•
•
•
•
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 gehn 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.; Gttingen: 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.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 atoapov,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..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!
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\{310Cfi 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.v8apTOV 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 ~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 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?Tpou~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" (1f!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 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/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 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: litKawr 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~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 Kw~ 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<poo•; 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'Ju 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
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(..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~): 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.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{lv ~ 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..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 &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. pat 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.KKA7Jtpro, 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.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 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.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..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 &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..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 ' 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 1ai\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.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{
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 rw, 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 •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 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; 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, ..>..~>..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 £x8polJtlo.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. rro ("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..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 'lTatouat; ), 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 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); fAs, 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 7rpouu7TEp 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. 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.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..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, ~PXEfs ~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 sy
