWTIK
7

See below on SM/Matt 7:13-14. Davies, Setting, 307.

Davies, Setting, 305, referring to Judah Goldin, "The Three Pillars of Simon the Just," Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 27 (1958) 43-58; see also Saldarini, Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan, 55-59; idem, Scholastic Rabbinism: A Literary Study of the Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (BJS 14; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1982) esp. 45-46; Pinchas Hacohen Peli, "The I:Iavurot That Were in Jerusalem," HUCA 55 (1984) 55-74, esp. 65-69. See Davies, Setting, 307; see also Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1.625-27. The common theme is social issues: "Having received in 5.17-48 instruction on

423

Christoph Burchard 8 has tried to solve the problem thematically. He recognizes that "in 6:19 begins a series of counsels which have to do with money. "9 This section runs through to 6:34, with the term "righteousness" (llt1Cato!TVV1J) governing it (6:33). The following section (7: 1-11) Burchard seeks to unite under the theme: "the reaction of those before whom the disciples are supposed to show their good works." 1 0 But Burchard's "attempt to find the theme of the Sermon on the Mount" 11 can hardly be called a success. The method he uses in this attempt is to find leading concepts and then to systematize the sayings accordingly and thus to identify a thematic content. Although he proceeds with caution, the process forces him time and again to make things fit the scheme that do not really fit. Following earlier suggestions made by Walter Grundmann 12 and Eduard Schweizer, 13 Gunther Bornkamm 14 has proposed a hypothesis to account for the sequence of sayings in 6:19-7:12. As he sees it, the problem is this: "Are these sayings also arranged according to a preconceived plan?" He adds: "At first sight they appear to be without any connection." 15 Bornkamm also points to the fact that earlier theories of composition have been unable to convince scholars, so that Krister Stendahl's resignation is understandable: "VI. 19-VII. 29 [sic] offers material which has been brought into the Sermon on the Mount by Matthew in such a manner that we find

8

9

10 11 12

424

no clue as to his arrangement." 16 One ought to appreciate that Bornkamm's hypothesis was proposed in full realization of its inherent problems. What are his reasons for not giving in to resignation? Bornkamm concludes from the fact that the composition of the other parts of the SM is remarkably clear "that it is a priori hardly imaginable that the same evangelist who has so carefully composed all the other parts according to thematic concepts should have given up a planned redaction," and that the sequence of 6:19-7: 12 should simply be an appendix of disorderly odds and ends. 17 According to Bornkamm, there is a connection of some kind between 5:17-20, 6:1, and 7:12. Since 5:20 subsumes the antitheses 5:21-48 under the concept of "righteousness" (llt1Cato!TVV1J) and 6:1 does the same with regard to the cultic material in 6:1-18, 5: 17 and 7: 12 form some sort of redactional frame around the sayings included by these bracket verses. But this frame does not by itself yield the leading theme for the section 6:19-7:12. One should have expected that Bornkamm would have considered the leading theme to be contained in 7:12, but surprisingly he goes in another direction, and he does so without giving reasons. 18 Starting from a discussion of 7:7-11, he tries to show that the sequence of 6:19-7:11 is determined by the petitions of the Lord's Prayer. The rationale for this supposition follows

the Torah and 6:1-18 on the Cult, the true disciple next learns in 6.19-7.12 how to behave in the world at large" (p. 627). Christoph Burchard, "Versuch, das Thema der Bergpredigt zu finden," in Georg Strecker, ed.,jesus Christus in Historic und Theologie: FS fur Hans Conzelmann (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1975) 409-32, esp. 427 -30; ET: "The Theme of the Sermon on the Mount," in Schottroff, Essays, 57-75, esp. 70-74; Burchard, "Le theme du Sermon sur Ia Montagne," ETR 62 (1987) 1-17, esp. 15-17. So also Strecker (Bergpredigt, 135 [Sermon, 130-31]), who thinks that 6:19-24 deals with wealth, but he does not treat the problem of composition. Luz (Matthiius, 1.354-55 [Matthew, 1.389-91]) agrees with Bornkamm (" Aufbau," 425) that there is no order. Burchard, "Theme," 71. So the German title of the essay; the ET has omitted the restraint. Grundmann (Matthiius, 204-6) assumes that the Lord's Prayer stands at the center of the SM and that

13 14 15 16 17 18

the first sections of the SM lead up to the first strophe ofthe Lord's Prayer, whereas the last sections of the SM "unfold" ("entfalten") the second strophe of the Lord's Prayer. These assumptions are, however, mere speculation, and Grundmann makes no attempt to justify them. As he acknowledges, the idea comes from Tertullian's concept of the Lord's Prayer as "breviarium totius evangelii" (p. 206). See also Burchard, "Theme," 90 n. 79. Schweizer, Matthiius, 130. Bornkamm, "Aufbau," 419-32. Ibid., 424-25 (my trans.). Krister Stendahl, in Peake's Commentary on the Bible (London: Nelson, 1962) 425. Bornkamm, "Aufbau," 425. Ibid., 425: "Zur Verdeutlichung unseres Problems scheint es mir geraten ... " ("To clarify our problem it appears to me to be prudent ... "). He gives no reason, however.

Matthew 6:19-7:12

from a literary analysis showing that Matthew inserted the prayer instruction 7:7-15 into a previous, broader context of 6: 1-18, 19 and that this insertion served to connect 6:19-7:11 with the prayer instruction. 20 The next step in Bornkamm's hypothesis is to connect 6:1921 with the first three petitions of the Lord's Prayer (6:9b-10); 6:22-23 and 6:24 are taken to underscore this connection even more. 21 The section 6:25-34 interprets the petition for the daily bread (6: 11 ), while 7: 1-5 connects with the petition for forgiveness (6: 12) and its interpretation in 6:14-15. 2 2 The puzzling 7:6 is then explained by association with the petition not to lead into temptation (6: 13), by interpreting temptation as the giving away of everything that the Lord's Prayer has entrusted to the disciples to the unworthy who were brought in by the mission to the Gentiles. 28 The final section 7:7-11 is not to be taken concretely, but only figu!"atively as a promise that God will hear such prayers. 24 This is Bornkamm's thesis; it is, however, not convincing and creates more problems than it solves, as I point out in brief as follows. 1. 6:16-18 stands between the prayer instruction 6:715 and the section "On Treasures" (6: 19-21 ), but it has nothing to do with prayer. Bornkamm himself sees the problem emerging here. 1£6:19-7:11 is intended to interpret the Lord's Prayer, why is the interpretation so far removed from the Prayer it is supposed to explain? 25 2. The assumed connections between the Lord's Prayer and 6: 19-7: 11 are mostly farfetched, imported into the text from outside and without linguistic evidence in the text itself. Bornkamm does not distinguish clearly enough between connected ideas, of which there are certainly many, and linguistic evidence in the texts themselves that could explain the composition. 3. As a result of Bornkamm's hypothesis, the petition concerning the temptation is misinterpreted. This petition has nothing to do with the mission to the Gentiles. 26 4. Bornkamm does not show 7:12 to have any relations 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Ibid. Ibid., 426-31. Ibid., 427. Ibid., 427-28. Ibid., 428-29. Ibid., 430. Ibid., 425-26. Ibid., 429.

with 6:19-7:11, despite the assumption he makes that it forms the redactional frame around the whole section 6:19-7:11. 27 Bornkamm has also considered the possibility that the sequence of 6:19-7:12 has been received from tradition as a block and then inserted into the SM. Comparison with other sources, however, shows that while the individual sayings are attested elsewhere in the gospel tradition, they never take the same form or arrangement in which they are found in the SM. Matt 6:19-21 has a close parallel in Luke 12:33-34, but the Lukan version is stated in a different form, and in Luke it is a component of a different cluster of sayings dealing with avarice, beginning in Luke 12:13. The warning against "avarice" (7rA£ov£cla) includes the parable of the Rich Fool (Luke 12: 16-21 ), the sections "On Anxiety" (Luke 12:22-32) and "On Treasures" (Luke 12:33-34). At least two of the sayings of Matthew (6:19-21 and 6:25-34) occur together, but in reverse order. SM/Matt 6:22-23 has a parallel in Luke 11:34-36, but the Lukan version of the passage is quite different in content, although it looks similar at first sight. In Luke that passage is part of a different sayings composition, beginning with the parable of the Light (Luke 11 :33 / / SM/Matt 5:15// Mark 4:21) and continuing with the passage "On Vision" (Luke 11 :34-36) and discourses against the Pharisees (Luke 11:37-44). SM/Matt 6:24 has a close parallel in Luke 16:13, where it is embedded in a cluster of sayings dealing with money: "On Mammon" (Luke 16:10-11), "On Serving Two Masters" (Luke 16:13), and "On the Love of Wealth by Pharisees" (Luke 16:14-15). SM/Matt 6:25-34 has its Lukan parallel, as mentioned, in the cluster dealing with avarice. Justin Martyr has it in a quotation together with "On Treasures" (Apol. 1.15.11 and 14). SM/Matt 7:1-5 returns suddenly to Luke's SP for a parallel (SP /Luke 6:37-42), where it follows after the blessings and woes (6:20-26), the passage on the love of 27

Ibid., 425: "die von ihm als AbschluB formulierte 'Goldene Regel' 7.12 klar eine redaktionelle Intention (ausspricht)" ("the Golden Rule, 7:12, formulated as a conclusion, clearly expresses redactional intent"). For critical evaluation see also Luz, Matthiius, 1.354-55 (Matthew, 1.390).

425

one's enemy, and the Golden Rule (6:27-36). Why the SM in Matt 7: 1-5 returns suddenly to the order of the SP after the long interval since SM/Matt 5:48 remains unknown. SM/Matt 7:6 has no parallel at all in Luke, but parallels are found elsewhere. The Coptic Cos. Thom. log. 93 includes the saying in a cluster dealing with seeking and finding, together with parallels to SM/Matt 7:7-11. SM/Matt 7:7-11 has its Lukan parallel in Luke 11:913, where it is part of the instruction on prayer in Luke 11: 1-13; in the Coptic Cos. Thom. log. 92 and 94 do not relate the saying to prayer, a sign that the connection with prayer is due to secondary interpretation. Finally, the Golden Rule (SM/Matt 7:12) does have a parallel in SP /Luke 6:31, but there it is part of a section interpreting the love-command; in the SM, by contrast, the Golden Rule is removed from the interpretation of the love-command (SM/Matt 5:43-48), but in the wider sense it is also connected with it (see below, and also above on SM/Matt 5:17-48). What is the resulting picture from all of this? No compositional pattern seems to exist that connects the sequence of SM/Matt 6:19-7: 12 with any single source outside the SM. The redactor of the SM seems to have taken individual sayings from a variety of sources, or from Q, and reformulated and rearranged them. One should, therefore, regard formulation and sequence as the work of the redactor of the SM. 28 One can make other observations by comparing the synoptic tradition of the sayings. The redactor of the SM follows to a degree the same arrangement as the SP (Luke 6:20-49), that is, as far as the frame, sequence, and most of the sayings are concerned; some sayings are special to the SP as well. Yet, if there is this parallel structure, the redactor or author of the SM has formu28

29 30

31

426

lated everything in accordance with his own plan and ideas, which differ from that of the SP. Also difficult to evaluate is the fact that parallels to SM/Matt 6:19-7:12, wherever they occur elsewhere in the synoptic tradition, do so in clusters of similar sayings that provide more obvious interpretative contexts, but these contexts have no bearing on the structure of the SM. Surprisingly often one finds parallels to the section 6:19-7:12 in Jewish wisdom literature, especially in Tob 4:5-19, 29 but also in the Epistle ofJames, 30 the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, 31 and in other extracanonical traditions of the sayings of Jesus. 3 2 None of the sayings in SM/Matt 6:19-7:12 has a parallel in the Fourth Gospel, except 7:7-11, which has parallels in John 14:13-14; 15:7; and 16:24, showing that older sayings material was included. On the whole, however, the comparisons reveal that in formulation and arrangement the sayings in SM/Matt 6: 19-21 are independent of other sources. Thus, one must consider the section as a composition by the author of the SM, reflecting his own ideas about order and composition. This conclusion holds, whether or not one can detect what his ideas were specifically. In looking for a clue to the problem, one may begin by noticing that the eight sayings <;om positions in 6:197: 12 might reflect numerical symbolism, a structural element that is of some importance for the composition of the SM. 3 3 Moreover, one ought to take into consideration that the hermeneutical principles for the interpretation of the antitheses in 5:21-48 are stated in 5:17-20, the section preceding the antitheses. The cultic didache in 6:1-18 states its own hermeneutical principles within each subsection (6: 1, 4, 6, 18). Should we not, therefore, look to the end of the section 6: 19-7: 12 for

So also Bornkamm ("Aufbau," 421), who, however, identifies the redactor of the SM with the evangelist Matthew. Cf. Tob 4:9, 7, 15; and SM/Matt 6:19-21; 7:7-11; 7:12. Cf.Jas 5:1-6; 4:14; 4:11-12; 5:9; 2:12-13; 1:5; 4:23; 2:8 and SM/Matt 6:19-21; 6:25-34; 7:1-5; 7:711; 7:12. Cf. Cos. Thom. log. 76b, 24, 47b, 36-37, 26, 93, 2, 92, 94 and SM/Matt 6:20; 6:22-23; 6:24; 6:25; 7:35; 7:6; 7:7-8. See also Koester, in Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, 46-48.

32

33

Cf. Did. 4.4; 10.3; 9.5; 11.1-12; 1.5; 4.9; 1.2 and SM/Matt 6:19-21; 6:25-34; 7:6; 7:1-5; 7:7-11; 7:12. For the role of numerical symbolism see the main Introduction, above pp. 13, 23, and index on Subjects.

Matthew 6:19-7:12

its interpretative principle? Indeed, the Golden Rule (7:12) does make sense as the interpretative key, especially since 7: 12b expressly provides a connection with 5:17. As a result, 5:17-20 and 7:12 play the role of the hermeneutical frame around the body of the SM. If one assumes this point, one would have to interpret 6: 197:11 on the basis" of the Golden Rule, which would provide its connecting rationale. The question remains whether such an interpretation can be carried out without doing violence to the individual sayings. Actually, 7: 12 presents two hermeneutical principles: the Golden Rule as a definition of the ethical standard, and the identification of that Rule with "the law and the prophets" (5: 1 7). If the Golden Rule could assist in understanding the meaning of the sayings in 6: 19-7:11, the order and arrangement of these sayings would still be another question that the Rule does not answer. Is there anything else that can be made out? 34 Since the sequence of 6: 19-7: 11 contains paraenetical material, one should expect some signs of arrangement, although loosely structured sayings arrangements are typical of exhortational wisdom materials in general. As often in such materials, there are indeed catchword connections, but not in all instances, and even where they occur they do not explain the sequential order of the sayings compositions. Since nobody has been able to figure out the rationale for the arrangement of the sayings in 6:19-7:12, all one can do is to propose some "informed guesses." They are largely speculative, but they do explain at least some of the reasons for the arrangement. Conceivably, the sayings are arranged with a view of the life in mind that is further described in the next section (7:13-14). Accordingly, the readers are challenged to imagine that they are wandering on the rough 34

and troublesome road, trying to find their way through crucial experiences and hard choices. If my suggestion is correct, the section 6: 19-7:11 sets forth the experiential scenarios for what it means to travel on the rough road through life. Having been equipped with the instructions about the Torah, ethics, and worship in the preceding parts ofthe SM, 6:19-7:11 confronts the reader with episodes of life on the metaphorical road designated in 7:13-14 as the "rough" one. Other clues connect with the sequence of passages as well. It is significant to consider the verbs: gathering treasures (6: 19-21 ), searching with one's eyes as with lamps in the dark (6:22-23), serving overlords (6:24), worrying (6:25-34),judging others (7:1-5), withholding secrets and protecting the holy (7:6), and giving and receiving (7:7-11). These verbs describe the activities of daily life, but they do not indicate a structural order of the passages. Or one may take account of the orientation: heaven and earth, self and others. Or one can identify the choices to be made, choices that exemplify the Two Ways schema (7: 13-14). 35 Or one can consider the inner world of the disciples: the heart (6:21), the light within (6:23), emotional love and hatred (6:24), the worrisome soul (6:25-34), self-inspection and self-correction (7: 15), the need for discretion (7:6), and the readiness to give generously (7:7-11). In other words, the road through life involves an itinerary that has outward and inward dimensions. The outward dimensions one faces are episodic and imply the coming to grips with material possessions concentrated in the figure of money. 36 Temptation and choices come not with poverty but with abundance; one has treasures to store, Mammon to serve, and so on. Making the hard choices and steering around the cliffs of temptation,

Tholuck (Bergrede, 411-12 [Commentary, 371-72]) advances another hypothesis. He proceeds from 35 6:18, where the idea of God seeing in secret was mentioned for the third time, and concludes that in 6:19-7:12 the human imagining of the invisible 36 God is the primary demand. For the same reason associations with "hypocrisy" (6: 16) could unite the sections as follows: one could construe 6:19-21 as a waming against at1fAOicapala ("double-heartedness"), 6:22-23 and 6:24 could point to the same thing; one could interpret 6:25-34 in terms of at.Yvxla ("doublemindedness"); 7: 1-5 mentions "hypocrisy," and so

on. Cf. also Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments, 338-41, 351. Since the Two Ways schema underlies the whole of the SM, the question is whether concerns about "double-mindedness" would correspond to it. See Raymond Bogaert, "Geld (Geldwirtschaft)," RAG 9 (1976) 797-907, esp. 843-50; Manfred Wacht, "Giiterlehre," RAG 13 (1986) 59-150, esp. 106-10.

427

however, depend on one's inner disposition and orientation, beginning with the heart (6:21 ). The image and the goal should be clear. The struggle on the rough road is one of choices to be made in life. Making the right choices will then mean to remain part of the small company of those who will find the narrow gate to the heavenly realm and life eternal (7: 13-14). 2. Interpretation a. On Treasures (6:19-21 I 19 Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust ruin [them] and where thieves break in and steal [them]. 20 Rather, store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust ruin [them] and where thieves neither break in nor steal [them]. 21 for where your treasure is, there will be your heart also. Bibliography Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.79-81; 2.345-50; 3.113-17, 272-74. Michael Mees, "Das Sprichwort Mt 6, 21/Lk 12, 34 und seine au6erkanonischen Parallelen," Augustinianum 14 (1974) 67-89. Idem, Au}Jerkanonische Parallelstellen, 133-41. Wilhelm Pesch, "Zur Exegese von Mt 6, 19-21 und Lk 12, 33-34," Bib 41 (1960) 356-78. Piper, Wisdom, 103-4. Harald Riesenfeld, "Vom Schiitzesammeln und Sorgen-ein Thema urchristlicher Paranese: Zu Mt VI 19-34," in Neotestamentica et Patristica: Freundesgabe Oscar Cullmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag ilberreicht (NovTSup 6; Leiden: Brill, 1962) 4 7-58. AdolfM. Ritter, "Christentum und Eigentum bei Klemens von Alexandrien auf dem Hintergrund der friihchristlichen 'Armenfrommigkeit' und der 'Ethik' der kaiserzeitlichen Stoa," ZKG 86 ( 197 5) 1-25. Reinhard Staats, "Deposita pietatis-Die Alte Kirche und ihr Geld," ZThK 76 (1979) 1-29. Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 77-81.

things. The passage certainly highlights the concern about materialism as being of primary importance. This concern reflects the first beatitude (5:3) in both respects, material wealth and its spiritual implications. The human being is viewed as a seeker and gatherer. On the way through life the human race is incessantly preoccupied with accumulating possessions. Yet, one must make choices, and with regard to wealth the choice is whether to gather treasures on earth or in heaven. One must see this choice in connection with the telos-formulation ("goal"-formulation) stated in 6:33, "Seek first the kingdom [of God] and his righteousness." If the human being is a gatherer of treasures, which treasures correspond to the demand of righteousness? The activity of"gathering" as a "doing" must lead to "reward," if it is ethically valid. Which kind of gathering, then, meets this requirement? The individual's decision determines his or her total outlook on life here on earth or in the hereafter. These are the basic concepts set forth at the beginning of this important section of the SM.

21 Analysis The passage 6:19-21 is a carefully structured sayings

1 I Introduction

The third major block of the body of the SM, 6:197:12, begins with the section 6:19-21, commonly entitled "On Treasures." This position of a section, the content of which is rather traditional, indicates several 37 38

428

So Bultmann, History, 84. See Lausberg, Handbuch, § 879 (1.434). For the analysis of the section I am indebted to Johan Thorn.

composition. It consists of two parts that form a clearly delineated unit: (1) verses 19-20 form an antithetical isocolon (parallel lines) in symmetrical juxtaposition. Verse 19 begins with a prohibition, a negative imperative using the second person plural; it is followed in vs 20 by a positive recommendation. Each of these imperatives is provided with reasons, stated in double lfwov-clauses ("where"-clauses) containing chiasm: the first lfwov-clause has two nouns and one verb (vss 19b and 20b), while the second lfwov-clause has one noun and two verbs (vss 19c and 20c). The pleonastic expressions in vss 19a and 20a (BTJ
Matthew 6:19-7:12

is obvious, one may point to association of ideas. If vss 16-18 warn against excessive asceticism, vss 19-21 argue against the opposite, indulging in material luxuries. Or, ifvss 16-18 oppose formalistic performance of ritual, vss 19-21 focus on the internal disposition of the heart. Or, ifvss 16-18 have to do with the head and the face, vss 19-21 .consider the heart, a topic carried on in 6:22-23 (the "light within," lumen internum), 6:24 (love as a matter of the heart and emotions), and 6:25-34 (the soul). Or, since vss 16-18 deal with abstention from consumption, all the following sections up to 7: 12 deal with giving and receiving. Finally, since 6:1-18 is concerned with matters of the cult, 6:19-7:12 turns to mundane affairs of daily life. The composition makes it evident that its content and purpose serve one continuous argument. The question is, however, what the argument is about and how it fits into the SM as a whole. Commentaries treat the passage as a wisdom saying dealing with moral issues "Concerning Gathering of Treasures and Worrying," 39 but this description is too imprecise. 40 Harald Riesenfeld has pointed out that the passage belongs to the standard themes of early Christian paraenesis. This means that, while one can adduce other New Testament texts as evidence, one must interpret the passage in its present context. As Riesenfeld rightly perceives, this context is concerned with the education of the disciples in their new way of life that is guided by the principle of righteousness. The section 6:19-34 demonstrates "the necessity of the right decision" and "the divine demand of wholeness"; this theme holds the passages together. 41 As Riesenfeld shows, the anthropological concepts of "heart" and "eye" exemplify that wholeness. 42 These observations are indeed helpful, although they are incomplete. The necessity of making decisions is central to the whole 39

context because of the underlying Two Ways schema, and the anthropological concepts play an even greater role than Riesenfeld seems to realize. Yet, these ideas and concepts do not fully explain what the argument is about and how it fits into the context. Three major issues make up the argument. 1. When turning from the cult (6:1-18) to matters of daily life, the SM at once focuses on the most obvious aspect of that life: the question of wealth. The preceding section (6: 16-18) had rejected excessive abstinence in fasting, but it certainly did not commend excessive indulgence in luxury. The question of abstinence in daily life, therefore, must first come to terms with possessions and wealth. Possessions and wealth are, however, matters of some complexity. What God's creation provides, first of all, is not possessions human beings can acquire, but abundance. This abundance, owed to God's generosity manifest in nature's fertility, no doubt constitutes "wealth" (.,. Aovror). Ancient ethics long before the times of the New Testament had wrestled with the problem of what wealth was, what true and false attitudes toward it were, and how humans can benefit from it. 43 The preSocratics had realized what became a commonplace in the Hellenistic period: pursuance of external wealth and indulgence in luxuries are destructive, but true wealth is internal, and its pursuance is the way to happiness. Among the pre-Socratics, it was Democritus who declared:
Happiness is a property of the soul,just as wretchedness is. 4 4 The question was, which daimon dwells in the soul: EVaatp.ovl7j oVK £v f3ouK1}p.acnv oliCE'i oV~t £v XPvu[p· 1/rvx~ olK1JT~ptoV oatp.ovor.45

Happiness does not dwell in herds, nor in gold; the soul is the dwelling place of the daimon.

In addition to many commentaries, see Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 77-81.

40

For this criticism see Harald Riesenfeld, "Vom Schatzesammeln und Sorgen-ein Thema urchristlicher Paranese: Zu Mt VI 19-34," in Neotestamentica et Patristica: Freundesgabe Oscar Gull mann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag ilberreicht (NovTSup 6; Leiden: Brill,

41 42 43

1962) 47-58, esp. 47. Ibid., 47. Ibid., 48-49. For evaluation of wealth in antiquity, see Bogaert, RAG 9.797-907, esp. 808,813-16,823-31,83943; for the NT 843-50; Hans-Jiirgen Horn, "Gold," RAG 11 (1981) 895-930, esp. 897-98, 903-4, 91415, 918-19; Manfred Wacht, "Giiterlehre," RAG 13 (1986) 59-150; Karl Suso Frank, "Habsucht (Geiz)," RAG 13 ( 1986) 226-4 7; also Reinhard Staats,

44

45

"Deposita pietatis-Die Alte Kirche und ihr Geld," ZThK 76 (1979) 1-29. For collections of parallels see Wettstein, 1.329; Betz, Lukian, 194-99; O'Neil in PEGL 2.348-49; for rabbinic Judaism see Str-B 1.429-31; for Hellenistic Judaism see Heinemann, Philons griechische und judische Bildung, 431-46, 456, 545, 553. Diels-Kranz, 68 B 170 (II, 178). The translations here and below are mine. See also de Vogel, Greek Philosophy, 1, no. 155; Wacht, RAG 13.64-65. Diels-Kranz, 68 B 171 (II, 179).

429

This does not mean, however, that happiness comes easily:

how much one needs for such usage, and what usage is for. These ideas appear to be summed up in Socrates' famous prayer at the end of the Phaedrus: 0 beloved Pan and all ye other gods of this place, grant to me that I be made beautiful in my soul within, and that all external possessions be in harmony with my inner man. May I consider the wise man rich; and may I have such wealth as only the self-restrained man can bear or endure. ~ fl t/ltAE llav TE Kallf.>\J\o' /:l.,.o, TfiliE 6Eot, l!Ot'ljTf. J.'O' K4A~ ")IEVf.IT6a' Tlf.vl!o6EV" lECtJ8eu a~ Hua fxw, rois luths eTval p.ot '1n.OU aVroV o,a. wavrOs, Kal rap.leta KapOlas lwlurarat wpO roV yeulu8at. For the ways of men are known before him always,

au~~

uavrhu 0.uo{fqts fuao8ev, '7f'OLIC{Aov TL JCa\ K4KWV Tap.,ELOV £i1p~ITE'S Kal 61jiTatJp,.,.p.a. 46 'IJ"OAV'IJ"a6~s

If you open up yourself inside, you will find a colorful and passion-rich storehouse and treasury of evils. Who is that daimon inside, and how can this internal storehouse become a treasury of good things? The answer Democritus gave was probably no different from that of Empedocles: 8l\f3,os,/:ls 6Etrov wpawtl!rov tKT~IT4TO 'ITAOVTOV. aE,llbs a·.~' ITKOT
46 47

48

49 50 51

430

Diels-Kranz, 68 B 149 (II, 172). Diels-Kranz, 31 B 132 (1, 365). Pythagoras was one who was believed to have obtained such great wealth of thought (Diels-Kranz, 31 B 132 [I, 364]). See also Betz, Essays, 32. Cited according to the LCL edition and translation by H. N. Fowler, Plato, 1.576-79. See also Konrad Gaiser, "Das Gold der Weisheit: Zum Gebet des Philosophen am SchluB des Phaidros," RhM 132 (1989) 106-40. Xenophon Symp. 4.34. Ibid., 4.41. For the references I am indebted to the article by Hans Herter, "Seelenfrieden gegen Unrast bei Demokrit," in Latinitiit und Alte Kirche: FS filr Rudolf Hanslik zum 70. Geburtstag (WS Sup 8; Vienna and Koln: Bohlau, 1977) 131-49, esp. 140-42.

o

52

See the passage in Plutarch, based on Democritus, De tranq. an. 14, 4 73B: lv €avT~ Ta Tfjs Eilevp.las Kal Tfjs liviT6vp.las fx_ov Tap.,E'ia ("Everyone has within himself the storerooms of tranquillity and discontent" [my trans.]). For further references see Georg Siefert, Plutarchs Schrift wEpl EMvp.las (Programm Pforta 21, May 1908; Naumburg: Sieling, 1908) 35-39. Siefert mentions Plutarch De virt. et vit. 1 and 4; De tranq. an. 19; De audiendis poetis 6. See also De exilio 5, 600C-D; Quaestiones convivales 5, praefatio, 672F. Many passages from Epictetus could be cited too; see, e.g., Diss. 1.14.6; 1.17.27; 2.8.11-12,18-19.

Matthew 6:19-7:12

and the storerooms of the heart are understood before they happen. (my trans.) While this is just an individual wisdom saying, 53 Philo took over the entire range of Platonic ideas discussed above. His treatise De fuga, especially, is strongly influenced by Plato's Theaetetus 54 and Timaeus, 55 including the discussion of the theodicy problem. In De JUga 62, Philo contrasts the spheres of heaven and earth: Now it was quite fitting that different regions should be allotted to different things, heaven to a good thing, the earthly parts to an evil thing. That which is a good thing is a thing upward-soaring; and should it ever come to us, in the bounty of its Father, it hastens, as is meet and right, to retrace its steps; but that which is evil stays here, removed as far as possible from the Divine Company. 56 Among all the creatures, "the soul of man was to be susceptible of conceptions of evil things and good things, and to use one sort or the other, since it is impossible to use both. "57 Based on these doctrines, Philo endorses the fundamental idea of Greek philosophy: fu ~p.Lu yh.p aVro'is, Ws (tfJ7Ju, o{ rOOv KaKWv ElcTI. 87Juavpol, 'lTapa lleiP a~ ol p.&vov aya8wv. For as I have said, the treasuries of evil things are in ourselves; with God are those of good things only. 58 Applied to the SM passage 6:19-21, the general

53

54 55 56

57 58 59

60

61

See, e.g., Wis 1:6-9; Philo Virt. 8-9; Vit. Mos. 1.2262 29; Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 42-45, with van der Horst's 63 commentary, Sentences, 142-45. Theaet. 176a-b; Rep. 379b-c, 617e. Tim. 29-30, 41. Philo refers to Plato Theaet. 176a-b in the context. Philo is cited according to the LCL edition (trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1934) 5.42-45. Philo Fuga 70. Ibid., 79. Zeller (Mahnspriiche, 79-80) has traced the motifs back to Jewish and Egyptian wisdom literature. In 64 adapting the wisdom material, however, the SM composition expresses a theological and ethical argument that includes more than that of a single paraenetic saying (Mahnspruch). Cf. T. Levi 13.5: "Therefore, my sons, do righteousness on earth, in order that you might find it in heaven" (1rot~uarE 0LKaLou.Ov7Jv, rJKva J.LOV, €1rt rfjs yijs, Yva dlp7Jn EV ro!r ovpavotr ). The text is cited according to the edition by Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (PVTG 1.2; Leiden: Brill, 1978); the trans. is mine. Cf. also T. Benj. 10.3; Tob 13:8. See above on SM/Matt 5:3.

warning that occurs everywhere in ethicalliterature 59 is endorsed: Hoarding treasures for their own sake is not the right way of dealing with the daily problems of human life. The reason is that treasure hunting of this kind is evidence of wrong goals in life. Instead one should seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness (6:33). The consequence of seeking the kingdom of God is that the treasure is not in the heart itself, but eschatological (see vs 21 ). 60 2. The theological and ethical starting point for vs 19 in the context of the SM is the first beatitude in 5:3, in particular the concept of "poor in spirit. "61 How are "the poor in the spirit" supposed to come to grips with abundance? The answer is certainly not radical asceticism, whether voluntary 62 or involuntary. 63 Poverty, one must conclude, is not simply a matter of material want but just as much a disposition of the spirit. Indeed, poverty "in the spirit" is a kind of wealth: it equals "being rich toward God," to say it with Luke 12:21 (elr llehv 'lTAovn!v). 64 The SM does not mention this expression, but the concepts of poverty "in the spirit" and "treasures in heaven" are closely related. The difference seems to be that the SM does not wish to claim any kind of "wealth," be it spiritual or material, here on earth. On the one hand, conceivable notions such as wealth of the heart or of the inner world are studiously avoided because they would

Voluntary asceticism involves the practice of fasting. Gerd Theissen (Social Reality and the Early Christians: Theology, Ethics, and the World of the New Testament [trans. Margaret Kohl: Fortress, 1992] 39-40) has attempted to interpret the critique of wealth in 6:1921 in terms of the needs of the itinerant charismatic. There is no evidence, however, that the disciples of the SM are itinerant. Their travel on the "rough road," including their "poverty," are primarily matters of mental perception expressed by metaphors that point to stress but not to stringencies stemming from actual wandering through the country. Luke 12:21, at the conclusion of the parable of the Rich Fool. Cf. also Jas 2:5; Rev 2:9; 3: 17; 2 Clem. 6.1-5; Barn. 19.2; and esp. 2 Cor 8:9 (see Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 61-63 with further material); also 1 Cor 1:5.

431

jeopardize the expectation of divine reward in the hereafter. The principles underlying the doctrines of merit and reward require that the disciple does not boast in any form of spiritual wealth here on earth. 65 On the other hand, it is precisely the realization of poverty that enables the disciple to cope with the human predicament, which includes not only want but also sufficient provisions by God through nature. 66 Abundance, to the extent that it is available, is there to be shared. Its purpose is not to be hoarded as useless treasures. The faithful disciples, therefore, will share in what God provides, and that means they will partly use it and partly pass it on to others. 67 3. As for material goods, the Golden Rule (SMI Matt 7: 12) is the primary hermeneutical principle guiding this section (see the Introduction above, pp. 426-27). What is to be done with material goods according to the Golden Rule? Their purpose is to go to charities. In other words, one is to accept God's generosity in the spirit of human generosity, and in turn it will generate more generosity; this increase in generosity will not only assure survival in the present circumstances but it will also amount to "treasures in heaven." One should observe that much of what is assumed here as part of the theological thought directing the argument in vss 19-21 remains unstated in these sentences, but it comes to expression elsewhere (see on 6:2-4 and 7:7-11). These theological ideas are indeed close, even though they are not fully spelled out in the argument. One can see this implication from a comparison with the parallel Luke 12:33-34, where they constitute the main point of the exhortation. This parallel is not easy to evaluate, however. While one can assume that Luke 12:33-34 was part of Q, it is not clear how "original" its formulation and interpretation in Q is. In the Lukan context, the passage is 65 66 67

68

432

This is the reason why that wealth remains in heaven (vs 21). Cf. SMIMatt 6:33; 7:24-27. Theologically, this is the starting point for Christian charity. So, rightly, Riesenfeld, "Vom Schatzesammeln," 50-51, who refers to 1 Cor 7:31-32 and Luke 10:38-42. See also Mark 10:21; 2 Cor 12:14 (for the ancient principle see Plutarch De cup. div. 7, 526A-527 A [on the passage see O'Neil in PECL 2.350-55]; Philo Vit. Mos. 2.245 [cf. Herter, "Seelenfrieden," 141-42]); Mark 7:9-13; 1 Tim 6:19. On the whole see Adolf Lumpe and Heinrich Karpp, "Eitern," RAC 4 (1959) 1190-1219. Luke 12:33-34 as well as Matt 6:19-21, therefore, depend on the Q-tradition. The image of the treasure in heaven in combination with the examples of thief and moth must have been in Q. See Klop-

integrated into Jesus' speech to his disciples that begins in Luke 12: 1 and consists of a sequence of sayings, some of which have parallels in the SM. The more immediate context in the Lukan speech of jesus deals with possessions: 12:13-15 deals with "greed" (trA..>..O.vna J.L~ traAatOtJJ.LEVa, 87Jcravphv avEKA£L7TOV Ev Tots oVpavols, H7rov KAi7rTTJS' oVK fyyl(Et oVO~ ufis Or.acJ>BElpn · Cf1Tov y&.p furtv (

,..

,,

0 871uavphs VfLWv, fKEi Kal ~ KapOla

VJ.LWV ECTTat. One can draw two conclusions from this evidence: (1) Both compositions in SMIMatt 6:19-21 and Luke 12:33-34 are secondary redactions; they have each in their own way appropriated the versions they found in their recensions of Q. (2) The version in the SM is not based directly on Luke 12:33-34, 74 but both the SM and Q seem to have derived the sayings from the wisdom tradition independently. What then was the text contained in the "original" Q? This question is difficult to answer. 75

69 70 71

72 73 74

75

penborg, Formation, 149; idem, QParallels, 134-35. Cf. Mark 10:21 I I Matt 19:21 I I Luke 18:22. Cf. Luke 10:4; 22:35-36; also 9:3. Note the differences of singular and plural: SMIMatt 6:20 has "treasures in heaven"; Luke 12:33: "treasure in the heavens." The sequence of thief and moth, as well as the verbs, differ from the SM. On the singular versus the plural, see below, n. 83. See Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 77-78, with references; also Bultmann, History, 92, 237; Braun, Radikalismus, 2.74 n. 2; Grundmann,Matthiius, 209-10; Schulz, Q, 142-43; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 135-36 (Sermon, 13132). Against Luz, Matthiius, 1.356 (Matthew, 1.392), who suggests that Matthew has taken over the Q-text, with the exception of the phrase "in the heavens,"

Matthew 6:19-7:12

3) Interpretation • 19 The exhortation begins with a warning against the

hoarding of material goods: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on the earth" (M~ 87Juavpl(£u vp.'iv 87Juavpol!s ~'lTt Tijs yijs). The exhortation presupposes that this is precisely what everyone normally does. The pleonastic 87Juavpl(Hv 871uavpovs ("treasure treasures") signifies the mindless piling up of such treasures, 76 an activity that is as common as it is futile. 77 That this accumulation is done for selfish reasons ("for yourselves") is part of the picture, but it is not the point here. 78 Rather, that the hoarding takes place on earth determines its futility. Everything on this earth is subject to perishability. 79 This is a fact oflife and everyone should know it, 80 but people are normally ignorant or defiant, thinking that they alone can escape from the destiny awaiting all material goods. Therefore the question of amassing earthly goods is in the first place a matter of prudence versus imprudence. There is nothing ethically wrong with worldly goods as such: they are what they are. The problem of ethical behavior toward these goods is primarily one of perception and handling of these goods. 81 The passage defines such material goods by singling out clothes and money, but these items are tokens representing all material goods. The Ci'lTov-clauses in vs 19b-c make use of commonplaces describing the stu-

76 77

78 79 80

81 82 83

pidity 82 of such hoarding: "where moth and rust ruin [them] and where thieves break in and steal [them]" (Ci'lTOV uijs Kat f3pwuts acpavl(H Kat Ci'lTOV KAi'lTTal Swpvuuovuw Kat KA£'lTTovuw). 83 Using powerful proverbial images the Ci'lTov-clauses appeal to common observation and experience. Clothes that remain unused get eaten by moths (uijs). 84 Money hidden in walls, basements, or under the ground is stolen by thieves who dig it up after breaking through the walls. 85 • 20 The positive commendation uses the same terminology as vs 19, but turns it into metaphors: "Rather, store up for yourselves treasures in heaven" (87Juavpl(£T£ Sf: vp.'iv 87Juavpol!s ~v ovpavi!J). "Treasures in heaven" will be exempt from perishability: "where neither moth nor rust ruin [them] and where thieves neither break in nor steal [them]" (Ci'lTov oifu uijs oifu f3pwuls acpavl(H Kat Ci'lTOV KA,'lTTal ov SwpvuuOVITIV ovS€ KA,'lTTOVITW). 86 The peculiar notion here is that of "treasures in heaven," apparently a commonplace of Jewish wisdom at the time. 87 The SM makes reference to the same idea in SM/Matt 5: 12b, "your reward will be great in the heavens." Indeed, the image is connected throughout the

which Matthew changed to the singular. See Tannehill, Sword ofHis Mouth, 48. On the terms 07Juavpl(w, 07JuavpJ~ see Friedrich Hauck, TDNT 3.136-38; Dieter Zeller, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s.v. 07Juavpl(w KTA. (with bibliography). Luke 12:16-21 makes this point against collecting material goods quite clear. See SM/Matt 5:5, 13, 14-16; 6:10, 25-34; 7:24-27. See Job 17:16-23, describing the lot of the wicked; Prov 22:1; 23:4-5; Sir 5:1-6; 11 :23-28;Jas 1:1011; 5:1-6; Teach. Silv. 89.17-21 (Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, 383): "Do not become desirous of gold and silver which are profitless, but clothe yourself with wisdom like a robe." Cf. also SP/Luke 6:38. This is why the rich man in Luke 12:16-21 is a fool. The singular iupavl(n shows that uii~ Kal fJpwu•~ is taken as a zeugma (rhetorical figure of combining one verb with two nouns, but fitting only one). D* f g 1 k read the plurali'l(pavl(ovutv, which is grammatically correct and also parallel to vs 16. Verse 20 has the singular too, however, and it is not disputed.

84

85

86

87

The symmetry ofvss 16 and 20 requires the singular. For parallels from Hellenistic literature see Betz, Lukian, 196 n. 3; BAGD, s.v. uii~ and fJpwu•~. 2. Cf. also u7JrJfJpwro~ ("moth-eaten") inJas 5:2. For literary parallels see Betz, Lukian, 195 n. 4; BAGD, s.v. awp-6uuw; Zeller, EWNT, 2.371 (EDNT 2.150). See also Job 24:16; Matt 24:43; Luke 12:39. IC jl 205 pc it sy< read Kal K>ti1rrovutv ("and they steal"), clearly an improvement because "digging through" should precede stealing; W k omit the last two words altogether, perhaps for the same reason. For the concept in jewish wisdom and apocalyptic literature see Tob 4:9; 12:8-9; Sir 3:4; 17:22-23; 29:10-13; Ps. Sol. 9.51; 1 Enoch 38.2; 2 Enoch 50.5; 4 Ezra 6.5-6; 7.77; 8.33, 36; 2 Bar. 14.12; 24.1; T.Job 18.6-8; T. Levi 13.5; T. Naph. 8.5-6. The tradition continues in Christianity: Mark 10:21 par.; 1 Tim 6:18-19; Heb 11:26; and in rabbinic tradition: 'Abot 6.9; for more passages see Str-B 1.429-31; Fiebig, Bergpredigt, 122-25. For discussion see Zeller, Mahnspruche, 79-80; idem, EWNT 2.372-73 (EDNT 2.150-51). A derivation solely from apocalypticism

433

SM with the notion of "merit" {JA.tu8os). 88 In Judaism, however, where the image is at home, it is more than a mere metaphor. It points to a metaphysical concept, 89 according to which there is a location above the earth, where the good works of the faithful are either kept in storage, 90 or where they are registered in "the book of life. "91 The idea oflaying up heavenly treasures looks strange to us today, but in terms of ancient ethical thinking it makes good sense. With regard to the ethical task, perishability in general cannot mean that "good deeds" simply vanish like everything else on earth. The same is true of "bad deeds." Without this assumption no accountability or responsibility would exist. The idea of justice requires that there be, by analogy perhaps with human monuments, 9 2 a record somewhere where human deeds, good and bad, are kept available for inspection at the last judgment. This memory bank of good deeds is what is meant by "treasures in heaven." These treasures consist of accumulated "merits," which

88 89

90

91

434

must not be spent but must continuously be increased through more good deeds. It is assumed that these heavenly treasures, which are done on earth but not rewarded on earth, will be stored in an inaccessible and indestructible place somewhere between God's realm and the earth. 93 How is one to lay up heavenly treasures? One can derive the answer from Mark 10:21 and 1 Tim 6:18-19. It is to be done by performing good deeds here on earth, in particular by sharing one's possessions with others. This idea has had a long history in Judaism, from where it was taken over into Christian beliefs. 94 Given this presupposition, one must connect the idea of collecting treasures in heaven with the exhortations to provide alms (cf. SM/Matt 5:40-42, 46; 6:2-4; 6: 12). Indeed, the entire section 6: 19-7: 12, as guided by the Golden Rule, applies at this point. If one wants to benefit from the heavenly treasures and be acceptable to God in the last judgment, one must take the initiative here on

appears to be one-sided because the concept occurs also in Egyptian wisdom. See Klaus Koch, "Der Schatz im Himmel," in Leben angesichts des Todes: FS Helmut Thielicke zum 60. Geburtstag ( Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck), 1968) 47-60; Arthur Marmorstein, "The Treasures in Heaven and upon Earth," London Quarterly Review 132 (1919) 216-28; idem, The Doctrine ofMerits in Old Rabbinic Literature (London: Jew's College, 1920) 20-24; Ephraim Urbach, "Treasure Above," in Gerard Nahon and Charles Touati, eds., Hommage a Georges Vajada (Lou vain: Peeters, 1980) 117-24. See above on SM/Matt 5:12. The concept is related to the notions of justice and theodicy. If good deeds receive no recognition in this world, justice requires that they be rewarded in the next; otherwise God's justice would be in jeopardy. This problem also accounts for the preeminence of the concept of merit in apocalypticism and rabbinic theology. See already the Egyptian Instruction of Merikare 55 (ANET, 415; AOT, 34; Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 1.101 [cited here); Brunner, Altiigyptische Weisheit, 145): "When a man remains over after death, his deeds are set beside him as treasure, and being yonder lasts forever." On storage places in heaven, see Koch, "Der Schatz," 59; Zeller, EWNT 2.372-73 (EDNT2.150-51). For the "book oflife" cf. Phil4:3; Rev 3:5; 13:8 v.l.; 20:15; 1 Clem. 53.4;HermasSim. 2.9; Vis. 1.3.2. See BAGD, s.v. {3i{3A.os, 2. The idea goes back to the OT, to apocalypticism, and to the Near East; see esp. Dan

92

7:10; 10:21; 12:1;jub. 30.20-22; 1 Enoch 47.3; 81.1-2; 108.3; 2Enoch 52.15; T.jac. 7.21-28; T. Abr. 12-14;jos. Asen. 15.4; 'Abot 2.1; 3.20 (ed. R. Trevers Herford, The Ethics of the Fathers [New York: Schocken, 1962)38-39, 89); etc. See Str-B 2.16976; Shalom M. Paul, "Heavenly Tablets and the Book of Life," Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 5 (1973) 345-53. See Helmut Hausle, Das Denkmal als Garant des Nachruhms: Beitriige zur Geschichte und Thematik eines Motivs in lateinischen Inschriften (Zetemata 75; Munich: Beck, 1980); Klaus Stahler, "Grabdenkmal," RAG 12

93

94

(1982) 445-55; Gerhard Pfohl, "Grabinschrift I (griechisch)," RAG 12.467-514, esp. 487-93; Charles Pietri, "Grabinschrift II (lateinisch)," RAG 12.514-90, esp. 546-48. The singular fV ovpav~ ("in heaven") may indicate that the SM thinks of a place separate from God's own realm ("in the heavens" [plural)). See above on SM/Matt 5:3, 10, 12, 18, 34; 6:10, 16; etc. See also Philo Spec. leg. 4.74; 3 Bar. 11.8-9; 14.2 (OTP 1.676 n. 14b); Vision of Ezra 4-6, 24-26, 60-66 (OTP 1.587-90); T.job 9-13,44-45 (OTP 1.842-44, 863).

Matthew 6:19-7:12

earth by using one's material goods for the doing of good works. After all, the earthly goods have all been received in the first place thanks to God's generosity, and it is only fair and just that they are shared with those in need. • 21 A peculiar sententia ("sentence") concludes the composition of vss 19-21: "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" (chrov y6.p £crnv o87Jcravpos crov, £Kii ~crrat Kat ~ Kapola crov ). 95 At first sight, this sentence looks like a proverb, but it appears to be more than simply commonplace. It has no parallel, to my knowledge, in any of the collections of proverbs from antiquity. 96 This uniqueness may be accidental, since we do not possess all the proverbs that existed in antiquity, but the absence of parallels in the Old Testament and subsequent Jewish literature almost rules-out a proverbial origin. 97 Many scholars have therefore taken the sentence to be an original creation ofJesus. 98 The change from the second person plural (vss 19-20) to the second person singular (vs 21) 99 is an added sign that the saying existed prior to its present context. One can also relate the saying to others in the SM. As justin Martyr shows (Apol. 1.15-16), one can relate it to Matt 6:33. Moreover, the concept of the heart is fundamental to the anthropology of the SM (see 5:8, 28; cf. 5:37; 6:4, 6, 18, 22-23,24, 25; 7:13-14) and the SP (Luke 6:45). The parable of the Rich Young Man (Mark 10:21 par.) shows that his heart is indeed where his possessions are.

Likewise, one can point to the parable of the Rich Fool (Luke 12: 16-21) or to the parable of the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl (Matt 13:44-46). As a result, there is evidence that the saying sums up an important point of the teaching of the historical Jesus and may therefore have originated with him. According to the theology of Jesus, then, the decisive point in dealing with material goods is that of perspective. If one envisions one's life in the perspective of the treasures in heaven, this perspective will inform and guide the human heart, which in turn will decide what to do in one's daily life. These decisions have to do, in the first place, with material goods and their disposal. The future ~crTat ("will be") is therefore logical, not local or temporal. 1 00 Yet, the story does not end here. Scholars 101 have discussed the phenomenon that different versions 10 2 of the sentence circulated in post-New Testament literature. Justin Martyr (Apol. 1.15-16) has a cluster of sayings similar to the SM that includes another version of the saying: "For where the treasure is, there is also the intellect of the person" (117Tov yap o87Jcravpos £crnv, £K~'i Kat 0 vovs TOV av8pdmov ). 1 03 The difference as compared with SM/Matt 6:21/ /Luke 12:34 is that the human "intellect" (vovs) is now identified as the treasure, while the eschatological dimension has been eliminated. Clement of Alexandria makes this point even clearer by turning things around: "For where someone's intellect is

B horns omit the Kai ("also") as redundant or because 1.857). Cf. Col 3:2: "Consider the things that are ofhaplography. The parallel in Luke 12:34 shows above, not the things that are upon the earth." that the Kai should be read. 101 See the investigation by Michael Mees, "Das Sprichwort Mt 6, 21/Lk 12, 34 und seine aufierkanon96 Closely parallel is Prov 4:23: "Guard your heart more ischen Parallelen," Augustinianum 14 (1974) 67-89; than any treasure, for it is the source of all life" (my idem, Auj3erkanonische Parallelstellen, 133-41, with trans.). Cf. Ps 62:10-13 (LXX 61:10-13). further references; for the older literature, see 97 See Wilhelm Pesch, "Zur Exegese von Mt 6, 19-21 und Lk 12, 33-34," Bib 41 (1960) 356-78; Str-B Tholuck, Bergrede, 416-17 (Commentary, 375-76); Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.79-81; 2.345-50; 3.113-17. 1.431; Fiebig,Bergpredigt, 125. 102 One tradition uses "heart" (Kapaia), another "intel98 So Percy, Botschaft Jesu, 90 n. 6; Pesch, "Zur Exelect" (voil~). See Mees's articles for references; also gese," 368-69,370, 375; Zeller,Mahnsprilche, 81. Pesch, "Zur Exegese," 376-77. 99 So the better witnesses (II B), while L W 0 jl- 13 33. 892. 1006. 1342. 1506 :IJl f sy boP' read the second 103 The text is given in Aland, Synopsis, 89. The translation is mine. person plural, no doubt in order to make vs 21 consistent with vss 19-20 as well as with Luke 12:34. 100 See also Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 80-81, who speaks of the heart being "anchored in heaven" and refers for support to T.job 36.3, which, however, says something different: "My heart is not fixed on earthly concerns, since the earth and those who dwell in it are unstable. But my heart is fixed on heavenly concerns, for there is no upset in heaven" (OTP 95

435

there is also his treasure" (g1rov yap h vovs nvos tKli Kat h o.,uavpos avTov). 10 4 Or: "For where the intellect of a person is, there is also his treasure" (g1rov yap h vovs Tov av8pC:mov tKli Kat h o.,uavpos ahov.). 105 That this version is attractive to the Platonist philosopher is evident from yet another variant: "But our true treasure is where the kinship Of the intellect is" (b a~ T(i> lfvn 871uavp0S f,p.wv fv8a .;, ctvyy£vna TOV vov). 106 This Platonizing interpretation identifies the "intellect" (vovs) as the center of the human personality; it is the treasure because according to Platonic doctrine the possession of the divine intellect constitutes the center of the human person, 107 later called h fvvovs l1.v8pw1ros ("the intellect-endowed human person") 108 or h fuw l1.v8pw1ros ("the inner human person"). 109 No wonder that this version was popular also in Gnosticism. 110 Yet, the real question is, Where did this version come from and how did it originate? Two answers have been given: 1. Michael Mees, who has collected the evidence, thinks there is no difference between "heart" (Kapala) and "intellect" (vovs) because both are translations of the Hebrew :::1':!. Indeed, the Hebrew word can mean both,

but this fact cannot decide the meaning in the present context. 111 2. Gilles Quispel 112 derived all these versions, which he traces to Egypt, from the Gospel to the Hebrews; he "reconstructs" from them a saying in parallel lines (isocolon): Where the heart (is), there (is) the treasure; And where the treasure (is), there will your heart be also. 113 This saying is, however, purely the result of conjecture; it is attested nowhere. Quispel simply formed a new saying by adding the two basic versions to form a parallelismus membrorum (parallel lines) using chiasm. One needs to take into account other puzzling parallels in the New Testament. 1~Pet 3:4 contains the saying: "Let your adornment be the inner self, with the lasting beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit-;which is very precious in God's sight" (NRSV) (h KpV7TTOs Tijs Kapalas l1.v8pw7TOS tv T(i> acfl8ctpTCfJ TOV 7rpa£ws Kat f,uvxlov 7TV£Up.aTos, g tunv lvci>7T&ov Tov 8£ov 7TOAvuA£s). 114 One can compare this saying in turn to ideas in Col 3: 15-16; Eph 3:16-17 (cf. 1:18; 5:14, 19), no doubt rooted in Paul's theology (cf. Gal 2: 19-20; 4:4-6; 2 Cor 4:6; Rom

104 Clement Alex. Strom. 7.12.77.6 (GCS 17.55, line 15). The translation is mine. 105 Idem, Quis dives salvetur 17.1 (GCS 17.170, line 20). 106 Idem, Strom. 4.6.33.5 (GCS 52.163, line 4). 107 Cf. Gos. Thom. log. 76 (trans. Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 393): "Jesus said, 'What the kingdom of the father resembles is a merchant who owned some merchandise, and then learned about the existence of a certain pearl. That merchant was shrewd, sold the .merchandise, and bought the single pearl. You (plur.), too, seek the ceaseless and enduring treasure, where moth does not approach to eat nor worm to destroy.'" Also here, salvation is within (log. 70): "Jesus said, 'If you (plur.) produce what is in you, what you have will save you. If you do not have what is in you, what you do not have [will] kill you'" (Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 393). On the "kingdom within," see also log. 3. For the passages see also Kloppenborg, Q-Parallels, 135. 108 Corp. Herm. 1.18, 21; cf. 13.4; see Grese, Corpus Hermeticum XIII, 97-98, 184. 109 See Rom 7:22; 2 Cor 4:16; Eph 3:16. The concept goes back to Plato Rep. 9, 589a; Ps.-Plato Ale. mai. 129e-130a; see also Plotinus Enn. 5.1.1 0; Philo Plant. 42; De congressu eruditionis gratia 97: Det. pot. ins. 23; Zosimos of Panopolis, On the Letter Omega (ed. and trans. Howard M.Jackson; SBLTT 14; Missoula,

436

ll0

111 112

113 114

Mont.: Scholars, 1978) 28-29 (section 10), and nn. 48-52 (pp. 49-50). For bibliography see BAGD, s. v. lJ.vBpwwos, 2.c.a; Pierre Courcelle, "Gefangnis der Seele," RAG 9 (1976) 294-318; Carsten Colpe, "Gnosis 11 (Gnostizismus)," RAG 11 (1981) 537-659, esp. 605-7. Gospel ofMary 14.14 (ed. Walter Till, Die gnostischen Schriften des Papyrus Berol. 8502 [TU 60; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1955]69): "Denn (ylip) dort, wo der Verstand (vovs) ist, da ist peho [Quispel: dein Schatz]." ("For where the intellect is, there is the treasure.") See also Robert MeL. Wilson and George W. MacRae, "The Gospel of Mary," in Douglas M. Parrott, ed., Nag Hammadi Codices V, 2-5 and VI with papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 1 and 4 (NHS 21; Leiden: Brill, 1979) 463; Kloppenborg, QParallels, 135. Pesch, "Zur Exegese," 377 n. 2. Gilles Quispel, "Das Hebraerevangelium im gnostischen Evangelium nach Maria," VC 11 (1957) 13944; idem, "The Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament," ibid., 189-207, reprinted in his Gnostic Studies, 2.3-16. So Quispel, "Gospel of Thomas," 199; idem, Gnostic Studies, 2.5. For the difficulties of interpretation, see Goppelt, Der erste Petrusbrief, 216-18. (Idem, A Commentary on 1 Peter [trans. John E. Alsup; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

Matthew 6:19-7:12

5:5; 8:15-16). 115 Also of interest is the possibility that the Platonizing versions of the saying in SM/Matt 6:21 may go back as far as Democritus and Plato. The sayings cited above 116 show that the polemic against c/>tA.onp.la ("ambition") and c/>tA.apyvpla ("love of money"), coupled with the insight that the true treasures lie in the human soul, are found as early as Democritus. 117 According to Greek philosophy, the method for drawing on the benefits of this treasure is paideia, "education." The benefits paid out are wisdom and tranquillity of the mind (EVBvp.la), which enable the sage to cope with the realities of daily life (apKE'icr8at ro'is 1rapovcrt). 118 The key term Ev8vp.la ("tranquillity of the mind") not only points to famous philosophical treatises by Plutarch 119 and Seneca 1 2° but also establishes connections with the New Testament. 121 To return to SM/Matt 6:21, it is conceivable that the Platonizing versions in Justin and Clement of Alexandria are in substance older than the New Testament, although they are attested chronologically later. This in turn could mean that Jesus' saying contained in vs 21 is not a common proverb but a self-consciously formulated critical maxim. In other words, vs 21 is a de-Platonized version of the saying, which Justin and Clement of Alexandria have either re-Platonized or cited in older Platonizing versions. If this development led to the formulation of the saying, it would constitute a subtle polemic against Hellenistic philosophy, analogous to what we found in other SM passages. The critique would in effect say that the treasure is not in the heart and certainly not in the soul. The heart is in need of purification (5:5) because the inner center of the person can be utter darkness (6:22-23). Instead, the treasure is eschatological and outside the heart, in heaven. The heart must direct itself toward that treasure, and the disciple must walk on the way toward the kingdom of God (7:13-14). Seeking the kingdom of God and his righteousness will lead to the treasures in heaven (see 6:33).

b. On Vision (6:22-23) The lamp of the body is the eye. If, then. your eye is healthy/good. your whole body will be full of light. 23 If, however, your eye is sick/evil. your whole body will be dark. If, therefore. the light which is in you is darkness-what darkness!

22

1993]221-23). 115 The treasure here is Christ or the Holy Spirit; see esp. 2 Cor 4:7; Col 2:3. 116 See above, p. 436. 117 On this point see Herter, "Seelenfrieden," 138-42. 118 For bibliography see ibid., 141. 119 Plutarch, "On Tranquillity of Mind" ("lTEpl EVBvp.las), in Plutarch's Moralia (trans. William C. Helmbold

Bibliography Sverre Aalen, Die Begriffe "Licht" und "Finsternis" im Allen Testament, im Spiitjudentum und im Rabbinismus

(Skrifter utgitt av det Norske Videnskaps-Academi i Oslo; Historisk-filosofisk Klasse 1951:1; Oslo: Dybwad,1951). Dale C. Allison, "The Eye Is the Lamp of the Body (Matthew 6.22-23 =Luke 11.34-36)," NTS 33 (1987) 61-83. Joseph Amstutz, AIIAOTHI:: Eine begriffsgeschichtliche Studie zum jildisch-christlichen Griechisch (Theophaneia 19; Bonn: Hanstein, 1968). Georges Andre, "La vertu de simplicia~ chez les Peres Apostoliques," RSR 11 (1921) 306-27. Heinrich Bacht, "Einfalt," RAG 4 (1959) 821-40. Benjamin W. Bacon, "The 'Single' Eye," Expositor, 8/7 (1914) 275-88. Gunther Baumbach, Das Verstiindnis des Biisen in den synoptischen Evangelien ( Theologische Arbeiten 19; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1963). Hans Dieter Betz, "Matthew 6:22-23 and Ancient Greek Theories of Vision," in idem, Essays, 71-87; also idem, Synoptische Studien, 140-54. RudolfBultmann, "Zur Geschichte der Lichtsymbolik im Altertum," Philologus 97 (1948) 1-36; reprinted in his Exegetica, 323-55. Henry J. Cadbury, "The Single Eye," HTR 47 (1954) 69-74. Hans Conzelmann, "
437

Paul Fiebig, "Das Wortjesu vom Auge," ThStK 89 (1916) 499-507. Susan R. Garrett, "'Lest the Light in You Be Darkness': Luke 11:33-36 and the Question of Commitment," JBL 110 (1991) 93-105. Ferdinand Hahn, "Die Worte vom Licht Lk 11, 3336," in Paul Hoffmann et al., eds., Orientierung an jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker: FS fur josef Schmid (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1973) 10738. Otto Hiltbrunner, "Simplicitas: Eine Begriffsgeschichte," in his Latina Graeca (Bern: Francke, 1958) 15-105. Johannes Lindblom, "Det solliknande ogat," Svensk teologisk Kvartalskrift 3 ( 1927) 230-4 7. Carmel McCarthy, "The Apple of the Eye," in Pierre Casetti et al., eds., Melanges Dominique Barthelemy (OBO 38; Fribourg: Editions universitaires, 1981) 289-95. Hans Hermann Malmede, Die Lichtsymbolik im Neuen Testament (Ph.D. diss., University of Bonn, 1959; partially printed: Bonn: Rheinische FriedrichWilhelm-Universitat, 1960). Idem, Die Lichtsymbolik im Neuen Testament (Studies in Oriental Religions 15; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1986). Wilhelm Michaelis, "bptiro KTA.," TDNT 5.375-78. Margaret Miles, "Vision: The Eye of the Body and the Eye of the Mind in Saint Augustine's De trinitate and Confessione," JR 38 (1983) 125-42. Piper, Wisdom, 127-30. Edward Robertson, "The Apple of the Eye in the Masoretic Text," JTS 38 (1937) 56-59. Adolf Rosenzweig, Das Auge in Bibel und Talmud (Berlin: Mayer & Muller, 1892). Gunnar Rudberg, Hellas och Nya Testamentet (Stockholm: Diakonistyrelsens bokforlag, 1929) 150-51. Margot Schmidt, "Das Auge als Symbol der Erleuchtung bei Ephram und Parallelen in der Mystik des Mittelalters," Oriens Christianus 68 (1984) 27-57. Friedrich Schwencke, "Das Auge ist des Leibes Licht (Mt 6, 22f., Lk 11, 33-36)," ZWTh 55 (1913) 25160. Erik Sjoberg, "Das Licht in dir: Zur Deutung von Matth. 6, 22f. Par.," StTh 5 (1951) 89-105. Ceslas Spicq, "La vertue de simplicite dans !'Ancien et le Nouveau Testament," RSPhTh 22 (1933) 5-26; see also his Notes, 1.125-29. Rudiger Vischer, Das einfache Leben: Wort- und motivgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Wertbegriff der antiken Literatur (Studienhefte zur Altertumswissenschaft 11; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965 ). Paul Wilpert (Sibylla Zenker)," Auge," RAG 1 (1950) 958-69.

438

1 I Introduction The saying "On Vision" (6:22-23) is one of the most difficult and yet most interesting passages of the SM. The problem of its interpretation involves first of all a methodological decision: Is the SM with its images and concepts primarily a collection of individual wisdom sayings, prephilosophical in nature, or are the sayings assembled in the SM succinct statements of theological arguments involving philosophical ideas of a more developed nature? If the former is true, interpreters will be content with referring to the parallels in wisdom sayings in the biblical and Hellenistic-Jewish literature. Widespread as it is, however, this approach has not succeeded in clearly explaining what the passage is all about. The second option, therefore, is more commendable because it can explain the meaning. This option accords with the method I follow throughout this commentary. In view of the text at hand, it is necessary to take recourse to the philosophical tradition of the Greeks, which has extensive theoretical discussions about sense perception, cognition, ophthalmology, light and darkness, and colors. From the large number of passages dealing with these subjects it is apparent that thinkers in the Hellenistic period were intensely interested in the functioning and malfunctioning of the eyes, especially also in comparison with the ears. These discussions drew on popular and proverbial wisdom on the one hand, and on scientific observations and experiments on the other hand. The results were handed down in ever reexamined and reinterpreted form by the various philosophical school traditions. This stream of tradition can be traced back as far as the pre-Socratics. Prior to the New Testament, the traditions in some form reached jewish wisdom literature, which gave more and more attention to this subject matter because of the implications for perception and vision pertaining to the divine word and revelation. Here Greek thought met with and helped interpret the older traditions of proverbial wisdom, in which sayings about the eye and vision had already played an important role. For this reason it is only natural that wisdom and apocalyptic literature were especially preoccupied with interpreting these teachings. One can hardly have any doubt that Hellenistic-Jewish literature was influenced by Greek ideas early on, although explicit references to Platonic (i.e., Middle-Platonic) doctrines do not occur until Philo

Matthew 6:19-7:12

of Alexandria. What mattered most to this literature was the dualism between light and darkness as it applies to human vision, the notion of the "inner light" (lumen internum), the idea of the eyes being mirrors of the soul, and the relationship between the eyes and the sun. Parallels from judaism have been gathered in the comprehensive studies listed above in the bibliography on this section. This material is rich and diversified, so that I cannot reproduce it here except for illustrative examples. The excursus below on ancient Greek theories of vision will also provide a survey of the material as far as it is needed to understand the presuppositions of the text. 2) Analysis The connection of the passage 6:22-23 with the preceding in 6:19-21 has not yet been determined. There is no identifiable verbal connection, not even a particle, so that one must make note of a grammatical asyndeton. There seems to be, however, association of ideas. The last noun in vs 21 is the "heart" (Kapll[a), but the saying of vss 19-21 leaves the disposition of the human heart a matter open for further reflection. 122 Indeed, vss 22-23 further pursue this question, although instead of the "heart" 123 the entire internal life of the person is subjected to self-exploration. 124 At the level of presupposition one can detect an anthropology, dualistic in nature, which sets the dark body in stark contrast to "the light that is within you." Contrary to what one would expect, however, vss 22-23 do not mention the "soul" (o/vx~); it is mentioned only in vs 25. The sections ofvss 19-21, 22-23, and 24 are held together by, among other things, anthropological concepts and ethical ideas that depend on them. This 122 Conceivably, a concept such as "the eyes of the heart" (o1 o<J>8aAp.ot T"fif Kap/l{af) Stands in the background. This concept occurs, however, in NT texts that are removed from the SM; see Eph 1: 18; 1 Clem. 36.2; Mart. Pol. 3.2; and in Hermetic literature (Corp. Herm. 4.11; 7.1-12). On the connections between the eyes and the heart in the OT see Deut 28:65; 1 Kgs 9:3;Job 31:7; Prov 21:4; Isa 6:10; 44:18; etc. See Conny Edlund, Das Auge der Einfalt: Eine Untersuchung zu Matth. 6,22-23 und Luk. 11,34-35 (Copenhagen:Munksgaard, 1952)23-27. 123 The "light in you" is not simply the same as the heart. Differently, Hahn, "Die Worte vom Licht," 125. Sjoberg ("Das Licht in dir," 93) is right in making a distinction. 124 On the transition see the comment by Wellhausen (Evangelium Matthaei, 27 [also Evangelienkommentare,

situation conforms to Hellenistic ideas about sense perception, cognition, and ethical conduct as the ways in which human beings encounter the realities of the world. In regard to synoptic comparison, vss 22-23 have a close parallel in Luke 11:34-36. Despite the similarities in form and language, however, the passages are quite different in content. Luke 11:34-36 reads: 34 The lamp of the body is your eye. If your eye is healthy/good, your whole body also is full of light. If, however, it is sick/evil, your body also is dark. 3 5 See to it then that the light which is in you is not darkness. 36 If, therefore, your whole body is full oflight, not having any part that is dark, it is altogether enlightened as when a lamp illuminates you by its flash.12 5 34 '0 ><-ilxvof TOV uwp.aTOf EITTIV b l)(J>BaA.p.Of uov.126 8rau 0 O,p8aAp.&~ uov h.wA.oV~ ij, Kat 8Aov rO uWp.&. uov cf>wTEtv&v Eurtv·

Ewav at 7TOV71Phr i],

Kal

rh uWp.G. uov «TKOT£Lv0v.

35 o-K6'7TEt oVv 1-'~ rh cf>Ws rh f.v uol uKOros f.urlv. 36 el o~v rh uWp.&. uav 8Aov cpwrnvOv, p.1, £xov p.lpos rr.

'

CTKOT£LVOV 1

lurat cJ>wrnvhv HAov &>s 8rav 0 AVxvos rfi &.urpa1rfj

.pw.-l(n u<. The major differences between the two versions of the saying occur in Luke 11:35 and 36, the latter verse having no parallel in the SM at all. The introduction of vs 35 ("See to it, therefore") presupposes that the darkness of the light is the result of moral failure and that one can therefore prevent such a failure. By comparison, SM/Matt 6:22-23 merely observes a

203)): "Mt kommt von dem Herzen als Quelle des Dichtens und Trachtens auf das Auge als Quelle der Sehkraft, die hell oder auch nicht hell sein kann" ("Matthew starts from the heart as the source of imagining and intending and proceeds to the eye as the source of the ability to see, which can be bright or also not bright"). See also Fiebig, "Wort," 502. 12 5 The translation, notoriously difficult, is my own attempt. 126 The text is that of Aland's Synopsis, no. 65 (p. 89). Variant readings ofvss 34-35 for the most part represent harmonization with the Matthean parallel; see Aland's critical apparatus.

439

possibility of a dark light within, but says nothing about preventability; instead, an expression of shock occurs as the result of the observation. Luke 11:36 appears to be a secondary expansion, perhaps even an ancient gloss. What did the author of this addition want to say? This author was apparently dissatisfied with the simple idea of a lamp illuminating the whole body. A lamp normally provides not only illumination but also shadows and dark corners. The comment, therefore, may be intended to eliminate the problem by superseding the image of the lamp with that of the lightning flash that sets everything ablaze. The author of this additional comment seems interested in some form of mystical illumination that he found necessary to avoid, possibly on account of the negative consequences of the image of the lamp. The interpretation of the saying in the Coptic Cos. Thorn. log. 24 also differs: His disciples said, "Show us the place where you are, for we must seek it." He said to them, "Whoever has ears should listen! There is a light existing within a person of light. And it enlightens the whole world; if it does not enlighten, that person [or: it] is darkness." 127 This little composition may be made up of gospel reminiscences. 128 The statement made by the disciples may reflect John 1:38, but Jesus' reply takes up a wellknown proverb found in the gospel tradition (Matt 11:15; 13:9,43, and often). What then follows is a gnostic interpretation of a nongnostic saying as it occurs in the SM. The Gnostic assumes only the "Lichtmenschen" to be enlightened, so that they in turn illuminate the whole world. 129 This idea may be connected with earlier statements such as SM/Matt 5:15,John 1:4-5, 8:12, or it may be independent. At any rate, a person who cannot illuminate the outside world is not a "light-person" and thus is darkness. No

evidence suggests that Cos. Thorn. log. 24 depends textually on either SM/Matt 6:22-23 or Luke 11:3436. It is more likely that the passages are connected through the presynoptic tradition and that the versions give their peculiar interpretations. Which of the versions, then, was part ofQ? 130 This question is especially difficult to decide because of the differences between the versions in SM/Matt 6:22-23 and Luke 11:34-36. The SM clearly took its version from a different Q-source than Luke 11:34-36 did. Both versions are redactional elaborations of the same saying, and Cos. Thorn. log. 24 provides still another version. These redactional changes must have occurred prior to the inclusion in the present contexts. The SM-version conforms to the views and purposes of the SM, while Luke 11 :34-36 has become part of a speech made by Jesus to the crowds 131 that includes also the passage of the Sign ofJonah (Luke 11:2932//Matt 12:38-42//Mark 8:11-12), the parable about the Lamp (Luke 11:33//SM/Matt 5:15//Mark 4:21), and ends with the saying "On Vision" (Luke 11 :34-36). This context is surely also secondary. In conclusion, it is not possible to say with certainty whether the exclamation of SM/Matt 6:23c-d or the exhortation of Luke 11:35 was part of Q. The same problem exists for Luke 11:36. Was it part of Q, or was it an elaborated version of a later stage of Q preserved only in Luke, or an addition by the evangelist Luke himself? From whatever version of Q the SM drew its material, it most likely did not include a parallel to Luke 11:36. 132 Also, the mere possibility that the verse can be translated into Aramaic cannot substantiate the hypothesis that it must have existed in Aramaic prior to the Greek; modern "retranslations" are in fact new translations into the Aramaic. 133 In terms of rhetoric and composition, the logion of vss 22-23 combines several elements into a unified

127 Translation by Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 385; cf. 130 For discussion of this problem see Schulz, Q, 469; Thomas Lambdin's translation (in Layton, Nag Wrege, Bergpredigt, 113-15; Kloppenborg, Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, p. 65): "His disciples said, Formation, 134-39; idem, QParallels, 104. 'Show us the place where you are, since it is necessary 131 See also Kloppenborg, Formation, 121. for us to seek it.' He said to them, 'Whoever has ears, 132 Schulz (Q, 469) draws a different conclusion and let him hear. There is light within a man of light, and regards Luke 11:34-36 as the Q-version and Matt he lights up the whole world. If he does not shine, he 6:22-23 as its secondary revision; see also Luz, is darkness.'" The question for the translator is Matthiius, 1.354, 356 (Matthew, 1.390, 392-93). whether the translation should be assimilated to Matt 133 Against Allison ("Eye," 79-81), who follows Torrey's 6:22-23 or to gnostic ideas. attempt at reconstruction (Charles C. Torrey, The 128 For commentary see Menard, Thomas, 116-17. Four Gospels [New York and London: Harper, 1933] 129 The concept occurs elsewhere in early Christian 309; similarly Thomas W. Manson, The Sayings of literature; see esp. Luke 16:8;John 12:36; 1 Thess jesus [London: SCM, 1949; reprinted Grand Rapids: 5:5 ("sons of light"); Eph 5:8; IgnatiusPhid. 2.1 Eerdmans, 1979]94). For other such "reconstruc("children oflight"). See BAGD, s.v. cpc;,~, 3, with tions of the Aramaic original" see Jeremias, Parables, further references. On the "man of light" see below, 162-63; Schwarz, "Undjesus sprach," 230-35. The n. 239. problem with the alleged "retranslations" is that the

440

Matthew 6:19-7:12

saying and expresses a consistent argument. Formally and structurally it has two major parts: (I) An introductory definition (finitio) 134 of the human eye. This statement (vs 22a) appears to be a proverb, and indeed it became a proverb later, 135 but the image of the eye as a lamp also has a long prior history. The history of this image means that we have before us a quasiphilosophical sententia ("sentence"), interpreting the phenomenon of the human eye as a means of illumination, not only of the body but also of the mind. (2) Verses 22b-23 provide a commentary that critically evaluates the introductory sentence. This commentary forms an antithetical isocolon (parallel lines) using homoioteleuton (similar-sounding ending). 136 The parallelism is then adjoined to the sentence of vs 22a by way of chiasm. While vs 22a names the lamp first and then the eye, vss 22b-23a discuss the eye first, and the lamp is second in vs 23b. The introductory words ~l.u obu (vs 22b), ~l.u ~' (vs 23a), and £L obu (vs 23b) suggest that the statements function as commentary, proceeding from the objective phenomena stated in the third person singular (vs 22a) to the paraenetic second person singular (vss 22b-23b). The commentary itself has two parts: the eye as the organ of vision (vss 22b-23a), and the interpretation ofthe image of the lamp (vs 23b). One can subdivide the first part again into the description of the proper and the defective functioning of the eye. The final part of the commentary (vs 23b) contains a succinct oxymoron ("the light is darkness"), 137 using repetition (reduplicatio) (uiCOTos •.• <TIC0Tos) 138 and ending with an exclamation (exclamatio: TO <TICOTos 1Tou.lu).l 39 This "restored Urtext" is attested nowhere else but in the imagination of the modern scholars whose presuppositional views they closely reflect. See Betz, "Wellhausen's Dictum 'Jesus was not a Christian, but a jew,' in Light of Present Scholarship," StTh 45 (199I) 83-110, esp. 90-93 with notes. 134 See Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.385 (§ 782). 135 Cf. Deutsches Sprichworter-Lexicon (ed. Karl F. W. Wander; Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1867) 1.172 n. 87: "Die augen sind des leibs latern"; Hoyt's New Cyclopedia ofPractical Quotations (ed. Kate L. Roberts; London: Funk & Wagnalls, I927) 24 7 n. 15, 248 n. 22; The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (ed. Carl van Doren; Oxford: Oxford University, 1941) 406a, 424a. See also the riddle in the collection of Symposius (67): "Lumen habens intus, divini sideris instar, noctibus in mediis faciem non perdo dierum" ("I have the light within me, equal to the light divine; in the midst of nights I am not amiss of the view of days"). I am indebted for this reference to Reinhold Merkelbach and Maria Totti, Abraxas: Ausgewahlte Papyri religiosen und magischen Inhalts, vol. 1: Gebete

second part of the commentary interprets how one should correctly understand the image of the lamp. The light burning in the lamp is now identified as "the light in you." This identification as well as the form of the oxymoron is evidence that the argument has definitely moved from a physiological to a moral level. The oxymoron introduces the paradoxical possibility that "the light within you" may well be "darkness," and it concludes with the exclamation of bewilderment, "What a darkness!" (To <TICOTos 1Tou.lu). This exclamation is a rhetorical device, making inescapably clear that one is to waste no time on trivialities and absurdities, but that matters of ultimate concern are at stake. This compositional structure has some parallels in Greek philosophical sources dealing with theories of sense perception and cognition. Most important in this regard is one of the influential works of the Hellenistic era, Theophrastus's De sensibus. 140 Theophrastus begins his essay by reporting on the theories of cognition proposed by earlier philosophers. He then criticizes these theories by pointing out their intrinsic consequences and resulting faults, which are judged to cause greater dilemmas than those they were intended to explain. The whole procedure of report, critique, and dilemma is informed and shaped not only by the sources but also by Theophrastus's own theory. Compared with the work of this philosopher, SM/Matt 6:22-23 is obviously extremely short. It appears to be a condensation into a sayings composition of what in an elaborate form would be a treatise. An analogous short composition on a related topic is found in Epictetus's Diss. 3.3.20-22. The passage

136

137 138 139 140

(Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-WestHi.lischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sonderreihe Papyrologica Coloniensia 1 7 .I; Opladen: W estdeutscher Verlag, I990) 4. For a comprehensive treatment of the symbolism of the eye see Waldemar Deonna, Le symbolisme de l'oeil (Bern: Francke, 1965). See Elbert Russell, Paronomasia and Kindred Phenomena in the New Testament (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1919; Leipzig: Drugulin, I920) I5. Sojiilicher, Gleichnisreden, 2.99. On the oxymoron see Lausberg, Elemente, 126 (§ 389, 3). See Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.134 (§ 619). See Lausberg, Elemente, I46 (§ 446). Theophrastus De sensibus, ed. George M. Stratton, Theophrastus and the Greek Physiological Psychology Before Aristotle (New York and London: George

Unwin, I9I7).

441

seems to be a doxological excerpt placed at the end of the dissertation. It begins with a definitional statement of two lines, using imagery. Then there follows a case description, first using imagery and then applying it to ethics. The conclusion takes the form of a concise statement using paronomasia (same word): The soul is something like a bowl of water, and the external impressions something like the ray of light that falls upon the water. Now when the water is disturbed, it looks as though the ray oflight is disturbed too, but it is not disturbed. And so, therefore, when a man has an attack of vertigo, it is not the arts and the virtues that are thrown into confusion, but the spirit in which they exist, and when it grows steady again, so do they, too.

or&v Eurtv ~ AEK0.V71 roV UOaToS", TOtoVrov ~ 'o/vx~, oTov ~ aVy~ ~ 7rpou7rlwrovua r(p UOart, rowVrov ai cpavTauiat.

15rav otv rh UOwp KLV718fi, aoKEi p:fv Kai ~ aVy~ Ktvliu6at, o-b pivrot KtVE'irar.. Kai 8rav rolvvv uKorw8fi rrs, oVx at: rfxvat Kaf. ai O.pErai uvyxfovrar., cl.AA.a rO 7rVEVp.a, Ecf o~ Elcrlv· Karao-nlvros 0~ Ka8lcrrarat K0.Kliva.

Excursus: Ancient Greek Theories of Vision One cannot understand the argument about the human eye and its functioning, as contained in Matt 6:22-23/ /Luke 11:34-36, without some knowledge

concerning ancient theories of sense perception and cognition. If one assumes this point, one must also conclude that the debate about such theories was widespread in the circles of philosophers and theologians at the time of the New Testament and that this debate had entered into Jewish circles. Indeed, influence of this kind was typical of Hellenistic Judaism. In wisdom literature, 141 later apocalyptic literature, 142 and rabbinic theology 143 we find what appear to be Jewish responses to Greek theories of sense perception. Like the Greek theories, Jewish contemplation of the functioning of the eye also starts with proverbial imagery that was current at the time and cross-cultural in scope, in order then to enter into deeper interpretations of its implications. 144 These considerations are all part of the great confrontation between Judaism and Hellenism. Our passage (Matt 6:22-23//Luke 11 :34-36) is a good example of this confrontation. Since these Jewish responses are informed by Greek theories of sense perception, one must first examine these presuppositions to understand their evaluation by the SM. Thus one must enter the territory of very diverse and in part complicated fields of study such as the theory of elementary cognition, the theory of light and color, the physiology and therapy of the eye. I cannot adequately treat any of these fields here; I can only mention the main points of contact. 1. The style of definition with regard to the human eye occurs as early as Pythagoras, who, according to anonymous Pythagoreans, called the eyes "gates of the sun. " 145 This image recalls old mythological notions,

141 Just as in Hellenism, interests were focused on the 1.611-12)). "inner eye" (see 2 Chr 16:9; Prov 6:23; Sir 17:7, 143 On the whole see Rudolf Meyer, Hellenistisches in der etc.). See also Julicher, Gleichnisreden, 2.1 00; Conzelrabbinischen Anthropologie: Rabbinische Vorstellungen mann, "
442

Matthew 6:19-7:12

as when sun and moon are considered to be the eyes of a cosmic deity, or the human eyes to correspond to sun and moon. The interpretation of Pythagoras's saying, however, is not clear. 146 Are the eyes "gates of the sun" in the sense that the sunlight enters through them into the body? Or is the sun the image for the inner "light of the soul," which in turn can be identical with the "mind" (':'our)? Or are several meanings combined as in another saying of the philosopher, "not to speak without light" {J.t~ A€ynv livev roT6r)? 147 At any rate, Pythagorean tradition also contained the dualism of light (ror) and darkness ( wr Tl> lv
the soul" (Tl> Tijr -.Jrvxfir lJp.p.a), perhaps originally an Orphic idea. 154 2. The pre-Socratics also discussed the importance of sense perception for intellectual cognition. In what sense can one assume that one perceives reality, and what are the differences between seeing and hearing? Which of the senses is the more trustworthy? Two sayings of Heraclitus are important for the study of Matt 6:22-23/ /Luke 11:34-36. One, perhaps proverbial in origin, has to do with the preference of vision over audition: "The eyes are more accurate witnesses than the ears" (ollaAp.ol yap Twv &;TroV aKpL{3EIJa)\p.ot Kal {3ap{3apovr -.Jrvxar lx6vTrov). 158 The phrase "barbarian souls" is difficult to understand. According to Diels-Kranz these are souls who, like barbarians,

155

156 157 158

1.20.46; Lucretius De rer. nat. 3.360; also Plutarch De sera num. vind. 5, 550D-E; Philo Op. mund. 71; Migr. Abr. 39; Sacr. AC 36; Som. 1.164; 2.160; Q Exod. 2.39. Christian authors began to use it starting with justin Dial. 4.1. The origins may be Pythagorean/Orphic; see Kern, Orphicorum Fragmenta, no. 345, pp. 337-38; Albrecht Dieterich, Abraxas: Studien zur Religionsgeschichte des spiitern Altertums (Leipzig: Teubner, 1891) 58; idem, Eine Mithrasliturgie (3d ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966) 55-58; PGM III.565 (IV.959-60, 1057-70); Corp. Herm. 1.6; 10.4; frg. 23 (Kore Kosmou), section 36. For the wider context see Wilpert, "Auge," 961; Conzelmann, TDNT9.31315; Christoph Riedweg, Mysterienterminologie bei Platon, Philon und Klemens von Alexandrien (UaLG 26; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987) 96-97. Diels-Kranz, 22 B lOla (I, 173, 15-16). See Milan Marcovich, Heraclitus (Merida, Venezuela: Los Andes University, 1967) 23-24. See SM/Matt 5:8, 16, 28, 29; 6:26; 7:3-5, etc. See Betz, Essays, 4 n. 15. See SM/Matt 7:24-27; and Betz, Essays, 4-7. Diels-Kranz, 22 B 107 (I, 175, 1-2); see Marcovich, Heraclitus, 45-48.

443

cannot properly understand the information given by the senses. Heraclitus would then be saying that he does not doubt the value of sense perception per se, 159 but he contends that those who do not use the organs with "consideration" (.pp6v.,cnr) cannot interpret what they have perceived. 160 The failure lies in the fact that they do not possess reason (the >.oyor). 161 On the whole, however, Geoffrey S. Kirk is correct in his exposition of Heraclitus: "His criticism of men is hased upon the fact that the truth is there to be observed, is common to all, but they cannot see it: apprehension of the Logos is no mystical process but the result of using eyes, ears, and common sense. " 162 Although the ears are not mentioned in Matt 6:22-23 par., this passage undoubtedly gives preference to the eye. At the same time, the passage affirms the idea that the eye alone is not capable of recognizing the truth but that another factor must enter into the process of vision. 3. The dualism oflight and darkness is preeminent in the cosmology and epistemology of Parmenides. 16 3 In his thought light and darkness are metaphors for "truth" versus "ignorance," and "being" versus "nonbeing." These principles also determine the process of vision. 164 Darkness is to the highest degree the nature of the corpse, which has no capacity for cognition. I 55 If, however, the human mind is illuminated by light, cognition of being can take place. Consequently, the organ of cognition is no longer the eye (which is devalued) 166 but thought. 167 Matt 6:22-23 par. also distinguishes the eye and the capacity to see, and in the final analysis the capacity to see depends on another factor not named in the passage-sinfulness, which qualifies both "the light within you" and the eye. 4. The comparison of the eye to a lamp occurs first in Empedocles' poem TIEpl.pvcTEror. 168 Adapting what appears to be proverbial material, 169 Empedocles compares the process of vision to a man who wishes to 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171

444

go out on a winter night and who, because of the darkness outside, equips himself with storm lamps. When Aphrodite 170 created the human eye, she constructed a kind of a lamp: the eternal fire was wrapped in fine membranes and thin veils behind the pupil. Within the eye, water flowed around the fire, but the eye lets the light pass from the inside out because it is so much finer. 1 7 1 Empedocles, therefore, assumed a firelight within tl:}e eye behind the pupil. Like a lantern this light shines through the eye and thus facilitates the process of vision. 172 At this point I note a clear difference between Empedocles and Matt 6:22-23: although both use the term "lamp" (o >.vxvor), in Matt 6:22-23 the light is not in the eye but somewhere else in the body. This difference is no doubt intended and not simply accidental. 5. The philosophers of the following periods continued to build their own theories of sense perception and cognition, but the foundations laid by the preSocratics remained decisive presuppositions. Theophrastus, who has transmitted to us important doxographical material in his De sensibus, has also attempted to sort things out historically. Basically, he finds two conceptions of the process of cognition. 1 78 Parmenides, Empedocles, and Plato share the principle of "similarity" (rep op.o&lfl), while Anaxagoras and Heraclitus start from the principle of"contrast" (rep lvavrllfl). The first group assumes that the agent of cognition is located within beings and that cognition, especially vision, occurs by way of an "effluence" (lnroppota) from within the body toward the objects outside, where they meet with entities akin to them in nature. The other group proceeds from the theory that opposites attract one another. This principle also underlies Democritus's theory of "air-imprints," 174 by which he tried to explain why, if one looks into the eye,

172 The fiery nature of the eye was observed earlier by Diels-Kranz, 22 B 55 (1, 162, 11-12). the physician Alcmaeon (Diels-Kranz, 24 A 5 [I, 212, Ibid., 22 B 17 (I, 155, 6-8). Ibid., 22 B 72 (1, 167, 9-11). 5]). See also John I. Beare, Greek Theories ofElementary Geoffrey S. Kirk, Heraclitus: The Cosmic Fragments Cognition from Alcmaeon to Aristotle (Oxford: Claren(Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1954) 376. don, 1906) 16;Jaap Mansfeld, "Aicmaeon: .pvu&Kor or Physician? With some remarks on Calcidius' 'On See Beierwaltes, Lux intelligibilis, 34-36 (seen. 146 Vision' compared to Galen's Plac. Hipp. Plat. VII, • above). Cf. Diels-Kranz, 28 B 9 (1, 240-41). in Kephalaion: Studies in Greek Philosophy and Its Continuation Offered to Professor C.]. de Vogel (Assen: Ibid., 28 A 46 (I, 226, 10-15). Cf. the expression li
Matthew 6:19-7:12

one perceives in the pupil a reduced "appearance" (;p.<J>auu) of the world outside, including perhaps the

observer. Employing Empedocles' notion of "effluence," Democritus thought that the "appearances" occur in this way: the objects seen send out atoms that produce "air-imprints" (a.,.oTV'lTwu&r) when they hit the air. The medium of the air then transports these "airimprints" into the eye, a process facilitated by the sun. The fire-atoms of the sunlight compress the air, so that the "imprints" can be received, and the light guides the "air-imprints" through channels into the eye. After they have passed to the pupil, the "appearances" occur and are then transmitted to the rest of the body, including the soul, which, according to Democritus, is part of the body and a material entity. The conditions of vision are established if the physiology of the eye meets the needs of the passage of the "appearances." The extemal membranes must be thin and dense, the inner parts spongy and free from fat and meaty tissue, the veins must serve to pass the "appearances" on into the body, and so on. 175 Complicated as Democritus's ideas about vision and disturbance of vision certainly are, the conditions for vision or disturbance of vision are always physiological in nature. The same is true for Epicurus and his famous theory of "images" (•i~wAa). 176 These "images" are constantly produced and emitted by the objects seen. Separating from the objects, the "images" float into the eye. Since Epicurean philosophers, among them especially Lucretius, 177 later also promoted this theory, one may assume that it was rather widely known in the New Testament era. Looking again at Matt 6:22-23/ /Luke 11:34-36, one will have to conclude that the passage, by intention or accident, implicitly rejects the atomistic and Epicurean theories of vision, while approving of the Empedoclean and Platonic traditions, at least to the 175 Diels-Kranz, 68 A 135 (II, 114, 28-115, 3; 116, 34). 176 Cyril Bailey, The Greek Atomists and Epicurus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1928) 406-13; Burkert, "Air-Imprints," 103. 177 Lucretius De rer. nat. 4.311-52 (ed. Hermann Diels). Cf. also Epicurus's saying, "But even when he has lost his eyesight, he [sc. the sage] takes part in life" (a.>..A.lz Ka~ 'lT1/PW8EvTa Tlzr lJ>f!m p.Tl>v Tov f3{ov ). The citation is according to Graziano Arrighetti, Epicuro: Opere(2ded.; Turin: Einaudi,1973) 27 (frg. [1]119, 8-9). 178 On the malfunctioning of the eye, see also Plato Rep. 10.609a-b; Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1.7.19, 1097b 30; 2.6.2, 1106a 19; De anima (see de Vogel, Greek Philosophy, vol. 2, nos. 642, 648, 650, 651). 179 See Beierwaltes, Lux intelligibilis, 37-72 (seen. 146

e:"tent that vision occurs through light passing from the inside out. 6. The theory of cognition and, as part of it, of vision is the topic of discussion especially in Plato's Republic, books 1, 6, and 7, and in Timaeus. In Rep. 1, 353b-e Plato speaks about the functioning of the eyes (their ap
445

thought. Here Plato discusses first the phenomena of the disturbance of vision. We see normally as long as we direct our eyes toward objects illuminated by the light of day; but "when the eyes are no longer turned upon objects upon whose colours the light of day falls but that of the dim luminaries of night, their edge is blunted and they appear almost blind, as if pure vision did not dwell in them." 185 These observations are then applied to the ways in which the soul perceives the truth: When it is firmly fixed on the domain where truth and reality shine resplendent it apprehends and knows them and appears to possess reason; but when it inclines to that region which is mingled with darkness, the world of becoming and passing away, it opines only and its edge is blunted, and it shifts its opinions hither and thither, and again seems as if it lacked reason.186 This is the result as far as insight into the truth is concerned: This reality, then, that gives their truth to the objects of knowledge and the power of knowing to the knower, you must say is the idea of good, and you must conceive it as being the cause of knowledge, and of truth in so far as known. Yet fair as they both are, knowledge and truth, in supposing it to be something fairer still than these you will think rightly of it. But as for knowledge and truth, even as in our illustration it is right to deem light and vision sunlike, but never to think that they are the sun, so here it is right to consider these two their counterparts, as being like the good or boniform, but to think that either of them is the good is not right. Still higher honour belongs to the possession and habit of the good. 187 The problem of the disturbance of vision is given special consideration in the parable of the Cave. Plato distinguishes there between two kinds of disturbances ofthe eye: the one when a person comes out of the light into darkness, and the other when a person changes from darkness to light. 188 The parable explains what this distinction means for philosophy. The cave dwellers who have never seen anything else but the shadows on the wall can only take those shadows for reality itself. If, however, one of the cave dwellers were "freed from his fetters and compelled to stand up suddenly and turn his head around and walk 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192

446

Ibid., 508c. Ibid., 508d. Ibid., 508e-509a. Ibid., 7, 518a. Ibid., 515c. Ibid., 515d. lbid.,516e-517a. Ibid.

and to lift up his eyes to the light," 189 he would only feel pain in his eyes because of the dazzle and glitter of the light and see nothing. Even "if someone told him that what he had seen before was all a cheat and an illusion, but that now, being nearer to reality and turned toward more real things, he saw more truly," 190 he would turn back to the cave and to those objects of vision that he is able to discern. Plato's solution to the problem is gradual adjustment to the light, so that at its end cognition of reality can truly occur. The second kind of disturbance of vision happens when the same man, now accustomed to live in the light, returns to the darkness of the cave. His vision of things has now completely changed, and "if he recalled to mind his first habitation and what passed for wisdom there, and his fellow-bondsmen, do you not think that he would count himself happy in the change and pity them?" 191 Such a man would no doubt lose all interest in returning to the cave. But if one imagines he would indeed return he would have the problem of disturbed sight again. At this point Plato describes the situation of the philosopher, obviously with the destiny of Socrates in mind: Now if he should be required to contend with these perpetual prisoners in "evaluating" these shadows while his vision was still dim and before his eyes were accustomed to the dark-and this time required for habituation would not be very shortwould he not provoke laughter, and would it not be said of him that he had returned from his journey aloft with his eyes ruined and that it was not worthwhile even to attempt the ascent? And if it were possible to lay hands on and to kill the man who tried to release them and lead them up, would they not kill him? 192 As Plato points out in the following interpretation of the parable, he intended to speak about "the soul's ascension to the intelligible region." 193 The goal is to see the idea of good and to accept it as "the cause for all things, of all that is right and beautiful, giving birth in the visible world to light, and the author oflight and itself in the intelligible world being the authentic source of truth and reason, and that anyone who is to act wisely in private or public must have caught sight of this." 194 Based on this assessment Plato outlines the task of the philosopher: 193 Ibid., 517b. 194 Ibid., 517c.

Matthew 6:19-7:12

Wherever he saw a soul perturbed and unable to discern something, he would not laugh unthinkingly, but would observe, whether coming from a brighter life its vision was obscured by the unfamiliar darkness, or whether the passage from the deeper dark of ignorance into a more luminous world and the greater brightness had dazzled its visio'}. And so he would deem the one happy in its experience and way of life and pity the other, and if it pleased him to laugh at it, his laughter would be less laughable than that at the expense of the soul that had come down from the light above.I95 This situation is for Plato also the starting point of education (paideia). Education, he emphasizes, cannot "put true knowledge into a soul that does not possess it, as if they were inserting vision into blind eyes." 196 Rather, education corresponds to the turning around of the liberated man in the cave; it is the "art of changing around" the soul: "not an art of producing vision in it, but on the assumption that it possesses vision but does not rightly direct it and does not look where it should, an art of bringing this about." 197 The capacity of vision itself is never lost, and so "the excellence of thought, it seems, is certainly of a more divine quality, a thing that never loses its potency." 198 It is only the application of the faculty that must be converted, from the useless and harmful to the useful and beneficent. Plato at this point inserts an interesting illustration: Have you never observed in those who are popularly spoken of as bad, but smart men, how keen is the vision of the little soul, how quick it is to discern the things that interest it, a proof that it is not a poor vision which it has, but one forcibly enlisted in the service of evil, so that the sharper its sight the more mischief it accomplishes?l99 In addition to the Republic, the Timaeus treats the eye and the process of vision extensively. 200 I cannot present a detailed comparison between the two works at this point, but a few points may be brought out. In the Timaeus Plato makes use of Empedocles' idea of the fire in the eye as he calls the eyes "fire-bearing eyes" 195 196 197 198 199 200

Ibid., 518a. Ibid., 518c. Ibid., 518d. Ibid., 518e. Ibid., 519a. Plato Tim. 45aff. See Francis M. Cornford, Plato's Cosmology (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1937) 151-59. 201 On this point see Beare, Greek Theories, 45 (seen. 172 above). 202 Plato Tim. 45c-d (trans. according to Cornford, Plato's Cosmology, 153). 203 Plato Tim. 45d.

(wrT<J>opa 8p.p.ara). Vision involves three kinds of light:

first, the daylight dispersed by the sun in the air; second, the light contained in the eyeball and flowing out of it toward the objects seen; and third, the light that is part of the colors of the objects. Vision takes place through a cooperation of all these lights, a process later called rTvvaVyfla ("meeting ofrays"):2° 1 Accordingly, whenever there is daylight round about, the visual current issues forth, like to like, and coalesces with it and is formed into a single homogeneous body in a direct line with the eyes, in whatever quarter the stream issuing from within strikes upon any object it encounters outside. So the whole, because of its homogeneity, is similarly affected and passes on the motions of anything it comes in contact with or that comes into contact with it, throughout the whole body, to the soul, and thus causes the sensation of vision. 202 Disturbance of vision happens, for example, at night, because then the external fire is cut off, so that the internal fire, when it issues, meets with something that is unlike it, and therefore prohibits vision. 203 (7) This survey has covered at least superficially the major theoretical presuppositions of Greek philosophy, insofar as they are needed for the interpretation of Matt 6:22-23/ /Luke 11:34-36. Even after Plato these basic conceptions were constantly reproduced, criticized, and modified in many different ways. Pseudo-Plato's parable of the Eye (Ale. mai. 132d133c) was enormously influential in connection with the problem of self-knowledge and self-examination, but the SM passage under consideration does not directly raise this problem. 204 The same must be said about new ideas that the Stoics introduced. They are not reflected in the SM. 205

204 See esp. Beierwaltes, Lux intelligibilis, 88-91 (see n. 146 above). 205 On Stoicism see SVF II, nos. 863-72; and Heinz Gerd Ingenkamp, "Zur stoischen Lehre vom Sehen," RhM 14 (1971) 240-46. Other important texts are Cicero Academica 2.19-2 3; 2. 80; Dio Chrysostom Or. 11.1; Galen De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis 7.4-8 (text and commentary by Phillip de Lacy, Galen: On the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato [Corpus Medicorum Graecorum 5.4.1-3; Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1978, 1979, 1984)); Marcus AureliusMed. 3.16; I 0.26.

447

Jewish thinking, which had for a long time paid extraordinary attention to the eye, 206 enters only hesitatingly into the debate. When Jewish authors pay growing attention to the theory of vision, they do so in response to Hellenism and its influences. Their own development of theory is, where it exists, late. Also, the LXX translators appear to have been aware of the issues, as pertinent Old Testament renderings show. A clear line of development can be traced through wisdom literature, the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, 2° 7 and Philo, who explicitly takes up the whole Platonic tradition, most likely in a Middle-Platonic version: it is not the eyes that see, but the mind (vous) that sees through them. 20B In a long section on the faculty of vision in Abr. 150-66, Philo follows the doctrines of Plato's Timaeus, 209 but he strongly emphasizes that the faculty of vision is under the influence of the emotions ('li'M'T/ ), apparently a Stoic concept. 21 0

Bibliography Elizabeth Asmis, Epicurus' Scientific Method (Ithaca, N.Y., and London: Cornell University, 1984). Cyril Bailey, The Greek Atomists and Epicurus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1928). John I. Beare, Greek Theories ofElementary Cognition from Alcmaeon to Aristotle (Oxford: Clarendon, 1906). Werner Beierwaltes, Lux Intelligibilis: Untersuchung zur Lichtmetaphysik der Griechen (Munich: UNI-Druck Novotny & Sollner, 1957). Hans Blumenberg, Hohlenausgiinge (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1989). Dieter Bremer, "Hinweise zum griechischen Ursprung und zur europaischen Geschichte der Lichtmetaphysik," Archivfo.r Begriifsgeschichte 17 (1973) 7-35. Idem, "Licht als universales Darstellungsmedium: Materialien und Bibliography," Archiv for Begriifsgeschichte 18 ( 197 4) 185-206. Idem, Licht und Dunkel in der fruhgriechischen Dichtung: Interpretationen zur Vorgeschichte der Lichtmetaphysik

206 See the large collection of passages in Rosenzweig, Auge (seen. 153 above); Str-B 1.431-33; Fiebig, Bergpredigt, 125-27; Wilhelm Michaelis, TDNT 5.375-78 (s.v. ocp8aAf'6s). 207 See esp. T. Iss. 3-4; T. Benj. 4.2; 5.3; 6.1-7; T. Gad 3.2; 5.7; 6.2; T. Reu. 3.8; T. Levi 14.4; T. Dan 2.2-4; T.jud. 13.6; 14.1; etc. On these passages see the commentary by Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments. 208 Philo Poster. C. 126; cf. Epicharmus in Diels-Kranz, 23 B 12 (1, 200, 16); Cicero Tusc. 1.20.46. 209 See also Philo Op. mund. 120, 147; Deus imm. 45, 79; Conf ling. 194; De congressu eruditionis gratia 135; Ebr. 70, 182-83; etc. For discussion see Max Freuden-

448

(Archiv fiir Begriffsgeschichte Sup 1; Bonn: Bouvier, 1975). Idem, "Affekt und Erkenntnis: Zur anthropologischen Konstitution des Erkennens bei Platon" (Habilitationsschrift, Munich, 1979). RudolfBultmann, "Zur Geschichte der Lichtsymbolik im Altertum," Philologus 97 ( 1948) 1-36; reprinted in his Exegetica, 323-55. Walter Burkert, "Air-Imprints or Eidola: Democritus' Aetiology of Vision," Illinois Classical Studies 2 (1977) 97-109. Harold Chernis, "Galen and Posidonius' Theory of Vision," AJP 54 (1933) 154-61. Carsten Colpe, "Gnosis II (Gnostizismus)," RAG 11 (1981) 537-659. Hans Conzelmann, ".Pros KTA.," TDNT 9.310-58, esp. 311-16, 327-32, 343-44 (A.1-4; D.1-2; E.II.l). Phillip De Lacy, Galen: On the Doctrines ofHippocrates and Plato (ed. with a translation and commentary; parts 1-3; Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V.4.13; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1978, 1979, 1984). Martin Dibelius, "Die Vorstellung vom gottlichen Licht: Ein Kapitel a us der hellenistischen Religionsgeschichte," DLZ 36 (1915) 1469-83 (review of Wetter [see below]). Albrecht Dible, "Vom sonnenhaften Auge," JACSup 10 (1983) 85-91. Petrus F. M. Fontaine, The Light and the Dark: A Cultural History of Dualism (2 vols.; Amsterdam: Gieben, 1986-87). Kurt von Fritz, "Demokrits Theorie des Sehens," in his Grundprobleme der Geschichte der antiken Wissenschaft

(Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971) 594-622; originally English: "Democritus' Theory of Vision," in Science, Medicine, and History: Essays on the Evolution of Scientific Thought and Medical Practice Written in Honour of Charles joseph Singer (Oxford: Oxford

University, 1953) 83-99. Arthur E. Haas, "Antike Lichttheorien," Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie 20 (1907) 345-86. Julius Hirschberg, Geschichte der Augenheilkunde (2d ed.; 2 vols.; Leipzig: Engelmann, 1899). thai, Die Erkenntnislehre Philos von Alexandria (Berliner Studien fiir classische Philologie und Archaeologie 13.1; Berlin: Calvary, 1891) passim; Helmut Schmidt, Die Anthropologie Philons von Alexandreia (Wiirzburg: Triltsch, 1933) 75-79; Franz-Norbert Klein, Die Lichtterminologie bei Philon von Alexandrien und in den hermetischen Schriften (Leiden: Brill, 1962); David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (2 vols.; Akademisch Proefschrift; Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, 1983) 1.229-40; Riedweg, Mysterienterminologie, 96-97. 21 0 On the doctrine of pathos ('ll'
Matthew 6:19-7:12

Idem, "Die Seh-Theorien der griechischen Philosophen in ihren Beziehungen zur Augenheilkunde," Zeitschriftfur Augenheilkunde 43 (1920) I-22. Johannes Hirschberger, Seele und Leib in der Spatantike (Sitzungsberichte der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitat Frankfurt a.M. 8.I; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1969). Heinz-Gerd Ingenkamp, "Zur stoischen Lehre vom Sehen," RhM I4 (1971) 240-46. Walter Jablonski, "Die Theorie des Sehens im griechischen Altertum his auf Aristoteles," Sudhoffs Archiv filr Geschichte der Medizin 23 (1930) 306-31. Franz-Norbert Klein, Die Lichtterminologie bei Philon von

Helmut Schmidt, Die Anthropologie Philons von Alexandria (Wiirzburg: Triltsch, 1933). Heinrich von Staden, Herophilus: The Art ofMedicine in Early Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1989). Ludwig Stein, Die Psychologie der Stoa (Berliner Studien fiir classische PhiloIogie und Archaologie 3.1 and 7.1; 2 vols.; Berlin: Calvary, 1886, 1888). George M. Stratton, Theophrastus and the Greek Physiological Psychology before Aristotle (London and New York: Allen & Unwin, I917). Gillis P. Wetter, PHOS (<1>.0!.): Eine Untersuchung ilber hellenistische Fri!mmigkeit, zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verstiindnis des Manichaismus (Uppsala: Akademiska

Alexandrien und in den hermetischen Schriften: Untersuchungen zur Struktur der religii!sen Sprache der he'llenistischen Mystik (Leiden: Brill, I962). 'Hans Lackenbacher, "Beitrage zur antiken Optik," WS

35 (1913) 34-61. Franz Lammli, Vom Chaos zum Kosmos: Zur Geschichte einer Idee (SBA 10; Basel: Reinhardt, 1962). Wilhelm Luther, "Wahrheit, Licht und Erkenntnis in der griechischen Philosophie his Demokrit," Archiv fur Begriffsgeschichte 10 (1966) 2-240. Ludolf Malten, Die Sprache des menschlichen Antlitzes im frilhen Griechentum (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1961 ). Jaap Mansfeld, "Alcmaeon: <j>v
Gorcum, 1975) 26-38. Wilhelm Michaelis, "bp6.w KTA.," TDNT 5.316-24 (A.I2). Raoul Morley and Carsten Colpe, "Gnosis I (Erkenntnislehre)," RAG 11 (1981)446-537. Rene Schaerer, L'homme antique et la structure du monde interieur d'Homere il Socrate (Paris: Payot, I958).

Bokhandeln; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1915). Paul Wilpert (Sibylla Zenker), "Auge," RAG 1 (1950) 958-69. 3) Interpretation

At the beginning of the sayings composition comes a sentence that looks like a thesis or definition: "The lamp of the body is the eye" (o >..-6xvos TOV crwp.an5s- ECTTLV 0 ocp8a>..p.os-). 211 This sentence has been the object of many investigations, and indeed it raises a host of questions. 2 1 2 If it looks like a quotation of some sort, the question is where it would have come from. The pre-Hellenistic parts of the Old Testament and Jewish literature offer no parallels. 2 13 Some passages in later wisdom and apocalyptic literature, however, contain a comparison of the eye with a lamp (as well as with torches, fire, and lightning). There is also evidence of the growing interest in the eye and related imagery. 214 The culmination of this development is certainly the treatment given to it by Philo of Alexandria. 21 5

• 22

2I1 Bit vgd add w~ KTA.," TDNT9.3I6-27. The TDNT 5.375-78 (s.v. o<j>6aAfL&~); BAGD, s.v. A.\xvo~, passages cited by Allison, "Eye," 66-69, most of 2; D. Kellermann,.,~ ner," ThWAT 5 (1986) 616-26, which were already known, do not have the comesp. 626 on Zech 4:2; Prov 20:27. parison of the eye with the lamp. There are, how213 Str-B 1.432-33; Fiebig (Bergpredigt, 125) and Lachs ever, different comparisons with "torches" (Aa,...,.6.oH) (Rabbinic Commentary, 127 -29) have no parallels from in Dan 10:6; 3 Enoch 35.2, and with lamps in epiphthe rabbinic literature. anies in Zech 4:I-I4; 1 Enoch 42.I; T.job I8.4; b. 214 Connections between the light and the eye are made Sabb. 151 b (see Allison, "Eye," 69-71 ). in proverbial and wisdom literature, but the com215 On Philo's treatment see the studies in the bibparison of the eye with the lamp is found only rarely liography above by Wetter; Dibelius; Aalen; Klein; in late texts. See Pss 19:9; 36: 10; 38:11; II9: 105, Conzelmann, "<j>w~ KTA.," TDNT 9.329-32 (D.2). I30; Prov 6:23; 20:8, 12, I3, 20, 27; 24:20; 29:I3;

449

Another problem is the form-critical classification of the saying. It has been called a "parable" or "riddle," 216 but "proverb" 217 would be a better description. 218 As I have shown above, the ultimate origin of the saying seems to be in Greek philosophy. The pre-Socratic philosopher Empedocles was the first to compare the human eye with a lamp. From then on the image was a topos in discussions concerning sense perception and vision. Thus, the saying may have entered into Jewish literature, perhaps in the context ofwisdom, 219 rather early and certainly before Philo of Alexandria, who took over whole sections of theories on vision from MiddlePlatonic sources. 220 At first sight the saying is not clear about what it intends to say. Are we to approve of the statement or not? In what sense are we to take the genitive "of the body," as an objective or a subjective genitive? Does the eye/lamp belong to the body, or does it merely illuminate the body? In view of these uncertainties, the following commentary (vss 22b-23b) examines the saying critically.22l While the proverb appears to take matters for granted, the commentary shows that they are more complicated.

If the eye is to be compared with a lamp, does this mean that the light is in the lamp, that is, in the eye itself? Does the lamp shine toward the inside or the outside? The commentary maintains that the light is not in the lamp or eye, but somewhere else in the body, so that the lamp or eye receives its light from another source. What then is the source of the light and where is it located? The critical commentary that begins in vs 22b not only examines underlying assumptions but also introduces new terminology. The terms seem to vacillate between physiological and ethical meanings, ambiguities that in such a thoughtful and tightly composed text can hardly be accidental. Rather, they must be intended and part of the argument. First, then, the case of a normally functioning eye is described: "If then your eye is healthy/ good, your whole body will be full oflight" (lew o~v i7 o ocp6aA.JL6s OtJV a?T ADVS' ()A.ov TO CTWJJ.a ouv c/JwnLVOV ~crTat). 222 Sentences constructed with "if ... then" occur elsewhere in the SM, 223 but this kind of statement looks like a scientific case description and is peculiar to this passage. A great deal of scholarly endeavor has gone into explaining the strange word pair of a?TADVS and 1TDV1Jp6s, the former determining what the latter means. The

216 For surveys of opinion on this point, see Edlund, 11be rendered as by R. P. Spittler, OTP 1.846: "My 13; Amstutz, AIIAOTHl:, 96-98. eyes saw those who make lamps at my tables and 217 So Amstutz (AIIAOTHl:, 98): "Ratselspruch" couches; cheap and worthless men they were." Cf. Robert A. Kraft, The Testament ofjob (SBL TT 5 ("proverbial riddle"). 218 So Betz, Essays, 73; Allison, "Eye," 62, 73. [Pseudepigrapha Series 4]; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1974) 11, 40. 219 So Betz, Essays, 84-86. 222 Textually, Mpc !at syc mae horns omit ovv, most likely 220 Allison argues differently ("Eye," 71) and draws a strict line between Greek and Jewish thinking, but he in harmonization with Luke 11:34, where most fails to consider that most of the texts he refers to are witnesses do not have it; yet, A C 0 'I' j1.1 3 33. 892. 1006. 1506 9Jt it, add o~v in Luke 11:34, where most in Greek (LXX or later) and therefore under the influence of Greek thought. Also, he does not witnesses do not read it. Similarly, the word order in consider, e.g., Philo, who was Jewish and yet features some manuscripts is.harmonized with the Lukan Greek philosophical theories of vision. parallel; the better witnesses read what Nestle-Aland 221 Allison ("Eye," 62, 69-71) objects to my using prints (M B W 1342 pc !at). The preference for the Theophrastus (De sensibus) by saying that such Lukan text form may have been caused by its better Greek. theories are found in Jewish texts as well. One must, however, distinguish simple associations between the 223 See SM/Matt 5:13, 19, 23, 32, 46, 47; 6:14, 22-23; eye and light (Allison, "Eye," 63) from critical 7:12; SP /Luke 6:33, 34. See also BDF, § 373; BDR, § 373. investigations to explain matters "scientifically." The passages Allison cites (Dan 10:6 LXX; Zech 4:1-3 LXX; 2 Enoch 42.1 [A]; and T.job 18.4) do not engage in theory but state popular views. Allison's interpretation ofT. job 18.4 (S) is inconclusive because it is based on a doubtful conjecture by Robert A. Kraft and on a wrong translation (Allison, "Eye," 70 with n. 27). The text should be read o! £p.ot o<J>8al\.p.ot TOVS AVXVOVS 'lTOIOVVTas ~{3AE'lTOV, and should

450

Matthew 6:19-7:12

controversy, therefore, focuses on the term lt?TAov~ (Latin: simplex). 224 This term is to be taken as a moral concept meaning "simple, sincere, generous, "225 or perhaps as a physiological description ("healthy"). The moral term is attested widely in the Hellenistic world, including the LXX and Hellenistic Judaism, 226 while the physiological meaning is attested only rarely. 227 Yet, this latter meaning may be more probable. If the vacillation between the two meanings 228 is intended, as I have suggested, the argument would begin with the physiological and then move to the ethical level of discourse. At any rate, the description of the well-functioning eye presupposes that this eye is healthy and can thus fulfill its task of illuminating the body. Thereby the body (uoop.a) is understood as something like a vessel 229 that is dark inside unless it is illuminated;2 30 the eyes serve as the instruments of such illumination. These ideas, strange as they may be in our days, conform to ancient views about sense perception, including the negative valuation of the

body.23l • 23 Next the opposite case is set forth: a description of a

malfunctioning eye (vs 23a): "If, however, your eye is sick/evil, your whole body will be dark" (lav ll€ o

ocp6aAp.o~ tTOV 7TOV7Jp0~ y, iJA.ov TO uwp.d. tTOV tTKOT£!VOV £'umt). 232 This description is simply the opposite of the former case. The adjective ?TOV7Jpo~ can mean "sick" as well as "evil." 233 Moreover, the "evil eye" had a very pronounced meaning in the ancient world. 234 It includes all shades from the begrudging look of jealousy and envy2 35 to the magic evil eye. 236 The meaning of the expression, therefore, goes beyond the merely physiological and extends to the moral field of meaning. Whatever may be the case, whether physically sick or morally evil, such an eye cannot do its job of illuminating the body, which therefore remains dark throughout. 237 Verse 23b concludes the composition by giving it a

224 The terminology occurs only here in the synoptic Gospels (Matt 6:22/ /Luke 11 :34), but cf. Rom 12:8; 2 Cor 8:2; 9:11, 13; 11:3; Eph 6:5; Col3:22;Jas 1:5; Barn. 19.2; 1 Clem. 23.1; and Hermas often. The basic studies on this terminology are by Amstutz, Andre, Bacht, Bacon, Brandt, Cadbury, Edlund, Hiltbrunner, Sjoberg, Spicq, and Vischer (see the bibliography). See also BAGD, s.v. a1rAOT1]~, a1rA.ov~; Tim Schramm, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s. v.; Spicq, Notes, 1.125-29; Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 44-45; Klaus Koch, "Ct:IM tmm vollstandig sein," THAT 2.1045-51. 225 BAGD, s.v. a1rA.ov~: "single, simple, sincere, generous." 226 For the evidence see esp. Amstutz and Spicq. 227 BAGD, s.v. a1rA.ov~, cites only Damascius Vita Isid. 16. 228 The evidence in Testament of the 12 Patriarchs and the Shepherd ofHermas suggests a wide range of applications of the term to anthropology and ethics. Amstutz's proposal (AITAOTHI:, 102) that these applications are part of the development of a "spiritual physiognomy" ("geistliche Physiognomik") is intriguing; for this point see also SM/Matt 6:1618. 229 One is reminded ofthe notion that the body is a prison or shell-like vessel. See Eduard Schweizer, "crwp.a KTA.," TDNT 7.1024-94, esp. 1025-41, 1058 (A.1-5; D.l.3); the RAC articles by Kehl and Courcelle, mentioned above, n. 150; and Pierre Courcelle, "Fliigel (Flug) der Seele I," RAC 8 (1972) 29-65. 230 <j>ron&v6~ ("illuminated," "full of light") occurs with this meaning only here in the NT; for other meanings see Matt 17:5; Apoc. Pet. 3. 7. See BAGD, s. v.

<j>ron&v6~.

231 Negative valuation of the "body" is implied also in SM/Matt 5:29-30; 6:25 (see Betz, Essays, 96 nn. 32, 34); Matt 10:28. 232 As in vs 22b some manuscripts change the word order (K* W 33 pc). Whether this difference is due to harmonization or just irregularity in the formulation is not clear; it is not the same manuscripts that change the word order in vss 22b and 23a. 233 See BAGD (s.v. 7rOV1Jp6~, 1) with reference to Plato Prot. 313a; Hippias Minor 3 7d as parallels for the physiological meaning "sick." 234 For references and bibliography see BAGD, s. v. o<j>8aA.p.6~' 1; most important are the studies by Cadbury, Fiebig (see bibliography above), and Baumbach (Das Verstiindnis des Biisen, 77 -79). 235 See Prov 23:6; 28:27; Sir 14:10; T. Iss. 3.3; 4.6; T. Benj. 4.2, 6. In the NT see Matt 20: 15; Mark 7:22. 236 On this topic see Siegfried Seligmann, Der bose Blick und Verwandtes (2 vols.; Berlin: Barsdorf, 1910; reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1985 ); idem, Die Zauberkraft des Auges und das Berufen (Hamburg: Friedrichsen, 1922); Dov Noy, "Evil Eye," EJ 6 (1971) 997-1000; Katherine M.D. Dunbabin and Matthew W. Dickie, "Invida rumpantur pectora: The Iconography of Phthonos/Invidia in Graeco-Roman Art," JAC 26 (1983) 7-37; Michel Meslin, "Eye," EncRe/6.236-39; furthermore Matthew W. Dickie, "Envy," ABD 2.528-32. 237 Baumbach (Das Verstiindnis des Biisen, 77-78) points out that dualistic connotations are found in Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs as well as in SM/Matt 6:22-

451

surprising turn: "If therefore the light within you is darkness-what a darkness!" (t:l o1lv TO cpws TO lv O'OL uK&Tos luTlv, TO uK&Tos ?T&uov.). 2 38 New terms are suddenly introduced that shift the argument altogether away from the physiological level to the level of religious anthropology and ethics. The result of the preceding argument was that the eye does not itself contain the light but receives its light from another source. Now we learn that this source is "the light within you" (To cpros TO lv uot). 239 This phase alludes clearly to the well-known concept of the "light within" (lumen internum) as we know it from Greek philosophy, where it plays an important role in contexts dealing with vision and epistemology. 240 Appropriating this concept of the internal light means, first of all, that the eye functions not by receiving its light from the outside by intromission. Instead, the source of light is within. But even this notion is subjected to criticism. Contrary to what we should expect given the philosophical background, we do not hear that the internal light is identical with the "soul" ("'vx~) or the "intellect" (vovs). 241 We do not read about the "eyes of the soul" 242 or the "intelligible light" (lux intelligibilis). 243 Instead we are told that the inner light can become

darkness. This possibility stands in direct opposition to the doctrines of the Greek philosophers. 2 44. According to the Greeks the internal light is a spark from the divine light itself that can never become totally extinct. 245 The divine light can never be turned into its radical opposite, total darkness. 246 If this threat is seriously suggested, therefore, it can only be intended as an attack against the tenets of Platonic and Stoic philosophy in particular. I should point out, however, that even within this tradition skeptics doubted that all humans have the potential of superior intelligence. This skepticism occurs in Plato when he considers the functioning and malfunctioning of the eye. 247 It continues in Stoicism with its consideration of the impact of affections (?Td.87J) on vision. 248 Other points of discussion were the implications of physical and mental blindness, and the ease with which one can be overcome by deception. 249 Given these topics, it is not surprising that "blindness" and "deception" became important themes also in primitive Christian literature. 250 At any rate, with these deliberations the transition from the physiological to the moral level of thinking has

23; this dualism requires that the terms mean more than simply "stingy" or "envious." 238 W changes the word order of r ("human being"), which was so attractive for the Gnostics, may be behind the interpretation of"the light within you" in Cos. Thorn. log. 24 (see above at n. 127). Is there any relationship between "the light within" and "the inner man" (o ;,."' li.v8pw1ror [Rom 7:22; 2 Cor 4:16; Eph 3:16; cf. 1 Pet 3:4])? For the gnostic developments see Plutarch, An recte dictum sit latenter esse vivendum 1130A-B (on this see Betz, Hellenism us und Urchristentum, 137-38); Corp. Herm. 1.12-15; Howard M.Jackson, ed., Zosimus ofPanopolis on the Letter Omega (SBL TT 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1983) §§ 10-13. For discussion and bibliography see also Nock and Festugiere, Hermes Trismegiste: Corpus Hermeticum, 1.21 n. 34; Conzelmann, TDNT9.343 nn. 261-62; Michel Tardieu, Trois mythes gnostiques: Adam, Eros et les animaux d'Egypt dans un ecrit de Nag Hammadi (II, 5) (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 197 4)

452

240

241 242 243 244 245 246 24 7 248

249

85-86, 96; Bremer, "Licht als universales Darstellungsmedium," 189-90; Bernhard WyB, "Gregor II (Gregor von Nazianz)," RAG 12 (1983) 828, 834. See the bibliography above, esp. the studies by Beierwaltes, Bremer (with extensive bibliography), Bultmann, Conzelmann, Deonna, Dibelius, Haas, Klein, Lindblom, Luther, Sjoberg, and Wetter. See above, p. 443. See above, p. 443. See Beierwaltes, Lux intelligibilis, passim. See also Betz, Essays, 83. Cf. PGM IV.2959 about magical power to make the fire in someone's eyes disappear. See also PGM IV.2298-99. See above, pp. 445-4 7. About the location of the ~y
Matthew 6:19-7:12

been completed. 251 If vision is impaired because of the effects of sin, one must assume that this has grave consequences also for the "internal light." After all, nothing human is exempt from sin. In conclusion, one can say this: if sin can dim the inner light and even turn it into its opposite, darkness, then one can no longer have confidence in it as the ultimate weapon in the battle against the "desires," which according to Greek thinking are awakened through sense perception. 252 The eye itself is thus not the cause of evil and sin, but the inner light is, if it has been turned into darkness. This consequence finds its expression in the dramatic exclamation at the end: "What a darkness!" (TO uK&Tos "lT&uov). 253

What does this outcome mean for the ·definition of the eye as a lamp (vs 22a)? Is it accepted or rejected? The conclusion is that, after having reflected on the definition in the commentary (vss 22b-23b), we are asked to reaffirm the initial definition. Indeed, if the "inner light" shines, the eye will serve as the lamp that illuminates the body. The inner light enables the eye to be a"lTAovs ("sound") and thus function normally. Where then lies the paraenetical edge of the saying? It

appears that the careful listener who meditates on the saying conscientiously will ask: What if my inner light is darkness? How can it be made to shine again?2 54 The saying is designed in such a way that it raises the question and the concern, but it gives no direct answer. It leaves the concerned student alone with his or her uncertainty. The student will have to find the answer elsewhere, probably by considering other passages. Stirring up the student's conscience and leaving him or her in that situation seems to be the paraenetic intent of the passage. 255 c. On Serving Two Masters (6:24) 24 No one can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon.

sweet and pleasant. They are, I fancy, like men with sore eyes (TOLf VO{Aov, oi.JK E6Jv J3A.t1rnv]. Else how could falsehood often prove mightier than the truth, if it did not win its victories through pleasure?" Cited according to Dio Chrysostom (trans.]. W. Cahoon; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1961) 1.446-47. 250 See BAGD, s.v. chaTaw, chaT71; and Tv.p>..or, Tv.p>..ow, with references and bibliography. Cf. also Jas 1 :26; Matt 13:22; Heb 13:3; Eph 4:22; 5:6; on blindness as metaphor see also below on SP/Luke 6:39. Although these terms do not occur in the SM, the issues of deception and blindness run through it and can be identified in many passages. 251 This transition was made earlier in Stoicism; Philo of Alexandria connects it with Jewish ideas. See Stein, Psychologie, 1.139; on Philo see above, n. 209. One should note that the Stoics paid attention to the peculiar idea that darkness is visible (opaTOv .!vat TO
Bibliography Jacques Dupont, "Dieu ou Mammon (Mt 6, 24; Luke 16, 13),"inhisEtudes, 2.551-67. R. T. France, "God and Mammon," Evangelical Quarterly 51 ( 1979) 3-21. Opera (ed. Kuhn, vol. 19, p. 308); also Corp. Herm. 1.28: uKor
252 The Gnostics drew a radical conclusion from this idea, saying that not everyone possesses the "intellect" (vovs). This conclusion appears in Cos. Thorn. log. 24. 253 For the translation: "how great(?)" and for parallel references to the exclamation, see BAGD, s.v. 1r0uos, 1. 254 See also the Lukan parallel, Luke 11:35: "Consider, therefore, whether the light that is within you is darkness" (uK61TEL oVv fL~ rh cf>Wr rh Ev uo& uK6roS" furlv). 255 Cf. Marcus AureliusMed. 10.26: "Contemplate, therefore, in thought what comes to pass in such a hidden way, and see the power, as we see the force which makes things gravitate or tend upwards, not with the eyes, but none the less clearly" (trans. A. S. L. Farquharson, The Meditations of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius [Oxford: Clarendon, 1968]). Similarly, Med. 3.15-16; 11.12; 12.28.

453

E. P. Groenewald, "God and Mammon," Neot. 1 (1967) 59-65. Shmuel Safrai and David Flusser, "The Slave of Two Masters," Immanuel6 (1976) 30-33; reprinted in David Flusser,judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988) 169-72. Franceso Vattioni, "Mammona iniquitatis," Augustinian urn 5 (1965) 379-86.

1) Introduction

The saying in 6:24 is extremely concise and follows the preceding vss 22-23 without an apparent connection. One should not, however, take this situation as a reason for uniting the two passages. Instead, vs 24 is a saying in and of itself; its connection with vss 22-23 is by association of ideas. The kind of split in loyalty described and rejected in v 24 is the very opposite of what a7rAovs, "simple" (Latin: simplex, "simple"), means in vs 22. If another well-known concept is used, vs 24 describes "double-mindedness" (lit'iFvxla) 256 or "double-heartedness" (liL7TAOKapli{a), 257 terms that do not occur in the SM but only in related literature. 258 As the rhetorical analysis below shows, vs 24 contains a tightly composed argument. What is its main content and purpose? The title usually given to the passage is "On Serving Two Masters." This title is taken from the beginning in vs 24a and assumes that the entire compo-

sition is a practical wisdom saying advising against love of money. 259 This ethical warning is, however, only one aspect of a surprisingly large agenda of concerns. 260 One should derive the meaning of the whole saying from the final maxim in vs 24d. Accordingly, the saying deals with the notion of God and the service of God. For the saying the notion of God implies serving him with undivided loyalty and devotion.2 61 This theological demand is certainly nothing new for the Jewish religion. Then what is the point? The saying is peculiar in that it sees this undivided loyalty as threatened by the service to another deity, Mammon, that is directly opposed to God. 262 In the polytheistic environment of Hellenism, therefore, the danger to the demand of undivided service to the true God is not seen as coming from the deities of other religions, but from a pseudo-deity personifying materialism. In the concrete situations of life, therefore, one must choose between serving the true God and serving a pseudo-deity, Mammon. This choice is a clear-cut one, without allowing compromises; it sets up the alternative terms: service versus enslavement, hatred versus love, devotion versus contempt, external materialism versus internal dedication, slavery of the money lovers versus freedom of "the sons of God." Thus, vs 24 shares with all of 6: 19-7: 11 the concern for the external versus the internal. Consequently, vs 24 speaks about what it means to serve God in the appropriate way,

256 The terminology is of great importance in the Epistle were not a desirable calamity to mortals! For your of james (Jas 1:8; 4:8, 16: ai'[!vxos; see the whole sake there are battles and plunderings and murders, section 4:4-12), the Didache (2.4-5; 4.4), andHermas and children become the enemies of their parents, (Vis. 3.10.9; 3.11.2; Man. 10.1.1-2, 4; 9.9, where and brothers (the enemies) of their kinsmen" (OTP at'[lvxia is called the daughter of the devil). See 2.575). See the commentary by van der Horst, BAGD, s.v. at'[lvx.!w, at'[lvxia, ai'[!vxos, with further Sentences, 142-46; also Betz, Lukian, 194-99; literature; Niederwimmer,Didache, 120, 137-38; Edward N. O'Neil, "De cupiditate divitiarum," in Brox, Hermas, 500-502, 551-53. Cf. also atyv6>p.wv PECL 2.289-362; on the whole subject see also ("double-minded") in Did 2.4; Bam. 19.7. Martin Hengel, Property and Riches in the Early Church 257 Did. 5.1;Barn. 20.1. (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974). 258 See also Georges Andre, "La vertu de simplicite chez 261 On this point see esp. Mark 10:17-21 par.; 12:28-34 les Peres Apostoliques," RSR 11 (1921) 306-27; par.; 1 Thess 1:9; Rom 8:28; 12:1-2; 1 Cor 2:9; 8:3Dibe!ius,james, 31, 82-83, 226-27; Brox, Hermas, 6; Bam. 19.2; Polycarp Phil. 3.3; etc. See also Tob 500-502. 4:14; 14:7; Sir 7:31; Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 8 (for further 259 •Aapyvpia, •Aapyvpos. See esp. T.jud. 18.2; 19.1; parallels in Jewish wisdom literature see van der Luke 16:14; 1 Tim 6:10; 2 Tim 3:1-2; Did. 3.5; etc. Horst, Sentences, 116-17). The topic is common in Hellenism. See BAGD, s.v. •Aapyvp.!w, •Aapyvpia,
454

Matthew 6:19-7:12

both religiously and ethically. The singling out of materialism as a pseudo-religious alternative to the appropriate conduct of worship makes this passage unique. As the SM has it, the great temptation for the faithful worshiper is that false worship of a pseudo-god is inadvertently substituted for the proper worship of the one God. 263 2) Analysis Verse 24 is a composition of considerable rhetorical artistry. 264 The arrangemen(shows some similarity with vss 19-20 and vss 22-23, but is also different in that it represents an argument of formal logic, an enthymema, 265 that is, an abbreviated syllogism. The saying has three parts. 2 66 The opening statement (vs 24a) is a sentence of a proverbial nature; strictly speaking it is a legal provision. 267 It uses alliteration and assonance: ova- av- avKv-

aov. 268

The second part (vs 24b-c) explains the beginning sentence by presenting evidence based on observation; this is called aetiologia. 269 This part is formally an isocolon ("parallel lines"), consisting of two antithetical parallelisms (isocola) interpreting each other and hence to be called interpretatio. 270 The two parts are related chiastically ("hate"-"love," "devote"-"despise"), the first line setting forth an ethical judgment (vs 24b), and the second line drawing on psychological observation (vs 24c); the psychological observation serves as the grounds for the ethical judgment. The third part (vs 24d) is a conclusio, formulated as a 263 For the general background of this important topic see Falk Wagner, Geld oder Gott? Zur Geldbestimmtheit der kulturellen und religiiisen Lebenswelt (Stuttgart: Cotta, 1984); Raymond Bogaert, "Geld (Geldwirtschaft)," RAG 9 (1976) 797-907, esp. 844-46; Manfred Wacht, "Giiterlehre," RAG 13 (1986) 59150; Gunter Bader, Symbolik des Todes jesu (HUT 25; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1988) 136-77. 264 For the rhetorical analysis I am indebted to Thorn, "Rhetoric and Style," 12-13. 265 See Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.432-33 (§ 875). 266 Ibid., 1.199 (§ 371). 267 See below, the section on Interpretation. 268 See Russell, Paronomasia, 15. 269 See Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.430 (§ 867) and 1.43233 (§ 875). 270 Ibid., 1.374 (§ 751). 271 In terms of its literary genre, the saying should not be classified as a parable or similitude, unless one wants to give these categories a very broad definition. Seejulicher, Gleichnisse, 2.108-15; Bultmann, History, 75, 87, 91, 105, 168; Dupont, Etudes, 2.551-

sen/entia in contrast to vs 24a. 271 This final statement sums up the doctrinal point that is the goal of the argument. It is stated negatively like vs 24a; if it were formulated positively, it would conform to the Shema (Deut 6:4-5, quoted in Mark 12:29-30). The change from the descriptive third person singular in vs 24a-c to the second person plural (vs 24d) shows its paraenetical application (cf. vss 21, 2 3 ). The saying has a parallel in Q (Luke 16:13) that is verbally almost identical. 272 The context in Luke is also secondary. Luke 16:13 is preceded by the great parables of chapters 15 and 16 and a similarly structured saying in 16: I 0-12. Apart from its present context in Luke, the saying in 16:13 almost certainly represents the older Q-version. If one accepts this hypothesis, the omission of the notion of "servant" or "slave" (olKlT7JS) in SM/Matt 6:24 would be due to the redaction of the SM. 273 Perhaps the reason for the change was that the addressees of the SM are not "servants" or "slaves" but free "sons of God. • 2 7 4 The saying according to its Lukan form appears also in 2 Clem. 6.1, where the initial proverb "No slave can serve two masters" (oVaE1S' olKlT7JS' OVvarat Ovul. KvploLS' aov..\
52; Harnisch, Gleichniserziihlungen, 106 n. 182. 272 The only difference is the reading of "no slave" (ova.'ts olKtT7Js) at the beginning in Luke, a reading supported by 2 Clem. 6.1. On the Lukan context see Dupont, Etudes, 2.556-58. 273 See also Jiilicher (Gleichnisreden, 2.112) and many others following him (see the report in Dupont, Etudes, 2.554 n.l3). Strecker (Bergpredigt, 138 n.ll5 [Sermon, 134 n.115]) argues differently that Luke added "slave" because it helped to connect the passage by catchword to the parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16: 1-9). That the addition serves this function, however, does not automatically mean that Luke must have added it. The term "slave" merely spells out what is assumed by the verb "serve" (aovA
455

elaborate than the version in Q and in the SM. 276 This same method is then also found in Ps.-Clem. Rec. 5.9.4, where Matt 6:24a and dare cited and expounded. First the text gives the exegesis in terms of the two kingdoms, then follows a sayings composition (apophthegma) including the quotation: "Wherefore also the true Prophet, when he was present with us, and saw some rich men negligent with respect to the worship of God, thus unfolded the truth of this matter: 'No one,' said He, 'can serve two masters; he cannot serve God and Mammon'; calling riches, in the language of His country, Mammon. •277 A somewhat different elaboration is found in the Coptic Cos. Thom.log. 47: Jesus said, "A person cannot (at the same time) mount two horses or draw two bows. And a slave cannot serve two owners, but truly will honor the one and scoff at the other. No person drinks vintage wine and immediately desires to drink new wine. And new wine is not put into old wineskins lest they burst. And vintage wine is not put into new wineskins lest it go bad. And old patches are not sewed to new garments, for a rip will develop." 278 Bentley Layton has entitled the gnostic passage quite properly, "Opposites cannot coexist." The saying simply collects examples, some from the synoptic tradition, to demonstrate the point by accumulation of evidence. The following log. 48 emphasizes unity. Yet another parallel occurs in T. jud. 18.6; this parallel seems to be evidence that the saying originated in Jewish wisdom literature:

For being a slave of two passions contrary to the commandments of God he cannot obey God, because they have blinded his soul, and he walks in the day as in the night.279 ~-Do yh.p 7r&.8n Evavrla rWv EvroAOOv roV 8£oV OovA£-Dwv 0£i!) 6£oV V7TaKo-6£tV oV OVvarat HTt frVcpArouav T~v "'vx~v aVroV, KaL Ev ~p.Epf!- Ws- Ev VVKTL 7TOp£V£rar..

The context is that of the love of money and its dangers; the saying is also reminiscent of SM/Matt 6:22-23, but it does not seem to be based on synoptic sources.

3) Interpretation

• 24 The saying is introduced by what appears to be a

proverb: "No one can be a servant [or: slave] of two masters" (Ov?lt"ls ?lVvaTat ?lvu'r. Kvplot~ ?lovA.n!t"tv). 2 80 Proverbial as the statement sounds, 281 it is really a legal provision pertaining to slave law. 282 The two masters envisioned are slave lords. 283 The rule that a slave can be owned by only one owner has been questioned, 2 84 and there may have been exceptions of co-ownership, but the general rule as stated was no doubt followed most of the time. The omission of"slave" (otKfT1/~) in vs 24a (as compared with the Lukan Q-parallel) indicates that for the SM the statement serves as a theological principle, so that the terms no longer function legally but theologically. Therefore, the phrase "no one can" operates at

215. 276 For a still different version in the Gospel of Barnabas see Luigi Cirillo and Michel Fremaux, L'Evangile de Barna be: Recherches sur la composition et l' origine (Paris: Beauchesne, 1977) 152. 277 The Latin reads: "propter hoc denique ;ems propheta cum esset praesens nobiscum et quosdam ex divitibus neglegentes erga dei cultum videret, huius rei ita aperuit veritatem: 'Nemo potest,' inquit, 'duobus dominis servire, non potestis deo servire et mammonae'; mammona patria eorum voce divitias vocans." Cf. alsoPs.-Clem. Rec. 5.12.4. 278 Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 388. 279 Translation by Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments, 215 (see also their notes, 217). 280 L Ll. pc add olKtT"I/f ("slave"), no doubt from the parallel in Luke 16: 13; modem translators should not take over this secondary harmonization (as, e.g., in NEB; correct in REB, NRSV). 281 For proverbs using this form of sentence stating impossibilities, see SM/Matt 5:14, 36; 7:18. 282 See Schulz, Principles ofRoman Law, 78 (with ex-

456

amples); Elon, Principles ofjewish Law, 158. See, e.g., Cicero Balbo 11.28: "No one of our citizens can be a citizen of two states" ("duarum civitatum civis noster esse nemo potest"). 283 See Matt 1 0:24-25; 13:27; 25:20, 22, 24; Luke 13:8; 14:22; 18:31; 19:16, 18, 20, 25; 24:48; Luke 12:36, 46; etc. For further references see BAGD, s.v. Kvpwr, Il.1.a.f3. 284 See Acts 16:16, 19; T.Jos. 14.2. For the problem see BAGD, s.v. dptor, 11.1.a.a and {3; Str-B 1.430 has rabbinic parallels; see also Shmuel Safrai and David Flusser, "The Slave of Two Masters," lmmanuel6 (1976) 30-33; reprinted in David Flusser,judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988) 169-72.

Matthew 6:19-7:12

two levels: the level of the experientially impossible, and the level of the ethically impermissible. The latter is restated unconditionally in vs 24d. The term oovA£-6£w ("serve") 285 vacillates between "being a slave to" and "being a servant of. "286 At the theological level, there are no masters, except the one God. The other, Mammon, is not a master in the same sense, so that one may sum up vs 24 by saying, "No one can serve two masters because there is only one. •287 The interpretation of this beginning statement in vs 24b-c operates at the experiential level. Everyone can observe in life what happens when a person attempts to serve two superiors at the same time. The two parallels in vs 24b-c are connected by "either ... or" (if ... -q). 2 8 8 The future tense means that in the situation envisaged a servant develops a liking for one superior over the other. What one can observe is that he "clings to" (cwTEX£u8at)2 89 the one, while he "despises" (KaTacppov£'iv)290 the other. Such emotional ties lead to behavior that is described as "hating" the one and "loving" the other. 291 This preference and dislike, however, not only contradicts the demands of legal ownership that would require impartial service to both superiors, but it also makes life unbearable for everyone involved. The reason, the suggestion goes, is psychological; logically speaking, there is no reason why a servant should not love both masters.

Yet, the real interest of the saying is not psychological but theological. This is evident from the conclusion (vs 24a): "You cannot serve God and Mammon" (ov o-6vau8£ 8£~ oovA.£-6£tv Ka'r. p.ap.fJ-wv~). Again, the verb "you cannot" works at the two levels of psychology and theology, the dilemma also being one of ethics. At this point it should be clear that "you cannot" addresses readers who are engaging precisely in what they should rule out. Therefore, "you cannot" addresses the futility of something the addressees are seen as doing, an activity that has no rational reason or purpose. Thus what is ruled out is something irrational. If the options are so clear, however, why are people caught in the dilemma oftrying to do both? In order to understand the saying one should realize that in vs 24d the terms have shifted from the example to figurative language. At this level, the addressees appear trapped in a dilemma. On the one hand, the first obligation of all human beings, in particular of jews, is to serve God, and him alone. 292 The language vacillates between "serving" and "being a slave." But one must not simply identify serving God with slavery. 293 God is not a slave master; serving him is a voluntary acknowledgment of his beneficence and rulership. "Serving God" describes a relationship with God that befits free human beings, 294 "the sons of God" as the SM describes them. 29 5 It is

285 See BAGD, s.v. oovl\fvw, with references and bibliography. 286 This intended ambiguity is typical also of Paul's use of the terminology (see Rom 6:6, 19; 8:15, 21; Gal 4:8-9, 25; etc., in contrast to Rom 6:19; 7:6; 12:11; 14:18; 16:18; Gal5:13; Phil2:22; 1 Thess 1:9; etc.), but cf. Luke 15:29, where the older son says: "So many years I have served you," meaning that to him it was "slavery." 287 The SM is strictly monotheistic, so that Mammon is not to be placed at the same level as God. For the SM, Mammon is at best a pseudo-deity, comparable to what Paul calls "the so-called gods" (1 Cor 8:5-6). Cf. the different perspective of2 Cor 6:15, which sets Christ and Beliar in opposition; in Jas 2: 19; 4:11 it is the one God and the devil with the demons. See also Wagner, Geld oder Gott? 98-102. 288 For this connection see BDF, § 446; BDR, § 446; BAGD, s.v. 1/, Lb. 289 The term is commonly Hellenistic; for parallels see BAGD, s. v., iivr.!xw, 1. In the NT, it occurs only in Matt 6:24//Luke 16: 13; Titus 1 :9; cf. Hermas Vis.

1.1.8. 290 Cf. Matt 18:10; 1 Cor 11:22; 1 Tim 4:12; 6:1; 2 Pet 2:10; etc. See BAGD, s.v. Kara,Ppov.!w, 1. 291 For the contrast of "hate" and "love" see also SM/Matt 5:43; for further parallels see BAGD, s.v. p.r.ulw, 1; p.LCTos.

292 See Exod 20:2-6; 23:24, 33: Lev 19: 1-4; Deut 4:2531; 6:4-9; etc. See also Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, "oovl\os Krll..," TDNT 2.267-69, 273-77 (B.3-4; C.2). 293 Cf. Gal2:4; 3:28; 4:7, 8-11, 31; 5:1, 13; etc. 294 The language of Paul is also vacillating, speaking sometimes of social slavery, sometimes using the metaphor of slavery (service) to God, notwithstanding the terms indicating freedom and sonship. See 1 Cor 7:21-23; Rom 6:18, 19, 20, 22; 8:2, 21; etc. 295 Cf. Gal 4:7: "You are no longer a slave, but a son."

457

noteworthy that the SM does not use the notion of "servant of God. "2 96 On the other hand, then, is the opposite, "serving Mammon," a pseudo-religious captivation by materialism. The term "mammon" (}Lap.p.wvas) is interesting for a number of reasons. Originally an Aramaic term, pee, 2 97 in its Greek form it designates "wealth" and "property" as a personified and demonic force. 298 The name recognizes the religious structure of materialism. Antiquity had long before recognized that the relentless pursuit of money and possessions is tantamount to the worship of a pseudo-deity. Naming this pseudo-deity by a foreign name indicates its demonic and even magical character. Serving this Mammon results in self-enslavement; one has lost control. To many of those who are in the service of this pseudo-deity, the worship of the true God may appear to be compatible. 299 Things could be neatly arranged: serving materialistic goals in the secular world, and serving God in the

religious world. Such a combination, popular as it may be, however, renders the service of the true God impossible. 300 Once Mammon is granted power, the demands by this pseudo-god crowd out everything else, and the worship of God becomes an empty gesture. The problem is not, therefore, spending money or owning property, but becoming possessed by Mammon's demonic powers. What ethical conclusion then does one draw from it? One must choose: one can either serve God in freedom or serve Mammon in slavery. One cannot do both because theologically they are antithetical and absolutely irreconcilable. Ethically, one is obliged to serve God in the proper ways. What then is the consequence for one's handling of money and possessions? The message is that money and property are not just that, but that they can easily ensnare and possess people. 301 They exercise power that is none other than what we call materialism. Materialism, however, is a pseudo-religious way of life,

296 For references see BAGD, s.v. aovA.os, 4; also aouA.nlro, 2.b. 297 Emphatic state, amcc, Greek p.ap.wvas, Latin Mam(m)ona. The term is rare in the NT (see also Luke 16:9, 11; cf. 2 Clem. 6.1). In Jewish literature it is attested in Sir 31(34):8; 1QS 6.2 (cf. 6.24-25); 1Q27.1, 2, 5; CD 14.20; 'Abot 2.17, and so on. The occurrence in the SM says nothing about being a translation from the Aramaic; the loanword was already current in the Greek by the time of the NT. For discussion and references see Friedrich Hauck, "p.ap.wvas" TDNT 4.388-90; BAGD, s.v. p.ap.wvas; Horst Balz, EWNT (EDNT), 2, s. v. p.ap.wvas; Str-B 1.433-35; Black, Approach, 139-40; Hans Peter Ruger, "Map.wvas," ZNW64 (1973) 127-31; Klaus Beyer, Die aramiiischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984) 625; Braun, Radikalismus, 2.74 n. 3; Schwarz, "Undjesus sprach," 6, 21-22; B. A. Mastin, "Latin Mam(m)ona and the Semitic Languages: A False Trail and a Suggestion," Bib 65 (1 984) 87-90. 298 Thus the expression "mammon of iniquity" (o p.ap.wvas rfjs O.atKias) in Luke 16:9, 11, for which see Francesco Vattioni, "Mammona iniquitatis," Augustinianum 5 (1 965) 379-86. 299 The great example demonstrating this point is the story of the rich young man in Mark 10:17-22 par. Cf. also Tg. Prov. 3:9: "Honor Yahweh with your mammon"; Tg. Deut. 6:5: "You shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mammon."

458

300 These ideas were commonplace in antiquity. Cf. the Greek and Latin parallel references, esp. the gnomic poet Demophilus, Sententiae Pythagoreorum, ed. Johann Conrad Orelli, Opuscula Graecorum Veterum Sententiosa et Moralia (Leipzig: Weidmann, 181 9) 1.42; cited by Wettstein, 1.333: tf>tAOXP~P.arov, Kat c/nA68£ov rhv aVrhv cl5Vvarov £Tvar: 0 ytzp ... tAOXP~p.aros lt avayK'l/S lf.atKOOS ("It is impossible that the same person is ... a lover of money and a lover of God; for the ... lover of money is by necessity unrighteous.") For this line of thought cf. also Jas 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17. 301 Cf. Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 67 (ed. Von der Miihll): 'EA.nlli.pos {3ios oi> avvarat KT~cracrliat XP~p.ara 'lTOAAd. atlt Tb 'lTpayp.a [p.~] p4otoV .!vat xropts li'l/TEias lfXAWV ~ OvvacrrWv, ltAAtt o-VVEX£'i Oa"'r.AElf!, '7l"&.vra KfKT7JTar.· Civ Of 7J'"OV Ka't rVxn XP1Jp.&.rwv 7TOA.AWv, Ka't raVra p~alw~ ElS'

av

T~V

TOV 'lTA'l/crlov .i!votav otap.•rpfjcrat ("A free life cannot acquire many possessions, because this is not easy to do without servility to mobs as monarchs, yet it possesses all things in unfailing abundance; and if by chance it obtains many possessions, it is easy to distribute them so as to win the gratitude of neighbours" (trans. Bailey, Epicurus: The Extant Remains, 117).

Matthew 6:19-7:12

the service of a pseudo-god identified by the name Mammon. Contrary to expectations, Mammon does not liberate but enslave. Discipleship of jesus is clearly incompatible with such entrapment by Mammon. How is oae to prevent it? The answer given in the SM is not that money or ownership of property is by itself evil. Rather, the SM presupposes that the disciples have possessions. 302 How else could they be exhorted to give alms? The issue is not the money but the service of Mammon and the enslavement of those who are caught up in it. That enslavement makes money and possessions a trap of self-destruction. The worship of the one God is the best means of keeping oneself free from such entrapment, once one recognizes that a clear choice has to be made. More explanations of the matter are given in the following passages.

31

32 33

34

d. On Anxiety (6:25-34) 25 Therefore I say to you: Do not be anxious about your soul/life, what you shall eat [or what you shall drink], nor about your body/person, what you shall put on. Is not the soul/life more than nourishment, and the body/person more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the sky: they neither sow nor harvest nor gather into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of greater value than they? 27 Then, which of you who are worried is able to add one span to his life? 28 And about clothing, what are you so anxious about? Study closely the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin. 29 But I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was clothed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today exists and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, (will he) not all the more (clothe) you. you men of little faith? 302 SM/Matt 6:24 par. may reflect the position held by the historical Jesus concerning wealth (cf. also Luke 14:33; Mark 10:17-22 par.). This would imply that Jesus did not require total poverty for everyone, but only for those whom he recognized as being in the grip of Mammon. See Braun, Radikalismus, 2. 73-80; idem,jesus ofNazareth: The Man and His Time (trans.

Therefore, do not be anxious, saying, "What shall we eat?" or, "What shall we drink?" or, "What shall we wear?" For the pagans strive for all these things. But your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom [of God] and his righteousness. and all these things will be given to you in addition. Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow. For tomorrow will worry about itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble. Bibliography Oswald Bayer, Schopfong als Anrede: Zu einer Hermeneutik der SchOpfong (Ttibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1986) 142-48: "Sorget nichtl" Hans Dieter Betz, "Cosmogony and Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount," in idem, Essays, 89-123; German: "Kosmogonie und Ethik in der Bergpredigt," ZThK (1984) 139-71; also in idem, Studien zur Bergpredigt (Tilbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1985) 78-110; Synoptische Studien, 155-87. Dupont, Beatitudes, 3.272-304. Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1905) 74-80. Paul Hoffmann, "Der Q-Text der Sprtiche vom Sorgen Mt 6, 25-33/Lk 12, 22-31: Ein Rekonstruktionsversuch," in Ludger Schenke, ed., Studien zum Matthiiusevangelium: FS fUr Wilhelm Pesch (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988) 128-55. Idem, "Die Sprtiche vom Sorgen (Mt 6, 25-33/Lk 12, 22-31) in der vorsynoptischen Uberlieferung," in Helmwart Hierdeis and Heinz S. Rosenbusch, eds., Artikulation der Wirklichkeit: FS fUr Siegfried Oppolzer zum 60. Geburtstag (Frankfurt, Bern, New York,

and Paris: Lang, 1988) 73-94. Idem, "Jesu 'Verbot des Sorgens' und seine Nachgeschichte in der synoptischen Uberlieferung," in Dieterich-Alex Koch, Gerhard Sellin, and Andreas Lindemann, eds.,jesu Rede von Gott und ihre Nachgeschichte im .frilhen Christentum: Beitriige zur Verkundigung]esu und zum Kerygma der Kirche; FS fur Willi Marxsen zum 70. Geburtstag (Gtitersloh:

Mohn, 1989) 116-41. Merklein, Gottesherrschaft, 174-83.

Everett R. Kalin; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 8088; idem, Qumran, 1.18-19; Wacht, RAG 13.106-10.

459

M. F. Olsthoorn, The JlrWish Background and the Synoptic SettingofMt 6, 25-33 andLk 12,22-31 (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Analecta 10;Jerusalem: Franciscan, 1975). Piper, Wisdom, 24-36. Harald Riesenfeld, "Vom Schatzesammeln und Sorgen-ein Thema urchristlicher Paranese," in Willem C. van Unnik, ed., Neotestamentica et Patristica: FS fur Oscar Cullmann (NovTSup 6; Leiden: Brill, 1962) 4 7-58. Luise Schottroff and Wolfgang Stegemann, jesus and Hope for the Poor (trans. Matthew]. O'Connell; Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1986) 39-45. Steinhauser, Doppelbildworte, 215-35. Tannehill, Sword ofHis Mouth, 60-67. Wrege, Bergpredigt, 116-24. Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 82-94.

1) Introduction

The passage often entitled "On Anxiety" is clearly one of the most fascinating in the SM. In the history of interpretation 303 it has naturally attracted some of the most brilliant minds. To name only one of them, Sjl.iren Kierkegaard wrote three separate works on the passage. 304 Moreover, countless sermons have been preached on this text. What makes this passage so thought-provoking? Consideration of the complexities revealed by a close examination and analysis makes one conclusion compelling: the passage provokes thought because much thought has gone into it and is contained

in it in an extremely condensed form. Indeed, the passage contains a comprehensive argument on several of antiquity's most controversial subjects of discussion. These subjects include foremost the topic of anxiety, 305 set into the larger context of creation of the world by God and divine providence. 306 Although the terms for providence do not occur in the text itself, there has never been a question that this topic, and even the problem of theodicy, is involved and needs to be discussed. 307 The argument made in the text is thus a combination of several interrelated arguments. The argument laid out in SM/Matt 6:25-34 is well constructed. The great care displayed by the compo-. sition must be accredited to the author of the SM. He derived the material from the Q-tradition but not the compositional structure as it now appears in the SM. The Lukan parallel (Luke 12:22-32) has its own nuances and is less tightly structured (see below). The same can be said of the other parallels in P. Oxy. 655, the Coptic Gospel ofThomas, and Justin Martyr (see below). It is characteristic of the SM that the Q-material, in whatever form it may have existed prior to the SM, 308 has been transformed into a theological argument that is in keeping with the theology contained in the whole of the SM.309 As one can observe in other compositions in the SM, the pericope begins with an introductory paraenetical

303 No special investigation of the history of exegesis providence in antiquity; Rudolf Eisler, "Vorsehung," exists. For some remarks and information see Luz, Wiirterbuch der philosophischen Begriffe (Berlin: Mittler, Matthiius, 1.372-75 (Matthew, 1.409-12). 1930) 3.436-37;Joachim Konrad, "Vorsehung," 304 Sj11ren Kierkegaard, Erbauliche Reden in verschiedenem RGG 6 (3d ed. 1962) 1496-99; H. P. Owen, "ProviGeist (1847), in Gesammelte Werke, part 18 (Dusseldence," Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy 6 (1967) 509-10; dorf: Diederichs, n.d.) 163-222: "Was wir lernen von Ernst Niermann, "Vorsehung," Sacramentum Mundi 4 den Lilien auf dem Felde und den Vogeln des (Freiburg: Herder, 1969) 1207-13. Himmels: Drei Reden," Christliche Reden ( 1848), in 307 The theodicy problem is under consideration Gesammelte Werke, part 20 (Dusseldorf: Diederichs, throughout the SM; see the excursus above on 1959) 5-96; "Die Sorgen der Heiden," Kleine theodicy in the SM, following SM/Matt 5:45. Schriften (1848/49), in Gesammelte Werke, parts 21-23 308 For the relationship of the SM to Q see the Introduc(Dusseldorf: Diederichs, 1960) 29-7 4; "Die Lilie auf tion, above pp. 6-9, 24-44. dem Felde und der Vogel unter dem Himmel: Drei 309 Similarly Schulz, Q, 152-53. fromme Reden," Der Augenblick, in Gesammelte Werke, part 34 (Dusseldorf: Diederichs, 1959) 230-34. 305 No comprehensive investigation exists. See Rudolf Bultmann, "1-'
460

Matthew 6:19-7:12

imperative stating the goal of the entire argument (vss 25a-b). This is followed by three subsidiary arguments aimed at supporting the initial exhortation: first, vss 25c30; then, vss 31-33; and, finally, vs 34. At the beginning of each of these subsidiary arguments, the initial exhortation (vss 25a-c) is repeated in abbreviated form, with small·but significant variations in each instance (vss 25a, 31a, 34a). To understand the argument as a whole, one should keep in mind the following points. First, any analysis must deal with the text as it now stands. In view of a text such as the one before us, which combines extraordinary complexity with great concentration and density, the analysis of the surface structure requires great care. Yet, one cannot discern the argument simply from a surface structural examination. Rather, the surface structure serves merely as a kind of auxiliary memorandum that brings a far more extensive argument to mind. In other words, the written text recalls an unwritten text, and this unwritten text summarizes a position taken in a larger conversation. Thus, we have the peculiar phenomenon that presuppositions and conclusions, which are part of the unwritten text, appear sometimes in the written surface structure, while at other times they remain unstated implications. This form of argumentation is in keeping with the construction of the SM as a whole. For this reason, the analysis and interpretation of the text cannot be confined to the surface of the written text but must attempt to bring to light the unwritten text as well. Another matter is related to this construction of the text. As elsewhere, also here the SM is fond of engaging the reader in semantic word games. Apparent ambiguities, such as the meaning of the terms "'vx~ or troop.a (see below on vs 25), appear to be intended to stimulate the reader's or hearer's thinking. It would therefore be wrong for translators and interpreters to remove such ambiguities and straighten out what they could view as "problems," because by doing so they would edit out much of the force of the argument. By making the text plain, they would kill its inner life and with it the interest of the readers. What then is the argument in vss 25-34 all about? This question is not easy to answer. The initial paraenesis

(vss 25a-b) begins with an observation about human behavior in general. The prohibition of anxiety assumes that anxiety is a typical element of human behavior. Indeed, people in all ages, and in particular during the Hellenistic age, were tormented by anxiety. Quite appropriately, E. R. Dodds spoke of the later Roman Empire as an "Age of Anxiety. "31 0 There were indeed more than enough reasons for such a description. The political catastrophes and socioeconomic unrest of the period have often been detailed. Less widely known is that for centuries men and women had been taught by anxiety-ridden writers, teachers, prophets, and philosophers. The literature of the Hellenistic age is full of admonitions, arguments for or against, and stories about anxiety, or its opposite, "tranquillity of the mind." Therefore, the topic of anxiety seems a most appropriate one. It is necessary, however, to see what the SM has to say on the topic in the context of the larger conversation in other Hellenistic literature, Jewish and non-Jewish. That anxiety was such a popular theme in the Hellenistic and Roman age is therefore not simply the result of political and socioeconomic circumstances that were experienced by ever larger populations, but also the consequence of a literary, philosophical, and religious tradition that penetrated deeper and deeper into the human mind and behavior. Thus, behind our text stands an entire spiritual and intellectual culture dealing with human behavior, and it is this culture that unites the various themes found in our text. These subsidiary themes include the following. 1. People are indeed anxious about all sorts of things, without being clear about which worries are justified and which are uncalled for. It is in fact characteristic of human behavior in general that people worry without knowing why. Such worries are typically concerned with the wrong things, so that folly and comedy are very much part of the picture, evoking laughter and derision. 2. A more serious reason for anxiety was seen in humanity's fragile condition, demonstrated already at birth, when the body is set out naked and helpless in a world full of dangers and enemies. Ancient literature widely attests this theme (topos) concerning the human predicament (condicio humana). 311 The history of the

310 Eric R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Norton, 1965). Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experience from Marcus 311 For references and discussion see Egert Pohlmann, Aurelius to Augustine (New York and London: "Der Mensch-das Mangelwesen? Zum Nachwirken

461

topos begins with Hesiod's myths of Pandora and Cronus, 31 2 and Protagoras's myth of Prometheus and Epimetheus. 313 Descriptions of humanity's lamentable condition were handed down in the Platonic school and became a constant element of the so-called consolation literature. 314 Well-known summaries of this human condition communicated the topos to the Romans. 315 In Roman times, apparently as offsprings of the Pandora and Prometheus myths, one finds personifications such as Phrontis and Epimeleia, and especially Cura. According to Horace (Carm. 2.16.22; 3.1.40), Cura is the constant

companion of human beings who keep trying to run away from her. She becomes the subject of a fable by Hyginus entitled Cura (Fabulae 220). 316 The importance of cura for religion became apparent when it turned up in one of the inscriptions of the Mithras sanctuary discovered underneath the Church of Santa Prisca in Rome. 317 In the creation myth narrated in the Hermetic fragment no. 23 (Kore Kosmou), which seems to be based on the Pandora and Prometheus myths, anxiety is a frustrating and destructive force plaguing humankind.318

antiker Anthropolog1e bei Arnold Gehlen," Archiv for Kulturgeschichte 52 (1970) 297-312; also Wehrli, AA8E BH1I.AE, 3-6. 312 Hesiod Op. 60-105, 110-201. According to Op. 65 Aphrodite puts into Pandora "cruel longing and cares that weary the limbs" (w68ov apyall.tov Kal yv&o~eopovr !L£A£lioovar). First "the tribes of men lived on earth remote and free from ills and hard toil and heavy sicknesses which bring the Fates upon men; for in misery men grow old quickly. But the woman [i.e., Pandora] took off the great lid of the jar with her hands and scattered all these and her thought caused sorrow and mischief to men" (Op. 90-95; cited according to the LCL edition, Hesiod [trans. Hugh G. Evelyn-White; rev. ed. 1936; reprinted London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1982] p. 9). Only hope remained in the jar. See also West, Hesiod: Works and Days, 159; 358 on Op. 799, and the concept of "eating out one's heart" (lill.y£1TI 8vp.ofJopliv), which occurs in ancient Near Eastern sources and in a saying of Pythagoras (Ps.-Piutarch Vita Homeri 154; also in Holger Thesleff, The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period [Acta Academiae Aboensis, series A: Humaniora 30.1; Abo: Akademi, 1965] 159, line 22; cf. Diog. L. 8.1718; 1amblichus De Vita Pyth. 42): "Spare life, do not destroy it by heart-eating" (tf>£l3£o rijr (wijr, p.~ p.1v ~eara8vp.ofJop~IT11f). Cf. Plutarch Lib. educ. 17, 12E: "'Do not eat your heart'; a3 much as to say, 'Do not injure your soul by wasting it with worries'" ("p.~ tpovrl<TIV avr~v Kararp-!Jxovra). The Anonymus lamblichi (Diels-Kranz, 89 [82], 4 [II, 402, lines 1-2]) states about the Pythagoreans: t/>&Ao'l/lvxov•lliovra& Kal wo8ov<TIV avr~v li1lz t/>&ll.[av rijs (wijs ("They Jove their soul, for this is the life, the soul; therefore they spare it and long for it on account of their love of that life"). See Carl Robert, "Pandora," Hermes 49 (1914) 17-38; reprinted in Ernst Heitsch, ed., Hesiod (WdF 44; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,

462

1966) 342-66. 313 Plato Prot. 320c-322d. 314 See Ps.-Piato (Philip of Opus) Epinomis 973d-94 7a; and Leonard Taran, Academica: Plato, Philip of Opus, and the Pseudo-Platonic Epinomis (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 197 5) 209-11; Ps.Piato Axiochus 366d-367a; Ps.-Plutarch Consol. ad Apoll. 25, 114C-D3; Cicero Tusc. 1.48; and the collection in StobaeusAnthol. vol. 3, pp. 221-23. For literature on consolation see above on SM/Matt 5:4, and for a survey on Greek pessimism see Jakob Burckhardt, Griechische Kulturgeschichte (5th ed.; Berlin and Stuttgart: Spemann, 191 0) 396-43 7. 315 See Lucretius De rer. nat. 3.1046-75; 5.222-34; Pliny NH 7, praefatio 1-5. Does the description go back to Epicurus? See Karl Reinhardt, "Poseidonios," PW 22 (1953) 719; Barbara Wallach, Lucretius and the Diatribe against the Fear of Death: De rerum natura II 830-1094 (Mnemosyne Sup 40; Leiden: Brill, 1976). The matter became a topos; see Menander frgs. 534, 539, 598, 649 (ed. and trans. Francis G. Allinson, Menander: The Principal Fragments [LCL; London: Heinemann; New York: Putnam, 1921 ]). 316 HyginusFabulae (ed. H. I. Rose; Lugduni Batavorum: Sijthoff, 1934) Fab. 220, entitled Cura. See also Jacob Bernays, "Herder und Hyginus," RhM 15 (1860) 158-63, 168; reprinted in his Gesammelte Abhandlungen (Berlin: Hertz, 1885) 2.316-21; Emil Aust, "Cura 4," PW 4 (1901) 1773. 317 See Hans Dieter Betz, "The Mithras Inscriptions of Santa Prisca and the New Testament," NovT 10 (1968) esp. 69-71; reprinted inHellenismus und Urchristentum, 79-80. 318 Corp. Herm. frg. 23.17 (ed. Nock and Festugiere); see Hans Dieter Betz, "Schopfung und Erlosung im hermetischen Fragement 'Kore Kosmu,'" ZThK 63 (1966) 160-87; reprinted in Hellenismus und Urchristentum, 22-51.

Matthew 6:19-7:12

The language and conceptuality of anxiety is not attested in the Old Testament before the Hellenistic age, 319 when the theme became more and more prominent. In the LXX concerns about worrying occur in wisdom texts. 320 This literature also has exhortations not to worry, 321 commendations of wisdom as freedom from worrying, 322 and warnings in the form oflengthy descriptions of humankind's miseries. 323 These ideas and terms occur in the New Testament as well. 3 2 4 3. Our passage does not explicitly mention the concept of divine providence, but concurrent discussions that treat similar material deal with this topic as well. Mentioned first in Herodotus (3.1 08.2), the concept of providence acquired great prominence in Greek philosophy after Plato. 325 Later it became the subject of debates

between Stoics and Epicureans in particular. The Stoics, beginning with Zeno, developed extensive arguments in its favor, 326 while Epicureans denied it just as fervently. 3 2 7 The debate was carried over into Jewish literature in the later parts of the Old Testament, 3 2 8 especially in wisdom literature. 329 At the time of the New Testament, several great treatises summed up the whole state of the question: Philo's 330 and Seneca's De providentia, 331 and several of Epictetus's Diatribes. 33 2 No one at the time, it seems, could ignore the issue. Thus it is not astonishing that the early Christians also enter into the debate, albeit cautiously, with the SM and the apostle Paul taking the lead. 333

319 Hebrew has no exact equivalent for the Greek p.
330

331

332

333

2.92 n. 228; Urbach, Sages, 225-85; Schurer, History, 2.393-94; Yehoshua M. Grintz and Gershom Scholem, "Providence," EJ 13 (1971) 1279-86. Philo's "On Providence" has been preserved in fragments. See the LCL edition, Philo (trans. Frederic H. Colson; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1954) 9.447507. For a commentary see Ludwig Fruchtel, Philo von Alexandria: Werke (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1964) 7 .267-382; and the indispensable study by Paul Wendland, Philos Schrift ilber die Vorsehung: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der nacharistotelischen Philosophic (Berlin: Gaertner, 1892). For recent discussion see Abraham Terian, "A Critical Introduction to Philo's Dialogues," ANRWII, 21/1 (1984) 272-94, esp. 27681. Seneca De providentia, in Seneca: Moral Essays (trans. John W. Basore; LCL; reprinted London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1971) 1.2-47; see also Seneca Naturales Quaestiones, praefatio 11-17 in Seneca (trans. Thomas H. Corcoran; LCL; reprinted London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1971) 7.815. Epictetus Diss. 1.9; 1.14; 1.16; 3.26; also 3.9.15-22; 3.20.12, 15; 3.24; 4.6.22-24; 4.10; see also Marcus Aurelius Med. 2.3; Plotinus Enn. 3.2; Boethius De consolatione philosophiae 4. See Rom 8:14-16, 28-30, 35-39; 1 Cor 2:7-9; Phil 2:12-13.

Providence and Suffering in the Old and New Testament

(London: Nelson, 1953). 329 See Hengel, judaism and Hellenism, 1.141, 158, 312;

463

Beyond these themes I should also mention that the issue of anxiety has had a long history in Greek and Roman philosophy. This history, which is too long and complicated even to be sketched at this point, connects directly with the theme of "happiness" (t:baa&p.ovla). 334 No matter which philosophical school considered the matter, one of the requirements for happiness was freedom from anxiety. 335 The positive key term was t:VBvp.la or tranquillitas animi ("tranquillity of the mind"), about which we possess lengthy essays by Plutarch336 and Seneca. 337 The most important negative concepts were Epicureanism's lt.Tapa[la ("freedom from disturbance")338 and Stoicism's lt.1r&.8t:&a ("freedom from emotion," "imperturbability"). 339 The positive principle for all these writers was: lt.pKacr8a& To'i~ 1rapovcr&v ("Be content with things as they are"). 34° The arguments advanced by Hellenistic writers in regard to divine providence presuppose a long-standing debate in which belief in such providence has been on

the defensive and in need of additional support. This debate means that the traditional confidence in the goodness of the deity, divine foresight, go-yernance, and care for the world had fallen into doubt. Defensive arguments, therefore, are usually designed so as to remove such doubt, and in order to accomplish this they produce allegedly "unshakable proofs" for the existence of divine foresight and care. Such proofs are preferably derived from cosmology. They must also take into account religious concepts such as Chance (Tyche, Heimarmene) and the notion of "free will." How then does the SM approach the topic? 341 As far as the providence of God is concerned, the position taken by the SM is also one of defending it, but this defense appears to have been caused by a profound crisis of faith in God's providence. 342 As already indicated, this crisis was by no means confined to the world of the early Christian community, but it was typical of the whole age. One must see the position taken by the SM, therefore, in

334 On the whole topic see Ragnar Holte, "Gliick Justin 2 Apol. 1.2; Clement Alex. Strom. 2.20 (ed. 0. (Gliickseligkeit)," RAG 11 (1981) 246-70; Manfred Stahlin, et al., GCS 2, p. 169, 25); 4.22 (p. 309, 12); Wacht, "Giiterlehre," RAG 13 (1986) 59-150. 6.9 (p. 468, 30); 6.13 (p. 484, 29); etc. See PGL, s.v. 335 For the beginning of the philosophical treatment of awa8na. this topic, see Hans Herter, "Seelenfrieden gegen 340 Democritusfrg. 191 (Diels-Kranz, 68 B 191 [II, Unrast bei Demokrit, • in Latinitiit und Alte Kirche: FS 184-85). See BAGD, s.v. apKt(l), 2; PECL, 2.311-13, for RudolfHanslik zum 70. Geburstag (Vienna, also 191-92; Gustav A. Gerhard, Phoinix von Cologne, and Graz: Bohlau, 1977) 131-49. Kolophon (Berlin and Leipzig: Teubner, 1909) 56336 Plutarch IlEpl EVBvp.las ("On Tranquillity of Mind," 58; Paul Wilpert, "Autarkie," RAG 1 (1950) 1032Moralia 464E-477F); see Plutarch's Moralia (trans. 50. William C. Helmbold; LCL; reprinted London: 341 Commentators have long recognized that Matt 6:25Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 34 amounts to an apology for divine providence .. See, 1957) 6.163-241. For secondary literature and e.g., the quotation of SM/Matt 6:32 and 6:8 in Ps.commentary see Betz, "De tranquillitate animi, • in Clem. Hom. 3.55.3: "But to those who presume that PECL 2.198-230. God does not have foreknowledge, he [sc. Jesus] said, 337 Seneca De tranquillitate animi, in Seneca: Moral Essays 'For your heavenly Father knows that you need all (trans. John W. Basore; LCL; reprinted London: these things, before you will ask him!'" (rois ~t: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, vwol..ap.flavovtT&V lin b 8Eos oil wpoy•vC:,ITKE&,l"1. oi~Ev 1958) 2.202-85. yll.p b war~p vp.U.v b oi>pav&Of lin XPY(ETE TOtJT(I)V 338 Epicurus Ep. ad Herod., according to Diog. L. 10.82; &wa11r(l)v, wp\v ai>rov ~,.;,.,.En). The text is cited Ep. ad Pyth. (Diog. L. 10.85); Ep. ad Menoec. (Diog. L. according to Bernard Rehm, ed., Die Pseudoklemen10.28); Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 9; Kyriai Doxai 17 (Diog. L. tinen, vol. 1: Homilien (GCS; 2d ed.; Berlin: Aka10.144); etc. This terminology enters into Christian demie-Verlag, 1969) 77; the trans. is mine. See also language only with Clement Alex. Strom. 4. 7 (ed. 0. Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 2.15.51,lines 1103Stllhlin et al., GCS 2, p. 274, 1); Paed. 2. 7 (ed. 0. 4 (ed. Mutzenbecher, p. 141); Zahn, Matthaus, 296Stahlin eta!., GCS 1, p.192, 15). Cf. arapax(l)s 302; Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, 62; and ("unperturbed") 1 Clem. 48.4. See PGL, s.v. arapa!la. Bultmann,]esus and the Word, 160. Other views are 339 On this concept see Bonhoffer, Epictet und die Stoa, held by Grundmann (Matthiius, 214): "Lehrgedicht 284-98. On Philo see David Winston, "Philo's vom Sorgen"; Schulz (Q, 152): apocalyptic Ethical Theory," ANRWII, 21/1 (1984) 373-416, "Warnrede." esp. 400-405 on "Apatheia/Eupatheia. • This 342 This crisis has not disappeared. Cf. the great debates terminology is attested in Christian literature first in inPs.-Clem. Rec. 2.18-22; 3.20-30; 3.37-41; 4.8-11;

464

Matthew 6:19-7:12

the context of this wider debate, in order to recognize its peculiar argument. Indeed, as we shall see, the SM goes its own way as compared with other pertinent texts. Within contemporary Judaism, the SM passage is very similar to what one finds in wisdom literature, from which part of the material used in Matt 6:25-34 seems to derive. But at important points the SM shows its own characteristics as compared with other wisdom literature. 1. With its concept of seeking after God's kingdom and his righteousness, Matt 6:33 is foreign to wisdom theology. Indeed, this statement has no parallel in contemporary Jewish literature, although the component parts, such as the notions of "kingdom of God," "righteousness," and "seeking after," are certainly common. Thus, the key statement in 6:33 is peculiar to the SM and seems to have originated in the teaching of the historical Jesus. 2. Surprisingly positive is the way in which the natural order is treated in our passage. On the whole, the natural order is oflittle interest in the New Testament. Characteristically, in our passage the goodness of God's creation is not demonstrated by reference to the creation accounts in the book of Genesis. 343 Skepticism must have been so strong that a simple appeal to Genesis was no longer convincing. In other ways, apocalypticism and apologetics bear witness to this skepticism as well, but the SM takes recourse neither to apocalyptic visions nor to the cosmologies of the Hellenistic age in stating the meaning of creation. 3. The approach taken by the SM appears to confront radical skepticism squarely. The approach faces up to skepticism by calling attention to things as they stand before one's eyes, things that one can verify immediately. The goodness of life is thus grounded in daily experience. At first sight, calls to observation seem stunningly naive but undeniable: sunrise and sunset, rain (see above on SM/Matt 5:45), the daily bread (see 6: 11), the birds and the plants (6:26, 28), and so forth. The message is: if our skepticism will allow only what we can see and touch,

so much the better. Precisely these simple experiences testify to the goodness of creation. No complicated theories are needed. Admittedly, this approach could easily lead to a romanticizing of the natural life. The SM avoids this danger, however, by taking the troubled world very seriously. The Beatitudes (SM/Matt 5:3-12) detail the daily troubles: poverty, sorrow, brutality, injustice, lack of mercy, impurity of heart, war, persecution of the righteous, and at last martyrdom. At the end of the SM stands the double parable of the two builders who build their houses, the first on rock, and the second on sand (7:24-27). The images of torrential rain, flood, and storm are traditional and symbolize the turbulent and unpredictable powers of nature and history. But above all, what makes the world so dangerous is human folly and sinfulness. In the face of all of this, it is due to the good Father in the heavens that the world endures despite all the disasters, and that the possibility exists of finding a way through it all. No question, every day has its own trouble (6:34), but thanks to God the prudent have a chance for survival. 2) Analysis The detailed literary analysis of the passage 6:25-34 shows a lengthy and well-composed argument on the theme of anxiety. The introductory formula (vs 25a) is followed by a general exhortation (vs 25b-c). This exhortation is formulated as an isocolon (parallel lines) whose two parts share the predicate, thus forming an adiundio (combination). Throughout, the passage uses caricature in describing the attitudes one should reject. This initial exhortation is then provided with reasons in the form of three arguments (vss 25d-30, 31-33, and 34), whose length shortens progressively, leaving it to the reader to supplement what the written text does not state. The first argument (vss 25d-30) begins with a thesis, an interrogatio (rhetorical interrogation); the two rhetorical questions of this interrogatio constitute another isocolon using adiunctio. Verses 26-30 contain examples from nature demonstrating by comparison what one can observe in nature regarding the necessities of life. The example of the birds describes their

8.1 0-24; in all of these passages the SM plays a great role. 343 Cf. Isa 40:26: "Lift up your eyes to the heavens; consider who created these, led out their host one by one, and summoned them by name. Through his great might, his strength and power, not one is missing" (REB). See also the rejection of the complaint (Isa 40:27) and the hymn to the creator God

(40:28-41 :20). On the whole topic see Rainer Albertz, Weltschopfung und Menschenschopfung: Untersucht bei Deuterojesaja, Hiob und in den Psalmen

(CThM A/3; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1974); Peter Doll, Menschenschopfung und Weltschopfong in der alttestamentlichen Weisheit (SBS 117; Stuttgart: Katho-

lisches Bibelwerk, 1985).

465

behavior in three parallel statements (vs 26a), a case of subiunctio (coordination of statements expressing different meaning); 344 from the description a paradoxical conclusion is drawn, and the paradox is then explained (vs 26b). The example ends with another rhetorical question (interrogatio, vs 26c). Verse 27 turns to the comparison with human life, providing another example for the purpose of demonstration. It is formulated again as a rhetorical question, but a quaesitum (a specific matter asked) with direct address, not a general interrogatio. Verses 28-30 follow a.second example, now comparing plants and humans. The introductory rhetorical question (vs 28a) names the subject matter. The description of plant behavior uses subiunctio again (vs 28b) and leads to a paradoxical conclusion parallel to vs 26b. Instead of simply speaking of plants in general, however (as of birds, vs 26a), verse 28 singles out the lilies as a special case, underscored by the additional comment drawn from popular wisdom in vs 29. Verse 30 makes a comparison with human life. This comparison uses what has been observed in vss 28-29 to question human attitudes (interrogatio with direct address). The second argument is much shorter (vss 31-3 2). Its beginning is clearly marked by oi)v ("therefore") and by the repetition of the exhortation ofvs 25b in vs 31a. The caricature of human behavior (vs 31b) uses subiunctio again, but as compared with vs 25b, it is now dramatized using direct speech. The "proof" (vs 32) now compares "pagan" with appropriate Jewish (i.e., Jewish-Christian) conduct. The description of pagan behavior identifies, classifies, and condemns such behavior (vs 32a), providing also a theological reason (vs 32b). The decisive imperative follows in vs 33, making the connection not only by o.! ("but") but also by words from the same family (paronomasia: £7rt(7Jr<'iv, (TJTE'iv). The exhortation in vs 33, basic as it is for the passage as a whole, consists of an imperative, now positive (vs 33a), in contrast to the negative (vss 25b and 31a), and a promise (vs 33b). The third argument (vs 34) is extremely brief and consists of two parts: an exhortation and a repetition of the negative imperatives ofvss 25b and 31a in vs 34a; then follow two maxims as proofs (vss 34b-c). Verse 34a and b form a chiasm. The final maxim (vs 34c) is an epiphonema (concluding sentence), parallel to vss 21, 344 See Lausberg, Elemente, 114 (§ 346). 345 Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1905) 74: "Diatribe von den Erdensorgen, das farbenreichste, sonnigste Sttick der Bergpredigt." Cf. Henri Marrou, "Diatribe," RAG 3.997-1009, esp. 999. 346 See also Konrad Kohler, "Textkritische Bemerkungen zu der Perikope vom Sorgen im Lukasevangelium," ThStK 86 (1913) 452-61.

466

23, and 24. The rhetorical skill with which the passage is composed is extraordinary. Whoever was responsible for this composition was a master of gnomic poetry. Heinrici calls it a "Gnome" (sentence of pointed style) and a "Diatribe" (fictitious discourse of questions and answers), "the most colorful and sunniest of the Sermon on the Mount. "345 As the parallel in Luke 12:22-32 shows, this rhetorical craftsmanship was already present in Q, but the author/redactor of the SM was fully aware of the poetic quality of his Vorlage and saw to it that it was preserved as fully as possible. The parallel in Luke 12:22-32 is very close and shows that the SM took the passage from Q, including the introduction a.li TOVTO )l.eyw vp.'iv ("because of that I say to you"). But the two versions also have characteristic differences. 346 Rather than taking these differences to be the redactional work of the evangelists Matthew and Luke, I assume that redaction took place even before them, so that the two versions were most likely transmitted with differences in the versions ofQ that reached the evangelists. 347 Which redactional changes one can attribute to the evangelists and which to their sources in Q is as difficult to establish as the precise wording of the Q-sources themselves. At any rate, the Lukan version differs in small details, as well as in its overall composition, which is Jess tightly structured than the SM parallel. The context in Luke differs as well. Luke 12 contains a speech ofJesus, given in part to his disciples, in part to the crowds. Notably, the sayings that the SM also uses are spoken in this Lukan speech to the disciples. Immediately preceding Luke 12:22-32 is the parable of the Rich Fool (12:16-21), and following is Luke's version of the saying concerning treasures (Luke 12:33-34//Matt 6: 19-21). The Lukan context is clearly secondary too, so that one can conclude nothing at this point about the original Sitz im Leben (social setting) of the passage. One of the major characteristics of the SM passage is its antipagan polemic (SM/Matt 6:32). That polemic is absent from Luke 12:30, as is the SM'sJewish orientation (SM/Matt 6:33; cf. Luke 12:31). One can argue that the Jewish characteristics came from the teaching of Jesus, since they would certainly be compatible with it. But one could just as well argue the opposite, that the Jewish tendencies of the SM are the 347 For recent attempts to reconstruct the original Qversion see David Catchpole, "The Ravens, the Lilies and the Q Hypothesis: A Form-Critical Perspective on the Source-Critical Problem," SNTU 6-7 ( 198182) 77-87; Merklein, Gottesherrschaft (2d ed. 1981) 174-82; Kloppenborg, QParallels, 130-33.

Matthew 6:19-7:12

work of the Jewish author(s) of the SM. Whether one should judge the more Gentile orientation of Q/Luke in the same or in a different way is another open question. Still other versions are found in P. Oxy. 655, in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, and in Justin Martyr. These attestations are evidence that the saying circulated widely in the tradition and became part of different collections in different forms. On the whole these extracanonical citations are shorter and less interested in elaborate arguments. Their place in sayings collections seems to be responsiQie for the fact that they are short and in conformity with the literary structure of sayings. This situation presents another problem. Does it mean that the extracanonical sayings are reductions of the longer arguments in the Q-material found in the SM/Matt 6:25-34//Luke I2:22-32? Or are the latter secondary elaborations of originally shorter gnomic sentences? In principle, are shorter logia earlier, and are longer elaborations later? One can argue with good reasons either way. It appears more likely, however, that the extracanonical sayings are formulations textually independent of the canonical versions, and that they derive from other oral tradition; whatever their "original" form was is impossible to say. Also, both the elaborations in SM/Matt 6:25-34 and in Luke I2:22-32 are most probably secondary compositions using older sayings material. The textual form of that older sayings material is impossible to determine, but one can safely assume that this older material was not identical with any of the extracanonical sayings. P. Oxy. 655, col. I, lines I-I7 (saying no. 36):

a

(AE}'El 'I(7Juoil)s· 1-'~ !-'€PIJU•ii-J

I [rdt]wo wpwHlws ln/1~]. 2 [1-'~r]€ lJ.f/1' E'uw[(pas] 3 [E'ros w]pwl, 1-'~T€ [rfi] 4 [rpoi/Jfi v]1-';;>V rl 1/Ja5 6 7 8 9 I0

[y7Jn, 1-'~T€] rfi ur[o-J [).fi v,.wv] rl MIJ(U7J )a-8€. ("li"OA]Ai!> 1
II ~v E'xovr[ H E']va[ v-] I2 ,.a, rUv[ail€u8€ J Kat I3 V!L€Is; rls Av wpoa-8( €l)71 14 £w\ T~V €iAt.Klau 15 -b~J-iDv; aVrh[s- a]d>uo I6 VI-'€IS Tb E'vav,.a I7 1-'WV. Uesus says, "Be not solicitous f]rom morning un[til evening nor] from eve[ning until mo]rning [for y]our [sustenance], what [you will] eat, [or] for [your] clo[thing], what you [will] put on. [You] are worth [far] more than [the lili]es whi[ch neither card nor s[pi]n, a[nd] have n[o] clo[th]ing. And you, what do [you put on]? Who among you can add to his stature? He will [g]ive you your clothing. "348

v-

P. Oxy. 655, col. I, line I7-col. II, line I (saying no. 37):

I7 ).(yovu&V aiiI8 ri!> ol 1-1a87Jra't aiirov· I9 wcln ~l-'€1v ~1-'1/Ja20 u~s fut&, Ka\ wOrE 2I u€ olfro!-'€8a; ).(yn· 22 Hrav ~"ailu7Ju8€ Kat 23 1-'~ aluxvv8fjr€ [etc., approximately 6 lines] b [ ... oiia~ f/lofi7J-] col. II, I 8[~u€u8€]. His disciples say to him, "When will you become manifest to us, and when shall we see you?" He says, "When you take off your clothes and are not ashamed ... and you will not have fear." Coptic Gos. Thom. log. 36-37: Jesus said, "Do not worry from dawn to dusk and from dusk to dawn about what you [plur.J will wear."

His disciples said, "When will you be shown forth to us and when shall we behold you?" Jesus said,

Kraft, "Oxyrynchus Papyrus 655 Reconsidered," HTR 54 (I96I) 253-62 (with further bibliography).

467

"When you strip naked without being ashamed, and take your garments and put them under your feet like little children and tread upon them, then [you J will see the child of the living. And you will not be afraid. "349 Whatever the author of the Gospel of Thomas had on hand as his material, he subjected it to a radical gnostic interpretation. The material he received may have included log. 36, while log. 37 is its gnostic interpretation. At any rate, this version is secondary as compared with its sources. Logion 36 seems to have been taken out of a larger context, but what relationship may have existed between that logion and Q is hard to say.

of a man" (Apol. 1.15.15b). In Apol. 1.15.17 another saying is added that has its parallel in SM/Matt 6: 1. This cluster of sayings seems to presuppose a larger argumentative context, similar to the SM, but it is unclear how and by whom this arrangement was made. Justin seems to have taken it over from his source. This source may have had some connection with the SM, the precise nature and extent of which, however, cannot be determined. Verse 34 of SM/Matthew 6 has no parallel in Luke 12:32 and no other parallels in the New Testament either, but similar sayings occur plentifully in Hellenistic wisdom and popular philosophy. SM/Matt 6:33 has analogies in different sayings quoted by Clement of Alexandria and Origen:

Justin Apol. 1.15: 350 Clement Alex. Strom. 1.24 SUi.hlin and Friichtel, eds., (p. 158, 2):353

1'-h p.ay"I/TE ~ Tl EVOtJU"I/U8£. Ovx vp.ils rWv 1l'ETEtVWv ~eal. rWv 87]p{CiJv ar.af/>lpErE; Kat 0 8£0r Tpb/1<1 avTa.

Mh oi.v p.ay"I/TE ~ Tt

lva.Ou7Ju8e oTaE yCtp 0 1T«r~p iJp.Wv 0 oVp&.vr.o~ Cirr. roVrwv XPElav fxET£" {7JTEiTE a~ T~V f3aur.AElav rWv obpavWv, Kal. raVra 1T&.vra 1Tpocrr£8~u£rat Vp.'iv. Do not worry, however, about what you should eat or what you should put on (as clothes). Are you not superior to the birds and the animals? But God feeds them. Therefore, do not worry about what you should eat or put on (asclothes). For your heavenly Father knows that you have need of these things. Seek, however, the kingdom of the heavens, and all these things will be given to you in addition.351 This passage is also quoted from a source; it is also surrounded by other sayings, some of which have parallels in the SM, while others do not. 352 Justin Apol. 1.15.1 0 has a close parallel in SM/Matt 5:42 (cf. SP /Luke 6:30); then follows a parallel to SM/Matt 6:19-21/ /Luke 12:33-34 with the inclusion of the saying Matt 16:26//Mark 8:36-37/ /Luke 9:25-26 in Apol. 1.15.11-12. This context leads to the question cited above; the conclusion is a parallel to SM/Matt 6:21: "For where the treasure is, there is also the mind

alre'tu8E rh. J.LE')'&.Aa, Kal. rh. p.tKph. Vp.Lv 1Tpocrr£8~ueraL. Ask for the great things, and the small things will be given to you in addition.

Origen De orat. 14.1 (GCS 3.330, lines 7-9); 2.2 (GCS 3.299, 19-21): 354

7rpoun8~u
Ask for the great things, and the small things will be given to you in addition; and ask for the heavenly things, and the earthly things will be given to you in addition.

3) Interpretation

• 25 The introductory words, "because of this I say to

you" (8t1z TOVTO >..iyw £1-L'iv"), seem surprising; they appear unwarranted and unrelated in the context. 355 A look into the synopsis, however, reveals that they were taken over together with the whole passage from Q. This

349 Translated by Layton (Gnostic Scriptures, 386-87), who also points out the differences between the Coptic and Greek versions. For the text see also Reinhold Merkelbach, "Logion 36 des Thomasevangeliums (Die Lilien auf dem Felde)," ZPE 54 (1984) 64. 350 The text is quoted according to the edition by Otto, justini Opera; see also the excerpt in Aland, Synopsis, 91. 351 The trans. is mine. 352 See also Massaux, Influence, 479-81; cf. 412-14; Bellinzoni, Sayings, 14-17; Kohler, Re:r.eption, 17476. 468

ra

JLLKpd. VfL'iV 7rpOCTTEB.qcrerar: ' ""' \ ' I \ ' I c" Kar.\ atTEtTE ra E7rovpavta, Kat\ ra nrr:yna vp.w

alrlir£ rh. p.ey&.Aa, Kal.

353 See also Resch, Agrapha, 111; and Stroker, Extracanonical Sayings, 122-23, who also list further parallels. 354 See also Resch, Agrapha, 111-12; Stroker, Extracanonical Sayings, 124. See also Massaux, Influence, 415; Kohler, Rezeption, 457; Gessel, Theologie, 17375. 355 Cf. SM/Matt 6:29: "but I say to you," which also occurs in the parallel Luke 12:27 and must therefore have stood in Q. The phrase is also common in the "antitheses," but with a different meaning (SM/Matt 5:18, 20, 22, 26, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44); cf. "truly, I say to you" (6:2, 5, 16; also 5:18, 26).

Matthew 6:19-7:12

conclusion is confirmed by a second introduction found in the parallel text in Luke 12:22a, preceding the introduction common to the SM and Luke 12:22a.ll 56 The evangelist Luke apparently added this second introduction to make sure that the passage was spoken to the disciples alone:ll 57 "He then said to [his] disciples, 'Because of this I say to you'" (t-ln·t"v at 7rpOr rovr p.a871rar [avrov]" a,a TOVTO >..tyro vp.w). We do not know what the phrase "because of this" referred to originally. In the present context one can understand the words in different ways. If they refer to vs 24, the relationship remains unclear. At any rate, that relationship does not matter except in a general sense. The real connection could be one of association of ideas. Verse 24 describes a slave in a worrisome dilemma between two overlords;ll 58 from that kind of worry one moves easily to the different kind of worries in vss 2 534. Also, vs 24 raises the question of the necessities of life: If one is to serve God alone, how is one to take care of daily needs? Verses 25-34 provide an answer, in the sense that serving God alone also takes care of daily needs (vs 33). These connections between vss 25-34 and vs 24 are slight, however, and, at any rate, at the level of secondary association. The prohibitive imperative "Do not worry" (p.~ p.t"p'p.vaTt") is meant to be categorical with no exception allowed;ll 59 it is repeated in vss 28, 31, and 34, and thus

constitutes the major exhortation of the passage. This exhortation, however, is not in any way new; it is traditional in early Christian paraenesis, !1 60 taken over fromjewish traditions. 361 The exhortation makes sense because it is based on the general observation that people are indeed engaged in worrying "from dawn to dusk and from dusk to dawn," as the Gospel of Thomas says. ll 62 The point in the SM is not merely excessiveness of worrying but the habit as such, which is described then further in some detail: p.~ p.t"p,p.vart" rfi '1/Fvxfi vp.wv r[ c/Ja"Y7JTt" [7/ rl 7rl1JTt" ], ll 6 ll p.7Jat rif> cr6>p.an vp.wvll 64 rl £vavcr7Jcr8t" ("Do not be anxious about your soul/life, what you shall eat [or what you shall drink], nor about your body/person, what you shall put on"). Most important for the understanding of the passage is the expression p.t"p,p.vav rfi '1/Fvxfi ("be anxious for the soul/life"). Identifying something objectionable, the expression must be taken in the negative sense. The interpretation is hampered by the fact that the expression occurs in the New Testament only here and in the Lukan parallel. The dative rfi '1/Fvxfi ("for your soul/life") is one ofadvantage,ll 65 but the real difficulty concerns the meaning of'I/Fvx~. which is usually translated as "life. "!1 66 But one could also take it to mean "soul" or "self," whereby these meanings may simply be

356 Cf. the introduction "Jesus says" (AE)'EI 'l71p.idv ("your") is omitted by M" b k, probparallel passages see BAGD, s. v. p.Ep&p.v6...,, p.Eplp.v71, ably in conformity with Luke 12:22, where, however, some witnesses, no doubt for the same reason, add O.p.Ep&p.vla, O.p.lp&p.vor; and David L. Balch, "1 Cor 7:32-35 and Stoic Debates about Marriage, Anxiety, the pronoun (B 070 ps 33. 1424 al vgmss syP co). The and Distraction," JBL 102 (1983) 429-39. parallelism of "your soul" and "your body" appears to 361 See above, p. 465. be rhetorically natural, although for the reason of 362 Cited above, pp. 467-68. brevity the second pronoun could be omitted. The 363 The rhetorical structure of the passage argues rhetorical concern in the whole passage, however, is against the omission ofthe words "or what you shall not brevity but vividness and memorability. drink" (~ rl wl71rE) in Mjl 892 pc a b ffl k I vg syc samss 365 See BDF, § 188(1); BDR, § 188, n. 1. Clement. The full text is read by B W Jl 3 33. 205. 366 This translation of .Pvx~ as "life" is preferred by the standard translations since Luther's Die gantze Heilige 209. 1342 alit samss mae bo Hieronymusnu•. The omission may be an attempt to conform the passage Schrifft Deudsch 1545, 2.1977: "Leben." The matter

469

different aspects of the same thing. 367 The problem of how to take it in this instance is further complicated by the possibility, and indeed probability, that the term may be intentionally ambiguous. The juxtaposition of tvx~ and uwp.a ("body") in vs 25 speaks in favor of "soul" rather than "life. " 368 In the SM, the anthropological concept of uwp.a refers to the physical "body" as a kind of container of the inner life (cf. also SM/Matt 5:29-30; 6:22-23) and suggests the concept of the "garment of the soul. " 369 If "soul" is to be preferred, does the term then presuppose a Greek philosophical anthropology? Or is it to be taken in a prephilosophical sense? How sharp was the difference between a philosophical and a prephilosophical understanding in the context of Hellenistic Judaism, the environment of the SM? Modern scholarship is often marred by a strange bias against Hellenistic philosophical ideas, 370 a prejudice that some Jewish sources may share, while it is not in others. Therefore, one has to examine each text on its own terms. In Greek sources, even in philosophical ones, "it is often impossible to draw hard and fast lines between the meanings of this many-sided word. "371 As far as the SM is concerned, therefore,

influences from Hellenistic philosophical traditions appear in a number of places, so that one should not exclude them here as well. Indeed, as Hildebrecht Hommel has shown, sayings attributed to Jesus have an impressive number of parallels with the Socratic tradition, so that one should assume some form of influence even at the earliest level of the Jesus-tradition. 372 If Hellenistic philosophical ideas had an influence on our passage, one would have to take the expression in a positive sense: "care for the soul" (~ l·mp.bwa Tij~ '1/lvxii~) was one of the most important concepts of Greek ethics beginning with Socrates and Plato. 373 Clearly, however, the SM does not employ this concept, 374 but has in its place a Jewish counterpart, "seeking the kingdom and (God's) righteousness" (vs 33). 375 In addition the SM favors the concept of the "heart" (Kapola), 376 while "soul" does not occur even where we should expect it (cf. 6:2223). Although concern for one's "life" is a theme also in the SM, the term used refers to "eternal life" ((w~ [7:14]). Outside the SM, '1/lvx~ occurs in the older layers of the synoptic tradition and shows a similar ambiguity. Consequently, qne may conclude that in the SM '1/lvx~ refers to a person's earthly soul/life/self, in contrast to

was discussed earlier by Augustine (De serm. dom. in monte 1.15.42, lines 1009-14 [ed. Mutzenbecher, p. 47]). He takes anima to refer to "this life" (haec vita)

Concept)," EncRell3.434-38. 368 For the contrast of "soul" and "body," see also Matt 10:28; cf. Matt 10:39//Luke 17:33; Matt 11:29 because of the food that sustains it. Cf. also John Oer 6:16); 16:25-26 par.; 20:28 par.; 22:37 par. Chrysostom's (ed. Cramer, Catenae, 49; also Homilies (Deut 6:4-5); 26:38 (Pss 42:6, 12; 43:3). 21.3) interpretation as "soul." Augustine's translation 369 See Alois Kehl, "Gewand (der Seele)," RAG 10 (1978) 945-1025. is taken up in BAGD (s. v. >Jrvx~. l.a.~): "life as prolonged by nourishment," but the passage should 370 See Gerhard Dautzenberg, Sein Leben bewahren: 'l'vx~ also have been listed in section l.d, dealing with the in den Herrenworten der Evangelien (SANT 14; soul as "the center of both the earthly (I a) and the Munich: Kosel, 1966) 92-97. He proposes to take supernatural (I c) life." Cf. also Eduard Schweizer, >Jrvx~ as "vitality" ("Lebenskraft, Vitalitat"). TDNT 7, s.v. rrrop.a, esp. p. 1058; idem, TDNT 9, s.v. 371 BAGD, s.v. lJrvx~. col. 893a. >Jrvx~. esp. pp. 637, 641-47; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 119; 372 See esp. Hommel, Sebasmata, 2.40-41, 58-59, 67Betz, Essays, 96 n. 32, 104 n. 51; Strecker, 69, for discussions of Matt 10:37//Luke 14:26. Bergpredigt, 141-42 (Sermon, 137); Luz,Matthiius, 373 See Plato Apol. 29d-e, 30a-b; Ps.-Piato Ale. mai. 1.363, 367-68 (Matthew, 1.400, 403-4). 128e-135e; etc. See Manfred Wacht, "Guterlehre," 367 One should not simply regard the concept of>Jrvx~ as RAG 13 (1986) 59-150, esp. 70-73. For Cynic "soul/life/self" as a Semitism, as do, e.g., Black references see Gerhard, Phoinix, 128-36. (Approach, 76), Moule (Idiom Book, 185), BDF (§ 283 374 Cf. Ignatius Pol. 1.2 for f.rrLp.EAELa ("care") in regard [4); BDR, § 283 n. 8), Schwarz ("Undjesus sprach," to body and spirit. The Platonic conceptuality 254-55), and Luz (Matthiius, 1.367 [Matthew, 1.403)). appears in Christian literature first in Clement of Even the Greek concept of the soul is rather complex Alexandria; see PGL, s.v. emp.EA
Matthew 6:19-7:12

the body (urop.a) on the one hand, and to eternal life ((wr/) on the other hand. In the other world, one may further conclude, the whole person must appear before the divinejudge, 377 which means that the "body" (urop.a) and not only the "soul" of a person is brought before God's throne. The lJFvxr/ as souljlife/selfbelongs together with that person's body (urop.a) and is not separable from it (cf. below on 7:21-23). The concept of soul, therefore, differs at this point from the classical Greek concept. In Greek literature, a person who is overly anxious about the worldly life and self is often characterized by the terms cJnA.olJFvx£w, cptA.olJFvxla, and cptA.olJFvxos, 3 78 which one can take in a positive sense of having the desire to live, 379 or negatively as "clinging to dear life" at all cost, or displaying cowardice or faintheartedness. 380 On the one hand, the SM clearly rejects as unethical a concern about life that is preoccupied only with the means of life. Beautifully portrayed by the story of the Rich Fool (Luke 12: 16-21), such a person's perspective is judged shortsighted and overlooking the obvious. 381 Ethically commendable, on the other hand, is a concern for life that considers the whole life sub specie aeternitatis. This commendation, however, does not use the term p.€ptp.vav ("be anxious") but (7Ju'iv ("seek" [cf. below on 6:33; 7:7, 8, 14]). The confusion in a person's mind about what is part of the proper concern for one's souljlife/selfwith an

improper obsession regarding the means for life is judged typical of human folly; it is, when witnessed, laughable. The ambiguity of the language seems to reflect the nature of this confusion. Presupposed in this initial paraenesis is the observation, therefore, that anxiety torments people, above all religious people. For what reason are such people so anxiety-ridden? People worry about all sorts of things without understanding which of the worries are justified and which are not. Like wisdom in general, the SM sees it as a typical character trait of the ordinary person to be anxiety-ridden without knowing why. 382 By contrast, a prudent and enlightened person knows how to make the proper distinctions between the important and the unimportant. Enlightenment by wisdom, therefore, amounts to being able to straighten out the confusion, and to sort out things belonging to the means for life, life here on earth, and life in the hereafter, or in other terms, the importance of one's inner life for life eternal, and the relative unimportance of the means for one's mundane existence. In the following discussion it will become even clearer that the ambiguities of the language thus far observed were not an accidental matter but an intended part of the argument. The phrase "what you shall eat [or what you shall drink]" (Ti cp6:y7]T£ [~ TL 7rL1JT€]) is proverbial and sums up what life is all about, given popular standards. 383 These

377 See SM/Matt 5:29-30; 7:2I-23. diatribe materials. 378 See LSJ, s.v. In early Christian literature these terms 383 See also Matt II:I8-I 9//Luke 7:33-34; Luke 5:30 do not occur, but &AO(wos ("loving life") occurs in (cf. Matt II:9; Mark 2:16); Matt 24:38/ /Luke 7:27; Hermas Sim. 8.2.7; 8.6.I; &AOvAos ("loving material Matt 24:49/ /Luke 12:45. Cf. also john 6:55; Rom things") in Ignatius Rom. 7.2. Cf. also Wis 11:26 I4:I7; Col2:I6; Heb 9:IO; etc. See BAGD, s.v. LXX: at&AOo/vXE ("0 Lord, lover of human {3pwp.a, with further passages. For OT parallels see life [or: souls]"). Rudolf Smend, "Essen und Trinken-ein Stiick 379 Cf. Plato Gorg. 5I2e: "One should not set one's heart W eltlichkeit des Alten Testaments," in Beitriige zur on mere life [of> &Aoo/VX1/Ttov] .. . , but ... he should Alttestamentlichen Theologie: FS fur Walther Zimmerli then proceed to consider in what way he will best live zum 70. Geburtstag (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & out his allotted span of life." See also Marcus Ruprecht, I 977) 446-59; Elpidius Pax, "Essen und Aurelius Med. 7 .46. Trinken," Bibel und Leben IO (I969) 275-91. The 380 SeePlatoApol. 37c;Leg.12.944e. topic was common in Hellenistic philosophy; see 381 See E. W. Seng, "Der reiche Tor: Eine Untersuchung EpictetusDiss. 1.9.8; 1.9.19; 3.3.I7; 4.1.35; 4.8.34; von Lk. xii 16-21 unter besonderer Beriicksichand often; Ench. 33.2; Musonius Rufus (ed. Otto tigung form- und motivgeschichtlicher Aspekte," Hense) Diss. I8A, I8B (7rEpt rpo.pijs); I 9 (7rEpt
471

standards are judged inadequate for the life of the disciple of Jesus. 384 One should not, however, take this saying to mean that eating and drinking are irrelevant as functions of one's daily existence. 385 The point is that these means for life must not be confused with life itself, and that they should not become the object of obsessive worrying. The same is to be said about clothing: "nor for your body /person what you should put on" (p.71a€ Tii> uti>p.an vp.wv TL £vatJU1jU8e). The ambiguity here is about how to understand what is meant by "body" (uwp.a). Does it refer to the physical "body" or the "person" as a physical object? Also here we meet popular confusion. People believe or pretend that they are concerned about their "person," while in actuality they are worried about how to dress. The person of prudence knows that the popular adage is false that says, "Clothes make the man. "386 A person's personal quality or personality depends on inner dispositions, not on external clothes. Only the misguided and foolish are incessantly preoccupied with clothes as if they could improve one's personal quality. A rhetorical question concludes the initial paraenesis (vs 25d): "Is not the souljlife/selfmore than nourish-

ment, and the body/person more than clothing?" (ovxl ~ lfrvx~ 7TAELOV lunv Tijs Tpocpijs Kat TO uwp.a TOV £va!Jp.aTos;). The affirmative answer to this question is expected to come from the readers or listeners. Again, the readers or listeners are confronted with ambiguous language, not to confuse them, but to make them think and to force them to make up their minds. The terms juxtaposed now concern the inside versus the outside: "soul" versus "nourishment, "387 and "person" versus "body," but there are also the other juxtapositions of "life" versus "means of life," and "body" versus "wrappings of the body. "388 The purpose of these ambiguities is to cut off an easy way out, for the argument is not yet over; it is just beginning. • 26 After vs 25 has presented the initial terms of the argument, vss 26-30 set forth the "proofs." These proofs involve the procurement of the necessities of life through nature, showing thereby the superfluousness of anxiety. This first round of the argument has two separate proofs: a comparison of animals and humans, using the example of the birds (vss 26-27); and a comparison of plants and humans, using the example of the lilies (vss 28-30). The first comparison demonstrates the procurement of food,

old age the expectations they had stirred in their creditur esse peritus." German: "Kieider rnachen youth, but are often turned aside; they either fall into Leut." See Karl Friedrich Wilhelm Wander, Deutsches Sprichworter-Lexikon (2 vols.; Leipzig: Brockhaus, dissipation, which corning late is for that reason more disgraceful, and begins to tarnish the brilliance of 1870) 2.1377. August Otto (Die Sprichworter und sprichwortlichen Redensarten der Romer [Leipzig: their first years, or they sink wholly to the level of the Teubner, 1890]100, s.v. cultus) refers to Quintilian eating-house and the belly, and what they shall eat and what they shall drink become their chief Inst. 8, proem 20; Seneca Ep. 4 7.16: "stultissirnus est, qui hominem aut ex veste aut ex condicione, quae concern" ("surnrnaque illis curarurn fuit, quid essent, quid biberent"). For more references see Cicero De vestis modo nobis circurndata est, aestirnat" ("he is doubly a fool who values a man from his clothes or nat. deor. 2.60 (ed. Pease, 2.690-91); Paul Wendfrom his rank, which indeed is only a robe that land, "Philo und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe," in clothes us"). Paul Wendland and Otto Kern, Beitrage zur Geschichte 387 The term occurs only here in the SM; cf. Matt 10:1 0; der griechischen Philosophie und Religion (Berlin: Reimer, 1895) 3-75, esp. 8-15 (on eating and Jas 2:15. Drink is now subsumed under rpo~ ("nourishment"); Did. 10.3 is different. See BAGD, drinking), 15-17 (on clothing and shelter). 384 Cf. Rom 14:17; 16:18; 1 Cor6:13;Phil3:19. s. v. rpo
472

Matthew 6:19-7:12

the second that of clothing. The order is determined by the hierarchy of beings in nature. Implied is always that God orders matters as the supreme provider. The highest of the creatures is the human being, then come the animals, then the plants; of the animals and the plants, the "highest" are selected as examples: the birds high in the sky, and the lilies on the ground because of their beauty. There seems to be a tension between this hierarchy of beings and the other assumption also made, that human behavior can and should be learnt from nature, in particular from the animals. This assumption, however, is also rooted in ancient thought, 389 for which one can cite instances from the Old Testament and Jewish wisdom 390 as well as from Greek philosophy. 391 Especially Greek philosophy accepted studying animal behavior as a "scientific" method for determining what rational human behavior ought to be. 39 2 Even modern biological and anthropological research sometimes maintains this approach. The reason why animal behavior was accepted in antiquity as a model for human behavior was that animals were seen as still an integral part of nature, while humans as a result of civilization have become at least

partially alienated from nature. Nature, however, operates according to cosmic laws that in turn conform to metaphysical reason. If animals, therefore, act by what we could call natural instincts, they act "with reason," even though as members of their species they were judged to be "without reason" (cf. 2 Pet 2:12;Jude 10: ll.A.oya (ii>a). By contrast, since human conduct was thought to be based on customs and conventions, all of them questionable as to their reasonableness, it is likely to be wholly or partly "unreasonable." Human ethical conduct, so goes the argument, must be brought back into conformity with reason. Proper ethical conduct can and must be clarified by observation of natural phenomena. In a strange way, therefore, animal behavior, because it conforms to nature and thus to cosmic and metaphysical reason, can serve to establish what is ethically reasonable human conduct. 393 The SM passage does not, however, raise yet another issue that would make the argument even more complex: Do animals possess souls, and do they thus have at least some measure of reason? 39 4 Verse 26 presents the example of the birds, prefaced

389 For a large collection of material see Sherwood Owen Dickerman, De argumentis quibusdam apud Xenophontem, Platonem, Aristotelem obviis e structura hominis et animalium petitis (Halis Saxonum: Typis Wischani et Burkhardti, 1909); Urs Dierauer, Tier und Mensch im Denken der Antike: Ideengeschichtliche Studien zur Tierpsychologie, Anthropologie und Ethik

(Studien zur antiken Philosophie 6; Amsterdam: Gruner, 1977). 390 See esp. Prov 6:6-11 ("Go to the ant"); Job 12:7-10 ("Go and ask the cattle"); 40:15-24 ("Consider the chief of the beasts, the crocodile"); Ep. Arist. 139-42; Barn. I 0; etc. See also Olsthoorn,jewish Background, 34-35. 391 Comparisons with animals go back to the ancient Near East. See Carl Sylvio Kohler, Das Tierleben im Sprichwort der Griechen und Romer: Nach Quellen und Stellen in Parallele mit dem deutschen Sprichwort herausgegeben (Leipzig: Fernau, 1881) 180-82; Herbert P. Houghton, Moral Significance of Animals as Indicated in Greek Pruverbs (Amherst, Mass.: Carpenter & Morehouse, 1915) 54; Dierauer, Mensch und Tier, passim.

Naples: Bibliopolis, 1978); Hans Diller,

"if-.J~t~ aa~Awv

ra <j>aw.lp.wa," Hermes 67 (1932) 14-42, reprinted in

his Kleine Schriften zur Literatur (Munich: Beck, 1971) 119-43; G. R. E. Lloyd, Magic, Reason and Experience: Studies in the Origins and Development of Greek Science

(Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1979) 126-29; Elizabeth Asmis, Epicurus' Scientific Method (Ithaca, N.Y., and London: Cornell University, 1984) 66, 76-77. 393 Thus, the Cynics taught that animals live better because they live according to nature. See Dierauer, Tier und Mensch, 180-93. 394 See Plutarch De bruta animalia ratione uti, Moralia 985D-992E, in Plutarch's Moralia (trans. William C. Helmbold; LCL; reprinted London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1957) 12.492-532; for a discussion see Dierauer, Tier und Mensch, 187-93.

392 The philosophers called it "proof based on analogy"; on this method see Philodemus, On Methods of Inference (ed. with a translation and commentary by Philipp H. De Lacy and Estelle A. De Lacy; 2d ed.;

473

by an appeal: "Take a look at the birds of the sky" (ep.{3A.b/Fan ds Th. 'lT£THvh. TOV ovpavov). The idea is that the listeners or readers of the SM, as they stand on the ground, should lift up their eyes and gaze into the sky 395 where the birds are flying. 396 The appeal to "take a look" (ep.f3A.t7T£LV) 397 implies that whatever the example has to teach is open to everyone's observation. Thus, the truth advocated by the SM is a matter of human experience and insight in general, observable by whoever has eyes to see. 398 But not everyone who has eyes to see automatically perceives the obvious. As we have seen in

SM/Matt 6:22-23, clear vision requires a sound disposition of heart and mind. Such vision, however, does not depend on a special faith or doctrine; everyone can learn it, and that by experience. The phrase "the birds of the sky" is proverbial, 399 assigning "the sky" (o ovpavos) to the birds as their ordinary habitat. 400 One is to observe the paradox of their behavior. In contrast to human beings, who must work for their livelihood, the birds do not need to do so: "They do not SOW OF harvest or gather intO barns" (ov U'lT£lpoVCrLV ova£ 8£p{(ovuLV ova£ uvvayovuLV £LS tL7ro8fiKas), 401 but yet they

395 Cf. Pss 145:15; 147:8-9; Isa 40:26: "Lift up your through their very nature have speech for us, though eyes to the heavens; consider who created it all." The we pass them by in silence, I say no more about them. act presupposes the erect position, one of the For neither do sun and moon need an interpreter, essential marks of the human being. See Pythagoras, because their rising by day or night fills the whole Anaxagoras, and Aristotle (according to Iamblichus world with light. Their shining is proof that needs no Protr. 9); Aristotle Ethica Eudemica 1.5.9, 1216a 12further witness, established by the evidence of the 16; Ps~-Plato Axiochus 370b; Cicero Tusc. 5.3.7-9; De eyes, an evidence clearer than the ears can give." See nat. deor. 2.56.1401; Sallustius Catilina 1.1; Philo also Philo Vit. Mos. 1.274; Leg. all. 4.60. Kierkegaard Plant. 17; Quod deterius potiori insidiari solet 85-86; also discusses this motif of silent revelation in his Seneca Ep. 65.20; 92.30; 94.56; Plutarch Quaestiones interpretations (see above, n. 304). Convivalium 617 A-B; Diogn. 10; etc. For collections of 399 The meaning is simple enough; in the SM, ovpav6s references see Dickerman, De argumentis, 92-101, (singular) refers to the "sky," while the plural and passim; Isaak Heinemann, Die Lehre von der "heavens" refers to God's realm (see above on Zweckbestimmung des Menschen im griechisch-romischen SM/Matt 5:18, 34; 6:10, 20). Differently, Etan Altertum und im judischen Mittelalter (Breslau: Marcus, Levine ("Distinguishing 'Air' from 'Heaven' in the 1926); Antonie Wlosok, Laktanz und die philosophische Bible," ZNW 88 [1976]97-99) takes the expression Gnosis: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Terminologie to be a Hebraism meaning "birds of the air." J. der gnostischen Er!Osungsvorstellung (AHAW.PH Duncan M. Derrett ("Birds of the Air and Lilies of 1960:2; Heidelberg: Winter, 1960). the Field," Downside Review 105 [1987]181-92) 396 Instead of the general term "birds," Luke 12:24 has believes that the examples derive directly from Ps rohs K6paKas ("the crows"). Why do SM/Matthew and 103:12 LXX (rl:t 7rfT£tVl:t rovovpavov, "the birds of Luke differ here, and what did the Q-version read? the sky"). But the expression occurs also in LXX Pss No explanation seems plausible. Crows were disliked 8:8; 49:11; 78:2; Eccl10:20, and often; the same is (cf.Job 38:41; Ps 146:9), but what difference does it true ofx6pros, "grass" (LXX Pss 36:2; 71:16; 91:7; make to the argument? See Olsthoorn,jewish 101:4, 11; 102:15; 103:14; etc.). The term "lilies" Background, 35, with further parallels. According to does not occur in Psalms at all, but it does elsewhere Barn. 10.1, 4, the crows are symbolic of people who (see Isa 35:1; Hos 14:6; Sir 39: 14; 50:8; etc.). do not work for food but steal it from others. 400 The expression is frequent also in the NT: Matt 8:20; Perhaps there is an influence here from Cynicism, 13:32; Mark 4:32; Luke 8:5; 9:58; 13: 19; Acts because Diogenes of Sinope is said to have written a 10:12; 11:6; Barn. 6.12 (Gen 1:28), 18; Hermas Sim. dialogue entitled "The Crow" (Diog. L. 6.80). 9.24.1. Cf. BAGD (s. v., 7r£nw6v) with the rendering 397 €p.f3A.e1rw is to be understood in an intensive way ("fix "birds of the air"; also s.v., ovpav6s l.d. one's gaze upon"). Cf. Acts 1:11; Mark 8:25; 10:21, 401 M1 L 346 pc add the article: £1s rl:ts lL7rollijKas ("into the 27; 14:67 par.; John 1:36, 42. The "vision with the barns"). Luke 12:24 is different: "for they do not sow eyes of the soul" ( 1 Clem. 19. 3) is not intended here or harvest, for them there is no storeroom or barn" (cf. BAGD, s.v. €p.f3A.e1rw, 2). Cf. Luke 22:27: (oV U'1T£lpovcnv aVO€ 8£pl(ovut.v, ors- oVK luri.V rap.£'iov Karavo~uan ("consider in your minds"). For the ovSe lr7roii~K7J). simplex {3A.e1rw ("see"), cf. SM/Matt 5:28; 6:4, 6, 18; 7:3. 398 Cf. Philo Sacr. AC 34 (LCL, Philo, 7.121 ): "things holy in virtue of their essential goodness cannot but

474

Matthew 6:19-7:12

get fed. How does this happen? Verse 26b gives the answer: "Yet your heavenly Father feeds them" (Kat 7TaT~P vp.wv b ovpavtos TP'4>~L avra). 402 Their nourishment comes from nature's storehouse through which God provides for all his creatures. 403 The connection Kal seems to express astonishment ("yet") because God's generosity looks irksome in view of the birds' idleness. With the birds standing pars pro toto, one is to conclude that all creatures live through nature's abundance and God's generosity. They do not earn their livelihood and thus, no wonder, they do not worry. One must admit that the example has been chosen in order to make a point and not to give a full description of the phenomena of nature. Antiquity knew well that some animals do work and collect food, and other paraenetical contexts use their example. 404 The point made here is that the birds do not worry for two reasons: they rely on nature's abundance, and they have no presumptions about controlling the future. Verse 26c ends the example by inviting a consideration through a question: "Are you not of greater value than they?" (ovx vp.~'is p.iiAJ\ov llta4>'p~u avrwv;). The expected answer is affirmative. The traditional hierarchy makes sure that human beings occupy a position of higher value, so that the expression p.ii>.>.ov llta4>'p~tv means in effect "be different from and worth more than. "405 One is to draw the conclusion a minori ad maius:

o

if anxiety over food is unnecessary for animals, how much more so for human beings? 406 The vexing question why, granted this presupposition, human beings must still work for their upkeep is not raised at this point. Also, the conclusion apparently reached by some later Christians that work as such is unnecessary and that idleness 407 and dependence on other people's charity 408 is the Christian thing to do is not envisioned by our text. Dealing with such consequences was the task of later Christian leaders. The SM would have never approved of idleness. "Seeking the kingdom of God and his righteousness" (6:33) includes work because honest work was prescribed by the Torah and was thus part of righteousness. 409 • 27 Intimating that skeptics may still not be convinced, the SM adds an example from human experience. It takes the form of a rhetorical question with direct address, identifying the addressed anxious: "Then, which of you who are (so) worried is able to add one span to his life?" (rls at- it vp.wv P.~PLJJ.VWV llvvarat 7rporr8~'ivat i7TL T~V

402 So also Luke 12:24: "Yet God feeds them" (Ka~ o8Ebr the parallel Luke 12:24: "How much more valuable rpl.pn avro"ir). The idea of God as "nourisher" occurs are you as compared with the birds?" (1r6u'!l p.a>..>..ov Vp.Etf a.a.pepETE TWV 1TETELVwv;). See also Olsthoorn, only here in the NT, but the epithet orpotfJE6r ("the Jewish Background, 38-40. nourisher") is common in Hellenistic religions; see 407 Cf. the polemics against the llraKTOL ("disorderly," Epictetus Diss. 1.3: Philo Leg all. 3.177; Congr. 171; "idle") in 1 Thess 5:14; 2 Thess 3:6-12; 1 Tim 5:13, Corp. Herm. 16.12; Diogn. 9.6. 16. Related is also the mission instruction Matt 403 This topic is common in the OT already. SeeJer 10:10b: "Worthy is the worker of his food" (ilf•or yap 5:24; Lev 26:4; Deut 22:6;Job 38:41; 39:26-29; Pss o~py&.r11r rfjr rpotflfjr avroii). The rule serves as 104:27-28; 145:15-16; 147:8-9; etc. See Moore, justification for freeing the mission worker from his Judaism, 1.384, 394-95; Olsthoorn,Jewish Backneed to work for a living. Paul, however, refused to ground, 36-38. For the NT see Acts 14:17; 17:24take advantage of this rule, at least in some instances; 25, and Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 111-17 (on 2 Cor see 1 Cor 9:4; 2 Cor 12:14-18; cf. 1 Tim 5:18. On 9:9-10). the whole see Betz, Paulus, 100-117; Spicq, Notes, 404 Cf., e.g., the business of ants (Prov 6:6; 30:25), bees 1.157-59; GlennS. Holland, The Tradition That You (Prov 6:6, 8 [Clement Alex. Strom. 1.6.33.6; GCS 15, Received from Us: 2 Thessalonians in the Pauline p. 22]; Sir 11:3), or oxen (Deut 25:4; 1 Cor 9:9; 1 Tradition (HUTh 24; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], Tim 5: 18). See Photina Rech, "Ameise," RAG 1 1988)52-54,55-56,75-76,81-82,88-101. (1950) 376-77; Leo Koep, "Biene," RAG 2 (1954) 408 For the abuse of almsgiving see also Did. 1.5-6. 274-82. 405 For this logical conclusion see also Luke 12:24; Matt 409 For references and bibliographies see Horst Dietrich PreuB, Michael Brocke, and Karl Hermann Schelkle, 10:31//Luke 12:7; Matt 12:12; 1 Cor 15:41. "Arbeit I-III," TRE 3 (1978) 613-24. 406 The conclusion is implicit in the SM but explicit in

475

~AtKlav avrov 7riixvv E-'va;). 410 The paradox one is to

observe in the behavior of animals is juxtaposed with the absurdity characterizing human action. A person who is anxious about food is at the same time also anxious about the future. Yet, the person is unable to "add" (7rpocrrl6mu) 411 a single "span"(~ 7riixv!;) 412 to life. Nonetheless, with every new day another span is added to the person's life. One can infer this much from the written text of vs 27, but the reader is invited to probe deeper. First, an inference: If a person who is concerned about the future is unable to add a single new day to life, and if such additions occur day after day nevertheless, then this is so because God calls each new day into being. It is God, not humans, who measures out the periods of one's life-a commonly held belief in antiquity that finds confirmation here. A further inference follows from it: If all of the future lies in God's hands, then it is unwarranted and indeed foolish when people are worried about some part of the future as if it were under their control. 413 Thus, human anxiety over the future is presumptuous. 414 The future is divine creation, continuous creation (creatio continua). In regard to the future, therefore, human life is not fundamentally

different from that of the animals. Yet, unlike the animals, human beings do not want to entrust themselves to that future that God creates continually. 415 • 28 This sentence introduces the second proof (vss 2830) regarding clothing. This proof compares plants with humans. 416 First (vs 28a), the readers or hearers are reminded of the problem (cf. vs 25) in the ongoing argument, lest their thoughts have begun to wander: "And about clothing, what are you worried about?" (Kat 7r£pt lvo{,p.aro!; rl p.£ptp.van;). Again the addressed are identified as people who actually do worry about clothing. In this the disciples are not different from all others, but they ought to know better, and the example of the lilies is going to teach them. The appeal (vs 28b) is more emphatic than the one introducing the previous example (vs 26a). The reason is rhetorical climax as well as factual evidence. While one must look at the birds from below, at a distance, the lilies can be "studied closely" (Karap.av6avHv), 417 perhaps by looking down (Kara-) on them. The expression "the lilies of the field" (ra Kplva TOV aypov) has been and still is the subject of controversy, mainly because of attempts to determine their precise species. 418 But the SM is not

410 p.
476

415

416

417

418

doubt alluding to the phrase "adding a span"; but Sophocles (Oed. Col. 1556-78: fourth stasimon) reminds us that the topic is a traditional one. This concept of the future is rooted in Jewish wisdom, for which one could adduce many parallels. See esp. LXX Ps 36:38-40; Prov 23:17-18; 24:1320; Eccl8:5-8; Wis 7:18; 8:1; 19:1; Sir 38:20-23; 40:1-17. From the NT, see esp. Luke 12:19-20; Acts 14: 17; 17:26, 30; 1 Thess 5: 1-5; Mark 13:3236 par.;Jas 4:13-15; 1 Pet 1:24 (Isa 40:6-8). No attention is paid to the physiological differences between animals and plants, an important topic for ancient scientists. Cf., however, Wis 7:20 LXX. See Dierauer, Tier und Mensch, 44, 47, 109-16, 142-43. The climax is reached only at SM/Matt 6:26a, 28b; the Lukan parallel has Karavo~uau ("contemplate") in both instances (Luke 12:24a, 27a). The lily (Greek: rl> Kpivov; Hebrew: susan, sosiin, sosannt1) plays an important role in the aesthetics of the OT; the beauty of the lily was proverbial and is often compared with human beauty, a fact that also comes to expression in making it a personal name. See john C. Treve11, "Lily," !DB 3.133-34; BAGD, s.v. Kpivov;Jehuda Feliks, "Lilie," BHH 2.1093; Olsthoorn.jewish Background, 45-49. J. Enoch Powell has advanced the rather fanciful idea that the lilies make a bad contrast to the birds in the sky and that

Matthew 6:19-7:12

interested in classifying flowers. The reference is meant to be general. Although vs 29 seems to point to a particular species, what is said about the flowers is true of all of them. Studied closely, every flower reveals its own unsurpassable beauty. The paradox, however, is even more general: "how they grow" (1roos avt"avovow). Indeed, how do they grow? Verse 28c observes: "they do not toil or spin" (ov K01T£WO'LV ova~ v~8ovow). 419 At least, this is the reading of most manuscripts. The appeal to consider the lilies is followed by one positive and two negative statements, whereby a contrast is created between "how they grow" and the fact that "they do not toil or spin." This contrast parallels vs 26, which has, however, three negative statements: the birds "do not sow or harvest or gather into barns." One must therefore raise the question whether the variant reading of toe* ov t"alvovcnv ("they do not comb [wool]"; see BAGD, s.v. t"alvw), although unique, is original. When Theodore C. Skeat discovered this variant with the help of ultraviolet light in 1938, 420 many thought it represented the original reading, and some still do so today. 421 This exceptional reading, however, may have come about when a scribe thought that vs 28 should have three verbs as in vs 26; since avt"avovcnv ("they grow") was in his source, he falsely corrected it to ov t"alvovcnv ("they do not comb [wool]"), then noticed the mistake, erased it, and returned to what

419

420 421

422

423

he should have written according to his source. 1rws ("how") has no parallel in vs 26, and there is no need to eliminate variation in an otherwise parallel construction. Thus, 1rws avt"avovuw ("how they grow") seems to reflect the best text. 422 It is also the one paralleled in Luke 12:27. 423 The verbs are still focusing on the making of garments. The lilies grow, but they are not busy making garments. How so? The answer is implied: God causes them to grow. He is the one who makes things grow; at least, that is the doctrine of ancient agrarian theology. 424 • 29 Parallel to vs 26c, vs 29 adds another consideration to underscore the point just made. The introductory formula "but I tell you" (A.Eyro a~ VJJ.tv) 425 is intended to call attention to something easily overlooked or taken for granted: "not even Solomon in all his splendor was clothed like one of these" (CJn ova~ 'E.oAOJ.LtoV fV 1TctiTI/ Ti/

aJt"I/ avTOV 1TEpt<{3ctAHO OOS ~V TOt\Twv). 4 26 Indeed, tradition held that Solomon's royal robes were unsurpassed in splendor. 427 The argument takes up this proverbial wisdom, but only to turn it on its head. One is to draw the conclusion "from the contrast" (e contrario): the clothing of the lilies, as a work of God, surpasses even

"animals" should be read instead ("Those Lilies of the Field Again," JTS 33 [1982]490-92). B (33) read Komov~avov
424

425

426

427

Textual Commentary, 161; Olsthoorn.jewish Background, 11-13. Cf. 1 Cor 3:7: "the God who makes things grow" (o al>~avwv 8<6~); 2 Cor 9:10. See Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 113-15. As the parallel in Luke 12:27c shows, the introductory formula was also part of Q, as was the whole sentence. 0 reads oi!n instead of ol>ot, an easy mistake for a scribe to make; Luke 12:27c has ol>o£ without variants. See 1 Kgs 3:13, where Solomon is promised in a dream: "I give you furthermore those things for which you did not ask, such wealth and glory [LXX: o6~a] as no king of your time can match." See also 2 Chr 9:15;Josephus Ant. 8.190, which calls Solomon "the most glorious [.1voo~6raro~] of all kings"; cf. Ant. 8.186. The "glory" is reflected by the robes (cf. LXX Esth 5:1; Sir 6:29-31; 27:8; 45:7; 50:8, 11). For Solomon's proverbial glory see also Str-B 1. 438; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 133; Olsthoorn.jewish Background, 45-49; Eduard Lohse, ":Eo!l.op.wv," TDNT

477

the splendor of Solomon's garments because they were made by human hands. 4 2 8 When one contemplates the toil and spinning that must have gone into Solomon's garments, the conclusion is startling indeed. The passage under consideration is remarkable also because the subject matter of aesthetics is not often discussed in the New Testament. 4 2 9 Although largely remaining at the level of presupposition, beauty in nature is seen, as it was in antiquity for the most part, as a reflection of divine beauty. God himself is beautiful, and the cosmos and its beauty is a mirror image of his beauty. This is the reason why nature's beauty is unsurpassable and why it is incomparable with the artistry that comes from human hands. That is also why classical Greek art devoted so much attention to creating images of the gods. Making these images reflects the perfect beauty of gods and goddesses, and this was the only way for the artists to overcome the imperfections imposed on their work by the fact that they were human beings. In our passage, therefore, one must judge human artistry, exemplified by Solomon's royal garments, as coming from human hands. One should praise this art, valued on its own terms, for what it is. In comparison, however, even the

most excellent of human artwork must take second place to each and every flower blooming in the fields. • 30 Parallel to vs 27, vs 30 also turns from the example of nature to human life. The sentence is formulated as a rhetorical question using direct address. The first part stating the premises leads to an application in the second part. Interesting here is the technique of describing the human condition in terms of plant behavior. The conclusions to be drawn, however, are left to the reader or hearer of the text. In describing the fate of the plants, vs 30a observes another paradox: "But if God clothes in such a way the grass of the field, which exists today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow" (d a€ TOV xopTOV TOV &:ypov u~p.Epov CfvTa Kal aiJptov £ls KAl{3avov {3aA.A.Op.£vov o 8£os ot!TCJ)S &.p.cpdvvvuw). 430 The beauty greater than Solomon's garment wastes away in what appears to be a deplorable way. The statement "God clothes in such a way" 431 means that we are still dealing with the lilies of the field (vss 28-29), but they are now classified as ordinary "grass" (xopTos). 432 The proverbial characteristics of grass, however, are transitoriness and perishability: today it flourishes, 433 tomorrow, when it has dried up, it will become fuel for the oven. 434 The

7.461-62,464-65 (A.2 and B.3). The prominent figure in Greek literature is Croesus, the legendary king of the Lydians; see Diog. L. 1.51: "There isa story that Croesus in magnificent array sat himself down on his throne and asked Solon if he had ever seen anything more beautiful. 'Yes,' was the reply, 'cocks and pheasants and peacocks; for they shine in nature's colours, which are ten thousand times more beautiful" (cl>aul a£ 1"LV£~ 1Jr1 KO
431

aVThv ef Tl. 8Jap.a K&.lltov Te8laTat: 0 lJJ "O.AeKTp-Dovas, eTwe, Kai rpao-1.avoiJS" Ka\ Tatl>s· t/>vu&K~ yO.p IJ.v8e1. K£K6
the LCL edition, Diogenes Laertius: Lives ofEminent Philosophers (trans. R. D. Hicks; London: Heinemann; 432 Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1925) 1.5253. 428 Cf. Acts 7:48, 50; 17:24; Mark 14:58; 2 Cor 5:1; Col 433 2:11. 429 For the OT see Claus Westermann, "Das Schone im 434 Alten Testament," in Beitriige zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: FSfilr Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) 47997. 430 w adds lv a:ypcp ("in the field"), most likely to harmonize it with the parallel in Luke 12:28. The Lukan text read by P 75 IC B L Q was not read by

478

Marcion; it has a different word order in part of the manuscript tradition, an example of the fluidity in the transmission of the text. See Aland, Synopsis, 91, in the critical apparatus. For afJ.&c!vvv!L• see also Matt 11:8//Luke 7:25 (Q); the Lukan parallel to Matt 6:30 in Luke 12:28 has the synonym a!L•&.(w. See BAGD, s.v. a!L•&.(w, afJ.&c!vvvfJ.&. Since one can easily confuse these Hellenistic terms, no decision is possible about which of them the "original" Q read; indeed, a substantial part of the Lukan textual tradition reads like Matthew: a.,..EvvV<TIV (IC Awe"' Jl.IS 33. 1006. 1342. 1506 9Jt), while O.,..E(n is read by p45 p75 (B) D L070. 892. The term x6pro~ designates wild, not cultivated grass, i.e., weeds. See also Luke 12:28;Jas 1:10, 11; 1 Pet 1:24 (Isa 40:6-7), and BAGD, s.v. x6pro~. For £1/Ll ("live") see Matt 2:18; 23:30, and BAGD, s.v. £1,.l, 1.2. The phrase £1~ KAt{3avov {30.)1.)\nv ("throw into the oven") occurs only here and in the Lukan parallel (12:28). Perhaps an allusion to the day ofjudgment is intended as well (cf. 2 Clem. 16.3; Rev 2:22 v.l.); as for the SM, cf. Matt 5:13, 25, 29; 7:19.

Matthew 6:19-7:12

example is traditional in Jewish as well as in GrecoRoman proverbial wisdom. 435 The point to conclude from this observation is that God, by allowing these things to happen, seemingly "wastes" the beauty as well as the future of these creatures.436 The application in vs 30b-c is simply stated as a conclusion, "what is true of the less important is true also of the more important" (a minori ad maius) in abbreviated form: "not by much more, you men oflittle faith?" (ou -rroAA.fi> p.a>..>..ov vp.as, OAI'Y07rLITTO!;). In order to understand this rhetorical question, the reader or hearer needs to make an intermediate consideration. One must take two presuppositions into account. First, God is the one who measures out the future, and he does so without modifying the transitoriness of his creatures. 437 Thus, the greatest beauty can be displayed one day, while on the next day the whole splendor has vanished. This is the normal course oflife, and nothing is wrong with it. Second, plants are lesser creatures than humans on the scale of living beings. From these presuppositions follows the conclusion, which is stated: If God cares for his lesser creatures in this way, he will care even more for his highest creatures, human beings, in the same way. 438 He will provide the clothing for them, and one has no reason to worry even in the face of transitoriness and perishability.

The address in vs 30c, "men oflittle faith" (6A.tyomurot), is an indication that trust in God may not

be plausible. The readers or hearers are taken to be skeptics who have little confidence in God's providence. The term 6A.tyo-rrturos is not meant here in a specifically Christian sense ("men whose faith in Christ is weak") but in a general sense. 439 People ridden by anxiety (and all people are, not only the disciples ofJesus) 440 have little confidence that things like clothing simply happen through nature's provision. One has good reason to be skeptical at this point. The issue belongs to the history of culture. People in antiquity judged human clothing artificial and thus fundamentally different from natural coverings of other creatures. This is why clothing is treated separately from food: as people in antiquity saw it, nature does not clothe human beings but sends them into the world naked. 441 The address "you men of little faith" assumes, however, that God's care is not limited to what nature provides. The problem of human nakedness is discussed as early as Genesis 3. 442 After the fall, Adam and Eve discover that they are naked. They attempt to remedy the situation by sewing fig leaves together: "Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons" (Gen 3:7 [RSV]). This primitive

435 SeePs 90:5-6; 1 Pet 1:23-25 (Isa 40:6-7);Jas 1:9Bergpredigt, 143 (Sermon, 138), who, however, 11; 4:13-14. See also Pliny NH 21.1; Plautus Pseud. interprets its content according to Paul (Rom 4:1 7). 1.1; Ausonius Alethio 7; for further Jewish materials The term o.\1y6muTos is pre-Christian and jewish, for see Str-B 1.438; Olsthoorn,Jewish Background, 50which see Str-B 1.438-39; Schiirer, History, 2.487; 52. Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 133; Olsthoorn,jewish 436 The example is traditional; it is stated more fully in Background, 52-54. An interesting case is presented Jas 1: 10-11 with application to the wealthy. See Isa by Sextus Sent. 6: "Regarding faith, a man of little 40:6-7;Job 14:1-2; Mark 4:5-6 par.; cf. 1 Clem. faith is without faith" (o.\Ly67fi
479

attempt is, however,judged inadequate. God himself had to come and instruct the first human couple about how to make better clothes: "And the LoRn God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them" (Gen 3:21 [RSV]). These instructions certainly go beyond the provision of nature. God is viewed here as the bringer and inventor of culture. The person who trusts in God-this is the message-knows that God also fulfills human needs through culture, but he does so only as long as those needs remain "natural" and therefore ethically justifiable. • 31 The second argument (vss 31-33) presupposes the first (vss 26-30). So much is indicated by the conjunction "therefore" (oiiv) in vs 31a. The initial paraenesis in vs 31a also shows that it is a new argument in that vs 25b is repeated with minor differences. The imperative is now an aorist imperative: 443 "therefore, do not be anxious" (jJ.~ oiiv p.Eptp.v~u7Jn). The depiction of anxiety is heightened and dramatized by self-parody (vs 31b): "'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?'" (Tl cpa:ywp.Ev; Tf· Tl71'lwp.Ev; Tf· n '11'Ept{3aA.ciJp.E8a;). 444 Parallels from Epictetus's Diatribes show that such

dramatization was a literary device common in Hellenistic moral instruction. 445 • 32 The second argument then addresses the problem of anxiety in a positive sense. How then shall people care for their soul/life/self in the right manner? The two proofs, adduced for the sake of clarification, are not derived from nature or history as in the first argument, but from theology in the narrower sense. Both proofs in vs 32a and b take the form of comparison of jews and pagans. First, the conduct of pagans is described and evaluated: "For the pagans strive for all these things" ('11'avTa yap TavTa Ta f8v7J i'11't(7JTovutv). 446 From the Jewish (i.e., the SM's) standpoint, 447 their conduct deserves to be identified with the false anxiety rejected in the previous argument (vss 26-30). "The pagans" (Ta (8v7J) are lumped together and set in juxtaposition to the Jews, 448 including no doubt the community behind the SM. The pagans are the outsiders, characterized by "seeking after" (€'11't(7JTE'iv) or "striving for," 449 that is, by excessiveness in pursuing material goods. Thus, paganism is identified with materialism and consumerism. 450 Were jews to engage in such behavior, it would amount to forbidden assimilation. The faithful jew, as imagined

443 See BDF, § 337 (3); BDR, § 337 n. 3. 444 The Lukan parallel is peculiarly different (Luke 12:29): "And you, do not seek what you shall eat and what you shall drink, and do not be high-flying" (Ka\ fJp.ELS p.~ (1JTELTE Tt
synonym of p.EpLp.vafJl, but it could also mean something like "presumptuous." For the problem of interpretation, see BAGD, s.v. p.ETEIJlpt(op.aL; Spicq, Notes, 2.560-62. One of the questions is whether the verb is connected with the Hellenistic criticism of worrying about rtt p.ETtfJlpa ("the upper realms between heaven and earth"). For the criticism of Socrates as a "thinker about the upper spheres" (rtt p.ErtfJlpa
480

446

447

448 449

450

created earth, earth had created rivers, rivers had created canals, canals had created marsh, marsh had created worm-the worm came weeping before Shamash, his tears flowing before Ea: 'What will you give me to eat? What will you give me to drink?'" A different word order is found in part of the textual tradition: raiira yttp wavra (K ~ 0 0233jl 892. 1506 allat sy< Clement Basil); so also Luke 12:30a. The singular ~wL(1JTEL is a correction in view of the plural subject being in the neuter (cf. vs 28); the same correction is found in part of the manuscript tradition ofthe Lukan parallel, Luke 12:30 (P 45 A [D] W0~JI 892.1006.1342.1506mt}. The plural verb form is unquestionably the better text, even though the Greek is less elegant. See BDF, § 133 (3); BDR, § 133 n. 3. The Nestle-Aland text is represented by 1>1 B 0 ji.I 3 33. 205 pc co. The parallel Luke 12:30 (RSV) reads differently: "all nations of the world" (wavra rtt f6v1J roii KOtrp.ov), presupposing a Gentile-Christian perspective. In the SM, rtt f6v1J is always a negative designation of "pagans." See Matt 5:46-47; 6:7, 32. This negative term occurs only here in the SM. In this sense, it is rare in the NT (cf. Matt 12:39; 16:4) but common in Hellenistic literature elsewhere. Notably, in Rom 11:7 Paul applies it to Israel's goals. For this sort of criticism see esp. Philo Spec. leg. 2.21;

Matthew 6:19-7:12

by the SM, proceeds on the assumption that the heavenly Father knows what the people's needs are (vs 32b): "But your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things" (otSw yap o'll'aT~p iJp.wv oovpavws Cin XPY(E
determines what "you need" (XPri(eTE), 454 it is to be limited to what is actually "used" (xp6.op.at,xpij
Som. 2.13-16; and Heinemann, Philons griechische und judische Bildung, 431-46, where the evidence is

451

452

453 454

455


("useful" or "serviceable"), see SVF 3, nos. 168, 184, 233; it also appears in Philo (see Wacht, RAC 13.102-6) and the NT (Phlm 11; 2 Tim 2:21; 4: 11; etc.). See BAGD, s.v.
collected; Heinemann relies on Paul Wendland, "Philo und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe," in Wendland and Kern, Beitrage (see above, n. 383), 3-75. K* mae add o8
481

portance of this statement from the role it has played in the history of interpretation and Christian theology. For instance, in a controversy about theodicy the PseudoClementine Recognitions quotes Matt 6:33 as a principle. Thus, for example, the debate between Peter and Simon Magus about the origins of evil 459 is introduced in this way: "Therefore, he commanded us to inquire, not whence evil comes, as you have asked, but to seek the righteousness of the good God, and his kingdom; and all these things, says he, shall be added to you." 460 The phrase "the kingdom of God and his righteousness" occurs as a standard term in the Recognitions. 461 The exhortation in vs 33 is now positive, stating first (vs 33a) the required conduct: "seek" ((TJTiiv), instead of "strive for" (£m(7JTE'iv), which was rejected as "pagan" (vs

32a) and as a cause for anxiety. Since vs 33 encapsulates the theology of the SM, 462 one must carefully examine the terms. Indeed, no word is superfluous 6r ambiguous in this statement, and each word is reflected throughout the SM in one form or another. As intended by the SM, the disciple of jesus is not a quietist who simply sits and waits for what God gives, like an animal. On the contrary, the person who has learned the tenets rightly is a seeker. 463 Indeed, human beings are seen as seekers in principle, the question being only whether they seek the right things in the right way. Those who follow the teaching of the SM should give "first" (1rpwTov) priority 464 to the kingdom ofGod. 465 They should travel on the rough road and search for the narrow gate to the heavenly city (see below on 7: 13-14).

(agrapha) in Clement of Alexandria and Origen (see 462 Cf. the close parallel in T. job 36.2-3 (OTP 1.857): Aland, Synopsis, 91; Straker: Extracanonical Sayings, "And he [sc. Baldad) said, 'Is your heart untroubled?' 122-25). Cf. William H. P. Hatch," A Note on And I said to him, 'My heart is not fixed on earthly Matthew 6:33," HTR 38 (1945) 270-72; Metzger, concerns, since the earth and those who dwell in it Textual Commentary, 18-19. The expression "of God" are unstable. But my heart is fixed on heavenly cannot have been part of the original text; the SM concerns, for there is no upset in heaven.'" See always uses the expression "the kingdom of the furthermore, Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 70-96 and the heavens"(~ {3afTtA
482

Matthew 6:19-7:12

But how does one go about seeking the kingdom of God? The answer to this question is contained in the brief expression immediately following, which is of decisive importance: "and his righteousness" (Kat Thv OLKatocrVV7JV avTov). 466 By seeking righteousness one seeks that quality which characterizes the kingdom of God, and indeed, God himself. By seeking this righteousness the disciple of Jesus seeks the divine kingdom itself and is promised entrance into it. Codex B, which has turned the words around, has understood matters properly. 467 This seeking of righteousness, as the SM states frequently (5:6, 10, 20; cf. 5:45), takes place in this life; it is to be regarded as the sum total of the disciple's duties. Taking up this duty may involve traveling the hard way and searching for the narrow gate, but those who do so also have the promise of finding it (7:7-8, 14). While such seeking is the principal task (7rpooTov), 468 it is not the complete answer to the question of how to deal properly with anxiety. One can take for granted in this context that the search for the kingdom of God has an eschatological orientation, leading to life eternal (7: 13-14). Does this

465 466

467 468

469

4 70

orientation mean that worldly needs are taken lightly? The text is clear that earthly needs and worldly concerns are not to be ignored or covered up by pious preoccupation with the hereafter. 469 Alongside the paraenesis ofvs 33a stands the promise ofvs 33b. According to that statement eternal life is not held out as the only reward for the earnest seeker, but in anticipation of that eternal life and in addition to it, the seeker is promised that the necessities of life "shall be provided in addition" (7rpocrn8~crcTat). 4 7° According to the SM, therefore, the disciple is envisaged as one who at once seeks and finds. Such a person should neither be plagued by excessive anxiety, as only a fool would be, nor chase madly after the material goods of life, as a pagan would do. Rather, the one devoted to the search for God's righteousness should trust that God will provide what is needed for life's necessities as an added bonus. What are the implications of this doctrine? It means, for one thing, that no one has a right to obtain the necessities of life. Rather, they are gifts and part of God's beneficence. 471 Even when people limit themselves to

und ihre Bedeutung fur das Christentum (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1909) 35-46; on the Stoics see Robert Philippson, "Das 'Erste Naturgemasse,'" Philologus 87, n.s. 41 (1932) 445-66. For this concept see the discussion above on SM/Matt 5:3. Zahn (Matthiius, 299 n. 17) argues that the pronoun "his" must be taken to refer to the "heavenly Father" (vs 32); thus, it applies to both nouns in vs 33. So rightly Zahn, Matthiius, 299 n. 17; Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, ad Joe. Cf. also Rom 14:17; furthermore, John 5:44; Acts 17:27; Rom 3:11; 1 Cor 1 :22; 10:24, 33; 13:5; Gal 2:17; Col3:1; etc. Correctly Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1 905), 79: "Das Trachten nach Reich und Gerechtigkeit fiihrt also nicht zur Weltflucht, sondern zur Selbstbehauptung in der Gewissheit der Vaterliebe Gottes" ("The search for kingdom and righteousness does not lead to a flight out of this world, but to self-affirmation through the confidence in God's fatherly love"). Thus, the concept of the SM is very different from the influential Platonic concept of the "flight from here to there," for which see Plato Phaedo, passim; Apol. 40c; Theaet. 176a-b. The meaning of the term here seems special, pace Christian Maurer, TDNT 8.168, who suggests simply

"to give, to hand over"; similarly BAGD, s.v., 2. Cf. the allegorical interpretation of "Joseph" (~0', "addition"; Greek: 1rpou8
483

the basics of food, drink, and clothing, they cannot demand that nature or culture will always satisfy these needs. Gifts of God remain gifts; they are bestowed as rewards, the search for God's kingdom and his righteousness being the prerequisites. The gifts of God's beneficence are part of the eschatological reward of the faithful, given in addition and as an advanced bonus. Striking as it is in the SM, this doctrine was nothing new to Judaism in this period of the SM. Rather, it was part of the normal Jewish notion of reward and punishment. One can also easily connect it with other texts attributed to Jesus in the synoptic tradition, in which the concept of "reward" (/J.tcr8os) is treated. 47 2 Moreover, the additional reward, since it is granted by God, cannot cancel out other rewards (cf. above on 6:1, 2, 5, 16). Equally false would be the assumption that the additional bonus is something special given to the disciples of Jesus only. 473 Rather, it is part of the ordinary continuous creation (creatio continua), accessible to all the faithful. Yet, the faithfulness required is also clearly defined. Such a person regards even the rising of the sun or the falling of the rain (cf. above on 5:45) as such a bonus, and in that the faithful differs from the crowds who take them "for granted" (that is, not as granted gifts). Phenomena of nature such as the rising of the sun and the falling of the rain are part of the normal course oflife, but it is improper for a human being to

disregard the fact that even the normal things are divine gifts. Thus also, the additional bonus does not in any way differ from the extension oflife day after day (vs 27). • 34 The third argument is extremely brief, but it is supposed to be at the same level as the two preceding arguments (vss 25c-30 and 31-33). 474 Introduced by the connective o~v ("therefore"), 475 the exhortation of vss 25b and 31a is again repeated (vs 34a): "Do not be anxious" (JJ.h o~v JUptp.v~crTJTE), with the phrase now added: "about tomorrow" (ds rhv aliptov). A description of people anxious about the next day is omitted; instead the proofs are set forth in the form of two maxims, introduced by yap ("for"). The first maxim (vs 34b) is about tomorrow: "Tomorrow will worry about itself"(~ yap alipwv p.Eptp.v~cry £avrfjs). 476 No exact parallel to this maxim occurs anywhere else in the New Testament, and since the parallel version in Luke 12:3 2 reads something entirely different, 477 it is unlikely that the early Q-version had it; it is, therefore, most likely due to the redaction of Q Matt or the SM itsel£. 478 At any rate, the large number of parallels outside the New Testament 479 come from wisdom literature, beginning with ancient Egypt, 480 and including Jewish wisdom 481 and Greek philosophy. 48 2 In Greek literature and philosophy, taken up by the Romans as well, the proverbial carpe diem ("Use the day while it lasts") is

Q.fL7rEX6V1JV 1 olKlav, olKfTlav· Th 7rpbf OJtav ~ rpvcJ>~v

ii.TTav TT<). Telling is also the magical gem inscription in Campbell Bonner, Studies in Magical Amulets Chiefly Graeco-Egyptian (Ann Arbor, Mich.:

472 4 73

474 4 75 4 76

484

University of Michigan, 1950) 182 (British Museum 56260): "Water for thirst, bread for hunger, fire for cold." For the NT seejas 2:16; Matt 25:35-36, 3739, 42-44. See also above, n. 385. See above on SM/Matt 5:12; also Braun, Radikalismus, 2.54 n. 1. For the principles determining reward, see Matt 10:41-42 (Mark 9:41; Luke 10:7); 20:8; Rom 4:4; 1 Cor 3:8, 14; 9:17-18; 1 Tim 5: 18;Jas 5:4. For the nature of this abbreviated argument see above,pp.465-66. The same beginning oLv ("therefore") introduces the second argument in vs 31 a. avrijs instead of (avrijs is read by B* L co(?); rl:t (avril ("its own things") byE(~) 0233 jl· 13 33. 205. 1006. 1424. 1506 pm syh; rh £avr6v ("itself") 0 565; (avr~(v) 700 pc. So according to Aland, Synopsis, 91 ad Joe. All these variants seem to be attempts at

grammatical improvement, but (avrijs is most likely the original reading. 477 "Do not be afraid, you little flock; for your Father has chosen to give you the kingdom" (M~ cf>of3ov, rh f.LtKphv 1rolp.vwv, Cfr1. EV06K1JCTEV b 1rar~p V,.,.Wv r1]v f3acnA
4 78 Strecker (Bergpredigt, 145 [Sermon, 140-41]) takes it to be a pre-Matthean addition; Luz (Matthiius, 1.364 [Matthew, 1.401]) attributes it to Q/Matt (and Luke 12:32 to Q/Luke). 4 79 For collections of parallels see Grotius, Annotationes, 86; Wettstein, 1.336-37; Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1905), 78-79; Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, 64; Dibelius,james, 232-33; van der Horst, Sentences, 195-98 (on Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 116-21). 480 See John G. Griffiths, "Wisdom about Tomorrow," HTR 53 (1960) 219-21; Zeller,Mahnspruche, 93-94. 481 See esp. Prov 1:27; Sir 10:10; 11:18; 20:15; Ps.Phocyl. Sent. 116-21. For rabbinic literature see 'Abot 2.14; b. Sank. 1OOb; b. Yeb. 63b, and for more material Str-B 1.441; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 134.

Matthew 6:19-7:12

widely attested; Paul also cites it: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are dead. • 483 The interpretation of the maxims must occur first in the framework of gnomic and aphoristic literature. Polyvalence is a standing feature in this literature, its purpose being to provoke thought. The tone of the maxim is seemingly pessimistic, but, as the history of exegesis has pointed out, one can take it either in a pessimistic or in an optimistic way.484 The second maxim (vs 34c) concerns the present day: "Sufficient for the day is its own trouble" (apKeT"Cw Tfj ~p.Epf!. ~ KaKla avTijs). 485 The third argu9lent is worded sparsely, but it presupposes the same trllin of thought as the previous two arguments. It is characteristic of all three arguments that they complement one another: the first (vss 25c-30) appears in the written text in its entirety, while the second (vss 31-33) and the third (vs 34) are progressively shorter, though the arguments themselves remain the same. 486 The intelligent readers can easily supply what has been omitted from the written text, if they have understood what they have read in the first argument. The third argument focuses on anxiety as implying

time, an idea that vs 30 already mentioned. Again it is assumed that people are commonly anxious about the future, but a more detailed account is not given; the readers or hearers are supposed to supply concreteness from their own experience. The two maxims are cited without further explanation, and the conclusions one is to draw are left unstated. The reader or hearer should be able to come to the conclusions himself or herself. Regarding vs 34c any informed reader or hearer will at once think of another famous maxim and philosophical principle: ttpKE'itT8at To'is 7TapoV!T!V ("Be content with what is at hand"). 487 Is vs 34c a specific interpretation of this principle? It is hard to say, but one can assume that knowledge of it existed in early Christianity because of the parallels in the New Testament. Thus, even for the SM one may assume knowledge of the idea

482 From the many references the following should be highlighted, in particular Cicero Tusc. 5.2.5 (cited according to the LCL edition and trans. by J. E. King, Cicero [28 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1945] 18.42829, from Cicero's hymn to Philosophy): "Moreover, one day well spent and in accordance with thy lessons is to be preferred to an eternity of error" ("Est autem unus dies bene et ex praeceptis tuis actus peccanti immortalitati anteponendus"). For commentary and further bibliography see Hildebrecht Hommel, Ciceros Gebetshymnus an die Philosophie, Tusculanen V 5 (SHAW.PH 1968:3; Heidelberg: Winter, 1968) esp. 27-31; idem, Sebasmata, 1.263-66. See also Aristippus, according to Aelian Varia historia 14.6; Diog. L. 2.66; Epicurus, according to Plutarch De tranq. an. 16, p. 474C (cf. 14, p. 473B-E; and Betz inPECL 2.223-24); Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 7, p. 280c-d, quoting from Philetaerus The Huntress; Simonides Frg. 6D; EpictetusDiss. 1.9; 2.19.34; 3.26; etc.; Marcus AureliusMed. 3, passim; Horace Carm. 1.9; 1.11; 2.11; 2.16; 3.29; Epist. 1.11; SenecaEp. 12.6-9; 24.2, 20; etc. See also Wehrli, AA8E BI.Ol:Al:, 3-10. 483 1 Cor 15:33, quoting Menander's Thais. See Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 278; cf.Jas 4:13-17. On the carpe diem see the collection of passages in Wehrli, AA8E Blfll:Al:, 20-25.

484 For some examples see Luz, Matthiius, 1.372 (Matthew, 1.409). 485 For parallels see esp. Eccl 7:14; 12:1; Epictetus Diss. 3.24-25; 4.12.20-21. Str-B 1.441 refers to b. Ber. 9b (the same example in Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 134). From the poets see the LCL edition of The Greek Bucolic Poets (trans. J. M. Edmonds; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1928) 471 (Megara 65): "Are not the misfortunes which possess us enough each day as they come?" Cf. also the saying by Pittacus, according to Plutarch De tranq. an. 11, p. 471B: "Everyone of us has some trouble [KaKclv ]. He that has only mine is doing very well indeed." See furthermore Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1905), 76. 486 Bernard Lategan first pointed out this characteristic tome. 487 See also above, p. 464, with n. 340. For the NT and early Christian literature, see also Luke 3:14 (on the whole passage, Luke 3:10-14, see Friedrich Wilhelm Hom, Glaube und Handeln in der Theolofiie des Lukas [GTA 26; 2d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986] 91-97); Heb 13:5; 1 Clem. 2.1; Ignatius Pol. 5.1. See also BAGD, s.v. apKEw, for more references.

485

and perhaps familiarity with the maxim itself. In the interpretation of both maxims one must keep their literary character in mind. They are half-philosophical statements in which observations on the affairs of daily life combine with practical conclusions to be drawn from them. The maxims themselves are hinted at, but are finally left to the reader or hearer. It would be wrong, and hardly in keeping with the sense of the SM, if one were to draw pessimistic conclusions from the situations described. The maxims are characterized by extreme realism, as is often the case in gnomic literature. But they do not intend the kind of pessimism that exclaims, "There is no purpose to it all!" In any event, the context demands that one interpret the maxims in relation to the theology of the SM. In this context one must take the maxims to refer to anxiety about the future. The sayings rightly observe that in so-called everyday life people have to deal with existence as it confronts them day by day. Thus the general concept of "future" resolves into its practical components of tomorrow and today. People are foolish to be concerned with tomorrow since, as vs 27 has shown, it is not under human control. Therefore, worrying about tomorrow is excluded, and along with it, anxiety about the future in general. This first conclusion, "from the more important to the less important" (a maiori ad minus), does not introduce anything new, but only reiterates what vss 27 and 30 have already said. This point clearly suggests a second conclusion. If, in fact, people have no power over the coming day, nevertheless they have power over the present. Today is always there, relentlessly confronting people with its "trouble" or "evil" (~ KaKla). 488 One must always overcome this trouble in the present if one wishes to attain tomorrow. It lies in the realm of human possibility to accomplish this, but it demands one's entire strength and vigilance. This kind of concern is commanded. The second conclusion is, therefore, e contrario, reversing the form of the first conclusion. The third conclusion is once again one "from the contrast" (e contra rio): if it is wrong to be anxious on account of the future, and particularly on account of tomorrow, then the right way to care for today is not by

being anxious (j.uptfJ-vav) but by seeking the kingdom and righteousness of God (vs 33) in the troubles of each day. This conclusion is in fact identical with the ethics of the SM as a whole. Thus the third proof presents a practical way of mastering the future: the future is a temporal concept that one may analyze into today and tomorrow. So long as one gazes anxiously at tomorrow-whose problems may neither be known nor overcome until tomorrow has become today-one fails to lay hold of the problems of today, which always confront one. Only if one is freed from this pointless anxiety can one concern oneself with today and its troubles. These troubles are always concrete necessities whose conquest lies in the realm of human possibility. For Jesus' disciple in the SM, the search for the kingdom and righteousness of God (vs 33) means freedom for the practical problems of the present. Such a possibility is opened up when the disciple of jesus seeks after the kingdom and righteousness of God in the face of the plagues of the present day. e. On Judging (7:1-5) 1 Do not pass judgment, in order that judgment not be passed on you. 2 For with whatever judgment you judge you will be judged, and with whatever measure you measure it will be measured to you. 3 Why is it that you see the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye, but you do not recognize the plank in your (own) eye? Or how is it that you can say to your 4 brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," but look!-the plank is in your eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly (enough) to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

488 Thus, rightly, Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, 65, who follows Chrysostom.

486

Bibliography B. Couroyer, "De Ia mesure dont vous mesurez il vous sera mesure," RB 77 (1970) 366-70. ]. Duncan M. Derrett, "Christ and Reproof (Matthew 7.1-5/Luke 6.37-42)," NTS 34 (1988) 271-81. GeorgeS. Hendry, "Judge Not: A Critical Test of Faith," Theology Today 40 (1983) 113-29.

Matthew 6:19-7:12

Engelbert Neuhausler, "Mit welchem MaBstab miBt Gott die Menschen? Deutung zweier Jesusspriiche," Bibel und Leben 11 (1970) 104-13. Piper, Wisdom, 36-44. Hans Peter Ruger, "Mit welchem MaB ihr meBt, wird euch gemessen werden," ZNW 60 (1969) 174-82. R. B. Y. Scott, "Weights and Measures of the Bible," Biblical Archaeologist 22 (1959) 22-40, esp. 29-32. Wrege, Bergpredigt, 124-31. Zeller, Mahnspriiche, 113-17.

1) Introduction

Heinrici's naming of the section as "the vivid apostrophe on self-deception" 489 appears justified, but the history of the interpretation of the passage reveals a great deal of uncertainty regarding the precise meaning. 490 Some determine the content by looking at vss 1-2, others by focusing on vss 3-5. Tolstoy thought that the social demand of abolishing the entire system of public justice is stated in these words, while Wellhausen, arguing against Tolstoy, thinks of a moral injunction against private judging that was much in vogue among Jews and Christians, an ugly vice to be rooted out from human fellowship. 491 Thus, determining the very content of the

passage depends to a large extent on the presuppositions with which one approaches it. Does the section concern itself with a commonplace, the exposure of a stupid habit ofpassingjudgment on one another? 492 Or is the point to be made the result of a longer argument? Plenty of evidence certainly substantiates the commonplace, 493 but even that evidence suggests that it is part of a more extended context. This context belongs to ethical education and growth in general, and in that context it concerns the need for correction of others as well as selfcorrection in particular. Thus, the question is not whether one should abandon judging altogether; rather, the point is that good judgment is a necessary element in human relations, and that exercising that good judgment is part of prudence. 4 94 In order to understand the passage, one must look at the argument made by it as a whole. This argument shows that the matter under consideration is that of fraternal correction within family and kinship. The Bible

489 Heinrici, Bergpredigt ( 1905 ), 81: "die lebhafte Apostrophe an die Selbsttauschung." 490 For the history of interpretation, see Beyschlag, "Geschichte," 313-20; Luz,Matthiius, 1.376-78 (MattMw, 1.414-15). 491 Wellhausen, Evangelium Matthaei, 30. 492 The matter is succinctly stated in Cicero Tusc. 3. 73: "For it is a peculiarity of folly to discern the faults of others and to be forgetful of its own" ("est enim proprium stultitiae aliorum vitiae cernere, oblivisci suorum"). The development of the topic in Cicero's De off. 1.146 about admonition and instructions (admonitio et praecepta) is also interesting: "For it happens somehow or other that we detect another's failings more readily than we do our own; and so in the school-room those pupils learn most easily to do better whose faults the masters mimic for the sake of correcting them" ("fit enim nescio quo modo, ut magis in aliis cernamus quam in nobismet ipsis, si quid delinquitur. Itaque facillime corriguntur in discendo, quorum vitia imitantur emendandi causa magistri"). Cited according to Cicero: De officiis (trans. Walter Miller; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1938) 148-49. 493 The commonplace of being an unfair judge of others has many parallels in Greek and Latin literature. See the poignant comment by Horace Sat. 1.3.25-29:

"When you survey your own errors, your eyes are watery as if inflamed; why, when you view the flaws of your friends, is your sight as keen as an eagle or as an Epidaurean serpent? But now it turns against you; they, too, in turn inquire about your faults" ("cum tua pervideas oculis mala lippus inunctis, cur in amicorum vitiis tam cernis acutum quam aut aquila aut serpens Epidaurius? at tibi contra evenit, inquirant vitia ut tua rursus et illi"). The text is cited according to Hans Farber, ed., Horaz: Siimtliche Werke (Tusculum-Biicherei; Munich: Heimaran, 1967); the trans. is mine. Plutarch (De curios. 1, 515D) shows that the topos belongs to the character of the "busybody" (7roA.v7rpayl-'wv), but Stobaeus (Anthol. 33 [vol. 3, pp. 596-60 1)) has put together parallels under the rubric 7r
487

mentions it first in the Holiness Code (Lev 19: 1 7), which relates it directly to the command to love one's neighbor: You are not to nurse hatred towards your brother. Reprove your fellow-countryman frankly, and so you will have no share in his guilt. Never seek revenge or cherish a grudge towards your kinsfolk; You must love your neighbour as yourself. I am the LORD. (REB) The LXX of vs 17 495 uses terminology derived from Greek philosophical tradition: l>.IyxHv and €A.~ybs ("exposure," "conviction," "reproof"). 496 Such fraternal correction was of obvious importance in school and education, especially in the Greek philosophical schools, 497 but it occurs as well in Jewish wisdom, 498 in Qumran, 499 in rabbinic literature, 500 and in early Christian literature. Impressive examples of fraternal correction come from the New Testament itself. 501 In the final analysis, such correction is identical with paraenesis itself. One must realize several important concerns from the inception: 1. The SM passage has no intention to eliminate

fraternal correction altogether, but to commend its proper usage. The dramatic and highly ironic manner in which the matter is presented draws attention to the dangers connected with the exercise of fraternal correction. 502 This also involves a necessary confrontation with the readers or hearers, presupposing that everyone is always and everywhere implicated in its use and abuse. This presupposition is simply a consequence of the general human foolishness assumed throughout the SM. In that way the conclusion is that the abuse of brotherly correction is the normal thing one expects, and that the proper use is the exception. 2. Different from the parallel in SP /Luke 6:41-42, the SM passage concerns fellow Jews ("brothers"), rather than fellow disciples. 503 One makes this inference from the context, since all sections in SM/Matt 6: 19-7:11 deal with the larger Jewish society, and only in that framework with the group of disciples immediately in focus. 3. The activity to which the SM addresses itself concerns individuals and involves criticism (critical discernment and exposure of flaws) as well as correction (removal of flaws by change of habit or opinion). 504

495 Lev 19:17 LXX: lAEYf-'ii> lA.!ytm rhv TrATJuiov uov, Kat oil A~f-'l/1!1 a, ' ailrhv b.f-'aprlav. The text is cited according to John W. Wevers, Leviticus (Septuaginta 11/2; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986). 496 For the usage of the terms, see Friedrich Biichsel, "lJI..!yxro KTA.," TDNT 2.473-76; BAGD, s.v. lAEyf-'6r

500

KTA.

497 For the beginnings see descriptions of Socrates' elenctic method in Plato Soph. 230b-c; Apol. 39c, and often. See B. Waldenfels, "Elenchus, Elenktik," HWPh 2.442-43. For the nature and purpose of elenctic in the Hellenistic period, see Epictetus Diss. 2.23.33-34; on correction of self and others, Diss. 2.16.44-45; also 1.26.17; 2.1.32-33; 2.14.20; 2.26.4; 3.9.13; 3.IO.ll; 2.14.9; Ench. 33.8-9; Seneca De ira 1.14.2; 1.15.1-16.7; 2.28.1-8; Plutarch De tranq. an. 8, 469B; etc. On the topic see also Hadot, Seneca, 65-66. 498 See esp. Wis 23:22: "So we are chastened by you, but you scourge our enemies ten thousand times more, so that we may lay your goodness to heart when we sit in judgment, and may hope for mercy when we ourselves are judged" (REB). For other passages see Chrysostome Larcher, Le livre de la sagesse ou la Sagesse de Salomon (3 vols.; Paris: Gabalda, 1983-85) 3.736-37; Zeller,Mahnspruche, 113-17. 499 The main texts are I QS 5.25-6.1; CD 9.2-4; 13.9-

488

501

502 503 504

10. See Braun, Radikalismus, 2.23-25, 86 n. 4; idem, Qumran, l.38-40;Joachim Gnilka, "Die Kirche des Matthaus und die Gemeinde von Qumran," BZ 7 (1963) 43-63; Frankemolle,Jahwebund, 226-4 7. See esp. 'Abot 1.6, a saying by Joshua b. Perai)yah: "Judge all men in the scale of merit," and Hillel: "Judge not your fellow man until you have come into his situation." The point is not equal, but favorable, judgment, because that is meritorious. For further references see Str-B 1.441-46; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 135-38. See esp. Matt 18:15-17//Luke I7:3;John 7:24, 51; also the story of the woman in 7:53-8:ll; Rom 2:13, 16, 17-29; 14:1-23; I Cor 4:1-5; 5:12-13; 6:1-3; 9:3;Jas 4: ll-12. On this point see also Gal 6: I; and Betz, Galatians, 295-98. Cf. below on SP /Luke 6:41-42. So also Matt 18:15: "Show him his fault while you are alone with him" (tAEytov ailrhv f-'Eratl.J uov Kat ailrov f-'Ovov).

Matthew 6:19-7:12

an antithetical parallelism (isocolon) with a chiastic structure; the second question (vs 4) contains an element of surprise (loo.S, "behold!"). The questions are designed not to elicit an answer but to disclose hypocritical behavior. Therefore, the conclusion (vs 5) bluntly turns on the addressed, calling him "you hypocrite," in order then to propose a rule for the proper conduct toward the brother. This rule is stated positively. The composition as a whole has a close parallel in SP/Luke 6:37-42. 511 Therefore, it comes from Q, albeit from different versions of Q, as indicated by the variations. Both passages have undergone some redactional changes at the presynaptic level, 512 so that one cannot simply take either of the versions to be identical with the "original" Q. 513 Further parallels in the New Testament and the extracanonical sources are evidence that the material in whatever form must have circulated widely, 514 while only the SM and the SP, and thus Q, contain the structured arguments before us. The arguments themselves, however, have parallels elsewhere in the New Testament, 515 but it is doubtful that they depend on our texts in the SM or the SP.51 6 One must assume, therefore, that the basic material circulated orally and emerged in written texts in a variety of forms. 51 7

Remarkably, public censure or social criticism of institutions is not under discussion. 505 If fraternal criticism is carried out properly, it is part of education. One of the indispensable conditions for engaging in fraternal correction properly understood is that it is preceded by self-criticism and self-correction. Persons who are unable or unwilling first to recognize and remove the plank in their own eyes are unqualified and even dangerous to the persons they may try to correct. 2)Analysis The section "On judging" (7:1-5) is a composition of sayings in two parts. First, an introductory exhortation is stated in the second person plural (vss 1-2); and second, a following argument in the diatribe style is stated in the second person singular (vss 3-5). The first part, 506 the introductory exhortation, begins with a moral maxim, a prohibition against passing judgment on others (vs 1). To this is added a double sentence (isocolon) providing a reason (y~p, "for") for the maxim in vs 1, the relationship being that of interpretation (interpretatio [vs 2]). 507 Actually, vs 2a and b present two quasi-legal principles, their terms being related by way of derivatio (variation of the word form): 508 Kplvnv, Kpt8iivat, Kplp.a (vss 1 and 2a), and p.ETpE"iv, p.
3) Interpretation • 1 The opening exhortation is a prohibition, taking the

form of a maxim: p.~ Kplv£n, Yva p.~ Kpt8fjn ("Do not pass judgment, in order that judgment not be passed on

505 Cf. John the Baptist and jesus criticizing the royal house, Luke 3:19; 13:31-33; also john 16:8:Jesus condemning the world; furthermore jude 15. 506 There is no indication of a connection with the previous section, but unquestionably SM/Matt 7:1 turns to a different matter. Many proposals have been made to explain the connection between the passages. See Tholuck, Bergrede, 438-39 (Commentary, 395-96). Association of ideas suggests that SM/Matt 6:25-34 is concerned with anxiety about oneself, 7:1-5 with anxiety about the other. A catchword connection could be by 7rpwTov "first" (6:33; 7:5), but all this is uncertain. 507 See Lausberg, Handbuch, 1, § 751. 508 Ibid., 1, § 1058, 1. 509 On this style see above, p. 466. 510 See also Tannehill, Sword ofHis Mouth, 114-18. 511 See below on this passage. 512 So also Strecker, Bergpredigt, 148 (Sermon, 143); Luz, Matthiius, 1.376 (Matthew, 1.413). 513 Strecker comes to a different conclusion (Bergpredigt, 14 7 [Sermon, 143: "The present version of the

514

515 516

517

Matthew text may come very close to the original Q tradition"]). See Mark 4:24-25; Matt 12:37; 1 Clem. 13.2; Polycarp Phil. 2.3;Justin Dial. 47.5; Codex NT 1424; P. Oxy. 1.1; Gos. Thom. log. 26. The texts are given in Aland, Synopsis, 93; Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, pp. 65 and 118; Straker, Extracanonical Sayings, 134-35; Kloppenborg, QParallels, 32-36. Cf. also Gal6:1; 1 Cor 4:4; 5:12-13; 6:1-8; Rom 2:1-3; 14:1-23;Jas 4:11-12; 5:9; Ps.-Clem. Diam. 2.2. Regarding the section Matt 18:1-20, influence by the SM is certain. The question is only whether this influence occurred in the pre-Matthean tradition or as the result of the evangelist Matthew's redaction. Within the SM, see the Beatitudes in 5:3-12; the selfdefinitions in 5:13-16; the antitheses in 5:21-48; and the rule of6:14-16.

489

you"). In the present context, the prohibition is meant to function as a maxim, its content being general, not specific. 518 The principle on which it is based is the Golden Rule (7: 12). The maxim is, therefore, a rule of prudence, so that one should avoid taking the second part exclusively as an eschatological consequence. 519 One should recognize, however, that in other contexts one could interpret it eschatologically. The imperative in vs 1a implies the observation that in ordinary life people are relentlessly preoccupied with what is prohibited: passing judgment on one another. This habit involves everything from mere gossip 520 to community regulations 521 to court actions. 522 The habit of passing judgment on others also involves a mechanism of tit for tat. The kind of judgment one passes on others comes back to the person who started it. Gossipers become targets of gossip; critics must face being criticized, and so forth. The prudent person, so goes the advice, will break the vicious cycle by withholding such judgment because the same mechanism will work in the reverse direction as well. Restraint will motivate others to exercise equal restraint. This reciprocity implies that the verb Kplvuv ("pass judgment") 523 is taken as negative and destructive conduct. Thus no demand is made here to stop judges in court from delivering honest and fair verdicts, or to advise against professionals evaluating the work of other professionals. The context clearly implies that Kplvuv refers to the perpetual human obsession to criticize and correct the behavior of other people, in particular those with whom one is closely associated and whom one

regards as "brothers" (vss 3-5). What is wrong with passing judgment in this manner? It is true that human conduct inevitably involves taking the measure of each other; in this way human society establishes place, rank, affiliation, and rewards. This allpenetrating activity is the way human individuals identify themselves and their place in family, group, or society. This activity is acknowledged by the saying, but it is not condemned; it is observed as part oflife. What is criticized, then, is the degeneration of this process. This happens when a person denigrates another by harsh and unfair criticism, with a lack of sympathy and understanding, if not a pathological delight. In doing so, people put themselves into the role of judges, working themselves up into a position of "holier than thou." 5 2 4 Once this habit takes hold, pedantry and selfrighteousness become the norm. Any person indulging in such conduct becomes an irritant for everyone else. Self-righteousness, lack of mercy and compassion, and antisocial destructiveness are attitudes that are incompatible with the ethics of the SM. 5 2 5 • 2 The double sentence in vs 2 provides a reason for the maxim of vs 1. There are actually two parallel statements, the first of which (vs 2a) connects directly· with the previous sentence: ~v c!J yttp Kplp.an KpLvf.n, Kpt8~!Tf.u(Jf. ("For with whatever judgment you judge you will be judged"). The statement is a principle oflaw, an application of the "law of equal retribution" (ius talionis) and a reminder to judges. 5 2 6 Two issues are at stake. First, justice requires that before the law all are equal, so that even judges must be judged by the same law that

5I8 The question of specificity was soon raised in the 522 See also I Cor 6:I-8 and the exegetical literature on exegetical tradition; see Luz, Matthiius, I.376-78 this text. (Matthew, l.414-I5), fbr some interesting examples. 523 See the lexica, esp. Friedrich Biichsel and Volkmar 519 Strecker argues differently (Bergpredigt, I48-49 Herntrich, "Kplvw KTA.," TDNT 3.92I-54. [Sermon, I43-44]) as does Luz (Matthiius, 1.378-79 524 Typical characters are the Pharisee in Luke I8:9-I4, [Matthew, l.4I6]); both see the prohibition as or the older brother in Luke I5:25-32. motivated by the imminent coming of the kingdom 525 See SM/Matt 5:2I-48, the antitheses. of God. For Strecker, the Yva-sentence in vs I b points 526 On the ius talionis see above on SM/Matt 5:38-42. to the last judgment. 520 Cf. KaTaXaXilv, Kara)\a)\[a, etc., in Rom I :30; 2 Cor I2:20;Jas 4:II; I Pet 2:1, I2; 3:I6. For the opposite seetheadmonitionsinRom I2:9-2I; I3:8; I4:II5:6; Gai5:I3, 26; 6:2; Phil2:3; I Thess 3:I2; 4:9, I8; 5:II, I5; Eph 4:2, 25, 32; Coi3:I3;Jas 5:9, I6; etc. 52 I See, e.g., Matt I8:I5-20; Acts 5:I-ll;John 7:538:11; I Cor5:I-I3;Jas4:II-I2.

490

Matthew 6:19-7:12

they administer. Second, judging others always leads to some kind of "verdict" (Kplp.a). 5 2 7 One must base this verdict on standards of justice in order to be just. 5 2 8 Issuing such a verdict, therefore, raises the question of competence. Who is knowledgeable and authorized to issue verdicts? This is certainly a difficult question. Experience tells us that verdicts, once they are issued, have a tendency of coming back on the one who issued them. Judges, therefore, must be specially protected against this mechanism. Within the context of the SM, a future tense as in Kpt8~u£u6£ ("you will be judged") also has an eschatological perspective. 529 This is not automatically so, but in the SM one is certainly to assume it. Thus the ius talionis is also applied eschatologically; in this regard one finds the next parallels in the Beatitudes (5:5, 7, 9, especially). Verse 2b adds another rule, further interpreting the preceding one. Any verdict, in order to be rendered, must be based on the standards of justice: Kat tv ciJ p.€Tpl{) JJ.€Tp€LU JJ.€Tp7]6~U£Tal vp.l.v 530 ("and with whatever measure you measure it will be measured to you"). This principle involves a number of issues. It is a definition of

justice that defines it as reciprocity. The rule is general, but one can apply it concretely. As such, it is a rule of business stipulating that the same instruments for measuring (To p.€Tpov) must be used for all business transactions. 531 Hence justice requires the standardization of measures and weights. In the present context, "the measure" refers to ethical standards. 532 Consequently, whatever the measure is by which we evaluate others, justice demands that we must be judged by the same yardstick. Eschatologically speaking, in the last judgment God will do the same thing. 533 This doctrine is also known as divine "impartiality." 534 Moreover, because we know that the principle states God's standard, we should also adopt it. That is, if God's generosity and mercy are his yardstick, by which he measures us, we are as human beings under obligation, and we are also advised in the name of prudence, to do the same. 53 5 The question of the right measure was discussed widely in Greek ethics as well, but the SM does not explicitly consider 536 the topic of p.hpov llptuTov ("the best measure") 537 or the homo-mensura ("the human being is the measure") principle. 538

527 The term Kpip.a ("verdict") is used here in a general sense; see BAGD, s.v. Kpip.a, 6. 528 For the connection between verdict and justice see also 1 Clem. 12.1-3. 529 Cf. the future tenses in SM/Matt 5:5, 6, 7, 9, 25, 29; 6:7, 9, 10, 33; 7:1, 2, 7, 19. Cf. also Str-B 1.443. 530 0 0233 j1 3 alit vgci Ath Cyr read cwnp.£TP~•urat ("will be measured in return"), a secondary clarification that is perhaps based on the parallel in SP /Luke 6:38; cf. Polycarp Phil. 2.3. 531 On this aspect see B. Couroyer, "De Ia mesure dont vous mesurez il vous sera mesure," RB 77 (1970) 366-70 (with interesting parallels). Accordingly, the point is precision: a stick (uKvTa)\:'1) was used to make sure the grain-measure vessel was neither overflowing nor partly empty. If so, vs 2b would say the opposite of SP /Luke 6:38. 532 This understanding had been traditional in judaism since the OT. Hans Peter Ruger ("Mit welchem MaB ihr meBt, wird euch gemessen werden," ZNW 69 [1960)174-82) presents the evidence for the jewish dictum, "With what measure a man measures it will be measured to him" (m. Sofa 1.7). The underlying principle is clearly the ius talionis (law of retribution). See also Str-B 1.444-46; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 136-37. 533 Ruger ("Mit welchem MaB," 177, 182) has tried to

534

535

536

537 538

show that the eschatological interpretation preceded rabbinic theology in the Targums. Against this assumption see Peter Kuhn, Oifenbarungsstimmen im antiken judentum: Untersuchungen zur Bat Qol und verwandten Phiinomenen (TSAJ 20; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck), 1989) 224 n. 72. See Mark 12:14 par.; Acts 10:34; Gal 2:6; Rom 2:11; Col 3:25; Eph 6:9; Jas 2:1, 9; 1 Pet 1:17. See also Betz, Galatians, 94-95. Engelbert Neuhausler ("Mit welchem MaBstab miBt Gott die Menschen? Deutung zweier Jesusspruche," Bibel und Leben 11 [1970)104-13) points out that passages like Mark 4:24; Luke 6:38: 1 Clem. 13.2; and Polycarp Phil. 2.3 emphasize the abundance of the divine gift as the standard. See Kurt Deissner, "p.f.Tpov KTA.," TDNT 4.632-34; Wilhelm Pesch, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s. v. p.f.Tpov; and BAGD, s.v. p.f.Tpov. See H. Ottmann, "MaB," HWPh 5.807-11, with references and bibliography. See Protagoras frg. 1 (Diels-Kranz, 80 B 1 [II, 263)); Plato Theaet. 151e; 152a; Leg. 4, 716c; Prot. 343b; Charmides 164d. See Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, 3.181-92.

491

• 3 The argument in vss 3-5 reveals that the exhortations ofvss 1-2 do not stand alone but that they are part of the overarching ethical theme of the criticism of oneself and others. The argument begins with two observations of actual practice: the pedantry characteristic of the criticism of others, and the concurrent generosity toward oneself in forgetting about self-criticism. The stark discrepancy between these two issues is brought out by the question confronting the hearers or readers: Tl a( {3A.€-rrus To Kapcpos TO lv Tij> ocp6aA.p.fi> TOV Cta€A.cpov uov, T~V a( lv Tij> uii> ocp6all.p.(i> aoKOV oil KaTaVO€t<;;5 39 ("Why is it that you see

the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye, but you do not recognize the plank that is in your [own] eye?"). The speck refers to a tiny chip of wood or straw (Kcipcpos), 540 whereas the "plank" (aoKOs) has in mind a large object, larger than the eye itself. 541 This terminology is interesting because it operates on two levels. On the surface, these are strangely exaggerated images. The other, deeper level has to do with the functioning of the eye. According to ancient views, looking into someone else's eyes was considered (it still is!) an important method for discovering who the other person is. Such eye contact establishes the beginnings of a relationship between persons. 54 2 At the same time another person's eyes were believed to contain mirror images of the beholder. 543 Therefore, then as now people friendly with each other communicate by looking into their eyes, exchanging nonverbal messages followed up by actions; all this is in confirmation of their relationship of trust.

The same method, however, serves to criticize the other. Whatever flaws a person may have, their degree of severity is revealed by a look into the eyes. The speck and the plank are therefore images indicating presumed flaws of character and behavior. Human nature, being what it is, tends to exaggerate the flaws of others and to overlook one's own flaws. This is true especially among relatives and friends. The term aa£A.cp&s ("brother") stood already in Q, but the SM and the SP differ in interpretation. In the SP, "brother" refers to the fellow student as insider, 544 whereas in the SM the term identifies the fellow-Jew who is an outsider of the group of disciples. 545 The verbs are also telling: criticizing the other takes a mere look from the outside ({3A.€-rruv), 546 while perceiving one's own flaws requires deeper self-recognition (KaTavo£"i'v). 54 7 This passage is, therefore, another instance confirming the importance of vision for the SM. 548 The person who is unable or unwilling to see his or her flaws lacks self-criticism and is, for this reason, declared incompetent to criticize another. The form of question confronts the hearer or reader inescapably with the discrepancy between claim and reality; it requires no answer but the consent that things are regrettably so. • 4 From criticism (vs 3) the SM turns to correction (vs 4): ~ 'TrW<; €p€t<; Tij> aa€A.cpfi> uov· li.cp€<; fK{3aA.w TO Kcipcpo<; fK TOV ocp6aA.p.ov uov, Ka~ laov .q aoKO<; lv Tij> ocp6aA.p.fi> uov; 549

("And how is it that you can say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck of sawdust out of your eye,' but look!the plank is in your eye?"). We recognize the dramatic climax in the scene that is emerging before our eyes.

539 The change in word order in M* 0233 pc harmonizes Heb 3:1; 10:34;Jas 1:23-24. In the SM it occurs only the text with the parallel in SP/Luke 6:41. in 7:3/ /SP/Luke 6:41-42; P. Oxy. 1.1. 540 The term occurs only in SM/Matt 7:3-5//SP /Luke 548 See above on SM/Matt 5:8, 28, 29, 38; 6:22-23, 26, 6:41-42;P. Oxy. 1.1. See BAGD, s.v. K6.pcfw~. 38. 541 The term occurs only in the passages named in n. 549 M* 8 0233. 700 !at mae read A.€ym instead of lpfl~, both meaning "you say"; it is probably a harmoni540. 542 For love relationships see SM/Matt 5:28; furtherzation with SP /Luke 6:42. For the same reason, M vgmss (sam•) insert O.afA.cp€ ("brother"). The preposition more, Luke 4:20; 22:56; Acts 3:4, 12; 6:15; 10:4; 11:6; 13:9; 14:9; 23:1; etc. awJ instead of fK, both meaning "from," is preferred 543 The ideas are also found inJas 1:22-25; cf. also by W 8 1006. 1342 (E G ~ 346. 565. 579. 700) :ut, above on SM/Matt 6:22-23. perhaps for stylistic reasons or because of the 544 See below on SP /Luke 6:41-42. assumption that the speck is located on the surface of 545 See above on SM/Matt 5:22-24, 47. the eye, not in the interior of the organ. 546 For this term see also SM/Matt 5:28; it is used of God in 6:4, 6, 18; cf. 7:5: ata{3Af'7mV; 6:26: £p.{3Af'TrfLV. 54 7 The term KaTavoflv is almost technical in connection with self-cognition; see, e.g., Acts 11 :6; Rom 4: 19;

492

Matthew 6:19-7:12

The person in focus now steps up to the brother, addressing him directly while moving into action. The word "Let me" (&cpH) 550 seems to anticipate a selfprotecting gesture so as to keep off the all-too eager helper. Then the dialogue ends abruptly: "but look!" The exclamation turns the attention to the eye of the helper, and to the large plank in it. The point made is analogous to vs 3. There is this absurd discrepancy between the readiness to correct the other's minor flaws and the failure to perceive one's own major failures. • 5 The direct address draws the conclusion and spells out what vss 3-4 had already suggested: V7TOKpm'z, ~K{jaA.f. 7TpWTOV fK TOV ocp8aA.p.ov ITOV T~V SoKov, KaL TOTf. Sta{jA.b/ms ~K(jaA.e'iv TO Kapcpos ~K TOV ocp8aA.p.ov TOV aaf.A.cpov uov 551

("You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly [enough] to take the speck out of your brother's eye"). The address "you hypocrite" 552 catches the readers by surprise and tells them rather bluntly that being a disciple of jesus does not make one any different from other people. Also the disciple of Jesus is obsessed with criticizing and correcting others while failing in one's own self-criticism and correction. The correct procedure is then finally stated as a rule: first comes the removal of the plank from one's own eye, which can be done if selfcriticism has prepared the ground. Only then is one able to "see clearly" (Sta{jA.£7Tf.tv) 553 and thus to evaluate and correct others properly. Returning to the beginning of the argument, the rule implies that judging others is not as such a bad thing, but to do it rightly one must keep the proper procedures in

mind. This requirement is indispensable because on it rests justice and fairness. All of the argument is based on the Golden Rule, and because of this criticism and correction of others it can be recommended as prudence. f. On Profaning the Holy (7:6) 6 "Do not give what is holy to the dogs, or throw your pearls before the pigs, so that they will not trample on them with their feet, and turn around and tear you apart." Bibliography

Jan Hjarpe, "'Parlor at svin.' Ett 'Jesusord' i arabisk tradition," SEA 36 (1972) 126-35. Joachim Jeremias, "Matthaus 7,6a," in his Abba, 83-87. Hermann von Lips, "Schweine fiittert man, Hunde nicht-ein Versuch, das Ratsel von Matthaus 7,6 zu losen," ZNW 79 (1988) 165-86. P. G. Maxwell-Steward, "'Do not give what is holy to the dogs' (Mt 7:6)," ExpT 90 (1978/79) 341. Felix Perles, "Zur Erklarung von Mt 7:6," ZNW 25 (1926) 163-64. Gunther Schwarz, "Matthaus vii 6a: Emendation und Riickiibersetzung," NovT 14 (1972) 18-25. Zeller,Mahnspruche, 137-39. 1) Introduction

The saying in 7:6 has always been known for its obscurity. The first question, therefore, should be whether this obscurity is intended or unintended. If it is unintended, those scholars could be right who assume that a meaning that once was clear became obscured by misunderstanding or mistranslating. 554 Following many

550 On the usage of the imperative of l:up{1Jp.• see BDF § Plato, often used in connection with vision theories. 364, 1-2; BDR § 364, 1-2. See LSJ, s.v.; BAGD, s.v.; PGL, s.v. li•a{31l.f.11w (with 551 L W 8 jl· 13 33. 892. 1006. 1342 1506 9Jllatt change reference to Origen In Matth. 11.14, p. 58, 6; PG the word order to the same in SP /Luke 6:42 and P. 13.949B). Oxy. 1.1. The Nestle-Aland text is supported by M B 554 According to Tholuck (Bergrede, 449 [Commentary, cv;d; being less elegant, it is to be preferred, but the 405]), the theories about false translation begin with other word order may be that of Q. Johann David Michaelis, Einleitung in die gottlichen 552 The term is applied here to the insiders; cf. SM/Matt Schriften des Neuen Bundes (4th ed.; 2 vols.; Gottingen: 6:2, 5, 16, where it refers to outsiders. The difVandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1788) 1.149. In fact, ference points to different sources. Since SP/Luke Johann Adrian Bolten (Der Bericht des Matthiius von 6:42 has it also, this usage must go back to Q, while jesu dem Messia [Altona: Kaven, I 792]119-20) was SM/Matt 6:1-18 with its different usage was not in the first who took TO i:f.y1ov ("the holy") to be a false rendering of Mlf'"Jj?, meaning "amulet," specifically Q. 553 Apart from our passage and its parallels in SP /Luke "earring." Bolten was followed by Eichhorn, Bertold, 6:42 and P. Oxy. 1.1, li•a{3)oirmv occurs also in Mark Kuinol, and Tholuck, the last referring also to the 8:25, the Healing of the Blind Man at Bethsaida. The much-debated passages Isa 3:20 and Prov 11:22. See term may be technical as in Greek philosophy since Felix Perles, "Zur Erklarung von Mt 7:6," ZNW 25 493

predecessorsJoachimJeremias 555 and Gunther Schwarz recently affirmed this latter view. 556 The strange fact is, however, that in the history of interpretation the saying was always thought to be applicable, that is, those who thought they knew what the images and metaphors refer to took the saying to be clear. 557 In the light of this history of interpretation, the attempts at "retranslation" into Aramaic and thus "recovery" of the original meaning appear artificial. These attempts do away with the Greek text as preserved and "reconstruct" a hypothetical Aramaic source that reveals banalities. By contrast, Strecker 558 recognizes the original obscurity of the saying. According to him, Matthew found the saying in his Q-material (QMatt) or as an isolated saying; he gave it some sense by making it the conclusion of the section vss 1-5. Strecker is unable to explain, however, what this statement would add to the rather straightforward argument in vss 1-5. Saying it is "drastic" is not an explanation of the meaning. There is no indication that vs 6 speaks of excommunication or church discipline. Strecker's interpretation is apparently also influenced by the later church fathers. The fact remains that vs 6 has little connection with vss 1-5. Luz holds the opposite view. Unable to discover any presynaptic meaning of the saying of vs 6, he also despairs of finding out what Matthew may have made of it. Remarkably, Luz states: "I am taking the liberty of not

interpreting the logion in the Matthean context. Matthew was a conservative author; he toqk this logion over because of his loyalty to the tradition simply because he found it in his copy of Q."559 In my view, the position of the saying in the history of transmission speaks in favor of having been part of the pre-Matthean SM. 560 In this context, the sentence had a meaning, which Matthew himself may or may not have understood; he took it over together with the rest of the SM. Since he never refers to the saying again in his Gospel, it may have been as mysterious to him as it is to us. What are the alternatives? It is conceivable that the saying refers obliquely to the SM itself, admonishing the hearers or readers to keep the document secret. By publishing his Gospel, however, the evangelist made the SM public together with the saying, perhaps because by the time of Matthew the reasons for the secrecy had disappeared. As these positions indicate, there is at present no consensus about the original text, the original meaning, the source, and the origins of the later interpretations given to the saying. Rather than taking refuge in a nonattested Aramaic primary source (Urtext) or giving up interpretation altogether, I make a cautious attempt in the following to determine its meaning. First I must state some methodological presuppositions. 1. Since only the Greek text is extant, the Greek text

(1 926) 163-64; Arnold Meyer,jesu Muttersprache (Freiburg and Leipzig: Mohr [Siebeck), 1896) 80-81, 108: Black, Approach, 200-202. 555 Joachim Jeremias ("Matthaus 7, 6a," in his Abba, 8387) thinks the original Aramaic was KW"lj' meaning the "nose ring" and arrives at the translation: "Do not put nose rings on the dogs, nor hang your pearls on the snouts of pigs" (my trans.). The sentence would intentionally use absurdities such as Prov 11:22 (NRSV): "Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a beautiful woman without sense." The meaning of SM/Matt 7:6, however, remains obscure, while Prov 11:22 is clear. 556 Gunther Schwarz, "Matthaus vii 6a: Emendation und Ruckubersetzung," NovT 14 (1 972) 18-25; idem, "Und jesus sprach," 236-44. Intending to improve on Jeremias, he arrives at this translation (244): "Your earrings, don't put them on dogs, and your necklaces, don't hang them on pigs." What does Schwarz think the saying means? It is supposed to be advice given to women disciples about what not to do with their jewelry. Women disciples, however, are never

494

addressed by the SM. 557 For references regarding the history of interpretation, see Beyschlag, "Geschichte," 301 n. 49; Luz, Matthiius, 1.382 (Matthew, 1.41 9-20). 558 Strecker (Bergpredigt, 151-53 [Sermon, 146-48)) mostly follows Bengel, Gnomon, ad Joe. 559 Luz, Matthiius, 1.382 (Matthew, 1.419), according to my trans. Andreas Lindemann ("Erwagungen zum Problem einer 'Theologie der synoptischen Evangelien,"' ZNW 77 [1 986)1-33, 25 n. 97) points out that Luz's handling of the passage is inconsistent with his own hypothesis that Matthew composed the SM. 560 Luz (Matthiius, 1.381 [Matthew, 1.41 9)) also assumes a Jewish-Christian origin of the saying.

Matthew 6:19-7:12

must be the basis of the interpretation, and not a hypothetical Aramaic source, which, if it ever existed, has disappeared without a trace. 2. The present context suggests that vss 6-11 are connected by terms for "giving" (olowp.L). The connection with vss 1-5 may also be by catchword (cf. £K{3aA.A.w, 7:4, 5; {3aAA.w, 7:6). 3. The literary genre ofvs 6 may be related to the riddle, but riddles are or imply questions to be figured out. 561 Its purpose is to let the hearer or reader guess what the meaning is. 56 2 More likely, vs 6 is an esoteric saying that the uninformed will never be able to figure out. Finding the explanation is not a matter of natural intelligence but of initiation into secrets. The decision which option is before us depends on the context as well as on the content. Both context and content suggest that the saying conveys something serious; it is not one of the playful riddles that occur in wisdom literature, usually in the company of other such sayings. That vs 6 is isolated and that its content involves some "sacred.object" (ro liyLov) speaks in favor of some message of importance. 563 4. The cryptic phrases "giving away the holy" or "throwing away the pearls" presuppose that those to

whom the saying was first addressed knew what these terms meant. In other words, we are dealing with some kind of secret (arcanum). Indeed, the language reminds us of arcane teaching (Arkandisziplin) as it was used in the Greek mystery religions and in philosophy. 564 As Christoph Riedweg 565 has pointed out, mystery-cult language used metaphorically had invaded judaism by the time of the New Testament; in particular Philo of Alexandria employed it to justify his allegorical interpretations of the Bible. 566 Philo also alluded to the oath that the initiates of the mysteries had to swear to protect the sacred tradition by not revealing its myths, formulae, rituals, and symbols to uninitiated outsiders. Similarly, the Greek Magical Papyri contain numerous exhortations to keep the magic secret. 56 7 Heinrici called attention long ago to the practice of some philosophers not to reveal their teaching to uneducated and unappreciative outsiders. He mentions the anecdote about Bias, 568 the rule attributed to Heracleitus, 569 and the Pythagoreans, concerning whom sayings collections contain several sayings similar to Matt

561 See Harry Torczyner, "The Riddle in the Bible," HUCA 1 (1924) 125-49;James L. Crenshaw, "Riddles," ABD 5.721-23; Lausberg, Elemente, 140 (§ 423). 562 See, e.g., Job 38:3-4; T.job 37-38 (OTP 1.857-58). 563 This point would be even clearer if the original proverbial expression meant "something valuable" instead of something "holy." P. G. Maxwell-Stewart ("'Do not give what is holy to the dogs' [Mt 7 :6]," ExpT 90 [1978/79] 341) refers to a warning to youths about sycophants in Philostratus Vita Apoll. 6.36: "nay you are forced to shower your wealth upon them and cast your gold before them, as you scatter tit-bits before dogs" (a;>,.A' i1ravrl\iiv XP~ rwv 8vrwv, "at 7rpo{36.AAELv aVro'ts rO XPVulov, CiJu7Tf.P rlt JJ.fiALyp.ara ro!~ KV
Sobr. 6; Mut. nom. 44; furthermore Apuleius Apologia 53-56. 567 See PGM IV.733-50; IV.2512; XII.322; XII!: 763; for further passages and discussion see Betz, Hellenismus und Urchristentum, 180-81. 568 Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1905), 82-83, refers to Diog. L. 1.86: "When an impious man asked him to define piety, he was silent; and when the other inquired the reason, 'I am silent,' he replied, 'because you are asking questions about what does not concern you'" (fpwr7J8E'r.s V1rh G.uE{3oVs U.v8pC:nrov rl7Torf furtv d.)(ri{3oa, f:ulya. roV 0~ r1}v alrlav rijs utyijs 7Tv8op.£vov, "o-Lw?TW," f7], "C1rt 7TEp'i. rWv oVOfv uo1. 7rpOU1JK0vrwv ?rvvlld.vy"). Text and trans. according to the LCL edition, Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers (trans. R. D. Hicks; reprinted London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1966) 1.8889. 569 According to Plutarch Corio/. 38.4: "But most of the Deity's Powers, as Heracleitus says, 'escape our knowledge through incredulity'"(al\l\a rwv p.ev ll•iwv ra 7rOAAJ., Kali' 'HpJ.KAftTOV, a?rVyyJ.vfl p.~ y
495

7:6. 570 The recent debate about esoteric teachings of Plato and his lecture "On the Good" merit mention as well. 571 Heinrici also connects Matt 7:6 with proverbial expressions, so-called absurdities (absurda), such as Prov 11:22, Phaedrus's fable about the chicken and the pearl (Fab. 3.12), or short oxymorons like lfvos "Avpas (aKpoaT~s) ("Ass listener of the lyra"). 57 2 If the SM and its saying in 7:6 stand in this tradition in any way, it would mean that the SM refers to arcane teachings (arcana). What conclusions can one draw from this hypothesis? Does the term TO Cl.ytov ("the holy") refer to a specific matter or a collective one? If something specific, the "holy" could be a ritual, while the "pearls" could refer to a collection of sayings. If collective, the terms could refer to the same things. Although one cannot reach a firm conclusion, it is more likely that the terms have specific things in mind. If so, "the holy" could be the Eucharist, while "the pearls" are teachings. This possibility could

explain why no sacrament is mentioned in the SM, and also how the SM was relating itself to teaching materials other than itself. Since it is a manual for disciples, however, vs 6 could well be self-referential, reminding the hearers and readers to keep the SM away from the uninitiated crowds. Then "the holy" could refer to the teaching of jesus as a whole, while "the pearls" would refer to the string of sayings contained in the SM. Originally, then, the SM was meant to be insiders' literature, not to be divulged to the uninitiated outsiders. 573 But one should remember that these are possibilities, nomore. · 2) Analysis The cryptic sentence is formulated as a parallelism of two lines (isocolon); this pertains at least to the first half of the sentence (vs 6a). The two imperatives are stated negatively as prohibitions in the second person plural. Verse 6b is a statement of purpose, the purpose being preventive. The verbs describe the behavior of the animals, using chiasm. The first verb refers to the pigs

570 According to Aristotle frg. 192: I"~ £iva• wpor wc:l.vrar see Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, 5.418-42. See wc:I.VTa p1Jrc:l. ("Not all things are to be told to all also Thomas A. Szlesak, Platon und die Schriftlichkeit der Philosophie: Interpretationen zu den frahen und people"). Cf. also Iamblichus Vita Pyth. 31; Diog. L. 8.15; Sextus Sent. 350-54: "Do not talk about God mittleren Dialogen (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, with everyone. It is not safe for those corrupted by 1985). fame to hear about God. To speak even the truth 572 Heinrici calls attention to collections of proverbs. See about God involves no small risk. Say nothing about Ernst L. Leutsch and Friedrich W. Schneidewin, God which you have not learned from God. Say Cwpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum (3 vols.; nothing about God to the godless" (trans. Richard A. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1839, 1851, Edwards and Robert A. Wild, The Sentences ofSextus 1887) index, s.v. K-Doov,llr; Hans Walther, Proverbia [SBLTT 22; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1981] 59). Cf. sententiaeque latinitatis medii aevi; Lateinische Sprichalso Heinrich Schenkl, "Pythagoreerspnlche in einer worter und Sentenzen des Mittelalters in alphabetischer Wiener Handschrift," WS 8 (1986) 262-81, esp. 272 Anordnung (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, no. 55. ·1963-67) 1.262-63, s.v. canis; 5.230-32, s.v. sus. Another saying uses absurdity to make the point: 573 Remarkably, Elchasai used the same language a'ITlov £lr lz,.l~a I"~ ll"fJc:l.>o.>o.nv, which Plutarch inter(according to Hippolytus Ref. 9.17.1): "Inasmuch as prets in this way (Lib. educ. 1 7, p. 12F, trans. Frank he considers that it would be an insult to reason that C. Babbitt, LCL edition of Plutarch's Moralia these great and ineffable mysteries should be [London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard trampled under foot or that they should be handed University, 1927]1.61): "'Do not put food into a down to many, he advises that they should be slop-pail' signifies that it is not fitting to put clever preserved as valuable pearls saying this: Do not read this word to all men and guard carefully these speech into a base mind. For speech is the food of thought, and baseness in men makes it unclean." precepts because all men are not faithful nor are all women straightforward." Text and trans. are cited Ibid., 12E: "'Do not give your hand to everybody,' instead of, 'Do not make friends too easily.'" On the according to A. F.J. Klijn and G.J. Reinink, Patristic Pythagoreans see Walter Burkert, Lore and Science in Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects (NovTSup 36; Ancient Pythagoreanism (trans. Edwin L. Minar; Leiden: Brill, 1973) 120-21; cf. also NTApoc 2. 7'50; NTApok 2.623. Epiphanius (Adv. haer. 19.4.3) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1972) 17879,219-20,454-55. transmits a secret saying by Elchasai that turns out to 571 See Konrad Gaiser, Platons ungeschriebene Lehre (2d be an Aramaic palindrome transcribed into Greek; the translation that Epiphanius (19.4.4) provides, ed.; Stuttgart: Klett, 1968); for a survey of the debate

496

Matthew 6:19-7:12

("trampling down"), and the two following verbs ("turn around and tear up") focus on what the dogs are doing. The objects are also different: "them" and "you." Verse 6b narrates some sort of story, but what the story is about remains obscure. The saying is found only in the SM. No parallels occur elsewhere in the New Testament, but Did. 9.5 cites. the first part as applying to the exclusion of people not baptized from the celebration of the Eucharist (cf. also Did. I 0:6): Let no one eat or drink from your eucharistic meal, but (only) those who were baptized in the name of the Lord; and about this matter the Lord said, "Do not give the holy to the dogs." I-'7JIJftS /Jt rijs evxaptur{as Vp.Wv, &A.A.' or {3a7TTI.cr6fvr£~ c:ls- 8vop.a Kvplov· Ka't 7TEp't roVrov ErP7lK£V 0 K{,pLOS'" M~ arorE rh Hytov TOLS' KVuL Whether the Didache here reveals the original meaning of the saying or a secondary interpretation is uncertain; both possibilities are conceivable. 57 4 Strecker 5 7 5 has called attention to the peculiar interpretation of Matt 7:6 in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions. In Rec. 2.3, Peter, after inquiring about the heretic Simon, cautions against circulating the doctrine among the unworthy: For if we have it in charge, that when we enter into a city we should first learn who in it is worthy, 576 that we may eat with him, how much is it proper for us to ascertain who or what sort of man he is to whom the words of immortality are to be committed! For we ought to be careful, that we cast not our pearls before swine. 5 77

574 575 576

577

In a similar context Peter deals with Simon and his ilk inRec. 3.1.2: Nothing is more difficult, my brethren, than to reason concerning the truth in the presence of a mixed multitude of people. For that which is may not be spoken to all as it is, on account of those who hear wickedly and treacherously; yet it is not proper to deceive, on account of those who desire to hear the truth sincerely. 57 B Thinking of Simon Magus, a code name for the apostle Paul throughout the Pseudo-Clementines, Peter then develops an interesting policy for the Christian teacher: How, then, shall he instruct those who are worthy? But if he set forth pure truth to those who do not desire to obtain salvation, he does injury to Him by whom he has been sent, and from whom he has received commandment not to throw pearls of His words before swine and dogs, who, striving against them with arguments and sophisms, roll them in the mud of carnal understanding, and by their barkings and base answers break and weary the preachers of God's word. Wherefore I also, for the most part, by using a certain circumlocution, endeavor to avoid publishing the chief knowledge concerning the Supreme Divinity to unworthy ears. 579

however, is unrelated to it and may simply be magis qualisve sit is cui inmortalitatis verba credenda another saying. See Klijn and Reinink, Patristic sunt! solliciti enim et val de solliciti de bemus, ne margaritas nostras mittamus ante porcos." The trans. Evidence, 158-59; NTApoc 2. 750; NTApok 2.623; given in the text above is by Thomas Smith, ed. M. B. Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelation of Elchasai Riddle, Ante-Nicene Fathers 8 (1886; reprinted (TSAJ 8; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1985) 50-51, 124-25. Cf. also the Mandaean Ginza R. VII (ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951) 97-98. Mark Lidzbarski, p. 230, line 30): "The words of the 578 Ps.-Ciem. Rec. 3.1.2-3: "Nihil est difficilius, fratres wise to the foolish are as pearls to a sow." The trans. mei, quam de veritate apud permixti populi is according to Bultmann, History, I 03 n. 2. multitudinem disputare. quod enim est, omnibus ut Massaux (Influence, 618) and Kohler (Rezeption, 36est dici non licet propter eos qui maligne et insidiose 3 7) argue differently. audiunt; fallere vera non expedit propter eos qui Strecker, Bergpredigt, 152 (Sermon, 147). sincere audire desiderant veritatem." Trans. Cf. also the importance of "worthiness" for the according to Smith, Ante-Nicene Fathers, 8.117. transmission of the secret writings of Peter (Keryg579 Ps.-Ciem. Rec. 3.1.4-7: "quid ergo faciet cui ad indiscretum populum sermo est? occultet quod mata Petrou) inPs.-Clem. Ep. Petri 1.2; 3.1; Diam. 2.2; 3.4; Hom. 3.19.1; see Strecker's index, s.v. iff•os; also verum est? et quomodo instruit eos qui digni sunt? idem, judenchristentum, 140-41. Cf. also the situation sed si meram proferat veritatem his qui salutem of the mission as presupposed in Matt I 0: II; another consequi non desiderant, illi a quo missus est parallel is perhaps Gal2:ll-l4. iniuriam facit, a quo et mandatum accepit, ne mittat Ps.-Clem. Rec. 2.3.4-5: "nam si in mandatis habemus, verborum eius margaritas ante porcos at cones, qui ut venientes ad civitatem discamus prius, quis in ea adversum eas argumentis ac sofismatibus reluctantes, dignus sit ut apud eum cibum sumamus, quanta ipsas quidem caeno intelligentiae carnalis involvant,

497

It is remarkable that the Pseudo-Clementines, which contain traditions and sources closely related to the SM, which is often cited, assume without question that SM/Matt 7:6 refers to withholding the main parts of the Christian doctrine from unworthy outsiders. These outsiders are represented by Simon Magus, that is, the apostle Paul and his theological allies. If one takes this interpretation together with the anti-Pauline stance in the SM, it is conceivable that the Pseudo-Clementines have preserved the original meaning of the saying in the SM. Thereby, the "pearls" would point to the string of precious sayings of Jesus contained in the SM; "the holy" could refer to some sacred ritual, perhaps the Eucharist, or Jesus' teaching as a whole. Since the SM has no indication of rituals such as the Eucharist, a cryptic reference to Jesus' teaching as a whole may be more likely, but then one must raise other questions. If the SM is a students' manual, one must assume that there are matters important to the community that are not treated in such a brief expose. In particular, if rituals like baptism or Eucharist were regarded as secret, the community would do well not to mention them in a students' manual. Furthermore, taking "the holy" to refer to Jesus' teaching as a whole implies that the SM actually holds such a view, but there is no evidence that there was a concept of Jesus' teaching as a whole. In this situation of uncertainty, all that one can say is that "the holy" may indeed indicate that sacred rituals or one such ritual were regarded as constituting something arcane by the SM; the reference therefore points to something outside the text. The "pearls" most probably refer to the sayings ofJesus inside the SM, that is, to the SM itself. This probability would imply that at its earliest stage the SM was regarded as inside information only. A close parallel to our saying is found also in the

580 581 582 583

498

latratibus autem suis et responsionibus sordidis rumpant et fatigent praedicatores verbi dei. propter quod et ego in plurimis circuitu quodam verbi utens temperare nitebar, ne principalem de summa divinitate intelligentiam minus dignis auribus publicarem." The trans. is according to Smith, AnteNicene Fathers, 8.117; see also Strecker,judenchristentum, 50. Cited according to Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 396. Cf. Strecker, Bergpredigt, 151 (Sermon, 147). For further parallels see Menard, Thomas, 194-95. According to Epiphanius Pan. 24.5.2. For the text see Aland, Synopsis, 93; the trans. is mine. For the relationship with Matthew see Kohler, Rezeption, 373-74, with whom I disagree, however, when he assumes that Basilides quotes Matthew's Gospel directly; one should not overlook that pigs and dogs

Coptic Cos. Thom. log. 93, 580 but the text is unfortunately damaged: Uesus said], "Do not give holy things to dogs, lest they throw them upon the dunghill. Do not throw pearls to the swine lest they [ ... ]. " Because of the difference between Cos. Thom. log. 93 and the SM it is not possible to decide whether these texts depend on each other directly. 5 81 The Gospel of Thomas gives no further application to the saying, 58 2 but other gnostic sources indicate how popular the saying must have been among them. The Alexandrian gnostic Basilides (c. 130-140 CE) used it in his gospel: "We, he [sc. Basilides] said, are the human beings, but all the others are pigs and dogs. And because of this he [sc. Jesus] said, 'Do not throw the pearls before the pigs, nor give the holy to the dogs'" (~1'-•lr, cfJ7Juiv, o! ll.v8pw7TOt, oi

a€ CiAAor. w&.VTES VEs Kat KVvf.';. Oth. ToVro

r 1'-apyapirar rl'-,-pou(J.v rwv xoiprov, JL"lO€ OWr£ rb Ciyr.ov ro'i's Kvulv). 583

The second element of the isocolon (parallelism) turns to another animal: "or throw your pearls before the pigs" (/'-7jot {3aA1JT< roh 1'-apyapirar V~LWV r!L,.PO
are in reverse order as compared with Matthew. Interestingly, Pan. 24.5.4 mentions Basilides' order that his disciples keep his teachings secret. 584 Cf. Matt 13:45-46, which may involve a cryptic image, and Ignatius Eph. 11.2, speaking of "spiritual pearls" (i.e., the martyr's bonds). See Friedrich Hauck, "!Lapyapir7Jr," TDNT 4.472-73; and Bauer, s.v. l'-apyapir7Jr. For the pearl as an image for a saying see Str-B 1.448-49; cf. Ps.-Clem. Rec. 3.1.4-7. 585 For references see Str-B 1.448-50, 492-93; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 139-40; Schiirer, History, 3/1.152. 586 See Ferdinand Orth, "Schwein," PW, 2d series 8th half-volume (1 921) 801-15, esp. 815; Otto, Sprichworter (seen. 386 above), 28-29, 284, 336; Will Richter, "Schwein," KIP 5 (1975) 43-47, esp. 46-47; Dierauer, Tier und Mensch, 188.

Matthew 6:19-7:12

3) Interpretation

• 6 As the discussion about the presuppositions for the

interpretation of vs 6 has shown, one can associate the proverbial sentence of vs 6a with a variety of meanings. 590 The SM seems to have given the saying a special application, which, however, is withheld from us. The original hearers or readers of the SM knew what the terms meant. By simply transmitting the saying as it was, the evangelist did not spell out the intended meaning; perhaps he did not know it himself. All one can do, therefore, is to pay attention to the language and later usage. The beginning, "Do not give the holy to the dogs" (Mh own rh Ciywv ro'is KvuL), encompasses two extreme opposites, whatever it is that the words refer to. If carried out, giving something sacred to the dogs constitutes sacrilege. The singular rh Ciywv ("the holy") is noteworthy because one might have expected the plural, which in fact occurs in Cos Thom. log. 93. Since the term

is uncertain in its application, 591 the parallel in the story of the Syrophoenician Woman (Mark 7:24-30/./Matt 15:21-28) may be important. When jesus justifies his refusal to heal the Gentile woman's daughter, he says: "Let the children be satisfied first; it is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." The children are clearly meant to be the jews, the dogs the Gentiles, and the bread salvation, in this context meaning primarily liberation fwm the demon. Could it be then that "the holy" refers to Christian salvation? The problem is that the SM has no concept of "Christian" salvation. One can make another connection with the

587 Cf. Plato's swine-state, Rep. 2.372d. 588 For "pigs" as a name for Epicureans, see Horace Ep. 1.4.16; Cicero In Pisonem 16. For commentary see Wolfgang Schmid, "Epikur," RAC 5 (1962) 681-819, esp. 767. 589 Later Christian texts identify the dogs with pagans, and the swine with heretics (for a collection of passages see Hans-Jiirgen Loth, "Hund," RAC 16 [1993]81 0-14), or the dogs with lapsed sinners, and the swine with unbelievers. This process of identifying the animals with rejected adversaries begins in the NT itself. See Mark 5:1-20 par.; Luke 15:15-16; 2 Pet 2:22; Did. 9.5; Cos. Thom. log. 93; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 1.12.3; 2.19.2, 3; 4.21.4; 10.6.2; 19.14.4; etc. See BAGD, s.v. v~ and xo!po~; EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v. xo!po~; Franz Annen, Heil fur die Heiden: Zur

yU.p roVs Ot06vras /Jcr7rep roVs rvx6vras VAaKro-Dutv, ot' KaKot robs WtflEAoVvras /Ju7tep roVs j3A&.7rrovras aOIKOVO'I). Text and trans. are those of the LCL edition, !socrates (trans. George Norlin; reprinted TE

London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1980) 20-21. Similarly Diodorus Sic. 26.22; cf. Theognis Elegiae 105-8: "He that doeth good to the baser sort getteth him little thanks; as well he might sow the waters of the hoary brine. Thou wouldst no more receive good again if thou didst good unto the bad, than reap long straw if thou sowedst the waters" (Ll.<1A.ol>~ EtAOJJ.fV7]. robs KaKo1Js Etj 7rOtidv (jJ.'OI.a TrElun ro'is rU.s O.AAorplas KVvas cnrl(ovcnv· f.KE'ival TE

499

mission to the Gentiles as perceived in Matt 10:5-6 (cf. 15:24), so that the derogatory term could refer to Gentiles as "dogs." Because of more objective terms used in the SM elsewhere, however (cf. SM/Matt 5:47; 6:7: £8vtK6s; 6:32: Tlz f8v7J), it is more likely that "dogs" are those considered "heretics," perhaps the Samaritans (cf. Matt 10:5) or Gentile Christianity under Paul's leadership. 59 2 Verse 6b states the preventive purpose of the withholding recommended in vs 6a: "in order that they may not trample upon them with their feet, and turn around and tear you apart" (p.~7TOH KaTa1TaT~uovow avTOVs £v TOtS 7TOulv avTwV Kal UTpatjJ€vns P~tovuw VJ.!as). 593 Clearly, some sort of typical behavior is being described, but whose behavior? Do the verbs refer to both kinds of animals, or does the first verb connect with the swine, and the second and third with the dogs? Or is the real focus intended to be on the people? It appears that the trampling underfoot is typical of swine, while the turning about and tearing apart is more attributable to dogs. At any rate, the interest is focused more on the prevention of human abuse than on the animals. 594 The act of trampling underfoot signifies disdain and defeat. What is meant may be what Ps.-Clem. Rec. 3.1.4-7 states openly (seen. 579 above). The words "turn around and tear you up" fit the behavior of "mad dogs. "595 Figuratively, the term uTp€tJ!w may refer to apostasy, either of the "dogs" or of their victims. One may also interpret the word p~yvvJ.!t ("tear to pieces") by Ps.-Clem. Rec. 3.1.4-7 (seen. 579 above). 596 If this imagery speaks of "heretics," as I suggest it does, one must see this terminology in its relationship to dangers coming from "heresy" as perceived by the SM elsewhere (see above on SM/Matt 5:19, and below on 7:15-20, 21-23).

g. On Giving and Receiving (7:7-11) 7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or who is there from your midst, a human being, whom his son will ask for bread (and who) will give him a stone? 10 Or he will ask for a fish, and he will give him a snake? 11 Therefore, if you who are evil ones know to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to them who ask him.

592 The dog was believed to be an unclean animal. The term was also used to castigate heretics of various sorts; see Phil3:2; Rev 22:15; IgnatiusEph. 7.1; cf. 2 Pet 2:22. See Otto Michel, "Kilwv KTA.," TDNT 3.1101-3; BAGD, s.v. Kilwv; Sigfred Pedersen, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s.v. dwv. For Judaism see Str-B 1.447; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 138-39. In Greek tradition, the dog gave its name to the Cynics, in particular Diogenes of Sinope; see for references LSJ, s.v. Kilwv, II; Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, 3.306; Karl August Neuhausen, "Platons 'philosophischer' Hund bei Sextus Empiricus," RhM 118

500

Bibliography Norbert Brox, "Suchen und Finden: Zur Nachgeschichte von Mt 7, 7b/Lk 11, 9b," in Paul Hoffman, ed., Orientierung an Jesus: FS fur Josef Schmid (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1973) 17-36. Hans von Campenhausen, "Gebetserhorung in den iiberliefertenJesusworten und in der Reflexion des Johannes," KD 23 (1977) 157-71. Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.68-73. Dale Goldsmith, "'Ask and it will be given ... ': Toward Writing the History of a Logion," NTS 35 (1989) 254-65. Jeremias, Parables, 105. Jiilicher, Gleichnisreden, 2.36-44. Klaus Koschorke, "'Suchen und Finden' in der Auseinandersetzung zwischen gnostischem und kirchlichem Christentum," WD 14 (1977) 51-65. Carl H. Kraeling, "Seek and You Will Find," in Allen Wikgren, ed., Early Christian Origins: Studies in Honor of Harold R. Willoughby (Chicago: Quadrangle, 1961) 24-34. Ronald A. Piper, "Matthew 7,7-11 par. Lk 11, 9-13: Evidence of Design and Argument in the Collection of Jesus' Sayings," in Delobel, Logia, 411-18. (1975) 240-64; Dierauer, TierundMensch, 190. 593 KaTa7raT~w, 2. 596 See BAGD, s.v. p~yvvp.1, 1, with a reference to Aesop Fab. 408; cf. also Gal5:15.

Matthew 6:19-7:12

Idem, Wisdom, 15-24. Haim B. Rosen, "Motifs and Topoi from the New Comedy in the New Testament?" Ancient Society 3 (1972) 245-57. Steinhauser, Doppelbildworte, 69-79. Michael Theunissen, "'0 alrwv )\ap.{31I.ve&: Der Gebetsglaube Jesu und die Zeitlichkeit des Christseins," in B. Casper, ed.,]esus, Ort der Erfahrung Gottes (2d ed.; Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1976) 13-68. Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 127-31.

1) Introduction

The theme of 7:7-11 is indicated by the triad of asking/receiving, seeking/finding, and knocking/ opening. All three of these word pairs are proverbial, and one finds them as key terms in the ancient literature, where they often introduce major theological and philosophical elaborations. Therefore, in a lengthy argument such as that set forth in 7:7-11, we are dealing not simply with proverbs but with a more elaborate argument that brings out the issues embedded in the proverbs. In Old Testament wisdom in particular, "asking and receiving" applies not only to gifts but also to questions and answers; 597 the great example of the latter is Job. 598 Likewise, "seeking and finding" occurs in many variations, among them also "seeking without finding, "599 or "finding without seeking," 600 the objects being wisdom, truth, or even God. 601 Finally, "knocking" on doors that are then "opened" has an entire literary history to itself prior to the New Testament. 60 2 All three word pairs may be connected with prayer,

but they do not have to be; they may also refer to general propositions or recommendations. The first question in view of 7:7-11 is, therefore, whether the composition as a whole speaks of a more general recommendation or specifically of prayer. In Greek philosophy, "seeking and finding" sums up major concepts and methods for search and investigation in the pursuance of truth. 603 Among the pre-Socratics, Xenophanes said: Truly, not from the beginning the gods have shown everything to the mortals, but through time they seek and find out (the) better (things). oiJTOL a7T' apxfi~ 7TclVTa lh:ol 8v1JTOL~ V7Tfllntav a..ua. XP&vwL (1JTOVVT«=~ ~cpwplcrKovcrtv ll.p.nvov. 60 4 Gnomologium Parisinum 158 preserves an interesting saying from Empedocles (cf. Diog. L. 9.20): Empedocles said to someone who told him, "I can find no one who is wise," thus: "Logically, the one who seeks someone wise must first be wise himself." 'Ep.7T«:l36KA1J~ 7Tp0~ TOV A.lyovTa, lin ovll£va crocphv €Vp€LV llvvap.at, 'KaTa A.&yov,' eT7T«=" 'Thv yap (7JTovvTa crocphv ahhv 7TpWTOV «:Tvat ll«:'i crocp6v.'605 The Pythagorean Archytas distinguished between learning and discovery. Learning is what one did not know but receives as information from others, while finding is done by oneself with one's own resources: Finding, however, without searching is hard to come by and rare, but with seeking it is ready to come by and easy; to the one who is without understanding seeking is impossible.

597 For the evidence see the lexica: TDOT 2, s.v. !Dp::!; 3, s. v. !D.,.,; for the NT terms: TDNT, EWNT (EDNT), and BAGD, s.v. (7jTlW and evpluKW. 598 See Job 8:5; 23:2-9. 599 See, e.g., Prov 1:28 of wisdom: "When they call to me, I shall not answer; when they seek, they will riot find me" (LXX: lura& ylzp 8rav lw&KaAtCT7jCT6t p.e, ly(,

aE o1Jic EluaKo{uTDfLa' VfLG>v· CTJT~uovulv J.LE KaKol Kat oVx €Vp~CTOVCTIV).

600 See, e.g., Isa 65:1 LXX: "I was visible to those who did not seek me; I was found by those who did not ask for me" (' Ep.4>av~~ lyev.5p.1jv rol~ lp.( p.~ (7jrovu&v, €Vpt67jv rol~ lp.( p.~ lwepwrwu&V). 601 See, e.g., Deut4:29; 1 Chr 16:10-11; 21:30; 22:19; 28:9;Job 8:5; Pss 9:11; 22:27; 27:8; etc.; Wis 13:6. 602 See Ha!m Rosen, "Motifs and Topoi from the New Comedy in the New Testament," Ancient Society 3

(1972) 245-57; furthermore, Wettstein, 1.340-41; Georg Bertram, "Kpoilw," TDNT 3.954-57; and BAGD, s.v. Kpoilw. 603 See the investigation by Georgios D. Farandos, Die Krisis der Philosophie, vol. 2: Die Wege des Suchens bei Heraklit und Parmenides; Die Dialektik des Suchens und Findens (Epistemata, series Philosophie 8; Wiirzburg: Konigshausen & Neumann, 1982).

604 Diels-Kranz, 21 B 18,2 (I, 133, 14-15). The trans. is mine. 605 Diels-Kranz, 31 A 20 (I, 285, 42). The trans. is mine.

501

oe

oe

efwpliv J-L~ (aTOVVTa lJ.1ropov Kat 0"7TCiVtoV, (aTOVVTa d57Topov Kat pluotov, J-L~ E1TtO"TClJ-L£VOV (1jT£LV aovvaTOV. 606 These philosophers attempted to describe the proper methods for pursuing the truth in a "scientific" manner, as compared to learning it through divine revelation or from culture-bringing heroes. Henceforth, the terms (~T1juts and £1Jp7juts ("search" and "discovery") became almost a set formula designating discussions about research and discovery, or problems and solutions. 607 Thus, Plato also related "seeking and finding" to philosophy. In the Gorgias (503d) Callicles, when realizing a dilemma, remarks to Socrates, "Ah, but if you search properly, you will find" (' AA.A.' eh.v (1jTfis KaAws, d1p~um). Then Socrates begins his inquiry. 608 According to the Apology (19b; 23b), "seeking the things under the earth and in the sky" was a point of accusation against Socrates in the trial; he admits to doing this seeking, but at divine order. 609 Finally, the Timaeus (28c) defines what is taken to be the greatest task in this way: Now to discover the Maker and Father of this Universe were a task indeed; and having discovered Him, and to declare Him unto all men were a thing impossible. TOV p.ev o~v 7TOL1jT~V Kat 7TaT£pa TOV TOV 7TaVTOS £Vp£'iv T£ epyov Kat £ilpovTa £LS 7T~VTas aovvaTOV A.£yuv. 610 After Plato the word pair "seek and find" appears to have become part of philosophical school traditions. Here I cannot fully treat the history of this particular expression. One can easily see its significance for philosophical protreptic from Epictetus 611 and Philo of Alexandria, 61 2 both of whom deal extensively with the theme in their works. In Hellenism the commendation to seek and find was apparently directed against skepticism and pessimism; perhaps this direction was already

oe

oe

present in earlier times, as suggested by Sophocles: "Search out most human traits: you'll find them base" (Ta 7TA£'iuTa tf!wpwv aluXPa tf!wp~uus f3poTwv). 613 2) Analysis As already indicated, vss 7-" l form a thoroughgoing argument. The composition consists of clearly distinguishable subsections. At the head stands a parallelism (isocolon [vs 7]), comprising three parallel maxims using the second person plural; each imperative is followed by a statement of the consequence or reaction to be expected (the future tenses are gnomic). Each maxim is in itself antithetical; the first and third maxims (vs 7a and c) use redditio (inclusion by repeating the same word), underscored by using the same ending (homoeoteleuton: 1Jo8~o-
606 Diels-Kranz, 47 B 3 (1, 437, 4-5). The trans. is mine. 607 On this topic see Klaus Thraede, "Erfinder II (geistesgeschichtlich)," RAG 5 (1962) 1191-1278, esp. 1213-14, 1241-47. 608 Cf. also Plato Grat. 436a-b; Leg. 7 .816c; also Leg. 3.677d. 609 "Seeking and finding" is thus identified with the Socratic method. 610 Texts and translations are cited according to the LCL edition of Plato. 611 See esp. Epictetus Diss. 1.28.19-21; 3.22.38-39, 76; 3.24.12; 4.1.32, 51; 4.5.16.

502

612 On Philo see Thraede, RAG 5.1245-46; David T. Runia, "Mosaic and Platonic Exegesis: Philo on 'Finding and Refinding,'" VG 40 (1986) 209-17. 613 Cited in Plutarch De coh. ira 16, 4630, cited according to Plutarch's Moralia (trans. William C. Helmbold; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1939) 6.152-53; see also Plutarch De frat. am. 8, 481F; Sophocles frg. 853 (ed. Pearson; frg. 769, ed. Nauck).

Matthew 6:19-7:12

the less important to the more important" (a minori ad maius), again forming parallel lines with the members being a protasis (introductory clause) and an apodosis (concluding clause). The protasis describes human behavior, while the apodosis contrasts this human behavior with God's behavior. The apodosis is exclamatory; 614 the protasis uses alliteration and assonance (ol'Oan, aop.ara, a.aovat). 61 5 The Q-parallel in Luke 11:9-13 is now part of the doctrine on prayer that begins with the Lord's Prayer (Luke 11: 1-4) and continues with the parable of the Importune Friend (Luke 11 :5-8). This context is secondary. 616 Luke's version also differs from Matthew's at other points, most likely because of Lukan redaction. Most notable is that Luke 11:11 has a "fish" and a "snake" instead of the Matthean "bread" and "stone"; and Luke 11:12 has "egg" and "scorpion" instead of the Matthean "fish" and "snake." In Luke 11: 13b the divine epithet, "the Father who is from heaven" (o 1raT~P [o] £~ ol!pavov) differs from Matt 7:11 b: "your Father who is in the heavens" (o 1raT~P vp.wv 0 fV TO"is ol!pavols). Instead of "will give goods" (Mrm r'tyaOri) in Matt 7:11b, Luke 11:13b has "will give Holy Spirit" (ororm "lrV
614 So according to Nestle-Aland. The SM often concludes sections with exclamations. 615 So Russei,Paronomasia, 9. 616 See Strecker, Bergpredigt, 153 (Sermon, 148); Luz, Matthiius, 1.383; (Matthew, 1.420-21); for the reconstruction of the Q-version see Ronald A. Piper, "Matthew 7,7-11 par. Luke 11,9-13: Evidence of Design and Argument in the Collection of jesus' Sayings," in Delobel, Logia, 411-18; David Catchpole, "Q and the 'Friend at Midnight' (Luke xi 58/9)," JTS 34 (1983) 407-24, esp. 418-19; Kloppenborg, QParallels, 86-89. 617 See Beyschlag, "Geschichte," 307-10, 313; Norbert Brox, "Suchen und Finden: Zur Nachgeschichte von Mt 7,7b/Luke 11,9b," in Orientierung an jesus: FSJilr Josef Schmid (Freiburg: Herder, 1973) 17-36; Klaus Koschorke, "'Suchen und Finden' in der Auseinandersetzung zwischen gnostischem und kirchlichem Christentum," WD 14 (1977) 51-65; Luz, Matthiius, 1.385-86 (Matthew, 1.423-25). 618 See Ludwig Koenen and Cornelia Romer, eds., Der Kolner Mani-Kodex: Ober das Werden seines Leibes

the saying (p. 36.4) and provides a lengthy interpretation (pp. 38-41).618 Sayings similar to SM/Matt 7:7-11 occur in extracanonical Gospels, but they are only faint reflections compared with the rather elaborate composition in Q. According to Clement of Alexandria, the Gospel to the Hebrews contained this saying: He that seeks will not rest until he finds; and he that has found shall marvel; and he that has marvelled shall reign; and he that has reigned shall rest. oV 1ra-6cr£rar. 0 (TJrWv, ~w~ liv ellprr EVpi•JV a~ 8ap.{3~1TETat, 6ap.f37J8
oE Ewava'7Ta~U£Tat. 619

A variant is included in P. Oxy. 654, no. 1, according to Harold Attridge's edition and translation: Uesus said], "Let him who seeks continue [seeking until] he finds. When he finds, [he will be amazed. And] when he becomes [amazed], he will rule. And [once he has ruled], he will [attain rest]. [A'y" 'I71(uov)s·] p.~ 1ravu&u8w o ('IJ[Twv Tov (7JTilv ~CJl~ av ]EiJpy, Kat Hrav EiJpn [8a~J-f31J8~cr£Tat Kat 8ap.]f37J6EtS {3a<TIAEtJIT'[/ Karl {3a<TIAEtJ
The Coptic Gospel of Thomas has three variants, log. 2 being similar toP. Oxy. 654, no. 1:

(Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfalischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; Sonderreihe "Payrologica Coloniensia" 14; Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1988) 22-23, 24-27; Albert Henrichs and Ludwig Koenen, "Der Kolner ManiKodex (P. Colon~. inv. nr. 4780)," ZPE 19 (1975) 185, esp. 37; Ron Cameron and Arthur]. Dewey, The Cologne Mani Codex "Concerning the Origins ofHis Body" (SBL TT 15; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1979) 3133; Cornelia Romer, "Mani, der neue Urmensch: Eine neue Interpretation der p. 36 des Kolner ManiKodex," in Luigi Cirillo, ed., CodexManichaicus Coloniensis: Atti del Simposio Internazionale (RendeAmantea 3-7 settembre 1984) (Cosenza: Marra, 1986) 333-44, esp. 341. 619 For the text see Aland, Synopsis, 94; Kloppenborg, Q Parallels, 87. The trans. is according to NTApoc 1.164; see also NTApok 1.146-47; Straker, Extracanonical Sayings, 116-19, 148, 195-96. 620 According to the edition in Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, 113, 126; also Kloppenborg, Q Parallels, 87; Straker, Extracanonical Sayings, 117.

503

Jesus said, "Let one who seeks not stop seeking until that person finds; and upon finding, the person will be disturbed; and being disturbed, will be astounded; and will reign over the entirety." 621 Logion 92 agrees in part with Matt 7:7: Jesus said, "Seek and you (plur.) will find. Yet, now I am willing to say the things which you used to ask me about and which I did not say to you; and you are not seeking them." Logion 94 agrees in part with Matt 7:7 and in part with 7:6: Jesus [said], "One who seeks will find. The door will be opened to one [who knocks]. "6 22 These sayings have obviously undergone interpretations and changes in terms of gnostic requirements and understandings. How these sayings developed, how they became dispersed in the way they now appear in the Gospel of Thomas, how log. 93 came to be spliced in, and why the doublets in log. 2, 92, and 94 were allowed to remain-all these questions remain. At any rate, one has no reason here to assume a direct dependency by the Gospel of Thomas on our canonical Matthew. More likely is the dependency on presynaptic tradition (Q ?). 623 3) Interpretation

• 7 The three-line maxim is stated in the second person

plural, the first line issuing a general demand: "Ask and it will be given to you" (aln"Ln ICa~ lio8~o"€Ta! vp."Lv). No object is given, and there are no clues about the identity of the giver. The future passive does not necessarily refer to the eschatological future, but it may. Thus, one should assume the maxim to be general and to refer to both daily life and eschatological judgment. The one to be asked is another person, not necessarily only God.

The topic, therefore, belongs to the general theme of "giving and receiving." That this topic is in line with the SM elsewhere one can see from the parallels in SM/Matt 5:42//SP /Luke 6:30: "to the one who asks you give." The maxim is best exemplified by the parable on the Importune Friend at Midnight (Luke 11 :5-8). 624 The application to the petitionary prayer is made only in vs 11; it is not indicated at the beginning of vs 7. 6 2 5 The second part "seek and you will find" ((7Jntn ICa~ evp~uen) is equally general. Having no object, the recommendation pertains to an attitude to life in general. That the attitude is theologically important for the SM is seen from the parallel in 6:33 and also the eschatological parallel in 7:14. The proverbial phrase is known elsewhere in the New Testament, either by itself or deepened by theological interpretation. 6 2 6 The third part has in view the act of knocking on doors: "knock and it will be opened to you" (1Cpoven ICa~ avoty~ITETaL vp."Lv). Again, the phrase is proverbial. 6 2 7 The saying calls attention to an astounding fact: while doors are usually locked, they surprisingly open when one simply knocks at them. Looking at the doors from the outside, one would not expect it, but it does happen. What does it indicate? • 8 The imperatives of vs 7 are supported with reasons in vs 8; this is done simply by repeating the parallelism (isocolon) with some difference included. The matter is now substantiated by experience: "For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened" (7riis yap oa1nov A.ap.{3avEL ICa~ o (7]TWV EVpLITICEL ICa~ Til> 1Cpovovn avoty~ueTat). 6 2 8

621 Translation according to Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 380. See also the edition and translation by Thomas 0. Lambdin, in Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, 52-53 and 86-87. 622 Cited according to Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 396. 623 See Helmut Koester, in Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-72, 39 and 42-43. 624 See also Mark 6:22-25/ /Matt 14:7-8, with the request "Give me!" (Mr 1-101); cf. Matt 6:11/ /Luke 11:3; Luke 15:12; etc.; Mark 10:35-38; Matt 20:2022; Mark 15:43//Matt 27:58;Jas 4:2-3; 1 Pet 3:15. 625 For the application to asking God see SM/Matt 6:8; 7:11; Matt 18:19; Mark 11:24// Matt 21:22; Eph 3:20;Jas 1:5-6; 1 John 3:22; 5:14-16. For rabbinic parallels see Str-B 1.450-58; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 140-43. 626 Apart from the synoptic parallel versions see Luke

504

13:6; 15:8; Acts 17:27; Rom 10:20; 2 Tim 1:17; etc. See BAGD, s.v.
Matthew 6:19-7:12

That this experience happens to everyone may be an exaggeration, but we count on it as being generally true; otherwise we would not continue to do these things. Thus, the suggestion is, one has no reason to be overly skeptical or pessimistic. Under normal circumstances, and maybe even under extraordinary circumstances, people will help when asked. People can expect to find when they seek. Doors will open when one knocks. The message is that we do this all the time, and we are right in doing it. It may not always happen, but surprisingly these things do happen most of the time. • 9 The argument having gone this far, one expects a protest. Are these things really so simple? The examples given in vss 9-1 0 are intended to disarm a potential protester by further evidence. This is done by rhetorical questions, for which the expected answer is affirmative: yes, this is so. The first question, using a well-known form of saying, 629 calls out to someone from the assumed crowd of listeners or hearers, "Or who is there from your midst, a human being, whom his son asks for bread (and who) will give him a stone?" (~ Tls lcrnv lf vp.wv lf.v8ponros, 8v alT~cru ovlos a·bTov lipTov, JL~ A.l8ov lmowcru alm)v;). 630 The answer to the question is contained in the word "human being" (li.v8ponros): no one who is worthy to be called by that name will refuse the request. 631 Being a human being implies the obligation to act like one. This

assumption is typical of the "humanistic" element in wisdom sayings. 632 A human being is one who is good to one's children. The idea of giving a stone to one's child instead of bread is detestable; it is also proverbial 633 and makes use of the similarity of shape and color between a bread and a stone. • 1 0 The second question is parallel and uses the other staple food: "Or he [sc. the son] will ask for a fish and he [she?] will give him a snake?"(~ Kat lx8vv alT~cru, JL~ lJcfnv lmowcru aim!>;). 634 The question no doubt suggests something obviously absurd and hideous. No one worthy of the name "human" will act like this. The snake is chosen not only because of its similarity to the fish but also because of its poisonous and dangerous nature. 635 •11 The concluding statement, 636 introduced by o'ilv ("therefore"), sums up the preceding argument (vs lla), in order then to draw an inference from the human to the divine behavior. The protasis (introductory clause) takes human behavior to be paradoxical: "Therefore, if you who are evil ones know how to give good gifts to your children ... " (£1 o'ilv vp.E'is 7rOV7Jpot lfvus oliau oop.aTa ltya8a Oto6vat TOLS TfKVO!S VJLWV ... ). 637 That

Luke 11:10, appears to be the original reading in Q. 629 See also SM/Matt 6:27//Luke 12:25; Matt 12:11//Luke 14:5; Luke 11 :5; 14:5, 28; 15:4, 8; 17:7; etc. See Heinrich Greeven, "Wer unter euch ... ?" WD 3 (1952) 86-101. 630 B* L 565. 1342. 1424 alit omit iunv; it is absent also in Luke 11:11; IC 1 L W j1.1 3 33. 892. 1006. (1342). 1506 9Jt lat syh make the relative clause conditional by adding (<)av. Both variants are linguistic improvements. The Nestle-Aland text is attested by M* B C (* -
634 Grammatically, the sentence is extremely brief and also awkward; for this reason many manuscripts turn it into a conditional clause by adding "if" at the beginning: fi Kat ts, 1; Borge Hjerl-Hansen, "Le rapprochement poisson-serpent dans Ia predication de jesus (Mt. Vll,10 et Luc XI,11)," RB 55 (1948) 195-98. 636 Some question whether vs 11 is a factual statement or a question. See Nestle-Aiand, 26th ed., as compared with the 25th ed. (which has it as a question). As a conclusion a minori ad maius, a factual statement is more likely, but the statement demands consent anyway, as if it were a question. 637 Instead ofll.lp.ara ayaOajl 205 it vgc 1 Clement read ayaOa o.lp.ara (perhaps to strengthen the alliteration

505

human beings are by nature "evil" (7rOV7Jpos) is a basic assumption of the SM, not surprising in its Jewish matrix, 638 but not unknown in a Greek environment either. 639 The SM contains a tension between this censure of the addressees and the higher goals set for them (see above on SM/Matt 5:13-16, 48; 6:33). Such warnings (this is what it is intended to be) are reminders to the disciples that they have a long and arduous way to go (cf. 7: 13-14). Yet, surprising as it is, one may find much natural goodness even among evil humanity. Both facts are true: humanity is a mean race, and yet human beings know how to act in a "humane" way. If this conclusion is true among humans, how much more 640 is it true of God: "How much more will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those who ask him?" (7rOU!p j.tCiA.A.ov b 7raT~P Vj.tc;JV b lv TOtS ovpavo'is liwu€! ayaBa TOtS atTOVULV avTov). 641 Indeed, God is not evil, and he does provide benefits to the world. The instruction on prayer in SM/Matt 6:7-8 is based on this belief, and so is

the SM as a whole. Indeed, only the skeptics in antiquity would not have agreed to it. What then is the conclusion? Most scholars assume that the SM passage is an exhortation concerning trust in the meaningfulness of praying to God. 642 What is recommended is unconditional trust in God's readiness to grant petitions by humans. But this assumption has problems: First, as the words read, only the conclusion addresses the subject of prayer, while the rest of the passage applies to general life experience. This is borne out by the history of exegesis, which shows that a variety of avenues were pursued. Second, in Luke 11:9-13 the text has been applied to prayer, but this interpretation is secondary. Multiple application appears to be prior to special application. Third, ifSM/Matt 7:7-11 concerns certainty about prayer, it would duplicate what the instruction on prayer in 6:7-8 had set forth, but it would contradict it, too. This instruction argues that only God knows which

of OOJ. J.<&.A:Aov ("much more"); it where in the SM (see SM/Matt 5:11, 37, 39, 45; comes from the Q-source (Luke 11: 13). Cf. Matt 6:13, 23; 7:17, 18), but this categorical censure of 1 0:25; Luke 12:24, 28; Rom 11:12, 24; Phlm 16; the disciples is unique; it comes from Q, hence the Heb 9:14; Did. 4.8; Barn. 19.8; Ignatius Eph. 5.1-2; redactor of the SM accepted the verdict. The verdict 16.2; 2 Clem. 17.1; etc. See BAGD, s.v., 7TO
506

Matthew 6:19-7:12

human needs should be granted; the Lord's Prayer spells out these needs. The position taken by the SM, therefore, is not a naive trust in God that leads to asking him all kinds of things in the belief that he will surely grant them. Even 7: 11 does not assume that God will grant just anything he is asked for, but that he will give what is good. By contrast, Luke 11:13, a passage dealing with prayer, corrects what appears to be an earlier version, stating that God will give Holy Spirit. I conclude, therefore, that the recommendation pertains first of all to a general approach to life, an approach based on the assumption that one can trust life as good. In spite of the observed fact that humans are evil, life is not. This conclusion makes sense in the face of skepticism. Contrary to what the skeptic would recommend, the SM holds that it is more prudent to encounter life without suspicion. Be one who asks, be a seeker, take courage and knock on doors! Most of the time, these initiatives will find positive responses. Experiences among humans, as well as with God, bear this out. This is the message. On the whole, Matt 7:7-11 is an excellent example of the importance of later interpretations for illuminating the original meaning of a saying. Norbert Brox and Klaus Koschorke have shown how the Gnostics of the second century especially have used this saying to formulate their own approach to reality. 643 The church fathers in their interpretations generally propagate distrust; 644 for them one no longer has any reason to seek and search because revelation has occurred. They increasingly display an aversion against questioning,

seeking, and searching; one expects this aversion from those who claim to possess the truth. For them it is the unbelievers who constantly seek and never find. "Seeking" has become the alternative to "believing." Christian believers are presented as those who have the answers, who have found, and for whom the door is open.645 By comparison, the SM focuses on another form of skepticism and argues against it. That skepticism approaches the world with a fundamental distrust. People are not to be trusted; they are evil, and thus life is evil and dangerous. 646 All sayings in the SM from 6: 19 on have to do with the question of whom and what to trust. One must not confuse trust in the goodness of life with trust in external materialism (6: 19-21; 6:25-34), or trust in oneself(6:22-23; 6:24; 7:1-5), or even trust in hostile outsiders (7:6). Rather, trust in life, as being basically and normally beneficial, is justified because of our ordinary experiences and because of God's providence governing that life. The basic approach to life, therefore, should be that of the quester, the seeker, the knocker on doors. One should not yield to misanthropic pessimism, introverted seclusion, or withdrawal into the group of the like-minded. This forthright approach goes hand in hand with the ethics of the SM stated elsewhere. It corresponds to the task of the disciples to be "the salt of the earth" and "the light of the world" (5: 13-16). They are to be the seekers

643 Brox ("Suchen und Finden," 20-24) and Koschorke and Augustine, who emphasize the necessity of a questioning approach to faith; see Brox, "Suchen und ("Suchen und Finden," 51-65) discuss the great popularity of the saying in Gnosticism. For the Finden," 29-35. references toP. Oxy. 654, lines 1-9, Gospel ofThomas, 646 Heinrici (Bergpredigt [1905], 2.85) refers correctly to Gen 8:21, where God says, "Never again will I curse and Gospel to the Hebrews, see above, nn. 619-23; other references are from Pistis Sophia (1.50.14; the ground because of man, however evil his inclinations may be from his youth upwards" (NEB). 2.1 00; 3.132, ed. Carl Schmidt and trans. Violet Citing Bias on the Greek side (Diog. L. 1.87): "The MacDermot, Pistis Sophia [NHSt 9; Leiden: Brill, 1978]184, 250, 34 7); Gospel ofMary (P. Berol. 8502) majority are evil" (ot 'li'A
507

of the kingdom of God and his righteousness (6: 3 3). They are on their way to life eternal, stumbling along the rough road and trying to find the narrow gate (7: 13-14). Openness to life and a forthright approach are needed for this journey, not debilitating skepticism that turns backward or inward, rather than forward. h. The Golden Rule (7: 12) 12 Everything, therefore. that you want people to do to you, thus you shall also do to them. For this is the law and the prophets. Bibliography Hans-Werner Bartsch, "Traditionsgeschichtliches zur 'goldenen Regel' und zum Aposteldekret," ZNW 75 (1984) 128-32. Peder Borgen, "The Golden Rule: With Emphasis on Its Usage in the Gospels," in his Paul Preaches Circumcision and Pleases Men, and Other Essays on Christian Origins (Trondheim: TAPIR, 1983) 99-

114. Christoph Burchard, "Goldene Regel," EKL 2 (1989) 247. Albrecht Dihle, Die Goldene Regel: Eine Einfuhrung in die Geschichte der antiken und fruhchristlichen Vulgiirethik (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1962). Idem, "Goldene Regel," RAC 11 (1981) 930-40 (with bibliography). Olivier Du Roy, La Reciprocite: Essai de morale fondamentale (Paris: Epi, 1970). Victor P. Furnish, The Love Command in the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972). Robert Hamerton-Kelly, "Golden Rule, The," IDBSup (1976) 369-70. Richard M. Hare, Freedom and Reason (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963). Hans-Ulrich Hoche, "Die Goldene Regel: Neue Aspekte eines alten Moralprinzips," ZPhF 32 (1978) 355-75 (with bibliography). Norbert Horster, "R. M. Hares Fassung der Goldenen Regel," Philosophischesjahrbuch 81 (1974) 186-96. Joachim Jeremias, "Goldene Regel, 2. Im NT," RGG 2 (3d ed. 1958) 1688-89. RaphaelJospe, "Hillel's Rule," JQR 81 (1990) 45-57. George B. King, "The Negative Golden Rule," JR 8 (1928) 268-79. Adalbert Langer, "Die Goldene Regel-ein Schliissel zum Frieden," in Kirche, Recht und Land: FS zum 70. Lebensjahr von AdolfKindermann (Konigstein i. T.: Sudetendeutsches Priesterwerk, 1969) 67-7 4. Siegfried Alfons Lesnik, Die Goldene Regel, Prinzip der neuen Menschlichkeit in naturrechtlicher und biblischer

508

Auffassung (Heiligenkreuz: Stiftsbuchhandlung,

1974). Adolf Lutz, "Die Goldene Regel," ZPhF 18 (1964) 467-75. Hans-Peter Mathys, Roman Heiligenthal, and HeinzHorst Schrey, "Goldene Regel," TRE 13 (1985) 570-83 (with bibliography). Reinhold Merkelbach, "Uber eine Stelle im Evangelium des Lukas," Grazer Beitriige 1 (1973) 171-75. Merklein, Gottesherrschaft, 243-4 7. Nissen, Gott und der Niichste, 390-99. Leonidas Johannes Philippidis, Die "Goldene Regel" religionsgeschichtlich untersucht (Inaugural diss., Philosophical Faculty, Leipzig, 1929) (Leipzig: n.p., 1929). Idem, Religionswissenschaftliche Forschungsberichte uber die "goldene Regel" (Athens: n.p., 1933). Hans Reiner, "Die 'Goldene Regel': Die Bedeutung einer sittlichen Grundformel der Menschheit," ZPhF 3 (1948) 74-105; revised in his Die Grundlagen der Sittlichkeit (3d ed.; Meisenheim am Glan: Hain, 1974) 348-79. Idem, Die philosophische Ethik, ihre Fragen und Lehren in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1964) 186-95. Idem, "Die Goldene Regel und das Naturrecht: Zugleich eine Antwort auf die Frage: Gibt es ein Naturrecht?" Studia Leibnitiana 9 (1977) 231-54. Paul Ricoeur, Liebe und Gerechtigkeit. Amour et Justice. (German trans. by Matthias Raden; ed. Oswald Bayer; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1990) 49-67. Idem, "The Golden Rule: Exegetical and Theological Perplexities," NTS 36 (1990) 392-97. Hans Henning Ritter, "Gegenseitigkeit," HWPh 3 (1974) 119-29. Petrus R yhinerus, Dissertatio philosophica de fondamento juris naturae et gentium, quod continetur Matth. VII. 12, etc., respondenteJosepho Socino, etc. (Basileae:

E. &J. R. Thurnisiorum fratrum, 1727). Marcus George Singer, "The Golden Rule," Philosophy 38 (1963) 293-314. Idem, "Golden Rule," Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy 3 (1967) 365-67. Gunter Spendel, "Die Goldene Regel als Rechtsprinzip," in Josef Esser and Hans Thieme, eds., FS jar Fritz von Hippe! zum 70. Geburtstag (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1967) 491-516. Ludwik Sternbach, "Indian Wisdom and Its Spread Beyond India," ]ADS 101 (1981) 97-131. Johannes Straub, "Die Goldene Regel," in his Regeneratio Imperii (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972) 314-21. Werner Wolbert, "Die Goldene Regel und das ius talionis," TThZ 95 (1986) 169-81. Zeller, Mahnspruche, 117-20.

Matthew 6:19-7:12

1) Introduction

Since the end of the Middle Ages the sentence in SM/Matt 7:12/ /SP /Luke 6:31 has been called "The Golden Rule," golden in the sense of most precious and important. 647 Indeed, the Golden Rule was regarded as one of the ground rules of human civilization, its truth being beyond question. This wide acceptance was not limited to Christian tradition. On the contrary, until today the great debates about the Golden Rule have taken place among the philosophers. The reason for the importance of the Rule for philosophy was certainly not its attestation in the New Testament, although this authorization helped its popularity. 648 Rather, as scholars have discovered since the Enlightenment and demonstrated by large collections of parallels, the Golden Rule was known to nearly every culture, even prior to its literary transmission. 649 In the West, the Golden Rule is first attested by Herodotus, 650 who may have learned it from the Sophists. 651 In the East, Confucius knew it, 65 2 and it is found as well in the Mahabharatha and in Far Eastern gnomological collections. 653 The sentence is transmitted in various forms. It can be

stated positively, "Do to others what you would have them do to you!" or negatively, "Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you!" The popularity of the Golden Rule through the ages has been accompanied by a growing body of special investigations. These scholarly efforts are the result of two factors. First, the Rule is not entirely clear and one can therefore interpret it in several ways. 654 Second, a number of different theories have explained its origin. These factors are bound up with the question of the continued validity of the Rule under the scrutiny of philosophical ethics and law. In order to understand the problems raised by the Golden Rule, it is important to look first at the presuppositions and then also at the various hypotheses. I should say, however, that here I cannot give a full account of all the problems and theories; such an account would easily become a book by itself. Here I can give but a brief account; further study should include a thorough review of the secondary literature (see the bibliography above).

64 7 For the earliest attestations of the name, see Leonidas J. Philippidis, Die "Goldene Regel" religionsgeschichtlich untersucht (Leipzig: n. p., 1929) 14-15; Albrecht Dihle, "Goldene Regel," RAG 11 (1981) 930-31; Cohen, jewish and Roman Law, 545 n. 8 (referring toR. Godfrey (1674],]. Watts (1741], and others). One should also note that Ps.-Clem. Rec. 8.56. 7-8 calls the sentence regula ("rule"): "et intra hanc regulam humanorum gestorum singula quaeque concurrunt" ("and every matter of man's actions is comprehended within this rule"). 648 Marcus G. Singer ("The Golden Rule," Philosophy 38 (1963]293-314, 293-94) refers to Thomas Hobbes, for whom the negatively formulated Golden Rule is the "sum ... of the Lawes of Nature," while when formulated positively "it is the Law of the Gospell." See Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (London: Dent, 1914) chap. 15, para. 35, p. 82; cf. chap. 14, para. 4, p.67;chap. 17,para. 2,p.87. 649 See the parallel collections in Grotius, Ad Matthaeum, 89-90; Wettstein, 1.341-42; Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1905) 2.85-88; Str-B 1.459-60; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 143-45; Philippidis, "Goldene Regel," passim; idem, Religionswissenschaftliche Forschungsberichte; Dihle, Goldene Regel (see the bibliography to this section). 650 Herodotus 3.142; 7.136; see Dihle, Goldene Regel,

96-99. 651 Dihle, ibid., 85-102; Dihle (85) believes that the Sophists invented the Golden Rule at the end of the 5th century BCE. 652 See Philippidis, "Goldene Regel," 62-74. 653 Ibid., 74-95; and Ludwik Sternbach, "Indian Wisdom and Its Spread beyond India," JAOS 101 (1987) 97-131. 654 As Singer ("The Golden Rule," 294-95) has pointed out, "the Golden Rule has to be understood as a moral principle, and not as a moral rule. That is to say, it does not, as does a moral rule, state some specifically determined kind of action that is right or wrong, or that it ought or ought not to be done. It rather sets forth, or has to be understood to set forth, in abstract fashion, a method or procedure for determining the morality of a line of action, and thus is intended to provide a principle from which, or in accordance with which, if it is valid, more specific or concrete moral rules can be derived. It seems to me that one of the mistakes that has often been made in connection with the Golden Rule is to treat it as though it were a specific directive, having a directly determined application."

509

1. Is there a difference between the positive and the negative formulation of the Rule? If there is, what is the difference? It is commonly assumed that the two forms differ significantly in that the positive form prescribes an initiative and substantial contribution, while the negative form implies mere abstention without initiative and contribution. Others have argued, however, that the difference is simply a matter of formulation, not substance; one can state a wish or desire positively or negatively without changing the basic meaning. As a result, for instance, there would be no real difference between wanting someone not to tell a lie and wanting someone to tell the truth. Thus, the difference between positive and negative would amount to no more than rhetoric or preference. 6 55 More is involved, however, than mere rhetoric or personal preference. In court, for example, swearing "to tell the truth and nothing but the truth" differs greatly from swearing to abstain from telling lies. The latter, abstention from lies, is disinterested in finding out what the truth is in a court case and in general; such an attitude is disinterested in serving justice. Behind the formulations, therefore, appear opposite sets of values of a principal nature, and they determine the choice. This result also raises the question whether the Golden Rule is, strictly speaking, a principle that stands on its own terms, or a maxim that is in turn based on other principles. One of the points in recent discussions has focused on these underlying presuppositions. 2. Greek philosophy had recognized what became apparent much later: that one cannot regard the Golden

Rule as a self-evident principle of ethics. Aristotle mentions the Rule in his Rhetoric as the commonsense "opinion of the many" (S6ta rwv 7TOAAwv), 656 but he does not treat it as an ethical principle worthy of a place in his philosophical ethics. Plato does not take it up either. At the end of antiquity, Augustine calls the Golden Rule a "vulgare proverbium" ("common proverb"). 657 These judgments were affirmed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries by philosophers, especially John Locke, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and Immanuel Kant, all of whom examined the Rule critically. 658 Locke was still able to call the Rule the "foundation of all social virtue," but he did not consider it superfluous to ask for a justification of it. 659 Leibniz 660 pointed out that the Rule needs further interpretation. Is it to be taken in a restrictive sense ("Do to others only what you would have them do to you!"), or in an expansive sense ("Do everything to others that you would have them do to you!")? If the latter is the right understanding, and this implication applies to Matt 7: 12 in particular, the obligations entered into would be potentially unlimited, which means that only the restrictive sense can be regarded as plausible. Leibniz made two important discoveries: (a) he found that the Rule cannot itself be a criterion for ethical action because it depends on such a criterion; (b) the Rule shows the way to such a criterion by putting oneself into the situation of another person. Based on Leibniz's critique, Kant dismissed the Golden Rule as "trivial" and as incapable of serving as an adequate criterion for ethical action. 661 For a time after

655 Singer ("The Golden Rule," 293-94) argues that the negative and the positive formulations are equivalent, and he also introduces a number of important distinctions, such as a "denial": "Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you!" Or an "inversion": "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them!" 656 Aristotle Rhet. 2.6.19, 1384b 4: yap Tt~ avro~ 7TOI€L, TaVTa A'y£Tat Tots- 7dAas- oV VftJ.ECTCi.v, ~UTE fL~ wotii, aijl\ov lir1 vep.eiTii ("For a man is supposed not to reproach others with what he does himself, so it is clear that what he reproaches them with is what he does not do himself"). Cited according to Aristotle: The "Art" of Rhetoric (trans. by John H. Freese; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1926) 216-17. See Dihle, Goldene Regel, 39, 96, 97, 102.

a

510

a

657 Augustine De ordine 2.25 (PL 32.1006); idem, Ep. 157.3.15 (PL 33.681). 658 For the following see Reiner, "Die 'Goldene Regel'"; idem, "Die Goldene Regel und das Naturrecht"; with further bibliography (see the bibliography to this section). 659 John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, book 1, chap. 21, section 4 (2 vols.; ed. Alexander C. Fraser; Oxford: Clarendon, 1894) 1.68. 660 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Nouveaux essais sur l' entendement humain, in his Die philosophischen Schriften, vol. 5 (ed.J. C. Gerhardt; Berlin: Weidmann, 1882) chap. 2, section 4 (pp. 83-84). See Reiner, "Die Goldene Regel und das Naturrecht," 234. 661 Immanuel Kant, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Jten, in Kant's Werke, vol. 4 (Berlin: Reimer, 1903)

Matthew 6:19-7:12

Kant, then, the Golden Rule lost its importance for philosophical ethics. It was not until the latter part of the twentieth century that philosophers and jurists took it up again. 662 3. In a number of important investigations, the philosopher Hans Reiner has presented a new comparative approach to the Rule. 663 Comparing the various formulations of it, he distinguishes not merely the positive and negative versions but different formtypes (Formtypen) with quite different meanings: (a) The Einfuhlungsregel ("rule of sympathetic projection"), found in Epictetus, 664 the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, 665 and Augustine, 666 commands not to do to others what we ourselves do not wish to suffer. We must, therefore, imagine ourselves in the place of others whose sufferings we have witnessed or heard of. Nothing in this version suggests retribution, but what I may have to suffer may have its origin in something other than another person. 667 (b) The Autonomieregel ("rule of autonomous judgment")668 is exemplified by the maxim attributed to Pittacus, one of the Seven Sages, or to Thales, another of the same group. When asked how to live best and most

righteously, Thales is said to have pronounced "By refraining from doing what we blame in others." 669 This rule presupposes that one acquires one's own evaluative judgment about the conduct of the other before one acts, and then acts in the way opposite to what one disapproves of. The evaluative judgment presupposes the existence and application of prior ethical criteria. This rule, therefore, requires "autonomy" in the sense that a priori one must voluntarily recognize existing norms as obligatory. These a priori norms are in turn not arbitrary, but they are based on the principle of justice. Reiner sees this exemplified by a statement in Lysias: "It is not right, therefore, that you ... regard those deeds, which you deemed unjust when done to you, as just when you do them to others. • 6 7° (c) The Rilckbezilglichkeitsregel ("rule ofreflexivity"), 671 which Reiner had earlier named Gegenseitigkeitsregel

430 note. 662 For bibliography see Hoche, "Goldene Regel," passim; Spendel, "Goldene Regel"; Singer, "The Golden Rule"; idem, "Golden Rule"; Mathys, Heiligenthal, and Schrey, "Goldene Regel" (see the bibliography to this section); Luz, Matthaus, 1.38994 (Matthew, 1.425-32). 663 See his articles of 1948 and 1977 and his Die philo-

667 668

sophische Ethik: Ihre Fragen und Lehren in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Heidelberg: QueUe und Meyer, 1964) 669 186-95; idem, Die Grundlagen der Sittlichkeit (Mono-

graphien zur philosophischen Forschung 5; 2d ed.; Meisenheim am Glan: Hain, 197 4) 348-79 (reprint of the 1948 article with revised notes); see also pp. 278-92. 664 Epictetus frg. 35 and 38 (ed. Schenk!, pp. 486 and 493). 665 Ps.-Clem. Hom. 7 .4.3: "The good things that everyone wants for himself, let him want the same things also 670 for his neighbor" (" A7rEp I!Ka
("ne mali aliquid faciat quisque alteri, quod pati ipse non vult"). The text is cited according to A. Goldbacher, ed., Augustin us, Epistulae (CSEL 44.463); the trans. is mine. Cf. idem, De serm. dom. in monte II.22.74-75 (ed. Mutzenbecher, 172-74). Reiner, "Die Goldene Regel und das Naturrecht," 237-38; idem, Grundlagen, 356-61. Idem, "Die Goldene Regel und das Naturrecht," 238-40; idem, Grundlagen, 361-71. According to Diog. L. 1.36: 'TrWS av li.piCTTa Kat OtKaU~TaTa {3t6Jrratp.EV' "fh.v TO 'iS' CI.AAotS' EwLTI.IJ-WJ.LEV' avTOt p.~ l;pwp.EV." Citation according to Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers (trans. by R. D. Hicks; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University, 1925) 1.38-39. See Bruno Snell, Leben und Meinungen derSieben Weisen (4th ed.; Munich: Heimaran, 1971) 106 (no. 5.4); Dihle, Goldene Regel, 9. Reiner, "Die Goldene Regel und das Naturrecht," 239. Lysias Or. 25.20: ov Tolvvv lf.t"~av XPiicr8a1 TO,)TOIS, ... oVOE a7rcl.uxovTES' O.OtiCa Evop.l(ETf. ?nlaxf.LV, CJrav ;Ttpovs 'TrOiijTE, l;{Kala ~yiicr8a1. Cited according to Lysias (trans. W. R. M. Lamb; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1930). Reiner, "Die Goldene Regel und das Naturrecht," 240-41; idem, Grundlagen, 371-78.

a

511

("rule of reciprocity"), 67 2 is exemplified in SM/Matt 7:12/ /SP Luke 6:31. This rule takes as the norm one's own desires regarding the other person's conduct toward oneself, not the other person's situation, actual behavior, or need, This rule prudently calculates that the other person will, if treated in a particular manner, react in kind, so that the desirable conduct is actualized. Reiner sees that even this version, though it comes close to the principle of retribution, is quite different from retribution; retribution is reactive to deeds already done, while this version of the Rule operates on the basis of an anticipated reaction by the other person. One can anticipate it because of the common acknowledgment of the social conventions concerning fairness, mutuality of favors, and exchanges of gifts (do ut des ["I give so that you may give"]). 673 4. In his important investigation of the Golden Rule, published in 1962, Albrecht Dihle 674 proposed a new hypothesis, according to which the Golden Rule has its historical roots in ancient views on retaliation. Thus, as Dihle sees it, the Golden Rule was in its origin a legal principle, identical with the ius talionis ("law of retribution"). 675 This ius talionis, the principle of compensatory retribution, was intended to put an end to indiscriminate blood revenge, up until then the commonly accepted practice. Thus, the acceptance of the rule represented one of the most important steps in the development of human civilization. In antiquity, this ius talionis with its built-in concept of retaliation dominated jurisprudence as well as popular morality. When, in this context of retaliatory strategies, the Golden Rule was developed, it could express only retaliatory morality, no matter how sophisticated its formulation may be. Therefore, Aristotle's judgment was correct, when he attributed the Rule to popular morality (Vulgarethik), not

to philosophical ethics. 6 7 6 Beginning with the Sophists, Dihle sees a gradual development in the course of which retaliatory morality and thinking was gradually overcome. 677 But even before the Sophists, the ancient Near Eastern literature, in particular the Old Testament, contains admonitions to abstain from vengeance, to be generous and forgiving. 678 Dihle submits a wealth of passages from many different sources that demonstrate how retaliation became more and more objectionable or even reprehensible. It was the achievement of Greek philosophy to have taken up these problems and to have subjected them to rigorous intellectual analysis. As a result, retaliation ceased to function as an acceptable moral principle guaranteeing justice. Ethical action, seriously considered, must be based in principle on the good, understood as generosity and philanthropy, regardless of what the other person has done or not done. In Dible's view, the teaching of Jesus dispensed with the Golden Rule and replaced it with the concept of the love of neighbor. This drastic break with traditional morality was caused by Jesus' belief in an imminent eschatology, the coming of the kingdom of God, and trust in God's grace. Jesus' ethics, therefore, was a separatist ethics (Sonderethik), 679 not in conformity in any way with antiquity's general morality and ethics. Following this ethics meant that the religiously faithful disciples of Jesus imitated God's generosity and grace. All forms of retaliation were eliminated, and the only norm was to be God's or Christ's action (imitatio dei ["imitation of God"] or imitatio Christi ["imitation of Christ"]). 680 Dible's view raises the question what to do with the attestation of the Golden Rule in Matt 7: 12//Luke

672 The change was necessary because of possible confusion with the principle of retribution (ius talionis). See Reiner, "Die Goldene Regel und das Naturrecht," 240. 673 On this subject see Du Roy, La reciprocite, 31-49; Ritter (see the bibliography to this section). 674 See above, n. 649. Dihle's book was reviewed by D. A. Russell, Gnomon 35 (1963) 213-15; Herbert Schmid, ZRGG 15 (1963) 303-4; Ludwig Berg, TR 60 (1964) 326-28; A. E. Harvey,JTS 15 (1964) 38488; GUnter Haufe, GGA 217 (1965) 268-71;James M. Robinson,JHPh 4 (1966) 84-88.

512

675 676 677 678 679

Dihle, Goldene Regel, 13-40. Ibid., 39-40. Ibid., 61-71,85-103. Ibid., 42-44, 82-84, 109-15. Ibid., 75, agreeing with Bultmann's concept of a Christian Sonderethik (see Bultmann, Theology, 1.100108; 2.203-18 [§ 10.4-5 and§ 59]). 680 Dihle, Goldene Regel, 73-79.

Matthew 6:19-7:12

6:31. 681 Dihle solves the problem by arguing that these passages682 may not represent Jesus' authentic teaching; the Rule does indeed conform to Jewish teaching and it is, for this reason, pre-Christian. "In the case of the Golden Rule in Matt 7:12 one can say as much as this: The added reference, according to which the rule contains the sum of the Law and the Prophets, betrays that the view propagated is that of late Judaism rather than the authentic teaching of Jesus. Although acting according to the Golden Rule does not contradict the ethical conduct to be derived from Jesus' teaching about humanity and its situation in the inbreaking endtime, this Golden Rule could surely never serve as the fundamental concept for the good to be done, given Jesus' revelation of the new that had never been spoken before. "683 Jesus' command to love the enemy definitely means, according to Dihle, the abrogation of the Golden Rule and marks the starting point of the new Christian ethics. 684 Dihle's work, which cannot be analyzed further at this point, raises the following questions with regard to the Golden Rule in the SM and the SP: (a) Is the Golden Rule a principle of retaliatory morality? (b) Can one interpret the Rule in a positive sense so that it is acceptable to Christian ethics? (c) How is the Golden Rule related to the ius talionis and to the command to love one's neighbor? The work by Reiner and the critical reviews of Dihle have shown that the Golden Rule is not necessarily a statement of retaliatory morality. Indeed, one can understand the Rule in several ways, only one of which Dihle considered. Also, secondary interpretations of the Rule do not by necessity imply that the Rule itself has been rejected. The ius talionis at first sight looks similar to the Golden Rule and has often been confused with it.

They are, however, quite different. Moreover, there is no need to think that one depends on the other. 685 Reformulated in accordance with the ius talionis the Golden Rule would read: "Do to others as they do to you!" Or: "Do as you are being treated!" The difference is that between a legal principle (the ius talionis) and an ethical maxim (the Golden Rule). The latter is based on other presuppositions and on imaginative projection; the former is a general and declarative abstraction. The SM subjects both the ius talionis and the Golden Rule to secondary interpretation; the SM also declares both compatible with the command to love the neighbor (see above on 5:38-42 and 5:43-48). The SM claims that its peculiar understanding of the Golden Rule goes back to Jesus of Nazareth, and one has no reason to doubt that in an old source such as the SM this claim is reliable. By contrast, Dihle's doubts amount to begging the question. The context in which the Golden Rule is certainly found is Jewish, but this does not automatically mean that it is non-Christian. With many other Jewish materials, the Golden Rule has been taken over by Christianity, and thus it has been confirmed as it is. Since Jesus himself was a Jew, a total break between his teaching and that of Judaism amounts to another instance of begging the question, based on Christian christology of other New Testament authors. The Jewish-Christian milieu, from which the SM and the SP came, means that the Golden Rule as found in Judaism has been endorsed by Christians who, however, do not call themselves by that name at this time, so that there is no room for a total break between Jewish and Christian ethics in the way Dihle imagines. In fact, Dihle's notion of a Christian separatist ethics cannot be maintained. The Golden Rule was endorsed by Christianity just as it was endorsed by all of antiquity.

681 Ibid., 103-9, 109-27. 682 For Dihle's, in my view mistaken, interpretation of SP /Luke 6:31 see below on this passage. 683 Dihle, ibid., 112: "Im Faile der Goldenen Regel in Mt. 7, 12 darf man jedoch soviel sagen, daB der hinzugesetzte Hinweis, sie enthalte die Summe des Gesetzes und der Propheten, eher die Anschauungsweise des Spatjudentums als den Geist echter JesusLogien verrat. Zwar widerspricht ein Handeln nach der Goldenen Regel nicht den Verhaltensweisen, die sich aus Jesu Lehren vom Menschen und seiner Situation in der anbrechenden Endzeit herleiten.

Aber nie konnte auf Grund des Neuen, his dahin nicht Gesagten, was die Predigtjesu enthalt, die Goldene Regel zum Inbegriff guten Handelns erhoben und a us ihr aile MaBstabe fiir die sittliche Bewertung einer Handlung gewonnen werden." 684 Ibid., 114-16. 685 See also Wolbert (see the bibliography to this section).

513

While I cannot follow Dihle's overall conception of the development of the Golden Rule, I do agree that the Christianization of the Rule was a secondary act and that it constitutes one of the most important links among Greek, Jewish, and Christian ethical thinking at the beginning. More recently, Paul Ricoeur 686 has presented a new interpretation of the Golden Rule in several of his essays. His interpretation is part of a comprehensive theory of ethics, which defines philosophical ethics as responsible action in a field of tension constituted by the metaphorical poetics oflove on the one side and the formality of law on the other side. Taking over much of my interpretation, Ricoeur argues against Dihle when he sees the Golden Rule as open to two interpretations, one egotistical/utilitarian and another altruistic/nonutilitarian. For this concept of ethics he prefers the latter, nonutilitarian, interpretation. In his view it is based on the love-command of the ethics of Jesus. As such the love-command is not without its presuppositions but is based, in Ricoeur's terms, on an "economy of abundance." This "economy of abundance" is a "supraethical," cosmic, and quasi-theological process, by which human beings experience life in its totality as an abundant gift requiring a concurrent response of generosity. This "economy of abundance," while itself not a principle, can be summed up in the form of a principle. Against Dihle, Ricoeur further argues that one must not understand Jesus' love-command as an abrogation of the Golden Rule. Rather, the lovecommand is a corrective, to which the Golden Rule is made to conform. Thus, one must interpret the Golden Rule in accordance with the "economy of abundance." As a result, ethical action originates in real-life situations that occur in the midst of the "logic of abundance" and the "logic of the exchange of gifts." Such ethical action can, therefore,justify the requirements of justice and at the same time engage in the "poetics of love." Love must not be confused with ethics, according to Ricoeur, but

the "poetics of love" is indispensable for any formation of ethical action. While I agree with much ofRicoeur's thesis, there are further complications, as far as the SM is concerned. First, what he calls the "economy of abundance" the SM identifies theologically as God's generosity dispensed through nature. The SM does not attempt to separate theological and philosophical ethics. Second, the lovecommand itself is a much more involved ethical demand. This love-command has a long history that goes back to the Holiness Code of Leviticus 19, within which it is based on the holiness of God, not on his generosity. But even prior to its inclusion into the Holiness Code, Lev 19:18 seems to have had a history, when its basis was selflove alone. Jesus' interpretation in SM/Matt 5:43-48 bases the love-command neither on self-love nor on God's holiness but on divine generosity dispensed daily through nature. God's generosity, however, is regarded as the expression of his righteousness, and distributing sunshine and rain also to the unrighteous and wicked is the manifestion of God's mercy. For the SM, therefore, the "economy of abundance" is certainly a "natural" phenomenon, but as a natural phenomenon one is not to take it for granted. To comprehend the phenomenon as what it is requires confidence in a God who is willing to pay a price and suffer injustice. To return to the historical questions, how did the Golden Rule enter into Judaism? It seems to have happened in the Hellenistic era, since it turns up first in a sequence of ethical maxims in Tob 4:15: 68 7 Do to no one what you yourself would hate. (REB) Kat Cf JJ-LCTf.LS p.1JOf.Vt 7TOL~CT?JS. (LXX) In Ep. Arist. 207 the Golden Rule is part of an answer given by a sage to the king's question, "What is the teaching of wisdom?": "What does wisdom teach?" This next guest replied: "Insofar as you do not wish evils to come upon you, but to partake of every blessing, (it would be wisdom) if you put this into practice with your subjects,

686 For Ricoeur's contributions see the bibliography on this section above. For a discussion of his ethical theories, see David E. Klemm and William Schweiker, eds., Meanings in Texts and Actions: Questioning Paul Ricoeur (Charlottesville, Va: University of Virginia, 1992). 687 Only some parts of the manuscript tradition have this section.

514

Matthew 6:19-7:12

including the wrongdoers, and if you admonished the good and upright also mercifully. For God guides all men in mercy."

0 a€ lnpos Cz7T£cp~VETO' Ka8i.Js OV flo{;)\£! ITEaVT{i> Tlz KaKiz 7TapEtVa!, JJ.ETOXOS a€ T;;JV aya8wv imapxE!V a7TCLVTWV, E1 7TptLITITHS TOVTO 7rphs TOVs li7TOTETayp.£vovs Kat TOVs ap.apTCLVOVTas. 688 T{ fiTTIV uocplas ataax~;

Therefore, the Golden Rule entered into Judaism by way of the Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom tradition. From there it came into rabbinic Judaism; see b. Sabb. Jla (see below, n. 690) and the interpretation of m. 'Abot 2.10 and 2.11 in 'Abot de R. Nat. 1.15 and 1.16. How then did the Rule enter into Christianity? Joachimjeremias 689 has proposed that Jesus took over the Rule from Hillel and reformulated it. Whereas Hillel 690 cited the Rule in its negative form, Jesus created the positive version. His reason for doing this was that the negative form merely prohibits causing damage to the neighbor, while the positive version implies the initiative to provide help and support. Thus, in its positive formulation the Golden Rule is no longer commonsense wisdom but a theologically conscious interpretation of the command to loveone's•neighbor (Lev 19: 18). RudolfBultmann 691 objected to this hypothesis, and Dihle 692 agreed that there is no real difference between a negative and a positive formulation of the Rule. Taken

by themselves, both are general moral maxims based on a naive egotism. In turn,Jeremias 693 tried to defend his views by saying that HellenisticJudaism, 694 which constituted Jesus' cultural environment, knew only the negative form of the Rule; consequently, it must have been jesus who came up with the positive form found in the Gospels. Meanwhile, however, new uncertainties have arisen that make Jeremias's hypothesis even more difficult. There are serious doubts about attributing the Rule to Hillel because of the historical arbitrariness of all such attributions; but even if that attribution is accepted as a possibility, what about the affinities between Hillel and Stoicism? In fact, no sharp line of demarcation between Hellenism and Judaism seems to have existed in regard to moral maxims, whether negatively or positively formulated. It is also unlikely that the rabbinic theology stated in b. Sabb. 31 a already existed at Jesus' own time and in his milieu. Most likely, therefore, both Jesus and Hillel received the Golden Rule from their HellenisticJewish environment, from where it then entered into rabbinic literature. As a result, one has no reason to rule out the hypothesis that Jesus appropriated the Golden Rule in its positive version from the tradition. Furthermore, one can have no real doubt that the Rule was a constitutive

688 Trans. by J. H. Shutt, OTP 2.26; text according to Andre Pelletier, ed., Lettre d'Aristee aPhilocrate (SC 89; Paris: Cerf, 1962) 196. See the Hebrew T. Naph. 1.6. For a translation see Hollander and de Jonge, Testaments, appendix I (p. 446). See also Philo Hypoth. 7.6; 2 Enoch(]) 42.6-11, a fusion of the Golden Rule and the Beatitudes (OTP 1.168); 60.1-3; 61.1 (OTP 1.186-8 7); Ahiqar (Armenian) 8. 88, see OTP 2.490, 587; Ps.-Philo Ant. bibl. 11.9-13 (OTP 2.319), an interpretation of the Decalogue by the Golden Rule; Syr. Menander 246-47 (OTP 2.587-88), an interpretation of the law against adultery by the Golden Rule; Tg. Ps.-J. I (Lev 19: 18). See also Str-B 1.459-60; Abrahams, Studies, 1.18-29; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 143-45. 689 Joachim Jeremias, "Goldene Regel," RGG (3d ed. 1959) 2.1688. 690 The text upon which this hypothesis is based is b. Sabb. 31a: "On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him: 'Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.'

691 692 693 694

Thereupon he repulsed him with a builder's cubit which was in his hand. When he went before Hillel, he converted him. He said to him: 'What is hateful to you do not to your neighbor, that is the whole Torah, while the rest is commentary thereof; go and learn it!" (trans. Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 [3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1971]1.322-23). On this passage and its parallels, see Jospe, "Hillel's Rule," JQR 81 (1990) 45-57.Jospe takes seriously the suggestion apparently first made by Mordecai M. Kaplan that the term !;,,_., ("foot") involves a double entendre and wordplay using the Latin regula ("rule"). The witticism would combine the standing on one foot, the standing on one rule (the Golden Rule), and Shammai's quite different use of regula ("measuring rod"). Bultmann, History, 103. Dihle, Goldene Regel, 10. Jeremias, Theology, 211-12. Namely, Ep. Arist. 207.

515

part of his teaching; a number of independent witnesses affirm it. 695 Even if one grants this point, however, one must still examine the interpretation of the Rule in the SM. The SM probably preferred the positive formulation because it agrees in that point with the love-command (cf. above on 5:43-44). 696 This form emphasizes the initiative to be taken by the ethically responsible disciple, who in this also imitates God's taking the initiative in dealing with humanity at large (cf. above on 5:45; 6:2534). By contrast, one could easily associate the negative form of the Rule with a God who refrains from anger and punishment, and who rules by patience and magnanimity, if not indifference. In addition, one must not overlook that the Golden Rule in SM/Matt 7: 12 is provided with a secondary interpretation by associating it with the Law and the Prophets (on this point see below).

3) Interpretation

• 12 As has already been shown, the Golden Rule in the

SM has its own characteristics. 698 The beginning words, "Everything, therefore, whatever it may be ... "("rravm oiJV Cfua eav . ..), sum up what has preceded, but the question is how much do those words include. Since the emphasis is on "doing," one should include everything in the preceding text that implies doing. Thus, "everything" should include the entire ethics of the SM. But "everything" seems to admit that the SM does not deal with all possible ethical issues, but only with a selection of especially important issues. In other words, the applicability not only of the Golden Rule but no less of the ethics of the SM as a whole is potentially unlimited, so that the SM here points beyond itself: "Everything, therefore, whatever you want that people do to you ... " (7ravra o~v Cfua eav Bb..TJT€ tva "lTOtWITLV vp.l:v OL livflpamot ... ). 699

2) Analysis Connected by otv ("therefore"), the Golden Rule is stated in a positive formulation in vs 12a-b. The sentence itself has parallel lines (isocolon), the first line (vs 12a) stating the imagined reaction by others, and the second line (vs 12b) the recommended action. The reason for the endorsement of this well-known rule is provided by the interpretative identification in vs 12c, which functions as an aetiologia (the reason standing in postposition). Sententia and aetiologia together form an enthymema (a syllogism). 697

This somewhat circumstantial formulation 700 appeals to the imagination of the hearers or readers. All human beings have desires and expectations about the ways they wish others to treat them. It is presupposed that human social life consists of conventions of reciprocity, exchange of gifts and favors, action and reaction, and so forth. One can favorably influence this social system of conventions and turn it to one's advantage, if one makes use of one's imagination and realizes one's expectations. It is

traditions found only in this author, so that it is 695 SM/Matt 7:12/ /SP/Luke 6:31; Acts 15:19-20 v.l., 28-29 v.l.; Did 1.2; 1 Clem 13.2; P. Oxy. 654, no. 5; impossible to decide whether they come from special tradition or whether Matthew has contributed them. Cos. Thom.log. 6;JustinDial. 93.1. For parallel The summarizing ,-6.vra ("all") is common in the SM passages see Aland, Synopsis, 95; Kloppenborg, Q (cf. 5:11, 15, 18, 22, 28, 32; 6:29, 32, 33; 7:8, 17, Parallels, 28-30; Resch, Agrapha, 60-61, 17 4; Stroker, Extracanonical Sayings, 24-26. Most of the 19, 21, 24, 26). Did. 1.2, independent of the canonical Matthew, has similar wording, and so hasPs.parallel passages do not depend on Matthew's or Luke's Gospel directly. See also Ps.-Clem. Hom. 2.6.4; Clem. Hom. 11.4.4; Rec. 5.23.7. On the other side, the clearly Matthean formulation in Matt 22:40 differs in 7.4.3; 11.4.4; 11.5.2; 12.32.5; 18.16.3; Rec. 5.23.7; 8.56.7. For the problem see the work by Bartsch wording: fv TaVTars Tat'S' avuLv €vToAats 8Aos 0 v6f'OS' cited in the bibliography to this section. Kpep.arat Kat o! ,-po
516

Matthew 6:19-7:12

moreover taken for granted that all humans have such imagination, and that all humans want to be treated in ways beneficial to them. Far from being stigmatized as "naive" or "egotistical," these desires and expectations are regarded as a normal part of human intercourse, and anything to the contrary one would have to call deviant and unsocial. Then we are to use these desires and anticipations positively to influence fellow human beings and their conduct toward us. 70 1 This presupposition is not called into question, for example, by seeing a contradiction between "you will" or "you want" (8b..7Ju), 70 2 and the third petition of the Lord's Prayer, "Your will be done, as in heaven so also on earth" (6:10b-c). 703 The term "doing" (7TOL£tv) includes all human interaction by deeds and words, 704 just as "the people" (ot lf.vOpw'lToL) refers to all members of the human race, not only the outsiders to the community of Jesus' disciples. 705 Thus the ethics of the SM is not particularistic or separatist but universalist, thereby fulfilling one of the requirements of ethics. Verse 12b then presents the recommendation for one's own action: "thus also you shall do to them" (oilToos "a'r. VfL£Ls '7TOL£LT£ a·bTo'Ls). 706 Instead of having the people's actions determine our reaction, we should take the initiative and act toward them first in accordance with our imagination as to how we wish to be treated by them. The expectation then is that the people thus approached treat us in the same manner, so that we can anticipate what their actions toward us will be. The general presupposition here is that all people want to be treated fairly and beneficially, and that all people will respond

with kindness and fairness if they are approached in that way. This presupposition by itself appears to be rather naive. While true most of the time, the ethically conscientious person will face critical situations that should require, it seems, a good deal of caution. This caution then seems to be the reason for the additional interpretation in vs 12c. The added interpretation in vs 12c is a formula: "For this is the law and the prophets" (o{;Tos yap £crnv v6fLOS ICa'r. ot 'lTpocpijTat). "This" (ovTos) refers to the Golden Rule, marking it as a citation. 707 What does it mean to say that the Golden Rule is identical with the Torah, consisting of "the law and the prophets"? 708 There are two ways of understanding this identification: First, proceeding from the phrase "the law and the prophets," the Golden Rule could serve as a hermeneutical principle for interpreting the large and diverse books of the (Jewish) Bible. Although not contained in these writings, the Golden Rule establishes a standard and provides a fundamental unity in all diversity. The claim would be that, although the Rule is not found in the Scriptures expressly, it is contained in them implicitly. 709 Second, proceeding from the Golden Rule and the recognition of its need for presuppositions, "the law and

7 0 1 This interpretation is confirmed by the interesting commentaries on the Golden Rule in Ps.-Clem. Hom. 7.4.3; 11.4.4; 11.5.2; 12.32.5; 18.16.3;Rec. 5.32.7; 8.56.7. 702 Cf. also SM/Matt 5:40-42. 703 If "naive egotism" is implied, it is not made an issue because such egotism would not have been regarded as an evil, as long as justice is safeguarded in other ways. Cf. Bultmann's often-quoted statement (History, 103): "The positive form is purely accidental, for whether it be given positive or negative formulation the saying, as an individual utterance, gives moral expression to a naif egoism." 704 Cf. SM/Matt 5:19, 32, 36, 46, 4 7; 6:1, 2, 3; 7:21, 22, 24, 26. 705 Cf. SM/Matt 5:13, 16, 19; 6:1, 2, 5, 14, 15, 16, 18; 7:9.

o

706 llua ..• ollTwr does not make a good correlation; see BAGD, s.v. oiJn:os, l,a; Clcros, 2. 707 For parallels see BAGD, s.v. oVTor l.a; in Matthew see 3: 17; 17:5; 26:26, 28. 708 One should note that 7:12 differs slightly from 5:17; the former has Kal ("and"), the latter has if ("or"); see above on 5:17. Cf. alsoPs.-Clem. Hom. 12.32.5, where the concluding reference reads: "For this is God's law and that of the prophets, this is the teaching of the truth" (OVTOf yap EITTI IIEOV vop.or Kat 7rpO1JTWV, alJT1J Tijr aA7JIIE{ar ~ a&aauKaALa). 709 For the similar role of the Golden Rule at the end of moral catalogues see Ps.-Clem. Hom. 7 .4.3; 11.5.2; 12.32.5; Rec. 8.56.7. In non-Christian texts also the Rule can have this function; see !socrates Nicocl. 6162 (see also Nicocl. 49-50; Ad Nicocl. 24; 38; Panegyr. 81; Ps.-Isoc. Demon. 17); Ps.-Piutarch Consol. ad A poll.

517

the prophets" are the presuppositions required. 710 In particular "that which you want" receives its precise meaning not from one's own arbitrary wishes and desires but from the will of God as revealed in the Torah. 711 We are to affirm this will of God (cf. the Lord's Prayer [see above on 6:1 Ob-c]). Both of these options may play a role. Already prior to the SM,Judaism had established that the Golden Rule can serve as an integrating hermeneutical principle. In addition, philosophers had pointed out that the Golden Rule is in need of clarification regarding its underlying values. Both these insights conform with the interpretation that the SM gives to the Rule. What finally is the interpretation given the Golden Rule in the SM? Positioned at the end of the main body of the SM and thus concluding its ethical discussions, the Golden Rule occupies a very important place, indicating various functions. 1. The Rule serves to summarize the ethical discussion of 5: 1 7-7: 11 , sections that are understood as only some examples from a potentially endless number of issues. All that has been selected and discussed in the SM, all its ethical commendations, are presented as conforming to the Golden Rule. The same is true of all the possible issues not discussed, issues that may come up at any time in the life of the disciple. Whatever ethical action one contemplates, therefore, must conform to the Golden Rule. In this respect, the Rule is confirmed as the general principle for all ethical decision making. 2. Being in need of interpretation as we have seen, the Golden Rule is set in a secondary frame of reference. This is indicated by the reference in vs 12c concerning "the law and the prophets." Torah and Scripture are the resources for knowing what God's will is, and this is the needed presupposition for the interpretation of the

Golden Rule. In other words, the phrase "all that you wish" is not to be left to egotistical arbitrariness, but focuses on the will of God. The disciples are called on to imagine what God wills and how God acts, in order then to join in with his will and acting; and this point serves to confirm the petition in the Lord's Prayer, "Your will be done, as in heaven so also on earth" (6: 1Ob-c). Interpreted in this way, the Golden Rule does not presuppose as its foundation divine or human retaliation but God's initiative of generosity, forbearance, and forgiveness. The disciples are to imitate this divine initiative in the hope that the people who they thus treat will respond in kind. 3. The purpose of bringing in the Golden Rule is to make sure that the ethics of the SM remains realistic, prudent, and universal. The Golden Rule thus prevents the ethics of the SM from becoming a separatist ethic (Sonderethik). Consequently, as such the Golden Rule is neither non-Christian nor Christian; it is recognized as universal and is as such "Christianized" by its insertion in the SM. This insertion takes place first at the level of the Judaism of Jesus, then Jewish Christianity (SM), and finally by the appropriation of the SM by the Gospel of Matthew (the same is true for the SP and its adoption by the Gospel of Luke). Inserted at the end, the claim is made as well that the Golden Rule is compatible with the other hermeneutical principles at the head of the ethical main body of the SM in 5:17-20. Thus, the Golden Rule does not abolish and replace the Torah (cf. 5:17: "law or prophets") but fulfills it, and it corresponds to the greater righteousness required in 5:20. The Golden Rule certainly agrees with the interpretation of the law of retribution (ius talionis [5:38-42]) 712 and with the commandment to love the neighbor (Lev 19:18) in 5:43-48. 713 One must keep in

116C-D, which quotes the Delphic maxims "Know yourself" and "Nothing in excess," followed by the comment: "for on these two commandments hangs all the rest." 71 0 Cf. the commentaries on the Golden Rule in Ps.Clem. Hom. 7 .4.3; 11.4.4; 11.5.2; 12.32.5; 18.16.3; Rec. 5.23.7; 8.56.7. 711 So also Calvin, Inst. 2.8.53. Cf. Ps.-Clem. Hom. 2.6.4, which states that the Golden Rule is a matter of reason, not revelation. Cf. also Rec. 8.56. 7. Luther's impressive sermon (W A 3 2. 494-99) goes beyond these alternatives.

518

712 Ps.-Clem. Hom. 18.16.3 combines the Golden Rule and the ius talionis. 713 Cf. the commentary on the Golden Rule in Ps. -Clem. Hom. 12.32.6. SM/Matt 5:43-44 interprets the lovecommand of Lev 19:18, and then defines the combination in this way, "And this perfect love towards every man is the male part of philanthropy, but the female part of it is compassion." This combination may be traditional in part because it has a parallel in Seneca (Ep. 47), who understands it in terms of Stoic philosophy. See Dihle, Goldene Regel, 126 n. 1.

Matthew 6:19-7:12

mind that all these interconnected interpretations exist at the secondary level of the theology of the SM, but the claim is also made that they exist even at the earlier level of Jesus' Jewish theology. 4. Finally, besides the required creativity in imagining what God wills and how he acts, the Golden Rule demands a willingness to take considerable risks. One has no guarantee that people will respond in kind when approached with generosity and goodwill. While it is considered realistic and prudent to act in this way, because human beings behave accordingly most of the time and because this is the right way of acting, one has no assurance that they will do so all of the time. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence that humans can be unfair, ungrateful, exploitative, cynical, and brutal, no matter

how kindly one may treat them. The cynical exploitation of generosity and kindness is a daily experience for most of us, so that the Golden Rule may look more like an invitation to abuse than prudence. Such risk taking, however, is a constitutive element of everything worthy of being called ethical. According to the SM, such risks are taken by God himself when he lets the sun shine on the good and the bad, and his rain fall on the righteous and the unrighteous (5:45). The risk, therefore, is unavoidable; indeed, it belongs to the marks of righteousness or prudence, but they belong to the preconditions for all ethics. That aspect is also part of the reality to which the Golden Rule addresses itself.

519

Matthew 7:13-23 Chapter VII The Eschatological Warnings

7 1. Introduction

It has always been recognized that 7: 13 is the beginning

of a new section. 1 The composition and structure of this new section are much easier to discern than that of the preceding one of6:19-7:12. 2 Three sayings compositions make up this section: 7:13-14, 7:15-20, and 7:21-23. All of them contain eschatological warnings. 3 These three sections appear to take up and thematize the numerous eschatological references that occur in the preceding parts of the SM. Eschatological paraenesis is known from Jewish and Christian literature, reaching back into the Old Testament and subsequent HellenisticJewish materials. The three passages in 7:13-23 form a transition from the three major parts of the body of the SM to the concluding double parable in 7:24-27. Gunther Bornkamm4 has summed up what can be said about the composition of the section. He has recognized that the plan for the composition becomes clear through a comparison with the SP, where the saying "On judging" (SP /Luke 6:37-42/ /SM/Matt 7:1-5) is followed by a comparison between the tree and its fruits and a man and his works (SP /Luke 6:43-45/ /SM/Matt 7: 1520). Luke's source then continues with the saying of 6:46, in order to end with the double parable in 6:47-49 (/ /SM/Matt 7:24-27). The differences between the SP and the SM at this point are considerable. That the overall order is quite

2

3

520

similar should not distract from these differences. While the final double parable is essentially the same in the SP and the SM, the sections in SM/Matt 7:13-23 have no analogy in the SP. The Two Ways (SM/Matt 7:13-14) are unique to the SM, with the Two Ways pattern found only in the SM; the warning against false prophets (SM/Matt 7: 15-20) is absent from the SP, as that text knows only of the prophets of old (see below on SP /Luke 6:23). The warning against self-delusion (SM/Matt 7:21-23) has no parallel in the SP, although the subject matter of self-delusion is certainly not unknown to it. Bornkamm is right in saying that the strong emphasis on eschatology is not found in the SP, although eschatology is found there, too. As Bornkamm has shown in his study on the composition of 2 Corinthians, 5 such eschatological warnings constituted a topos in jewish and Christian literature at the time. "In the literary sense this well-known jewish-Christian apocalyptic topos generated the laws of form and composition so frequently attested also elsewhere, to place warnings against false prophets anhe end of larger sections or entire writings, in order to prepare the church for the lastjudgment." 6 2. Interpretation a. Two Ways and Two Gates (7:13-14) 13 Enter by the narrow gate! For the [one] gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and

See, e.g., Luther, WA 32.499; Tholuck, Bergrede, 458 (Commentary, 413); Meyer, Matthaus (3d ed. 1855) 164-65; Marguerat, Le jugement, 168-75; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 161 (Sermon, 156); Luz, Matthaus, 1.394-95 (Matthew, 1.432-33); Allison, "Structure," 430; 432. There seems to be no connection between 7:12 and 7: 13; the Golden Rule looks back on the SM preceding it, while 7: 13 looks forward to the future, and that both in the literary and theological sense. Cf., however, Did. 1.1-2, where the double commandment oflove and the Golden Rule are the main ethical principles of "the way of life." This does not imply (Strecker is unclear at this point [Bergpredigt, 161-62; Sermon, 156-57]) that the Didache presupposes canonical Matthew, but both make use of the same ethical topoi. So also Strecker, Weg, 137-38 with n. 4; idem, Bergpredigt, 161, 164, 171, 175 (Sermon, 156, 16364, 165-66, 167-68); W. Nicol, "The Structure of Matthew Seven," Neot. 11 (1977) 77-90, esp. 87-88. Marguerat (Le jugement, 183-84) and Luz (Matthaus,

4 5

6

1.394 [Matthew, 1.432]) argue differently and divide this section into two parts-the Two Ways (7:13-14) and the Warning against the False Prophets (7: 1523)-and then the concluding double parable (7:2427). So also Allison, "Structure," 430 n. 19. Bornkamm, "Aufbau," 423-24. Gunther Bornkamm, "Die Vorgeschichte des sogenannten zweiten Korintherbriefes," in his Geschichte und Glaube, vol. 2: Gesammelte Aujsatze, vol. 4 (Munich: Kaiser, 1971) 180-94. On this hypothesis see also Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 21-22. Bornkamm, "Aufbau," 424 (my trans.). He lists as parallel passages Mark 13:22; Matt 24:11-12, 24; 1 Cor 16:22; Phil3:2ff.; 1 Pet 4:12ff.; 2 Pet 3:2ff.;Jude 17ff.; Rev 22:9ff.; Didache 16. See also GlennS. Holland, The Tradition That You Received from Us: 2 Thessalonians in the Pauline Tradition (HUTh 24; Tobingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1988) 129-58.

Matthew 7:13-23

14

those who enter by it are many. [But] how narrow is the [other] gate and [how] confined is the way that leads to life, and those who find it are few! Bibliography Hans Dieter Betz, "Eschatology in the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain," in Kent Richards, ed., SBLSP 1985, 343-50; reprinted in Betz, Synoptische Studien, 219-29. Adelbert Denaux, "Der Spruch von den zwei Wegen im Rahmen des Epilogs der Bergpredigt (Mt 7,1314 par. Lk 13,23-24): Tradition und Redaktion," in Delobel, Logia, 305-35. J. Duncan M. Derrett, "The Merits i>fthe Narrow Gate (Mt 7:13-14, Lk 13:24)," JSNT 15 (1982) 20-29; reprinted with an addendum in his Studies in the NT, 4.147-56. Franz joseph Dolger, Die Sonne der Gerechtigkeit und der Schwarze: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Studie zum Taufgelobnis (Liturgiegeschichtliche Forschungen 2; Munster: Aschendorff, 1918) 124-29: "Die heiden Wege der Finsternis und des Lichts." Joachim Jeremias, "1rMo.Tj, 1rvAwv," TDNT 6.921-28. Idem, "6-6pa," TDNT 3.173-80. Marguerat, Le jugement, 1 7 5-82. A. J. Mattill, Jr., "The Way of Tribulation," JBL 98 (1979) 531-46. Wilhelm Michaelis, "hMs KTA.," TDNT 5.42-114. Piper, Wisdom, 107-10. Gunther Schwarz, "Mattaus vii 13a: Ein Alarmruf angesichts hochster Gefahr," NovT 12 (1970) 22932. Idem, "Und Jesus sprach," 244-51. Steinhauser, Doppelbildworte, 148-57. Wrege, Bergpredigt, 132-35. Zeller, Mahnsprilche, 139-42.

1 I Introduction

Several traditional wisdom motifs have been combined in a peculiar way in 7:13-14, so as to describe what the disciples should regard as the "way up"(~ ll.vollo~). 7 The motif of the Two Gates is joined with that of the Two Ways, each pair leading either to eternal perdition or to eternal life. Two major problems arise from this mixing 7

8

of images. First, do the gates mark the beginning of the roads, or do the roads lead up to the gates? If the former was intended, 8 the gates would symbolize the beginnings of the Christian versus the non-Christian life, so that the SM as a disciplinary instruction would come to symbolize the narrow gate as well as the narrow way. The analysis below, however, shows that the intention of the text is that the gates stand at the end of the roads. Second, are the gates, or at least one of them, entrances to the heavenly city,Jerusalem? 9 As shown below, there is no indication that the heavenly Jerusalem is thought of, even though it would be suggestive, especially in the SM, to have such an indication. At any rate, the images of ways and gates are of principal importance for the composition and purpose of the SM as a whole. "Hearing and doing" the sayings contained in the SM (see below on 7:24-27) means walking "the way leading to life eternal." 10 In other words, the sayings of the SM do not constitute the way itself but are merely trail markers and guidelines pointing out the way. The "way" itself is the life to be lived by the disciples in obedience to the instructions of the SM. That the "rough road" indicates that travel will be difficult and hazardous is to be expected, but it is not the result of the difficult teachings in the SM. Rather, it is the result of the difficulties of life itself. These difficulties consist of the myriad of pressures, dangers, and obstacles on the outside, as well as of human foolishness and stubbornness on the inside. The struggle of the faithful is with the external as well as with the internal troubles. Overcoming them means finding "the narrow gate." The motif of the Two Ways is traditional in all of the ancient world. The beginnings are in the ancient Near East, foremost in Egypt, 11 the Old Testament, and

The term &vollos is, however, not used in the SM. For this important theme, see Hildebrecht Hommel, 9 "Der Weg nach oben: Untersuchungen zum 10 lateinischen Spruchgut," in his Symbola (Hildesheim: 11 Olms, 1976) 1.274-89. So already Ps.-Clem. Hom. 7.7.3; also Bengel, Gnomon, 56-67; Meyer,Matthiius, 165; Klostermann, Matthii.us, 69. See furthermore, Luz, Matthiius, 1.395

(Matthew, 1.433-34). For this view see below. See also Betz, Essays, 2-3. For the history of the concept, see Hellmut Brunner, Altii.gyptische Erziehung (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1957) 107-13;Jan Bergman, "Zum Zwei-WegeMotiv: Religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Bemerkungen," SEA 41-42 (1976-77) 27-56;

521

Judaism. 12 In Greek religion, the Orphic gold tablets show evidence of the metaphor. 13 In Greek literature and philosophy, the combination of the Two Ways 14 with the myth of Heracles led to the famous paradigm of "Heracles at the crossroads." 15 The possibilities of application appear almost endless by the time of the New Testament. There are the juxtapositions of the simple

life with the life ofluxury, 16 the vita activa and the vita contemplativa, 17 the way of light and the way of darkness, 18 and the way oflife and the way of death .I 9 In late antiquity, the Two Ways were also interpreted astrologically. 20 The SM has inherited the motif of Two Ways from Judaism. 21 The SM interprets it as an image showing

Gunther Lapp, "Zweiwegebuch," LdA 6 (1986) 1430-32; Zuntz, Persephone, 374; Edmund Hermsen, Die zwei Wege des Jenseits: Das iigyptische Zweiwegebuch und seine Topographie (OBO 112; Fribourg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-

12

precht, 1991 ). See esp. Deut 30:15-16; also 11:28-30;Josh 24:15; Jer 21 :8-14; Pss 1 :6; 118:29-30; 138:24; Prov 4:1112; 15:11-17, 19-20; Sir 6:18-31; 21:10; Sib. Or. 8.399-401 (OTP 1.427); T. Abr. 8-13 (OTP 1.88690); T. Ash. 1:3-5:4 (OTP 1.816-18); 2 Enoch 30.15 (OTP 1.152); 4 Ezra 7.3-15 (OTP 1.536-37). Philo has similar material; see Ebr. 150; Agricr. 104; Poster. C. 154. For references see also Str-B 1.460-64; Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 145-4 7; Schurer, History, 3/1.172; Zeller,Mahnspriiche, 145-47; Niederwimmer, Didache, 83-88; Brox, Hermas, 190, 225-26, 264,497, 552-53; Sebastian Brock, "The Two Ways and the Palestinian Targum," in Philip R. Davies and RichardT. White, eds., A Tribute to Geza

16 17

18

Schwarze: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Studie zum Tauf gelobnis (Liturgiegeschichtliche Forschungen 2;

19

Vermes: Essays on jewish and Christian Literature and History (JSOTSup 100; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,

13

14

15

1990) 138-52. See text A.l, line 5: ll<~&i.r.v ollo11r
6; Burkhard Gladigow, "Der Makarismus des Weisen," Hermes 95 (1967) 404-33, especially 42324; Hildebrecht Hommel, "Der Weg nach oben" (see

522

above, n. 7); Wolfgang Harms, Homo viator in bivio: Studi~n zur Bildlichkeit des Weges (Medium Aevum 21; Munich: Fink, 1970), who also discusses the history of the Pythagorean symbol "Y"; OlofGigon, "Die Wege zur ap
Munster: Aschendorff, 1918) 124-29: "Die heiden W ege der Fins tern is und des Lichts." After Matt 7:13-14 see Doctrina apostolorum; Did. 1.1; 5.1-2; Hermas Vis. 3.7.1-3; Man. 6.2 (see A. Hillhorst, "Hermas," RAG 14 [1988]682-701, esp. 692-93; and the commentaries by Niederwimmer and Brox [see above, n. 12]); Clement Alex. Protr. 100 (1.168.1). For the Pseudo-Clementines, seePs.Clem. Hom. 3.18.3; 3.52.2; 7.7.1-2; 18.17.3; for the extracanonical sayings of Jesus see Resch, Agrapha, 161; Stroker, Extracanonical Sayings, 165. See the interpretation by Hippolytus Ref 4.48.9, and the discussion in Wolfgang Hubner, Zodiacus Christian us: Jiidisch-christliche Adaptionen des Tierkreises von der Antike his zur Gegenwart (BKP 144; Konigstein

i.Ts.: Hain, 1983) 137 n. 238. The gates are taken to refer to the constellations of the Little and the Big Bears. For the OT see the passages noted above, n. 12. On the topic as a whole see Volz, Eschatologie, 113, 12728, 306, 416; Friedrich Notscher, Gotteswege und Menschenwege in der Bibel und in Qumran (BBB 15; Bonn: Hanstein, 1958) 315-18; Paul Winter, "Ben Sira and the Teaching of the Two Ways," VT 5 (1955) 315-18; Willy Rordorf, "Un chapitre d'ethiquejudeo-chretienne: les deux voies," RSR 60 (1972) 109-28; M. Jack Suggs, "The Christian TwoWays Tradition: Its Antiquity, Form, and Function," in David E. Aune, ed., Studies in New Testament and

Matthew 7:13-23

human life as a road to be traveled. The life of the disciple must not only be traveled, but traveled in accordance with the guidelines of Jesus' teachings in the SM. This life of the disciple begins with the Beatitudes (5:3-12) and the commission (5:13-16); it ends, or begins in another sense, with the entrance into the kingdom of God. The motif of the Two Ways also operates as a literary device in the sense that the teachings of the SM describe "the way of life" to be lived by the faithful disciple. The eyes of the readers or hearers are, therefore, directed to look ahead at life as the difficult road to travel. This application of the image of the "road" is found also elsewhere in early Christian literature. 22 The motif of the Two Gates is also traditional in antiquity, where gates are presumed to mark the entrance to the afterlife. 23 Like the image of the Two Ways, that of the Two Gates can be applied in various forms. 24 Less clear is what lies behind the gates. Joachim Jeremias 25 suggested that the gates are those of the heavenly Jerusalem, but the text has no mention of a city; more importantly, it would be difficult to imagine "eternal destruction" to take place in the heavenly city. In terms of comparative religion one certainly need not think of a city; thus one should assume that the gates lead to the two realms ofthe hereafter, one to the kingdom of God 26 and the other to hell (for the latter the SM uses

several terms). 27 The next passage, 7:21-23, however, shows that behind the gates comes first of all the last judgment. 28 If, however, the "narrow gate" is the entrance to the kingdom of God, the question is, Where does the SM think that entrance occurs? According to the theology of the SM, the disciple is from one point of view already in the kingdom of God (see above on the Beatitudes [5:312]), but from another point of view the disciple is still seeking it (see above on 6:33; 7:7-8). Therefore, in the SM the same tension predominates that is characteristic of much of the older layers of the Jesus-tradition: the tension between the kingdom already existing in the present and the eschatological, future aspect of that kingdom. It is not inconceivable, though less probable, therefore, that the "narrow gate" refers to the Beatitudes, 29 while the "rough road" points to the lifelong struggle to implement its tenets. 2) Analysis The composition begins with a commandment, formulated positively and in the second person plural (vs 13a; cf. vs 15a). Verses 13-14 contain a description of the Two Ways and the Two Gates. The two parts in vs 13b and vs 14 form an antithetical parallelism (isocolon). Within the two parts of the isocolon are two smallerscale parallelisms (isocola); alliteration occurs at the beginning (1TAan!a ~ 1TVA7J). Verse 14 is an exclamation

Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren (NovTSup 33; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 60-74; Niederwimmer, Didache, 83-88 (with further

22 23

24

material). See above, n. 19. See the lexica on 1TVA7J:JoachimJeremias, TDNT 6.921-28; Reinhard Kratz, EWNT 3.474-76 (EDNT 3.196-97); BAGD, 729; also Wilhelm Michaelis, TDNT 5.72-75,91-96 (C.2.aand D). Of particular interest is Cebes Tabula 1.1-2.2, and passim. The setting of the work is a discussion of a votive plaque in the temple of Cronus. On it is a depiction of a mysterious walled city, within which are two enclosures, the larger of them having a gate. The picture is said to have come from a stranger, a Pythagorean. See the ed. and trans. by John T. Fitzgerald and L. Michael White, The Tabula ofCebes (SBL TT 24; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1983). On p. viii see the drawing of a relief depicting the walled enclosure and the gate with the inscription BlOC ("life"). The Tabula of Cebes shows how popular the metaphors were in Hellenism, and how diversified

25 26 27

28

29

and literary its elaborations had become. For further parallels see also Wettstein, 1.342-43; Betz, Lukian, 46 n. 4, 82 n. 4, 92 n. 6, 96 n. 4. For the importance of the gates in Mithraism see Reinhold Merkelbach, Mithras (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1984) 240. See Jeremias, TDNT 6. 922-23 (B); differently Grundmann, Matthaus, 230-31. Cf. SM/Matt 5:3, 10, 19, 20; 6:10, 13, 33; 7:21. Cf. SM/Matt 5:22, 29, 30: ytEvva ("Gehenna"); 5:22: ytEvva Tov 1Tvp6r ("Gehenna of fire"); 'lTVp ("fire"). On the "gates of Hades" see Matt 16:18 and Jeremias, TDNT6.924-28 (C). For the geography of the afterlife, as Hellenistic Judaism imagined it, see T. Abr. 8-13 (OTP 1.88690): Abraham enters through the narrower of two gates (chaps. 8-9), visits first paradise and then the place of judgment (chap. 10). This possibility is strengthened, if one assumes basic independence from Luke 13:23-24, where the "door" (8vpa) clearly refers to the entrance to the afterlife.

523

(exclamatio). 30 The whole image is an allegory, 31 introduced by the term "enter" (.ol, >.tyro v,_'Lv, (1JT~uovu•v elcrEA8e'iv Kat oVK loxVo-ovuLv. The apophthegm 3 2 serves to introduce a waming by way of an eschatological episode parallel to SM/Matt 7:21-23, with which, however, it does not have any direct textual contact. 33 The episode concludes (Luke 13: 13) with a familiar sententia: "And behold, there are last ones who will be first, and there are first ones who will be last." 34 The origin of Luke 13:23-30 is' still a matter of debate. 35 The question here is whether one may attribute the SM passage to Q, and whether the SM passage may be the result of a reworking of Q. 36 Any

30 31 32

33 34 35 36

524

attempt to demonstrate a dependency of the SM passage on Q is certainly difficult. 37 Indeed, the relationship of dependency could just as well be t):le other way around. 38 Rather than simply accepting the allegory of the SM, somebody could have tried to clarify its meaning in Luke 13:23a. Or, taking the clue from the SM, a storyteller could have fashioned a separate passage from it. Therefore, one must assume that both texts represent redactional work, probably at the presynaptic level. It is methodologically dangerous to place great emphasis on common words, if they are quite common anyway, or on words preferred by the Gospel writers, if these words may come from different sources used by different Gospel writers. Whatever the case may be, the end products of the redactional process are rather different. 39 Both texts appear to make use of common imagery. This imagery illustrates the difficulties conceming entering into the kingdom of God, a theme found also in the teaching of jesus attested elsewhere in the New Testament. Conceivably, Luke 13:23-30 became part of the Lukan version ofQ, 40 while SM/Matt 7:13-14 became integrated into the SM (whether or not it ever circulated independently before), and together with the SM into QM•tt. Most likely, the passage in SM/Matt 7: 13-14 was composed for the present SM context.

3) Interpretation

• 13 With no connecting particle, vs 13a begins with a

commandment or appeal, stated in the second person plural and using metaphorical language: "Enter by the narrow gate!" (Elu£>.8an lltiz Tijs unvijs 1r!JA7Js). The term duipx£u8at ("enter into") is a key term mentioned in the SM already in 5:20, "enter into the kingdom of the

On the textual problem see below. See Lausberg, Handbuch, 1.441-42 (§ 395). 37 See Bultmann, History, 93, 130; Franz MuBner, "Das 'Gleichnis' vom gestrengen Mahlherrn (Lc 13, 2230): Ein Beitrag zum Redaktionsverfahren und zur 38 Theologie des Lukas," TThZ 65 (1956) 129-43; Paul Hoffmann, "7r
Kloppenborg, QParallels, 152-55. On the present status of research, see Denaux, "Spruch," 316-18; Kloppenborg, Formation, 223-25; idem, QParallels, 154. See Schulz, Q, 309-11; Denaux, "Spruch," 317 nn. 33 and 34. All of this speaks against Denaux ("Spruch," 318-29), who argues in great detail that both texts go back to an original Q-version, which he thinks he can reconstruct. If Luke 13:22-30 justifies the admission of Gentiles to the kingdom of God, as most scholars assume, it would be contrary to the theology of the SM. The texts would then demonstrate how one could interpret teachings of Jesus in opposite directions.

Matthew 7:13-23

heavens." Wherever the term "kingdom of the heavens" occurs(5:3, 10, 19, 20; 6:10,13, 33; 7:21), "entering into" is thought of, too. 41 Therefore, the "narrow gate" 42 is unquestionably the entrance to the kingdom of the heavens. 43 Because this "gate" ('li'VA:q) 44 is not easy to find, passing through it is easier said than done. The saying in vs 13a reflects similar sayings about entering into the kingdom of God elsewhere in the synoptic Gospels. 45 Verse 13b, introduced by Cln ("for"), 46 -contains the description first of the wide gate: "For the [one] gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many" (C/n 'li'A.art'ia ~ 'li'VA.TJ Kal. £vpvxropot; ~bah .. ~ chayovo-a £lt; T~V Ct'li'WA.nav Kal. 'li'OA.A.ol £lo-LV OL £lO"£PXOP.£VOL a,' avTijt;). The intention is clearly to create a vivid image before our eyes, but the mixing of the images creates some problems, as the textual emendations by scribes show. The relative clause ("that leads") leaves open whether it is the gate or the way that leads to destruction, so that some witnesses omit "the gate" 47 and leave only "the way" in the text. 48 The choice of adjectives is deliberate and somewhat poetic: 'li'A.au'ia ("broad, wide") fits both the gate and the road, as parallel references show. 49 Just as alliteration is characteristic of the first expression ('li'A.au'ia . .• 'li'VA.TJ), so is homoeoteleuton (equal ending of the words) ofthe second (£vpvxropot; ~ ba&,.). 50 As a metaphor, the term a'll'ayro ("lead away") has overtones of 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

48

49 50 51

being led astray; 51 again this term is connected by alliteration with a'll'wA.na ("destruction"), a technical term referring to eschatological doom. 5 2 This wide road and gate are passed through by "the masses" (ol 'li'OA.A.ot), the proverbial massa perditionis. At this point one perceives that the SM sees itself as representing a minority that stands in stark opposition to the majority of fellow Jews as well as fellow humans. This minority status is maintained throughout the SM. Typical of the times anyway, 5 3 however, minority status was also claimed by other groups in the ancient world, among them the Jews in general. 54 The SM defines as the m
For the literature on El
52

53

54

55 56 57 58

2.b-c; 3; 4. Cf.John 17:12; Rom 9:22; Phill:28; 3:19; 2 Thess 2:3; 1 Tim 6:9; Heb 10:38; 2 Pet 2:1, 3; 3:7, 16; Rev 17:8, 11. See BAGD, s.v. awooAE&a, 2. See Matt 9:37; 20:16; 22:14; Luke 10:2; 13:23. For more on this point see the Introduction to this chapter, above; also Betz, Essays, 92-93. The issue has wider implications; see Hanns-Dieter Voigtlander, Der Philosoph und die Vielen: Die Bedeutung des Gegensatzes der unphilosophischen Menge zu den Philosophen und das Problem des argumentum e consensu omnium im philosophischen Denken der Griechen his auf Aristoteles (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1980). See SM/Matt 5:13, 16, 19; 6:1, 2, 5, 16, 18; 7:9, 12. See SM/Matt 6:32; cf. 5:47; 6:7. They are included in "the people" (see above, n. 55), a fact that is as such remarkable. See SM/Matt 7:22.

525

T~V (w~v Kat

oA.{yot do-'tv OL £vplo-KOVT£S aiiT~V). As in vs 13, textual variants show the tendency by scribes to make the lines completely parallel (isocolon) 59 and to clarify whether it is the gate or the way that leads to life. 60 The form of the exclamation 61 also creates a paradox. How can one issue a commandment to enter through the narrow gate, if it is so hard to find? This kind of paradox, however, seems to have been typical of the language of the teaching of Jesus. 62 If, as I have pointed out before, the descriptions are intended allegorically, one must pay special attention to the adjective and the participle. In what sense is the gate "narrow" (o-T£vos)? The term is not often used in the New Testament, 5 3 where related terms are more frequent in similar contexts: o-nvayp.os, o-nva(w ("groan"), 64 and o-nvoxwp€w, o-nvoxwp{a ("be under pressure," "feel distress," or similar meanings). 65 Sometimes this terminology is associated with the participle n8A.tp.p.€v1J ("troublesome") 66 describing the way. What kind of distress or troubles does the SM have in mind? According to the context, strains and distress come from outside as well as from inside the community and the individual. One could go through the entire SM section by section to point this ouvPerhaps Paul's dictum in 2 Cor 7:5 sums it up best: "Outside quarrels, inside fears" (E'tw8£v p.axat, E'o-w8w ct>of3ot). The term 8A.{f3w is well known in early Christian 59

60

61

62 63 64 65 66 67

526

paraenesis. 67 The doctrine in this respect is stated briefly in Acts 14:22: "We must enter into the kingdom of God through many tribulations" (otl:t Twv 7TOAA.wv 8A.{t£wv o£1 ~p.as do-£A8£!v ds T~v f3ao-tA.£lav Tov 8wv). 68 That the way leads "into life" means eternal life (ds T~V (w~v), to be juxtaposed with "perdition" (chd>A.Ha, vs 13b). This familiar concept 69 characterizes the goal of the SM 70 and its Two Ways pattern.7 1 Notably, the warning at the end is directed at the disciples: There will be only a few, even among them, who will find life eternal. In other words, "the few" (oA.{yot) is not simply a name for the community of the disciples, as if they all belong to the happy few automatically.72 Rather, it is implied that even the majority of the disciples will fail, and only a few will reach the desired goal. The term "find" (£vplo-K£w) reminds one of the theme of "searching" ((7Jntv), which is so prominent in the SM (see on 6:33; 7:7, 8). What is the object of this "finding it"? The answer is not clear: Does "finding it" refer to the gate or to the way? It appears that neither is meant, but the intended object is the kingdom of the heavens. There is thus the possibility of failure even for Jesus' disciples, who may have set out on the road but who end up being unsuccessful. This means that the SM is not a foolproof how-to-do instruction that sets up the conditions that, if met, guarantee success automatically. Rather, following

Parallel to vs 13a, IC* 7 ooc pc samss mae bo read 1iTI ("for"); B* samss read 1iTI ("but for"); 205. 209 have Kai ("and"). The exclamatory TL ("how!"), however, is well attested by M2 (B 2) C L W 0 j1.1 3 892. 1006. 1342. 1506 9Jilat sy. 544 pc a (h) k Clement Tertullian Hippolytus OrigenP' Cyprian omit ~ 1rVA71 ("the gate") as in vs 13b. The exclamatory TL ("how!") has been declared a Semiticism (BDF, § 299 (4); BDR, § 299 n. 4; Black, Approach, 121-24; BAGD, s.v. TL~. 3.b; Schwarz, "Und jesus sprach," 24 7), but Luz (Matthiius, 1.395 n. 2 [Matthew, 1.433 n. 2]) is right that it is Hellenistic Greek (vulgar). Cf. Mark 10:23-31//Matt 19:23-30//Luke 18:2430; furthermore, SM/Matt 6:23d. 1t occurs only in SM/Matt 7:13, 14; Luke 13:24. See esp. Rom 8:23, 26; 2 Cor 5:2, 4; Heb 13:17;Jas 5:9. See esp. Rom 2:9; 8:35; 2 Cor 4:8; 6:4, 12; 12:10. See Rom 2:9; 8:35; 2 Cor 4:8. A.J. Mattill,Jr. ("The Way of Tribulation," JBL 98

a'

68

[ 1979] 531-46), however, thinks specifically of endtime tribulations. See also 1 Thess 1 :6; 3:3-4, 7; Mark 4:17//Matt 23:21; Mark 13:19,24//Matt 24:9,21, 29;John 16:33; etc. For further references see Heinrich Schlier, "8A.i{3w KTA.," TDNT 3.139-48; BAGD, s.v. 8A.i{3w, 8Xi>Jn~.

69

70 71 72

The concept of (w~ ("[ eternal]life") occurs only here in the SM. Cf. Mark 9:43, 45/ /Matt 18:8, 9; Mark 10:17, 30//Matt 19:16, 17, 29//Luke 18:18, 30; Luke 10:25; etc. See BAGD, s.v. (w~, 2.b. Cf. SM/Matt 5:3b, 4b; 6:33; etc. It describes the "way oflife." The term oJ\iyo• ("few") occurs only here in the SM. Cf. the saying in Matt 20: 16; 22:14: "For many are called but few are chosen." Cf. also Luke 13:23.

Matthew 7:13-23

Heinz Schiirmann, "Die Warnung des Lukas vor der Falschlehre in der 'Predigt am Berge' Lk 6,20-49," BZ 10 (1966) 57-81; reprinted in his Traditions-

the commendations of the SM means that only those who persist have a chance, but that chance is tenuous and depends on the arduous process of "seeking and finding." Being a member of the group means nothing, if the individual fails. The chances of failure are greater than the chances of success, a sobering message. b. The False Prophets (7:15-20) 15 Beware of the false prophets who come to you in sheepskins, but inside are rapacious wolves! 16 From their fruit you shall recognize them. Can one gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Thus every good tree produces good fruit, but the rotten tree produces bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore, from their fruit you shall recognizethem. Bibliography Edouard Cothenet, "Les prophetes chretiens dans l'Evangile selon saint Matthieu," in M. Didier, ed., L'Evangile de Matthieu: Redaction et Theologie (BETL 29; Gembloux: Duculot, 1972) 281-308. Vittorio Fusco, "II 'vissuto' della chiesa in Matteoappunti metodologici con esemplificazione da Mt 7,15-23," Asprenas 27 (1980) 3-26. David Hill, "False Prophets and Charismatics: Structure and Interpretation in Matthew 7,15-23," Bib 57 (1976) 327-48. Michael Kramer, "Hiitet euch vor den falschen Propheten: Eine iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Mt 7,15-23/Lk 6,43-46/Mt 12,33-37," Bib 57 (1976) 349-77. G. W. H. Lampe, "'Grievous Wolves' (Acts 20:29)," in Barnabas Lindars and Stephen Smalley, eds., Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour of Charles F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University,

1973) 253-68. Simon Legasse, "Les faux prophetes: Matthieu 7,1520," Etudesfranciscaines 18 (1968) 205-18. Marguerat, Le jugement, 183-92. PaulS. Minear, "False Prophecy and Hypocrisy in the Gospel of Matthew," in Joachim Gnilka, ed., Neues Testament und Kirche: FS for RudolfSchnackenburg

(Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 76-93. Piper, Wisdom, 44-51. 73 74

geschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Evangelien (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1968) 290-309.

Eduard Schweizer, "Matthaus 7,14-23," in his Matthaus, 126-31. Idem, "Observance of the Law and Charismatic Activity in Matthew," NTS 16 (1969/70) 213-30. Steinhauser, Doppelbildworte, 79-96. Risto Uro, Sheep among the Wolves: A Study on the Mission Instructions ofQ (AASF 4 7; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987). Wrege, Bergpredigt, 136-46. Zumstein, Condition, 178-87.

1) Introduction

According to the narrative presumed by the SM, the warning against the false prophets comes while the disciples of jesus are on their way toward the kingdom of the heavens (see 7:13-14). On this way the greatest danger facing them is the emergence in their midst of "false prophets" (1/r€vl3o7TpocpfjTat). This danger is apparently considered greater than even persecution, which can serve, in spite of horror, a positive function (cf. 5:10, 11, 12, 44). False prophecy is, by contrast, entirely negative. Thus, the SM distinguishes between different hazards: those that are in a sense "normal," and those that come unexpectedly. It may be for this reason that false prophecy is not dealt with in passing like other temptations, but that it is singled out as the greatest threat this side of the last judgment. As already mentioned, Gunther Bornkamm 73 rightly observed that warnings against heretics of various sorts occur in the final sections of many paraenetical texts, and he named Matt 7:15-20 among them. While this literary function may indeed apply to our passage, it is also noteworthy that, in a way different from Mark 13:22// Matt 24:11, 24, the passage before us seems to be uninterested in the apocalyptic concept of the appearance of false prophets as a sign of the end time. 7 4 It is typical that the SM views eschatology in terms of the individual's course of life, rather than in terms of cosmic inevitability. Yet, the positioning of the passage right before the episode in the lastjudgment (7:21-23) makes one wonder whether another time frame is also involved.

See above, nn. 5-6. This difference has been observed before but interpreted differently. See Luz, Matthiius, 1.403 nn.

22-23 (Matthew, 1.442 nn. 22-23).

527

Is it incidental that the final event, so to speak, before the last judgment is the confrontation of false prophets? Therefore, there may be a closer relationship with apocalyptic warnings, such as Mark 13:22 par., than is apparent from the surface, but remarkably the SM shows no more interest in apocalyptic timetables and sequences of events. 7 5 In issuing the warning, the SM is characteristically different from the SP. According to SP /Luke 6:26, the disciples are to be warned that allowing themselves to be praised would make them like the false prophets of old. For the SP, therefore, the false prophets of old serve as negative examples that jesus' disciples should not imitate. To the SM, by contrast, the false prophetswhoever they may be-are seen as present-day outsiders who have intruded into the community by camouflaging themselves so successfully that they are hard to detect. The true disciples, however, should hnitate the models of the true prophets of old (cf. SM/Matt 5: 12). Furthermore, neither the SM nor the SP has any trace that prophecy is a legitimate activity in the present community. The only indication that prophets must be generally acceptable to the community is that the false ones have any chance of being admitted at all. This situation seems to be somewhat similar to the Didache, which assumes that itinerant prophets of a Christian variety come into local churches, where, because of their high respect, they are welcomed and tolerated, though not without considerable apprehension (Did. 11. 3-12; 13.1, 4, 6; 16.3). 76 On the whole, however, the SM sees prophecy as characteristic of outsiders, that is, those Christians who fail to obey the law and who will therefore be rejected at the last judgment (SM/Matt 7:2123). 77 If the picture drawn in that passage is right, prophecy, along with exorcism and miracle working, is 75

76

77

78

528

typical of Gentile Christians. Their prophecy is false because they have separated what belongs together: the law and the prophets (5: 17; 7: 12). Consequently, the false prophets warned against in 7:15-20 must be the leaders of those who become deceived by them 78 and who end up being rejected in the last judgment. Who were these people? That the SM does not identify the false prophets should not be misunderstood. The warning is general, but not because actual false prophets do not really exist or pose only a potential threat. 79 On the contrary, the general character of the warning allows concrete applications as they are needed. Designating someone as a false prophet was a standard feature of ancient polemics. The person thus designated did not even have to be a prophet. For instance, Did. 11.3-6 shows that a false apostle (missionary) could be called a false prophet, even though he may not have prophesied (Did. 11.7-12). 80 In a Jewish environment such labeling had no doubt severe consequences, while in a Christian context analogous terms like "pseudoapostle" ('l/r~vlia7rOno>..o~;), "pseudoteacher" ('1/r~vliolitlic'z.uKa>..o~;), and even "pseudomessiah" ('1/r~vliO)(pUrTo~;) soon became more relevant for the community. These terms are Christian creations on the analogy of "pseudoprophet" ('l/r~vlio7rpoe/J~T'I/~;), which initially was a pre-Christian term. 81 The textual evidence suggests that the warning of 7:15-20 is directed against competitors of the community, that is, against leaders who under different circumstances could be regarded as legitimate. Why are they felt to be a threat? No doubt, they are the ones who teach the abolition of the law (see above on 5:17, 19, and below on 7:21-23), 82 so that their followers are found in a state of"lawlessness" in the last judgment (7:23). The

The SM differs at this point from the evangelist Matthew, who gives special attention to the sequence of events in the apocalyptic drama (Matthew 2425). See also the mission instruction Matt 10:40-42; 79 HermasMan. 11; also Niederwimmer, Didache, 21723,260-61. 80 The point is, therefore, not spiritual enthusiasm or 81 charismatic activities as such, but the failure to obey the Torah. See Cothenet, "Les prophetes," 299-305. 82 The dangers of deception were recognized in early Christianity as extremely serious. See esp. Rom

16:18; Col2:8; Eph 5:6; 2 Thess 2:3-12;Jas 1:26. For further references see the lexica, s. v. awaTaw KTA.; and Holland, Tradition (see above, n. 6), 44-49, and passim. Against Strecker, Weg, 137-38 with n. 4; idem, Bergpredigt, 167-68 (Sermon, 161-62); see also Aune, Prophecy, 222-29. See above, n. 76. See below, nn. 85 and 123. Against Luz, Matthaus, 1.403 (Matthew, 1.442: "Matthew does not accuse the false prophets of heretical teaching, although there may have been

Matthew 7:13-23

persons who fit this description best are the leaders of law-free Christianity of the Pauline variety. 83 The objection that Paul is not mentioned by name 84 does not have much validity because none of the participants, not even the approved leaders, is mentioned by name. The battle against false prophecy raged in antiquity almost from the beginning of history. While holding prophecy in high esteem, Greek religion and literature also has a long line of effort to expose religious charlatans, diviners, and magicians. 85 In Roman times, the battle intensified, and Cicero's De divinatione provides a compendium for it. 8 6 In judaism the Old Testament already distinguished between true and false prophets, and one can see that the notion of"pseudoprophet" (o/fvl:Jo7rpocp~T'I/~) becomes more conspicuous in the LXX, 87 injosephus, 88 and in Philo. 89 Primitive Christianity from early on developed its own version of false prophecy, so that by the time of the SM the existence of Christian false prophets could be

83 84 85

taken for granted. 90 They_not only existed, but they posed a serious threat to the community, so much so that a special warning against them was felt to be in order. The section ;ts a whole has two concerns. First, there is the traditional warning against such false prophets; second, given the danger these people present, a method for their detection is recommended. This method takes its clues from agricultural experience and wisdom. It sounds somewhat simplistic, but in reality it is not. 91 The experiences9 2 referred to in vss 16b and 1 7-19 are merely examples of a more general truth, so that the simplicity is deceptive. Heinrici 93 clearly recognized this point, and referred to parallels in Aristotle (Eth. Nic. 9.7.4, 1168a4-10, 94 and 10.8.12, 1179a20-24)and Philo (Vit. Mos. 1.280), where one finds the old rule: "For, as the old saying goes, the certain proves the uncertain" (1rlcrn~ yap,&~ h 1ra~a'o~ ~oyo~, Trov &a~~oov Ta

tp.cpavij). 95

such, but only bad fruit and [v. 23] avopl.a"). See Betz, Essays, 20-21, 51. Against Luz,Matthaus, 1.403 n. 18 (Matthew, 1.441 n. 18). See also above, pp. 188-89. On this wide-ranging topic and for further bibliography, see Wolfgang Speyer, "Religiose Betriiger: Falsche gottliche Menschen und Heilige in Antike und Christentum," in his Frilhes Christentum im 92 50; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1989) 440-62; Harold W. Attridge, "The Philosophical Critique of Religion under the Early Empire," ANRW II, 16/1 (1978) 45-78; also the various articles inANRWII, 23/2 (1980). See Arthur St. Pease, ed., Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Divinatione (reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963), with valuable commentary. See below on vs 15. 93 See Louis H. Feldman, josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980) (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984) 476-77. 94 Philo Spec. leg. 4.51. See below, n. 125. For references and discussion, see Lampe; Minear (in the bibliography to this section); Henning Paulsen, "Schisma und Haresie: Untersuchungen zu 1 Kor 11, 18.19," ZThK 79 (1982) 180-211, esp. 187-88. See also Sir 27:6 LXX: "As its fruit reveals the cultivation of the tree, so (is) the language (a revelation) of the thought of a man's heart" (y£6Jpy,ov 95 (6Aov lKtJ>alvE& 0 Kapwhs abToV, oUTros A6yos lv/lvp.~p.aro~ Kapllla~ av/lp6J7rOV [my trans.]). Cf. also Jer 17:10 (NRSV): "I the LORD test the mind and search the heart, to give all according to their ways, antiken Strahlungsfeld: Ausgewahlte Aufsatze (WVNT

86

87 88 89 90

91

according to the fruit of their doings"; 2 Enoch 53.2 (J): "See how I have written down all the deeds of every person before the creation, and I am writing down what is done among all persons forever. And no one can contradict my handwriting; because the LoRD sees all the evil thoughts of mankind, how vain they are, where they lie in the treasuries of the heart" (trans. F. I. Andersen, OTP 1.180). See the references in Wettstein, 1.343-44. Luz (Matthaus, 1.410 [Matthew, 1.449]; Leutsch and Schneidewin (Corpus Paroem. Graec., 1.252) refer to the proverb lK roil Kap7rOV ro ll(vllpov ("From the fruit comes the tree"). See also Menander Sent. 615 (ed. Jaekel): olla£1~ 7rOV7JpOv 7rpO.yp.a XP7Juros &,v 7ro,£"i' ("Nobody who is good commits an evil deed"). On the topic see Michael Erler, "Natur und Wissensvermittlung: Anmerkungen zum Bauernvergleich in Platons Phaidros, • RhM 132 (1989) 280-93. Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1905), 92. Aristotle points out that the work of the artist corresponds to his potential and that this expresses a law of nature: "This is in fact a fundamental principle of nature: what a thing is potentially, that its work reveals in actuality" (rovro lit f/lvu,KOV" 8 y&p lur' llvv&p.n, rovro lv£py£l~ ro fpyov p.7Jv-6n). See Dirlmeier, Aristoteles: Nikomachische Ethik, 550, referring also to Aristotle Met. 9.8, 1050a 4-23; Phys. 3.3. On this saying see Hans Diller, "0\f!II: A.6.HAON TA oi>AINOMENA, • in his Kleine Schriflen zur antiken Literatur (Munich: Beck, 1971) 119-42. Diller shows that the sentence goes back to Anaxagoras (Sextus

529

The connection between vss 16 and 17 (oilTCilS, "thus") is most likely by association of ideas; the last word of vs 16 is "fig," suggesting that the two trees of vss 1 7-19 are thought of as fig trees. One can hardly overestimate the importance of the fig tree in antiquity. 96 Thus, the comparison between the good and the bad fig tree is introduced, an image that was common knowledge at the time. Proverbs, sententiae, anecdotes, fables, and so on 97 also made comparisons with humans. 98 The Bible also reflects the popularity of the fig tree, 99 and it is not a surprise that later exegesis goes on to expound the example in ever-greater detail. Indeed, the seeming simplicity of the passage stands in stark contrast to the attention paid to the passage in the later history of exegesis. 1 00 There was a growing

concern because of heresy, for which "false prophecy" seemed only another name. 1 01 There was also the powerful imagery of the two trees as comparisons for good and evil human beings. 102 This imagery has deep roots in the history of religions. 103 These roots became significant in the debates about anthropology and soteriology. The image of the two trees suggests that their nature is eternally fixed and that they must by necessity bear the fruit that corresponds to their nature. Therefore, it is no surprise that the Gnostics found the passage extremely useful and attractive. 1 04 Marcion used it to demonstrate his radical dualism, 105 and from the Marcionites the now notorious text came into the hands ofMani, 106 who wrote a long explanation of the allegory of the two trees in his

Empiricus Adv. math. 7 .140) and defines the method of science. See also Diels-Kranz (59 B 21a [II, 43, 14-16]) with further references. 96 For the material on figs see Franz Olck, "Feige," PW 6/2 (1909) 2100-2151; Viktor Reichmann, "Feige I (Ficus carica)," RAG 7 (1969) 640-82; idem, "Feige II (Sykomore)," ibid., 683-89. 97 See Olck, "Feige," 2142-44. 98 See esp. Epictetus Diss. 1.15.7; SenecaEp. 87.25: "Hence, good does not spring from evil, anymore than figs grow from olive-trees" ("Quemadmodum ex turpi honestum non nascitur, ita ne ex malo quidem bonum"). Seneca is cited according to the LCL edition, Seneca; Ad Lucilium Epistulae morales (trans. Richard M. Gummere; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1920) 2.336-37. 99 See Mark 11:12-14//Matt 21:18-19//Luke 13:69; Mark 11:20-26//Matt 21:20-22; Mark 13:2832//Matt 24:32-36//Luke 21:29-33; Luke 19:4; John 1:48, 50;Jas 3:12; Rev 6:13. For the NT evidence see Claus-Hunno Hunzinger, TDNT "f!•v3owpo.pfjra& nell' esegesi patristica," VetGhr 6 (1969) 33-45; Luz,Matthiius, 1.407-11 (Matthi!W, 1.446-50). 10 1 On this topic see Hans Dieter Betz, "Haresie I. N eues Testament," TRE 14 (1985) 313-18, esp. 315; idem, "Heresy and Orthodoxy in the NT," ABD 3.144-47; Norbert Brox, "Haresie," RAG 13 (1986) 248-96. 102 See Matt 3:10//Luke 3:9; Matt 12:33; SP /Luke 6:43-45; Mark 8:24; Matt 13:31-32 par.; Mark 13:28-32 par.;Jude 12; Rev 7:1, 3; 8:7; 9:4. See also

530

Karl Erdmann et al., "Baum," RAG 2 (1954) 1-34. 103 Cf. the proverbial comparison ofthe arbor felix (the fruitbearing tree) and the arbor infelix (the dead tree) in Roman literature. See jacques Andre, "Arbor felix, arbor infelix," in Hom mage aJean Bayet (Collection Latomus 70; Bruxelles-Berchem: Latomus, 1964) 35-46; cf. Thomas Koves-Zulauf, "Plinius d.A. und die romische Religion," ANRWII, 16/1 (1978) 187288, esp. 262-63;Jean Gage, "Felicitas," RAG 7 (1969) 711-23, esp. 317; furthermore for ancient Egypt see Ingrid Gamer-Wallert, "Baum," LdA 1 (1975) 655-60. 104 For the parallel in Cos. Thom. log. 45, see below at n. 118; Cos. Truth 33.37 cites vs 16 to demonstrate the unity between the Father and his own. Layton (Gnostic Scriptures, 260) points out the parallel. For the main parallels see Henri-Charles Puech, En quete de la Gnose (Paris: Gallimard, 1978) 2.99-108; Manlio Simonetti, "Matteo 7,17-18 (= Luca 6,43) dagli gnostici ad Agostino," Augustinianum 16 (1976) 271-90. 105 See Tertullian Adv. Marc. 1.2.1; De anima 21.4; Hippolytus Rif. 10.19; OrigenDe princ. 1.8.2; 2.5.4; Ad Rom. 3.6; In loan. 13.11. 106 So correctly Alexander Bohlig, "Die Bibel bei den Manichaern" (inaugural diss., Munster, 1947) 11, 33-34. I am indebted to the author for advice and for allowing me to see his personal copy.

Matthew 7:13-23

Kephalaia (chap. 2, pp. 16-23). 10 7 The Cologne Mani Codex also comments on this exegesis. 1 08 The church

fathers, in turn, did their best to wrest the passage out of the hands of the Gnostics and the Manichaeans, a battle that culminated in Augustine's anti-Manichaean writings, 109 especially his commentary on the SM, De sermone domini in monte. 11 0 2) Analysis The section 7:15-20 has two pans. Verse 15 is an appeal to be on guard; the imperative is positive, in the second person plural. After introducing the technical term "false prophets" ('I{!Ev3o1Tpotflfira&), a brief description of their conduct is given by using two metaphors ("sheepskins" and "rapacious wolves"). While vs 15 is found in the SM alone, the added recommendation for detecting false prophets (vss 1620) uses a similitude from Q. This Q-material is also pan of SP /Luke 6:43-45, on the one hand, and of Matt 12:33-35, on the other, but in SM/Matt 7:16-20 it has been given a special formulation. The method for detecting false prophets is briefly stated in vs 16a and repeated in vs 20, thus making the second part of the composition an inclusio ("inclusion"), or ring composition, using repetition (redditio). 111 In between stands an argument proving that the method conforms to experience. The argument starts out with a rhetorical question (interrogatio, verse 16b), with the expected answer being negative. The question appeals to agricultural experience. Verse 16b is formulated as a parallelism (isocolon) with a common predicate (J.&~rE O'VAAlyovaw), and it thus presents a case of combination (adiunctio). Verse 17 supports the proposed method by further adducing agricultural wisdom, introduced by o!lroos ("thus"). The first statement is formulated positively as

an antithetical parallelism (isocolon). Accordingly, agricultural experience tells us that goodness or badness of trees corresponds to the kinds of fruit they produce. The grower, therefore, learns by the fruit whether the tree is worth keeping. Verse 18 continues the argument by providing a simple explanation. The reason why the method set forth in vs 17 is commendable is that nature determines it that way. The trees have no choice but to produce the fruit that corresponds to the quality, or lack of such, of the trees. This is why a grower can have confidence in the value of the method of detection. Verse 19 looks at the next step. Once a tree has been identified as producing only rotten fruit, it will be cut down and used as firewood. If not from the beginning, at least at this point the language turns metaphorical. The suggestion is made that human beings, if they turn out to be in the same condition, will meet the same fate. They will be cut down and thrown into the fire of hell. The analysis so far allows one to give an answer to the intricate question of the sources from which the components have come. While vs 15 comes from the redaction of the SM, its material is derived from the Qtradition, most likely from the oral tradition. The warning against false prophets is derived from jewish paraenesis. The images of the sheepskin and the rapacious wolf come from the proverbial tradition, but the combination of "wolves in sheepskins" may be a creation by the SM author(s), 11 2 who seems to be fond

107 According to the edition by Carl Schmidt, Kephalaia llO Augustine De serm. dom. in monte 2.24.78-79, and for (1st half; Manichiiische Handschriften der Staatthe parallels in other writings of Augustine, see lichen Museen Berlin, vol. 1; Stuttgart: KohlMutzenbecher's edition, 176-77; and Simonetti, "Matteo" (see above, n. 104) 282-90. hammer, 1940); and Alexander Bohlig, Kephalaia (2d half; Manichiiische Handschriften der Staatlichen 111 So]. C. Fenton, "Inclusio and Chiasmus in the New Testament," inStEv 1 (TU 73; Berlin: AkademieMuseen Berlin, vol. 1; Stuttgan: Kohlhammer, 1966), chap. 96 (p. 24 7). For a translation see also Verlag, 1973) 174-79, esp. 174; Luz, Matthi:ius, 1.401 (Matthf!W, 1.439). Bohlig, Gnosis, 3.157-58; funhermore, with more references, Ernst Waldschmidt and Wolfgang Lentz, 112 The question is whether Justin (Apol. 1.16.13; Dial. Die Stellungjesu im Manichi:iismus (APA W.PH 1926:4; 3 5. 3) depends on the canonical Gospel of Matthew or on an independent source. Apol. 1.16.3 (my trans.): Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1926) 29-31. 108 CMC, p. 69, 16; see also Albert Henrichs and Ludwig "For many will come in my name; although outside Koenen, "Der Kolner Mani-Kodex (P. Colon. inv. nr. they are clothed in sheepskins, inside they are 4780)," ZPE 19 (1975) 69 with n. 133 (p. 85). rapacious wolves. From their works you shall 109 For a survey see C. P. Mayer, "Die antimanichiiischen recognize them. And every tree that does not Schriften Augustins," Augustinianum 14 (1974) 277produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the 313. fire" (7TOAAol yap 7f'ovO"&V t7Tl r~ 6vJp.arl p.ov, f'oo6Ev

531

of mixing images. 113 The second part (vss 16-20) adapts the immensely popular similitude of the two trees (vss 17-19). As I have mentioned, the same similitude is also used in SP /Luke 6:43-45, where the application is also one of anthropology but differs from the one in the SM. The SP uses it to explain self-examination to insiderdisciples, rather than, as in the SM, exposure of outsiders as false prophets. The similarities and differences between the SM and the SPare such that both texts must have taken the similitude from an earlier source (Q), in order to elaborate it differently. 114 The use of the similitude in' the passage named "The Sin against the Holy Spirit" (Matt 12:31-37 par.) is more complicated. In the Matthean version, the passage has been amplified by the inclusion of the similitude of the two trees (Matt 12:33): Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; you can tell a tree by its fruit. (NEB) "H ?TOL~UaTE Th lJJu~pov Ka'Ahv K.a\ rhv K«p?Thv aVroV K.aA6v,

tj 7rOLijuaT£ rh lJJvlJpov ua1rphv K.a'r. rhv K.ap1rhv aVroV cra1rp/JV" ~K yi.p rav Kap1rav lllvllpav ytvC:.crK
p.~v (vll
A1Jtcot Cl.p1rayEs' tK rWv lpywv aVrWv f1ftyvWcrEu8e aVTo6s. rrav aE atvOpov, JL~ 1f01.0Vv K«p1Thv K.aA.6v, fKK01TTET«L K.a'r. Els 1rVp ~IJ.AAET«t). In Dial. 35.3 Justin quotes three versions of the saying (my trans.): "Many will come in my name, outside clothed in sheepskins, but inside they are rapacious wolves" (IloA.Ao'r. EAeiJuovTat E1r'r. rifl OvOp.arl p.ov, ftwB
532

of persons who slander the Holy Spirit. This purpose is different from the applications of the similitude in the SM and the SP. Matthew, who alone has the similitude in his text on the sin against the Holy Spirit, could have taken it from Q, or from the SM, but it is most likely that he took it from his version of Q (QM•«). The reason for this likelihood is that the statement about "the good man" is added in Matthew (12:35), while in SP /Luke 6:45 a similar statement follows directly after the similitude of the two trees. One may conclude, therefore, that the combination of the similitude of the two trees and the statement about "the good man" was part of Q. That combination then became part of the SP /Luke 6:43-45 version and, independently, part of Matt 12:31-37, where, however, the similitude (Matt 12:33) is separated from the statement concerning "the good man" ( 12:3 5). Another saying is spliced in at 12:34.115 It is revealing also that the combination of the similitude of the two trees and the statement concerning "the good man" does not occur in the SM. 116 This situation leaves one with two options: either the SM knew Q, in which case the SM omitted the saying on "the good man"; or it did not know Q, in which case the similitude was taken from the oral tradition, from which Q also took it. That this latter option is more likely is confirmed also by still other attestations.

Kohler, Rezeption, 186-89. 113 Cf. Luz, Matthiius, 1.40 I n. 2 (Matthew, 1.440 n. 2), who attributes the formation to the evangelist Matthew. 114 Differently, Strecker (Bergpredigt, 165-66 [Sermon, 160-61]) and Luz (Matthiius, 1.401-2 [Matthew, 1.439-41]) who attribute all redaction to the evangelist Matthew. 115 Differently again, Strecker (Bergpredigt, 165-66 [Sermon, 160]) and Luz (Matthiius, 1.401-2, 405 [Matthew, 1.440-41, 444]) attribute the similitude in Matt 12:33-35 to the evangelist Matthew; Luz (p. 405 [ET p. 444]) explains that this "duplication" serves to heighten the rhetorical effect. But the differences between Matt 7:15-20 and 12:31-37 speak against Matthean and for pre-Matthean redaction. 116 Those who identify Q with Luke 6:43-45 and assume Matthew to be the redactor should explain why he omits the saying about "the good man" in the SM and adds it in a different form in 12:35.

Matthew 7:13-23

The parable of the Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13:69) 117 is in its present context given a secondary framework (13:1-5), but it certainly preceded that context. The parable uses the image of a fig tree that did not bear fruit for three years. The owner orders the tree to be cut down, but then is persuaded to postpone it for one more year. In that year a last attempt will be made to revive the tree by digging up the ground around it and by fertilizing it. The parable seems to draw on the same imagery as the previously discussed texts, but it shows an independent development of that imagery, by which the barren tree is given a second chance. One must also assume an independent development for the Coptic Cos. Thom. log. 45: Jesus said, "Grapes are not harvested from thorn trees, nor are figs gathered from thorn bushes, for these do not bear fruit. Good people produce good from their store. Evil people produce wicked things from their evil store within their hearts, and say wicked things. For out of the heart's abundance they produce wicked things." us The logion has a parallel in SM/Matt 7: 16b, except for the explanation "for they do not bear fruit." The contrast between good and evil people is a parallel to SP/Luke 6:45//Matt 12:35, but the saying has been given a gnostic interpretation in that the heart is made wicked altogether, while the store from where the good comes remains obscure. Those readers who are familiar with gnostic thinking know the answer to the riddle. Cos. Thom. log. 45 is preceded by a saying on blasphemy (log. 44), different from the version of this saying in Matt 12:31-37. Logion 44 has also been gnosticized: Jesus said, "Whoever utters blasphemy against the father will be forgiven. And whoever utters blasphemy against the son will be forgiven. But whoever utters blasphemy against the holy spirit will not be forgiven-neither on earth nor in heaven." 119 What is missing in this series of sayings is the similitude of the two trees, except for a reference at the end of log. 43, where Jesus says of the Jews: "For they love the tree, and hate its fruit. And they love the fruit, and hate the tree." 120 The reference is clearly to a single tree, not two trees. The point is not that tree and fruit correspond, but that the attitude of the Jews to either 117 On this parable see the discussion and bibliography in Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.1 003-9; Jiilicher, Gleichnisreden, 2.433-38; Jeremias, Parables, 169-71; Richard Bauckham, "The Two Fig Tree Parables in the Apocalypse of Peter," JBL I 04 (1985) 269-87. 118 The translation is that of Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 388; see also Thomas 0. Lambdin, in Layton, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, 70-71. For commentary

the fruit or the tree is contradictory. By contrast, it would be consistent either to hate or to love both tree and fruit. The underlying presupposition is here also that tree and fruit correspond, but this is not the point the saying wishes to make. What does this complicated situation add up to? It appears that the combination of the similitude of the two trees with the saying about "the good man" was part of Q and that SP/Luke 6:43-45 received it from there. The sayings composition in Matt 12:31-37 enriched the shorter Markan version (Mark 3:28-30) by incorporating the similitude of the two trees (Matt 12:33) and the saying about "the good man" (Matt 12:35), and by adding more sayings not attested in Q (Matt 12:34, 36, 37). If the SM knew Q, it included the similitude of the two trees but rejected the saying on "the good man." Indeed, one may argue, the very concept of "the good man" may be objectionable to Jewish anthropology. In the SM the ideal is not to be a good man but to become what one already is, a "son of the heavenly Father" (see SM/Matt 5:9, 45; cf. 7:9). A further conclusion is that SP /Luke 6:43-45 cannot have been identical with Q and cannot have been the immediate source for SM/Matt 7:16-20. One cannot explain the differences between the SP and the SM versions as redactional changes made by the evangelist Matthew who had before him Q/Luke 6:43-45. Instead, all related texts have drawn their material from earlier versions of Q containing differing elaborations of it. The passage under examination shows, therefore, quite clearly that the SM does not depend on the same Q-version that the SP depends on. SM/Matt 7:15-20 is not a textual elaboration of Q/Luke 6:43-45. Instead, one must assume, the beginning is to be seen in the oral tradition, where the similitude of the two trees was already popular. Q took it up from there, that is, probably from Jesus' teaching. Then it became material for quite different elaborations in the versions of Q, one of which (QLuke) was worked into SP /Luke 6:43-45, and another (QM•tt) into SM/Matt 7:16-20; yet other elaborations became the material of still other sayings compositions.

see Menard, Thomas, 145-46. 119 Layton's translation, Gnostic Scriptures, 388; Menard, Thomas, 144. 120 Layton's translation, Gnostic Scriptures, 388; Menard, Thomas, 143-44.

533

3) Interpretation

•15 For the readers or hearers of the SM, the warning

against false prophets comes as a surprise, but given the background of the SM in judaism such a warning was not unfamiliar: "Beware of the false prophets!" ('rrpocr£xfTf a71'0 T;;lV t£v/)o7rpocp~n.,v). 121 The imperative 7rpocr£x£Tf combined with the preposition a7rO ("beware of," "be on guard against") 122 occurs only here in the SM, but with a positive meaning the imperative occurs also in SM/Matt 6:1.

Pseudoprophets were not mentioned before in the SM, but the term, as well as the warnings, is familiar from other New Testament paraenesis. 123 The source of this tradition is in Hellenistic judaism, where t£v/)o7rpocp~T7JS occurs in the LXX, 124 Philo, and Josephus; 125 the concept itself goes back to the Hebrew Bible. 126 The term "false prophet" could apparently designate all kinds of supposed "heretics," even those who were not prophets in the phenomenological sense of

the term. The New Testament also shows further development of derived terms such as twi)OXPICTTOI ("false messiahs," "false Christs"), 127 twaa71'0crToAo& ("false apostles), 128 and twaoa&McrKaAo& ("false teachers").129 It is characteristic that there is no identification of these false prophets, an ambiguity no doubt intended; in this way the warning could be turned against any newly emerging heresy. This lack of identification does not exclude the possibility, and indeed probability, that the author of the SM had specific individuals in mind. The hearers or readers of the warning, however, are left to come to their own conclusions. Modern scholars have been more than ready to propose identifications: Zealots, 130 Pharisees, 131 Essenes, 132 rigoristicjewish Christians, 133 followers of the apostle Paul, 134 or Hellenistic antinomians. 135 Most of these identifications are nothing but guesswork. To make an identification, one must find the clues in the SM itself. It is also method-

121 C L We j1.1 3 33. 892. 1006. 1506 9Jt f q syh samss bo add t.J ("but"), apparently attempting to connect vs 14 with vs 15, thereby acknowledging that a new sentence begins with vs 15. The older text, however, did not have t.J (so IC B 0250. 565. 788. 1342. 1424 allat syc.p sa015' mae). The original connection was probably by catchword: cf. Elcr-Epxop.a& (vss 13, 14) and lpxop.a& (vs 15). 122 BAGD (s.v. 'll"poutxro, l.b) refers to Sir 6:13; 11:33; 17:14; 18:27; etc.; also Matt 10:17; 16:6, 11-12; Luke 20:46;Did. 6.3; 12.5. 123 See SP/Luke 6:26; Mark 13:22//Matt 24:24; Matt 24:11; Acts 13:6; 2 Pet 2:1; !John 4:1; Rev 16:13; 19:20; 20:10; Apoc. Pet. 1.1; Did. 11.5-6, 8-10; 16.3; Hermas Man. 11.1-2, 7; Ps.-Clem. Ep. Clem. 14.3; Hom. 2.17 .4; 11.35.6; Rec. 4.34.5. See BAGD, s.v. >/tEv3o'!l"pot/J~T1JS; Gerhard Friedrich et al., "'ll"pot/J~T7JS KTA.," TDNT6.804-7, 830,855-56,860-61 (B.III.4-5; D.l.6; D.VII; E.IV); L. Ramlot and E. Cothenet, "Prophetisme," DBSup 8 (1972) 8111337; Horst Balz, EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v. >/tEvllo'll"pot/J~T1JS; Speyer, Frilhes Christentum, 455-56. 124 See LXX Zech 13:2;Jer 6:13; 33:7, 8, 11, 16; 34:9; 35:1; 36:1, 8. On warnings against false prophets, see also Mic 3:5-6;Jer 23:11-12; Ezek 13:3-4; and for the literature see Eva Osswald, Falsche Prophetie im Alten Testament (SGVS 237; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1962); Gerhard Miinderlein, Kriterien wahrer und falscher Prophetie: Entstehung und Bedeutung im Alten Testament (Europaische Hochschulschriften 23.33; Frankfurt a.M.: Lang, 1974). 125 For references seeJannes Reiling, "The Use of

534

126 127

128

129 130 131

132

133 134

135

'I'EY.6-0IIPOHTHl: in the Septuagint, Philo and Josephus," NovT 13 (1971) 147-56. For passages and bibliography, Hans-Peter Muller, IC':::ll niibi'," ThWAT 5 (1986) 140-63. Mark 13:22//Matt 24:24. It is noteworthy that the SM does not have this term; it developed after the SM, but Matthew, who knew it from Mark, did not interpolate it in SM/Matt 7: 15, thus confirming that he regarded the SM as a source. 2 Cor 11:13, probably taking a term Paul's opponents used against him as well. See also Ps.-Clem. Rec. 4.34.5; 8.53.3. 2 Pet 2:1; Ps.-Clem. Ep. Clem. 14.3. Schlatter, Matthiius, 252-54; Cothenet (see the bibliography to this section). Cf. Hill (see the bibliography to this section), esp. 343-48, who interprets Matt 12:33-35; 23:25, 2728 into the SM. Constantin Daniel, "Esseniens, zelots et sicaires et leur mentions par paronymie dans le Nouveau Testament," Numen 13 (1966) 88-115; idem, "'Faux Prophetes': Surnom des Esseniens dans Ie Sermon sur Ia Montagne," RevQ 7 (1969/70) 45-79. Cf. the critical view of Feldman, josephus, 636. Guelich, Sermon, 393. Johannes WeiB (Urchristentum, 585-86 [History, 753]) connects Paul with Matt 5:17-19; see also Hill, 329, 333-40; Betz, Essays, 20-21; also 51 n. 54, 155. For further references see Cothenet, 299-305.

Matthew 7:13-23

ologically questionable to bring in Matthew's own ideas right away to interpret a pre-Matthean text. Matt 24:912, 14 represent Matthew's own application of the traditional warning to the eschatological situation as he sees it. This does not mean that the SM sees it in the same way. 136 Even though the SM lacks concrete identifications, one is not left completely without clues. The veiled description of vs 15b must have been familiar to the readers or hearers: "who come to you in sheepskins but inside they are rapacious wolves" (oYnve-s- ~pxovmt rpos- vp.as- tv tvMp.aut 7rpo{31zrwv, ~uwfJe-v o£ dutv )\:{;Kot czpTraye-s-). If this language was more or less familiar, what would hearers or readers make of it? The applications must refer to circumstances at the time, so that the audience could make the connection. In part, even the metaphors were traditional. The application of raving wolves to false prophecy is not unknown to the Old Testament.l 37 The image thus was a ready-made topos to be used against heretics in early Christian polemics. 138 What then do the metaphors point to in vs 15b? In all of antiquity the wolf was recognized as a dangerous animal. 139 Although only a few people in the

early Christian church will have had the opportunity of seeing the animal, its very name caused a shudder as of a demonic creature. 140 The expression "wolves in sheepskins"141 may refer to the alleged demonic powers of wolves to transform themselves into sheep, 14 2 or to humans to act in this manner. If the latter application is preferred, the question is whether the expression is an image or an actual reference to the prophetic garb, as Otto Bocher has proposed. 143 It seems, however, that the focus is on the image, 144 not the garb of the prophet, although one does not necessarily exclude the other. Interesting for comparison is the different application of the imagery in Matt 10:16, "Look, I send you out as sheep among wolves" (loov ty6J amour£Hw vp.as ws7rpof3ara tv p.£u~ J\.vKwv). This saying, which comes from Q, has a parallel in Luke 10:3, which turns things around: the missionary-apostles are sent out into the world seemingly unprotected, ready to be torn to pieces. The world is compared to a pack of wolves who are by nature "rapacious" (czpTraye-s-). 145 According to the SM,

I36 So apparently also Luz (Matthiius, I.402-3 [Matthew, 1.44I-42]), whose survey I have used; furthermore, Hill, 327-33. I37 For related expressions also Gen 49:27; Deut 33:I2; Ezek 22:27-28; Zeph 3:3-4 (LXX). I38 See Acts 20:29: >..iYKot {3ape'is ("fierce wolves"); Did. I6.3; Ignatius Ph/d. 2.2; 2 Clem. 5.2-4; Eusebius (HE 5.I3.4) calls Marcion "the wolffrom Pontus" (o 'll"OVTLKOs >..iJKos);Justin Apol. l.I6.I3; Dial. 3. The expression "rapacious wolf" is proverbial; for lupus rapax see Horace Carm. 4.4.I5; Epod. I6.20, and often. For these and other parallels see Wettstein, I.343. I39 On the wolf see Gunther Bornkamm, "lo.iJKos," TDNT 4.308-II; BAGD, s. v. >..iYKos; Spicq, Notes, I.5II-I2; Will Richter, "Wolf," PWSup I5 (I978) 960-87, esp. 983, 986-87. I40 For the role of the wolf in magic, see PGM l.28I, 285; II.I43; Ill.435; IV.2276, 2302, 2550; VII.729, 78I; Vlll.II; XIII.275, and often. I4I As a figure, the expression occurs only here in the NT; see BAGD, s.v. tvavp.a, 2. Cf. tvovp.a in relation to flowers in SM/Matt 6:25, 28. I42 See Did. I6.3: "[the false prophets] transform the sheep into wo)ves"(Kat ITTpatJ>~ITOVTaL Ta 'll"pt'J{3aTa els >..iYKovs). See Oskar Holtzmann, "Die Schafe werden sich in Wolfe verwandeln," ZNW II (I9IO) 224-31.

Cf. also Ignatius Phld. 2.2. I43 Otto Bocher ("Wolfe in Schafspelzen: Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund von Matth. 7, I5," TZ 24 [I968]405-26) refers to the prophetic garb as described in I Kgs I9:I3, I9; 2 Kgs 2:8, I3 (LXX); Zech I3:4; Josephus Vita 2; 1 Clem. I7 .I, where the term is p.1JAWT~ ("sheepskin" as cloak worn by prophets). See BAGD, s.v. p.1JAWT~. Cf. Matt 3:4 (Mark I :6) about the garment of John the Baptist ("his cloak was from camel's hair"). Bocher's precursors were Tholuck, Bergrede, 466-67 (Commentary, 4I9-20); Bornhauser, Bergpredigt, 24; Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, 69. The evidence is ambiguous, however, and it would be too much to say that the sheepskin was the regular garb of prophets. See also GostaAhlstrom, ""'1'"11:1 'addir," ThWAT I.78-8I (TDOT 1.73-74); Otto Michel, "p.7Jlo.wr~," TDNT 4.637-38; Luz, Matthiius, 1.404 n. I4 (Matthew, I.442 n. I4). I44 For the proverbial expression see Proverbia Aesopi I23: "hide the wolf by a sheep's skin" (KpiY'll"TELv rov >..iYKov .,.po{3..iJKos. I45 Cf. also Paul being mobbed, Acts 23:IO; see also 1 Clem. 46.7; 2 Clem. 5.2-4; Mark I4:27 //Matt 26:3I; John II:52; Acts 8:32; Rom 8:36. BAGD (s.v.llp.,.ac, I) refers to Gen 49:27. See furthermore Hab I:8

535

they have the ability of transforming or disguising themselves, so as to look "sheepishly" harmless; that image is applied to the disciples, as though they are a herd of sheep. 146 In this disguise the wolf is extremely dangerous because he is so difficult to recognize. While ordinarily the wolf would be kept away from the herd by the watchful shepherd, 14 7 as a camouflaged intruder the animal mingles with the herd unrecognized. Once "inside" (fcroo8£v) he can do his beastly work. I take it that "inside" does not refer only to the real nature 148 of the beast but also to its being inside the herd 149 as the result of the intrusion (fpx£cr8a' 'ITpos-).150 The wolves are clearly intended to describe "heretics," 151 coming into the community of disciples from the outside. People thus described seem to be traveling prophets, such as those described in Didache 11 and 15, and in Hermas Mandates 11. 152 What these people actually do is left for the hearers or readers to imagine. It is presumably their teaching that is objectionable to the SM; their doctrines must be somehow related to what is rejected in SM/Matt 5:17-20, 153 so that those who follow them end in "lawlessness" (7:23). • 16 The reason for combining the warning against false prophets with the imagery of trees and their fruits (vss 16-19) is not difficult to find. Because the "wolves in sheepskins" are so difficult to detect, vss 16-20 provide a

146

147

148

149 150

536

method for their exposure. The beginning states the general rule to be followed; it is repeated in vs 20: "From their fruit you shall recognize them" (tho Tow Kap'lTwv aVTWV ~'IT,')'VIi>cr£cr8£ avToVs-). This rule presupposes a shift of imagery from the animal world and shepherding to agriculture. The method recommended looks simple, if not simplistic. Its success in the church was, not surprisingly, accompanied by horrendous abuse and failure. Still, in spite of this miserable history of identification and persecution of heretics by the church, the rule is worth considering. Abusus non tollit usum! The method is still basic to all modern police work. Criminals prefer to do their work in disguise in the midst of society, and the work of the police and the courts is to expose the coverups. The only chance for the discovery and conviction of criminals consists of the simple fact that they inevitably leave some kind of record or trace. They produce "fruit." This underlying presupposition is illuminated by the word "fruit," a metaphor taken from plant life. 154 Comparing humans with plants has occurred before in the SM (Matt 6:28-30), but the application here is different. Like plants human beings also "bear fruit," either good or rotten fruit. Human lives have track records and results of one sort or another . 155 These results may not be simply "good" or "bad deeds," 156 but they are more often general, such as relationships with

(LXX); John 10:12, 28, 29. On the whole, see Uro (see the bibliography to this section). See also Mark 6:34//Matt 9:36; Matt 10:16//Luke 10:3; Did. 13.3;John 10:1-16, 26-27; 1 Pet 2:25, and other passages, for which see BAGD, s. v. 7rpO{JaTOII, 1-2. For the figure of the shepherd, which is completely absent from the SM, see the passages mentioned in n. 146, and BAGD, s.v. 'lrO&IL~"· 2; Brox, Hermas, 52023. cr. the contrast between inside and outside in other passages, such as Matt 23:25,27, 28; Mark 7:21, 23; Luke 11:39, 40; 2 Cor 7:5. In the SM the notion of "hypocrite" is related (see above on SM/Matt 6:2, 5, 16; 7:5). For this interpretation see also Luz, Matthiius, 1.404 (Matthew, 1.442-43). Cf. ol furo ("those within" the church) in 1 Cor 5:12. For this term see Matt 3:14; Mark 9:14; Luke 1:43; John 1:29; 2 Cor 13:1; etc. See BAGD, s.v. lpxo,.a&, l.l.a.fJ. Cf. Paul's description of the "false brothers" (1/IEvMild.tj>o•) sneaking in (Gal 2:4; on this point see Betz, Galatians, 89-91).

151 See Giorgio Otranto, "Matteo 7,15-16a e gli 1/IEvllo7rpotj>ijTa& nell' esegesi patristica," VetChr 6 (1969) 33-45. 152 See Jannes Reiling, Hermas and Christian Prophecy (NovTSup 37; Leiden: Brill, 1973) 8, 58-59, 61, 70, 72; Gerd Theissen, "The Role of the Wandering Charismatics," in his Sociology ofEarly Palestinian Christianity (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978) 8-16, and passim; for the German see "Wanderradikalismus," ZThK 10 (1973) 245-71, esp. 252-53. 153 Cf.Luz,Matthlius, 1.403withn.l8(Matthew, 1.441 n. 18). 154 In the NT, the term Kap1ros ("fruit") occurs only here in this sense (vss 16-20); cf. also SP/Luke 6:43, 44; Matt 12:33; for further literature see Betz, Galatians, 286-87, on Gal 5:22. 155 This doctrine is widely attested in Greek philosophy; for passages see BAGD, s.v. Kap1r0s, 2.a (among them Proverbia Aesopi 51 [cited according to BAGDJ: "Its fruit will be clear proof for every tree of the nature that it has" (L!.ijAOS fAE')IXOS b Kap7r0S ')IEV~UETal 'lraVTOS

Matthew 7:13-23

others. This is an anthropological fact not to be denied. More specific are the results of prophets. Whatever pronouncements these prophets make influence what people who listen to them do and say. Therefore, a great deal of what we call history is the "fruit" of prophets, the question being only whether true or false prophets generated these outcomes. Therefore, careful observation and analysis of a prophet's track record are in order; it is the only method for separating true from false prophets. In modern society, this method is standard practice for everyone who must render judgment on pronouncement-makers, opinion-makers, prognosticators, and so forth. In the final analysis, everyone participating in a democratic society is compelled to watch constantly for the track records of persons in public as well as in private life. The term t7Ttywcf>uKw points out that this activity is eminently intellectual ("learn exactly," "ascertain"). 157 One must link the term to "ascertaining 158 the truth" 159 or "identifying sin." 160 This method of evaluating prophets seems to have been tried out on no other than the apostle Paul, if we read rightly what he says in his Corinthian letters.l 61 Paul's example also demonstrates in a paradigmatic way how effective, and also how ineffective and even dangerous, this method can be. As he points out especially in 2 Corinthians, his adversaries, whom he calls "false apostles" (2 Cor 11:13: tw1:Ja7TOCTToAot), almost sue-

156

157

158 159

160 161

162

ceeded in driving him out of the church of Corinth, of which he was the legitimate founder. His dilemma was that he was unable and unwilling to meet the criteria of miraculous deeds, by which his opponents tried to evaluate him. Paul, however, would agree with the SM that the proper criteria must be ethical. The rhetorical question in vs 16b makes sure that the reader understands and approves of the value of the recommended method: "Or do they [sc. people] gather grapes from thorn plants or a fig from thistles?" (p.~Tf uvA.A.(yovutv vA.as ~ a7TO TptfjoA.wv uvKa;). 162 The answer is of course negative. 163 In other words, a rule that makes sense in agriculture can make sense in human life as well. In the present argument the plant names may have taken on an allegorical meaning already, and parallels elsewhere in the synoptic tradition may confirm it. 164 Later, the images become proverbial commonplaces. 165 • 1 7 The following vss 1 7-18 apply the rule of vs 16a to the tree: "In the same way every good tree produces good fruit, but the rotten tree produces bad fruit" (ol!Tws 7Tav o£v1:Jpov aya8ov Kap7TOVS KaAoVs 7TOtfL, TO o£ ua7TpOv a£vopov Kap7TOVs 7TOV'1/POVS 7TOtfL}. 166 The negatively formulated question in vs 16b is now given a solid answer. The example of the tree is handy not only

otvopov ~v <'xn tfn'JCTIV ]). See also Matt 3:8; 21 :43; Jas 3: 17; Diogn. 12.1. This term is, however, not used here, but see KaAa f'pya ("good works") in SM/Matt 5:16; tpyti(cu8a1 ("do work") in 7:23. See also Betz, Galatians, 283, 302, on Gal5:19; 6:4; furthermore Col1:10; and BAGD, s.v. Kap7rotf>aptw. See BAGD, s. v. tmyLVwuKw, for the different meanings; and the parallel passages in SP /Luke 6:44; Matt 12:33, which have the simple yLVwuKw. See Acts 23:28; 24:8, 11; and BAGD, s.v. tmyvwuKw, 2.b. See Luke 1:4; Rom 1:32; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Tim 2:25; Titus 1:1; Heb 10:26; 1 Clem. 59.2; etc. See BAGD, s.v. E1rlyvrou&~, I. See Rom 3:20. See 1 Cor 2:14, 15; 4:3-4; 9:3; 10:25, 27; 14:24; cf. t'lr•y•vwuKw, 1 Cor 13:12; 14:37; 2 Cor 1:13; 6:9; 13:5. C L W 0jl 3 1006. 1342. 1506 ml read the singular uratfm,\~v ("grape"), probably to make it similar to the singular of uvKa ("fig"). The plural is read by IC B

0250 p 205. 892 lat sy co; c• reads the plural The parallel in SP /Luke 6:44 has also the singular, but which fruit is collected from which plant is different (see below on SP /Luke 6:44). Cf. alsojas 3:12; Cos. Thom.log. 45. Cf.Jas 3:12: "Can a fig tree, my brothers, yield olives or a vine figs? No more does salt water yield fresh water." The example is traditional; see the parallels in Epictetus Diss. 2.20.18; Plutarch De tranq. an. 13, 472F (see Betz in PECL 2.221-22). Further parallels are given in Grotius, In Matthaeum, 91; Wettstein, 1.343-44; Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1900), 1.58; (1905), 2.90-91. See Mark 4:7, 18//Matt 13:7,22//Luke 6:44; Luke 8:7, 14; Barn. 9.5. On the whole matter see BAGD, s.v. lfKav8a and rpl{3oAos. See Heb 6:7-8, and the commentaries, ad Joe. The adverb ol!rws ("thus") is omitted in sy<; the adjective aya8&v ("good") by W*. B* and vgmss read 7rOI£t KaAoVs instead of KaAobs 7rOI£t. uratf>v,\~vas.

163

164

165 166

537

because of its proverbial popularity 167 but also because of its applicability to people. 168 The latter remains suggestive, but it is suggested as being just as selfevidently true as in agriculture. The terms "producing" ('lTotEI.'v), 169 "fruit" (Kap'lTol), 170 and "rotten" (ua'lTpos) 171 could easily apply to humans as well. • 18 That the quality of the tree corresponds to that of the fruit is no accident; it cannot be otherwise: "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor (can) a rotten tree produce good fruit" (ov ovvaTa! OEVopov a:ya8ov Kap'lTOtJs 'lTOV7JpotJs 'lTO!ELV ovo~ o£vopov ua'lTpOv Kap'lTOVS KaA.ovs 'lTOtEI.'v). 172 The strong emphasis on the "impossible" 173 appears to point to a radical dualism and a kind of predestination. This point was not lost on later interpreters, especially the Gnostics and the Manichaeans. • 19 The destiny of the trees not producing good fruit is described next: "Every tree that does not produce good fruit is cut out and thrown into the fire" ('lTiiv o£vopov J.L~ 'lTowvv Kap'lTOV KaA.ov EKKO'lTTETat Ka'r. ds 'lTVp J3&.A.A.eTat).l 74 Whether the tree is good or bad makes no difference, but the producing of "good fruit" (Kap'lTOs KaA.os) 175 makes all the difference. The unproductive tree is "cut out" (lKKO'lTTEw) 176 and "thrown into the fire" (ds 'lTVp

J3&.A.A.ew). 177 The words describe what supposedly happens in real life, but the metaphorical understanding is unquestionably intended as well. The eschatological warning, found already in the Old Testament, 178 was also attributed to John the Baptist. 1 79 Its application to Christian heretics begins with this passage. 180 • 20 The conclusion, indicated by ltpa ("consequently"), repeats the rule in vs 16a: "Therefore, from their fruit you shall recognize them" (llpa YE lmo Tc;JV Kap'lTWV avTWV l'~Ttyvwueu8e avTovs). 181 The case is taken to be proved; the conjunction llpa ye ("consequently then") is meant to be emphatic. 182 c. On Self-Delusion (7:21-23) 21 Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but (only) he who does the will of my Father who is in the heavens. 22 Many will say to me in that day, "Lord, Lord! Did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?" 23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you who work iniquity."

167 For the proverbial material see BAGD (s.v.ll.!vllpov) with the NT references (Matt 7:17-20; 12:33; Luke 6:43-44; IgnatiusEph. 14.2,Bam. 11.10; Luke 13:19; Matt 13:32; Mark 8:24-"I see people as ifl see walking trees"). 168 On the kinship that ancients believed to exist between trees and humans see above, p. 530. 169 wotiiv ("do") occurs only here in the SM with this meaning (vss 17, 18, 19). Elsewhere it usually refers to human activities (5: 19, 32, 36, 46, 4 7; 6:1, 2, 3; 7:12, 21, 22, 24, 26). 170 For the plural see 7:16, 17, 18, 20; the singular only in vs 19. 171 uawp6r ("rotten") occurs only here in the SM; see also SP /Luke 6:43; Matt 12:33; 13:48; Eph 4:29; Hermas Sim. 9.5.2; 9.6.4. See BAGD, s.v. uawp6r. 172 In vs 18a B Tertullian OrigenP' Adamantius read iveyKiiv ("bear") instead of wotiiv ("produce"); the Nestle text is read by K C L W Z eJL 13 33. 892. 1006. 1342. 1506(*) 9Jt latt sy. In vs 18b the situation differs slightly: iv£yKiiv ("bear") is read by It*, Tertullian OrigenP' but wotiiv ("produce") by K 1 B C L W Z ejl· 13 33. 892. 1006. 1342. 1506(*) 9Jt !at sy. The change from wotiiv ("produce") to cp£pHv ("bear") is clearly secondary, but the reason is obscure. Is it to make a stylistic improvement by avoiding the monotonous repetition of the same verb? Cf. Metz-

538

ger, Textual Commentary, 20. 173 See also SM/Matt 5:14, 36; 6:24, 27; and BAGD, s.v. /l,',vap.at, 3. The verb cp.!pHv is undoubtedly more appealing stylistically (cf. Mark 4:8;John 12:24; 15:2, 4-5, 8, 16; Hermas Sim. 2.3-4, 8). See BAGD, s.v. cp.!pw, 2; cf. also s. v. Kapwocf>op.!w and Kapwocf>6por. 174 C2 L Zjl 3 33. 1582< alit sy< sa mae bomss add o~v ("therefore") to provide a better connection with vs 18. 175 Now in the singular; cf. vss 17-18. 176 Cf. Matt 3:10//Luke 3:9; SM/Matt 5:30; Luke 13:7, 9; Rom 11:22, 24; 2 Cor 11:12. See BAGD, s.v. EKK6wrw, 1, which renders it "cut down." 177 See also Matt 5:13, 25, 29, 30; 6:30; 7:6, where {3aA.A.w ("throw") is used in similar ways. For wvp ("fire") see also 5:22. 178 See Isa 6:13; 10:33-34; 32:19. 179 Matt 3:10//Luke 3:9. It is conceivable that the language of SM/Matt 7:19 goes back through the teaching ofJesus to John the Baptist. 180 See also jude 12;HermasSim. 4.4;JustinApol. 1.16.12-13. 181 c and !at(?) have the preposition EK instead of cm6, perhaps because of EKK6wrw (vs 19), or because of EK in Matt 12:33; cf.JustinApol. 1.16.13. 182 The conjunction occurs only here in the SM; cf. Matt 17:26. See BAGD, s.v. IJ.pa, 4.

Matthew 7:13-23

Bibliography C. Kingsley Barrett, "I Am Not Ashamed of the Gospel," in his New Testament Essays (London: SPCK,1972) 116-43. Gerhard Barth, "Matthew's Understanding of the Law," in Gunther Bomkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Joachim Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (trans. Perey Scott; London: SCM; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972) 68-70, 149-54. Hans Dieter Betz, "An Episode in the Last Judgment (Matt. 7:21-23)," in Betz, Essays, 125-57; ET of "Eine Episode imJungsten Gericht (Mt 7,21-23)," ZThK. 78 (1981) 1-30; also in Studien zur Bergpredigt, 111-40; idem, Synoptische Studien, 188-218. Charles E. Carlston, "The Things That Defile (Mark VII.14) and the Law in Matthew and Mark," NTS 15 (1968) 75-96. Edouard Cothenet, "Les prophetes chretiens dans I'Evangile selon saint Matthieu," in Didier, Matthieu, 281-308. James E. Davison, "Anomia and the Question of an Antinomian Polemic in Matthew," JBL 104 (1985) 617-35. David Flusser, "Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew," Immanuel 5 (1975) 37-45; reprinted in his Judaism and the Origins of Christianity Gerusalem: Magnes, 1988) 552-60. David Hill, "False Prophets and Charismatics: Structure and Interpretation in Matthew 7,15-23," Bib 57 (1976) 327-48. Paul Hoffmann, "1r&.uru ~py&.rat aliucla~: Redaktion und Tradition in Lc 13,22-30," ZNW 58 (1967) 188-214. Marguerat, Le jugement, 192-203. Michael Mees, "Ausserkanonische Parallelstellen zu den Gerichtsworten Mt. 7,21-23; Lk. 6,46; 13,2628 und ihre Bedeutung fiir die Formung der Jesusworte," VetChr 10 (1973) 79-102. Antonio Omelia, "Les chretiens serontjuges: Mt 7,2123," Assemblees du Seigneur 40 (1972) 16-27. Alexander Sand, "Die Polemik gegen 'Gesetzlosigkeit' im Evangelium nach Matthaus und bei Paulus," BZ 14 (1970) 112-15. Akira Satake, Die Gemeindeordnung im der Johannesapokalypse (WMANT 21; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1966) 188-90. Adolf Schlatter, "Zur Auslegungvon Matth. 7,21-23,"

in Greifswalder Studien: Theologische Abhandlungen Hermann Cremer zum 25-jiihrigen Professorenjubiliium dargebracht (Gutersloh: Bertelsmann, 1895) 83105. Gerhard Schneider, "Christusbekenntnis und christliches Handeln: Lk 6,46 und Mt 7,21 im Kontext der Evangelien," in Rudolf Schnackenburg, ed., Kirche des Anfangs: FS for Heinz Schilrmann zum 65. Geburtstag (Leipzig: St. Benno, 1977) 9-24.

Eduard Schweizer, "Gesetz und Enthusiasmus bei Matthaus," in his Beitriige zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Zurich: Zwingli, 1970) 49-70. Idem, "Observance of the Law and Charismatic Activity in Matthew," NTS 16 (1969/70) 213-30. Idem, "Matthaus 7,14-23," in hisMatthiius, 126-31. Wrege, Bergpredigt, 146-52. Zumstein, Condition, 171-87.

1) Introduction

The theme of self-delusion 188 follows directly from the preceding theme of the community's deception by false prophets (7: 15-20), but one should keep the two sections separate and not treat them as one. 184 The connections between them are, however, various. The nature ofvs 20 as the end of the ring composition (inclusio, vss 15-20) means that vs 21 begins anew. 18 5 There are also catchword connections: 'lTO,t-i'v ("do") in vss 19 and 21; t'lT''Y'vc1>uKt'v ("recognize") in vs 20 and 'Y'vc1>uKt'v ("know") in vs 23a. Then there are associations of ideas, such as the very idea of deception and delusion. Indeed, delusion unites the three sections ofvss 13-23, and even vss 24-27. Invss 13-14 the multitudes are deceived by the smooth road and the wide gate; in vss 15-20 the warning is against deceptive false prophets; and in vss 21-23 those who have been deluded are exposed as ·deluding themselves. Crying "Lord, Lordi" will not save them in the last judgment. 186 Whereas in vss 13-14 the delusion comes from the environment, in vss 15-20 the peril comes from false prophets who have slipped into the community. As the climax, vss 21-23 deal with internal self-deception because of the failure to assess one's situation critically.

183 So, correctly, Heinrici, Bergpredigt (1905), 2.92. alia unit. 184 Luz argues differently (Matthiius, 1.400-402 [Mat185 So rightly Strecker, Bergpredigt, 172 (Sermon, 165). thew, 1.439-41 ]), following Marguerat (Le jugement, 186 When the petitioners ofvss 21-23 prophesied in 183-84); they treat 7:15-23 as one section under the Jesus' name, they did so in good faith, not as "wolves title "Warning Against False Prophets." But Luz also in sheepskins," whose victims they had become. recognizes that vs 21 constitutes "a new beginning" (ET 444; German, p. 405: "Neueinsatz"). Also Allison ("Structure," 430 n. 19) regards 7:15-23

539

In a sense one can say that the goal of the entire SM is to protect the disciples from getting caught up in selfdelusions. Such delusions can be the result of settling for too little and by giving up the commission God has set for them (see 5: 13-16), or of claiming too much while overlooking one's entanglement with evil (see 7:11). Not surprisingly, therefore, warnings against self-delusion run through the SM from beginning to end. Appropriately, 7:21-23 also provide the climax ofthe eschatological section of the SM, and indeed of the body of the SM as a whole. This climax is in keeping with the tradition of wisdom literature, which states that considering the end is the safest test for the truth in oneself. As Sir 11 :26-28 (NEB) says: 18 7 Even on the day a man dies it is easy for the Lord to give him his deserts. One hour's misery wipes out all memory of delight, and a man's end reveals his true character. Call no man happy before he dies, for not until death is a man known for what he is. It was because of the problem of theodicy that this wisdom statement, which applies only to this life, had to be extended to the afterlife, an extension that by necessity brought in the mythology of the last judgment. 188 In SM/Matt 5:11 the beatitude is spoken to those disciples who are defamed and persecuted, but the blessing does not apply if the accusations against them are true. The same can be said of all the other beatitudes. The specification of the addressees eliminates the illusion that Jesus would bless those who fail to meet the conditions and to do the will of the Father. The "commission" (5:13-16) exposes as self-delusion the idea that salt which has lost its seasoning power may still be considered useful, or that light put under a bushel is still illuminating. Teachers setting aside the SM delude

themselves just as much as Pharisees who ignore the inadequacy of their righteousness (5: 19, 20). False interpretation of the Torah deceives everyone about what it means to fulfill the will of God (5:21-48). "Hypocrites" fool not only the crowds but first of all themselves about the quality oftheir piety (6:1-18). One could go through the entire SM and point out at every stage how deception, that is, mostly self-deception, is a major concern. Indeed, the readers and hearers of the SM are supposed to sharpen their self-awareness in view of the endless variety of self-delusions, especially among those who wish to be faithful. For the SM, therefore, false religion is synonymous with self-deception, so that one needs continuous self-examination. The sequence of7:15-20 and 7:21-23 is of interest also for another reason. It shows that the SM is very much concerned with the dangers of heresy. Indeed, even at this early time in the history of the Christian movement, heresy and orthodoxy have become a major issue. The nature of the "false religion" displayed by the rejected ones (vs 23) is clearly not that of Jewish adversaries. It differs from the polemics against the Pharisees (5:20) or the "hypocrites" (6:1-2, 5, 16) or pagan outsiders (5:45, 47; 6:7-8, 32). Rather, it seems directed against Christians of Gentile origin, that is, against those who call on Jesus, worship him as "Lord," but do not keep the Torah of God. They are the ones who have been lured into "false religion." 189 This point does not imply, however, that the community that expresses its views in the SM claims to represent "true Christianity." As I have stated before, the SM has no hint of "Christianity" in the clearly defined sense. The community of the SM most likely wanted to be true Jews, their Jewish identity and integrity being based on following the teaching of Jesus. The rejected "heretics"

187 See also Sir 1:13; 3:26; 9:11-12; 50:28-29; 51:30. See James L. Crenshaw, "The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach: On Human Bondage," JBL 94 (1975) 4764, esp. 54-55. 188 Democritus already argued against this position (frg. 68 B 297 [Diels-Kranz, II, 206-7]): "Some people who know nothing about the dissolution of human nature, but who are conscious of their misdeeds in life, worry in misery and fear all their lifetime by fabricating false myths concerning the time after their death" (fvtOI 8V"f1Tiis tfl{;rTIOS ata:>..vrriV OV~ EtOJTEs ll.v8pw7rot, rrvvEtll~rrEt llt Ti/s ev Til> {3l~

540

~a~o7rpayp.orr6v71s, Tl>v Ti/s {3toTi/s XP&vov £v Tapaxals ~al .p&f3o•s TaAat7rwpovrr• o/E6aEa 7rEpt Tov p.ETa T~v TE:>..EvT~V

p.v8o1f:>..arrTlovus XP&vov). Cf. also Plato Rep. 1, 330d-331a; I follow Nilsson, GGR 1.816, for the translation and interpretation of the Democritus fragment. 189 On this subject, see also R. Dolle, "Betrugstheorie," HWPh 1.861-63.

Matthew 7:13-23

are said to be those who fail to do the will of the Father in the heavens because they do not follow the teachings of Jesus as outlined in the SM. They have followed other teachings by other teachers of whom the SM does not approve (5: 19). These other teachers taught them about prophecy, exorcism, and miracles, but not about Jesus' exposition of the Torah. Not keeping the Torah puts them in a situation worse than that of the Pharisees, namely, "lawlessness" (avop.la). If, therefore, the SM is connected with the phenomenon of "inner-Christian" dissension because of heresy, it is a matter of juxtaposing Jewish followers of Jesus and Gentile devotees of Jesus, who only later were called Christians. At this point, however, Christianity is not assumed to exist, as an entity by itself. Just as the disciples of the SM are still part of Judaism, the Gentile Christians rejected in vs 23 are treated as deviant outsiders. Who then are the people targeted in 7: 15-20 and 7:21-23? Are they real opponents or fictitious projections of heresy to come in the future? Are the same persons addressed in vss 15-20 and in vss 21-23? Based on the SM as a whole, one can conclude that the opposition consists of people who for the author(s) of the SM really exist, not merely hypothetical constructs of what might happen in the future. It seems also clear that the "false prophets" of vss 15-20 are not to be confused with the rejected petitioners ofvss 21-23. 190 The latter are the victims ofthe former, the ones who have been deluded by the false prophets. 191 It is also important to distinguish between opponents recognized by the preMatthean SM and Matthew's ideas about the heretics in his own church (cf. Matt 24:5, 10-12, 23-24; also 23:28).192 The question has frequently been discussed whether the group of people described in vss 22-23 are "charis-

matics" or "antinomians." 193 The evidence leaves little room for doubt that they are indeed charismatics. They claim to have prophesied, exorcised demons, and performed miracles, deeds that involve ecstatic phenomena typical of charismatics. Are these people also antinomians? They may be to some extent, for they use, at least in this description, their charismatic experiences as substitutes for their obedience to the Torah. Thus operating outside the Torah, they are in the situation of "lawlessness" (avop.la). This verdict is polemical. It does not mean that the real intentions of the people portrayed were to be immoral and lawless. They should not be stamped as anarchists denying the validity of all law. Rather, it appears from the description in the SM that these people end up being "lawless" against their own intention and to their surprise, when Jesus rejects them and lets the verdict of condemnation stand unopposed. They are the victims of self-deception caused by false teachers who have set aside the teaching of Jesus (cf. 5: 19) and have led them to ignore the Torah. They were led to think that charismatic experiences are the greater accomplishments in the eyes of God. 2) Analysis The section 7:21-23 consists of two parts. First comes a sentence of "sacred law" defining the condition for admission to the kingdom of the heavens (vs 21 ). Second, an extremely condensed narrative follows giving a preview of the eschatological judgment (vss 22-23). The unity of the section is explained by the fact that vs 21 sums up what one is to learn from the narrative in vss 22-23. Thus, vs 21 serves as an introduction to vss 22-23. The literary character of this brief section is, however, much more complicated and interesting. From a formal point of view, vs 21 belongs to two categories ofliterary sayings: it is a so-called sentence

in other Jewish literature, in order to apply the 190 So also Strecker, Weg, 137 n. 4, 276; idem, Bergmeaning to Matthew. When he concludes that predigt, 171-72 (Sermon, 165-66); Hill, 335-36; Matthew's polemic is not against antinomians, he fails Davison, esp. 628-29 (see the bibliography to this to see the differences between the evangelist and his section). sources. 191 Cf. Allison, "Structure," 430 n. 19, for the argument 193 See the contributions by Barth, Betz, Davison, Hill, that the false prophets of vss 15-20 are the same as Hoffmann, Marguerat, Sand, Satake, Schneider, and the group in vss 22-23, but his reasons do not Schweizer (see the bibliography at the beginning of persuade; the group ofvss 22-23 has been deceived this section). by the false prophets whom they mistakenly followed; now they must bear the consequences. 192 Davison argues differently (see the bibliography to this section); he investigates the term in the LXX and

541

of sacred law, 194 and a sentence concerning entering into the kingdom of God. 195 These two categories have been mingled in such a way that the result is a maxim of a new type. The first part of the maxim (vs 21a) is still a sentence of "sacred law": the prefixed negative "not" (ov) determines that one is to reject the following statement: "Not: Everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lordi' shall enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but he (shall enter) who does the will of my Father who is in the heavens." Although the attitude expressed by Paul in Rom 10:9-10 comes close, there never actually was a saying like the one rejected here in the SM. Like the false Jesus-saying in SM/Matt 5: 17, 196 this saying also has been created artificially for no other purpose than to be rejected. The intent, as one sees from vs 22, is satirical. The positive saying follows in vs 21 b; it is formulated elliptically, to contrast with the preceding rejection (a.\.\.t, "but"). The positive saying, therefore, reads: "Whoever does the will of my Father who is in the heavens shall enter into the kingdom of the heavens." Thus, vs 21 a presents a form of self-correction (correctio). 19 7 The first part (vs 21a) rejects a bogus entrance requirement, prefixed by the sharp ov ("[the idea is] not: ... "). The false saying describes satirically the conduct of people who shout liturgical acclamations (cf. Rom 10:9-10: bp.o.\oy,w, "confess in worship [or: publicly]"), here doubled ("Lord, Lord!") to suggest repetition. Rhetorically, this figure is called "doubling" (geminatio). 198 Religiously, this repetition comes under the verdict of verbosity considered improper for worship (see above on SM/Matt 6:7-8). This acclamation will return in the scenario vss 22-23; in other words, it is anticipated in vs 21a. As pointed out before, the second part (vs 21 b) is elliptical and must be completed from vs 21a. The two parts of the sentence are linked through 194 For discussion and references, see above on SM/ Matt 5:19. 195 See above on SM/Matt 5:20. 196 See above on SM/Matt 5:17; also Betz, Essays, 3943, 126. 197 On this see Lausberg, Elemente, § 384. 198 The double acclamation "Lord, Lord!" is often falsely designated as a Semitic idiom, but it is an instance ofthe common "doubling" (geminatio). See Lausberg, Elemente, §§ 244-49; Martin, Rhetorik, 301-2; BDF, § 493, 1; BDR, § 493, 1; Betz, Essays, 130 n. 24; Luz, Matthiius, 1.405 n. 38 (Matthew, 1.444 n. 38). Referring to Werner Foerster (TDNT 3.1 086), Ferdinand Hahn (Christologische Hoheitstitel: Ihre Geschichte im fruhen Christentum [FRLANT 83; GC>ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963]96-98; ET: The Titles ofjesus in Christology [New York &

542

the figure of polyptotic (variation of the same word) epiphora, that is, ending on the same word, used first in the genitive and then in the dative plural (ovpavwv [vs

21a], ovpavo'i~ [vs 2lb]).l 99 The episode in vss 22..:.23 depicts in briefest possible form the proceedings at the last judgment, indicated by the familar phrase "in that day" (£v EK
199 200 201 202

Cleveland: World, 1969] 90-92) argues for a "typically Semitic character." He is followed by Strecker (Bergpredigt, 172 [Sermon, 166]), but see also Dalman (Worte jesu, 186, 383). Other instances in the NT include Matt 23:8, 10;John 13:13. See Lausberg, Elemente, §§ 268-70, 280. See below, n. 247. See the material on the last judgment in Volz, Eschatologie, 272-309. See below, n. 250.

Matthew 7:13-23

represent and speak for this group (vs 23). 203 Jesus' declaration of refusal (vs 23; for the evidence see below) is stated in a formal way and only confirms a rejection previously expressed. The three questions of vs 22, introduced by the words "Have we not in your name ... ?" make sense only if they are brought forth in protest against a prior rejection by Jesus. Indeed, the three questions of vs 22 are protestations seeking to force Jesus to recognize that he is obligated to defend the group. Moreover, they seek to overtum the verdict that has occurred or is pending by attempting to demonstrate their innocence. But by reiterating his rejection Jesus makes clear that their protestation is based on a profound misunderstanding of their situation. Given the scenario of the last judgment it is surprising that the group Jesus would approve of is not shown. This omission is due to the character of warning presented by the passage, but in some sense the acceptable group is also part of the picture. At this point one sees the ingenuity of the author of the SM. The literary analogues show that the narrator could have presented two groups appearing at the last judgment, one to be rejected and the other to be approved. One could then identify those approved with the faithful disciples addressed by the SM. 2° 4 The narrator, however, has chosen another mode. He builds the SM itself into the scenario. How does he accomplish this? The declaration of refusal (vs 23) stands clearly juxtaposed to the Beatitudes at the beginning of the SM (5:3-I2). 205 The Beatitudes give approval even

now to the persons addressed. Thus, the Beatitudes are pronounced in anticipation of the last judgment, advancing into the present what should occur at the last judgment. But the specification of the addressees contained in the first line of each of the Beatitudes (5:3-IO) places a condition on the blessings: "Blessed are those who are poor in spirit," and so on. The SM, then, has as its purpose teaching the readers how to prepare to meet these specifications. Consequently, readers are given a choice: if they belong to the faithful disciples ofJesus as envisioned by the SM, the Beatitudes apply to them; if they fail, they will belong to the rejected. 206 Protestations of innocence before the divine tribunal have a long history in literature and religion. At the beginning stands chapter I25 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. 2° 7 In this description of the netherworld, the deceased enters into the judgment hall where Osiris holds court, surrounded by forty-two judges of the dead representing the forty-two districts of the land. Before entering the hall, the deceased makes a deposition that lists his or her good deeds and also contains an assurance of innocence. One also encounters in this context the figure of the substitute (ushebti). 208 Protestations of innocence seem to occur in other contexts as well, for example, in priestly oaths. 209 Literary connections exist between these traditions and the Old Testament; they are reflected in

203 My earlier assumption (Essays, I27) that a verdict has Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead (ed. Carol Andrews; 2d ed.; New York: Macmillan, I985) 29-33; Charles already been pronounced must be corrected. What has occurred is the accusation; what follows is the Maystre, Les declarations d'innocence (Livre des morts, condemnation. chapitre 125) (Cairo: Institut fram;:ais d'archeologie 204 Cf. the division into two groups in Matt 25:3I-46. orientale,I937);Assmann,Ma'at,I36-49. The This is not different in principle from the SM, in relevant passages are also in ANET, 34; AOT, 9-I2. which the few saved are contrasted throughout to the For further studies seeM. Hildo van Ess, "Siinde und multitudes heading for destruction (see above on Schuld (Schuldbekenntnis)," LdA 6 (I986) 108-10. 7:I3-I4). Interestingly, a conflation of Matt 7:2I-23 208 See Siegfried Morenz, "Die Herkunft der and 25:3I-46 occurs among the Arabic Gospel 'Uschebti,'" in his Religion und Geschichte des alten Agypten (Cologne and Vienna: Bohlau, I975) 295quotations investigated by Shlomo Pines, "Gospel Quotations and Cognate Topics in 'Abd aiJabbar's 303. Tathbit in Relation to Early Christian andJudaeo209 See Reinhold Merkelbach, "Der Eid der Isismysten," Christian Readings and Traditions," Jerusalem Studies ZPE I (I967) 55-73; idem, "Ein agyptischer PriesterinArabicand/slam 9 (I987) I95-287, esp. 20I-3. eid," ZPE 2 (I968) 7-30; Ludwig Koenen, "Die 205 On the Beatitudes see above on SM/Matt 5:3-I2. Unschuldsbeteuerungen des Priestereides und die 206 For a similar application, see the conditional curse romische Elegie," ZPE 2.3I-38;J. Bollok, "Anklager and blessing in Gal I :8-9 and 6: I6, for which see in der Unterwelt," Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Betz, Galatians, 50-54, 320-23. Budapestinensis, Sectio Classica 2 (I974) 39-50; 207 For the text see the edition by Thomas G. Allen, The Reinhold Merkelbach, Die Unschuldserkliirungen und Book of the Dead (Chicago and London: University of Beichten im iigyptischim Totenbuch, in der romischen Elegie Chicago, I974) 95-IOI; Raymond 0. Faulkner, The und im antiken Roman (Kurzberichte aus den

543

Job 31 and several of the Psalms (Psalms 5, 7, 17, 26).210 Jesus' reply in vs 23 contains several statements.2 11 First he declares that he is not responsible for the group that appeals to him, since he does not know them (vs 23a): "I never knew you" (ouat.,.on tyvwv vp.ar). This formulaic expression is based on the legal principle that one cannot serve in court as an advocate, bailsman, or witness for someone to whom one is a total stranger. Then, a second formula (vs 23b) 21 2 states a repudiation of the appellants, using words similar to Ps 6:8: "Depart from me, you who work iniquity. "213 This formula, which occurs elsewhere also with2 14 or without 215 the first renunciation formula, proclaims repudiation or expulsion. As the reason for the repudiation the formula names the state of "lawlessness" (avop.ia), but the same state is also the reason for the condemnation that is

certain to follow. In the literary analogies, those brought before the throne of God are regularly questioned about their obedience to the Torah. Because they cannot produce evidence of Torah obedience, eternal perdition is their destiny. In regard to the literary genre, vss 22-23 depend on sources of a special kind. Depictions of scenes from the last judgment seem to have constituted a literary genre by themselves. This genre has not yet been specially investigated, although numerous literary parallels have been collected. In view of7:21-23, the parallels found in the Jewish literary tradition are of special importance. 216 Beginning in the Old Testament, the genre develops further in Jewish apocalypticism and wisdom, 21 7 only to reach its climax in rabbinic literature. 218 Connections also exist, however, between the judgment scene in the SM 219 and similar scenes in the

GieBener Papyrussammlungen 43; GieBen: Uni1.95 no. 6; NTApok 1.134 no. 6); see Betz, Essays, versitatsbibliothek, 1987); Assmann, Ma 'at, 140-49. 150 n. 99. There is also a parallel in PGM XXXVII, for which 216 On the Jewish material, see the excursus on judgsee also Maria Totti, ed., Ausgewiihlte Texte zur Isisment scenes in Str-B 4/2.1199-1212; Volz, Eschaund Sarapisreligion (Subsidia Epigraphica 12; Hildestologie, 89-97, 272-309; OTP 2.971, index, s.v. Last heim, Zurich, and New York: Olms, 1985) nos. 9 and Judgment; George W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 10 (pp. 21-24). Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental judaism 210 Paul Humbert, Recherches sur les sources egyptiennes de (HTS 26; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, Ia litterature sapientiale d'Israel (Neucha.tel: Secretariat 1972); Hans C. C. Cavallin, Life after Death, vol. 1 de I'Universite, 1929) 91-96; Claus Westermann, (ConBNT 7.1; Lund: Gleerup, 197 4); George W. E. "Unschuld," BHH 3 (1966) 2054-55; Michael B. Nickelsburg, ed., Studies on the Testament of Abraham Dick, "The Legal Metaphor in Job 31," CBQ 41 (SCS 6; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1976). For (1979) 37-50; Georg Fohrer, Das BuchHiob (KAT surveys see Klaus Seybold, Roger D. A us, and Egon 16; GOtersloh: Mohn, 1963) 429; Marvin H. Pope, Brandenburger, "Gericht Gottes, I-III," TRE 12 job (AB 15; 3d ed.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, (1984) 460-83. 217 Close parallels are Wis 4:20-5:23 and T. Is. (OTP 1973) 227. 1.905-11), the latter probably a Christian work. 211 With reference to Str-B 1. 469, the verse is often called "a synagogal excommunication formula" 218 For the interpretation of some of the texts, see Betz, ("synagogale Bannformel"). See Walter Doskocil, Der Essays, 134-41. Bann in der Urkirche: Eine rechtsgeschichtliche Unter219 See the material in Albrecht Dieterich, Nekyia (3d suchung (MTS 3.11; Munich: Zink, 1958) 28-29; ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Otto Michel, TDNT 5.207; Wrege, Bergpredigt, 149 1969); Ernst WOst, "Die Seelenwagung in Agypten n. 3; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 174 (Sermon, 167). The und Griechenland," ARW 36 (1939) 162-71; G. W. formula, however, "is not a rabbinical formula of Macurdy, "Platonic Orphism in the Testament of banishment"; so correctly Luz, Matthiius, 1.406 n. 45 Abraham," JBL 61 (1942) 213-16; Nickelsburg, (Matthew, 1.446 n. 45), who also points to Hugo Studies, 27; Ed P. Sanders, "Testament of Abraham," Grotius, Annotationes in Novum Testamentum in OTP 1.871-902. (Groningen: Zuidema, 1826) 1.265; Wettstein, 1.244-45. 212 For further references see below, n. 215. 213 For further references see below, n. 215. 214 The formulae appear together in Matt 7:23; Luke 13:27; 2 Clem. 4.5. 215 They occur separately: renunciation alone, Matt 25: 12; Luke 13:25; repudiation alone, Justin Apol. 1.26.11; Dial. 76.5; Gospel of the Nazarenes (NTApoc

544

Matthew 7:13-23

Egyptian 2 2° and the Greek 221 traditions, both literary and pictorial. 22 2 The Jewish literary parallels depicting eschatological judgment scenes are widely dispersed and often enriched by expansions and interpolations. The most extensive stories are of a late date, but one can safely suppose that the genre itself is much older and that only part of a rich tradition of such stories has been preserved. The passage in the SM stands within this traditi9n. One must be cautious in using the later parallels that are more explicit to explain the extremely concise SM passage, but they do illuminate what one must regard as typical features. The question ofliterary genre then leads to the difficult question of the specific sources for vss 2123. 223 A glance at the synopsis shows that SP/Luke 6:46 could be, and has often been taken to be, 22 4 the source: "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lordi' but do not do the things that I say?" There is, however, no clear evidence for the dependency of Matt 7:21-23 on Luke 6:46. Even if the author of the SM knew Luke 6:46 from Q, one would still need to explain how the literary transformation took place that begins with a simple rhetorical question and ends with a rather complicated narrative. Yet it is true that Luke 6:46 stands near the end of the SP, in a similar position to the parallel in the SM. The differences are just as .evident. 225 The SP does not have an eschatological

220 On the Egyptian material, see (in addition to nn. 207-10 above) Hermann Kees, Totenglauben und jenseitsvorstellungen der a/ten Agypter (3d ed.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1975); Reinhard Grieshammer, Das Jenseitsgericht in den Sargtexten (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1970); Siegfried Morenz, "Agyptischer Totenglaube im Rahmen der Struktur agyptischer Religion," in his Religion und Geschichte des a/ten Agypten (Cologne and Vienna: Bohlau, 1975) 173213; idem, Die Begegnung Europas mit Agypten (2d ed.; Zurich and Stuttgart: Artemis, 1969) 63, 66, 97-99, 111-12; Christine Seeber, "Jenseitsgericht," LdA 3 (1980) 249-52 (with bibliography). 221 For the Greek material see Ludovicus Ruhl, De mortuorum iudicio (RVV 2.2; Giessen: Topelmann, 1903); Richard Ganschinietz, "Katabasis," PW 20 (1919) 2359-2449; Eduard Norden, F. Vergilius Maro: Aeneis Buch VI (3d ed.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1926); Franz Cumont, After Life in Roman Paganism (New York: Dover, 1922); Nilsson, GGR 1.688-91, 815-26; 2.231-42, 543-58; Betz, Lukian, 81-89; Burkert, Greek Religion, 194-99, 293-95; idem, Ancient Mystery Cults, 12-29; Otto Michel, "Gebet II (Fiirbitte)," RAC 9 (1976) 11-13. 222 See the rich illustrations in Faulkner's edition of the Book of the Dead (see above, n. 207); also Erik Hornung, Tal der Konige: Die Ruhestiitte der Pharaonen (2d

warning section comparable to SM/Matt 7:13-23. The SM does not contain a section on "the good person" (cf. below on SP /Luke 6:45). The SP is far less interested in eschatology, and much more in anthropology and education, thus reflecting a difference in emphasis due to the different cultural backgrounds. One would have to postulate not only a transformation from a saying to a saying with a narrative but also a shift from a Greek educational to a Jewish eschatological frame of reference. The probable origins of the two Sermons, however, would suggest the reverse order, a change from a Jewish religious conceptuality to a Greek one. The origin of the rhetorical question in SP /Luke 6:46 is also beset with puzzles, even if one assumes with Bultmann that the saying comes from the historical Jesus himself. 226 Such an attribution is unprovable. Taken by itself, the saying does not refer to the eschatological judgment but presupposes a simple teacher-student relationship. The address "Lord, Lord!" is not cultic as in Matt 7:21-23 227 but simply an expression of respect for the teacher. 228 By repeating the address Jesus makes fun of the discrepancy between the disciples' expression of devotion and their failure to obey his teaching. 2 2 9 Thus no straight path leads from the saying in Luke 6:46 to the scenario in Matt 7:21-23, so that one must take other develop-

ed.; Zurich and Munich: Artemis, 1983) 149-58. 223 See Betz, Essays, 132-33. 224 Thus Bousset, Kyrios, 90; Bultmann, History, 120-21; Klostermann, Matthiiusevangelium, 70-71; Schulz, Q, 427; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.381; Luz, Matthiius, 1.401-2 with n. 7 (Matthew, 1.440 n. 7). 225 Cf. Wrege, Bergpredigt, 14 7: "Although Matthew's interest in the judgment paraenesis is eminent, one cannot call 7:21 a Matthean reformulation of source material as we find it in Luke 6:46; for what is claimed for Matthew as redactor may be true of his tradition as well. A common written source for Matt 7:21//Luke 6:46 must be excluded in accordance with observations on the tradition history of the preceding passage concerning the fruit of the trees" (my trans.). 226 Bultmann,History,122-23, 135,163. 227 Bousset's observation is preferable (Kyrios, 90-91; cf. Bultmann, History, 116 n. 2) that Matt 7:21 is "already in contrast with the simple Lucan saying in 6:46, stylized in consideration of the Christian cult and the liturgy." Cf. also 133 n. 50 with regard to 1 Cor 12:1-3. 228 Thus agreeing with Bultmann, History, 116 n. 2; cf. Hahn, Hoheitstitel, 96-98 (Titles, 90-92). 229 Ps.-Clem. Hom. 8.5.4 also considers the point: "Neither is there salvation in believing in teachers

545

ments into consideration, and one must interpret the concept of source in a wider sense. Another problem that has been widely debated is whether Luke 6:46 or Matt 7:21-23 was part of Q. This question, which for a long time had been settled in favor of Luke 6:46, has now been reopened by Strecker, 230 who considers that Matt 7:22-23 may also have been in Q. He sees that redaction has occurred in both the Lukan and the Matthean versions and concludes that Matt 7:22-23 are also pre-Matthean and thus likely from Q, while Luke 6:46 has eliminated the verses. The reason for this omission is then explained as avoiding the polemics against Christian charismatics and focusing on the Jewish opponents ofJesus (cf. Luke 13:22-33). This hypothesis is, however, hardly convincing. On the basis of the evidence thus far discussed, the question is not whether Luke 6:46 alone was part of Q, but whether this verse together with the entire SP was part of Q. Because I assume that SP/Luke 6:20b-49 was part of QLuke just as SM/Matt 7:21-23 was part ofQM•tt, both passages must have been developed redactionally from an oral saying like the ones we now find in Luke 6:46 and Matt 7:21. My conclusions regarding the sources and the redactional composition ofSM/Matt 7:21-23 can be supported by parallels using similar scenarios of the last judgment. 2 31 These scenarios can be reduced to sayings such as the Q-saying Matt 10:32-33//Luke 12:8-9, or Mark 8:38//Luke 9:26, and other parallels (see esp. 2 Clem. 3-4). Or the scenarios can be expanded into eschatological dialogues, such as Luke 13:23-28, or into parables, such as Matt 25:1-13 and 25:31-46, 232 or as stories of the kind in Luke 16:1931. 233 Since all these texts come from presynaptic sources, one can conclude that intensive literary activity prior to the Gospels is responsible for them, that is, a phase in the transmission of the material that is close to the SM and the SP.

o

3) Interpretation

• 21 The beginning of the section is marked by the

emphatic ov ("not"), in the sense of"Not this shall you

230 231 232

233

546

think or say." This form of denial occurs elsewhere in the SM (see above on SM/Matt 5: 17). Verse 21a declares a saying of jesus to be the wrong kind: "Not: Everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens." (Ov 'ITas o>..'ywv p.o1· KVpl£ KVpl£, dcr£A£VC1Ual £LS' T~V {3acriA£lav T;;>V ovpavwv). The construction of the sentence is somewhat strange and could lead to misunderstandings. The idea is certainly not that only some who say "Lord, Lord!" will enter into the kingdom, but that none will, if they merely say it but fail to do the will of the Father. What is denied, therefore, is an illusionary expectation stated as a false saying ofJesus that would read: "Everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord!' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens." Such a saying is satirical imitation, a bowdlerization. 234 Jesus never would have formulated such a sentence, saying that all one has to do to qualify for the kingdom is to call him "Lord, Lord." What then is the purpose of this saying? The purpose is certainly polemical, suggesting that some have become persuaded that simple flattery suffices, that loyalty to Jesus involves nothing more than gestures of devotion 235 and use of excessive titles. This suggestion is not entirely hypothetical. If one takes the satire into account, the saying characterizes Gentile Christians who use the KVpiOS' title 236 in their confession of faith. In Rom 10:9 Paul formulates the kerygmatic statement that Christians are used to making as a reminder: 237 "For if you confess with your mouth 'jesus is Lord' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (lJn €au op.o>..oy~cr"{/S' €v Ti!J crn5p.aTl crov KVpwv 'I1jcrovv Kat 'ITICTT£VCT"{/S' €v Tij Kaplilllcrov lJn 8£0S' ahhv 7/y£1p£v €K V£Kpwv, crw8~crn). It is the SM's critical opinion that Gentile Christianity demands faith in jesus as Lord but not obedience to the

and calling them lords. • The statement is again treated in Hom. 8. 7 .3-4, which cites the saying Luke 6:46, most likely from the oral tradition. Strecker, Bergpredigt, 171-72 (Sermon, 165-66). For more discussion see also Betz, Essays, 142-51. See, besides the commentaries, the study by Egon Brandenburger, Das Recht des Weltenrichters: Untersuchung zu Matthiius 25, 31-46 (SBS 99; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980). On this passage see Ronald F. Hock, "Lazarus and Micyllus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:19-31," JBL 106 (1987) 447-63.

234 See Betz, Essays, 39-43. 235 Cf. the flattering approach by the would-be disciple in Mark 10:17 and Jesus' rebuke in 10:18; furthermore, Mark 12:14, 32;John 13:13-14. 236 One should remember that no title is unambiguously attributed to Jesus in the SM. The SP uses "Son of man" (SP /Luke 6:22), but Jesus is not clearly identified with that figure. Cf. also the Epistle of James (1:1; 2:1), where the "Lord [K.\p&or]Jesus Christ" occurs, but the christological doctrines of the letter are unclear. Elsewhere Oas 1:7; 3:9; 4:10; 5:7, 8, 11, 15) K.\p&or refers to God, not Christ.

Matthew 7:13-23

Torah. This opinion is correct, as we know from Paul's letters 238 and from the Epistle of James, 239 not to mention other sources. What is incorrect, however, is the supposition that Paul's theology ignores the will of God. In fact, all of Paul's paraenesis expresses his insistence that one must obey the will of God. The difference between Paul and the SM is that Paul does not equate, in the same way the SM does, the will of God with the Torah as Jesus taught it. For Paul, God's will is expressed in the "law of Christ" (Gal6:2), which is identical with the love-command (Gal 5: 14), and which in turn regards Lev 19:18 as the principle and summary of the Torah. 2 40 Gentile Christians do not need to keep the jewish Torah, as they are not part of the Sinai covenant; but they must obey the love-command, which serves as Torah for Christian Gentiles in a universal way. 2 41 Not surprisingly, this rather subtle distinction led to misunderstandings. The SM and Paul do agree that the love-command (Lev 19: 18) is the sum total of God's will and law and that those who obey it fulfill the demand. They disagree about the requirement that Jesus' interpretation of the Jewish Torah is obligatory and must be obeyed by everyone. In Paul's view, the important fact in Jesus' interpretation of the Torah (the "law of Christ") was that it brought out the universality of the will of God, instead of confining it to the particularistic Jewish interpretation. Gentile Christians relate to Jesus through the "gospel" (d,ayybuov) and "faith in Jesus Christ" as the redeemer. The acclamation of Jesus Christ as Lord expresses that faith, which, however, also expresses itself in good deeds in fulfillment of God's will and demands. Accusations against Paul's doctrine of justification by faith, raised by Jewish Christians already during his lifetime, show how difficult it must have been to understand fully his position. Paul himself would agree that Chris-

tians who have nothing to offer in the last judgment except the cry "Lord, Lord!" have no chance of escaping condemnation. As for the SM, one should not suppose that as a Jewish text it has no place for Gentile Christians. There is no suggestion in the SM that Gentile Christians would under all circumstances be excluded from salvation. The text does not raise the question whether circumcision and conversion to Judaism would have saved them. It may, however, imply the question by the demand to keep the Torah. Nonetheless, the interpretation of the jewish Torah given in the SM is not completely incompatible with Paul's paraenesis to Gentile Christians. One can, therefore, state the critical question raised by the SM in this way: Do Gentile Christians obey the will of God, or do they use their spiritual experiences of prophecy, exorcism, and miracles as a substitute? Since the SM has no discussion of the implications of the text, one can only speculate about what the options were at the time. If we apply what we understand the text of the SM is saying to the situation of the conference of Paul and Barnabas with Peter, James, and John at Jerusalem (Gal2: 1-10), two options emerge. 1. The position advocated in the SM could represent the views of the Jewish-Christian opposition party at Jerusalem (Gal 2:4: ol 7rapwrd.ICTOt "'wod.oci\.rpot), called by Paul "the false brothers." This group did in effect demand that Gentile Christians be circumcised. 2. More probably, the theological position taken by the SM was the one held by the so-called pillars at the Jerusalem Conference (Gal 2:9: ol oo/Covvrcs urvi\.ot ctvat), shared by Paul, Barnabas, and Titus but opposed by the so-called false brothers. One can conclude, therefore, that the SM would approve of those Gentile Christians, if they supplemented their acclamation "Lord, Lord!" with

237 See also Phil 2:11; 1 Cor 12:3; 2 Cor 4:5; moreover, Rom 10:11, 13; Acts 2:21; 7:59; 9:14, 21; 22:16; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Tim 2:22. On Kyrios-acclamations see Klaus Wengst, Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums (StNT 7; Giitersloh: Mohn, 1972) 131-35; Hans Conzelmann, Theologie als Schriftauslegung (BEvTh 65; Munich: Kaiser, 197 4) 10910, 112-13; Vielhauer, Geschichte, 13-14, 23-25. 238 SeeGal2:15-16;andBetz,Galatians, 115-19. 239 See the paradoxical expression "the law of freedom" inJas 1:25; 2:12; see Samuel Vollenweider, Freiheit

Paulus und in seiner Umwelt (FRLANT 14 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989) 184-85; Wiard Popkes, Adressaten, Situation und Form des Jakobusbriefes (SBS 125/ 126; Stuttgart: Katholisches

Bibelwerk, 1986) 116-18. 240 See also Rom 13:8-10; and Betz, Galatians, 274-76. 241 Paul and his churches will not have to present "works of the Torah" at the last judgment (1 Cor 9:19-23), but they will be "without blemish" because they are "in Christ" (1 Thess 2:19-20; Phil2:12-16; 3:12-14; 2 Cor 5:10; 11:2, 15; Rom 8:31-39).

als neue Schopfung: Eine Untersuchung zur Eleutheria bei

547

obeying God's will. Obviously, the precise point of Paul's doctrine of justification by faith was to meet this demand (see esp. Gal5:16-24; Rom 13:8-10). Since the SM never uses the Kilptos acclamation, Jewish Christians must have believed this KilptoS"-christology, at least at this time, to be typical of Gentile Christians. For the SM, those Gentile Christians who merely shout "Lord, Lord!" can in some sense be compared with the Pharisees (5:20), not to mention conventional Jewish religionists chastised as "hypocrites" (6: 1-18). They all have in common that they consider external performances sufficient, while they fail in their internal commitments. If this diagnosis correctly described the condition of the Gentile Christians, Paul would most likely agree with their being rejected. Was it for precisely this reason that he left Pharisaic Judaism (cf., e.g., Gal 1:14; 6:12; Phil3:3-11; Rom 2:12-3:8)? At any rate, such an agreement cannot overlook Paul's very different ideas about how one can obtain the righteousness required in the last judgment. One cannot ignore that his christology of Christ's death and resurrection as well as his doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus Christ have no place in the SM. Verse 21 b then presents the matter positively : "but he who does the will of my Father who is in the heavens"

(a>..>..'

o1rotwv TO 8eA.7Jp.a Tov 1raTpos p.ov Tov £v TOtS'

ovpavo'i'S"). 24 2 Therefore, the correct form of the saying would read: "Everyone who does the will of my Father who is in the heavens will enter into the kingdom of the heavens. "243 This saying would fully agree with the theology of the SM, so much so that it sounds like a selfevident truism.2 44 It is improbable, however, that such a saying of Jesus ever circulated in this form. It is conceivable only in its negation for polemical reasons. The positive saying constructed above would simply state

what is self-evident in any form ofJudaism. The sentence is important for yet another reason. By speaking of God as "my Father" Jesus make~ a statement about himself, the only time he does so in the SM. One must not, however, misunderstand this statement as implying a christology of Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus regards himself as God's son just as all faithful Jews do and as it is expressed also in the invocation (epiklesis) of the Lord's Prayer (SM/Matt 6:9b). 245 This invocation addresses God as "our Father," and Jesus includes himself in the community of all children of the heavenly Father. 246 Also in agreement with the Lord's Prayer (SM/Matt 6:1 Ob) is Jesus' call for the submission of everyone to God's will, and to bring this point out is the purpose of the SM in its entirety. It is noteworthy that in a composition such as 7:21-23, which characterizes and criticizes the christology of Gentile Christians, the SM does not bother to set forth its own christology. One can only interpret this lack as a refusal to engage in any form of "higher" christology. Instead, the SM seems determined to maintain the position held by the disciples during Jesus' lifetime. He is regarded as their authoritative teacher and as their advocate in the last judgment. Why, then, does Jesus speak of "my Father who is in the heavens"? Why does he not refer to God as "our Father" or "your Father"? One must interpret the reference in its present context. By speaking of God as "my Father" Jesus sharply separates himself from the Gentile Christians he rejects. Just as he denies representing them as their advocate, he negates that they can approach God as their Father. They face God not as their Father but as their eternal judge; they are not "sons," as Jesus and his faithful disciples are "sons of God" (for the passages see n. 246). Again, Paul takes a

[C2 W 0 33 pc Iat syc Cyprian Theodoretus)). So 242 L W jl 3 1005. 1342 9Jt omit the article TOtY and read Metzger, Textual Commentary, 20; Aland, Synopsis, p. TOV ~v ovpavoly. The text with the article is read by IC 98 ad Joe. B C Z 0jl 33.205.892. 1424. 1506 al. The SM 244 For the concept of God's will, see the Lord's Prayer almost always has the preposition with the article (6:10). On "doing" (1rotii:v) see 5:19; 6:1-3; 7:12, 17before the plural"the heavens" (5:12, 16; 6:1, 9; 19, 24-26. 7:11, 21; differently 5:45: ~v ovpavoly, but variant 245 See above, the Introduction to the Lord's Prayer. readings have the article also here). By contrast, the singular does not have the article (5:34; 6:10). 246 See above on SM/Matt 5:9, 45; 7:9; cf. SP /Luke 6:35. 243 "Pedantically minded scribes, not content with the clear implications of the WOrds, added" aVTbY (oiiTOY C2 33 pc) d
548

Matthew 7:13-23

very different position; his doctrine of justification by faith makes available the status of "sonship" to Christian Gentiles (Gal3:26-28; 4:4-7; Rom 8:14, etc.). • 22 Without further ado, vs 22 proceeds from the declaration ofvs 21 to the narrative ofvss 22-23. Again the speaker is Jesus, who predicts what will happen at the last judgment: "Many will say to me in that day" (lToA.A.o'r. ~povcnv p.o1 ~v ~Kelvy Tfj ~p.,pg.). 247 While vs 21 describes the conduct of people in the present, vs 22 shows the same people in the future. The projection uses, as we have seen, the familiar course of events that popular mythology leads one to expect. 248 Groups of people, not individuals, will appear before the throne of God. These groups are headed by their leaders, who are responsible for them. 249 Jesus is shown also to be present, evidently to represent his disciples. At that moment, a large group (7roAA.ot) steps up, 250 apparently believing that Jesus is their representative. Thus they turn to him after they have been rejected by the divine judge, presumably God himself. This rejection is assumed to have occurred prior to the point at which the story picks up the events. We meet the group when they protest against Jesus' refusal to be their representative and advocate. They claim that they are his legitimate clientele: "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and did we not exorcise demons in your name, and did we not perform many miracles in your name?" (Kvp!E KVpiE, ov Til> uii> ovop.an

~lTp0c/J71TEVCTap.ev, Ka'r. Til> uii> ovop.an liatp.Ovta f.fef3&.A.op.Ev, Ka'r. Til> uii> 6vop.an livv&.p.m 1roA.A.as ElTOt~uap.ev;).

This "protestation of innocence" is introduced by the already familiar acclamation "Lord, Lord!" (Kvpte Kvpte [ vs 21 ]). The following questions present three instances of religious experiences, the expected answers being affirmative. Yes, they did these things. Their experiences were undoubtedly real as reported. But the claim based on them is mistaken. Why is this so? One should note first that the Greek wording is succinct, in more ways than the translation can convey. Again, as in vs 21, "not" (ov) is prefixed in vs 22b, after the acclamation, but now it is part of the question. The appellants are still sure that the answer should be affirmative. Yet, the "no" is nevertheless true. The point is that the appellants had their experiences and that they even had them in the name of Jesus. 251 Three times 25 2 they emphasize before naming their experiences that they had them "in your name" (~v Til> uii> 6vop.an). The reason for this word order is to express a quasi-legal client relationship. The protesters take the experiences to be evidence of a legal obligation on the part of Jesus. 253 The appellants claim 254 to have had three

lamella orfica e Eraclito," ZPE 80 [1990]17-18). 247 On this eschatological concept, see Volz, Eschatologie, 163-65; Gerhard Delling, ·~p.(pa," TDNT 2.948-53; The inscriptions on the lamellae are almost identical BAGD, s.v. ~p.(pa, 3.b.J3. and presuppose a scene in the underworld in which 248 For parallels see Volz, Eschatologie, 301-4. the initiate appears before the judgment seat of 249 Cf. Paul's comment in 2 Cor 11:2, announcing that Persephone. Questioned by her, the initiate claims to he will lead his churches at the last judgment. have been liberated by Dionysos Bakchios Lyaios and 250 While SM/Matt 7:13-14 describes the "many" of as proof recites a cultic formula of three parts general humanity on their way to destruction, the referring to mythico-cultic acts in which he has "many" in 7:22 are the majority of Gentile Christians, participated. This formula entitled the initiate to the in contrast to whom the jewish disciples of jesus are blessings of the cult. Merkelbach ("Diodor tiber das in the minority (7:13: "the few"). Totengericht der Agypter," Zeitschrift fur iigyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 120 [1993]71-84) raises 251 On doing miracles in the name of Jesus, see Mark 9:38; 16: 17; Luke 9:49; Acts 3:6, 16; 4:7, 30; 19: 13; the question whether the imagined scenarios of the Jas 5:14; etc. See BAGD, s.v.lfvop.a, 4.c.y. underworld corresponded to judgment rituals taking 252 The tripartite statement may have a parallel in two place on earth, as Diodorus Sic. 1. 72 reports. Cf. also Orphic-Dionysiac gold lamellae found in 1985 in Paul's prayer to Christ in 2 Cor 12:8, where his Pelinna, Thessaly (4th century BCE), published by K. petitions are denied three times. Tsantsanouglou and G. M. Parassoglou ("Two Gold 253 Making theologically unjustified claims on the basis Lamellae from Thessaly," EAAHNIKA 38 [ 1987] 3of miraculous experiences is what Paul calls false 16), and discussed by Reinhold Merkelbach ("Zwei boasting (Kavx'lou). See Betz, Paulus, 70-77; idem, neue orphisch-dionysische Totenpasse," ZPE 76 Essays, 156. [1989]15-16) and Marcello Gigante ("Una nuova 254 For a warning against spiritual dangers of Christian

549

fundamental religious experiences: 255 "We have prophesied" (e7rpocp7JTd)(ra!J.(V), 2 56 "we have expelled demons" (Sa!!J.OV!a ef({3aAO~J.W), 257 and "we have performed many miracles" (ovva!J.m 1roAA.as E7TO!~tTa/J-(V). 258 Using technical terminology, the appellants state that all three experiences are standard, known, and unambiguous. One should realize the following presuppositional points in this respect: First, these experiences are extraordinary and supernatural manifestations of the divine. That much one can accept as standard religious experience on terms agreed to by all antiquity. Therefore, they imply God's approval of those who experience them. Second, the appellants admit that they would not ordinarily consider themselves to be entitled to these experiences. No human being is normally so entitled, but they were granted them because they used Jesus' powerful name. In other words, the performers ofthese spiritual deeds called on God in the name of Jesus to

legitimize their undertakings and to obtain the necessary divine power for carrying them out. That it worked proves, at least in the eyes of the appellants, that God had accepted them as legitimate clients of Jesus. The logic of the appellants' protestation seems conclusive. Yet, they have overlooked one decisive point. The miraculous performances worked on earth, but they do not entail claims to eschatological rewards. The appellants ought to know that prophecy, exorcism, and miracles are performed everywhere in the ancient world in the name of all sorts of deities. Using the name of Jesus for magical purposes is attested even in pagan contexts at a later time. 259 Therefore, the SM does not deny the reality of these miraculous experiences, not even the magical potency of the name of Jesus. The SM does deny, however, that the miraculous experiences carry with them a valid claim to approval by God in the last judgment and a cause for waiving the requirement of "righteousness." Without such righteousness, in other

exorcism, see also Ps.-Clem. Hom. 9.22. Celsus prophesying is unimportant. For other references to (according to Origen Contra C. 2.49) takes Matt 7:23 prophecy in the name of jesus, see Franz Schnider, as proof that the persons so described are charlatans. EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. 1rpocJ>~r11r; Aune, Prophecy, 255 In order to make the protestations more relevant for 222-24, and passim. a later time, Justin Martyr has updated versions 257 The technical term occurs only here in the SM; for (Apol. 1.16.11): "But many will say to me, 'Lord, further references see BAGD, s. v. EK{3'1/TfVCTap.•v Kat oatp.ovta
550

Matthew 7:13-23

words, the religious experiences, real as they may have been, remain outside eternal salvation. Since the passage expresses the theology of the SM, it is astonishing that it would go so far as to admit that Gentile Christians have extraordinary experiences and that they use the name of Jesus in bringing them about. The verdict is, 260 rather, that these Gentile Christians are still stuck in paganism. To the SM, therefore, the Gentile Christians thus portrayed are simply deluding themselves by acting as though they are entitled to eternal salvation. The obvious disinterest by the SM and the SP in any form of ecstatic experience also confirms this conclusion. While the prophets of old are respected (see SM/Matt 5: 12; SP/Luke 6:23), engaging in prophecy, performing exorcisms, and doing miracles are not regarded as essential to Jesus' teaching on discipleship. One must distinguish this viewpoint from the evangelists' attitude: Matthew 261 as well as Luke has a positive attitude toward prophecy, exorcisms, and miracles done by Christians, although not without reservations. • 23 Jesus' reaction to the plea is categorically negative. The statement in vs 23a is that of a solemn declaration, for which the technical term op.oA.oy~:'iv ("declare publicly")2 62 is indicative: "And then I will declare to them" (Kat TllU op.oA.oy~uw aho'i~ Hn). This statement implies, as I have already concluded, that a firm rejection had previously occurred, 263 but the appellants did not regard it as final. This second rejection, however, confirms that it is final. It consists of two quasi-legal formulae, indicated as citations (Hn).

One can call the first formula (vs 23b) a renunciation formula: "I never knew you" (ofiat7TOTI: fyvwv vp.as).26 4 The formula belongs to the context of legal representation. An advocate cannot represent a client whom he or she does not know personally. Indeed, any form of recommendation presupposes personal acquaintance with the one recommended, so that even letters of recommendation require the statement: "I have known N.N. for such and such a time in such and such a capacity." 265 Therefore, the renunciation formula not only denies knowing the persons but also having any responsibility for them. The formula occurs also elsewhere in the synoptic tradition. 266 In the passages dealing with Peter's denial, it is used in the third and final denial (Mark 14:71//Matt 26:74): "Then he [sc. Peter] began to curse and swear saying, 'I do not know this man of whom you speak'" (0 a~ TfpfaTO ava8€p.aTl(nv Kat op.VV€LV 8n OfJK o!aa TOV IJ.v8poo7TOV TOVTOV av Aty€T€). This is correctly called "denying" (apv€'iu8at, a7Tapv€'iu8at), 267 the opposite of "confessing" him (op.oA.oy£'iv).2 68 WhatJesus refuses to grant, but what the appellants expect to receive, is Jesus' declaration (homologia) before the throne of God, such as the one in Jesus' intercessory prayer in John 17, where the climactic words are in vss 24-26:

260 In the theology of Luke-Acts, this very point serves to legitimate the mission to the Gentiles without submission to the Torah (Acts 15:12; also 2:19-21, 43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 7:36; 14:3; etc.). Notably, Paul does not use the argument at the Jerusalem Conference (Gal1:1-10), but he does so at least once in Gal3:5 (cf. Rom 15:19). 261 See Strecker, Weg, 137 n. 4; Schweizer,Beitriige, 5362. 262 See BAGD, s.v. bp.o>..oyEw, 4, referring to the parallels in Titus 1:16; Heb 11:13; Acts 23:8. See Otfried Hofius, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s. v. bp.o>..oyEw; Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 123-26 (on bp.o>..oyla in 2 Cor 9:14). 263 Cf. the three denials of Peter in Mark 14:66-72 par. The opposite is the kiss of friendship the traitor Judas used to indicate intimacy (Mark 14:44-45 par.).

264 SeeBetz,Essays, 129, 131; Luz,Matthiius, l.406n. 45 (Matthew, 1.446 n. 45); cf. Jeremias, Parables, 209-10; Schwarz, "Undjesus sprach," 145. 265 For such commendations see 2 Cor 8:16-17, 18, 22; and Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 70-78, 133-40. 266 See Luke 13:27; Matt 25:12; furthermore, Gen 29:5; 42:7-8;Job 19:14; Tob 5:2; 7:4; Matt 11:27;John 1:26, 31; 7:28-29; 8:19, 55; 10:4-5, 14-15, 27; 17:25-26; Acts 12:14; 19:15. For rabbinic parallels see Str-B 1.469; for Greek and Latin material see Wettstein, 1.344-45. 267 See esp. Matt 10:33//Luke 12:9 (and on this saying, see Betz, Essays, 142-5l);John 1:20; Acts 3:13-14. 268 Cf. also the application of the renunciation formula in 2 Cor 5: 16, where it refers to the earthly Jesus in contrast to confessing the risen Christ (Rom 10:9).

551

Father, they are your gift to me; and my desire is that they may be with me where I am, so that they may look upon my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the world began. Righteous Father, although the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you sent me. I made your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love you had for me may be in them, and I in them. (REB) The second formula (vs 23c) is that of repudiation or expulsion, 269 formulated on the basis of Ps 6:9: "Depart from me, you who work iniquity" (a:rroxwpliT£ a'lT' ~p.ov o~ ~pya(Op.£VOL T~V avop.lav).2 70 This formula, however, differs somewhat from Ps 6:9 (LXX), which Luke 13:27 quotes verbatim: a'lTOcrT1JT£ a 'IT' ~p.ov, 'lT&.vn~ o~ ~pya(Op.£voL

T~V avop.lav ("Withdraw from me, all you who work iniquity"). 2 71 Similar formulations occur in the Old Testament, 272 and comparable forms also occur in the New Testament elsewhere. 273 This formula of repudiation 2 7 4 does not go as far as curses of execration 2 7 5 or excommunication. 276 As people who have been rejected by the one on whom they had placed their hopes, they are doomed. This outcome is certain when one considers the legal context. Jesus does not speak a verdict, but he merely refuses to be their advocate, 277 and thus he lets the previous rejection stand. 278 One can easily misunderstand Jesus' description of the group as those "who work lawlessness" (o~ ~pya(Op.£VOL T~v avop.lav).lt includes three separate statements:

269 See Betz, Essays, 129, 131; cf. Luz, Matthiius, 1.402 (Matthew, 1.441 ). 270 Instead of awoxoopELTE, El jl 3 pc Adamantius read &vaxoopEtTE with the same meaning; the change is probably the result of scribal error (so also Justin Dial. 76.5; cf. Apol. 1.16.11: &woxoopELTE). L El j1 3 1424 alb vg' add w6.vTE~ ("all"), probably under the influence of Luke 13:27 (Ps 6:9 LXX). 271 Strecker (Bergpredigt, 174 [Sermon, 165]) and Luz (Matthiius, 1.402 [Matthew, 1.441 ]) attribute the difference from the LXX to the evangelist, but one need not do so; both versions of the formula may come from the oral tradition. See BAGD, s.v. &woxoop£oo; &.pltrT7JP.'• 2.a, with the parallels. 272 See Num 16:26;Job 21:14; 22:17; Pss 119:15 (LXX 118:15); 139:19 (LXX 138:19); 1 Mace 3:6. 273 See also Matt 4:10; Mark 8:33//Matt 16:23; Matt 25:41; 2 Clem. 4.5; Luke 10:16; Acts 8:20; 1 Cor 1:19; 9:27; Rom 11:1-3; Rev 22:15;JustinApol. 1.16.11; Dial. 76.5; 2 Clem. 4.5. For a parallel see Lucian Alex. 38: "Out with the Christians" (ftoo XPttrnavo6~); see also Betz, Lukian, 7; idem, Hellenismus und Urchristentum, 12. 27 4 Cf. also SP /Luke 6:22 (see below on this passage). 275 For this legal term see Ivo Pfaff, "Execratio," PWSup 4 (1924) 454-56; and the application in Clement Alex. Strom. 3.18, p. 246,31: &wotc7Jp6tcTov~ Eivat Tij~ {JatrtAEla~ Toil BEoil ("cut off from the kingdom of God"). See furthermore LSJ and PGL, s. v. &wotc7Jp6trtrlll ICT )\. 276 See Gal1:8-9; 1 Cor 16:22 (cf. 12:3); and Betz, Galatians, 50-54; Walter Doskocil, "Exkommunikation," RAG 7 (1969) 1-22; Wolfgang Speyer, "Fluch," RAG 7.1161-1288. 277 The importance of having Jesus as advocate is also evident from the magical Aramaic formula from the

552

Book of Elchasai, reconstructed by scholars from a citation in Epiphanius Adv. haer. 19.4.3: "I am witness over you [plural] on the day of the great judgment" (~vl. p.ttral.a i)l.tx6>v {Jt6>p. alva p6.{Ja. Read from right to left, this comes out in Aramaic as:lt::l., Ill'., C1'::1J!:1'&;,17 .,:"ICC llllt}. For this translation see NTApoc 2.750; cf. NTApok 2.623; Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelation ofElchasai (TSAJ 8; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1985) 124-25. According to Alexander Bohlig ("Manichllismus," TRE 22 [1991] 25-45, esp. 29}, this pronouncement was also known and valued by Mani: •At the last judgment he [sc. Mani] is the representative both of God and of the people. In this way Mani combines what he had been taught as a youth, the Christian prophecy, and, in contrast to the [Elchasaite] Baptists a positive attitude toward Paul, whom he sees in a gnostic light. In his connection with his alter ego he is simultaneously the representative ofJesus at the last judgment and the helper of his faithful (Psalm Book 20,19-21,15; 25,24-26)" ("Er ist beim Gericht sowohl Vertreter Gottes als auch der Menschen. Mani verbindet somit die Lehre seiner Jugend, die christliche Prophezeiung und eine im Gegensatz zu den T:i.ufern vorhandene positive Stellung zu Paulus, den er in gnostischem Lichte sieht. In seiner V erbindung mit seinem Alter ego ist er zugleich Vertreter Jesu im Gericht und Helfer seiner Gl:i.ubigen [Ps.-B. 20,19-21,15; 25,24-26]"). The trans. is mine; the reference is to C. R. C. AUberry, ed., A Manichean Psalm-Book (Stuttgart, 1938). 278 Cf. the different scenario in Rom 8:33-34, where there is no prosecutor and therefore no condemnation. See Betz, Essays, 157.

Matthew 7:13-23

1. Every human being "produces deeds" in life, a point made before in the section 7:15-20. 279 2. The question is under which "law" these deeds are to be judged. The group in focus is said to consist of "lawless people," that is, those who have done their deeds outside the v&p.or ("law") (cf. also above on 5: 17-20). 280 As Gentile Christians, the group is not under the jurisdiction of the Torah of Judaism. Since Jesus and the SM conceive of themselves as "within the Torah,"2 81 it is only consistent that Jesus refuses to represent persons outside thatjurisdiction.2 82 Indeed, according to Paul it is the apostle's responsibility to represent his churches at the last judgment. 3. For a Jew, however, the phrase "outside the Jewish law" means more than that all deeds done outside it are

declared "lawless" 28 ll and therefore in contradiction to "righteousness" (aLKaLOITVV7J), the status required in the lastjudgment.2 84 Therefore, persons who conduct themselves during their lifetime in a status of lawlessness are found unrighteous in the last judgment. 285 Consequently,Jesus has no need to pronounce a condemnation; he simply states the facts in terms ofJewish theology, according to which, "Outside the Torah there is no salvation. "286 These facts have two unavoidable results. First, Jesus cannot represent persons who do not possess the status of righteousness as defined by his own teaching. He would undercut his entire teaching and mission if he did so (cf. 5:17-20). He would himself become "a servant of sin" (Gal2:17).2 87

279 Cf. also SM/Matt 5: I6: "so that they may see your good deeds" (Gwros ~roaw bp.i;lll ra Ka.\a Vpya). 280 In the NT the terms avop.la ("lawlessness"), llvop.os ("lawless"), and av6p.ros ("lawlessly") have quite different meanings depending on the context. For the meaning "outside the Jewish Torah," see Mark 15:28//Luke 22:37; Acts 2:23; I Cor 9:2I; Rom 2:I2. 28I Cf. Paul's term Vvvop.os Xp&urov ("within the law of Christ" [I Cor 9:2I]), a term that the SM could endorse. 282 Cf. Matt I5:24, where Jesus says to the Phoenician woman, "I have not been sent, except to the lost sheep of the house oflsraeJ" (oi>K aw€vop.la as a quality primarily of an individual. It is, therefore, best rendered as 'lawlessness,' if by that term we understand not the 'absence of law' but the social behavior of an individual who defies law-and-order and who acts in contravention of any or all of the canons regarded as valid and binding by the society in which he lives." One should not confuse the term with wapavop.la, "transgression of laws." One must then apply this understanding of the terminology to the different Jewish-Christian

284

285

286

287

conceptuality of the SM, according to which the term means "living in principle apart from" the Torah, rather than individual "transgression" of the Torah. So, correctly, Wellhausen, Evangelium Matthaei, 33. See 2 Cor 6:I4; Matt I3:4I; 23:28; 24:I2; 2 Thess 2:3, 8; etc. For the terminology see BAGD, s.v. avop.la, llvop.os, av6p.ros, with references; Baumbach, Das Verstiindnis des Bosen, I 03-5; Davison ("Anomia"), who reviews the biblical and Jewish use of the term. Ifthe group ofSM/Matt 7:23 are people outside the Jewish Torah and are also "charismatics," they thereby do not automatically become "antinomians" in the sense that they reject all forms oflaw; that would be avapxla (see Plato Rep. 9, 575a: avapx{a Kal avop.{a ("anarchy and lawlessness"). Cf. the parallel in Luke I3:27: awourfjn aw' ip.ov wavT€S tpyara& al:J&K{as ("Depart from me, all you who are workers of unrighteousness"). See also 2 Tim 2:I9. Cf. the position of the anti-Pauline opposition in Galatians attempting to introduce circumcision and Torah. See Betz, Galatians, 5-9. The principle is stated in Acts I5:I: "Unless you have yourselves circumcised according to the law of Moses, you cannot be saved" (iav p.~ 71€p&rp.7J8fjr€ ri;l VB€& ri;l Mroii l:J-6vau8€ uro8fjva&). Cf. the accusation against Paul, rejected by him in Gal2:I7, that, as a consequence of Paul's theology, "Christ is a servant of sin" (Xp&uros b.p.aprlas l:J&a~eovos). See Betz, Galatians, I20.

553

Second, a formal condemnation is not needed at this point because the destiny of the rejected is a foregone conclusion. Not being eligible for the kingdom of the heavens, they are destined for "destruction" (a7Tc.IJA.na). 2 88 Thus, all those who are to be classified as Clvopm ("outside the law") are in effect condemning themselves. 289 One must take these conclusions into consideration when one answers the question of christology in the SM. In 7:21-23 Jesus does not act as the eschatological judge 290 but as the advocate of his disciples. 291 This role remains within the eschatological thinking of Judaism and does not require a specifically Christian christology. The evangelist Matthew interpreted 7:21-23 within the framework of his own theology, but it is important to recognize that he did not interfere with his source at this point. His adoption of the SM from pre-Matthean source material did not mean that he "corrected" its christology. He did not attempt to bring the SM up to his own different standards of

christology. The figure of Jesus in the SM is not interpreted christologically but eschatologically. Jesus is expected to be present at the last judgment as the advocate of his faithful disciples who have followed the teachings of the SM. 292 This view of Jesus as the advocate (7Tapc'z.KA1JTO~, paraclete) remains within the framework of Jewish eschatology, in which the role of the advocate/paraclete can be entrusted to angels or to the wise and righteous. 293 In this context, the advocate/paraclete has only the limited soteriological function of testimony. In the SM,Jesus' role as advocate/paraclete is based not on his atoning death and resurrection, which are never mentioned, but only on the quality of his teaching of the Jewish Torah. For his disciples he is the authoritative teacher, and only his teaching, if faithfully observed, leads to the eschatologically required righteousness. The testimony of Jesus in the judgment must be "without partiality," 294 but in this capacity he identifies and speaks

288 See SM/Matt 7:13-14. Gleerup, 1940)), however, thinks that in 7:22-23 289 See Volz, Eschatolog;ie, 304-9. Cf.John 3:16-21, esp. Jesus appears as "witness" as well as 'judge" (p. 223). 18b: "He who does not believe is already conFurthermore, Otto Betz, Der Paraklet: Fursprecher im hiiretischen Spiitjudentum, im johannesevangelium und in demned." At this point the critique of advocacy sets den neugefundenen gnostischen Schriften (AGSU 2; in; see John 5:45 and the interpretation by Otto Michel, RAG 9 (1976) 9. According to apocalyptic Leiden: Brill, 1963); Otto Michel and Theodor Judaism, intercession by the righteous on behalf of Klauser, "Gebet 11 (Furbitte)," RAG 9 (1976) 1-36, the unrighteous should take place among humans, esp. 7-10 and 13-18. Belief in intercessors conand one should place no hope on postmortem tinued among the Samaritans (see Michel, col. 9) and intercessors. For the passages see Michel, RAG 9.9the Elchasaites (see Luttikhuizen, Revelation [see above, n. 277], 199-201). 10. 290 See Betz, Essays, 151-54, with the self-correction in 294 Impartiality is an element of righteousness; see Gal n. 104. Most commentators argue differently and 2:6, and Betz, Galatians, 95. Therefore, intercession simply identify Jesus' role as advocate in the SM with cannot make up for missing righteousness; see Ps.the evangelist's christology of Christ as eschatological Philo Ant. bibl. 33.5 (OTP 2.348): "While a man is still alive he can pray for himself and for his sons, but judge, Son of man, and ruler of the universe (cosmocrator). Thus, Wellhausen, Evangelium Matthaei, after his end he cannot pray or be mindful of anyone. 32-33; Bultmann, History, 122 n. 1; Schweizer, Therefore, do not hope in your fathers. For they will Beitriige, 50; Strecker, Bergpredigt, 174 (Sermon, 167); not profit you at all, unless you be found like them." Luz, Matthiius, 1.406-7 (Matthew, 1.445-46); 2 Enoch 53 0) also assures that "there is no helper Stanton, "Origin," 186; Carlston, "Betz on the there" for the sinners (OTP 1.180). The saying in Sermon on the Mount," 55. 'Abot 4.13 is ironic (trans. Herford, Sayings of the 291 The correct view is found in Eduard Lohse, "Christus Fathers, 108): "He who does one precept gains for als Weltenrichter," in Georg Strecker, ed.,jesus himself one advocate, and he who commits one Gkristus in Historie und Theolog;ie: Neutestamentliche FS transgression gains for himself one accuser." See fur Hans Gonzelmann zum 60. Geburtstag (Gottingen: furthermore Michel, RAG 9.10-11. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 475-86. 292 Thus rightly Lohse, "Christus," 479-81. 293 On this point see Volz, Eschatolog;ie, 303-5; Nils Johansson (Parakletoi: Vorstellungen von Fursprechem fur die Menschen vor Gott in der alttestamentlichen Religion, im Spiitjudentum und Urchristentum [Lund:

554

Matthew 7:13-23

for those disciples who have been faithful to his teachings, and in this way his testimony will confirm their great reward in heaven (5: 12; 6: 19-20). For the faithful, it would be improper to rely on Jesus' meritorious death, if all that counts is his teaching, their faithfulness, and their own record of deeds. 2 95 If this is clear from the text, one can rightly ask: Given the lack of christology, is there a Christian soteriology in the SM? If one defines the terms "christology" and "soteriology" in a narrower sense as based on Jesus' death and resurrection as salvation event, the SM has neither a particularly Christian christology nor a corresponding soteriology. One can also see this point by the development of the redeemerjparaclete idea. Texts in Paul's letters and the Gospel of John show that the advocate/ paraclete idea was later expanded into a "higher" christology that included, above all, Jesus' role as eschatological judge and Son of man. 2 96 In Paul, one is reminded of the notion of advocate/ paraclete in Rom 8:34, which, however, combines it with a redeemer christology: 297 "It is Christ Uesus] who died but was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us" (XptuTOS [' I7]UOVS] 0 a7To8avcf>v, p.aA.A.ov o~ iyEp8Els, 8s Kal lunv iv oEtt~ Tov 8EOv, 8s Ka't ivTvyxctvEt im~p ~p.wv). This role conforms to the importance of eschatological judgment for Romans as a whole. In Romans the theme of eschatological judgment occurs prominently first in connection with the theme of the letter, stated in Rom 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel. "2 98 This theme determines the argument of the letter to be that of an apology, which reaches its climax in Rom 8:31-39 and sets before the eyes of the readers a scene at the last judgment. In comparison with SM/Matt 7:21-23, Paul would agree that any attempt to obtain justification merely

through experiences such as prophecy, exorcisms, and miracles is bound to fail. All who hope to enter into the kingdom of God must be found to be without blame. 2 99 Paul confirms this requirement, when he tirelessly exhorts his churches that obedience of faith means ethical responsibility so as to meet the demands of righteousness, for in the last judgment only these count. 300 In addition, the SM and Paul share the view that the Pharisaic, not to speak of the conventional, understanding of the Jewish Torah is not sufficient, but only the Torah as understood by Jesus. Both the SM and Paul see the teaching of Jesus epitomized in the lovecommand (see above on SM/Matt 5:43-48). How then can one reconcile this agreement with the lack of christology in the SM, as opposed to the high christology of Paul? Paul would argue that, in the final analysis, the faithful disciples of the SM also need a redeemer christology. Even the SM admits to the failures of disciples and their need for God's mercy. Thus, Paul would argue, it is safer in principle to have Christian existence based on Christ's merits than on the uncertain merits of faithful discipleship. Although one need not deny such merits, they are inadequate for making everything dependent on them. The concept of the redeemer/paraclete has been interpreted further in a christological sense as compared with Paul. When in the Fourth Gospel Jesus promises that he will send the Spirit as "another paraclete" (lf.A.A.os 7TapctKA7]Tos) after his return to the Father, he implies that he was the first paraclete. 301 Thus, Jesus acts as intercessor/paraclete on earth when he addresses the great intercessory prayer to his Father in John 17, in which the borderlines between this world and the next are transcended in typicalJohannine fashion. But 1 John 2:1 calls on the older notion of the advocatejparaclete, 302

295 See Volz, Eschatologie, 303-4, 306-7. 296 According to Lohse ("Christus" [see n. 291, above], 479-81), the pre-Pauline kerygmatic statement in 1 Thess 1:9-10, that Jesus frees us from the coming wrath, stands on the border between the concept of him as witness and as judge. See also Michel, RAC 9.13-18. 297 See Lohse ("Christus," 480), who refers also to 1 John 2:1 and Heb 7:25. Cf. also 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15-17; 5:23; Heb 9:24; 1 Clern. 36.1. 298 On this point see C. Kingsley Barrett, "I am not Ashamed of the Gospel," in his New Test1Lrnent Essays

299

300 301

302

(London: SPCK, 1972) 116-43; Ernst Kasemann, Cornrnentary on Romans (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 16-17. This is the theme of the Corinthian letters; see esp. 1 Cor 1:7-8; 3:10-17; 15:58; 2 Cor 1:14; 5:10; 11:2, 15. Seeesp.Gal5:14-6:10. Cf.John 14:16-17, 26; 15:5, 26; 16:5-11, 12-15. For the whole topic see Gunther Bornkamm, "Der Paraklet im Johannesevangelium," in his Gesarnrnelte Aufsatze, 3.68-89; Michel, RAC 9.16-17. The origin of the Johannine title paraclete is still

555

even though this epistle sees that notion from a later perspective: "My children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate [?TapcZKA11To~] with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous one [BlKaLo~ ]. " In conclusion, SM/Matt 7:21-23 puts forward an eschatological concept of Jesus as the advocatejparaclete in the last judgment. This concept originated in Judaism and occurs as an "archaic relic" also in other New Testament texts. In the SM, this concept does not imply a christology or soteriology of the kind Gentile-Christian theologies would develop. Paul and John's Gospel, however, show how the concept of paraclete was later given christological and soteriological interpretations. We have also observed how the evangelist Matthew has changed this older advocate/paraclete concept by superimposing on it the christology of the Son of man: "For the Son of man will come in the glory of his Father together with his angels, and then he will give to everyone according to his conduct in life" (Matt 16:27). 303 Several times Matthew repeats this christology of the righteous Son of man/Son of God/righteous judge (19:28; 24:30-31; 25:31-46), until the climactic episode

in 26:63-64 (see also 28:20). This christology has been woven together from various conceptualities, including that ofthe Messiah, and it is all based on Jesus' death on the cross, his resurrection, his ascension, and his enthronement as ruler of the universe (cosmocrator). The theological reason for this imposition on the part of Matthew should be obvious. Matthew's church included not only former Jews but mostly Gentiles, Christians who did not obey the Jewish Torah. There is in effect no indication that the Matthean Christians observed the Jewish Torah. Consequently, their status in the last judgment had to be put on a different foundation from that of the faithful Jewish disciples of the SM. This is done, according to Matthew, by declaring that Jesus, through his life, death, and resurrection, has "fulfilled all righteousness" (Matt 3: 15, which refers to more than simply his baptism). On account of this righteousness, he was enthroned as lord of the universe, and in this function he is the eternal protector of his church, notwithstanding that this church is a mixed body of the righteous and the unrighteous (Matt 28:18-20).

disputed. Cf. Bomkamm's remark in "Paraklet," 70 n. 10. Its roots in the history of religions certainly include the figure of the intercessor. See also Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel ofjohn (trans. G. R. BeasleyMurray et al.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1971) 205, 437 (excursus on "The Paraclete"), with the supplement (Ergiinzungsheft) to the German ed., pp. 41-42. 303 The christology of the Son of man plays no role in

556

the SM, but it does in the SP; see below on SP /Luke 6:22.

Matthew 7:24-27 Ch~pter VIII The Parable of the Two Builders

7 24

25

26 27

Therefore, everyone who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a prudent man who built his house on rock. And the rain came down, and the rivers came, and the winds blew and fell on that house, but it did not fall, for it was founded on rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine but does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. And the rain came down, and the rivers came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and its downfall was a great one.

Bibliography Bultmann, History, 173, 202. Betz, Essays, 1-16; also Synoptische Studien, 77-91. Braun, Radikalismus, 2.29-34. Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.167-69. David Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserziihler jesus (Bern, Frankfurt, and Las Vegas: Lang, 1981) 98-105. Jiilicher, Gleichnisreden, 2.259-68. Marguerat, Le jugement, 203-11. Antonio Orbe, Panibolas evangelicas en San Ireneo (2 vols.; Madrid: La editorial catolica, 1972) 1. 75105. Antonio Ornella, "Les chretiens seront juges: Mt 7,2127," Assemblies du Seigneur 40 (1972) 16-27. Schulz, Q, 312-16. Gerhard Sellin, "'Allegorie' und 'Gleichnis': Zur Formenlehre der synoptischen Gleichnisse," ZThK 75 (1978) 281-335. Philipp Vielhauer, Aufsatze zum Neuen Testament, voi. 2: Oikodome (Theologische Biichere: 65; Munich: Kaiser, 1979) 54-55. Wrege, Bergpredigt, 152-55.

(7: 13-14), this section shows two characters, the "prudent man" (av~p cppovtp.o~) and the "foolish man" (av~p p.wpo~). as they build their houses, one on rock and the other on sand. When bad weather with rains, floods, and storms beats against the houses, the one built on rock withstands, while the other built on sand collapses. The two builders are to be likened to the faithful disciple who not only hears but also does the words of Jesus, and to the unfaithful disciple who only hears Jesus' words but fails to do them. This contrast (syncrisis) of the two builders is intended to accomplish two goals: ( 1) to provide a summary of the purpose and function of the SM; and (2) to inject a final admonition and warning into the mind of the hearer or reader. 1 The images used in the passage are traditional; its major terms are to be taken as metaphors. This is true in particular of the image of building a house. 2 Noteworthy is the language

1. Introduction

The concluding section of the SM consists of the parable of the Two Builders. Corresponding to the Two Ways

2

Thus, the purpose and function are related to character formation (1}6o.,.oda). The terms and images are biblical. For the references see Siegfried Wagner, ":"!l::l biiniih," ThWAT 1.689706 (TDOT 2.166-81), esp. 696-703 (172-78) (II.4 and III); for the Christian material see the basic study by Philipp Vielhauer, Oikodome: Das Bild vom Bau in der christlichen Literatur vom Neuen Testament bis

Clemens Alexandrinus (diss., Heidelberg, 1939; reprinted in his Aufsiitze zum Neuen Testament, voi. 2: Oikodome [Theologische Biicherei 65; Munich: Kaiser, 1979]) 1-168; furthermore, Otto Michel, "oiKor KTll..," TDNT 5.119-59; Theodor Schneider and Karl Hermann Schelkle, "Bauen," RAG 1 (1950) 1265-78; Hans Pohlmann, "Erbauung," ibid., 5 (1962) 1043-70; Ernst Dassmann and Georg

557

of "foundation" (8cp.huos; Latin: fundamentum )3 which occurs frequently in texts dealing with instruction and education. 4 The same can be said of the metaphor connected with the building of the house. 5 The two building projects are described as the work of two stock characters, the "prudent" and the "foolish" man. Both of these characters are traditional 6 in the context of wisdom, morality, and education. 7 For the SM they typify success and failure of discipleship. Set in the situation of natural disasters, success and failure are thought of, first of all, in terms of this-worldly survival in a world full of turbulence and violence, indicated by the images of rain, river, and storm. 8 There are no doubt also eschatological meanings involved, however. The meaning of the parable is explained by the text itself. The two builders signify the faithful disciple who is able to combine hearing and doing of the words of Jesus, while the unfaithful disciple fails to accomplish this requirement. The requirement itself is also traditional: "word" (A.6yos) and "deed" (~pyov) must correspond in a person worthy of being called prudent. 9 General and traditional as these terms and images are, their function within the SM is nevertheless specific. What matters,

3

4

5 6

558

therefore, is the specific application to the concerns of the SM. 2. Analysis In terms of literary form, the passage in 7:24-27 consists of a similitudo (similitude), 10 including syncrisis (comparison by juxtaposition) supplied with its own interpretation. The narrative stands between a parable and an allegory; its imagery is metaphorical but not completely allegorical. One must not misunderstand the often used term "double parable": the two parts have always belonged together and form a syncrisis 11 of the two stock characters, the "prudent" and the "foolish" man, representing the faithful and the unfaithful disciple as interpreted by the SM. Following the connecting particle o~v ("therefore"), the first part describes the successful disciple, introduced by an identification of his marks (vs 24a) and followed by a formula of comparison (vs 24b). The example focuses on the house builder, a craftsman and popular subject of such parables. 12 His activity is briefly described, with special emphasis given to the rock foundation of the house. What the builder does is nothing exceptional; rather, it is what is professionally commendable. By way of comparison, his professional competency makes all the difference (vs 24c). Verse 25a then describes the calamities associated with bad weather, which a well-built house should be able to

Schollgen, "Haus II (Hausgemeinschaft)," ibid., 13 (1986) 80 1-905; Friedrich Ohly, "Haus III (Metapher)," ibid., 13.905-1063, esp. 1034; BAGD, s.v. olKoaop..!w KTA.;Johannes Pfammatter, EWNT (EDNT) 2, s.v. olKoaop..!w KrA. For the material see Karl Ludwig Schmidt, "6.&os; Henryk Muszynski, Fundament: Bild und Metapher in den Handschriften aus Qumran; Studie zur Vorgeschichte des neutestamentlichen Begrifft 8EMEAI0l: (AnBib 61; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1975). See esp. Quintilian Inst. 1, praefatio 4-5; 7, praefatio 1; 8.5.27; 8.6.63; 9.4.27; 10.3.3; 12.6.2; 12.8.1 (for further references see Gerhard Assfahl, Vergleich und Metapher bei Quintilian [TBA 15; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932]46-48); Epictetus Diss. 2.15.8; 8.9; Philo Gig. 30; Mut. nom. 211; Som. 2.8. For rabbinic Judaism see Str-B 1.469-70, 733; 3.333. For a collection of passages see Vielhauer, Oikodome, 4-51. For Egyptian wisdom see the Instruction ofPtahhotep (c. 3200 BCE); for translations see John Wilson, ANET, 412-14; Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 1.63-64; Brunner, Altiigyptische Weisheit, 111; idem, Altiigyptische Erziehung, 112-13; Assmann, Ma 'at, 110, 115, and passim. For the OT see Johannes Marbock, ·':>~?nahal," ThWAT 5 (1986)

171-85; for the NT see Georg Bertram, "p.wp6s KTA.," TDNT 4.832-47; idem, "cf>p~v KTA.," TDNT

7

8

9

10 11 12

9.234 (D.5). Here we also find the contrast between the sage and the fool; see, e.g., Sir 21:10-11, 12-28; 22:1-15; for the synoptic tradition see esp. Luke 12:13-21; i4:15-24; 16:1-13; Matt 25:1-13; Mark 7:21. For these images see Ezek 38:22; Ps 71:6; Prov 28:3; Wis 16:16, 22; Sir 40:13; PhiloSom. 2.109, 125; Vit. Mos. 1.265; Treatise ofShem, passim (OTP 1.473-86); Seneca Vita beata 50.28. See also Robert Luyster, "Wind and Water: Cosmogonic Symbolism in the Old Testament," ZAW 93 (1981) 1-10. On this topos see Luke 24:19; Acts 7:22; Rom 15:18; 2 Cor 10:11; Col3:17; 2 Thess 2:17; 1 John 3:18; and esp.Jas 1:22-26; 2:14-16. See BAGD, s.v. ;pyov, La. For this literary category, see Lausberg, Elemente, §§ 401-3,404. For references see Betz, Paulus, 119 nn. 560-61. On this point see Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse, 104-5, who points to rabbinic as well as Greek philosophical parallels.

Matthew 7:24-27

sustain: rain, river, and winds. Verse 25b reports the effects of the attack: the house is indeed able to withstand; vs 2 5c gives the reason for it: the house is founded on bedrock. Verse 26 then turns to the negative counterpart, the failing disciple. The lines of vss 26-27 are constructed in precise parallelism to vss 24-25, so that one can speak of a large-scale isocolon (parallel lines), comprising the whole passage. Verse 26a sets forth the marks of the failing disciple. Then (vs 26b) the example ofthe second builder is introduced, followed by the formula of comparison. The description of his building shows that it is done unprofessionally: he sets the house directly on the sand without putting a foundation underneath it (vs 26c). When the same bad weather with rain, river, and storm pound against the building, the house collapses (vs 27a-b). A final evaluation states the total ruin (vs 27c). With this warning the SM has reached its end. The descriptions of the weather in vss 25 and 27 use rhetorical figures: subiunctio (coordination) 13 and paronomasia (variation on the same word, vs 25: 1rpocrl1T€Uav, f7I'£u£v; vs

27: 7rpoulKo\frav,

f7r£lT£V,

,-rwu1~). 14

In terms of composition and architecture, the double parable in vss 24-27 with its stern warnings stands in juxtaposition to the Beatitudes (SM/Matt 5:3-12) and to the commission (5: 13-16). It also corresponds to the Two Ways (7:13-14), the Two Trees pointing to true and false prophets (7: 15-20), and the two groups in 7:21-23. With regard to the question concerning the source of vss 24-27, one must first consider the close parallel in the conclusion ofSP /Luke 6:47-49. Both passages share the same position at the end of the SM and the SP respectively, both work with the same image material, both are composed according to the same pattern, and both show the results of some redactional 13 14 15

16

17

See Lausberg, Elemente, § 346 (p. 114). 18 Ibid.,§§ 386-92 (pp. 126-31). Strecker (Bergpredigt, 176 [Sermon, 169]) concludes that a different landscape is envisioned: the SM presupposes a building on the slope of a mountain, while the SP thinks of a river valley. Gerhard Kittel (Die Probleme des paliistinischen Spiitjudentums und das Urchristentum [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926]55) thinks that the SM passage is Jewish-Palestinian, while the SP is more GentileChristian in character. Differently, Strecker (Bergpredigt, 176-77 [Sermon, 169]) takes the Lukan version to be later and a product of Luke's redaction, through which the earlier symmetry found in Matthew was destroyed; Luke's version is said to be more Greek, while Matthew's is more Palestinian.

activity, most likely at the presynoptic level. These similarities, however, should not lead one to overlook the differences. These differences are considerable in that they do not include only some terminology. Rather, in spite of the similarities the basic conceptions set forth by the examples differ. While the SM stresses the importance of the rock foundation as compared to the absence of a foundation for the house built on sand, the SP puts the emphasis on the work that goes into laying the foundation as compared with the effortless setting of the house directly onto the sand. The calamities of the weather are different too. The SM has rain, rivers (flash floods), and high winds, while the SP has high water of one river, with no mention of rains or winds.I5 More fundamental even than the differences regarding these images is that between the character types of the prudent/imprudent man in the SM and the anthropology of the "good man" in the SP. The SM presupposes a wisdom anthropology more Jewish in orientation, while the SP prefers a Greek anthropology. 16 Correspondingly, there are two types of discipleship. In the SM, the disciple is to become what he already is (see the Beatitudes and the commission [SM/Matt 5:3-12, 13-16]); in the SP, the disciple approaches the master (SP /Luke 6:47a), undergoes a course of education, graduates (6:40), and is adopted as "son" in the afterlife. As in many other instances, one cannot explain these similarities and differences, subtle and farreaching as they are, as the result of redactional work on the part of the Gospel writers Matthew and Luke. 1 7 They are, in effect, indigenous to the SM and the SP, so that one can conclude that both texts were already part and parcel of the presynoptic compositions of the SM and the SP, and thus ofQ/Matt and Q/Luke_l 8 Since both versions are to be regarded as presynoptic So also Luz (Matthiius, 1.412 [Matthew, 1.451 ]). Eduard Schweizer ("Zur Sondertradition der Gleichnisse bei Matthiius," in his Matthiius, 104-5) considers the possibility that Matt 7:24-27 was influenced not only by Q but also by a parable tradition in special sources available to Matthew. Instead of assuming multiple sources, however, attribution of the differences to Q/Luke and Q/Matt may be more plausible. Cf. also Wrege, Bergpredigt, 154-55.

559

redactional products, which of them was part of the "original" Q? This question cannot be answered, since whatever version the "original" Q/Sermon had the SM and the SP have reworked in completely different ways. At any rate, the two expanded versions that became part of Q/Matt and Q/Luke then contained the different forms of the double parable. The SM and the SP must have taken over their versions ofthe parable either from the earlier version of Q or from the oral tradition. Which was the case is no longer discernible, but the origin in the earlier Q-version is more likely. Yet, the further back one reaches, the closer written and oral tradition come together. Some scholars have suggested that the double parable goes back to the historical Jesus. 19 This is possible, if not probable, in principle, but the two extant versions in the SM and the SP show, as I have indicated, considerable redactional work. The appearance of a similar parable in 'Abot R. Nat. (A) 24, attributed to Elisha ben Abuyah (c. 120 CE), 20 indicates that the parable may have circulated more widely. But even such a wider usage of the parable does not rule out that it came into the Q-tradition through jesus. The parable in 'Abot R. Nat. (A) 24 is part of a sequence of similar parables: Elisha ben Abu yah says: One in whom there are good works, who has studied much Torah, to what may he be likened? To a person who builds first with stones and afterward with brick; even when much water comes and collects by their side, it does not dislodge them. But one in whom there are no good works, though he studied Torah, to what may he be likened? To a person who builds first with bricks and afterward with stones: even when a little water gathers, it overthrows them immediately. He used to say: One in whom there are good works, who has studied much Torah, to what may he be 19 20

21

22

560

likened? To lime poured over stones: even when any number of rains fall on it, it cannot push it out of place. One in whom there are no good wor~s, though he studied much Torah, is like lime poured over bricks: even when a little rain falls on it, it softens immediately and is washed away. 21 These two parables, followed by others of a similar character, express rabbinic theology. The differences between them show how such parables were narrated and how different versions were made up. Also important is that two versions of the parable can be attributed to the same rabbi in the two versions of the 'Abot de Rabbi Natan;2 2 another version using trees instead of houses occurs inM. 'Abot 3.18. 3. Interpretation

• 24 The conjunction o~v ("therefore"), introducing the

double parable of the two builders, indicates that we have reached the end of the SM. As I have explained, this ending of an educational text such as the SM and the SP was traditional, so that one must also interpret the images and metaphors in this general context. Comparison with the parables, in particular SP /Luke 6:4 749, reveals the emphases intended by the SM. The introductory sentence (vs 24a) characterizes the good students as the SM wishes them to be: "everyone, therefore, who hears these words of mine and does them" ("rras o~v CliTTLS aKoim p.ov TOVs Abyovs TOVTOVS Kat 'lTOLt-1 avrovs). 23 The generalizing "everyone" addresses the disciples of the SM and defines them by imagery. 24 The definition is purely functional, 2 5 and the complete absence of even the designation "disciple" (p.a871r~s), or titles, ranks, or other identity marks is remarkable. 26

SeeLuz,Matthiius, 1.412(Matthew, 1.452). The date of these parables is uncertain. See Hermann L. Strack and Gunter Sternberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch (7th ed.; Munich: Beck, 1982) 215-17 (with bibliography); ET: Introduction to the Talmud and Mid rash (trans. Markus Bockmuehl; Minneapolis: Fortress; Edinburgh: Clark, 1991) 245-47. The translation is that of Judah Goldin, The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (New Haven: Yale University, 1955) I 03; see also Str-B 1.469; Luz, Matthiius, 1.412-13 (Matthew, 1.452); Lachs, Rabbinic Commentary, 151; Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichni.sse, 102-3. See 'Abot R. Nat. (B) p. 77, ed. Anthony]. Saldarini, The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (Abot de Rabbi Nathan), Version B (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 205.

23

24

25

26

B* 1424 pc a g 1 k mae horns omit ro6rovs ("these") probably because it was no longer clear what the term refers to. The parallel in SP /Luke 6:4 7 does not have "these." ,.(is ("everyone"), which is also found in the parallel SP /Luke 6:4 7, stands in contrast to "not everyone" (ov ,.as) in vs 21. Cf. also SM/Matt 5:15, 22, 28, 32; 7:8, 12, 17; SP /Luke 6:30, 40, 47. "Coming to Jesus" (SP /Luke 6:47) is not part ofthe conditions in the SM. This may mean that for the SM, as certainly for Matthew, the disciples are "called." The SM itself, however, has no reference to a call. "Disciple" (j.
Matthew 7:24-27

Within the SM, one must see this definition in its relations with the Beatitudes (SM/Matt 5:3-12) and the commission (5:13-16). This widely open definition also indicates that the community speaking in the SM has not yet separated from judaism. The conventional characterization of the disciple as one "who hears these words of mine and does them" is important for a number of reasons. 2 7 The words "these words of mine" are self-referential and show that the SM is made up of"sayings" (AoyoL) of jesus, taken from a larger pool of such sayings and declaring the selected ones to be essential for the instruction of the disciples. 28 These sayings should be "heard" (aKOVELv), 29 which means that in instruction they are spoken by the teachers who continue the teaching of jesus (see above on SM/Matt 5: 19). This situation implies that the primary function of the SM is oral delivery, while the secondary function is remembrance and, possibly, recitation. 30 The notion of "hearing" has implications also for the text of the SM itself. In view ofthe fact that the issues of oral versus written texts were much discussed in contemporary judaism 31 (as also in Greek philosophy), 32 it is significant that the SM never refers to itself as a written text. 33 Rather, hearing the spoken word is the only mode of instruction presupposed. This fact no doubt continues the oral form of delivery practiced by jesus himself, who never wrote anything and seems to have shared the common reservations against the writing down of teaching. The only written text mentioned is the Torah (see above on SM/Matt 5:18). Furthermore, "hearing" implies a dialogical structure

of the teaching. This structure means that, although the SM is presented as a monologue of jesus, its structure is that of a dialogue. It provokes debate, both among the disciples and internally in the individual. The dialogical structure is therefore considered to be an essential element of the teaching of jesus. When the SM was written down, which it was most likely from its inception, its function was that of a manual for oral instruction. Thus, even as a written text the SM is structurally different from a code oflaw, agnomologium (collection of sayings), or even a "book" (fil{3Ao~) such as the Gospel of Matthew (Matt 1: 1). Important as "hearing" may be, "doing" ('lToLe'iv) is the goal. 34 This emphasis on "doing" not only affirms the intention of the teaching of jesus, but in the SM it is related to the doctrine of merit. Only through the "doing" of good deeds can the disciples be certain of having "a treasure in heaven" (6:19-21), a treasure to be drawn on in the last judgment (see above on SM/Matt 5:12 and 7:21-23). Therefore, one cannot separate "hearing and doing." Only together do theory and practice constitute wisdom and understanding. In all antiquity, this emphasis was the same in jewish and Greek education. Thus, for the SM learning is a process that includes the interaction of several elements, such as the teaching of jesus' sayings and their constant remembrance, their theological appropriation and internalization of meaning, the ability to argue for their validity, and their practical application in the situations oflife. The ability to hold these elements together

Mark I0:35-45 par. For further discussion see Betz, Essays, I-I6; furthermore Franz K. Mayr, "Horen," RAC I5 (I99I) I023-1111, esp. I074-78. 28 See the main Introduction, above pp. 70-88. 29 See also SM/Matt 5:2I, 27, 33, 38, 43. Cf.Justin Apol. 1.16.IO. 30 See also Betz, Essays, 3-6. Flusser's suggestion (Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse, I 00-II 0) that the historical Jesus would have not said "my words" but the words of the Torah or of God is not plausible; indeed, "my words" refers to Jesus' interpretation of the Torah as set over against other interpretations. See also above on the phrase "but I say to you" (SM/Matt 5:22). 3I See above on SM/Matt 5:I7-I8. 32 See Thomas A. Szlezak, "The Acquiring of Philosophical Knowledge according to Plato's Seventh

Letter," in Arktouros: Hellenic Studies Presented to Bernard M. W. Knox on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday

27

(Berlin and New York: de Gruyter [I979]354-63); idem, Platon und die Schriftlichkeit der Philosophie: Interpretationen zu den jrilhen und mittleren Dialogen

33

34

(Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, I985), with the important review by Ada Neschke-Hentschke, Gnomon 59 (I987) 673-80. This situation differs from letters, which as written texts are to be read aloud (avaytvw
561

characterizes the faithful disciple, who is declared to be a "prudent man." The implications 35 should be clear: faithful disciples ofJesus can certainly not be those who ignore, forget, set aside Jesus' sayings, and substitute for them their own teachings (see above on SM/Matt 5: 19). Rather, faithful disciples are preservers of the Jesustradition. 36 Nor can faithful disciples of Jesus be those who merely learn his sayings by heart and repeat them verbally, but who do not enter into Jesus' theological thinking and who are not able or willing to argue and defend its validity. In this respect, the SM places great value on the disciples' intellectual and rhetorical abilities. Nor can faithful disciples of Jesus be people who merely theorize and argue, but never bother to practice what they have understood and learned. At this point the SM is critical of superficial intellectualism. Finally, disciples ofJesus cannot be those who mindlessly take Jesus' precepts and put them into practice. The sayings of Jesus are not laws, fixed precepts, or directives to be applied without question. In this respect the SM is critical of the mindless activists or slavish devotees who practice whatever they are told. All too

often readers have taken the sayings of the SM to be unconditional orders, irrational pronouncements, or radical axioms to be implemented in blind faith and without further thought. Clear as most of the sayings of the SM are, they remain short, condensed, couched in rich imagery. They are composed to be appropriated critically and self-consciously. Most of them are, indeed, also rather general, so much so that one can apply them to various forms of discipleship, no matter what school of thought. 37 Verse 24 boldly regards the faithful disciple as a man of prudence: "he will be like a prudent man" (ilp.otw8~0'€TaL av~ple/>pov{p.Cf' ). 38 The future tense refers to the following comparison 39 as well as to the future of the man in the story (vs 25), including both his future in this world and in the next. The term ilp.ou)ro ("compare") reflects Jesus' way of introducing his parables elsewhere in the gospel tradition. 40 As already mentioned, the "prudent man" is a stock character known from wisdom literature and philosophy. In the only mention of him in the SM he represents the ideal disciple who lives in accordance with the teachings of the SM. 41 This means that the SM itself claims to be

35

The terminology of 4>povliv, ti>POV'Ijau, tl>pOv&p.os ("think, thinking, prudent") has played an enormous role in Greek philosophy especially since Plato and Aristotle. The terms designate intellectual insight informed by the good and informing action. As an intellectual and practical force ti>POV'f/U'IS ("thinking") transforms knowledge into action and makes action conform to reason. For the literature see Robert Joly, Le theme philosophique des genres de vie dans l'antiquite classique (Memoires de I' Academie de Belgique, Classe des Lettres 51.3; Brussels: Palais de l'Academie, 1956); Bruno Snell, "il>plvEs-tl>pOv1ju&s," Glotta 55 (1977) 34-64; Heinz]. Schlifer, Phronesis bei Platon (Bochum: Brockmeyer, 1981 ); Olof Gigon, "Phronesis und Sophia in der Nikomachischen Ethik des Aristoteles," in Kephalaion: Studies in Greek Philosophy and Its Continuation Offered to Professor C. J. De Vogel (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975) 91-104; Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Aristotle's Theory ofMoral Insight (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983), with bibliography. For the NT see the article by Georg Bertram, "p~v nlt..," TDNT 9.220-35. 36 Cf. Matthew's own goal (Matt 28:20): "teaching them to keep all that I have commanded you." 37 For a rabbinic characterization of the Torah student (tal mid) cf. 'Abot, chap. 6, entitled "Acquisition of the Torah" (Qinyan Torah). See Danby, Mishnah, 458 n.

562

38

39

12; Schurer, History, 3.214-15; Strack and Stemberger, Einleitung, 23-24 (Introduction, 14-16). The variant reading bp.o&oouoo ai>Tov ("I shall liken him to") inC L W 1006. 1342. 1506 9Jt fh k q sy"·h bo Cyprian is secondary. The change looks like a grammatical improvement because the future passive was in doubt. The meaning, however, is clear from SP/Luke 6:47: "I will show you whom he is like," and vs 48: "he is like." See below on these SP passages, and Metzger, Textual Commentary, 20. The passive future is read by the better witnesses: K B Z 8 Jl.l 3 33. 205. 700. 892. al ffll vg syp.hmg sa mae (so Aland, Synopsis, 99 ad Joe.). Cf. also Matt 25:1; furthermore, SM/Matt 6:8; 7:26; Matt 11:16; 13:24; 18:23; 22:2 and respective parallels; Acts 14:11; Rom 9:29. See BAGD, s. v. OJ.Lou!uJl, 2.

40 41

See Str-B 1.653-55; 2.7-9;Julicher, Gleichnisreden, l.43-44;Jeremias, Parables, 100-103. See also other synoptic references: Matt 10: 16; 24:45//Luke 12:42; Matt 25:2, 4, 8, 9; Luke 16:8; and the Pauline tradition: Rom 11 :25; 12: 16; 1 Cor 4:1 0; 10: 15; 2 Cor 11:19. See Georg Bertram, TDNT 9.232-34 (D.3-5).

Matthew 7:24-27

cJ>pov7JuLs ("practical thinking"). 4 2 This thinking, however, does not serve as an end in itself but forms the character of concrete persons. This goal conforms to the Jewish concept of the "sage" (C:::lM), 43 but it also corresponds to the Greek idea of the "philosopher" (cf>LA.ouocf>os). 44 By comparison, the ideal figure of "the good man" (o aya8hs lfv8pCJnros) in the SP is based on a somewhat different anthropology (see below on SP / Luke 6:45). The man's wisdom is said to consist of the right way of building: "he built his house on rock" (CJuns ~KoOOfA.7JtTW avTov T~v olKlav f?T~ T~v ?T£Tpav). In the picture, the builder has a choice on which ground he should build. He is well advised to make sure that the ground underneath is solid rock. "Building a house" 45 points to the disciple's own life as a follower ofJesus. 46 Every person is presumably building his or her house oflife. This house consists of thoughts, speech, and practice; it begins with one's education as a disciple and ends only with death. 42

43

44 45 46 47

48

These things determine whether one is "at home" in life. 47 The reference to building "on the rock" (€?T~ T~v ?T£Tpav) looks self-evident as professional wisdom, but it has an unusual side too. The matter is mentioned only here in the SM (and in the parallel in the SP). The image of the rock is presented as though it were familiar to the hearers or readers. Indeed, behind the imagery lurks an entire rock mythology 48 that has played an extraordinary role in early Christianity, particularly in connection with the church of Peter. 49 Since the church of Matthew developed out of the Petrine tradition, the Peter-rock connection is fun-

See above, n. 35. The term plays only a minor role in the synoptic tradition (see Mark 8:33//Matt 16:23; Luke 1: 17), but in the Pauline tradition it occurs more frequently. For the passages see BAGD, s. v.
49

und Kirche: FS fur RudolfSchnackenburg (Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 94-114; Robert Murray, "The Rock and the House on the Rock," in his Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975) 205-38;Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "Aramaic Kepha' and Peter's Name in the New Testament," in Ernest Best and Robert MeL. Wilson, eds., Text and Interpretation: Essays in Honour ofMatthew Black (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1979) 121-32; Peter Lampe, "Das Spiel mit dem Petrusnamen: Matth. X Vl.18 ," NTS 2 5 (1979) 227-45; Timothy]. Cornell, "Grunder," RAC 12 (1983) 1107-71, esp. 114 7-48;Josef Fellermayr, "Hereditas," RAC 14 (1988) 626-48, esp. 644 on the hereditas Petri (inheritance of Peter). The later anti-Pauline tradition of the Kerygma/a Petrou (Ps. Clem. Hom. 17 .19.4) and the primary source called by scholars the Grundschrift (Ep. Clem. 1.2) continue the emphasis on Peter being the rock and foundation of the church. On this point see Rudolf Pesch, Simon-Petrus: Geschichte und geschichtliche Bedeutung des ersten Jungers Jesu Christi (Papste und Papsttum 15; Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1980); Klaus Berger, "Unfehlbare Offenbarung: Petrus in der gnostischen und apokalyptischen Offenbarungsliteratur," in Paul-Gerhard MOller and Werner Stenger, eds., Kontinutiit und Einheit: FS fur Franz Mussner (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1981) 261-326, esp. 285ff. For the Apocalypse of Peter (NRC VII, 3) see Klaus Koschorke, Die Polemik der Gnostiker gegen das Kirchliche Christentum (NHSt 12; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 39-42;NTApok. 2.21-22.

563

damental. 50 The name of Peter is mentioned first in the call narrative of Matt 4: 18-22: "Simon who was called Peter." Then after the references in 7:24 and 7:25 the story of Peter's installation as "the rock" in 16:13-19 climaxes in Jesus' solemn promise, formulated as a beatitude: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in the heavens. And I say to you: You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I shall give you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you bind on the earth will be bound in the heavens; and whatever you loose on the earth will be loosed in the heavens. (my trans.) As New Testament scholars recognized long ago, this passage comes from pre-Matthean tradition, in which it functioned as one of the foundational texts of the church of Peter. This origin explains its role in the Gospel of Matthew because this Gospel belongs to the Petrine tradition at a later stage of the history of early Christianity. It also explains the parallels between Matt 16:1319 and the SM. Both passages presuppose the Peter-rock imagery and ideology, together with its theological implications (see above on SM/Matt 6:14-15). The section Matt 16:1319 seems to be, however, later than the SM in a number of respects. The SM does not mention "the church"(~ €KKA7Jula), 51 and "the rock" is Jesus' teaching, presumably as it was handed down in the community that developed into the Petrine church. The SM has no concept of the church; the disciples are addressed simply as "you." The rule of SM/Matt 6:14-15 is given to all disciples, not only to Peter as in 16:19. Yet, there are also reasons to make a connection between "the rock" and Peter in 7:24-26. First, Matthew himself makes the connection. 52 Jesus' 50

51

564

programmatic statement in 7:24-26 is followed by further references to Peter (8: 14; 10:2; 14:28-29; 15:15), in order then to reach the climax in 16:13-19. Peter continues to play an important role later in the Gospel (16:22-23; 17:1, 4, 24, 25; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33, 35, 37, 40, 58, 69, 73, 75). The end of this role comes when Peter, together with all the other disciples, leaves Jesus and flees (26:56). Peter is not mentioned by name again after his denial (26:75). He was not present at the crucifixion and did not see the risen Jesus as the first witness. For Matthew, the new constitution of the church given by the risen Christ (28: 16-20) does not single out Peter from the eleven disciples. This evidence may mean that for Matthew Peter had played a significant role in the history of the Matthean church, but long before the evangelist's own time his role had ended. Thus, Matthew can acknowledge his indebtedness to the Petrine tradition and include a great deal of it in his Gospel, but at the same time he limits Peter's role to the past.5!1 Second, a possible confirmation comes from the letters of Paul. 1 Cor 3: 10-15 contains a veiled polemic against people challenging his authority in the Corinthian church. We do not know who these attackers were, but we cannot overlook that the names of Paul, Cephas, Apollos, and Christ play a role in the controversies and factionalism (1 Cor 1: 12; 3:4, 22). The statement in 1 Cor 3:11 seems to deny Peter's authority as the rock of foundation: "Another foundation no one can lay besides the one (already) laid, who is Jesus Christ. " 54 For Paul Christ is undoubtedly the "rock," not Peter. 55 On the Christ-rock the apostles then construct the building of the church, which, in Paul's terminology, is "a spiritual temple" (1 Cor 3: 16-1 7; 6: 19). It is a house built from gold, silver, precious stones, timber, grass, and reed (3:12), though not metaphorically. The test for this building is the fire (3: 13-16). Therefore, it seems that Paul knew the Peter-rock ideology and opposed it. The polemic in 1 Corinthians 3 is veiled, but that is true of

By comparison, the Pauline tradition has always favored Christ being the "rock" and foundation of the church (see also 1 Cor 10:4; Ignatius Polyc. 1.1; Barn. 5.14; 6.3; IrenaeusAdv. haer. 3.38.2 [ed. Harvey, 2.132]). For the history of the interpretation see Luz, Matthaus, 1.414-15 (Matthew, 1.453-54). The name is used of Matthew's own church (16:18; 18:17).

52

53 54 55

Thus, Matthew seems to agree with Eph 2:20 that the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus being its capstone." So, correctly, Danielou, RAG 7.727. See also Rom 15:20; Eph 2:20; 3:17; Coll:23; Heb 6:1; 11:10. Cf. also I Cor 10:4; Rom 9:32-33; Col2:7; Eph 3:17-19; I Pet 2:8.

Matthew 7:24-27

most of these early polemics, including the one against the "pillars" in Gal2:1-10. Third, the debate about the Peter-rock ideology did not end with the New Testament writers. We encounter the debate again in an interesting confrontation between Peter and Simon Magus (a cover name for Paul) 56 in Ps.Clem. Hom. 17.19:57 If, then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision, made himself known and conversed (with you), he did so in anger as with an adversary, and this is why he spoke through visions and dreams or even through revelations, 58 happening from the outside. But can anyone be equipped for teaching on account of a vision? And if you answer, "It is possible," then why did the teacher remain for a year and converse with those who were awake? On the other hand, how are we to believe you regarding this claim that he appeared to you? 59 How could he have appeared to you when you hol9 opinions opposite to his teaching? And if you were visited by him and made his disciple and apostle in one hour, proclaim his utterances, interpret his sayings, (then) love his apostles, and do not fight me who was together with him. 6 For you stand in direct opposition to me who am the sturdy rock, the foundation of the church. 61 If you were not my opponent, you would not defame and revile the proclamation (proclaimed) through me, so that I may not be

°

56

57 58 59 60

61

believed when I say what I have heard from the Lord when I myself was present, as if I am obviously the one "condemned" and you the one "approved"! Yet, if you call me "condemned," you in fact accuse God who revealed the Christ to me, and you drag down him who blessed me for the revelation. 62 But if you really wish to cooperate with the truth, then learn first of all from us what we have learned from him, and having become a disciple of the truth then become our collaborator. 63 • 25 The parallels between the SM and Paul's letters extend also to the dangers awaiting the building. While for Paul the testing is the purification by fire (1 Cor 3:13, 15, 17), for the SM it is the calamities of the weather: "And the rain came down, and the rivers came, and the winds blew" (Kat Kadf3TJ ~ {3pox~ Kat ~AOov ol 7TOTaJ.tot Kat t1rv£vcrav olllv£J.tOt). The list of the events is proverbial and suggests the area's typical torrential rains, 64 followed by enormous swelling of the rivers 65 and flash floods down the mountain slopes, accompanied by pounding winds. 66 This scenario differs from the SP, as already mentioned, in which (SP /Luke 6:48) the river floods a valley and washes away the ground underneath the building sitting on the sand.

Scholars agree that the person Peter criticizes is the apostle Paul, although his name is replaced by that of Simon Magus. See Strecker,judenchristentum, 18796; Gerd Luedemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989) 169-94. The trans. is mine. See also Betz, Galatians, 332-33; Luedemann, Opposition, 187-88. Cf. Gall:16; and Betz, Galatians, 71-72. Cf. I Cor 9:1; 15:8. Ps.-Clem. Hom. 17.19.4: £111' fnr' £K£lvov p.tar ;J,par OtJ>8£'is Kal JJ.a8'1/T£v8El~ lL7T61TTOAos ~yJvov, ras- £K£lvov tJ>wvtzs K~pVUCT£, T(t £K£lVOV £pp:r}V£V£, T01JS' £K£lvov Q..,.ouTOAovr
62 63

64

65

66

letter was known to the authors. Cf.Gal2:ll;Mattl6:17. Cf. Acts 1:21-22 for this rule of apostleship. According to this rule Paul does not qualify as an apostle, but the author of Luke-Acts shows in his work how Paul became a collaborator of the apostles. The combination of the Gospel of Luke with the Acts demonstrates that Paul's mission is not a direct continuation of the teaching ofJesus. {3pox~ is mentioned only here and in vs 27, and it is different from the beneficial rain in 5:45. Cf. the different term in SP /Luke 6:48. The plural "the rivers" (o! .,.orap.ol) occurs in vss 25 and 27; SP /Luke 6:48, 49 has the singular. For the image cf. 2 Cor 11:26. The plural "the winds" (o! liv£p.ot) occurs in vss 25 and 27; there is no equivalent in SP /Luke 6:48-49. Cf. Matt 8:26-27; Eph 4:14;Jas 3:4.

565

Yet, while the forces of the weather "fell on that house, it did not fall" (Kat 7rpocrE7T£crav Tfj OLKL..6yovs TOilTovs KaL ,..~ 7TOtWV avTo'Ls). 71 Hearing without doing amounts to failure of discipleship, but the SM has more in mind than a simple commonplace. Disciples who never get beyond listening to the words of Jesus may not intend to disobey their master. They are not like the would-be disciples portrayed elsewhere in the Gospels (see, e.g., Mark 10:22 par.), who fully understand jesus' words but remain in a state of indecision. Rather, the SM focuses on those who listen and listen and listen, while it never occurs to them that they should implement what they have heard in their daily lives. Those people may hear, but they do not 67

68 69

70

566

understand. A person of this kind is compared with the foolish builder: "he will be like a foolish man" (op.otw8~cr£Tat avOpL p.wpii_J ), the antitype of the faithful disciple ofvss 24-25. One should note that the man is merely compared with a fool but not called such (cf. SM/Matt 5:22). Instead, he should recognize himself as such. The character of the fool was another stock figure, known from literature and even the theater stage. What does his folly consist of? He is one "who built his house on the sand" (CJcrns ~KOOdJL1JCT£V avTOV T~V OLKLaV hi T~v lfp.p.ov). 72 From the builder's point of view as well as from everyone's experience such a project is certainly imprudent. As regards the metaphor, the question is whether the sand means something specific. According to the tradition, sand symbolizes the multitudes of the nations. 73 It was Paul who appealed to the Abrahamtradition, with its promise to Abraham that his offspring would be as many as the sand on the beaches. 74 The question, therefore, arises whether vs 26 contains a veiled polemic against the Christian mission to the Gentiles. Given the metaphorical contrast between "rock" and "sand" in the context of polemics against Gentile Christianity and the veiled character of such polemics, the conclusion is not farfetched that, viewed by the SM, building on sand is what Paul and his churches are doing. 7 5 If the character of the "foolish man" was applied to Pauline Christianity, Paul's letter to the Corinthians may bear it out. Could Paul have heard and ironically accepted what opponents had called him when he

Instead of 1rpou-i-rrflrav ("they fell upon"), some 71 manuscripts read differently: W has 7rpocr€Kpovcrav ("they knocked against"); C 0 J 1 205 pc: 1rpocr€pp7J~av ("they tore against"; cf. SP/Luke 6:48, 49); 33. 1424 72 pc: 1rpocr€Koljrav ("they beat against"; cf. SM/Matt 7:27). The tendency is clearly to harmonize the tradition. See above, nn. 13 and 14. 73 1ri1rrw of the collapse of buildings is common; see BAGD, s.v. 1ri1rrw, l.b.f3; P. Oxy. 1 no. 7 (Aland, Synopsis, 77); Cos. Thom. log. 32 (see Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, 67, 120 [saying 32, lines 39- 74 40]). For the figurative meaning see BAGD, s.v. 7rl7fTW, 2. Strecker, Bergpredigt, 178-79 (Sermon, 171-72); 75 Marguerat, Le jugement, 204-5; Luz, Matthiius, 1.413 with n. 10 (Matthew, 1.453 with n. 1 0).

Some witnesses (0 J 13 pc) put the clause into finite form: Cfurrs Cz.Ko-Dn and 7TOLE'i ("whoever hears" and "does"). Some variants (C LJ 13 1006. 1342. 1506 9Jt) change the WOrd order tO T~V OtK{av aVTOV, for no particular reason it seems (cf. vs 24). The Nestle-Aiand text is represented by K B W Z (0)f1 700. 892 pc. See, e.g., Pss 78:27; 139: 18; Sir 1:2. Cf. the use of the term with armies josh 11:4;Judg 7:12; 1 Sam 13:5; 2 Sam 17:11; or with the people oflsrael: lsa 10:22; 48: 19; etc. See Gen 12:1-3; 13:16; 17:5; 22:17; 32:12;jos. Asen. 15.7. See Ludwig Wachter, ".,!:lll," ThWAT 6 (1989) 279, esp. section III. I. See Gal 3:6-31; and for the parallels see Betz, Galatians, 137-43.

Matthew 7:24-27

confesses, "We are fools for Christ's sake" (~p.E'is p.wpot ottz Xpturov)? 76 In Paul's own interpretation, a fool for Christ's sake is wiser than the sages of this world. The conclusion may, therefore, be justified that Paul puts on the shoe handed to him, but does so with irony. If there is a polemic against Gentile Christianity or even Paul in the SM passage, it is not the main purpose. The main purpose is certainly to issue a warning to the disciples of the SM. This warning leads back to the commission in SM/Matt 5:13: "If the salt becomes 'dumb' [p.wpavllfi]." The choice of the verb is deliberate and points to the av~p p.wpos (the "dumb fellow"). 77 The warning may also be directed against those who may be tempted to switch parties and join the Pauline camp. If they do, they would fail like the saltless salt (5: 13), the light put under the bushel and thus useless for illuming the house (5: 14-16), or the group vainly approaching Jesus in the last judgment (7:21-23). • 27 The fate of the house built on the sand is told in analogy to vs 25: "And the rain came down and the rivers came and the winds blew and beat against that house" (Kat Kad{j7J ~ {jpox~ Kat ~Aeov o£ 7TOTap.ot Kat E'7TvEvuav o£ llvEp.ot Kat 7Tpou£Ko'l/mv rij olK{f!. fKElvn ). 7 8 The repetitiveness of the events is intentional and creates the impression of the sameness of the hazards as well as their relentlessness. There is no way to escape the vicissitudes of nature and history. The only protection one has is the 76 77 78

79

ground the house is built on. As one would expect, the house sitting on the sand cannot absorb the beating: 79 "and it fell, and its downfall was a great one" (Kat E'7TECTW Kat ~V ~ 7TTWCT!S avrijs p.EyctA.7]). 8 0 The collapse of the house is a reminder of another maxim, not in the SM but in Paul: "He who thinks he stands, let him see to it that he does not fall" (o ooKwv £uravat {jAE7TfTW p.~ 7TfCT!l [I Cor 10: 12]). 81 The word 7TTWCTtS ("downfall") is often used of the collapse of buildings, but its metaphorical and proverbial usage is well known, too. 82 The noun corresponds to the verb 7Tl7TTHV ("fall"), used throughout the passage (vss 25, 27), just as in the parallel passage SP /Luke 6:49 ro pijy7]p.a ("the breaking") corresponds to 7Tpoup~yvvp.t/ 7Tpoup~uuw ("break"). 83 This language is certainly ominous. At the literal level a house under which the ground is slipping away will collapse totally. Applied metaphorically, it refers to the slipping away of the ground on which discipleship is built, the disappearance of a person's "house of life" in the this-worldly and the metaphysical, eschatalogical sense. 84 The violence of the image is relentless, but in that regard not different from other such warnings (see 5:13c, 15, 26, 30; 6:19-20,23, 24; 7:6b, 13, 19, 23).

See above, n. 6. See above on SM/Matt 5:13 and 5:23. For unknown reasons K* omits ;1rvwuav o! li.v
80 81 82 83 84

0 jl 3 33 al mae add ut/J6opa ("very great"). See also Rom 14:4; 2 Clem. 2.6; Rev 2.5; cf. Prov 24:16. Cf. Luke 2:34, and the parallels given in BAGD, s.v. 7rrwu1s; Jeremias, Parables, 194 n. 8. See below on SP /Luke 6:49. The "great collapse" is an emphatic expression (Latin: magna ruina). Cf. Luke 2:34; Zeno (SVF 1.51); Otto Kern, ed., Orphicorum Fragmenta (3d ed.; Zurich and Dublin: Weidmann, 1972) no. 251; PhiloMigr. Abr. 1. For parallels see Wettstein, 1.346-47; Wilhelm Michaelis, "7rrwu1s ," TDNT 6.167-68.

567

The Sermon .on the Plain [SP/Luke 6:20b-49]

• •

• • • •

• • •

Luke 6:20b-26 Ch._pter I The Beatitudes and the Woes

6 20b

21

22

23

24 25

26

Blessed (are) the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed (are) those that hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed (are) those that weep now, for you will laugh. Blessed are you, when people hate you, and (that means) when they exclude you and revile you, and spurn your name as evil on account of the Son of man. Be joyful in that day and leap about, for behold, your reward is great in heaven, for in this same manner their forefathers did to the prophets. However, woe to you rich, for you have (already) received your consolation. Woe to you that are full now, for you will hunger. Woe (to you) that laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe (to you), when all people speak well of you, for in the same manner their forefathers did to the false prophets.

1. Introduction

Like the SM, the SP begins with a carefully composed exordium. 1 Comparison between the two exordia, however, shows significant differences in the compositions that cannot be accidental. These differences are subtle and indigenous. They are unlikely to be the work of later redactors, but seem to be original to the compositions and reflect fundamentally different presuppositions. These presuppositions have determined the form of the presynoptic level, and they point to perspectives different from those of the evangelist Luke. 2

2

2. Analysis The exordium of the SP consists of two groups of four parallel beatitudes (vss 20b-22) and four threats, or "woes" (vss 24-26). 3 Between those an appeal for joy is inserted (vs 23) that states an eschatological reason for the promise of the kingdom of God in the present (vss 20c and 22a) and in the future (vs 21 band c). Thus, vs 23 forms a hinge between the two sections; it has no corresponding statement after the "woes." Both the beatitudes and the "woes" are stated in the second person plural. In this regard they differ from the SM, which states them partly in the third, partly in the second, person plural. 4 There is really no ground

On the exordium ofSM, see above on SM/Matt 5:312. Differently, Peter Klein, "Die lukanischen Weherufe Lk 6,24-26," ZNW 71 (1980) 150-59; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.627; Lambrecht, Sermon, 68-74, 207. These authors regard the "woes" as a Lukan composition. Crossan (In Fragments, 168-74) has an even more complicated thesis: an earlier Q-sermon contained seven woes; Luke cut them down to four, while Matthew shifted them to Matt 13:13, 15, 16, 23, 25, 27, 29. But Crossan does not consider the fact that SM expresses the threats in a different way in Matt

3

4

7:13-23. Also the content of the "woes" in Matthew 23 has little in common with those in SP /Luke 6:2426. This juxtaposition of the good and the bad person is basic to the entire SP (see 6:45) and recurs in the peroration (peroratio, 6:46-49) with the contrast between the successful and the failing student. Different from the SM on this point, the SP does not presuppose the Two Ways schema. On this point, see above, pp. l l 0-11.

571

for arguing for a greater "originality" (whatever that may mean) for either formulation, although such attempts are continuously made in the commentary literature. 5 In all instances, the beatitudes as well as the "woes" in the SP are meant to address the disciples for whom the text was composed. When one looks into the details, the composition becomes more intricate. Although a direct address is no doubt intended, the structure of the beatitudes leaves the matter in partial ambiguity. 6 Jacques Dupont and Heinz Schiirmann have pointed out the "quite usual construction" of these sentences. 7 The introductory nominatives clash with the addressees in the following clauses and require a change of subject. Such a construction demands an explanation. Taken by themselves, the introductory statements in vss 20b and 21a and care factual statements: "Blessed (are) the poor," "Blessed (are) the hungry now," and "Blessed (are) those who weep now." These concise statements doubtless sum up what is otherwise known from passages in early Christian and jewish eschatology, that is, they serve as reminders of doctrinal presuppositions. 8 This part of the sentence has, therefore, the purpose of bringing known doctrinal facts before the addressees and to apply them at once. Comparison of the beatitudes with the "woes," however, shows that, grammatically at least, the latter are more directly applied. The address "to you" (up.lv) in vss 24a and 25a and c9 (cf. "you" [up.iis], vs 26a) has no corresponding part in the first three beatitudes (vss 20b, 21a and c), but has a direct correspondence in the fourth beatitude (vs 22a) and the fourth "woe" (vs 26a). In both instances, this direct address is made dependent on conditions in the two following llrav-clauses. This fact may imply that the conditional nature is to be carried over into the first three beatitudes as well, indicating that the disciples are not simply identified as the poor, the hungry, and those who weep, but that whether they want to be included among these people is left up to them. One may conclude, therefore, that what at first appears to be a primitive sentence construction in

5

6

7 8

572

Grundmann rightly emphasized this point (Lukas, 140-41) and Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.32930, with nn. 23-25). Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.281, 297. Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.330. See Luke 1:53; 4:18 (Isa 61.1-2 LXX); 7:22; 16:19- 9 31; 1 Cor 1:26-29; 2 Cor 8:2, 9;Jas 2:1-7. Forthe 10 history of the promise, see Friedrich Hauck and Ernst Bammel, "wrwx6s KTA.," TDNT 6.886-87, 88994, 895-907, 911 (A. II, B. II, C.II-V, D. I and IV). For its "misinterpretation" by Caiaphas, see Ps.-Clem. Rec. 1.61.2: "jesus ... spoke vain things, saying that

fact serves a designed paraenetic purpose. Apart from these peculiar features, the first three beatitudes in the SPare composed in a way similar to those in the SM. The beginning is an acclamation followed by the naming of the addressees, where the additional adverb "now" (vvv ) in vs 21a and c is conspicuous. 1 0 The second part of the sentence contains in each instance the eschatological reason. The first three "woes" are exact antithetical parallels to the beatitudes. Beginning with the threatening "woe" and the address of the disciples, the reason is provided in the concluding part of the sentence (vss 24, 25a and c). The fourth "woe" (vs 26) corresponds to the fourth beatitude (vs 22) and shows the same changes: the threat is followed by the conditional situations.

Excursus: "Poor" and "Rich" One of the main differences between the SM and the SP lies in the view of human society each presents. These views are stated in the exordia of the SM and the SP, in the case of the latter in the beatitudes (SP /Luke 6:20b-23) and the "woes" (SP /Luke 6:24-26). The SM sees the surrounding world in terms of jewish thought, separating people into groups of the righteous and the unrighteous and defining the righteous as "the poor in spirit" (see above on SM/Matt 5:3). In contrast, the SP divides human society into the poor and the rich. This division reflects the conceptual world of the Hellenistic moralists, who tend to view the poor positively while castigating the rich. Consequently, the beatitudes address the poor while the "woes" abjure the rich. Taken together, the beatitudes (SP /Luke 6:20b-22) amount to a social description of the type "poor," that is, of destitute individuals. Hunger, weeping, and discrimination are singled out as concrete situations. Such descriptions are known as well from other New Testament texts (see, e.g., Mark 12:41-44 par.; Luke 16:19-31;Jas 2:1-7) and from Hellenistic literature elsewhere. the poor are blessed and he promised earthly rewards." See also Rec. 2.28.3; and Hans Waitz, "Eine Parallele zu den Seligpreisungen aus einem auBerkanonischen Evangelium," ZNW 4 (1903) 335-40; Bammel, TDNT6.914. On the textual tradition, see below on vss 24 and 25. For the textual tradition, see below on vs 21.

Luke 6:20b-26

Similarly, the "woes" (SP/Luke 6:24-26) describe the social type "rich" by satirically characterizing their habits of filling themselves, of laughing indecently, and of enjoying their good reputation, if not flattery. For descriptions of this type in the New Testament, see Luke 12:16-21;Jas 2:2-4. The juxtaposition of these two social types is realistic in the sense of the realism found in the Hellenistic moralists. Social situations are described vividly and with a bias intended to generate favor for the poor and contempt for the rich. As in other Hellenistic literature, these stereotypes serve the purpose of moral exhortation. Bibliography

Barry Baldwin, "Lucian as Social Satirist," ClQn.s. 11 (1961) 199-208. Betz,Lukian, 75-76,86-87, 194-99. Idem, PECL 2, index, s.v. Poverty, Wealth. Willem den Boer, Private Morality in Greece and Rome: Some Historical Aspects (Mnemosyne Sup 57; Leiden: Brill, 1979) 151-78. Robert M. Grant, Early Christianity and Society (New York: Harper & Row, 1977). Herbert Grassl, Sozialokonomische Vorstellungen in der kaiserzeitlichen griechischen Literatur (1.-3. ]h. n. Chr.)

(Historia, Einzelschriften 41; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1982) 65-166. Friedrich Hauck and Wilhelm Kasch, "1rroox.Ss ~er>...," TDNT 6.885-915. Idem, "1r>..oiiros ~er>...," TDNT 6.318-32. Jacob Hemelrijk, IIENIA en Ili\OYTO:E (Amsterdam: Blikrnan and Sartorius, 1925 ). Lausberg, Handbuch, 1, § 820-25. Ramsay MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 50 B.C. to A.D. 284 (New Haven and London: Yale University, 1974). Abraham J. Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983). Jan Jacob van Manen, IIENIA en Ili\OYTO:E in de periodenaAlexander(Zutphen: N. V. Nauta, 1931). Martin, Rhetorik, 291-93. Helmut Merklein, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. 1TAovros and 1TTOOX0S (bibliography). Wilhelm SuB, Ethos: Studien zur iilteren griechischen Rhetorik (Leipzig: Teubner, 1910) 234-35. 11 12

13 14

Manfred Wacht, "Guterlehre," RAG 13 (1985) 59-150 (bibliography).

As to its content, the exordium states the indicative of salvation, a dogmatic statement that includes the beatitudes and the "woes." The promise of the kingdom of God is assumed to be known and thus functions as a reminder; in a way, it is quoted, certainly with reference to the preaching ofJesus. 11 Accordingly, the disciples can proceed from the fact that the kingdom has been promised to them. The special question is where the disciples can be assumed to have first heard the promise. One can infer on the basis of the context and other New Testament references that the promise was first conveyed in a ritual act outside the text of the SP. Was this act the ritual of baptism? 12 It is possible, but neither the SM nor the SP mentions baptism in their texts or in their immediate contexts. Also, whether the church that formulated both texts used the ritual of baptism at that time is unknown. All one can be sure of is that the call to discipleship must have taken place prior to the statement of the beatitudes. Judging by the terms of the history of religions, however, baptism would no doubt have been the proper place for the pronouncement of the promise. 13 This act would follow upon the proclamation of the gospel and the conversion of the disciple. It would include acceptance into discipleship, inclusion into the church, and the conveyance of whatever rights and obligations there were. If one assumes baptism is the context, the relationship between the beatitudes and the proclamation of the gospel becomes clear. They are by no means simply identical: the proclamation of the gospel is addressed to all, while the beatitudes address the disciples after their conversion. 14 In fact, the Gospel writers themselves express this relationship between the two when they have Jesus directly address the disciples, while the people

Cf. Mark 1:14-15 par. This is what I have suggested in an earlier study (see Betz, Essays, 26-28; furthermore idem, Galatians, 181-85). On this point see also Schiirrnann, Lukasevangelium, 1.383-84. Lambrecht (Sermon, 35-40) argues differently and accepts the older hypothesis that behind a postulated

Q-sermon stands a programmatic speech given by the historical Jesus, from which in the course of the history of tradition the two existing sermons of the SM and the SP developed. About this "original" sermon Lambrecht (Sermon, 40) says: "It probably had a programmmatic character from the very beginning. With his messianic awareness, Jesus proclaimed with the beatitudes the great break-

573

generally form a wider body of listeners to which the disciples formerly belonged (Luke 6: 17-20a; 7: 1; Matt 4:24-5:2; 7:28-29). Thus the message of the gospel is seen as implicitly presupposed by the beatitudes but not as identical with them. This complicated relationship is further reflected in that the beatitudes are closely connected with the eschatological last judgment. What is the relationship between the beatitudes and the last judgment? The beatitudes convey salvation but at the same time the "woes" threaten eternal condemnation. What, precisely, is the relationship between these two statements? 15 Both statements presuppose that the disciples have begun a new existence. But this new life is in need of completion, and at its end comes the accounting at the last judgment. Contrary to today's assumptions, the promise of salvation is thus not given without condition, 16 but it is given only with the great and final proviso of the last judgment. This doctrine is not specifically put forth in the present text; it is a belief common to early Christianity and to Judaism. The problem of "cheap grace," rightly criticized by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 17 does not exist in the text if it is interpreted correctly. Rather, one could ask the opposite question: Does not the strong emphasis on the last judgment in effect nullify, or at least limit, the promise of salvation? One can answer this question in the following way. Between the promise and the final enjoyment of salvation lie the disciple's earthly conduct oflife and the final test of the last judgment. Our texts, the SP as well as the SM, contain the guidelines for the conduct of the

15

16

574

earthly life of the disciple. These guidelines lead from the pronouncement of salvation to its realization. They testify in case after case how the disciple can move from one to the other. 18 In principle, the divine gift of salvation is assumed to be accessible to the disciple at all times; this is the heart of the gospel message. The disciple's task is to learn how to live on the basis of that salvation, while moving toward salvation, life's final goal. For the disciple who learns this lesson, salvation is already present; for the one who does not, salvation remains a mere possibility. The eschatological judgment is, therefore, the great bracket that includes everything between beginning and end. This implies that salvation and its opposite, condemnation, do not have to wait until the afterlife; they can occur even in the present life of the disciple. The beatitudes and the "woes" do contain eschatological judgments, but these judgments are validated not only in the eschatological future. They are validated as well in the concrete situations of life as they are envisioned in the text of the SP. Given these presuppositions, one can now turn to the interpretation of the "woes." As pointed out above in the excursus on "poor" and "rich," the four "woes" are to be taken together as a satirical sketch of the figure of the rich and to be juxtaposed with the poor in the beatitudes (vss 20b-22). But who is addressed in the "woes," the disciples or the outsiders? 19 Wellhausen is probably right in saying that "the 'You' addresses again the hearers, that is, the disciples." 20 Does this premise mean that among the disciples were rich persons? The possibility may sound strange to those who have already accepted Luke's

through of God's grace and then called for aresponse that consists primarily in love of neighbor. The Sermon on the Mount, we may justifiably presume, formed the core of Jesus' preaching of the Kingdom of God." Similarly Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.62931. Cf. Klostermann, Lukasevangelium, 78. As Klostermann (Lukasevangelium, 78) points out, it is erroneous to assume that the "woes" in the SP must be "secondary" because they are missing in the SM. Rather, the SM expresses the eschatological proviso in a different way: instead of the "woes" of the SP, the SM has the longer eschatological passages in Matt 7:13-23 that have no parallel in the SP. The unconditional promise of salvation is proclaimed as part of the gospel message, but the eschatological assurances of the beatitudes are given only to those who have faithfully accepted that promise.

17

18

19

20

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (The Cost of Discipleship [trans. Reginald Fuller; 6th ed.; London: SCM, 1966]1) begins his first chapter, entitled "Costly Grace," with the momentous statement, "Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace." This presupposes the concept ofthe way oflife (61i6~). for which see above on SM/Matt 7:13-14. The concept of the way occurs in the SP only in the metaphorical bo1ry'w ("guide") in Luke 6:39. Klostermann (Lukasevangelium, 79, 80) and Schiirmann, (Lukasevangelium, 1.336-41) have the "woes" addressed to outsiders. Wellhausen, Evangelium Lucae, 25: "daB nun das Ihr sich wieder an die Zuhorer, d. h. die Jiinger, richte."

Luke 6:20b-26

idealized image of the poverty of Jesus' disciples. 21 But a number of passages in the New Testament warn Christians about the perils of wealth, 2 2 and such warnings would not make much sense if in reality the early Christians had been completely shut off from wealth. The matter is more complicated, however, than this issue of the addressees. In analogy to the Beatitudes, one will have to distinguish as well between tradition and redaction, or actualization. Just as calling the poor blessed is a traditional topos, 2 3 so also is threatening the rich. In Judaism, one will remember the message of the prophets and the warnings in wisdom and apocalyptic literature. 24 In the context of Greek literature, one will think of the Cynic philosophers in particular. 2 5 These traditional threats against the rich constitute a literary topos. 26 Verses 24-26 apply this topos to the disciples directly. What is the purpose of this actualization? It seems that the purpose cannot be to classify the disciples, or some of them, as rich. Thus it can only be a warning. Just as the disciples are expected to conform to the image of the poor (vss 20b-22), so too they should dissociate themselves from the image of the rich (vss 24-26). 2 7 Woe to them if they look like the latter and not like the 2I

22

23

former! In other words, "poor" and "rich" refer to typologies in the service of ethos formation. 2 8 Heinz Schiirmann has, in my view, rightly emphasized that the four "woes" represent a pre-Lukan textual unit that belongs to the "original" text of the SP. 29 One should not conclude from this position, however, that Matthew has intentionally omitted these "woes" from the SM because "he had no use for the Woes in his catalog of virtues." 30 Instead of the "woes," the SM has the long eschatological warnings at the end (SM/Matt 7: 13-23) as a counterbalance to the Beatitudes (SM/Matt 5:3-12). 3. Interpretation • 20b This verse contains the first beatitude. As already

pointed out, the acclamation "Blessed (are) the poor" (p.aKripwt o17fTwxo[) is formally a dogmatic statement, just as it is in SM/Matt 5:3. 31 That the "poor" are named here without further epithet is a difference in comparison with Matthew's SM that commentators have also observed continuously. 32 Equally true is that Luke 6:20b corresponds more closely to I sa 61:1-2 LXX, whereas the parallel in SM/Matt 5:3 appears to be a later commentary. 3 3

See esp. Luke 5:II, 28; I9:8; Acts 3:6. On Luke's attitude toward poverty and wealth, see Bammel, TDNT 6. 905-7. See Friedrich Hauck and Wilhelm Kasch, ",.,\ovros KTA.," TDNT6.327-30 (D.I-4); Bammel, TDNT 6.902-I2. See Hauck and Kasch, ",.,\ovros KTA.," TDNT 6.3I832, passim; for further references, see Helmut Mer klein, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. ?TAoVcnos KTA., 7TTWX6SKTA.

24

25

26 27

See, e.g., Isa 5:8;Jer 22:I3; Amos 5:I8; Hab 2:6, 9; Mic 2:Iff.; Prov IO:I5; I4:20; I8:II, 23; I9:I; 22:7, I6; 28:6, II; Sir 8:2; I 0:30; I3: Iff.; 25:2; 3I :3; etc. For a collection of the material, see the 193I Utrecht dissertation, done under the supervision of Bolkestein, by Jan Jacob van Manen, IIENIA en IIAOYTO:E in de periode na Alexander (Zutphen: Nauta, I93I); Bammel, TDNT 6.887 (A.II); Friedrich Hauck, "?TtV7JS ?T
28

29 30 31

32

33

World." For character descriptions (~6os) of the rich, see Wilhelm Siif3 (Ethos: Studien zur iilteren griechischen Rhetorik [Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, I910]2353 7) who gives Isaeus Orationes 5. 3 5-4 7 and Demosthenes Orationes 36.36-38; 37.52-54; 49; 56 as examples. Especially important is the section on ~6o?Toda in Rhet. ad Her. 4.49.63-4.5I.65; see also Lausberg, Handbuch, I. § 820-25. Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.339-41. Ibid., 1.339. Part of the manuscript tradition tends to harmonize the SP with the SM: K2 8,\ alit boP' add ri;> ?TV
575

One must ask, however, whether the SM and the SP are really so different at this juncture and, if they are, what this difference means. Does the SP state the radical message of Jesus, while the SM tones it down and "spiritualizes" it? What does "poor" (?TTrox6s) mean in Luke 6:20b? Without question, the "poor" in vs 20b are the economically poor. 34 Yet the juxtaposition of the "poor" with the "rich" and the references to the prophetic message (cf. esp. Isa 29:19; 57:15; 61:1ff.) and to the proclamation of Jesus (Luke 4:18-19, 21; 7:22; 10:9, 11, 23-24; 17:20-21, etc.) lead one to the conclusion that a way of life as a whole is envisaged, not merely economic conditions. Apart from their own economic condition, the disciples must decide whether they want to stand on the side of and share life with the poor or the rich, the hungry or the satisfied, the weeping or the laughing. 35 What, then, is the difference between the SP and the SM at this point? There is no stark contrast between them; rather, the SM simply spells out what the SP suggests. The SM wards off the misunderstanding that salvation is promised to the poor simply because they are in economic straits. Such a misconception could lead to questions like, What about a poor crook? The shift from suggestion to definition touches on the further question, What does poverty mean? Who is to be considered poor? Moreover, the juxtaposition of poor and rich as social 34 35

36 37

38

576

types conforms more to the Hellenistic mentality, while "poor in Spirit" (SM) describes a Jewish notion of piety. 36 In vs 20c, the promise of salvation made in vs 20b is applied to the disciples: "for yours is the kingdom of God" (()n VfJ.£T£pa £unv 1} [3autA.da TOV 8wv). 37 I have already discussed the problem of the grammatical connection between these two parts of the sentence (see the Introduction above). It is noteworthy that the SP uses the more Greek-sounding expression "the kingdom of God, "38 while SM uses the phrase "the kingdom of the heavens." 39 Does this difference in terminology reflect the varying Gentile- and Jewish-Christian cultural background of the SP and the SM? If so, the terminological difference is not without significance. • 21 This verse introduces the second and third beatitudes. The second, corresponding to the fourth in SM/Matt 5:6, promises relief to the hungry: "Blessed (are) those who hunger now" {JLaKaptot Ot 1T€LVWVT€S vvv). The connection between poverty, the term used in the first beatitude (vs 20b), and hunger is traditional: The Old Testament tradition, continued in later sources, combines poverty and hunger, in both the real and the figurative sense. 40 As wisdom texts point out, the immediate consequence of poverty is hunger. 41 That such hunger dominates the present situation is emphasized by the adverb "now" (vvv), 4 2 conspicuously placed at the end of the statement. In contrast is the

So, correctly, Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.327, with further references. This implies a demand of poverty for the disciples, even if one understands poverty to be a broader concept referring to an entire attitude toward life rather than merely to economic conditions. As far as these implications are concerned, one will have to distinguish between the addressees at the pre-Lukan level and Luke's own interpretation. Cf. Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.327, who considers only the proclamation of the historical Jesus and Luke's later view. Schiirmann points out correctly that nowhere else does Luke impose the demand of poverty on Christianity. On this point see above, pp. 111-18. Some variant readings are harmonizations with SM: W ff2 sy2 Marcion read avrwv ("theirs") instead of vp.m!pa ("yours"). See Aland, Synopsis, 102, with the critical apparatus. It occurs only here in the SP, but the terminology is clearly that of the SP. Some variant readings prefer "of the heavens" (rwv ovpavwv), because of scribal

39 40 41

42

harmonization with the SM. See Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece, 1.484. Seeabove,pp.118-19. So, correctly, Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.331. See esp. Isa 32:6-7; 58:6-7, 9-10;Job 22:7; 24:411; Tob 1:17; 4:7, 16; Prov 25:21 (cited in Rom 12:20); Sir 4:2; T. ]as. 1.5; 4.4; T. jud. 25.5; Ps.Phocyl. Sent. 155; Luke 15:14, 17; 16:20, 21, etc. For further discussion, see Leonhard Goppelt, ".,.<~vaw," TDNT 6.14-17 (B.I-III). For this adverb, see also vss 21c, 25b and c. Marcion, Origen, and Eusebius omit the vvv in all instances, perhaps for the sake of harmonization with the SM.

Luke 6:20b-26

future tense of the following clause stating the rationale (vs 21c): "for you will be satisfied" (Cin xopTaCTfl~
44

45

46

47 48 49

itself. 46 Taken together, the future tenses in SP /Luke 6:21-23 paint the verbal picture of an eschatological meal of joy comprising the consumption of good food, laughter, and dance. 4 7 Verse 21 c-d contains the third beatitude: "Blessed (are) those who weep now" (j;.aKapwt o1 KAalovr vvv). 48 The weeping does not refer to one's lament about sinfulness, 49 or to weeping as part of a burial ceremony, 50 or to other specific forms of grief, but to the weeping over the conditions of this world and the suffering resulting from them. 51 One can draw this conclusion from the juxtaposition of "laughing" with "mourning and weeping" in vs 25e-f. 52 The promise to the disciples follows in vs 21 d: "for you will laugh" (Cin y
The passive points to God as the one who provides the satisfaction. For the "divine passive," see above on SM/Matt 5:4 and often in the SM. The variant reading xopTafT8~1TovTat ("they will be satisfied") is due to harmonization with the SM (M*· 2 69 it sy' saP' Marcion). See Aland, Synopsis, 103, with the critical apparatus. See I sa 49:10, 13; Ezek 34:29; 39:17 -20; Pss 17:1415; 37:19; 132:15; also Pss 22:26; 78:29; 104:27-28; 105:40; 147:14; Tob 12:9; T.jud. 25.4, etc. Notably, TDNT has no article on the subject. Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.331. See Isa 25:6-8; 49:9-13; 1 Enoch 62.14; Luke 14:15-24//Matt 22:1-10; Matt 8:11; 26:29; Luke 22:16, 18, 29-30. The same is true of the parallel in Cos. Thom. log. 69b: "Jesus says, 'Blessed are the hungry, for the belly of him who desires shall be filled'" (A.!yet 'l17uoiJs· p.a~e/tpr.ol. o17TELVWVTES', CJrt xoprau8'1jun-at [Yvaa!T8fi?] ~ KOtA.la Tov O.!A.ovTos [retrans. by Greeven, Synopsis, 30]). Menard (Thomas, 1.171) notes further parallels. Cf. Luke 15:25-32. The whole third beatitude is omitted in D. Cf. the weeping of the sinful woman in Luke 7:38, and of Peter, Mark 14:72//Matt 26:75/ /Luke 22:62;Jas 4:9; 5:1. See Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, "KA.alw KTA.," TDNT 3.722-26; Horst Balz, EWNT

50 51

52

53

54

2. 725-27 (EDNT 2.293-94), with further bibliography; Hedwig Kenner, Weinen und Lachen in der griechischen Kunst (SOAW.PH 234.2 [Vienna: Rohrer, 1960]7-62). Such lament is mentioned in Mark 5:38-39; Luke 7:13; 8:52;John 11:31, 33; 20:11, 13, 15, etc. Cf. Jesus' weeping because of Jerusalem, Luke 19:41; 23:28; cf.John 16:20; Rom 12: 15; 1 Cor 7:30; Phil 3:18. See Rengstorf, TDNT 3.722-26. Weeping is part of"poverty." Cf.Job 30:24-25 (RSV): "Yet does not one in a heap of ruins stretch out his hand, and in his disaster cry for help? Did not I weep for him whose day was hard? Was not my soul grieved for the poor?" Similarly Sir 35:20; anthropologically Wis 7:3 (RSV): "And when I was born, I began to breathe the common air and fell upon the kindred earth, and my first sound was a cry, like that of all." The variant reading yeA.auovfTtv (We sy' saP' Marcion Origen EusebiusP') is due to harmonization with the SM; cf. also Luke 6:2la v.l. See Aland, Synopsis, 103, with the critical apparatus. Cf. Gen 21:6; Ps 126:1-5; Luke 15:7, 10, 24, 32.

577

version or something similar in front of him, no convincing reason has been presented for changing the wording to what is Matthew's second beatitude. 55 • 22 In comparison with the first three beatitudes, the fourth varies in its composition. Such variation seems to be intentional, but the reasons for it are more a matter of guessing than of clear evidence. One reason is that the composition is analogous to that of the threat in vs 26. More difficult to assess is the parallel ninth beatitude in SM/Matt 5: 11, which varies in its form similar to SP /Luke 6:22, and it is unlike the preceding eight, respectively three, beatitudes. 56 Again different is a parallel sayings composition in Gos. Thom. log. 68-69a, showing independent development: "Jesus said, 'Blessed are you when you are hated and persecuted. Wherever you have been persecuted they will find no place.'" This saying is followed by a second: "Jesus said, 'Blessed are they who have been persecuted within themselves. It is they who have truly come to know the father.'"57 As far as the composition in the SP is concerned, numerical symbolism may have played a role. If there are four beatitudes and four threats, the composition in each 55

56 57

For recent attempts to construct a history of tradition leading from Luke to Matthew, see Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.331 n. 42. Rightly, Fitzmyer (Luke, 1.634) calls for caution: "In this instance, it is not easy to say which evangelist has touched up the inherited form." See also Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.267-71. See above, pp. ll0-11, 147-51. Trans. Thomas 0. Lambdin, in Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library, 134. A further, again independent, parallel is cited by Clement Alex. Strom. 4.6.41.2 (ed. Stahlin, p. 266, lines 24-25): !LaKap&o& olliEllii"'Yplvo& fvEK£V ae.K.at.outSV1JS' I

58 59

60

578

case is 3 + 1. 58 Moreover, the first three beatitudes may have been put together in the tradition prior to the composition of the fourth, which introduces a concretization and an application to the disciples. 59 Since we have no sources earlier than the SP, however, we cannot go beyond such a suggestion. 60 The introduction in vs 22a addresses the disciples directly: "Blessed are you" (p.aKapLol €un). 61 The address and promise depend on the conditional clauses that follow. While in the first three beatitudes it is not at once clear whether the disciples belong to the poor, the hungry, and the weeping, this ambiguity is abandoned in the fourth beatitude. The persecution described in the subsequent conditional clauses is not merely a possibility but reflects the real experience of the early church. 62 Such incidents of persecution find explanation in their association with the first three beatitudes, which enable the disciples to identify with the poor, the hungry, and the weeping. Of them both the tradition and Jesus had spoken, and they are now applied to the disciples who suffer from suppression. 63 The two temporal conditional clauses are introduced by ifTav ("when," "whenever") and specify four forms of

g.,., aVTol viol 8£oV KA7]8~fTOVTal.

("Blessed are they who are persecuted because of righteousness, for they will be called sons of God"). See also Menard, Thomas, 169-71. On the number four in the SP, see above, pp. 57172. So also Bultmann, History, 109-10, 128; Manson, 61 Sayings, 49; Grundmann, Lukas, 143; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.335; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.631; Marshall, Luke, 251-52. Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.332) explains the 62 coordination of the first three beatitudes as deriving from LXX Isa 61:1-2, which he thinks forms the 63 basis ofJesus' proclamation of the kingdom in its primary form ("unmittelbar in ihrer Urform"). But Isa 61:1-2 speaks only of the poor, not of the hungry

and the weeping, so that this derivation must remain speculative. Prior to Schiirmann, William Manson Uesus the Messiah: The Synoptic Tradition of the Revelation of God in Christ [London: Hodder & Stoughton,

1943] 80-82) had suggested that the entire Qsermon is based on Isaiah 61. Against this view, see Bultmann, History, 398; Hubert Frankemolle, Evangelium: Begriff und Gattung; Ein Forschungsbericht

(SBB 15; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988) 149-55; idem, "Jesus als deuterojesajanischer Freudenbote? Zur Rezeption vonJes 52,7 im Neuen Testament, durchJesus und in den Targumim," in Hubert Frankemolle and Karl Kertelge, eds., Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus: FS fUr Joachim Gnilka (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1988) 34-67; Hans Dieter Betz, "The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew's Interpretation," in Synoptische Studien, 280-82. Some manuscripts (8 lat Marcion) read {uEu8E ("you will be"), apparently in harmonization with the future tenses of preceding verses. See Aland, Synopsis, 103, with the critical apparatus. For parallels from early Christian literature, see above on Matt 5:11. So following Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.631.

Luke 6:20b-26

suppression. 64 The first of these clauses, naming hatred by humankind (vs 22b), seems to be more general and also superior to the second, which describes three concrete forms of such hatred (vs 22c). Thus the concrete experiences of vs 22c are being classified under the rubric "hatred by humanity" and thereby clarified. 65 If this is truly the case, the "and when," "whenever" (Kat C5mv) in vs 22c is explicative, and, in compositional terms, numerical symbolism is again operative (1 + 3). Thus the suppression of the disciples consists of various forms of rejection, the first and tl"\e more general being hatred by humankind: "when people hate you" (C5Tav JUcr~crovcnv'ot &v8pw7rot). 66 This statement occurs only in the SP and has no parallel in the SM, although SP /Luke 6:27c mentions hatred against the disciples. Strangely, such hatred is not a topic in the SM even though one would expect to find it, especially in connection with hating the enemy (SM/Matt 5:43b, 44b). One cannot explain this difference between the SP and the SM by a redactional change on the part of Matthew.67 Yet hatred against the disciples occurs in other passages, such as the mission instruction in Matt 10:22, but not in the parallel versions of the other Gospels, an 64

65

66 67

68

69

70

indication that in Matt 10:22, too, it is pre-Matthean. In the synoptic apocalypses it has become a firm topos (Mark 12:13//Matt 24:10/ /Luke 21:17), 68 and this in turn became part of early Christian paraenesis generally.69 Being hated by humankind is not a special Christian experience, however. It is adduced here as a concept, well known to antiquity, the odium generis humani. 70 This reprehensible propaganda device for outlawing undesirables from society has, as we all know, played a particularly vicious role in anti-Semitism. 71 In the SP, however, it is not the anti-Semitic but the more general ancient stigmatization. 72 In view of the SP, this focus speaks for a Gentile-Christian context, while its absence in the SM appears to take into account a different perspective of Jewish disciples of Jesus. The concretization of this general hatred by humankind then follows in the second clause, vs 22c. First mentioned is social ostracism: "and (that means) when they exclude you" (Kat C5Tav b.cJwplcrwcrw ilp.as ). 73 This form of exclusion 74 from the community occurs only here in the New Testament, but it has close parallels in Matt 13:3643, 18:15-20, and 25:31-46, where it refers to the

ilrav with aorist subjunctive refers to "an action that is conditional, possible, and, in many instances, repeated" (BAGD, 587, s.v. ilrav). In this instance, "the action of the subordinate clause precedes that of the main clause" (BAGD, 588). See also BDF, § 382 (2-4); BDR, § 322, 2-4; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.336. Differently, Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.332) speaks of a climactic parallelism that expands from one suppression to three. The addition of 'lTavnr ("all") by sa is due to harmonization with Luke 6:26. Differently, Grundmann, Lukas, 143; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.333 n. 48; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.628; Marshall, Luke, 251-52. On the possible sources, see Lars Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 Par (ConBNT 1; Lund: Gleerup, 1966) 169. See also Otto Michel, "iJ.uriw," TDNT 4.683-94, esp. 690, who also mentions Luke 1:71, an interesting passage because it is part of the (pre-Christian?) psalm of the Benedictus (1 :68-79). See Did. 1.3; 16.3-4 (not in Doctrina apostolorum); 1 Clem. 60.3; 2 Clem. 13.4, etc. For further passages, see Michel, TDNT 4.699-701. See Tacitus Ann. 15.44, in application to Christians;

71

72

73

74

Cicero Philippicae 14.8; Seneca Oedipus 868-78. See]. N. Sevenster, The Roots of Pagan Antisemitism in the Ancient World (NovTSup 41; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 89-144, who interprets ancient anti-Semitism as a reaction against Jewish exclusivism and "misanthropy." See also Hans Conzelmann, Heiden-judenChristen: Auseinandersetzungen in der Literatur der hellenistisch-romischen Zeit (BHTh 62: Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1981 ), index, s. v. Misanthropie. ET: Gentiles-Jews-Christians: Polemics and Apologetics in the Graeco-Roman Era (trans. M. Eugene Boring [Minneapolis: Fortress], 1992), index, s. v. Misanthropy. So Marshall, Luke, 252. Differently most commentators, who think of exclusion ofJewish Christians from synagogues and a reflection of the "experience of early Christians of Luke's own day" (Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.635). Similarly Grundmann, Lukas, 143-44. Marcion omits this part of the sentence. W omits ilrav and thereby changes the relationship of the verbs to each other. p7Svid D omit the second ViJ.WV, probably considering it redundant. For the meaning of the term cuJwpl(w ("exclude"), see Karl Ludwig Schmidt, "lupop{(w," TDNT 5.454-55; Strecker, "Makarismen," 268-69; idem, Bergpredigt, 46 (Sermon, 43-44); Ulrich Kellermann, "cu/JOpl(w,"

579

exclusion of the damned from the eschatological community (cf. also John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). Which concrete acts does the SP have in mind? There are several possibilities. Are we reading about the exclusion of jewish Christians or Gentile Christians from the synagogue?75 Or about discrimination in general? 76 If it means discrimination against Gentile Christians, social expulsion seems to be the most probable. Perhaps vs 23c implies exclusion from judaism if one reads it as meaning: as their ancestors did to the prophets, so their (Jewish) successors do to you (Gentiles [see below on vs 2 3c ]). Exclusion would then involve a refusal of acceptance, for which one might refer to 2 Cor 6: 14-7: 1 and Gal2:1-10, 11-14 as examples. 77 The verb ovHlil(w ("reproach," "revile," "heap insults

75

76

580

upon"f 8 describes the second experience of rejection, but it is not immediately clear what precisely is meant. One should probably imagine treatment such as is reported against jesus in the passion narratives (Mark 15:29-32 par.). Again we appear to have a topos of early Christian paraenesis with its parallels in SM/Matt 5:11; 1 Tim 4:1 0; 1 Pet 4:14. 79 More difficult to understand is the third rejection experience: Kal. lK{3a:AwtTLV ro lfvoJLa VJLWV WS 71'0V7Jpov ~V€Ka TOV v!ov TOV av8pC:mov. 80 The translation of this sentence is disputed, 81 although one can explain the verbal phrase, as BAGD correctly points out, 82 from classical Greek texts so that the meaning seems clear: "and (when) they spurn your name as an evil one because of the Son of man." Questions remain, however. Since Wellhausen 83

EWNT 1.442-43 (EDNT 1.183-84). So WeiB (Predigtjesu, 179): "In the last beatitude (6:22-23) and in the last 'woe,' the persecutors are clearly marked as Jews; their fathers have done the same to the prophets. The persecution is described in such a way that one can see that persecutors and persecuted thus far have lived in the same community, but now the disciples ofJesus are being pushed out .... Thus, the Christians are thought of as Jewish Christians" (my trans.). The last sentence would apply only to the SM (Matt 5:11 ), however, which does not mention exclusion. Similarly, Strecker (Bergpredigt, 46 [Sermon, 43-44]) apparently thinks of Jewish Christians as being expelled from the synagogue, and regards vs 22 as an "early document of the beginning separation of the church from the synagogue." Commentators who assume the statement to refer to the exclusion from the synagogue often argue that Luke must have known such a measure. This conclusion is usually based on references to John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2 as corroborating evidence. Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.333) goes further, saying that only by Lukan redaction was this religious excommunication turned into "civic ostracism" ("biirgerliche Achtung"). The passages in John's Gospel may reflect a different situation, however, and neither they nor Luke's redaction can simply be equated with SP/Luke 6:22. Indeed, there is no solid evidence that before 70 CE synagogues made any attempt to exclude Christians. Also, contrary to Grundmann (Lukas, 144) no synagogal ban against Christians was in force at this time. See Reuven Kimelman, "Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity," in Ed P. Sanders, ed.,jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2: Aspects ofjudaism in the Graeco-

77 78 79 80

81

82

83

Roman Period (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 226-44, esp. 234-35, with n. 54 (p. 396); William Horbury, "The Benediction of the Minim and Early JewishChristian Controversy," JTS 33 (1982) 19-61, esp. 51: "at Luke vi.22 exclusion is expected generally." See Betz, Galatians, 81-112, 328-30. So BAGD, s.v. On the term itself, see above on SM/Matt 5:11. D it change the word order, reading "expel (you) and revile your name," thereby removing the difficulties in understanding the phrase. Cf., e.g., RSV: "and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man." NEB: "and ban your name as infamous, because of the Son of Man." JB: "denounce your name as criminal, on account of the Son of Man." Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.625: "and reject your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man." REB: "insult you and slander your very name, because of the Son of Man." NRSV: "revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man" (with note t: "Gk cast out your name as evil"). BAGD, s.v. EK{JciA.A.w, 1, with reference to Plato Crito 46B; Rep. 2, 377C; Sophocles Oed. Col. 636; 646. Cf. LSJ, s.v. EK{JciA.A.w, I-IV, where the evidence, however, suggests quite a variety of possible interpretations. Wellhausen (Evangelium Lucae, 24) thinks that the preceding ovnlil(w provides the best interpretation for the "biblical phrase" and calls attention to the parallels in Mark 1:28; Luke 7:17; the proper expression would have been: EK{J
Luke 6:20b-26

certainly, commentators have considered the possibility of a Semitic idiom behind the words. 84 Schiirmann 85 conjectures that a curse may have been connected with the synagogal ban, as is reported later in connection with Babylonian Judaism, but this interpretation is highly speculative. The sentence itself is easy to comprehend without such speculation, especially in the light of the opposing statement in vs 26a. The question what is meant by the "name" (lfvol-'a) remains. If the personal names of the disciples were meant, 86 one should expect the plural, "names" (ovoJLam). Or is it an allusion to the name of Jesus? This might well be the case when one considers the parallels in Jas 2:7 and 1 Pet 4: 14, but the further reference to the Son of man would seem to exclude the name of Jesus at this point. Is a curse meant? 87 Perhaps, but this usage may also require an overinterpretation of~~ 7rOV1Jpov ("as evil"). 88 The most likely meaning seems to be the name by which the disciples are called as a group. Even though we do not know which name that might be for the SP, it is certainly a derogatory and hostile name. Is it the name "Christians, "89 which we are told was originally a bad name before it became the name for first Gentile, and 84

85 86

87 88 89

90

91 92

then all, Christians (1 Pet 4: 16; Acts 11 :26; 26:28)?9° The final phrase, "on account of the Son of man" (~v£Ka TOV v!ov TOV av8pdmov), is rather surprising in that it has no parallel in either the SP or the SM. 91 Is this phrase an original part of the SP text? Or is it the result of later redactional activity, either prior to Luke or Luke's own? 92 If it is the latter, was it interpolated to identify the "name" used earlier in the sentence? There is no clear answer to these questions. The confession of Jesus as the Son of man is characteristic of the sayings in Q, 93 which is the earliest source of the Son of man christology. 94 If the SP was part ofQ before being incorporated into Luke, the phrase "on account of the Son of man" could be the result of Q-redaction. 95 This possibility is more likely than attributing it to the work of Luke, the final writer of the Gospel. The singularity of its occurrence here, though, speaks in favor of its being part of the original text of the SP. 96

So also Black, Approach, 135-36; Baumbach, Das Verstiindnis des Bosen, 125-26; Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.232-36; 2.292-93. SchOrmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.333. Bousset (Kyrios, 18) thinks ofthe removal oftheir names from the roles of the synagogues. So also Grundmann, Lukas, 143-44. See SchOrmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.333, and in a different way, Str-B 2.159. See SchOrmann's interpretation of C:.r wov11p6v, "as a curse" ("VerwOnschung"). Klostermann, Lukasevangelium, 79: "The concern is not personal reputation but the name Christian" (referring to Jas 2:7; 1 Pet 4:14). Similarly Marshall, Luke, 253; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.635. If Acts 11:26 is right that the name "Christians" emerged first in Antioch, the question is whether the early allusion to this name in the SP speaks for the origin of this text in Antioch, a possibility supported also by the relatively frequent occurrence of the name in Ignatius (Eph. 11.2; Mag. 4; Rom. 3.2; Pol. 7.3; cf. Trall. 6.1 [adjective)). For parallel passages and references, see also Heinrich Bietenhard, "lJvop.a," TDNT 5.278-80; Gerhard Schneider, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. Xpt
93 94

sohn-Logien," ZNW 58 (1967) 159-72; followed by Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.635; Marshall, Luke, 253-54. See esp. Matt 10:32-33; Mark 8:38; and on these sayings, Betz, Essays, 142-43, 146-47. See Heinz Eduard Todt, The Son ofMan in the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Dorothea M. Barton; London: SCM, 1965)119-21, 123-25,255-56,266;Sch0rmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.334; Carsten Colpe, "o v!hr -rov av6pC:mov," TDNT 8.443 n. 308; Paul Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (NTA, N.F. 8; Munster: Aschendorff, 1972) 182-83; Athanasius Polag, Die Christologie der Logienquelle (WMANT 45; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977) 102-15, 133; Mogens MOller, Der Ausdruck 'Menschensohn' in den Evangelien: Voraussetzungen und Bedeutung (Leiden: Brill, 1984) 190-91, 200-202;

Adela Y. Collins, "The Apocalyptic Son of Man Sayings," in Birger A. Pearson, ed., The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor ofHelmut Koester

95

96

(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 220-28 (with further bibliography); John]. Collins, "The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism," NTS 38 (1992) 448-66. Higgins .jesus and the Son ofMan, 120; Schulz, Q, 453: "Lk dorfte mit dem Menschensohn hier die Vorlage wiedergeben, wahrend Mt umformt." Similarly Schormann, Lukasevangelium, 1.334 n. 62. The Q-synopses made by Schenk (Synopse, 24-25)

581

What would the phrase "on account of the Son of man" mean in the context of the SP? It could mean that the disciples of the SP would adhere to a Son of man christology, according to which they would regard jesus of Nazareth, their master, as the Son ofman. 97 Does the term refer to the life of jesus on earth98 or to his eschatological parousia as Son of man? Or to a figure other than jesus? One can give no clear answer to this question, but because of the closeness to Q, the eschatological expectation of Jesus as Son of man seems more likely. At any rate, the christology of the Son of man marks one of the most important differences between the SP and the SM, for the SM expects jesus to be the eschatological advocate (see above on SM/Matt 7:21-23), but does not call him the Son of man. 99 • 23 As noted, an appeal to be joyful (vs 23) stands between the beatitudes (vss 20b-22) and the threats or "woes" (vss 24-26). Although this appeal to be joyful has a parallel in SM/Matt 5:12, its form in the SP is different. The little composition has two parts: the appeal itself (vs 23a) and the reason for it (vs 23b). Difficulties arise in the interpretation of the appeal, vs 23a, the translation of which is questionable: xcip7]H tV tK£LV!/ Tfi ~p.'p~ Kat ITKLpn]uau. The two aorist imperatives imply a time reference, but is the appeal made in view of the present or of the future? The present time requires the rendering: "Be joyful in that (same) day and

97

98 99

100 101 102

103 104

582

leap about!" The future time necessitates: "Be joyful in that (eschatological) day (of the Lord) and leap about!" Many have attempted to solve the problem. Marcion took the most radical step by omitting vs 23a-b altogether. 100 Some manuscripts agree with Matt 5: 12. 101 Modern exegetes often regard the phrase "on that day" as a secondary insertion by a redactor; 10 2 but a future eschatology is undoubtedly part of the entire SP. Other allusions to this eschatology occur in the beatitudes and the threats. 103 Some exegetes remain unclear themselves. For example, Schiirmann regards "in that day" as a redactional insertion by Luke, while at the same time interpreting it as "in the same day." 104 In forming a judgment, one must keep in mind the whole composition ofvss 20b-26. The future tense of the verbs in v 21 b ("you will be satisfied") and vs 21 d ("you will laugh") evokes an image of a feast in the heavenly kingdom (vss 20c and 23b). It seems clear, then, that the phrase "on that day" refers to the wellknown eschatological expression.I 0 5 Moreover, as with the beatitudes, the promise of eschatological joy in the eternal kingdom of God does not exclude an anticipated joy here on earth. On the contrary, it is the motivation for such earthly joy. The appeal to be joyful, therefore, is grounded in the eschatological conviction that there will be heavenly joy, a conviction that generates joy even in the present.

and Polag (Fragmenta Q, 321) leave the question organize as they face their persecution and exclusion open. See also Kloppenborg, QParallels, 24-27. from the synagogue. As pointed out above (on 6:22), Grundmann (Lukas, 144) thinks of an old Son of man expulsion from the synagogue has no basis in the expectation among the poor of Galilee that led to text. For objections to such ideas, see also Marshall, their repression. Luke, 254. Different again is Wellhausen, Evangelium Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.635. Lucae, 24: "In 6:23, 'at that time' refers to the time of See also Betz, Essays, 21 n. 15, and 151-52. Cf. the persecutions, which jesus anticipates." Guelich, Sermon, 95: "The meaning is the same, since 105 The fixed expression tv tK
Luke 6:20b-26

Translations into modern English must strive to retain this duality. 106 The appeal to joy generally also belongs to the early Christian paraenetical theme of joy in persecution and suffering, a theme found as well, although in a different form, in SM/Matt 5:11-12. 107 The expression CTKLpniw ("leap about for joy") 108 is peculiar, perhaps indicating a dance (cf. Luke 7:32; 15:25). 109 The kind of dance becomes clear when one realizes that the CTKLpToL are Satyrs, the jolly companions of Dionysos, whose grotesque dances were known in antiquity as "Sikinnis." 110 Pictures of the Satyrs were a popular decorative motif on vases and walls. 111 The allusion to such dances must have been obvious. For Gentile Christians, the positive reference to them must have induced chuckles; but for Jewish Christians, such a reference would have been repulsive, and that the SM does not employ the term cannot be accidental. 112 Verse 23b states the reason not only for the promise of joy and the appeal in vs 23a but for the entire com-

position in vss 20b-23. The initial "for behold" (13ov yap) 113 both indicates the character of the reason behind the statement and expresses a moment of surprise. Indeed, it must be a surprise for Gentile Christians 114 to learn that they can expect a reward in heaven: "for behold, your reward is great in heaven" 115 (loov yap o JUCT8os ilp.wv 'ITOAVS EV Ttp ovpavip ). 116 The promise, therefore, is the same as that made to Jewish Christians in SM/Matt 5:12. How can such a promise be made and justified theologically? The subsequent statement answers this question: "for in the same manner their forefathers did to the prophets" (KaTa Ta avTa yap E'ITOLOVV TOtS ?Tpocp~TaLs OL ?TaTEpES avTwv). 117 This statement affirms the Jewish doctrine that the prophets of old suffered from oppression and persecution by their contemporary authorities. 118 Such

106 To mention only recent examples: ambiguity in the RSV translation helps to keep both connotations. NRSV: "Rejoice in that day and leap for joy." NEB opts for the eschatological interpretation only: "On that day be glad and dance." REB: "On that day exult and dance for joy." Also JB: "Rejoice when that day comes and dance for joy." Fitzmyer (Luke, 1.625), however, opts for the present by correlating the sentence with vs 22: "That is the time [i.e., the time of exclusion] to rejoice and to leap with joy." 107 See above, pp. Ill, 151. 108 Gottfried Fitzer ("uK1pr6.w," TDNT 7.401-2) has pointed out the metaphorical and proverbial tradition connected with the word. Unfortunately, the article is one-sidedly based on the OT metaphors that, according to him, have led to the use in Luke 6:23 as "pure metaphor, for which no relation to the original meaning continues to play a role." For parallel references, see also BAGD, s.v.
112

113 114 115

116 117

118

(2d ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1959); Kenner, Weinen und Lachen, 74-82; Nilsson, GGR 1.232-36; Burkert, Greek Religion, 102-3, 166-67, 173-74, with further references. It is noteworthy, in this regard, that Philo uses the term always in the negative sense in connection with imagery describing the unruly nature of passion (see Op. mund. 86; Leg. all. 2.99, 101; Agric. 32, 34, 68, 71, 83, 106; Migr. Abr. 62; Rer. div. her. 245; Som. 2.293; Abr. 135; Spec. leg. 1.304). See also Josephus Bell. 5.120. D has lin ("for") in harmonization with SM/Matt 5:12b. The element of surprise is missing in the JewishChristian SM (Matt 5:12). Compared with the SM, the singular of "heaven" (ovpavof) in the SP reflects its Greek milieu; the plural in the SM conforms to its Jewish milieu (see above on SM/Matt 5:3b). Be fhave the plural "in the heavens" (£v TOtf ovpavotf) in harmonization with SM/Matt 5:12b. Part of the tradition contracts Ta avra into TaVTa here and in vs 26. See Aland, Synopsis, 103 and 104, with the critical apparatus. On the notion of 1rar£pn as "forefathers" see also vs 26b (cf. of God in 6:36); there are no other occurrences in the SP. The notion with this meaning does not occur in the SM because the name "Father" is reserved for God (for the passages see above on SM/Matt 5: 16), while the ancestors are called o! apxatOI ("the men of old," SM/Matt 5:21, 33). See BAGD, s.v. 1rar~p, l.b; Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.246-49.

583

persecutions made of these prophets "righteous men" who generated divine reward. 119 If the Christians, even Gentile Christians, experience these same persecutions, they are right in expecting reward because of the legal principle that equal merit leads to equal reward. Since the reward of the prophets was great, as was generally agreed, so will the reward for Christians be great. As noted, this theological argument is identical with that in SM/Matt 5:12, except that in the SPit seems to apply to Gentile Christians. This conclusion follows from the expression "their forefathers," focusing on the Jewish forefathers of those prophets. The wording is not "your forefathers" (cf. SM/Matt 5:12: "the prophets who were there before you") but "their forefathers," 120 implying a non-Jewish perspective. Moreover, "they" (that is, the present Jewish authorities) have acted in the same manner against the disciples addressed in the SP; consequently, these disciples can expect the same reward. Despite parallels elsewhere, this argument is certainly bold and provocative. Of interest here is that neither the SM nor the SP mentions the persecution and death of Jesus in this connection. Is it conceivable that Gentile Christians can expect a reward identical to that of Jewish Christians, even though these Gentiles do not become partakers of the covenant of Moses? The theology of Paul attests that such possibilities did exist at his time within Judaism. Paul's whole mission is based on the assumption that Christian Gentiles will be acceptable to God in the last judgment because they are believers in Christ, not because they are beneficiaries of the Sinai covenant. Paul

would never have undertaken this mission had not Jewish thought been open to it. The opening, at first tolerated by the church authorities in Jerusalem, quickly became a powerful and threatening challenge to Judaism from within, a phenomenon that in turn led to increased suspicion, resistance, and even suppression by other Jews, Christian as well as non-Christian. These developments are well known from the New Testament writings. Since no independent sources exist, one can only surmise the status of the question in the environment in which the SP originated. Hints suggest that in the first century, certainly before 70 CE,Judaism was to some degree open to Gentiles, 121 although there was no consensus to this effect among the rabbis. Proselytism in any form meant that possibilities for Gentiles to participate in salvation were available. The only question was how such salvation was to be achieved. Would God recognize the good deeds of Gentiles in the last judgment? The answer depended on a definition of terms. If, on the one hand, good deeds are understood as the general result of human virtues, whether the person performing them is a Jew or a Gentile is of no consequence. If, on the other hand, only those deeds that fulfill the particular requirements of jewish cult and ethos are considered, Gentiles would by definition be excluded. Rabbi Eliezer would then be right in interpreting Prov 14:34 ("Righteousness exalteth a nation, but the kindness of the peoples is sin") as saying: "all the charity and kindness done by the heathen is counted to them as sin, because they only do it to magnify themselves, as it says." 122

119 On this doctrine see above on SM/Matt 5: 12; also, with further literature, Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.335. 120 Wellhausen (Evangelium Lucae, 24) explains the difference as a translation variant: "Lc hat 'ihre Vorfahren' gelesen, als Subjekt des Verbs; Mt 'eure Vorfahren,' als Apposition zu den Propheten. Die Differenz ist daq' damaihOn (ol 7rar(pn ahwv) und daq' damaikon (rob~ 1rpo vp.wv)" ("Luke read 'their forefathers' as subject of the verb; Matthew read 'your forefathers' as apposition to the prophets. The difference is daq, damaihOn [o[ 7rar(pn avrwv ('their forefathers')] and daq' damaikon [rob~ 7rp0 vp.wv ('those before you')])." Wellhausen's explanation presupposes an Aramaic Vorlage, which is unprovable; he does not repeat it in the 2d ed. of his Einleitung. But Black (Approach, 191-92) accepts it.

584

Opposed are Wrege, Bergpredigt, 24 n. 2; Hare, Persecution, 17 4-7 5; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.335 n. 73. 121 On this problem see Emil G. Hirsch and]. D. Eisenstein, "Gentile," jewish Encyclopedia 5 (ed. Isidore Singer; rev. ed.; New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1903) 615-25; Max Kadushin, "Aspects of the Rabbinic Concept of Israel: A Study in the Mekilta," HUCA 19 (1945-46) 57-96, esp. 8087; Benjamin W. Helfgott, The Doctrine ofElection in Tannaitic Literature (New York: King's Crown, 1954), esp. 140-41; Urbach, Sages, 541-54; Ed P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 206-12. 122 b. B. Batra 1Ob, trans. Israel W. Slotki, The HebrewEnglish Translation of the Babylonian Talmud, Baba Bathra, vol. 22, pt. 1 (London, Jerusalem, and New

Luke 6:20b-26

At the time of the SP, both positions were apparently held in Judaism. Otherwise, why were they debated in an even later period, when the positive attitude toward the Gentiles had become almost hypothetical? 123 This position, interestingly enough, was attributed to R. Johanan ben Zakkai, who is said to have interpreted Prov 14:34 as referring to both Jews and Gentiles. 124 For Israel, it means that righteousness comes from atonement through the sacrificial cult; for Gentiles, the term "righteousness" is defined in the Greek sense, with righteousness as the result of deeds of benevolence. Thus R. Joshua is right when he is said to have taught: "There are righteous men among the nations who have a share in the world to come." 1 2 5 This position appears to be remarkably close to the text of the SP, in which benevolence is also a dominant theme. Additional evidence for benevolence as a cardinal virtue of Gentiles is found in other New Testament texts, most conspicuously in Acts 10, which names specifically the centurion Cornelius. • 24 The conjunction 'ITA~v ("however") 126 presages the turning point between promise of salvation and warning against disaster and marks the first of the four threats or "woes." 127 Antithetical to the beatitude ofvs 20b, the "woe" is directed against the rich, whose conduct is described in detail further on: "However, woe to you the rich" ('ITA~V oval Vf'LV TOL~ 'ITAOVcrloL~). We have seen before how this address affects the disciples. The threat is a

123

124

125

126

127

warning that the rich can expect no eschatological reward: "for you have (already) received your comfort" (Cln a'ITEX£T£ T~V '!TapaKJ\.7Jcrw). The term a'!T€xw comes from the language of commerce and signifies the cashing in of a payment and the issuing of a receipt for a sum owed. 1 2 8 In what sense has the rich cashed in his "comfort" ('1TapaKJ\.7JcrL~)? 129 In order to understand the argument, one must consider some social presuppositions held in antiquity, according to which the rich suffer from a whole catalog of aches and pains coming from luxurious living, including illnesses, worries, fear, anxieties, thefts, cheating, and false friends. One must have read Lucian's descriptions of the dreadful lot of the rich to understand the argument that they, more than others, need comfort. 130 Now, the SP states that they have already cashed in on that comfort. One understands that the luxurious life itself is their comfort, that is, those things named in vss 25-26: the filled stomach, fun and laughter, and of course flattery, of which the rich can never get enough. 131 One understands, too, that this comfort is in itself waste, illusion, and self-deception, 13 2 even though it is compensation for the plagues. Thus the rich have already been compensated for whatever they may have suffered. Real comfort, however, can reside only in the eschatological promise as given to the disciples in vss 20b-23 (cf. also SM/Matt 5:4). 133

York: Soncino, 1976). For commentary, see Sanders, Paul and Palestinian judaism, 208-9. b. B. Batra lOb contains a debate by several rabbis on the subject, each of them giving his own answer to the question raised by R. Johanan ben Zakkai about the meaning of Prov 14:34. He approves of the reply by R. Nei)uniah b. haJ5,anah: "Righteousness exalteth a nation, and there is kindness for Israel and sinfulness for the peoples." R. Johanan interprets this to mean: "because he assigns charity and kindness to Israel and sin to the heathen." This is said to contain implicitly his own answer: "Just as the sin-offering makes atonement for Israel, so charity makes atonement for the heathen." t. Sanh. 13.2 (my trans.). The righteous among the Gentiles are those who have not forgotten God. The passage interpreted is Ps 9:18. For commentary, see Sanders, Paul and Palestinian judaism, 209-10. Marcion and Irenaeus omit it; see Aland, Synopsis, 104. Marcion also omits vp.lv, thereby limiting the addressees to the outsiders. See the excursus on the "woes" below.

128 The term occurs in SM/Matt 6:2, 5, 16; see above, on these passages. 129 Commentators have various answers to this question. Grundmann (Lukas, 144-45) thinks the rich are threatened because of their egotism. Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.636: "a certain shortsightedness, induced by that status, leads such persons to think that there is nothing more to have." 130 See Betz, Lukian, 83-84, 86, 194-99. The plight of the rich is the subject already of the OT wisdom literature; see esp. Eccl5:9-6:9. 131 Cf. Luke 16:25, where Abraham says to the rich man: "Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish" (RSV). 132 See the story ofthe foolish rich man, which is the best illustration of this point (Luke 12:16-21 ). 133 For the eschatological consolation, see Luke 2:25; 1 Thess 2:3 (and passim); 2 Thess 2:16 (and passim). See BAGD, s.v. wap6.KA7JO'If, 3; Otto Schmitz and Gustav Stahlin, TDNT 5.773-99, esp. 796-99; andJ.

585

Excursus: The "Woe" -Sayings One must determine the form-critical classification of the "woes" in vss 24-26 by the context, that is, by the juxtaposed beatitudes, vss 20b-22. The beatitudes (see the Introduction to the section on the Beatitudes, above, pp. 92-111) are sayings that pronounce someone "blessed." Thus they are statements of assurance, containing both disclosure and promise. With these qualities is associated a traditional aura of religious solemnity. The "woes" in vss 24-26 are the exact counterparts of the beatitudes. These "woes" address more directly the disciples for whom the SP is composed and might seem almost like curses if they were not given on the condition that the addressees actually meet the descriptions of people rich, satisfied, laughing, and being liked by everyone. Since the disciples are warned against this condition, the "woes" amount not to curses but to mere threats, although pronounced with solemnity and definiteness. Similar threats are found in Mark 14:21//Matt 26:24//Luke 22:22; Matt 18:7b//Luke 17:1c; 1 Cor9:16d. These forms must be distinguished from apocalyptic oracles of doom (Mark 13:17//Matt 24:19//Luke 21 :23; Matt II:2I//Luke IO:I3; Matt I8:7a; Rev 8:I3; 9:I2; 11:I4; I2:I2; I8:IO, I6, I9)andcurses(Matt23:I3I6, 23; Luke II:42-47, 52;Jude 11). Series of beatitudes and "woes" are found in prophetic, apocalyptic, and wisdom literature (e.g., Isa 3:9, 11; 5:8-22; Eccl IO:I6-I7; Tob I3:I2, I4; 2 Bar. I0.6-7; 1 Enoch 94-I03; 2 Enoch 42; 52). The "woes" in SP/Luke 6:24-26, however, serve a didactic and paraenetical purpose, with eschatological but not highly apocalyptic overtones. In contrast, the SM has no "woes" at all but rather a long section of eschatological warnings (SM/Matt 7:I3-23).

Bibliography Aune, Prophecy, 96-97, 116-I7, I79-81. BAGD, s.v. obal. Horst Balz, EWNT(EDNT) 2, s.v. obal. Bultmann, History, II2-I6, 398-400; Ergiinzungsheft, 42-44. Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.636. Grundmann, Lukas, 224-45. W. Janzen, Mourning Cry and Woe Oracle (BZAW I25; Berlin: de Gruyter, I972). Peter Klein, "Die lukanischen Weherufe Lk 6:24-26," ZNW7I (I980) I50-59. Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.336-41. H.-:J. Zobel, "•1:-r" hoj," ThWAT 2.383-88 (TDOT 3.359-64) (with further bibliography).

• 25 This verse contains the second (vs 25a-c) and third (vs

25d-f) "woes." Verse 25a-c is usually translated (RSV): "Woe to you that are full now, for you will hunger" (oval vp.'iv 0~ Eft7T£7TA1JCTJLEVO' vvv, 8n 7Tnvacr£u). 134 The exclamatory "woe" is followed by the specification of the addressees, first to the disciples and then to the rich, whose food consumption is described not without satirical sting as "filling up" either themselves or their stomachs. 135 Passages in Hellenistic literature confirm without question this description of the behavior of the rich. 136 In comedy and satire the flabby rich man who stuffs himself with delicacies is a well-known character.137 Moreover, critical descriptions of banquets of the wealthy and their parasites entertain readers with detailed episodes of gluttony, giving proper attention to the consequences of such gluttony. 138

Thomas, EWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v. wapaKaAE(JJ KTA. I34 On the omission of vs 2 5a in sy', see Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, 2/2.222. A substantial number of manuscripts do not read uvu ("now") in vs 25b (AD K P r 'I' OI35. 28. 565. IOIO allat Marcion Irenaeus1•<), but because of the parallelism with vs 25c, where it is not disputed, it should be read in vs 25b as well. See Aland, Synopsis, I04, with the critical apparatus. I35 Other NT passages use the term with a positive or neutral meaning. See Luke I :53: "he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away" (RSV). The verse is from the Magnificat and is inspired by OT poetry (cf. Ps I07:9;Job 22:9; furthermore Deut 3I:20;Job 20:23; Pss I7:I4; 8I:11;Jer 5I:34; Sir 3I:3. Cf. also the reversal in Luke I5:I6 v.l.: "and he longed to fill his stomach

586

with the pods that the swine ate." For the variants see Nestle-Aiand, critical apparatus; also Gerhard Delling, "wlp.wli.TJp.• Krll.," TDNT 6.I28-34. Cf. also Rom I6:I8; Phii3:I9: "those whose god is their stomach"; Gai5:2I. I36 Differently, BAGD, s.v. £p.wl(p.)w11.1Jp.•, 2; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, I.337 n. 89; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.636; they see the neutral meaning also in Luke 6:25. I37 See esp. Lucian Nigr. I3; 2I; Menippus II. For further parallel material, see Betz, Lukian, 84-86, I85-99. I38 For references and bibliography, see David E. Aune inPECL 2.70-74, esp. 73; Rudolf Arbesmann, "Gefrassigkeit," RAG 9 (I976) 345-90; Heinemann, Philons griechische und judische Bildung, 56 n. 2. For the OT see Ezek 39:17 -20; for Jewish literature, 2 Mace 6:4; Philo Vit. cont. 48-64; Spec. leg. 3.43; Abr.

Luke 6:20b-26

According to common belief, the situation can easily be reversed, either in this world or in the afterlife. 139 A number of underworld tales in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature relate that the glutton will suffer from hunger and thirst. 140 Also a story such,as the Rich Man and Poor Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 contains this teaching, according to which the rich man suffers in Hades from thirst: "And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame'" (vs 24).141 The third "woe" (vs 25d-f) parallels the second. The address vp.'iv ("to you") is missing in a considerable number of witnesses, 14 2 but because of the parallel construction characteristic of the whole section, it should be restored to the Nestle-Aland text, and one should read: "Woe (to you) that laugh now, for you will mourn and weep" (oilal [vf-tlv] o[ yt:A.wvns vvv, Cfn 1rwB~ut:n Kat KAaVut:n).

139

140

141 142

143

Although not obvious from the context, the laughter seems to be cynical, expressing an eerie joy and even frenzy, the mark of the fool. 143 One should see this laughter of the rich in contrast to the grim lot of the poor. 144 One can adduce numerous parallels for the rejection of such laughter from the Old Testament and from Jewish literature, 145 especially the wisdom texts, as well as from Greek literature. 146 One is not to confuse the laughter of the rich with the hilarity characteristic of the sage. 147 The reason for this warning is again the eschatological reversal of the roles, which has "mourning and weeping" ready for the laughers. 148 The combination of the two

135; Leg. Gaj. 14. For the NT, cf. Gal5:21 (and on that, see Betz, Galatians, 284); 1 Cor 11:17-34 (and on this, see Aune inPECL 2.76-78; Edward N. O'Neil in PECL 2.356-57); Rom 13: 13; 1 Pet 4:3; 2 Pet2:13. See Eccl10:16-17; Sir 18:32 (RSV): "Do not revel in great luxury, lest you become impoverished by its expense." In Greek literature, see Pindar lsthmia 1.68; Ps.-Isoc. Demon. 32; !socrates Antidosis 286-87. For the punishments of the rich in the afterlife, see Apoc. Pet., lines 86-91 (ed. Albrecht Dieterich, Nekyia: Beitriige zur Erkliirung der neuentdeckten Petrusapokalypse [3d ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969] 8); cf. the commentary, 163-95; Betz, Lukian, 84-89; Betz eta!., PECL 1.224-28; Richard Bauckham, "Descent to the Underworld," ABD 2.145-59 (with bibliography). For a collection of apocalyptic and rabbinic passages, see Str-B 4/2.1036-75, esp. 1070 (i), 1071 (m), 1075 (cc). See Alfred Hermann, "Durst," RAG 4 (1 959) 389415. It is read by p7 5 AD Q R 'I' 0135 a/lat. See NestleAland, critical apparatus, ad Joe. Aland (Synopsis, 104) and Greeven (Synopsis) have relegated it to the critical apparatus. One should probably retain it because ofthe parallelism ofvss 24a, 25a (cf. vs 26a). Cf. Eccl 2:2 (RSV): "I said oflaughter, 'It is mad,' and of pleasure, 'What use is it?'" Cf. also 7:3, 6 (RSV): "For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fools; this also is vanity." See Sir 21:20; 27:13. See Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, "yEA..iw

144

145

146

14 7

148

~rA..," TDNT 1.658-62. For the NT, see Luke 12:16-21;Jas 5:1-6. Laughter equals contempt. See Prov 17:5 (RSV): "He who mocks the poor insults his maker; he who is glad at calamity will not go unpunished." For the opposite conduct cf. Sir 4:1-10; 7:32-36; 29:8-13. Cf. furthermore Pss 22:7-8; 31:12; 39:9; 123:4; Sir 27:28, etc.; T. Reu. 4.7; Naph. 2.8. For rabbinic parallels, see Str-B 4/2.1075 (cc). See Flemming F. Hvidberg, Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament: A Study of Canaanite-lsraelite Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1 962). Ludwig Radermacher, Weinen und Lachen: Studien uber antikes Lebensgefuhl (Vienna: Rohrer, 194 7); Kenner, Weinen und Lachen, 72-82; Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, "~A.alw KTA.," TDNT 3.722 n. 4, citing Plutarch Quaest. conv. 1.4, 622B: y'A.w~ ha'ipo~ l!f3pEw~ ("Laughter, the companion of arrogance"). See also Ps.-Isocr. Demon. 15; Menander Mon. 144; 165. Cf. Sir 21:20 (RSV): "A fool raises his voice when he laughs, but a clever man smiles quietly." The positive Greek terms are p.Etllt.iw ("smile") and lA.apo~ ("cheerful"), which are rare in early Christian literature. For the proper "Christian" laughter, see Clement Alex. Paed. 2.5.2. See RudolfBultmann, "lA.apo~ ~rA..," TDNT 3.297-300. See the direct parallel in Jas 4:9; the paraenesis is directly addressed to the double-minded.

587

verbs is traditional, 149 so that one should rule out redactional operations at this point. 150 Apocalyptic literature and tales of the netherworld also substantiate that the laughing rich of this world have nothing to laugh about in the world to come.l 51 These things seem to have been the stock-in-trade of popular literature, proverbs, and folklore_I 5 2 • 26 The fourth "woe" (vs 26) is analogous to the fourth beatitude (vs 22). The initial "woe" exclamation is followed by the
parasites in particular were known to fall prey easily to flattery. 156 If defamation is already bad enough (vs 22), flattery is even worse. Although such a situation is typical for the rich, the warning is directed toward the disciples. It is a hypothetical situation as far as they are concerned, but other early Christian paraenesis confirms that such warning was not redundant. 15 7 That flattery is the abuse of something positive related to the purpose of moral maxims, however, we learn from !socrates when he explains his reason for composing his piece of exhortation: "But it is not possible for the mind to be so disposed 158 unless it is fraught with many noble maxims; for, as it is the nature of the body to be developed by appropriate exercises, it is the nature of the soul to be developed by moral precepts. Wherefore I shall endeavor to set before you concisely by what practices I think you can make the most progress toward virtue and win the highest repute in the eyes of all other men." 159 In other words, the goal of any public figure must be to

149 Mark 16:10; Luke 23:18 D;Jas 4:9; Rev 18:11, 15, 19; cf. 21 :4; and already Ezek 27:30-32; LXX 2 Esd 18:9 (= Neh 8:9). Cf. also John 16:20;Jas 5:1-6; Rev 18:9. See Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, "KAaiw KTA.," TDNT 3.722-26; RudolfBultmann, ".,.£v8os KTA.," TDNT 6.40-43, esp. n. 9. 150 Against Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.331 n. 42, 338 n. 97. 151 See Isa 13:6; 65:13-14;Joel1:8-10; Ezek 22:24-31; 1 Enoch 94:6-11. See Dibelius,james, 235-40. 152 Cf. the proverbial "There will be weeping and gnashing of the teeth" (Matt 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Luke 13:28). 153 The textual tradition of the verse is characterized by many variants. Apart from the manuscript evidence, one must consider the parallel sentence in vs 22. Nestle-Aland agrees with D W* Ll. 1424 pc b r 1 sy'·P co Ir1•< that vp."iv ("to you") should not be read. Verse 22 has a direct address in eun ("you are"), however, and the vp.lv ("to you") in vs 26a may have been dropped as redundant because of the following vp.as ("you"). A-clear decision is not possible. See NestleAland, critical apparatus; Aland, Synopsis, 104. 154 The .,.&vns ("all") is required because of the definition of flattery; without it, the statement would be absurd. Cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 141. 155 So, correctly, Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels, 1.17475; Klostermann, Lukasevangelium, 80. The Greek term for flattery is KOAania, which occurs in 1 Thess 2:5; cf. Ignatius Pol. 2.2. See BAGD, s.v.;Johannes Schneider, "(KoAaK.,)w) KoAaKia," TDNT 3.817-18; PGL, s.v. KOAaK£,;w, etc.; Spicq, Notes, 1.436-39, with

588

156 157

158 159

important material. See Plutarch's writings De garrulitate; Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur; Lib. educ. 9, 6B; 12F--'13C; Cicero Tusc. 5.12; Lucian Timon 56; furthermore Wettstein, 1.694; PECL 1.376; van der Horst, Sentences, 176 (Sent. 91: "Make not parasitic flatterers your friends"). See Ernst Meyer, Der Emporkommling: Ein Beitrag zur antiken Etholog;ie (GieBen: Kindt, 1913). See Gal1:10 (and Betz, Galatians, 55); 1 Thess 2:45; and for the character of the "man-pleaser" (av8pw7rv ll.v p.or. OoKELS' f7rLTT/0EVJ.t&,TtilV 1TAE'i:CTTDV

1rphs- lJ.pET~V f1rr.OoiJvar.

1rapa ro'Ls- ll.AA.ors Cl.7racn.v Ctv8p6J1rors EVOoKr.p.fjuat.

Ka't

Luke 6:20b-26

develop a good reputation (oofa) among fellow citizens.160 The reason for the warning in vs 26b stands in juxtaposition to vs 23c: "for in the same manner their forefathers did to the false prophets" (KaTtt Ttt aVTtt yap f7TO/.ovv TOLS 1/F£vl3o7Tpocp~Tats o! 7TaT,p€S avTwv). This argumentation is a topos, known from the Old Testament.161 Accordingly, the true prophets were always persecuted while the false prophets were always glorified.162 From this evidence, anyone can see who the true and the false prophets are. 163 The true disciples of Jesus,

therefore, must avoid attracting flattery toward themselves. Acting in such a way that all people praise them cannot be a Christian goal. 164 Instead, the people are to be moved by good deeds to praise God (cf. SM/Matt 5:16).

160 Cf. Ps.-lsoc. Demon. 17; 45-47; 49; !socrates, Ad Nicocl. 32. 161 See 1 Kgs 22:26-28; Isa 28:7;Jer 5:31; 14:13-16; 23:16-17; cf. 6:14; 8:10-11; Ezek 13:1-16; Mic 2:11; 3:5-7. 162 Cf. SM/Matt 5:12c. 163 See above on SM/Matt 7:15-20 with further discussion.

164 Cf., however, Paul in 1 Cor 10:33.

589

Luke 6:27-45 Chapter II Rules for the Conduct of the Disciples

6 27

28

29

30 31

32 33

34

35

36

37

38

39 40 41 42

And now to you who listen I say: "Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you; bless those who curse you; pray for those who abuse you. To the one who hits you on one cheek, offer also the other; and from him who takes away your coat, do not withold even your shirt. To the one who begs from you, give; and from him who takes away your possessions, do not ask them back. And as you wish that people do to you, do to them in the same way. And if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even the sinners love those who love them. And when you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even the sinners do the very same thing. And when you lend (money to those) from whom you expect to get (it back), what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, for the purpose of receiving the same (amount) in return. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend (money) expecting nothing in return. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he himself is benevolent (even) to the ungrateful and bad. Be merciful, as (also) your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you will not be judged either; and condemn not, and you will not be condemned either. Set free, and you will be set free; give, and it will be given to you. Good measure: pressed down, shaken together. overflowing-they will give (it) into your lap. For by which measure you measure, it will be measured to you in return." And then he told them a parable: "Can a blind man guide a blind man? Will they not (both) fall into a pit? A disciple is not above his teacher. but everyone who has graduated will be like his teacher. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but you do not notice the log that is in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,'

590

Luke 6:27-45 but you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye. There is no good tree that bears bad fruit, nor again is there a bad tree that bears good fruit. For every tree is known by its own fruit. For from thorns they do not gather a fig, nor do they harvest a grape from a bramble bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth the good, but the bad out of the bad brings forth the bad. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks."

43

44

45

1. Analysis The body of the SP, that is, the sections between the exordium (vss 20-26) and the peroration (vss 46-49), consists of rules for discipleship, presented as three consecutive units. They are, however, not simply set before the reader as rules; rather, each rule in itself forms an argument, and, taken together, all three present one consistent argument expressing the ethics ofJesus. The first main unit (vss 27 -38) discusses the conduct of the disciple toward the outside world. 1 This section is followed by rules concerning conduct within the community (vss 39-42), 2 then the conduct toward oneself (vss 43-45). This course of the argument, starting at the periphery and moving to the inner circle and finally to the self, corresponds to the modes of Greek ethical thought. All three rules are carefully composed formally and argued logically within the bounds of the argument made in the text. Thus the rules are not merely set forth but also contain arguments for what is regarded as the reasonable way to conduct oneself. The definition of reasonable conduct is informed by Greek ethical ideas. The argument begins with Jesus' love-command as the fundamental ethical rule of Christian behavior. It is stated (vs 27a) and then varied by three additional parallel maxims (vss 27b-28). All four maxims state what appears to the Greek mind as paradoxes, a form

2

of maxim common among the Greeks. Paradoxes are not in and of themselves irrational. They do not defy comprehension but capture the phenomena of life itself. The ensuing discussion (vss 29-38) demonstrates why Jesus' love-command, though seemingly absurd, makes sense in terms of Greek ethics. Four exemplary cases first delineate, and thereby admit, the seemingly absurd character of the maxims when put into practice (vss 29-30). Then, vss 31-36 spell out the underlying ethical presuppositions, beginning with the Golden Rule (vs 31 ). A commentary on the Golden Rule follows, which clarifies first its inadequate (vss 32-34), then its adequate, understanding (v. 35). The inadequate understanding is refuted by three rhetorical questions and answers (vss 32-34), from which the right interpretation is concluded e contra rio ("from the contrary"). Once this clarification has been reached, the result can be applied to Jesus' love-command (vs 27a), which is restated with two variations (vs 35a). Then vs 35b-d introduces the doctrinal premises, first the eschatological doctrine (vs 35b), then its specific application for the disciples (vs 35c). The entire argument concludes with a positive ethical maxim (vs 36). The positive paraenetical application can now be set forth (vss 37-38), accomplished in four maxims composed in two couplets of parallel lines (parallelism us

The outsiders are not named directly. Cf. SM/Matt 5:16; Mark 4:11; 1 Cor 5:12-13; Col4:5; 1 Thess 4:12. See Willem C. van Unnik, "Die Riicksicht auf die Reaktion der Nicht-Christen als Motiv in der altchristlichen Paranese," in his Sparsa collecta, 2.307-22. On these rules see the excursus below on rules for teachers and students.

591

membrorum, vss 37a-b and 37c-38a). Finally, the reader's view is arrested by an impressive verbal image describing the good measure of grain (vs 38b), leading to a concluding principle about giving and receiving (vs 38c).

2. Interpretation a. Conduct toward the Outside World (6:27-38)

• 27 The first ethical rule cites the authoritative doctrine of Jesus (vs 27b). It is introduced rather formally by a

doctrinal formula (vs 27a): "to you who listen I say the following" (VJLLV AEyw TOLS aKOVOvcnv). The initial particle aHa (something like: "and now") 3 marks the beginning of a new section. The addressees are named next ("you"), no doubt because the subsequent text (in fact, the SP in its entirety) is addressed to them. Those who listen (ol aKovovus) are the disciples. 4 The introductory formula 5 is important because it designates the text as authoritative teaching material, similar to the SM. 6 The teaching of Jesus, however, is set forth not in one but in a sequence of four parallel maxims (vss 27-28). They are arranged by parallel lines (parallelismus membrorum) in two sets, the first set in vs 27b-c. 7 The first maxim in the set (vs 27b) states the famous command, "love your enemies" (aya1rau Toh €x6povs VJLwv). The wording is identical with SM/Matt 5:44. The subsequent elaboration concerning the meaning shows that jesus' love-command is regarded as more than simply his authoritative doctrine. Within themselves the four maxims contain an argument that stands in place of the quite different argument made by SM/Matt 5:43-48. The difference is that the SP makes no attempt to justify 3 4

5

6

7

592

the love-command by reference to Torah tradition but assumes that it makes sense on its own, that is, Greek ethical, terms. This assumption implies that as a maxim one is to regard it as self-evident. On the surface, however, jesus' love-command looks paradoxical and even absurd, an appearance that is not denied but explicitly admitted and subsequently clarified. The commandment to love the enemy (vs 27b) is cited, as elsewhere in the New Testament, as jesus' fundamental ethical doctrine. 8 The SP regards this doctrine as authoritative tradition and thus as well known to the Christian community. Hence the reason for citing it here is not to introduce it for the first time but to interpret it appropriately. 9 The second line provides a parallel variation (vs 27c): "Do good to those who hate you" (KaAws 7TOt<'in Toh JLUrovuw vJJ.as). 10 The word "love" (aya1rav) is now identified with "doing good" (KaAws 7TOt£'iv), 11 a general Greek moral term, 12 while the "enemies" (€x6pol) are concretely explained as "those who hate you." Thus loving and hating, doing good and being inimical, interpret each other. Yet the word that needs interpretation most is aya?Tav ("love"), not a common term in Greek moral thought. 13 For the Greeks, the enemy is the opposite of a friend. With the friend one is united in a bond oflove (cjJtAla) that consists of mutual acts of doing good. 14 Therefore, the variation on vs 27c means in effect that the term "love" is interpreted here in the context of friendship, an interpretation that makes good sense to a student of Greek origin. Since such an interpretation is somewhat

See BAGD, s.v. a,\Aa, 3. W adds p.ov, emphasizing that hearing the words of Jesus equals hearing him. See Aland, Synopsis, 104, critical apparatus. This doctrinal formula occurs only here in the SP but more often and more developed in SM/Matt 5:18, 20, 22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44; 6:2, 5, 16, 25, 29; SP /Luke 6:46 mentions the formula indirectly. On the formula see also Betz, Essays, 43-44, 48, 52, 67; also Bultmann, History, 91. The term o[ aKOVOVTf~ ("the listeners") may be a short term defining the disciples as learners. On the meaning of hearing see also SP /Luke 6:4 7, 49; and Betz, Essays, 3-7. Marcion reduces the number of parallels to three by reading in vss 27b-28a Ka\. Ev>toyi
8

9 10 11

12 13

pray"). See Harnack, Marcion, 192*-193*. See the discussion on SM/Matt 5:43-48. For a combination of love-command and Golden Rule see also Ep. Apost. 18 (trans. in NTApoc 1.202). The authority ofJesus' love-command is presupposed throughout. See also SP /Luke 6:32, 35. The line has no parallel in the SP. The expression KaAw~ 1rodw ("do good") occurs only here in the SP; cf. SM/Matt 5:44 v.l. For other usage seeJas 2:8, 19; Matt 12:12; Mark 7:37; Acts 10:33; 1 Cor 7:37-38; Phil4:14; 2 Pet 1: 19; 3 John 6. In SP /Luke 6:33 the synonym ayaOo?rodw occurs. Cf. BAGD, s. v. KaAw~. 3-4a, but Luke 6:27 should be cited in section 4a, not 3. On the occurrence of aya1raw in pre-Christian Greek ethics, see Spicq, Notes, 1.15-30 (with a rich bibliography).

luke 6:27-45

unusual in the New Testament, its purpose here can only be pedagogical. The disciples addressed by the SP are given to understand that the master's commandment to love the enemy is not an alien and incomprehensible law but a part of the familiar friendship doctrines. At the same time, Jesus' love-commandment is shown to be a matter of reality. Verse 22 already has shown that the disciples were objects of hatred. Those who hate them are now identified as the enemies. They must be confronted by the disciples, who in this confrontation need to learn what is the master's command. • 28 How can anyone do good to those who hate that person without making a fool of oneself? Is not such selfhumiliation merely an invitation to add contempt to hatred? The SP answers questions such as these with the argument that seeming excessiveness in doing good is far from absurd. The question is, rather, what is the Christian way of acting ethically when confronting hatred? How can one practically implement jesus' command? The second parallelism in vs 28a-b offers practical ways faithful both to the teaching of Jesus and to the standards of ethics. The variation of Jesus' command in vs 28a identifies a form of hostility common in antiquity: cursing, a magical application of enmity. The ordinary reaction would be to respond in kind and to answer curse with curse. The SP, however, recommends the opposite 14

15

16

of the curse, namely, the blessing: "Bless those who curse you" (
The classic definition is in Aristotle Rhet. 2.4.2, 1380b 36-1381a 3: "Let loving, then, be defined as wishing for anyone the things which we believe good, for his sake but not for our own, and procuring them for him as far as lies in our power. A friend is one who loves and is loved in return, and those who think their relationship is of this character consider themselves friends" (trrrw a~ Tb cf>LAfLV Tb {3oVAErr0ai TLVL (l otErat ftyaOa, fK£lvov lvEKa U.A.Ah. fl~ aVroV, Kat r0 KarU. OVvap.w 7rpaKTt.Khv ETvat. ro6rwv. cplAo~ 0' f.urtv b c/>tAWv Kat U.vrt.cJJLAoVp.Evo~. otovrat OE cplAot £1vat o1 ol!rw~ tx.. v OtOfLWOI 7Tpb~ aAA~Aov~). Cited according to the ed. and trans. by J. H. Freese, Aristotle, The "Art'" of Rhetoric (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1926) 19293. The dative plural vp.'iv ("you") is read by P 73 L Ll. 0 'I' 0135. 1010 pm. Grammatically, both accusative and dative are possible; here the accusative conforms to other occurrences of the pronoun in the verse. See Nestle-Aland, critical apparatus. The context is a collection of maxims on the theme

17 18

19

20

oflove (ayc:b17) in Rom 12:9-21. See Wilson, Love, passim. The saying is part of a cluster of antithetical maxims (1 Cor 4:10-13), similar to the SM. Once again, the efficaciousness of the tongue is attributed to the element of magic implied in acts of blessing and cursing. The explanation given here is: "Then you will have no enemy" (Did. 1.3b). Paul cites the principle in Rom 12: 17 (see n. 16 above), but cf. also Rom 12:21; 13:8; 14:20; 16: 19; 1 Cor 13:5; 2 Cor 13:7; 1 Thess 5:15; and beyond Paul, 1 Pet 3:9, 10-12; 3 John 11. Its fullest development is in SM/Matt 5:38-42.

593

for the kings and potentates and powers and for those who persecute and hate you and the enemies of the cross" ("Orate etiam pro regibus et potestatibus et principibus atque pro persequentibus et odientibus vos et pro inimicis crucis"). 21 The confusion indicated by these sources seems to be caused by the oral tradition of what appears to be teaching material, and for this reason one can assume that the variant traditions are textually independent from each other. Polycarp (Phil. 2.2) also reminds us of the common way to respond to a curse with a countercurse. Such were spells to protect (cfJVA.aKdpwv) or to render the curse ineffective (A.vuupapp.aKov) or to contain anger (8vp.oKctToxov). 22 But since none of these magical spells was ethically acceptable to Christians, 23 other means of counteraction had to be found. Such a means resides in a form of "good magic," the blessing. The next line (vs 28b) presents another variation of means for dealing with the enemy. The question here is, What is to be done to those who mistreat someone? One would ordinarily bring such mistreatment before the courts. But this recourse is ruled out here, either because it is improper for Christians to go to court (cf. SM/Matt 5:21-26) or 21

22

23

24

25

594

because going to court would be of no use. Equally improper for Christians would be the infliction of damages by magic. 24 Instead, the Christian worship service-in particular, the prayer of intercession-is recommended as the appropriate way to deal with mistreatment: "Pray for those who mistreat you" (7TpOu£-6x£u(J£ 7T€p\. Tc;JV f7T7]p€a(6vTWV vp.as). 25 One may assume that from a very early time the prayer of intercession was part of Christian prayer life. 2 6 In a situation of powerlessness, it would appear to have been the most acceptable course for a victim of abuse to turn to God as the avenger of injustice. 27 The advice here, however, is not to invoke his wrath on the evildoer but to plead for forgiveness on behalf of the evildoer. What is the purpose of such an action? Ancient thought would indeed have judged it morally noble and an act worthy of imitation, not sentimental or stupid. 28 One may assume, therefore, that an attitude such as the recommended one makes moral sense to Greeks of the Hellenistic era. This conclusion may even be underscored by the use of the verb f7T1Jp€ct(£Lv ("threaten," "mistreat"), a good Greek classical term otherwise rare in the New Testament. 29 Furthermore, the passion

SeeP. Oxy. 1224, folio 2, col. 1 (see above on SM/Matt 5:44);Justin Martyr Apol. 1.14.3; 15.9; Dial. 35.8; 96.3; 133.6; Didascalia syriaca V, 14, 22 (ed. Funk); cf. Arthur Voobus, The Didascalia apostolorum in Syriac I (CSCO 401-2, 407-8; Louvain: Peeters, 1979) chap. III, p. 32, lines 14-17: "And you shall not hate any man, but you shall reprove some, and have compassion on others. But pray because of these. However, love those more than (you do) yourself." For the discussion ofthe parallels, see Bultmann, History, 324-25; Koester, Synoptische Uberlieferung, 220-26. For examples see PGM IV.1596-1715; VII.311-16; 317-18 (<j>vAaKr~ptov); XXXVI.178 (Avcn<j>apfl-aKov); IV.467-68; XIII.250; XXXVI.l61-77; LXXIX.17; LXXX.1-5 (6vf1-oKaroxov). For translations see Betz, Greek Magical Papyri, ad loc. Magic appears early in Christian catalogs of vices. See Gal5:20 (see Betz, Galatians, 284); Rev 21:8; 22:15; Did. 2.2; 5.1; Bam. 20.1; cf. IgnatiusEph. 19.3. For examples of magical infliction of damages, see, e.g., PGM IV.396-466; XII.365-75, 376-96; and for the translations see Betz, Greek Magical Papyri, ad loc. W pc Clement provide a connection with the preceding by adding Kai ("and"). The preposition lmtp ("on behalf of") instead of or
26 27 28 29

by AD 8 0135 A <j> pllatt Clement Origen (or
Luke 6:27-45

narrative of Luke has made Jesus an example for his commandment when he prays on the cross (Luke 23:34): "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do."3o One should note also that the verbs used in vss 27-28 circumscribe what is meant by an enemy: one who hates, curses, and mistreats. Thus, the Christian is asked to pray on behalf of the oppressor rather than to retaliate. This recommendation agrees substantially with the interpretation of the ius talionis ("law of equal retribution") in SM/Matt 5:38-42. The recommendation later became part of the early Christian martyrdom ethos, of which Luke 23:34 and Acts 7:60 may be the earliest instances. • 29 The four maxims of vss 27-28 are followed by a set of four examples of abuse, exaggerated no doubt for the sake of demonstration. Each example envisions both an act of violence and a recommendation for reaction. The first two examples (vs 29a-b) are specific, the last two (vs 30a-b) general in nature. The reactions are stated in alternating fashion: positively (vs 29a), negatively (vs 29b), positively (vs 30a), negatively (vs 30b). 31 What do these four examples demonstrate? What is their connection with the context? We are apparently entering here into a more extended argument concerning the maxims (vss 27-28), of which they are a part. The examples (vss 29-30) bring to the fore the paradoxical, even absurd, nature of the maxims, and in 30

particular of jesus' love-command (vs 27b). Indeed, seen from the Greek perspective of time, the absurdity of this command was too obvious to ignore or easily explain away. 32 While vs 28 presented the claim that it is a reasonable ethical position to take, vss 29-30 seem to serve primarily a pedagogical function by admitting what would easily be the students' objections to the maxims. The four imaginary cases 33 demonstrate the absurd consequences of jesus' maxims when put into practice. They leave one with the question: Is this sort of thing really what jesus demands and what Christian ethics consists of? Indeed it is. Yet the following section (vss 3135) will point out that it is not as unreasonable a position as it would appear initially. Thus one must not mistakenly understand these four examples as commands in themselves, although they are in fact commands grammatically; they are in reality merely illustrations in an ongoing argument exaggerated by design. Verse 29 contains the first example of beating, a specific act of humiliation, and the proposed reaction: "To the one who hits you on (your) one cheek, offer also the other" (Tip T{;7TTOVT{ CTf f7TL T~V CTtayova 7rclPfXf Kat T~V ll.A.A.rJV). 34 This example must have been associated with

Since the prayer is found only in part of the manuscript witnesses of Luke 23:34, the question arises whether it was an original element in Luke's Gospel or a later interpolation that became accepted by a large number of good witnesses. Jesus' prayer appears clearly to be the implementation of his command in SP /Luke 6:28a. The insertion must have been done in the course of the interpretation of Jesus' life by his own teaching. This interpretation occurs especially in the passion tradition and seems to precede the Gospel writers. One can see the influence of SP /Luke 6:28a also in other texts, showing that it became a motive of the martyrdom ethos (see Acts 7:60 and the Gospel of the Nazarenes according to a medieval excerpt (for which see NTApoc 1.164, no. 35]). Evidently, therefore, Luke knew of the prayer, probably on the basis of his source for Acts 7, the Stephen tradition, so that one could argue for its attestation also in Luke 6:28a. Nonetheless, the number and quality of witnesses that do not read it is impressive. See the critical apparatus in NestleAiand; Aland, Synopsis; and Greeven, Synopsis; also

31

32 33 34

Metzger, Textual Commentary, 180; Grundmann, Lukas, 432-33. Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.347-49) argues that vss 29-30 were combined already in the pre-Lukan source but that originally the examples had existed separately. Indeed, one must draw this conclusion in view of the parallel in SM/Matt 5:39-42. See above on SM/Matt 5:39-42. Tannehill (Sword ofHis Mouth, 67-77) has shown that these examples use exaggeration. Variants in the manuscript tradition are due to harmonization of the SP with the SM. For the evidence, see the critical apparatus in Nestle-Aland, and Aland, Synopsis.

595

the following one (vs 27b) even in the earlier tradition, because they appear together in a similar context in SM/Matt 5:39. In this parallel, however, wording and argumentation are rather different. 35 Furthermore, the example in vs 27a seems to have influenced the passion narratives; but the depiction of Jesus as being beaten and not retaliating in kind conforms more to SM/Matt 5:39a than to the SP (see Matt 26:67/ /Mark 14:65//Luke 22:63-64; John 18:22-23; 19:3). 36 Paul affords another example in Acts 23:2-5, when he reacts to his being struck on his mouth by conforming to the example of Jesus. 37 None of these references in the narratives explicitly mentions either the SM or the SP. If there was influence by these texts, it must have occurred at the presynaptic level. In antiquity, as it is today, striking a person on the cheek with the hand was an act of severe humiliation. 38 While the ordinary retaliative behavior is to hit back, the strange recommendation of the SP is not to hit back but to offer the other cheek as well, obviously an invitation to another blow. What can this action be but an expression of weakness and stupidity? Even though the act appears contemptible, it is not. To see this recommendation as proposing total inaction or humble submission is a misreading. Rather, the recommendation proposes taking the initiative, by which stance the conventional act of humiliation becomes an act of provocation that calls into question the entire posture of the assailant. The example of hitting another on the cheek is traditional in at least two ways. First, in the SP it is thought to come from Jesus himself, and this assumption 35

36 37

38

596

is confirmed by the parallels in SM/Matt 5:3 and Did. 1.4. The discussion of SP /Luke 6:32-35 does not repeat the example. Moreover, a similar example is traditional in Greek ethical discussion. In the context of the discussion on "doing and suffering wrong" (alltKt:'i'v Kat aotKt:'i'uOat) in Plato's Gorg. 509C, Callicles and Socrates refer to the proverbial box on the ear as an example of the worst kind of disgrace: "to be wrongfully boxed on the ear is the deepest disgrace" (rh n'nrnuOat i'lTt Kopp1JS alllKWS aruxtuTOV t:tvat [508D-E]). A person who must suffer such maltreatment without defense is "unable either to succour himself, or to deliver himself or anyone else from the greatest dangers, but [is] like to be stripped by his enemies of all his substance, and to live in his city as an absolute outcast" (486C). Socrates adds to this description of maltreatment (ovnlll(nv [508D]) expropriation of property, expulsion from the city, and death. One can ascribe these last allusions to Plato; they refer to Socrates' death. Other passages confirm that the example served as an illustration in ethical discussion at the time of the New Testament. One can conclude, therefore, that Gentile-Christian disciples may well have been familiar with it and that the argument in the SP, provocative as it is, was not as absurd as SP /Luke 6:29a would appear to suggest. The term 'lTap€xnv ("offer," "give a gift"), 39 found only here in the SP, 40 is used with purpose. It indicates that the reaction consists of a gift offering, the other cheek. Alluding to the Golden Rule (see below on SP /Luke 6:31 ), the one who reacts in such a way in fact acts by asking for a counteroffer of generosity, rather than more violence.

See above on SM/Matt 5:38-42, and in a similar context Did. 1.4: "If someone gives you a blow on your right cheek, turn to him also the other, and you will be perfect" (fO.v TiS O"OL ac;. pd:TrLO"/'-a fLS T~V af~LaV u'ay&va, urpf1Jlov aVr~ Kat T~V Cl.AA:rw Kallu'[J rfAftoS ). Ps.-Clem. Hom. 15.5.5 cites the example as a demonstration of Christian philanthropy. For the failure to comply and Jesus' reaction, see Luke 22:50-51. Cf. also 2 Cor 11:20, where Paul asks sarcastically: "For you (simply) bear it, ... if someone strikes you in the face" (avtx
39 40

evangelium, 1.34 7 n. 32) points out, Luke 6:29, 3233 may have influenced 1 Pet 2:18-19. Furthermore, see above on SM/Matt 5:39. There is no reason, however, for proposing that either Matthew or Luke changed the wording of their respective sources. Rather, the SP and the SM use different terminology. Differently, Harnack (Sprilche, 45 [Sayings, 59]), who has had many followers. Schurmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.347) assumes influence of LXX Isa 50:6, but one cannot demonstrate this influence for the SP. See BAGD, s.v. 7raptxw, 1. For this meaning see esp. Acts 28:2; I Tim 6:17; Titus 2:7. SM/Matt 5:39 uses a different term not implying a gift offering:
Luke 6:27-45

The second example in vs 29b is constructed in the same way as the first, except that the reaction is stated negatively: "and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt" (Katll.'lrO TOV arpovn~s- ITOV TO tfAanov Kat TOv XLTwva fA~ KooAvuvs-). 41 The example occurs also in SM/Matt 5:40 but with a different interpretation. The SM has a court action in mind, 42 while the SP describes a robber who attempts to "take away" 43 by force one's coat. 44 Instead of trying to prevent the robbery, 45 the victim is ordered to hand over his shirt as well. 46 This example must have circulated widely in early Christianity and has found its way into a variety of texts, taking on different forms in the course of the history of the tradition. 4 7 Despite the variety, the point is clearly the paradoxical nature of Christian behavior. 48 In the present context of the SP, however, a special point is made. If the robber proves to be "generous," in that he is only after the victim's overcoat, he is outdone by the even greater generosity of the victim. As in the previous example, the whole episode resembles an absurd exchange of gifts. The paradoxical reaction of the victim counters the violence by making a gift, no doubt a 41

42

43 44

45 46 47

challenge to respond in kind. This response is the method of Christian ethics, not, as some may surmise, going naked. 49 • 30 The third example (vs 30a) changes from specificity (vs 29a and b) to generality: "To the one who begs from you, give" ('1TavTt alTovvTlu£ lllllov). 50 The connection between the two sets of examples seems to exist by virtue of catchword. 51 The same example as the one in vs 30a appears in the parallel section in SM/Matt 5:42a, and it is attested as well in other passages. 52 The situation envisages a beggar who stretches out his hand. It has always been both common expectation and common habit not to pass by such a person, but to give him something. The recommendation, therefore, conforms to ancient morality, and especially to the whole complex of ideas and attitudes associated with giving and receiving, 53 which is in turn related to the Golden Rule (vs 31). Absurdity enters the picture, however, when the demand is made that one give something to every ('1TavTl) 54 petitioner. No amount is specified, but the

Variant readings, esp. by Marcion, appear to mix tbe SP with the SM, but they are also similar to the Didache. See Harnack, Marcion, 193*; and Aland, Synopsis, 104. SM/Matt 5:40 envisions a court case, in which Ka\ rOu xtrWva). See also Justin A pol. 1.16.1 (cited in Aland, Synopsis, 106): "To the one who strikes you on your cheek offer also tbe other, and do not deny your coat to the one who takes your shirt" (ri!> TtJ'Irrovla-ov r~v a-&ayova w
I,.&.nov fL~ KlllA~
48

This example may be connected to the act of depriving Jesus of his garments in the passion narratives (Mark 15:24//Matt 24:35//Luke 23:34//John 19:23). 49 But nakedness is also a metaphor for total deprivation and exposure. See Matt 25:36, 38, 43, 44; Rom 8:35; 2 Cor 11:27; furthermore Mark 14:52; John 21:7; Acts 19:16; 2 Cor 5:3; Rev 3:17; 16:15; 17:16. See BAGD, s.v. yvfLVO~, )!VfLVOT7j~ ("naked, nakedness"). 50 The article rii> before alro~vr& is read by some witnesses (K L Rjl 565. 1241. 1424 pc). Others have a~ rii> (AD 0 E 'It 0135jl3 9.Jllat); so according to Nestle-Aland, critical apparatus. This variation may be the result of harmonization with SM/Matt 5:42 or simply a grammatical improvement. 51 wapixro ("present") and ala"'fL' ("give"). 52 For passages see above ~n SM/Matt 5:42 and 7:711; Did. 1.5;JustinApol. 1.15.10; Clement Alex. Quis divessalvetur 31.9 (GCS, vol. 3, p. 18l,line 2). 53 See 2 Cor 9:7: "God loves a cheerful giver." For a discussion of the implications of this saying, see Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 105-9. 54 The position of "every" at the beginning of the statement is underlining its importance; differently SM/Matt 5:42. Did. 1.5 has added a different explanation (my trans.): "To everyone who asks you,

597

assumption can only be (see vs 38 below) that it should be a generous gift. Whoever follows this advice will soon run out of things to give. Will such a generous giver not soon become the victim of cleverness, deception, and greediness on the part of petitioners? Will such a generous person not soon have to go begging himsel£? 55 Or, to raise another question, what can one give if one owns nothing that can be given? 56 Is this obvious foolishness all that Christian ethics demands? Indeed, it is, but as the ensuing discussion will reveal, the demand is not as unreasonable as it would appear. 57 Still, Did. 1.5-6 demonstrates that such generosity quickly generated new forms of abuse that required regulation and explanation: Give to everyone who asks you and do not refuse. For the Father wills that to everyone be given from the gifts we have received. Blessed is he who gives according to the command, for he is without fault. Woe to him who takes! For if anyone receives having a need, he is without fault, but he who receives without having a need will be given punishment for why he took and for what; when he is in prison he shall be examined about what he has done, and "he shall not

55

56

598

come out from there, until he has repaid the last penny." 58 But regarding this issue it was also said, "Let your alms sweat in your hands until you know to whom you give." 59 The fourth example (vs 30b), more violent than the third, is also general in nature: "and from him who takes away your posse~ions do not ask them back" (Ka'r. a"ITO rov arpoVTOS p.~ Ct"ITalnl). SM/Matt 5:42b contains a similar example but it is formulated very differently. 60 In the SP, the fourth example is conjoined with the second in vs 29b by catchword, showing that all four examples are connected by similar terms. 61 Compared with vs 30a, vs 30b presents the opposite case: if vs 30a has as the focal person a servile beggar, vs 30b shows a brutal expropriator. The recommended reaction assumes that the victim is somehow in a position 62 to recover the stolen goods. 63 Yet he is advised to forgo this chance for recovery, thereby turning the theft into a generous gift. Is this cheerful indifference to one's property the demand of Christian ethics? Apparently so, but the SP does not advocate lack of responsibility. The intended meaning is that by giving up the chance of retrieval, the victim takes the initiative and offers a generous gift to

give and do not ask it back. For the Father's will is that to all be given [sc. a ponion] out of his own gifts of grace" (?TaUT\ T~ alrofivrl UE alOov Ka\ p.1, O.walT£1." ......... yap Bf.AfL alaou8aL 0 ... ar~p '" rwv lalwv xaptup.thwv). The reason is that what is given is not one's own possession and that giving is simply a passing on of the divine beneficences. Cf. Doctr. apost. 8a-b (ed. Wohleb; 2.8, ed. Rordorf). This was the lot of Timon the Misanthrope in Lucian's piece so named. Timon was once wealthy but is now dirt-poor, "ruined by kind-heartedness and philanthropy and compassion on all those who

ra ua

57

58 59 60 61

were in want" (XP7Jur6T1/f ~wJrp&'\frev aVrhv Kal <#JtAav8pwwla Ka\ 0 wphs roils 0Eop.lvovs ClwavraS' aLKTDS' 62 [Tim. 8]). Cited according to the LCL edition, Lucian (trans. A.M. Harmon; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 63 University Press; London: Heinemann, 1915) 2.33435. Acts 3:6 assumes this situation, when Peter says to the beggar at the Temple gate: "Silver and gold I do not have, but what I have that I give to you." By contrast, the rich man in Mark 10:17-22 par. has much to give and is yet unable to follow Jesus' commandment: "Go and give all that you have to the poor." Cf. Mark 14:25 par.; funhermore Mark 12:41-44 par.; 14:3-9 par.; 2 Cor 8:3 (on this passage see Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 45-46); Acts

20:35; Did. 1.5; 2 Clem. 2.1. For practical considerations about how much to give see SM/Matt 6:3; Luke 19:8; Acts 5:1-1 0; 2 Cor 8:11-12 (for the meaning of "according to their means" [£tc rov E'xfLv] see Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 65-66); also 1 Cor 16:1-4. Cf. SM/Matt 5:26; Luke 12:59. The trans. is mine. Cf. Sir 12:1-7; see Rordorf, La doctrine, 147 n. 5. See above on SM/Matt 5:42. Cf. ...apf.xw, "present" (vs 29a), p.~ tcw>..fJw, "not prevent" (vs 29b), p.~ ibatrf.w, "not demand back" (vs 30b). Differently Did. 1.4: "for neither are you able to" (ov a~ yap afJvauat), apparently assuming the opposite. The verb lmatdw means "demand something back." See also the parallels in Did. 1.4, 5; Hermas Sim. 8.1.5. See BAGD, s.v. 1; Wettstein, 1.694, referring to Lucian Hermotimus 18: aav£l(ovras tcallr.,.atrovvras ,.,tcpws ("those who lend money and demand it back with cruelty").

Luke 6:27-45

the offender, no doubt expecting the perpetrator to respond in kind. • 31 After the serious questioning ofJesus' commandments (vss 27-28) in vss 29-30, a positive argument begins, to demonstrate their reasonableness. This positive argument first explains the ethical principles underlying Jesus' way of thinking, beginning with the statement of the Golden Rule: "And as you wish that people do to you, do to them in the same way" (Kat Ka6w~ 6i>..~u Yva 71'0Lrouw ot l1.v6pro7rOL, 71'0L~th al!To'i:~ bp.olror). 64 The argument assumes, therefore, that this principle underlies Jesus' commandments (vss 27-28) as well as their subsequent discussion. This assumption is far from evident, however, especially since the Golden Rule can be, and often is, misunderstood. Therefore, to facilitate a proper understanding, a commentary on the Golden Rule is supplied in vss 32-35. As in SM/Matt 7: 12, the SP also cites the Golden Rule in its positive form, 65 but there are important differences. One cannot explain convincingly the variant wording in the SP by the hypothesis of redactional changes made by the Gospel writer. 66 Textual examination indicates that: (1) The SP has no parallel to SM/Matt 7:12c: "For this is the law and the prophets." The omission implies that the SP as a whole shows no interest in matters of Jewish law. 67 (2) While the SM is primarily concerned with the justification of the ethics of Jesus by obedience to the Torah, the SP focuses on personal attitudes. 68 (3) The use of "all" (7ravTa), typically emphasized in the SM, is given somewhat less emphasis in the SP. 69 64

These differences indicate that for the SP, the Golden Rule serves as an ethical principle, the truth of which is self-evident and not in need of support by authorities such as "the law and the prophets." It functions in the SP as it usually functions in Greek ethical discussions. The parallels and the differences between the SM and the SP demonstrate how the ethics of Jesus could be negotiated simultaneously within the cultural and religious contexts of both Jewish and Gentile Christianity. While the SM version of the Golden Rule is composed of four elements, the version in the SP has only three, but these three are identical to those in the SM: first, the anticipated desirable reaction by "people"; 70 second, the recommended action based on that anticipation; and, finally, the underlying presupposition of do ut des ("I give so that you may give" in return). 71 There seems to be no grammatical difficulty in understanding vs 31. The structure of the sentence is chiastic, so that 'just as" (Ka6ci>~) and "in the same way" (bp.olro~) correspond to each other at the beginning and the end. Verse 31a insinuates that the Christians wish to be treated in a friendly manner by the outsiders, called here "people" (o1l1.v6pro7roL), 72 while vs 31 b recommends taking the initiative and treating "people" in just that friendly way. 73 Albrecht Dihle has questioned this

Marcion has removed the lack of clarity in the SP by reformulating it (my trans.): "And as you wish that things happen to you from the side ofthe people, so a)SO you shall do tO them" (Kat Ka8t.Js vp.tV y{v«r8aL 8EAETE waph. rWv O.v8p6Jwrov, oifTco Kai -bp.ei~ wotliTE avro'is). See Harnack, Marcion, 245*. Further

65 66 67

68 69

70 clarification is represented by r 1 sy' when they add the object KaAa ("good things") to the verb, or by IC A 71 D L WeE 'I' 0135JL 13 (565) ~ lat syh, when they 72 add the subject Kat vp.<'is ("and you"). The shorter and more ambiguous text is read by p7Svid B. 700. 1241 it 73 syP. See Nestle-Aland, critical apparatus. For a discussion of the Golden Rule and bibliography, see above on SM/Matt 7:12. See also Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.350 n. 55; Schulz, Q, 139-41; Zeller, Mahnspruche, 117-20. On this general difference see also above, pp. 86-88.

So, rightly, Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.350 n. 55. occurs in the SP four times (Luke 6:26, 30, 40, 4 7) as compared to sixteen times in the SM (Matt 5:11, 15, 18, 22, 28, 32; 6:29, 32, 33; 7:8, 12, 17, 19, 21, 24, 26). So, rightly, Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.351; Merklein, Gottesherrschaft, 244-45. On this point see above, p. 512. For this notion see also SP /Luke 6:22, 26; cf. 6:45, 48, 49. Merx (Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, 2/2.223) proposes that the variant reading adding KaAa ("good things") as the object of the "doing" ofthe people (r 1 sy') must be original because only in this way does the meaning become clear. Precisely this clarification, which is not really needed, speaks against its originality. Merx refers to the parallel in Ps.-Clem. Hom. was

599

interpretation, however, by taking 'ITO&€'iT€ ("you do") to be an indicative rather than an imperative, so that it is descriptive of general human conduct and not of the anticipated conduct of the disciples. 7 4 This common conduct would then stand in contrast to the new ethical imperatives of jesus. One cannot reconcile Dible's interpretation with the contextual argument, where the Golden Rule and Jesus' commandment do not oppose each other. Rather, the argument attempts to demonstrate that Jesus' commandments are reasonable because one can understand them properly in the light of the Golden Rule, a principle widely accepted in antiquity. 75 • 32 The commentary on the Golden Rule (vs 31) begins with a refutation of its misinterpretation (vss 32-34). This refutation consists of three rhetorical questions, each followed by an implicit answer. The three arguments are remarkably Greek in nature. Their logic is that of Hellenistic moral discussions on benevolence (xap,~).76

The first question considers the notion of love (a:ya'ITav, vs 27b) as it is conventionally understood-and misunderstood: "And if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?" (Kal. €1 aya'ITaT€ TOV~

74 75 76

77

600

aya'ITWVTa~ bp.a~. 'ITOla bp.'iv xap&~ iCTTtv;). What is stated here as a hypothetical assumption is in fact a misunderstanding of the Christian concept of agape ("love") as an exchange of favors. Greek ethics did understand love and friendship in terms of an exchange of favors; but the Greeks construed the granting of such favors merely as responses to favors received to be false love and friendship. 77 True love and friendship do not wait for another to act and do not cease, even when rejected. 78 The question ofvs 32b, "What credit is that to you?" must, therefore, be answered: "None." The term xap&~ is used here with its secular meaning of "grace or favor felt. " 79 It belongs to the common ancient understanding of personal relationships as exchanges of favors that build credit in the eyes of the partner. On the part of the bestower, xap&~ involves some kind of gift, be it material or incorporeal, 80 while on the part of the receiver, it generates gratefulness and obligation. 81 As Sophocles aptly puts it: "Favor generates favor" (~ xap&~ xapw cpEp€&). 82 Herodotus reasons that such favors "lay up a store of gratitude in a person's heart. "83 Social life consists in nothing more than a network of such obligations. 84 Thus the translation "What credit is this to

7.4 (82.36): "Whatever good things everyone wants for himself, those same things he should want also for his neighbor" (ll.1r£p E'KauTos ~avTi!> flotJA£Ta& Ka11.~, Ta aha flov11.£vtu8oo Kal TfP 'lrA'Ijulov). Cf. also Ps..Clem. Hom. 109.14; 132. Dihle, Goldene Regel, 113-14. On Dihle, see above on SM/Matt 7:12. Against Dihle also Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.350 n. 56, 351-52. Basic to this whole matter oflove and hate (&11£'iv Kal j.L&
78 79

80 81 82

83 84

it public after doing it; for then it seems to be rendered for the sake of the friends, and not for any other reason" (1ro&'ljT&Ka ll~ .P•Xlas x~p&s, Kal TO I'~ ll£1j8tVTos 'lrO&fjua&, Kal TO 'lrO&~uavTa I'~ ll7j1l.roua&· al>Tov ')'O.p oifTws lvEKa f/>alvEral. Kal oV ~,&. rt lrEpov). Cited according to Freese's edition and translation (see above, n. 14). But it is disgraceful "to accept favours from another and often, and then to throw them in his teeth" (ibid., 2.6.1 0, 1384a 3-4). See furthermore about the person to whom benevolence is given, ibid. 2.7.1-6, 1385a 16-1385b 12. See 2 Cor 12:15b; Rom 5:8, 10; 1 Cor 13:4-7; Gal 4:12-20, etc. LSJ, s.v. x~p&s, II, from which the following passages are taken. For some parallels see also Wettstein, 1.694. LSJ, s.v. X~PIS, 11.1. Ibid., 11.2. Sophocles Oed. Col. 779; similarly Ajax 522; Euripides Helena 1234; Aristotle Rhet. 2.7.1-6, 1385a 161385b 10. Herodotus 6.43; 7.178; Antiphon 136.127; Thucydides 1.33. Cf. the expression X~PIV o.p£lA£1V ("owe gratitude") in Sophocles Ant. 331; Xenophon Cyr. 3.2.30. See LSJ, s.v. x~p•s, 11.2.

Luke 6:27-45

you?" attempts to capture both the meaning of the word and the assumptions associated with it. 85 That the credit is established with people, not with God, disqualifies the exchange of favors from being an adequate definition of love (agape). 86 The proof of the argument is derived from life experience (vs 32c): "For even the sinners love those who love them" .(Kat yap ap.apTCilAOt TOVS aya"lTWVTas a·hoh aya7Twcnv). 87 Indeed, sinners-even criminalsexchange favors; in their own way, they love those who love them. One can even take the term ap.apTWAdS here both in the religious ("sinner") and in the secular ("offender," "criminal") sense. That such a meaning is possible is suggested not only by Greek sources 88 but also by the New Testament itsel£. 89 In the SPin particular, the term "sinners" defines Gentiles from a jewish perspective, suggesting that the disciples addressed by the SP dissociate themselves from behavior characteristic of non-Christians, 90 just as the parallel in the JewishChristian SM sets itself apart from the tax collectors and the pagans (SM/Matt 5:46-47). In conclusion, the practice described in vs 32c is not only common but also non-Christian. It is thereby disqualified from having any value for Christian ethics, or, indeed, for ethics generally. • 33 The second rhetorical question is constructed parallel to the first (vs 32) but with significant dif85

86

87

88 89 90

ferences. Conspicuous is the change of the verb in vs 33a: "And when you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you?" (Kat [yap] £av aya807TOLijTE TOVS aya807TOLOVVTas ilp.as, 7Tola ilp.'iv xapts £unv;). Grammatically difficult is the connection at the beginning of the sentence. Perhaps the common Kat yap ("for indeed") has become confused with another beginning Kat Mv ("and when"), resulting in redundancy 91 and the postposition of Mv. 92 At any rate, instead of the conjunction Et ("if") in vs 32a, vs 33a (and vs 34a, too) has £av with the subjunctive, denoting "that which under certain circumstances is expected from an existing general or concrete standpoint in the present: 'case of expectation and iterative case in present time."' 93 Hence, the meaning is the same as that in vs 32a, using Et with the indicative"a simple conditional assumption with emphasis on the reality of the assumption (not of what is being assumed)." 94 BDF explains the change between vss 32a and 33a as a case of"encroachment of E1 on the sphere of Mv," 95 made perhaps for the simple reason of providing variation among the three clauses (vss 32a, 33a, 34a). The change of the verb from "love" (aya7Tav) to "do good" (aya8o7TOLav) parallels the similar change of the same verb in Jesus' commandment in vs 27b to "do good" (aya8o7TOLE'iv"), which is a common term in Hellenistic ethical texts. 96 The SP uses it only here and in vs 35; the SM does not use it at all, while elsewhere in the New

Following BAGD, s.v. x6.pts, 11.2.b, with reference to Luke 6:33; Did. 1.3; 2 Clem. 13.4; etc.; differently, Hans Conzelmann, "xalpw KTA.," TDNT 9.392 (D.1.b); also 373-75 (A.1.a). For further material and discussion, see Spicq, Notes, 2.960-66; Klaus Berger, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. x6.pts; Betz, 2 Gorinthians 8 and 9, index, s.v. x6.pts. Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.353) thinks also here of "reward with God," but for the phrase "credit with God" onehastowait until vs35. The sentence is not read by sy'. The variant reading in D adds .-ov.-o 1I"Otovcnv ("for even the sinners do this, [when) they love those who love them"). See Nestle-Aland, critical apparatus on this passage. The variant reading seems to be a later explanation, perhaps influenced by the parallel in SM/Matt 5:46c, 47c. See LSJ, s.v., ap.apTwA..;s. The evidence is collected in BAGD, s.v. ap.ap.-wA..;s. Cf. Gal2:15, and on that passage Betz, Galatians, 115 n. 25; furthermore Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.353 n. 79; Marshall, Luke, 262-63.

91

92 93 94 95 96

The y6.p ("for") is omitted in some of the tradition, and for good reason (M 2 AD L W 0 8 'I' 0135 jl 3 9Jl latt sy co); it is read, however, by P 75 M* B 700, all important witnesses, so that one should prefer the more difficult reading. See Nestle-Aland, critical apparatus. It is, however, acceptable in Greek. See BAGD, s.v. £6.v, I. BDF, § 371 (4); BDR, § 371, 4. BDF, § 371 (1); BDR, § 371, 1. BDF, § 372 (3); BDR, § 371, 3. For references see LSJ and BAGD, s.v. aya8o1rodw; Walter Grundmann, "ayae.;s KTA..," TDNT 1.17-18; Spicq, Notes, 1.11-14.

601

Testament it is prominent in passages showing heavy Hellenistic influence. 97 The argument presented is parallel to that in vs 32, but the change of verb leads to a change as well in the statement in vs 33c: "For even the sinners (criminals) do the same thing" (Kat OL ap.aprwA.ot TO ailrh ?Totovuw). 98 If sinners and criminals do good toward each other, the very meaning of the term "good" is lost. In this sense, vs 33 goes beyond vs 32 in that now the self-contradiction is evident so that the misinterpretation of the Golden Rule, if taken in this way, is also evident. • 34 While the first two questions (vss 32a, 33a) are of a general nature, the last one (vs 34a) considers a specific issue, the lending of money: "And when you lend (money to those) from whom you expect to get (it back), what credit is that tO you?" (Kat (av OaVlU1/T£ ?Tap' <1v (A.1T[(£T£ A.af3£'iv, 1rola vp.'i.v xapts [(urlv ];). 99 The basic argument is the same as that of the two previous questions, 100 but there are some fine points of difference. Formally, the identity of the verbs in the description of mutuality is given up. Regarding content, there is a sudden turn to a specific issue. Doubtless this turn is planned, probably for pedagogical reasons, because it keeps the reader alert. 101 Nevertheless, the question remains: Why is the issue of 97

98

99

100 101

602

moneylending brought in at this point? Moneylending was certainly a widely discussed issue at the time, both in Judaism and in Hellenistic ethics. 10 2 For example, Demonsthenes (Or. 37.52) cites the proverb, "The Athenians hate the moneylenders," but the question demands a more specific answer.l 03 The change of topic to the issue of moneylending may be suggested by the previous questions, especially that of vs 33. If the exchange of favors exists even among "sinners," such exchanges are business operations. All commerce amounts to an exchange of goods. There is no better demonstration of commerce than the process of lending money. It is a matter of do ut des: the lender gives away money in hopes of a return of the capital-and, if possible, of interest. The implications for the argument in vss 32-34 are clear: one is not to confuse mutual favors such as described here with either ethical conduct generally or Christian conduct in particular; they are simply business affairs. The main reason, however, for introducing the issue of moneylending here is that it has traditionally been connected with the topic of commerce, both in Judaism 104 and in Greek ethics, 105 a fact that both

See esp. Mark 3:4/ /Luke 6:9; Acts 14:17; 1 Pet 2:15, 20; 3:6, 17 (for the noun see 4: 19; the adjective, 2:14); 3 John 11; 2 Clem. 10.2; Hermas Vis. 3.5, 9; Sim. 9.18; etc. For more references see BAGD and PGL, s.v. aya8o1rodw. The Latin equivalent is benefacere ("confer a benefit"). See Polycarp Phil. 10.2, and for the Latin OLD, s.v. benefacio, etc. After Kai many witnesses add yap (AD LB E 'I' 0135 jl3 9Jt lat syP·h), as one would expect from the parallels in the other sentences. The tradition, however, is divided not only here (IC B W 700. 892*. 1241 pc r 1 sy') but also in vs 34b. See Nestle-Aland, critical apparatus. The question is whether one should read f. pl read a7ro)o.a{je'iv as in vs 34c. Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.354) exaggerates the differences. Cf. Black, Approach, 137-38, who finds all kinds of difficulties that he then tries to explain by way of Aramaic paronomasia (recurrence of the same word stem).

102 On the term llav(e)i(w ("lend money") see BAGD and Gerd Petzke, EWNT(EDNT) 1, s.v. llavi(w KTA. On the economic issues see Raymond Bogaert, "Geld (Geldwirtschaft)," RAG 9 (1976) 797-907, esp. 8068,822-23,825-30,842-43,846-47,854,855,856, 901-3. 103 The active "lend (money)" occurs only here in the NT (vss 34a, band 35) and in Apoc. Pet. 16.31, which describes the punishment of sinners in hell: "These are the ones who lent money and asked back interest upon interest" (oVrot 0~ ~o-av ol Oav£l(ovrEr Kat a7raiTOVVTEr r6Kovr T6Kwv). The middle llavei(eCT8at ("borrow") occurs in the parallel SM/Matt 5:42. Regarding cancelling a loan, see also Matt 18:27, and the moneylender (llav[<)L
Luke 6:27-45

Bolkestein and van Unnik have pointed out. 106 Lending for the purpose of getting a return is good business practice; lending without requiring a return is benevolence toward the needy. According to Aristotle, it is meanness incompatible with friendship when some engage in "making gain out of their friends, to whom they ought to give." 107 One should note that the text in vs 34a does not criticize the lending of money in itself as ethically objectionable; it simply describes the process. Lending money involves a risk: the lender can do nothing but hope to regain it. Hence money is given only to those deemed worthy of credit. The terms tll.7rl(w ("hope") 108 and ll.ap.fJavw ("take") 109 are used here in the business sense. The object of the "taking" is left unspecified; it could be the repayment of the capital, the additional payment of interest, or the granting of future loans by the lender .I 10 The point is not capital or interest but the process itself. 111

106

107 108

109

110

The evidence stated in vs 34b makes yet another point: "even sinners lend to sinners, for the purpose of receiving the same (amounts) in return" (Kal ap.apTWAOl ap.aprwll.o'is liavl(ovcnv, tva &7roll.af3wcnv rlz rua.). 11 2 The term lL7Toll.ap.fJavw as a business term 113 is ordinary Greek and the sense is clear. Different from ll.ap.fJavw ("take") in vs 34a, &7roll.ap.f3avw shifts the emphasis to the earning of returns as the purpose for the lending. The meaning of ra rua is, however, unclear. Does it refer to "the same amount as was lent" or to "similar services in return"? 114 The point does not appear to be taking of interest as a moral issue, 115 but the equivalency ofthe exchange, so that "the equal amounts" (rlz rua) must refer to the sum of money the lender hopes to regain. 11 6

37; 49; 56; Plato Leg. 742a-c; 754e; Rep. 408c. Aristotle deals with the matter in the chapter on liberality (~1lEv8Epuh7Js) in Eth. Nic. 4, addressing also the opposite, "meanness" (avE1lEv8Epla), e.g., "petty usurers who lend money in small sums at a high rate of interest" (~.>.q, [4.1.40, 1121b 36]). They are to be judged under the term of "sordid greed" (altr)(pOKEpll{a). Theophrastus (Characteres 30) describes this type. See also 1 Tim 3:8; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 5:2; and BAGD, s.v. altr)(pOKEpll~s KTA. See Bolkestein, Wohltiltigkeit, 107-8, 156-70,31718,471-73. Van Unnik ("Die Motivierung," in Sparsa collecta, 1.125-26) says correctly: "DaB Lukas also das Wort vom 'Leihen' hier angeschlossen hat, tater nicht nur, urn ein vergessenes Thema nachzuholen, sondern wei) dies in dem griechischen Bereich auch eine gewisse Verwandtschaft hatte" ("Luke has joined here the saying concerning lending not only to supplement a forgotten topic but because it is somewhat akin in the Greek context") (my trans.). Aristotle Eth. Nic. 4.1.43, 1122a 11-12. See BAGD, s.v. ~>.wl(ro, 2, with the translation, "from whom you expect to receive again." For the use of the business term see the material in Spicq, Notes, 3.259-72, esp. 261-63. Spicq (ibid., 261 n. 2) notes as NT parallels Acts 26:26, which in turn interprets 16:19. For >.ap.fjavro as a business term, see BAGD, s.v., l.d, which gives Mark 12:1; Matt 17:24, 25; 21:34; Heb 7:8-9 as instances, but not Luke 6:34. See the discussion by Gustav Stahlin, •ruos KTA.," TDNT 3.344-45; Marshall, Luke, 263.

111 Stii.hlin is right in pointing to the do ut des principle ("I give so that you may give [sc. likewise]") and to relate it to the concept of revenge in SM/Matt 5:38. Christian love is not compatible with it; see 1 Cor 13:5: "(Love) does not chalk up the evil" ([~ l.y&.w7J] o.O Aoyl(€Tat. -rb KaKOv). 112 Parallel to vss 32c and 33c many witnesses begin the statement with Kal yap ("for also"): A De 0135 j1.1 3 lat sy. But omission is equally strongly favored by p7 5 IC B L wE 'I' 700. 892 pc. The ambiguous Ta rua is left out by D it sy', perhaps because of its ambiguity, and sa reads ll&w>.a ("double"). See the critical apparatus in Nestle-Aiand, and Aland, Synopsis, 105. 113 BAGD (s.v. awo>.ap.fjavro, 1) notes the commercial application ofthe term and refers to Luke 16:25; 18:30 v.l.; 23:41; 2 Clem. 9.5; 11.4, and others. See Stahlin, TDNT 3.344-45; Preisigke, Wiirterbuch, 1.183-84; 4/1.247-48, s.v. awo>.ap.fjavro. 114 The first option is preferred by Grundmann, Lukas, 149; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.353; the latter by Marshall, Luke, 263. Fitzmyer (Luke, 1.625), in effect, makes no decision, translating as "to get something." 115 Therefore, if the issue of taking interest occurs here, it is introduced from other contexts, especially OT and Jewish parallels. 116 So BAGD, s.v. ruos, "receive an equal amount in return." Cf. Stahlin, TDNT 3.345, who leaves the matter undecided. The evidence of the inscriptions proves important; it is now assembled in Spicq, Notes, 3.355-56; he translates the words ofvs 34 (356): "les pecheurs escompetent recouvrer )'equivalent, une

603

The implication is that in the lending of money, one does nothing to another person that one can ethically call "love" or "doing good." Nothing is given to or bestowed on the other person, and there is no exchange of favors as is constitutive of love or friendship. 117 The lending of money is simply a business transaction, 118 enacted out of self-interest; it is not an exchange of anything. Thus it is a grave misunderstanding to confuse such business transactions with compliance to the Golden Rule. • 35 After refuting the incorrect understanding of the Golden Rule (vs 31) and its misapplication to the commandments of Jesus (vs 27), the commentary moves to the presentation of the correct understanding. This highly condensed argument is made in two parts. First, a set of three imperatives restates Jesus' commandments, now including the important interpretation (vs 35b-c), for which a theological rationale is provided (vs 35d). Verse 36 then presents the conclusion to the entire argument (vss 27-35).

In vs 35a, the turning point is marked by 71"A~v ("but"): 119 "But (you shall) love your enemies, and do good, and lend money expecting nothing in return" (7rA~V ltya7J"art: roh ~x8povs vp..wv Kat ltya8o7J"OL£LH Kat oavl(£u p..7]0fV li71"£A7rl(ovns ). 1 2° The three imperatives employ the same verbs as do vss 32-34; they are formulated positively, the first and second being general, the third, specific. The restatement of jesus' commands takes into account the Golden Rule, properly understood, and affirms them as conforming to that Rule. 121 The critical difference from vs 34 is expressed by the additional phrase p..7]o€v li71"£A7rl(ovns, of which the textual form as well as the meaning are disputed. The phrase presents a classic problem for textual criticism. 1 22 The majority of witnesses read p..7Jo€v li71"£A7rl(ovus ("expect nothing in return"); but a few important manuscripts have p..7]0(v.a li71"£A7rl(ovns ("disappoint no one"), which also corresponds to the customary meaning of the word.I 23 The problem may easily be attributed to

restitution egale a Ia somme pretee." It is interesting that Aristotle, when dealing with the occasions for benevolence (xap•~). exemplifies by distinguishing "similar, equal, or greater services" (raVra ~ i~a ~ 11-•l(w [Rhet. 2.7.6, 1385b 10]). 117 The proper context, therefore, is not friendship but relations with neighbors and associates. See LXX Exod 22:24-26; Lev 25:35-38; Deut 23:20; Sir 29:1-7; Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 83, with the commentary by van der Horst, Sentences, 171-72. This context is also found in ancient Greek ethics. Hesiod (Erga 346-55; see West's commentary, 243-45) treats it under the topic of "good neighbors." Aristotle (Rhet. 2.6.6-7, 1383b 25-34) has it in the section dealing with matters of which men are ashamed (2.6.1-26): "And to refuse assistance in money matters when we are able to render it, or to give Jess than we can; to accept assistance from those less able to afford it than ourselves; to borrow when anyone seems likely to ask for a loan, to ask for a loan from one who wants his money back, and asking for repayment from one who wants to borrow; to praise in order to seem to be asking for a loan, and when you have failed to obtain it to keep on asking; for all these are signs of stinginess" (Kal rh 1'-h f3oTJ8iiv ovvai'-EIJOJJ ·l~ XP~/'-aTa, ~ 1]rrov f3oTJ8£iv. Kal rh f3o7J8liu8at 1rapa rwv 1]rrov
118

119 120 121 122

12 3

London: Heinemann, 1926) 210-13. See also the section on benevolence, Rhet. 2.7.3-6, 1385a 211385b 10. In Eth. Nic. 8.13.1, 1162b 5-8, Aristotle distinguishes between friendship of utility(~ Kara rh XP~Ut/'-OV cptA.la) and true friends (ol Kar' ap•rhv cplA.ot). The true friends "vie with each other in giving and not getting benefit"(<~ opav aAA~AOV~ 7rpo8v11-ovvrat [1162b 8]), while friends of utility complain that the other is taking advantage (8.13.4, 1162b 16-21). Indeed, this friendship of utility is nothing but a commercial affair, "whether it be purely a business matter of exchange on the spot, or a more liberal accommodation for future repayment, though still with an agreement as to the quid pro quo"(~ 1'-f" 7TQ.fl7rav Cz:yop£la fK xnp0s ElS' xlipa, ~ ()( O.vtAtv8Eptooripa ds XPOvov, Ka8' Op.oAoylav Of rl lz.vrl rwo~ [8.13.6, 1162b 26-28]). The trans. is by H. Rackham, Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics (LCL; rev. ed.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London: Heinemann, 1934) 507. See also the following discussion 8.13. 7-11, 1162b 31-1163a 23. For this conjunction, see also SP /Luke 6:24. In sy'·P bo avro'i~ is added, making sure the "doing good" is directed toward the enemies. So also Marshall, Luke, 263-64. For major discussions of this problem, see Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece, 1.488-89; and the major commentaries on the Greek text of Luke. So in the reading of IC W 8 pc sy'·P according to the critical apparatus in Nestle-Aland. This reading is adopted also by Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights

Luke 6:27-45

scribal error. Is it a case of haplography or dittography?124 Each is equally possible. Then there is the lexicographical problem. The ordinary meaning of CL7TEA7rl(w is "to give up in despair,"125 which would require a personal ("despair of no one") or impersonal ("despair of nothing") object. The impersonal object would favor the meaning "expect nothing in return," but this meaning is not attested elsewhere in the Greek language prior to Chrysostom (5th century CE); 126 it would amount to a linguistic anomaly in the New Testament. Hence, attempts were made to explain the word as misspelled. 127 Furthermore, one must consider the context. The understanding "expect nothing in return" is based on the assumption that it is parallel to vs 34, while the variant "disappoint no one" connects with the doctrine of love discussed in the entire passage. But "expecting nothing in return" is also part of the doctrine of love, and both can appeal to 1 Cor 13:4-7 for the interpretation oflove (agape). 1 2 8 The dilemma thus seems insoluble on merely textcritical or lexicographical grounds. One can advance additional reasons for adopting the Nestle-Aland text: first, textually it is the more difficult reading and should thus prevail; second, the variant reading requires the additional assumption that one must not disappoint the enemies whom one is supposed to love. This reading, however, implies something of an internal contradiction:

it presupposes the meaning of Jesus' commandments as seen through the false interpretation of the Golden Rule (vss 32-34). Moreover, the meaning of the participle tL7feA7rl(ovre~ appears to be general rather than specific. Such persuasive reasoning leads to the conclusion that "expecting nothing in return" is the correct translation. This conclusion, however, does not answer the question of whether reference is being made here to general benevolence or to a specific prohibition of taking interest on loans, or the practice of usury. To answer this question, one must first of all consider the general context of ethics and also be aware of the issues of law and business as they were practiced in antiquity. In the SP, the passage occurs, appropriately, in a context discussing acts of benevolence. A remarkable consensus on these issues exists in other Greek and Roman deliberations on benevolence, and specifically on the question of what constitutes benevolence. Benevolence requires a gift (xapt~). and one must distinguish this concept from business investments such as loans carrying interest (Bavel(ew h'r. r6K~ ). 129 Aristotle's definitions regarding benevolence became standard in the Greek and Roman world. In his Rhet. 2. 7-8, he defines benevolence (xapt~) as a rendering of

into the New Testament (Edinburgh: Clark, 1965) 3235. Cf. also Plummer's (Luke, 187-88) rendering as "giving up nothing in despair." Merx (Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, 2/2.223-26) tries to recon-

124 125 126 127

Oxford: E. Pickard Hall &J. H. Stacy, 1864-81) 3.40; idem, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament: Being the Otium Norvicense (pars tertia) reprinted

(with an addition by the author, ed. with a preface by struct the sequence of corruptions. Wettstein (1.695) A. M. Knight; Cambridge: Cambridge University, lists parallels to nihil desperantes ("nothing in despair"). 1899) 59 (with an additional note). Metzger (Textual Commentary, 141 ): "the result of 128 Erasmus (Annotationes in Novum Testamentum [1555], dittography." So also Spicq, Notes, 1.121. 1 91) discusses usury when commenting on Luke 6:30 See LSJ and BAGD, s.v. (L.,.,A.,.{(w; RudolfBultmann, and 6:35. He rightly sees a difference: in 6:30, the TDNT 2.533-34; Spicq, Notes, 1.119-21. question is not usury but the mutual obligations See PGL, s.v. (L.,.,A.,.{(w, C, for references. among friends (" Agit enim non de quaestu See Theodore Reinach ("Mutuum date, nihil inde foeneratorum, sed de mutuis officijs amicorum inter sperantes," Revue des etudes grecques 6 [1894]52; cf. ipsos"); in 6:35, the implications are usury, as the RB 4 [ 1895]116) for the conjecture avr
605

service to persons in situations of need, offered "not in return for something nor in the interest of him who renders it, but in that of the recipient." 130 In other words, if something is given "for a return, it is not a gift." 131 He then turns to the matter of pity (€'A.£o~). 132 noteworthy because benevolence and pity in that order also occur in SP /Luke 6:35-36 as well as in Sir 29:113.133 Similarly Aristotle's Eth. Nic. 4.1.6-27, 1120a 41121 a 9 characterizes the man of liberal giving ( £A.£v8epto~) as one who "will give for the nobility of giving." 134 He is to be contrasted with the "mean" one (o av£AdJ8£po~) who "takes from every source and all he can." 135 Thus one must distinguish benevolent gifts from loans that require repayment. 136 At several places Philo of Alexandria states views in remarkable agreement with those of Aristotle. 137 Indeed, he appears to draw on the general philosophical consensus of the time, because De Beneficiis, the great work of Seneca on benevolence, also confirms his views. 138 Philo (Spec. leg. 2.39) discusses the issue at length in the context of his interpretation of the Fourth Commandment, the sanctity of the seventh day, and subjected to that topic is the cancellation of debts (XP£WK07T{a [ibid., 2.71-78]). According to Philo's apologetic argument, cancellation of debts makes eminent sense "as a succour to the poor and as a challenge to the rich to show humanity, in order that by

o

giving some share of their own to the needy they may expect to receive the same kindness themselves, if any disaster befall them." 139 Turning to the interpretation ofDeut 15:1-3, Philo suggests that the best way of dealing with debts is simply to cancel them and turn them into benevolent gifts to the debtors. Because such magnanimity would be unrealistic (Philo Spec. leg. 2.72), however, Deut 15:1-3 represents a less painful compromise when the collection of money is restricted to non-Jews and prohibited to fellow Jews. The distinction lies in the differing obligations owed to kinship and outsiders (Philo Spec. leg. 2. 73). Then Philo roundly condemns moneylending for interest: "Now lending money on interest is a blameworthy action." 140 He especially scolds the moneylenders for pretending to act out of charity while in fact worsening the borrower's situation: "Why do you assume outwardly a kindly and charitable appearance but display in your actions inhumanity and a savage brutality, exacting more than you lend, sometimes double, reducing the pauper to further depths ofpoverty?" 141 In the light of these apparent abuses of the time, the Hebrew law makes eminently good sense if moneylenders are to be restricted to regaining only their capital outlay and prevented from enriching themselves through the misfortunes of others. The borrowers should benefit from the law by having to "pay neither simple nor

lalwu p.traar.a6vres ltw6pot5' XP7Jura ~eat wep\ aVrG>v .1 y€vo&r6 r• 1rra'iup.a. Cited according to Ibid., 2.7.5, 1385b 6-7: ap...v6ep•os Seneca De ben. 1.1.3: asking for repayment of benefit oltv aC:,u£1. roV KaAoV ~VEKa. is shameful, "for from the nature of such a trust, we Ibid., 4.1.40, 1121b 32-33: rif> 1r&.vro6•v >.ap.fJILv<&V have a right to receive back only what is voluntarily ' ~ K41.'1fQV, returned" ("id enim genus huius crediti est, ex quo Idem, Rhet. 2.6. 7, 1383b 28-31. tantum recipiendum sit, quantum ultro refertur"). Philo Spec. leg. 2.74-78; 2.122; Virt. 82-87; Leg. Gaj. 141 Philo Spec. leg. 2.75 (ed. Colson; seen. 139): rl ahif> 343; Poster. C. 142. p.~v aoK
130 Aristotle Rhet. 2.7.2, 1385a 18-19: p.~ avrl TIVOS, p.7Ja' Yva rr. aVr~ VwovpyoVvrL, 4AA' Yva iKElvcp·

131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138

139

7r>.ovcrlovs

606

£1rl
7rpocraoKrou&V,

Luke 6:27-45

compound interest but just the principal." 14 2 Unlike Aristotle, Philo (Spec. leg. 2. 78) classifies such interestfree loans as benevolences (xaptns). If Philo agrees with the Hellenistic distinction of benevolence and business investment, he also maintains the opposition against usury reflected in the Old Testament tradition. 143 This opposition seems to have been shared by Hellenistic judaism more generally, 144 and it is. not surprising that it was taken over by early Christian sources influenced by it. 145 As far as SP /Luke 6:35 is concerned, one can say that the matter of interest is mentioned only by implication; 146 but when one turns to the juristic and economic fine points, the question of interest emerges. Apart from the question of whether SP /Luke 6:35 speaks of interest, one must consider the technical terminology used in the passage. 147 Commonly, a "gift" (oouts) carries no obligation of repayment or payment of interest. But one must distinguish a gift from a "loan"

called oav£Lov 148 or xpijuts, 149 which must be repaid (!hootoovat). If the debtor fails to repay, he is fined (ihrorlvHv). Loans may carry interest, in which case they are called PvroiCos, or they may be given without interest (ltro1Cos). 150 Interest-free loans were extended within the family and among friends. P. W. Pestman 151 provides examples from the Greco-Egyptian papyri that include loan agreements between a father and his son, 15 2 or between brothers, 153 or simply in the family .I 5 4 He proposes the idea that "the motive of the creditor for allowing the loan may, in the above cases, be a gesture of good will towards the debtor." 155 This practice of giving interest-free loans among "brothers" not only agrees with Philo's recommendation (see above) but also explains why such loans are the concern of the SP. The recommendation is a gesture of goodwill intended to turn an enemy into a friend. Thus it conforms to the Golden Rule and to the love-command of jesus. It conforms as well to Greek ethics: "for no one makes a deposit except

142 Ibid.: T6Kovs Kat E'lrtToKias p.~ u.\ovvus. 143 Besides the passages inn. 140 above, see Pss 15:5; 109:11; Prov 28:8; Neh 5:7; Ezek 18:8, 13, 17; 22:12. See Samuel Sandmel, "Money-lending," EJ 12 (1971) 244-56; Edward Neufeld, "The Prohibitions against Loans at Interest in Ancient Hebrew Laws," HUCA 26 (1955) 355-412; Robert P. Maloney, "Usury in Greek, Roman and Rabbinic Thought," Traditio 27 (1971) 79-109; idem, "Usury and Restrictions on Interest-Taking in the Ancient Near East," CBQ 36 (1974) 1-20; Hillel Gamoran, "The Biblical Law against Loans on Interest," JNES 30 (1971) 127-34; idem, "Talmudic Usury Laws and Biblical Laws," ]Sf 7 (1976) 129-42; Eberhard Klingenberg, Das israelitische Zinsverbot in Torah, Mishna und Talmud (AAWLM.G 177.7; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1977); Raymond Bogaert, "Geld (Geldwirtschaft)," RAC 9 (1976) 797-907 (bibliography), esp. 847; Hillel Gamoran, "The Talmudic Law of Mortgages in View of the Prohibition against Lending on Interest," HUCA 52 (1981) 153-62. 144 See Josephus Ap. 2.208. 145 Apoc. Pet. 16.31 describes those punished in hell: oVrot Sf ~o-av of: OavEl(ovrEs Kallt'1TatroVvr£S' r6Kovs T6Kwv ("these were those who were lending money

and charging interest on interest"). Cf. Hermas Man. 8.10; Cos. Thom. log. 95. In the parable ofthe Talents (Matt 25:14-30//Luke 19:11-27), loans on interest are accepted as common practice (Matt 25:27/ /Luke 19:23). 146 Verse 35 is, therefore, parallel to vs 30: vs 30 demands turning things taken by force into a gift,

147

148 149

150 151 152 153 154 155

while vs 36 demands turning a loan into a gift. By comparison, SM/Matt 5:42b speaks of turning away a potential borrower. If loans are to be treated as charity, no wonder people stop lending altogether. On this point cf. Did. 1.5-6. See Helmut Ernst Finckh, "Das Zinsrecht der grakoagyptischen Papyri" (diss., Erlangen, 1962);Johannes Herrmann, "Zinssatze und Zinsgeschafte im Recht der grako-agyptischen Papyri," j]P 14 (1962) 23-31; Hanno Kuhnert, "Zum Kreditgeschaft in den hellenistischen Papyri Agyptens his Diokletian" (diss., Freiburg i.Br., 1965); Hans-Albert Rupprecht, Untersuchungen zum Darlehen im Recht der griikoiigyptischen Papyri der Ptolemiierzeit (MBPF 51; Munich: Beck, 1967); P. W. Pestman, "Loans Bearing No Interest?" JJP 16-17 (1971) 7-29; idem, The New Papyrological Primer (5th ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1990) 118-20 (no. 19). See Aristotle Problemata 29.2, 950a 78-950b 4. Idem, Eth. Nic. 8.13.7, 1162b 31-34. Cf. Rupprecht, Untersuchungen (seen. 14 7), 8. Aristotle discusses the matter in the context of friendship. See Rupprecht, Untersuchungen, 64-73. Pestman, "Loans" (seen. 147), 17-18. Papyri Londinenses III, p. 9, no. 1203 (Pathyris, 114/113 BCE). Papyri Londinenses III, p. 15, no. 1205 (100-99 BCE). See the family archive ofDionysios, son ofKephalas (Papyrus Reinach 1 (114/113-103 BCE)). Pestman, "Loans" (seen. 14 7), 18.

607

with a man whom he trusts. But when a debt is involved, there is no friend; for if a man is a friend he does not lend but gives." 156 It is, therefore, by no means farfetched if the church fathers bring the issue of interest into the discussion. The first to interpret SP /Luke 6:35 in terms of the prohibition of interest seems to have been Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4.17 .4). In the history of the ancient and medieval church, this interpretation has had momentous consequences. Using primarily Old Testament passages and, to a lesser extent, New Testament texts from the SP and the SM, the church fathers condemned interest-carrying loans as incompatible with the Christian morallife. 157 Church councils finally took action, denouncing the practice and threatening Christians engaged in it with excommunication. 158 One result was that the moneylending industry moved increasingly into the hands of the Jews, to whom canon law did not apply and to whom Scripture permitted lending to non-Jews. Such concen-

tration of the business in the hands of Jews helped to prepare the ground for the pogroms, persecutions, and expropriations directed against Jews from the Middle Ages to the twentieth century. 159 The Protestant reformers were also deeply suspicious of moneylending. 16 Calvin declared that he was not opposed to it in principle but considered the practice dubious. 161 He accordingly demanded laws to keep the banking business within the bounds of Christian ethics as expressed in the teachings of jesus in the SM and the SP. This compromise eventually won the approval of governmental supervision as we know it. In conclusion, it seems clear that one must understand SP /Luke 6:35 as a position adopted in the Hellenistic debates on benevolence, recommending benevolence and ruling out its confusion with business investments. Business investments are not necessarily ruled out in principle, but they have no place in a manual of Christian discipleship.

156 Aristotle Problemata 29.2, 950a 31-33: ovo<'t~ yap

Sermon vom Wucher" (1520) (WA 6.36-60, esp. p. 48 on Luke 6:35); idem, "Von Kaufhandlung und Wucher" (1524) (WA 15.293-322, esp. p. 301 on yap oav..o~' a>..>.. a oiow<TIV. Cited according to the ed. and trans. by W. S. Hett, Luke 6:34); trans. Charles M.Jacobs and Walther E. Aristotle, Problems II (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Brandt, Luther's Works, vol. 45 (Philadelphia: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, Muhlenberg, 1962) 245-310 (on Luke 6:34-35 see 1937) 136-37. pp. 290-91). See Franz Xaver Funk, Geschichte des kirchlichen 161 Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels, 1.196 (on Luke 6:35): "This utterance has been wrongly attached to usury, Zinsverbotes (Tiibingen: Laupp, 1876); E. Sehling, as though He were only forbidding His own to lend "Wucher, kirchliche Gesetze dariiber," RE 21 (1908) 521-28; Calvin Elliott, Usury: A Scriptural, Ethical and capital for interest. Clearly, from the earlier part of Economic View (Millersburg, Ohio: Anti-Usury the speech, it has a wider application .... Christ only wished that the faithful in lending should go further League, 1902); Patrick Cleary, The Church and Usury: An Essay on Some Historical and Theological Aspects of than profane men, meaning, that is, that they should Money-Lending (Dublin: Gill, 1914). aim at pure liberality." For further discussion see Karl Holl, "Die Frage des Zinsnehmens und des See Funk, Geschichte, 14. Wuchers in der reformierten Kirche" (1922), in his See t. B. Me~. 70b, s.v. tashikh, cited by Haim Herman Cohn, "Usury," EJ 16 (1971) 27-33, esp. 32: "If Gesammelte Aufsiitze, 3.385-403; Henri Hauser, "Les idees economiques de Calvin," in his Les Debuts du we nowadays allow interest to be taken from nonJews, it is because there is no end to the yoke and the Capitalisme (Paris: Alcan, 1927) 45-79; idem, burden king and ministers impose on us, and "L'Economie Calvinienne," Societe de l'histoire du everything we take is the minimum for our protestantismefran~ais 84 (1935) 227-42; Ernst Ramp, subsistence, and anyhow we are condemned to live in Das Zinsproblem: Eine historische Untersuchung the midst of the nations and cannot earn our living in (Abhandlungen zur Geschichte des schweizerischen any other manner except by money dealings with Protestantismus 4; Zurich: Zwingli, 1949); Albert Hyma, "The Economic Ideas of John Calvin," in his them; therefore the taking of interest is not to be prohibited." On this point see Johann Joseph Ignaz Renaissance to Reformation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951) 440-66; Andre Bieler, La pensee economique et von Dollinger, "The Jews in Europe," in his Studies in European History (trans. Margaret Warre; London: sociale de Calvin (Publications de Ia faculte des sciences economiques et sociales de l'universite de John Murray, 1890) 210-42, esp. 224-33. See Martin Luther's "(Kleiner) Sermon vom Geneve 13; Geneva: Georg, 1959). Wucher" (1519) (WA 6.1-8); idem, "(GroBer) 7rapaKaTarl8£raq.t~ 7TtCTTE'6wv.

ov

157

158 159

160

608

°

oV ot rh XPEo~, olJ cplAo~·

Luke 6:27-45

The issue of benevolence also marks one of the points of difference between the SP and the SM. Corresponding to its Jewish-Christian character, the SM speaks of · benevolence only in terms of the Jewish equivalent, almsgiving (SM/Matt 6:2-4). Moneylending, however, does enter the picture at one point in SM/Matt 5:42b, which states that one should not turn away someone who asks for a loan. One can thus see SM/Matt 6:2-4 as a parallel to SP /Luke 6:35. The renunciation of return is not, however, an expression of "pure altruism." Rather, it is part of a doctrine of reward that is Jewish in origin. Forgoing a reward in this world is justified in that it preserves the reward for the world to come. The argument is thus similar to that in the SM, especially Matt 6:1-6, 16-18, which state that since one can claim reward and suffer punishment for a deed only once, forgoing such claims in this life establishes the right to them in the world to come. Therefore vs 35b-c constitutes not two superfluous promises but an integral part of the argument. 162 The only remarkable thing is that this doctrine, Jewish in nature, is being applied to Gentile Christians. 163 The first of the promises (vs 35b) reads: "Then your reward will be great" (KalluTaL b JLLu8o~ VJL;;>V "lTOAv~). Although similar to SP /Luke 6:23b and SM/Matt 5:12, differences exist: Luke 6:35b is stated in the future tense and refers to the eschatological future, 164 while SP / Luke 6:23b and SM/Matt 5: 12b are stated in the present tense with even the future tense implied in the phrase "in heaven," a reference (perhaps} absent in SP/Luke 6:35b. 165 The disciples in the SM appear already to

possess the reward, but it is stored away in heaven, as "a treasure in heaven" (SM/Matt 6:20); yet its benefits are used already during this life. In SP /Luke, however, the reward is to be claimed only in the future. It is not yet there; it is promised only because the granting of it depends on other factors. The ethical actions commanded in vs 35a also lie in the future, so that one's actual entitlement to the reward depends on the performimce of those ethical actions. The implication, therefore, is that Gentile Christians are also obliged to accumulate a treasure in heaven and that they can do so on the basis of Jesus' commandment. This doctrine is diametrically opposed to Paul's theology, in which the reward (if one should use this term) has been earned by Christ through his sacrificial death on the cross, and in which the Christians are related to that reward through faith inJesus Christ. 166 Yet even if Paul does not expect Gentiles to accumulate their own reward in heaven, they must not destroy Christ's accomplishment and must remain "unblemished" during their earthly life, so that the apostle can present them as a "pure bride" to the Lord at the last judgment (2 Cor 11 :2). 1 6 7 The second promise (vs 35c) specifies the object of the first and does not appear to be a separate promise in content: "and you will be sons of the Most High" (Kal lu£u8£ dol vtluTov). 168 This promise is known from SM/Matt 5:9b, 45a, 169 and seems to come from older Jewish tradition. 170 Again, the surprising thing here is that the promise is made to Gentiles. How can this promise apply to them?

165 The question is whether lv Ttp ovpav!p ("in heaven") 162 Against Schurmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.355), who should be read with a and I, or lv rols ovpavols ("in refers to Engelbert Neuhiiusler, Anspruch und Antwort the heavens") with ~ecorr a pc aur c r 1 sy'. So according Gottes: Zur Lehre von den Weisungen innerhalb der synoptischen Jesusverkilndigung (Dusseldorf: Patmos, to Aland, Synopsis, 105. The evidence for this reading is not strong, however, and appears to be a har1962) 47 n. 25. monization with Luke 6:23b or Matt 5: 12b (see 163 This possibility may have been provided by Jewish Aland, ibid., 103, for similar variants). The full thought itself at the time, perhaps even more than later sources suggest. Cf. Exod. Rab. 31.4, comstatement is certainly in conformity with the SP and menting on Ps 15:5: "Anyone who has riches and the SM. 166 See Betz, Galatians, 115-19, on Gal2:15-16. gives charity to the poor, and does not lend on interest is regarded as if he observed all the com167 See also I Thess 2:19-20; 3:11-13; 5:23-24; Rom 8:31-39 (and on this passage see Betz, Essays, 153). mandments" (trans. S. M. Lehrmann, Midrash 168 Marcion substitutes 8eov ("God") for v>Jrl
609

We know from Paul's letters in particular that such a promise was controversial in primitive Christianity and that Paul defended its application to his Gentile-Christian churches in the face of opposition. 1 71 If such a promise is made here, then, it reflects an older doctrine of the church rather than later Lukan redaction. 172 Such an assumption indicates a pre-Pauline origin and character and would afford additional evidence for the pre-Pauline history of the doctrine of justification as applied to Gentile Christians. 1 7 3 The use of the divine epithet (6) iJVncrro<; ("the Most High") is worth consideration at this point. As we know from many attestations, among them those in the New Testament, 174 the epithet was most popular in the Hellenistic-Jewish Diaspora, 175 whence it seems to have entered Christian theology. Why was it so appealing? The answer may lie in the fact that it was able both to render a Hebrew epithet of God 176 and was familiar to non-Jews. 177 If, as I assume, the SP is an early text rather than a Lukan creation, the appearance of this epithet in the SP represents further testimony for the appeal of early Christian theology to non-Jews. 178 Verse 35d offers the soteriological reason for granting

the reward to the Gentiles: "for he himself is benevolent to the ungrateful and evil" (I:Jn avTO<; XP1/0"T6<; EO"TLV hi. roh axaplcrTOV<; Kat 7TOV7jpOv<; ). 179 The introductory I:Jn ("for") seems to have a peculiar force here, apart from indicating that the following material supports the preceding. It functions almost as a quotation mark and introduces one of the most important theological doctrines of antiquity, divine philanthropy. 180 The doctrine is pre-Christian in origin and was at the time accepted virtually everywhere in ancient religion. Even its present formulation in vs 35d has nothing specifically Christian; the statement reads more like an appeal to doctrine on which all can agree. The avr6<; ("he himself' [i.e., God]) is reminiscent of hymic language, in which mode the whole statement seems to have its proper place. 181 The attribute XP1/crT6<; is almost technical in this context and should be rendered as "benevofent." 182 It is prominent everywhere in GrecoRoman religious contexts, 183 includingjudaism 184 and Christianity. 185 Divine benevolence stands in stark contrast to human failure to respond in kind. The phrase "toward the ungrateful and bad" (E7Tt TOV<; axapLO"TOV<; Kat 7TOV7jpOv<;)

171 See esp. Gal3:6-9, 26-28, 29; 4:4-6, 21-31; and Betz, Galatians, on these passages. 172 For further discussion on this point, see Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.355; Marshall, Luke, 264-65. 173 See Betz, Galatians, 116-18. 174 Here, as in Luke 1:32, the angel's greeting to Mary, and in 1:76, the Benedictus, the epithet is used without the article, while elsewhere it is with the article: Mark 5:7/ /Luke 8:28; Acts 7:48; 16:17; Heb 7:1 (LXX Gen 14:17-20); 1 Clem. 29.2; 45.7; 52.3; 59.3; Ignatius Rom., inscriptio. Cf. Luke 2:14, in the doxology: "Glory be to God in the highest" lv v..picrTOLf Oei/>). 175 For references see BAGD, s.v., lJ..P
(oo'a

610

Documents, 1.25-29 (no. 5). 178 See the material in Bertram, TDNT 8.617 with nn. 41-43. On the function of divine epithets generally, see Burkhard Gladigow, "Gottesnamen (Gottesepitheta)I (allgemein)," RAG 11 (1981) 1202-38. 179 The position of avr6r is emphatic. P 4 5 has apparently turned things around; see Aland, Synopsis, 105. 180 For this concept, see the basic work by Bolkestein, WohltiUigkeit, passim; and A. S. Pease, M. Tulli Ciceronis De natura deorum (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1955) 2.689-90 (on Cicero De nat. dear. 2.60); Ulrich Luck, "cfnl\av8pw.,.ia KTA.," TDNT 9.107-12, esp. 107-10 (A.1-2 and B); Spicq, Notes, 1. 922-27; Betz, Lukian, 49; Morton Smith in PECL 1.34-35; Donald A. Stoike in PECL 1.280; PECL 2, index s.v. cfnl\av8pw.,.ia. See also Traute Adam, Clementia Principis: Der EinfiuB hellenistischer Fiirstenspiegel auf den Versuch einer rechtlichen Fundierung des Prinzipats durch Seneca (Kieler historische Studien 11; Stuttgart: Klett, 1970). 181 Cf., e.g., Acts 17:25; Eph 2:14; 4:10, 11; 5:23; Col 1:17, 18; Heb 13:5; 1John2:2; 4:10, 19; Rev 17:11; 19:15. See BAGD, s.v. avr6r. 182 RSV, NEB,JB, REB, NRSV, and Fitzmyer (Luke, 1.626) render as "kind." Vg has "benignus." 183 BAGD (s. v. XP7Jcrr6r, 1.b) renders as "kind, loving, benevolent," and notes that cp
Luke 6:27-45

makes an important anthropological statement, again reflecting Hellenistic moral and religious sentiment. I86 Of first importance is the play on the words XPTJrTTO<; ("benevolent") and xapL<; ("favor") in COntrast to axapLUT.O<; ("ungrateful"). ,People who cannot answer positively the question about their xapL<; ("favor") in VSS 32b and 34b are "without favor" (axapturot), that is, ungracious 187 ~the same as ungrateful. 188 This figure of speech, termed paronomasia, 189 seems to have been popular in antiquity; students were familiar with it and it appears to have appealed to them. The combination "ungrateful and evil" (axapturos Kat 'lTOV7JpOs) 190 implies that at the root of human immorality lies ungratefulness, 191 while thankfulness toward the deity is the foundation of both good religion and ethics. 192 What does all this mean for the SP? In sum, the difference between common behavior and Christian ethos is that the former merely reacts to favors received while the .latter takes an initiative, acting first. The

Christian can be generous because God deals with humanity, especially with the ungrateful and the evildoers, with the same generosity. Moreover, since such spontaneous conduct imitates the divine philanthropy, the Christian is promised a great reward in heaven. The result of the whole argument thus far is that Jesus' love-command (vs 27b), if properly interpreted by the Golden Rule (vs 31), corresponds to God's philanthropy. God also loves his enemies and does not expect anything in return, even though gratitude is certainly the appropriate return. The proper ethical conduct for the Christian can therefore only be to imitate God in his

synonym in Herodian 4.3.3; Philo Leg. Gaj. 67. See Konrad WeiB, XPTJ
184 185

186

187

188 See the Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University, 1971), vol. 2, s.v. "ungracious" and "ungrateful." s. v. XPTJavEpbV ~~~ KaliJIJEV lLaLplttTIJaL lvlJ'x_ETaL T~V XtlPLV Kal Unforgiving Servant (Matt 18:23-35), when "he .,.o,ilv lLxapl
611

philanthropy. 193 This point basically concludes the argument in vss 2735.Jesus' command to love the enemy has been shown to be by no means stupid or absurd but in conformity with the basic idea of Hellenistic religion and morality. This morality, however, differs from that of the classical period. !socrates sums up the difference when he advises Demonicus: "Bestow your favours on the good; for a goodly treasury is a store of gratitude laid up in the heart of an honest man. If you benefit bad men, you will have the same reward as those who feed stray dogs; for these snarl alike at those who give them food and at the passing stranger; and just so base men wrong alike those who help and those who harm them." 194 Hellenistic, and especially Stoic, philosophy thinks differently. 195 For example, Seneca says, "'If you are imitating the gods,' you say, 'then bestow benefits also upon the ungrateful; for the sun rises upon the wicked, and the sea lies open also to pirates.'" 196 Similarly Marcus Aurelius: "When men blame or hate thee or give utterance to some such feelings against thee, turn to their souls, enter into them, and see what sort of men they are. Thou wilt perceive that thou needest not be

concerned as to what they think of thee. The Gods too lend them aid in diverse ways by dreams and oracles, to win those very things on which their hearts are set." 197 Before turning to the conclusion in vs 36, I must address briefly the relationship between vs 35 and its parallel in SM/Matt 5:45. The statements in the SP and the SM make the same point, but they are formulated so differently that neither can be explained convincingly as a redactional change of the other. 198 The main difference appears to be that the SP addresses a Hellenistic, and the SM a jewish, milieu. The disciples of the SP can become "sons of the Most High" only after they have been approved at the last judgment, while those of the SM are expected to conduct themselves as "sons of the heavenly Father" here on earth. 199 • 36 The statement concluding the section vss 32-36 is a maxim: "Be merciful, as (also) your Father is merciful" (ylv£cr6£ o1Knpp.ov£s, Ka66Js [Kat] o1raThP ilp.wv otKTlpp.wv €crnv). 200 The imperative ofvs 36a is formulated as a periphrastic construction of ylvop.at with the present participle, denoting "the beginning of a state or condition. "201 The motivation for the command follows in the second clause, where Ka66Js [Kal.] ("as also") resumes

I93 This combination of the doctrine of divine philanthropy and imitation of God occurs also elsewhere in the NT; see esp. Eph 4:32-5:I; cf. Coi2:I3; 3:I214; Rom 5:6-8; I2:I-2; Titus 3:1-7. I94 Ps.-Isoc. Demon. 29 (trans. George Norlin, !socrates [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London: Heinemann, I928]1.2I), a passage reflecting Theognis I05-6. Ps.-Isocrates (ibid., 3I) favors generosity also in dealing with human weakness. I95 The doctrine of ethics as imitation of divine philanthropy may originally be Pythagorean. See Aelian Variae historiae I2.59: "Pythagoras said that the two best gifts of the gods to men were speaking the truth [aA:'16n\nv] and showing kindness [EiJ£pyen'i'v], and he added that both resembled the works of gods" (my trans.). Marvin A. Dilts (in his I984 BT ed. of Aelian) refers as parallels to Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 53; Plato Theaet. I76a-b; Philo Fuga 63; Spec. leg. 4.73, 188. I96 Seneca De ben. 4.26.I: "'Si deos,' inquit, 'imitaris, da et ingratis beneficia; nam et scleratis sol oritur et piratis patent maria'" (trans. John W. Basore, Seneca: Moral Essays [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London: Heinemann, I935]3.257). I97 Marcus Aurelius Ad se ipsum 9.II.27 (trans. C. R. Haines, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London: Heinemann, I930]247).

612

I98 Almost all modern commentators disagree with me on this point. See Bultmann, History, 96, 324-25; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.354-56; Marshall, Luke, 264-65. I99 The oi)v ("therefore") read in vs 36a by .W A 8 q pm (Aland, Synopsis, I 05) is due to harmonization with SM/Matt 5:48; see also Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece; and Zahn, Lucas, critical apparatus. 200 The trans. is mine. The Kal ("and") is read now by Nestle-Aland, 26th ed. It is omitted by WB L WE 'I' f' pc c d sy' Marcion Clement of Alexandria, but it is read by AD 8 f'3 9Jllat syP·h Cyprian Basil of Caesarea Cyril of Alexandria. See Nestle-Aland, critical apparatus. In a text aspiring to better Greek one would expect the Kal (cf. Luke 1I:1; 24:24;Joh!i I5:IO; Acts 2:22; 10:47; I5:8; Rom I5:7; I Cor 10:6,9, IO, 33; ll:I; etc.). 20 I On this point, see BDF, § 354; BDR, § 354. For this construction see also 2 Cor 6:I4; Mark 9:3, 7; Col I :I8; Heb 5:I2; Rev 3:2; 6:IO. The imperative ylverrOe ("be!") is common in paraenesis; see Matt 6:I6; 10:I6; Luke 12:40; Rom 12:16; etc.;Jas 1:22.

Luke 6:27-45

the idea of vs 35d and now states expressly the concept of the imitation of God. 2° 2 The imperative is based on the premise that the Father is merciful. This theological doctrine is presupposed as well known and acceptable. It must have been prominent in the circles where the SP and the SM originated, but one should also note the close parallels in Jas 5:11,2° 3 in the letters of Paul, 204 and in Eph 4:32-5:1, which has developed it to a new form of Deutero-Pauline theology. It is likely that the historical Jesus also held the theologoumenon, and this not only because it was generally Jewish. 205 The parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matt 18:23-35), which I have adduced in the discussion of vs 35d, states the doctrine in narrative form; and other references from the synoptic tradition either express it or allude to it. 206 It is prominent in the SP, however, because the mercifulness of the deity was also a generally recognized element of Hellenistic religiosity. 207 One of the most interesting works illustrating the importance of mercy in the Greco-Roman world is Seneca's essay On Mercy (De dementia). 208 It was known to have existed in three books, but the extant text breaks off in the second book and the rest is lost. It is a truly

Roman work, attributing the virtue of mercy to the good ruler-in this case, the young Nero, to whom the essay is addressed. Thus it is a testimony to the Roman rulercult; the basic ideas and arguments, however, have much in common with the SP. In being merciful, the ruler imitates the gods. 209 Mercy is understood as a "divine power" 210 that can turn firm enemies into loyal friends, a fact exemplified by the ancestors, in particular Augustus and Cinna. 211 Being merciful accords with nature as well.2 12 It is the province of humanity (humanitas) 213 to deal with sinfulness in a constructive way, specifically where the rule oflaw and order are concerned: "No creature is more difficult to temper, none needs to be handled with greater skill, than man, and to none should more mercy be shown." 214 We have here another instance of the SP explaining the teaching of Jesus in Hellenistic terms, whereas the SM couches the same teaching in Jewish terms. 215

202 For this doctrine see above on SP /Luke 6:35c-d; SM/Matt 5:48; also 5:7. See furthermore Betz, Nachfolge, 141-42; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.358-59; Zeller,Mahnsprilche, 110-13. 203 Jas 5:11 states the same doctrine independently of the SP: "for of great compassion is the Lord and merciful" (8T1. woA~o-wAayxvJr iuTr.v 0 KVp1.os Ka\ olKTlpp.rov). Dibelius (james, 248) points to the importance of the doctrine in Hermas Man. 4.3.5; 1 Clem. 23.1; 60.1;Justin Apol. 1.15.13; Dial. 96.3; Ps.Clem. Rec. 5.13.1-2, where it is cited in the invitation to the Gentiles. 204 As the basis for the paraenesis in Rom 12:1. See also 2 Cor 1:3; Rom 9:15 (LXX Exod 33:19), 16, 18; 11:30-32; 12:8; 1 Cor 7:25; 2 Cor 4:1; Phil2:27; 1 Tim 1:13, 16; 1 Pet 2:10;Jude 22; Luke 1:50, 54, 58, 78; 10:37; etc. 205 See BAGD; RudolfBultmann, TDNT 5.159-61; EWNT(EDNT) 2, s.v. olKTlpro KTA.; Urbach, Sages, index s.v. Mercy. 206 In the synoptic tradition the christology ofJesus' compassion and mercy has the same roots. It is used to justify Jesus' miracles; see Mark 1:41 par.; 6:34 par.; Matt 9:36; etc. See RudolfBultmann, "fAEO~ I
208

209 210 211 212 213 214

215

only in Jewish but also in Greek religion. See Hildebrecht Hommel, "Der Himmelsvater," in his Sebasmata, 1.3-43. On divine mercy see Spicq, Notes, 2.812-15; 3.250-58; Klaus Winkler, "Clementia," RAG 3 (1957) 206-31;]. Rufus Fears, "Gottesgnadentum," RAG 11 (1981) 1103-59, esp. 112132. For a text and translation see Seneca: Moral Essays (trans. John W. Basore; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1928) 1.356-449. See Adam, Clementia Principis (see above, n. 180);J. Rufus Fears, "Nero as the Viceregent of the Gods in Seneca's De clementia," Hermes 103 (1975) 486-96. SenecaDeclem. 1.1.2; 1.7.1-2; 1.19.8-9. Ibid.,l.26.5: "divinapotentia." Ibid., 1.9.1-10. Ibid., 1.5.2; 1.19.2-4. Ibid., 1.3.2. Ibid., 1.17 .1: "Nullum animal morosius est, nullum amiore arte tractandum quam homo, nulli magis parcendum." Similarly, Plutarch De coh. ira 16, 463D-E (see Hans Dieter Betz and John M. Dillon in PECL 2.194). Cf. Baumbach, Das Verstiindnis des Bosen, 182: "Katechismus, der den Horern als den am Anfang des Christenweges stehenden Menschen Belehrung

613

The connection between vss 35 and 36 has occasioned much discussion. There appear to be three varieties of linking: first by catchword: the merciful God is the one who is benevolent to the "ungrateful and evil" (vs 35d); second, by the doctrine of the imitation of God, presupposed in vs 35c-d and expressly stated in vs 36; 216 third, by the sequence of benevolence (xapLs) and mercy (€'>..£os), which may be traditional, since it occurs as well in Aristotle (Rhet. 2. 7 and 2.8; cf. Cicero De off 211). The many differences between the maxims readily appear when one compares the passage with the parallel SM/Matt 5:48. It is obvious that "perfection" is not expected of the disciples of the SP. As I have said before, the language of the SP is Greek religious language while that of the SM is Jewish. What, then, is the difference between vss 35 and 36? What is the significance of the conclusion 217 in comparison with the argument in vss 32-35? The critical difference lies in the statement in vs 36 of the positive ethical command for which the apologetic argument ofvss 32-35 has prepared us. It is noteworthy that vs 36 does not motivate the Christian to follow Jesus' love-command by simply appealing to the eschatological reward (vs 35b-d).2 18 That doctrine, though not repudiated, is superseded by the motivation in vs 36: not heavenly reward but imitation of God is the higher and more important doctrine motivating Christian ethics. Finally, why does Jesus' love-command (vs 27b) make sense to a Hellenistic student? One can see that the answer follows directly from the doctrine of the imitation of God: God loves the enemies in his mercy, and such an

act of love constitutes proper behavior for the religiously sensitive Christian as well. • 37 Verses 3 7-3 8 present a set of sentences (sententiae ): four parallel maxims (vss 37-38a), a gnomic saying on measure (vs 38b), and a concluding maxim (vs 38c). How is this passage related to the preceding material? Many commentators consider-erroneously, I think-vs 36 the beginning of the new section. 219 We will look, then, for connections and differences between vs 3 7, which begins the new section, and vss 27-36.220 Verses 37-38 introduce traditional paraenesis for which the preceding sections have prepared us. The four parallel maxims, vss 37-38a, explicate concretely what it means to love the enemy in situations of judging, condemning, setting free, and giving. All four are formulated as paradoxes, but the student who has understood the argument presented in vss 27-36 will now be able to clarify them. 221 One will recognize all four maxims as applications of the Golden Rule (vs 31 ), correctly understood (vss 32-35); one will see in their implementation the imitation of God's treatment of humanity (vs 36). The passage vss 37-38 is thus another part of the interpretation of Jesus' love-command. 222 In the carefully composed vss 37-38a, the four sentences are arranged as two sets of parallel lines (parallelismus membrorum). The first of the couplets (vs 37a and b) begins each maxim with a negative prohibitive imperative, introduced by Kal ("and"). Each maxim is then followed by an emphatic denial using JJ.~ with the subjunctive. The second couplet (vss 37c and 38a) gives positive commands, in asyndetic form,

bringen will" ("a catechism intended to give instruction to people at the beginning of their way as Christians"). Cited with approval by Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.356 n. 99. 216 So, rightly, Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.356. 217 Differently, Schiirmann (ibid., 357-59) takes vs 36 as the title ("Uberschrift") to vss 37-38. But the fact that vs 36 is asyndetic does not mean that it is without connection altogether. If otv ("therefore") is to be read, Schiirmann's position would be further weakened. He finds support in Fiebig, "Jesu Worte," 62; Bultmann, History, 96, 325; Klostetmann, Lukasevangelium, 82; Grundmann, Lukas, 150. Fitzmyer (Luke, 1.641) has the matter right: "Though v. 36 reformulates what precedes, it is also transitional to what follows, since the question ofjudging is a further example of the imitation of God's mercy." 614

ov

218 Rightly understood by Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.150. 219 See above on vs 36. 220 Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.357-59) does not deny this point; differently, Klosterman, Lukasevangelium, 82; Grundmann, Lukas, 150. 221 See above on SP /Luke 6:29-30. 222 So also Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.359): "Formal und inhaltlich gibt sich nur eine Unterteilung innerhalb des ersten Teiles der Bergpredigt (6,27-38) zu erkennen, der als Einheit das neue GebotJesu darlegen will" ("In regard to form and content one can recognize only one subdivision within the first part of the Sermon [6:27-38], which intends to explain the new commandment of Jesus").

Luke 6:27-45

followed by predictions in the future tense connected only by Kal ("and"). An interesting variant composition of maxims of Jesus is quoted in 1 Clem. 13.2: For he [i.e., Jesus] spoke the following: "Be merciful, that you may find mercy; Forgive, ,that you may be forgiven. As you do, so shall it be done to you; As you give, so shall it be given to you; As you judge, so shall you be judged; As you show kindness, so kindness shall be shown to you. With what measure you measure, with that same measure it will be measured to you."22 3 OVTWS yap (f

'

EA
'9

H11'EV"

~A<7]8iju·

&tj>l
~ JLETpqJ JL
The composition is clear: the introductory formula22 4 is followed by seven parallel maxims. The first two are strictly parallel. The third states, hardly by accident, the Golden Rule; and the fourth, fifth, and sixth maximsthree in number-constitute its applications. The concluding seventh maxim varies the pattern. The sequence of the maxims is similar, but not identical, to the sequence of maxims in the SP, proof that 1 Clem. 13.2 cannot directly depend on Luke's Gospel or even on the pre-Lukan SP. It is conceivable, then, that the quotation in 1 Clem. 13.2 is older than the SP, perhaps even its source; the SP appears to be a rearrangement and, at some points, an expansion, of 1 Clem. 13.2; but

other versions of the set exist in other texts, also apparently independent of each other. 225 The presence of these variant texts should prevent one from constructing intertextual dependencies prematurely. Verse 37a presents the first maxim: ''Judge not, and you will certainly not be judged either" (Kat p.~ Kplv
5. In the light of the Golden Rule (vs 31 ), however, abstaining from judging others is more than a behavior

223 The trans. and punctuation are mine. Synopsis, 107). 224 The quotation may have been taken from a source 227 The omission could be the result of harmonization otherwise called "the gospel" (I Clem. 47.2; cf. Did. with SM/Matt 7:1, a passage that may have influ8.2; 15.3, 4; 2 Clem. 8.5). See Koester, Ancient enced the reading ofYva ("in order that") instead of Christian Gospels, 15, 66-71; and the main IntroKat ("and not") in A D W 'I' al it sy' sa boP' Marcion duction above, section A.2.2). Cyprian. See the critical apparatus in Nestle-Aland 225 The closest parallel version is found in Clement Alex. and in Aland, Synopsis, 107. Strom. 2.18.91.2, but others are Polycarp Phil. 3.2; 228 For parallel references and bibliography see above Didasc. Apost. 2.21; 2.42 (Didascalia syriaca is again on SM/Matt 7:1. different; see Voobus, Didascalia apostolorum in Syriac, 33-35); Macari us Homilies 37 .3. 226 D A allatt Marcion (see Aland's critical apparatus in

ov

615

pattern one tries to perfect; it is in itself an initial step toward breaking an unethical practice. No one wants to be censored, and the best way to avoid being censored is to avoid censoring others. In considering the ensuring prediction "you will certainly not be judged," one must analyze the possibilities inherent in the use of the future tense. 229 Grammatically, the construction of ov /A.~ with the subjunctive expresses a strong denial of a future event, but it does not determine whether it is an immanent ~r an eschatological future. Most commentators prefer the latter, with God as judge. 230 This view, however, seems based primarily on the parallel verse in SM/Matt 7: 1; it can also be supported by parallels in the gnomic literature.231 Yet the formulation in Luke 6:37a is-perhaps intentionally-ambiguous. A second interpretation of the maxim, based on the Golden Rule (vs 31 ), favors the possibility of an immanent future. In this case, the subject of the act of judging is thought of as people who will refrain from passing judgment if others refrain first. 232 Such immanent meaning seems to be the primary focus of the two maxims in vs 37a-b. Still, one must not altogether disregard the eschatological dimension, for it is intrinsic to the promise of an eschatological reward (vs 35b-c) and integral to the third and fourth maxims (vss 37c-38a). 233 In sum, this kind of moral material does not require a firm decision on interpretation. Ambiguity may be a reminder of the two dimensions of Christian ethics-life in this world and life in the world to come. The second maxim follows strictly parallel to the first,

but its force is climactic: 234 "Condemn not, and you will certainly not be condemned either" (Kat /A.~ KamotKct(t:TE, Kat ov /A.~ KaTaOtKacr8fjTc). 235 It suggests that censoriousness necessarily leads to condemnation. The parallel in Jas 5:6 continues the logic: "You have condemned, you have murdered the righteous one" (KaTEOtKctcran, ~cpove6craTE TOV olKatov). 236 The use of traditional ideas in juxtaposition is underscored by the parallel of the sequence OtKatw8fjvat ("be justified") and KaTaOtKacr8fjvat ("be condemned") in Matt 12:37, a composition with strong ties to SP /Luke 6:43-45.237 The second parallelism is asyndetic 23 8 and positively formulated. The first line (vs 37c) commands an act that appears to be the opposite of condemning, namely, setting free: "Set free, and you will be set free" (lL7ToA:6~:n, Kat a7TOAv8~cr8t:). The meaning of the a7TOAVW is not clear, even if one reads it as an antonym of KaTaOtKct(w ("condemn"). Does it refer to the freeing of prisoners or to the forgiving of debts? 239 If it refers to the latter, and the more likely, act, then the parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matt 18:23-35) offers the strongest illustration, especially vs 27: "Out of pity the master of that servant released him and forgave him his debt" (cr7TA.ayxvtcr8t:ts o£ 0 KVptos TOV oovA.ov ~Kclvov a7T£Avcrcv avTOV Kat TO octVcWV acjJfjKcV avTcp). Was this parable designed to explicate this interpretation ofvs 37c in narrative form? •38 The last of the four maxims (vss 37a-38a) is climactic, turning from "letting go" to the more active "giving" (vs 38a): "Give, and it will be given to you" (oloon, Kat oo8~crt:Tat VJA.LV). I have mentioned the topic of giving in vs 30; I now note that the ethical context of the entire

229 See Nigel Turner in Moulton, Grammar, vol. 3: Syntax, 96; Moule, Idiom Book, 22; BDF, § 365; BDR, § 365; BAGD, s.v. I-'~• D.l.a. 230 So Klostermann, Lukas, 150; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.361; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.641; Marshall, Luke, 265-66. 231 For instance, Ps.-Phocyl. Sent. 11: "If you judge evilly, God will judge you thereafter" (~v uv KaKws aiKttuys, ...~ li
616

("judge"). 235 For the textual problem, see on vs 37a. Also in vs 37b, only part of the tradition reads the Kal ("and"): C WAD 0 A. pm latt Marcion do not have it (so Aland's critical apparatus in Synopsis, 107). The reason for the omission of the Kalin vs 37a and b may be due to internal synchronizing with vss 37c and 38a. 236 Cf. Pss 37:32-33; 109:29-31; Prov 17:15; Wis 2:1020, esp. vs 20; 12:15. 237 Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.362) suggests that vs 37b may have influenced Matt 12:7, 37 andJas 5:6, but it is more likely that all passages in question draw on common wisdom tradition. 238 So, correctly, Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.361. 239 Most prefer the latter meaning; see BAGD, s.v. lmoA.6w; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.361; cf. Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.626, who translates "forgive."

Luke 6:27-45

text consistently is giving and receiving. 240 The fourth maxim, however, presents the act of giving as the culmination of jesus' teaching as explained through the Golden Rule (vs 31).2 41 In that context, all of Christian ethics is a form of giving. The idea of giving is deeply rooted in the history of ancient ethics and can explain positively Jesus' meaning when he commanded his disciples to love the enemy. Giving is reasonable in the face of adversity, for giving establishes obligations, and those obligations ensure a return in kind both on earth and in heaven. Generosity is thus an eminently reasonable trait, a virtue appropriate to the ethical life of the disciples of jesus. It is additionally the foundation of communal life and so of the church. The maxim in vs 38a correlates giving, as nearly as possible, with the famous formula do ut des ("I give, so that you may give [in return]"), long recognized as fundamental to human sociallife. 242 The subsequent saying in vs 38b is extraordinary for

several reasons. Its literal translation reads: "Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, overflowingthey will give (it) into your lap" (p.£rpov KaA.ov 7T€7Tt€crp.£vov cr£craA€vp.£vov ii7T£p£KXVVVOp.£vov llwcrovcrtv £1~ rov KOA7TOV bp.wv). 243 The sentence is best classified as a composite

nominal sentence, 244 asyndetic, although it can also be categorized by analogy with some sayings in gnomic literature in which the object is moved to the beginning of the sentence (prolepsis). 245 In either case, the sentence displays a poetic style unique in the New Testament. The first part of the sentence presents a word picture of the good measure, followed in the second part by a rather puzzling predication. The vivid image, almost a still life of the measure of grain, 246 is conveyed by three perfect participles, none attested elsewhere in the New Testament: 7T€7Tt€crp.£vov evokes the image of the container filled to capacity, the contents "pressed down,"

240 For this topic of ethics see Aristotle Rhet. 1.5.9, 1361a 27-1361b 2; and Alfred Stuiber, "Geschenk," RAG 11 (1977) 686-703; Stephen Charles Mott, "The Power of Giving and Receiving: Reciprocity in Hellenistic Benevolence," in Gerald F. Hawthorne, ed., Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor ofMerrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 60-72; Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, 169, index, s. v. Exchange of gifts, Gifts (and gift-giving). 241 See the parallels in SM/Matt 5:42; 7:7-11; also 5:23-25, 39-42; 6:2-4, 11, 12, 14-15, 19-21; 7:6. 242 This has been pointed out by Paul (Rom 12:1-2, 321; 1 Cor 12:4-31; 2Cor9:6-15. The doctrine is also stated aptly in Menander Mon. 443 (my trans.): "When you receive, give back, and you will receive again" (l\a{36>v ciwoM~. Kal >.~>/.w). Cf. ibid., 827, 828. 243 The textual tradition of the sentence is fairly clear. But D W >. 157 Origen have the first two particles turned around; E syP Marcion have only the first; c e r 1 have only the second, while sy' has none of them. Some witnesses connect the participles by Kal ("and"): C ~A 9 pm (see Aland, Synopsis, 107). 244 For this type of saying see Hans Jurgen Hermisson, Studien zur israelitischen Spruchweisheit (WMANT 28; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968) 142-44; Walter Buhlmann, Vom rechten Reden und Schweigen: Studien zuProverbien 10-31 (OBO 12; Fribourg: Universitlitsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976) 32-34. 245 For examples see Nigel Turner in Moulton, Gram-

mar, vol. 3: Syntax, 350, to which one should add Gal 2:4. 246 The image of the full measure is traditional and occurs in the biblical literature elsewhere. See Deut 25:14-15, and for further material Str-B 2.160; BAGD, s.v. pirpov; and Kurt DeiBner, "p.trpov KTA.," TDNT 4.632-34. The stylized form of the saying in Luke 6:38, however, is unique in the NT; it may have its origin in poetry. In Greek religion the goddess Demeter fills the grain-measure, as Theocritus (idyll. 7 [Thalysia ], lines 33-34) has it: "because the Goddess hath filled their threshing-floor in measure so full and fat" (p.a>.a yap u.pu,.. wlov• p.trpqJ a ~alp.rov Ei5pKlliov avEwA~proCTEV a>.roav). Cited according to the LCL edition, The Greek Bucolic Poets (trans. J. M. Edmonds; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London: Heinemann, 1928) 94-95. See also Aristophanes Aves 580. For these references I am indebted to Walter Burkert. For depictions, cf. the Dionysos mosaic at Cologne showing a mixing vessel (krater) filled with apples, and a basket (kalathos) filled with cherries; see Heinz Gi}nter Horn, Mysteriensymbolik auf dem Klilner Dionysosmosaik (Bonn: Rheinland-Verlag, 1972) 67-74 with plates 17 and 18.

617

firmly packed into it; 247 u€CraA£vp.tvov intensifies the sense of fullness, the contents "shaken together" so that every corner of the container is filled; 248 finally, V7T£P£Kxvvv&p.£vov proves the fullness in the overflow on all sides. 249 The image represents generosity and abundance "beyond measure."2 50 Although the concluding part of the sentence undeniably breathes action into the still life, the subject of the verb "they give" (owuovuw) is unclear. Who are "they"? Are "they" generally "people" (o! ctv8pw7Tot), 251 or is the word a reference to God, as many commentators assume? 252 One would expect a reference to God to be rendered as a passive, "it will be given to you"; 253 and the phrase "people" as subject would remind us that we are still within the context of the Golden Rule. Such ambiguity suggests that to read into these gnomic sentences theological or eschatological ideas from the larger context of the Gospel, or from elsewhere in the New Testament, is a mistake. Interpretation of the subject aside, however, we understand that the overflowing measure is to be poured out "into your lap." The prepositional adverbial phrase constitutes an idiom from the Old Testament 254 that may have been widely used in antiquity; it evokes an image of a garment, a skirt or a shirttail, put to use as a satchel. 255 A further complication arises when one realizes that

the subject of the verb "they give" must be a different entity from the provider of the imagined full measure. Who filled the measure? As it stands, the image suggests-certainly erroneously-that the full measure simply exists; the truth is, however, that someone must have provided the full measure. Surely we cannot be mistaken in assuming that the provider is the deity-in Jewish religion, Yahweh; in Greek religion, Demeter; in the context of early Christian thought, God. Thus, those who give (owuovuw) are human beings who have first received the full measure from God before offering it to another, a conclusion that affirms the commonly held belief in antiquity that a giver of good things merely hands on what he or she has received from the deity. The whole ambiguity may be intentional: the verb "they will give" states only a projected human action; one must infer the further act of receiving from the knowledge that what will be given must first be in hand. One must not take for granted the gift itself. It is not just there; it has first been received by those who will give. The concluding maxim states the principle underlying the entire set of sentences (sententiae, vss 37-38): "For by which measure you measure, it will be measured out to you in return" (~yap p.hpcp p.£rp£'i.T£ avnp.£rp7J8~u£rat vp.'i.v). 256 I have discussed this principle previously in connection with SM/Matt 7:2b. Its formulation in the SP is rather more poetic. It uses repetition of the same word

247 See BAGD, s.v. m.!(w. 248 See BAGD, s.v. uaA.EfJw, I; cf. the phrase "shake like the grain" (uwuiua• TOV u'irov) in Luke 22:3I. 249 The word is used here with the passive sense "overflow." See BAGD, s.v. t!7r
wr

618

Fitzmyer (Luke, I.626) translates "will be poured" and speaks of "divine abundance" (64I ). 253 So in vs 38a. See LXX Ps 78:I2; Isa 65:7;Jer 39:18; Lam 2:21; for rabbinic parallels see Str-B 2.160; cf. LXX 3 Kgs 22:35; Prov I7:23. 254 Cf. the story of Croesus's gift to Alcmaeon in Herodotus 6.I25; LucianHermotimus 37; 81; etc. See LSJ, s.v. K6A.-rror, II; also Wettstein's (1.697) references to Horace Sat. 2.3.171; Corippus 4.1; Apuleius Met. 8.28.5; Aristidesln Romam, p. 214; Livy 21.18; Polybius 3, p. 259; Ps 79:12. 255 See BAGD, s.v. KoA.-rror; Rudolf Meyer, "KOA7ror," TDNT 3.824-26; cf. Hesychius Lexicon, s.v. f1fLJ.LETplOa·

rh f:7rlp.Erpov, 8 7rpou0.7TT£Tat r{il

XtTWvt

("something added to make good measure; that which can be contained in the garment" [my trans.]). 256 Further stylistic improvements are made in some of the manuscripts: P 45 0 pc it Marcion have T~ avr~ p..!rp~ ("with the same measure"). Others harmonize with SM/Matt 7:2b: B* pc be q read the simplex p.<rpn8~u•ra•. So according to the critical apparatus in Aland, Synopsis, 107; Nestle-Aland.

Luke 6:27-45

(paronomasia)2 57 in a more balanced way by varying aVTt/-'£Tp7J8r/ouat, a typically Hellenistic term found only here in the New Testament. 258 Even a cursory examination indicates the close relationship of this principle to the Golden Rule (vs 31 ): the Golden Rule states a general ethical principle while vs 38c considers the narrower focus of the exchange of gifts. Verse 31 establishes the acts appropriate to the daily conduct of human life; vs 38c describes actual situations surrounding the issue of giving and receiving. The future dimension of the maxim most likel-y encompasses both the immanent and the eschatological spheres, but the emphasis here is on the immanent. In conclusion, one can see that in its entirety (vss 2738), the argument has demonstrated that jesus' commandment to love enemies conforms to the Golden Rule (vs 31 ), to the doctrine of the imitation of the benevolence of God (vs 36), and to the social customs connected with the exchange of gifts (vs 38c). All three

issues concern fundamental laws of religion, ethics, and social relations in the Greco-Roman era. 259 b. Conduct within the Community (6:39-42) • 39 Verse 39 clearly marks the beginning of a new

section 260 that includes vss 39-42 and consists of rules for the community of the disciples, specifically rules delineating the purpose of the text of the SPas a whole. Verse 39 introduces these rules by stating both the need for and the goal of the learning process. On the assumption that jesus commonly told parables to his disciples, the introductory statement appears formulaic:2 61 "And he told them also a parable" (Ei?rw o£ tca\. 1rapaf3oA.~v ailTo'i's). 262 Stated as a narrative reference, this early testimony 263 to Jesus' teaching methods is important to the continuing debate whether the original addressees of the parables in the Gospels were the disciples of Jesus or the people of Israel in general. 264 For the SP, the answer is clear: the parables are meant

257 On this figure of speech see BDF, § 488 (1); BDR, § Luke 6:39a, where Jesus tells the parable to the 488, 1. disciples, stands out as exceptional. All of this makes 258 Ps.-Ciem.Hom.18.16.3citesthesayingasarulefor it unlikely that it is the result of Luke's redaction. discipleship. See BAGD, s.v. avnp.•rp,w, which gives Knox (Sources, 2.1 0) assumes pre-Lukan origin; Polycarp Phil. 2.3 as a parallel. For the occurrence of differently Fitzmyer (Luke, 1.641). Marshall (Luke, the term, see also LSJ andPGL, s.v.; B. Couroyer, 268) and Schurmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.367) discuss "De Ia mesure dont vous mesurez il vous sera the options but remain undecided. mesure," RB 77 (1970) 366-70. 262 Textual variants are stylistic improvements: Dreads 259 Wettstein (1.697) points out that the principle is ~'Aey•v instead of £hw, P 45 .R' A A pm omit Kal ("and"). attested as early as Hesiod Erga 349-51 (see also See Aland's critical apparatus (Synopsis, 107). 263 I assume a pre-Lukan origin (see above, n. 261). above on SM/Matt 7:2). He notes Cicero Brutus 4; Epististula ad Atticum 1.16; 6.1; see also Cicero De off 264 For the present state of the discussion, see Vielhauer, 1.48; Seneca De ben. 4.3.1-3. For Greek and Latin Geschichte, 293-98; Wolfgang Harnisch, ed., Gleichproverbs related to this issue see August Otto, Die nisse jesu: Positionen der Auslegung von Adolfjulicher bis Sprichworter und sprichwortlichen Redensarten der Romer zur Formgeschichte (WdF 366; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982) 226 n. 170; idem, (Leipzig: Teubner, 1890) 55, s.v. beneficium; 105-6, s.v. dare, 2; also Reinhard Haussler, ed., Nachtrage zu ed., Die neutestamentliche Gleichnisforschung im Horizont von H ermeneutik und Literaturwissenschaft (WdF 57 5; August Otto, Die Sprichworter und sprichwortlichen Redensarten der Romer (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Buchgesellschaft, 1968) 140. 1982); John W. Sider, "The Meaning of Parabole in 260 So most commentators; see esp. Schtirmann, Lukasthe Usage of the Synoptic Evangelists," Bib 62 (1981) 453-70; Hans Weder, Die Gleichnissejesu als evangelium, 367; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.641. Metaphem (FRLANT 120; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck 261 See Mark 3:34; 4:2, 10, 13, 30, 33, 34; 7:17; 12:1, 12; 13:28, and their synoptic parallels. The intro& Ruprecht, 1978). ductory formula is not specifically Lukan, although Luke uses it often (Luke 4:23; 5:36; 6:39; 8:4, 9, 10, 11; 12:16,41; 13:6; 14:7; 15:3; 18:1, 9; 19:11; 20:9, 19; 21:29). When he uses it, he has Jesus address the crowds. In Luke 12:41, Peter himself asks: "Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?" In Luke 8:4, 9-11 the disciples do not understand the parable and ask for further explanation. In any case, SP /

619

for the disciples as an instrument of their education. The notion of parable (7rapaf3o>..~) is used here in the broader sense and not in the narrowly defined sense of modern scholarship. 265 Verse 39b-c comprises another word picture, this time formulated as a set of rhetorical questions. 266 The first question is both proverbial and comic: "Can a blind man guide a blind man?" (p.~n BvvaTat Tv!f>>..hs Tv!f>>..hv oB7Jy£'iv;). 267 Of course not, and if he tries, disaster will follow. The second question describes just such a disaster: "Will they not fall into a pit?" (ovxl. O.J.L!f>&npot ds f3&8vvov EJ.L71'£uovvmt;). 268 They certainly will. Formally and carefully composed, both lines are of equal length, five words each. Both employ poetic devices: vs 39b contains examples of chiasm and repetition of the same term (paronomasia), and vs 39c examples of assonance (4>-/3-71'); both lines scan evenly. 269 What is the purpose behind this comic image? 270 The form of the two rhetorical questions presupposes prior

knowledge of the material. The proverb of "the blind leading the blind" is known since classical antiquity. 271 The expression "blind leader" (oB7JyOs Tv!f>>..&s) is an example of oxymoron, a literary device commonly employed in antiquity to expose incompetence, in teachers particularly. 272 The meaning of the passage in the present context should be clear. The questions are to be answered by students being trained as leaders, either generally as exemplars of the faith or more specifically as leaders in the Christian community. 273 What kind ofleaders will they be? Will they join the ranks of those who, because of their blindness, their ignorance, and their stupidity, will lead others astray?2 74 The "blind guide" is unquestionably entirely unsuitable for Christian discipleship or leadership; 275 but one might look askance at a special plea justifying education as incorporated into an educational text written for Gentile Christians. Yet one can see from

265 The term occurs only here in the SP and not at all in also Haussler, Nachtriige, 141-42, 203). For the the SM (not even in SM/Matt 5: 13-16; 7 :24-27). opposite, see Aristophanes Plutus 15: "For those of us On the term 1rapaf3oA.~ see BAGD, s.v.; Friedrich who see are leading the blind" (o! yltp {3AE7rOVTEs rot's Hauck, "1rapaf3oA.~," TDNT 5.744-61; with adrv<j>A.ot's ~yoVfL<8a). For further references, see ditional bibliography in ThWNT 10 (1973) 1212-15; Wolfgang Schrage, "rv<j>A.Js KrA.," TDNT 8.270-94, Gunter Haufe, EWNT (EDNT) 3, s.v. 1rapaf3oA.~; esp. 291-93 (E.III). Berger, "Hellenistische Gattungen," 1110-24. 272 See, e.g., Xenophon, Mem. 1.3.4; Plato Rep. 6, 484c; 266 Instead of questions, another word-picture is 7, 518c; Epictetus Diss. 3.22.26; Sextus Empiricus presented in Cos. Thorn. log. 34: "Jesus said: 'If a Pyrrhoniae Hypotheses 3.259; Adv. math. 1.3; Philo Virt. blind man leads a blind man, both of them fall into a 7; Demetrius of Phaleron frg. 121. The implied pit.'" In Greeven's retranslation (Synopsis, 74) this reason for stating the proverb is found in Plutarch text reads: Atyn 'I'Iuovs· rv<j>Abs iltv ba'lyfi rv.pA.Jv, Lib. educ. 4, 2B (my trans.): "Nature without learning afLOTEpOI KaTa7rfA.Jv). Cf. also Plutarch Ad princem ineruditum (NTApoc 1.225; NTApok 1.232) and Clement Alex. 2. 780: "For one who is falling cannot hold others up, Paed. 1.3 (GCS, vol. 1, p. 95, lines 15-16). nor can one who is ignorant teach, nor the un26 7 The variant reading IL~ instead of the emphatic fL~Tt cultivated impart culture, nor the disorderly make (W al) seems to be a scribal error. Dreads oaay•lv, a order, nor can he rule who is under no rule" (trans. Doric form of oa'lyiiv. See Aland's critical apparatus Harold North Fowler, Plutarch's Moralia [LCL; (Synopsis, 107). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London: 268 It reads OVK for ovxl; and It c ~A pm have the simplex Heinemann, 1936]1 0.57). 7r<A.os KTA.," TDNT 8.286) about an oversupply of teachers. observes that vs 39c has no proverbial parallels, as far 274 Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.365-79) takes:the as we know. whole section vss 39-45 to be a warning against false 271 Otto (Sprichworter [see above, n. 259], 60, s.v. caecus, prophets, but this is in fact interpreting SM/Matt 2) has collected these passages: Plato Rep. 8, 554b; 7:15-20 into the SP. Many other commentators Horace Epodae 1.17.3; Cicero Tusc. 5.38.112 (see believe that the text here addresses Christian

620

Luke 6:27-45

similar, if much more comprehensive and explicit, defenses of education (such as Plutarch's De liberis educandis and Seneca's Ep. 88 and 90) that education was under attack at the time, and such a plea was therefore in order. 276 The Jewish-Christian SM has no analogy to this plea for education; in the Jewish cultural milieu, a plea for education was presumably as necessary as carrying coals to Newcastle. The implication of vs 39 is that without education the disciples will remain blind (Tv>..or), as they were blind before their conversion. Thus education ensures the development of "vision. " 277 It is noteworthy that this movement from blindness to vision, interpreted in the metaphorical sense, also occurs in some miracle stories in the synoptic tradition. 2 78 Perhaps SP /Luke 6:39 points to the social context of these interpretations. Education is here further defined not as developmental but as preventive. It is seen as a fight against, and a prevention of, ignorance, both intellectual and moral,

275

276

277 278 279

rather than as the development of innate, perhaps even divinely inspired, faculties of the mind as in the classical tradition. 279 The three rules presented in the following section (vss 40-45) expose cases of blindness to enlightenment.

teachers (Wellhausen, Manson [Sayings, 59-60], Grundmann, Fitzmyer). I follow the commentaries by Plummer, Klostermann, and Hirsch (Frilhgeschichte, 2. 7 7-8 7). Cf. the application to the Pharisees in Matt 15:14 (but to the disciples in 15:16-17); 23:16, 17, 19, 24, 26; Rom 2:19-20; etc. See Schrage, TDNT 8.29293. Pleas for education are common in wisdom literature as far back as ancient Egypt. See esp. Hellmut Brunner, Altagyptische Erziehung (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1957) 107-10. For Roman education see Quintilian Inst. 1.1.1-3. Christians took over the pleas only with hesitation. See the sentiment expressed in Sextus Sent. 248-51 (trans. Richard A. Edwards and Robert A. Wild, The Sentences of Sextus [SBLTT 22; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1981]45): "Do not study a teaching which is unworthy of God. Recognize that too much learning is superfluous for the soul. He who knows in a worthy manner the things of God is a wise man. Without learning you cannot be a person who loves God; accept learning as necessary." See vss 41-42 for the attention being paid to the eye. See, e.g., Mark 10:46-52;John 9:1-41; 10:21; 11:37; 12:40;2Cor4:4; 1John2:11;etc. The Greek concept of education has often been summarized. See, e.g., Plutarch Lib. educ. 4, p. 2A-B: "there must be a concurrence of three things in order to produce perfectly right action [i.e., in education], and these are: nature [<jnS•nr], reason [>.oyos ], and habit [lBos]. By reason I mean the act of learning

Excursus: Rules for Teachers and Students From a form-critical perspective, the textual unit of SP/Luke 6:40-45 consists of a set of rules for students. Designed for either teachers or students or both, such rules occur elsewhere in ancient literature, for example in the important Greek and Roman works on education. Plutarch Lib. educ. 14, 1OB lists a

[Jt&B"'I""'s ], and by habit, constant practice [liuK"I/IT&S ]. The first beginnings come from nature, advancement from learning, the practical use from continued repetition, and the culmination from all combined." Trans. Frank C. Babbitt, Plutarch's Moralia (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London: Heinemann, 1927) 1.9. On this important work on education see Edmund G. Berry, "The 'De liberis educandis' ofPs.-Plutarch," HSGP 63 (1958) 387-99. Further important texts of the period are Seneca Ep. 88; Quintilianlnst., book 1; NHC VII,4: "The Teachings of Silvanus" (Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, 381-95); Clement of Alexandria Paedagogus. On the subject as a whole see Georg Bertram, "1ra&~E.Sw KTA.," TDNT 5.596-625; Benjamin L. Hijmans, AI:KHI:II:: Notes on Epictetus' Educational System (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1959), esp. 33-41; Harald Fuchs, "Enkyklios Paideia." RAG 5 (1962) 365-98; Paul Blomenkamp, "Erziehung," RAG 6 (1966) 502-59; Alan Mendelson, Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria (Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 7; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1982).

621

collection of rules for young students, 280 further discussed at length in chaps. 14-15, 10B-12A; chap. 17, 12D-F, also adduces the rules of Pythagoras. Quintillian (Inst. 2.2-89) includes a section of rules for teachers, De officio docentium (2.9.1), followed by a brief admonition to students: "I shall for the moment confine my advice to the learners to one solitary admonition, that they should love their masters not less than their studies, and should regard them as the parents not indeed of their bodies but of their minds" ("id unum interim moneo, ut praeceptores suos non minus quam ipsa studia ament, et parentes esse non quidem corporum sed mentium credant" [2.9.3]). Maturity cannot be achieved "unless teacher and student are in perfect sympathy" ("nisi sociata tradentis accipientisque concordia" [2.9.3]).281 Early Christian literature elsewhere contains isolated rules, sets of rules, or elaborate discussions of them. Gal 6:6 comprises an isolated rule taken from another context. 282 Matt 10:24-25 and 23:8-12 present sketches of the ethos of Jesus' disciples. Mark 9:33-50 par. and 10:35-45 contain arguments about the implications of rules. Such examples prove that the rules cited and discussed in early Christian literature were intend"!d for the "higher" education of adult Christians and not for children, as were most ancient works on education. One should assume, however, that many of the rules will apply to both children and adults. Close parallels to SP /Luke 6:39-45 occur in Did. 4.1-4, especially 4:1: "My child, you shall remember by day and by night him who speaks the word of God

to you, and you shall honor him as the Lord, for where the lordship is spoken of, there the Lord is present" (TJKvov p.ov, roV AaAoVvrOs uot rhv A6yov roV 8£oV f.LV1Jcr8~un vvKrh~ Kat ~p.f:pas, n.p.~uns ~t aVrhv Ws t<'Dpwv· !58ev yCtp ~ Kvpt6r"ls AaAe'irat, fKe'i KiJpu)s furtv). For other

parallel references see Heb 13:7; Gal4:14; 283 furthermore 1 Cor 3:5-9; 4:1-21. While christology understands Christ to be the divine teacher, 284 the rules under discussion reflect the relationship between church members and Christ. 285 Rabbinic Judaism has similar rules. 286 The widespread attestation of such rules indicates that they were in common usage and that their content and conventions were to some extent transcultural and international; it is surprising that they have occasioned little, if any, scholarly investigation. Their antiquity is evidenced by their occurrence in Egyptian wisdom literature. 28 7

• 40 The first rule concerns the relationship between

student and teacher and consists of two statements prescribing the status of the student at two stages of education. The first statement, formulated negatively, regards the student prior to graduation: "A disciple is not above his teacher" (ovK lurtv p.a87Jr~s {nrf:p rhv otll
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1957); Miriam Lichtheim, 280 Seen. 279. 281 See the similar doctrines in Sententiae Aesopi-Achiqari Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International 109 (ed. Denis, Fragmenta 138, lines 7-8; cited in Context: A Study of Demotic Instructions (OBO 52; Betz, Galatians, 305 n. 128). Fribourg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983) esp. 158-60. 282 See Betz, Galatians, 304-6. 283 On this text see ibid., 226. 288 Marcion changes to {m'p with genitive (see Harnack, 284 On the topic of the good teacher in the synoptic Marcion, 174*). A C 'I' :UT sy add avTov ("his" [sc. teacher]), a harmonization with vs 40 at the end. But tradition, see also Betz, "Vom wahren Lehrer," in Synoptische Studien, 68-76. See furthermore Did. if vs 40a-b is to be taken as parallel lines (isocolon), this variant reading could be original; if it is not original, 11.1-2;Barn.19.9b-10;SextusSent.190-91, 218the variants complete the parallelism. 19,226-29,244,246,258-59. 285 See esp.John 13:16; 15:20a; NHC VII, 4Silv., pp. 289 Due to the origin and form-critical nature of the rule, 110, 14-112, 10; Clement Alex. Paed. 1.1-13; 3.12 one should not simply read back into the earlier (ed. Stahlin; GCS, vol. 1, pp. 89-152, 282-92); idem, tradition its later christological interpretation (cf. the commentaries by Wellhausen, Klostermann, Schiirfrg. 5 (GCS, 3, pp. 221-23): '0 orpoTp<"lTTtKOs
622

Luke 6:27-45

similar rule, scholars rightly prefer to interpret it as a general educational principle. That the context alludes to no higher christology strengthens this interpretation. Although the focus is on "the disciple" 291 in the singular, the statement includes all newly converted church members for whom the SP serves as teaching material. The term "teacher" thus refers to the instructors 29 2 in that community, but their role was not different from the role of teachers in general. 293 One must consider, too, the negative formulation of this rule. Does it indicate a general inclination of students to elevate themselves above their teachers? Does it reflect a specific presumptuousness on the part of Gentile students only? Does it apply to social status, to degrees of competence, 294 or to both? If, as I think, the rule is general in nature, these options do not necessarily exclude each other. Also, there is not sufficient reason to assume that the rule's appearance in the text reflects any concrete crisis in the church over and above the difficulties inherent in any school situation. 295 Verse 40b further specifies: "But everyone who has graduated Will be like his teacher" (KaT7JpT!U!J-EVOS Of ?TaS fuTat WS OtoauKaAOS avTov). 296 Although this translation is clear enough, the meaning seems to have remained somewhat obscure for translators, resulting in great variety among major translations. 297 For example: AV: "Every well-instructed disciple will be as his master." Tyndale, Cranmer (1540), following the Vg: "Every disciple shall be as well instructed as his master."

V g: "Everyone shall be perfect, if he be as his master" ("Perfectus autem omnis erit, si sit sicut magister eius"). Luther: "If the disciple is as his master, he is perfect" ("Wenn der Junger ist wie sein Meister, so ist er vollkommen"). Zurcher Bibel: "Yet everyone, when he comes to full perfection, will be only like his master" ('jeder aber, wenn er ganz vollendet ist, wird [nur] wie sein Meister sein"). JB: "The disciple is not superior to his teacher; the fully trained disciple will always be like his teacher." RSV: "A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully taught will be like his teacher." NEB: " A pupil is not superior to his teacher; but everyone, when his training is complete, will reach his teacher's level." REB: "No pupil ranks above his teacher; fully trained he can reach but his teacher's level." NRSV: "A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully qualified will be like the teacher." Fitzmyer (Luke, 1.626): "Rather, everyone who is fully schooled will someday be like his teacher."

291 The term occurs only here in the SP and not at all in the SM, but cf. KaTap.avlltivnv ("learn") in SM/Matt 6:28. 292 The term o&oa
295 Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.368-71) sees here a reflection of difficulties with "false" teachers. But the problem of the "bad" teacher was generally recognized. See Plutarch Lib. educ. 7, 4A-5A; Quintilian Inst. 1.1.8-9; 1.2.4-5; 1.2.15-16; 1.3.17; 2.4.8-14; etc. 296 K pc read ~
623

As varied as these translations are the interpretations of meaning. 298 Plummer thinks that "the meaning is that the disciple will not excel his master; at the best he will only equal him. And, if the master has faults, the disciple will be likely to copy them."2 99 Wellhausen takes the teacher to be Jesus, so that "there is no authority besides Jesus, only the complete conformity with him establishes a teacher's authority in the Christian community. " 300 Schiirmann 301 takes a similar tack, determining the meaning by an assumed polemic against false teachers; according to him, the text does establish criteria for the identification of such persons, "who in principle recognize Jesus as their teacher, or appeal to him illegitimately," but who bring a "new doctrine" that contains "more" (indp) that is not derived from the single teacher (cf. Matt 23:8, 10). "Whoever does not teach like the teacher must be rejected." "More" comprises anything that goes beyond the love-commandment. The meaning of "teacher," then, functions not as a paraenesis but as a christological criterion. 302 As we have seen, however, a christological interpretation of vs 40b is misleading. The statement is first and foremost simply a school rule that one must see in its context (vss 39-45) as defining the relationship between student and teacher generally within the church, not the relationship between the disciples and their master, Jesus. Verse 40b is meant as an addition, indicated by lie

("but"), to the stipulation in vs 40a. A grammatical analysis of the sentence reveals some problems. For example, the meaning of the present participle KaTapTl(nv is "to adjust," "to restore," "to put in order. "303 The perfect participle of the verb occurs since Herodotus (9.66) with the meaning "furnished," "equipped," primarily in connection with naval or military matters. In Hellenistic Greek, the application to education seems to have become more common than the relatively few instances would suggest. 304 Such a transference is reflected in Polybius 5.2.11: Toov MaKEMvwv f/li'TJ Tat~ dpEcrlat~ KaT7Jpncrp.evwv ("the Macedonians being now well instructed in rowing"). 305 In the sphere of education, the term refers to developmental or correctional processes. The more general meaning is attested in Plutarch's Parallel Lives (Alex. 7.1 ), when he says that the education of young Alexander was entrusted to Aristotle: Kat Tot~ 7rt"pt p.ovcrtK~v Kat Ta €yKVKAta 7Tatlit"vTaL~ ov 1ravv n 7TLCTTt"VWV £7TtcrTacr{av aVTOV KaTapncrtv ("he would not wholly entrust the direction and training of the boy to ordinary teachers of music"). 306 Yet the corrective meaning is attested in Plutarch (Cato min. 65.5): "Cato turned his eyes upon Apollonides the Stoic and Demetrius the Peripatetic, saying, 'It is your task to reduce this man's swollen pride and restore him to conformity with his best interests"' (Kal. KaTapTlcrat 7Tp0~ TO crvp.f/>Epov). 307

298 See also Dupont, Beatitudes, 1.53-58; Bultmann, Lexicon (4 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1928-1971) s.v. History, 93, 99, 150; Manson, Sayings, 57. Important KaTapTl(w, uAnoo. See Spicq, Notes, 1.418-19. is the comparative study by Charles H. Dodd, "A 305 The passage is listed in BAGD, s.v. KaTapTl(w. Hidden Parable in the Fourth Gospel," in his More 306 Trans. Bernadotte Perrin, Plutarch's Lives (LCL; NT Studies, 30-40. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London: 299 Plummer, Luke, 190. Heinemann, 1919) 7.241. See also Plutarch Them. 300 Wellhausen, Evangelium Lucae, 25: "eine Autoritat 2.5. auBer Jesus gibt es nicht, nur die vollkommene 307 See also Plutarch Marcellus 10.1 (trans. Perrin): "he Ubereinstimmung mit ibm verbiirgt die Autoritat found a state of discord, and the senate being unable eines Lehrers in der christlichen Gemeinde." to regulate and manage (/.&£Taxnpluau8a& Kat Similarly Grundmann (Lukas, 153) and Fitzmyer KaTapTlua•) the people." By contrast, the ineducable (Luke, 1.642). student is called "the crooked" (o ITKOA&Os); see Georg 301 Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.368-69. Bertram, "uKoA&Os," TDNT 7.403-8; Spicq, Notes, 302 In his interpretation Schiirmann combines Matt 5:19 1.218-20; for the Egyptian material see Brunner, with 7:15-20 and reads that into the SP. Altiigyptische Erziehung (see above, n. 276), 114-16. 303 For the evidence see LSJ, BAGD, PGL, s.v. KaTapTl(w, K«TapTLITJ-IOS, KaTapT-6w; also Spicq, Notes, 1.253-55, 416-19. 304 Cf. Hesychius, ed. Kurt Latte, Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon (2 vols.; Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1966) 2.433, S.V. KaTapTliTa&, K«T«ITK£v&ua&, T£A£1001T«I, uup£ooua&; Suidas, Lexicon, ed. A. Adler, Suidae

624

Luke 6:27-45

Evidence shows that the terminology of KaTapTl(nv and the related KaTapT6t:w 308 figured prominently in the educational language of the philosophers. In this context, one who is KaTTJpnu.,.d.vos ("fully educated") can also be called Tb..nos ("fully trained," often translated as "perfect"). 309 New Testament usage conforms to this application of the terms, emphasizing the correctional meaning. 310 The most instructive parallel is 1 Cor 1:10, where Paul exhorts the Corinthians, "that you may be straightened out [KaTTJPTLITfdvoL] in the same mind and in the same opinion." The implication is that the Corinthians are not yet KaTTJpnup.£voL: their learning still evidences "deficiencies" (vuup~p.aTa). 311 They are still "immature" (v~·moL), 31 2 but growth and improvement will move them further toward "maturation" or "perfection. "313 In the context of the SM, which has no parallel to SP /Luke 6:40, the educational meaning of the term Tb..nos occurs in SM/Matt 5:48, where it is usually translated as "perfect. "314 The same language is also part of the story of the rich young man in Mark 10: 17-22 par. When Jesus tells the man (Mark 10:21): "You have one deficiency" (~v ITt: vuupt:L), the Matthean version correctly interprets his comment to mean, "if you want to become fully trained" (t:18b..m TEAnos t:TvaL). 315 The implication in SP /Luke 6:40 is that the term KaTTJpnup.£vos divides the learning process into two

phases. These phases correspond roughly to the modern distinction of before and after graduation. This meaning must have led to the Vg rendering of "perfectus." 316 Perfection, then, refers not to moral or religious flawlessness, contrary to what is commonly assumed, but to the advanced stage of education we would call postgraduate. 317 Verse 40 thus envisages three levels of education: the level of the disciple-in-training (p.a8TJT~s); the graduate (KaTTJpnup.£vos), whose training is completed; and the teacher (a,aauKaA.os), who is entrusted with the training of the disciples. That the SP is directed toward the present disciples-in-training is underscored by the focus of vs 40 on the future: the SP is the teaching material of the supervising teachers. This material is not the end of education, however, so that the postgraduate would presumably turn to other means of instruction beyond the text of the SP. One must not overlook the final phrase, "like his teacher." The adjectival ("as") has a comparative force, expressing equality or difference. 318 Here it expresses equality with a difference: not every student who graduates becomes a teacher, 319 but the graduates are told that they can count on being treated as a person of social status equal to that of a teacher, and of all teachers. 320 The rule thus also regulates the relationship between former students and teachers in the congre-

308 See LSJ, s.v. Karapr6w. 309 See LSJ and BAGD, s.v. TEA<&os; Gerhard Delling, "rb.<&os," TDNT 8.67-79 (A.l.b; B); PGL, s.v., sections I.C and F. 310 See 1 Thess 3:10; 1 Cor 1:10; 2 Cor 13:9, 11; Gal 6:1 (on this text see Betz, Galatians, 295-98); Eph 4:11-12; Heb 13:21; Ignatius Eph. 2.2; Smym. 1.1. 311 See 1 Thess 3:10: Karapricra• rlt vcrnp~l-'ara rfjs 1ricrT£ws vl-'wv ("to straighten out the deficiencies of your faith"); 1 Cor 1:7; 8:8; 2 Cor 8:14; 9:12. 312 See 1 Cor 3:1; 13:11; 14:20; Rom 2:20; Eph 4:14. On the term v~7r1os see BAGD, s. v.; Georg Bertram, "v~mos KTA.," TDNT 4.912-23; Simon U:gasse, EWNT(EDNT) 2, s.v. 313 See 1 Cor 2:6; 13:10-11; 14:20; Eph 4:13-14; Heb 5:12-14. 314 See above on SM/Matt 5:48. 315 Cf. also Matt 19:20: ri ln vcrT£pw; ("What am I still lacking?"). 316 The V g translates: "Non est discipulus super magistruro: perfectus autem omnis erit, si sit sicut magister eius."

ws

317 Thus the term corresponds to graduatus, a medieval Latin term denoting someone who has obtained a university degree. Since the 15th century the term has become technical in higher education. See the Oxford English Dictionary, 4.334-35, s.v. Graduate. 318 See BAGD, s.v. ws, II.3.b; Zahn, Lucas, 298. 319 Cf. Jas 3:1: "Do not all become teachers." Even more restrictive is Matt 23:8, 10, which reserve the titles of "rabbi" (fia(3(3{) and "teacher" (Ka87Jy7Jr~s) for Christ. These passages reflect not so much a rush by many early Christians into the teaching profession and a yearning for fancy titles, but the need to develop appropriate officialdom in the church. Jewish Christianity as reflected here apparently moved away from the school model as it grew into a separate religion. 3 20 Cf. Luke 15: 19: "Treat me as [ws] one of your hired servants."

625

gation, where both have equal status but different vocations. 321 Such a situation is not specifically Christian; it pertains to all educational institutions in society. • 41 Whereas the rule concerning the relationship between teacher and student in vs 40 has implied the need for self-criticism, the next textual unit, vss 41-42, takes self-criticism as its primary theme. The passage concerns the relationship between student and fellow student. Its composition is in the diatribe style, 322 addressing the readers in the second person singular, thus underscoring the educational function of the SP as a whole. 323 Verses 41 and 42a contain two parallel rhetorical questions followed by the epithet "hypocrite" and a gnomic sentence in two parts employing the form "do this ... , and then .... " 324 The close parallel in SM/Matt 7:3-5 requires explanation. In addition to the composition with its imagery, which was popular in similar literature of the time, 325 close verbal agreements between SP /Luke 6:41-42 and SM/Matt 7:3-5 virtually assure a common source. 326 In the SM, however, the passage is part of the section "On Judging" (SM/Matt 7:1-5), a connection affirmed (though without the imagery of the SM and the SP) in Rom 2:1-2. While this connection with judging others seems logical, 327 one can say the same of the function of the passage in the context of self-criticism and self-correction. The parallels reveal that the cluster of sayings is employed in various contexts for different purposes related to education. 328 In SP /Luke 6:41-42, the cluster is part of the rule regulating the relationships between students; 329 in SM/Matt 7:1-5, it is part of

paraenesis for the conduct of disciples toward the outside. Only in this latter sense does SM/Matt 7: 1-5 correspond to SP /Luke 6:27-36. The first rhetorical question, vs 41, differs little from its counterpart in the SM: 330 "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but you do not consider the log that is in your own eye?" (Tlll~ f3A.£1rm To Kapcf!os To £v Ti!J ocp8aA.p.i!J TOV allEA.cJ!ov uov, T~V ll~ OOKOV T~V fV Ti!J llllCfl ocp8aA.p.i!J ov KaTavoE'is;). 331 The only difference between the SP and the SM here is stylistic: the SP is more elegant in the Greek, but whether the elegance is due to Lukan or pre-Lukan redaction is impossible to say. The meaning of the question is clear: it criticizes the common human but absurd habit of readily observing the faults of others while overlooking one's own. The first part ofthe question (vs 41a) describes the human readiness to assess the faults of others as writ large, while the second part (vs 41 b) discloses the absence of selfcriticism. The change from the verb f3A.£1rELV ("see") to the verb KaTavoE'iv ("to perceive," "to consider") indicates the shift from external observation to internal selfinspection. The question is not answered. The reason for this omission is not that the answer is self-evident. Rather, the epithet "hypocrite" in vs 42b discloses what vs 41 b implies. The exhortation appeals to Greek ethical sentiment. For example, Ps.-Isocrates in his admonition to Demonicus advises him to be "communicative" (o p.tA.7JnK6s) concerning the weakness of others: "You must not be given to fault-finding, which is irksome, nor be censorious, which is exasperating."332

321 Cf. Paul'streatmentofthesameissuein 1 Cor 12:431a, esp. vss 28-29; Rom 12:6-8; and also Gal6:6 (on this text see Betz, Galatians, 304-6). 322 For the diatribe style see above on SM/Matt 6:2534. 323 Most of the SP is in the second person plural, except 6:29-30, 41-42, which are in the second person singular, and 6:38b, 39, 40,43-45, 47-49, which are in the third person singular or plural, and descriptive in nature. 324 For the form of the sentence see above on SM/Matt 7:5. 325 See also the close parallel inP. Oxy. 1, no. 1; Cos. Thom. log. 26. 326 Most commentators assume a pre-Lukan origin as do Bultmann, History, 47, 79-80, 86-87; Knox, Sources, 2.9-10; Hirsch, Fruhgeschichte, 2.84-85; differently,

626

Wrege, Bergpredigt, 129-31. 327 For further references see Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.369. 328 So Wellhausen, Evangelium Lucae, 25. 329 Differently, Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.372) takes vss 41-42 as directed against false teachers. 330 Only what is distinctive here is being considered. See furthermore above on SM/Matt 7:3. 331 o£ ("but") at the beginning is omitted by P 75 1424 pc, perhaps because of the second o£ in vs 41 b. SM/Matt 7:3, however, has o£ in both places. Similarly, the article r& in vs 41a is not repeated in D W, but in SM/Matt 7:3 it is. When D read uijJ ("your [own]") instead of 1ol'!' ("[your] own"), it is done in harmonization with SM/Matt 7:3b. See the critical apparatus in Aland, Synopsis, 108. 332 Ps.-Isoc. Demon. 31: 1-'"1/0E tA.airto~ &;v, f3apv yap, 1-'"1/o€

Luke 6:27-45

• 42 The second question (vs 42a) again parallels closely

SM/Matt 7:4: 333 "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' (but) you yourself do not see the log that is in your (own) eye?" (1rros a/JVacrat A.(yHV TfP h.O£Acpcp crov· CLO£Acp(, licp£S fK{3aA.w TO Kapcpos TO f.v TfP ocp8aA.p.cp crov, aVTOS Thv f.v TfP ocp8aA.p.cp crov OOKOV ov f3A.(?Twv;). 334 The differences between the versions in the SP and the SM are all stylistic; the SP exhibits the better Greek. As in the preceding sentence, it is impossible to say with certainty whether the differences are due to the redaction of Luke or to the pre-Lukan redactor; this situation holds true as well for the SM concerning Matthew or the pre-Matthean redactor. 335 The designation "brother" (ao£A.cpos) introduces a dramatic element and intensifies the disclosure of hypocrisy. The question in vs 42a thus moves from the issue of self-criticism to the issue of selfcorrection, and once again observes the bad habit of eagerly correcting others while overlooking the need to correct oneself. The two questions (vss 41 and 42a) are answered in the direct address, "you hypocrite" (fmoKptTa). The contradictions observed earlier are now identified by the correct term, and the conduct is judged to be unethical and unreasonable. Remarkably, the epithet "hypocrite," usually reserved for outsiders, 336 is used in criticism of the disciple's behavior. The term also introduces the rule

proper in vs 42c: "First take the log out of your (own) eye, and then you will see clearly (enough) to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye" (fK{3aA.£ 1rpwTov Thv OOKOV fK TOV ocp8aA.p.ov crov, Kat TOT£ owf3A.bfrm TO Kapcpos TO f.v TfP ocp8a>..p.ip TOV ao£A.cpov crov f.K{3aMiv). 33 7 As in SM/Matt 7:5, the rule takes the form of sayings employing the pattern "do first ... , and then .... " It recommends self-correction first, as it is the more difficult to accomplish. Once one has accomplished selfcorrection, one is assumed to have gained a sufficiently clear perspective (owf3A.(?THv) 338 to evaluate the faults of others in order to correct them. The SP version puts the verb f.K{3aA.A.Hv ("remove") at the end, a position expressing the view that the actual correction of others is an act separate and distinct from the acquisition of a right perspective for evaluation, and that this correction of others can occur only at the end of the process. This order of events stands in contrast to the wrong sequence in vs 42b, where the surgical act of correction comes at the beginning. 339 The implications should be clear. Behind these arresting images lies a theory, according to which any attempt at self-correction leads to self-knowledge, to the knowledge of one's own limitations and faults. Such knowledge in turn increases one's sensitivity regarding

cptA<7TITIJL1JT~r, 7rapotvvnKbv ytlp. Cited according to the ed. and trans. by George Norlin, !socrates (LCL; 3 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1980) 1.22-23. 333 For a more detailed discussion see above on SM/ Matt 7:4. 334 The manuscript tradition shows a strong tendency to harmonize vs 42 with its parallel SM/Matt 7:4-5. One must therefore take all these variants as secondary. See the critical apparatus in Aland, Synopsis, 108; Greeven, Synopsis, 7 5. Merx (Die vier kanonischen Evangelien, 2/2.288) proposes the text of D it (cf. sy'·P) as original: Kat laob ~ aoKor £v rif> crif> ocp8aAJLif> t!'IJ"OKEtTat ("and behold, the beam is stuck in your eye"). Merx gives as reasons: ( 1) that the oldest witnesses are often corrected according to Matt 7:4; (2) that the wrong idea is avoided, as if one sees a foreign item in one's own eye. But the reading appears to be simply an "improvement" of the text by a learned scribe. 335 Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.371 nn. 178-81) speaks of "GHittungen" ("smoothings out"), but this is

336

337 338 339

misleading because it suggests that the SP version was familar with its SM counterpart, an assumption for which there is no evidence. See above on SM/Matt 7:5 for further discussion. The same is true for P. Oxy. 1, no. 1 (cited in Aland, Synopsis, 108; Greeven, Synopsis, 40; Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, 1.118; NTApoc 1.105; NTApok 1.103). For the textual variants see above, n. 334. For the meaning see above, on SM/Matt 7:5. Schiirmann (Lukasevangelium, 1.371-72) argues differently that the disciple is being discouraged entirely from correcting others and refers to the parallel in john 8:7 (RSV): "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." But one must see the saying in the SP in the context of early church discipline, for which see SM/Matt 6:14-15; Matt 18:15-18 and its context; 16:19; Did. 15.3; Gal 6:1.

627

the difficulties inherent in correcting oneself and others, limits the temptation to self-righteousness, and facilitates compassion. 340 c. Conduct toward Oneself (6:43-45) • 43 The final rule concerns the disciple's relationship to himself. 341 The rule consists formally of descriptive

rather than imperatival statements; vss 43-45 form a well-structured composition of two sets of three statements each: (1) a set of three sentences (sententiae) comparing plants with human beings (vss 43-44), and (2) a set of three anthropological statements (vs 45). All are united by the underlying assumption that what holds true for plants also holds true for people. 34 2 Verse 43a introduces the first sentence of the first set. Formulated as parallel lines (parallelismus membrorum), 343 it employs both a double negative and an instance of homoioteleuton (lines ending with similiar words): 344 There is no good tree that bears bad fruit, nor again is there a bad tree that bears good fruit.

Ov yap EITT!V o(vopov KaA.ov 'lTOLOVV Kap'lTOV Ua'lTpov, OVOE 'lTaAtv

o(vopov Ua'lTpov 'lTOLOVV Kap'lTOV KaA.ov. 345

The couplet is proverbial, presented as a kind of agricul-

tural rule. The declaration certainly confirms the experience of every grower of fruit trees, and its truth appears obvious even to city dwellers. It is not the purpose of the saying to teach agricultural wisdom, however, but to reveal a particular state of human affairs. 346 Thus it presages vs 45 and the moral application of the rule. 347 Verse 43a is simply an instance of a culture's proverbial wisdom deriving clues from peasant lore. 348 The connection between vs 43 and the preceding vs 42 appears to be effected by catchword: KapcJ>os ("speck" [vs 42]) both looks and sounds similar to Kap'lTos ("fruit" [vs 43]). One should not interpret the yap ("for") at the beginning of the verse as indicating that the preceding material presupposes what follows; it indicates, rather, that we are now reaching the next point. 349 Proverbial as the sentence may be, its meaning is nevertheless not completely clear. Does the sentence refer to trees of good quality or to healthy trees? 350 The word ua'lTpos ("rotten") 351 seems to have been used because of its similarity in sound pattern to Kap'lTos ("fruit") and because of its metaphorical appropriateness. 352 Moreover, vs 43b by repeating the message of vs

340 Cf. the reverse case discussed by Ps.-Isocrates (Demon. 34-35): "When there is anything of which you are ashamed to speak openly, but about which you wish to confer with some of your friends, speak as though it were another's affair; thus you will get their opinion, and will not betray your own case. Whenever you purpose to consult with anyone about your affairs, first observe how he has managed his own; for he who has shown poor judgment in conducting his own business will never give wise counsel about the business of others." Trans. George Norlin, !socrates (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London: Heinemann, 1928) 1.25. 341 Differently, Schtirmann (Lukasroangelium, 1.373-79) thinks here again that the passage is directed against false teachers; similarly but with caution Fitzmyer (Luke, 1.643). But these interpretations are really based on SM/Matt 7:15-20. 342 This assumption is fundamental to much of ancient moral and ethical thought, according to which animals play the more important role, while plants are regarded as a lower form oflife. See Urs Dierauer, Mensch und Tier im Denken der Antike: Ideengeschichtliche Studien zur Tierpsychologie, Anthropologie und Ethik (Studien zur antiken Philosophie 6;

Amsterdam: Gruner, 1977) 109-16. See also above, on SM/Matt 6:25-34, and Betz, Essays, 84-123.

628

343 See on this poetic form Moule, Idiom Book, 173-74, 194-96;Jeremias, Theology,15n. 2. 344 See BDF, § 488 (3). 345 The textual tradition seems fairly clear. Only D latt read the plural Kap1roh cra1rpotJs ("bad fruits"). The reason for this improvement evidently is interpretation: one bad fruit does not make the whole tree bad, and vice versa. W has KaKOV for cra1rp6v ("bad") as the antonym for "good." C .1\' A D 8 pl omit 1raAtV ("again"), no doubt taking it as a redundancy; poetically, as juxtaposed with yap ecrnv, it is not redundant. The better texts read 1raAw: P 75 B IC L W 8 cp I pc. See the critical apparatus in Aland, Synopsis, 108. 346 This insight can be different, depending on the literary context. Cf. SM/Matt 7:17-18; Ignatius Eph. 14.2; Cos. Thom. log. 43 and 45. 347 See also the parallels in Matt 3:10 par.; 12:33; Luke 13:6-9; 23:31; Hermas Sim. 2; etc. For further discussion see above on SM/Matt 7:15-20. 348 For bibliography see above on SM/Matt 7:15-20. 349 See BAGD, s.v. yap. 350 See the discussion by Otto Bauernfeind, "cra1rpos," TDNT 7.94-97. 351 On the term see BAGD andEWNT(EDNT) 3, s.v. ' cra1rpos. 352 The word is traditional in moral exhortation; for the

Luke 6:27-45

43a simply reverses it chiastically, a result from gnomic poetry rather than from a somewhat pedantic logic. The expression "II"OL£'i'v Kap"II"Ov ("make fruit") reflects Semitic idiom (Septuagintism). 353 • 44 The second statement (vs 44a) is a presupposition based on the first: "For every tree is known by its own fruit" (fKaUTOV yap a€vapov tK TOV lalov Kap"II"OV ytvd>uK£Tat). 354 The sentence would appear to be another proverb derived from agricultural wisdom and loosely connected to the preceding proverb (vs 43) by y&.p ("for") in a positive formulation. I assume that the proverb originally was not connected to_vs 43 and the "everyone" (fKauTo!;) does not pertain only to the contrasting good and bad trees of vs 43 but to all trees. The choice of fKauTo!; ("everyone") may be poetic, since its pronunciation is similar to that of ytvd>uK£TaL ("is known") at the end of the sentence. The difference between vss 43 and 44lies in the focus ofvs 44 on the knowing, 355 thereby introducing a further concept necessary to the understanding ofvs 45.356 Verse 44b appears to add what may have been originally a separate proverb. It supports the proverbs in vss 43 and 44a but makes its own point as well:

For from thorns they do not gather a fig, nor do they harvest a grape from a bramble bush. ov yap tt iLK&.v8wv uv>..>..€yovutv uvKa ova~ tK {3aTOV O"Tac/>vA~V TpvyroULV. 35 7

This proverb also offers agricultural wisdom, focusing on experience rather than on knowing (vs 44a). Stated negatively, the proverb sums up impossibilities, 358 revealing the category of proverbs called impossibilia (proverbs stating impossibilities), to which it belongs. 359 The agricultural reference once again serves to illustrate a moral point. The language of vs 44b employs the technical terms that emphasize knowledge of harvesting. 360 Poetic assonance may also influence the choice of words: uv>..>..€yovuw uvKa ("they gather a fig") enclosed by tt aKav8wv ("from thorns") and tK {3aTOV ("from a bramble bush"). In addition, the proverb offers an instance of chiasm: in the first line, the object follows the verb; in the second line, the verb follows the object. •45 Verse 45 is the climax of the composition vss 43-45: the lesson learned from the plants is applied to human existence. 361 The sentence has three parts, formulated positively (cf. the three parts ofvss 43-44). The first two parts comprise antithetical parallel lines (parallelismus

parallels see above on SM/Matt 7:17. 353 See Black, Approach, 100-101, 149; Herbert Braun, "wo.f.ro KTA.," TDNT 6.482-83. 354 For a discussion, see above on SM/Matt 7:16a. Textually, yap is not read by D 700 alit sy'; see the critical apparatus in Aland, Synopsis, 109. Taking it as asyndetic conforms to SM/Matt 7:16a and avoids the clash with the second yap in vs 44b (but it sy' omit it there as well). The parallel in Matt 12:33c has the yap. 355 The term yov6>utcro ("know") occurs only here in the SP; cf. vs 41 tcaravo/w ("perceive") and vs 42 lnaf3>..twro ("see clearly"). 356 The parallels in SM/Matt 7:16a and Matt 12:33b are worded differently and appear in a different context. The parallels inJas 3:12 and Cos. Thom.log. 45 do not have the proverb of vs 44a, but in Ignatius Eph. 14.2 a similar(!) proverb occurs, probably corning from independent tradition: .z>av€p0v TO litvlipov awo TOV Kapwov avrov ("Plainly known [is] the tree from its fruit"). 357 The yap is omitted by it sy• (see on vs 44a), preferring an asyndetic connection. The parallel in SM/Matt 7: 16b is a question. D e read ltc>..lyovrao instead of uv>..>../yovra&, but the latter is well attested by all versions (Matt 7:16b; cf. the Greek retranslation of Cos. Thom. log. 45 (cited in Greeven, Synopsis, 76);

Matt 13:28-30, 40, 41, 48. See BAGD, s. v. uv>..>../yro. 358 The subject in "they gather" is general, as frequently in proverbs. 359 Cf. Jas 3:12: "Is it possible, my brothers, that a fig tree produces olives or a grapevine figs?" For the category of proverbs called "irnpossibles" see James L. Crenshaw, "Questions, dictons et epreuves irnpossibles," in M. Gilbert, ed., La Sagesse de l'Ancien Testament (BETL 51; Gernbloux: Duculot; Leuven: Leuven University, 1979) 96-111. 360 For the terminology see above, on SM/Matt 7:16b. ~ {3aro~ ("bramble bush") occurs only here and, referring to the tradition of the burning bush, in Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37; Acts 7:30, 35; 1 Clem. 17.5. LXX Job 31:40 has the term in a similar proverb. Cf. the variant reading of {3Aaurov ("from the shoot") in IC* (attested also in 1 Clem. 23.4; 2 Clem. 11.3; Barn. 7.8); the origin is unknown. The verb rpvyaro is technical for "harvesting fruit" but is also open to metaphorical interpretation. See also Rev 14: 18-19; 2Clem. I3.9;Diogn. 12.8. 361 On the affinity of tree and human being see above, on SM/Matt 7:17.

629

membrorum), contrasting the good man (vs 45a) and the bad man (vs 45b); the third part presents a concluding maxim (vs 45c). The antithetical parallelism in vss 45a-b is composed of two anthropological/ethical definitions: The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth the good, but the bad out of the bad brings forth the bad. 0 ayaBhs l1v8pCJl1rOS £K TOV aya8ov 87Jcravpov Tijs Kapolas 7Tpocp£pu Tb aya80v, Kal. o7TOV1Jpbs £K Tov 7TOV1Jpov 1rpocp£pu Tb 7TOV1JpOv. 36 2 The style of definition indicates that the text has now changed from proverbial illustrations to the major concept toward which the SP has been consistently moving. The emphasis is not on "doing" (unlike the parallel in SM/Matt 7:15-20) but on "being. "363 The ideal of the "good man" was famous in ancient Greek moral and philosophical thought, and this concept has no doubt intentionally been chosen as an appeal to disciples from the Greek cultural background. 364 Excursus: The Good Man (b ayaeo~ l:l.v8punro~) Although the concept of the good man (o av~p aya86~) has a firm place in ancient Greek social, moral, and philosophical thought, one must nevertheless be aware of conceptual developments and changes through the

362 A number of witnesses (C 5l' A W 8 A pllatt sy'·P sa bo) read Tii~ Kapola~ avTOV ("his heart"); p7 5 B I( Clement have the shorter text, which looks like the more original one. D W omit the article T
630

course of history. In the older epics, in Hesiod, in the poets, and in the inscriptions, the "good man" signifies a societal value rather than an ethical ideal. He is the man who, in the judgment of the community, has achieved a special status because of c~ntributions and benefits he has afforded the community. Public acclaim and honorific inscriptions confer the title of "good man" on such a person. That such a man comes from a good family, is not without material means, and can exercise political influence is all taken for granted. 365 This concept was drastically reinterpreted under the influence of Socrates. 366 According to Plato, Socrates had questioned the value of "the opinion of the many"(~ o6ta Twv 'lTOAAwv) as the proper means for evaluating a person's worth. 367 For him, such an evaluation would require an expert and, in the final analysis, that expert can only be the individual himsel£.368 For Xenophon and Plato, the good man par excellence was their teacher, Socrates, because it was he who had achieved true virtue (ap
Statesman (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London: Heinemann, 1925) 189. See also Apol. 41d; Prot. 324d; Leg. 5, 742e-743c; Resp. 10, 606d. 371 Ps.-Plato Def 415d6-7. See Heinz G. Ingenkamp (Untersuchungen zu den pseudoplatonischen Definitionen [Klassisch-philologische Studien 35; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967]94) who simply points to Aristotle (Eth. Nic. 2.6.3, 1106a 21-24): "excellence or virtue [ap
Luke 6:27-45

are the same in English, but in the Greek, av~p is the male social being and li.v8pro7TO~ is the generic and philosophical term for human being. 37 2 The emphasis is no longer on good deeds performed for the city but on good things in general accomplished for humanity, that is, for one's fellow humans, be it in the sense of the individual or in the sense of humanity as a whole. Later, similar definitions occur in Greek and Latin thought in a variety of forms and sources supporting the great popularity of these basic ideas. Lucian cites the same principle in negative terms, using language similar to that ofthe New Testament. Finally, no doubt from the same tradition came the statement, "Nobody is good who becomes a source of evil for one's neighbor" (ova£~~ yap av aya80~. KaK(;lV arr&o~ ytvotTo

Ti!J 7TA7Ju{ov). 373

In Latin literature, the good man is the vir bonus, an ideal for everyone. Thus Horace can say: "To be sure, I like to be a good man and wise, even as you do" ("nempe vir bonus et prudens dici delector ego ac tu"). 374 But the real question remains: "Who is the 'good man'? He who observes the Senate's decrees, the statutes and laws; whose judgement settles many grave suits; whose surety means safety for property; whose testimony wins suits at law. " 375 This definition is typically Roman and expresses the preferences and expectations of that culture. Philosophical reinterpretation characterizes another definition offered by Cicero: "we wish the good man to be happy always. It is clear whom I mean by good men; for we say that men equipped with and distinguished by all good virtues are wise as well as good" ("omnes bonos semper beatos 3 72 Cf. also Plato Gorg. 4 70e: "for a good and honourable man or woman, I say, is happy, and an unjust and wicked one is wretched" (To p.tv yap Ka>..ov Kaya8ov O.vapa Ka& yvva'i'Ka £-baalp.ova ETval cfJ''IP,L, Thv at Clai.KOV Kai7Tov7JpOv lJ.B>..tov). Trans. W. R. M. Lamb, Plato (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London: Heinemann, 1925) 3.341. 373 Lucian Calumniae non Iemere credendum 7 (my trans.); cf. the context. See also Lucian Toxaris 3 and 47; EpictetusDiss. 2.3.1; 3.24.50-51; 3.26.27-28; 4.5.1; 4.9.8; frg. 2; Plutarch Consolatio ad Apollonium 37, 121F and often. 374 HoraceEpist. 1.16.31-32 (trans. H. Rushton Fairclough; LCL; rev. ed. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1929) 35253. 375 Ibid., 40-43. 376 Cicero Tusc. 5.10.28. Trans.]. E. King, Cicero: Tusculan Disputations (LCL; reprinted Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London: Heinemann, 1945) 455. 377 Idem, De orat. 2.20.85.

volumus esse. Quos dicam bonos perspicuum est; omnibus enim virtutibus instructos et omatos tum sapientes, tum viros bonos dicimus"). 376 Cicero required that the orator be a good man in voice, virtues, spirit, speech, and character; 377 and Quintilian later wrote that he, Cicero, had himself brought the art of oratory to perfection: But for my own part, conforming to the language of every day, I have said time and again, and shall continue to say, that Cicero was a perfect orator, just as in ordinary speech we call our friends good and sensible men, although neither of these titles can really be given to any save him that has attained to perfect wisdom. Ego tamen secundum communem loquendi consuetudinem saepe dixi dicamque, perfectum oratorem esse Ciceronem; ut amicos et bonos viros et prudentissimos dicimus vulgo, quorum nihil nisi perfecte sapienti datur. 378 Most prominent, however, is the figure of the good man in the ethics of Aristotle, who, building on Socrates and Plato, points out the various aspects of a philosophically interpreted concept: 379 The good man must be a man of virtue (aya8o~ KaT' ap..al~ 7Tp&.[
631

(CJ.ptcrror

a• oVx 0 11phr aiJrhv rfi 0.pETfi (iAA' 0 1rphs ~TEpov·

TOVTO yap rpyov xaAf'lr&Alar V
aya8oi.3 85 In the Old Testament and in the Judaism of the postbiblical world, developments parallel those in Greco-Roman society. 386 The good man is a societal, and not necessarily an ethical, ideal. Thus Ahimaaz is called a good man (:::11~ ltl'M) in the eyes of the king (2 Sam 18:27). Under the influence of wisdom thought, the notion is increasingly interpreted ethically. Psalm 112 (LXX: 111) as a whole praises the righteous man as the good, in contrast to the wicked, man. 387 Proverbs 12 in its entirety describes the good man and woman. 388 Ecclesiastes, however, is quite skeptical and redefines the idea: "Behold, what I have seen to be good and to be fitting is to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life which God has given him, for this is his lot. " 389 Hellenistic Judaism sees the Greek concept personified in the great men of the past, especially in Joseph, Abraham, and Moses. 390 On the whole the New Testament rejects the concept of the good person, so that SP /Luke 6:45 383 384 385 386

Ibid., 5.1, 1130a 8-10. Ibid., l0.9,1179a l9-1180b29. Ibid., 8.4, 1157b 1-4. On the concept of ::l11C tt.>M see I. Hover-Johag, ThWAT 3.325-26 (TDOT 5.306). The concept is not frequent in the OT (see 2 Sam 18:27; 1 Kgs 1:42; 2:32). 387 Cf. Psalms 36 and 37 (LXX: 35 and 36). 388 Cf. LXX Proverbs 13 (esp. vs 22) and 14 (esp. vs 14); Mic 6:8; Wis 3:15; 4:9; 8:19-20; Tob 5:13; 7:7. 389 Eccl5:18 (RSV), with the context beginning in vs 13; 3:12; 6:11-12; 7:20; 8:15.

632

occupies a special position. 391 Elsewhere Luke can call Joseph "a good and righteOUS man" (av~p aya8or Kat liiKator (Luke 23:50]). Acts 11:24 calls him "a good man and full of the Holy Spirit and faith" (av~p aya8or Kat 7TA1/p~r 7TVnJp.aTOS aylov Kat 7Tt
Arthur W. H. Adkins, Merit and Responsibility: A Study of Greek Values (Oxford: Clarendon, 1 960). W. den Boer,.Private Morality in Greece and Rome: Some Historical Aspects (Mnemosyne Sup 57; Leiden: Brill, 1979). Kenneth]. Dover, Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California, 1974) 52-53, 63-65, 67, 164,235-39,282-84. Julius Gerlach, ANHP ArA00l: (Munich:]. Lehmaier, 1932). This dissertation collects and interprets the evidence up to Plato. Severin Koster, "Vir bonus et sapiens (Ausonius 363, p. 90 P.)," Hermes 102 (1979) 590-619. Eduard Schwartz, Ethik der Griechen (ed. Will Richter; Stuttgart: Kohler, 1951). Manfred Wacht, "Gtiterlehre," RAG 13 (1984) 59150. 390 See Harm W. Hollander .joseph as Ethical Model in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (SVTP 6; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 65-92: "Joseph as the 'Good Man' in the Testament of Benjamin"; Philo Abr. 4 and passim; and Vita Mos. 1.1 and passim. 391 See Walter Grundmann, "aya8or," TDNT 1.10-18, esp. 15-17 (D); Jorg Baumgarten, EWNT (EDNT) 1, s. v. aya8or. 392 See also John 7:12, which states a favorable view about Jesus held by some Jews: "He is a good man" (aya8or tcrnv).

Luke 6:27-45

Once adopted from the Hellenistic environment, the concept of the "good man" is reinterpreted according to the theology of the SP. Thus, vs 45 constitutes an attempt to formulate a Christian answer to the question, Who is a good man? Of primary concern is the use of the term l1.v8pw7ros ("a human being"), replacing the usual term av~p ("a man"). Indeed, Socrates had pointed out that the answer to the question of the good man cannot be manliness but only humanity. According to Socrates and Plato, the human quality of the l1.v8pw7ros depends on the nature of the soul. 393 The SP does not generally define who is or who is not a good human being; rather it poses the question, How can the disciple of Jesus become a good person? Thus, the Greek concepts are important, and one must

take seriously 0 aya8o<; li.v8pw7rO<; ("the good human being"). Only one who deserves the attribute "the good one" deserves as well the name "human being." 394 How does one become a good human being? Tradition helps to answer the question. The factor determining how one can become a good human person is the condition of the heart. 395 According to the SP, two kinds of people exist, those of good and those of evil heart, and the character of the heart determines the character of the person throughout his or her life. The good person is thus good because his or her heart is a treasure of goodness (~K TOV aya8ov 87Jcravpov Tij<; Kapslas), 396 which "produces" (7rpoq>€pct) 397 the goodness characteristic of

393 For further material see Hans Dieter Betz, "The cational ideal in ancient Egypt, see Brunner, AltDelphic Maxim rN.00I I:A YTON in Hermetic iigyptischeErziehung, 4-5,45, 73, 119-23,126, 147, Interpretation," HTR 63 (1970) 465-84; idem, "The 150. See also Theognis 63, 409-10; Prov 20:15. Delphic Maxim 'Know Yourself in the Greek Wettstein (1.394) cites Menander Mon. 27: avSphr Magical Papyri," HR 21 (1981) 156-81; reprinted in xapaKT~P £K >..6-yov yvropl(£ra• ("A man's character is Betz, Hellenismus und Urchristentum, 92-111, 156known from his speech" [my trans.]). Ps.-Isoc. Demon. 72; furthermore, Betz and Edgar W. Smith, Jr., "De 1.29: KaAOr yap 87Jcravphr 7Tap' avSpt CT7TOVSal'!' xci.p•r e apud Delphos," in PECL 1.85-102; cf. 2.55, 221, ocf!<~Aop.,v7J ("Do good to the good; for favor owed is a 375, 379-82;Johannes Mewaldt, "Homo sum," good treasure laid up for a serious man" [my trans.]). Anzeiger der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, See also Ps.-Pythagoras Carmina a urea 28 (trans. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Jahrgang 79 (1942) Johan Thorn): "It is typical of a worthless man indeed (Vienna: Holder, Pichler, Tempsky, 1943) 167-79. to do or to say senseless things." 394 The term is used here somewhat differently com397 The term 7rpocf!,p<~v ("bring forth") occurs only here pared with previous instances in the SP (Luke 6:22, in the NT (see BAGD and PGL, s. v. ). The choice of 26, 31, 48, 49; cf. the title "Son of man" in 6:22). the word in this context may have been influenced by 395 The concept occurs only here in the SP. For discusStoic language theory, in which the concepts of o sion see above on SM/Matt 5:8, 28; 6:21. 7rpocf!opLKOr >..6-yor ("thought/ conception uttered") and 396 This concept occurs only here in the SP. Cf. the its counterpart o£va,J.8£ror >..6-yor ("thought/ concepparallels in Matt 12:35a; Cos. Thom.log. 45. Beyond tion residing in the mind") played a prominent role these passages the concept of the treasure of the (translations in this note are mine). The popularity of heart occurs in Paul (Rom 2:5; cf. 2 Cor 4:7). these concepts beyond Stoicism can be seen from Instead, the SM has the concept of "treasures in adaptations elsewhere, among them Hermogenes heaven" (SM/Matt 6:19-21); see also Mark 10:21// I1£pt lS£wv >..6-yov 2. 7: £vo•a8,Tror A.'yflv ("speak from Matt 19:21//Luke 18:22; also Mark 12:33, 34; cf. within"); LXX Prov 10:13, about the sage: 8r EK Matt 13:44, 52; Col 2:3. For further discussion see XfiA,rov 7rpocf!,p€1 uocplav ("who from his lips brings above on SM/Matt 6:19-21. Similar sayings occur forth wisdom"); Corp. Herm. 13:7: o£vSLci.8£ror frequently in ancient wisdom: e.g., Hesiod Erga 719tf.v8pro7ror ("the innermost human being"). Philo in 20: yAWCTCT'I/f TOI 87Jcravp0r fV av8pw7TOICTIV tf.p1CTT0f particular shows how the Stoic material was taken cf!<~SroA.fjr, 7TA£i..6-yor; on Stoicism, see SVF, 4.90-91, 124, s.v. passages in West's commentary, Hesiod: Works and >..6-yor, 7rpocf!op1KOr >..6-yor; de Vogel, Greek Philosophy, 3, Days, 238, 332. For the man of silence as the edunos. 965 and 991; Bonhoffer, Epictet und die Stoa,

633

the person. Goodness (To aya86v) 398 can neither be achieved nor imposed on one; plainly and simply, goodness is the external manifestation of the internal quality of the heart. How the heart obtains, or fails to obtain, such a quality is not considered. 399 The text presents the matter only to this point. What do Hellenistic Christian disciples learn from this definition? First, and most importantly, they learn a new kind oflanguage. Instead of the language of the Greek philosophical and religious traditions, they encounter the language of the biblical tradition, in which the innermost life of the human being concerns the mortal heart rather than the immortal soul. 400 This anthropological change profoundly affects the totality of human conduct. True humanness no longer rests in care for the divine soul (tvx~) or for the divine part of the soul, the "mind" (vovs), but it is centered in the heart, 401 from which, despite its frailty, foolishness, and sinfulness, "the good" emerges-provided that goodness resides there. "The good" consists neither of material possessions nor of virtuous deeds but of thoughts and decisions made or generated from the heart. 402 Such goodness characterizes the whole person and is manifested first of all in

one's language (vs 45c). Verse 45b goes on to contrast the good person with the bad, and it is noteworthy that the bad is not even designated as a "human being" (ltv8pw1ros). An evil human being was apparently felt to constitute a contradiction in terms. Why? The answer is logical. The evil person does not hold a treasure in the heart. Indeed, neither treasure nor heart is in such a person, but only a deposit of evil (To 7rOV1jp6v). 403 This deposit of evil does not remain dormant but manifests itself, and these manifestations make a person evil. Evil can only reproduce evil, and evil inside necessitates evil outside. 404 Evil will thus be the nature of the individual, who will speak and act accordingly. Verse 45c concludes the argument with a maxim: "For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks" (iK yhp m:ptuu£vp.aTos Kapolas A.aA.£'i' To uT6p.a a·hov). 405 This concise maxim omits the articles. Even the final avTOV ("his") may have been added by the SP for the sake of coordination with vs 45a-b. 406 What does this final sentence contribute? Apart from confirming the preceding material with what originally may have been a proverb, it observes that the most

113-18. 398 Also this term appears to be influenced by the philosophical tradition. It occurs only here in the SP, and not at all in the SM. See BAGD, s.v. aya66~. 2.a.a. 399 Differently, Marshall (Luke, 273), who follows Walter Gutbrod, "v6p.o~ ," TDNT 4.1062. 400 For Plato's views on the origin of language in the soul, see above on SM/Matt 5:33-37; furthermore, Clement Alex. Paed. 2.5.2 (GCS, vol. 1, p. 185, lines 3-4 [my trans.]): "The fruit of the mind is the word" (Kap7rhs- ar.avolar 0 AOyoS' EuTtV). 401 Cf. Sir 27:6 (my trans.): "The fruit discloses the cultivation of a tree; in the same-way speech [is the expression] of the thought of the human heart" (LXX: y€6Jpyr.ov f{JA.ov EK.palv€1. 0 Kap7ThS' aVToV, oihws .\&yo~ lv6vp.~p.aTO~ Kapoias av6pcl>nov). See also Job 8:10. Building on metaphors, Cicero (Tusc. 2.13) determines: "cultura animi philosophia est" ("Philosophy is cultivation of the mind"; 'my trans.). 402 The belief is common in antiquity; see, e.g., the Egyptian Instruction of Ptah-Hotep, lines 40-50 and 545ff., according to ANET, 412-14; also Quintilian Inst. 11.1.30 (trans. H. E. Butler, Quintilian [LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University; London: Heinemann, 1922]4.172-73): "For a man's character is generally revealed and the secrets of his heart are laid bare by his manner of speaking, and there is

634

403

404 405

406

good ground for the Greek aphorism that, 'as a man lives, so will he speak"' ("Profert enim mores plerumque oratio et animi secreta detegit. Nee sine causa Graeci prodiderunt, ut vi vat, quemque etiam dicere"). Cf. Aristides Or. 47 (ed. Bruno Keil, Aelii Aristidis quae supersunt omnia, vol. 2 [Berlin: Weidmann, 1898; reprint 1958]) 49, critical apparatus to lines 30-31: ofoS' 0 Tpc!nros TotoVTov £Ivat. Kat Thv A6yov ("As the manner of life, so also the speech"; my trans.). See also SP /Luke 6:22 and 35. The SM has different ideas: evil is external (SM/Matt 5:11, 37, 39; 6:13; 7:17, 18), affecting the internal (6:22-23); humanity, including Jesus' disciples, is evil (5:45; 7:11), living in an evil world (5:3-12; 6:34), from which God must rescue them (6: 13). Cf. the principle in Mark 7:15//Matt 15:11. Some of the witnesses have the articles, probably as harmonization with the parallel in Matt 12:34: C 0.\ al read Tov nTov at the end is not read by C al aur r 1 vg sy'·P sam" b. and is not read in the parallel Matt 12:34.

Luke 6:27-45

important evidence for a person's constitution-one's "goodness" or "badness"-rests in one's words: not deeds but words reveal one's true nature. The maxim, then, presents a theory concerning human language and its relation to the individual. 407 Every individual has a distinctive language, the character and quality of which are determined by the heart, the center of human identity. That language reveals "the good" and "the bad" of which vs 45a-b speaks. That this maxim does not mention good and bad deeds implies its distance from the Jewish conceptuality of the SM. For the SP actions are ambiguous and secondary to language.408 As the discussion of the fourth antithesis of SM/Matt 5:33-37 has shown, the early church attached extraordinary importance to the problem of language. Speech is by nature spontaneous, and one can deduce with relative ease a person's identity and character by listening carefully to his or her language. Language also regulates one's interpersonal relations as well as relations to God and to the world in general. That one can fake and falsify language is not considered here. 409 Which conclusions, then, can one draw from the entire

composition ofvss 43-45? To be a "good human being" is affirmed as the goal of the disciple, and through this affirmation the church adopts and confirms the ethical ideals of Greek culture, albeit modified under the impact of the Jesus-tradition. Gaining a proper perspective on oneself involves first an objective evaluation of one's language: What am I saying? What does my speech reveal? These questions may be truisms, but historically they mark an important point, for through such queries the early church profoundly changed the language of its environment. One can see this subtle process of development throughout the New Testament. Careful attention paid to language is related to self-inspection and selfknowledge: What kind of heart do I have? 410 What does my heart tell me about myself? The text ends here, but the practice of self-reflection has only begun.

407 For similar doctrines see Matt 12:33-35; Cos Thorn. works of the angel of wickedness .... Whenever, log. 45; Mark 7:1-23 (esp. vss 18-23). On the whole therefore, he enters into your heart, know him from topic see Biihlmann, Vom rechten Reden und Schweigen, his works." SM/Matt 7:15-20 is a different appassim; for the role of the heart see above on plication of these doctrines to the exposing of false SM/Matt 6:19-21. prophets. 408 For a different interpretation cf. Ignatius Eph. 14.2 409 On this topic see SM/Matt 5:33-37;Jas 3:1-18; Eph (trans. William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A 4:29; and the notion of olyA.wrnror ("double-tongued, deceitful") in Did. 2.4; Barn. 19. 7; furthermore Acts Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985)75): "The tree is 5:3; Rom 2:5. 41 0 The logical next step would be to speak about the known from its fruit; thus those professing to be of purity of the heart, as SM/Matt 5:8 does, but the SP Christ will be seen by what they do." Similarly, Hermas Man. 6.2.4 (my trans.): "See now also the has no such doctrine.

635

Luke 6:46- 49 Chapter Ill The Parable of the Two Builders

6 46

47 48

49

Why do you call me "Lord. Lord!" but do not do the things I say? Everyone who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show by example what he is like. He is like a man building a house who excavated and dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock. When the flood came and the river burst against that house. it could not shake it because of its having been built well. He. however, who hears and does not do is like a man building a house on the ground without a foundation, against which the river burst, and immediately it collapsed. and the downfall of that house was a great one.

1. Analysis The final section, the peroration, begins in vs 46 and includes two subsections: (1) a rhetorical question that functions as a warning against misconceptions concerning discipleship (vs 46), and (2) a double parable, also a warning, describing in powerful images both success and failure (vss 47-49). While the previous section (vss 43-45) argued the need for self-recognition, the peroration (vss 46-49) establishes the need for action (wo&lro). This sequence of self-knowledge and action again indicates the Hellenistic outlook of the SP. 2. Interpretation • 46 Marked off from the preceding material by a~ ("but"),

vs 46 asks a rhetorical question, "Why do you call. tne 'Lord, Lord,' but do not do the things I say?" (Tl a£ jJ.( Ka~iLT(" KVPI(, KVp!(, Kat oil 'lTOiiin >..f.yw;). 1 In fact, there is no answer to this question; the reader must draw his or

a

2

3

636

her own conclusions. All one can say is that the query discloses an absurd habit of the disciples, a habit for which the text gives neither reason nor excuse. The first part of the sentence presents a caricature of a formal devotional habit of the disciples toward their teacher, 2 a habit actually no more peculiar to jesus' disciples than to students in general. The disciples address jesus as "lord" (Kvp&os-) 3 continuously, to the extent of absurdity. 4 The critique of this habit is presented here from the general perspective of the educator. The teacher observes with amusement and indignation that this display of subservience is accompanied by the failure of the same students to act on what he tells them to do, 5 thus alluding to the ancient educational requirement for consistency in learning and

Some manuscripts have reformulated the beginning of the question: 543 pc syP lrenaeus read Tl pi KaA€LT€; ("Why do you call me?"); the Ill may have fallen out because ofhaplography. D pc read Tllll p.€ ll.l")'€T€; ("Why then do you say to me?"), perhaps harmonizing the text with SM/Matt 7:21. p75 Be have the singular II instead of the plural/:!; see the critical apparatus in Aland, Synopsis, 110. Caricatures of disciples are part of the ancient 4 anecdotal literature concerning teachers and their disciples. The Gospels have developed these caricatures in special ways, such as the recurring motif of the disciples constantly misunderstanding their 5 master. The question is whether the address as "Lord" (~e!\p&os) has christological overtones in the SP. The SP dearly differs at this point from SM/Matt 7:21-23,

where a group of outsiders calls jesus in this way. In the SP, the disciples themselves address their master by this title. The title is used here, however, not in the higher christological sense but as appropriate for an honored person of higher rank such as a teacher. For this usage see Matt 25:11;John 12:21; Acts 16:30; etc. On the whole see BAGD, s.v. ~e!\p&os, Il.1.b; Bultmann, History, 116 n. 2; Schiirmann, Lukasevangelium, 1.380-81. For the figure of doubling (geminatio, epanadiplosis) see BDF, § 493 (1); BDR, § 493, 1; also Betz, Essays, 130 n. 24. For further discussion see above on SM/Matt 7:2123.

Luke 6:46-49

existence in daily life. Any discrepancy between an external display of loyalty and an internal disloyalty through ignorance of or contempt for the curriculum destroys any meaningful concept of discipleship and renders it farcical. 6 The rhetorical question of vs 46 thus discloses two essential facts: ( 1) the description is typical of the behavior of immature disciples; (2) such behavior is actually, although regrettably, found among the disciples of Jesus so addressed. 7 Consequently, the question demands an admission that the cited behavior cannot be denied, justified, or excused. The question reveals that the disciples envisioned in the SP are still in a state of general, not to mention specifically Christian, immaturity, and that the road toward "graduation" is lengthy. 8 •47 The double parable of the two builders concludes the peroration, and thus the entire SP. It closely parallels the Matthean Sermon on the Mount (see above on SM/Matt 7:24-27). As I discussed in the section on the SM parallel, the use of building metaphors to end an epitome of this kind is stylistically traditional. I will note specific similarities and differences between the two passages. 9 The introductory sentence states explicitly the purpose of the first parable (vs 4 7). The parable that follows describes the successful student whose resolute efforts parallel the safety and sturdiness of a house built on rock (vs 48). The contrasting second parable describes the failing student using the same metaphors and images, the builder constructing not on rock but on sand (vs 49). Each parable presents the characteristics of the successful and the failing student, in that order (vss 4 7a, 49a), so as 6

7

8

9

to demonstrate success and failure through contrasting imaginative images and metaphors (vss 48b, 49b). The message of the two parables should be clear. They represent not only a final warning against failure of discipleship but also confirmation of its purpose and goals. The threats of failure serve as a firm reminder of the preventive purpose of education, which one must constantly keep in focus. In addition to the warning, one finds strong affirmation for the success of a well-prepared disciple. The idea that education assures success in discipleship underlies the whole of the SP. Discipleship is not merely an end in itself, however; it is also a discipline that enables the Christian to sustain the calamities and vicissitudes oflife. The introductory sentence (vs 4 7) contains two parts: first the definition of the qualities of the good disciple (vs 4 7a), and then the literary definition of the subsequent double parable: "Everyone who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you by example what he is like" (Iliis b £px6JJ.
Three characteristics identify the good disciple. First, like all disciples, the good disciple "comes to" Jesus: ~PXOJJ.aL 1rp6s Twa is a technical term denoting the initiative leading to discipleship. 11 The present tense of the participles in vs 4 7 indicates an ongoing process; the contrasting aorist tense of the participles in vs 49 indicates interruption. 12 The characteristic "coming to" Jesus has no parallel in SM/Matt 7:24. Is this difference accidental or intentional? Is it an indication of differing

It would amount to a contradiction between doctrine and life. On this topic see Betz, Lukian, 114-16. 10 Cf. the different wording of the saying in P. Egerton 2, frg. 2 recto (cited in Aland, Synopsis, Ill, lines 2627; Greeven, Synopsis, 76; NTApoc 1.97; NTApok 1.85): 0 at 'I71(1Tovy) .zat,y [r~v a.] avotav [al!r]wv lJLf3p
1912]285) and Klostermann (Lukasevangelium, 85) point correctly to the Greek character of the passage. Instead of the genitive plural rwv A&ywv, C 'I' al read the accusative roh A&yovy. This fits better with avroVY in vs 47 (at the end) and also conforms to the parallel in SM/Matt 7:24a; hence it is to be rejected in favor of the lectio dijficilior. On the rule "The more difficult reading is the more probable reading," see Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (trans. Erroll F. Rhodes; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 276 (#10). See Matt 3:14; 14:28, 29; 19:14; 25:39; Mark 1:40, 45; 2: 12; 3:8; etc. For the passages see BAGD, s.v. ;PXOJLal, l.l.a.{3. For this observation I am indebted to Johan Thorn.

637

presuppositions regarding discipleship? Scholars have often commented that one's approaching Jesus in order to become a disciple is contrary to Jesus' understanding of discipleship. Rather, it is Jesus who takes the initiative and calls his disciples into his service. 13 The call narratives of the Gospels make this point. 14 Students who themselves take the initiative in approaching Jesus are often rebuffed as failures. 15 Thus, the narratives of the Gospels assume that Jesus himself called the historical disciples, later named apostles. 16 In the period of the early church, even apostles such as Paul and James were still called, now by the risen Christ. But the great numbers of new Christians who joined the church came without doubt on their own initiative. It seems likely that vs 4 7a regards these new Christian converts, for whom the text of the SP was composed, as those who "come to" Jesus. The second and third characteristics of the good disciple concern hearing and acting on the sayings of Jesus. I have sufficiently discussed these characteristics in their connection with SM/Matt 7:24a, 26a. It is ~<>rth noting, however, that the reference to the words (T{;JV A.6ywv) of Jesus does not seem to be as restrictive here as in SM/Matt 7:24a, where "these my words" refers to the SM itself. Does the SP seek to extend the disciples' horizon to Jesus' sayings outside the SP? If such is the case, one wonders whether the remark implies an opening to other sayings collections, for example, Q. Verse 4 7b provides literary information, instructing that one should read the subsequent "parable," as it is usually called, as a demonstration of the point made in vs 47a, that is by implication the point of the SPas a whole. The verb V71'00£LKVVJU 17 is used here with the special meaning "to demonstrate by a story of the v71'6ouyJLa type," 18 indicating that one is not to read vss 48-49 in 13 14 15 16

17 18

638

the usual manner of Jesus' parables. It may even be the case that one must take seriously the preposition v71'o- as alluding to the "underlying" deeper meaning. • 48 The first parable (vs 48) consists of two sections: first, a narrative picture of the good builder constructing a house (vs 48a); and second, a further narrative picture describing an attack on the house by the forces of nature (vs 48b). The narrative picture of the building of the.' house reads: "He is like a man building a house who excavated and dug deep (into the ground) and laid a foundation on the rock (({JLOLd~ £crnv av8pch~ o1KOOOJLOVVTL olKLaV 8~ E'crKal/fw Kat £{3a8vv£V, Kat E'8TJK€V 8€JLEALOV ht T~v 71'ETpav ). 19 The introductory words "he is like" (()JLot6~ lcrnv) use the form common to the parables ofJesus. 20 This formula seems redundant here; indeed, it creates some tension with the preceding introduction in vs 4 7b. In the parables in the strict sense as used by Jesus, one must make a literary distinction between the formula "he is like" and the "example" (v7r6ouyJLa), but this difference is ignored here. The tension is without doubt the result of redaction. Verse 48a seems to be the older introduction from the source material, while vs 4 7b is a later introduction originating with the composer of the SP. The builder of the house is simply called "a man" (Civ8pw7ro~). with no further distinguishing attributes (vss 48a, 49a). 21 SM/Matt 7:24b, 26a differ in that there the "prudent man" (av~p cpp6vLJLO~) is contrasted with the "foolish man" (av~p JLrop6~). 22 The significant differences between the SP and the SM come to the fore at this point: the SP focuses on the building process, while the SM focuses on the types of builders. Such a difference would seem to result from variant literary functions and theologies responsible for the reformulation of the tradition by each text.

See Bornkamm,]esus, 144-52; Betz, Nachfolge, 10, 43; Ulrich Luz, "Discipleship," IDBSup, 232-34. Mark 1:16-20 par.; 2:13-14 par.; etc. See Arthur J. Droge, "Call Stories," ABD 1.821-23. See esp. Mark 10:17-22 par.; Luke 9:57-62 par. The concept of apostle does not appear in the SP or in the SM. See Betz, Galatians, 74-75 (with the excursus); idem, ABD 1.309-11. On this term see BAGD, s.v. fnrollrlKvVJLt, 2. For such examples to be imitated, see John 13:15;Jas 5:10; 1 Clem. 5.1; 6.1; 46.1; 63.1; for examples not to be imitated see Heb 4:11; 2 Pet 2:6. On the whole

19 20

21 22

matter see BAGD, s.v. fnr6o£tyJLa; Spicq, Notes, 2.907-9; Adolf Lumpe, "Exemplum," RAG 6 (1966) 1229-57. The omission of llJLot6~ £crnv in sy' is due to haplography (cf. vs 4 7b at the end). Cf. also SP /Luke 6:4 7b and 49a. For discussion about the introductory formula see Bultmann, History, 91, 326;Jeremias, Parables, 100-103; BAGD, s.v. llJLoto~. 1. On the term lJ.v6pw1ro~ see above on SP /Luke 6:45. See above on SM/Matt 7:24-27.

Luke 6:46-49

The SP is characterized, then, because of the careful description of the building process, by the laying of the foundations in particular. The verbs describing this construction are simultaneously metaphors of intellectual activity. 23 The man "excavates" (uKctnnw)2 4 the ground, "going deep down" (f3a86vttv) 25 to rock bottom, and "lays a foundation" (n8£va1 8Ep.buov) 26 "on the rock" (l?TI. T~v 'lTfTpav). 27

Verse 48b assumes that the attack by the forces of nature occurs upon completion of the building: "Then the flood came and the river burst against the house, but it could not shake it because of its having been built well"

o

(1TATJp.p.6pTJ'> ITE ywop.fVTJ'> ?Tpou£pTJtEV ?TOTap.hs Tfi OtKL~ fKELV?I, Kal. OVK ruxvuEV ITaAEVITal avT~V otd. TO KaAW'i OLKOOop.iju8at avT~V). 28 The course of events differs

characteristically from those of the SM. The SP assumes that a rising river flood, 2 9 "bursting against" (?Tpoup~uuw) 30 the house, proved unable to shake it (ua'AE6w) 31 because of its solid structure. 23 24

25

26

27 28

29

30

• 49 The second parable in vs 49 presents the counter-

picture ofvs 48, describing the failing student through the image of the careless builder. Only the most important elements of this second parable are expressly stated; the reader's imagination must supply the rest. The first part of the sentence describes the man and his activities: "But he who hears and does not do, he is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation" (o OE aKo!Juas Kal. p.~ 'lTOI~ITas Clp.OIIJ'i fiTTLV av8pol1TCJJ OLKOOOJJ-~ITavn OLKLav f'lTL T~V yijv xwp\s 8Ep.EALov). 3 2 The initial clause identifies the failing student by noting that he only "hears" (aKo!JEw) but he fails to "do" (?Tou'i'v). 33 That no objects are given 34 can only mean that such a student, although he listens to the sayings of the master, does not really hear them. The sayings go in one ear and out the other. He misses the appeal to act in what he hears, and thus he misses the point. His major identifying trait is nonaction. 35

Cf. above on SM/Matt 7:24b, 26b. For the term uKtt7Tr<..,os ("foundation") see Rom 15:20; 1 Cor 3:10, 12; Eph 2:20; 1 Tim 6: 19; 2 Tim 2:19. Cf. SM/Matt 7:25, which uses only the verb. For bibliography and discussion see BAGD; Karl Ludwig Schmidt, TDNT 3.63-64; and Gerd Petzke, EWNT(EDNT) 2, s.v. e.,.J>..10s KTA. For discussion see above on SM/Matt 7:24b. Again the textual tradition shows the tendency of harmonization with SM/Matt 7:25b: C W D 0 A. cp pl !at syP read u8<1'-
its openness to metaphorical interpretation. For parallels see Wettstein, 1.1397; and BAGD, s.v. 7rpoup~uuw.

31

32

33 34 35

The term uaA.
639

The parable itself stands in analogy to its predecessor in vs 48. The man's building activities are judged careless because he sets the house directly on the surface of the earth. 36 The additional remark "without a foundation" 37 reveals the thrust of the story, the question being whether a foundation exists. 38 Such a focus concerns the intellectual, doctrinal, and ethical foundations presented throughout the SP. Verse 49b describes with quick strokes of the pen the effects of the flood on the house: "The river burst against it, and immediately it collapsed, and its downfall was a 36

37

38

640

(n

great one" 7rpordp7Jtw o7rorap.os, Kat t:Mhs uvv€7rt:ut:v Kat €y€vt:ro TO pijyp.a rijs o1Klas EKt:lv1)s p.£ya). 39 The description assumes events identical to those of vs 48, but now the flood hits the house built on the foundationless surface. Predictably, the house quickly collapses, its supporting structure completely eroded by the raging river. One cannot ignore the metaphorical applications of the term uvp.7rl7rrt:LV ("collapse"). 40 Thus the last line brings the drama to a fatal conclusion and leaves the hearer with a final warning that one cannot disregard. 41

The metaphorical meaning suggests superficiality. The images in the SM differ, and the rock is con39 trasted with sand. In Greek, this lack of a foundation would be called aiJEJ.LE{I\tor, Or similarly, which is Used metaphorically. See LSJ, s.v., citing Secundus Sententiae 17 (ed. F. W. A. Mullach, Fragmenta Philosophorum Graecorum [Paris: Didot, 1841) 1.515);PGL, s.v. aileJ.Lel\lwror, citing Epiphanius Adv. haer. 44.4 (GCS, vol. 1, p. 196. 7; PC 41.828C). Related is the issue of ~6o1roda ("character portrayal") in Rhet. ad Her. 4.50.63: "I have commenced an insane undertaking-to build on the same foundations" (i.e., of houses previously burned down). Epictetus Diss. 2.15.4-12 gives a good illustration of this point. Here he tells about a friend who had made 40 the decision to starve himself to death, apparently drawing this false conclusion from philosophical precepts. Epictetus counsels the man by calling his attention to the "foundation" for his decision (2.15.8-9): "Do you not wish to make your beginning 41 and your foundation [rhv ileJ.Lhtov] firm, that is, to consider whether your decision is sound or unsound, and only after you have done that proceed to rear there on the structure [E7rOtKoaoJ.Letv] of your determination and your firm resolve? But if you buy a rotten [ua1rp&v; ~f. vs 43) and crumbling [Kara1rt1rrov) foundation, you cannot rear thereon even a small building [oiKoaoJ.L&nov], but the bigger and the stronger your superstructure is, the more quickly it will fall down." Trans. by W. A. Oldfather, Epictetus (LCL; 2 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1925) 1.316-19. The textual variants are mostly stylistic in nature and express the tendency of harmonization with the SM. W adds Kal to the connective ii; D it drop the y altogether (haplography? cf. the following letter 1r). D reads uvv£pp71~ev, perhaps because of uvv£1reuev. W also adds avrfi as the object of the verb. A number of witnesses prefer eVIl£wr (~A W 01\ .ppm) to eVIltJr, while D a c drop the word, probably in harmonization with the SM, which does not read it. The simplex ~1reuev is preferred by C ~A W al, perhaps because of the paraenetic metaphor (see Jas 5: 12; 1 Cor 10:8, 12; 13:8; etc.; and the parallel in SM/Matt 7:27b). See the critical apparatus in Aland, Synopsis, 110. That is, a
Bibliography Indices

Bibliography

In view of the enormous volume of bibliography on the SM, the SP, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Gospel of Luke, the following list is by necessity selective. Its purpose is to guide the reader to reference works and critical editions, and to selected secondary works. 1 . Reference Biblia Patristica. Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans [a littirature patristique (5 vols.; Paris: Editions du C.N.R.S., 1975-82). Catenae graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum (ed. John A. Cramer; Oxford: Clarendon, 1840; reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1967). Clavis patrum Graecorum, vol. 4: Concilia, Catenae (ed. Mauritius Geerard; CChr; Turnholti: Brepols, 1980). Bonifatius Fischer Die lateinischen Evangelien his zum 10. Jahrhundert, vol. 1: Varianten zu Matthiius (Vetus Latina: A us der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel 13; Freiburg: Herder, 1988). Joseph Reuss Matthiiuskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche, aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt und herausgegeben (TV 61; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957). Joseph Reuss Lukaskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche, aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt und herausgegeben (TV 130; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1984). Joseph Reuss "Evangelien-Erklarungen vom 4.-9.Jahrhundert in der griechischen Kirche," in Joachim Gnilka, ed., Neues Testament und Kirche: Festschrift filr Rudolf Schnackenburg (Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 476-96. Hermann Josef Sieben Exegesis patrum: Saggio bibliograjico sull' esegesi biblica dei Padri della chiesa (Sussidi Patristici 2; Rome: Instituto Patristico Augustinianum, 1983). Harold Smith Ante-Nicene Exegesis of the Gospels (2 vols.; London: SPCK, 1925-26). C. H. Turner "The Early Greek Commentators on the Gospel according to St. Matthew," JTS 12 (1911) 99-112. Theodor Zahn Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (2 vols.; Erlangen: Deichert, 1888-92). 2. History of Interpretation Luise Abramowski "Die 'Erinnerungen' der Apostel beiJustin," in Peter Stuhlmacher, ed., Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. Vortrage zum Tiibinger Symposium 1982 (WVNT 28; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1983) 341-53. ET: "The 'Memories of the Apostles' in

Justin," in Peter Stuhlmacher, ed., The Gospel and the Gospels (trans. John Vriend; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 323-35. Arthur J. Bellinzoni The Sayings ofJesus in the Writings ofjustin Martyr (NovTSup 17; Leiden: Brill, 1967). Karlmann Beyschlag "Zur Geschichte der Bergpredigt in der Alten Kirche," ZThK 74 (1977) 291-322. Johannes Bouterse De boom en zijn vruchten: Bergrede en Bergredechristendom bij Reformatoren, Anabaptisten en Spiritualisten in de zestiende eeuw (Proefschrift; Th.D. diss., Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden, 1986; Kampen: Kok, 1986). Norbert Brox Der Hirt des Hermas (Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vatern 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). Robert M. Grant "The Sermon on the Mount in Early Christianity," Semeia 12 (1978) 215-31. H. Benedict Green "Matthew, Clement and Luke: Their Sequence and Relationship," JTS 40 (1989) 1-25. Victor E. Hasler Gesetz und Evangelium in der Alten Kirche his Origenes: Eine auslegungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Zurich and Frankfurt: Gotthelf, 1953). Adolf Hilgenfeld Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die Evangelienjustin's, der clementinischen Homilien und Marcion's: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der iiltesten Evangelien-Literatur (Halle: Schwetschke, 1850). Adolf Hilgenfeld Novum Testamentum extra canonem receptum (Lipsiae: Weigel, 1866). Otto Knoch "Kenntnis und Verwendung des Matthausevangeliums bei den Apostolischen Vatern," in Ludger Schenke, ed., Studien zum Matthiiusevangelium: Festschrift filr Wilhelm Pesch (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988) 157-77. Wolf-Dietrich Kohler Die Rezeption des Matthiiusevangeliums in der Zeit vor lreniius (WVNT 2.24; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1987). Helmut Koester Synoptische Uberlieferung bei den Apostolischen Viitern (TV 65; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957). Helmut Koester Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990). Andreas Lindemann Die Clemensbriefe (HNT 17; Die Apostolischen Vater I; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992).

643

Edouard Massaux Influence de l'Evangile de Saint Matthieu sur la litterature chretienne avant Saint /renee (Lou vain: Publications universitaires; Gembloux: Duculot, 1950). Reprint edition by Frans Neirynck, with a "Supplement bibliographie 1950-1985" by B. Dehandschutter (BETL 75; Leuven: Peeters, 1986). ET: The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus (New Gospel Studies 5.1-3; 3 vols.; trans. Norman J. Belva! and Suzanne Hecht; ed. Arthur J. Bellinzoni; Louvain: Peeters; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University, 1990-91). Edouard Massaux "Le texte du sermon sur Ia montagne de Matthieu utilise par Saint justin: Contribution a Ia critique textuelle de premier evangile," ETL 27 (1954) 411-48; reprinted in Influence (1986 ed. only), 725-62. Michael Mees Ausserkanonische Parallelstellen zu den Herrenworten und ihre Bedeutung (Quaderni di Vetera Christianorum 10; Bari: Istituto di letteratura cristiana antica, 197 5 ). Michael Mees Die Zitate aus dem Neuen Testament bei Clemens von Alexandrien (Quaderni di Vetera Christianorum 2; Bari: Istituto di letteratura cristiana antica, 1970). Marcel Metzger Les Constitutions Apostoliques, vol. 1, containing Books 1 and 2 (SC 320; Paris: Cerf, 1985). Herbert Musurillo The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon, I 972). Kurt Niederwimmer Die Didache (Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vatern 1; KEK Sup series; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988). Alfred Resch Agrapha: Ausserkanonische Schriftfragmente (TU 15.34; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967). Brigitta Stoll De Virtute in Virtutem: Zur Auslegungs- und Wirkungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt in Kommentaren, Predigten und hagiographischer Literatur von der Merowingerzeit bis um 1200 (BGBE 30; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1988). See the reviews by Rolf Sprandel, GGA 241 (1989) 258-64; Hans Dieter Betz, Critical Review of Books in Religion 4 (1991) 237-39. William D. Stroker Extracanonical Sayings ofjesus (Atlanta: Scholars, 1989). 3. Commentaries a. Patristic Period (in roughly chronological order) Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Ubersetzung, vol. 1: Evangelien; vol. 2: Apostolisches, Apokalypsen

644

und Verwandtes (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 5th ed. 1987-89; 6th ed. 1990). ET: New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; trans. Robert MeL. Wilson; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1991-92). Die Apostolischen Vater. Die Apostolischen Vater. Griechisch-deutsche Parallelausgabe (eds. Andreas Lindemann and Henning Paulsen; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992). Die Apostolischen Vater (ed. and trans. Joseph A. Fischer; Schriften des U rchristentums 1; 9th ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1986). Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemensbrie[, Schrift an Diognet (ed. and tran~. Klaus Wengst; Schriften des Urchristentums 2; Munich: Kosel, 1984). (Pseudo-) Clement of Rome Die Pseudoklementinen, vol. 1: Homilien; vol. 2: Rekognitionen in Rujins Ubersetzung (ed. Bernhard Rehm and Franz Paschke; GCS 42 [3d ed.] and 51 [2d ed.]; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1992, 1965); vol. 3.1-2: Konkordanz zu den Pseudoklementinen (ed. Georg Strecker; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1986, 1989). Georg Strecker Das judenchristentum in den Pseudoklementinen (TV 70; 2d ed.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1981). F. Stanley Jones "The Pseudo-Clementines: A History of Research," Second Century 2 (1982) 1-33, 63-96. Jiirgen Wehnert "Literarkritik und Sprachanalyse: Kritische Anmerkungen zum gegenwartigen Stand der Pseudoklementinen-Forschung," ZNW 74 (1983) 286301. Die altesten Apologeten; ed. Edgar J. Goodspeed (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984 [reprint of the 1st ed. o£1914]). Marcion (fioruit c. 150 cE) Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott; Eine Monographie der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche; Neue Studien zu Marcion (TU 45; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960). Irenaeus of Lyon (fioruit c. 180 cE) Adversus haereses (ed. W. Wigan Harvey; 2 vols.; Cantabrigiae: Typis Academicis, 1857). Clement of Alexandria (died before 215 CE) Protrepticus, Paedagogus, Stromata, Excerpta ex Theodoto, Eclogae propheticae, Quis dives salvetur, Fragmenta (with indices, ed. Otto Stahlin, Ludwig Friichtel, and Ursula Treu; GCS 17.1-4, 2d to 4th ed.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1970-85). Origen (185-214 cE) In Matthaeum, in Erich Klostermann, ed., Origenes, Werke, vol. 12: Origenes' Matthauserklarung, 3.1-2: Fragmente und Indices (GCS 12.3.1-2; Leipzig:

Hinrichs, 1941, 1955). Origenes: Der Kommentar zum Evangelium nach Matthiius (ed. and trans. Hermann]. Vogt;

Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur 18 and 30; 2 vols.; Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1983, 1990). Hippolytus (beginning of the 3d century) Refutatio omnium haeresium (ed. Miroslav Marcovich; Patristische Texte und Studien 25; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1986). Hilarius of Poitiers (c. 315-367 cE) Commentarius in Matthaeum (PL 9.931-54: on the SM). Commentarius in Matthaeum (ed. Jean Doignon; SC 254, 258; 2 vols.; Paris: Cerf, 1978, 1979). Hieronymus (Jerome) (c. 340/350-420 cE) Commentarius in Matthaeum (ed. D. Hurst and M. Adriaen; CChr, series latina 77; Turnholti: Brepols, 1969). Saint jerome: Commentaire sur S. Matthieu (ed. Emile Bonnard; SC 242, 259; 2 vols.; Paris: Cerf, 1977, 1979). John Chrysostom (354-407 cE) Sancti Patris nostri Joannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Homiliae in Matthaeum (ed.

Fridericus Field; vol. 1; Cantabrigiae: Officina academica, 1839) 186-356: Homilies XV-XXIV. Homiliae in Matthaeum XV-XXIV (PC 57 .223-328). The Preaching ofChrysostomus: Homilies on the Sermon on the Mount (ed. Jaroslav Pelikan; Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1967). Pseudo-Chrysostomus (Anonym us) Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum (PC 56.611-946). Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum (ed. J. van Banning,

S.J.; CChr, series latina 87B; Turnholti: Brepols, 1988). Chromatius of Aquileja (381-407 /408 cE) Tractatus XVII in Evangelium Matthaei (ed. A. Hoste; CChr, series latina 9; Turnholti: Brepols, 1957) 389-442. Sermo de octo beatitudinibus, ibid., 371-88. Praefatio orationis dominicae, ibid., 443-47. Cyril of Alexandria (died 444 cE) Commentarii in Lucae Evangelium quae supersunt syriace e manuscriptis apud Museum Britannicum (ed. Robert

Payne Smith; Oxford: E typographeo academico, 1858). Commentarii in Matthaeum-see Reuss, Matthiiuskommentare (listed in section 1 above), 153-269. Commentarii in Lucam (PC 72.476-949). Commentarii in Lucam, in johannes Sickenberger, ed., Fragmente der Homilien des Cyrill von Alexandrien zum Lukasevangelium (TU 34; Leipzig: Hinrichs,

1909) 76-107. Aurelius Augustin us (354-430 cE) Sancti Aurelii Augustini De sermone Domini in monte libros duos (ed. Almut Mutzenbecher; CChr, series

Fortress, 1973). St. Augustine, The £ord's Sermon on the Mount (trans.

JohnJ.Jepson; introduction by Johannes Quasten; notes by Joseph C. Plumpe; ACW 5; London: Longman's & Green, I 948). Adolf Holl, Augustins Bergpredigtexegese (Vienna: Herder, 1960). b. Medieval Period (in roughly chronological order) Hrabanus Maurus (c. 780-856) Commentariorum in Matthaeum libri octo (PL 107.7271156). (Pseudo-) Beda Venerabilis (9th century) Expositio in Evangelium Matthaei (PL 92.9-132). Paschasius Radbertus (c. 790-856/59) Expositio in Matheo libri XII (ed. Beda Paulus; CChr, continuatio mediaevalis 56; Turnholti: Brepols, 1984). Expositio in Matthaeum (PL 120.214-358). Christian of Stablo (Druthmarus) (died after 880) Expositio in Evangelium Matthaei (PL 106.1261-1564). Bruno ofSegni (c. 1049-1123) Commentaria in Matthaeum (PL 165.63-314). Rupert ofDeutz (c. I070-ll29) De gloria et honorefilii hominis super Matthaeum (ed. Rhabanus Haacke; CChr, continuatio mediaevalis 39; Turnholti: Brepols, I 979). Glossa ordinaria (Radulph ofLaon [died 1131/33?]) Evangelium secundum Matthaeum (PL 114.63-176). Theophylactus (died after 1118) Enarratio in EvangeliumMatthaei (PC 123.185-217 [on the SM]). Theophylacti in Evangelium S. Matthaei commentarius

(ed. Gulielmus Gilson Humphrey; London: Parker, 1854). Euthymius Zigabenus (died after 1118) Commentarius in quattuor evangelia graece et latine (ed. Christianus Fridericus Matthaei; 3 vols.; Lipsiae: Weidmann, 1792). Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) S. Thomae Aquinatis Opera omnia (ed. Roberto Busa; 7 vols.; Stuttgart and Bad Cannstadt: FrommannHolzboog, 1980). Super Evangelium S. Matthaei Lectura (ed. P. Raphaelis Cai; 5th ed.; Turin and Rome: Marietti, 1951). Catena a urea in quatuor evangelia (ed. P. Angelici Guarenti; Turin and Rome: Marietti, 1953). Catena a urea: Commentary on the Four Gospels (Oxford and London: Parker, 1870). M. D. Roland-Gosselin, "Le Sermon sur Ia Montagne et Ia Theologie Thomistique," RSPhTh 17 (1928) 201-34. Roger Guindon, "Le 'De sermone Domini in monte' deS. Augustin dans !'oeuvre deS. Thomas d' Aquin," Revue de l'Universiti d'Ottawa 28 (1958) 57-85.

latina 35; Turnholti: Brepols, 1967). The Preaching of Augustine: "Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount" (ed. Jaroslav Pelikan; Philadelphia:

645

Nicolaus of Lyra (died 1349 [?)) Biblia sacra cum glossa ordinaria (6 vols.; Antverpiae: Apud 1oannem Meursium, 1634). The commentary on the SM is in 5.91-154; on the SP, pp. 771-82. c. Renaissance and Reformation Period (chronological order) Desiderius Erasmus ([ 1466)1469-1536) In Novum Testamentum ab eodem denuo recognitum Annotationes (Basileae: In officina Frobeniana, 1516; 2ded. 1519; 3ded. 1522; 5thed. 1535; last ed. 1542). Novum Testamentum, Cui, in hac Editione, subjectae sunt singulis paginis Adnotationes, in Opera omnia, vol. 6 (Lugduni Batavorum: Petrus vander Aa, 1705). Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: The Gospels (ed. Anne Reeve; introduction by M.A. Screech; London: Duckworth, 1986). See the review by H.]. deJonge, NovT 29 (1987) 382-83. Erika Rummel, Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Erasmus Studies 8; Toronto: University of Toronto, 1986). Paraphrasis in Euangelium Matthaei (Basileae: Apud Ioannem Frobenium, 1522). In Evangelium Lucae Paraphrasis (Basileae: In aedibus Ioannem Frobenium, 1523). In Evangelium Matthaei Paraphrasis, in Opera omnia, vol. 7 (Lugduni Batavorum: Petrus vander Aa, 1706) 1-146. In Evangelium Lucae Paraphrasis, ibid., 281-488. For citations from Erasmus see also Critici sacri, vol. 6 (1660). Hermann Schlingensiepen, "Erasmus als Exeget, auf Grund seiner Schriften zu Matthaus," ZKG 48 (1929) 16-57. Roland H. Bainton, "The Paraphrases of Erasmus," ARC 57 (1966) 67-76. Albert Rabii,Jr., Erasmus and the New Testament: The Mind of a Christian Humanist (San Antonio, Tex.: Trinity University, 1972). Gerhard B. Winkler, Erasmus von Rotterdam und die Einleitungsschriften zum Neuen Testament: Formate Strukturen und theologischer Sinn (Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte 108; Munster: Aschendorff, 1974). Friedheim Kruger, Humanistische Evangelienauslegung: Desiderius Erasmus als Ausleger der Evangelien in seinen Paraphrasen (BHTh 68; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck), 1986). Jacobus Faber Stapulensis Oacques Lefevre d'Etaples [c. 1455-1536)) Commentarii Initiatorii in quatuor evangelia (2 vols.; Meldis: Impensis Simonis Colinaei, 1521-22). On theSM seevol. 1.18-32; on theSP, pp. 191-93. Martin Luther (1483-1564) Wochenpredigten ilber Matth. 5-7 (1530/ 2): Dasfilnffte, Sechste und Siebend Capite! S. Matthei gepredigt und ausgelegt(1532; WA 32; Weimar: Bohlau, 1906) 299-544.

646

Dr. Martin Luthers Siimtliche Schriften, vol. 7: Auslegung des Neuen Testaments; Auslegung ilber die Evangelisten Matthiius, Lukas und Johannes bis zum sechsten Kapitel johannis [incl.] (ed.Johann Georg Walch; St. Louis: Concordia, 1880-1910; reprinted GroBOesingen: Verlag der Lutherischen Buchhandlung Heinrich Harms, 1987). D. Martin Luthers Evangelien-Auslegung part 2: Das Matthiius-Evangelium [chaps. 3-25) (ed. Erwin Mulhaupt; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1939; 4th ed. 1973). Martin Luther, Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount (trans. Charles A. Hay; Philadelphia: Lutheran Publishing Society, 1892). Luther's Works, vol. 21: The Sermon on the Mount (Sermons) and The Magnificat (ed. Jaroslav Pelikan; St. Louis: Concordia, 1956). Georg Wunsch, Die Bergpredigt bei Luther: Eine Studie zum Verstiindnis von Christentum und Welt (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck), 1920). Hermann Wolfgang Beyer, Der Christ und die Bergpredigt nach Luthers Deutung (Munich: Kaiser, 1933). Identical with Beyer's article in LutherJahrbuch 14 (1932) 33-60. Harald Diem, Luthers Lehre von den zwei Reichen, untersucht von seinem Verstiindnis der Bergpredigt aus (BEvTh 5; Munich: Kaiser, 1938). Paul Althaus, "Luther und die Bergpredigt," Luther: Mitteilungen der Luthergesellschaft 27 (1956) 1-16. Gerhard Heintze, Luthers Predigt von Gesetz und Evangelium (FGLP 10.11; Munich: Kaiser, 1958). Hans-Georg Geyer, "Luthers Auslegung der Bergpredigt," in Wenn nicht jetzt, wann dann? Aufsiitze fur Hans Joachim Kraus zum 65. Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983) 28393. Gerhard Ebeling, Evangelische Evangelienauslegung: Eine Untersuchung zu Luthers Hermeneutik (Munich: Lempp, 1942; 3d ed.; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck ), 1991). Martin Bucer (1491-1551) In sacra quatuor Eva(n)gelia £narrationes perpetuae (Geneva: Oliua Roberti Stephani, 1553). For the SM see pp. 37-77. Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) In sacrosanctum Iesu Christi Domini nostri Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, Commentariorum libri XII (Tiguri: Apud Froschoverum, 1554). For the SM see pp. 50-80. Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560) Annotationes in Evangelium Matthaei (1523), in Robert Stupperich, ed., Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl, vol. 4: Frilhe exegetische Schriften (ed. Peter F. Barton; Gutersloh: Mohn, 1963) 133-208. Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586) Harmoniae Evangelicae (2 vols.; Genevae: Stoer, 1641-45). For the SM see 521-668. John Calvin (1509-1564) Harmonia ex tribus euangelistis composita, Matthaeo,

!11arco & Luca: adiuncto seorsum Iohanne (Genevae: Oliuva Roberti Stephani, I555). Ioannes Calvini In Harmoniarn ex Matthea, Marco et Luca compositam commentarii, in Joannis Calvini in Novum Testamentum commentarii (ed. Augustus Tholuck), vol. I: Harmonia Evangelica (2d ed.; Berolini: W. Thome, I838). For the SM see pp. I34-96. Commentarius in Harmoniam Evangelicam, in Joannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia (Corpus Reformatorum 373; Brunsvigae: Schwetschke, I89I). For the SM see pp. I59-230. A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke, vol. I (trans. A. W. Morrison; ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance; Edinburgh: Saint Andrew; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, I972). Institutio Christianae Religionis. 1536; in Joannis Calvini Opera Selecta, vol. I; (ed. Peter Barth and Wilhelm Niese!; Munich: Kaiser, I926). Christliche Glaubenslehre (Institutio) nach der iiltesten Ausgabe von 1536 (trans. B. Spiess, reprinted from the I887 edition; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, I985). Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed.John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; LCC 20; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, I960). Hermann Schlingensiepen, Die Auslegung der Bergpredigt bei Calvin (Berlin: Ebering, I927). Hiltrud Stadtland-Neumann, Evangelische Radikalismen in der Sicht Calvins: Sein Verstiindnis der Bergpredigt und der Aussendungsrede (Mt 10) (Beitrage zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche 24; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, I966). Dieter Schellong, Das evangelische Gesetz in der Auslegung Calvins (ThExh I 52; Munich: Kaiser, I968). Dietrich Wunsch, Evangelienharmonien im Reformationszeitalter: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Darstellungen (AKG 52; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, I983). William Tyndale (I490/9I-I536) An Exposition uppon the V. VI. VII Chapters ofMatthew (Antwerp:Joannes Grapheus, c. I530; London: Wyllyam Hill, c. I550). Reprinted in Expositions and Notes on Sundry Portions of the Holy Scriptures, etc. (ed. Henry Walter; Cambridge: Cambridge University, I849) I-I32. Huldrych Zwingli (I484-I53I) In Evangelicam Historiam de domino nostro Iesu Christo, etc. (ed. LeonemJudae; Tiguri: Christophorus Fwschouerus, I539). Annotationes Huldrici Zuinglii in Evangelium Matthaei, in Opera, vol. 6.I (Turici: Ex officina Schuthessiana, I836). Theodor Beza (de Beze) (I5I9-I605) Annotationes maiores in Nouum Dn. Nostri Iesu Christi Testamentum (new ed.; n.p., I594). For the SM see pp. 28-53; for the SP, pp. 269-72.

Wolfgang Musculus (I497-1563) In Evangelistam Matthaeum Commentarii (Basileae: Ioannes Hervagios, I548; 2d ed. I556). Johannes Oecolampadius (I482-I53I) Enarratio in Evangelium Matthaei (Basileae: Cratander, I536). Andreas Osiander (I498-I552) Harmoniae Evangelicae libri III, Annotationum fiber unus (2 vols.; Basileae: Frobenius, I537). On the SM see vol. I, pp. 20-24, and annotations in the back of the work, without pagination. Theophrastus Bombastus of Hohenheim (Paracelsus) (I493/94-I54I) Auslegung yber den Euangelisten Sanct Matheum. Leiden, University Library, Codex Vossianus Chymicus in folio, no. 25. Transcriptions are in the Paracelsus Institute at the University ofMarburg. Pages 4I-8I contain a commentary on the SM; further elaborations are found on pp. 95-I36 (on Matthew 5), and in an appendix, pp. I-53 (on Matthew 6-7). Karl Sudhoff, Versuch einer Kritik der Echtheit der Paracelsischen Schriften (2 vols.; Berlin: Reimer, I894-99). Hartmut Rudolph, "Schriftauslegung und Schriftverstandnis bei Paracelsus," in Rosemarie DilgFrank, ed., Kreatur und Kosrnos: Internationale Beitriige zur Paracelsusforschung (Stuttgart and New York: Fischer, I98I) IOI-24. Juan Maldonatus, S.J. (I533-I583) Comrnentarii in quattuor Evangelistas (2 vols.; Mussiponti: Stephan Mercator, I596). On the SM and the SP see l.I08-95. John Maldonatus, A Commentary on the Holy Gospels, vol. I: S. Matthew's Gospel (1-14) (trans. and ed. George]. Davie; London: Hodges, I888). On the SM and the SP see pp. I26-253. Cornelius a Lapide (Cornelius van den Steen) (I567I637) Comrnentarius in quattuor evangelia (2 vols.; Antverpiae: Apud haered. Martini Nytl [sic], I639). On the SM see l.II4-86; on the SP, 2.94-97. The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide (trans. T. W. Mossman and F. W. Cobb; 2 vols.; London: Hodges, I876). On the SM see l.I76-3I6; on the SP, 2.I80-87. Fausto Socino (I539-I604) Concionis Christi quae habetur cap. V-VII apud Matthaeum evang. explicatio, in Bibliotheca fratrum Polonorum quos Unitarios vacant (9 vols.; Irenopoli: I656-92). On Matt 5:3-6:20 see l.I-72.

d. Modern Period (alphabetically arranged) Ernst Christian Achelis Die Bergpredigt nach Matthaeus und Lucas exegetisch und kritisch untersucht (Bielefeld: V elhagen & Klasing, I875). John Alberti Observationes philologicae in sacros Novi Foederis Iibras (Lugduni Batavorum: Langerak, I725).

647

Willoughby C. Allen A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark,

Die Bergpredigt: Versuch einer zeitgenossischen Auslegung

1907). Hans Asmussen

(BFCTh 2.7; 2d ed.; Gutersloh: Bertelsmann, 1927). ET: The Sermon on the Mount, Interpreted in

Die Bergpredigt: Eine Auslegung von Matth. Kap. 5-7 (Wege in die Bibel 1; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &

the Light ofIts Contemporaneous World of Creeds, Customs, and Conditions (trans. C. Sandegren;

Ruprecht, 1939). Leo Baeck Das Evangelium als Urkunde der judischen Glaubensgeschichte (Berlin: Schocken, 1938); reprinted in his collected essays, A us drei Jahrtausenden: Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte des judischen Glaubens (Berlin: Schocken, 1938) 236-312. ET in his judaism and Christianity

(trans. with an introduction by Walter Kaufmann; New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 41-136. Johannes Marinus Simon Baljon Commentaar op het Evangelie van Mattheus (Groningen: Wolters, 1900). Frank W. Beare The Gospel according to Matthew (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981). Johann Albert Bengel Gnomon Novi Testamenti (Stuttgart: Steinkopf, 1742; 8th ed. 1887). ET: Gnomon of the New Testament (trans. Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent; Philadelphia: Perkinpine & Higgins; New York: Sheldon, 1862). August von Berlepsch Quattuor evangelia Novi Testamenti, vol. 1: Evangelium secundum Matthaeum (Regensburg: Manz, 1849). Paul Billerbeck Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (6 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1926, 1956, 1961). On the SM see 1.189-470, 470-74; 4/1.1-22. Friedrich Bleek Synoptische Erkliirung der drei ersten Evangelien (ed. Heinrich Holtzmann; Leipzig: Engelmann, 1862). John Bligh The Sermon on the Mount: A Discussion ofMatthew 5-7

(Slough: St. Paul, 197 5 ). Johann Adrian Bolten Der Bericht des Matthiius von jesu dem Messia (Altona:

Kaven, 1792). Dietrich Bonhoeffer Nachfolge (Munich: Kaiser, 1937). ET: The Cost of Discipleship (trans. R. H. Fuller; London: SCM, 1948). Bonifacius aS. Wunibaldo Commentatio biblica in sermonem Christi in monte Matth. cap. V. VI. VII (Heidelberg, 1794).

Bonifazius vom heiligen Wunibald Das Evangelium Matthaei (Mannheim: Cordon, 1797-

1798). Pierre Bonnard L'Evangile seton saint Matthieu (Commentaire du

Nouveau Testament 1; Neuchatel: Delachaux &

648

Niestle, 1963). Karl Bornhauser

Madras: Christian Literature Society for India, 1951). Fran<;ois Bovon Das Evangelium nach Lukas, part 1 (Luke 1: 1--9:50) (EKKNT 3.1; Zurich: Benziger; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989). Anneus Marinus Brouwer De Bergrede (Zeist: Ruys, 1930). Critici Sacri Annotata ad SS. Euangelia, sive Criticorum Sacrorum,

vol. 6 (London: Flescher, 1660). On the SM see pp. 124-264; on the SP, pp. 1255-76. Nils Alstrup Dahl Matteusevangeliet (2 parts in mimeographed form; Oslo, 1949; 2d ed. 1973). William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison The Gospel ofMatthew, vol. 1: Matthew 1-7; vol. 2: Matthew 8-18) (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1988, 1991). J. Duncan M. Derrett The Ascetic Discourse: An Explanation of the Sermon on the Mount (Eilsbrunn: Ko 'amar, 1989).

Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 1.1; Kurze Erkliirung des Evangeliums Matthiii

(Leipzig: Weidmann, 1836; 4th ed. 1857). Martin Dibelius The Sermon on the Mount (New York: Scribner's, 1940). GT: "Die Bergpredigt," in Botschaft und Geschichte: Gesammelte Aufsiitze (ed. Gunther Bornkamm; 2 vols.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1953-56) 1. 79-174. Jacques Dupont Les Beatitudes, vol. 1: Le probleme litteraire; les deux versions du Sermon sur la montagne et des Beatitudes

(Bruges: Abbaye de saint-Andre; Louvain: Nauwelaerts, 1954; 2d ed. 1958); vol. 2: La bonne nouvelle (Paris: Gabalda, 1969); vol. 3: Les evangelistes (Paris: Gabalda, 1973). Georg Eichholz Auslegung der Bergpredigt (BibS[N] 46; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965). Heinrich Ewald Die drei ersten Evangelien ilbersetzt und erkliirt (Gottingen: Dieterich, 1850; 2ded. 1871). Paul Fiebig Jesu Bergpredigt: Rabbinische Texte zum Verstiindnis der Bergpredigt, ins Deutsche ilbersetzt, in ihren Ursprachen dargeboten und mit Erliiuterungen und Lesarten versehen (FRLANT 37; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1924).

Joseph A. Fitzmyer The Gospel according to Luke I-IX (AB 28; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981). Gerald Friedlander The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount (London: Routledge, 1911 ); republished with a prolegomenon by Solomon Zeitlin (New York: KT AV, 1969). Carl Friedrich August Fritzsche Evangelium Matthaei (Lipsiae: Fleischer, 1826). Paul Gaechter Das Matthiiusevangelium (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1962). Joachim Gnilka DasMatthiiusevangelium (HThKNT 1.1-2; Freiburg: Herder, 1986, 1988). Charles Gore The Sermon on the Mount: A Practical Exposition (London: Murray, 1896; 2d ed. 191 0; 3d ed. 1912). Hugo Grotius Annotationes in Matthaeum, in his Annotationes in libros evangeliorum (Amsterdami: Apud Ioh. & Cornelium Blaev, 1641). Walter Grundmann Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (ThHKNT 1; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1968; 2d ed. 1971). Walter Grundmann Das Evangelium nach Lukas (ThHKNT 3; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt; 2d ed. 1961 ). Robert Guelich The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1982). For reviews see Hans Dieter Betz,JBL 103 (1984) 479-81; Georg Strecker, ThLZ 111 (1986) 194-96. Robert H. Gundry Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). See the review by Ulrich Luz, ThLZ 112 (1987) 505-7. Carl Friedrich Georg Heinrici Die Bergpredigt (Matth. 5-7. Luk. 6,20-49), quellenkritisch und begriffsgeschichtlich untersucht, in his Beitriige zur Geschichte und Erkliirung des Neuen Testaments, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Diirr, 1900). Carl Friedrich Georg Heinrici Die Bergpredigt (Matth. 5-7. Luk. 6,20-49) begriffsgeschichtlich untersucht, in his Beitriige zur Geschichte und Erkliirung des Neuen Testaments, vol. 3:1 (Leipzig: Diirr, 1905). Carl Friedrich Georg Heinrici Erkliirung des Matthiiusevangeliums (Leipzig: Diirr, 1908). Heinrich Julius Holtzmann Die Synoptiker, in Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. 1 (3d ed.; Tiibingen and Leipzig: Mohr [Siebeck], 1901) 201-25. Heinrich Kahlefeld Der Junger: Eine Auslegung der Rede Lk 6,20-49 (Frankfurt a.M.: Knecht, 1962).

Jack Dean Kingsbury Matthew (Proclamation Commentaries; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977; 2d ed. 1986). Erich Klostermann Das Matthiiusevangelium (HNT 4; 4th ed.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], 1971 ). Erich Klostermann Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5; 3d ed.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1975). Christian Gottlieb Kuinol (also Kuhnol) Commentarius in libros Novi Testamenti historicos (2 vols.; Lipsiae: Barth, 1817; 3d ed. 1823-1827). Samuel Tobias Lachs A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels ofMatthew, Mark and Luke (Hoboken, N.J.: KTAV, 1985). Marie-Joseph Lagrange L'Evangile selon Matthieu (Paris: Gabalda, 1923). Marie-Joseph Lagrange Evangile selon saint Luc (Etudes bibliques 1; Paris: Lecoffre, 1921 ). Jan Lambrecht, S.J. Maar Ik zeg u. De programmatische rede van Jezus (Mt. 5-7; Lc 6,20-49) (Leuven: Acco [Academische Cooperatief], 1983). GT: Ich aber sage euch: Die Bergpredigt als programmatische Rede Jesu (Mt 5-7; Lk 6,20-49 (trans. Leo Hug; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984). ET: The Sermon on the Mount: Proclamation and Exhortation (Good News Studies 14; Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1985). See the review by Hans Dieter Betz,JBL 106 (1987) 541-43. Jechiel Lichtenstein Commentar zum Matthiius-Evangelium (in Hebrew; ed. H. Laible and P. Levertoff; Schriften des Institutum Delitzschianum zu Leipzig 4; Leipzig: n.p., 1913). John Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae (2 parts; Cantabrigiae: Field, 1658). John Lightfoot Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in Quatuor Evangelistas (ed.Jo. Benedictus Carpzovius; Lipsiae: Lanckisius, 1684). D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959-1960). Ernst Lohmeyer Das Evangelium des Matthiius (KEK Sonderband; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956). Alfred Loisy Les Evangiles synoptiques (2 vols.; Ceffonds: Pres Montier-en-Der [Haute Marne]: self-published, 1907) 1.534-645: "Le discours sur Ia montagne." Alfred Loisy L'Evangile selon Luc (Paris: Nourry, 1924).

649

Ulrich Luck

Hermann Olshausen

Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (Zurcher Bibel-

Biblischer Commentar ilber siimmtliche Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. 1: Die drei ersten Evangelien bis zur Leidensgeschichte enthaltend (Konigsberg:

kommentare 1; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1993). UlrichLuz Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (EKKNT 1.1-2; Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985, 1989). ET of vol. 1: Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans. Wilhelm C. Linss; Continental Commentary; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989). Alan Hugh McNeile The Gospel according to St. Matthew (London: Macmillan, 1915). Horace Marriott The Sermon on the Mount (New York: Macmillan, 1925). I. Howard Marshall The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text

(NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978). John P. Meier Matthew (New Testament Message 3; Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1980). Adalbert Merx

The Gospel according to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on Matthew's Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress,

1986). Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob Paulus Philologisch-kritischer und historischer Kommentar ilber die drey ersten Evangelien (Lubeck: Bohn, 1800). For

the SM see pp. 479-613; for the SP, pp. 614-27. Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob Paulus Exegetisches Handbuch ilber die drei ersten Evangelien

(Heidelberg: Winter, 1842). For the SM and the SP see pp. 575-695). Allard Pierson De Bergrede en andere synoptische Fragmenten: Een historisch-kritisch onderzoek met een inleiding over enkele leemten in de methode van de kritiek der Evangi!lien

(Amsterdam: van Kampen, 1878). Alfred Plummer An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew

(London: Elliot Stock, 1909; 2d ·ed. 191 0). Alfred Plummer

Das Evangelium Matthaeus nach der syrischen im Sinaikloster gefundenen Palimpsesthandschrift, in Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem iiltesten bekannten Texte, part 2, 1st half (Berlin: Reimer,

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Luke (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1896;

1902). Adalbert Merx

5th ed. 1902). Matthaeus Polus (Matthew Poole)

Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas nach der syrischen im Sinaikloster gefondenen Palimpsesthandschrift, in Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem iiltesten bekannten Texte, part 2, 2d half (Berlin: Reimer,

Synopsis criticorum aliorumque scripturae sacrae interpretum et commentatorum: summo ab eodem studio & fide adornata, vol. 4: Complectens Evangelia et Acta apostolorum (Francofurti ad Moenum:Johann

1905). Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer

Philipp Andreae, 1712). For the SM see pp. 106232; for the SP, pp. 900-911. Matthaeus Polus Annotations upon the Holy Bible, vol. 2 (ed. Samuel Clark and Edward Veale; 4th ed.; London: Parkhurst et al., 1700). Matthaeus Polus A Commentary on the Holy Bible (3 vols.; London: Banner of Truth, 1962; reprint of the Annotations, edition of 1683-1685). Joannes Pricaeus (John Price) (1600-1676)

Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch ilber das Evangelium des Matthiius, in Das Neue Testament Griechisch, part 2,

section 1, 1st half (3d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1855). Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer The Gospel ofMatthew (trans. Peter Christie; Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Edinburgh: Clark, 1832; 5th ed. 1864). Wilhelm Michaelis Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (2 vols.; Zurich: Zwingli, 1948-1949). Giovanni Miegge ll Sermone sul Monte: Commentario esegetico (Turin: Editrice Claudiana, 1970). Claude G. Montefiore The Synoptic Gospels (ed. Isaac Abrahams; 3 vols.; London: Macmillan, 1909; 2d ed. 1927). On the SM see 2.473-555. Claude G. Montefiore Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (London: Macmillan, 1930). For a commentary on the SM, supplementing that in Synoptic Gospels, see pp. 1201.

650

Unzer, 1830) 185-241: commentary on the SM. Daniel Patte

S. Matthaeus ex sacra pagina sanctis patribus Graecisque ac Latinis gentium scriptoribus ex parte illustratus

(Parisiis: Apud Edmvm Pepigve, 1646). For learned annotations on the SM see pp. 14-80. Leonhard Ragaz Die Bergpredigt]esu (Bern: Lang, 1945). Johann Georg Rosenmuller Scholia in Novum Testamentum (4th ed.; 2 vols.; Norimbergae: Felsecker, 1791-92). For the SM see 1.95-170; for the SP, 2.96-102. Leopold Sabourin, S.J. Il Discorso della Montagna nel Vangelo di Matteo: Introduzione letteraria; Commentario (Mt 4,17-7,24)

(Marino: Edizioni "Fede ed Arte," 1976).

Leopold Sabourin, S.J. The Gospel according to St. Matthew (2 vols.; Bombay:

St. Paul, 1982). Alexander Sand

mentary (trans. 0. C. Dean Jr.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1988). August Tholuck

(V elbert: Freizeiten, 1928; 2d ed. 1982). Adolf Schlatter

Philologisch-theologische Auslegung der Bergpredigt Christi nach Matthiius, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Begrilndung einer rein-biblischen Glaubens- und Sittenlehre (Hamburg: Perthes, 1833; 2d ed. 1835). ET: An Exposition, Doctrinal and Philological, of Christ's Sermon on the Mount, according to the Gospel of Matthew (trans. Robert Menzies; 2 vols.; Edin-

Der Evangelist Matthiius: Seine Sprache, sein Ziel, seine Selbstiindigkeit (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1929; 6th ed.

burgh: Clark, 1837; 2d ed. 1843). August Tholuck

1963). Josef Schmid

Ausfilhrliche Auslegung der Bergpredigt Christi nach Matthiius: Neue Ausarbeitung (Hamburg: Perthes,

Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (RNT 1; Regensburg:

1845). Revision and 3d ed. of the work of 1835. August Tholuck Die Bergpredigt ausgelegt (4th ed.; Gotha: Perthes, 1856). ET: Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount (trans. Lundin Brown; Clark's Foreign Theological Library, series 3, vol. 7; Edinburgh: Clark; Philadelphia: Smith, English & Co., 1866; reprinted 1869). August Tholuck Die Bergrede Christi (5th ed.; Gotha: Perthes, 1872). Wilhelm Christian Thurn

Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (RNT 1; Regensburg:

Pustet, 1986). Adolf Schlatter Die Gabe des Christus: Eine Auslegung der Bergpredigt

Pustet, 1965). Josef Schmid Das Evangelium nach Lukas (RNT 3; Regensburg:

Pustet, 1951). Julius Schniewind Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (NTD 2; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964).

Christian Schottgen Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum (2 parts; Dresdae et Lipsiae: Apud

Christoph. Hekelii B. Filium, 1733, 1742). Heinz Schiirmann Das Lukasevangelium, part 1: Kommentar zu Kap. 1,19,50 (HThKNT 3.1; Freiburg: Herder, 1969). Eduard Schweizer Das Evangelium nach Matthiius (NTD 2; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981). ET: The Good News according to Matthew (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975). Eduard Schweizer Die Bergpredigt (Kleine Vandenhoeck-Reihe 1481; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). Thaddaus Soiron, O.F.M. Die Bergpredigt jesu: Formgeschichtliche, exegetische und theologische Erkliirung (Freiburg: Herder, 1941).

Josef Staudinger, S.J. Die Bergpredigt (Vienna: Herder, 1957). Alphons Steinmann Die Bergpredigt exegetisch-homiletisch erkliirt (Beitrage

zur Geschichte, Theorie und Praxis der Predigt 8; Paderborn: Schoningh, 1926). Rudolf Ewald Stier Die Reden des Herrn jesu (6 vols.; Barmen: Langewiesche, 1843-47). For the SM see 1.69-313. David Friedrich StrauB Das Leben jesu kritisch bearbeitet (2 vols.; Tiibingen: Osiander, 1835-1836; reprinted 1984). ET: The Life ofjesus Critically Examined (trans. George Eliot; ed. Peter C. Hodgson; London: SCM, 197 5 ). Georg Strecker Die Bergpredigt: Ein exegetischer Kommentar (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984; 2d ed. 1985). ET: The Sermon on the Mount: An Exegetical Com-

Reine Ubersetzung der Bergrede Jesu nach den Grundsiitzen der praktischen Vernunft dargestellt und fur jedermann lesbar gemacht (Lemgo: Meyersche

Buchhandlung, 1 799). Carl G. Vaught The Sermon on the Mount: A Theological Interpretation

(Ithaca, N.Y.: SUNY, 1987). Hans Weder Die "Rede der Reden": Eine Auslegung der Bergpredigt heute (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1985).

Bernhard W eil3 Das Matthiius-Evangelium und seine Lucas-Parallelen

(Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1876). For the SM and the SP see pp. 128-224. Bernhard W eil3 Das Evangelium des Markus und Lukas (KEK 1.2; 9th ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901). Johannes Weil3 Das Matthiius-Evangelium, in Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. 1: Die drei iilteren Evangelien (3d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917). Julius Wellhausen Das Evangelium Matthaei ilbersetzt und erkliirt (Berlin: Reimer, 1904; 2d ed. 1914; republished in Evangelienkommentare).

Julius Wellhausen Das Evangelium Lucae ilbersetzt und erkliirt (Berlin: Reimer, 1904; republished in Evangelienkommentare).

Julius Wellhausen Evangelienkommentare. With an introduction by

Martin Hengel (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987).

651

Johann jacob Wettstein H KAINH AIAE>HKH: Nuuum Testamentum Graecum ... , vol. I: Continens quattuor evangelia (Amsterdam: Ex officina Dommeriana, 1751). Ronald D. Worden "A Philological Analysis of Luke 6:20b-49 and Parallels" (Ph.D. diss.; Princeton Theological Seminary; Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1973). Hans-Theo Wrege Die Uberlieferungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt (WUNT 9; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1968). Hans-Theo Wrege Das Sondergut des Matthiius-Evangeliums (Zurcher Werkkommentare zur Bibel; Zurich: TheologischerVerlag, 1991). August Wunsche Neue Beitriige zur Erliiuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch (GOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1878). Theodor Zahn Das Evangelium des Matthiius (Leipzig: Deichert, 1903; 4th ed. 1922). Theodor Zahn Das Evangelium des Lucas (3d and 4th ed.; Leipzig: Deichert, 1920).

4. Studies Adolf Ahlberg Bergpredikans etik: De nyare tolkningsforsiiken (Stockholm: Diakonistyrelsen Bokforlag, 1930). Dale C. Allison "The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount," JBL 106 (1987) 423-45. Dale C. Allison "A New Approach to the Sermon on the Mount," ETL 64 ( 1988) 405-14. Tjitze Baarda Early Transmission of Words ofJesus: Thomas, Tatian, and the Text of the New Testament (Amsterdam: VU Boekhandei/Uitgeverij, 1983). Benjamin W. Bacon The Sermon on the Mount: Its Literary Structure and Didactic Purpose (New York: Macmillan, 1902). Benjamin W. Bacon Studies in Matthew (New York: Holt, 1930). David L. Balch, ed. Social History of the Matthean Community: CrossDisciplinary Approaches (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). Guiseppe Barbaglio "Paolo e Matteo: due termini a confronto," Ricerche storico bibliche 12 (1989) 5-22; the vol. is entitled Antipaolinismo: reazoni a Paolo tra il I e il II secolo, Atti del II Convegno internazionale di studi neotestamentari, Bressanone, 11-12 settembre 1987. Fritz Barth Die Grundsiitze der Bergpredigt und das Leben der Gegenwart (Basel: Reich, 1899).

652

Gerhard Barth "Bergpredigt I. Im Neuen Testament," TRE 5 (1979) 603-18. Hans-Werner Bartsch "Feldrede und Bergpredigt: Redaktionsarbeit in Lukas 6," TZ 16 (1960) 5-18. Heinrich Bassermann De loco Matthaei capitis V,17 -20 commentatio exegetica critica historica (]ena: Dabis, 1876). Bruno Bauer Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker (3 vols.; Leipzig: Wigand, 1841-42; reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1974). David R. Bauer The Structure ofMatthew's Gospel (]SNTSup 31; Sheffield: Almond, 1988). Clarence Bauman The Sermon on the Mount: The Modern Quest for Its Meaning (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University, 1985). Gunther Baumbach Das Verstiindnis des Biisen in den synoptischen Evangelien (Theologische Arbeiten 19; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1963). Otto Baumgarten Bergpredigt und Kultur der Gegenwart (Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbucher 6.1 0-12; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1921 ). Ferdinand Christian Baur Kritische Untersuchungen uber die kanonischen Evangelien, ihr Verhiiltnij3 zueinander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung (Tubingen: Fues, 184 7). Klaus Berger Die Gesetzesauslegung]esu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im judentum und im Alten Testament, vol. 1: Markus und Parallelen (WMANT 40; Neukirchen-Vluyn: N eukirchener Verlag, 1972). Klaus Berger "Zu den sogenannten Slitzen heiligen Rechts," NTS 17(1970/71)10-40. Ursula Berner Die Bergpredigt: Rezeption und Auslegung im 20. Jahrhundert(GThA 12; GOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979; 3d ed. 1985). Ernest Best "I Peter and the Gospel Tradition," NTS 16 ( 1969/ 70) 95-113. Hans Dieter Betz "Eine judenchristliche Kult-Didache in Matthlius 6,1-18," in Georg Strecker, ed.,jesus Christus in Historic und Theologie: Neutestamentliche Festschrift jar Hans Conzelmann (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 445-57; reprinted in Studien zur Bergpredigt, 49-61; also in Synoptische Studien, 12739. ET: "A jewish-Christian Cultic Didache in Matt. 6:1-18: Reflections and Questions on the Problem ofthe Historical jesus," in Essays, 55-70. Hans Dieter Betz "Die Makarismen der Bergpredigt (Matthlius 5,312): Beobachtungen zur literarischen Form und

theologischen Bedeutung," ZThK 75 (1978) 3-19; reprinted in Studien zur Bergpredigt, 17 -33; also in Synoptische Studien, 92-110. ET: "The Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:3-7:27): Observations on Their Literary Form and Theological Significance," in Essays, 17-36. Hans Dieter Betz "Matthew vi.22f and Ancient Greek Theories of Vision," in Ernest Best and Robert MeL. Wilson, eds., Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1979) 43-56; reprinted in Essays, 71-87; Synoptische Studien, 140-54. GT: "Matthaus 6,22-23 und die .
neutical Principles of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5: 17-20)," journal ofTheologyfor Southern Africa 42 (1983) 17-28; reprinted in Essays, 37-53. Hans Dieter Betz Studien zur Bergpredigt (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1985). Hans Dieter Betz Essays on the Sermon on the Mount (trans. Laurence L. Welborn; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). Hans Dieter Betz "Eschatology in the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain," SBLSP 1985 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1985) 343-50; reprinted in Synoptische Studien, 219-29. Hans Dieter Betz "The Problem of Christo logy in the Sermon on the Mount," in Theodore W. Jennings, ed., Text and Logos: The Humanistic Interpretation of the New Testament (Festschrift for Hendrikus W. Boers)

(Atlanta: Scholars, 1990) 191-209; reprinted in Synoptische Studien, 230-48.

Hans Dieter Betz "The Sermon on the Mount and Q: Some Aspects of the Problem," in James E. Goehring et al., eds.,

Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings: In Honor of James M. Robinson (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1990) 19-34; reprinted in Synoptische Studien, 249-

69. Hans Dieter Betz "The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew's Interpretation," in Birger A. Pearson et al., eds., The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor ofHelmut

Koester(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 258-75; reprinted in Synoptische Studien, 270-89. Hans Dieter Betz "Wellhausen's Dictum 'Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew' in the Light of Present Scholarship," StTh 45 (1991) 83-108. Hans Dieter Betz Synoptische Studien: Gesammelte Aufsiitze II (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992). Hans Dieter Betz "Hellenism," ABD 3.127-35. Hans Dieter Betz "Heresy and Orthodoxy in the NT," ABD 3.144-4 7. Hans Dieter Betz "Sermon on the Mount/Plain," ABD 5.1106-12. Otto Betz jesus der Messias Israels: Aufsiitze zur biblischen Theologie

(Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1987). Otto Betz "Bergpredigt und Sinaitradition: Zur Gliederung und zum Hintergrund von Matthaus 5-7," in his Jesus der Messias Israels, 333-84. Erich Bischoff Jesus und die Rabbinen, vol. 1: jesu Bergpredigt und "Himmelreich" in ihrer Unabhiingigkeit vom Rabbinismus dargestellt (Schriften des Institutum

Judaicum in Berlin 33; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905). Friedrich Bleek Synoptische Erkliirung der drei ersten Evangelien (ed. Heinrich Holtzmann; Leipzig: Engelmann, 1862). Otto Bacher, Manfred Jacobs, and Helmut Hild Die Bergpredigt im Leben der Christenheit (Bensheimer Hefte 56; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981). Pierre Bonnard "Le sermon sur Ia montagne," RThPh 3 (1953) 23346. Gunther Bornkamm "Bergpredigt I. Biblisch," RGG 1 (3d ed. 1957) 1047-50. Wilhelm Bousset "Bergpredigt," RGG 1 (1sted. 1909) 1037-41. Michel Bouttier "Hesiode et le sermon sur Ia montagne," NTS 25 (1978) 129-30. Herbert Braun Spatjudisch-hiiretischer und fruhchristlicher Radikalismus: jesus von Nazareth und die essenische Qumransekte (BHTh 24; 2 vols.; Tiibingen: Mohr

[Siebeck], 1957; 2ded. 1969).

653

Herbert Braun Qumran und das Neue Testament (2 vols.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1966). Herbert Braun jesus: Der Mann aus Nazareth und seine Zeit (2d ed.; Stuttgart: Kreuz, 1984). ET (of lst ed.):Jesus of Nazareth: The Man and His Time (trans. Everett R. Kalin; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). IngoBroer Freiheit vom Gesetz und Radikalisierung des Gesetzes: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Evangelisten Matthiius (SBS 98; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980). Ingo Broer Die Seligpreisungen der Bergpredigt (BBB 81; Bonn: Hanstein, 1986). Stephenson H. Brooks Matthew's Community: The Evidence ofHis Special Sayings Material (JSNTSup 16; Sheffield: ]SOT, 1987). Rudolf Bulunann "Erklarung der Synoptiker," lecture course, summer semester 1918 (unpublished, non vidi); the lectures contain an exposition of the SM. Rudolf Bultmann Review of Windisch, Der Sinn der Bergpredigt, DLZ 50 (1929) 985-94. RudolfBultmann "Die Bergpredigt und das Recht des Staates," Forschungen undFortschritte 12 (1936) 101-2. Christoph Burchard "Bergpredigt," EKL 1 (1985) 433-36. Christopher Burchard Review of Betz, Studien zur Bergpredigt, ThLZ 112 (1987) 508-9. Wilhelm Bussmann Synoptische Studien (3 vols.; Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1925-1931). B. C. Butler The Originality ofSt. Matthew: A Critique of the TwoDocument-Hypothesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1951). Charles E. Carlston "Recent American Interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount," Bangalore Theological Forum 17 (1985) 9-22. Charles E. Carlston "Betz on the Sermon on the Mount: A Critique," CBQ.50 (1988) 47-57. David R. Catchpole "Jesus and the Community oflsrael: The Inaugural Discourse in Q," BJRL 68 (1986) 296-316. ]. F. Collange De jesus ii Paul: L'ethique du Nouveau Testament (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1980). John Dominic Crossan In Fragments: The Aphorisms ofjesus (San Francisco: Harper&Row,1983). Christianus Augustus Crusius Probatio quod scopus homiliae montanae Domini nostri

654

Iesu Christi Matth. V. VI. VII sit evangelicus, neutiquam legalis (Lipsiae: Langenheim, 1759). Nils Alstrup Dahl Das Volk Gottes: Eine Untersuchung zum KirchenbewujJtsein des Urchristentums (Skrifter utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse 1941, no. 2; Oslo: Dybwad, 1941; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963). David Daube The New Testament and Rabbinic judaism (1956; reprinted New York: Amo, 1973). David Daube "Responsibilities of Master and Disciples in the Gospels," NTS 19 (1972/73) 1-15. Gene L. Davenport Into the Darkness: Discipleship in the Sermon on the Mount (Nashville: Abingdon, 1988). William D. Davies Torah in the Messianic Age and I or the Age to Come QBLMS 7; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1952). William D. Davies Christian Origins and judaism (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962). William D. Davies The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1964). William D. Davies jewish and Pauline Studies (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984). Franz Julius Delitzsch Neue Untersuchungen ilber Entstehung und Anlage der kanonischen Evangelien, part 1: Das Matthiiusevangelium (Leipzig: DorfRing & Franke, 1853). Joel Delobel, ed. Logia: Les Paroles de jesus; The Sayings ofJesus (BETL 59; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University, 1982). Alexander Demandt Metaphern for Geschichte: Sprachbilder und Gleichnisse im historisch-politischen Denken (Munich: Beck, 1978). ]. Duncan M. Derrett Studies in the New Testament (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1977-86). Martin Dibelius "Die Unbedingtheit des Evangeliums und die Bedingtheit der Ethik," Die Christliche Welt 40 (1926) 1103-20. Albrecht Dihle Der Kanon der zwei Tugenden (Arbeitsgemeinschaft fiir Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, series Geisteswissenschaften 144; Koln and Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1968). Charles Harold Dodd The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935).

Charles Harold Dodd More New Testament Studies (Manchester: Manchester University; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, I968). T. L. Donaldson jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology (JSNTSup 8; Sheffield: JSOT, I985 ). Jacques Dupont Etudes sur les Evangiles synoptiques (ed. Frans Neirynck; BETL 70; 2 vols.; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University, I985). A. B. du Toit, ed. The Sermon on the Mount: Essays on the Sermon on the Mount 5-7. Proceedings of the Third Meeting of "Die Nuwe- Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap van Suid-Afrika" held at the University of Pretoria, 4th-5thJuly, I967, publishedasNeot. 1 (I967). Wilhelm Egger "Faktoren der Textkonstitution in der Bergpredigt," Laurentianum I9(1978) 177-98. Johann Gottfried Eichhorn "Ueber die drey ersten Evangelien: Einige Beytrage zu ihrer kunftigen kritischen Behandlung," in his Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Litteratur, vol. 5, parts 5 and 6 (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1794) 761996. Johann Gottfried Eichhorn Einleitung in das Neue Testament, vol. I, in Kritische Schriften, vol. 5 (Leipzig: Weidmann, I804; 2d ed. I820). Josef Ernst Matthiius: Ein theologisches Portrait (Dusseldorf: Patmos, I989). William R. Farmer The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (Dillsboro, N.C.: Western North Carolina, I976). William R. Farmer "The Sermon on the Mount: A Form-Critical and Redactional Analysis of Matt 5: I-7 :29 ," SBLSP 1986 (Atlanta: Scholars, I986) 56-87. Austin Farrer St. Matthew and St. Mark (London: Dacre, I954). Erich Fascher "Bergpredigt II. Auslegungsgeschichtlich," RGG I (3d ed. I957) I050-53. Paul Feine "Ueber das gegenseitige Verhaltnis der Texte der Bergpredigt bei Matthaus und bei Lukas," jahrbucher fur protestantische Theologie 1I (1885) I-85. Andre Feuillet "Die heiden Aspekte der Gerechtigkeit in der Bergpredigt," Internationale Katholische Zeitschrift I Communio 7 (I978) I08-I5. Paul Fiebig "Der Sinn der Bergpredigt," ZSTh 7 (I930) 497-5I5. David Flusser Entdeckungen imNeuen Testament, vol. I:jesusworte und ihre Uberlieferung (ed. Martin Meyer; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, I987).

David Flusser judaism and the 01-igins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, I988). David Flusser Das Christentum-eine judische Religion (Munich: Kosel, I990). Hubert Frankemolle jahwebund und Kirche Christi: Studien zur Form- und Traditionsgeschichte des "Evangeliums" nach Matthiius (NT A, n.s. I 0; Munster: Aschendorff, I97 4; 2d ed. 1984). Hubert Frankemolle "'Pharisaismus' inJudentum und Kirche: Zur Tradition und Redaktion in Matthaus 23," in Horst Goldstein, ed., Gottesveriichter und Menschenfeinde? (Dusseldorf: Patmos, I979) I23-89. Hubert Frankemolle "Neue Literatur zur Bergpredigt," TR 79 (I983) I77-98. Johannes H. Friedrich "Wortstatistik am Beispiel der Frage einer Sonderquelle im Matthausevangelium," ZNW 76 (I985) 29-42. A. Frikart "Die Composition der Bergpredigt, Matth. Cap. 57," Theologische Zeitschrifi aus der Schweiz 6 (I889) I93-2I0;7(I890)43-52, I07-25. Carl Gottlob Ludwig Frotscher Dissertatio de consilio, quod Jesus in oratione dicitur montana, secutus est, inprimis Matth. V, 17.18.19 (Vitebergae: Tzschidrich, I788). Ernst Fuchs "Jesu Selbstzeugnis nach Mt 5," in his Zur Frage nach dem historischen jesus (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck ], I960) IOO-I25. Paul Gachter Die literarische Kunst im Matthiiusevangelium (SBS 7; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, I965 ). Giovanni Giavini "Lo schema di Mt 6,5-7,I2: Una precisazione," RivB 20 (1972) 575-87. Heinz Giesen Christliches Handeln: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung zum dikaiosyne-Begriff im MatthiiusEvangelium (Europaische Hochschulschriften 23.I8I; Frankfurt a.M. and Bern: Lang, 1982). Gunther Bernd Ginzel Die Bergpredigt: judisch-christliches Glaubensdokument. Eine Synopse (Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider, I984). Edgar J. Goodspeed Problems ofNew Testament Translation (Chicago: University of Chicago, I945). Leonhard Goppelt Die Bergpredigt und die Wirklichkeit dieser Welt (Calwer Hefte 96; Stuttgart: Calwer, I968). Charles Gore The Social Doctrine of the Sermon on the Mount (London: Percival, 1892).

655

Michael D. Goulder Midrash and Lection in Matthew: The Speaker's Lectures in Biblical Studies (London: SPCK, 197 4). Frederick C. Grant "The Sermon on the Mount," ATR 24 (1942) 13144. Frederick C. Grant "The Impracticality of the Gospel's Ethics," in Aux sources de Ia tradition chritienne: Melanges offerts aM. Maurice Goguelli /'occasion de son soixante-dixieme anniversaire (Paris and Neuchlitel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1950) 86-94. Robert M. Grant Christian Beginnings: Apocalypse to History (London: Variorum Reprints, 1983). Friedrich Grawert Die Bergpredigt nach Matthiius auf ihre iiussere und innere Einheit mit besonderer Berilcksichtigung des genuinen Verhiiltni)Jes der Seligpreisungen zur ganzen Rede neu untersucht und dargestellt (Marburg: Elwert, 1900). Ernst W. C. Grosse De consilio, quod Christus in oratione montana secutus est, libel/us (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1818). Ithamar Gruenwald "From Priesthood to Messianism: The Anti-Priestly Polemic and the Messianic ·Factor," in Ithamar Gruenwald, Shaul Shaked, and Gedaliahu G. Stroumsa, eds., Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity Presented to David Flusser on the Occasion ofHis Seventy-Fifth Birthday (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992) 75-93. Walter Grundmann Die Frage nach der iiltesten Gestalt und des ursprilnglichen Sinnes der Bergpredigt (Schriften zur Nationalkirche 10; Weimar: Verlag Deutsche Christen, 1939). Walter Grundmann Jesus der Galiliier und das Judentum (Leipzig: Wigand, 1940; 2d ed. 1942). Walter Grundmann "Die Bergpredigt nach der Lukasfassung," StEv 1 (TU 73; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1959) 180-89. Robert A. Guelich "Interpreting the Sermon on the Mount," Int 41 (1987) 117-30. Rafael Gyllenberg "Religion und Ethik in der Bergpredigt," ZSTh 13 (1936) 682-705. Paul D. Hahn "The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:20-49)" (Ph.D. diss., Marquette University, Milwaukee, 1987). Bernhard Hanssler "DasJiinger-Ethos der Bergpredigt im Verhaltnis zu den allgemeinen Moralprinzipien," Renovatio 40 (1984) 82-95.

656

Adolf von Harnack Sprilche und Reden Jesu: Die zweite QueUe des Matthiius und Lukas, in his Beitriige zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1907). ET: The Sayings ofJesus (trans. J. R. Wilkinson; London: Williams & Norgate; New York: Putnam, 1908). Adolf von Harnack Das Wesen des Christentums (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1900; 2d ed. 1908; reprinted, with a foreword by Rudolf Bultmann; Stuttgart: Klotz, 1950). ET: What Is Christianity? (trans. Thomas B. Saunders; 5th ed.; London: Benn, 1958). Patrick J. Hartin James and the QSayings ofJesus (JSNTSup 47; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991 ). Anthony Harvey Strenuous Commands: The Ethic ofJesus (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990). Giinter Haufe "Umstrittene Bergpredigt: Positionen ihrer Auslegting und Wirkungsgeschichte," in Joachim Rogge and Gottfried Schille, eds., Theologische Versuche~XVII (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989) 35-43. KarlHeim Die BergpredigtJesu,Jar die heutige Zeit ausgelegt (Tiibingen and Stuttgart: Furche, 1946). Herman Hendrickson The Sermon on the Mount: Studies in the Synoptic Gospels (2d ed.; London: Chapman, 1984). Martin Hengel "Leben in der Veranderung. Ein Beitrag zum Verstandnis der Bergpredigt," EvK 3 (1970) 64751.

Martin Hengel "Die Stadt auf dem Berge: Die Bergpredigt in der aktuellen Diskussion," EvK 15 (1982) 19-22. Martin Hengel "Die Bergpredigt im Widerstreit," ThBei 14 (1983) 53-67. Martin Hengel "Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt und ihremjiidischen Hintergrund," ThR 52 (1987) 327-400. Johann Gottfried Herder Erliiuterungen zum Neuen Testament aus einer neuerofneten Morgenliindischen QueUe (Riga: Hartknoch, 1775). Johann Gottfried Herder "Regel der Zusammenstimmung unserer Evangelien a us ihrer Entstehung und Ordnung," in his Siimmtliche Werke, Zur Religion und Theologie, vol. 12 (Tiibingen: Cotta, 1810) 3-56. Jodocus Heringa Specimen critico-theologicum quo fides et auctoritas Matthaei in referenda Iesu oratione c. 5. 6. 7 vindicatur (Traiecti Batavorum: [no publisher given], 1779). Rudolf Hermann Die Bergpredigt und die Religios-Sozialen (Leipzig: Deichert, 1922).

Wilhelm Herrmann Die sittlichen Weisungen Jesu: lhr MijJbrauch und ihr richtiger Gebrauch (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1904; 2d ed. 1907). Reprinted in his Schriften zur Grundlegung der Theologie, vol. 1 (Munich: Kaiser, 1966), 200-241. Wilhelm Herrmann and Adolf von Harnack Essays on the Social Gospel (trans. G. M. Craik; ed. Maurice A. Canney; London: Williams & Norgate, 1907). Johann Jakob HeB Lebensgeschichte jesu (3 vols., 8th ed.; Zurich: Orell, Fussli, 1822-1823). Johann Jakob HeB "Uber das Verh:iltniB der Bergpredigt zur evangelischen Erlosungs- oder Begnadigungslehre," in Johann Friedrich von Flatt, ed., Magazin for christliche Dogmatik und Mor~l, deren Geschichte und Anwendung im Vortrag der Religion (Tubingen: Cotta, 1799, 1800), part 5, pp. 83-101; part 6, pp. 1-23. C. J. A. Hickling "Conflicting Motives in the Redaction of Matthew: Some Considerations on the Sermon on the Mount and Matthew 18:15-20," StEv 7 (TU 126; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982) 247-60. Adolf Hilgenfeld Die Evangelien nach ihrer Entstehung und geschichtlichen Bedeutung (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1854). Adolf Hilgenfeld "Das Matthlius-Evangelium aufs Neue untersucht," Z¥Vrh10(1867)303-23,366-447; 11(1868)2276. Adolf Hilgenfeld Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Leipzig: Fues, 1875). David Hill "The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew's Gospel," Irish Biblical Studies 6 (1984) 120-33. Emanuel Hirsch Frilhgeschichte des Evangeliums (2 vols.; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1941 ). Emanuel Hirsch "Die Bergpredigt," Deutsches Volkstum 20 (1938) 82026. Volker Hochgrebe, ed. Provokation Bergpredigt (Stuttgart: Kreuz, 1982). Robert G. Hoerber "Implications ofthe Imperative in the Sermon on the Mount," Concordiajournal7 (1981) 100-103. Paul Hoffmann "Auslegung der Bergpredigt," Bibel und Leben 10 (1969)57-65, 111-22, 175-89,264-75; 11 (1970) 89-104. Friedrich Wilhelm Horn Glaube und Handeln in der Theologie des Lukas (GThA 26; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983; 2d ed. 1986).

George Howard The Gospel ofMatthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University, 1988). See the review by William L. Petersen,]BL 108 (1989) 722-26. George Howard "The Textual Nature of Shem Tob's Hebrew Matthew," JBL 108 (1989) 239-57. Hugo Huber Die Bergpredigt: Eine exegetische Studie (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1932): Hans Hubner Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition: Studie zur These einer progressiven Qumranisierung und Judaisierung innerhalb der synoptischen Tradition (2d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986). Archibald M. Hunter A Pattern for Life: An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953). Hermann Gerhard Ibbeken Die Bergpredigt Jesu, wissenschaftlich-populiir ausgelegt (Einbeck: Ibbeken, 1888; 2d ed. 1890). Franz GeorgJentzen De indole ac ratione orationis montanae dissertatio (Lubeck: van Rohden, 1819). Joachim Jeremias Die Bergpredigt (Calwer Hefte 27; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1959). ET: The Sermon on the Mount (trans. Norman Perrin; London: Athlone, 1961; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963). · Joachim Jeremias Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums: Redaktion und Tradition im Nicht-Markusstoff des dritten Evangeliums (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980). AdolfJ ulicher Die Gleichnisredenjesu (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 191 0; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1976). Friedrich Wilhelm Kantzenbach Die Bergpredigt: Anniiherung, Wirkungsgeschichte (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1982). PerryV. Kea "The Sermon on the Mount: Ethics and Eschatological Time," SBLSP 1986 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986) 88-98. Leander E. Keck "The Sermon on the Mount," in Donald G. Miller and Dikran Y. Hadidian, eds.,jesusandMan'sHope (2 vols.; Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1971) 2.311-22. Karl Kertelge "Handeln a us Glauben: Zum V erst:indnis der Bergpredigt," Renovatio 40 (1984) 73-81. George D. Kilpatrick The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946; reprinted 1950, 1966). Jack Dean Kingsbury "The Place, Structure, and Meaning of the Sermon

657

on the Mount within Matthew," Int 41 (1987) 13143. Jack Dean Kingsbury Matthew as Story (2d ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988). WarrenS. Kissinger The Sermon on the Mount: A History ofInterpretation and Bibliography (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1975). Gerhard Kittel "Die Bergpredigt und die Ethik des Judentums," ZSTh 2 (1924/25) 555-94. Gerhard Kittel Die Probleme des paliistinischen Spatjudentums und das Urchristentum (BWANT 37; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926). Hans-Josef Klauck Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten (NTA, n.s. 13; Munster: Aschendorff, 1978). Joseph Klausner Jesus ofNazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching (trans. Herbert Danby; New York: Macmillan, 1925). Gunter Klein "Gesetz, III. Neues Testament," TRE 13 (1984) 5875. JohnS. Kloppenborg The Formation ofQ; Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (SAC 1; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987). John S. Kloppenborg QParallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes and Concordance (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1987). Wolfgang Knorzer Die Bergpredigt, Modell einer neuen Welt (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968). Wilfred L. Knox The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (ed. Henry Chadwick; 2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1957). Andrej Kodjak A Structural Analysis of the Sermon on the Mount (Religion and Reason 34; Berlin, New York, and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, 1986). Karl Reinhold Kostlin Der Ursprung und die Komposition der synoptischen Evangelien (Stuttgart: Macken, 1853). Harald Lang "V erschrankung von narrativer Syntax und kommunikativen Einheiten und ihre Abhangigkeit vom sozio-kulturellen Kontext, dargestellt am Beispiel der Bergpredigt," Linguistica Biblica 37 (1976) 1630. Bernhard Lanwer, M.S.C. Die Grundgedanken der Bergpredigt auf dem Hintergrund des Alten Testamentes und Spatjudentums (Mt 5) (Hiltrup: Herz-Jesu-Missionshaus, 1934). Pinchas Lapide Die Bergpredigt: Utopie oder Programm? (Mainz: Grunewald, 1982). ET: The Sermon on the Mount: Utopia or Program for Action? (trans. Arlene Swirlier; Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1986).

658

Pinchas Lapide Wie liebt man seine Feinde? Mit einer Neuiibersetzung der Bergpredigt unter Berucksichtigung der rabbinischen Lehrmethoden und der judischen Muttersprache Jesu (Mainz: Grunewald, 1984). Jules Lebreton, S.J. La vie et l'enseignement de jesus Christ notre seigneur (4th ed.; 2 vols.; Paris: Beauchesne, 1931). ET: The Life and Teaching ofJesus Christ Our Lord (trans. Francis Day; 2 vols.; London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1934). Simon Lf:gasse Les pauvres en esprit: Evangile et non-violence (LD 78; Paris: Cerf, 1974). ErnstLerle "Realisierbare Forderungen der Bergpredigt?" KD 16 (1970) 32-40. Isidore Levy La ligende de Pythagore de Gri!ce en Palestine (Bibliotheque de !'Ecole des Hautes Etudes 215; Paris: Champollion, 1927). Saul Lieberman Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners ofJewish Palestine in the li-N Centuries C.E. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942). Andreas Lindemann "Erwagungen zum Problem einer 'Theologie' der synoptischen Evangelien," ZNW 77 (1986) 1-33. Hermann von Lips Weisheitliche Traditionen im Neuen Testament (WMANT 64; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990). Gerhard Lohfink Wem gilt die Bergpredigt? Beitriige zu einer christlichen Ethik (Freiburg: Herder, 1988). Ulrich Luck Die Vollkommenheitsforderung der Bergpredigt: Ein aktuelles Kapitel der Theologie des Matthiius (ThExh 150; Munich: Kaiser, 1968). Dieter Luhrmann "Liebet eure Feinde (Lk 6,27-36/Mt 5,39-48)," ZThK 69 (1972) 412-38. UlrichLuz "Die Bergpredigt im Spiegel ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte," inJurgen Moltmann, ed., Nachfolge und Bergpredigt (Kaiser-Traktate 65; Munich: Kaiser, 1981) 37-72. UlrichLuz "Sermon on the Mount/Plain: Reconstruction of Q/Mt and Q/Lk," SBLSP 1983 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars, 1983) 4 73-79. E. Lyttelton Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (London: Longmans, Green, 1905). Harvey K. McArthur Understanding the Sermon on the Mount (New York: Harper& Row, 1960).

Thomas W. Manson The Sayings ofjesus (London: SCM, 1949; reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979). William Manson Jesus the Messiah: The Synoptic Tradition of the Revelation of God in Christ: With Special Reference to FormCriticism (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1943).

Daniel Marguerat Le jugement dans l' evangile de Matthieu (Geneva: Labor

et Fides, 1981). Carlo M. Martini, ed. Testimonium Christi: Scritti in onore di Jacques Dupont

(Brescia: Paideia, 1985). Willi Marxsen "Der Streit urn die Bergpredigt-ein exegetisches Problem? Anmerkungen zum Umgang mit der Sprache," in Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Heinrich Greeven (BZNW 47; Berlin: de Gruyter,

1986) 315-24. Thaddee Matura Le radicalisme evangelique: Aux sources de la vie chretienne (LD 97; Paris: Cerf, 1978).

John P. Meier Law and History in Matthew's Gospel (AnBib 71; Rome:

Biblical Institute, 1976). Max Meinertz "Zur Ethik der Bergpredigt," in A us Ethik und Leben: Festschrift fur Joseph Mausbach zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres (Munster: Aschendorff, 1931) 21-32.

Helmut Merklein Die Gottesherrschaft als Handlungsprinzip: Untersuchungen zur Ethik Jesu (FB 34; Wurzburg: Echter,

1978; 3ded.l984). Helmut Merklein jesu Botschaft von der Gottesherrschaft: Eine Skizze (SBS

Ill; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983; 3d ed. 1989). Arnold Meyer Die Muttersprache Jesu: Das galiliiische Aramiiisch in seiner Bedeutung fur die Erkliirung der Redenjesu und der Evangelien uberhaupt (Freiburg and Leipzig:

Mohr [Siebeck], 1896). Paul S. Minear Commands of Christ (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1972). Jurgen Moltmann, ed. Nachfolge und Bergpredigt (Kaiser-Traktate 65; Munich: Kaiser, 1981 ). Robert Morgenthaler Die lukanische Geschichtsschreibung als Zeugnis: Gestalt und Gehalt der Kunst des Lukas (AThANT 14-15;

Zurich: Zwingli, 1949). Holger Mosbech "The Ethics of the Sermon on the Mount," in Spiritus et Veritas (ed. AUSEKLIS; Societas Theologorum Universitatis Latviensis; Eutin: Andr. Ozolins Buchdruckerei, 1953) 121-34.

David Heinrich Muller Die Bergpredigt im Lichte der Strophentheorie (Biblische

Studien 5; Vienna: Holder, 1908). Friedrich Nagelsbach Der Schlussel zum Verstiindnis der Bergpredigt (BFCTh

20.5; Gutersloh: Bertelsmann, 1916). Friedrich Nagelsbach "Die hohen Forderungen der Bergpredigt, Matth. 5,33-42," Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift 30 (1919) 51032. Friedrich Nagelsbach "Die Einheit der Bergpredigt," Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift 39 (1928) 47-76. Frans Neirynck "The Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel Synopsis," ETL 53 (1976) 350-57. Kurt Niederwimmer Askese und Mysterium: Uber Ehe, Ehescheidung und Eheverzicht in den Anfiingen des christlichen Glaubens (FRLANT 113; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1975). Heinrich Gotthilf Oertel De oratione jesu montana ejusque consilio (diss., Witten-

berg; Wittenberg: Charisius, 1802). Salvatore Alberto Panimolle "La struttura del discorso della montagna (Mt. 57)," in Carlo M. Martini, ed., Testimonium Christi: Scritti in onore di Jacques Dupont (Brescia: Paideia, 1985) 329-50. Eung-Chun Park "Missio Ecclesiae-Missio Christi: Composition, Function, and Theology of Matthew's Mission Discourse" (Ph.D. diss.; University of Chicago, 1991). CarlS. Patton Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1915). Ernst Percy Die Botschaft jesu: Eine traditionskritische und exegetische Untersuchung(LuA N.F., Avd. 1, vol. 49.5; Lund:

Gleerup, 1953). Erik Peterson "Bergpredigt," RGG 1 (2ded.l927)907-10. Shlomo Pines 'Judeo-Christian Materials in an Arabic Jewish Treatise," American Academy for Jewish Research: Proceedings 33 (1965) 187-217. Shlomo Pines The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source (Israel Academy of

Sciences and Humanities, Proceedings 2.13; Jerusalem: Central, 1966). Peter Pokorny Der Kern der Bergpredigt: Eine Auslegung (Hamburg: Reich, 1969). Wiard Popkes "Die Gerechtigkeitstradition im Matthaus-Evangelium," ZNW 80 (1989) 1-23.

659

David Julius Pott

Arnold Schabert

Dissertatio theologica inauguralis de natura atque indole orationis montanae et de nonnullis hujus orationis explicandae praeceptis (Helmstadii; Leuckart, 1788). See the review by Johann G. Eichhorn, Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Litteratur, vol. 2 (Leipzig:

Die Bergpredigt: Auslegung und Verkundigung (Munich:

Weidmann, 1789) 351-55. Herbert Preisker "Die Art und Tragweite der Lebenslehre Jesu," ThStK 92 (1919) 1-45. Karel F. Proost De Bergrede, hare herkomst en strekking (Proefschrift, Leiden 1914; Amsterdam: Brandt, 1914). See the review by Hans Windisch, ThR 17 (1914) 426-28. Benno Przybylski

Studien zum Matthiiusevangelium: Festschrift for Wilhelm Pesch (SBS [no number]; Stuttgart: Katholisches

Bibelwerk, 1988). Alphons Schenz Die Bergpredigt in ihrer ursprunglichen Schonheit

Hans-Richard Reuter "Die Bergpredigt als Orientierung unseres Menschseins heute," ZEE 23 (1979) 84-105. Herman Nicolaas Ridderbos De Strekking der Bergrede naar Mattheus (Kampen: Kok, 1936). Georg Riegler

(Augsburg: Filser, 1929). Adolf Schlatter "Die Christologie der Bergpredigt," Der Kirchenfreund (Basel) 13 (1879) 321-28. Adolf Schlatter "Das Bild Jesu nach der Bergpredigt," Neue Christoterpe: Ein]ahrbuch 16 (1895) 1-11; republished in his Der Einzige und wir anderen (Velbert: Freizeiten, 1929) 149-62. Werner Schmauch "Reich Gottes und menschliche Existenz nach der Bergpredigt," in Werner Schmauch and Ernst Wolff, eds., Konigsherrschaft Christi (ThExh 64; Munich: Kaiser, 1958) 5-19. Karl Christian Ludwig Schmidt Exegetische Beytriige zu den Schriften des Neuen Bundes (6 parts; Frankfurt a.M.: Gebhard&Korber, 179194). On the SM see part 1, sections 3-5; part 2, section 7. Walter Schmithals Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1985). Rudolf Schnackenburg

Berg-Predigt Jesus Christus, kritisch-historisch-praktisch erkliirt, zur Belehrung und Betrachtung dargestellt

Alles kann, wer glaubt: Bergpredigt und Vaterunser in der Absichtjesu (Freiburg: Herder, 1984).

Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought

(SNTSMS 41; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1980). Johann Wilhelm Rau Untersuchungen, die wahre Absicht der Bergpredigt betreffend (Erlangen: Palm, 1805).

Frant;:ois Refoule, ed.

A cause de l'Evangile: Etudes sur les Synoptiques et les Actes offertes au P. Jacques Dupont, O.S.B., a l' occasion de son 70e anniversaire (LD 123; Paris: Cerf, 1985).

(Bamburg: Schmidt, 1844). Extract from his work

Rudolf Schnackenburg

Das Leben Jesus Christus in Harmonie der vier Evangelien kritisch-historisch-praktisch erkliirt (Bam-

Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments, vol. 1: Von Jesus zur Urkirche (HThKNT Sonderband; Frei-

berg: Schmidt, 1843). Rainer Riesner "Der Aufbau der Reden im Matthausevangelium," ThBei 9 (1978) 172-82. Rainer Riesner jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelienuberlieferung (WUNT 2.7; 3d ed.;

Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1987). James M. Robinson "The Sermon on the Mount/Plain: Work Sheets for the Reconstruction of Q," SBLSP 1983 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1983) 451-54. Arvid Runestam "Das ethische Problem der Bergpredigt," ZSTh 4 (1926) 555-72. Ed Parish Sanders jesus and judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). Ed Parish Sanders Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies

(London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990).

660

Claudius, 1966). Ludger Schenke, ed.

burg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1986). Rudolf Schnackenburg, ed. Die Bergpredigt: Utopische Vision oder Handlungsanweisung? Mit Beitragen von Johannes Griindel,

Hans-Richard Richter, and RudolfSchnackenburg (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1982). Gerhard Schneider Botschaft der Bergpredigt (Leipzig: St. Benno, 1973). Luise Schottroff and Wolfgang Stegemann Jesus and the Hope for the Poor (trans. Matthew J. O'Connell; Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1986). Luise Schottroff et al. Essays on the Love Commandment (trans. Reginald and Irene Fuller; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978). Wolfgang Schrage "Bergpredigt," Evangelisches Soziallexikon (7th ed.; Stuttgart: Kreuz, 1982) 137-38. Wolfgang Schrage • Aspekte heutiger Bergpredigt-Interpretation," Der evangelische Erzieher 34 (1982) 387-98.

Wolfgang Schrage "Das Ende aller Politik? Kritische Fragen an Martin Hengel," EvK 15 (1982) 333-37. Wolfgang Schrage Ethik des Neuen Testaments (NTD Sup series 4; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). ET: The Ethics of the New Testament (trans. David E. Greene; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988). Stefan Schreiner "Muhammads Bergpredigt," Kairos 19 (1977) 24156. Siegfried Schulz "Strategie zeitgemasser Veranderung: Relevanz und RelativiUlt der Bergpredigt," Zeitwende 41 (1970) 226-36. Siegfried Schulz Q· Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972). Siegfried Schulz Die Stunde der Botschajt: Einfilhrung in die Theologie der vier Evangelisten (Hamburg: Furche, 1967).

Siegfried Schulz Neutestamentliche Ethik (Zurcher Grundrisse zur Bibel;

Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987). Heinz Schurmann "Die Warnung des Lukas vor der Falschlehre in der 'Predigt am Berge' Lk 6,20-49," BZ, n.s. 10 (1966) 57-81. Gunther Schwarz

Kurt Stalder "Uberlegungen Z\lr Interpretation der Bergpredigt," in Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments: Einheit und Vielfalt neutestamentlicher Theologie: Festschrift fur Eduard Schweizer zum 70 Geburtstag (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983) 272-90.

Carl Stange "Zur Ethik der Bergpredigt," ZSTh 2 (1924/25) 3774. Graham N. Stanton Review of Hans Dieter Betz, Essays on the Sermon on theMount,]TS 37 (1936) 521-23. Graham N. Stanton "The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount," in Gerald F. Hawthorne and Otto Betz, eds., Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor ofE. Earle Ellis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 181-92; reprinted in his Gospel, 307-25. Graham N. Stanton A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: Clark, 1992). Vincent Henry Stanton The Gospels as Historical Documents (3 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1903, 1909, 1920). Johann Jakob Stolz Geist der Sittenlehre Jesu in Betracht11ngen uoer die ganze Bergpredigt (3 parts; Lemgo: Meyer, 1792-93).

Gottlieb Christian Storr

"Und jesus sprach": Untersuchungen zur aramiiischen Urgestalt der Worte jesu (BWANT 118; Stuttgart:

Dissertatio exegetica in librorum Novi Testamenti historicorum aliquot loca (3 parts; Tubingen: Fues,

Kohlhammer, 1985). Eduard Schweizer

1790, 1791, 1794). Burnett Hillman Streeter

Matthiius und seine Gemeinde (SBS 71; Stuttgart:

The Four Gospels: A Study of the Origins, Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Authorship and Dates (London:

Katholisches Bibelwerk, 197 4). Alfred Seeberg Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit (Leipzig: Deichert, 1903; reprinted as Theologische Bucherei 26; Munich: Kaiser, 1966). Reinhold Seeberg Zur Ethik der Bergpredigt (Schriften des Instituts fur Sozialethik und Wissenschaft der Inneren Mission an der Universitat Berlin 4; Leipzig: Deichert, 1934). Friedrich Ludwig Sieffert Uber den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums: Eine kritische Abhandlung (Konigsberg: Bon, 1832).

Nathan Soderblom "Le sens des commandements de Jesus dans les discours sur Ia montagne," RThPh 30 (1897) 24763. Nathan Soderblom jesu bergspredikan och var tid (Stockholm: Ahlen & Soners, 1933). Thaddaus Soiron Die Logia Jesu: Eine literarkritische und literargeschichtliche Untersuchung zum synoptischen Problem

Macmillan, 1924; 2d ed. 1926; 5th ed. 1936). August Strobel "Die Bergpredigt a is ethische Weisung heute: Vier Thesen fur Nachfolger Christi in einer modernen Welt," ThBei 15 (1984) 3-16. Peter Stuhlmacher "Jesu vollkommenes Gesetz der Freiheit: Zum Verstandnis der Bergpredigt," ZThK 79 (1982) 283-322. Kari Syreeni The Making of the Sermon on the Mount: A Procedural Analysis ofMatthew's Redactional Activity, part 1: Methodology and Compositional Analysis (AASF:

Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 44; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987). Robert Tannehill The Sword ofHis Mouth (Semeia Sup 1; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 197 5 ). Gerd Theissen Soziologie der jesusbewegung (Munich: Kaiser, 1977). ET: Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).

(NTA 6; Munster: Aschendorff, 1916).

661

Eduard Thumeysen Die Bergpredigt (ThExh 46; Munich: Kaiser, I936). ET: The Sermon on the Mount (trans. William Childs

Robinson, Sr., with James M. Robinson; Richmond, Va.:John Knox, I964). Raymond Thysman Communaute et directives ethiques: La catechese de Matthieu (Gembloux: Duculot, I974).

Sjef van Tilborg

Die Bergpredigt Christi in ihrem organischen Zusammenhange erklart (Freiburg: Herder, I892).

The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Leiden: Brill, I972).

Johannes WeiB

Sjef van Tilborg

Die Predigtjesu vom Reiche Gottes (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, I892; 2d ed. I900; reprinted

The Sermon on the Mount as an Ideological Intervention: A Reconstruction ofMeaning (Assen: Van Gorcum,

I986). L.John Topel "The Lucan Version of the Lord's Sermon," BTB II (I98I) 48-53. G. A. Tuttle "The Sermon on the Mount: Its Wisdom Affinities and Their Relation to Its Structure," journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 ( I977) 2I3-30. Willem C. van Unnik "Die Motivierung der Feindesliebe in Lukas VI 3235," NovT 8 (I966) 284-300; reprinted in his Sparsa collecta, vol. I (NovTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, I973) III-26. Clyde W. Votaw "Sermon on the Mount," in James Hastings, ed., Dictionary of the Bible: Extra Volume (New York: Scribner's, I904) I-44. Fran~,:ois Vouga jesus et Ia loi dans Ia tradition synoptique (Geneva: Labor et Fides, I988). Joachim Wach Meister und Schiller: Zwei religionssoziologische Betrachtungen (Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], I925).

ET: "Master and Disciple: Two Religio-historical Studies," JR 42 (I962) I-21. JoannesJacobusWagner Oration is jesu Montanae pars insignior apud Matt h. cap. V notis philologico-exegeticis illustrata (diss., Bamberg,

I798; Bambergae: Typis Klietschianis, I798). Michael Weber Eclogae exegetico-critiae in nonnullis librorum Novi Testamenti historicorum locos (4 parts; Programm-

schriften; Halle: Schimmelpfennig, I827-28). Hans Weder "Die 'Rede der Reden': Beobachtungen zum Verstandnis der Bergpredigt Jesu," EvT 45 (I985) 45-60. HansWeder "Einblicke ins Menschliche: Anthropologische Entdeckungen in der Bergpredigt," in Hubert Frankemolle and Karl Kertelge, eds., Vom Urchristentum zujesus: Filr Joachim Gnilka (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, I989) I72-93. Heinrich Weinel Die Bergpredigt (Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, I920).

662

Bernhard WeiB "Die Redestiicke des apostolischen Matthaus: Mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung von 'Dr. H.]. Boltzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien, ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter. Leipzig I863,'" · Jahrbilcher for deutsche Theologie 9 (I864) 49-I40. Hugo WeiB

with a new foreword by RudolfBultmann, 3d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, I964). Karl Heinrich von Weizsacker Untersuchungen ilber die evangelische Geschichte, ihre Quellen und den Gang ihrer Entwicklung (Gotha:

Besser, I864; 2d ed. To bingen and Leipzig: Mohr [Siebeck], I90I). Julius Wellhausen Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin: Reimer, I905; 2ded. I911). Julius Wellhausen Israelitische und jildische Geschichte (Berlin: Reimer, I894; 2ded. I895; 7thed. I9I4; 9thed. I958). Julius Wellhausen Evangelienkommentare. With an introduction by Martin Hengel (Berlin: de Gruyter, I987). Paul Wernle Die synoptische Frage (Freiburg, Leipzig, and Tilbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], I899). Gillis P:son Wetter "Den litterara Karaktaren av Jesu 'Bergpredikans' forsta del," in Till Arkebiskop Soderbloms sextioarsdag 1926 (Stockholm: Diakonistyrelsen, I926) 449-67. L.J. White "Grid and Group in Matthew's Community: The Righteousness/Honor Code in the Sermon on the Mount," Semeia 35 (I986) 6I-90. Amos Wilder "The Sermon on the Mount," in The Interpreter's Bible (ed. George Arthur Buttrick; I2 vols.; New York and Nashville: Abingdon, I95I-57) 7.I55-64. Christian Gottlob Wilke Der Urevangelist; oder, Exegetisch-kritische Untersuchung ilber das Verwandtschaftsverhaltnis der drei ersten Evangelien (Dresden and Leipzig: Fleischer, I838).

Hans Windisch Der Sinn der Bergpredigt: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der richtigen Exegese (UNT I6; Leipzig: Hinrichs, I929). ET: The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount: A Contribution to the Historical Understanding of the Gospels and to the Problem of Their True Exegesis

(trans. S. MacLean Gilmour; Philadelphia: Westminster, I950). Ronald W. Worden "The Q-Sermon on the Mount/Plain: Variants and Reconstruction," SBLSP 1983 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars, I983) 455-71.

Dieter Zeller Die weisheitlichen Mahnspruche bei den Synoptikern (2d

ed.; Wiirzburg: Echter, 1983). Dieter Zeller Kommentar zur Logienquelle (Stuttgarter Kleiner Kommentar: N eues Testament 21; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984). Dieter Zeller "Jesus als vollmachtiger Lehrer (Mt 5-7) und der hellenistische Gesetzgeber," in Ludger Schenke, ed., Studien zum Matthiiusevangelium; Festschrift fur Wilhelm Pesch (SBS Sonderband; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1 988) 299-317. Alfred P. Zimmer Die urchristlichen Lehrer: Studien zum Tradentenkreis der didaskaloi imfruhen Christentum (WUNT 2.12;

Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1984; 2d ed. 1987). Jean Zumstein La condition du croyant dans l' evangile selon Matthieu (OBO 16; Fribourg: Editions universitaires, 1977).

663

Indices

Because of the size of the volume the indices are by necessity selective. Included in the indices are those passages, words, subject matters, and names of commentators and scholars that are actually discussed. Mere accumulations of references on specific topics, however, have not been indexed. Readers looking for items in the volume should consult first a concordance in connection with the running commentary on the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain, and make use of the detailed table of contents. Items that can be found simply by going to the commentary or table of contents have not been included in these indices.

20:16-17 20:16 21:23-25 22:26-27 23:4-5 Leviticus 5 17-26 18 18:16 19:1-34 I9:7 19:9-18 19:ll-12 19:12 19:17 19:I8

1. Passages a I Old Testament and Apocrypha Genesis I:27 2:20-25 2:24 3 3:1-I9 4:5-8 4:8-I6 7:9 8:21 I6:3 21:9-14 2I:I4-16 2I:22-3I 22:I-I9 35:22 4I:45 4I:50 46:20 Exodus 6:9 20:2-I7 20:2-3 20:7 20:I0-15 20:13 20:14

252,256, 257,258 245 256,257, 258 479f 406 515 224205 230 252 507646 246 246 246'69 262 406 515 232 285 IOO 100 100 112 140 20I 262 262,264, 265 305 215, 218, 220 230, 231, 234, 255, 258

19:19 I9:33-36 20:10 20:21 24:19 24:20 Numbers 30:3-4 Deuteronomy 5:11 5:I6-2I 5:20 6:5 13:6 I5:I-3 I6:14 I7:14-I7 I7: I7 I9:18 I9:2I 22:I-4 22:13-I9 22:28-29 23:I5 23:2I-23

305 262,263 278 290750 307,310 223200 224 250407 252 302 307 305 262 262, 263, 266525 488, 488 495 184 121 , 204, 205, 210, 220, 223, 230, 23I 276 , 258, 282, 283,299, 301, 302, 303, 304, 309, 3IO, 321, 323, 339 57 , 514, 5I5, 5I8, 51871>,547 223 305 23I276 252 278 6" 278 265 262,265 20320 263 184 121 305 606 237 527 252 252 262 278 307, 3I0 871 246 246 247 265

23:21 24:1-4 24:12-13 25:11-12 Joshua 9:15-20 Judges 1:7 I6:21 1 Samuel 9:2 LXX II :2 18-24 24 29:4 2 Samuel 1I:I-4 18:27 I9:6 1 Kings 3:I3 I8:25-29 1 Chronicles 29:ll-13 2 Chronicles 1:10ff Job I:I2 2:4 2:6 7:1 8:5 12:7-IO I7:16-23 23:2-9 24:I5 28 30:24-25 31 38:41 40:I5-24 42:2-6 42:7-I7 Psalms I:I-2 I:2 5 6:8 6:9 7 I5:2 17 2I:7-8 (LXX) 24:3-6

265 243-49, 255-58 291750 278 683 262 278 635 237" 7 188 150 237 527 3IO 3I1 224205 232 285 632 302809 477 4 27 366292 4I4 482464 407 278 407 407519 501598 4 73' 90 43380 50}598 235 339 57752 544 474•96 4 73' 90 407 407 104 104 76 544 544 552 544 262 544 I49 262

665

24:3 24:4-6 26 27:12 33:13-15 33.19 (LXX) 36:11 (LXX) 37:11 (MT) 37:30-31 48:3 LXX 49:14 LXX 50:14 51:10 89:34 103:12 112 139 144:8 144:11 146:9 Proverbs 1:28 4:23 6:6-11 10:13 11:22 12 14:29 14:34 17:5 20:27 21:14 24:17-18 25:21-22 30:8 Ecclesiastes 2:2 5:2-3 5:18 7:3,6 8:2-3 Isaiah 1:27 3:10 11:2-3 40:26ff 40:26 42:6 49:10 52:13-53:12 52:7 61:1-3 61:1-2 61:2

666

134 135 544 262 339 59 112140 125, 127 125, 128 271 591 270 266 520 265 135 262 474' 99 632 339 262 262 474' 96 501" 99 43596 473' 90 633' 97 494 555 ,496 632 112140 584,585 587144 442144 359229 310 310 398, 398 461 587148 365 632 587 148 262 194177 144 46, 107 465 848 474 895 160 132 143 36289 121 36 289 , 575, 578 60 123,124

63:8 65:1 66:1 66:2 Jeremiah 5:7 7:9 17:10 31:31-35 Daniel 10:6 Hosea 12:6 Micah 6:8 Zechariah 4:1-14 5:3-5 5:3 LXX 5:4 9:9 Malachi 2:13-16 3:5 1 Esdras 14:28 Tobit 4:5-19 4:15 6:9-8:21 12:6-10 12:6 12:8-9 12:11-15 12:15 12:17 12:19 13:1-18 13:14 13:15-16 13:16-18 Judith 12:16 Wisdom 1:16-2:24 2:10 2:12-20 2:12 4:20-5:23 7:3 11:15-16 11:26 14:26 23:22

262 501600 268,269 127 262 262 529 91 194177 449214 62 62 449214 262 265 262 127 271 247 072 262 265 426 514 246 870 101, 338, 354 101 418 618 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 10155 232285 143 143 143 144 544217 577 52 278 683 471 078 265 488498

Sirach 3:31 5:15 6:6 7:1 7:14 7:21 8:16 11:26~28

15:11a 15:11-20 15:12a 15:17 15:19 18:32 21:20 23:9-11 25:7-11 26:9 27:6 28:1-7 29:1-13 29:21 31:5-11 34 (31):11-31 34:13-36:17 36:4 48:1-11 48:9 48:11 Susanna 63 1 Maccabees 3:60

359229 307 320964 310875 365278 310875 307 540 407 525 407f 407526 407 527 408528 587 199 587 147 264506 105 234 52991, 634401 403499 606 472 885 , 483471 358 211 310875 337£, 354 413578 100 101 100 247 884 394420

b I Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and Other Jewish Literature 'Abot 1.2 1.6 1.13 1.14 1.19 2.1 2.4 2.16 2.17 3.14 3.18 4.2 4.11

62 488500 139 876 21091 139 876 188148 394426 307847 36J248 173 40 560 188148 178 79

554294 320 10685 21091

4.13 4.20 5.1 6.5 'Abot R. Nat. (A)

355182 31}876 560

4 23 24 Apoc. Abr.

316927

7.7-8 b. B. Batra

lOb

584,58512>

b. B.Mei.

30b

196

b. B. Qam.

84a

279

5a I7a 29b 40b 60a 60b

609168

16.7-8 29.3-4 Josephus

100 311

4.25~

1.80 2.135 ]ub.

238 239

m. Gif.

17.2-14 33.1-9

248888 279 163 72 237827 477 427 267544 252

b. Pesa{l

420682 267544

9.10

344

b. Sabb.

3.7

515 239 16374, 176, 211

2Baruch

4.13

316927

144

1 Enoch

48.1 95.7

132 144

2 Enoch

8.9 Philo

m

10157, IOJ59 IOJ5 8 102 60 102 515688 271600 271599 276 140 554294 52991

3 Enoch

449214

Ep. Arist.

4-8 150-66

268554 360 355185 225 218

113149 216 448

85-97 152

50 84 89-91 92 121-31 168 168-69 62

316927

201 6 201 6 268550, 269565 260466 260 477 ,264 235807 235809 235807 431

448 129284 98 84 105 88 105 88 105 88 106 85

Rer. div. her.

34 79 122

216 216 474898 216 10685

Som.

2.35

113149

Spec. leg.

1.8 1.13-31 1.13-20 1.203-4 2.1-38 2.2-5 2.2 2.4-5 2.5

Decal.

De fuga

514

126

Sacr. AC

Conf ling.

163

267544

Praem. poen.

223198

Abr.

39.2 40.1 40.2 42.6-14 42:6-11 49.1-30) 49.1 50.4 52.11-12 530) 53.2

27

181 283

Migr. Abr.

95

84

247886

m. Yoma

48:48-50

2161S7 341' 7 273615 639"' 267

Opif.

338 58

m. Seqal.

5.6 6.5, 13

235

Omn. prob. lib.

1.75 3.49 4.10 4.110

m. 'Sebu.

3la 108b 116

3.53 3.207

Q. Gen.

m. Pesa/:1

113a/b

Leg. all. 3.204

246869 232285

Ladder ofJacob

2.12

2.l,p.l3b 2.1

97

Poster. C.

Koh. Rab.

5.6

431 431

Jos.

29-31 265

Ant.

4.280 5.223 6.69-71 8.190 15.371-72 18.136

70 79 Det. pot. ins.

Jos. Asen.

63424 392 394426 39}405 411 410

b.Nid.

207

31.4

Bell.

b. Ber.

35.2

Exod. Rab.

2.9 2.10 2.38 2.39 2.71-78 2.78 3.8 3.30-31 3.153-68 3.155

216 64482 316927 224212 261 488 ,264 268 271 271 260 471 , 268 554, 267. 268 265 261 26652S 606 606 607 235807 248888 307 307

667

3.169-80 3.177-78 3.181-204 3.197 4.51 4.121 Virt. 152-54 Vit.Mos. 1.280 2.14-15 Ps.-Philo Ant. bibl. 11.9-13 33.5 Ps. Sol. 4.4-5 14.8 Ps.-Phocyl., Sent. prooemium 3 11 16-17 16 23 42-47 72-75 77 100-101 140 142 162-63 229-30 Qumran CD 1.18 CD 4.12-19 CD4.12b-5:11 CD 7.6-9 CD 15.1-16 CD 16.10-12 1QH 2.15 1QS 1.4 1QS 4.22-23 1QS 10.19-20 4Q525 4QpNah 1.2 11QPs•Zion 11QTemple 11QTemple 57.17-19 Sib. Or. 2.79 Sifre Lev. 16, 30 (324•) Syriac Menander 128-32 246-47

668

239 847 234-35 279 307 848 529 307 848 307 848 529 184 120 515688 554294 234 430f 104 235809 6162Bl 265 263 3602!1 454260 316926 276 316926 310872 31 }876 316926 104 192 202 252 247 267544 247 192 304 135... 285687 102 192 124241 210 252

Tg. Deut. 6:5 Tg. Prov. 3:9 T. Benj. 7.5 T. Gad 6.7 T. Iss. 4.4 7.2 T.jos. 3.4 T.Jud. 18.6 T. Levi 13.5 13.9 T.Reu. 3.11-15 T.Abr. 8-13 T. Is (OTP 1.905-11) T.Job 18.4 36.2-3 36.3 t. B. Me~. 70b t. Ber. 3.7 3.11 t.l;Iul. 2.17 t. Sanh. 13.2

311 876 ,313 515688

4:17-22 4:17 4:18-22

458299 220167 276 234 234 421 456

4:23 4:24-5:2 4:25-5:2 5 5:1-2 5:1 5:2 5:3-48 5:3-12

43160 186 155 232285 52328 544217

5:3

450221 482462 435100

5:4 5:5 5:6

608 159 394426 398462

5:8

267545 5:9 585 5:10-12

c I New Testament 5:10 Matthew 1:1 1:18-19 1:22 2:13-17 3:4 3:7-12 3:10 3:13-17 3:15

3592Bl 225 2..

458299

3:17 4:1-11 4:2 4:12-23

561 257 215125 319951 535 148 29 538179 59 130, 131, 285685, 303816, 351' 55 , 556 95, 303 816 59,80,380 419621 80

5:11-12 5:11

5:12

5:13-16

5:13 5:14-16

59 81 44, 59, 80, 81,564 81 43,80 81 107 24,44,80 61409, 81 81 29 10, 13, 43, 83, 155, 158, 164, 165,204, 314, 321, 325, 416, 465,523, 543,559, 561,575 281,428, 596 577 7 14, 281, 395,437 314,317 956 , 483,576, 577 233288, 234 299 , 274, 314, 339 57 , 435 281, 314, 315,609 287710, 312 89 4, 313 7 14 ,45 846 , 314,483 7 14, 583 281660, 283 677 , 314, 317 986 ' 540, 578,580 314, 318 948 , 555, 582, 584,609 13, 24, 128, 138, 197, 285,324, 507,523, 540,559, 561 82,567 567

5:14 5:15 5:16-17 5:16 5:17-7:12 5:17-48 5:17-20

5:17-18 5:17

5:18 5:19-20 5:19 5:20

5:21-7:12 5:21-48

5:21-26 5:21-23 5:22 5:23-24 5:25 5:26 5:27-30 5:28 5:29-30

395 82,425, 440 714 84,346£, 416 164 37 13, 29, 131, 230, 258, 284 682 , 309, 426,427, 518,536 314 200,204, 211,280, 427,528, 542 209 314,540 71 458 ,82, 173,541 130, 131, 146, 248 389 , 269, 271" 9\ 276,282, 309, 314, 318, 320, 321, 325, 326, 347"', 416,483, 524,548 187 10, 13, 23, 43, 46, 80, 83, 138, 172,182, 185, 187, 188, 191, 193, 332 19 , 347" 1, 426, 540 127, 281, 404 50 5,416 131 314 124 241 , 131, 175 55 , 350 313895 151 258, 275, 277,416 130, 136, 314,435 130,470

5:29 5:30 5:31-32 5:33-37 5:33 5:35 5:37c

5:38-42

5:39-41 5:39 5:40 5:42

5:43-48

5:43-44 5:43

5:43b 5:44-45 5:44

5:45

5:46-47 5:47

5:48

6-7 6:1-7:23 6:1-18

314 314 6 12 , 234 635 283 119, 395 6 12 , 130, 281660, 283 677 ,314 6 12 , 127, 133, 416, 518,595 313895 314, 323, 596 597 468,504, 597,598, 607 146 , 609 127, 133, 289,416, 426, 518, 592 518 7" 6 12 , 230, 231 276 , 258, 282,283 339 57 138 6 12 , 7 1\ 146, 149, 312 89 \ 592 7 1<, 119, 130, 131, 133, 141, 281 658 , 283, 506 6' 8, 519, 565 6<, 609, 612 601 88, 138, 284679, 364 267 7 1<, 97, 106, 119,131, 133, 138, 141,416601 , 417, 426, 614,625 107 46 23, 29, 37, 45, 80, 83, 131, 164, 175 55 ,193,

6:1-6 6:1-4 6:1

6:2-4 6:2 6:3 6:4 6:5-13 6:5 6:6 6:7-8 6:7 6:8 6:9-15 6:9-13 6:9-10 6:9 6:9b-13 6:10 6:11 6:12-15 6:12-13 6:12

6:12a 6:13

6:14-15

6:15 6:16-18 6:16 6:17 6:18 6:19-7:12 6:19-21 6:19-20

493 552 , 540, 548 609 10 82,119, 130, 146, 314,468 133, 292, 609 156 9, 284 679 , 314 84 416 10 156 9, 284 679 , 314 416 481 452 ,506 88, 138, 284679 314 29 10, 108 112 , 314,481452 130 119 107 119,129, 517,518 32 156 16 , 314, 325,327 119 127, 133, 134, 138, 284 679 ,314 141 130,281 659 , 283 675 , 283 677 ,314 127, 133, 134, 138, 141, 283 677 , 284679, 285 687 , 564 314 10, 428, 451 228 ,609 284 679 , 314 151 416 48 466,468, 561 555

669

6:20 6:21

609 136, 233 288 , 314 39, 83, 118, 130, 136, 236819, 237 82 4, 283 675 , 314 470 314 132, 136, 266524, 303 816 , 314, 325, 339 57 714 10, 314, 400 118 82, 416601 82,395 82 88, 284 679 , 313 895 ,314, 364267, 416601 119,130, 131, 138, 146, 158, 314, 352, 428,466 415 314,398 6 12 , 29, 130, 138, 416, 615,626 616 618 82, 236 819 627 284 679 , 347, 357 198 , 627 158 39, 141, 292,416 483 141 130, 133, 138 118,119, 141,281 658 , 283,314 29 130, 134, 141,178, 186, 187,

6:22-33

6:22-23 6:23 6:24

6:25ff. 6:25-34 6:25 6:26 6:28-30 6:28 6:32

6:33

6:33a 6:34 7:1-5

7:1 7:2 7:3-5 7:4 7:5 7:6 7:7-11 7:7-8 7:9-11 7:10-11 7:11

7:12-27 7:12

670

7:13-23

7:13-14

7:14 7:15-23 7:15-20

7:15 7:16-20 7:16 7:17-18 7:17 7:21-23

7:21-22 7:21 7:22-23

7:23 7:24-27

7:24-26 7:24 7:26 7:28-29

204, 210, 220, 258, 276, 283, 284, 289, 290, 291, 309, 309 865 , 314, 318, 405 505 ,416, 599 98, 110ISS, 157, 571', 575,586 10, 81, 131, 132, 165, 314, 321, 324,427, 428,437, 483,559 483 10 84, 173, 189 152 , 314, 559, 630, 635408 82 10 629856 283 675 314 82, 134, 137, 138, 141, 142, 146, 173, 285 687 , 416, 559, 567, 636 8 266524 393 189 152 , 204, 284679, 317 986 , 314, 318 947 , 321, 326,327 131' 283 677 , 314 5, 7 14,82, 157, 158, 159, 163 76 , 165, 187, 327,465 314 71 457 , 637, 638 71457,638 80,81

7:28 7:29 8:5-13 8:21-22 8:28 9:9 9:13 9:14-15 9:15 10:1-5 10:1-4 10:1-2 10:2-4 10:2 10:3 10:5-42 10:5-8 10:5-7 10:5-6

10:5 10: lOb 10:11 10:12-13 10:16-33 10:16 10:17-25 10:17-22 10:22 10:24-25 10:30 10:32-33 10:34-35 10:40-42 10:41 11:5 11:11 11:15 11:18-19 11:18 11:19 11:29 11:30 12:18 12:31-37 12:33-35 12:33 12:34-37 12:35 12:37 12:50 13:9 13:19

24,331 21197 43 123 238 479 439 319956 175 55 419621 123 238 44 24 81 81 320961 319956 81, 156 156 553 282 29, 165, 165 94, 165 95 , 500 81 4 75407 497576 320968 143 158,535 150490 153516 132,579 622 270586 546 140 153516 131 36289 188147 440 419 418 319 951 127 271 188144 303816 532,533 531 175 55 ' 629856 274624 532 116 ,533 616 393 440 413

13:36-43 13:38 13:43 13:44-46 13:45-46 13:46 14:4 14:7-8 14:31 15:1-20 15:7 15:19 15:21-28 15:24 15:32 16:8 16:13-19 16:17-19 16:18 16:19 16:26 16:27 17:5 17:21 18:1-20 18:8-9 18:6-9 18:14 18:15-20 18:15 18:17

18:18-19 18:18 18:19-20 18:21-22 18:23-35

18:23-25 18:25 18:32-33 18:35 19:3-12 19:3 19:7 19:9

579 413 440 435 498 584 516 698 252 504624 479 4 " 9 216180 357 198 202 499 553282 419 621 479 489 564 155 1 156 8, 564 51 156 16 , 335, 417 468 556 303816 419621 489516 236,238 157,238""" 393 131,401 486 , 579 320960, 488504 156 8, 319 95 •, 564 51 401 156 16, 335, 417 344 350, 416 597 133, 227 205 , 40 1' 402 488 ' 611 191 , 616 613 403 498 , 516698 404505 350 253,256, 258,259 248 244 244, 248' 89 '

19:10-12 19:12 19:16-30 19:16-22 19:19 19:20-21 19:20 19:21 19:28 19:29 20:1-16 20:16 21:5 21:28-32 21:32 21:33-46 22:6 22:10 22:14 22:27 22:37-40 22:37 22:39 22:40 23 23:1-39 23:1-2 23:2 23:3-4 23:3 23:8-12 23:8 23:10 23:16-22 23:16 23:18-20 23:18 23:22 23:23-24 23:23 23:29-39 23:34-36 23:34 23:35 23:37 24-25 24:5

248 891 , 249, 251,258 253 239846 131 302,322 203,299, 303 323 99 " 625815 322, 322 990 128, 131, 556 128277 401 526 72 127 271 319952 ,393 131' 98 128 277 143 254480 52672 132 223 303816 299,303, 303816 516698 108 112 , 194, 353164 187 142 193174 191 192 29, 186 185 622 349145, 625" 19 625"19 268 55 " 268 175 55 268 268562, 268 56 ', 269 187 186 106 143 131 150490 17555 270 528 75 532112

24:9-14 24:9-12 24:11 24:13 24:14 24:24 24:27 24:30-31 25:1-13 25:21 25:23 25:31-46

25:34 25:35-38 25:35-36 25:37-39 25:40 25:42-44 25:42-43 26:28 26:39 26:47-56 26:56 26:63-64 26:67-68 26:67 26:72 26:74 26:75 27:4 27:19 27:24-26 27:24 27:30 27:32 27:44 27:54 28:16-20 28:18-20

28:18 28:19 28:20

143, 153 520 535 527 132 535 527' 532 112 , 534 127 309865 132,556 159,546 1515° 1 151501 131, 132, 164,344, 543 204 , 546, 556,579 128, 131 359 355 181 , 472" 85 472 885 131 359, 472 885 355181 401,401 486 393 285 564 131,556 285 290 7"9 264510 264 510 ,551 564 130, 131, 285685 130, 131, 285685 131,553 282 130, 285 685 285 291758, 292761 149 130 564 128, 131, 156, 156 16 , 16161, 165 95 , 328, 556 21197 59, 320972 187107,344,

671

516 698 , 562' 6 Mark 1:15 2:18-22 3:19 3:28-30 4:11 4:21 4:24 6:18 6:22-25 6:22-24 7:1-23

35 418,419 24 533 339 425 4915 05 252 504624 266526 136, 187 142 , 202, 2161> 0, 274 186136 266526 202 499 538167 493553 239 346 148 459 546 622 188 147 550259 238" 9 236,238 238 340 157,159" 253,25556,258, 259 251 255 248 391 , 251411 244,253 193 174, 322. 458 299 , 598 56 , 625 546235,632 202 434,435 148 459 188 147 , 622 357202 335, 350, 415591, 417605 224208 246 870 187142

7:8-9 7:9-13 7:21-22 7:24-30 8:24 8:25 8:34-37 8:35 8:38 9:33-50 9:35-37 9:38-41 9:42-50 9:43-48 9:43-45 9:49-50 10:2-12

10:9 10:11-12 10:11 10:12 10:17-22

10:17-18 10:19 10:21 10:29 10:35-45 11:15-17 11:25-26

11:25 12:19-23 12:26-34

672

12:28-34 12:29-30 12:29 12:30-31 12:30 12:31 12:33 13:6 13:9 13:22

14:22-25 14:32-42 14:32-34 14:36 14:38 14:44-45 14:55-64 14:66-72 14:71 15:21 15:32 16:10 Luke 1:32 1:50 1:53 1:54 1:58 1:72 1:76 1:78 3:7-9 3:9 3:16-17 3:19 4:3-12 6:6 6:12-16 6:13-16 6:17-20a 6:17 6:20-49 6:20-26 6:20 6:20a 6:20b 6:20b-49 6:20b-26 6:20b-24

299 455 339 57 223 132 299 299 532112 150490 527, 528, 532112, 534127 373 123 238 , 371>26,373 393 375,408, 410 405, 409 542 5512 6' 150 5512 6' 551 291758 149 123 238 610174 133 586 135 133 133 133 610174 133 29 538179 29 252, 489 505 29 237 322 24,44 81 43,80 81 29, 212, 426 425 23 44,80,81 115 546 82,83,105 10, 92, 98, 142

6:20b-21 6:21a 6:22

6:23 6:25 6:26 6:27-36 6:27-35 6:27-28

6:27 6:29-30 6:29 6:30 6:31

6:32-36 6:32-35 6:32 6:34-35 6:35 6:36 6:37-42 6:38

6:39-40 6:39 6:40 6:41-42 6:41 6:42

6:43-45

6:45 6:46

109 129 147, 148, 149, 150, 281660 88, 151, 152 506 , 520 123 528 298,300 612 6 12 , 296, 297,298, 312 289,309 291 289,290, 290 740 292, 292 762 , 504 276,284, 405 505 • 426, 509, 512, 516700 296 318 948 318 292 88, 152 506 133, 141 6 12 ,425, 489,520 163 72 , 405505, 491 530 , 491 531 , 4915 35 82, 155 82 24,71 458 , 82, 560 26 82,319 959 , 488 492 509 357198, 492549, 493552 82,520, 531, 532, 532 116 , 533 82, 317 936 , 435,533 520,545, 546

6:47-49 6:47-48 6:48 6:49 7:1-10 7:1 7:22 7:33 8:4 8:9-11 9:26 9:49-50 10:3 10:4-5 10:27 10:29 10:38-42 11:1-13 11:1-4

11:1 11:2

11:3

11:4

11:4c 11:5-8 11:9-13 11:10 11:11 11:12 11:13 11:29-36 11:33 11:34-36

11:34 11:35 11:37-44 12

82,520, 559,560 562'8 565 567 43 24,71,81 36289 418 619261 619261 546 550259 535 320968 223,299 302 807 43267 426 335,349, 350,363, 364,37072,400, 404, 415 591 , 503 349 1.. 369S15, 375, 389,390, 390097 ,392 32,396, 397,397 452 , 400 474 401, 401 482 , 401 485 ,405, 409,409 545 , 414 4055° 9, 412 503,504 39,426, 503,506 504628 503, 505 6 " 503 503, 506 640 , 507 440 29,425 39,425, 439f, 440, 442,443 449 211 , 450222 443,4532 54 425 466f

12:1 12:8-9 12:13-15 12:13 12:16-21

12:16 12:21 12:22-32 12:22-31 12:22 12:22a 12:24

12:24a 12:25 12:27

12:27a 12:28

12:29 12:30a 12:31 12:32 12:33-34 12:33 12:34 12:41 12:51-53 12:57-59 12:58-59 12:59 13:1-5 13:6-9 13:13 13:22-30 13:23-30 13:23-28 13:23-24 13:27

432 546 432 425 369" 0, 399 479 • 425, 433 78 , 433 82 ,435, 471 476 4" 431 425,432, 460,466 39 469S6S, 469S64 469 474S96, 474401, 475402, 475405, 475406 476417 476410, 476411 477, 477 419 , 477 42 •, 477 425 , 477 426 476417 4784SO, 478.. 1, 478 4.., 479459 480 444 480446 481458 468,484 425,432 432 71 435,435 95 , 43599 619261 140 227 2' 4 29 228247, 248 533 533 524 52440 524 546 52329, 524 552, 553 285

13:31-33 14:34-35 14:35 15:11-32 15:16 15:19 15:25-32 15:28 15:29 15:31-32 16:9 16:10-12 16:10-11 16:11 16:13 16:14-15 16:17-18 16:18

16:19-31 16:22 16:25 17:1-2 17:4 17:11-19 17:14 17:15-16 18:9-14

18:12 18:13 18:14 18:18-19 18:20 19:1-10

19:41 20:36 21:8 21:34 21:36 22:27 23:13-16 23:34 23:50 24:17 John 1:4-5

489505 157 1594' 230269 5861S 5 625S20 490524 228249 457286 228244 458298 455 425 458298 39,425, 455, 456 280 425 29 251, 253, 255,257, 258 12424 ', 546, 587 119205 124, 5851Sl 157 416597 3241001 350 358210 193174, 319951, 351 155 , 353 16 \ 490524 419 403499 194174 632 203 21 283676, 319954, 403498 123 2' 8 141 532 112 472' 85 410 474997 553282 312899,595 632 123 298 ,420 440

673

1:38 3:16-21 7:12 7:53-8:11 8:12 9:22

440 554289 632'92 240"' 440 150 490 , 580 76 452"' 9 155 4 150 490 , 58076 323 426 323 323 323 426 323 323 150490, 580 76 123"' 8 373 426 555 373 323 551 553282 291758 274627 323 323 123"' 8 123"' 8 1232'8 156 16 , 335, 416 596 , 417

11:9-10 12:36 12:42 13:34 14:13-14 14:15 14:21 14:31 15:7 15:10 15:12 16:2 16:20 16:23-33 16:24 17 17:1-26 17:23 17:24-26 19:6 19:17 19:22 19:28 19:30 20:11 20:13 20:15 20:23 Acts 1:21-22 3:6 5:1-6 5:38 5:41 7:41-42 7:49 7:60 8:10 10 11:24 11:26 13:2-3 14:22 14:23 15:1

565 6' 598 56 266526 395 150490 17555 26856, 312 89 ', 595 353 16 ' 585 632 58190 419 526 419 553286

674

15:29 16:13 17:18 18:18 19:13-17 19:24-27 20:29 21:23 23:2-5 23:2-3 23:4-5 23:10 24:2 25:9-12 26:14 27:9 Romans 1:16 1:18-32 1:24-29 1:32 2-3 2:1-2 2:6 2:19 2:26 2:28-29 3:1 3:29 3:31 4:4 4:17 5:5 5:6-10 6:2 7:3 7:7-25 7:12 7:22 8:4 8:14-17 8:14-16 8:14 8:15-16 8:15 8:16 8:18-22 8:28-30 8:31-39 8:33-34 8:34 8:35-39

250407 174 46 180 90 266 52 ' 550259 353 16 ' 535" 8 266 5"' 596 285 285686 535145 139'" 0 293 395 419 555 611' 91 408 5'" 179 81 195-96 6 12 , 626 229 161 179 81 , 189154 344 320966 326 179 81 152508 479" 9 436f 3241005 229 249'95 239" 9 189, 218, 323 436109 179 81 , 189154 142 463"' 549 437 375 387S76 391 463'" 555 552 278 555 463'"

9-11 9:14 9:24 10:3 10:9-10 10:9 11:7 12 12:1-2 12:2 12:9-21

12:14 12:15 12:17 12:19 12:20-21 12:21 13 13:8-10

13:8 13:9 14:10 1 Corinthians 1:7 1:10 1:12 1:22 2:6 3:1 3:4 3:7 3:10-15 3:13-16 3:13 3:15 3:16-17 3:17 3:22 4:7 4:9 4:12 5:1 5:12 6:1-8 6:1 6:15-16 9:19-23 6:19 7

142 408 320962 196 188 542 546 480 449 30F 98 611'92 323 205, 285, 298, 303, 309 864 , 326 6 12 , 298, 593 123"' 8 612, 285689 276 310874 612 284680 6 12 , 183 1". 205, 285, 299,323, 326 179 81 299,303 612 323991 625 564 482464 323991 323991 564 4 77 424 564 564 565 565 564 565 564 399 47 ' 353165 298,593 250407 536 149 281,293 284681 251 410 547241 564 253-55

7:5 7:10-16 7:10 7:13 7:30 7:31-32 8:5-6 8:6 9:19-23 9:21 9:22a 10:12 10:13 12:25-26 13:4-7 13:5 13:10 13:13 14:20 15:9 15:33 2 Corinthians 1:17-22 1:17 4:6 5:16 6:lla 6:14-7:1 6:15 7:5 8:2 8:9 9:7 11:2 11:13 11:20 12:8 Galatians 1:8-9 2:1-14 2:1-10 2:4 2:7-8 2:8 2:9 2:11-14 2:11 2:16 2:17 2:19-20 3:5 3:19

408 5'" 6 12 , 251, 253,259 251 244357 123 208 43267 457287 387 371 87 553281 87 567 408f 123238 605 603 111 323 323 323991 189 485 48 ' 272602 612 436 55J268 356191 141,580 457287 526 112 146 112 146 597 53 549 249 , 609 534 128 , 537 596 37 549252 543206 580 87, 165, 547,565 536 150 , 547 189 153 87, 165 9' 63425, 547 353 16 \ 497 576 565 61 304819 553, 553 287 436 55 J260 218

3:26-28 4:4-7 4:4-6 4:6-7 4:6 4:7 4:12a 4:14 4:15 4:21-31 5:3 5:14

5:19-23 5:22-23 5:22 6:2 6:6 6:16 Ephesians 1:18 2:20 3:8 3:16-17 4:32-5:1 Philippians 2:1-4 2:6 2:15 Colossians 2:18 3:2 3:15-16 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 2:14-15 3:5 3:10 4:13-18 4:13 5:1-11 5:5 5:14 2 Thessalonians 3:6-12 3:6-10 I Timothy 1:15-16

59, 155, 549 549 436 142 375 457295 87 408 532 59,92 1, 237327 246369 182106 6 12 , 179 81 , 182106, 183 111 , 218, 299, 303, 323,547 203 254 431 97 205, 218, 547 622 543206 233289 56452 189151 436 613 303 303 161

4:10 5:13 5:16 6:18-19 2 Timothy 3:16 Hebrews 10:30 James 1:1-3 1:1 1:4 1:4b 1:5-8 1:8 1:10-11 1:11 1:12-15 1:12 1:17-18 1:19-25 1:25 1:26-27 2:1 2:6-7 2:7 2:8-11 2:8 2:12 2:14-17 2:14-16 2:15-16 2:15 2:19 3:1

137 355 435100 436

3:9-10 3:12

122228 153 516 408 532 625" 1 122228 122228, 123238 122228 155 475<07

3:13 4:4-12 4:7 4:8

475407 114 159 189 151

4:9 4:11 4:14 4:15 4:16 5:6 5:11 5:12

580 475407 475407 434 196 188 276 407 546236 323, 323 993 369" 2 369" 2 454256 479 436 317930 407 407 369" 2 86606 323, 547 239 369" 2 546 236 150490 581 299 299 547239 369" 2 472 385 398 399 457287 620273' 625" 9 593 537 163 , 629 356 , 629 359 126 454256 281659 136 350 , 454256 587 148 457287 421644 394421 454256 616 407 522 ,613 266-67, 270590, 272602

675

I Peter

714 7 14, 321 978 714 714 714 436, 344 10 ! 298 714 714 7 14,298 714 149, 580, 581 714 714

1:4 1:16 1:17 2:12-13 3:1-4 3:4 3:8-9 3:9 3:14 3:16 4:13-14 4:14 5:7 5:10 2 Peter 2:1 2:12 2:14 I John 2:1 2:16 Jude 10 Revelation 9:20 10:6 13:4 13:8 13:12 21:7

534129 473 233289 555 233289

18-20 19.2-25 19.2 20.1-2 20.2 The Book! offeu 44 1 Clem. 13.1-4 13.2 16.15 19.3 21.2 60.1 2Clem. 4.2 6.1-7 6.1 13.1 16.4

Didache 1-6

473 367 500 268 367500 367!00 367 500 141

1.1-2 1.2-3 1.2 1.3-3.10 1.3

d I Early Christian Literature Acts ofPaul and Thecla 5-6 6 Acts of Thomas 94 Ap.jas. 2.1-15 (NHC I, 2) 4.18-31 (NHC I, 2) Apocalypse ofPaul 21 Apoc. Pet. 16.31 Ap. Const. 6.13 7.39.2-4 Barnabas 10.1 10.4 16.2

10262 141'87 127275 83576 405 511

1.5-6 1.5

127275 602 103 , 607 145 532 112 338 56 474 596 474!96 268560

676

1.3b-2.1 1.3b 1.4

1.6 2 2.1 2.2 2.3-5 2.4-5 2.6-7 3.2 3.7

75,524 203 25 185 129 203 25 292772 12828! 127 133,350, 4915 35 ,615 149 474 597 442 144 133 133 455 455, 455 272 588157 337, 418612, 419622 72, 74,297, 298,327 520 2, 524 184,299 184 121 , 299, 516698 205 58 185 122 , 297, 298, 308 850 , 311,312 892 , 3241004, 1007, 331,419 297 593 289, 290 740 , 291, 323, 596, 59747, 598 62 292,336, 598 114 158 , 228, 3241007, 597 54 300,359 203 331 269567 274626 454256 205 57 205 56 , 219 126, 128

3.8 4.1-4 4.4 4.13 5 5.1-2 5.1 6.1 6.2 7-16 7-12 7 7.1 7.4 8.1-2 8.1 8.2-3 8.2

8.3 9-10 9.4 9.5 10.3 10.5 11-13 11 11.1-2 11.1 11.2 11.3-12 11.3-6 11.3 11.7-12 12.1 13.1 13.4 13.6 14 14.2 15 15.1-2 15.3-4 15.4 16.3

126, 127, 133 622 454256 185 129 203 524 233287 331 323, 323 990 ·

•••

297 72 336 298782 419 337 336,419 336,350 315907. 349, 370-72, 375, 387 565 , 389,390, 392,393, 396,397, 401, 40148!, 404,405, 405508 374541 , 400, 400476 336 128 497 472!87 337 40 , 350 336 536 185 298782 185127,331 528 528 337 40 528 359 250 528 528 528 336 224 536 336 337 40 337 528, 535 142

Didasc. apost. 3592SO 2 Didasc. ffpost. Syr. 274626 3.6 Doctr. apost. 20328 1.1-2.7 299 1.2 218146 2.2 274626 2.3-5 2.7 297 219161 3.2 4.13 2015 Elchasai, Book of (EpiphaniusAdv. haer. 19.4.3) 552277 Excerpta ex Theodoto 228250 52 Firmicus Maternus De errore profanarum religion urn 9525 22.1 Cos. Thorn. log. 2 503,504 log. 6 335f 335• 5, 418 log. 14 440, 4522 89 , log. 24 453252 log. 32-33 162 70 log. 32 157, 161 log. 33 157 24 620266 log. 34 log. 36-37 467f log. 36 469 856 log. 43 533 Iog.44 533 log. 45 533,629 056 log. 47f 456 log. 54 575 88 log. 62 359 log. 68-69b 578 log. 69 132 802 log. 69b 577 46 log. 76 436 107 426,504 log. 92 log. 93 426,498, 499,504 log. 94 426,504 292766 log. 95 419619 log. 104 Cos. Eb. frg. 3 175 frg. 5 175 Gospel to the Hebrews NT Apoc. 1.164 503

Gospel ofMary 14.14

Cos. Truth 33.37 HermasMan. 4.1.6 4.3-4 5.2.5 6.2.4 9.9 10.1.1-2 10.1.4 11

HermasSim. 5.1 8.2.7 8.6.1 HermasVis. 3.10.9 3.11.2 Ignatius Eph. 11.2 14.2 Pol. 1.2 Rom. 7.2 Smyrn. 4.1-2 Trall. 8.2 Justin Apol. 1.12.16 1.14.3 1.15-16 1.15 1.15.1 1.15.2 1.15.3-4 1.15.3 1.15.9-10 1.15.10 1.15.11 1.15.13 1.15.14 1.16.1-2 1.16.1 1.16.2 1.16.3 1.16.5

436110 530104 251, 253, 255442 3271088 618249 635408 454256 454256 454256 536 337 471'78 471'78 454256 454256

498584 629 856 , 635408 470 374 471' 78 312 898 225212

481 458 298 435 468 238 848 236 818 253 251, 255 442 318 948 292 425 317 981 425 157 26 289, 597 47 291 531 112 266-67, 270590

1.16.11 1.16.13 1.44.8 Dial. 4.1 35.3 35.8 76.5 82:1-2 85.7 96.3 105.6 2Apol. 1.2 Kerygma Petri 2 Mandaeic Literature Ginza R. 1.104 GinzaR. VII

550255 531112 3241006 443 154 531 112 , 532 112 298 550255 532112 297 298, 317 981 189156 464..9 33958 359222 317 981 , 497 578

Manichaean Literature Cologne Mani Codex 69, 16 531 Psalm Book 20, 19-21, 15 552277 Psalm Book 25, 24-26 552277 Martyrium Apolloii 145405 38 Papias (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15-16) 71 P. Egerton 2, frg. 2 637 7 336,350, P. Oxy. 654 503 4196 18,460, P. Oxy655 469 856 , 477 422 6551.1-17 467 655 1.17-11.1 467 Polycarp, Phil. 133, 143 408 , 2.3 491 585 3.2 350 6.1-2 402 489 7.2 405,409 545 12.3 298,323 998 Prayer of the Apostle Paul (NHCI, I) 414 588 Ps.-Clem. Contestatio 2.1 268 559 593,594 2.2 4.1-3 268 559 12.3 593

677

Ps.-Clem. Ep. Clem.

563 49 534129

1.2 14.3 Ps.-Clem. Ep. Petri

497576 184" 9 182

1.2 2.4-7 2.5-6

16380 8.4.1 509647 8.56.7-8 Ptolernaeus, Epistula ad Floram 2.4 253 Teachings of Silvanus (NHC VII, 4) 84.15-118.7 74 89.17-21 433 80

Ps.-Clem. Hom.

2.6.4 3.51.2-3 3.52.1 3.52.3 3.55-56 3.55.2 3.55.3 3.56.1-2 3.57 7.4 7.4.3 8.5.4 8.6.5-7.5 8.7.3-4 11.4.4 11.35.6 12.32.1 12.32.5 12.32.6 15.5-9 15.5.5 15.10.4 15.18 17.19 17.19.4

518 7" 183109 183 109 504626 313 4085SO 464" 1 506641 321974 599" 511 545229 553282 546229 516698 532" 2 297 517708 518"' 285689 596' 5 114161 313 565 563 49 , 56560, 56561 518 712 , 619258 313,413577 182

18.16.3 19.1-25 51.3 Ps.-Clem. Rec. 1.11.1

482461 112m, 572 8 83576 497 497 482461 482461 112"9, 115 171 497 497 497,500 482 482, 482 460 454262,456 516698

1.61.2 2.1.4-6 2.3 2.3.4-5 2.20-22 2.20.2 2.28.3 3.1.2-3 3.1.2 3.1.4-7 3.16.1 3.20.3£ 5.9.4 5.23.7

678

e I Greek and Latin Authors Aelian, Variae historiae 612195 12.59 Aeschylus Choephori

304

276

Supplices

388f' 82 890-93 899-901 388f' 82 Alcrnaeon Diels-Kranz, 24 A 5 (1, 212, 5) 444 172 Aleman 123 304 827 Anaxirnenes, Rhet. ad Alex. 113149 35 Anthol. Pal.

9.577 14.71 14.74 Apuleius, Met. 11.6 11.15 11.16 11.23 Archytas Diels-Kranz 47 B 3 Aristophanes, Plutus 15 552 Aristotle

116 18' 135'.. 135'.. 99 41 420 6" 99 99 42 , 99"

5.1, 1129a 34-36 5.1, 1130a 8-10 5.2.7, 1130b 6-7 5.2.10, 1130b 18-20 5.4.6, 1132a 18 5.5, 113la 7

287 286 287 287706 287 287 287 287 189154 195 17982 195 195 169 14 195185 170" 631 632 205' 9 389, 389' 8' 604" 8 604" 8 604!' 8 232,233 529 529 632

Met.

9.8, 1050a 4-23

52994

Phys.

501

3.3

52994

Problemata

620 271 117 185

29.2, 950a 31-33

608156

Protr. B

108

Eth. Nic.

1.9, 1099a 17-18 2.6.3, 1106a 21-24 3.1-3.2 4.1.6-27, 1120a 4-112la 9 4.1.40, 112Ib 36 4.1.43, 1122a 11-12 5

5.5.1, 1132b 21-23 5.5.3, 1132b 26-27 5.5.4, 1132b 28-31 5.5.6, 1132b 32-34 5.5. 7, 1133a 4-6 5.5.17, 1133b 30-32 5.5.17, 1134a 1-3 5.5.18, 1134a 12-13 5.7.7, 1135a 10-13 5.10.2, 1137b 8-11 5.10.3-7, 1137b 12-33 5.10.3, 1137b 12-14 5.10.5, 1137b 20-23 5.10.8, 1137b 341138a 4 6.1.1, 1138b 18 6.2.4, 1139a 32-34 6.13, 1144b 11145a 12 8.4, 1157b 1-4 8.1 0.4-14.4, 1160b 23-1163a 29 8.10.4 8.13.1, 1162b5-8 8.13.4, 1162b 16-21 8.13.6, 1162b 26-28 9.5.3, 1167a 4-8 9.7.4, 1168a4-10 10.8.12, II79a 20-24 10.9, 1179a 191180b 29

118189

Rhet.

631 630"' 170 606 603 603 168 12 , 19496 283 632 194 178 194179 195185 272604

1.9.7, 1366b 9-11 1.9.24, 1167a 19-22 2.4 2.4.2, 1380b 36138la 3 2.4.11, 138Ia27 2.4.29, 138lb 35-37 2.6.6-7, 1383b 25-34 2.6.19, 1384b4 2.7-8 2.7.2, 1385a 18-19 2.7.5, 1385a 341385b I 2.7.6, 1385b 10-11 2.7.6, 1385b 10

286696 286 600 76 593 14 631 600 77 604 117 510 605,614 606'" 0 611 187 611 187 604" 6

frg. 496570 192 Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae 20.1.14 276 Aurelius, Marcus, In semetipsum 3.5 267 9.11.27 612 453255 10.26 Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae III m. 9 373 335 Cebes, Tabula 1.1-2.2 523 24 Cicero Balbo

11.28

456282

De amic.

49-50

318

De .fin.

3.21.70, 71

217142 217143 9836

De nat. deor.

1.115-16 1.115

345 333 20

De off

1.146 3.104

487492 261

De oral.

1.43.193 1.56.240 1.57.244 2.20.85

216 169 17 169 17 631

Pro Caecina

28.81

217

Tusc.

1.45.108 2.13 2.26.64 3.73 4.43-64 5.2.5 5.10.28 Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus 1 4 7 15-19 21 33

217 144 634401 360238 487492 308 855 485 482 631 343 387364 387376 391404 394 423 399467 411560

Corpus Hermeticum

1.18,21 13.7 13.8

359225

444f 444f 430 429 429 540 188 602

Digestae

288

De leg.

1.6.19 2.5.11 2.14.36

Damascius, Vita Isidori 283 Democritus . Diels-Kranz, 68 A 135 (II, 114, 28-115,3) Diels-Kranz, 68 A 135 (II, 116, 3-4) Diels-Kranz, 68 B 149 (II, 172) Diels-Kranz, 68 B 170 (II, 178) Diels-Kranz, 68 B 171 (II, 179) Diels-Kranz frg. 68 B 297 Demosthenes, Or. 37.52

436108 633397 96 25 , 155

50.17.90 Dio Chrysostom, Or. 1.35 1.39 1.40 4.15 38.31 40.24 46.1 65.8 74.26, 27 Diodorus Sic. 1.8.5-9 1.8.9 1.72 10.9.8 26.22 31.1-3 31.18.3 Diog. L. 1.36 1.51 1.76 1.86 1.87 6.42 6.80 8.17-18 8.22 8.23 8.33 10.27 10.31 10.35

170 3251016 325 325 3251019 3251018, 3251019 325 3251017 3241002 3241001 369 369308 549252 366 499590 227 113149 511669 4 78 427 308862 495568 307 848 , 507646 34284 474396 75,462 312 267542 308861 261480 78540 78540, 78541 78 539 , 79545, 79547

10.36 10.37 10.85 10.123 10.129 10.139-54 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 2.52-53 Empedocles Diels-Kranz, 31 A 20 Diels-Kranz, 31 B 84 (1, 342, 4-9) Diels-Kranz, 31 B 84 (1, 342,10-14) Diels-Kranz, 31 B 85 (1, 343) Diels-Kranz, 31 B 86 (1, 343) Diels-Kranz, 31 B 95 (1, 345) Diels-Kranz, 31 B 132 (1, 365) Frg. 132 Epicharmus Frg. 269 Epictetus

79548 78539 78540 79549 77535 77 534 276 501 444 444 444 444 444 430 103 135 344

Diss.

1.1.21-25 1.1.21 1.1.22 1.3 1.9 1.9.2-8 1.9.8 1.9.12 1.9.19-20 1.12.1-3 1.12.2 1.14 1.16 1.18 1.25.31 2.1.29 2.1.30-33 2.2.21-26 2.4.4 2.10.5-6 2.15.4-12 2.15.13 2.16 2.16.27 2.17.15 2.18.15

85593 85597 85598 141'91 463 332 14J391 480445 480445 480445 395438 395 439 , 396440 34068, 463 332 463 332 308851 85592 85597 86600 85599 159 38 146442 640 38 64041 85594 85593 63431 232282

679

2.20.32 2.21.16 2.23.21 3.2 3.3.20-22 3.7.25 3.12.8 3.26 3.26.37 4.1.77 4.1.79 4.1.83 4.1.111 4.1.132 4.1.170 4.6.16 4.8 Ench. 1.1.3 1.3 1.5

399 47 ' 195186 77 63" 1 44lf 63" 1 85591 463" 2 480 445 291760 292760 85598 85 59 \ 85 598 85594 85596 85595 360"'8

8 16 30 33.5 33.7 51 52.2 53.1 frg. 35 38 Epicurus Epi.stula ad Herodotum (Diog. L. 10.35) Epi.stula ad Menoeceum (Diog. L. 10.124-26) Kyriai Doxai 1 (Diog. L. 10.139) 2 (Diog. L. 10.139) Euripides Bacchae 72-77 Hippo/. 611-14 611 Phoenissae 1333 Gnomologium Parisinum 158 Gnom. Vatic. Epic. 18 29 54

680

78" 7 307-8 77"' 0, 77 581 , 77"2 394 77 581 308 267 483£471 63" 1 775SI 77"' 1, 343 511 511

76 520 123284 104 74 123 2"

98 260466 261481 420 6" 501 239'" 0 346 346

458SOI 67 71 239'" 0 346, 346 117 76 346 81 308861 82 308 861 508 Gorgias (rhetor), frg. b Diels-Kranz, 82 B 6 169!S (II, 285, 15-19) Heraclitus Diels-Kranz, 22 B 17 (1, 155, 6-8) 444 Diels-Kranz, 22 B 55 444 (1, 162, 11-12) Diels-Kranz, 22 B 72 444 (1, 167, 9-11) 495569 Diels-Kranz 22 B 86 Diels-Kranz, 22 B lOla (1, 173, 15-16) 443 Diels-Kranz, 22 B 107 443f (1, 175, 1-2) 272604 frg. 28 Hermogenes, Il€pl CTraCT€WV 2.13-14 20649 2.13 206 58 2.14 207 54 Herodotus 113150 1.30-92 1.32 98'" 3.108.2 463 509650 3.142 6.43 600 509650 7.136 9.66 624 Hesiod Erga 60-105 462, 462' 12 110-201 462, 462' 12 193-94 264 282-83 264 52214 286-93 342-51 304 346-55 604 117 318 944 353 633S96 719-20 Theog. 260475 231-32 954-55 103 68 Frg. 286691 174 Homer Il. 3.277 34064 387S76 5.896 10.279-80 396

Od. 11.109 34064 Homeric Hymn to Demeter 480-83 97 Horace Carm. 2.16.22 462 3.1.40 462 Ep. 499588 1.4.16 1.16.31-32 631 1.16.40-43 631 Sat. 48749S 1.3.25-29 420627 1.5.101-3 Hyginus, Fabulae 220 462 Hymn. Orph. 34067 8.1 8.16 340 67 8.16-17 340 71 34067 8.17-18 Iamblichus, De Vita Pyth. 7.34 238'" 18.80-87 75 5Q66S9 18.82 238S4S 31.187 462812 42 84 443 137 395" 0 261480 155 !socrates, Ad Nicoclem 20 334 JulianEp. 40 114162 424C-D Libanius, Apol. 13 18091' 180 92 Livy 3.58.4 276 Lucian Calumniae non Iemere credendum 7 631 Demon. 139S71 9 Nigr. 13 356 Tim. 59855 8 Lucilius 420680 754 Lucretius, De rer. nat. 4.311-52 445 LysiasOr. 511 25.20

Maximus ofTyre, Dissertationes 362257 5.8 Menander Mon.

334 82 495568

lsth.

633896 617242 267 586

27 443 582

1.52-54

304828

Nem.

7.86-89

304828

Pyth.

Sent.

615 Moschus Musonius Rufus 10 Orphic gold tablets A2-A3 359, B.1, line 6

529 92 318 308 852

9625 268556 270581 95 24 273 365 275 270585 452 245 269568 270578 39I404 270578 544209

1.127 III.394 III.540 III.599-600 IV.604-10 IV.605-10 IV.1916-17 IV.2959 VII.836-37 XIII.233-34 XIII.542 XIII. 997 -I 00 I XXXVII P. Oxy.

I, no. 7 2,no.7 I224

I 57 I6I 298 220171

P. Zenon

A 46 444 B4 B7 444166 B9 444 276

19b 23b 23c 28e 29a 29b 29c 38a

502 502 116 180 180-81 180 181 118 273617 273621 273622 273 273 273 232 273 273618 273619 273620

Grit.

49a-e 49b-d 50b-c 54c 7,335a

306 28I656 18I 28I656 287710

Euthyd.

I4 I4c I4d I4e 280d

345114

P. Here.

I8J9 6 366

470e 486b-c 486c 50 3d 508 508d-e 509c-5IOc 509c

471 879

4,714a 4, 716d-e 9,857a 9, 870d5-e3 9,872e4 9,873a1 11, 937b-c

217141 135 844 227 288 286691 286691 286691 272604

ll8a

1454SI

Phaedr.

Crat.

274c-275b 396d 396e 398e 407e-408b 407e-408a 420a 438c 439b 439c 440b

512e Leg.

Phaedo

98 87

34I 341" 2 34180 34J8 1 430

Gorg.

496

De piet.

339 Philostratus, Vita Apoll. 1.11

304828

Ep.

444

cols. 109-I 0

8.58 Frg. 121 Plato A pol.

229 387f""

Papyri Graecae Magicae (PGM)

Parmenides Diels-Kranz, 28 (1, 226, IO-I5) Diels-Kranz, 28 (1, 232, 7) Diels-Kranz, 28 (1, 234, 34) Diels-Kranz, 28 (1, 240-4I) Pausanias I0.28.4 Phaedrus, Fab. 3.12 Philodemus

4.40 6.36 Pin dar

631872 287 596 502 287 596 286 596

113d-e 260c 275b-76a 279b-c

229254 272 272 117 188 , 430

Pol it.

309c

630

Prot.

320c-322d

462

Rep.

1 l.331e 1.7-8, 332b-336a l.332d-336a l.I25, 36Ie-362a 2.372d 6 7 I0.6I4a I0.6I5b-c I0.6I5c I0.6I7cff I0.6I7e

445 228 286-87 306 I44 499587 445f 445,446f 229254 229 276 395" 9 3I3, 324 1006

Symp.

I93d 206d 2I8e-2I9a

334 26 420680 600 77

Theaet.

I73a I76a-b Tim.

28c 29-30 4I 45a ff 45d Plutarch

28I656 43I, 431' 6 448 502 43I 43I 447 447

Ad princem ineruditum

2.780

620272

Alex.

7.1

624

Apophth. Lac., Ariston

1, 218A

308861

681

Cato

15.3 22-23

276 18098

Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur

48E-74E

308860

Romulus

Cato min.

65.5

624

Coniugalia praecepta

421646

29, 142A Corio/.

495569

38.4 De curios.

487498

1, 515D

De capienda ex inimicis utilitate

308 859

86B-92F De cohibenda ira

16. 463D 452E-464D

502 618 219164, 308860

De frat. am.

478A-492D 478D-481B 3, 479D 7, 481C, D 18,489C

220167, 308860 225221 226 226 226226

De gen. Socr.

10, 580D-F

160 46

De sera num. vind.

22-32, 563B-568A

135 845

De tranquillitate animi

464E-477F

308 858

Is. et Os.

420681

20.359B Liberis educ.

4, 2A-B 4, 2B 14, lOB 14-15, IOB-12A 17, 12D-F 17, 12E 17, 12F

62J279 620272 621 622 75,622 496570 496570

Marcellus

624807

10.1 Pericles

180 89

32.1 Phocion

180 98 180 98 18098

29.4 30.2ff. 38.2 Praec. gerend.

420629 260466

3, 399 D 4,80IB Quaest. Rom.

44, 275c-d

267

682

7.23.1-3 Frg. 174 Polybius 5.2.11 Porphyry

276 308 854 624

Ad Marc.

12-13

17.34, 1432a33-34

261

Rhet. ad Her.

333 22

1.11.19

Vita Pythagorae

42

207 54 634402 276 207 58 207 206 52 , 207 54 20757 207" 267 631

Rhet. ad Alex.

342 85

De abst.

2.15-17

3.6.43 4.172-73 5.10.14 7.5.6 7.6 7.8.7 7.9.15 7.10.7 9.2.98 12.1.19

75

Proverbia Aesopi

536155 51 535144 123 Ps.-lsocrates, Ad Demonicum 633896 1.29 588159 12 261482 13 499 590 , 612 29 61 JI89, 31 612 194 , 626 34-35 628 840 Ps.-Piato, Ale. mai. 132d-133c 447 Ps.-Piato, Ale. min. 138a 420 688 143a 342 150-51 342 420640 15Iab Ps.-Piato, Axiochus 123284 369B Ps.-Piato, Def 415d 6-7 630 Ps.-Piutarch, Cons. ad Apoll. 517709 116C-D 122280 102C-F Ps.-Piutarch, Vita Homeri 462812 154 Ps.-Pythagoras, Carmen aureum 261480 2 633396 28 Pythagoras Diels-Kranz 31 B 132 (1, 364) 430 47 Diels-Kranz 58 B I a 442145 (1, 450, line 13) Quintilian, Inst. 2.2-89 622 2.9.1 622 622 2.9.3

2.13.19 4.49.63-4.51.65 4.50.63 Sallust, Hist. 22 Seneca

206 52 , 207"· 54 170 22 575 28 640 37 261478

De ben.

1.1-10 1.1.3 1.6.2-3 4.26.1

606 606140 345111 317 988 ,612

De dementia

1.1.2 1.3.2 1.5.2 1.7.1-2 1.9.1-10 1.17.1 1.19.2-4 1.19.8-9 1.26.5

613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613 613

De consolatione ad Marciam

22.2

47lf 888

De otio

1.4

311 880

Ep.

10.4 10.5 47 47.16 87.25 88 90 Sextus, Sent. 1-8 6 12-14 39 248-51 350-54

366 366290 518713 472 386 530 98 621 621 479 489 479 489 239 848 228 62J276 496570

Sextus Empiricus, Adv. math. 113149 2.53 9.54 340 Solon, frg. 14 506 6"9 Sophocles Ant.

331 523

600 84 308

El.

177

308857

Oed. Col.

650 779 1556-78

267 600 476414

Oed. Tyr.

100

276

Phil.

811-12 frg. 853 Stobaeus

Desens.

1-2 Ulpian, Dig. 1.1.10 Xenophanes Diels-Kranz 21 B 18.2 Diels-Kranz 21 B 24 [I, 137] Xenophon

502

Mem.

2.5.5-7

334 28 334 29 487 49 " 271" 92 420628 418608 418608

499S90 297,298

Characteres

.14.7 3

Anabasis

Flor.

28.13 Suetonius, Augustus 76 76.3 Tacitus, Ann. 5.4 Thales Diog. L. 1.36 Themistius, Or. 7.95a-b Theocritus, Idyll. 7 [Thalysia], 33-34

105~8

Theophilus, Ad Autol. 3.14 Theophrastus

267

Anthol.

2.7.25, p. 147 2.147 33

Theognis, Elegiae

1.1-2 1.1.1 1.1.19 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.6.10 2.1.21-34 2.2-6 2.6.21 2.6.35 4.3.10 4.36

420 6"4 366 441, 450 221 444 146441 , 229 253 ,276 501 340

265-66 1454"2 18088 396 333 21 342 9" 117186 52214 205" 9 133 286,305 317 9• 8 34285

Symp.

511

4

430

XI/Tables

308861

8.4

276

617 246

683

2. Greek Words

EVuE{3na

af3f3a


333-35,351 374-75,388

398

aya8os li.u8punros

630-35 0:0tKE'iV Kat lz.0tKE'icr8at.

286-88,596 0.pKe'iu8at rot's 7rapoVcnv

464,485

A.a8e fJ•C:,uas

345-46

G.u€{3na

A.&yot

179-81

45, 71, 77, 82, 85, 184-85

Cf.uK1JCTLS

75,85,86,621 p.a87jT~S

{3Af7rf!U

82,492,626-27 yvW8r. o-avrOv

24,61,80,82,56067,592,619-35, 636-40 p.aKapws

116,267,269

92-97, 155 p.
77,79,85-86

otafJA.£-rr<w,

82,492,627 OtatluKaAOS

uop.l(w

71,82,623,625-35 lito ax~

174,179-80 u&p.os

71, 81, 330

168,177-78, 185, 187,189,196,334

0tKatouVv7J

104, 108, 110, 124, 129-30,131,132, 138, 142-43, 14546, 147, 168-72, 178-79,190-97, 286-88, 332-35, 340-43,351,35253,422,424,48384,491

lJA.fJtos

93, 104 Op.tA.la 7rp0s rOv 8E0v

362 Opav

82 ?Jq,BaA.p.&s

82, 439, 442-49, 450-53

E8vtK0s

319,332,347,364, 480-81 f.KK'A.1Jt:T{a

-rrapp7jula

272,274 ' 174

'7TI.O"TEVEI.V

61,156,564 £p.{'JAf7rEIU

'

82,474,492 ' 168-71, 194-95, 207,217,228

E7fi.EI.KEI.a

rEAos

60, 146, 352, 428, 481-84 1Jrvx~

f.wwVo-tos

32,397-400 f1TtTO#l~

14,72-80,88 el!ayy£A.wu

35, 36, 37, 80-81, 151,156,337,547

684

108, 118, 134-36, 461,469-71

3. Subjects abba

583, 584, 585, 599, 609,610,620 Jewish

374-75,388

1,27-28,36,38,44, 149-50,175,182-83, 326-27,580,583,599

addressees

1-3,17,19-20,23-24, 44,59,61,70,80-88

name of

581

advocate (paraclete)

552-56 agrarian theology

397-400 'Alem1 (prayer)

391 'AI hak-kol (prayer)

391 Ani, Instruction of

365-66 anti-Paulinism

30,553,563 Aramaic

18, 19,25,29, 31,32, 33, 36,37,38,43, 125,182, 220,221,374,388,397, 398,406,440,494,495 ascent of the soul

106-10 author, authorship

1,4,18-22,44,347-49, 372-73 Babylonian Councils of Wisdom

309 Birkat ha-Mazon

313 Birkat ha-Minim

150,580 Book of the Dead

543 catechesis

29,39,71-72,75-76,87 Christianity

1-3,14,29,33,37

christology

29, 145, 147, 153, 160, 174,210,554,555,556, 622 compendium

14,23,41,47,71

Gentile

28-29, 38, 149-50, 150, 326-27, 500, 540-41,546,549,551, 553,556,566-67,580,

Epicurus, Epicureans

1, 14,23,44,47,71-80, 88 erotic love

232,239 Hammurabi, Code of family ethics

205,225-26,232,28889,305-6,325,592-93, 632

function, literary

40-41,48 14,29,47,60-61,71-72, 73,80-88

120-22,462 conspectus: Sermon on the Mount

50-58 conspectus: Sermon on the Plain

66-68 Cynics

116, 117, 122 Delphi Delphic maxims

116,267,269 Delphic piety

113,333-34,345 Demeter

97,122,617-18 diatribe

466,489 Dionysos

99 disciple, see p.a671r~s do utdes

512,599,617 doxology

414-15 education

620-21,621-25 Egypt literature

365-66,368,434,543 religion

74,92,93,304,36566,484,521,543,545, 558,607,621

93,126,135,136,268, 333-34,339-40,351, 388,461-62,522,529, 545,610-11,612,613, 617-18

epitome

form-criticism

consolation literature

religion

122,345-46,463

condition" Confucius

ethics

2-3, 214, 254-255, 281, 311-12, 338, 512-13, 518,526, 597-98,611

97,98, 122,137

condicio humana, see "human

509

509,510-16,561,563, 612,624-25,630-34

Eleusis

genre, literary

14,19,47,70-80 Gnostics

74,136,175,176,41819,436,507,530-31,538 gospel

35,36, 37,80-81,151, 156,337,547 Greek ethics

133, 138, 139, 225, 227, 228, 260-62, 265-66,304,305,306, 307-08,311,325, 334-35,356,429-31, 512,586,587,588, 592,596,600,602-6, 612,626 language

2, 19,29,31-33,36, 43,87,88,125, 126, 182 philosophy

14,28,34,47,63-64, 73-86,96,102-3,114, 115, 117,121, 122, 123, 133, 134, 144, 150, 167-73, 194, 195, 235,265,267,272-73, 286-88,333-34,34143,369,394-96,436, 437,438-39,441, 442-48,450,452,453, 463,464,470-74,484, 485,488,495,501-2,

276 hearing and doing

5,66,75,82,84,85,51617,521,558,561,566, 637-39 Hebrew text

182 Heracles

522 heresy

37,41, 173,500,535, 536,540-41 holy spirit

106-7 human condition (condicio humana)

ll4-16, 119,120,123, 126,129,146,461,462 image of Jesus

33-36 imitation of God

325,327,335,388,512, 516,518-19,611-12, 613,614,619 India, wisdom of

509 initiation

95-100, 122 instruction

80-88 Isis

99 Islam

338 ius talionis

275-77,277-78,280-81, 282,284,289,290,292, 293,490,512,513,518, 595 Jerusalem

33,162,222,223,268, 269,270,360,521,523

685

Jesus Christ as advocate

552-56 as Christian

33-34,36-37 as Galilean

18,36-37 as Jew

238,239,245-48,252, 265,278-79,281-82, 332,338,344-45,351, 354-55,389,406-7, 410,442,488,515, 545,560 Judaizing tendency 29, 30, 37,39

1,31-37 as speaker

as teacher

182, 186, 187 historical

18,21,95, 109,113, 152,172-73,209,210, 211, 212, 235, 236, 251-52,256,258,267, 281, 299, 309, 348, 349, 372, 373, 377, 410,435 John the Baptist

349,364,373,418,489, 538 Judaism ethics

390-91

190,202,227,602-7 1-3,27,28,33-34,36, 38,39,44,63,64,7071, 72, 74,87,88, 121, 126, 134, 160-61, 163, 373-74 apocalyptic

94-95, 100-2, 114, 132, 136, 140-41, 184, 442,520,522,527, 587 assimilation

367,480 Hellenistic

116,143,216,234-35, 262, 264, 265, 279, 306-7,332,340-41, 438-39, 442, 448, 450-51,514-15,632 mystic

136 rabbinic

94, 136, 144, 150, 152, 176, 196-97' 206, 207-9,223-25,235,

686

434 Mithras

462,523 monastic rules

9,76 602-9 monotheism

457,459 law

13, 16-18, 23, 30, 35, 41, 47,64,167-73,177,178, 179-81,185,206-7,214, 216-17,218,229,24451,254,275-77,332, 334,346 legalism

169 Luke, redaction and theology

1,6-7,20-21,22,23,24, 26,28,30,31,32,40,41, 43-44,80,83,213,328, 559 magic

religion

Merikare, Instruction of

money-lending Kaddish

1, 6, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,24,27.29,30,33, 34,36,41,80-88,83, 94

344,351,393,401,417, 554,556,559,563

95,260,268,269,273, 364,365,367,529,550, 552,593-94 Mammon

458 Mani, Manichaeans

10,12,530,531,538,552 Marcion, Marcionites

10,37,176,200-1,530, 599 Mark, gospel of

24-26,33,34 materialism

454-55,458,480 Matthew, redaction and theology

1, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 21, 22, 23,24-26,28,30-32,3841,43,45,80,83, 109, 127, 130, 148-49, 150, 155, 156, 161, 164, 165, 174, 175,187, 190-91, 203,211,213,214,249, 256-58,281,285,290, 292,302-3,304,319, 320,322-23,327-28,

mystery cults

93,95,97,98,99, 100, 103,122,137,495 necessities of life

472-73,481

Plato, Platonism

16,108,117,121,135, 272-73,286-87,305, 306,334,341-42,420, 436,437,438-39,44548,452,496,596,630-31 poverty and wealth

111-17, 429-32, 458, 572-76 psychology

232,234,239 purity /impurity

134-36 Pythagoras, Pythagoreans

75,135,267,334,342, 366,442-43,495,501, 506,612

Neoplatonism

108 numerical symbolism

13,23,45,46,62, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 142,201,376,426,578 Orphics

95,96-97,99,135,136, 229,313,324,387,443, 522,544,549 Osiris

Q (Sayings source)

6-9,24-29,31-45,71, 80,109,212,213,214, 238,249,299-300,371, 432,440,460,466,467, 468-69,494,503,524, 532,533,559,560,581 Qumran

74, 114, 115, 116, 139, 140,144,210-11,252, 267,304

93,99 redaction-criticism Paul name of

188-89 theology

6, 16,30, 33,35,37, 88,96, 130,140,142, 149, 161, 164, 165, 179, 184, 188-89,193, 208,217,218,251, 253-55,281,285,293, 301,303,323,326-27, 344,356,485,500, 529, 534, 537, 546, 547,548,553,564-65, 566,567,584,609, 610 Peter, church of

563-65 Pharisees

17, 19, 22, 30, 173, 186, 187, 188,189,191, 192, 193,194,196,209,248, 262,347,541

4,6, 20-30,37-39,40, 42-44,48,76-77,109, 213-14 righteousness, see OIKaLO
'

'

£1TLELKEta

secrecy

495-96 Sermon on the Mount, name of

3,71 Shemoneh esreh

313,390 Socrates

116,117,118,126,133, 136,144, 145, 150, 17981,267,272-73,306, 398,488,596 Son of man

148,581,582 sons of God

140-42,324,457

soul

106, 108, 110, 118, 13436.461,469-71 source criticism

4-7,22, 24,27,40,43, 45,83 Stoics

121,122,133,217,264, 267,288,311,342-43, 394-96,447,452,453, 463,515,612,633 synthema

99, 100 talio, see ius talionis telos-formula

60,146,352,428,481-84 teachers

82, 185, 186, 188, 189, 622-26 theodicy

313-15,408 Torah

167,170-71,173,177, 178, 182, 183,184, 187, 188,189,197,204,217, 218,517,518,541,553 (see also vol-'os) tradition, oral

4-7,22,27,31-32,41, 71,83-84 translation mistakes

25, 37 two trees

530 Two Ways

8-9,10,75,81-82,203, 299,521-23,557 universalism

3,87, 164,165,382 Urmarkus

24,26 usury

608 vices and virtues

202-4

687

4. Names of Commentators and Scholars Achelis, E. C. 69,204"' Adamantius 176 Albertz, M. 3302 AUberry, C. R. C. 552277 Allen, T.G. 543207 Allen, W.C. 37 297 , 38, 39 Allison, D. C. 49, 65, 423 7, 440"', 450220,450221, 539184, 541 191 Alon,G. 104 Alt,A. 2786'8 Ambrose of Milan 106, 111 Ambrosius 254 452 Amram,D. W. 226 228 ' 280 648 ' 282 Amstutz,]. 451228 Assmann,J. 93 Athenagoras 297,298 Augustine 3, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16,20, 23,45,46,70,71,76, 106, 107,293 774 , 359227,376, 400480,412565,413570, 470~~510,511,531

Bacher, W. 209 Bacon, B. W. 214 Baeck, L. 22 Bammel,E. so•••, 255 442 Banks, R. 183 114 Basilius of Caesarea 9,76

688

Batey, R.A. 356 195 Bauer,]. B. 251410 Baumbach, G. 451f2"' Baur, F. C. 21,22,24,25,26 Behrends, 0. 217 Bellinzoni, A. 532 112 Benedict of N ursia 9,76 Bengel,]. A. 376, 376'50 , 550 255 Berger, K. 251412 Best, E. 714 Betz, H. D. 42, 72, 73, 543208, 554290 Betz, 0. 36 289 , 49 Beyschlag, K. 5 9,76 Beza, T. 18 Bickerman, E. 207 Billerbeck, P. 22 Bischoff , E. 22 Black, M. 159 07 , 602 101 Blau,J. 282 Bocher,O. 535 Bohl,F. 344f Bohlig,A. 530106' 552277 Bolkestein, H. 603 Boll, F. 116188 Bolten,]. A. 493554 Bonhoeffer, D. 574 Borg, M. 284680

Bornhauser, K. 221177 Bornkamm, G. 48, 65, 72, 424f, 424 9, 424 18 , 425 27 , 426 28 , 520, 527 Bousset, W. 545227, 58!86 Branscomb, B. H. 214 Braun, H. 252, 257 468 Broer, 1. 1312 99 , 213 106 Brox, N. 2322 82 , 507 Bucer, M. 18, 81558 Buchler, A. 355 188 Bugenhagen, J. 17 Bullinger, H. 18 Bultmann, R. 40, 48, 71 462 , 72, 123, 172"'. 212, 317 9"', 322990 , 330 2, 349'"9, 512 679 , 515, 517 70 •, 545 Burchard, C. 49,424 Burkert, W. 268 Calvin,]. 17, 18, 23, 24,413577, 575 27 , 608 Cardascia, G. 276 Carlston, C. E. 73479 Carmignac, J. 374,409, 410 5••. 412 565 Chantraine, P. 93 6 Charlesworth, J. 74 Chemnitz, M. 17 Chromatius of Aquileia 11 Chrysostom, J. 11, 20, 470' 66 Clement of Alexandria 11,71 468 ,86 606 ,87, 103 72 ,

156, 253 429 ' 308 861 ' 324 1006 , 435, 436,436 106 , 437,464 888 , 464"" 9, 468, 470874, 482458, 552275, 578 57 ,615225, 622285, 634400 Cohen, B. 280 649 , 281-82 Coing,H. 169-70 Conzelmann, H. 251 408 ' 253-54, 272 602 Crossan,]. D. 5712 Cullmann,O. 158 80 Currie, S. D. 284681 Cyprian 11 Cyril of Alexandria 355 Dalman, G. 206, 220 172 Daube, D. 110 ... , 173 41 , 206, 208-9, 254, 257 468 , 278607, 280 65 2 Dautzenberg, G. 266,470 870 Davies, W. D. 62, 64, 214, 221176· 177, 423,423 7 Davison, J. E. 541'92, 553284 de Wette, W. M. L. 22,24 DeiBmann, A. 28 2'" Delatte, A. 75 Delitzsch, F. 23, 109 Delling, G. 178 79 Denaux, A. 52489 Derrett,]. D. M. 2 2,474899 Diamond, A. S. 276 Dibelius, M. 40, 48, 72, 232 282, 2726° 2, 393, 613 208

Diels, H. 267 542 Dietzfelbinger, C. 284 682 , 3312, 347129 Dihle,A. 286-88, 309 865 , 340, 509 651 ,512,513,514, 515,599 Diller, H. 529 95 Dillon,]. and]. Hershbell 506 689 Dinkier, E. 139 Dirlmeier, F. 286-87,306 Dodds, E. R. 461 Dolger, F.J. 367296 Dorrie, H. 366 290 Duchrow, U. 46350 Dupont,]. 48,572 Ebeling, G. 58 Egger, W. 49 Eichhorn,]. G. 25,47 Epiphanius 115"', 200 4, 253, 268560, 496 57 ' , 498 58 •, 552277 Erasmus, D. 13, 14,34,45,46,47,71, 257 460 , 605 128 Ernst,]. 349 148 Eusebius 535"" Euthymius 20 Ewald, H. 21,22,23,26 1 ~. 108 Falk, H. 248 389 , 279 640 Fitzer, G. 583108 Fitzmyer,J. A. 252 419 · 421 , 336 38 , 5712, 578 55 , 579 72 , 580 81 , 582 10 4,

583 106 , 585 129 , 603114, 6142 17 , 6162", 618252, 619 261 ,623,637 8 Flusser, D. 558 12 , 561'0 Francis of Assisi 76 Frankel, H. 398 Frankemolle, H. 36289 Fridrichsen, A. 399 Friedlander, G. 22 Frymer-Kensky, T. 276 Fuchs, E. 35288 Gaiser, K. 273-74 Gallo, St. 48 Gerhard, G. A. 471'82 Gerhardsson, B. 83575, 33957 Giesen, G. 262, 264 505 Gigon,O. 396 442 Gladigow, B. 103 Gnilka,J. 108, 376 350 Goldin,]. 423 Goulder, M. D. 71 456 • 3 71326 Grasser, E. 391400 Grawert, F. 48 Greeven, H. 469' 6' Gregory of Nyssa 2,72" 0 ,87, 106,376 Grotius, H. 18 Grundmann, W. 36, 108, 263, 263 49 7, 393 416 , 424, 424 12 , 572 5, 580 76 , 582 97 , 582 104 , 585 129

Guelich, R. 49,178 76 , 183" 4, 220 173 , 221" 6, 235 311 ,290750, 302 808 , 304 824 , 582 99 Gundel, W. 313 Gundry, R. 239546 Haacker, K. 234 Hahn, F. 542 198 Harder, G. 172" Harms, W. 522 15 Harnack, A. von 31,32,33,34,35,36,37, 38,39,40,41,42, 70, 596' 8 Haupt, W. 41" 6 Heinemann, I. 261 488 ,366 292 ,481450, 483470 Heinemann J. 361' 44 , 370f 320 , 373f, 374" 9 Heinrici, C. G. F. 27,28,34,466,466' 45 , 487, 487 489 , 483 469 , 495, 496, 507 646 , 529, 550255 Heller,]. 409542 Hellholm, D. 49 Hellwig, A. 272-74 Hengel, M. 36289, 124242, 130296, 131 299 ,291758 Herder,]. G. 18, 19, 80 554 Hermann, K. F. 286 693 Herrmann, W. 35288 Hefl,J.J. 19,20,23 Higgins, A. J. B. 409 587 Hilary of Poitiers 11

Hill, D. 534 131 Hippolytus of Rome 11, 31 7"". 268 560. 496 5" Hirsch, E. 40,41 Hirzel, R. 260-61,264,267-71 Hobbes, T. 509 648 Hofmann,]. C. K. von 23 Holtzmann, H.J. 22,24,25 Hommel, H. 340,470 Horbury, W. 580 76 Hossfeld, F.-L. 201 Howard, V. 209 Huber, H. 221' 77 Hubner, H. 48, 178 78 , 190 159 , 209 Ingenkamp, H. G. 630"' Irenaeus 9, 11 Jackson, B. S. 227. 278, 169 16 Jacob, B. 282672 Jeremias,]. 27, 162 68 , 163, 213, 370 820 , 372, 373"', 374, 374541 , 388, 398, 410 553 , 414,494,515,523 Jerome 11, 398, 398 468 , 623 29 ' Johansson, N. 554 298 Jospe, R. 515690 Kahlefeld, H. 69 Kahler, M. 35288. 125252 Kant, I. 510

689

Kasemann, E. 36 289 , 141, 210 88 Katz, S. T. 150491 Kautsky, K. 115169 Kieffer, R. 9416, 9418 Kierkegaard, S. 460,460 504 ,474 59 8,4764 14 Kilpatrick, G. D. 214 Kirk, G. S. 444 Kissinger, W. S. 36 Kittel, G. 2 2, 559 16 Klausner,]. 22 Klein, G. 355185 Klein, P. 5712 Kloppenborg,]. 74 Klostermann, E. 108, 349 159 , 354, 486 488, 574 15 , 574 19 , 581" 9, 618 250 Knox,]. 619261 Kohler, L. 159 56 , 4985 85 Kohler, W.-D. 510, 716, 8", 928 Koester, H. 716, 224208 Kostlin, K. R. 108 Koschorke, K. 507 Kraft, R. A. 450221 Kramer, S. N. 480445 Kruger, F. 1494 Kuchler, M. 74 Kurzinger,]. 48 Kuhn, K. G. 176 Kuhn, P. 491 555

690

Lachs, S. T. 2 2, 12424 1, 355 18 ', 36426 7, 400477 Lagrange, M.-J. 616 252 Lambdin, T. 440127 Lambrecht, J. 49, 69, 5712, 573 14 Lapide, C. C. a 18 Lategan, B. 485486 Latte, K. 233291 Lausberg, H. 206-7 Layton, B. 468 549 , 504 621 , 530 104 Leibniz, G. W. 510 Leonhard, R. 254455 Lessing, G. E. 371'20 Leumann, M. 264510 Leutsch, E. L. 529 92 Levine, E. 474599 Levy, F. A. 282 Lichtenstein, A. 196 Lichtenstein,]. 17879 Lieberg, G. 63450 Lightfoot,]. 19 Lindemann, A. 494 559 Locke,]. 510 Lohmeyer, E. 108,235511,251409, 372 531 ,413 578 Lohse, E. 206, 208"· 74, 555296, 555297 Luhrmann, D. 41, 42,191165,213106, 297,300

Luther, M. 14, 15, 16, 18, 23, 375 546 , 376,412565,469366, 518 711 , 550 255 , 623 Luz, U. 5 9, 42,108,109,113 152 , 148461 , 14946 4, 151494, 151499 , 153 518 , 153520, 177 67 , 178 78 , 183ll 4, 189 1"', 193 173 , 212, 213 112 , 214 123 , 236 513 , 288718, 289, 290748, 750, 292 768 , 304, 304 825 , 322 990 , 323 99 ', 347 129, 351'51, 356 185 , 359 223 , 368 30 4, 370 520 ,371 528 ,375 54 4, 389 386 , 39442 5, 416 593 , 418 61 4, 422 650 , 424 9, 432f75 , 484 478 , 49051 9, 494, 516 698 , 520 3, 526 61 , 528 82 , 532 113 , 532 114 , 532 115 , 535 186 , 539 18 4, 544 211 , 552 271 Maier,]. 17664 Maldonatus, J. 18 Mani 10,12,530,531 Manson, T. W. 214 Manson, W. 578 60 Marcion 10,37 Marguerat, D. 520 5, 539 184 Marquardt, G. 48 Marshall, I. 619261 Massaux, E. 510 Mattill, A.J.,Jr. 52667 Maurer, C. 483470 Maxwell-Stewart, P. G. 495563 McEleney, N.]. 167 1, 355 183 Mees, M. 436

Meier,]. P. 190160, 250407 Melanchthon, P. 16 Merkelbach, R. 100, 549 252 Merklein, H. 36289 Merx, A. 352 159 , 599 75 , 605 123 , 627 53 4, 639 28 Metzger, B. M. 148 456 ,401 482 ,469 365 , 605 124 Meyer, E. 349 145 Michaelis, C. 109 Michel, 0. 579 68 Mikliszanski,]. K. 282666 Milgrom,J. 223-24 Mommsen, T. 346125 Montefiore, C. G. 22 Moule, C. F. D. 409f Mussies, G. 324-25 Nagel, W. 352160 Nauck, W. 157 20 Neirynck, F. 612 Nembach, U. 245566 Neudecker, R. 248389 Neuhausler, E. 4915 55 Nicolaus of Lyra 12 Niebuhr, K.-W. 71,74 Niederwimmer, K. 235 511 , 236 512 , 239 349 , 253-55 Nilsson, M. 540188

Norden, E. 93 11 , 376 Novatian 11 Olsthoorn, M. F. 476 412 Opelt, I. 76 Origen 11, 20, 81 557 , 303 811 , 370, 376, 399467,401 482,468, 482458' 550254 Osiander, A. 18,23 Ostwald, M. 553285 Otto, A. 472' 86 Patton, C. S. 38 Pestman, P. W. 607 Pines, S. 543204 Plummer, A. 60512>, 6162> 2, 624 Polus, M. 18 Pott,D.J. 47 Powell,J. E. 476£418 Pringsheim, F. 17024 Procope,J. 307-12 Przybylski, B. 190160 Puech, E. 102 62 Quispel, G. 436,436 110 Rad, G. von 161, 16266 Radbruch, G. 171 Reiner, H. 511,512,513 Ricoeur, P. 514

Riedweg, C. 495 Riesenfeld, H. 429,43267 Riesner, R. 49, 65 459' 65440' 83575 Ruger, H. P. 49 }552, 491555 Rupert of Deutz 13 Salomon, M. 169 14 Sanders, E. P. 2 2, 212 99 Satake, A. 148 459 Sauer,J. 290 748 ' 30079•' 30 }798 Schaller, B. 256456 Schattenmann,J. 238•.. Schmithals, W. 42540 Schnackenburg, R. 158'0 Schneidewin, F. W. 529 92 Schoeps, H. J. 204 Schottgen,J. C. 19 Scholem, G. 345" 0 Schrage, W. 620270 Schrenk, G. 226225 Schurmann, H. 69, 376, 376 ... , 572, 574 19 , 575, 576.., 576", 576 40 ,577,578 60 , 57965, 58076, 581, 582, 582 10 4, 595", 59658, 601" 6, 602100, 605127, 609162, 614217, 614 220 ,614222, 6162>7, 6192 61 ,620 274 ,623 295 ,624, 626 .. 9, 627'", 627" 9, 628 ..1, 637 8 Schulz, S. 167-68, 168 7,274627, 371' 25 , 440"' Schwarz, G. 16049 , 397, 398 460 , 40}4 85 ,

476 412 , 494 Schweitzer, A. 389586 Schweizer, E. 184 117,424, 559 18 Seeberg, A. 71 Sevenster,J. N. 579 71 Singer, M.G. 509648' 509654' 510655 Sjoberg, E. 439 125 Skeat, T. C. 477 Smith, M. 48,206 Soiron, T. 69 Spicq, C. 226 226 , 603 108 , 603" 6 Spittler, R. P. 450221 Stlihlin, G. 239 546 , 603 111 , 603 116 Stanton, G. N. 73479, 73480, 7854' Stanton, V. H. 37,38,39 Statts, R. 201 Staudinger,]. 48 Stegemann, H. 35 288 Stendahl, K. 30482°, 424 Stier, R. 20,21 148 ,23 Stoll, B. 3 7, 12 StrauB, D. F. 26 Strecker, G. 36 289 , 42, 49, 81 556 , 10582, 108, 130290, 146 444, 148 46 ', 149 46 4, 151 49 4, 15617, 165, 183"4, 190159, 160, 212104,213-14, 214 122, 219 155 , 235" 1, 239>49, 265 518 , 266, 26652 9, 267 5.. , 268, 2816 61 "66 4, 290742, 291752,751, 292769, 300, 301' 94 , 32J976,

347 129 , 348 155, 349159, 37P 27 , 37P 29 , 37655o, 402, 402487' 405507' 412565, 415£592, 416602, 417605, 4226 50 , 424 9, 479 459 , 484 478 , 489 515 , 490 519 , 494, 497, 516 698 , 532 11 4, 532" 5, 539 185 , 542 198 , 546, 552271, 559 15 ' 559 17' 58075 Streeter, B. H. 37297, 38, 39, 40 Stuhlmacher, P. 36 289 , 190 159 SuB, W. 575 28

Suggs, M.J. 213 106 , 26652 8 Szczygiel, P. 48 Tannehill, R. 28972 6, 595" Tertullian 11' 200 2, 251 410 , 3118 82, 376, 378, 393 41 9, 406514, 412,412 56 5,413,42412, 608 Theiler, W. 343 Theissen, G. 431 65 Theophylactus 20 Tholuck, A. 21,22,6~ 108,355 18 5, 376,414,427 54 ,493554 Thom,J. 75, 376' 55 , 428' 8, 455264 Thomas Aquinas 107, 108 Tigay,J.H. 233291 Tilborg, S. van 128, 371m, 400480 Tolstoy, L. 487 Torrey, C. C. 440 1" Towner, W. S. 10364,170,171, 172• 6 Troeltsch, E. 34 Tyndale, W. 17

691

Unnik, W. C. van 311882, 600 76, 603 Usener, H. 73 Vermes, G. 360 Vielhauer, P. 79551 Visotzky, B. L. 16374 Voobus,A. 594 21 Wacholder, B. Z. 210-11 Weber,M. 376, 396 44 • Weismann,]. 284678 WeiB,B. 21,25 WeiB,H. 48 WeiB,J. 580 75 Weisse, C. H. 26199 Wellhausen,J. 31,32,33,34,35,36,37, 69, 108, 125, 128279, 129285, 129288, 439124, 487,574, 580 8•, 5821°4, 584 12°,624 Wendland, P. 481 450 Wengst, K. 139 Wernberg-Mplller, P. 219 Wernle, P. 1494 ,28,29, 30, 31, 34 West, M. L. 304 Wettstein,].]. 18, 232 284 , 602 105 ,618 249 , 619 259 , 623 29 •, 633' 96 Whittaker, J. 600 76 Windisch, H. 138, 139 Wolf, E. 168-69 Wrege, H.-Th. 27,28,213,297,300,

692

312 888 , 312889 , 323 998 , 351 151 , 545 225

Zahn, T. 108, 355 18 •, 370!17, 389S86, 412565, 482458, 483466 Zeller, E. 2917 58 , 299 784 , 3481S6, 422 65 0, 4315 9,435 100, 563 47 Zuntz, G. 95, 96, 229 256 Zwingli,H. 16

Designer's Notes

In the design ofthe visual aspects of Hermeneia, consideration has been given to relating the fonn to the content by symbolic means. The letters of the logotype Hermeneia are a fusion of forms alluding simultaneously to Hebrew (dotted vowel markings) and Greek (geometric round shapes) letter forms. In their modern treatment they remind us of the electronic age as well, the vantage point from which this investigation of the past begins. The Lion of Judah used as visual identification for the series is based on the Seal of Shema. The version for Hermeneia is again a fusion of Hebrew calligraphic forms, especially the legs of the lion, and Greek elements characterized by the geometric. In the sequence of arcs, which can be understood as scroll-like images, the first is the lion's mouth. It is reasserted and accelerated in the whorl and returns in the aggressively arched tail: tradition is passed from one age to the next, rediscovered and re-formed. "Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals ... ." Then one of the elders said to me "weep not; lo, the Lion of the tribe of David, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals. • Rev. 5:2,5 To celebrate the signal achievement in biblical scholarship which Hermeneia represents, the entire series will by its color constitute a signal on the theologian's bookshelf: the Old Testament will be bound in yellow and the New Testament in red, traceable to a commonly used color coding for synagogue and church in medieval painting; in pure color tenns, varying degrees of intensity of the warm segment of the color spectrum. The colors interpenetrate when the binding color for the Old Testament is used to imprint volumes from the New and vice versa. Wherever possible, a photograph of the oldest extant manuscript, or a historically significant document pertaining to the biblical sources, will be displayed on the end papers of each volume to give a feel for the tangible reality and beauty of the source material. The title-page motifs are expressive derivations from the Hermeneia logotype, repeated seven times to form a matrix and debossed on the cover of each volume. These sifted-out elements will be seen to be in their exact positions within the parent matrix. These motifs and their expressional character are noted on the following page.

694

Half-titles to introduce the volume in question are further derivations from the main title and may include other expressive or pictorial elements. Horizontal markings at gradated levels on the spine will assist in grouping the volumes according to these conventional categories. The type has been set with unjustified right margins so as to preserve the internal consistency of word spacing. This is a major factor in both legibility and aesthetic quality; the resultant uneven line endings are only slight impainnents to legibility by comparison. In this respect the type resembles the handwritten manuscripts where the quality of the calligraphic writing is dependent on establishing and holding to integral spacing patterns. All of the type faces in common use today have been designed between A.D. 1500 and the present. For the biblical text a face was chosen which does not arbitrarily date the text, but rather one which is uncompromisingly modem and unembellished so that its feel is of the universal. The type style is Univers 65 by Adrian Frutiger. The expository texts and footnotes are set in Baskerville, chosen for its compatibility with the many brief Greek and Hebrew insertions. The doublecolumn format and the shorter line length facilitate speed reading and the wide margins to the left of footnotes provide for the scholar's own notations. Kenneth Hiebert

Category of biblical writing, key symbolic characteristic, . and volumes so identified.

,....,..,. ,....,..,.

le I

I

I

.

h0r~<='~<:'ic... ,....,..,. I

I

,....,..,. ,....,..,. ,....,..,.

I

2

,....,..,. ,....,..,. ,....,..,. • I""\

..

,....,..,. • I""\ •

~<:'~ ~<:'~<:'1

<='r~<='~<='l~

h0r~<='~<='IC...

. . . -. ,.._.,r.'\

h r

\.;"

<:'

. .<:'. .

<:' . . <:'. .<:' <:' . <:'. .<:' <:' <:' . ..

" .. r.'\

Law (boundaries described) Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy

History (trek through time and space) Joshua Judges Ruth 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther 3 Poetry (lyric emotional expression) Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Songs

5 New Testament Narrative (focus on One) Matthew Mark Luke John Acts 6 Epistles (directed instruction) Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1John 2John 3John Jude

•

4 Prophets (inspired seers) Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi

7 Apocalypse (vision of the future) Revelation

8 Extracanonical Writings (peripheral records)

695